20150771 Ver 1_401 Application_20150815

I 1 I I
1611
TIr
o`'�� WA 7-f �c
o Niii� -c
A. Applicant Information
1. Processing
Office Use Only:
Corps action ID no.
DWQ project no.
Form Version 1.4 January 2009
Pre - Construction Notification (PCN) Form
1 a. Type(s) of approval sought from the Corps: ❑X Section 404 Permit ❑ Section 10 Permit
1 b. Specify Nationwide Permit (NWP) number: 3a /3c or General Permit (GP) number:
1c. Has the NWP or GP number been verified by the Corps? ❑ Yes ❑X No
1 d. Type(s) of approval sought from the DWQ (check all that apply):
❑ 401 Water Quality Certification — Regular ❑ Non -404 Jurisdictional General Permit
❑ 401 Water Quality Certification — Express ❑ Riparian Buffer Authorization
1 e. Is this notification solely for the record For the record only for DWQ For the record only for Corps Permit:
because written approval is not required? 401 Certification:
❑ Yes X❑ No ❑ Yes ❑X No
1f. Is payment into a mitigation bank or in -lieu fee program proposed for
mitigation of impacts? If so, attach the acceptance letter from mitigation bank ❑ Yes ❑X No
or in -lieu fee program.
1 g. Is the project located in any of NC's twenty coastal counties. If yes, answer 1 h ❑ Yes ❑X No
below.
1 h. Is the project located within a NC DCM Area of Environmental Concern (AEC)? ❑ Yes ❑X No
2. Project Information
2a. Name of project: H.F. Lee Active Ash Pond Dam (High Hazard) Slope Stabilization Tree Clearing
2b. County: Wayne
2c. Nearest municipality / town: Goldsboro
2d. Subdivision name: N/A
2e. NCDOT only, T.I.P. or state project no: N/A
3. Owner Information
3a. Name(s) on Recorded Deed: Duke Energy Progress, LLC
3b. Deed Book and Page No. DB 912 & PG 178; DB 939 & PG 3; DB 1024 & PG 565; DB 2819 & PG 766
3c. Responsible Party (for LLC if Alex Papp
applicable):
3d. Street address: 1677 Old Smithfield Road
3e. City, state, zip: Goldsboro, North Carolina 27530
3f. Telephone no.: 919 - 881 -3731
3g. Fax no.:
3h. Email address: Alex.Papp @duke - energy.com
Page 1 of 10
PCN Form — Version 1.4 January 2009

4.
Applicant Information (if different from owner)
4a.
Applicant is:
❑X Agent ❑ Other, specify:
4b.
Name:
Steve Cahoon, Senior Environmental Specialist
4c.
Business name
Duke Energy Progress, LLC
(if applicable):
4d.
Street address:
411 Fayetteville Street
4e.
City, state, zip:
Raleigh, NC 27601
4f.
Telephone no.:
919 - 546 -7457 (office) & 919 - 632 -0129 (cell)
4g.
Fax no.:
919 - 546 -4409
4h.
Email address:
Steve.Cahoon @duke - energy.com
5.
Agent /Consultant Information (if applicable)
5a.
Name:
David J. Vance, P.G.
5b.
Business name
Geosyntec Consultants, Inc.
(if applicable):
5c.
Street address:
1255 Roberts Blvd NW, Suite 200
5d.
City, state, zip:
Kennesaw, GA 30144
5e.
Telephone no.:
678 - 202 -9612
5f.
Fax no.:
678- 202 -9501
5g.
Email address:
dvance @geosyntec.com
Page 2 of 10

B. Project Information and Prior Project History
1. Property Identification
1a. Property identification no. (tax PIN or parcel ID): 12579364163;2579551995;2579654670;2579754933
1 b. Site coordinates (in decimal degrees): I Latitude: 35.383644 Longitude: - 78.074003
1c.
Property size:
233 acres
2.
Surface Waters
2a.
Name of nearest body of water to proposed project:
Neuse River
2b.
Water Quality Classification of nearest receiving water:
WS -IV; NSW
2c.
River basin:
Neuse River
3. Project Description
3a. Describe the existing conditions on the site and the general land use in the vicinity of the project at the time of this
application:
Please refer to PCN Cover Letter. The Geosyntec Design Report submitted to NCDENR is available upon request.
3b. List the total estimated acreage of all existing wetlands on the property: 36.42
3c. List the total estimated linear feet of all existing streams (intermittent and perennial) on the property: 7,604
3d. Explain the purpose of the proposed project:
Perform exterior dike slope and toe tree and shrub removal at the active ash pond to allow visual monitoring of dike slope and toe.
3e. Describe the overall project in detail, including the type of equipment to be used:
Please refer to PCN Cover Letter.
4. Jurisdictional Determinations
4a. Have jurisdictional wetland or stream determinations by the ❑X Yes ❑ No ❑ Unknown
Corps or State been requested or obtained for this property /
ro ect (including all prior phases) in the past?
Comments: Requested but not received to date.
P 1 (� 9 P� P )� P �
4b. If the Corps made the jurisdictional determination, what type ❑ preliminary ❑ Final
of determination was made?
4c. If yes, who delineated the jurisdictional areas? Agency /Consultant Company:
Name (If known): Mr. Dicky Harmon Other: AMEC - Foster Wheeler
4d. If yes, list the dates of the Corps jurisdictional determinations or State determinations and attach documentation.
USACE site inspection 04/01/2015, follow up USACE site inspection 04/21/2015
5. Project History
5a. Have permits or certifications been requested or obtained for ❑X Yes ❑ No ❑ Unknown
this project (including all prior phases) in the past?
5b. If yes, explain in detail according to "help file" instructions.
Nationwide 7 - Action ID - SAW- 2015 - 01120, Application Date - 04/30/2015, DWQ Project Number - Unknown Permit Issued - 05/28/2015 - Placement
6. Future Project Plans
6a. Is this a phased project?
6b. If yes, explain.
❑ Yes ❑X No
Page 3 of 10
PCN Form — Version 1.4 January 2009
L

C. Proposed Impacts Inventory
1. Impacts Summary
1 a. Which sections were completed below for your project (check all that apply)
❑X Wetlands ❑ Streams
— tributaries ❑ Buffers ❑ Open Waters ❑ Pond Construction
2. Wetland Impacts
If there are wetland impacts proposed on
the site, then complete this question for each wetland area impacted.
2a. 2b.
2c. 2d. 2e.
2f.
Wetland impact Type of impact
Type of wetland Forested Type of jurisdiction
Area of
number
Corps (404,10) or
impact
Permanent (P) or
DWQ (401, other)
(acres)
Temporary (T)
W1 T Land Clearing
Bottomland Hardwood Forest No Corps
0.166
W2 P Land Clearing
Bottomland Hardwood Forest Yes Corps
0.027
W3 T Land Clearing
Bottomland Hardwood Forest No Corps
0.0051
W4 P Land Clearing
Bottomland Hardwood Forest Yes Corps
0.0006
W5 T Land Clearing
Bottomland Hardwood Forest No Corps
0.053
W6 P Land Clearing
Bottomland Hardwood Forest Yes /No Corps
0.041
2g. Total Wetland Impacts:
0.293
2h. Comments:
W1 = Wetland HBA, temporary access for clearing trees; W2 = Wetland HBA, Forested portion to be mechanically cleared but not grubbed;
W3 = HBB
(0.0001 ac) and HBD (0.005 ac), temporary access for clearing trees; W4 = Wetland fringe of Tributary LC1; W5 = Wetland Fringe of LC1
existing
maintained herbaceous wetlands; W6 = Wetland
Fringe and existing trees growing within Tributary LC1 (no linear footage assigned since
the
temporary impact area is asymmetric in shape along the channel and its wetland fringe, and the channel is not being disturbed).
3. Stream Impacts
If there are perennial or intermittent stream
impacts (including temporary impacts) proposed on the site, then complete this
question for all stream sites impacted.
3a. 3b.
3c. 3d. 3e. 3f.
3g.
Stream impact Type of impact
Stream name Perennial (PER) or Type of Average
Impact
number
intermittent (INT)? jurisdiction stream
length
Permanent (P) or
width
(linear
Temporary (T)
(feet)
feet)
S1 - Choose one
-
S2 - Choose one
-
S3 - Choose one
-
S4 - Choose one
-
S5 - Choose one
-
S6 - Choose one
-
3i. Comments:
3h. Total stream and tributary impacts
Page 4 of 10
PCN Form — Version 1.4 January 2009

4. Open Water Impacts
If there are proposed impacts to lakes, ponds, estuaries, tributaries, sounds, the Atlantic Ocean, or any other open water of
the U.S. then individually list all open water impacts below.
4a. 4b.
4c.
4d. 4e.
Open water Name of waterbody
B3 -
Yes /No
impact number (if applicable)
Type of impact
Waterbody Area of impact (acres)
Permanent (P) or
B6 -
type
Temporary (T)
6h. Total Buffer Impacts:
6i. Comments:
01
Choose one
Choose
O2 -
Choose one
Choose
03 -
Choose one
Choose
O4 -
Choose one
Choose
4f. Total open water impacts
4g. Comments: NU F KUF U5tu IMFAU i 5
5. Pond or Lake Construction
If pond or lake construction proposed, then complete the chart below.
5a. 5b. 5c. 5d. 5e.
Pond ID number Proposed use or Wetland Impacts (acres) Stream Impacts (feet) Upland
purpose of pond (acres)
Flooded Filled Excavated Flooded Filled Excavated
P1 Choose one
P2 Choose one
5f. Total:
5g. Comments: NO PROPOSED IMPACTS
5h. Is a dam high hazard permit required? ❑ Yes ❑ No If yes, permit ID no:
5i. Expected pond surface area (acres):
5j. Size of pond watershed (acres):
5k. Method of construction:
6. Buffer Impacts (for DWQ)
If project will impact a protected riparian buffer, then complete the chart below. If yes, then individually list all buffer impacts
below. If any impacts require mitigation, then you MUST fill out Section D of this form.
6a. Project is in which protected basin? ❑ Neuse ❑ Tar - Pamlico ❑ Catawba ❑ Randleman ❑ Other:
6b. 6c. 6d. 6e. 6f. 6g.
Buffer Impact Reason for impact Stream name Buffer Zone 1 Zone 2
number — mitigation impact impact
Permanent (P) or required? (square (square
Temporary (T) feet) feet)
B1
Yes /No
B2 -
Yes /No
B3 -
Yes /No
B4 -
Yes /No
B5 -
Yes /No
B6 -
Yes /No
6h. Total Buffer Impacts:
6i. Comments:
Page 5 of 10

D. Impact Justification and Mitigation
1. Avoidance and Minimization
1a. Specifically describe measures taken to avoid or minimize the proposed impacts in designing project.
Please refer to PCN Report, Section 12.
1 b. Specifically describe measures taken to avoid or minimize the proposed impacts through construction techniques.
Please refer to PCN Report, Section 12.
2. Compensatory Mitigation for Impacts to Waters of the U.S. or Waters of the State
2a. Does the project require Compensatory Mitigation for ❑ Yes ❑X No
impacts to Waters of the U.S. or Waters of the State?
2b. If yes, mitigation is required by (check all that apply)
2c. If yes, which mitigation option will be used for this
project?
3. Complete if Using a Mitigation Bank
3a. Name of Mitigation Bank:
❑ DWQ ❑ Corps
❑ Mitigation bank
❑ Payment to in -lieu fee program
❑ Permittee Responsible Mitigation
Type: Choose one Quantity:
3b. Credits Purchased (attach receipt and letter) Type: Choose one Quantity:
Type: Choose one Quantity:
Please refer to the PCN Cover Letter for justification as to why compensatory mitigation is not required.
3c. Comments:
4. Complete if Making a Payment to In -lieu Fee Program
4a. Approval letter from in -lieu fee program is attached. ❑ Yes
4b. Stream mitigation requested: linear feet
4c. If using stream mitigation, stream temperature: Choose one
4d. Buffer mitigation requested (DWQ only): square feet
4e. Riparian wetland mitigation requested: acres
4f. Non - riparian wetland mitigation requested: acres
4g. Coastal (tidal) wetland mitigation requested: acres
4h. Comments:
5. Complete if Using a Permittee Responsible Mitigation Plan
5a. If using a permittee responsible mitigation plan, provide a description of the proposed mitigation plan.
Page 6 of 10
PCN Form — Version 1.4 January 2009

6. Buffer Mitigation (State Regulated Riparian Buffer Rules) — required by DWQ
6a. Will the project result in an impact within a protected riparian buffer that requires ❑ Yes ❑X No
buffer mitigation?
6b. If yes, then identify the square feet of impact to each zone of the riparian buffer that requires mitigation. Calculate the
amount of mitigation required.
6c. 6d. 6e.
Zone Reason for impact Total impact Multiplier Required mitigation
(square feet) (square feet)
Zone 1
3 (2 for Catawba)
Zone 2 1.5
6f. Total buffer mitigation required:
6g. If buffer mitigation is required, discuss what type of mitigation is proposed (e.g., payment to private mitigation bank,
permittee responsible riparian buffer restoration, payment into an approved in -lieu fee fund).
6h. Comments:
Page 7 of 10

E. Stormwater Management and Diffuse Flow Plan (required by DWQ)
1. Diffuse Flow Plan
1a. Does the project include or is it adjacent to protected riparian buffers identified ❑X Yes ❑ No
within one of the NC Riparian Buffer Protection Rules?
1 b. If yes, then is a diffuse flow plan included? If no, explain why.
The proposed work will not change diffuse flow characteristics of the existing ground beyond the toe of
the proposed dike slope stabilization. ❑ Yes ❑X No
2. Stormwater Management Plan
2a. What is the overall percent imperviousness of this project? 0
2b. Does this project require a Stormwater Management Plan? ❑ Yes 0 No
2c. If this project DOES NOT require a Stormwater Management Plan, explain why:
This project does not trigger regulatory requirements for stormwater management beyond submittal of an erosion and sediment control plan and
issuance of a General Construction Stormwater Permit from NCDENR.
2d. If this project DOES require a Stormwater Management Plan, then provide a brief, narrative description of the plan:
N /A,
2e. Who will be responsible for the review of the Stormwater Management Plan?
3. Certified Local Government Stormwater Review
3a. In which local government's jurisdiction is this project?
3b. Which of the following locally - implemented stormwater management programs
apply (check all that apply):
3c. Has the approved Stormwater Management Plan with proof of approval been
attached?
4. DWQ Stormwater Program Review
4a. Which of the following state - implemented stormwater management programs apply
(check all that apply):
4b. Has the approved Stormwater Management Plan with proof of approval been
attached?
5. DWQ 401 Unit Stormwater Review
5a. Does the Stormwater Management Plan meet the appropriate requirements?
5b. Have all of the 401 Unit submittal requirements been met?
Wayne County Planning Department
❑ Phase II
❑X NSW
❑ USMP
0 Water Supply Watershed
❑ Other:
❑ Yes ❑ No
❑Coastal counties
❑ HQW
❑ORW
❑ Session Law 2006 -246
❑ Other:
❑ Yes 0 No
❑x Yes ❑ No
❑X Yes ❑ No
Page 8 of 10
PCN Form — Version 1.4 January 2009

F. Supplementary Information
1. Environmental Documentation (DWQ Requirement)
1 a. Does the project involve an expenditure of public (federal /state /local) funds or the ❑ Yes ❑X No
use of public (federal /state) land?
1 b. If you answered "yes" to the above, does the project require preparation of an
environmental document pursuant to the requirements of the National or State ❑ Yes ❑ No
(North Carolina) Environmental Policy Act (NEPA/SEPA)?
1c. If you answered "yes" to the above, has the document review been finalized by the
State Clearing House? (If so, attach a copy of the NEPA or SEPA final approval
letter.) ❑ Yes ❑ No
Comments:
2. Violations (DWQ Requirement)
2a. Is the site in violation of DWQ Wetland Rules (15A NCAC 2H .0500), Isolated
Wetland Rules (15A NCAC 2H .1300), DWQ Surface Water or Wetland Standards, ❑ Yes ❑X No
or Riparian Buffer Rules (15A NCAC 2B .0200)?
2b. Is this an after - the -fact permit application? ❑ Yes ❑X No
2c. If you answered "yes" to one or both of the above questions, provide an explanation of the violation(s):
3. Cumulative Impacts (DWQ Requirement)
3a. Will this project (based on past and reasonably anticipated future impacts) result in ❑ Yes ❑X No
additional development, which could impact nearby downstream water quality?
3b. If you answered "yes" to the above, submit a qualitative or quantitative cumulative impact analysis in accordance with the
most recent DWQ policy. If you answered "no," provide a short narrative description.
4. Sewage Disposal (DWQ Requirement)
4a. Clearly detail the ultimate treatment methods and disposition (non- discharge or discharge) of wastewater generated from
the proposed project, or available capacity of the subject facility.
There is no sewage disposal involvement in this project.
Page 9 of 10
PCN Form — Version 1.4 January 2009

5. Endangered Species and Designated Critical Habitat (Corps Requirement)
5a. Will this project occur in or near an area with federally protected species or ❑ Yes X❑ No
habitat?
5b. Have you checked with the USFWS concerning Endangered Species Act ❑X Yes ❑ No
impacts?
5c. If yes, indicate the USFWS Field Office you have contacted. Raleigh
5d. What data sources did you use to determine whether your site would impact Endangered Species or Designated Critical
Habitat?
U.S. Fish and Wildlife Service - IPAC and NC Wayne County list, North Carolina National Hertiage Program
6. Essential Fish Habitat (Corps Requirement)
6a. Will this project occur in or near an area designated as essential fish habitat? I ❑ Yes ❑X No
6b. What data sources did you use to determine whether your site would impact Essential Fish Habitat?
National Marine Fisheries Service, South Atlantic Fishery Management Council - Essential Fish Habitat Mapper
7. Historic or Prehistoric Cultural Resources (Corps Requirement)
7a. Will this project occur in or near an area that the state, federal or tribal
governments have designated as having historic or cultural preservation ❑ Yes ❑X No
status (e.g., National Historic Trust designation or properties significant in
North Carolina history and archaeology)?
7b. What data sources did you use to determine whether your site would impact historic or archeological resources?
North Carolina State Historic Preservation Office
8. Flood Zone Designation (Corps Requirement)
8a. Will this project occur in a FEMA- designated 100 -year floodplain?
❑X Yes ❑ No
8b. If yes, explain how project meets FEMA requirements:
The project will be performed in compliance with federal and local FEMA 100 -year floodplain requirements. The proposed Project work will not
introduce any fill into the floodplain.
8c. What source(s) did you use to make the floodplain determination?
FEMA Digital Flood Insurance Rate Map and FEMA data.
Steve Cahoon
Applicant /Agent's Printed Name Applicant/Agent's Signature Date
(Agent's signature is valid only if an authorization
letter from the applicant is provided.)
Page 10 of 10

FIGURES

Approximate Site Location
Wayne County
Ralei'
.4i -y A,hcba-
S,, ford
4,01
Faye VIRe
co Ord
L
I
Sources: Esri, HERE, DeLorme, USGS, Intermap,
increment P Corp., NRCAN, Esri Japan, METI, Esri
China (Hong Kong), Esri (Thailand), TomTom,
0 1 2
—INEENEEMENEF ------- �Miles
"Megend
I
T
Project Boundary
Active Ash Pond
8-1
N
A0
IX& 010
V-10
!,NZO
Project Location
OX& S
Existing Active P)nr
Geosplecl>
consultants
Atlanta, Georgia I June 2015
Site Location Map
Duke Energy
H.F. Lee Energy Complex
Goldsboro, Wayne County, North Carolina
"I 5
IP'
Figure
1
T
Site Location Map
Duke Energy
H.F. Lee Energy Complex
Goldsboro, Wayne County, North Carolina
"I 5
IP'
Figure
1

Halfmile Branch Project Boundary
•' -.r.
Active Ash
.. Pond
• Inactive Ash '
Ponds NeuseeRlver
Energy Complex
SAM
•r
r
a
d
x•� ., ..
. `•uy^
t
0 375 750 1,500 2,250 3,000 3,750 a. -
Feet
Legend Project Area Map
- - - -: p Geosptec
ti - - -r Property Boundary Inactive Ash Ponds Duke Energy
Project Boundary -Neuse River consultants H.F. Lee Energy Complex
Active Ash Pond Halfmile Branch Goldsboro, Wayne County, North Carolina
Atlanta, Georgia I June 2015
Figure
2

• +�
Ifto
�• IL `
Joel
ti •
0
I
rl fop
r �
� T
Ft
• .�,.
Y
•
O 1}f�� i lrlr f
• w web w� A f F
a 4 r _ —_ _ — —
l Er Qw wr.r40-•.w— l w i�. w•�w ! !. �f. 1wl�w—
.&-- -- - -w-- -- `�ww 1Err ! rs'f ! • .
wwwi!sfwwE�.tw
rww w r �i ii lril — E) w iaw
40 ! ! 4w w w v iii! lrE�s!
!A —� —il wi!!s!iwE
4w 4- ! — . r ii -w ti !
. w m w +At&1r Ai w Er as A l om.r �!•i w ice! f
J i'ri i w Ei OW i!!!!f. i liiwlEE!
ldob a
wlww
wr am. w4w-r w r ��1is•
i! i 4w
ant Neuse River
ww! w
w w w s i
r
�w
� w
!
r.
s w
w w w
i r
!a
wl.�w•r
lw.�w
r.ww!•!•wrw
r• is� � �
75
Copyright:© 2013 National Geographic Society, i-
cubed
N 0 125 250 500 750 1,000 1,250
Feet
Ohm/
Legend USGS Topographic Map
Property Boundary Geosyntec Duke Energy Figure
Project Boundary
consultants H.F. Lee Energy Complex
Active Ash Pond Goldsboro, Wayne County, North Carolina 3
Atlanta, Georgia I June 2015
N

Odd ��, •
ti e• . 1
:
Jq
- � ��•''••WaC ,' ••'••••Ke
•••
, Wt*2 ••••• ,,.
I�Irg2 Lv Ke
WhB
D r
Jo Lv WhB Ke
KaB
WhB
W WhB
;Kn Kn
Ch •.........................
e.e......... a ••
.. ...... La
'••.
NoA
N
Lv
W WA
Jo
WhA
W ;
rce: Natural Resources Conservation I 0 125250 500 750 1,000 1,250 1,500 1,750 2,000 2,250 2,500
Tice Web Soil Survey Fe
Legena
Property Boundary
Dr (Dragston loamy sand)
La (Lakeland sand)
Tr (Troup sand)
Project Boundary
Ex (Exum, very fine sandy loam)
_ Lv (Lumbee sandy loam)
0 W (Water)
Active Ash Pond
- Go (Goldsboro loamy sand)
0 Ly (Lynchburg sandy loam)
- WaC (Wagram loamy sand, 10 -15% slopes)
I- AyB2 (Aycock very fine sandy loam, 0 -2% slopes) 0 Jo (Johns sandy loam)
My (Myatt very fine sandy loam)
0 WhA (Wickham loamy sand, 0-2% slopes)
Bb (Bibb sandy loam, 0-2% slopes, frequently
flooded) 0 KaA (Kalmia loamy sand, 0-2% slopes) _ NoA (Norfolk loamy sand, 0 -2% slopes)
Wing (Wickham loamy sand, 2 -6% slopes)
Bp (Borrow pd)
O KaB (Kalmia loamy sand, 2-6% slopes) O NoB (Norfolk loamy sand, 2 -6% slopes)
Ch (Chewacla loam, 0 -2% slopes, frequently flooded) O Ke (Kenansville loamy sand)
O Nr32 (Norfolk loamy sand, 2-6% slopes, eroded)
CrB2 (Craven sandy loam, 2-6% slopes,
eroded) - Kn (Kinston loam)
® RyB2 (Ruston sandy loam, 2.6% slopes, eroded)
La
NRCS Soils Map
Duke Energy
H.F. Lee Energy Complex
Goldsboro, Wayne County, North Carolina
Geosyntec° Figure
consultants
4
Atlanta, Georgia June 2015
I

rn
0
0
Lo
T
w
w
J
LoZ
Q
0
Lo
y
0
c�
w
w
J
i
r
z
w
w
Y
0
0
0
0
Q
U
o
0
io
0
0
\ 0
0
0
0
0
\ o
0
,o
0
0
0
0,
0:
o
0
0
0
0\
0
LEGEND
o
cy
I
Lo
co
��
\ o
d
\ �n
\ \
o
L0
\ Lo
L
i o
CO
/
Lo
CO
o
r
ti
o
00
�n
00
PROPERTY LINES
N
N
\ N
N
N
N
I
N
/
N
N
N
N 59H000
N
N
N
N
N,-
�tCN
N
N
N
N
N
w
\ w
w
w
w
w
w
w
w
w
w
GRAVEL ROAD (T
'
DIKE)
'
CAROLINA
DOWER & LIGHT
\
\
\
257967765
NEUSE RIVER 50-
\
RIPARIAN BUFFET
N 597500
'
� �
/
_
PROJECT BOUND
WETLAND L
C (2.08 AC)
\ MILLS,
RALPH 28& WIFE
JURISDICTIONAL
\ \ \ \ \ \ \ \\ STREAMS TRIBUI
PROJECT
BOUNDARY
(TYP)
� °'
_ _
N 597000
VINSON, JAMES
ALLEN
\
JURISDICTIONAL
ETALS
/
\
WETLANDS
'
25793769
2
\
\
THE
1953 COMPANY LL
\
WETLA
D (DITQHr
/
2579853880
LCD1 (0
03 )
HIGH P
IN /IN
\\
/
LC1 C
EA ING
WETLAN
LBB (6.8 AC)
N 596500
\
FLOW I
IVIDE
2579364163
/
\
\
CAROLINA
POWER & LIGHT
TRIBUTARY L
- INTERMITT
NT
257975493
"
(3,988 LF/2.25
C)
WETLAND
LCD (12.0 A
)
ON,
�k/\//\
\
//
i
596000
CAROLINA
2579551
POWER & LIGHT
5
,\I
WETLAND
TLAND LBB (5.
AC)
YZA
000,
\\
WETLAND
(DITCH) LCD2
(0.03 A¢)
\
\
TRIBUTARY
LC1 - INTERMITTENT
N 595500
�,
WET L ND HB
(3.46 AC)
WETLAND
HBB
/
if (3,286
F/1.69 AC)
\
\
—N—
x�.
'19.02-3,
— —
WET
AND HBC (1.0
AC)
CAROLINA
POWER &
\
WETLAN
LBB (16.4 AC)
_
a
HT
2579
54760
'
NEUSE RI
ER
0 500' 101
N 595000
– –
– – – –
/
ACTIVE
ASH POND\
– – `
TRIB
TARY LG1 -PERENNIAL
\
SCALE IN FEET
NOTE:
(331 LF/
0.03 AC)
\
WETLAND HB
(0.16 AC)
1. WETLANDS AND STREAMS WERE
DELINEATED BY AMEC FOSTER
N 594500
`�
/
WHEELER AND ARE IN THE PROC'
\
OF BEING VERIFIED BY THE USAC
CAROLINA
POWER &LIGHT
.
/
BASED ON APRIL 1 AND 21, 2015 V
25
9623548
i
BY THE USACE.
`
ACTIVE POND EXISTING CONDITIC
N 594000
`_
–
JURISDICTIONAL STREAMS AND WETI
_!
\
_
DUKE ENERGY
H.F. LEE ENERGY COMPLEX
Geosyntec O' F
N 593500
consultants
PROJECT NO: GK5851
I JUNE 2015
DP OF
FT
Z
ARY
'ARY
)0'
-SS
E
ISITS
,NS
-ANDS
GURE

TRIBUTARY LC1 (0.053 AC. EXISTING MAINTAINED
HERBACEOUS WETLAND - CONSTRUCTION ACCESS AND MONITORING)
w
0
z
X
W
0
o r
o Q
co
T
L
O
lU
z
a
U0
z
0
a
U
L�
D /O
O
Z
O
d
W
0
Z NOTE:
w
Y WETLANDS AND TRIBUTARIES WERE
DELINEATED BY AMEC FOSTER WHEELER
i AND ARE IN THE PROCESS OF BEING
VERIFIED BY THE USACE BASED ON APRIL 1
� AND 21, 2015 VISITS BY THE USACE.
J / / / / / / / / / /
LOD
WETLAND HBA (0.166 AC EXISTING
MAINTAINED HERBACEOUS WETLAND
- CONSTRUCTION ACCESS AND
MONITORING)
D
a
^M
NN
J
FIGURE KEY MAP
// 22
/V -08 Rid 21
�FR
LEGEND
- - PROPERTY LINES
LOD LIMITS OF DISTURBANCE
GRAVEL ROAD (TOP OF DIKE)
NEUSE RIVER 50 -FT RIPARIAN BUFFER
PROJECT BOUNDARY
JURISDICTIONAL TRIBUTARY
JURISDICTIONAL TRIBUTARY- EXISTING MAINTAINED
HERBACEOUS WETLAND - CONSTRUCTION ACCESS
JURISDICTIONAL WETLANDS
HERIBACEOUS WETLAND CONSTRUICTION ACCESS
ACTIVE POND PROPOSED CONDITIONS
JURISDICTIONAL WETLANDS AND TRIBUTARIES
DUKE ENERGY
H.F. LEE ENERGY COMPLEX
0 50' Geosyntec° FIGURE
I m j cons ,tantS
SCALE: 1"=50' PROJECT NO: GK5851 I JULY 2015 6

FIGURE KEY MAP
r
F�SFRi� 21
�FR
LEGEND
— — PROPERTY LINES
LOD LIMITS OF DISTURBANCE
GRAVEL ROAD (TOP OF DIKE)
NEUSE RIVER 50 -FT RIPARIAN
BUFFER
PROJECT BOUNDARY
JURISDICTIONAL TRIBUTARY
JURISDICTIONAL WETLANDS
NO PROPOSED IMPACTS TO
WETLANDS OR TRIBUTARIES
ON THIS FIGURE
ACTIVE POND PROPOSED CONDITIONS
JURISDICTIONAL WETLANDS & TRIBUTARIES
DUKE ENERGY
H.F. LEE ENERGY COMPLEX
)ELINEATED BY AMEC FOSTER WHEELER I Geosyntec° FIGURE
\ND ARE IN THE PROCESS OF BEING 0 50'
/ERIFIED BY THE USACE BASED ON APRIL 1 I m consultants
SCALE: 1 " =50' %
AND 21, 2015 VISITS BY THE USACE. PROJECT Ivo: GK5851 I JULY 2015

.ry
nr ;
w
Y
z LOD LOD LOD
X
o NS
co
960 p0
w
J LLJ
Z
CD
C J
z
Q
� LL
Q W
Lu
(n
z
0
a
U
0
0
0
z
0
w
w
i
r
0
Z NOTE:
Y WETLANDS AND TRIBUTARIES WERE
DELINEATED BY AMEC FOSTER WHEELER
i AND ARE IN THE PROCESS OF BEING
VERIFIED BY THE USACE BASED ON APRIL 1
AND 21, 2015 VISITS BY THE USACE.
J
FIGURE KEY MAP
12
10 13
o°
(r5 8 9 14
NN 7
15
I 6 25 24
I 23 16
WETLAND LCD F 22
C/SF 21 17
20
I19 18
WETLAND (DITCH) LCD2
TRIBUTARY LC1 I
LEGEND
I
— — PROPERTY LINES
LOD LOD LOD LOD LOD LOD LOD LIMITS OF DISTURBANCE
I
I I GRAVEL ROAD (TOP OF DIKE)
NEUSE RIVER 50 -FT RIPARIAN
I BUFFER
IPROJECT BOUNDARY
I JURISDICTIONAL TRIBUTARY
I
JURISDICTIONAL WETLANDS
I
I
I
I
I NO PROPOSED IMPACTS TO
WETLANDS OR TRIBUTARIES
ION THIS FIGURE
I
I
IACTIVE POND PROPOSED CONDITIONS
I JURISDICTIONAL WETLANDS & TRIBUTARIES
DUKE ENERGY
IH.F. LEE ENERGY COMPLEX
0 50' Geosyntec° FIGURE
I m j consWtantS
SCALE: V= 50' PROJECT NO: GK5851 I JULY 2015

