20231000 Ver 1_Draft_Triangle_EXPWY 230kV_ECR_20220921_20230713

ENVIRONMENTAL CONSTRAINTS REPORT
Cary Triangle Expressway 230kV Substation Project
Wake County, North Carolina
Duke Energy Progress No.: E21026501
DUKE
ENERGY
Duke Energy Progress
Siting, Permitting, & Engagement
410 S. Wilmington St.
Raleigh, NC 27601
September 2022

ENVIRONMENTAL CONSTRAINTS REPORT
Cary Triangle Expressway 230kV Substation Project
Wake County, North Carolina
Duke Energy Progress No.: E21026501
Prepared by:
Jq"=C0M
AECOM Technical Services, Inc.
5438 Wade Park Boulevard, STE 200
Raleigh, NC 27607
AECOM Project460685862
Prepared for:
(� DUKE
ENERGY,
Duke Energy Progress
Siting, Permitting, & Engagement
410 S. Wilmington St.
Raleigh, NC 27601
September 2022

Environmental Constraints Report Cary Triangle Expressway 230kV Substation Project
TABLE OF CONTENTS
1.0 INTRODUCTION................................................................................................................. 1
2.0 METHODOLOGY................................................................................................................I
3.0 BACKGROUND RESEARCH FINDINGS........................................................................ 2
3,1 Study Area Setting............................................................................................................ 2
3.2 Soils.....................................................................................................................................2
3.3 NWI Mapped Wetlands.................................................................................................... 3
3AFloodplains.........................................................................................................................3
3.5 Watershed..........................................................................................................................3
3.6 Coastal Area Management Act Areas of Environmental Concern .............................. 4
3.7 Rivers and Harbors Act Section 10 Navigable Waters .................................................. 4
4.0 FIELD INVESTIGATION FINDINGS............................................................................... 5
4.1 Terrestrial Communities.................................................................................................. 5
4.1.1 Maintained/Disturbed............................................................................................... 5
4.1.2 Mesic-mixed hardwood forest.................................................................................. 5
4.1.3 Piedmont bottomland forest...................................................................................... 5
4.2 Aquatic Communities....................................................................................................... 6
4.2.1 Streams......................................................................................................................6
4.2.2 Wetlands................................................................................................................... 6
4.3 N.C. River Basin Buffer Rules......................................................................................... 7
4.3.1 Additional Stream Buffer Rules................................................................................ 8
5.0 ENDANGERED SPECIES ACT PROTECTED SPECIES .............................................. 9
5.1 Bald Eagle and Golden Eagle Protection Act............................................................... 11
5.2 Endangered Species Act Candidate Species and At Risk Species..............................11
5.3 Essential Fish Habitat..................................................................................................... 11
5AState -Listed Species........................................................................................................ 11
6.0 CULTURAL RESOURCES............................................................................................... 12
6.1 Archaeological Resources............................................................................................... 12
6.2 Historic Architectural Resources..................................................................................13
7.0 CONCLUSION AND RECOMMENDATIONS............................................................... 15
8.0 REFERENCES.................................................................................................................... 16
Duke Energy i September 2022

Environmental Constraints Report Cary Triangle Expressway 230W Substation Project
Appendix A. Figures
Figure 1.
Vicinity Map
Figure 2.
Topographic Map
Figure 3.
Orthoimagery Map
Figure 4.
Soils Map
Figure 5.
NWI and Streams Map
Figure 6.
FEMA Map
Figure 7.
Delineated Aquatic Resources Map
Figure 8.
County Soil Survey Map
Figure 9.
Riparian Buffers Map
Figure 10.
Cultural Resources Map
Appendix B. Threatened and Endangered Species Lists
Appendix C. Wetland Data Forms
Appendix D. Representative Photographs
LIST OF TABLES
Table1.
Soils in the Study Area.....................................................................................................
3
Table2.
Study Area Watershed......................................................................................................
4
Table 3.
Streams identified within the Study Area.........................................................................
6
Table 4.
Jurisdictional wetlands identified within the Study Area .................................................
7
Table 5.
Potential Buffer Applicability for Streams identified within the Study Area ...................
8
Table 6.
IPaC List of Federally Protected Species for the Study Area ...........................................
9
Table 7.
Summary Data for Archaeological Sites Within 1-mile of Project ................................
13
Table 8.
Summary Data for Archaeological Sites Within 1-mile of Project ................................
14
Duke Energy ii September 2022

Environmental Constraints Report Cary Triangle Expressway 230kV Substation Project
1.0 INTRODUCTION
Duke Energy Progress is proposing to construct a 230kV substation in Wake County, North
Carolina (Appendix A, Figure 1 and Figure 2). The study area is located within four parcels
(PINS: 0734218279, 0734229754, 0734315966, and 0734319104), which are located on either side
of the Triangle Expressway (I-540) near the intersection of Green Level West Road (Appendix A,
Figure 1). The study area is approximately 45 acres.
AECOM Technical Services, Inc. (AECOM) was retained by Duke Energy Progress to provide
the following services:
• A jurisdictional delineation of Waters of the United States (WOUS), including wetlands;
• Collection of data using sub -meter accuracy Global Positioning System (GPS) units;
• A habitat evaluation of federal and state -listed protected species;
• A determination of the applicability of riparian buffer rules;
• A preliminary archeological and historical resources site search; and
• A report documenting the natural and cultural resources within the project site.
The following environmental constraints analysis has been prepared to assist Duke Energy
Progress in their preliminary planning, so that construction activities may attempt to avoid or
minimize impacts to environmental and cultural resources identified within the study area.
2.0 METHODOLOGY
AECOM performed background research prior to commencing fieldwork and additional research
was conducted following completion of fieldwork. Research included publicly available
information on soils, water resources, geology, mapped wetlands, cultural resources, and rare
species. Sources included, but were not limited to, US Fish and Wildlife Service (USFWS)
National Wetland Inventory (NWI) maps (USFWS, 2022), US Department of Agriculture (USDA)
Natural Resources Conservation Service (NRCS) Soil Survey for Wake County, North Carolina
(USDA, 1970) and WebSoilSurvey (USDA, 2022), US Geological Survey (USGS) 7.5-minute
topographic quadrangle for Green Level, North Carolina (USGS, 2019), the State's Geographic
Information System (GIS) hydrological data (NCDWR, 2022), the Federal Emergency
Management Agency (FEMA) floodplain mapping (FEMA, 2022), the USFWS IPaC resource list
(USFWS, 2022), the NC Natural Heritage Program (NCNIIP) database (NCNHP, 2022), and the
North Carolina State Historic Preservation Office (NCSHPO) database (NCSHPO, 2022).
On July 5 and 12, 2022, AECOM biologists surveyed the study area for jurisdictional WOUS,
including wetlands. AECOM identified habitat types, vegetated wetlands, waterbodies, and other
regulated special aquatic sites encountered. Wetlands were identified using the US Army Corps of
Engineers (USACE) Regional Supplement to the Corps of Engineers Wetland Delineation Manual:
Eastern Mountains and Piedmont Region (Environmental Laboratory, 2012). The boundaries of
all jurisdictional waters within the study area, if any, were demarcated using high visibility
flagging: both solid orange and red and white striped for wetlands, and both solid orange and solid
blue flagging for streams. AECOM documented, using the most current USACE wetland
determination data form, two sample plots for each vegetated representative wetland type: one in
the wetland and one in the adjacent upland. AECOM classified the resource according to the
Duke Energy 1 September 2022

Environmental Constraints Report Cary Triangle Expressway 230kV Substation Project
USFWS Classification of Wetlands and Deepwater Habitats of the United States (Cowardin, et al.,
1979).
AECOM mapped the location of each field -delineated boundary flag using a Global Positioning
System (GPS) unit with sub -meter accuracy (Model: Trimble Geo7X). Field data was used in
ArcGIS analysis to produce tables and maps required for a USACE Jurisdictional Determination.
The study area was categorized as maintained/disturbed, Piedmont bottomland forest, and mesic
mixed hardwood forest. These community types were compared to the habitat preferences of any
listed federally species. In addition, AECOM determined the presence or absence of all Element
of Occurrences (EOs), if any, documented by the NCNHP in the study area (Appendix B).
To determine if known archaeological resources may occur within the study area, AECOM
reviewed maps and files maintained by the NCSHPO and the NCSHPO GIS web service. In
addition, on August 4, 2022, an AECOM archaeologist consulted archaeological files housed at
the North Carolina Office of State Archaeology (OSA) in Raleigh, North Carolina.
3.0 BACKGROUND RESEARCH FINDINGS
3.1 Study Area Setting
The study area is geographically situated within the Eastern Mountains and Piedmont ecoregion
of North Carolina (USEPA, 2002); more specifically, the USDA NRCS Major Land Resource
Area (MLRA) Southern Piedmont (136) subregion of Land Resource Region (LRR) P. Elevations
in the study area range from approximately 350 feet above mean sea level (amsl) in the northern
portion of the study area to approximately 294 feet amsl in southern portion of the site near an
unnamed tributary to Bachelor Branch (Appendix A, Figure 3). Land use in the study area
primarily consists of undeveloped woods and overhead utility easement. The study area is divided
by the Triangle Expressway (I-540). The study area is surrounded by undeveloped wooded land,
residential homes, and commercial buildings.
3.2 Soils
The NRCS WebSoilSurvey identifies three soil mapping units within the study area (Table 1).
The majority of the mapped soils are non-hydric and characterized as moderately well drained to
somewhat poorly drained. Only one of the soil map units (Chewacla and Wehadkee soils, 0 to 2
percent slopes, frequently flooded) is characterized as a hydric poorly drained soil for the
Wehadkee soil component. These soils are shown on Figure 4, Appendix A.
Duke Energy 2 September 2022

Environmental Constraints Report Cary Triangle Expressway 230kV Substation Project
Table 1. Soils in the Study Area
Soil Series
Mapping
Drainage
Hydric
Acres
Percent
Unit
Class
Status
Chewacla and Wehadkee soils 0 to
Poorly drained
2 percent slopes, frequently flooded
ChA
and Somewhat
Hydric
2.5
5.4%
poorly drained
Moderately
Creedmoor-Green Level complex,
CrB
well drained
Non-hydric
8.2
18.1%
2 to 6 percent slopes
and Somewhat
poorly drained
Moderately
Creedmoor-Green Level complex,
CrD
well drained
Non-hydric
34.5
76.4%
10 to 15 percent slopes
and Somewhat
poorly drained
Total
45.1
100%
3.3 NWI Mapped Wetlands
One NWI freshwater forested/shrub wetland is mapped within the southwestern portion of the
study area: Palustrine Forested, Broad -Leaved Deciduous/Needle-Leaved Evergreen, Temporary
Flooded (PFO1/4A) (Figure 5, Appendix A).
3.4 Floodplains
Floodplains within the vicinity of the study area are mapped by FEMA on the Flood Insurance
Rate Maps (Map No. 3720073400K , Panel No. 370238 —Effective Date July 19, 2022) (FEMA,
2022). There are no flood zones present within the study area (Figure 6, Appendix A).
3.5 Watershed
The study area is located within the Cape Fear River basin (USGS Hydrologic Unit 03030002). A
blueline USGS mapped stream is depicted within the study area. This mapped stream flows to
Bachelor Branch located approximately one-half mile west of the study area. All surface waters in
North Carolina are assigned a primary surface water classification by the North Carolina Division
of Water Resources (NCDWR). The unnamed tributaries (UTs) to named streams share the same
designation as the body of water to which they flow (Table 2).
There are no designated anadromous fish waters or primary nursery areas present in the study area.
There are no trout streams as designated by the North Carolina Wildlife Resources Commission
(NCWRC) or high quality waters as designated by NCDWR in the study area or within a one -mile
radius of the study area. There are no streams included in the North Carolina final 2022 Category
5 Water Quality Assessments — 303(d) List within the study area or within a one -mile radius of
the study area.
Duke Energy 3 September 2022

Environmental Constraints Report Cary Triangle Expressway 230kV Substation Project
Table 2. Study Area Watershed
Nearest Named
NCDWR Index
Primary Surface
USGS HUC
River Basin
Stream
Number
Water Classification
03030002
Cape Fear
Bachelor Branch
16-41-6-2-(2)
WS-IV; NSW
Primary Surface Water Classification:
Water Supply IV (WS-IV) - Waters used as sources of water supply for drinking, culinary or food processing
purposes where a WS-I, WS-II or WS-III classification is not feasible. These waters are also protected for Class
C uses. WS-IV waters are generally in moderately to highly developed watersheds.
Nutrient Sensitive Waters (NSW) - Supplemental classification intended for waters needing additional nutrient
management due to being subject to excessive growth of microscopic or macroscopic vegetation.
3.6 Coastal Area Management Act Areas of Environmental Concern
The study area is not located within one of the 20 coastal counties which are subject to the Coastal
Area Management Act.
3.7 Rivers and Harbors Act Section 10 Navigable Waters
Section 10 of the Rivers and Harbors Act protects navigable waters of the US. Navigable waters
are defined as "those waters that are subject to the ebb/flow of the tide and/or are presently used,
or have been used in the past, or may be susceptible for use to transport interstate or foreign
commerce." No surface waters have been designated as Section 10 navigable waters within the
study area.
Duke Energy 4 September 2022

Environmental Constraints Report Cary Triangle Expressway 230kV Substation Project
4.0 FIELD INVESTIGATION FINDINGS
4.1 Terrestrial Communities
Three terrestrial communities were identified in the study area: maintained/disturbed, Piedmont
bottomland forest, and mesic mixed hardwood forest. A brief description of the community type
follows.
4.1.1 Maintained/Disturbed
This community incorporates several land cover types, including the cleared/maintained right-of-
way for an existing transmission line and transportation corridors. Undeveloped portions of the
study area are periodically controlled with herbicide to prevent the growth of woody vegetation
underneath the existing transmission line. The transportation right-of-ways are periodically
mowed and contain mostly upland grasses (Graminea sp.). Other common upland plant species
found along the study area and along road corridors include blackberry (Rubus sp.), broom -sedge
(Andropogon virginicus), dog fennel (Eupatorium capillifolium), muscadine (Vitis rotundifolia),
goldenrod (Solidago sp.) and horsebrier (Smilax rotundifolia).
Wetlands within this community were given the Cowardin classification of palustrine emergent
wetland (PEM). Common wetland plants observed throughout this community include blackberry,
sedges (Carex sp.), lamp rush (Juncus effusus), cottongrass bulrush (Scirpus cyperinus), red maple
(Acer rubrum), black willow (Salix nigra), Japanese stilt grass (Microstegium vimineum), and
sweetgum (Liquidambar styraciva). Two emergent headwater wetlands are located within this
community: WA and WC (Appendix A, Figure 7).
4.1.2 Mesic-mixed hardwood forest
This community type occurs in upland ridges and hills on the 45 acre property. Common tree
species include loblolly pine (Pious taeda), sweetgum, tuliptree. (Liriodendron tulipifera), eastern
red cedar (Juniperus virginiana), red maple, dogwood (Corpus Florida), mockernut hickory (Carya
tomentosa), white oak (Quercus alba), and northern red oak (Quercus rubra). Common shrub
species include Chinese privet (Ligustrum sinense). Herb species include Japanese stilt grass.
Common vine species include muscadine, poison ivy (Toxicodendron radicans), and Japanese
honeysuckle (Lonicera japonica). The mesic-mixed hardwood forest community also contains
loblolly pine plantation in several portions of study area.
4.1.3 Piedmont bottomland forest
This community occurs in the forested drainages and floodplains within the study area. Common
tree species include loblolly pine, sweetgum, tulip poplar, green ash (Fraxinus pennslyvanica),
water oak (Quercus nigra), American elm (Ulmus Americana), and willow oak (Quercus phelos).
Common shrub species include Chinese privet. Herb species include Japanese stilt grass. One
forested floodplain wetland is located within this community: WB (Appendix A, Figure 7).
Duke Energy 5 September 2022

