20140603 Ver 1_Stream Call Request_20140616

_ VED r
CL
North Carolina Department of Environment and Natural Resources
J U N 16 2014
Pat McCrory John E. Skvarla, III
Govern gr ^ Secretary
DWQ Use Only: Project# f t7-J b?
Stream Origin /Buffer Applicability Determination
Required Information
1. Owner Information (corporationlindividual who is legally responsible for the property and its compliance)
la. Name(s) on Recorded Deed
William C. Haddock
1b. Responsible Party (for LLC)
N/A
1c. Mailing Address
909 Ceylon Road, Chocowinity, NC 27817
1d. Telephone Number
252 - 714 -1088
1 le. Email Address
5a. Name of project
2. Location of Project Site - please include the county, nearest named town and highway number.
The project site is located in southwestern Beaufort County just south of the Town of Chocowinity. The site is west of US Highway
17, south of Cayton Road, and north of NC Highway 102.
3. Has anyone from DWQ visited the site?
Y / N
I Staff Name
I N/A
Date of Visit?
N/A
Additional Requested Information
4. Agent/Consultant Information (if applicable)
4a. Name, Company
Jason Hartshorn, Kimley -Horn and Associates, Inc.
4b. Mailing address
P.O. Box 33068, Raleigh, NC 27636 -3068
4c. Telephone no.
919 - 678 -4155
4d. Email address
Jason. Hartshom@kimley- hom.com
5. Project and Site Information
5a. Name of project
Beaufort Solar Site
5b. County
Beaufort
5c. Nearest Named Stream
Horse Branch
5d. River Basin
Tar- Pamlioo
5e. Provide a brief description of this project (attach site plan if available):
The proposed development project will consist of a solar power generation site within a primarily agricultural area.
Please attach a map of the site Indicating project boundaries on the USGS 1:24,000 Topo and /or NRCS Soil Survey.
If you are unable to locate either of these maps, lease contact the Regional Office for assistance.
I DWQ Use Only: Is this stream call for the purpose of: _ buffer mitigation _ nutrient offset credit I
Please return form to: Anthony Scarbraugh
943 Washington Square Mall
Washington, NC 27889
Fax: [phone]
Email: anthonv.scarbrauchd5ricdenr.cov,
Note: Submittals on Friday after 12.'00 pm
will be stamped as received on the
next business day.
Please contact Anthony Scarbraugh at (252) 9466481 if you have any questions.
Division of Water Resources- Water Oudity Regional Operations Section- Washington Regions. ,ifice
943 Washington Square Mall, Washington, NC 27889
Phone: [phone] Fax: [phone]\ Internet www.ncdenr.gov
An Equal Oppa" r ARrmabve Action Employer — Made In pan by recycled paper

I�1
MARTIN
Project Location
GREENE
w
yz
5
LENOIR �
_.... 6�
KimleyoHorn
I as
—1y y
y RD C
0
�g
o �
G 'CAY D QOT04f1
c
�4o e< °P
T
� O
m he
d
G O 1 ER RD K
O WI
?�
GPO �
U
C TYRRELL
DARE
O
F CC
ee
d
HYDE / 4f�i7 Leaend
�' CO
J[:D Project Study Area
PAMLICO
CARTERET Z 0 8,000 16,000
Feet
Figure 1: Vicinity Map
Beaufort Solar
Beaufort County, NC
June 2014

c
MA
. s .
v -
i
Leaend
CD Project Study Area
•��!
IT' �
Figure 2: USGS Topographic Map:
0 1,000 2,000
Wilmer (1983) and Hackney (1983) Quads
Kimley ,» Horn
Feet
Beaufort Solar
Beaufort County, NC
June 2014

North Carolina Division of Water Quality - Stream Identification Form, Version 4.11
Date: 6/5/2014
Project/Site:
Beaufort Solar:
Ditch 1
Latitude:
35.457778
Evaluator: J. Hartshorn
R. Sullian (KHA)
Sullivan (KH )
County:
Beaufort
Longitude:
- 77.137555
Total Points: 12.75
3
2. Sinuosity of channel along thalweg
0
1
2
S etermination (circle one)
Other
Wilmar and
Stream is at least intermittent
E hemer
ntermittent Perennial
e.g. Quad Name:
Hackney Quads
if a 19 or perennial If ? 30
0
1
2
3
A. Geomorphology Subtotal = 4
Absent
FWeak
Moderate
Strong
Score
1a. Continuity of channel bed and bank
0
1
2
1
3
2. Sinuosity of channel along thalweg
0
1
2
3
0
3. In- channel structure: ex. riffle -pool, step -pool, ripple.
ool se uence
0
1
2
3
0
4. Particle size of stream substrate
0
1
2
3
1
5. Active /relic flood lain
0
1
2
3
0
6. De ositional bars or benches
0
1
2
1 3
0
7. Recent alluvial deposits
0
1
2
3
0
8. Headcuts
0
1
2
3
0
9. Grade control
0
0.5
1
1.5
0
10. Natural valley
0
0.5
1
1.5
0
11. Second or greater order channel
No = 0
Yes = 3
0
artificial ditches are not rated: see discussions in manual
B. Hydrology Subtotal = 4.5
12. Presence of Baseflow
0
1
2
3
0
13. Iron oxidizing bacteria
0
1
2
3
0
14. Leaf litter
1.5
1
0.5
0
1.5
15. Sediment on plants or debris
0
0.5
1
1.5
0
16. Organic debris lines or piles
0
0.5
1
1.5
0
17. Soil -based evidence of high water table?
No = 0
yes = 3
3
C. Biology Subtotal = 4.25
18. Fibrous roots in streambed
3
2
1
0
0
19. Rooted upland plants in streambed
3
2
1
0
3
20. Macrobenthos note diversity and abundance
0
1
2
3
0
21. Aquatic Mollusks
0
1
2
3
0
22. Fish
0
0.5
1
1.5
0
23. Crayfish
0
0.5
1
1.5
0
24. Amphibians
0
0.5
1
1.5
0
25. Algae
0
0.5
1
1.5
0.5
26. Wetland plants in streambed
FACW = 0.75; OBL = 1.5, Other = 0
0.75
'perennial streams may also be identified using other methods. See p. 35 of manual.

USAGE AIW_ D W Q At Site #_ (indicate on allachcd map)
M STREAM QUALITY ASSESSMENT WORKSHEET _A40
Provide the following information for the stream reach under assessment:
I. Appl;eanl•s name: Element Power , 1. Hartshorn (KHA), R. Sullivan (KHA)
3. Date of evaluation: 06/05/2014
5. Name of stream: Ditch 1
7, Approximate drainage area: 83 acres
9. Length of each evaluated: 100 feet
11. Site coordinalcs (if known):
Ladtud° lcs. 34.9r.112):
prefer in decimal degrees.
35.457778
4. Time of e4'aluatlon: 11 :30 am
6. River basin: Tar River
IL Stream order: First "' der
10. County: Beaufort
12. Subdivision munc (if arty): N/A
Longimdeles. 71.5564111: -77.137555
Method [motion doermin d leimle): ✓QiPSEkopo SheviD)nhu tAcnal) Ptxac %61S[3]XMr GISOAhcr
13. Location of reach under evaluation (note nearbv roads and landmarks and attach map identifying streams) location):
The eastern end of Ditch i near the intersection with Ditch 2 was evaluated
14. Proposed channel work Iifany): N/A
15. Recent weather conditions: Sunny and dry with temperatures ranging from 63 to 93 degrees Farenheit
16. Site conditions at time of visit: Sunny and hot with temperatures in the low 90's Farenheit
17. Identify any special waterway classifications known: IIScclion 10 DTidal Waters IIEssential Fisheries Habitat
IITrout Waters Doutstanding Resource Waters Z Nutrient Sensitive Waters DWatcr Supply Watershed (I -IV)
18. Is there a pund or lake located upstream of the evaluation point? NO If yes, estimate the water surface area:
19. Does channel appear on USGS quad maI ? YES 20. Does channel appear on USDA Soil Survey? NO
21. Estimated watershed land use: _ °'° Residential _% Commercial _% Industrial 100 % Agricultural
Forested _ %C'Icared /Logged _%Other(
22. Bankfull width: 6' 23. Bank height (from bed to top of bank): 3'
24. Channel slope down center of stream: II✓ Flat (0 to 2 %) 0GcmIc (2 to 4%) OModerate (4 to 10%) OSteep (> 10°' °)
25. Channel sinuosity: JW1 Straight DOccasional bends DFrequcnt meander DVery sinuous OBraided channel
Instructions for completion of worksheet (located on page 2): Begin by determining the most appropriate ecoregion based on
location, terrain, vegetation, stream classification. etc. Every characteristic must be scored using the same ccorcgion. Assign points
to each characteristic within the range shown for the ccorcgion. Page 3 provides a brief description of how to review the
characteristics identified in the wurkshco. Scores should reflect an overall assessment of the stream reach under evaluation. If a
characteristic cannot be evaluated due to site or weather conditions, enter 0 in the scoring box and provide an explanation in the
comment section. When: them are obvious changes in the character of a stream under review (e.g., the stream flows from a pasture
into a forest). the stream may be divided into smaller reaches that display more continuity, and a separate form used to evaluate each
reach. The total score assigned to a stream reach must range between 0 and 100, with a score of 100 representing a stream of the
highest quality.
21
Total Score (from reverse): Comments:
Ditch 1 Is a linear agricultural ditch with no flow or pods It Is heavily vegetated throughout a majority of the channel Small
areas without vegetation have algal mats but ng water was observed during the site visit The culvgr_Lthat conneds Ditch 1.1Q-
Ditch 2 apMrs buried M sediment.
Evaluator's Signature ` /awn Datc 06/05/2014
This channel evaluation form Is Intended to be used only as a guide to assist landowners and environmental professionals in
gathering the data required by the United States Army Corps of Engineers to make a preliminary assessment of stream
quality. The total score resulting from the completion of this form is subject to USACE approval and does not imply a
particular mitigation ratio or requirement. Fora) subject to change version 06/03. To Comment, please call 919- 876 -8441 x 26.

Ditch 1
STREAM QUALITY ASSESSMENT WORKSHEET
• These characteristics are not assessed in coastal struarm.
#
CHARACTERISTICS
ECOREG16N POINT RANGE
SCORE
Coastal
Piedmont
Mountain
I
Presence of flow / persistent pools in stream
0
(no Flow or saturation = 0; strop flow = max points)
0-5
0 - 4
0-5
2
Evidence of past human alteration
0
extensive alteration = 0; no alteration = max points)
0- 6
0- 5
0- 5
3
Riparian zone
0-6
0-4
0-5
1
(no buffer = 0; contiguous, wide buffer = max points)
4
Evidence of nutrient or chemical discharges
0- 5
4
extensive discharges = 0; no discharges = max points)
0- 4
0- 4
d
5
Groundwater discharge
0- 3
0- 4
0- 4
0
Q
(no discharge = 0; springs, see s, wetlands, etc. = max points)
6
Presence of adjacent floodplain
0-4
0
0
y,
no floodplain = 0; extensive floodplain = max points)
- 4
0-2
7
Entrenchment I floodplain access
0-
0
96
(deeply entrenched = 0; fr ucnt flooding = max points)
5
0- 4
0- 2
g
Presence of adjacent wetlands
0-6
0-4
0-2
0
no wetlands = 0; large adjacent wetlands = max points)
9
Channel sinuosity
0 -5
0 -4
0 -3
0
extensive channelization = 0; natural meander = max ints
10
Sediment input
0 -5
0 -4
0 -4
4
extensive deposition= 0; little or no sediment = max points)
Size & diversity of channel bed substrate
NA'
0-4
0 - 5
N/A
(fine, homogenous = 0; large, diverse sizes =max points)
12
Evidence of channel Incision or widening
0 -5
0 -4
0 -5
0
(deeply incised = 0; stable bed &banks =max points)
•,
13
Presence of major bank failures
0-5
0 - 5
0-5
4
(severe erosion = 0; no erosion, stable banks = max points)
14
Root depth and density on banks
0-3
0
Z
E+
(no visible roots = 0; dense roots throughout = max ints)
- 4
0-5
15
Impact by agriculture, livestock, or limber prodution
c
0
substantial impact
ct =0; no evidence = ax i Ian
0-5
0 - 4
0-5
16
Presence of riffle-pooVripple -pool complexes
0- 3
0- 5
0- 6
0
F
(no riffles/ripples les or -0cv
Is = 0: well clo d = max points)
C
17
Habitat complexity
0 -6
0 -6
0 -6
3
I-
(little or no habitat = 0; frequent, varied habitats = max points)
18
Canopy coverage over streambed
0-5
0 - 5
0-5
0
x
no shading vegetation = 0; continuous ca m
= max points)
19
Substrate embeddedaess
NA•
0- 4
0- 4
1
(deeply embedded = 0: loose structure =max)
20
Presence of stream Invertebrates (sec page 4)
0-4
0 - 5
0-5
0
(no evidence = 0; comnwn, numerous types = max points)
0
21
Presence of amphibians
0- 4
0- 4
0- 4
0
0
(no evidence = 0; common, numerous t s = max points)
O
22
Presence of fish
0 -4
0 -4
0 -4
0
no evidence = 0; common, numerous type = max points)
m
23
Evidence of wildlife use
0- 6
0- 5
0- 5
2
(no evidence = 0; abundant evidence = max ints)
Total Points Possible
100
100
100
TOTAL SCORE (also enter on first page)
21
• These characteristics are not assessed in coastal struarm.