= ry�
w
q
w
n
N
ti
N Ss
6,600
WETLAND LCD
o
r NOTE:
U
W
w 1. WETLANDS AND TRIBUTARIES WERE
Y DELINEATED BY AMEC FOSTER
WHEELER AND ARE IN THE PROCESS
OF BEING VERIFIED BY THE USACE
BASED ON APRIL 1 AND 21, 2015 VISITS
BY THE USACE.
J
WETLAND (DITCH) LCD1
TRIBUTARY LC1
LOD LOD LOD LOD
FIGURE KEY MAP
NF� i.22
LEGEND
- - PROPERTY LINES
LOD LOD LIMITS OF DISTURBANCE
GRAVEL ROAD (TOP OF DIKE)
NEUSE RIVER 50 -FT RIPARIAN
BUFFER
PROJECT BOUNDARY
JURISDICTIONAL TRIBUTARY
JURISDICTIONAL WETLANDS
NO PROPOSED IMPACTS TO
WETLANDS OR TRIBUTARIES
ON THIS FIGURE
ACTIVE POND PROPOSED CONDITIONS
JURISDICTIONAL WETLANDS & TRIBUTARIES
DUKEENERGY
H.F. LEE ENERGY COMPLEX
0 50'
Geosyntec ` FIGURE
I m j COri3L11tantS
SCALE: 1"=50' PROJECT NO: GK5851 I JULY 2015 9
co
co
w
W
w
LLIJ
ry
z
J
_
c)
_0
LL
Q
W
W
U)
co
z
0
Q
U
L�
0
0
o
r NOTE:
U
W
w 1. WETLANDS AND TRIBUTARIES WERE
Y DELINEATED BY AMEC FOSTER
WHEELER AND ARE IN THE PROCESS
OF BEING VERIFIED BY THE USACE
BASED ON APRIL 1 AND 21, 2015 VISITS
BY THE USACE.
J
WETLAND (DITCH) LCD1
TRIBUTARY LC1
LOD LOD LOD LOD
FIGURE KEY MAP
NF� i.22
LEGEND
- - PROPERTY LINES
LOD LOD LIMITS OF DISTURBANCE
GRAVEL ROAD (TOP OF DIKE)
NEUSE RIVER 50 -FT RIPARIAN
BUFFER
PROJECT BOUNDARY
JURISDICTIONAL TRIBUTARY
JURISDICTIONAL WETLANDS
NO PROPOSED IMPACTS TO
WETLANDS OR TRIBUTARIES
ON THIS FIGURE
ACTIVE POND PROPOSED CONDITIONS
JURISDICTIONAL WETLANDS & TRIBUTARIES
DUKEENERGY
H.F. LEE ENERGY COMPLEX
0 50'
Geosyntec ` FIGURE
I m j COri3L11tantS
SCALE: 1"=50' PROJECT NO: GK5851 I JULY 2015 9

ro
TRIBUTARY LC1
LOD LOD LOD LOD LOD LOD
FIGURE KEY MAP
../
LEGEND
- - PROPERTY LINES
LOD LIMITS OF DISTURBANCE
GRAVEL ROAD (TOP OF DIKE)
NEUSE RIVER 50 -FT RIPARIAN
BUFFER
PROJECT BOUNDARY
JURISDICTIONAL TRIBUTARY
NO PROPOSED IMPACTS TO
WETLANDS OR TRIBUTARIES
ON THIS FIGURE
ACTIVE POND PROPOSED CONDITIONS
JURISDICTIONAL WETLANDS & TRIBUTARIES
DUKEENERGY
H.F. LEE ENERGY COMPLEX
0 50' Geosyntec° FIGURE
I m j consWtantS
SCALE: 1"=50' PROJECT NO: GK5851 I JULY 2015 1 O
V
C- 916SO0
Y
�
o
OD
OD LOD
X
w
0
0
w
cow
w
LLj
L,z
w
ry
z
0
z
J
<
a
_
c)
LL
�
Ln
Ln
Q
W
Y
U
W
v '
N
Z
0
Q
U
L�
0
0
0
Z
0
a
w
w
r
NOTE:
CD
Of
w
w
1.
WETLANDS AND TRIBUTARIES WERE
Y
DELINEATED BY AMEC FOSTER
WHEELER AND ARE IN THE PROCESS
OF BEING VERIFIED BY THE USACE
o
BASED ON APRIL 1 AND 21, 2015 VISITS
J
BY THE USACE.
TRIBUTARY LC1
LOD LOD LOD LOD LOD LOD
FIGURE KEY MAP
../
LEGEND
- - PROPERTY LINES
LOD LIMITS OF DISTURBANCE
GRAVEL ROAD (TOP OF DIKE)
NEUSE RIVER 50 -FT RIPARIAN
BUFFER
PROJECT BOUNDARY
JURISDICTIONAL TRIBUTARY
NO PROPOSED IMPACTS TO
WETLANDS OR TRIBUTARIES
ON THIS FIGURE
ACTIVE POND PROPOSED CONDITIONS
JURISDICTIONAL WETLANDS & TRIBUTARIES
DUKEENERGY
H.F. LEE ENERGY COMPLEX
0 50' Geosyntec° FIGURE
I m j consWtantS
SCALE: 1"=50' PROJECT NO: GK5851 I JULY 2015 1 O

Ld
Y
0
z
X
w
_
0
0
co
_
T
w
J
_
N
U'
z_
of
Q
Ln
Y
U
N
Z
0
Q
U
L�
0
0
0
z
0
a
w
w
r
Of
Of
W
z
Y
0
i
0
0
0
a
U
J
a.
N
44//
Z
2
U
Q
75
NOTE:
1. V�
D
OF BEING VERIFIED BY THE USACE
BASED ON APRIL 1 AND 21, 2015 VISITS
BY THE USACE.
Z v — – – — –I-
�5z
TRIBUTARY LC1
Leo
ryN
FIGURE KEY MAP
r12
11
0
V1,
9
rn.
7
25 24
q-2
NF Rid 21
�FR
19 N 18
LEGEND
– – PROPERTY LINES
LOD
LOD LIMITS OF DISTURBANCE
GRAVEL ROAD (TOP OF DIKE)
® ® ® ® ®® NEUSE RIVER 50 -FT RIPARIAN
BUFFER
PROJECT BOUNDARY
JURISDICTIONAL TRIBUTARY
/
/
/I
0 50'
SCALE: 1"=50'
NO PROPOSED IMPACTS TO
WETLANDS OR TRIBUTARIES
ON THIS FIGURE
ACTIVE POND PROPOSED CONDITIONS
JURISDICTIONAL WETLANDS & TRIBUTARIES
DUKEENERGY
H.F. LEE ENERGY COMPLEX
Geosyntec ` FIGURE
consultants
PROJECT NO: GK5851 I JULY 2015 11

elm
LL'
F 5 7000
z
X D
Ld
= LO
O
g / SOD
SOD
WETLAND LCC J
/
`TRIBUTARY LC1
/
/
LOD LOD
SOD
/
/ \,Op
`Op
-Op
w /
Ld
J /
cn
Ln /
z /
a
0
i
Lc) m /
Lc
N
O G) /n
/
Q � z
/
U
z
a
Li \ /
Li
r NOTE:
O
Of
w
w 1. WETLANDS AND TRIBUTARIES WERE
Y DELINEATED BY AMEC FOSTER
WHEELER AND ARE IN THE PROCESS
OF BEING VERIFIED BY THE USACE
BASED ON APRIL 1 AND 21, 2015 VISITS
BY THE USACE.
J
HIGH POINT IN
LC1 CREATING
FLOW DIVIDE -
/O
N�W
\
\
\
\
\
\
FIGURE KEY MAP
r
NFL i.22
� v MFR
.✓
\
\ LEGEND
400 \ - - PROPERTY LINES
\
\ LOD LIMITS OF DISTURBANCE
<1 GRAVEL ROAD (TOP OF DIKE)
06
NEUSE RIVER 50 -FT RIPARIAN
BUFFER
PROJECT BOUNDARY
JURISDICTIONAL TRIBUTARY
C
JURISDICTIONAL WETLANDS
NO PROPOSED IMPACTS TO
WETLANDS OR TRIBUTARIES
ON THIS FIGURE
ACTIVE POND PROPOSED CONDITIONS
JURISDICTIONAL WETLANDS & TRIBUTARIES
DUKEENERGY
H.F. LEE ENERGY COMPLEX
0 50' Geosyntec° FIGURE
I m j cons ,tantS
12
SCALE: 1"=50' PROJECT NO: GK5851 I JULY 2015

s,
o LOD � --
�— LOD
z
X
0
°I/ 1
0
F.,
w �W
J rnL�
u m
C)
a
0
' r
rn m
z N 6S4p
0
a
U
L�
0
0
°I I
Li ILi
r NOTE:
w
w 1. WETLANDS AND TRIBUTARIES WERE
Y DELINEATED BY AMEC FOSTER
o WHEELER AND ARE IN THE PROCESS
OF BEING VERIFIED BY THE USACE
BASED ON APRIL 1 AND 21, 2015 VISITS
BY THE USACE.
J
LOD LOD LOD
TRIBUTARY LC1
WETLAND LBB
00
O�
Z
,1
FIGURE KEY MAP
.✓
LEGEND
- - PROPERTY LINES
LOD LIMITS OF DISTURBANCE
GRAVEL ROAD (TOP OF DIKE)
NEUSE RIVER 50 -FT RIPARIAN
BUFFER
PROJECT BOUNDARY
//� JURISDICTIONAL TRIBUTARY
\ \ JURISDICTIONAL WETLANDS
0 50'
SCALE: 1"=50'
NO PROPOSED IMPACTS TO
WETLANDS OR TRIBUTARIES
ON THIS FIGURE
ACTIVE POND PROPOSED CONDITIONS
JURISDICTIONAL WETLANDS & TRIBUTARIES
DUKEENERGY
H.F. LEE ENERGY COMPLEX
GeosyntecO FIGURE
consultants
13
PROJECT NO: GK5851 I JULY 2015

F22j 0
n
o°
moo/2
'N\
'I \ \%
z
L
LOD LOD —
X
W
0
0
0
U
_
co
W
co
W
W
=
Z
Lu
'
J
ry
Q
=
Uo
�
—
LL
Q
Lu
0
w
U)
Z
0
Q
U
0
0
0
z
0
a
w
w
r
NOTE:
0
W
w
1.
WETLANDS AND TRIBUTARIES WERE
Y
DELINEATED BY AMEC FOSTER
D
WHEELER AND ARE IN THE PROCESS
OF BEING VERIFIED BY THE USACE
BASED ON APRIL 1 AND 21, 2015 VISITS
J
BY THE USACE.
WETLAND LBB
TRIBUTARY LC1
LOD
L
FIGURE KEY MAP
12
11
10 13
8 \ 9 14
15
\ 6_ 25 24
\ 23 16
22
F(�SFR /�F 21 17
20
\ 19
LEGEND
PROPERTY LINES
LOD LOD LOD LOD
LOD LIMITS OF DISTURBANCE
oo° GRAVEL ROAD (TOP OF DIKE)
�0
NEUSE RIVER 50 -FT RIPARIAN
BUFFER
PROJECT BOUNDARY
JURISDICTIONAL TRIBUTARY
y JURISDICTIONAL WETLANDS
NO PROPOSED IMPACTS TO
WETLANDS OR TRIBUTARIES
ON THIS FIGURE
ACTIVE POND PROPOSED CONDITIONS
JURISDICTIONAL WETLANDS & TRIBUTARIES
DUKEENERGY
H.F. LEE ENERGY COMPLEX
0 50' Geosyntec ` FIGURE
I m j cons ltantS
SCALE: 1"=50' PROJECT NO: GK5851 I JULY 2015 14

o°
°°
2
'N�i
WETLAND LBB
0
w
Y
z LOD LOD LOD
w
L01-1 /
co
01 I
T%
Ld
w
a
=
�U
0
Ur
�
Lc)
Q
w
CD
M,
z
0
Q
U
L�
0
0
°I I
Li Iw
r NOTE:
U
of
W
w 1. WETLANDS AND TRIBUTARIES WERE
Y DELINEATED BY AMEC FOSTER
WHEELER AND ARE IN THE PROCESS
OF BEING VERIFIED BY THE USACE
BASED ON APRIL 1 AND 21, 2015 VISITS
BY THE USACE.
J
\ FIGURE KEY MAP
12
11
10 13
9
8 14
WETLAND LBB 7
15
6 25 24
23 16
22
21 17
MFR 20
19 18
TRIBUTARY LC1
LEGEND
- - PROPERTY LINES
LOD LOD -- LOD LOD LOD LOD LOD LOD LIMITS OF DISTURBANCE
GRAVEL ROAD (TOP OF DIKE)
0
o NEUSE RIVER 50 -FT RIPARIAN
ho BUFFER
2
PROJECT BOUNDARY
JURISDICTIONAL TRIBUTARY
y JURISDICTIONAL WETLANDS
NO PROPOSED IMPACTS TO
WETLANDS OR TRIBUTARIES
ON THIS FIGURE
ACTIVE POND PROPOSED CONDITIONS
JURISDICTIONAL WETLANDS & TRIBUTARIES
DUKEENERGY
H.F. LEE ENERGY COMPLEX
0 50' Geosyntec ` FIGURE
"emm" consWtantS
SCALE: 1"=50' PROJECT NO: GK5851 I JULY 2015 15

\�40
o°
h
w =
Y
o
LOD LOD LOD LOD
X
W
co
L�
0
0
w
T.,
Lo
w LL, r
J
Z Lu
N
a = 0
U
�
o _
IL
°Q w
CD 5 iii
J'
z
0
Q
U
L�
0
0
a° I I
w Iw
r NOTE:
w
w 1. WETLANDS AND TRIBUTARIES WERE
Y DELINEATED BY AMEC FOSTER
WHEELER AND ARE IN THE PROCESS
OF BEING VERIFIED BY THE USACE
BASED ON APRIL 1 AND 21, 2015 VISITS
BY THE USACE.
J
WETLAND LBB
\ FIGURE KEY MAP
12
11
10 13
9
8 14
7
15
\ 6_ 25 24
X, 23 16
22
F(�SFR /�F 21 17
��'� R 20
19 18
LEGEND
L LOD - - PROPERTY LINES
LOD LIMITS OF DISTURBANCE
GRAVEL ROAD (TOP OF DIKE)
NEUSE RIVER 50 -FT RIPARIAN
BUFFER
s�
PROJECT BOUNDARY
TRIBUTARY LC1 JURISDICTIONAL TRIBUTARY
\ I JURISDICTIONAL WETLANDS
NO PROPOSED IMPACTS TO
WETLANDS OR TRIBUTARIES
ON THIS FIGURE
ACTIVE POND PROPOSED CONDITIONS
JURISDICTIONAL WETLANDS & TRIBUTARIES
DUKEENERGY
H.F. LEE ENERGY COMPLEX
0 50' Geosyntec° FIGURE
I m j consWtantS
SCALE: 1"=50' PROJECT NO: GK5851 I JULY 2015 16

Iml
w
Y
° D
cnz
cn
X
w
0
_
0
co
T
W ) U
M
'm
z -n
a G)°
C
Ln
Ln
�m
U
Z
0
a
U
L�
°
O
°
Z
O
d
W
W
- NOTE:
CD
Of
W
F
D
C�
r
Z
m
wry
LOD LOD
w 1. WETLANDS AND TRIBUTARIES WERE
Y DELINEATED BY AMEC FOSTER
WHEELER AND ARE IN THE PROCESS
OF BEING VERIFIED BY THE USACE
BASED ON APRIL 1 AND 21, 2015 VISITS
BY THE USACE.
J
vow
WETLAND LBB
WETLAND HBD
TRIBUTARY LC1 (0.041 AC TREE CLEARING
FOR CONSTRUCTION ACCESS AND
MONITORING)
o°
FIGURE KEY MAP
NFL i.22
� v MFR
../
LEGEND
- - PROPERTY LINES
LOD LIMITS OF DISTURBANCE
GRAVEL ROAD (TOP OF DIKE)
— — NEUSE RIVER 50 -FT RIPARIAN BUFFER
PROJECT BOUNDARY
JURISDICTIONAL TRIBUTARY
JURISDICTIONAL TRIBUTARY (TREE
CLEARING FOR CONSTRUCTION
ACCESS)
JURISDICTIONAL WETLANDS
ACTIVE POND PROPOSED CONDITIONS
JURISDICTIONAL WETLANDS & TRIBUTARIES
DUKEENERGY
H.F. LEE ENERGY COMPLEX
Geosyntec ` FIGURE
0 50'
I j COri3L11tantS
emm 17
SCALE: 1"=50' PROJECT NO: GK5851 I JULY 2015

p
w
Y
U
z
U)
X
Ld
0
0
co
W
J
_r N
S
cn
S ,oO
a
Ln
Ln
2
z
0
a
U
L�
O
0I I I
w I I
w
r NOTE:
w
TRIBUTARY LC1
OA
0
col_
Wit}•:._ � - - - '� •�.. •r .. : ��� T ."
WETLAND HBD (0.005 AC EXISTING MAINTAINED
HERBACEOUS WETLAND
- CONSTRUCTION ACCESS AND MONITORING)/
Mq T
S� /c�RF pvi
w 1. WETLANDS AND TRIBUTARIES WERE
Y DELINEATED BY AMEC FOSTER
WHEELER AND ARE IN THE PROCESS
OF BEING VERIFIED BY THE USACE
BASED ON APRIL 1 AND 21, 2015 VISITS
BY THE USACE.
J
ti
�h�o S9�00
� � a
i
Go
O
o
li
FIGURE KEY MAP
NFL i.22
� v MFR
../
LEGEND
- - PROPERTY LINES
LOD LIMITS OF DISTURBANCE
GRAVEL ROAD (TOP OF DIKE)
- — — — — - NEUSE RIVER 50 -FT RIPARIAN BUFFER
PROJECT BOUNDARY
7�-q JURISDICTIONAL TRIBUTARY
JURISDICTIONAL WETLANDS - EXISTING
MAINTAINED HERBACEOUS WETLAND -
CONSTRUCTION ACCESS
//� JURISDICTIONAL WETLANDS
ACTIVE POND PROPOSED CONDITIONS
JURISDICTIONAL WETLANDS & TRIBUTARIES
DUKEENERGY
H.F. LEE ENERGY COMPLEX
0 50' GeoSyntec ` FIGURE
I m j cons ltantS
SCALE: 1"=50' PROJECT NO: GK5851 I JULY 2015 1

2
Y QO 00l
w QOM
L,
0
°I
0
c
T.,
w
w
J 2 L,
Z_
Q
ch
Ln
/
G
?J Z
( J
Z 0:) 0 C
Q
U
L�
s
0
0
Z
0
a
w \w
r NOTE:
w
w 1. WETLANDS AND TRIBUTARIES WERE
Y DELINEATED BY AMEC FOSTER
o WHEELER AND ARE IN THE PROCESS
/ OF BEING VERIFIED BY THE USACE
BASED ON APRIL 1 AND 21, 2015 VISITS
BY THE USACE.
J
v • -r- -%
O
�i
SE =-
��m
ti
v
N
N
O
O
O
I
00-1 00l 001
007_
0 50'
SCALE: 1"=50'
FIGURE KEY MAP
LEGEND
- - PROPERTY LINES
LOD LIMITS OF DISTURBANCE
GRAVEL ROAD (TOP OF DIKE)
NEUSE RIVER 50 -FT RIPARIAN
BUFFER
PROJECT BOUNDARY
NO PROPOSED IMPACTS TO
WETLANDS OR TRIBUTARIES
ON THIS FIGURE
ACTIVE POND PROPOSED CONDITIONS
JURISDICTIONAL WETLANDS & TRIBUTARIES
DUKEENERGY
H.F. LEE ENERGY COMPLEX
Geosyntec° FIGURE
consultants
19
PROJECT NO: GK5851 I JULY 2015

rns
00
NEUSE RIVER
L
L \ \
Y
- 401 401 401 40,
X p 401 (101 401 401 401 O�
w
0
0
T.,
w
W Cn
m
m y
Z -n
Of
C7
c =
Ln
Ln
r
m z
1 m
z
0
Q
U
L�
0
0
O
Z
O
a
w I
r NOTE:
w
w 1. WETLANDS AND TRIBUTARIES WERE
Y DELINEATED BY AMEC FOSTER
WHEELER AND ARE IN THE PROCESS
OF BEING VERIFIED BY THE USACE
BASED ON APRIL 1 AND 21, 2015 VISITS
BY THE USACE.
J
FIGURE KEY MAP
12
11
10 13
9
8 14
7
15
25 24
23 16
22
F(�SFR /�F 21 17
20
19 18
LEGEND
- - PROPERTY LINES
LOD LIMITS OF DISTURBANCE
GRAVEL ROAD (TOP OF DIKE)
NEUSE RIVER 50 -FT RIPARIAN
BUFFER
PROJECT BOUNDARY
NO PROPOSED IMPACTS TO
WETLANDS OR TRIBUTARIES
ON THIS FIGURE
ACTIVE POND PROPOSED CONDITIONS
JURISDICTIONAL WETLANDS & TRIBUTARIES
DUKEENERGY
H.F. LEE ENERGY COMPLEX
0 50' Geosyntec° FIGURE
I m j cons tantS
SCALE: 1"=50' PROJECT NO: GK5851 I JULY 2015 20

z
0 Ol o
���50
X
w
L,
0
0
w
i
P.,
w Lij
Ld
J
L Z
J
z
LnQ U
o �
LQ
u)
z
0
Q
U
L�
0
0
0
z
0
a
w Iw
r NOTE:
CD
w
O
N
N
ry
LL
W
cn
0 WE
001 (101 40l a01
w 1. WETLANDS AND TRIBUTARIES WERE
Y DELINEATED BY AMEC FOSTER
WHEELER AND ARE IN THE PROCESS
OF BEING VERIFIED BY THE USACE
BASED ON APRIL 1 AND 21, 2015 VISITS
BY THE USACE.
J
40, Q0, 40, — 00-1
40-1
FIGURE KEY MAP
22
FUSE Rid 21
`fin✓
LEGEND
PROPERTY LINES
LOD LIMITS OF DISTURBANCE
GRAVEL ROAD (TOP OF DIKE)
NEUSE RIVER 50 -FT RIPARIAN
BUFFER
PROJECT BOUNDARY
NO PROPOSED IMPACTS TO
WETLANDS OR TRIBUTARIES
ON THIS FIGURE
ACTIVE POND PROPOSED CONDITIONS
JURISDICTIONAL WETLANDS & TRIBUTARIES
DUKEENERGY
H.F. LEE ENERGY COMPLEX
0 50' Geosyntec ` FIGURE
I m j cons ltantS
SCALE: 1"=50' PROJECT NO: GK5851 I JULY 2015 21

W
J
U
Q
00
N� x NEUSERIVER
N ir
w
0
L_
W i
- - - - -- ----------- - -� - --
401 001 001 i
o �
401 401 G 1 001 a01 (101 401 0-
z
w i
L,
0-
0
0
wco
ID
w
J
w
_
N
Z_
Q
Of
Ln
Ln
Y
U
N
Z
0
Q
U
L�
0
0
O
Z
0
a
w
w
r NOTE:
Ui
w
w 1. WETLANDS AND TRIBUTARIES WERE
Y DELINEATED BY AMEC FOSTER
WHEELER AND ARE IN THE PROCESS
OF BEING VERIFIED BY THE USACE
BASED ON APRIL 1 AND 21, 2015 VISITS
BY THE USACE.
J
FIGURE KEY MAP
LOD
ri zz
FUSE Rid 21
�FR
`fin✓
LEGEND
PROPERTY LINES
LIMITS OF DISTURBANCE
GRAVEL ROAD (TOP OF DIKE)
NEUSE RIVER 50 -FT RIPARIAN
BUFFER
PROJECT BOUNDARY
NO PROPOSED IMPACTS TO
WETLANDS OR TRIBUTARIES
ON THIS FIGURE
ACTIVE POND PROPOSED CONDITIONS
JURISDICTIONAL WETLANDS & TRIBUTARIES
DUKEENERGY
H.F. LEE ENERGY COMPLEX
0 50'
GeosyntecO FIGURE
I m j consWtantS
22
SCALE: 1"=50' PROJECT NO: GK5851 I JULY 2015

o NEUSE RIVER
0
0
z
l CIO-1 aOl dOl
N
LLI
X
w
J
ry
o
=
�
a
0
U
0
LL
LLI
co vJl -
co
a
0
z
0
a
U
L�
0
0
0
z
0
a
Li ILi
r NOTE:
w
w 1. WETLANDS AND TRIBUTARIES WERE
Y DELINEATED BY AMEC FOSTER
WHEELER AND ARE IN THE PROCESS
OF BEING VERIFIED BY THE USACE
BASED ON APRIL 1 AND 21, 2015 VISITS
BY THE USACE.
J
N 595000
WETLAND HBC
QOl QOl QOl QOl QOl Q01 -
FIGURE KEY MAP
NF1 22
LEGEND
..",
— - - PROPERTY LINES
— LOD LIMITS OF DISTURBANCE
GRAVEL ROAD (TOP OF DIKE)
NEUSE RIVER 50 -FT RIPARIAN
BUFFER
PROJECT BOUNDARY
JURISDICTIONAL WETLANDS
NO PROPOSED IMPACTS TO
WETLANDS OR TRIBUTARIES
ON THIS FIGURE
ACTIVE POND PROPOSED CONDITIONS
JURISDICTIONAL WETLANDS & TRIBUTARIES
DUKEENERGY
H.F. LEE ENERGY COMPLEX
0 50' Geosyntec° FIGURE
��� cons ,tantS
SCALE: 1"=50' PROJECT NO: GK5851 I JULY 2015 23

\
\
\ WETLAND HBC
m
Ld
0
C y)
Z
W
4071 (10-1 (101
~_
W
X
_Z
J
N
ry
L,
101-
n
V
�—
LL
ui
U)
LJ
W
J
L,
CD
CD
Z
i
�I I
Z
0
Q
U
Li
0
12
°I I
w I
r NOTE:
w
w 1. WETLANDS AND TRIBUTARIES WERE
Y DELINEATED BY AMEC FOSTER
WHEELER AND ARE IN THE PROCESS
OF BEING VERIFIED BY THE USACE
BASED ON APRIL 1 AND 21, 2015 VISITS
BY THE USACE.
J
\
5 `'Sp0
N
(10
QOl QOM 40-1 a0-1�i
FIGURE KEY MAP
FUS
../
LEGEND
- - PROPERTY LINES
LOD LIMITS OF DISTURBANCE
GRAVEL ROAD (TOP OF DIKE)
NEUSE RIVER 50 -FT RIPARIAN
BUFFER
PROJECT BOUNDARY
JURISDICTIONAL WETLANDS
NO PROPOSED IMPACTS TO
WETLANDS OR TRIBUTARIES
ON THIS FIGURE
ACTIVE POND PROPOSED CONDITIONS
JURISDICTIONAL WETLANDS & TRIBUTARIES
DUKEENERGY
H.F. LEE ENERGY COMPLEX
0 50' Geosyntec° FIGURE
I m j consWtantS
SCALE: 1"=50' PROJECT NO: GK5851 I JULY 2015 24

W
Z
J
U
FR
p
QD
N 40
X
W
W
0
_
0
LL
W
z,
W
z
a
i N 595500
III
z
0
a
U
L�
O
DI
Z
O
d
W
W
r NOTE:
Ld
W
N
W
LL
CD NEUSE RIVER
CD
0
CN
-
-N-
e
o�
= Gol
WETLAND HBC (0.0006 AC TREE CLEARING FOR
CONSTRUCTION ACCESS AND MONITORING)
w 1. WETLANDS AND TRIBUTARIES WERE
Y DELINEATED BY AMEC FOSTER
o WHEELER AND ARE IN THE PROCESS
OF BEING VERIFIED BY THE USACE
BASED ON APRIL 1 AND 21, 2015 VISITS
BY THE USACE.
J
WETLAND HBB (0.0001 AC EXISTING
MAINTAINED HERBACEOUS WETLAND -
CONSTRUCTION ACCESS AND MONITORING)
WETLAND HBA (0.027 TREE CLEARING
FOR CONSTRUCTION ACCESS AND
MONITORING)
40, Q0, 40,E Q0,
FIGURE KEY MAP
FU
LEGEND
- - PROPERTY LINES
LOD LIMITS OF DISTURBANCE
GRAVEL ROAD (TOP OF DIKE)
— — — — — — NEUSE RIVER 50 -FT RIPARIAN BUFFER
PROJECT BOUNDARY
JURISDICTIONAL WETLANDS
CLEARING FOR CONSTRUCTION
JURISDICTIONAL WETLANDS -
���� EXISTING MAINTAINED HERBACEOUS
WETLAND - CONSTRUCTION ACCESS)
0 50'
SCALE: 1"=50'
ACTIVE POND PROPOSED CONDITIONS
JURISDICTIONAL WETLANDS & TRIBUTARIES
DUKEENERGY
H.F. LEE ENERGY COMPLEX
Geosyntec
consultants
PROJECT NO: GK5851 I JULY 2015
FIGURE
25

NE
i
m
0
s
i
m 00 WETLAND HBA (0.027 AC TREE CLEARING
a
o
-n FOR CONSTRUCTION ACCESS AND
G) _ MONITORING)
Y T r
m z
z
,�, m
O Cal
a
U
L�
O
O
Z
O
a
w I \\
w
r NOTE:
w
W 1. WETLANDS AND TRIBU'
Y DELINEATED BY AMEC
WHEELER AND ARE IN 1 nc rMUUrZ00
OF BEING VERIFIED BY THE USACE
BASED ON APRIL 1 AND 21, 2015 VISITS
BY THE USACE.
J
WETLAND HBA (0.166 AC EXISTING
MAINTAINED HERBACEOUS WETLAND -
CONSTRUCTION ACCESS AND
MONITORINIG)
TRIBUTARY LC1 (0.053 AC EXISTING
MAINTAINED HERBACEOUS WETLAND -
CONSTRUCTION ACCESS AND
MONITORING)
FIGURE KEY MAP
,--' 12
'\l113
8 \ !,>> 14
7
15
25 24
23 16
22
FusF RSV 21 17
20
19 18
LEGEND
I
- - PROPERTY LINES
LOD LIMITS OF DISTURBANCE
GRAVEL ROAD (TOP OF DIKE)
— — — — — NEUSE RIVER 50 -FT RIPARIAN BUFFER
/ PROJECT BOUNDARY
\ \� JURISDICTIONAL TRIBUTARY
JURISDICTIONAL TRIBUTARY -
' I \ \� EXISTING MAINTAINED HERBACEOUS
0 50'
I m "
SCALE: 1"=50'
WETLAND - CONSTRUCTION ACCESS
JURISDICTIONAL WETLANDS
JURISDICTIONAL WETLANDS -
EXISTING MAINTAINED HERBACEOUS
WETLAND - CONSTRUCTION ACCESS
JURISDICTIONAL
RING FOR CONSTRUCTION
ACCESS
ACTIVE POND PROPOSED CONDITIONS
JURISDICTIONAL WETLANDS & TRIBUTARIES
DUKEENERGY
H.F. LEE ENERGY COMPLEX
Geosyntec° FIGURE
cons ,tantS
26
PROJECT NO: GK5851 I JULY 2015
i
•®
N
Ld
Y
0
z
X
W
LZ
L,
O
O
LL
_
co
w
w
J
i
=
v, / ^
cn
m
s
i
m 00 WETLAND HBA (0.027 AC TREE CLEARING
a
o
-n FOR CONSTRUCTION ACCESS AND
G) _ MONITORING)
Y T r
m z
z
,�, m
O Cal
a
U
L�
O
O
Z
O
a
w I \\
w
r NOTE:
w
W 1. WETLANDS AND TRIBU'
Y DELINEATED BY AMEC
WHEELER AND ARE IN 1 nc rMUUrZ00
OF BEING VERIFIED BY THE USACE
BASED ON APRIL 1 AND 21, 2015 VISITS
BY THE USACE.
J
WETLAND HBA (0.166 AC EXISTING
MAINTAINED HERBACEOUS WETLAND -
CONSTRUCTION ACCESS AND
MONITORINIG)
TRIBUTARY LC1 (0.053 AC EXISTING
MAINTAINED HERBACEOUS WETLAND -
CONSTRUCTION ACCESS AND
MONITORING)
FIGURE KEY MAP
,--' 12
'\l113
8 \ !,>> 14
7
15
25 24
23 16
22
FusF RSV 21 17
20
19 18
LEGEND
I
- - PROPERTY LINES
LOD LIMITS OF DISTURBANCE
GRAVEL ROAD (TOP OF DIKE)
— — — — — NEUSE RIVER 50 -FT RIPARIAN BUFFER
/ PROJECT BOUNDARY
\ \� JURISDICTIONAL TRIBUTARY
JURISDICTIONAL TRIBUTARY -
' I \ \� EXISTING MAINTAINED HERBACEOUS
0 50'
I m "
SCALE: 1"=50'
WETLAND - CONSTRUCTION ACCESS
JURISDICTIONAL WETLANDS
JURISDICTIONAL WETLANDS -
EXISTING MAINTAINED HERBACEOUS
WETLAND - CONSTRUCTION ACCESS
JURISDICTIONAL
RING FOR CONSTRUCTION
ACCESS
ACTIVE POND PROPOSED CONDITIONS
JURISDICTIONAL WETLANDS & TRIBUTARIES
DUKEENERGY
H.F. LEE ENERGY COMPLEX
Geosyntec° FIGURE
cons ,tantS
26
PROJECT NO: GK5851 I JULY 2015

3
_• •• ••.••.• . . ....I /
e
r +•k.. ."0
Neuse River_
iFT� i tlS►�
tl
d,
0 125 250 500 750 1,000 1,250 1,500
FEMA Flood Map Service Center Feet
Legend
. • • • Property Boundary
Project Boundary
Geosyntec
Active Ash Pond
® 100 Year Flood Zones consultants
Atlanta, Georgia I June 2015
100 Year Floodplain Map
Duke Energy
H.F. Lee Energy Complex
Goldsboro, Wayne County, North Carolina
Figure
2%
♦•
l
3
_• •• ••.••.• . . ....I /
e
r +•k.. ."0
Neuse River_
iFT� i tlS►�
tl
d,
0 125 250 500 750 1,000 1,250 1,500
FEMA Flood Map Service Center Feet
Legend
. • • • Property Boundary
Project Boundary
Geosyntec
Active Ash Pond
® 100 Year Flood Zones consultants
Atlanta, Georgia I June 2015
100 Year Floodplain Map
Duke Energy
H.F. Lee Energy Complex
Goldsboro, Wayne County, North Carolina
Figure
2%

APPENDIX A
Natural Resources Technical Report by
AMEC Foster Wheeler

NATURAL RESOURCES TECHNICAL REPORT
H.F. LEE ENERGY COMPLEX
WAYNE COUNTY, NC
Prepared for:
Duke Energy Business Services, LLC
526 South Church Street — EC13K
Charlotte, NC 28202
Prepared by:
amec
foster
wheeler
AMEC Environment and Infrastructure, Inc.
4021 Stirrup Creek Drive, Suite 100
Durham, North Carolina 27703
January 30, 2015

TABLE OF CONTENTS
1.0 INTRODUCTION ................................................................................... ..............................1
2.0 PROJECT SITE DESCRIPTION ............................................................ ..............................1
3.0 METHODOLOGY .................................................................................. ..............................1
4.0 RESULTS .............................................................................................. ..............................4
5.0 CONCLUSIONS ................................................................................... .............................11
LIST OF TABLES
Table 1 Stream Classifications within the H.F. Lee Energy Complex Study Area, Wayne
County, North Carolina
Table 2 Potential for Occurrence of Federally Listed Animal Species within the H.F. Lee
Energy Complex Study Area, Wayne County, North Carolina
LIST OF FIGURES
Figure 1
Site Location Map
Figure 2
Study Area Map
Figure 3
NRCS Soils Map
Figure 4
USGS Topographic Map
Figure 5
USFWS National Wetland Inventory Map
Figure 6
Jurisdictional Waters Map
Figure 7
Threatened and Endangered Species Habitat Map
Figure 8
Cultural Resources Map
Figure 9
Floodplain Map
LIST OF APPENDICIES
Appendix A Figures
Appendix B Wetland /Stream Field Data Forms
Appendix C Photographic Log