Environmental Constraints Report Cary Triangle Expressway 230kV Substation Project
4.2 Aquatic Communities
Potential jurisdictional streams and wetlands were identified within the study area (Appendix A,
Figure 7). Representative photographs are located in Appendix D. A brief description of aquatic
communities follows.
4.2.1 Streams
Streams, SA, SB, SC, SD, SE,SF, and S1 were identified within the study area (Table 3)
(Appendix A, Figure 7). Stream SB and SD represent the same stream channel but on the west
and east side of I-540, respectively. Flow from this stream system was characterized as
intermittent. Stream SA flows into the southwestern portion of the study area from a culvert under
the Triangle Expressway. Portions of this stream contained significant incising and bank erosion.
This stream flows in a northwesterly direction to its confluence with Stream SB. Stream SC flows
in a southerly direction to its confluence with Stream SB. This small channel originates from a
groundwater seep associated with Wetland WC, and was characterized as ephemeral. Stream SE
and SF are ephemeral channels located on the east side of I-540 that flow to a culvert under the
highway and drain to Stream SB. Stream S1 is characterized as intermittent and originates from a
culvert under the highway then flows to the south into Wetland WB. These channels contained
significant bank erosion.
The North Carolina Division of Water Quality (NCDWQ) North Carolina Methodology for
Identification of Intermittent and Perennial Streams and Their Origins (NCDWQ, 2010) was
utilized to determine stream flow for this stream reach based on evaluations of hydrological,
physical, and biological stream attributes. Streams SA, SB and SD were characterized as
intermittent, while streams SC, SE and SF were characterized as ephemeral.
Table 3. Streams identified within the Study Area
Nearest Named Stream
Map ID
Flow Regime
Stream Length
Evaluated* (linear
feet)
Stream Width
(feet)
UT to Bachelor Branch
SA
Intermittent
1308
2-4
UT to Bachelor Branch
SB
Intermittent
912
4-20
UT to Bachelor Branch
SC
Ephemeral
566
3
UT to Bachelor Branch
SD
Intermittent
357
4
UT to Bachelor Branch
SE
Ephemeral
535
2
UT to Bachelor Branch
SF
Ephemeral
37
3UT
UT to Bachelor Branch
S 1
Intermittent
133
3
*Stream length evaluated includes the length of stream that falls within the study area, as well as portions
immediately adjacent to the study area, as delineated by AECOM.
4.2.2 Wetlands
Five wetland areas were identified within the study area (Table 4) (Appendix A, Figure 7).
Wetland WB/WD was the largest wetland community and was associated with the main stream
SB/SD on either side of the Triangle Expressway. WI was a small wetland that appears to be part
Duke Energy 6 September 2022

Environmental Constraints Report Cary Triangle Expressway 230kV Substation Project
of the Wetland WB system but is separated by a hummock. This wetland community was classified
as a palustrine forested (PFO) wetland. Dominant canopy species included red maple and
sweetgum. Wetlands WA and WC were characterized as palustrine emergent wetlands and were
located within the transmission line easements upslope of wetland WB. Hydrology for these
wetlands WA and WC appear to be groundwater seeps and stormwater runoff, and they drain to
stream SB via stream SA and SC, respectively. USACE wetland determination data forms are
included in Appendix C.
Table 4. Jurisdictional wetlands identified within the Study Area
Map ID
Cowardin Classification
Hydrologic
Classification
Area (ac.)*
WA
Palustrine Emergent PEM
Riparian
0.28
WB
Palustrine Forested (PFO)
Riparian
2.59
WC
Palustrine Emergent (PEM)
Riparian
0.28
WD
Palustrine Forested (PFO)
Riparian
0.38
W1
Palustrine Forested (PFO)
Riparian
0.07
*Wetland area evaluated includes the area of wetland that falls within the study area, as well as portions
immediately adjacent to the study area, as delineated by AECOM.
4.3 N.C. River Basin Buffer Rules
Under the provisions of the Clean Water Act (CWA), the North Carolina Environmental
Management Commission (EMC) has adopted riparian buffer rules pertaining to maintaining
vegetated buffers around riparian areas as part of the Nutrient Sensitive Water Management
Strategies for select watersheds of North Carolina. The buffer rule establishes a protected 50-foot
wide riparian buffer directly adjacent to intermittent streams, perennial streams, lakes, ponds, and
estuaries consisting of two zones. Zone 1 consists of a vegetated area that extends landward a
distance of 30 feet on all sides of a surface water. Zone 2 begins at the outer edge of Zone I and
extends landward 20 feet. Under the buffer rules, Zones land 2 are to remain essentially
undisturbed, except for certain exempted and allowed uses. The buffer rules are administered by
the NCDWR.
The study area is located within the is located within the Jordan Reservoir watershed and would
be subject to the Jordan Water Supply Nutrient Strategy: Protection of Existing Riparian Buffers
(15A NCAC 02B .0267). Per the rule, buffers only apply to surface waters shown on either the
most recent version of the soil survey map prepared by the NRCS' or the most recent version of
the 1:24,000 scale (7.5 minute) quadrangle topographic maps prepared by the USGS.
All the streams identified within the study area are mapped on the Wake County Soil Survey
(Figure 8, Appendix A). In addition, stream SB/SD is mapped on the USGS topographic map as
well. As such, the riparian buffer rules may be applicable to these five streams. Streams SC, SE,
and SF were characterized as ephemeral, and therefore may not be subject to the buffer rules. A
buffer determination by the NCDWR would be needed to exempt these streams from the rule. The
' Per the 2007 EMC Interpretive Ruling, the most recent version of the NRCS maps are the paper -bound copies in the
county soil survey publications. The most recent paper -bound copy of the Wake County Soil Survey is 1970.
Duke Energy 7 September 2022

Environmental Constraints Report Cary Triangle Expressway 230kV Substation Project
approximate location of 50-foot riparian buffer, comprising both Zone 1 and Zone 2, is depicted
on Figure 9 in Appendix A.
4.3.1 Additional Stream Buffer Rules
The Town of Cary also administers a 100-foot stream buffer on water features identified on the
most recent version of USGS topographic maps. These buffer rules establish three zones. Zone 1
extends 30 feet horizontally perpendicular from the top of the stream bank. Zone 2 extends 20 feet
horizontally perpendicularly from the edge of Zone 1. Zone 3 extends 50 feet perpendicularly
horizontal from the edge of Zone 2. All zones are to remain undisturbed, except for certain
exempted and allowed uses. The Town also administers a 50-foot buffer on surface waters
identified on the most recent version of the Wake County soil surveys with only Zones 1 and 2
being applicable.
Stream SB/SD would be subject to the 100-foot Town of Cary stream buffer.
Table 5. Potential Buffer Applicability for Streams identified within the Study Area
Potentially
potentially
Stream Map
Depicted on USGS
Depicted on
Subject to
Subject to Town
ID
Topographic Map
County Soil
State/Town of
of Cary 100-foot
Survey
Cary 50-foot
Buffer
Buffer
SA
No
Yes
Yes
No
SB
Yes
Yes
Yes
Yes
SC
No
Yes
Yes
No
SD
Yes
Yes
Yes
Yes
SE
No
Yes
Yes
No
SF
No
Yes
Yes
No
S 1
No
Yes
Yes
No
Duke Energy 8 September 2022

Environmental Constraints Report Cary Triangle Expressway 230kV Substation Project
5.0 ENDANGERED SPECIES ACT PROTECTED SPECIES
Species with the federal listing of Threatened or Endangered are protected under the Endangered
Species Act (ESA) of 1976, as amended (16 U.S.C. 1531 et seq.). AECOM obtained federally
listed endangered and threatened species data from the USFWS IPaC list (Table 6) (Appendix B)
which generates a list of species and other resources that are known or expected to be within or
near the study area. The IPaC list includes considerations for species range and potential indirect
impacts. In addition, the NCNHP Data Explorer website was used to generate a list of known
element occurrences within one -mile of the proposed project (Appendix B). For each species
included in the IPaC list, a discussion of the presence or absence of habitat is included below along
with the biological determination rendered based on survey results in the study area.
Table 6. IPaC List of Federally Protected Species for the Study Area
Scientific Name
Common Name
Federal
Status
Habitat
Present
Biological
Determination
Birds
Picoides borealis Red -cockaded woodpecker E No No Effect
Clams
Fusconaia masoni
Atlantic pigtoe
T
No
No Effect
Insects
Danaus plexippus Monarch Butterfly ARS Yes Not Required
Flowering Plants
Rhus michauxii Michaux's sumac E Yes No Effect
T — Threatened
E — Endangered
ARS — At Risk Species. Species that are Petitioned, Candidates or Proposed for Listing under the Endangered
Species Act. These species are not afforded protection under Section 7 of the Endangered Species Act. As such,
formal Section 7 consultation with the USFWS is not required for these species. However, the USFWS
recommends ARS be considered. AECOM evaluated the study area for suitable habitat, but did not conduct
specific ARS surveys.
Red -cockaded woodpecker — No Habitat Observed
USFWS Recommended Survey Window: year round; April 1 through July 31 (optimal)
Biological Conclusion: No Effect
The red -cockaded woodpecker (RCW) typically occupies open, mature stands of southern
pines, particularly longleaf pine (Pious palustris), for foraging and nesting/roosting habitat.
The RCW excavates cavities for nesting and roosting in living pine trees, aged 60 years or
older, and which are contiguous with pine stands at least 30 years of age to provide foraging
habitat. The foraging range of the RCW is normally no more than 0.5 mile. The USFWS
RCW Recovery Plan outlines specific requirements for RCW foraging and nesting habitat
(USFWS, 2003). These requirements include, but are not limited to, little or no hardwood
and/or pine midstory, pine stands of at least 30 years of age, and total stand basal area (BA)
should be no higher than 80 square feet per acre. A pedestrian survey conducted by
AECOM biologists in July 2022 characterized the forested areas adjacent to the study area
as containing hardwoods and juvenile pine trees and does not support habitat for Red -
Duke Energy 9 September 2022

Environmental Constraints Report Cary Triangle Expressway 230kV Substation Project
cockaded woodpecker. A review of NCNHP records, accessed on June 15, 2022, indicate
no known occurrence of RCW within one -mile of the study area.
Atlantic pigtoe — No Habitat Observed
USFWS Recommended Survey Window: year round
Biological Conclusion: No Effect
The preferred habitat of the Atlantic pigtoe is coarse sand and gravel, and rarely in silt and
detritus. Historically, the best populations existed in small creeks to larger rivers with
excellent water quality, where flows were sufficient to maintain clean, silt -free substrates.
A pedestrian survey conducted by AECOM biologists in July 2022 characterized the
streams within the study area as small reaches containing a sandy or silt dominated
substrate with substantial sediment aggregation and is not suitable for the Atlantic pigtoe.
A review of NCNIIP records, accessed on June 15, 2022, indicate no known occurrence of
Atlantic Pigtoe within one -mile of the study area.
Monarch butterfly — Habitat Observed
USFWS Recommended Survey Window: August through December
Biological Conclusion: Not Required
Monarch butterfly habitat is defined by the distribution of suitable species of milkweeds
(Asclepius ssp.) and their abundance and condition. Milkweeds contain species -specific
suites of toxic secondary compounds. Monarchs use the toxic chemicals in milkweeds for
their own defense, and generally will not lay eggs on any other species; nor will caterpillars
eat leaves of other plants. A review of NCNHP records, accessed on June 15, 2022, indicate
no known occurrence of monarch butterfly within one -mile of the study area. A pedestrian
survey conducted by AECOM biologists in July 2022 did not identify any Monarch
butterflies or milkweed species.
Michaux's sumac — Potential Habitat
USFWS optimal survey window: May -October
Biological Conclusion: No Effect
Michaux's sumac, endemic to the inner Coastal Plain and lower Piedmont, grows in sandy
or rocky, open, upland woods on acidic or circumneutral, well -drained sands or sandy loam
soils with low cation exchange capacities. The species is also found on sandy or submesic
loamy swales and depressions in the fall line Sandhills region as well as in openings along
the rim of Carolina bays; maintained railroad, roadside, power line, and utility rights -of -
way; areas where forest canopies have been opened up by blowdowns and/or storm
damage; small wildlife food plots; abandoned building sites; under sparse to moderately
dense pine or pine/hardwood canopies; and in and along edges of other artificially
maintained clearings undergoing natural succession. In the central Piedmont, it occurs on
clayey soils derived from mafic rocks. The plant is shade intolerant and, therefore, grows
best where disturbance (e.g., mowing, clearing, grazing, periodic fire) maintains its open
habitat. A pedestrian survey conducted by AECOM biologists in July 2022 observed
potential habitat for Michaux's sumac within the overhead powerline easement, but no
species of sumac were observed during the species specific survey. A review of NCNHP
Duke Energy 10 September 2022

Environmental Constraints Report Cary Triangle Expressway 230kV Substation Project
records, accessed on June 15, 2022, indicate no known occurrence of Michaux's sumac
within one -mile of the study area.
5.1 Bald Eagle and Golden Eagle Protection Act
Habitat for the bald eagle (Haliaeetus leucocephalus) primarily consists of mature forest in
proximity to large bodies of open water for foraging. Large, dominant trees are utilized for nesting
sites, typically within one -mile of open water. A desktop GIS assessment of the study area, as well
as the area within a one -mile of the project limits, was performed on July 2022 using color aerials
from 2019. No water bodies large enough or sufficiently open to be considered potential feeding
sources were identified within one mile of the study area. A review of the NCNHP records on June
15, 2022 indicated no known bald eagle or golden eagle occurrences within one mile of the study
area.
5.2 Endangered Species Act Candidate Species and At Risk Species
The monarch butterfly is listed as Candidate Species by the USFWS, and is discussed in Section
5.
5.3 Essential Fish Habitat
No National Marine Fisheries Service (NMFS) essential fish habitat has been mapped in the study
area.
5.4 State -Listed Species
The North Carolina Endangered Species Act and the North Carolina Plant Protection and
Conservation Act protect all state -listed species from either taking or possession. A review of the
NCNHP database on June 15, 2022, indicated no occurrences of state -listed species, important
natural communities, natural areas, and/or conservation areas in or within one mile of the study
area. Several managed areas, including Tom Brooks Park located adjacent to the study area, are
identified within one -mile of the study area (Appendix B).
Duke Energy 11 September 2022

Environmental Constraints Report Cary Triangle Expressway 230kV Substation Project
6.0 CULTURAL RESOURCES
AECOM Principal Archaeologist Matthew Jorgenson, RPA consulted files at the NC Office of
State Archaeology (OSA) on August 4, 2022, and files maintained online by the NC Historic
Preservation Office (NCSHPO) (HPOWEB 2.0 2022) on August 8, 2022. These tasks were
performed to gain information about previously recorded archaeological sites (OSA) and historic
resources (NCSHPO) within a 0.5-mile radius of the study area (Figure 10, Appendix A).
6.1 Archaeological Resources
One previously -recorded archaeological site (31WA1508) is located within the project parcels and
one additional archaeological site (31WA1493) is recorded where the Triangle Expressway now
exists between the eastern and western parcels. An additional 14 archaeological sites are located
outside the project parcels but within one mile of them. These 16 sites are summarized in Table
7. All 16 sites are prehistoric in nature. Six of the 16 sites have not been evaluated for National
Register of Historic Places (NRHP) eligibility due to having been reported by amateur collectors
and not in conjunction with compliance -related studies. Ten of the sites have been determined not
eligible for the NRHP; nine during studies for the (at the time) proposed Western Wake
Expressway (now the Triangle Expressway) and one during evaluation of a cell tower off Green
Level Road.
Site 31WA1508, located within the Duke -owned southern -most of the western parcels (PIN
0734218279), was first identified during studies for Corridor A of the proposed Western Wake
Expressway, now constructed as the Triangle Expressway (Millis and Pickett 2002:45, 48). The
site is an isolated find of a prehistoric metavolcanic utilized flake (stone tool) recovered from the
surface of a plowed field. No other artifacts were recovered from the area. The site has been
determined not eligible for the NRHP.
Three systematic archaeological surveys have been conducted in the vicinity of the project, one of
which has fully covered the three eastern parcels and portions of the two western parcels.
Archaeological survey and testing (Phase I and II) for the Western Wake Expressway covered a
wide study corridor that includes the three eastern parcels of the project and portions (roughly half
to two-thirds) of the two western parcels (Millis and Pickett 2002). Numerous sites were identified
during these studies including 31 WA 1508 located within the project and 31 WA 1493 between the
eastern and western project parcels (and now destroyed by construction of the Triangle
Expressway). Site 31WA1508, as well as 31WA1493, have been determined not eligible for the
NRHP.
Just southeast of the project a survey was conducted for widening of Green Level Road (Hatch
2014). No archaeological sites were identified along this roughly 2.3-mile project.
An archaeological survey for a cell tower was performed in 2011 (Southerlin 2011). One
archaeological site, 31WA1777, was identified by these studies. Ten temporally non -diagnostic
prehistoric lithic artifacts were recovered from the site. The site was determined not eligible for
the NRHP.
Duke Energy 12 September 2022