North Carolina Division of Water Quality - Stream Identification Form, Version 4.11
Date: 6/5/2014
Project/Site:
Beaufort Solar:
Ditch 2
Latitude:
35.457843
Evaluator: J. Hartshorn (KHA),
County:
Beaufort
Longitude:
- 77.130671
R. Sullivan (KHA)
3
2. Sinuosity of channel along thalweg
0
1
Total Points: 13.25
JUraMJaetermination (circle one)
Other
Wilmar and
Stream is at least intermittent 4
--EphemeraDntermittent
Perennial
e.g. Quad Name.
Hackney Quads
if z 19 or perennial if a 30
0
0.5
2
3
A. Geomorphology Subtotal = 4
Absent
Weak
Moderate
Strong
Score
1 a Continuity of channel bed and bank
0
1
2
3
3
2. Sinuosity of channel along thalweg
0
1
2
3
0
3. In- channel structure: ex. riffle -pool, step -pool, ripple
oolse uence
0
1
2
3
0
4. Particle size of stream substrate
0
0.5
2
3
1
5. Active /relic flood lain
0
1
2
3
0
6. Depositional bars or benches
0
1
2
3
0
7. Recent alluvial deposits
0
1
2
3
0
8. Headcuts
0
1
2
3
0
9. Grade control
0
0.5
1
1.5
0
10. Natural valley
0
0.5
1
1.5
0
11. Second or greater order channel
No = 0
Yes = 3
0
artificial ditches are not rated, see discussions in manual
B. Hydrology Subtotal = 4.5
12. Presence of Baseflow
0
1
2
3
0
13. Iron oxidizing bacteria
0
1
2
3
0
14. Leaf litter
1.5
1
0.5
0
1.5
15. Sediment on plants or debris
0
0.5
1
1.5
0
16. Organic debris lines or piles
0
0.5
1
1.5
0
17. Soil -based evidence of high water table?
No = 0
Yes = 3
3
C. Biology Subtotal = 4.75
18. Fibrous roots in streambed
3
2
1
0
1
19. Rooted upland plants in streambed
3
2
1
0
2
20. Macrobenthos note diversity and abundance
0
1
2
3
0
21. Aquatic Mollusks
0
1
2
3
0
22. Fish
0
0.5
1
1.5
0
23. Crayfish
0
0.5
1
1.5
0
24. Amphibians
0
0.5
1
1.5
1
25. AI ae
0
0.5
1
1.5
0
26. Wetland plants in streambed
FACW = 0.75; OBL = 1.5, Other = 0
0.75
'perennial streams may also he identified using other methods. See p. 35 of manual.
Notes: Ditch 2 is a linear
appears to drain to offsite wetland. No indicators of flow were observed in the
ditch and it was mostly dry throughout much of the reach. There were several
small nools and hatches of saturated soils in the ditch. The ditch was heavilv

USACEAIDti_ — - UWU%t_ - site M_ (indicate an attached map)
1 STREAM QUALITY ASSESSMENT WORKSHEET -AQP
Provide the foil mcing information for the stream reach under assessment:
1. Applicant's name: Element Power 2. Evaluator's name: J. Hartshorn (KHA), R. Sullivan (KHA)
3. Date of evaluut ion: 06/05/2014
5. Name of stream: Ditch 2
7. Approximate drainage area: 91 acres
9. Length of reach evaluated: 100 feet
11. Site coordinates (if known).
Latitude um 34.871,112):
prefer in decimal degrees.
35.457843
4. Time of evaluation: 11:20 am
6. River basin: Tar River
1L Stream order: First Order
to /- ........,. Beaufort
12. Subdivision name (if any): N/A
Longaudetes. 77.55M[11: - 77.130671
Method location doemtined (circIc): ✓hP-- opo Shit ✓I)nho iAerial) PMuaGISDAher Gl.SoHhcr
13. Location of reach under evaluation Joule nearby roads and landmarks and attach map identifying stream( s) location):
Ditch 2 was evaluated just north of the intersection between Ditch 1 and Ditch 2.
14. Proposed channel work Iifany): N/A
15. Recent weather conditions: Sunny and dry with temperatures ranging from 63 to 93 degrees Farenheit
16. Site conditions at time of visit, Sunny and hot with temperatures in the low 90's Farenheit
17. Identify any special waterway classifications known: Osection 10 OTidal Waters IIEssential Fisheries Habitat
IITrout Waters ClOulstanding Resource Waters Z Nutrient Sensitive Waters 0W2ler Supply Watershed (I -IV)
13. Is there a pond or lake located upstream of the evaluation point? NO If yes, estimate the water surface area:
19. Does channel appear on USGS quad map'? YES 20. Does channel appear on USDA Soil Survey,? NO
21. Estimated watershed land use: _% Residential _ %Commmial _% Industrial 95 %Agricultural
5 ° ° Fon:stcd _ °r° Cleared / Logged _% Other (
22. Bankfull width: 8'
23. Bank height 1 from bed to top of bank): 3t'
24. Channel slope down center of stream: 1RV Flat (0 to 2 %) oGentle (2 to 4 %) 1 Moderate 44 to 10%) DSteep (I 10 %)
25. Channel sinuosity: Straight 0Occasio,,I bends IIFmqu nt meander OVery sinuous IIBraided channel
Instructions for completion of worksheet (located on page 2): Begin by determining the most appropriate ecoregion based on
location, terrain. vegetation, stream classification. etc. Every characteristic must be scored using the same ecoregion. Assign points
to each characteristic within the range shown for the ecoregion. Page 3 provides a brief description of how to review the
characteristics identified in the worksheet. Scores should reflect an overall assessrrunt of the stream reach under evaluation. If a
characteristic cannot be evaluated due to site or weather conditions, enter 0 in the scoring box and provide an explanation in the
comment section. Where there arc obvious changes in the character of a stream under review (e.g., the stream flows from a pasture
into a forest), the stream may be divided into smaller reaches that display more continuity, and a separate form used to evaluate each
reach. The tout] score assigned to a strum reach must range between 0 and 100, with a score of 100 representing a stream of the
highest quality.
Total Score (from reverse): 21 Comments:
Ditch 2 is a linear constructed ditch for agricultural drainage that appears to drain to offsite wetland. No indicators of flow
were observed in tyre ditch and R was rrtosW dry throughout much of the reach. There were several small pools and patches
of saturated soils in the dilrlt The ditch was heavily vegetated throughout
Evaluator's Signature faaon ./1ttr1Jtr-rn Doe 06 /05/2014
This channel evaluation form is intended to he used out as a guide to assist landowners and environmental professionals in
gathering the data required by the United States Army Corps of Engineers to make a preliminary assessment of stream
quality. The total score resulting from the completion of this form is subject to USAGE approval and does not imply a
particular mitigation ratio or requirement. Funs subject to change version 06103. To Comment, please call 919- 876 -8441 x 26.

Ditch 2
STREAM QUALITY ASSESSMENT WORKSHEET
• These characteristics am not assessed in coastal streams.
ECOREGION POINT RANGE
#
CHARACTERISTICS
SCORE
Coastal
Piedmont
Mountain
I
Presence of flow / persistent pools in stream
0-5
0 - 4
0-5
1
(no flow or saturation = 0; strong (low = max points)
Evidence of past human alteration
0-6
0-5
0-5
0
2
extensive alteration = 0; no alteration = max points)
3
Riparian zone
0 -6
0 -4
0 -5
1
(no buffer = 0; contiguous, wide buffer = max points)
Evidence of nutrient or chemical discharges
0-5
0-4
0-4
4
4
extensive discharges = 0; no discharges = max points)
5
Groundwater discharge
0-3
0-4
0-4
1
no discharge = 0; springs, sec s, wetlands, etc. = max points)
U
Presence of adjacent Iloodplaie
0-4
0
0-2
0
6
0-4
no flood lain = 0; extensive flood lain = max ints
Entrenchment I ffoodplain access
0-5
0-4
0-2
0
6'
1 entrenched = 0; frequent flooding = max points)
8
Presence of adjacent wetlands
0-6
0-4
0-2
0
tw wetlands = 0; large adjacent wetlands = max points)
9
Channel sinuosity
0-5
0-4
0-3
0
extensive channelization = 0; natural meander = max points)
10
Sediment input
0 -5
0 -4
0 -4
2
extensive deposition= 0; little or no sediment - max points)
I I
Size & diversity of channel bed sobstrate
NA*
0-4
0 - 5
N/A
(fine, homogenous = 0; large, diverse sizes = max ints)
Evidence of channel incision or widening
0
0
0
O
12
(deeply incised = 0; stable bed &banks =max points)
-5
-4
-5
r•
13
Presence of major bank failures
0-5
0 - 5
0-5
4
J
(severe erosion = 0: no erosion, stable banks = max points)
Root depth and density on banks
0-3
0 4
0-5
2
E„
14
(no visible roots = 0; dense roots throughout = max points)
-
Impact by agriculture, livestock, or timber production
0-5
0 4
0-5
0
15
(substantial impact =0; no evidence = max i =ts)
-
16
Presence of riffle- pool/ripple -pool complexes
0- 3
0- 5
0- 6
0
(no riffles/ripples or pools = 0; well-dcvcloped = max points)
F
Q
1
Habitat complexity
0-6
0 - 6
0-6
2
(little or no habitat = 0; frequent, varied habitats = max points)
.F.
18
Canopy coverage over slreambed
0 -5
0 -5
0 -5
O
no shading vegetation = 0; continuous canopy =max points)
19
Substrate embeddedoess
NA*
0-4
0 - 4
N/A
(deeply embedded = 0; loose structure = max
20
Presence of stream Invertebrates (see page 4)
0-4
0 - 5
0-5
0
no evidence = 0; common, numerous types = max points)
21
Presence of amphibians
0-4
0-4
0-4
0
(no evidence = 0; common, numerous types = max points)
22
Presence of fish
0 -4
0 -4
0 -4
0
no evidence = 0; common, numerous types = max ints
m
23
Evidence of wildlife use
0-6
0 - 5
0-5
4
no evidence = 0; abundant evidence = max points)
Total Points Possible
100
100
100
TOTAL SCORE (also enter on first page)
21
• These characteristics am not assessed in coastal streams.

North Carolina Division of Water Quality - Stream Identification Form, Version 4.11
Date: 6/5/2014
Project/Site:
Beaufort Solar:
Ditch 3
Latitude:
35.459435
Evaluator: J - Hartshorn (
R . Sullivan (KHA) HA)
County:
Beaufort
Longitude:
- 77.142849
Total Points: 13.25
3
2. Sinuosity of channel along thalweg
0
1
2
S etermination (circle one)
Other
Wilmer and
Stream is at least intermittent
E hemer
)Intermittent Perennial
e.g. Quad Name.
Hackney Quads
if x 19 or perennial if z 30
0
1
2
3
A. Geomorphology Subtotal = 4
Absent
Weak
Moderate
Strong
Score
1a. Continuity of channel bed and bank
0
1
2
3
3
2. Sinuosity of channel along thalweg
0
1
2
3
0
3. In- channel structure: ex. riffle -pool, step -pool, ripple
ool se uence
0
1
2
3
0
4. Particle size of stream substrate
0
1
2
3
1
5. Active /relic flood fain
0
1
2
3
0
6. De ositional bars or benches
0
1
2
3
0
7. Recent alluvial deposits
0
1 1
2
3
0
8. Headcuts
0
1
2
3
0
9. Grade control
0
1 2 .5
1
1.5
0
10. Natural valley
0
0.5
1
1.5
0
11. Second or greater order channel
No = 0
Yes = 3
0
artinclal ditches are not rated) see discussions in manual
B. Hydrology Subtotal =
12. Presence of Baseflow
0
1
2
3
0
13. Iron oxidizing bacteria
0
1
2
3
0
14. Leaf litter
1.5
1
0.5
0
1.5
15. Sediment on plants or debris
0
0.ts
1
1.5
0.5
16. Organic debris lines or piles
0
0.5
1
1.5
0
17. Soil -based evidence of high water table?
No = 0
Yes = 3
3
C. Biology Subtotal = 4.25
18. Fibrous roots in streambed
3
2
1
0
1
19. Rooted upland plants in streambed
3
2
1
0
2
20. Macrobenthos note diversity and abundance
0
1
2
3
0
21. Aquatic Mollusks
0
1
2
3
0
22. Fish
0
0.5
1
1.5
0
23. Crayfish
0
0.5
1
1.5
0
24. Amphibians
0
0.5
1
1.5
0
25. Algae
0
0.5
1
1.5
0.5
26. Wetland plants in streambed
FACW = 0.75; OBL = 1.5; Other = 0
0.75
'perennial streams may also be identified using other methods. See p. 35 of manual.
Notes: Ditch 3 is a linear agricultural ditch that is less vegetated than Ditch
1 and Ditch 2. Sediment deposits were noticed on plants indicative of a oast
inundation to - 2 feet deep. No water or flow was observed in the ditch during
the site visit. Primary vegetation is cattail, thouqh much of the ditch is free of

USACE AIDN
DWQ a __ Site c (indicate on anuched map)
FEM STREAM QUALITY ASSESSMENT WORKSHEET
Provide the following information for the stream reach under assessment:
1 A r I• Element Power 2 Evaluator's nomeJ• Hartshorn (KHA), R. Sullivan (KHA)
. pp can s name
3. Date of evaluation: 06/05/2014
5. Name of stream: Ditch 3
7. Approximate drainage arcs: 76 acres
9. Length of reach evaluated: 100 feet
11. Site coordinates (if known): prefer in decimal degrees.
Latitude (ex. 34.872E12):_ 35.459435
4. Time of evaluation: 11:41 am
6. River basin: Tar River
& Stream order: First Order
10. County: Beaufort
12. Subdivision name (if any): N/A
Longitudelex. 77.556611t: - 77.142849
Method location decrmined (cirek):a.PS ✓Qlbpo Shceld)rtho (Aural) Pholo/61SQAher 6150)1her
13. Location of reach under evaluation (note nearby roads and landmarks and attach map identifying streams) location):
Ditch 3 was evaluated south of the intersection between Ditch 1 and Ditch 3.
14. Proposed channel work (if any): N/A
15. Recent weather conditions: Sunny and dry with temperatures ranging from 63 to 93 degrees Farenheit
16. She conditions at time ofYi,i,: Sunny and hot with temperatures in the low 90's Farenheit
17. Identify any special waterway classifications known: OScction 10 OTidal Waters IIEssential Fisheries Habitat
DTrout Waters 0outsianding Resource Waters 0 Nutrient Sensitive Waters DWater Supply Watershed (1 -IV)
19. Is there a pond or lake located upstream of the evaluation point? NO If yes, eslmtate the water surface area:
19. Does channel appear on USGS quad map? YES 20. Does channel appear on USDA Soil Survey'? NO
21. Estimated watershed land use: _% Residential —% Commercial _% Industrial 85 % Agricultural
15 % Foreslcd _% Cleared / Logged _% Other I
22. Bankfull width: 10' 23. Bank height (from bed to top of bank): 3'
24. Channel slope down center of stream: 2 1i'lat (0 to 2 %) 0Gentle (2 to 4 %) IIModemte (4 to 10%) [_ -,p (> 10%)
25. Channel sinuosity: - ,Straight IIOccasional Mrnds DFrequent meander OVery sinuous DBraided channel
Instructions for completion of worksheet (located on page 2): Begin by determining the most appropriate ecoregion based on
location. terrain. vegetation. stream classification, etc. Every characteristic must be scored using the same ecorogion. Assign points
to each characteristic within the range shown for the ecoregion. Page 3 provides a brief description of how to review the
characteristics identified in the worksheet. Scorch should reflect an overall assessment of the stream reach under evaluation. If a
characteristic cannot he evaluated due to site or weather conditions, enter 0 in the scoring box and provide an explanation in the
comment section. Where there arc obvious changes in the character of a stream under review (e.g.. the stream flows from a pasture
into a forest), the stream may be divided into smaller reaches that display more continuity. and a separate form used to evaluate each
reach. The total score assigned to a stream reach must range between 0 and 100, with a score of 100 representing a stream of the
highest quality.
Total Score (from reverse): 19 Comments:
Ditch a is a linear agricultural ditch that is less veatxated than Ditch 1 and Ditch 2 Sediment deposits were noticed on plants
Indicative of a past Inundation to — 2 feet deep. No water or flow was observed in the ditch during the site-visit, Primary
vegetation is cattail. dumh much of the ditch is free of vegetation.
ENalustor'sSignature h" "r' /,Ortil'r "r" _ Date 06/05/2014
This channel evaluation form Is intended to he used onh as a guide to assist landowners and environmental professionals in
gathering the data required by the United States Army Corps of Engineers to make a preliminary assessment of stream
quality. The total score resulting from the completion of this form is subject to CSACE approval and does not imply a
particular mitigation ratio or requirement. Form subject to change vcr.ion 06 '03. l o Connncnt. please call 919 - 97&8441 x 26.