AMEC Project No. 7810140192 Natural Resources Technical Report
January 30, 2014 Cliffside Steam Station
Cleveland and Rutherford Counties, NC
1.0 INTRODUCTION
AMEC Environment and Infrastructure, Inc. (AMEC) conducted a natural resources investigation
at the H.F. Lee Energy Complex located in Wayne County, North Carolina (Figures 1 and 2) per
the scope of work outlined in eMax Purchase Order No. 1089373 dated November 21, 2014.
AMEC also conducted a threatened and endangered species habitat assessment, reviewed a
database at the North Carolina Office of State Archeology for archeological resources within the
study area, and assessed any potential riparian buffers and /or regulatory floodplains within the
study area. This report documents the methodology used to assess the potential limits of U.S.
Army Corps of Engineers (USACE) jurisdictional surface waters (wetlands, streams, and other
waterbodies), results of the threatened and endangered species database review, historical
database review, and floodplain and riparian buffer assessment, assessment of the potential for
occurrence of listed plant and animal species within the study area, and presents the findings of
the field investigation.
2.0 PROJECT SITE DESCRIPTION
AMEC understands that Duke Energy is planning to perform ash basin closure activities in
proximity to three inactive ash ponds and one active ash pond at the H. F. Lee Energy Complex.
The study area of the inactive ash ponds extends from the waste boundary approximately 300
feet to the west, 100 feet to the north, 150 feet to the south, and 600 feet to the east to the west
side of the Neuse River. The study area of the active ash pond extends from the waste boundary
approximately 400 feet to the west, 150 to 300 feet to the north, 630 feet to the east, and to the
north side of the Neuse River. As specified in the above - referenced Duke Energy purchase order,
the ash basins were not assessed as part of this investigation.
3.0 METHODOLOGY
Wetland Delineation and Stream Determination
AMEC performed an in -house review of potentially jurisdictional waters within the study area
using the U.S. Department of Agriculture's Natural Resources Conservation Service (NRCS)
Wayne County Soil Survey geographic information system (GIS) data, the U.S. Geological Survey
(USGS) digital 7.5' topography (Northwest Goldsboro and Southwest Goldsboro, North Carolina
Quadrangles), and the U.S. Fish and Wildlife Service (USFWS) National Wetland Inventory (NWI)
GIS data. These maps were used to direct the on -site investigation, and highlight areas having
listed hydric soils or topographic configurations suggesting the presence of wetland or streams.
Subsequent to the in -house review, on September 29, October 1 and 2, and December 11 and
12, 2014, AMEC performed an on -site evaluation for the presence of potentially jurisdictional
surface waters within the study area. Jurisdictional waters of the U.S., such as ponds, streams,
and wetlands, are defined by 33 CFR Part 328.3(b) and are protected by Section 404 of the Clean
Water Act (33 U.S.C. § 1344). Impacts to regulated resources within the study area are
administered and enforced by the USACE, Wilmington District. Impacts to jurisdictional waters
from the proposed project would be regulated under Section 404 of the Clean Water Act.
AMEC personnel, including Professional Wetland Scientists, evaluated the potentially
jurisdictional waters using the Routine On -Site Determination Method as defined in the

AMEC Project No. 7810140192 Natural Resources Technical Report
January 30, 2014 Cliffside Steam Station
Cleveland and Rutherford Counties, NC
USACE Wetland Delineation Manual' and the Atlantic and Gulf Coastal Plain regional
supplement2. This technique uses a multi - parameter approach, which requires positive evidence
of three criteria: hydrophytic vegetation, hydric soils, and wetland hydrology. Each area identified
as a wetland was evaluated using the North Carolina Wetland Assessment Method (NC WAM)
per the methodology outlined in the NC WAM User Manual '(Version 4.1), effective October,
2010. Potential streams were evaluated using the North Carolina Department of Environment and
Natural Resources (NCDENR) Division of Water Resources' (DWR) Methodology for Identification
of Intermittent and Perennial Streams and Their Origins' (Version 4.11), effective September 1,
2010. Also, USACE Stream Quality Assessment Worksheets were completed for each stream.
The USACE Stream Quality Assessment Worksheet is intended to be used as a guide to assist
landowners and environmental professionals in gathering data required by the USACE to make a
preliminary assessment of stream quality for jurisdictional determinations. Stream characteristics
and commonly observable features resulting from geomorphic, hydrologic, and biologic
processes, along with local site features such as riparian buffers and proximity to local
disturbances, are used in this stream quality assessment to produce a numeric score.
Jurisdictional streams meeting certain criteria are subject to Neuse Basin Riparian Buffer Rules
which require a 50 -foot undisturbed buffer from the stream top -of- banks.
Areas exhibiting wetland characteristics, as well as stream and tributary systems, within the study
area were considered potentially jurisdictional waters. The landward limits of wetlands and the
linear extents of these surface waters were marked in the field with labeled survey tape tied to
vegetation or stakes. The location of each flag point was acquired using hand -held, sub -meter
accuracy Global Positioning System (GPS) devices.
Threatened and Endangered Species Review
Certain plant and animal species are protected by federal regulations [Federal Endangered
Species Act (ESA) of 1973 (16 USC 1531 -1544, December 28, 1973, as amended 1976 -1982,
1984, and 1988). AMEC accessed the USFWS Information, Planning, and Conservation System
(IPaC) database (available online at htti): / /ecos.fws.gov /ii)ac /) and the county list available on the
USFWS Raleigh Ecological Services website (htti): / /www.fws.aov /raleiQh /) to determine if any
federally listed threatened or endangered plant or animal species (including designated critical
habitat) may be in the vicinity of the study area. AMEC conducted a habitat assessment,
consisting of pedestrian reconnaissance of the plant communities and surface waters within the
study area to determine the likelihood of listed plant and animal species occurring within the study
area. Presence or absence of listed species was confirmed through direct observations or sign
(sighting, tracks, scat, nests, dens, or call). For those listed species that could potentially occur
within the study area (i.e., suitable habitat is present) and that may be readily detectable during
the time of the reconnaissance, AMEC provided a determination concerning the likelihood of the
species' occurrence within the study area.
' Environmental Laboratory. 1987. "Corps of Engineers Wetlands Delineation Manual," Technical
Report Y -87 -1. U.S. Army Engineer Waterways Experiment Station. Vicksburg, MS.
2 Environmental Laboratory. 2010. " Regional Supplement to the Corps of Engineers Wetland
Delineation Manual: Atlantic and Gulf Coastal Plain (Version 2.0)," Technical Report ERDC /EL TR-
10-20. U.S. Army Engineer Waterways Experiment Station. Vicksburg, MS.
3 N.C. Wetland Functional Assessment Team. 2010. "N.C. Wetland Assessment Method (NC WAM) User
Manual, Version 4.1 ". North Carolina Wetland Functional Assessment Team. Raleigh, NC.
4 Division of Water Quality. 2010. "Methodology for Identification of Intermittent and Perennial
Streams and their Origins, Version 4.11 ". North Carolina Department of Environment and Natural
Resources, Division of Water Quality. Raleigh, NC.
2

AMEC Project No. 7810140192
January 30, 2014
Cultural Resources Review
Natural Resources Technical Report
Cliffside Steam Station
Cleveland and Rutherford Counties, NC
Section 106 of the National Historic Preservation Act, 36 CFR Part 800 (as amended), requires
that impacts to cultural resources (archeological sites and historic structures /properties) be
considered during a federal undertaking or when a federal permit is needed for a project. Impacts
to cultural resources are regulated by the lead federal agency in cooperation with the North
Carolina State Historic Preservation Office (SHPO). In order for a cultural resource to be listed on
the National Register of Historic Places (NRHP), it must meet at least one of the following four
criteria for significance:
• be associated with events that have made a significant contribution to broad patterns of
history;
• be associated with the lives of persons significant in our past;
• embody the distinctive characteristics of a type, period, or method of construction, or that
represent the work of a master, or that possess high artistic values, or that represent a
significant and distinguishable entity whose components may lack individual distinction; or
• have yielded, or may be likely to yield, information important in prehistory or history.
AMEC conducted a cultural resource screening to assess the presence /absence of known cultural
resources and NRHP listed resources in the study area. The research included a review of
archeological files at the SHPO office and the online HPO Web GIS Service
(httD:Hgis.ncdcr.ciov /hDoweb /). Our investigation did not include field efforts to identify or verify
cultural resources within the study area.
Floodplain Review
The National Flood Insurance Program (NFIP) was created in 1968 to protect lives and property
and to reduce the financial burden of providing disaster assistance. The NFIP is administered by
the Federal Emergency Management Agency (FEMA). The NFIP is based on a mutual agreement
between the federal government and communities. In partnership with FEMA, the state has
produced flood maps in accordance with FEMA standards. Communities must adopt and enforce
minimum floodplain management regulations so that development, including buildings is
undertaken in ways that reduce exposure to flooding.
AMEC reviewed Digital Flood Insurance Rate Maps (DFIRMS) to determine if any portion of the
study area is located within the regulatory 100 -year floodplain. AMEC also reviewed the Wayne
County, North Carolina, Code of Ordinances for local government requirements for work in
floodplains (available online at
https: / /www.municode.com /library /nc /wavne countv /codes /code of ordinances).
Riparian Buffer Assessment
AMEC reviewed local and state riparian buffer regulations to determine if any portion of the study
area is subject to riparian buffer regulations. AMEC reviewed the NCDENR DWR Neuse River
Riparian Buffer Rules published in the state's administrative code at 15A NCAC 2B .0233. AMEC
also reviewed the Wayne County Code of Ordinances available online at the webpage named in
the above section.
3

AMEC Project No. 7810140192
January 30, 2014
4.0 RESULTS
Wetland Delineation and Stream Determination
Natural Resources Technical Report
Cliffside Steam Station
Cleveland and Rutherford Counties, NC
The NRCS Soil Survey (Figure 3) indicated that the soils along the outside edges of the inactive
ash ponds included: Bibb sandy loam (Bb), Chewacla loam (Ch), Goldsboro loamy sand (Go),
Johns sandy loam (Jo), Kalmia loamy sand (KaA), Kenansville loamy sand (Ke), Leaf loam (Le),
Lumbee sandy loam (Lv), Wickham loamy sand (WhB), and open water areas within the inactive
ash ponds (W). Around the outside edges of the active pond, the NRCS Soil Survey indicated the
following soils: Chewacla loam (Ch), Johns sandy loam (Jo), Kalmia loamy sand (KaB),
Kenansville loamy sand (Ke), Kinston loam (Kn), Lakeland sand (La), Lumbee sandy loam (Lv),
Wickham loamy sand, 0 to 2 percent slopes (WhA), Wickham sandy loam, 2 to 6 percent sloped
(WhB), and open water areas associated with the Neuse River and the ash ponds (W). The
NRCS classifies the Bibb sandy loam (Bb), Chewacla loam (Ch), Johns sandy loam (Jo), Kinston
loam (Kn), Leaf loam (Le), and Lumbee sandy loam (Lv) map units as hydric soils or containing
hydric soil inclusions.
The USGS topographic map (Figure 4) depicts the active ash pond but not the inactive ash
ponds. The Neuse River is shown in the vicinity of the study area as a major perennial stream.
Halfmile Branch is shown on the topographic map as a solid blue -line stream (i.e., mapped as a
perennial stream channel) between the inactive ash ponds. Two unnamed solid blue -line
tributaries are also depicted draining to Halfmile Branch. Four small ponds are indicated inside the
inactive ash ponds, while three small ponds are indicated outside of the southwest corner of the
inactive ponds study area.
During the in -house review, the USFWS NWI map (Figure 5) indicates that most of the area
adjacent to the inactive ash ponds likely contains freshwater forested /freshwater shrub or
freshwater emergent wetlands. Along the active ash pond, the southern and eastern slopes are
indicated as freshwater forested /freshwater shrub wetlands.
The field investigation, conducted on September 29, October 1 and 2, and December 11 and 12,
2014, was completed in accordance with the wetland delineation and stream classification
methodology described in Section 3.0. AMEC identified features that may be considered
jurisdictional waters of the U.S. by the USACE. Nine potentially jurisdictional wetland areas and
two potentially jurisdictional streams were identified along the inactive ash ponds. The eastern
boundary of the study area is adjacent to the Neuse River. Seven potentially jurisdictional wetland
areas and two potentially jurisdictional streams were identified along the active ash pond. The
southern boundary of the study area is adjacent to the Neuse River. The locations /limits of these
features are shown on Figure 6. Wetland delineation and stream identification field data forms are
provided in Appendix B. Photographs of current site conditions are provided in Appendix C. Note:
The limits of these features have been GPS mapped and have not been verified (inspected) by
the USACE and /or the DWR.
4

AMEC Project No. 7810140192 Natural Resources Technical Report
January 30, 2014 Cliffside Steam Station
Cleveland and Rutherford Counties, NC
Wetlands
Seven potentially jurisdictional wetland areas were delineated adjacent to the active ash pond
(Figure 6). Wetlands HBA, HBB, and HBC were located within the western portion of the study
area, between the ash pond berm toe -of -slope and the Neuse River. Though not contiguous,
these wetlands were generally similar in hydrology, vegetation, and soils. They were all located
within the Neuse River floodplain. The wetlands consisted of bottomland hardwoods dominated by
an overstory of red maple (Acer rubrum), sweetgum (Liquidambar styraciflua), sycamore
(Platanus occidentalis), river birch (Betula nigra), and water oak (Quercus nigra). The wettest
areas within the floodplain also contained swamp chestnut oak (Quercus michauxii), black willow
(Salix nigra), and baldcypress (Taxodium distichum). Shrub layer species included saplings and
small trees of overstory species, ironwood (Carpinus caroliniana), wax myrtle (Morelia cerifera),
and Chinese privet (Ligustrum sinense). Herbaceous and woody vine species included lizard's tail
(Saururus cernuus), netted chain fern (Woodwardia areolata), giant cane (Arundinaria gigantea),
soft rush (Juncus effusus), false nettle (Boehmeria cylindrica), Japanese stiltgrass (Microstegium
vimineum), and greenbrier (Smilax rotundifolia).
Wetlands LBB and HBD were located within the eastern portion of the study area, near the ash
pond berm toe -of- slope. The wetlands consisted of bottomland hardwoods similar to those
described above within the Neuse River floodplain and were dominated by an overstory of red
maple, sweetgum, sycamore, water oak, loblolly pine (Pinus taeda), and green ash (Fraxinus
pennsylvanica). The wettest areas also contained swamp chestnut oak, black willow, and
baldcypress. Shrub layer species included saplings and small trees of overstory species,
ironwood, wax myrtle, Chinese privet, groundsel -tree (Baccharis halimifolia), and pepperbush
(Clethra alnifolia). Herbaceous and woody vine species included lizards tail, netted chain fern,
giant cane, soft rush, false nettle, Japanese stiltgrass, greenbrier, royal fern (Osmunda regalis),
and cattail (Typha latifolia). The aforementioned five wetlands were classified as bottomland
hardwood forest according to the NC WAM.
Wetlands LCC and LCD were located along the northern boundary of the active ash pond study
area. These herbaceous wetlands occurred within a maintained powerline right -of -way. The
vegetation was herbaceous due to the maintenance activities within the corridor which prevent
development of a midstory and overstory. The vegetation included soft rush (Juncus effusus),
panicgrass (Panicum sp.), sawtooth blackberry (Rubus argutus), giant cane, various sedges and
forbs, and red maple seedlings. Because of the disturbance to the vegetation, no NC WAM
classification applied to these areas. Note: Wetland LCD was delineated at two locations where
the wetland encroached into the study area. Wetland LCD was hydrologically connected to
Stream LC1 via two agricultural drainage ditches, LCD1 and LCD2. These drainage ditches did
not exhibit typical stream function.
Nine potentially jurisdictional wetland areas were delineated adjacent to the inactive ash ponds
(Figure 6). Wetland HBF was the largest of the wetland areas within the study area, as beginning
at a beaver pond area along Halfmile Branch in the north and continuing along the toe -of -slope
(berm) of the ash pond to the west and south. Wetland HBG was situated on the downstream side
of a culvert (access road crossing) and was hydrologically linked to Wetland HBF. These wetlands
consisted of bottomland hardwoods dominated by an overstory of red maple, sweetgum, swamp
chestnut oak, baldcypress, and water oak. Some of the areas immediately adjacent to the berm
also contained loblolly pine. Shrub layer species included saplings and small trees of overstory
species, ironwood, wax myrtle, and Chinese privet. Herbaceous and woody vine species included
giant cane, soft rush, false nettle, Japanese stiltgrass, greenbrier and muscadine (Vitis
rotundifolia). These areas were characterized as bottomland hardwood forest.
5

AMEC Project No. 7810140192 Natural Resources Technical Report
January 30, 2014 Cliffside Steam Station
Cleveland and Rutherford Counties, NC
Wetland LKE was located along the northern boundary of the study area and at the toe -of -slope of
the ash pond berm. The wetland was generally located within a cleared right -of -way. The
vegetation included woolgrass (Scirpus cyperinus), smartweed (Polygonum hydropiperoides),
cattail and false nettle, with saplings of cottonwood (Populus deltoides) and black willow in several
locations.
Wetlands LKG, LCB, LKH, and LCA occurred within the northeast portion of the study area.
These wetland areas were generally located along the toe of the ash pond berm. Wetlands LCB
and LCA were characterized as bottomland hardwood forest, while Wetland LKG comprised an
herbaceous area (woolgrass and soft rush) with a bottomland hardwood forest fringe. Wetland
LKH was a backwater slough of the Neuse River. The vegetation consisted of an overstory of
baldcypress (dominant canopy species), river birch, and American elm (Ulmus americana). The
understory consisted of a few green ash saplings. The shrub, herbaceous, and vine strata were
absent. Wetland LKH was classified as a riverine swamp forest according to the NC WAM.
Wetlands LBA and LGA were located within the southeast portion of the study area. These areas
were characterized as bottomland hardwood forest.
Field indicators of hydrophytic vegetation, wetland hydrology, and hydric soils were present at the
time of the site evaluation for all of the aforementioned wetlands. USACE Atlantic and Gulf
Coastal Plain Wetland Determination Data Forms are located in Appendix B.
Streams
Two potentially jurisdictional stream features were delineated within the active ash pond study
area (Figure 6). Stream LC1 extended along the northern and eastern sides of the ash pond,
while Stream LG1 occurred near the western tip of the study area. Streams LC1 and LG1 were
not mapped on the USGS topographic quadrangle.
Two potentially jurisdictional stream features were delineated within the inactive ash ponds study
area (Figure 6). Stream LB1 was a small ditched channel that occurred within the northwest
corner of the study area. This channel was observed to drain to the beaver pond associated with
Wetland HBF. Stream LB1 was not mapped on the USGS topographic quadrangle. Stream LB2 is
Halfmile Branch. This large channel occurred between the northern and southern inactive ash
ponds in the study area. Stream LB2 was depicted as " Halfmile Branch" on the USGS topographic
quadrangle, a perennial surface water.
The DWR Stream Identification scores and classifications and the USACE Stream Quality
Assessment Worksheet scores are presented in Table 1 below for the aforementioned four
streams. The DWR Stream Identification forms and the USACE Stream Quality Assessment
Worksheets are located in Appendix B. Stream Identification forms and Assessment Worksheets
are labeled with the flag location (Flag ID) at which they were completed. The Flag ID is provided
in Table 1 below.
A

AMEC Project No. 7810140192 Natural Resources Technical Report
January 30, 2014 Cliffside Steam Station
Cleveland and Rutherford Counties, NC
Table 1. Stream Classifications within the H.F. Lee Energy Complex Study Area,
Wayne County, North Carolina.
The USACE Stream Quality Assessment Worksheet is intended to be used as a guide to assist
landowners and environmental professionals in gathering data required by the USACE to make a
preliminary assessment of stream quality for jurisdictional determinations. Stream characteristics
and commonly observable features resulting from geomorphic, hydrologic, and biologic
processes, along with local site features such as riparian buffers and proximity to local
disturbances, are used in this stream quality assessment to produce a numeric score.
Ordinary Hiqh Water Mark
As a part of the jurisdictional waters delineation, the "ordinary high water" mark (OHWM) along
the Neuse River was determined and located using sub -meter GPS equipment. The OHWM for
the purposes of USACE Clean Water Act lateral jurisdiction is defined at 33 CFR 328.3(e), which
states: "The term ordinary high water mark means that line on the shore established by the
fluctuations of water and indicated by physical characteristics such as a clear, natural line
impressed on the bank, shelving, changes in the character of soil, destruction of terrestrial
vegetation, the presence of litter and debris, or other appropriate means that consider the
characteristics of the surrounding areas." AMEC did not capture elevation data at the OHWM
locations; traditional survey methods will be needed to capture the OHWM elevation data along
the study area, if required.
Threatened and Endangered Species Review
AMEC completed a review of the USFWS IPaC database (Consultation Code #04EN2000 -2015-
SLI -0163) and the county list available on the USFWS Raleigh Ecological Services website to
determine if any federally listed threatened or endangered plant and animal species (including
designated critical habitat) have the potential to occur within the study area. As based on these
review efforts, Table 2 and Figure 7 present information on the potential for listed species of
animals and plants to occur in the vicinity of the study area, for species known to presently occur,
or historically have occurred, in Wayne County. The likelihood of occurrence, as listed within
Table 2, is based on a comparison of the known habitat use by these species and the habitats
7
NC DWR Stream
NC DWR Stream
USACE Stream
Stream ID
Flag ID
Score
Classification
Score
Stream LC1
Blue HFL 0132
22.75
Intermittent
37
Stream LG1
Green HFL 0255
31.0
Perennial
25
Stream LB1
HBSB -2
22
Intermittent
45
LKJ -24
35.0
Perennial
58
Stream LB2
Downstream of culvert
(Halfmile Branch)
HBSB -8
37.5
Perennial
58
Upstream of culvert
The USACE Stream Quality Assessment Worksheet is intended to be used as a guide to assist
landowners and environmental professionals in gathering data required by the USACE to make a
preliminary assessment of stream quality for jurisdictional determinations. Stream characteristics
and commonly observable features resulting from geomorphic, hydrologic, and biologic
processes, along with local site features such as riparian buffers and proximity to local
disturbances, are used in this stream quality assessment to produce a numeric score.
Ordinary Hiqh Water Mark
As a part of the jurisdictional waters delineation, the "ordinary high water" mark (OHWM) along
the Neuse River was determined and located using sub -meter GPS equipment. The OHWM for
the purposes of USACE Clean Water Act lateral jurisdiction is defined at 33 CFR 328.3(e), which
states: "The term ordinary high water mark means that line on the shore established by the
fluctuations of water and indicated by physical characteristics such as a clear, natural line
impressed on the bank, shelving, changes in the character of soil, destruction of terrestrial
vegetation, the presence of litter and debris, or other appropriate means that consider the
characteristics of the surrounding areas." AMEC did not capture elevation data at the OHWM
locations; traditional survey methods will be needed to capture the OHWM elevation data along
the study area, if required.
Threatened and Endangered Species Review
AMEC completed a review of the USFWS IPaC database (Consultation Code #04EN2000 -2015-
SLI -0163) and the county list available on the USFWS Raleigh Ecological Services website to
determine if any federally listed threatened or endangered plant and animal species (including
designated critical habitat) have the potential to occur within the study area. As based on these
review efforts, Table 2 and Figure 7 present information on the potential for listed species of
animals and plants to occur in the vicinity of the study area, for species known to presently occur,
or historically have occurred, in Wayne County. The likelihood of occurrence, as listed within
Table 2, is based on a comparison of the known habitat use by these species and the habitats
7

AMEC Project No. 7810140192
January 30, 2014
Natural Resources Technical Report
Cliffside Steam Station
Cleveland and Rutherford Counties, NC
found (if present) within the study area and the quantity, quality, and proximity of these habitats,
as well as any observations of these species or their sign during field reconnaissance. The
likelihood of occurrence for listed species was rated as high, moderate, low, or unlikely based on
knowledge of a species' habitat preference and site conditions and whether or not the species
was observed during field reconnaissance. A likelihood of occurrence given as "unlikely" indicated
that no suitable habitat, or extremely limited habitat, for the species existed within the study area.
Table 2. Potential for Occurrence of Federally Listed Animal Species within the H.F.
Lee Energy Complex Study Area, Wayne County, North Carolina.
Common
Name Federal General Habitat Description Potential for
(Scientific Status Occurrence
Name)
Mammals
Summer habitat includes deciduous
forests and mixed evergreen -
deciduous forests, with bats roosting
singly or in colonies underneath bark,
in cavities, or in crevices of both live
and dead trees. Specifically, dead, or
partially dead, hardwood trees with
exfoliating bark are preferred (suitable
Northern long- roost trees). Winter hibernating Low for summer roosting;
eared bat PT habitat (hibernacula) includes caves moderate for foraging
(Myotis septentrionalis) and mines, typically with large along Neuse River
passages and entrances, constant
temperatures, and high humidity with
no air currents.
Note: Informal consultation
with the USFWS should be
conducted. Bat surveys
may be required for ash
pond closure.
Birds
Mature pine forests, specifically those
with longleaf pines averaging 80 to
120 years old and loblolly pines
Red - cockaded
averaging 70 to 100 years old. Pine
woodpecker
trees with red -heart disease are
(Picoides
E preferred for cavity nesting. Suitable Unlikely
borealis)
foraging habitat typically exhibits
sparse understory (minimal hardwood
regeneration). Fire (control burning) is
important in maintaining suitable
foraging and nesting habitat.

AMEC Project No. 7810140192
January 30, 2014
Common
Natural Resources Technical Report
Cliffside Steam Station
Cleveland and Rutherford Counties, NC
Name
Federal
General Habitat Description Potential for
(Scientific
Status
Occurrence
Name)
Forested habitats for nesting and
Bald and
roosting, and expanses of shallow
Bald eagle
Golden
fresh or salt water for foraging.
(Haliaeetus
Eagle
Nesting habitat generally consists of Low
leucocephalus)
Protection
densely forested areas of mature trees
Act
that are isolated from human
disturbance.
Sources NCNHP List of Rare Plant Species of North Carolina; USFWS IPaC; USFWS Environmental
Conservation Online System - Species Profiles; County list (USFWS Asheville Ecological
Services); NatureServe Explorer.
E = Endangered; T = Threatened; P= Proposed.
Low = no further surveys recommended.
Medium = additional surveys are recommended.
High = additional surveys are recommended.
AMEC completed a general field reconnaissance of the study area, forested habitat, and open
maintained fields that comprised the study area on September 29, October 1 and 2, and
December 11 and 12, 2014. No federally listed or state listed, threatened or endangered, animal
species were observed during the field investigation. The quality of the existing habitat on the
study area was presumed to be significantly less than suitable, or not present, for the listed
species with a potential for occurrence in Wayne County.
Forested areas surrounding the ash ponds were described as bottomland hardwood forest,
upland hardwood forest, and mixed pine hardwood forest. Very few large pines were noted, and a
dense hardwood canopy and understory were present; therefore, the potential for occurrence of
the red - cockaded woodpecker is presumed to be unlikely.
Although no longer afforded protection by the ESA as of June 29, 2007, the bald eagle is still
protected under the Bald and Golden Eagle Protection Act and the Migratory Bird Treaty Act, both
of which protect bald eagles by prohibiting killing, selling or otherwise disturbing eagles, their
nests, or eggs. Habitats include riparian areas along the coast and near major rivers, wetlands,
and reservoirs. Bald eagles typically nest in large, tall, open- topped pines near open waters. They
feed primarily on fish, but will also take a variety of birds, mammals, and turtles. The Neuse River,
located along the southern edge of the active ash pond study area and the eastern edge of the
inactive ash ponds study area, could provide suitable foraging habitat, and large trees within
these two study areas could provide suitable roosting or nesting habitat. No eagle nests are
known to occur within the overall study area and no bald eagles were observed during site visits.
Based on these considerations, the potential for occurrence is presumed to be low.
Northern long -eared bats are currently a species proposed to be added as a federally endangered
species. Acoustic surveys have indicated that the species may exist in Wayne County, but its
presence has not been verified. Existing forested habitat, the Neuse River, Halfmile Branch, and
other unnamed streams may provide suitable foraging and /or flyway corridor for northern long -
eared bats, if they are present in the area. The potential for occurrence of summer roosting within
the study area is low. The potential for occurrence of foraging along the Neuse River and the
forested habitat within the study area is moderate. Future bat surveys (acoustic or mist net) to
confirm presence or absence of the species may be required by the USFWS.
9

AMEC Project No. 7810140192 Natural Resources Technical Report
January 30, 2014 Cliffside Steam Station
Cleveland and Rutherford Counties, NC
AMEC contacted Mr. Scott Fletcher, a Certified Wildlife Biologist with Duke Energy, to obtain
information about habitat site conditions for federally listed plant and animal species at the H.F.
Lee Energy Complex. Mr. Fletcher stated that no known listed species occur on site. He also
stated that potential habitat (shingled /loose -bark hardwoods, snags /wolf trees) was present on the
site for the northern long -eared bat (personal communication via email January 13, 2015).
Cultural Resources
AMEC conducted a desktop review of the study area based on available data resources from the
NRHP files and information on archaeological resources from the North Carolina Archaeological
Site File repository, located at the SHPO. According to the North Carolina Office of State
Archeology records, the study area has not been surveyed for archeological resources. No
archeological surveys or archeological sites were identified within the study area (Figure 8).
Floodplains
The entire study area is within the regulated 100 -year floodplain (Figure 9). These results are
based on our review of FEMA DFIRM delineated flood boundaries.
Riparian Buffers
The Neuse River Riparian Buffer Rule establishes a 50 -foot wide riparian buffer directly adjacent
to surface waters in the Neuse River Basin (intermittent streams, perennial streams, lakes, ponds,
and estuaries), excluding wetlands. For the purpose of this Rule, a surface water shall be present
if the feature is approximately 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. Riparian buffers adjacent to surface waters that do not
appear on either of the maps shall not be subject to this Rule. Among the five streams which
occurred within the overall study area, only Stream LB2 (Halfmile Branch) was depicted on the
USGS topographic map. This perennial stream feature would therefore be subject to the Neuse
River Riparian Buffer Rule. The eastern boundary of the study area of the inactive ash ponds is
adjacent to the Neuse River.
According to Section 78 -95 (Protecting Riparian Buffers) of the Wayne County Code of
Ordinances, riparian areas must be protected on new developments in accordance with the
Riparian Buffer Rule (15A NCAC 2B .0233). The rule requires protecting and maintaining the 50-
foot riparian buffers on all sides of intermittent and perennial streams, ponds, lakes, and estuaries
in the Neuse River Basin. The county will refrain from issuing local approvals for any new
development activity that is proposed to take place within the first 50 feet adjacent to an affected
water body, unless:
(1) The person requesting the approval does not propose to impact the riparian buffer of a surface
water indicated on the NRCS or USGS maps or
(2) The property owner had received approval by DWR. DWR approval could be:
a. an on -site determination from DWR that surface waters are not present;
b. an authorization certificate for a use designated as allowable;
c. an authorization certificate and approval of a mitigation plan for a use designated as
allowable with mitigation; or
d. a variance.
10

AMEC Project No. 7810140192 Natural Resources Technical Report
January 30, 2014 Cliffside Steam Station
Cleveland and Rutherford Counties, NC
5.0 CONCLUSIONS
AMEC delineated 16 potentially jurisdictional wetland areas and four potentially jurisdictional
streams within the overall study area. AMEC recommends the completion of the verification of
Jurisdictional Determination process with the USACE prior to any mechanized land clearing or
other disturbance in proximity to potential jurisdictional surface waters, including wetlands.
Boundaries and classifications of the aforementioned features in the study area should be verified
by the USACE and the DWR. Impacts to these features may require a Section 404/401 Clean
Water Act (CWA) permit. AMEC further recommends that if impacts to jurisdictional surface
waters on site are needed, these impacts be avoided and /or minimized to the extent practicable.
Depending on the extent of proposed impacts to jurisdictional surface waters, a permit may be
required from the USACE, along with a Water Quality Certification from the DWR. A project may
qualify for a USACE Nationwide Permit if impacts to jurisdictional waters are kept below 300 linear
feet of aquatically- important stream and /or one -half acre of wetlands. Mitigation may be required
for permanent impacts to streams or for permanent impacts to wetlands when the impact exceeds
0.10 acre. Temporary impacts remaining in place for greater than one year are typically
considered permanent by the USACE and DWR. In this case, temporary impacts may require
mitigation. Also, jurisdictional streams meeting certain criteria are subject to the Neuse River
Riparian Buffer Rule and would require a 50 -foot undisturbed buffer from the stream top -of- banks.
The boundaries of jurisdictional surface waters would need to be surveyed by a registered
Professional Land Surveyor to facilitate the verification of Jurisdictional Determination by the
USACE.
For cultural resources, if federal permits are required to implement proposals within the study
area, consultation with the SHPO must be initiated. The consultation may result in a request for a
Phase IA archeological survey of the study area.
Review of the FEMA delineated 100 -year flood maps indicated the study area is within the 100 -
year flood zone. Coordination with the Wayne County Planning Department should be made early
in the planning process for any project that proposes development activities within the floodplain.
Depending on the scope of the proposal, a floodplain development permit and certification could
be required.
Proposals to perform any work in riparian buffers would require early coordination with the DWR.
Stream LB2 (Halfmile Branch) would be subject to the Neuse River Riparian Buffer Rule.
Consultation with Wayne County regulatory staff regarding riparian buffers is recommended prior
to any land clearing activities that would encroach within 50 feet of the banks of intermittent and
perennial streams within the study area.
The potential for occurrence of the red - cockaded woodpecker is unlikely. The potential for
occurrence for the northern long -eared bat is moderate as related to foraging activity along the
Neuse River, where the forested habitat within the study area abuts the river. This species is
currently proposed for listing as federally endangered and is therefore granted consideration as a
protected species by the USFWS until the listing status is finalized. Prior to disturbance within
these forested areas, consultation with the USFWS should be conducted to determine if a
biological survey for the bat will be required. The Neuse River, located along the southern edge of
the active ash pond study area and the eastern edge of the inactive ash ponds study area, could
provide suitable foraging habitat, and large trees within these two study areas could provide
suitable roosting or nesting habitat. No eagle nests are known to occur within the overall study
area and no bald eagles were observed during site visits.
11