Environmental Constraints Report Cary Triangle Expressway 230kV Substation Project
Table 7. Summary Data for Archaeological Sites Within 1-mile of Project.
Site #
Site
Type
NRHP
Eligibility
Comments
31 WA 1039
prehistori
Unassessed
non-compliance reported by amateur
31WA1141
prehistori
Unassessed
non-compliance reported by amateur
31WA1146
prehistori
Unassessed
non-compliance reported by amateur
31WA1147
prehistori
Unassessed
non-compliance reported by amateur
31WA1148
prehistori
Not Eligible
NC 540 (amateur -reported site revisited by NC
31WA1149
prehistori
Not Eligible
NC 540 (amateur -reported site revisited by NC
31WA1150
prehistori
Unassessed
non-compliance reported by amateur
31 WA 1491
prehistori
Not Eligible
NC 540
31 WA 1492
prehistori
Unassessed
NC 540 (but outside APE so unassessed)
31 WA 1493
prehistori
Not Eligible
NC 540
31WA1494
prehistori
Not Eligible
NC 540
31WA1507
prehistori
Not Eligible
NC 540
31WA1508
prehistori
Not Eligible
NC 540 (located within project area)
31WA1509
prehistori
Not Eligible
NC 540
31 WA 1510
prehistori
Not Eligible
NC 540
31WA1777
prehistori
Not Eligible
Green Level Cell Tower
The overall archaeological sensitivity of the project parcels is considered low. Previous work in
the area, both professional and amateur, has identified numerous archaeological resources.
Topographically, the project straddles a major unnamed tributary and the uplands to the north and
south of it. These factors suggest a high archaeological sensitivity for the project. However, soils
data indicates that much of the project is on relatively steep slope (approx. 77%) and the unnamed
tributary valley is frequently flooded (approx. 5%), leaving only about 18% of the project area
conducive to the presence of archaeological sites. Further, the majority of the project has
previously been subjected to systematic archaeological survey in conjunction with the Western
Wake Expressway identifying two sites in this setting —one within the project and one located
where the Triangle Expressway now splits the project into the eastern and western parcels. The
un-surveyed portions of the two western parcels are largely situated on drainages with limited
upland flat in the extreme northern and southern edges of these parcels. In summary, while the
topographic setting of the project is good for the presence of archaeological resources, previous
survey of much of the project, coupled with cultural findings nearby and environmental aspects,
means the likelihood of finding significant archaeological resources is low.
6.2 Historic Architectural Resources
No historic resources are recorded within the project's parcels. Thirty-six individual resources and
two districts are at least partially within one mile of the project. However, given the rolling
topography of the area coupled with the heavily wooded nature of the area surrounding the project
parcels, few, if any, of these resources would be within viewshed of the project. Six individual
structures lie along Green Level Road to the south of the project (Bartle et al. 2013) (Table 8). Of
these, five have been determined not eligible and one has previously been destroyed and is no
longer extant. Similarly, two resources north of the project are both no longer extant (see Table 8).
Duke Energy 13 September 2022

Environmental Constraints Report Cary Triangle Expressway 230kV Substation Project
Finally, about 0.7 miles (1,130 meters) west is the National Register listed Green Level Historic
District, which was listed on the NRHP in 2001 (see Table 8). However, historic architectural
studies by Barile et al. (2013:15-20) for the NCDOT U-5500 project (widening of Green Level
Road) has raised concerns about this historic district's eligibility, suggesting it may no longer
retain the integrity necessary for listing on the NRHP due to demolition, deterioration, and
development (Barile et al. 2013:17). In conclusion, due to a lack of structures in the immediate
vicinity of the project parcels, coupled with rolling topography and wooded conditions limiting
line of sight, it is unlikely the project would pose any adverse effects to significant historic
resources.
Table 8. Summary Data for Archaeological Sites Within 1-mile of Project.
Site #
Site Type
NRHP
Eligibility
Comments
WA0980
unknown
destroyed
Zeb Sears Farm; demolished
between 2002-2004
WA0984
c. 1900 1-story triple-A frame
destroyed
Hilliard Yates House
traditional/vernacular house
WA 1006
Green Level Historic District
NR-listed
Listed in NRHP in 2001; 2013
(2001)
studies question its continued
eligibility due to loss of integrity by
demolition, deterioration, and
development
WA1008
1900-1910 traditional form
survey only
House; determined ineligible in 2013
with Queen Anne detail
WA1009
1900-1915 1.5-story cottage
Mills House (original location);
determined ineligible in 2013,
moved in 2020
WA1010
c. 1900-1910 triple-A cottage
destroyed
Buck Mills House; determined
ineligible in 2013, reported
destroyed in 2018
WA7341
c. 1930 side gable frame
survey only
Karmen Strother House; determined
Minimal Traditional house
ineligible in 2013
WA7342
c. 1901 side gable frame
survey only
Beaver House; determined ineligible
house
in 2013
WA7343
c. 1901 side gable frame
survey only
Beaver Homeplace & Farm;
house & outbuildings
determined ineligible in 2013
Duke Energy 14 September 2022

Environmental Constraints Report Cary Triangle Expressway 230kV Substation Project
7.0 CONCLUSION AND RECOMMENDATIONS
Seven potential jurisdictional streams and five wetlands were identified within the study area. Prior
to any construction activities that may disturb these potentially jurisdictional features, it is
recommended that a preliminary Jurisdictional Determination be obtained from the USACE, and
that the appropriate CWA Section 404 and 401 permits, if required, be approved by the USACE
and NCDWR. All seven streams would be subject to the State and Town of Cary 50-foot riparian
buffer rules. Streams SB and SD would potentially be subject to the Town of Cary 100-foot
riparian buffer.
Suitable habitat was not observed for the federally -listed IPaC species, except Michaux's sumac.
No Michaux's sumac individuals or populations were observed during a species specific survey
conducted by AECOM in June 2021. In addition, no bald eagles or nests were observed within or
adjacent to the study area. No construction moratoria for trout, anadromous fish, or other species
are anticipated for the study area.
There are no previously recorded archaeological or historic resources located within the study area.
Overall, the study area has a low -to -moderate probability of recovering intact archaeological
deposits, and the study area has low potential for adverse effects to significant historic resources.
If the project requires federal involvement (e.g., permitting or funding), it is recommended that a
concurrence letter from the NCSHPO be obtained as part of the formal Section 6 consultation
process.
Of the six federally protected species listed for Wake County, potential habitat was present for
Michaux's sumac. No individuals of this species were identified during pedestrian surveys. It
should be noted that the presence of potentially suitable habitat for Michaux's sumac is due to
ongoing maintenance activities of the transmission line right-of-way within the study area.
Potential habitat is present for one At Risk species, the green floater. Prior to any construction
activities that may disturb habitat, consultation with the USFWS should be initiated to obtain their
concurrence with the biological conclusion described in this report, "No Effect" for the all species.
One archaeological site is recorded within the study area and no historic resources listed in or
eligible for listing in the NRHP are recorded immediately within the study area. It is unlikely the
proposed project would have an adverse effect on historic resources —previously recorded or yet
to be identified. No structures of any kind are present within the project area, so no potential for
additional historic resources within the project area is present. The project is surrounded by
forested hills and NC Highway 540, and as such, viewshed impacts would not be an issue. As such,
no cultural resources studies are anticipated to be required in conjunction with the project.
Duke Energy 15 September 2022

Environmental Constraints Report Cary Triangle Expressway 230kV Substation Project
8.0 REFERENCES
Barile, Derri S., Danae Peckler, and Emily Calhoun. 2013. Cultural Resources Survey for Green
Level West Road Widening Project in the Town of Cary, Wake County, North Carolina.
Dovetail Cultural Resources Group, Fredericksburg, Virginia. Prepared for Michael Baker
Engineering, Inc., Cary, North Carolina. Electronic resource available at
https://files.nc.gov/ncdcr/historic-preservation-office/PDFs/ER 13-0440.pdf. (Accessed
August 8, 2022).
Cowardin, L.M., V. Carter, F.C. Golet, and E.T. LaRoe. 1979. Classification of Wetlands and
Deepwater Habitats of the United States. FWS/OBS-79/31. Fish and Wildlife Service,
U.S. Department of the Interior, Washington, DC.
Environmental Laboratory. 1987. Corps of Engineers Wetlands Delineation Manual. Technical
Report Y-87-1, U. S. Army Engineer Waterways Experiment Station. Vicksburg,
Mississippi.
Environmental Laboratory. 2012. Regional Supplement to the Corps of Engineers Wetland
Delineation Manual: Eastern Mountains and Piedmont Region Version 2.0. Vicksburg,
Mississippi.
Federal Emergency Management Agency (FEMA). 2022. Flood Map Service Center.
https://msc.fema.gov/portal. (Accessed June 2022).
Hatch, D. Brad. 2014. Phase IB Archaeological Survey for Green Level West Road Widening
Project in the Town of Cary, Wake County, North Carolina. Dovetail Cultural Resources
Group, Fredericksburg, Virginia. Prepared for Michael Baker Engineering, Inc., Cary,
North Carolina. Manuscript on file, North Carolina Office of State Archaeology, Raleigh.
HPOWEB 2.0.2022. HPOWEB 2.0 Online GIS Tool. North Carolina Historic Preservation Office,
Raleigh. Electronic resource available at
https://nc.maps.arcgis.com/home/item.html?id=f383595d99ea46179ec 10878ccaf0053
accessed August 8, 2022 (GIS data updated August 1, 2022).
LeGrand, Harry E. Jr., J.A. Ratcliffe, and J.T. Finnegan. 2014. Natural Heritage Program List of
the Rare Animal Species of North Carolina. NC Natural Heritage Program, Office of Land
and Water Stewardship, N.C. Department of Environment and Natural Resources, Raleigh.
Martof, B.S., W.M. Palmer, J.R. Bailey, and J.R. Harrison, III. 1980. Amphibians and Reptiles of
the Carolinas and Virginia. The University of North Carolina Press, Chapel Hill, North
Carolina.
Millis, Heather, and Dwayne Pickett. 2002. Archaeological Report: Western Wake Expressway,
Corridor A, Wake County, TIP No. R-2635. TRC Garrow & Associates, Inc., Durham,
North Carolina. Submitted to Arcadis Geraghty & Miller, Inc., Raleigh, North Carolina.
Manuscript on file, North Carolina Office of State Archaeology, Raleigh.
Duke Energy 16 September 2022

Environmental Constraints Report Cary Triangle Expressway 230kV Substation Project
North Carolina Department of Transportation (NCDOT). 2015. TE Animal Habitat Descriptions.
https:Hconnect.ncdot.gov/resources/Environmental/Compliance%20Guides%20and%20P
rocedures/TE%20Animal%20Habitat%20Descriptions%20Mar 6_2015.pdf. (Accessed
June 2022).
North Carolina Department of Environmental Quality (NCDEQ). Final. 2022 Category 5 Water
Quality Assessment - 303(d) List. North Carolina Department of Environmental Quality,
Raleigh, NC.
North Carolina Division of Water Resources (NCDWR). 2022. Surface Water Classification
website. N.C. Department of Environment and Natural Resources. Raleigh.
http://portal.ncdenr.org/web/wq/ps/csu/maps. (Accessed June 2022).
North Carolina Natural Heritage Program (NCNHP). 2022. Heritage Data Search.
http://www.ncnhp.org/web/nhp/database-search. (Accessed June 2022).
Radford, A.E., H.E. Ahles, and C.R. Bell. 1968. Manual of the Vascular Flora of the Carolinas.
The University of North Carolina Press, Chapel Hill, NC.
Robinson, L.G. and J.T. Finnegan. 2017. Natural Heritage Program List of the Rare Plant Species
of North Carolina. NC Natural Heritage Program, Office of Land and Water Stewardship,
N.C. Department of Environment and Natural Resources, Raleigh.
Rohde, F.C., R.G. Arndt, D.G. Lindquist, and J.F. Parnell. 1994. Freshwater Fishes of the
Carolinas, Virginia, Maryland, and Delaware. The University of North Carolina Press,
Chapel Hill, NC.
Schafale, M.P. and A.S. Weakley. 2012. Guide to the Natural Communities of North Carolina:
Fourth Approximation. Natural Heritage Program, Division of Parks and Recreation, N.C.
Department of Environment and Natural Resources. Raleigh, NC.
Southerlin, Bobby. 2011. Archaeological Survey and Site Delineation in the Green Level Cell
Tower Tract and Access Easement, Wake County, North Carolina. Archaeological
Consultants of the Carolinas, Inc., Clayton, North Carolina. Submitted to Gradam
Associates, LLC, Cary, North Carolina. Manuscript on file, North Carolina Office of State
Archaeology, Raleigh.
United States Department of Agriculture (USDA), Natural Resources Conservation Service. 1970.
Soil Survey of Wake County, North Carolina.
USDA. Natural Resources Conservation Service. 2022. Web Soil Survey.
http://websoilsurvey.nres.usda.gov/ (Accessed June 2022).
United States Environmental Protection Agency (USEPA). 2002. Ecoregions by State.
https://www.epa.gov/eco-research/level-iii-and-iv-ecoregions-state (Accessed June 2022).
United States Fish and Wildlife Service (USFWS). 2020. Optimal Survey Windows for North
Carolina's Federally Threatened and Endangered Plant Species. Version Date March 10,
Duke Energy 17 September 2022

Environmental Constraints Report Cary Triangle Expressway 230kV Substation Project
2020. http://viww.fws.gov/raleigh/pdfs/Optimal_Survey_Windows_for listed—Plants.pdf.
(Accessed June 2022).
USFWS. 2022. National Wetland Inventory website. U.S. Department of the Interior. Washington,
D.C. http://www.fws.gov/wetlands. (Accessed on June 2022).
USFWS. 2022. At Risk Species website. U.S. Department of the Interior. Washington, D.C.
https://www.fws.gov/southeast/finder/g/species/570547f9e7866bee4el4l653 (Accessed
June 2022).
USFWS. 2022. Information, Planning and Consultation system (IPaC) website.
https:Hecos.fws.gov/ipac/ (Accessed June 2022).
U.S. Geological Survey (USGS). 2019. Raleigh East, NC 7.5' Quadrangle map. 1:24000. U.S.
Department of the Interior. Washington, D.C.
Duke Energy 18 September 2022

Environmental Constraints Report Cary Triangle Expressway 230kV Substation Project
APPENDIX A
FIGURES
Duke Energy September 2022

