20221742 Ver 1_More Info Received_20230123

■M••+•�
■ II E
TIMMONS GROUP
December 9, 2022
Krysta Stygar
U.S. Army Corps of Engineers — Wilmington District
Charlotte Regulatory Field Office
1515 Patton Avenue, Room 208
Asheville, North Carolina 28801-5006
Roberto Scheller
401 & Buffer Permitting Branch
NCDEQ — Division of Water Resources
610 East Center Avenue, Suite 301
Mooresville, NC 28115
5410 Trinity Road P 919.866.4951
Suite 102 F 919.859.5663
Raleigh, NC 27607 www.timmons.com
Re: Electronic Pre -Construction Notification Attachments
Misenheimer Solar Park
Stanly County, North Carolina
Project No.: 47244
Dear Ms. Stygar and Mr. Scheller,
On behalf of EDP Renewables North America LLC (EDPR), we are providing additional
attachments and information to aid in the review of the electronic Pre -Construction Notification of
the Misenheimer Solar, an approximately 682.0-acre site located in Stanly County, North Carolina
(the Site).
Please review the below attachments and contact Lauren Norris -Heflin at [phone] or
[e-mail] if additional information is required.
Sincerely,
Timmons Group
Morgan Gilbert, WPIT
Environmental Scientist I
Lauren Norris -Heflin
Environmental Project Manager
ENGINEERING I DESIGN I TECHNOLOGY

Enclosures
ATTACHMENTS
Appendix A Figure 1 — Vicinity Map
Figure 2 — NRCS Soil Survey Map
Figure 3 — Environmental Inventory Map
Figure 4 — Wetlands and Waters of the U.S. Delineation Map
Appendix B
Agent Authorization Form
Approved and Preliminary Jurisdictional Determination
DWR Pre -Filing Request
Appendix C Environmental Impacts Set
Appendix D Mitigation Acceptance Letter
Appendix E 2022 USFWS Concurrence
2021 USFWS Concurrence
2022 USFWS Letter Report
2021 USFWS Letter Report
Appendix F
State Clearinghouse SHPO Concurrence
SHPO Letter
Phase I Archaeological Report
SHPO Map and List

Appendix A

Path: Y:\804\99999-Orion Renewables\41859.002 - Misenheimer\GIS\Common Shared Exhibits\41859.002-VIC-Additional.mxd
•ofd dIAeryv.t
AVIq ILop' try,
NTY
]UN TY
M l s enh el m er
Site limits are approximate.
Topographic imagery from USGS.
0
2,000
4,000
• rot ur.vh
6,000
8,000
Feet
Ritchie:
Like
MISENHEIMER SOLAR
STANLY COUNTY, NORTH CAROLINA
FIGURE 1: VICINITY MAP
TIMMONS GROUP
YOUR VISION ACHIEVED THROUGH OURS. ■
I •41S.
TIMMONS GROUP JOB NUMBER: 41859.002
PROJECT STUDY LIMITS: ORIGINAL: 668.0 ACRES ADDITIONAL: 14.0 ACRES
LATITUDE: 35.489557
LONGITUDE: -80.291684
U.S.G.S. QUADRANGLE(S): GOLD HILL & RICHFIELD
DATE(S): 2016
WATERSHED(S): YADKIN PEE DEE RIVER BASIN
HYDROLOGIC UNIT CODE(S):03040103 & 03040105
These plans and associated documents are the exclusive property of TIMMONS GROUP and may not be reproduced in w
limited to construction, bidding, and/or construction staking without the express written consent of TIMMONS GROUP.
hole or in part and shall not be used for any purpose whatsoever, inclusive, but not

Path: Y:\804\99999-Orion Renewables\41859.002 - Misenheimer\GIS\Common Shared Exhibits\41859.002-NRCS-Additional.mxd
Site limits are approximate.
Soils data from NRCS.
1,300
Site Limits
f I
'I•'
f
j V;
,,, K':ea ! I� 0--1/ 413
' }4 ..+
'Et a13
M /1
3,900
MISENHEIMER SOLAR
STANLY COUNTY, NORTH CAROLINA
FIGURE 2: NRCS SOIL SURVEY MAP
TIMMONS GROUP JOB NUMBER: 41859.002
PROJECT STUDY LIMITS: ORIGINAL: 668.0 ACRES ADDITIONAL: 14.0 ACRES
LATITUDE: 35.489557
LONGITUDE: -80.291684
These plans and associated documents are the exclusive property of TIMMONS GROUP and may not be reproduced in w
limited to construction, bidding, and/or construction staking without the express written consent of TIMMONS GROUP.
TIMMONS GROUP
YOUR VISION ACHIEVED THROUGH OURS. ■
U.S.G.S. QUADRANGLE(S): GOLD HILL & RICHFIELD
DATE(S): 2016
WATERSHED(S): YADKIN PEE DEE RIVER BASIN
HYDROLOGIC UNIT CODE(S):03040103 & 03040105
hole or in part and shall not be used for any purpose whatsoever, inclusive, but not

Yadkin Pee Dee Soils
Mapunit Name
BaF
EnB
OaA
OkA
TaB
Badin channery silt loam, 15 to 45 percent slopes
Enon sandy loam, 2 to 8 percent slopes
Oakboro silt loam, 0 to 2 percent slopes, frequently flooded
Oakboro silt loam, 0 to 2 percent slopes, frequently flooded
Tarrus silt loam, 2 to 8 percent slopes
BaB
Badin channery silt loam, 2 to 8 percent slopes
BaC
Badin channery silt loam, 8 to 15 percent slopes
BaD
Badin channery silt loam, 8 to 15 percent slopes
BgB
BgC
ChA
CmB
EcB
Badin-Goldston complex, 2 to 8 percent slopes
Badin-Goldston complex, 8 to 15 percent slopes
Chewacla sandy loam, 0 to 2 percent slopes, frequently flooded
Cid-Lignum complex, 1 to 6 percent slopes
Enon cobbly loam, 2 to 8 percent slopes
GoC
GoF
KcB
Goldston very channery silt loam, 4 to 15 percent slopes
Goldston very channery silt loam, 15 to 45 percent slopes
Kirksey-Cid complex, 2 to 6 percent slopes
KkB
KkB
MhB
Kirksey silt loam, 0 to 6 percent slopes
Kirksey silt loam, 1 to 6 percent slopes
Misenheimer channery silt loam, 0 to 4 percent slopes
MkB
MsA
Misenheimer-Kirksey complex, 0 to 5 percent slopes
Misenheimer channery silt loam, 0 to 4 percent slopes
TbB
Ud
W
Tarrus channery silt loam, 2 to 8 percent slopes
Udorthents, loamy
Water
Legend
Project Study Limits - 681.5 Acres
National Hydrography Dataset
National Wetlands Inventory
Zone A: 1 % Annual Chance Flood Hazard
Hydric Soil Rating
Hydric (Not Present)
Partially Hydric
Non-Hydric
1
PROJECT NAME & LOCATION
J
0
w
2
w
w
2
Z
Z —�
O11
UQ
J
ZI—
I—- O
(i)Z
DATE
10/20/2020
PROJECT NUMBER
41859.002
PROJECT NAME
MISENHEIMER
DESIGNED BY / DRAWN BY
M.COOLEY
NOTES:
Project Limits are
approximate.
NWI from US Fish and
Wildlife Service.
Soils data from SSURGO.
National Hydrography Dataset
from USGS.
Aerial imagery from Esri.
These plans and associated documents are the
exclusive property of TIMMONS GROUP and
may not be reproduced in whole or in part and
shall not be used for any purpose whatsoever,
inclusive, but not limited to construction, bidding,
and/or construction staking without the express
written consent of TIMMONS GROUP.
REVISIONS
MM/DD/YY
DESCRIPTION
DRAWING DESCRIPTION
FIGURE 3:
ENVIRONMENTAL
INVENTORY MAP
(F)
SCALE (FEET
0 600 1,200
PLANS PRINTED AS 11X17 ARE HALF SCALL
SCALE
H:1 "=600'
SHEET NUMBER
1
Y:\804\99999-Orion Renewables\41859.002 - Misenheimer\GIS\Common Shared Exhibits\41859.002-EIM-Additional.mxd

Resource
Identification
A
PFO
(sq ft)
2,102
203
20,744
F
G
H
K
M
N
0
P
Q
R
T
U
V
W
X
Y
Z
A2
B2
C2
D2
E2
F2
G2
H2
12
J2
K2
L2
M2
34,810
53, 449
4,820
4,057
3,295
3,121
19,006
18,930
3,875
13,694
740
39,154
1,052
27,783
1,918
3,015
PSS PEM
(sq ft) (sq ft)
Confirmation
POW R3 R4
(sq ft) (If) (If)
1,392
8,293
4,244
8,070
905
163,863 29,942
7,915
934
5,857
9,069
275,204
14,819
346
1,259
1,920
17,669
R6 Ditch
(If) (If)
Resource
Description
Notes*
NT/V
NT/V
NT/V
NT/V; NT/NV
NT/V
NT/V
NT/V
NT/V
NT/V; NT/NV
NT/V
NT/V
NT/V
NT/V
NT/V
NT/V
NT/V
NT/V
NT/V
NT/V
NT/V
NT/V; NT/NV
3,097
1,058
947
592
611 210
198
9
114
275
824 633
897
N2
02
P2
Q2
R2
S2
V2
W2
X2
768
100
1,882 659
210
3,336
Y2
Z2
A3
B3
C3 363
D3 29,384
Total 775,339 29,942
Total Wetland Area =
Total Stream Length =
656
273
284
491
320
63,007 10,590
878,878 sq ft
15,347 If
8,122 6,632 593
0
NT/V
NT/V
NT/V
NT/V
NT/V
NT/V
NT/V
NT/V
NT/V
NT/V
NT/V
NT/V
NT/NV
NT/NV
NT/NV
NT/NV
NT/NV
NT/NV
NT/NV
NT/NV
NT/NV
NT/NV
NT/NV
NT/NV
NT/NV
NT/NV
NT/NV
NT/NV
NT/NV
NT/NV
NT/NV
NT/V
NT/V
20.18 ac
* T=Tidal; NT=Non-tidal; V=Vegetated; NV=Non-Vegetated; PFO=Palustrine Forested Wetland;
PSS=Palustrine Scrub -Shrub Wetland; PEM=Palustrine Emergent Wetland; POW= Palustrine Open
Water; EIW= Estuarine Intertidal Wetlands; R3= Upper Perennial Streams; R4=Intermittent Streams;
R6 = Ephemeral Streams
Legend
Additional Study Limits - 14.0 Acres
:77- Previously Confirmed Study Limits (SAW-2021-
11 01122)- 668.0 Acres
© Stream Identifier
Q Wetland Identifier
Wetland Flag
•
Field Data Station
USACE Exclusion Area
Culvert
Perennial Stream (R3)
Intermittent Stream (R4)
Palustrine Emergent (PEM) Wetlands
Palustrine Forested (PFO) Wetlands
Palustrine Scrub -Shrub (PSS) Wetlands
Palustrine Open Water (POW)
Non-Jurisdicational Open Waters
Non-Jurisdicational Wetlands
Topographic Contours
Major- 10 Foot
Minor- 1 Foot
FD"S112515b4
FDS-25U5-2
FDS-28A3-2
FDS-25Si
FDS-30A3-2
a
0
•
•
•
•
TIMMONS GROUP
YOUR VISION ACHIEVED THROUGH OURS.
PROJECT NAME & LOCATION
2
DATE
06/07/2021
PROJECT NUMBER
41859.002
PROJECT NAME
MISENHEIMER SOLAR
DESIGNED BY / DRAWN BY
M.COOLEY
1. Waters of the U.S. within the
project study limits have been
located using submeter, Bluetooth
GPS antennas by Timmons
Group.
2. Waters of the U.S. associated
with SAW-2021-01122 were
confirmed on 1/6/22.
3. Project limits are approximate.
4. Topography based on USGS
LiDAR.
5. Cowardin Stream
Classifications are based on NC
DWR Stream Identification Form
Version 4.11.
These plans and associated documents are the
exclusive property of TIMMONS GROUP and
may not be reproduced in whole or in part and
shall not be used for any purpose whatsoever,
inclusive, but not limited to construction, bidding,
and/or construction staking without the express
written consent of TIMMONS GROUP.
REVISIONS
#
MM/DD/YY
DESCRIPTION
1
07/01/21
Updated per 6/29/2021 USAGE site visit
2
12/06/21
Updated per current WOTUS rules
3
12/5/22
Limits expanded
DRAWING DESCRIPTION
FIGURE 6:
WETLANDS AND
WATERS OF THE
U.S. DELINEATION
MAP- AERIAL
SCALE (FEET
0 500 1,000
PLANS PRINTED AS 11X17 ARE HALF SCALu
SCALE
H:1 "=500'
SHEET NUMBER
1 of 13
Y:\804\99999-Orion Renewables\41859.002 - Misenheimer\GIS\Wetland Delineation\41859.002-WTDM - USACE-Additional Area.mxd

•
•
•
•
1.
9
•
•
i 2
6
■
•
•
4
•
;10
iii.s4111k it
3
7
■
41■■�.� 13-.
57
11.1
•
11 '
12
ob♦v-** ■EN.-
m4
/
Resource
Identification
A
B
C
D
E
F
G
H
J
K
L
M
N
0
P
0
R
S
T
U
V
W
X
Y
Z
A2
B2
C2
D2
E2
F2
Confirmation
PFO
(sq ft)
2,102
203
2,264
20,744
34,810
53,449
4,820
4,057
3,295
3,121
19,006
4,353
18,930
3,875
13,694
740
39,154
1,052
27,783
PSS
(sq ft)
PEM
(sq ft)
POW
(sq ft)
1,392
8,293
R3
(If)
R4
(If)
R6 Ditch
(If) (If)
4,244
1,918 8,070
3,015
163,863 29,942 26,748
7,915
934
905
5,857
5,200
9,069
275,204
14,819
346
1,259
1,920
17,669
G2
H2
12
J2
K2
L2
M2
N2
02
3,097
611
P2 824
02
R2 768
S2 100
V2 1,882 659
W2 210
X2 3,336
Y2 656 273
Z2 284
A3 491
B3 320
C3 363
D3 29,384
Total 775,339 29,942 63,007 10,590 8,122 6,632 593 0
Total Wetland Area = 878,878 sq ft 20.18 ac
Total Stream Length = 15,347 If
* T=Tidal; NT=Non-tidal; V=Vegetated; NV=Non-Vegetated; PFO=Palustrine Forested Wetland;
PSS=Palustrine Scrub -Shrub Wetland; PEM=Palustrine Emergent Wetland; POW= Palustrine Open
Water; EIW= Estuarine Intertidal Wetlands; R3= Upper Perennial Streams; R4=Intermittent Streams;
R6 = Ephemeral Streams
1,058
947
592
210
198
9
114
275
633
897
Resource
Description
Notes*
NT/V
NT/V
NT/V
NT/V; NT/NV
NT/V
NT/V
NT/V
NT/V
NT/V; NT/NV
NT/V
NT/V
NT/V
NT/V
NT/V
NT/V
NT/V
NT/V
NT/V
NT/V
NT/V
NT/V; NT/NV
NT/V
NT/V
NT/V
NT/V
NT/V
NT/V
NT/V
NT/V
NT/V
NT/V
NT/V
NT/V
NT/NV
NT/NV
NT/NV
NT/NV
NT/NV
NT/NV
NT/NV
NT/NV
NT/NV
NT/NV
NT/NV
NT/NV
NT/NV
NT/NV
NT/NV
NT/NV
NT/NV
NT/NV
NT/NV
NT/V
NT/V
Legend
Additional Study Limits - 14.0 Acres
:77- Previously Confirmed Study Limits (SAW-2021-
11 01122)- 668.0 Acres
© Stream Identifier
Q Wetland Identifier
Wetland Flag
•
Field Data Station
USACE Exclusion Area
Culvert
Perennial Stream (R3)
Intermittent Stream (R4)
Palustrine Emergent (PEM) Wetlands
Palustrine Forested (PFO) Wetlands
Palustrine Scrub -Shrub (PSS) Wetlands
Palustrine Open Water (POW)
Non-Jurisdicational Open Waters
Non-Jurisdicational Wetlands
Topographic Contours
Major- 10 Foot
Minor- 1 Foot
•
1 .‘„' :„..., li :-'1„...„ , .......(3' 1 /1 -1; ..... ---;::',.t:/1/4.7 _ 1 C\s1 - .1/4.
X.
'' /') Ir '. r,, J; r`, I.
/,• •
1/ I,\ • ,`' \ `, ,)• 11 `lei//�� r 17/
• •
•
/11
+- '1• <i)_ 1 , , l :^fir , <J � , \�� r I`,� . 1� ,
• 1
•
t.
al
II
ii
▪ Ir
_,' 'r '1,' -'' JAI r'' J' ` rj ^r •+ J ,'' f /' �, .i- / J, -� rl / I - i 1 .�� • �
•
II
/11
11
•
If
•
A.
11
II
•
Ilfr
leN
▪ •
▪ •
`\\ ,•_\_^r fl,, \` +1 I\ I 1 '` r1 ; l I .' f' 1 �- / r ° a r . r. �• 'V ''' `)
•
I I + + , • / ` 1
I 1/
♦' l� 9 O / ,� I J
mil/ ,/ , I 1 I \ , \ , ` ) \ / Iy' 1 ' `" 1
. , ` 1
J ' 1 /
J ,
�. / , v ram' / ' / ' / ` 1 '1 1 •
' ,, 1, - •
- _ - -',, r,`J`'
I 1 ' / / + , 1 1 1 / r , f
1 1
•
I / . ,
/ , ,
/ r I
I / /
/ / , + , r• ' /
/ , r'
J' ,'
/ - / I
'� , , 0
, /.
1 '
,' ' /� /
/ ` / 1
r
/
;
p
/ I
r_-
I
/ • 1
' r
'
-.-s `/___ - fI \,J
``
I -
/ J
1l /_ 11
f 1
•
•
-
_` /- \
•
-
1_ 1
J I_ ;- -`
`�- 1 _
`\
•
\ , X.",
\ \
l-\
1' l
•
-, 1
1 /1
! ` 1 `' I
, \
•` �,-
, 1- `
` , V`-
▪ X.
•
• ,
• 1
.1
\11. `1
\ - , -` 1
X. ,
•
-`,
r /
• 1 1
` I 1 I
1 \ 1 %,
• I \
1 ,
1 t
1
,
- r f
°1 I" -
+ J ,
1 - J
\ / `)
1
r1/
a ) ,
,. I 1
\ 1
1 I O I , I - 1 -
/ 1 (1 \ I 1. , 1, 1
, 1 - \ I r
/
,
l
1
r - ti / 1 .1
. 1 ` 1\ , `, ,
�, / /
•
\ r
69
/ ,
\ l`
r I _ ` `_"
r_ 1. I' ,)_1, '- / `1 ,
\.. •
1
/ /I
r'
1r •
r /
/
•
)
•
Ir.
,.
, x, ,^ , -1 r I ♦
,, r
I ^ ,
�r I
/,' 1 1'
i,
,
•
\, I
`/ \ / `
, \ I
//✓//��//,/r//✓/r ,✓U/X//,//////////f////,/J,//d//�.///////////i/�//:/,//_/ /V.7/////./%/// /////////////J///.////AA'r r\rl�r'� /////J,IV/r/1/1<//x+<///////V:////Y////////////,///x/////1//////•////-/JJJr1JJsJJJ,J,vJ,//„J✓./e/,,,/e/-v ,tom//,/J�///////.,/mi/w///,/r
, //
688
y j
�1J
j
•
•
•
•
•
to
TIMMONS GROUP
YOUR VISION ACHIEVED THROUGH OURS.
PROJECT NAME & LOCATION
DATE
06/07/2021
PROJECT NUMBER
41859.002
PROJECT NAME
MISENHEIMER SOLAR
DESIGNED BY / DRAWN BY
M.COOLEY
1. Waters of the U.S. within the
project study limits have been
located using submeter, Bluetooth
GPS antennas by Timmons
Group.
2. Waters of the U.S. associated
with SAW-2021-01122 were
confirmed on 1/6/22.
3. Project limits are approximate.
4. Topography based on USGS
LiDAR.
5. Cowardin Stream
Classifications are based on NC
DWR Stream Identification Form
Version 4.11.
These plans and associated documents are the
exclusive property of TIMMONS GROUP and
may not be reproduced in whole or in part and
shall not be used for any purpose whatsoever,
inclusive, but not limited to construction, bidding,
and/or construction staking without the express
written consent of TIMMONS GROUP.
REVISIONS
MM/DD/YY
DESCRIPTION
1
07/01/21
Updated per 6/29/2021 USAGE site visit
2
12/06/21
Updated per current WOTUS rules
3
12/5/22
Limits expanded
DRAWING DESCRIPTION
FIGURE 6:
WETLANDS AND
WATERS OF THE
U.S. DELINEATION
MAP- AERIAL
SCALE (FEET
0 100 200
PLANS PRINTED AS 11X17 ARE HALF SCALE
SCALE
SHEET NUMBER
2 of 13

8
•
•
•
4
2
-1 ■- ■la
6
•
•
3
7
.
•
9
•
•
0,7
;10
, $ ie
'
49os ma�13_.
... I
In
57
1�
low
12
/
Resource
Identification
A
B
C
D
E
F
G
H
K
L
M
N
0
P
Q
R
S
T
U
V
W
X
Y
Z
A2
B2
C2
D2
E2
F2
G2
H2
12
J2
K2
L2
M2
N2
02
P2
Q2
R2
S2
V2
W2
X2
Y2
Z2
A3
B3
C3
D3
Total
Confirmation
PFO
(sq ft)
2,102
203
2,264
20,744
34,810
53,449
4,820
4,057
3,295
3,121
19,006
4,353
18,930
3,875
13,694
740
39,154
1,052
27,783
PSS
(sq ft)
PEM
(sq ft)
POW R3
(sq ft) (If)
1,392
8,293
R4
(If)
R6 Ditch
(If) (If)
4,244
1,918
3,015
163,863 29,942
7,915
934
8,070
26,748
905
Resource
Description
Notes*
NT/V
NT/V
NT/V
NT/V; NT/NV
NT/V
NT/V
NT/V
NT/V
NT/V; NT/NV
NT/V
NT/V
NT/V
NT/V
NT/V
NT/V
NT/V
NT/V
NT/V
NT/V
NT/V
NT/V; NT/NV
5,857
5,200
9,069
275,204
14,819
346
1,259
1,920
17,669
3,097
611
824
1,058
947
592
210
198
9
114
275
633
897
768
100
1,882
210
3,336
659
656
273
284
491
320
363
29,384
775,339
29,942
Total Wetland Area =
Total Stream Length =
63,007 10,590 8,122
878,878 sq ft
15,347 If
6,632 593
20.18 ac
0
NT/V
NT/V
NT/V
NT/V
NT/V
NT/V
NT/V
NT/V
NT/V
NT/V
NT/V
NT/V
NT/NV
NT/NV
NT/NV
NT/NV
NT/NV
NT/NV
NT/NV
NT/NV
NT/NV
NT/NV
NT/NV
NT/NV
NT/NV
NT/NV
NT/NV
NT/NV
NT/NV
NT/NV
NT/NV
NT/V
NT/V
* T=Tidal; NT=Non-tidal; V=Vegetated; NV=Non-Vegetated; PFO=Palustrine Forested Wetland;
PSS=Palustrine Scrub -Shrub Wetland; PEM=Palustrine Emergent Wetland; POW= Palustrine Open
Water; EIW= Estuarine Intertidal Wetlands; R3= Upper Perennial Streams; R4=Intermittent Streams;
R6 = Ephemeral Streams
Legend
Additional Study Limits - 14.0 Acres
7/11 Previously Confirmed Study Limits (SAW-2021-
01122)- 668.0 Acres
© Stream Identifier
Q Wetland Identifier
Wetland Flag
•
11
Field Data Station
USACE Exclusion Area
Culvert
Perennial Stream (R3)
Intermittent Stream (R4)
Palustrine Emergent (PEM) Wetlands
Palustrine Forested (PFO) Wetlands
Palustrine Scrub -Shrub (PSS) Wetlands
Palustrine Open Water (POW)
Non-Jurisdicational Open Waters
Non-Jurisdicational Wetlands
Topographic Contours
Major- 10 Foot
Minor- 1 Foot
-1 . l ,
\1 1 1 •(/
t - . • ) �,'
r r' , - ,
.
\.\ 1 1 1
`
r
\
, 1 ( - /
. .\
/ `, .
1
v693
`--_ 2.
/ ,,
„\
/ 1 / 1 ( 1 , \\
,
rl 1 1 / 1 ) 11 , r
/'r' 1 / , I i / 1
u �, / / Fr r 1 /
/ , / , , l 1
,
/ r- / , 1 1 ,
1 Cps- 1 / ` ,, - , ' , I /
s , ' 1•/
I'
,\
, \ -, \ , 1
• , \ \•
1
r
(/
/ ,
0) /
CO'
1
I
\
l
1 , , , ' ;
1 , 1 ,
1 , / / •
1 1 I
1 ' 1 , ) 1 /
I ( 11 / ) 1
I , r , 1 , 1
1 ' 1 (T \
( I / I co
, 1 1 / / / / / ( 1 r' 1
\nit / 1 / 1 / / / ,/
O) % , 1 / I 1 1 / 1'
(ID I ,- / 1 r 1 1/ ,' ,)
1 1 1 ' / 1 //, 1 I /
11 I 1 , 1 1\, ,
`-; , 1 ,/ t 1 1 I 1 1 ^,
.: 1) I,, 1 1 1 1 11 / \-.
/ r / , , I / 11 1 \ `
1 / / 1, I 1 / 1 1 1
I / 1 1, // 1 1 1 I
I' r / /, 1 r 1 / I \
/ , / - 1 1 1 /,
/ 1 / / , /
,' 7 1,, / 1 1 1 I
1/ ,
/' 1 1' / ' 1 /' \ /
, ' , - / r / /' 1 .../ 1
, , , / , / 1 /
/ 1 1
, / 1
r/
- , - , / , 1
, - / /
-
/
_ / '7 / ,1
r" •-''.i
/
•
o ,
,
\
,I11
, •1
1)
1 104
bra_ 670"/"./1
\4‘•
1,(9
. 1 ,
1 1
. ,-1
\ \ . , •
1 •
\ t\ • t \\ \^�, 1\
•t -, I \ . )
1-
1 ,
\
;1 1 \ 1_ , \
' 1 /•• r /! 1 1 (•
), t r.° t, , rl 1 I
- / \
•
1 /` `,-
l ./. \ �, �, �/ \ ,1 ,-r. )
,- , ,
�1-
•
4B1
,
FD"S-27B2-1 -
701
•
•
•
•
•
•
TIMMONS GROUP
YOUR VISION ACHIEVED THROUGH OURS.
E
o
PROJECT NAME & LOCATION
0
cn
cn
DATE
06/07/2021
PROJECT NUMBER
41859.002
PROJECT NAME
MISENHEIMER SOLAR
DESIGNED BY / DRAWN BY
1. Waters of the U.S. within the
project study limits have been
located using submeter, Bluetooth
GPS antennas by Timmons
Group.
2. Waters of the U.S. associated
with SAW-2021-01122 were
confirmed on 1/6/22.
3. Project limits are approximate.
4. Topography based on USGS
5. Cowardin Stream
Classifications are based on NC
DWR Stream Identification Form
Version 4.11.
These plans and associated documents are the
exclusive property of TIMMONS GROUP and
may not be reproduced in whole or in part and
shall not be used for any purpose whatsoever,
inclusive, but not limited to construction, bidding,
and/or construction staking without the express
written consent of TIMMONS GROUP.
REVISIONS
MM/DD/YY
DESCRIPTION
1
07/01/21
Updated per 6/29/2021 USACE site visit
2
12/06/21
Updated per current WOTUS rules
3
12/5/22
Limits expanded
DRAWING DESCRIPTION
FIGURE 6:
WETLANDS AND
WATERS OF THE
U.S. DELINEATION
MAP- AERIAL
(F)
SCALE (FEET)
0 100 200
PLANS PRINTED AS 11X17 ARE HALF SCALE
SCALE
SHEET NUMBER
3 of 13

Plan
Plan
Plan
Plan
Plan
Plan
map
map
plan
Plan
Appendix B

e•eil.
r ••
TIMMONS GROUP
YOUR VISION ACHIEVED THROUGH OURS.
AGENT AUTHORIZATION and
PROPERTY OWNER CERTIFICATION FORM
All Blanks to be Filled in by Current Landowner
The Department of the Army
US Army Corps of Engineers
Wilmington District
PO Box 1890
Wilmington, NC 28402-1890
To Whom It May Concern:
NCDEQ — Division of Water Resources
401 & Buffer Permitting Unit
1650 Mail Service Center
Raleigh, NC 27699-1650
I, the undersigned, current property owner designate and authorize representatives of Timmons Group to
act on my behalf as my agent in the processing of permit applications, to furnish upon request
supplemental information in support of applications, etc., from this day forward.
This the (%l day of 4PR/L ,202l.
(number) (Month) (Year)
I, the undersigned, a duly authorized owner of record of the property/properties identified herein, do
authorize representatives of the Wilmington District, U.S. Army Corps of Engineers (Corps) and NCDEQ
Division of Water Resources (DWR) to enter upon the property herein described for the purpose of
conducting on -site investigations and issuing a determination associated with Waters of the U.S. subject
to Federal jurisdiction under Section 401 and 404 of the Clean Water Act, and/or Section 10 of the Rivers
and Harbors Act of 1899.
This notification supersedes any previous correspondence concerning the agent for this project.
Project Name: Misenheimer Solar
Parcel ID: 661304537760
Site Address: Lions Club Road, Stanly County, NC, 28127
Property Owner's Name (Print): Dale R. Newport
Property Owner's Signature:
Property Owner's Mailing Address: 44558 NC Hwy 8 New London, NC 28127
Property Owner's Telephone: [phone] Fax No.
Property Owner's Email Address: [e-mail]
FAX [phone]
TEL [phone]
Site Development I Residential 1 Infrastructure ( Technology
E
0
0
0
E
E
3

• irk
TIMMONS GROUP
YOUR VISION ACHIEVED THROUGH OURS,
AGENT AUTHORIZATION and
PROPERTY OWNER CERTIFICATION FORM
All Blanks Eo be Filled in Current Landtiwnet
The Department of the Army
US Army Corps of Engineers
Wilmington District
PO Box 1890
Wilmington, NC 28402-1890
To Whom It May Concern:
NCDEQ — Division of Water Resources
401 & Buffer Permitting Unit
1650 Mail Service Center
Raleigh, NC 27699-1650
I, the undersigned, current property owner designate and authorize representatives of Timmons Group to
act on my behalf as my agent in the processing of permit applications, to furnish upon request
supplemental information in su port of applkations, eic., from this day forward.
This the 7 day of 'j , 2CI ' _
(number) (Month) L(Year)
I, the undersigned, a duly authorized owner of record of the property/properties identified herein, do
authorize representatives of the Wilmington District, U.S. Army Corps of Engineers (Corps) and NCDEQ
Division of Water Resources (DWR) to enter upon the property herein described for the purpose of
conducting on -site investigations and issuing a determination associated with Waters of the U.S. subject
to Federal jurisdiction under Section 401 and 404 of the Clean Water Act, and/or Section 10 of the Rivers
and Harbors Act of 1899.
This notification supersedes any previous correspondence concerning the agent for this project.
Project Name: Misenheimer Solar
Parcel ID: 6613 03426162
Site Address: Wesley Chapel Road, Village of Misenheimer, Stanly County, NC, 28127
Property Owner's Name (Print): John S. Pickier II
Property Owner's Signature:
Property Owner's Mailing Address: 29430 Kendall's Church Road New London, NC 28127
Property Owner's Telephone: [phone]
Property Owner's Email Address: [e-mail]
Fax No.
FAX [phone]
TEL [phone]
Site Development I Residential i Infrastructure l Technology
www.timmons.com

•
TIMMONS GROUP
YOUR VISION ACHIEVED THROUGH OURS.
AGENT AUTHORIZATION and
PROPERTY OWNER CERTIFICATION FORM
All Blanks to be Filled in by Current Landowner
The Department of the Army
US Army Corps of Engineers
Wilmington District
PO Box 1890
Wilmington, NC 28402-1890
To Whom It May Concern:
NCDEQ — Division of Water Resources
401 & Buffer Permitting Unit
1650 Mail Service Center
Raleigh, NC 27699-1650
I, the undersigned, current property owner designate and authorize representatives of Timmons Group to
act on my behalf as my agent in the processing of permit applications, to furnish upon request
supplement?I ipfprmation in sup ort of applications, etc., from this day forward.
This the / day of /44/,6 , 20,21 .
(number) (Month) (Year)
I, the undersigned, a duly authorized owner of record of the property/properties identified herein, do
authorize representatives of the Wilmington District, U.S. Army Corps of Engineers (Corps) and NCDEQ
Division of Water Resources (DWR) to enter upon the property herein described for the purpose of
conducting on -site investigations and issuing a determination associated with Waters of the U.S. subject
to Federal jurisdiction under Section 401 and 404 of the Clean Water Act, and/or Section 10 of the Rivers
and Harbors Act of 1899.
This notification supersedes any previous correspondence concerning the agent for this project.
Project Name: Misenheimer Solar
Parcel ID: A.661302596350 B. 661302555834 C. 661304545017
Site Address: A. Reeves Island Road, 28054 B. US 52 HWY, 28054 C. US 52 HWY, 28054
Stanly County, NC
Property Owner's Name (Print): Gus Schad for JTC>-Lend & Timber, LLC
Property Owner's Signature:
Property Owner's Mailing Address: 1109 E. Ozark Avenue Gastonia, NC 28054
Property Owner's Telephone: [phone]
Property Owner's Email Address: [e-mail]
Fax No.
N
0
crl
0
z
a)
N
0
a)
•
1-
0
v
FAX [phone]
see 919.866.4951
Site Development I Residential I Infrastructure I Technology
E
0
0
E
E
3
3

•
TIMMONS GROUP
TOUR VIsF N 1C}IP V P T11aRUUH
AGENT AUTHORIZATION and
PROPERTY OWNER CERTIFICATION FORM
All Blanks to be Filled in by Current Landowner
The Department of the Army
US Army Corps of Engineers
Wilmington District
PO Box 1890
Wilmington, NC 28402-1890
To Whom It May Concern:
NCDEQ — Division of Water Resources
401 & Buffer Permitting Unit
1650 Mail Service Center
Raleigh, NC 27699-1650
I, the undersigned, current property owner designate and authorize representatives of Timmons Group to
act on my behalf as my agent in the processing of permit applications, to furnish upon request
supplemental information ils scrrl 01' applications, etc., from this day forward.
This the .3 day of r` . 20 9.1 .
(number) (k'IIonth) (Year)
I, the undersigned, a duly authorized owner of record of the property/properties identified herein, do
authorize representatives of the Wilmington District, U.S. Army Corps of Engineers (Corps) and NCDEQ
Division of Water Resources (DWR) to enter upon the property herein described for the purpose of
conducting on -site investigations and issuing a determination associated with Waters of the U.S. subject
to Federal jurisdiction under Section 401 and 404 of the Clean Water Act, and/or Section 10 of the Rivers
and Harbors Act of 1899.
This notification supersedes any previous correspondence concerning the agent for this project.
Project Name: Misenheimer Solar
Parcel ID: 661303240441
Site Address: Glenmore Road, Stanly County, NC, 28071
Property Owner's Name (Print): Cletus Oliver Hill
Property Owner's Signature;
Property Owner's Mailing Address: 49871 Glenmore Road Gold Hill, NC 28071
Property Owner's Telephone: [phone] Fax No.
Property Owner's Email Address: [e-mail]
O
N
v
z
N
O
a)
•
c
0
in
FAX [phone]
TEL [phone]
Site Development i Residential i Infrastructure i Technology
www.timmons.com

DocuSign Envelope ID: 6E6F4D5C-8506-49E8-A1 F7-3AD5EC93D263
The Department of the Army
US Army Corps of Engineers
Wilmington District
PO Box 1890
Wilmington, NC 28402-1890
To Whom It May Concern:
•�•
•• �i
TIMMONS GROUP
YOUR VISION ACHIEVED THROUGH OURS.
AGENT AUTHORIZATION
All Blanks to be Filled in by Applicant
NCDEQ — Division of Water Resources
401 & Buffer Permitting Unit
1650 Mail Service Center
Raleigh, NC 27699-1650
I, the undersigned, current applicant designate, authorize representatives of Timmons Group to
act on my behalf as my agent in the processing of permit applications, to furnish upon request
supplemental information in support of applications, etc., from this day forward.
This the 2 day of December 20 22
(number) (Month) (Year)
This notification supersedes any previous correspondence concerning the agent for this project.
Project Name: Misenheimer Solar Park
61302596350, 661302555834, 66130453770, 661303426162,
Parcel Ds 661303240441
Applicant Name Prim Kristofer Cheney
pp DocuSigned by:
Applicant Signature 7
"-FE5C6FE5B4B1401...
Applicant Mailing Address: 1501 McKinney Street, Suite 1300 Houston, TX 77010
Applicant 713-301-0141
Telephone:
Fax
No.
Applicant Email
Address:
[e-mail]
Fax [phone]
TEL [phone]

Action Id. SAW-2021-01122
Requestor:
Address:
U.S. ARMY CORPS OF ENGINEERS
WILMINGTON DISTRICT
County: Stanly U.S.G.S. Quad: NC -Gold Hill and Richfield
NOTIFICATION OF JURISDICTIONAL DETERMINATION
Timmons Group
Attn: Eli Wright
1001 Boulders Parkway, Suite 300
Richmond, VA 23225
Size (acres) —668 Nearest Town Misenheimer
Nearest Waterway Curl Tail Creek / Long Creek River Basin Upper Pee Dee
USGS HUC 03040103 / 03040105 Coordinates 35.490002, -80.294574
Location description: The project area is located on both sides of US Highway 52, and between Wesley Chapel Road/Reeves
Island Road and the Cabarrus County line, in Misenheimer, Stanly County, North Carolina.
The Approved Jurisdictional Determination Review Areas are shown as the four yellow- and black -hatched "AJD Review
Area" on the attached maps entitled "Figure 6: Wetlands and Waters of the U.S. Delineation Map - Aerial", Sheet Numbers 1-
3, 5, 7, and 11.
The Preliminary Jurisdictional Determination Review Area is shown as the pink -hatched "Project Study Limits (PJD Review
Area) -668.0 Acres" on the attached maps entitled "Figure 6: Wetlands and Waters of the U.S. Delineation Map - Aerial",
Sheet Numbers 1-12.
Indicate Which of the Following Apply:
A. Preliminary Determination
/1 There appear to be waters, including wetlands on the above described project area/property, that may be subject to
Section 404 of the Clean Water Act (CWA)(33 USC § 1344) and/or Section 10 of the Rivers and Harbors Act (RHA) (33
USC § 403). The waters, including wetlands have been delineated, and the delineation has been verified by the Corps to be
sufficiently accurate and reliable. The approximate boundaries of these waters are shown on the enclosed delineation map,
date of revision 12/6/2021. Therefore, this preliminary jurisdiction determination may be used in the permit evaluation
process, including determining compensatory mitigation. For purposes of computation of impacts, compensatory
mitigation requirements, and other resource protection measures, a permit decision made on the basis of a preliminary JD
will treat all waters and wetlands that would be affected in any way by the permitted activity on the site as if they are
jurisdictional waters of the U.S. This preliminary determination is not an appealable action under the Regulatory
Program Administrative Appeal Process (Reference 33 CFR Part 331). However, you may request an approved JD, which
is an appealable action, by contacting the Corps district for further instruction.
❑ There appear to be waters, including wetlands on the above described project area/property, that may be subject to Section 404 of
the Clean Water Act (CWA)(33 USC § 1344) and/or Section 10 of the Rivers and Harbors Act (RHA) (33 USC § 403). However,
since the waters, including wetlands have not been properly delineated, this preliminary jurisdiction determination may not be
used in the permit evaluation process. Without a verified wetland delineation, this preliminary determination is merely an
effective presumption of CWA/RHA jurisdiction over all of the waters, including wetlands at the project area, which is not
sufficiently accurate and reliable to support an enforceable permit decision. We recommend that you have the waters, including
wetlands on your project area/property delineated. As the Corps may not be able to accomplish this wetland delineation in a
timely manner, you may wish to obtain a consultant to conduct a delineation that can be verified by the Corps.
B. Approved Determination
❑ There are Navigable Waters of the United States within the above described project area/property subject to the permit
requirements of Section 10 of the Rivers and Harbors Act (RHA) (33 USC § 403) and Section 404 of the Clean Water Act
(CWA)(33 USC § 1344). Unless there is a change in 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, including wetlandson the above -described project area/property subject to the permit requirements of Section
404 of the Clean Water Act (CWA) (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 recommend you have the waters, including wetlands on your project area/property delineated. As the Corps may not be
able to accomplish this wetland delineation in a timely manner, you may wish to obtain a consultant to conduct a delineation that
can be verified by the Corps.

SAW-2021-01122
❑ The waters, including wetlands on your project area/property have been delineated and the delineation has been verified by the
Corps. The approximate boundaries of these waters are shown on the enclosed delineation map dated _. 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, including wetlands have 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 Approved Jurisdictional
Determination Review Areas 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 published regulations, this determination may be relied upon for a period
not to exceed five years from the date of this notification.
❑ 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 to determine their requirements.
Placement of dredged or fill material within waters of the US, including wetlands, without a Department of the Army permit may
constitute a violation of Section 301 of the Clean Water Act (33 USC § 1311). Placement of dredged or fill material, construction or
placement of structures, or work within navigable waters of the United States without a Department of the Army permit may
constitute a violation of Sections 9 and/or 10 of the Rivers and Harbors Act (33 USC § 401 and/or 403). If you have any questions
regarding this determination and/or the Corps regulatory program, please contact David E. Bailey at [phone] X 30 or
[e-mail].
C. Basis For Determination: See the Approved and Preliminary Jurisdictional Determination forms, dated 1/6/2022.
D. Remarks:
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)
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: Mr. Philip A. Shannin
Administrative Appeal Review Officer
60 Forsyth Street SW, Floor M9
Atlanta, Georgia 30303-8803
AND
PHILIP.A. [e-mail]
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 3/7/2022.
**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 of JD: 1/6/2022
g.
Expiration Date of Approved JD: 1/6/2027
Expiration Date of Preliminary JD: Not applicable

SAW-2021-01122
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 our Customer Satisfaction Survey, located online at https://regulatory.ops.usace.army.mil/customer-service-survey/.
Copy Furnished:
Alan D Johnson, NCDENR-DWR, 610 East Center Ave., Suite 301, Mooresville, NC 28115

NOTIFICATION OF ADMINISTRATIVE APPEAL OPTIONS AND PROCESS AND
REQUEST FOR APPEAL
Applicant: Timmons Group (Attn: Eli Wright) File Number: SAW-2021-01122 Date: 1/6/2022
Attached is:
See Section below
INITIAL PROFFERED PERMIT (Standard Permit or Letter of permission)
A
PROFFERED PERMIT (Standard Permit or Letter of permission)
B
PERMIT DENIAL
C
APPROVED JURISDICTIONAL DETERMINATION
D
x
PRELIMINARY JURISDICTIONAL DETERMINATION
E
x
SECTION
Additional
or the
I - The following identifies your rights and options regarding an administrative appeal of the above decision.
information may be found at or http://www.usace.army.mil/Missions/CivilWorks/RegulatoryProgramandPermits.aspx
Corps regulations at 33 CFR Part 331.
A: INITIAL PROFFERED PERMIT: 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
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.
• 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 II 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 permit 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
information.
•
•
JURISDICTIONAL DETERMINATION: You may accept or appeal the
ACCEPT: You do not need to notify the Corps to accept an approved JD. Failure to notify
date of this notice, means that you accept the approved JD in its entirety, and waive all
APPEAL: If you disagree with the approved JD, you may appeal the approved JD under
Administrative Appeal Process by completing Section II of this form and sending the form
approved JD or provide new
the Corps within 60 days of the
rights to appeal the approved JD.
the Corps of Engineers
to the district engineer. This form
must be received by the division engineer within 60 days of the date of this notice.

E: PRELIMINARY JURISDICTIONAL DETERMINATION: You do not need to respond to the Corps regarding the
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.
SECTION II -REQUEST FOR APPEAL or OBJECTIONS TO AN INITIAL PROFFERED PERMIT 1
REASONS FOR APPEAL OR OBJECTIONS: (Describe your reasons 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
information that the review officer has determined is needed to
Corps may add new information or analyses to the record.
the location of information that is already in the administrative
record of the appeal conference or meeting, and any supplemental
clarify the administrative record. Neither the appellant nor the
However, you may provide additional information to clarify
record.
!POINT OF CONTACT FOR QUESTIONS OR INFORMATION:
If you have questions regarding this decision and/or the
appeal process you may contact:
District Engineer, Wilmington Regulatory Division
Attn: David E. Bailey
Raleigh Regulatory Office
U.S Army Corps of Engineers
3331 Heritage Trade Drive, Suite 105
Wake Forest, North Carolina 27587
If you only have questions regarding the appeal process you may
also contact:
MR. PHILIP A. SHANNIN
ADMINISTRATIVE APPEAL REVIEW OFFICER
CESAD-PDS-O
60 FORSYTH STREET SOUTHWEST, FLOOR M9
ATLANTA, GEORGIA 30303-8803
PHONE: [phone]; FAX [phone]
EMAIL: PHILIP.A.SHANNIN@,USACE.ARMY.MIL
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 opportunity to participate in all site investigations.
Date:
Telephone number:
,
Signature of appellant or agent.
For appeals on Initial Proffered Permits send this form to:
District Engineer, Wilmington Regulatory Division, Attn: David E. Bailey, 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. Philip Shannin, Administrative
Appeal Officer, CESAD-PDO, 60 Forsyth Street, Room 10M15, Atlanta, Georgia 30303-8801
Phone: [phone]

APPROVED JURISDICTIONAL DETERMINATION FORM
U.S. Army Corps of Engineers
This form should be completed by following the instructions provided in Section IV of the JD Form Instructional Guidebook.
SECTION I: BACKGROUND INFORMATION
A. REPORT COMPLETION DATE FOR APPROVED JURISDICTIONAL DETERMINATION (JD): January 6, 2022
B. DISTRICT OFFICE, FILE NAME, AND NUMBER: Wilmington District, Misenheimer Solar / NC Highway 52 / Stanly
County / solar renewable energy , SAW-2021-01122
C. PROJECT LOCATION AND BACKGROUND INFORMATION: The project area is located on both sides of US Highway 52,
and between Wesley Chapel Road/Reeves Island Road and the Cabarrus County line, in Misenheimer, Stanly County, North
Carolina. The Approved Jurisdictional Determination Review Areas are shown as the yellow- and black -hatched "AJD Review
Areas" on the maps entitled "Figure 6: Wetlands and Waters of the U.S. Delineation Map - Aerial", Sheet Numbers 1-3, 5, 7, and 11.
State: North Carolina County/parish/borough: Stanly County City: Misenheimer
Center coordinates of site (lat/long in degree decimal format): Lat. 35.4900021438286°N, Long. -80.2945744928331° W
Universal Transverse Mercator: 17 563985.68 3927613.33
Name of nearest waterbody: Curl Tail Creek / Long Creek
Name of nearest Traditional Navigable Water (TNW) into which the aquatic resource flows:
Name of watershed or Hydrologic Unit Code (HUC): Lower Yadkin, 03040103 / Rocky, 03040105
® Check if map/diagram of review area and/or potential jurisdictional areas is/are available upon request.
❑ Check if other sites (e.g., offsite mitigation sites, disposal sites, etc...) are associated with this action and are recorded on a different
JD form:
D. REVIEW PERFORMED FOR SITE EVALUATION (CHECK ALL THAT APPLY):
❑ Office (Desk) Determination. Date:
® Field Determination. Date(s): 6/29/2021
SECTION II: SUMMARY OF FINDINGS
A. RHA SECTION 10 DETERMINATION OF JURISDICTION.
There - "navigable waters of the U.S." within Rivers and Harbors Act (RHA) jurisdiction (as defined by 33 CFR part 329) in the
review area. [Required]
❑ Waters subject to the ebb and flow of the tide.
❑ Waters are presently used, or have been used in the past, or may be susceptible for use to transport interstate or foreign commerce.
Explain:
B. CWA SECTION 404 DETERMINATION OF JURISDICTION.
There - "waters of the U.S." within Clean Water Act (CWA) jurisdiction (as defined by 33 CFR part 328) in the review area. [Required]
1. Waters of the U.S.
a. Indicate presence of waters of U.S. in review area (check all that apply): 1
❑ TNWs, including territorial seas
❑ Wetlands adjacent to TNWs
❑ Relatively permanent waters2 (RPWs) that flow directly or indirectly into TNWs
❑ Non-RPWs that flow directly or indirectly into TNWs
❑ Wetlands directly abutting RPWs that flow directly or indirectly into TNWs
❑ Wetlands adjacent to but not directly abutting RPWs that flow directly or indirectly into TNWs
❑ Wetlands adjacent to non-RPWs that flow directly or indirectly into TNWs
❑ Impoundments of jurisdictional waters
❑ Isolated (interstate or intrastate) waters, including isolated wetlands
b. Identify (estimate) size of waters of the U.S. in the review area:
Non -wetland waters: linear feet, wide, and/or acres.
Wetlands: acres.
c. Limits (boundaries) of jurisdiction based on:
Elevation of established OHWM (if known):
2. Non -regulated waters/wetlands (check if applicable):3
® Potentially jurisdictional waters and/or wetlands were assessed within the review area and determined to be not jurisdictional.
Explain: Wetlands labeled Wetland D, Wetland I, Wetland N, and Wetland G2 on the maps entitled "Figure 6:
Wetlands and Waters of the U.S. Delineation Map - Aerial", Sheet Numbers 1-3, 5, 7, and 11 (within the yellow- and
blck-hatched "AJD Review Areas"), are completely surrounded by uplands (which do not meet the hydrology,
vegetation, and/or soils parameter(s)), are located between 260 and 1,370 linear feet from the nearest RPW, and
Boxes checked below shall be supported by completing the appropriate sections in Section III below.
2 For purposes of this form, an RPW is defined as a tributary that is not a TNW and that typically flows year-round or has continuous flow at least "seasonally"
(e.g., typically 3 months).
3 Supporting documentation is presented in Section III.F.

-2-
there is no evidence of surface or subsurface flow from these wetlands to any RPW or non-RPW. Further, Ponds D
and I (indicated as "Non-Jurisdicational Open Waters" on the map) are impoundments of Wetlands D and I, which
were both determined to be isolated based on the SWANCC decision. As such, Ponds D and I are not impoundments
of jurisdictional waters, are otherwise surrounded by uplands, and are therefore themselves non -jurisdictional.
SECTION III: CWA ANALYSIS
A. TNWs AND WETLANDS ADJACENT TO TNWs
The agencies will assert jurisdiction over TNWs and wetlands adjacent to TNWs. If the aquatic resource is a TNW, complete
Section III.A.1 and Section III.D.1. only; if the aquatic resource is a wetland adjacent to a TNW, complete Sections III.A.1 and 2
and Section III.D.1.; otherwise, see Section III.B below.
1. TNW
Identify TNW:
Summarize rationale supporting determination:
2. Wetland adjacent to TNW
Summarize rationale supporting conclusion that wetland is "adjacent":
B. CHARACTERISTICS OF TRIBUTARY (THAT IS NOT A TNW) AND ITS ADJACENT WETLANDS (IF ANY):
This section summarizes information regarding characteristics of the tributary and its adjacent wetlands, if any, and it helps
determine whether or not the standards for jurisdiction established under Rapanos have been met.
The agencies will assert jurisdiction over non -navigable tributaries of TNWs where the tributaries are "relatively permanent
waters" (RPWs), i.e. tributaries that typically flow year-round or have continuous flow at least seasonally (e.g., typically 3
months). A wetland that directly abuts an RPW is also jurisdictional. If the aquatic resource is not a TNW, but has year-round
(perennial) flow, skip to Section III.D.2. If the aquatic resource is a wetland directly abutting a tributary with perennial flow,
skip to Section III.D.4.
A wetland that is adjacent to but that does not directly abut an RPW requires a significant nexus evaluation. Corps districts and
EPA regions will include in the record any available information that documents the existence of a significant nexus between a
relatively permanent tributary that is not perennial (and its adjacent wetlands if any) and a traditional navigable water, even
though a significant nexus finding is not required as a matter of law.
If the waterbody4 is not an RPW, or a wetland directly abutting an RPW, a JD will require additional data to determine if the
waterbody has a significant nexus with a TNW. If the tributary has adjacent wetlands, the significant nexus evaluation must
consider the tributary in combination with all of its adjacent wetlands. This significant nexus evaluation that combines, for
analytical purposes, the tributary and all of its adjacent wetlands is used whether the review area identified in the JD request is
the tributary, or its adjacent wetlands, or both. If the JD covers a tributary with adjacent wetlands, complete Section III.B.1 for
the tributary, Section III.B.2 for any onsite wetlands, and Section III.B.3 for all wetlands adjacent to that tributary, both onsite
and offsite. The determination whether a significant nexus exists is determined in Section III.0 below.
1. Characteristics of non-TNWs that flow directly or indirectly into TNW
(i)
General Area Conditions:
Watershed size:
Drainage area:
Average annual rainfall:
Average annual snowfall:
inches
inches
(ii) Physical Characteristics:
(a) Relationship with TNW:
❑ Tributary flows directly into TNW.
❑ Tributary flows through PIM tributaries before entering TNW.
Project waters are Pick List river miles from TNW.
Project waters are Pick List river miles from RPW.
Project waters are Pick List aerial (straight) miles from TNW.
Project waters are Pick List aerial (straight) miles from RPW.
Project waters cross or serve as state boundaries. Explain:
° Note that the Instructional Guidebook contains additional information regarding swales, ditches, washes, and erosional features generally and in the arid
West.

-3-
Identify flow route to TNW5:
Tributary stream order, if known:
(b) General Tributary Characteristics (check all that apply):
Tributary is: ❑ Natural
❑ Artificial (man-made). Explain:
❑ Manipulated (man -altered). Explain:
Tributary properties with respect to top of bank (estimate):
Average width: feet
Average depth: feet
Average side slopes: -.
Primary tributary substrate composition (check all that apply):
❑ Silts ❑ Sands
❑ Cobbles ❑ Gravel
❑ Bedrock ❑ Vegetation. Type/% cover:
❑ Other. Explain:
❑ Concrete
❑ Muck
Tributary condition/stability [e.g., highly eroding, sloughing banks]. Explain:
Presence of run/riffle/pool complexes. Explain:
Tributary geometry: Pick Lisp
Tributary gradient (approximate average slope):
(c) Flow:
Tributary provides for:
Estimate average number of flow events in review area/year: Pick List
Describe flow regime:
Other information on duration and volume:
Surface flow is: Pick Lit. Characteristics:
Subsurface flow: Pick Lit. Explain findings.
❑ Dye (or other) test performed:
Tributary has (check all that apply):
❑ Bed and banks
❑ OHWM6 (check all indicators that apply):
❑ clear, natural line impressed on the bank
❑ changes in the character of soil
❑ shelving
❑ vegetation matted down, bent, or absent
❑ leaf litter disturbed or washed away
❑ sediment deposition
❑ water staining
❑ other (list):
❑ Discontinuous OHWM.7 Explain:
❑ the presence of litter and debris
❑ destruction of terrestrial vegetation
❑ the presence of wrack line
❑ sediment sorting
❑ scour
❑ multiple observed or predicted flow events
❑ abrupt change in plant community
If factors other than the OHWM were used to determine lateral extent of CWA jurisdiction (check all that apply):
❑ High Tide Line indicated by: ❑ Mean High Water Mark indicated by:
❑ oil or scum line along shore objects ❑ survey to available datum;
❑ fine shell or debris deposits (foreshore) ❑ physical markings;
❑ physical markings/characteristics ❑ vegetation lines/changes in vegetation types.
❑ tidal gauges
❑ other (list):
(iii) Chemical Characteristics:
Characterize tributary (e.g., water color is clear, discolored, oily film; water quality; general watershed characteristics, etc.).
Explain:
Identify specific pollutants, if known:
5 Flow route can be described by identifying, e.g., tributary a, which flows through the review area, to flow into tributary b, which then flows into TNW.
6A natural or man-made discontinuity in the OHWM does not necessarily sever jurisdiction (e.g., where the stream temporarily flows underground, or where
the OHWM has been removed by development or agricultural practices). Where there is a break in the OHWM that is unrelated to the waterbody's flow
regime (e.g., flow over a rock outcrop or through a culvert), the agencies will look for indicators of flow above and below the break.
'Ibid.

-4-
(iv) Biological Characteristics. Channel supports (check all that apply):
❑ Riparian corridor. Characteristics (type, average width):
❑ Wetland fringe. Characteristics:
❑ Habitat for:
❑ Federally Listed species. Explain findings:
❑ Fish/spawn areas. Explain findings:
❑ Other environmentally -sensitive species. Explain findings:
❑ Aquatic/wildlife diversity. Explain findings:
2. Characteristics of wetlands adjacent to non-TNW that flow directly or indirectly into TNW
(i)
Physical Characteristics:
(a) General Wetland Characteristics:
Properties:
Wetland size: acres
Wetland type. Explain:
Wetland quality. Explain:
Project wetlands cross or serve as state boundaries. Explain:
(b) General Flow Relationship with Non-TNW:
Flow is: -. Explain:
Surface flow is:
Characteristics:
Subsurface flow: -. Explain findings.
❑ Dye (or other) test performed:
(c) Wetland Adjacency Determination with Non-TNW:
❑ Directly abutting
❑ Not directly abutting
❑ Discrete wetland hydrologic connection. Explain:
❑ Ecological connection. Explain:
❑ Separated by berm/barrier. Explain:
(d) Proximity (Relationship) to TNW
Project wetlands are Pick List river miles from TNW.
Project waters are Pick List aerial (straight) miles from TNW.
Flow is from: Pick Lisi.
Estimate approximate location of wetland as within the Pick List floodplain.
(ii) Chemical Characteristics:
Characterize wetland system (e.g., water color is clear, brown, oil film on surface; water quality; general watershed
characteristics; etc.). Explain:
Identify specific pollutants, if known:
(iii) Biological Characteristics. Wetland supports (check all that apply):
❑ Riparian buffer. Characteristics (type, average width):
❑ Vegetation type/percent cover. Explain:
❑ Habitat for:
❑ Federally Listed species. Explain findings:
❑ Fish/spawn areas. Explain findings:
❑ Other environmentally -sensitive species. Explain findings:
❑ Aquatic/wildlife diversity. Explain findings:
3. Characteristics of all wetlands adjacent to the tributary (if an )
All wetland(s) being considered in the cumulative analysis:
Approximately acres in total are being considered in the cumulative analysis.
For each wetland, specify the following:
Directly abuts? (Y/N) Size (in acres)
Directly abuts? (Y/N) Size (in acres)

-5-
Summarize overall biological, chemical and physical functions being performed:
C. SIGNIFICANT NEXUS DETERMINATION
A significant nexus analysis will assess the flow characteristics and functions of the tributary itself and the functions performed
by any wetlands adjacent to the tributary to determine if they significantly affect the chemical, physical, and biological integrity
of a TNW. For each of the following situations, a significant nexus exists if the tributary, in combination with all of its adjacent
wetlands, has more than a speculative or insubstantial effect on the chemical, physical and/or biological integrity of a TNW.
Considerations when evaluating significant nexus include, but are not limited to the volume, duration, and frequency of the flow
of water in the tributary and its proximity to a TNW, and the functions performed by the tributary and all its adjacent
wetlands. It is not appropriate to determine significant nexus based solely on any specific threshold of distance (e.g. between a
tributary and its adjacent wetland or between a tributary and the TNW). Similarly, the fact an adjacent wetland lies within or
outside of a floodplain is not solely determinative of significant nexus.
Draw connections between the features documented and the effects on the TNW, as identified in the Rapanos Guidance and
discussed in the Instructional Guidebook. Factors to consider include, for example:
• Does the tributary, in combination with its adjacent wetlands (if any), have the capacity to carry pollutants or flood waters to
TNWs, or to reduce the amount of pollutants or flood waters reaching a TNW?
• Does the tributary, in combination with its adjacent wetlands (if any), provide habitat and lifecycle support functions for fish and
other species, such as feeding, nesting, spawning, or rearing young for species that are present in the TNW?
• Does the tributary, in combination with its adjacent wetlands (if any), have the capacity to transfer nutrients and organic carbon that
support downstream foodwebs?
• Does the tributary, in combination with its adjacent wetlands (if any), have other relationships to the physical, chemical, or
biological integrity of the TNW?
Note: the above list of considerations is not inclusive and other functions observed or known to occur should be documented
below:
1. Significant nexus findings for non-RPW that has no adjacent wetlands and flows directly or indirectly into TNWs. Explain
findings of presence or absence of significant nexus below, based on the tributary itself, then go to Section III.D:
2. Significant nexus findings for non-RPW and its adjacent wetlands, where the non-RPW flows directly or indirectly into
TNWs. Explain findings of presence or absence of significant nexus below, based on the tributary in combination with all of its
adjacent wetlands, then go to Section III.D:
3. Significant nexus findings for wetlands adjacent to an RPW but that do not directly abut the RPW. Explain findings of
presence or absence of significant nexus below, based on the tributary in combination with all of its adjacent wetlands, then go to
Section III.D:
D. DETERMINATIONS OF JURISDICTIONAL FINDINGS. THE SUBJECT WATERS/WETLANDS ARE (CHECK ALL
THAT APPLY):
1. TNWs and Adjacent Wetlands. Check all that apply and provide size estimates in review area:
❑ TNWs: linear feet, wide, Or acres.
❑ Wetlands adjacent to TNWs: acres.
2. RPWs that flow directly or indirectly into TNWs.
❑ Tributaries of TNWs where tributaries typically flow year-round are jurisdictional. Provide data and rationale indicating that
tributary is perennial:
❑ Tributaries of TNW where tributaries have continuous flow "seasonally" (e.g., typically three months each year) are
jurisdictional. Data supporting this conclusion is provided at Section III.B. Provide rationale indicating that tributary flows
seasonally:
Provide estimates for jurisdictional waters in the review area (check all that apply):
❑ Tributary waters: linear feet wide.
❑ Other non -wetland waters: acres.
Identify type(s) of waters:
3. Non-RPWs8 that flow directly or indirectly into TNWs.
❑ Waterbody that is not a TNW or an RPW, but flows directly or indirectly into a TNW, and it has a significant nexus with a
TNW is jurisdictional. Data supporting this conclusion is provided at Section III.C.
'See Footnote # 3.

-6-
Provide estimates for jurisdictional waters within the review area (check all that apply):
❑ Tributary waters: linear feet, wide.
❑ Other non -wetland waters: acres.
Identify type(s) of waters:
4. Wetlands directly abutting an RPW that flow directly or indirectly into TNWs.
❑ Wetlands directly abut RPW and thus are jurisdictional as adjacent wetlands.
❑ Wetlands directly abutting an RPW where tributaries typically flow year-round. Provide data and rationale indicating that
tributary is perennial in Section III.D.2, above. Provide rationale indicating that wetland is directly abutting an RPW:
❑ Wetlands directly abutting an RPW where tributaries typically flow "seasonally." Provide data indicating that tributary is
seasonal in Section III.B and rationale in Section III.D.2, above. Provide rationale indicating that wetland is directly
abutting an RPW:
Provide acreage estimates for jurisdictional wetlands in the review area: acres.
5. Wetlands adjacent to but not directly abutting an RPW that flow directly or indirectly into TNWs.
❑ Wetlands that do not directly abut an RPW, but when considered in combination with the tributary to which they are adjacent
and with similarly situated adjacent wetlands, have a significant nexus with a TNW are jurisidictional. Data supporting this
conclusion is provided at Section III.C.
Provide acreage estimates for jurisdictional wetlands in the review area: acres.
6. Wetlands adjacent to non-RPWs that flow directly or indirectly into TNWs.
❑ Wetlands adjacent to such waters, and have when considered in combination with the tributary to which they are adjacent and
with similarly situated adjacent wetlands, have a significant nexus with a TNW are jurisdictional. Data supporting this
conclusion is provided at Section III.C.
Provide estimates for jurisdictional wetlands in the review area: acres.
7. Impoundments of jurisdictional waters.9
As a general rule, the impoundment of a jurisdictional tributary remains jurisdictional.
❑ Demonstrate that impoundment was created from "waters of the U.S.," or
❑ Demonstrate that water meets the criteria for one of the categories presented above (1-6), or
❑ Demonstrate that water is isolated with a nexus to commerce (see E below).
E. ISOLATED [INTERSTATE OR INTRA-STATE] WATERS, INCLUDING ISOLATED WETLANDS, THE USE,
DEGRADATION OR DESTRUCTION OF WHICH COULD AFFECT INTERSTATE COMMERCE, INCLUDING ANY
SUCH WATERS (CHECK ALL THAT APPLY):10
❑ which are or could be used by interstate or foreign travelers for recreational or other purposes.
❑ from which fish or shellfish are or could be taken and sold in interstate or foreign commerce.
❑ which are or could be used for industrial purposes by industries in interstate commerce.
❑ Interstate isolated waters. Explain:
❑ Other factors. Explain:
Identify water body and summarize rationale supporting determination:
Provide estimates for jurisdictional waters in the review area (check all that apply):
❑ Tributary waters: linear feet, wide.
❑ Other non -wetland waters: acres.
Identify type(s) of waters:
❑ Wetlands: acres.
F. NON -JURISDICTIONAL WATERS, INCLUDING WETLANDS (CHECK ALL THAT APPLY):
❑ If potential wetlands were assessed within the review area, these areas did not meet the criteria in the 1987 Corps of Engineers
Wetland Delineation Manual and/or appropriate Regional Supplements.
® Review area included isolated waters with no substantial nexus to interstate (or foreign) commerce.
9 To complete the analysis refer to the key in Section III.D.6 of the Instructional Guidebook.
1° Prior to asserting or declining CWA jurisdiction based solely on this category, Corps Districts will elevate the action to Corps and EPA HQ for
review consistent with the process described in the Corps/EPA Memorandum Regarding CWA Act Jurisdiction Following Rapanos.

-7-
® Prior to the Jan 2001 Supreme Court decision in "SWANCC," the review area would have been regulated based solely on the
"Migratory Bird Rule" (MBR).
❑ Waters do not meet the "Significant Nexus" standard, where such a finding is required for jurisdiction. Explain:
® Other: (explain, if not covered above): Ponds D and I are impoundments of Wetlands D and I, which were both determined to
be isolated based on the SWANCC decision. As such, Ponds D and I are not impoundments of jurisdictional waters, are
otherwise surrounded by uplands, and are therefore themselves non -jurisdictional."
Provide acreage estimates for non jurisdictional waters in the review area, where the sole potential basis of jurisdiction is the MBR
factors (i.e., presence of migratory birds, presence of endangered species, use of water for irrigated agriculture), using best professional
judgment (check all that apply):
❑ Non -wetland waters (i.e., rivers, streams): linear feet, wide.
® Lakes/ponds: 0.222 acres.
❑ Other non -wetland waters: acres. List type of aquatic resource:
® Wetlands: 0.712 acres.
Provide acreage estimates for non jurisdictional waters in the review area that do not meet the "Significant Nexus" standard, where such
a finding is required for jurisdiction (check all that apply):
❑ Non -wetland waters (i.e., rivers, streams): linear feet, wide.
❑ Lakes/ponds: acres.
❑ Other non -wetland waters: acres. List type of aquatic resource:
❑ Wetlands: acres.
SECTION IV: DATA SOURCES.
A. SUPPORTING DATA. Data reviewed for JD (check all that apply - checked items shall be included in case file and, where checked
and requested, appropriately reference sources below):
® Maps, plans, plots or plat submitted by or on behalf of the applicant/consultant: Aerial, soils, topo, and delineation maps
(Timmons Group)
® Data sheets prepared/submitted by or on behalf of the applicant/consultant.
® Office concurs with data sheets/delineation report.
® Office does not concur with data sheets/delineation report.
❑ Data sheets prepared by the Corps:
❑ Corps navigable waters' study:
❑ U.S. Geological Survey Hydrologic Atlas:
❑ USGS NHD data.
❑ USGS 8 and 12 digit HUC maps.
U.S. Geological Survey map(s). Cite scale & quad name: 1:24K; Richfield
USDA Natural Resources Conservation Service Soil Survey. Citation: Stanly County Soil Survey
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): 2019 NCCGIA
or ❑ Other (Name & Date):
Previous determination(s). File no. and date of response letter:
Applicable/supporting case law:
Applicable/supporting scientific literature:
Other information (please specify): QL1 LiDAR (NC Floodmaps)
0= Z0000 ®
B. ADDITIONAL COMMENTS TO SUPPORT JD:
This form documents:
1) non -jurisdictional (isolated) Wetlands D, I, N, and G2, and;
2) non -jurisdictional Ponds D and I.