AMEC Project No. 7810140192
January 30, 2014
Natural Resources Technical Report
Cliffside Steam Station
Cleveland and Rutherford Counties, NC
This report is intended for the use of Duke Energy, subject to the contractual terms between Duke
Energy and AMEC. Reliance on this document by any other party is prohibited without the
expressed, written consent of AMEC. Use of this report for purposes beyond those reasonably
intended by Duke Energy and AMEC will be at the sole risk of the user.
12

APPENDIX A
FIGURES

0 62.5 125 250 Miles
I I I I I I I
y�.
a°
$ �e
5�
Buck
f 'Z 111P Oil
r
�
a
?o- v T0, Qe k 4 r °s
Gr �, 6
apr% fi r
� Evana� b
� c`
111 9q{�i
5 7
e �• .0 v Lane Tree
' o Gall Mb
Palot O's 4 {e
x Oakland %r c
Church Rn 581 I :y'vc
t 4
Site Locationfl�gF+h,g'
d Rd
Cllr!
4
581 13 13
Rd ` b � �+ p5b $� RnYa7i pva ;`l�•�,� 0��a
v c
e`}eed.. pid� / \``4�P 2 �iflldSb4#fl �p,ql 8�erhSr eti \,1 ���1
sti117 F e
�o`� GUdke, 5 "7fl, F pap
kaltV Av Rd y
4 N
,� 1
P {�,AV� a t; Seymour �+
'r Force Air
Johnson
4 rce Base
g6% qv Wllfilard Rd ry
G 76,
r
a� — er,a �"'t /410Eftth+ur 581 Da
a�4e� ✓ LdRB Y+ho a Rd
'C ° ",l�td as Hausa Rd Sro. 4 °� Gtrl lhmm Rd �! '4u i etide�faretRd 111
aRa, �aVIP "`""• M "II Rd + old
8 i 6
rill"
Ctt�c � e ?8c4h r�r
4d 3 C �►
a o`? a aaey 581 Bill ��,naslvd
Notes To User:
ArcGIS Base Data: 1 June 2014
Sources: Esri, DeLorme, NAVTEQ, USGS, NRCAN, METI, iPC, Tor
,W
Legend Duke Energy
Study Area H.F. Lee Energy Complex fooste5te
r
Existing Ash Pond / Excluded From Study Area Wayne County, NC wheeler
Figure 1 - Site Location Map 0 5,000 10,000 20,000 Feet
I I I I I I I I
Projection: NAD83 State Plane FIPS 3200 (US Feet)
Vertical Datum: NAVD88

Legend
Study Area
,, Existing Ash Pond / Excluded From Study Area
Duke Energy
H.F. Lee Energy Complex
Wayne County, NC
Figure 2 - Study Area Map
amec Qv
fester
wheeler
0 625 1,250 2,500 Feet
Projection: NAD83 State Plane FIPS 3200 (US Feet)
Vertical Datum: NAVD88

W '
Notes To User:
ArcGIS Base Data: 1 June 2014
Legend
Study Area
Existing Ash Pond / Excluded From Study Area
NRCS Soils
r
1-1 F_ L° e e
• I
.1 rr.
I.
\ij
Soil Code
Sots Tyne
Hydric Status
Bb
Bibb sandy loam
Hydric
Ch
Chewacla loam
Hydric
Go
Goldsboro loamy sand
Non - hydric
Jo
Johns sandy loam
Hydric
KaA
Kalmia loamy sand- 0 to 2 percent slopes
Non- hydric
IKa®
Kalmia loamy sand. 2 to 6 percent slopes
Non - hydric
IKe
Kenanswille loamy sand
Non - hydric
Kn
Kinston loam
Hydric
La
Lakeland sand
Non- hydric
Le
Leaf loam
Hydric
Lv
Lumbee sandy loam
Hydric
WhA
Wickham loamy sand- 0 to 2 percent slopes
Non - hydric
WhB
Wickham loamy sand. 2 to 6 percent slopes
Non- hydric
IW
Water
-- NIA , ,, ^,
Duke Energy
H.F. Lee Energy Complex
Wayne County, NC
Figure 3 - NRCS Soils Map
amec
foster
wheeler
0 550 1,100 2,200 Feet
I I I I J
Projection: NAD83 State Plane FIPS 3200 (US Feet)
Vertical Datum: NAVD88

4�
� r
r W 1
� 1 I
s
l •r
s Z/rt
If %
i •
• • I
j • / _W
Imo.
•
ant
� I
' i l i
'Z0', _ , i
i
I
i
Notes To User:
ArcGIS Base Data: 1 June 2014 - -•\.,,
Legend
Study Area
Existing Ash Pond / Excluded From Study ArE
Q4 e
Neck �
1
BCC` .0 0")
Copyright© 20:13yNationa 1 Geogr aphic Society, -cubed
✓ e
Duke Energy am H.F. Lee Energy Complex oste
Wayne County, NC wheeler
Figure 4 - USGS Topographic Map 0 625 1,250 2,500 Feet
Northwest Goldsboro Quad I I I I I
Projection: NAD83 State Plane FIPS 3200 (US Feet)
Vertical Datum: NAVD88

r -
i
Freshwater
Forested /Shrub ,
Wetland
,Fresl watej
Forested /Sh ru
Wetland 0
Freshwater
`EFerg ntI
�!- Wetland
Freshwater
Emergent
Wetland
Freshwater
Emergent
Wetland
I
Notes To User:
ArcGIS Base Data: 1 June 2014
Legend
Study Area
- - - - -,
Existing Ash Pond / Excluded From Study Area
Wetland Type
Freshwater Emergent Wetland 0 Lake
Freshwater Forested /Shrub Wetland 0 Other
Freshwater Pond 0 Riverine
I ( Freshwater
Forested /Shrub
i Wetland
r:
"��; Other
Freshwater
Duke Energy
H.F. Lee Energy Complex
Wayne County, NC
Figure 5 - USFWS National Wetland Inventory Map
A% • Freshwater
Pond
Freshwater
Forested /Shrub
Wetland'
Lake
USGS, AEX, Getmapping,
P'- Freshwater
Forested /Shrub
Wetland
Freshwater
Forested /Shrub
Wetland
J Freshwater
Forested /Shrub
_Wetland
F;
Freshwater
Forested /Sh rL
Wetland
amec
fester
wheeler
0 625 1,250 2,500 Feet
Projection: NAD83 State Plane FIPS 3200 (US Feet)
Vertical Datum: NAVD88

-- J -----
o Ordinary Highwater Mark
Study Area
Existing Ash Pond / Excluded From Study Area
Streams
Wetlands
Duke Energy
H.F. Lee Energy Complex
Wayne County, NC
Figure 6 - Jurisdictional Waters Map
rikV
faster
wheeler
0 650 1,300 2,600 Feet
I I I I I I I I I
Projection: NAD83 State Plane FIPS 3200 (US Feet)
Vertical Datum: NAVD88

Legend
Study Area
Existing Ash Pond / Excluded From Study Area
L - - - --
Description
Duke Energy
H.F. Lee Energy Complex
Wayne County, NC
Figure 7 - Threatened & Endangered Species Habitat 0
I
amec
faster
wheeler
650 1,300
i
2,600 Feet
Potential Habitat - Northern Long -Eared Bat & Bald Eagle Projection: NAD83 State Plane FIPS 3200 (US Feet)
Vertical Datum: NAVD88

_ N
I
1
Qq
Notes To User:
ArcGIS Base Data: 1 June 2014
Legend
AM
ER 1
00, -2 -2016# ,-•
WY 496' -
7 WYoA
WY 510, G. , _�•-�'
a
1
f�
r
�1
ir
Y
I
1
Study Area
L JI Existing Ash Pond / Excluded From Study Area
Known Archeological Sites
Previous Archeological Surveys
1 � ,
-' W,Y30�0
•
V1-
Z111 k ►
WY 301
M,
0
a
+ +1
r"
I
ank.
1,
Duke Energy
H.F. Lee Energy Complex
Wayne County, NC
Figure 8 - Cultural Resources Survey Map
Quaker N ck Lake
WA L
Neck
Copyright:© 2013 National Geographic Society, i -cubed
amec
faster
Wheeler
0 500 1,000 2,000 Feet
I I I I I
Projection: NAD83 State Plane FIPS 3200 (US Feet)
Vertical Datum: NAVD88
�
r
+ir _
ref � ■L� �,�� "+'�� a
�\
�' ! it �� � t� IF i � �� ! +ib �1 i +�J► !
-
i � � \ ��
��� _=C �� � 4 i� .i �►! � ! � f � i�. 1� F� �1 ��� yet i
4f� # +\ w� - \
pdb:
�\ ��!! ! -I AMY
151_— — - a-
-
4rYBa aYS \
fa�
S L
----- \�
int
Duke Energy
H.F. Lee Energy Complex
Wayne County, NC
Figure 8 - Cultural Resources Survey Map
Quaker N ck Lake
WA L
Neck
Copyright:© 2013 National Geographic Society, i -cubed
amec
faster
Wheeler
0 500 1,000 2,000 Feet
I I I I I
Projection: NAD83 State Plane FIPS 3200 (US Feet)
Vertical Datum: NAVD88

Legend
Existing Ash Pond / Excluded From Study Area
Rivers /Streams
Study Area
100yr Flood Boundary
Duke Energy
H.F. Lee Energy Complex
Wayne County, NC
Figure 9 - Floodplain Map
amec
foster
wheeler
0 500 1,000 2,000 Feet
Projection: NAD83 State Plane FIPS 3200 (US Feet)
Vertical Datum: NAVD88

APPENDIX B
WETLAND /STREAM FIELD DATA FORMS

WETLAND DETERMINATION DATA FORM - Atlantic and Gulf Coastal Plain Region Wetland LCC - wetland side
Project /Site:
HF Lee Plant Site
City /County:
Goldsboro /Wayne
Sampling Date: 12/11/2014
Applicant /Owner:
Duke Energy
all
State: NC
Sampling Point: LCC -0166 Wet
Investigator(s):
J. Cutler, T. Barbee
Section, Township,
Range:
Marl Deposits (1315) (LRR U)
Landform: (hillslope, terrace,
etc.) bottom
Local Relief(concave,
convex, none): none
Slope ( %): 0
Subregion (LRR or MLRA)
LRRP
Lat: 35.379754
Long: 78.10248
Datum:
Soil Map Unit Name:
Lv - Lumbee sandy loam
❑ Algal Mat or Crust (134)
NWI Classification:
PF01A
Are climatic /hydrologic
conditions on the site typical for this time of year ?❑ Yes ❑
No (If no, explain in Remarks.)
❑ Inundation Visible on Aerial Imagery (137)
Are Vegetation ❑�
Soil ❑� or Hydrology
❑ significantly disturbed?
Are "Normal Circumstances" presenter Yes El No
Are Vegetation ❑
Soil ❑ , or Hydrology
❑ naturally problematic?
(If needed, explain any answers in Remarks.)
Surface Water Present? Yes ❑ No
SUMMARY OF FINDINGS - Attach site map showing sampling point locations, transects, important features, etc
Hydrophytic Vegetation Present? Yes ❑ No ❑ Is the Sampled Area
Hydric Soil Present? Yes ❑ No ❑ within a wetland? Yes ll No ❑
Wetland Hydrology Present? Yes ❑ No ❑
Remarks:
Wetland located within utility right of way, and subject to periodic vegetation maintenance.
All three wetland criteria met, area is a wetland
HYDROLOGY
Wetland Hydrology Indicators:
Primary Indicators (minimum of one is reauired: check
all
that aoolv):
❑ Surface Water (Al)
❑
Aquatic Fauna (613)
❑ High Water Table (A2)
❑
Marl Deposits (1315) (LRR U)
❑ Saturation (A3)
❑
Hydrogen Sulfide Odor (Cl)
❑ Water Marks (131)
❑
Oxidized Rhizospheres on Living Roots (0)
❑ Sediment Deposits (132)
❑
Presence of Reduced Iron (C4)
❑ Drift Deposits (83)
❑
Recent Iron Reduction in Tilled Soils (C6)
❑ Algal Mat or Crust (134)
❑
Thin Much Surface (0)
❑ Iron Deposits (135)
❑
Other (Explain in Remarks)
❑ Inundation Visible on Aerial Imagery (137)
❑ Water- Stained Leaves (139)
Field Observations:
Surface Water Present? Yes ❑ No
❑
Depth (inches): 2
Water Table Present? Yes ❑ No
❑
Depth (inches):
Secondary Indicators (minimum of two required)
❑ Surface Soil Cracks (136)
❑ Sparsely Vegetated Concave Surface (138)
❑ Drainage Patterns (1310)
❑ Moss Trim Lines (1316)
❑ Dry - Season Water Table (C2)
❑ Crayfish Burrows (C8)
❑ Saturation Visible on Aerial Imagery (C9)
❑ Geomorphic Position (D2)
❑ Shallow Aquitard (D3)
❑ FAC- Neutral Test (D5)
❑ Sphangum moss (D8) (LRR T,U)
Saturation Present? Yes ❑ No ❑ Depth (inches): Wetland Hydrology Present? Yes
(includes capillary fringe)
Describe Recorded Data (stream gauge, monitoring well, aerial photos, previous inspections), if available:
Remarks:
Hydrology criterion is met.
❑ No ❑
US Army Corps of Engineers Atlantic and Gulf Coastal Plain Region - Version 2.0

VEGETATION (Five Strata) - Use scientific names of plants.
Sampling Point: LCC -0166 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
(A)
2.
Total Number of Dominant
3.
Species Across All Strata: 4
(B)
4.
Percent of Dominant Species
5.
That Are OBL, FACW, or FAC: 100%
(A /B)
6.
= Total Cover
Prevalence Index worksheet:
50% of total cover:
20% of total cover:
DEL species 15 x 1 = 15
Sapling Stratum (Plot size: 30 ft )
FACW species 10 x 2 = 20
1.
FAC species 1 x 3 = 3
2.
FACU species 0 x4= 0
3.
UPI-species 0 x 5 = 0
4.
Column Totals: 26 (A) 38
(B)
5.
Prevalence Index = B/A = 1.5
6.
= Total Cover
Hydrophytic Vegetation Indicators:
50% of total cover:
20% of total cover:
Shrub Stratum (Plot size: 30 ft )
❑4 Dominance Test is > 50%
1. Liquidamborstyrociflua
1 Y
FAC
❑4 Prevalence Index is <_ 3.01
2.
❑ Problematic Hydrophytic Vegetation' (Explain)
3.
4.
' Indicators of hydric soil and wetland hydrology must
5.
be present, unless disturbed or problematic
6.
1 = Total Cover
Definitions of Vegetation Strata:
50% of total cover:
0.5 20% of total cover:
0.2
Herb Stratum (Plot size: 30 ft )
Tree - Woody plants, excluding woody vines, approximately
1. luncus effusus
15 y
OBL
20 ft (6 m) or more in height and 3 in. (7.6 cm) or larger in
2. Arundinaria gigantea
5 y
FACW
diameter at breast height (DBH).
3. Rhynchospora sp.
5 y
FACW
Sapling - Woody plants, excluding woody vines,
4.
approximately 20 ft (6 m) or more in height and less than 3
5.
in. (7.6 cm) DBH.
6.
Shrub - Woody plants, excluding woody vines,
7.
approximately 3 to 20 ft (1 to 6 m) in height.
8.
Herb - AII herbaceous (non- woody) plants, including
9.
herbaceous vines, regardless of size. Includes woody plants,
10.
except woody vines, less than approximately 3 ft (1 m) in
11.
height.
25 = Total Cover
Woody vine - All woody vines, regardless of height.
50% of total cover:
12.5 20% of total cover:
5
Woody Vine Stratum (Plot size: 30 ft )
1.
2.
3. Hydrophytic
4. Vegetation Yes No ❑
5. Present?
=
Total Cover
50% of total cover: 20% of total cover:
Remarks: (If observed, list morphological adaptations below)
ERDC /CRREL 2014 Regional Wetland Plant List (Atlantic and Gulf Coastal Plain) used for indicator status.
Hydrophytic vegetation criterion is met.
US Army Corps of Engineers Atlantic and Gulf Coastal Plain Region - Version 2.0

SOIL
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
0 -8 10YR 3/2 90 Sandy day loam
1Type C = Concentration, D = depletion, RM = Reduced Matrix, MS = Masked Sand Grain
Hydric Soil Indicators:
❑
Histosol (Al)
❑
❑
Histic Epipedon (A2)
❑
❑
Black Histic (A3)
❑
❑
Hydrogen Sulfide (A4)
❑
❑
Stratified Layers (AS)
❑
❑
Organic Bodies (A6) (LRR P,T,U)
❑
❑
5 cm Mucky Mineral (A7) (LRR P,T,U)
❑
❑
Muck Presence (A8) (LRR U)
❑
❑
1 cm Muck (A9) (LRR P,T)
❑
❑
Depleted Below Dark Surface (All)
❑
❑
Thick Dark Surface (Al2)
❑
❑
Coast Prairie Redox (A16) (MLRA 150A)
❑
❑
Sandy Mucky Mineral (Sl) (LRR 0,5)
❑
❑
Sandy Gleyed Matrix (S4)
❑
❑
Sandy Redox (S5)
❑
❑
Stripped Matrix (S6)
❑
Sampling Point: LCC -0166 Wet
Remarks
2Location: PL = Pore Lining, M = Matrix
Indicators for Problematic Hydric Soils3:
Polyvalue Below Surface (S8) (LRR S,T,U)
❑
1 cm Muck (A9) (LRR O)
Thin Dark Surface (S9) (LRR S,T,U)
❑
2 cm Muck (A10) (LRR S)
Loamy Mucky Mineral (F1) (LRR O)
❑
Reduced Vertic (1`18) (outside MLRA 150A,6)
Loamy Gleyed Matrix (F2)
❑
Piedmont Floodplain Soils (1`19) (LRR P,S,T)
Depleted Matrix (F3)
❑
Anomalous Bright Loamy Soils (F20)
Redox Dark Surface (F6)
(MLRA 1538)
Depleted Dark Surface (F7)
❑
Red Parent Material (TF2)
Redox Depressions (F8)
❑
Very Shallow Dark Surface (TF12)
Marl (F10) (LRR U)
❑
Other (Explain in Remarks)
Depleted Ochric (Fll) (MLRA 151)
Iron - Manganese Masses (F12) (LRR O,P,T)
Umbric Surface (1`13) (LRR P,T,U)
Delta Ochric (F17) (MLRA 151)
Reduced Vertic (F18) (MLRA 150A, 1508)
Piedmont Floodplain Soils (F19) (MLRA 149A)
Anomalous Bright Loamy Soils (F20) (MLRA 149A, 153C, 153D)
3Indicators of hydrophytic vegetation and
wetland hydrology must be present,
unless disturbed or problematic.
❑ Dark Surface (S7) (LRR P,S,T,U)
Restrictive Layer (if observed):
Type:
Depth (inches) Hydric Soil Present? Yes ❑� No ❑
Remarks:
Hydric soil criterion is met.
US Army Corps of Engineers Atlantic and Gulf Coastal Plain Region - Version 2.0

WETLAND DETERMINATION DATA FORM - Atlantic and Gulf Coastal Plain Region
Project /Site: H.F. Lee Steam Station City /County: Goldsboro (Wayne CO) Sampling Date: 10/1/2014
Applicant /Owner: Duke Energy State: NC Sampling Point: HBC /D -Up
Investigator(s): J. Bourdeau; S. Devine Section, Township, Range:
Landform: (hillslope, terrace, etc.) Floodplain Local Relief(concave, convex, none): none Slope ( %): <2%
Subregion (LRR or MLRA) LRRP Lat: 35.379033 Long: - 78.07116 Datum:
Soil Map Unit Name: Chewacla loam NWI Classification: PF01A
Are climatic /hydrologic conditions on the site typical for this time of year ?❑ Yes ❑ No (If no, explain in Remarks.)
Are Vegetation ❑ , Soil ❑ , or Hydrology ❑ significantly disturbed? Are "Normal Circumstances" present E. Yes ❑ No
Are Vegetation ❑ Soil ❑ , or Hydrology ❑ naturally problematic? (If needed, explain any answers in Remarks.)
SUMMARY OF FINDINGS - Attach site map showing sampling point locations, transects, important features, etc
Hydrophytic Vegetation Present? Yes ❑ No ❑ Is the Sampled Area
Hydric Soil Present? Yes ❑ No ❑ within a wetland?
Wetland Hydrology Present? Yes ❑ No M
Remarks:
Between wetland HBC and HBD in non -wet portion of Neuse River floodplain.
All three wetland criteria are not met, area is not within wetland.
HYDROLOGY
Wetland Hydrology Indicators:
Primary Indicators (minimum of one is required: check
all
that aoolv):
❑ Surface Water (Al)
❑
Aquatic Fauna (1313)
❑ High Water Table (A2)
❑
Marl Deposits (B15) (LRR U)
❑ Saturation (A3)
❑
Hydrogen Sulfide Odor (Cl)
❑ Water Marks (131)
❑
Oxidized Rhizospheres on Living Roots (C3)
❑ Sediment Deposits (132)
❑
Presence of Reduced Iron (C4)
❑ Drift Deposits (133)
❑
Recent Iron Reduction in Tilled Soils (C6)
❑ Algal Mat or Crust (134)
❑
Thin Much Surface (C7)
❑ Iron Deposits (BS)
❑
Other (Explain in Remarks)
❑ Inundation Visible on Aerial Imagery (137)
❑ Water- Stained Leaves (139)
Field Observations:
Surface Water Present? Yes ❑ No
❑
Depth (inches):
Water Table Present? Yes ❑ No
❑
Depth (inches):
Yes ❑ No I]
Secondary Indicators (minimum of two required)
❑ Surface Soil Cracks (136)
❑ Sparsely Vegetated Concave Surface (138)
❑ Drainage Patterns (1310)
❑ Moss Trim Lines (1316)
❑ Dry- Season Water Table (C2)
❑ Crayfish Burrows (C8)
❑ Saturation Visible on Aerial Imagery (C9)
❑ Geomorphic Position (D2)
❑ Shallow Aquitard (D3)
❑ FAC- Neutral Test (DS)
❑ Sphangum moss (D8) (LRR T,U)
Saturation Present? Yes ❑ No ❑ Depth (inches): Wetland Hydrology Present? Yes
(includes capillary fringe)
Describe Recorded Data (stream gauge, monitoring well, aerial photos, previous inspections), if available:
Remarks:
No hydrology indicators present.
❑ No U
US Army Corps of Engineers Atlantic and Gulf Coastal Plain Region - Version 2.0

VEGETATION (Five Strata) - Use scientific names of plants.
Sampling Point: HBC /D -Up
Absolute Dominant
Indicator
Dominance Test Worksheet:
Tree Stratum
(Plot size: 30 ft )
% Cover Species?
Status
Number of Dominant Species
1.
Liquidambar styraciflua
20 y
FAC
That Are OBL, FACW, or FAC: 8
(A)
2.
Acer rubrum
5
FAC
Total Number of Dominant
3.
Quercus nigra
5
FAC
Species Across All Strata: 9
(B)
4.
Platanus occidentalis
10 y
FACW
Percent of Dominant Species
5.
That Are OBL, FACW, or FAC: 89%
(A /B)
6.
40 = Total Cover
Prevalence Index worksheet:
50% of total cover: 20
20% of total cover:
8
OBL species 0 x 1 - 0
Sapling
Stratum (Plot size: 30 ft )
FACW species 10 x 2 = 20
1.
Liquidambar styraciflua
5 y
FAC
FAC species 61 x 3 - 183
2.
Acer rubrum
5 y
FAC
FACU species 2 x 4= 8
3.
UPL species 0 x 5 - 0
4.
Column Totals: 73 (A) 211
(B)
S.
Prevalence Index = B/A = 2.9
6.
10 - Total Cover
Hydrophytic Vegetation Indicators:
50% of total cover: 5
20% of total cover:
2
Shrub Stratum
(Plot size: 30 ft )
7 Dominance Test is > 50%
1.
Ligustrum sinense
5 y
FAC
❑j Prevalence Index is 5 3.01
2.
❑ Problematic Hydrophytic Vegetation' (Explain)
3.
4.
Indicators of hydric soil and wetland hydrology must
5.
be present, unless disturbed or problematic
6.
5 = Total Cover
Definitions of Vegetation Strata:
50% of total cover: 2.5
20% of total cover:
1
Herb Stratum
(Plot size: 30 ft )
Tree - Woody plants, excluding woody vines, approximately
1.
Microstegium vimineum
2 y
FAC
20 ft (6 m) or more in height and 3 in. (7.6 cm) or larger in
2.
Ligustrum sinense
2 Y
FAC
diameter at breast height (DBH).
3.
Eupatorium copillifolium
2 Y
FACU
Sapling- Woody plants, excluding woody vines,
4.
approximately 20 ft (6 m) or more in height and less than 3
5.
in. (7.6 cm) DBH.
6.
Shrub - Woody plants, excluding woody vines,
7.
approximately 3 to 20 ft (1 to 6 m) in height.
8.
Herb - AII herbaceous (non- woody) plants, including
9.
herbaceous vines, regardless of size. Includes woody plants,
10.
except woody vines, less than approximately 3 ft (1 m) in
11
height.
6 = Total Cover
Woody vine - All woody vines, regardless of height.
50% of total cover: 3
20% of total cover:
1.2
Woody
Vine Stratum (Plot size: 30 ft )
1.
Smilax rotundifolia
2
FAC
2.
Vitis rotundifolia
10 Y
FAC
3.
Hydrophytic
4.
Vegetation Yes ❑ No ❑
S.
Present?
12 =Total Cover
50% of total cover: 6
20% of total cover:
2.4
Remarks:
(If observed, list morphological adaptations below)
ERDC /CRREL 2014 Regional Wetland Plant List
(Atlantic and Gulf Coastal Plain) used for indicator status.
Hydrophytic vegetation criteria is met.
US Army Corps of Engineers Atlantic and Gulf Coastal Plain Region - Version 2.0

SOIL
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
0 -4 10YR 3/4 95 '-du a1ay loam
4 -16 10YR 4/4 95 , ,dydayioam
16 -20+ 10YR 5/4 95 s dyIymam
1Type C = Concentration, D = depletion, RM = Reduced Matrix, MS = Masked Sand GrainE
Hydric Soil Indicators:
❑
Hlstosol (Al)
❑
❑
Histic Epipedon (A2)
❑
❑
Black Histic (A3)
❑
❑
Hydrogen Sulfide (A4)
❑
❑
Stratified Layers (A5)
❑
❑
Organic Bodies (A6) (LRR P,T,U)
❑
❑
5 cm Mucky Mineral (A7) (LRR P,T,U)
❑
❑
Muck Presence (A8) (LRR U)
❑
❑
1 cm Muck (A9) (LRR P,T)
❑
❑
Depleted Below Dark Surface (All)
❑
❑
Thick Dark Surface (Al2)
❑
❑
Coast Prairie Redox (A16) (MLRA 150A)
❑
❑
Sandy Mucky Mineral (S1) (LRR O,S)
❑
❑
Sandy Gleyed Matrix (S4)
❑
❑
Sandy Redox (SS)
❑
❑
Stripped Matrix (S6)
❑
Sampling Point: HBC /D -Up
Remarks
2Location: PL = Pore Lining, M = Matrix
Indicators for Problematic Hydric Soils':
Polyvalue Below Surface (S8) (LRR S,T,U)
❑
1 cm Muck (A9) (LRR O)
Thin Dark Surface (S9) (LRR S,T,U)
❑
2 cm Muck (A10) (LRR S)
Loamy Mucky Mineral (F1) (LRR O)
❑
Reduced Vertic (F18) (outside MLRA 150A,B)
Loamy Gleyed Matrix (F2)
❑
Piedmont Floodplain Soils (F19) (LRR P,S,T)
Depleted Matrix (F3)
❑
Anomalous Bright Loamy Soils (F20)
Redox Dark Surface (F6)
(MLRA 153B)
Depleted Dark Surface (F7)
❑
Red Parent Material (TF2)
Redox Depressions (F8)
❑
Very Shallow Dark Surface (TF12)
Marl (F10) (LRR U)
❑
Other (Explain in Remarks)
Depleted Ochric (Fll) (MLRA 151)
Iron - Manganese Masses (F12) (LRR O,P,T)
Umbric Surface (F13) (LRR P,T,U)
Delta Ochric (F17) (MLRA 151)
Reduced Vertic (F18) (MLRA 150A, 150B)
Piedmont Floodplain Soils (F19) (MLRA 149A)
Anomalous Bright Loamy Soils (F20) (MLRA 149A, 153C, 153D)
3Indicators of hydrophytic vegetation and
wetland hydrology must be present,
unless disturbed or problematic.
❑ Dark Surface (S7) (LRR P,S,T,U)
Restrictive Layer (if observed):
Type:
Depth (inches) Hydric Soil Present? Yes ❑ No ❑
Remarks:
Hydric soil criterion is not met.
US Army Corps of Engineers Atlantic and Gulf Coastal Plain Region - Version 2.0

WETLAND DETERMINATION DATA FORM - Atlantic and Gulf Coastal Plain Region
Project /Site: H.F. Lee Steam Station City /County: Goldsboro (Wayne CO) Sampling Date: 10/1/2014
Applicant /Owner: Duke Energy State: NC Sampling Point: HBD -Wet
Investigator(s): J. Bourdeau; S. Devine Section, Township, Range:
Landform: (hillslope, terrace, etc.) Floodplain Local Relief(concave, convex, none): none Slope ( %): <2%
Subregion (LRR or MLRA) LRRP Lat:35.379800 Long: 78.06810 Datum:
Soil Map Unit Name: Chewacla loam NWI Classification: PF01C
Are climatic /hydrologic conditions on the site typical for this time of year ?❑ Yes ❑ No (If no, explain in Remarks.)
Are Vegetation ❑ , Soil ❑ , or Hydrology ❑ significantly disturbed? Are "Normal Circumstances" present E. Yes ❑ No
Are Vegetation ❑ , Soil ❑ , or Hydrology ❑ naturally problematic? (If needed, explain any answers in Remarks.)
SUMMARY OF FINDINGS - Attach site map showing sampling point locations, transects, important features, etc
Hydrophytic Vegetation Present? Yes ❑ No ❑ Is the Sampled Area
Hydric Soil Present? Yes [Z] No ❑ within a wetland? Yes El No ❑
Wetland Hydrology Present? Yes ❑ No ❑
Remarks:
Within wetland HBD in wetland portion of Neuse River floodplain. Data point also representative for all wetland areas along
Neuse Reiver flood plain (HBA, HBB, HBC, and HBD). Data point between flags HBD -2 and HBD -3.
All three wetland criteria are met
HYDROLOGY
Wetland Hydrology Indicators:
Primary Indicators (minimum of one is required: check
all
that aoolv):
❑ Surface Water (Al)
❑
Aquatic Fauna (1313)
❑ High Water Table (A2)
❑
Marl Deposits (B15) (LRR U)
❑ Saturation (A3)
❑
Hydrogen Sulfide Odor (Cl)
❑ Water Marks (B1)
Oxidized Rhizospheres on Living Roots (C3)
❑ Sediment Deposits (B2)
❑
Presence of Reduced Iron (C4)
❑ Drift Deposits (133)
❑
Recent Iron Reduction in Tilled Soils (C6)
❑ Algal Mat or Crust (134)
❑
Thin Much Surface (C7)
❑ Iron Deposits (BS)
❑
Other (Explain in Remarks)
❑ Inundation Visible on Aerial Imagery (137)
Fil Water- Stained Leaves (B9)
Field Observations:
Surface Water Present? Yes ❑ No
Depth (inches):
Water Table Present? Yes ❑ No
F4
Depth (inches):
Secondary Indicators (minimum of two required)
❑ Surface Soil Cracks (B6)
❑ Sparsely Vegetated Concave Surface (68)
❑ Drainage Patterns (B10)
❑ Moss Trim Lines (B16)
❑ Dry- Season Water Table (C2)
I] Crayfish Burrows (C8)
❑ Saturation Visible on Aerial Imagery (C9)
❑ Geomorphic Position (D2)
❑ Shallow Aquitard (D3)
❑ FAC- Neutral Test (D5)
❑ Sphangum moss (D8) (LRR T,U)
Saturation Present? Yes ❑ No Depth (inches): 6" Wetland Hydrology Present? Yes
(includes capillary fringe)
Describe Recorded Data (stream gauge, monitoring well, aerial photos, previous inspections), if available:
Remarks:
Wetland hydrology indicators present.
0 No ❑
US Army Corps of Engineers Atlantic and Gulf Coastal Plain Region - Version 2.0