Ditch 3
STREAM QUALITY ASSESSMENT WORKSHEET
• These characteristics are not assessed in coastal streams.
#
CHARACTERISTICS
ECOREGION POINT RANGE
SCORE
Coastal
Piedmont
Mountain
I
Presence of lbw / persistent pools In stream
2
no flow or saturation = 0: strop Pow =max rots)
0 -5
0 -4
0 -5
2
Evidence of past human alteration
O
(extensive alteration = 0; no alteration = max points)
0-6
0 - 5
0-5
3
Riparian zone
0 -6
0 -4
0 -5
1
(no buffer = 0: contiguous, wide buffer = max points)
4
Evidence of nutrient or chemical discharges
4
extensive discharges = 0; no discharges =max rots
0 -5
0 -4
0 -4
5
Groundwater discharge
0- 3
0- 4
0- 4
O
no discharge = 0; springs, seeps, wetlands, etc. = max points)
U
6
Presence of adjacent floodplain
0-4
0 4
0-2
O
(no Flood lain = 0; extensive flood lain = max points)
-
S
Entrenchment / Iloodplain access
O
p'
(deeply entrenched = 0: frequent flooding = max points)
0-5
0- 4
0-2
g
Presence of adjacent wetlands
0-6
0 - 4
0-2
O
(no wetlands = 0; large adjacent wetlands = man points)
9
Channel sinuosity
0- 5
0- 4
0- 3
O
extensive channelization = 0; natural meander = max points)
10
Sediment input
0-5
0 - 4
0-4
3
extensive de ition= 0; little or no sediment - max points)
11
Size & diversity of channel bed suMtrate
NA'
0-4
0 - 5
N/A
(fine, homogenous = 0; large, diverse sizes = man ints)
12
Evidence of channel incision or widening
0
0
0
O
(dec-ply incised = 0; stable txd &banks =max Pal ms
-5
-4
-5
13
Presence of major bank failures
0 -5
0 -5
0 -5
4
a
severe erosion = 0; no erosion, stable banks = max points)
14
Root depth and density on banks
0-3
0 - 4
0-5
2
no visible roots = 0; dense roots throughout = max points)
y
15
Impact by agriculture, livestock, or timber production
O
substantial impact =0; no evidence = max rots)
0-5
0 - 4
0-5
16
Presence of rifik- pool/ripple -pool complexes
0-3
0-5
0-6
O
Er
no fiffies/ripples or pools = 0; well-developed = max points)
Q
1
Habitat complexity
0-6
0 - 6
0-6
1
1 little or no habitat = 0; frequent, varied habitats = max points)
18
Canopy coverage over streambed
0- 5
0- 5
0- 5
O
.�
no shading vegetation = 0; continuous canopy = max points)
19
Substrateembeddedaess
NA'
0 -4
0 -4
N/A
(deeply embedded = 0; loose structure = max)
20
Presence of stream invertebrates (see page 4)
0-4
0 - 5
0-5
O
no evidence = 0; common, numerous types = max points)
21
Presence of amphibians
0-4
0-4
0-4
O
no evidence = 0; common, numerous types = max points)
O
22
Presence of fish
0 -4
0 -4
0 -4
O
(no evidence = 0; common, numerous types = max points)
m
23
Evidence of wildlife use
0-6
0-5
0-5
2
(no evidence = 0; abundant evidence = max points)
Total Points Possible
100
100
100
TOTAL SCORE (also enter on first page)
19
• These characteristics are not assessed in coastal streams.

North Carolina Division of Water Quality - Stream Identification Form, Version 4.11
Date: 6/5/2014
Project/Site:
Beaufort Solar:
Ditch 4
Latitude:
35.454114
J. Evaluator: Hartshorn
County:
Beaufort
Longitude:
- 77.144954
R. Sullivan (KHA) HA)'
3
2. Sinuosity of channel along thalweg
0
1
Total Points: 15.75
§ILCaMJ2etermination (circle one)
Other
Wilmar and
Stream is at least intermittent 4
0 E hemer
ntermittent Perennial
e.g. Quad Name.
Hackney Quads
if z 19 or perennial if a 30
0
l
2
3
A. Geomorphology Subtotal = 4
Abeent
Weak
Moderate
Strong
Score
Ia. Continuity of channel bed and bank
0
1
2
1
1
3
2. Sinuosity of channel along thalweg
0
1
2
3
0
3. In- channel structure: ex. riffle -pool, step -pool, ripple
ool se uence
0
1
2
3
0
4. Particle size of stream substrate
0
l
2
3
1
5. Active /relic flood lain
0
1
2
3
0
6. Depositional bars or benches
0
1
2
1 3
0
7. Recent alluvial deposits
0
1
2
3
0
8. Headcuts
0
1
2
3
0
9. Grade control
0
0.5
1
1.5
0
1
10. Natural valley
0
0.5
1
1 1.5
0
11. Second or greater order channel
No = 0
Yes = 3
0
' artificial ditches are not rated; see discussions in manual
B. Hvdrology Subtotal = 5.5
12. Presence of Baseflow
0
1
2
3
0
13. Iron oxidizing bacteria
0
1
2
3
0
14. Leaf litter
1.5
1
0.5
0
1.5
15. Sediment on plants or debris
0
u.5
1
1.5
0.5
16. Organic debris lines or piles
0
0.5
1
1.5
0.5
17. Soil -based evidence of high water table?
No = 0
' :s : 3
3
C. Biology Subtotal = 6.25
18. Fibrous roots in streambed
3
2
1
0
1
19. Rooted upland plants in streambed
3
2
1
0
3
20. Macrobenthos note diversity and abundance
0
1
2
3
0
21. Aquatic Mollusks
0
1
2
3
0
22. Fish
0
0.5
1
1.5
0
23. Crayfish
0
0.5
1
1.5
0
24. Amphibians
0
0.5
1
1.5
0.5
25. AI ae
0
0.5
1
1.5
1
26. Wetland plants in streambed
FACW = 0.75; OBL = 1.5: Other
'perennial streams may also be identified using other methods. Seep. 35 of manual.
4 is a linear agricultural ditch that appears to function as a
collector ditch. Ditch 4 has no observable flow, but does have staqnant pools
of water in the channel. Ditch 4 is upstream of Ditch 5. Ditch 4 is heavily
vegetated with Juncus and cattail. Ditch 4 is separated from Ditch 5 at the first
northern lateral ditch that connects into the ditch.

USACE AID#_ UWQ #_ Site #_ (indicate on attached map)
;,a,; STREAM QUALITY ASSESSMENT WORKSHEET -AQP
Provide the following information for the stream reach under assessment:
1. Applicant's nana:: Element Power 2. Fvaluator'c name. J. Hartshorn (KHA), R. Sullivan (KHA)
3. Date of evaluation: 06 /05/2014 4. Time of evaluation: 12.06 pm
5. Name of stream: Ditch 4 6. River basin: Tar River
7. Approximate drainage area: 159 acres
8. Stream order: First Order
9, Length of reach evaluated: 100 feet 10. County: BeanUfort
11. Site coordinates (if known):
Latitude (es. 34.8"312):
prefer in decimal degnts.
35.454114
12. Subdivision name (if any): N/A
Longbudetex. 77.556611): -77.144954
Method location detcmmincd kink): ✓DiPS�opo Shev ✓l)rtho l Aerial) Plato titSDhher (;lSD)ther
13. Location of reach under evaluation Inote nearby roads and landmarks and attach map identifying sireamis) location):
Ditch 4 was evaluated near its intersection with Ditch 3.
14, Proposed channel work (if any): N/A
15. Recent weather conditions: Sunny and dry with temperatures ranging from 63 to 93 degrees Farenheit
16. Site conditions at time of visit: Sunny and hot with temperatures in the low 90's Farenheit
17. Identify any special waterway classifications known: IIScction 10 IITidal Waters IIEssential Fisheries Habitat
IITrout Walen 00utslandingResurceWaiers 9 Nutrient Sensitive Water IIWaterSupply Watershed (I-IV)
18. Is there a pond or lake located upstream of the evaluation point'? NO If yes, estimate the water surface area:
19. Does channel appear on USGS quad map? YES 20. Does channel appear on USDA Soil Sun cry? NO
21. Estimated watershed land use: _% Residential _ %Commercial _% Industrial 100 % Agricultural
Forested _ %C'Icared i Logged _ %Other (
22. Bankfull width: 13' 23. Bank height (from bed to top of bank): 7'
24. Channel slope down center of stream: IIFlat 40 to 2 %) IIGcntle (2 to 4 %) IIMc dcratc (4 to 10°i°) IIStcrp (,10%)
25. Channel sinuosity: _✓ Straight DOccasional beads IIFrequrnt meander OVery sinuous IIBraidcd channel
Instructions for completion of worksheet (located a page 2): Begin by determining the must appropriate ecorcgion based on
location, terrain, vegetation, stream classification. ctc. Every characteristic must be scored using the same ecoregion. Assign points
to each characteristic within the range shown for the ec:oregion. Page 3 provides a brief description of how to review the
characteristics identified in the worksheet. Scotts should reflect an overall asscssmcmt of the stream reach under evaluation. If a
characteristic cannot be evaluated due to site or weather conditions, enter 0 in the scoring box and provide an explanation in the
comment section. Where there are obvious changes in the character of a stream under review (e.g.. the stream news from a pasture
into a forest), the stream may be divided into smaller reaches that display more continuity, and a separate form used to evaluate each
reach. The total score assigned to a stream reach must range between 0 and 100, with a score of 100 rcpnscming a stream of the
highest quality.
Total Score (from reverse): 25 Comments:
Ditch 4 is a linear agricultural ditch that atwwrs to function as a collector ditch Ditch 4 has no observable flow, but does have
stagnant twols gf w,fter In the t9tannel. Ditch 4 is upstream of Ditch $.-Mi Ftl 4_is_heavily vegetated with luncus andjgttail .
Ditch 4 is separated from Ditch 5 at the first nodhem lateral ditch that ssnnesi j= the ditch.
Evaluator's Signature / "" it /t "' /'/" , " Date 06 /05/2014
This channel evaluation form is intended to he used oady as a guide In assist landowners and emironmental professionals in
gathering the data required by the United States Army Corps of Engineers to make a preliminary assessment of stream
quality. The total score resulting from the romplerion of this form is subject to USACE. approval and dues not imply a
particular mitigation ratio or requirement. Form sub)eci to change - version 06/03. To Comment. please call 919 -K7d x441 x 2a.

Ditch 4
STREAM QUALITY ASSESSMENT WORKSHEET
These characteristics are nor assessed in coastal streams.
ECOREGION POINT RANGE
#
CHARACTERISTICS
SCORE
Coastal
Piedmont
Mountain
I
Presence of flow / persistent pools to stream
0-5
0 - 4
0-5
2
no now or saturation = 0; strong flow = max points)
2
Evidence of past human alteration
0-6
0-5
0-5
0
extensive alteration = 0; no alteration = max points)
3
Riparian zone
0-6
0-4
0-5
1
no buffer = 0; contiguous, wide but %v = max ants)
4
Evidence of nutrient or chemical discharges
0-5
0 - 4
0-4
4
extensive dischar ge% = 0; no discharges = max ints
5
Groundwater discharge
0-3
0-4
0-4
2
no discharge = 0; springs. see s, wetlands, etc. = max points)
U
Presence of adjacent floodplain
0-4
0 4
0-2
O
y,
6
no flood lain = 0; extensive Flood lain - Mx ints)
-
Entrenchment / floodplain access
0-5
0-4
0-2
0
(deeply entrenched = 0: frequent flooding = max points)
g
Presence of adjacent wetlands
0-6
0-4
0-2
0
no wetlands = 0: large adjacent wedands =max ants)
9
Channel sinuosity
0 -5
0 -4
0 -3
0
extensive channelization = 0; natural meander = max points)
10
Sediment input
0 - -5
0 -4
0 -4
1
extensive deposition- 0: little or no sediment =max ants
I I
She & diversity of channel bed substrate
NA*
0-4
0 - 5
N/A
fine, homogenous = 0; large. diverse sizes =max ants
12
Evidence of channel incision or widening
0 -5
0 -4
0 -5
0
�F++
(deeply incised - 0; stable beet &banks =max ants
^'
13
Presence of major bank failures
0-5
0 - 5
0-5
4
J
(severe erosion = 0; no erosion, stable banks = max points)
nn
14
Root depth and density on banks
0-3
0 - 4
0-5
2
E+
(no visible roots = 0; dense roots throughout = max ints)
W
Impact by agriculture, livestock, or limber production
0-5
0 4
0-5
0
15
substantial impact =0; no evidence = max points)
-
16
Presence of riffle-pool/ripple-pool complexes
0-3
0-5
0-6
0
no fiffles/ripplcs or pools = 0; welWeveloped - max points)
Q
1
Habitat complexity
0-6
0 - 6
0-6
3
E.
(little or no habitat = 0; frequent, varied habitats = max points)
GO
Canopy coverage over streambed
0-5
0-5
0-5
0
1 g
no shading vegetation= 0; continuous canopy= max points)
19
Substrate embeddedness
NA*
0-4
0 - 4
N/A
(deeply embedded = 0: loose structure = max
20
Presence of stream invertebrates (see page 4)
0-4
0 - 5
0-5
1
no evidence = 0; comnwn, numerous types = max points)
21
Presence of amphibians
0-4
0-4
0-4
2
(no evidence = 0; common. nurrxn us ty max points)
.4
O
22
Presence of fish
0-4
0 - 4
0-4
0
no evidence = 0; common, numerous types = max ints)
m
23
Evidence of wildlife use
0-6
0 - 5
0-5
3
m
no evidence = 0; abundant evidence = ax oints)
Total Points Possible
100
100
I00
TOTAL SCORE (also enter on first page)
25
These characteristics are nor assessed in coastal streams.

