20120615 Ver 3_Modification Request_20201026

Staff Review
Does this application have all the attachments needed to accept it into the review process?*
r Yes r No
ID#*
20120615
Version* 3
Is this project a public transportation project?* r Yes
r No
Reviewer List:* Rick Trone:eads\rvtrone
Select Reviewing Office:* Central Office - [phone]
Does this project require a request for payment to be sent?*
r
Yes
r
No
How much is r $240.00
owed? * r $570.00

Project Submittal Form
Please note: fields marked with a red asterisk below are required. You will not be able to submit the form until all
mandatory questions are answered.
Project Type: * r
For the Record Only (Courtesy Copy)
r
New Project
r
Modification/New Project with Existing ID
r
More Information Response
r
Other Agency Comments
r
Pre -Application Submittal
r
Re-Issuance\Renewal Request
r
Stream or Buffer Appeal
Pre -Filing Meeting Information
Before submitting this form please ensure you have submitted the Pre -Filing Meeting Request Form as we will not
be able to accept your application without this important first step. The Pre -Filing Meeting Request Form is used in
accordance with 40 C.F.R. Section 121.4(a) "At least 30 days prior to submitting a certification request, the project
proponent shall request a pre -filing meeting with the certifying agency" and in accordance with 40 C.F.R. Section
121.5(b)(7), and (c)(5) all certification requests shall include documentation that a pre -filing meeting request was
submitted to the certifying authority at least 30 days prior to submitting the certification request. Click here to read
more information on when this form is needed prior to application submission or here to view the form.
Attach documentation of Pre -Filing Meeting Request here: Duke
Energy
Mayo IP
Application 51.55..
NCDWR
letter
10.26.20. pdf
Date for Meeting Request 8/19/2020
ID# 20120615 Version 3
Project Contact Information
Name: Richard Harmon
Who is subnitting the inforrration?
Email Address: [e-mail]
Project Information
Existing ID #: Existing Version:
120615 2
20170001(no dashes) 1
Project Name: Duke Energy Mayo Ash Basin Landfill Project Joint Section 404/401 Individual
Permit Application Modification
Is this a public transportation project?
r Yes
r No

Is the project located within a NC DCM Area of Environmental Concern (AEC)?
r Yes r No r Unknown
County (ies)
Person
Please upload all files that need to be submited.
Click the upload button or drag and drop files here to attach docurrent
Duke Energy Mayo Joint 404-401 IP Mod Application
65.04MB
10.26.20.pdf
Only pdt or Iv17 files are accepted.
Describe the attachments
or comments:
Complete application for the Duke Energy Mayo Ash Basin Landfill Project Joint Section 404/401 Individual
Permit Modification
Sign and Submit
V By checking the box and signing box below, I certify that:
■ I, the project proponent, hereby certifies that all information contained herein is true, accurate, and complete to
the best of my knowledge and belief.
■ I, the project proponent, hereby requests that the certifying authority review and take action on this CWA 401
certification request within the applicable reasonable period of time.
■ I agree that submission of this online form is a "transaction" subject to Chapter 66, Article 40 of the NC General
Statutes (the "Uniform Electronic Transactions Act');
■ I agree to conduct this transaction by electronic means pursuant to Chapter 66, Article 40 of the NC General
Statutes (the "Uniform Electronic Transactions Act');
■ 1 understand that an electronic signature has the same legal effect and can be enforced in the same way as a
written signature; AND
■ I intend to electronically sign and submit the online form.
Signature:
Submittal Date: Is filled in autorratically.

U.S. Army Corps of Engineers (USACE)
Form Approved -
APPLICATION FOR DEPARTMENT OF THE ARMY PERMIT
OMB No. 0710.0003
33 CFR 325. The proponent agency is CECW-CO-R.
Expires: 01-08-2018
The public reporting burden for this collection of information, OMB Control Number 0710-0003, is estimated to average 11 hours per response, including the time
for reviewing instructions, searching existing data sources, gathering and maintaining the data needed, and completing and reviewing the collection of
information. Send comments regarding the burden estimate or burden reduction suggestions to the Department of Defense, Washington Headquarters Services,
at whs.mc_alex esd.rmbx dc-dod-iroforma �or�olle�Lons c�@i maiLmil. Respondents should be aware that notwithstanding any other provision of law, no person shall
be subject to any penalty for failing to comply with a collection of information if it does not display a currently valid OMB control number. PLEASE DO NOT
RETURN YOUR APPLICATION TO THE ABOVE EMAIL.
PRIVACY ACT STATEMENT
Authorities: Rivers and Harbors Act, Section 10, 33 USC 403; Clean Water Act, Section 404, 33 USC 1344: Marine Protection, Research, and Sanctuaries Act,
Section 103, 33 USC 1413; Regulatory Programs of the Corps of Engineers; Final Rule 33 CFR 320-332. Principal Purpose: Information provided on this form
will be used in evaluating the application for a permit. Routine Uses: This information may be shared with the Department of Justice and other federal, state, and
local government agencies, and the public and may be made available as part of a public notice as required by Federal law. Submission of requested information
is voluntary, however, if information is not provided the permit application cannot be evaluated nor can a permit be issued. One set of original drawings or good
reproducible copies which show the location and character of the proposed activity must be attached to this application (see sample drawings and/or instructions)
and be submitted to the District Engineer having jurisdiction over the location of the proposed activity. An application that is not completed in full will be returned.
System of Record Notice (SORN). The information received is entered into our permit tracking database and a SORN has been completed (SORN #A1145b)
and may be accessed at the following website: httpaidpgtcLogfgnse.goyT_(Iyacy/SORNslndex/DOD-wide.-SORN.-Article_View/Article/570115/al l45b-ce_a_.spx
(ITEMS 1 THRU 4 TO BE FILLED BY THE CORPS)
1. APPLICATION NO.
2. FIELD OFFICE CODE
3. DATE RECEIVED
4. DATE APPLICATION COMPLETE
(ITEMS BELOW TO BE FILLED BYAPPLICANT)
5. APPLICANT'S NAME
8. AUTHORIZED AGENT'S NAME AND TITLE (agent is not required)
First - Lori Middle - Last - Tollie
First - Richard Middle - Last - Harmon
Company - Duke Energy
Company - Wood EMS
E-mail Address - [e-mail]
E-mail Address - Richard. [e-mail]
6. APPLICANT'S ADDRESS:
9. AGENT'S ADDRESS:
Address- 411 Fayetteville St. - Mail Code NC14
Address- 4021 Stirrup Creek Dr, Ste. 100
City - Raleigh State - NC Zip - 27601 Country - USA
City - Durham State - NC Zip - 27703 Country -USA
7. APPLICANT'S PHONE NOs. WAREA CODE
10. AGENTS PHONE NOs. w/AREA CODE
a. Residence b. Business c. Fax
a. Residence b. Business c. Fax
336,854.4916
9198018990 919.381.1366 919.381.9901
STATEMENT OF AUTHORIZATION
11. 1 hereby authorize, Richard Harmon to act in my behalf as my agent in the processing of this application and to furnish, upon request,
supplemental information in support of this permit application.
lit) 10/23/2020
SIGNATURE OF APPLICANT DATE
NAME, LOCATION, AND DESCRIPTION OF PROJECT OR ACTIVITY
12. PROJECT NAME OR TITLE (see instructions)
Duke Energy Mayo Steam Electric Plant Ash Basin Landfill Project
13. NAME OF WATERBODY, IF KNOWN (if applicable)
14. PROJECT STREET ADDRESS (if applicable)
Mayo Lake
Address 10660 Boston Rd.
15. LOCATION OF PROJECT
Latitude: =N 36.521709 Longitude: -W -78.906287
City - Roxboro State- NC Zip- 27574
16. OTHER LOCATION DESCRIPTIONS, IF KNOWN (see instructions)
State Tax Parcel ID Municipality
Section - Township - Range -
ENG FORM 4345, MAY 2018 PREVIOUS EDITIONS ARE OBSOLETE. Page 3 of 1

17. DIRECTIONS TO THE SITE
1-40 to US-501 N to Holloway to Arthur Wiley Rd.
18. Nature of Activity (Description of project, include all features)
Duke Energy proposes to build a 42.2-acre Ash Basin Landfill (ABLF) capable of containing 4.6-million cubic yards of Coal Combustion
Residual (CCR) adjacent to the Mayo Ash Basin (AB). ` PLEASE SEE THE ATTACHMENT FOR DETAILS
19. Project Purpose (Describe the reason or purpose of the project, see instructions)
The purpose of the project is to address the NC CAMA regulatory requirements as related to the Mayo Ash Basin closure and disposal of CCR
materials in a safe and timely manner. Construction of the proposed ABLF is a public necessity because of a State law mandating the closure
of the existing Mayo Plant Ash Basin and the 5 Feb 2020 Consent Order with INC requiring CCR materials in the existing Ash Basin to be
relocated to a lined ABLF. Also, the project would require permitting after -the -fact impacts to wetlands and streams from the LRB construction
and to provide a mechanism for providing compensatory mitigation requirements for the LRB. Based on the need to meet new EPA effluent
limitation guidelines and regulations for CCR, Duke Energy will redirect plant wastewater, monofill leachate, cooling tower blowdown, and
contact stormwater to the new LRB. The LRB needed to be completed prior to initiation of other ash basin closure activities.
USE BLOCKS 20-23 IF DREDGED AND/OR FILL MATERIAL IS TO BE DISCHARGED
20. Reason(s) for Discharge
To complete the construction of the proposed ABLF, four borrow areas, haul road, and dam decommissioning activities, permanent impacts to
jurisdictional waters will be necessary. Wetland impacts would include the ABLF (wetlands B, C, UU & ZZ); borrow area 3 & haul road
(wetlands JJJ & LLL); borrow area 4 (wetland 000); dam decommission (wetlands F & H); and LRB completed impacts (wetlands D, E &
MMM). The proposed and completed total wetland impact is 2.04 acres. Proposed and completed stream impacts include borrow area 3 & haul
road (streams 9 and 10); dam decommission (streams 1 & 3); and LRB completed impacts (streams 5 & 6). The proposed total stream impact
is 1273 LF. The plan views and cross-section drawings depicting the proposed impacts to wetlands and streams within the project site are
included in the permit submittal package.
21. Type(s) of Material Being Discharged and the Amount of Each Type in Cubic Yards:
Type Type Type
Amount in Cubic Yards Amount in Cubic Yards Amount in Cubic Yards
soil fill material: approx. 3300
22. Surface Area in Acres of Wetlands or Other Waters Filled (see instructions)
Acres 2.04
or
Linear Feet 1273
23. Description of Avoidance, Minimization, and Compensation (see instructions)
Appropriate/practicable steps to minimize adverse impacts to jurisdictional waters were considered through analysis of the development
concepts during project planning. Avoidance of waters of the US is not practicable as excavation/disposal of CCR required under CAMA could
not be accomplished without impact to jurisdictional waters. An E&SC Plan will be produced in accordance with NC E&SC Planning & Design
Manual. Activities will be completed in accordance with NCDEQ Raleigh Regional Office water quality rules/regulations. Compensatory
mitigation will be obtained via NCDMS In -Lieu Fee Program, as no mitigation banks in the Roanoke River Basin offer credits. The project
occurs within HUC03010104, subject to premium rates with the Basin (premium rate area pursuant to 15A NCAC 02R.0402(e).
ENG FORM 4345, MAY 2018 Page 3 of 2

24. Is Any Portion of the Work Already Complete? ❑X Yes ❑ No IF YES, DESCRIBE THE COMPLETED WORK
Duke Energy obtained a USACE/NCDEQ-DWR IP for the Mayo CCP Monofill Site on 8/22/2012 (SAW-2011-00181 and DWQ 20120615) whicl-
authorized the construction of a synthetically -lined industrial landfill (CCP Monofill), leachate tanks, access roads, maintenance building, and
rail access facilities (total area approx. 104 acres). Permitted impacts for total build -out (encompassing approx. 104 acres) are 4,648 LF of
intermittent stream and 84 LF of perennial stream. Phase 1 development (completed on approx. 60.2 acres) impacts totaled 1,990 linear ft of
intermittent stream and 84 linear ft of perennial stream. Impacts to 2,658 LF of intermittent stream are proposed for Phase 2 development. The
Mayo Monofill IP expires on 12/31/2030. In 2019, Duke Energy obtained an IP Modification for the Mayo CCP Monofill Site IP (referenced
above) for the Process Water Redirection Program which included construction of three new wastewater retention basins (flue gas
desulfurization settling basin, holding basin, and lined retention basin [LRB]). Construction of the LRB resulted in 1.15 acres of wetland impacts
and 377 LF stream impacts.
25. Addresses of Adjoining Property Owners, Lessees, Etc., Whose Property Adjoins the Waterbody (if more than can be entered here, please attach a supplemental list).
a. Address- PLEASE SEE ATTACHMENTS
City - State - Zip -
b. Address -
City - State - Zip -
c. Address -
City - State - Zip -
d. Address -
City - State - Zip -
e. Address -
City - State - Zip -
26. List of Other Certificates or Approvals/Denials received from other Federal, State, or Local Agencies for Work Described in This Application.
AGENCY TYPE APPROVAL* IDENTIFICATION DATE APPLIED DATE APPROVED DATE DENIED
NUMBER
USACE Section 404 IP SAW-2011-00181 8/22/2012
NCDEQ-DWQ Section 401 IP DWR-12-0615V2 1/29/2019
USACE 404 IP Modification SAW-2011-00181 1/31/2019
NCDWR 401 WQC WQC-004179 1/29/2019
* Would include but is not restricted to zoning, building, and flood plain permits
27. Application is hereby made for permit or permits to authorize the work described in this application. I certify that this information in this application is
complete and accurate. I further certify that I possess the authority to undertake the work described herein or am acting as the duly authorized agent of the
applicant.
SIGNATURE OF APPLICANT DATE SIGNATURE OF AGENT DATE
The Application must be signed by the person who desires to undertake the proposed activity (applicant) or it may be signed by a duly
authorized agent if the statement in block 11 has been filled out and signed.
18 U.S.C. Section 1001 provides that: Whoever, in any manner within the jurisdiction of any department or agency of the United States
knowingly and willfully falsifies, conceals, or covers up any trick, scheme, or disguises a material fact or makes any false, fictitious or fraudulent
statements or representations or makes or uses any false writing or document knowing same to contain any false, fictitious or fraudulent
statements or entry, shall be fined not more than $10,000 or imprisoned not more than five years or both.
ENG FORM 4345, MAY 2018 Page 3 of 3

Duke Energy Mayo Ash Basin Landfill Project
USACE ENG Form 4345 Joint Section 404/401 IP Application
Wood Project No. 7812200451

October 2020

ATTACHMENT

USACE ENG Form 4345
Date: 21 October 2020

Section 18. Nature of Activity (Description of Project)

Duke Energy proposes to build a 42.2-acre Ash Basin Landfill (ABLF) capable of
containing 4.6-million cubic yards of Coal Combustion Residual (CCR) adjacent to the
Mayo Ash Basin (AB). The ABLF would require placement of fill material excavated
from four borrow areas and include a haul road to transport CCR, perimeter road, and
leachate pond. Decommissioning would require dam breach and drainage channels.
Another project component, previously constructed Lined Retention Basin (LRB), is a
15-acre 18-million gallon LRB designed/constructed to accommodate 25-yr 24-hr storm
event and 10k-gal/min wastewater flow. The Process Water Redirection Program and
AB Closure is a phased effort to bring the Mayo Plant into compliance with new EPA
effluent limitation guidelines and regs for CCR. The ABLF would be constructed in three
phases, in three adjacent cells. Phase 1, cell 1 in SW corner of ABLF; Phase 2, eastern
expansion into cell 2; Phase 3, northern expansion into cell 3. Due to site
conditions/limitations, the haul road would impact wetlands/streams. Dam
decommission would occur in eight stages following closure activities to protect dam
from disturbance as CCR excavation occurs. The plan is designed to maintain
impoundment inside the basin while CCR materials are fully excavated/removed and
dam is breached, and to retain back-to-back PMP storm events through each stage,
and site features implemented to manage stormwater across previous basin area and
downstream. The redirection of process water would be conducted to ensure the long-
term integrity of CCR materials and facilitate future AB closure activities, which was
rationale for LRB construction Once closure and decommissioning is complete and the
site stabilized, Duke Energy intends to allow the area to re-naturalize.

Adjacent Parcels
2
3
4
1
I 0 0.50.25 Miles
I 0 200100Miles
\\DHM-FS1\projects\Energy\Projects\Duke\2020\7812200451 - Mayo New Landfill Ind Permit\GIS\Mayo Parcels Of Concern\parcel_fig.mxdMayo Steam Electric PlantProposed Mayo Ash Basin LandfillRoxboro, NC
Job No. 7812200451
Drawn By: CSP
Reviewed By: JDC
The map shown here has beencreated with all due andreasonable care and is strictly foruse with Amec Foster Wheelerproject number 7812200451.Amec Foster Wheeler assumes noliability, direct or indirect,whatsoever for any such thirdparty or unintended use.Date: 8/12/2020
^_
Proposed Ash Basin Landfill
Legend
Person, NC Parcels
Proposed Ash Basin Landfill
Existing Ash Basin
Proposed Borrow Area
OWNNAME OWNNAME2 MAILADD MCITY
NEWMAN PHYLLIS F FAISON GENE E 103 HILL ST ROXBORO NC 27573-5803
BETHEL HILL BAPT CH OF PER CO 201 OLD US 501 ROXBORO NC 27574
BETHEL HILL BAPT CH OF PER CO 201 OLD US 501 ROXBORO NC 27574
BETHEL HILL BAPT CH OF PER CO 201 OLD US 501 ROXBORO NC 27574
FARRELL WALTER E FARRELL KAY D 476 OLD US 501 ROXBORO NC 27574-6744
HEAD EQUIPMENT COMPANY INC 365 CONCORD CEFFO RD ROXBORO NC 27574
EASTWOOD HOWARD LEEEASTWOOD DONNA WHITT309 EASTWOOD LONG LN ROXBORO NC 27574-9390
HEATH JAMES H HEATH BARBARA H 1300 VIRGILINA RD ROXBORO NC 27573-4461
BRADLEY MICHAEL J 304 OLD US 501 ROXBORO NC 27574-6772
LOUISIANA PACIFIC CORPORATION 10475 BOSTON RD ROXBORO NC 27574
LOUISIANA PACIFIC CORPORATION 10475 BOSTON RD ROXBORO NC 27574
JOHNSON WILOREE W JOHNSON SAMUEL 2317 LAKE WHEELER RD RALEIGH NC 27603-2611
ROGERS WINGATE W ROGERS SUE OWEN 1195 BETHEL HILL SCHOOL RDROXBORO NC 27574-6745
FLORES FELIPE FLORES MARTHA 582 OLD US 501 ROXBORO NC 27574-6794
ARANDA CAROLINA 111 BARDEN ST ROXBORO NC 27573-5410
CLAYTON KEITH W 206 MULLINS LN ROXBORO NC 27574-9323
WOMACK MICHAEL D WOMACK JONI F 236 MULLINS LN ROXBORO NC 27574-9323
SEYMOUR MARY LINK 230 LESTERS WAY MONCURE NC 27559-9109
SHEETS CHARLES DAVIS 369 MULLINS LN ROXBORO NC 27574-9356
SHEETS CHARLES DAVIS 369 MULLINS LN ROXBORO NC 27574-9356
KEE GWENDOLYN M 4133 NW 67TH TER CORAL SPRINGS FL 33067
JONES BONNIE L JONES LARRY V 4909 ROLLINGWOOD DR DURHAM NC 27713-8635
BARWICK TIMOTHY A 209 MULLINS LN ROXBORO NC 27574
SERRANT WALTER G 153 MULLINS LN ROXBORO NC 27574
POOLE EARL D ESTATE 630 PROVIDENCE RD ROXBORO NC 27573-2405
JONES MICHAEL D JONES HOLLY A 77 MULLINS LN ROXBORO NC 27574-9321
FLORES LEONOR ALFREDO ANAYA 682 OLD US 501 ROXBORO NC 27574-9364
WOODY PATRICK JR LIFE ESTATEWOODY GWENDOL LIFE ESTATE10205 BOSTON RD ROXBORO NC 27574-6715
EASTWOOD HOWARD LEEEASTWOOD DONNA WHITT309 EASTWOOD LONG LN ROXBORO NC 27573
WILSON LARRY R 1177 BETHEL HILL SCHOOL RDROXBORO NC 27574
WILSON LARRY R 1177 BETHEL HILL SCHOOL RDROXBORO NC 27574
JACOBS JOSEPH W JACOBS CINDI M 107 OLD US 501 ROXBORO NC 27574-9133
EASTWOOD HOWARD LEEEASTWOOD DONNA WHITT309 EASTWOOD LONG LN ROXBORO NC 27573
MEADOWS CLAYTON L MEADOWS SHIRLEY A 234 DEAN LN ROXBORO NC 27574-7525
HUMPHRIES LAVERN BUCHANAN 10424 BOSTON RD ROXBORO NC 27574-6716
HOLT LUTHER PRICE JR HOLT BETTY H 1220 NED MOORE RD TIMBERLAKE NC 27583-8851
MERRITT JOHN H III 3967 9TH LN VERO BEACH FL 32960
EASTWOOD HOWARD LEEEASTWOOD DONNA WHITT309 EASTWOOD LONG LN ROXBORO NC 27573
ARANDA CAROLINA 111 BARDEN ST ROXBORO NC 27573-5410
DUKE ENERGY PROGRESS LLC 550 S TRYON ST DEC 22A CHARLOTTE NC 28201-NC
BRADLEY MICHAEL JEROME 304 OLD US 501 ROXBORO NC 27574-6772
DUKE ENERGY PROGRESS INC 550 S TRYON ST CHARLOTTE NC 28202-4200
EASTWOOD HOWARD LEEEASTWOOD DONNA WHITT309 EASTWOOD LONG LN ROXBORO NC 27573
EASTWOOD HOWARD LEEEASTWOOD DONNA WHITT309 EASTWOOD LONG LN ROXBORO NC 27573
LOUISIANA PACIFIC CORPORATION 10475 BOSTON RD ROXBORO NC 27574-6774
SHEETS CHARLES DAVIS 369 MULLINS LN ROXBORO NC 27574-9356
FLORES LEONOR ALFREDO ANAYA 682 OLD US 501 ROXBORO NC 27574
WILSON LARRY R 1177 BETHEL HILL SCHOOL RDROXBORO NC 27574-6745
WOODY PATRICK JR LIFE ESTATEWOODY GWENDOL LIFE ESTATE10205 BOSTON RD ROXBORO NC 27574-6715
JACOBS MARY W & OTHERSJACOBS JOSEPH WOODY107 OLD US 501 ROXBORO NC 27574-9133
WOODY PATRICK JR LIFE ESTATEWOODY GWENDOL LIFE ESTATE10205 BOSTON RD ROXBORO NC 27574-6715
WEHRENBERG JOHN H JRWEHRENBERG NILA S 108 GAMBIT CT WASHINGTON NC 27889-9791
PULLY HENRY & OTHERS 5329 LAURENT DR DURHAM NC 27712
WEHRENBERG JOHN H JRWEHRENBERG NILA S 108 GAMBIT CT WASHINGTON NC 27889
1 2
5
3
4
6
7
-OVERALL PLAN VIEWOVERALL PLAN VIEW
DWG SIZE REVISION
FOR
DRAWING NO.
TITLE
FILENAME:
DWG TYPE:
JOB NO:
DATE:
SCALE:DES:
DFTR:
CHKD:
ENGR:
APPD:
A
F
E
D
C
B
2 3 4 5 7 86
4 5 7 8 9 106
A
F
C
B
11"x17"
ANSI C
SEAL
321
Environment & Infrastructure Solutions
4021 STIRRUP CREEK DRIVE, SUITE 100
DURHAM NC 27703
TEL: [phone]
FAX: [phone]
LICENSURE:
NC ENG: F-1253
NC GEOLOGY: C-247
REV DATE JOB NO.PROJECT TYPE DES DFTR CHKD ENGR APPD DESCRIPTION
10/13/2020
7812-20-0451
DWG
AS SHOWN
RH
RH
JC
SM
SM
MAYO ASH BASIN LANDFILL
MAYO STEAM ELECTRIC STATION
PERSON COUNTY, NORTH CAROLINA
OVERALL PLAN VIEW --OVERALL PLAN VIEW
N
-
9
EXISTING DUKE
10
LLL
JJJ
0
+
9
2
0
+
0
0
0+000+950+001+001+000+9
9
0+0
0
-FIGURE 1FIGURE 1
DWG SIZE REVISION
FOR
DRAWING NO.
TITLE
FILENAME:
DWG TYPE:
JOB NO:
DATE:
SCALE:DES:
DFTR:
CHKD:
ENGR:
APPD:
A
F
E
D
C
B
2 3 4 5 7 86
4 5 7 8 9 106
A
F
C
B
11"x17"
ANSI C
SEAL
321
Environment & Infrastructure Solutions
4021 STIRRUP CREEK DRIVE, SUITE 100
DURHAM NC 27703
TEL: [phone]
FAX: [phone]
LICENSURE:
NC ENG: F-1253
NC GEOLOGY: C-247
REV DATE JOB NO.PROJECT TYPE DES DFTR CHKD ENGR APPD DESCRIPTION
10/13/2020
7812-20-0451
DWG
AS SHOWN
RH
RH
JC
SM
SM
MAYO ASH BASIN LANDFILL
MAYO STEAM ELECTRIC STATION
PERSON COUNTY, NORTH CAROLINA
PLAN VIEW 1 --FIGURE 1
-MATCH LINE - FIGURE 2N
EXISTING ASH BASIN BOUNDARY
PROPOSED LANDFILL BOUNDARY
STREAM - IMPACTED
STREAM - NOT IMPACTED
WETLAND - IMPACTED
WETLAND - NOT IMPACTED
LIMITS OF DISTURBANCE
CROSS SECTION
EXISTING MAJOR ROAD
EXISTING RAILROAD
LEGEND
B
C 1+500+001+000+000+96-FIGURE 2FIGURE 2
DWG SIZE REVISION
FOR
DRAWING NO.
TITLE
FILENAME:
DWG TYPE:
JOB NO:
DATE:
SCALE:DES:
DFTR:
CHKD:
ENGR:
APPD:
A
F
E
D
C
B
2 3 4 5 7 86
4 5 7 8 9 106
A
F
C
B
11"x17"
ANSI C
SEAL
321
Environment & Infrastructure Solutions
4021 STIRRUP CREEK DRIVE, SUITE 100
DURHAM NC 27703
TEL: [phone]
FAX: [phone]
LICENSURE:
NC ENG: F-1253
NC GEOLOGY: C-247
REV DATE JOB NO.PROJECT TYPE DES DFTR CHKD ENGR APPD DESCRIPTION
10/13/2020
7812-20-0451
DWG
AS SHOWN
RH
RH
JC
SM
SM
MAYO ASH BASIN LANDFILL
MAYO STEAM ELECTRIC STATION
PERSON COUNTY, NORTH CAROLINA
PLAN VIEW 2 --FIGURE 2
-MATCH LINE - FIGURE 1N
MATCH LINE - FIGURE 3
EXISTING ASH BASIN BOUNDARY
PROPOSED LANDFILL BOUNDARY
STREAM - IMPACTED
STREAM - NOT IMPACTED
WETLAND - IMPACTED
WETLAND - NOT IMPACTED
LIMITS OF DISTURBANCE
CROSS SECTION
EXISTING MAJOR ROAD
EXISTING RAILROAD
LEGEND
ZZ
UU
1
+
5
2
0
+
0
0
1
+
0
0
1+970+001+00-FIGURE 3FIGURE 3
DWG SIZE REVISION
FOR
DRAWING NO.
TITLE
FILENAME:
DWG TYPE:
JOB NO:
DATE:
SCALE:DES:
DFTR:
CHKD:
ENGR:
APPD:
A
F
E
D
C
B
2 3 4 5 7 86
4 5 7 8 9 106
A
F
C
B
11"x17"
ANSI C
SEAL
321
Environment & Infrastructure Solutions
4021 STIRRUP CREEK DRIVE, SUITE 100
DURHAM NC 27703
TEL: [phone]
FAX: [phone]
LICENSURE:
NC ENG: F-1253
NC GEOLOGY: C-247
REV DATE JOB NO.PROJECT TYPE DES DFTR CHKD ENGR APPD DESCRIPTION
10/13/2020
7812-20-0451
DWG
AS SHOWN
RH
RH
JC
SM
SM
MAYO ASH BASIN LANDFILL
MAYO STEAM ELECTRIC STATION
PERSON COUNTY, NORTH CAROLINA
PLAN VIEW 3 --FIGURE 3
-
N
MATCH LINE - FIGURE 2
EXISTING ASH BASIN BOUNDARY
PROPOSED LANDFILL BOUNDARY
STREAM - IMPACTED
STREAM - NOT IMPACTED
WETLAND - IMPACTED
WETLAND - NOT IMPACTED
LIMITS OF DISTURBANCE
CROSS SECTION
EXISTING MAJOR ROAD
EXISTING RAILROAD
LEGEND
0+850+00F
H
G
1
2
0+760+001+000+001+000+003
3
-FIGURE 4FIGURE 4
DWG SIZE REVISION
FOR
DRAWING NO.
TITLE
FILENAME:
DWG TYPE:
JOB NO:
DATE:
SCALE:DES:
DFTR:
CHKD:
ENGR:
APPD:
A
F
E
D
C
B
2 3 4 5 7 86
4 5 7 8 9 106
A
F
C
B
11"x17"
ANSI C
SEAL
321
Environment & Infrastructure Solutions
4021 STIRRUP CREEK DRIVE, SUITE 100
DURHAM NC 27703
TEL: [phone]
FAX: [phone]
LICENSURE:
NC ENG: F-1253
NC GEOLOGY: C-247
REV DATE JOB NO.PROJECT TYPE DES DFTR CHKD ENGR APPD DESCRIPTION
10/13/2020
7812-20-0451
DWG
AS SHOWN
RH
RH
JC
SM
SM
MAYO ASH BASIN LANDFILL
MAYO STEAM ELECTRIC STATION
PERSON COUNTY, NORTH CAROLINA
PLAN VIEW 4 --FIGURE 4
-
N
EXISTING ASH BASIN BOUNDARY
PROPOSED LANDFILL BOUNDARY
STREAM - IMPACTED
STREAM - NOT IMPACTED
WETLAND - IMPACTED
WETLAND - NOT IMPACTED
LIMITS OF DISTURBANCE
CROSS SECTION
EXISTING MAJOR ROAD
EXISTING RAILROAD
LEGEND
BOSTON ROAD (US. RT. 501)OOO
0+001+001+46-FIGURE 5FIGURE 5
DWG SIZE REVISION
FOR
DRAWING NO.
TITLE
FILENAME:
DWG TYPE:
JOB NO:
DATE:
SCALE:DES:
DFTR:
CHKD:
ENGR:
APPD:
A
F
E
D
C
B
2 3 4 5 7 86
4 5 7 8 9 106
A
F
C
B
11"x17"
ANSI C
SEAL
321
Environment & Infrastructure Solutions
4021 STIRRUP CREEK DRIVE, SUITE 100
DURHAM NC 27703
TEL: [phone]
FAX: [phone]
LICENSURE:
NC ENG: F-1253
NC GEOLOGY: C-247
REV DATE JOB NO.PROJECT TYPE DES DFTR CHKD ENGR APPD DESCRIPTION
10/13/2020
7812-20-0451
DWG
AS SHOWN
RH
RH
JC
SM
SM
MAYO ASH BASIN LANDFILL
MAYO STEAM ELECTRIC STATION
PERSON COUNTY, NORTH CAROLINA
PLAN VIEW 5 --FIGURE 5
-
N
EXISTING ASH BASIN BOUNDARY
PROPOSED LANDFILL BOUNDARY
STREAM - IMPACTED
STREAM - NOT IMPACTED
WETLAND - IMPACTED
WETLAND - NOT IMPACTED
LIMITS OF DISTURBANCE
CROSS SECTION
EXISTING MAJOR ROAD
EXISTING RAILROAD
LEGEND
MATCH LINE - FIGURE 6
E
5
ASH BASIN BOUNDARY
0+00
0+96
0+00
1+00
1+97
-FIGURE 6FIGURE 6
DWG SIZE REVISION
FOR
DRAWING NO.
TITLE
FILENAME:
DWG TYPE:
JOB NO:
DATE:
SCALE:DES:
DFTR:
CHKD:
ENGR:
APPD:
A
F
E
D
C
B
2 3 4 5 7 86
4 5 7 8 9 106
A
F
C
B
11"x17"
ANSI C
SEAL
321
Environment & Infrastructure Solutions
4021 STIRRUP CREEK DRIVE, SUITE 100
DURHAM NC 27703
TEL: [phone]
FAX: [phone]
LICENSURE:
NC ENG: F-1253
NC GEOLOGY: C-247
REV DATE JOB NO.PROJECT TYPE DES DFTR CHKD ENGR APPD DESCRIPTION
10/13/2020
7812-20-0451
DWG
AS SHOWN
RH
RH
JC
SM
SM
MAYO ASH BASIN LANDFILL
MAYO STEAM ELECTRIC STATION
PERSON COUNTY, NORTH CAROLINA
PLAN VIEW 6 --FIGURE 6
-
N
EXISTING ASH BASIN BOUNDARY
PROPOSED LANDFILL BOUNDARY
STREAM - IMPACTED
STREAM - NOT IMPACTED
WETLAND - IMPACTED
WETLAND - NOT IMPACTED
LIMITS OF DISTURBANCE
CROSS SECTION
EXISTING MAJOR ROAD
EXISTING RAILROAD
LEGEND
MATCH LINE - FIGURE 5MATCH LINE - FIGURE 7
DMMM
6
ASH BASIN BOUNDARY
0+000+960+000+950+000+95LINED RETENTION BASIN
LIMITS OF DISTURBANCE
LANDFILL GRADING
LIMITS OF DISTURBANCE
-FIGURE 7FIGURE 7
DWG SIZE REVISION
FOR
DRAWING NO.
TITLE
FILENAME:
DWG TYPE:
JOB NO:
DATE:
SCALE:DES:
DFTR:
CHKD:
ENGR:
APPD:
A
F
E
D
C
B
2 3 4 5 7 86
4 5 7 8 9 106
A
F
C
B
11"x17"
ANSI C
SEAL
321
Environment & Infrastructure Solutions
4021 STIRRUP CREEK DRIVE, SUITE 100
DURHAM NC 27703
TEL: [phone]
FAX: [phone]
LICENSURE:
NC ENG: F-1253
NC GEOLOGY: C-247
REV DATE JOB NO.PROJECT TYPE DES DFTR CHKD ENGR APPD DESCRIPTION
10/13/2020
7812-20-0451
DWG
AS SHOWN
RH
RH
JC
SM
SM
MAYO ASH BASIN LANDFILL
MAYO STEAM ELECTRIC STATION
PERSON COUNTY, NORTH CAROLINA
PLAN VIEW 7 --FIGURE 7
-
N
EXISTING ASH BASIN BOUNDARY
PROPOSED LANDFILL BOUNDARY
STREAM - IMPACTED
STREAM - NOT IMPACTED
WETLAND - IMPACTED
WETLAND - NOT IMPACTED
LIMITS OF DISTURBANCE
CROSS SECTION
EXISTING MAJOR ROAD
EXISTING RAILROAD
LEGEND
MATCH LINE - FIGURE 6
-FIGURE 8FIGURE 8
DWG SIZE REVISION
FOR
DRAWING NO.
TITLE
FILENAME:
DWG TYPE:
JOB NO:
DATE:
SCALE:DES:
DFTR:
CHKD:
ENGR:
APPD:
A
F
E
D
C
B
2 3 4 5 7 86
4 5 7 8 9 106
A
F
C
B
11"x17"
ANSI C
SEAL
321
Environment & Infrastructure Solutions
4021 STIRRUP CREEK DRIVE, SUITE 100
DURHAM NC 27703
TEL: [phone]
FAX: [phone]
LICENSURE:
NC ENG: F-1253
NC GEOLOGY: C-247
REV DATE JOB NO.PROJECT TYPE DES DFTR CHKD ENGR APPD DESCRIPTION
10/13/2020
7812-20-0451
DWG
AS SHOWN
RH
RH
JC
SM
SM
MAYO ASH BASIN LANDFILL
MAYO STEAM ELECTRIC STATION
PERSON COUNTY, NORTH CAROLINA
SUMMARY OF WETLANDS & STREAM IMPACTS
-FIGURE 8
-
SUMMARY OF WETLAND IMPACTS
IMPACT
NUMBER
WETLAND
NAME
TOTAL
IMPACT (Acre)
FIGURE
NUMBER
W-1 B 0.1 2
W-2 C 0.04 2
W-3 F 0.03 4
W-4 H 0.1 4
W-5 UU 0.02 3
W-6 ZZ 0.3 3
W-7 JJJ 0.1 1
W-8 LLL 0.1 1
W-9 OOO 0.1 5
W-10 MMM 0.28 7
W-11 D 0.11 7
W-12 E 0.76 6
TOTAL WETLAND IMPACT: 2.04 ACRES
SUMMARY OF STREAM IMPACTS
IMPACT
NUMBER
STREAM
NAME
TOTAL
IMPACT (LF)
FIGURE
NUMBER
S-1 1 322 4
S-2 3 265 4
S-3 9 218 1
S-4 10 91 1
S-5 6 229 7
S-6 5 148 6
TOTAL STREAM IMPACT: 1273 LF
WETLAND UU
470'
475'
480'
485'
490'
495'
500'
505'
510'
470'
475'
480'
485'
490'
495'
500'
505'
510'
0+00 0+10 0+20 0+30 0+40 0+50 0+60 0+70 0+80 0+90 1+00 1+10 1+20 1+30 1+40 1+50
WETLAND ZZ
470'
475'
480'
485'
490'
495'
500'
505'
510'
470'
475'
480'
485'
490'
495'
500'
505'
510'
0+00 0+10 0+20 0+30 0+40 0+50 0+60 0+70 0+80 0+90 1+00 1+10 1+20 1+30 1+40 1+50 1+60 1+70 1+80 1+90 2+00
WETLAND B
470'
475'
480'
485'
490'
495'
500'
505'
510'
470'
475'
480'
485'
490'
495'
500'
505'
510'
0+00 0+10 0+20 0+30 0+40 0+50 0+60 0+70 0+80 0+90 1+00 1+10 1+20 1+30 1+40 1+50
-FIGURE 9FIGURE 9
DWG SIZE REVISION
FOR
DRAWING NO.
TITLE
FILENAME:
DWG TYPE:
JOB NO:
DATE:
SCALE:DES:
DFTR:
CHKD:
ENGR:
APPD:
A
F
E
D
C
B
2 3 4 5 7 86
4 5 7 8 9 106
A
F
C
B
11"x17"
ANSI C
SEAL
321
Environment & Infrastructure Solutions
4021 STIRRUP CREEK DRIVE, SUITE 100
DURHAM NC 27703
TEL: [phone]
FAX: [phone]
LICENSURE:
NC ENG: F-1253
NC GEOLOGY: C-247
REV DATE JOB NO.PROJECT TYPE DES DFTR CHKD ENGR APPD DESCRIPTION
10/13/2020
7812-20-0451
DWG
AS SHOWN
RH
RH
JC
SM
SM
MAYO ASH BASIN LANDFILL
MAYO STEAM ELECTRIC STATION
PERSON COUNTY, NORTH CAROLINA
CROSS-SECTIONS --FIGURE 9
-
SOUTHERN EXTENT OF WETLAND UU
STA: 0+88.96
ELEV: 483.76'
NORTHERN EXTENT OF WETLAND UU
STA: 0+61.17
ELEV: 483.79'
SOUTHERN EXTENT OF WETLAND ZZ
STA: 1+50.00
ELEV: 481.92'
NORTHERN EXTENT OF WETLAND ZZ
STA: 0+52.26
ELEV: 478.18
EASTERN EXTENT OF WETLAND B
STA: 0+91.33
ELEV: 483.48
WESTERN EXTENT OF WETLAND B
STA: 0+57.90
ELEV: 482.00
WETLAND C
475'
480'
485'
490'
495'
475'
480'
485'
490'
495'
0+00 0+10 0+20 0+30 0+40 0+50 0+60 0+70 0+80 0+90 1+00
WETLAND LLL
490'
495'
500'
505'
510'
490'
495'
500'
505'
510'
0+00 0+10 0+20 0+30 0+40 0+50 0+60 0+70 0+80 0+90 1+00
WETLAND JJJ
500'
505'
510'
515'
520'
500'
505'
510'
515'
520'
0+00 0+10 0+20 0+30 0+40 0+50 0+60 0+70 0+80 0+90 1+00
-FIGURE 10FIGURE 10
DWG SIZE REVISION
FOR
DRAWING NO.
TITLE
FILENAME:
DWG TYPE:
JOB NO:
DATE:
SCALE:DES:
DFTR:
CHKD:
ENGR:
APPD:
A
F
E
D
C
B
2 3 4 5 7 86
4 5 7 8 9 106
A
F
C
B
11"x17"
ANSI C
SEAL
321
Environment & Infrastructure Solutions
4021 STIRRUP CREEK DRIVE, SUITE 100
DURHAM NC 27703
TEL: [phone]
FAX: [phone]
LICENSURE:
NC ENG: F-1253
NC GEOLOGY: C-247
REV DATE JOB NO.PROJECT TYPE DES DFTR CHKD ENGR APPD DESCRIPTION
10/13/2020
7812-20-0451
DWG
AS SHOWN
RH
RH
JC
SM
SM
MAYO ASH BASIN LANDFILL
MAYO STEAM ELECTRIC STATION
PERSON COUNTY, NORTH CAROLINA
CROSS-SECTIONS --FIGURE 10
-
EASTERN EXTENT OF WETLAND C
STA: 0+65.88
ELEV: 485.00
WESTERN EXTENT OF WETLAND C
STA: 0+38.94
ELEV: 482.74
SOUTHERN EXTENT OF WETLAND LLL
STA: 0+69.46
ELEV: 496.27
NORTHERN EXTENT OF WETLAND LLL
STA: 0+31.15
ELEV: 493.58
EASTERN EXTENT OF WETLAND JJJ
STA: 0+56.99
ELEV: 505.91
WESTERN EXTENT OF WETLAND JJ
STA: 0+38.24
ELEV: 507.18
WETLAND F
390'
395'
400'
405'
410'
415'
420'
425'
430'
390'
395'
400'
405'
410'
415'
420'
425'
430'
0+00 0+10 0+20 0+30 0+40 0+50 0+60 0+70 0+80 0+90
WETLAND H
430'
435'
440'
445'
450'
455'
460'
465'
470'
430'
435'
440'
445'
450'
455'
460'
465'
470'
0+00 0+10 0+20 0+30 0+40 0+50 0+60 0+70 0+80 0+90
WETLAND OOO
530'
535'
540'
545'
550'
555'
560'
565'
570'
530'
535'
540'
545'
550'
555'
560'
565'
570'
0+00 0+10 0+20 0+30 0+40 0+50 0+60 0+70 0+80 0+90 1+00 1+10 1+20 1+30 1+40 1+50 1+60
-FIGURE 11FIGURE 11
DWG SIZE REVISION
FOR
DRAWING NO.
TITLE
FILENAME:
DWG TYPE:
JOB NO:
DATE:
SCALE:DES:
DFTR:
CHKD:
ENGR:
APPD:
A
F
E
D
C
B
2 3 4 5 7 86
4 5 7 8 9 106
A
F
C
B
11"x17"
ANSI C
SEAL
321
Environment & Infrastructure Solutions
4021 STIRRUP CREEK DRIVE, SUITE 100
DURHAM NC 27703
TEL: [phone]
FAX: [phone]
LICENSURE:
NC ENG: F-1253
NC GEOLOGY: C-247
REV DATE JOB NO.PROJECT TYPE DES DFTR CHKD ENGR APPD DESCRIPTION
10/13/2020
7812-20-0451
DWG
AS SHOWN
RH
RH
JC
SM
SM
MAYO ASH BASIN LANDFILL
MAYO STEAM ELECTRIC STATION
PERSON COUNTY, NORTH CAROLINA
CROSS-SECTIONS --FIGURE 11
-
WESTERN EXTENT
OF WETLAND F
STA: 0+29.63
ELEV: 398.80
EASTERN EXTENT
OF WETLAND F
STA: 0+54.76
ELEV: 403.00
SOUTHERN EXTENT
OF WETLAND H
STA: 0+42.51
ELEV: 435.94
NORTHERN EXTENT
OF WETLAND H
STA: 0+33.16
ELEV: 436.63
EASTERN EXTENT
OF WETLAND OOO
STA: 1+23.21
ELEV: 544.00
WESTERN EXTENT
OF WETLAND OOO
STA: 0+23.49
ELEV: 544.00
WETLAND D
495'
500'
505'
510'
515'
520'
495'
500'
505'
510'
515'
520'
0+00 0+10 0+20 0+30 0+40 0+50 0+60 0+70 0+80 0+90 1+00
WETLAND E
495'
500'
505'
510'
515'
520'
525'
530'
495'
500'
505'
510'
515'
520'
525'
530'
0+00 0+10 0+20 0+30 0+40 0+50 0+60 0+70 0+80 0+90 1+00 1+10 1+20 1+30 1+40 1+50 1+60 1+70 1+80 1+90 2+00
WETLAND MMM
495'
500'
505'
510'
515'
520'
495'
500'
505'
510'
515'
520'
0+00 0+10 0+20 0+30 0+40 0+50 0+60 0+70 0+80 0+90 1+00
-FIGURE 12FIGURE 12
DWG SIZE REVISION
FOR
DRAWING NO.
TITLE
FILENAME:
DWG TYPE:
JOB NO:
DATE:
SCALE:DES:
DFTR:
CHKD:
ENGR:
APPD:
A
F
E
D
C
B
2 3 4 5 7 86
4 5 7 8 9 106
A
F
C
B
11"x17"
ANSI C
SEAL
321
Environment & Infrastructure Solutions
4021 STIRRUP CREEK DRIVE, SUITE 100
DURHAM NC 27703
TEL: [phone]
FAX: [phone]
LICENSURE:
NC ENG: F-1253
NC GEOLOGY: C-247
REV DATE JOB NO.PROJECT TYPE DES DFTR CHKD ENGR APPD DESCRIPTION
10/13/2020
7812-20-0451
DWG
AS SHOWN
RH
RH
JC
SM
SM
MAYO ASH BASIN LANDFILL
MAYO STEAM ELECTRIC STATION
PERSON COUNTY, NORTH CAROLINA
CROSS-SECTIONS --FIGURE 12
-
NORTHERN EXTENT
OF WETLAND E
STA: 0+48.02
ELEV: 508.82
EASTERN EXTENT
OF WETLAND MMM
STA: 0+89.01
ELEV: 511.29
WESTERN EXTENT
OF WETLAND MMM
STA: 0+11.19
ELEV: 510.66
EASTERN EXTENT
OF WETLAND D
STA: 0+84.26
ELEV: 503.26
WESTERN EXTENT
OF WETLAND D
STA: 0+09.83
ELEV: 503.68
SOUTHERN EXTENT
OF WETLAND E
STA: 1+60.36
ELEV: 520.07
STREAM 1
395'
400'
405'
410'
415'
420'
395'
400'
405'
410'
415'
420'
0+00 0+10 0+20 0+30 0+40 0+50 0+60 0+70 0+80 0+90 1+00
STREAM 3
365'
370'
375'
380'
385'
390'
395'
400'
365'
370'
375'
380'
385'
390'
395'
400'
0+00 0+10 0+20 0+30 0+40 0+50 0+60 0+70 0+80 0+90 1+00
-FIGURE 13FIGURE 13
DWG SIZE REVISION
FOR
DRAWING NO.
TITLE
FILENAME:
DWG TYPE:
JOB NO:
DATE:
SCALE:DES:
DFTR:
CHKD:
ENGR:
APPD:
A
F
E
D
C
B
2 3 4 5 7 86
4 5 7 8 9 106
A
F
C
B
11"x17"
ANSI C
SEAL
321
Environment & Infrastructure Solutions
4021 STIRRUP CREEK DRIVE, SUITE 100
DURHAM NC 27703
TEL: [phone]
FAX: [phone]
LICENSURE:
NC ENG: F-1253
NC GEOLOGY: C-247
REV DATE JOB NO.PROJECT TYPE DES DFTR CHKD ENGR APPD DESCRIPTION
10/13/2020
7812-20-0451
DWG
AS SHOWN
RH
RH
JC
SM
SM
MAYO ASH BASIN LANDFILL
MAYO STEAM ELECTRIC STATION
PERSON COUNTY, NORTH CAROLINA
CROSS-SECTIONS --FIGURE 13
-
LOCATION OF STREAM 1
STA: 0+50.00
ELEV: 407.73
LOCATION OF STREAM 3
STA: 0+50.02
ELEV: 379.50
STREAM 9
485'
490'
495'
500'
505'
510'
485'
490'
495'
500'
505'
510'
0+00 0+10 0+20 0+30 0+40 0+50 0+60 0+70 0+80 0+90 1+00 1+05
STREAM 10
475'
480'
485'
490'
495'
500'
475'
480'
485'
490'
495'
500'
0+00 0+10 0+20 0+30 0+40 0+50 0+60 0+70 0+80 0+90 1+00
-FIGURE 14FIGURE 14
DWG SIZE REVISION
FOR
DRAWING NO.
TITLE
FILENAME:
DWG TYPE:
JOB NO:
DATE:
SCALE:DES:
DFTR:
CHKD:
ENGR:
APPD:
A
F
E
D
C
B
2 3 4 5 7 86
4 5 7 8 9 106
A
F
C
B
11"x17"
ANSI C
SEAL
321
Environment & Infrastructure Solutions
4021 STIRRUP CREEK DRIVE, SUITE 100
DURHAM NC 27703
TEL: [phone]
FAX: [phone]
LICENSURE:
NC ENG: F-1253
NC GEOLOGY: C-247
REV DATE JOB NO.PROJECT TYPE DES DFTR CHKD ENGR APPD DESCRIPTION
10/13/2020
7812-20-0451
DWG
AS SHOWN
RH
RH
JC
SM
SM
MAYO ASH BASIN LANDFILL
MAYO STEAM ELECTRIC STATION
PERSON COUNTY, NORTH CAROLINA
CROSS-SECTIONS --FIGURE 14
-
LOCATION OF STREAM 9
STA: 0+50.00
ELEV: 494.65
LOCATION OF STREAM 10
STA: 0+58.61
ELEV: 484.32
STREAM 6
485'
490'
495'
500'
505'
510'
485'
490'
495'
500'
505'
510'
0+00 0+10 0+20 0+30 0+40 0+50 0+60 0+70 0+80 0+90 1+00
STREAM 5
485'
490'
495'
500'
505'
510'
515'
520'
485'
490'
495'
500'
505'
510'
515'
520'
0+00 0+10 0+20 0+30 0+40 0+50 0+60 0+70 0+80 0+90 1+00
-FIGURE 15FIGURE 15
DWG SIZE REVISION
FOR
DRAWING NO.
TITLE
FILENAME:
DWG TYPE:
JOB NO:
DATE:
SCALE:DES:
DFTR:
CHKD:
ENGR:
APPD:
A
F
E
D
C
B
2 3 4 5 7 86
4 5 7 8 9 106
A
F
C
B
11"x17"
ANSI C
SEAL
321
Environment & Infrastructure Solutions
4021 STIRRUP CREEK DRIVE, SUITE 100
DURHAM NC 27703
TEL: [phone]
FAX: [phone]
LICENSURE:
NC ENG: F-1253
NC GEOLOGY: C-247
REV DATE JOB NO.PROJECT TYPE DES DFTR CHKD ENGR APPD DESCRIPTION
10/13/2020
7812-20-0451
DWG
AS SHOWN
RH
RH
JC
SM
SM
MAYO ASH BASIN LANDFILL
MAYO STEAM ELECTRIC STATION
PERSON COUNTY, NORTH CAROLINA
CROSS-SECTIONS --FIGURE 15
-
LOCATION OF STREAM 6
STA: 0+57.44
ELEV: 494.05
LOCATION OF STREAM 5
STA: 0+45.09
ELEV: 501.50

DUKE ENERGY MAYO STEAM ELECTRIC PLANT
MAYO ASH BASIN LANDFILL PROJECT

ENVIRONMENTAL REPORT
JOINT SECTION 404/401 INDIVIDUAL PERMIT APPLICATION
MODIFICATION

Prepared for

410 South Wilmington Street
Raleigh, North Carolina 27601

Prepared by

Wood Environment & Infrastructure Solutions, Inc.
4021 Stirrup Creek Drive, Suite 100
Durham, North Carolina 27703

October 2020

Wood Project No. 7812200451

Table of Contents
EXECUTIVE SUMMARY……………………………………………………………. I
1 INTRODUCTION ............................................................................................... 1-1
background ..................................................................................................... 1-1
environmental report purpose and objective ................................................... 1-3
2 PROJECT PURPOSE AND NEED ................................................................... 2-1
project purpose ............................................................................................... 2-1
project need .................................................................................................... 2-1
3 PROPOSED PROJECT DEVELOPMENT ........................................................ 3-1
project components ......................................................................................... 3-1
4 ALTERNATIVES ANALYSIS ............................................................................ 4-1
practicable alternatives framework (40 C.F.R. § 230.10 (a)) ........................... 4-1
identification of alternatives ............................................................................. 4-2
Avoidance and Minimization of Impacts ........................................................ 4-16
5 WATERS OF THE UNITED STATES AND RIPARIAN BUFFERS ................... 5-1
Description of Affected Environment ............................................................... 5-1
Wetlands ............................................................................................................... 5-1
Streams ................................................................................................................. 5-3
Open Waters ......................................................................................................... 5-5
Riparian Buffers .................................................................................................... 5-5
Potential Environmental Impacts ..................................................................... 5-5
Wetlands ............................................................................................................... 5-5
Streams ................................................................................................................. 5-7
Open Waters ......................................................................................................... 5-8
Riparian Buffers .................................................................................................... 5-8
6 WETLAND COMPENSATORY MITIGATION PLAN ........................................ 6-1
Mitigation Requirements ................................................................................. 6-1
Mitigation Plan ................................................................................................. 6-1
7 AFFECTED ENVIRONMENT AND IMPACTS .................................................. 7-1
Land Use ......................................................................................................... 7-1
Description of Affected Environment ..................................................................... 7-1
Potential Environmental Impacts ........................................................................... 7-4
AESTHETICS & VISUAL RESOURCES ......................................................... 7-5
Description of Affected Environment .............................................. 7-5

Potential Environmental Impacts ........................................................................... 7-6
GEOLOGY AND TOPOGRAPHY ................................................................... 7-6
Description of Affected Environment ..................................................................... 7-6
Potential Environmental Impacts ........................................................................... 7-7
SOILS ............................................................................................................. 7-7
Description of Affected Environment ..................................................................... 7-7
Potential Environmental Impacts ......................................................................... 7-10
Biotic Communities ....................................................................................... 7-10
Description of Affected Environment ................................................................... 7-10
Potential Environmental Impacts ......................................................................... 7-12
Aquatic Communities .................................................................................... 7-12
Description of Affected Environment ................................................................... 7-12
Potential Environmental Impacts ......................................................................... 7-18
Water Resources / Floodplains ..................................................................... 7-19
Description of Affected Environment: Surface Waters ........................................ 7-19
Potential Environmental Impacts: Surface Waters .............................................. 7-19
Description of Affected Environment: Floodplains ............................................... 7-19
Potential Environmental Impacts – Floodplains .................................................. 7-20
Description of Affected Environment: Groundwater ............................................ 7-20
Potential Environmental Impacts – Groundwater ................................................ 7-20
Stormwater .................................................................................................... 7-21
Erosion Control ................................................................................................... 7-21
PROTECTED SPECIES ............................................................................... 7-21
Description of Affected Environment ................................................................... 7-21
Potential Environmental Impacts ......................................................................... 7-22
Cultural Resources .................................................................................... 7-24
Description of Affected Environment ................................................................... 7-24
Potential Environmental Impacts ......................................................................... 7-27
Environmental Justice ................................................................................ 7-28
Description of Affected Environment ................................................................... 7-28
Potential Environmental Impacts ......................................................................... 7-30
Hazardous Materials .................................................................................. 7-31
Description of Affected Environment ................................................................... 7-31

Potential Environmental Impacts ......................................................................... 7-31
Noise and Vibration .................................................................................... 7-32
Description of Affected Environment ................................................................... 7-32
Potential Environmental Impacts ......................................................................... 7-33
Air Quality .................................................................................................. 7-34
Description of Affected Environment ................................................................... 7-34
Potential Environmental Impacts ......................................................................... 7-36
Traffic and transportation ........................................................................... 7-37
Description of Affected Environment ................................................................... 7-37
8 CUMULATIVE IMPACTS .................................................................................. 8-1
Direct and Indirect Effects of the Proposed Action .......................................... 8-1
Geographic Scope of Cumulative Impacts ...................................................... 8-1
Temporal Scope of Cumulative Impacts ......................................................... 8-2
Affected Environment ...................................................................................... 8-2
Environmental Consequences ........................................................................ 8-2
Avoidance, Minimization, and Mitigation ......................................................... 8-2
Conclusions..................................................................................................... 8-3
9 SUMMARY AND CONCLUSIONS .................................................................... 9-1
10 REFERENCES ................................................................................................ 10-1

FIGURES

APPENDICES

Appendix A NC WAM Wetland Assessment Forms and NC SAM Stream
Assessment Forms
Appendix B Plan View and Cross-Section Drawings
Appendix C NCNHP and USFWS IPaC Database Query Results
Appendix D Cultural Resources Assessment Report
Appendix E Cultural Resources Cemetery Site Form

Figure 1-1 Site Location Map
Figure 1-2 Site Aerial Map
Figure 2-1 Intentionally left blank
Figure 3-1 Project Components
Figure 3-2 Closure-by-Excavation – Dam Breach Grading Plan
Figure 4-1 Lined Retention Basin Alternative Site Locations
Figure 4-2 Alternatives Analysis Sites
Figure 4-3 Alternatives Analysis Sites – CCP Monofill Site
Figure 5-1 Jurisdictional Waters Map
Figure 5-2 Jurisdictional Waters Impact Map
Figure 6-1 Intentionally left blank
Figure 7-1 USGS Topographic Map
Figure 7-2 NRCS Soils Map
Figure 7-3 Floodplain Map
Figure 7-4 Cultural Resources Map

ABBREVIATIONS AND ACRONYMS

Abbreviation or
Acronym Definition
% Percent
ABLF Ash Basin Landfill
amsl Above mean sea level
APE Area of Potential Effects
BMP Best management practices
CAMA Coal Ash Management Act
CbE Closure by Excavation
CCP Coal Combustion Product
CCR Coal Combustion Residue
CEQ Council on Environmental Quality
CERCLA Comprehensive Environmental Response, Compensation &
Liability Act
CFR Code of Federal Regulations
CPHB Coal Pile Holding Basin
CWA Clean Water Act
dB Decibels
dBA A-weighted decibels
DFIRM Digital Flood Insurance Rate Maps
Duke Energy Duke Energy Progress
DWQ NCDENR Division of Water Quality
E&SC Erosion and Sediment Control
ECOS Environmental Conservation Online System
ELG Effluent Limitation Guidelines
EO Executive Order
ER Environmental Report
FEMA Federal Emergency Management Agency
FGD Flue gas desulfurization
FIRM Floodplain Insurance Rate Maps
GIS Geographic Information System
GPS Global Positioning System
HUC Hydrologic Unit Code
IPaC Information for Planning and Conservation
IP Individual Permit
JD Jurisdictional Determination

Abbreviation or
Acronym Definition
LEDPA Least Environmentally Damaging Practicable Alternative
Ldn Day/Night Levels
LRB Lined Retention Basin
LWCF Land and Water Conservation Fund Act of 1965
Mayo Plant Mayo Steam Electric Plant
MW Megawatt
NAAQS National Ambient Air Quality Standards
NC North Carolina
NCAC North Carolina Administrative Code
NCDENR North Carolina Department of Environment and Natural
Resources
NCDEQ North Carolina Department of Environmental Quality
NCDMS North Carolina Division of Mitigation Services
NCDOT North Carolina Department of Transportation
NCDWR North Carolina Division of Water Resources
NCHPO North Carolina Historic Preservation Office
NCNHP North Carolina Natural Heritage Program
NC OSA North Carolina Office of State Archaeology
NC SAM North Carolina Stream Assessment Method
NC WAM North Carolina Wetland Assessment Method
NEPA National Environmental Policy Act
NFIP National Flood Insurance Program
NHPA National Historic Preservation Act
NLCD National Land Cover Database
NPDES National Pollutant Discharge Elimination System
NRCS Natural Resource Conservation Service
NRHP National Register of Historic Places
O&M Operations & Maintenance
PEC Progress Energy Carolinas, Inc.
PM Particulate matter
Project Mayo Ash Basin Landfill Project
RCRA Resource Conservation and Recovery Act
ROROCS Run-On and Run-Off Control System
SFHA Special Flood Hazard Area
SIP State Implementation Plan

Abbreviation or
Acronym Definition
SOP Standard Operating Procedures
US United States
USACE United States Army Corps of Engineers
USCB United States Census Bureau
USDA United States Department of Agriculture
USEPA United States Environmental Protection Agency
USFS United States Forest Service
USFWS United States Fish and Wildlife Service
USGS United States Geological Survey
VOC Volatile organic compounds

Duke Energy Mayo Ash Basin Landfill Project
Environmental Report Joint Section 404/401 IP Application
Wood Project No. 7812200451

October 2020 I
EXECUTIVE SUMMARY
The Mayo Steam Electric Plant (Mayo Plant) is a single-unit, 727-megawatt (MW) coal-
fired power generating facility located on Mayo Lake (Mayo Reservoir) approximately 11
miles north of Roxboro, Person County, North Carolina (Figures 1-1 and 1-2). Mayo
Lake is situated within the eastern portion of the Mayo Plant property. The facility began
commercial operation in 1983 and is currently operational. The proposed action would
entail a modification of US Army Corps of Engineers (USACE) Permit No: SAW-2011-
00181. In addition, corresponding Water Quality Certification from the North Carolina
Division of Water Resources (NCDWR) is required. The purpose of the project is to
build a new 42.2-acre Ash Basin Landfill (ABLF) capable of containing 4.6-million cubic
yards of Coal Combustion Residual (CCR) adjacent to the Ash Basin at the Mayo Plant.
The construction of the ABLF would require the placement of fill material, which would
be excavated from four borrow areas located in the vicinity of the ABLF. The project
would also include the construction of a haul road to transport CCR materials to the
ABLF. The project requires construction of a Lined Retention Basin (LRB), which is one
component of the Mayo Plant Process Water Redirection Program associated with the
Ash Basin Closure. The LRB has already been constructed. The construction of the
LRB resulted in impacts to jurisdictional waters (1.15 acres of wetlands and 377 linear
feet of streams). These impacts are a part of this permit submittal. Finally, as part of the
overall project, the decommissioning of the Ash Basin would entail the breach of the
basin dam and the establishment of drainage channels.

The purpose of the project is based on the following need: Address the North Carolina
Coal Ash Management Act of 2014 (CAMA-14) regulatory requirements as related to
Ash Basin closure at the Mayo Plant and the disposal of CCR materials in a safe and
timely manner. Project construction would result in 0.89 acre of wetland impacts and
896 linear feet of stream impacts. The project is identified as the Mayo Ash Basin
Landfill Project (project).

Progress Energy Carolinas (now Duke Energy Progress [Duke Energy]) obtained a
USACE and North Carolina Department of Environmental Quality (NCDEQ) Division of
Water Resources (NCDWR) IP for the Mayo Coal Combustion Product (CCP) Monofill
Site (Mayo Monofill) on August 22, 2012 (USACE Permit No: SAW-2011-00181 and
DWQ Project No: 20120615). The Mayo Monofill IP authorized the construction of a
synthetically-lined industrial landfill, (CCP Monofill), leachate tanks, access roads,
maintenance building, and rail access/unloading facilities to be constructed in multiple
phases. The permitted impacts for total build-out of the facility (approximately 104
acres) is 4,648 linear feet of intermittent stream impact with minimal aquatic function,
and 84 linear feet of perennial stream. No wetlands would be impacted through the
project construction phases. Impacts for the first phase (60.2 acres) totaled 1,990 feet of
intermittent stream and 84 feet of perennial stream. Phase I development impacts to
streams have been completed. Impacts to 2,658 linear feet of intermittent stream are
proposed for Phase II development. The Mayo Monofill IP expires on December 31,
2030.
Duke Energy Mayo Ash Basin Landfill Project
Environmental Report Joint Section 404/401 IP Application
Wood Project No. 7812200451

October 2020 II

On August 20, 2014, the North Carolina General Assembly passed S729, CAMA-14,
requiring Duke Energy to phase out wet ash handling. Under CAMA-14, all coal ash in
the state is covered by North Carolina’s solid waste laws. With the passage of CAMA-
14, Duke Energy is following a timetable to close all its coal ash ponds. The
construction of the proposed ABLF is a public necessity because of state law mandating
the closure of the existing Mayo Plant Ash Basin and the February 5, 2020, Consent
Order with the State of North Carolina requiring that CCR materials in the existing Ash
Basin be relocated to a lined landfill. The ABLF design capacity of approximately 4.6
million cubic yards of CCR and other approved industrial wastes generated by Duke
Energy. Coal ash generated by Duke Energy is now being managed as dry ash and
stored in onsite, lined landfills. Per CAMA-14, engineering work was underway to close
ash basins at the retired coal plants. The company has accelerated that work to include
closing all ash basins across its six-state service area, both at retired and operating coal
plants. It is noted, however, that CAMA-14 requirements apply only to Duke Energy
stations in North Carolina.

Due to the US Environmental Protection Agency’s (USEPA) Coal Combustion Residual
(CCR) Rule (40 Code of Federal Regulations [CFR] 257 & 261) and revisions to the
Steam Electric Power Generating Effluent Limitation Guidelines (ELG) (40 CFR 423),
Duke Energy made system-wide plant modifications to comply with the Rules. The
redirection of process water from the Ash Basin is conducted to ensure the long-term
integrity of CCR materials and facilitate future Ash Basin closure activities at the Mayo
Plant. The Process Water Redirection Program entailed construction of three new
wastewater retention basins [flue gas desulfurization (FGD) Settling Basin, Lined
Retention Basin (LRB), and Holding Basin] at the Mayo Plant as part of a phased effort
to bring the Mayo Plant into compliance with new USEPA effluent limitation guidelines
and regulations for CCR as part of the Ash Basin closure. The construction of the LRB
resulted in impacts to jurisdictional waters (1.15 acres of wetlands and 377 linear feet of
streams). In 2018, Duke Energy proposed to permit these impacts by modifying the
existing Mayo Plant Mayo CCP Monofill Site Individual Permit (Monofill IP Modification).
The purpose of the 2018 IP Modification was to permit impacts to wetlands and streams
from the LRB construction and impacts associated with future Ash Basin Closure
activities. The IP Modification request was submitted to the USACE and NCDWR in July
2018, but subsequent to permit submittal and in coordination with USACE, Duke
withdrew the modification request. This submittal includes consideration of the
completed LRB impacts. NCDWR provided approval of Individual 401 Water Quality
Certification on January 29, 2019 (WQC004179).

Subsequent to the 2018 IP Modification regulatory permitting activities, Duke Energy
submitted a closure plan for the Mayo Plant prior to the CAMA-14 deadline. On April 29,
2020, NCDEQ issued its approval for the closure plan. The NCDEQ approved the Ash
Basin closure plan for the Mayo Plant based on its determination that the plan is
“protective of public health, safety, and welfare; the environment; and natural resources
and otherwise complies with the requirements of CAMA” (NCDEQ 2020a). Duke Energy
Duke Energy Mayo Ash Basin Landfill Project
Environmental Report Joint Section 404/401 IP Application
Wood Project No. 7812200451

October 2020 III
has developed excavation plans at the Mayo Plant for the disposal of ash in a lined
onsite landfill and proposes to permit and build the ABLF to support the closure by
excavation plans. This preferred plan includes the construction of a new ABLF adjacent
to the existing Ash Basin and its associated infrastructure, including the LRB.

The ABLF would be constructed in three adjacent cells with a perimeter/access road
with varying width depending on anticipated construction/operation traffic. Phase 1
would be the construction of Cell 1 located in the southwest corner of the footprint,
followed by the eastern expansion into Cell 2, then ending with northern expansion into
Cell 3. The ABLF would require the construction of supporting infrastructure and
facilities (access road, perimeter road, and leachate pond). The project site selected is
adjacent to the existing Ash Basin to reduce the material transport distance and limit
construction traffic outside the Duke Energy Property.

The alternatives considered for the proposed actions at the Mayo Plant and for the
ABLF were evaluated pursuant to federal regulatory guidelines. The construction of the
ABLF is a principal element of the overall process to dispose of CCR materials as linked
to the Ash Basin closure activities at the Mayo Plant. The excavation and removal of
CCR materials is a function of the promulgation of CAMA-14. Therefore, the impetus for
the alternatives analysis is linked to this process.

Duke Energy conducted a detailed evaluation of six ash basin closure options in 2018,
including a No-Build option. These options included Hybrid Closure, Closure-in-Place,
Closure-by-Removal (Existing On-Site Landfill), Closure-by-Removal (New On-Site
Landfill), and Closure-by-Removal (Off-Site Third-Party Landfill). However, the 2020
Consent Order with the State of North Carolina requires that CCR materials in the
existing Ash Basin be relocated to a lined landfill. The Consent Order would not allow
for cap-in-place ash basin landfills at the Mayo facility, so Hybrid Closure and Closure-
in-Place were discarded. After this evaluation, Duke determined that the two Closure-
By-Removal options (Alternatives 1A and 1B) were the preferred options in terms of
environmental impacts, cost, and constructability. These options were carried forward in
a more detailed and site-specific alternatives analysis.