VEGETATION (Five Strata) - Use scientific names of plants.
Sampling Point: HBD -Wet
Absolute Dominant
Indicator
Dominance Test Worksheet:
Tree Stratum
(Plot size: 30 ft )
% Cover Species?
Status
Number of Dominant Species
1.
Platonus occidentolis
15 Y
FACW
That Are OBL, FACW, or FAC: 6
(A)
2.
Fraxinus pennsylvanico
10 y
FACW
Total Number of Dominant
3.
Acer rubrum
5
FAC
Species Across All Strata: 6
(B)
4.
Percent of Dominant Species
5.
That Are OBL, FACW, or FAC: 100%
(A /B)
6.
30 = Total Cover
Prevalence Index worksheet:
50% of total cover: 15
20% of total cover:
6
OBL species 21 x 1 - 21
Sapling
Stratum (Plot size: 30 ft )
FACW species 27 x 2 = 54
1.
Taxodium distichum
2
OBL
FAC species 15 x 3 - 45
2.
Morella cerifera
5 Y
FAC
FACU species 0 x 4= 0
3.
Acer rubrum
5 y
FAC
UPL species 0 x 5- 0
4.
Column Totals: 63 (A) 120
(B)
S.
Prevalence Index = B/A = 1.9
6.
12 - Total Cover
Hydrophytic Vegetation Indicators:
50% of total cover: 6
201/. of total cover:
2.4
Shrub Stratum
(Plot size: 30 ft )
F71 Dominance Test is > 50%
1.
0 Prevalence Index is <_ 3.01
2.
❑ Problematic Hydrophytic Vegetation' (Explain)
3.
4.
1 Indicators of hydric soil and wetland hydrology must
5.
be present, unless disturbed or problematic
6.
=Total Cover
Definitions of Vegetation Strata:
50% of total cover:
20% of total cover:
Herb Stratum
(Plot size: 30 ft )
Tree - Woody plants, excluding woody vines, approximately
1.
Soururus corn uus
10 Y
OBL
20 ft (6 m) or more in height and 3 in. (7.6 cm) or larger in
2.
Woodwardia areolato
5 y
OBL
diameter at breast height (DBH).
3.
Juncus effusus
2
OBL
Sapling - Woody plants, excluding woody vines,
4.
Boehmeria cylindrica
2
FACW
approximately 20 ft (6 m) or more in height and less than 3
5.
Solix nigra
2
OBL
in. (7.6 cm) DBH.
6.
Shrub - Woody plants, excluding woody vines,
7.
approximately 3 to 20 ft (1 to 6 m) in height.
8.
Herb -All herbaceous (non- woody) plants, including
9.
herbaceous vines, regardless of size. Includes woody plants,
10.
except woody vines, less than approximately 3 ft (1 m) in
11
height.
21 = Total Cover
Woody vine - All woody vines, regardless of height.
50% of total cover: 10.5
20% of total cover:
4.2
Woody
Vine Stratum (Plot size: 30 ft )
1.
2.
3.
Hydrophytic
4.
Vegetation Yes No ❑
S.
Present?
=Total Cover
50% of total cover:
20% of total cover:
Remarks:
(If observed, list morphological adaptations below)
ERDC /CRREL 2014 Regional Wetland Plant List
(Atlantic and Gulf Coastal Plain) used for indicator status.
Hydrophytic vegetation criteria is met.
US Army Corps of Engineers Atlantic and Gulf Coastal Plain Region - Version 2.0

SOIL
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' Locz Texture
0 -3 10YR2/2 95 s dyo]zyloam
3 -12+ 7.5RE 5/2 80 10YR 5/8 20 C M ­dvclay —
1Type C = Concentration, D = depletion, RM = Reduced Matrix, MS = Masked Sand Grain
Hydric Soil Indicators:
❑
Hlstosol (Al)
❑
❑
Histic Epipedon (A2)
❑
❑
Black Histic (A3)
❑
❑
Hydrogen Sulfide (A4)
❑
❑
Stratified Layers (A5)
Anomalous Bright Loamy Soils (F20)
❑
Organic Bodies (A6) (LRR P,T,U)
❑
❑
5 cm Mucky Mineral (A7) (LRR P,T,U)
❑
❑
Muck Presence (A8) (LRR U)
❑
❑
1 cm Muck (A9) (LRR P,T)
❑
❑
Depleted Below Dark Surface (All)
❑
❑
Thick Dark Surface (Al2)
❑
❑
Coast Prairie Redox (A16) (MLRA 150A)
❑
❑
Sandy Mucky Mineral (S1) (LRR O,S)
❑
❑
Sandy Gleyed Matrix (S4)
❑
❑
Sandy Redox (SS)
❑
❑
Stripped Matrix (S6)
❑
Sampling Point: HBD -Wet
Remarks
Location: PL = Pore Lining, M = Matrix
Indicators for Problematic Hydric Soils:
Polyvalue Below Surface (S8) (LRR S,T,U)
❑
1 cm Muck (A9) (LRR O)
Thin Dark Surface (S9) (LRR S,T,U)
❑
2 cm Muck (A10) (LRR S)
Loamy Mucky Mineral (F1) (LRR O)
❑
Reduced Vertic (F18) (outside MLRA 150A,B)
Loamy Gleyed Matrix (F2)
❑
Piedmont Floodplain Soils (F19) (LRR P,S,T)
Depleted Matrix (F3)
❑
Anomalous Bright Loamy Soils (F20)
Redox Dark Surface (F6)
(MLRA 1538)
Depleted Dark Surface (F7)
❑
Red Parent Material (72)
Redox Depressions (F8)
❑
Very Shallow Dark Surface (TF12)
Marl (F10) (LRR U)
❑
Other (Explain in Remarks)
Depleted Ochric (Ell) (MLRA 151)
Iron - Manganese Masses (F12) (LRR O,P,T)
Umbric Surface (F13) (LRR P,T,U)
Delta Ochric (F17) (MLRA 151)
Reduced Vertic (F18) (MLRA 150A, 150B)
Piedmont Floodplain Soils (F19) (MLRA 149A)
Anomalous Bright Loamy Soils (F20) (MLRA 149A, 153C, 153D)
3Indicators of hydrophytic vegetation and
wetland hydrology must be present,
unless disturbed or problematic.
❑ Dark Surface (S7) (LRR P,S,T,U)
Restrictive Layer (if observed):
Type:
Depth (inches) Hydric Soil Present? Yes ❑
Remarks:
Hydric soil criterion is met.
US Army Corps of Engineers Atlantic and Gulf Coastal Plain Region - Version 2.0
No ❑

WETLAND DETERMINATION DATA FORM - Atlantic and Gulf Coastal Plain Region
Project /Site: H.F. Lee Steam Station City /County: Goldsboro (Wayne CO) Sampling Date: 10/1/2014
Applicant /Owner: Duke Energy State: NC Sampling Point: HBF -Up
Investigator(s): J. Bourdeau; S. Devine Section, Township, Range:
Landform: (hillslope, terrace, etc.) Floodplain Local Relief(concave, convex, none): none Slope ( %): <2%
Subregion (LRR or MLRA) LRRP Lat: 35.379500 Long: - 78.10910 Datum:
Soil Map Unit Name: Leaf loam NWI Classification: PF01C
Are climatic /hydrologic conditions on the site typical for this time of year ?❑ Yes ❑ No (If no, explain in Remarks.)
Are Vegetation ❑ , Soil ❑ , or Hydrology ❑ significantly disturbed? Are "Normal Circumstances" present E. Yes ❑ No
Are Vegetation ❑ , Soil ❑ , or Hydrology ❑ naturally problematic? (If needed, explain any answers in Remarks.)
SUMMARY OF FINDINGS - Attach site map showing sampling point locations, transects, important features, etc
Hydrophytic Vegetation Present? Yes ❑ No ❑ Is the Sampled Area
Hydric Soil Present? Yes ❑ No ❑ within a wetland?
Wetland Hydrology Present? Yes ❑ No M
Remarks:
approximately 10 feet outside wetland area near flag HBF -6, moving upslope.
All three wetland criteria are not met, area is not within wetland.
HYDROLOGY
Wetland Hydrology Indicators:
Primary Indicators (minimum of one is required: check
all
that aoolv):
❑ Surface Water (Al)
❑
Aquatic Fauna (1313)
❑ High Water Table (A2)
❑
Marl Deposits (B15) (LRR U)
❑ Saturation (A3)
❑
Hydrogen Sulfide Odor (Cl)
❑ Water Marks (B1)
❑
Oxidized Rhizospheres on Living Roots (C3)
❑ Sediment Deposits (B2)
❑
Presence of Reduced Iron (C4)
❑ Drift Deposits (133)
❑
Recent Iron Reduction in Tilled Soils (C6)
❑ Algal Mat or Crust (134)
❑
Thin Much Surface (C7)
❑ Iron Deposits (BS)
❑
Other (Explain in Remarks)
❑ Inundation Visible on Aerial Imagery (137)
❑ Water- Stained Leaves (B9)
Field Observations:
Surface Water Present? Yes ❑ No
❑
Depth (inches):
Water Table Present? Yes ❑ No
❑
Depth (inches):
Yes ❑ No ❑
Secondary Indicators (minimum of two required)
❑ Surface Soil Cracks (B6)
❑ Sparsely Vegetated Concave Surface (68)
❑ Drainage Patterns (B10)
❑ Moss Trim Lines (B16)
❑ Dry- Season Water Table (C2)
❑ Crayfish Burrows (C8)
❑ Saturation Visible on Aerial Imagery (C9)
❑ Geomorphic Position (D2)
❑ Shallow Aquitard (D3)
❑ FAC- Neutral Test (D5)
❑ Sphangum moss (D8) (LRR T,U)
Saturation Present? Yes ❑ No ❑ Depth (inches): Wetland Hydrology Present? Yes
(includes capillary fringe)
Describe Recorded Data (stream gauge, monitoring well, aerial photos, previous inspections), if available:
Remarks:
No hydrology indicators present.
❑ No 0
US Army Corps of Engineers Atlantic and Gulf Coastal Plain Region - Version 2.0

VEGETATION (Five Strata) - Use scientific names of plants.
Sampling Point: HBF -Up
Absolute Dominant
Indicator
Dominance Test Worksheet:
Tree Stratum (Plot size: 30 ft )
% Cover Species?
Status
Number of Dominant Species
1. Liquidambar styraciflua
20 y
FAC
That Are ORL, FACW, or FAC: 7
(A)
2. Acerrubrum
20 y
FAC
Total Number of Dominant
3. Pinus taeda
20 y
FAC
Species Across All Strata: 7
(B)
4.
Percent of Dominant Species
5.
That Are ORL, FACW, or FAC: 100%
(A /B)
6.
60 = Total Cover
Prevalence Index worksheet:
50% of total cover: 30
20% of total cover:
12
ORL species 0 x 1 - 0
Sapling Stratum (Plot size: 30 ft )
FACW species 0 x 2 = 0
1. Liquidambar styraciflua
15 y
FAC
FAC species 105 x 3 - 315
2. Pinus toeda
15 y
FAC
FACU species 0 x 4 = 0
3.
UPL species 0 x 5 - 0
4.
Column Totals: 105 (A) 315
(B)
S.
Prevalence Index = B/A = 3.0
6.
30 - Total Cover
Hydrophytic Vegetation Indicators:
50% of total cover: 15
201/. of total cover:
6
Shrub Stratum (Plot size: 30 ft )
F71 Dominance Test is > 50%
1.
0 Prevalence Index is <_ 3.01
2.
❑ Problematic Hydrophytic Vegetation' (Explain)
3.
4.
1 Indicators of hydric soil and wetland hydrology must
5.
be present, unless disturbed or problematic
6.
=Total Cover
Definitions of Vegetation Strata:
50% of total cover:
20% of total cover:
Herb Stratum (Plot size: 30 ft )
Tree - Woody plants, excluding woody vines, approximately
1. Microstegium vimineum
5 y
FAC
20 ft (6 m) or more in height and 3 in. (7.6 cm) or larger in
2.
diameter at breast height (DBH).
3.
Sapling - Woody plants, excluding woody vines,
4.
approximately 20 ft (6 m) or more in height and less than 3
5.
in. (7.6 cm) DBH.
6.
Shrub - Woody plants, excluding woody vines,
7.
approximately 3 to 20 ft (1 to 6 m) in height.
8.
Herb -All herbaceous (non- woody) plants, including
9.
herbaceous vines, regardless of size. Includes woody plants,
10.
except woody vines, less than approximately 3 ft (1 m) in
11
height.
5 = Total Cover
Woody vine - All woody vines, regardless of height.
50% of total cover: 2.5
20% of total cover:
1
Woody Vine Stratum (Plot size: 30 ft )
1. Smilax rotundifolia
10 y
FAC
2.
3.
Hydrophytic
4.
Vegetation Yes No ❑
S.
Present?
10 =Total Cover
50% of total cover: 5
20% of total cover:
2
Remarks: (If observed, list morphological adaptations below)
ERDC /CRREL 2014 Regional Wetland Plant List
(Atlantic and Gulf Coastal Plain) used for indicator status.
Hydrophytic vegetation criteria is met.
US Army Corps of Engineers Atlantic and Gulf Coastal Plain Region - Version 2.0

SOIL
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' Locz Texture
0 -5 10YR 5/6 95 di y loam
5 -18+ 10YR4/4 95 ­dv clay
ioam
1Type C = Concentration, D = depletion, RM = Reduced Matrix, MS = Masked Sand GrainE
Hydric Soil Indicators:
❑
Hlstosol (Al)
❑
❑
Histic Epipedon (A2)
❑
❑
Black Histic (A3)
❑
❑
Hydrogen Sulfide (A4)
❑
❑
Stratified Layers (A5)
❑
❑
Organic Bodies (A6) (LRR P,T,U)
❑
❑
5 cm Mucky Mineral (A7) (LRR P,T,U)
❑
❑
Muck Presence (A8) (LRR U)
❑
❑
1 cm Muck (A9) (LRR P,T)
❑
❑
Depleted Below Dark Surface (All)
❑
❑
Thick Dark Surface (Al2)
❑
❑
Coast Prairie Redox (A16) (MLRA 150A)
❑
❑
Sandy Mucky Mineral (S1) (LRR O,S)
❑
❑
Sandy Gleyed Matrix (S4)
❑
❑
Sandy Redox (SS)
❑
❑
Stripped Matrix (S6)
❑
Sampling Point: HBF -Up
Remarks
Location: PL = Pore Lining, M = Matrix
Indicators for Problematic Hydric Soils:
Polyvalue Below Surface (S8) (LRR S,T,U)
❑
1 cm Muck (A9) (LRR O)
Thin Dark Surface (S9) (LRR S,T,U)
❑
2 cm Muck (A10) (LRR S)
Loamy Mucky Mineral (F1) (LRR O)
❑
Reduced Vertic (F18) (outside MLRA 150A,B)
Loamy Gleyed Matrix (F2)
❑
Piedmont Floodplain Soils (F19) (LRR P,S,T)
Depleted Matrix (F3)
❑
Anomalous Bright Loamy Soils (F20)
Redox Dark Surface (F6)
(MLRA 1538)
Depleted Dark Surface (F7)
❑
Red Parent Material (72)
Redox Depressions (F8)
❑
Very Shallow Dark Surface (TF12)
Marl (F10) (LRR U)
❑
Other (Explain in Remarks)
Depleted Ochric (Ell) (MLRA 151)
Iron - Manganese Masses (F12) (LRR O,P,T)
Umbric Surface (F13) (LRR P,T,U)
Delta Ochric (F17) (MLRA 151)
Reduced Vertic (F18) (MLRA 150A, 150B)
Piedmont Floodplain Soils (F19) (MLRA 149A)
Anomalous Bright Loamy Soils (F20) (MLRA 149A, 153C, 153D)
3Indicators of hydrophytic vegetation and
wetland hydrology must be present,
unless disturbed or problematic.
❑ Dark Surface (S7) (LRR P,S,T,U)
Restrictive Layer (if observed):
Type:
Depth (inches) Hydric Soil Present? Yes ❑
Remarks:
Hydric soil criterion is not met.
US Army Corps of Engineers Atlantic and Gulf Coastal Plain Region - Version 2.0
No ❑

WETLAND DETERMINATION DATA FORM - Atlantic and Gulf Coastal Plain Region
Project /Site: H.F. Lee Steam Station City /County: Goldsboro (Wayne CO) Sampling Date: 10/1/2014
Applicant /Owner: Duke Energy State: NC Sampling Point: HBF - Wet
Investigator(s): J. Bourdeau; S. Devine Section, Township, Range:
Landform: (hillslope, terrace, etc.) Floodplain Local Relief(concave, convex, none): none Slope ( %): <2%
Subregion (LRR or MLRA) LRRP Lat: 35.379600 Long: - 78.10920 Datum:
Soil Map Unit Name: Leaf loam NWI Classification: PF01C
Are climatic /hydrologic conditions on the site typical for this time of year ?❑ Yes ❑ No (If no, explain in Remarks.)
Are Vegetation ❑ , Soil ❑ , or Hydrology ❑ significantly disturbed? Are "Normal Circumstances" present E. Yes ❑ No
Are Vegetation ❑ , Soil ❑ , or Hydrology ❑ naturally problematic? (If needed, explain any answers in Remarks.)
SUMMARY OF FINDINGS - Attach site map showing sampling point locations, transects, important features, etc
Hydrophytic Vegetation Present? Yes ❑ No ❑
Hydric Soil Present? Yes [Z] No ❑
Wetland Hydrology Present? Yes ❑ No ❑
Remarks:
In wetland area nearflag HBF -6
All three wetland criteria are met
Is the Sampled Area
within a wetland? Yes ❑ No ❑
HYDROLOGY
Wetland Hydrology Indicators:
Primary Indicators (minimum of one is required: check
all
that aoolv):
❑ Surface Water (Al)
❑
Aquatic Fauna (1313)
❑ High Water Table (A2)
❑
Marl Deposits (B15) (LRR U)
❑ Saturation (A3)
❑
Hydrogen Sulfide Odor (Cl)
❑ Water Marks (B1)
Oxidized Rhizospheres on Living Roots (C3)
❑ Sediment Deposits (B2)
❑
Presence of Reduced Iron (C4)
❑ Drift Deposits (133)
❑
Recent Iron Reduction in Tilled Soils (C6)
❑ Algal Mat or Crust (134)
❑
Thin Much Surface (C7)
❑ Iron Deposits (BS)
❑
Other (Explain in Remarks)
❑ Inundation Visible on Aerial Imagery (137)
Fil Water- Stained Leaves (B9)
Field Observations:
Surface Water Present? Yes ❑ No
Depth (inches):
Water Table Present? Yes ❑ No
F4
Depth (inches):
Secondary Indicators (minimum of two required)
❑ Surface Soil Cracks (B6)
❑ Sparsely Vegetated Concave Surface (68)
❑ Drainage Patterns (B10)
❑ Moss Trim Lines (B16)
❑ Dry- Season Water Table (C2)
❑ Crayfish Burrows (C8)
❑ Saturation Visible on Aerial Imagery (C9)
❑ Geomorphic Position (D2)
❑ Shallow Aquitard (D3)
❑ FAC- Neutral Test (D5)
❑ Sphangum moss (D8) (LRR T,U)
Saturation Present? Yes E] No ❑ Depth (inches): 4" Wetland Hydrology Present? Yes
(includes capillary fringe)
Describe Recorded Data (stream gauge, monitoring well, aerial photos, previous inspections), if available:
Remarks:
Wetland hydrology indicators present.
0 No ❑
US Army Corps of Engineers Atlantic and Gulf Coastal Plain Region - Version 2.0

VEGETATION (Five Strata) - Use scientific names of plants.
Sampling Point:
HBF -Wet
Absolute Dominant
Indicator
Dominance Test Worksheet:
Tree Stratum (Plot size: 30 ft )
% Cover Species?
Status
Number of Dominant Species
1. Taxodium distichum
2
OBL
That Are OBL, FACW, or FAC:
4 (A)
2. Acerrubrum
50 y
FAC
Total Number of Dominant
3. Quercus michauxii
5
FACW
Species Across All Strata:
4 (B)
4. Quercus nigra
5
FAC
Percent of Dominant Species
5. Quercus lyrata
2
OBL
That Are OBL, FACW, or FAC:
100% (A /B)
6.
50% of total cover:
Sapling Stratum (Plot size: 30 ft )
1. Acerrubrum
2. Carpinus coroliniana
3.
4.
S.
6.
Shrub Stratum
1.
2.
3.
4.
5.
6.
64 =Total Cover
32 20% of total cover:
50 y
5
55 -Total Cover
50% of total cover: 27.5 20% of total cover:
(Plot size: 30 ft )
50% of total cover:
Herb Stratum (Plot size: 30 ft )
1. Arundinaria gigantea
2. Soururus cernuus
3.
4.
5.
6.
7.
8.
9.
10.
11.
50% of total cover:
Woody Vine Stratum (Plot size: 30 ft )
1.
2.
3.
4.
S.
Prevalence Index worksheet:
12.8 OBL species 14 x 1 - 14
FACW species 15 x 2 = 30
FAC FAC species 110 x 3 - 330
FAC FACU species 0 x 4 = 0
UPL species 0 x 5 - 0
Column Totals: 139 (A) 374 (B)
Prevalence Index = B/A = 2.7
Hydrophytic Vegetation Indicators:
11
Dominance Test is >50%
0 Prevalence Index is <_ 3.01
❑ Problematic Hydrophytic Vegetation' (Explain)
Indicators of hydric soil and wetland hydrology must
be present, unless disturbed or problematic
=Total Cover Definitions of Vegetation Strata:
20% of total cover:
10 y FACW
10 y OBL
20 =Total Cover
10 20% of total cover:
4
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. Includes woody plants,
except woody vines, less than approximately 3 ft (1 m) in
height.
Woody vine - All woody vines, regardless of height.
Hydrophytic
Vegetation Yes No ❑
Present?
=Total Cover
50% of total cover: 20% of total cover:
Remarks: (If observed, list morphological adaptations below)
ERDC /CRREL 2014 Regional Wetland Plant List (Atlantic and Gulf Coastal Plain) used for indicator status.
Hydrophytic vegetation criteria is met.
US Army Corps of Engineers Atlantic and Gulf Coastal Plain Region - Version 2.0

SOIL
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' Locz Texture
0 -10 10YR 4/1 70 10YR 5/8 30 C M 5 dy a]ay i-
1Type C = Concentration, D = depletion, RM = Reduced Matrix, MS = Masked Sand Grain
Hydric Soil Indicators:
❑
Hlstosol (Al)
❑
❑
Histic Epipedon (A2)
❑
❑
Black Histic (A3)
❑
❑
Hydrogen Sulfide (A4)
❑
❑
Stratified Layers (A5)
Anomalous Bright Loamy Soils (F20)
❑
Organic Bodies (A6) (LRR P,T,U)
❑
❑
5 cm Mucky Mineral (A7) (LRR P,T,U)
❑
❑
Muck Presence (A8) (LRR U)
❑
❑
1 cm Muck (A9) (LRR P,T)
❑
❑
Depleted Below Dark Surface (All)
❑
❑
Thick Dark Surface (Al2)
❑
❑
Coast Prairie Redox (A16) (MLRA 150A)
❑
❑
Sandy Mucky Mineral (S1) (LRR O,S)
❑
❑
Sandy Gleyed Matrix (S4)
❑
❑
Sandy Redox (SS)
❑
❑
Stripped Matrix (S6)
❑
Sampling Point: HBF -Wet
Remarks
Location: PL = Pore Lining, M = Matrix
Indicators for Problematic Hydric Soils:
Polyvalue Below Surface (S8) (LRR S,T,U)
❑
1 cm Muck (A9) (LRR O)
Thin Dark Surface (S9) (LRR S,T,U)
❑
2 cm Muck (A10) (LRR S)
Loamy Mucky Mineral (F1) (LRR O)
❑
Reduced Vertic (F18) (outside MLRA 150A,B)
Loamy Gleyed Matrix (F2)
❑
Piedmont Floodplain Soils (F19) (LRR P,S,T)
Depleted Matrix (F3)
❑
Anomalous Bright Loamy Soils (F20)
Redox Dark Surface (F6)
(MLRA 1538)
Depleted Dark Surface (F7)
❑
Red Parent Material (72)
Redox Depressions (F8)
❑
Very Shallow Dark Surface (TF12)
Marl (F10) (LRR U)
❑
Other (Explain in Remarks)
Depleted Ochric (Ell) (MLRA 151)
Iron - Manganese Masses (F12) (LRR O,P,T)
Umbric Surface (F13) (LRR P,T,U)
Delta Ochric (F17) (MLRA 151)
Reduced Vertic (F18) (MLRA 150A, 150B)
Piedmont Floodplain Soils (F19) (MLRA 149A)
Anomalous Bright Loamy Soils (F20) (MLRA 149A, 153C, 153D)
3Indicators of hydrophytic vegetation and
wetland hydrology must be present,
unless disturbed or problematic.
❑ Dark Surface (S7) (LRR P,S,T,U)
Restrictive Layer (if observed):
Type:
Depth (inches) Hydric Soil Present? Yes ❑
Remarks:
Hydric soil criterion is met.
US Army Corps of Engineers Atlantic and Gulf Coastal Plain Region - Version 2.0
No ❑

WETLAND DETERMINATION DATA FORM - Atlantic and Gulf Coastal Plain Region
Project /Site:
HE Lee Steam Station
City /County: Goldsboro (Wayne CO)
Sampling Date: 10/2/2014
Applicant /Owner:
Duke Energy
State:
Sampling Point: LKE -17 Up
Investigator(s):
J. Cutler, B. Kelly
Section, Township, Range:
Aquatic Fauna (1313)
Landform: (hillslope, terrace,
etc.) hillslope
Local Relief (concave, convex, none):
Slope ( %): 20
Subregion (LRR or MLRA)
LRRP
Lat: 35.3827 Long: - 78.1016
Datum:
Soil Map Unit Name:
M -W - Miscellaneous water (Point taken on dike surrounding Ash Pond) NWI Classification:
PSS3 /4Bh
Are climatic /hydrologic
conditions on the site typical for this time of year ?❑ Yes ❑ No (If no, explain in Remarks.)
❑
Are Vegetation ❑
, Soil ❑ , or Hydrology
❑ significantly disturbed? Are "Normal Circumstances" present E. Yes
❑ No
Are Vegetation ❑
, Soil ❑ , or Hydrology
❑ naturally problematic? (If needed, explain any answers in Remarks.)
❑ Inundation Visible on Aerial Imagery (137)
SUMMARY OF FINDINGS - Attach site map showing sampling point locations, transects, important features, etc
Hydrophytic Vegetation Present? Yes ❑ No ❑ Is the Sampled Area
Hydric Soil Present? Yes ❑ No [Z] within a wetland? Yes ❑ No 0
Wetland Hydrology Present? Yes ❑ No M
Remarks:
Point taken on the dike surrounding Ash Ponds 1 & 2. Obvious topographic rise from adjacent wetland
All three wetland criteria are not met, area is not a wetland.
HYDROLOGY
Wetland Hydrology Indicators:
Primary Indicators (minimum of one is required: check
all
that aoolv):
❑ Surface Water (Al)
❑
Aquatic Fauna (1313)
❑ High Water Table (A2)
❑
Marl Deposits (B15) (LRR U)
❑ Saturation (A3)
❑
Hydrogen Sulfide Odor (Cl)
❑ Water Marks (B1)
❑
Oxidized Rhizospheres on Living Roots (C3)
❑ Sediment Deposits (B2)
❑
Presence of Reduced Iron (C4)
❑ Drift Deposits (133)
❑
Recent Iron Reduction in Tilled Soils (C6)
❑ Algal Mat or Crust (134)
❑
Thin Much Surface (C7)
❑ Iron Deposits (BS)
❑
Other (Explain in Remarks)
❑ Inundation Visible on Aerial Imagery (137)
❑ Water- Stained Leaves (B9)
Field Observations:
Surface Water Present? Yes ❑ No
Depth (inches):
Water Table Present? Yes ❑ No
F4
Depth (inches):
Secondary Indicators (minimum of two required)
❑ Surface Soil Cracks (B6)
❑ Sparsely Vegetated Concave Surface (68)
❑ Drainage Patterns (B10)
❑ Moss Trim Lines (B16)
❑ Dry- Season Water Table (C2)
❑ Crayfish Burrows (C8)
❑ Saturation Visible on Aerial Imagery (C9)
❑ Geomorphic Position (D2)
❑ Shallow Aquitard (D3)
❑ FAC- Neutral Test (D5)
❑ Sphangum moss (D8) (LRR T,U)
Saturation Present? Yes ❑ No Depth (inches): Wetland Hydrology Present? Yes
(includes capillary fringe)
Describe Recorded Data (stream gauge, monitoring well, aerial photos, previous inspections), if available:
Remarks:
No hydrology indicators present.
❑ No 0
US Army Corps of Engineers Atlantic and Gulf Coastal Plain Region - Version 2.0

VEGETATION (Five Strata) - Use scientific names of plants.
Sampling Point: LKE -17 Up
Absolute Dominant
Indicator
Dominance Test Worksheet:
Tree Stratum (Plot size: 30 ft )
% Cover Species?
Status
Number of Dominant Species
1. Acer rubrum
80 y
FAC
That Are ORL, FACW, or FAC: 5
(A)
2. Pinus taeda
20 y
FAC
Total Number of Dominant
3.
Species Across All Strata: 6
(B)
4.
Percent of Dominant Species
5.
That Are ORL, FACW, or FAC: 83%
(A /B)
6.
100 = Total Cover
Prevalence Index worksheet:
50% of total cover: 50
20% of total cover:
20
ORL species 0 x 1 - 0
Sapling Stratum (Plot size: 30 ft )
FACW species 0 x 2 = 0
1.
FAC species 215 x 3 - 645
2.
FACU species 5 x 4 = 20
3.
UPL species 0 x 5 - 0
4.
Column Totals: 220 (A) 665
(B)
S.
Prevalence Index = B/A = 3.0
6.
- Total Cover
Hydrophytic Vegetation Indicators:
50% of total cover:
201/. of total cover:
Shrub Stratum (Plot size: 30 ft )
F71 Dominance Test is > 50%
1. Callicarpa americana
5 y
FACU
❑ Prevalence Index is <_ 3.01
2. Diospyros virginiona
5 y
FAC
❑ Problematic Hydrophytic Vegetation' (Explain)
3.
4.
1 Indicators of hydric soil and wetland hydrology must
5.
be present, unless disturbed or problematic
6.
10 =Total Cover
Definitions of Vegetation Strata:
50% of total cover: 5
20% of total cover:
2
Herb Stratum (Plot size: 30 ft )
Tree - Woody plants, excluding woody vines, approximately
1. Microstegium vimineum
100 y
FAC
20 ft (6 m) or more in height and 3 in. (7.6 cm) or larger in
2.
diameter at breast height (DBH).
3.
Sapling - Woody plants, excluding woody vines,
4.
approximately 20 ft (6 m) or more in height and less than 3
5.
in. (7.6 cm) DBH.
6.
Shrub - Woody plants, excluding woody vines,
7.
approximately 3 to 20 ft (1 to 6 m) in height.
8.
Herb -All herbaceous (non- woody) plants, including
9.
herbaceous vines, regardless of size. Includes woody plants,
10.
except woody vines, less than approximately 3 ft (1 m) in
11
height.
100 = Total Cover
Woody vine - All woody vines, regardless of height.
50% of total cover: 50
20% of total cover:
20
Woody Vine Stratum (Plot size: 30 ft )
1. Vitis rotundifolia
10 y
FAC
2.
3.
Hydrophytic
4.
Vegetation Yes No ❑
S.
Present?
10 =Total Cover
50% of total cover: 5
20% of total cover:
2
Remarks: (If observed, list morphological adaptations below)
ERDC /CRREL 2014 Regional Wetland Plant List
(Atlantic and Gulf Coastal Plain) used for indicator status.
Hydrophytic vegetation criteria is met.
US Army Corps of Engineers Atlantic and Gulf Coastal Plain Region - Version 2.0

SOIL
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' Locz Texture
0 -9 10YR 4/4 clay j z
9 -18+ 10YR 4/6 c�vi_
1Type C = Concentration, D = depletion, RM = Reduced Matrix, MS = Masked Sand GrainE
Hydric Soil Indicators:
❑
Hlstosol (Al)
❑
❑
Histic Epipedon (A2)
❑
❑
Black Histic (A3)
❑
❑
Hydrogen Sulfide (A4)
❑
❑
Stratified Layers (A5)
❑
❑
Organic Bodies (A6) (LRR P,T,U)
❑
❑
5 cm Mucky Mineral (A7) (LRR P,T,U)
❑
❑
Muck Presence (A8) (LRR U)
❑
❑
1 cm Muck (A9) (LRR P,T)
❑
❑
Depleted Below Dark Surface (All)
❑
❑
Thick Dark Surface (Al2)
❑
❑
Coast Prairie Redox (A16) (MLRA 150A)
❑
❑
Sandy Mucky Mineral (S1) (LRR O,S)
❑
❑
Sandy Gleyed Matrix (S4)
❑
❑
Sandy Redox (SS)
❑
❑
Stripped Matrix (S6)
❑
Sampling Point: LKE -17 Up
Remarks
Location: PL = Pore Lining, M = Matrix
Indicators for Problematic Hydric Soils:
Polyvalue Below Surface (S8) (LRR S,T,U)
❑
1 cm Muck (A9) (LRR O)
Thin Dark Surface (S9) (LRR S,T,U)
❑
2 cm Muck (A10) (LRR S)
Loamy Mucky Mineral (F1) (LRR O)
❑
Reduced Vertic (F18) (outside MLRA 150A,B)
Loamy Gleyed Matrix (F2)
❑
Piedmont Floodplain Soils (F19) (LRR P,S,T)
Depleted Matrix (F3)
❑
Anomalous Bright Loamy Soils (F20)
Redox Dark Surface (F6)
(MLRA 1538)
Depleted Dark Surface (F7)
❑
Red Parent Material (72)
Redox Depressions (F8)
❑
Very Shallow Dark Surface (TF12)
Marl (F10) (LRR U)
❑
Other (Explain in Remarks)
Depleted Ochric (Ell) (MLRA 151)
Iron - Manganese Masses (F12) (LRR O,P,T)
Umbric Surface (F13) (LRR P,T,U)
Delta Ochric (F17) (MLRA 151)
Reduced Vertic (F18) (MLRA 150A, 150B)
Piedmont Floodplain Soils (F19) (MLRA 149A)
Anomalous Bright Loamy Soils (F20) (MLRA 149A, 153C, 153D)
3Indicators of hydrophytic vegetation and
wetland hydrology must be present,
unless disturbed or problematic.
❑ Dark Surface (S7) (LRR P,S,T,U)
Restrictive Layer (if observed):
Type:
Depth (inches) Hydric Soil Present? Yes ❑
Remarks:
Hydric soil criterion is not met.
US Army Corps of Engineers Atlantic and Gulf Coastal Plain Region - Version 2.0
No ❑