Appendix 2 - PRELIMINARY JURISDICTIONAL DETERMINATION (PJD) FORM
BACKGROUND INFORMATION
A. REPORT COMPLETION DATE FOR PJD: 1/6/2022
B. NAME AND ADDRESS OF PERSON REQUESTING PJD:
Timmons Group
Attn: Eli Wright
1001 Boulders Parkway, Suite 300
Richmond, VA 23225
C. DISTRICT OFFICE, FILE NAME, AND NUMBER:
SAW, Misenheimer Solar / NC Highway 52 / Stanly County / solar renewable energy, SAW-2021-01122
D. PROJECT LOCATION(S) AND BACKGROUND INFORMATION: The project area is located on both
sides of US Highway 52, and between Wesley Chapel Road/Reeves Island Road and the Cabarrus
County line, in Misenheimer, Stanly County, North Carolina. The Preliminary Jurisdictional
Determination Review Area is shown as the pink -hatched " Project Study Limits (PJD Review Area) -
668.0 Acres" on the maps entitled "Figure 6: Wetlands and Waters of the U.S. Delineation Map - Aerial",
Sheet Numbers 1-12.
(USE THE TABLE BELOW TO DOCUMENT MULTIPLE AQUATIC RESOURCES AND/OR AQUATIC
RESOURCES AT DIFFERENT SITES)
State: NC County/parish/borough: Stanly County City: Misenheimer
Center coordinates of site (lat/long in degree decimal format):
Lat.: 35.490002° Long.: -80.294574°
Universal Transverse Mercator: 17
Name of nearest waterbody: Curl Tail Creek / Long Creek
E. REVIEW PERFORMED FOR SITE EVALUATION (CHECK ALL THAT APPLY):
❑ Office (Desk) Determination. Date:
x❑ Field Determination. Date(s): 6/29/2021
TABLE OF AQUATIC RESOURCES IN REVIEW AREA WHICH "MAY BE" SUBJECT TO
REGULATORY JURISDICTION.
Site Number
Latitude (decimal
degrees)
Longitude
(decimal degrees)
Estimated amount
of aquatic
resource in review
area (acreage and
linear feet, if
applicable)
Type of aquatic
resource (i.e.,
wetland vs. non-
wetland waters)
Geographic
authority to which
the aquatic
resource "may be"
subject (i.e.,
Section 404 or
Section 10/404)
Steam L2
35.478748
-80.294661
198 feet
Non -wetland waters
Section 404
Stream A3
35.495029
-80.297835
491 feet
Non -wetland waters
Section 404
Stream H2
35.497224
-80.295334
1058 feet
Non -wetland waters
Section 404
Stream 12
35.479124
-80.290563
947 feet
Non -wetland waters
Section 404
Stream J2
35.478415
-80.293156
530 feet
Non -wetland waters
Section 404
Stream K2 (R3)
35.478131
-80.295077
611 feet
Non -wetland waters
Section 404
Stream K2 (R4)
35.478662
-80.294878
210 feet
Non -wetland waters
Section 404
Stream M2
35.477017
-80.295967
9 feet
Non -wetland waters
Section 404
Stream N2
35.478115
-80.298259
114 feet
Non -wetland waters
Section 404
Stream 02
35.482287
-80.30282
275 feet
Non -wetland waters
Section 404
Districts may establish timeframes for requester to return signed PJD forms. If the requester does not respond within the established time frame, the
district may presume concurrence and no additional follow up is necessary prior to finalizing an action.
Page 1 of 4

Appendix 2 - PRELIMINARY JURISDICTIONAL DETERMINATION (PJD) FORM
Stream P2 (R3)
35.484463
-80.305751
824 feet
Non -wetland waters
Section 404
Stream P2 (R4)
35.487178
-80.303992
633 feet
Non -wetland waters
Section 404
Stream Q2
35.486613
-80.303613
897 feet
Non -wetland waters
Section 404
Stream R2
35.484867
-80.306713
768 feet
Non -wetland waters
Section 404
Stream S2
35.494463
-80.287971
100 feet
Non -wetland waters
Section 404
Stream V2 (R3)
35.497387
-80.286237
1882 feet
Non -wetland waters
Section 404
Stream V2 (R4)
35.494418
-80.288209
659 feet
Non -wetland waters
Section 404
Stream W2
35.486102
-80.289338
210 feet
Non -wetland waters
Section 404
Stream X2
35.496417
-80.297965
3336 feet
Non -wetland waters
Section 404
Stream Y2 (R4)
35.498188
-80.297782
656 feet
Non -wetland waters
Section 404
Stream Z2
35.493921
-80.296584
284 feet
Non -wetland waters
Section 404
Wetland A
35.502592
-80.287303
0.0483 acres
Wetland
Section 404
Wetland A2 (PEM)
35.479244
-80.29421
0.0441 acres
Wetland
Section 404
Wetland A2 (PFO)
35.478856
-80.294655
0.1345 acres
Wetland
Section 404
Wetland B
35.502256
-80.287343
0.0047 acres
Wetland
Section 404
Wetland B2 (PEM)
35.479668
-80.292895
0.4056 acres
Wetland
Section 404
Wetland B2 (PFO)
35.479368
-80.293324
0.1194 acres
Wetland
Section 404
Wetland C
35.501917
-80.287479
0.052 acres
Wetland
Section 404
Wetland C2
35.478486
-80.293296
0.2082 acres
Wetland
Section 404
Wetland C3
35.492863
-80.294705
0.0083 acres
Wetland
Section 404
Wetland D2
35.480014
-80.290689
6.3178 acres
Wetland
Section 404
Wetland D3
35.493917
-80.291564
0.6746 acres
Wetland
Section 404
Wetland E
35.499331
-80.297204
0.7991 acres
Wetland
Section 404
Wetland E2
35.477532
-80.291181
0.3402 acres
Wetland
Section 404
Wetland F
35.498503
-80.294739
1.227 acres
Wetland
Section 404
Wetland F2
35.48374
-80.305753
0.0079 acres
Wetland
Section 404
Wetland G
35.496744
-80.295111
0.1107 acres
Wetland
Section 404
Wetland H
35.495912
-80.296531
0.0931 acres
Wetland
Section 404
Wetland J
35.494173
-80.289517
0.0716 acres
Wetland
Section 404
Wetland K
35.496036
-80.286515
0.4363 acres
Wetland
Section 404
Wetland L
35.497524
-80.285815
0.0999 acres
Wetland
Section 404
Wetland M
35.498386
-80.28576
0.4346 acres
Wetland
Section 404
Wetland 0
35.486367
-80.289186
0.3144 acres
Wetland
Section 404
Wetland P
35.494876
-80.287782
0.017 acres
Wetland
Section 404
Wetland Q
35.485018
-80.306085
0.8989 acres
Wetland
Section 404
Wetland R
35.477781
-80.302215
0.0242 acres
Wetland
Section 404
Wetland S
35.484214
-80.306403
0.6378 acres
Wetland
Section 404
Wetland T
35.48534
-80.304683
0.0974 acres
Wetland
Section 404
Wetland U (PEM)
35.487905
-80.303863
0.1853 acres
Wetland
Section 404
Wetland U (PFO)
35.48766
-80.303792
0.044 acres
Wetland
Section 404
Wetland U (POW)
35.488048
-80.303725
0.0208 acres
Section 404
Wetland V
35.486741
-80.301892
0.0692 acres
Wetland
Section 404
Wetland W (PEM)
35.483071
-80.29804
0.614 acres
Wetland
Section 404
Wetland W (PFO)
35.48234
-80.297756
3.7618 acres
Wetland
Section 404
Wetland W (PSS)
35.481931
-80.297624
0.6874 acres
Wetland
Section 404
Wetland X
35.477349
-80.294974
0.1817 acres
Wetland
Section 404
Wetland Y
35.477649
-80.295107
0.0214 acres
Wetland
Section 404
Wetland Z
35.479486
-80.295497
0.0289 acres
Wetland
Section 404
1 Districts may establish timeframes for requester to return signed PJD forms. If the requester does not respond within the established time frame, the
district may presume concurrence and no additional follow up is necessary prior to finalizing an action.
Page 2 of 4

Appendix 2 - PRELIMINARY JURISDICTIONAL DETERMINATION (PJD) FORM
1) The Corps of Engineers believes that there may be jurisdictional aquatic resources in the review
area, and the requestor of this PJD is hereby advised of his or her option to request and obtain
an approved JD (AJD) for that review area based on an informed decision after having discussed
the various types of JDs and their characteristics and circumstances when they may be
appropriate.
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 AJD for the activity, the permit applicant is hereby made aware
that: (1) the permit applicant has elected to seek a permit authorization based on a PJD, which
does not make an official determination of jurisdictional aquatic resources; (2) the applicant has
the option to request an AJD before accepting the terms and conditions of the permit
authorization, and that basing a permit authorization on an AJD could possibly result in less
compensatory mitigation being required or different special conditions; (3) 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) 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) undertaking any activity
in reliance upon the subject permit authorization without requesting an AJD constitutes the
applicant's acceptance of the use of the PJD; (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 PJD constitutes agreement that all aquatic resources in the review area
affected in any way by that activity will be treated as jurisdictional, and waives 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 AJD or a PJD, the.JD will be processed as soon as practicable. Further, an AJD, 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. If, during an administrative appeal,
it becomes appropriate to make an official determination whether geographic jurisdiction exists
over aquatic resources in the review area, or to provide an official delineation of jurisdictional
aquatic resources in the review area, the Corps will provide an AJD to accomplish that result, as
soon as is practicable. This PJD finds that there "may be" waters of the U.S. and/or that there
"may be" navigable waters of the U.S. on the subject review area, and identifies all aquatic
features in the review area that could be affected by the proposed activity, based on the following
information:
1 Districts may establish timeframes for requester to return signed PJD forms. If the requester does not respond within the established time frame, the
district may presume concurrence and no additional follow up is necessary prior to finalizing an action.
Page 3 of 4

Appendix 2 - PRELIMINARY JURISDICTIONAL DETERMINATION (PJD) FORM
SUPPORTING DATA. Data reviewed for PJD (check all that apply)
Checked items should be included in subject file. Appropriately reference sources below where indicated
for all checked items:
X Maps, plans, plots or plat submitted by or on behalf of the PJD requestor:
Map: Aerial, soils, topo, and delineation maps (Timmons Group).
X Data sheets prepared/submitted by or on behalf of the PJD requestor.
X Office concurs with data sheets/delineation report.
Office does not concur with data sheets/delineation report. Rationale:
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.
X U.S. Geological Survey map(s). Cite scale & quad name: 1:24K; Richfield.
X Natural Resources Conservation Service Soil Survey. Citation: Stanly County Soil Survey.
National wetlands inventory map(s). Cite name:
State/local wetland inventory map(s):
FEMA/FIRM maps:
100-year Floodplain Elevation is: . (National Geodetic Vertical Datum of 1929)
X Photographs: X Aerial (Name & Date): 2019 NCCGIA.
or Other (Name & Date):
Previous determination(s). File no. and date of response letter:
X Other information (please specify): QL1 LiDAR (NC Floodmaps).
IMPORTANT NOTE: The information recorded on this form has not necessarily been verified by
the Corps and should not be relied upon for later jurisdictional determinations.
�, fI Date: 2022.01.06
13:07:20-05'00'
Signature and date of Regulatory staff
member completing PJD
t4k)
1/6/2022
Signature and date of person requesting
PJD (REQUIRED, unless obtaining the
signature is impracticable)'
1 Districts may establish timeframes for requester to return signed PJD forms. If the requester does not respond within the established time frame, the
district may presume concurrence and no additional follow up is necessary prior to finalizing an action.
Page 4of4

52
731 if
/
e•
2
c
s► 8
- tttt=
t
446 2
6
3
`.
10
•
400
•
4r▪ sati .al
51
1r'rer/ 13N‘ Creek
12 :r
.5
Resource
Identification
Confirmation
Resource
Description
Notes*
PFO
(sq ft)
PSS
(sq ft)
PEM
(sq ft)
POW
(sq ft)
R3
(If)
R4
(If)
R6
(If)
Ditch
(If)
Stream
(sq ft)
USACE
Exclusion
A
2,102
NTN
B
203
NT/V
C
2,264
NTN
D
20,744
1,392
X
NTN & NT/NV
E
34,810
NTN
F
53,449
NTN
G
4,820
NT/V
H
4,057
NTN
I
3,295
8,293
X
NTN & NT/NV
J
3,121
NTN
K
19,006
NTN
L
4,353
NTN
M
18,930
NTN
N
3,875
X
NT/V
0
13,694
NTN
P
740
NTN
Q
39,154
NTN
R
1,052
NTN
S
27,783
NT/V
T
4,244
NTN
U
1,918
8,070
905
NTN & NT/NV
V
3,015
NTN
W
163,863
29,942
26,748
NTN
X
7,915
NTN
Y
934
NTN
Z
1,259
NT/V
A2
5,857
1,920
NTN
B2
5,200
17,669
NT/V
C2
9,069
NT/V
D2
275,204
NTN
E2
14,819
NTN
F2
346
NTN
G2
3,097
X
NT/V
H2
1,058
NT/NV
12
947
NT/NV
J2
530
NT/NV
K2
611
210
NT/NV
L2
198
NT/NV
M2
9
NT/NV
N2
114
NT/NV
02
275
NT/NV
P2
824
633
NT/NV
Q2
897
NT/NV
R2
768
NT/NV
S2
100
NT/NV
V2
1,882
659
NT/NV
W2
210
NT/NV
X2
3,336
NT/NV
Y2
656
NT/NV
Z2
284
NT/NV
A3
491
NT/NV
C3
363
NTN
D3
29,384
NTN
Total
775,339
29,942
63,007
10,590
8,122
6,570
0
0
0
Total USACE Wetland Area =
838,182 sq ft
19.24 ac
Total USACE Stream Length =
14,692 If
Potential State Wetland Area =
878,878 sq ft
20.18 ac
Potential State Stream Length =
14,692 If
* T=Tidal; NT=Non-tidal; V=Vegetated; NV=Non-Vegetated; PFO=Palustrine Forested Wetland; PSS=Palustrine Scrub -Shrub Wetland;
PEM=Palustrine Emergent Wetland; POW= Palustrine Open Water; EIW= Estuarine Intertidal Wetlands; R3= Upper Perennial Streams;
R4=Intermittent Streams;R6 = Ephemeral Streams
Legend
Project Study Limits (PJD Review Area) - 668.0 Acres
© Stream Identifier
•
Awl
Wetland Identifier
Wetland Flag
Field Data Station
AJD Review Area
Culvert
Perennial Stream (R3)
Intermittent Stream (R4)
Palustrine Emergent (PEM) Wetlands
Palustrine Forested (PFO) Wetlands
Palustrine Scrub -Shrub (PSS) Wetlands
Palustrine Open Water (POW)
Non-Jurisdicational Open Waters
Non-Jurisdicational Wetlands
Topographic Contours
Major- 10 Foot
Minor- 1 Foot
13.
D
0
• f=
Li,
,S
•
• z
•'
. X
1
III
YOUR VISION ACHIEVED THROUGH OURS.
O
O
09
7 1f)
co N O E
o N to 0
N
> o
co "1 E
a co E
L O co wr
Ew 3
3
o • re
co
co
co
PROJECT NAME & LOCATION
MER SOLAR
2
Q
Z
~ J
O
o fl
UU
›-
Z I-
I- 0
cnz
DATE
06/07/2021
PROJECT NUMBER
41859.002
PROJECT NAME
MISENHEIMER SOLAR
DESIGNED BY / DRAWN BY
M.COOLEY
1. Waters of the U.S. within the
project study limits have been
located using submeter, Bluetooth
GPS antennas by Timmons
Group.
2. Waters of the U.S. have been
field verified by the U.S. Army
Corps of Engineers.
3. Project limits are approximate.
4. Topography based on USGS
LiDAR.
5. Cowardin Stream
Classifications are based on NC
DWR Stream Identification Form
Version 4.11.
These plans and associated documents are the
exclusive property of TIMMONS GROUP and
may not be reproduced in whole or in part and
shall not be used for any purpose whatsoever,
inclusive, but not limited to construction, bidding,
and/or construction staking without the express
written consent of TIMMONS GROUP.
REVISIONS
#
MM/DD/YY
DESCRIPTION
1
07/01/21
Updated per 6/29/2021 USAGE site visit
2
12/06/21
Updated per current WOTUS rules
DRAWING DESCRIPTION
FIGURE 6:
WETLANDS AND
WATERS OF THE
U.S. DELINEATION
MAP- AERIAL
SCALE (FEET)
0 500 1,000
PLANS PRINTED AS 11X17 ARE HALF SCALE rALE
H:1 "=500'
SHEET NUMBER
1 of 12
Y:\804\99999-Orion Renewables\41859.002 - Misenheimer\GIS\Wetland Delineation\41859.002-WTDM - USACE.mxd

52
2
6
3
4
7
•
♦
I lit
-
-
5
ell
Resource
Identification
Confirmation
Resource
Description
Notes'
PFO
(sq ft)
PSS
(sq ft)
PEM
(sq ft)
POW
(sq ft)
R3
(If)
R4
(If)
R6
(If)
Ditch
(If)
Stream
(sq ft)
USACE
Exclusion
A
2,102
NT/V
B
203
NT/V
C
2,264
NT/V
D
20,744
1,392
X
NT/V & NT/NV
E
34,810
NT/V
F
53,449
NT/V
G
4,820
NT/V
H
4,057
NT/V
I
3,295
8,293
X
NT/V & NT/NV
J
3,121
NT/V
K
19,006
NT/V
L
4,353
NT/V
M
18,930
NT/V
N
3,875
X
NT/V
0
13,694
NT/V
P
740
NT/V
Q
39,154
NT/V
R
1,052
NT/V
S
27,783
NT/V
T
4,244
NT/V
U
1,918
8,070
905
NT/V & NT/NV
V
3,015
NT/V
W
163,863
29,942
26,748
NT/V
X
7,915
NT/V
Y
934
NT/V
Z
1,259
NT/V
A2
5,857
1,920
NT/V
62
5,200
17,669
NT/V
C2
9,069
NT/V
D2
275,204
NT/V
E2
14,819
NT/V
F2
346
NT/V
G2
3,097
X
NT/V
H2
1,058
NT/NV
12
947
NT/NV
J2
530
NT/NV
K2
611
210
NT/NV
L2
198
NT/NV
M2
9
NT/NV
N2
114
NT/NV
02
275
NT/NV
P2
824
633
NT/NV
Q2
897
NT/NV
R2
768
NT/NV
S2
100
NT/NV
V2
1,882
659
NT/NV
W2
210
NT/NV
X2
3,336
NT/NV
Y2
656
NT/NV
Z2
284
NT/NV
A3
491
NT/NV
C3
363
NTN
D3
29,384
NTN
Total
775,339
29,942
63,007
10,590
8,122
6,570
0
0
0
Total USACE Wetland Area =
838,182 sq ft
19.24 ac
Total USACE Stream Length =
14,692 If
Potential State Wetland Area =
878,878 sq ft
20.18 ac
Potential State Stream Length =
14,692 If
T=Tidal; NT=Non-tidal; V=Vegetated; NV=Non-Vegetated; PFO=Palustrine Forested Wetland; PSS=Palustrine Scrub -Shrub Wetland;
PEM=Palustrine Emergent Wetland; POW= Palustrine Open Water; EIW= Estuarine Intertidal Wetlands; R3= Upper Perennial Streams;
R4=Intermittent Streams;R6 = Ephemeral Streams
Legend
._■a'
Project Study Limits (PJD Review Area) - 668.0 Acres
1-
0
Stream Identifier
Wetland Identifier
Wetland Flag
9 Field Data Station
AJD Review Area
Culvert
Perennial Stream (R3)
Intermittent Stream (R4)
Palustrine Emergent (PEM) Wetlands
Palustrine Forested (PFO) Wetlands
Palustrine Scrub -Shrub (PSS) Wetlands
Palustrine Open Water (POW)
Non-Jurisdicational Open Waters
Non-Jurisdicational Wetlands
Topographic Contours
Major- 10 Foot
Minor- 1 Foot
D
0
• f=
,• •
• Li,
• Z
0
✓ X
1
YOUR VISION ACHIEVED THROUGH OURS.
0
0
M
69
co N O E
o N to V
N
> G o
ea . t`! E
a co
O co :
- L w
W
or~
CO
0
0
PROJECT NAME & LOCATION
MER SOLAR
2
co
co
2
DATE
06/07/2021
PROJECT NUMBER
41859.002
PROJECT NAME
MISENHEIMER SOLAR
DESIGNED BY / DRAWN BY
M.COOLEY
1. Waters of the U.S. within the
project study limits have been
located using submeter, Bluetooth
GPS antennas by Timmons
Group.
2. Waters of the U.S. have been
field verified by the U.S. Army
Corps of Engineers.
3. Project limits are approximate.
4. Topography based on USGS
LiDAR.
5. Cowardin Stream
Classifications are based on NC
DWR Stream Identification Form
Version 4.11.
These plans and associated documents are the
exclusive property of TIMMONS GROUP and
may not be reproduced in whole or in part and
shall not be used for any purpose whatsoever,
inclusive, but not limited to construction, bidding,
and/or construction staking without the express
written consent of TIMMONS GROUP.
REVISIONS
#
MM/DD/YY
DESCRIPTION
1
07/01/21
Updated per 6/29/2021 USAGE site visit
2
12/06/21
Updated per current WOTUS rules
`DRAWING DESCRIPTION
FIGURE 6:
WETLANDS AND
WATERS OF THE
U.S. DELINEATION
MAP- AERIAL
(F)
SCALE (FEET)
0 100 200
PLANS PRINTED AS 11X17 ARE HALF SCALE rALE
H:1"=100'
SHEET NUMBER
2 of 12
Y:\804\99999-Orion Renewables\41859.002 - Misenheimer\GIS\Wetland Delineation\41859.002-WTDM - USACE.mxd

2
52
Resource
Identification
Confirmation
Resource
Description
Notes'
PFO
(sq ft)
PSS
(sq ft)
PEM
(sq ft)
POW
(sq ft)
R3
(If)
R4
(If)
R6
(If)
Ditch
(If)
Stream
(sq ft)
USACE
Exclusion
A
2,102
NT/V
B
203
NT/V
C
2,264
NT/V
D
20,744
1,392
X
NT/V & NT/NV
E
34,810
NT/V
F
53,449
NT/V
G
4,820
NT/V
H
4,057
NT/V
I
3,295
8,293
X
NT/V & NT/NV
J
3,121
NT/V
K
19,006
NT/V
L
4,353
NT/V
M
18,930
NT/V
N
3,875
X
NT/V
0
13,694
NT/V
P
740
NT/V
Q
39,154
NT/V
R
1,052
NT/V
S
27,783
NT/V
T
4,244
NT/V
U
1,918
8,070
905
NT/V & NT/NV
V
3,015
NT/V
W
163,863
29,942
26,748
NT/V
X
7,915
NT/V
Y
934
NT/V
Z
1,259
NT/V
A2
5,857
1,920
NT/V
B2
5,200
17,669
NT/V
C2
9,069
NT/V
D2
275,204
NT/V
E2
14,819
NT/V
F2
346
NT/V
G2
3,097
X
NT/V
H2
1,058
NT/NV
12
947
NT/NV
J2
530
NT/NV
K2
611
210
NT/NV
L2
198
NT/NV
M2
9
NT/NV
N2
114
NT/NV
02
275
NT/NV
P2
824
633
NT/NV
Q2
897
NT/NV
R2
768
NT/NV
S2
100
NT/NV
V2
1,882
659
NT/NV
W2
210
NT/NV
X2
3,336
NT/NV
Y2
656
NT/NV
Z2
284
NT/NV
A3
491
NT/NV
C3
363
NTN
D3
29,384
NTN
Total
775,339
29,942
63,007
10,590
8,122
6,570
0
0
0
Total USACE Wetland Area =
838,182 sq ft
19.24 ac
Total USACE Stream Length =
14,692 If
Potential State Wetland Area =
878,878 sq ft
20.18 ac
Potential State Stream Length =
14,692 If
T=Tidal; NT=Non-tidal; V=Vegetated; NV=Non-Vegetated; PFO=Palustrine Forested Wetland; PSS=Palustrine Scrub -Shrub Wetland;
PEM=Palustrine Emergent Wetland; POW= Palustrine Open Water; EIW= Estuarine Intertidal Wetlands; R3= Upper Perennial Streams;
R4=Intermittent Streams;R6 = Ephemeral Streams
Legend
__■a'
L Project Study Limits (PJD Review Area) - 668.0 Acres
I_
Stream Identifier
© Wetland Identifier
Wetland Flag
9 Field Data Station
AJD Review Area
Culvert
Perennial Stream (R3)
Intermittent Stream (R4)
Palustrine Emergent (PEM) Wetlands
Palustrine Forested (PFO) Wetlands
Palustrine Scrub -Shrub (PSS) Wetlands
Palustrine Open Water (POW)
Non-Jurisdicational Open Waters
Non-Jurisdicational Wetlands
Topographic Contours
Major- 10 Foot
Minor- 1 Foot
1
•
•
•
r
D
0
CD
z
0
X
1
YOUR VISION ACHIEVED THROUGH OURS.
0
0
M
69
co N O E
o N to V
N
• > G o
ea N E
a 15
co
• O co
W
o !Y • ~
m
0
0
PROJECT NAME & LOCATION
MER SOLAR
2
DATE
06/07/2021
PROJECT NUMBER
41859.002
PROJECT NAME
MISENHEIMER SOLAR
DESIGNED BY / DRAWN BY
M.COOLEY
1. Waters of the U.S. within the
project study limits have been
located using submeter, Bluetooth
GPS antennas by Timmons
Group.
2. Waters of the U.S. have been
field verified by the U.S. Army
Corps of Engineers.
3. Project limits are approximate.
4. Topography based on USGS
LiDAR.
5. Cowardin Stream
Classifications are based on NC
DWR Stream Identification Form
Version 4.11.
These plans and associated documents are the
exclusive property of TIMMONS GROUP and
may not be reproduced in whole or in part and
shall not be used for any purpose whatsoever,
inclusive, but not limited to construction, bidding,
and/or construction staking without the express
written consent of TIMMONS GROUP.
REVISIONS
#
MM/DD/YY
DESCRIPTION
1
07/01/21
Updated per 6/29/2021 USAGE site visit
2
12/06/21
Updated per current WOTUS rules
DRAWING DESCRIPTION
FIGURE 6:
WETLANDS AND
WATERS OF THE
U.S. DELINEATION
MAP- AERIAL
(F)
SCALE (FEET)
0 100 200
PLANS PRINTED AS 11X17 ARE HALF SCALE rALE
H:1"=100'
SHEET NUMBER
3 of 12
Y:\804\99999-Orion Renewables\41859.002 - Misenheimer\GIS\Wetland Delineation\41859.002-WTDM - USACE.mxd

2
52
Resource
Identification
Confirmation
Resource
Description
Notes*
PFO
(sq ft)
PSS
(sq ft)
PEM
(sq ft)
POW
(sq ft)
R3
(If)
R4
(If)
R6
(If)
Ditch
(If)
Stream
(sq ft)
USACE
Exclusion
A
2,102
NT/V
B
203
NT/V
C
2,264
NT/V
D
20,744
1,392
X
NT/V & NT/NV
E
34,810
NT/V
F
53,449
NT/V
G
4,820
NT/V
H
4,057
NT/V
I
3,295
8,293
X
NT/V & NT/NV
J
3,121
NT/V
K
19,006
NT/V
L
4,353
NT/V
M
18,930
NT/V
N
3,875
X
NT/V
0
13,694
NT/V
P
740
39,154
NT/V
Q
NTN
R
1,052
NT/V
S
27,783
NT/V
T
4,244
NT/V
U
1,918
8,070
905
NT/V & NT/NV
V
3,015
NT/V
W
163,863
29,942
26,748
NT/V
X
7,915
NT/V
Y
934
NT/V
Z
1,259
NT/V
A2
5,857
1,920
NT/V
B2
5,200
17,669
NT/V
C2
9,069
NT/V
D2
275,204
NT/V
E2
14,819
NT/V
F2
346
NT/V
G2
3,097
X
NT/V
H2
1,058
NT/NV
12
947
NT/NV
J2
530
NT/NV
K2
611
210
NT/NV
L2
198
NT/NV
M2
9
NT/NV
N2
114
NT/NV
02
275
NT/NV
P2
824
633
NT/NV
Q2
897
NT/NV
R2
768
NT/NV
S2
100
NT/NV
V2
1,882
659
NT/NV
W2
210
NT/NV
x2
3,336
NT/NV
Y2
656
NT/NV
Z2
284
NT/NV
A3
491
NT/NV
C3
363
NTN
D3
29,384
NTN
Total
775,339
29,942
63,007
10,590
8,122
6,570
0
0
0
Total USACE Wetland Area =
838,182 sq ft
19.24 ac
Total USACE Stream Length =
14,692 If
Potential State Wetland Area =
878,878 sq ft
20.18 ac
Potential State Stream Length =
14,692 If
* T=Tidal; NT=Non-tidal; V=Vegetated; NV=Non-Vegetated; PFO=Palustrine Forested Wetland; PSS=Palustrine Scrub -Shrub Wetland;
PEM=Palustrine Emergent Wetland; POW= Palustrine Open Water; EIW= Estuarine Intertidal Wetlands; R3= Upper Perennial Streams;
R4=Intermittent Streams;R6 = Ephemeral Streams
Legend
__■1'
L Project Study Limits (PJD Review Area) - 668.0 Acres
I_
0
Stream Identifier
Wetland Identifier
Wetland Flag
9 Field Data Station
AJD Review Area
Culvert
Perennial Stream (R3)
Intermittent Stream (R4)
Palustrine Emergent (PEM) Wetlands
Palustrine Forested (PFO) Wetlands
Palustrine Scrub -Shrub (PSS) Wetlands
Palustrine Open Water (POW)
Non-Jurisdicational Open Waters
Non-Jurisdicational Wetlands
Topographic Contours
Major- 10 Foot
Minor- 1 Foot
•
692
r
•
r
/ .1 • -
•• rrr�
r ,
■ ! , ,-
1 1 , ■ !�
! I f I.
1 !! f 1 r r 7
I 1 1 I !, f I ;
! 1 ! 11
1 1 I•
1.
,,
1 5 1
5 4 1 1
I t t 1 'S 1 1 1
I s.I t
15 1 , I I
5 4 6 1 4 1
s, 1 3 i 1 1 1
1 5 5 1 5 1 4 1
t l 1:
1 I II 1 1 1 1
11
t I I I If 1 1
Ii I I 1 t 1 1
I I ;'1 1 1 1 ,1
I1 ' 1 ‘" •
4 1 I t 1 1 1 1 5■
1
, ,1 1 1 1
1 6 1 ‘ •
1 1 1 1■ 5 1 •�
�t)
•
•
•
•
r
D
0
CD
z
0
1
1
YOUR VISION ACHIEVED THROUGH OURS.
O
O
C1
09
• 1n
f o N O E
o N to V
N
• > G o
ea N E
11 C E
Oco:i=r
MSL w
W
o !Y • ~
m
O
O
PROJECT NAME & LOCATION
MER SOLAR
2
DATE
06/07/2021
PROJECT NUMBER
41859.002
PROJECT NAME
MISENHEIMER SOLAR
DESIGNED BY / DRAWN BY
M.COOLEY
1. Waters of the U.S. within the
project study limits have been
located using submeter, Bluetooth
GPS antennas by Timmons
Group.
2. Waters of the U.S. have been
field verified by the U.S. Army
Corps of Engineers.
3. Project limits are approximate.
4. Topography based on USGS
LiDAR.
5. Cowardin Stream
Classifications are based on NC
DWR Stream Identification Form
Version 4.11.
These plans and associated documents are the
exclusive property of TIMMONS GROUP and
may not be reproduced in whole or in part and
shall not be used for any purpose whatsoever,
inclusive, but not limited to construction, bidding,
and/or construction staking without the express
written consent of TIMMONS GROUP.
REVISIONS
#
MM/DD/YY
DESCRIPTION
1
07/01/21
Updated per 6/29/2021 USAGE site visit
2
12/06/21
Updated per current WOTUS rules
DRAWING DESCRIPTION
FIGURE 6:
WETLANDS AND
WATERS OF THE
U.S. DELINEATION
MAP- AERIAL
IF)
SCALE (FEET)
0 100 200
PLANS PRINTED AS 11X17 ARE HALF SCALE rALE
H:1"=100'
SHEET NUMBER
4 of 12
Y:\804\99999-Orion Renewables\41859.002 - Misenheimer\GIS\Wetland Delineation\41859.002-WTDM - USACE.mxd

52 '•
4.
731 if
'•
2
c
: 8
- Ittt�
t
2
6
3
4
..
v.%a
7
12
t
5
Resource
Identification
Confirmation
Resource
Description
Notes*
PFO
(sq ft)
PSS
(sq ft)
PEM
(sq ft)
POW
(sq ft)
R3
(If)
R4
(If)
R6
(If)
Ditch
(If)
Stream
(sq ft)
USACE
Exclusion
A
2,102
NTN
B
203
NT/V
C
2,264
NTN
D
20,744
1,392
X
NTN & NT/NV
E
34,810
NTN
F
53,449
NTN
G
4,820
NT/V
H
4,057
NTN
I
3,295
8,293
X
NTN & NT/NV
J
3,121
NTN
K
19,006
NTN
L
4,353
NTN
M
18,930
NTN
N
3,875
X
NT/V
0
13,694
NTN
P
740
NTN
Q
39,154
NTN
R
1,052
NTN
S
27,783
NT/V
T
4,244
NTN
U
1,918
8,070
905
NTN & NT/NV
V
3,015
NTN
W
163,863
29,942
26,748
NTN
X
7,915
NTN
Y
934
NTN
Z
1,259
NT/V
A2
5,857
1,920
NTN
B2
5,200
17,669
NT/V
C2
9,069
NT/V
D2
275,204
NTN
E2
14,819
NTN
F2
346
NTN
G2
3,097
X
NT/V
H2
1,058
NT/NV
12
947
NT/NV
J2
530
NT/NV
K2
611
210
NT/NV
L2
198
NT/NV
M2
9
NT/NV
N2
114
NT/NV
02
275
NT/NV
P2
824
633
NT/NV
Q2
897
NT/NV
R2
768
NT/NV
S2
100
NT/NV
V2
1,882
659
NT/NV
W2
210
NT/NV
X2
3,336
NT/NV
Y2
656
NT/NV
Z2
284
NT/NV
A3
491
NT/NV
C3
363
NTN
D3
29,384
NTN
Total
775,339
29,942
63,007
10,590
8,122
6,570
0
0
0
Total USACE Wetland Area =
838,182 sq ft
19.24 ac
Total USACE Stream Length =
14,692 If
Potential State Wetland Area =
878,878 sq ft
20.18 ac
Potential State Stream Length =
14,692 If
* T=Tidal; NT=Non-tidal; V=Vegetated; NV=Non-Vegetated; PFO=Palustrine Forested Wetland; PSS=Palustrine Scrub -Shrub Wetland;
PEM=Palustrine Emergent Wetland; POW= Palustrine Open Water; EIW= Estuarine Intertidal Wetlands; R3= Upper Perennial Streams;
R4=Intermittent Streams;R6 = Ephemeral Streams
Legend
�111
© Stream Identifier
0
9
Awl
Project Study Limits (PJD Review Area) - 668.0 Acres
Wetland Identifier
Wetland Flag
Field Data Station
AJD Review Area
Culvert
Perennial Stream (R3)
Intermittent Stream (R4)
Palustrine Emergent (PEM) Wetlands
Palustrine Forested (PFO) Wetlands
Palustrine Scrub -Shrub (PSS) Wetlands
Palustrine Open Water (POW)
Non-Jurisdicational Open Waters
Non-Jurisdicational Wetlands
Topographic Contours
Major- 10 Foot
- Minor- 1 Foot
5 ' '
• ' � l 1
/ r
- r
J
+- r+ J
J+
I
r+ Jr •r - + •_6
r rr'
-
/ -
r
I f!
1, r J r r )
r 1 1
I •
r l l r 1 •1 I f r
t 1 1 t t y t I J
1 t 1 I I .I ► 1 •5 l It 1 1 t
r, 1 5 1 1 1 -{
r 1�-
1
I 1 5 1 . t l 1 1
I 1 l `1 (1 1 3 f ! I
1 11 I 1 1 1 t 1. f 1
t 1 1 1 ' I f L -
1I; I 11 1
t +
i r i ` 1
j 1 1 ' t. t • 69
I. ill - J
1 t y 1 I •
. 1 1
I l t 1 1 1 • • ••
11•' ' ■ t•'tt
I t 5 1 1 ••
1 ] 1 a r • a
t •
I 1
ti
1 1 1 1 ■ 1 1 1 ,
• 1 1 1 f t 1 I I
• • - -- - ,J ^ �-•--+- 1 + ) ` 1 1 1 t
1 t 1 t
• _ , •- '1 1 r ! 1 t 1 •
•
• •
' _ - r - 5- I 1 ' 1 1 r 1•
• ` t • .-- .. - r f r 1 1 1 t 1t. r■ ♦•
•
•
\• • J I 1 t `• ' •♦ • ~•
_ 1 _
tiff- 1 i a• , .l,-1•
•
_t
!•
t,
r J• J +1,
••
•�
.'
• r• +` • • • t •
•
1/4 .• -• •• • •■ -r1
` - - ♦, • 1 1 •
♦ • 1
t . • . t •��•
,•' I. ■
fI ' t.• ' ■� tt
` 1-1 1 ' j
fj ■ 51 +
■• _ r 11
• • • .' % •
t •. 1 t 1
%
1 ■ l
`' --.--1:1'.: %y 1 t , iit t t
1
• 1 i
1 't 1 t
■ 1 1$ I 1 ' r
1 I
1 I 1 7
j t 1 - ' 1
't 1 y t 1 ■ •t t 1
5 It I It i 1 I + t
1 1 l 1 5 1.I 1• 1 1
■ ti ■ I 5 t11:
`1 1 5
I t '• 1■15 ■■1■ 1 1 1 t ,1 't
1 • Ill I 1 1 1
1 ' I iN ■ 't‘
1
■ ' I'
I ' + •1 '1 , I
1 1 `1 t• 11 1 i 1 '1 t
�• 1 ■ I1t t , 1 1 1 t
1 t 1 I t 1 y 1
I `
' 1 1 I 1 r� I
I 1
' 1 1 1'I!r1fI}`t1,1IJf:1111'i
5'•r115IIIIEll I I I 1 I I'J5r i I I t 1,
1 I
1 f ; I± 1 t J • t t 1I t1
,
I
t- f I ; f I 1
r I 1 1 I t 1 I I t
1 I • 1 ■
I I - r r t
! r r ' r
L
I I 1 I 1 1 I f r
I I 1 ! J '
I r 1 r J r
r 1 1 r J r r �'
r 45 r r 1 1 1 J
I II1 r r t 5 1 J
r J I {
r t r r J! + / t
f
r r r 1 11
/ r J 1
1' r f i r 1 r r ,rr`.
! I+ 1 I 1 1 1 r
I I 1 1 1 1 1 t 1
, .f i 1 1'+ 1 1
1 ' • • 1 5. N.
r Ir 1 I' I t I t
I tr 1 t l , 1 1
1 1 ! 1 t
rI I + 1 t '1 I
t `
r i 1 t
1 1
r i
, 1 1 1 1 I 1
` 1' r r 1
F t I '
664
V +.`'
r r r
'1 ' • 1 1 ,•; 111
r
I ! I
f 1 I . r
t
■ • +
y 1 '
t
•
`•t•
' '
•
• D•
697•
696
-695,
' y
1
•
•
•
•
•
D
0
CD
(■
z
0
1
1
YOUR VISION ACHIEVED THROUGH OURS.
0
0
M
09
3 In
fn N 0 E
ct N to V
N
> G o
ea N E
a 17,
c a E
O co :
-asw 3
w 3
o cc
co
0
0
PROJECT NAME & LOCATION
MER SOLAR
2
co
co
2
DATE
06/07/2021
PROJECT NUMBER
41859.002
PROJECT NAME
MISENHEIMER SOLAR
DESIGNED BY / DRAWN BY
M.COOLEY
1. Waters of the U.S. within the
project study limits have been
located using submeter, Bluetooth
GPS antennas by Timmons
Group.
2. Waters of the U.S. have been
field verified by the U.S. Army
Corps of Engineers.
3. Project limits are approximate.
4. Topography based on USGS
LiDAR.
5. Cowardin Stream
Classifications are based on NC
DWR Stream Identification Form
Version 4.11.
These plans and associated documents are the
exclusive property of TIMMONS GROUP and
may not be reproduced in whole or in part and
shall not be used for any purpose whatsoever,
inclusive, but not limited to construction, bidding,
and/or construction staking without the express
written consent of TIMMONS GROUP.
REVISIONS
#
MM/DD/YY
DESCRIPTION
1
07/01/21
Updated per 6/29/2021 USAGE site visit
2
12/06/21
Updated per current WOTUS rules
DRAWING DESCRIPTION
FIGURE 6:
WETLANDS AND
WATERS OF THE
U.S. DELINEATION
MAP- AERIAL
(F)
SCALE (FEET)
0 100 200
PLANS PRINTED AS 11X17 ARE HALF SCALE rALE
H:1"=100'
SHEET NUMBER
5 of 12
Y:\804\99999-Orion Renewables\41859.002 - Misenheimer\GIS\Wetland Delineation\41859.002-WTDM - USACE.mxd

•1,
-
r2'-••••,"
•
r -- `1
L `
1 i•
Resource
Identification
Confirmation
Resource
Description
Notes*
PFO
(sq ft)
PSS
(sq ft)
PEM
(sq ft)
POW
(sq ft)
R3
(If)
R4
(If)
R6
(If)
Ditch
(If)
Stream
(sq ft)
USACE
Exclusion
A
2,102
NT/V
B
203
NT/V
C
2,264
NT/V
D
20,744
1,392
X
NT/V & NT/NV
E
34,810
NT/V
F
53,449
NT/V
G
4,820
NT/V
H
4,057
NT/V
I
3,295
8,293
X
NT/V & NT/NV
J
3,121
NT/V
K
19,006
NT/V
L
4,353
NT/V
M
18,930
NT/V
N
3,875
X
NT/V
0
13,694
NT/V
P
740
NT/V
Q
39,154
NT/V
R
1,052
NT/V
S
27,783
NT/V
T
4,244
NT/V
U
1,918
8,070
905
NT/V & NT/NV
V
3,015
NT/V
W
163,863
29,942
26,748
NT/V
X
7,915
NT/V
Y
934
NT/V
Z
1,259
NT/V
A2
5,857
1,920
NT/V
62
5,200
17,669
NT/V
C2
9,069
NT/V
D2
275,204
NT/V
E2
14,819
NT/V
F2
346
NT/V
G2
3,097
X
NT/V
H2
1,058
NT/NV
12
947
NT/NV
J2
530
NT/NV
K2
611
210
NT/NV
L2
198
NT/NV
M2
9
NT/NV
N2
114
NT/NV
02
275
NT/NV
P2
824
633
NT/NV
Q2
897
NT/NV
R2
768
NT/NV
S2
100
NT/NV
V2
1,882
659
NT/NV
W2
210
NT/NV
X2
3,336
NT/NV
Y2
656
NT/NV
Z2
284
NT/NV
A3
491
NT/NV
C3
363
NTN
D3
29,384
NTN
Total
775,339
29,942
63,007
10,590
8,122
6,570
0
0
0
Total USACE Wetland Area =
838,182 sq ft
19.24 ac
Total USACE Stream Length =
14,692 If
Potential State Wetland Area =
878,878 sq ft
20.18 ac
Potential State Stream Length =
14,692 If
* T=Tidal; NT=Non-tidal; V=Vegetated; NV=Non-Vegetated; PFO=Palustrine Forested Wetland; PSS=Palustrine Scrub -Shrub Wetland;
PEM=Palustrine Emergent Wetland; POW= Palustrine Open Water; EIW= Estuarine Intertidal Wetlands; R3= Upper Perennial Streams;
R4=Intermittent Streams;R6 = Ephemeral Streams
Legend
Mill'
L.: Project Study Limits (PJD Review Area) - 668.0 Acres
I -
0
Stream Identifier
Wetland Identifier
Wetland Flag
9 Field Data Station
AJD Review Area
Culvert
Perennial Stream (R3)
Intermittent Stream (R4)
Palustrine Emergent (PEM) Wetlands
Palustrine Forested (PFO) Wetlands
Palustrine Scrub -Shrub (PSS) Wetlands
Palustrine Open Water (POW)
Non-Jurisdicational Open Waters
Non-Jurisdicational Wetlands
Topographic Contours
Major- 10 Foot
Minor- 1 Foot
r
e/•
r /
677
D
0
• f=
•• •
• Li,
• z
0
. X
1
III
YOUR VISION ACHIEVED THROUGH OURS.
O
O
M
69
V%N O
CaN(.0
(
i O
< N
aav
co
o co
-a L w
W
O • re
CO
0
0
O
V
N
E
E
PROJECT NAME & LOCATION
MER SOLAR
2
DATE
06/07/2021
PROJECT NUMBER
41859.002
PROJECT NAME
MISENHEIMER SOLAR
DESIGNED BY / DRAWN BY
M.COOLEY
1. Waters of the U.S. within the
project study limits have been
located using submeter, Bluetooth
GPS antennas by Timmons
Group.
2. Waters of the U.S. have been
field verified by the U.S. Army
Corps of Engineers.
3. Project limits are approximate.
4. Topography based on USGS
LiDAR.
5. Cowardin Stream
Classifications are based on NC
DWR Stream Identification Form
Version 4.11.
These plans and associated documents are the
exclusive property of TIMMONS GROUP and
may not be reproduced in whole or in part and
shall not be used for any purpose whatsoever,
inclusive, but not limited to construction, bidding,
and/or construction staking without the express
written consent of TIMMONS GROUP.
REVISIONS
#
MM/DD/YY
DESCRIPTION
1
07/01/21
Updated per 6/29/2021 USAGE site visit
2
12/06/21
Updated per current WOTUS rules
DRAWING DESCRIPTION
FIGURE 6:
WETLANDS AND
WATERS OF THE
U.S. DELINEATION
MAP- AERIAL
(F)
SCALE (FEET)
0 100 200
PLANS PRINTED AS 11X17 ARE HALF SCALE
SCALE
H:1"=100'
SHEET NUMBER
6 of 12
Y:\804\99999-Orion Renewables\41859.002 - Misenheimer\GIS\Wetland Delineation\41859.002-WTDM - USACE.mxd

52
2
i' 2
6
■
44.
c'
♦ 1.
8 it•%
9
,
`.
`.
`10
. 12
'i al% i Th .0 III
L
3
4
1••-
■04.8.
7
1
qa
z
a+\ Creek
Resource
Identification
Confirmation
Resource
Description
Notes'
PFO
(sq ft)
PSS
(sq ft)
PEM
(sq ft)
POW
(sq ft)
R3
(If)
R4
(If)
R6
(If)
Ditch
(If)
Stream
(sq ft)
USACE
Exclusion
A
2,102
NT/V
B
203
NT/V
C
2,264
NT/V
D
20,744
1,392
X
NT/V & NT/NV
E
34,810
NT/V
F
53,449
NT/V
G
4,820
NT/V
H
4,057
NT/V
I
3,295
8,293
X
NT/V & NT/NV
J
3,121
NT/V
K
19,006
NT/V
L
4,353
NT/V
M
18,930
NT/V
N
3,875
X
NT/V
0
13,694
NT/V
P
740
NT/V
Q
39,154
NT/V
R
1,052
NT/V
S
27,783
NT/V
T
4,244
NT/V
U
1,918
8,070
905
NT/V & NT/NV
V
3,015
NT/V
W
163,863
29,942
26,748
NT/V
X
7,915
NT/V
Y
934
NT/V
Z
1,259
NT/V
A2
5,857
1,920
NT/V
62
5,200
17,669
NT/V
C2
9,069
NT/V
D2
275,204
NT/V
E2
14,819
NT/V
F2
346
NT/V
G2
3,097
X
NT/V
H2
1,058
NT/NV
12
947
NT/NV
J2
530
NT/NV
K2
611
210
NT/NV
L2
198
NT/NV
M2
9
NT/NV
N2
114
NT/NV
02
275
NT/NV
P2
824
633
NT/NV
Q2
897
NT/NV
R2
768
NT/NV
S2
100
NT/NV
V2
1,882
659
NT/NV
W2
210
NT/NV
X2
3,336
NT/NV
Y2
656
NT/NV
Z2
284
NT/NV
A3
491
NT/NV
C3
363
NTN
D3
29,384
NTN
Total
775,339
29,942
63,007
10,590
8,122
6,570
0
0
0
Total USACE Wetland Area =
838,182 sq ft
19.24 ac
Total USACE Stream Length =
14,692 If
Potential State Wetland Area =
878,878 sq ft
20.18 ac
Potential State Stream Length =
14,692 If
T=Tidal; NT=Non-tidal; V=Vegetated; NV=Non-Vegetated; PFO=Palustrine Forested Wetland; PSS=Palustrine Scrub -Shrub Wetland;
PEM=Palustrine Emergent Wetland; POW= Palustrine Open Water; EIW= Estuarine Intertidal Wetlands; R3= Upper Perennial Streams;
R4=Intermittent Streams;R6 = Ephemeral Streams
Legend
__■a'
L Project Study Limits (PJD Review Area) - 668.0 Acres
0
Stream Identifier
Wetland Identifier
Wetland Flag
9 Field Data Station
AJD Review Area
Culvert
Perennial Stream (R3)
Intermittent Stream (R4)
Palustrine Emergent (PEM) Wetlands
Palustrine Forested (PFO) Wetlands
Palustrine Scrub -Shrub (PSS) Wetlands
Palustrine Open Water (POW)
Non-Jurisdicational Open Waters
Non-Jurisdicational Wetlands
Topographic Contours
Major- 10 Foot
Minor- 1 Foot
• / r
1 r i
0 1
r
i
1
•
•
i
r
D
0
CD
Z
0
X
1
YOUR VISION ACHIEVED THROUGH OURS.
0
0
69
co N O E
o N to V
N
> G o
ea N E
a 15�o E
Oc .
W
o ~
m
0
0
PROJECT NAME & LOCATION
MER SOLAR
2
DATE
06/07/2021
PROJECT NUMBER
41859.002
PROJECT NAME
MISENHEIMER SOLAR
DESIGNED BY / DRAWN BY
M.COOLEY
1. Waters of the U.S. within the
project study limits have been
located using submeter, Bluetooth
GPS antennas by Timmons
Group.
2. Waters of the U.S. have been
field verified by the U.S. Army
Corps of Engineers.
3. Project limits are approximate.
4. Topography based on USGS
LiDAR.
5. Cowardin Stream
Classifications are based on NC
DWR Stream Identification Form
Version 4.11.
These plans and associated documents are the
exclusive property of TIMMONS GROUP and
may not be reproduced in whole or in part and
shall not be used for any purpose whatsoever,
inclusive, but not limited to construction, bidding,
and/or construction staking without the express
written consent of TIMMONS GROUP.
REVISIONS
#
MM/DD/YY
DESCRIPTION
1
07/01/21
Updated per 6/29/2021 USAGE site visit
2
12/06/21
Updated per current WOTUS rules
-DRAWING DESCRIPTION
FIGURE 6:
WETLANDS AND
WATERS OF THE
U.S. DELINEATION
MAP- AERIAL
(F)
SCALE (FEET)
0 100 200
PLANS PRINTED AS 11X17 ARE HALF SCALE rALE
H:1"=100'
SHEET NUMBER
7 of 12
Y:\804\99999-0rion Renewables\41859.002 - Misenheimer\GIS\Wetland Delineation\41859.002-WTDM - USACE.mxd

r
52
G'
731 ft
♦ 8
-
♦' 2
6
3
7
4i▪ •■ - Al
1■
9
5:1
mg
rr ":_ ..'r.W %
`104,1,12
•
1
5
Resource
Identification
Confirmation
Resource
Description
Notes*
PFO
(sq ft)
PSS
(sq ft)
PEM
(sq ft)
POW
(sq ft)
R3
(If)
R4
(If)
R6
(If)
Ditch
(If)
Stream
(sq ft)
USACE
Exclusion
A
2,102
NT/V
B
203
NT/V
C
2,264
NT/V
D
20,744
1,392
X
NT/V & NT/NV
E
34,810
NT/V
F
53,449
NT/V
G
4,820
NT/V
H
4,057
NT/V
I
3,295
8,293
X
NT/V & NT/NV
J
3,121
NT/V
K
19,006
NT/V
L
4,353
NT/V
M
18,930
NT/V
N
3,875
X
NT/V
0
13,694
NT/V
P
740
NT/V
Q
39,154
NT/V
R
1,052
NT/V
S
27,783
NT/V
T
4,244
NT/V
U
1,918
8,070
905
NT/V & NT/NV
V
3,015
NT/V
W
163,863
29,942
26,748
NT/V
X
7,915
NT/V
Y
934
NT/V
Z
1,259
NT/V
A2
5,857
1,920
NT/V
B2
5,200
17,669
NT/V
C2
9,069
NT/V
D2
275,204
NT/V
E2
14,819
NT/V
F2
346
NT/V
G2
3,097
X
NT/V
H2
1,058
NT/NV
12
947
NT/NV
J2
530
NT/NV
K2
611
210
NT/NV
L2
198
NT/NV
M2
9
NT/NV
N2
114
NT/NV
02
275
NT/NV
P2
824
633
NT/NV
Q2
897
NT/NV
R2
768
NT/NV
S2
100
NT/NV
V2
1,882
659
NT/NV
W2
210
NT/NV
x2
3,336
NT/NV
Y2
656
NT/NV
Z2
284
NT/NV
A3
491
NT/NV
C3
363
NT/V
D3
29,384
NTN
Total
775,339
29,942
63,007
10,590
8,122
6,570
0
0
0
Total USACE Wetland Area =
838,182 sq ft
19.24 ac
Total USAGE Stream Length =
14,692 If
Potential State Wetland Area =
878,878 sq ft
20.18 ac
Potential State Stream Length =
14,692 If
Forested Wetland;
EIW= Estuarine Intertidal
= Ephemeral Streams
Scrub -Shrub Wetland;
Upper Perennial Streams;
* T=Tidal; NT=Non-tidal; V=Vegetated; NV=Non-Vegetated; PFO=Palustrine
PEM=Palustrine Emergent Wetland; POW= Palustrine Open Water;
R4=Intermittent Streams;R6
PSS=Palustrine
Wetlands; R3=
Legend
•
Project Study Limits (PJD Review Area) - 668.0 Acres
© Stream Identifier
Wetland Identifier
Wetland Flag
Field Data Station
AJD Review Area
Culvert
Perennial Stream (R3)
Intermittent Stream (R4)
Palustrine Emergent (PEM) Wetlands
Palustrine Forested (PFO) Wetlands
Palustrine Scrub -Shrub (PSS) Wetlands
Palustrine Open Water (POW)
Non-Jurisdicational Open Waters
Non-Jurisdicational Wetlands
Topographic Contours
Major- 10 Foot
- Minor- 1 Foot
r'
•• 1
rrr
r .
•
r - • •
I rr 1 rI ▪ -
l•
,�
I .'
/1I1
�,t _1 1 I _t 'r r■ J Ir' r! r
�1�•_•
i� 'i � Q ■ r+ i r, Jr .r/rrrrr Jrr r rrr
, $ I I i..1 1 I 1 � ' �3_ Ir r rrrr rl' ■ � !`. f ■ rrr','J . r r �r r'rr
rr 1 + I + 1 t .� tif. Yr. r IN - ■ r Ji` ♦ � r rrr • r . _! + 1
ij�� a �+� - '3 � ►,.: rf Iilrlur / 'r t i1 r.J _� .r r! - i1 rr r
•
• I ■ I {, r l l Jr + �.r. r1 r�•� + r i • 1 1 rr j i ! r• r •
, r r / rrr r r r
r ; r�f�t � r.Ir r.•�r
IT7`■ ] r I r t [ t I I t 1 1 y I ■ u
l sttta `ir ••r 1 �^ 1J r1 +1 r ■' '.
r� . t 1l r•�I r 1 1
■ r1 + t ♦ l S 1 1 III r - - - rr [ ,r• Ir . -' ' rrl 1 + r ' 1
•
r r I+ I 11 f +-+ + r
! r r + I 1 L 1 �■- • r1 + 1 ■' ' r I r • ' ' JrI+'II700
1 r rr . n+ rtYr Ir rr:,. I rf1 f11. yIf9(p 1 1[r'I ff rifr1ri'♦+ r I� r I 1■ i 1r �■ rrr r, t r'':11
r+r1r ,1 i I }u 1■ r' I r■r ,!r r 1 r r!Zr-i r r I `\t111■r/,►ti■,11.__errllrf i !! f I r r.fS [ , t •••4,t1{+!{{f1l�`>>♦♦.rrIrrf. r 1' '/ rIj + 1 ' .11
I
r^- L 1 ; + t• , ' l . ,' -• L • 5, 1•1 r I f r1 ! 1 ! r •�• ▪ y •- I :'•/':‘
'r�� r r 1 rr I.tI-♦ ■ • ' ``•■\' � �'1 ■t[1 I 1+r 11 1I IlR•:♦ r r rt. , ■ 111{ +rlrlrrI -'11rr ■'/11ce'+1f1I■'■ ■%:N ♦ ■.1 . ■ L L 1 , Ir' rI rl ` r 1r1
i 1 •�■1.1�1\,\'1111yttil1�L I CI11I•�r1 111 .Wry L ] i 1 1 1 / I • 1-1 ■ `- �,.,■,�1,♦\• I,11j 111L 1II II'{ri■ 1 tl•` r1■I �r■rr1 rIrI1.. - •`J :�'".:`t■■�•�I}�,tl►1 t 1„ i y I1■I-■.■` 'r f'1 1 r Jr7 J tit' 1 t
• -. `ti,ry1.1 ■'•■`I% l%%N,I,■ It I t 11 1 y L l 1 t •,V ♦• , -1r r r 9r '4 1 1 I+ I I 1 1
•
--^ _-',■,n■,�,■■�1.1Nyt■51■r[[:11 [ r 1 •� -- ■1 r y-'1 ' . rr r i 1 r I I I
.� �■ •
- r `�•St•1 ■■'L�ryl11IIy 1�\ 1■; . 1, ■t1-■1■ 5 l Ll y ■ 1 I +', ,1- "•� r r• 1 ./ 1f`� • f' / ■ 1 3
v - ^ ` •.' ,■ 1,,,111 ` 111 5 ,l 11 Qt i i 5 [L , tt ; + I I �r ,'r' 1'• f;' 1 �' • _ • ' ' I r` I+ ' ' 1 1
,�J' . ,"■,, 11\1`yill l`j,15 51t 1t �{ t'�a' { l1 [ 1 l l ''1 r r' • •' �. 1 j .' 1 r f : 1' ! i
11l41 1115 L151111it 1111 111 11 L 1 1 I + L....- I r r1' rrrr ti 11 1/
r Ir rr 1 rl f 1 I
15 '11'1, iij 4-1 1.
I i R ''.1
, 1. �S ` r!• �f _ / ■ r +
111t ,1 j114111 111L1111 11:it'
i I, 4 1
1 I +' $ Q ,1 r Irr !' I l i �rr 1' r' 1I r ri i 1 !
115 j51 11 4;1 11 4 1 f y I Cll .. .r 1+ I f I , I 1,
r r r r 1 1
�IS'Ir'S11114511111t 111r 11411 1111 --\ 1' , •`-1 r-r'• r1 r••r •r f' r• r
j111514 i!1.1°, tt 1l1 ,� 11 1 1 ' • '• `5 ▪ ■•• ` :.....1.
1.r'I'rr r•rr111151511 ' `♦•`t` • _1'.' r ■ 1 r r `lt{111i`l���tfll•t'tt, I•` ``',■ _- -! rr/r r r•r"r'r1�Eii1lt,lLlt11■``�1`�`■,-1�..-``_ __Ir�21i! r • +rrr rrrrrrr/i. 111jt1t1■ t1111i11, ■ 1 • ,■♦ - ♦• , - - " :11...';:11!
I' IrI I1'..i.-‘171.
.•r rIr 1t1111.1■t1,11.11 ■■'■•.ti+` ♦ `; ♦ 'r + f111 I•■1'I�Iis11■,1Ii1�• ♦:•'•`.`.1--- -��,+�r++rr+rrr rp�rf,I'r",rfrt1t15■■``I .. `•♦'• l'� -I+ll ! rf •I I1■�1 ;=ti: \•.\`�\ ■' �� _ i■,• ' ' J'�'rrrr fr
LY ,■ ■■,1i��. tiL \•� .I r1 rr11 rrr 'r♦
� ' ■'1• � • • `,: � , ti :„\\:•.1,,'.. ` ♦ ♦ • - Ir l rr rrf!I'r ll Ir1:1:.
r/ r r,.' 1 Z•.`»�,,■,+♦ `� - r rl rr■r rr r 'f 1 % r rrrrr• , •\1•y•,,,+■. IrlI1Irr ,1t■ti_"tt 1 •■.•. _ rrri,r■�Ir/I1 j I4r�rr:�'r''i •ii'
11411 t'�♦=� `r,f1.1r'rr +I !r '`'•,...♦_� _r �I■11 'rr+ 11 t r r;rJ■ 1�\';�`_ - -f-rr'rrlfrflit
r lrr 4r• I1 1 1 _� -1'- /rr 'r' .'•�
i- 1 • `�``,\-`�'`1rlfrir1i•r11 ++ 1 �' r•r�'. `�` `�1Ir••II;i1lr11+111t``.,r . t'1 1 r II.rr,r% rrrrr 'J1■ I r I -.."7-..-..;'":".'
,r r :fir.
' .'s=i 1 1 } ■, ,♦ • f■rr rrrrrr• r 1r r'r I I l •ram fr ••r _ •,r
' S "�. 1,■� ,`1 ♦ ■ ` l 1, # ij• ' rr.1*I /�r�,r r'11 It 1 1 •''ri�r i
‘1
i.r i rIrr+ r r .'
1.- •.J .0 t1 �1f:::
''llr rrlrl r''r !' rrrrrr lfrll ! I 't•♦r - J , „.r r,.,� ♦,
1 I r7r'11 rrr I l + I 1 1 , r �r r/ �11�+ .7► +
fr1rilr!■ .`r•;- 1 / -1I ",rrr-r1111+1rf ,r lrll r rllrr rrr I f, 1 r' {' r r+ r ...rrr., y 11 J R I ,
+ ' 1 '+ it
Q 1 .-• 1 11 11[+ `I 111f 1 r 11 r I'r' 1 1 i .r _ ' 'r-.::•;;;;,,:._:.....'--
•: r.'%
1 'y'♦ { ,fi11. 1l 1111'1+1i1I�+l1 +1rI! 1 f I ' r .L ,rJ.
(WL7 ��' `� '•µ+ 1 •„ ¢ �1'ILl �Illri r i � 11.,::_f_:___:.;i:
rf� �,.'�� -P,,tI lli1111I 1■rr;;;;:::::.1"...--
r�r��rr•rrrr~ti
}�p,► it
,R1.1'111Rtt.�,■•., J-� /{•■�,, `, •1 ,, ;� �'/+ •11 .- + . �1`l` � r r
•
"„‘r, I i I .I
L I • 4.�
t I I
■ 1 11; 1
• ,
+I
1/0
4
1 1 t111
1 1 r r 11 1/ 1
•I I ! Irr
,• . _ 1 r f I r 1 +
t.• 1 f
1 'f_ ▪ •;r rr rr
r ` •1 ` `• ▪ r , +
1
•
■ •,
,▪ 1/4
,
• •
• • , ,
• •` , , . •,
L •`• • 1 • fz ,.
• ■, ♦• ••`
• , • 1
,`
• . ism: , •
r. A
"4 1
r 1
• • r rf r
■ I
I • 1 , I r r
. ♦ r r
•
1
I"� ■, 1
1 1 1 1
1 1 1 1
1 ,I I i
I
1 I 1 I
{ - .r 1
"1 1 l 1 1
r L L 1 1 1 1 1 y
j 1 , y *1 1
1 11 I 1 1 11 1 1 l
1 1 i 1 1 1 1
1 1 I 1 1 1 1 1 1
r 1 1 1 I i I 1
1 1 r 1 1 1
1
r ! 1 ! 1 f 1! t
' I
r r I l i+ r r
I
r r I r r r r
1 I Ir r r r• r r
►3 r r r r• r■ r
COr r r
� 1 • /'rr f
f0 I r r ' r r r
r r f1 r r ■, r i
r 1•1' r' f'
11 l r I r l
! r +
r
! f 1+ I I I
r +
r ' Pc�A
r 1 1 11
r 1 i I ,
• I
1 1
•
1 �` - 1 I i I I 1
• • r I I 1 1
I I
1 1` ♦• • • r^ I I I
• 1 1 1 •
r
` , ■ 1 r 1 1 1
r■ 1 •• • '- 1, 1•I 1 r 1 r
• . I
1
r
1 r! r - • r - 9y
▪ •
•
I r
?�-• ]r r rr` r f 1 1' II ! 1 l S • r• r•'r1
. , / 1 1 1 1 1 r , I r 1!
1 rf! ,• , r ! *1'1'... , � f e �,11 r•r I
r r ■ r' I' ,1 • 1 I r rr 'r r
1 r r ■ f I r
r 1 .�' • I!+ r + + fy r r Irr lfr•I
rr r - r r ▪ r •' 1 r 1 I I 1 f 1 1'rr'
• r • r •I f !
S • r 1 -r ,f rr• 1 + fr f Q7' , fr1rrrrrr
r • 1 r , ! r I Cot' f r 1 rrr
' r 1' 1� , r I! !' I I r 1'+r r1 ff,-1
, 1 I 1 1rr
I r r - r! 1 ' r/ r r
r 1 I r' I' 1' "1 I 1 1 1' ! al 4 r,r r I 'r
r • • r
✓ r r r r ■ r- 11 I I
-1 r r r ■ ,• r
r. I rr r r
1
„ r 11 .r r r i
r r r r•
•
•
•
•
1 ■ r I
� ; I I
1 , I I
f I f 1
r r f 1
1 I 1
.� r r
■ 1 \ 1' r •• J r
5 J r
t t • `•. 1
11 1 S 1 1 1 t ' 1 ■ r J /r rr'r
1 1 t r
-• '1, 1 t_ 1 I, 1 1 •N.
1 r -/ rr el;
r
• y t 1 1■ 1 1 • 1■ ,• r• Irrr r I r I I1
1• I L 1 i 1 1 1 ■ t. r J,, 1 r I r
. 1 5 1 • 1 \ r / r I r •i r
1 1 t t 1 1, • 1 ` v_ it
,• rr• r r r!■ I • I 1
t.
rr r r
•
N'‘\‘‘'N‘‘t• •••,,,,‘Ntt::. '1 :
%‘,4%$‘ \l,„ ,%'1 '1, C‘,.......C;'1.(‘: tit. 11,1
11
, + I I 1 I
r+ I ! 1 1 1
r f 1 1 1 1 l 1 I
1 I r' r 1 1 e
! r r r f 1 r f
r r
r r rr r l■�
r r r r r r r
I • r J •/
f .•:
r I
1 f 1 r I r•, r!
r II • 1- I I I r r'•
1 1 1 I I I I
6r f
1 I1 ■ 1 'CO 1
■ . I 1 y 1
1 { 11 t 1 y 1
I 1 1 1 ■ t• 1
Ill
1 1 • L 1 1 1 •I
1 r t 1 1 1 1
+ I+ I I r 1
1 I 1 1 1 1 1 r
1 y f! 1 1/
1 1 / 1
r fl
I f r ,
•1•
r r 1 f r
•
011,
Ff
gi
•
•
LOA
CO
rD
CO
•
• t _ - .: U:91':?11111:,:17.11;:;::\::N: ..:' , 40 .,.. ' ' :: •'. - -- -, 1 , _ ,
: ` ,,,,._
pi p
..• 4 ' ' ' ',I.' 4 : ? :::1111114:‘; ilbs.1:-: :11 " \ ::::s 1 ' -.1 - 1: - 1 1
.....‘, , . ;•.1). /e ''..-
. 1.4./ :4".„)• ., ti /II / 1 „:„ / p :
•
/
•
•
1
•
•
• • 0 , , i , ("4..,ri.' ........7_, .,:,, .....: , ,.... _, % _z.s. coj,
1
,1/4: ,,,,, ....r.i. : ,....4.. i 1
....: /J:1: '.: .7e' • .::.. . ' ...r: tii1. ,., • , ••f i . , j
, _ , -- ,...:,• _,:.-........--...n
•
, ....... .. ... i i . 1„,......:i.:r....;',/t/...,:: pi,':,... „:,...;t:', :IC: 1:' \ ; :14.1: 'I i .Lilp 11 ..,:lppl :::14.11.1:i.j.ki 111111..! /1Litip':111▪ '1.1:1.1'.'141111,11'1'i \:‘:: F.1 '"`... :.'`'•...... ... '..^. •..., • '..- ' :I , ...• „I
i t If, , t ,11:: t‘: it ::1; ij 1 ,,,,,,i,,,,,..1 t,,,,‘ itil jit5 %Iiik• iiis \::,,,,.: iii.•1,1Nii
, i , . , ..:,1:;/:;:f I ,,r1, .:: .,,./ :,' 1
: :1 ; ; ,,,, :, • : , • ,,,,, , , , : :
•
/
•
•
•
Jr r -' ' , .. ,, /411 ; t, 1;1;1,1 I,
1.
•
'-'1 : t i.:i L:11'11 1:'.17..;1:: : I(' '''Ll \i‘ l'II .1‘i 'il I: lit'. 1 '; 1.1 i'lli IIII: ::11 "It:
; : 1; e/ II :
' l e 'r" ' • ' •-•.: ' ' ..‘• '
„ • • ' Ns. "... ''. \N. ' = .1T.: %....7 : : f=......i 1 • '.....T.,:‘..1...,• ' !_4.7......:::1,:,•:‘,.t.11 I .,1‘,.: ',..1..% „.•::„.i..:.'iiii.,:%.„,:,,,,,..,:r.‘"Nii;ii:11/N: /,‘::\fliii‘ „: J.,•,1,0iii.,1,,1 j.i‘iiiil :„. '1.11; 1'1:1 ')/' 11"; illi' if:1:11:::::11; 1 i .4:: ii:i: /111 :1'1, 1.1' '15,4 :,..:
•
•
r• rl
•
•
‘,. :111,11:,.., i; ..,:,11/4 ,....1:.' 0, k..,, .,,,.. Ill k ;.:' if It_i: ii c
% '1.. 1, N. 1 . 1 4.1 I ' 1 1 ' 1 1 i r , ',:f t1t1
•
1 1.1,' /. 1 1 ••• i 'I ; It': r . ' i' .0.. . . il' 1 . 1•4 ; ,li j.:$ :: ;I;
•
•
1. ,, • 4:,,r it ' ,/j ,•,.1,;„:::/,',,',', ,,",4,'.,..'::„:0,.:::'', Ii :iii.,' j•I f/4.1,e',1i,':,‘ t:
ir .,....,' .... (''':',..',,' ....0 c., .r...,,,,....,',...",,,,,,..', f:/..:1,...,.......:/:/„....,:dff::,..:,,,,',:„.:111/:• ',',....:1,,,il,'.-",./,,,:....„..../101:-..:::....1..."....„1::,:,:',..',4,1...i: _r.,:.1'1...111':',..:1111:„11: l'....1' '111'1 ....ft.:: Ile,'ji0,1:''''..,./:,'/:_ler...;'.../111/ ,-:11::N...11,1':::::::::$1
•
•
/
•
1 I
•
1,1
,::: '..r „',- : : ' ' • /..:,#: 1 ; ,i.;i:' „:.1)::,,l', 1(4:: Itifil \ -t: ,,,
% , • r , , e „. • ..„ 1 i , / ,........./• :(/:::(/:::::,/./Itil //::: / 1
; ... ,, s. N ...,'N.:::„..‘,141'...,,I, \i'.... III ..., i , % il ;1, 1 '‘i LL: 1 ' %:'...... ....:.: : : "-, ' ' ' '..„. "T. ' : • '1 r 1 'lee icac:C•6.1:1Y ' .... ' 0.• .:; ....... ::::.. .:., ,
„ „ e / / I , /1 1 1.... p N: t i i t I • • ' , • ..' • ' • ' '
•
•
•
•
13.
• f=
•
•
•
•
•
••
• X
YOUR VISION ACHIEVED THROUGH OURS.
cp
cp
col
o.
0
0
PROJECT NAME & LOCATION
MER SOLAR
Z I -
co
DATE
06/07/2021
PROJECT NUMBER
41859.002
PROJECT NAME
MISENHEIMER SOLAR
DESIGNED BY / DRAWN BY
1. Waters of the U.S. within the
project study limits have been
located using subnneter, Bluetooth
GPS antennas by Timmons
Group.
2. Waters of the U.S. have been
field verified by the U.S. Army
Corps of Engineers.
4. Topography based on USGS
LiDAR.
5. Cowardin Stream
Classifications are based on NC
DWR Stream Identification Form
Version 4.11.
These plans and associated documents are the
exclusive property of TIMMONS GROUP and
may not be reproduced in whole or in part and
shall not be used for any purpose whatsoever,
inclusive, but not limited to construction, bidding,
and/or construction staking without the express
written consent of TIMMONS GROUP
REVISIONS
MM/DD/YY
DESCRIPTION
1
07/01/21
Updated per 6/29/2021 USAGE site visit
2
12/06/21
Updated per current WOTUS rules
DRAWING DESCRIPTION
FIGURE 6:
WETLANDS AND
WATERS OF THE
U.S. DELINEATION
MAP- AERIAL
SCALE (FEET)
0 100 200
PLANS PRINTED AS 11X17 ARE HALF SCALE
SCALE
SHEET NUMBER
8 of 12