These two principal action alternatives are evaluated in this IP application: Mayo CCP
Monofill (2012), and the Mayo Ash Basin Landfill (2020). The Mayo CCP Monofill Site
(2012 Monofill Site) (104 acres) is located on a vacant parcel of land owned by
Progress Energy Carolinas, Inc. (PEC) approximately one mile west of US Route 501
from the Mayo Plant. With regards to potential impacts to jurisdictional wetlands, no
wetlands would be impacted under the CCP Monofill alternative. Under Phase I, 1,990
linear feet of intermittent stream impacts and 84 linear feet of perennial stream impact
have been permitted for the construction of the CCP Monofill. However, these impacts
to jurisdictional waters from the construction of the CCP Monofill encompass only the
first phase of the project. Potential stream impacts to future phases of the CCP Monofill
alternative would total an additional 2,658 linear feet of intermittent stream reaches. The
construction of the proposed ABLF, borrow areas, and haul road, as well as the
Duke Energy Mayo Ash Basin Landfill Project
Environmental Report Joint Section 404/401 IP Application
Wood Project No. 7812200451

October 2020 IV
construction activities associated with the decommissioning of the Ash Basin dam,
would result in 0.89 acre of wetland impacts and 896 linear feet of stream impacts. By
comparison, impacts to jurisdictional streams would be substantially greater under all
phases of the CCP Monofill alternative.

The construction of the Monofill (Phase II) would necessitate the crossing of US Route
501 by hauling trucks to transport CCPs from the Mayo Plant to the Monofill. Phase I of
the Monofill alternative has been completed; however, Phase II activities have not been
initiated. Presumed Phase II impacts from this action would include increase potential
for the incidence of traffic collisions (i.e., public safety impacts), a decrease in
transportation level of service, and an adverse effect on aesthetics and visual
resources. Alternatively, the development of the ABLF may not require the crossing of
US Route 501 or the spanning of large creeks (such as Bowes Branch) to transport fill
material for the construction of the ABLF, or to transport CCPs from the existing Ash
Basin to the ABLF. Based on the above comparative analysis, the ABLF alternative is
identified as the preferred alternative. This determination is based on the substantial
difference in impacts to jurisdictional waters between the two action alternative sites, as
well as other considerations, such as transportation impacts. Although both action
alternatives would address the CAMA-14 regulatory requirements as related to Ash
Basin closure at the Mayo Plant and the disposal of CCR materials, the construction of
the ABLF is the preferred alternative.

To complete the construction of the proposed ABLF, four borrow areas, haul road, and
dam decommission, permanent impacts to wetlands and streams would be necessary.
The proposed total wetland impact is 0.89 acre, while the total stream impact is 896
linear feet (Figure 5-2). Since the Mayo Plant in not located within a river basin subject
to state riparian buffer regulations, there would be no impacts to state regulated riparian
buffers within the project site.

Compensatory mitigation for the proposed jurisdictional waters impacts is required
under the Section 404 IP. Appropriate avoidance and practicable minimization efforts
have been conducted throughout the engineering design process. However,
unavoidable impacts to onsite waters of the US are necessary to complete the proposed
action. Based on the review of the mitigation options available, it has been determined
that credit purchase through the North Carolina Division of Mitigation Services
(NCDMS) In-Lieu Fee Program is necessary because there are no private mitigation
banks offering wetlands credits in the Roanoke River Basin at this time. Onsite
mitigation and offsite mitigation opportunities would not be utilized as the In-Lieu Fee
option is available and can be successfully completed. Following the completion of
construction activities within the Ash Basin dam decommissioning area, the southern
(impacted) portion of Crutchfield Branch (Stream 3) would be stabilized. Specifically, the
work would include channel stabilization and the recontouring of meanders. Note that
the proposed mitigation also includes wetland and stream impacts from the LRB area
that have already occurred. It is also noted that Duke Energy would not build additional
phases of the Mayo Monofill under the proposed action, but that this directive is
Duke Energy Mayo Ash Basin Landfill Project
Environmental Report Joint Section 404/401 IP Application
Wood Project No. 7812200451

October 2020 V
contingent upon obtaining all permits and approvals required to construct the proposed
ABLF.

With regards to the phasing of the Ash Basin seep collection system at the Mayo Plant
and the discontinuation of the Ash Basin as a treatment unit, Duke Energy’s position is
that the seep collection system would continue to operate until all ash is removed from
the Ash Basin and the dam is breached. Seeps that have not been dispositioned at that
point would continue to be handled/discharged under the National Pollutant Discharge
Elimination System (NPDES) wastewater permit via pumping if necessary. Upon
completion of all closure activities, Duke Energy would work with the NCDEQ to
determine if any NPDES permit coverage is necessary for the Ash Basin and proceed
accordingly.

Based on the evaluation of the proposed action and its potential effect on cultural and
natural resources and other considerations, there would be only minimal impacts, or no
impacts, to these resources. These resources/considerations include: federally
protected plant and animal species, biotic communities, aquatic communities, cultural
resources or historic properties, environmental justice, noise-sensitive land uses, air
quality, local and regional land use, aesthetics and visual resources, geologic features
and topography, and traffic and transportation. For more detailed discussion on
resources and considerations, please refer to the various chapters in this report.

In summary and with regards to all project components and overall impacts to
jurisdictional waters (proposed impacts and after-the-fact impacts), the total amount of
permanent impacts are 2.04 acres of wetlands and 1,273 linear feet of stream channel.
The two principal project actions comprise the construction of the proposed ABLF, four
borrow areas, haul road, dam decommission, and the previously completed construction
of the LRB. Jurisdictional water impacts for each of these two actions are summarized
below.

Project Action (status) Wetland Impacts (acre) Stream Impacts (linear feet)
ABLF (proposed) 0.89 acre 896
LRB (completed) 1.15 377
Total 2.04 1,273

Duke Energy Mayo Ash Basin Landfill Project
Environmental Report Joint Section 404/401 IP Application
Wood Project No. 7812200451

October 2020 1-1
1 INTRODUCTION

1.1 BACKGROUND

The Mayo Steam Electric Plant (Mayo Plant) is a single-unit, 727-megawatt (MW) coal-
fired power generating facility. The Mayo Plant is located on Mayo Lake (Mayo
Reservoir) in northeastern Person County, North Carolina (Figures 1-1 and 1-2). Mayo
Lake lies within the eastern portion of the Mayo Plant property. The closest municipality
is Roxboro, which is located approximately 11 miles south of the Mayo Plant. The
facility began commercial operation in 1983 and is still operational. The property owner
and permit applicant is Duke Energy Progress, LLC (Duke Energy).

On August 20, 2014, the North Carolina General Assembly passed S729, the Coal Ash
Management Act of 2014 as amended (CAMA-14), requiring Duke Energy to phase out
wet ash handling. Under CAMA-14, all coal ash in the state is covered by North
Carolina’s solid waste laws. The construction of the proposed Ash Basin Landfill (ABLF)
is a public necessity because of North Carolina State law mandating the closure of the
existing Mayo Plant Ash Basin and the February 5, 2020, Consent Order with the State
of North Carolina requiring that Coal Combustion Residual (CCR) materials in the
existing Ash Basin be relocated to a lined landfill. When coal ash is used as fill to build
up land for large construction projects, measures like groundwater monitoring and
installation of liners are required. The construction of the ABLF would require the
placement of fill material, which would be excavated from four borrow areas located in
the vicinity of the ABLF. The project would also include infrastructure construction to
support the ABLF, including an already constructed Lined Retention Basin (LRB). Also,
the decommissioning of the Ash Basin would entail the breach of the basin dam and the
establishment of drainage channels.

With the passage of CAMA-14 [§North Carolina General Statutes §130A-309.214(a)(4)]
and the Consent Order, Duke Energy is following a program to close all its coal ash
ponds. Duke Energy is committed to safely dismantling its existing older plants as part
of a complex, multiyear process known as “decommissioning and demolition”. By the
end of 2013, Duke Energy retired units at nine coal-fired generation sites in North
Carolina and South Carolina (Duke Energy 2017). The long-term vision for sites with
retired coal units across the system is to demolish the structures and return the
properties to a more natural state through grading and revegetation. During the early
stages of the decommissioning and demolition strategy, the company would remove
chemicals and other materials, salvage what equipment it can, recycle and repurpose at
other sites, and sell the scrap material. In the demolition and restoration phases, Duke
Energy will safely remove the powerhouse, chimneys, and auxiliary structures no longer
needed. Following this procedure, Duke Energy will fill, grade, and vegetate disturbed
areas (Duke Energy 2017). This approach is best suited to ensure continued safety,
security, and environmental compliance at the sites in the future, both for the company
and the community. Duke Energy will continue to own and steward these properties,
and some will become facilities for other types of power generation. The
Duke Energy Mayo Ash Basin Landfill Project
Environmental Report Joint Section 404/401 IP Application
Wood Project No. 7812200451

October 2020 1-2
decommissioning project also extends to some of the company’s older natural gas-
combustion turbine units across the generation fleet, as they will move through a similar
decommissioning process.

Coal ash generated by Duke Energy is being managed as dry ash and stored in onsite
lined landfills. Prior to the promulgation of CAMA-14, engineering work was underway to
close ash basins at the retired coal plants. The company has accelerated that work to
include closing all ash basins across its six-state service area, both at retired and
operating coal plants. Duke Energy has conducted inspections at its facilities to ensure
basins continue operating safely and reliably until closure. There are several options for
closing ash basins. The company’s strategy is that site-specific engineering should
inform the methods used and may include a combination of:
 Excavating and relocating the ash to a fully-lined structural fill location
 Excavating and relocating the ash to a lined landfill (on or off-site)
 Capping the ash with an engineered synthetic barrier system, either in place or
after being consolidated to a smaller area on site

Schedules for closing ash basins depend on factors, including state requirements, the
amount of ash at the site, whether plant system conversions are needed, and whether
new storage facilities will need to be designed, permitted, and constructed. The Consent
Order does not allow for cap-in-place ash basin landfills at Mayo, even though that is a
theoretical option.

With respect to the Mayo Plant and prior regulatory permitting, Duke Energy obtained a
US Army Corps of Engineers (USACE) and NC Department of Environment and Natural
Resources (NCDENR) – Division of Water Quality (DWQ) Individual Permit (IP) for the
Mayo Coal Combustion Product (CCP) Monofill Site (Mayo Monofill) on August 22, 2012
(USACE Permit No: SAW-2011-00181 and DWQ Project No: 20120615). The Mayo
Monofill IP authorized the construction of a synthetically-lined industrial ABLF, (CCP
Monofill), leachate tanks, and access, maintenance building, and rail access/unloading
facilities to be constructed in multiple phases. The permitted impacts for total build-out
of the facility (approximately 104 acres) is 4,648 linear feet of intermittent stream impact
with minimal aquatic function, and 84 linear feet of perennial stream. No wetlands would
be impacted through the project construction phases. Impacts for the first phase (60.2
acres) totaled 1,990 feet of intermittent stream and 84 feet of perennial stream. Impacts
to 2,658 linear feet of intermittent stream are proposed for Phase II development. The
Mayo Monofill IP expires on December 31, 2030.

The US Environmental Protection Agency’s (USEPA) Coal Combustion Residual (CCR)
Rule (40 Code of Federal Regulations [CFR] 257 & 261) and revisions to the Steam
Electric Power Generating Effluent Limitation Guidelines (ELG) (40 CFR 423), Duke
Energy has proposed to make system wide plant modifications to comply with the
Rules. The redirection of process water is conducted to ensure the long-term integrity of
CCR materials and facilitate future Ash Basin closure activities at the Mayo Plant. The
Process Water Redirection Program entailed construction of three new wastewater
Duke Energy Mayo Ash Basin Landfill Project
Environmental Report Joint Section 404/401 IP Application
Wood Project No. 7812200451

October 2020 1-3
retention basins [flue gas desulfurization (FGD) Settling Basin, LRB, and Holding Basin]
at the Mayo Plant as part of a phased effort to bring the Mayo Plant into compliance
with new USEPA effluent limitation guidelines and regulations for CCR as part of the
Ash Basin closure. The project would include the redirection of plant wastewater,
Monofill leachate, cooling tower blowdown, and contact stormwater to the new LRB.
The construction of the LRB resulted in impacts to jurisdictional waters (1.15 acres of
wetlands and 377 linear feet of streams). Duke Energy proposed to permit these
impacts by modifying the existing Mayo Plant CCP Monofill Site Individual Permit in
2018, but subsequent to permit submittal and in coordination with USACE, withdrew the
LRB submittal. This submittal includes consideration of the completed LRB impacts.

Subsequent to regulatory permitting activities, Duke Energy submitted a closure plan for
the Mayo Plant prior to the CAMA-14 deadline. On April 29, 2020, North Carolina
Department of Environmental Quality (NCDEQ) issued its approval for the closure plan.
They approved the Ash Basin closure plan for the Mayo Plant based on its
determination that the plan is “protective of public health, safety, and welfare; the
environment; and natural resources and otherwise complies with the requirements of
CAMA” (NCDEQ 2020a).

Finally, with regards to the phasing of the Ash Basin seep collection system at the Mayo
Plant and the discontinuation of the Ash Basin as a treatment unit, Duke Energy’s
position is that the seep collection system would continue to operate until all ash is
removed from the Ash Basin and the dam is breached. Any seeps that have not been
dispositioned at that point would continue to be handled/discharged under the National
Pollutant Discharge Elimination System (NPDES) wastewater permit via pumping if
necessary. Upon completion of all closure activities, Duke Energy will work with the
NCDEQ to determine if any NPDES permit coverage is necessary for the Ash Basin and
proceed accordingly.

1.2 ENVIRONMENTAL REPORT PURPOSE AND OBJECTIVE

The discharge of dredged or fill material into waters of the US and most categories of
work in navigable water bodies require USACE authorization under Section 404 of the
Clean Water Act (CWA). This Environmental Report (ER) is to provide the Wilmington
District of the USACE with a basis to evaluate and issue an IP Modification and
associated certifications for the proposed action. This IP Modification application is a
modification of USACE Permit No: SAW-2011-00181. In addition, corresponding Water
Quality Certification must be provided by the NCDWR.

The purpose of this ER is to serve as a source of supplemental information for the
Section 404 IP Modification application and 401 Water Quality Certification. The ER
provides documentation of the current ecological and physical condition of jurisdictional
waters and other resources that occur within the project site. Further, this document
describes the approach to wetland mitigation outlined in the CWA Section 404 (b)(1)
guidelines and followed by the State of North Carolina, to include avoidance,
Duke Energy Mayo Ash Basin Landfill Project
Environmental Report Joint Section 404/401 IP Application
Wood Project No. 7812200451

October 2020 1-4
minimization, and compensation. The specific objective of this investigation and the ER
document is to provide the USACE Wilmington District, the NCDEQ, and other
commenting and reviewing agencies a basis to evaluate and issue a Section 404 IP
(i.e., a modification to USACE Permit No: SAW-2011-00181) and associated
certifications for the proposed action.

It is noted that, in addition to the ABLF construction, the project would include the
construction of four borrow areas and a haul road to transport CCR materials to the
ABLF. The overall project would also include the decommissioning of the Ash Basin,
which would entail the breach of the basin dam and the establishment of drainage
channels. This document also considers previous impacts from LRB construction.

The following appendices provide additional documentation:
 North Carolina Wetland Assessment Method (NC WAM) Wetland Assessment
Forms and North Carolina Stream Assessment Method (NC SAM) Stream
Assessment Forms (Appendix A)
 Plan View and Cross-Section Drawings (Appendix B)
 North Carolina Natural Heritage Program (NCNHP) and US Fish and Wildlife
Service (USFWS) Information for Planning and Conservation (IPaC) Database
Query Results (Appendix C)
 Cultural Resources Assessment Report (Appendix D)
 Cultural Resources Cemetery Site Form (Appendix E)
Duke Energy Mayo Ash Basin Landfill Project
Environmental Report Joint Section 404/401 IP Application
Wood Project No. 7812200451

October 2020 2-1
2 PROJECT PURPOSE AND NEED

2.1 PROJECT PURPOSE

The purpose of the project (proposed action) is to build a 42.2-acre ABLF capable of
containing 4.6-million cubic yards of CCR adjacent to the Ash Basin at the Mayo Plant.
The construction of the ABLF would require the placement of fill material, which would
be excavated from four borrow areas located in the vicinity of the ABLF. The project
would also include the construction of a haul road to transport CCR materials to the
ABLF. As part of the overall project, the decommissioning, or closure, of the Ash Basin
would entail the breach of the basin dam and the establishment of drainage channels.

Also, the project would require permitting after-the-fact impacts to wetlands and streams
from the LRB construction and to provide a mechanism for providing compensatory
mitigation requirements for the LRB. Based on the need to meet new EPA effluent
limitation guidelines and regulations for CCR, Duke Energy will redirect plant
wastewater, monofill leachate, cooling tower blowdown, and contact stormwater to the
new LRB. The LRB needed to be completed prior to initiation of other ash basin closure
activities.

The details of the project are discussed in Section 3.0 - Proposed Project Development.

2.2 PROJECT NEED

The purpose of the project is based on the following need: Address the North Carolina
CAMA-14 regulatory requirements as related to Ash Basin closure at the Mayo Plant
and the disposal of CCR materials in a safe and timely manner.

North Carolina Regulatory Requirements
The principal action that has accelerated the excavation and removal of CCR materials
from coal ash storage ponds (ash basins) at Duke Energy power generating plants with
coal-fired facilities is the promulgation of CAMA-14. The bill, enacted on August 20,
2014, requires Duke Energy to phase out wet ash handling. As such, all coal ash in the
state will be covered by North Carolina’s solid waste laws. In conjunction with CAMA-
14, the NCDEQ has amassed comprehensive data about coal ash facilities statewide.
The information has been essential in NCDEQ's prioritization of closure plans for the 14
facilities with coal ash storage ponds (NCDEQ 2016). The Mayo Plant is identified as
one of these 14 facilities with coal ash storage ponds. With these considerations, the
project addresses North Carolina regulatory requirements as related to Ash Basin
closure, and disposal of CCR materials at the Mayo Plant. The LRB construction will
address North Carolina regulatory requirements as related to the redirection of process
water away from the Ash Basin and to facilitate the closure activities of CCR materials
at the Mayo Plant. Furthermore, the construction of the proposed ABLF is a public
necessity because of state law mandating the closure of the existing Mayo Plant Ash
Basin and the February 5, 2020, Consent Order with the State of North Carolina
Duke Energy Mayo Ash Basin Landfill Project
Environmental Report Joint Section 404/401 IP Application
Wood Project No. 7812200451

October 2020 2-2
requiring that CCR materials currently in the existing Ash Basin be relocated to a lined
ABLF.
Duke Energy Mayo Ash Basin Landfill Project
Environmental Report Joint Section 404/401 IP Application
Wood Project No. 7812200451

October 2020 3-1
3 PROPOSED PROJECT DEVELOPMENT

Construction of the ABLF is to support the excavation of the Ash Basin. The ABLF
would be constructed in three adjacent cells with a perimeter road of a varying width
depending on construction/operation traffic. The ABLF is planned to be constructed in
three phases to support Ash Basin closure by excavation. Phase 1 would be the
construction of Cell 1 located in the southwest corner of the footprint, followed by the
eastern expansion into Cell 2, then ending with northern expansion into Cell 3. The
project site is adjacent to the existing Ash Basin to reduce the material transport
distance and keep construction traffic within the Duke Property. An access road (haul
road) is proposed leading from an existing access roadway. Due to site conditions and
limitations the proposed access road is anticipated to impact existing wetlands and
streams. The overall project would also include the decommissioning of the Ash Basin,
which would entail the breach of the basin dam and the establishment of drainage
channels. Additionally, the redirection of process water will be conducted to ensure the
long-term integrity of CCR materials and facilitate future Ash Basin closure activities at
the Mayo Steam Station, which was the rationale for LRB construction, completed
previous to this submittal. The Process Water Redirection Program and Ash Basin
Closure is a phased effort to bring the Mayo Plant into compliance with the new EPA
effluent limitation guidelines and regulations for CCR.

3.1 PROJECT COMPONENTS

The primary driver for the schedule of the project components is to meet a Consent
Order executed February 5, 2020, to resolve matters associated with closure of CCR
impoundments at seven Duke Energy coal-fired steam station facilities including Mayo.
Item 48 of the Consent Order requires Duke Energy “excavate and remove all coal ash
from the Ash Basin either (1) to lined onsite locations for disposal in a CCR landfill,
industrial landfill, or municipal solid waste landfill or (2) for beneficial use for
cementitious purposes or another industrial process at least as environmentally
protective”.

The ABLF would require the construction of supporting infrastructure and facilities.
Descriptions of the various project components are presented below. The project
components are depicted on Figure 3-1. It is also noted that Duke Energy would not
build additional phases of the Mayo Monofill under the proposed action, but that this
directive is contingent upon obtaining all permits and approvals required to construct the
proposed ABLF

ABLF – Limits of Waste
The limits of waste footprint would cover an area of approximately 42.2 acres. To
support the ABLF operations four, borrow areas (approximately 39.4 acres) onsite have
been identified for exploration to determine if suitable material is available for the
construction and cover material. Materials placed in the ABLF would consist
predominantly of bottom ash and fly ash from power plant operations and existing on-
Duke Energy Mayo Ash Basin Landfill Project
Environmental Report Joint Section 404/401 IP Application
Wood Project No. 7812200451

October 2020 3-2
site storage areas. Other approved waste streams include but are not limited to FGD
residual, sludge material, and waste soil. A detailed list of waste streams will be
included in the Operations Plan for this ABLF submitted with the Construction Permit
application. Finally, it is noted that the footprint of the ABLF was reduced from 58.5
acres to 42.2 acres, as 1.5-million cubic yards of CCR materials can be transported to
the Monofill. This action will allow for the use of all the available space in the currently
constructed Monofill (Phase I) without building any additional phases (i.e., Phase II) or
stormwater management improvements.

LRB
The previously constructed LRB is one component of the Mayo Plant Process Water
Redirection Program associated with the Ash Basin Closure. The 15-acre, 18 million-
gallon LRB was designed and constructed to accommodate the 25-year 24-hour storm
event and 10,000 gallon per minute wastewater flow. The LRB location was selected
because it involved a minimal amount of jurisdictional impacts, the area had already
been cleared and used as a borrow site, and it has a lower depth of groundwater. The
perimeter containment dike for the LRB (dam) provides water retention designed to treat
the effluent for total suspended solids and pH to meet NPDES permit requirements prior
to discharging into existing external outfall 002.

Supporting Infrastructure
In addition to the ABLF construction, an access road, perimeter road, and leachate
pond would be built to support the ABLF operations. The access roadway is expected to
impact existing wetlands and stream due to the existing site constraints and topography.

Construction and Operation
Materials that would be placed in the ABLF consist of CCR and other approved
industrial waste streams produced by Duke Energy. The proposed in-service date for
the new facility is 2023 with an anticipated closure in 2030. The facility is designed to
provide the approximately 4.6-million cubic yards of storage capacity. The 42.2-acre
ABLF is planned to be constructed in three phases to support the Ash Basin excavation
efforts. Phase 1 would be the construction of Cell 1 located in the southwest corner of
the footprint, followed by the eastern expansion into Cell 2, ending with northern
expansion into Cell 3. The ABLF would include a synthetic barrier on the bottom, a leak-
detection system, and backup liner. The proposed liner design exceeds the current
regulatory requirements. During ABLF construction and operations, the active face
would be limited to workable areas to manage fugitive dust. A Dust Control Plan would
be submitted with the Operations Plan for approval in compliance with state and federal
requirements. Interim cover would be used as appropriate until such time as a final cap
can be installed. The ABLF design includes a leachate collection system which would
convey flows to a wastewater treatment system prior to discharging through an
approved NPDES outfall. The ABLF would be gated with a perimeter fence along US
Route 501 and Mayo Lake Road to deter illegal entry. Duke Energy anticipates
construction to begin in 2021 and continue until Cell 3 construction is complete.
Operation of the ABLF would begin when Cell 1 construction is complete and NCDEQ
Duke Energy Mayo Ash Basin Landfill Project
Environmental Report Joint Section 404/401 IP Application
Wood Project No. 7812200451

October 2020 3-3
issues a Permit to Operate. Cells 2 and 3 would follow with construction occurring
simultaneously with operation in Cell 1.

Ash Basin Dam Decommission
In conjunction with the Ash Basin closure by excavation and the construction of the
ABLF, as discussed above, the project would also entail decommissioning the Ash
Basin as including the dam. The Mayo Plant Ash Basin dam is approximately 2,300 ft
long, and 400 ft wide at the base/foundation with 2.5H:1V embankment side slopes. The
Mayo Plant Ash Basin dam crest is 20 ft wide and set at an elevation of 489 feet above
mean sea level (amsl). The Mayo Plant Ash Basin dam is a random fill earthen
embankment with “impervious materials” overlain by “random fill” placed along the
upstream slope face. The dam embankment was constructed with a sand filter chimney
drain that transitions to a blanket and toe drain for controlling/managing the phreatic
surface and seepage along the downstream toe. The toe drain discharges into weir
boxes via perforated 6-inch diameter piping and the seepage flow is monitored by Duke
Energy. The entire upstream slope face of the Mayo Plant Ash Basin dam is armored
with riprap over crushed rock, and the lower downstream slope face is armored with
shot rock riprap. A cutoff trench tied into the low permeability embankment material is
provided to sound rock beneath the upstream portion of the dam foundation.

The proposed Mayo Plant Ash Basin Dam Decommissioning is planned to occur in
stages that follow behind the basin closure excavation phases. Closure phasing is
designed to protect the dam from being disturbed as the CCR excavation occurs. The
Mayo Plant Ash Basin closure plan requires instituting a 50-ft wide dam buffer to protect
the dam. The buffer is intended to prevent CCR excavation from occurring directly
adjacent to the dam until the proper/design closure phase grade has been reached.

The proposed plan includes modifying the dam in eight stages. The proposed dam
decommissioning plan was developed to maintain impoundment inside the Mayo Plant
Ash Basin up until the basin closure is complete, and the impounded CCR materials are
fully removed/excavated, and the dam is breached. The proposed plan was developed
to retain back-to-back PMP storm events throughout each stage. Once the Mayo Ash
Basin Dam is breached, post-closure stormwater within the previous basin area would
flow northward and into Crutchfield Branch. Dam sections outside (east and west) of the
planned breach would remain in-place at original dam embankment grades, with the
exception of riprap and crushed rock armoring removal and the potential for removal of
any portions of the underlying subgrade that is impacted with CCR. Duke Energy would
analyze the subgrade along the upstream face following removal of the riprap and
crushed rock surface armoring consistent with the plan for analyzing the subgrade
within the Mayo Plant Ash Basin following completion of the closure excavations. Any
impacted subgrade sections/materials would be removed.

Once the Mayo Ash Basin closure and dam decommissioning is completed and site
stabilized, Duke Energy intends to allow the area to re-naturalize. The Ash Basin
closure design includes site features to be implemented as a part of the basin closure
Duke Energy Mayo Ash Basin Landfill Project
Environmental Report Joint Section 404/401 IP Application
Wood Project No. 7812200451

October 2020 3-4
scope to control/manage stormwater flows across the previous basin area and
downstream of the site. The post-closure stormwater control features include numerous
riprap lined channels and two stormwater detention basins. The post-closure
stormwater detention basins are being implemented to maintain stormwater flows in
Crutchfield Branch at or near current conditions following the basin closure (AECOM
2020).

Ash Basin Closure by Excavation
Once the Mayo Ash Basin dam is breached, post-closure stormwater within the
previous basin area would flow northward and into Crutchfield Branch. Once the Mayo
Plant Ash Basin closure and dam decommissioning is completed and site stabilized,
Duke Energy intends to allow the area to re-naturalize. The Mayo Plant Ash Basin
Closure by Excavation (CbE) design includes site features to be implemented as a part
of the basin closure scope to control/manage post-closure stormwater flows across the
previous basin area and downstream of the site. The post-closure stormwater control
features include numerous riprap lined channels and two stormwater detention basins
(Figure 3-2). The post-closure stormwater detention basins are being implemented to
maintain stormwater flows in Crutchfield Branch at or near current conditions following
the basin closure. Design of the post-closure stormwater detention basins are detailed
in the Mayo Plant Ash Basin CbE Drawings, and they are referenced in the Dam
Decommissioning Drawings. The post-closure stormwater detention basins are
designed for the 100-year storm event, and it is important to note that these basins
would not include embankment heights or have the impoundment capacity to require
Dam Safety regulation (i.e., basin embankments are designed at less than 25-feet high
and the basins would impound less than 50-acre-feet). Further, breach or failure of the
post-closure stormwater detention basin embankments are not likely to cause loss of
human life or significant property damage downstream. One of the post-closure
stormwater detention basins would extend through the Mayo Plant Ash Basin dam
section that is intended to be breached, and the second post-closure stormwater
detention basin would be situated to the south. The numerous post-closure stormwater
channels would flow to and discharge into the two post-closure stormwater detention
basins. Drawing MAY_C999.003.015 (as taken from the Mayo Plant Ash Basin CbE IFC
Drawings developed by AECOM and dated August 14, 2020) shows the two planned
post-closure stormwater basins and the post-closure stormwater channels in final
planned post-closure conditions. This drawing is included in the ER as Figure 3-2. Note
that the 100-year inundation limits are shown for the basins, but these basins would
remain essentially dry during most of the post-closure period.

Duke Energy Mayo Ash Basin Landfill Project
Environmental Report Joint Section 404/401 IP Application
Wood Project No. 7812200451

October 2020 4-1
4 ALTERNATIVES ANALYSIS

4.1 PRACTICABLE ALTERNATIVES FRAMEWORK (40 C.F.R. § 230.10 (A))

In the evaluation of CWA Section 404 permit applications to discharge dredged or fill
material into waters of the US including wetlands, the USACE is required to analyze
alternatives that could achieve purpose and need. The USACE conducts this analysis
pursuant to two main requirements:

National Environmental Policy Act of 1969 (NEPA)
NEPA requires federal agencies to consider environmental impacts of the proposed
actions and a range of reasonable alternatives to those actions. Reasonable
alternatives do not require consideration of every conceivable variation of an alternative
(40 CFR §1502.14) and must be capable of achieving the basic project goal. The
Council on Environmental Quality (CEQ) describes “reasonable” alternatives as those
that are practical or feasible from the technical or economic standpoint and use
common sense rather than simply desirable from the standpoint of the applicant (CEQ
1981). For alternatives eliminated from further study, a project’s environmental
documentation must “briefly discuss the reasons for having been eliminated” (CEQ
1981).

CWA Section 404(b)(1) Guidelines
CWA Section 404(b)(1) Guidelines state “no discharge of dredged or fill material shall
be permitted if there is a practicable alternative to the proposed discharge which would
have less adverse impact on the aquatic ecosystem, so long as the alternative does not
have other significant adverse environmental consequences” (40 C.F.R. § 230.10a).
Practicable means available and capable of being done after taking into consideration
cost, existing technology, and logistics in light of the overall project purpose.

The foremost objective of the CWA is to restore and maintain the chemical, biological,
and physical integrity of the nation’s waters through the elimination of discharges of
pollutants (33 USC § 466 et seq.). Pollutants include dredged and fill materials [40 CFR
230.3(o)], while the nation’s waters, or waters of the US, include wetlands [40 CFR
230.3(s) (7)]. USEPA 404(b)(1) Guidelines (40 CFR 230) provide the criteria that are
used in reviewing USACE permit applications, with respect to the authorization of
discharge of dredged or fill material into waters of the US, including wetlands. Under the
USEPA Guidelines, the principal screening action to assess the necessity of permitting
a discharge of dredged or fill material into waters of the US is the analysis of practicable
alternatives [40 CFR 230.10(a)].

According to 40 CFR Section 230.10(a), a discharge of dredged or fill material will be
permitted by the USACE if no practical alternatives to the proposed discharge will have
less adverse impact on the aquatic ecosystem and there are no other significant
adverse environmental consequences. Under 40 CFR Section 230.10(a)(2), a
practicable alternative is an alternative site that is available and capable of being
Duke Energy Mayo Ash Basin Landfill Project
Environmental Report Joint Section 404/401 IP Application
Wood Project No. 7812200451

October 2020 4-2
developed after considering costs, existing technology, and logistics in light of overall
project purposes. The permit applicant is only required to evaluate alternatives that are
considered practicable based on costs, technical factors, or logistical factors that are
capable of achieving the overall purpose of the proposed activity.

According to the USACE Standard Operating Procedures for the Regulatory Program
(SOP), dated October 15, 1999, the amount of information needed and the level of
scrutiny required by the USEPA 404(b)(1) Guidelines is commensurate with the severity
of the environmental impact and the scope/cost of the project. The SOP provides that
the compliance evaluation procedures under the USEPA 404(b)(1) Guidelines vary to
reflect the degree of potential for adverse impacts on the aquatic ecosystems. The
alternatives that were considered for the proposed actions at the Mayo Plant and for the
Mayo Ash Basin ABLF Project were evaluated pursuant to the SOP.

4.2 IDENTIFICATION OF ALTERNATIVES

Duke Energy recognizes that certain criteria are necessary to specify the minimum
needs and conditions that would meet the operational requirements for the construction
of the project. It is important to acknowledge at the outset that the principal concern of
Duke Energy in serving as the applicant for this project is to serve the best interests of
the public and make sure that the Least Environmentally Damaging Practicable
Alternative (LEDPA) adheres to the purpose and needs of the project, as set forth
herein. Ultimately, the LEDPA must accommodate the operational and budgetary needs
of the end clients, as well as Duke Energy, for the project to be a success. Furthermore,
the project must comply with the North Carolina CAMA-14 regulatory requirements.
Finally, the project will be reviewed by the USACE with respect to the original Mayo
CCP Monofill IP issued for the Mayo Plant by the USACE (Action ID SAW-2011-00181,
dated August 22, 2012).

The range of alternatives included in this analysis was generated to satisfy the purpose
and need of the project. Three distinct and separate, but not mutually exclusive, sets of
alternatives analysis are presented below. The discussion of each set of action
alternatives includes background information, a description of each action alternative,
selection criteria, and a comparative analysis of action alternatives and identification of
the preferred alternative. The three sets of alternatives analysis include:
 Ash Basin Closure Design Alternatives Analysis
 Lined Retention Basin Site Selection Alternatives Analysis
 Landfill Site Selection Alternatives Analysis

4.2.1 Ash Basin Closure Design Alternatives Analysis

4.2.1.1 Background Information

Duke Energy conducted a detailed evaluation of six ash basin closure options in 2018,
including a No-Build option. These options included Hybrid Closure, Closure-in-Place,
Duke Energy Mayo Ash Basin Landfill Project
Environmental Report Joint Section 404/401 IP Application
Wood Project No. 7812200451

October 2020 4-3
Closure-by-Removal (Existing On-Site Landfill), Closure-by-Removal (New On-Site
Landfill), and Closure-by-Removal (Off-Site Third-Party Landfill).

4.2.1.2 Description of Action Alternatives

Alternative 1A – Closure-by-Removal (New On-site Landfill)

“Closure-by-Removal” is the preferred closure option, and the Mayo ABLF Area (2020)
is the applicant’s preferred alternative. This involves the construction of a new onsite
Industrial Landfill adjacent to the existing Ash Basin, designed and permitted with a
capacity of up to 5.5 million cubic yards of excavated ash material that would be placed
in the new landfill site with a new cap system installed. Note that in the final
consideration of the selected alternative, it was determined that a portion of the ash
material could be placed in the current Mayo Monofill, leaving 4.6 million cubic yards
that would need to be accommodated in a slightly smaller landfill. The project
components of the preferred alternative include installing stormwater controls, a
temporary dewatering/wastewater treatment system, removal of free water, and
dewatering of ash material as needed. The Ash Basin dam would be removed, the
closure-by-removal area regraded, and disturbed areas restored. Groundwater
remediation and a long-term monitoring program would begin. This preferred alternative
is discussed in detail in section 4.2.3.

Alternative 1B – Closure-by-Removal (Existing Mayo Monofill)

This alternative uses the existing on-site Mayo Monofill for ash disposal. The project
components of this option included installing stormwater controls, a temporary
dewatering/wastewater treatment system, removal of free water, and dewatering of ash
material as needed. The ash would be excavated from the Ash Basin and the 5.5 million
cubic yards of excavated ash would be placed in the existing Mayo Monofill. The Ash
Basin dam would be removed, the closure-by-removal area regraded, and disturbed
areas restored. Groundwater remediation and a long-term monitoring program would
begin. Closure-by-removal (existing Mayo Monofill) is discussed in detail in section
4.2.3.

Alternative 2 – Hybrid Closure

The Hybrid Closure alternative consists of excavating ash materials from a portion of
the existing Ash Basin, placement of these ash materials within a proposed
consolidated Hybrid Ash Closure Area (upstream portions of the existing Ash Basin)
and capping with an infiltration barrier/cover system. The project components of the
Hybrid Closure option included installing stormwater controls, a dewatering/wastewater
treatment system, and a deep mixing method wall or stabilized soil wedge as needed.
Once these activities have been completed, the ash would be excavated, and the
excavated material would be placed within the Hybrid Ash Closure Area. A new liner
Duke Energy Mayo Ash Basin Landfill Project
Environmental Report Joint Section 404/401 IP Application
Wood Project No. 7812200451

October 2020 4-4
system would be installed over the lateral expansion areas and the closure cap system
installed. Groundwater remediation would begin if necessary.

This option was originally considered as one of several options in 2018. However, the
2020 Consent Order with the State of North Carolina requires that CCR materials in the
existing Ash Basin be relocated to a lined landfill. The Consent Order would not allow
for cap-in-place ash basin landfills at the Mayo facility, so this option was discarded.

Alternative 3 – Closure-in-Place

The Closure-In-Place option consists of leaving the ash material within the Ash Basin,
grading to facilitate stormwater drainage, and then capping with an infiltration
barrier/cover system. The project components of the Closure-in-Place option included
installing stormwater controls, a temporary dewatering/wastewater treatment system,
removal of free water, and dewatering of ash material as needed. The Ash Basin would
be regraded, and the closure cap constructed. Portions of the Ash Basin dam would be
removed, and disturbed areas restored. Groundwater remediation and a long-term
monitoring program would begin.

This option was originally considered as one of several options in 2018 and was
strongly considered as a potential preferred option. However, the 2020 Consent Order
with the State of North Carolina requires that CCR materials in the existing Ash Basin
be relocated to a lined landfill. The Consent Order would not allow for cap-in-place ash
basin landfills at the Mayo facility, so this option was discarded.

Alternative 4 – Closure-by-Removal (Off-site Third-Party Landfill)

The project components of the Closure-in-Place option included installing stormwater
controls, a temporary dewatering/wastewater treatment system, removal of free water,
and dewatering of ash material as needed. The ash material would be excavated from
the Ash Basin boundary (assumed 1,000,000 cubic yards annually). The excavated ash
material would be transported to an off-site third-party landfill. The transport method
was not determined for this option. The Ash Basin dam would be removed, the closure-
by-removal area regraded, and disturbed areas restored. Groundwater remediation and
a long-term monitoring program would begin. This option was considered but was
determined to not be readily feasible, as the haul distance to a third party landfill that
could accept CCRs made transportation costs prohibitive, as well as increasing the
associated environmental risk during transport.

No-Build Alternative

Under the No-Build Alternative, implementation of the Ash Basin Closure would not
occur; therefore, there would be no impacts to waters of the US. However, under this
scenario, Duke Energy could not comply with CAMA-14 at the Mayo Plant.

Duke Energy Mayo Ash Basin Landfill Project
Environmental Report Joint Section 404/401 IP Application
Wood Project No. 7812200451

October 2020 4-5
No-Permit Required Alternative

A No-Permit Required Alternative was considered. Under the No Permit Required
Alternative, authorization of dredge or fill impacts to jurisdictional waters by the USACE
would not be required and, thus, no regulatory permit would be issued. However, the
implementation of each of the Ash Basin Closure design alternatives would require
impacts to jurisdictional waters. A USACE permit would be required for authorization of
those impacts. Thus, a No Permit Required Alternative would not be feasible as the
project could not be completed without USACE permitting under Section 404.

4.2.1.3 Selection Criteria and Comparison of Action Alternatives

The Selection Criteria for the Ash Basin Closure action alternatives are presented in
Table 4-1 below.

Table 4-1. Selection Criteria for the Ash Basin Closure Design Alternatives
Issue Measurement and/or Constraint
Surface Water Impacts Ranking of potential impacts to local surface waters from low
(few impacts) to high (significant adverse impacts)
Groundwater Impacts Ranking of potential impacts to groundwater from low (few
impacts) to high (significant adverse impacts)
Air Emissions Off Site/On Site
Based on potential truck miles driven for hauling and/or cubic
yards of cut and fill onsite, from low (few impacts) to high
(significant adverse impacts)
Avoidance of Greenfield Disturbance
Based on potential for impacts to greenfields (vegetated
areas) from low (few acres of impacts) to high (many acres of
impacts)
Costs (Capital and O&M) Ranking of cost required from lower cost to higher cost,
compared between alternatives.
Imported Soil Needs Comparison of soil amounts needed for landfill, from low (no
soil required) to high (much soil required)
Transportation Impact Comparison of miles driven from low (on-site, adjacent) to high
(off-site, long distance)
Noise Impact Estimated subjective noise impacts from construction and
operation, from low (least noise) to high (most noise)
View Impact
Estimated subjective visual impacts from construction and
operation, from low (least visual impact) to high (most visual
impact)
Constructability (stormwater
management, geotechnical, and
dewatering)
Estimated subjective construability factors, from low (least
complicated) to high (most complicated)
Allowed under 2020 Consent Order
2020 Consent Order with the State of North Carolina requires
that CCR materials in the existing Ash Basin be relocated to a
lined landfill.

Duke Energy Mayo Ash Basin Landfill Project
Environmental Report Joint Section 404/401 IP Application
Wood Project No. 7812200451

October 2020 4-6
Table 4-2 presents a comparison of potential impacts to jurisdictional waters and other
features or considerations for the Ash Basin Closure design alternatives.

Table 4-2. Comparison of Impacts to Jurisdictional Waters and other Features or
Considerations among Ash Basin Closure Design Alternatives
Issue
(Feature or
Consideration)
Potential for Adverse Impacts from Action Alternative
Alternative 1A Alternative 1B Alternative 2 Alternative 3 Alternative 4
Surface Water
Impacts Low Low Low Low Low
Groundwater
Impacts Low Low Low Low Low
Air Emissions Off
Site/On Site Medium Medium Low Low High
Avoidance of
Greenfield
Disturbance
Medium Medium Low Medium High
Costs (Capital and
O&M) Medium Medium Medium Medium High
Imported Soil Needs High High Low Medium Low
Transportation
Impact Low Low Low Low High
Noise Impact High High Medium Low High
View Impact Medium Medium Medium High Low
Constructability
(stormwater
management,
geotechnical, and
dewatering)
Medium Medium High Low Medium
Allowed under 2020
Consent Order Yes Yes No No Yes

Alternative 3 (Closure in Place) was being considered as the potential preferred
alternative at the time of the design closure options evaluation in 2018. However, the
2020 Consent Order with the State of North Carolina requires that CCR materials in the
existing Ash Basin be relocated to a lined landfill. The Consent Order would not allow
for cap-in-place ash basin landfills at the Mayo facility, so Alternatives 2 and 3 were
discarded. Among the remaining options, Duke determined that the two Closure-By-
Removal options (Alternatives 1A and 1B) were the preferred options in terms of
environmental impacts, cost, and constructability. These options were carried forward in
a more detailed and site-specific options analysis in Section 4.2.3, below.
Duke Energy Mayo Ash Basin Landfill Project
Environmental Report Joint Section 404/401 IP Application
Wood Project No. 7812200451

October 2020 4-7
4.2.2 Lined Retention Basin Site Selection Alternatives Analysis

4.2.2.1 Background Information

As part of the Process Water Redirection Program at the Mayo Plant, Duke Energy
evaluated potential sites for the construction of the new Wastewater Treatment System
and the LRB. The existing Ash Basin will be closed to meet the requirements of the new
CCR and ELG rules which will require redirection of all the water flows currently going
into the Ash Basin. Additionally, the existing FGD blowdown settling basin would need
to be replaced because it was constructed on ash and must be closed. The construction
of the LRB is integral to the closure of the Ash Basin. The selection of a suitable site
location for the LRB is important to assure that the construction and operation of the
LRB will be successful.

4.2.2.2 Description of Action Alternatives

A siting study was completed early in the design process that identified four potential
locations for the LRB. Figure 4-1 shows the four potential LRB locations that were
evaluated for this siting study. All four alternative sites were located on Duke Energy
property and occurred in the general vicinity of the Ash Basin. The sizes of the sites
were 34, 19, 5, and 32 acres, respectively, for Option 1, Option 2, Option 3, and Option
4. Note: The locations and sizes of the four potential LRB sites shown on Figure 4-1
were obtained from Geosyntec graphic exhibit Potential Settling Feature Areas, Mayo
Steam Station, Roxboro, NC, dated May 2015. The potential impacts to wetlands and
streams (i.e., the quantification of impacts in wetland acreage and stream length) within
the four LRB sites were based on McKim & Creed survey plat data, dated July 24, 2019.

4.2.2.3 Selection Criteria and Comparison of Action Alternatives

The Selection Criteria for the LRB action alternatives are presented in Table 4-3 below.

Duke Energy Mayo Ash Basin Landfill Project
Environmental Report Joint Section 404/401 IP Application
Wood Project No. 7812200451

October 2020 4-8
Table 4-3. Selection Criteria for the Lined Retention Basin Site Location
Alternatives
Issue Measurement and/or Constraint
Stream impacts within LRB site Linear feet of direct impact
Wetland impacts within LRB site Acres of direct impact
Proximity of LRB site to existing Ash
Basin Distance in feet
Size of LRB site to treat wastewater
Minimum of 15 acres; 18 million-gallon retention; ability to
accommodate the 25-year 24-hour storm event; and 10,000
gallon per minute treatment capacity
Depth of groundwater within LRB site Distance in feet
LRB site predominantly cleared Yes or No
View impacts of LRB construction site
from major roadways Negligible Impact (not visible) to High Impact (highly visible)

Table 4-4 presents a comparison of potential impacts to jurisdictional waters and other
features or considerations for the Lined Retention Basin site location alternatives.

Duke Energy Mayo Ash Basin Landfill Project
Environmental Report Joint Section 404/401 IP Application
Wood Project No. 7812200451

October 2020 4-9

Table 4-4. Comparison of Impacts to Jurisdictional Waters and other Features or
Considerations among Lined Retention Basin Site Location Alternatives
Issue
(Feature or
Consideration)
LRB Action Alternative
Option 1 Option 2 Option 3 Option 4
Stream impacts within
LRB site 735 linear feet 0 linear feet 0 linear feet 820 feet
Wetland impacts within
LRB site 0.16 acre 0.25 acres 0 acre 0.32 acres
Proximity of LRB site to
Ash Basin 774 feet 224 feet 25 feet 523 feet
Size of LRB site to treat
wastewater 34 acres 19 acres 5 acres 32 acres
Depth of groundwater
within LRB site1 31 feet 38 feet 24 feet 34 feet
LRB site previously
cleared No Yes Yes No
View Impacts of LRB
construction site from
major roadways
Medium/High
Impact
(highly visible)
Negligible Impact
(Not visible)
Negligible Impact
(Not visible)
Medium/High
Impact
(highly visible)
1Groundwater depth values based on SynTerra monitoring well data, 2015-2016

Option 2 was selected as the preferred alternative for the location of the LRB site. Due
to the size of the basin needed to treat the wastewater volume from the plant, one
option (Option 3) was discounted because it was not large enough to accommodate the
15-acre, 18 million-gallon retention basin, needed to accommodate the 25-year 24-hour
storm event and 10,000 gallon per minute wastewater flow. Options 1 and 4 were less
desirable than Option 2 based on their distance from waste sources (i.e., a greater
distance to the Ash Basin), depth of groundwater, and visibility of construction work site
from major roadways. Option 2 is located the closest to the Ash Basin (i.e., 224 feet),
followed by Option 4 (523 feet) and Option 1 (774 feet). The redirection of process
water (i.e., redirection of all the water flows currently going into the Ash Basin) to the
LRB is a significant element of the overall process to ensure the long-term integrity of
CCR materials and facilitate closure of the Ash basin. As such, the distance that the
water would travel to the LRB is directly related to the amount of effort and material that
would be required to construct the conveyance and the amount of impacts that would
occur to the environment during construction. Options 1 and 2 were advantageous
based on their proximity to the Coal Pile Holding Basin (CPHB). The CPHB currently
serves as pre-treatment for select process flows to the LRB. The depth of groundwater
is lowest for Option 2 (38 feet), followed by Option 4 (34 feet) and Option 1 (31 feet). A
lower depth of groundwater (i.e., groundwater is encountered at a further depth from the
ground surface) would provide less opportunity for percolation into the LRB. With
Duke Energy Mayo Ash Basin Landfill Project
Environmental Report Joint Section 404/401 IP Application
Wood Project No. 7812200451

October 2020 4-10
respect to visual aesthetics during construction and operation activities of the LRB, the
presence of a mature woodland buffer would be important. In terms of visual impacts,
Option 2 would not be directly visible from any major roadways. However, the western
boundary of Option 1 abuts US Route 501, while the northern boundary of Option 4
abuts Mayo Lake Road.

Table 4-4 also shows a comparison of jurisdictional impacts associated with the three
final options. Option 2 (preferred alternative) was chosen for construction of the LRB as
there would be only 0.25 acre of permanent jurisdictional wetlands impacts. Option 1
would have 0.16 acre of permanent jurisdictional wetlands impacts and 735 linear feet
of permanent stream channel impacts. Option 4 would have 0.32 acre of permanent
wetlands impacts and 820 linear feet of permanent stream channel impacts. Option 4
was not chosen as the preferred alternative for construction of the LRB. As previously
stated, the potential wetland and stream impacts for each option as reported in Table 4-
4 were based on McKim & Creed survey plat data, dated July 24, 2019.

In summary, the alternatives analysis indicated that Option 2 was the best choice for
placement of the LRB because of the minimal amount of jurisdictional waters impacts,
the area had already been cleared and used as a borrow site, it has a lower depth of
groundwater, the construction site would not be visible from major roadways, and
relatively close to the existing Ash Basin.

No-Build Alternative
A No-Build alternative has not been considered in this IP Modification as the LRB has
already been constructed. Impacts to waters of the US occurred during the LRB
construction. These impacts and the associated compensatory mitigation are discussed
in Sections 5 and 6 of the ER.

No Permit Required Alternative
The implementation of the LRB would have required wetland and/or stream impacts at
any of the feasible sites. A USACE permit would be required for authorization of those
impacts. Impacts to jurisdictional wetlands and streams occurred during the construction
of the LRB. These impacts are identified as after-the-fact impacts. Nevertheless,
regulatory permitting is required with the USACE and compensatory mitigation must be
addressed.

4.2.3 Landfill Site Selection Alternatives Analysis

4.2.3.1 Background Information

The purpose of the proposed action is to build a 42.2-acre ABLF capable of containing
4.6-million cubic yards of CCR adjacent to the Ash Basin at the Mayo Plant. The
construction of the ABLF is a principal element of the overall process to dispose of CCR
materials as linked to the Ash Basin closure activities at the Mayo Plant. The on-site
landfill option (Alternatives 1A and 1B) were selected as the preferred alternative
Duke Energy Mayo Ash Basin Landfill Project
Environmental Report Joint Section 404/401 IP Application
Wood Project No. 7812200451

October 2020 4-11
(Section 4.2.1). The excavation and removal of CCR materials is a function of the
promulgation of CAMA-14. Therefore, the impetus for the alternatives analysis is linked
to this process.

The project will be reviewed by the USACE with respect to the original Mayo CCP
Monofill IP issued for the Mayo Plant by the USACE (Action ID SAW-2011-00181, dated
August 22, 2012), as well as the 2018 Monofill IP Modification. The No-Build Alternative
(No Action Alternative) is also presented herein.

4.2.3.2 Description of Action Alternatives

Two action alternatives were evaluated for the landfill site selection alternatives
analysis: Mayo ABLF Area (2020) and Mayo CCP Monofill Site (2012). To further
differentiate the two sites that are associated with these two alternatives, the date (year)
that USACE regulatory permitting was being conducted (2012) and the date that
USACE regulatory permitting (permit modification) is currently being conducted (2020)
at the Mayo Plant is identified. A description of each action alternative is presented
below.

Mayo Ash Basin Landfill Area (2020) (Applicant’s Preferred Alternative)

The purpose of the Mayo ABLF Project is to build a 42.2-acre ABLF capable of
containing 4.6-million cubic yards of CCR adjacent to the Ash Basin at the Mayo Plant.
The construction of the ABLF would require the placement of fill material, which would
be excavated from four borrow areas located in the vicinity of the ABLF. The project
would also include the construction of a haul road to transport CCR materials to the
ABLF. Finally, as part of the overall project, the decommissioning of the Ash Basin
would entail the breach of the basin dam and the establishment of drainage channels.
The ABLF and four borrow areas comprise mature mixed pine-hardwood forest and
pine forest, with finger lobes of the existing Ash Basin extending into the eastern portion
of the ABLF. US Route 501 (Boston Road) is located to the west of the ABLF, while
Mayo Lake Road (Secondary Road 1501) occurs to the north of the ABLF. The sizes of
the four borrow areas are 7.3, 16.1, 8.2, and 7.8 acres, respectively for Borrow Areas 1
through 4. Engineering design components for the ABLF are presented in Section 3 of
the ER. Finally, it is noted that the footprint of the ABLF was reduced from 58.5 acres to
42.2 acres, as 1.5-million cubic yards of CCR materials can be transported to the
Monofill. This action will allow for the use of all the available space in the currently
constructed Monofill (Phase I) without building any additional phases (i.e., Phase II) or
stormwater management improvements.

Mayo CCP Monofill Site (2012)

The Mayo CCP Monofill Site (Monofill Site) is located on a parcel of land owned by
Duke Energy approximately one mile west of US Route 501 (Boston Road) from the
Mayo Plant. The Monofill Site is east of North Carolina Route 1327 (Woodys Store
Duke Energy Mayo Ash Basin Landfill Project
Environmental Report Joint Section 404/401 IP Application
Wood Project No. 7812200451

October 2020 4-12
Road), south of the Norfolk Southern railroad right-of-way, and west of Bowes Branch.
For comparison purposes, Figure 4-2 shows the locations of the Mayo ABLF Area
(2020) and the Mayo CCP Monofill Site (2012). Figure 4-3 shows the Mayo CCP
Monofill Site.

Phase I of the CCP Monofill Site at the Mayo Plant is presented in the Joint Permit
Application for the Mayo CCP Monofill Site prepared by Golder Associates Inc. (Golder)
and submitted to the USACE in February 2012 (Golder 2012). Modifications to the Mayo
Plant's current ash handling system and disposal methods would be necessary to allow
the use of the CCP Monofill Site. The Monofill, as fully constructed in Phase II, would be
approximately 104 acres of the 660-acre site. Overall, the development of the site would
include the 104-acre Monofill, access roads, leachate tanks, maintenance/office
building, and potential future rail access to the site.

An access road has been constructed to accommodate (in the future) hauling vehicles
for the transportation of CCR materials from the Mayo Plant to the Monofill. This
roadway is owned, operated, and maintained by Duke Energy and access is restricted.
Hauling trucks would need to cross US Route 501 to transport CCR materials from the
Mayo Plant to the Monofill.

The 2012 Mayo Monofill IP (USACE SAW-2011-00181) authorized the construction of a
synthetically-lined industrial Landfill (CCP Monofill), leachate tanks, and access,
maintenance building, and rail access/unloading facilities to be constructed in multiple
phases. As authorized by the USACE, the permitted impacts for total build-out of the
facility (approximately 104 acres) are 4,648 linear feet of intermittent stream impact with
minimal aquatic function and 84 linear feet of perennial stream. No wetlands would be
impacted through the project construction phases; i.e., during the design process, the
limits of the CCP Monofill were pulled back to avoid wetland impacts. Impacts for the
first phase (60.2 acres) totaled 1,990 feet of intermittent stream and 84 feet of perennial
stream (Bowes Branch). The majority of the permanent intermittent stream impacts
resulted from the excavation of the proposed Monofill in preparation for the disposal of
CCR materials. The remainder of permanent intermittent stream impacts resulted from
necessary grading and slope stabilization. Due to the dendritic pattern formed by the
intermittent streams on the site, impacts to the smaller intermittent streams were
unavoidable, although these impacts were generally limited to the upper limits
(headwaters) of the stream reaches. The permanent perennial stream impact resulted
from the construction of the access road to the proposed Monofill. Overall, the proposed
impacts to jurisdictional waters for the 104-acre site would be the minimum necessary to
satisfy the project purpose and need. Phase I development impacts to streams have
been completed. Impacts to 2,658 linear feet of intermittent stream are proposed for
Phase II development.

4.2.3.3 Selection Criteria and Comparison of Action Alternatives

Duke Energy Mayo Ash Basin Landfill Project
Environmental Report Joint Section 404/401 IP Application
Wood Project No. 7812200451

October 2020 4-13
The Selection Criteria for the landfill site selection action alternatives are presented in
Table 4-5 below.

Table 4-5. Selection Criteria for the Landfill Site Selection Alternatives
Issue Measurement and/or Constraint
Stream impacts Linear feet of direct impact
Wetland impacts Acres of direct impact
Transportation Roadway crossing
Residential and public safety
considerations Disruption to local residents and/or unsafe conditions

Duke Energy Mayo Ash Basin Landfill Project
Environmental Report Joint Section 404/401 IP Application
Wood Project No. 7812200451

October 2020 4-14
Table 4-6 presents a comparison of potential impacts to jurisdictional waters and other
features or considerations for the landfill site selection alternatives.

Table 4-6. Comparison of Impacts to Jurisdictional Waters and other Features or
Considerations among Lined Retention Basin Site Location Alternatives
Issue
(Feature or
Consideration)
Action Alternative
Mayo ABLF Area (2020) Mayo CCP Monofill Site (2012)
Stream impacts 896 linear feet
Phase I:
1,990 linear feet (intermittent)
84 linear feet (perennial)

Phase II:
2,658 linear feet (intermittent)
Wetland impacts 0.89 acre 0 acre
Transportation Potential crossing of US Route 501 US Route 501 crossing;
NCDOT Traffic Analysis
Residential and public
safety considerations No impacts
Disruption to local residents and
infrastructure from off-site disposal of
CCR materials

The Mayo ABLF Area (2020) is the applicant’s preferred alternative. Impacts to
jurisdictional waters for the 42.2-acre ABLF would be necessary to complete the project.
The proposed total wetland impact is 0.89 acre, while the total stream impact is 896
linear feet. Due to the spatial location of wetlands and streams within and adjacent to
the ABLF and haul road, impacts to these jurisdictional waters would be unavoidable.
The footprint of the ABLF has been established to include vegetative setbacks from US
Route 501 and Mayo Lake Road. With these setbacks, the footprint of the ABLF is
somewhat confined and, the impacts to wetlands that occur within the central portion of
the ABLF cannot be avoided. The footprints of the four borrow areas have been
specifically established to avoid impacts to jurisdictional waters (with the exception of
one small wetland impact) and still provide the necessary quantity of fill materials for
ABLF construction. The proposed construction and use of access roads (haul road)
between the existing Ash Basin and the ABLF, and between the four borrow areas and
the ABLF, would result in necessary impacts to jurisdictional waters.

A discussion of the comparison of potential impacts to jurisdictional waters and other
features or considerations from the construction of the Mayo ABLF Area (2020) and the
construction of the Mayo CCP Monofill Site (2012) is presented below.

The construction of the ABLF and associated borrow areas would include the following
impacts to jurisdictional waters:
 896 linear feet of stream impacts
 0.89 acre of wetland impacts
Duke Energy Mayo Ash Basin Landfill Project
Environmental Report Joint Section 404/401 IP Application
Wood Project No. 7812200451

October 2020 4-15

The development of the ABLF may require the crossing of US Route 501 but would not
require the spanning of large creeks (such as Bowes Branch) to transport fill material for
the construction of the ABLF, or to transport CCR materials from the existing Ash Basin
to the ABLF.

The construction and use of access roads (haul road) between the existing Ash Basin
and the ABLF and between the four borrow areas and the ABLF would result in no
substantial impacts to the local transportation network (including level of service) and
public safety. Specifically, the placement of the proposed ABLF adjacent to the existing
Ash Basin would allow the hauling of excavated CCR materials to remain onsite and not
cross public access roadways, thereby reducing the potential for traffic impacts to the
community and resulting in lower impact to local residents and surrounding
infrastructure.

The ABLF would be contained within Duke Energy property east of US Route 501 and
potentially would not impact a North Carolina Department of Transportation (NCDOT)
roadway requiring a Traffic Analysis. The internal haul road would be designed and
evaluated in full for safe and efficient operations.

The CCP Monofill Site would include the following impacts to jurisdictional waters:
 1,990 linear feet of intermittent stream impacts and 84 linear feet of perennial
stream impact for Phase I of the project
 Approximate 2,658 linear feet of intermittent stream impact for Phase II of the
project
 No wetland impacts

The construction of the Monofill would necessitate the crossing of US Route 501 by
hauling trucks to transport CCR materials from the Mayo Plant to the Monofill.
Presumed impacts from this action would include an increased incidence of traffic
collisions (i.e., public safety impacts), a decrease in transportation level of service, and
an adverse effect on aesthetics and visual resources. Additional impacts to air quality
and an increase in noise from the transport of CCR material by hauling trucks would
also occur. This action would likely necessitate a Traffic Analysis to evaluate the
amount of truck traffic and to determine any significant impact this may have on the
Level of Service for US Route 501. Safety improvements and lines of sight would need
to be reviewed. The driveway/haul road tie-in would have to meet NCDOT standards for
NCDOT review and approval to meet the requirements to obtain a driveway permit or
encroachment agreement.

Wetland and stream impacts are proposed under the ABLF alternative. By comparison,
impacts to jurisdictional waters, particularly streams, would be substantially greater
under the CCP Monofill Site alternative. Potential impacts to streams for the
development of future phases of the CCP Monofill Site alternative would total
approximately 2,658 linear feet of intermittent stream reaches. With regards to
Duke Energy Mayo Ash Basin Landfill Project
Environmental Report Joint Section 404/401 IP Application
Wood Project No. 7812200451

October 2020 4-16
transportation considerations, if the ABLF construction is not permitted, the CCR
materials would need to be disposed of at an alternate location, either the CCP Monofill
Site located across US Route 501 or to an offsite ABLF approved to receive CCR
materials. To haul the estimated 4.6 million cubic yards of CCR materials (landfill
capacity) it is estimated that approximately 57,700 trips/year, based on 26-ton load
capacity, would be required to remove CCR materials in the existing Ash Basin over the
five-year excavation efforts. The farther the disposal location the greater the disruption
to local residents and infrastructure.

In conclusion, the ABLF alternative is the applicant’s preferred alternative. This
determination is based on the substantial difference in impacts to jurisdictional waters
between the two action alternative sites, as well as transportation impacts and
disruption to local residents and infrastructure.

No-Build Alternative
Under the No-Build Alternative, implementation of the Ash Basin closure and the
construction of the ABLF or the further development of the CCP Monofill Site (Phase II)
would not occur; therefore, there would be no impacts to waters of the US. However,
under this scenario, Duke Energy could not comply with CAMA-14 at the Mayo Plant.

No Permit Required Alternative
Under the No Permit Required Alternative, authorization of dredge or fill impacts to
jurisdictional waters by the USACE would not be required and, thus, no regulatory
permit would be issued. However, the construction of the ABLF or the further
development of the CCP Monofill Site (Phase II) would require impacts to jurisdictional
waters. A USACE permit would be required for authorization of those impacts.

4.3 AVOIDANCE AND MINIMIZATION OF IMPACTS

Appropriate and practicable steps to minimize potential adverse impacts to wetlands
and streams were considered through analysis of the development concepts during
project planning for the Mayo Ash Basin ABLF Project and associated project
components. The complete avoidance of waters of the US was not found to be
practicable during project development. Overall, the complete avoidance of waters of
the US is not practicable as the excavation and disposal of CCR materials at the Mayo
Plant ultimately required under CAMA-14 could not be accomplished without some
impact to such waters.

Many of the wetlands and stream features which are proposed to be impacted under the
proposed action abut the Ash Basin, drain into the Ash Basin, or occur downstream of
the Ash Basin dam (outfall). These jurisdictional waters have been historically impacted
or influenced (i.e., secondary impacts) by the original construction of the Ash Basin and
dam. Although impacts to these jurisdictional waters would be necessary to complete
the project, the functions and values of these waters are presumed to be less than the
Duke Energy Mayo Ash Basin Landfill Project
Environmental Report Joint Section 404/401 IP Application
Wood Project No. 7812200451

October 2020 4-17
reference condition. As such, the considerations of avoidance and minimization are
relatively different and presumably less critical with regards to scrutinization of
avoidance and minimization of impacts to wetland communities or stream features with
superior functions and values in a different environmental and/or project setting.

In the vicinity of the southwest corner of the ABLF, grading activities for the ABLF and
the construction of the haul road would impact some or all of the two streams (Streams
9 and 10) and two wetlands (Wetlands JJJ and LLL) that occur along the eastern side of
US Route 501. Design changes may be further developed that could avoid or minimize
impacts to these jurisdictional waters. As design changes become known, revisions in
the identification/tabulation of jurisdictional waters impacts and corresponding
compensatory mitigation requirements would be declared.

All development projects in North Carolina that disturb an acre or greater of land require
an approved Erosion & Sediment Control (E&SC) Plan. E&SC Plans must be produced
in accordance with the North Carolina Erosion and Sediment Control Planning and
Design Manual, dated May 2013. Person County is not in NPDES Phase II nor is the
watershed in a regulated community, and it does not have post-construction soil and
erosion or stormwater control obligations. Person County relies upon the NCDEQ
Raleigh Regional Office to oversee and enforce their federal soil and erosion control
requirements for new construction. The proposed activities for the project would be
completed in accordance with the NCDEQ Raleigh Regional Office water quality rules
and regulations.

Duke Energy Mayo Ash Basin Landfill Project
Environmental Report Joint Section 404/401 IP Application
Wood Project No. 7812200451

October 2020 5-1
5 WATERS OF THE UNITED STATES AND RIPARIAN BUFFERS

Waters of the US, including streams and wetlands, are defined by 33 CFR Part 328.3 et
al. and are protected by Section 404 and applicable sections of the CWA (33 USC
1344). Impacts to these regulated resources are administered and enforced by the
Wilmington District of the USACE, as well as other federal and state government
agencies. The waters of the US that occur within the project site and proposed impacts
to those waters are discussed in this section. It is noted that development of the LRB
area has been completed, which included impacts to jurisdictional wetlands and
streams. Information is presented in this section of the ER on the jurisdictional waters
that were present within the LRB before the initiation of construction activities. within the
LRB and the environmental impacts which have occurred or were considered to be
insubstantial.

5.1 DESCRIPTION OF AFFECTED ENVIRONMENT

Wetlands

On June 3 to 5 and June 8 to 10, 2015, onsite evaluations for the presence of
potentially jurisdictional surface waters within the Mayo Plant were conducted.
Delineation efforts were previously completed in December 2014. Potentially
jurisdictional wetland areas were delineated (flagged) using the Routine On-Site
Determination Method as defined in the USACE Wetland Delineation Manual and the
Eastern Mountains and Piedmont Regional Supplement. This technique uses a multi-
parameter approach which requires positive evidence of three criteria: hydrophytic
vegetation, hydric soils, and wetland hydrology. Areas exhibiting wetland characteristics
within the station boundary were considered potentially jurisdictional waters. The
landward limits of wetlands were subsequently marked in the field with labeled survey
tape tied to vegetation or stakes. The location of each flag point was acquired by a
Global Positioning System (GPS) device.

A request for Verification of JD was submitted to the USACE Raleigh Regulatory Field
Office for the delineated wetland areas within the Mayo Plant. This request for
Verification of the JD includes the work areas within the project site. Mr. Eric Alsmeyer,
Mr. David Bailey, and Ms. Tasha Alexander of the USACE conducted a site inspection
of the Mayo Plant on March 14, 2016, and June 22, 2016. Mr. David Bailey and Mr.
Ross Sullivan of the USACE conducted a site inspection on August 30, 2017. The
landward limits of the jurisdictional wetlands (flag points) within the station property
were surveyed by McKim & Creed, a registered Professional Land Surveyor. The
USACE has not issued an Approved JD at this time.

Based on the field approved jurisdictional feature delineation, four jurisdictional wetland
areas occur within or adjacent to the proposed ABLF, and six jurisdictional wetland
areas occur within or adjacent to the proposed four borrow areas or the haul road
(Figure 5-1). Three wetland areas occur within the Ash Basin dam decommissioning
Duke Energy Mayo Ash Basin Landfill Project
Environmental Report Joint Section 404/401 IP Application
Wood Project No. 7812200451

October 2020 5-2
footprint. Three jurisdictional wetland areas occurred within the LRB area. It is noted
that development of the LRB area has been completed, which included impacts to the
three jurisdictional wetlands. All but two of the wetlands within the project (i.e., all
project components) are classified as Headwater Forest wetlands (Schafale and
Weakley 1990). One wetland is classified as Hardwood Flat, while the other is classified
as Bottomland Hardwood Forest. The classifications of these wetlands are based on the
NC WAM per the methodology outlined in the NC WAM User Manual (Version 5),
effective February 2016. Information on the location, size, and NC WAM classification of
the aforementioned 16 wetlands within or adjacent to the project site is presented in
Table 5-1. The USACE Eastern Mountain and Piedmont Wetland Determination Data
Forms for these wetland areas are included in the Verification of JD request package
previously submitted to the USACE. The completed NC WAM Forms are in Appendix
A. As part of the evaluation of the wetland areas within and adjacent to the project site,
an in-house review of the US Department of Agriculture’s Natural Resources
Conservation Service (NRCS) Person County Soil Survey geographic information
system (GIS) data (NRCS 2020) and the US Geological Survey (USGS) digital 7.5′
topography, Cluster Springs, North Carolina Quadrangle (USGS 2020) was completed.
Soil map units occurring within the project site are identified in Section 7.4.1 of the ER.