WETLAND DETERMINATION DATA FORM - Atlantic and Gulf Coastal Plain Region
Project /Site:
HE Lee Steam Station
City /County:
Goldsboro (Wayne CO)
Sampling Date: 10/2/2014
Applicant /Owner:
Duke Energy
all
State:
Sampling Point: LKE -17 Wet
Investigator(s):
J. Cutler, B. Kelly
Section, Township,
Range:
Marl Deposits (B15) (LRR U)
Landform: (hillslope, terrace,
etc.)
Local Relief (concave,
convex, none):
Slope ( %):
Subregion (LRR or MLRA)
LRRP
Lat: 35.3828
Long: - 78.1016
Datum:
Soil Map Unit Name:
LV - Lumbee sandy loam
❑ Algal Mat or Crust (134)
NWI Classification:
PF01A
Are climatic /hydrologic
conditions on the site typical for this time of year ?❑ Yes ❑
No (If no, explain in Remarks.)
❑ Inundation Visible on Aerial Imagery (137)
Are Vegetation ❑
, Soil ❑ , or Hydrology
❑ significantly disturbed?
Are "Normal Circumstances" present E. Yes
❑ No
Are Vegetation ❑
, Soil ❑ , or Hydrology
❑ naturally problematic?
(If needed, explain any answers in Remarks.)
❑
SUMMARY OF FINDINGS - Attach site map showing sampling point locations, transects, important features, etc
Hydrophytic Vegetation Present? Yes ❑ No ❑ Is the Sampled Area
Hydric Soil Present? Yes [Z] No ❑ within a wetland? Yes El No ❑
Wetland Hydrology Present? Yes ❑ No ❑
Remarks:
Wetland located adjacent to a utility line right of way, at the toe of the dike for Ash Ponds 1 & 2.
All three wetland criteria met, area is a wetland
HYDROLOGY
Wetland Hydrology Indicators:
Primary Indicators (minimum of one is required: check
all
that aoolv):
❑ Surface Water (Al)
❑
Aquatic Fauna (1313)
❑ High Water Table (A2)
❑
Marl Deposits (B15) (LRR U)
❑ Saturation (A3)
❑
Hydrogen Sulfide Odor (Cl)
❑ Water Marks (B1)
Oxidized Rhizospheres on Living Roots (C3)
❑ Sediment Deposits (B2)
❑
Presence of Reduced Iron (C4)
❑ Drift Deposits (133)
❑
Recent Iron Reduction in Tilled Soils (C6)
❑ Algal Mat or Crust (134)
❑
Thin Much Surface (C7)
❑ Iron Deposits (BS)
❑
Other (Explain in Remarks)
❑ Inundation Visible on Aerial Imagery (137)
❑ Water- Stained Leaves (B9)
Field Observations:
Surface Water Present? Yes E] No
❑
Depth (inches): 1 inch
Water Table Present? Yes ❑ No
❑
Depth (inches): surface
Secondary Indicators (minimum of two required)
❑ Surface Soil Cracks (B6)
❑ Sparsely Vegetated Concave Surface (68)
❑ Drainage Patterns (B10)
❑ Moss Trim Lines (B16)
❑ Dry- Season Water Table (C2)
❑ Crayfish Burrows (C8)
❑ Saturation Visible on Aerial Imagery (C9)
I] Geomorphic Position (D2)
❑ Shallow Aquitard (D3)
I] FAC- Neutral Test (D5)
❑ Sphangum moss (D8) (LRR T,U)
Saturation Present? Yes E] No ❑ Depth (inches): surface Wetland Hydrology Present? Yes
(includes capillary fringe)
Describe Recorded Data (stream gauge, monitoring well, aerial photos, previous inspections), if available:
Remarks:
Multiple hydrology indicators present. Hydrology criterion is met.
0 No ❑
US Army Corps of Engineers Atlantic and Gulf Coastal Plain Region - Version 2.0

VEGETATION (Five Strata) - Use scientific names of plants.
LKE -17 Wet
Dominance Test Worksheet:
Absolute
Dominant
Indicator
Tree Stratum (Plot size: 30 ft )
% Cover
Species?
Status
1. Liquidambarstyraciflua
20
y
FAC
2. Acer rubrum
10
y
FAC
3.
FACW
That Are OBL, FACW, or FAC:
100%
4.
Prevalence Index worksheet:
5.
30
FACW species 10 x 2 =
6.
FAC species 108 x 3 -
324
50% of total cover:
Sapling Stratum (Plot size: 30 ft )
1.
2.
3.
4.
S.
6.
50% of total cover:
Shrub Stratum (Plot size: 30 ft )
1. Ulmus americana
2. Acer rubrum
3.
4.
5.
6.
50% of total cover:
Herb Stratum (Plot size: 30 ft )
1. Microstegium vimineum
2. Juncus effusus
3. Persicaria hydropiperoides
4. Boehmeria cylindrica
5. Arundinaria gigantea
6.
7.
8.
9.
10.
11.
50% of total cover:
Woody Vine Stratum (Plot size: 30 ft )
1.
2.
3.
4.
S.
30 =Total Cover
15 20% of total cover:
- Total Cover
20% of total cover:
5 y FAC
3 y FAC
Sampling Point:
LKE -17 Wet
Dominance Test Worksheet:
4 20% of total cover:
1.6
Number of Dominant Species
That Are OBL, FACW, or FAC:
6
(A)
Total Number of Dominant
25 y
OBL
Species Across All Strata:
6
(B)
Percent of Dominant Species
5
FACW
That Are OBL, FACW, or FAC:
100%
(A /B)
Prevalence Index worksheet:
6 OBL species 30 x 1 -
30
FACW species 10 x 2 =
20
FAC species 108 x 3 -
324
FACU species 0 x 4 =
0
UPL species 0 x 5 -
0
Column Totals: 148 (A)
374
(B)
Prevalence Index = B/A = 2.5
55 20% of total cover:
22
Hydrophytic Vegetation Indicators:
Dominance Test is >50%
❑ Prevalence Index is <_ 3.01
❑ Problematic Hydrophytic Vegetation'
(Explain)
Indicators of hydric soil and wetland hydrology
must
be present, unless disturbed or problematic
8 =Total Cover
Definitions of Vegetation Strata:
4 20% of total cover:
1.6
Tree - Woody plants, excluding woody vines, approximately
70 y
FAC
20 ft (6 m) or more in height and 3 in. (7.6 cm) or larger in
25 y
OBL
diameter at breast height (DBH).
5
OBL
Sapling - Woody plants, excluding woody vines,
5
FACW
approximately 20 ft (6 m) or more in height and less than 3
5
FACW
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. Includes woody plants,
except woody vines, less than approximately 3 ft (1 m) in
height.
110 = Total Cover
Woody vine - All woody vines, regardless of height.
55 20% of total cover:
22
Hydrophytic
Vegetation Yes No ❑
Present?
=Total Cover
50% of total cover: 20% of total cover:
Remarks: (If observed, list morphological adaptations below)
ERDC /CRREL 2014 Regional Wetland Plant List (Atlantic and Gulf Coastal Plain) used for indicator status.
Hydrophytic vegetation criteria is met.
US Army Corps of Engineers Atlantic and Gulf Coastal Plain Region - Version 2.0

SOIL
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' Locz Texture
0 -4 10YR 4/2 80 SYR 4/6 20 C M sandy L,,,
4 -12 10YR 2/2 S -dy-
12-18+ 10YR 4/1 S-dyLo
1Type C = Concentration, D = depletion, RM = Reduced Matrix, MS = Masked Sand Grain
Hydric Soil Indicators:
❑
Hlstosol (Al)
❑
❑
Histic Epipedon (A2)
❑
❑
Black Histic (A3)
❑
❑
Hydrogen Sulfide (A4)
❑
❑
Stratified Layers (A5)
Anomalous Bright Loamy Soils (F20)
❑
Organic Bodies (A6) (LRR P,T,U)
❑
❑
5 cm Mucky Mineral (A7) (LRR P,T,U)
❑
❑
Muck Presence (A8) (LRR U)
❑
❑
1 cm Muck (A9) (LRR P,T)
❑
❑
Depleted Below Dark Surface (All)
❑
❑
Thick Dark Surface (Al2)
❑
❑
Coast Prairie Redox (A16) (MLRA 150A)
❑
❑
Sandy Mucky Mineral (S1) (LRR O,S)
❑
❑
Sandy Gleyed Matrix (S4)
❑
❑
Sandy Redox (SS)
❑
❑
Stripped Matrix (S6)
❑
Sampling Point: LKE -17 Wet
Remarks
Location: PL = Pore Lining, M = Matrix
Indicators for Problematic Hydric Soils:
Polyvalue Below Surface (S8) (LRR S,T,U)
❑
1 cm Muck (A9) (LRR O)
Thin Dark Surface (S9) (LRR S,T,U)
❑
2 cm Muck (A10) (LRR S)
Loamy Mucky Mineral (F1) (LRR O)
❑
Reduced Vertic (F18) (outside MLRA 150A,B)
Loamy Gleyed Matrix (F2)
❑
Piedmont Floodplain Soils (F19) (LRR P,S,T)
Depleted Matrix (F3)
❑
Anomalous Bright Loamy Soils (F20)
Redox Dark Surface (F6)
(MLRA 1538)
Depleted Dark Surface (F7)
❑
Red Parent Material (72)
Redox Depressions (F8)
❑
Very Shallow Dark Surface (TF12)
Marl (F10) (LRR U)
❑
Other (Explain in Remarks)
Depleted Ochric (Ell) (MLRA 151)
Iron - Manganese Masses (F12) (LRR O,P,T)
Umbric Surface (F13) (LRR P,T,U)
Delta Ochric (F17) (MLRA 151)
Reduced Vertic (F18) (MLRA 150A, 150B)
Piedmont Floodplain Soils (F19) (MLRA 149A)
Anomalous Bright Loamy Soils (F20) (MLRA 149A, 153C, 153D)
3Indicators of hydrophytic vegetation and
wetland hydrology must be present,
unless disturbed or problematic.
❑ Dark Surface (S7) (LRR P,S,T,U)
Restrictive Layer (if observed):
Type:
Depth (inches) Hydric Soil Present? Yes ❑
Remarks:
Hydric soil criterion is met.
US Army Corps of Engineers Atlantic and Gulf Coastal Plain Region - Version 2.0
No ❑

WETLAND DETERMINATION DATA FORM - Atlantic and Gulf Coastal Plain Region
Project /Site:
HE Lee Steam Station
City /County:
Goldsboro (Wayne CO)
Sampling Date: 10/2/2014
Applicant /Owner:
Duke Energy
all
State:
Sampling Point: LKH -6 Up
Investigator(s):
J. Cutler, B. Kelly
Section, Township,
Range:
Marl Deposits (B15) (LRR U)
Landform: (hillslope, terrace,
etc.) hillslope
Local Relief (concave,
convex, none):
Slope ( %): 5
Subregion (LRR or MLRA)
LRRP
Lat: 35.3798
Long: - 78.102
Datum:
Soil Map Unit Name:
Ch - Chewacla loam
❑ Algal Mat or Crust (134)
NWI Classification:
PF01A
Are climatic /hydrologic
conditions on the site typical for this time of year ?❑ Yes ❑
No (If no, explain in Remarks.)
❑ Inundation Visible on Aerial Imagery (137)
Are Vegetation ❑
, Soil ❑ , or Hydrology
❑ significantly disturbed?
Are "Normal Circumstances" present E. Yes
❑ No
Are Vegetation ❑
, Soil ❑ , or Hydrology
❑ naturally problematic?
(If needed, explain any answers in Remarks.)
SUMMARY OF FINDINGS - Attach site map showing sampling point locations, transects, important features, etc
Hydrophytic Vegetation Present? Yes ❑ No ❑ Is the Sampled Area
Hydric Soil Present? Yes ❑ No [Z] within a wetland? Yes ❑ No 0
Wetland Hydrology Present? Yes ❑ No M
Remarks:
Point taken on the dike surrounding Ash Ponds 1 & 2. Obvious topographic rise from adjacent wetland
All three wetland criteria are not met, area is not a wetland.
HYDROLOGY
Wetland Hydrology Indicators:
Primary Indicators (minimum of one is required: check
all
that aoolv):
❑ Surface Water (Al)
❑
Aquatic Fauna (1313)
❑ High Water Table (A2)
❑
Marl Deposits (B15) (LRR U)
❑ Saturation (A3)
❑
Hydrogen Sulfide Odor (Cl)
❑ Water Marks (B1)
❑
Oxidized Rhizospheres on Living Roots (C3)
❑ Sediment Deposits (B2)
❑
Presence of Reduced Iron (C4)
❑ Drift Deposits (133)
❑
Recent Iron Reduction in Tilled Soils (C6)
❑ Algal Mat or Crust (134)
❑
Thin Much Surface (C7)
❑ Iron Deposits (BS)
❑
Other (Explain in Remarks)
❑ Inundation Visible on Aerial Imagery (137)
❑ Water- Stained Leaves (B9)
Field Observations:
Surface Water Present? Yes ❑ No
Depth (inches):
Water Table Present? Yes ❑ No
F4
Depth (inches):
Secondary Indicators (minimum of two required)
❑ Surface Soil Cracks (B6)
❑ Sparsely Vegetated Concave Surface (68)
❑ Drainage Patterns (B10)
❑ Moss Trim Lines (B16)
❑ Dry- Season Water Table (C2)
❑ Crayfish Burrows (C8)
❑ Saturation Visible on Aerial Imagery (C9)
❑ Geomorphic Position (D2)
❑ Shallow Aquitard (D3)
❑ FAC- Neutral Test (D5)
❑ Sphangum moss (D8) (LRR T,U)
Saturation Present? Yes ❑ No Depth (inches): Wetland Hydrology Present? Yes
(includes capillary fringe)
Describe Recorded Data (stream gauge, monitoring well, aerial photos, previous inspections), if available:
Remarks:
No hydrology indicators present.
❑ No 0
US Army Corps of Engineers Atlantic and Gulf Coastal Plain Region - Version 2.0

VEGETATION (Five Strata) - Use scientific names of plants.
Sampling Point: LKH -6 Up
Absolute Dominant
Indicator
Dominance Test Worksheet:
Tree Stratum
(Plot size: 30 ft )
% Cover Species?
Status
Number of Dominant Species
1.
Ulmus americana
40 y
FAC
That Are ORL, FACW, or FAC: 9
(A)
2.
Lipuidambarstyraciflua
30 y
FAC
Total Number of Dominant
3.
Pinus taeda
20 y
FAC
Species Across All Strata: 10
(B)
4.
Percent of Dominant Species
5.
That Are ORL, FACW, or FAC: 900/0
(A /B)
6.
90 = Total Cover
Prevalence Index worksheet:
50% of total cover: 45
20% of total cover:
18
ORL species 0 x 1 - 0
Sapling
Stratum (Plot size: 30 ft )
FACW species 10 x 2 = 20
1.
FAC species 125 x 3 - 375
2.
FACU species 20 x 4 = 80
3.
UPL species 0 x 5 - 0
4.
Column Totals: 155 (A) 475
(B)
S.
Prevalence Index = B/A = 3.1
6.
- Total Cover
Hydrophytic Vegetation Indicators:
50% of total cover:
201/. of total cover:
Shrub Stratum
(Plot size: 30 ft )
F71 Dominance Test is > 50%
1.
Ilex decidua
10 y
FACW
❑ Prevalence Index is <_ 3.01
2.
Lipuidambarstyraciflua
5 y
FAC
❑ Problematic Hydrophytic Vegetation' (Explain)
3.
Cre tag us sp.
5 y
FAC
4.
1 Indicators of hydric soil and wetland hydrology must
5.
be present, unless disturbed or problematic
6.
20 =Total Cover
Definitions of Vegetation Strata:
50% of total cover: 10
20% of total cover:
4
Herb Stratum
(Plot size: 30 ft )
Tree - Woody plants, excluding woody vines, approximately
1.
Phytolacca americana
20 y
FACU
20 ft (6 m) or more in height and 3 in. (7.6 cm) or larger in
2.
Microstegium vimineum
15 y
FAC
diameter at breast height (DBH).
3.
Sapling - Woody plants, excluding woody vines,
4.
approximately 20 ft (6 m) or more in height and less than 3
5.
in. (7.6 cm) DBH.
6.
Shrub - Woody plants, excluding woody vines,
7.
approximately 3 to 20 ft (1 to 6 m) in height.
8.
Herb -All herbaceous (non- woody) plants, including
9.
herbaceous vines, regardless of size. Includes woody plants,
10.
except woody vines, less than approximately 3 ft (1 m) in
11
height.
35 = Total Cover
Woody vine - All woody vines, regardless of height.
50% of total cover: 17.5
20% of total cover:
7
Woody
Vine Stratum (Plot size: 30 ft )
1.
Vitis rotundifolia
5 y
FAC
2.
Smilax rotundifolia
5 y
FAC
3.
Hydrophytic
4.
Vegetation Yes No ❑
5.
Present?
10 =Total Cover
50% of total cover: 5
20% of total cover:
2
Remarks:
(If observed, list morphological adaptations below)
ERDC /CRREL 2014 Regional Wetland Plant List
(Atlantic and Gulf Coastal Plain) used for indicator status.
Hydrophytic vegetation criteria is met.
US Army Corps of Engineers Atlantic and Gulf Coastal Plain Region - Version 2.0

SOIL
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' Locz Texture
0 -3 10YR 4/3 clay j a
3 -8 10YR 5/4 c�yi_
8 -18+ 7.5YR 4/6 c ]_
1Type C = Concentration, D = depletion, RM = Reduced Matrix, MS = Masked Sand GrainE
Hydric Soil Indicators:
❑
Hlstosol (Al)
❑
❑
Histic Epipedon (A2)
❑
❑
Black Histic (A3)
❑
❑
Hydrogen Sulfide (A4)
❑
❑
Stratified Layers (A5)
❑
❑
Organic Bodies (A6) (LRR P,T,U)
❑
❑
5 cm Mucky Mineral (A7) (LRR P,T,U)
❑
❑
Muck Presence (A8) (LRR U)
❑
❑
1 cm Muck (A9) (LRR P,T)
❑
❑
Depleted Below Dark Surface (All)
❑
❑
Thick Dark Surface (Al2)
❑
❑
Coast Prairie Redox (A16) (MLRA 150A)
❑
❑
Sandy Mucky Mineral (S1) (LRR O,S)
❑
❑
Sandy Gleyed Matrix (S4)
❑
❑
Sandy Redox (SS)
❑
❑
Stripped Matrix (S6)
❑
Sampling Point: LKH -6 Up
Remarks
Location: PL = Pore Lining, M = Matrix
Indicators for Problematic Hydric Soils:
Polyvalue Below Surface (S8) (LRR S,T,U)
❑
1 cm Muck (A9) (LRR O)
Thin Dark Surface (S9) (LRR S,T,U)
❑
2 cm Muck (A10) (LRR S)
Loamy Mucky Mineral (F1) (LRR O)
❑
Reduced Vertic (F18) (outside MLRA 150A,B)
Loamy Gleyed Matrix (F2)
❑
Piedmont Floodplain Soils (F19) (LRR P,S,T)
Depleted Matrix (F3)
❑
Anomalous Bright Loamy Soils (F20)
Redox Dark Surface (F6)
(MLRA 1538)
Depleted Dark Surface (F7)
❑
Red Parent Material (72)
Redox Depressions (F8)
❑
Very Shallow Dark Surface (TF12)
Marl (F10) (LRR U)
❑
Other (Explain in Remarks)
Depleted Ochric (Ell) (MLRA 151)
Iron - Manganese Masses (F12) (LRR O,P,T)
Umbric Surface (F13) (LRR P,T,U)
Delta Ochric (F17) (MLRA 151)
Reduced Vertic (F18) (MLRA 150A, 150B)
Piedmont Floodplain Soils (F19) (MLRA 149A)
Anomalous Bright Loamy Soils (F20) (MLRA 149A, 153C, 153D)
3Indicators of hydrophytic vegetation and
wetland hydrology must be present,
unless disturbed or problematic.
❑ Dark Surface (S7) (LRR P,S,T,U)
Restrictive Layer (if observed):
Type:
Depth (inches) Hydric Soil Present? Yes ❑
Remarks:
Hydric soil criterion is not met.
US Army Corps of Engineers Atlantic and Gulf Coastal Plain Region - Version 2.0
No ❑

WETLAND DETERMINATION DATA FORM - Atlantic and Gulf Coastal Plain Region
Project /Site:
HE Lee Steam Station
City /County:
Goldsboro (Wayne CO)
Sampling Date: 10/2/2014
Applicant /Owner:
Duke Energy
all
State:
Sampling Point: LKH -6 Wet
Investigator(s):
J. Cutler, B. Kelly
Section, Township,
Range:
Marl Deposits (B15) (LRR U)
Landform: (hillslope, terrace,
etc.)
Local Relief (concave,
convex, none):
Slope ( %):
Subregion (LRR or MLRA)
LRRP
Lat: 35.3798
Long: - 78.1019
Datum:
Soil Map Unit Name:
Ch - Chewacla loam
❑ Algal Mat or Crust (134)
NWI Classification:
PF01A
Are climatic /hydrologic
conditions on the site typical for this time of year ?❑ Yes ❑
No (If no, explain in Remarks.)
❑ Inundation Visible on Aerial Imagery (137)
Are Vegetation ❑
, Soil ❑ , or Hydrology
❑ significantly disturbed?
Are "Normal Circumstances" present E. Yes
❑ No
Are Vegetation ❑
, Soil ❑ , or Hydrology
❑ naturally problematic?
(If needed, explain any answers in Remarks.)
SUMMARY OF FINDINGS - Attach site map showing sampling point locations, transects, important features, etc
Hydrophytic Vegetation Present? Yes ❑ No ❑ Is the Sampled Area
Hydric Soil Present? Yes [Z] No ❑ within a wetland? Yes El No ❑
Wetland Hydrology Present? Yes ❑ No ❑
Remarks:
Wetland located adjacent to a utility line right of way, at the toe of the dike for Ash Ponds 1 & 2.
All three wetland criteria met, area is a wetland
HYDROLOGY
Wetland Hydrology Indicators:
Primary Indicators (minimum of one is required: check
all
that aoolv):
❑ Surface Water (Al)
❑
Aquatic Fauna (1313)
❑ High Water Table (A2)
❑
Marl Deposits (B15) (LRR U)
❑ Saturation (A3)
❑
Hydrogen Sulfide Odor (Cl)
❑ Water Marks (B1)
❑
Oxidized Rhizospheres on Living Roots (C3)
❑ Sediment Deposits (B2)
❑
Presence of Reduced Iron (C4)
❑ Drift Deposits (133)
❑
Recent Iron Reduction in Tilled Soils (C6)
❑ Algal Mat or Crust (134)
❑
Thin Much Surface (C7)
❑ Iron Deposits (BS)
❑
Other (Explain in Remarks)
❑ Inundation Visible on Aerial Imagery (137)
Fil Water- Stained Leaves (B9)
Field Observations:
Surface Water Present? Yes ❑ No
Depth (inches):
Water Table Present? Yes ❑ No
F4
Depth (inches):
Secondary Indicators (minimum of two required)
❑ Surface Soil Cracks (B6)
I] Sparsely Vegetated Concave Surface (68)
❑ Drainage Patterns (B10)
I] Moss Trim Lines (B16)
❑ Dry- Season Water Table (C2)
❑ Crayfish Burrows (C8)
❑ Saturation Visible on Aerial Imagery (C9)
I] Geomorphic Position (D2)
❑ Shallow Aquitard (D3)
I] FAC- Neutral Test (D5)
❑ Sphangum moss (D8) (LRR T,U)
Saturation Present? Yes ❑ No Depth (inches): Wetland Hydrology Present? Yes
(includes capillary fringe)
Describe Recorded Data (stream gauge, monitoring well, aerial photos, previous inspections), if available:
Remarks:
Multiple hydrology indicators present. Hydrology criterion is met.
0 No ❑
US Army Corps of Engineers Atlantic and Gulf Coastal Plain Region - Version 2.0

VEGETATION (Five Strata) - Use scientific names of plants.
Sampling Point: LKH -6 Wet
Absolute Dominant
Indicator
Dominance Test Worksheet:
Tree Stratum (Plot size: 30 ft )
% Cover Species?
Status
Number of Dominant Species
1. Taxodium distichum
40 y
OBL
That Are OBL, FACW, or FAC: 3
(A)
2. Betula nigro
40 y
FACW
Total Number of Dominant
3. Ulmus americana
10
FAC
Species Across All Strata: 3
(B)
4.
Percent of Dominant Species
5.
That Are OBL, FACW, or FAC: 100%
(A /B)
6.
90 = Total Cover
Prevalence Index worksheet:
50% of total cover: 45
20% of total cover:
18
OBL species 40 x 1 - 40
Sapling Stratum (Plot size: 30 ft )
FACW species 55 x 2 = 110
1.
FAC species 10 x 3 - 30
2.
FACU species 0 x 4 = 0
3.
UPL species 0 x 5 - 0
4.
Column Totals: 105 (A) 180
(B)
S.
Prevalence Index = B/A = 1.7
6.
- Total Cover
Hydrophytic Vegetation Indicators:
50% of total cover:
201/. of total cover:
Shrub Stratum (Plot size: 30 ft )
F71 Dominance Test is > 50%
1. Fraxinus pennsylvanica
15 y
FACW
❑ Prevalence Index is <_ 3.01
2.
❑ Problematic Hydrophytic Vegetation' (Explain)
3.
4.
1 Indicators of hydric soil and wetland hydrology must
5.
be present, unless disturbed or problematic
6.
15 =Total Cover
Definitions of Vegetation Strata:
50% of total cover: 7.5
20% of total cover:
3
Herb Stratum (Plot size: 30 ft )
Tree - Woody plants, excluding woody vines, approximately
1.
20 ft (6 m) or more in height and 3 in. (7.6 cm) or larger in
2.
diameter at breast height (DBH).
3.
Sapling - Woody plants, excluding woody vines,
4.
approximately 20 ft (6 m) or more in height and less than 3
5.
in. (7.6 cm) DBH.
6.
Shrub - Woody plants, excluding woody vines,
7.
approximately 3 to 20 ft (1 to 6 m) in height.
8.
Herb -All herbaceous (non- woody) plants, including
9.
herbaceous vines, regardless of size. Includes woody plants,
10.
except woody vines, less than approximately 3 ft (1 m) in
11
height.
= Total Cover
Woody vine - All woody vines, regardless of height.
50% of total cover:
20% of total cover:
Woody Vine Stratum (Plot size: 30 ft )
1.
2.
3.
Hydrophytic
4.
Vegetation Yes No ❑
S.
Present?
=Total Cover
50% of total cover:
20% of total cover:
Remarks: (If observed, list morphological adaptations below)
ERDC /CRREL 2014 Regional Wetland Plant List
(Atlantic and Gulf Coastal Plain) used for indicator status.
Hydrophytic vegetation criteria is met.
US Army Corps of Engineers Atlantic and Gulf Coastal Plain Region - Version 2.0

SOIL
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' Locz Texture
0 -9 10YR 4/2 50 10YR 3/4, 5/3 50 C M clay j z
9 -18+ 10YR 6/2 75 10YR 4/6 25 C M c�via
1Type C = Concentration, D = depletion, RM = Reduced Matrix, MS = Masked Sand Grain
Hydric Soil Indicators:
❑
Hlstosol (Al)
❑
❑
Histic Epipedon (A2)
❑
❑
Black Histic (A3)
❑
❑
Hydrogen Sulfide (A4)
❑
❑
Stratified Layers (A5)
Anomalous Bright Loamy Soils (F20)
❑
Organic Bodies (A6) (LRR P,T,U)
❑
❑
5 cm Mucky Mineral (A7) (LRR P,T,U)
❑
❑
Muck Presence (A8) (LRR U)
❑
❑
1 cm Muck (A9) (LRR P,T)
❑
❑
Depleted Below Dark Surface (All)
❑
❑
Thick Dark Surface (Al2)
❑
❑
Coast Prairie Redox (A16) (MLRA 150A)
❑
❑
Sandy Mucky Mineral (S1) (LRR O,S)
❑
❑
Sandy Gleyed Matrix (S4)
❑
❑
Sandy Redox (SS)
❑
❑
Stripped Matrix (S6)
❑
Sampling Point: LKH -6 Wet
Remarks
Location: PL = Pore Lining, M = Matrix
Indicators for Problematic Hydric Soils:
Polyvalue Below Surface (S8) (LRR S,T,U)
❑
1 cm Muck (A9) (LRR O)
Thin Dark Surface (S9) (LRR S,T,U)
❑
2 cm Muck (A10) (LRR S)
Loamy Mucky Mineral (F1) (LRR O)
❑
Reduced Vertic (F18) (outside MLRA 150A,B)
Loamy Gleyed Matrix (F2)
❑
Piedmont Floodplain Soils (F19) (LRR P,S,T)
Depleted Matrix (F3)
❑
Anomalous Bright Loamy Soils (F20)
Redox Dark Surface (F6)
(MLRA 1538)
Depleted Dark Surface (F7)
❑
Red Parent Material (72)
Redox Depressions (F8)
❑
Very Shallow Dark Surface (TF12)
Marl (F10) (LRR U)
❑
Other (Explain in Remarks)
Depleted Ochric (Ell) (MLRA 151)
Iron - Manganese Masses (F12) (LRR O,P,T)
Umbric Surface (F13) (LRR P,T,U)
Delta Ochric (F17) (MLRA 151)
Reduced Vertic (F18) (MLRA 150A, 150B)
Piedmont Floodplain Soils (F19) (MLRA 149A)
Anomalous Bright Loamy Soils (F20) (MLRA 149A, 153C, 153D)
3Indicators of hydrophytic vegetation and
wetland hydrology must be present,
unless disturbed or problematic.
❑ Dark Surface (S7) (LRR P,S,T,U)
Restrictive Layer (if observed):
Type:
Depth (inches) Hydric Soil Present? Yes ❑
Remarks:
Hydric soil criterion is met.
US Army Corps of Engineers Atlantic and Gulf Coastal Plain Region - Version 2.0
No ❑

NC DWQ Stream identification Form Version 4.11 - ' #` # ¢ , mw //,.Z, 6,
Date: Pece.,,il r # if PrnjectfSite: e. Latitude; :3y, 314 % /
Evaluator; agle-f ALL
Wei- �C County: �7 ;� Longitude: j�� r��j'og4a
Total Points; Stream Determination (circle one) Other
Sttfeamisat least inlarmirtent 2. Ephemeral ritermiiten erennial a -g. G7uartNarr ®;
it _ 19 or perennial if a 301 � � '�°
A. Geomorphology (Subtotal = 101 G i
Absent
Weals
Moderate
Strong
i" Continuity of channel bed and bank
0
1
6 )
3
2. Sinuosity of channel along thahveg
0
(1
2
3
3. In- channel structure: ex. riffle -pool, step -pool,
0
2
3
ripple -poal sequence
4. Particle size of stream substrate
0
2
3
5. Activelrefct floodplain
0
1
C
3
6. Depositional bars or benches
0
�:-■'
2
3
7. Recent alluvial deposits
0
1
2
3
B. Headcuts
0
1
2
3
9. Grade control
0
ca.a
1
1.5
10. Natural valley
0
0.5
1
1.5
11. Second or greaterorder channel
No 710)
Yes 3
P artificial ditches are not rated_ see discussions in manual
B. Hydrology {Subtotal
12. Presence of 6aseflow
1 -
2
3
13. Iran oxidizing bacteria
0
i. J
2
3
14. Leaf 14-ter
1.5
1 `
0.5
0
15. Sed .-meet on plants or debris
0
0.5
1.5
16. Organic debris lines or plies
0
+
1
1.5
17. Soil -based evidence of high water table?
No = 0
Yes
C. Biology (Subtotal
18. Fibrous runts in streambed
3
2
1
0
19. Ro- oted upland plants in streamhed
3
1
0
20. Macrohenthos (note diversity and abundance)
_
1
2
3
21. Aquatic Mollusks
�0�
1
2
3
22. Fish
- 0
U.5
1
1.5
23. Crayfish
0.5
1
1.5
24. Amphibians
0
0.5
1
1.5
25. Algae
W
I 0.5
1
1.5
26. Weiland plants in streambed
FACW =l 75 ;j OBL = 1.5 Other = 0
'Perennial streams may also be identified using other methods. Seep. 35 of manual. .�
Notes:
Sketch:

USAGE AID#f DWQ #f Site # (indicate can attached map)
lSTREAM QUALITY ASSESSN ENT WORKSHEET
Provide the following information for the stream reach under assessment:
1. Applicant's name: P+,k"R'- Vie' --r,,9 + 2, Evaluator's
3. Date of evaluation: Y0-C,0' kt.-- /J1 ;-0i1� 4. Time of evaluation: A' �
5. Name of stream: alit it,wee 74r-;Jj')1-c k^ e 6. giver basin. Ale"-:Fe-
7. Approximate drainage area: A "t- z&-he"V;ie, re S. Stream order: 1F? Y~ g
9. Length of reach evaluated: 14. County: WIVA"I'L
11. Site coordinates (if known): prefer in decimal degrees. 12. Subdivision name (if any): �y �y�-�
Latitude(ex.34.872312): 3�r 346*0 Longitude (ex.- 77.555611): ?GA � t1 +T
, $ -z .3
Method Location determined (circle): GPS Topo Sheet O)rtho (Aerial) Photo /GI5 Other GIS Other
13. Location of reach under evaluation. (note nearby roads and landmarks and attach map identifying stream(s) location):
14. Proposed channel work (if any):
15. Recent weather conditions-
16.
16. Site conditions at time of visit;7^ -F - e.le ae
t
17. Identify any special waterway classifications known: Section 10 Tidal Waters ______Essential Fisheries Habitat
_- _--Trout Waters Outstanding Resource Waters _Nutrient Sensitive Waters Water Supply Watershed (I -M
18. Is there a pond or lake located upstream of the evaluation point? YESO If yes, estimate the water surface area:
19. Does channel appear on USGS quart map? YES NO 20. Does channel appear on USDA Soil Survey? YES (9)
21. Estimated watershed Land use: ,% Residential _VIO Commercial % Industrial "A Agricultural
_lo Foreste pU)� <I Cleared / Logged % other (�j �o�r ' i
22. Bankfull width: �i � . f !p 23. Bank height (from bed to top of bank): " N '-
24. Channel slope down center of stream: ,Flat (0 to 2 0/6) _Gentle (2 to 4 %) _ Aoderate (4 to 10 %) _Steep ( >10%)
25. Channel sinuosity: traigh Occasionol bends Frequent meander Very sinuous Braided channel
Instructions for completion o worksheet (located on page 2). Begin by determining the most appropriate ecoregion based on
location, terrain, vegetation, stream classification, etc. Every characteristic must be scored using the same ecoregiom Assign, points
to each characteristic within the range shown for the eeoregion. Page 3 provides a brief description of hour to review the
characteristics identified in tho worksheet. Scares should reflect an overall assessment of the stream reach under evaluation. if a
characteristic cannot be evaluated due to site or weather conditions, eater 0 in the scoring box and provide an explanation in the
comment section. Where there are obvious changes in the character of a stream under review (e.g., the stream flows from a pasture
into a forest), the stream may be divided into smaller reaches that display more continuity, and a separate form used to evaluate each
reach. The total score assigned to a stream reach must range between 0 and 144, with a score of 140 representing a stream of the
highest quality.
s7
Total Score (from reverse): Commzenks: ' ` �
Evaluator 's Signature i °� i�fr+ Date 12-l"I /-V
This channel evaluation form is intended to be used only as a guide to assist landowners and environ &ental professionals in
gathering the data required by the United States Army Corps of Engineers to make a preliminary assessment of stream
quality. The total score resulting from the completion of this form is subject to USACE approval and does not imply a
particular mitigation ratio or requirement. Form subject to change - version 06143. To Comment, please call 919 -876 -8441 x 26,
I

o13 2)
STREAM QUALITY ASSESSMENT WORKSHEET
rIx
* These characteristics xc not assessed in cost stre�c