Creel wp nu so°'e
�� i o l`` 2haO c warFm. ftJ
u bO °^s0 a
oFN4jgs a I(A%J�C�r BIIN o. tea F I=ai.
Q,taS' ,r,a° ie. Ra /j ; e, .r•`�'tm e
4 earl a Or
Hpa I' - c`n Ra SP uowT``a a
byre a0 F arrer wrR — F O MertIM11O e1
ot�a a ° at '4waiau Ca a �i
a a c fta u Study Area
Rp ;� 35.7868,-78.8892
aye/p£ vw.erz O J���1 fr a 4a Ns,oregve � ,r.,.l„I, r.
^eeo at' s S ve a'W
3
4 `c —
� NB aua _
aaewRn - °e Rp
e AomOzao� a wi
N°^aaFPd Green Lerel fte W it I n W, n van i , °ap Ri n eoaa vax '
�,w c
e x° i'N ; 4 laaa
s r. ..
O.e�(rya�n m iurn eeLo M1..wlO,yn
°arkV,tNpaO• ems
4 a r pie /I wa tRa �°hpsv it W`c
Wtnergp Pe g� � wd esrn
I/o O
l fta o
NS P°e
I.-,
�uaN
;t; Nap N
Pa ooP vary varr r aY
a,Yacn a nl 4 ec � sr P�aet��
cdraR a,,.°Syan
6+`a e° v waaerraa Grem
Duke Energy Progress Legend
Cary Triangle EXPWY Study Area
230kV Substation
0 0.5 1
Figure 1 Miles
Vicinity Map
August2022 r Wake County
NAD StatePlane NC 1983
This map is for reference only

mmRe �Pxwr
� rn -
'e
w cnum+ n ya 2 v _
3`
v e Bnn\
E �
s e/1 y ti'.-.im,o e�atrOo mmoa��u, ^ em
-
FidnHau Htl •vsMw Hd RiU4^I;i ',
B,wle Feast Rn x ttB vcwrrs Fe
P� Pop Hn
= o
sy. q ne,anc4s RO
n M 3 a�aq, /'h,ry can o,
Go
41,
Ann. Re ,y
� 6 -
afa g
_, - R,.wemcxae ;Gres LeJel &a0c'oa
" o
rO�"•V0\ a`w CarPentar Ac, Bloom x„ 8
_ b
- - rama4 S g � Do^,mc ary -
_ z _
ak '
✓ear ���- a ! � P ✓�n �"� ra,m aD
spool ' yJa \ cresBi
'. SaTP `ya Cn _____ ✓an nbo
Baanalor BraneM1 o9emo+ y - 4e/+Rd ' xe,na se
-- on,remanC ,Imw, Y� °tl D,„a
u, v gn o,aea Upchurch
o P+
12
41
�Vivae x yin _ A/tl tl'.
k
�wS
' T "a.,tac
i
au_T°.
tr
m
w o
eo+`\°e0a c\au Lcrc pa ,zrocwa
3�
e
- .._._..
xl
g
yecxvn/RR
'�reR _ n
all �n
aA wpe
`
FI owel
I Pm
as wav
w,,
n
V ,cT
seelwae I— Be
�' R`�ro„years x,�c Rtl woo „u cn - I
Mµn P 3G - ^dap crt`o / a
rt Ramelag cR' IF,\ ,F
Duke Energy Progress
Cary Triangle EXPWY
230kV Substation
Figure 2
Topographic Map
E)
0 0.25 0.5
Miles
August 2022
NAD StatePlane NC 1983
This map is for reference only
Legend
Study Area
Raleigh E Quad
NC, 2019
7.5-Minute Series

F
L'
33 T
J 4R/ I � � t •�•.� �2a,. �4R �� ��P
N

gas
WIL
f
tiff
4
R
<�:�,..• `
i
9 L�'eygt C(;
J+ If1.
i . ` I V�f.� hC •� �4
tp
N

SG EPF -• I '
66ft� -
S1 INT WD PFO
0.38ac
PEM��
/ FO
�a�a >� '
f
WA PEM

w WsG2
Y. \NV
W SCVF
WsB2
iUC2 Wy
Cryi6
A
WsC2
F
Ws
OF ...... . r.'M
WO
W E
WY
VsC2 w3q
% WsB2
Duke Energy Progress Legend
Cary Triangle EXPWY Study Area
230kV Substation A19W
0 200 400
Figure 8 Feet
NRCS Soils Map
August 2022
NAD StatePlane NC 1983 Wake County
This map is for reference only Wake County Soil Survey, 1970

j
S1 INT
WD PFO
1 • ft
k 0.38ac
WB PI=
0.11ac
�♦
II�
SB IN
12
8
v
r
f

Environmental Constraints Report Cary Triangle Expressway 230kV Substation Project
APPENDIX B
THREATENED AND ENDANGERED SPECIES LISTS
Duke Energy September 2022

Roy Cooper, Governor
■ ■■■
■■ ■ INC DEPARTMENT OF
■■�■i NATURAL AND CULTURAL RESOURCES
■ ■■
June 15. 2022
Charles Benton
AECOM
5438 Wade Park Boulevard
Raleigh, NC 27607
RE: Triangle Express Substation
Dear Charles Benton:
❑. Reid Wilson, Secretary
Misty Buchanan
Deputy Director, Natural Heritage Program
IR \��r.TDTMfS31490211
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:
httr)s://www.fws.gov/offices/Directory/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 rod ney.butler�ncdcr.gov or 919-707-8603.
Sincerely,
NC Natural Heritage Program
DEPAR7HEN7 OF NATURAL AND CULTURAL RESOURCES
121 W. JONES STREET. RALEIGH. NC 27603 • 1691 MAIL SERVICE CENTER. RALEIGH. NC 27609
OFC 919.707.9120 • FAX [phone]

U
ƒ
\ \
e = 2
CO ~
~
/
/ 0)/
E e
/
®®�C
\ \
co
nD
<
\ \
%
§
\\\
\
} / \
4 2 z +
\ z
\ -0 /
% z
COo
®G\0
\
®
\
\
E /
0)\ e
/
.\
C % CO
\
®
/ \ /
>
« >
~
/
> § /
? \
s
m e z §
±zs
/ z }
©tw\
»
` 3 /
%«w
t
E3 G}
\
�a�
(u
®
/ 2 >
z:
z o u-
/
& o
® °
y e
^ �
e E /
G o
.= z 0)2
COCf)
3> 0±
3
s:> s
±
z s 2
} CO
2° 3
<
» COe e
y u
./
a\\\
s
\ \ /
»
\ G ^ ±
\_
\j)
ƒ{3-
/ \
% / \ \
y \ \ \
x ®
\ / / 2
- 2
`
®
a =
0
\ .z
\ / \ \
\ \ 0 4
\ \ ƒ.0
e y
\/
s =
ya2\
/\)/
yo
/
\ » \
\ n
} / \
\
c- ® ( \
/ ® G n
\ \ \
D - z
CC3 U
�
e=
e.�
3/y
\
\ co
LE E
\\
_
� /\/
CO\
\ 7
±
J
/
4
/ ±
\/ e e
e
S
z % 2
6z s?
\
\
\ / \
\ \
\
CO\
0)
\
\
\ \ ( \
/
\
e
e
E
t
/
y
D-
U, 2
°
o
°7\\
CO
®
LE\\
»
` 5}
m
\Z3
m
4
y\\s\
`
CO
»
s
/ \ \ \
3
9
m
CO
c
®
z2 z%
%
3
m
z
§
/
0
\t./±
2
=
°
u?/z
3
-%/
\
/
/ / e ±
/
\
\
\ ƒ .\ /
_
y±/ 2
s
?
3
\y z
\
\ / 9 \
\
\
\
© T \ \
±
)f \/
E
`
s\ 2 3
/
}
\ \ \ \
E
D�
§//
\�
±
Eo \a }
\§
§
\CO
/�
u
®
o
/°)
ClCl\
$
{°
:»
z
=,.\
\
co
\\/
�
\
\
3
} / \ \
Z
CO
CO
\ n E \
\
o
e eee CO
e
e o
0 z_:
Z
5 Z 3% s
Z
x
x e,J
9 r/
§
\
/

CO
■
■
L-011-M
CO
Z
>
3 d CO 0)2 CO.g CO
g / \ 2
s
7
a z
% 2
\ / �
u >
2 % 4
\ u e a
e�
� \ \ a.
uFY
Al
/
\ E
/ co\ (
m E
/
/
O
CO
\ \
\ m
/ u
/
E
0
0
\
/
CO
0
CO
\
\
_
/
\
0
/
■
> >
\\
\ E
e
■ .
E E E
E
E
E E E E
m E E E
_
_
_ _ _ _
0 0 0
0
0
0 0 0 0
%---
= e e e
-
e
-
e
----
e e e e
CO 2 2 2 CO
« 0 0 0
0
0
0 0 0//
c a a a
a
a
a a a a
2 2 2/
c s s a c
\\\
/ / /
\ \ \
/
\ CO CO CO \
/
e s s s e
co
»
u
0 4
/ \ \ \ /
6 u
/ / / / /
2\
± ± ±
±
±
± ± ± ±
\ / / / \
® ±
e e e
e
e
e e e e
e e
0
eee
e
e
uuuu
-iyya
m
/ 3
\\\
\
\
\\\\»eeee
szzz
\ t
\ \ \
\
\
\ \ \ \
/ o 0 0 /
®
%
»
///
/
/
////\///\
g
( co
\ \
/ e
a 2
E E
\ �
\
>> a
a
a
-0 m
s s
ƒ
//\
2
I
0® ^
4 4
? O
_ = e
\
\
z E n
_ _
\ \
\\\
\
\
\�\/\>
\
\ \ \
\
\
2 \ E
$ % % t /
\ \ \
0 0 \ /
> e e e >
\ \
0 0 \
\
\
\ \ \ \
\ \ \ \ \
§ =
e// 4
4
4
s a s s=
c c c=
e 0
E 2 2 /
/
/
/ / / /
/ \ \ \ /
z /
}
\
\
\
0 0 0 0
/ \ \ \
4 \
\ \ ± ±
±
±
± ± ± ±
\ s s s \
/ / /
\
/ / /
> /
> /
> / / / /
/ /
s
s w w w
e w
e w
e w w w w
0 0 0
4 0
4 0
40 0 0 0»\\\»
CO\\
2 /
/ _ _ _
/ _
/ _
/ _ _ _ _
/ / / / /
4 4 4
e 4
e 4
e 4 4 4 4
e CO
/ /
/ / / /
\ /
\ /
\ / / / /
\ / / / \
/
/
\\
\0
\0
\ \
.0
\3
j/
ra
s
\
/

¥ «
� , a
J®©©sau
~^ 5
u
# ©" ` \
\s� ue
, aae � .
Ave o
a
`
�
p
®`°„ .
FU
§ & %
;
§
� \
\ 0
R u >
) \ §
\ \ /
§ 'ff
£ 3 .
\ ❑ ❑
01
§
\
/

United States Department of the Interior
FISH AND WILDLIFE SERVICE
Raleigh Ecological Services Field Office
Post Office Box 33726
Raleigh, NC 27636-3726
Phone: [phone] Fax: [phone]
In Reply Refer To:
Project Code: 2022-0054512
Project Name: Triangle Express Substation
June 15, 2022
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 enclosed 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. The species list fulfills the
requirements of the U.S. Fish and Wildlife Service (Service) under section 7(c) of the
Endangered Species Act (Act) of 1973, as amended (16 U.S.C. 1531 et seq.). If your project area
contains suitable habitat for any of the federally -listed species on this species list, the proposed
action has the potential to adversely affect those species. If suitable habitat is present, surveys
should be conducted to determine the species' presence or absence within the project area. The
use of this species list and/or North Carolina Natural Heritage program data should not be
substituted for actual field surveys.
New information based on updated surveys, changes in the abundance and distribution of
species, changed habitat conditions, or other factors could change this list. Please feel free to
contact us if you need more current information or assistance regarding the potential impacts to
federally proposed, listed, and candidate species and federally designated and proposed critical
habitat. Please note that under 50 CFR 402.12(e) of the regulations implementing section 7 of the
Act, the accuracy of this species list should be verified after 90 days. This verification can be
completed formally or informally as desired. The Service recommends that verification be
completed by visiting the ECOS-IPaC website at regular intervals during project planning and
implementation for updates to species lists and information. An updated list may be requested
through the ECOS-IPaC system by completing the same process used to receive the enclosed list.
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

06/15/2022
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.
If a Federal agency 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
Migratory Birds: In addition to responsibilities to protect threatened and endangered species
under the Endangered Species Act (ESA), there are additional responsibilities under the
Migratory Bird Treaty Act (MBTA) and the Bald and Golden Eagle Protection Act (BGEPA) to
protect native birds from project -related impacts. Any activity, intentional or unintentional,
resulting in take of migratory birds, including eagles, is prohibited unless otherwise permitted by
the U.S. Fish and Wildlife Service (50 C.F.R. Sec. 10.12 and 16 U.S.C. Sec. 668(a)). For more
information regarding these Acts see https://www.fws.gov/birds/policies-and-regulations.php.
The MBTA has no provision for allowing take of migratory birds that may be unintentionally
killed or injured by otherwise lawful activities. It is the responsibility of the project proponent to
comply with these Acts by identifying potential impacts to migratory birds and eagles within
applicable NEPA documents (when there is a federal nexus) or a Bird/Eagle Conservation Plan
(when there is no federal nexus). Proponents should implement conservation measures to avoid
or minimize the production of project -related stressors or minimize the exposure of birds and
their resources to the project -related stressors. For more information on avian stressors and
recommended conservation measures see https://www.fws.gov/birds/bird-enthusiasts/threats-to-
birds.php.
In addition to MBTA and BGEPA, Executive Order 13186: Responsibilities of Federal Agencies
to Protect Migratory Birds, obligates all Federal agencies that engage in or authorize activities
that might affect migratory birds, to minimize those effects and encourage conservation measures
that will improve bird populations. Executive Order 13186 provides for the protection of both
migratory birds and migratory bird habitat. For information regarding the implementation of
Executive Order 13186, please visit https://www.fws.gov/birds/policies-and-regulations/
executive-orders/e0-13186.php.

06/15/2022
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 Code 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

06/15/2022
Official Species List
This list is provided pursuant to Section 7 of the Endangered Species Act, and fulfills the
requirement for Federal agencies to "request of the Secretary of the Interior information whether
any species which is listed or proposed to be listed may be present in the area of a proposed
action".
This species list is provided by:
Raleigh Ecological Services Field Office
Post Office Box 33726
Raleigh, NC 27636-3726
[phone]

06/15/2022
E
Project Summary
Project Code: 2022-0054512
Event Code: None
Project Name: Triangle Express Substation
Project Type: Transmission Line - New Constr - Above Ground
Project Description: New substation project
Project Location:
Approximate location of the project can be viewed in Google Maps: https:
www.google.com/maps/@35.787898299999995,-78.88912511056986,14z
{� F
C •'h Ner 9.-1A
r.
1
Counties: Wake County, North Carolina

06/15/2022
Endangered Species Act Species
There is a total of 4 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
Fisheriesi, 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.
Birds
NAME S TATU S
Red -cockaded Woodpecker Picoides borealis Endangered
No critical habitat has been designated for this species.
Species profile: https://ecos.fws.gov/ecp/species/7614
Clams
NAME S TATU S
Atlantic Pigtoe Fusconaia masoni Threatened
There is final critical habitat for this species. The location of the critical habitat is not available.
Species profile: https://ecos.fws.gov/ecp/species/5164
Insects
NAME
Monarch Butterfly Danaus plexippus
No critical habitat has been designated for this species.
Species profile: https://ecos.fws.gov/ecp/species/9743
Flowering Plants
NAME
Michaux's Sumac Rhus michauxii
No critical habitat has been designated for this species.
Species profile: https://ecos.fws.gov/ecp/species/5217
STATUS
Candidate
STATUS
Endangered

06/15/2022
Critical habitats
THERE ARE NO CRITICAL HABITATS WITHIN YOUR PROJECT AREA UNDER THIS OFFICE'S
JURISDICTION.