North Carolina Division of Water Quality - Stream Identification Form, Version 4.11
Date: 6/5/2014
Project/Site: Beaufort Solar:
Ditch 5
Latitude: 35.454106
Evaluator: d Hartshorn R. Sullivan (KHA)HA) '
County: Beaufort
Longitude: - 77.146364
Total Points: 20.5
0
1
2
Stream Deter " n (circle one)
Other Wilmar and
Stream is at least intermittent
Ephemer ntermdten erennial
e.g. Quad Name. Hackney Quads
if a 19 or perennial if z 30
3
1
A. Geomorphology Subtotal = 5
Absent
Weak
Moderate
Strong
Score
1a. Continuity of channel bed and bank
0
1
2
3
3
2. Sinuosity of channel along thalweg
0
-1
2
3
1
3. In- channel structure: ex. riffle -pool, step -pool, ripple
oolse uence
0
1
2
3
0
4. Particle size of stream substrate
0
1
2
3
1
5. Active /relic flood lain
0
1
2
3
0
6. Depositional bars or benches
0
1
1 2
1 3
0
7. Recent alluvial deposits
0
1
2
3
0
8. Headcuts
0
1
2
3
0
9. Grade control
0
0.5
1
1.5
0
10. Natural valley
0
0.5
1
1.5
0
11. Second or greater order channel
No = 0
Yes = 3
0
artmGal ditches are not rated, see discussions in manual
B. Hydrology Subtotal = 6.5
12. Presence of Baseflow
0
1
2
3
1
13. Iron oxidizing bacteria
r?
1
2
3
0
14. Leaf litter
-�..;
1
0.5
0
1.5
15. Sediment on plants or debris
0
0.5
1
1.5
0.5
16. Organic debris lines or piles
0
0.5
1
1.5
0.5
17. Soil -based evidence of high water table?
No = 0
Yes = 3
3
C. Biology Subtotal=
18. Fibrous roots in streambed
3
1
0
2
19. Rooted upland plants in streambed
3
2
1
0
3
20. Macrobenthos note diversity and abundance
0
1
2
3
0
21. Aquatic Mollusks
0
1
2
3
0
22. Fish
0
0.5
1
1.5
1
23. Crayfish
0
0.5
1
1.5
0
24. Amphibians
0
0.5
1
1.5
1.5
25. Algae
0
0.5
1
1.5
0
26. Wetland plants in streambed
FACW = 0.75; OBL = 1.5; Other = 0
1.5
'perennial streams may also be identgied using other methods. See p. 35 of manual.
Notes: Ditch 5 is a jurisdictional water that is draining to offsite features.
Defined flow patterns were observed in the ditch bottom along with a lack of
is beammina to
linear stream bed. Fish and frogs were observed throughout reach. 1 -2" of
water was present in the ditch bottom at time of field visit.

USACE AID#_
1^04 Site #_ (indicate on attached map)
M STREAM QUALITY ASSESSMENT WORKSHEET _AQ#
Provide the following information for the stream reach under assessment:
1 A r 1 . Element Power L F%gha>r t s mmne-J. Hartshorn (KHA), R. Sullivan (KHA)
. pp leant s name.
3. Date of evaluation: 06/05/2014
5. Name of stream: Ddeh 5
7, Approximate drainage area: 151 acres
9. Length of reach evaluated: 100 feet
11. Site coordinates (if known):
I.atitude im. 34.372312).
prefer in decimal degrees.
35.454106
s
4. fink ofaltation:12:15 pm
6. River basin: Tar River
L Stn:am order: First Order
10. County: Beaufort
12. Subdivision mame (if any); N/A
Inmgitudefcx. - 77.ssuaut: - 77.146364
Mttlwd location dcta�tnirkd Icirek >: ✓�iPS�upo Sher✓ )nha l Aeriall Ph°tc: LilS�lkr (il>LFnikr
13. Location of reach under evaluation (note nearby roads and landmarks and attach reap identifying streams) location):
Ditch 5 was evaluated east of the first northern lateral ditch that separates Ditch 5 from Ditch 4
14. Proposed channel work (if any): N/A
15. Recent weather conditions: Sunny and dry with temperatures ranging from 63 to 93 degrees Farenheit
16. Site conditions at time of visit: Sunny and hot with temperatures in the low 90's Farenheit
17. Identify any special waterway classifications known: IISeclion 10 IITidal Waters IIFssetttial Fisheries Habitat
❑Trout Waters 0outstanding Resource Waters II✓ Nutrient Sensitive Waters DWater Supply Watershed (I -IV)
I& Is there a pond or lake located upstream of the evaluation point? NO If yes, estimate the water surface area:
19. Does channel appear on USGS quad map? YES 20. Does channel appear on USDA Soil Survey? NO
21. Estimated watershed land use: _% Residential _ %Commercial _% Industrial 100% Agricultural
Forested _% Cleared / Logged _% Other (
22. Bankfall width: 13' 23. Bank height ( from bed to top of bank): T
24. Channel slope down center of stream: RIFlat (0 to 2 %) 0Gendc (2 to 4°/r) 0Modcratc (4 to 10"/°) c1swep (> 10 %)
25. Channel sinuosity: WiStraight DOccasional bends OFtequcnt meander OVery sinuous OBraided channel
Instructions for completion of worksheet (located on page 2): Begin by determining the most appropriate ccoregion based on
location. terrain, vegetation, stream classification. etc. Every characteristic must be scored using the same ecoregion. Assign points
to each characteristic within the range shown for the ccorcgion. Page 3 provides a brief description of how to review the
characteristics identified in the worksheet. Scores should reflect an overall assessment of the stream reach under evaluation. If a
characteristic cannot be evaluated due to site or weather conditions, enter 0 in the scoring box and provide an explanation in the
comment section. Where there are obvious changes in the character of a stream under review (e.g.. the stream flows from a pasture
into a forest). the stream may be divided into smaller reaches that display more continuity, and a separate form used to evaluate each
reach. The total score assigned to a stream reach must range between 0 and 100, with a score of 100 representing a stream of the
highest quality.
27
Total Score (from reverse): Comments:
Ditch 5 is a jurisdictional water that Is draining to offsite features Defined flow patterns were observed in the ditch bottom
along with a lack of vegetation The feature's thalweg is beginning to develop sinuousity within the liner strgslrit W Fish
and ftnM were observed throughout reach. 1 -2" of water was present in the ditch bottom at time oLfieW-Yisit
Evaluator's Signature lu''n J141'0tr I. Date06 /05/2014
This channel evaluation form is intended to be used only as a guide to assist landowners and environmental professionals in
gathering the data required by the United States Army Corps of Engineers to make a preliminary assessment of stream
quality. The total score resulting from the completion of this form is subject to USACE approval and does not imply a
particular mitigation ratio or requirement. Fonn subject to change -- version 06/03. To Comment. please call 919 - 976 -9441 x 26.

Ditch 5
STREAM QUALITY ASSESSMENT WORKSHEET
' These characteristics are not usw%sW in coastal smr dms.
#
CHARACTERISTICS
ECOREGION POINT RANGE
SCORE
Coastal
Pledmoot
Mountain
I
Presence of flow / persistent pools in stream
2
no flow or saturation = 0; strong flow = max points)
0-5
0 - 4
0-5
2
Evidence of past human alteration
0-6
0
extensive alteration = 0; no alteration = max points)
0-5
0-5
3
Riparian zone
0- 6
0- 4
0- 5
0
(no buffer = 0; contiguous, wide buffer - max points)
4
Evidence of nutrient or chemical discharges
0- 5
4
extensive discharges = 0; no discharges = max ints
0- 4
0- 4
.4
5
Groundwater discharge
0- 3
0- 4
0- 4
2
U(no
discharge = 0; springs, see , wetlands, etc. = max points)
6
Presence of adjacent floodplala
0
0
0
0
E7
no Flood lain = 0; extensive Flood lain =max oink)
-4
-4
-2
Entrenchment / floodplain access
0- 5
0-
g6
(deeply entrenched = 0: frequent flooding - max points)
4
0- 2
g
Presence of adjacent wetlands
0_ 6
0- 4
0- 2
no wetlands - 0: large adjacent wetlands = max inis)
9
Channel sinuosity
0 -S
0 -4
0 -3
1
extensive ebannclization = 0: natural meander = max points)
10
Sediment input
0 -5
0 -4
0 -4
0
extensive deposition- 0; little or no sediment = max points)
1 I
Size & diversity of channel bed substrate
NA'
0-4
0 - 5
N/A
fine, homogenous = 0; large, diverse sizes =max ints)
12
Evidence of channel Incision or widening
0-5
0 4
0-5
0
>-
(deeply incised = 0; stable bed & banks = max points)
-
iW
13
Presence of major bank failures
0-5
0 - 5
0-5
4
.a
(severe erosion = 0; no erosion, stable banks = max points)
m
C
14
Root depth and density on banks
0-3
0 4
0-5
3
F
no visible roots = 0; dense roots throughout = max points)
-
15
Impact by agriculture, livestock, or timber production
substantial impact =0; no evidence = max ints)
0- 5
0- 4
0- 5
16
Presence of riffle—pool/ripple-pool complexes
0-3
0 - 5
0-6
0
I�
no rifflesiripples or pools = 0: well -developed = max points)
1 y
Habitat complexity
Q
0-6
0 - 6
0-6
li-
frequent,
little or no habitat = 0; frequent, varied habitats =max points)
�j
18
Canopy coverage over streambed
0-5
0-5
0-5
0
no shading vegetation = 0; continuous canopy = max points)
19
Substrate embeddedness
NAO
0-4
0 - 4
N/A
(deeply embedded = 0: loose structure = max)
20
Presence of stream Invertebrates (see page 4)
0-4
0 - 5
0-5
0
(no evidence = 0: common. numerous types = mart points)
21
Presence of amphibians
0-4
0-4
0-4
3
(no evidence = 0: common, numerous types = max points)
O
22
Presence of fish
0 -4
0 -4
0 -4
2
(no evidence = 0; common, numerous types = max points)
m
23
Evidence of wildlife use
0- 6
0- 5
0- 5
3
no evidence = 0; abundant evidence = max points)
7— Total Points Possible
100
100
100
TOTAL SCORE (also enter on first page)
27
' These characteristics are not usw%sW in coastal smr dms.

North Carolina Division of Water Quality - Stream Identification Form, Version 4.11
Date: 6/5/2014
Project/Site:
Beaufort Solar:
Ditch 6
Latitude:
35.454042
Evaluator: J. Hartshorn (KHA).
County:
Beaufort
Longitude:
- 77.136241
R Sullivan (KHA)
.
3
2. Sinuosity of channel along thalweg
0
1
Total Points: 8
S etermination (circle one)
Other
Wilmar and
Stream is at least intermittent I
EphemeraDntermittent
Perennial
e.g. Quad Name:
Hackney Quads
if z 19 or perennial if a 30
0
1
2
3
A. Geomorphology Subtotal = 4
Absent
Weak
Moderate
Strong
Score
1a. Continuity of channel bed and bank
0
1
2
3
3
2. Sinuosity of channel along thalweg
0
1
2
3
0
3. In- channel structure: ex. riffle -pool, step -pool, ripple
ool se uence
0
1
2
3
0
4. Particle size of stream substrate
0
1
2
3
1
5. Active /relic flood lain
0
1
2
3
0
6. Depositional bars or benches
0
1
1 2
3
0
7. Recent alluvial deposits
0
1
2
3
0
8. Headcuts
0
1
2
3
0
9. Grade control
0
0.5
1
1.5
0
10. Natural valley
0
0.5
1
1 1.5
0
11. Second or greater order channel
No = 0
Yes = 3
0
° artificial ditches are not rated, see discussions in manual
B. Hydrology Subtotal =
12. Presence of Baseflow
0
1
2
3
0
13. Iron oxidizing bacteria
0
1
2
3
0
14. Leaf litter
1.5
1
0.5
0
0
15. Sediment on plants or debris
0
0.5
1
1.5
0
16. Organic debris lines or piles
0
0.5
1
1.5
0
17. Soil -based evidence of high water table?
No = 0
Yes = 3
3
C. Bioloqy Subtotal =
18. Fibrous roots in streambed
3
2
1
0
0
19. Rooted upland plants in streambed
3
2
1
0
1
20. Macrobenthos note diversity and abundance
0
1
2
3
0
21. Aquatic Mollusks
0
1
2
3
0
22. Fish
0
0.5
1
1.5
0
23. Crayfish
0
0.5
1
1.5
0
24. Amphibians
0
0.5
1
1.5
0
25. AI ae
0
0.5
1
1.5
0
26. Wetland plants in streambed
FACW = 0.75, OBL
= 1.5; Other = 0
0
'perennial streams may also be identified using other methods. See p. 35 of manual.
Notes: Ditch 6 is a linear agricultural ditch along the southern boundary of
the Drooertv. The ditch is dry with no evidence of saturation or recent flow.
The ditch bed is littered with pine straw and other tree leaves /organic debris.
No evidence of hydrophytic plants or amphibians in the evaluated reach. The
offsite side of ditch is a managed pine plantation and has an established
boundary of trees. Portions of the pine plantation were recently harvested.