NC DWQ Strew
Data: `1 'car b'f
I Evaluator: tij pq
Total Points:
Stream is at least intermigent
if --09 yr psrenrrwal if L-301
m Identification Foram Version 4.11
70 I it ProjectUte: #P Lc- r, -
County: tj A N 57
Stream Determination (cf
G Ephemeral IntermittenLIPerennial
A. Geomomhalow (Subtotal= / 0
Absent
Weak
1a Continuity of channel bed and hank
0
1
2. Sinuosity of channel along thalweg
0
- 1
3. In _ channel structure: ex. riffle -pool, step -pool,
0
0
4. Particle size of stream substrate
0
1
5. Active/relict floodplain
0
1
j 6. Depositional bars or benches
0
1
7_ Recent alluvial deposits
0
1
S. Headcuts
0
W
9. Grade control
0
0.5
10. Natural valley
0
/' 0_1
11. Second or greater order channel
(
No Q _i
a athOW ditches are not rated; see discussions in manual
B. Hydrology (Subtotal
12. Presence of Basefiow
0
1
113. iron oxidizing bacteria
0
114. Leaf litter
( 1.5
1
115. Sediment on plants or debris
`[]
0.5
16. Organic debris lines ar piles
0
0.5
17. Soli -based evidence of high water table?
No _0
C. Biology (Subtotal = q . S
118, Fibrous roots in strearnbed
19. Rooted upland plants in streambed3j
20. Maerobenthos (note diversify and abundance)
1
121_ Aquatic Mollusks
0
122. Fish
0
123. Crayfish
0
124. Amphibians
0
125. Algae
({3)
126. Wetland plants in streammbed
1
`perennial streams may also be identified using other methods. Seep. 35 of manual.
Notes:
Sketch:
Latitude: 3 S° �2r 67, it'
Langltude:
Other
e.g. Quad
ftlame• G ,etn+l�FL�tizs5
Moderate
.V
2
2
2
2
U
2
1
Yes =,3
2
2
0.5
Yes
Strang
3
3
3
3
3
3
3
3
1.5
1.5
3
0
1.
0
0
3
3
1.5
1.5
1.5
1.5
2-
2 -
1
1
2
i
CIE
(
1
0.�
1
t0.5)
1
0.5
1
FACW = 0.75; CBL
=1.5 Other = 0
Strang
3
3
3
3
3
3
3
3
1.5
1.5
3
0
1.
0
0
3
3
1.5
1.5
1.5
1.5

IUSAGE Am#
DWQ#
l een- 14l =L_o2 .
Site # (indicate on attached neap)
M STREAM QUALITY ASSESSMENT WORKSHEET .
Provide the following information for the stream reach under assessment:
f . Applicant's name: 1 E h - r2tl 2. E'valuator's name: �- (A4
3. Date of evaluation: 4. Time of evaluation: 1 & I13
5. Alame of stream: L7 -0rr Try 6. River basin: N e V511�
7. Approximate drainage area: / 0 14 C $. Stream order: ) 4 d
9. Length of reach evaluated, 5b free 10. County: U5 Al 05:
11. Site coordinates (if known): prefer in decimal degrees. 12. Subdivision name (if any)'
Latitude (ex, 34.872312): S ' �J G • �'� Longitude. (ex. - 77.555611):
Method location determined (circle): tf� Topo Sheet Ortho (Aerial) PhotalGIS 0tber GIS Other
13. Location of reach under evaluation (note nearby roads and 1 andmarks and attach map identifying streams} location):
14. Proposal channel work (if any)!
15, itecenr tether conditions: s n
�_-G
16. Site conditions at time of insit; S''� `� s
17. Identify any special waterway classifications known: ASection 10 Tidal Waters Essential Fisheries Habitat
_Trout Waters — Outstanding Resource Waters ,Nutrient Sensitive Waters Water Supply Watershed (1 -M
18. Is there a pond or lake located upstream ofthe evaluation point? YF If yes, estimate the water surface area:
19. Does channel appear on USGS quad map? YES NO 20, Does channel appear on USDA Soil Survey? YES NO
21. Estimated watershed land use: °% Residential ,% Commercial % Industrial _% Agricultural
V-°% Forested % Clcarod ! Logged °% Other ( 1
21 Bankfull width: 23. Hank height (from bed to top of bank):`° ° 1
24. Channel slope down center of stream.'` Flat (0 to 2°/0] Gontl o (2 to 4%) Moderate (4 to 10 %) _Steep (1011/fl)
25. Channel sinuosi#y :--.j 5traiglrt �ccasiana] bendsrerluen# meander --Very sinuous Braided channel
Instructions for completion of worksheet (located on page 2): Begin by determining the most appropriate eooregion based on
location, terrain, vegetation, stream classification, ate. Every characteristic must be scored using the same ecoregion_ Assign points
to each characteristic within the range shown for the ecoregion. Page 3 provides a brief description of how to review the
characteristics identified in the worksheet. Scores should reflect an overall assessment of the stream reach under evaluation. If a
characteristic cannot be evaluated due to site or weather conditions, enter 4 in the scoring box and provide an explanation in the
comment section. Where there are obvious changes in the character of a stream under review (e.g, the stream flows from a pasture
into a forest), the stream may be divided into smaller reaches that display more continuity, and a separate form used to evaluate each
reach. The total score assigned to a stream reach must range between 0 and 100, with a scare of 100 representing a stream of the
highest quality.
Total Score (from reverse): 25 Comments:
Evaluator's Signature Date 1) D-,­r , b° r far r
This channel evaluation-for is tended to be used only as a guide to assist landowners and envirunrnental professsbnalu in
gathering the data required by the United Stages Army Corps of Engineers to make s preliminary assessment of stream
quality. The total score resulting from the completion of this form is subject to USACE approval and does not imply a
particularmitigation ratio or requirement. Form subject to change - version 06103. To Comment, please call 919- 876 -8441 x 26.
1

STT AM QUALITY ASSESSMENT WORKSHEET Ere -Ov,- WFL - " -5
* Tb=e ahamc istkS am not Assmad iu CC=al suemms.
mal

NC DNVQ Strenin Identification Form Version 4.11
Date: I 11 � Pq ProjecdSite: C�le - . Lev
EvaluGtvr_ ±11 'vf?�e�v County:
Total Points: Stream Determinatyvn (circle one)
i'rrearrrpenon vial ff mit' ` Ephemeral Intermittent Perennial
i €? '79 or peg ennial if z 3�7" (T
A. Geomorphology (Srlbtotal = �� '?_)
� Absent
weak
1 °- Continuity of crianrel bed and .bank
I 0-
� 1
2. Siruosty of char.ncl Glom tha;tveq
0
22. Fish -
y In -channel.st,uctare: ex. 6MC -pouf, sfep- pool,
0
3
ripple -praul sequence
25. AJa ae
4. Par-dcle size of streen- sul;strate
0
[
5. Au!Jvalrelict floodplain
0
1
.G. DeposNonal bars or bencries
1
7. Recent aLvial deW_91s
I}
trT
s. Heacicuts
9. Grade control
fl
0.5
10, l 'a7 ra l valley
� i]
0.5
11- Second or areater order channsl
£artificial drer:cs are nit at d; seediscissiar:s it mantpal
B. Hydrology (Subtotal
12. Presence of Baseffcw
n
1
13. Iron ox'dizinrd baste_7a
[(
1
14 _ Leaf :Mcr
1
15.5ed:rr:enton {slants or debris
0
0�
10. Drcani4 debris lines or piles
p
17_ 3:)11 -based evidence of hiriIi water talr'e'?
N - 3
C. Biology I;Subtctal ° S
13. ; i�rouz rcots In sL;eembed
3
19. Rotated upland pants In .strearnbed
3
20. MacrobQnthcs (note divers;tyand abundance)
0)
2.. AgL:W.fc Mo'luSkS
2
22. Fish -
1
23. Crayf sh
3
25. AJa ae
26. Wetland plants Ir. strearrbed
'Perennial E'rt —rimu rro-v alsc be identified using other metads. Yee
P. 25 cf mGnual.
Notes:
Sketch: - -
y9
I
I'
L&-1
Latitude: t,"$c_ zt�'S JaI-
Longitude: !
Other
e.a. Caad flame:
Moderate
2
2
2
2
2
2
I
2
2
0.5
1
Strang
3
�3
3
3
3 ;
3
3
1.6
'.5
0
i�
1.5
2`j
0
0
1
2
3
1
2
3
FAC'V1 =0.15; CB- ='.5 of,

USACE Ali]##
DWQ#
Site 4 (indicate on atTa_cl:ed .trap)
M STREAM QUALITY ASSESSMENT WORKSINXT
Provide the folloning Wormation for the stream reach under assessment,
1. Applicant's name_ kke L- Aer)l 2. Evaluator's name. J - 3Wr e�
3. Date of evaluation:. _ p.1 I 1 I LI 4. Time of evalmtion: o qw
5. Name of strean3: 1-1E3 — # 6. River basin: ILlei11-C_
7. Appruximalc drainage area:_ UA kpwa, -A S. Stream order: 1
9. Length of reach evaluated: aix� 10. County: Q, -
11. 5iLe coordinates (ifknown). p,efer iu deciurat degraes. 12. Subdivision name (if any):
Latitndo {e._ 3 .}372312): 5� �' f S e� {a _ Longitude (Erx.- 77..555611)= t, 6 P.,4 Jo' x
Alzchod location detenined (circle); GP Tope Sheet QitILL: (Aerial) Phoiv/ IS Other GTS Orher
13. Location of reach undoi evaluation {note nearby marts and lardmnrks and attach map identtfving stream(,) locatiftllj:
�e4r -- rcp"t— 4-7vft
14. Proposed channel work (if any): Al %Z
15. Recent weather cor_dJious; 'lJormz�
16. Site conditions at time of visit: P-1141 t° ���� 1 t
17.Iden ity any special watetway L;latisifkat.ions known-
L-S - I
5�
- Section 10 _TidalWatcrs Pssenrial Fisheries Habitat
_Trout Waters WtstandingRe&mirce Waters _Nutrient Sensitive ,Water Supply Walcxshed {l -1 V}
18. Is klrere a pond or lake located upstream of Tbc evaluation point "? YES (0 If yes, estirnatc tihe water surface area;
19. Does cl-annel appear on — SGS quad utap? YES jo 20. Does channel appear on USDA Soil Survey? YES
21. Estimated Watershed land use: % licsidential °,a com=rcia1 Mo ludusLrial _ ,/0 Arncultural
)V,- % forested
22. Banlcllll width: I ` 6 4V
24. Channel sl nxe &wu center of Stream— Flat (0 to 2'1 /a)
25. C#raxuuel sirsLLayiLy: _ S-c aigght A, Occasional bends
i% Cleared/Logged °/F C hher {
23.13an1:- height (from bed to top of bank): 3
/L Geutl4 (2 to 4 %) Nlodam.te (4 to 10%) ,S:ccp ( >1011A)
Frequent w-caader Vc y 5imlous 13ra:ded channel
Instructions for completion of worksheet (located on pale Z): Begin by determining the musL appropriate ecnreUion based on
lucztmn, terrain, veretati3n, s-.ream classification, etc. Every characterivic must be scored using the sane ecoregiou. Assign points
to each characteristic vrithin the nmgc shown for the eeDregion. Pape 3 provides a brief description of how to review the
characteristics idenri#ied hi the worksheet. Scores should reflect an overall tasscs3ment of the stream reach under evaluation. If a
characteristic cannot be evaluaiod due to site or weather conditions, enter 0 in the scoring box and provide an explanation in the
comment 8cction. Where there are obvious changes 41 the character of a stream under review (e-g-, the stream flows from a pasture
into a ibrest), the stream may be divided into smaller reaches that display mcr-e continuity, and a scpzaratc form used to evaluate each
reach_ The total ;core assigned to a stream reach roust range between Q and 100, whh a score of 1 DO representing a strum of the
highest quality.
Total Score (from reverse): K Comments: aV1_ T> W(a — ;( q
(_valuator's Signature f : Date
This channel evaluation fn is intended to be tt ed only as a guide to assist landowners, and environmental professiouals in
gathering the data requir d by the tinited States Army Corps of Engineers to make a preliminary assessment of stream
quality. The total score r' ulting from the completion of this form is subject to 1.4ACE approval and does not imply a
particular mitigation ratio or requirement. Vortrl subject to change - version 65143. To Cnrnrnen, please call 919 -876 -8411 x 26.
)

STREAM QUALrff ASSESSMENT NVORKSHEET
1 ono 1Icw b� Q; floti �axr[iiats)
{i
SAlur{t4��� sfrnr
r
'.ti7[�Clli {!,� ji�[ltlffiRn ;tYfl(Fi�
tiXtCTi$1L'C[flaflrnt�
xloalerahau_ rrl£ucpuzpf�
M
'��
hllffei' {] - fLYl W,� �, s�
'� s 0
.�dYq •G[,lll#1gi14US - 1kiX, pii�:p
vi ofnfrii�ent4i eiemy7��cal�iscaharger,yy',,
y}I ,
t.C.L
`J ;�.yVft
.A
YY f
UIbS'r11tLr�Tu na flar es =linax pd371
4 S:
GL(Ip]74�y}QfC� {iS��T�{'
0
(�-0 +3�scliarge Sprm94 4eeps - etlgbdt t rriax gzutsj
- t , =''
._
�kFSCxcCp q Xgjx�enf'ti"dplaln
5
4
;�rin �lnsd�laiii =_q exfeiisn e f1�v43�y�in`� mac �aolnts} ', _ �
mtreti Y— iy t
_
<. � ,
c n Jh4 5s
i'resence uiu�[a�4 wetlands
..
fu+� tixe[t6ds +3, [at ge tljscentwe #ants- =blaxpptnts}
p
p�
mna44
(}
9.
f
{�lcnsivo chnzleltiatron,p, naunal �ueaidei uxa vou�j
5
Q
;1D `t ,
� - I
I
�•E _ � � n__r� �,
deas6 0,1imu.p .„ , ,
t
3ie eoersxh of channclbcI su}asl�ute:'
tfiu�= l�oulo entru!� , i� lar "'e �iI crst Saes Tnax-pomus)
c,
7� •- �
a �k�dtq� of
I . � " ' PXe�exce Qi'lild�4r Uflnk t�lui�es
- �•:
13
;'• ,
severe �r9s]un. b; na cros�cln, stable bank's tn�x �vants� l_
;(] 5
t1; � � a
that dcp ! a�tcl den�atp bb banks
l-
-
�iT{b`Y�s1171C��'7nL`S. {] [�e•hS�_rgots fliivu�� o0.[" lnazcpo,ull�} '
p {1 �
a :.
1F
Iu pac l tyy',a[;riculiur`,. li sfa�k;`arihmber produei an ;
`
)°resence of ]rife- p�o1'aple pool earrnplei[�es 7
15
:.
{ Ltr1� nr uo haUx�t -
SP
I ' �deet�h Dili%
{ 111 _.�ma evi
* These charactcrisdes are not asSe.SSed in cwtal streams.
2
J
Lt
IrA
� I

&'10'4 '+
NC DWQ Stream Identification Form Version 4,11
Date: r C7t0 iW ' 2,01Y ,r Project151te: �, j � Latitude:
Evaluator: j�•t f/ // County: I Longitude:
Total Points: ,��'
Total Is at feast Intermittent Stream determination (circ ne Other
Stream I ff z
19 orpemnnla! If a 30` Ephemeral Intermittent erenniag e.g. Quad Name:
A. Geomorphology (Subtotal = ! 6, 5, )
Absent
Weak
Moderate
Strong
1' Continuity of channel bed and hank
0
1
2
U>
2. Sinuosity of channel along thalweg
0
1
(7)
3
3. In- channel structure: ex. riffie -pool, step -pool,
0
1
3
ripple -pool sequence
4. Particle size of stream substrate
0
i"'I
C2)
3
j 5. Activelrelict floodplain
f]
IT
2
3
6. Depositional bars or benches
0
1
(D
3
7. Recent alluvial deposits
0
(1)
2
3
8. Headcuts
0
n
2
3
9. Grade contras
0
0.5
1.5
10. Natural valley
0
CAI
1
1.5
11. Second or greater order channel
No 0
Yes {s]
A artificial ditches are not rated; see discussions In manual'
B. Hydrology (Subtotal = 3
-
1 12. Presence of Haseflow '
0
1
2
0
II 13. Iron oxidizing bacteria
1
2
3
14. Leaf litter
irg
0.5
0
15. Sediment on plants or debris
0
5j
1 -
- -
1.5
16. Organic debris lines or piles
0
0.5
CID
1.5
17. Soil -based evidence of high water table?
No = 0
Yes =C3)
C. Biology (Subtotal = u__)
18. Fibrous roots In streambed
{
2
1
0
19, Rooted upland plants in streambed
3
2
1
0
20. Macrobenthos (note diversity and abundance)
[f,
2
3
21. Aquatic Mollusks
1
2
3
22. Fish
0
0.5
1
1.5
23. Crayfish
0
0.5
1
1.5
24, Amphibians
0
0.5
1.5
25. Algae
cl-)
0.5
1
1.5
26. Wetland plants in streambed
FACW = 0.75; OBL =1.5 Other
"perennial streams m ,also be Identified usl the methods. Seep. 35 of manual.
f /UnQk
N otes: � ris) 4,, kS -14 i. „A1
Of r t V-1 H
Sketch:

Hj% 141 Le.. J 1ellc.k
NC DWQ Stream Identification Form Version 4.11
Date: f 1 �rFf ProjectlSite:# , I ' Latitude:
t r
Evaluator: �b17 ��� l�t ",'•� County: Longitude:
Total Points: !
Stream Is at least Intermittent Stream Determination (circle one) Other
it a 19 or perennial If z 30* 1 Ephemeral Intermittent Senn a jl e,g. Quad Name:
jj
Moderate
A. Geomorphology
p gy { Subtotal � f �� l
Absent
1$' Continuity of channel bed and bank
4
2. Sinuosity of channel along thalweg
0
+ 3. In- channel structure: ex. riffle -pool, step -pool,
0
ripple -pool sequence
3
4. Particle size of stream substrate
0
5. Activelrelict floodplaln
0
6. Depositional Fars or benches
0
7. Recent alluvial deposits
0
8. Headcuts
p -
9. Grade control
0
10. Natural valley
0
11. Second or greater order channel
No = 0
a artificial ditches are not rated; see d scussi s in manual
B. Hydrology (Subtotal = /0 )
12. Presence of Basellow 0
13. Iron oxidizing bacteria 0.
14. Leaf litter 1.5
15. Sediment on plants or debris 0
16. Organic debris lines or piles 0
Weak
Moderate
Strong
1
2
(3
1
2
3
1
0
3
0.5
0.5
2
3
1
M
3
1
-(21
3
1
M
3
2
3
0.5
n
1.5
1.5
v
Yes ']
1 2
} 2 3
Q 0.5 0
0.5] 1.
0.5 9
17. Soil -based evidence of high water table? No = 0
C. Biology (Subtotal = 7, 9 )
18. Fibrous roots in streambed [
19. Rooted upland plants in streambed [
20. Macrobenthos (note diversity and abundance) 0
21. Aquatic Mollusks
22, Fish
23, Crayfish
24, Amphibians 0
25. Algae (3�f
26. Wetland plants in streambed
"perennial streams may alsa b, Id ntlfied using other methods. See p. 35 of manual.
Notes. r) YFAVtit i �,[ 1�'1(' �4�r t9-i f `►, lvgi.-�
Sketch:
Yes P)
J
2
1
0
ci 1_
2
3
1
2
3
0.5
1
1.5
0.5
0.5
1
1
1.5
1.5
0.5 I
1
1.5
FACW = 0.75; OBL =1.5 Other Vt]

USAGE Ali}# DWQ # Site 0 (indicate on attached leap)
STREAM QUALITY ASS Ss "f X P YORKS EET
Provide the following information for the stream reach under assessment;
I. Applicant's name: �]'u ke— � 2. Evaluator's mine:
I Date of evaluation � �' � '1r 4. Time of evaluation:
5. Name of stream: 44 brr"I' 4- r apfCA 6. River basin: Areas -ate
7. Approximate drainage area: /01— & —IMIked S. Stream order:
9. Length of reach evaluated_ 52-0 -A�e i 10. County: W°1,1%tl �
H. Site coordinates (if known): prefer in decimal degrees. 12. Subdivision name (if any): ♦' -7
Latitude (ex.34.872312).: e Q � 3 Longitude (ex.- 77.556611 ):--7? 1
Metzod location determined (circle): GPS Topo Sheet Qrtho (Aerial) PhotolGIS Other GIS Other
13. Location of reach under evaluago— note nearby roads and landmarks and attach map identifying stream(s) location):
14. Proposed channel work (if any):
15. Recent weather conditions: —�
F �
16. Site conditions at time of visit:
-#
17. Identify any special v�aterway classifications known: ,Section 10 Tidal Waters Essential Fisheries Habitat
Trout Wateis 4C)utstanding Resource Waters Nutrient Sensitive Waters Water Supply Watershed —(MV)
18. Is there a pond or lake located upstream of the evaluation point? 'YE 5 0 If yes, estimate the water surface area.
19. Does channel appear on USG S quad map? (5>40 20. Does channel appear on USDA, Soil Survey? YES NO
21. Estimated watershed land use: _/a Residential _% Commercial % Industrial �% Agricultural
r 962/. Forested ,% Cleared 1 Logged °rye Other i -r '01e -V rOew l
22. Ra�nkfull width: 1.7 i` 23. Bank height (from bed to top of hank): -.4
24, Channel slope dawn center of stream: Flat (0 to 2 %) `Gentle (2 to 4 %) Moderate (4 to 14° /a) Steep ( >10 %)
25. Channel sinuosity: Straight AOccasion bends' request meander Very sinuous 'Braided channel
tnstructions for completion of worksheet glocated on page 2): Begin by determining the most appropriate ecoregion based on
location, terrain, vegetation, stream, classification, etc. Every characteristic must be scored using the same ecoregion. Assign paints
to each characteristic within the range shown for the ecoregion. Page 3 provides a brief description of how to review the
characteristics identified in the worksheet. Scores should reflect an overall assessment of the stream reach under evaluation. If a
characteristic cannot be evaluated due to site or weather conditions, enter 0 in the scoring box and provide an explanation in the
comment section. Where there are obvious changes in the character of a stream under review (e.g., the stream flows from a pasture
into a forest), the streams may be divided into smaller reaches that display more continuity, and a separate form used to evaluate each
reach. The total score assigned to a stream reach must range between 0 and 100, with a scare of 1 04 representing a stream of the
highest quality.
Total Score (from reverse): Comments:
Evaluator's Signature �t �t �f L� . ea-r— Date IZ/ � "' It
This channel evaluation form is intended to be used only as a guide to assist landowners and environmental professionals in
gathering the data required by the United 'States Army Corps of Engineers to make a prelims ary assessment of stream
quality. The total score resulting from the completion of this form is subject to USACE approval and does not Imply a
particular mitigation ratio or regniremen% Form subject to change — version 06103. To Comment, please call 919 - 876 -9441 x 26.

STREAM QUALITY ASSE _ SM T WORKSHEET
* These chm-d teristics are not assessed in coastal streams.
2

APPENDIX C
PHOTOGRAPHIC LOG

AMEC Project No. 781 01 401 88
October 1 and 2, 2014
Photograph No. 1
Site Photographs
H.F. Lee Energy Complex
Wayne County, NC
Remarks
• View to the west of
Wetland LKE,
inactive ash ponds
study area.
Photograph No. 2 1 Remarks
• View to the
southeast of upland
berm adjacent to
Wetland LKE,
inactive ash ponds
study area.

AMEC Project No. 781 01 401 88
October 1 and 2, 2014
Photograph No. 3
Photograph No. 4
PA
Site Photographs
H.F. Lee Energy Complex
Wayne County, NC
Remarks
• View to the east of
Wetland LKH,
inactive ash ponds
study area.
Remarks
• View to the south
of upland forest
adjacent to Wetland
LKH, inactive ash
ponds study area.

AMEC Project No. 781 01 401 88
October 1 and 2, 2014
Photograph No. 5
Site Photographs
H.F. Lee Energy Complex
Wayne County, NC
Remarks
View to the west of
Halfmile Branch
(above culvert),
inactive ash ponds
study area.
Photograph No. 6 11 Remarks
• View to the east of
Halfmile Branch
(below culvert),
inactive ash ponds
study area.

AMEC Project No. 781 01 401 88
October 1 and 2, 2014
Photograph No. 7
Photograph No. 8
4
Site Photographs
H.F. Lee Energy Complex
Wayne County, NC
Remarks
• View to the west of
Wetland LCB,
inactive ash ponds
study area.
Remarks
• View to the
southeast of
Wetland LCD,
active ash pond
study area.

AMEC Project No. 781 01 401 88
October 1 and 2, 2014
Photograph No. 9
Site Photographs
H.F. Lee Energy Complex
Wayne County, NC
Remarks
• View to the east of
Stream LC I, active
ash pond study
area.
Photograph No. 10 11 Remarks
• View to the south
of Stream LC and
Wetland LKA,
active ash pond
study area.

AMEC Project No. 781 01 401 88
October 1 and 2, 2014
Photograph No. 11
Photograph No. 12
6
Site Photographs
H.F. Lee Energy Complex
Wayne County, NC
Remarks
• View to the north
of Wetland
HBA /HBB, active
ash pond study
area.
Remarks
• View to the
southwest of
Wetland HBC,
active ash pond
study area.

AMEC Project No. 781 01 401 88
October 1 and 2, 2014
Photograph No. 13
Site Photographs
H.F. Lee Energy Complex
Wayne County, NC
Remarks
View to the
southwest of
Wetland HBD,
active ash pond
study area.
Photograph No. 14 11 Remarks
• View to the west of
active ash pond.

AMEC Project No. 781 01 401 88
October 1 and 2, 2014
Site Photographs
H.F. Lee Energy Complex
Wayne County, NC
Photograph No. 15 11 Remarks
• View to the north
of Wetland HBF,
inactive ash ponds
study area.

North Carolina Natural Heritage Program
Protected Species Correspondence

NCDENR
North Carolina Department of Environment and Natural Resources
Office of Land and Water Stewardship
Pat McCrory Bryan Gossage Donald R. van der Vaart
Governor Director Secretary
May 22, 2015
Mr. David Vance
Geosyntec Consultants
1255 Roberts Boulevard NW
Kennesaw, Georgia 30144
dvance @geosvntec.com
RE: Duke Energy— H.F. Lee Station — Active and Inactive Coal Ash Pond Stabilization Project
Goldsboro, Wayne County, North Carolina
Dear Mr. Vance:
Thank you for the opportunity to provide information from the North Carolina Natural Heritage Program
( NCNHP) database for the proposed project referenced above. Based on the proposed project area as
estimated from the maps submitted with your request for information, the NCNHP database shows
occurrence records for two rare aquatic species - Neuse River Waterdog (Necturus lewisi) and Carolina
Madtom (Noturus furiosus) - within the reach of Neuse River within and /or adjacent to the proposed
project area. The occurrences for both these species are considered historical in the database, though
these occurrences were last observed and also last surveyed for in 1979 and they may still be present.
Attached are tables that show records from the NCNHP database for element occurrences (rare species
and natural communities), natural areas, and conservation /managed areas that occur within the
proposed project area and within one mile of the project area. A map that shows natural heritage
resources documented within one mile of the project area is attached as well. In addition, the NCNHP
database shows an historical record for Red - cockaded Woodpecker (Picoides borealis), a Federal
Endangered species, located less than two miles south from the project area; this occurrence was last
observed and also last surveyed in 1979.
The locations of natural areas and conservation/ managed areas near the project area may be viewed by
accessing the Natural Heritage Data Explorer online map viewer, or by downloading and using GIS data;
both options are available from the NCNHP Data Services webpage (see www.ncnhr).orR.).
Please note that occurrences of rare species documented within one mile of the proposed project area
increase the likelihood that these species may be present within the project area if suitable habitat
exists. The use of Natural Heritage Program data should not be substituted for actual field surveys if
needed, particularly if the project area contains suitable habitat for rare species. If rare species are
found during field surveys, the NCNHP would appreciate receiving this information so that we may
update our database.
Thank you for your inquiry. Please feel free to contact me at Allison.Weaklev @ncdenr.gov or 919 -707-
8629 if you have questions or additional information is needed.
1601 Mail Service Center, Raleigh, North Carolina 27699 -1601
Phone: 919 - 707 -86001 Internet: www.ncdenr.gov
An Equal Opportunity 1 Affirmative Action Employer — Made in part by recycled paper

No Natural Areas are Documented within the Project Area
No Managed Areas Documented within the Project Area
Definitions and an explanation of status designations and codes can be found at httgs: / /ncnhde .natureserve.ora /content/helo. Data query generated on May 22, 2015; source: NCNHP, Q2 April 2015. Please resubmit your
information request if more than one year elapses before project initiation as new information is continually added to the NCNHP database.
Page 2 of 4
Natural Heritage Element Occurrences, Natural Areas, and Managed Areas Intersecting the Project Area
Duke Energy - H.F. Lee Station - Coal Ash Pond Stabilization
Project
May 22, 2015
NCNHDE -306
Element Occurrences Documented Within Project Area
Taxonomic EO ID
Scientific Name Common Name Last Element
Accuracy Federal
State
Global
State
Group
Observation Occurrence
Status
Status
Rank
Rank
Date Status
Amphibian 4929
Necturus lewisi Neuse River Waterdog 1979 -01 -15 Historical
3- Medium Species of
Special
G2
S2
Concern
Concern
Freshwater Fish 17447
Noturus furiosus Carolina Madtom 1979 -08 -13 Historical
3- Medium Species of
Threatened
G2
S2
Concern
No Natural Areas are Documented within the Project Area
No Managed Areas Documented within the Project Area
Definitions and an explanation of status designations and codes can be found at httgs: / /ncnhde .natureserve.ora /content/helo. Data query generated on May 22, 2015; source: NCNHP, Q2 April 2015. Please resubmit your
information request if more than one year elapses before project initiation as new information is continually added to the NCNHP database.
Page 2 of 4

Natural Heritage Element Occurrences, Natural Areas, and Managed Areas Within a One -mile Radius of the Project Area
Duke Energy - H.F. Lee Station - Coal Ash Pond Stabilization Project
May 22, 2015
NCNHDE -306
Element Occurrences Documented Within a One -mile Radius of the Project Area
Taxonomic EO ID Scientific Name Common Name Last Element
Group Observation Occurrence
Date Status
Amphibian 4929 Necturus lewisi Neuse River Waterdog 1979 -01 -15 Historical
Bird 22224 Haliaeetus leucocephalus Bald Eagle 2006 Historical
Freshwater Fish 17447 Noturus furiosus Carolina Madtom 1979 -08 -13 Historical
Mammal 7957 Corynorhinus rafinesquii Rafinesque's Big -eared 1905 Historical
macrotis Bat - Coastal Plain
subspecies
Reptile 16843 Heterodon simus Southern Hognose Snake 1995 -PRE Current
No Natural Areas are Documented Within a One -mile Radius of the Project Area
Accuracy
Federal
State
Global
State
Status
Status
Rank
Rank
3- Medium
Species of
Special
G2
S2
Concern
Concern
3- Medium
Bald /Golden
Threatened
G5
S3B,S3
Eagle
N
Protection
Act
3- Medium
Species of
Threatened
G2
S2
Concern
5 -Very
Species of
Special
G3G4T
S3
Low
Concern
Concern
3
4 -Low Species of Special G2 S2
Concern Concern
Managed Areas Documented Within a One -mile Radius of the Project Area
Managed Area Name Owner Owner Type
Cherry Research Farm NC Department of Agriculture, Research State
Stations Division
Conservation Reserve Enhancement Program Easement NC Department of Agriculture, Division Soil and State
Water Conservation
Definitions and an explanation of status designations and codes can be found at httDs: / /ncnhde .natureserve.ora /content/helD. Data query generated on May 22, 2015; source: NCNHP, Q2 April 2015. Please resubmit your
information request if more than one year elapses before project initiation as new information is continually added to the NCNHP database.
Page 3 of 4

NCNHDE -306: Duke Energy - H.F. Lee Station - Coal Ash Pond Stabilization Project
Page 4 of 4

APPENDIX C
Erosion and Sedimentation Control Plan
Active Ash Pond (High Hazard)
H.F. Lee Station