,52 '•
731 ft
'•
s► 8
6•
1
9
-
t
446 2
■rat -fit
6
3
7
4r■■�
•
♦
.+r
:!
51
`10
•
r11 X51 C-, r �•:r
12
v "i
Resource
Identification
Confirmation
Resource
Description
Notes*
PFO
(sq ft)
PSS
(sq ft)
PEM
(sq ft)
POW
(sq ft)
R3
(If)
R4
(If)
R6
(If)
Ditch
(If)
Stream
(sq ft)
USACE
Exclusion
A
2,102
NTN
B
203
NT/V
C
2,264
NTN
D
20,744
1,392
X
NTN & NT/NV
E
34,810
NTN
F
53,449
NTN
G
4,820
NT/V
H
4,057
NTN
I
3,295
8,293
X
NTN & NT/NV
J
3,121
NTN
K
19,006
NTN
L
4,353
NTN
M
18,930
NTN
N
3,875
X
NT/V
0
13,694
NTN
P
740
NTN
Q
39,154
NTN
R
1,052
NTN
S
27,783
NT/V
T
4,244
NTN
U
1,918
8,070
905
NTN & NT/NV
V
3,015
NTN
W
163,863
29,942
26,748
NTN
X
7,915
NTN
Y
934
NTN
Z
1,259
NT/V
A2
5,857
1,920
NTN
B2
5,200
17,669
NT/V
C2
9,069
NT/V
D2
275,204
NTN
E2
14,819
NTN
F2
346
NTN
G2
3,097
X
NT/V
H2
1,058
NT/NV
12
947
NT/NV
J2
530
NT/NV
K2
611
210
NT/NV
L2
198
NT/NV
M2
9
NT/NV
N2
114
NT/NV
02
275
NT/NV
P2
824
633
NT/NV
Q2
897
NT/NV
R2
768
NT/NV
S2
100
NT/NV
V2
1,882
659
NT/NV
W2
210
NT/NV
X2
3,336
NT/NV
Y2
656
NT/NV
Z2
284
NT/NV
A3
491
NT/NV
C3
363
NTN
D3
29,384
NTN
Total
775,339
29,942
63,007
10,590
8,122
6,570
0
0
0
Total USACE Wetland Area =
838,182 sq ft
19.24 ac
Total USACE Stream Length =
14,692 If
Potential State Wetland Area =
878,878 sq ft
20.18 ac
Potential State Stream Length =
14,692 If
" T=Tidal; NT=Non-tidal; V=Vegetated; NV=Non-Vegetated; PFO=Palustrine Forested Wetland; PSS=Palustrine Scrub -Shrub Wetland;
PEM=Palustrine Emergent Wetland; POW= Palustrine Open Water; EIW= Estuarine Intertidal Wetlands; R3= Upper Perennial Streams;
R4=Intermittent Streams;R6 = Ephemeral Streams
Legend
�1af
© Stream Identifier
0
9
Awl
Project Study Limits (PJD Review Area) - 668.0 Acres
Wetland Identifier
Wetland Flag
Field Data Station
AJD Review Area
Culvert
Perennial Stream (R3)
Intermittent Stream (R4)
Palustrine Emergent (PEM) Wetlands
Palustrine Forested (PFO) Wetlands
Palustrine Scrub -Shrub (PSS) Wetlands
Palustrine Open Water (POW)
Non-Jurisdicational Open Waters
Non-Jurisdicational Wetlands
Topographic Contours
Major- 10 Foot
- Minor- 1 Foot
co
•4
r
r •
•
•
•I •
a-
•'
i'
-1 {�' I ' 1 ■ ~ Y
690
r� r .4 I -
h •
•
,- •J_#
rr -• ;
r
I 1' r
1.
1 -I r I • I 1 I'- �•�,-_ -,f_ _ '•' _ .-1r 5� `r r` -1 r 1 -•.
1J r r 1 1 f ♦ t I _ - -' - J I r• 1{' Jr \
1.
11i 1 + 1 1 • , •• \ . _ - _ - 1 r5,. -- •• ., r• - • r • +\ r - ' +!'r 14 ,
frJ p I I • 5 _ --�. .- r'^ J rr • Ir 1,
Wit-
- - - rrlr I r •a 5 , ` ••
r
1 r I 1 - 4 �I' r • 5 • r
- Y
I
co
oE_ _ _
fl�rl Il 5' - -_ _ _----
! 1 , { I 1 1 - _ - - - -
J _ rf•
1 ti' ��
• Irr�� rr
■ •`r•J•fr •.Ir` 7
yO1 I5 ! 1 l - _ , rJI
rr Q^ --:fit rrl •
1 54 �. r1 rf-J%+^i �^ •r
I.♦ • f' �f r
,.Cfl 4y 1 Y_r.r •r 1r . r r•
ti7 ) I rIV"- '- = rrr r I ,
J r' r
111 1 r, • ••,. 1 r,.'J!• JJrI/, frr l r, J.J.f r�
: I 1 1 4• .„ .r . ifr. ' Ir'! i'rI'' r'i i rrr- `.
IJIt 5 -- r 1.* J11 I!`I'1!■rrrr•r.
■ 1 14 t1•- I,I/, , I1,lr.i 1 ■ r , r 1 ' ' f r , rr ` r
�'■, I I'44 1 ■ ,. I1� rr'r :'r'r, if
r-1 ,�•,•r- r / ,
co , I ll 1.; • - _15., 01 r1�rr 11, f1 JrJ■1 Ir •r, rr
15 % s6• -6 J! 1 J .11 1 1 r
I 1 f
• � _ r
1 .r r , I
IF !, r !, 11 I f 1 `I 1
•' -�i '� fr f 1, i„./:.,,,,,,,I;
.• r1 ■1 i I I I 5 f l I ; I 11 1 I
't -- -- r r r! 1 1 1 5 4, E■■
f ' r
Ir /. rr,r rlj , i •, 7f , ' 1r 1
r '
+ f + I
r 11f 4 I E
,r- �IIr l r I•, 1
f , f
.V I J 1 1 1 1 1 1
�R+( 5 t 1 • ■ • 1 1• 1
tl•1 5 1 ■11 1 1 1 V t ■ �I
' 1 1■ .I � •111 r I r I 4
i• ! fr I+ 4 1 1 4\ •• • 1 1 1 i •1 1111 { r r r CO
r •- I 1 •, `} ` • 1! I 1 7 i 1 5 l t
• ■
! r Jr .1' 1 5 5 5 I I V I 1 r l 1 i; 5 1 V 1
r r 1 " ■ OJ I ' , 1 l i I t• i■ 4" t •5 1
I r r : /r fit' . -I � r 1! r l f l 1 1 1 5 l 1 1 t
1
+Ill'rI rfr 'J _--5 r 15 ■ I r a '•1 `•41••1•'I VI. 14 I- 1
r,rr ,• r , 1 • 11 C1J 1 1
r,�lr, J �1� ~ r--1-r' I, 1 f 1 5 1,111
' 1
r r,, 1- 1 I I ' '1 I
'`rr r r r.',,,,0 ---r__.•-_rl 1 4 ■ 41i,F !�l
r
r',r r■rr I ..� -:' { 15 •11rr � I
r!, r I ,r•r r 1 r r r 1 V; r 1
r• 1 ,'/ ( / 1 • r
' S I f l 4 V I I
/ f l 1 1 4 1 I 1 1 1IP
+ I ! 11 I 1 1 I
,- 15 (1 1 I 1
1 1-- -, r 1 I'', I t
{ 1 1 1 # 1 1 f • 4 1 1. 1
[ + 1 + 5 f• l • 1 1 1 ; •
I t
t 1, i l I r 1 1 1 1
1
i.
5 �\ • ♦ 4 5 1 1 • , 1
.t•
1.
• 5 t 1 ,
,•\ 1
t• l ■ ' • I
680
r + - J
, •r
• 1 _ 5 n
1 5 •
ry
4
L
1
1 •
1 5
1
I
,r
~' '�^ - -rl .f I r 1 ♦ , 5 1• } I,
f l l 1 1} V! ; 1 ,1 I I
66 - 1 1 r ,, ,_' , I r r 11 1 1
„re
fr r r , I r r- • ` 1■ r r r 1 r
��- .J r■rr-rr/1i,l,rl711-__--r --,'--/,rrIrr■rlrr:P:11':'
l�I,'1ty11lL,rrJ1fr - - __ .f -I::: ,' , r •! r r I F+! !,1rrl41J1~ r_ 1 r !-.. r`•r •r r' `r r rl•r ,,l+r r, r II rf 1 I
r' /r r r` ,'`f-r ■ r,r' r1•■ r■1 I r , I + !
1 rrr• r r• r r r r or
1 • r l I r 1
r r.'•rr .4 rrr • ,-`,' r 1`r,rr r r'r r !,/■. 1 r 1 ! ! + rl
r 1r r , r • , r , r' J `, r 1 1, r 1+ 1, r 5
1 rrr r r 1
j r 1 r J' i r ,' r I. •'
1 1 I ! r r f • r ! J r r,
1 1 l 1 r f ' , / .' J • r
■ 1 1 r 1 I Ir 1 f r r J r 1
1 5 I I rJ r ,5 !r 1 r ! r 1 i, + ! r
1 1 ■ I
r
1 4 1 1 r r , r 1 r rr r• ,•
1 1, 1 r
It • I 1 t 1 , r 1 a rr r , 1 t■ 1
I r
1 , d • / 1 +
1 1! I` 1 r 1 , , ! 1 1
I,, r
+ r ' 1 / •1 I ' 1
! 1 , , 1 l 5 r I 1 t, 1 1 ■
r , I I ! 1
! r r 1 t l `I 5 1
I 0,/
i I 4 1 = 1 -'
1 1
1 . • 1 1
•
r , 1 1 • r 1 1 I I r
11 1 r
I , 1 ` r
4 1 + + r
■ I r fLe
5
r
4 r 1 !
r r f r I
r I I , 1• . •r 1 "V 1 J r 1 t
1 r 1 , ! ` r 4 1 1 1
I i I 1 ! 1 ,- f • 1 r I 1
+ r , ■ r •
1 1 ' / 1`.1 1 f • r I 1
15 1 I •• •r r . t 4 ! r 1 1
I I 1 1 r ,r,. 4 I
1 I ..\ ■ rr I' I t
1
, • • r 1 -
i •r • r
-44
r + 1 1 f r 1 tn] O
v
••
•
--- -669/
I , S
•
r I
5 I
I . •
5 • 1 , ! 1 ■ ■ -
1 1 N. 5 I. 1 I •
• 5 '1 ■•
1
.j •f
1, 1 ; b S_ �,r, a 1
PP ,• ~ 4 \ • 0-P.., 1
N.
. • • • `• • ' 1 ' S 1 . `1
■ - t \ • \ l I 5 1 5 1
'•' • • L ••■ 1 1 1 1 5 5' `I
■ • \ 1, • 1 1 I V 1 L 11
v
i r 4 'y I J' 1 1
J.frrfr,+� I I r 5 1 t 1
- • f r 1 _, it 1 , v ` ,I I
r•r', Irr if I• , r I
• I r • 1 1r •1 I
r J`r - r,' 'r f -' r f r
67 0
N
co
CD
•rr , 11
. j11 1
" r - • J r t, ■ ■
. 1t
l'r r r- +
! r
r• 4 1
1
r r r r
�9
r' r
1 I
I' 1 4 1 4 5
I 1 1 1
J 1
f, / I 1 ,
- • r
rr
I I
•. , r_ ,
• I•
-
• '__ r r
•
•
•
•
•
680
11
••
•
1 . rJ
%� 4 ••
r
678
• • • ••
- •• • - •
•
•
�O
. r r- , , _.
1 11 r I r t r I
• 1 , :.:1)-(7;,,,..
` 5 t 1 ♦1
r �;.' 1 1 .
�� t- - t 4^ r't I r 1
1 i r
1r' Jf• �`+ r' S•�r I'' r5 I Irr
r ''•
•
1Ir Imo' i- -,. r - ' frl l-; i\.1 '�I r -i
'r r . f I,
r rr •
- `5 r
r
- - ' r r� ,
�rtffffa ffr - . - - _ _ . . - - _ _ _ - • V
• • rf 1
rr I r •
rr _ Irr
1 f • r - -• - •, �- •'-
I 1 r 5 1 I r• . `• 1` 11 ■ •� I 1,
'S
! 1
-y t r-
• 4 ' 1 1 /' ,r f` -' ~• , • •• ■ '1 11 "1
I • ■•
.5 1 I 1• l r 11 4 -1 1.1 -• , 1 • 5 •1 •1
!r rr r r • ■ • ~1 • ■ ■ ■
r !
1 r J r ,r ! ,' r 1r •
\ > . y `• 5 1 • 1 1 ly r ,
f r rfr/ rf , rr ! f• _-r.i• •'I. a 4 '1 1 5 'I 11 ; 1± \
r ,
I I I • •f• ` f Jr 1 1 1 1 1 5
r r'i I, r rr r �r ■- % 5 t . 1 i f51 t
1
I 1 rrr - rr •, r- IJ r
1 1■ fr r 1 • If '1 1. r
r 1 1 1 1 1 r rr•,,- rr 1' • r' - •.r• 1 i
•
• 1 1+ 1 1 r r , • r ,` ■ 1
1 1 I I r 1 I , •' ! 1 4 1 I
f 1 1 r 1 , , 1 r ,r , fr • _ 1 _ • , - • ■ 1 < ,
' r
1 15 r L
I
l I r I 1 I r I}
$
I
I
I I f 1 `, 11 I V
I
r ' ! r i )
1 1 f 1 , • f 1
5 4 4 , 5• 1{ r
) 1 l 1 I
1
1 i 1 1 1 1
1 i r I
I■, 4 I 1 1 I
? I r 1 r 1 I r rr
1■ 5 1 t r 1 , I
l V r 1 I r 1 1 r 1 1 1
+ L r 4
1 1,+ S; 1 I I i 1 r 1 1
Il 1 1 1 I 1 1 + II
r I
4 i l I i 1 1 f i 1 1 • -.
I 1 r l 4 1 t
i 4 1 1 . •
11 rill
1 1 • + I 4
1 1 r
rl
1 ■
1 ,-
0
\•
1
•
•
• .
■•
'•.
■
1
' 5
I t
i r 5
L L -•
[s.' rs. 4L G.1 . t f ••
_ u M
!' 1 • I , 1 l 1 i� OD
• • 1 1 1 i
- I r t \
r' • ,
1 1 1 1
+ • 1 5 t 1 • it•r rr , 1 ■ f + t
I , r !" r J t • , r , , r
r •1II, ! 7 1 t •I ,r • ' rf ,1 1 1 I 1 rr 1 ,� , 1 1
l I r1 r/ r r 11 ` •+ • 15 ,l r r r r r f! `I , f ! I_
,+ r• 1 k 1 5 1 I I ■ 1 ,4 •r �- !■ _',' ! F ! 1 l 1
1 5 • I r • • 1 1 1 [ • ,■ ,• r 3 r 1 r^ r ! + I J
it _ r r'r ,i,'r f■ , ' r
i i
'r • 1 r
I I' 1+ 1 1 1' ■ 1 1 • ' 'r ' r r • f ■r r
5� ,r 1 rr ■r` . rr.
r
\, J• Jf • ,r r �. ,r , r • r
r• r 1 rr -• r r
r I 1 r 1 I , *".
•
•
•
•
•
11
•
, ".... - ' • ' r. r, - ..; '.::' //: ' ' 1 : :: ' • . ; /1-..• : ' ....,
, ,,,, ,,- i• i : ,,,• ;I/ /r/l, , : e, , ..e ,, ,,F , o:. f i i , , I, , ,i, ... '
,:rir Jet
to
•
•
•
•
•
•
•
03
•
•
6,96
co
•
•
•
•
FRS-
11
•
•
• •.
•
• .•
•
•
•
•
01
•
•
co
co
imeret
7B
`•
• 1 1
.41
•
.- :. f 3 ' ...' .... 'CI ."1111141: .....; .111:: '.... ' ' 1
•
•
to$
er-
•
11.
co
co
•
•
•
•
Alm
11.
Acib
•
•
•
I
•
•
te
•
•
•
690
CO
Co
696
4.,014611,
03
co
CO
411
froK,
er
•
•
•
a.
co
CO
co
•
•
•
•
oo
686
69)
eL
q6.
•
rr
•
.64
(4,
CO
CO
•
•
110 •
6,95
690
FRS-
•
•
-44
•
co
.401
610.
666,
•
•
•
•
•
6165
685
701
696
609
•
i'l "11,--1.1":05: .:: ."..• 'f'... •-•'‘ :: • --Tif--11 i ' ...;r4 ;I: .11:j1 ;1'1 )1 :ttni ...I". 1
•
coa:I.,/,'t_.;.,,,...11‘j..111:"1 ilt•,111,1,.1t:iiiii.r/k%'t,i.:1‘1,,,,:j.'11'1.1..,',,,,,:fiill.illtilitii,tic)ilesois/C°_,...C°,1111 jiii;ocr)it:0',1:7)0(Z'iii' (8):it.,,c'ti:/:/iiii,t:.-(0,1,°):11:,,,1::16,..i.,(0...-::,:::',,-iie:1::: ...: :::: : 1 1-1.1::''' - - - ..* ::
•
•
•
•
0.
0
CD
0
YOUR VISION ACHIEVED THROUGH OURS.
co
co
o
o re
co
co
PROJECT NAME & LOCATION
MER SOLAR
o
co
DATE
06/07/2021
PROJECT NUMBER
41859.002
PROJECT NAME
MISENHEIMER SOLAR
DESIGNED BY / DRAWN BY
1. Waters of the U.S. within the
project study linnits have been
located using subnneter, Bluetooth
GPS antennas by Timmons
Group.
2. Waters of the U.S. have been
field verified by the U.S. Army
Corps of Engineers.
3. Project linnits are approximate.
4. Topography based on USGS
LiDAR.
5. Cowardin Stream
Classifications are based on NC
DWR Stream Identification Form
Version 4.11.
These plans and associated documents are the
exclusive property of TIMMONS GROUP and
may not be reproduced in whole or in part and
shall not be used for any purpose whatsoever,
inclusive, but not limited to construction, bidding,
and/or construction staking without the express
written consent of TIMMONS GROUP
REVISIONS __,
MM/DD/YY
DESCRIPTION
07/01/21
Updated per 6/29/2021 USAGE site visit
2
12/06/21
Updated per current WOTUS rules
DRAWING DESCRIPTION
FIGURE 6:
WETLANDS AND
WATERS OF THE
U.S. DELINEATION
MAP- AERIAL
SCALE (FEET)
0 100 200
PLANS PRINTED AS 11X17 ARE HALF SCALE
SCALE
SHEET NUMBER
9 of 12

52
Q,O
1;
731 if
2
-
44 2
■r11-1a
6
3
: 8
9
7
12 :�
5
Resource
Identification
Confirmation
Resource
Description
Notes*
PFO
(sq ft)
PSS
(sq ft)
PEM
(sq ft)
POW
(sq ft)
R3
(If)
R4
(If)
R6
(If)
Ditch
(If)
Stream
(sq ft)
USACE
Exclusion
A
2,102
NTN
B
203
NT/V
C
2,264
NTN
D
20,744
1,392
X
NTN & NT/NV
E
34,810
NT/V
F
53,449
NT/V
G
4,820
NT/V
H
4,057
NTN
I
3,295
8,293
X
NTN & NT/NV
J
3,121
NTN
K
19,006
NTN
L
4,353
NTN
M
18,930
NTN
N
3,875
X
NT/V
0
13,694
NTN
P
740
NT/V
Q
39,154
NT/V
R
1,052
NT/V
S
27,783
NT/V
T
4,244
NTN
U
1,918
8,070
905
NTN & NT/NV
V
3,015
NTN
W
163,863
29,942
26,748
NT/V
X
7,915
NT/V
Y
934
NTN
Z
1,259
NT/V
A2
5,857
1,920
NT/V
B2
5,200
17,669
NT/V
C2
9,069
NT/V
D2
275,204
NTN
E2
14,819
NTN
F2
346
NTN
G2
3,097
X
NT/V
H2
1,058
NT/NV
12
947
NT/NV
J2
530
NT/NV
K2
611
210
NT/NV
L2
198
NT/NV
M2
9
NT/NV
N2
114
NT/NV
02
275
NT/NV
P2
824
633
NT/NV
Q2
897
NT/NV
R2
768
NT/NV
S2
100
NT/NV
V2
1,882
659
NT/NV
W2
210
NT/NV
X2
3,336
NT/NV
Y2
656
NT/NV
Z2
284
NT/NV
A3
491
NT/NV
C3
363
NTN
D3
29,384
NTN
Total
775,339
29,942
63,007
10,590
8,122
6,570
0
0
0
Total USACE Wetland Area =
838,182 sq ft
19.24 ac
Total USACE Stream Length =
14,692 If
Potential State Wetland Area =
878,878 sq ft
20.18 ac
Potential State Stream Length =
14,692 If
EIW= Estuarine
= Ephemeral
* T=Tidal; NT=Non-tidal; V=Vegetated; NV=Non-Vegetated; PFO=Palustrine
PEM=Palustrine Emergent Wetland; POW= Palustrine Open Water;
R4=Intermittent Streams;R6
Forested Wetland; PSS=Palustrine Scrub -Shrub Wetland;
Intertidal Wetlands; R3= Upper Perennial Streams;
Streams
Legend
� 1
u.
1
© Stream Identifier
•
Project Study Limits (PJD Review Area) - 668.0 Acres
Wetland Identifier
Wetland Flag
Field Data Station
AJD Review Area
Culvert
Perennial Stream (R3)
Intermittent Stream (R4)
Palustrine Emergent (PEM) Wetlands
Palustrine Forested (PFO) Wetlands
Palustrine Scrub -Shrub (PSS) Wetlands
Palustrine Open Water (POW)
Non-Jurisdicational Open Waters
Non-Jurisdicational Wetlands
Topographic Contours
Major- 10 Foot
- Minor- 1 Foot
-- -669" r'� --
-1
l.' t•, 1 1
-11
r 1
I 5 f
✓ 5 5
• , 1
! 1
r
1 , ' 1r .
1 1 . 1 1
! / r r / I !
/ .
1 / 1
• rrr /
^ / I r 1I / ,--• 1 l l 1
I / 1 1 ! 1
r •r I r •' `,,ai
r r ! rr • rr 1 :,,..':,:.6.,,,
r I r r.!r 1
•
/ , r ' / 1 i ( -/ , - 1 1 '1 .'•
, +
r r r 1 1' '1
r , r 1 , r r 1 r ,• . ,
r 1 r, 1 r ! / r' 1 5 , 1 • ,', r 1 !
1 1
L 1 '. 1 +
r r r 1 1 ' • 1 _ / i 11 I
li
r 1 I r 1 1, F� , + 1+ 1 � 1 ! r I r 1
1 t , 1- ' 1 ,. , . 1 ■ I 1 I
Ir r 'I r r l I I + �' 1 ,♦ 5 `♦ ' • 1 1 `A , ! 1 1' 1
L ` 1 r • r. ! 5 f �5 L It I '
5 4�
e , 1 .5 r! - �, .
i 5 1 .1 51 11 'Ir Icr ++ 1+
, +1 'r l t 1 .) 1r f 1' F l.+ �, { 1`
' I L \5 1 I+/',i11,111 i -• t, •1 1
1 •'1 ,?/-*
1 .trr 1
`•. .,._ _
.' -,• - ' •.
•
' ' '
..♦ \'• \ 1 try 5 .• 1 1.1
1
5•
•; , + 1 ,
N.
1 1 1 5 .1 r 1/'
r
1 , 1 , 1 J I
1 . I 1 5' r, I
1 1 r 1 1, . 1 r
+ r
1 1 1 1 1,' 1 5
I r + l r 1
1 I
1 r i l r 1 i
, 1 I I 1, l,
1 l � 1 1+
.• `L 1 i+ I'll 5
• 1 4 4 l+ Ill
\ 1 LI • . e , 1 {
+ l 5' 1' L 1 1 1
1+, I I 5 r r
1 1 1 I j I I! .
1 5 f 1 1 1 ll r
i r 1 1 1 i t
9 .. 11 1 1 1 1 1 r I
1 t- LLLJJJ I r !'If �f:
e 5 5 I 11 !
1 1 1 1 1 1 1 r r 1 1 1/,!
1 1 .' rf111 4 1j ! 0 rr
1ir4r'11 r 111
....._7',.; ..'r J 77r 11',1!! !I
l i i l t! '/�+',`,I.S',',�
1 1 ' 11 I11 + '
{ '1 1 1 4,+ ' L 15' :,I
1, I ` ' 5 ' 11+� 11'
+� I I 5 1 ,I I 11 1 1 t `4') I
1i, 111j Q7f
' S ' 1 CL`
iV r I ; 1 1 1� r; l r. r l
I
•_i� -r • 1 r / + I rir/. Grp
J
f r•
t - 1
1 1 r /r 1/ '
• / / / r. / r • /', r
• I
I + r. •I I 1 1
r-
r r 1 • r • 1
/ -. ..1 1 r 1 ` /
I (
• <'
1 lr 1 I1 1
! r 1
1 Co • 1 , ■
I ! , ` 1 i /
1
\ • r r
/ / 1 r
i 1 - 1 11
, r I! 1 • I 1 1
1 e I
1 / 1 1 i-- 1 r
�, r r 1 • `r I• r
5 r • r 1
/
; '25V1
F r 1 r ■ I ," •
rq
1r1+r�1 .' '✓1/ ■ I
1 ,• I)
I 1 1
13.
D
0
• f=
Li,
,S
•
z
•
•
,•
. X
1
YOUR VISION ACHIEVED THROUGH OURS.
O
O
M
a)
'S Le)
(I) N o E
> LC) U
� to
> o O
R N E
_ o E
a)EJ3
U 1-
coo
O
O
PROJECT NAME & LOCATION
MER SOLAR
2
DATE
06/07/2021
PROJECT NUMBER
41859.002
PROJECT NAME
MISENHEIMER SOLAR
DESIGNED BY / DRAWN BY
M.COOLEY
1. Waters of the U.S. within the
project study limits have been
located using submeter, Bluetooth
GPS antennas by Timmons
Group.
2. Waters of the U.S. have been
field verified by the U.S. Army
Corps of Engineers.
3. Project limits are approximate.
4. Topography based on USGS
LiDAR.
5. Cowardin Stream
Classifications are based on NC
DWR Stream Identification Form
Version 4.11.
These plans and associated documents are the
exclusive property of TIMMONS GROUP and
may not be reproduced in whole or in part and
shall not be used for any purpose whatsoever,
inclusive, but not limited to construction, bidding,
and/or construction staking without the express
written consent of TIMMONS GROUP.
REVISIONS
#
MM/DD/YY
DESCRIPTION
1
07/01/21
Updated per 6/29/2021 USACE site visit
2
12/06/21
Updated per current WOTUS rules
DRAWING DESCRIPTION
FIGURE 6:
WETLANDS AND
WATERS OF THE
U.S. DELINEATION
MAP- AERIAL
SCALE (FEET)
0 100 200
PLANS PRINTED AS 11X17 ARE HALF SCALE
SCALE SHEET NUMBER
H:1"=100' 10of12
Y:\804\99999-Orion Renewables\41859.002 - Misenheimer\GIS\Wetland Delineation\41859.002-WTDM - USACE.mxd

,52'
P�
731 if
♦
* $
4,0
2
'
/
re
3
■
6
1
i
•
7
4
11 =E
`10
• 12 lit
•
52.
s.
Resource
Identification
Confirmation
Resource
Description
Notes*
PFO
(sq ft)
PSS
(sq ft)
PEM
(sq ft)
POW
(sq ft)
R3
(If)
R4
(If)
R6
(If)
Ditch
(If)
Stream
(sq ft)
USACE
Exclusion
A
2,102
NTN
B
203
NT/V
C
2,264
NTN
D
20,744
1,392
X
NTN & NT/NV
E
34,810
NT/V
F
53,449
NT/V
G
4,820
NT/V
H
4,057
NTN
I
3,295
8,293
X
NTN & NT/NV
J
3,121
NTN
K
19,006
NTN
L
4,353
NTN
M
18,930
NTN
N
3,875
X
NT/V
0
13,694
NTN
P
740
NT/V
Q
39,154
NT/V
R
1,052
NT/V
S
27,783
NT/V
T
4,244
NTN
U
1,918
8,070
905
NTN & NT/NV
V
3,015
NTN
W
163,863
29,942
26,748
NT/V
X
7,915
NT/V
Y
934
NTN
Z
1,259
NT/V
A2
5,857
1,920
NT/V
B2
5,200
17,669
NT/V
C2
9,069
NT/V
D2
275,204
NTN
E2
14,819
NTN
F2
346
NTN
G2
3,097
X
NT/V
H2
1,058
NT/NV
12
947
NT/NV
J2
530
NT/NV
K2
611
210
NT/NV
L2
198
NT/NV
M2
9
NT/NV
N2
114
NT/NV
02
275
NT/NV
P2
824
633
NT/NV
Q2
897
NT/NV
R2
768
NT/NV
S2
100
NT/NV
V2
1,882
659
NT/NV
W2
210
NT/NV
X2
3,336
NT/NV
Y2
656
NT/NV
Z2
284
NT/NV
A3
491
NT/NV
C3
363
NTN
D3
29,384
NTN
Total
775,339
29,942
63,007
10,590
8,122
6,570
0
0
0
Total USACE Wetland Area =
838,182 sq ft
19.24 ac
Total USACE Stream Length =
14,692 If
Potential State Wetland Area =
878,878 sq ft
20.18 ac
Potential State Stream Length =
14,692 If
EIW= Estuarine
= Ephemeral
* T=Tidal; NT=Non-tidal; V=Vegetated; NV=Non-Vegetated; PFO=Palustrine
PEM=Palustrine Emergent Wetland; POW= Palustrine Open Water;
R4=Intermittent Streams;R6
Forested Wetland; PSS=Palustrine Scrub -Shrub Wetland;
Intertidal Wetlands; R3= Upper Perennial Streams;
Streams
Legend
'..
© Stream Identifier
0
ar-
Awl
Project Study Limits (PJD Review Area) - 668.0 Acres
Wetland Identifier
Wetland Flag
Field Data Station
AJD Review Area
Culvert
Perennial Stream (R3)
Intermittent Stream (R4)
Palustrine Emergent (PEM) Wetlands
Palustrine Forested (PFO) Wetlands
Palustrine Scrub -Shrub (PSS) Wetlands
Palustrine Open Water (POW)
Non-Jurisdicational Open Waters
Non-Jurisdicational Wetlands
Topographic Contours
Major- 10 Foot
- Minor- 1 Foot
1.i.
•
1 1
•
•
ir, , 1 + 1
t , 1 1 , 1
5 t 1
+ 1 1 I 1
+ 1
1 ✓! 1 7 1 ,
r 1 II, ,
.� f _ - r. ." ,r f • r 1 1 1
rr •,!• sl `• • It L� !r rr lr r lrrr lr!',rrr r^ •r ^� , ,• + 11 �f + 1 t 1
+ •, -- r r ,, ;., , v + 1 1 r
r1 r'f+ _,' J - 1 �� r rr ~t� ; :� ' , } 1 I 1
• r , - , - �♦ ♦ , 1 , r l r• 4. J - • • + + , 1 + + ,
•
•
... „ t , ".0.11-11: i/: :.:1:1:111:''' /1:11/f '''' /11r::1::/: / '
•
•
•
•
•
•
•
•
•
•
•
•
•
•
•
It et
•
•
7.0
•
•
CCP
CO 1
•
657
se r
17/
111
•
kl
•
rift
•
•
•
•
•
•
687
•
.41
•
•
•
•
0
• f=
• Li,
•
•
• •
•
0
X
YOUR VISION ACHIEVED THROUGH OURS.
(11
LU
o
CO
0
0
PROJECT NAME & LOCATION
MER SOLAR
0 12
DATE
06/07/2021
PROJECT NUMBER
41859.002
PROJECT NAME
MISENHEIMER SOLAR
DESIGNED BY / DRAWN BY
1. Waters of the U.S. within the
project study limits have been
located using submeter, Bluetooth
GPS antennas by Timmons
2. Waters of the U.S. have been
field verified by the U.S. Army
Corps of Engineers.
3. Project limits are approximate.
4. Topography based on USGS
LiDAR.
5. Cowardin Stream
Classifications are based on NC
DWR Stream Identification Form
Version 4.11.
These plans and associated documents are the
exclusive property of TIMMONS GROUP and
may not be reproduced in whole or in part and
shall not be used for any purpose whatsoever,
inclusive, but not limited to construction, bidding,
and/or construction staking without the express
written consent of TIMMONS GROUP.
MM/DD/YY
DESCRIPTION
07/01/21
Updated per 6/29/2021 USACE site vis
2
12/06/21
Updated per current WOTUS rules
DRAWING DESCRIPTION
FIGURE 6:
WETLANDS AND
WATERS OF THE
U.S. DELINEATION
MAP- AERIAL
SCALE (FEET)
0 100 200
PLANS PRINTED AS 11X17 ARE HALF SCALE
SCALE
SHEET NUMBER
11 of 12

2
4,0
3
12 4
T'
•
Resource
Identification
Confirmation
Resource
Description
Notes*
PFO
(sq ft)
PSS
(sq ft)
PEM
(sq ft)
POW
(sq ft)
R3
(If)
R4
(If)
R6
(If)
Ditch
(If)
Stream
(sq ft)
USACE
Exclusion
A
2,102
NTN
B
203
NT/V
C
2,264
NTN
D
20,744
1,392
X
NTN & NT/NV
E
34,810
NTN
F
53,449
NTN
G
4,820
NT/V
H
4,057
NTN
I
3,295
8,293
X
NTN & NT/NV
J
3,121
NTN
K
19,006
NTN
L
4,353
NTN
M
18,930
NTN
N
3,875
X
NT/V
0
13,694
NTN
P
740
NTN
Q
39,154
NTN
R
1,052
NTN
S
27,783
NT/V
T
4,244
NTN
U
1,918
8,070
905
NTN & NT/NV
V
3,015
NTN
W
163,863
29,942
26,748
NTN
X
7,915
NTN
Y
934
NTN
Z
1,259
NT/V
A2
5,857
1,920
NTN
B2
5,200
17,669
NT/V
C2
9,069
NT/V
D2
275,204
NTN
E2
14,819
NTN
F2
346
NTN
G2
3,097
X
NT/V
H2
1,058
NT/NV
12
947
NT/NV
J2
530
NT/NV
K2
611
210
NT/NV
L2
198
NT/NV
M2
9
NT/NV
N2
114
NT/NV
02
275
NT/NV
P2
824
633
NT/NV
Q2
897
NT/NV
R2
768
NT/NV
S2
100
NT/NV
V2
1,882
659
NT/NV
W2
210
NT/NV
X2
3,336
NT/NV
Y2
656
NT/NV
Z2
284
NT/NV
A3
491
NT/NV
C3
363
NTN
D3
29,384
NTN
Total
775,339
29,942
63,007
10,590
8,122
6,570
0
0
0
Total USACE Wetland Area =
838,182 sq ft
19.24 ac
Total USACE Stream Length =
14,692 If
Potential State Wetland Area =
878,878 sq ft
20.18 ac
Potential State Stream Length =
14,692 If
* T=Tidal; NT=Non-tidal; V=Vegetated; NV=Non-Vegetated; PFO=Palustrine Forested Wetland; PSS=Palustrine Scrub -Shrub Wetland;
PEM=Palustrine Emergent Wetland; POW= Palustrine Open Water; EIW= Estuarine Intertidal Wetlands; R3= Upper Perennial Streams;
R4=Intermittent Streams;R6 = Ephemeral Streams
Legend
4..1
© Stream Identifier
0
9
ar-
Awl
Project Study Limits (PJD Review Area) - 668.0 Acres
Wetland Identifier
Wetland Flag
Field Data Station
AJD Review Area
Culvert
Perennial Stream (R3)
Intermittent Stream (R4)
Palustrine Emergent (PEM) Wetlands
Palustrine Forested (PFO) Wetlands
Palustrine Scrub -Shrub (PSS) Wetlands
Palustrine Open Water (POW)
Non-Jurisdicational Open Waters
Non-Jurisdicational Wetlands
Topographic Contours
Major- 10 Foot
- Minor- 1 Foot
Cl�
r + r r rc
+2 f ryr
r rr rrr.
r 2 r+r rr
r r '
r 1
r 11
+ ■,
1 ' I . +l
,>,+rrr + r ter
■• •+
,r A
25 )1
r
r 1 r 1
i+1l
t r1 ++r
+II
+
1 • 11
1 r 7 I f if
r r 1 2/ 1
ir 1+rr I
4$2.,; 7rr7 1rr11
+ r rfrr�lr.1
` Ir 'r+/! 1+ +!`r�lr
I rl+r r1 / 1 rl to
r r rrr '1; 1
J � +Ir 1 ii• 1
{II�t
1171 ,
r' 'r +
r
r r'-r +
r -
rr 1 7 ■
r- - I r_ _r, 1
Y r I , I
1- _ r r ■
1 +
r 2 I' 1 1 1
•r •
I � _ r r
r r i i + 1
r
•,_, : r�r11 1 r f I
r ! � ` • 1
r 1 .1 r 4
2 r r! I I 1 t 1 { 1
r r r 1 [ 1 5[ ■
/ J / r1.-r' y t f [■ 1
'
1 J 7 it+7 r < i I [
1
•_ ' ' ,
1 �
r r -
+ 1 t r ■ [ ` I I [ [
1 f 1 1 � 1 5 t%
It 1 s 1 [
I _ ' / 1 5■
- , r r ., + S V 1 t %
. t
r •
r7 ■ '■ [
r J
rrr + r
D
0
• f=
,s 0
•
• •
• z
0
. X
1
YOUR VISION ACHIEVED THROUGH OURS.
O
O
M
09
LC)
cO N 0
N
i
<
O. 130
0
L.2
W
co o
~
0
0
V
N
E
E
PROJECT NAME & LOCATION
MER SOLAR
W
2
co
co
2
DATE
06/07/2021
PROJECT NUMBER
41859.002
PROJECT NAME
MISENHEIMER SOLAR
DESIGNED BY / DRAWN BY
M.COOLEY
1. Waters of the U.S. within the
project study limits have been
located using submeter, Bluetooth
GPS antennas by Timmons
Group.
2. Waters of the U.S. have been
field verified by the U.S. Army
Corps of Engineers.
3. Project limits are approximate.
4. Topography based on USGS
LiDAR.
5. Cowardin Stream
Classifications are based on NC
DWR Stream Identification Form
Version 4.11.
These plans and associated documents are the
exclusive property of TIMMONS GROUP and
may not be reproduced in whole or in part and
shall not be used for any purpose whatsoever,
inclusive, but not limited to construction, bidding,
and/or construction staking without the express
written consent of TIMMONS GROUP.
REVISIONS
#
MM/DD/YY
DESCRIPTION
1
07/01/21
Updated per 6/29/2021 USAGE site visit
2
12/06/21
Updated per current WOTUS rules
DRAWING DESCRIPTION
FIGURE 6:
WETLANDS AND
WATERS OF THE
U.S. DELINEATION
MAP- AERIAL
(F)
SCALE (FEET)
0 100 200
PLANS PRINTED AS 11X17 ARE HALF SCALE
SCALE
H:1"=100'
SHEET NUMBER
12 of 12
Y:\804\99999-Orion Renewables\41859.002 - Misenheimer\GIS\Wetland Delineation\41859.002-WTDM - USACE.mxd

Lauren Norris -Heflin
From: Morgan Gilbert
Sent: Wednesday, July 27, 2022 04:28 PM
To: [e-mail]
Cc: Nick Tudor
Subject: Pre -filing Request - Misenheimer Solar
Good afternoon,
I would like to submit a Pre -filing notice for the following project:
Project name: Misenheimer Solar Park
Project County: Stanly
Applicant name: Misenheimer Solar LLC
Applicant address: 1501 McKinney Street, Suite 1300, Houston, TX 77010
Type of project/Approval sought: NWP 51
Thanks in advance,
Morgan Gilbert, WPIT (she,her)
Environmental Scientist I
TIMMONS GROUP I www.timmons.com
5410 Trinity Rd, Suite 102 I Raleigh, NC 27607
Office: 984.255.2351 I Fax: [phone]
Mobile: [e-mail]
Your Vision Achieved Through Ours
i

Lauren Norris -Heflin
From: ERIN O'SHEA <[e-mail]>
Sent: Friday, October 28, 2022 12:59 PM
To: Stygar, KRYSTYNKA B CIV USARMY CESAW (USA)
Cc: Lauren Norris -Heflin; MILAN DAS; EMILY MORILLA; SABRINA FLEISCHMAN; Morgan Gilbert; JOE
RIDPATH; JON VOLTZ; [e-mail]; [e-mail]; Butler, Kevin;
[e-mail]
Subject: Pre-App Meeting Summary - Misenheimer (Stanly County)
CAUTION: This email originated from outside of the organization. Do not click links or open attachments unless you recognize the
sender and know the content is safe.
Krysta,
Thank you again for meeting with us today. Below is a short summary of our call, could you please reply to confirm
everything is accurate? Please note that we got additional information about utility tie-ins (see below), and we have a
question for you on that one.
Additionally, could you verify if you will remain the reviewer for Stanly County, or if there may be an upcoming change
where another USACE regulatory would take over?
• Temporary wetland crossing for road — The Applicant is clear to proceed with a temporary wetland crossing
utilizing timber mats to access the southeastern portion of the property in advance of receipt of the 404 permit
for the overall project. This crossing is through a PEM wetland and corresponds with the location of the
proposed permanent road impact location to be included in the upcoming permit application. The temporary
impact will also be addressed in the application.
• Permanent wetland crossing for road — This location allows for impact to only PEM wetlands, avoiding impacts
to PFO or PSS wetlands corresponding to narrower segments to the south. Plans for bank stabilization will be
included in the application.
• Fence crossing impacts — The two wetland and two stream crossing impacts associated with fence installation
will constitute temporary impacts.
• Temporary wetland impact for tree clearing — 0.675-acres of tree clearing is proposed within a 404
jurisdictional wetland to eliminate shading. The wetland will remain, including tree stumps not to be removed.
This will be permitted as temporary impact.
• Utility tie-ins — There are 3 MV cables we plan to overlap with the road crossing in the southern portion of the
project and will be buried. Given the overlap with road and utility impact, and the presence of other impacts
not relating to roads or utilities, should only NWP 51 be pursued?
• Mitigation — Mitigation will be required for the permanent road crossing impacts due to permanent impacts
exceeding 0.1-acres. Temporary wetland impacts associated with the fence crossing and tree clearing area will
be required at a 1:1 ratio for conversion of PFO to PEM wetlands. No stream mitigation will be required as there
are no permanent stream impacts proposed.
• Ownership — Section B of the ePCN will specify an Applicant other than the owner is applying for the permit and
Section B.2. will include all landowner information. Any correspondence relating to the ePCN will be between
the USACE, DWR, Applicant, and Consultant.
• Section 7 and Section 106 Concerns — Previously completed USFWS and SHPO Consultation will be documented
and attached.
• Application submittal — Upon submittal of ePCN, send notification email to Krysta Stygar, Charlotte Regulatory
Field Office, and Asheville Regulatory Field Office to confirm receipt.
• AJD/PJD — Issued by Dave Bailey under SAW-2021-01122 on January 6, 2022 remains valid for this application.
1

• Site visit — An invitation will be sent for a USACE site visit at 10am November 17th to review a portion of the
project area not included in the previously completed JD.
Thank you,
Erin
ERIN O'SHEA
EDP Renewables North America LLC
Associate Director, Environmental Affairs
a 209 W Jackson Blvd, Chicago IL
c 312.533.1051
CONFIDENTIALITY NOTICE:
This message and the attached files may contain confidential and/or privileged information, which should not be disclosed, copied, saved or
distributed, under the terms of current legislation.
If you have received this message in error, we ask that you do not disclose or use this information. Please notify the sender of this error, by email,
and delete this message from your device.
AVISO DE CONFIDENCIALIDADE:
Esta mensagem e os ficheiros em anexo podem conter informagao confidencial e/ou privilegiada, que nao devera ser divulgada, copiada, gravada
ou distribuida, nos termos da lei vigente.
Se recebeu esta mensagem por engano, pedimos que nao divulgue nem faga uso desta informa4ao. Agradecemos que avise o remetente da
mesma, por correio eletronico, e apague este e-mail do seu sistema.
AVISO DE CONFIDENCIALIDAD:
Este mensaje y los archivos adjuntos pueden contener informacion confidencial y/o privilegiada, que no debera ser divulgada, copiada, guardada o
distribuida de acuerdo al cumplimiento de la ley vigente.
Si ha recibido este mensaje por error, le pedimos que no divulgue o haga uso de esta informacion. Le agradecemos que notifique el error al
remitente enviandole un correo electronico y elimine este email de su dispositivo.
2

Lauren Norris -Heflin
From: ERIN O'SHEA <[e-mail]>
Sent: Friday, November 4, 2022 10:08 AM
To: [e-mail]
Cc: Lauren Norris -Heflin; Morgan Gilbert; MILAN DAS; Stygar, KRYSTYNKA B CIV USARMY CESAW (USA);
[e-mail]; [e-mail]
Subject: DWR Pre-App Meeting Summary - Misenheimer (Stanly County)
Attachments: 20221027_Misenheimer_Impact Maps.pdf
CAUTION: This email originated from outside of the organization. Do not click links or open attachments unless you recognize the
sender and know the content is safe.
Alan,
Thank you again for meeting with us on Wednesday. Below is a short summary of our call, could you please reply to
confirm everything is accurate and can be passed on to whoever takes over the 401 review?
• 404 non -jurisdictional wetlands — All 404 non -jurisdictional wetlands identified on -site, including those to be
impacted, are completely surrounded by uplands and per DWR's definition would constitute "isolated basin
wetlands". The Impact Maps will be revised to identify these as "Isolated Non -Jurisdictional".
• Temporary wetland crossing for road — The Applicant is clear to proceed with a temporary wetland crossing
utilizing timber mats to access the southeastern portion of the property in advance of receipt of the 401 and 404
permits for the overall project. This crossing is through a PEM wetland and corresponds with the location of the
proposed permanent road impact location to be included in the upcoming permit application. The temporary
impact will also be addressed in the application.
• Permanent wetland crossing for road — Install the culvert at grade in wetland as currently depicted. No other
concerns identified.
• Fence crossing impacts — Agree with the USACE's comment to revise the two wetland and two stream crossing
impacts associated with fence installation to temporary impacts.
• Temporary wetland impact for tree clearing to eliminate shading — 0.675-acres within 401/404 jurisdictional
wetland, —0.701-acres within 401 "isolated" basin wetlands. The wetlands will remain, including tree stumps not
to be removed. This will be permitted as temporary impact. A note should be included on the plans in regards to
long term maintenance to confirm woody vegetation may regrow, but is not to exceed a maximum height (to be
specified).
• Mitigation — Mitigation will be required for the permanent impacts to 401/404 jurisdictional wetlands.
Mitigation will not be required for the 401 "isolated" basin wetland impacts, permanent or temporary, as
permanent impacts are under the 0.5-acre permanent impact threshold for the Piedmont Region (per
I WG P100000).
• SCMs — plans have been amended to remove SCM related impacts. It is not required to provide details on where
these have been relocated so long as they are in upland areas.
• Site visit — An invitation will be sent to Andrew Pitner and Roberto Scheller to attend the USACE on -site meeting
November 17th for the purpose of confirming an upland area excluded from the previously completed
Jurisdictional Determination.
Thank you,
Erin
1

Appendix C

MISENHEIMER SOLAR PARK ENVIRONMENTAL IMPACTS
STANLY COUNTY, NORTH CAROLINA
IMPACT 6
IMPACT 5
VICINITY MAP
1" = 1,500'
WETLANDS (TYP)
WETLAND AND STREAM IMPACTS
EXHIBITNo.
IMPACT No.
IMPACT SPECI FICATION
JURISDICTIONAL
PERMANENT
(SF)
MPACTS
(AC)
WETLAND
TEMPORARY
(SF)
(AC)
ISOLATED NON -JURISDICTIONAL
IMPACTS WATERS
OF THE
(SF)
STATE
(AC)
(LF)
(SF)
STREAM
(AC)
IMPACT
(LF)
(SF)
(AC)
(SF)
(AC)
C004
la
ROAD FILL
-
-
-
-
1802
0.041
-
-
-
-
-
-
-
-
C004
lb
TREE CLEAR NG
-
-
-
-
-
-
18944
0.435
-
-
-
-
-
-
0005
2
FENCECROSSING
-
-
-
-
-
-
-
-
-
-
-
9
28
0.0006
C005
3
FENCECROSSING
-
-
-
-
-
-
-
-
-
-
-
9
36
0.0008
C005
4
FENCECROSSING
-
-
700
0.016
-
-
-
-
-
-
-
-
-
-
0005
5
FENCE CROSSING
-
-
280
0.006
-
-
-
-
-
-
-
-
-
-
C006
6
ROAD FI LL
1602
0.037
-
-
-
-
-
-
-
-
-
-
-
-
C007
7
SOLARARRAYFILL
-
-
-
-
3098
0.071
-
-
-
-
-
-
-
-
0008
8
TREECLEARING
-
-
-
-
-
-
11588
0.266
-
-
-
-
-
-
C009
9
TREE CLEARING
-
-
29384
0.675
-
-
-
-
-
-
-
-
-
C010
10
FENCE CROSSING
-
-
74
0.002
-
-
-
-
-
-
-
-
-
-
C010
11
FENCE CROSSING
-
-
-
-
-
-
-
-
-
-
-
9
36
0.0008
TOTAL
1602
0.037
30438
0.699
4900
0.112
30532
0.701
0
0
0.0000
27
100
0.0023
ISSUED FOR REVIEW
ISSUED FOR APPROVAL
U
OVERALL IMPACTS
DATE
10/27/22
SCALE
AS SHOWN
JOB NO.
3925.001
C001

LEGEND:
JURISDICTIONAL WETLANDS
WATERS OF THE STATE (NON -JD)
-1000
1000
1000
EX. MAJOR CONTOUR
EX. MINOR CONTOUR
STREAM
SURFACE WATER
ACCESS ROAD
PERIMETER FENCE
PROP. MAJOR CONTOUR
PROP. MINOR CONTOUR
JURISDICTIONAL WETLAND IMPACTS
PERMANENT
TEMPORARY
WATERS OF THE STATE IMPACTS
PERMANENT
TEMPORARY
STREAM IMPACTS
PERMANENT
TEMPORARY
F.
i
•
rrf
/ /
?
i
AAA
IMPACT 2
mlillf
.\
\Af
•
III
11 II
MPACT 9
J
i L
f` 1
SCALE: 1 " = 1,500'
ISSUED FOR REVIEW
ISSUED FOR APPROVAL
USACE COMMENTS
z_
J
0
< U
O 1
CD
Et
rY 0
Z
• 1-
z
Z�
wo
�U
OVERALL IMPACTS - NORTH
DATE
0/27/22
SCALE
AS SHOWN
DD
3925.001
C002

NOTES:
1. THE EXISTING CEMETERY WILL BE PRESERVED WITH
CONTINUED SITE ACCESS. NO IMPACTS WILL OCCUR
WITHIN 50 FT OF THE CEMETERY LIMITS
2. THE EXISTING CEMETERY ROAD IS OUTSIDE OF THE
PROJECT LIMITS AND WILL PROVIDE UNFETTERED
ACCESS TO THE PUBLIC.
3. THE GENERAL AREA OF THE HISTORIC BARRINGER
GOLD MINE TO REMAIN UNDISTURBED.
LEGEND:
JURISDICTIONAL WETLANDS
WATERS OF THE STATE (NON -JD)
B
1000_
1000
1000
EX. MAJOR CONTOUR
EX. MINOR CONTOUR
STREAM
SURFACE WATER
ACCESS ROAD
PERIMETER FENCE
PROP. MAJOR CONTOUR
PROP. MINOR CONTOUR
LEASE EXCLUSION AREA
JURISDICTIONAL WETLAND IMPACTS
PERMANENT
TEMPORARY
WATERS OF THE STATE IMPACTS
PERMANENT
TEMPORARY
STREAM IMPACTS
PERMANENT
TEMPORARY
IMPACT 6
APPROXIMATE LOCATION OF
HISTORIC BARRINGER GOLD
MINE TO REMAIN UNDISTURBED
SCALE: 1" = 1,500'
00 OP 0111"1fIirflflflfl7
IMPACT 7
EX CEMETERY
BOUNDARY
'•nnnnnunnminnni
CEMETERY ACCESS TO
BE MAINTAINED WITH
EXISTING ROAD
IMPACT 11
ib411 1,Ar5i '�PAirrl: /i
/
ISSUED FOR REVIEW
ISSUED FOR APPROVAL
USAGE COMMENTS
0000111
m
Z_
J
O
JU
0
COI —
CC
WO
�z
w}
zz
willO
J
z
cn
OVERALL IMPACTS - SOUTH
DATE
10/27/22
SCALE
AS SHOWN
JOB NO.
3925.001
C003

WATERS OF THE STATE
(NON -JURISDICTIONAL WETLANDS)
INVERTER (TYP.)
TEMPORARY IMPACTS
FOR TREE CLEARING
sss
694
SOLAR ARRAY (TYP)
691 6
69
L
OPEN WATER (TO REMAIN
UNDISTURBED)
GRAVEL ACCESS ROAD
LEGEND:
JURISDICTIONAL WETLANDS JURISDICTIONAL WETLAND IMPACTS
PERMANENT
-1000_; EX. MAJOR CONTOUR TEMPORARY
EX. MINOR CONTOUR
STREAM
WATERS OF THE STATE (NON -JD)
1000
1000
SURFACE WATER
ACCESS ROAD
PERIMETER FENCE
PROP. MAJOR CONTOUR
PROP. MINOR CONTOUR
WATERS OF THE STATE IMPACTS
PERMANENT
TEMPORARY
STREAM IMPACTS
PERMANENT
TEMPORARY
0' 10' 40'
80'
120'
5' 20' 60' 100'
SCALE: 1 "=40'
KEY MAP:
I W EFLAN D AND STREAM IMPACTS
MI BIT No.
IMPACT No.
IMPACT SPECIFICATION
JURISDICTIONAL
(SF)
IMPACTS
(AC)
WETLAND
(SF)
(AC)
ISOLATED NON -JURISDICTIONAL
IMPACTS WATERS OF THE STATE
STREAM
IMPACT
TEMPORARY
(LF)
(SF)
(AC)
PERMANENT
(SF)
(AC)
(SF)
(AC)
(LF) (SF)
(AC)
C004
la
ROAD FI LL
-
-
-
-
1802
0.041
-
-
- -
-
-
-
-
0004
lb
TREE CLEARING
-
-
-
-
-
-
18944
0.435
- -
-
-
-
-
NOTES:
LONG TERM MAINTENANCE WILL ALLOW WOODY
VEGETATION TO REGROW UP TO 6 FT HIGH.
0
c0
0
ACE COMM
IMPACT #1
DATE
0/27/22
SCALE
AS SHOWN
06 N0.
3925.001
C004

PROPOSED
FENCE (TYP)
STREAM -\\
(3-FT WIDTH)
674
674
00
v
0
IMPACT #2
�00
TEMPORARY IMPACTS
FOR TREE CLEARING AND
FENCE CONSTRUCTION
I
TEMPORARY IMPACTS
FOR CLEARING AND
FENCE CONSTRUCTION
WETLANDS (TYP)
SOLAR ARRAY
PROPOSED FENCE (TYP)
IMPACT #5
PROPOSED FENCE (TYP)
564
STREAM
(4-FT WIDTH)
` 0 0 ` TEMPORARY IMPACTS
J J FOR TREE CLEARING AND
1FENCE CONSTRUCTION
°1 N/°C) ' I
0 0
SOLAR ARRAY
IMPACT #3
\ I /
66p
TEMPORARY IMPACTS
FOR TREE CLEARING AND
FENCE CONSTRUCTION
662
PROPOSED
FENCE (TYP)
6c51'
WETLANDS (TYP)
IMPACT #4
WETLAND AND STREAM IMPACTS
EXHIBIT No.
IMPACT No.
I MPACTSPECI FICATI 0 N
JURISDICTIONAL WETLAND
IMPACTS
ISOLATED NON -JURISDICTIONAL
IMPACTS WATERS OF THE STATE
STREAM IMPACT
TEMP OR'.;
_PERMANENT
PERMANE 9
TEMPORARY
(SF)
(AC)
(SF)
(AC)
(SF)
(AC)
(SF)
(AC)
(LF1
(SF)
(AC)
(LF)
(SF)
(AC)
C005
2
FENCE CROSSING
9
28
0.0006
C005
3
FENCE CROSSING
9
36
0.0008
C005
4
FENCE CROSSING
-
-
700
0.016
-
-
-
-
-
-
-
-
-
-
0005
5
FENCE CROSSING
-
-
280
0.006
-
-
-
-
-
-
-
-
-
-
0' 10'
45'
75'
1'
LEGEND:
30' 60'
SCALE: 1 "=30'
90'
JURISDICTIONAL WETLANDS JURISDICTIONAL WETLAND IMPACTS
WATERS OF THE STATE (NON -JD) PERMANENT
EX. MAJOR CONTOUR TEMPORARY
00( EX. MINOR CONTOUR WATERS OF THE STATE IMPACTS
1000
1000
STREAM
PERMANENT
SURFACE WATER
TEMPORARY
ACCESS ROAD
PERIMETER FENCE
PROP. MAJOR CONTOUR
PROP. MINOR CONTOUR
STREAM IMPACTS
PERMANENT
TEMPORARY
KEY MAP:
ISSUED FOR REVIEW
ISSUED FOR APPROVAL
USACE COMMENTS
DATE
0/27/22
SCALE
AS SHOWN
JOB ND.
3925.001
C005

LIMIT OF DISTURBANCE (TYP)
WETLANDS (TYP)
PERMANENT
WETLANDS IMPACTS
(2) 5OLF - 60" HDPE @ 2.0%
/
CLASS B RIPRAP /
WETLAND AND STREAM IMPACTS
EXHIBIT No.
IMPACT No.
IMPACT SPECIFICATION
JURISDICTIONAL WETLAND
IMPACTS
ISOLATED NON -JURISDICTIONAL
IMPACTS WATERS OF THE STATE
STREAM IMPACT
,ERMANENi
(SF) (AC)
J_�.�' �' •' -
PERMANENT
(SF) (AC)
(SF)
(AC)
(SF) (AC) (LF)
(SF)
(AC)
(LF) (SF)
(AC)
C006
6
ROAD FILL
1602 0.037
LEGEND:
JURISDICTIONAL WETLANDS
WATERS OF THE STATE (NON -JD)
-1000_; EX. MAJOR CONTOUR
EX. MINOR CONTOUR
STREAM
SURFACE WATER
ACCESS ROAD
PERIMETER FENCE
/000PROP. MAJOR CONTOUR
PROP. MINOR CONTOUR
JURISDICTIONAL WETLAND IMPACTS
PERMANENT
TEMPORARY
WATERS OF THE STATE IMPACTS
PERMANENT 0' 10' 40'
TEMPORARY I I I
STREAM IMPACTS
PERMANENT
TEMPORARY
60' 100'
SCALE: 1 "=40'
J
/ SOLAR ARRAY (TYP)
EX. FARM ROAD
MV2 MV2 MV
MV3 MV/3 MV3
KEY MAP:
700
700
0
0
0
0
0
INV IN (S) = 680.00
LO
CV
co
o
+
ti
O
II
+
o
I-
Q
EE
690
690
-
680
680
i
(2) 5OLF - 60" HDPE
@ 0.8%
675
CO--
CO
CO
OC
COCO
(0 rn
v v
CZi
675
-0+50 0+00 1+00 1+50
PROFILE: A -A STA: -0+50 TO 1+50
HORIZONTAL SCALE: 1" = 40'
VERTICAL SCALE: 1" = 8
DATE SCALE
10/27/22 AS SHOWN
JOB ND.
3925.001
C006

/
(
/
WATERS OF THE STATE
(NON-JURISDITIONAL WETLANDS)
67
B
B
PERMANENT WETLANDS IMPACTS
IV
pi
11
/
6
y
B
616
T T
SOLAR ARRAY (TYP
LEGEND:
JURISDICTIONAL WETLANDS JURISDICTIONAL WETLAND IMPACTS
WATERS OF THE STATE (NON -JD) PERMANENT
-1000_; EX. MAJOR CONTOUR TEMPORARY
EX. MINOR CONTOUR
STREAM
1000
1000
SURFACE WATER
ACCESS ROAD
PERIMETER FENCE
PROP. MAJOR CONTOUR
PROP. MINOR CONTOUR
WATERS OF THE STATE IMPACTS
PERMANENT
TEMPORARY
STREAM IMPACTS
PERMANENT
TEMPORARY
M1
0' 10' 40' 80' 120'
5' 20' 60' 100'
SCALE: 1 "=40'
KEY MAP:
„ WETLAN D AN D STREAM IMPACTS
EXF-lI BIT No.
IMPACTNo.
IMPACT SPECIFICATION
JURISDI CTIONALWETLAND
IMPACTS
ISOLATED NO N-JURISDI CTI ONAL
IMPACTS WATERS OFTHESTATE
STREAM IMPACT
RMANENT
(SF)
TEMPORAR/
(AC) (SF)
(AC)
PERMANENT
(SF)
(AC) (SF) (AC)
(LF)
(SF)
(AC)
1FM
(LF)
(SF)
(AC)
C007
7
SOLAR ARRAY FILL
-
- -
-
3098
0.071 - -
-
-
-
-
-
-
0
c0
0
ACE COMM
z
J
0
<U
O=
CD
fl wz
2z
w1-
zz
wo
�U
I M PACT #7
8
DATE
0/27/22
SCALE
AS SHOWN
06 N0.
3925.001
C007

695
I
7 SOLAR ARRAY (TYP)
WATERS OF THE STATE
(NON -JURISDICTIONAL WETLANDS)
TEMPORARY IMPACTS FOR
TREE CLEARING
(TREE STUMPS TO REMAIN)
1, 6 6
Af
691
6296
czo
698 II
699 /
00
1�1
LEGEND:
JURISDICTIONAL WETLANDS JURISDICTIONAL WETLAND IMPACTS
PERMANENT
-1000_; EX. MAJOR CONTOUR TEMPORARY
EX. MINOR CONTOUR
STREAM
WATERS OF THE STATE (NON -JD)
1000
1000
SURFACE WATER
ACCESS ROAD
PERIMETER FENCE
PROP. MAJOR CONTOUR
PROP. MINOR CONTOUR
WATERS OF THE STATE IMPACTS
PERMANENT
TEMPORARY
STREAM IMPACTS
PERMANENT
TEMPORARY
0' 10' 40'
80' 120'
5' 20' 60' 100'
SCALE: 1 "=40'
KEY MAP:
WETLAND AND STREAM IMPACTS
EXHIBIT No.
IMPACT No.
IMPACTSPECIFICATION
JURISDICTIONAL WETLAND
IMPACTS
ISOLATED NON -JURISDICTIONAL
IMPACTS WATERS OF THE STATE
STREAM IMPACT
PERMANENT
TEMPORARY
PERMANENT
TEMPORARY
(SF)
(AC)
(SF)
(AC)
(SF)
(AC) (SF) (AC) (LF) (SF) (AC)
(LF)
(SF)
(AC)
C008
8
TREE CLEARING
-
-
-
-
-
- 11588 0.266 - - -
-
-
-
NOTES:
LONG TERM MAINTENANCE WILL ALLOW WOODY
VEGETATION TO REGROW UP TO 6 FT HIGH.
0
c0
0
ACE COMM
I M PACTS #8
3
DATE
0/27/22
SCALE
AS SHOWN
06 N0.
3925.001
C008

J
TEMPORARY IMPACTS FOR
TREE CLEARING
(TREE STUMPS TO REMAIN)
N
SOLAR ARRAY (TYP)
Z
J-
i
SOLAR ARRAY (TYP)
,I
2
)J
LEGEND:
JURISDICTIONAL WETLANDS JURISDICTIONAL WETLAND IMPACTS
PERMANENT
-1000_; EX. MAJOR CONTOUR TEMPORARY
EX. MINOR CONTOUR
STREAM
WATERS OF THE STATE (NON -JD)
1000
1000
SURFACE WATER
ACCESS ROAD
PERIMETER FENCE
PROP. MAJOR CONTOUR
PROP. MINOR CONTOUR
WATERS OF THE STATE IMPACTS
PERMANENT
TEMPORARY
STREAM IMPACTS
PERMANENT
TEMPORARY
0' 10' 40'
80'
120'
5' 20' 60' 100'
SCALE: 1 "=40'
KEY MAP:
WETLAND AND STREAM IMPACTS
EXHIBIT No.
IMPACT No.
IMPACT SPECIFICATION
JURISDICTIONAL WETLAND
MPACTS
WATERS OF THE STATE IMPACTS
NON -JURISDICTIONAL
STREAM IMPACT
PERMANENT TEMPORARY
PERMANENT
TEMPORARY
(SF)
(AC) (SF)
(AC)
(SF)
(AC) (SF) (AC)
(LF) (SF) (AC)
(LF)
(SF)
(AC)
C009
9
TREE CLEARING
-
- 29384
0.6746
-
- - -
- - -
-
-
-
NOTES:
LONG TERM MAINTENANCE WILL ALLOW WOODY
VEGETATION TO REGROW UP TO 6 FT HIGH.
0
0
c0
ACE COMM
I M PACT #9
8
DATE
0/27/22
SCALE
AS SHOWN
06 N0.
3925.001
C009

65�
653
65�
TEMPORARY IMPACTS FOR
FENCE CONSTRUCTION
•
•
651
•
• -
660
�\ J
WETLANDS (TYP)
EXISTING CEMETERY ACCESS ROAD
IMPACT #10
co c\I
PROPOSED FENCE (TYP)
WETLAND AND STREAM IMPACTS
EXHIBIT No.
IMPACT No.
I MPACT SP ECIFI CATI 0 N
JURISDICTIONAL WETLAND
MPACTS
ISOLATED NON -JURISDICTIONAL
MPACTS WATERS OF THE STATE
STREAM IMPACT
PERMANENT
TEMPORARY
PERMANENT
TEMPORARY
(SF)
(AC)
(SF)
(AC)
(SF)
(AC)
(SF)
(AC)
(LF)
(SF)
(AC)
(LF)
(SF)
(AC)
C010
10
FENCE CROSSING
-
-
74
0.0017
-
-
-
-
-
-
_
-
-
-
CO10
11
FENCECROSSING
9
36
-
LEGEND:
JURISDICTIONAL WETLANDS JURISDICTIONAL WETLAND IMPACTS
WATERS OF THE STATE (NON -JD) PERMANENT
-1000_; EX. MAJOR CONTOUR TEMPORARY
EX. MINOR CONTOUR
STREAM
1000
1000
SURFACE WATER
ACCESS ROAD
PERIMETER FENCE
PROP. MAJOR CONTOUR
PROP. MINOR CONTOUR
WATERS OF THE STATE IMPACTS
PERMANENT
TEMPORARY
STREAM IMPACTS
PERMANENT
TEMPORARY
/
6A6
TEMPORARY IMPACTS FOR
FENCE CONSTRUCTION
2
0' 10'
EXISTING CULVERT
642
644
EXISTING CEMETERY ACCESS ROAD
M1
45' 75'
IMPACT #11
1'
30' 60'
SCALE: 1 "=30'
90'
STREAM (4-FT WIDTH)
PROPOSED FENCE (TYP)
KEY MAP:
ISSUED FOR REVIEW
ISSUED FOR APPROVAL
USACE COMMENTS
DATE
0/27/22
SCALE
AS SHOWN
JOB ND.
3925.001
C010

Appendix D

WATER & LAND'
SOLUTIONS
Upper Rocky Umbrella Mitigation Bank
Statement of Availability November 21, 2022
U.S. Army Corps of Engineers
Samantha Dailey
Raleigh Regulatory Field Office
3331 Heritage Trade Center, Suite 105
Wake Forest, NC 27587
Re Project: Misenheimer Solar Park
This document confirms that EDP Renewables North America, LLC (EDPR) (Applicant) for the
Misenheimer Solar Park (Project) has expressed an interest to utilize 0.124 Riparian Wetland
Mitigation Credits from the Water & Land Solutions, LLC sponsored Upper Rocky Umbrella Mitigation
Bank, specifically 0.124 riparian wetland credits from the Upper Rocky Site, in the Yadkin HUC
03040105. As the official Bank Sponsor, Water & Land Solutions, LLC, attests to the fact that mitigation
is available for reservation at this time.
These mitigation credits are not considered secured, and consequently are eligible to be used for alternate
purposes by the Bank Sponsor, until payment in full is received from the Applicant resulting in the
issuance of a Mitigation Credit Transfer Certificate by the bank acknowledging that the Applicant has
fully secured credits from the bank and the Banker has accepted full responsibility for the mitigation
obligation requiring the credits/units.
The Banker will issue the Mitigation Credit Transfer Certificate within three (3) days of receipt of the
purchase price. Banker shall provide to Applicant a copy of the Mitigation Credit Transfer Certificate and
a documented copy of the debit of credits from the Bank Official Credit Ledger(s), indicating the permit
number and the resource type secured by the applicant. A copy of the Mitigation Credit Transfer
Certificate, with an updated Official Credit Ledger will also be sent to regulatory agencies showing the
proper documentation.
If any questions need to be answered, please contact me at 239-322-7276.
Best Regards,
Riane Fisher
Water & Land Solutions, LLC
7721 Six Forks Road, Suite 130
Raleigh, NC 27615

ROY COOPER
Governor
ELIZABETH S. BISER
Secretory
MARC RECKTENWALD
Director
Erin O'Shea
EDP Renewables North America LLC
1501 McKinney Street, Suite 1300
Houston, TX 77010
NORTH CAROLINA
Environmental Quality
November 22, 2022
Expiration of Acceptance: 5/22/2023
Project: Meisenheimer Solar Park County: Stanly
The purpose of this letter is to notify you that the NCDEQ Division of Mitigation Services (DMS) is willing to
accept payment for compensatory mitigation for impacts associated with the above referenced project as
indicated in the table below. Please note that this decision does not assure that participation in the DMS in -
lieu fee mitigation program will be approved by the permit issuing agencies as mitigation for project impacts.
It is the responsibility of the applicant to contact permitting agencies to determine if payment to the DMS will
be approved. You must also comply with all other state, federal or local government permits, regulations or
authorizations associated with the proposed activity including G.S. § 143-214.11.
This acceptance is valid for six months from the date of this letter and is not transferable. If we have not
received a copy of the issued 404 Permit/401 Certification within this time frame, this acceptance will
expire. It is the applicant's responsibility to send copies of the permits to DMS. Once DMS receives a copy
of the permit(s) an invoice will be issued based on the required mitigation in that permit and payment must
be made prior to conducting the authorized work. The amount of the in -lieu fee to be paid by an applicant is
calculated based upon the Fee Schedule and policies listed on the DMS website.
Based on the information supplied by you in your request to use the DMS, the impacts for which you are
requesting compensatory mitigation credit are summarized in the following table. The amount of mitigation
required and assigned to DMS for this impact is determined by permitting agencies and may exceed the
impact amounts shown below.
River Basin
Impact Location
(8-digit HUC)
Impact Type
Impact Quantity
Yadkin
03040105
Riparian Wetland
0.156
Yadkin
03040103
Riparian Wetland
0.675
Upon receipt of payment, DMS will take responsibility for providing the compensatory mitigation. The
mitigation will be performed in accordance with the In -Lieu Fee Program instrument dated July 28, 2010 and
15A NCAC 02B .0295 as applicable. Thank you for your interest in the DMS in -lieu fee mitigation program.
If you have any questions or need additional information, please contact [e-mail].
cc: Morgan Gilbert, agent
-REC)-?,)
wRTM (ARC L I WI
omareoon! of [miruunenw 4wy
Sincerely,
FOR James. B Stanfill
Deputy Director
North Carolfna Department of Environmental Quality I Division of Mitigation Services
217 West Jones Street 11652 Mail Service Center I Raleigh. North Carolina 27699-1t 52
919.707.8976

Appendix E

United States Department of the Interior
FISH AND WILDLIFE SERVICE
Asheville Field Office
160 Zillicoa Street Suite B
Asheville, North Carolina 28801
August 2, 2022
Ms. Lauren Norris_Heflin
Timmons Group
5410 Trinity Road
Suite 102
Raleigh, NC 27607
Dear Ms. Norris -Heflin:
Subject: Listed Species Assessment, for Proposed 668-Acre Solar Array Site (Misenheimer
Solar), adjacent to US Highway 52, in Misenheimer, Stanly County, North Carolina
On July 22, 2022, we received (via e-mail) a letter from you requesting section 7 consultation on
northern long-eared bat (Myotis septentrionalis) and our review of the newly proposed tree
clearing dates for the subject project. We originally provided comments on this project to Mr.
Eli Wright of Timmons Group on August 31, 2021. We have reviewed the information that you
presented and the following comments are provided in accordance with the provisions of
section 7 of the Endangered Species Act of 1973, as amended (16 U.S.C. 1531-1543) (Act).
Project Description
According to the information presented, your client is proposing to construct a solar array on a
668-acre site. The site currently consists primarily of forested areas. However, active
agriculture and silviculture areas also occur throughout the proposed project site. Wetlands
occur on the site and are found along Curl Tail Creek which flows along the western boundary of
the site. No impacts to streams or wetlands are currently proposed with the project. The project
has no federal nexus though a permit authorization from the U.S. Army Corps of Engineers may
be necessary due to impacts to streams and/or wetlands from future project design constraints.
Federally Listed Species
In the original project proposal that we received on July 27, 2021, your client (EDP Renewables)
was proposing to use the take exemption provided in the 4(d) rule for northern long-eared bat to
conclude section 7 consultation on that species. We concurred with that proposal in our August
31, 2021 response and considered section 7 consultation concluded for northern long-eared bat.
As stated in your letter, the U.S. Fish and Wildlife Service (Service) has announced a proposal to
reclassify the NLEB as an endangered species. For this reason, and because the project site
contains suitable summer roosting habitat for northern long-eared bat, EDP Renewables is

Ms. Norris-Hefflin - Timmons 2
reinitiating section 7 consultation for northern long-eared bat. According to the information
provided in your recent letter, EDP would like to begin tree clearing at the project site on
October 1, 2022. In general, the Service recommends the avoidance of tree clearing during the
summer roosting period (April 1 — October 15) in areas of the North Carolina piedmont that
contain suitable summer roosting habitat for federally listed bats. Though the current project
plans indicates that tree clearing will begin October 1, 2022, you have made a "may affect, not
likely to adversely affect" determination for northern long-eared bat for the following reasons:
1. The project site is about 90-miles from the nearest known roost;
2. The project site is not included in the range of northern long-eared bat according to the
Service's recent range map updates; and
3. The project site occurs in a rural setting and is surrounded by forested areas (about 9,000
acres in a 3-mile radius of the site) that provide suitable habitat.
We agree with your assessment and concur with your "may affect, not likely to adversely affect"
determination for northern long-eared bat. Given that, we believe the requirements under section
7 of the Act have been met. However, obligations under section 7 of the Act must be
reconsidered if: (1) new information reveals impacts of this identified action that may affect
listed species or critical habitat in a manner not previously considered, (2) this action is
subsequently modified in a manner that was not considered in this review, or (3) a new species is
listed or critical habitat is determined that may be affected by the identified action.
Per the information provided to you by Mr. Bryan Tompkins of our office during his July 22,
2022 meeting with you, there is a probability that tricolored bat (Perimyotis subflavus) will be
federally listed as a threatened or endangered species by the winter of 2022. The project site is
in the range of tricolored bat and provides suitable summer roosting habitat for this species. If
tricolored bat is federally listed, and tree clearing will need to occur after April 1, section 7
consultation will need to be reinitiated for this project.
We appreciate the opportunity to provide comments on this project. We ask that you refer to our
August 31, 2021 letter for additional comments and conservation measures that we recommend
for the project. Please contact Mr. Bryan Tompkins of our staff at 828/258-3939, Ext. 42240, if
you have any questions. In any future correspondence concerning this project, please reference
our Log Number 4-2-21-396.