Table 5-1. Wetlands within and Adjacent to the Project Site
Wetland ID NC WAM Classification Size
(acres)
ABLF Area
Wetland B Headwater Forest 0.1
Wetland C Headwater Forest 0.04
Wetland UU Headwater Forest 0.02
Wetland ZZ Headwater Forest 0.3
Borrow Area 1
Wetland JJ Headwater Forest 0.1
Wetland KK Headwater Forest 0.2
Borrow Area 3 / Haul Road
Wetland JJJ Headwater Forest 0.1
Wetland LLL Headwater Forest 0.1
Borrow Area 4
Wetland NNN Headwater Forest 0.1
Duke Energy Mayo Ash Basin Landfill Project
Environmental Report Joint Section 404/401 IP Application
Wood Project No. 7812200451

October 2020 5-3
Wetland ID NC WAM Classification Size
(acres)
Wetland OOO Hardwood Flat 0.1
Plant Facility
Wetland VVVa Headwater Forest 0.4
Wetland VVVb Headwater Forest 0.1
Ash Basin Dam Decommission Footprint
Wetland F Bottomland Hardwood Forest 0.03
Wetland G Headwater Forest 0.10
Wetland H Headwater Forest 0.10
Lined Retention Basin
Wetland D Headwater Forest 0.11
Wetland E Headwater Forest 0.76
Wetland MMM Headwater Forest 0.28

Streams

Potential jurisdictional streams on the Mayo Plant were evaluated on June 3, 4, 5, 8, 9
and 10, 2015, using the NCDEQ-NCDWR Methodology for Identification of Intermittent
and Perennial Streams and Their Origins (Version 4.11), effective September 1, 2010.
The extents of these streams were delineated and included in the request for
Verification of JD to the USACE Raleigh Regulatory Field Office. The landward limits of
the jurisdictional streams (flag points) within the station property were surveyed by
McKim & Creed. The USACE has not issued an Approved JD at the time of this report.

Based on the field approved jurisdictional feature delineation, six jurisdictional streams
occur within or adjacent to the proposed four borrow areas or haul road (Figure 5-1).
No jurisdictional streams occur within or directly adjacent to the proposed ABLF. Three
jurisdictional streams occur within the Ash Basin dam decommissioning footprint. Two
jurisdictional streams occurred within the LRB area. It is noted that development of the
LRB area has been completed, which included impacts to the two jurisdictional streams.
Information on the location, length, and NCDWR Stream Identification scores and
classifications is presented in Table 5-2 for these 11 streams. The NCDWR Stream
Duke Energy Mayo Ash Basin Landfill Project
Environmental Report Joint Section 404/401 IP Application
Wood Project No. 7812200451

October 2020 5-4
Identification Forms for these streams are included in the Verification of JD request
package previously submitted to the USACE.

Table 5-2. Streams within and Adjacent to the Project Site
Stream ID NCDWR
Stream Score1
NCDWR Stream
Classification1
Entire Reach Length
(linear feet)
Borrow Area 1
Stream 100 33 Perennial 473
Stream 101 25 Intermittent 362
Borrow Area 2
Stream 24 31.5 Perennial 1924
Borrow Area 3 / Haul Road
Stream 9 29 Intermittent 218
Stream 10 28.5 Intermittent 91
Borrow Area 4
Stream 111 22 Intermittent 2502
Ash Basin Dam Decommission Footprint
Stream 1 31 Perennial 322
Stream 2 33.5 Perennial 878
Stream 3 26.5 Intermittent 485
Lined Retention Basin
Stream 5 19 Intermittent 148
Stream 6 25 Intermittent 229

Streams 1 and 2 drain into Stream 3 (Crutchfield Branch), which in turn flows north
under Mayo Lake Road and enters the northern reach of Crutchfield Branch. Streams 9
and 10 drain into the Ash Basin. Streams 5 and 6 drained into the Ash Basin before the
development of the LRB area. Stream 10 flows to the east from a seep before
converging with Stream 9. Stream 24 is an unnamed tributary of Crutchfield Branch.
Stream 63 flows east from wetland seeps into Mayo Reservoir. Mayo Reservoir outfalls
Duke Energy Mayo Ash Basin Landfill Project
Environmental Report Joint Section 404/401 IP Application
Wood Project No. 7812200451

October 2020 5-5
to Mayo Creek. Stream 100 is an unnamed tributary to Crutchfield Branch which flows
north under Mayo Lake Road and converges with Crutchfield Branch. Stream 101
(upstream reach) flows into Stream 100 (downstream reach). Stream 111 is an
unnamed tributary to Bowes Branch, that flows west under US Route 501 and offsite to
Bowes Branch. The Mayo Plant is located within the Roanoke River Basin (Hydrologic
Unit Code [HUC] 03010104).

Open Waters

No natural waterbodies, including ponds or lakes, or manmade farm ponds occur within
the project site. Finger lobes of the Ash Basin extend into the eastern portion of the
ABLF of the project site. The Ash Basin is a non-jurisdictional water, as such, this
manmade feature was not included in the Verification of JD as reviewed by the USACE
Raleigh Regulatory Field Office. One pond was depicted on the USGS topographic map
within Borrow Area 4 (Figure 7-1). This feature was not observed in the field, and there
has not been a pond at that location since prior to 1983 based on historic aerial
imagery. One pond was depicted on the USGS topographic map within the LRB area.
This feature was delineated as a wetland (Wetland D) and not as a pond during the
delineation effort. No ponds or lakes are depicted within the project area on the NRCS
Person County Soil Survey (hardcopy version).

Riparian Buffers

The Mayo Plant is in the Roanoke River Basin. Review of the State of North Carolina
Buffer Regulations indicate that the project site is not located within a buffer river basin
(i.e., Neuse River Basin Watershed or Tar Pamlico River Basin Buffer) and is not
subject to state riparian buffer regulations.

As the Mayo Plant is not located within the Neuse River Watershed, the project
construction (including impacts to jurisdictional streams) would not be subject to local
buffer restrictions under the Person County Planning Ordinance.

5.2 POTENTIAL ENVIRONMENTAL IMPACTS

Wetlands

It is noted that development of the LRB area has been completed, which included
impacts to jurisdictional wetlands. The filling impacts to Wetlands D, E, and MMM during
the construction of the LRB area were, respectively, 0.11 acre, 0.76 acre, and 0.28
acre, or a total of 1.15 acres. To complete the construction of the proposed ABLF, four
borrow areas, and haul road, as well as the Ash Basin dam decommissioning activities,
permanent impacts to wetlands would be necessary. Table 5-3 and Figure 5-2 present
the proposed impacts to the jurisdictional wetland areas on the project site. Impacts
would include the ABLF (Wetlands B, C, UU, and ZZ), Borrow Area 4 (Wetland OOO),
Duke Energy Mayo Ash Basin Landfill Project
Environmental Report Joint Section 404/401 IP Application
Wood Project No. 7812200451

October 2020 5-6
the haul road (Wetlands JJJ and LLL), and the Ash Basin dam decommissioning
footprint (Wetlands F and H). The proposed total wetland impact is 0.89 acre. The Plan
Views and Cross-Section drawings depicting the proposed impacts to wetlands within
the project site are included in Appendix B. Mitigation for the proposed impacts to
these wetland areas would be required, as discussed in Section 6 – Wetland
Compensatory Mitigation Plan.

Table 5-3. Proposed Impacts and Completed Impacts to Wetlands within the
Project Site
Wetland ID Total Area (acres) Impact Area (acres)
ABLF Area (Proposed Impacts)
Wetland B 0.1 0.1
Wetland C 0.04 0.04
Wetland UU 0.02 0.02
Wetland ZZ 0.3 0.3
Borrow Area 1 (Proposed Impacts)
Wetland JJ 0.1 No Impact
Wetland KK 0.2 No Impact
Borrow Area 3 / Haul Road (Proposed Impacts)
Wetland JJJ 0.1 0.1
Wetland LLL 0.1 0.1
Borrow Area 4 (Proposed Impacts)
Wetland NNN 0.1 No Impact
Wetland OOO 0.1 0.1
Plant Facility (Proposed Impacts)
Wetland VVVa 0.4 No Impact
Wetland VVVb 0.1 No Impact
Ash Basin Dam Decommission Footprint (Proposed Impacts)
Wetland F 0.03 0.03
Duke Energy Mayo Ash Basin Landfill Project
Environmental Report Joint Section 404/401 IP Application
Wood Project No. 7812200451

October 2020 5-7
Wetland ID Total Area (acres) Impact Area (acres)
Wetland G 0.1 No Impact
Wetland H 0.1 0.1
Lined Retention Basin (Completed Impacts)
Wetland D 0.11 0.11
Wetland E 0.76 0.76
Wetland MMM 0.28 0.28

Total (all project components) 3.04 2.04

Streams

It is noted that development of the LRB area has been completed, which included
impacts to jurisdictional streams. The filling impacts to Streams 5 and 6 during the
construction of the LRB area were, respectively, 148 feet and 229 feet, or a total of 377
feet. To complete the construction of the proposed haul road and the activities
associated with the Ash Basin dam decommission, permanent impacts to streams
would be necessary. Table 5-4 and Figure 5-2 present the proposed impacts to the
jurisdictional streams on the project site. Impacts would include the haul road (Streams
9 and 10) and the Ash Basin dam decommissioning footprint (Stream 1 and the
southern half of Stream 3). The proposed total stream impact is 896 linear feet. The
Plan Views and Cross-Section drawings depicting the proposed impacts to streams
within the project site are included in Appendix B. Mitigation for the proposed impacts
to these stream features would be required, as discussed in Section 6 – Wetland
Compensatory Mitigation Plan. No impact to the northern portion of Stream 3
(Crutchfield Branch) is proposed under the proposed action. As part of the Ash Basin
dam decommission activities, channel stabilization would be completed for the southern
portion of Stream 3.

Table 5-4. Proposed Impacts and Completed Impacts to Streams within the
Project Site
Stream ID Total Length (linear feet) Impact Length (linear feet)
Borrow Area 3 / Haul Road (Proposed Impacts)
Stream 9 218 218
Duke Energy Mayo Ash Basin Landfill Project
Environmental Report Joint Section 404/401 IP Application
Wood Project No. 7812200451

October 2020 5-8
Stream ID Total Length (linear feet) Impact Length (linear feet)
Stream 10 91 91
Ash Basin Dam Decommission Footprint (Proposed Impacts)
Stream 1 322 322
Stream 2 878 Not Impacted
Stream 3 485 265
Lined Retention Basin (Completed Impacts)
Stream 5 148 148
Stream 6 229 229

Total (all project components) 2,371 1,273

Open Waters

Since jurisdictional ponds or lakes are not located within the Mayo Plant, there would
not be open water impacts within the project site. The Ash Basin is a non-jurisdictional
water; therefore, the closure of this manmade feature would not require mitigation.

Riparian Buffers

Since the Mayo Plant in not located within a river basin subject to state riparian buffer
regulations, there would be no impacts to state regulated riparian buffers within the
project area. Furthermore, the project construction (including impacts to jurisdictional
streams) would not be subject to local buffer restrictions under the Person County
Planning Ordinance.

Duke Energy Mayo Ash Basin Landfill Project
Environmental Report Joint Section 404/401 IP Application
Wood Project No. 7812200451

October 2020 6-1
6 WETLAND COMPENSATORY MITIGATION PLAN

6.1 MITIGATION REQUIREMENTS

On April 10, 2008, the Department of Defense, in conjunction with the EPA, issued
Compensatory Mitigation for Losses of Aquatic Resources; Final Rule (33 CFR Parts
325 and 332; 40 CFR Part 230). This mitigation rule is designed to improve planning
and management of compensatory mitigation projects for impacts which are authorized
under Department of the Army permits. The rule stresses a watershed approach to
mitigation project locations and requires ecological performance standards and annual
monitoring of an implemented mitigation plan.

6.2 MITIGATION PLAN

Compensatory mitigation for the proposed impacts is required under the Section 404 IP.
Appropriate avoidance and practicable minimization efforts have been conducted
through project design concepts. However, unavoidable impacts to onsite waters of the
US are necessary to complete the proposed action. The details of the proposed
compensatory mitigation plan for these unavoidable impacts are presented below for
the proposed action. It is noted that development of the LRB area has been completed,
which included impacts to jurisdictional wetlands and streams. However, compensatory
mitigation for those impacts will still need to be provided, as discussed below.

The compensatory mitigation options evaluated for the proposed action included: (1)
credit purchase from an approved private mitigation bank, (2) credit purchase through
the North Carolina Division of Mitigation Services (NCDMS) In-Lieu Fee Program, and
(3) permittee-responsible mitigation, onsite mitigation or offsite mitigation. Mitigation
requirements for the 2012 Mayo Monofill IP (USACE Permit No: SAW-2011-00181)
were satisfied by the purchase of mitigation credits from the former NC Ecosystem
Enhancement Program (currently NCDMS). Based on the review of the mitigation
options available for the Mayo ABLF Project (i.e., all project components, including the
LRB), it has been determined that credit purchase through the NCDMS In-Lieu Fee
Program is necessary because there are no mitigation banks offering wetlands and
stream credits in the Roanoke River basin. Onsite mitigation and offsite mitigation
opportunities were not explored because the In-Lieu Fee option is available.

Wetland and stream mitigation credits are currently available through the NCDMS In-
Lieu Fee Program. The Mayo Plant occurs within HUC 03010104. This HUC is subject
to premium rates within the Roanoke River basin; i.e., a Premium Rate Area pursuant to
15A NC Administrative Code (NCAC) 02R .0402(e). The NCDMS rates are effective
through June 30, 2021. Table 6-1 presents the NCDMS mitigation costs for impacts to
jurisdictional riparian and non-riparian wetlands and jurisdictional streams within the
project site. Fees for wetlands and streams are calculated on a per credit basis.
Mitigation ratios were applied as follows (final mitigation ratios would need to be
confirmed by the USACE):
Duke Energy Mayo Ash Basin Landfill Project
Environmental Report Joint Section 404/401 IP Application
Wood Project No. 7812200451

October 2020 6-2
 A mitigation ratio of 1:1 was applied for wetlands with a NC WAM overall rating of
medium and which drain directly into the Ash Basin.
 A mitigation ratio of 2:1 was applied to riparian wetlands with a NC WAM overall
rating of medium and which drain directly into the Ash Basin.
 A mitigation ratio of 2:1 was applied for wetlands with a NC WAM overall rating of
medium or high and which do not drain directly or indirectly into the Ash Basin.
 A mitigation ratio of 1:1 was applied for streams with a NC SAM overall rating of
medium and which drain from the Ash Basin dam.
 A mitigation ratio of 2:1 was applied for streams with a NC SAM overall rating of
medium or high.

As the Mayo Plant is not within a watershed where Riparian Buffer Rules are
administered by the State of North Carolina, mitigation is not included in Table 6-1 for
impacts to riparian buffers. The cost estimates presented below are preliminary
estimates based on mitigation ratios that have not been verified by the USACE.

The level of function of the wetlands in Table 6-1 (relative to reference condition) was
assessed on April 21 and 22, 2020 and July 17, 2018 by Wood using NC WAM. Within
or adjacent to the Landfill, Wetland B (0.1 acre impact), Wetland C (0.04 acre impact),
Wetland UU (0.02 acre impact), and Wetland ZZ (0.3 acre impact) each had a NC WAM
Overall Wetland Rating of medium. Within Borrow Area 4, Wetland OOO (0.01 acre
impact), a non-riparian wetland, had an Overall Wetland Rating of medium. Wetland JJJ
(0.1 acre impact) and Wetland LLL (0.1 acre impact), riparian wetlands within the
grading area and proposed haul road, each had a NC WAM Overall Wetland Rating of
medium. Within the Ash Basin dam decommissioning footprint, Wetland F (0.03 acre
impact) had a NC WAM Overall Wetland Rating of medium, while Wetland H (0.1 acre
impact) had a NC WAM Overall Wetland Rating of high. Within the completed LRB
area, Wetland D (0.11 acre impact) and Wetland MMM (0.28 acre impact) each had a
NC WAM Overall Wetland Rating of medium, while Wetland E (0.76 acre impact) had a
NC WAM Overall Wetland rating of low. The completed NC WAM Forms for these
wetlands are in Appendix A.

The level of function of the streams in Table 6-1 (relative to reference condition) was
assessed on July 17, 2018 and May 9, 2016 by Wood using the North Carolina Stream
Assessment Method (NC SAM) per the methodology outlined in the NC SAM Draft User
Manual, effective March 2013. The drainages proposed for impact include Stream 9
(218 linear feet impact) and Stream 10 (91 linear feet impact) within the grading area
and proposed haul road and Stream 1 (322 linear feet impact) and the southern half of
Stream 3 (265 linear feet impact) within the Ash Basin dam decommissioning footprint.
Streams 1, 3, 9, and 10 each had a NC SAM Overall Wetland Rating of medium. Within
the completed LRB area, Stream 5 (148 linear feet impact) and Stream 6 (229 linear
feet impact) each had a NC SAM Overall Wetland Rating of medium. The completed
NC SAM Forms are in Appendix A.

Duke Energy Mayo Ash Basin Landfill Project
Environmental Report Joint Section 404/401 IP Application
Wood Project No. 7812200451

October 2020 6-3
Following the completion of construction activities within the Ash Basin dam
decommissioning area (i.e., establishment of drainage channels, riprap outlet apron,
rock check dam, etc.), the southern portion of Stream 3 would be stabilized. Specifically,
the work would include channel stabilization and the recontouring of meanders. It is
noted that Stream 3 is historically identified on the USGS topography as Crutchfield
Branch. Mitigation credits for wetland and stream impacts within the decommissioning
area would be purchased later; i.e., following the purchase of credits for wetland and
stream impacts for ABLF, haul road, borrow area construction, and the LRB area (after-
the-fact impacts).

Table 6-1. Potential Mitigation Costs for Impacts to Waters of the US within the
Project Site
1 Total cost not approved by the USACE or NCDWR as of this draft. Premium mitigation rates were formerly referred to as Higher
Fee HUCs by NCDMS. Mitigation credits for wetland and stream impacts within the Ash Basin dam decommissioning area would be
purchased later; i.e., following the purchase of credits for wetland and stream impacts for ABLF, haul road, and borrow area
construction.

Fee Category Features Impact Total
NCDMS
In-Lieu
Fee Unit
Cost
Total Cost¹
Wetland draining
to Ash Basin
Wetlands B, C, UU, and
ZZ – Landfill Area and
Wetlands E and MMM –
Lined Retention Basin
(NC WAM Medium Rating)
1.50 acre
(1:1 mitigation
ratio)
$91,055.65 $136,583.47
Riparian Wetland
draining to Ash
Basin
Wetlands JJJ and LLL –
Haul Road and
Wetland D – Lined
Retention Basin
(NC WAM Medium Rating)
0.31 acre
(0.62 acre at 2:1
ratio)
$91,055.65 $56,454.50
Wetland not
draining to Ash
Basin
Wetland OOO – Borrow
Area 4
(NC WAM Medium Rating)
0.1 acre
(0.2 at 2:1 ratio) $91,055.65 $18,211.13
Riparian Wetland
not draining to Ash
Basin (drainage to
Crutchfield Branch
via unnamed
tributary)
Wetlands F and H – Ash
Basin Dam Decommission
Area
(NC WAM Medium or High
Ratings)
0.13 acre
(0.26 at 2:1 ratio) $91,055.65 $23,674.47
Stream (unnamed
tributary) draining
to Ash Basin
Streams 9 and 10 – Haul
Road and
Streams 5 and 6 – Lined
Retention Basin
(NC SAM Medium Rating)
686 linear feet
(1,372 at 2:1
ratio)
$558.81 $766,687.32
Stream (unnamed
tributary) draining
to Crutchfield
Branch
Streams 1 and 3 – Ash
Basin Dam Decommission
Area
(NC WAM Medium Rating)
587 linear feet
(1:1 ratio) $558.81 $328,021.47
Total $1,329,632.36
Duke Energy Mayo Ash Basin Landfill Project
Environmental Report Joint Section 404/401 IP Application
Wood Project No. 7812200451

October 2020 7-1
7 AFFECTED ENVIRONMENT AND IMPACTS

An interdisciplinary team of environmental scientists, biologists, planners, economists,
engineers, archaeologists, historians, and others with knowledge or experience related
to the proposed project, have analyzed the proposed action considering existing
conditions and identified relevant beneficial and adverse effects associated with the
proposed action. A detailed evaluation of the proposed project on the human and
natural environment is presented below. It is noted that development of the LRB area
has been completed; however, information is presented in this section of the ER on the
affected environment within the LRB and the environmental impacts which have
occurred or were considered to be insubstantial.

7.1 LAND USE

Description of Affected Environment

Land use is defined as the way people use and develop land, including uses such as
agricultural, residential, and industrial. To estimate land use and land cover within the
proposed ABLF and four borrow areas of the project site, the 2016 National Land Cover
Database (NLCD2016) was utilized. The data shows generalized land cover
classifications as derived from satellite mapping. A summary of the land cover types for
the ABLF of the project site contained in NLCD2016 are provided in Table 7-1 and
Table 7-2 below. A summary of the land cover types for the four borrow areas of the
project site contained in NLCD2016 are provided in Table 7-3 and Table 7-4 below.

Evergreen Forest constitutes the largest land cover in the ABLF, and Deciduous Forest
is the highest cover type within a one-mile radius. The remainder of the ABLF
comprises Open Water, Deciduous Forest, and Mixed Forest land cover types. Land
use/land cover in the vicinity of the ABLF include woodland, agricultural fields and
pastureland, and Ash Basin. US Route 501 is located to the west of the ABLF (locally
identified as Boston Road), while Mayo Lake Road (Secondary Road 1501) occurs to
the north of the ABLF. Evergreen Forest also constitutes the largest land cover in the
four borrow areas. The remainder of the borrow areas comprises Deciduous Forest,
Mixed Forest, Shrub/Scrub, Herbaceous, Developed - Open Space, and Developed -
Low Intensity land cover types. The dominant land cover types within the Ash Basin
dam decommissioning area and the vicinity of the haul road include Evergreen Forest,
Deciduous Forest, and Mixed Forest land. Finally, it is noted that development of the
LRB area has been completed. Areas of shrub and brushland and maintained (mowed)
land are present within the LRB area, post-construction.

Duke Energy Mayo Ash Basin Landfill Project
Environmental Report Joint Section 404/401 IP Application
Wood Project No. 7812200451

October 2020 7-2
Table 7 1. Specific Land Cover Types within the ABLF Area of the Project Site and
within a 1-Mile Radius
Land Cover Acres within
ABLF Limits
% of ABLF
Limits
Acres within 1
mile of
Proposed ABLF
% within 1
mile of
Proposed
ABLF
Barren Land 0 0.0 11 0.4
Deciduous Forest 0.6 1.4 840.5 30.9
Developed, High Intensity 0 0.0 52 1.9
Developed, Low Intensity 0 0.0 73.5 2.7
Developed, Medium Intensity 0 0.0 52.7 1.9
Developed, Open Space 0 0.0 110.7 4.1
Emergent Herbaceous Wetlands 0 0.0 3.1 0.1
Evergreen Forest 40.7 96.7 529 19.5
Hay/Pasture 0 0.0 235.7 8.7
Herbaceous 0 0.0 152.2 5.6
Mixed Forest 0.1 0.2 314.1 11.6
Open Water 0.7 1.7 152.8 5.6
Shrub/Scrub 0 0.0 183.8 6.8
Woody Wetlands 0 0.0 5.2 0.2

Table 7-2. Generalized Land Cover within the ABLF Area of the Project Site
Land Cover Acres within ABLF Limits % of ABLF Limits
Vegetated/Undeveloped 41.4 98.3
Wetland/ Open Water 0.7 1.7
Developed 0 0.0
Cropland/Pasture 0 0.0

Table 7-3. Specific Land Cover Types within the Four Borrow Areas of the Project
Site
Land Cover Acres within Borrow
Area Limits
% of Borrow Area
Limits
Borrow Area 1
Mixed Forest 0.6 8.66%
Evergreen Forest 6.3 86.55%
Developed, Open Space 0.4 4.9%
Developed, Low Intensity 0.0 0.0%
Borrow Area 2
Mixed Forest 1.6 9.7%
Evergreen Forest 7.9 49.1%
Herbaceous 0.2 1.22%
Duke Energy Mayo Ash Basin Landfill Project
Environmental Report Joint Section 404/401 IP Application
Wood Project No. 7812200451

October 2020 7-3
Deciduous Forest 0.7 4.2%
Shrub/Scrub 5.7 35.88%
Borrow Area 3
Mixed Forest 2.8 34.3%
Evergreen Forest 4.5 55.11%
Deciduous Forest 0.6 7.1%
Herbaceous 0.3 3.5%
Borrow Area 4
Mixed Forest 1.2 15.1%
Deciduous Forest 2.6 33.4%
Evergreen Forest 3.3 42.7%
Developed, Open Space 0.7 8.9%

Table 7-4. Generalized Land Cover within the Four Borrow Areas of the Project
Site
Land Cover Acres within Borrow Area
Limits % of Borrow Area Limits
Borrow Area 1
Forest 6.9 9494.5%
Developed 0.4 55.5%
Borrow Area 2
Forest 10.1 63.1%
Herbaceous 0.2 1.3%
Shrubland 5.7 35.66%
Borrow Area 3
Forest 7.9 96.33%
Herbaceous 0.3 3.77%
Borrow Area 4
Forest 7.1 91.00%
Developed 0.7 99.0%

Public Lands and Scenic, Recreational, and State Natural Areas

Stewardship and protected areas sources were reviewed, including the USGS
Protected Areas Database of the United States, the National Conservation Easement
Database, US Department of Agriculture (USDA) NRCS Conservation Stewardship
Program, the North Carolina Natural Heritage Program (NCNHP) and multiple non-
governmental organizations, to develop a database of protected and conserved lands in
or near the project site. This database is not an exhaustive list but gives an indication of
the protected areas within the project site.

Duke Energy Mayo Ash Basin Landfill Project
Environmental Report Joint Section 404/401 IP Application
Wood Project No. 7812200451

October 2020 7-4
Existing Public/conservation lands in vicinity of project

No conservation easements are located within the project site (i.e., all project
components). The nearest conservation easement is the Virginia Department of
Conservation and Recreation Easement, as located to the northeast of the proposed
ABLF and along the southern Virginia border (Halifax County). This easement is
administered by the Virginia Department of Conservation and Recreation.

Section 6(f) of LWCF

Section 6(f) properties are recreation resources funded under the Land and Water
Conservation Fund Act of 1965 (LWCF). The LWCF was established to assist in
preserving, developing, and assuring accessibility of outdoor recreation resources to all
citizens of the United States. Conversion of these lands for uses other than for outdoor
recreation must be approved by the US Department of the Interior. Direct impacts to
these resources are prohibited unless there are no feasible and prudent alternatives for
the use of the properties and the project incorporates all possible measures to avoid or
minimize harm to such properties (CRS 2020).

According to the LWCF, North Carolina has received approximately $85 million over the
past 50 years. Person County has received $139,590.00 for four projects. There are no
Section 6(f) properties within the project site. The closest 6(f) property is the Huck
Sansbury Recreation Complex, located at 425 Long Avenue in Person County,
approximately 11-miles northeast of the project site. The proposed project, as including
all project components, would not be visible from 6(f) properties.

Potential Environmental Impacts

It is expected that land use changes would occur because of project implementation.
Direct project impacts would primarily include the conversion of woodland for the
construction and operation of the proposed ABLF and its associated CCR transportation
infrastructure. Conversion of woodland for the removal of soil material from the four
borrow areas would also occur. Direct and indirect project impacts to adjacent land use
types are not anticipated.

As there are no 6(f) properties within the project site (i.e., all project components) and
no proposed disturbance to public lands occurring along the project, the proposed
action is not expected to impact any public lands or scenic, recreational, or state natural
areas.

The proposed ABLF location and character of use is aligned with the existing land use.
It is located on a parcel which is partially developed with a CCR surface impoundment
which would be excavated and adjacent to additional Duke Energy parcels where the
Mayo Plant power house, coal pile, wastewater treatment units and existing industrial
ABLF, and other features required for power generation from coal. The proposed use is
Duke Energy Mayo Ash Basin Landfill Project
Environmental Report Joint Section 404/401 IP Application
Wood Project No. 7812200451

October 2020 7-5
permitted as a special use on the property and, therefore is in harmony with the area
and in general conformity with the comprehensive plan.

7.2 AESTHETICS & VISUAL RESOURCES

Description of Affected Environment

The physical, biological, and cultural features of an area combine to make the visual
landscape character both identifiable and unique. Scenic integrity indicates the degree
of unity or wholeness of the visual character. Scenic attractiveness is the evaluation of
outstanding or unique natural features, scenic variety, seasonal change, and strategic
location. Where and how the landscape is viewed affect the more subjective
perceptions of its aesthetic quality and sense of place.

Views of a landscape are described in terms of what is seen in foreground, middle
ground, and background distances. In the foreground, an area within 0.5 mile of the
observer, details of objects are easily distinguished in the landscape. In the middle
ground, normally between one and four miles from the observer, objects may be
distinguishable, but their details are weak, and they tend to merge into larger patterns.
Details and colors of objects in the background, the distant part of the landscape, are
not normally discernible unless they are especially large and standing alone. The
impressions of an area’s visual character can have a substantial influence on how it is
appreciated, protected, and used. The general landscape character of the project site is
described in this section.

Currently the majority of the project site, as including most of the project components,
comprises mature woodland. it is noted that development of the LRB area has been
completed. Areas of shrub and brushland and maintained (mowed) land are present
within the LRB area, post-construction. Finger lobes of the Ash Basin extend into the
eastern portion of the ABLF of the project site. Mixed pine-hardwood forest borders the
northern, western, and southern sides of the ABLF. US Route 501 is located to the west
of the ABLF (locally identified as Boston Road), while Mayo Lake Road (Secondary
Road 1501) occurs to the north of the ABLF. Views of the ABLF would likely be up to
distances in the foreground (0 to 0.5 mile) from US Route 501 or Mayo Lake Road.
Nearby residential or commercial properties are nearly absent. With respect to the four
borrow areas, US Route 501 is located to the west of Borrow Areas 3 and 4, Mayo Lake
Road is located to the south of Borrow Area 2, and a railroad spur is located to the
south of Borrow Areas 1 and 4. The Ash Basin dam decommissioning area is bordered
to the north by Mayo Lake Road and to the south by the dam slope. US Route 501
occurs to the west of the proposed haul road. The afore-mentioned railroad spur occurs
to the southeast of the LRB area. Overall, scenic attractiveness of the landscape
adjacent to the project site is common, and scenic integrity is somewhat low because of
land disturbance associated with the Mayo Plant.

Duke Energy Mayo Ash Basin Landfill Project
Environmental Report Joint Section 404/401 IP Application
Wood Project No. 7812200451

October 2020 7-6
Potential Environmental Impacts

Development of the project site under the proposed action would result in effects to
existing scenic resources within the site. Removal of existing trees and site grading and
surfacing would affect the scenic integrity of the site; i.e., the rural or naturally appearing
landscape character of the site. Noise and/or waste light could also be generated,
depending on the size and kind required for site implementation.
There would be a visual change in the landscape as a result of the construction of the
new ABLF. Based on criteria developed by the US Forest Service (USFS) (USFS 1995)
to rate scenic quality, overall scenic values of the project site are low because of the
relatively moderate relief, lack of significant visual features, and the similarity to
surrounding areas. Overall, there would be little if any visual impacts during construction
and operation of the ABLF due to the establishment of a vegetative buffer between the
ABLF and US Route 501 and Mayo Lake Road.

Lighting at the proposed ABLF may be utilized for security, safety, and operations. Light
can cause pollution when it becomes a nuisance to adjacent properties. Light pollution
(light trespass) is best described as artificial light that can illuminate, or intrude upon,
areas not intended to be lit. However, the exterior lighting would be located well within
the property boundary. Furthermore, only the minimum required lighting for safe work
and operations would be designed and installed, such that the much of the Mayo Plant
property would exhibit zero detectable light levels.

The ABLF design would include the placement of grassed soil berms to improve slope
stability. This action would improve the scenic attractiveness of the ABLF post-
development. Furthermore, Duke Energy is proposing to maintain a 300-foot buffer from
the limits of waste to the adjacent right of ways from US Route 501 and Mayo Lake
Road. The majority of the viewshed along the public roads are wooded berms and
provide a natural buffer from the proposed ABLF.

The considerations for the ABLF are germane to the development of the four borrow
areas, the Ash Basin dam decommissioning area, and the vicinity of the haul road and
the potential effects to existing scenic resources within and surrounding these other
project areas. It is noted that development of the LRB area has been completed;
therefore, visual impacts that occurred during the construction of this area are no longer
present. Mature woodland surrounds the LRB area, which provides a vegetative buffer
between the LRB and US Route 501.

7.3 GEOLOGY AND TOPOGRAPHY

Description of Affected Environment

The project site (ABLF, four borrow areas, Ash Basin dam decommissioning area, haul
road, and LRB) is in the Piedmont Physiographic Province of North Carolina. The
Piedmont Province consists of generally rolling, well-rounded hills and ridges with a few
Duke Energy Mayo Ash Basin Landfill Project
Environmental Report Joint Section 404/401 IP Application
Wood Project No. 7812200451

October 2020 7-7
hundred feet of elevation difference between the hills and valleys. Elevations in the
Piedmont range from 300 to 600 feet above sea level near its border with the Coastal
Plain to 1,500 feet at the foot of the Blue Ridge (NCGS 2004). The project site is also
located in the Carolina Slate Belt. The Carolina Slate Belt (geologic belt) consists of
heated and deformed volcanic and sedimentary rocks (NCGS 1991). The Carolina Slate
Belt includes low to moderate gradient streams with mostly boulder and cobble
substrates. Specifically, the project site is underlain by felsic metavolcanics rock with
mafic and intermediate volcanic rock (late Proterozoic Era to early Paleozoic Era)
(NCGS 1985). The site is in the “Carolina Slate Belt” USEPA Level IV Ecoregion of the
“Piedmont” USEPA Level III Ecoregion. (USEPA 2020a).

Potential Environmental Impacts

Person County is located approximately 400-feet to 650-feet above mean sea level.
Topography within the ABLF of the project site ranges from approximately 480 feet to
590 feet above mean sea level (Figure 7-1). Topography within the four borrow areas of
the project site ranges as follows: 460 to 520 feet for Borrow Area 1; 420 to 460 feet for
Borrow Area 2; 490 to 530 feet for Borrow Area 3; and 500 to 540 feet for Borrow Area
4. Topography within the Ash Basin dam decommissioning area ranges from 400 to 460
feet. Topography in the vicinity of the proposed haul road ranges from 480 to 530 feet.
Prior to its completion, topography within the LRB area ranged from 510 to 570 feet.
Potential impacts to topography associated with the proposed action include ground-
disturbing activities occurring during site preparation and construction. Ground
disturbance would encompass surface soils and subsurface soils; consequently,
impacts from the proposed construction would be somewhat substantial. The project
has been designed so as not to pose a substantial erosion hazard. However, where
erosion hazards may exist, the use of BMPs, including erosion control structures, would
substantially reduce the potential for erosion and siltation of drainages. Ground-
disturbing activities associated with the proposed project would be localized and not
have substantial impacts on sensitive or regionally significant geologic or physiographic
features.

7.4 SOILS

Description of Affected Environment

The proposed ABLF within the project site includes the following soil series that are
mapped: Cecil, Udorthents, and Wedowee. The proposed four Borrow Areas within the
project site include the following soil series that are mapped: Cecil, Helena, Rion,
Siloam, Udorthents, Vance, and Wedowee. The LRB and proposed haul road are
underlain by Udorthents soil series. The Ash Basin dam decommissioning area includes
the following soil series that are mapped: Rion, Wedowee, and Chewacla and
Wehadkee. Figure 7-2 depicts the soil types (map units). Drainage class among these
soils ranges from a slow infiltration rate to moderately well-drained and well-drained. All
of the soils are composed of sand and/or loam. Table 7-5 presents the soil types and
Duke Energy Mayo Ash Basin Landfill Project
Environmental Report Joint Section 404/401 IP Application
Wood Project No. 7812200451

October 2020 7-8
their respective hydrologic soil groups. Hydrologic soil groups are based on the rate of
water infiltration when the soils are not protected by vegetation, are thoroughly wet, and
receive precipitation from long-duration storms. The predominant soil within the project
site is the Udorthents, loamy, gently sloping soil (UdB soil map unit). This map unit
consists of nearly level and gently sloping areas where the original soils have been cut
away or covered with a loamy fill material. Most areas have been graded to a smooth
surface. Areas are dominantly on uplands but are in almost every landscape position.
Slopes are smooth or irregular and range from 0 to 25 percent but are dominantly 0 to 5
percent.

Table 7 5. Soil Types within the Project Site
Map Unit
Symbol Soil Type1 Hydric Soil Group2
Borrow Area
CeB Cecil sandy loam, 2 to 6 percent slopes A
CeC Cecil sandy loam, 6 to 10 percent slopes A
UdB Udorthents, loamy, gently sloping C
WeF Wedowee sandy loam, 15 to 25 percent slopes B
W Water --
Borrow Area 1
RoF Rion sandy loam, 25 to 45 percent slopes B
UdB Udorthents, loamy, gently sloping C
Borrow Area 2
HeB Helena sandy loam, 2 to 6 percent slopes D
VaB Vance sandy loam, 2 to 6 percent slopes C
VaC Vance sandy loam, 6 to 10 percent slopes C
WeC Wedowee sandy loam, 6 to 10 percent slopes B
WeD Wedowee sandy loam, 10 to 15 percent slopes B
WeE Wedowee sandy loam, 15 to 25 percent slopes B
Borrow Area 3
UdB Udorthents, loamy, gently sloping C
Duke Energy Mayo Ash Basin Landfill Project
Environmental Report Joint Section 404/401 IP Application
Wood Project No. 7812200451

October 2020 7-9
Map Unit
Symbol Soil Type1 Hydric Soil Group2
Borrow Area 4
CeB Cecil sandy loam, 2 to 6 percent slopes A
CeC Cecil sandy loam, 6 to 10 percent slopes A
SmD Siloam loam, 8 to 15 percent slopes D
UdB Udorthents, loamy, gently sloping C
Ash Basin Dam Decommissioning Area
ChA Chewacla and Wehadkee soils, 0 to 2 percent soils, frequently
flooded D
RoF Rion sandy loam, 25 to 45 percent slopes B
WeC Wedowee sandy loam, 6 to 10 percent slopes B
WeE Wedowee sandy loam, 15 to 25 percent slopes B
Haul Road
UdB Udorthents, loamy, gently sloping C
Lined Retention Basin
UdB Udorthents, loamy, gently sloping C
1 Source: USDA NRCS Soil Data Mart.

Group A. Soils having a high infiltration rate (low runoff potential) when thoroughly wet.
These consist mainly of deep, well drained to excessively drained sands or gravelly
sands. These soils have a high rate of water transmission. Group B. Soils having a
moderate infiltration rate when thoroughly wet. These consist chiefly of moderately deep
or deep, moderately well-drained or well-drained soils that have moderately fine texture
to moderately coarse texture. These soils have a moderate rate of water transmission.
Group C. Soils having a slow infiltration rate when thoroughly wet. These consist chiefly
of soils having a layer that impedes the downward movement of water or soils of
moderately fine texture or fine texture. These soils have a slow rate of water
transmission. Group D. Soils having a slow infiltration rate (high runoff potential) when
thoroughly wet. These consist chiefly of clays that have a high shrink-swell potential,
soils that have a high-water table, soils that have a claypan or clay layer at or near the
surface, and soils that are shallow over nearly impervious material. These soils have a
slow rate of water transmission.

Duke Energy Mayo Ash Basin Landfill Project
Environmental Report Joint Section 404/401 IP Application
Wood Project No. 7812200451

October 2020 7-10
Potential Environmental Impacts

Implementation of standard site preparation techniques would enable development of
the proposed project. To minimize potential erosion, siltation, and soil compaction
during excavation, site preparation, and other construction activities, BMPs would be
incorporated as part of the proposed action, including standard erosion and siltation
prevention measures, i.e., watering for dust suppression, use of netting and silt fencing,
etc.
Given the implementation of the standard BMPs described above, the construction-
related impacts to soils would be localized to the proposed project footprints. Therefore,
implementation of the proposed action would result in site-specific impacts to soils. Soil
impacts would not extend to areas beyond the boundaries of the proposed ABLF, four
borrow areas, Ash Basin dam decommissioning area, and haul road. It is noted that
development of the LRB area has been completed, which entailed clearing and grading
and the disturbance of the underlying soils.

7.5 BIOTIC COMMUNITIES

Description of Affected Environment

Wildlife Communities

The project site provides suitable habitat for common wildlife species. During the field
investigations, a variety of wildlife species or their sign (i.e., nests, dens, scat, etc.) was
observed, including white-tailed deer (Odocoileus virginianus), raccoon (Procyon lotor),
gray squirrel (Sciurus carolinensis), eastern cottontail (Sylvilagus floridanus), red-
shouldered hawk (Buteo lineatus),turkey vulture (Cathartes aura), black vulture
(Coragyps atratus), downy woodpecker (Picoides pubescens), eastern phoebe
(Sayornis phoebe), American crow (Corvus brachyrhynchos), blue jay (Cyanocitta
cristata),yellow-rumped warbler (Dendroica coronata), and northern cardinal (Cardinalis
cardinalis).

Other mammal species that may be present in the vicinity of the project site include
bats, red fox (Vulpes vulpes), coyote (Canis latrans), bobcat (Lynx rufus), mice and rats.
Additional bird species that may occur in the vicinity of the project site are: wild turkey
(Meleagris gallopavo), red-tailed hawk (Buteo jamaicensis), sharp-shinned hawk
(Accipter striatus), Cooper’s hawk (A. cooperii), barred owl (Strix varia), mourning dove
(Zenaida macroura), red bellied woodpecker (Melanerpes carolinus), pileated
woodpecker (Dryocopus pileatus), eastern kingbird (Tyrannus tyrannus), Carolina
chickadee (Parus carolinensis), tufted titmouse (P. bicolor), Carolina wren (Thryothorus
ludovicianus), northern mockingbird (Mimus polyglottos), eastern bluebird (Sialia sialis),
American robin (Turdus migratorius), white eyed vireo (Vireo griseus), solitary vireo
(Vireo solitaries), and northern parula (Setophaga americana).

Duke Energy Mayo Ash Basin Landfill Project
Environmental Report Joint Section 404/401 IP Application
Wood Project No. 7812200451

October 2020 7-11
Plant Communities

The dominant terrestrial communities on the Mayo Plant are pine forest, upland
hardwood forest, and mixed pine-hardwood upland forest. Shrub and brushland and
open, maintained (grassed) areas occur on the property, which encompass
disturbed/altered land within the plant property. Information on the terrestrial
communities and species composition within the proposed ABLF, four borrow areas,
Ash Basin dam decommissioning area, and the vicinity of the haul road is discussed
below. Construction within the LRB area has already been completed.

The predominant terrestrial communities within the proposed project site are mixed
pine-hardwood upland forest and pine forest. The mixed pine-hardwood upland forest
abuts most of the streams and wetlands that occur within the project site. The canopy
stratum includes loblolly pine (Pinus taeda), white oak (Quercus alba), northern red oak
(Quercus rubra), southern red oak (Quercus falcata), sweetgum (Liquidambar
styraciflua), American beech (Fagus grandifolia), and mockernut hickory (Carya alba).
Scattered occurrences of Virginia pine (Pinus virginiana) are also present in the canopy
stratum. The shrub stratum consists of American holly (Ilex opaca), sourwood
(Oxydendrum arboreum), red maple (Acer rubrum var. rubrum), ironwood (Ostrya
virginiana), eastern red cedar (Juniperus virginiana var. virginiana), saplings of the
hardwood species, and scattered occurrences of Chinese privet (Ligustrum sinense), an
invasive, noxious shrub species. The groundstory vegetation, although sparse, includes
common greenbrier (Smilax rotundifolia), Japanese honeysuckle (Lonicera japonica),
elephant's-foot (Elephantopus sp.), panic grasses (Panicum spp.), blackberry (Rubus
sp.), wild onion (Allium canadense), Christmas fern (Polystichum acrostichoides ),
muscadine (Vitis rotundifolia), Virginia creeper (Parthenocissus quinquefolia), and
hardwood seedlings. The pine forest community comprises a canopy stratum dominated
by pines and an understory of plant species that are common to the mixed pine-
hardwood upland forest. Areas of shrub and brushland and open areas are interspersed
with the forested stands within the project site. The vegetation includes a mixture of
woody shrubs, grasses, forbs, and vines. Areas of shrub and brushland and maintained
(mowed) land are present within the LRB area, post-construction. Botanical taxonomic
nomenclature is in accordance with Weakley (Weakley 2015).

Wetland plant communities within and adjacent to the project site primarily include
Headwater Forest. Each wetland area was evaluated using NC WAM. The NC WAM is
a field method used to determine the level of function of a wetland relative to the
reference condition for each of 16 North Carolina general wetland types. NC WAM was
created by an interagency team of federal and state agency staff (North Carolina
Wetland Functional Assessment Team) for use in project planning, alternatives
analysis, compliance and enforcement, mitigation planning, and tracking functional
replacement. Within these wetland areas, the canopy stratum includes loblolly pine,
sweetgum, red maple, yellow poplar (Liriodendron tulipifera), water oak (Quercus nigra),
American sycamore (Platanus occidentalis), river birch (Betula nigra), green ash
(Fraxinus pennsylvanica), American elm (Ulmus americana), and/or black willow (Salix
Duke Energy Mayo Ash Basin Landfill Project
Environmental Report Joint Section 404/401 IP Application
Wood Project No. 7812200451

October 2020 7-12
nigra). The shrub stratum consists of ironwood (Ostrya virginiana) Chinese privet, silky
dogwood (Cornus amomum), and/or saplings of the afore-mentioned hardwood species.
The groundstory vegetation includes common greenbrier, Japanese honeysuckle, panic
grasses, blackberry, Christmas fern, muscadine, poison ivy (Toxicodendron radicans),
Japanese stiltgrass (Microstegium vimineum), sedges (Carex spp.), Virginia creeper,
and/or hardwood seedlings.

Potential Environmental Impacts

Implementation of the proposed action would result in direct impacts to forested upland
plant communities. Taking into consideration the large amount of similar plant
communities in the area regionally and locally, the loss of the existing vegetation would
be considered a relatively minor impact. The surrounding area consists of similar
vegetative habitats. Based on the NLCD2016 database, Deciduous Forest, Evergreen
Forest, and Mixed Forest collectively encompass approximately 60% of the land cover
within a one-mile radius of the project site. The loss or transformation of woodland
vegetation within the project site, when compared to the abundance of woodland
vegetation surrounding the project, would not be substantial. Indirect impacts are
possible if the existing vegetation is part of a larger system which relies on these plant
communities for regional propagation and genetic diversity. Due to the large amount of
similar habitat and plant communities surrounding the project site, this impact is minor.

Implementation of the proposed action would result in direct impacts to forested wetland
plant communities, specifically Headwater Forest. However, the amount of impact is
small (i.e., less than an acre) and insubstantial with respect to the total amount of
Headwater Forest that exists both locally and within the Piedmont Physiographic
Province. The Headwater Forest type is not unique among all wetland community types.
Compensatory mitigation for the afore-mentioned, proposed wetland impacts would be
provided, as discussed in Section 6 - Wetland Compensatory Mitigation Plan. It is noted
that impacts to wetlands within the LRB area have already been completed. The
impacts and compensatory mitigation for these features are discussed in Sections 5 and
6 of the ER.

Substantial impacts to common wildlife species are not expected from the
implementation of the proposed action. None of the species identified in this ER are
threatened or endangered. Furthermore, suitable habitat for these species is present
within the undeveloped portions of the Mayo Plant.

7.6 AQUATIC COMMUNITIES

Description of Affected Environment

Habitat

Duke Energy Mayo Ash Basin Landfill Project
Environmental Report Joint Section 404/401 IP Application
Wood Project No. 7812200451

October 2020 7-13
The streams within and adjacent to the project site are warmwater streams dominated
by sand, which have slow-flowing lower gradients, with moderate to high discharges.
These streams include tributaries to the Hyco River (via Crutchfield Branch, Bowes
Branch, and Mayo Creek), within the Roanoke River Basin (HUC 03010104). The
streams are warm-water and are not classified as trout streams by the NCDEQ
(NCDEQ 2020b) Habitats within the streams in the proposed project site were examined
on April 21 and 22, 2020. Specifically, the investigated surface waters included Streams
9, 10, 63, 100, 111, and Crutchfield Branch (Stream 3) (see Figure 5-1). Stream 100
occurs to the northeast of Borrow Area 1. Crutchfield Branch occurs to the east of
Borrow Area 2. Streams 9 and 10 occur to the northwest of Borrow Area 3. Stream 111
occurs to the west of Borrow Area 4. Stream 63 occurs in the vicinity of a previously
considered borrow area site near a northwestern lobe of Mayo Lake and south of
Borrow Area 1. Observed habitats included emergent vegetation, snags, and woody
debris, undercut banks and root mats. It is noted that impacts to Streams 5 and 6 within
the LRB area have already been completed. Both streams were classified as
intermittent, with a NC SAM overall rating of medium.

Fish

A fisheries community reconnaissance was conducted on Streams 9, 10, 63, 100, and
111, and Crutchfield Branch (Stream 3) (Figure 5-1) by Wood personnel, including a
Certified Fisheries Professional (FP-C) and Certified Senior Ecologist (CSE), on April 21
and 22, 2020. Reconnaissance methods were consistent with the USEPA Rapid
Bioassessment Protocols for Use in Streams and Wadeable Rivers: Periphyton, Benthic
Macroinvertebrates and Fish, Second Edition (Barbour et al. 1999), and used kick nets,
seine nets, and visual observations. It is noted that impacts to Streams 5 and 6 within
the LRB area have already been completed. Both streams were classified as
intermittent, with a NC SAM overall rating of medium.

Crutchfield Branch
Crutchfield Branch (Stream 3) is a small (observed wetted width of 2 to 10 feet)
perennial stream that flows north-northeast into Mayo Creek offsite. Dusky shiners
(Notropis cummingsae) were collected during the reconnaissance. A number of small
fish (approximately one to three inches in length) were also observed. Water flow in the
stream was weak to moderate, but pools were observed to a depth of two feet, which
appeared to be sufficient to support a limited fish community. In addition to dusky
shiners, the community is also expected to comprise other smaller fish species such as
minnows and shiners (cyprinids), darters (percids) and juveniles of larger species (e.g.,
juvenile sunfish [centrarchids]), with the latter potentially recruiting from Mayo Plant
ponds upstream. Due to the small size of the stream, it is improbable that the stream
supports a robust fish community, with limited habitats and available niches expected to
restrict species diversity. As part of the Ash Basin dam decommission activities, the
southern (impacted) portion of Stream 3 would be recontoured. Therefore, a direct
environmental benefit of the Mayo Ash Basin closure plan would be the channel
stabilization of Crutchfield Branch to a continuous stream.
Duke Energy Mayo Ash Basin Landfill Project
Environmental Report Joint Section 404/401 IP Application
Wood Project No. 7812200451

October 2020 7-14

Stream 100
Stream 100 is a small (observed wetted width of 0.5 to 3 feet) unnamed tributary to
Crutchfield Branch which flows north under Mayo Lake Road and converges with
Crutchfield Branch. No fish were observed or collected during the reconnaissance of the
stream. Water flow in the stream was weak (expected to be intermittent during portions
of the year). Water depths were 0.5 to 2 inches in riffles and runs, while pools that
would be required to support fish were small and shallow (less than 6 inches deep).
Based on the observed flow regime and stream characteristics, it is not anticipated that
Stream 100 supports a fish community.

Stream 9
Stream 9 is a small (observed wetted width of 0.5 to 1 foot) unnamed tributary to
Crutchfield Branch. The stream is short, flowing approximately 300 feet from the toe
slope of US Route 501 east into a Mayo Plant pond. No fish were observed or collected
during the reconnaissance of the stream. Water flow in the stream was weak (expected
to be intermittent during portions of the year). Water depths were 0.5 to 2 inches in
riffles and runs, while pools that would be required to support fish were small and
shallow (less than 6 inches deep). Based on the observed flow regime and stream
characteristics, it is not anticipated that Stream 9 supports a fish community.

Stream 10
Stream 10 is a small (observed wetted width of 0.5 to 2 feet) unnamed tributary to
Crutchfield Branch. The stream is short, flowing east from a seep for less than 100 feet
before converging with Stream 9. No fish were observed or collected during the
reconnaissance of the stream. Water flow in the stream from the seep was weak
(expected to be intermittent during portions of the year). Water depths were less than an
inch in riffles and runs, while pools that would be required to support fish were small and
shallow (less than 4 inches deep). Based on the observed flow regime and stream
characteristics, it is not anticipated that Stream 10 supports a fish community.

Stream 63
Stream 63 is a small (observed wetted width of 1 to 6 feet) unnamed tributary to Mayo
Creek. The stream flows east from wetland seeps into Mayo Reservoir. No fish were
observed or collected during the reconnaissance of the stream. Heavy growth of iron-
oxidizing bacteria was noted in the stream, indicative of low dissolved oxygen levels
within the stream. Water depths were 0.5 to 2 inches in riffles and runs, while pools that
would be required to support fish were small and shallow (less than 18 inches deep)
and contained abundant bacteria. Based on the observed flow regime and stream
characteristics, along with abundance of iron-oxidizing bacteria, it is not anticipated that
Stream 63 supports a fish community.

Stream 111
Stream 111 is a small (observed wetted width of 0.5 to 1 foot) unnamed tributary to
Bowes Branch. No fish were observed or collected during the reconnaissance of the
Duke Energy Mayo Ash Basin Landfill Project
Environmental Report Joint Section 404/401 IP Application
Wood Project No. 7812200451

October 2020 7-15
stream. Water flow in the stream was very weak (expected to be intermittent during
portions of the year) with depths less than 2 inches. No pools were observed. Based on
the observed flow regime and stream characteristics, it is not anticipated that Stream
111 supports a fish community.

Summary
Because of their observed flow and stream characteristics, it is unlikely that either
Stream 9, 10, 63, 100 or 111 supports a functioning fish community. However, certain
species that can survive relatively inhospitable environments and are resilient to low
water and low oxygen concentrations, such as mosquitofish (Gambusia spp.) and
mollies (Poecilia spp.), could be present during years of higher than average flow.
However, these species were not observed within the streams. It is expected that
Crutchfield Branch is the only stream under this assessment that supports a fish
community. The remaining streams appear to have inadequate flow and associated
aquatic habitats to support a fish community.

Benthic Macroinvertebrates

Benthic macroinvertebrates are useful in evaluating stream quality because their habitat
preference and low motility cause them to be affected directly by substances that enter
the aquatic system. By evaluating the diversity and community structure of benthic-
macroinvertebrate populations, a determination of stream quality can be made. A
benthic macroinvertebrate assessment (presence/absence; collection and identification)
was conducted on Streams 9, 10, 63, 100, and 111, and Crutchfield Branch (Stream 3)
by Wood personnel on April 21 and 22, 2020. The assessment followed the protocols
developed by the NCDWR (NCDWR 2016). Samples were taken of organisms that
could not be field identified to be identified later. The primary purpose of the stream
surveys was to document the presence or absence of mayflies (order Ephemeroptera),
stoneflies (order Plecoptera), or caddisflies (order Trichoptera) (EPT taxa) which are
generally considered to be intolerant benthic macroinvertebrates. All taxa identified
and/or collected from these stream locations are presented in Table 7-6 below.

Table 7 6. Benthic Macroinvertebrate Assessment of Streams within and Adjacent
to the Project Site
Taxa Biotic Index (BI)
Value
Number of Observed Individuals by Stream
Feature
CB U/S CB D/S 9 U/S 9 D/S 10 63 100 111
Order Ephemeroptera
Paraleptophlebia spp.
(mayflies) 1.2 2 2
Order Plecoptera
Leuctra spp.
(rolled-winged
stoneflies)
1.5 5 1
Amphinemura spp.
(spring stoneflies) 3.8 2 41 40
Duke Energy Mayo Ash Basin Landfill Project
Environmental Report Joint Section 404/401 IP Application
Wood Project No. 7812200451

October 2020 7-16
Perlesta spp.
(common stoneflies) 2.9 11
Order Trichoptera
Ironoquia punctatissima
(northern caddisfly)

6.7 1
Rhyacophila glaberrima
(green sedge caddisfly) 2
Neophylax atlanta
(autumn mottled sedge) 1
Order Diptera (Miscellaneous)
Family Dolichopodidae
(long-legged flies) 1 1
Simulium spp.
(black flies) 4.9 1 >10 1 2
Pseudolimnophila spp.
(crane flies) 6.2 1
Tipula spp.
(crane flies) 7.5 2 1 1 2
Order Diptera – Family Chironomidae
Chironominae
(midges) 1
Orthocladiinae
(midges) 1 1
Tanypodinae
(midges) 4
Order Coleoptera
Helichus spp.
(beetles) 4.1 1 2
Neoporus spp.
(diving water beetles) 5.0 1
Anchytarsus bicolor
(toed-winged beetle) 2.4 1
Suborder Oligochaeta
Family Tubificidae
(sludge worms) 7.1 1
Order Megaloptera
Nigronia fasciata
(fishfly) 6.1 2 1 1
Subphylum Crustacea
Family Cambaridae
(crayfish) 7.5 1
Caecidotea spp.
(isopods) 8.4 6 23
Crangonyx spp.
(amphipods) 7.2 10 100 >10 8
Duke Energy Mayo Ash Basin Landfill Project
Environmental Report Joint Section 404/401 IP Application
Wood Project No. 7812200451

October 2020 7-17
Total Taxa Richness 10 9 2 0 4 0 12 4
EPT Taxa Richness 2 4 0 0 0 0 5 0
EPT Abundance 3 59 0 0 0 0 46 0
Notes: CB = Crutchfield Branch; U/S = Upstream; D/S = Downstream.
Biotic Index (BI): BI values are numeric indicators of the taxon’s tolerance to organic pollution or other environmental stressors.
These values range from 0 to 10, with 0 being the most sensitive and 10 being the least sensitive. Blank fields indicate no BI value
was assigned due to lack of information.

Based on the results of the benthic macroinvertebrate assessment, EPT taxa were only
found at three of the collection locations; i.e., Crutchfield Branch – upstream survey
location, Crutchfield Branch – downstream survey location, and Stream 100. Two
intolerant taxa were only collected from Crutchfield Branch (downstream reach) and
Stream 100. These two taxa were a mayfly (Paraleptophlebia spp.) and a stonefly
(Leuctra spp.). Two sampling points within Crutchfield Branch (downstream reach) and
Stream 100 exhibited fairly large populations of a seasonal stonefly (Amphinemura
spp.). A third stonefly taxa was only collected from Crutchfield Branch (downstream
reach) (Perlesta spp.). Caddisfly taxa were rare. Two caddisfly taxa were collected from
Stream 100 (Ironoquia punctatissima and Rhyacophila glaberrima). A single specimen
of a third caddisfly taxa (Neophylax atlanta) was collected from Crutchfield Branch
(upstream reach). The benthic fauna from Streams 9, 10, 63, and 111 was very sparse
and no EPT taxa were found at these sites. No organisms were found at the sample
locations in Stream 9 (downstream reach) and Stream 63. Only Diptera and Crustacea
were collected at Stream 9 (upstream reach), Stream 10, and Stream 111. One
Megaloptera (Nigronia fasciata) was found at Stream 111.

Summary
Some macroinvertebrate orders, such as Diptera (true flies), are generally tolerant to
higher levels of pollutants in streams. Other orders, such as Ephemeroptera (mayflies),
Plecoptera (stoneflies), and Tricoptera (caddisflies), are sensitive to many pollutants in
the stream environment. The EPT Richness Index estimates water quality by the
relative abundance of three major orders of stream insects that have low tolerance to
water pollution. Because of the absence of EPT in Stream 9 (upstream reach), Stream
10, and Stream 111, the water quality of these streams would be considered low among
the streams sampled. No benthic macroinvertebrates were found at the sample
locations in Stream 9 (downstream reach) and Stream 63. EPT taxa were only observed
in Crutchfield Branch and Stream 100; therefore, the water quality of these two streams
would be considered moderate to high among the streams sampled. However, with the
exception of a fairly large populations of a seasonal stonefly in Stream 100, the number
of observed EPT individuals was exceptionally low (i.e., one or two individuals). It is
noted that impacts to Streams 5 and 6 within the LRB area have already been
completed. Both streams were classified as intermittent, with a NC SAM overall rating of
medium.

Duke Energy Mayo Ash Basin Landfill Project
Environmental Report Joint Section 404/401 IP Application
Wood Project No. 7812200451

October 2020 7-18
Potential Environmental Impacts

Habitat

Permanent or temporary impacts to stream features are not proposed to complete the
construction of the proposed ABLF and four borrow areas. No impact to the northern
reach of Crutchfield Branch is proposed under the proposed action. With these
considerations, there would not be substantial direct impacts to aquatic habitat from the
proposed action. In addition, adherence to erosion control standards would minimize the
potential for any adverse impacts downstream, such as sedimentation, during and after
construction. Streams are present within the Ash Basin dam decommissioning area, as
well as the vicinity of the proposed haul road. Proposed impacts to streams and
compensatory mitigation for these features are discussed in Sections 5 and 6 of the ER.
It is also noted that impacts to Streams 5 and 6 within the LRB area have already been
completed.

Fish

No permanent or temporary impacts to stream features are proposed to complete the
construction of the proposed ABLF and four borrow areas. No impact to the northern
reach of Crutchfield Branch is proposed under the proposed action. Therefore, no
substantial adverse impacts to fish populations that inhabit the streams within and
adjacent to the ABLF and four borrow areas are anticipated. Adherence to erosion
control standards would minimize the potential for any adverse impacts downstream,
such as increases in turbidity, during and after construction. Streams are present within
the Ash Basin dam decommissioning area, as well as the vicinity of the proposed haul
road. Proposed impacts to streams and compensatory mitigation for these features are
discussed in Sections 5 and 6 of the ER. It is also noted that impacts to Streams 5 and
6 within the LRB area have already been completed.

Benthic Macroinvertebrates

No permanent or temporary impacts to stream features are proposed to complete the
construction of the proposed ABLF and four borrow areas. No impact to the northern
reach of Crutchfield Branch is proposed under the proposed action. Therefore,
substantial adverse impacts to benthic macroinvertebrates that inhabit the streams
within the ABLF and four borrow areas are not anticipated. Adherence to erosion control
standards would minimize the potential for any adverse impacts downstream during and
after construction. Streams are present within the Ash Basin dam decommissioning
area, as well as the vicinity of the proposed haul road. Proposed impacts to streams
and compensatory mitigation for these features are discussed in Sections 5 and 6 of the
ER. It is also noted that impacts to Streams 5 and 6 within the LRB area have already
been completed.

Duke Energy Mayo Ash Basin Landfill Project
Environmental Report Joint Section 404/401 IP Application
Wood Project No. 7812200451

October 2020 7-19
7.7 WATER RESOURCES / FLOODPLAINS

Description of Affected Environment: Surface Waters

Surface waters include streams, rivers, lakes, and reservoirs. The Mayo Plant is located
within the Roanoke River Basin (NCDEQ 2020c) and the Piedmont Physiographic
Province. Mayo Lake and Mayo Creek occur within the eastern half of the plant
property. The surface water classification listed for Mayo Creek (Mayo Lake) on the
most recent NCDEQ surface water data (NCDEQ 2020b) is “WS-V” (Water Supply V).
This classification includes waters protected as water supplies which are generally
upstream and draining to Class WS-IV waters or waters used by industry to supply their
employees with drinking water or as waters formerly used as water supply. These
waters are also protected for Class C uses. Mayo Creek is not listed as impaired near
the Mayo Plant; i.e., it is not included on the “2016 Final 303(d) List” of impaired waters
(NCDEQ 2018).

Potential Environmental Impacts: Surface Waters

Waters of the US, including streams and wetlands, are described above in Section 5 of
the ER. No streams are located within the proposed ABLF or borrow areas. Streams are
present within the Ash Basin dam decommissioning area, as well as the vicinity of the
proposed haul road. Wetlands are located within the ABLF, Borrow Area 4, and Ash
Basin dam decommissioning area, as well as the vicinity of the haul road. Impacts to
streams and wetlands and compensatory mitigation for these features are discussed in
Sections 5 and 6 of the ER. It is noted that impacts to Streams 5 and 6 and Wetlands D,
E, and MM within the LRB area have already been completed.

Description of Affected Environment: Floodplains

Floodplain Management is conducted in compliance with Executive Order (EO) 11988.
The National Flood Insurance Program (NFIP) was created in 1968 to protect lives and
property and to reduce the financial burden of providing disaster assistance. The NFIP
is administered by the Federal Emergency Management Agency (FEMA). In partnership
with FEMA, the State of North Carolina has produced flood maps in accordance with
FEMA standards. The one percent annual chance (100-year) flood has been adopted
by the FEMA as the base flood for floodplain management and flood insurance
purposes. A 100-year storm event (or base flood) has a one percent annual chance of
being equaled or exceeded in any given year. The 100-year floodplain, shown on a
Flood Insurance Rate Map (FIRM), is also called a Special Flood Hazard Area (SFHA),
where the NFIP’s floodplain management regulations must be enforced by the
community as a condition of participation in the Program.

Wood reviewed Digital Flood Insurance Rate Maps (DFIRM) to determine whether any
portion of the Mayo Plant lies within the regulatory 100-year floodplain (FIRM Panels
3721002100J and 3721003100J, effective date June 4, 2007) (FEMA 2020). Based on
Duke Energy Mayo Ash Basin Landfill Project
Environmental Report Joint Section 404/401 IP Application
Wood Project No. 7812200451

October 2020 7-20
this review, the proposed ABLF and borrow areas are not located within the 100-year
floodplain. The regulated 100-year floodplain primarily occurs within the eastern half of
the Mayo Plant, including Mayo Lake and Mayo Creek.

If the project were to require work within a designated floodplain, an application for the
Floodplain Development Permit must be submitted for review by the county before
development activity begins. A Floodplain Development Permit is typically required
under the provisions of the Flood Damage Prevention Ordinance of Person County prior
to the commencement of any development activities within Special Flood Hazard Areas
determined in accordance with the provisions of the ordinance (Person County 2020b).
Work conducted within the 100-year floodplain requires review/consultation with the
Person County Floodplain Administrator.

Potential Environmental Impacts – Floodplains

The review of the FEMA DFIRM delineated flood boundaries for the Mayo Plant
identified that the project area (i.e., all project components) is not located within the 100-
year flood zone (Figure 7-3). Therefore, a Floodplain Development Permit should not
be required by Person County for work conducted within and limited to the project area.

Description of Affected Environment: Groundwater

Groundwater refers to subsurface hydrologic resources that are used for domestic,
agricultural, and industrial purposes. Groundwater is stored in natural geologic
formations called aquifers. In the Piedmont Physiographic Province of North Carolina,
two major aquifer systems exist and usually interact with one another (NCDEQ 2020d)
[unconfined aquifer and surficial aquifer]. The surficial materials or regolith of these
provinces form the unconfined aquifer. The fractured rock beneath is the unconfined, to
semi-confined, bedrock aquifer. The surficial aquifer typically feeds the fractures in the
bedrock aquifer. These two aquifers are further described below (NCDEQ 2020d).

Surficial aquifer: This aquifer is widely used throughout the state for individual home
wells. The surficial aquifer is the shallowest and most susceptible to contamination from
septic tank systems and other pollution sources. The surficial aquifer is also sensitive to
variations in rainfall amounts; i.e., they are the first to go dry in a drought.

Fractured bedrock aquifer: This aquifer is widely used for home water supply. Usually
six-inch wells are drilled to intercept water bearing fractures which are more common in
valleys or draws.

Potential Environmental Impacts – Groundwater

The proposed action would not draw water from subsurface/groundwater sources.
Therefore, the implementation of the proposed project (i.e., all project components)
Duke Energy Mayo Ash Basin Landfill Project
Environmental Report Joint Section 404/401 IP Application
Wood Project No. 7812200451

October 2020 7-21
should have no pronounced effect on the surficial aquifer or the fractured bedrock
aquifer.

7.8 STORMWATER

A Run-On and Run-Off Control System (ROROCS) Plan would be prepared for the
proposed project in accordance with 40 CFR 257.81 (Run-on and run-off controls for
CCR landfills). This ROROCS Plan documents how the facility’s run-on and run-off
control systems have been designed and (where applicable) constructed to meet the
requirements of 40 CFR 257.81 and is supported by appropriate engineering
calculations. This ROROCS Plan would be placed in the facility’s operating record as
required by 40 CFR 257.105(g)(3). Specifically, as required by 40 CFR 257.81, the
owner or operator of a CCR landfill must design, construct, operate, and maintain:
 A run-on control system to prevent flow onto the active portion of the CCR unit
during the peak discharge from a 24-hour, 25-year storm; and
 A run-off control system from the active portion of the CCR unit to collect and
control at least the water volume resulting from a 24-hour, 25-year storm.

In the context of the CCR Rule, “active portion” is not defined but is understood to refer
to all constructed areas of a CCR landfill within the limit of waste on which a final cover
system has not been constructed. The proposed project is anticipated to be operated
until final closure without construction of interim final cover systems. It is noted that
development of the LRB area has been completed, which is a key element of the
stormwater system for the overall project.

Erosion Control

Proper sedimentation and erosion control planning and implementation would be
essential for this project. Detailed erosion control plans would be prepared and
submitted under separate cover as appropriate during permitting progression. A Land
Disturbance Permit from the NCDEQ Division of Land Resources would be required for
this project.