USAGE AID#_ D WQ k_ Silt #_ (indicate on attached map)
STREAM QUALITY ASSESSMENT WORKSHEET -AQP
Provide the following information for the stream reach under assessment:
1. Applicant's name: Element Power 2. Fvahratoi s mane: 1. Hartshorn (KHA), R. Sullivan (KHA)
3. Date of evaluation: 06/05/2014 4. Time of evaluation: 12.30 pm
5. Name of stream: DitCh 6 6. River basin Tar River
7. Approximate drainage area: 84 acres S. Stream order. First Order
9. Length of reach evaluated: 100 feet 10. County: Beaufort
11. Site coordinates (if known):
Latitude' te's.34.872312):
prefer in decimal degrees.
35.454042
12. Subdivision name (if any): N/A
Lottgaadeu 6.
m. 77.5511): - 7%.136241
Method Iwatiun determined leirek): ✓Di���uW Shei�lnlar tAcriah PlxtuvGIS031her GLDlther
13. Location of reach under evaluation (note nearby roads and landmarks and attach map identifying sireatrlts) location):
Ditch 6 was evaluated - 1000' east from the intersection of Ditch 5 and Ditch 6 along the site's southern boundary.
14. Proposed channel work (if any): N/A
15. Recent weather conditions: Sunny and dry with temperatures ranging from 63 to 93 degrees Farenheit
16. Site conditions at time of visit: Sunny and hot with temperatures in the low 9O's Farenheit
17. Identify any special waterway classifications known: IISection 10 IITidal Waters IIEsseniial Fisheries Habitat
IITroul Waters Doulsiandirg Resource Waters ✓0 Nutrient Sensitive Waters DWalerSupply Watershed (I -IV)
18. Is there a pond or lake located upstream of the evaluation point? NO If yes, estimate the water surface area:
19. Does channel appear on USGS quad map'? YES 20. Does channel appear on USDA Soil Survey? NO
21. Estimated watershed lanai use: _% Residential _ %Commercial % Industrial 50 % Agricultural
_% Forested _% C'learcd / Logged 50- OOer ( Silvicuttural (Pine Plantation)
22. Bankfull width: 6� 23. Bank height (from bed to top of bank): 3�
24. Channel slope down center of stream: ZFlat (0 to 2 %) E]Gcntle (2 to 4 %) IIModcrate (4 to 10%) n Stecp (> 10%)
25. Channel sinuosity: Straight DOccasional bends aFrequcm meander OVery sinuous OBTaided channel
Instructions for completoa of worksheet (located on page 2): Begin by dcwrinining the most appropriate ecoregion based on
location, terrain, vegetatim stream classification. etc. Every characteristic mast be scored using the same ecoregion. Assign points
to each characteristic within the range shown for the ecoregion. Page 3 provides a brief description of how to review the
characteristics ideotilied in the worksheet. Scores should reflect an overall assessment of the stream reach under evaluation. If a
characteristic cannot be evaluated due to site or weather conditions, enter 0 in the scoring box and provide an explanation in the
comment section. Where there are obvious changes in the character of a stream under review (e.g., the stream flows from a pasture
into a forest), the stream may be divided into smaller reaches that display more continuity, and a separate form used to evaluate each
reach. The total score assigned to a stream reach must range between 0 and 100, with a score of 100 representing a stream of the
highest quality.
Total Score (from reverse): 24 Comments:
Ditch 6 is a linear agricultural ditch alono the southern boundary of the property. The ditch is dry with no evidence of
saw on or recent fbw. The ditrh bed is littered w
ping straw and other tree leaveslorganic debris. No evidence of
hydrwh_ c_pl _nts or amphibians in the evaluated reach. The offsjte_ side _of ditch is a managed pine plantation and has an
established boundary of trees Portions of the pinepl n arigrt were recently harvested.
Evaluator'sSignature Jt n .0"IrIliMr11 Date 06 /05/2014
This channel evaluation form is intended to he used only as a guide to assist landowners and environmental professionals in
gathering the data required by the United States Army Corps of Engineers to make a preliminary assessment of stream
quality. "The total score resulting from the completion of this form is subject to USACE approval and does not imply a
particular mitigation ratio or requirement. Form subject to change version 06/03. To Comment, please call 919 -876 -8441 x 26.

Ditch 6
STREAM QUALITY ASSESSMENT WORKSHEET
0 These characteristics are not assessed in coustal streams.
ECOREGION POINT RANGE
#
CHARACTERISTICS
SCORE
Coastal
Piedmont
Mountain
I
Presence of lbw / persistent pool& in stream
0-5
0 - 4
0-5
0
(no flow or saturation = 0: strong flow =max points)
Evidence of put haman miter* tbn
0-6
0-5
0-5
0
2
(extensive alteration - 0; no alteration = max points)
3
Riparian zone
0 -6
0 -4
0 -5
3
(no buffer= 0: contiguous. wide buffer = max points)
Evidence of nutrient or chemical discharges
0-5
0
0-4
4
4
extensive discharges = 0; no discharges = max points)
-4
Groundwater discharge
0-3
0-4
0-4
0
U5
no discharge = 0: springs, seeps, wetlands, etc. = max ints)
6
Presence of adjacent floodplain
0-4
0-4
0-2
0
no flood lain = 0; extensive flood lain =max points)
Entrenchment / floodplain access
0-5
0-4
0-2
0
(deeply entrenched = 0; frequent flooding = max points)
g
Presence of adjacent wetlands
0-6
0-4
0-2
0
(no wetlands = 0; large adjacent wetlands = max points)
9
Channel sinuosity
0-5
0-4
0-3
0
extensive channclization = 0; natural meander = max points)
10
Sediment input
0 -5
0 -4
0 -4
4
extensive deposition= 0: little or no sediment = max points)
I l
Size & diversity of channel bed substrate
NA*
0-4
0 - 5
N/A
fine, homogenous = 0; large, diverse sizes = max ims)
12
Evidence of channel incision or wldZing
0 -5
0 -4
0 -5
0
(deeply incised = 0; stable bed &banks =max points)
13
Presence of major bank failures
0-5
0 - 5
0-5
4
severe erosion = 0; no erosion, stable banks =max ints)
Root depth and density on banks
0-3
0 4
0-5
4
14
no visible roots = 0; dense roots throughout = max points)
-
Impact by agriculture, livestock, or timber production
0-5
0 4
0-5
0
15
substantial impact =0: no evidence = max ints
-
16
Presence of riffle- pooVripple -pool complexes
0-3
0-5
0-6
0
(no riffles/ripples or pools = 0: well-developed = max points)
E
1
Habitat complexity
0-6
0 - 6
0-6
Z
F
little or no habitat = 0; frequent, varied habitats = max points)
Ig
Canopy coverage over streambed
0 -5
0 -5
0 -5
Z
(no shading vegetation = 0; continuous canopy =max points)
19
Substrate embeddeduess
NA*
0-4
0 - 4
N/A
(deeply embedded = 0; loose structure = max)
20
Presence of stream Invertebrates (sec page 4)
0-4
0 - 5
0-5
0
no evidence = 0; common, numerous types = max points)
Presence of amphibians
0-4
0-4
0-4
0
O
21
no evidence = 0; common, numerous types = max points)
O
22
Presence of fish
0 -4
0 -4
0 -4
0
(no evidence = 0; common, numerous s =max points)
OF
23
Evidence of wildlife use
0-6
0-5
0-5
1
no evidence = 0; abundant evidence = max points)
Total Points Possible
100
100
100
TOTAL SCORE (also enter on first page)
24
0 These characteristics are not assessed in coustal streams.

North Carolina Division of Water Quality - Stream Identification Form, Version 4.11
Date: 6/5/2014
Project/Site:
Beaufort Solar:
Ditch 7
Latitude:
35.45353
Evaluator: J. Hartshorn (KHA),
R. Sullivan (KHA)
County:
y
Beaufort
Longitude:
9
- 77.127129
Total Points: 12.75
3
2. Sinuosity of channel along thalweg
0
1
2
IF Determination (circle one)
Other
Wilmer and
Stream is at least intermittent
Ephemera
lermittent Perennial
e.g. Quad Name.
Hackney Quads
if z 19 or perennial if z 30
size of stream substrate
0
1
2
A. Geomorphology Subtotal = 4
Absent
Weak
Moderate
Strong
Score
18. Continuity of channel bed and bank
0
1
2
:;
3
2. Sinuosity of channel along thalweg
0
1
2
3
0
3. In- channel structure: ex, riffle -pool, step -pool, ripple
ool se uence
0
1
2
3
0
4. Particle
size of stream substrate
0
1
2
3
1
5. Active /relic flood lain
0
1
2
3
0
6. De ositional bars or benches
0
1
2
3
0
7. Recent alluvial deposits
0
1
2
3
0
8. Headcuts
0
1
2
3
0
9. Grade control
0
0.5
1
1.5
0
10. Natural valley
0
0.5
1
1.5
0
11. Second or greater order channel
No = 0
Yes = 3
0
anmclal al[cnes are not rates; see alscussions in manual
B. Hydrology Subtotal =
12. Presence of Baseflow
0
1
2
3
0
13. Iron oxidizing bacteria
0
1
2
3
0
14. Leaf litter
1.5
1
0.5
0
1.5
15. Sediment on plants or debris
0
u.5
1
1.5
0.5
16. Organic debris lines or piles
0
0.5
1
1.5
0
17. Soil -based evidence of high water table?
No = 0
Yes = 3
3
C. Biology Subtotal = 3.75
18. Fibrous roots in streambed
3
2
1
0
2
19. Rooted upland plants in streambed
3
2
1
0
0
20. Macrobenthos note diversity and abundance
0
1
2
3
0
21. Aquatic Mollusks
0
1
2
3
0
22. Fish
0
0.5
1
1.5
0
23. Crayfish
0
0.5
1
1.5
0
24. Amphibians
0
0.5
1
1.5
0.5
25. Algae
0
0.5
1
1.5
0.5
26. Wetland plants in streambed
FACW = 0.75; OBL = 1.5; Other = 0
0.75
'perennial streams may also he idenMed using other methods. See p. 35 of manual.
Notes: Ditch 7 is a linear agricultural ditch along the southern boundary of
the crocertv. The offsite side of the ditch annears to be a manaoed nine
out
drainage to the natural outfall in the southeast corner of the property. Water
was observed in the channel but no distinguishable flow was present at time of
field observation.

USACEAfDH_
DWQN
Site N_. (indicate on auached reap)
FITI STREAM QUALITY ASSESSMENT WORKSHEET —A44P
Provide the following information for the stream reach under assessment:
9: Element Power , ,:,,,,t,,:.,,, .......,..3. Hartshorn (KHA), R. Sullivan (KHA)
1. App scam s name.
3. Date of evaluation: 06105/2014
S. Name of stream: Ditch 7
7. Approximate drainage area: 94 acres
9. Length of reach evaluated: 100 feet
11. Site coordinates (if known): pefcr in decimal degees.
Latitude icy. 14.872112): 35.45353
4. Tittre of evaluation:1:50 pm
6. River basin: Tar River
8. Stream order: First Order
10. County: Beaufort
12. Subdivision name (if any): N/A
Longitudcl". n.ssrenc -77.127129
Method hration detcmtimxl (eink): Qil'S ✓)'opo ShvcEI)nho (Aerial) Ph,*v6IS0)1her 6IS0)ther
13. Location of reach under evaluation (note nearby roads and landmarks and attach map identifying sircamis) location):
Ditch 7 was evaluated just north of its intersection with Ditch 8.
14. Proposed channel work Iif any): N/A
15. Recent weather conditions: Sunny and dry with temperatures ranging from 63 to 93 degrees Farenheit
16. Site conditions at time of visit: Sunny and hot with temperatures In the low 90's Farenheit
17. Identify any special waterway classifications known: IISection 10 DTidal Waters DEsscmial Fisheries Habitat
,Trout Waters 0oulstanding Resource Waters II✓ Nutrient Sensitive Waters DWater Supply Watershed (I -IV)
18. Is there a pond or lake located upstream of the evaluation point? NO If yes, estimate the water surface area:
19. Does channel appear on USGS quad map? YES 20. Does channel appear on USDA Soil Survey? NO
21. Estimated watershed land use: _% Residential _°/U Comtttercial % Industrial 50'% Agricultural
_% Forested _% Cleared / Logged 50 N. Other (Silvicuthtral (Pine plantation)
22. Bankfull width: 6'
23. Bank height (from bed to top of bank): 3'
24. Channel slope down center of stream: IIFlat 10 to 2 %) 0Gcntle (2 to 4 %) IIModcrete (4 to I (ft) IIStccp (I10%)
25. Channel sinuosity: - Straight D(kcasional bends DFroquent meander OVery sinuous IIBraidcd channel
Instructions for completion of norksheet (located on page 2): Begin by determining the most appropriate ecoregion based on
location. terrain, vegetation, steam classification, etc. Every characteristic must be scored using the same ecoregion. Assign points
to each characteristic within the range shown for the ecoregion. Page 3 provides a brief description of how to review the
characteristics identified in the workshctiy. Scows should reflect an overall assessment of the stream teach under evaluation. If a
characteristic cannot be evaluated due to site or weather conditions, enter 0 in the scoring box and provide an explanation in the
comment section. Where then: are obvious changes in the character of at stream under review (e.g.. the stn -am flows from a pasture
into a forest). the stream may be divided into smaller reaches that display mom continuity, and a separate form used to evaluate each
reach. The total score assigned to a strtvm reach must range between 0 and 100, with a score of 100 mpresetning a stream of the
highest quality.
Total Score (from reverse): 26 Comments:
Ditch 7 is a linear agricultural ditch alone the southern boundary of the gmRii tv. The offsite side of the ditch atwears to be a
_m_ana- CdT)Ine .plantation. Ditch 7 t�widl'r and deecer than Dibch 6 and was likely dLIq..out for draiinaW to the natural oudW in
-the 5Quthwst comer of the IlImpefy Water was ohserved in the chanad -hu nod inn ishable flow was present at time of
Evalustor'sSignature Avr'rt 'f(ur(v(rorn Date 06 /05/2014
This channel evaluation form is Intended to be used only as a guide to assist landowners and environmental professionals in
gathering the data required by the United States Army Corps of Engineers to make a preliminary assessment of scream
qualiy. The total score resulting from the completion of this form is subject to USACF. approval sod does sot imply a
particular mitigation ratio or requirement. Font) subject to change version 00/03. To Comment, please call 919- 876-11441 x 26.