06/15/2022
Migratory Birds
Certain birds are protected under the Migratory
Protection Act2.
Bird Treaty Act! and the Bald and Golden Eagle
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 Treater 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.
BREEDING
NAME SEASON
Bald Eagle Haliaeetus leucocephalus Breeds Sep 1 to
This is not a Bird of Conservation Concern (BCC) in this area, but warrants attention Jul 31
because of the Eagle Act or for potential susceptibilities in offshore areas from certain types
of development or activities.
Kentucky Warbler Oporornis formosus Breeds Apr 20
This is a Bird of Conservation Concern (BCC) throughout its range in the continental USA to Aug 20
and Alaska.
Prairie Warbler Dendroica discolor Breeds May 1
This is a Bird of Conservation Concern (BCC) throughout its range in the continental USA to Jul 31
and Alaska.

06/15/2022
NAME
BREEDING
SEASON
Prothonotary Warbler Protonotaria citrea Breeds Apr 1 to
This is a Bird of Conservation Concern (BCC) throughout its range in the continental USA Jul 31
and Alaska.
Red-headed Woodpecker Melanerpes erythrocephalus Breeds May 10
This is a Bird of Conservation Concern (BCC) throughout its range in the continental USA to Sep 10
and Alaska.
Rusty Blackbird Euphagus carolinus Breeds
This is a Bird of Conservation Concern (BCC) only in particular Bird Conservation Regions elsewhere
(BCRs) in the continental USA
Wood Thrush Hylocichla mustelina Breeds May 10
This is a Bird of Conservation Concern (BCC) throughout its range in the continental USA to Aug 31
and Alaska.
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 (■)
Each green bar represents the bird's relative probability of presence in the 10km 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:
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.

06/15/2022 3
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 (1)
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.
R' probability of presence breeding season I survey effort — no data
SPECIES JAN FEB MAR APR MAY JUN JUL AUG SEP OCT NOV DEC
Non BCCEagl
MITT 101111111111 Jill Jill IS; TTTT TTT11111 Jill Jill
Vulnerable 11 111
Kentucky Warbler �+++ I I I+++++ I TI I+TTT I I I I I I I �+++ ++++ ++ ++++ BCC Rangewide ttt
(CON)
Prairie Warbler BCC Rangewide ++++ ++++ I TT� +T I I +++ I 0000 +T++ ++++ +++
(CON)
Prothonotary
Warbler ++++ 44 ++++ I I I I I 114 +T++ ++++ ++++ ++++ t+++
Warbler
BCC Rangewide
(CON)
Red -beaded Woodpecker 000 0000 0000 0000 004 �Li I I I I
BCC Rangewide
(CON)
Rusty Blackbird +�++
BCC -BCR T TTTT ++++ ++++

06/15/2022 4
Wood Thrush
BCC R ngewide ++++
(CON)
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-miuratorv-birds
Nationwide conservation measures for birds https://www.fws.gov/sites/default/files/
documents/nationwide-standard-conservation-measures.Ddf
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
(BCQ 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?
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 .

06/15/2022
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.
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 Lorin.

06/15/2022
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.

06/15/2022
IPaC User Contact Information
Agency: AECOM
Name: Charles Benton
Address: 5438 Wade Park Boulevard
Address Line 2: STE 200
City:
Raleigh
State:
NC
Zip:
27607
Email
[e-mail]
Phone:
9199463122

Environmental Constraints Report Cary Triangle Expressway 230kV Substation Project
APPENDIX C
WETLAND DATA FORMS
Duke Energy September 2022

WETLAND DETERMINATION DATA FORM — Eastern Mountains and Piedmont Region
Project/Site: Cary Triangle Expressway City/County: Wake Sampling Date: 07/05/22
Applicant/Owner: DEP State: NC Sampling Point: WA -Up
Investigator(s): Charlie Benton Section, Township, Range:
Landform (hillslope, terrace, etc.): hlllslope Local relief (concave, convex, none): Convex
Subregion (LRR or MLRA): MLRA 136 of LRI Lat: 35.784446 Long:-78.8891
Soil Map Unit Name: WsC2 - White Store sandy loam, 6 to 10 percent slopes, moderate NW classification: U
Are climatic / hydrologic conditions on the site typical for this time of year? Yes 0 No Q (If no explain in Remarks.)
_ Slope (%): 2
Datum: WGS84
land
Are Vegetation = Soil ,�, or Hydrology ❑ significantly disturbed? Are "Normal Circumstances" present? Yes 0 No ❑
Are Vegetation = Soil �, or Hydrology .0 naturally problematic? (If needed, explain any answers in Remarks.)
SUMMARY OF FINDINGS — Attach site map showing sampling point locations, transects, important features, etc.
Hydrophytic Vegetation Present? Yes 0 No Is the Sampled Area
Hydric Soil Present? Yes Nowithin a Wetland? Yes 0 No 0
Wetland Hydrology Present? Yes.= No
Remarks:
Upland point for WA
HYDROLOGY
Wetland Hydrology Indicators:
Secondary Indicators (minimum of two required)
Primary Indicators (minimum of one is required; check all that apply)
❑ Surface Soil Cracks (136)
❑ Surface Water (Al) ❑ True Aquatic Plants (1314)
❑ Sparsely Vegetated Concave Surface (138)
❑ High Water Table (A2) ❑ Hydrogen Sulfide Odor (Cl)
❑ Drainage Patterns (B10)
❑ Saturation (A3) ❑ Oxidized Rhizospheres on Living Roots (C3)
,❑ Moss Trim Lines (B16)
❑ Water Marks (131) ❑ Presence of Reduced Iron (C4)
❑ Dry -Season Water Table (C2)
❑ Sediment Deposits (132) ❑ Recent Iron Reduction in Tilled Soils (C6)
❑ Crayfish Burrows (C8)
❑ Drift Deposits (133) ❑ Thin Muck Surface (C7)
❑ Saturation Visible on Aerial Imagery (C9)
❑ Algal Mat or Crust (134) ❑ Other (Explain in Remarks)
❑ Stunted or Stressed Plants (D1)
❑ Iron Deposits (135)
❑ Geomorphic Position (D2)
❑ Inundation Visible on Aerial Imagery (137)
❑ Shallow Aquitard (D3)
❑ Water -Stained Leaves (139)
❑ Microtopographic Relief (D4)
_❑Aquatic Fauna (1313)
❑ FAC-Neutral Test (D5)
Field Observations:
Surface Water Present? Yes ❑ No = Depth (inches):
Water Table Present? Yes ❑ No Depth (inches):
n
Saturation Present? Yes ❑ No LJ Depth (inches):
Wetland
Hydrology Present? Yes No
(includes capillary fringe)
Describe Recorded Data (stream gauge, monitoring well, aerial photos, previous inspections), if available:
Remarks:
US Army Corps of Engineers Eastern Mountains and Piedmont —Version 2.0

VEGETATION (Five Strata) - Use scientific names of plants.
Sampling Point: WA -up
Tree Stratum (Plot size: 30 ft )
1. Pinus taeda, Loblolly Pine
2. Liriodendron tulipifera, Tuliptree
3. Liquidambar styraciflua, Sweet -Gum
4.
5.
6.
Absolute
% Cover
40
30
20
90
Dominant Indicator
Species? Status
Y FAC
Y FACU
Y FAC
= Total Cover
Dominance Test worksheet:
Number of Dominant Species
That Are OBL, FACW, or FAC: 5 (A)
Total Number of Dominant
Species Across All Strata: 7 (B)
Percent of Dominant Species
That Are OBL, FACW, or FAC: 71.4 (A/B)
Prevalence Index worksheet:
45
18
Total % Cover of: Multiply by:
50% of total cover:
20% of
total cover:
OBL species 0 x 1 =
Sapling Stratum (Plot size: )
FACW species 0 x 2 =
1. Liquidambar styraciflua, Sweet -Gum
20
Y
FAC
105 315
2. Liriodendron tulipifera, Tuliptree
20
Y
FACU
FAC species x 3 =
FACU species 50 x 4 = 200 200
3.
UPL species 0 x 5 =
4.
Column Totals: 155 (A) 515 (g)
5.
6.
Prevalence Index = B/A = 3.32
40
= Total Cover
Vegetation Indicators:
2
8
IH--y--Idrophytic
1 Rapid Test for Hydrophytic Vegetation
50% of total cover:
20% of
total cover:
�I -
Shrub Stratum (Plot size: )
Q 2 - Dominance Test is >50%
1
Q 3 - Prevalence Index is <-3.0'
❑ 4 - Morphological Adaptations' (Provide supporting
2
data in Remarks or on a separate sheet)
3.
❑ Problematic Hydrophytic Vegetation' (Explain)
4.
V 'Indicators of hydric soil and wetland hydrology must
6. be present, unless disturbed or problematic.
5 = Total Cover
Definitions of Five Vegetation Strata:
50% of total cover: 2.5 20% of total cover: 1
Tree -Woody plants, excluding woody vines,
Herb Stratum (Plot size: ) approximately 20 ft (6 m) or more in height and 3 in.
1. Microstegium vimineum, Japanese Stilt Gra: 20 Y FAC (7.6 cm) or larger in diameter at breast height (DBH).
2. Sapling - Woody plants, excluding woody vines,
3. approximately 20 ft (6 m) or more in height and less
than 3 in. (7.6 cm) DBH.
5. Shrub - Woody plants, excluding woody vines,
6 approximately 3 to 20 ft (1 to 6 m) in height.
7. Herb - All herbaceous (non -woody) plants, including
$ herbaceous vines, regardless of size, and woody
plants, except woody vines, less than approximately 3
9. ft (1 m) in height.
10.
11. Woody vine - All woody vines, regardless of height.
20 = Total Cover
50% of total cover: 10 20% of total cover: 4
Woody Vine Stratum (Plot size: )
1. Lonicera japonica, Japanese Honeysuckle 5 Y FAC
3.
4.
5.
Hydrophytic
5
= Total Cover Vegetation
50% of total cover: 2.5 20% of total cover: 1 Present? Yes T71 No�
Remarks: (Include photo numbers here or on a separate sheet.)
US Army Corps of Engineers Eastern Mountains and Piedmont - Version 2.0

SOIL Sampling Point: WA -up
Profile Description: (Describe to the depth needed to document the indicator or confirm the absence of indicators.)
Depth Matrix Redox Features
(inches) Color (moist) % Color (moist) % Type Loc Texture Remarks
0-8 10YR4/6 100 sandy cla
8-18 10YR5/8 100 sandy cla
'Type: C=Concentration, D=Depletion,
Hydric Soil Indicators:
0 Histosol (Al)
❑ Histic Epipedon (A2)
❑ Black Histic (A3)
❑ Hydrogen Sulfide (A4)
❑ Stratified Layers (A5)
❑ 2 cm Muck (A10) (LRR N)
❑ Depleted Below Dark Surface (A11:
❑ Thick Dark Surface (Al2)
Sandy Mucky Mineral (S1) (LRR N,
MLRA 147, 148)
❑ Sandy Gleyed Matrix (S4)
❑ Sandy Redox (S5)
❑ Stripped Matrix (S6)
Restrictive Layer (if observed):
Type:
Depth (inches):
Remarks:
RM=Reduced Matrix, MS=Masked Sand Grains.
2Location: PL=Pore Lining, M=Matrix.
Indicators for Problematic Hydric Sc
❑ Dark Surface (S7)
❑ 2 cm Muck (A10) (MLRA 147)
❑ Polyvalue Below Surface (S8) (MLRA 147, 148)
❑ Coast Prairie Redox (A16)
❑ Thin Dark Surface (S9) (MLRA 147, 148)
(MLRA 147, 148)
❑ Loamy Gleyed Matrix (F2)
0 Piedmont Floodplain Soils (F19)
❑ Depleted Matrix (F3)
(MLRA 136, 147)
❑ Redox Dark Surface (F6)
❑ Very Shallow Dark Surface (TF12)
❑ Depleted Dark Surface (F7)
❑ Other (Explain in Remarks)
_❑ Redox Depressions (F8)
❑ Iron -Manganese Masses (F12) (LRR N,
MLRA 136)
❑ Umbric Surface (F13) (MLRA 136, 122) 3Indicators of hydrophytic vegetation and
❑ Piedmont Floodplain Soils (F19) (MLRA 148) wetland hydrology must be present,
❑ Red Parent Material (F21) (MLRA 127, 147) unless disturbed or problematic.
Hydric Soil Present? Yes ❑ No ✓❑
US Army Corps of Engineers Eastern Mountains and Piedmont —Version 2.0

WETLAND DETERMINATION DATA FORM — Eastern Mountains and Piedmont Region
Project/Site: Cary Triangle Expressway City/County: Wake Sampling Date: 07/05/22
Applicant/Owner: DEP State: NC Sampling Point: WA -Wet
Investigator(s): Charlie Benton Section, Township, Range:
Landform (hillslope, terrace, etc.): depression Local relief (concave, convex, none): Concave
Subregion (LRR or MLRA): MLRA 136 of LRI Lat: 35.784446 Long:-78.8891
Soil Map Unit Name: wyA - Worsham sandy loam, o to 3 percent slopes NWI classification:
Are climatic / hydrologic conditions on the site typical for this time of year? Yes _0 No Q (If no, explain in Remarks.)
Are Vegetation = Soil ,�, or Hydrology ❑ significantly disturbed? Are "Normal Circumstances" present? Yes 0 No ❑
Are Vegetation = Soil �, or Hydrology .0 naturally problematic? (If needed, explain any answers in Remarks.)
_ Slope (%): 2
Datum: WGS84
SUMMARY OF FINDINGS — Attach site map showing sampling point locations, transects, important features, etc.
Hydrophytic Vegetation Present? Yes �0 No Is the Sampled Area
Hydric Soil Present? Yes I v l Nowithin a Wetland? Yes 0 No 0
Wetland Hydrology Present? Yes.I r L No
Remarks:
Small PEM wetland that flows into SA
HYDROLOGY
Wetland Hydrology Indicators:
Secondary Indicators (minimum of two required)
Primary Indicators (minimum of one is required; check all that apply)
❑ Surface Soil Cracks (136)
❑✓ Surface Water (Al)
❑ True Aquatic Plants (1314)
❑ Sparsely Vegetated Concave Surface (138)
✓❑ High Water Table (A2)
❑ Hydrogen Sulfide Odor (Cl)
❑✓ Drainage Patterns (B10)
❑✓ Saturation (A3)
✓❑ Oxidized Rhizospheres on Living Roots (C3)
,❑ Moss Trim Lines (B16)
❑ Water Marks (131)
❑ Presence of Reduced Iron (C4)
❑ Dry -Season Water Table (C2)
❑ Sediment Deposits (132)
❑ Recent Iron Reduction in Tilled Soils (C6)
❑ Crayfish Burrows (C8)
❑ Drift Deposits (133)
❑ Thin Muck Surface (C7)
❑ Saturation Visible on Aerial Imagery (C9)
❑ Algal Mat or Crust (134)
❑ Other (Explain in Remarks)
❑ Stunted or Stressed Plants (D1)
❑ Iron Deposits (135)
✓❑ Geomorphic Position (D2)
❑ Inundation Visible on Aerial Imagery (137)
❑ Shallow Aquitard (D3)
❑ Water -Stained Leaves (139)
❑ Microtopographic Relief (D4)
_❑Aquatic Fauna (1313)
❑✓ FAC-Neutral Test (D5)
Field Observations:
Surface Water Present? Yes 0
No ❑ Depth (inches): 25
Water Table Present? Yes 0
Saturation Present? Yes Q
No ❑ Depth (inches):
No ❑ Depth (inches):
Wetland Hydrology Present? Yes II No
(includes capillary fringe)
Describe Recorded Data (stream gauge, monitoring well, aerial photos, previous inspections), if available:
Remarks:
US Army Corps of Engineers Eastern Mountains and Piedmont —Version 2.0