7.9 PROTECTED SPECIES

Description of Affected Environment

Certain plant and animal species are protected by the Federal Endangered Species Act
(ESA) of 1973 (16 USC 1531 1544, December 28, 1973, as amended 1976–1982,
1984, and 1988), which is administered and enforced by the USFWS, Region 4. USACE
IP and Nationwide Permit General Condition 11 require that projects authorized by the
USACE do not adversely affect federally protected species. Should a finding of adverse
effect be presumed by the USACE, coordination with the USFWS is typically required to
avoid impacts or minimize impacts to the practicable extent (USFWS Section 7
Consultation).
Duke Energy Mayo Ash Basin Landfill Project
Environmental Report Joint Section 404/401 IP Application
Wood Project No. 7812200451

October 2020 7-22

A records search was conducted to identify documented federally protected species
(threatened or endangered and federal Species of Concern) which have elemental
occurrences in Person County. As specifically related to the North Carolina Natural
Heritage Program (NCNHP) database search, the query of elemental occurrences
encompassed a one-mile radius of the proposed ABLF, the LRB area, and four borrow
areas. Both federal and state databases were reviewed:
 NCNHP database query request (NCNHP 2020)
 USFWS Information for Planning and Conservation (IPaC) database (USFWS
2020a)
 USFWS Environmental Conservation Online System (ECOS) (USFWS 2020b)
 Raleigh Ecological Services Field Office website (USFWS 2020c)

The purpose of a records search is to determine whether federally listed plant and
animal species or designated critical habitat may be near the Mayo Plant and,
specifically, near the proposed ABLF, the LRB area, and four borrow areas. Table 7-7
presents the results of the records search for Person County. Known habitats used by
the species listed in Table 7-7 are compared with the habitats occurring within the
project areas to determine the potential for occurrence for each species and the
potential for effect that the implementation of the proposed site activities would have on
these species. Specifically, the potential for effect that the site activities would have on
the species listed in Table 7-7 was based on the following factors:
 A comparison of the known habitat uses by these species
 The habitats (if present) within the steam station
 The quantity, quality, and proximity of these habitats
 Observations of these species or their sign during field reconnaissance
 The proposed site activities (construction materials and equipment)

Table 7-7. Potential for Effect for Federally Listed Animal and Plant Species within
the ABLF Area, LRB Area, and Four Borrow Areas of the Project Site
Common Name
(Scientific Name)
Federal
Status General Habitat Description Potential
for Effect
Dwarf-wedge
mussel
(Alasmidonta
heterodon)
E
Waters with slow to moderate current and
relatively hard water on sand and mixed sand
and gravel substrates.
No Effect

Potential Environmental Impacts

Wood conducted a general field reconnaissance of the proposed ABLF and four borrow
areas on April 21 and 22, 2020. Wood previously conducted a field reconnaissance of
the LRB area on April 12, 2018, May 30, 2018, and July 17, 2018. Federally listed
species for Person County were not observed during the field reconnaissance. The
NCNHP database query results (June 8, 2020, NCNHP report) did not list elemental
Duke Energy Mayo Ash Basin Landfill Project
Environmental Report Joint Section 404/401 IP Application
Wood Project No. 7812200451

October 2020 7-23
occurrences of the federally endangered dwarf-wedge mussel within a one-mile radius
of the project site (Table 7-7). This report is included in Appendix C. The results of the
June 8, 2020, query of the USFWS IPaC database query results are also included in
Appendix C.

The dwarf-wedge mussel is typically found in shallow to deep quick running water on
cobble, fine gravel, or on firm silt or sandy bottoms. Other habitats included are
amongst submerged aquatic plants, and near stream banks underneath overhanging
tree limbs. The species commonly lives on muddy sand, sand, and gravel bottoms in
creeks and rivers of various sizes. It requires areas of slow to moderate current, good
water quality, and little silt deposits. There are three streams within the Mayo Plant (i.e.,
Crutchfield Branch, Mayo Creek, and Bowes Branch) that could be considered suitable
habitat for this mussel species. However, these streams do not occur within the
footprints (limits of disturbance) of the proposed ABLF, LRB area, and four borrow
areas. Wood conducted visual reconnaissance (April 21 and 22, 2020) of the stream
reaches adjacent to the project site to determine presence or absence of the species
within the proposed project limits. No specimens of the dwarf-wedge mussel were
observed during the field investigations. Furthermore, suitable habitat for the species
was not found along the stream reaches adjacent to the project areas. The stream
habitat limiting factors included stream length and/or stream quality. Because of the
limited stream size, and the inherent low quality of the stream substrate, it is presumed
that the streams adjacent to the project areas do not support reproductive populations
of the dwarf-wedge mussel. It is noted that development of the LRB area has been
completed, which included wok within two intermittent streams (Streams 5 and 6). No
habitat for the dwarf-wedge mussel was located within the LRB area, and the proposed
work would have had no effect to the species.

Although no longer afforded protection by the ESA as of June 29, 2007, the bald eagle
(Haliaeetus leucocephalus) is protected under the Bald and Golden Eagle Protection
Act and the Migratory Bird Treaty Act, both of which protect bald eagles by prohibiting
killing, selling, or otherwise harming eagles, their nests, or eggs. Habitats include
riparian areas along the coast and near major rivers, wetlands, and reservoirs. Bald
eagles typically nest in large, tall, open-topped pines near open waters. They feed
primarily on fish, but would also take a variety of birds, mammals, and turtles. Mayo
Lake provides abundant foraging habitat, and large trees along the lake and creek
shorelines provide suitable roosting or nesting habitat for eagles. However, Mayo Lake
is located more than 3,000 feet from the ABLF and LRB area. With regards to past bald
eagle survey efforts at the Mayo Plant, Duke Energy conducted a timber removal/avian
assessment in March 2018 of the Mayo Lake dam area (Duke Energy 2018). No eagle
nests were observed in the review area during this effort, or during previous site
reconnaissance at the Mayo Plant. Wood has also conducted site reconnaissance for
protected species, including the bald eagle, at Mayo Plant since January 2014 and as
recent as August 2020. No bald eagle nests were observed during these field efforts.
Finally, the NCNHP database query results (June 8, 2020, NCNHP report) did not list
the bald eagles (elemental occurrences) within a one-mile radius of the project site.
Duke Energy Mayo Ash Basin Landfill Project
Environmental Report Joint Section 404/401 IP Application
Wood Project No. 7812200451

October 2020 7-24
Overall, the potential for effect for the bald eagle within the project area was determined
to be minimal. It is noted that development of the LRB area has been completed. No
eagles have been observed in the LRB area during 2018 and 2020 surveys, and the
proposed work would have had no effect to the species.

7.10 CULTURAL RESOURCES

Section 404 of the CWA requires that projects authorized by the USACE do not
adversely affect historical properties which are listed or eligible for listing on the National
Register of Historic Places (NRHP). Cultural resources are protected by Section 106 of
the National Historic Preservation Act (NHPA). The Section 106 process consists of
consultation with state and federal agencies, consultation with Native American tribes
by the lead federal agency, and the identification and evaluation of cultural resources for
inclusion in the NRHP. The Cultural Resources Assessment reports are provided in
Appendix D.

Description of Affected Environment

Wood conducted a cultural resources literature and records review of known
archaeological and historical resources for the proposed project area and one-mile
radius Area of Potential Effects (APE). Wood consulted the HPOWEB GIS webpage
maintained by the North Carolina Historic Preservation Office (NCHPO), the data
inventory and library housed at the North Carolina Office of State Archaeology (NC
OSA) in Raleigh, North Carolina, and the records held at the Person County Register of
Deeds in Roxboro, North Carolina.

Results of the cultural resources research indicate that there are four previously
recorded archaeology sites, two historic structures, and one historic cemetery located
within a one-mile radius of the Project Area boundaries.

Archaeological Resources

Using the NC OSA site file records, Wood reviewed the information provided in the site
forms for any previously recorded archaeology sites within the project area and APE.
Table 7-8 summarizes the relevant information, detailing the site numbers, site types,
and NRHP eligibility for each site. A site may be recommended not eligible,
undetermined, or eligible for listing in the NRHP. Undetermined means that additional
work is required to accurately evaluate the eligibility of the resource.

There are four previously recorded archaeology sites located within a one-mile radius of
the project area. (Figure 7-4, Table 7-8). Sites 31PR7, 31PR8, 31PR9, and 31PR66
are not eligible for Register status.

Table 7-8 Previously recorded archaeology sites located the vicinity of the Project
Area.
Duke Energy Mayo Ash Basin Landfill Project
Environmental Report Joint Section 404/401 IP Application
Wood Project No. 7812200451

October 2020 7-25
Site No. Site Type NRHP
Eligibility Reference
31PR7 Unknown prehistoric lithic scatter Not Eligible NC OSA
2020
31PR8 Unknown prehistoric lithic scatter Not Eligible NC OSA
2020
31PR9 19th c. historic brick scatter Not Eligible NC OSA
2020
31PR66 20th c. historic domestic site Not Eligible NC OSA
2020

Sites 31PR7 and 31PR8 are both prehistoric lithic scatters of unknown temporal
affiliation. These sites are both located east of Mayo Creek on the south side of Mayo
Lake Road. Identified and recorded during a 1977 survey of the area in preparation for
the formation of the Mayo Reservoir, these sites are now inundated beneath the
reservoir. Both 31PR7 and 31PR8 are not eligible for listing in the NRHP (NC OSA
2020).

Site 31PR9 is an historic brick scatter dating to the nineteenth century. There were no
artifacts recovered in association with this site. The site is located east of Mayo Creek
and south of Mayo Lake Road. Site 31PR9 was identified and recorded during the same
1977 survey as sites 31PR7 and 31PR8 and is also now inundated beneath the Mayo
Reservoir. Site 31PR9 is considered not eligible for listing in the NRHP (NC OSA 2020).

Site 31PR66 is an historic house site dating from the twentieth century. The site
consists of the remains of the house foundation stones. The site is located within a
forested area approximately 1,150 feet southwest of the southwest corner of Borrow
Site #4 and 1,720 feet southwest of the LRB area, on the east side of Highway 501 and
on the north side of the railroad. Site 31PR66 is considered not eligible for listing in the
NRHP (NC OSA 2020).

Consulting the Person County GIS Department’s online Tax Parcel Viewer during the
preplanning phase of this project identified an “Unknown slave/Indian Cemetery” located
approximately 164 feet west of Borrow Site #2 (Figure 7-4; Person Co Register of
Deeds 2020). Consultation with NC OSA and HPOWEB GIS, revealed that there is no
site record of this cemetery within the NCHPO database of previously recorded sites.
Wood reviewed the records of the cemetery held at the Person County Register of
Deeds in Roxboro, North Carolina, and consulted with the Registrar that recorded the
cemetery for more information. Wood conducted a field visit on 17 April 2020, to record
additional information necessary to complete a North Carolina Cemetery Site Form
(Appendix E).

The cemetery is located on a terrace that overlooks Crutchfield Branch to the east. The
site is bordered by two access roads: a gravel road that runs north-south on the west
side of the cemetery, and a dirt road that branches off of the gravel road and runs east-
west partially through the southern edge of the cemetery boundary. Thirty-seven graves
Duke Energy Mayo Ash Basin Landfill Project
Environmental Report Joint Section 404/401 IP Application
Wood Project No. 7812200451

October 2020 7-26
were observed within the cemetery boundary, of which 36 are marked with either
headstones, footstones, or both. The headstones and footstones all appear to be
various types of field stones and none of the head stones bare any inscription or
decoration. Headstones are only distinguishable from footstones by their larger size. All
the graves are oriented facing the east in an open forested area with an understory of
periwinkle and some immature deciduous trees.

With no indication of the people or community buried in the cemetery on site, historical
records suggest there are two potential groups that this cemetery may be affiliated with:
the Crutchfield Plantation slaves, and a mixed-heritage indigenous community identified
as the Person County Indians (MacCaughelty 1948). Evidence in the historical record is
sparse, but an argument may be made for either of these groups having interred their
deceased in the cemetery. The cemetery is located on land originally purchased by
Stapleton Crutchfield sometime between 1851 and 1881. In 1860, Crutchfield is
recoded to have owned 11 slaves. Crutchfield lived on the property with his wife and
their nine children. There was a family plot on the east side of Crutchfield Branch that
contained nine members of the Crutchfield family. This family cemetery was moved in
1979 to the Bethel Hill Church cemetery in Roxboro, NC (Person Co. Deed Book 88:
308–309). Although the Crutchfield’s are recorded to have owned only 11 slaves, an
explanation for the 26 other graves in the cemetery could be that the family members of
those interred there continued to use the cemetery after the abolishment of slavery.

Historic/Architectural Resources

Wood reviewed the historic architectural information provided by the HPOWEB GIS
webpage maintained by the North Carolina Historic Preservation Office (NCHPO) to
identify historical structures within the Project Area and APE. Table 7-9 summarizes the
relevant information, detailing the historic resource names, description, temporal
affiliation, and NRHP eligibility for each location. An historic resource may be
recommended as not eligible, undetermined, or eligible for listing in the NRHP.
Undetermined means that additional work is required to accurately evaluate the
eligibility of the resource.

A total of two historic resources were located within the APE: two historic houses that
require additional work to determine their NRHP eligibility status (Figure 7-4, Table 7-
9).

Table 7-9 Previously recorded historic architectural resources located in the
vicinity of the Project Area.
Resource Description Temporal Affiliation NRHP Eligibility
31PR59 Three-story framed house Late 19th c. Undetermined (Surveyed, gone)
31PR69 Two-story framed house n.d. Undetermined (Surveyed only)

Duke Energy Mayo Ash Basin Landfill Project
Environmental Report Joint Section 404/401 IP Application
Wood Project No. 7812200451

October 2020 7-27

Site 31PR59 was a three-story framed house dating to the late nineteenth century. This
resource was only surveyed before it was destroyed or moved to a different location.
Although this resource was surveyed and identified, recommendation has not been
made for its NRHP eligibility status prior to its removal from the property. Site 31PR69 is
a two-story framed house (date unknown) that was only surveyed. The location of
31PR69 is an approximation and more work would be needed to make a
recommendation on its eligibility for listing in the NRHP (HPOWEB 2020).

Historic Maps
Based on aerial photography, the Project Area has undergone little change or
development. The Greensboro NC-VA USGS topographic maps from 1953 and 1962
show little land use within the project areas. Only one structure is indicated within the
APE on the 1962 Greensboro NC-VA. The structure is marked on the 1962 map as a
church and may be the Bethel Hill Baptist Church located on Old US Highway 501
approximately 0.8 miles southwest of the southwest corner of the Borrow Site #4 project
area. The 1968 Cluster Springs USGS map shows one structure present within the
northeast corner of the Borrow Site #4 project area and the northwest portion of the
LRB area, and another structure within 100 ft of the western edge of the LRB project
area (within the northeast corner of the Borrow Area #4 project area); otherwise, there
are a handful of structures shown along the west side of Highway 501; a structure within
approximately 825 feet. of the western boundary of the Borrow Site #2 project area, and
half dozen structures in the footprint of the Duke Mayo Plant within the APE. The major
changes noticeable within the APE are the development of the Mayo Reservoir and
Duke Mayo Plant.

Potential Environmental Impacts

The cultural resources literature and records review indicate there are no previously
recorded archaeological sites, historic structures, or historic areas located within the
project area. The records search of the NCHPO and NC OSA files show that there are
four previously recorded archaeology sites, two historic structures, and one historic
cemetery within the one-mile APE. Of these cultural resources, none are eligible for
listing in the NRHP. However, avoidance of the cemetery is recommended. It is noted
that development of the LRB area has been completed. No historic or archaeological
resources were located in the project area during construction, and the proposed LRB
work would have had no effect to these resources.

Based on the results of this cultural resources literature and records review, the
proposed project is not expected to impact any known archaeological sites. It is unlikely
that the proposed project would present any adverse effects to known historic
structures. Due to the limited number of cultural resources surveys in the area, the lack
of previously recorded sites and structures is not indicative of a complete absence of
these resources. This records search is provided for planning purposes and does not
satisfy the full requirements for the Section 106 process.
Duke Energy Mayo Ash Basin Landfill Project
Environmental Report Joint Section 404/401 IP Application
Wood Project No. 7812200451

October 2020 7-28
7.11 ENVIRONMENTAL JUSTICE

Environmental justice considers sensitive minority and low-income populations in the
community to determine whether a proposed action and its alternatives may have a
disproportionately high and adverse human health or environmental effect on those
populations. Environmental Justice analysis is conducted in compliance with EO 12898
(59 Federal Register [FR] 7629), Federal Actions to Address Environmental Justice in
Minority Populations and Low-income Populations. Based on guidance from the CEQ,
minority populations should be identified where either (a) the minority population of the
area exceeds 50%, or (b) the minority population percentage of the affected area is
substantially greater than the minority population percentage in the general population
or other appropriate unit of geographic analysis (CEQ 1997). Hispanic or Latino
populations are not defined as a racial designation, but rather an ethnic population.
Hispanics or Latinos may be white, black or any race. Low-income populations are
defined as those below the federal poverty thresholds identified using statistical poverty
thresholds from the US Census. EPA guidance states, “The composition of the
population should be compared to the characteristics of the population, e.g., percentage
of minority populations residing near a proposed project versus the percentage of
minority populations located within a single or multiple-county area surrounding the
proposed project” (USEPA 1998). Applying this methodology, the percentage of low-
income and minority populations near the proposed ABLF (Person County) is compared
to the percentage of low-income and minority populations located within North Carolina.
A low-income or minority population is identified when an area has a poverty rate or
minority population percentage that is substantially greater than the state.

To summarize, EO 12898 instructs federal agencies to identify and address, within the
scope of the proposed programs, policies and activities that may have
disproportionately high adverse effects on human health or environmental effects on
minority and low-income populations. Furthermore, according to CEQ guidelines, US
Census Bureau (USCB) data are typically used to determine minority and low-income
population percentages in the affected area of a project to conduct a qualitative
assessment of potential environmental justice impacts.

Description of Affected Environment

Wood examined 2010, 2017, and 2018 USCB data (as available) to determine minority
and low-income population percentages in the affected area of the project to facilitate
the qualitative assessment of potential environmental justice impacts. The avoidance of
adverse impacts upon minority and/or low-income communities is an important
component of projects subject to federal review or permitting. The data used in this
analysis are USCB Census 2010 data projected for 2017 and 2018 estimated
populations (USCB 2020). The proposed project is in Census Block Group 920100-1,
Census Tract 9201, zip code 27574, and it is adjacent to Census Tract 9303.02 in
Halifax County, Virginia. A census block group is a geographic area defined by the
USCB. On average, a block group has approximately 1,500 residents. A census tract is
Duke Energy Mayo Ash Basin Landfill Project
Environmental Report Joint Section 404/401 IP Application
Wood Project No. 7812200451

October 2020 7-29
comprised of one or more census blocks. Specific data for these census blocks are
available for 2010, 2017 and 2018 from the US Department of Census.

The population of Census Tract 9201 as of 2018 is 6,780, approximately 70.8% of
which is Caucasian or white and 26.3% is African-American or black. The percentage of
Hispanic or Latino in this Census Tract is 0.5%. The percentage of Asians in this
Census Tract is 0.4%. Additional census data for the tract compared to Person County
and North Carolina are shown in Table 7-10.

Table 7-10. Census Data for the Project Area, 2018
Census Topic Tract 9201 Person County North Carolina
Median Household Income $49,785 $48,811 $52,413
Individuals Below Poverty Percentage 18.7% 17.7% 14.0%
Race Percentages:
White 70.8% 68.2% 68.9%
African-American 26.3% 26.7% 21.5%
American-Indian 1.3% 0.5% 1.2%
Asian 0.4% 0.4% 2.8%
Other 3.3% 1.8% 2.4%
Source: USCB 2020

The total population for Person County is 39,305, according to the 2018 Census
estimated data. For Person County, the percentage of the population that is Caucasian
or white is 68.2%, and the percentage of African-American or black is 26.7%. The
approximate Hispanic or Latino population within the county is 4.2%. The percentage of
all minorities (including Hispanic or Latino) for the Census Tract according to the USCB
201 data is 29.8%, a lower percentage of minorities than the county average of 35.9%
and lower than the state percentage of 33.9%.

The number of persons living in poverty in Census Tract 9201 is 18.7% (1,260). For
Person County it is 17.7%, close to the rate for the Census Tract studied. These
percentages are 3-4% higher than the rate for North Carolina (14.0%). Median
household income according to 2018 Census data for the Tract is $49,785. The median
household income for the state of North Carolina is $52,413 and for the county is
$48,811.

Duke Energy Mayo Ash Basin Landfill Project
Environmental Report Joint Section 404/401 IP Application
Wood Project No. 7812200451

October 2020 7-30
The percentage of children living in poverty in the Census Tract is 30%. This is less
than the percentage of children living in poverty for Person County (33.8%). The
percentage for the Census Tract and county is approximately 10% higher than the rate
for children living in poverty in the state of North Carolina (20.2%). The percentage of
seniors living in poverty in the Census Tract 9201 is 10.9%, slightly lower than Person
County (11%). This is roughly 2% higher than the rate for North Carolina (8.7%). The
median home price in Census Tract 9201 is $112,400. This is slightly less than the
county median home price of $117,100 and less than the state median home price of
$165,900.

If the percentage in the block groups significantly exceed that of the county percentage
for either minority or persons living in poverty, environmental justice would have to be
considered in greater detail. As a general matter (and where appropriate), staff may
consider differences greater than five percentage points to be significant. Additionally, if
either the minority or low-income population percentage exceeds 50%, environmental
justice would have to be considered in greater detail. Combining the data since 2010, it
is observed that the Census Tract 9201 does not have a significantly higher number of
minorities or low income populations than the overall percentages for the state or
county.

Potential Environmental Impacts

The proposed project actions would occur entirely within the property of the Mayo Plant
and would not occur within these communities and no impacts to vehicular, bicycle or
foot traffic access to medical, school or employment are anticipated, nor are access to
food and fiber production or firewood to be impacted. No disproportionately high
adverse impacts to human health or environment of minority or low-income populations
is expected. No conflicts with known (documented) residential communities are
anticipated.

The project is compatible with the existing land use. While minority and low-income
populations may be present in the census tracts surrounding the project site, no notably
adverse community impacts are anticipated with this project; thus, impacts to minority
and low-income populations do not appear to be disproportionately high and adverse.
Benefits and burdens resulting from the project are anticipated to be equitably
distributed throughout the community. No disparate impacts are anticipated under Title
VI and related statutes. It is noted that development of the LRB area has been
completed. No environmental justice issues were indicated during construction, and the
proposed work within the Mayo property would have had no effect to environmental
justice issues.

Finally, the proposed ABLF and LRB would be located within the larger Duke Energy
owned property. The project would be located adjacent to the existing Mayo Plant Ash
Basin and less than a mile from the Mayo Plant powerhouse. The proposed ABLF and
LRB would not adversely affect the value of adjoining properties. The Mayo Plant has
Duke Energy Mayo Ash Basin Landfill Project
Environmental Report Joint Section 404/401 IP Application
Wood Project No. 7812200451

October 2020 7-31
been operating as a coal-fired power plant with an Ash Basin for nearly 40 years. The
nearest parcels not owned by Duke Energy are either undeveloped or commercial
properties. The construction of the ABLF is a public necessity, as evidenced by state
law mandating the closure of the existing Mayo Plant Ash Basin and the February 5,
2020 Consent Order with the State of North Carolina requiring that CCR materials
currently in the existing Ash Basin be relocated to a lined ABLF.

7.12 HAZARDOUS MATERIALS

Description of Affected Environment

“Hazardous materials” and “hazardous waste” are substances, which because of their
quantity, concentration, or characteristics (physical, chemical, or infectious), may
present a significant danger to public health and/or the environment if released. These
substances are defined by the Comprehensive Environmental Response,
Compensation, and Liability Act (CERCLA; 42 USC. 9601 et seq.) and the Solid Waste
Disposal Act, as amended by the Resource Conservation and Recovery Act ([RCRA];
42 USC. 6901 et seq.). Regulated hazardous wastes under RCRA include any solid,
liquid, contained gaseous, or semisolid waste or combination of wastes that exhibits one
of more of the hazardous characteristics of ignitability, corrosivity, toxicity, or reactivity,
or is listed as a hazardous waste under Title 40, CFR, Part 261. Storage and use of
hazardous materials and wastes are regulated by local, state, and federal guidance
including the Emergency Planning and Community Right-to-Know Act (42 USC. 116 et
seq.) and RCRA.

Currently, land use within the project area is undeveloped or is included within the
footprint of the existing ash pond. Land use at each of the four proposed borrow areas
is forested and undeveloped. No hazardous wastes are generated, stored, handled,
transported, treated, or disposed within the project site, and with the exception of
historical ash disposal activities on and adjacent to the ABLF and LRB sites, no
activities have been conducted within the project area that could potentially result in
contamination by a hazardous material, substance, or waste. The project site was
examined on April 21 and 22, 2020, and no waste-related environmental conditions
were discovered.

Potential Environmental Impacts

Construction and operation of the ABLF has a low potential to generate hazardous
waste. Heavy construction equipment would be used to construct the ABLF. The
substances used during project construction and operation include petroleum fuels
(diesel and gasoline), motor oil, transformer oil, hydraulic fluid, and soil stabilizers.
Relatively small amounts of these substances are required for this project, primarily
associated with vehicle and heavy equipment during construction, and BMPs would be
employed in the event of a spill or leak; therefore, no adverse impacts associated with
these substances are expected to occur. It is noted that development of the LRB area
Duke Energy Mayo Ash Basin Landfill Project
Environmental Report Joint Section 404/401 IP Application
Wood Project No. 7812200451

October 2020 7-32
has been completed. No hazardous waste issues were indicated during construction,
and the proposed construction within the Mayo property would have had no effect to
hazardous waste issues.

The transportation and disposal of wastes would follow applicable federal and state
laws for any materials removed during construction, remediation, and O&M. Wastes
would be taken offsite for recycling or for disposal in a commercial ABLF or other
approved disposal site, as appropriate.

When transporting offsite, wastes from construction and O&M would be recycled
whenever possible, or be subject to hazardous waste screening, as appropriate, to
confirm that the wastes are non-hazardous prior to disposal. The production of
hazardous waste is not anticipated; however, if required, hazardous waste
transportation and disposal would follow all applicable federal and state laws for
hazardous materials as defined by RCRA.

The transport and disposal of waste is not expected to have adverse impacts, given that
the processes would follow applicable federal and state laws. Additionally, the risk of
waste releases is expected to be extremely low, and potential releases would likely
have negligible or minor impacts and short-term. As a result of the low likelihood of
hazardous waste generation and the expected degree of potential impacts from the
transportation and disposal of all waste types, waste disposal was dismissed from
further consideration.

The proposed ABLF would be designed in accordance with state and federal
regulations to provide an environmentally safe disposal method for the non-hazardous
CCR materials and other approved industrial waste streams. The ABLF would be
constructed with a synthetic barrier on the bottom, a leak-detection system and backup
liner. The open face during ABLF construction and operations would be limited to
manage fugitive dust from leaving the area. Interim cover would be used as appropriate
until such time as a final cap can be installed. The design would include a leachate
collection system with the hydraulic capacity to convey leachate from a 25-year, 24-hour
storm event to a leachate pond for treatment. Stormwater features would be designed
for stability and hydraulic capacity to convey the 100-year 24-hour Type II storm events
and manage runoff from the site.

7.13 NOISE AND VIBRATION

Description of Affected Environment

Noise is sound that is produced at levels that can be harmful and may be considered
unwanted by the surrounding community, properties, and residences. The Noise Control
Act of 1972 (PL 92-574) and EO 12088 require that federal agencies assess the impact
of noise to the environment (USEPA 2020b). Guidelines for noise have been
established by the USEPA based on a calculation of noise by the daytime and nighttime
Duke Energy Mayo Ash Basin Landfill Project
Environmental Report Joint Section 404/401 IP Application
Wood Project No. 7812200451

October 2020 7-33
averages, referred to as the Day/Night Levels (Ldn) (USEPA 1974). The Ldn is reported
as A-weighted decibels (dBA) that occur within a 24-hour period. Table 7-11 presents
USEPA standard noise levels for various community types. Noise levels can vary
depending on setting, built environment, and distance to the noise source. Noise levels
by environment can be variable with levels at 40 decibels (dB) for wilderness areas and
90 dB for urban areas. Rural communities typically have lower dB than their urban
counterparts with rural communities around 50 dB or less. The EPA has calculated that
an individual exposed to a noise level of 73 dB for eight hours a day for 40 years would
have a hearing loss smaller than 5 dB for 96% of the population.

Table 7-11. EPA Standard Noise Levels for Various Community Types
Community Day/Night Average (Ldn-dBa)
Rural 30 to 55
Quiet Suburb 50
Normal Suburb 55
Urban Residential 60
Noisy Urban 65
Very Noisy Urban 70

Potential Environmental Impacts

Grading operations are the noisiest activities with equipment generating noise levels as
high as 70 to 95 dBA within 50 feet of their operation. Distance rapidly attenuates noise,
and it is not anticipated that the proposed construction operations would occur close
enough to existing residential areas near the project site to cause disturbances. Only
one business and one residence are in the vicinity of the project site. In addition, these
operations would occur during daytime hours when residents are away from their
homes; therefore, those living near the Mayo Plant are not likely to be affected by noise
generated by the proposed action.

Noise impacts would be generally localized at the vicinity of the project site. Earth-
moving equipment and other construction machinery and vehicles would create
localized increases in noise levels. These temporary noise impacts should not disrupt
normal Mayo Plant operations. Noise levels generally dissipate as distance from their
origin increases. Distance from the project site must be considered when evaluating
potential noise impacts to land uses adjacent to or near the project site. The proposed
ABLF, LRB, and borrow areas are generally surrounded by mature woods or roadways.
Construction noise would be buffered by woods or would not be out of character with
existing vehicle noise along an existing roadway. Truck traffic generated by movements
Duke Energy Mayo Ash Basin Landfill Project
Environmental Report Joint Section 404/401 IP Application
Wood Project No. 7812200451

October 2020 7-34
between the ABLF and borrow areas would be limited to normal business hours and
would not substantially increase noise levels along public roads. The proposed action is
not expected to impact noise-sensitive land uses. It is noted that development of the
LRB area has been completed. No noise impacts were observed during construction,
and the proposed work within the Mayo property would have had no effect to sensitive
noise receptors.

7.14 AIR QUALITY

The EPA classifies source emitted air pollutants that cause health, environmental, and
property damage as “criteria air pollutants”, as the agency has developed criteria
(science-based guidelines) as the basis for setting permissible levels in ambient air.
One set of limits (primary standard) protects human health; another set of limits
(secondary standard) protects human welfare by preventing environmental and property
damage.

The EPA has established National Ambient Air Quality Standards (NAAQS) in 40 CFR
50 for the following criteria pollutants: sulfur dioxide, particulate matter (with an
aerodynamic diameter of less than 10 microns) (PM10), fine particulate matter (with an
aerodynamic diameter of less than 2.5 microns) (PM2.5), carbon monoxide, ozone,
nitrogen dioxide, and lead. A geographic area that meets or exceeds the primary
NAAQS is classified as an attainment area; areas that do not meet the primary NAAQS
are classified as nonattainment areas. Areas that were originally designated as
nonattainment, but which have improved their air quality sufficiently to have been re-
designated to attainment, are classified as maintenance areas.

In addition to the federal NAAQS for criteria pollutants, NCDEQ (NCDEQ 2015) has
adopted ambient air quality standards in North Carolina Administrative Code (NCAC)
Title 15A Subchapter 2D Section 0400. Regulations that limit air pollution emissions
from stationary sources located within North Carolina are codified under NCAC Title
15A - Environment and Natural Resources, Chapter 02 – Environmental Management,
Subchapter 02D - Air Pollution Control Requirements (15A NCAC 02D). Stationary
source air quality permitting procedures are codified under Subchapter 02Q – Air
Quality Permit Procedures (15A NCAC 02Q) (NCDEQ 2013).

Description of Affected Environment

The entirety of the Mayo Plant is in Person County, North Carolina, approximately 50
miles north-northwest of the Raleigh metropolitan area. The area is part of the Piedmont
Physiographic Province, where regional climate is impacted by a variety of influences,
from the Appalachian Mountains to the west and the Atlantic Ocean to the east,
including the Gulf Stream. The Bermuda High is a predominant climatological feature
during the summer months, providing calm winds and clear conditions that can result in
a degradation of air quality. Winds are predominantly from the west in North Carolina,
which can result in pollution transport from upwind states.
Duke Energy Mayo Ash Basin Landfill Project
Environmental Report Joint Section 404/401 IP Application
Wood Project No. 7812200451

October 2020 7-35

Criteria air pollution emissions from sources located in the vicinity of the project site, as
presented in the 2017 National Emissions Inventory, are summarized in Table 7-12
(USEPA 2020c). These values include emissions from point sources (i.e., stationary
sources that have individual air permits), nonpoint sources (i.e., stationary sources that
do not have individual air permits), mobile on-road sources (i.e., cars and trucks), and
mobile non-road sources (i.e., construction vehicles).

Table 7-12. Air Emissions from Sources in Person County, North Carolina
Pollutant Emission (tons)
Carbon Monoxide (CO) 7,735
Nitrogen Oxides (NOx) 8,618
Particulate Matter < 10 microns (PM10) 2,467
Particulate Matter < 2.5 microns (PM2.5) 985
Sulfur Dioxide (SO2) 7,355
Volatile Organic Compounds (VOC) 7,679
Carbon Dioxide equivalent (CO2e) 8,861,401

Regulatory Requirements for Air Quality – General Conformity

The 1990 Clean Air Act Amendments include the General Conformity rule, which is
intended to ensure that Federal Actions conform with applicable State Implementation
Plans in nonattainment or maintenance areas; thus, not adversely impacting the area’s
progress toward attaining NAAQS standards. The General Conformity rule is codified in
40 CFR Part 51, Subpart W and Part 93, Subpart B, “Determining Conformity of
General Federal Actions to State or Federal Implementation Plans” (“General
Conformity Rule”). NCDEQ’s general conformity rules that were codified in NCAC Title
15A Subchapter 2D Section 1600 expired on February 1, 2016.

General Conformity is applicable to most federally funded or approved actions that are
not applicable to Clean Air Act Transportation Conformity regulations, and covers direct
and indirect emissions of criteria pollutants, or their precursors, caused by the action.
The General Conformity rule can be summarized as consisting of three parts:
applicability, procedure, and analysis. Applicability is an assessment of whether a
proposed action is subject to the General Conformity rule.

Person County was previously designated as nonattainment for the 1997 8-hour Ozone
NAAQS standard of 0.080 ppm but was re-designated to maintenance as of December
19, 2011. Per the Implementation of the 2008 National Ambient Air Quality Standards
Duke Energy Mayo Ash Basin Landfill Project
Environmental Report Joint Section 404/401 IP Application
Wood Project No. 7812200451

October 2020 7-36
for Ozone Final Rule, effective April 6, 2015, the 1997 8-hour Ozone NAAQS has been
revoked in attainment and maintenance areas, (80 FR 12264).

As the project site is not located in an area designated as nonattainment or
maintenance for any criteria pollutant, as of June 11, 2020, the General Conformity rule
is not applicable, and a General Conformity Determination is not required for the
proposed action.

At the state level, Person County is part of the Raleigh Air Monitoring Region. Air quality
monitoring stations in Person County include an ozone monitoring station in Bushy Fork
and a sulfur dioxide monitoring station in Semora. NCDEQ operates ozone monitor site
37-145-0003, located at State Highway 49 South in Person County. In the most recent
data available, Site 37-145-0003 reported a mean annual fourth highest 8-Hour average
ozone value, averaged over the three-year period from 2011-2013, of 0.069 ppm,
attaining the 8-hour ozone state standard of 0.076 ppm (NCDEQ 2014).

As NCDEQ’s general conformity rules, codified in 15A NCAC Subchapter 02D Section
1600, expired on February 1, 2016, pursuant to G.S. 150B-21.3A, a state general
conformity analysis is not required for the project.

Additionally, per 15A NCAC Subchapter 02Q Section 0300, the project is exempt from
requiring an air quality permit or permit modification, as any potential maintenance,
structural changes, or repair activities are not expected to “increase the capacity of such
processes”, or “cause any change in the quality or nature or an increase in quantity of
an emission of any regulated air pollutants.”

Potential Environmental Impacts

Air pollution emissions could be generated by several sources associated with the
proposed project. These emission sources include vehicles used during the construction
and operation of the facility, and site grading and storage piles during facility
construction. ABLF and LRB operation is expected to have infrequent and negligible air
quality impacts.
Construction-phase air emissions could be generated by the following activities:
 Fuel combustion emissions from the operation of off-road construction
equipment, i.e., off road dump trucks, drum rollers, soil compactors, farm
tractors, excavators, bulldozers, graders, loaders, backhoes, forklifts, hostler
trucks, asphalt pavers, and asphalt compactors) on-site
 Fuel combustion emissions from the operation of on-road construction
equipment, i.e., dump trucks, water trucks, to and from the site
 Fuel combustion emissions from the operation of personal vehicles to transport
construction workers to and from the site
 Fugitive dust emissions from wind erosion and storage piles

Duke Energy Mayo Ash Basin Landfill Project
Environmental Report Joint Section 404/401 IP Application
Wood Project No. 7812200451

October 2020 7-37
Within the project site, it is anticipated that construction would result in increased air
emissions during the construction phases. However, these emissions increases would
conform to the ozone State Implementation Plan (SIP) for the project. ABLF and LRB
operations are not expected to measurably increase air emissions. It is noted that
development of the LRB area has been completed. No air quality impacts were
observed during construction, appropriate minimization and mitigation measures were
implemented, and the proposed work within the Mayo property would have had no
significant effect to local or regional air quality.

Proposed Mitigation Measures

During the project construction phase, additional emissions control measures include
the suppression of fugitive dust emissions. "Fugitive dust emissions" refers to
particulate matter that does not pass through a process stack or vent and that is
generated within plant property boundaries from activities such as unloading and
loading areas, process areas, stockpiles, stock pile working, plant parking lots, and
plant roads (including access roads and haul roads). During the construction phase,
frequent water spraying on roadways would serve as the primary suppression method
to ensure that vehicle traffic does not spread dust.

As the project site is not located in a nonattainment or maintenance area for any criteria
pollutants, and given the fugitive dust mitigation measures, operations associated with
the proposed project are not expected to impact air quality, either locally or regionally.

7.15 TRAFFIC AND TRANSPORTATION

Description of Affected Environment

The proposed location of the ABLF and LRB are located adjacent to the existing Ash
Basin within Duke Energy property. The preferred location would allow for internal haul
roads and not impact US Route 501 with a steady flow of construction traffic. An access
road to the proposed ABLF would be constructed off an existing internal road, and Duke
Energy does not intend to require additional driveways off of US Route 501 at this time.
The internal haul road would be designed and evaluated in full for safe and efficient
operations. Upon permitting approval and construction of the ABLF, Duke Energy
intends to close the existing CCP Monofill and not develop any further cells. It is noted
that development of the LRB area has been completed. No traffic or transportation
impacts were observed during construction, and the proposed work within the Mayo
property would have had no noticeable effect to local traffic.
Duke Energy Mayo Ash Basin Landfill Project
Environmental Report Joint Section 404/401 IP Application
Wood Project No. 7812200451

October 2020 8-1
8 CUMULATIVE IMPACTS

Cumulative impacts [40 CFR 230.11(g) and 40 CFR 1508.7, Regulatory Guidance
Letter (RGL) 84-9] are those impacts that result from the incremental impact of an
action added to other past, present, and reasonably foreseeable actions in the future.
These cumulative impacts can result from individually minor direct and indirect but
collectively significant actions taking place over a period of time. The CEQ has provided
a framework for addressing cumulative effects as part of an environmental assessment,
“Considering Cumulative Effects Under the National Environmental Policy Act” (CEQ,
1997). This guidance places a priority on “counting what counts” within a defined
geographic (spatial) and time (temporal) boundary when considering cumulative
impacts.

8.1 DIRECT AND INDIRECT EFFECTS OF THE PROPOSED ACTION

The potential effects of the proposed action are provided in detail in the previous
sections of this ER:
 WOTUS (Section 5.2)
 Land use (Section 7.1)
 Aesthetic and visual resources (Section 7.2)
 Geology and topography (Section 7.3)
 Soils (Section 7.4)
 Biotic communities (Section 7.5)
 Aquatic communities (Section 7.6)
 Water resources and floodplains (Section 7.7)
 Stormwater (Section 7.8)
 Protected species (Section 7.9)
 Cultural resources (Section 7.10)
 Environmental justice (Section 7.11)
 Hazardous materials (Section 7.12)
 Noise and vibrations (Section 7.13)
 Air quality (Section 7.14)
 Traffic and transportation (Section 7.15)
8.2 GEOGRAPHIC SCOPE OF CUMULATIVE IMPACTS

The geographic scope of the proposed action and associated cumulative impacts is
limited to the plant property and project site (i.e., the landfill and borrow areas), with the
exception of traffic, noise, and air quality.

The geographic scope of impacts from traffic would be localized and limited to the roads
in the direct vicinity to the project site and plant property. It should also be noted that the
proposed action avoids traffic impacts by maintaining the majority of construction traffic
on internal haul roads and prioritizing the utilization of borrow areas.
Duke Energy Mayo Ash Basin Landfill Project
Environmental Report Joint Section 404/401 IP Application
Wood Project No. 7812200451

October 2020 8-2

The geographic scope of impacts from noise would be localized to the direct vicinity of
construction activities and traffic. As noted in Section 7.13, distance would rapidly
attenuate noise and it is not anticipated that the proposed landfill construction
operations will occur close enough to existing residential areas near the project site to
cause disturbances. It should also be noted that traffic would be predominantly
contained within Duke Energy property (i.e., internal haul roads) and that these
operations would occur during daytime hours. The proposed landfill and borrow areas
are generally surrounded by mature woods or roadways. Construction noise would be
buffered by woods or would not be out of character with existing vehicle noise along an
existing roadway.

The geographic scope of air impacts is anticipated to be localized. Emissions could be
generated by several sources associated with the proposed landfill, including vehicles
used during the construction and operation of the facility, and site grading and storage
piles during facility construction. However, as stated in Section 7.14, operations are not
expected to measurably increase air emissions and will conform to the ozone SIP.

8.3 TEMPORAL SCOPE OF CUMULATIVE IMPACTS

Duke Energy anticipates construction to begin in late 2021 and continue in phases until
construction is complete, with an approximate completion date of 2029. Post-
construction, the long-term operation of the landfill is anticipated to have de minimis
impacts and would no longer contribute to potential cumulative impacts in the project
site vicinity.

8.4 AFFECTED ENVIRONMENT

A detailed description of the affected human and natural environment from the proposed
action is presented in Section 7. The geographic scope of the affected environment
would be limited and is anticipated to be equivalent with the level of scale discussed in
Section 7. As a result, the environment affected by cumulative impacts is not anticipated
to differ from the human and natural environments described in Section 7.

8.5 ENVIRONMENTAL CONSEQUENCES

A detailed evaluation of the environmental consequences of the proposed action is
presented in Section 7. The geographic scope of environmental consequences would
be limited and is anticipated to be equivalent with the level of scale discussed in Section
7. As a result, the cumulative environmental consequences are not anticipated to differ
from those described in Section 7.

8.6 AVOIDANCE, MINIMIZATION, AND MITIGATION

Duke Energy Mayo Ash Basin Landfill Project
Environmental Report Joint Section 404/401 IP Application
Wood Project No. 7812200451

October 2020 8-3
The appropriate and practicable steps taken to avoid or minimize potential adverse
impacts are discussed in Section 4.3, while a compensatory mitigation plan for the
proposed action is included in Section 6. It should also be noted that the proposed
action (i.e., preferred alternative) was determined to be the LEDPA that meets the
purpose and needs of the project.

8.7 CONCLUSIONS

The USACE is required to determine both potential short-term and long-term effects of a
proposed discharge of dredge and fill material on the physical, chemical, and biological
components of an aquatic environment, including the effects of cumulative impacts. A
review of potential cumulative impacts to waters of the US because of ABLF
construction and operation indicates that the proposed project would have no significant
adverse effects on the aquatic ecosystem. The rationale for this presumption is based
on the following considerations.

 No contact water (i.e., water containing CCR materials) would be discharged into
waters of the US (wetlands and streams); therefore, the water quality of
downstream receiving waters, specifically Mayo Lake, would not be impaired.

 The proposed impacts to the waters of the US from project activities should have
no cumulative effect on the quality of other jurisdictional waters occurring within
the Mayo Plant or beyond the station property. This presumption is based on the
review of environmental documentation regarding known current and past federal
and non-federal actions at the steam station. Projects in the planning phase were
also considered, including reasonably foreseeable (rather than speculative)
actions that have the potential to interact with the proposed action. To have
reasonable assurances that there would be cumulative effects to projects when
considered together or incrementally, the project must occur within similar time
frames and within a geographic area coinciding with the proposed action.

 Cumulative impacts to the human environment could occur if impacts from the
project act cumulatively with existing uses in the area, including the existing
Mayo Plant, and due to potential future development.

 Zoning within and in the vicinity of the Mayo Plant is R-C, Rural-Conservation,
which does allow for industrial and commercial uses (sometimes regulated by
conditional or special use permits) (Person County 2020c). No significant
commercial, industrial, or residential developments have recently been
constructed or are under construction in the area surrounding the Mayo Plant. It
is assumed that any additional development would be conducted in accordance
with local zoning laws, and state and federal regulations. These laws and
regulations have been designed to direct development to be completed in an
environmentally sensitive manner, similar to the proposed action.
Duke Energy Mayo Ash Basin Landfill Project
Environmental Report Joint Section 404/401 IP Application
Wood Project No. 7812200451

October 2020 8-4
 Cumulative impacts to air quality are likely to be non-existent to minor, as the
proposed action is not expected to adversely impact air quality. Should large
commercial or industrial projects come into the area, air quality modeling would
be conducted to determine if the air quality environment would be impacted. The
project site is located within an area that has already been impacted by
residential, commercial, and industrial development related to Mayo Plant.

 Cumulative impacts to socioeconomic factors are expected to be non-existent to
minor, over time. The proposed action would not result in industrial or
commercial development near the project site and would have negligible effects
to job opportunities and the local tax base.

 The Mayo Plant is in an area that has historically been utilized for timber and
agricultural production. The landscape has previously been modified for road and
railroad construction and to allow for successful crop production. The landscape
has been extensively altered by land clearing for crops, ditching, and roads. The
project has been studied to determine if the proposed construction and operation
could act cumulatively with historic landscape fragmentation and potential future
commercial and industrial development to increase habitat and surface water
degradation further. Cumulative impacts from additional development are unlikely
to occur as a result of the proposed action. The project has been designed to
prevent additional surface water impairment. It is noted that development of the
LRB area has been completed. The completed LRB work, in conjunction with the
additional proposed work within the Mayo property, should not contribute to
significant local or regional cumulative environmental impacts.

A review of potential cumulative impacts due to landfill expansion and operation, as
discussed in this ER, indicates that the proposed action (i.e., the preferred alternative)
would not have significant cumulative adverse effects on the human or natural
environment

Duke Energy Mayo Ash Basin Landfill Project
Environmental Report Joint Section 404/401 IP Application
Wood Project No. 7812200451

October 2020 9-1
9 SUMMARY AND CONCLUSIONS

Environmental Report Summary
Project Location: Person County, North Carolina
Project Title: Mayo Ash Basin Landfill Project
Assessed by: Wood Environment & Infrastructure Solutions, Inc.

Background Information

This ER was prepared to facilitate the construction of a new 42.2-acre ABLF capable of
containing 4.6-million cubic yards of CCR adjacent to the Ash Basin at the Mayo Plant.
The project includes the decommissioning of the Ash Basin which would entail the
breach of the basin dam and establishment of drainage channels. Additionally, the
project includes the previously completed construction of the LRB as a part of site
stormwater controls.

The Mayo Steam Electric Plant (Mayo Plant) is a single-unit, 727-megawatt (MW) coal-
fired power generating facility. The Mayo Plant is located on Mayo Lake (Mayo
Reservoir) approximately 11 miles north of Roxboro, in northeastern Person County,
North Carolina. Mayo Lake abuts the western, northern, and eastern edges of the Mayo
Plant property. The facility began commercial operation in 1983. The facility is currently
operational.

Duke Energy obtained a USACE and NCDENR – DWQ IP for the Mayo CCP Monofill
Site (Mayo Monofill) on August 22, 2012 (USACE Permit No: SAW-2011-00181 and
DWQ Project No: 20120615). The Mayo Monofill IP authorized the construction of a
synthetically-lined industrial Landfill, (CCP Monofill), leachate tanks, and access,
maintenance building, and rail access/unloading facilities to be constructed in multiple
phases. The permitted impacts for total build-out of the facility (approximately 104
acres) is 4,648 linear feet of intermittent stream impact with minimal aquatic function,
and 84 linear feet of perennial stream. No wetlands would be impacted through the
project construction phases. Impacts for the first phase (60.2 acres) totaled 1,990 feet of
intermittent stream and 84 feet of perennial stream. Impacts to 2,658 linear feet of
intermittent stream are proposed for Phase II development. The Mayo Monofill IP
expires on December 31, 2030.

On August 20, 2014, the North Carolina General Assembly passed S 729, CAMA-14,
requiring Duke Energy to phase out wet ash handling. Under CAMA-14, as amended,
all coal ash in the state would be covered by North Carolina’s solid waste laws. With the
passage of CAMA-14, Duke Energy is following a timetable to close all its coal ash
ponds. Most of the coal ash generated by Duke Energy is already being managed as
dry ash and stored in on-site, lined landfills. Prior to the promulgation of CAMA-14,
engineering work was underway to close ash basins at the retired coal plants. The
company has accelerated that work to include closing all ash basins across its six-state
service area, both at retired and operating coal plants.
Duke Energy Mayo Ash Basin Landfill Project
Environmental Report Joint Section 404/401 IP Application
Wood Project No. 7812200451

October 2020 9-2

Due to the USEPA CCR Rule (40 CFR 257 & 261) and revisions to the Steam Electric
Power Generating ELG (40 CFR 423), Duke Energy proposed to make system wide
plant modifications to comply with the Rules. The redirection of process water would be
conducted to ensure the long-term integrity of CCR materials and facilitate future ash
basin closure activities at the Mayo Plant. The Process Water Redirection Program
would construct three new wastewater retention basins (FGD Settling Basin, LRB, and
Holding Basin) at the Mayo Plant as part of a phased effort to bring the Mayo Plant into
compliance with new USEPA effluent limitation guidelines and regulations for CCR as
part of the Ash Basin closure. The construction of the LRB resulted in impacts to
jurisdictional waters (1.15 acres of wetlands and 377 linear feet of streams). Duke
Energy proposed to permit these impacts by modifying the existing Mayo Plant CCP
Monofill Site Individual Permit in 2018, but subsequent to permit submittal and in
coordination with USACE, withdrew the LRB submittal. This submittal includes
consideration of the completed LRB impacts.

Project Description / Proposed Action

Duke Energy submitted a closure plan for the Mayo Plant by the December 31, 2019
deadline, as required by CAMA-14. On April 29, 2020, the NCDEQ issued its approval
for the closure plan. Specifically, the NCDEQ approved the Ash Basin closure plan for
the Mayo Plant based on its determination that the plan is “protective of public health,
safety, and welfare; the environment; and natural resources and otherwise complies
with the requirements of CAMA” (NCDEQ 2020a). Duke Energy has developed
excavation plans at the Mayo Plant for the disposal of ash in a lined onsite ABLF.
Therefore, Duke Energy proposes to permit and build a new 42.2-acre ABLF (project
site) capable of containing 4.6-million cubic yards of CCR adjacent to the Ash Basin to
support the closure by excavation plans.

The discharge of dredged or fill material into waters of the US and most categories of
work in navigable water bodies require USACE authorization under Section 404 of the
CWA. This Environmental Report (ER) is to provide the Wilmington District of the
USACE with a basis to evaluate and issue an IP Modification and associated
certifications for the proposed action. Specifically, this IP Modification application is a
modification of USACE Permit No: SAW-2011-00181. In addition, corresponding Water
Quality Certification would need to be provided by the NCDWR. The project is identified
as the Mayo Ash Basin Landfill Project (project) in this ER.

The purpose of the project (proposed action) is to build a 42.2-acre ABLF capable of
containing 4.6-million cubic yards of CCR adjacent to the Ash Basin at the Mayo Plant.
The construction of the ABLF would require the placement of fill material, which would
be excavated from four borrow areas located in the vicinity of the ABLF. The project
would also include the construction of a haul road to transport CCR materials to the
ABLF. Finally, as part of the overall project, the decommissioning of the Ash Basin
would entail the breach of the basin dam and the establishment of drainage channels.
Duke Energy Mayo Ash Basin Landfill Project
Environmental Report Joint Section 404/401 IP Application
Wood Project No. 7812200451

October 2020 9-3
The purpose of the project is based on the following need: Address the North Carolina
CAMA-14 regulatory requirements as related to Ash Basin closure at the Mayo Plant
and the disposal of CCR materials in a safe and timely manner.

The construction of the ABLF is to support the excavation of the Ash Basin. The ABLF
would be constructed in three adjacent cells with a perimeter road with varying width
depending on anticipated construction/operation traffic. The ABLF would require the
construction of supporting infrastructure and facilities. The project site is adjacent to the
existing Ash Basin to reduce the material transport distance and keep construction
traffic within the Duke Energy Property.

Finally, with regards to the phasing of the Ash Basin seep collection system at the Mayo
Plant and the discontinuation of the Ash Basin as a treatment unit, Duke Energy’s
position is that the seep collection system would continue to operate until all ash is
removed from the Ash Basin and the dam is breached. Any seeps that have not been
dispositioned at that point would continue to be handled/discharged under the NPDES
wastewater permit via pumping if necessary. Upon completion of all closure activities,
Duke Energy would work with the NCDEQ to determine if any NPDES permit coverage
is necessary for the Ash Basin and proceed accordingly.

Alternatives Analysis

In the evaluation of CWA Section 404 permit applications to discharge dredged or fill
material into waters of the US including wetlands, the USACE is required to analyze
alternatives that could achieve purpose and need. According to 40 CFR Section
230.10(a), a discharge of dredged or fill material would be permitted by the USACE if no
practical alternatives to the proposed discharge would have less adverse impact on the
aquatic ecosystem and there are no other significant adverse environmental
consequences. The alternatives considered for the proposed actions at the Mayo Plant
and for the Mayo Ash Basin Landfill Project were evaluated pursuant to federal
regulatory guidelines. The purpose of the project (proposed action) is to build a new
42.2-acre ABLF capable of containing 4.6-million cubic yards of CCR adjacent to the
Ash Basin at the Mayo Plant. The construction of the ABLF is a principal element of the
overall process to dispose of CCR materials as linked to the Ash Basin closure activities
at the Mayo Plant. The excavation and removal of CCR materials is a function of the
promulgation of CAMA-14. Therefore, the impetus for the alternatives analysis is linked
to this process.

The alternatives analysis for the modification of the Monofill IP evaluated two principal
action alternatives: Mayo CCP Monofill Site (2012) and Mayo ABLF (2020). The Mayo
CCP Monofill Site (2012 Monofill Site) (104 acres) is located on a vacant parcel of land
owned by PEC approximately one mile west of US Route 501 from the Mayo Plant. With
regards to potential impacts to jurisdictional wetlands, no wetlands would be impacted
under the CCP Monofill Site alternative. The construction of the proposed ABLF would
result in 0.89 acre of wetland impacts. A total of 1,990 linear feet of intermittent stream
Duke Energy Mayo Ash Basin Landfill Project
Environmental Report Joint Section 404/401 IP Application
Wood Project No. 7812200451

October 2020 9-4
impacts and 84 linear feet of perennial stream impact resulted from the construction of
the CCP Monofill Site under Phase I. A total of 896 linear feet of stream impacts are
proposed under the ABLF alternative. By comparison, impacts to jurisdictional waters,
as including wetlands and streams, would be substantially greater under the CCP
Monofill Site alternative. The impacts to jurisdictional waters from the construction of the
CCP Monofill Site encompass only the first phase of the project. Potential stream
impacts to future phases (i.e., Phase II) of the CCP Monofill Site alternative total
approximately 2,658 linear feet of intermittent stream reaches. The construction of the
Monofill would necessitate the crossing of US Route 501 by hauling trucks to transport
CCPs from the Mayo Plant to the Monofill. Presumed impacts from this action would
include an increased incidence of traffic collisions (i.e., public safety impacts), a
decrease in transportation level of service, and an adverse effect on aesthetics and
visual resources. Alternatively, the development of the ABLF Area may not require the
crossing of US Route 501 and would not require the spanning of large creeks (such as
Bowes Branch) to transport fill material for the construction of the ABLF, or to transport
CCPs from the existing Ash Basin to the ABLF. Based on the above comparative
analysis, the ABLF alternative is identified as the preferred alternative. This
determination is based on the substantial difference in impacts to jurisdictional waters
between the two action alternative sites, as well as other considerations, such as
transportation impacts. It is also noted that Duke Energy would not build additional
phases of the Mayo Monofill under the proposed action, but that this directive is
contingent upon obtaining all permits and approvals required to construct the proposed
ABLF. Finally, it is noted that the footprint of the ABLF was reduced from 58.5 acres to
42.2 acres, as 1.5-million cubic yards of CCR materials can be transported to the
Monofill. This action will allow for the use of all the available space in the currently
constructed Monofill (Phase I) without building any additional phases (i.e., Phase II) or
stormwater management improvements.

Under the No-Build Alternative, implementation of the Ash Basin closure would not
occur; therefore, there would be no impacts to waters of the US. However, under this
scenario, Duke Energy could not comply with CAMA-14 at the Mayo Plant.

Environmental Impacts and Mitigative Actions

To complete the construction of the proposed ABLF, four borrow areas, and haul road,
as well as the dam decommissioning activities, permanent impacts to wetlands would
be necessary. Impacts would include the ABLF (Wetlands B, C, UU, and ZZ), Borrow
Area 4 (Wetland OOO), the haul road (Wetlands JJJ and LLL), and the Ash Basin dam
decommissioning footprint (Wetlands F and H). The proposed total wetland impact is
0.89 acre. To complete the construction of the proposed haul road and the activities
associated with the dam decommission, permanent impacts to streams would be
necessary. Impacts would include the haul road (Streams 9 and 10) and the Ash Basin
dam decommissioning footprint (Stream 1 and the southern half of Stream 3). The
proposed total stream impact is 896 linear feet. Since the Mayo Plant in not located
Duke Energy Mayo Ash Basin Landfill Project
Environmental Report Joint Section 404/401 IP Application
Wood Project No. 7812200451

October 2020 9-5
within a river basin subject to state riparian buffer regulations, there would be no
impacts to state regulated riparian buffers within the project site.

It is noted that development of the LRB area has been completed, which included
impacts to jurisdictional wetlands and streams. The filling impacts to Streams 5 and 6
during the construction of the LRB area were, respectively, 148 feet and 229 feet, or a
total of 377 feet. The filling impacts to Wetlands D, E, and MMM during the construction
of the LRB area were, respectively, 0.11 acre, 0.76 acre, and 0.28 acre, or a total of
1.15 acres.

Compensatory mitigation for the proposed jurisdictional waters impacts is required
under the Section 404 IP. Appropriate avoidance and practicable minimization efforts
have been conducted through the engineering design process. However, unavoidable
impacts to onsite waters of the US are necessary to complete the proposed action.
Based on the review of the mitigation options available, it is determined that credit
purchase through the North Carolina Division of Mitigation Services (NCDMS) In-Lieu
Fee Program is necessary because there are no private mitigation banks offering
wetlands credits in the Roanoke River Basin at this time. Onsite mitigation and offsite
mitigation opportunities were not utilized as the In-Lieu Fee option was available and
can be successfully completed. The construction of the proposed ABLF, haul road, and
four borrow areas, as well as the construction activities associated with the
decommissioning of the Ash Basin dam, would have no effect on federally protected
species; is not expected to influence cultural resources or historic properties; should
have no effect on environmental justice for the surrounding residential communities; is
not expected to impact noise-sensitive land uses; and is not expected to impact air
quality locally or regionally. Furthermore, substantial impacts to local or regional land
use, aesthetics and visual resources, geologic features, biotic communities, aquatic
communities, and traffic and transportation are not expected to occur.

In summary and with regards to all project components and overall impacts to
jurisdictional waters (proposed impacts and after-the-fact impacts), the total amount of
permanent impacts are 2.04 acres of wetlands and 1,273 linear feet of stream channel.
The two principal project actions comprise the construction of the proposed ABLF, four
borrow areas, haul road, and dam decommission and the previously completed
construction of the LRB. Jurisdictional water impacts for each of these two actions are
summarized below.
Table 9-1. Total Wetland and Stream Impacts Summary
Project Action (status) Wetland Impacts (acre) Stream Impacts (linear feet)
ABLF (proposed) 0.89 acre 896
LRB (completed) 1.15 377
Total 2.04 1,273
Duke Energy Mayo Ash Basin Landfill Project
Environmental Report Joint Section 404/401 IP Application
Wood Project No. 7812200451

October 2020 10-1
10 REFERENCES

AECOM. 2020. Mayo Plant Ash Basin Decommissioning Design Report. 7 August 2020.

Barbour, M.T., J. Gerritsen, B.D. Snyder, and J.B. Stribling. 1999. Rapid Bioassessment
Protocols for Use in Streams and Wadeable Rivers: Periphyton, Benthic
Macroinvertebrates and Fish, Second Edition. EPA 841-B-99-002. US Environmental
Protection Agency; Office of Water; Washington, D.C.

CEQ. 1981. Scoping Guidance, Memorandum of General Councils, NEPA Liaisons and
Participants Scoping. April 30, 1981. Notice of availability published in 46 FR 25461,
May 7, 1981.

CEQ. 1997. Environmental Justice Guidance under the National Environmental Policy
Act. https://ceq.doe.gov/docs/ceq-regulations-and-guidance/regs/ej/justice.pdf.
December 10, 1997.

CRS. 2020. Congressional Research Service. Land and Water Conservation Fund:
Overview, Funding History, and Issues (updated June 19, 2019). Available at
https://fas.org/sgp/crs/misc/RL33531.pdf. Accessed May 19, 2020.

Duke Energy. 2017. Duke Energy Coal Plant Decommissioning web page
https://www.duke-energy.com/our-company/about-us/coal-plant-decommissioning-
program. Website accessed May 12, 2020.

Duke Energy. 2018. Migratory Bird Treaty Act (MBTA), Bald and Golden Eagle
Protection Act (BGEPA), and Endangered Species Act (ESA) Compliance Survey for
Timber Removal for Mayo Lake Dam – Mayo Energy Facility. March 19, 2018. Mark
Auten, Natural Resources, Duke Energy.

Eaker, Madeline Hall. 1981. The Heritage of Person County. Person County Historical
Society. Roxboro, NC. (p. 213-214).

Executive Order 11988. 1977. Floodplain Management. May 24, 1977.

Executive Order 12088. 1978. Federal Compliance with Pollution Control Standards.
October 13, 1978.

Executive Order 12898. 1994. Federal Actions to Address Environmental Justice in
Minority Populations and Low-Income Populations. February 16, 1994.

Golder. 2012. Joint Permit Application for the Mayo CCP Monofill Site, Person County,
North Carolina. Golder Associates Inc. February 9, 2012. 45pp.

Duke Energy Mayo Ash Basin Landfill Project
Environmental Report Joint Section 404/401 IP Application
Wood Project No. 7812200451

October 2020 10-2
Halifax County Register of Deeds. 2020. 1850-1860: Deed Book 49, Page 535. Halifax,
VA.

MacCaughelty, Tom. 1948. The Indians of Person County: History of Proud and
Handsome Tribe of Indians Near Roxboro. Durham Morning Herald, March 21, 1948.

NCDEQ. 2013. North Carolina Department of Environmental Quality 2011 Ambient Air
Quality Report. https://files.nc.gov/ncdeq/Air%20Quality/monitor/reports/2013-01.pdf.
Website accessed June 2, 2020.

NCDEQ. 2014. North Carolina Counties with 8-Hour Ozone Violations, 2011-2013.
https://deq.nc.gov/about/divisions/air-quality/air-quality-data/data-archives-statistical-
summaries/detailed-raw-ozone-data/north-carolina-counties-8-hour-ozone-violations-
2011-2013. Website accessed June 2, 2020.

NCDEQ. 2015. North Carolina Department of Environmental Quality. Air Quality Rules,
Emission Control Standards. 2015. https://deq.nc.gov/about/divisions/air-quality/air-
quality-rules/rules/emission-control-standards. Website accessed June 2, 2020.

NCDEQ 2018. 2018 NC Category 5 Assessments "303(d) List" Final.
https://files.nc.gov/ncdeq/Water%20Quality/Planning/TMDL/303d/2018/2018-NC-303-d-
-List-Final.pdf. Website accessed June 11, 2020.

NCDEQ. 2020a. North Carolina Department of Environmental Quality, Mayo Power
Station Coal Ash Closure Plan. https://deq.nc.gov/news/key-issues/coal-ash-
excavation/mayo-power-station-coal-ash-closure-plan. Website accessed May 12,
2020.

NCDEQ 2020b. North Carolina Department of Environmental Quality, Division of Water
Resources Classifications – Roanoke River Basin.
https://files.nc.gov/ncdeq/Water%20Quality/Planning/CSU/Surface%20Water/River%20
Basin%20Water%20Quality%20Classifications%20as%20of%20Dec%209%202013/Ro
anoke_Hydro_order.pdf. Website accessed June 11, 2020.

NCDEQ. 2020c. North Carolina Department of Environmental Quality.
https://ncdenr.maps.arcgis.com/apps/PublicInformation/index.html?appid=f82f583438e7
4bf29adcc76247381eee. Website accessed June 11, 2020.

NCDEQ. 2020d. North Carolina Aquifers. https://www.ncwater.org/?page=525. Website
accessed June 11, 2020.

NCDWR. 2016. Standard Operating Procedures for the Collection and Analysis of
Benthic Macroinvertebrates. North Carolina Department of Environmental Quality, North
Carolina Division of Water Resources. February 2016.

Duke Energy Mayo Ash Basin Landfill Project
Environmental Report Joint Section 404/401 IP Application
Wood Project No. 7812200451

October 2020 10-3
NCGS. 1985. Geologic Map of North Carolina. Available at:
https://deq.nc.gov/about/divisions/energy-mineral-land-resources/north-carolina-
geological-survey/ncgs-maps/1985-geologic-map-of-nc
Accessed May 15, 2020.

NCGS. 1991. North Carolina Geological Survey. Generalized Geologic Map of North
Carolina technical leaflet.

NCGS. 2004. North Carolina Geological Survey. Physiography of North Carolina
technical leaflet.

NCNHP. 2020. North Carolina Department of Environmental Quality, Natural Heritage
Program Data Services. http://ncnhp.org/web/nhp/database-search. Website accessed
June 8, 2020.

NLCD. 2016. National Land Cover Database 2016. USGS. Available at:
https://www.mrlc.gov/data/nlcd-2016-land-cover-conus.

NRCS. 2020. US Department of Agriculture, Natural Resources Conservation Service.
Person County Soil Survey geographic information system.
Person County. 2020a. Person County Planning Ordinance. Available at:
https://www.personcountync.gov/home/showdocument?id=465. Website accessed June
1, 2020.

Person County. 2020b. Flood Damage Prevention Ordinance of Person County, NC
(Non-Coastal Regular Phase).
https://www.personcountync.gov/home/showdocument?id=13928. Website accessed
June 11, 2020.

Person County. 2020c. Person County Planning Ordinance, Person County, North
Carolina. January 06, 2020.
https://www.personcountync.gov/home/showdocument?id=14018. Website accessed
June 16, 2020.

Person County Register of Deeds. 2020. Cemeteries. GIS Department.
https://gis.personcountync.gov/cemeteries/. Website accessed April 21, 2020.

Schafale, M.P., and A.S. Weakley. 1990. Classification of the natural communities of
North Carolina, third approximation. N.C. Natural Heritage Program, Raleigh, N.C. 325
pp.

USCB. 2020. U.S Census Bureau - American Community Survey: Tract 9201 (Person
County). https://data.census.gov. Website accessed June 4, 2020.

Duke Energy Mayo Ash Basin Landfill Project
Environmental Report Joint Section 404/401 IP Application
Wood Project No. 7812200451

October 2020 10-4
USEPA. 1974. US Environmental Protection Agency. Information on Levels of
Environmental Noise Requisite to Protect Public Health and Welfare with an Adequate
Margin of Safety. Report 550/9-74-004, Washington, D.C.

USEPA. 1998. Final Guidance for Incorporating Environmental Justice Concerns in
EPA's NEPA Compliance Analyses. https://www.epa.gov/sites/production/files/2015-
04/documents/ej-guidance-nepa-compliance-analyses.pdf. April 1998.

USEPA. 2020a. Level III and IV Ecoregions of the Continental United States. Available
at: https://www.epa.gov/eco-research/level-iii-and-iv-ecoregions-continental-united-
states. Website accessed May 15, 2020.

USEPA. 2020b. Summary of the Noise Control Act. https://www.epa.gov/laws-
regulations/summary-noise-control-act. Website accessed June 2, 2020.

USEPA. 2020c. 2017 National Emissions Inventory (NEI) Data. https://www.epa.gov/air-
emissions-inventories/2017-national-emissions-inventory-nei-data. Website accessed
June 1, 2020.

USFS 1995. US Department of Agriculture, Forest Service. Landscape aesthetics: a
handbook for scenery management. Agricultural Handbook 701. Washington, DC.

USFWS. 2020a. US Fish and Wildlife Service. Information for Planning and
Conservation (IPaC) database. http://ecos.fws.gov/ipac/. Website accessed June 8,
2020.

USFWS. 2020b. US Fish and Wildlife Service. ECOS Environmental Conservation
Online System. http://ecos.fws.gov/ecp/. Website accessed June 8, 2020.

USFWS. 2020c. US Fish and Wildlife Service. Raleigh Ecological Services Field Office.
http://www.fws.gov/raleigh/. Website accessed June 8, 2020.

USGS. 1953. Greensboro NC-VA. (1:250,000) Map. 1953 ed. US Department of the
Interior. Reston, VA.

USGS. 1962. Greensboro NC-VA. (1:250,000) Map. 1962 ed. US Department of the
Interior. Reston, VA.

USGS. 1968. Cluster Springs VA-NC. (1:24,000) Map. 1968 ed. US Department of the
Interior. Reston, VA.

USGS. 2020. US Geological Survey. Cluster Springs, North Carolina digital 7.5′
topography. Accessed June 1, 2020.