Ditch 7
STREAM QUALITY ASSESSMENT WORKSHEET
• Thew., characteristics are not assessed in coasta l streams.
#
CHARACTERISTICS
ECOREGION POINT RANGE
SCORE
cuss d
Piedmont
M000taio
I
Presence of flow / persistent pools in stream
0-5
1
(no flow or saturation = 0; strop flow = max points)
0 - 4
0-5
2
Evidence of past human ahentiou
0- 6
0
extensive alteration = 0; no alteration = max points)
0- 5
0- 5
3
Riparian zone
0- 6
0- 4
0- 5
2
no buffer = 0; contiguous, wide buffer = max points)
4
Evidence of nutrient or chemical discharges
0- 5
4
extensive discharges = 0; no discharges = max ints
0- 4
0- 4
5
Groundwater discharge
0- 3
0- 4
1
no discharge = 0; springs, se , wetlands, etc. = max points)
0- 4
6.1
..
rA
6
Presence of adjacent floodplaln
0
0
0
?Tr"
od
(no flo lain = 0; extensivc flood lain = max points)
-4
-4
0 -2
7
Entrenchment / ftoodplain access
0- 5
0- 4
0
1 entrenched = 0; frequent flooding = max points)
D- 2
g
Presence of adjacent wetlands
0-6
0 4
0
(no wetlands = 0; large adjacent wetlands - max points)
-
0-2
9
Channel sinuosity
0-5
0-4
0-3
0
extensive channeiization = 0; natural meander = max points)
10
Sediment input
0- 5
0- 4
0- 4
4
extensive deposition= 0; little or no sediment = max points)
11
Size & diversity of channel bed substrate
NA'
0-4
0 - 5
N/A
fine, homogenous = 0; large, diverse sizes = max points)
]2
Evidence of channel Incision or widening
0
0
0
(deeply incised = 0; stable bed &banks = rtmx points)
-5
-4
0 -5
13
Presence of major book failures
0-5
0 - 5
0-5
4
.Jr
severe erosion = 0; no erosion, stable banks = max points)
14
Root depth and density on banks
0-3
0
2
no visible roots = 0; dense roots throughout = max poin )
- 4
0-5
y
15
Impact by agriculture, livestock, or timber production
0
substantial impact =0; no evidence = max points)
0- 5
0-4
0 - 5
16
Presence of rlfHe- pool/ripple -pool complexes
0-3
0- 5
0- 6
0
I
no ritlles/ri ies or Is = 0; well -d"elo d = max
e
1
Habitat complexity
0-6
0 - 6
0-6
3
.Fr
little or no habitat = 0; frequent, varied habitats = max points)
18
Canopy coverage over streambed
0- 5
0- 5
2
no shading vegetation = 0; continuous ca = max points)
0- 5
19
Substrate embeddedoess
NA'
0 -4
0 -4
N/A
(deeply embedded = 0; loose strucmrc = max
20
Presence of stream Invertebrates (see page 4)
0-4
0 - 5
0-5
0
no evidence = 0; common, numerous types = max points)
21
Presence of amphibians
0-4
0-4
0-4
1
(no evidence = 0; common, numerous s = max points)
O
22
Presence off fish
0 -4
0 -4
0 -4
0
no evidence = 0; common, numerous types max points)
23
Evidence of wildlife use
0- 6
0- 5
0- 5
2
no evidence = 0; abundant evidence = max points)
Total Points Possible
loo
100
100
TOTAL SCORE (also enter on first page)
26
• Thew., characteristics are not assessed in coasta l streams.

North Carolina Division of Water Quality - Stream Identification Form, Version 4.11
Date: 6/5/2014
Project/Site:
Beaufort Solar:
Ditch 8
Latitude:
35.452137
l Hartshorn ),
Evaluator
County:
Beaufort
Longitude:
- 77.125692
R Sullivan (KHA)KHA)
.
3
2. Sinuosity of channel along thatweg
0
1
Total Points: 18.25
Stream Determination (circle one)
Other
Wilmar and
Stream is at least intermittent
NEphemer
ntermittent Perennial
e.g. Quad Name.
Hackney Quads
if a 19 or perennial if a 30
0
i
2
3
A. Geomorphology Subtotal = 5
Absent
Weak
Moderate
strong
Score
1a. Continuity of channel bed and bank
0
1
2
3
3
2. Sinuosity of channel along thatweg
0
1
2
3
1
3. In- channel structure: ex. riffle -pool, step -pool, ripple
aol se uence
0
1
2
3
0
4. Particle size of stream substrate
0
i
2
3
1
5. Active /relic flood lain
0
1
2
3
0
6. Depositional bars or benches
0
1
1 2
1 3
1 0
7. Recent alluvial deposits
0
1
2
3
0
8. Headcuts
0
1
'perennial streams may also be identified using other methods. See p. 35 of manual.
3
0
9. Grade control
0
0.5
1
1.5
0
10. Natural valley
0
0.5
1
1.5
0
11. Second or greater order channel
No = 0
Yes = 3
0
artificial ditches are not rated, see discussions in manual
B. Hydroloqy Subtotal = 6.5
12. Presence of Baseflow
0
1
2
3
1
13. Iron oxidizing bacteria
0
1
2
3
0
14. Leaf litter
1.5
1
0.5
0
1.5
15. Sediment on plants or debris
0
0.5
1
1.5
0.5
16. Or anic debris lines or piles
0
0.5
1
1.5
0.5
17. Soil -based evidence of high water table?
No = 0
Yes -
3
C. Biology Subtotal = 6.75
18. Fibrous roots in streambed
3
2
1
0
2
19. Rooted upland plants in streambed
3
2
1
0
3
20. Macrobenthos note diversity and abundance
0
1
2
3
0
21. Aquatic Mollusks
0
1
2
3
0
22. Fish
0
0.5
1
1.5
0
23. Crayfish
0
0.5
1
1.5
0
24. Amphibians
0
0.5
1
1.5
0.5
25. AI ae
0
0.5
1
1.5
0.5
26. Wetland plants in streambed
FACW = 0.75; OBL = 1.5; Other = 0
0.75
'perennial streams may also be identified using other methods. See p. 35 of manual.
Notes: Ditch 8 is a linear agricultural ditch that has standing surface water
and obvious flow at multiple locations. The reach is a iurisdictional ditch that
beains at the eastern end of ditch 7 and drains towards Ditch 9 (a modified
natural stream). Several frogs were spotted along this reach but no fish were
present at the time of the site visit. Algae was present in some of the surface
water.

USACE AID# DWQ #_ Site tt {indicate on attached map)
;,a,; STREAM QUALITY ASSESSMENT WORKSHEET -AMCP
Provide the following Information for the stream reach under assessment:
1. Applicant's name: Element Power 2. Evaluator's nmne: 1. Hartshorn (KHA), R. Sullivan (KHA)
3. Date of evaluation: 06/05/2014 4. Time of evaluation: 2.08 pm
5. Name of stream: Ditch 8 6. River basin: Tar River
7. Approximate drainage area: 115 acres
9. Length of reach cvuluatcd: 100 feet
11. Site coordinates (if known):
Latitude hex. 17.97n 121:
prefer in decimal degrees.
35.452137
Ill. Stream order: First Order
10. County: Beaufort
12. Subdivision name (if any): N/A
Longitudelex. 77.556611,: - 77.125692
Method location detcmnincd (circle): r- riPS opo Slnc10)nho (Aerial) Ptaaodi sourer GI.SO)ther
13. Location of reach under evaluation (note nearby roads and landmarks and attach map identifying streams) location):
Ditch 8 was evaluated just west of its intersection with Ditch 9.
14. Proposed channel work (if
15. Recent weather
N/A
and dry with temperatures ranging from 63 to 93 degrees Farenheit
16. Site conditions at time of visit: Sunny and hot with temperatures in the low 90's Farenheit
17. Identify any special waterway classifications known: 0Section 10 IITidal Waters IIEssenlial Fisheries Habitat
IITrout Waters 00utsianding Resource Waters Z Nutrient Sensitive Waters DWater Supply Watershed (I -IV)
19. Is there a pond or lake located upstream of the evaluation point'? NO If yes, estimate the water surface area:
19. Does channel appear on USGS quad map? YES 20. Does channel appear on USDA Soil Survey? NO
21. Estimated watershed land use: _% Residential _% Commercial % Industrial 50 %Agricultural
_% Forested _% C'learcd / Logged 50 % OfhcY (Silvhallhlral (Pine pWtfWW) )
22. Bankfull width: 8' 23. Bank height ( from tied to top of lank): 4r
24. Channel slope down center of stream: R✓ Flat (0 to 2%) OGcntic (2 to 4 %) DModenatc (4 to 109/6) Osteep ( >10%)
25. Channel sinuosity: _✓ Straight 00ccasional bends 0FrcquLnt meander OVery sinuous IIBraided channel
Instructions for completion of worksheet (located on page 2): Begin by determining the most appropriate ecorogion based on
location. terrain. vegetation. stream classification. etc. Every characteristic must be sewed wing the same ecoregion. Assign points
to each characteristic within the range shown for the ecoregion. Page 3 provides a brief description of how to review the
characteristics identified in the worksheq. Scores should reflect an overall assessment of the steam reach under evaluation. If a
characteristic cannot be evaluated due to site or weather conditions, enter 0 in the scoring box and provide an explanation in the
comment section. Where there arc obvious changes in the character of a steam under review (c.g_ the strum flows from a pasture
into a forest), the stream may be divided into smaller reaches that display more continuity, and a separate form used to evaluate each
reach. The total score assigned to a stream reach must range between 0 and 100, with a scow of 100 rTorsenting a stream of the
highest quality.
Toted Score (from reverse): 23 Comments:
Ditch 8 is a linear agricultural ditch that has standing surface water and obvious flow at multiple locations The reach is a
jurisdictional ditch _that begins at the eastern end of ditch 7 and djr4in3 towards Ditch _9 (a modified natural stream). Several
h)g"terg-spotted along this reach but no fish vgre present at the time of-]he site visit Algae was pteserit in some of the
Evaluator's Signature %u ,� n /tu -rli Ac.rn' Date 06/05/2014
This channel evaluation form is intended to be used only as a guide to assist landowners and environmental professionals in
gathering the data required by the United States Arm) Corps of Engineers to make a preliminary assessment of stream
quality. The total score resulting from the completion of this form is subject to USACF. approval and does not imply a
particular mitigation ratio or requirement. Fonn subject to change version 116/03. To Comment. please call 919 -X76 -9441 v 26.

Ditch 8
STREAM QUALITY ASSESSMENT WORKSHEET
• These characteristics are not assessed in coastal streams.
ECOREGION POINT RANGE
#
CHARACTERISTICS
SCORE
Coastal
Piedmont
Mountain
I
Presence of flow / persistent pools in stream
0-5
0 - 4
0-5
2
no now or saturation = 0; strong flow = max points)
2
Evidence of past human alteration
0-6
0-5
0-5
O
extensive alteration = 0; no alteration = max points)
3
Riparian zone
0-6
0 - 4
0-5
2
(no buffer = 0; contiguous, wide buffer = max points)
Evidence of nutrients or chemical discharges
0-5
0-4
0-4
4
4
extensive discharges = 0; no discharges = max points)
,4
5
Groundwater discharge
0-3
0-4
0-4
1
Q
(no discharge = 0; springs, seeps, wetlands, etc. = max points)
V.,
Presence of adjacent floodplain
0-4
0 4
0-2
O
6
no floodplain = 0; extensive floodplain = max points)
-
Z
Entrenchment / floodplain access
0-5
0-4
0-2
O
a'
7
(deeply entrenched = 0; frequent flooding = max points)
g
Presence of adjacent wetlands
0-6
0-4
0-2
O
no wetlands = 0; large adjacent wetlands = max points)
9
Channel sinuosity
0 -5
0 -4
0 -3
O
extensive channelization = 0; natural meander = max into
10
Sediment input
0-5
0-4
0-4
4
extensive deposition- 0; little or no sentiment =max points)
I I
Size & diversity of channel bed substrate
NA"
0-4
0 - 5
N/A
fine, homogenous = 0; large, diverse sizes = max points)
12
Evidence of channel incision or widening
0 -5
0 -4
0 -5
O
(deeply incised = 0; stable bed &banks =max ints
13
Presence of major bank failures
0-5
0 - 5
0-5
4
seven erosion = 0; no erosion, stable banks = max points)
�]
Root depth and density on banks
0-3
0 4
0-5
2
14
no visible roots = 0; dense roots throughout = max ints
-
Impact by agriculture, livestock, or timber production
0-5
0 4
0-5
O
15
substantial impact =0; no evidence = max nines
-
Presence of riffle- poollripple -pool complexes
0-3
0-5
0-6
O
16
no riffles/ripples or pools = 0; well-developed = max points)
I�
C
1
Habitat complexity
0-6
0 - 6
0-6
1
F
little or no habitat = 0 frequent, varied habitats = max points)
C]
Canopy coverage over streambed
0-5
0 5
0-5
1
18
no shading vegetation = 0; continuous canopy = max points)
-
19
Substrate emheddedness
NA*
0-4
0 - 4
N/A
(deeply embedded = 0; loose structure = max
20
Presence of stream invertebrates (see page 4)
0-4
0 - 5
0-5
O
(no evidence = 0; common. numerous types = max points)
21
Presence of amphibians
0 -4
0 -4
0 -4
1
no evidence = 0; common, numerous types = max points)
O
22
Presence of fish
0-4
0 - 4
0-4
O
no evidence = 0; common, numerous types = max points)
m
23
Evidence of wildlife use
0-6
0 - 5
0-5
1
no evidence = 0; abundant evidence = max points)
Total Points Possible
100
100
100
TOTAL SCORE (also enter on first page)
23
• These characteristics are not assessed in coastal streams.