United States Department of the Interior
FISH AND WILDLIFE SERVICE
Asheville Field Office
160 Zillicoa Street Suite B
Asheville, North Carolina 28801
August 31, 2021
Mr. Eli Wright
Timmons Group
1001 Boulders Parkway, Suite 300
Richmond, Virginia 23225
Dear Mr. Wright:
Subject: Listed Species Assessment, for Proposed 668-Acre Solar Array Site (Meisenheimer
Solar), adjacent to US Highway 52, in Meisenheimer, Stanly County, North Carolina
On July 27, 2021, we received (via e-mail) a letter from you requesting our review of the subject
project. Included with your letter was a copy of the Protected Species Survey (conducted by
Timmons Group personnel) for the project site. We have reviewed the information that you
presented and the following comments are provided in accordance with the provisions of the
National Environmental Policy Act (42 U.S.C.§ 4321 et seq.); the Fish and Wildlife
Coordination Act, as amended (16 U.S.C. 661-667e); the Migratory Bird Treaty Act, as amended
(16 U.S.C. 703); and section 7 of the Endangered Species Act of 1973, as amended (16 U.S.C.
1531-1543) (Act).
Project Description
According to the information presented, your client is proposing to construct a solar array on a
668-acre site. The site currently consists primarily of forested areas. However, active
agriculture and silviculture areas also occur throughout the proposed project site. Wetlands
occur on the site and are found along Curl Tail Creek which flows along the western boundary of
the site. No impacts to streams or wetlands are currently proposed with the project. The project
has no federal nexus though a permit authorization from the U.S. Army Corps of Engineers may
be necessary due to impacts to streams and/or wetlands from future project design constraints.
Federally Listed Endangered and Threatened Species
We agree with your assessment that the project site contains suitable habitat for federally listed
species including northern long-eared bat (Myotis septentrionalis) which is currently federally
listed as a threatened species, and Schweinitz's sunflower (Helianthus schweinitzii), which is
currently federally listed as endangered. Your assessment indicates that suitable habitat for all
other federally listed species known to occur in Stanly County does not occur within the project
site. For this reason, you have determined that the project will have "no effect" to these species.

Mr. Wright - Timmons 2
We concur. We have reviewed the information you presented regarding Schweinitz's sunflower
and northern long eared bat and their habitats within the project site and our assessment for these
species per section 7 of the Act are as follows:
Schweinitz's sunflower — As indicated in your species assessment, Schweinitz's sunflower
surveys were conducted within the project site in October 2018 and 2020. One previously
undocumented population of Schweinitz's sunflower was found onsite during the October
2020 survey. The identified population is located adjacent to and within a Duke Energy
utility easement in the southern portion of the project site. Timmons Group personnel
surveyed and mapped the population of Schweinitz's sunflower on the project site. A total of
62 individual stems were identified in the population. No clearing or other construction
impacts will occur within the area of the Schweinitz's sunflower population; therefore, no
adverse effects to the Schweinitz's sunflower population from the project construction
activities are anticipated. The identified population will be protected and maintained in its
current state throughout project construction. To ensure avoidance of adverse project related
effects, the following additional measures (provided on page 3 of your July 27, 2021 letter)
will be included as part of the project's "environmental commitments":
1. Disclosures to Easement Owner - The identified Schweinitz's sunflower population is
located at the edge and crosses into an overhead utility easement corridor which transects
the site. The easement is maintained by Duke Energy. Easement requirements are such that
vegetation management or operations within the easement are outside the control of the
Project proponent. Therefore, the Project proponent will inform Duke Energy of the
location of the identified population and request that they incorporate portions of this
population within the easement into any of their own protected species vegetation
management plans and/or any agreements/understandings they may have with USFWS
regarding Schweinitz's sunflower populations within easements.
2. Vegetative Buffer Establishment - Within portions of the site under management and
control by the Project proponent, a 5-foot Vegetative Buffer will be established around the
identified limits of the population. Note that the northeast boundary of the population is
immediately adjacent to and within a Duke Utility Easement. The Project proponent has no
control over vegetation management and/or operations within this easement and cannot
extend the limits of the Vegetative Buffer into the easement.
The proposed Vegetative Buffer area is shown on Figure 4 of your letter. The Vegetative
Buffer will be avoidedby the proposed Project and all Project elements. During Project
construction the buffer area will be marked with a visual barrier such as barricade flagging
and/or safety fence to avoid unintentional impacts. Project personnel will be informed to
avoid the Vegetation Buffer during Project pre- construction meetings.
3. Vegetation Management - No mowing or vegetation clearing will occur within the
Vegetative Buffer from April 1 - November 15 of any year, which is the Schweinitz's
sunflower vegetative growth, flowering, and fruiting seasons. Project operations managers
will be informed of the following restrictions within the Vegetation Buffer: i) Mowing is
only allowed from November 16 - March 31, ii) Mowing should be completed at least

Mr. Wright - Timmons 3
every other year to maintain a herbaceous community within the Vegetative Buffer, and iii)
No herbicides or no fertilizers are to be applied within the Vegetative Buffer.
4. Signage - Following Project construction signs indicating 'Do Not Mow between April 1 -
November 15' and 'Do Not Spray' will be installed. Signs will be positioned at both ends
of a population, facing so mowers will see the signs as they approach the No Mow area.
5. Erosion and Sediment Control - An overall Project erosion and sediment control plan will
be developed and implemented consistentwith local and/or state requirements.
Given the environmental commitments and avoidance measures provided, we believe a "may
affect, not likely to adversely affect" determination for Schweinitz's sunflower is appropriate
and the requirements under section 7 of the Act have been met. However, obligations under
section 7 of the Act must be reconsidered if: (1) new information reveals impacts of this
identified action that may affect listed species or critical habitat in a manner not previously
considered, (2) this action is subsequently modified in a manner that was not considered in this
review, or (3) a new species is listed or critical habitat is determined that may be affected by
the identified action.
Northern long-eared bat — We agree with your assessment that the project site contains
suitable summer maternity roosting habitat for northern long-eared bat. Your letter states,
"...future development of the Project can rely upon the findings of the 1/5/2016
Programmatic Biological Opinion for the Final 4(d) Rule on the Northern Long -Eared Bat
and Activities Excepted from Take Prohibitions to fulfill any project -specific Section 7
responsibilities. A NLEB ESA Section 4(d) Rule Consistency Letter for the Misenheimer Solar
Park has been generated through the IPaC system and is included with this Project Review
Package." The final 4(d) rule (effective as of February 16, 2016), exempts incidental take of
northern long-eared bat associated with activities that occur greater than 0.25 miles from a
known hibernation site, and greater than 150 feet from a known, occupied maternity roost
during the pup season (June 1 — July 31). Based on the information provided, the project
would occur at a location where any incidental take that may result from associated activities
is exempt under the 4(d) rule. You also mention that the project proponent has committed to
implementing a voluntary tree clearing restriction and no trees will be removed between June
1 — July 31 during each year of construction. We concur with the use of the 4(d) rule and
believe the section 7 responsibilities under the Act are fulfilled for northern long-eared bat at
this time. We remind you that the 4(d) rule and threatened species listing for this species is
currently under litigation. If the current listing is overturned and northern long-eared bat is
uplisted as endangered, construction should cease and consultation with this office will need
to be reinitiated for any areas where additional tree removal will be required.
Project Recommendations
Pollinators, such as most bees, some birds and bats, and other insects, including moths and
butterflies, play a crucial role in the reproduction of flowering plants and production of most
fruits and vegetables. Over 75% of flowering plants and about 75% of crops are pollinated by
these types of fauna. A recent study of the status of pollinators in North America by the National
Academy of Sciences found that populations of honey bees (which are not native to North

Mr. Wright - Timmons 4
America) and many wild pollinators are declining. Declines in wild pollinators are a result of
loss, degradation, and fragmentation of habitat and disease. Because loss of habitat and
diminished native food sources have decreased the populations and diversity of pollinators
throughout the country, we recommend that development projects be sited in areas that are
previously disturbed (fallow fields, closed industrial sites, etc.) or sites that do not impact mature
forests, streams, or wetlands.
We have records of rare pollinator species in the area, including monarch butterfly (Danaus
plexippus plexippus), a federal candidate for listings. There are many potential reasons for the
butterfly's decline, including those listed above, pesticide use, logging at overwintering sites, and
climate change. Adults use a wide variety of flowering plants throughout migration for nectar
and breeding. However, milkweed plants (Asclepias spp.) are essential to monarch breeding as
these are the only genus of plants that can host monarchs in their larval form. For a regional and
season list of plants important to monarch butterflies visit the Xerces Society website at
http://www.xerces.org/monarch-nectar-plants/. Although the provisions of section 7 of the Act
do not currently apply to candidate species or other non -listed pollinators, we would greatly
appreciate your assistance in determining if monarch butterflies or suitable habitat for this
species is present on the proposed project site. If individuals or suitable habitat is present,
impacts should be avoided. More specific information about monarch butterfly can be found at
the Service website dedicated to the species at https://www.fws.gov/savethemonarch/.
While solar energy production can lessen overall impacts to natural resources when compared to
conventional energy sources (coal, oil, gas, etc.), we believe solar farms can adversely affect
valuable natural resources if they are not properly planned and constructed. Impacts to natural
resources from the construction, operation, and maintenance of solar farms include: introduction
of invasive species; use of herbicides; creation of large, clear open spaces; and barriers created
from fencing. To reduce development impacts to monarch butterflies and other pollinators,
and/or to increase the habitat and species diversity within the project area, we recommend the
following measures be incorporated into project plans:
1. Sow native seed mixes with plant species that are beneficial to pollinators. Taller -growing
pollinator plant species should be planted around the periphery of the site and anywhere on
the site where mowing can be restricted during the summer months. Taller plants, not
mowed during the summer, would provide benefits to pollinators, habitat to
ground-nesting/feeding birds, and cover for small mammals. Low-growing/groundcover
native species should be planted under the solar panels and between the rows of solar panels.
This would provide benefits to pollinators while also minimizing the amount of
maintenance, such as mowing and herbicide treatment. Using a seed mix that includes
milkweed species (milkweed is an important host plant for monarch butterflies) is especially
1 "Taxa for which the [Fish and Wildlife] Service has on file enough substantial information on biological
vulnerability and threat(s) to support proposals to list them as endangered or threatened. Proposed rules have not yet
been issued because this action is precluded at present by other listing activity. Development and publication of
proposed rules on these taxa are anticipated. The Service encourages State and other Federal agencies as well as
other affected parties to give consideration to these taxa in environmental planning" (Federal Register, February 28,
1996). Taxa formerly considered as "Category 1" are now considered as "candidates."

Mr. Wright - Timmons 5
beneficial. The following Web site provides a comprehensive list of native plant species
that benefit pollinators:
http://www.xerces.org/wp-content/uploads/2014/09/MidAtlanticPlantList web.pdf
Additional information regarding site prep, plant species, seed mixes, and pollinator habitat
requirements can be provided upon request. The Service and the North Carolina Wildlife
Resources Commission have recently completed a guidance document titled "North
Carolina Technical Guidance for Native Plantings on Solar Sites". That document is
included as an attachment to our email along with this letter. We also offer our assistance
with developing seed mixes that can be used in conjunction with fast growing erosion
control seed mix for overall soil stability and pollinator benefits.
2. Create openings in fencing to allow passage for small mammals and turtles.
3. If possible, the solar field should be designed with open areas spread throughout the project
site and planted and maintained with taller pollinator -friendly plant species. This practice
would benefit pollinators, create diversity throughout the site, and provide much -needed
shelter islands to aid in the movement of small mammals and birds.
4. Create habitat for a diversity of species in "screening" areas. In all areas of the site where
vegetative `screening' will be required, we recommend that a diverse selection of tree and
shrub species be used to create a hedgerow type habitat structure. Hedgerows typically
include a variety of tree and shrub species that vary in height, as opposed to hedges, which
are usually made up of a single species in a closely spaced row. The resulting layers of
plants mimic a woodland or forest edge, fulfilling different habitat functions for wildlife
such as shelter, nesting sites, and food sources. Recent studies suggest that hedgerows
generally support a higher diversity of pollinator species than surrounding landscapes, and
provide a valuable forage resource and corridor for movement of pollinators.
5. Implement a mowing and maintenance program that restricts mowing during the summer
months. Mowing at the site should be restricted to the smallest area possible to manage the
site for pollinator habitat. We recommend that your client evaluate its maintenance plan to
target ecological/habitat benefits to other wildlife species, especially pollinators and birds
that require Piedmont Prairie habitat. One of the best ways to accomplish this objective is to
use Integrated Vegetation Management (IVM) practice using low -volume herbicide
applications when planning management activities. Recent research indicates that pollinator
nest sites in utility right-of-ways managed with IVM practices have been found to contain
about 30% more pollinator nesting sites and species richness than traditionally mowed
maintenance areas. Aside from removing problem vegetation, the primary focus should be
placed on establishing native grasses and wildflowers throughout the site. The overall
objective is to reach a sustainable level of grasses, forbs, and flowering shrubs (wherever
feasible) throughout the project area.
6. Create and/or maintain forested riparian buffers (a minimum 50 feet wide along intermittent
streams and 100 feet wide along perennial streams [or the full extent of the 100 year

Mr. Wright - Timmons 6
floodplain, whichever is greater]) along all aquatic areas. Within the watersheds of streams
supporting endangered aquatic species, we recommend undisturbed, forested buffers that are
naturally vegetated with trees, shrubs, and herbaceous vegetation and extend a minimum of
200 feet from the banks of all perennial streams and a minimum of 100 feet from the banks
of all intermittent streams, or the full extent of the 100 year floodplain, whichever is
greater.) Vegetated riparian buffers are vital to maintaining a healthy ecosystem. For
pollinators, these areas can provide many important elements such as food sources, shelter,
and nesting habitat. Most importantly, however, is these areas provide a water source for
pollinators. A clean, reliable water source provides drinking and bathing opportunities for
pollinators. Research indicates that vegetated riparian areas have a higher floristic diversity
than other areas, and support more foraging pollinators than adjacent fields. By preserving
or restoring vegetated aquatic buffers, solar sites can help increase water quality and
quantity, and provide cover for pollinators to move safely between feeding, nesting, and
watering areas. Un-interrupted/connected vegetated riparian buffers also provide safe travel
corridors between nesting sites for greater dispersal and reproductive efforts.
7. Provide nesting sites for pollinator species. Different pollinators have different needs for
nesting sites. Therefore, we recommend designing the solar facility to maintain a diverse
array of habitats to accommodate varied pollinators, from hummingbirds to butterflies to
bees. Hummingbirds typically nest in trees or shrubs while many butterflies lay eggs on
specific host plants. Most bees nest in the ground and in wood or dry plant stems. For
additional information and actions that can be taken to benefit pollinators please visit the
following Web site:
http://www.fws.gov/pollinators/pollinatorpages/yourhelp.html.
We appreciate the opportunity to provide comments on this project. We appreciate the
opportunity to provide comments on this project. Please contact Mr. Bryan Tompkins of our
staff at 828/258-3939, Ext. 42240, if you have any questions. In any future correspondence
concerning this project, please reference our Log Number 4-2-21-396.

•
•••
•0 •
TIMMONS GROUP
YOUR VISION ACHIEVED THROUGH OURS.
5410 Trinity Road
Suite 102
Raleigh, NC 27607
Project Review Team
U.S. Fish and Wildlife Services — Asheville Field Office
160 Zillicoa St.
Asheville, NC 28801
RE: Updated Project Review Request
Misenheimer Solar Park
Stanly County, North Carolina
Dear Project Review Team,
P 919.866.4951
F 919.859.5663
www.timmons.com
July 20, 2022
On behalf of Misenheimer Solar, LLC, Timmons Group is providing an additional review request
to address the anticipated reclassification of the northern long-eared bat (Myotis septentrionalis)
from threatened to endangered. It is anticipated this change will occur in December 2022,
eliminating use of the 4(d) rule which this project currently utilizes. The purpose of this review is
to obtain updated USFWS consultation, including approval to initiate tree clearing on October 1,
2022.
The proposed Project action involves the development of agriculture, silviculture, and forested
lands for the construction and operation of a power generating solar site and associated facilities
(including substation, utility lines, etc.). The location of the Project limits (i.e. action area) are
identified on the enclosed figures. The Project encompasses approximately 668 acres and is
located in Stanly County, North Carolina within the Lower Yadkin (HUC 0304013) and the Rocky
(Upper Pee Dee River Basin) (HUC 0340105) watersheds (see Figures in Enclosure 1). Project
layouts and design elements are still being finalized.
Presently, the Project has no federal nexus. However, design constraints may necessitate permit
authorization from the U.S. Army Corps of Engineers for impacts associated with wetlands and/or
streams.
The evaluation included review of site conditions and queries of the following databases
(Enclosure 2):
• USFWS Information for Planning and Conservation search (IPaC)
• North Carolina Natural Heritage Program (NCNHP) Database Query
USFWS federally protected species identified as having the potential to occur within the Project
boundaries are summarized on the next page in Table 1. There are no areas designated as
Critical Habitat within the Project.
CIVIL ENGINEERING I ENVIRONMENTAL I SURVEYING I GIS I LANDSCAPE ARCHITECTURE I CONSTRUCTION SERVICES

Table 1. Federally protected species with potential to occur within the site
Common Name
Scientific Name
Federal Status
Vertebrates
Northern long-eared bat
Myotis septentrionalis
Threatened, pending
reclassification to
Endangered
Vegetation
Schweinitz's sunflower
Helianthus schweinitzii
Endangered
Details regarding these species as they relate to the Project are provided below.
Northern Long-eared Bat (Myotis septentrionalis)
In 2015, the USFWS listed the northern long-eared bat (NLEB) as threatened under the
Endangered Species Act (ESA), due to the impacts of white -nose syndrome. The species
seasonal and annual survival largely depends on successfully hibernating and roosting their
young and therefore, federal protections focus on the locations where the NLEB hibernate and
roost during the pup season.
In March of 2022, the USFWS announced a proposal to reclassify the NLEB as endangered based
on a species status assessment which found extreme impacts to the species from white -nose
syndrome (WNS). This decision was prompted by a court order requiring reconsideration of the
listing within 18 months. The rule must be finalized by the end of November 2022 and is
anticipated to take effect by December 2022.
The vegetation composition within the Project site includes forested areas which may provide
some suitable summer habitat for the NLEB. However, review of the USFWS Ashville Field Office
Western North Carolina northern long-eared bat areas webpage and NCNHP database indicates
there are no known NLEB winter hibernacula and/or maternity roosts within the vicinity of the
Project or surrounding counties. The project site is approximately 90-miles from the nearest
identified occupied hydrologic unit code (HUC) in North Carolina. Further, according to the
USFWS' NLEB species page the Project county and surrounding counties are not part of the
current range. Although it is anticipated much of the Project site will be cleared of trees, the site
is located in a rural area with approximately 47% of the surrounding 3-mile area occupied by
forested tracts. Removal of trees from the Project site will only reduce the percent of forested area
within a 3-mile radius to approximately 44%. Therefore, the Project is unlikely to result in
significant habitat loss or fragmentation for the area.
Due to the distance from known occurrences, absence of overlap with the current range, and
minimal decrease in forested land of the Project area, it is the opinion of Timmons Group that the
proposed Project may affect, but is not likely to adversely affect the NLEB. As such, we would like
to request permission to begin tree clearing activities October 1, 2022 if NLEB is classified as
endangered prior to that date. The Project proponent remains committed to implementing a
voluntary tree clearing restriction of no trees being removed between June 1 — July 31 during
each year of construction.
Schweinitz's sunflower (Helianthus schweinitzii)
This species was previously discussed in consultation dated July 27, 2021, with USFWS guidance
and concurrence of may affect, not likely to adversely affect provided on August 31, 2021. The
proposed environmental commitments and avoidance measures identified have not changed,
therefore this species will not be discussed further.
Page 2 of 3

Project area figures and all database records and supplementary materials are included as
enclosures.
We request your review and concurrence regarding these species determinations and request
any comments regarding potentially affected federally protected species. Please contact me at
[e-mail] or 919.866.4943 if you have any questions or comments about
the project. Thank you for your attention to this request.
Sincerely,
TIMMONS GROUP
,V,-.-,,q4,...-
Lauren Norris -Heflin
Environmental Project Manager
Enclosures:
1. Figures
• Figure 1 — Vicinity Map
• Figure 2 — Hydrologic Unit Code (HUC) Map
• Figure 3 — Environmental Inventory Map
• Figure 4 — Project Features, Vegetative Communities, And Helianthus Schweinitzii
Location Map
2. Online Database Search Results:
• USFWS Information for Planning and Conservation search (IPaC)
• North Carolina Natural Heritage Program (NCNHP) Database Query
CC:
Erin O'Shea (EDPR Renewables)
Emily Hughes (EDPR Renewables)
Sabrina Fleischman (EDPR Renewables)
Page 3of3

Enclosure 1
Figures

Path: Y:\804\99999-Orion Renewables\41859.002 - Misenheimer\GIS\Common Shared Exhibits\41859.002-VIC.mxd
kez
tU N
MI MI
Site limits are approximate.
Topographic imagery from USGS.
0
♦
•
•
.
•
2,000 4,000 6,000
- -'
8,000
Feet
•�
♦
♦
•••••••Mtsenheimer
•
•
Pfeiffer • _
V . _ .
J:
;Day S•I,
W*E
Hifchr.
MISENHEIMER SOLAR
STANLY COUNTY, NORTH CAROLINA
FIGURE 1: VICINITY MAP
TIMMONS GROUP
•••• •
YOUR VISION ACHIEVED THROUGH OURS.
TIMMONS GROUP JOB NUMBER:41859.002
PROJECT STUDY LIMITS: 668.0 ACRES
LATITUDE: 35.489557
LONGITUDE: -80.291684
U.S.G.S. QUADRANGLE(S): GOLD HILL & RICHFIELD
DATE(S): 2016
WATERSHED(S): YADKIN PEE DEE RIVER BASIN
HYDROLOGIC UNIT CODE(S):03040103 & 03040105
These plans and associated documents are the exclusive property of TIMMONS GROUP and may not be reproduced in w
limited to construction, bidding, and/or construction staking without the express written consent of TIMMONS GROUP.
hole or in part and shall not be used for any purpose whatsoever, inclusive, but not

Legend
Project Limits
♦ I
/ r
r ♦ I�c .
z3 �. 03040103
J^•
r .�
n
a •.
♦ •
♦ 7
♦
•
/
♦♦
•
.
�•
•
•
•
/
•
•
•
03040105
D 2
4;a rorur k❑
40
r��
y v
Llie nd) r0
17
Ur�(�RUVE R
F:.II•.r• •ii
LaNitia le
Laltrmore
r.l •i.-stnro
_-�Y-f'r,x❑ n Hi�'o Shelby
Boiling
Springs
03050105
Ease Gaff ncy
Patterson
Springs
_ Grover'
et�
C K"19g
4r
�c�5wial
E •�I.i •: k•.I,lrr•7
Kings hbunt FII
Brats Park
I
I
In
iffer:
♦' 'Misenheirner
3U3U I UL
•.Ir ri::lll
r
r
` 'V „i. /
}7-- _ / n Ctf.ERO
rlOplet J! 1! `r 1Efi 4 Ir
l
\ e�Rly� n
-,;,/ • pace\ / . 1_
m l
•1 l- -1
one s vl lle
Buffalo
Union
hliRsry Park
• Hickory Grove
Sill
▪ •. • t1.oc1a rt
\de.
5
✓ Plrt kney h'
howaras C
pp'1
77
-Cr,u
Bes
Graf Stoll,
;pay sch
L IIT: i'Ifll_ n
Peninsula
e
MOUNTAINS
Ritchtoafy
I ak oret* •
s- 1
Stony Point
•7'alatvba
D3050101
Ronda
Union Grove
I
If I
Troutma
} Al4 mville
421
a mP"s'03040101
EUELI
9.3040102;7''
~r° _ _
1- y�My Cleverani
MI Ulla
i
%eek
gack
I` r - 1
_ / IL
•
Be'im Run
L ti 1 f1�`I
Slwn
_ Park
Sherrills 1
Ford
Lake
Norman
Stale
s Park
1
I
Lake Norman
h Shoals
fr
MI 1:lo
Club
rra
-485
Cltedi
Prre vine
Charlotte
•
Wedding Ion cl
Mat I
Rock Hill 030501l03.
onatt crepe' 1 Creek
Pork
Ha 1-19.512.1.1tg
Riohbirn
Edgemoor
.7731
i Pi
1•
Cooleem
Monroe
03040202
Deep Creek
03010103
Renown
03040103
NORTH CAROLINA
SOUTH CAROLINA
Cm* C1-5.tertie Id
Oak Ridge F,t,e)44[1▪ 4"r4
Point
Piadmoni
Tried Inel
Archdale
Summe
Forest Oaks 4'
leamht
[ — it -
Randleman
North
Camylina
Pork
Seagrove
Biscoe
Ca n3
No ma
erbe
Rockingham
030402011,
Ramse
Eagle Springs
Jackson
Sprirgs
weev-
Garth. e
hisperirg
Fires
03040203
J.
gin
CaMeron
WASS
03030004
Rockfish Creek
Legend
Site Marker
• Yadkin Pee Dee River Basin
Hydrologic Unit Code
Glen. Raven
GUonolle
Elan
oce
Staley
03030003
Bennett
Robbins
co
Seven
•
Burlington
Rive r
030300-02
r City
100"-
Bear Creek
•
Big
Camp Mackall
Re waryation
03040204
•
•
• 0 tn
•
•
•. 0
o
co
E
o
co
0
m
n
z
D
3
MISENHEIMER SOLAR
D
O
z
STANLY COUNTY,
NORTH CAROLINA
DATE
10/20/2020
PROJECT NUMBER
41859.002
PROJECT NAME
MISENHEIMER SOLAR
DESIGNED BY / DRAWN BY
NOTES:
Site marker is approximate.
HUC from USGS.
Topographic basemap from
Esri Online.
These plans and associated documents are the
exclusive property of TIMMONS GROUP and
may not be reproduced in whole or in part and
shall not be used for any purpose whatsoever,
inclusive, but not limited to construction, bidding,
and/or construction staking without the express
written consent of TIMMONS GROUP.
DRAWING DESCRIPTION
FIGURE 2:
HYDROLOGIC
UNIT CODE MAP
Miles
PLANS PRINTED AS 11X17 ARE HALF SCALE
.-SCALE SHEET NUMBER

Yadkin Pee Dee Soils
i
Mapunit Symbol
Mapunit Name
BaF
Badin channery silt loam, 15 to 45 percent slopes
*
EnB
Enon sandy loam, 2 to 8 percent slopes
•
OaA
Oakboro silt loam, 0 to 2 percent slopes, frequently flooded
OkA
Oakboro silt loam, 0 to 2 percent slopes, frequently flooded
TaB
Tarrus silt loam, 2 to 8 percent slopes
BaB
Badin channery silt loam, 2 to 8 percent slopes
BaC
Badin channery silt loam, 8 to 15 percent slopes
BaD
Badin channery silt loam, 8 to 15 percent slopes
BgB
Badin-Goldston complex, 2 to 8 percent slopes
Badin-Goldston complex, 8 to 15 percent slopes
BgC
ChA
Chewacla sandy loam, 0 to 2 percent slopes, frequently flooded
CmB
Cid-Lignum complex, 1 to 6 percent slopes
EcB
Enon cobbly loam, 2 to 8 percent slopes
GoC
Goldston very channery silt loam, 4 to 15 percent slopes
,
GoF
Goldston very channery silt loam, 15 to 45 percent slopes
KcB
Kirksey-Cid complex, 2 to 6 percent slopes
J
14
KkB
Kirksey silt loam, 0 to 6 percent slopes
,11
KkB
Kirksey silt loam, 1 to 6 percent slopes
E
MhB
Misenheimer channery silt loam, 0 to 4 percent slopes
MkB
Misenheimer-Kirksey complex, 0 to 5 percent slopes
MsA
Misenheimer channery silt loam, 0 to 4 percent slopes
TbB
Tarrus channery silt loam, 2 to 8 percent slopes
r
Ud
Udorthents, loamy
W
Water
Legend
Project Study Limits- 668.0 Acres
National Hydrography Dataset
National Wetlands Inventory
Zone A: 1 % Annual Chance Flood Hazard
Hydric Soil Rating
Hydric (Not Present)
Partially Hydric
Non-Hydric
IB
Goodman
D
v
0
N
E
1
PROJECT NAME & LOCATION
MER SOLAR
Tw
i
''w^^
c
2
DATE
10/20/2020
PROJECT NUMBER
41859.002
PROJECT NAME
MISENHEIMER
DESIGNED BY / DRAWN BY
M.COOLEY
NOTES:
Project Limits are
approximate.
NWI from US Fish and
Wildlife Service.
Soils data from SSURGO.
National Hydrography
Dataset from USGS.
Aerial imagery from Esri.
These plans and associated documents are the
exclusive property of TIMMONS GROUP and
may not be reproduced in whole or in part and
shall not be used for any purpose whatsoever,
inclusive, but not limited to construction, bidding,
and/or construction staking without the express
written consent of TIMMONS GROUP.
REVISIONS
MM/DD/YY
DESCRIPTION
DRAWING DESCRIPTION
FIGURE 3:
ENVIRONMENTAL
INVENTORY MAP
SCALE (FEET)
0 600 1,200
PLANS PRINTED AS 11X17 ARE HALF SCALE
SCALE
H:1 "=600'
SHEET NUMBER
1
Y:\804\99999-Orion Renewables\41859.002 - Misenheimer\GIS\Common Shared Exhibits\41859.002-EIM.mxd

Legend
Project Limits (668 ac)
Overhead Easement (100kV)
Preliminary Point of Interconnection
Helianthus schweinitzii Population (onsite)
■ ■■■■■.
• Vegetative Buffer (5 ft Proposed)
■ ■■■■■■
Vegetative Communities
A
Oak -Hickory (3.71 Acres)
Bottom Land (46.08 Acres)
Maintained/Disturbed Communities
•
Early Successional (58.61 Acres)
Silviculture (543.57 Acres)
Agriculture (153.02Acres)
Utility Easement (9.96 Acres)
Wetlands
r�
Palustrine Emergent (PEM) Wetlands
Palustrine Forested (PFO) Wetlands
Palustrine Scrub -Shrub (PSS) Wetlands
Palustrine Open Water (POW)
Streams
Culvert
Perennial Stream (R3)
Intermittent Stream (R4)
Non -Jurisdictional Conveyance
D
0
• w
�0
• 0 tn
•
• z
•.
•
X
1
'PROJECT NAME & LOCATION
MER SOLAR
w
z
w
2
Q
Z
J
DO
Or
0<
U
J 2
Z I—
�O
z
DATE
7/2/2021
PROJECT NUMBER
41859.002
PROJECT NAME
MISENHEIMER
DESIGNED BY / DRAWN BY
M.COOLEY
NOTES:
Project Limits are
approximate.
Community types based on
desktop analysis and field
verification conducted by
Timmons Group.
Aerial imagery from Esri.
These plans and associated documents are the
exclusive property of TIMMONS GROUP and
may not be reproduced in whole or in part and
shall not be used for any purpose whatsoever,
inclusive, but not limited to construction, bidding,
and/or construction staking without the express
written consent of TIMMONS GROUP.
REVISIONS
MM/DD/YY
DESCRIPTION
DRAWING DESCRIPTION
FIGURE 4:
PROJECT
FEATURES ,
VEGETATIVE
COMMUNITIES,
AND HELIANTHUS
SCHWEINITZII
LOCATION MAP
SCALE (FEET)
0 500 1,000
PLANS PRINTED AS 11X17 ARE HALF SCALE
SCALE
H:1 "=500'
SHEET NUMBER
1
Y:\804\99999-Orion Renewables\41859.002 - Misenheimer\GIS\Common Shared Exhibits\41859.002-USFWS Map.mxd

Project Limits (668 ac)
Overhead Easement (100kV)
Preliminary Point of Interconnection
Helianthus schweinitzii Population (onsite)
Vegetative Communities
Oak -Hickory (3.71 Acres)
Bottom Land (46.08 Acres)
Maintained/Disturbed Communities
Palustrine Emergent (PEM) Wetlands
Palustrine Forested (PFO) Wetlands
Palustrine Scrub -Shrub (PSS) Wetlands
Perennial Stream (R3)
Intermittent Stream (R4)
Non -Jurisdictional Conveyance
D
0
•
• 0 tn
•
•
••. 0
z
X
1
• E
• o
1.0
CR
V1
O 0
E
o E
c
3
1.11
~ 3
PROJECT NAME & LOCATION
MER SOLAR
w
z
w
2
Q
Z
J
DO
O r
O <
U
J 2
Z I-
�O
z
DATE
7/2/2021
PROJECT NUMBER
41859.002
PROJECT NAME
MISENHEIMER
ESIGNED BY / DRAWN BY
M.COOLEY
NOTES:
Project Limits are
approximate.
Community types based on
desktop analysis and field
verification conducted by
Timmons Group.
Aerial imagery from Esri.
These plans and associated documents are the
exclusive property of TIMMONS GROUP and
may not be reproduced in whole or in part and
shall not be used for any purpose whatsoever,
inclusive, but not limited to construction, bidding,
and/or construction staking without the express
written consent of TIMMONS GROUP.
MM/DD/YY
REVISIONS
DESCRIPTION
DRAWING DESCRIPTION
FIGURE 4:
PROJECT
FEATURES ,
VEGETATIVE
COMMUNITIES,
AND HELIANTHUS
SCHWEINITZII
LOCATION MAP
SCALE (FEET)
0 100 200
PLANS PRINTED AS 11X17 ARE HALF SCALE
SCALE
H:1"=100'
SHEET NUMBER
1
Y:\804\99999-Orion Renewables\41859.002 - Misenheimer\GIS\Common Shared Exhibits\41859.002-USFWS Map.mxd

Enclosure 2
Online Database Search Results

7/7/22, 8:47 AM IPaC: Explore Location resources
IPaC
U.S. Fish & Wildlife Service
Below is a summary of the project information you provided and contact information for the
filigYVS o f lhxaajsititctirgain the de Please read the introduction to
each section that follows (Endangered Species, Migratory Birds, USFWS Facilities, and NWI
Wetlands) for additional information applicable to the trust resources addressed in that
section. .\1)
Project information
NAME
Misenheimer Solar 00
194111.
IPaC resource list
This report is an automatically generated list of species and other resources such as critical
habitat (collectively referred to as trust resources) under the U.S. Fish and Wildlife Service's
(USFWS) jurisdiction that are known or expected to be on or near the project area referenced
below. The list may also include trust resources that occur outside of the project area, but
ffu,: atdayldgtilfidietiklytIthe pinoljetItyareaidirectly a
flinwemEtipjlieterravyrtivagetlanItkallhood and extent of e
resources fiii(tei.s ,1lye iabiesiNathddsig additional site-speci
surveys) and fiKejgttmpgoitude and timing of proposed activities) information.
,x4
LOCATION
111106
Cabarrus , Rowan , and Stanly counties, North Carolina
g
0 @ta7Ly FDA"
IS:!4\if
DESCRIPTION
Some(The proposed project involves the development of agriculture, silviculture, and
forested lands for the construction and operation of a power generating solar site and
associated facilities (including substations, utility lines, access roads, etc).)
https://ipac.ecosphere.fws.gov/project/BR7MOK3YPBE37KDXPKEUJ RU3L4/resources
1/13

7/7/22, 8:47 AM
Cal O
IPaC: Explore Location resources
heville Ecological Services Field 0
C. [phone]
fi [phone]
160 Zillicoa Street
Asheville, NC 28801-1082
-dc\0\4
https://ipac.ecosphere.fws.gov/project/BR7MOK3YPBE37KDXPKEUJRU3L4/resources 2/13

7/7/22, 8:47 AM
IPaC: Explore Location resources
Endangered species
This resource list is for informational purposes only and does not constitute an analysis of
project level impacts.
The primary information used to generate this list is the known or expected range of each
�I�em $ALNklfibiios beiesaarcefai-so considered. An AOI includes
f cted byla dieitibthe species range if the species could be indirectly a
flfmti ,:er, c;•.,c(pi®ritfglaaiam upstream of a
fiw dam site, may indirectly impact the species by reducing or eliminating water
116
downstream). Because species can move, and site conditions can change, the species on this
list are not guaranteed to be found on or near the project area. To fully determine any `
F $ bs afioljtional site-speci 6
required. A.
Section 7 of the Endangered Species Act rlegifirelsagencies to "request of the
Secretary information whether any species which is listed or proposed to be listed may be
present in the area of such proposed action" for any project that is conducted, permitted,
ffiraludiac pi.m'v Ltisltby any Federal agency. A letter from the local o
f, htibli-sfulquirement can only kJ. opiatieediWrequesting an o
tilther the Regulatory Review section in IPaC (see directions below) or from the local
directly.
ed) a
For project evaluations that require USFWS concurrence/review, please return to the IPaC
ft6ieb tech lliLstdpuyetbiNrgrohe following:
1 Log into IPaC.
2 Go to your My Projects list.
3 Click PROJECT HOME for this project.
4 Click REQUEST SPECIES LIST.
Listed species1 and their critical habitats are managed by the Eodological Services Program
§}hlsiondbWiixililfIBSer t®(LEi S) and the
and Atmospheric Administration (NOAA Fisheries).
i iun and critical habitats under the sole responsibility of NOAA Fisheries are
this list. Please contact MdirAA Fisheries species under their jurisdiction
1 Species listed under the Endangered Species Act are threatened or endangered; IPaC also
shows species that are candidates, or proposed, for listing. See the Iftng status page
more information. IPaC only shows species that are regulated by USFWS (see FAQ).
2 NOAA Fisherieslso known as the National Marine Fisheries Service (NMFS), is an o
of the National Oceanic and Atmospheric Administration within the Department of
https://ipac.ecosphere.fws.gov/project/BR7MOK3YPBE37KDXPKEUJRU3L4/resources 3/13

7/7/22, 8:47 AM
Commerce.
IPaC: Explore Location resources
tbbywErtkilizesciiellail
Mammals
NAME
tiotially a
Northern Long-eared Bat Myotis septentrionalis
Wherever found
No critical habitat has been designated for this species.
https://ecos.fws.gov/ecp/species/9045
Insects
NAME
Monarch Butter Danaus plexippus
Wherever found
No critical habitat has been designated for this species.
https://ecos.fws.gov/ecp/species/9743
Flowering Plants
NAME
STATUS
Threatened
STATUS
Candidatelc\CIIIIIh'
q1/4. Villill'
\.)111111,
STATUS
131veinitz's Sun Helianthus schweinitzii
Wherever found
No critical habitat has been designated for this species.
https://ecos.fws.gov/ecp/species/3849
Endangered
� l
Critical habitats
ffctetdiatitical habitat(s) in this location must be analyzed along with the
endangered species themselves.
THERE ARE NO CRITICAL HABITATS AT THIS LOCATION.
Migratory birds
Certain birds are protected under the Migratory Bird Treaty Act' and the Bald and Golden
Eagle Protection Acts.
https://ipac.ecosphere.fws.gov/project/BR7MOK3YPBE37KDXPKEUJRU3L4/resources 4/13

7/7/22, 8:47 AM IPaC: Explore Location resources
Any person or organization who plans or conducts activities that may result in impacts to
migratory birds, eagles, and their habitats should follow appropriate regulations and
consider implementing appropriate conservation measures, as described below
1 The Mfg1-9$cfiry Birds Treaty Act
2 The Bff1(11934111 Golden Eagle Protection Act
Additional information can be found using the following links:
• Birds of Conservation Concern https://www.fws.gov/program/migratory-birds/species
• Measures for avoiding and minimizing impacts to birds
https://www.fws.gov/library/collections/avoiding-and-minimizing-incidental-take-
migratory-birds
• Nationwide conservation measures for birds
f picidu,�rowe�nfw'sigtimksWtr O tird-conservation-
measures.pdf
The birds listed below are birds of particular concern either because they occur on the
I(JBEINS i lil raisvah amide:pet ahattenDion in you r
ffrojectiotatierabout the levels of concern for birds on your list and how this
list is generated, see the FAQ belowfillliis tbirsot a list of every bird you may
location, nor a guarantee that every bird on this list will be found in your project area. To see
exact locations of where birders and the general public have sighted birds in and around
your project area, visit the liarced:; a yap ragttioo1 desired date
ffinEgAtkractia ilQsaddi ioxralist). For projects that occur o
maps and models detailing the relative occurrence and abundance of bird species on your
list are available. Links to additional information about Atlantic Coast birds, and other
important information about your migratory bird list, including how to properly interpret and
use your migratory bird report, can be found below
For guidance on when to schedule activities or implement avoidance and minimization
measures to reduce impacts to migratory birds on your list, click on the PROBABILITY OF
PRESENCE SUMMARY at the top of your list to see when these birds are most likely to be
present and breeding in your project area.
NAME I$IF EzEDING SEASON
BREEDING SEASON IS
INDICATED FORA BIRD ON
YOUR LIST, THE BIRD MAY
BREED IN YOUR PROJECT AREA
SOMETIME WITHIN THE
TIMEFRAME SPECIFIED, WHICH
IS A VERY LIBERAL ESTIMATE
OF THE DATES INSIDE WHICH
THE BIRD BREEDS ACROSS ITS
https://ipac.ecosphere.fws.gov/project/BR7MOK3YPBE37KDXPKEUJRU3L4/resources 5/13

7/7/22, 8:47 AM IPaC: Explore Location resources
ENTIRE RANGE. "BREEDS
Bald Eagle Haliaeetus leucocephalus
This is not a Bird of Conservation Concern (BCC) in this area, but
warrants attention because of the Eagle Act or for potential
tlbareptli-ladiEti§min certain types of
development or activities.
https://ecos.fws.gov/ecp/species/1626
ELSEWHERE" INDICATES THAT
THE BIRD DOES NOT LIKELY
BREED IN YOUR PROJECT
AREA.)
Breeds Sep 1 to Jul 31
Prairie Warbler Dendroica discolor Breeds May 1 to Jul 31
This is a Bird of Conservation Concern (BCC) throughout its
range in the continental USA and Alaska.
Red-headed Woodpecker Melanerpes erythrocephalus Breeds May 10 to Sep 10
This is a Bird of Conservation Concern (BCC) throughout its
range in the continental USA and Alaska.
Rusty Blackbird Euphagus carolinus — Breeds elsewhere
This is a Bird of Conservation Concern (BCC) only in particular
Bird Conservation Regions (BCRs) in the continental USA
Wood Thrush Hylocichla mustelina
This is a Bird of Conservation Concern (BCC) throughout its
range in the continental USA and Alaska.
Breeds May 10 to Aug 31
Probability of Presence Summary
The graphs below provide our best understanding of when birds of concern are most likely to
be present in your project area. This information can be used to tailor and schedule your
pl-Osetradteitiesagenorichdrainthimize impacts to birds.
understand the FAQ "Proper Interpretation and Use of Your Migratory Bird Report" before
using or attempting to interpret this report.
Probability of Presence ( )
Each green bar represents the bird's relative probability of presence in the 10km grid cell(s)
your project (1vyelapisatepingerrtaictiasilt2 +leek of the year.
week months.) A taller bar ilffuljcatezey higher probability of species presence.
ffrt (see below) can be used to establish a keret ufrarolne presence score. One
fiarrntoiretitnigtpfesemlce score if the tfuttissikanding survey e
high.
https://ipac.ecosphere.fws.gov/project/BR7MOK3YPBE37KDXPKEUJRU3L4/resources 6/13

7/7/22, 8:47 AM IPaC: Explore Location resources
nowcialtbiBpoobiaLdbligeoifn more calculated?
1 The probability of presence for each week is calculated as the number of survey events in
the week where the species was detected divided by the total number of survey events
for that week. For example, if in week 12 there were 20 survey events and the Spotted
Towhee was found in 5 of them, the probability of presence of the Spotted Towhee in
week 12 is 0.25.
2 To properly present the pattern of presence across the year, the relative probability of
presence is calculated. This is the probability of presence divided by the maximum
probability of presence across all weeks. For example, imagine the probability of presence
in week 20 for the Spotted Towhee is 0.05, and that the probability of presence at week 12
(0.25) is the maximum of any week of the year. The relative probability of presence on
week 12 is 0.25/0.25 = 1; at week 20 it is 0.05/0.25 = 0.2.
3 The relative probability of presence calculated in the previous step undergoes a statistical
Ti\k
iiawiSrdi n so that all possible values fall between 0 and 10, inclusive.
probability of presence score.
To see a bar's probability of presence score, simply hover your mouse cursor over the bar.
Breeding Season )
Yellow bars denote a very liberal estimate of the time -frame inside which the bird breeds
across its entire range. If there are no yellow bars shown for a bird, it does not breed in your
project area.
Ivey E (I)
Vertical black lines superimposed on probability of presence bars indicate the number of
surveys performed for Out species in the 10km grid cell(s) your project area overlaps.
number of surveys is expressed as a range, for example, 33 to 64 surveys.
Efots gd)aitsplyriaey r your mouse cursor over the bar.
r(Jo Data —)
A week is marked as having no data if there were no survey events for that week.
Survey Timeframe
Surveys from only the last 10 years are used in order to ensure delivery of currently relevant
information. the AtIzeicttbrotatt,hichierarbialcreturns are
based on all years of available data, since data in these areas is currently much more sparse.
SPECIES
probability of presence breeding season I&trvey e — no data
JAN FEB MAR APR MAY JUN JUL AUG SEP OCT NOV DEC
https://ipac.ecosphere.fws.gov/project/BR7MOK3YPBE37KDXPKEUJRU3L4/resources 7/13

7/7/22, 8:47 AM IPaC: Explore Location resources
Bald Eagle
Non -BCC
Vulnerable (This
is not a Bird of
Conservation
Concern (BCC)
in this area, but
warrants
attention
because of the
Eagle Act or for
potential
susceptibilities
more
areas from
certain types of
development or
activities.)
Prairie Warbler
BCC Rangewide
(CON) (This is a
Bird of
Conservation
Concern (BCC)
throughout its
range in the
continental USA
and Alaska.)
Red-headed
Woodpecker
BCC Rangewide
(CON) (This is a
Bird of
Conservation
Concern (BCC)
throughout its
range in the
continental USA
and Alaska.)
Rusty Blackbird
BCC - BCR (This
is a Bird of
Conservation
Concern (BCC)
only in
particular Bird
Conservation
Regions (BCRs)
in the
continental
USA)
1111 IIII1111 IIII IIII IIII -- IIII IIII IIII IIII
mwm :31 I oc0\0\4
IMM
\A&\f
MM.!
IIII IIII IUD
-I-- 1---
https://ipac.ecosphere.fws.gov/project/BR7MOK3YPBE37KDXPKEUJRU3L4/resources 8/13

7/7/22, 8:47 AM IPaC: Explore Location resources
Wood Thrush _
BCC Rangewide
(CON) (This is a
Bird of
Conservation
Concern (BCC)
throughout its
range in the
continental USA
and Alaska.)
--- III 1111 inI 1111 -
Tell me more about conservation measures I can implement to avoid or minimize impacts to migratory
birds.
Nationwide Conservation Measures describes measures that can help avoid and minimize impacts to all
birds at any location year round. Implementation of these measures is particularly important when birds
are most likely to occur in the project area. When birds may be breeding in the area, identifying the \i
locations of any active nests and avoiding their destruction is a very helpful impact minimization measure.
To see when birds are most likely to occur and be breeding in your project area, view the Probability of
Presence Summary. Additional measures or permits may be advisable depending on the type of activity
you are conducting and the type of infrastructure or bird species present on your project site.
fithladcdtiesiPPaC use to generate the migratory birds potentially occurring in my speci
The Migratory Bird Resource List is comprised of USFWS Birds of Conservation Concern (BCC) and other
species that may warrant special attention in your project location.
The migratory bird list generated for your project is derived from data provided by the Avian Knowledge
Network (AKN). The AKN data is based on a growing collection of survey, banding, and citizen science
datasets tedrid t ueztealraadist of those birds reported as occurring in the 10km grid
cell(s) which your project intersects, €dccthrahifravnlibgip :o®itittention because
they are a BCC species in that area, an eagle (Eagle Act requirements may apply), or a species that has a
fladieulativcitileoalal13tirt®pmne nt.
Again, the Migratory Bird Resource list includes only a subset of birds that may occur in your project area. It
is not representative of all birds that may occur in your project area. To get a list of all birds potentially
present in your project area, please visit the AKN Phenology Tool
What does IPaC use to generate the probability of presence graphs for the migratory birds potentially
fiddiaioatigliri my speci
The probability of presence graphs associated with your migratory bird list are based on data provided by
the Avian Knowledge Network (AKN). This data is derived from a growing collection of survey, banding, and
citizen science datasets .
Probability of presence data is continuously being updated as new and better information becomes
available. To learn more about how the probability of presence graphs are produced and how to interpret
them, go the Probability of Presence Summary and then click on the "Tell me about these graphs" link.
How do I know if a bird is breeding, wintering, migrating or present year-round in my project area?
https://ipac.ecosphere.fws.gov/project/BR7MOK3YPBE37KDXPKEUJRU3L4/resources 9/13

7/7/22, 8:47 AM IPaC: Explore Location resources
To see what part of a particular bird's range your project area falls within (i.e. breeding, wintering,
migrating or year-round), you may refer to the following resources: The Cornell Lab of Ornithology All
About Birds Bird Guide, or (if you are unsuccessful in locating the bird of interest there), the Cornell Lab of
Ornithology Neotropical Birds guide. If a bird on your migratory bird species list has a breeding season
associated with it, if that bird does occur in your project area, there may be nests present at some point
fa iIthin the timeframe speci If "Breeds elsewhere" is indicated, then the bird likely does not breed in
your project area.
What are the levels of concern for migratory birds?
Migratory birds delivered through IPaC fall into the following distinct categories of concern:
"BCC Rangewide" birds are Birds of Conservation Concern (BCC) that are of concern throughout their
range anywhere within the USA fiftdlairdilisgliteehtiiiRibe,I the Virgin
Islands);
2 "BCC - BCR" birds are BCCs that are of concern only in particular Bird Conservation Regions (BCRs) in
the continental USA; and
3 "Non -BCC - Vulnerable" birds are not BCC species in your project area, but appear on your list either
because of the Eagle Act requirements (for eagles) or (for non -eagles) potential susceptibilities in
chore areas from certain types tlifiollavel prinedt lepUiaitn#so(le.g. o
§In i )i e %
ttl-ttlscsibigh ibernp3odUirt to try to avoid and minimize impacts to all birds, e
particular, to avoid and minimize impacts to the birds on this list, especially eagles and BCC species of
rangewide concern. For more information on conservation measures you can implement to help avoid and
minimize migratory bird impacts and requirements for eagles, please see the FAQs for these topics.
i $vd ithirds that are potentially a
For additional details about the relative occurrence and abundance of both individual bird species and
Elfauptlaoftlit lc ,cjileasithiisijrmlae project area o Northeast Ocean Data
Portal. ii d'alataImi of®rmation about other taxa besides birds that may be helpful to
you in your project review. tEurneltarlyjtyptihroppd3a4vnload the bird model results
maps through the NOAA NCCOS Integrative Statistical Modeling and Predictive Mapping of Marine Bird
Distributions and Abundance on the Atlantic Outer Continental Shelf project webpage.
Bird tracking data can also provide additional details about occurrence and habitat use throughout the
year, including migration. Models relying on survey data may not include this information. For additional
information on marine bird tracking data, see the Diving Bird Study and the nanotag studies or contact
Caleb Spiegel Pam Loring
What if I have eagles on my list?
If your project has the potential to disturb or kill eagles, you may need to obtain a permit to avoid violating
the Eagle Act should such impacts occur.
Proper Interpretation and Use of Your Migratory Bird Report
https://ipac.ecosphere.fws.gov/project/BR7MOK3YPBE37KDXPKEUJRU3L4/resources 10/13

7/7/22, 8:47 AM IPaC: Explore Location resources
The migratory bird list generated is not a list of all birds in your project area, only a subset of birds of
priority concern. To learn more about how your list is generated, and see options for identifying what other
birds may be in your project area, please see the FAQ "What does IPaC use to generate the migratory birds
potentially §ddianatightrKeapethe aware this report provides the "probability of
presence" of birds within the 10 km grid cell(s) that overlap your project; not your exact project footprint.
On the graphs provided, 413eia3amddddycatlmfa.1itI Etf-tiratib,a Y e
and for the existence of the tfirbidaltt 'lteylicator (a red horizontal bar). A high survey e
tfutripb.rgtpt. If the survey e then the probability of presence score can be viewed as more
ifetpleardtabhEo In contrast, a low survey e data bar means a lack of data and, therefore, a lack
of certainty about presence of the species. This list is not perfect; it is simply a starting point for identifying
what birds of concern have the potential to be in your project area, when they might be there, and if they
might be breeding (which means nests might be present). The list helps you know what to look for to
fimnpresence, and helps guide you in knowing when to implement conservation measures to avoid or
firiiraildnfEe lealtential impacts from your project activities, should presence be con more
about conservation measures, visit the FAQ "Tell me about conservation measures I can implement to
avoid or minimize impacts to migratory birds" at the bottom of your migratory bird trust resources page.
40>4
Coastal Barrier Resources System
Projects within the J(1-B-RI1) elayibe Eobjltat Barrier Resources System
fi c ::taiszliotzalae.teidein iattiktio E and 'h....
requirements of the Coastal Barrier Resources Act (CBRA) (16 U.S.C. 3501 et seq.). For more
information, please contact the local fological Services Field 0 or visit the CBRA
Consultations websitetWel-�aBitAmlvietTsite provides tools such as a
determine whether consultation is required and a template to facilitate the consultation
process. e
THERE ARE NO KNOWN COASTAL BARRIERS AT THIS LOCATION.
Data limitations
The CBRS boundaries used in IPaC are representations of the controlling boundaries, which are depicted
on the dial CBRS maps . The boundaries depicted in this layer are not to be considered authoritative for
ifr/Oatrel'ethr3inOT :cros aftse to a CBRS boundary (i.e., within the "CBRS Bu
hatched area on either side of the boundary). For projects that are very close to a CBRS boundary but do
tfbt deter tryniimr eecbpfi tI 'Vying they contact the Service for an o
instructions here: https://www.fws.gov/service/coastal-barrier-resources-system-property-documentation
Data exclusions
CBRS units extend seaward out to either the 20- or 30-foot bathymetric contour (depending on the location
of the unit). The true seaward extent of the units is not shown in the CBRS data, therefore projects in the
tin ore tee, eafau@ ,tu(-:• ..,a¢ftrc gigirgdEl na::. beo
subject to CBRA even if they do not intersect the CBRS data. For additional information, please contact
[e-mail].
https://ipac.ecosphere.fws.gov/project/BR7MOK3YPBE37KDXPKEUJRU3L4/resources 11/13

7/7/22, 8:47 AM IPaC: Explore Location resources
Facilities
National Wildlife Refuge lands
Any activity proposed on lands managed by the Ply$benIrlWJhillife Refuge
undergo a 'Compatibility Determination' conducted by the Refuge. Please contact the
individual Refuges to discuss any questions or concerns.
THERE ARE NO REFUGE LANDS AT THIS LOCATION.
Fish hatcheries •\CI\4
THERE ARE NO FISH HATCHERIES AT THIS LOCATION.
\\05#°c 11/4
aNj -
Wetlands in the National Wetlands Inventory
Impacts to NMI otlitErnrtfuatic habitats may be subject to regulation under
Section 404 of the Clean Water Act, or other State/Federal statutes.
For more information please contact the Regulatory Program of the local U.S. Army Corps of
Engineers District %,
WeamertnitivahtlytherflaYgdieta being shown may be out of date.
1A IBEteoaronN Ad yletav1fy these results with a site visit to
determine the actual extent of wetlands on site.
This location overlaps the following wetlands:
FRESHWATER POND
Palustrine
RIVERINE
Riverine
A full description for each wetland code can be found at the National Wetlands Inventory
website
Data limitations
https://ipac.ecosphere.fws.gov/project/BR7MOK3YPBE37KDXPKEUJRU3L4/resources 12/13

7/7/22, 8:47 AM
IPaC: Explore Location resources
The Service's objective of mapping wetlands and deepwater habitats is to produce reconnaissance level
information on the location, type and size of these resources. The maps are prepared from the analysis of
fiigb.:fidunie inergitterqo Wettaloldshydrerlegyiand geography. A
margin of error is inherent in the use of imagery; thus, detailed on -the -ground inspection of any particular
Gii#tionalstabiiltied-ekrisiaglofrtlagevatialydiioundaries or classi
The accuracy of image interpretation depends on the quality of the imagery, the experience of the image
fiati4>w,obtle amount and quality of the collateral data and the amount of ground truth veri
conducted. Metadata should be consulted to determine the date of the source imagery used and any
mapping problems.
Vi'titr tinerttrer mapped features may have changed since the date of the imagery or
ffaittiptessbetiafelpgandiinfodara ❑rct $died
on the map and the actual conditions on site.
Data exclusions
,x4
Certain wetland habitats are excluded from the National mapping program because of the limitations of
aerial imagery as the primary data source used to detect wetlands. These habitats include seagrasses or
submerged aquatic vegetation that are found in the intertidal and subtidal zones of estuaries and
bielamigunereemt1313waielso. Some deepwater reef communities (coral or tuber
been excluded from the inventory. These habitats, because of their depth, go undetected by aerial imagery.
Data precautions
le.,N410 Now
fiedtardliepand local regulatory agencies with jurisdiction over wetlands may de
firmlitanrclarimercthan that used in this inventory. There is no attempt, in either the design or
fieottleclbsrriiifsibilsrinmeri ayytjoi d$diction of any Federal, state, or local
government or to establish the geographical scope of the regulatory programs of government agencies.
fiafioanss/ ndingdiyaeegage grolealetihAlti3irkaskisilifingimodi
fiyabi.j:laffcappropriate federal, state, or local agencies concerning speci
ffcbgrldinacaiiudtjmprietaryjurisdictions that may a
https://ipac.ecosphere.fws.gov/project/BR7MOK3YPBE37KDXPKEUJRU3L4/resources 13/13

Roy Cooper, Governor
al ■••
■■ R NC DEPARTMENT OF
■ !
■ ■k■A NATURAL AND CULTURAL RESOURCES
■ ■■■
July 7, 2022
Lauren Norris -Heflin
Timmons Group
5410 Trinity Road
Raleigh, NC 27606
RE: Misenheimer Solar
Dear Lauren Norris -Heflin:
D. Reid Wilson, Secretary
Misty Buchanan
Deputy Dire ttrr, Natural Heritage Program
N CN H D E-18546
The North Carolina Natural Heritage Program (NCNHP) appreciates the opportunity to provide
information about natural heritage resources for the project referenced above.
A query of the NCNHP database indicates that there are records for rare species, important natural
communities, natural areas, and/or conservation/managed areas within the proposed project
boundary. These results are presented in the attached 'Documented Occurrences' tables and map.
The attached 'Potential Occurrences' table summarizes rare species and natural communities that
have been documented within a one -mile radius of the property boundary. The proximity of these
records suggests that these natural heritage elements may potentially be present in the project area
if suitable habitat exists. Tables of natural areas and conservation/managed areas within a one -mile
radius of the project area, if any, are also included in this report.
If a Federally -listed species is documented within the project area or indicated within a one -mile
radius of the project area, the NCNHP recommends contacting the US Fish and Wildlife Service
(USFWS) for guidance. Contact information for USFWS offices in North Carolina is found here:
https://www.fws.gov/offices/Di rectory/ListOffices.cfm?statecode=37.
Please note that natural heritage element data are maintained for the purposes of conservation
planning, project review, and scientific research, and are not intended for use as the primary criteria
for regulatory decisions. Information provided by the NCNHP database may not be published
without prior written notification to the NCNHP, and the NCNHP must be credited as an information
source in these publications. Maps of NCNHP data may not be redistributed without permission.
Also please note that the NC Natural Heritage Program may follow this letter with additional
correspondence if a Dedicated Nature Preserve, Registered Heritage Area, Land and Water Fund
easement, or an occurrence of a Federally -listed species is documented near the project area.
If you have questions regarding the information provided in this letter or need additional assistance,
please contact Rodney A. Butler at [e-mail] or 919-707-8603.
Sincerely,
NC Natural Heritage Program
DEPARTMENT OF NATURAL. AND CULTURAL RESOURCES
1) 1:1 W. JONES STREET, RALEIGI I. NC 27603 1OS1 MAIL SERVICE CENTER, RALEIGH. NC 27699
OFC 9157079120 • FA x 919.707.9121

Natural Heritage Element Occurrences, Natural Areas, and Managed Areas Intersecting the Project Area
Misenheimer Solar
July 7, 2022
NCN H DE-18546
Element Occurrences Documented Within Project Area
axonomic Scientific am ommon Name st
Group Observation
Date
La
Element Accuracy
Occurrence
Rank
Federal
Status
State
Status
Global State
Rank Rank
Freshwater 27822 Villosa delumbis
Bivalve
Eastern Creekshell
2004-05-20
E 3-Medium
Significantly
Rare
G4 S4
No Natural Areas are Documented within the Project Area
No Managed Areas Documented within the Project Area
Definitions and an explanation of status designations and codes can be found at httos://ncnhde.natureserve.ora/helo. Data query generated on July 7, 2022; source: NCNHP, Q1, April 2022. Please
resubmit your information request if more than one year elapses before project initiation as new information is continually added to the NCNHP database.
Page 2 of 4

Natural Heritage Element Occurrences, Natural Areas, and Managed Areas Within a One -mile Radius of the Project Area
Misenheimer Solar
July 7, 2022
NCN H DE-18546
Element Occurrences Documented Within a One -mile Radius of the Project Area
Taxonomic
Group
EO ID Scientific Name Common Name ast
Observation
Date
Element Accuracy
Occurrence
Rank
Federal
Status
State Global State
Status Rank Rank
Freshwater
Bivalve
27822 Villosa delumbis
Freshwater 7912
Bivalve
Villosa vaughaniana
Eastern Creekshell 2004-05-20
Carolina Creekshell 2014-08-27
E 3-Medium --- Significantly G4 S4
Rare
E 3-Medium
Endangered G2G3 S3
Vascular Plant 9656
Helianthus laevigatus
Smooth Sunflower 1988-10-10
X 3-Medium
Special G4 S3
Concern
Vulnerable
Vascular Plant 5251
Helianthus laevigatus
Smooth Sunflower 2007-09-13
B 2-High
Vascular Plant 20753 Helianthus schweinitzii Schweinitz's Sunflower 2013-10-10 F
Vascular Plant 39459 Helianthus schweinitzii Schweinitz's Sunflower 2021-10 BCi
Natural Areas Documented Within a One -mile Radius of the Project Area
Site Name Representational Rating
Ritchies Hardpan Forest R2 (Very High)
Special G4 S3
Concern
Vulnerable
3-Medium Endangered Endangered G3 S3
1-Very Endangered Endangered G3 S3
High
Collective Rating
C5 (General)
Managed Areas Documented Within a One -mile Radius of the Project Area
ManagedJea Name Owner Owner Type
NC Land and Water Fund Project NC DNCR, NC Land and Water Fund State
Three Rivers Land Trust Easement Three Rivers Land Trust Private
Definitions and an explanation of status designations and codes can be found at https://ncnhde.natureserve.ora/help. Data query generated on July 7, 2022; source: NCNHP, Q1, April 2022. Please
resubmit your information request if more than one year elapses before project initiation as new information is continually added to the NCNHP database.
Page 3 of 4

July 7, 2022
Ji Managed Area (MAREA)
❑ NHP Natural Area (NHNA)
❑ Buffered Project Boundary
❑ Project Boundary
NCNHDE-18546: Misenheimer Solar
Sources: Esn. Airbus OS. USGS, RIGA. NASA. CGIAR, N Robinson, NCEAS,
PALS. OS. NMA, Geodahaslyrelsen, Rilkswaterstaal, GSA, Geoland. FEW,
Inlermap and the GIS user c mmunity
Seuroes: Esti. HERE. Garmin, FAO. NOAA. USGS, S OpenStreehMap
Conlnbutrns, and the GIS User Commum[y
Page 4 of 4

•••
•0 •
TIMMONS GROUP
YOUR VISION ACHIEVED THROUGH OURS.
1001 Boulders Parkway
Suite 300
Richmond, VA 23225
Project Review Team
U.S. Fish and Wildlife Services — Asheville Field Office
160 Zillicoa St.
Asheville, NC 28801
RE: Project Review Request
Misenheimer Solar Park
Stanly County, North Carolina
Dear Project Review Team,
P 804.200.6500
F 804.560.1016
www.timmons.com
July 27, 2021
On behalf of Misenheimer Solar, LLC, Timmons Group has reviewed the proposed Misenheimer Solar Park
(Project) using the U.S. Fish and Wildlife Service (USFWS) North Carolina Field Office's online project
review process. All guidance and instructions in completing the review have been followed and our review
was completed on July 2, 2021.
The proposed Project action involves the development of agriculture, silviculture, and forested lands for the
construction and operation of a power generating solar site and associated facilities (including substation,
utility lines, etc.). The location of the Project limits (i.e. action area) are identified on the enclosed figures.
The Project encompasses approximately 668 acres and is located in Stanly County, North Carolina within
the Lower Yadkin (HUC 0304013) and the Rocky (Upper Pee Dee River Basin) (HUC 0340105) watersheds
(see Figures in Enclosure 1). Project layouts and design elements are still being finalized.
Presently, the Project has no federal nexus. However, design constraints may necessitate permit
authorization from the U.S. Army Corps of Engineers for impacts associated with wetlands and/or streams.
The evaluation included review of site conditions and queries of the following databases (Enclosure 2):
• USFWS Information for Planning and Conservation search (IPaC)
• USFWS Ashville Field Office Western North Carolina Northern Long-eared Bat areas webpage
• North Carolina Natural Heritage Program (NCNHP) Database Query
Based on these database results, USFWS federally protected species identified as having the potential to
occur within the Project boundaries are summarized below in Table 1. There are no areas designated as
Critical Habitat within the Project.
Table 1. Federally protected species with potential to occur within the site
Common Name
Scientific Name
Federal Status i
Vertebrates
Northern long-eared bat
Myotis septentrionalis
Threatened
Vegetation
Schweinitz's sunflower
Helianthus schweinitzii
Endangered
Details regarding these species as they relate to the Project are provided below:
CIVIL ENGINEERING I ENVIRONMENTAL I SURVEYING I GIS I LANDSCAPE ARCHITECTURE I CONSTRUCTION SERVICES

Northern Long-eared Bat (Myotis septentrionalis)
In 2015, the USFWS listed the northern long-eared bat (NLEB) as threatened under the Endangered
Species Act (ESA), due to the impacts of white -nose syndrome. The species seasonal and annual survival
largely depends on successfully hibernating and roosting their young and therefore, federal protections
focus on the locations where the NLEB hibernate and roost during the pup season.
The NLEB Final 4(d) rule provides a framework to streamline Section 7 consultations when federal actions
"may affect" the NLEB but not result in a prohibited take. Under the NLEB Biological Opinion, project related
tree clearing is generally acceptable provided:
1) No removal occurs of known NLEB maternity roost trees or any trees within 150 feet of a known
occupied maternity roost trees from June 1 through July 31, AND
2) No removal occurs of any trees within 0.25 miles of a northern long-eared bat hibernaculum at
any time of year.
The vegetation composition within the Project site includes forested areas which may provide some suitable
summer habitat for the NLEB. However, review of the USFWS Ashville Field Office Western North Carolina
Northern Long-eared Bat areas webpage and NCNHP database indicates there are no known NLEB winter
hibernacula and/or maternity roosts within the vicinity of the Project or surrounding counties. Therefore,
future development of the Project can rely upon the findings of the 1/5/2016 Programmatic Biological
Opinion for the Final 4(d) Rule on the Northern Long -Eared Bat and Activities Excepted from Take
Prohibitions to fulfill any project -specific Section 7 responsibilities. A NLEB ESA Section 4(d) Rule
Consistency Letter for the Misenheimer Solar Park has been generated through the IPaC system and is
included with this Project Review Package. Project related tree clearing is not anticipated to exceed 550
acres. In addition, the Project proponent has committed to implementing a voluntary tree clearing time -of -
year -restriction from June 1 through July 31 of each year during construction to minimize and avoid potential
impacts to the NLEB.
Schweinitz's sunflower (Helianthus schweinitzii)
On May 7, 1991, the Schweinitz's sunflower (Helianthus schweinitzii) was federally listed as endangered
under the ESA. This herbaceous perennial, endemic to the piedmont of North Carolina and South Carolina,
is largely endangered by the loss of historic levels of natural disturbance habitats associated with natural
fires and grazing by native herbivores. Remnant populations now occur in upland wood edges or openings,
roadsides, and utility rights -of -way, likely due to the periodic disturbance of such microsites by mowing.
Schweinitz's sunflower distribution is also influenced by geology, as this species prefers soils that are
nutrient poor, thin, on flats or gentle slopes, and clayey in texture. Based on NCNHP database records,
there are documented occurrences of Schweinitz's sunflower within a one -mile radius of the Project.
Due to the potential presence for this species, targeted habitat assessments and presence/absence
surveys have been conducted within the site in October 2018 and October 2020 by qualified surveyors to
identify potential populations of Schweinitz's sunflower within the Project. As a result of these efforts, one
(1) previously undocumented population of Schweinitz's sunflower was identified onsite during the October
2020 field investigation. A detailed report documenting this survey and its findings is included as Enclosure
3.
The identified population is located adjacent to and within a utility easement in the southern portion of the
Project along a forested boundary. All identified individuals of the population were found within a relatively
narrow band adjacent to the utility easement in an area approximately 45 feet long by 15 feet wide
(Coordinates: 35.478661, -80.299189). The population extents were located using submeter capable GPS
(see Enclosure 1, Figure 4 for location). A total of 62 individuals (identified as stems at ground line) were
identified within the population, with 20 individuals in flower and 25 non -flowering seedlings (defined as
individuals <10 cm in height).
Page 2 of 4

Adverse Project related impacts to this population are not anticipated. The overall land use of solar
generating facilities is consistent with the periodic disturbance of mowing required by Schweinitz's
sunflower. Furthermore, the identified population is immediately adjacent to and within an existing overhead
utility easement corridor, operated and maintained by a separate utility operator. The easement is not
proposed to be relocated as part of the Project and the uses of the easement within the immediate vicinity
of the identified population are not proposed to change. However, in order to avoid adverse Project related
impact to this identified population, the following measures are proposed as part of the Project
environmental commitments:
1) Disclosures to Easement Owner
The identified Schweinitz's sunflower population is located at the edge and crosses into an
overhead utility easement corridor which transects the site. The easement is maintained by Duke
Energy. Easement requirements are such that vegetation management or operations within the
easement are outside the control of the Project proponent. Therefore, the Project proponent will
inform Duke Energy of the location of the identified population and request that they incorporate
portions of this population within the easement into any of their own protected species vegetation
management plans and/or any agreements/understandings they may have with USFWS regarding
Schweinitz's sunflower populations within easements.
2) Vegetative Buffer Establishment
Within portions of the site under management and control by the Project proponent, a 5-foot
Vegetative Buffer will be established around the identified limits of the population. Note that the
northeast boundary of the population is immediately adjacent to and within a Duke Utility Easement.
The Project proponent has no control over vegetation management and/or operations within this
easement and cannot extend the limits of the Vegetative Buffer into the easement.
The proposed Vegetative Buffer area is shown on Figure 4. The Vegetative Buffer will be avoided
by the proposed Project and all Project elements. During Project construction the buffer area will
be marked with a visual barrier such as barricade flagging and/or safety fence to avoid unintentional
impacts. Project personnel will be informed to avoid the Vegetation Buffer during Project pre -
construction meetings.
3) Vegetation Management
No mowing or vegetation clearing will occur within the Vegetative Buffer from April 1 - November
15 of any year, which is the Schweinitz's sunflower vegetative growth, flowering, and fruiting
seasons. Project operations managers will be informed of the following restrictions within the
Vegetation Buffer: i) Mowing is only allowed from November 16 - March 31, ii) Mowing should be
completed at least every other year to maintain a herbaceous community within the Vegetative
Buffer, and iii) No herbicides or no fertilizers are to be applied within the Vegetative Buffer.
4) Signage
Following Project construction signs indicating Do Not Mow between April 1 - November 15' and
`Do Not Spray' will be installed. Signs will be positioned at both ends of a population, facing so
mowers will see the signs as they approach the No Mow area.
5) Erosion and Sediment Control
An overall Project erosion and sediment control plan will be developed and implemented consistent
with local and/or state requirements.
Page 3 of 4