Duke Energy Mayo Ash Basin Landfill Project
Environmental Report Joint Section 404/401 IP Application
Wood Project No. 7812200451

October 2020 10-5
Weakley, A.S. 2015. Flora of the Southern and Mid-Atlantic States. UNC Herbarium,
North Carolina Botanical Garden, University of North Carolina at Chapel Hill. 1320 pp.
Duke Energy Mayo Ash Basin Landfill Project
Draft Final Environmental Report Joint Section 404/401 IP Application
Wood Project No. 7812200451

October 2020 10-1

FIGURES

Figure 1-1. Site Location Map
2
3
4
1
I 0 21Miles
I 0 200100Miles
C:\Users\andrew.bousquet\Documents\ArcGIS\Packages\Figure 1-1. Site Location Map_8B329BCD-E14D-4B7D-84B0-D3C414E22EE3\v105\Figure 1-1. Site Location Map.mxdMayo Steam Electric PlantProposed Mayo Ash Basin LandfillRoxboro, NC
Job No. 7812200451
Drawn By: CSP
Reviewed By: JDC
The map shown here has beencreated with all due andreasonable care and is strictly foruse with Wood project number7812200451. Wood assumes noliability, direct or indirect,whatsoever for any such thirdparty or unintended use.Date: 10/13/2020
^_
Proposed Ash Basin Landfill
Legend
Proposed Ash Basin Landfill
Existing Ash Basin
Proposed Borrow Area
NCDOT Right-of-Way
Mayo Steam Electric Plant Property Boundary
Lined Retention Basin LOD
Figure 1-2. Site Aerial Map 2
3
1
4
I 0 5,0002,500 Feet
I 0 200100Miles
C:\Users\andrew.bousquet\Documents\ArcGIS\Packages\Figure 1-2. Site Aerial Map_B6EC4A42-DA67-4A55-8048-15CE4DDFBDF3\v105\Figure 1-2. Site Aerial Map.mxdMayo Steam Electric PlantProposed Mayo Ash Basin LandfillRoxboro, NC
Job No. 7812200451
Drawn By: CSP
Reviewed By: JDC
The map shown here has beencreated with all due andreasonable care and is strictly foruse with Wood project number7812200451. Wood assumes noliability, direct or indirect,whatsoever for any such thirdparty or unintended use.Date: 10/13/2020
^_
Legend
Mayo Steam Electric Plant Property Boundary
Proposed Ash Basin Landfill
Existing Ash Basin
Proposed Borrow Area
NCDOT Right-of-Way
Dam Decommissioning Area
Lined Retention Basin LOD
Figure 3-1. ProjectComponents
2
3
4
1
I 0 1,000500Feet
I 0 200100Miles
\\DHM-FS1\projects\Energy\Projects\Duke\2020\7812200451 - Mayo New Landfill Ind Permit\GIS\Figures for Internal Review\Figure 3-1. Project Components_2.mxdSources: Esri, HERE, DeLorme, USGS, Intermap, INCREMENT P, NRCan, Esri Japan, METI, Esri China (HongKong), Esri Korea, Esri (Thailand), MapmyIndia, NGCC, © OpenStreetMap contributors, and the GIS User
Mayo Steam Electric PlantProposed Mayo Ash Basin LandfillRoxboro, NC
Job No. 7812200451
Drawn By: CSP
Reviewed By: JDC
The map shown here has beencreated with all due andreasonable care and is strictly foruse with Wood project number7812200451. Wood assumes noliability, direct or indirect,whatsoever for any such thirdparty or unintended use.Date: 10/13/2020
^_
Legend
Grading LOD
Right of Way
Proposed Haul Road
Mayo Steam Electric PlantProperty Boundary
Existing Ash
Proposed Borrow Area(39.4 Acres)
Ash Basin DamDecommissioning Area
Proposed Ash Basin Landfill(42.2 Acres)
Lined Retention Basin LOD
Figure 3-2. Closure byExcavation – Dam BreachGrading Plan
I 0 200100Miles
P:\Energy\Projects\Duke\2020\7812200451 - Mayo New Landfill Ind Permit\GIS\Figures for Internal Review\Figure 3-2. Closure By Excavation.mxdMayo Steam Electric PlantProposed Mayo Ash Basin LandfillRoxboro, NC
Job No. 7812200451
Drawn By: CSP
Reviewed By: JDC
The map shown here has beencreated with all due andreasonable care and is strictly foruse with Wood project number7812200451. Wood assumes noliability, direct or indirect,whatsoever for any such thirdparty or unintended use.Date: 9/28/2020
^_
DISCLAIMER
The current footprint of the landfill has been revised by Wood. The version shown on this AEC OM drawing is a prelim inary design and does not reflect the current landfill footprint.
Figure 4-1. Lined RetentionBasin Alternative SiteLocations
#0
#0
#
X
J
III
T
FF
Y
N
I
R
G
SSS
L
HHH
PPP
Q
U
GG
KK
EE
B
M
JJ
C
ZZ
II
H
HH
S
LLL
EEE
JJJ
QQQ
UU
O
NNN
F
OOO
RRR
D
E
MMM
108
14
61
51
31
59
11
111
2
29
99
60
33
58
112
17
60
45
2015
3
24
115
34
125
120
62
50109
113
110
114
21
139
100
118
138
49
64
35
101
85
116 117
23
302
18
60
16
22
16
130
19
132
25
95
30
124
129
63
135
102
131
127
65
1
9 10
5
6
OPTION 134 ACRES
OPTION 4 32 ACRES
OPTION 219 ACRES
OPTION 35 ACRES
OUTFALL 009
NPDES OUTFALL 001
NPDES OUTFALL 002
I 0 2,0001,000 Feet
I 0 200100Miles
\\DHM-FS1\projects\Energy\Projects\Duke\2020\7812200451 - Mayo New Landfill Ind Permit\GIS\Figures for Internal Review\Figure 4-1. Lined Retention Basin Alternatives.mxdMayo Steam Electric StationProposed Mayo Ash Basin LandfillRoxboro, NC
Job No. 7812200451
Drawn By: CSP
Reviewed By: JDC
The map shown here has beencreated with all due andreasonable care and is strictly foruse with Wood project number7812200451. Wood assumes noliability, direct or indirect,whatsoever for any such thirdparty or unintended use.Date: 10/13/2020
^_
Legend
Lined Retention Basin Alternative Sites based on Geosyntec graphic exhibit (Potential Settling Feature Areas, Mayo Steam Station, Roxboro, NC), dated May 2015
Boundaries and extents of wetland and stream features based on McKim & Creed survey plat data, dated July 24, 2019.
#0 NPDES OUTFALL
#OUTFALL
Mayo Steam Electric Plant Property Boundary
NCDOT Right-of-Way
Existing Ash Basin
Streams
Wetlands
Crutchfield Branch & unnamed tributary (not-delineated)
Lined Retention Basin Alternative Site
Figure 4-2. AlternativesAnalysis Sites 2
3
1
4
I 0 5,0002,500 Feet
I 0 200100Miles
C:\Users\andrew.bousquet\Documents\ArcGIS\Packages\Figure 4-1. Alternatives Analysis Sites_576B9687-83FA-46FC-9E78-4F1F7FFFA957\v105\Figure 4-1. Alternatives Analysis Sites.mxdMayo Steam Electric PlantProposed Ash Basin LandfillRoxboro, NC
Job No. 7812200451
Drawn By: CSP
Reviewed By: JDC
The map shown here has beencreated with all due andreasonable care and is strictly foruse with Wood project number7812200451. Wood assumes noliability, direct or indirect,whatsoever for any such thirdparty or unintended use.Date: 10/13/2020
^_
Legend
Ash Basin DamDecommissioning Area
Grading LOD
NCDOT Right-of-Way
Proposed Haul Road
Mayo Steam Electric PlantProperty Boundary
Existing Ash Basin
CCP Monofill Site (2012) (104Acres)
Proposed Borrow Area (2020)(39.4 Acres)
Lined Retention Basin LOD
Mayo ABLF 2020 (42.2
acres) Alternative 1A -
Applicant’s Preferred
Figure 4-3. AlternativesAnalysis Sites - CCP MonofillSite
I 0 1,000500Feet
Mayo Steam Electric StationProperty Boundary
CCP Monofill Site (2012)
I 0 200100Miles
\\DHM-FS1\projects\Energy\Projects\Duke\2020\7812200451 - Mayo New Landfill Ind Permit\GIS\Figures for Internal Review\Figure 4-3. Alternatives Analysis Sites - CCP Monofill Site.mxdSources: Esri, HERE, DeLorme, USGS, Intermap, INCREMENT P, NRCan, Esri Japan, METI, Esri China (HongKong), Esri Korea, Esri (Thailand), MapmyIndia, NGCC, © OpenStreetMap contributors, and the GIS User
Mayo Steam Electric StationProposed Mayo Ash Basin LandfillRoxboro, NC
Job No. 7812200451
Drawn By: CSP
Reviewed By: JDC
The map shown here has beencreated with all due andreasonable care and is strictly foruse with Amec Foster Wheelerproject number 7812200451.Amec Foster Wheeler assumes noliability, direct or indirect,whatsoever for any such thirdparty or unintended use.Date: 10/13/2020
^_
Legend
Figure 5-1. JurisdictionalWaters Map
X
J
III
T
FF
Y
N
I
R
G
SSS
L
HHH
PPP
Q
U
GG
KK
EE
B
M
JJ
C
ZZ
II
H
HH
S
LLL
EEE
JJJ
QQQ
UU
O
NNN
F
OOO
RRR
D
E
MMM
108
14
61
51
31
59
11
111
2
29
99
60
33
58
112
17
60
45
2015
3
24
115
34
125
120
62
50109
113
110
114
21
139
100
118
138
49
64
35
101
85
116 117
23
302
18
60
16
22
16
130
19
132
25
95
30
124
129
63
135
102
131
127
65
1
9 10
5
6
3 1002
3
4
1
I 0 2,0001,000 Feet
I 0 200100Miles
T:\Pennington\Figure 5-1. Jurisdictional Waters Map_40044960-B228-48D8-9547-C836334EAD8D\v105\Figure 5-1. Jurisdictional Waters Map.mxdMayo Steam Electric StationProposed Mayo Ash Basin LandfillRoxboro, NC
Job No. 7812200451
Drawn By: CSP
Reviewed By: JDC
The map shown here has beencreated with all due andreasonable care and is strictly foruse with Wood project number7812200451. Wood assumes noliability, direct or indirect,whatsoever for any such thirdparty or unintended use.Date: 10/13/2020
^_
Legend
Grading LOD
Mayo Steam Electric Plant PropertyBoundary
Proposed Haul Road
Existing Ash Basin
Ash Basin DamDecommissioning Area
NCDOT Right-of-W ay
Lined Retention Basin LOD
Proposed Ash Basin Landfill
Proposed Borrow Area
Wetlands
Streams
Crutchfield Branch (Stream 3) &unnamed tributary (Stream 100) notdelineated
Figure 5-2. JurisdictionalWaters Impact Map
III
T
Y
R
G
L
Q
U
KK
B
M
JJ
C
ZZ
H
HH
S
LLL
JJJ
UU
O
NNN
F
OOO
E
MMM
D
13
9
10
6
5
51
111
2
29
60
33
112
17
60
20
3
24
115
34
113
110
21
139
100
118
35
101
85
23
302
16
22
19
95
30
124
63
I 0 1,000500Feet
I 0 200100Miles
P:\Energy\Projects\Duke\2020\7812200451 - Mayo New Landfill Ind Permit\GIS\Figures for Internal Review\Figure 5-2 Jurisidictional Waters Impact Map.mxdMayo Steam Electric StationProposed Mayo Ash Basin LandfillRoxboro, NC
Job No. 7812200451
Drawn By: CSP
Reviewed By: JDC
The map shown here has beencreated with all due andreasonable care and is strictly foruse with Wood project number7812200451. Wood assumes noliability, direct or indirect,whatsoever for any such thirdparty or unintended use.Date: 10/20/2020
^_
Legend
Legend
Ash Basin DamDecommissioning Area
Mayo Steam Electric Station PropertyBoundary
Proposed Haul Road
Existing Ash Basin
Grading LOD
NCDOT Right-of-W ay
Lined Retention Basin LOD
Proposed Ash Basin Landfill
Proposed Borrow Area
Crutchfield Branch (Stream 3) & unnamedtributary (Stream 100) not delineated
Streams
Proposed Impacted Streams
Proposed Impacted W etlands
Wetlands
100
3
Figure 7-1. USGSTopographic Map
2
3
4
1
I 0 1,000500Feet
Grading LOD
NCDOT Right-of-Way
Lined Retention Basin LOD
Proposed Haul Road
Mayo Steam Electric Plant PropertyBoundary
Proposed Ash Basin Landfill
Existing Ash Basin
Proposed Borrow Area
Surface Waters
I 0 200100Miles
C:\Users\andrew.bousquet\Documents\ArcGIS\Packages\Figure 7-1. USGS Topographic Map_9781814B-6800-4F89-AC33-7067104E9A58\v105\Figure 7-1. USGS Topographic Map.mxdMayo Steam Electric PlantProposed Mayo Ash Basin LandfillRoxboro, NC
Job No. 7812200451
Drawn By: CSP
Reviewed By: JDC
The map shown here has beencreated with all due andreasonable care and is strictly foruse with Wood project number7812200451. Wood assumes noliability, direct or indirect,whatsoever for any such thirdparty or unintended use.Date: 10/13/2020
^_
Legend
Ash Basin DamDecommissioning Area
Figure 7-2. NRCS Soils Map
2
3
4
1
UdB
W
Ur
CeB
RoF
W
WeE
TaE
SmF
RaC
WeE
CeC
SmF
ChA
SmF
DAM
SmD
RaB
HeC
VaC
WeD
CeC
TaE
HrB
HrC
WeC
VaC
VaC
WeC
CeB Ur
WeC
CeC
SmF
HeB
WeE
WeE
HeB
WeD
VaB
WeD
TaD
SmF
RaB
HeB
TaD
CeB
WeE
HrB
W
HeC
SmD
CeC
HeB
HrB
WeE
UdB
W
SmD
HrC
WkF
RaB
RaC
WeE TaD
WeC
I 0 1,000500Feet
I 0 200100Miles
C:\Users\andrew.bousquet\Documents\ArcGIS\Packages\Figure 7-2. NRCS Soils Map_FB58430C-1B19-40DB-85D6-23D7C8DB221E\v105\Figure 7-2. NRCS Soils Map.mxdMayob Steam Electric PlantProposed Mayo Ash Basin LandfillRoxboro, NC
Job No. 7812200451
Drawn By: CSP
Reviewed By: JDC
The map shown here has beencreated with all due andreasonable care and is strictly foruse with Wood project number7812200451. Wood assumes noliability, direct or indirect,whatsoever for any such thirdparty or unintended use.Date: 10/13/2020
^_
Legend
Grading LOD
NCDOT Right-of-Way
Lined Retention Basin LOD
Proposed Haul Road
Mayo Steam Electric Station PropertyBoundary
Existing Ash
Proposed Ash Basin
Proposed Borrow
Soils
Ash Basin DamDecommissioning Area
Figure 7-3. Floodplain Map
2
3
4
1
I 0 2,0001,000 Feet
Grading LOD
Right of Way
Lined Retention Basin LOD
Proposed Haul Road
Mayo Steam Electric StationProperty Boundary
Existing Ash Basin
Proposed Ash Basin Landfill
Proposed Borrow Area
Zone AE (100 yr)
I 0 200100Miles
\\DHM-FS1\projects\Energy\Projects\Duke\2020\7812200451 - Mayo New Landfill Ind Permit\GIS\Figures for Internal Review\Figure 7-3. Floodplain Map_2.mxdMayo Steam Electric StationProposed Mayo Ash Basin LandfillRoxboro, NC
Job No. 7812200451
Drawn By: CSP
Reviewed By: JDC
The map shown here has beencreated with all due andreasonable care and is strictly foruse with Wood project number7812200451. Wood assumes noliability, direct or indirect,whatsoever for any such thirdparty or unintended use.Date: 10/13/2020
^_
Legend
Ash Basin DamDecommissioning Area
Figure 7-4. CulturalResources Map
$$
$$
%2
%2%2
31PR931PR8
31PR7
31PR0069
31PR0059
2
3
1
4
I 0 2,0001,000 Feet
I 0 200100Miles
C:\Users\andrew.bousquet\Documents\ArcGIS\Packages\Figure 7-4. Cultural Resources Map_DC51745D-36BB-4E13-AFE9-BE710CD5FB11\v105\Figure 7-4. Cultural Resources Map.mxdMayo Steam Electric StationProposed Mayo Ash Basin LandfillRoxboro, NC
Job No. 7812200451
Drawn By: CSP
Reviewed By: JDC
The map shown here has beencreated with all due andreasonable care and is strictly foruse with Wood project number7812200451. Wood assumes noliability, direct or indirect,whatsoever for any such thirdparty or unintended use.Date: 10/13/2020
^_
Legend
31PR66
Ash Basin DamDecommissioning Area
Mayo Steam Electric Plant PropertyBoundary
Grading LOD
NCDOT Right-of-Way
Proposed Haul Road
Proposed Borrow Sites
One-Mile APE
$$Historic Structures
%2 Archaeological Sites
Unmarked Slave/Indian Cemetery
50' Cemetery Buffer
Proposed Ash Basin Landfill
Existing Ash Basin
Lined Retention Basin LOD
Duke Energy Mayo Ash Basin Landfill Project
Draft Final Environmental Report Joint Section 404/401 IP Application
Wood Project No. 7812200451

October 2020 10-2

APPENDICES

Duke Energy Mayo Ash Basin Landfill Project
Draft Final Environmental Report Joint Section 404/401 IP Application
Wood Project No. 7812200451

October 2020 10-3

APPENDIX A

NC WAM WETLAND ASSESSMENT FORMS AND
NC SAM STREAM ASSESSMENT FORMS

USACE AID#:NCDWR #:
Yes No
Evidence of stressors affecting the assessment area (may not be within the assessment area)
Please circle and/or make note on last page if evidence of stressors is apparent. Consider departure from reference, if
appropriate, in recent past (for instance, approximately within 10 years). Noteworthy stressors include, but are not limited
to the following.
•
•
•
•
Is the assessment area intensively managed?Yes No
Regulatory Considerations - Were regulatory considerations evaluated?Yes No If Yes, check all that apply to the assessment area.
Anadromous fish
Federally protected species or State endangered or threatened species
NCDWR riparian buffer rule in effect
Abuts a Primary Nursery Area (PNA)
Publicly owned property
N.C. Division of Coastal Management Area of Environmental Concern (AEC) (including buffer)
Abuts a stream with a NCDWQ classification of SA or supplemental classifications of HQW, 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
Tidal (if tidal, check one of the following boxes)Lunar Lunar Wind Both
Is the assessment area on a coastal island?Yes No
Is the assessment area's surface water storage capacity or duration substantially altered by beaver?Yes No
Does the assessment area experience overbank flooding during normal rainfall conditions?Yes No
1.Ground Surface Condition/Vegetation Condition – assessment area condition metric
Check 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
A A Not severely altered
B B 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,
less diversity [if appropriate], hydrologic alteration)
2.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. A ditch ≤ 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
A A Water storage capacity and duration are not altered.
B B Water storage capacity or duration are altered, but not substantially (typically, not sufficient to change vegetation).
C C Water storage capacity or duration are substantially altered (typically, alteration sufficient to result in vegetation
change) (examples: draining, flooding, soil compaction, filling, excessive sedimentation, underground utility lines).
3.Water Storage/Surface Relief – assessment area/wetland type condition metric (skip for all marshes)
Check a box in each column for each group below. Select the appropriate storage for the assessment area (AA) and the wetland
type (WT).
AA WT
3a.A A Majority of wetland with depressions able to pond water > 1 foot deep
B B Majority of wetland with depressions able to pond water 6 inches to 1 foot deep
C C 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.A Evidence that maximum depth of inundation is greater than 2 feet
B Evidence that maximum depth of inundation is between 1 and 2 feet
C Evidence that maximum depth of inundation is less than 1 foot
Hydrological modifications (examples: ditches, dams, beaver dams, dikes, berms, ponds, etc.)
Latitude/Longitude (deci-degrees)
Habitat/plant community alteration (examples: mowing, clear-cutting, exotics, etc.)
Surface and sub-surface discharges into the wetland (examples: discharges containing obvious pollutants, presence of nearby
Sub
VS
septic tanks, underground storage tanks (USTs), hog lagoons, etc.)
Precipitation within 48 hrs?
Signs of vegetation stress (examples: vegetation mortality, insect damage, disease, storm damage, salt intrusion, etc.)
36.535256, -78.900877
NC WAM WETLAND ASSESSMENT FORM
Accompanies User Manual Version 5
Mayo Lake
R. Conchilla/Wood E&IS
WB
4/21/2020Date of Evaluation
Wetland Site Name
Assessor Name/Organization
Nearest Named Water Body
Project Name
Wetland Type Non-Riverine Swamp Forest
Level III Ecoregion
03010104
RaleighNCDWR RegionCounty
Roanoke
Person
USGS 8-Digit Catalogue Unit
Piedmont
River Basin
Applicant/Owner Name Duke Energy
Mayo Ash Basin Landfill
4.Soil Texture/Structure – assessment area condition metric (skip for all marshes)
Check a box from each of the three soil property groups below. Dig soil profile in the dominant assessment area landscape
feature. Make soil observations within the 12 inches. Use most recent National Technical Committee for Hydric Soils guidance for
regional indicators.
4a.A Sandy soil
B Loamy or clayey soils exhibiting redoximorphic features (concentrations, depletions, or rhizospheres)
C Loamy or clayey soils not exhibiting redoximorphic features
D Loamy or clayey gleyed soil
E Histosol or histic epipedon
4b.A Soil ribbon < 1 inch
B Soil ribbon ≥ 1 inch
4c.A No peat or muck presence
B A peat or muck presence
5.Discharge into Wetland – opportunity metric
Check a box in each column. Consider surface pollutants or discharges (Surf) and sub-surface pollutants or discharges (Sub).
Examples of sub-surface discharges include presence of nearby septic tank, underground storage tank (UST), etc.
Surf Sub
A A Little or no evidence of pollutants or discharges entering the assessment area
B B Noticeable evidence of pollutants or discharges entering the wetland and stressing, but not overwhelming the
treatment capacity of the assessment area
C C Noticeable evidence of pollutants or discharges (pathogen, particulate, or soluble) entering the assessment area and
potentially overwhelming the treatment capacity of the wetland (water discoloration, dead vegetation, excessive
sedimentation, odor)
6.Land Use – opportunity metric (skip for non-riparian wetlands)
Check all that apply (at least one box in each column). Evaluation involves a GIS effort with field adjustment. Consider sources
draining to assessment area within entire upstream watershed (WS), within 5 miles and within the watershed draining to the
assessment area (5M), and within 2 miles and within the watershed draining to the assessment area (2M). Effective riparian buffers
are considered to be 50 feet wide in the Coastal Plain and Piedmont ecoregions and 30 feet wide in the Blue Ridge Mountains ecoregion.
WS 5M 2M
A A A ≥ 10% impervious surfaces
B B B Confined animal operations (or other local, concentrated source of pollutants)
C C C ≥ 20% coverage of pasture
D D D ≥ 20% coverage of agricultural land (regularly plowed land)
E E E ≥ 20% coverage of maintained grass/herb
F F F ≥ 20% coverage of clear-cut land
G G G Little or no opportunity to improve water quality. Lack of opportunity may result from little or no disturbance in
the watershed or hydrologic alterations that prevent dainage and/or overbank flow from affectio the
assessment area.
7.Wetland Acting as Vegetated Buffer – assessment area/wetland complex condition metric (skip for non-riparian wetlands)
7a.Is assessment area within 50 feet of a tributary or other open water?
Yes No If Yes, continue to 7b. If No, skip to Metric 8.
7b.How much of the first 50 feet from the bank is weltand? (Wetland buffer need only be present on one side of the water body. Make
buffer judgment based on the average width of wetland. Record a note if a portion of the buffer has been removed or disturbed.)
A ≥ 50 feet
B From 30 to < 50 feet
C From 15 to < 30 feet
D From 5 to < 15 feet
E < 5 feet or buffer bypassed by ditches
7c.Tributary width. If the tributary is anastomosed, combine widths of channels/braids for a total width.
≤ 15-feet wide > 15-feet wide Other open water (no tributary present)
7d.Do roots of assessment area vegetation extend into the bank of the tributary/open water?
Yes No
7e.Is tributary or other open water sheltered or exposed?
Sheltered – adjacent open water with width < 2500 feet and no regular boat traffic.
Exposed – adjacent open water with width ≥ 2500 feet or regular boat traffic.
8.Wetland Width at the Assessment Area – wetland type/wetland complex condition metric (evaluate WT for all marshes
and Estuarine Woody Wetland only; evaluate WC for Bottomland Hardwood Forest, Headwater Forest, and Riverine Swamp
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
A A ≥ 100 feet
B B From 80 to < 100 feet
C C From 50 to < 80 feet
D D From 40 to < 50 feet
E E From 30 to < 40 feet
F F From 15 to < 30 feet
G G From 5 to < 15 feet
H H < 5 feet
9.Inundation Duration – assessment area condition metric (skip for non-riparian wetlands)
Answer for assessment area dominant landform.
A Evidence of short-duration inundation (< 7 consecutive days)
B Evidence of saturation, without evidence of inundation
C Evidence of long-duration inundation or very long-duration inundation (7 to 30 consecutive days or more)
Forest only)
10.Indicators of Deposition – assessment area condition metric (skip for non-riparian wetlands and all marshes)
Consider recent deposition only (no plant growth since deposition).
A Sediment deposition is not excessive, but at approximately natural levels.
B Sediment deposition is excessive, but not overwhelming the wetland.
C Sediment deposition is excessive and is overwhelming the wetland.
11.Wetland Size – wetland type/wetland complex condition metric
Check a box in each column. Involves a GIS effort with field adjustment. This metric evaluates three aspects of the wetland area: the
size of the wetland type (WT), the size of the wetland complex (WC), and the size of the forested wetland (FW) (if applicable, see User
Manual). See the User Manual for boundaries of these evaluation areas. If assessment area is clear-cut, select “K” for the FW column.
WT FW (if applicable)
A A A ≥ 500 acres
B B B From 100 to < 500 acres
C C C From 50 to < 100 acres
D D D From 25 to < 50 acres
E E E From 10 to < 25 acres
F F F From 5 to < 10 acres
G G G From 1 to < 5 acres
H H H From 0.5 to < 1 acre
I I I From 0.1 to < 0.5 acre
J J J From 0.01 to < 0.1 acre
K K K < 0.01 acre or assessment area is clear-cut
12.Wetland Intactness – wetland type condition metric (evaluate for Pocosins only)
A Pocosin is the full extent (≥ 90%) of its natural landscape size.
B Pocosin is < 90% of the full extent of its natural landscape size.
13.Connectivity to Other Natural Areas – landscape condition metric
13a.Check appropriate box(es) (a box may be checked in each column). Involves a GIS effort with field adjustment. This
evaluates whether the wetland is well connected (Well) and/or loosely connected (Loosely) to the landscape patch, the contiguous
metric naturally vegetated area and open water (if appropriate). Boundaries are formed by four-lane roads, regularly maintained utility
line corridors the width of a four-lane road or wider, urban landscapes, fields (pasture open and agriculture), or water > 300 feet wide.
A A ≥ 500 acres
B B From 100 to < 500 acres
C C From 50 to < 100 acres
D D From 10 to < 50 acres
E E < 10 acres
F F Wetland type has a poor or no connection to other natural habitats
13b.Evaluate for marshes only.
Yes No Wetland type has a surface hydrology connection to open waters/stream or tidal wetlands.
14.Edge Effect – wetland type condition metric (skip for all marshes and Estuarine Woody Wetland)
May involve a GIS effort with field adjustment. Estimate distance from wetland type boundary to artificial edges. Artificial edges include
non-forested areas ≥ 40 feet wide such as fields, development, roads, regularly maintained utility line corridors and clear-cuts. Consider
the eight main points of the compass. Artificial edge occurs within 150 feet in how many directiions? If the assessment area is clear-cut,
select option "C."
A 0
B 1 to 4
C 5 to 8
15. Vegetative Composition – assessment area condition metric (skip for all marshes and Pine Flat)
A Vegetation is close to reference condition in species present and their proportions. Lower strata composed of appropriate
species, with exotic plants absent or sparse within the assessment area.
B Vegetation is different from reference condition in species diversity or proportions, but still largely composed of native species
characteristic of the wetland type. This may include communities of weedy native species that develop after clearcutting or
clearing. It also includes communities with exotics present, but not dominant, over a large portion of the expected strata.
C Vegetation severely altered from reference in composition, or expected species are unnaturally absent (planted stands of non-
characteristic species or at least one stratum inappropriately composed of a single species), or 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 > 10% to 50% cover of exotics.
C Vegetation is dominated by exotic species (>50% cover of exotics).
17.Vegetative Structure – assessment area/wetland type condition metric
17a.Is vegetation present?
Yes No If Yes, continue to 17b. If No, skip to Metric 18.
17b.Evaluate percent coverage of assessment area vegetation for all marshes only. Skip to 17c for non-marsh wetlands.
A ≥ 25% coverage of vegetation
B < 25% coverage of vegetation
Well
WC
Loosely
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.
A A Canopy closed, or nearly closed, with natural gaps associated with natural processes
B B Canopy present, but opened more than natural gaps
C C Canopy sparse or absent
A A Dense mid-story/sapling layer
B B Moderate density mid-story/sapling layer
C C Mid-story/sapling layer sparse or absent
A A Dense shrub layer
B B Moderate density shrub layer
C C Shrub layer sparse or absent
A A Dense herb layer
B B Moderate density herb layer
C C Herb layer sparse or absent
18.Snags – wetland type condition metric (skip for all marshes)
A Large snags (more than one) are visible (> 12-inches DBH, or large relative to species present and landscape stability).
B Not A
19.Diameter Class Distribution – wetland type condition metric (skip for all marshes)
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 (skip for all marshes)
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 A
21.Vegetation/Open Water Dispersion – wetland type/open water condition metric (evaluate for Non-Tidal Freshwater
Marsh only)
Select the figure that best describes the amount of interspersion between vegetation and open water in the growing season. Patterned
areas indicate vegetated areas, while solid white areas indicate open water.
A B C D
22.Hydrologic Connectivity – assessment area condition metric (evaluate for riparian wetlands and Salt/Brackish Marsh only)
Examples of activities that may severely alter hydrologic connectivity include intensive ditching, fill, sedimentation, channelization,
diversion, man-made berms, beaver dams, and stream incision. Documentation required if evaluated as B, C, or D.
A Overbank and overland flow are not severely altered in the assessment area.
B Overbank flow is severely altered in the assessment area.
C Overland flow is severely altered in the assessment area.
D Both overbank and overland flow are severely altered in the assessment area.
AA WT
Notes CanopyMid-StoryShrubHerb
Notes on Field Assessment Form (Y/N)
Presence of regulatory considerations (Y/N)
Wetland is intensively managed (Y/N)
Assessment area is located within 50 feet of a natural tributary or other open water (Y/N)
Assessment area is substantially altered by beaver (Y/N)
Assessment area experiences overbank flooding during normal rainfall conditions (Y/N)
Assessment area is on a coastal island (Y/N)
Sub-function Rating Summary
Function Sub-function Metrics
Hydrology Surface Storage and Retention Condition
Sub-Surface Storage and Retention Condition
Water Quality Pathogen Change Condition
Condition/Opportunity
Opportunity Presence? (Y/N)
Particulate Change Condition
Condition/Opportunity
Opportunity Presence? (Y/N)
Soluble Change Condition
Condition/Opportunity
Opportunity Presence? (Y/N)
Physical Change Condition
Condition/Opportunity
Opportunity Presence? (Y/N)
Pollution Change Condition
Condition/Opportunity
Opportunity Presence? (Y/N)
Habitat Physical Structure Condition
Landscape Patch Structure Condition
Vegetation Composition Condition
Function Rating Summary
Function Metrics/Notes
Hydrology Condition
Water Quality Condition
Condition/Opportunity
Opportunity Presence? (Y/N)
Habitat Condition
Overall Wetland Rating
Rating
HIGH
HIGH
NO
NO
NO
YES
NO
NO
NC WAM Wetland Rating Sheet
Wetland Type
Wetland Site Name WB
R. Conchilla/Wood E&ISNon-Riverine Swamp Forest
Date
Assessor Name/Organization
4/21/2020
Accompanies User Manual Version 5.0
MEDIUM
MEDIUM
HIGH
YES
LOW
LOW
LOW
Rating
HIGH
HIGH
HIGH
NA
NA
NO
YES
NA
MEDIUM
NA
NA
NA
NA
NA
NA
NA
NA
NA
USACE AID#:NCDWR #:
Yes No
Evidence of stressors affecting the assessment area (may not be within the assessment area)
Please circle and/or make note on last page if evidence of stressors is apparent. Consider departure from reference, if
appropriate, in recent past (for instance, approximately within 10 years). Noteworthy stressors include, but are not limited
to the following.
•
•
•
•
Is the assessment area intensively managed?Yes No
Regulatory Considerations - Were regulatory considerations evaluated?Yes No If Yes, check all that apply to the assessment area.
Anadromous fish
Federally protected species or State endangered or threatened species
NCDWR riparian buffer rule in effect
Abuts a Primary Nursery Area (PNA)
Publicly owned property
N.C. Division of Coastal Management Area of Environmental Concern (AEC) (including buffer)
Abuts a stream with a NCDWQ classification of SA or supplemental classifications of HQW, 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
Tidal (if tidal, check one of the following boxes)Lunar Lunar Wind Both
Is the assessment area on a coastal island?Yes No
Is the assessment area's surface water storage capacity or duration substantially altered by beaver?Yes No
Does the assessment area experience overbank flooding during normal rainfall conditions?Yes No
1.Ground Surface Condition/Vegetation Condition – assessment area condition metric
Check 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
A A Not severely altered
B B 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,
less diversity [if appropriate], hydrologic alteration)
2.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. A ditch ≤ 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
A A Water storage capacity and duration are not altered.
B B Water storage capacity or duration are altered, but not substantially (typically, not sufficient to change vegetation).
C C Water storage capacity or duration are substantially altered (typically, alteration sufficient to result in vegetation
change) (examples: draining, flooding, soil compaction, filling, excessive sedimentation, underground utility lines).
3.Water Storage/Surface Relief – assessment area/wetland type condition metric (skip for all marshes)
Check a box in each column for each group below. Select the appropriate storage for the assessment area (AA) and the wetland
type (WT).
AA WT
3a.A A Majority of wetland with depressions able to pond water > 1 foot deep
B B Majority of wetland with depressions able to pond water 6 inches to 1 foot deep
C C 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.A Evidence that maximum depth of inundation is greater than 2 feet
B Evidence that maximum depth of inundation is between 1 and 2 feet
C Evidence that maximum depth of inundation is less than 1 foot
Hydrological modifications (examples: ditches, dams, beaver dams, dikes, berms, ponds, etc.)
Latitude/Longitude (deci-degrees)
Habitat/plant community alteration (examples: mowing, clear-cutting, exotics, etc.)
Surface and sub-surface discharges into the wetland (examples: discharges containing obvious pollutants, presence of nearby
Sub
VS
septic tanks, underground storage tanks (USTs), hog lagoons, etc.)
Precipitation within 48 hrs?
Signs of vegetation stress (examples: vegetation mortality, insect damage, disease, storm damage, salt intrusion, etc.)
36.52800, -78.88655
NC WAM WETLAND ASSESSMENT FORM
Accompanies User Manual Version 5
Mayo Lake
R. Conchilla/Wood E&IS
WC
4/21/2020Date of Evaluation
Wetland Site Name
Assessor Name/Organization
Nearest Named Water Body
Project Name
Wetland Type Non-Riverine Swamp Forest
Level III Ecoregion
03010104
RaleighNCDWR RegionCounty
Roanoke
Person
USGS 8-Digit Catalogue Unit
Piedmont
River Basin
Applicant/Owner Name Duke Energy
Mayo Ash Basin Landfill
4.Soil Texture/Structure – assessment area condition metric (skip for all marshes)
Check a box from each of the three soil property groups below. Dig soil profile in the dominant assessment area landscape
feature. Make soil observations within the 12 inches. Use most recent National Technical Committee for Hydric Soils guidance for
regional indicators.
4a.A Sandy soil
B Loamy or clayey soils exhibiting redoximorphic features (concentrations, depletions, or rhizospheres)
C Loamy or clayey soils not exhibiting redoximorphic features
D Loamy or clayey gleyed soil
E Histosol or histic epipedon
4b.A Soil ribbon < 1 inch
B Soil ribbon ≥ 1 inch
4c.A No peat or muck presence
B A peat or muck presence
5.Discharge into Wetland – opportunity metric
Check a box in each column. Consider surface pollutants or discharges (Surf) and sub-surface pollutants or discharges (Sub).
Examples of sub-surface discharges include presence of nearby septic tank, underground storage tank (UST), etc.
Surf Sub
A A Little or no evidence of pollutants or discharges entering the assessment area
B B Noticeable evidence of pollutants or discharges entering the wetland and stressing, but not overwhelming the
treatment capacity of the assessment area
C C Noticeable evidence of pollutants or discharges (pathogen, particulate, or soluble) entering the assessment area and
potentially overwhelming the treatment capacity of the wetland (water discoloration, dead vegetation, excessive
sedimentation, odor)
6.Land Use – opportunity metric (skip for non-riparian wetlands)
Check all that apply (at least one box in each column). Evaluation involves a GIS effort with field adjustment. Consider sources
draining to assessment area within entire upstream watershed (WS), within 5 miles and within the watershed draining to the
assessment area (5M), and within 2 miles and within the watershed draining to the assessment area (2M). Effective riparian buffers
are considered to be 50 feet wide in the Coastal Plain and Piedmont ecoregions and 30 feet wide in the Blue Ridge Mountains ecoregion.
WS 5M 2M
A A A ≥ 10% impervious surfaces
B B B Confined animal operations (or other local, concentrated source of pollutants)
C C C ≥ 20% coverage of pasture
D D D ≥ 20% coverage of agricultural land (regularly plowed land)
E E E ≥ 20% coverage of maintained grass/herb
F F F ≥ 20% coverage of clear-cut land
G G G Little or no opportunity to improve water quality. Lack of opportunity may result from little or no disturbance in
the watershed or hydrologic alterations that prevent dainage and/or overbank flow from affectio the
assessment area.
7.Wetland Acting as Vegetated Buffer – assessment area/wetland complex condition metric (skip for non-riparian wetlands)
7a.Is assessment area within 50 feet of a tributary or other open water?
Yes No If Yes, continue to 7b. If No, skip to Metric 8.
7b.How much of the first 50 feet from the bank is weltand? (Wetland buffer need only be present on one side of the water body. Make
buffer judgment based on the average width of wetland. Record a note if a portion of the buffer has been removed or disturbed.)
A ≥ 50 feet
B From 30 to < 50 feet
C From 15 to < 30 feet
D From 5 to < 15 feet
E < 5 feet or buffer bypassed by ditches
7c.Tributary width. If the tributary is anastomosed, combine widths of channels/braids for a total width.
≤ 15-feet wide > 15-feet wide Other open water (no tributary present)
7d.Do roots of assessment area vegetation extend into the bank of the tributary/open water?
Yes No
7e.Is tributary or other open water sheltered or exposed?
Sheltered – adjacent open water with width < 2500 feet and no regular boat traffic.
Exposed – adjacent open water with width ≥ 2500 feet or regular boat traffic.
8.Wetland Width at the Assessment Area – wetland type/wetland complex condition metric (evaluate WT for all marshes
and Estuarine Woody Wetland only; evaluate WC for Bottomland Hardwood Forest, Headwater Forest, and Riverine Swamp
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
A A ≥ 100 feet
B B From 80 to < 100 feet
C C From 50 to < 80 feet
D D From 40 to < 50 feet
E E From 30 to < 40 feet
F F From 15 to < 30 feet
G G From 5 to < 15 feet
H H < 5 feet
9.Inundation Duration – assessment area condition metric (skip for non-riparian wetlands)
Answer for assessment area dominant landform.
A Evidence of short-duration inundation (< 7 consecutive days)
B Evidence of saturation, without evidence of inundation
C Evidence of long-duration inundation or very long-duration inundation (7 to 30 consecutive days or more)
Forest only)
10.Indicators of Deposition – assessment area condition metric (skip for non-riparian wetlands and all marshes)
Consider recent deposition only (no plant growth since deposition).
A Sediment deposition is not excessive, but at approximately natural levels.
B Sediment deposition is excessive, but not overwhelming the wetland.
C Sediment deposition is excessive and is overwhelming the wetland.
11.Wetland Size – wetland type/wetland complex condition metric
Check a box in each column. Involves a GIS effort with field adjustment. This metric evaluates three aspects of the wetland area: the
size of the wetland type (WT), the size of the wetland complex (WC), and the size of the forested wetland (FW) (if applicable, see User
Manual). See the User Manual for boundaries of these evaluation areas. If assessment area is clear-cut, select “K” for the FW column.
WT FW (if applicable)
A A A ≥ 500 acres
B B B From 100 to < 500 acres
C C C From 50 to < 100 acres
D D D From 25 to < 50 acres
E E E From 10 to < 25 acres
F F F From 5 to < 10 acres
G G G From 1 to < 5 acres
H H H From 0.5 to < 1 acre
I I I From 0.1 to < 0.5 acre
J J J From 0.01 to < 0.1 acre
K K K < 0.01 acre or assessment area is clear-cut
12.Wetland Intactness – wetland type condition metric (evaluate for Pocosins only)
A Pocosin is the full extent (≥ 90%) of its natural landscape size.
B Pocosin is < 90% of the full extent of its natural landscape size.
13.Connectivity to Other Natural Areas – landscape condition metric
13a.Check appropriate box(es) (a box may be checked in each column). Involves a GIS effort with field adjustment. This
evaluates whether the wetland is well connected (Well) and/or loosely connected (Loosely) to the landscape patch, the contiguous
metric naturally vegetated area and open water (if appropriate). Boundaries are formed by four-lane roads, regularly maintained utility
line corridors the width of a four-lane road or wider, urban landscapes, fields (pasture open and agriculture), or water > 300 feet wide.
A A ≥ 500 acres
B B From 100 to < 500 acres
C C From 50 to < 100 acres
D D From 10 to < 50 acres
E E < 10 acres
F F Wetland type has a poor or no connection to other natural habitats
13b.Evaluate for marshes only.
Yes No Wetland type has a surface hydrology connection to open waters/stream or tidal wetlands.
14.Edge Effect – wetland type condition metric (skip for all marshes and Estuarine Woody Wetland)
May involve a GIS effort with field adjustment. Estimate distance from wetland type boundary to artificial edges. Artificial edges include
non-forested areas ≥ 40 feet wide such as fields, development, roads, regularly maintained utility line corridors and clear-cuts. Consider
the eight main points of the compass. Artificial edge occurs within 150 feet in how many directiions? If the assessment area is clear-cut,
select option "C."
A 0
B 1 to 4
C 5 to 8
15. Vegetative Composition – assessment area condition metric (skip for all marshes and Pine Flat)
A Vegetation is close to reference condition in species present and their proportions. Lower strata composed of appropriate
species, with exotic plants absent or sparse within the assessment area.
B Vegetation is different from reference condition in species diversity or proportions, but still largely composed of native species
characteristic of the wetland type. This may include communities of weedy native species that develop after clearcutting or
clearing. It also includes communities with exotics present, but not dominant, over a large portion of the expected strata.
C Vegetation severely altered from reference in composition, or expected species are unnaturally absent (planted stands of non-
characteristic species or at least one stratum inappropriately composed of a single species), or 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 > 10% to 50% cover of exotics.
C Vegetation is dominated by exotic species (>50% cover of exotics).
17.Vegetative Structure – assessment area/wetland type condition metric
17a.Is vegetation present?
Yes No If Yes, continue to 17b. If No, skip to Metric 18.
17b.Evaluate percent coverage of assessment area vegetation for all marshes only. Skip to 17c for non-marsh wetlands.
A ≥ 25% coverage of vegetation
B < 25% coverage of vegetation
Well
WC
Loosely
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.
A A Canopy closed, or nearly closed, with natural gaps associated with natural processes
B B Canopy present, but opened more than natural gaps
C C Canopy sparse or absent
A A Dense mid-story/sapling layer
B B Moderate density mid-story/sapling layer
C C Mid-story/sapling layer sparse or absent
A A Dense shrub layer
B B Moderate density shrub layer
C C Shrub layer sparse or absent
A A Dense herb layer
B B Moderate density herb layer
C C Herb layer sparse or absent
18.Snags – wetland type condition metric (skip for all marshes)
A Large snags (more than one) are visible (> 12-inches DBH, or large relative to species present and landscape stability).
B Not A
19.Diameter Class Distribution – wetland type condition metric (skip for all marshes)
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 (skip for all marshes)
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 A
21.Vegetation/Open Water Dispersion – wetland type/open water condition metric (evaluate for Non-Tidal Freshwater
Marsh only)
Select the figure that best describes the amount of interspersion between vegetation and open water in the growing season. Patterned
areas indicate vegetated areas, while solid white areas indicate open water.
A B C D
22.Hydrologic Connectivity – assessment area condition metric (evaluate for riparian wetlands and Salt/Brackish Marsh only)
Examples of activities that may severely alter hydrologic connectivity include intensive ditching, fill, sedimentation, channelization,
diversion, man-made berms, beaver dams, and stream incision. Documentation required if evaluated as B, C, or D.
A Overbank and overland flow are not severely altered in the assessment area.
B Overbank flow is severely altered in the assessment area.
C Overland flow is severely altered in the assessment area.
D Both overbank and overland flow are severely altered in the assessment area.
AA WT
Notes CanopyMid-StoryShrubHerb
Notes on Field Assessment Form (Y/N)
Presence of regulatory considerations (Y/N)
Wetland is intensively managed (Y/N)
Assessment area is located within 50 feet of a natural tributary or other open water (Y/N)
Assessment area is substantially altered by beaver (Y/N)
Assessment area experiences overbank flooding during normal rainfall conditions (Y/N)
Assessment area is on a coastal island (Y/N)
Sub-function Rating Summary
Function Sub-function Metrics
Hydrology Surface Storage and Retention Condition
Sub-Surface Storage and Retention Condition
Water Quality Pathogen Change Condition
Condition/Opportunity
Opportunity Presence? (Y/N)
Particulate Change Condition
Condition/Opportunity
Opportunity Presence? (Y/N)
Soluble Change Condition
Condition/Opportunity
Opportunity Presence? (Y/N)
Physical Change Condition
Condition/Opportunity
Opportunity Presence? (Y/N)
Pollution Change Condition
Condition/Opportunity
Opportunity Presence? (Y/N)
Habitat Physical Structure Condition
Landscape Patch Structure Condition
Vegetation Composition Condition
Function Rating Summary
Function Metrics/Notes
Hydrology Condition
Water Quality Condition
Condition/Opportunity
Opportunity Presence? (Y/N)
Habitat Condition
Overall Wetland Rating
Rating
HIGH
HIGH
NO
NO
NO
YES
NO
NO
NC WAM Wetland Rating Sheet
Wetland Type
Wetland Site Name WC
R. Conchilla/Wood E&ISNon-Riverine Swamp Forest
Date
Assessor Name/Organization
4/21/2020
Accompanies User Manual Version 5.0
MEDIUM
MEDIUM
HIGH
YES
LOW
LOW
LOW
Rating
HIGH
HIGH
HIGH
NA
NA
NO
YES
NA
MEDIUM
NA
NA
NA
NA
NA
NA
NA
NA
NA
NC WAM FIELD ASSESSMENT RESULTS
Accompanies User Manual Version 5.0
USACE AID # NCDWR#
Project Name Mayo LRB / Ash Closure Date of Evaluation 7/17/18
Applicant/Owner Name Duke Energy Wetland Site Name Wetland E
Wetland Type Headwater Forest Assessor Name/Organization Witherspoon/Wood
Level III Ecoregion Piedmont Nearest Named Water Body Crutchfield Branch
River Basin Roanoke USGS 8-Digit Catalogue Unit 03010104
County Person NCDWR Region Raleigh
Yes No Precipitation within 48 hrs? Latitude/Longitude (deci-degrees) 36.527947/-78.899397
Evidence of stressors affecting the assessment area (may not be within the assessment area)
Please circle and/or 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 septic
tanks, underground storage tanks (USTs), hog lagoons, etc.)
• Signs of vegetation stress (examples: vegetation mortality, insect damage, disease, storm damage, salt intrusion, etc.)
• Habitat/plant community alteration (examples: mowing, clear-cutting, exotics, etc.)
Is the assessment area intensively managed? Yes No

Regulatory Considerations - Were regulatory considerations evaluated? Yes No If Yes, check all that apply to the assessment area.
Anadromous fish
Federally protected species or State endangered or threatened species
NCDWR riparian buffer rule in effect
Abuts a Primary Nursery Area (PNA)
Publicly owned property
N.C. Division of Coastal Management Area of Environmental Concern (AEC) (including buffer)
Abuts a stream with a NCDWQ classification of SA or supplemental classifications of HQW, 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
Tidal (if tidal, check one of the following boxes) Lunar Wind Both
Is the assessment area on a coastal island? Yes No
Is the assessment area’s surface water storage capacity or duration substantially altered by beaver? Yes No
Does the assessment area experience overbank flooding during normal rainfall conditions? Yes No
1. Ground Surface Condition/Vegetation Condition – assessment area condition metric
Check 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 an effect.
GS VS
A A Not severely altered
B B 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 compact ion, obvious pollutants) (vegetation structure
alteration examples: mechanical disturbance, herbicides, salt intrusion [where appropriate], exotic species, grazing, less
diversity [if appropriate], hydrologic alteration)
2. 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. A ditch ≤ 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
A A Water storage capacity and duration are not altered.
B B Water storage capacity or duration are altered, but not substantially (typically, not sufficient to change vegetation).
C C Water storage capacity or duration are substantially altered (typically, alteration sufficient to result in vegetation change )
(examples: draining, flooding, soil compaction, filling, excessive sedimentation, underground utility lines).
3. Water Storage/Surface Relief – assessment area/wetland type condition metric (skip for all marshes)
Check a box in each column. Select the appropriate storage for the assessment area (AA) and the wetland type (WT).
AA WT
3a. A A Majority of wetland with depressions able to pond water > 1 deep
B B Majority of wetland with depressions able to pond water 6 inches to 1 foot deep
C C 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. A Evidence that maximum depth of inundation is greater than 2 feet
B Evidence that maximum depth of inundation is between 1 and 2 feet
C Evidence that maximum depth of inundation is less than 1 foot
4. Soil Texture/Structure – assessment area condition metric (skip for all marshes)
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 National Technical Committee for Hydric Soils guidance for regional
indicators.
4a. A Sandy soil
B Loamy or clayey soils exhibiting redoximorphic features (concentrations, depletions, or rhizospheres)
C Loamy or clayey soils not exhibiting redoximorphic features
D Loamy or clayey gleyed soil
E Histosol or histic epipedon
4b. A Soil ribbon < 1 inch
B Soil ribbon ≥ 1 inch
4c. A No peat or muck presence
B A peat or muck presence
5. Discharge into Wetland – opportunity metric
Check a box in each column. Consider surface pollutants or discharges (Surf) and sub-surface pollutants or discharges (Sub). Examples
of sub-surface discharges include presence of nearby septic tank , underground storage tank (UST), etc.
Surf Sub
A A Little or no evidence of pollutants or discharges entering the assessment area
B B Noticeable evidence of pollutants or discharges entering the wetland and stressing, but not overwhelming the
treatment capacity of the assessment area
C C Noticeable evidence of pollutants or discharges (pathogen, particulate, or soluble) entering the assessment area a nd
potentially overwhelming the treatment capacity of the wetland (water discoloration, dead vegetation, excessive
sedimentation, odor)
6. Land Use – opportunity metric (skip for non-riparian wetlands)
Check all that apply (at least one box in each column). Evaluation involves a GIS effort with field adjustment. Consider sources draining
to assessment area within entire upstream watershed (WS), within 5 miles and within the watershed draining to the assessment area (5M),
and within 2 miles and within the watershed draining to the assessment area (2M).
WS 5M 2M
A A A > 10% impervious surfaces
B B B Confined animal operations (or other local, concentrated source of pollutants
C C C ≥ 20% coverage of pasture
D D D ≥ 20% coverage of agricultural land (regularly plowed land)
E E E ≥ 20% coverage of maintained grass/herb
F F F ≥ 20% coverage of clear-cut land
G G G Little or no opportunity to improve water quality. Lack of opportunity may result from little or no disturbance in
the watershed or hydrologic alterations that prevent drainage and/or overbank flow from affecting the
assessment area.
7. Wetland Acting as Vegetated Buffer – assessment area/wetland complex condition metric (skip for non-riparian wetlands)
7a. Is assessment area within 50 feet of a tributary or other open water?
Yes No If Yes, continue to 7b. If No, skip to Metric 8.
Wetland buffer need only be present on one side of the water body. Make buffer judgment based on the average width of 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? (Wetland buffer need only be present on one side of the .water body. Make
buffer judgment based on the average width of wetland. Record a note if a portion of the buffer has been removed or disturbe d.)
A ≥ 50 feet
B From 30 to < 50 feet
C From 15 to < 30 feet
D From 5 to < 15 feet
E < 5 feet or buffer bypassed by ditches
7c. Tributary width. If the tributary is anastomosed, combine widths of channels/braids for a total width.
≤ 15-feet wide > 15-feet wide Other open water (no tributary present)
7d. Do roots of assessment area vegetation extend into the bank of the tributary/open water?
Yes No
7e. Is stream or other open water sheltered or exposed?
Sheltered – adjacent open water with width < 2500 feet and no regular boat traffic.
Exposed – adjacent open water with width ≥ 2500 feet or regular boat traffic.
8. Wetland Width at the Assessment Area – wetland type/wetland complex condition metric (evaluate WT for all marshes and
Estuarine Woody Wetland only; evaluate WC for Bottomland Hardwood Forest, Headwater Forest, and Riverine Swamp Forest
only)
Check a box in each column for riverine wetlands only. Select the average width for the wetland type at the assessment area (W T) and
the wetland complex at the assessment area (WC). See User Manual for WT and WC boundaries.
WT WC
A A ≥ 100 feet
B B From 80 to < 100 feet
C C From 50 to < 80 feet
D D From 40 to < 50 feet
E E From 30 to < 40 feet
F F From 15 to < 30 feet
G G From 5 to < 15 feet
H H < 5 feet

9. Inundation Duration – assessment area condition metric (skip for non-riparian wetlands)
Answer for assessment area dominant landform.
A Evidence of short-duration inundation (< 7 consecutive days)
B Evidence of saturation, without evidence of inundation
C Evidence of long-duration inundation or very long-duration inundation (7 to 30 consecutive days or more)
10. Indicators of Deposition – assessment area condition metric (skip for non-riparian wetlands and all marshes)
Consider recent deposition only (no plant growth since deposition).
A Sediment deposition is not excessive, but at approximately natural levels.
B Sediment deposition is excessive, but not overwhelming the wetland.
C Sediment deposition is excessive and is overwhelming the wetland.
11. Wetland Size – wetland type/wetland complex condition metric
Check a box in each column. Involves a GIS effort with field adjustment. This metric evaluates three aspects of the wetland area: the
size of the wetland type (WT), the size of the wetland complex (WC), and the size of the forested wetland (FW) (if applicable , see User
Manual). See the User Manual for boundaries of these evaluation areas. If assessment area is clear -cut, select “K” for the FW column.
WT WC FW (if applicable)
A A A ≥ 500 acres
B B B From 100 to < 500 acres
C C C From 50 to < 100 acres
D D D From 25 to < 50 acres
E E E From 10 to < 25 acres
F F F From 5 to < 10 acres
G G G From 1 to < 5 acres
H H H From 0.5 to < 1 acre
I I I From 0.1 to < 0.5 acre
J J J From 0.01 to < 0.1 acre
K K K < 0.01 acre or assessment area is clear-cut
12. Wetland Intactness – wetland type condition metric (evaluate for Pocosins only)
A Pocosin is the full extent (≥ 90%) of its natural landscape size.
B Pocosin type is < 90% of the full extent of its natural landscape size.
13. Connectivity to Other Natural Areas – landscape condition metric
13a. Check appropriate box(es) (a box may be checked in each column). Involves a GIS effort with field adjustment. This metric
evaluates whether the wetland is well connected (Well) and/or loosely connected (Loosely) to the landscape patch, the contigu ous
naturally vegetated area and open water (if appropriate). Boundari es 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 > 300
feet wide.

Well Loosely
A A ≥ 500 acres
B B From 100 to < 500 acres
C C From 50 to < 100 acres
D D From 10 to < 50 acres
E E < 10 acres
F F Wetland type has a poor or no connection to other natural habitats

13b. Evaluate for marshes only.
Yes No Wetland type has a surface hydrology connection to open waters/stream or tidal wetlands .
14. Edge Effect – wetland type condition metric (skip for all marshes and Estuarine Woody Wetland)
May involve a GIS effort with field adjustment. Estimate distance from wetland type boundary to artificial edges. Artificia l 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. Artificial edge occurs within 150 feet in how many directions? If the assessment area is c lear cut,
select option ”C.”
A 0
B 1 to 4
C 5 to 8
15. Vegetative Composition – assessment area condition metric (skip for all marshes and Pine Flat)
A Vegetation is close to reference condition in species present and their proportions. Lower strata compo sed 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, or expected species are unnaturally absent (planted stands of non-
characteristic species or at least one stratum inappropriately composed of a single species), or 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 > 10% to 50% cover of exotics.
C Vegetation is dominated by exotic species (> 50 % cover of exotics).
17. Vegetative Structure – assessment area/wetland type condition metric
17a. Is vegetation present?
Yes No If Yes, continue to 17b. If No, skip to Metric 18.

17b. Evaluate percent coverage of assessment area vegetation for all marshes only. Skip to 17c for non-marsh wetlands.
A ≥ 25% coverage of vegetation
B < 25% coverage of vegetation

17c. Check a box in each column for each stratum. Evaluate this portion of the metric for non-marsh wetlands. Consider
structure in airspace above the assessment area (AA) and the wetland type (WT) separately.
AA WT
A A Canopy closed, or nearly closed, with natural gaps associated with natural processes
B B Canopy present, but opened more than natural gaps
C C Canopy sparse or absent

A A Dense mid-story/sapling layer
B B Moderate density mid-story/sapling layer
C C Mid-story/sapling layer sparse or absent

A A Dense shrub layer
B B Moderate density shrub layer
C C Shrub layer sparse or absent

A A Dense herb layer
B B Moderate density herb layer
C C Herb layer sparse or absent
18. Snags – wetland type condition metric (skip for all marshes)
A Large snags (more than one) are visible (> 12 inches DBH, or large relative to species present and landscape stability).
B Not A
19. Diameter Class Distribution – wetland type condition metric (skip for all marshes)
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 (skip for all marshes)
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 A
21. Vegetation/Open Water Dispersion – wetland type/open water condition metric (evaluate for Non-Tidal Freshwater Marsh only)
Select the figure that best describes the amount of interspersion between vegetation and open water in the growing season. P atterned
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 and Salt/Brackish Marsh only)
Examples of activities that may severely alter hydrologic connectivity include intensive ditching, fill, sedimentation, channelization, diversion,
man-made berms, beaver dams, and stream incision. Documentation required if evaluated as B, C, or D.
A Overbank and overland flow are not severely altered in the assessment area.
B Overbank flow is severely altered in the assessment area.
C Overland flow is severely altered in the assessment area.
D Both overbank and overland flow are severely altered in the assessment area.
Notes

Canopy Mid-Story Shrub Herb
NC WAM Wetland Rating Sheet
Accompanies User Manual Version 5.0

Wetland Site Name Wetland E Date of Assessment 7/17/18
Wetland Type Headwater Forest Assessor Name/Organization Witherspoon/Wood

Notes on Field Assessment Form (Y/N) NO
Presence of regulatory considerations (Y/N) NO
Wetland is intensively managed (Y/N) NO
Assessment area is located within 50 feet of a natural tributary or other open water (Y/N) NO
Assessment area is substantially altered by beaver (Y/N) NO
Assessment area experiences overbank flooding during normal rainfall conditions (Y/N) NO
Assessment area is on a coastal island (Y/N) NO

Sub-function Rating Summary
Function Sub-function Metrics Rating
Hydrology Surface Storage and Retention Condition LOW

Sub-surface Storage and
Retention Condition LOW
Water Quality Pathogen Change Condition LOW
Condition/Opportunity LOW
Opportunity Presence (Y/N) NO
Particulate Change Condition LOW
Condition/Opportunity NA
Opportunity Presence (Y/N) NA
Soluble Change Condition LOW
Condition/Opportunity LOW
Opportunity Presence (Y/N) NO
Physical Change Condition LOW
Condition/Opportunity LOW
Opportunity Presence (Y/N) NO
Pollution Change Condition NA
Condition/Opportunity NA
Opportunity Presence (Y/N) NA
Habitat Physical Structure Condition LOW
Landscape Patch Structure Condition LOW
Vegetation Composition Condition LOW

Function Rating Summary
Function Metrics Rating
Hydrology Condition LOW
Water Quality Condition LOW
Condition/Opportunity LOW
Opportunity Presence (Y/N) NO
Habitat Condition LOW

Overall Wetland Rating LOW

NC WAM FIELD ASSESSMENT RESULTS
Accompanies User Manual Version 5.0
USACE AID # NCDWR#
Project Name Mayo Plant Date of Evaluation 5/9/16
Applicant/Owner Name Duke Energy Wetland Site Name Wetland F
Wetland Type Bottomland Hardwood Forest Assessor Name/Organization Amec Foster Wheeler
Level III Ecoregion Piedmont Nearest Named Water Body Crutchfield Branch
River Basin Roanoke USGS 8-Digit Catalogue Unit 03010104
County Person NCDWR Region Raleigh
Yes No Precipitation within 48 hrs? Latitude/Longitude (deci-degrees)
Evidence of stressors affecting the assessment area (may not be within the assessment area)
Please circle and/or 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 septic
tanks, underground storage tanks (USTs), hog lagoons, etc.)
• Signs of vegetation stress (examples: vegetation mortality, insect damage, disease, storm damage, salt intrusion, etc.)
• Habitat/plant community alteration (examples: mowing, clear-cutting, exotics, etc.)
Is the assessment area intensively managed? Yes No

Regulatory Considerations - Were regulatory considerations evaluated? Yes No If Yes, check all that apply to the assessment area.
Anadromous fish
Federally protected species or State endangered or threatened species
NCDWR riparian buffer rule in effect
Abuts a Primary Nursery Area (PNA)
Publicly owned property
N.C. Division of Coastal Management Area of Environmental Concern (AEC) (including buffer)
Abuts a stream with a NCDWQ classification of SA or supplemental classifications of HQW, 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
Tidal (if tidal, check one of the following boxes) Lunar Wind Both
Is the assessment area on a coastal island? Yes No
Is the assessment area’s surface water storage capacity or duration substantially altered by beaver? Yes No
Does the assessment area experience overbank flooding during normal rainfall conditions? Yes No
1. Ground Surface Condition/Vegetation Condition – assessment area condition metric
Check 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 an effect.
GS VS
A A Not severely altered
B B 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 compact ion, obvious pollutants) (vegetation structure
alteration examples: mechanical disturbance, herbicides, salt intrusion [where appropriate], exotic species, grazing, less
diversity [if appropriate], hydrologic alteration)
2. 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. A ditch ≤ 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
A A Water storage capacity and duration are not altered.
B B Water storage capacity or duration are altered, but not substantially (typically, not sufficient to change vegetation).
C C Water storage capacity or duration are substantially altered (typically, alteration sufficient to result in vegetation change )
(examples: draining, flooding, soil compaction, filling, excessive sedimentation, underground utility lines).
3. Water Storage/Surface Relief – assessment area/wetland type condition metric (skip for all marshes)
Check a box in each column. Select the appropriate storage for the assessment area (AA) and the wetland type (WT).
AA WT
3a. A A Majority of wetland with depressions able to pond water > 1 deep
B B Majority of wetland with depressions able to pond water 6 inches to 1 foot deep
C C 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. A Evidence that maximum depth of inundation is greater than 2 feet
B Evidence that maximum depth of inundation is between 1 and 2 feet
C Evidence that maximum depth of inundation is less than 1 foot
4. Soil Texture/Structure – assessment area condition metric (skip for all marshes)
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 National Technical Committee for Hydric Soils guidance for regional
indicators.
4a. A Sandy soil
B Loamy or clayey soils exhibiting redoximorphic features (concentrations, depletions, or rhizospheres)
C Loamy or clayey soils not exhibiting redoximorphic features
D Loamy or clayey gleyed soil
E Histosol or histic epipedon
4b. A Soil ribbon < 1 inch
B Soil ribbon ≥ 1 inch
4c. A No peat or muck presence
B A peat or muck presence
5. Discharge into Wetland – opportunity metric
Check a box in each column. Consider surface pollutants or discharges (Surf) and sub-surface pollutants or discharges (Sub). Examples
of sub-surface discharges include presence of nearby septic tank , underground storage tank (UST), etc.
Surf Sub
A A Little or no evidence of pollutants or discharges entering the assessment area
B B Noticeable evidence of pollutants or discharges entering the wetland and stressing, but not overwhelming the
treatment capacity of the assessment area
C C Noticeable evidence of pollutants or discharges (pathogen, particulate, or soluble) entering the assessment area a nd
potentially overwhelming the treatment capacity of the wetland (water discoloration, dead vegetation, excessive
sedimentation, odor)
6. Land Use – opportunity metric (skip for non-riparian wetlands)
Check all that apply (at least one box in each column). Evaluation involves a GIS effort with field adjustment. Consider sources draining
to assessment area within entire upstream watershed (WS), within 5 miles and within the watershed draining to the assessment area (5M),
and within 2 miles and within the watershed draining to the assessment area (2M).
WS 5M 2M
A A A > 10% impervious surfaces
B B B Confined animal operations (or other local, concentrated source of pollutants
C C C ≥ 20% coverage of pasture
D D D ≥ 20% coverage of agricultural land (regularly plowed land)
E E E ≥ 20% coverage of maintained grass/herb
F F F ≥ 20% coverage of clear-cut land
G G G Little or no opportunity to improve water quality. Lack of opportunity may result from little or no disturbance in
the watershed or hydrologic alterations that prevent drainage and/or overbank flow from affecting the
assessment area.
7. Wetland Acting as Vegetated Buffer – assessment area/wetland complex condition metric (skip for non-riparian wetlands)
7a. Is assessment area within 50 feet of a tributary or other open water?
Yes No If Yes, continue to 7b. If No, skip to Metric 8.
Wetland buffer need only be present on one side of the water body. Make buffer judgment based on the average width of 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? (Wetland buffer need only be present on one side of the .water body. Make
buffer judgment based on the average width of wetland. Record a note if a portion of the buffer has been removed or disturbe d.)
A ≥ 50 feet
B From 30 to < 50 feet
C From 15 to < 30 feet
D From 5 to < 15 feet
E < 5 feet or buffer bypassed by ditches
7c. Tributary width. If the tributary is anastomosed, combine widths of channels/braids for a total width.
≤ 15-feet wide > 15-feet wide Other open water (no tributary present)
7d. Do roots of assessment area vegetation extend into the bank of the tributary/open water?
Yes No
7e. Is stream or other open water sheltered or exposed?
Sheltered – adjacent open water with width < 2500 feet and no regular boat traffic.
Exposed – adjacent open water with width ≥ 2500 feet or regular boat traffic.
8. Wetland Width at the Assessment Area – wetland type/wetland complex condition metric (evaluate WT for all marshes and
Estuarine Woody Wetland only; evaluate WC for Bottomland Hardwood Forest, Headwater Forest, and Riverine Swamp Forest
only)
Check a box in each column for riverine wetlands only. Select the average width for the wetland type at the assessment area (W T) and
the wetland complex at the assessment area (WC). See User Manual for WT and WC boundaries.
WT WC
A A ≥ 100 feet
B B From 80 to < 100 feet
C C From 50 to < 80 feet
D D From 40 to < 50 feet
E E From 30 to < 40 feet
F F From 15 to < 30 feet
G G From 5 to < 15 feet
H H < 5 feet

9. Inundation Duration – assessment area condition metric (skip for non-riparian wetlands)
Answer for assessment area dominant landform.
A Evidence of short-duration inundation (< 7 consecutive days)
B Evidence of saturation, without evidence of inundation
C Evidence of long-duration inundation or very long-duration inundation (7 to 30 consecutive days or more)
10. Indicators of Deposition – assessment area condition metric (skip for non-riparian wetlands and all marshes)
Consider recent deposition only (no plant growth since deposition).
A Sediment deposition is not excessive, but at approximately natural levels.
B Sediment deposition is excessive, but not overwhelming the wetland.
C Sediment deposition is excessive and is overwhelming the wetland.
11. Wetland Size – wetland type/wetland complex condition metric
Check a box in each column. Involves a GIS effort with field adjustment. This metric evaluates three aspects of the wetland area: the
size of the wetland type (WT), the size of the wetland complex (WC), and the size of the forested wetland (FW) (if applicable , see User
Manual). See the User Manual for boundaries of these evaluation areas. If assessment area is clear -cut, select “K” for the FW column.
WT WC FW (if applicable)
A A A ≥ 500 acres
B B B From 100 to < 500 acres
C C C From 50 to < 100 acres
D D D From 25 to < 50 acres
E E E From 10 to < 25 acres
F F F From 5 to < 10 acres
G G G From 1 to < 5 acres
H H H From 0.5 to < 1 acre
I I I From 0.1 to < 0.5 acre
J J J From 0.01 to < 0.1 acre
K K K < 0.01 acre or assessment area is clear-cut
12. Wetland Intactness – wetland type condition metric (evaluate for Pocosins only)
A Pocosin is the full extent (≥ 90%) of its natural landscape size.
B Pocosin type is < 90% of the full extent of its natural landscape size.
13. Connectivity to Other Natural Areas – landscape condition metric
13a. Check appropriate box(es) (a box may be checked in each column). Involves a GIS effort with field adjustment. This metric
evaluates whether the wetland is well connected (Well) and/or loosely connected (Loosely) to the landscape patch, the contigu ous
naturally vegetated area and open water (if appropriate). Boundari es 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 > 300
feet wide.