VEGETATION (Five Strata) - Use scientific names of plants.
Sampling Point: WA -wet
Tree Stratum (Plot size: 30 foot radius)
1. NA
2.
3.
4.
5.
6.
Absolute Dominant Indicator
% Cover Species? Status
= Total Cover
Dominance Test worksheet:
Number of Dominant Species
That Are OBL, FACW, or FAC: 3 (A)
Total Number of Dominant
Species Across All Strata: 2 (B)
Percent of Dominant Species
That Are OBL, FACW, or FAC: 100 (q/g)
Prevalence Index worksheet:
Total % Cover of: Multiply by:
50% of total cover:
20% of total cover:
OBL species 60 x 1 = 60
Sapling Stratum (Plot size: )
FACW species x 2 = 14
1. Salix nigra, Black Willow
60 Y OBL
97
FAC species x 3 =
2.
FACU species 0 x 4 = 291
3.
UPL species 0 x 5 =
4.
Column Totals: 164 (q) 365 (g)
5.
6.
Prevalence Index = B/A = 2
60 = Total Cover
Vegetation Indicators:
30
12
IH--y--Idrophytic
1 Rapid Test for Hydrophytic Vegetation
50% of total cover:
20% of total cover:
�I -
Shrub Stratum (Plot size: )
❑✓ 2 - Dominance Test is >50%
1. Liquidambar styraciflua, Sweet -Gum
5 Y FAC
Q 3 - Prevalence Index is <-3.0'
❑ 4 - Morphological Adaptations' (Provide supporting
2
data in Remarks or on a separate sheet)
3.
❑ Problematic Hydrophytic Vegetation' (Explain)
4.
V
'Indicators of hydric soil and wetland hydrology must
6.
be present, unless disturbed or problematic.
5
= Total Cover
Definitions of Five Vegetation Strata:
50% of total cover: 2.5
20% of total cover: 1
Tree -Woody plants, excluding woody vines,
Herb Stratum (Plot size: )
approximately 20 ft (6 m) or more in height and 3 in.
1. Microstegium vimineum, Japanese Stilt Gra:
90
Y FAC
(7.6 cm) or larger in diameter at breast height (DBH).
2. Scirpus cyperinus, Cottongrass Bulrush
5
N FAM
Sapling - Woody plants, excluding woody vines,
3. Juncus effusus, Lamp Rush
2
N FAM
approximately 20 ft (6 m) or more in height and less
4_ Eutrochium purpureum, Sweet -Scented Joe
2
N FAC
than 3 in. (7.6 cm) DBH.
5. Shrub - Woody plants, excluding woody vines,
6 approximately 3 to 20 ft (1 to 6 m) in height.
7. Herb - All herbaceous (non -woody) plants, including
$ herbaceous vines, regardless of size, and woody
plants, except woody vines, less than approximately 3
9. ft (1 m) in height.
10.
11. Woody vine - All woody vines, regardless of height.
99 = Total Cover
50% of total cover: 42.5 20% of total cover: 17
Woody Vine Stratum (Plot size: )
1.
3.
4.
5.
Hydrophytic
= Total Cover Vegetation
50% of total cover: 20% of total cover: Present? Yes T71 No�
Remarks: (Include photo numbers here or on a separate sheet.)
US Army Corps of Engineers Eastern Mountains and Piedmont - Version 2.0

SOIL Sampling Point: WA -wet
Profile Description: (Describe to the depth needed to document the indicator or confirm the absence of indicators.)
Depth
Matrix
Redox Features
(inches)
Color (moist) %
Color (moist) % Tvpe Loc
Texture Remarks
0-10
7.5YR4/2 90
7.5YR 5/8 10 C PL
silty loam
10-18
7.5YR6/1 75
7.5YR 5/8 25 C PL
sandy cla
'Type: C=Concentration, D=Depletion,
Hydric Soil Indicators:
0 Histosol (Al)
❑ Histic Epipedon (A2)
❑ Black Histic (A3)
❑ Hydrogen Sulfide (A4)
❑ Stratified Layers (A5)
❑ 2 cm Muck (A10) (LRR N)
❑ Depleted Below Dark Surface (A11:
❑ Thick Dark Surface (Al2)
Sandy Mucky Mineral (S1) (LRR N,
MLRA 147, 148)
❑ Sandy Gleyed Matrix (S4)
❑ Sandy Redox (S5)
❑ Stripped Matrix (S6)
Restrictive Layer (if observed):
Tvpe:
Depth (inches):
Remarks:
RM=Reduced Matrix, MS=Masked Sand Grains.
2Location: PL=Pore Lining, M=Matrix.
Indicators for Problematic Hydric Sc
❑ Dark Surface (S7)
❑ 2 cm Muck (A10) (MLRA 147)
❑ Polyvalue Below Surface (S8) (MLRA 147, 148)
❑ Coast Prairie Redox (A16)
❑ Thin Dark Surface (S9) (MLRA 147, 148)
(MLRA 147, 148)
❑ Loamy Gleyed Matrix (F2)
0 Piedmont Floodplain Soils (F19)
❑✓ Depleted Matrix (F3)
(MLRA 136, 147)
❑ Redox Dark Surface (F6)
❑ Very Shallow Dark Surface (TF12)
❑ Depleted Dark Surface (F7)
❑ Other (Explain in Remarks)
_❑ Redox Depressions (F8)
❑ Iron -Manganese Masses (F12) (LRR N,
MLRA 136)
❑ Umbric Surface (F13) (MLRA 136, 122) 3Indicators of hydrophytic vegetation and
❑ Piedmont Floodplain Soils (F19) (MLRA 148) wetland hydrology must be present,
❑ Red Parent Material (F21) (MLRA 127, 147) unless disturbed or problematic.
Hydric Soil Present? Yes ✓❑ No ❑
US Army Corps of Engineers Eastern Mountains and Piedmont —Version 2.0

WETLAND DETERMINATION DATA FORM — Eastern Mountains and Piedmont Region
Project/Site: Cary Triangle Expressway City/County: Wake Sampling Date: 07/05/22
Applicant/Owner: DEP State: NC Sampling Point: WB-UP
Investigator(s): Charlie Benton Section, Township, Range:
Landform (hillslope, terrace, etc.): hlllslope Local relief (concave, convex, none): Convex
Subregion (LRR or MLRA): MLRA 136 of LRI Lat: 35.784446 Long:-78.8891
Soil Map Unit Name: wyA - Worsham sandy loam, o to 3 percent slopes NWI classification: U
Are climatic / hydrologic conditions on the site typical for this time of year? Yes 0 No Q (If no explain in Remarks.)
_ Slope (%): 2
Datum: WGS84
land
Are Vegetation = Soil ,�, or Hydrology ❑ significantly disturbed? Are "Normal Circumstances" present? Yes 0 No ❑
Are Vegetation = Soil �, or Hydrology .0 naturally problematic? (If needed, explain any answers in Remarks.)
SUMMARY OF FINDINGS — Attach site map showing sampling point locations, transects, important features, etc.
Hydrophytic Vegetation Present? Yes 0 No ✓� Is the Sampled Area
Hydric Soil Present? Yes Nowithin a Wetland? Yes 0 No 0
Wetland Hydrology Present? Yes.= No
Remarks:
Upland point for WB
HYDROLOGY
Wetland Hydrology Indicators:
Secondary Indicators (minimum of two required)
Primary Indicators (minimum of one is required; check all that apply)
❑ Surface Soil Cracks (136)
❑ Surface Water (Al) ❑ True Aquatic Plants (1314)
❑ Sparsely Vegetated Concave Surface (138)
❑ High Water Table (A2) ❑ Hydrogen Sulfide Odor (Cl)
❑ Drainage Patterns (B10)
❑ Saturation (A3) ❑ Oxidized Rhizospheres on Living Roots (C3)
,❑ Moss Trim Lines (B16)
❑ Water Marks (131) ❑ Presence of Reduced Iron (C4)
❑ Dry -Season Water Table (C2)
❑ Sediment Deposits (132) ❑ Recent Iron Reduction in Tilled Soils (C6)
❑ Crayfish Burrows (C8)
❑ Drift Deposits (133) ❑ Thin Muck Surface (C7)
❑ Saturation Visible on Aerial Imagery (C9)
❑ Algal Mat or Crust (134) ❑ Other (Explain in Remarks)
❑ Stunted or Stressed Plants (D1)
❑ Iron Deposits (135)
❑ Geomorphic Position (D2)
❑ Inundation Visible on Aerial Imagery (137)
❑ Shallow Aquitard (D3)
❑ Water -Stained Leaves (139)
❑ Microtopographic Relief (D4)
_❑Aquatic Fauna (1313)
❑ FAC-Neutral Test (D5)
Field Observations:
Surface Water Present? Yes ❑ No = Depth (inches):
Water Table Present? Yes ❑ No Depth (inches):
n
Saturation Present? Yes ❑ No LJ Depth (inches):
Wetland
Hydrology Present? Yes No
(includes capillary fringe)
Describe Recorded Data (stream gauge, monitoring well, aerial photos, previous inspections), if available:
Remarks:
US Army Corps of Engineers Eastern Mountains and Piedmont —Version 2.0

VEGETATION (Five Strata) - Use scientific names of plants.
Sampling Point: WB-up
Tree Stratum (Plot size: 30 ft )
1. Liquidambar styraciflua, Sweet -Gum
2. Morus rubra, Red Mulberry
3. Quercus alba, Northern White Oak
4.
5.
6.
50% of total cover: 30
Sapling Stratum (Plot size: 30 ft )
1. Prunus serotina, Black Cherry
2. Carya ovalis, Red Hickory
3. Quercus rubra, Northern Red Oak
4. Quercus alba, Northern White Oak
5.
6.
Absolute Dominant Indicator
% Cover Species? Status
40 Y FAC
10 N FACU
10 N FACU
60 = Total Cover
20% of total cover: 12
10 Y FACU
5 Y FACU
5 Y FACII
9.y
50% of total cover: 12.5
Shrub Stratum (Plot size: 30 ft. )
1. Liriodendron tulipifera, Tuliptree 2
2. Qxydendrum arboreum, Sourwood 5
3.
4.
L'
50% of total cover: 12.5
Herb Stratum (Plot size: 30 ft. )
1. Polystichum acrostichoides, Christmas Fern 3
2. Microstegium vimineum, Japanese Stilt Gras 5
3.
6.
7.
9.
10
11
50% of total cover: 17.5
Woody Vine Stratum (Plot size: 30 ft. )
1. Lonicera japonica, Japanese Honeysuckle
2. Toxicodendron radicans, Eastern Poison Ivy
3.
4.
5.
= Total Cover
20% of total cover: 5
0 Y FACU
Y IIPI
= Total Cover
20% of total cover: 5
Dominance Test worksheet:
Number of Dominant Species
That Are OBL, FACW, or FAC: 3 (A)
Total Number of Dominant
Species Across All Strata: 10 (B)
Percent of Dominant Species
That Are OBL, FACW, or FAC: 30 (A/B)
Prevalence Index worksheet:
Total % Cover of:
Multiply by:
OBL species
0
x 1 =
FACW species
0
x 2 =
FAC species
60
x 3 =
180
FACU species
95
x 4 =
380
UPL species
5
x 5 =
25
Column Totals:
160
(A)
585 (B)
Prevalence Index = B/A = 3.66
Hydrophytic Vegetation Indicators:
❑ 1 - Rapid Test for Hydrophytic Vegetation
❑ 2 - Dominance Test is >50%
❑ 3 - Prevalence Index is <-3.0'
❑ 4 - Morphological Adaptations' (Provide supporting
data in Remarks or on a separate sheet)
❑ Problematic Hydrophytic Vegetation' (Explain)
'Indicators of hydric soil and wetland hydrology must
be present, unless disturbed or problematic.
Definitions of Five Vegetation Strata:
Tree - Woody plants, excluding woody vines,
approximately 20 ft (6 m) or more in height and 3 in.
0 Y FACU (7.6 cm) or larger in diameter at breast height (DBH).
35 = Total Cover
20% of total cover: 7
10 Y FAC
ri Y FAC
15 = Total Cover
50% of total cover: 7.5 20% of total cover: 3
Remarks: (Include photo numbers here or on a separate sheet.)
Sapling - Woody plants, excluding woody vines,
approximately 20 ft (6 m) or more in height and less
than 3 in. (7.6 cm) DBH.
Shrub - Woody plants, excluding woody vines,
approximately 3 to 20 ft (1 to 6 m) in height.
Herb - All herbaceous (non -woody) plants, including
herbaceous vines, regardless of size, and woody
plants, except woody vines, less than approximately 3
ft (1 m) in height.
Woody vine - All woody vines, regardless of height.
Hydrophytic
Vegetation ✓
Present? Yes = No�
US Army Corps of Engineers Eastern Mountains and Piedmont - Version 2.0

SOIL Sampling Point: WB-Up
Profile Description: (Describe to the depth needed to document the indicator or confirm the absence of indicators.)
Depth Matrix Redox Features
(inches) Color (moist) % Color (moist) % Tvpe Loc Texture Remarks
0-4 10YR7/6 100 silty clay
4-12 10YR 5/4 100 silt
'Type: C=Concentration, D=Depletion,
Hydric Soil Indicators:
0 Histosol (Al)
❑ Histic Epipedon (A2)
❑ Black Histic (A3)
❑ Hydrogen Sulfide (A4)
❑ Stratified Layers (A5)
❑ 2 cm Muck (A10) (LRR N)
❑ Depleted Below Dark Surface (A11:
❑ Thick Dark Surface (Al2)
Sandy Mucky Mineral (S1) (LRR N,
MLRA 147, 148)
❑ Sandy Gleyed Matrix (S4)
❑ Sandy Redox (S5)
❑ Stripped Matrix (S6)
Restrictive Layer (if observed):
Tvpe:
Depth (inches):
Remarks:
RM=Reduced Matrix, MS=Masked Sand Grains.
2Location: PL=Pore Lining, M=Matrix.
Indicators for Problematic Hydric Sc
D Dark Surface (S7)
❑ 2 cm Muck (A10) (MLRA 147)
❑ Polyvalue Below Surface (S8) (MLRA 147, 148)
❑ Coast Prairie Redox (A16)
❑ Thin Dark Surface (S9) (MLRA 147, 148)
(MLRA 147, 148)
❑ Loamy Gleyed Matrix (F2)
0 Piedmont Floodplain Soils (F19)
❑ Depleted Matrix (F3)
(MLRA 136, 147)
❑ Redox Dark Surface (F6)
❑ Very Shallow Dark Surface (TF12)
❑ Depleted Dark Surface (F7)
❑ Other (Explain in Remarks)
_❑ Redox Depressions (F8)
❑ Iron -Manganese Masses (F12) (LRR N,
MLRA 136)
❑ Umbric Surface (F13) (MLRA 136, 122) 3Indicators of hydrophytic vegetation and
❑ Piedmont Floodplain Soils (F19) (MLRA 148) wetland hydrology must be present,
❑ Red Parent Material (F21) (MLRA 127, 147) unless disturbed or problematic.
Hydric Soil Present? Yes ❑ No ✓❑
US Army Corps of Engineers Eastern Mountains and Piedmont —Version 2.0