By implementing the avoidance measure identified above, adverse impacts to Schweinitz's sunflower
are not anticipated.
The enclosed project review package provides the information about the species, critical habitat, and bald
eagles considered in our review, and the species conclusions table included in the package identifies our
determinations for the resources that may be affected by the Project (Enclosure 4). All database records
and supplementary materials are included as enclosures.
We request your review and concurrence regarding these species determinations and request any
comments regarding potentially affected federally protected species. Please contact me at
[e-mail] or 804.200.6582 if you have any questions or comments about the project. Thank
you for your attention to this request.
Sincerely,
TIMMONS GROUP
t—/b' 1/3 rt"
Eli Wright
Senior Environmental Scientist
Enclosures:
1. Figures
• Figure 1 — Vicinity Map
• Figure 2 — Hydrologic Unit Code (HUC) Map
• Figure 3 — Environmental Inventory Map
• Figure 4 — Project Features, Vegetative Communities, And Helianthus Schweinitzii Location Map
2. Online Database Search Results:
• USFWS Information for Planning and Conservation search (IPaC)
• USFWS NLEB ESA Section 4(d) Rule Consistency Letter
• USFWS Ashville Field Office Western North Carolina Northern Long-eared Bat areas webpage
• North Carolina Natural Heritage Program (NCNHP) Database Query
3. Protected Species Survey Report — November 2020
4. Species Conclusion Table
CC:
Erin O'Shea (EDPR Renewables)
Emily Hughes (EDPR Renewables)
Page 4 of 4

Enclosure 1
Figures

Path: Y:\804\99999-Orion Renewables\41859.002 - Misenheimer\GIS\Common Shared Exhibits\41859.002-VIC.mxd
WE
w,nrn:lN.r
UNTY
DUNTY
Site limits are approximate.
Topographic imagery from USGS.
•
/ •
•
•
/•
.�
0 2,000 4,000 6,000
8,000
Feet
MI-
:'
4.
♦
....Mlsenhelm er
•
"-"1
•
•
/
I'
1
1
yP
_ USL
Pfeiffer - �1
Gray Stake
Q,ry Sch
r"E'!f FfR Pt
MISENHEIMER SOLAR
STANLY COUNTY, NORTH CAROLINA
FIGURE 1: VICINITY MAP
TIMMONS GROUP w•••••
YOUR VISION ACHIEVED THROUGH OURS. • • 6
TIMMONS GROUP JOB NUMBER:41859.002
PROJECT STUDY LIMITS: 668.0 ACRES
LATITUDE: 35.489557
LONGITUDE: -80.291684
U.S.G.S. QUADRANGLE(S): GOLD HILL & RICHFIELD
DATE(S): 2016
WATERSHED(S): YADKIN PEE DEE RIVER BASIN
HYDROLOGIC UNIT CODE(S):03040103 & 03040105
These plans and associated documents are the exclusive property of TIMMONS GROUP and may not be reproduced in w
limited to construction, bidding, and/or construction staking without the express written consent of TIMMONS GROUP.
hole or in part and shall not be used for any purpose whatsoever, inclusive, but not

Lower Yadkin and Rocky Subbasin Soils
Mapunit Symbol
Mapunit Name
BaB
BgB
BgC
CmB
Badin channery silt loam, 2 to 8 percent slopes
Badin-Goldston complex, 2 to 8 percent slopes
Badin-Goldston complex, 8 to 15 percent slopes
Cid-Lignum complex, 1 to 6 percent slopes
EcB
Enon cobbly loam, 2 to 8 percent slopes
GoC
GoF
KcB
Goldston very channery silt loam, 4 to 15 percent slopes
Goldston very channery silt loam, 15 to 45 percent slopes
Kirksey-Cid complex, 2 to 6 percent slopes
KkB
Kirksey silt loam, 1 to 6 percent slopes
MhB
MkB
MsA
Misenheimer channery silt loam, 0 to 4 percent slopes
Misenheimer-Kirksey complex, 0 to 5 percent slopes
Misenheimer channery silt loam, 0 to 4 percent slopes
OaA
TbB
Ud
Oakboro silt loam, 0 to 2 percent slopes, frequently flooded
Tarrus channery silt loam, 2 to 8 percent slopes
Udorthents, loamy
Legend
Project Study Limits - 815.8 Acres
— — — " National Hydrography Dataset
National Wetlands Inventory
Zone A: 1 % Annual Chance Flood Hazard
Hydric Soil Classification
1
Hydric
ris !I 1111.1rJ� . is r;9
".44.1;:-r--1..“1:4'0!
0
0 •
•
•
•
D
0
z
0
x
1
0
D • M
o.
• Lr)
=cnNo E
H >;MNN 0
V!
d 3 < 0 c
LIA >0 0
> ca �! E
wa co E
— fn O co r
a) E 3
Q o ff~ --
zm
0
0
7-
PROJECT NAME & LOCATION
DATE
07/18/2018
PROJECT NUMBER
41859.002
PROJECT NAME
MISENHEIMER
DESIGNED BY / DRAWN BY
A. MEHFOUD
NOTES:
Project Limits are
approximate.
NWI from US Fish and
Wildlife Service.
Soils data from SSURGO.
National Hydrography
Dataset from USGS.
Aerial imagery from NCOne
Map.
These plans and associated documents are the
exclusive property of TIMMONS GROUP and
may not be reproduced in whole or in part and
shall not be used for any purpose whatsoever,
inclusive, but not limited to construction, bidding,
and/or construction staking without the express
written consent of TIMMONS GROUP.
REVISIONS
MM/DD/YY
DESCRIPTION
DRAWING DESCRIPTION
FIGURE 2:
ENVIRONMENTAL
INVENTORY MAP
SCALE (FEET)
0 600 1,200
1
Non Hydric
PLANS PRINTED AS 11X17 ARE HALF SCALE
SCALE SHEET NUMBER
H:1 "=600'
1
\\tgfs2\900\900Proj\804\99999-Orion Renewables\41859.002 - Misenheimer\GIS\Common Shared Exhibits\41859.002-EIM.mxd

Ave
Yadkin Pee Dee Soils
:
Mapunit Symbol
Mapunit Name
BaF
Badin channery silt loam, 15 to 45 percent slopes
*
N
EnB
Enon sandy loam, 2 to 8 percent slopes
OaA
Oakboro silt loam, 0 to 2 percent slopes, frequently flooded
OkA
Oakboro silt loam, 0 to 2 percent slopes, frequently flooded
TaB
Tarrus silt loam, 2 to 8 percent slopes
1
BaB
Badin channery silt loam, 2 to 8 percent slopes
BaC
Badin channery silt loam, 8 to 15 percent slopes
`
BaD
Badin channery silt loam, 8 to 15 percent slopes
BgB
Badin-Goldston complex, 2 to 8 percent slopes
BgC
Badin-Goldston complex, 8 to 15 percent slopes
ChA
Chewacla sandy loam, 0 to 2 percent slopes, frequently flooded
'
CmB
Cid-Lignum complex, 1 to 6 percent slopes
EcB
Enon cobbly loam, 2 to 8 percent slopes
GoC
Goldston very channery silt loam, 4 to 15 percent slopes
GoF
Goldston very channery silt loam, 15 to 45 percent slopes
KcB
Kirksey-Cid complex, 2 to 6 percent slopes
4
KkB
Kirksey silt loam, 0 to 6 percent slopes
w
KkB
Kirksey silt loam, 1 to 6 percent slopes
E
MhB
Misenheimer channery silt loam, 0 to 4 percent slopes
/
MkB
Misenheimer-Kirksey complex, 0 to 5 percent slopes
MsA
Misenheimer channery silt loam, 0 to 4 percent slopes
TbB
Tarrus channery silt loam, 2 to 8 percent slopes
Ud
Udorthents, loamy
'
W
Water
Legend
Project Study Limits- 668.0 Acres
National Hydrography Dataset
National Wetlands Inventory
Zone A: 1 % Annual Chance Flood Hazard
Hydric Soil Rating
Hydric (Not Present)
Partially Hydric
Non-Hydric
BaD
.s
WardhDr
Goodman
Pfeiffer PI
41' .
0
•
•
•
•
0
z
0
0
N
E
E
PROJECT NAME & LOCATION
MER SOLAR
w
w
co
2
DATE
10/20/2020
PROJECT NUMBER
41859.002
PROJECT NAME
MISENHEIMER
DESIGNED BY / DRAWN BY
M.COOLEY
NOTES:
Project Limits are
approximate.
NWI from US Fish and
Wildlife Service.
Soils data from SSURGO.
National Hydrography
Dataset from USGS.
Aerial imagery from Esri.
These plans and associated documents are the
exclusive property of TIMMONS GROUP and
may not be reproduced in whole or in part and
shall not be used for any purpose whatsoever,
inclusive, but not limited to construction, bidding,
and/or construction staking without the express
written consent of TIMMONS GROUP.
REVISIONS
MM/DD/YY
DESCRIPTION
DRAWING DESCRIPTION
FIGURE 3:
ENVIRONMENTAL
INVENTORY MAP
SCALE (FEET)
0 600 1,200
PLANS PRINTED AS 11X17 ARE HALF SCALE
SCALE
H:1 "=600'
SHEET NUMBER
1
Y:\804\99999-Orion Renewables\41859.002 - Misenheimer\GIS\Common Shared Exhibits\41859.002-EIM.mxd

Legend
Project Limits (668 ac)
Overhead Easement (100kV)
Preliminary Point of Interconnection
Helianthus schweinitzii Population (onsite)
■ ■■■■■.
• Vegetative Buffer (5 ft Proposed)
■ ■■■■■.
Vegetative Communities
A
Oak -Hickory (3.71 Acres)
Bottom Land (46.08 Acres)
Maintained/Disturbed Communities
///
•
Early Successional (58.61 Acres)
Silviculture (543.57 Acres)
Agriculture (153.02Acres)
Utility Easement (9.96 Acres)
Wetlands
r 1
J
Palustrine Emergent (PEM) Wetlands
Palustrine Forested (PFO) Wetlands
Palustrine Scrub -Shrub (PSS) Wetlands
Palustrine Open Water (POW)
Streams
Culvert
Perennial Stream (R3)
Intermittent Stream (R4)
Non -Jurisdictional Conveyance
Helianthus,
schweinitzii
Population
0
D
0
• ce
•
•
• (in
• z
•. 0
1
1
cc
a
tag
D
O r
cc . us
_cn N O
I— )7,M
N
YJ ` i 0
• O co
_ ;, E
U .c w
ao
0
us
0
0
0
fn
E
E
PROJECT NAME & LOCATION
MER SOLAR
w
2
Z
w
cn
2
Z
J
DO
O �
UQ
J
ZI—
• Et
�O
z
DATE
7/2/2021
PROJECT NUMBER
41859.002
D
PROJECT NAME
MISENHEIMER
ESIGNED BY / DRAWN BY
M.COOLEY
NOTES:
Project Limits are
approximate.
Community types based on
desktop analysis and field
verification conducted by
Timmons Group.
Aerial imagery from Esri.
These plans and associated documents are the
exclusive property of TIMMONS GROUP and
may not be reproduced in whole or in part and
shall not be used for any purpose whatsoever,
inclusive, but not limited to construction, bidding,
and/or construction staking without the express
written consent of TIMMONS GROUP.
REVISIONS
MM/DD/YY
DESCRIPTION
DRAWING DESCRIPTION
FIGURE 4:
PROJECT
FEATURES ,
VEGETATIVE
COMMUNITIES,
AND HELIANTHUS
SCHWEINITZII
LOCATION MAP
(F)
SCALE (FEET)
0 500 1,000
PLANS PRINTED AS 11X17 ARE HALF SCALE
SCALE
H:1 "=500'
SHEET NUMBER
1 of 2
Y:\804\99999-Orion Renewables\41859.002 - Misenheimer\GIS\Common Shared Exhibits\41859.002-USFWS Map.mxd

.=1 Project Limits (668 ac)
Overhead Easement (100kV)
Preliminary Point of Interconnection
Helianthus schweinitzii Population (onsite)
Vegetative Communities
Oak -Hickory (3.71 Acres)
Bottom Land (46.08 Acres)
Maintained/Disturbed Communities
Utility Easement (9.96 Acres)
Wetlands
Palustrine Emergent (PEM) Wetlands
Palustrine Forested (PFO) Wetlands
Palustrine Scrub -Shrub (PSS) Wetlands
Perennial Stream (R3)
Intermittent Stream (R4)
Non -Jurisdictional Conveyance
Helianthus
schweinitzii
PA p Iation
0
0
fn
E
E
D
0
• w
•
•
• (in
• z
•. 0
x
1
1
cc
a
tag
D
Or
cc '3 in
_cn N
I— )7,M
to 01 co
YJ ` i 0
Ili O E
= d E�
U .c w
amp
z
ao
0
PROJECT NAME & LOCATION
MER SOLAR
w
2
Z
w
cn
2
Q
Z
J
DO
O�
0<
J
ZI—
it
�O
z
DATE
7/2/2021
PROJECT NUMBER
41859.002
PROJECT NAME
MISENHEIMER
ESIGNED BY / DRAWN BY
M.COOLEY
NOTES:
Project Limits are
approximate.
Community types based on
desktop analysis and field
verification conducted by
Timmons Group.
Aerial imagery from Esri.
These plans and associated documents are the
exclusive property of TIMMONS GROUP and
may not be reproduced in whole or in part and
shall not be used for any purpose whatsoever,
inclusive, but not limited to construction, bidding,
and/or construction staking without the express
written consent of TIMMONS GROUP.
MM/DD/YY
REVISIONS
DESCRIPTION
DRAWING DESCRIPTION
FIGURE 4:
PROJECT
FEATURES ,
VEGETATIVE
COMMUNITIES,
AND HELIANTHUS
SCHWEINITZII
LOCATION MAP
(F)
SCALE (FEET)
0 100 200
PLANS PRINTED AS 11X17 ARE HALF SCALE
SCALE
H:1"=100'
SHEET NUMBER
2 of 2
Y:\804\99999-Orion Renewables\41859.002 - Misenheimer\GIS\Common Shared Exhibits\41859.002-USFWS Map.mxd

Enclosure 2
Online Database Search Results

United States Department of the Interior
FISH AND WILDLIFE SERVICE
Asheville Ecological Services Field Office
160 Zillicoa Street
Asheville, NC 28801-1082
Phone: [phone] Fax: [phone]
http://www.fws.govinc-es/es/countyfr.html
In Reply Refer To:
Consultation Code: 04EN1000-2021-SLI-0708
Event Code: 04EN1000-2021-E-01708
Project Name: Misenheimer Solar
July 02, 2021
Subject: List of threatened and endangered species that may occur in your proposed project
location or may be affected by your proposed project
To Whom It May Concern:
The attached species list identifies threatened, endangered, proposed and candidate species, as
well as proposed and final designated critical habitat, that may occur within the boundary of your
proposed project and/or may be affected by your proposed project. Although not required by
section 7, many agencies request species lists to start the informal consultation process and begin
their fulfillment of the requirements under section 7(c) of the Endangered Species Act (Act) of
1973, as amended (16 U.S.C. 1531 et seq.).
This list, along with other helpful resources, is also available on the U.S. Fish and Wildlife
Service (Service) —Asheville Field Office's (AFO) website: https://www.fws.gov/raleigh/species/
cntylist/nc counties.html. The AFO website list includes "species of concern" — species that
could potentially be placed on the federal list of threatened and endangered species in the future.
Also available are:
• Design and Construction Recommendations
https://www.fws.gov/asheville/htmis/project review/Recommendations.html
• Optimal Survey Times for Federally Listed Plants
https://www.fws.gov/nc-es/plant/plant survey.html
• Northern long-eared bat Guidance
https://www.fws.gov/asheville/htmis/projectreview/NLEB inWNC.html
• Predictive Habitat Model for Aquatic Species
https://www.fws.gov/asheville/htmls/Maxent/Maxent.html
New information based on updated surveys, changes in the abundance and distribution of
species, changed habitat conditions, or other factors could require modifications of these lists.

07/02/2021
Event Code: 04EN1000-2021-E-01708 2
Please note that under 50 CFR 402.12(e) of the regulations implementing section 7 of the Act,
the accuracy of the species lists should be verified after 90 days. This verification can be
completed formally or informally as desired. The Service recommends that verification be
completed by visiting the ECOS-IPaC website or the AFO website (the AFO website dates each
county list with the day of the most recent update/change) at regular intervals during project
planning and implementation for updates to species lists and information. An updated list may
be requested through the ECOS-IPaC system by completing the same process used to receive the
enclosed list or by going to the AFO website.
The purpose of the Act is to provide a means whereby threatened and endangered species and the
ecosystems upon which they depend may be conserved. Under sections 7(a)(1) and 7(a)(2) of
the Act and its implementing regulations (50 CFR 402 et seq.), Federal agencies are required to
utilize their authorities to carry out programs for the conservation of threatened and endangered
species and to determine whether projects may affect threatened and endangered species and/or
designated critical habitat.
A Biological Assessment is required for construction projects (or other undertakings having
similar physical impacts) that are major Federal actions significantly affecting the quality of the
human environment as defined in the National Environmental Policy Act (42 U.S.C. 4332(2)
(c)). For projects other than major construction activities, the Service suggests that a Biological
Evaluation similar to a Biological Assessment be prepared to determine whether the project may
affect listed or proposed species and/or designated or proposed critical habitat. Recommended
contents of a Biological Assessment are described at 50 CFR 402.12 and on our office's website
at https://www.fws.gov/asheville/htmis/project review/assessment guidance.html.
If a Federal agency (or their non-federal representative) determines, based on the Biological
Assessment or Biological Evaluation, that listed species and/or designated critical habitat may be
affected by the proposed project, the agency is required to consult with the Service pursuant to
50 CFR 402. In addition, the Service recommends that candidate species, proposed species, and
proposed critical habitat be addressed within the consultation. More information on the
regulations and procedures for section 7 consultation, including the role of permit or license
applicants, can be found in the "Endangered Species Consultation Handbook" at: http://
www.fws.gov/endangered/esa-library/pdf/TOC-GLOS.PDF.
Though the bald eagle is no longer protected under the Endangered Species Act, please be aware
that bald and golden eagles are protected under the Bald and Golden Eagle Protection Act (16
U.S.C. 668 et seq.), and projects affecting these species may require additional consultation (see
https://www.fws.gov/southeast/our-services/permits/eagles/). Wind energy projects should
follow the wind energy guidelines (http://www.fws.gov/windenergy/) for minimizing impacts to
migratory birds (including bald and golden eagles) and bats.
Guidance for minimizing impacts to migratory birds for projects including communications
towers (e.g., cellular, digital television, radio, and emergency broadcast) can be found at: http://
www. fws. gov/migratorybirds/CurrentBirdls sues/Hazards/towers/towers.htm;
http://www.towerkill.com; and http://www.fws.gov/migratorybirds/CurrentBirdlssues/Hazards/
towers/comtow.html.

07/02/2021
Event Code: 04EN1000-2021-E-01708 3
We appreciate your concern for threatened and endangered species. The Service encourages
Federal agencies to include conservation of threatened and endangered species into their project
planning to further the purposes of the Act. Please include the Consultation Tracking Number in
the header of this letter with any request for consultation or correspondence about your project
that you submit to our office.
Attachment(s):
■ Official Species List
■ Migratory Birds
• Wetlands

07/02/2021
Event Code: 04EN1000-2021-E-01708 1
Official Species List
This list is provided pursuant to Section 7 of the Endangered Species Act, and fulfills the
requirement for Federal agencies to "request of the Secretary of the Interior information whether
any species which is listed or proposed to be listed may be present in the area of a proposed
action".
This species list is provided by:
Asheville Ecological Services Field Office
160 Zillicoa Street
Asheville, NC 28801-1082
[phone]

07/02/2021
Event Code: 04EN1000-2021-E-01708 2
Project Summary
Consultation Code: 04EN1000-2021-SLI-0708
Event Code: 04EN1000-2021-E-01708
Project Name: Misenheimer Solar
Project Type: POWER GENERATION
Project Description: The proposed project involves the development of agriculture, silviculture
and forested lands for the construction and operation of a power
generating solar site and associated facilities (including substations, utility
lines, access roads, etc).
Project Location:
Approximate location of the project can be viewed in Google Maps: https://
www.google.com/maps/@35.48359725,-80.29786458445086,14z
Counties: Stanly County, North Carolina

07/02/2021
Event Code: 04EN1000-2021-E-01708 3
Endangered Species Act Species
There is a total of 2 threatened, endangered, or candidate species on this species list.
Species on this list should be considered in an effects analysis for your project and could include
species that exist in another geographic area. For example, certain fish may appear on the species
list because a project could affect downstream species.
IPaC does not display listed species or critical habitats under the sole jurisdiction of NOAA
Fisheries1, as USFWS does not have the authority to speak on behalf of NOAA and the
Department of Commerce.
See the "Critical habitats" section below for those critical habitats that lie wholly or partially
within your project area under this office's jurisdiction. Please contact the designated FWS office
if you have questions.
1. NOAA Fisheries, also known as the National Marine Fisheries Service (NMFS), is an
office of the National Oceanic and Atmospheric Administration within the Department of
Commerce.
Mammals
NAME
Northern Long-eared Bat Myotis septentrionalis
No critical habitat has been designated for this species.
Species profile: https://ecos.fws.gov/ecp/species/9045
Flowering Plants
NAME
Schweinitz's Sunflower Helianthus schweinitzii
No critical habitat has been designated for this species.
Species profile: https://ecos.fws.gov/ecp/species/3849
STATUS
Threatened
STATUS
Endangered
Critical habitats
THERE ARE NO CRITICAL HABITATS WITHIN YOUR PROJECT AREA UNDER THIS OFFICE'S
JURISDICTION.

07/02/2021 Event Code: 04EN1000-2021-E-01708
Migratory Birds
Certain birds are protected under the Migratory Bird Treaty Actl and the Bald and Golden Eagle
Protection Act2.
Any person or organization who plans or conducts activities that may result in impacts to
migratory birds, eagles, and their habitats should follow appropriate regulations and consider
implementing appropriate conservation measures, as described below.
1. The Migratory Birds Treaty Act of 1918.
2. The Bald and Golden Eagle Protection Act of 1940.
3. 50 C.F.R. Sec. 10.12 and 16 U.S.C. Sec. 668(a)
The birds listed below are birds of particular concern either because they occur on the USFWS
Birds of Conservation Concern (BCC) list or warrant special attention in your project location.
To learn more about the levels of concern for birds on your list and how this list is generated, see
the FAQ below. This is not a list of every bird you may find in this location, nor a guarantee that
every bird on this list will be found in your project area. To see exact locations of where birders
and the general public have sighted birds in and around your project area, visit the E-bird data
mapping tool (Tip: enter your location, desired date range and a species on your list). For
projects that occur off the Atlantic Coast, additional maps and models detailing the relative
occurrence and abundance of bird species on your list are available. Links to additional
information about Atlantic Coast birds, and other important information about your migratory
bird list, including how to properly interpret and use your migratory bird report, can be found
below.
For guidance on when to schedule activities or implement avoidance and minimization measures
to reduce impacts to migratory birds on your list, click on the PROBABILITY OF PRESENCE
SUMMARY at the top of your list to see when these birds are most likely to be present and
breeding in your project area.
NAME BREEDING SEASON
Red-headed Woodpecker Melanerpes erythrocephalus
This is a Bird of Conservation Concern (BCC) throughout its range in the
continental USA and Alaska.
Breeds May 10 to Sep 10
Probability Of Presence Summary
The graphs below provide our best understanding of when birds of concern are most likely to be
present in your project area. This information can be used to tailor and schedule your project
activities to avoid or minimize impacts to birds. Please make sure you read and understand the
FAQ "Proper Interpretation and Use of Your Migratory Bird Report" before using or attempting
to interpret this report.
Probability of Presence (■)

07/02/2021
Event Code: 04EN1000-2021-E-01708 2
Each green bar represents the bird's relative probability of presence in the l0km grid cell(s) your
project overlaps during a particular week of the year. (A year is represented as 12 4-week
months.) A taller bar indicates a higher probability of species presence. The survey effort (see
below) can be used to establish a level of confidence in the presence score. One can have higher
confidence in the presence score if the corresponding survey effort is also high.
How is the probability of presence score calculated? The calculation is done in three steps:
1. The probability of presence for each week is calculated as the number of survey events in
the week where the species was detected divided by the total number of survey events for
that week. For example, if in week 12 there were 20 survey events and the Spotted Towhee
was found in 5 of them, the probability of presence of the Spotted Towhee in week 12 is
0.25.
2. To properly present the pattern of presence across the year, the relative probability of
presence is calculated. This is the probability of presence divided by the maximum
probability of presence across all weeks. For example, imagine the probability of presence
in week 20 for the Spotted Towhee is 0.05, and that the probability of presence at week 12
(0.25) is the maximum of any week of the year. The relative probability of presence on
week 12 is 0.25/0.25 = 1; at week 20 it is 0.05/0.25 = 0.2.
3. The relative probability of presence calculated in the previous step undergoes a statistical
conversion so that all possible values fall between 0 and 10, inclusive. This is the
probability of presence score.
Breeding Season ( )
Yellow bars denote a very liberal estimate of the time -frame inside which the bird breeds across
its entire range. If there are no yellow bars shown for a bird, it does not breed in your project
area.
Survey Effort (I)
Vertical black lines superimposed on probability of presence bars indicate the number of surveys
performed for that species in the 10km grid cell(s) your project area overlaps. The number of
surveys is expressed as a range, for example, 33 to 64 surveys.
No Data (—)
A week is marked as having no data if there were no survey events for that week.
Survey Timeframe
Surveys from only the last 10 years are used in order to ensure delivery of currently relevant
information. The exception to this is areas off the Atlantic coast, where bird returns are based on
all years of available data, since data in these areas is currently much more sparse.
• probability of presence breeding season I survey effort — no data
SPECIES JAN FEB MAR APR MAY JUN JUL AUG SEP OCT NOV DEC

07/02/2021
Event Code: 04EN1000-2021-E-01708 3
Red-headed
Woodpecker
BCC Rangewide
(CON)
Additional information can be found using the following links:
• Birds of Conservation Concern http://www.fws.gov/birds/management/managed-species/
birds-of-conservation-concern.php
• Measures for avoiding and minimizing impacts to birds http://www.fws.gov/birds/
management/proj ect-assessment-tools-and-guidance/
conservation-measures.php
• Nationwide conservation measures for birds http://www.fws.gov/migratorybirds/pdf/
management/nationwidestandardconservationmeasures.pdf
Migratory Birds FAQ
Tell me more about conservation measures I can implement to avoid or minimize impacts
to migratory birds.
Nationwide Conservation Measures describes measures that can help avoid and minimize
impacts to all birds at any location year round. Implementation of these measures is particularly
important when birds are most likely to occur in the project area. When birds may be breeding in
the area, identifying the locations of any active nests and avoiding their destruction is a very
helpful impact minimization measure. To see when birds are most likely to occur and be breeding
in your project area, view the Probability of Presence Summary. Additional measures or permits
may be advisable depending on the type of activity you are conducting and the type of
infrastructure or bird species present on your project site.
What does IPaC use to generate the migratory birds potentially occurring in my specified
location?
The Migratory Bird Resource List is comprised of USFWS Birds of Conservation Concern
(BCC) and other species that may warrant special attention in your project location.
The migratory bird list generated for your project is derived from data provided by the Avian
Knowledge Network (AKN). The AKN data is based on a growing collection of survey, banding,
and citizen science datasets and is queried and filtered to return a list of those birds reported as
occurring in the 10km grid cell(s) which your project intersects, and that have been identified as
warranting special attention because they are a BCC species in that area, an eagle (Eagle Act
requirements may apply), or a species that has a particular vulnerability to offshore activities or
development.
Again, the Migratory Bird Resource list includes only a subset of birds that may occur in your
project area. It is not representative of all birds that may occur in your project area. To get a list
of all birds potentially present in your project area, please visit the AKN Phenology Tool.
What does IPaC use to generate the probability of presence graphs for the migratory birds
potentially occurring in my specified location?

07/02/2021
Event Code: 04EN1000-2021-E-01708 4
The probability of presence graphs associated with your migratory bird list are based on data
provided by the Avian Knowledge Network (AKN). This data is derived from a growing
collection of survey, banding, and citizen science datasets .
Probability of presence data is continuously being updated as new and better information
becomes available. To learn more about how the probability of presence graphs are produced and
how to interpret them, go the Probability of Presence Summary and then click on the "Tell me
about these graphs" link.
How do I know if a bird is breeding, wintering, migrating or present year-round in my
project area?
To see what part of a particular bird's range your project area falls within (i.e. breeding,
wintering, migrating or year-round), you may refer to the following resources: The Cornell Lab
of Ornithology All About Birds Bird Guide, or (if you are unsuccessful in locating the bird of
interest there), the Cornell Lab of Ornithology Neotropical Birds guide. If a bird on your
migratory bird species list has a breeding season associated with it, if that bird does occur in your
project area, there may be nests present at some point within the timeframe specified. If "Breeds
elsewhere" is indicated, then the bird likely does not breed in your project area.
What are the levels of concern for migratory birds?
Migratory birds delivered through IPaC fall into the following distinct categories of concern:
1. "BCC Rangewide" birds are Birds of Conservation Concern (BCC) that are of concern
throughout their range anywhere within the USA (including Hawaii, the Pacific Islands,
Puerto Rico, and the Virgin Islands);
2. "BCC - BCR" birds are BCCs that are of concern only in particular Bird Conservation
Regions (BCRs) in the continental USA; and
3. "Non -BCC - Vulnerable" birds are not BCC species in your project area, but appear on
your list either because of the Eagle Act requirements (for eagles) or (for non -eagles)
potential susceptibilities in offshore areas from certain types of development or activities
(e.g. offshore energy development or longline fishing).
Although it is important to try to avoid and minimize impacts to all birds, efforts should be made,
in particular, to avoid and minimize impacts to the birds on this list, especially eagles and BCC
species of rangewide concern. For more information on conservation measures you can
implement to help avoid and minimize migratory bird impacts and requirements for eagles,
please see the FAQs for these topics.
Details about birds that are potentially affected by offshore projects
For additional details about the relative occurrence and abundance of both individual bird species
and groups of bird species within your project area off the Atlantic Coast, please visit the
Northeast Ocean Data Portal. The Portal also offers data and information about other taxa besides
birds that may be helpful to you in your project review. Alternately, you may download the bird
model results files underlying the portal maps through the NOAA NCCOS Integrative Statistical
Modeling and Predictive Mapping of Marine Bird Distributions and Abundance on the Atlantic
Outer Continental Shelf project webpage.

07/02/2021
Event Code: 04EN1000-2021-E-01708 5
Bird tracking data can also provide additional details about occurrence and habitat use
throughout the year, including migration. Models relying on survey data may not include this
information. For additional information on marine bird tracking data, see the Diving Bird Study
and the nanotag studies or contact Caleb Spiegel or Pam Loring.
What if I have eagles on my list?
If your project has the potential to disturb or kill eagles, you may need to obtain a permit to avoid
violating the Eagle Act should such impacts occur.
Proper Interpretation and Use of Your Migratory Bird Report
The migratory bird list generated is not a list of all birds in your project area, only a subset of
birds of priority concern. To learn more about how your list is generated, and see options for
identifying what other birds may be in your project area, please see the FAQ "What does IPaC
use to generate the migratory birds potentially occurring in my specified location". Please be
aware this report provides the "probability of presence" of birds within the 10 km grid cell(s) that
overlap your project; not your exact project footprint. On the graphs provided, please also look
carefully at the survey effort (indicated by the black vertical bar) and for the existence of the "no
data" indicator (a red horizontal bar). A high survey effort is the key component. If the survey
effort is high, then the probability of presence score can be viewed as more dependable. In
contrast, a low survey effort bar or no data bar means a lack of data and, therefore, a lack of
certainty about presence of the species. This list is not perfect; it is simply a starting point for
identifying what birds of concern have the potential to be in your project area, when they might
be there, and if they might be breeding (which means nests might be present). The list helps you
know what to look for to confirm presence, and helps guide you in knowing when to implement
conservation measures to avoid or minimize potential impacts from your project activities,
should presence be confirmed. To learn more about conservation measures, visit the FAQ "Tell
me about conservation measures I can implement to avoid or minimize impacts to migratory
birds" at the bottom of your migratory bird trust resources page.

07/02/2021
Event Code: 04EN1000-2021-E-01708 1
Wetlands
Impacts to NWI wetlands and other aquatic habitats may be subject to regulation under Section
404 of the Clean Water Act, or other State/Federal statutes.
For more information please contact the Regulatory Program of the local U.S. Army Corps of
Engineers District.
Please note that the NWI data being shown may be out of date. We are currently working to
update our NWI data set. We recommend you verify these results with a site visit to determine
the actual extent of wetlands on site.
FRESHWATER FORESTED/SHRUB WETLAND
■ PFO1A
FRESHWATER POND
■ PUBH
RIVERINE
■ R4SBC
■ R5UBH

United States Department of the Interior
FISH AND WILDLIFE SERVICE
Asheville Ecological Services Field Office
160 Zillicoa Street
Asheville, NC 28801-1082
Phone: [phone] Fax: [phone]
http://www.fws.govinc-es/es/countyfr.html
IPaC Record Locator: 601-103536148
July 02, 2021
Subject: Consistency letter for the 'Misenheimer Solar' project indicating that any take of the
northern long-eared bat that may occur as a result of the Action is not prohibited
under the ESA Section 4(d) rule adopted for this species at 50 CFR §17.40(o).
Dear Eli Wright:
The U.S. Fish and Wildlife Service (Service) received on July 02, 2021 your effects
determination for the 'Misenheimer Solar' (the Action) using the northern long-eared bat (Myotis
septentrionalis) key within the Information for Planning and Consultation (IPaC) system. You
indicated that no Federal agencies are involved in funding or authorizing this Action. This IPaC
key assists users in determining whether a non -Federal action may cause "take"W of the northern
long-eared bat that is prohibited under the Endangered Species Act of 1973 (ESA) (87 Stat.884,
as amended; 16 U.S.C. 1531 et seq.).
Based upon your IPaC submission, any take of the northern long-eared bat that may occur as a
result of the Action is not prohibited under the ESA Section 4(d) rule adopted for this species at
50 CFR §17.40(0). Unless the Service advises you within 30 days of the date of this letter that
your IPaC-assisted determination was incorrect, this letter verifies that the Action is not likely to
result in unauthorized take of the northern long-eared bat.
Please report to our office any changes to the information about the Action that you entered into
IPaC, the results of any bat surveys conducted in the Action area, and any dead, injured, or sick
northern long-eared bats that are found during Action implementation.
If your Action proceeds as described and no additional information about the Action's effects on
species protected under the ESA becomes available, no further coordination with the Service is
required with respect to the northern long-eared bat.
The IPaC-assisted determination for the northern long-eared bat does not apply to the following
ESA -protected species that also may occur in your Action area:
■ Schweinitz's Sunflower Helianthus schweinitzii Endangered
You may coordinate with our Office to determine whether the Action may cause prohibited take
of the animal species listed above.

07/02/2021 IPaC Record Locator: 601-103536148
[1]Take means to harass, harm, pursue, hunt, shoot, wound, kill, trap, capture, or collect, or to
attempt to engage in any such conduct [ESA Section 3(19)].

07/02/2021 IPaC Record Locator: 601-103536148 3
Action Description
You provided to IPaC the following name and description for the subject Action.
1. Name
Misenheimer Solar
2. Description
The following description was provided for the project 'Misenheimer Solar':
The proposed project involves the development of agriculture, silviculture and
forested lands for the construction and operation of a power generating solar site
and associated facilities (including substations, utility lines, access roads, etc).
Approximate location of the project can be viewed in Google Maps: https://www.google.com/
maps/@35.48359725,-80.29786458445086,14z
Determination Key Result
This non -Federal Action may affect the northern long-eared bat; however, any take of this
species that may occur incidental to this Action is not prohibited under the final 4(d) rule at 50
CFR § 17.40(0).
Determination Key Description: Northern Long-eared Bat 4(d) Rule
This key was last updated in IPaC on May 15, 2017. Keys are subject to periodic revision.
This key is intended for actions that may affect the threatened northern long-eared bat.
The purpose of the key for non -Federal actions is to assist determinations as to whether proposed
actions are excepted from take prohibitions under the northern long-eared bat 4(d) rule.
If a non -Federal action may cause prohibited take of northern long-eared bats or other ESA -listed
animal species, we recommend that you coordinate with the Service.

07/02/2021 IPaC Record Locator: 601-103536148 4
Determination Key Result
Based upon your IPaC submission, any take of the northern long-eared bat that may occur as a
result of the Action is not prohibited under the ESA Section 4(d) rule adopted for this species at
50 CFR § 17.40(0).
Qualification Interview
1. Is the action authorized, funded, or being carried out by a Federal agency?
No
2. Will your activity purposefully Take northern long-eared bats?
No
3. [Semantic] Is the project action area located wholly outside the White -nose Syndrome
Zone?
Automatically answered
No
4. Have you contacted the appropriate agency to determine if your project is near a known
hibernaculum or maternity roost tree?
Location information for northern long-eared bat hibernacula is generally kept in state
Natural Heritage Inventory databases — the availability of this data varies state -by -state.
Many states provide online access to their data, either directly by providing maps or by
providing the opportunity to make a data request. In some cases, to protect those resources,
access to the information may be limited. A web page with links to state Natural Heritage
Inventory databases and other sources of information on the locations of northern long-
eared bat roost trees and hibernacula is available at www.fws.gov/midwest/endangered/
mammals/nleb/nhisites.html.
Yes
5. Will the action affect a cave or mine where northern long-eared bats are known to
hibernate (i.e., hibernaculum) or could it alter the entrance or the environment (physical or
other alteration) of a hibernaculum?
No
6. Will the action involve Tree Removal?
Yes
7. Will the action only remove hazardous trees for the protection of human life or property?
No
8. Will the action remove trees within 0.25 miles of a known northern long-eared bat
hibernaculum at any time of year?
No

07/02/2021 IPaC Record Locator: 601-103536148 5
9. Will the action remove a known occupied northern long-eared bat maternity roost tree or
any trees within 150 feet of a known occupied maternity roost tree from June 1 through
July 31?
No

07/02/2021 IPaC Record Locator: 601-103536148 6
Project Questionnaire
If the project includes forest conversion, report the appropriate acreages below.
Otherwise, type '0' in questions 1-3.
1. Estimated total acres of forest conversion:
550
2. If known, estimated acres of forest conversion from April 1 to October 31
0
3. If known, estimated acres of forest conversion from June 1 to July 31
0
If the project includes timber harvest, report the appropriate acreages below.
Otherwise, type '0' in questions 4-6.
4. Estimated total acres of timber harvest
0
5. If known, estimated acres of timber harvest from April 1 to October 31
0
6. If known, estimated acres of timber harvest from June 1 to July 31
0
If the project includes prescribed fire, report the appropriate acreages below.
Otherwise, type '0' in questions 7-9.
7. Estimated total acres of prescribed fire
0
8. If known, estimated acres of prescribed fire from April 1 to October 31
0
9. If known, estimated acres of prescribed fire from June 1 to July 31
0
If the project includes new wind turbines, report the megawatts of wind capacity
below. Otherwise, type '0' in question 10.
10. What is the estimated wind capacity (in megawatts) of the new turbine(s)?
0

7/2/2021
Fish and Wildlife Service
Asheville Ecological Services Field
Office
Conserving the Nature of America
• Asheville Field
Office home
• Project planning
and review
• Design and
construction
recommendations
• Biological
assessment
contents and tips
• Refuge Finder
• Service Finder
• Office Finder
• Contact Finder
Northern long-eared bat — what it means for your project
General information about the northern long-eared bat
(Note: This simply describes Northern long-eared bat protections under the Endangered
Species Act. Please contact the North Carolina Wildlife Resources Commission to ensure
compliance with any state wildlife laws.)
Background on Endangered Species Act and the Northern long-eared bat
In 2015, Northern long-eared bats were listed as threatened under the Endangered Species
Act (ESA), due to the impacts of white -nose syndrome, a disease which has killed millions
of cave -hibernating bats.Because white -nose syndrome is the major threat, we chose not to
apply broad protections across the bat's entire range, focusing instead on locations and time
periods especially important for the bat. Regardless of the legal protections afforded the
Northern long-eared bat, we always encourage people to take proactive steps to conserve
bats whenever possible.
Endangered Species Act protections for the Northern long-eared bat
The ESA protects threatened and endangered wildlife from "take," which includes harming,
harassing, or killing a listed species. However, the Service implemented a special rule under
section 4(d) of the ESA providing flexibility to those working in northern long-eared bat
habitat. Under the 4(d) rule:
All intentional take is prohibited, except:
• • Defense of human life (includes for public health monitoring)
• • Removal of hazardous trees for protection of human life and property
• • Removal of bats from human structures (check with the N.C. Wildlife Resources
Commission to ensure compliance with state wildlife laws)
• • Limited research permit exemption through May 3, 2016
In western North Carolina, incidental take without a permit is prohibited:
• • Within hibernation sites (includes disturbing or disrupting hibernating individuals and
alternation of hibernation habitat, including cave or mine entrance, when bats are not
present)
• • Within 1/4 mile of a known hibernation site
• • Within a 150-foot radius of a known, occupied maternity roost during the pup
season (June 1- July 31)
Western North Carolina areas where incidental take may be a special consideration
According to the Service's records, confirmed hibernation and maternity sites for this
species occur in the counties listed/highlighted below. To learn if your project requires
further consultation, click on the highlighted counties or select a county from the list below to
see areas that may be subject to restrictions related to maternity and hibernation sites.
If your project is located entirely outside of the gray shaded areas and your project does not
require prohibited intentional take (see above), then your project has met the criteria for the
4(d) rule, any associated take is therefore exempt, and it is not necessary to wait 30 days
for the Service to object or concur. Unless you or your agency has established a surrogate
consultation procedure with the Service, please complete this consultation form (pdf 66 KB)
and submit it to the Asheville Field Office, 160 Zillicoa St., Asheville, NC 28801, or via email
to nleb notifications [e-mail].
The consultation form is not necessary if an action agency determines that a proposed
action will have no effect on the Northern long-eared bat. Providing this information does not
address section 7(a)(2) compliance for any other listed species. For questions about ESA
permits or Northern long-eared bats in western North Carolina, contact the Asheville Field
Office at 828/258-3939.
Project planning and
review contacts:
Address for all:
160 Zillicoa St.
Asheville, NC 28801
Holland Youngman
holland [e-mail]
Projects involving the North
Carolina Department of
Transportation or Federal
Highway Administration
Lauren Wilson
Projects involving the North
Carolina Department of
Transportation or Federal
Highway Administration
Rebekah Reid
cell - 828/782-0090
rebekah [e-mail]
Project planning and review
Byron Hamstead
office - 828/258-3939, ext.
42225
cell - 828/337-2726
byron [e-mail]
Projects involving the U.S.
Army Corps of Engineers
Bryan Tompkins
office - 828/257-3939,
ext.42240
cell - 828 450-7586
bryan [e-mail]
Projects involving the
Federal Energy Regulatory
Commission, Tennessee
Valley Authority, or Natural
Resources Conservation
Service
https://www.fws.gov/asheville/htmis/project_review/NLEB_in_WNC.html 1/3

7/2/2021 Fish and Wildlife Service
Click on a county for more county -specific maps
Click on a county name for more
information
(Red HUC maps for those following U.S.
Army Corps of Engineers guidance)
• • Avery • • Macon
• • Cherokee • • McDowell
• • Clay • • Rutherford
• • Jackson • • Swain
• • Haywood • • Yancey
• • Henderson
For GIS users - download shapefiles of areas with confirmed
hibernation and maternity sites (last updated September 4, 2018)
Taking extra steps to help the Northern long-eared bat
Beyond the requirements of the Endangered Species Act, we heartily encourage pro -active
conservation steps to help conserve this species:
• • Prior to implementing a project, survey for northern long-eared bats. Such data
allows us to better understand the bat's habitat use and distribution, track its status,
evaluate threats and impacts, and develop effective recovery actions.
• • Remove trees outside the pup season (June 1 to July 31) and/or active season
(April 1 to October 31) to reduce the chance of impacting unidentified maternity
roosts
• • Avoid clearing habitat within a 5-mile radius of hibernation sites when bats are
emerging from or preparing for hibernation (April 1 to May 15 and August 15 to
November 14, respectively).
• • Manage forests to ensure a continual supply of snags and other suitable maternity
roost trees.
• • Conduct prescribed burns outside the pup season (June 1 to July 31) and/or the
active season (April 1 to October 31), and avoid high -intensity burns.
• • Perform bridge repair, retrofit, or maintenance outside the bat's active season (April
1 to October 31) in areas where they are known to roost on bridges or where such
https://www.fws.gov/asheville/htmis/project_review/NLEB_in_WNC.html 2/3

7/2/2021 Fish and Wildlife Service
use is likely.
• • Minimize use of herbicides and pesticides. If necessary, spot treatment is preferred
over aerial application.
• • Minimize light pollution during the active season by angling lights downward or via
other light minimization measures.
Note: Fish & Wildlife Service project planning and review is coordinated by the Asheville
Field Office in the western half of North Carolina and by the Raleigh Field Office in the
eastern half.
The North Carolina Wildlife Resources Commission has developed a A Guidance
Memorandum to Address and Mitigate Secondary and Cumulative Impacts to Aquatic and
Terrestrial Wildlife Resources and Water Quality. The memorandum provides numerous
recommendations to address the environmental impacts that may result from a project. We
support this document and encourage you to use it.
r
i ,-
tit"
.r
4
Questions, comments or concerns about the website, contact [e-mail] or 828/258-3939, ext. 234
Last Updated: June 7, 2016
https://www.fws.gov/asheville/htmis/project_review/NLEB_in_WNC.html 3/3

A.■
■■ e NC DEPARTMENT OF
a
■ at■■ NATURAL AND CULTURAL RESOURCES
✓ ..roi
July 2, 2021
Eli Wright
Timmons Group
1001 Boulders Pkwy #300
Richmond, VA 23225
RE: Misenheimer Solar
Dear Eli Wright:
Roy Cooper, Governor
D. Reid Wilson, Secretary
Walter Clark
Director, Division of Land and Water Stewardship
NCNHDE-15014
The North Carolina Natural Heritage Program (NCNHP) appreciates the opportunity to provide
information about natural heritage resources for the project referenced above.
A query of the NCNHP database indicates that there are records for rare species, important natural
communities, natural areas, and/or conservation/managed areas within the proposed project
boundary. These results are presented in the attached `Documented Occurrences' tables and map.
The attached 'Potential Occurrences' table summarizes rare species and natural communities that
have been documented within a one -mile radius of the property boundary. The proximity of these
records suggests that these natural heritage elements may potentially be present in the project area
if suitable habitat exists. Tables of natural areas and conservation/managed areas within a one -mile
radius of the project area, if any, are also included in this report.
If a Federally -listed species is documented within the project area or indicated within a one -mile
radius of the project area, the NCNHP recommends contacting the US Fish and Wildlife Service
(USFWS) for guidance. Contact information for USFWS offices in North Carolina is found here:
https://www.fws.gov/offices/Di rectory/ListOffices.cfm?statecode=37.
Please note that natural heritage element data are maintained for the purposes of conservation
planning, project review, and scientific research, and are not intended for use as the primary criteria
for regulatory decisions. Information provided by the NCNHP database may not be published
without prior written notification to the NCNHP, and the NCNHP must be credited as an information
source in these publications. Maps of NCNHP data may not be redistributed without permission.
Also please note that the NC Natural Heritage Program may follow this letter with additional
correspondence if a Dedicated Nature Preserve, Registered Heritage Area, Land and Water Fund
easement, or an occurrence of a Federally -listed species is documented near the project area.
If you have questions regarding the information provided in this letter or need additional assistance,
please contact Rodney A. Butler at [e-mail] or 919-707-8603.
Sincerely,
NC Natural Heritage Program
DEPARTMENT OF NATURAL AND CULTURAL RESOURCES
1) 1:1 W. JONES STREET, RALEIGI t NC 27603 1OS1 MAIL SERVICE CENTER. RALEIGH. NC 27699
OFC 9157079120 • FA x 919.707.9121

Natural Heritage Element Occurrences, Natural Areas, and Managed Areas Intersecting the Project Area
Misenheimer Solar
July 2, 2021
NCNHDE-15014
Element Occurrences Documented Within Project Area
axonomic Scientific am ommon Name
Group
Last
Observation
Date
Element Accuracy
Occurrence
Rank
Federal
Status
State
Status
Global State
Rank Rank
Freshwater 27822 Villosa delumbis
Bivalve
Eastern Creekshell
2004-05-20
E 3-Medium
Significantly
Rare
G4 S4
No Natural Areas are Documented within the Project Area
No Managed Areas Documented within the Project Area
Definitions and an explanation of status designations and codes can be found at httos://ncnhde.natureserve.ora/helo. Data query generated on July 2, 2021; source: NCNHP, Q1 April 2021. Please
resubmit your information request if more than one year elapses before project initiation as new information is continually added to the NCNHP database.
Page 2 of 4

Natural Heritage Element Occurrences, Natural Areas, and Managed Areas Within a One -mile Radius of the Project Area
Misenheimer Solar
July 2, 2021
NCNHDE-15014
Element Occurrences Documented Within a One -mile Radius of the Project Area
Taxonomic EO ID Scientific Name Common Name ast Element Accuracy Federal State Global State
Group Observation Occurrence Status Status Rank Rank
Date Rank
Freshwater 27822 Villosa delumbis Eastern Creekshell 2004-05-20 E 3-Medium
Bivalve
Freshwater 7912 Villosa vaughaniana Carolina Creekshell 2014-08-27 E 3-Medium
Bivalve
Significantly G4 S4
Rare
Endangered G2G3 S3
Vascular Plant 9656 Helianthus laevigatus Smooth Sunflower 1988-10-10 X 3-Medium Special G4 S3
Concern
Vulnerable
Vascular Plant 5251 Helianthus laevigatus Smooth Sunflower 2007-09-13 B 2-High Special G4 S3
Concern
Vulnerable
Vascular Plant 20753 Helianthus schweinitzii Schweinitz's Sunflower 2013-10-10 F 3-Medium Endangered Endangered G3 S3
Natural Areas Documented Within a One -mile Radius of the Project Area
Site Name Representational Rating r Collective Rating
Ritchies Hardpan Forest R3 (High) C5 (General)
Managed Areas Documented Within a One -mile Radius of the Project Area
anage
•
rea
ame
Three Rivers Land Trust Easement
NC Land and Water Fund Project
Three Rivers Land Trust
NC DNCR, NC Land and Water Fund
Owner Type
Private
State
Definitions and an explanation of status designations and codes can be found at https://ncnhde.natureserve.orq/help. Data query generated on July 2, 2021; source: NCNHP, Q1 April 2021. Please
resubmit your information request if more than one year elapses before project initiation as new information is continually added to the NCNHP database.
Page 3 of 4

NCNHDE-15014: Misenheimer Solar
136
rr
d 1
par cre /
� 1
ktlay
G
✓<
1'
Rrchhold
Path!!!
July 2, 2021
❑ Project Boundary
❑ Buffered Project Boundary
• NHP Natural Area (NHNA)
• Managed Area (MAREA)
0 0-325
? ?
0 0-5
1:38,400
9.65
1
1.3 mi
r I �
2 km
Sources: Esri, HERE. Garmin, Inlermap, increment P Corp.. GERCO, USGS,
FAO. NPS, NRCAN, Sangria. IGN. Kadaster NL, Ordnance Survey. Esri Japan.
ME7f- Esri China {Hung Kpng), () apen5lreeMAap cantrbutors, and the GIS
User Community
Page 4 of 4

Enclosure 3
Protected Species Survey Report — November 2020

PREPARED FOR:
ORION RENEWABLE ENERGY GROUP, LLC
155 GRAND AVE #706
OAKLAND, CA 94612
PROTECTED SPECIES SURVEY
SCHWEINITZ'S SUNFLOWER &
GEORGIA ASTER
MISENHEIMER SOLAR
NOVEMBER 2020
PREPARED BY:
TIMMONS GROUP ..6" 40
YOUR VISION ACHIEVED THROUGH OURS. 6
1001 BOLDERS PARKWAY
RICHMOND, VIRGINIA 23225
WWW.TIMMONS.COM
TIMMONS GROUP PROJECT NO 41859.002

EXECUTIVE SUMMARY
On behalf of Orion Renewable Energy Group, LLC, Timmons Group has conducted a
presence/absence survey of the Schweinitz's sunflower (Helianthus schweinitzii) and the
Georgia aster (Symphyotrichum georgianum) within the project study limits of the Misenheimer
Solar project (Site).
The Site encompasses approximately 668 acres and is located along US 52 Highway
North in Stanly County, North Carolina (see Figure 1: Vicinity Map). The Site is in the Piedmont
Physiographic Province within the Lower Yadkin (HUC 0304013) and the Rocky -Upper Pee Dee
River Basin (HUC 0340105) watersheds. The Site is drained by Long Creek and unnamed
tributaries of Long Creek to the south and Curl Tail Creek and unnamed tributaries to Curl Tail
Creek to the north (see Figure 2: Hydrologic Unit Code Map). A 100-year floodplain (Zone A)
occurs along the south-central property boundary of the Site (See Figure 3: Environmental
Inventory Map). The majority of the Site consists of undeveloped silviculture land interspersed
with agriculture fields. It is bound in all directions by a mix of forested lands, single family
homes, and agricultural lands. An easement with overhead electrical utilities transects the
southern portion of the Site from southeast to northwest.
Habitat delineation investigations previously conducted on the Site by Timmons Group
included a wetland and waters of the U.S. delineation, a protected species habitat assessment
and negative presence/absence survey for the target species in 2018 (results are summarized
in Figure 4: Biological Community Assemblage Map). An updated detailed presence/absence
survey of both Schweinitz's sunflower (Helianthus schweinitzii) and the Georgia aster
(Symphyotrichum georgianum) was conducted from October 12-14, 2020. All potential habitat
areas for these species were surveyed in detail. The survey was conducted within the United
States Fish and Wildlife Service (USFWS) optimal survey window for both species, which is late
August through October for Schweinitz's sunflower and October through mid -November for the
Georgia aster. A new population of Schweinitz's sunflower was identified during the field
investigation. No individuals of Georgia aster were observed within the site.
Protected Species Survey: Schweinitz's sunflower & Georgia aster Timmons Group
Misenheimer Solar November 2020
Page i

PROTECTED SPECIES SURVEY:
SCHWEINITZ'S SUNFLOWER & GEORGIA ASTER
MISENHEIMER SOLAR
TABLE OF CONTENTS
EXECUTIVE SUMMARY i
1.0 PROJECT DESCRIPTION 1
2.0 SITE INFORMATION 1
2.1 Site Location 1
2.2 Site Description 1
3.0 BACKGROUND & ASSESSMENT METHODS 2
3.1 Background - Schweinitz's sunflower (Helianthus schweinitzii) 2
3.2 Background - Georgia aster (Symphyotrichum georgianum) 3
3.3 Data Review / Preliminary Investigations 4
3.4 Field Survey Methods 4
4.0 PROTECTED SPECIES SURVEY FINDINGS 5
4.1 Schweinitz's sunflower (Helianthus schweinitzii) — Survey Findings5
4.2 Georgia aster (Symphyotrichum georgianum) - Survey Findings 6
5.0 REFERENCES 7
APPENDICES
APPENDIX A — FIGURES
Figure 1
Figure 2
Figure 3
Figure 4A
Figure 4B
Figure 5
Vicinity Map
Hydrologic Unit Code Map
Environmental Inventory Map
Biological Community Assemblage Map: Aerial
Biological Community Assemblage Maps: USGS
Helianthus schweinitzii Location Map
APPENDIX B — PHOTOGRAPHIC LOG
Protected Species Survey: Schweinitz's sunflower & Georgia aster Timmons Group
Misenheimer Solar November 2020
Page ii

1.0 PROJECT DESCRIPTION
On behalf of Orion Renewable Energy Group, LLC, Timmons Group conducted a
presence/absence survey of the Schweinitz's sunflower (Helianthus schweinitzii) and the
Georgia aster (Symphyotrichum georgianum) within the project study limits of the Misenheimer
Solar project (Site). This survey was initiated following a Protected Species Habitat Assessment
and 2018 Presence/Absence Survey to evaluate the Site for state and federally protected
species.
Per the US Fish and Wildlife Services (USFWS) guidance, surveys for these target
species are only valid for 2 years. Therefore, the Site was reevaluated for occurrences of
Schweinitz's sunflower and Georgia Aster by Timmons Group environmental scientists Eli
Wright, Melissa Davis, Ben Sagara, and Ben Crumrine through a detailed level
presence/absence survey conducted of the Site between October 12-14, 2020. The survey was
conducted within the optimal survey window for both species, which is late August through
October for Schweinitz's sunflower and October through mid -November for the Georgia Aster,
according to USFWS.
2.0 SITE INFORMATION
2.1 Site Location
The Site encompasses approximately 668 acres and is transected by US 52 Highway
North. The Site is within Stanly County, North Carolina (see Figure 1: Vicinity Map) and is
within the Piedmont Physiographic Province. A drainage divide is located within the Site,
roughly corresponding with location US 52, and includes the Lower Yadkin (HUC 0304013) and
the Rocky -Upper Pee Dee River Basin (HUC 0340105) watersheds. The Site is drained by Long
Creek and unnamed tributaries of Long Creek to the south and Curl Tail Creek and unnamed
tributaries to Curl Tail Creek to the north (see Figure 2: Hydrologic Unit Code Map).
2.2 Site Description
The Site is bound in all directions by a mix of forested lands, single family homes, and
agricultural lands. The Site primarily consists of undeveloped silviculture land interspersed with
agriculture fields. Several maintained hunting lanes, or shooting lanes, which create star shaped
patterns are scattered throughout the northern portion of the Site, north of US 52 Hwy N. These
shooting lanes are periodically cleared so that primarily herbaceous cover grows. The northern
portion of the Site is accessible where the Site is abutting Reeves Island Road along the
eastern Site boundary. There are several well -maintained hunting, logging, and agricultural
roads which run throughout the Site. A second access point is located where the eastern Site
boundary runs along Wesley Chapel Road. This second access point allows access to the
southern portion of the Site. Two unnamed tributaries of Riles Creek flow north and exit the Site
along the northeastern Site boundary. An easement with overhead electrical utilities transects
the southern portion of the Site from southeast to northwest. Curl Tail Creek flows northwest to
southeast along the southwestern property boundary in the parcel directly north of US 52 Hwy
N. Several unnamed tributaries of Curl Tail Creek are onsite, flowing south into Curl Tail Creek.
The portion of the Site south of US 52 Hwy N is drained by Long Creek and unnamed tributaries
of Long Creek, which generally flow south to southeast. A 100-year floodplain (Zone A)
Protected Species Survey: Schweinitz's sunflower & Georgia aster Timmons Group
Misenheimer Solar November 2020
Page 1

associated with Long Creek occurs along the south-central property boundary of the Site (See
Figure 3: Environmental Inventory Map).
3.0 BACKGROUND & ASSESSMENT METHODS
3.1 Background - Schweinitz's sunflower (Helianthus schweinitzii)
Schweinitz's sunflower (Helianthus schweinitzii) was federally listed as endangered on
May 7, 1991. This species, endemic to the piedmont of North Carolina and South Carolina, is
endangered by the loss of historic levels of natural disturbance from fire and grazing by native
herbivores, residential and industrial development, mining, encroachment by exotic species,
highway construction and improvement, and roadside and utility right-of-way maintenance
(Fields, 2007).
Schweinitz's sunflower is a perennial species of the sunflower genus (Helianthus), a
large genus of the aster family (Asteraceae). Like some other members of the genus,
Schweinitz's sunflower has thickened, tuberous rhizomes (resembling sweet potatoes), which
store starch and are the perennating structure for the species. Generally, the species is about 2
meters in height but can be substantially shorter if young, stressed, or injured (mowed plants
can flower at less than 0.5 meters) or substantially taller (plants in full sun and with little
competition frequently reach 3 meters and, exceptionally, 5 meters). The stem is usually
unbranched in its lower portion (unless the stem apex is injured or removed, as by mowing), but
the terminal one-third of the stem (in the inflorescence) is freely branched, with the branches
departing from the stem at about a 45-degree angle. The stem is usually pubescent but can be
nearly glabrous: it is often purple. Leaves are sessile (lack a petiole), scabrous above and
densely pubescent underneath. Flowering occurs in late summer from September to November
in the Carolinas (Radford et al. 1968). Individuals can reproduce clonally through underground
rhizomes and are capable of producing seeds that mature in late autumn (Weakly et al., 1994).
The original habitat of Schweinitz's sunflower was most likely the "Piedmont prairie
ecosystem". While the exact historic range of the prairies and their flora is uncertain, early
explorers such as John Lederer, John Lawson, and Mark Catesby reported large regions of
prairie or savanna in the Carolina Piedmont. Natural forces were no doubt a factor in keeping
succession at bay in historic times. Mammalian megafauna (bison and elk) that survived the
mass extinction at the end of the Pleistocene Epoch were reported in historic times in the
Carolina Piedmont. The grazing and trampling of plants by these large herbivores may have
maintained Piedmont savannas, similar to the ways that large herds of modern herbivores are
thought to maintain prairies and other grassland environments today. Fire is also known to be a
key element that favors certain grasses and forbs and prevents encroachment of woody
invasives. To a certain degree fires are natural, often started by lightning during thunderstorms.
However, Native Americans also set fires to maintain open landscapes for agriculture and
hunting. This anthropogenic practice probably facilitated a large distribution pattern for H.
schweinitzii and other prairie -adapted species (Fields, 2007).
Currently, Schweinitz's sunflower is considered endemic to the piedmont Carolinas.
While the possibility exists that this species and certain other prairie species may have always
been endemic to the region, their range and abundance has no doubt been greatly reduced. A
few fragments of prairie persist in the Carolina Piedmont, but with increased practice of fire
suppression and no megafauna to maintain the grassland habitat, these prairie habitats are
Protected Species Survey: Schweinitz's sunflower & Georgia aster Timmons Group
Misenheimer Solar November 2020
Page 2

diminishing in size and abundance. Extant populations of Schweinitz's sunflower naturally occur
in upland wood edges or openings, roadsides, and utility rights -of -way. This is likely due to the
periodic disturbance of such microsites by mowing, the effects of which essentially mimic the
effects of grazing or semi -frequent fire disturbance (Fields, 2007).
Another factor that may affect the distribution of Schweinitz's sunflower is geology.
Though it is found primarily on soils derived from mafic rocks, Schweinitz's sunflower apparently
also occurs on soils derived from intermediate or felsic rocks. The main unifying factors in all the
soils appears to be that they are thin, occur on upland interstream flats or gentle slopes, are
clayey in texture (and often also with substantial rock fragments), and (because of their
topographic position and texture) vary over the course of the year from very wet to very dry.
This set of conditions makes these soils poor for agricultural use and ideal for populations of
Schweinitz's sunflower (Weakly et al. 1994).
3.2 Background - Georgia aster (Symphyotrichum georgianum)
The Georgia aster (Symphyotrichum georgianum) is a North Carolina state threatened
species and has been a federal species of concern since 1999, meaning it warranted inclusion
on the list, but other species were a higher priority. Although no federal protections are afforded
to candidate species, the USFWS may rise the status of a candidate spices to the rank of
federally threatened or endangered if it is determined there are sufficient threats to the survival
of the species. This species is native to the southeastern U.S. and has about 126 known
populations. Most of these are small, consisting of stands of only 10-100 stems but a few have
around 1000 stems. The species biggest threats include conversion of habitat to developments,
pastures, highways, and pine plantations, the use of herbicides in roadside and utility
right-of-ways, invasion of habitat by exotic pest plants, and canopy closure/encroachment by
woody plants.
The Georgia aster is a perennial herb forming colonies by underground stems. Its stems
range from 50 - 100 cm tall and are rough or hairy, with a few branches. Leaves are generally
2 - 7 cm long and 1 - 2 cm wide. Leaf arrangement is alternate, and leaves are thick with rough
hairs, pointed tips, and bases clasping the stem. Flower heads are 4 - 6 cm wide with bright
purple ray flowers, reddish disk flowers, and purple -tipped stamens that produce white pollen.
Four series of narrow green bracts, about 8 - 12 mm high, form a cup (involucre) that surround
the underside of the flower head. The bracts are covered with hairs and tiny glands. The fruits
are less than 2.5 - 4 mm long and are dry, seed -like, and hairy. (Weakley, 2008 and Cronquist,
1980).
The Georgia aster is also a relict species of post oak savanna/prairie communities and
lives in woodlands or piedmont prairies dominated by native plants. The plant prefers open
areas and disturbance (fire, native grazers, periodic mowing, etc.) is part of this plant's habitat
requirements. The species is a good competitor with other early successional species but tends
to decline when shaded. Most remaining populations occur adjacent to roads, utility rights -of -
way, openings in rocky, upland oak -hickory -pine forests and other openings where current land
management mimics natural disturbance regimes, usually with circumneutral soils
(USFWS, 2010). These plants are primarily reproducing non -sexually, by means of rhizomes,
and so each population probably represents just a few genotypes. Many populations are
vulnerable to accidental destruction from utility and road maintenance activities such as
herbicide application, and from road expansion. Other populations are threatened by residential
development and/or encroachment of invasive exotic plants. This species has also suffered
from fire suppression (Southern Appalachian Species Viability Project 2002, USFWS 2010).
Protected Species Survey: Schweinitz's sunflower & Georgia aster Timmons Group
Misenheimer Solar November 2020
Page 3

3.3 Data Review / Preliminary Investigations
An initial desktop assessment of publicly available resources was performed by
Timmons Group in July 2018 prior to any onsite field investigation to determine the potential
habitat of protected/listed species, and if present, the extent of these areas within the Site.
These mapping resources generally included, but were not limited to, United States Geological
Survey (USGS) maps, the U.S. Department of Agriculture Natural Resource Conservation
Service (NRCS) soils database, and the U.S. Fish & Wildlife Service (USFWS) National
Wetlands Inventory (NWI) database. In addition to the review of federal databases, Timmons
Group reviewed the North Carolina Natural Heritage Program (NCNHP) database regarding
natural heritage resources surrounding the Site. A request was submitted for any database
information regarding known and potential occurrences of rare species, natural communities,
and Federally listed species that have been documented within the immediate vicinity of a
specific Site.
Timmons Group conducted field habitat assessments from September 17-20, 2018 by
navigating the Site in general transects and verifying distinct habitat types. The objective of the
field investigation was to determine the presence of suitable habitat for potential protected
species within the Site. Timmons Group evaluated the vegetative community assemblages
during field investigations. The distribution and composition of vegetative communities
throughout the Site are reflections of variations in topography, soils, hydrology, and past and
present land use practices. Based on the vegetative community assemblages observed, general
communities and categories were defined throughout the Site (see Figure 4: Biological
Community Assemblage Map). Following the habitat assessment, a detailed field survey was
conducted to identify the presence or absence of the federally listed, endangered Schweinitz's
sunflower, and the North Carolina threatened and federal species of concern, Georgia aster in
October 2018. Results of that survey did not identify any populations of either target species
within the site.
3.4 Field Survey Methods
An updated detailed field survey was conducted to identify the presence or absence of
Schweinitz's sunflower and Georgia aster within the site. This survey was conducted between
October 12-14, 2020, which is within the optimal survey window for both species. The areas
identified as Utility Easement on Figure 4 were determined to be the most suitable for both
species. Other marginally suitable communities within the Site included large areas identified as
Early Successional areas. The maintained overhead utility easement (approximately 1.5% of the
total Site area) has been present and continuously disturbed since at least 1994. Early
Successional communities, which make up approximately 9% of the Site, are areas that are
currently in a primarily early successional vegetative state. Within the project areas north of US
Hwy 52, many of these early successional areas are maintained in association with hunting
practices, including the star -shaped shooting lanes mentioned in Section 2.2 of this report. The
Utility Easement and all areas identified as Early Successional were navigated in transects with
two scientists walking close to one another, usually within 50 feet, so that a portion of each
transect had visual overlap to ensure total coverage. The goal of this detailed level survey was
to visual observe suitable habitat for flowering individuals of target species. All onsite roads
were also travelled to ensure coverage of marginally suitable habitat.
Protected Species Survey: Schweinitz's sunflower & Georgia aster Timmons Group
Misenheimer Solar November 2020
Page 4

4.0 PROTECTED SPECIES SURVEY FINDINGS
4.1 Schweinitz's sunflower (Helianthus schweinitzii) — Survey Findings
Based on coordination with NCNHP, there is documented occurrences of Schweinitz's
sunflower within a one -mile radius of the Site. In addition, it was determined during our habitat
assessment and 2018 survey that there are vegetative communities within the Site are generally
favorable for this species, the most promising of which are located within the utility easement
along the southern property boundary. Other marginally suitable communities within the Site
include a few large areas of early successional fields, the maintained shooting lanes scattered
throughout the northern portion of the Site, roadsides, and forested edges. A survey for
Schweinitz's sunflower was completed by Timmons Group environmental scientists Eli Wright,
Melissa Davis, Ben Sagara, and Ben Crumrine within areas containing potentially suitable
habitat between October 12-14, 2020, which is within the USFWS recommended survey
window. Prior to the survey representative natural populations of Schweinitz's sunflower were
analyzed to ensure a high level of confidence in species identification. Populations were
observed at the Harvest Field North Carolina Plant Conservation Program preserve near
Pisgah, North Carolina with species expert Dr. Alexander Krings (North Carolina State
University) (Photograph 10, Appendix B: Photo Log) and at a separate site within the Uwharrie
National Forest near Eldorado, North Carolina.
During the survey, the vegetative community within the utility easements were observed
to have the highest diversity and the highest number of species associated with a high
disturbance habitat, including wild quinine (Parthenium integrifolium), rabbit tobacco
(Pseudognaphalium obtusifolium), narrowleaf mountain mint (Pycnanthemum tenuifolium), and
tall sunflower (Helianthus giganteus). Generally, the utility easement area was dominated by
several ubiquitous herbaceous species including goldenrod (Solidago spp.), tickseed sunflower
(Bidens aristosa), blackberry (Rubus spp.), dog fennel (Eupatorium capillifolium), and
Broomsedge (Andropogon virginicus). Much of the utility easement area had been recently
mowed so that only the patches of the easement remained intact. The intact areas appeared to
be representative of the entire utility easement. The large early successional fields were
observed to be densely vegetated with ubiquitous early successional herbaceous species such
as broomsedge, goldenrod, dogfennel and tapered rosette grass (Dichanthelium acuminatum).
Shooting lane areas were well maintained and recently cut. The shooting lane areas were
generally dominated by broomsedge, slender spikegrass (Chasmanthium laxum), frost aster
(Symphyotrichum pilosum) and several unidentified grasses (Poaceae). Representative
photographs of the areas surveyed are included in Appendix B: Photographic Log.
A previously undocumented population of Schweinitz's sunflower was identified onsite
during the detailed survey. The population was found within the southern utility easement along
a forested boundary. The population were flagged with yellow survey tape and extents were
located using submeter capable GPS (for location see Figure 5 - Helianthus schweinitzii
Location Map). A total of 62 individuals (identified as stems organization at ground line) were
identified within the population, with 20 individuals in flower and 25 non -flowering seedlings
(defined as individuals <10 cm in height). Individuals exhibited diagnostic characteristics of the
species including dense pubescence on the underside of leaves and trinerved leaves partway
up the central vein (Photographs #11 through #13, Appendix B: Photo Log). Other notable
species within the immediate vicinity included another species in the same genus, tall sunflower
Protected Species Survey: Schweinitz's sunflower & Georgia aster Timmons Group
Misenheimer Solar November 2020
Page 5

(Helianthus giganteus) and woodland coreopsis (Coreopsis major). (Photographs #16 through
#18, Appendix B: Photo Log).
All identified individuals of H. schweinitzii were found within a relatively narrow band of
the utility easement in an area approximately 45 feet long by 15 feet wide. All individuals were
identified within 12 feet of the forested tree edge line where recent mowing activities had been
avoided (see Photographs #14-15, Appendix B). Some stems identified closer to the interior of
the utility easement were damaged, likely due recent mowing activities. All individuals were
under 1 m in height. A thorough investigation of the utility easement in the vicinity of the
identified population was conducted. Transects were walked by scientist less than 10 feet apart
through the easement from the southeastern project boundary (approximately 800 feet
southeast of the H. schweinitzii population) to the end of highly suitable habitat (approximately
600 feet northwest of the H. schweinitzii population). An exanimation was conducted while
walking transect looking for cut, fallen, or damaged H. schweinitzii within the mowed portions of
the easements. However, no additional observations or individuals were located outside the
identified population.
4.2 Georgia aster (Symphyotrichum georgianum) - Survey Findings
Based on coordination with NCNHP, there are no documented occurrences of Georgia
aster within a one -mile radius of the Site. However, several vegetation communities within the
Site are generally favorable for this species. The Georgia aster has very similar habitat
requirements as the Schweinitz's sunflower, so the areas described as favorable for the
Schweinitz's sunflower (i.e. Utility Easement and Early Successional) were also the focus of the
Georgia aster survey (see Figure 4: Biological Community Assemblage Map). A detailed survey
for the Georgia aster was conducted in concurrence with the Schweinitz's survey and was
completed by Timmons Group environmental scientists Eli Wright, Melissa Davis, Ben Sagara,
and Ben Crumrine within areas containing potentially suitable habitat between October 12-14,
2020, which is within the USFWS recommended survey window. A representative population of
the Georgia aster was analyzed at a site within the Uwharrie National Forest near Eldorado,
North Carolina (Photograph 19, Appendix B: Photo Log) immediately prior to the survey in order
to ensure a high level of confidence in species identification.
No Georgia aster individuals were identified onsite during the detailed survey. A number
of individuals from four (4) species within the Symphyotrichum genus were identified and found
throughout the Site. Three species, Calico Aster (Symphyotrichum lateriflorum), Frost Aster
(Symphyotrichum pilosum), and Small White Aster (Symphyotrichum racemosum) are all
generally considered white aster and their flower morphology and appearance are clearly
distinguishable from the Georgia aster, as these species all have white ray flowers
(Photographs #21-22, Appendix B). One purple aster species was observed on -site, eastern
silver aster (Symphyotrichum concolor), but this species is clearly distinguished from Georgia
aster by its yellow disk flower and lanceolate leaves which are tightly appressed to the stem
(Photograph 20, Appendix B).
Protected Species Survey: Schweinitz's sunflower & Georgia aster Timmons Group
Misenheimer Solar November 2020
Page 6