North Carolina Division of Water Quality -Stream Identification Form, Version 4.11
Date: 6/5/2014
ProjecVSite: Beaufort Solar:
Ditch 9
Latitude: 35.451787
Evaluator: JR Hartshorn
R. Sullivan ( KHA
KHA)
Count Beaufort
y'
Longitude: - 77.124269
9
Total Points: 21.25
0
1
2
Stream Deter n (circle one)
Other Wilmar and
Stream is at least intermittent
Ephemer ntermltten erennial
e.g. Quad Name. Hackney Quads
if z 19 or perennial if z 30
3
1
A. Geomorphology Subtotal = 6
Absent
Weak
Moderate
Strong
Score
1a. Continuity of channel bed and bank
0
1
2
3
3
2. Sinuosit of channel alon thalwe
0
1
2
3
1
3. In- channel structure: ex. riffle -pool, step -pool, ripple
ool se uence
0
1
2
3
0
4. Particle size of stream substrate
0
1
2
3
1
5. Active /relic flood lain
0
1
2
3
0
6. Depositional bars or benches
0
1
2
3
1
7. Recent alluvial deposits
0
1 1
2
3
0
8. Headcuts
0
1
2
3
0
9. Grade control
0
0.5
1
1.5
0
10. Natural valley
0
0.5
1
1.5
0
11. Second or realer order channel
No = 0
Yes = 3
0
arnnc,ai ditches are not rayed; see discussions in manual
B. Hydrology Subtotal =
12. Presence of Baseflow
0
1
2
3
1
13. Iron oxidizing bacteria
0
1
2
3
0
14. Leaf litter
1.5
1
0.5
0
1.5
15. Sediment on plants or debris
0
0.5
1
1.5
1
16. Organic debris lines or piles
0
0.5
1
1.5
0.5
17. Soil -based evidence of high water table?
No = 0
Yes = 3
3
C. Biology Subtotal = 8.25
18. Fibrous roots in streambed
3
2
1
0
3
19. Rooted upland plants in streambed
3
2
1
0
3
20. Macrobenthos (note diversity and abundance )
0
1
2
3
0
21. Aquatic Mollusks
0
1
2
3
0
22. Fish
0
0.5
1
1.5
0
23. Crayfish
0
0.5
1
1.5
0.5
24. Amphibians
0
0.5
1
1.5
0.5
25. Algae
0
0.5
1
1.5
0.5
26. Wetland plants in streambed
FACW = 0.75; OBL = 1.5, Other = 0
0.75
'perennial sbeams may also be identified using other methods. See p. 35 of manual.
Notes: Ditch 9 appears to be a natural channel that was modified into a
linear agricultural ditch that flows from the east end of Ditch 8 in an eastward
direction off the property. Ditch 9 has been modified in the past but it now
appears to be develooinq bends and has depositional features in the
streambed. Surface water with an obvious flow direction was observed in the
channel durinq the site visit.

USACE AID# DWQ a
Site #_ (indicate on attached map)
M STREAM QUALITY ASSESSMENT WORKSHEET _A40
Provide the following information for the stream reach under assessment:
Element Power y F I i 1. Hartshom (KHA), R. Sullivan (KHA)
m
1. Applicant s nae.
3. Date of evaluation: 06/05/2014
5. Name of stream: Ditch 9
7. Approximate drainage area: 132 acres
9. Length of reach evaluated: 100 feet
11. Site coordinates (if known):
Latitude- um .1a.xzz3 r 2):
prefer in decimal degrees.
35.451787
_- .va ua or s name.
4. Time of evaluation: 2:25 pm
& River basin: Tar River
& Stream order. First Order
I& Count.: Beaufort
12. Subdivision name (if any): N/A
Longitude lea. 77.556611): - 77.124269
Method location determined Icirck):EJiPSaopu Shcet�ho 1 A,�iah Plaao'GIS[2Ahcr (OO)ther
13. Location of reach under evaluation (note nearby roads and landmarks and attach map identifying stream(s) location):
Ditch 9 was evaluated roughly 250' west from where the stream is culverted under U.S. Highway 17.
14. Proposed channel work (if any): nfes
15. Recent weather conditions: Sunny and dry with temperatures ranging from 63 to 93 degrees Farenheit
16. site conditions at lime of visit: Sunny and hot with temperatures in the low 90's Farenhelt
17. Identify any special waterway classifications known: IISection 10 OTidal Waters OEssential Fisheries Habital
IITrout Waters Coutslanding Resource Waters II✓ Nutrient Sensitive Waters DWater Supply Watershed (I -IV)
1& Is there a pond or lake located upstream of the evaluation point? NO If yes. estimate the water surface area:
19. Does channel appear on USGS quad map'! YES 20. Does channel appear on USDA Soil Survey? NO
21. Estimated watershed land use: _% Residential _% Commercial % Industrial 50 "„ Agricultural
Forested _% Cleared / Logged 50 % Other (Sllvieulturaf (Pine Plantation) )
22. Bankfull width: 12' 23. Bank height (from bed to top of bank): 3'
24. Channel slope down center of stream: ✓Flat (0 to 2 %) OGentle (2 to 4 %) OModeralc (4 to 10° /a) J_ -,p (> 101,16)
25. Channel sinuosity: JW LStraight 00ccasional bends OFrequent meander OVery sinuous IIBraided channel
Instructions for completion of worksheet (located on page 2): Begin by determining the most appropriate Lcoregion based on
location. terrain, vegetation, stream classification. etc. Every characteristic must be scored using the same ecoregion. Assign points
to each characteristic within the range shown for the ecoregion. Page 3 provides a brief description of how to review the
characteristics identified in the worksheet. Scums should reflect an overall assessment of the stream reach under evaluation. if a
characteristic cannot be evaluated due to site or weather conditions. enter o in the scoring box and provide an explanation in the
comment section. Where there are obvious changes in the character of a stream under review (e.g.. the stream rows from a pasture
into a forest), the stream may be divided into smaller reaches that display more continuity. and a separate form used to evaluate each
reach. The total score assigned to a stream reach must range between 0 and 100, with a score of 100 representing a stream of the
highest quality.
Total Score (from reverse): 33 Comments.
Ditch 9 appears to be a natural channel that was modified Into a linear agricultural ditch that flows from the east end of Ditch
8 in an eastward direction off the property. Dftch 9 has been modified in the past but it rtow appears to be dm&L)P ng bends
and has dwQsitional features in the streambed Surface water with an obvious flow direction was observed in the channel
/n)r,r !(rr rlslrr,•o 06/05/2014
Evaluator's Signature Date
This channel evaluation form Is Intended to be used only as a guide to assist landowners and environmental professionals in
gathering the data required by the United States Army Corps of Engineers to make a preliminary assessment of stream
quality. 'The total score resulting from the completion of this form is subject to USACE approval and does not imply a
particular mitigation ratio or requirement. Form subject nt change version 06/03. To Comment. please call 919- 976-9441 x 26.

Ditch 9
STREAM QUALITY ASSESSMENT WORKSHEET
• 1 he se characteristics are out assessed in coastal streams.
#
CHARACTERISTICS
ECOREGION POINT RANGE
SCORE
Ctastal Piedmont Mountain
I
Presence of flow / persistent pools in stream
0-5
3
no flow or saturation = 0; strong (low = max points)
0 - 4
0-5
2
Evidence of past human alteration
0-6
0
extensive alteration = 0; no alteration = max points)
0-5
0-5
3
Riparian zone
0 -6
0 -4
0 -5
3
(no buffer = 0; contiguous, wide bulfer = max t. ms)
4
Evidence of nutrient or chemical discharges
0-5
4
extensive discharges = 0; no discharges = max ints
0 - 4
0-4
.4
5
Groundwater discharge
0-3
0-4
0-4
2
U
no discharge = 0; springs, seeps, wetlands, etc. = max points)
.+
6
Presence of adjacent floodplain
0-4
0 4
0-2
O
no floodplain = 0; extensive floodplain =max oints)
-
S
Entrenchment / floodplain access
C6
(deeply entrenched = 0; frequent flooding = max points)
0-5
0 - 4
0-2
1
g
Presence of adjacent wetlands
0- 6
0- 4
0- 2
O
no wetlands = 0: large adjacent wetlands = max points)
9
Channel sinuosity
0 -5
0 -4
0 -3
1
extensive channelization = 0; natural meander = max points)
10
Sediment input
0 -5
0 -4
0 -4
3
extensive deposition- 0; little or no sediment = max points)
11
Size & diversity of channel bed aulrstrate
=points)
NA•
0-4
0 - 5
N/A
fine, homogenous = 0; large. diverse sizes ints)
12
Evidence of channel incision or widening
0
0
0
(demlv incised = 0; stable bed &banks =max points)
-5
-4
0 -5
13
13
Presence of major bank failures
0-5
0 - 5
0-5
3
.2
erosion = 0; no erosion, stable banks= max points
M
14
Root depth and density on banks
0-3
0 4
2
Id„
(no visible roots = 0; dense roots throughout = max points)
-
0-5
to
15
Impact by agriculture, livestock, or timber production
0
O
substantial impact =0; no evidence =max ints
-5
0 -4
0 -5
16
Presence of riflie- pooL/ripple -pool complexes
0-3
0 5
O
1-
no riffles./ripples or pools = 0: well- develo d = max points)
-
0-6
Q
1
Habitat complexity
0- 6
0- 6
0- 6
3
little or no habitat = 0; frequent, varied habitats = max points)
18
Canopy coverage over streambed
0- 5
0- 5
0- 5
3
no shading vegetation = 0; continuous canopy = max points)
19
Substrate embeddeduess
NA*
0-4
0 - 4
N/A
(deeply embedded = 0; loose structure = max)
20
Presence of stream Invertebrates (see page 41
0-4
1
no evidence = 0: common, numerous types= max points)
0 - 5
0-5
21
Presence of amphibians
0 -4
0 -4
0 -4
1
no evidence = 0: common, numerous types - max points)
0
22
Presence offish
0 -4
0 -4
0 -4
O
m
(no evidence = 0; common, numerous s = max points)
23
Evidence of wildlife use
0- 6
0- 5
0- 5
3
no evidence = 0; abundant evidence = max points)
Total Points Possible
100
100
100
TOTAL SCORE (also enter on first page) 1
33
• 1 he se characteristics are out assessed in coastal streams.

U.S. ARMY CORPS OF ENGINEERS
WILMINGTON DISTRICT
Action Id. SAW 2013 -01188 County: Beaufort U.S.G.S. Quad: Wilmar
NOTIFICATION OF JURISDICTIONAL DETERNUNATION
Pronertv Owner: Element Power
attn: Todd Mattson
Address: 222 South Ninth Street, Suite 2870
1Vlmneaoolis, MN 55402
612 - 294 -4670
C ou A-,-:
Agent: Kimley -Horn and Associates, Inc.
attn: Chad Evenhouse
Address: Post Office Box 33068
Raleigh, North Carolina 27636 -3068
919 -677 -2000
Property description: The project area contains approximately 400 acres (25.5 acres are identified as forested wetlands
and the rest is agriculture fields). The site contains 1,451 linear feet of jurisdictional ditches.
Size (acres) 400 Nearest Town Chocowinity
Nearest Waterway Chicod & Chocowinity Creeks River Basin Tar and Neuse Basins
and Creepiag Swamp Coordinates 35.462784 N - 77.139249 W
USGS HUC 03020103
Location description: The project area is located south of the Town of Chocowinity and on the west side of US
Highway 17, between SR 1154 (Cavton Road) and US Hiehway 17.
Indicate Which of the Following Apply:
A. Preliminary Determination
R Based on preliminary information, there may be waters of the U.S. including wetlands on the above described project area.
We strongly suggest you have this property inspected to determine the extent of Department of the Army (DA)
jurisdiction. To be considered final, a jurisdictional determination must be vied by the Corps. This preliminary
determination is not an appealable action under the Regulatory Program Administrative Appeal Process ( Reference 33
CFR Part 331). If you wish, you may request an approved JD (which may be appealed), by contacting the Corps district
for further instruction. Also, you may provide new information for further consideration by the Corps to reevahhate the
JD.
B. Approved Determination
_ There are Navigable Waters of the United States within the above described property subject to the permit requirements of
Section 10 of the Rivers and Harbors Act and Section 404 of the Clean Water Act Unless there is a change in the law or
our published regulations, this determination may be relied upon for a period not to exceed five years from the date of this
notification.
_ There are waters of the U.S. including wetlands on the above described property subject to the permit requirements of
Section 404 of the Clean Water Act (C WA)(33 USC § 1344). Unless there is a change in the law or our published
regulations, this determination may be relied upon for a period not to exceed five years from the date of this notification.
_ We strongly suggest you have the wetlands on your property delineated. Due to the size of your property and/or our
present workload, the Corps may not be able to accomplish this wetland delineation in a timely manner. For a more timely
delineation, you may wish to obtain a consultant To be considered final, any delineation must be verified by the Corps.
_ The waters of the U.S. including wetlands on your project area have been delineated and the delineation has been
verified by the Corps. We strongly suggest you have this delineation surveyed. Upon completion, this survey should be
reviewed and verified by the Corps. Once verified, this survey will provide an accurate depiction of all areas subject to
CWA jurisdiction on your property which, provided there is no change in the law or our published regulations, may be
relied upon for a period not to exceed five years.
_ The waters of the U.S. including wetlandshave been delineated and surveyed and are accurately depicted on the plat
signed by the Corps Regulatory Official identified below on _. Unless there is a change in the law or our published
regulations, this determination may be relied upon for a period not to exceed five years from the date of this notification.
There are no waters of the U.S., to include wetlands, present on the above described project area which are subject to the
permit requirements of Section 404 of the Clean Water Act (33 USC 1344). Unless there is a change in the law or our
Page 1 of 2

ppfil,�ltcd re'$ la ons, this determination may be relied upon for a period not to exceed five years from the date of this
4� notitigatioa!
`. ',The property is located in one of the 20 Coastal Counties subject to regulation under the Coastal Area Management Act
"(CAMA). You should contact the Division of Coastal Management in Washington, NC, at (252) 946 -6481 to determine
their requirements.
Placement of dredged or fill material within waters of the US and/or wetlands without a Department of the Army permit may
constitute a violation of Section 301 of the Clean Water Act (33 USC § 1311). If you have any questions regarding this
determination and/or the Corps regulatory program, please contact William Wescott at91O. 2514629.
C. Basis For Determination The three parameters specified in the Regional Supplement of the 1987 USACE
Wetlands Delineation Manual were present within the 25.5 acres of forest land. Portions of two 'ditches' for a total
of 1,451 linear feet were determined to be jurisdictional Waters of the U.S.
D. Remarks The ditches shown on the map as Waters of the U.S. were identified by an 01TWM, the lack of woody
vegetation growing in channel, and the presence of fish.
E. Attention USDA Program Participants
This delineation/determination has been conducted to identify the limits of Corps' Clean Water Act jurisdiction for the
particular site identified in this request. The delineation/determination may not be valid for the wetland conservation
provisions of the Food Security Act of 1985. If you or your tenant are USDA Program participants, or anticipate participation
in USDA programs, you should request a certified wetland determination from the local office of the Natural Resources
Conservation Service, prior to starting work.
F. Appeals Information (This information applies only to approved jurisdictional determinations as indicated in
B. above)
This correspondence constitutes an approved jurisdictional determination for the above described site. If you object to this
determination, you may request an administrative appeal under Corps regulations at 33 CFR Part 331. Enclosed you will find a
Notification of Appeal Process (NAP) fact sheet and request for appeal (RFA) form. If you request to appeal this
determination you must submit a completed RFA form to the following address:
US Army Corps of Engineers
South Atlantic Division
Attn: Jason Steele, Review Officer
60 Forsyth Street SW, Room 1OM15
Atlanta, Georgia 30303 -8801
In order for an RFA to be accepted by the Corps, the Corps must determine that it is complete, that it meets the criteria for
appeal under 33 CFR part 331.5, and that it has been received by the Division Office within 60 days of the date of the NAP.
Should you decide to submit an RFA form, it must be received at the above address by
**It is not necessary to submit an RFA form to the Division Office if you do not object to the determination in this
correspondence."
Corps Regulatory Official:
Date: 7/1/2013 Expiration Date: 7/1/2018
The Wilmington District is committed to providing the highest level of support to the public. To help us ensure we continue to
do so, please complete the attached customer Satisfaction Survey or visit htt p:// oer2 .nwp.usace.armv.mil/survgyhtml to
complete the survey online.