WETLAND DETERMINATION DATA FORM — Eastern Mountains and Piedmont Region
Project/Site: Cary Triangle Expressway City/County: Wake Sampling Date: 07/05/22
Applicant/Owner: DEP State: NC Sampling Point: WB-wet
Investigator(s): Charlie Benton Section, Township, Range:
Landform (hillslope, terrace, etc.): foodplaln Local relief (concave, convex, none): Concave Slope (%): 2
Subregion (LRR or MLRA): MLRA 136 of LRI Lat: 35.784446 Long:-78.8891 Datum: WGS84
Soil Map Unit Name: WOA - Wehadkee and Bibb soils, 0 to 2 percent slopes, frequently NWI classification: PF01/4A
Are climatic / hydrologic conditions on the site typical for this time of year? Yes _0 No Q (If no, explain in Remarks.)
Are Vegetation = Soil ,�, or Hydrology ❑ significantly disturbed? Are "Normal Circumstances" present? Yes 0 No ❑
Are Vegetation = Soil �, or Hydrology .0 naturally problematic? (If needed, explain any answers in Remarks.)
SUMMARY OF FINDINGS — Attach site map showing sampling point locations, transects, important features, etc.
Hydrophytic Vegetation Present? Yes �0 No Is the Sampled Area
Hydric Soil Present? Yes I v l Nowithin a Wetland? Yes 0 No 0
Wetland Hydrology Present? Yes.I r L No
Remarks:
Wetland point for WB, adjacent to stream SB. Lots of drainage patterns in floodplain.
HYDROLOGY
Wetland Hydrology Indicators:
Secondary Indicators (minimum of two required)
Primary Indicators (minimum of one is required; check all that apply)
❑ Surface Soil Cracks (136)
❑ Surface Water (Al)
❑ True Aquatic Plants (1314)
❑ Sparsely Vegetated Concave Surface (138)
✓❑ High Water Table (A2)
❑ Hydrogen Sulfide Odor (Cl)
❑ Drainage Patterns (B10)
❑✓ Saturation (A3)
✓❑ Oxidized Rhizospheres on Living Roots (C3)
,❑ Moss Trim Lines (B16)
❑ Water Marks (131)
❑ Presence of Reduced Iron (C4)
❑ Dry -Season Water Table (C2)
❑ Sediment Deposits (132)
❑ Recent Iron Reduction in Tilled Soils (C6)
✓❑ Crayfish Burrows (C8)
❑ Drift Deposits (133)
❑ Thin Muck Surface (C7)
❑ Saturation Visible on Aerial Imagery (C9)
❑ Algal Mat or Crust (134)
❑ Other (Explain in Remarks)
❑ Stunted or Stressed Plants (D1)
❑ Iron Deposits (135)
✓❑ Geomorphic Position (D2)
❑ Inundation Visible on Aerial Imagery (137)
❑ Shallow Aquitard (D3)
❑ Water -Stained Leaves (139)
❑ Microtopographic Relief (D4)
_❑Aquatic Fauna (1313)
❑ FAC-Neutral Test (D5)
Field Observations:
Surface Water Present? Yes ❑
No = Depth (inches):
Water Table Present? Yes 0
No ❑ Depth (inches): 4
2
II
Saturation Present? Yes Q
No ❑ Depth (inches):
Wetland
Hydrology Present? Yes No
(includes capillary fringe)
Describe Recorded Data (stream gauge, monitoring well, aerial photos, previous inspections), if available:
Remarks:
US Army Corps of Engineers Eastern Mountains and Piedmont —Version 2.0

VEGETATION (Five Strata) - Use scientific names of plants.
Sampling Point: WB-wet
Tree Stratum (Plot size: 30 ft )
1. Liquidambar styraciflua, Sweet -Gum
2. Liriodendron tulipifera, Tuliptree
3. Fraxinus Pennsylvania, Green Ash
4. Pinustaeda, Loblolly Pine
5. Quercus phellos. Willow Oak
6.
Absolute
% Cover
20
20
10
10
10
70
Dominant Indicator
Species? Status
Y FAC
Y FACU
N FAM
N FAC
N FAC
= Total Cover
Dominance Test worksheet:
Number of Dominant Species
That Are OBL, FACW, or FAC: 7 (A)
Total Number of Dominant
Species Across All Strata: 10 (g)
Percent of Dominant Species
That Are OBL, FACW, or FAC: 70 (A/B)
Prevalence Index worksheet:
35
14
Total % Cover of: Multiply by:
50% of total cover:
20% of
total cover:
OBL species 0 x 1 = 0
Sapling Stratum (Plots 30 ft )
FACW species 25 x 2 = 50
1. Fraxinus pennsylvanica, Green Ash
10
Y
FAM
15 0 450
2. Quercus nigra, Water Oak
10
Y
FAC
FAC species x 3 =
3. Ligustrum sinense, Chinese Privet
10
Y
FACU
FACU species 40 x 4 = 160
4. Ulmus americana, American Elm
5
N
FAM
UPL species 0 x 5 =
Column Totals: 215 (A) 660 (g)
5.
6.
Prevalence Index = B/A = 3.07
35
= Total Cover
Vegetation Indicators:
17.5
7
IH--y--Idrophytic
LJ 1 - Rapid Test for Hydrophytic Vegetation
50% of total cover:
Shrub Stratum (Plot size: 30 ft )
20% of
total cover:
❑✓ 2 - Dominance Test is >50%
1. Ligustrum sinense, Chinese Privet
10
Y
FACU
Q 3 - Prevalence Index is <-3.0'
2 Quercus nigra, Water Oak
5
Y
FAC
❑ 4 - Morphological Adaptations' (Provide supporting
data in Remarks or on a separate sheet)
3.
❑ Problematic Hydrophytic Vegetation' (Explain)
4.
V 'Indicators of hydric soil and wetland hydrology must
6. be present, unless disturbed or problematic.
15 = Total Cover
Definitions of Five Vegetation Strata:
50% of total cover: 7.5 20% of total cover: 3
Tree -Woody plants, excluding woody vines,
Herb Stratum (Plot size: 30 ft ) approximately 20 ft (6 m) or more in height and 3 in.
1. Microstegium vimineum, Japanese Stilt Gra: 70 Y FAC (7.6 cm) or larger in diameter at breast height (DBH).
2. Sapling - Woody plants, excluding woody vines,
3. approximately 20 ft (6 m) or more in height and less
than 3 in. (7.6 cm) DBH.
5. Shrub - Woody plants, excluding woody vines,
6 approximately 3 to 20 ft (1 to 6 m) in height.
7. Herb - All herbaceous (non -woody) plants, including
$ herbaceous vines, regardless of size, and woody
plants, except woody vines, less than approximately 3
9. ft (1 m) in height.
10.
11. Woody vine - All woody vines, regardless of height.
70 = Total Cover
50% of total cover: 35 20% of total cover: 14
Woody Vine Stratum (Plot size: )
1. Toxicodendron radicans, Eastern Poison Ivy 15 Y FAC
2. Smilax rotundifolia, Horsebrier 10 Y FAC
3.
4.
5.
Hydrophytic
25
= Total Cover Vegetation
50% of total cover: 12.5 20% of total cover: 5 Present? Yes M No�
Remarks: (Include photo numbers here or on a separate sheet.)
US Army Corps of Engineers Eastern Mountains and Piedmont - Version 2.0

SOIL Sampling Point: WB-Wet
Profile Description: (Describe to the depth needed to document the indicator or confirm the absence of indicators.)
Depth
Matrix
Redox Features
(inches)
Color (moist) %
Color (moist) % Tvpe Loc
Texture Remarks
0-4
10YR5/2 80
5YR 5/6 20
silty loam
4-12
10YR 5/1 80
5YR 5/6 20
silty loam
'Type: C=Concentration, D=Depletion,
Hydric Soil Indicators:
0 Histosol (Al)
❑ Histic Epipedon (A2)
❑ Black Histic (A3)
❑ Hydrogen Sulfide (A4)
❑ Stratified Layers (A5)
❑ 2 cm Muck (A10) (LRR N)
❑ Depleted Below Dark Surface (A11:
❑ Thick Dark Surface (Al2)
Sandy Mucky Mineral (S1) (LRR N,
MLRA 147, 148)
❑ Sandy Gleyed Matrix (S4)
❑ Sandy Redox (S5)
❑ Stripped Matrix (S6)
Restrictive Layer (if observed):
Tvpe:
Depth (inches):
Remarks:
RM=Reduced Matrix, MS=Masked Sand Grains.
2Location: PL=Pore Lining, M=Matrix.
Indicators for Problematic Hydric Sc
❑ Dark Surface (S7)
❑ 2 cm Muck (A10) (MLRA 147)
❑ Polyvalue Below Surface (S8) (MLRA 147, 148)
❑ Coast Prairie Redox (A16)
❑ Thin Dark Surface (S9) (MLRA 147, 148)
(MLRA 147, 148)
❑ Loamy Gleyed Matrix (F2)
0 Piedmont Floodplain Soils (F19)
❑✓ Depleted Matrix (F3)
(MLRA 136, 147)
❑ Redox Dark Surface (F6)
❑ Very Shallow Dark Surface (TF12)
❑ Depleted Dark Surface (F7)
❑ Other (Explain in Remarks)
_❑ Redox Depressions (F8)
❑ Iron -Manganese Masses (F12) (LRR N,
MLRA 136)
❑ Umbric Surface (F13) (MLRA 136, 122) 3Indicators of hydrophytic vegetation and
❑ Piedmont Floodplain Soils (F19) (MLRA 148) wetland hydrology must be present,
❑ Red Parent Material (F21) (MLRA 127, 147) unless disturbed or problematic.
Hydric Soil Present? Yes ✓❑ No ❑
US Army Corps of Engineers Eastern Mountains and Piedmont —Version 2.0

WETLAND DETERMINATION DATA FORM — Eastern Mountains and Piedmont Region
Project/Site: Cary Triangle Expressway City/County: Wake Sampling Date: 07/05/22
Applicant/Owner: DEP State: NC Sampling Point: WC -Up
Investigator(s): Charlie Benton Section, Township, Range:
Landform (hillslope, terrace, etc.): floodplaln Local relief (concave, convex, none): Concave
Subregion (LRR or MLRA): MLRA 136 of LRI Lat: 35.784446 Long:-78.8891
Soil Map Unit Name: WsC2 - White Store sandy loam, 6 to 10 percent slopes, moderate NWI classification: U
Are climatic / hydrologic conditions on the site typical for this time of year? Yes 0 No Q (If no explain in Remarks.)
_ Slope (%):
Datum: WGS84
land
Are Vegetation = Soil ,�, or Hydrology ❑ significantly disturbed? Are "Normal Circumstances" present? Yes 0 No ❑
Are Vegetation = Soil �, or Hydrology .0 naturally problematic? (If needed, explain any answers in Remarks.)
SUMMARY OF FINDINGS — Attach site map showing sampling point locations, transects, important features, etc.
Hydrophytic Vegetation Present? Yes 0 No Is the Sampled Area
Hydric Soil Present? Yes Nowithin a Wetland? Yes 0 No 0
Wetland Hydrology Present? Yes.= No
Remarks:
Upland point for WC
HYDROLOGY
Wetland Hydrology Indicators:
Secondary Indicators (minimum of two required)
Primary Indicators (minimum of one is required; check all that apply)
❑ Surface Soil Cracks (136)
❑ Surface Water (Al) ❑ True Aquatic Plants (1314)
❑ Sparsely Vegetated Concave Surface (138)
❑ High Water Table (A2) ❑ Hydrogen Sulfide Odor (Cl)
❑ Drainage Patterns (B10)
❑ Saturation (A3) ❑ Oxidized Rhizospheres on Living Roots (C3)
,❑ Moss Trim Lines (B16)
❑ Water Marks (131) ❑ Presence of Reduced Iron (C4)
❑ Dry -Season Water Table (C2)
❑ Sediment Deposits (132) ❑ Recent Iron Reduction in Tilled Soils (C6)
❑ Crayfish Burrows (C8)
❑ Drift Deposits (133) ❑ Thin Muck Surface (C7)
❑ Saturation Visible on Aerial Imagery (C9)
❑ Algal Mat or Crust (134) ❑ Other (Explain in Remarks)
❑ Stunted or Stressed Plants (D1)
❑ Iron Deposits (135)
❑ Geomorphic Position (D2)
❑ Inundation Visible on Aerial Imagery (137)
❑ Shallow Aquitard (D3)
❑ Water -Stained Leaves (139)
❑ Microtopographic Relief (D4)
_❑Aquatic Fauna (1313)
❑ FAC-Neutral Test (D5)
Field Observations:
Surface Water Present? Yes ❑ No = Depth (inches):
Water Table Present? Yes ❑ No Depth (inches):
n
Saturation Present? Yes ❑ No LJ Depth (inches):
Wetland
Hydrology Present? Yes No
(includes capillary fringe)
Describe Recorded Data (stream gauge, monitoring well, aerial photos, previous inspections), if available:
Remarks:
US Army Corps of Engineers Eastern Mountains and Piedmont —Version 2.0

VEGETATION (Five Strata) - Use scientific names of plants.
Sampling Point: WC -up
Absolute
Dominant Indicator
Dominance Test worksheet:
Tree Stratum (Plot size: 30 ft )
% Cover
Species?
Status
Number of Dominant Species
1. Liquidambar styraciflua, Sweet -Gum
60
Y
FAC
That Are OBL, FACW, or FAC: 7 (A)
2. Acer rubrum, Red Maple
20
Y
FAC
3. Cornus florida, Flowering Dogwood
10
N
FACU
Total Number of Dominant
10
Species Across All Strata: (g)
4.
Percent of Dominant Species
5.
That Are OBL, FACW, or FAC: 70 (A/B)
6.
Prevalence Index worksheet:
90 = Total Cover
45
18
Total % Cover of: Multiply by:
50% of total cover:
20% of
total cover:
OBL species 0 x 1 =
Sapling Stratum (Plot size: 30 ft )
0
1. Prunus serotina, Black Cherry
15
Y
FACU
FACW species x 2 =
2. Pinus taeda, Loblolly Pine
10
Y
FAC
FAC species 145 x 3 = 435
3. Quercus nigra, Water Oak
10
Y
FAC
FACU species 12 x 4 = 168
4. Cornus florida, Flowering Dogwood
10
Y
FACU
UPL species 0 x 5 = 0
Column Totals: 187 (A) 603 (g)
5.
6.
Prevalence Index = B/A = 3.22
45
= Total Cover
Vegetation Indicators:
50% of total cover:
22.5 20% of
total cover:
9
IHydrophytic
LJ 1 - Rapid Test for Hydrophytic Vegetation
Shrub Stratum (Plot size: 30 ft. )
❑✓ 2 - Dominance Test is >50%
1. Liquidambar styraciflua, Sweet -Gum
10
Y
FAC
Q 3 - Prevalence Index is <-3.0'
2 Prunus serotina, Black Cherry
5
Y
FACU
❑ 4 - Morphological Adaptations' (Provide supporting
3 Juniperus virginiana, Eastern Red -Cedar
2
N
FACU
data in Remarks or on a separate sheet)
ElProblematic Hydrophytic Vegetation' (Explain)
4.
5.
'Indicators of hydric soil and wetland hydrology must
6.
be present, unless disturbed or problematic.
17
= Total Cover
Definitions of Five Vegetation Strata:
50% of total cover:
8•5 20% of
total cover:
3.4
30 ft.
Tree -Woody plants, excluding woody vines,
Herb Stratum (Plot size: )
approximately 20 ft (6 m) or more in height and 3 in.
1
(7.6 cm) or larger in diameter at breast height (DBH).
2.
Sapling - Woody plants, excluding woody vines,
3.
approximately 20 ft (6 m) or more in height and less
than 3 in. (7.6 cm) DBH.
5. Shrub - Woody plants, excluding woody vines,
6 approximately 3 to 20 ft (1 to 6 m) in height.
7. Herb - All herbaceous (non -woody) plants, including
$ herbaceous vines, regardless of size, and woody
plants, except woody vines, less than approximately 3
9. ft (1 m) in height.
10.
11. Woody vine - All woody vines, regardless of height.
= Total Cover
50% of total cover: 20% of total cover:
Woody Vine Stratum (Plot size: 30 ft. )
1. Lonicera japonica, Japanese Honeysuckle 5 N FAC
2. Vitis rotundifolia, Muscadine 20 Y FAC
3. Smilax rotundifolia, Horsebrier 10 Y FAC
4.
5.
Hydrophytic
35
= Total Cover Vegetation
50% of total cover: 17.5 20% of total cover: 7 Present? Yes T71 No�
Remarks: (Include photo numbers here or on a separate sheet.)
US Army Corps of Engineers Eastern Mountains and Piedmont - Version 2.0