5.0 REFERENCES
Cronquist, A. 1980. Vascular flora of the southeastern United States, Vol. 1, Asteraceae.
University of North Carolina Press, Chapel Hill.
Fields, Steven. 2007. Schweinitz's Sunflower (Helianthus schweinitzii Torrey And Gray),
(Asterales: Asteraceae) In Upper Piedmont South Carolina. Journal of the South
Carolina Academy of Science, 4, 1.
Radford, A. E., H. E. Ahles, and C. R. Bell. 1968. Manual of the Vascular Flora of the Carolinas.
University of North Carolina Press: Chapel Hill, North Carolina.
Schafale, Michael P., and A.S. Weakley. 1990. Classification of the Natural Communities of
North Carolina. North Carolina Natural Heritage Programs. NCDENR
Southern Appalachian Species Viability Project. 2002. A partnership between the U.S. Forest
Service -Region 8, Natural Heritage Programs in the Southeast, NatureServe, and
independent scientists to develop and review data on 1300+ regionally and locally rare
species in the Southern Appalachian and Alabama region. Database (Access 97)
provided to the U.S. Forest Service by NatureServe, Durham, North Carolina.
USFWS, 2010. Georgia aster (Symphyotrichum georgianum) Fact Sheet. U.S. Fish and Wildlife
Service: Georgia Field Office: Athens, Georgia.
Weakley, A. S., Houk, R. D., and U.S. Fish and Wildlife Service. 1994. Recovery plan for
Schweinitz's sunflower (Helianthus schweinitzii). U.S. Fish and Wildlife Service,
Southeast Region Atlanta, Georgia.
Weakley, A.S. 2015. Flora of the Southern and Mid -Atlantic States, working drat 21 May 2015.
University of North Carolina Herbarium, North Carolina Botanical Garden, Chapel Hill,
NC.
Protected Species Survey: Schweinitz's sunflower & Georgia aster Timmons Group
Misenheimer Solar November 2020
Page 7

APPENDIX A
FIGURES

Path: Y:\804\99999-Orion Renewables\41859.002 - Misenheimer\GIS\Common Shared Exhibits\41859.002-VIC.mxd
WE
w,nrn:lN.r
UNTY
DUNTY
Site limits are approximate.
Topographic imagery from USGS.
•
/ •
•
•
/•
.�
0 2,000 4,000 6,000
8,000
Feet
MI-
:'
4.
♦
....Mlsenhelm er
•
"-"1
•
•
/
I'
1
1
yP
_ USL
Pfeiffer - �1
Gray Stake
Q,ry Sch
r"E'!f FfR Pt
MISENHEIMER SOLAR
STANLY COUNTY, NORTH CAROLINA
FIGURE 1: VICINITY MAP
TIMMONS GROUP w•••••
YOUR VISION ACHIEVED THROUGH OURS. • • 6
TIMMONS GROUP JOB NUMBER:41859.002
PROJECT STUDY LIMITS: 668.0 ACRES
LATITUDE: 35.489557
LONGITUDE: -80.291684
U.S.G.S. QUADRANGLE(S): GOLD HILL & RICHFIELD
DATE(S): 2016
WATERSHED(S): YADKIN PEE DEE RIVER BASIN
HYDROLOGIC UNIT CODE(S):03040103 & 03040105
These plans and associated documents are the exclusive property of TIMMONS GROUP and may not be reproduced in w
limited to construction, bidding, and/or construction staking without the express written consent of TIMMONS GROUP.
hole or in part and shall not be used for any purpose whatsoever, inclusive, but not

05050001
1
05050.001
Game Nell
VdUPSE
Li:; rr]a
Canah's
nburlt7m
aL
granite Fails
•
�•k
Lim -is Creek
Roamer
Bethk: hens
r
SI Stephens
tits Eliot
03050102
LlrLaIitnn
1
1 ;
i.
154 r
FalIslvn t 1
° -- Crouse
n _ i_
-
r7 s ' GAS rON
03050105
Mac ks bu n3
�Ille�'�71iwy .
Lockhart
}
keg..
I•ta-uniain
,FJ'rllanal
Apiary Fork
KIIU1 Ixbuiliun
{ State Park
Hickory Grove
North
'Wilkesboro
'+tii il{esbxh]
u rsv111e
Da Ras
NCORTh CAR(7L{NA
NoliTi1 CAROLINA -
larmr
r
rk
cConnells
YORK
CHESTFa
Lawrys
CLiie nin111
Roarri<<J Fiber
Jones. IF:
Union Grove
rim fr
ag.t. 1 1750 rr
a
Vs.
C
Hiddentte
Stony Point
03050101
Sf a n ley
Neap rl
Strrnlls • 1
Fnrd
F hg3040102
SIa ie5 JIIk
ii.:'uirna
Lake Norman
of Catawba
l
k•Y HOIly
Tega Ca y
arblie
ugkls
rl krrort
Peninsula
. C Iub
‘sy-Inne•
Baan-�lll•-
riiFFFnrilk
l31klrl rile
Shan
.•Park
•I
1
Lewisville
y
F
03040101
hcle:'vtile
€.iII1.L'111
Lreg*
Rein
EasI"Spencer
Ti
11.,1 11.,11
GUILFORp
niur1Plmf
Browns Summit
03010103
inston-ti i rii
Ile
bfe5d:,f•.
`•i1rnmertield
pile Ridgy RoedY Fprk
• F --JosepT,V,9.ye
• T4Mmons
'Triad lnri
A yporl
Bryan
Park
GI Qi11lle
- -909 Ff_
n Raven
Elan Purfington
Green Level
Hare Baer
'^-03010104
Oc carrNchi
Stoonl grilse
. nle ba re
Clemmons - • •' I I 1 r
ewe rso n vil le
Le ring ton
-1fl•- Faith , ti
L kyhrtrok
Go11
Nib
a me has .
ersville
Charlotte
eel.
f Er>,rh'rtlle Q, Second G
n`
L
_Kanntapolis, r
C BARRLIS
f1,f IN 1
Malt
F'rrie voile 4,111
r F 1y
e J. .l x
( / *�, Weddlrgtan
t 1 4,f
Fort N1111 -/ $j°
1. ,,..
F P-
03050103
Rock Hill
Edgemoar
q 1
' ( 7134
I
;n t
,.'.111 'iti yc k 0 1
--+ 1
1
I ..T.7 I
I C]
y,
I 8�
r Cr-
1'1.1 t f 1`. b1Ar
A4e f.le y 1" h
I•.Vn-C.I1
:71.111 I,/
Cane
Creek Park
NORTH CAF;1
Paga4:3"1
s
6 ConCOrtl
IJnio Mate
03040202
hit Pre -5.-nf
F •. 1'1•:•1.1rr'
Deep Creek
Albema
Arwood
Ansonvllle
ey Cheek
(rrh Fork Jon
cpc% NORTH CAROLINA
„ am06 -
SOUTH CAROLINA
Ruby
I-♦igh F'
rin hat ne
Normal
Fore 51
Poo Lie
kkihano1 -
WaiEtto
VaQPsbom
1•Inle slo',Vn
An: hda le
Brkhpad
Mn tin If3rrr
Wiklerne;�.
03040104
n'101ve 11
GUILF(1RD
F.nr1'fI:-m.u1
-.Fr.:. I ". r
03040201
kasant
r:lr'ifn
North
Cimino
Ioobpical
FU rk
Seagrove
Riikinri11n1
ff
cr Belt
1
�
Gr0E
1,
c
For@s l Oa kv
F r�nklrn+die
Norman
I I. mile?
Rani r ur
Eayk Springs
•
Jackson
Springs
'.Robbins
r.t
• Gl boon
03030002
Slk'.r.City
M11 crag*
03030003
ft'1 irr- 11
Seven
Fr. �q,creek
H Ifman
Pinehur :+
Rax,n
I-'Irr-Tian
'1
Canna Mackrilr `
Military •
Rotor -ration
rr
03040204
L.i11r111I'1rr-1
Bee
Maar C -ek
.1ldston
'OM ispering
Fires
03040203
Vass
i 1r1 1
1..
03030004
Fort Bragg
Mlktary
Rextryaiton
0
Crrfrr
'k
at
03020201
Hlllolx r.' u7h Rivet SLl.•
Pa IL
Carrbora Chapel Hill
•
ti
f4.L '1
aarktlsh Creek
•
<6, •
t,
ee CreC' i. L
HpliNfc_�
Legend
Site Marker
■ ■ ■ ■ ■ ■ Yadkin Pee Dee River Basin
■
■■■■■■■
Hydrologic Unit Code
ir
A
O
D
m
c>
z1
3
MISENHEIMER SOLAR
s
D
0
STANLY COUNTY,
NORTH CAROLINA
DATE
10/20/2020
PROJECT NUMBER
41859.002
PROJECT NAME
MISENHEIMER SOLAR
DESIGNED BY / DRAWN BY
M.COOLEY
NOTES:
Site marker is approximate.
HUC from USGS.
Topographic basemap from
Esri Online.
These plans and associated documents are the
exclusive property of TIMMONS GROUP and
may not be reproduced in whole or in part and
shall not be used for any purpose whatsoever,
inclusive, but not limited to construction, bidding,
and/or construction staking without the express
written consent of TIMMONS GROUP.
DRAWING DESCRIPTION
FIGURE 2:
HYDROLOGIC
UNIT CODE MAP
411)
Miles
PLANS PRINTED AS 11X17 ARE HALF SCALE
SCALE
H:
1 "=5Miles
SHEET NUMBER
Y:\804\99999-Orion Renewables\41859.002 - Misenheimer\GIS\Common Shared Exhibits\41859.002-HUC.mxd

Ave
Yadkin Pee Dee Soils
:
Mapunit Symbol
Mapunit Name
BaF
Badin channery silt loam, 15 to 45 percent slopes
*
N
EnB
Enon sandy loam, 2 to 8 percent slopes
OaA
Oakboro silt loam, 0 to 2 percent slopes, frequently flooded
OkA
Oakboro silt loam, 0 to 2 percent slopes, frequently flooded
TaB
Tarrus silt loam, 2 to 8 percent slopes
1
BaB
Badin channery silt loam, 2 to 8 percent slopes
BaC
Badin channery silt loam, 8 to 15 percent slopes
`
BaD
Badin channery silt loam, 8 to 15 percent slopes
BgB
Badin-Goldston complex, 2 to 8 percent slopes
BgC
Badin-Goldston complex, 8 to 15 percent slopes
ChA
Chewacla sandy loam, 0 to 2 percent slopes, frequently flooded
'
CmB
Cid-Lignum complex, 1 to 6 percent slopes
EcB
Enon cobbly loam, 2 to 8 percent slopes
GoC
Goldston very channery silt loam, 4 to 15 percent slopes
GoF
Goldston very channery silt loam, 15 to 45 percent slopes
KcB
Kirksey-Cid complex, 2 to 6 percent slopes
4
KkB
Kirksey silt loam, 0 to 6 percent slopes
w
KkB
Kirksey silt loam, 1 to 6 percent slopes
E
MhB
Misenheimer channery silt loam, 0 to 4 percent slopes
/
MkB
Misenheimer-Kirksey complex, 0 to 5 percent slopes
MsA
Misenheimer channery silt loam, 0 to 4 percent slopes
TbB
Tarrus channery silt loam, 2 to 8 percent slopes
Ud
Udorthents, loamy
'
W
Water
Legend
Project Study Limits- 668.0 Acres
National Hydrography Dataset
National Wetlands Inventory
Zone A: 1 % Annual Chance Flood Hazard
Hydric Soil Rating
Hydric (Not Present)
Partially Hydric
Non-Hydric
BaD
.s
WardhDr
Goodman
Pfeiffer PI
41' .
0
•
•
•
•
0
z
0
0
N
E
E
PROJECT NAME & LOCATION
MER SOLAR
w
w
co
2
DATE
10/20/2020
PROJECT NUMBER
41859.002
PROJECT NAME
MISENHEIMER
DESIGNED BY / DRAWN BY
M.COOLEY
NOTES:
Project Limits are
approximate.
NWI from US Fish and
Wildlife Service.
Soils data from SSURGO.
National Hydrography
Dataset from USGS.
Aerial imagery from Esri.
These plans and associated documents are the
exclusive property of TIMMONS GROUP and
may not be reproduced in whole or in part and
shall not be used for any purpose whatsoever,
inclusive, but not limited to construction, bidding,
and/or construction staking without the express
written consent of TIMMONS GROUP.
REVISIONS
MM/DD/YY
DESCRIPTION
DRAWING DESCRIPTION
FIGURE 3:
ENVIRONMENTAL
INVENTORY MAP
SCALE (FEET)
0 600 1,200
PLANS PRINTED AS 11X17 ARE HALF SCALE
SCALE
H:1 "=600'
SHEET NUMBER
1
Y:\804\99999-Orion Renewables\41859.002 - Misenheimer\GIS\Common Shared Exhibits\41859.002-EIM.mxd

Bottom Land (46.08 Acres)
Maintained/Disturbed Communities
Palustrine Emergent (PEM) Wetlands
Palustrine Forested (PFO) Wetlands
Palustrine Scrub -Shrub (PSS) Wetlands
Non -Jurisdictional Conveyance
•
0
i
•
0
z
0
E
O
N
E
E
PROJECT NAME & LOCATION
MER SOLAR
W
w
co
2
Z
J
DO
Ofl
UQ
U
J
Z I—
I—O
(/)Z
DATE
10/21/2020
PROJECT NUMBER
41859.002
PROJECT NAME
MISENHEIMER
DESIGNED BY / DRAWN BY
M.COOLEY
NOTES:
Project Limits are
approximate.
Community types based on
desktop analysis and field
verification conducted by
Timmons Group.
Aerial imagery from Esri.
These plans and associated documents are the
exclusive property of TIMMONS GROUP and
may not be reproduced in whole or in part and
shall not be used for any purpose whatsoever,
inclusive, but not limited to construction, bidding,
and/or construction staking without the express
written consent of TIMMONS GROUP.
MM/DD/YY
REVISIONS
DESCRIPTION
DRAWING DESCRIPTION
FIGURE 4A:
BIOLOGICAL
COMMUNITY
ASSEMBLAGE
MAP- AERIAL
(IF)
SCALE (FEET)
0 500 1,000
PLANS PRINTED AS 11X17 ARE HALF SCALE
SCALE
H:1 "=500'
SHEET NUMBER
1
Y:\804\99999-Orion Renewables\41859.002 - Misenheimer\GIS\Common Shared Exhibits\41859.002-Biological Community-Aerial.mxd

Maintained/Disturbed Communities
Palustrine Emergent (PEM) Wetlands
Palustrine Forested (PFO) Wetlands
Palustrine Scrub -Shrub (PSS) Wetlands
Non -Jurisdictional Conveyance
ir
PROJECT NAME & LOCATION
MER SOLAR
W
w
co
2
Z
J
DO
Ofl
UQ
U
J
Z I—
I—O
(/)Z
DATE
10/21/2020
PROJECT NUMBER
41859.002
PROJECT NAME
MISENHEIMER
DESIGNED BY / DRAWN BY
M.COOLEY
NOTES:
Project Limits are
approximate.
Community types based on
desktop analysis and field
verification conducted by
Timmons Group.
Aerial imagery from Esri.
These plans and associated documents are the
exclusive property of TIMMONS GROUP and
may not be reproduced in whole or in part and
shall not be used for any purpose whatsoever,
inclusive, but not limited to construction, bidding,
and/or construction staking without the express
written consent of TIMMONS GROUP.
DRAWING DESCRIPTION
FIGURE 4B:
BIOLOGICAL
COMMUNITY
ASSEMBLAGE
MAP- CONTOURS
SCALE (FEET)
0 500 1,000
PLANS PRINTED AS 11X17 ARE HALF SCALE
SCALE
H:1 "=500'
Y:\804\99999-Orion Renewables\41859.002 - Misenheimer\GIS\Common Shared Exhibits\41859.002-Biological Community-USGS.mxd
SHEET NUMBER
1

Legend
Vegetative Communities
L
Oak -Hickory (3.71 Acres)
Bottom Land (46.08 Acres)
Maintained/Disturbed Communities
L/ZZ
Early Successional (58.61 Acres)
Silviculture (543.57 Acres)
Agriculture (153.02Acres)
Utility Easement (9.96 Acres)
Helianthus schweinitzii Population
Wetlands
r
Palustrine Emergent (PEM) Wetlands
Palustrine Forested (PFO) Wetlands
Palustrine Scrub -Shrub (PSS) Wetlands
Palustrine Open Water (POW)
Streams
Culvert
Perennial Stream (R3)
Intermittent Stream (R4)
Non -Jurisdictional Conveyance
•
0
0
•
D
0
z
0
E
O
N
E
E
PROJECT NAME & LOCATION
MER SOLAR
W
w
co
2
Z
J
DO
Ofl
UQ
U
J
Z I—
I—O
(/)Z
DATE
10/21/2020
PROJECT NUMBER
41859.002
PROJECT NAME
MISENHEIMER
DESIGNED BY / DRAWN BY
M.COOLEY
NOTES:
Project Limits are
approximate.
Community types based on
desktop analysis and field
verification conducted by
Timmons Group.
Aerial imagery from Esri.
These plans and associated documents are the
exclusive property of TIMMONS GROUP and
may not be reproduced in whole or in part and
shall not be used for any purpose whatsoever,
inclusive, but not limited to construction, bidding,
and/or construction staking without the express
written consent of TIMMONS GROUP.
REVISIONS
MM/DD/YY
DESCRIPTION
DRAWING DESCRIPTION
FIGURE 5:
HELIANTHUS
SCHWEINITZII
LOCATION MAP
SCALE (FEET)
500 1,000
PLANS PRINTED AS 11X17 ARE HALF SCALE
SCALE
H:1 "=500'
SHEET NUMBER
1
Y:\804\99999-Orion Renewables\41859.002 - Misenheimer\GIS\Common Shared Exhibits\41859.002-Helianthus schweinitzii Location Map.mxd

Maintained/Disturbed Communities
Helianthus schweinitzii Population
Palustrine Emergent (PEM) Wetlands
Palustrine Forested (PFO) Wetlands
Palustrine Scrub -Shrub (PSS) Wetlands
Perennial Stream (R3)
Intermittent Stream (R4)
Non -Jurisdictional Conveyance
0
N
E
E
D
0
cd
••
•
z
•
•• 0
•
O
O
1f)
O
O
> N
la E
▪ 0 co
V �aEJ
w
re
� o
co
• O
O
0
PROJECT NAME & LOCATION
MER SOLAR
W
w
co
2
Z
J
DO
O(1
U<
J
Z I—
I—O
(/)Z
DATE
10/21/2020
PROJECT NUMBER
41859.002
PROJECT NAME
MISENHEIMER
DESIGNED BY / DRAWN BY
M.COOLEY
NOTES:
Project Limits are
approximate.
Community types based on
desktop analysis and field
verification conducted by
Timmons Group.
Aerial imagery from Esri.
These plans and associated documents are the
exclusive property of TIMMONS GROUP and
may not be reproduced in whole or in part and
shall not be used for any purpose whatsoever,
inclusive, but not limited to construction, bidding,
and/or construction staking without the express
written consent of TIMMONS GROUP.
MM/DD/YY
REVISIONS
DESCRIPTION
DRAWING DESCRIPTION
FIGURE 5:
HELIANTHUS
SCHWEINITZII
LOCATION MAP
SCALE (FEET)
0 100 200
PLANS PRINTED AS 11X17 ARE HALF SCALE
SCALE
H:1 "= 100'
SHEET NUMBER
1
Y:\804\99999-Orion Renewables\41859.002 - Misenheimer\GIS\Common Shared Exhibits\41859.002-Helianthus schweinitzii Location Map.mxd

APPENDIX B
PHOTOGRAPHIC LOG

•..••_
°
• •
TIMMONS GROUP
YOUR VISION ACHIEVED THROUGH OURS.
Protected Species Survey Photographic Log
Misenheimer Solar
Photo 1: Typical view of early successional field located near the southeastern extent of the site, just
south of utility easement. (10/14/2020, B. Crumrine)
Photo 2: Another typical view of early successional field located in southern portion of the site, south of
US 52 Highway North. (10/14/2020, B. Crumrine)
1

•..••_
°
• •
TIMMONS GROUP
YOUR VISION ACHIEVED THROOGH OURS.
Protected Species Survey Photographic Log
Misenheimer Solar
Photo 3: Typical view of the maintained areas associated with hunting activities (ie. shooting lanes)
located in northern portion of the site, north of U.S. 52 Highway North. (10/12/2020, B. Sagara)
Photo 4: Another typical view of a maintained opened field/shooting lane used in association with
hunting activities. (10/14/2020 M. Davis)
2

•..••_
°
• •
TIMMONS GROUP
YOUR VISION ACHIEVED THROUGH OURS.
Protected Species Survey Photographic Log
Misenheimer Solar
Photo 5: Typical view of maintained utility easement which runs near the southern eastern site
boundary (10/13/2020 B. Sagara)
Photo 6: Typical view looking southeast along maintained utility easements. Note the lack of tall
herbaceous vegetation due to a recent mowing. Photo taken near location of on -site Schweinitz's
sunflower (Helianthus schweinitzii) population (10/13/2020 E. Wright)
3

•..••
°_
•• •
TIMMONS GROUP
YOUR VISION ACHIEVED THROUGH OURS.
Protected Species Survey Photographic Log
Misenheimer Solar
Photo 7: Typical nothwestern view of western half of utility easements. Note that west of the large
wooded area in the southern portion of the site, the utility easement passes through actively
maintained agricultural lands. (10/13/2020 E. Wright)
Photo 8: Typical view of the largest early successional area located near the center of the southern
portion of the site, south of U.S. 52 Highway north. (10/14/2020 M. Davis)
4

•..••_
°
•• •
TIMMONS GROUP
YOUR VISION ACHIEVED THROUGH OURS.
Protected Species Survey Photographic Log
Misenheimer Solar
Photo 9: Typical eastern view of the largest early successional area located near the center of the
southern portion of the site, south of U.S. 52 Highway north. (10/13/2020 E. Wright)
Photo 10: Schweinitz's sunflower (Helianthus schweinitzii) population being analyzed with species expert
Dr. Alexander Krings at Harvest Field North Carolina Plant Conservation Program preserve. From left to
right; B. Sagara, M. Davis, A. Krings, B. Crumrine. (10/10/2020, E. Wright)
5

•..••_
°
• •
TIMMONS GROUP
YOUR VISION ACHIEVED THROUGH OURS.
Protected Species Survey Photographic Log
Misenheimer Solar
Photo 11: View of typical Schweinitz's sunflower (Helianthus schweinitzii) leaf analyzed from on -site
population. Note the densely pubescent underside of leaf. (10/14/2020 B. Crumrine)
Photo 12: View of typical Schweinitz's sunflower (Helianthus schweinitzii)) inflorescence analyzed from
on -site population. (10/13/2020 E. Wright)
6

•..••_
°
• •
TIMMONS GROUP
YOUR VISION ACHIEVED THROUGH OURS.
Protected Species Survey Photographic Log
Misenheimer Solar
Photo 13: View of typical Schweinitz's sunflower (Helianthus schweinitzii) seedlings from on -site
population. (10/14/2020 M. Davis)
Photo 14: View of entire extent of Schweinitz's sunflower (Helianthus schweinitzii) population onsite. All
identified individuals were within the —45 foot area along the utility easement as shown. Note that all
individuals were found immediately adjacent to tree line (10/13/2020 E. Wright)
7

....•••
•• •
TIMMONS GROUP
YOUR VISION ACHIEVED THROUGH OURS.
Protected Species Survey Photographic Log
Misenheimer Solar
Photo 15: View typical Schweinitz's sunflower (Helianthus schweinitzii) onsite population. Pink pin flags
identify location of individual plants and/or clumps. Note that all individuals are immediately adjacent to
tree line (10/13/2020 E. Wright)
Photo 16: Typical tall sunflower (Helianthus giganteus) found onsite. (10/23/2020 E. Wright)
8

•..••_
°
• •
TIMMONS GROUP
YOUR VISION ACHIEVED THROUGH OURS.
Protected Species Survey Photographic Log
Misenheimer Solar
Photo 17: View of typical tall sunflower (Helianthus giganteus) inflorescence found onsite. Note the
large head size and pale -yellow color ray petals compared to H. schweinitzii. (10/13/2020 E. Wright)
Photo 18: Typical woodland coreopsis (Coreopsis major) found onsite. (10/13/2020 E. Wright)
9

•••••••
•• •
TIMMONS GROUP
YOUR VISION ACHIEVED THROUGH OURS.
Protected Species Survey Photographic Log
Misenheimer Solar
Photo 19: View of inflorescence of Georgia Aster (Symphyotrichum georgianum) specimen analyzed
Uwharrie National Forest near Eldorado, North Carolina. Note the purple ray and disk flowers which in
part differentiate it from other Symphyotrichum species found onsite. (10/10/2020 E. Wright)
Photo 20: View of a cluster of eastern silver aster (Symphyotrichum concolor) on -site. Note the yellow
disk flower and with lanceolate leaves tightly appressed to the stem which distinguish this species in
part from S. georgianum (10/13/2020 E. Wright)
10

TIMMONS GROUP
Protected Species Survey Photographic Log
Misenheimer Solar
Photo 21: View of calico aster (Symphyotrichum lateriflorum) found onsite. Note the white
inflorescence. (10/12/2020 B. Sagara)
Photo 22: View of frost aster (Symphyotrichum pilosum) found onsite. This species is distinguishable by
its pubescent stems and white flowers. (10/13/2020, B. Crumrine)
11

Enclosure 4
Species Conclusion Table

Species Conclusions Table
Project Name: Misenheimer Solar Park
Date: 07/27/2021
Project Description: The proposed project action involves the development of agriculture, silviculture and forested lands for the construction and
operation of a power generating solar site and associated facilities (including substations, utility lines, etc.) within a 668 acre site in Stanly County, North
Carolina. Tree clearing will be necessary across forested portions of the site. Project related tree clearing is not anticipated to exceed 550 acres.
Species Under the Jurisdiction of FWS:
Species/Resource
Name
Conclusion
ESA Section 7 / Eagle
Act Determination
Species Info / Habitat Description
Notes / Determination
Northern long-eared bat
(Myotis septentrionalis)
Potential habitat
present and no
current survey
conducted
May affect
"Northern long-eared bats spend winter
hibernating in caves and mines, called
hibernacula. They typically use large caves or
mines with large passages and entrances;
constant temperatures; and high humidity with no
air currents. Specific areas where they hibernate
have very high humidity, so much so that droplets
of water are often seen on their fur. Within
hibernacula, surveyors find them in small crevices
or cracks, often with only the nose and ears
visible.
During summer, northern long-eared bats roost
singly or in colonies underneath bark, in cavities,
or in crevices of both live and dead trees. Males
and non -reproductive females may also roost in
cooler places, like caves and mines. This bat
seems opportunistic in selecting roosts, using tree
species based on suitability to retain bark or
provide cavities or crevices. It has also been
found, rarely, roosting in structures like barns and
sheds."
Relying upon the findings of the 1/5/2016
Programmatic Biological Opinion for Final 4(d)
Rule on the Northern Long -Eared Bat and
Activities Excepted from Take Prohibitions to fulfill
any project -specific section 7 responsibilities.
A voluntary tree clearing Time -Of -Year -Restriction
from June 1 through July 31 of each year will be
implemented during constuction.
Based on these measures, no adverse impacts to
this species are anticipated.
Page 1

Species Conclusions Table
Schweinitz's sunflower
(Helianthus schweinitzii)
Species
(listed/proposed)
present
May affect
"Schweinitz's sunflower occurs in full to partial sun
and is found in areas with poor soils, such as thin
clays that vary from wet to dry. It is believed that
this species once occurred in natural forest
openings or grasslands. Many of the remaining
populations occur along roadsides."
During an October 2020 field survey, one (1)
previously undocumented population of
Schweinitz's sunflower was identified onsite within
the existing southern utility easement of the site
along a forested boundary
Adverse Project impacts related to this species is
not anticipated. Land use of solar generating
facilities is believed to be consistent with
requierments of the species. The identified
population is immediately adjacent to and within a
maintained overhead utility easement, which will
remain. In order to avoid adverse impact, the
following measures are proposed:
1) Disclose Location of population to Easement
Owner (Duke Energy) and suggest they
incorporate the area into any preexisting
easement vegetation management plans for the
species.
2) Within the Project area, establish a 5-foot
Vegetative Buffer around the population, free of
project development. The buffer area will exclude
portions of the easement as project proponents
have no control of this area.
3) Establish a Vegetation Management Plan within
the Vegetative Buffer including no mowing from
April 1 - November 15 of any year, minimal
biennial mowing, and no applicaitons of herbicides
or fertilizers.
4) Installation of signage to indicate a No Mow
area.
5) Adherence to local and/or state erosion and
sediment control plans.
Eagles (Haliaeetus leucocephalus)
Eagle Nests
Unlikely to disturb
nesting bald eagles
No Eagle Act permit required
No known nests located within 660 feet of the
proposed project.
Eagle Concentration Areas
Does not intersect
with bald eagle
concentration area
No Eagle Act permit required
Critical Habitat
N/A
No critical habitat
present
Page 2

Appendix F

ROY COOPER
GOVERNOR
STATE OF NORTH CAROLINA
DEPARTMENT OF ADM NTSTRATION
January 7, 2020
Ms. Kimberley Campbell
North Carolina Department of Commerce
Utilities Commission
4325 Mail Service Center
Raleigh, North Carolina 27699-4325
MACHELLE SANDERS
SECRETARY
Re: SCH File # 19-E-4600-0090; Application of Orion Renewable Resources, LLC for
Certificate to construct an 80 MW Solar Facility in Stanly Co.
Docket #SP-13695, Sub 0.
Dear Ms. Campbell:
The above referenced environmental impact information has been reviewed through the State
Clearinghouse under the provisions of the North Carolina Environmental Policy Act.
Attached to this letter are additional comments made in the review of this document. Because
of the nature of the comments, it has been determined that no further State Clearinghouse review
action on your part is needed for compliance with the North Carolina Environmental Policy Act,
The attached comments should be taken into consideration in project development.
Sincerely,
Crystal Best
State Environmental Review Clearinghouse
Attachments
cc: Region F
Mailing Address: Telephone. [phone] Location:
NC DEPARTMENT OF ADMINISTRATION Fax: [phone] WEST BONES STREET
1301 MAIL SERVICE CENTER COURIER #51-01 -00 RALEIGH, NORTH CAROLINA
RALEIGH, NC 27699-1301 Email: state.clearinghouse{adoa-nc.gav
lYebsite: www.ncacfmin.nc.gov
a.
0
0
J
0
IL
1
0
Jan 08 2020

North Carolina Department of Natural and Cultural Resources
State Historic Preservation Office
Ramona M. Bartos, Administrator
Governor Roy Cooper Office of Archives and History
Secretary. Susi II. Hamilton Deputy Secretary. Kevin Cherry
December 30, 2019
Carol D. Tyrer
Circa Cultural Resource Management, LLC
483 McLaws Circle, Suite 3
Williamsburg, Virginia 23185
Re: Revised Report for Phase I Archaeological Survey, 80 MW Orion Renewable Resources Solar Farm,
US 52 North, New London, Stanly County, CH 18-3375
Dear Ms. Tyrer:
Thank you for submission of November 12, 2019, concerning the above -referenced project. We have reviewed
the information provided and offer the following comments.
We received the revised Phase I archaeological resource report prepared by Circa— Cultural Resource
1Vlanagement, LLC (Circa) documenting a survey of approximately 739 acres in Stanly County.
The revised draft report addresses our requested changes. As stated in our letters dated August 12, 2019 and
October 15, 2019, we concur with Circa's recommendations for 31ST261-31ST264 and 31ST181. However, we
do not believe there is enough information provided to make an eligibility determination for 31ST182. We,
therefore, recommend that 31ST182 remain unassessed and continue with the plan to avoid the site. We will
accept the report as final.
The above comments are made pursuant to Section 106 of the National Historic Preservation Act and the
Advisory Council on Historic Preservation's Regulations for Compliance with Section 106 codified at 36 CFR
Part 800.
Thank you for your cooperation and consideration. If you have questions concerning the above comment,
contact Renee Gledhill -Earley, environmental review coordinator, at 919-814-6579 or
[e-mail]. In all future communication concerning this project, please cite the above
referenced tracking number.
Sincerely,
Ramona M. Bartos
Deputy State Iistoric Preservation Officer
Location. 109 East Jones Street, Raleigh NC 27601 Mailing Address.4617 Mail Service Center, Raleigh NC 27699-4617 Telephone/Pax [phone]/8117-6599
OFFICIAL COPY
Jan 08 2020

North Carolina Department of Natural and Cultural Resources
State Historic Preservation Office
Ramona M. Bartos, Administrator
Governor Roy Cooper Office of Archives and History
Secretary Susi H. Hamilton Deputy Secretary Kevin Cherry
August 22, 2019
Carol D. Tyrer
Circa— Cultural Resource Management, LLC
483 McLaws Circle, Suite 3
Williamsburg, VA 23185
Re: Phase I Archaeological Survey, 80 MW Orion Renewable Resources Solar Farm,
US 52 North, New London, Stanly County, CH 18-3375
Dear Ms. Tyrer:
Thank you for memo of July 16th, 2019, concerning the above referenced project. We have reviewed the
information provided and offer the following comments.
We received the Phase I archaeological resource draft report prepared by Circa Cultural Resource
Management, LLC (Circa) documenting a survey of approximately 739 acres in Stanly County. Areas of low,
moderate, and high archaeological probability were identified and investigated using a combination of surface
reconnaissance and systematic shovel testing totaling 2177 shovel tests across the project area. This work
resulted in the identification of six new archaeological resources, including one historic cemetery associated
with the Barringer family (31ST181), one historic gold mine (31ST182), and four temporally non -diagnostic
prehistoric sites (31ST261-31ST264). Circa— recommended that all four prehistoric sites be considered not
eligible for the NRHP and no further work necessary. The cemetery was assessed as not eligible but Circa —
recommended preservation by avoidance. The historic gold mine was recommended as eligible for the National
Register, but Circa— noted that the project area was amended to exclude this site and thereby avoiding any
potential impacts.
Our Office concurs with Circa's recommendations for 31ST261-31ST264 and 31ST181; however, we do not
believe there is enough information provided to make an eligibility determination for 31ST182. We therefore
recommend that 31ST182 remain unassessed and continue with the plan to avoid the site. We find it curious
and concerning that while several prehistoric sites were identified, not a single metavolcanic tool or flake was
identified across the entire surveyed area considering the proximity of the project area to well-known
metavolcanic quarry sites in the region.
We ask that you make the following revisions to the draft report:
• Please integrate all maps into both the bound and digital versions of the report and do not include any
unbound maps or oversized maps lager than ledger size.
• The cultural component for temporally nondiagnostic prehistoric sites should be listed as "Lithic" or
"Indeterminant" instead of Archaic, and they may be better described as "Limited Activity" sites rather
than temporary camps.
Location: 109 East Jones Street, Raleigh NC 27601 Mailing Address: 4617 Mail Service Center, Raleigh NC 27699-4617 Telephone/Fax: [phone]-6599

• Revise the Archaeological and Background Context section to include more recent and North Carolina
specific citations (selected references can be recommended upon request), as well as gaps in the historic
context (eg., local lithic resource significance in the region, pg. 16-17 excludes Spanish entradas and
skips from 1665 to 1799) per the OSA Guidelines (pg. 23-24).
• In places the report text describes site boundaries defined by double negative shovel tests in each
cardinal direction which do not correspond to the associated site maps. (Pg. 51, Figure 20; Pg. 55,
Figure 21).
• Please include the testing procedures and results used to document the gold mine site (31 ST182)
including plan map showing the location of potentially eligible components or features.
We also ask that you submit revised site forms reflecting the change in cultural components for prehistoric sites
as well as a OSA Cemetery form for 31ST181.
The above comments are made pursuant to Section 106 of the National Historic Preservation Act and the
Advisory Council on Historic Preservation's Regulations for Compliance with Section 106 codified at 36 CFR
Part 800.
Thank you for your cooperation and consideration. If you have questions concerning the above comment,
contact Renee Gledhill -Earley, environmental review coordinator, at 919-814-6579 or
[e-mail]. In all future communication concerning this project, please cite the above
referenced tracking number.
Sincerely,
)1.46,k,a
trRamona Bartos, Deputy
Deputy State Historic Preservation Officer

PHASE I CULTURAL RESOURCES SURVEY
OF
THE MISENHEIMER SOLAR PROJECT
STANLY COUNTY, NORTH CAROLINA
NC # CH-18-3375
Circa Cultural Resource Management ,I
MAY 2019
REVISED SEPTEMBER 2019

PHASE I CULTURAL RESOURCES SURVEY OF
THE MISENHEIMER SOLAR PROJECT
STANLY COUNTY, NORTH CAROLINA
NC # CH-18-3375
Prepared For:
The Timmons Group
1001 Boulders Parkway, Suite 300
Richmond, Virginia
[phone]
Prepared By:
Carol Tyrer, Principal Investigator, and Dawn M. Muir
Circa- Cultural Resource Management, LLC
453 McLaws Circle, Suite 3
Williamsburg, Virginia 23185
[phone]
May 2019
Revised September 2019

MANAGEMENT SUMMARY
In March through May of 2019, The Timmons Group contracted Circa— Cultural
Resource Management, LLC (Circa) to conduct a Phase I cultural resources survey of
the Misenheimer Solar Farm Project in Stanly County, North Carolina. The purpose of
this Phase I cultural resources survey was to identify and record all historic resources
within the project area prior to development of the site. Circa— excavated a total of
2,177 shovel tests across the project area; 940 shovel tests within the areas identified as
having low archaeological potential, 616 shovel tests within the moderate probability
areas, and 666 shovel tests within the high probability areas. The excavations were
difficult to complete due to the high frequency of rain and the above -average rainfall at
the beginning of the year. The high content of clay in the soil retained the water and the
soil was sticky making it difficult to excavate and screen.
The Phase I survey identified one mid- to late 20th century dump along the edge of the
dirt entrance road and one Native American site within the northern parcel, and three
Native American lithic scatters, a cemetery, and a gold mine in the southern parcel.
Circa— also noted piles of rock along the edges of the fields where stones were cleared
from the fields in the northern and southern parcels.
Summary of identified resources and recommendations.
Site
Type
National
Register
Eligibility
Recommendation
AIL
Assessment
� of Effect
31 ST261
Indeterminate period
limited activity site
No
No further work
No effect
31 ST262
Indeterminate period
limited activity site
No
No further work
No effect
31 ST263
Indeterminate period
limited activity site
No
No further work
No effect
31 ST264
Indeterminate period
limited activity site
No
No further work
No effect
31ST181
19th century cemetery
No
No further work,
avoidance
Avoided/No
effect
31ST182
Gold mine
Yes (A, B, D)
No further work,
avoidance
Avoided/No
effect

TABLE OF CONTENTS
MANAGEMENT SUMMARY i
TABLE OF CONTENTS ii
LIST OF FIGURES iv
LIST OF PLATES iv
LIST OF TABLES vi
INTRODUCTION 1
PHYSICAL ENVIRONMENT 2
Soils 7
Soils Identified Within the Project Area 9
ARCHAEOLOGICAL AND HISTORICAL BACKGROUND 11
Historic Context 11
Native American Sites Context 11
Historic Context 17
Previously Recorded Cultural Resources 22
Archaeological Resource Potential 26
METHODS AND TECHNIQUES 26
Research Strategy 26
Methods 27
Archival Research 27
Architectural Field Methods 27
Archaeological Field Methods 27
Laboratory Methods 29
RESULTS OF SURVEY 29
Architectural Resources 29
Archaeological Resources 29
Fields 42
Forested/Timbered Areas 42
Dump, northern parcel 44
Stone -Clearing Pile #1 45
Stone -Clearing Pile #2 45
Site 31 ST261 45
Site 31ST262 50
Site 31 ST263 53
Site 31ST264 57
Site 31ST181 60
Site 31ST182, Gold Mine 65
SIGNIFICANCE EVALUATIONS AND RECOMMENDATIONS 69
Architectural Resources 69
Archaeological Resources 69
Site 31ST261 70
Site 31 ST262 70
Site 31ST263 70
Site 31 ST264 71
Site 31ST181, Cemetery 71
ii

Site 31ST182, Gold mine 72
BIBLIOGRAPHY 73
Appendix A: NC SHPO Review Letter
Appendix B: Artifact Inventory
Appendix C: Project Maps
iii

LIST OF FIGURES
Figure 1. Approximate project location, Richfield and Gold Hill USGS quads 1
Figure 2. 1993 aerial view of project area, from Google Earth. 4
Figure 3. 1998 aerial view of project area, from Google Earth. 5
Figure 4. 2005 aerial view of project area, from Google Earth. 5
Figure 5. 2009 aerial view of project area, from Google Earth. 6
Figure 6. 2014 aerial view of project area, from Google Earth. 6
Figure 7. Current (2018) view of project area, from Google Earth. 7
Figure 8. Project area soil map, from NRCS website. 9
Figure 9. Detail of A new and accurate map of North Carolina in North America. 1779.
18
Figure 10. Detail of A New Map of Nth. Carolina With its Canals, Roads, and distances
from place to place along the stage and steam boat routes. Published by S. Augustus
Mitchell, 1847. 20
Figure 11. Detail of 1957 Golds Hill and Mount Pleasant quads. 21
Figure 12. Detail of 1981 Richfield and Golds Hill quads. 22
Figure 13. Map from North Carolina SHPO Office showing the previously -identified
archaeological sites within a one -mile radius of the project area (outlined in yellow). 25
Figure 14. Map from North Carolina SHPO Office showing the previously -identified
architectural sites within a one -mile radius of the project area (outlined in blue) 25
Figure 15. Timber harvest map. The pink shading illustrates the areas timbered at the
time of the survey, the yellow shading illustrates the pine plantation areas, the blue
shading illustrates the timbered areas that were converted to agricultural use after the
trees were harvested. 43
Figure 16. Overall representative shovel test profiles. 43
Figure 17. Map showing location of newly -identified archaeological sites. 44
Figure 18. Site map for Site 31 ST261. 47
Figure 19. Representative site shovel test profiles 48
Figure 20. Site map for Site 31ST262. 51
Figure 21. Site map for Site 31ST263. 54
Figure 22. Site plan for Site 31 ST264. 57
Figure 23. Site plan for cemetery 61
Figure 24. Detail of A map of Barringer Mine in the early 1900s. It shows the vertical
air shaft and branching mining tunnels of one section (at its deepest, the mine reaches
nearly 400 feet 66
Figure 25. Site plan for Site 31ST182. 67
Figure 26. Map showing the relocation of the project area borders to exclude the gold
mine 72
LIST OF PLATES
Plate 1. View of forested area within the northern parcel, looking north. 30
Plate 2. View of forested area within the northern parcel, looking south 30
Plate 3. View of forested area within the northern parcel, looking northwest 31
Plate 4. View of forested area within the northern parcel, looking northeast 31
iv

Plate 5. View of agricultural field in the northern parcel, looking southwest. 32
Plate 6. View of agricultural field in the northern parcel, looking west. 32
Plate 7. View of the agricultural field adjacent to Route 52 in the northern parcel,
looking north. 33
Plate 8. View of the power line easement on the eastern side of the northern parcel,
looking north. 33
Plate 9. View of forested area within the southern parcel, looking northeast. 34
Plate 10. View of forested area within the southern parcel, looking north 35
Plate 11. View of forested area within the southern parcel, looking west 35
Plate 12. View of forested area within the southern parcel, looking northeast. 36
Plate 13. View of cleared area within the southern parcel, looking west. 36
Plate 14. View of cleared area and row of stump and limb debris within the southern
parcel, looking east. 37
Plate 15. View of agricultural field in the southern parcel, looking south. 37
Plate 16. View of agricultural field in the southern parcel, looking southeast. 38
Plate 17. View of agricultural field in the southern parcel, looking southeast. 38
Plate 18. View of agricultural field in the southern parcel, looking northeast. 39
Plate 19. View of agricultural field in the southern parcel, looking north 39
Plate 20. View of agricultural field and cleared area in the southern parcel, looking
southwest 40
Plate 21. View of the power line easement within the southern parcel, looking east 40
Plate 22. View of agricultural field in the southern parcel, looking west 41
Plate 23. View of agricultural field in the southern parcel, looking east 41
Plate 24. View of the topsoil in the cleared area in the southern parcel, looking north. 42
Plate 25. View of dump in the northern parcel, looking west 45
Plate 26. View of stone pile along the edge of the field in the northern parcel area,
looking north. 46
Plate 27. View of stone pile along the edges of the field in the southern project area,
looking east. 46
Plate 28. View of Site 31ST261, looking south 47
Plate 29. View of shovel test from Site 31ST261. 49
Plate 30. Representative artifacts from Site 31ST261. 49
Plate 31. View of Site 31 ST262 in the southern parcel, looking northwest. 51
Plate 32. View of shovel test from Site 31ST262. 52
Plate 33. Representative artifacts from Site 31ST262. 53
Plate 34. View of Site 31ST263 adjacent to Glenmore Road in the southern parcel,
looking southwest. 54
Plate 35. View of shovel test from Site 31ST263. 55
Plate 36. Representative artifacts from Site 31ST263. 56
Plate 37. View of Site 31ST264, looking southeast 58
Plate 38. View of shovel test from Site 31ST264. 59
Plate 39. Representative artifacts from Site 31ST264. 59
Plate 40. View of the cemetery in the southern parcel, looking northeast 62
Plate 41. View of the rock wall around the cemetery, looking south. 62
Plate 42. View of wall at the cemetery, looking north 63
Plate 43. View of the cemetery in the southern parcel, looking east. 63
v

Plate 44. View of the marker at the cemetery in the southern parcel, looking east.
Although faint, the inscription reads BARRINGER FEB 23 1847 JVLY14 1883. 64
Plate 45. View of cemetery within the southern parcel area, looking south 64
Plate 46. View of gold mine in the southern parcel, looking southwest 67
Plate 47. View of the goldmine within the southern parcel, looking west. 68
Plate 48. View of mine structure, looking northwest 68
Plate 49. View of mine structure, looking west. 69
LIST OF TABLES
Table 1. Soils Identified Within the Project Area Boundaries. 8
Table 2. Resources Within a One -Mile Radius of Project Area Boundaries 22
Table 3. Summary of identified resources and recommendations 69
vi

INTRODUCTION
In March through May of 2019, Circa— Cultural Resource Management, LLC (Circa)
conducted a Phase I cultural resources survey of the Misenheimer Solar Farm project in
Stanly County, North Carolina (Figure 1). The project area is approximately 739 acres
and is located in Misenheimer, North Carolina. The Area of Potential Effect (APE) for
archaeological and architectural resources was the 739-acre project area.
Figure 1. Approximate project location, Richfield and Gold Hill USGS quads.
Orion Renewable Resources LLC will be the owner of the Facility and has entered into
ground leases with Gus Schad, Cletus Hill, Amanda Pickler, and Kent Newport, the
current owners of the site. The facility will be located north and south of U. S. 52
Highway North. The southern portion of the facility is west of the intersection with
Wesley Chapel Road, and the northern portion is west of the intersection with Reeves
Island Road. The solar facility is currently designed to have a nameplate capacity of
80.0-Megawatt alternating current (MW AC). Electricity generated by the solar facility
will be sold to Duke Energy Carolinas or other buyers to be determined under a power
purchase agreement.
1

The investigation was carried out in compliance with Section 106 of the National Historic
Preservation Act of 1966 (as amended) and conducted in accordance with the Secretary
of the Interior's Standards and Guidelines for Archaeological Documentation. The report
describes fieldwork results and makes recommendations for further work. A review of
the background information and site files at the North Carolina Department of Natural
and Cultural Resources in Raleigh, North Carolina revealed that there was one
previously -identified resource within the project area and one resource located just to the
south of the project area. In addition, the review of the site files indicated that no Phase I
surveys have been completed within the project area. The North Carolina state
archaeologist requires all work plans and field methodologies to be approved by them
prior to the initiation of fieldwork. Circa— completed an assessment and a work plan and
submitted the plan and mapping for review. The work plan was accepted by the North
Carolina State Historic Preservation Officer (SHPO) on January 10, 2019 (Appendix A).
This report contains a description of the project area's physical and environmental
setting, an outline of meaningful historical contexts for the property, a general research
design that summarizes field methods, previous research in the area, and expected results,
and finally, the survey results are described, the findings reviewed, and recommendations
explained. Field notes, artifacts, and other project records are presently being curated in
Circa—'s office in Williamsburg, Virginia. It is anticipated that all of these materials will
eventually be transferred to a state repository in North Carolina following the conclusion
of the project.
At Circa, Carol D. Tyrer served as Project Manager and Principal Investigator for the
project and was assisted in the field by Charlie Rutledge, Matt Carr, Eric Mai, Ann
Booher, Diana Johnson, Shayne Spears, Michael Foley, Vincent Cason, and McKenzie
Kaiser, field archaeologists. Dawn M. Muir served as the Architectural Historian for the
project and completed the architectural survey and historic context. Skye Hughes and
Simone Sattler prepared the graphics and formatted the photographs. Carol D. Tyrer
prepared the archaeological results and the artifact analysis. The successful completion
of the Phase I survey for the proposed development was made possible by the
contribution of many individuals. In particular, Ricky Hewitt with Timmons Group
ensured that project information and maps were always available for the study. The
shovel test map was prepared by Laura Carson with the Timmons Group.
PHYSICAL ENVIRONMENT
The primary reasons for incorporating environmental studies into archaeological projects
are: to learn of possible environmental constraints or lack of constraints; to determine the
presence or absence of critical resources that might have influenced site distribution, etc.;
and to discover environmental factors —erosion, deposition, subsidence, and historic land
use patterns —that might influence the integrity of archaeological sites once they have
formed. Keeping these objectives in mind, a brief environmental summary of the project
area is provided below.
2

The project area is located in central North Carolina, northeast of the Charlotte
metropolitan region within North Carolina's Piedmont physiographic province, an area of
flat to rolling terrain situated between the Blue Ridge Mountains to the north and west
and the Coastal Plains to the east. The Piedmont is characterized by gently rolling, well-
rounded hills and long low ridges with a few hundred feet of elevation difference
between the hills and valleys. The Piedmont includes some relatively low mountains
including the South Mountains and the Uwharrie Mountains, which at 500-million years
of age are considered to be the oldest mountain range in North America.
The project area is characterized by gently -rolling upland topography with moderate to
steep side slopes. The uplands run north to south with the northern parcel of the project
area is drained by the upper reaches of Curl Tail Creek and the southern parcel of the
project area drained by Long Creek. Elevations range from 711 feet above mean sea
level (AMSL) at the top of the knolls to 659 feet AMSL at the stream channels.
The northern parcel consists of a pine plantation with two small agricultural fields located
in the southern section of the parcel. The southern parcel consists of rolling land with a
large agricultural field along the western side and a smaller agricultural field in the center
of the parcel. The forest around the fields consists of a mixed hardwood and softwood
new -growth forest over a timbered area. Within the woods, the stumps were left in place
in both the northern and southern parcels. An area was timbered, the stumps removed,
and the area root -raked and cleared to create agricultural lands in the southern middle
section of the southern parcel.
The project area is located within the Piedmont Floristic Province (Gleason and
Cronquist 1964). The predominant natural plant communities in the project area include
upland hardwood forest and mixed pine -hardwood forest. The area is characterized by
extensive pine (Pinus) forests. In addition, many deciduous hardwood species on the
gentle slopes of the Piedmont Province are self-perpetuating under natural conditions.
Among these species are oak (Quercus), beech (Fagus), hickory (Carya), maple (Acer),
and tulip tree (Liriodendron).
One habitat type found in the project area is the upland hardwood forest. Generally,
these forests form a dense canopy with a well-defined understory of shrubs and herbs.
Much of this habitat, along the unnamed tributary, has previously been cut, lending itself
to dense undergrowth. Mixed pine -hardwood forest differs slightly in appearance and
resident species from the upland hardwood forest community, typically occurring as a
mosaic of evergreen pines intermingled with deciduous hardwoods. The species
composition and dominance of both these communities varies with topography, soils, and
past management practices. The majority of the project area lies in a planted pine
plantation, with smaller parcels consisting of agricultural fields and mixed softwood and
hardwood forests.
The project area lies within the Carolinian Biotic Province (Dice 1943). The major
wildlife habitat found on the project area are both hardwood and mixed pine -hardwood
forests and open fields. Some of the wildlife species encountered in the forest habitat
3

might include fox squirrel (Sciurus niger), gray squirrel (Sciurus carolinensis), white-
tailed deer (Odocoileus virginianus), rough green snake (Opheodrys aestivus), eastern
box turtle (terrapene carolina), Carolina wren (Thryothorus ludovicianus), Carolina
chickadee (Parus carolinensis), blue jay (Cyanocitta cristata), American crow (Corvus
brachyrhynchos), barred owl (Strix varia), and red -shouldered hawk (Buteo lineatus).
Several additional species of mammals and birds currently hunted in North Carolina may
exist in the project area. These include raccoon (Procyon lotor), muskrat (Ondatra
zibethicus), eastern cottontail (Sylvilagus floridanus), and mourning dove (Zenaida
macroura).
Aerial photos from 1993 to the present show the timber harvest and the clearing of the
forest to expand the agricultural fields within the project area during the last 28 years, and
light development has occurred to the west and east of the project area during this period
(Figures 2 - 7).
Figure 2. 1993 aerial view of project area, from Google Earth.
4

Figure 3. 1998 aerial view of project area, from Google Earth.
Figure 4. 2005 aerial view of project area, from Google Earth.
5

Figure 5. 2009 aerial view of project area, from Google Earth.
Figure 6. 2014 aerial view of project area, from Google Earth.
6

Figure 7. Current (2018) view of project area, from Google Earth.
Soils
At least 10 different soil types and soil type variants exist within the project area (Natural
Resources Conservation Service [NRCS] 2019). These soil and soil types include
Misenheimer channery silt loam, 0% to 4% slopes; Kirksey silt loam, 0% to 6% slopes;
Goldston very channery silt loam, 4% to 15% slopes; Badin channery silt loam, 2% to
8% slopes; Enon cobbly loam, 2% to 8% slopes; Oakboro silt loam, 0% to 2% slopes,
frequently flooded; Tarrus channery silt loam, 2% to 8% slopes; Goldston very channery
silt loam, 15% to 45% slopes; Udorthents, loamy; and Misenheimer-Kirksey complex,
0% to 5% slopes (Figure 8 and Table 1). Each of these types and variants are described
below including references to drainage, hunting and gathering potential, and horticultural
and agricultural productivity potential. Further, conclusions regarding the suitability of
each for historic and Native American occupation and archaeological site probability are
also explained.
Soils maps and associated data provide an analysis of soil types within a geographic area.
Despite comprehensive and detailed coverage of most areas by soils surveyors,
researchers often miss microenvironments due to their small footprints. Unfortunately,
resource rich microenvironments were often common sites of cultural activity. As such,
this analysis of archaeological potential is a "best -guess" using the best available data.
Well -drained, agriculturally- and horticulturally -productive soils proximal to
transportation corridors were the best choices for historic period occupation. Secondary
areas, such as those containing wet soils and acid soils, after improvement such as
drainage and liming also may have also been suitable choices for historic occupation. No
navigable waterways exist within the project area; thus, water travel is not a factor in the
site probability analysis of this tract.
7

Areas of wet soils may have been attractive to Native American cultures. In these areas,
edible herbaceous plant species may have been gathered and faunal species browsing
these areas may have been hunted with success. Well -drained soils proximal to these
resource -rich areas may have made adequate hunting and gathering campsites where the
hunted and gathered resources were processed. These sites would have left an observable
archaeological footprint. Little archaeological evidence would be located within the wet
areas, the immediate locale of resource procurement.
Areas containing gravelly soils may have been especially attractive to stone tool -
manufacturing Native American cultures, but the level of attraction may have depended
on the type and quality of the gravels available in these locations. Well -drained soils
proximal to quarry -able, gravel -rich areas would have made adequate lithic material
procurement campsites but in this case, archaeological materials may be located at both
the campsites and the quarry sites.
Table 1. Soils Identified Within the Project Area Boundaries.
Soil
Symbol
Soil Name
Acres
Within the
Project
Area
Location
within the
Project Area
Percentage
Within the
Project Area
MhB
Misenheimer loam, 0% to 4%
308.70
Central
41%
channery silt slopes
Southern
KkB
Kirksey silt loam, 0% to 6% slopes
152.60
Central
Northern
20%
GoC
Goldston very channery silt loam, 4% to 15% slopes
101.40
Southern
13%
BaB
Badin channery silt loam, 2% to 8% slopes
83.30
Northern
11 %
EcB
Enon cobbly loam, 2% to 8% slopes
45.20
Southern
6%
OaA
Oakboro silt loam, 0% to 2% slopes, frequently flooded
36.80
Central
Southern
5%
TbB
Tarrus channery silt loam, 2% to 8 % slopes
10.10
Southern
1%
GoF
Goldston very channery silt loam, 15% to 45 % slopes
8.90
Southern
Western
1%
Ud
Udorthents, loamy
7.30
Southern
1%
MkB
Misenheimer-Kirksey complex, 0% to 5% slopes
0.10
Northern
Less than 1%
8

A
Sal 1447—Rawer County Nor, Carolina and Stanly Courer North Carol na
1A9isentiemerl
WpSoR 117.203( vred co A cvlat(SS K 11^Yrr.
977 xm
tea
7 90 1977 ZEO 93
IMP': Web Fbsdir C madraes HIV Filets V[M$relli riCSBi
Cyti� HaWrsl Resources Web Soil Surey
71� Cmxrratron Sm cc NaYulal Caoperahra Sail Slaw}
MOTs
t971
Sili2019
Page S o13
m rrr
Figure 8. Project area soil map, from NRCS website.
Soils Identified Within the Project Area
Misenheimer Soil (MhB, MkB)
Misenheimer soil is a shallow, moderately -well- to somewhat -poorly -drained,
moderately -rapidly -permeable soil that formed in residuum weathered from fine-grained
metavolcanic rock. These soils are found at the heads of the drainageways in the
Piedmont and are located in gently sloping broad ridges in depressions and around the
heads of drainageways (NRCS 2019). Solum thickness is less than 20 inches with a
depth to hard fractured fine-grained metavolcanic rock of 20 inches to 40 inches or more.
9

The acidity of this soil ranges from extremely acid to strongly acid. This soil is used for
crops and is forested. Where cultivated, this soil can support corn, soybeans, sorghum,
and small grains. Where forested, this soil can support white oak, post oak, blackjack
oak, red maple, black gum, hickory, eastern red cedar, willow oak, and shortleaf pine.
Kirksey Soil (KkB, MkB)
Kirksey soil is a deep, moderately -well -drained, moderately -slowly -permeable soil
formed from weathered Carolina slate and found on lower slopes in the Piedmont uplands
(NRCS 2019). Solum thickness ranges from 20 inches to 40 inches with a depth to
bedrock of 40 inches to 60 inches. This soil features a moderate surface runoff. Most of
this soil is forested and can support mixed hardwoods and pine. Cleared areas can
support pasture, small grains, corn, soybeans, grain sorghum, or cotton.
Goldston Soil (GoC, GoF)
Goldston soil is a shallow, well- to excessively -drained, moderately -rapidly -permeable
soil that formed in residuum weathered from fine-grained metasedimentary or
metavolcanic rocks found on narrow gently rolling interstream ridges and sloping to steep
sides of ridges between intermittent and perennial streams found in the Carolina Slate
Belt and Southern Piedmont (NRCS 2019). Solum thickness and depth to paralithic
contact ranges from 10 inches to 20 inches. Soil acidity ranges from extremely acid to
moderately acid with a rapid surface runoff. This soil is mainly forested with blackjack,
white oak, post oak, red oak, hickory, dogwood, cedar, and shortleaf pine. Cleared areas
are used mainly for growing grain sorghum, small grains, corn, pasture, and hay.
Badin Soil (BaB)
Badin soil is a moderately -deep, well -drained, moderately -permeable soil that formed in
residuum weathered from fine-grained metasedimentary and metavolcanic rocks located
on gently sloping to steep uplands of the Carolina Slate Belt and the Piedmont (NRCS
2019). Solum thickness ranges from 20 inches to 40 inches with a depth to bedrock of 20
inches to 40 inches, and a depth to hard bedrock of 40 inches or more. Soil acidity ranges
from strongly acid to extremely acid except where limed. Where cultivated, this soil can
support corn, small grains, soybeans, grain sorghum, mixed hay, and pasture. Where
forested, this soil can support oak, hickory, loblolly pine, shortleaf pine, Virginia pine,
and yellow poplar with an understory of American holly, flowering dogwood, sourwood,
and American hornbeam.
Enon Soil (EcB)
Enon soil is a very -deep, well -drained, slowly -permeable soil that formed in residuum
weathered from intermediate or intermediate igneous and high-grade metamorphic rocks
such as diorite, gabbro, diabase, or hornblende gneiss or schist found on ridgetops and
side slopes of the Piedmont (NRCS 2019). Solum thickness ranges from 20 inches to 50
inches and depth to bedrock is over 60 inches in this strongly acid to slightly acid soil.
This soil features a medium to rapid surface runoff and a slow internal drainage. Most
areas are cleared and used primarily for corn, soybeans, small grains, hay, and pasture.
Where wooded, this soil can support shortleaf pine, loblolly pine, Virginia pine, eastern
10

red cedar, white oak, northern red oak, southern red oak, hickory, yellow poplar, sweet
gum, black gum, dogwood, and holly.
Oakboro Soil (OaA)
Oakboro soil is a deep, moderately -well- to somewhat -poorly -drained soil that formed in
loamy alluvium from slates, siltstones, sandstones, and tuffs in the Carolina Slate Belt of
the Piedmont (NRCS 2019). These soils are found in nearly level and narrow flood
plains along perennial and intermittent streams that drain from the Carolina Slate Belt.
Solum thickness ranges from 20 inches to 50 inches with depth to hard bedrock from 40
inches to 60 inches. The soil surface runoff is slow, and the soil acidity ranges from very
strongly acid to slightly acid except where limed. Most areas of this soil types are
wooded. Where cultivated, these soils can support cropland and pasture. Where
forested, this soil can support yellow poplar, northern red black gum, red maple, and
American Sycamore.
Tarrus Soil (TbB)
Tarrus soil is a deep, well -drained, moderately -permeable soil that formed in residuum
from argillite or other fine-grained metavolcanic rocks of the Carolina Slate Belt (NRCS
2019). These soils are found on uplands of the Piedmont. Solum thickness ranges from
30 inches to 60 inches with a depth to soft bedrock of 40 inches to 60 inches and a depth
to hard bedrock over 60 inches. Soil surface runoff is slow to very rapid and soil acidity
is very strongly acid unless limed. These soils are mostly wooded with a mix of
hardwoods and pine. Where cultivated, this soil can support pasture and crops including
corn, small grains, hay, and soybeans.
Udorthents (Ud)
Udorthents soils are generally flat, level soils that are disturbed as a result of a
combination of materials excavated from borrow pits, soil cuts, and original soil
remnants. These soils tend to be dense and moderately- to slowly -permeable in their
uppermost levels. These soils can support lawns, gardens, and landscaping, though they
are sometimes contaminated by various toxic materials (NRCS 2019). Within the project
area, this soil is mapped in the location of the goldmine.
ARCHAEOLOGICAL AND HISTORICAL BACKGROUND
The following section provides the Native American and historic background information
necessary to assessing the archaeological potential of the proposed project area. Previous
investigations in the general vicinity of the project area are outlined, while specific
documents and resources employed in this survey are discussed.
Historic Context
Native American Sites Context
North Carolina's Native American cultural chronology is divided into four major periods,
Paleoindian, Archaic, Woodland, and Mississippian, with the differences defined largely
on changes in subsistence practices, settlement patterns, and types of material remains
11

found. The four main periods reflect major changes, while "Early", "Middle", and
"Late" subperiods reflect less dramatic, though still significant, changes.
Paleoindian Period (Prior to 12,000 B.C.)
Paleoindian occupation in North Carolina, the first human occupation of the region,
began some time before 12,000 B.C. This period is consistently cooler and wetter than
today's climate. The vegetation was also different favoring a spruce -pine forest in the
mountains and foothills while in the Piedmont and Coastal Plain an oak -beech -hickory
dominated forest began to emerge (North Carolina Archaeological Society 1984).
The earliest diagnostic artifacts where there is any consensus are Clovis projectile points,
which are typically fashioned of high -quality cryptocrystalline materials such as chert,
chalcedony, and jasper. Later Paleoindian points include smaller Clovis -like and
Cumberland variants, and small "Mid-Paleo" points. Also, diagnostic, though to a lesser
extent, are certain types of well -made endscrapers, sidescrapers, and other formalized
tools. The scrapers were typically made of larger flakes and used for working hides,
wood, and bone (North Carolina Archaeological Society 1984). Most current views now
hold that eastern Paleoindians were generalized foragers with an emphasis on hunting,
particularly deer, elk, bear, and caribou. Social organization apparently consisted of
relatively small bands that exploited a wide but defined territory.
Isolated projectile point finds and what appear to be small temporary camps represent the
majority of Paleoindian remains in North Carolina. Although some larger and very
notable base camps are present in the state, they are relatively rare and usually associated
with sources of preferred high -quality lithic materials. Three of the most important
Paleoindian sites in the eastern United States have been identified in North Carolina and
in nearby Virginia. These include the Hardaway Site in North Carolina and the
Thunderbird Site in the Shenandoah Valley (Gardner 1974, 1977) and the Williamson
Site in south-central Virginia (McCary 1951, 1975).
Within North Carolina, the Hardaway site (31 ST4) is the most significant Paleoindian
site identified. This site is situated on the Yadkin River in the Uwharrie Mountains and
forms the base for the Paleoindian and Early Archaic subperiod sequences defined by
Coe (Coe 1964). In this area of North Carolina, the frequency of fluted points suggests
that Paleoindians lived mostly in the Piedmont including the project area. Their preferred
material was a high -quality metavolcanic rock found in the Slate Belt, known as rhyolite.
This material is restricted to an area of the Slate Belt in and around the Uwharrie
Mountains of Stanly and Montgomery counties (Coe 1964). This makes this area of
North Carolina particularly important for possible Paleoindian sites.
All these sites are large base camps associated with nearby sources of high-grade
cryptocrystalline lithic materials. At these site areas and their surrounding environs,
researchers have formulated a site typology to include lithic quarries, quarry -related base
camps, quarry reduction stations, base camp maintenance stations, outlying hunting sites,
and isolated point sites (Coe 1964; Gardner 1981, 1989).
12

One of the earliest dated sites in North America, Cactus Hill, lies in the Coastal Plain
along the Nottoway River in Sussex County, Virginia (McAvoy and McAvoy 1997).
Although still controversial, Cactus Hill appears to have the potential to become one of
the most well -accepted, pre -Clovis sites in the western hemisphere.
There are concentrations of Paleoindian materials in North Carolina and, conversely,
there are areas where sites and isolated finds of this early period are all but absent making
Paleoindian sites far less common than all other periods of Native American history. No
significant undisturbed locations of Paleoindian sites have been found. This suggests that
the Paleoindians favored hilltops or ridges for their campsites, which have been washed
away and eroded over time. While the chances of finding artifacts from this early period
within the project area are considered low, any well -drained location, particularly where
tributaries converge, is a high -potential location for Native American camps and
settlements in general. Therefore, considering the project area is near the Yadkin River,
it is possible that a site or isolated find of this period could be discovered within the
project area.
Archaic Period (8,000 B.C. —1,200 B.C.)
The beginning of the Archaic period generally coincides with the end of the Pleistocene
epoch, marked in this region by a climatic shift from a moist, cool period to a warmer,
dryer climate. Vegetation also changed at this time from a largely boreal forest setting to
a mixed conifer -deciduous forest and a temperate climate was established (Dent 1995).
Researchers believe that increasing differences in seasonal availability of resources
brought on by post -Pleistocene changes coincide with increasing emphasis on strategies
of seasonally -geared mobility.
A band -level social organization involving seasonal movements corresponding to the
seasonal availability of resources and, in some instances, shorter -interval movements is
thought to primarily characterize Archaic populations. Settlement during the Archaic
period probably involved the occupation of relatively large regions by single band -sized
groups, living in base camps during part of the year and dispersing on an as -needed or
seasonal basis, creating smaller microband camps, possibly consisting of no more than
single families.
The development of more specialized resource procurement activities as well as the
technology to accomplish these activities also characterizes the Archaic period. These
differences in the material culture are believed to reflect larger, more localized
populations and changes in methods of food procurement and processing.
Corner and side notching became a common characteristic of projectile points at the
beginning of the Archaic period (Early Archaic subperiod), indicating changes in hafting
technology and possibly the invention of the spear -thrower (atlatl). Notched forms
include Palmer and Kirk corner -notched and, in localized areas, various side -notched
forms. Several well-known Archaic sites in North Carolina include the Doerschuk site
located on the east bank of the Yadkin River, the Gaston site in located in Halifax County
on the Roanoke River, and the Lowder's Ferry site in Stanly County. Excavations at each
13

of these sites showed a distinctive style of spear point that archaeologists used to create
and define specific time periods.
A series of bifurcate base forms marked the later end of the Early Archaic subperiod and
the beginning of the Middle Archaic subperiod. The Middle Archaic subperiod, circa
6,500 B.C. - 3,000 B.C. sees the rise of various stemmed projectile point forms. In this
area of North Carolina, the most common Middle Archaic forms would be Stanly,
Morrow Mountain, and Guilford types, followed by the side -notched Halifax type at the
end of the subperiod and the transition into the Late Archaic subperiod between circa
3,500 B.C. and 3,000 B.C. Stemmed and notched forms, including various large, broad -
bladed stemmed knives and projectile points (e.g., Savannah River and variants)
dominated the Late Archaic subperiod. These forms generally diminish in size by the
succeeding Early Woodland subperiod. Also found, are stemmed and notched -stem
forms like those generally associated more prominently with areas of Pennsylvania and
adjoining parts of the northeast (Perkiomen).
The Archaic period also marks the beginning of ground -stone technology, with the
occurrence of ground -stone atlatl weights and celts. New tool categories developed
during the Archaic period include chipped- and ground -stone celts, ground -stone net
sinkers, pestles, pecked stones, mullers, and axes. Vessels carved from steatite are found
on sites dating to the end of the Late Archaic subperiod.
Marked increases in population density and decreased mobility characterize the Late
Archaic subperiod in eastern North America (circa 4,000 B.C.-1,200 B.C.). Because
population growth necessitated a larger and more predictable food supply, agriculture
probably has its origins in the Middle Atlantic region during this subperiod. Yarnell
(1976), for example, writes that sunflower, sump weed, and possibly goosefoot may have
been cultivated as early as 2,000 B.C. In the lower Little Tennessee River Valley,
remains of squash have been found in Late Archaic Savannah River contexts (circa 2,400
B.C.), with both squash and gourd in slightly later Iddins period contexts (Chapman and
Shea 1988).
Most likely, Middle and Late Archaic subperiods would be the most common types of
Archaic sites found in and around the project area. Middle and Late Archaic campsites
are common in the Coastal Plain, and the project area was viewed as having a moderate
potential for the location of Middle to Late Archaic components representing small
group, transient campsites. In most cases, such sites would not likely have National
Register of Historic Places significance unless preserved features and/or unplowed
subsurface deposits existed.
Woodland Period (1,200 B.C. - A.D. 1600)
Ceramic technology, a gradually developing dependence on horticulture, and increased
sedentism characterized the Woodland period. While Woodland Indians continued to
hunt, fish, and gather plants with deer and turkey as their the primary hunting targets, it
was during this period that tasks moved toward clearing fields and planting crops such as
sunflowers, squash, gourds, beans, and corn or maize (Claggett 1996). The bow and
14

arrow also appears for the first time during this period. This most likely led to shifts in
hunting techniques as the primary game animals, such as white tail deer, could now
essentially be hunted by one person instead of a small hunting party (Claggett 1996).
Researchers have designated three subperiods (Early, Middle, and Late Woodland) based
primarily on stylistic and technological changes in ceramic and projectile point types as
well as settlement patterns.
The appearance of ceramics in the archaeological record generally defined the Early
Woodland subperiod, bracketed herein at circa 1,200 B.C. - 500 B.C. The earliest
Woodland ceramic wares, Marcy Creek Plain and variants, are rectangular or oval and
resemble the preceding Late Archaic soapstone vessels. In this area, these ceramics are
rare and appear to be, in part, contemporaneous with similar flat -bottom vessels tempered
with grog, sand, and, in some cases, shell. Variously tempered beaker -shaped vessels, as
well as those having more conventional sub -conical shapes, follow these forms.
Complexity of and emphasis on ceremonial aspects, especially those concerned with the
burial of the dead, are also characteristic of the Early Woodland subperiod across a broad
region of the east. In North Carolina, earthen burial mounds were used; however, they
were not a common practice. Typically, large and intensively occupied sites interpreted
as sedentary (as opposed to seasonal) large group base camps are located in the estuarine
zone/shoreline with smaller, short-term support camps located in the estuarine zone and
throughout the freshwater tributary network. It is during this time that shell middens
appear, indicating shellfish were an important part of the subsistence focus at this time
(Gardner 1982). The succeeding Middle Woodland subperiod sees the most intensive use
of these resources, and middens of this subperiod are generally both larger and more
abundant at this time.
The appearance of net -marked and corded pottery that is sand -tempered, sand- and
crushed -rock -tempered, and gravel -tempered marked the Middle Woodland subperiod in
this area, defined herein between circa. 500 B.C. and A.D. 900. These types generally
span the subperiod circa 500 B.C. to A.D. 300, and are slightly overlapped in time by,
and replaced with, the shell -tempered Mockley ware from slightly before circa A.D. 200
to about A.D. 900 throughout the region.
By the Late Woodland subperiod, agriculture had assumed a role of major importance in
the Native American subsistence system. The adoption of agriculture represents a major
change in the Native American subsistence economy and settlement patterns. Expanses
of arable land became a dominant settlement factor, and sites were located on fertile
floodplain soils or, in many cases, on higher terraces or ridges adjacent to them. During
this subperiod, shell middens are still used, but the large habitation sites are not
necessarily correlated with them. The location of Early to Middle Woodland shell
middens are often re -used, but mainly as short-term foray sites (Gardner 1982).
Diagnostic artifacts of the Late Woodland subperiod include several triangular projectile
point styles that originated during the latter part of the Middle Woodland subperiod.
These styles decreased in size through time, and eventually culminated in the very small
15

and often serrated triangles typically found on the most recent Late Woodland and early
contact period villages. Late Woodland subperiod ceramics in this area include shell -
tempered Townsend and Roanoke Simple -Stamped types, along with plain -surfaced,
shell -tempered variants.
Settlements dating to this time consist of both villages and small hamlets. Some villages
were highly nucleated, while others were internally dispersed over a wide area. Some
were completely fortified by circular or oval palisades, while others contained a fortified
core area and outlying houses, indicating a rise in intergroup conflict. The more
dispersed villages and hamlets were scattered over a wide area with indications of
internally fluid settlement within a loosely -defined town or village territory. The
tendency appeared to gravitate toward larger, semi -permanent villages along stream
valleys where the soil was suitable for their farming methods (Claggett 1996).
Drawings and journals of early European explorers describing Indian villages indicate
that they typically contained larger and permanently occupied villages with substantial
houses. These houses were usually constructed of wood or wattle and daub with thatched
roofs (North Carolina Archaeological Society 1984). Such historical accounts are
consistent with data obtained from archaeological excavations of Late Woodland to early
historic village sites (Hodges and Hodges 1994).
With the development of a more sedentary settlement -subsistence system culminating in
the Late Woodland subperiod, permanent habitation sites gradually replaced base camp
habitation sites more characteristic of those of the previous foragers and hunter -gatherers.
Various supporting camps and activity areas were established in the day-to-day
procurement of food and other resources (i.e., short-term hunting and foraging camps,
quarries, butchering locations, and re -tooling locations). Locations used partially or
largely for ceremonial purposes were also present, usually in association with habitation
sites.
The large base camps, hamlets, and villages are typically located on bluffs, terraces, or
high floodplains adjacent to rivers or major tributaries. Small seasonal camps and non -
seasonally based satellite camps supporting nearby sedentary villages and hamlets are
located along smaller streams in the interior. Limited concentrations and sparse scatters
of lithics and ceramics typically characterize these campsites. As indicated earlier,
shellfish -gathering sites and shell middens suggest ephemeral re -use of the earlier
middens. Many of these camps and villages contained areas for growing corn or maize,
tobacco, beans, and squash (Claggett 1996).
Mississippian Period (700 B.C. — 250 B.C.)
Some researchers suggest that there is a fourth period of Native American history. By the
time of initial European exploration, most of the Native American groups in the Coastal
Plain shared a common culture and were subsumed within an emerging paramount
chiefdom under the domain of one paramount chief, Powhatan. Some groups were direct
components of the chiefdom, while others, usually those most distant, were at least allied
in some manner with the paramount group (Rountree 1989).
16