Well Loosely
A A ≥ 500 acres
B B From 100 to < 500 acres
C C From 50 to < 100 acres
D D From 10 to < 50 acres
E E < 10 acres
F F Wetland type has a poor or no connection to other natural habitats

13b. Evaluate for marshes only.
Yes No Wetland type has a surface hydrology connection to open waters/stream or tidal wetlands .
14. Edge Effect – wetland type condition metric (skip for all marshes and Estuarine Woody Wetland)
May involve a GIS effort with field adjustment. Estimate distance from wetland type boundary to artificial edges. Artificia l 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. Artificial edge occurs within 150 feet in how many directions? If the assessment area is c lear cut,
select option ”C.”
A 0
B 1 to 4
C 5 to 8
15. Vegetative Composition – assessment area condition metric (skip for all marshes and Pine Flat)
A Vegetation is close to reference condition in species present and their proportions. Lower strata compo sed 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, or expected species are unnaturally absent (planted stands of non-
characteristic species or at least one stratum inappropriately composed of a single species), or 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 > 10% to 50% cover of exotics.
C Vegetation is dominated by exotic species (> 50 % cover of exotics).
17. Vegetative Structure – assessment area/wetland type condition metric
17a. Is vegetation present?
Yes No If Yes, continue to 17b. If No, skip to Metric 18.

17b. Evaluate percent coverage of assessment area vegetation for all marshes only. Skip to 17c for non-marsh wetlands.
A ≥ 25% coverage of vegetation
B < 25% coverage of vegetation

17c. Check a box in each column for each stratum. Evaluate this portion of the metric for non-marsh wetlands. Consider
structure in airspace above the assessment area (AA) and the wetland type (WT) separately.
AA WT
A A Canopy closed, or nearly closed, with natural gaps associated with natural processes
B B Canopy present, but opened more than natural gaps
C C Canopy sparse or absent

A A Dense mid-story/sapling layer
B B Moderate density mid-story/sapling layer
C C Mid-story/sapling layer sparse or absent

A A Dense shrub layer
B B Moderate density shrub layer
C C Shrub layer sparse or absent

A A Dense herb layer
B B Moderate density herb layer
C C Herb layer sparse or absent
18. Snags – wetland type condition metric (skip for all marshes)
A Large snags (more than one) are visible (> 12 inches DBH, or large relative to species present and landscape stability).
B Not A
19. Diameter Class Distribution – wetland type condition metric (skip for all marshes)
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 (skip for all marshes)
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 A
21. Vegetation/Open Water Dispersion – wetland type/open water condition metric (evaluate for Non-Tidal Freshwater Marsh only)
Select the figure that best describes the amount of interspersion between vegetation and open water in the growing season. P atterned
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 and Salt/Brackish Marsh only)
Examples of activities that may severely alter hydrologic connectivity include intensive ditching, fill, sedimentation, channelization, diversion,
man-made berms, beaver dams, and stream incision. Documentation required if evaluated as B, C, or D.
A Overbank and overland flow are not severely altered in the assessment area.
B Overbank flow is severely altered in the assessment area.
C Overland flow is severely altered in the assessment area.
D Both overbank and overland flow are severely altered in the assessment area.
Notes
Wetland previously labeled as Wetland F. AA near flag WA-0006. Wetland is adjacent to an outfall from the ash basin. Overbank flow severely
altered by the ash basin impoundment upstream of the AA.

Canopy Mid-Story Shrub Herb
NC WAM Wetland Rating Sheet
Accompanies User Manual Version 5.0

Wetland Site Name Wetland F Date of Assessment 5/9/16
Wetland Type Bottomland Hardwood Forest Assessor Name/Organization Amec Foster Wheeler

Notes on Field Assessment Form (Y/N) YES
Presence of regulatory considerations (Y/N) NO
Wetland is intensively managed (Y/N) YES
Assessment area is located within 50 feet of a natural tributary or other open water (Y/N) YES
Assessment area is substantially altered by beaver (Y/N) NO
Assessment area experiences overbank flooding during normal rainfall conditions (Y/N) NO
Assessment area is on a coastal island (Y/N) NO

Sub-function Rating Summary
Function Sub-function Metrics Rating
Hydrology Surface Storage and Retention Condition MEDIUM

Sub-surface Storage and
Retention Condition HIGH
Water Quality Pathogen Change Condition MEDIUM
Condition/Opportunity MEDIUM
Opportunity Presence (Y/N) NO
Particulate Change Condition LOW
Condition/Opportunity LOW
Opportunity Presence (Y/N) NO
Soluble Change Condition MEDIUM
Condition/Opportunity MEDIUM
Opportunity Presence (Y/N) NO
Physical Change Condition LOW
Condition/Opportunity LOW
Opportunity Presence (Y/N) NO
Pollution Change Condition NA
Condition/Opportunity NA
Opportunity Presence (Y/N) NA
Habitat Physical Structure Condition MEDIUM
Landscape Patch Structure Condition LOW
Vegetation Composition Condition HIGH

Function Rating Summary
Function Metrics Rating
Hydrology Condition HIGH
Water Quality Condition LOW
Condition/Opportunity LOW
Opportunity Presence (Y/N) NO
Habitat Condition MEDIUM

Overall Wetland Rating MEDIUM

NC WAM FIELD ASSESSMENT RESULTS
Accompanies User Manual Version 5.0
USACE AID # NCDWR#
Project Name Mayo Plant Date of Evaluation 5/9/16
Applicant/Owner Name Duke Energy Wetland Site Name Wetland H
Wetland Type Headwater Forest Assessor Name/Organization Amec Foster Wheeler
Level III Ecoregion Piedmont Nearest Named Water Body Crutchfield Branch
River Basin Roanoke USGS 8-Digit Catalogue Unit 03010104
County Person NCDWR Region Raleigh
Yes No Precipitation within 48 hrs? Latitude/Longitude (deci-degrees)
Evidence of stressors affecting the assessment area (may not be within the assessment area)
Please circle and/or 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 septic
tanks, underground storage tanks (USTs), hog lagoons, etc.)
• Signs of vegetation stress (examples: vegetation mortality, insect damage, disease, storm damage, salt intrusion, etc.)
• Habitat/plant community alteration (examples: mowing, clear-cutting, exotics, etc.)
Is the assessment area intensively managed? Yes No

Regulatory Considerations - Were regulatory considerations evaluated? Yes No If Yes, check all that apply to the assessment area.
Anadromous fish
Federally protected species or State endangered or threatened species
NCDWR riparian buffer rule in effect
Abuts a Primary Nursery Area (PNA)
Publicly owned property
N.C. Division of Coastal Management Area of Environmental Concern (AEC) (including buffer)
Abuts a stream with a NCDWQ classification of SA or supplemental classifications of HQW, 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
Tidal (if tidal, check one of the following boxes) Lunar Wind Both
Is the assessment area on a coastal island? Yes No
Is the assessment area’s surface water storage capacity or duration substantially altered by beaver? Yes No
Does the assessment area experience overbank flooding during normal rainfall conditions? Yes No
1. Ground Surface Condition/Vegetation Condition – assessment area condition metric
Check 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 an effect.
GS VS
A A Not severely altered
B B 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 compact ion, obvious pollutants) (vegetation structure
alteration examples: mechanical disturbance, herbicides, salt intrusion [where appropriate], exotic species, grazing, less
diversity [if appropriate], hydrologic alteration)
2. 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. A ditch ≤ 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
A A Water storage capacity and duration are not altered.
B B Water storage capacity or duration are altered, but not substantially (typically, not sufficient to change vegetation).
C C Water storage capacity or duration are substantially altered (typically, alteration sufficient to result in vegetation change )
(examples: draining, flooding, soil compaction, filling, excessive sedimentation, underground utility lines).
3. Water Storage/Surface Relief – assessment area/wetland type condition metric (skip for all marshes)
Check a box in each column. Select the appropriate storage for the assessment area (AA) and the wetland type (WT).
AA WT
3a. A A Majority of wetland with depressions able to pond water > 1 deep
B B Majority of wetland with depressions able to pond water 6 inches to 1 foot deep
C C 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. A Evidence that maximum depth of inundation is greater than 2 feet
B Evidence that maximum depth of inundation is between 1 and 2 feet
C Evidence that maximum depth of inundation is less than 1 foot
4. Soil Texture/Structure – assessment area condition metric (skip for all marshes)
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 National Technical Committee for Hydric Soils guidance for regional
indicators.
4a. A Sandy soil
B Loamy or clayey soils exhibiting redoximorphic features (concentrations, depletions, or rhizospheres)
C Loamy or clayey soils not exhibiting redoximorphic features
D Loamy or clayey gleyed soil
E Histosol or histic epipedon
4b. A Soil ribbon < 1 inch
B Soil ribbon ≥ 1 inch
4c. A No peat or muck presence
B A peat or muck presence
5. Discharge into Wetland – opportunity metric
Check a box in each column. Consider surface pollutants or discharges (Surf) and sub-surface pollutants or discharges (Sub). Examples
of sub-surface discharges include presence of nearby septic tank , underground storage tank (UST), etc.
Surf Sub
A A Little or no evidence of pollutants or discharges entering the assessment area
B B Noticeable evidence of pollutants or discharges entering the wetland and stressing, but not overwhelming the
treatment capacity of the assessment area
C C Noticeable evidence of pollutants or discharges (pathogen, particulate, or soluble) entering the assessment area a nd
potentially overwhelming the treatment capacity of the wetland (water discoloration, dead vegetation, excessive
sedimentation, odor)
6. Land Use – opportunity metric (skip for non-riparian wetlands)
Check all that apply (at least one box in each column). Evaluation involves a GIS effort with field adjustment. Consider sources draining
to assessment area within entire upstream watershed (WS), within 5 miles and within the watershed draining to the assessment area (5M),
and within 2 miles and within the watershed draining to the assessment area (2M).
WS 5M 2M
A A A > 10% impervious surfaces
B B B Confined animal operations (or other local, concentrated source of pollutants
C C C ≥ 20% coverage of pasture
D D D ≥ 20% coverage of agricultural land (regularly plowed land)
E E E ≥ 20% coverage of maintained grass/herb
F F F ≥ 20% coverage of clear-cut land
G G G Little or no opportunity to improve water quality. Lack of opportunity may result from little or no disturbance in
the watershed or hydrologic alterations that prevent drainage and/or overbank flow from affecting the
assessment area.
7. Wetland Acting as Vegetated Buffer – assessment area/wetland complex condition metric (skip for non-riparian wetlands)
7a. Is assessment area within 50 feet of a tributary or other open water?
Yes No If Yes, continue to 7b. If No, skip to Metric 8.
Wetland buffer need only be present on one side of the water body. Make buffer judgment based on the average width of 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? (Wetland buffer need only be present on one side of the .water body. Make
buffer judgment based on the average width of wetland. Record a note if a portion of the buffer has been removed or disturbe d.)
A ≥ 50 feet
B From 30 to < 50 feet
C From 15 to < 30 feet
D From 5 to < 15 feet
E < 5 feet or buffer bypassed by ditches
7c. Tributary width. If the tributary is anastomosed, combine widths of channels/braids for a total width.
≤ 15-feet wide > 15-feet wide Other open water (no tributary present)
7d. Do roots of assessment area vegetation extend into the bank of the tributary/open water?
Yes No
7e. Is stream or other open water sheltered or exposed?
Sheltered – adjacent open water with width < 2500 feet and no regular boat traffic.
Exposed – adjacent open water with width ≥ 2500 feet or regular boat traffic.
8. Wetland Width at the Assessment Area – wetland type/wetland complex condition metric (evaluate WT for all marshes and
Estuarine Woody Wetland only; evaluate WC for Bottomland Hardwood Forest, Headwater Forest, and Riverine Swamp Forest
only)
Check a box in each column for riverine wetlands only. Select the average width for the wetland type at the assessment area (W T) and
the wetland complex at the assessment area (WC). See User Manual for WT and WC boundaries.
WT WC
A A ≥ 100 feet
B B From 80 to < 100 feet
C C From 50 to < 80 feet
D D From 40 to < 50 feet
E E From 30 to < 40 feet
F F From 15 to < 30 feet
G G From 5 to < 15 feet
H H < 5 feet

9. Inundation Duration – assessment area condition metric (skip for non-riparian wetlands)
Answer for assessment area dominant landform.
A Evidence of short-duration inundation (< 7 consecutive days)
B Evidence of saturation, without evidence of inundation
C Evidence of long-duration inundation or very long-duration inundation (7 to 30 consecutive days or more)
10. Indicators of Deposition – assessment area condition metric (skip for non-riparian wetlands and all marshes)
Consider recent deposition only (no plant growth since deposition).
A Sediment deposition is not excessive, but at approximately natural levels.
B Sediment deposition is excessive, but not overwhelming the wetland.
C Sediment deposition is excessive and is overwhelming the wetland.
11. Wetland Size – wetland type/wetland complex condition metric
Check a box in each column. Involves a GIS effort with field adjustment. This metric evaluates three aspects of the wetland area: the
size of the wetland type (WT), the size of the wetland complex (WC), and the size of the forested wetland (FW) (if applicable , see User
Manual). See the User Manual for boundaries of these evaluation areas. If assessment area is clear -cut, select “K” for the FW column.
WT WC FW (if applicable)
A A A ≥ 500 acres
B B B From 100 to < 500 acres
C C C From 50 to < 100 acres
D D D From 25 to < 50 acres
E E E From 10 to < 25 acres
F F F From 5 to < 10 acres
G G G From 1 to < 5 acres
H H H From 0.5 to < 1 acre
I I I From 0.1 to < 0.5 acre
J J J From 0.01 to < 0.1 acre
K K K < 0.01 acre or assessment area is clear-cut
12. Wetland Intactness – wetland type condition metric (evaluate for Pocosins only)
A Pocosin is the full extent (≥ 90%) of its natural landscape size.
B Pocosin type is < 90% of the full extent of its natural landscape size.
13. Connectivity to Other Natural Areas – landscape condition metric
13a. Check appropriate box(es) (a box may be checked in each column). Involves a GIS effort with field adjustment. This metric
evaluates whether the wetland is well connected (Well) and/or loosely connected (Loosely) to the landscape patch, the contigu ous
naturally vegetated area and open water (if appropriate). Boundari es 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 > 300
feet wide.

Well Loosely
A A ≥ 500 acres
B B From 100 to < 500 acres
C C From 50 to < 100 acres
D D From 10 to < 50 acres
E E < 10 acres
F F Wetland type has a poor or no connection to other natural habitats

13b. Evaluate for marshes only.
Yes No Wetland type has a surface hydrology connection to open waters/stream or tidal wetlands .
14. Edge Effect – wetland type condition metric (skip for all marshes and Estuarine Woody Wetland)
May involve a GIS effort with field adjustment. Estimate distance from wetland type boundary to artificial edges. Artificia l 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. Artificial edge occurs within 150 feet in how many directions? If the assessment area is c lear cut,
select option ”C.”
A 0
B 1 to 4
C 5 to 8
15. Vegetative Composition – assessment area condition metric (skip for all marshes and Pine Flat)
A Vegetation is close to reference condition in species present and their proportions. Lower strata compo sed 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, or expected species are unnaturally absent (planted stands of non-
characteristic species or at least one stratum inappropriately composed of a single species), or 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 > 10% to 50% cover of exotics.
C Vegetation is dominated by exotic species (> 50 % cover of exotics).
17. Vegetative Structure – assessment area/wetland type condition metric
17a. Is vegetation present?
Yes No If Yes, continue to 17b. If No, skip to Metric 18.

17b. Evaluate percent coverage of assessment area vegetation for all marshes only. Skip to 17c for non-marsh wetlands.
A ≥ 25% coverage of vegetation
B < 25% coverage of vegetation

17c. Check a box in each column for each stratum. Evaluate this portion of the metric for non-marsh wetlands. Consider
structure in airspace above the assessment area (AA) and the wetland type (WT) separately.
AA WT
A A Canopy closed, or nearly closed, with natural gaps associated with natural processes
B B Canopy present, but opened more than natural gaps
C C Canopy sparse or absent

A A Dense mid-story/sapling layer
B B Moderate density mid-story/sapling layer
C C Mid-story/sapling layer sparse or absent

A A Dense shrub layer
B B Moderate density shrub layer
C C Shrub layer sparse or absent

A A Dense herb layer
B B Moderate density herb layer
C C Herb layer sparse or absent
18. Snags – wetland type condition metric (skip for all marshes)
A Large snags (more than one) are visible (> 12 inches DBH, or large relative to species present and landscape stability).
B Not A
19. Diameter Class Distribution – wetland type condition metric (skip for all marshes)
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 (skip for all marshes)
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 A
21. Vegetation/Open Water Dispersion – wetland type/open water condition metric (evaluate for Non-Tidal Freshwater Marsh only)
Select the figure that best describes the amount of interspersion between vegetation and open water in the growing season. P atterned
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 and Salt/Brackish Marsh only)
Examples of activities that may severely alter hydrologic connectivity include intensive ditching, fill, sedimentation, channelization, diversion,
man-made berms, beaver dams, and stream incision. Documentation required if evaluated as B, C, or D.
A Overbank and overland flow are not severely altered in the assessment area.
B Overbank flow is severely altered in the assessment area.
C Overland flow is severely altered in the assessment area.
D Both overbank and overland flow are severely altered in the assessment area.
Notes
Wetland previously labeled as Wetland G. AA near flag WB -0007. Overbank flow severly altered to the north by road fill slope and to the south
by a large berm.

Canopy Mid-Story Shrub Herb
NC WAM Wetland Rating Sheet
Accompanies User Manual Version 5.0

Wetland Site Name Wetland H Date of Assessment 5/9/16
Wetland Type Headwater Forest Assessor Name/Organization Amec Foster Wheeler

Notes on Field Assessment Form (Y/N) YES
Presence of regulatory considerations (Y/N) NO
Wetland is intensively managed (Y/N) NO
Assessment area is located within 50 feet of a natural tributary or other open water (Y/N) YES
Assessment area is substantially altered by beaver (Y/N) NO
Assessment area experiences overbank flooding during normal rainfall conditions (Y/N) NO
Assessment area is on a coastal island (Y/N) NO

Sub-function Rating Summary
Function Sub-function Metrics Rating
Hydrology Surface Storage and Retention Condition HIGH

Sub-surface Storage and
Retention Condition HIGH
Water Quality Pathogen Change Condition HIGH
Condition/Opportunity HIGH
Opportunity Presence (Y/N) NO
Particulate Change Condition HIGH
Condition/Opportunity NA
Opportunity Presence (Y/N) NA
Soluble Change Condition MEDIUM
Condition/Opportunity HIGH
Opportunity Presence (Y/N) YES
Physical Change Condition MEDIUM
Condition/Opportunity HIGH
Opportunity Presence (Y/N) YES
Pollution Change Condition NA
Condition/Opportunity NA
Opportunity Presence (Y/N) NA
Habitat Physical Structure Condition MEDIUM
Landscape Patch Structure Condition LOW
Vegetation Composition Condition HIGH

Function Rating Summary
Function Metrics Rating
Hydrology Condition HIGH
Water Quality Condition HIGH
Condition/Opportunity HIGH
Opportunity Presence (Y/N) YES
Habitat Condition MEDIUM