ATTACHMENT
RECEIVED
JUN 19 2013
PRELIMINARY JURISDICTIONAL DETERMINATION FORM Washington U.S. ARMY Regulatory CCORpS �E�NG
BACKGROUND INFORMATION
A. REPORT COMPLETION DATE FOR PRELIMINARY JURISDICTIONAL
DETERMINATION (JD):
B. NAME AND ADDRESS OF PERSON REQUESTING PRELIMINARY JD:
Kimley -Horn and Associates, Inc.
ATTN: Chad Evenhouse, PWS; on behalf of Element Power
P.O. Box 33068
Raleigh, NC 27636
C. DISTRICT OFFICE, FILE NAME, AND NUMBER:
D. PROJECT LOCATION(S) AND BACKGROUND INFORMATION:
(USE THE ATTACHED TABLE TO DOCUMENT MULTIPLE WATERBODIES
AT DIFFERENT SITES)
State: NC County /parish /borough: Beaufort City: Chocowinity
Center coordinates of site (lat/long in degree decimal format):
Lat. 35.457800 ° N, Long. 77.136900 ° W.
Universal Transverse Mercator: 18
Name of nearest waterbody: Tar - Pamlico River
Identify (estimate) amount of waters in the review area:
• Non - wetland waters:
o Modified Natural Channel: 504 linear feet
• Cowardin Class: Riverine
o Jurisdictional Waters
(Man -made Drainage Ditches): 947 linear feet (0.13 acres)
■ Cowardin Class: Riverine
• Wetlands:
o 25.5 acres
■ Cowardin Class: Palustrine
Name of any water bodies on the site that have been identified as Section 10
waters:
Tidal: n/a
Non - Tidal: n/a
I

E. REVIEW PERFORMED FOR SITE EVALUATION (CHECK ALL THAT
APPLY):
❑ Office (Desk) Determination. Date:
XField Determination. Date(s): �/� -013
1. The Corps of Engineers believes that the a may be jurisdictional waters of the
United States on the subject site, and the permit applicant or other affected party
who requested this preliminary JD is hereby advised of his or her option to
request and obtain an approved jurisdictional determination (JD) for that site.
Nevertheless, the permit applicant or other person who requested this
preliminary JD has declined to exercise the option to obtain an approved JD in
this instance and at this time.
2. In any circumstance where a permit applicant obtains an individual permit, or
a Nationwide General Permit (NWP) or other general permit verification requiring
"pre- construction notification" (PCN), or requests verification for a non - reporting
NWP or other general permit, and the permit applicant has not requested an
approved JD for the activity, the permit applicant is hereby made aware of the
following: (1) the permit applicant has elected to seek a permit authorization
based on a preliminary JD, which does not make an official determination of
jurisdictional waters; (2) that the applicant has the option to request an approved
JD before accepting the terms and conditions of the permit authorization, and
that basing a permit authorization on an approved JD could possibly result in less
compensatory mitigation being required or different special conditions; (3) that
the applicant has the right to request an individual permit rather than accepting
the terms and conditions of the NWP or other general permit authorization; (4)
that the applicant can accept a permit authorization and thereby agree to comply
with all the terms and conditions of that permit, including whatever mitigation
requirements the Corps has determined to be necessary; (5) that undertaking
any activity in reliance upon the subject permit authorization without requesting
an approved JD constitutes the applicant's acceptance of the use of the
preliminary JD, but that either form of JD will be processed as soon as is
practicable; (6) accepting a permit authorization (e.g., signing a proffered
individual permit) or undertaking any activity in reliance on any form of Corps
permit authorization based on a preliminary JD constitutes agreement that all
wetlands and other water bodies on the site affected in any way by that activity
are jurisdictional waters of the United States, and precludes any challenge to
such jurisdiction in any administrative or judicial compliance or enforcement
action, or in any administrative appeal or in any Federal court; and (7) whether
the applicant elects to use either an approved JD or a preliminary JD, that JD
will be processed as soon as is practicable. Further, an approved JD, a proffered
individual permit (and all terms and conditions contained therein), or individual
permit denial can be administratively appealed pursuant to 33 C.F.R. Part 331,
and that in any administrative appeal, jurisdictional issues can be raised (see 33
C.F.R. 331.5(a)(2)). If, during that administrative appeal, it becomes necessary
to make an official determination whether CWA jurisdiction exists over a site, or
to provide an official delineation of jurisdictional waters on the site, the Corps will
provide an approved JD to accomplish that result, as soon as is practicable.
This preliminary JD finds that there "may be" waters of the United States on the
subject project site, and identifies all aquatic features on the site that could be
affected by the proposed activity, based on the following information:
2

SUPPORTING DATA. Data reviewed for preliminary JD (check all that apply
- checked items should be included in case file and, where checked and
requested, appropriately reference sources below):
® Maps, plans, plots or plat submitted by or on behalf of the
applicant /consultant: hr MLej - logr AND A55oe,ATC5, TW
® Data sheets prepared /submitted by or on behalf of the
aplqlic t1consultant.
Office concurs with data sheets /delineation report.
❑ Office does not concur with data sheets /delineation report.
❑ Data sheets prepared by the Corps:
❑ Corps navigable waters' study:
❑ U.S. Geological Survey Hydrologic Atlas:
❑ USGS NHD data.
❑ USGS 8 and 12 digit HUC maps.
® U.S. Geological Survey map(s). Cite scale & quad name:
• 1:24,000: Wilmar Quad (1983) and Hackney Quad (1983)
® USDA Natural Resources Conservation Service Soil Survey. Citation:
• Beaufort County (1995)
❑ National wetlands inventory map(s). Cite name:
❑ State /Local wetland inventory map(s):
❑ FEMA/FIRM maps:
❑ 100 -year Floodplain Elevation is: (National Geodectic Vertical Datum
of 1929)
® Photographs: ® Aerial (Name & Date):
• 2010 NC Statewide Orthoimagery Project (2010)
or ® Other (Name & Date):Site Photographs (February 2013)
❑ Previous determination(s). File no. and date of response letter:
❑ Other information (please specify):
4-L\ a
Signature and date of
Regulatory Project Manager
(REQUIRED)
Signature and date of
person requesting preliminary JD
(REQUIRED, unless obtaining
the signature is impracticable)

ReCelVe®
JUN 19 2013
y CORY Vid of
was6inGtOU ge�afpt7
RECEIVED
i.S. Ait11t u sto y Fld M
VsShingwn Iieg
4
Estimated
Site
Cowardin
amount of
Class of
number
Latitude
Longitude
Class
aquatic
aquatic
resource in
resource
review area
WA
35.4628
- 77.1395
Palustrine
25.5 acres
non - section
10 wetland
ReCelVe®
JUN 19 2013
y CORY Vid of
was6inGtOU ge�afpt7
RECEIVED
i.S. Ait11t u sto y Fld M
VsShingwn Iieg
4

s 3 t 0p�rY :.�a"j4$ v °Ih tei?Ba { '°e4,�aile�rcon
p'l 0 8rt 33 CCBR Pei31r
A: WrrML PROFFERED PERMrr: You may accept or object to the permit.
• ACCEPT: if you received a Standard Permit, you may sign the permit document and return it to the district engineer for final
authorisation. If you received a Letter of Permission (LAP), you may accept the LOP and your work is authorized. Your
signature on the Standard Permit or acceptance of the LOP means that you accept the permit in its entirety, and waive all
rights to appeal the permit, including its terms and conditions, and approved jurisdictional determinations associated with the
permit.
• OBJECT: If you object to the permit (Standard or LOP) because of certain terms and conditions therein, you may request
that the permit be modified accordingly. You must complete Section 11 of this form and return the form to the district
engineer. Your objections must be received by the district engineer within 60 days of the date of this notice, or you will
forfeit your right to appeal the permit in the future. Upon receipt of your letter, the district engineer will evaluate your
objections and may: (a) modify the permit to address all of your concerns, (b) modify the permit to address some of your
objections, or (c) not modify the permit having determined that the permit should be issued as previously written. After
evaluating your objections, the district engineer will send you a proffered permit for your reconsideration, as indicated in
Section B below.
B: PROFFERED PERMIT: You may accept or appeal the permit
• ACCEPT: If you received a Standard Permit, you may sign the perm it document and return it to the district engineer for final
authorization. If you received a Letter of Permission (LOP), you may accept the LOP and your work is authorized. Your
signature on the Standard Permit or acceptance of the LOP means that you accept the permit in its entirety, and waive all
rights to appeal the permit, including its terms and conditions, and approved jurisdictional determinations associated with the
permit.
• APPEAL: if you choose to decline the proffered permit (Standard or LOP) because of certain terms and conditions therein,
you may appeal the declined permit under the Corps of Engineers Administrative Appeal Process by completing Section II of
this form and sending the form to the division engineer. This form must be received by the division engineer within 60 days
of the date of this notice.
C: PERMIT DENIAL: You may appeal the denial of a permit under the Corps of Engineers Administrative Appeal Process by
completing Section II of this form and sending the form to the division engineer. This form must be received by the division
engineer within 60 days of the date of this notice.
D: APPROVED JURISDICTIONAL DETERMINATION: You may accept or appeal the approved JD or provide new
information.
• ACCEPT: You do not need to notify the Corps to accept an approved JD. Failure to notify the Corps within 60 days of the
date of this notice, means that you accept the approved JD in its entirety, and waive all rights to appeal the approved JD.
• APPEAL: If you disagree with the approved JD, you may appeal the approved JD under the Corps of Engineers
Administrative Appeal Process by completing Section II of this form and sending the form to the district engineer. This form
must be received by the division engineer within 60 days of the date of this notice.

1;: r=LUVILNAKY JUIUWIU I'IUNAL i)El'ERMINATION: You do not need to respond to the Corps regarding the I
preliminary JD. The Preliminary JD is not appealable. If you wish; you may request an approved JD (which may be appealed),
by contacting the Corps district for further instruction. Also you may provide new information for further consideration by the
Corps to reevaluate the JD.
Y
S EST "FOR
ECT'ONII STFORi�'EB
REASONS FOR APPEAL OR OBJECTIONS: (Describe your masons for appealing the decision or your objections to an initial
proffered permit in clear concise statements. You may attach additional information to this form to clarify where your reasons or
objections are addressed in the administrative record.)
ADDITIONAL INFORMATION: The appeal is limited to a review of the administrative record, the Corps memorandum for the
record of the appeal conference or meeting, and any supplemental information that the review officer has determined is needed to
clarify the administrative record. Neither the appellant nor the Corps may add new information or analyses to the record.
However, you may provide additional information to clarify the location of information that is already in the administrative
record.
POINtQ$`. (j AC OR: OES`IZONS
If you have questions regarding this decision and/or the
If you only have questions regarding the appeal process you may
appeal process you may contact:
also contact
District Engineer, Wilmington Regulatory Division,
Mr. Jason Steele, Administrative Appeal Review Officer
Attn: William Wescott
CESAD-PDO
2407 West 5' Street
U.S. Army Corps of Engineers, South Atlantic Division
Washineton, North Carolina 27889
60 Forsyth Street, Room 1OM15
910 - 251 -4629
Atlanta; Georgia 30303 -8801
Phone: [phone]
RIGHT OF ENTRY: Your signature below grants the right of entry to Corps of Engineers personnel, and any government
consultants, to conduct investigations of the project site during the course of the appeal process. You will be provided a 15 day
notice of any site investigation, and will have the o 'ci ate in all site investi ations.
7Date:
Telephone number:
Signature of tar ant.
For appeals on Initial Proffered Permits send this form to:
District Engineer, Wilmington Regulatory Division, Attn: .69 Darlington Avenue, Wilmington, North
Carolina 28403
For Permit denials, Proffered Permits and approved Jurisdictional Determinations send this form to:
Division Engineer, Commander, U.S. Army Engineer Division, South Atlantic, Attn: Mr. Jason Steele,
Administrative Appeal Officer, CESAD -PDO, 60 Forsyth Street, Room 1OMIS, Atlanta, Georgia 30303 -8801
Phone: [phone]

Scarbraugh, Anthony
From: jason.hartshorn @ kimley- horn.com
Sent: Monday, June 16, 2014 9:30 AM
To: Scarbraugh, Anthony
Subject: Beaufort Solar Site Buffer Determination Request
• BeaufortSolar_ Prelim_JD_signed20l3070l.pdf (618.2 kB)
*Bea ufortSolar_ StreamOrigin_ BufferAppDetermination _20140616.pdf (5.5 MB)
Download the attachments by clicking here.
Good morning Anthony,
Kimley -Horn, on behalf of our client Element Power, would like to request a buffer determination for the proposed
Beaufort Solar Site in Beaufort County. The project is located in the Tar - Pamlico River Basin (USGS HUC 03020103). The
proposed development project will consist of a solar power generation site within a primarily agricultural area. The
USACE issued a Preliminary 1D (SAW 2013 - 01188) for the project area on July 1, 2013. 1 have attached a figure set,
completed NCDWR and USACE stream forms for all blue line ditch features on the property, and the signed preliminary
jurisdictional determination for your review.
The project site is located in southwestern Beaufort County just south of the Town of Chocowinity and between US
Highway 17 and Cayton Road. There is site access from both US Hwy 17 and Cayton Road. The features identified within
the project area are primarily linear agricultural ditches, however a modified natural channel was found in the
southeastern corner of the property closest to the US Hwy 17 access location.
Please let me know if you need any additional information to assist in the processing of this request. After reviewing the
attached documentation, if you would like to review the features in the field, please respond with available dates.
Sincerely,
Jason Hartshorn
Kimley > )Horn
Jason Hartshorn
Kimley -Horn 13001 Weston Parkway, Cary, NC 27513
Direct: 919 678 4155 1 Mobile'. 919 417 1781