The Mississippian period continued the Woodland period traditions, but with much more
intensity. The climate during this period was much like today's conditions. In general,
this period saw a rise in ceramic designs with specific art motifs. Villages of this period
also appear to be more elaborate with temple mounds and political centers. However, it
appears that this period is limited to the southern and western portions of North Carolina
(North Carolina Archaeological Society 1984). Not many sites of this period have been
found in North Carolina and it is probable that few or any of these period sites would be
found within the project area.
Historic Context
In the 1540s, Spanish explorers under Hernando de Soto sailed to what would become
North Carolina. Here, they found several groups including historic tribes of the Catawba,
Cherokee, and Creek Indians (Claggett 1996). In 1566, another Spanish explorer, Juan
Pedro, led an expedition into what would become western North Carolina. His
expedition focused on seeking gold in the unexplored territory. In 1584, Sir Walter
Raleigh received a patent from the British Crown and set out to explore the New World.
He would obtain two other patents in 1585 and 1587 for the same area. The first two
voyages were largely exploratory, but the third included women and children who were
to populate a permanent English colony on Roanoke Island. A year later, Captain
Vincente Gonzales and Juan Menendez -Marques visited the area (McCartney, 1997).
These men, Spaniards under the direction of the Florida government, set out to find Sir
Walter Raleigh's colonists. They sailed up the west shore of the Chesapeake Bay and
then traced the west coast of the Eastern Shore of Virginia and part of North Carolina.
Although the men did not find the Roanoke colony, they did open the area for other
colonists to follow.
In 1663, King Charles II, under the Carolina Charter, granted eight men a vast tract
known as Carolina. These Lord Proprietors would go on to set up a government
establishing the inhabited part of their tract as the County of Albemarle by 1668. That
same year, the men divided the County into precincts including Currituck, Pasquotank,
Perquimans, and Chowan (Snowden 1995). Although a land grant established the line
dividing Virginia and North Carolina, by 1665, the line had moved 35 miles to the north
giving North Carolina control over the earliest settlers already occupying lands on the
Albemarle Sound.
Settlers to the Central Piedmont area of North Carolina arrived in the early 1700s and
were primarily German, Dutch, Scotch -Irish, and English (Mazzocchi, 2006, Martin, no
date). Most of them came from neighboring Virginia and their presence in the area led to
conflicts with the local Indian population (Goldfield 2005). Further development of this
area occurred in 1729 when King George II took over from the Lord Proprietors and
eased the land purchasing requirements. This act allowed the forests in the Coastal Plain
area to be developed into farms and created a movement westward into the Piedmont
region as people looked to acquire more land (Goldfield 2005). This movement
continued throughout the 18t' century.
17

The end of the 18th century saw the first documented discovery of gold in North Carolina
(Gaston County Public Library 2015). In 1799, John Reed found gold on his Cabarrus
County farm. This essentially started the first gold rush in the young nation's history and
allowed North Carolina to lead the nation in gold production until the California gold
rush in 1849. After his discovery, Reed formed a partnership with Frederick Kizer, the
Reverend James Love, and Martin Phifer, Jr. Together, they acquired over 800 acres,
new equipment, and slaves to operate their mining enterprise (Myers 2012). Word of
their operations spread and prospectors came to North Carolina's Central Piedmont by
the beginning of the 19th century. A majority of the gold deposits and the most
productive mines were located in the "Carolina Belt," which included Mecklenburg,
Cabarrus, Rowan, Davidson, Guilford, Stanly, Montgomery, Randolph, Moore, and
Union counties (Gaston County Public Library 2015). At its peak, North Carolina
boasted over 600 gold mines (Myers 2012). A map of the area drawn during this period
shows no development within the project area (Figure 9).
Figure 9. Detail of A new and accurate map of North Carolina in North America. 1779.
From 1800 until the Civil War, gold mining ranked second as North Carolina's most
economically successful industry. It was supplanted only by agriculture (Myers 2012).
Many farmers worked their crops in season and panned for gold during their down time.
Gold became so prevalent during the first quarter of the 19th century that all domestic
gold coined by the United States Government came from North Carolina (Myers 2012).
Because of this success, President Andrew Jackson chose to build a branch of the United
States Mint in Charlotte to press the local gold into coinage.
18

By 1803, gold had been discovered in Montgomery County. The County became the hub
of the North Carolina gold mining industry with over 13 major gold deposits. The
Russell Gold Mine, in Montgomery County, was a massive operation employing
hundreds of mine workers with numerous pits, shafts, and adits (Myers 2012). During
the first two decades of the gold mining industry, miners would root out the gold, known
as surface and/or placer mining
In what would later become Stanly County, Mathias Tobias Barringer, a German
immigrant, acquired over 80 acres of land during this period. In 1825, while hunting on
his property along Long Creek, he found gold flakes floating on the creek (Myers 2012).
When he investigated further, he found a gold and quartz vein in the creek bank. With
this discovery, Barringer abandoned surface or placer mining and began digging deeper
in the creek bed. He essentially dug a shaft to extract the gold (Messino no date). He
would go on to employ over 50 miners in his operation.
The opening of the Barringer gold mine was a watershed event in gold mining history
becoming one of the most important gold mines in the 1800s in North Carolina (Messino
no date). It was the first gold mine in the Southern Piedmont to use lode mining Prior to
the mine's opening, gold mining involved a large element of change to find the gold
deposits (Messino no date). While other mining techniques were used, lode mining
became the most popular. Mine owners in nearby Mecklenburg County brought new
technologies and expert miners from South America, England, Germany, Wales,
Scotland, Ireland, Switzerland, Italy, and France. The miners from Cornwall England
proved to be the most skilled and began to influence the North Carolina mining industry
(Myers 2012). They taught the North Carolina miners safe techniques for lode mining.
In 1841, Stanly County formed from Montgomery County. The County was named to
honor John Stanly, a New Bern resident and representative in the North Carolina House
of Commons in the 1790s and early to mid-1800s (Mazzocchi 2006). The County seat
was named for George Monck, the Duke of Albemarle, one of the first Lord Proprietors
of North Carolina. Albemarle was established in 1857 and other communities in the
County soon followed including Locust, Misenheimer (near where the Barringer Gold
Mine was located), Richfield, Badin, New London, Lambert, and Stanfield. John Stanly
was a participant in one of North Carolina's famous duels in the early 19th century before
the County was founded (Mazzocchi 2006). A map of the area drawn during this period
shows the project area within Stanly County, with possible development in the northwest
corner (Figure 10).
As with much of the eastern part of the United States, the area felt the devastation of the
Civil War. During the war, gold mining operations in North Carolina halted as workers
left their mines to fight for the Confederacy. Only one mine in North Carolina remained
open. The Silver Hill Mine, located between Lexington and Denton, produced zinc, lead,
silver, and gold, which was used primarily for ammunition production for the troops
(Myers 2012). After the war, the Charlotte branch of the United States Mint closed, and
families and merchants began the slow rebuilding process (Myers 2012). It was not until
the 1870s that the area saw prosperity again.
19

Figure 10. Detail of A New Map of Nth. Carolina With its Canals, Roads, and distances
from place to place along the stage and steam boat routes. Published by S. Augustus
Mitchell, 1847.
In 1887, Mathias Barringer sold his gold mining operation to three venture capitalists,
Haggen, Counter, and Truskter. They proceeded to drop a shaft to find the main quartz
vein but were never successful (Messino no date). In 1903, the group sold the operation
to the Whitney Mining Company. The Company sank various shafts to 100-, 200-, and
300-foot depths and ran horizontal shafts intersecting the vertical shafts (Messino no
date). However, the miners became careless and a horizontal shaft broke through one of
the main shafts on August 11, 1904. This swelled Long Creek and flooded the shaft
killing eight people (Messino no date).
The coming of the railroad in the 1890s aided the County's growth and the area once
again saw bustling markets and new industries. Tobacco surpassed cotton as the primary
agricultural crop (Lewis 2007). This growth would continue until the Great Depression
and it would not be until the mid-20th century that development truly began again.
Today, Stanly County maintains a mixed economy with farms growing wheat, corn, and
cotton, and manufacturing plants for aircraft tires, yarn, and draperies (Martin no date).
The Barringer Gold Mine closed in the early 20th century and while subsequent owners
have tried to re -open the mine, it remains closed. Maps of the area drawn during the 20th
century show no development within the project area until the 1957 Mount Pleasant quad
map, which shows a single building just on the eastern edge of the southern parcel
20

(Figures 11 and 12). The northern parcel is shown as forested with the two agricultural
fields located in the southern section of the parcel. The southern parcel is shown as
wooded with the two agricultural fields located on the parcel. The existing power line
shows on the 1957 USGS map. No changes occur within the project area from 1957 to
1981.
ripakwrf rr,
r
r
Miavons`Grrxvr
Ch,
r.
H
:L•
1( A R R I 9
hisa
Lake
A F. R. I IS
.0
:Pfeiffer
1�,, Approximate
•
o lege project location •�'
e\k
n fi
4.7
•
Figure 11. Detail of 1957 Golds Hill and Mount Pleasant quads.
21

Figure 12. Detail of 1981 Richfield and Golds Hill quads.
Previously -Recorded Cultural Resources
Circa— performed an archival search for the project area using the North Carolina SHPO
archives on August 30, 2018. This research was completed to determine if historic
resources exist within the project area boundaries. The search identified four
archaeological resources and 24 architectural resources within a one -mile radius of the
project area boundaries (Table 2). Figures 13 and 14 show the approximate project area
boundaries (yellow -outlined area) and resources within proximity. Of the resources
identified, one archaeological resource and no architectural resources were identified
within the project area. This resource is shaded on Table 2. Please note that the northern
border of the project area has been adjusted slightly since the archival search was
completed.
Two of the sites identified could not be found during the search. Circa— could find no
information on Site 31ST181 and Site 31ST182. In addition, Circa— worked with North
Carolina SHPO staff to research the sites and they also could find no information on the
sites.
Table 2. Resources Within a One -Mile Radius of Project Area Boundaries.
Survey
Number
Date of resource
Description of resource
Survey Information
Recommendation
Archaeological Resources
31ST130
Archaic
Lithicworkshop
Phase
1989
I
survey
Recommended
further work 1989
31ST131
Archaic
Indeterminate
Phase
1989
I
survey
Recommended
further work 1989
no
22

Survey
Number
Date of resource
Description of resource
Survey Information
Recommendation
31ST181
Unknown
Cemetery
Unknown
Unknown
31ST182
Unknown
Mine
Unknown
Unknown
Architectural Resources
31RW760
ca. 1879-1960
Walnut Grove Church, east side
of SR 2148
Phase I survey
1977
None made
31ST53
ca. 1870
Burrage House, southwest side
of US 52
Phase I survey
11/89
None made
31ST58
ca. 1915
Culp House, west side of SR
1455, site includes one house,
one barn, two sheds, one privy,
one corn crib, one granary, and
one smokehouse
Phase I survey
11/89
None made
31ST59
ca. 1910
Bessie Dry House, east side SR
1455, site includes one house,
one log barn, one smokehouse,
and one summer kitchen
Phase I survey
11/89
None made
31ST60
ca. 1870
William Dry House, east side of
SR 1455, site includes one
house, one root cellar, and one
barn
Phase I survey
11/89
None made
31ST62
No date
Glover Farm Complex, north
side of US 52, site includes one
house, two chicken houses, one
hay barn, and one storage shed
Phase I survey
11/89
None made
31ST64
ca. 1920
Gowell Cottage, south side of
US 52, on Pfeiffer College
Campus
Phase I survey
12/89
None made
31ST65
ca. 1940
Grey Stone Inn, south side of
US 52
Phase I survey
11/89
None made
31ST75
ca. 1935
Lloyds Antiques, 48516 US 52,
site includes one main building
and two outbuildings/annexes
Phase I survey
11/89
Determined eligible
2012
31ST78
ca. 1898
Mattons Grove United Methodist
Church, north side of SR 1454,
site includes one church and
one cemetery
Phase I survey
11/89
Determined
potentially eligible
1990
31ST84
ca. 1910-1918
Misenheimer Rural
Neighborhood, north and south
sides of SR 1455, site consists
of three houses, one granary,
two corn cribs, one
smokehouse, two barns, one
well, one woodshed, and one
garage
Phase I survey
11/89
None made
31ST90
ca. 1880
Former Northern Methodist
Church, east side of SR 1455
Phase I survey
11/89
None made
31ST94
ca. 1885
G. W. Peeler House, south side
of SR 1455, structure in ruinous
state, outbuildings removed
Phase I survey
11/89
None made
31ST95
ca. 1935
Pfeiffer Junior College Historic
District, north side of US 52, site
includes six halls, one
administration building, one
Phase I survey 3/98
Listed on the
National Register of
Historic Places 1999
23

Survey
Number
Date of resource
Description of resource
Survey Information
Recommendation
chapel, one president's
residence, one library, one
student center, one science
building, and Gowell Cottage
(ST64)
31ST112
ca. 1940
Selles Barn, north side of SR
1454
Phase I survey
11/89
None made
31ST119
ca. 1940
Herman Wagoner House,
northeast side of US 52, site
includes one house, one picnic
area with built in fire
pit/barbeque, one stone terrace,
one retaining wall, and one
garage
Phase I survey
11/89
Determined eligible
1999
31ST122
ca. 1969
Wesley Chapel United Methodist
Church, east side of SR 1455,
site includes one church and
one cemetery
Phase I survey
11/89
None made
31ST763
ca. 1941
Henry Pfeiffer Chapel, north side
of US 52
Phase I survey 3/98
Contributing
resource to Pfeiffer
Junior College
District (31ST95)
31ST764
ca. 1935
President's House, north side of
US 52
Phase I survey 3/98
Contributing
resource to Pfeiffer
Junior College
District (31ST95)
31ST765
ca. 1937
Jane Freeman Hall, north side of
US 52
Phase I survey 3/98
Contributing
resource to Pfeiffer
Junior College
District (31ST95)
31ST766
ca. 1923
Administration Building, north
side of US 52
Phase I survey 3/98
Contributing
resource to Pfeiffer
Junior College
District (31ST95)
31ST767
ca. 1935
Rowe Hall, north side of US 52,
Phase I survey 3/98
Contributing
resource to Pfeiffer
Junior College
District (31ST95)
31ST768
ca. 1935
Goode Hall, north side of US 52,
Phase I survey 3/98
Contributing
resource to Pfeiffer
Junior College
District (31ST95)
31ST769
ca. 1942
Washington Hall, north side of
US 52,
Phase I survey 3/98
Contributing
resource to Pfeiffer
Junior College
District (31ST95)
24

Figure 13. Map from North Carolina SHPO Office showing the previously -identified
archaeological sites within a one -mile radius of the project area (outlined in yellow).
snPri,! Esti. FPHE, [wnyrj LEGS InMni4y! 1
Misenheirner Solar Farm
aq •nna EPr kni ea Es.!i11E Sind.. XGC[
Mep rorvbu[u: writhe CiS User rommufq
?? P. GS CI';Iry '1
MOS
Legend
0 lu.nhum.rsm . pi DIKE
SRIEP .iLphL .r.eue...
p Hiuorir Rcwunn
trn. ]ILL. Muff.
Circa- Cultural
ReS011tre
S1.wapement, IlC
Figure 14. Map from North Carolina SHPO Office showing the previously -identified
architectural sites within a one -mile radius of the project area (outlined in blue).
25

Archaeological Resource Potential
Given the project area's proximity to the stream channels coupled with the presence of
well -drained soils along the margins of the streams and upland slopes, the possibility of
finding Native American resources on the project area is considered moderate. Most of
the previously -identified Native American resources in the region were found adjacent or
along stream channels. Given this information, it is possible that a Native American site,
most likely a temporary base or smaller camp or lithic scatter could be found within the
project area.
Given the project area's proximity to stream channels, and early transportation routes and
towns, the possibility of finding historic resources is considered moderate to high. Given
this information, it is possible that additional historic sites, most likely structures
associated with a domestic complex in the vicinity of the cemetery, could also be found
within the project area boundaries. Given the previously -identified sites, this site would
most likely date from the 19th through the early 20th century and would range in size from
under one acre to more than two acres.
METHODS AND TECHNIQUES
Research Strategy
The survey was designed to identify all cultural resources present in the project area and
to obtain sufficient information to make recommendations about the further research
potential of each resource based on potential eligibility to the National Register of
Historic Places. To accomplish this, both documentary research and archaeological field
testing was performed at a level in compliance with the Secretary of the Interior's
Standards (Department of the Interior 1983, 48 FR 44720-44723), as well as North
Carolina SHPO guidelines for Phase I archaeological surveys. Moreover, the field survey
was conducted in compliance with statutes regarding the impact of undertakings on
historic properties as summarized by the Advisory Council on Historic Preservation (36
CFR 800 [1986 and amended 2000]). To meet Advisory Council on Historic
Preservation standards, a Phase I archaeological survey must be conducted in "a
reasonable and good faith effort to identify historic properties that may be affected by the
undertaking" (36 CFR 800.4). The Phase I survey was performed and documented at a
level that meets or exceeds these standards.
A cultural resource is gauged to be significant if at least one of four National Register of
Historic Places criteria can be applied to it:
A. Associated with significant events in the broad patterns of national history;
B. Associated with the lives of persons significant in our past;
C. Representative of a type, period, or method of construction, or the work of
a master; and
D. Capable of yielding important information about the past.
Typically, Criterion D applies to archaeological sites. In order to be capable of yielding
important information about the past, generally a site must possess artifacts, soil strata,
structural remains, or other cultural features that make it possible to test historical
26

hypotheses, corroborate and amplify currently available information, or reconstruct the
sequence of the local archaeological record.
Methods
Archival Research
Circa— reviewed historic maps and records and examined cartographic and historic works
that are housed at the Library of Congress, city directories, census data, slave records,
North Carolina site forms and reports, and the County. Data accumulated during
previous research on Native American and historic sites throughout the region was also
examined. This background research aided in predicting the presence or absence of sites
and to characterize the location and types of sites that could be found within the project
area.
The review of previously -identified Native American site locational data can reveal
trends in setting, soils, and elevations to identify similar landscapes and landforms to aid
in the prediction of unrecorded Native American resources within the project area.
The review of previously -identified historic site locational data (including standing
structures) can reveal trends in setting, soils, and elevations to identify similar landscapes
and landforms to aid in the prediction of unrecorded historic resources within the project
area. In addition, the review of historic maps can aid in the identification of sites and the
recreation of historic land use (i.e. forested areas and agricultural areas changes over
time).
Architectural Field Methods
Field survey of all historic structures within the project area was conducted according to
North Carolina SHPO's survey procedures. A North Carolina SHPO site form was
completed for each structure or complex 50 years of age or older, and photographs of the
exterior taken.
Archaeological Field Methods
The project tract contains areas of low, moderate, and high archaeological site
probability. According to Circa—'s assessment, areas classified as low -potential are areas
of moderate to steep slopes, wetlands, disturbed areas, and poor soil; moderate -potential
areas are level landforms that contain somewhat well -drained soils; and high -potential
areas are well -drained soils located proximal to water, a source of raw material for tool
making, or a source of food, or close to a known historic site and transportation
corridors.
Areas of low -archaeological potential within the project area generally include the stream
corridors, steep slopes, wetlands, the ponded areas, and the lowlands that surround them,
gravel roads, and the utility power lines. In addition, the 423.40 acres of timbered and
the 55.70 acres of cleared forested and stump removal areas are typed as low -probability
for retaining intact archaeological resources. The use of the level uplands as timber -
staging areas has deflated the soils and the removal of the stumps and clearing of the
brush has also destroyed the soil integrity in those areas. Circa— staff walked the
27

timbered areas at 50-foot intervals and excavate judgmental shovel tests to verify that
there are no above -ground resources or domestic plants located within this area. The
acres of low -potential areas are found in the settings where independent variables suggest
that archaeological sites are unlikely. The low -probability areas will be walked at 50-foot
intervals and shovel tested at 10% or greater. Approximately 58 acres are 10% of the
low -probability areas and would require roughly 928 shovel tests to sample those areas
according to the model.
Moderate -potential areas are defined as those which, based on landform and location, are
moderately likely to contain at least some type of archaeological remains, either Native
American, historic, or both. Similar landscapes within the region as the project area have
contained some landforms with level, moderately -drained, moderately -productive soils,
and a moderate proximity to surface water sources that contained sites. The 123.90 acres
of moderate potential are those that combine the following: relief is less than a 15%
slope, soils are well -drained or moderately -well -drained; and distance to water is greater
than 400 feet and no further than 1,000 feet. Within the project area, these potential areas
consist of broad gentle slopes and uplands that are roughly 500 feet from a water source.
In addition, in some areas, these are located on steeper slopes closer to a water source.
These areas will be walked and judgmentally shovel tested up to 25% or greater of the
area. The areas tested will be located throughout the acreage and will consist of the
slightly -elevated landforms above the streams. Shovel test intervals were at 50-foot
intervals. Approximately 30.97 acres are 25% of the moderate -probability areas and
would require roughly 495 shovel tests to sample those areas according to the model.
High -potential areas are defined as those which, based on landform and location, are very
likely to contain at least some type of archaeological remains, either Native American,
historic, or both. Similar settings within the region as the project area contain some
landforms with level, well -drained, productive soils, proximity to surface water sources;
these are additionally viewed as having high potential for historic and Native American
settlement. In addition, the landform around the historic cemetery could contain a house
site associated with the cemetery. The 35.70 acres of high potential are those that
combine the following: relief is less than a 15% slope, soils are well -drained or
moderately -well -drained, the nearest distance to water is 400 feet or less, and areas near
known historic sites. Within the development area, the high -potential areas are noted on
the center and edges of the uplands near the drainages and on the upland near the
cemetery. Survey covered 100% of these areas and was tested at 50-foot intervals and
would require approximately 571 shovel tests to sample the model.
All shovel tests, approximately 1.50-foot in diameter, were excavated according to
natural levels to sterile subsoil, and all soils screened through 1/4-inch wire mesh. Profiles
were recorded for representative shovel tests and soil color recorded in accordance with
the Munsell classification system. All shovel tests were recorded on standard field forms
and all cultural material retained.
28

Laboratory Methods
Once removed from the field, all archaeological data and specimens were transported to
Circa—'s laboratory for processing and analysis. Prior to washing, artifacts from a given
provenance were first emptied into a screened basket and sorted. Items determined to be
unstable will be either dry brushed or in some cases not washed and re -bagged with the
appropriate provenience information. These items may include unstable organic objects,
such as wood or other plant material, leather, bone, fabric, metal requiring immediate
conservation, and overglaze painted delftware, and other soft -bodied ceramics such as
some local wares. Stable objects will be washed with a soft brush and edges of ceramics
and glass will be thoroughly cleaned to aid in the identification of body type and
mending. Items will be then placed by provenance on a drying rack.
In a given provenance, artifacts were sorted first by material and checked for mends.
Artifacts were analyzed by type, color, design, pattern, shape, and portion of the fragment
(rim, neck, body, base, etc.) and recorded by count into a database for analysis. Non -
diagnostic artifacts with like attributes will be grouped together - i.e., clear, amber, etc.
bottle body glass fragments, unrecognizable nail fragments, corroded metal fragments,
and aqua window glass. Diagnostic artifacts were sorted and grouped together based on
type or ware and/or vessel or function.
Analysis of historic artifacts will include the use of the extensive study collections
available at the Colonial Williamsburg Foundation. Other references available include
Olive Jones' and Catherine Sullivan's The Parks Canada Glass Glossary (1985), Ivor
Noel Hume's Guide to Artifacts of Colonial America (1969), and The Colonial
Williamsburg Foundation Laboratory Manual (2010).
RESULTS OF SURVEY
Circa— conducted the survey from March 11, 2019 through May 5, 2019, which
encompassed approximately 255 person days. The purpose of the field survey is to
provide specific information concerning the location, nature, and distribution of
archaeological resources within the permit areas. An archaeological site is defined as a
grouping of artifacts that date to specific periods and that reveal the location of human
activity and land use.
Architectural Resources
There were no architectural resources located within the project area.
Archaeological Resources
The northern project area is located on the north side of Route 53 on an interior lot
accessed by a dirt road off Reeves Island Road. The landform consists of a center north -
to -south trending upland with moderate swales to steep side slopes above the upper
reaches of a tributary to Curl Tail Creek on the east and south and by the upper reaches of
Riles Creek to the east. The highest elevations on the site are located in the center of the
project area at 700 feet AMSL. The area is currently forested or agricultural fields. A
power line easement runs along the eastern boundary of the parcel. Plates 1 through 8
show the current condition of the northern parcel.
29

Plate 1. View of forested area within the northern parcel, looking north.
Plate 2. View of forested area within the northern parcel, looking south.
30

Plate 3. View of forested area within the northern parcel, looking northwest.
Plate 4. View of forested area within the northern parcel, looking northeast.
31

Plate 5. View of agricultural field in the northern parcel, looking southwest.
Plate 6. View of agricultural field in the northern parcel, looking west.
32

Plate 7. View of the agricultural field adjacent to Route 52 in the northern parcel
looking north.
Plate 8. View of the power line easement on the eastern side of the northern parcel,
looking north.
33

The southern project area is located on the south side of Route 53 on an interior lot
accessed by a dirt road and a well-built gravel road that ends at the mine The landform
consists of three north -to -south trending uplands with moderate swales to steep side
slopes above the upper reaches of a tributary to Long Creek on the east and south and by
Curl Tail Creek to the northeast. The highest elevations on the site are located in the
center of the project area at 711 feet AMSL. The area is currently secondary growth
forest, cleared land, or agricultural fields. A power line easement runs along the southern
boundary of the parcel. Plates 9 through 24 illustrate the current conditions of the tract.
Plate 9. View of forested area within the southern parcel, looking northeast.
34

Plate 10. View of forested area within the southern parcel, looking north.
Plate 11. View of forested area within the southern parcel, looking west.
35

Plate 12. View of forested area within the southern parcel, looking northeast.
Plate 13. View of cleared area within the southern parcel, looking west.
36

Plate 14. View of cleared area and row of stump and limb debris within the southern
parcel, looking east.
Plate 15. View of agricultural field in the southern parcel, looking south.
37

Plate 16. View of agricultural field in the southern parcel, looking southeast.
Plate 17. View of agricultural field in the southern parcel, looking southeast.
38

Plate 18. View of agricultural field in the southern parcel, looking northeast.
Plate 19. View of agricultural field in the southern parcel, looking north.
39

Plate 20. View of agricultural field and cleared area in the southern parcel, looking
southwest.
Plate 21. View of the power line easement within the southern parcel, looking east.
40

Plate 22. View of agricultural field in the southern parcel, looking south.
Plate 23. View of agricultural field in the southern parcel, looking east.
41

Plate 24. View of the topsoil in the cleared area in the southern parcel, looking north.
Fields
The fields in the project area were surveyed after the crops were harvested; however, the
fields were not prepped for another planting and were fallow during the winter months.
The surface visibility ranged from 0% to 10%. Portions of the fields were created from
the harvesting of the trees, grubbing and removing stumps, and bulldozing the debris into
brush piles. Within a cleared area on the southern parcel, the subsoil was evident on the
ground surface (see Plate 24). In the active agricultural fields, the cleared areas were not
as evident as the plowing had broken up and mixed the soil with vegetative matter.
Figure 15 shows the areas where the trees were harvested, and the ground was cleared for
the expansion of agricultural fields.
Forested/Timbered Areas
Several of the forested areas were planted in pine and these areas were timbered in the
past and replanted. Figure 15 shows the areas timbered. In the woods where timbering
had not occurred, Stratum A, ranged from 0.37 to 0.52 feet thick, and consisted of a
reddish yellow (7.5YR 7/6) loamy clay with numerous natural stone inclusions (Figure
16). Stratum B, ranged from 0.32 to 0.68 feet thick, and consisted of a dark reddish
brown (5YR 3/3) silty clay with numerous stone inclusions. Stratum C, approximately
0.10 feet thick, consisted of a sterile red (2.5YR 4/6) clay subsoil or C-horizon. In the
woods where timbering had occurred, Stratum A, ranged from 0.19 to 0.61 feet thick, and
consisted of a deflated reddish yellow (7.5YR 7/6) loamy clay with numerous natural
stone and tree branch inclusions. Stratum B, approximately 0.10 feet thick, consisted of a
sterile red (2.5YR 4/6) clay subsoil or C-horizon.
42

Figure 15. Timber harvest map. The pink shading illustrates the areas timbered in the
past and replanted, the blue shading illustrates the timbered areas that were converted to
agricultural use after the trees were harvested.
ST 43-111
A= Deflated reddish Ynito\y
I7SYR 7a3) loam day with
numerous stone and free branch
irrcdLons
B = Subsoil = Red (2 5YR at)
day
ST 99-35
A
B
'I 0'
1.6'
A= t !Iai q Ieo hSh Yefary r15YR
141 loamy day +non MlnOCILS Siam
and tree branch Ih[Ntaldn5
5 = Suhadl - Red (2.5YA 481 dev
ST 46-75
A= Reddish peNDW I1 SYR 715I IOdirM
Clay wllh numerous WWI 51.0m
1i0n5
B = Dark reddish brown (5YR 3r3) 5I¢y
day with numerous 9Ona InClusfrarta
0 = Subsol = Red (2.5YR ql6} day
ST 110-58
A = Aeddlsh Ycllow {7SYR 7r6) loamy clay
with numerous mama! starts Inclusions
B= Dark reddish brown (5YR 3r3t sah). day
with numerous atone inakisiorts
C=slnk+eI=Ralf Ia5YR CV clay
Figure 16. Overall representative shovel test profiles.
43

Circa— excavated a total of 2,177 shovel tests across the project area; 940 shovel tests
within the areas identified as having low archaeological potential, 616 shovel tests within
the moderate probability areas, and 666 shovel tests within the high -probability areas.
The excavations were difficult to complete due to the high frequency of rain and the
above -average rainfall at the beginning of the year. The high content of clay in the soil
retained the water and the soil was sticky making it difficult to excavate and screen.
The Phase I survey identified one mid- to late 20th century dump along the edge of the
dirt entrance road and one Native American site within the northern parcel, and three
Native American lithic scatters, a cemetery, and a gold mine in the southern parcel.
Circa— also noted piles of rock along the edges of the fields where stones were cleared
from the fields in the northern and southern parcels (Figure 17).
I
7
r r
© PI » r;l tir1a 1'01.I07111'.b
MOM
tit
Figure 17. Map showing location of newly -identified archaeological sites.
Dump, northern parcel
One mid to late 20th century dump was located in the northern parcel, along the edge of
the entrance road. The debris consisted of furniture, tires, kitty litter containers, and other
trash (Plate 25).
44

Plate 25. View of dump in the northern parcel, looking west.
Stone -Clearing Pile #1
A pile of stone, roughly three feet wide by 12 feet long, was noted just within the wood
line along the northeastern edge of the agricultural field (Plate 26). These stones are
related to the clearing of the fields to remove the large stones to prevent damage to plows
or other equipment. The stones in this pile appear to be randomly placed and do not
represent a wall or fence.
Stone -Clearing Pile #2
A pile of stone, roughly three feet wide by 10 feet long, was noted just within the wood
line along the eastern edge of the agricultural field (Plate 27). These stones are related to
the clearing of the fields to remove the large stones to prevent damage to plows or other
equipment. The stones in this pile appear to be randomly placed and do not represent a
wall or fence.
Site 31ST261
This site is located on the southwestern edge of an upland between two unnamed
tributaries to Long Creek (Figure 18 and Plate 28). The site is fairly level and is situated
in an active agricultural field. The elevation is 669 feet AMSL and the landform drains
to the east, south, and west toward the stream channels.
45

Plate 26. View of stone pile along the edge of the field in the northern parcel arca,
looking north.
Plate 27. View of stone pile along the edges of the field in the southern project area,
looking east.
46

Legend
Project Boundary -739.6Acres
6 Positive Shovel Tut
Negative Shovel Test
Transmission Lines
Topographic Contour 5'
Fenceline
Area Used for Connection Lines Only
E3Architecture Resource
Archaeological Resource
Cultural Resource Probability
High - 35.7 Acres
Law -106.9 Acres
Moderate - 123.9 Acres
Timbered Areas - 423.4 Acres
limbered -Cleared Areas -55.7 Acres
! • • ! • •
• • • • • •
00 • ! •
•
• • • • • • • • • ! •
• !
• ! • • • • • ! • • • •
• •
• • • • • • ! • •
• • ! • • • • • ! • •
• ! ! ■ ! • • $ ! ! •
• • • • • • • • •
Figure 18. Site map for Site 31ST261.
Plate 28. View of Site 31ST261, looking south.
47

The site was recorded by Phase I shovel testing on a 50-foot grid across the landform.
The Phase I shovel tests indicated artifacts concentrated within an area measuring
approximately 125 feet north to south and 150 feet east to west. Circa— excavated 15
shovel tests in this area on the 50-foot grid and 10 shovel tests on the 25-foot grid. The
site borders were defined by double -negative shovel tests to the east, west, south, and
north. Shovel test profiles consisted of one soil stratum overlying a sterile subsoil
(Figure 19 and Plate 29). Stratum A, approximately 0.70 to 1.20 feet thick, consisted of a
reddish yellow (7.5YR 7/6) loamy clay plowzone with natural stone inclusions. Stratum
B, excavated approximately 0.30 feet thick, consisted of a sterile red (2.5YR 4/6) clay
subsoil or C-horizon.
Seven artifacts were recovered from four positive shovel tests and three artifacts were
recovered from the ground surface. On average, 1.75 artifacts were recovered from each
of the positive tests. Of the 10 artifacts recovered, 10 or 100% date to the Native
American use of the land and none or 0% date to the historic period. Native American
material included one quartz shatter, five quartz secondary flakes, and four quartz tertiary
flakes (Plate 30).
Site 31 ST261 ST 114-73 Site 31 ST262 ST 115-67
0' 0'
A. Reddish yellow (7 5YR 706)
loamy clay plotntiria with natural
stone Inclusions
B = Subsoil =Red (25Y34. 416)
clay
Site 31ST263 ST 101-77
0'
A 5'
1.0'
1.5'
A= Reddish yellow 17 5YR 776y loamy
day plowZone with natural stone
Inclusion$
B = Subsoil = Red [2 5YR 47E{1 day
1.0'
A= Reddish yellow (7 5YR 7k31
kin day olowzone with rrelural
Stone IrICbisiOns
B = Subsoil = Red t2 5YR 418)
clay
Site 31ST264 ST 41-75
0•
1.0'
1.5'
A= Reddish yellow (7 5YR Tiel loamy
clay plowzone with natural stone
inclusions
B = SuhsoiI = Red (2.5YR 4r6J clay
Figure 19. Representative site shovel test profiles.
48

Plate 29. View of shovel test from Site 31ST261.
Plate 30. Representative artifacts from Site 31ST261.
49

Lithic flakes comprised nine or 90% of the Native American artifacts found at the site.
Of these, none or 0% of the flakes were primary, five or 56% of the flakes were
secondary, and four or 44% of the flakes are tertiary. Of these, nine or 100% are crafted
from quartz and none or 0% is crafted from quartzite. The presence of secondary and
tertiary flakes may indicate the reduction of blanks into tools and/or possibly the refining
of cores and/or bifaces.
No diagnostic artifacts or Native American pottery were recovered, and the could not be
tied to a specific period. Based on the type and quantity of artifacts recovered, the site
appears to have been used infrequently over time for limited activity and would be
primarily seasonal, probably tied to a variety of subsistence pursuits such as: the
exploitation of wild plants, seeds, and berries; hunting; and/or nut gathering.
The indeterminate period site does not appear to have been intensively or frequently used
based on the number of artifacts recovered. The integrity of the Native American
component of the site was rated as poor at the conclusion of the Phase I survey. This
judgment is largely because it appears that this site has been destroyed by the later
agricultural activities at the site. The site exhibited diminished integrity and low -research
value for answering important research questions relating to the Native American period.
Basic questions of site type and date have been addressed to the extent possible, but the
lack of stratigraphic integrity and subsurface features (all artifacts recovered from the
plowzone) essentially preclude an analysis of chronological resolution that would help in
documenting settlement patterns, site use, and technological change over time. Circa -
recommends that the site is not eligible for listing on the National Register of Historic
Places under Criterion D. In addition, the site is not associated with significant events in
the broad patterns of national history (Criterion A); is not associated with the lives of
persons significant in our past (Criterion B); or representative of a type, period, or
method of construction, or the work of a master (Criterion C). Accordingly, no further
archaeological investigations appear warranted at the site, and it is recommended that the
site be given clearance for any potential development projects.
Site 31ST262
This site is located on the northwestern edge of an upland on the southeastern edge of an
unnamed tributary to Long Creek (Figure 20 and Plate 31). The site is fairly level and is
situated in an active agricultural field. The elevation is 668 feet AMSL and the landform
drains to the north and west toward the stream channel.
The site was recorded by Phase I shovel testing on a 50-foot grid across the landform and
two artifacts recovered from the ground surface. The Phase I shovel tests indicated
artifacts concentrated within an area measuring approximately 125 feet north to south and
150 feet east to west. Circa- excavated 12 shovel tests in this area on the 50-foot grid
and 10 shovel tests on the 25-foot grid. The site borders were defined by double -negative
shovel tests to the west, south, and north, and by single -negative and the landform to the
east. Shovel test profiles consisted of one soil stratum overlying a sterile subsoil (see
Figure 19 and Plate 32.). Stratum A, approximately 0.70 to 1.15 feet thick, consisted of a
reddish yellow (7.5YR 7/6) loamy clay plowzone with natural stone inclusions. Stratum
50

B, excavated approximately 0.30 feet thick, consisted of a sterile red (2.5YR 4/6) clay
subsoil or C-horizon.
Legend
j Protect Boundary - 739.6 Acres
Positive Shovel Tes!
3 Negative Shovel Test
- Transmission Lines
Topographic Contour 5'
Fenceene
Area Used for Connection Lines Only
Architecture Resource
Archaeological Resource
Cultural Resource Probability
High - 35.7 Acres
Low -109.9 Acres
Moderate -173-9 Acres
Timbered Areas - 423.4 Acres
Timbered -Cleared Areas - 55.7 Acres
1111111111111
1 i 1 1 1 i 1 1 i 1, 1114.1611:111
1 1 ! 1
1 i I 1 1 1
AA
1.
ANL 1
Figure 20. Site map for Site 31 ST262.
Plate 31. View of Site 31ST262 in the southern parcel, looking northwest.
51

Plate 32. View of shovel test from Site 31ST262.
Ten artifacts were recovered from three positive shovel tests and two artifacts were
recovered from the ground surface. On average, three artifacts were recovered from each
of the positive tests. Of the 12 artifacts recovered, 12 or 100% date to the Native
American use of the land and none or 0% date to the historic period. Native American
material included one quartz primary flake, seven quartz secondary flakes, and four
quartz tertiary flakes (Plate 33).
Lithic flakes comprised 12 or 100% of the Native American artifacts found at the site. Of
these, one or 8% of the flakes were primary, seven or 59% of the flakes were secondary,
and four or 33% of the flakes are tertiary. Of these, 12 or 100% are crafted from quartz
and none or 0% is crafted from quartzite. The presence of secondary and tertiary flakes
may indicate the reduction of blanks into tools and/or possibly the refining of cores
and/or bifaces.
No diagnostic artifacts or Native American pottery were recovered, and the lithics could
not be tied to a specific period. Based on the type and quantity of artifacts recovered, the
site appears to have been used infrequently over time for limited activity and would be
primarily seasonal, probably tied to a variety of subsistence pursuits such as: the
exploitation of wild plants, seeds, and berries; hunting; and/or nut gathering.
52

Plate 33. Representative artifacts from Site 31ST262.
The indeterminate period site does not appear to have been intensively or frequently used
based on the number of artifacts recovered. The integrity of the historic component of
the site was rated as poor at the conclusion of the Phase I survey. This judgment is
largely because it appears that this site has been destroyed by the later agricultural
activities at the site. The site exhibited diminished integrity and low -research value for
answering important research questions relating to the Native American period. Basic
questions of site type and date have been addressed to the extent possible, but the lack of
stratigraphic integrity and subsurface features (all artifacts recovered from the plowzone)
essentially preclude an analysis of chronological resolution that would help in
documenting settlement patterns, site use, and technological change over time. Circa -
recommends that the site is not eligible for listing on the National Register of Historic
Places under Criterion D. In addition, the site is not associated with significant events in
the broad patterns of national history (Criterion A); is not associated with the lives of
persons significant in our past (Criterion B); or representative of a type, period, or
method of construction, or the work of a master (Criterion C). Accordingly, no further
archaeological investigations appear warranted at the site, and it is recommended that the
site be given clearance for any potential development projects.
Site 31ST263
This site is located on the northwestern edge of an upland on the western edge of an
unnamed tributary to Long Creek just to the south of Glenmore Road (Figure 21 and
Plate 34). The site is fairly level and is situated in an active agricultural field. The
elevation is 686 feet AMSL and the landform drains to the north and west toward the
stream channel.
53

Proiecl Boundary - 739.6 Acres
Negative Shovel test
Transmission Lines
Topographic Contour 5'
L_J Fencellne
n Area Used for Connection Lines Only
toArchitecture Resource
EljArchaeological Resource
Cultural Resource Probability
j High - 353 Acres
Low • 100.9 Acres
Timbered -Cleared Areas - 55.7 Acres
Figure 21. Site map for Site 31ST263.
Plate 34. View of Site 31ST263 adjacent to Glenmore Road in the southern parce ,
looking southwest.
54

The site was recorded by Phase I shovel testing on a 50-foot grid across the landform and
three artifacts recovered from the ground surface. The Phase I shovel tests indicated
artifacts concentrated within an area measuring approximately 125 feet north to south and
150 feet east to west. Circa— excavated 12 shovel tests in this area on the 50-foot grid
and 10 shovel tests on the 25-foot grid. The site borders were defined by double -negative
shovel tests to the south, and by single -negative shovel tests to the north and east and by
the edge of the project area, and by single -negative shovel tests and the landform to the
west. Shovel test profiles consisted of one soil stratum overlying a sterile subsoil (see
Figure 19 and Plate 35). Stratum A, approximately 0.70 to 1.20 feet thick, consisted of a
reddish yellow (7.5YR 7/6) loamy clay plowzone with natural stone inclusions. Stratum
B, excavated approximately 0.30 feet thick, consisted of a sterile red (2.5YR 4/6) clay
subsoil or C-horizon.
Plate 35. View of shovel test from Site 31ST263.
Two artifacts were recovered from one positive shovel test and three artifacts were
recovered from the ground surface. On average, five artifacts were recovered from each
of the positive tests. Of the five artifacts recovered, five or 100% date to the Native
American use of the land and none or 0% date to the historic period. Native American
material included five quartz secondary flakes (Plate 36).
55

111111 rrr]11r1r]r11JI T T[IrIl 11 lrl�lIl I1I lit r111 fIf lllrrl 11111 r1 T�fI7T 1111 �[ilrllllil}I mlr�n
M LL 1
i13111111111rI111111IIIYIiIIII1 1L11111 1] 11I11 1 L 1L i1l11V111
Plate 36. Representative artifacts from Site 31 ST263.
Lithic flakes comprised five or 100% of the Native American artifacts found at the site.
Of these, none or 0% of the flakes were primary, five or 100% of the flakes were
secondary, and none or 0% of the flakes were tertiary. Of these, five or 100% are crafted
from quartz and none or 0% is crafted from quartzite. The presence of secondary flakes
may indicate the reduction of blanks into tools and/or possibly the refining of cores
and/or bifaces.
No diagnostic artifacts or Native American pottery were recovered, and the lithics could
not be tied to a specific period. Based on the type and quantity of artifacts recovered, the
site appears to have been used infrequently over time for limited activity and would be
primarily seasonal, probably tied to a variety of subsistence pursuits such as: the
exploitation of wild plants, seeds, and berries; hunting; and/or nut gathering.
The indeterminate period site does not appear to have been intensively or frequently used
based on the number of artifacts recovered. The shovel testing indicates a light density of
artifacts and positive shovel tests spread over the top of a restricted landform. The site
does appear to have a single temporal component. The integrity of the Native American
component of the site was rated as poor at the conclusion of the Phase I survey. This
judgment is largely because it appears that this site has been destroyed by the later
agricultural activities at the site. The site exhibited diminished integrity and low -research
value for answering important research questions relating to the Native American period.
Basic questions of site type and date have been addressed to the extent possible, but the
lack of stratigraphic integrity and subsurface features (all artifacts recovered from the
plowzone) essentially preclude an analysis of chronological resolution that would help in
documenting settlement patterns, site use, and technological change over time. Circa-
56

recommends that the site is not eligible for listing on the National Register of Historic
Places under Criterion D. In addition, the site is not associated with significant events in
the broad patterns of national history (Criterion A); is not associated with the lives of
persons significant in our past (Criterion B); or representative of a type, period, or
method of construction, or the work of a master (Criterion C). Accordingly, no further
archaeological investigations appear warranted at the site, and it is recommended that the
site be given clearance for any potential development projects.
Site 31ST264
This site is located on the northwestern edge of an upland on the northeastern edge of
Curl Tail Creek (Figure 22 and Plate 37). The site is fairly level and is situated in an
active agricultural field. The elevation is 666 feet AMSL and the landform drains to the
south towards the stream channel.
Legend
imor
: _J Project Boundary - 739.6 Acres
■ Positive Shove€ Test
= Negative Shovel Test
Transmission Lines
Topographic Contour 5'
_I Fenceline
Y •` "
`
I Area Lfsed for Connection Lines Only
rfA Architecture Resource
Archaeological Resource
Cultural Resource Probability
High - 35.7 Acres
Low - 100.9 Acres
Moderate • 123.9 Acres
l
Timbered Arms - 423.4 Acres
\ Timbered -Geared Areas - 55.7 Acres
Figure 22. Site plan for Site 31 ST264.
57

Plate 37. View of Site 31ST264, looking southeast.
The site was recorded by Phase I shovel testing on a 50-foot grid across the landform.
The Phase I shovel tests indicated artifacts concentrated within an area measuring
approximately 100 feet north to south and 100 feet east to west. Circa— excavated 12
shovel tests in this area on the 50-foot grid and seven shovel tests on the 25-foot grid.
The site borders were defined by double -negative shovel tests to the east, west, south, and
north. Shovel test profiles consisted of one soil stratum overlying a sterile subsoil (see
Figure 19 and Plate 38). Stratum A, approximately 0.70 to 1.15 feet thick, consisted of a
reddish yellow (7.5YR 7/6) loamy clay plowzone with natural stone inclusions. Stratum
B, approximately 0.10 feet thick, consisted of a sterile red (2.5YR 4/6) clay subsoil or C-
horizon.
Three artifacts were recovered from two positive shovel tests. On average, 1.50 artifacts
were recovered from each of the positive tests. Of the three artifacts recovered, three or
100% date to the Native American use of the land and none or 0% date to the historic
period. Native American material included two quartz secondary flakes and one quartz
tertiary flake (Plate 39).
Lithic flakes comprised three or 100% of the Native American artifacts found at the site.
Of these, none or 0% of the flakes were primary, two or 67% of the flakes were
secondary, and one or 33% of the flakes are tertiary. Of these, three or 100% are crafted
from quartz and none or 0% is crafted from quartzite. The presence of secondary and
tertiary flakes may indicate the reduction of blanks into tools and/or possibly the refining
of cores and/or bifaces.
58

Plate 38. View of shovel test from Site 31ST264.
nii1r 11111111I•1i n,jner�rmj„�PTnP'r�Trnliire[t„THTi,:
11
�Vlllll� ��1SlIlU1��1f11�l�lll�
IIIII�IIIIIIIIh
Plate 39. Representative artifacts from Site 31 ST264.
59

No diagnostic artifacts or Native American pottery were recovered, and the could not be
tied to a specific period. Based on the type and quantity of artifacts recovered, the site
appears to have been used infrequently over time for limited activity and would be
primarily seasonal, probably tied to a variety of subsistence pursuits such as: the
exploitation of wild plants, seeds, and berries; hunting; and/or nut gathering.
The indeterminate period site does not appear to have been intensively or frequently used
based on the number of artifacts recovered. The integrity of the Native American
component of the site was rated as poor at the conclusion of the Phase I survey. This
judgment is largely because it appears that this site has been destroyed by the later
agricultural activities at the site. The site exhibited diminished integrity and low -research
value for answering important research questions relating to the Native American period.
Basic questions of site type and date have been addressed to the extent possible, but the
lack of stratigraphic integrity and subsurface features (all artifacts recovered from the
plowzone) essentially preclude an analysis of chronological resolution that would help in
documenting settlement patterns, site use, and technological change over time. Circa —
recommends that the site is not eligible for listing on the National Register of Historic
Places under Criterion D. In addition, the site is not associated with significant events in
the broad patterns of national history (Criterion A); is not associated with the lives of
persons significant in our past (Criterion B); or representative of a type, period, or
method of construction, or the work of a master (Criterion C). Accordingly, no further
archaeological investigations appear warranted at the site, and it is recommended that the
site be given clearance for any potential development projects.
Site 31ST181
This resource is located in a copse of trees at the northwestern edge of an upland. A low
uncoursed stone wall surrounds the rectangular cemetery. This wall may be built from
stones cleared from the surrounding fields. Four of the graves in the center are marked
by a single course of block with a stone marker adjacent to it marked with a death date of
July 14, 1883 suggesting that the cemetery dates to at least the late 19th century. The
graves are aligned in rows with natural stone headstones and some footstones. A large
marker was noted just outside of a small marked plot (Figure 23 and Plates 40 - 45). The
trees are surrounded by open agricultural fields and various mature trees and saplings are
growing in and around the cemetery with several downed trees also noted throughout the
cemetery.
The cemetery measures approximately 65 feet north to south by 52 feet east to west and
contains approximately 25 marked graves. The graves are aligned in several rows
running north to south. Most of the burials have simple fieldstone markers of local origin
and some contain both headstones and footstones. None of the fieldstone markers are
inscribed. None of the graves have decorations such as artificial flowers or other grave
goods, indicating that the cemetery has not been visited in the recent past. There is one
section in the center of the cemetery bordered by a single course of block. A block on the
western side of the border is inscribed "Barringer" with the dates February 23, 1847 and
July 14, 1883. Within the border there are four fieldstone marked graves in a row
running roughly north to south. It would appear that at least this part of the cemetery is
60

associated with the Barringer family, which is consistent with the history of the
property.
Figure 23. Site plan for cemetery.
61

Plate 40. View of the cemetery in the southern parcel, looking northeast.
Plate 41. View of the rock wall around the cemetery, looking south.
62

Plate 42. View of wall at the cemetery, looking north.
Platc 43. Vicw of the cemetery in the southern parcel, looking east.
63

Plate 44. View of the marker at the cemetery in the southern parcel, looking east.
Although faint, the inscription reads BARRINGER FEB 23 1847 JVLY14 1883.
Plate 45. View of cemetery within the southern parcel area, looking south.
64

The circa 19th century cemetery appears to be a relatively small family cemetery that is
no longer in use and has not been visited in the recent past. The fieldstone
markers appear to be in fair condition, although they do not possess any unique
characteristics that would separate them from other mid to late 19th century cemetery
examples in Stanly County. The design and workmanship of the tombstones is
undistinguished, and the construction materials are common (Criterion C). A preliminary
review of historic records including various maps and historical contexts for Stanly
County does indicate that the property is associated with the Barringer family and is part
of the gold mining history of the County and North Carolina (Criterion A). The
Barringer family is a prominent County family with ties to the gold mining
industry (Criterion B). Typically, cemeteries are not individually eligible for listing on
the National Register of Historic Places. Given that this cemetery is a common type of
smaller rural family cemetery and the markers are common fieldstone with no markings,
with the exception of one marker, the cemetery does not appear to be potentially eligible
for the National Register of Historic Places under Criteria A, B, or C. Circa— marked
the site with blue flagging and its location was accurately mapped by registered land
surveyors with the Timmons Group and plotted on the project maps. This site will be
avoided by the proposed Project, and no further work is warranted. Circa— does
recommend that the borders of the cemetery be marked in the field with orange safety
fencing to protect the site during construction.
Site 31ST182, Gold Mine
In what would later become Stanly County, Mathias Tobias Barringer, a German
immigrant, acquired over 80 acres of land in the early 19th century. In 1825, while
hunting on his property along Long Creek, he found gold flakes floating on the creek
(Myers 2012). When he investigated further, he found a gold and quartz vein in the creek
bank. With this discovery, Barringer abandoned surface or placer mining and began
digging deeper in the creek bed. He essentially dug a shaft to extract the gold and would
go on to employ over 50 miners in his operations (Messino no date).
Barringer continued to work the mine throughout most of the 19th century. In 1887,
Mathias Barringer sold his gold mining operation to three venture capitalists, Haggen,
Counter, and Truskter. They proceeded to drop a shaft to find the main quartz vein but
were never successful (Messino no date). In 1903, the group sold the operation to the
Whitney Mining Company. The Company sank various shafts to 100-, 200-, 300- and
400-foot depths and ran horizontal shafts intersecting the vertical shafts (Messino no
date). A map drawn during this time shows the layout of these various shafts (Figure 24).
The Barringer Gold Mine closed in the early 20th century after a mining accident and
while subsequent owners have tried to re -open the mine, it remains closed.
65

•
er:_ '
74. �,• L
•
Kr err M1•5
z'
ROYC GQLD #+ f
` f -"TA /V )' t—Cei Y Tr' IV- C /
{ l H2f � f CONE- Y
f
Figure 24. Detail of A map of Barringer Mine in the early 1900s. It shows the vertical
air shaft and branching mining tunnels of one section (at its deepest, the mine reaches
nearly 400 feet.
The site is located on the southern edge of the project area and today consists of large
blocks, several 20th-century metal structures, large rock piles, tailings, and gravel on the
ground surface. The site is overgrown with tall grasses and is abandoned (Figure 25 and
Plates 46 - 49). No shovel tests were excavated within the site boundaries due to the
presence of the rock piles, tailings, and other noted disturbance on the ground surface. In
addition, the mine shafts are located somewhere underneath the ground surface and
excavations within this area could have been dangerous. The extent of the mine site was
identified by the landowner and by the above -ground noted resources above.
The circa 19th century Barringer gold mine, appears to be abandoned. The opening of the
Barringer gold mine was a watershed event in gold mining history and the mine became
one of the most important gold mines in the 1800s in North Carolina (Messino no date).
It was the first gold mine in the Southern Piedmont to use lode mining The design and
workmanship of the gold mine is undistinguished, and the construction materials are
common (Criterion C). However, the site is associated with the Barringer family and is a
major part of the gold mining history of the County and North Carolina (Criterion A).
The Barringer family is a prominent County family with ties to the gold mining
industry (Criterion B). Given this, the Barringer gold mine appears to be potentially
eligible for the National Register of Historic Places under Criteria A, B, and D, but not
Criterion C. Circa— marked the site with blue flagging and its location was accurately
mapped by registered land surveyors with the Timmons Group and plotted on the project
maps. This site will be avoided by the proposed Project as the project borders were
66

adjusted to remove the mine from the solar farm property. Accordingly, no further
archaeological investigation is warranted. Circa— does recommend that the borders of the
mine adjacent to the project area be marked in the field with orange safety fencing to
protect the site during construction.
Figure 25. Site plan for Site 31ST182.
Plate 46. View of gold mine in the southern parcel, looking southwest.
67

Plate 47. View of the goldmine within the southern parcel, looking west.
Plate 48. View of 20th-century mine structure, looking northwest.
68

Plate 49. View of 20th-century mine structure, looking west.
Table 3. Summary of identified resources and recommendations
Type
National
Register
Eligibility
Recommendation
Assessment of
Effect
31 ST261
Indeterminate period
limited activity site
No
No further work
No effect
31 ST262
Indeterminate period
limited activity site
No
No further work
No effect
31 ST263
Indeterminate period
limited activity site
No
No further work
No effect
31 ST264
Indeterminate period
limited activity site
No
No further work
No effect
31ST181
19th century cemetery
No
No further work,
avoidance
No effect
31 ST 182
Gold mine
Yes (A, B, D)
No further work,
avoidance
No effect
SIGNIFICANCE EVALUATIONS AND RECOMMENDATIONS
Architectural Resources
No architectural resources were identified within the project area.
Archaeological Resources
The Phase I survey identified six archaeological sites within the project area.
69

Site 31ST261
The indeterminate period site does not appear to have been intensively or frequently used
based on the number of artifacts recovered. The integrity of the Native American
component of the site was rated as poor at the conclusion of the Phase I survey. This
judgment is largely because it appears that this site has been destroyed by the later
agricultural activities at the site. The site exhibited diminished integrity and low -research
value for answering important research questions relating to the Native American period.
Basic questions of site type and date have been addressed to the extent possible, but the
lack of stratigraphic integrity and subsurface features (all artifacts recovered from the
plowzone) essentially preclude an analysis of chronological resolution that would help in
documenting settlement patterns, site use, and technological change over time. Circa -
recommends that the site is not eligible for listing on the National Register of Historic
Places under Criterion D. In addition, the site is not associated with significant events in
the broad patterns of national history (Criterion A); is not associated with the lives of
persons significant in our past (Criterion B); or representative of a type, period, or
method of construction, or the work of a master (Criterion C). Accordingly, no further
archaeological investigations appear warranted at the site, and it is recommended that the
site be given clearance for any potential development projects.
Site 31ST262
The indeterminate period site does not appear to have been intensively or frequently used
based on the number of artifacts recovered. The integrity of the Native American
component of the site was rated as poor at the conclusion of the Phase I survey. This
judgment is largely because it appears that this site has been destroyed by the later
agricultural activities at the site. The site exhibited diminished integrity and low -research
value for answering important research questions relating to the Native American period.
Basic questions of site type and date have been addressed to the extent possible, but the
lack of stratigraphic integrity and subsurface features (all artifacts recovered from the
plowzone) essentially preclude an analysis of chronological resolution that would help in
documenting settlement patterns, site use, and technological change over time. Circa -
recommends that the site is not eligible for listing on the National Register of Historic
Places under Criterion D. In addition, the site is not associated with significant events in
the broad patterns of national history (Criterion A); is not associated with the lives of
persons significant in our past (Criterion B); or representative of a type, period, or
method of construction, or the work of a master (Criterion C). Accordingly, no further
archaeological investigations appear warranted at the site, and it is recommended that the
site be given clearance for any potential development projects.
Site 31ST263
The indeterminate period site does not appear to have been intensively or frequently used
based on the number of artifacts recovered. The shovel testing indicates a light density of
artifacts and positive shovel tests spread over the top of a restricted landform. The site
does appear to have a single temporal component. The integrity of the Native American
component of the site was rated as poor at the conclusion of the Phase I survey. This
judgment is largely because it appears that this site has been destroyed by the later
agricultural activities at the site. The site exhibited diminished integrity and low -research
70

value for answering important research questions relating to the Native American period.
Basic questions of site type and date have been addressed to the extent possible, but the
lack of stratigraphic integrity and subsurface features (all artifacts recovered from the
plowzone) essentially preclude an analysis of chronological resolution that would help in
documenting settlement patterns, site use, and technological change over time. Circa -
recommends that the site is not eligible for listing on the National Register of Historic
Places under Criterion D. In addition, the site is not associated with significant events in
the broad patterns of national history (Criterion A); is not associated with the lives of
persons significant in our past (Criterion B); or representative of a type, period, or
method of construction, or the work of a master (Criterion C). Accordingly, no further
archaeological investigations appear warranted at the site, and it is recommended that the
site be given clearance for any potential development projects.
Site 31ST264
The indeterminate period site does not appear to have been intensively or frequently used
based on the number of artifacts recovered. The integrity of the Native American
component of the site was rated as poor at the conclusion of the Phase I survey. This
judgment is largely because it appears that this site has been destroyed by the later
agricultural activities at the site. The site exhibited diminished integrity and low -research
value for answering important research questions relating to the Native American period.
Basic questions of site type and date have been addressed to the extent possible, but the
lack of stratigraphic integrity and subsurface features (all artifacts recovered from the
plowzone) essentially preclude an analysis of chronological resolution that would help in
documenting settlement patterns, site use, and technological change over time. Circa —
recommends that the site is not eligible for listing on the National Register of Historic
Places under Criterion D. In addition, the site is not associated with significant events in
the broad patterns of national history (Criterion A); is not associated with the lives of
persons significant in our past (Criterion B); or representative of a type, period, or
method of construction, or the work of a master (Criterion C). Accordingly, no further
archaeological investigations appear warranted at the site, and it is recommended that the
site be given clearance for any potential development projects.
Site 31ST181, Cemetery
The circa 19th century cemetery, appears to be a relatively small family cemetery
that is no longer in use and has not been visited in the recent past. The fieldstone
markers appear to be in fair condition, although they do not possess any unique
characteristics that would separate them from other mid to late 19th century cemetery
examples in Stanly County. The design and workmanship of the tombstones is
undistinguished, and the construction materials are common (Criterion C). A preliminary
review of historic records including various maps and historical contexts for Stanly
County does indicate that the property is associated with the Barringer family and is part
of the gold mining history of the County and North Carolina (Criterion A). The
Barringer family is a prominent County family with ties to the gold mining
industry (Criterion B). Typically, cemeteries are not individually eligible for listing on
the National Register of Historic Places. Given that this cemetery is a common type of
smaller rural family cemetery and the markers are common fieldstone with no markings,
71

with the exception of one marker, the cemetery does not appear to be potentially eligible
for the National Register of Historic Places under Criterion A, B, or C. Circa— marked
the site with blue flagging and its location was accurately mapped by registered land
surveyors with the Timmons Group and plotted on the project maps. This site will be
avoided by the proposed Project, and no further work is warranted (see Appendix C).
Circa— does recommend that the borders of the cemetery be marked in the field with
orange safety fencing to protect the site during construction.
Site 31ST182, Gold mine
The circa 19th century Barringer gold mine, appears to be abandoned. The opening of the
Barringer gold mine was a watershed event in gold mining history and the mine became
one of the most important gold mines in the 1800s in North Carolina (Messino no date).
It was the first gold mine in the Southern Piedmont to use lode mining. The design and
workmanship of the gold mine is undistinguished, and the construction materials are
common (Criterion C). However, the site is associated with the Barringer family and is a
major part of the gold mining history of the County and North Carolina (Criterion A).
The Barringer family is a prominent County family with ties to the gold mining
industry (Criterion B). Given this, the Barringer gold mine appears to be potentially
eligible for the National Register of Historic Places under Criteria A, B, and D, but not
Criterion C. This site will be avoided by the proposed Project, as the project borders
were adjusted to remove the mine from the solar farm property (Figure 26). Accordingly,
no further archaeological investigation is warranted. Circa— does recommend that the
borders of the mine adjacent to the project area be marked in the field with orange safety
fencing to protect the site during construction.
Figure 26. Map showing the relocation of the project area borders to exclude the gold
mine
72

BIBLIOGRAPHY
Advisory Council on Historic Preservation
1986 "36 CFR Part 800: Protection of Historic Properties." Regulations of the Advisory
Council on Historic Preservation Governing the Section 106 Review Process.
Anonymous
1779 A new and accurate map of North Carolina in North America. Available online at
http://dc.lib.unc.edu/cdm/singleitem/collection/ncmaps
Chapman, Jefferson, and Andrea Brewer Shea
1988 "The Archaeobotanical Record: Early Archaic Period to Contact in the Lower
Little Tennessee River Valley." Tennessee Anthropologist VI (1).
Claggett, Stephen R.
1996 "North Carolina's First Colonists: 12,000 Years Before Roanoke." The Ligature,
North Carolina Division of Archives and History. Available online at
http://archaeology.ncdcr. gov/articles/North-Carolinas-First-Colonists-12000-
Years-Roanoke
Coe, Joffre L.
1964 "The Formative Cultures of the Carolina Piedmont," Transactions of the
American Philosophical Society, 54(5).
Colonial Williamsburg Foundation
2010 The Colonial Williamsburg Foundation Laboratory Manual. Available at the
Rockefeller Library, Williamsburg, Virginia.
Dent, Richard J., Jr
1995 Chesapeake Prehistory: Old Traditions, New Directions.
Dice, Lee Raymond
1943 The Biotic Provinces of North America. The University of Michigan Press, Ann
Arbor, Michigan.
Department of the Interior, National Park Service
1983 Archaeology and Historic Preservation; Secretary of the Interior's Standards and
Guidelines. Federal Register 48:44716-44762.
Gardner, William M.
1974 "The Flint Run Paleoindian Complex: A Preliminary Report 1971-1973 Seasons."
Occasional Publication No. 1, Archeology Laboratory
73

1977 "Flint Run Paleoindian Complex, its Implication for Eastern North American
Prehistory." In "Amerinds and Their Paleoenvironment in Northeastern North
America." edited by W. S. Mewman and B. Salwen, Annals of the New York
Academy of Sciences.
1981 "Paleoindian Settlement Pattern and Site Distribution in the Middle Atlantic."
Anthropological Careers, edited by R. H. Landmine, L. A. Bennett, A. Brooks,
and P. P. Chock.
1982 "Early and Middle Woodland in the Middle Atlantic: An Overview." In
Practicing Environmental Archaeology: Methods and Interpretations, edited by
Roger W. Moeller, American Indian Archaeological Institute Occasional Paper
No. 3.
1989 "An Examination of Cultural Change in the Late Pleistocene and Early Holocene
(circa 9200 to 6800 B. C.)." In "Paleoindian Research in Virginia: A Synthesis."
edited by J. Mark Wittkofski and Theodore R. Reinhart, Special Publication No.
19 of the Archeological Society of Virginia.
Gaston County Public Library
2015 Gold Mining in North Carolina. Available online at
http://www.gastonlibrary.lbguides.com/gold
Gleason, Henry A. and Arthur Cronquist
1964 The Natural Geography of Plants. Columbia University Press, New York, New
York.
Goldfield, David
2005 "Early Settlement." The North Carolina Atlas Revisited. Available online at
https ://www.ncpedia. org/earlysettlement/ncatlasrevi sited
Hodges, Mary Ellen N., and Charles T. Hodges, editors
1994 Paspahegh Archaeology: Data Recovery Investigations of Site 44JC308 at The
Governor's Land at Two Rivers, James City County, Virginia.
Hume, Ivor Noel
1969 Guide to Artifacts of Colonial America. Alfred A. Knopf Publishing, New York,
New York.
Jones, Olive and Catherine Sullivan
1985 The Parks Canada Glass Glossary. National Historical Parks and Sites Branch,
Parks Canada, Ottawa Canada.
Lewis, J. D.
2007 A History of Greenville, North Carolina. Available online at:
http://www.carolina.com/nc/towns/Greenville-NC.html
74

Martin, Jonathan
No date "Stanly County" North Carolina History Project. Available online at
http://www.northcarolinahistory.org/encyclopedia
Mazzocchi, Jay
2006 "Stanly County" Encyclopedia of North Carolina. University of North Carolina
Press, Charlotte, North Carolina.
McAvoy, Joseph M., and Lynn D. McAvoy
1997 "Archaeological Investigations of Site 44SX202, Cactus Hill, Sussex County,
Virginia." Research Report Series No. 8, Virginia Department of Historic
Resources.
McCartney, Martha.
1997 James City County Keystone of the Commonwealth.
McCary, Ben C.
1951 "A Workshop of Early Man in Dinwiddie County, Virginia." American Antiquity
17(1).
1975 "The Williamson Paleoindian Site, Dinwiddie County, Virginia." The Chesopiean
13(3-4).
Messino, Paul
No date "Barringer Gold Mine" North Carolina History Project. Available online at
http://www.northcarolinahistory.org/encyclopedia
Mitchell, S. Augustus
1847 A New Map of Nth. Carolina with its canals, roads, and distances from place to
place along the stage and steam boat routes. Available online at
http://dc.lib.unc.edu/cdm/singleitem/collection/ncmaps
Myers, Caron
2012 "North Carolina: The Golden State" Our State Magazine. Available online at
http://www.ourstate.com/north-carolina-gold-rush
National Park Service
1990 National Register of Historic Places Bulletin 15: How to Apply the National
Register of Historic Places Criteria for Evaluation.
Natural Resources Conservation Service
2019 Online soils data. Available online at http://soils.usda.gov/.
North Carolina Archaeological Society
1984 "The Prehistory of North Carolina: A Basic Cultural Sequence." Newsletter of
the Friends of North Carolina Archaeology, Inc. Summer, 1984, Vol. 1 No. 1.
75