Overall Wetland Rating HIGH

USACE AID#:NCDWR #:
Yes No
Evidence of stressors affecting the assessment area (may not be within the assessment area)
Please circle and/or make note on last page if evidence of stressors is apparent. Consider departure from reference, if
appropriate, in recent past (for instance, approximately within 10 years). Noteworthy stressors include, but are not limited
to the following.
•
•
•
•
Is the assessment area intensively managed?Yes No
Regulatory Considerations - Were regulatory considerations evaluated?Yes No If Yes, check all that apply to the assessment area.
Anadromous fish
Federally protected species or State endangered or threatened species
NCDWR riparian buffer rule in effect
Abuts a Primary Nursery Area (PNA)
Publicly owned property
N.C. Division of Coastal Management Area of Environmental Concern (AEC) (including buffer)
Abuts a stream with a NCDWQ classification of SA or supplemental classifications of HQW, 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
Tidal (if tidal, check one of the following boxes)Lunar Lunar Wind Both
Is the assessment area on a coastal island?Yes No
Is the assessment area's surface water storage capacity or duration substantially altered by beaver?Yes No
Does the assessment area experience overbank flooding during normal rainfall conditions?Yes No
1.Ground Surface Condition/Vegetation Condition – assessment area condition metric
Check 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
A A Not severely altered
B B 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,
less diversity [if appropriate], hydrologic alteration)
2.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. A ditch ≤ 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
A A Water storage capacity and duration are not altered.
B B Water storage capacity or duration are altered, but not substantially (typically, not sufficient to change vegetation).
C C Water storage capacity or duration are substantially altered (typically, alteration sufficient to result in vegetation
change) (examples: draining, flooding, soil compaction, filling, excessive sedimentation, underground utility lines).
3.Water Storage/Surface Relief – assessment area/wetland type condition metric (skip for all marshes)
Check a box in each column for each group below. Select the appropriate storage for the assessment area (AA) and the wetland
type (WT).
AA WT
3a.A A Majority of wetland with depressions able to pond water > 1 foot deep
B B Majority of wetland with depressions able to pond water 6 inches to 1 foot deep
C C 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.A Evidence that maximum depth of inundation is greater than 2 feet
B Evidence that maximum depth of inundation is between 1 and 2 feet
C Evidence that maximum depth of inundation is less than 1 foot
4.Soil Texture/Structure – assessment area condition metric (skip for all marshes)
Check a box from each of the three soil property groups below. Dig soil profile in the dominant assessment area landscape
Piedmont
River Basin
Applicant/Owner Name Duke Energy
Mayo LRB / Ash Closure
03010104
RaleighNCDWR RegionCounty
Roanoke
Person
USGS 8-Digit Catalogue Unit
NC WAM WETLAND ASSESSMENT FORM
Accompanies User Manual Version 5
Crutchfield Branch
Witherspoon/Wood
Wetland JJJ
7/17/18Date of Evaluation
Wetland Site Name
Assessor Name/Organization
Nearest Named Water Body
Project Name
Wetland Type Headwater Forest
Level III Ecoregion
Hydrological modifications (examples: ditches, dams, beaver dams, dikes, berms, ponds, etc.)
Latitude/Longitude (deci-degrees)
Habitat/plant community alteration (examples: mowing, clear-cutting, exotics, etc.)
Surface and sub-surface discharges into the wetland (examples: discharges containing obvious pollutants, presence of nearby
Sub
VS
septic tanks, underground storage tanks (USTs), hog lagoons, etc.)
Precipitation within 48 hrs?
Signs of vegetation stress (examples: vegetation mortality, insect damage, disease, storm damage, salt intrusion, etc.)
36.533509/-78.903941
feature. Make soil observations within the 12 inches. Use most recent National Technical Committee for Hydric Soils guidance for
regional indicators.
4a.A Sandy soil
B Loamy or clayey soils exhibiting redoximorphic features (concentrations, depletions, or rhizospheres)
C Loamy or clayey soils not exhibiting redoximorphic features
D Loamy or clayey gleyed soil
E Histosol or histic epipedon
4b.A Soil ribbon < 1 inch
B Soil ribbon ≥ 1 inch
4c.A No peat or muck presence
B A peat or muck presence
5.Discharge into Wetland – opportunity metric
Check a box in each column. Consider surface pollutants or discharges (Surf) and sub-surface pollutants or discharges (Sub).
Examples of sub-surface discharges include presence of nearby septic tank, underground storage tank (UST), etc.
Surf Sub
A A Little or no evidence of pollutants or discharges entering the assessment area
B B Noticeable evidence of pollutants or discharges entering the wetland and stressing, but not overwhelming the
treatment capacity of the assessment area
C C Noticeable evidence of pollutants or discharges (pathogen, particulate, or soluble) entering the assessment area and
potentially overwhelming the treatment capacity of the wetland (water discoloration, dead vegetation, excessive
sedimentation, odor)
6.Land Use – opportunity metric (skip for non-riparian wetlands)
Check all that apply (at least one box in each column). Evaluation involves a GIS effort with field adjustment. Consider sources
draining to assessment area within entire upstream watershed (WS), within 5 miles and within the watershed draining to the
assessment area (5M), and within 2 miles and within the watershed draining to the assessment area (2M). Effective riparian buffers
are considered to be 50 feet wide in the Coastal Plain and Piedmont ecoregions and 30 feet wide in the Blue Ridge Mountains ecoregion.
WS 5M 2M
A A A ≥ 10% impervious surfaces
B B B Confined animal operations (or other local, concentrated source of pollutants)
C C C ≥ 20% coverage of pasture
D D D ≥ 20% coverage of agricultural land (regularly plowed land)
E E E ≥ 20% coverage of maintained grass/herb
F F F ≥ 20% coverage of clear-cut land
G G G Little or no opportunity to improve water quality. Lack of opportunity may result from little or no disturbance in
the watershed or hydrologic alterations that prevent dainage and/or overbank flow from affectio the
assessment area.
7.Wetland Acting as Vegetated Buffer – assessment area/wetland complex condition metric (skip for non-riparian wetlands)
7a.Is assessment area within 50 feet of a tributary or other open water?
Yes No If Yes, continue to 7b. If No, skip to Metric 8.
7b.How much of the first 50 feet from the bank is weltand? (Wetland buffer need only be present on one side of the water body. Make
buffer judgment based on the average width of wetland. Record a note if a portion of the buffer has been removed or disturbed.)
A ≥ 50 feet
B From 30 to < 50 feet
C From 15 to < 30 feet
D From 5 to < 15 feet
E < 5 feet or buffer bypassed by ditches
7c.Tributary width. If the tributary is anastomosed, combine widths of channels/braids for a total width.
≤ 15-feet wide > 15-feet wide Other open water (no tributary present)
7d.Do roots of assessment area vegetation extend into the bank of the tributary/open water?
Yes No
7e.Is tributary or other open water sheltered or exposed?
Sheltered – adjacent open water with width < 2500 feet and no regular boat traffic.
Exposed – adjacent open water with width ≥ 2500 feet or regular boat traffic.
8.Wetland Width at the Assessment Area – wetland type/wetland complex condition metric (evaluate WT for all marshes
and Estuarine Woody Wetland only; evaluate WC for Bottomland Hardwood Forest, Headwater Forest, and Riverine Swamp
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
A A ≥ 100 feet
B B From 80 to < 100 feet
C C From 50 to < 80 feet
D D From 40 to < 50 feet
E E From 30 to < 40 feet
F F From 15 to < 30 feet
G G From 5 to < 15 feet
H H < 5 feet
9.Inundation Duration – assessment area condition metric (skip for non-riparian wetlands)
Answer for assessment area dominant landform.
A Evidence of short-duration inundation (< 7 consecutive days)
B Evidence of saturation, without evidence of inundation
C Evidence of long-duration inundation or very long-duration inundation (7 to 30 consecutive days or more)
10.Indicators of Deposition – assessment area condition metric (skip for non-riparian wetlands and all marshes)
Consider recent deposition only (no plant growth since deposition).
Forest only)
A Sediment deposition is not excessive, but at approximately natural levels.
B Sediment deposition is excessive, but not overwhelming the wetland.
C Sediment deposition is excessive and is overwhelming the wetland.
11.Wetland Size – wetland type/wetland complex condition metric
Check a box in each column. Involves a GIS effort with field adjustment. This metric evaluates three aspects of the wetland area: the
size of the wetland type (WT), the size of the wetland complex (WC), and the size of the forested wetland (FW) (if applicable, see User
Manual). See the User Manual for boundaries of these evaluation areas. If assessment area is clear-cut, select “K” for the FW column.
WT FW (if applicable)
A A A ≥ 500 acres
B B B From 100 to < 500 acres
C C C From 50 to < 100 acres
D D D From 25 to < 50 acres
E E E From 10 to < 25 acres
F F F From 5 to < 10 acres
G G G From 1 to < 5 acres
H H H From 0.5 to < 1 acre
I I I From 0.1 to < 0.5 acre
J J J From 0.01 to < 0.1 acre
K K K < 0.01 acre or assessment area is clear-cut
12.Wetland Intactness – wetland type condition metric (evaluate for Pocosins only)
A Pocosin is the full extent (≥ 90%) of its natural landscape size.
B Pocosin is < 90% of the full extent of its natural landscape size.
13.Connectivity to Other Natural Areas – landscape condition metric
13a.Check appropriate box(es) (a box may be checked in each column). Involves a GIS effort with field adjustment. This
evaluates whether the wetland is well connected (Well) and/or loosely connected (Loosely) to the landscape patch, the contiguous
metric naturally vegetated area and open water (if appropriate). Boundaries are formed by four-lane roads, regularly maintained utility
line corridors the width of a four-lane road or wider, urban landscapes, fields (pasture open and agriculture), or water > 300 feet wide.
A A ≥ 500 acres
B B From 100 to < 500 acres
C C From 50 to < 100 acres
D D From 10 to < 50 acres
E E < 10 acres
F F Wetland type has a poor or no connection to other natural habitats
13b.Evaluate for marshes only.
Yes No Wetland type has a surface hydrology connection to open waters/stream or tidal wetlands.
14.Edge Effect – wetland type condition metric (skip for all marshes and Estuarine Woody Wetland)
May involve a GIS effort with field adjustment. Estimate distance from wetland type boundary to artificial edges. Artificial edges include
non-forested areas ≥ 40 feet wide such as fields, development, roads, regularly maintained utility line corridors and clear-cuts. Consider
the eight main points of the compass. Artificial edge occurs within 150 feet in how many directiions? If the assessment area is clear-cut,
select option "C."
A 0
B 1 to 4
C 5 to 8
15. Vegetative Composition – assessment area condition metric (skip for all marshes and Pine Flat)
A Vegetation is close to reference condition in species present and their proportions. Lower strata composed of appropriate
species, with exotic plants absent or sparse within the assessment area.
B Vegetation is different from reference condition in species diversity or proportions, but still largely composed of native species
characteristic of the wetland type. This may include communities of weedy native species that develop after clearcutting or
clearing. It also includes communities with exotics present, but not dominant, over a large portion of the expected strata.
C Vegetation severely altered from reference in composition, or expected species are unnaturally absent (planted stands of non-
characteristic species or at least one stratum inappropriately composed of a single species), or 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 > 10% to 50% cover of exotics.
C Vegetation is dominated by exotic species (>50% cover of exotics).
17.Vegetative Structure – assessment area/wetland type condition metric
17a.Is vegetation present?
Yes No If Yes, continue to 17b. If No, skip to Metric 18.
17b.Evaluate percent coverage of assessment area vegetation for all marshes only. Skip to 17c for non-marsh wetlands.
A ≥ 25% coverage of vegetation
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.
A A Canopy closed, or nearly closed, with natural gaps associated with natural processes
B B Canopy present, but opened more than natural gaps
C C Canopy sparse or absent
A A Dense mid-story/sapling layer
B B Moderate density mid-story/sapling layer
C C Mid-story/sapling layer sparse or absent
AA WT
CanopyMid-StoryWell
WC
Loosely
A A Dense shrub layer
B B Moderate density shrub layer
C C Shrub layer sparse or absent
A A Dense herb layer
B B Moderate density herb layer
C C Herb layer sparse or absent
18.Snags – wetland type condition metric (skip for all marshes)
A Large snags (more than one) are visible (> 12-inches DBH, or large relative to species present and landscape stability).
B Not A
19.Diameter Class Distribution – wetland type condition metric (skip for all marshes)
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 (skip for all marshes)
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 A
21.Vegetation/Open Water Dispersion – wetland type/open water condition metric (evaluate for Non-Tidal Freshwater
Marsh only)
Select the figure that best describes the amount of interspersion between vegetation and open water in the growing season. Patterned
areas indicate vegetated areas, while solid white areas indicate open water.
A B C D
22.Hydrologic Connectivity – assessment area condition metric (evaluate for riparian wetlands and Salt/Brackish Marsh only)
Examples of activities that may severely alter hydrologic connectivity include intensive ditching, fill, sedimentation, channelization,
diversion, man-made berms, beaver dams, and stream incision. Documentation required if evaluated as B, C, or D.
A Overbank and overland flow are not severely altered in the assessment area.
B Overbank flow is severely altered in the assessment area.
C Overland flow is severely altered in the assessment area.
D Both overbank and overland flow are severely altered in the assessment area.
22: Previous channel within majority of wetland is filled in with sediment.
Notes ShrubHerb
Notes on Field Assessment Form (Y/N)
Presence of regulatory considerations (Y/N)
Wetland is intensively managed (Y/N)
Assessment area is located within 50 feet of a natural tributary or other open water (Y/N)
Assessment area is substantially altered by beaver (Y/N)
Assessment area experiences overbank flooding during normal rainfall conditions (Y/N)
Assessment area is on a coastal island (Y/N)
Sub-function Rating Summary
Function Sub-function Metrics
Hydrology Surface Storage and Retention Condition
Sub-Surface Storage and Retention Condition
Water Quality Pathogen Change Condition
Condition/Opportunity
Opportunity Presence? (Y/N)
Particulate Change Condition
Condition/Opportunity
Opportunity Presence? (Y/N)
Soluble Change Condition
Condition/Opportunity
Opportunity Presence? (Y/N)
Physical Change Condition
Condition/Opportunity
Opportunity Presence? (Y/N)
Pollution Change Condition
Condition/Opportunity
Opportunity Presence? (Y/N)
Habitat Physical Structure Condition
Landscape Patch Structure Condition
Vegetation Composition Condition
Function Rating Summary
Function Metrics/Notes
Hydrology Condition
Water Quality Condition
Condition/Opportunity
Opportunity Presence? (Y/N)
Habitat Condition
Overall Wetland Rating
NA
MEDIUM
MEDIUM
NO
NA
NO
NA
NA
MEDIUM
MEDIUM
NO
MEDIUM
NO
LOW
NA
MEDIUM
HIGH
LOW
Rating
MEDIUM
MEDIUM
MEDIUM
MEDIUM
MEDIUM
NO
MEDIUM
NC WAM Wetland Rating Sheet
Wetland Type
Wetland Site Name Wetland JJJ
Witherspoon/WoodHeadwater Forest
Date
Assessor Name/Organization
7/17/18
Accompanies User Manual Version 5.0
Rating
MEDIUM
MEDIUM
NO
YES
NO
YES
NO
NO
USACE AID#:NCDWR #:
Yes No
Evidence of stressors affecting the assessment area (may not be within the assessment area)
Please circle and/or make note on last page if evidence of stressors is apparent. Consider departure from reference, if
appropriate, in recent past (for instance, approximately within 10 years). Noteworthy stressors include, but are not limited
to the following.
•
•
•
•
Is the assessment area intensively managed?Yes No
Regulatory Considerations - Were regulatory considerations evaluated?Yes No If Yes, check all that apply to the assessment area.
Anadromous fish
Federally protected species or State endangered or threatened species
NCDWR riparian buffer rule in effect
Abuts a Primary Nursery Area (PNA)
Publicly owned property
N.C. Division of Coastal Management Area of Environmental Concern (AEC) (including buffer)
Abuts a stream with a NCDWQ classification of SA or supplemental classifications of HQW, 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
Tidal (if tidal, check one of the following boxes)Lunar Lunar Wind Both
Is the assessment area on a coastal island?Yes No
Is the assessment area's surface water storage capacity or duration substantially altered by beaver?Yes No
Does the assessment area experience overbank flooding during normal rainfall conditions?Yes No
1.Ground Surface Condition/Vegetation Condition – assessment area condition metric
Check 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
A A Not severely altered
B B 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,
less diversity [if appropriate], hydrologic alteration)
2.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. A ditch ≤ 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
A A Water storage capacity and duration are not altered.
B B Water storage capacity or duration are altered, but not substantially (typically, not sufficient to change vegetation).
C C Water storage capacity or duration are substantially altered (typically, alteration sufficient to result in vegetation
change) (examples: draining, flooding, soil compaction, filling, excessive sedimentation, underground utility lines).
3.Water Storage/Surface Relief – assessment area/wetland type condition metric (skip for all marshes)
Check a box in each column for each group below. Select the appropriate storage for the assessment area (AA) and the wetland
type (WT).
AA WT
3a.A A Majority of wetland with depressions able to pond water > 1 foot deep
B B Majority of wetland with depressions able to pond water 6 inches to 1 foot deep
C C 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.A Evidence that maximum depth of inundation is greater than 2 feet
B Evidence that maximum depth of inundation is between 1 and 2 feet
C Evidence that maximum depth of inundation is less than 1 foot
4.Soil Texture/Structure – assessment area condition metric (skip for all marshes)
Check a box from each of the three soil property groups below. Dig soil profile in the dominant assessment area landscape
Hydrological modifications (examples: ditches, dams, beaver dams, dikes, berms, ponds, etc.)
Latitude/Longitude (deci-degrees)
Habitat/plant community alteration (examples: mowing, clear-cutting, exotics, etc.)
Surface and sub-surface discharges into the wetland (examples: discharges containing obvious pollutants, presence of nearby
Sub
VS
septic tanks, underground storage tanks (USTs), hog lagoons, etc.)
Precipitation within 48 hrs?
Signs of vegetation stress (examples: vegetation mortality, insect damage, disease, storm damage, salt intrusion, etc.)
36.534272/-78.903911
NC WAM WETLAND ASSESSMENT FORM
Accompanies User Manual Version 5
Crutchfield Branch
Witherspoon/Wood
Wetland LLL
7/17/18Date of Evaluation
Wetland Site Name
Assessor Name/Organization
Nearest Named Water Body
Project Name
Wetland Type Headwater Forest
Level III Ecoregion
03010104
RaleighNCDWR RegionCounty
Roanoke
Person
USGS 8-Digit Catalogue Unit
Piedmont
River Basin
Applicant/Owner Name Duke Energy
Mayo LRB / Ash Closure
feature. Make soil observations within the 12 inches. Use most recent National Technical Committee for Hydric Soils guidance for
regional indicators.
4a.A Sandy soil
B Loamy or clayey soils exhibiting redoximorphic features (concentrations, depletions, or rhizospheres)
C Loamy or clayey soils not exhibiting redoximorphic features
D Loamy or clayey gleyed soil
E Histosol or histic epipedon
4b.A Soil ribbon < 1 inch
B Soil ribbon ≥ 1 inch
4c.A No peat or muck presence
B A peat or muck presence
5.Discharge into Wetland – opportunity metric
Check a box in each column. Consider surface pollutants or discharges (Surf) and sub-surface pollutants or discharges (Sub).
Examples of sub-surface discharges include presence of nearby septic tank, underground storage tank (UST), etc.
Surf Sub
A A Little or no evidence of pollutants or discharges entering the assessment area
B B Noticeable evidence of pollutants or discharges entering the wetland and stressing, but not overwhelming the
treatment capacity of the assessment area
C C Noticeable evidence of pollutants or discharges (pathogen, particulate, or soluble) entering the assessment area and
potentially overwhelming the treatment capacity of the wetland (water discoloration, dead vegetation, excessive
sedimentation, odor)
6.Land Use – opportunity metric (skip for non-riparian wetlands)
Check all that apply (at least one box in each column). Evaluation involves a GIS effort with field adjustment. Consider sources
draining to assessment area within entire upstream watershed (WS), within 5 miles and within the watershed draining to the
assessment area (5M), and within 2 miles and within the watershed draining to the assessment area (2M). Effective riparian buffers
are considered to be 50 feet wide in the Coastal Plain and Piedmont ecoregions and 30 feet wide in the Blue Ridge Mountains ecoregion.
WS 5M 2M
A A A ≥ 10% impervious surfaces
B B B Confined animal operations (or other local, concentrated source of pollutants)
C C C ≥ 20% coverage of pasture
D D D ≥ 20% coverage of agricultural land (regularly plowed land)
E E E ≥ 20% coverage of maintained grass/herb
F F F ≥ 20% coverage of clear-cut land
G G G Little or no opportunity to improve water quality. Lack of opportunity may result from little or no disturbance in
the watershed or hydrologic alterations that prevent dainage and/or overbank flow from affectio the
assessment area.
7.Wetland Acting as Vegetated Buffer – assessment area/wetland complex condition metric (skip for non-riparian wetlands)
7a.Is assessment area within 50 feet of a tributary or other open water?
Yes No If Yes, continue to 7b. If No, skip to Metric 8.
7b.How much of the first 50 feet from the bank is weltand? (Wetland buffer need only be present on one side of the water body. Make
buffer judgment based on the average width of wetland. Record a note if a portion of the buffer has been removed or disturbed.)
A ≥ 50 feet
B From 30 to < 50 feet
C From 15 to < 30 feet
D From 5 to < 15 feet
E < 5 feet or buffer bypassed by ditches
7c.Tributary width. If the tributary is anastomosed, combine widths of channels/braids for a total width.
≤ 15-feet wide > 15-feet wide Other open water (no tributary present)
7d.Do roots of assessment area vegetation extend into the bank of the tributary/open water?
Yes No
7e.Is tributary or other open water sheltered or exposed?
Sheltered – adjacent open water with width < 2500 feet and no regular boat traffic.
Exposed – adjacent open water with width ≥ 2500 feet or regular boat traffic.
8.Wetland Width at the Assessment Area – wetland type/wetland complex condition metric (evaluate WT for all marshes
and Estuarine Woody Wetland only; evaluate WC for Bottomland Hardwood Forest, Headwater Forest, and Riverine Swamp
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
A A ≥ 100 feet
B B From 80 to < 100 feet
C C From 50 to < 80 feet
D D From 40 to < 50 feet
E E From 30 to < 40 feet
F F From 15 to < 30 feet
G G From 5 to < 15 feet
H H < 5 feet
9.Inundation Duration – assessment area condition metric (skip for non-riparian wetlands)
Answer for assessment area dominant landform.
A Evidence of short-duration inundation (< 7 consecutive days)
B Evidence of saturation, without evidence of inundation
C Evidence of long-duration inundation or very long-duration inundation (7 to 30 consecutive days or more)
10.Indicators of Deposition – assessment area condition metric (skip for non-riparian wetlands and all marshes)
Consider recent deposition only (no plant growth since deposition).
Forest only)
A Sediment deposition is not excessive, but at approximately natural levels.
B Sediment deposition is excessive, but not overwhelming the wetland.
C Sediment deposition is excessive and is overwhelming the wetland.
11.Wetland Size – wetland type/wetland complex condition metric
Check a box in each column. Involves a GIS effort with field adjustment. This metric evaluates three aspects of the wetland area: the
size of the wetland type (WT), the size of the wetland complex (WC), and the size of the forested wetland (FW) (if applicable, see User
Manual). See the User Manual for boundaries of these evaluation areas. If assessment area is clear-cut, select “K” for the FW column.
WT FW (if applicable)
A A A ≥ 500 acres
B B B From 100 to < 500 acres
C C C From 50 to < 100 acres
D D D From 25 to < 50 acres
E E E From 10 to < 25 acres
F F F From 5 to < 10 acres
G G G From 1 to < 5 acres
H H H From 0.5 to < 1 acre
I I I From 0.1 to < 0.5 acre
J J J From 0.01 to < 0.1 acre
K K K < 0.01 acre or assessment area is clear-cut
12.Wetland Intactness – wetland type condition metric (evaluate for Pocosins only)
A Pocosin is the full extent (≥ 90%) of its natural landscape size.
B Pocosin is < 90% of the full extent of its natural landscape size.
13.Connectivity to Other Natural Areas – landscape condition metric
13a.Check appropriate box(es) (a box may be checked in each column). Involves a GIS effort with field adjustment. This
evaluates whether the wetland is well connected (Well) and/or loosely connected (Loosely) to the landscape patch, the contiguous
metric naturally vegetated area and open water (if appropriate). Boundaries are formed by four-lane roads, regularly maintained utility
line corridors the width of a four-lane road or wider, urban landscapes, fields (pasture open and agriculture), or water > 300 feet wide.
A A ≥ 500 acres
B B From 100 to < 500 acres
C C From 50 to < 100 acres
D D From 10 to < 50 acres
E E < 10 acres
F F Wetland type has a poor or no connection to other natural habitats
13b.Evaluate for marshes only.
Yes No Wetland type has a surface hydrology connection to open waters/stream or tidal wetlands.
14.Edge Effect – wetland type condition metric (skip for all marshes and Estuarine Woody Wetland)
May involve a GIS effort with field adjustment. Estimate distance from wetland type boundary to artificial edges. Artificial edges include
non-forested areas ≥ 40 feet wide such as fields, development, roads, regularly maintained utility line corridors and clear-cuts. Consider
the eight main points of the compass. Artificial edge occurs within 150 feet in how many directiions? If the assessment area is clear-cut,
select option "C."
A 0
B 1 to 4
C 5 to 8
15. Vegetative Composition – assessment area condition metric (skip for all marshes and Pine Flat)
A Vegetation is close to reference condition in species present and their proportions. Lower strata composed of appropriate
species, with exotic plants absent or sparse within the assessment area.
B Vegetation is different from reference condition in species diversity or proportions, but still largely composed of native species
characteristic of the wetland type. This may include communities of weedy native species that develop after clearcutting or
clearing. It also includes communities with exotics present, but not dominant, over a large portion of the expected strata.
C Vegetation severely altered from reference in composition, or expected species are unnaturally absent (planted stands of non-
characteristic species or at least one stratum inappropriately composed of a single species), or 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 > 10% to 50% cover of exotics.
C Vegetation is dominated by exotic species (>50% cover of exotics).
17.Vegetative Structure – assessment area/wetland type condition metric
17a.Is vegetation present?
Yes No If Yes, continue to 17b. If No, skip to Metric 18.
17b.Evaluate percent coverage of assessment area vegetation for all marshes only. Skip to 17c for non-marsh wetlands.
A ≥ 25% coverage of vegetation
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.
A A Canopy closed, or nearly closed, with natural gaps associated with natural processes
B B Canopy present, but opened more than natural gaps
C C Canopy sparse or absent
A A Dense mid-story/sapling layer
B B Moderate density mid-story/sapling layer
C C Mid-story/sapling layer sparse or absent
Well
WC
Loosely
AA WT
CanopyMid-Story
A A Dense shrub layer
B B Moderate density shrub layer
C C Shrub layer sparse or absent
A A Dense herb layer
B B Moderate density herb layer
C C Herb layer sparse or absent
18.Snags – wetland type condition metric (skip for all marshes)
A Large snags (more than one) are visible (> 12-inches DBH, or large relative to species present and landscape stability).
B Not A
19.Diameter Class Distribution – wetland type condition metric (skip for all marshes)
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 (skip for all marshes)
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 A
21.Vegetation/Open Water Dispersion – wetland type/open water condition metric (evaluate for Non-Tidal Freshwater
Marsh only)
Select the figure that best describes the amount of interspersion between vegetation and open water in the growing season. Patterned
areas indicate vegetated areas, while solid white areas indicate open water.
A B C D
22.Hydrologic Connectivity – assessment area condition metric (evaluate for riparian wetlands and Salt/Brackish Marsh only)
Examples of activities that may severely alter hydrologic connectivity include intensive ditching, fill, sedimentation, channelization,
diversion, man-made berms, beaver dams, and stream incision. Documentation required if evaluated as B, C, or D.
A Overbank and overland flow are not severely altered in the assessment area.
B Overbank flow is severely altered in the assessment area.
C Overland flow is severely altered in the assessment area.
D Both overbank and overland flow are severely altered in the assessment area.
22: Overbank flow severly altered due to channel incision
Notes ShrubHerb
Notes on Field Assessment Form (Y/N)
Presence of regulatory considerations (Y/N)
Wetland is intensively managed (Y/N)
Assessment area is located within 50 feet of a natural tributary or other open water (Y/N)
Assessment area is substantially altered by beaver (Y/N)
Assessment area experiences overbank flooding during normal rainfall conditions (Y/N)
Assessment area is on a coastal island (Y/N)
Sub-function Rating Summary
Function Sub-function Metrics
Hydrology Surface Storage and Retention Condition
Sub-Surface Storage and Retention Condition
Water Quality Pathogen Change Condition
Condition/Opportunity
Opportunity Presence? (Y/N)
Particulate Change Condition
Condition/Opportunity
Opportunity Presence? (Y/N)
Soluble Change Condition
Condition/Opportunity
Opportunity Presence? (Y/N)
Physical Change Condition
Condition/Opportunity
Opportunity Presence? (Y/N)
Pollution Change Condition
Condition/Opportunity
Opportunity Presence? (Y/N)
Habitat Physical Structure Condition
Landscape Patch Structure Condition
Vegetation Composition Condition
Function Rating Summary
Function Metrics/Notes
Hydrology Condition
Water Quality Condition
Condition/Opportunity
Opportunity Presence? (Y/N)
Habitat Condition
Overall Wetland Rating
Rating
MEDIUM
MEDIUM
NO
YES
NO
YES
NO
NO
NC WAM Wetland Rating Sheet
Wetland Type
Wetland Site Name Wetland LLL
Witherspoon/WoodHeadwater Forest
Date
Assessor Name/Organization
7/17/18
Accompanies User Manual Version 5.0
MEDIUM
MEDIUM
MEDIUM
NO
MEDIUM
HIGH
LOW
Rating
MEDIUM
MEDIUM
NA
MEDIUM
MEDIUM
NO
NA
NO
NA
NA
MEDIUM
MEDIUM
NO
MEDIUM
NO
MEDIUM
NA
MEDIUM
USACE AID#:NCDWR #:
Yes No
Evidence of stressors affecting the assessment area (may not be within the assessment area)
Please circle and/or make note on last page if evidence of stressors is apparent. Consider departure from reference, if
appropriate, in recent past (for instance, approximately within 10 years). Noteworthy stressors include, but are not limited
to the following.
•
•
•
•
Is the assessment area intensively managed?Yes No
Regulatory Considerations - Were regulatory considerations evaluated?Yes No If Yes, check all that apply to the assessment area.
Anadromous fish
Federally protected species or State endangered or threatened species
NCDWR riparian buffer rule in effect
Abuts a Primary Nursery Area (PNA)
Publicly owned property
N.C. Division of Coastal Management Area of Environmental Concern (AEC) (including buffer)
Abuts a stream with a NCDWQ classification of SA or supplemental classifications of HQW, 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
Tidal (if tidal, check one of the following boxes)Lunar Lunar Wind Both
Is the assessment area on a coastal island?Yes No
Is the assessment area's surface water storage capacity or duration substantially altered by beaver?Yes No
Does the assessment area experience overbank flooding during normal rainfall conditions?Yes No
1.Ground Surface Condition/Vegetation Condition – assessment area condition metric
Check 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
A A Not severely altered
B B 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,
less diversity [if appropriate], hydrologic alteration)
2.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. A ditch ≤ 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
A A Water storage capacity and duration are not altered.
B B Water storage capacity or duration are altered, but not substantially (typically, not sufficient to change vegetation).
C C Water storage capacity or duration are substantially altered (typically, alteration sufficient to result in vegetation
change) (examples: draining, flooding, soil compaction, filling, excessive sedimentation, underground utility lines).
3.Water Storage/Surface Relief – assessment area/wetland type condition metric (skip for all marshes)
Check a box in each column for each group below. Select the appropriate storage for the assessment area (AA) and the wetland
type (WT).
AA WT
3a.A A Majority of wetland with depressions able to pond water > 1 foot deep
B B Majority of wetland with depressions able to pond water 6 inches to 1 foot deep
C C 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.A Evidence that maximum depth of inundation is greater than 2 feet
B Evidence that maximum depth of inundation is between 1 and 2 feet
C Evidence that maximum depth of inundation is less than 1 foot
Hydrological modifications (examples: ditches, dams, beaver dams, dikes, berms, ponds, etc.)
Latitude/Longitude (deci-degrees)
Habitat/plant community alteration (examples: mowing, clear-cutting, exotics, etc.)
Surface and sub-surface discharges into the wetland (examples: discharges containing obvious pollutants, presence of nearby
Sub
VS
septic tanks, underground storage tanks (USTs), hog lagoons, etc.)
Precipitation within 48 hrs?
Signs of vegetation stress (examples: vegetation mortality, insect damage, disease, storm damage, salt intrusion, etc.)
36.526679, -78.903426
NC WAM WETLAND ASSESSMENT FORM
Accompanies User Manual Version 5
Bowes Branch
R. Conchilla/Wood E&IS
WOOO
4/22/2020Date of Evaluation
Wetland Site Name
Assessor Name/Organization
Nearest Named Water Body
Project Name
Wetland Type Hardwood Flat
Level III Ecoregion
03010104
RaleighNCDWR RegionCounty
Roanoke
Person
USGS 8-Digit Catalogue Unit
Piedmont
River Basin
Applicant/Owner Name Duke Energy
Mayo Ash Basin Landfill
4.Soil Texture/Structure – assessment area condition metric (skip for all marshes)
Check a box from each of the three soil property groups below. Dig soil profile in the dominant assessment area landscape
feature. Make soil observations within the 12 inches. Use most recent National Technical Committee for Hydric Soils guidance for
regional indicators.
4a.A Sandy soil
B Loamy or clayey soils exhibiting redoximorphic features (concentrations, depletions, or rhizospheres)
C Loamy or clayey soils not exhibiting redoximorphic features
D Loamy or clayey gleyed soil
E Histosol or histic epipedon
4b.A Soil ribbon < 1 inch
B Soil ribbon ≥ 1 inch
4c.A No peat or muck presence
B A peat or muck presence
5.Discharge into Wetland – opportunity metric
Check a box in each column. Consider surface pollutants or discharges (Surf) and sub-surface pollutants or discharges (Sub).
Examples of sub-surface discharges include presence of nearby septic tank, underground storage tank (UST), etc.
Surf Sub
A A Little or no evidence of pollutants or discharges entering the assessment area
B B Noticeable evidence of pollutants or discharges entering the wetland and stressing, but not overwhelming the
treatment capacity of the assessment area
C C Noticeable evidence of pollutants or discharges (pathogen, particulate, or soluble) entering the assessment area and
potentially overwhelming the treatment capacity of the wetland (water discoloration, dead vegetation, excessive
sedimentation, odor)
6.Land Use – opportunity metric (skip for non-riparian wetlands)
Check all that apply (at least one box in each column). Evaluation involves a GIS effort with field adjustment. Consider sources
draining to assessment area within entire upstream watershed (WS), within 5 miles and within the watershed draining to the
assessment area (5M), and within 2 miles and within the watershed draining to the assessment area (2M). Effective riparian buffers
are considered to be 50 feet wide in the Coastal Plain and Piedmont ecoregions and 30 feet wide in the Blue Ridge Mountains ecoregion.
WS 5M 2M
A A A ≥ 10% impervious surfaces
B B B Confined animal operations (or other local, concentrated source of pollutants)
C C C ≥ 20% coverage of pasture
D D D ≥ 20% coverage of agricultural land (regularly plowed land)
E E E ≥ 20% coverage of maintained grass/herb
F F F ≥ 20% coverage of clear-cut land
G G G Little or no opportunity to improve water quality. Lack of opportunity may result from little or no disturbance in
the watershed or hydrologic alterations that prevent dainage and/or overbank flow from affectio the
assessment area.
7.Wetland Acting as Vegetated Buffer – assessment area/wetland complex condition metric (skip for non-riparian wetlands)
7a.Is assessment area within 50 feet of a tributary or other open water?
Yes No If Yes, continue to 7b. If No, skip to Metric 8.
7b.How much of the first 50 feet from the bank is weltand? (Wetland buffer need only be present on one side of the water body. Make
buffer judgment based on the average width of wetland. Record a note if a portion of the buffer has been removed or disturbed.)
A ≥ 50 feet
B From 30 to < 50 feet
C From 15 to < 30 feet
D From 5 to < 15 feet
E < 5 feet or buffer bypassed by ditches
7c.Tributary width. If the tributary is anastomosed, combine widths of channels/braids for a total width.
≤ 15-feet wide > 15-feet wide Other open water (no tributary present)
7d.Do roots of assessment area vegetation extend into the bank of the tributary/open water?
Yes No
7e.Is tributary or other open water sheltered or exposed?
Sheltered – adjacent open water with width < 2500 feet and no regular boat traffic.
Exposed – adjacent open water with width ≥ 2500 feet or regular boat traffic.
8.Wetland Width at the Assessment Area – wetland type/wetland complex condition metric (evaluate WT for all marshes
and Estuarine Woody Wetland only; evaluate WC for Bottomland Hardwood Forest, Headwater Forest, and Riverine Swamp
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
A A ≥ 100 feet
B B From 80 to < 100 feet
C C From 50 to < 80 feet
D D From 40 to < 50 feet
E E From 30 to < 40 feet
F F From 15 to < 30 feet
G G From 5 to < 15 feet
H H < 5 feet
9.Inundation Duration – assessment area condition metric (skip for non-riparian wetlands)
Answer for assessment area dominant landform.
A Evidence of short-duration inundation (< 7 consecutive days)
B Evidence of saturation, without evidence of inundation
C Evidence of long-duration inundation or very long-duration inundation (7 to 30 consecutive days or more)
Forest only)
10.Indicators of Deposition – assessment area condition metric (skip for non-riparian wetlands and all marshes)
Consider recent deposition only (no plant growth since deposition).
A Sediment deposition is not excessive, but at approximately natural levels.
B Sediment deposition is excessive, but not overwhelming the wetland.
C Sediment deposition is excessive and is overwhelming the wetland.
11.Wetland Size – wetland type/wetland complex condition metric
Check a box in each column. Involves a GIS effort with field adjustment. This metric evaluates three aspects of the wetland area: the
size of the wetland type (WT), the size of the wetland complex (WC), and the size of the forested wetland (FW) (if applicable, see User
Manual). See the User Manual for boundaries of these evaluation areas. If assessment area is clear-cut, select “K” for the FW column.
WT FW (if applicable)
A A A ≥ 500 acres
B B B From 100 to < 500 acres
C C C From 50 to < 100 acres
D D D From 25 to < 50 acres
E E E From 10 to < 25 acres
F F F From 5 to < 10 acres
G G G From 1 to < 5 acres
H H H From 0.5 to < 1 acre
I I I From 0.1 to < 0.5 acre
J J J From 0.01 to < 0.1 acre
K K K < 0.01 acre or assessment area is clear-cut
12.Wetland Intactness – wetland type condition metric (evaluate for Pocosins only)
A Pocosin is the full extent (≥ 90%) of its natural landscape size.
B Pocosin is < 90% of the full extent of its natural landscape size.
13.Connectivity to Other Natural Areas – landscape condition metric
13a.Check appropriate box(es) (a box may be checked in each column). Involves a GIS effort with field adjustment. This
evaluates whether the wetland is well connected (Well) and/or loosely connected (Loosely) to the landscape patch, the contiguous
metric naturally vegetated area and open water (if appropriate). Boundaries are formed by four-lane roads, regularly maintained utility
line corridors the width of a four-lane road or wider, urban landscapes, fields (pasture open and agriculture), or water > 300 feet wide.
A A ≥ 500 acres
B B From 100 to < 500 acres
C C From 50 to < 100 acres
D D From 10 to < 50 acres
E E < 10 acres
F F Wetland type has a poor or no connection to other natural habitats
13b.Evaluate for marshes only.
Yes No Wetland type has a surface hydrology connection to open waters/stream or tidal wetlands.
14.Edge Effect – wetland type condition metric (skip for all marshes and Estuarine Woody Wetland)
May involve a GIS effort with field adjustment. Estimate distance from wetland type boundary to artificial edges. Artificial edges include
non-forested areas ≥ 40 feet wide such as fields, development, roads, regularly maintained utility line corridors and clear-cuts. Consider
the eight main points of the compass. Artificial edge occurs within 150 feet in how many directiions? If the assessment area is clear-cut,
select option "C."
A 0
B 1 to 4
C 5 to 8
15. Vegetative Composition – assessment area condition metric (skip for all marshes and Pine Flat)
A Vegetation is close to reference condition in species present and their proportions. Lower strata composed of appropriate
species, with exotic plants absent or sparse within the assessment area.
B Vegetation is different from reference condition in species diversity or proportions, but still largely composed of native species
characteristic of the wetland type. This may include communities of weedy native species that develop after clearcutting or
clearing. It also includes communities with exotics present, but not dominant, over a large portion of the expected strata.
C Vegetation severely altered from reference in composition, or expected species are unnaturally absent (planted stands of non-
characteristic species or at least one stratum inappropriately composed of a single species), or 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 > 10% to 50% cover of exotics.
C Vegetation is dominated by exotic species (>50% cover of exotics).
17.Vegetative Structure – assessment area/wetland type condition metric
17a.Is vegetation present?
Yes No If Yes, continue to 17b. If No, skip to Metric 18.
17b.Evaluate percent coverage of assessment area vegetation for all marshes only. Skip to 17c for non-marsh wetlands.
A ≥ 25% coverage of vegetation
B < 25% coverage of vegetation
Well
WC
Loosely
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.
A A Canopy closed, or nearly closed, with natural gaps associated with natural processes
B B Canopy present, but opened more than natural gaps
C C Canopy sparse or absent
A A Dense mid-story/sapling layer
B B Moderate density mid-story/sapling layer
C C Mid-story/sapling layer sparse or absent
A A Dense shrub layer
B B Moderate density shrub layer
C C Shrub layer sparse or absent
A A Dense herb layer
B B Moderate density herb layer
C C Herb layer sparse or absent
18.Snags – wetland type condition metric (skip for all marshes)
A Large snags (more than one) are visible (> 12-inches DBH, or large relative to species present and landscape stability).
B Not A
19.Diameter Class Distribution – wetland type condition metric (skip for all marshes)
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 (skip for all marshes)
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 A
21.Vegetation/Open Water Dispersion – wetland type/open water condition metric (evaluate for Non-Tidal Freshwater
Marsh only)
Select the figure that best describes the amount of interspersion between vegetation and open water in the growing season. Patterned
areas indicate vegetated areas, while solid white areas indicate open water.
A B C D
22.Hydrologic Connectivity – assessment area condition metric (evaluate for riparian wetlands and Salt/Brackish Marsh only)
Examples of activities that may severely alter hydrologic connectivity include intensive ditching, fill, sedimentation, channelization,
diversion, man-made berms, beaver dams, and stream incision. Documentation required if evaluated as B, C, or D.
A Overbank and overland flow are not severely altered in the assessment area.
B Overbank flow is severely altered in the assessment area.
C Overland flow is severely altered in the assessment area.
D Both overbank and overland flow are severely altered in the assessment area.
AA WT
Notes CanopyMid-StoryShrubHerb
Notes on Field Assessment Form (Y/N)
Presence of regulatory considerations (Y/N)
Wetland is intensively managed (Y/N)
Assessment area is located within 50 feet of a natural tributary or other open water (Y/N)
Assessment area is substantially altered by beaver (Y/N)
Assessment area experiences overbank flooding during normal rainfall conditions (Y/N)
Assessment area is on a coastal island (Y/N)
Sub-function Rating Summary
Function Sub-function Metrics
Hydrology Surface Storage and Retention Condition
Sub-Surface Storage and Retention Condition
Water Quality Pathogen Change Condition
Condition/Opportunity
Opportunity Presence? (Y/N)
Particulate Change Condition
Condition/Opportunity
Opportunity Presence? (Y/N)
Soluble Change Condition
Condition/Opportunity
Opportunity Presence? (Y/N)
Physical Change Condition
Condition/Opportunity
Opportunity Presence? (Y/N)
Pollution Change Condition
Condition/Opportunity
Opportunity Presence? (Y/N)
Habitat Physical Structure Condition
Landscape Patch Structure Condition
Vegetation Composition Condition
Function Rating Summary
Function Metrics/Notes
Hydrology Condition
Water Quality Condition
Condition/Opportunity
Opportunity Presence? (Y/N)
Habitat Condition
Overall Wetland Rating
Rating
MEDIUM
HIGH
NO
NO
NO
NO
NO
NC WAM Wetland Rating Sheet
Wetland Type
Wetland Site Name WOOO
R. Conchilla/Wood E&ISHardwood Flat
Date
Assessor Name/Organization
4/22/2020
Accompanies User Manual Version 5.0
MEDIUM
MEDIUM
HIGH
YES
LOW
LOW
LOW
Rating
HIGH
HIGH
HIGH
NA
NA
NO
YES
NA
MEDIUM
NA
NA
NA
NA
NA
NA
NA
NA
NA
USACE AID#:NCDWR #:
Yes No
Evidence of stressors affecting the assessment area (may not be within the assessment area)
Please circle and/or make note on last page if evidence of stressors is apparent. Consider departure from reference, if
appropriate, in recent past (for instance, approximately within 10 years). Noteworthy stressors include, but are not limited
to the following.
•
•
•
•
Is the assessment area intensively managed?Yes No
Regulatory Considerations - Were regulatory considerations evaluated?Yes No If Yes, check all that apply to the assessment area.
Anadromous fish
Federally protected species or State endangered or threatened species
NCDWR riparian buffer rule in effect
Abuts a Primary Nursery Area (PNA)
Publicly owned property
N.C. Division of Coastal Management Area of Environmental Concern (AEC) (including buffer)
Abuts a stream with a NCDWQ classification of SA or supplemental classifications of HQW, 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
Tidal (if tidal, check one of the following boxes)Lunar Lunar Wind Both
Is the assessment area on a coastal island?Yes No
Is the assessment area's surface water storage capacity or duration substantially altered by beaver?Yes No
Does the assessment area experience overbank flooding during normal rainfall conditions?Yes No
1.Ground Surface Condition/Vegetation Condition – assessment area condition metric
Check 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
A A Not severely altered
B B 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,
less diversity [if appropriate], hydrologic alteration)
2.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. A ditch ≤ 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
A A Water storage capacity and duration are not altered.
B B Water storage capacity or duration are altered, but not substantially (typically, not sufficient to change vegetation).
C C Water storage capacity or duration are substantially altered (typically, alteration sufficient to result in vegetation
change) (examples: draining, flooding, soil compaction, filling, excessive sedimentation, underground utility lines).
3.Water Storage/Surface Relief – assessment area/wetland type condition metric (skip for all marshes)
Check a box in each column for each group below. Select the appropriate storage for the assessment area (AA) and the wetland
type (WT).
AA WT
3a.A A Majority of wetland with depressions able to pond water > 1 foot deep
B B Majority of wetland with depressions able to pond water 6 inches to 1 foot deep
C C 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.A Evidence that maximum depth of inundation is greater than 2 feet
B Evidence that maximum depth of inundation is between 1 and 2 feet
C Evidence that maximum depth of inundation is less than 1 foot
Hydrological modifications (examples: ditches, dams, beaver dams, dikes, berms, ponds, etc.)
Latitude/Longitude (deci-degrees)
Habitat/plant community alteration (examples: mowing, clear-cutting, exotics, etc.)
Surface and sub-surface discharges into the wetland (examples: discharges containing obvious pollutants, presence of nearby
Sub
VS
septic tanks, underground storage tanks (USTs), hog lagoons, etc.)
Precipitation within 48 hrs?
Signs of vegetation stress (examples: vegetation mortality, insect damage, disease, storm damage, salt intrusion, etc.)
36.538420, -78.898867
NC WAM WETLAND ASSESSMENT FORM
Accompanies User Manual Version 5
Mayo Lake
Dicky Harmon/Wood E&IS
Wetland UU
4/21/2020Date of Evaluation
Wetland Site Name
Assessor Name/Organization
Nearest Named Water Body
Project Name
Wetland Type Headwater Forest
Level III Ecoregion
03010104
RaleighNCDWR RegionCounty
Roanoke
Person
USGS 8-Digit Catalogue Unit
Piedmont
River Basin
Applicant/Owner Name Duke Energy
Mayo Ash Basin Landfill
4.Soil Texture/Structure – assessment area condition metric (skip for all marshes)
Check a box from each of the three soil property groups below. Dig soil profile in the dominant assessment area landscape
feature. Make soil observations within the 12 inches. Use most recent National Technical Committee for Hydric Soils guidance for
regional indicators.
4a.A Sandy soil
B Loamy or clayey soils exhibiting redoximorphic features (concentrations, depletions, or rhizospheres)
C Loamy or clayey soils not exhibiting redoximorphic features
D Loamy or clayey gleyed soil
E Histosol or histic epipedon
4b.A Soil ribbon < 1 inch
B Soil ribbon ≥ 1 inch
4c.A No peat or muck presence
B A peat or muck presence
5.Discharge into Wetland – opportunity metric
Check a box in each column. Consider surface pollutants or discharges (Surf) and sub-surface pollutants or discharges (Sub).
Examples of sub-surface discharges include presence of nearby septic tank, underground storage tank (UST), etc.
Surf Sub
A A Little or no evidence of pollutants or discharges entering the assessment area
B B Noticeable evidence of pollutants or discharges entering the wetland and stressing, but not overwhelming the
treatment capacity of the assessment area
C C Noticeable evidence of pollutants or discharges (pathogen, particulate, or soluble) entering the assessment area and
potentially overwhelming the treatment capacity of the wetland (water discoloration, dead vegetation, excessive
sedimentation, odor)
6.Land Use – opportunity metric (skip for non-riparian wetlands)
Check all that apply (at least one box in each column). Evaluation involves a GIS effort with field adjustment. Consider sources
draining to assessment area within entire upstream watershed (WS), within 5 miles and within the watershed draining to the
assessment area (5M), and within 2 miles and within the watershed draining to the assessment area (2M). Effective riparian buffers
are considered to be 50 feet wide in the Coastal Plain and Piedmont ecoregions and 30 feet wide in the Blue Ridge Mountains ecoregion.
WS 5M 2M
A A A ≥ 10% impervious surfaces
B B B Confined animal operations (or other local, concentrated source of pollutants)
C C C ≥ 20% coverage of pasture
D D D ≥ 20% coverage of agricultural land (regularly plowed land)
E E E ≥ 20% coverage of maintained grass/herb
F F F ≥ 20% coverage of clear-cut land
G G G Little or no opportunity to improve water quality. Lack of opportunity may result from little or no disturbance in
the watershed or hydrologic alterations that prevent dainage and/or overbank flow from affectio the
assessment area.
7.Wetland Acting as Vegetated Buffer – assessment area/wetland complex condition metric (skip for non-riparian wetlands)
7a.Is assessment area within 50 feet of a tributary or other open water?
Yes No If Yes, continue to 7b. If No, skip to Metric 8.
7b.How much of the first 50 feet from the bank is weltand? (Wetland buffer need only be present on one side of the water body. Make
buffer judgment based on the average width of wetland. Record a note if a portion of the buffer has been removed or disturbed.)
A ≥ 50 feet
B From 30 to < 50 feet
C From 15 to < 30 feet
D From 5 to < 15 feet
E < 5 feet or buffer bypassed by ditches
7c.Tributary width. If the tributary is anastomosed, combine widths of channels/braids for a total width.
≤ 15-feet wide > 15-feet wide Other open water (no tributary present)
7d.Do roots of assessment area vegetation extend into the bank of the tributary/open water?
Yes No
7e.Is tributary or other open water sheltered or exposed?
Sheltered – adjacent open water with width < 2500 feet and no regular boat traffic.
Exposed – adjacent open water with width ≥ 2500 feet or regular boat traffic.
8.Wetland Width at the Assessment Area – wetland type/wetland complex condition metric (evaluate WT for all marshes
and Estuarine Woody Wetland only; evaluate WC for Bottomland Hardwood Forest, Headwater Forest, and Riverine Swamp
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
A A ≥ 100 feet
B B From 80 to < 100 feet
C C From 50 to < 80 feet
D D From 40 to < 50 feet
E E From 30 to < 40 feet
F F From 15 to < 30 feet
G G From 5 to < 15 feet
H H < 5 feet
9.Inundation Duration – assessment area condition metric (skip for non-riparian wetlands)
Answer for assessment area dominant landform.
A Evidence of short-duration inundation (< 7 consecutive days)
B Evidence of saturation, without evidence of inundation
C Evidence of long-duration inundation or very long-duration inundation (7 to 30 consecutive days or more)
Forest only)
10.Indicators of Deposition – assessment area condition metric (skip for non-riparian wetlands and all marshes)
Consider recent deposition only (no plant growth since deposition).
A Sediment deposition is not excessive, but at approximately natural levels.
B Sediment deposition is excessive, but not overwhelming the wetland.
C Sediment deposition is excessive and is overwhelming the wetland.
11.Wetland Size – wetland type/wetland complex condition metric
Check a box in each column. Involves a GIS effort with field adjustment. This metric evaluates three aspects of the wetland area: the
size of the wetland type (WT), the size of the wetland complex (WC), and the size of the forested wetland (FW) (if applicable, see User
Manual). See the User Manual for boundaries of these evaluation areas. If assessment area is clear-cut, select “K” for the FW column.
WT FW (if applicable)
A A A ≥ 500 acres
B B B From 100 to < 500 acres
C C C From 50 to < 100 acres
D D D From 25 to < 50 acres
E E E From 10 to < 25 acres
F F F From 5 to < 10 acres
G G G From 1 to < 5 acres
H H H From 0.5 to < 1 acre
I I I From 0.1 to < 0.5 acre
J J J From 0.01 to < 0.1 acre
K K K < 0.01 acre or assessment area is clear-cut
12.Wetland Intactness – wetland type condition metric (evaluate for Pocosins only)
A Pocosin is the full extent (≥ 90%) of its natural landscape size.
B Pocosin is < 90% of the full extent of its natural landscape size.
13.Connectivity to Other Natural Areas – landscape condition metric
13a.Check appropriate box(es) (a box may be checked in each column). Involves a GIS effort with field adjustment. This
evaluates whether the wetland is well connected (Well) and/or loosely connected (Loosely) to the landscape patch, the contiguous
metric naturally vegetated area and open water (if appropriate). Boundaries are formed by four-lane roads, regularly maintained utility
line corridors the width of a four-lane road or wider, urban landscapes, fields (pasture open and agriculture), or water > 300 feet wide.
A A ≥ 500 acres
B B From 100 to < 500 acres
C C From 50 to < 100 acres
D D From 10 to < 50 acres
E E < 10 acres
F F Wetland type has a poor or no connection to other natural habitats
13b.Evaluate for marshes only.
Yes No Wetland type has a surface hydrology connection to open waters/stream or tidal wetlands.
14.Edge Effect – wetland type condition metric (skip for all marshes and Estuarine Woody Wetland)
May involve a GIS effort with field adjustment. Estimate distance from wetland type boundary to artificial edges. Artificial edges include
non-forested areas ≥ 40 feet wide such as fields, development, roads, regularly maintained utility line corridors and clear-cuts. Consider
the eight main points of the compass. Artificial edge occurs within 150 feet in how many directiions? If the assessment area is clear-cut,
select option "C."
A 0
B 1 to 4
C 5 to 8
15. Vegetative Composition – assessment area condition metric (skip for all marshes and Pine Flat)
A Vegetation is close to reference condition in species present and their proportions. Lower strata composed of appropriate
species, with exotic plants absent or sparse within the assessment area.
B Vegetation is different from reference condition in species diversity or proportions, but still largely composed of native species
characteristic of the wetland type. This may include communities of weedy native species that develop after clearcutting or
clearing. It also includes communities with exotics present, but not dominant, over a large portion of the expected strata.
C Vegetation severely altered from reference in composition, or expected species are unnaturally absent (planted stands of non-
characteristic species or at least one stratum inappropriately composed of a single species), or 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 > 10% to 50% cover of exotics.
C Vegetation is dominated by exotic species (>50% cover of exotics).
17.Vegetative Structure – assessment area/wetland type condition metric
17a.Is vegetation present?
Yes No If Yes, continue to 17b. If No, skip to Metric 18.
17b.Evaluate percent coverage of assessment area vegetation for all marshes only. Skip to 17c for non-marsh wetlands.
A ≥ 25% coverage of vegetation
B < 25% coverage of vegetation
Well
WC
Loosely
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.
A A Canopy closed, or nearly closed, with natural gaps associated with natural processes
B B Canopy present, but opened more than natural gaps
C C Canopy sparse or absent
A A Dense mid-story/sapling layer
B B Moderate density mid-story/sapling layer
C C Mid-story/sapling layer sparse or absent
A A Dense shrub layer
B B Moderate density shrub layer
C C Shrub layer sparse or absent
A A Dense herb layer
B B Moderate density herb layer
C C Herb layer sparse or absent
18.Snags – wetland type condition metric (skip for all marshes)
A Large snags (more than one) are visible (> 12-inches DBH, or large relative to species present and landscape stability).
B Not A
19.Diameter Class Distribution – wetland type condition metric (skip for all marshes)
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 (skip for all marshes)
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 A
21.Vegetation/Open Water Dispersion – wetland type/open water condition metric (evaluate for Non-Tidal Freshwater
Marsh only)
Select the figure that best describes the amount of interspersion between vegetation and open water in the growing season. Patterned
areas indicate vegetated areas, while solid white areas indicate open water.
A B C D
22.Hydrologic Connectivity – assessment area condition metric (evaluate for riparian wetlands and Salt/Brackish Marsh only)
Examples of activities that may severely alter hydrologic connectivity include intensive ditching, fill, sedimentation, channelization,
diversion, man-made berms, beaver dams, and stream incision. Documentation required if evaluated as B, C, or D.
A Overbank and overland flow are not severely altered in the assessment area.
B Overbank flow is severely altered in the assessment area.
C Overland flow is severely altered in the assessment area.
D Both overbank and overland flow are severely altered in the assessment area.
AA WT
Notes CanopyMid-StoryShrubHerb
Notes on Field Assessment Form (Y/N)
Presence of regulatory considerations (Y/N)
Wetland is intensively managed (Y/N)
Assessment area is located within 50 feet of a natural tributary or other open water (Y/N)
Assessment area is substantially altered by beaver (Y/N)
Assessment area experiences overbank flooding during normal rainfall conditions (Y/N)
Assessment area is on a coastal island (Y/N)
Sub-function Rating Summary
Function Sub-function Metrics
Hydrology Surface Storage and Retention Condition
Sub-Surface Storage and Retention Condition
Water Quality Pathogen Change Condition
Condition/Opportunity
Opportunity Presence? (Y/N)
Particulate Change Condition
Condition/Opportunity
Opportunity Presence? (Y/N)
Soluble Change Condition
Condition/Opportunity
Opportunity Presence? (Y/N)
Physical Change Condition
Condition/Opportunity
Opportunity Presence? (Y/N)
Pollution Change Condition
Condition/Opportunity
Opportunity Presence? (Y/N)
Habitat Physical Structure Condition
Landscape Patch Structure Condition
Vegetation Composition Condition
Function Rating Summary
Function Metrics/Notes
Hydrology Condition
Water Quality Condition
Condition/Opportunity
Opportunity Presence? (Y/N)
Habitat Condition
Overall Wetland Rating
Rating
LOW
HIGH
NO
NO
YES
NO
NO
NC WAM Wetland Rating Sheet
Wetland Type
Wetland Site Name Wetland UU
Dicky Harmon/Wood E&ISHeadwater Forest
Date
Assessor Name/Organization
4/21/2020
Accompanies User Manual Version 5.0
MEDIUM
HIGH
HIGH
YES
LOW
LOW
LOW
Rating
MEDIUM
MEDIUM
NA
HIGH
HIGH
NO
NA
YES
NA
NA
MEDIUM
HIGH
YES
HIGH
YES
LOW
NA
HIGH
USACE AID#:NCDWR #:
Yes No
Evidence of stressors affecting the assessment area (may not be within the assessment area)
Please circle and/or make note on last page if evidence of stressors is apparent. Consider departure from reference, if
appropriate, in recent past (for instance, approximately within 10 years). Noteworthy stressors include, but are not limited
to the following.
•
•
•
•
Is the assessment area intensively managed?Yes No
Regulatory Considerations - Were regulatory considerations evaluated?Yes No If Yes, check all that apply to the assessment area.
Anadromous fish
Federally protected species or State endangered or threatened species
NCDWR riparian buffer rule in effect
Abuts a Primary Nursery Area (PNA)
Publicly owned property
N.C. Division of Coastal Management Area of Environmental Concern (AEC) (including buffer)
Abuts a stream with a NCDWQ classification of SA or supplemental classifications of HQW, 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
Tidal (if tidal, check one of the following boxes)Lunar Lunar Wind Both
Is the assessment area on a coastal island?Yes No
Is the assessment area's surface water storage capacity or duration substantially altered by beaver?Yes No
Does the assessment area experience overbank flooding during normal rainfall conditions?Yes No
1.Ground Surface Condition/Vegetation Condition – assessment area condition metric
Check 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
A A Not severely altered
B B 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,
less diversity [if appropriate], hydrologic alteration)
2.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. A ditch ≤ 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
A A Water storage capacity and duration are not altered.
B B Water storage capacity or duration are altered, but not substantially (typically, not sufficient to change vegetation).
C C Water storage capacity or duration are substantially altered (typically, alteration sufficient to result in vegetation
change) (examples: draining, flooding, soil compaction, filling, excessive sedimentation, underground utility lines).
3.Water Storage/Surface Relief – assessment area/wetland type condition metric (skip for all marshes)
Check a box in each column for each group below. Select the appropriate storage for the assessment area (AA) and the wetland
type (WT).
AA WT
3a.A A Majority of wetland with depressions able to pond water > 1 foot deep
B B Majority of wetland with depressions able to pond water 6 inches to 1 foot deep
C C 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.A Evidence that maximum depth of inundation is greater than 2 feet
B Evidence that maximum depth of inundation is between 1 and 2 feet
C Evidence that maximum depth of inundation is less than 1 foot
Hydrological modifications (examples: ditches, dams, beaver dams, dikes, berms, ponds, etc.)
Latitude/Longitude (deci-degrees)
Habitat/plant community alteration (examples: mowing, clear-cutting, exotics, etc.)
Surface and sub-surface discharges into the wetland (examples: discharges containing obvious pollutants, presence of nearby
Sub
VS
septic tanks, underground storage tanks (USTs), hog lagoons, etc.)
Precipitation within 48 hrs?
Signs of vegetation stress (examples: vegetation mortality, insect damage, disease, storm damage, salt intrusion, etc.)
36.537698/-78.897861
NC WAM WETLAND ASSESSMENT FORM
Accompanies User Manual Version 5
Crutchfield Branch
Witherspoon/Wood
Wetland ZZ
7/17/18Date of Evaluation
Wetland Site Name
Assessor Name/Organization
Nearest Named Water Body
Project Name
Wetland Type Headwater Forest
Level III Ecoregion
03010104
RaleighNCDWR RegionCounty
Roanoke
Person
USGS 8-Digit Catalogue Unit
Piedmont
River Basin
Applicant/Owner Name Duke Energy
Mayo LRB / Ash Closure
4.Soil Texture/Structure – assessment area condition metric (skip for all marshes)
Check a box from each of the three soil property groups below. Dig soil profile in the dominant assessment area landscape
feature. Make soil observations within the 12 inches. Use most recent National Technical Committee for Hydric Soils guidance for
regional indicators.
4a.A Sandy soil
B Loamy or clayey soils exhibiting redoximorphic features (concentrations, depletions, or rhizospheres)
C Loamy or clayey soils not exhibiting redoximorphic features
D Loamy or clayey gleyed soil
E Histosol or histic epipedon
4b.A Soil ribbon < 1 inch
B Soil ribbon ≥ 1 inch
4c.A No peat or muck presence
B A peat or muck presence
5.Discharge into Wetland – opportunity metric
Check a box in each column. Consider surface pollutants or discharges (Surf) and sub-surface pollutants or discharges (Sub).
Examples of sub-surface discharges include presence of nearby septic tank, underground storage tank (UST), etc.
Surf Sub
A A Little or no evidence of pollutants or discharges entering the assessment area
B B Noticeable evidence of pollutants or discharges entering the wetland and stressing, but not overwhelming the
treatment capacity of the assessment area
C C Noticeable evidence of pollutants or discharges (pathogen, particulate, or soluble) entering the assessment area and
potentially overwhelming the treatment capacity of the wetland (water discoloration, dead vegetation, excessive
sedimentation, odor)
6.Land Use – opportunity metric (skip for non-riparian wetlands)
Check all that apply (at least one box in each column). Evaluation involves a GIS effort with field adjustment. Consider sources
draining to assessment area within entire upstream watershed (WS), within 5 miles and within the watershed draining to the
assessment area (5M), and within 2 miles and within the watershed draining to the assessment area (2M). Effective riparian buffers
are considered to be 50 feet wide in the Coastal Plain and Piedmont ecoregions and 30 feet wide in the Blue Ridge Mountains ecoregion.
WS 5M 2M
A A A ≥ 10% impervious surfaces
B B B Confined animal operations (or other local, concentrated source of pollutants)
C C C ≥ 20% coverage of pasture
D D D ≥ 20% coverage of agricultural land (regularly plowed land)
E E E ≥ 20% coverage of maintained grass/herb
F F F ≥ 20% coverage of clear-cut land
G G G Little or no opportunity to improve water quality. Lack of opportunity may result from little or no disturbance in
the watershed or hydrologic alterations that prevent dainage and/or overbank flow from affectio the
assessment area.
7.Wetland Acting as Vegetated Buffer – assessment area/wetland complex condition metric (skip for non-riparian wetlands)
7a.Is assessment area within 50 feet of a tributary or other open water?
Yes No If Yes, continue to 7b. If No, skip to Metric 8.
7b.How much of the first 50 feet from the bank is weltand? (Wetland buffer need only be present on one side of the water body. Make
buffer judgment based on the average width of wetland. Record a note if a portion of the buffer has been removed or disturbed.)
A ≥ 50 feet
B From 30 to < 50 feet
C From 15 to < 30 feet
D From 5 to < 15 feet
E < 5 feet or buffer bypassed by ditches
7c.Tributary width. If the tributary is anastomosed, combine widths of channels/braids for a total width.
≤ 15-feet wide > 15-feet wide Other open water (no tributary present)
7d.Do roots of assessment area vegetation extend into the bank of the tributary/open water?
Yes No
7e.Is tributary or other open water sheltered or exposed?
Sheltered – adjacent open water with width < 2500 feet and no regular boat traffic.
Exposed – adjacent open water with width ≥ 2500 feet or regular boat traffic.
8.Wetland Width at the Assessment Area – wetland type/wetland complex condition metric (evaluate WT for all marshes
and Estuarine Woody Wetland only; evaluate WC for Bottomland Hardwood Forest, Headwater Forest, and Riverine Swamp
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
A A ≥ 100 feet
B B From 80 to < 100 feet
C C From 50 to < 80 feet
D D From 40 to < 50 feet
E E From 30 to < 40 feet
F F From 15 to < 30 feet
G G From 5 to < 15 feet
H H < 5 feet
9.Inundation Duration – assessment area condition metric (skip for non-riparian wetlands)
Answer for assessment area dominant landform.
A Evidence of short-duration inundation (< 7 consecutive days)
B Evidence of saturation, without evidence of inundation
C Evidence of long-duration inundation or very long-duration inundation (7 to 30 consecutive days or more)
Forest only)
10.Indicators of Deposition – assessment area condition metric (skip for non-riparian wetlands and all marshes)
Consider recent deposition only (no plant growth since deposition).
A Sediment deposition is not excessive, but at approximately natural levels.
B Sediment deposition is excessive, but not overwhelming the wetland.
C Sediment deposition is excessive and is overwhelming the wetland.
11.Wetland Size – wetland type/wetland complex condition metric
Check a box in each column. Involves a GIS effort with field adjustment. This metric evaluates three aspects of the wetland area: the
size of the wetland type (WT), the size of the wetland complex (WC), and the size of the forested wetland (FW) (if applicable, see User
Manual). See the User Manual for boundaries of these evaluation areas. If assessment area is clear-cut, select “K” for the FW column.
WT FW (if applicable)
A A A ≥ 500 acres
B B B From 100 to < 500 acres
C C C From 50 to < 100 acres
D D D From 25 to < 50 acres
E E E From 10 to < 25 acres
F F F From 5 to < 10 acres
G G G From 1 to < 5 acres
H H H From 0.5 to < 1 acre
I I I From 0.1 to < 0.5 acre
J J J From 0.01 to < 0.1 acre
K K K < 0.01 acre or assessment area is clear-cut
12.Wetland Intactness – wetland type condition metric (evaluate for Pocosins only)
A Pocosin is the full extent (≥ 90%) of its natural landscape size.
B Pocosin is < 90% of the full extent of its natural landscape size.
13.Connectivity to Other Natural Areas – landscape condition metric
13a.Check appropriate box(es) (a box may be checked in each column). Involves a GIS effort with field adjustment. This
evaluates whether the wetland is well connected (Well) and/or loosely connected (Loosely) to the landscape patch, the contiguous
metric naturally vegetated area and open water (if appropriate). Boundaries are formed by four-lane roads, regularly maintained utility
line corridors the width of a four-lane road or wider, urban landscapes, fields (pasture open and agriculture), or water > 300 feet wide.
A A ≥ 500 acres
B B From 100 to < 500 acres
C C From 50 to < 100 acres
D D From 10 to < 50 acres
E E < 10 acres
F F Wetland type has a poor or no connection to other natural habitats
13b.Evaluate for marshes only.
Yes No Wetland type has a surface hydrology connection to open waters/stream or tidal wetlands.
14.Edge Effect – wetland type condition metric (skip for all marshes and Estuarine Woody Wetland)
May involve a GIS effort with field adjustment. Estimate distance from wetland type boundary to artificial edges. Artificial edges include
non-forested areas ≥ 40 feet wide such as fields, development, roads, regularly maintained utility line corridors and clear-cuts. Consider
the eight main points of the compass. Artificial edge occurs within 150 feet in how many directiions? If the assessment area is clear-cut,
select option "C."
A 0
B 1 to 4
C 5 to 8
15. Vegetative Composition – assessment area condition metric (skip for all marshes and Pine Flat)
A Vegetation is close to reference condition in species present and their proportions. Lower strata composed of appropriate
species, with exotic plants absent or sparse within the assessment area.
B Vegetation is different from reference condition in species diversity or proportions, but still largely composed of native species
characteristic of the wetland type. This may include communities of weedy native species that develop after clearcutting or
clearing. It also includes communities with exotics present, but not dominant, over a large portion of the expected strata.
C Vegetation severely altered from reference in composition, or expected species are unnaturally absent (planted stands of non-
characteristic species or at least one stratum inappropriately composed of a single species), or 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 > 10% to 50% cover of exotics.
C Vegetation is dominated by exotic species (>50% cover of exotics).
17.Vegetative Structure – assessment area/wetland type condition metric
17a.Is vegetation present?
Yes No If Yes, continue to 17b. If No, skip to Metric 18.
17b.Evaluate percent coverage of assessment area vegetation for all marshes only. Skip to 17c for non-marsh wetlands.
A ≥ 25% coverage of vegetation
B < 25% coverage of vegetation
Well
WC
Loosely
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.
A A Canopy closed, or nearly closed, with natural gaps associated with natural processes
B B Canopy present, but opened more than natural gaps
C C Canopy sparse or absent
A A Dense mid-story/sapling layer
B B Moderate density mid-story/sapling layer
C C Mid-story/sapling layer sparse or absent
A A Dense shrub layer
B B Moderate density shrub layer
C C Shrub layer sparse or absent
A A Dense herb layer
B B Moderate density herb layer
C C Herb layer sparse or absent
18.Snags – wetland type condition metric (skip for all marshes)
A Large snags (more than one) are visible (> 12-inches DBH, or large relative to species present and landscape stability).
B Not A
19.Diameter Class Distribution – wetland type condition metric (skip for all marshes)
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 (skip for all marshes)
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 A
21.Vegetation/Open Water Dispersion – wetland type/open water condition metric (evaluate for Non-Tidal Freshwater
Marsh only)
Select the figure that best describes the amount of interspersion between vegetation and open water in the growing season. Patterned
areas indicate vegetated areas, while solid white areas indicate open water.
A B C D
22.Hydrologic Connectivity – assessment area condition metric (evaluate for riparian wetlands and Salt/Brackish Marsh only)
Examples of activities that may severely alter hydrologic connectivity include intensive ditching, fill, sedimentation, channelization,
diversion, man-made berms, beaver dams, and stream incision. Documentation required if evaluated as B, C, or D.
A Overbank and overland flow are not severely altered in the assessment area.
B Overbank flow is severely altered in the assessment area.
C Overland flow is severely altered in the assessment area.
D Both overbank and overland flow are severely altered in the assessment area.
22: Water level of ash basin is controlled, limiting overbank flow.
AA WT
Notes CanopyMid-StoryShrubHerb
Notes on Field Assessment Form (Y/N)
Presence of regulatory considerations (Y/N)
Wetland is intensively managed (Y/N)
Assessment area is located within 50 feet of a natural tributary or other open water (Y/N)
Assessment area is substantially altered by beaver (Y/N)
Assessment area experiences overbank flooding during normal rainfall conditions (Y/N)
Assessment area is on a coastal island (Y/N)
Sub-function Rating Summary
Function Sub-function Metrics
Hydrology Surface Storage and Retention Condition
Sub-Surface Storage and Retention Condition
Water Quality Pathogen Change Condition
Condition/Opportunity
Opportunity Presence? (Y/N)
Particulate Change Condition
Condition/Opportunity
Opportunity Presence? (Y/N)
Soluble Change Condition
Condition/Opportunity
Opportunity Presence? (Y/N)
Physical Change Condition
Condition/Opportunity
Opportunity Presence? (Y/N)
Pollution Change Condition
Condition/Opportunity
Opportunity Presence? (Y/N)
Habitat Physical Structure Condition
Landscape Patch Structure Condition
Vegetation Composition Condition
Function Rating Summary
Function Metrics/Notes
Hydrology Condition
Water Quality Condition
Condition/Opportunity
Opportunity Presence? (Y/N)
Habitat Condition
Overall Wetland Rating
Rating
MEDIUM
MEDIUM
NO
YES
NO
NO
NO
NO
NC WAM Wetland Rating Sheet
Wetland Type
Wetland Site Name Wetland ZZ
Witherspoon/WoodHeadwater Forest
Date
Assessor Name/Organization
7/17/18
Accompanies User Manual Version 5.0
MEDIUM
MEDIUM
MEDIUM
NO
LOW
LOW
LOW
Rating
MEDIUM
MEDIUM
NA
LOW
LOW
NO
NA
NO
NA
NA
MEDIUM
MEDIUM
NO
MEDIUM
NO
MEDIUM
NA
MEDIUM
USACE AID#:NCDWR #:
Yes No
Evidence of stressors affecting the assessment area (may not be within the assessment area)
Please circle and/or make note on last page if evidence of stressors is apparent. Consider departure from reference, if
appropriate, in recent past (for instance, approximately within 10 years). Noteworthy stressors include, but are not limited
to the following.
•
•
•
•
Is the assessment area intensively managed?Yes No
Regulatory Considerations - Were regulatory considerations evaluated?Yes No If Yes, check all that apply to the assessment area.
Anadromous fish
Federally protected species or State endangered or threatened species
NCDWR riparian buffer rule in effect
Abuts a Primary Nursery Area (PNA)
Publicly owned property
N.C. Division of Coastal Management Area of Environmental Concern (AEC) (including buffer)
Abuts a stream with a NCDWQ classification of SA or supplemental classifications of HQW, 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
Tidal (if tidal, check one of the following boxes)Lunar Lunar Wind Both
Is the assessment area on a coastal island?Yes No
Is the assessment area's surface water storage capacity or duration substantially altered by beaver?Yes No
Does the assessment area experience overbank flooding during normal rainfall conditions?Yes No
1.Ground Surface Condition/Vegetation Condition – assessment area condition metric
Check 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
A A Not severely altered
B B 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,
less diversity [if appropriate], hydrologic alteration)
2.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. A ditch ≤ 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
A A Water storage capacity and duration are not altered.
B B Water storage capacity or duration are altered, but not substantially (typically, not sufficient to change vegetation).
C C Water storage capacity or duration are substantially altered (typically, alteration sufficient to result in vegetation
change) (examples: draining, flooding, soil compaction, filling, excessive sedimentation, underground utility lines).
3.Water Storage/Surface Relief – assessment area/wetland type condition metric (skip for all marshes)
Check a box in each column for each group below. Select the appropriate storage for the assessment area (AA) and the wetland
type (WT).
AA WT
3a.A A Majority of wetland with depressions able to pond water > 1 foot deep
B B Majority of wetland with depressions able to pond water 6 inches to 1 foot deep
C C 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.A Evidence that maximum depth of inundation is greater than 2 feet
B Evidence that maximum depth of inundation is between 1 and 2 feet
C Evidence that maximum depth of inundation is less than 1 foot
Piedmont
River Basin
Applicant/Owner Name Duke Energy
Mayo Ash Basin landfill
03010104
RaleighNCDWR RegionCounty
Roanoke
Person
USGS 8-Digit Catalogue Unit
NC WAM WETLAND ASSESSMENT FORM
Accompanies User Manual Version 5
Mayo Lake
Dicky Harmon/Wood E&IS
Wetland ZZ
4/21/2020Date of Evaluation
Wetland Site Name
Assessor Name/Organization
Nearest Named Water Body
Project Name
Wetland Type Headwater Forest
Level III Ecoregion
Hydrological modifications (examples: ditches, dams, beaver dams, dikes, berms, ponds, etc.)
Latitude/Longitude (deci-degrees)
Habitat/plant community alteration (examples: mowing, clear-cutting, exotics, etc.)
Surface and sub-surface discharges into the wetland (examples: discharges containing obvious pollutants, presence of nearby
Sub
VS
septic tanks, underground storage tanks (USTs), hog lagoons, etc.)
Precipitation within 48 hrs?
Signs of vegetation stress (examples: vegetation mortality, insect damage, disease, storm damage, salt intrusion, etc.)
36.53736, -79.89768
4.Soil Texture/Structure – assessment area condition metric (skip for all marshes)
Check a box from each of the three soil property groups below. Dig soil profile in the dominant assessment area landscape
feature. Make soil observations within the 12 inches. Use most recent National Technical Committee for Hydric Soils guidance for
regional indicators.
4a.A Sandy soil
B Loamy or clayey soils exhibiting redoximorphic features (concentrations, depletions, or rhizospheres)
C Loamy or clayey soils not exhibiting redoximorphic features
D Loamy or clayey gleyed soil
E Histosol or histic epipedon
4b.A Soil ribbon < 1 inch
B Soil ribbon ≥ 1 inch
4c.A No peat or muck presence
B A peat or muck presence
5.Discharge into Wetland – opportunity metric
Check a box in each column. Consider surface pollutants or discharges (Surf) and sub-surface pollutants or discharges (Sub).
Examples of sub-surface discharges include presence of nearby septic tank, underground storage tank (UST), etc.
Surf Sub
A A Little or no evidence of pollutants or discharges entering the assessment area
B B Noticeable evidence of pollutants or discharges entering the wetland and stressing, but not overwhelming the
treatment capacity of the assessment area
C C Noticeable evidence of pollutants or discharges (pathogen, particulate, or soluble) entering the assessment area and
potentially overwhelming the treatment capacity of the wetland (water discoloration, dead vegetation, excessive
sedimentation, odor)
6.Land Use – opportunity metric (skip for non-riparian wetlands)
Check all that apply (at least one box in each column). Evaluation involves a GIS effort with field adjustment. Consider sources
draining to assessment area within entire upstream watershed (WS), within 5 miles and within the watershed draining to the
assessment area (5M), and within 2 miles and within the watershed draining to the assessment area (2M). Effective riparian buffers
are considered to be 50 feet wide in the Coastal Plain and Piedmont ecoregions and 30 feet wide in the Blue Ridge Mountains ecoregion.
WS 5M 2M
A A A ≥ 10% impervious surfaces
B B B Confined animal operations (or other local, concentrated source of pollutants)
C C C ≥ 20% coverage of pasture
D D D ≥ 20% coverage of agricultural land (regularly plowed land)
E E E ≥ 20% coverage of maintained grass/herb
F F F ≥ 20% coverage of clear-cut land
G G G Little or no opportunity to improve water quality. Lack of opportunity may result from little or no disturbance in
the watershed or hydrologic alterations that prevent dainage and/or overbank flow from affectio the
assessment area.
7.Wetland Acting as Vegetated Buffer – assessment area/wetland complex condition metric (skip for non-riparian wetlands)
7a.Is assessment area within 50 feet of a tributary or other open water?
Yes No If Yes, continue to 7b. If No, skip to Metric 8.
7b.How much of the first 50 feet from the bank is weltand? (Wetland buffer need only be present on one side of the water body. Make
buffer judgment based on the average width of wetland. Record a note if a portion of the buffer has been removed or disturbed.)
A ≥ 50 feet
B From 30 to < 50 feet
C From 15 to < 30 feet
D From 5 to < 15 feet
E < 5 feet or buffer bypassed by ditches
7c.Tributary width. If the tributary is anastomosed, combine widths of channels/braids for a total width.
≤ 15-feet wide > 15-feet wide Other open water (no tributary present)
7d.Do roots of assessment area vegetation extend into the bank of the tributary/open water?
Yes No
7e.Is tributary or other open water sheltered or exposed?
Sheltered – adjacent open water with width < 2500 feet and no regular boat traffic.
Exposed – adjacent open water with width ≥ 2500 feet or regular boat traffic.
8.Wetland Width at the Assessment Area – wetland type/wetland complex condition metric (evaluate WT for all marshes
and Estuarine Woody Wetland only; evaluate WC for Bottomland Hardwood Forest, Headwater Forest, and Riverine Swamp
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
A A ≥ 100 feet
B B From 80 to < 100 feet
C C From 50 to < 80 feet
D D From 40 to < 50 feet
E E From 30 to < 40 feet
F F From 15 to < 30 feet
G G From 5 to < 15 feet
H H < 5 feet
9.Inundation Duration – assessment area condition metric (skip for non-riparian wetlands)
Answer for assessment area dominant landform.
A Evidence of short-duration inundation (< 7 consecutive days)
B Evidence of saturation, without evidence of inundation
C Evidence of long-duration inundation or very long-duration inundation (7 to 30 consecutive days or more)
Forest only)
10.Indicators of Deposition – assessment area condition metric (skip for non-riparian wetlands and all marshes)
Consider recent deposition only (no plant growth since deposition).
A Sediment deposition is not excessive, but at approximately natural levels.
B Sediment deposition is excessive, but not overwhelming the wetland.
C Sediment deposition is excessive and is overwhelming the wetland.
11.Wetland Size – wetland type/wetland complex condition metric
Check a box in each column. Involves a GIS effort with field adjustment. This metric evaluates three aspects of the wetland area: the
size of the wetland type (WT), the size of the wetland complex (WC), and the size of the forested wetland (FW) (if applicable, see User
Manual). See the User Manual for boundaries of these evaluation areas. If assessment area is clear-cut, select “K” for the FW column.
WT FW (if applicable)
A A A ≥ 500 acres
B B B From 100 to < 500 acres
C C C From 50 to < 100 acres
D D D From 25 to < 50 acres
E E E From 10 to < 25 acres
F F F From 5 to < 10 acres
G G G From 1 to < 5 acres
H H H From 0.5 to < 1 acre
I I I From 0.1 to < 0.5 acre
J J J From 0.01 to < 0.1 acre
K K K < 0.01 acre or assessment area is clear-cut
12.Wetland Intactness – wetland type condition metric (evaluate for Pocosins only)
A Pocosin is the full extent (≥ 90%) of its natural landscape size.
B Pocosin is < 90% of the full extent of its natural landscape size.
13.Connectivity to Other Natural Areas – landscape condition metric
13a.Check appropriate box(es) (a box may be checked in each column). Involves a GIS effort with field adjustment. This
evaluates whether the wetland is well connected (Well) and/or loosely connected (Loosely) to the landscape patch, the contiguous
metric naturally vegetated area and open water (if appropriate). Boundaries are formed by four-lane roads, regularly maintained utility
line corridors the width of a four-lane road or wider, urban landscapes, fields (pasture open and agriculture), or water > 300 feet wide.
A A ≥ 500 acres
B B From 100 to < 500 acres
C C From 50 to < 100 acres
D D From 10 to < 50 acres
E E < 10 acres
F F Wetland type has a poor or no connection to other natural habitats
13b.Evaluate for marshes only.
Yes No Wetland type has a surface hydrology connection to open waters/stream or tidal wetlands.
14.Edge Effect – wetland type condition metric (skip for all marshes and Estuarine Woody Wetland)
May involve a GIS effort with field adjustment. Estimate distance from wetland type boundary to artificial edges. Artificial edges include
non-forested areas ≥ 40 feet wide such as fields, development, roads, regularly maintained utility line corridors and clear-cuts. Consider
the eight main points of the compass. Artificial edge occurs within 150 feet in how many directiions? If the assessment area is clear-cut,
select option "C."
A 0
B 1 to 4
C 5 to 8
15. Vegetative Composition – assessment area condition metric (skip for all marshes and Pine Flat)
A Vegetation is close to reference condition in species present and their proportions. Lower strata composed of appropriate
species, with exotic plants absent or sparse within the assessment area.
B Vegetation is different from reference condition in species diversity or proportions, but still largely composed of native species
characteristic of the wetland type. This may include communities of weedy native species that develop after clearcutting or
clearing. It also includes communities with exotics present, but not dominant, over a large portion of the expected strata.
C Vegetation severely altered from reference in composition, or expected species are unnaturally absent (planted stands of non-
characteristic species or at least one stratum inappropriately composed of a single species), or 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 > 10% to 50% cover of exotics.
C Vegetation is dominated by exotic species (>50% cover of exotics).
17.Vegetative Structure – assessment area/wetland type condition metric
17a.Is vegetation present?
Yes No If Yes, continue to 17b. If No, skip to Metric 18.
17b.Evaluate percent coverage of assessment area vegetation for all marshes only. Skip to 17c for non-marsh wetlands.
A ≥ 25% coverage of vegetation
B < 25% coverage of vegetation
Well
WC
Loosely
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.
A A Canopy closed, or nearly closed, with natural gaps associated with natural processes
B B Canopy present, but opened more than natural gaps
C C Canopy sparse or absent
A A Dense mid-story/sapling layer
B B Moderate density mid-story/sapling layer
C C Mid-story/sapling layer sparse or absent
A A Dense shrub layer
B B Moderate density shrub layer
C C Shrub layer sparse or absent
A A Dense herb layer
B B Moderate density herb layer
C C Herb layer sparse or absent
18.Snags – wetland type condition metric (skip for all marshes)
A Large snags (more than one) are visible (> 12-inches DBH, or large relative to species present and landscape stability).
B Not A
19.Diameter Class Distribution – wetland type condition metric (skip for all marshes)
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 (skip for all marshes)
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 A
21.Vegetation/Open Water Dispersion – wetland type/open water condition metric (evaluate for Non-Tidal Freshwater
Marsh only)
Select the figure that best describes the amount of interspersion between vegetation and open water in the growing season. Patterned
areas indicate vegetated areas, while solid white areas indicate open water.
A B C D
22.Hydrologic Connectivity – assessment area condition metric (evaluate for riparian wetlands and Salt/Brackish Marsh only)
Examples of activities that may severely alter hydrologic connectivity include intensive ditching, fill, sedimentation, channelization,
diversion, man-made berms, beaver dams, and stream incision. Documentation required if evaluated as B, C, or D.
A Overbank and overland flow are not severely altered in the assessment area.
B Overbank flow is severely altered in the assessment area.
C Overland flow is severely altered in the assessment area.
D Both overbank and overland flow are severely altered in the assessment area.
AA WT
Notes CanopyMid-StoryShrubHerb
Notes on Field Assessment Form (Y/N)
Presence of regulatory considerations (Y/N)
Wetland is intensively managed (Y/N)
Assessment area is located within 50 feet of a natural tributary or other open water (Y/N)
Assessment area is substantially altered by beaver (Y/N)
Assessment area experiences overbank flooding during normal rainfall conditions (Y/N)
Assessment area is on a coastal island (Y/N)
Sub-function Rating Summary
Function Sub-function Metrics
Hydrology Surface Storage and Retention Condition
Sub-Surface Storage and Retention Condition
Water Quality Pathogen Change Condition
Condition/Opportunity
Opportunity Presence? (Y/N)
Particulate Change Condition
Condition/Opportunity
Opportunity Presence? (Y/N)
Soluble Change Condition
Condition/Opportunity
Opportunity Presence? (Y/N)
Physical Change Condition
Condition/Opportunity
Opportunity Presence? (Y/N)
Pollution Change Condition
Condition/Opportunity
Opportunity Presence? (Y/N)
Habitat Physical Structure Condition
Landscape Patch Structure Condition
Vegetation Composition Condition
Function Rating Summary
Function Metrics/Notes
Hydrology Condition
Water Quality Condition
Condition/Opportunity
Opportunity Presence? (Y/N)
Habitat Condition
Overall Wetland Rating
NA
LOW
LOW
NO
NA
YES
NA
NA
MEDIUM
HIGH
YES
HIGH
YES
HIGH
NA
HIGH
LOW
LOW
Rating
HIGH
MEDIUM
HIGH
HIGH
HIGH
YES
LOW
NC WAM Wetland Rating Sheet
Wetland Type
Wetland Site Name Wetland ZZ
Dicky Harmon/Wood E&ISHeadwater Forest
Date
Assessor Name/Organization
4/21/2020
Accompanies User Manual Version 5.0
Rating
MEDIUM
HIGH
NO
NO
NO
NO
NO
NO
USACE AID #:NCDWR #:
PROJECT / SITE INFORMATION:
1. Project name (if any):2. Date of evaluation:
3. Applicant/owner name:
5. County:6. Nearest named water body
7. River Basin: on USGS 7.5-minute quad:
8. Site coordinates (decimal degrees, at lower end of assessment reach):
STREAM INFORMATION: (depth and width can be approximations)
9. Site number (show on attached map):10. Length of assessment reach evaluated (feet):
11. Channel depth from bed (in riffle, if present) to top of bank (feet):Unable to assess channel depth.
12. Channel width at top of bank (feet):13. Is assessment reach a swamp stream?Yes No
14. Feature type:Perennial flow Intermittent flow Tidal Marsh Stream
STREAM RATING INFORMATION:
15. NC SAM Zone:Mountains (M)Piedmont (P)Inner Coastal Plain (I)Outer Coastal Plain (O)
16. Estimated geomorphic
valley shape (skip for a b
Tidal Marsh Stream):(more sinuous stream, flatter valley slope)(less sinuous stream, steeper valley slope)
17. Watershed size: (skip Size 1 (< 0.1 mi2)Size 2 (0.1 to < 0.5 mi2)Size 3 (0.5 to < 5 mi2)Size 4 (≥ 5 mi2)
for Tidal Marsh Stream)
ADDITIONAL INFORMATION:
18. Were regulatory considerations evaluated?Yes No If Yes, check all that appy to the assessment area.
Section 10 water Classified Trout Waters Water Supply Watershed (I II III IV V)
Essential Fish Habitat Primary Nursery Area High Quality Waters/Outstanding Resource Waters
Publicly owned property NCDWR riparian buffer rule in effect Nutrient Sensitive Waters
Anadromous fish 303(d) List CAMA Area of Environmental Concern (AEC)
Documented presence of a federal and/or state listed protected species within the assessment area.
List species:
Designated Critical Habitat (list species):
19. Are additional stream information/supplementary measurements included in "Notes/Sketch" section or attached?Yes No
1.Channel Water – assessment reach metric (skip for Size 1 streams and Tidal Marsh Streams)
A Water throughout assessment reach.
B No flow, water in pools only.
C No water in assessment reach.
2.Evidence of Flow Restriction – assessment reach metric
A At least 10% of assessment reach in-stream habitat or riffle-pool sequence is adversely affected by a flow restriction or fill to the
point of obstructing flow or a channel choked with aquatic macrophytes or ponded water or impounded on flood or ebb within
the assessment reach (examples: undersized or perched culverts, causeways that constrict the channel, tidal gates).
B Not A
3.Feature Pattern – assessment reach metric
A A majority of the assessment reach has altered pattern (examples: straightening, modification above or below culvert).
B Not A.
4.Feature Longitudinal Profile – assessment reach metric
A Majority of assessment reach has a substantially altered stream profile (examples: channel down-cutting, existing damming,
over widening, active aggradation, dredging, and excavation where appropriate channel profile has not reformed from any of
these disturbances).
B Not A
5.Signs of Active Instability – assessment reach metric
Consider only current instability, not past events from which the stream has currently recovered. Examples of instability include
active bank failure, active channel down-cutting (head-cut), active widening, and artificial hardening (such as concrete, gabion, rip-rap).
A < 10% of channel unstable
B 10 to 25% of channel unstable
C > 25% of channel unstable
6.Streamside Area Interaction – streamside area metric
Consider for the Left Bank (LB) and the Right Bank (RB).
LB RB
A A Little or no evidence of conditions that adversely affect reference interaction
B B Moderate evidence of conditions (examples: berms, levees, down-cutting, aggradation, dredging) that adversely affect
reference interaction (examples: limited streamside area access, disruption of flood flows through streamside area,
leaky or intermittent bulkheads, causeways with floodplain constriction, minor ditching [including mosquito ditching])
C C Extensive evidence of conditions that adversely affect reference interaction (little to no floodplain/intertidal zone access
[examples: causeways with floodplain and channel constriction, bulkheads, retaining walls, fill, stream incision,
disruption of flood flows through streamside area] or too much floodplain/intertidal zone access [examples:
impoundments, intensive mosquito ditching]) or floodplain/intertidal zone unnaturally absent or assessment reach is a
man-made feature on an interstream divide
1'
2'
NC SAM FIELD ASSESSMENT FORM
Accompanies User Manual Version 2.1
INSTRUCTIONS:Attach a sketch of the assessment area and photographs.Attach a copy of the USGS 7.5-minute topographic
quadrangle,and circle the location of the stream reach under evaluation.If multiple stream reaches will be evaluated on the same
property,identify and number all reaches on the attached map,and include a separate form for each reach.See the NC SAM User
Manual for detailed descriptions and explanations of requested information. Record in the "Notes/Sketch" section if any supplementary
NOTE EVIDENCE OF STRESSORS AFFECTING THE ASSESSMENT AREA (do not need to be within the assessment area).
measurements were performed. See the NC SAM User Manual for examples of additional measurements that may be relevant.
Duke Mayo 05/09/2016
36.538258, -78.890804
Stream 1 ~78'
Duke Energy 4. Assessor name/organization:L. Meyer, Amec Foster Wheeler
Person
Roanoke Crutchfield Basin
7.Water Quality Stressors – assessment reach/intertidal zone metric
Check all that apply.
A Discolored water in stream or intertidal zone (milky white, blue, unnatural water discoloration, oil sheen, stream foam)
B Excessive sedimentation (burying of stream features or intertidal zone)
C Noticeable evidence of pollutant discharges entering the assessment reach and causing a water quality problem
D Odor (not including natural sulfide odors)
E Current published or collected data indicating degraded water quality in the assessment reach. Cite source in the "Notes/Sketch"
section.
F Livestock with access to stream or intertidal zone
G Excessive algae in stream or intertidal zone
H Degraded marsh vegetation in the intertidal zone (removal, burning, regular mowing, destruction, etc.)
I Other:(explain in "Notes/Sketch" section)
J Little to no stressors
8.Recent Weather – watershed metric
For Size 1 or 2 streams, D1 drought or higher is considered a drought; for Size 3 or 4 streams, D2 drought or higher is considered a
drought.
A Drought conditions and no rainfall or rainfall not exceeding 1 inch within the last 48 hours
B Drought conditions and rainfall exceeding 1 inch within the last 48 hours
C No drought conditions
9 Large or Dangerous Stream – assessment reach metric
Yes No Is stream is too large or dangerous to assess? If Yes, skip to Metric 13 (Streamside Area Ground Surface Condition).
10.Natural In-stream Habitat Types – assessment reach metric
10a.Yes No Degraded in-stream habitat over majority of the assessment reach (examples of stressors include excessive
sedimentation, mining, excavation, in-stream hardening [for example, rip-rap], recent dredging, and snagging)
(evaluate for size 4 Coastal Plain streams only, then skip to Metric 12)
10b.Check all that occur (occurs if > 5% coverage of assessment reach) (skip for Size 4 Coastal Plain streams)
A Multiple aquatic macrophytes and aquatic mosses F 5% oysters or other natural hard bottoms
(include liverworts, lichens, and algal mats)G Submerged aquatic vegetation
B Multiple sticks and/or leaf packs and/or emergent H Low-tide refugia (pools)
vegetation I Sand bottom
C Multiple snags and logs (including lap trees)J 5% vertical bank along the marsh
D 5% undercut banks and/or root mats and/or roots K Little or no habitat
in banks extend to the normal wetted perimeter
E Little or no habitat
11.Bedform and Substrate – assessment reach metric (skip for Size 4 Coastal Plain streams and Tidal Marsh Streams)
11a.Yes No Is assessment reach in a natural sand-bed stream? (skip for Coastal Plain streams)
11b.Bedform evaluated. Check the appropriate box(es).
A Riffle-run section (evaluate 11c)
B Pool-glide section (evaluate 11d)
C Natural bedform absent (skip to Metric 12, Aquatic Life)
11c.In riffles sections, check all that occur below the normal wetted perimeter of the assessment reach – whether or not submerged.
Check at least one box in each row (skip for Size 4 Coastal Plain Streams and Tidal Marsh Streams). Not Present (NP) =
absent, Rare (R) = present but ≤ 10%, Common (C) = > 10-40%, Abundant (A) = > 40-70%, Predominant (P) = > 70%. Cumulative
percentages should not exceed 100% for each assessment reach.
NP R C A P
Bedrock/saprolite
Boulder (256 – 4096 mm)
Cobble (64 – 256 mm)
Gravel (2 – 64 mm)
Sand (.062 – 2 mm)
Silt/clay (< 0.062 mm)
Detritus
Artificial (rip-rap, concrete, etc.)
11d.Yes No Are pools filled with sediment? (skip for Size 4 Coastal Plain streams and Tidal Marsh Streams)
12.Aquatic Life – assessment reach metric (skip for Size 4 Coastal Plain streams and Tidal Marsh Streams)
12a.Yes No Was an in-stream aquatic life assessment performed as described in the User Manual?
If No, select one of the following reasons and skip to Metric 13. No Water Other:
12b.Yes No Are aquatic organisms present in the assessment reach (look in riffles, pools, then snags)? If Yes, check
all that apply. If No, skip to Metric 13.
1 >1 Numbers over columns refer to “individuals” for size 1 and 2 streams and “taxa” for size 3 and 4 streams.
Adult frogs
Aquatic reptiles
Aquatic macrophytes and aquatic mosses (include liverworts, lichens, and algal mats)
Beetles (including water pennies)
Caddisfly larvae (Trichoptera [T])
Asian clam (Corbicula )
Crustacean (isopod/amphipod/crayfish/shrimp)
Damselfly and dragonfly larvae
Dipterans (true flies)
Mayfly larvae (Ephemeroptera [E])
Megaloptera (alderfly, fishfly, dobsonfly larvae)
Midges/mosquito larvae
Mosquito fish (Gambusia ) or mud minnows (Umbra pygmaea)
Mussels/Clams (not Corbicula )
Other fish
Salamanders/tadpoles
Snails
Stonefly larvae (Plecoptera [P])
Tipulid larvae
Worms/leeches
*********************************REMAINING QUESTIONS ARE NOT APPLICABLE FOR TIDAL MARSH STREAMS****************************Check for TidalMarsh Streamsonly
13.Streamside Area Ground Surface Condition – streamside area metric (skip for Tidal Marsh Streams and B valley types)
Consider for the Left Bank (LB) and the Right Bank (RB). Consider storage capacity with regard to both overbank flow and
upland runoff.
LB RB
A A Little or no alteration to water storage capacity over a majority of the streamside area
B B Moderate alteration to water storage capacity over a majority of the streamside area
C C Severe alteration to water storage capacity over a majority of the streamside area (examples include: ditches, fill,
soil, compaction, livestock disturbance, buildings, man-made levees, drainage pipes)
14.Streamside Area Water Storage – streamside area metric (skip for Size 1 streams, Tidal Marsh Streams, and B valley types)
Consider for the Left Bank (LB) and the Right Bank (RB) of the streamside area.
LB RB
A A Majority of streamside area with depressions able to pond water ≥ 6 inches deep
B B Majority of streamside area with depressions able to pond water 3 to 6 inches deep
C C Majority of streamside area with depressions able to pond water < 3 inches deep
15.Wetland Presence – streamside area metric (skip for Tidal Marsh Streams)
Consider for the Left Bank (LB) and the Right Bank (RB). Do not consider wetlands outside of the streamside area or within the
normal wetted perimeter of assessment reach.
LB RB
Y Y Are wetlands present in the streamside area?
N N
16.Baseflow Contributors – assessment reach metric (skip for size 4 streams and Tidal Marsh Streams)
Check all contributors within the assessment reach or within view of and draining to the assessment reach.
A Streams and/or springs (jurisdictional discharges)
B Ponds (include wet detention basins; do not include sediment basins or dry detention basins)
C Obstruction that passes some flow during low-flow periods within assessment area (beaver dam, bottom-release dam)
D Evidence of bank seepage or sweating (iron oxidizing bacteria in water indicates seepage)
E Stream bed or bank soil reduced (dig through deposited sediment if present)
F None of the above
17.Baseflow Detractors – assessment area metric (skip for Tidal Marsh Streams)
Check all that apply.
A Evidence of substantial water withdrawals from the assessment reach (includes areas excavated for pump installation)
B Obstruction not passing flow during low flow periods affecting the assessment reach (ex: watertight dam, sediment deposit)
C Urban stream (≥ 24% impervious surface for watershed)
D Evidence that the stream-side area has been modified resulting in accelerated drainage into the assessment reach
E Assessment reach relocated to valley edge
F None of the above
18.Shading – assessment reach metric (skip for Tidal Marsh Streams)
Consider aspect. Consider “leaf-on” condition.
A Stream shading is appropriate for stream category (may include gaps associated with natural processes)
B Degraded (example: scattered trees)
C Stream shading is gone or largely absent
19.Buffer Width – streamside area metric (skip for Tidal Marsh Streams)
Consider “vegetated buffer” and “wooded buffer” separately for left bank (LB) and right bank (RB) starting at the top
of bank out to the first break.
Vegetated Wooded
LB RB LB RB
A A A A ≥ 100-feet wide or extends to the edge of the watershed
B B B B From 50 to < 100-feet wide
C C C C From 30 to < 50-feet wide
D D D D From 10 to < 30-feet wide
E E E E < 10-feet wide or no trees
20.Buffer Structure – streamside area metric (skip for Tidal Marsh Streams)
Consider for left bank (LB) and right bank (RB) for Metric 19 ("Vegetated" Buffer Width).
LB RB
A A Mature forest
B B Non-mature woody vegetation or modified vegetation structure
C C Herbaceous vegetation with or without a strip of trees < 10 feet wide
D D Maintained shrubs
E E Little or no vegetation
21.Buffer Stressors – streamside area metric (skip for Tidal Marsh Streams)
Check all appropriate boxes for left bank (LB) and right bank (RB). Indicate if listed stressor abuts stream (Abuts), does not abut but
is within 30 feet of stream (< 30 feet), or is between 30 to 50 feet of stream (30-50 feet).
If none of the following stressors occurs on either bank, check here and skip to Metric 22:
Abuts < 30 feet 30-50 feet
LB RB LB RB LB RB
A A A A A A Row crops
B B B B B B Maintained turf
C C C C C C Pasture (no livestock)/commercial horticulture
D D D D D D Pasture (active livestock use)
22.Stem Density – streamside area metric (skip for Tidal Marsh Streams)
Consider for left bank (LB) and right bank (RB) for Metric 19 ("Wooded" Buffer Width).
LB RB
A A Medium to high stem density
B B Low stem density
C C No wooded riparian buffer or predominantly herbaceous species or bare ground
23.Continuity of Vegetated Buffer – streamside area metric (skip for Tidal Marsh Streams)
Consider whether vegetated buffer is continuous along stream (parallel). Breaks are areas lacking vegetation > 10-feet wide.
LB RB
A A The total length of buffer breaks is < 25 percent.
B B The total length of buffer breaks is between 25 and 50 percent.
C C The total length of buffer breaks is > 50 percent.
24.Vegetative Composition – First 100 feet of streamside area metric (skip for Tidal Marsh Streams)
Evaluate the dominant vegetation within 100 feet of each bank or to the edge of the watershed (whichever comes first) as it contributes
to assessment reach habitat.
LB RB
A A Vegetation is close to undisturbed in species present and their proportions. Lower strata composed of native
species, with non-native invasive species absent or sparse.
B B Vegetation indicates disturbance in terms of species diversity or proportions, but is still largely composed of native
species. This may include communities of weedy native species that develop after clear-cutting or clearing or
communities with non-native invasive species present, but not dominant, over a large portion of the expected strata or
communities missing understory but retaining canopy trees.
C C Vegetation is severely disturbed in terms of species diversity or proportions. Mature canopy is absent or communities
with non-native invasive species dominant over a large portion of expected strata or communities composed of planted
stands of non-characteristic species or communities inappropriately composed of a single species or no vegetation.
25.Conductivity – assessment reach metric (skip for all Coastal Plain streams)
25a.Yes No Was a conductivity measurement recorded?
If No, select one of the following reasons. No Water Other:
25b.Check the box corresponding to the conductivity measurement (units of microsiemens per centimeter).
A <46 B 46 to < 67 C 67 to < 79 D 79 to < 230 E ≥ 230
Notes/Sketch:
Please refer to sketch and photographs.
No equipment
Notes of Field Assessment Form (Y/N)
Presence of regulatory considerations (Y/N)
Additional stream information/supplementary measurements included (Y/N)
NC SAM feature type (perennial, intermittent, Tidal Marsh Stream)
(4) Floodplain Access
(4) Wooded Riparian Buffer
(4) Microtopography
(3) Stream Stability
(4) Channel Stability
(4) Sediment Transport
(4) Stream Geomorphology
(2) Stream/Intertidal Zone Interaction
(2) Longitudinal Tidal Flow
(2) Tidal Marsh Stream Stability
(3) Tidal Marsh Stream Geomorphology
(1) Water Quality
(2) Baseflow
(2) Streamside Area Vegetation
(3) Upland Pollutant Filtration
(3) Thermoregulation
(2) Indicators of Stressors
(2) Aquatic Life Tolerance
(2) Intertidal Zone Filtration
(1) Habitat
(2) In-stream Habitat
(3) Baseflow
(3) Substrate
(3) Stream Stability
(3) In-stream Habitat
(2) Stream-side Habitat
(3) Stream-side Habitat
(3) Thermoregulation
(2) Tidal Marsh In-stream Habitat
(3) Flow Restriction
(3) Tidal Marsh Stream Stability
(4) Tidal Marsh Stream Geomorphology
(3) Tidal Marsh In-stream Habitat
(2) Intertidal Zone Habitat
Overall
NC SAM Stream Rating Sheet
Accompanies User Manual Version 2.1
LOW
HIGH
USACE/
All Streams
NCDWR
Intermittent
NA
NA
(2) Flood Flow
L. Meyer, Amec Foster Wheeler
05/09/2016
YES
NO
NO
Intermittent
NA
HIGH
HIGH
LOW
(2) Baseflow
Stream Category Assessor Name/Organization
HIGH
Pb1
Stream Site Name
HIGH
NA
Duke Mayo Date of Evaluation
HIGH
(4) Tidal Marsh Channel Stability
NA
NA
MEDIUM
LOW
HIGH
HIGH
MEDIUM
HIGH
NA
NA
LOW
NA
HIGH
HIGH
(3) Tidal Marsh Channel Stability
(3) Streamside Area Attenuation
Function Class Rating Summary
(1) Hydrology
HIGH
HIGH
NA
NA
NA
NA
NA
MEDIUM
HIGH
LOW
HIGH
HIGH
HIGH
HIGH
NA
NO
NA
NA
HIGH
NA
NA
NA
NA
HIGH
NO
NA
NA
HIGH
HIGH
NA
NA
NA
MEDIUM
HIGH
HIGH
HIGH
HIGH
HIGH
HIGH
HIGH
HIGH
HIGH
HIGH
LOW
HIGH
LOW
HIGH
MEDIUM
HIGH
NA
NA
HIGH
NA
HIGH
HIGH
HIGH
USACE AID #:NCDWR #:
PROJECT / SITE INFORMATION:
1. Project name (if any):2. Date of evaluation:
3. Applicant/owner name:
5. County:6. Nearest named water body
7. River Basin: on USGS 7.5-minute quad:
8. Site coordinates (decimal degrees, at lower end of assessment reach):
STREAM INFORMATION: (depth and width can be approximations)
9. Site number (show on attached map):10. Length of assessment reach evaluated (feet):
11. Channel depth from bed (in riffle, if present) to top of bank (feet):Unable to assess channel depth.
12. Channel width at top of bank (feet):13. Is assessment reach a swamp stream?Yes No
14. Feature type:Perennial flow Intermittent flow Tidal Marsh Stream
STREAM RATING INFORMATION:
15. NC SAM Zone:Mountains (M)Piedmont (P)Inner Coastal Plain (I)Outer Coastal Plain (O)
16. Estimated geomorphic
valley shape (skip for a b
Tidal Marsh Stream):(more sinuous stream, flatter valley slope)(less sinuous stream, steeper valley slope)
17. Watershed size: (skip Size 1 (< 0.1 mi2)Size 2 (0.1 to < 0.5 mi2)Size 3 (0.5 to < 5 mi2)Size 4 (≥ 5 mi2)
for Tidal Marsh Stream)
ADDITIONAL INFORMATION:
18. Were regulatory considerations evaluated?Yes No If Yes, check all that appy to the assessment area.
Section 10 water Classified Trout Waters Water Supply Watershed (I II III IV V)
Essential Fish Habitat Primary Nursery Area High Quality Waters/Outstanding Resource Waters
Publicly owned property NCDWR riparian buffer rule in effect Nutrient Sensitive Waters
Anadromous fish 303(d) List CAMA Area of Environmental Concern (AEC)
Documented presence of a federal and/or state listed protected species within the assessment area.
List species:
Designated Critical Habitat (list species):
19. Are additional stream information/supplementary measurements included in "Notes/Sketch" section or attached?Yes No
1.Channel Water – assessment reach metric (skip for Size 1 streams and Tidal Marsh Streams)
A Water throughout assessment reach.
B No flow, water in pools only.
C No water in assessment reach.
2.Evidence of Flow Restriction – assessment reach metric
A At least 10% of assessment reach in-stream habitat or riffle-pool sequence is adversely affected by a flow restriction or fill to the
point of obstructing flow or a channel choked with aquatic macrophytes or ponded water or impounded on flood or ebb within
the assessment reach (examples: undersized or perched culverts, causeways that constrict the channel, tidal gates).
B Not A
3.Feature Pattern – assessment reach metric
A A majority of the assessment reach has altered pattern (examples: straightening, modification above or below culvert).
B Not A.
4.Feature Longitudinal Profile – assessment reach metric
A Majority of assessment reach has a substantially altered stream profile (examples: channel down-cutting, existing damming,
over widening, active aggradation, dredging, and excavation where appropriate channel profile has not reformed from any of
these disturbances).
B Not A
5.Signs of Active Instability – assessment reach metric
Consider only current instability, not past events from which the stream has currently recovered. Examples of instability include
active bank failure, active channel down-cutting (head-cut), active widening, and artificial hardening (such as concrete, gabion, rip-rap).
A < 10% of channel unstable
B 10 to 25% of channel unstable
C > 25% of channel unstable
6.Streamside Area Interaction – streamside area metric
Consider for the Left Bank (LB) and the Right Bank (RB).
LB RB
A A Little or no evidence of conditions that adversely affect reference interaction
B B Moderate evidence of conditions (examples: berms, levees, down-cutting, aggradation, dredging) that adversely affect
reference interaction (examples: limited streamside area access, disruption of flood flows through streamside area,
leaky or intermittent bulkheads, causeways with floodplain constriction, minor ditching [including mosquito ditching])
C C Extensive evidence of conditions that adversely affect reference interaction (little to no floodplain/intertidal zone access
[examples: causeways with floodplain and channel constriction, bulkheads, retaining walls, fill, stream incision,
disruption of flood flows through streamside area] or too much floodplain/intertidal zone access [examples:
impoundments, intensive mosquito ditching]) or floodplain/intertidal zone unnaturally absent or assessment reach is a
man-made feature on an interstream divide
Mayo Plant July 17, 2018
36.539516 / -78.872905
Stream 3 100
Duke Energy 4. Assessor name/organization:Josh Witherspoon/Wood
Person
Roanoake Crutchfield Branch
Manual for detailed descriptions and explanations of requested information. Record in the "Notes/Sketch" section if any supplementary
NOTE EVIDENCE OF STRESSORS AFFECTING THE ASSESSMENT AREA (do not need to be within the assessment area).
measurements were performed. See the NC SAM User Manual for examples of additional measurements that may be relevant.
NC SAM FIELD ASSESSMENT FORM
Accompanies User Manual Version 2.1
INSTRUCTIONS:Attach a sketch of the assessment area and photographs.Attach a copy of the USGS 7.5-minute topographic
quadrangle,and circle the location of the stream reach under evaluation.If multiple stream reaches will be evaluated on the same
property,identify and number all reaches on the attached map,and include a separate form for each reach.See the NC SAM User
6
15
7.Water Quality Stressors – assessment reach/intertidal zone metric
Check all that apply.
A Discolored water in stream or intertidal zone (milky white, blue, unnatural water discoloration, oil sheen, stream foam)
B Excessive sedimentation (burying of stream features or intertidal zone)
C Noticeable evidence of pollutant discharges entering the assessment reach and causing a water quality problem
D Odor (not including natural sulfide odors)
E Current published or collected data indicating degraded water quality in the assessment reach. Cite source in the "Notes/Sketch"
section.
F Livestock with access to stream or intertidal zone
G Excessive algae in stream or intertidal zone
H Degraded marsh vegetation in the intertidal zone (removal, burning, regular mowing, destruction, etc.)
I Other:(explain in "Notes/Sketch" section)
J Little to no stressors
8.Recent Weather – watershed metric
For Size 1 or 2 streams, D1 drought or higher is considered a drought; for Size 3 or 4 streams, D2 drought or higher is considered a
drought.
A Drought conditions and no rainfall or rainfall not exceeding 1 inch within the last 48 hours
B Drought conditions and rainfall exceeding 1 inch within the last 48 hours
C No drought conditions
9 Large or Dangerous Stream – assessment reach metric
Yes No Is stream is too large or dangerous to assess? If Yes, skip to Metric 13 (Streamside Area Ground Surface Condition).
10.Natural In-stream Habitat Types – assessment reach metric
10a.Yes No Degraded in-stream habitat over majority of the assessment reach (examples of stressors include excessive
sedimentation, mining, excavation, in-stream hardening [for example, rip-rap], recent dredging, and snagging)
(evaluate for size 4 Coastal Plain streams only, then skip to Metric 12)
10b.Check all that occur (occurs if > 5% coverage of assessment reach) (skip for Size 4 Coastal Plain streams)
A Multiple aquatic macrophytes and aquatic mosses F 5% oysters or other natural hard bottoms
(include liverworts, lichens, and algal mats)G Submerged aquatic vegetation
B Multiple sticks and/or leaf packs and/or emergent H Low-tide refugia (pools)
vegetation I Sand bottom
C Multiple snags and logs (including lap trees)J 5% vertical bank along the marsh
D 5% undercut banks and/or root mats and/or roots K Little or no habitat
in banks extend to the normal wetted perimeter
E Little or no habitat
11.Bedform and Substrate – assessment reach metric (skip for Size 4 Coastal Plain streams and Tidal Marsh Streams)
11a.Yes No Is assessment reach in a natural sand-bed stream? (skip for Coastal Plain streams)
11b.Bedform evaluated. Check the appropriate box(es).
A Riffle-run section (evaluate 11c)
B Pool-glide section (evaluate 11d)
C Natural bedform absent (skip to Metric 12, Aquatic Life)
11c.In riffles sections, check all that occur below the normal wetted perimeter of the assessment reach – whether or not submerged.
Check at least one box in each row (skip for Size 4 Coastal Plain Streams and Tidal Marsh Streams). Not Present (NP) =
absent, Rare (R) = present but ≤ 10%, Common (C) = > 10-40%, Abundant (A) = > 40-70%, Predominant (P) = > 70%. Cumulative
percentages should not exceed 100% for each assessment reach.
NP R C A P
Bedrock/saprolite
Boulder (256 – 4096 mm)
Cobble (64 – 256 mm)
Gravel (2 – 64 mm)
Sand (.062 – 2 mm)
Silt/clay (< 0.062 mm)
Detritus
Artificial (rip-rap, concrete, etc.)
11d.Yes No Are pools filled with sediment? (skip for Size 4 Coastal Plain streams and Tidal Marsh Streams)
12.Aquatic Life – assessment reach metric (skip for Size 4 Coastal Plain streams and Tidal Marsh Streams)
12a.Yes No Was an in-stream aquatic life assessment performed as described in the User Manual?
If No, select one of the following reasons and skip to Metric 13. No Water Other:
12b.Yes No Are aquatic organisms present in the assessment reach (look in riffles, pools, then snags)? If Yes, check
all that apply. If No, skip to Metric 13.
1 >1 Numbers over columns refer to “individuals” for size 1 and 2 streams and “taxa” for size 3 and 4 streams.
Adult frogs
Aquatic reptiles
Aquatic macrophytes and aquatic mosses (include liverworts, lichens, and algal mats)
Beetles (including water pennies)
Caddisfly larvae (Trichoptera [T])
Asian clam (Corbicula )
Crustacean (isopod/amphipod/crayfish/shrimp)
Damselfly and dragonfly larvae
Dipterans (true flies)
Mayfly larvae (Ephemeroptera [E])
Megaloptera (alderfly, fishfly, dobsonfly larvae)
Midges/mosquito larvae
Mosquito fish (Gambusia ) or mud minnows (Umbra pygmaea)
Mussels/Clams (not Corbicula )
Other fish
Salamanders/tadpoles
Snails
Stonefly larvae (Plecoptera [P])
Tipulid larvae
Worms/leeches
lightning storm prevented it
*********************************REMAINING QUESTIONS ARE NOT APPLICABLE FOR TIDAL MARSH STREAMS****************************Check for TidalMarsh Streamsonly
13.Streamside Area Ground Surface Condition – streamside area metric (skip for Tidal Marsh Streams and B valley types)
Consider for the Left Bank (LB) and the Right Bank (RB). Consider storage capacity with regard to both overbank flow and
upland runoff.
LB RB
A A Little or no alteration to water storage capacity over a majority of the streamside area
B B Moderate alteration to water storage capacity over a majority of the streamside area
C C Severe alteration to water storage capacity over a majority of the streamside area (examples include: ditches, fill,
soil, compaction, livestock disturbance, buildings, man-made levees, drainage pipes)
14.Streamside Area Water Storage – streamside area metric (skip for Size 1 streams, Tidal Marsh Streams, and B valley types)
Consider for the Left Bank (LB) and the Right Bank (RB) of the streamside area.
LB RB
A A Majority of streamside area with depressions able to pond water ≥ 6 inches deep
B B Majority of streamside area with depressions able to pond water 3 to 6 inches deep
C C Majority of streamside area with depressions able to pond water < 3 inches deep
15.Wetland Presence – streamside area metric (skip for Tidal Marsh Streams)
Consider for the Left Bank (LB) and the Right Bank (RB). Do not consider wetlands outside of the streamside area or within the
normal wetted perimeter of assessment reach.
LB RB
Y Y Are wetlands present in the streamside area?
N N
16.Baseflow Contributors – assessment reach metric (skip for size 4 streams and Tidal Marsh Streams)
Check all contributors within the assessment reach or within view of and draining to the assessment reach.
A Streams and/or springs (jurisdictional discharges)
B Ponds (include wet detention basins; do not include sediment basins or dry detention basins)
C Obstruction that passes some flow during low-flow periods within assessment area (beaver dam, bottom-release dam)
D Evidence of bank seepage or sweating (iron oxidizing bacteria in water indicates seepage)
E Stream bed or bank soil reduced (dig through deposited sediment if present)
F None of the above
17.Baseflow Detractors – assessment area metric (skip for Tidal Marsh Streams)
Check all that apply.
A Evidence of substantial water withdrawals from the assessment reach (includes areas excavated for pump installation)
B Obstruction not passing flow during low flow periods affecting the assessment reach (ex: watertight dam, sediment deposit)
C Urban stream (≥ 24% impervious surface for watershed)
D Evidence that the stream-side area has been modified resulting in accelerated drainage into the assessment reach
E Assessment reach relocated to valley edge
F None of the above
18.Shading – assessment reach metric (skip for Tidal Marsh Streams)
Consider aspect. Consider “leaf-on” condition.
A Stream shading is appropriate for stream category (may include gaps associated with natural processes)
B Degraded (example: scattered trees)
C Stream shading is gone or largely absent
19.Buffer Width – streamside area metric (skip for Tidal Marsh Streams)
Consider “vegetated buffer” and “wooded buffer” separately for left bank (LB) and right bank (RB) starting at the top
of bank out to the first break.
Vegetated Wooded
LB RB LB RB
A A A A ≥ 100-feet wide or extends to the edge of the watershed
B B B B From 50 to < 100-feet wide
C C C C From 30 to < 50-feet wide
D D D D From 10 to < 30-feet wide
E E E E < 10-feet wide or no trees
20.Buffer Structure – streamside area metric (skip for Tidal Marsh Streams)
Consider for left bank (LB) and right bank (RB) for Metric 19 ("Vegetated" Buffer Width).
LB RB
A A Mature forest
B B Non-mature woody vegetation or modified vegetation structure
C C Herbaceous vegetation with or without a strip of trees < 10 feet wide
D D Maintained shrubs
E E Little or no vegetation
21.Buffer Stressors – streamside area metric (skip for Tidal Marsh Streams)
Check all appropriate boxes for left bank (LB) and right bank (RB). Indicate if listed stressor abuts stream (Abuts), does not abut but
is within 30 feet of stream (< 30 feet), or is between 30 to 50 feet of stream (30-50 feet).
If none of the following stressors occurs on either bank, check here and skip to Metric 22:
Abuts < 30 feet 30-50 feet
LB RB LB RB LB RB
A A A A A A Row crops
B B B B B B Maintained turf
C C C C C C Pasture (no livestock)/commercial horticulture
D D D D D D Pasture (active livestock use)
22.Stem Density – streamside area metric (skip for Tidal Marsh Streams)
Consider for left bank (LB) and right bank (RB) for Metric 19 ("Wooded" Buffer Width).
LB RB
A A Medium to high stem density
B B Low stem density
C C No wooded riparian buffer or predominantly herbaceous species or bare ground
23.Continuity of Vegetated Buffer – streamside area metric (skip for Tidal Marsh Streams)
Consider whether vegetated buffer is continuous along stream (parallel). Breaks are areas lacking vegetation > 10-feet wide.
LB RB
A A The total length of buffer breaks is < 25 percent.
B B The total length of buffer breaks is between 25 and 50 percent.
C C The total length of buffer breaks is > 50 percent.
24.Vegetative Composition – First 100 feet of streamside area metric (skip for Tidal Marsh Streams)
Evaluate the dominant vegetation within 100 feet of each bank or to the edge of the watershed (whichever comes first) as it contributes
to assessment reach habitat.
LB RB
A A Vegetation is close to undisturbed in species present and their proportions. Lower strata composed of native
species, with non-native invasive species absent or sparse.
B B Vegetation indicates disturbance in terms of species diversity or proportions, but is still largely composed of native
species. This may include communities of weedy native species that develop after clear-cutting or clearing or
communities with non-native invasive species present, but not dominant, over a large portion of the expected strata or
communities missing understory but retaining canopy trees.
C C Vegetation is severely disturbed in terms of species diversity or proportions. Mature canopy is absent or communities
with non-native invasive species dominant over a large portion of expected strata or communities composed of planted
stands of non-characteristic species or communities inappropriately composed of a single species or no vegetation.
25.Conductivity – assessment reach metric (skip for all Coastal Plain streams)
25a.Yes No Was a conductivity measurement recorded?
If No, select one of the following reasons. No Water Other:
25b.Check the box corresponding to the conductivity measurement (units of microsiemens per centimeter).
A <46 B 46 to < 67 C 67 to < 79 D 79 to < 230 E ≥ 230
Notes/Sketch:
Notes of Field Assessment Form (Y/N)
Presence of regulatory considerations (Y/N)
Additional stream information/supplementary measurements included (Y/N)
NC SAM feature type (perennial, intermittent, Tidal Marsh Stream)
(4) Floodplain Access
(4) Wooded Riparian Buffer
(4) Microtopography
(3) Stream Stability
(4) Channel Stability
(4) Sediment Transport
(4) Stream Geomorphology
(2) Stream/Intertidal Zone Interaction
(2) Longitudinal Tidal Flow
(2) Tidal Marsh Stream Stability
(3) Tidal Marsh Stream Geomorphology
(1) Water Quality
(2) Baseflow
(2) Streamside Area Vegetation
(3) Upland Pollutant Filtration
(3) Thermoregulation
(2) Indicators of Stressors
(2) Aquatic Life Tolerance
(2) Intertidal Zone Filtration
(1) Habitat
(2) In-stream Habitat
(3) Baseflow
(3) Substrate
(3) Stream Stability
(3) In-stream Habitat
(2) Stream-side Habitat
(3) Stream-side Habitat
(3) Thermoregulation
(2) Tidal Marsh In-stream Habitat
(3) Flow Restriction
(3) Tidal Marsh Stream Stability
(4) Tidal Marsh Stream Geomorphology
(3) Tidal Marsh In-stream Habitat
(2) Intertidal Zone Habitat
Overall MEDIUM
MEDIUM
HIGH
LOW
MEDIUM
LOW
HIGH
NA
NA
HIGH
NA
MEDIUM
HIGH
HIGH
NA
NA
NA
NA
HIGH
HIGH
(3) Tidal Marsh Channel Stability
(3) Streamside Area Attenuation
Function Class Rating Summary
(1) Hydrology
NA
HIGH
HIGH
HIGH
HIGH
NA
NO
MEDIUM
Stream Site Name Mayo Plant Date of Evaluation
MEDIUM
(4) Tidal Marsh Channel Stability
LOW
LOW
NA
NA
HIGH
NA
HIGH
NC SAM Stream Rating Sheet
Accompanies User Manual Version 2.1
LOW
MEDIUM
USACE/
All Streams
NCDWR
Intermittent
NA
NA
(2) Flood Flow
Josh Witherspoon/Wood
July 17, 2018
NO
NO
NO
Perennial
(2) Baseflow
Stream Category Assessor Name/Organization
MEDIUM
Pb2
USACE AID #:NCDWR #:
PROJECT / SITE INFORMATION:
1. Project name (if any):2. Date of evaluation:
3. Applicant/owner name:
5. County:6. Nearest named water body
7. River Basin: on USGS 7.5-minute quad:
8. Site coordinates (decimal degrees, at lower end of assessment reach):
STREAM INFORMATION: (depth and width can be approximations)
9. Site number (show on attached map):10. Length of assessment reach evaluated (feet):
11. Channel depth from bed (in riffle, if present) to top of bank (feet):Unable to assess channel depth.
12. Channel width at top of bank (feet):13. Is assessment reach a swamp stream?Yes No
14. Feature type:Perennial flow Intermittent flow Tidal Marsh Stream
STREAM RATING INFORMATION:
15. NC SAM Zone:Mountains (M)Piedmont (P)Inner Coastal Plain (I)Outer Coastal Plain (O)
16. Estimated geomorphic
valley shape (skip for a b
Tidal Marsh Stream):(more sinuous stream, flatter valley slope)(less sinuous stream, steeper valley slope)
17. Watershed size: (skip Size 1 (< 0.1 mi2)Size 2 (0.1 to < 0.5 mi2)Size 3 (0.5 to < 5 mi2)Size 4 (≥ 5 mi2)
for Tidal Marsh Stream)
ADDITIONAL INFORMATION:
18. Were regulatory considerations evaluated?Yes No If Yes, check all that appy to the assessment area.
Section 10 water Classified Trout Waters Water Supply Watershed (I II III IV V)
Essential Fish Habitat Primary Nursery Area High Quality Waters/Outstanding Resource Waters
Publicly owned property NCDWR riparian buffer rule in effect Nutrient Sensitive Waters
Anadromous fish 303(d) List CAMA Area of Environmental Concern (AEC)
Documented presence of a federal and/or state listed protected species within the assessment area.
List species:
Designated Critical Habitat (list species):
19. Are additional stream information/supplementary measurements included in "Notes/Sketch" section or attached?Yes No
1.Channel Water – assessment reach metric (skip for Size 1 streams and Tidal Marsh Streams)
A Water throughout assessment reach.
B No flow, water in pools only.
C No water in assessment reach.
2.Evidence of Flow Restriction – assessment reach metric
A At least 10% of assessment reach in-stream habitat or riffle-pool sequence is adversely affected by a flow restriction or fill to the
point of obstructing flow or a channel choked with aquatic macrophytes or ponded water or impounded on flood or ebb within
the assessment reach (examples: undersized or perched culverts, causeways that constrict the channel, tidal gates).
B Not A
3.Feature Pattern – assessment reach metric
A A majority of the assessment reach has altered pattern (examples: straightening, modification above or below culvert).
B Not A.
4.Feature Longitudinal Profile – assessment reach metric
A Majority of assessment reach has a substantially altered stream profile (examples: channel down-cutting, existing damming,
over widening, active aggradation, dredging, and excavation where appropriate channel profile has not reformed from any of
these disturbances).
B Not A
5.Signs of Active Instability – assessment reach metric
Consider only current instability, not past events from which the stream has currently recovered. Examples of instability include
active bank failure, active channel down-cutting (head-cut), active widening, and artificial hardening (such as concrete, gabion, rip-rap).
A < 10% of channel unstable
B 10 to 25% of channel unstable
C > 25% of channel unstable
6.Streamside Area Interaction – streamside area metric
Consider for the Left Bank (LB) and the Right Bank (RB).
LB RB
A A Little or no evidence of conditions that adversely affect reference interaction
B B Moderate evidence of conditions (examples: berms, levees, down-cutting, aggradation, dredging) that adversely affect
reference interaction (examples: limited streamside area access, disruption of flood flows through streamside area,
leaky or intermittent bulkheads, causeways with floodplain constriction, minor ditching [including mosquito ditching])
C C Extensive evidence of conditions that adversely affect reference interaction (little to no floodplain/intertidal zone access
[examples: causeways with floodplain and channel constriction, bulkheads, retaining walls, fill, stream incision,
disruption of flood flows through streamside area] or too much floodplain/intertidal zone access [examples:
impoundments, intensive mosquito ditching]) or floodplain/intertidal zone unnaturally absent or assessment reach is a
man-made feature on an interstream divide
Mayo Plant July 17, 2018
36.534166 / -78.903581
Stream 9 100
Duke Energy 4. Assessor name/organization:Josh Witherspoon/Wood
Person
Roanoake Crutchfield Branch
Manual for detailed descriptions and explanations of requested information. Record in the "Notes/Sketch" section if any supplementary
NOTE EVIDENCE OF STRESSORS AFFECTING THE ASSESSMENT AREA (do not need to be within the assessment area).
measurements were performed. See the NC SAM User Manual for examples of additional measurements that may be relevant.
NC SAM FIELD ASSESSMENT FORM
Accompanies User Manual Version 2.1
INSTRUCTIONS:Attach a sketch of the assessment area and photographs.Attach a copy of the USGS 7.5-minute topographic
quadrangle,and circle the location of the stream reach under evaluation.If multiple stream reaches will be evaluated on the same
property,identify and number all reaches on the attached map,and include a separate form for each reach.See the NC SAM User
3
6
7.Water Quality Stressors – assessment reach/intertidal zone metric
Check all that apply.
A Discolored water in stream or intertidal zone (milky white, blue, unnatural water discoloration, oil sheen, stream foam)
B Excessive sedimentation (burying of stream features or intertidal zone)
C Noticeable evidence of pollutant discharges entering the assessment reach and causing a water quality problem
D Odor (not including natural sulfide odors)
E Current published or collected data indicating degraded water quality in the assessment reach. Cite source in the "Notes/Sketch"
section.
F Livestock with access to stream or intertidal zone
G Excessive algae in stream or intertidal zone
H Degraded marsh vegetation in the intertidal zone (removal, burning, regular mowing, destruction, etc.)
I Other:(explain in "Notes/Sketch" section)
J Little to no stressors
8.Recent Weather – watershed metric
For Size 1 or 2 streams, D1 drought or higher is considered a drought; for Size 3 or 4 streams, D2 drought or higher is considered a
drought.
A Drought conditions and no rainfall or rainfall not exceeding 1 inch within the last 48 hours
B Drought conditions and rainfall exceeding 1 inch within the last 48 hours
C No drought conditions
9 Large or Dangerous Stream – assessment reach metric
Yes No Is stream is too large or dangerous to assess? If Yes, skip to Metric 13 (Streamside Area Ground Surface Condition).
10.Natural In-stream Habitat Types – assessment reach metric
10a.Yes No Degraded in-stream habitat over majority of the assessment reach (examples of stressors include excessive
sedimentation, mining, excavation, in-stream hardening [for example, rip-rap], recent dredging, and snagging)
(evaluate for size 4 Coastal Plain streams only, then skip to Metric 12)
10b.Check all that occur (occurs if > 5% coverage of assessment reach) (skip for Size 4 Coastal Plain streams)
A Multiple aquatic macrophytes and aquatic mosses F 5% oysters or other natural hard bottoms
(include liverworts, lichens, and algal mats)G Submerged aquatic vegetation
B Multiple sticks and/or leaf packs and/or emergent H Low-tide refugia (pools)
vegetation I Sand bottom
C Multiple snags and logs (including lap trees)J 5% vertical bank along the marsh
D 5% undercut banks and/or root mats and/or roots K Little or no habitat
in banks extend to the normal wetted perimeter
E Little or no habitat
11.Bedform and Substrate – assessment reach metric (skip for Size 4 Coastal Plain streams and Tidal Marsh Streams)
11a.Yes No Is assessment reach in a natural sand-bed stream? (skip for Coastal Plain streams)
11b.Bedform evaluated. Check the appropriate box(es).
A Riffle-run section (evaluate 11c)
B Pool-glide section (evaluate 11d)
C Natural bedform absent (skip to Metric 12, Aquatic Life)
11c.In riffles sections, check all that occur below the normal wetted perimeter of the assessment reach – whether or not submerged.
Check at least one box in each row (skip for Size 4 Coastal Plain Streams and Tidal Marsh Streams). Not Present (NP) =
absent, Rare (R) = present but ≤ 10%, Common (C) = > 10-40%, Abundant (A) = > 40-70%, Predominant (P) = > 70%. Cumulative
percentages should not exceed 100% for each assessment reach.
NP R C A P
Bedrock/saprolite
Boulder (256 – 4096 mm)
Cobble (64 – 256 mm)
Gravel (2 – 64 mm)
Sand (.062 – 2 mm)
Silt/clay (< 0.062 mm)
Detritus
Artificial (rip-rap, concrete, etc.)
11d.Yes No Are pools filled with sediment? (skip for Size 4 Coastal Plain streams and Tidal Marsh Streams)
12.Aquatic Life – assessment reach metric (skip for Size 4 Coastal Plain streams and Tidal Marsh Streams)
12a.Yes No Was an in-stream aquatic life assessment performed as described in the User Manual?
If No, select one of the following reasons and skip to Metric 13. No Water Other:
12b.Yes No Are aquatic organisms present in the assessment reach (look in riffles, pools, then snags)? If Yes, check
all that apply. If No, skip to Metric 13.
1 >1 Numbers over columns refer to “individuals” for size 1 and 2 streams and “taxa” for size 3 and 4 streams.
Adult frogs
Aquatic reptiles
Aquatic macrophytes and aquatic mosses (include liverworts, lichens, and algal mats)
Beetles (including water pennies)
Caddisfly larvae (Trichoptera [T])
Asian clam (Corbicula )
Crustacean (isopod/amphipod/crayfish/shrimp)
Damselfly and dragonfly larvae
Dipterans (true flies)
Mayfly larvae (Ephemeroptera [E])
Megaloptera (alderfly, fishfly, dobsonfly larvae)
Midges/mosquito larvae
Mosquito fish (Gambusia ) or mud minnows (Umbra pygmaea)
Mussels/Clams (not Corbicula )
Other fish
Salamanders/tadpoles
Snails
Stonefly larvae (Plecoptera [P])
Tipulid larvae
Worms/leeches
*********************************REMAINING QUESTIONS ARE NOT APPLICABLE FOR TIDAL MARSH STREAMS****************************Check for TidalMarsh Streamsonly
13.Streamside Area Ground Surface Condition – streamside area metric (skip for Tidal Marsh Streams and B valley types)
Consider for the Left Bank (LB) and the Right Bank (RB). Consider storage capacity with regard to both overbank flow and
upland runoff.
LB RB
A A Little or no alteration to water storage capacity over a majority of the streamside area
B B Moderate alteration to water storage capacity over a majority of the streamside area
C C Severe alteration to water storage capacity over a majority of the streamside area (examples include: ditches, fill,
soil, compaction, livestock disturbance, buildings, man-made levees, drainage pipes)
14.Streamside Area Water Storage – streamside area metric (skip for Size 1 streams, Tidal Marsh Streams, and B valley types)
Consider for the Left Bank (LB) and the Right Bank (RB) of the streamside area.
LB RB
A A Majority of streamside area with depressions able to pond water ≥ 6 inches deep
B B Majority of streamside area with depressions able to pond water 3 to 6 inches deep
C C Majority of streamside area with depressions able to pond water < 3 inches deep
15.Wetland Presence – streamside area metric (skip for Tidal Marsh Streams)
Consider for the Left Bank (LB) and the Right Bank (RB). Do not consider wetlands outside of the streamside area or within the
normal wetted perimeter of assessment reach.
LB RB
Y Y Are wetlands present in the streamside area?
N N
16.Baseflow Contributors – assessment reach metric (skip for size 4 streams and Tidal Marsh Streams)
Check all contributors within the assessment reach or within view of and draining to the assessment reach.
A Streams and/or springs (jurisdictional discharges)
B Ponds (include wet detention basins; do not include sediment basins or dry detention basins)
C Obstruction that passes some flow during low-flow periods within assessment area (beaver dam, bottom-release dam)
D Evidence of bank seepage or sweating (iron oxidizing bacteria in water indicates seepage)
E Stream bed or bank soil reduced (dig through deposited sediment if present)
F None of the above
17.Baseflow Detractors – assessment area metric (skip for Tidal Marsh Streams)
Check all that apply.
A Evidence of substantial water withdrawals from the assessment reach (includes areas excavated for pump installation)
B Obstruction not passing flow during low flow periods affecting the assessment reach (ex: watertight dam, sediment deposit)
C Urban stream (≥ 24% impervious surface for watershed)
D Evidence that the stream-side area has been modified resulting in accelerated drainage into the assessment reach
E Assessment reach relocated to valley edge
F None of the above
18.Shading – assessment reach metric (skip for Tidal Marsh Streams)
Consider aspect. Consider “leaf-on” condition.
A Stream shading is appropriate for stream category (may include gaps associated with natural processes)
B Degraded (example: scattered trees)
C Stream shading is gone or largely absent
19.Buffer Width – streamside area metric (skip for Tidal Marsh Streams)
Consider “vegetated buffer” and “wooded buffer” separately for left bank (LB) and right bank (RB) starting at the top
of bank out to the first break.
Vegetated Wooded
LB RB LB RB
A A A A ≥ 100-feet wide or extends to the edge of the watershed
B B B B From 50 to < 100-feet wide
C C C C From 30 to < 50-feet wide
D D D D From 10 to < 30-feet wide
E E E E < 10-feet wide or no trees
20.Buffer Structure – streamside area metric (skip for Tidal Marsh Streams)
Consider for left bank (LB) and right bank (RB) for Metric 19 ("Vegetated" Buffer Width).
LB RB
A A Mature forest
B B Non-mature woody vegetation or modified vegetation structure
C C Herbaceous vegetation with or without a strip of trees < 10 feet wide
D D Maintained shrubs
E E Little or no vegetation
21.Buffer Stressors – streamside area metric (skip for Tidal Marsh Streams)
Check all appropriate boxes for left bank (LB) and right bank (RB). Indicate if listed stressor abuts stream (Abuts), does not abut but
is within 30 feet of stream (< 30 feet), or is between 30 to 50 feet of stream (30-50 feet).
If none of the following stressors occurs on either bank, check here and skip to Metric 22:
Abuts < 30 feet 30-50 feet
LB RB LB RB LB RB
A A A A A A Row crops
B B B B B B Maintained turf
C C C C C C Pasture (no livestock)/commercial horticulture
D D D D D D Pasture (active livestock use)
22.Stem Density – streamside area metric (skip for Tidal Marsh Streams)
Consider for left bank (LB) and right bank (RB) for Metric 19 ("Wooded" Buffer Width).
LB RB
A A Medium to high stem density
B B Low stem density
C C No wooded riparian buffer or predominantly herbaceous species or bare ground
23.Continuity of Vegetated Buffer – streamside area metric (skip for Tidal Marsh Streams)
Consider whether vegetated buffer is continuous along stream (parallel). Breaks are areas lacking vegetation > 10-feet wide.
LB RB
A A The total length of buffer breaks is < 25 percent.
B B The total length of buffer breaks is between 25 and 50 percent.
C C The total length of buffer breaks is > 50 percent.
24.Vegetative Composition – First 100 feet of streamside area metric (skip for Tidal Marsh Streams)
Evaluate the dominant vegetation within 100 feet of each bank or to the edge of the watershed (whichever comes first) as it contributes
to assessment reach habitat.
LB RB
A A Vegetation is close to undisturbed in species present and their proportions. Lower strata composed of native
species, with non-native invasive species absent or sparse.
B B Vegetation indicates disturbance in terms of species diversity or proportions, but is still largely composed of native
species. This may include communities of weedy native species that develop after clear-cutting or clearing or
communities with non-native invasive species present, but not dominant, over a large portion of the expected strata or
communities missing understory but retaining canopy trees.
C C Vegetation is severely disturbed in terms of species diversity or proportions. Mature canopy is absent or communities
with non-native invasive species dominant over a large portion of expected strata or communities composed of planted
stands of non-characteristic species or communities inappropriately composed of a single species or no vegetation.
25.Conductivity – assessment reach metric (skip for all Coastal Plain streams)
25a.Yes No Was a conductivity measurement recorded?
If No, select one of the following reasons. No Water Other:
25b.Check the box corresponding to the conductivity measurement (units of microsiemens per centimeter).
A <46 B 46 to < 67 C 67 to < 79 D 79 to < 230 E ≥ 230
Notes/Sketch:
Notes of Field Assessment Form (Y/N)
Presence of regulatory considerations (Y/N)
Additional stream information/supplementary measurements included (Y/N)
NC SAM feature type (perennial, intermittent, Tidal Marsh Stream)
(4) Floodplain Access
(4) Wooded Riparian Buffer
(4) Microtopography
(3) Stream Stability
(4) Channel Stability
(4) Sediment Transport
(4) Stream Geomorphology
(2) Stream/Intertidal Zone Interaction
(2) Longitudinal Tidal Flow
(2) Tidal Marsh Stream Stability
(3) Tidal Marsh Stream Geomorphology
(1) Water Quality
(2) Baseflow
(2) Streamside Area Vegetation
(3) Upland Pollutant Filtration
(3) Thermoregulation
(2) Indicators of Stressors
(2) Aquatic Life Tolerance
(2) Intertidal Zone Filtration
(1) Habitat
(2) In-stream Habitat
(3) Baseflow
(3) Substrate
(3) Stream Stability
(3) In-stream Habitat
(2) Stream-side Habitat
(3) Stream-side Habitat
(3) Thermoregulation
(2) Tidal Marsh In-stream Habitat
(3) Flow Restriction
(3) Tidal Marsh Stream Stability
(4) Tidal Marsh Stream Geomorphology
(3) Tidal Marsh In-stream Habitat
(2) Intertidal Zone Habitat
Overall MEDIUM
MEDIUM
HIGH
MEDIUM
MEDIUM
MEDIUM
HIGH
LOW
HIGH
MEDIUM
HIGH
MEDIUM
MEDIUM
LOW
HIGH
LOW
HIGH
NA
NA
HIGH
NA
MEDIUM
HIGH
HIGH
NA
NA
NA
NA
HIGH
NO
NA
NA
HIGH
HIGH
NA
NA
NA
MEDIUM
(3) Tidal Marsh Channel Stability
(3) Streamside Area Attenuation
Function Class Rating Summary
(1) Hydrology
HIGH
HIGH
NA
NA
NA
NA
NA
MEDIUM
HIGH
MEDIUM
MEDIUM
HIGH
HIGH
MEDIUM
NA
NO
NA
NA
MEDIUM
Stream Site Name
MEDIUM
NA
Mayo Plant Date of Evaluation
MEDIUM
(4) Tidal Marsh Channel Stability
NA
NA
MEDIUM
LOW
HIGH
HIGH
MEDIUM
HIGH
NA
NA
LOW
NA
HIGH
NC SAM Stream Rating Sheet
Accompanies User Manual Version 2.1
MEDIUM
MEDIUM
USACE/
All Streams
NCDWR
Intermittent
NA
NA
(2) Flood Flow
Josh Witherspoon/Wood
July 17, 2018
NO
NO
NO
Intermittent
NA
MEDIUM
HIGH
MEDIUM
(2) Baseflow
Stream Category Assessor Name/Organization
MEDIUM
Pb1
USACE AID #:NCDWR #:
PROJECT / SITE INFORMATION:
1. Project name (if any):2. Date of evaluation:
3. Applicant/owner name:
5. County:6. Nearest named water body
7. River Basin: on USGS 7.5-minute quad:
8. Site coordinates (decimal degrees, at lower end of assessment reach):
STREAM INFORMATION: (depth and width can be approximations)
9. Site number (show on attached map):10. Length of assessment reach evaluated (feet):
11. Channel depth from bed (in riffle, if present) to top of bank (feet):Unable to assess channel depth.
12. Channel width at top of bank (feet):13. Is assessment reach a swamp stream?Yes No
14. Feature type:Perennial flow Intermittent flow Tidal Marsh Stream
STREAM RATING INFORMATION:
15. NC SAM Zone:Mountains (M)Piedmont (P)Inner Coastal Plain (I)Outer Coastal Plain (O)
16. Estimated geomorphic
valley shape (skip for a b
Tidal Marsh Stream):(more sinuous stream, flatter valley slope)(less sinuous stream, steeper valley slope)
17. Watershed size: (skip Size 1 (< 0.1 mi2)Size 2 (0.1 to < 0.5 mi2)Size 3 (0.5 to < 5 mi2)Size 4 (≥ 5 mi2)
for Tidal Marsh Stream)
ADDITIONAL INFORMATION:
18. Were regulatory considerations evaluated?Yes No If Yes, check all that appy to the assessment area.
Section 10 water Classified Trout Waters Water Supply Watershed (I II III IV V)
Essential Fish Habitat Primary Nursery Area High Quality Waters/Outstanding Resource Waters
Publicly owned property NCDWR riparian buffer rule in effect Nutrient Sensitive Waters
Anadromous fish 303(d) List CAMA Area of Environmental Concern (AEC)
Documented presence of a federal and/or state listed protected species within the assessment area.
List species:
Designated Critical Habitat (list species):
19. Are additional stream information/supplementary measurements included in "Notes/Sketch" section or attached?Yes No
1.Channel Water – assessment reach metric (skip for Size 1 streams and Tidal Marsh Streams)
A Water throughout assessment reach.
B No flow, water in pools only.
C No water in assessment reach.
2.Evidence of Flow Restriction – assessment reach metric
A At least 10% of assessment reach in-stream habitat or riffle-pool sequence is adversely affected by a flow restriction or fill to the
point of obstructing flow or a channel choked with aquatic macrophytes or ponded water or impounded on flood or ebb within
the assessment reach (examples: undersized or perched culverts, causeways that constrict the channel, tidal gates).
B Not A
3.Feature Pattern – assessment reach metric
A A majority of the assessment reach has altered pattern (examples: straightening, modification above or below culvert).
B Not A.
4.Feature Longitudinal Profile – assessment reach metric
A Majority of assessment reach has a substantially altered stream profile (examples: channel down-cutting, existing damming,
over widening, active aggradation, dredging, and excavation where appropriate channel profile has not reformed from any of
these disturbances).
B Not A
5.Signs of Active Instability – assessment reach metric
Consider only current instability, not past events from which the stream has currently recovered. Examples of instability include
active bank failure, active channel down-cutting (head-cut), active widening, and artificial hardening (such as concrete, gabion, rip-rap).
A < 10% of channel unstable
B 10 to 25% of channel unstable
C > 25% of channel unstable
6.Streamside Area Interaction – streamside area metric
Consider for the Left Bank (LB) and the Right Bank (RB).
LB RB
A A Little or no evidence of conditions that adversely affect reference interaction
B B Moderate evidence of conditions (examples: berms, levees, down-cutting, aggradation, dredging) that adversely affect
reference interaction (examples: limited streamside area access, disruption of flood flows through streamside area,
leaky or intermittent bulkheads, causeways with floodplain constriction, minor ditching [including mosquito ditching])
C C Extensive evidence of conditions that adversely affect reference interaction (little to no floodplain/intertidal zone access
[examples: causeways with floodplain and channel constriction, bulkheads, retaining walls, fill, stream incision,
disruption of flood flows through streamside area] or too much floodplain/intertidal zone access [examples:
impoundments, intensive mosquito ditching]) or floodplain/intertidal zone unnaturally absent or assessment reach is a
man-made feature on an interstream divide
Mayo Plant July 17, 2018
36.534472 / -78.903461
Stream 10 100
Duke Energy 4. Assessor name/organization:Josh Witherspoon/Wood
Person
Roanoake Crutchfield Branch
Manual for detailed descriptions and explanations of requested information. Record in the "Notes/Sketch" section if any supplementary
NOTE EVIDENCE OF STRESSORS AFFECTING THE ASSESSMENT AREA (do not need to be within the assessment area).
measurements were performed. See the NC SAM User Manual for examples of additional measurements that may be relevant.
NC SAM FIELD ASSESSMENT FORM
Accompanies User Manual Version 2.1
INSTRUCTIONS:Attach a sketch of the assessment area and photographs.Attach a copy of the USGS 7.5-minute topographic
quadrangle,and circle the location of the stream reach under evaluation.If multiple stream reaches will be evaluated on the same
property,identify and number all reaches on the attached map,and include a separate form for each reach.See the NC SAM User
0.5
4
7.Water Quality Stressors – assessment reach/intertidal zone metric
Check all that apply.
A Discolored water in stream or intertidal zone (milky white, blue, unnatural water discoloration, oil sheen, stream foam)
B Excessive sedimentation (burying of stream features or intertidal zone)
C Noticeable evidence of pollutant discharges entering the assessment reach and causing a water quality problem
D Odor (not including natural sulfide odors)
E Current published or collected data indicating degraded water quality in the assessment reach. Cite source in the "Notes/Sketch"
section.
F Livestock with access to stream or intertidal zone
G Excessive algae in stream or intertidal zone
H Degraded marsh vegetation in the intertidal zone (removal, burning, regular mowing, destruction, etc.)
I Other:(explain in "Notes/Sketch" section)
J Little to no stressors
8.Recent Weather – watershed metric
For Size 1 or 2 streams, D1 drought or higher is considered a drought; for Size 3 or 4 streams, D2 drought or higher is considered a
drought.
A Drought conditions and no rainfall or rainfall not exceeding 1 inch within the last 48 hours
B Drought conditions and rainfall exceeding 1 inch within the last 48 hours
C No drought conditions
9 Large or Dangerous Stream – assessment reach metric
Yes No Is stream is too large or dangerous to assess? If Yes, skip to Metric 13 (Streamside Area Ground Surface Condition).
10.Natural In-stream Habitat Types – assessment reach metric
10a.Yes No Degraded in-stream habitat over majority of the assessment reach (examples of stressors include excessive
sedimentation, mining, excavation, in-stream hardening [for example, rip-rap], recent dredging, and snagging)
(evaluate for size 4 Coastal Plain streams only, then skip to Metric 12)
10b.Check all that occur (occurs if > 5% coverage of assessment reach) (skip for Size 4 Coastal Plain streams)
A Multiple aquatic macrophytes and aquatic mosses F 5% oysters or other natural hard bottoms
(include liverworts, lichens, and algal mats)G Submerged aquatic vegetation
B Multiple sticks and/or leaf packs and/or emergent H Low-tide refugia (pools)
vegetation I Sand bottom
C Multiple snags and logs (including lap trees)J 5% vertical bank along the marsh
D 5% undercut banks and/or root mats and/or roots K Little or no habitat
in banks extend to the normal wetted perimeter
E Little or no habitat
11.Bedform and Substrate – assessment reach metric (skip for Size 4 Coastal Plain streams and Tidal Marsh Streams)
11a.Yes No Is assessment reach in a natural sand-bed stream? (skip for Coastal Plain streams)
11b.Bedform evaluated. Check the appropriate box(es).
A Riffle-run section (evaluate 11c)
B Pool-glide section (evaluate 11d)
C Natural bedform absent (skip to Metric 12, Aquatic Life)
11c.In riffles sections, check all that occur below the normal wetted perimeter of the assessment reach – whether or not submerged.
Check at least one box in each row (skip for Size 4 Coastal Plain Streams and Tidal Marsh Streams). Not Present (NP) =
absent, Rare (R) = present but ≤ 10%, Common (C) = > 10-40%, Abundant (A) = > 40-70%, Predominant (P) = > 70%. Cumulative
percentages should not exceed 100% for each assessment reach.
NP R C A P
Bedrock/saprolite
Boulder (256 – 4096 mm)
Cobble (64 – 256 mm)
Gravel (2 – 64 mm)
Sand (.062 – 2 mm)
Silt/clay (< 0.062 mm)
Detritus
Artificial (rip-rap, concrete, etc.)
11d.Yes No Are pools filled with sediment? (skip for Size 4 Coastal Plain streams and Tidal Marsh Streams)
*********************************REMAINING QUESTIONS ARE NOT APPLICABLE FOR TIDAL MARSH STREAMS****************************Check for TidalMarsh Streamsonly
12.Aquatic Life – assessment reach metric (skip for Size 4 Coastal Plain streams and Tidal Marsh Streams)
12a.Yes No Was an in-stream aquatic life assessment performed as described in the User Manual?
If No, select one of the following reasons and skip to Metric 13. No Water Other:
12b.Yes No Are aquatic organisms present in the assessment reach (look in riffles, pools, then snags)? If Yes, check
all that apply. If No, skip to Metric 13.
1 >1 Numbers over columns refer to “individuals” for size 1 and 2 streams and “taxa” for size 3 and 4 streams.
Adult frogs
Aquatic reptiles
Aquatic macrophytes and aquatic mosses (include liverworts, lichens, and algal mats)
Beetles (including water pennies)
Caddisfly larvae (Trichoptera [T])
Asian clam (Corbicula )
Crustacean (isopod/amphipod/crayfish/shrimp)
Damselfly and dragonfly larvae
Dipterans (true flies)
Mayfly larvae (Ephemeroptera [E])
Megaloptera (alderfly, fishfly, dobsonfly larvae)
Midges/mosquito larvae
Mosquito fish (Gambusia ) or mud minnows (Umbra pygmaea)
Mussels/Clams (not Corbicula )
Other fish
Salamanders/tadpoles
Snails
Stonefly larvae (Plecoptera [P])
Tipulid larvae
Worms/leeches
13.Streamside Area Ground Surface Condition – streamside area metric (skip for Tidal Marsh Streams and B valley types)
Consider for the Left Bank (LB) and the Right Bank (RB). Consider storage capacity with regard to both overbank flow and
upland runoff.
LB RB
A A Little or no alteration to water storage capacity over a majority of the streamside area
B B Moderate alteration to water storage capacity over a majority of the streamside area
C C Severe alteration to water storage capacity over a majority of the streamside area (examples include: ditches, fill,
soil, compaction, livestock disturbance, buildings, man-made levees, drainage pipes)
14.Streamside Area Water Storage – streamside area metric (skip for Size 1 streams, Tidal Marsh Streams, and B valley types)
Consider for the Left Bank (LB) and the Right Bank (RB) of the streamside area.
LB RB
A A Majority of streamside area with depressions able to pond water ≥ 6 inches deep
B B Majority of streamside area with depressions able to pond water 3 to 6 inches deep
C C Majority of streamside area with depressions able to pond water < 3 inches deep
15.Wetland Presence – streamside area metric (skip for Tidal Marsh Streams)
Consider for the Left Bank (LB) and the Right Bank (RB). Do not consider wetlands outside of the streamside area or within the
normal wetted perimeter of assessment reach.
LB RB
Y Y Are wetlands present in the streamside area?
N N
16.Baseflow Contributors – assessment reach metric (skip for size 4 streams and Tidal Marsh Streams)
Check all contributors within the assessment reach or within view of and draining to the assessment reach.
A Streams and/or springs (jurisdictional discharges)
B Ponds (include wet detention basins; do not include sediment basins or dry detention basins)
C Obstruction that passes some flow during low-flow periods within assessment area (beaver dam, bottom-release dam)
D Evidence of bank seepage or sweating (iron oxidizing bacteria in water indicates seepage)
E Stream bed or bank soil reduced (dig through deposited sediment if present)
F None of the above
17.Baseflow Detractors – assessment area metric (skip for Tidal Marsh Streams)
Check all that apply.
A Evidence of substantial water withdrawals from the assessment reach (includes areas excavated for pump installation)
B Obstruction not passing flow during low flow periods affecting the assessment reach (ex: watertight dam, sediment deposit)
C Urban stream (≥ 24% impervious surface for watershed)
D Evidence that the stream-side area has been modified resulting in accelerated drainage into the assessment reach
E Assessment reach relocated to valley edge
F None of the above
18.Shading – assessment reach metric (skip for Tidal Marsh Streams)
Consider aspect. Consider “leaf-on” condition.
A Stream shading is appropriate for stream category (may include gaps associated with natural processes)
B Degraded (example: scattered trees)
C Stream shading is gone or largely absent
19.Buffer Width – streamside area metric (skip for Tidal Marsh Streams)
Consider “vegetated buffer” and “wooded buffer” separately for left bank (LB) and right bank (RB) starting at the top
of bank out to the first break.
Vegetated Wooded
LB RB LB RB
A A A A ≥ 100-feet wide or extends to the edge of the watershed
B B B B From 50 to < 100-feet wide
C C C C From 30 to < 50-feet wide
D D D D From 10 to < 30-feet wide
E E E E < 10-feet wide or no trees
20.Buffer Structure – streamside area metric (skip for Tidal Marsh Streams)
Consider for left bank (LB) and right bank (RB) for Metric 19 ("Vegetated" Buffer Width).
LB RB
A A Mature forest
B B Non-mature woody vegetation or modified vegetation structure
C C Herbaceous vegetation with or without a strip of trees < 10 feet wide
D D Maintained shrubs
E E Little or no vegetation
21.Buffer Stressors – streamside area metric (skip for Tidal Marsh Streams)
Check all appropriate boxes for left bank (LB) and right bank (RB). Indicate if listed stressor abuts stream (Abuts), does not abut but
is within 30 feet of stream (< 30 feet), or is between 30 to 50 feet of stream (30-50 feet).
If none of the following stressors occurs on either bank, check here and skip to Metric 22:
Abuts < 30 feet 30-50 feet
LB RB LB RB LB RB
A A A A A A Row crops
B B B B B B Maintained turf
C C C C C C Pasture (no livestock)/commercial horticulture
D D D D D D Pasture (active livestock use)
22.Stem Density – streamside area metric (skip for Tidal Marsh Streams)
Consider for left bank (LB) and right bank (RB) for Metric 19 ("Wooded" Buffer Width).
LB RB
A A Medium to high stem density
B B Low stem density
C C No wooded riparian buffer or predominantly herbaceous species or bare ground
23.Continuity of Vegetated Buffer – streamside area metric (skip for Tidal Marsh Streams)
Consider whether vegetated buffer is continuous along stream (parallel). Breaks are areas lacking vegetation > 10-feet wide.
LB RB
A A The total length of buffer breaks is < 25 percent.
B B The total length of buffer breaks is between 25 and 50 percent.
C C The total length of buffer breaks is > 50 percent.
24.Vegetative Composition – First 100 feet of streamside area metric (skip for Tidal Marsh Streams)
Evaluate the dominant vegetation within 100 feet of each bank or to the edge of the watershed (whichever comes first) as it contributes
to assessment reach habitat.
LB RB
A A Vegetation is close to undisturbed in species present and their proportions. Lower strata composed of native
species, with non-native invasive species absent or sparse.
B B Vegetation indicates disturbance in terms of species diversity or proportions, but is still largely composed of native
species. This may include communities of weedy native species that develop after clear-cutting or clearing or
communities with non-native invasive species present, but not dominant, over a large portion of the expected strata or
communities missing understory but retaining canopy trees.
C C Vegetation is severely disturbed in terms of species diversity or proportions. Mature canopy is absent or communities
with non-native invasive species dominant over a large portion of expected strata or communities composed of planted
stands of non-characteristic species or communities inappropriately composed of a single species or no vegetation.
25.Conductivity – assessment reach metric (skip for all Coastal Plain streams)
25a.Yes No Was a conductivity measurement recorded?
If No, select one of the following reasons. No Water Other:
25b.Check the box corresponding to the conductivity measurement (units of microsiemens per centimeter).
A <46 B 46 to < 67 C 67 to < 79 D 79 to < 230 E ≥ 230
Notes/Sketch:
Notes of Field Assessment Form (Y/N)
Presence of regulatory considerations (Y/N)
Additional stream information/supplementary measurements included (Y/N)
NC SAM feature type (perennial, intermittent, Tidal Marsh Stream)
(4) Floodplain Access
(4) Wooded Riparian Buffer
(4) Microtopography
(3) Stream Stability
(4) Channel Stability
(4) Sediment Transport
(4) Stream Geomorphology
(2) Stream/Intertidal Zone Interaction
(2) Longitudinal Tidal Flow
(2) Tidal Marsh Stream Stability
(3) Tidal Marsh Stream Geomorphology
(1) Water Quality
(2) Baseflow
(2) Streamside Area Vegetation
(3) Upland Pollutant Filtration
(3) Thermoregulation
(2) Indicators of Stressors
(2) Aquatic Life Tolerance
(2) Intertidal Zone Filtration
(1) Habitat
(2) In-stream Habitat
(3) Baseflow
(3) Substrate
(3) Stream Stability
(3) In-stream Habitat
(2) Stream-side Habitat
(3) Stream-side Habitat
(3) Thermoregulation
(2) Tidal Marsh In-stream Habitat
(3) Flow Restriction
(3) Tidal Marsh Stream Stability
(4) Tidal Marsh Stream Geomorphology
(3) Tidal Marsh In-stream Habitat
(2) Intertidal Zone Habitat
Overall MEDIUM
MEDIUM
HIGH
MEDIUM
MEDIUM
MEDIUM
HIGH
LOW
HIGH
MEDIUM
HIGH
LOW
MEDIUM
LOW
HIGH
LOW
HIGH
NA
NA
HIGH
NA
MEDIUM
HIGH
HIGH
NA
NA
NA
NA
HIGH
NO
NA
NA
HIGH
HIGH
NA
NA
NA
MEDIUM
(3) Tidal Marsh Channel Stability
(3) Streamside Area Attenuation
Function Class Rating Summary
(1) Hydrology
HIGH
HIGH
NA
NA
NA
NA
NA
MEDIUM
HIGH
LOW
MEDIUM
HIGH
HIGH
MEDIUM
NA
NO
NA
NA
MEDIUM
Stream Site Name
MEDIUM
NA
Mayo Plant Date of Evaluation
MEDIUM
(4) Tidal Marsh Channel Stability
NA
NA
MEDIUM
LOW
HIGH
HIGH
MEDIUM
HIGH
NA
NA
LOW
NA
HIGH
NC SAM Stream Rating Sheet
Accompanies User Manual Version 2.1
LOW
MEDIUM
USACE/
All Streams
NCDWR
Intermittent
NA
NA
(2) Flood Flow
Josh Witherspoon/Wood
July 17, 2018
NO
NO
NO
Intermittent
NA
MEDIUM
HIGH
LOW
(2) Baseflow
Stream Category Assessor Name/Organization
MEDIUM
Pb1
Duke Energy Mayo Ash Basin Landfill Project
Draft Final Environmental Report Joint Section 404/401 IP Application
Wood Project No. 7812200451