SOIL Sampling Point: WC -up
Profile Description: (Describe to the depth needed to document the indicator or confirm the absence of indicators.)
Depth Matrix Redox Features
(inches) Color (moist) % Color (moist) % Type Loc Texture Remarks
0-6 10YR 3/4 100 sandy loa
6-12 10YR4/6 100 sandy loa
'Type: C=Concentration, D=Depletion,
Hydric Soil Indicators:
0 Histosol (Al)
❑ Histic Epipedon (A2)
❑ Black Histic (A3)
❑ Hydrogen Sulfide (A4)
❑ Stratified Layers (A5)
❑ 2 cm Muck (A10) (LRR N)
❑ Depleted Below Dark Surface (A11:
❑ Thick Dark Surface (Al2)
Sandy Mucky Mineral (S1) (LRR N,
MLRA 147, 148)
❑ Sandy Gleyed Matrix (S4)
❑ Sandy Redox (S5)
❑ Stripped Matrix (S6)
Restrictive Layer (if observed):
Type:
Depth (inches):
Remarks:
RM=Reduced Matrix, MS=Masked Sand Grains.
2Location: PL=Pore Lining, M=Matrix.
Indicators for Problematic Hydric Sc
❑ Dark Surface (S7)
❑ 2 cm Muck (A10) (MLRA 147)
❑ Polyvalue Below Surface (S8) (MLRA 147, 148)
❑ Coast Prairie Redox (A16)
❑ Thin Dark Surface (S9) (MLRA 147, 148)
(MLRA 147, 148)
❑ Loamy Gleyed Matrix (F2)
0 Piedmont Floodplain Soils (F19)
❑ Depleted Matrix (F3)
(MLRA 136, 147)
❑ Redox Dark Surface (F6)
❑ Very Shallow Dark Surface (TF12)
❑ Depleted Dark Surface (F7)
❑ Other (Explain in Remarks)
_❑ Redox Depressions (F8)
❑ Iron -Manganese Masses (F12) (LRR N,
MLRA 136)
❑ Umbric Surface (F13) (MLRA 136, 122) 3Indicators of hydrophytic vegetation and
❑ Piedmont Floodplain Soils (F19) (MLRA 148) wetland hydrology must be present,
❑ Red Parent Material (F21) (MLRA 127, 147) unless disturbed or problematic.
Hydric Soil Present? Yes ❑ No ✓❑
US Army Corps of Engineers Eastern Mountains and Piedmont —Version 2.0

WETLAND DETERMINATION DATA FORM — Eastern Mountains and Piedmont Region
Project/Site: Cary Triangle Expressway City/County: Wake Sampling Date: 07/05/22
Applicant/Owner: DEP State: NC Sampling Point: WC -Wet
Investigator(s): Charlie Benton Section, Township, Range:
Landform (hillslope, terrace, etc.): drainageway Local relief (concave, convex, none): Concave
Subregion (LRR or MLRA): MLRA 136 of LRI Lat: 35.784446 Long:-78.8891
Soil Map Unit Name: WsC2 - White Store sandy loam, 6 to 10 percent slopes, moderai NWI classification: U
Are climatic / hydrologic conditions on the site typical for this time of year? Yes 0 No Q (If no explain in Remarks.)
_ Slope (%): 2
Datum: WGS84
land
Are Vegetation = Soil ,�, or Hydrology ❑ significantly disturbed? Are "Normal Circumstances" present? Yes 0 No ❑
Are Vegetation = Soil �, or Hydrology .0 naturally problematic? (If needed, explain any answers in Remarks.)
SUMMARY OF FINDINGS — Attach site map showing sampling point locations, transects, important features, etc.
Hydrophytic Vegetation Present? Yes �0 No Is the Sampled Area
Hydric Soil Present? Yes I v l Nowithin a Wetland? Yes 0 No 0
Wetland Hydrology Present? Yes.I r L No
Remarks:
Wetland point for WC, adjacent to intermittent stream SC. SC has slight dowcutting and sedimentation.
HYDROLOGY
Wetland Hydrology Indicators:
Secondary Indicators (minimum of two required)
Primary Indicators (minimum of one is required; check all that apply)
❑ Surface Soil Cracks (136)
❑ Surface Water (Al)
❑ True Aquatic Plants (1314)
❑ Sparsely Vegetated Concave Surface (138)
✓❑ High Water Table (A2)
❑ Hydrogen Sulfide Odor (Cl)
❑ Drainage Patterns (B10)
❑✓ Saturation (A3)
✓❑ Oxidized Rhizospheres on Living Roots (C3)
,❑ Moss Trim Lines (B16)
❑ Water Marks (131)
❑ Presence of Reduced Iron (C4)
❑ Dry -Season Water Table (C2)
❑ Sediment Deposits (132)
❑ Recent Iron Reduction in Tilled Soils (C6)
❑ Crayfish Burrows (C8)
❑ Drift Deposits (133)
❑ Thin Muck Surface (C7)
❑ Saturation Visible on Aerial Imagery (C9)
❑ Algal Mat or Crust (134)
❑ Other (Explain in Remarks)
❑ Stunted or Stressed Plants (D1)
❑ Iron Deposits (135)
✓❑ Geomorphic Position (D2)
❑ Inundation Visible on Aerial Imagery (137)
❑ Shallow Aquitard (D3)
❑ Water -Stained Leaves (139)
❑ Microtopographic Relief (D4)
_❑Aquatic Fauna (1313)
❑✓ FAC-Neutral Test (D5)
Field Observations:
Surface Water Present? Yes ❑
No = Depth (inches):
Water Table Present? Yes 0
No ❑ Depth (inches): 5
3
II
Saturation Present? Yes Q
No ❑ Depth (inches):
Wetland
Hydrology Present? Yes No
(includes capillary fringe)
Describe Recorded Data (stream gauge, monitoring well, aerial photos, previous inspections), if available:
Remarks:
US Army Corps of Engineers Eastern Mountains and Piedmont —Version 2.0

VEGETATION (Five Strata) - Use scientific names of plants.
Sampling Point: WC -wet
Absolute Dominant Indicator Dominance Test worksheet:
Tree Stratum (Plot size: 30 ft ) % Cover Species? Status Number of Dominant Species
1. That Are OBL, FACW, or FAC: 4
2.
3.
4.
5.
6.
= Total Cover
50% of total cover: 20% of total cover:
Sapling Stratum (Plot size: 30 ft )
1. Alnus serrulata, Brookside Alder 90 Y OBL
2. Salix nigra, Black Willow 10 N OBL
3.
4.
5.
6.
100 = Total Cover
50% of total cover: 5 20% of total cover: 20
Shrub Stratum (Plot size: 30 ft )
1. Y FACU
2. Y FAC
3.
4.
= Total Cover
50% of total cover: 20% of total cover:
Herb Stratum (Plot size. 30 ft )
1. Microstegium vimineum, Japanese Stilt Gra: 20 Y FAC
2. Boehmeria cylindrica, Small -Spike False Ne 5 Y FAM
3.
6.
7.
9.
10.
11.
25 = Total Cover
50% of total cover: 12.5 20% of total cover: 5
Woody Vine Stratum (Plot size: )
1.
2. Smilax rotundifolia, Horsebrier 10 Y FAC
3.
4.
5.
10 = Total Cover
50% of total cover: 5 20% of total cover: 2
Remarks: (Include photo numbers here or on a separate sheet.)
Total Number of Dominant
Species Across All Strata: 4
Percent of Dominant Species 100
That Are OBL, FACW, or FAC:
Prevalence Index worksheet:
Total % Cover of:
Multiply by:
OBL species
100
x 1 =
100
FACW species
5
x 2 =
10
FAC species
30
x 3 =
90
FACU species
0
x 4 =
0
UPL species
0
x 5 =
Column Totals:
135
(A)
200
Prevalence Index = B/A = 1.48
(A)
(B)
(A/B)
(B)
Hydrophytic Vegetation Indicators:
❑ 1 - Rapid Test for Hydrophytic Vegetation
❑✓ 2 - Dominance Test is >50%
Q✓ 3 - Prevalence Index is <-3.0'
❑ 4 - Morphological Adaptations' (Provide supporting
data in Remarks or on a separate sheet)
❑ Problematic Hydrophytic Vegetation' (Explain)
'Indicators of hydric soil and wetland hydrology must
be present, unless disturbed or problematic.
Definitions of Five Vegetation Strata:
Tree - Woody plants, excluding woody vines,
approximately 20 ft (6 m) or more in height and 3 in.
(7.6 cm) or larger in diameter at breast height (DBH)
Sapling - Woody plants, excluding woody vines,
approximately 20 ft (6 m) or more in height and less
than 3 in. (7.6 cm) DBH.
Shrub - Woody plants, excluding woody vines,
approximately 3 to 20 ft (1 to 6 m) in height.
Herb - All herbaceous (non -woody) plants, including
herbaceous vines, regardless of size, and woody
plants, except woody vines, less than approximately 3
ft (1 m) in height.
Woody vine - All woody vines, regardless of height.
Hydrophytic
Vegetation
Present? Yes T71 No�
US Army Corps of Engineers Eastern Mountains and Piedmont - Version 2.0

SOIL Sampling Point: WC -wet
Profile Description: (Describe to the depth needed to document the indicator or confirm the absence of indicators.)
Depth
Matrix
Redox Features
(inches)
Color (moist) %
Color (moist) % Tvpe Loc
Texture Remarks
0-3
10YR3/2 90
5YR 3/4 10 RM M
silty loam
3-6
10YR 4/2 100
silty loam
6-18
7YR 4/1 50
5YR 3/4 50 RM M
silty loam
'Type: C=Concentration, D=Depletion,
Hydric Soil Indicators:
0 Histosol (Al)
❑ Histic Epipedon (A2)
❑ Black Histic (A3)
❑ Hydrogen Sulfide (A4)
❑ Stratified Layers (A5)
❑ 2 cm Muck (A10) (LRR N)
❑ Depleted Below Dark Surface (A11:
❑ Thick Dark Surface (Al2)
Sandy Mucky Mineral (S1) (LRR N,
MLRA 147, 148)
❑ Sandy Gleyed Matrix (S4)
❑ Sandy Redox (S5)
❑ Stripped Matrix (S6)
Restrictive Layer (if observed):
Tvpe:
Depth (inches):
Remarks:
RM=Reduced Matrix, MS=Masked Sand Grains.
2Location: PL=Pore Lining, M=Matrix.
Indicators for Problematic Hydric Sc
❑ Dark Surface (S7)
❑ 2 cm Muck (A10) (MLRA 147)
❑ Polyvalue Below Surface (S8) (MLRA 147, 148)
❑ Coast Prairie Redox (A16)
❑ Thin Dark Surface (S9) (MLRA 147, 148)
(MLRA 147, 148)
❑ Loamy Gleyed Matrix (F2)
0 Piedmont Floodplain Soils (F19)
❑✓ Depleted Matrix (F3)
(MLRA 136, 147)
❑ Redox Dark Surface (F6)
❑ Very Shallow Dark Surface (TF12)
❑ Depleted Dark Surface (F7)
❑ Other (Explain in Remarks)
_❑ Redox Depressions (F8)
❑ Iron -Manganese Masses (F12) (LRR N,
MLRA 136)
❑ Umbric Surface (F13) (MLRA 136, 122) 3Indicators of hydrophytic vegetation and
❑ Piedmont Floodplain Soils (F19) (MLRA 148) wetland hydrology must be present,
❑ Red Parent Material (F21) (MLRA 127, 147) unless disturbed or problematic.
Hydric Soil Present? Yes ✓❑ No ❑
US Army Corps of Engineers Eastern Mountains and Piedmont —Version 2.0

Environmental Constraints Report Cary Triangle Expressway 230kV Substation Project
APPENDIX D
REPRESENTATIVE PHOTOGRAPHS
Duke Energy September 2022

Client: Duke Progress Energy
Project: Cary Triangle Expressway 230kV Substation PHOTOGRAPH LOG
Client Project #: E21026501
Photo ID: Date:
1 07/05/2022
Direction: North
Feature:
Parcel 0734229754
Western Plat
Description:
View looking at the
western plat taken
from the southwest
corner
Photo ID: Date:
2 07/05/2022
Direction: South
Feature:
Parcel 0734229754
Western Plat
Description:
View looking at the
adjoining property
located to the south
taken from the
southwest corner.

Client: Duke Progress Energy
Project: Cary Triangle Expressway 230kV Substation PHOTOGRAPH LOG
Client Project #: E21026501
Photo ID: Date:
3 07/05/2022
Direction: South
Feature:
Parcel 0734229754
Western Plat
Description:
View looking at the
western plat taken
from the northwest
corner
Photo ID: Date:
4 07/05/2022
Direction: West
Feature:
Parcel 0734229754
Western Plat
Description:
View looking at the
adjoining property
located to the west
taken from the
northwest corner.

J.
WM.Fri r
0?.��, 'a( �{�
�euz v � ,!r 4 a ��r r � •' �z�d��� �. ���'�,� �' S } � 1 11N :,�s fr 4>�� i' r r r j�����+t4��t�t�
•�i' - f!'•'i��i.1�y�° n ��". �4.���"• r�/ 1 ��yySa ;{S�r1z � Me���il yr,F�- '1'+'f r�',�'�R
j F , � c i AFi � ( 1I�r l�p�]o.,�'��s: ,� y fi• �F��'i���t�' ���'���} � s �l�`,•
- !� ,k,) r ?'•� l��"A7 `�rill

Client: Duke Progress Energy
Project: Cary Triangle Expressway 230kV Substation PHOTOGRAPH LOG
Client Project #: E21026501
Photo ID: Date:
7 07/05/2022
Direction: North
Feature:
Parcel 0734229754
Western Plat
Description:
View looking at the
western plat taken
from the southeast
corner. An overhead
electric transmission
line easement is
located along the
entire eastern portion
of this plat.
Photo ID: Date:
8 07/05/2022
Direction: East
Feature:
Parcel 0734229754
Western Plat
Description:
View looking at the
adjoining property
located to the east
taken from the
southeast corner. A
four -lane highway (I-
540) is parallel to the
entire eastern portion
of this plat.

Client: Duke Progress Energy
Project: Cary Triangle Expressway 230kV Substation PHOTOGRAPH LOG
Client Project #: E21026501
Photo ID: Date:
9 07/05/2022
Direction: North
Feature:
Parcel 0734229754
Western Plat
Description:
View looking at the
western plat taken
from the center of the
property.
Photo ID: Date:
10 07/05/2022
Direction: South
Feature:
Parcel 0734229754
Western Plat
Description:
View looking at the
western plat taken
from the center of the
property.

VIC
'Mg-4
LAI
a
PR7
�: - - -10

Client: Duke Progress Energy
Project: Cary Triangle Expressway 230kV Substation PHOTOGRAPH LOG
Client Project #: E21026501
Photo ID: Date:
13 07/12/2022
Direction: North
Feature:
Parcel 0734229754
Eastern Plat
Description:
View looking at the
eastern plat taken
from the center of the
property.
Photo ID: Date:
14 07/12/2022
Direction: South
Feature:
Parcel 0734229754
Eastern Plat
Description:
View looking at the
eastern plat taken
from the center of the
property.

To
ia-
5 1
ru_. --4� - 44,
44
"Va
-AA

Client: Duke Progress Energy
Project: Cary Triangle Expressway 230kV Substation PHOTOGRAPH LOG
Client Project #: E21026501
Photo ID: Date:
17 07/12/2022
Direction: North
Feature:
Parcel 0734229754
Eastern Plat
Description:
View looking at the
eastern plat taken
from the southwest
corner of the property.
Photo ID: Date:
18 07/12/2022
Direction: South
Feature:
Parcel 0734229754
Eastern Plat
Description:
View looking at the
eastern plat taken
from the northwest
corner of the property.