North Carolina Office of State Archaeology
2017 Archaeological Site Form Handbook.
Stanly County, North Carolina
No date Deed, wills, inventories, surveyors' records, plat books, tax assessors' books,
land tax records, personal property tax records.
Rountree, Helen C.
1989 The Termination and Dispersal of the Nottoway Indians of Virginia. Virginia
Magazine of History and Biography 95:195-200.
Snowden, Barbara
1995 "The History of Currituck County," Currituck Times.
United States Geological Survey
1957 Mount Pleasant Quad map. Available online at
http : //historicalmaps. arc gis. com/usgs/
1957 Golds Hill Quad map. Available online at
http://historicalmaps.arcgis.com/usgs
1981 Richfield Quad map. Available online at
http://historicalmaps.arcgis.com/usgs/
1981 Golds Hill Quad map. Available online at
http://historicalmaps.arcgis.com/usgs/
Yarnell, Richard A.
1976 "Early Plant Husbandry in Eastern North America." In Cultural Change and
Continuity: Essays in Honor of James Bennett Griffin, edited by Charles E.
Cleland.
76

APPENDIX A:
NC SHPO LETTER

North Carolina Department of Natural. and Cultural Resources
State Historic Preservation Office
Ramona M. Samos, Administrator
Governor Roy Cooper Office of Archives and tfstnry
Secretary Susi t I. Hamilton Deputy Sec -teary 1*c ern Cherry
January 10, 2019
Carol D. Tyres
Circa— Cultural Resource Management, LLC
483 McLaws Circle, Suite 3
Williamsburg, VA 23185
Re: Scope of Work, Construct 80 MW Orion Renewable Resources Solar Farm, US 52 North,
New London, Stanly County, CH 18-3375
Dear Ms. Tyrer:
Thank you for providing the Scope of Work concerning the above referenced project. We have reviewed the
information provided and offer the following comments:
We agree with your assessment of low, moderate, and high areas of archaeological potential and concur
with the proposed survey methodology and procedures laid out in the Scope of Work, Please note that
our office has recently updated our Archaeological Investigation Standards and Guidelines which can
be found here: https:/ /files.nc.gov/dncr-arch/OSA Guidelines Dec2017.pdf. We look forward to
further consultation with you concerning this matter as well as the opportunity to review the results of
the archaeological survey.
The above comments are made pursuant to Section 106 and 110 of the National Historic Preservation Act and
the Advisory Council on Historic Preser adon's Regulations for Compliance with Section 106 codified at 36
CFR Part 800.
'Malik you for your cooperation and consideration. If you have questions concerning the above comment,
contact Renee Gledhill -Earley, environmental review coordinator, at 919-81,-6579 or
environmental.review[[xlJncdcr.gov. In all future communication concerning this project, please cite the above
referenced tracking number.
Sincerely,
AkekLi-Di-&ItS1Lt
Ramona M. Bartos

APPENDIX B:
ARTIFACT INVENTORY

ARTIFACT INVENTORY
Site: Site 31ST261
Recorder: C. Tyrer
Provenience Quantity Description
Surface 3 Flakes, quartz, secondary
ST 114-73 1 Flake, quartz, secondary
Stratum A
ST 114-73 1 Flake, quartz, tertiary
Stratum A
South radial
ST 114-74 2 Flakes, quartz, tertiary
Stratum A 1 Shatter, quartz
ST 115-74 1 Flake, quartz, secondary
Stratum A 1 Flake, quartz, tertiary
1
Phase I
April 16, 2019

ARTIFACT INVENTORY
Site: Site 31ST262
Recorder: C. Tyrer
Provenience Quantity Description
Phase I
April 16, 2019
Surface 2 Flakes, quartz, secondary
ST 114-68 1 Flake, quartz, primary
Stratum A 2 Flakes, quartz, secondary
ST 115-68 1 Flake, quartz, secondary
Stratum A 3 Flakes, quartz, tertiary
ST 115-67 2 Flakes, quartz, secondary
Stratum A 1 Flake, quartz, tertiary
2

ARTIFACT INVENTORY
Site: Site 31ST263
Recorder: C. Tyrer
Provenience Quantity Description
Phase I
April 16, 2019
Surface 3 Flakes, quartz, secondary
ST 101-77 2 Flakes, quartz, secondary
Stratum A
3

ARTIFACT INVENTORY
Site: Site 31ST264
Recorder: C. Tyrer
Provenience Quantity Description
Phase I
April 16, 2019
ST 41-75 2 Flakes, quartz, secondary
Stratum A
ST 42-75 1 Flake, quartz, tertiary
4

APPENDIX C:
PROJECT MAPS

■—■--■■■■■—■—■■■■■■■■■■—■
■—■--■■■■■—■—■■■■■■■■■■—■
■—■--■■■■■—■—■■■■■■■■■■—■
■—■--■■■■■—■—■■■■■■■■■■—■
■—■--■■■■■—■—■■■■■■■■■■—■
—■—■■■■■■—■■■■■—■■ ■■■��■MIMIMI
-- — —�MIEN
—■—■■■■■■—■■■■■—MIMI■■ ���■��■�-���
■■■■■■■■■■■■�■■
—■— — — ■■■■■■■■■■■MI—■■ ■■■� ■——■■
Sheet
2
Legend
—••—a
■
i.■..I
•
1040
3
6
■
•
litirenheirn
Project Boundary - 739.6 Acres
• Positive Shovel Test
Negative Shovel Test
Transmission Lines
Topographic Contour 5'
VA
i i'
Fenceline
Area Used for Connection Lines Only
Architecture Resource
Archaeological Resource
Cultural Resource Probability
High - 35.7 Acres
Low - 100.9 Acres
Moderate - 123.9 Acres
Timbered Areas - 423.4 Acres
Timbered -Cleared Areas - 55.7 Acres
Rrrch4E
CiV
}
r.
{
•
r
4.
ch
•
t
1
a
1
I+
},
—■—■■■■■■■■■ a1l■■—
■�■■■■■■■■■ 4 �� ■■■—
—■—■■■■■■■■ �4 ■■■—
—■—■■■■■■■■ 0 —■■■—
—■—■■■■■■■■ c e, —■■■-
-■—■■■■■■■■■■1
—■—■■■■■■■■■■I
—■—■■■■■■■■■■I
—■—■■■■■■■■■■1
—■—■■■■■■■■■■I
—■—■■■■■■■■■■I
—■—■■■■■■■■■■I
—■—■■■■■■■■■■I
—■—■■■■■■■■■■I
—■—■■■■■■■■■■I
—■—■■■■■■■■■■1
—■—■■■■■■■■■■I
—■—■■■■■■■■■■I
—■—■■■■■■■■■■I
—■—■■■■■■■■■■I
—■—■■■■■■■■■■I
—■—■■■■■■■■■■1
—■—■■■■■■■■■■1
—■—■■■■■■■■■■I
—■—■■■■■■■■■■I
—■—■■■■■■■■■■I
—■—■■■■■■■■■■I
—■—■■■■■■■■■■1
—■—■■■■■■■■■■I
—■—■■■■■■■■■■1
—■—■■■■■■■■■■I
—■—■■■■■■■■■■I
—■—■■■■■■■■■■I
—■—■■■■■■■■■■I
—■—■■■■■■■■■■I
—■—■■■■■■■■■■1
—■—■■■■■■■■■■I
11••■—■■■■■■■■■■1
—■—■■■■■■■■■■I
—■—■■■■■■■■■■1
—■—■■■■■■■■■■I
—■—■■■■■■■■■■I
—■—■■■■■■■■■■1
11••■—■■■■■■■■■■1
■—■■■—
■—■■■—
■—■■■—
■—■■■—
■—■■■—
■—■■■—
■—■■■—
■—■■■—
■—■■■—
■—■■■—
■—■■■—
■—■■■—
■—■■■—
■—■■■—
■—■■■—
■—■■■—
■—■■■—
■—■■■—
■—■■■—
■—■■■—
■—■■■—
■—■■■—
■—■■■—
■—■.■—
■—■■■—
■—■■■—
■—■■■—
■—■■■—
■—■■■—
■—■■■—
■—■■■—
■—■■■—
■—■■■—
■—■■■—
■—■■■—
■—■■■—
■—■■■—
■—■■■—
■—■■■—
iiBBlBBiB■
—.—..........I
—■—■■■■■■■■■■I
—■—■■■■■■■■■ 1
—■—■■■■■■■■ 6
—■—■■■■■■■■
—■—■■■■■■■■, 1
—■—■■■■■■■ - 1
—■—■■■■■■■ c ■1
—■—■■■■■■ a� ■I
—■—■■■■■ ■■,
—■—■■■■■ ■■I
—■—■■■■■■■■■■1
—■—■■■■■■■■■■1
—■ ■■■■■■■■111
—■ ■■■■■■■■I
—■— ■■■■■■■I
—■— ......I
—■—■ ......I
—■—■■ ■■MINI
—■—■■■ ■■■■I
—■—■■■■ ■■■■■I
—■—■■■■■■■■■■1
—.—..........I
—.—..........I
—■—■■■■■■■■■■I
—■—■■■■■■■■■111
—■—■■■■■■■■■■I
—.—..........I
—■—■■■■■■■■■■I
Sheet 3
■—■■■—
■—■■■—
■—■■■—
■—■■■—
■—■■■—
■—■■■—
■—■■■—
■—■■■—
■—■■■—
■—■■■—
■—■■■—
■—■■■—
■—■■■—
■—■■■—
■—■■■—
■—■■■—
■—■■■—
■—■■■—
■—■■■—
■—■■■—
■—■■■—
■—■■■—
■—■■■—
■—■■■—
■—■■■—
■—■■■—
■—.■■—
■—■■■-
1111111111111111111
—■—■■■■■■■■■■I ■—■■■—
_._...■■■■■■■I ■—■■■—
—■—■■■■■■■■■■, ■—■■■-
1111111111111I 1■1111
—■—■■■■■■■■■■, ■—■■■—
—■—■■■■■■■■■■, ■—■■■—
—■—■■■■■■■■■■I ■—■■■—
—■—■■■■■■■■■■I ■—■■■—
_._...■■■■■■■I ■—■■■—
_._...■■■■■■■I ■—■■■—
_._...■■■■■■■I ■—■■■—
_._...■■■■■■■I ■—■■■—
_._...■■■■■■■I ■—■■■—
—■—■■■■■■■■■■I ■_..
—■—■■■■■■■■■111 ■—■
—■—■■■■■■■■■■I ■—
—■—■■■■■■■■■■1■ Aril.
—■—■■■■■■■■■■I■ A=
—■—■■■■■■■■■■1 ■ •
—■—■■■■■■■■■■1 ■■ • • .
—■—■■■■■■■■■■I ••.i•.
1_11_111111IIIII •. •• ; _
111111111111� III�i•'—I__■■■■■_■_■I■■■■■■■■■■■
. • •..�■—■--■■■■■—■—■■■■■■■■■■■■■
• • • • •s!i�■—■--■■■■■—■—■■■■■■■■■■■■■
■1 •••••', .MMA..■■■—■—■■■■■■■■■■■■■
■--■■ .■■—■—.N■■■■■■■■■■■
■--■■ .■■—■—■■■■■■■■■■■■■
MINE .■■—■—■■■■■■■■■■■■■
MI■■ .■■—■—■■■■■■■■■■■■■
■■I �•.•••■■� ! ■■ I■■—■—■■■■■■■■■■■■■
■■■■■1 .■■ ■ • ■■ .■■—■—■■■■■■■■■■■■■
i•.•••�u,AI■ ■ ■■■—■—■■■■■■■■■■■■■
fatirei�• a••off"us ■■—■—■■■■■■■■■■■■■
■ �.� 1•••cr-r »��•�II•�•. 31ST?
■—■--■■■■■—■—■ ■■■■■■■■■■■—■■■■■■—■■■■■—� ■■� ■
■—■--.■■■■—■—■ i ■■■■■ ■■—■■■■■■—■■■■■—� ■■� ■
■—■--■■■■■—■— ■■■■■ ■■_—■■■■■■—■■■■ ■■■� ■
■—■--■■■■■—■— ' k M■■■■ MN■--■—■■■■■■—■■■■ ■IN■— ■
■—■--■■■■■—■— ■■■■■ ■■■—■—■■■■■■—■■■■ ■■■� ■
■—■--■■■■■—■— ■■■■■■■■ —■—■■■■■■MIEN■■ ■■■� ■
■—■--■■■■■—■— '< , :, ■■■■■■■■MIMI—■—■■■■■■—■■■■■—� ■■■-- ■
■—■--■■■■■—■— ■■■■■■■■—■—■■■■■■—■■■■■—� ■■■-- ■
■—■--■■■■■—■— ■■■■■■■■—■—■■■■■■—■■■■■—� ■■■-- ■
■—■--■■■■■—■—■!■■■■■■■■■■■—■—■■■■■■—■■■■■—� ■■■MI— ■
■—■--■■■■■—■—■■■■■■■■■■■■■■■■■—■■■■■—� ■■■-- ■
■—■--■■■■■—■— ■■■■■■■■■■■■!I ■■■■—■■■■■—� ■■■MIEN ■
■—■--■■■■■—■— ■■■■■■■■■■■_'.•r❖ ■■■■—■ —� ■■■—■■■
MIINMEMEMENEMENIIMEMIN
■—■--■■■■■—■—■■ �•�'❖ ■■■■—■ NM
■—■--■■■■■—■—■■■■ �—■ ■■■■—■■ —
■—■--■N■■■—■—■MIME —.—■■■■■■—■.■■■—
■—■--■■■■■—■—■■■■■M■ —■—■■■■■■—■■■■■—
■—■--■■■■NMI■—■■■■.N■■■—■—■.■■■■—■■■■■—
■—■--■■■■■—■—I■■■■■I■■■ —■—■■■■■■—■■■■■—
■—■--■■■■■MI■—■■■■■■■■■■■■ —■—■■■■■■—■■■■■—
■—■--■■■■■—■—■■■■■■■■■■■■■ —■—■■■■■■—■■■■■—
■—■--■■■■■—■—.■N■■■■■■■■■■ —■—■■■■■■—■■■■.—
■—■--■■■.■—■MI■■■■■■■■■N■■■—■—■■■I.■—■N.■■—
■—■--■■■■■—■—■■■■■■■■■■■■■
■—■--■■■■■—■—■■■■■■■■■■■■■
■—■--■■■■■—■—■■■■■■■■■■■■■
■—■--■■■■■—■—■■■■■■■■■■■■■
■—■--■■■■I—■—■.■■■N■■■■■■■
■—■--■■■■■—■—■■■■■■■■■■■■■� ■■■■■■—■■■■■—
■
■
■
■■■■■—■■
■■■■■—■■
■■■■■—■■
■■■■■—■■
.■MM.—..
1111
IIIHhIIIIIIIIIIIHHIIIIIIHH HHIP"!1II■1
■—■--■■■■■—■—■■■■■■■■■■■■■�■■■— ■■■■_*•••■—�■
■—■—MI■■■■■—■—■■■■■■■■■■■■■ ■■■— ■■■■ • • •. ■—■
■—■--■■■■■—■—■■■■■■■■■■■■■ ■■■MI ■■■■�`•ii'■■—■
111■■IIIIIS1•11111111111111■111 ` 111.111111 111
■■
11111111111111111111111111
■—■--■■■■■—■—■■■■■■■■■■—■
■—■--■■■■■—■—■■■■■■■■■■—■
■—■--■■■■■—■—■■■■■■■■■■—■
■—■--■■■■■—■—■■■■■■■■■■—■
■—■--■■■■■—■—■■■■■■■■■■—■
Vie
NEE
■—■--■■■■■—■—■■■■■■■■■■—■�—■
■—■--■■■■■—■—■■■■■■■■■■—■—■■■ MI ■■hale:
■—■--■■■■■—■—■■■■■■■■■■—■�—ME ■■ ■■
irrommo
■—■--■■■■■—■—■■■■■■■■■■—■� ■■ ■■■
■�■��■■■■■o■�■■■■■■■■■■�■■■ ■■■�Eli
■�■��■■■■■�■�■■■■■■■■■■�■no
■■ Num
■■■■
mommommoommommommommommommomm= on mom
■—■--■■■■■—■—■■■■■■■■■■—■ �■■ ■■■� ■
■—■--■■■■■—■—■■■■■■■■■■—■ ■■ ■■■� ■
■—■--■■■■■—■—■■■■■■■■■■—■ ■■ ■■■� ■
■—■--■■■■■—■—■■■■■■■■■■—■ on ■■■� . ■
■—■--■■■■■—■—■■■■■■■■■■—■ ■■ ■■■� ■
■—■--■■■■■—■—■■■■■■■■■■— ■■ ■� ■
■—■--■■■■■—■—■■■■■■■■■■— ■■ . ■� "� ■
■—■--■■■■■—■—■■■■■■■■■■ ■■ . •■��■
■—■--■■■■■—■—■■■■■■■■■■ �■■ h •, ■
■—■--■■■■■—■—■■■■■■■■■■ on ■■■
■—■--■■■■■—■—■■■■■■■■■■ �■■
'■■■■�■■■■■- .■■ --
■■■■—■■■■■�'�' ■■
■■■■■—■■■■■ ■■
_■■■■■■—■■■■■—■■
■■■■■■—■■■■■—
■■■■■■ ■■■■—
■■■■■■ ■■■■—
—■■■■■■ ■■■■—
—■■■■■■ ■■■■—
■—■■■■■■—■■■■■—
■—■■■■■■—■■■■■—
■—■■■■■■—■■■■■-
-■—■■■■■■—■■■■■-
-■■■■■■—■■■■■-
-■■■■■■—■■■■■—
—■■■■■■—■■■■
—■—■■■■■■—■■■■
—■■■■■■�■■■■
1♦■■.■■■—■■■■
—■■■■■■—■■■■■MI
—■■■■■■�■■■■■�
•■——■■■■.■—■■■■■—
■� —■■■■■■—■■■■■—
■,07.■■■■■■—■■■■■—
■� s■■■■■■—■■■■■-
-■�F', ,.a■■■■■■—■■■■■—
'■ •
•
■—■--■■■■■—■—■■■■■■■■■ .. �■■ 111 •
■—■--■■■■■—■—■■■■■■■■■ �— • • ■■ ■■■
■—■--■■■■■—■—■■■■■■■■MI ■■ ■■■
3', •sue■■■■■■—■■■■■—
■—■--■■■■■—■—■■■■■■• ■—■�
■—■--■■■■■—■—■■■■■■■ ■1��°�1
■—■--■■■■■—■—■■MIEN ■Nx +J
■—■--■■■■■—■—■■■■■■ !■■C-
■—■--■■■■■—■—■■■■ ■■Erb ri
■—■--■■■■■—■—■■■■ ■■■■6• G
•JE■■■■■■—■■■■■—
•
:: lIMI�:::� •
■■■■■■—■■■■■—■■i� aMI•■■■� •
■■■■■■—■■■■■— ■■.•����■■■� •
■■■■■■—■■■■■—■■ • �iMI•■■■� •
—■—■■■■■■—■■■■■—■■ ■■■��■
■—■--■■■■■—■—■■■■ ■■■■R ^!■--■—■■■■■■ ■■■■—■■ •••� •
■—■--■■■■■—■—■■■ ■■■11r°7 alb —■MI■■■■■■ ■■■■—■■ ■■■� ■
■—■--■■■■■—■—■■■ ■■I!r i••--■—■■■■■■ ■■■■—MIMI■■ ■■■� ■
■—■--■■■■■—■•••• f ■■■11r ••• '—■—■■■■■■ "_: ■■■■—■■ •••� ■
■—■--■■■■■—■—■■ ■■■■f_ ,,,..11111111111111111111111 ■■■■—�■■ ■■■■
IlIIIHHhIIII.flflhiidllllllllllllflhl�11MN ME
ME
ME
::
■■■■■■■■■
■■■■■■■■
■■■■■■
■■11
—■—■■■■■■■■
—■—■■■■■■■
—■—■■■■■■■
—■—■■■■■■
—■—■■■■■
—■—■■■■
—■—■■■■
—■—■■■
—■—■■■
—■—■■
—■—■■
—■—■
—■-11
—■—I '
MIMI Film . iii•••31^
-MI ••••0'• ' • •••••.
■1 •••••',10'h •
111 /4••••• •
.,�,. „+1■■�■
.•• _■■ ■
,A11�1
•••_•
•••_••'•
■■■—■■
■■■—■■
■■■—■■
■11
—■■
B
■■■—■
■■■—■
■■■—■
■■.—■
111■1
■—■--■■■■■—■—■■■■■■■■■■■■■--■■■ ■—■■■■■—MI— ■■■—■■
■—■--■■■■■—■—■■■■■■■■■■■■■--■■■ ■—■■■■■—■■ ■■■—■■
■—■--■■■■■—■—■■■■■■■■■■■■■--■■■ ■—■■ ■—■■ ■■■—■■
■—■--■■■■■—■—■■■■■■■■■■■■■--■■ ■■—■■ MI INN ■■■—■■
■—■--■■■■■—■—■■■■■■■■■■■■■MIS--■■ ■■—■■ . ■■ ■■■—■■
■—■--■■■■■—■—■■■■■■■■■■■■■--■■■ ■—■ ■■ ■■■—■■
■—■--■■■■■—■—■■■■■■■■■■■■■--■■■ �■ ; i:■ - -.- - - ■1: ■■
■—■--■■■■■—■—■■■■■■■■■■■■■--■■■■ ■ —�■■ ■■
■—■--■■■■■—■—■■■■■■■■■■■■■�--■■■■■■ ■■ ■—�■■ ■■
■—■—MI■■■■■—■—■■■■■■■■■■■■■ --■■■■■■ ■■■■■ . ■■ ■�
■—■--■■■■■—■—■■■■■■■■■■■■■--■■■■■■ ■■■■ , . ■■ ■ .•• ■
■—■--■■■■■—■—■■■■■■■■■■■■■EMI—■■■■■■ ■■■ - ■■ • ■
■—■--■■■■■—■—■■■■■■■■■■■■■�--■■■■■■ ■■■■ : ■■ ■
■—■--■■■■■_•_••••••••■■■■■�--■■■■■■ ■■■■—�ME •. ■
■—■--■■■■■—■—■■■■■■■■■■■■■--■■■■■■ ■■■■— ••••• oo44444• 1
■—■--■■■■■—■—■■■■■■■■■■■■■--■■■■■■— ■■■— ......
■—■--■■■■■—■—■■■■■■■■■■■■■MI---■■■■■■— ■■■— • • • • • ■■
■—■--■■■■■—■—■■■■■■■■■■■■■ --MINE■■■ ■■— ■■
■—■--■■■■■—■—■■■■■■■■■■■■■�--■■■■■■—■ ■■— ■ ■ ■
--■■■■■■—■ ■■— ■■ ■ ■
--■■■■■■—■ ■■—• ■■■.■■ •
■
--■■■■■■—■ ■■■— ■■MI ■
--■■■■■■—■ ■■■■ ■■� ■
--■■■■■■-■ ■■I ■i , ■� •
■
—■■■■■■—■■ ■■■ ' ■— ■
--■■■■■■—■■■■•
■■ �. ■— ■
•
■■I ■ �, ■
111 �� 1■
190
•
•
•
•
•
MEM
EMI e
NMI
•
mummy
EMIE
EINEM
■�
•
■E •••••••••, • ■ ■■—■— ■■■■■■■■■■■■
—■ i7■0.••' • 1•••••••••••� •■■—■ ••••••••••
—■ • i., •• ,.• 1••••••••A ■■— I■■_■ 2 RE■■■•■■■
• •••• 1•••.A�►•
.. J■ ■ NM= ■■Q■ ■■■■■
—■ •i.,_ •••�ST262. ■ ■ ■.■■— ■■■■■■ ■■
••� •••000
—•P• ' .••••••••• •••is' ■■■ — ■1■■ ice■■■■■■■Ni7 NM
—•••••• •••' ••••• .a ■■ ■ I■■ —■■■■■■1riP.. `
...... •...•
Sheet 4:: .A ''1 :�NENNEEV,,-
im
;•• •Ire..-� --- ■—■■■■■■■..
•• • •.a---im■■ - ---■ ■—■■■■■■■ ■N
DI •.• `. _ ,• `r•'S1MI ■■■■ —■■■■ _`. •_■■ ■■■■■■■■
••••••• i
••..... •• •. .r■0 ■■■■■•
--■■■■■—■—■ ■■■■■■■■
— ■■■ ■■■■ ■--■■■■■—■—■■■■■■■■■■■■■
•• ■■—r. ■■■■ ■--■■■■■—■—■■■■■■■■■®■■■
• ••• ,
MEM
—■ ■■■—■■■■■■ ■■■—■
—■—� ■ ■■■■■ ■■■■ ■■■■■ _ ■■■■■■c1. ,.,i»--■ � , a a aaa�a . ■
—■�Ia1 � ■ MIME■ ■■■■ ■■■■■ ■■■■Ir"l\ .g..N.M--■� a l aaa:\11 11. - _ •
—■■IR ■ ■■■■■ ■■■■ —■■■■■ ■■■1i'f�Cr 'rel1l .0.1 �013— ■Ifr . 111 11E1CIC \1\1 ■
—■■■ ■■■—■■■■■ ■■■■■ — ■—■—■■ f e��1.ime1.1..ixwi■• ■ •ipo►1a a as ■
—■■■■ ■ ■■■■■■■■■■—■-- ■—■—■PLI1i!\``\'1►w.1`rtrrl�MI ■ ."f1111111. 1C\111 ■■
=MN EMM ■ ■■■■■■■—■-- 1r�\\\ICl`WWW1 0010 al���Id�'�—■ MANNA1. If11 11 ■■
—■■■■EM ■ — ■■■■■■■—■-- ./•/ '\\WWIC#f \`\k\I IQI \�1110—� I■ 1 1\1. NNNWA 'N■
_• •••—■ !■ ■■■■■■■■■■■—■--■1K el►a1\\1� �1i _ - - - - - - - - --- - -
—■■■■—■■
—■■■■—■■■
—■■■■—■■■■
—■■■■—■■■■■�■■ ''�
—■■■■—■■■■■-------
-■■■■—■■■■■—
—■■■■—■■■■■—■
—■■■■—■■■■■—■■■
—■■■■—■■■■■MI■■■■■
—■■■■—■■■■■—■■■■■■
—■■■■—■■■■■—■■■■■■■
—■■■■—■■■■■—■■■■■■■■
—■■■■—■■■■■—■■■■■■■■■
IIMII ••■—■■■■■—■■■■■■■■■■
—■■■■—■■■■■—■■■■■■■■■■■■
—■■■■—■■■■■—■■■■■■■■■■■■■
—■■■■—■■■■■—■■■■■■■■■■■■■■
—■■■■—■■■■■—■■■■■■■■■■■■■■■
—■■■■—■■■■■—■■■■■■■■■■■■■■■■
—■■■■—■■■■■—■■■■■■■■■■■■■■■■
—■■■■—■■■■■—■■■■■■■■■■■■■■■■-
-■■■■—■■■■■—■■■■■■■■■■■■■■■■—
—■■■■—■■■■■—■■■■■■■■■■■■■■■■
—■MI—■■■—■■■■■—■■■■■■■■■■■■■■■■
—■—■■■■—■■■■■—■■■■■■■■■■■■■■■■
—■—■■■■—■■■■■—■■■■■■■■■■■■■■■■
—■—■■■■—■■■■■—■■■■■■■■■■■■■■■
—■—■■■■MI■■■■■—■■■■■■■■■■■■■■
—■—■■■■—■■■■■—■■■■■■■■■■■■■■
—■—■■■■—■■■■■—■■■■■■■■■■■■■
—■—■■■■—■■■■■—■■■■■■■■■■■■■
—■—■■■■—■■■■■—■■■■■■■■■■■■
—■—■■■■—■■■■■—■■■■■■■■■■■
—■—■■■■—■■■■■—■■■■■■■■■■■
—■—■■■■—■■■■■—■■■■■■■■■■■
■1••+ .� •- - ■ ■■—■—■■■■■■■■■■■■■
--■■■■■■—■■■■11
--■■■■■■—■■■■
--NINE■■■—■■■■■1
--■■■■■■—■■■
--■■■■■■—
--■■■■■■—
--■■■■■■Ij I • x31ST r 1M
--■■■■■■—■■ • ■■• 1■
--■■■■■■—■■■■ ■■ 1■
mommommommommommom
--■■■■■■—■■■■■1
--■■■■■■—■■■■■I ■ - ■ ■■n■ 1■
MN= IN
--■■■■■■—■■■■■I ■ > 1■!ql 1■
--■■■■■■—■■■■■1 ■ -- S h eet� 5 it
--■■■■■■—■■■■■1 ■ ■
--■■■■■■—■■■■■1 -a>,• •a,nMM'i I.
--■■■■■■—■■■■■■■• ■ ■■
--■■■■■■—■■■■■■■11
—■■■■■■—■■■■■■■� ' mommommommommomm-
EM ■■■■■■■ J --0C� EMI■■■■ ■■
—■■INN 4 ■■■■■■ ■■■■ ■■■
■■■Ila1 01■ _ ■ ■■■
■11 7i1�1C\ 1C*i�i1i ■■ ■ ■■■
Its , a NN■■N■ • ■�■�■■■■■■■■
--■ 4C��1CiN11111— ■■■■■■■■
--■ . 1 1 :�!■■— • -
■■■■■■ .. r. 1 ►�---■� .. .aa R ■■
•
.1111111111111111111.11
—■—■■■■
—■—■■■■
■—■■■■
■—■■■■
■■■■
31rS1:261
- •-111\1111\11 ■■•
■■■■■■■■■■■—■—=11114,7 J A9,11\\\`� � . , , , VI1 �I-11�11�1 111111NNMA `1■■�
■■■■■■■■■■— —■fi•.1..�� Sheet6 Rw11a1'�■■■■■■ 11111. ■■■ .':
■■■■■■■■■■— —■ ■■tidy\ 1 \�\ � Wh i '!■■■■■— �11111. MP,
11111111
,�,,,, ••••, • •• i--■■■■■
■——■■■■■116NN iMNNN%% \ \\\\\\� k `M■■— 1■:111\II NN ■■ft ■■■■■■
■— ;—■■■■1Ei1 %,%1l1iN%%%% %M.WWWr \\ ••..• A■— 1■■1�a71i 111� �i ■■1 •••- •• ■■■■■■■■
"•••••• •••••
■■—■— Ft‘x N,VN3iNNN%% v'N'W1 W •• •••• — ■■■■ 1a ■■1E.;• •• • •• , i ■■■■■■
■■—■— 11 11 \!Ili'W 'WWII IS\\ \I1. •'' , - .,• •••• ■■■■�1 ■■■•••••• '� ■
MENIZAMINNAMINNNN‘SiNN=NEME4+:2=11120. 11••••••=111 ••••••11•11
4444
444444
IEEE. 1111•1111
11111
1111 MEMO"
NE NEENN,1°°
111111111111
111111111111
mummeminor
NENNENNENNEOP
ENEENNENNEEN
ENENNENNEENN
ENEENNENNEEN
ENENNENNENEN
INNEENENNEENN
momommummom
ENEENNENNEEN
INENNENNENEEN
Nimmoommor
NEENNEENENEOP
minimENNEN
moinumnimme
ENEENNENNEEN
Emamonmem
mmommummem
sommemmim
11111111111
EmENNENNEEr
momemmonim
immingrum
minmENNEN
ENENNENNEEN
11111111111
moiNNENNEEN
NimENNEENNEN
monmonomor-
minENNENNEN
NimmumENEN
mommeNNEEN
NEEENNENNEN
immENNENE
mimmunmEN
ENNENNNEREN
ENNENENNom
moommommi
NENENENEENE
MENIIMENNEEN
MININNEMENIENII
MENNEMINIINE
IININEENENIIME
INEMINIENNIMNI
MENNININEEME
MENEMENIIMEN
NEMENINIIMINE
IIMEMINNENIE
MENIIIIIMENNEN
INNEIMINEENE
•
•
••
1•1
■1•1
■■■■
■■■■
■■■■
■■■■
■■■■■
■■■■■
■■■■■
■■ ■■■■■
■■ ■■■■■
■ ■■■■■
■—■■■■■
■MI■■■■■
■ ■■■■■
■ ■MINE
■ ■■■■■
■ ■■■■■■
■ MINE■■
■ ■■■■■■
■■■■■■
■■■■■■
■■■■■■
—■■■■■■
• ■■■■■■
—■■■■■■
■■■■■■
•
■
■
■
■
■
•-
1
•
•
1•
•
•
•
1■
1
1
■
•
■
■
■
•
■
■
■
•
■
•
■
■
•
•
•
•
■
■
•
•
■
•
•
•
■
■
■
■
■
■
■
•
•
■
■
•
■
■
■
■
•
■
■
•
■
—:
IN1
CD
•
4.1
tips
•
•
Pfeiffer PI
•
•
•
•
•
I
ails 1:aviF-1C■7:.T•l:llWA1 l:I:1■lirel:r'Iil:l~l
cp
cp
o
O • cc
PROJECT NAME & LOCATION
M.TOWATO
I— LLI
0
06/18/2019
PROJECT NUMBER
41859.002
PROJECT NAME
MISENHEIMER SOLAR
DESIGNED BY / DRAWN BY
L. CARSON
INOT FOR CONSTRUCTION
These plans and associated documents are the
exclusive property of TIMMONS GROUP and
may not be reproduced in whole or in part and
shall not be used for any purpose whatsoever,
inclusive, but not limited to construction, bidding,
and/or construction staking without the express
written consent of TIMMONS GROUP
REVISIONS
DESCRIPTION
DRAWING DESCRIPTION
CULTURAL
RESOURCE
SHOVEL TEST
MAP
0
500
PLANS PRINTED AS 11X17 ARE HALF SCALE
SCALE
SHEET NUMBER
1 of 7

Legend
I
RTrcIi
L
Project Boundary - 739.6 Acres
• Positive Shovel Test
Negative Shovel Test
Transmission Lines
Topographic Contour 5'
rA
vA
Fenceline
Area Used for Connection Lines Only
Architecture Resource
Archaeological Resource
Cultural Resource Probability
High - 35.7 Acres
Low - 100.9 Acres
Moderate - 123.9 Acres
Timbered Areas - 423.4 Acres
Timbered -Cleared Areas - 55.7 Acres
1
_---_.
------}--�f
1
I I
�_,
4
l
--y-_
�
--�
--_--�-.�
-
-�-'ice•
,
,
-
I
I
I
I
I
I
I I
1
1
1
1
I
I
I
7
l
r'
1
I
■■■■■■■■■■■■■■■■■■
■■■■■■■■■■■■■■■■■■
■■■■■■■■■■■■■■■■■■
■■■■■■■■■■■■■■■■■■
■--
■--
■--
■--
t
■
■
■
■
_
1
I -.1-
_
1
1
I
-
II
■■
■■
■■
-
__,
I r
II
—
1 _
—
1 _ 1
'1
`
-
-../
L b
_
-
-
-
-
-
-
-
-
-
-
-
-
-
-
180
■■■■■■■■■■■■■■■■■■
■■■■■■■■■■■■■■■■■■
■--
■--
1 `
■
■
■■
■■
1
I y
1_
1
1
1
-
-
-
.II
0.
•
•
.
r
I
■■■■■■■■■■■■■■■■■■
■■■■■■■■■■■■■■■■■■
■■■■■■■■■■■■■■■■■■
■■■■■■■■■■■■■■■■■■
■
■
■
r
r
{'
-
I
1
1
-
-
-
_
-
. -
-
-
-
- -
-
-
-
I
-
•
1
160
-
- -
-
%II
-
-
-
-
-
-
-
- -
-
f
o.
v
f,
1
I■I■I■I■I■I■I■e■I■I■I■I■I■I■I■I■I■I■
■■■■■■■■■■■■■■■■■■
_
•..
I■
■
_
_
I1
1-1-
-
_
1
-
__
1
1_
I
1
1
1
1 I,
JI
I
-�
-
-
-
-
-
-
-
■■■■■■■■■■■■■■■■■■
■■■■■■■■■■■■■■■■■■
■■■■■■■■■■■■■■■■■■
■■■■■■■■■■■■■■■■■■
■■■■■■■■■■■■■■■■■■
1
-1'.
1
I'
_
1_1_
_
•
-
-
150
--
-
- -
1
-
-
,
■
-.1-
-
-
I
,
-
-
-
-
-
-
-
-
-
-
-
-
-
-
-
_
-
IIIIIIIeIIIIIIIIII
■■■■■■■■■■■■■■■■■■
%i
• r�'
<�r
..
1 _
1 _
1
1
III111
■■■■■■■■■■■■■■■■■■
,
1.
1
-
11
-
_
I
.3
'.fJ.4rr�y
■■■■■■■■■■■■■■■■■■
1..
-.
-
-
_
_
-
-
130
■■■■■■■■■■■■■■■■■■
1 t€4
■
1
1
_
-
-
-
■■■
■■■■
■■■■■
■■■■■■■■■■■■■■
J`
■
I l
.•••
• •
-
• - -"
-
-
. -
-
-
-•
•{
■■■■■■■■■■■
_
,, ■„......„.
_
-
_
-
_
-
• 0
_
-
.S
-
-
1!
•
• '
•
....,:•
•....
_
1_1_1
11I
_I
1
1_1_1
I
1
1
I_
_
•••
•
•,
1
_.
_
■■■■■■■■■■■■■■■■■■
_
..
i
_
4
•
-
-
-
,a
•
•
-
_1__
iiiiiiiiiiiiiii
...................
■■■■■■■■■■■■■■■■■■■
■
_
i
••••
I,
'-'-,
•
•
•
• •
,--.i
�,I
■
-
_-
_
_
-
_ram•
■■■ ■■■■■■■■■■■■■■
■
■
100
_
■■■ ■■■■■■■■■■■■■■
■
■
11
■■ A. ■■■■■■■■■■■■■
■ ■ ■■■■■■■■■■
■ d■■■ _ ■■■■■■■■■■
-- •00000
■■■■■■■■■■
.i■ 1 L I ■■■■■■■■■
■ l , , 1, ■■■■■■■■■
MENEE...
=NM=
=NENE=
=NENE=
=NENE=
EMENEMEN
■
■
1
■
■
1 _
1 _
1
1
1 _
--
1
1 _
1
1
• •
• • •
1
■•
■•••••••
1
•I
I
••
•••••
-- tea-1
•
1
.
■ ■ I l 1 k ■■■■■■■■■
■
■
• • •
•
I
,
90
t_:ccc,111111111111■
Ma 1 _ 1
•VP
I'• • `•
• • • •
_
1 _
MENEM
EMMEN
M■MEM
•••0
0
O O O
O II
-
-
i
■■ ■■■■■■
■
■�
00kz
00000
-{ --O--O-
80
31
■
ST264
• •
• 31^ST.261
•"' II
Im:
e+
■
■
■
■
■■■R
0
•
•
•
•
•
•
1 h-intriA iazirwilitreigE
ails 1: viF-1C■7:.T•l:llWA1•il:I:1■lirel:l<'Ii1Al
0
0
7 In
(q N 0 E
Nto V
> co o
• E
a co E
c c
-0asw 3
w 3
o • cc
0
0
PROJECT NAME & LOCATION
M.TOWATO
DATE
06/18/2019
PROJECT NUMBER
41859.002
PROJECT NAME
MISENHEIMER SOLAR
DESIGNED BY / DRAWN BY
L. CARSON
NOT FOR CONSTRUCTION
These plans and associated documents are the
exclusive property of TIMMONS GROUP and
may not be reproduced in whole or in part and
shall not be used for any purpose whatsoever,
inclusive, but not limited to construction, bidding,
and/or construction staking without the express
written consent of TIMMONS GROUP.
REVISIONS
MM/DD/YY
DESCRIPTION
DRAWING DESCRIPTION
CULTURAL
RESOURCE
SHOVEL TEST
MAP
300
600 '
PLANS PRINTED AS 11X17 ARE HALF SCALE
SCALE
H:1 "=300'
SHEET NUMBER
2 of 7
Y:\851\41859.002-Misenheimer_Solar\GIS\Common Shared Exhibits\Misenheimer Shovel Test Map.mxd

Legend
•
rA
vA
Project Boundary - 739.6 Acres
Positive Shovel Test
Negative Shovel Test
Transmission Lines
Topographic Contour 5'
Fenceline
Area Used for Connection Lines Only
Architecture Resource
Archaeological Resource
Cultural Resource Probability
High - 35.7 Acres
Low - 100.9 Acres
Moderate - 123.9 Acres
Timbered Areas - 423.4 Acres
Timbered -Cleared Areas - 55.7 Acres
I
■■■■I■
■■■■■■
■■■■I■
■■■■■■
1
■■■■■■
■■■■■■
■■■■I■
■■■■■■
M■■■■■
■■■■■■
MINE■■
■■■■■■
■OEM■■
■OEM■■
■■■■■■
■■■■■■
■MMM■■
■■■■■■
■■■■■■
N■MM■N
M■MM■■
■■■ENE
N■M■■■
MINE■■
■■■■■■
N■MM■■
MENE■■
■■■■■■
■■■■■■
■MIEN■
■■■■I■
■MIME■
■■■■■■
■■■■■■
■■■■■■
MINE.■
■■M■■■
■■M■■■
■■■■■■
MINE■■
■■■■■■
MINE.■
■■■■■
■■■■■
■■■■
MEN
■■■■
■
ENE
■■■
■■
•
■
■
■■■■
■■■■
OMEN
IEEE
■■■■
■■■■
NEED
■■■■
■■■■
NENE
■■■■
■■■■
OMEN
■■■■
■■■■
■■■■
■■■■
■■■■
NEED
■■■■
ODD■
■■■■
IEEE
■■■■
■■EN
E■■■
■■■■
■■■■
■■■■
■■■■
■■■■
■■■■
■■■■
IEEE
■■■■
MIEN
■■■■
■■■■
■■■■
■■■■
NENE
■■■■
■■■■
■■■■
NENE
■■■■
■■■■
■■■■
IEEE
■■■■
■■■■
EINE
DO
mdi
mom
7C1
•
■
r1�1 k
90
40
0
20
•
•
•
•
•
•
•
•
•
•
•
•
•
•
•
•
•
•
•
•
•
•
•
•
•
•
•
•
•
•
•
n
■■■■■■■■■■■■■■■■■■■■■■■■■■■■■■■■■■■■■■■■■■■■■■■■■■■
■■■■■■■■■■■■■■■■■■■■■■■■■■■■■■■■■■■■■■■■■■■■■■■■
■■■■■■■■■■■■■■■■■■■■■■■■■■■■■■■■■■■■■■■■■■■■■■■■■
■■■■■■■■■■■■■■■■■■■■■■■■■■■■■■■■■■■■■■■■■■■■■■■■■■
i.ao aooeaa�oeaaoaa�eeoan1 11111
■■■■■■■■■■■■■■■■■■■■■■■■■■■■■■■■���■■■■■■■■■■■■!�■■■■■m
■■■■■■■■■■ ■■■■■■■■■■■■■■■■■■■■■■■■■■■ ■■■NNE■■■■■
■■■■■■ ---- ■■■■■■■■ ■■■■■■■■■■■■■■■■ ■■■••■■■■■■ ,
■■■■■ 1I■■■■■■■■ ■■■■ ■■■■■■■■ ■■■■■■■■■■
1 1 1 1
■■■■■■■■■■■■■■■■■■■■■■■■■■■■■■■■■■■■■■■■■■■■■■■■■■■■■■■■■■■■■■■■■■■■■■■■■■■■■■■■■■■■■■■I■■■0■■■1
NEE
■■■■■■■■■■■■■■■■■■■■■■■■■■■■■■M■■■■ ■■■
■■■■■■■■■■■■■■■■■■■■■■■■■■■■ ■■■■■■■■
■■■■■■■■■■■■■■■■■■■■■■■■■■■■■ ■■■■MINE
■■■■■■■■■■■■■■■■■■■■■■■■■■ ■■■■ ■■■■■■■■
NMMNME■■■MM■MMM EMEMNME■■■ ■■■■■ ■■■■■■■■
■■■■■■■■■■■■■■■■■■■ -II ■■■ ■■■■■ ■■■■■■■■
■■■■■■■■■■■■■■■■■■■■ ' ■■ MEN■E N■E EI■E
NEM■■■ ■■■■■■■■■■■■■■■■ 1- ■■ EN■■■ ■■_ ■■
■■■■ 1
■■■■■■■■■■ ■■■ ■ ■■■■■ ■ ■■ ■
N■■ 1 r I I ■■■■■■■■■■ ■%pimp ■■■■■■■ •••••
Immo=
■■■■■■■■■■■■■■■
NEE■■■■■ ■■■■■■ ■■■■■■■■■■■■■■■
■■■■■■ ■■ ■■■■ ■■■■■■■■■
■■■■■ ■ ■ ■■■■■ ■■■■■■■■■
■■■■ ■■■■ . i■■1 ■■■■■� ■■MENNE■■
■■■. ■ ■■ ■■■■■�� ■■■■■■■■■
■■ ■Ili■■■■■ ■■MINE■■■
■■■■■■■■■■■■ I■■■■■■■■■
ENE■■■■■■ I■■■■■■■■■
■■■ ■■■■ ■■■■■■■■■■
IENNEEMENNIENEEMNIMENEINEENEMEINEMINIENEEINEMENNEMEI
NINIENNINENNEMENNIENMEEMENENNEINEMENNEMENEINEENNINEEMEMIEN
IMMIEVEINEMENIMEINENINNEEMINNEMENEENIENEIENNEMEMIEMINNEEINNEIN
MEMEINENIMINIENNENIMMENNIENNEEIMEINIINEENNIEMENEENEENNEIN
MINEENEENEMENINEIENEMENNIENINEINEMEINIEEEINEEMENIENNE
INNEEEINEEDEINEINEEINIIMENNENIENNENIENIENEMENIENINIENEEMEIN
IMIENIMENEINEENNINEINIMMEMMINEMEINEMOIMINIMENNINEMEIMENNED
IMIEIMEINEEMENMEMEENNEENNEENNEMENEMENNIMINEDIENEINNEIE
Niiiiiiiiiiiiii�iiiiiiiiiiiiiiiiiiiiiiiiii�iiiiiii■
ft. IMMONNEMENNOMINIMENNIMENNIENNEENIEEIENEVEMINENEIMENNEENIEN
NEIENEENEEMENNINIENEMENEINEEMINIMEMEIMMENNEMENNEI
i�
i•
■
• ■■
• dig.
■
■ ■■ ■■:.
■■ ■
31.S1.261 II �j ®;000"0•040•41440.0 IMF ■—
::_ ..
■
•
•
.•
•
••
00
■
■
■
■
•
■
•
•
•
•
•
•
•
■
■
■
•
•
•
■
■
•
■
■
•
•
■
■
•
eemoose
7eeaemposese °ee
■ I , , :■■■■■■■■■■■■■■■■■■■■■■■■■■■■■■■■■■■MEIN■■■■■■■■■■■■
,'■■■■■■■■■■■■■■■■■■■■■■■■■■■■■■■■■■■■■■■■■■■■■■■■■■■
■■■■■■■■■■■■■■■■■■■■■■■■■■■■■■■■■■■■■■■■■■■■■■■■■■
■■■■■■■■■■MINE■■■■■■■■■■■MINI■■■■■■■■■■■■■■■■■■■
.,�■■■■■■■■■■■■■■■■■■■■■■■■■■■■■■■■■■■■■■■■■■■■■■■■■
■■■■■■■■■■■■■■■■■■■■■■■■■■■■■■■■■■■■■■■■■■■■■■■■
■■■■■■■■■■■■■■■■■■■■■■■■■■■■■■■■■■■■■■■■■■■INN
■ ■�■■■■■■■■■■■■■■■■■■■■■■■■■■■■■■■■■■■■■■■■■■■■■
■■■■■■■■■■■■■■■■■■■■■■■■■■■■■■■■■■■■■■■■■■■■■
■■N■■■■■■■■■■■■■■■■■■■■■■■■■■■■■■■■■■■■■■MEIN■
■■■■■■■■■■■■■■■■■■■■■■■■■■■■■■■■■■■■■■■■■ ■■■■■ 031ST264 ■■■■■■■■■■■■■■■■■
■■■■■■■■■■■■■■■■■■■■■■■■■■■■■■■■■■■■■■■■■ ■■■ Cw ■■■■■■■■■■■■■■■■■
■■■■■■■■■■■■■■■■■■■■■■■■■■■■■■■■■■■■■ ■ ■■ �' ■ ■■■■■■■■■■■■■■■■■
■■■■■■■■■■■■■■■■■■■■■■■■■■■■■■■■■■■■■■ ■■■ ■■ ■■■■■■■■■■■■■■■■■■■
■■■■■■■■■■■■■■■■■■■■■■■■■■■■■■■■■■■■■■■ ■■■■ ■■■ i■■■■■■■■■■■■■■■■■
■■■■■■■■■■■■■■■■■■■■■■■■■■■■■■■■■■■■■■■ ■■ ■■■■■■■■■■■■ ;1 ■■■■■■■■■■■■■■■■■
■■■■■■■■■■■■■■■■■■■■■■■■■■■■■■■■■■■■■ ■■MEMEM■■■■■■N■■■■,■ ■■■■■■■■■■■■■■■■■
■■■■ ® ■■■■■■■■■■■■■■■■■■■■■■■■■■■■■■ ■■■■■■■■■■■■■■■■■■■■■■■■■■■■■■■■■■■■■
■■■■■■■■■■■■■■■■■■■■■■■■■■■■■■■■■■■■
■■■■■■■■■■■■■■
■■■ ■■■■■■�■ir�■■ •iiiiii�iiiiiiiii
110
100
mE
31 OMAN
■■■■.r- 1- 0`_ ■
r ■ �.r,% ■■■ ■■■ ■
• L 1 ■■� ■■
1J •1
N■ I 1 ■■■ l' l� ■■
I,� A I,�
MI MN
■■■■
I--„= EMEND
EPVIIME:
-1.
■
NM NENE
NM MEM=
NEEND
MIENIEMENIENIO
IEEINEMEIMENN
EINIET
mmmmiimmm
muff mom
mom
•
■
■
MIME
NNE= El
MIEN■■■
■■■.IEEE
■INN■■■■■
MINE■■■■■■■
■■NNE■■■■■■■
■III■■■■■■■■ .4r •
■III■■■■■■■■■■ ..
■III■■■■■■■■■■■
■III■■■■■■■■■■■■
■III■■■■■■■■■■■■■
■III■■■■■■■■■■■■■■ ■
■III■■■■■■■■MINE■■■
■■■■■■■■■■■■■■■■■■■■
■III■■■■■■■■■■■■■■■■■■
■III■■■■■■■■■■■■■■■■■
■III■■■■■■■■■■■■■■■■
■III■■■■■■■MEIN■■■■■
■III■■■■■■■■■■■■■■■ ■
•
• • .
-
-
1�11
1_1—
_
11
f
-
1,
1
i
■■■■ ■■
■■■■■■■■ _
■■■■■■■■NEN
■■■
■ ■■■■
4
•
ii■
■
■■■■■■■■■■■■■■■■■■■■■■■■■■■■■■■■■■I;..■
■■■■■■■■■■■■■■■■■■■■■■■■■■■■■■■■■■N6=111 M■
11■■■■N■
■■■■■■■
■■■■■■■
■■■■■
111111111.■■■■
e°°e°e°
eee
■■■■ I■■■NENI ■■■■■■■■■■■■■■■ ■■■■■■■■■■■■■■
N■■■ ■■ ■IEN�NI■■■■■■■■■■■■ ■■■■■■■■■■■■
N■■ ■�■■■�l■■NEE®■■■■■■■■■■■■■ ■■■■■■■■■■■■ ■■■■■■■
N■■ ■■■■■■■■.•.r■■■■■■■■■■■■■■■■■■■■■■■■■■■■■
• ■■■■■■M■■■fr ■■■■■■■■■■■■■■■■■■■■■■■■■■■■■■■■■■■■■■■■■■■■■ •�'■■■■■■■■■■■■■■■■■■■■■■■■■■■■■ ■■■■■■
f■■■■■■■■■■■ ■■■■■■■■■■■■■■■■■■■■■■■■■■■ ■■■■■■■
p ■■■■■■■■■■Ill ■■ ■■■■■■■■■■■■■■■■■■■■■■ ■ ■■
. ■■■■■ ■■■■■■■■ mil 11 ■■■■■■■■■■■■■■■■■■
■■■ ■■■■■■■ I I ■■ ■■■■■■■■■■■■ ,� ■■
midiumm ■■■■■■■ I I I ■■■■r■■ ■■:r- °"s ci= b Rd i
■■■■■■■ ■■■■■■■■ ■■■� : \\ \.WTI ■■■■A i■■ ■
■■■■■■■■■■■■■■■■■■■■■■■■ ■■ \\' NM ■■■its■■■ ■
■■■■■■■■■■■■■■!a\■■■■■■■■ ■ `ARP M\ Ai■■■■ MINI■■■■
■■■■■■■■■■■■■■►\II■■■■■■■■■►\N■■■■■■N ■■■ ■
■, r.`\\■■■■■■■ ■ ■
• - 1-1, \\\\PA■■■■■■ ■
• • ■■■■■■ � ► 1■■■■NNE 1�V\\ \\` WZMN ' ■ 1_1 ■■■■
• ■■■■!+\1`'�. '\■■■ ■■ ,4'\\.\` ■ 1 1 ■■■Mil
METE■■■■\\I■■■■■■■NNE
■■MIENEE : N \MN■■■■■■■
■■■■■■■\N. INSMNIII ■■■■■
■■■■■■■■ \ '\ ► '\N! ' \� \ONE ■ !\N \N '.� ` NNM . ■ ■■■■■�
■■■■■■N NRiNN` '\N \ \■ ■ . � ' O\ \\. � \\ \\■■ ■■■■
■!! \ \ \1 '\ .\`, \■■NEW Ai■ \ \ \ \■■ ■■■■
NMIIINI
■■■\ \\ \\. `� \\ \ \\. ■■■■■■■ MNN IMNMRNZRZWANMNMNZRIONNIINNIMMINHOMMZMWW\\ 1■■■
ii iiiiiiii�iiiiiiiiiMINMEINENEEMEINIENE
■■E■■N■■ ■■■■■■■■�■■■■■■■■■m linimmim=========
moo
90
so
TO
.31 ST181
■■■■■I■\. ,-\N■■■
■■■■■NN.MR\MN \■■■
■■■■■■■lll\\\ ■■■
■■■■■■■N\\NNE■■
•
MM ■■■■■■■■■■■■■■■■■■
■■■■ ■■■■■■■■■■■■■■■■■■
■■■■■■■■■■■■■■■■■■■■■■■■■■■
■■■■■■■■■■■■■■■■■■■■■■■■■■■
■■■■■■■■■■■■■■■■■■■■■■■■■■■
■■■■■■■■■■■■■■■■■■■■■■■■■■■
■■■■■■■■■■■■■■■■■■■■■NEEMEN
■■■■■■■■■■■■■■■■■■■■■■■■■■■
■■■■■■■■■■■■■■■■■■■■■■■■■
MIME■■■
■■■■
■■■■
NEE■
EN
■■
■■■■MN■■■■■ ■■■■
■■■■■■■■■■■■■, ■■■■■►
■■■■■■■■■■■■■■■■■ ■■■■■�.
■■■■■■■■■■■■■■■■■m ■■■■N
■■ ■■■■■■■■ ■■■■■■■■■■■I
■■ ■■■■■■■■ ■■■■■■■■■■■■
migi ■■■■■■■i 1 _ ■mom
■■
■■■■■■■■■■■■■�� I �7_ _ 1 1
■■■■■■\N\\�1\\1■■ ■■■ ■■■■■■■■■■■ 11 ■■■
■■■■■■\!\m►�'\dig\l■■■ il�li ■■■■ ■■■■■■■■■■■ ■■■■
■■■\\\1\\\a■■ iun ■=■■■■■■■■■■1� ■■■■■■■■
■■■■ \\ \\ '\r►` mNwam ■■ ■■■■■ ■■■■■■ ■■■■■■■■
IlipmmnwzmmmwmmimmmAmp011umpeimmiumm,'■■■■■ ■■■■■■■■■
A■■■■ E\\�R\\I■■■■N ■■ ■■■■■■■■■■■■■■■■■■■■■■■■■■■■■■■■■■■■■■■■■NEED■■■■
■■■■ ■EMSI \MR\ZRN EMEND■■■■ ■ ■■■■ _ ■■■■■■■■■■■■■■■■
■■NN■■■■■■■■■■■■■■■F,: =,•■MINI ■■■\\'\\`,till■■■■■ ■■ ■ ■■■■ 1 1 ■■■■■■■■■■■■■
■m■■■■■■■■■■■■■■l•I■■■■■■■■■■\\\\\l ■■■■ ■ ■■ ■■■■ 1I ■■■■■■■■■■■■■
■nkiiii== ■■■■■■■■■■� ..����=== RNMNNZ Nl1i ■ ■■ ■■■ ■■■■ r ■■■■■■■■■■■■■■
sit ■■■■■■■■ ■■■■ ■■■■■■■■■■■■■■■■�
■■■■■■■■■ ■■■■ _ 1OOMMENNEEND
■■■■■■■■EMEMENNE■■■NNE■■■■■
■■■■■■■■■■■■■■■■ ■■■■■■■■ ■■NNE■■■■■■
MEM
■■■
■■■
l l
I`1
•
1
■■■NNE■■■■■■■■■■■■
■■■■■■■■■■■■■■■■
■■■■■■■■■■■■■■■■
■■■■■■■■■■■■■■■
■■■■■■■■■■■■■■■
■■■NNE■■■■■■■■■
■■■■■■■■■■■■■
■■■■■■■■■■■■■
■■■■■■■■■■■■■
■■■■■■■■■■■■■
■■■■■■MIEN■■■■
■■■■■■■■■■■MIEN
■■■■■■■■■■■■■■■■
■■■■■■■■■■■■■■■■■
�■■■■► �\N R � \ \ \ I■
■■■-whWyMM■■■■
IMENEEENEMENNE
IIIMIENNENEMENNEN
NEMENIMENEEME
ENNIMEEEEEEN
IMINENNEMENENENEN
IMEIENDEMEEEMENEINEEN
IMENEEEMEMEMENINEMEM
MENEENEENENEEINIENIEMINEE
NEMINIMIIMEINEENIMININE
r..................
iiiiiii�iiiiiiiiiiiiiiii�iiiiiiiii....................
1111111111 HHHHI
M• . ■■■■■■■■■■■NNE■■■■■■■■
■■■■■■■■■■■■■■■■■■■■■
■■■■■■■■■■■■■■■■■■■■■
■■■■ ■.\`i\►�`'\\\\\\■■■■N ■■■ ■■■■■■■■■■■■■■■■■■■■■■■■■■■ ■■■■■■■■■■■NNE■■■■■■■■
■■■■■■_ ■■■ ■■■■■■■■■■■■■■■■■■■■■■
op ■■■■■r ■■■■■■ _ ■■ ■■■■■■■■■■■■■■■
■ ■■■■■■■■■■■ ■
■1�1 ■ ■■■■■■■■■■■ ■■■■■■■■■■■■■■■■■■■■■■■■
■■ ■■■ ■■■■■ Ili■■■■■ ■■■■■■■■ i�1' ■■■■■■■■■■■■■■■■■■ ■ ■■■■■■■■■■■■■■■■■■■■■■
■■■■■■■■■ ■■■■ ■■ ■■■■■■■■INN■■■■ 1 1 I ■■■■■■■■■■■■■■■■■■■■■■■■■■■■■■■■■■■■■■■■■■■■■■■■
■■■■■■■■■■■■ ■ ■■■ 1 l ■■ , t'�� 31 ST18■■■■■■■■■■■■l�■■■=■■■■■■■■■■■■■■■■■■■■■■
■■■■■■■ ■■■■ ■■■■■■■ _+_i-+_ ■■■■■■■■.n■■■■■■■■■■■■■■■■■■■■■■■■
■■■■■ ■■■■■■■■ ■■■■■■ ■■® ■■■MIME • ■
■■■ ■■■■■■■■■■■ ■■■■■■■ ■■ ■■■■■■■l M■
■■■ ■■■■■■■■■■■■■■fi��-+-��-+-r�- +— r—
!!!!■■■■■■■■■■■ —------+rJr�---� +=■DINE■■■■■NNE■
".�■■■■■■■■■■■■\\O\1\■■■
■ ■■■■■■■■■■■■■gym\■■■■■
■ ■■■ ■■■■■■■■■ i■■■■■■ ■NNE■■� .s■■■■■■■■
■ ■■■ ■■■■■ ■r�I■■■■■■■ INN■■��■ ■■■■
■■■■■■■■■■
■■■NNE■■■■
■■■■■■■■■■■
■■■■■■■■■■■
■■■■■■■■■■■■■■■■■■
■■■■■■■■■■■■M�■■■■
NINEEEMINIENEENNEEENEENEI
EINEMINIMMEMEMEINEMI
INEENIENEINIMENIMENIENNE
MENVENEENEINNIENIMINEEN
EIMMEENINEINEIMEMEIN
INEEMINMEEEMEEMEMIN
MIENEENNINNEMENINEMENEEEINIE
NIENNIMEMENNIENNOMEIMMENE
■■■■■■■■■■■■■■■■■■■■■■
■■■■■■■■■■■■■■■■■■■■■■
■■■■■■■■■■■■■■■■■■■■■■
■■■■■■■■■■■■■■■■■■■■■■
NEE■■■■■■■■■■■■■■■■■■■■
10
0
•
•
•
•
•
•
I
ails 1:aviF-1C■7:.T•l:llWA1 l:I:1■lirel:r'Iil:l~l
0
0
3 in
co N 0 E
N ap V
N
Y >. G G
� oN E
a c E
-1asw 3
w 3
000 .2~
cc
0
PROJECT NAME & LOCATION
M.TOWATO
Lu
0
j
DATE
06/18/2019
PROJECT NUMBER
41859.002
PROJECT NAME
MISENHEIMER SOLAR
DESIGNED BY / DRAWN BY
L. CARSON
NOT FOR CONSTRUCTION
These plans and associated documents are the
exclusive property of TIMMONS GROUP and
may not be reproduced in whole or in part and
shall not be used for any purpose whatsoever,
inclusive, but not limited to construction, bidding,
and/or construction staking without the express
written consent of TIMMONS GROUP
RESOURCE
SHOVEL TEST
MAP
0
300
PLANS PRINTED AS 11X17 ARE HALF SCALE
SCALE
SHEET NUMBER
3 of 7
■■■■■■■■ ■■■■

256
258
259
260
261
262
263
264
265
Legend
ma•■ —a
�.• •MI
•
vA
I
I
1
,
2
1
•
•
3
6
Plirenheini
•
Project Boundary - 739.6 Acres
Positive Shovel Test
Negative Shovel Test
Transmission Lines
Topographic Contour 5'
Fenceline
Area Used for Connection Lines Only
Architecture Resource
Archaeological Resource
Cultural Resource Probability
High - 35.7 Acres
Low - 100.9 Acres
Moderate - 123.9 Acres
Timbered Areas - 423.4 Acres
Timbered -Cleared Areas - 55.7 Acres
RTrchie.5 Lak
242 243 244 245 246 247 248 249 250 251 252 253 254 255k
ro
O
O-r
ST261
•
0-0
ef-
A
9'
80
76
68
•
•
•
•
•
•
TIMMONS GROUP
YOUR VISION ACHIEVED THROUGH OURS.
0
0
3 In
co N 0 E
o
N V
> G 0
Ti
E
ac
0 o
-
�asw 3
w 3
o IY ~
m
0
0
PROJECT NAME & LOCATION
MER SOLAR
W
Z
W
DATE
06/18/2019
PROJECT NUMBER
41859.002
PROJECT NAME
MISENHEIMER SOLAR
DESIGNED BY / DRAWN BY
L. CARSON
NOT FOR CONSTRUCTION
These plans and associated documents are the
exclusive property of TIMMONS GROUP and
may not be reproduced in whole or in part and
shall not be used for any purpose whatsoever,
inclusive, but not limited to construction, bidding,
and/or construction staking without the express
written consent of TIMMONS GROUP.
REVISIONS
MM/DD/YY
DESCRIPTION
DRAWING DESCRIPTION
CULTURAL
RESOURCE
SHOVEL TEST
MAP
0
50
100'
PLANS PRINTED AS 11X17 ARE HALF SCALE
SCALE
H:1 "=50'
SHEET NUMBER
4 of 7
Y:\851\41859.002-Misenheimer_Solar\GIS\Common Shared Exhibits\Misenheimer Shovel Test Map.mxd

Legend
—••—a
■
•
rA
vA
i•
•
•-.
•
ita1=-M Mini
1
■
■
04.
■
2
Project Boundary - 739.6 Acres
Positive Shovel Test
Negative Shovel Test
Transmission Lines
Topographic Contour 5'
Fenceline
Area Used for Connection Lines Only
Architecture Resource
Archaeological Resource
Cultural Resource Probability
High - 35.7 Acres
Low - 100.9 Acres
Moderate - 123.9 Acres
Timbered Areas - 423.4 Acres
Timbered -Cleared Areas - 55.7 Acres
RTrcIu .
•
•
•
•
•
•
TIMMONS GROUP
YOUR VISION ACHIEVED THROUGH OURS.
0
0
M
7 In
co N 0 E
t4 N in V
•
> G o
ca - E
a 15
c a E
c co w
-asw 3
w 3
o re• ~
m
0
0
PROJECT NAME & LOCATION
MER SOLAR
W
Z
W
DATE
06/18/2019
PROJECT NUMBER
41859.002
PROJECT NAME
MISENHEIMER SOLAR
DESIGNED BY / DRAWN BY
L. CARSON
NOT FOR CONSTRUCTION
These plans and associated documents are the
exclusive property of TIMMONS GROUP and
may not be reproduced in whole or in part and
shall not be used for any purpose whatsoever,
inclusive, but not limited to construction, bidding,
and/or construction staking without the express
written consent of TIMMONS GROUP.
DRAWING DESCRIPTION
CULTURAL
RESOURCE
SHOVEL TEST
MAP
0
50
100'
PLANS PRINTED AS 11X17 ARE HALF SCALE
SCALE
H:1 "=50'
SHEET NUMBER
5 of 7
Y:\851\41859.002-Misenheimer_Solar\GIS\Common Shared Exhibits\Misenheimer Shovel Test Map.mxd

Legend
-——- 40.11=-.•—..�,
2
it C�
3
ItenheJri1
6
1 I i
RircIu .
_..i Project Boundary - 739.6 Acres
•
VA
Positive Shovel Test
Negative Shovel Test
Transmission Lines
Topographic Contour 5'
Fenceline
Area Used for Connection Lines Only
Architecture Resource
Archaeological Resource
Cultural Resource Probability
High - 35.7 Acres
Low - 100.9 Acres
Moderate - 123.9 Acres
Timbered Areas - 423.4 Acres
Timbered -Cleared Areas - 55.7 Acres
80 281 282 283 284 285 286 . . 287288 289
•
290
•
• •
• • •
• • •
• •
woo
294
VA
29
6
A
291 j�298X/ 269t
47•
'10!-
• • •
• • • • •
• • • • •
• • • • • • •
309. /
301
' '.
eko
elk •
@alai
3
i
1 • • —111V
1
1
1
• • • • ,• .. •
• • • • •
• • • • • •
• • • • • • • • • •
• • • • • • • • • • • • • •
• • • • • • • • • • • •
. I
I .
• • • • • • • • • • • • •
• • • • • • • • • • •
• • • • • • • • • • O
,_______
• • -- • • • • • • • • •
•
429
• 28
•1
•
•
•
•
•
•
•
I
ails 1:aviF-1C■7:.T•l:llWA1 l:I:1■lirel:r'Iil:l~l
0
0
M
7 In
co N O E
N ap V
N > G o
o�ry E
a c a E
c co w
E J 3
w 3
-13
o .2
re~
co
0
PROJECT NAME & LOCATION
M.TOWATO
DATE
06/18/2019
PROJECT NUMBER
41859.002
PROJECT NAME
MISENHEIMER SOLAR
DESIGNED BY / DRAWN BY
L. CARSON
NOT FOR CONSTRUCTION
These plans and associated documents are the
exclusive property of TIMMONS GROUP and
may not be reproduced in whole or in part and
shall not be used for any purpose whatsoever,
inclusive, but not limited to construction, bidding,
and/or construction staking without the express
written consent of TIMMONS GROUP.
REVISIONS
MM/DD/YY
DESCRIPTION
DRAWING DESCRIPTION
CULTURAL
RESOURCE
SHOVEL TEST
MAP
50
100'
• • • • • • •
PLANS PRINTED AS 11X17 ARE HALF SCALE
SCALE
H:1 "=50'
SHEET NUMBER
6 of 7
Y:\851\41859.002-Misenheimer_Solar\GIS\Common Shared Exhibits\Misenheimer Shovel Test Map.mxd

Legend
ME MN a
■
111 N M I
•
•
I
2
■
■1
■
I I I
3
6
l enheJr11
•
RTrchie.5 Lak
L
Project Boundary - 739.6 Acres
• Positive Shovel Test
Negative Shovel Test
Transmission Lines
Topographic Contour 5'
rA
vA
Fenceline
Area Used for Connection Lines Only
Architecture Resource
Archaeological Resource
Cultural Resource Probability
High - 35.7 Acres
Low - 100.9 Acres
Moderate - 123.9 Acres
Timbered Areas - 423.4 Acres
Timbered -Cleared Areas - 55.7 Acres
297
298
299
300
301
302
303
304
305
306
fi
1-
4
4
J
-4- 1-
307
A AA
jjr r
AZA
Fr,/,
Airt'
308
309
310
312 313 314 315 316 317 318 319 32018
4
J
///
r
r
rf
r
+
4
7
r
4
J
9,
4
J
4
1
✓
•
fi
r
fi
4
J
61
•
•
•
•
•
TIMMONS GROUP
YOUR VISION ACHIEVED THROUGH OURS.
0
0
7 In
co N 0 E
N V
> G o
E
o_ c E
0 co w
E J 3
w 3
-13
o cc• ~
m
0
0
PROJECT NAME & LOCATION
MER SOLAR
W
Z
W
DATE
06/18/2019
PROJECT NUMBER
41859.002
PROJECT NAME
MISENHEIMER SOLAR
DESIGNED BY / DRAWN BY
L. CARSON
NOT FOR CONSTRUCTION
These plans and associated documents are the
exclusive property of TIMMONS GROUP and
may not be reproduced in whole or in part and
shall not be used for any purpose whatsoever,
inclusive, but not limited to construction, bidding,
and/or construction staking without the express
written consent of TIMMONS GROUP.
REVISIONS
MM/DD/YY
DESCRIPTION
DRAWING DESCRIPTION
CULTURAL
RESOURCE
SHOVEL TEST
MAP
50
100'
PLANS PRINTED AS 11X17 ARE HALF SCALE
SCALE
H:1 "=50'
SHEET NUMBER
7 of 7
Y:\851\41859.002-Misenheimer_Solar\GIS\Common Shared Exhibits\Misenheimer Shovel Test Map.mxd

73
Qfo
f•
f I l
.r +
tiJ
t � _
•
RWO753•Union Cppper
•1)-
r I!ROW—AN!
v
. • L. -.
PT33:.3
thvdisr v•
c
2'
T33FC FB CLl L'E{x. ' a.
. .r`°F �� 9T���c Glavr:.r.arm
^o-mlEx
'Jr-ETMM-.f Lloyd's Antique -
• f rAy. rT3095-P;fA.ifrer J unior
,.f SToc 3
•
•
•
rv;A Mc./
*stari�a6triot i t.,STD6F4 �annupf9aRrey
�,.. 4k •
I Hause
• - 1.STANLY
J r l
STM;=� = ax .
PTF Esis Dry-v a_
ET3j.-ti':illi3n ,
- • x
•
. -aye
20 T01
T33 v .JpH use r
ST0119 iHerman
Haus a • x .
uT�799i SarringEr-L nriiry� - o-rie Miller
Hause ;1993: ti
• HUE •
pri rr0 hour
.r-
s Y ' SITDD71 Hinn so
,e. 91J;1 fiHrvare
Copyright:©20.1.3 National'Geog L.i tyi=tuber)

State Historic Preservation Office (Architectural)
National Register
Pfeiffer Junior College Historic District
Determined Eligible
Lloyd's Antiques
Study List
Mattons Grove United Methodist Church
Surveyed
Meisenheimer Rural Neighborhood
Culp House
Grey Stone Inn
G.W. Peeler House
(Former) Northern Mthodist Church
Bessie Dry House
Selles Barn
Wesley Chapel United Methodist Church
HPO Site ID
ST0095
Status
National Register(NR)
HPO Site ID Status
ST0075 Determination of Eligibility (DOE)
HPO Site ID
ST0078
HPO Site ID
ST0084
ST0058
ST0065
ST0094
ST0090
ST0059
ST0112
ST0122
Status
Study List (SL)
Status
(SA)
(SO)
(SO)
(SO)
(SO)
(SO)
(SO)
(SO)