October 2020 10-4

APPENDIX B

PLAN-VIEW AND CROSS SECTION DRAWINGS
(these appear in the front of application behind the ENG 4345 Form)

Duke Energy Mayo Ash Basin Landfill Project
Draft Final Environmental Report Joint Section 404/401 IP Application
Wood Project No. 7812200451

October 2020 10-5

APPENDIX C

NCNHP AND USFWS IPAC DATABASE QUERY RESULTS

NCNHDE-12173
June 8, 2020
Laura Meyer
Wood Environment & Infrastructure Solutions, Inc.
4021 Stirrup Creek Drive
Durham, NC 27703
RE: Duke Mayo Proposed Ash Basin Landfill Borrow Areas; 78122000451.01
Dear Laura Meyer:
The North Carolina Natural Heritage Program (NCNHP) appreciates the opportunity to provide
information about natural heritage resources for the project referenced above.
A query of the NCNHP database, based on the project area mapped with your request, indicates
that there are no records for rare species, important natural communities, natural areas, and/or
conservation/managed areas within the proposed project boundary, or within a one-mile radius of
the project boundary.
Please note that although there may be no documentation of natural heritage elements within or
near the project boundary, it does not imply or confirm their absence; the area may not have been
surveyed. The results of this query should not be substituted for field surveys where suitable habitat
exists. In the event that rare species are found within the project area, please contact the NCNHP so
that we may update our records.
Please also note that natural heritage element data are maintained for the purposes of conservation
planning, project review, and scientific research, and are not intended for use as the primary criteria
for regulatory decisions. Information provided by the NCNHP database may not be published
without prior written notification to the NCNHP, and the NCNHP must be credited as an information
source in these publications. Maps of NCNHP data may also not be redistributed without
permission.
If you have questions regarding the information provided in this letter or need additional assistance,
please contact Rodney A. Butler at [e-mail] or 919.707.8603.
Sincerely,
NC Natural Heritage Program
Powered by TCPDF (www.tcpdf.org)
Page 2 of 2
June 08, 2020
United States Department of the Interior
FISH AND WILDLIFE SERVICE
Raleigh Ecological Services Field Office
Post Office Box 33726
Raleigh, NC 27636-3726
Phone: [phone] Fax: [phone]
In Reply Refer To:
Consultation Code: 04EN2000-2020-SLI-1306
Event Code: 04EN2000-2020-E-02980
Project Name: Duke Energy Mayo Proposed Ash Basin Landfill

Subject:List of threatened and endangered species that may occur in your proposed project
location, and/or may be affected by your proposed project
To Whom It May Concern:
The species list generated pursuant to the information you provided identifies threatened,
endangered, proposed and candidate species, as well as proposed and final designated critical
habitat, that may occur within the boundary of your proposed project and/or may be affected by
your proposed project. The species list fulfills the requirements of the U.S. Fish and Wildlife
Service (Service) under section 7(c) of the Endangered Species Act (Act) of 1973, as amended
(16 U.S.C. 1531 et seq.).
New information based on updated surveys, changes in the abundance and distribution of
species, changed habitat conditions, or other factors could change this list. Please feel free to
contact us if you need more current information or assistance regarding the potential impacts to
federally proposed, listed, and candidate species and federally designated and proposed critical
habitat. Please note that under 50 CFR 402.12(e) of the regulations implementing section 7 of the
Act, the accuracy of this species list should be verified after 90 days. This verification can be
completed formally or informally as desired. The Service recommends that verification be
completed by visiting the ECOS-IPaC website at regular intervals during project planning and
implementation for updates to species lists and information. An updated list may be requested
through the ECOS-IPaC system by completing the same process used to receive the enclosed list.
Section 7 of the Act requires that all federal agencies (or their designated non-federal
representative), in consultation with the Service, insure that any action federally authorized,
funded, or carried out by such agencies is not likely to jeopardize the continued existence of any
federally-listed endangered or threatened species. A biological assessment or evaluation may be
prepared to fulfill that requirement and in determining whether additional consultation with the
Service is necessary. In addition to the federally-protected species list, information on the
species' life histories and habitats and information on completing a biological assessment or
06/08/2020 Event Code: 04EN2000-2020-E-02980   2

evaluation and can be found on our web page at http://www.fws.gov/raleigh. Please check the
web site often for updated information or changes
If your project contains suitable habitat for any of the federally-listed species known to be
present within the county where your project occurs, the proposed action has the potential to
adversely affect those species. As such, we recommend that surveys be conducted to determine
the species' presence or absence within the project area. The use of North Carolina Natural
Heritage program data should not be substituted for actual field surveys.
If you determine that the proposed action may affect (i.e., likely to adversely affect or not likely
to adversely affect) a federally-protected species, you should notify this office with your
determination, the results of your surveys, survey methodologies, and an analysis of the effects
of the action on listed species, including consideration of direct, indirect, and cumulative effects,
before conducting any activities that might affect the species. If you determine that the proposed
action will have no effect (i.e., no beneficial or adverse, direct or indirect effect) on federally
listed species, then you are not required to contact our office for concurrence (unless an
Environmental Impact Statement is prepared). However, you should maintain a complete record
of the assessment, including steps leading to your determination of effect, the qualified personnel
conducting the assessment, habitat conditions, site photographs, and any other related articles.
Please be aware that bald and golden eagles are protected under the Bald and Golden Eagle
Protection Act (16 U.S.C. 668 et seq.), and projects affecting these species may require
development of an eagle conservation plan (http://www.fws.gov/windenergy/
eagle_guidance.html). Additionally, wind energy projects should follow the wind energy
guidelines (http://www.fws.gov/windenergy/) for minimizing impacts to migratory birds and
bats.
Guidance for minimizing impacts to migratory birds for projects including communications
towers (e.g., cellular, digital television, radio, and emergency broadcast) can be found at: http://
www.fws.gov/migratorybirds/CurrentBirdIssues/Hazards/towers/towers.htm; http://
www.towerkill.com; and http://www.fws.gov/migratorybirds/CurrentBirdIssues/Hazards/towers/
comtow.html.
Not all Threatened and Endangered Species that occur in North Carolina are subject to section 7
consultation with the U.S Fish and Wildlife Service. Atlantic and shortnose sturgeon, sea
turtles,when in the water, and certain marine mammals are under purview of the National Marine
Fisheries Service. If your project occurs in marine, estuarine, or coastal river systems you should
also contact the National Marine Fisheries Service, http://www.nmfs.noaa.gov/
We appreciate your concern for threatened and endangered species. The Service encourages
Federal agencies to include conservation of threatened and endangered species into their project
planning to further the purposes of the Act. Please include the Consultation Tracking Number in
the header of this letter with any request for consultation or correspondence about your project
that you submit to our office. If you have any questions or comments, please contact John Ellis
of this office at [e-mail].
06/08/2020 Event Code: 04EN2000-2020-E-02980   3

▪
Attachment(s):
Official Species List
06/08/2020 Event Code: 04EN2000-2020-E-02980   1

Official Species List
This list is provided pursuant to Section 7 of the Endangered Species Act, and fulfills the
requirement for Federal agencies to "request of the Secretary of the Interior information whether
any species which is listed or proposed to be listed may be present in the area of a proposed
action".
This species list is provided by:
Raleigh Ecological Services Field Office
Post Office Box 33726
Raleigh, NC 27636-3726
[phone]
06/08/2020 Event Code: 04EN2000-2020-E-02980   2

Project Summary
Consultation Code:04EN2000-2020-SLI-1306
Event Code:04EN2000-2020-E-02980
Project Name:Duke Energy Mayo Proposed Ash Basin Landfill
Project Type:Landfill
Project Description:Proposed borrow areas for the proposed ash basin landfill at Duke Energy
Mayo Steam Station.
Project Location:
Approximate location of the project can be viewed in Google Maps: https://
www.google.com/maps/place/36.53270141867358N78.89679082979697W
Counties:Person, NC
06/08/2020 Event Code: 04EN2000-2020-E-02980   3

1.
Endangered Species Act Species
There is a total of 0 threatened, endangered, or candidate species on this species list.
Species on this list should be considered in an effects analysis for your project and could include
species that exist in another geographic area. For example, certain fish may appear on the species
list because a project could affect downstream species.
IPaC does not display listed species or critical habitats under the sole jurisdiction of NOAA
Fisheries , as USFWS does not have the authority to speak on behalf of NOAA and the
Department of Commerce.
See the "Critical habitats" section below for those critical habitats that lie wholly or partially
within your project area under this office's jurisdiction. Please contact the designated FWS office
if you have questions.
NOAA Fisheries, also known as the National Marine Fisheries Service (NMFS), is an
office of the National Oceanic and Atmospheric Administration within the Department of
Commerce.
Critical habitats
THERE ARE NO CRITICAL HABITATS WITHIN YOUR PROJECT AREA UNDER THIS OFFICE'S
JURISDICTION.
1
Duke Energy Mayo Ash Basin Landfill Project
Draft Final Environmental Report Joint Section 404/401 IP Application
Wood Project No. 7812200451

October 2020 10-6

APPENDIX D

CULTURAL RESOURCES ASSESSMENT REPORT

May 27, 2020

Cultural Resource Review – Duke PNG Line 467, NC Page 1 of 4

Cultural Resource Literature and Records Review for the Mayo
Peed Project in Person County, North Carolina

Wood Environment and Infrastructure Solutions, Inc. (Wood) conducted a cultural resources literature and
records review of known archaeological and historical resources for the proposed Duke Energy Mayo
Peed Project Area and one-mile radius Area of Potential Effects (APE). Wood consulted the HPOWEB GIS
webpage maintained by the North Carolina Historic Preservation Office (NCHPO), the data inventory and
library housed at the North Carolina Office of State Archaeology (NC OSA) in Raleigh, North Carolina, and
the records held at the Person County Register of Deeds in Roxboro, North Carolina. For this review, the
Mayo Peed Project Area includes an approximately 57-acre property located between the Mayo Lake
Road (SR 1501) and the Virginia-North Carolina state line approximately 11 miles northeast of Roxboro in
Person County, North Carolina.
Results of the cultural resources research indicate that there are three previously recorded archaeology
sites and one historic structure within a mile radius of the Project Area boundaries. There is one recorded
historic cemetery located within the proposed Project Area.
Archaeological Resources
Using the NC OSA site file records, Wood reviewed the information provided in the site forms for any
previously recorded archaeology sites within the Project Area and APE. Table 1 summarizes the relevant
information, detailing the site numbers, site types, and National Register of Historic Places (NRHP)
eligibility for each site. A site may be recommended not eligible, undetermined, or eligible for listing in
the NRHP. Undetermined means that additional work is required to accurately evaluate the eligibility of
the resource.
There are three previously recorded archaeology sites located within a one-mile radius of the Project Area.
(Figure 1, Table 1). Sites 31PR7, 31PR8, and 31PR9 are not eligible for Register status.
Table 1. Previously recorded archaeology sites located the vicinity of the Project Area.
Site No. Site Type NRHP Eligibility Reference
31PR7 Unknown prehistoric lithic scatter Not Eligible NC OSA 2020
31PR8 Unknown prehistoric lithic scatter Not Eligible NC OSA 2020
31PR9 19th c. historic brick scatter Not Eligible NC OSA 2020

Sites 31PR7 and 31PR8 are both prehistoric lithic scatters of unknown temporal affiliation. These sites
were both located east of Mayo Creek on the south side of SR 1501. Identified and recorded during a
1977 survey of the area in preparation for the formation of the Mayo Reservoir, these sites are now
inundated beneath the reservoir. Both 31PR7 and 31PR8 are not eligible for listing in the NRHP (NC OSA
2020).
Site 31PR9 is an historic brick scatter dating to the nineteenth century. There were no artifacts recovered
associated with this site. The site was located east of Mayo Creek and south of SR 1501. Site 31PR9 was
identified and recorded during the same 1977 survey as sites 31PR7 and 31PR8 and is also now inundated
beneath the Mayo Reservoir. Site 31PR9 is considered not eligible for listing in the NRHP (NC OSA 2020).
May 27, 2020

Cultural Resource Review – Duke PNG Line 467, NC Page 2 of 4

Consulting the Person County GIS Department’s online Tax Parcel Viewer during the preplanning phase of
this project identified an “Unknown slave/Indian Cemetery” within the Project Area (Person Co Register of
Deeds 2020). Consultation with NC OSA and HPOWEB GIS, revealed that there is no site record of this
cemetery within the NCHPO database of previously recorded sites. Wood reviewed the records of the
cemetery held at the Person County Register of Deeds in Roxboro, North Carolina and consulted with the
Registrar that recorded the cemetery for more information.
The cemetery is located on a terrace that overlooks Crutchfield Creek to the east Figure 2 and 3). The site
is roughly bordered by two access roads: a gravel road that runs roughly north-south on the west side of
the cemetery, and a dirt road that branches off of the gravel road and runs east-west partially through the
southern edge of the cemetery boundary. Thirty-seven graves were observed within the cemetery
boundary, of which 36 are marked with either headstones, footstones, or both. The headstones and
footstones all appear to be various types of field stones and none of the head stones bare any inscription
or decoration. Headstones are only distinguishable from footstones by their larger size. All the graves are
oriented facing the east in an open forested area with an understory of periwinkle and some immature
deciduous trees.
With no indication of the people or community buried in the cemetery on site, historical records suggest
there are two potential groups that this cemetery may be affiliated with: the Crutchfield Plantation slaves,
and an mixed-heritage indigenous community identified as the Person County Indians (MacCaughelty
1948). Evidence in the historical record is sparse, but an argument may be made for either of these groups
having interred their deceased in the cemetery. The cemetery is located on land originally purchased by
Stapleton Crutchfield sometime between 1851 and 1881. The original parcel consisted of 496.25 acres
located in the Bethel Hill community of North Carolina and crossed the NC-VA state line. In 1860,
Crutchfield is recoded to have owned 11 slaves. Crutchfield lived on the property with his wife and their
nine children and the family seemed to have made it through the Civil War and Reconstruction periods in
fairly good standing (Eaker 1981: 214–215). There was a family plot on the east side of Crutchfield creek
that contained nine members of the Crutchfield family. This family cemetery was moved in 1979 to the
Bethel Hill Church cemetery in Roxboro, NC (Person Co. Deed Book 88: 308–309). Although the
Crutchfield’s are recorded to have owned only 11 slaves, an explanation for the 26 other graves in the
cemetery could be that the family members of those interred there continued to use the cemetery after
the abolishment of slavery.
The cemetery may also contain people belonging to the Person County Indian community. An article from
the Durham Morning Herald (MacCaughelty March 21, 1948) described a mixed-heritage indigenous
community that lived on the land on either side of the NC-VA state line, east of Highway 501. According
to MacCaughelty, in the living memory of the Person County Indians in 1948, no one remembered their
traditional language and had always practiced an American-European lifestyle. The community is further
described as having its own school, and a church and Sunday school that congregated at Calvary Baptist
Church near Christie, VA (MacCaughelty 1948). Christie, VA is within four miles of the cemetery location,
so it is possible that the cemetery contains the deceased of the Person County Indian community. More
research about the “Unknown Slave/Indian Cemetery” is needed to make a determination of the
community to which it belongs.
May 27, 2020

Cultural Resource Review – Duke PNG Line 467, NC Page 3 of 4

Historic Architectural Resources
Wood reviewed the historic architectural information provided by the HPOWEB GIS webpage maintained
by the North Carolina Historic Preservation Office (NCHPO) to identify historical structures within the
Project Area and APE. Table 2 summarizes the relevant information, detailing the historic resource names,
description, temporal affiliation, and NRHP eligibility for each location. An historic resource may be
recommended as not eligible, undetermined, or eligible for listing in the NRHP. Undetermined means that
additional work is required to accurately evaluate the eligibility of the resource.
A total of one historic resource was located within the APE: an historic house that requires additional work
to determine its NRHP eligibility status (Figure 1, Table 2).
Table 8.2. Previously recorded historic architectural resources located in the vicinity of the Project Area.
Resource Description Temporal
Affiliation NRHP Eligibility
31PR59 Three-story framed house Late 19th c. Undetermined (Surveyed, gone)
n.d. = no data listed.
Site 31PR59 was a three-story framed house dating to the late nineteenth century. This resource was only
surveyed before it was destroyed or moved to a different location. Although this resource was surveyed
and identified, there was no recommendation for its NRHP eligibility status prior to its removal from the
property (HPOWEB 2020).
Historic Maps
Based on aerial photography, the Project Area has undergone little change or development. The Greensboro
NC-VA USGS topographic maps from 1953 and 1962 show little land use within the Project Area, and no
historic structures are indicated within the APE. The 1968 Cluster Springs USGS map also shows that no
structures are present within the Project Area; however, there are a handful of structures shown along the
west side of Highway 501; a structure within approximately 825 ft of the western boundary of the Project
Area, and half a dozen structures that are in the footprint of the Duke Mayo Plant within the APE. The major
changes noticeable within the APE are the development of the Mayo Reservoir and Duke Mayo Plant.
SUMMARY
The cultural resources literature and records review indicate there are no previously recorded
archaeological sites, historic structure, or historic areas located within the Project Area. However, there is a
cemetery located within the western half of the Project Area that was recorded by the Person County
Register of Deeds in 2019. No record of the cemetery or any other historic structures appear on the
historic maps. The records search of the NCHPO and NC OSA files show that there are three previously
recorded archaeology sites and one historic structure within the one-mile APE. Of these cultural resources,
none are eligible for listing in the NRHP. However, avoidance of the cemetery is recommended.
Based on the results of this cultural resources literature and records review, the proposed borrow pit project
is not expected to impact any known archaeological sites. It is also unlikely that the proposed project will
present any adverse effects to any known historic structures. Due to the limited number of cultural resources
surveys in the area, the lack of previously recorded sites and structures is not indicative of a complete absence
of these resources. This records search has been provided for planning purposes and consultation with the
May 27, 2020

Cultural Resource Review – Duke PNG Line 467, NC Page 4 of 4

North Carolina Office of State Archaeology is advised to satisfy the full requirements for the Section 106
process.

Report written by Lauren Christian, MA, RPA #17112

References

Eaker, Madeline Hall
1981 The Heritage of Person County. Person Co Historical Society. Roxboro, NC. (p. 213-214).

MacCaughelty, Tom
1948 The Indians of Person County: History of Proud and Handsome Tribe of Indians Near
Roxboro may be Connected with Lost Colony Mystery; about 70 Families live in Extended
Farming Community." Durham Morning Herald, March 21, 1948.

Halifax County Register of Deeds.
1850-1860 Deed Book 49, page 535. Halifax, VA.

Person County Register of Deeds
2020 Cemeteries. GIS Department. https://gis.personcountync.gov/cemeteries/. Accessed April
21, 2020.

1960-1980 Deed Book 88, pages 308-309. Roxboro, NC.

United States Geological Survey (USGS)
1953 Greensboro NC-VA. (1:250,000) Map. 1953 ed. U.S. Department of the Interior. Reston, VA

1962 Greensboro NC-VA. (1:250,000) Map. 1962 ed. U.S. Department of the Interior. Reston, VA

1968 Cluster Springs VA-NC. (1:24,000) Map. 1968 ed. U.S. Department of the Interior. Reston, VA

The map shown here has been created with all
due and reasonable care and is strictly for use with
Wood Environment & Infrastructure Solutions, Inc.
Project Number: 7812200451.01. Wood assumes
no liability, direct or indirect, whatsoever for any
third party or unintended use.
Legend
Job No:
7812200451.01
Drawn By: CSP
Reviewed By: LC
Date: 27APR2020
""
$$
$$
$$
$$
$$
$$
$$
$$
$$
$$
$$$
$$$
$$$
$$$
I 0 5,0002,500
Feet
31PR7
Figure 1. Previously-Recorded
Cultural Resources within a 1-Mile Radius
Mayo Peed Site
Site Boundary
1-Mile Site Buffer
Archeological Sites
$$$Historic Structure - Surveyed, Gone
PR0059
31PR8
31PR9
USGS The National Map: National Boundaries Dataset, 3DEP Elevation Program,
Geographic Names Information System, National Hydrography Dataset, National Land
Cover Database, National Structures Dataset, and National Transportation Dataset;
USGS Global Ecosystems; U.S. Census Bureau TIGER/Line data; USFS Road Data;
Natural Earth Data; U.S. Department of State Humanitarian Information Unit; and NOAA
National Centers for Environmental Information, U.S. Coastal Relief Model. Data
refreshed February, 2020.
0 50 10025
Miles
Site
The map shown here has been created with all
due and reasonable care and is strictly for use with
Wood Environment & Infrastructure Solutions, Inc.
Project Number: 7812200451.01. Wood assumes
no liability, direct or indirect, whatsoever for any
third party or unintended use.
Legend
Job No:
7812200451.01
Drawn By: CSP
Reviewed By: LC
Date: 04MAY2020
I 0 1,000500
Feet
Figure 2. Topographic Map of the
Unknown Indian/Slave Cemetery
within the Project Area
Mayo Peed Site
Site Boundary
Unknown Indian/Slave Cemetery
USGS The National Map: National Boundaries Dataset, 3DEP Elevation Program,
Geographic Names Information System, National Hydrography Dataset, National Land
Cover Database, National Structures Dataset, and National Transportation Dataset;
USGS Global Ecosystems; U.S. Census Bureau TIGER/Line data; USFS Road Data;
Natural Earth Data; U.S. Department of State Humanitarian Information Unit; and NOAA
National Centers for Environmental Information, U.S. Coastal Relief Model. Data
refreshed February, 2020.
0 50 10025
Miles
Site
The map shown here has been created with all
due and reasonable care and is strictly for use with
Wood Environment & Infrastructure Solutions, Inc.
Project Number: 7812200451.01. Wood assumes
no liability, direct or indirect, whatsoever for any
third party or unintended use.
Legend
Job No:
7812200451.01
Drawn By: CSP
Reviewed By: LC
Date: 04MAY2020
I 0 1,000500
Feet
Figure 3. Aerial Map of the
Unknown Indian/Slave Cemetery
within the Project Area
Mayo Peed Site
Site Boundary
Unknown Indian/Slave Cemetery
USGS The National Map: National Boundaries Dataset, 3DEP Elevation Program,
Geographic Names Information System, National Hydrography Dataset, National Land
Cover Database, National Structures Dataset, and National Transportation Dataset;
USGS Global Ecosystems; U.S. Census Bureau TIGER/Line data; USFS Road Data;
Natural Earth Data; U.S. Department of State Humanitarian Information Unit; and NOAA
National Centers for Environmental Information, U.S. Coastal Relief Model. Data
refreshed February, 2020.
0 50 10025
Miles
Site
Duke Energy Mayo Ash Basin Landfill Project
Draft Final Environmental Report Joint Section 404/401 IP Application
Wood Project No. 7812200451

October 2020 10-7

APPENDIX E

CULTURAL RESOURCES CEMETERY SITE FORM

North Carolina Cemetery Site Form
Identity
Cemetery name(s) __________________________________________________________________
State site number: 31____________ State Property Office complex number ____ ____ ________
Other site numbers ______________ Organization assigning other number __________________
Recorded by ______________________ Organization name (if any) ___________________________
Mailing address_______________________________________________________________________
Phone number(s) __________________________ Email _________________________________
Form submitted by _______________________________________ Date Submitted__________
Reason for recording cemetery __________________________________________________________
If compliance, provide:
Tracking number _____________________________________
Compliance project name_________________________________________________________
Location and Ownership
Datum: NAD27
NAD83
County ___________________________ City, town, community or township ____________________
Cemetery address (if applicable) __________________________________________________________
Directions to cemetery:
Access to cemetery: (explain)_______________________________________
USGS topographic quadrangle map name__________________________________________________
Provide coordinates in Latitude ____* _____’ _____” Longitude ____* _____’ _____”
OR Universal Transverse Mercator (UTM)
Zone ___ Easting ___________ Northing _____________
***Please attach a map showing the cemetery’s location***
Restricted
Unrestricted
Cemetery owner name and address:
(CTY) (CO) (COMP)
1
Size of cemetery (approx) __________________
Number of graves (approximate) ________________

Is the cemetery enclosed?
Condition of enclosure
Good
Poor
Other _____________________________________
legible markers ________ Number of marked graves _________
Period of use began ______________
unmarked graves ________
Period of use ended __________
Date of earliest marker __________ Date of most recent marker __________
Marker type(s) wood
limestone
granite
marble
concrete
ceramic
encased paper
other_______________________________
If unusual markers present, please describe:
**Please use the table attached to list the individuals buried in the cemetery
and provide transcriptions of any marker inscriptions**
Yes
No
Description
Public cemetery ______________________
Private cemetery:
Entity Name _________________________________
Family
Church (Name, denomination)________________________________________
Fraternal/Organization (Name)_______________________________________
Other (explain) ____________________________________________________
Status: in use
maintained
neglected
abandoned
Type of enclosure:wall
fence
hedge
other__________________________
Cultural Affiliation:Native American
African American
Slave
White
Unknown
Other _______________
Are historic or prehistoric artifacts present?
Yes
No Describe ___________________________________________________________________
2
Unknown
Other means (describe) ________________________________________________________ ___
Publication (Please provide publication information and/or Web address):
Special/historical significance of cemetery:
Research potential:____________________________________________________________________
Recommendations :____________________________________________________________________
Any other information pertinent to the cemetery:
Environment and Condition
Topographic situation____________
Slope range: low ___ % high ___ %Slope Face Direction _______________
Modern vegetation __________ __Elevation
(feet AMSL) _________
Nearest water type : ________
Ground visibility: low _____ % high ______ %
Distance to water (meters): _____
Drainage basin: ______________
General condition of cemetery:
Well maintained and preserved
Marginally maintained
Not maintained
Overgrown, but easily identifiable
Overgrown, not identifiable
Not identifiable as burial site (known to exist by oral tradition)
Explain: _________________________________________________
Development or construction activities
Custodial care
Natural activities
Neglect or attrition
Vandalism
Animals/grazing
Farming operations
Industrial operations
Have markers or other aspects of cemetery been damaged?
Damage caused by (check all that apply):
Yes
No
Soil Series name ________________________________ NRCS soil type code:___________
Soil type ________
Percent destroyed (estimate) _____ Date destroyed, if known __________
Is cemetery currently threatened?
Yes
No
(please expl ai n) _______________________________
Has the cemetery been documented in a cemetery survey? Yes
No
3
OFFICE OF STATE ARCHAEOLOGY USE
National Register Status Criterion
A B C D
Date listed _______
Form Checked by ___________________ Date__________
Please mail completed form, map and any photographic attachments to:
Rosie Blewitt-Golsch
Site Registrar
Office of State Archaeology
4619 Mail Service Center
Raleigh, NC 27699-4619
Please contact Rosie Blewitt-Golsch ([e-mail], 919/807-6558) or Sam Franklin,
GIS Specialist ([e-mail], 919/807-6563) with any questions.
Locational reliability
Form reliability
Determined Eligible
Placed on the Study List
Approved for Nomination by NRAC
Currently listed on NRHP
Removed from NRHP
Not eligible after evaluation
Unassessed
North Carolina Archaeological Record Program
Accurate
Unknown
Unreliable
Within 100 meter radius
Within 500 meter radius
Within 1 km radiusComplete
Incomplete
Unreliable
4
Name(s) on marker Birth
date
Death
Date
Marker
Type
Marker
Material
Condition
of marker Inscription
31______
5