D
C
7
E
F
1
ACTIVE ASH POND LIMITS
INACTIVE ASH PONDS LIMITS
ACTIVE ASH POND LIMITS
SOURCE: ARCMAP
3
El
5
0
7
VEGETATIVE STABILIZATION OF SLOPES AND TREE REMOVAL
U
2
r,
Lane T,
/ , Golf Clul
V
i
"nn
da J
0
_61 wqa St i`
h
1 o-° �y Goldsboro
G
3
a v
y
VICINITY MAP
SCALE: 1" = 8000'
04 ' - -14:
� � J
)URCE: ARCMAP
OWNER INFORMATION:
COOLING POND
LOCATION MAP
SCALE: 1" = 1000'
I re
Rd
v
"-e
Cis ywy ,
3
i
mpts, Lem
I v
1 11
ACTIVE ASH POND (HIGH HAZARD)
(STATE ID: WAYNE=022)
GOLDSBORO, NORTH CAROLINA
1677 OLD SMITHFIELD ROAD
DUKE GOLDSBORO, NORTH CAROLINA 27530
AEL
ENERGY(, TEOLE HONE:I5H8 -986 -0 500 S
1
FA
3
H.F. LEE STATION
JULY 2015
LIST OF DRAWINGS
DRAWING NO. DRAWING TITLE
1 TITLE SHEET
2 EXISTING CONDITIONS PLAN
3 ACTIVE ASH POND OVERALL PLAN
4 CIVIL AND EROSION AND SEDIMENT CONTROL DETAILS
DETAIL NUMBER
1
4
DRAWING ON WHICH ABOVE
DETAIL IS PRESENTED
DETAIL NUMBER
1 DETAIL
DRAWING ON WHICH 3 TREE REMOVAL AND VEGETATIVE
ABOVE DETAIL WAS
FIRST REFERENCED SLOPE STABILIZATION
SCALE:
XREF:
EXAMPLE: DETAIL NUMBER 1 PRESENTED ON DRAWING NO. 5 WAS
REFERENCED FOR THE FIRST TIME ON DRAWING NO. 3.
ABOVE SYSTEM ALSO APPLIES TO SECTION IDENTIFICATIONS.
DETAIL IDENTIFICATION LEGEND
PREPARED BY:
Q
ACTIVE ASH POND LIMITS - ter-
INACTIVE ASH PONDS LIMITS
1300 SOUTH MINT STREET, SUITE 410
Geosyntec'% CHARLOTTE, NORTH CAROLINA 28203
CONTACT: WOO -KUEN SHIN, P.E.
consultants of Nc, Pc TELEPHONE: 704 - 227 -2844
5
i
'Stevens
M'7
SOURCE: USGS
PERMIT DRAWINGS
6
USGS MAP
SCALE: 1" = 3000'
F 07.02.15 RE- ISSUED FOR PERMIT - NCDENR SAFE DAMS
E 06.18.15 ISSUED FOR PERMIT
D 10.13.14 ISSUED TO NCDENR FOR REVIEW
C 09.03.14 ISSUED TO DEC FOR REVIEW
B 08.26.14 ISSUED TO DEC FOR REVIEW
A 07.31.14 ISSUED TO DEC FOR REVIEW
REV DATE DESCRIPTION
Geosyntec'%
Consultants OF NC, PC
NC LICENSE NO.: C -3500
1300 SOUTH MINT STREET, SUITE 410
CHARLOTTE, NC 28203 USA
TELEPHONE: 704 - 227 -0840
r
C
C
JHS
WS
MRD
VMD
JHS
RK
JHS
RK
PROJECT: ACTIVE ASH
E
JHS
RK
MRS
RK
DRN
APP
('DUKE
ENER%.7Y
TITLE:
TITLE SHEET
PROJECT: ACTIVE ASH
POND - VEGETATIVE STABILIZATION
OF SLOPES
AND TREE REMOVAL
SITE:
GOLDSBORO, NORTH CAROLINA
F
THIS DRAWING MAY NOT BE ISSUED
DESIGN BY: JAS
DATE:
JULY 2015
FOR PROJECT TENDER OR
CONSTRUCTION, UNLESS SEALED.
DRAWN BY: MRD
PROJECT NO.:
GK5851
CHECKED BY: TLF
FILE:
5651 -001
SIGNATURE
REVIEWED BY: LMG
DRAWING NO.:
4
DATE
APPROVED BY: WS
OF

0
C
C
E
F
N
N 59.56,C'O - ...,_
NoA
1
CD
04 N
cj
LLI w
Q$ /
' � 95
, � PRICE, D
MCKINLE Y"
79681/// W
K
CAROLINA POWER & LIGHT
279623548
SOILS MAP LEGEND
MAP UNIT SYMBOL MAP UNIT NAME
Bb
BIBB SANDY LOAM
Bp
BORROW PIT
Ch
CHEWACLA LOAM
Dr
DRAGSTON LOAMY SAND
Jo
JOHNS SANDY LOAM
KaA
KALMIA LOAMY SAND, 0 TO 2 PERCENT SLOPES
KaB
KALMIA LOAMY SAND, 2 TO 6 PERCENT SLOPES
Ke
KENANSVILLE LOAMY SAND
Kn
KINSTON LOAM
La
LAKELAND SAND
Lv
LUMBEE SANDY LOAM
NoA
NORFOLK LOAMY SAND, 0 TO 2 PERCENT SLOPES
NrB2
NORFOLK LOAMY SAND, 2 TO 6 PERCENT SLOPES, ERODED
Tr
TROUP SAND
W
WATER
WaC
WAGRAM LOAMY SAND, 6 TO 10 PERCENT SLOPES
WhA
WICKHAM LOAMY SAND, 0 TO 2 PERCENT SLOPES
WhB
WICKHAM LOAMY SAND, 2 TO 6 PERCENT SLOPES
1
2
3
�% a /
CD / o
1 3
Ell
n
EXISTING RIPRAP
5
/ EXISTING STAIRS
9 EXISTING RISER
>7
/ EXISTING DOCK--'
EXISTINu mti -KAP
6 1 7 1 8
_ w
SCALE IN FEET
LEGEND
07.02.15
RE- ISSUED FOR PERMIT - NCDENR SAFE DAMS
EXISTING GROUND ELEVATION (FEET)
06.18.15
ISSUED FOR PERMIT
ROAD
10.13.14
ISSUED TO NCDENR FOR REVIEW
JHS
09.03.14
ISSUED TO DEC FOR REVIEW
SOILS BOUNDARY
08.26.14
ISSUED TO DEC FOR REVIEW
JHS
/
— - - - - —
PROPERTY BOUNDARY (NOTE 5)
DATE
DESCRIPTION
50 -FT RIPARIAN BUFFER
/
Q
TREE
_
EXISTING RIPRAP
A
JURISDICTIONAL WETLAND (NOTE 8)
I
JURISDICTIONAL TRIBUTARY (NOTE 8)
/
7— 7—
FLOOD WAY (NOTE 9)
- -
EXISTING CHAINLINK FENCE
— —
EXISTING PIPES (INACTIVE AND TO BE REMOVED BY OTHERS)
1 % ANNUAL CHANCE FLOOD PLAIN (NOTE 9)
o
0.2 /o ANNUAL CHANCE FLOOD PLAIN (NOTE 9)
FLOW DIRECTION
CWM -6
EXISTING MONITORING WELL
❑ SW -3
EXISTING STAFF GAUGE
+PZ -3
EXISTING PIEZOMETER
/
ODMW -1
MONITORING WELL (INSTALLED BY GEOSYNTEC)
-$W -4/
MW -1
MW -5
SW -5
' EM NG
SER
' ISER
MW -2!
'
EXISTING RIPRA
-EXISTING GRAVEL
ACCESS ROAD
NOTES:
1. TOPOGRAPHIC AND EDGE OF WATER SURFACE INFORMATION OBTAINED FROM WSP GROUP SURVEY FOR DUKE
ENERGY PROGRESS OF THE LEE PLANT ACTIVE ASH POND, REVISION 3, DATED 18 OCTOBER 2013. SUPPLEMENTAL
TOPOGRAPHIC INFORMATION FOR THE SOUTHEASTERN DIKE PERIMETER OBTAINED FROM WSP GROUP SURVEY IN
MAY 2014.
2. GRID COORDINATE SYSTEM CORRESPONDS TO STATE PLANE NORTH AMERICAN DATUM 1983 NORTH CAROLINA.
3. ELEVATIONS ARE IN FEET ABOVE SEA LEVEL DATUM (NOTE: "SEA LEVEL DATUM" REFERS TO NORTH AMERICAN
VERTICAL DATUM OF 1988).
4. EXISTING UTILITIES SHOWN ARE APPROXIMATE. CONTRACTOR SHALL FIELD VERIFY EXISTING UTILITIES. ANY
DAMAGE CAUSED DURING CONSTRUCTION SHALL BE REPAIRED AT EXPENSE OF THE CONTRACTOR.
5. PROPERTY LINES AND OWNERSHIP INFORMATION OBTAINED FROM WAYNE COUNTY GEOGRAPHIC INFORMATION
SYSTEM (GIS), CURRENT AS OF 30 SEPTEMBER 2014.
6. SOIL DELINEATIONS OBTAINED FROM NATURAL RESOURCES CONSERVATION SERVICE (NRCS) WEB SOIL SURVEY,
CURRENT AS OF 25 SEPTEMBER 2014.
7. THE PROJECT SITE IS LOCATED IN THE NEUSE RIVER BASIN.
8. JURISDICTIONAL WETLANDS AND TRIBUTARIES WERE DELINEATED BY AMEC FOSTER WHEELER ENVIRONMENT &
INFRASTRUCTURE, INC. ON 02 JUNE 2015. THE USACE REVIEWED OR FIELD VERIFIED THE DELINEATION DATA,
ALTHOUGH A WRITTEN VERIFICATION HAS NOT BEEN RECEIVED TO DATE. A USACE NATIONWIDE PERMIT
APPLICATION WAS BEEN SUBMITTED ON JUNE 18, 2015 FOR AUTHORIZATION TO CONDUCT THE PROPOSED WORK
WITHIN THE LIMIT OF DISTURBANCE AFFECTING WETLANDS AND TRIBUTARIES. NO WORK IN THESE SENSITIVE
AREAS IS AUTHORIZED UNTIL A PERMIT IS ISSUED BY THE USACE AND OTHER APPLICABLE STATE AGENCIES.
9. THE FLOODPLAIN EXTENTS ARE APPROXIMATED FROM THE FLOOD INSURANCE RATE MAP NUMBER 37200256800J
(EFFECTIVE 02 DECEMBER, 2005).
PERMIT DRAWINGS
6 1
F
E
D
C
B
A
REV
TITLE:
PROJECT:
yrr4
0 200' 400'
1`
WS
VIVID
RK
RK
RK
RK
APP
v
C
Is
0
E
Geosyntec DUKE
COnSU1tantS OF INC, PC
NC LICENSE NO.: C -3500 E N E R%.7Q
1300 SOUTH MINT STREET, SUITE 410
CHARLOTTE, INC 28203 USA _
TELEPHONE: 704 - 227 -0840
EXISTING CONDITIONS PLAN
ACTIVE ASH POND - VEGETATIVE STABILIZATION OF SLOPES
AND TREE REMOVAL
GOLDSBORO, NORTH CAROLINA
THIS DRAWING MAY NOT BE ISSUED
FOR PROJECT TENDER OR
CONSTRUCTION, UNLESS SEALED.
SIGNATURE
DATE
7
F
DESIGN BY:
SCALE IN FEET
DATE:
07.02.15
RE- ISSUED FOR PERMIT - NCDENR SAFE DAMS
JHS
06.18.15
ISSUED FOR PERMIT
MRD
10.13.14
ISSUED TO NCDENR FOR REVIEW
JHS
09.03.14
ISSUED TO DEC FOR REVIEW
JHS
08.26.14
ISSUED TO DEC FOR REVIEW
JHS
07.31.14
ISSUED TO DEC FOR REVIEW
MRS
DATE
DESCRIPTION
DRN
1`
WS
VIVID
RK
RK
RK
RK
APP
v
C
Is
0
E
Geosyntec DUKE
COnSU1tantS OF INC, PC
NC LICENSE NO.: C -3500 E N E R%.7Q
1300 SOUTH MINT STREET, SUITE 410
CHARLOTTE, INC 28203 USA _
TELEPHONE: 704 - 227 -0840
EXISTING CONDITIONS PLAN
ACTIVE ASH POND - VEGETATIVE STABILIZATION OF SLOPES
AND TREE REMOVAL
GOLDSBORO, NORTH CAROLINA
THIS DRAWING MAY NOT BE ISSUED
FOR PROJECT TENDER OR
CONSTRUCTION, UNLESS SEALED.
SIGNATURE
DATE
7
F
DESIGN BY:
JAS
DATE:
JULY 2015
DRAWN BY:
MRD
PROJECT NO.:
GK5851
CHECKED BY:
TLF
FILE:
5651 -002
REVIEWED BY:
LMG
DRAWING NO.:
2
/�
APPROVED BY:
WS
OF T
8

0
13
C
E
1 2 3 4 5 6
CD
Lr) ��� e o `�- o / 00 0 00 0 v �o0 0 00
co h�,l V) L0 Co �0 � � 00
CIA N C14 cl-A 04 N /_ � N N N N N N N
SMV� 2 > -tv - - - -- N
Lu w , w w w w. w \\ ,�.: w Lu
1
CLEAR TREES AND STUMPS
_ 4 VEL A ESS ROAD GRA x
O 3
PS (NOTES 8
AND 9) 4 \
00 /i G\ �l
1 AL l
LI BANCE
B • MW -9 /
5/ EXISTING PIPES \
/ TEMPORARY GRAVEL O j �' �0� (ICTIVE AND TO BE
CONSTRUCTION � ® REMOVES BY OTHERS) /
ENTRANCE /EXIT \V;
Exi 2 ACCESS
N 596000
SW -1 ~ \ IT `PZ -3�
a� �` 4-,--95-> CLEAR TREES
- SEDIMENT FENCE / �. � / \ � CV � /, (� OO\ \\ AND STUMPS
(NOTES 7 AND EXISTING RIPRAP '
0
w
85-�
,WATER \ \ �` -._1 ,p Q ER OTE 1) i `
1
114 +06 �U� n
v" LIMITS OF DISTURB \NCE�
\
x� �0 ��� X
N 5955 �. �g5� (NOTES 7 AND 10) �� \98\
(10 ",
gs
96� 96 A9 � 8a /TEMPORARY <0 CMW -10 CROSSING (TYP) Q
\ /
o
(NOTE 18)//�i�// x�
_ - - EX18 -MMIST GRAVEL ACCESS ROAD
- Q �
N 59.56150
\
\
\
PZ -2 r
50 -FT RIPARIAN BUFFER (TYP)
WATER D v \ /EC4+NN
bs
� \ I ^ 0 0 �(NOTEV) /re \ RIPRAP
6� WATER%
N 594500 '� \� EXISTING STAIRS \\
8 �. ��/ v r
CLEAR TREES AND SNIPS CMW - \. ��� �o o EXISTING RISER �" XISTING � �J
SSW -4 I \TRAP
4 DMW -1 EXISTING DOCK \ 9TMW-1
100 N. MW -5
�\ 'EXISTING RIPRAP
Lo
FISTING
_ RISER
\ \ \ 706 / - MW -2
\ \ -,` -�� - EXISTING RIPRA�-,
_ _ _ EXISTING -RIF P5 -
N 594000 \ _ _ _ _ - - EXISTING GRAVEL
CONSTRUCTION SEQUENCING
1. ESTABLISH CONSTRUCTION ENTRANCE TO THE SITE IN ACCORDANCE WITH DETAIL 2 ON DRAWING 4.
2. INSTALL SINGLE ROW SEDIMENT FENCE ALONG THE EXTERIOR TOE OF DIKE OF THE ACTIVE ASH POND IN
ACCORDANCE WITH DETAIL 4 ON DRAWING 4.
3. MINIMIZE AREA OF DISTURBANCE TO THE EXTENT POSSIBLE AT ANY ONE TIME.
4. CLEAR LOWER THIRD OF EXTERIOR SLOPE OF DIKE TO REMOVE TREES AND STUMPS FROM SLOPE. CLEAR 10 -FT
CORRIDOR FOR ACCESS. CLEARING SHALL NOT INCLUDE GRUBBING OR STRIPPING.
5. SLOPES STEEPER THAN 3 HORIZONTAL TO 1 VERTICAL (3H:1V) THAT HAVE BEEN DISTURBED AND HAVE NOT BEEN
PERMANENTLY STABILIZED SHALL BE TEMPORARILY STABILIZED WITH EROSION CONTROL MATTING AS SOON AS
PRACTICABLE, PRIOR TO A SIGNIFICANT RAIN EVENT, AND IN ANY EVENT WITHIN 7 CALENDAR DAYS FROM THE LAST
LAND - DISTURBING ACTIVITY. ALL OTHER DISTURBED AREAS SHALL BE PROVIDED TEMPORARY OR PERMANENT
STABILIZATION AS SOON AS PRACTICABLE, PRIOR TO A SIGNIFICANT RAIN EVENT, AND IN ANY EVENT, WITHIN 14
CALENDAR DAYS FROM THE LAST LAND DISTURBING ACTIVITY.
6. INSTALL SEEDING IN ACCORDANCE WITH DETAIL 3 ON DRAWING 4.
F
7. AFTER THE SITE HAS BEEN PERMANENTLY STABILIZED, REMOVE SINGLE ROW SEDIMENT FENCE LOCATED ALONG
THE TOE OF DIKE.
8. REMOVE CONSTRUCTION ENTRANCE.
EROSION AND SEDIMENT CONTROL SYMBOLOGY
DESCRIPTION
SYMBOL
TEMPORARY GRAVEL CONSTRUCTION ENTRANCE /EXIT 2
4
0000000
00 0
PERMANENT SEEDING 6
4
PS
25 +00
FOR PROJECT TENDER OR
SEDIMENT FENCE 4
4
----z
STRAW WATTLE 5
4
PROPERTY BOUNDARY
3 I 4
_\ ACCESS ROAD
,
0 200' 400'
CONSTRUCTION NARRATIVE SCALE IN FEET
THE PURPOSE OF THE CONSTRUCTION IS TO, i) CLEAR TREES AND STUMPS FROM THE LOWER THIRD
OF THE PERIMETER DIKE OF THE ACTIVE ASH POND, ii) CLEAR TREES AND STUMPS WITHIN A 10 -FT
CORRIDOR BEYOND THE TOE OF DIKE FOR ACCESS, AND iii) ESTABLISH VEGETATION WITHIN THE
LIMITS OF DISTURBANCE (AREA CLEARED); AS WELL AS ESTABLISHED VEGETATION IN OTHER BARE
AREAS IDENTIFIED BY DUKE ENERGY ALONG THE EXTERIOR DIKE SLOPE. CLEARING OF TREES AND
STUMPS SHALL NOT INCLUDE GRUBBING OR STRIPPING.
CONSTRUCTION EQUIPMENT ACCESS
THE MAXIMUM ALLOWABLE UNIFORM SURCHARGE LOAD EXERTED BY CONSTRUCTION EQUIPMENT
SHALL NOT EXCEED 1,700 POUNDS PER SQUARE FOOT (PSF) WHEN (IF) THE PERIMETER DIKE IS
UTILIZED FOR CONSTRUCTION EQUIPMENT ACCESS. THE CONSTRUCTION EQUIPMENT SHALL BE
WITHIN THE LIMITS OF THE EXISTING GRAVEL ACCESS ROAD.
7
1 8
DESIGN BY:
_
LEGEND
DATE:
EXISTING GROUND ELEVATION (FEET)
25 +00
FOR PROJECT TENDER OR
ROAD
- - - - - -
PROPERTY BOUNDARY
Q
TREE
DRAWN BY:
EXISTING RIPRAP A
KNOWWEENA/
JURISDICTIONAL WETLAND (NOTE 10)
JURISDICTIONAL TRIBUTARY (NOTE 10)
CHECKED BY:
EXISTING PIPES (INACTIVE AND TO BE REMOVED BY OTHERS)
-N- LOD
LIMITS OF DISTURBANCE (NOTES 7, 10, AND 13)
FLOW DIRECTION
CWM -6
EXISTING MONITORING WELL
El SW -3
EXISTING STAFF GAUGE
+PZ -3
EXISTING PIEZOMETER
$DMW -1
MONITORING WELL (INSTALLED BY GEOSYNTEC)
NOTES
1. TOPOGRAPHIC AND EDGE OF WATER SURFACE INFORMATION OBTAINED FROM WSP GROUP SURVEY FOR DUKE B
ENERGY PROGRESS OF THE LEE PLANT ACTIVE ASH POND, REVISION 3, DATED 18 OCTOBER 2013. SUPPLEMENTAL
TOPOGRAPHIC INFORMATION FOR THE SOUTHEASTERN DIKE PERIMETER OBTAINED FROM WSP GROUP SURVEY IN
MAY 2014.
2. GRID COORDINATE SYSTEM CORRESPONDS TO STATE PLANE NORTH AMERICAN DATUM 1983 NORTH CAROLINA.
3. ELEVATIONS ARE IN FEET ABOVE SEA LEVEL DATUM (NOTE: "SEA LEVEL DATUM" REFERS TO NORTH AMERICAN
VERTICAL DATUM OF 1988).
4. LIMITS OF TREES AND STUMP REMOVAL MAY BE ADJUSTED, BY DUKE ENERGY AS FIELD CONDITIONS DICTATE.
5. SECTIONS OF THE DIKE PERIMETER ARE PROVIDED AT 1,000 -FT INTERVALS ALONG THE ALIGNMENT PROVIDED AND
SHOWN ON DRAWING 4, DIKE SECTIONS.
6. SOIL STABILIZATION SHALL BE ACHIEVED ON ANY AREA OF A SITE WHERE LAND - DISTURBING ACTIVITIES HAVE
TEMPORARILY OR PERMANENTLY CEASED ACCORDING TO THE FOLLOWING SCHEDULE:
i) ALL PERIMETER DIKES, SWALES, DITCHES, PERIMETER SLOPES, AND ALL SLOPES STEEPER THAN 3 HORIZONTAL
TO 1 VERTICAL (3H:1V) SHALL BE PROVIDED TEMPORARY OR PERMANENT STABILIZATION WITH GROUND COVER
AS SOON AS PRACTICABLE BUT IN ANY EVENT WITHIN 7 CALENDAR DAYS FROM THE LAST LAND - DISTURBING
ACTIVITY.
ii) ALL OTHER DISTURBED AREAS SHALL BE PROVIDED TEMPORARY OR PERMANENT STABILIZATION WITH GROUND C
COVER AS SOON AS PRACTICABLE BUT IN ANY EVENT WITHIN 14 CALENDAR DAYS FROM THE LAST
LAND - DISTURBING ACTIVITY.
7. SEDIMENT FENCE AND LIMITS OF DISTURBANCE ARE SHOWN FOR GRAPHICAL PURPOSES ONLY. SEE DETAIL 1 ON
DRAWING 4 FOR LOCATION OF SEDIMENT FENCE IN RELATION TO THE LIMITS OF DISTURBANCE.
8. EROSION AND SEDIMENT CONTROL SHALL BE IN ACCORDANCE WITH TECHNICAL SPECIFICATION SECTION 01 57 13.
9. VEGETATION SHALL BE IN ACCORDANCE WITH TECHNICAL SPECIFICATION SECTION 32 92 19.
10. JURISDICTIONAL WETLANDS AND TRIBUTARIES WERE DELINEATED BY AMEC FOSTER WHEELER ENVIRONMENT &
INFRASTRUCTURE, INC. ON 02 JUNE 2015. THE USACE REVIEWED OR FIELD VERIFIED THE DELINEATION DATA,
ALTHOUGH A WRITTEN VERIFICATION HAS NOT BEEN RECEIVED TO DATE. A USACE NATIONWIDE PERMIT
APPLICATION HAS BEEN SUBMITTED ON JUNE 18, 2015 FOR AUTHORIZATION TO CONDUCT THE PROPOSED WORK
WITHIN THE LIMIT OF DISTURBANCE AFFECTING WETLANDS AND TRIBUTARIES. NO WORK IN THESE SENSITIVE
AREAS IS AUTHORIZED UNTIL A PERMIT IS ISSUED BY THE USACE AND OTHER APPLICABLE STATE AGENCIES.
11. EXISTING UTILITIES SHOWN ARE APPROXIMATE. CONTRACTOR SHALL FIELD VERIFY EXISTING UTILITIES. ANY
DAMAGE CAUSED DURING CONSTRUCTION SHALL BE REPAIRED AT EXPENSE OF THE CONTRACTOR.
12. THIS PROJECT IS WITHIN THE NEUSE RIVER BASIN.
13. TOTAL DISTURBED AREA IS 7.57 ACRES. LIMIT OF DISTURBANCE AREA CALCULATED BASED ON DETAIL 1 ON D
DRAWING 4.
14. MICHAEL SYKES IS RESPONSIBLE FOR MAINTENANCE AND CAN BE CONTACTED AT 518 - 986 -0500.
15. RECEIVING WATER IS THE NEUSE RIVER, WHICH IS CLASSIFIED AS A PERENNIAL STREAM.
16. TOTAL AREA TO BE STABILIZED WITH VEGETATION IS 7.57 ACRES.
17. PROJECT ENTRANCE IS LOCATED AT 35° 22'58.96" NORTH 78° 5'01.13" WEST.
18. WOOD MATTING WILL BE PLACED WHERE THE DISTURBED AREA TEMPORARILY CROSSES JURISDICTIONAL
WETLANDS AND TRIBUTARIES. SEDIMENT FENCES WILL BE REPLACED WITH STRAW WATTLES IN THESE AREA IN
ACCORDANCE WITH DETAIL 5 ON DRAWING 4.
F
E
D
C
B
A
REV
TITLE:
PROJECT:
yrr4
07.02.15 RE- ISSUED FOR PERMIT - NCDENR SAFE DAMS JHS WS
06.18.15 ISSUED FOR PERMIT MRD VMD
10.13.14 ISSUED TO NCDENR FOR REVIEW JHS RK
09.03.14 ISSUED TO DEC FOR REVIEW JHS RK
08.26.14 ISSUED TO DEC FOR REVIEW JHS RK E
07.31.14 ISSUED TO DEC FOR REVIEW MRS RK
DATE DESCRIPTION DRN APP
G DUKE
WnSUltantS OF NC, PC
NC LICENSE NO.: C -3500 E N E R%.7Q
1300 SOUTH MINT STREET, SUITE 410
CHARLOTTE, NC 28203 USA _
TELEPHONE: 704 - 227 -0840
ACTIVE ASH POND OVERALL PLAN
ACTIVE ASH POND - VEGETATIVE STABILIZATION OF SLOPES
AND TREE REMOVAL
GOLDSBORO, NORTH CAROLINA
F
F
THIS DRAWING MAY NOT BE ISSUED
DESIGN BY:
JAS
DATE:
JULY 2015
FOR PROJECT TENDER OR
CONSTRUCTION, UNLESS SEALED.
DRAWN BY:
MRD
PROJECT NO.:
GK5851
CHECKED BY:
TLF
FILE:
5651 -003
SIGNATURE
REVIEWED BY:
LMG
DRAWING NO.:
PERMIT DRAWINGS
DATE
APPROVED BY:
WS
3
of 4
5 6 1
7
g
F
F

W
10
C
E
F
1
CLEAR TREES
AND STUMPS
(NOTES 1, 2 & 3)
2
LIMITS OF
DISTURBANCE
LOWER 3 OF
10' (TYP) DIKE - VARIES
(NOTE 2) (NOTE 1)
NOTE 4 EXISTING
GRAVEL ROAD
n Ana VARIES \
a / \
1 /aL o
i
n nao
a /
SILT FENCE
/< EXISTING GROUND
TOE OF SLOPE
1 DETAIL
3 TREE REMOVAL AND VEGETATIVE STABILIZATION
SCALE: N.T.S.
XREF: 5651 X019
NOTES:
1. CONTRACTOR SHALL CLEAR TREES AND STUMPS FROM LOWER THIRD OF EXTERIOR DIKE SLOPE.
CLEARING DOES NOT INCLUDE GRUBBING OR STRIPPING.
2. CONTRACTOR SHALL CLEAR A 10 -FT CORRIDOR BEYOND THE TOE OF EXISTING DIKE FOR ACCESS.
ANY CLEARING PERFORMED OUTSIDE THE TOE OF THE DIKE SHALL NOT INCLUDE GRUBBING OR
STRIPPING.
3. CLEARING SHALL BE IN ACCORDANCE WITH TECHNICAL SPECIFICATION SECTION 31 11 00.
4. CONTRACTOR SHALL ESTABLISH VEGETATION FOLLOWING CLEARING ACTIVITIES WITHIN THE
LIMITS OF DISTURBANCE. CONTRACTOR SHALL ALSO ESTABLISH VEGETATION ALONG THE
REMAINDER OF EXTERNAL DIKE SLOPE IN BARE AREAS AND LOCATIONS IDENTIFIED BY DUKE
ENERGY. VEGETATION SHALL BE IN ACCORDANCE WITH TECHNICAL SPECIFICATION SECTION 32 92
19.
5. EROSION AND SEDIMENT CONTROL SHALL BE IN ACCORDANCE WITH TECHNICAL SPECIFICATION
SECTION 01 57 13.
8' max, standard strength fabric with wire fence
5' max. axtra st re►�gfh fabric without wire f ante
. T -
E
eel �..._
post
#r
-24
Plastic or
wire ties
Filter
fabric
Wire
fence
Cross-Section
View
Fi Iter
Steel fabric Backfill trench Natural
post and compact ground
(thoroughly
Y
•.• • • *'
to upsiIope
�•. min ■ .■
24" .�:;.. min
.. „ ..
■ • ■■••'•e + +• see
Natural
ground
r�
MAINTENANCE NOTES:
1. INSPECT SEDIMENT FENCES AT LEAST ONCE A WEEK AND AFTER EACH RAINFALL. MAKE ANY REQUIRED REPAIRS IMMEDIATELY.
2. SHOULD THE FABRIC OF A SEDIMENT FENCE COLLAPSE, TEAR, DECOMPOSE OR BECOME INEFFECTIVE, REPLACE IT PROMPTLY.
3. REMOVE SEDIMENT DEPOSITS AS NECESSARY TO PROVIDE ADEQUATE STORAGE VOLUME FOR THE NEXT RAIN AND TO REDUCE
PRESSURE ON THE FENCE. TAKE CARE TO AVOID UNDERMINING THE FENCE DURING CLEANOUT.
4. REMOVE ALL FENCING MATERIALS AND UNSTABLE SEDIMENT DEPOSITS AND BRING THE AREA TO GRADE AND STABILIZE IT AFTER THE
CONTRIBUTING DRAINAGE AREA HAS BEEN PROPERLY STABILIZED.
4 DETAIL
3 SEDIMENT FENCE
SOURCE:NCDENR
3
4 5
SO "V17
2-3 ?1
coarse aggregate
i�-
MAINTENANCE NOTES:
1. MAINTAIN THE GRAVEL PAD IN A CONDITION TO PREVENT MUD OR SEDIMENT FROM LEAVING THE CONSTRUCTION
SITE. THIS MAY REQUIRE PERIODIC TOP DRESSING WITH 2 -INCH STONE.
2. AFTER EACH RAINFALL, INSPECT ANY STRUCTURE USED TO TRAP SEDIMENT AND CLEAN IT OUT AS NECESSARY.
3. IMMEDIATELY REMOVE ALL OBJECTIONABLE MATERIALS SPILLED, WASHED, OR TRACKED ONTO PUBLIC ROADWAYS.
2 DETAIL
3 TEMPORARY GRAVEL CONSTRUCTION ENTRANCE /EXIT
SOURCE:NCDENR
• • •
••D • r STRAW WATTLE 2" (MAX)
<i!' ♦r`i ° ?i!' �i < <p� ♦ <p� ?i� 4,<i < <4i < ?i < <ei!' ♦ <i < <¢f ♦ <pi < ?i rpf <♦ <f < <♦ei <4i!• ?i!' ?i: �i< i ♦ <!•i!• ?i ♦<!
i!� �iF�!i!•,4il, ?i!i ?i � � � ♦i ili ?i!f!'i �• � if .♦ i♦<< <ipi <i ♦ <ii < < < ♦ <:• ♦i <<P ♦i ♦ <. ♦i ♦< <i � si!< < <$ e% <i< �i< <� ♦�•
ly�r!',<i!' ?i� �i!'�i <rp�!•p! ♦< I< pf<<♦ �♦!' pi♦< p$<< p�< 6• i<< pi♦< ¢� <i�� <ii� <it ♦''pi ♦<ii�pi!' ?i!' i < <�i!' ?i!'4
��!.� Sri � ei phi �!�i : � %! � + ♦i <tiofti <i ti ♦i < ♦ei6<� ♦� tiri � ♦poi <�i.♦f< < ♦i o < %i a ♦p ♦��o;. <� t;l� eiy ?< ��;lf :• � <�4$
EXISTING SOIL
2 " -3" DEPRESSION
\ r 2" (MAX) \
18
1
Fi < ♦ri < ♦ri «rr <4i «ri ° ?i < ♦ri < ?i < ♦ri < ?i «ri < ♦rr «r � r< <<i <�n <Pi • �r < ♦rte «ro < ♦ri °1rr < ?i °Pr. ?i ° r♦ ° e NED
Pi: �r <Pi °!•r <ri ° ?r • !. �i. ?i • pi • < «: ?i <4♦ <4i r4i < ?i r�<n• ♦<♦ • ?i r!•<< �. n• ?i r ?i <�i r en:♦r, <i : %i!<�i «oi •'rdi «o °i<pi ?ia•� ?iti <�ef ♦�i <pi�<pi ° ?i � �i di <�ri ?♦di <pi ?♦r� ?ice♦ ei i �.•'i ri < <♦ <i ?< <f<♦tf<��♦ t♦tjPpf<�ij <� <i ?�t ♦4pf <�ri� <4: i<f<��j <�ei e��j <pf <�ei♦ � <? rre♦<? i< 4i< 4i < ?i < ?i ° ?i < ♦ <♦rpi < ?i < ♦i< < ?ir ?< ♦ < ♦i< <4i r ♦ <i < ?i < ?i ••S�rr< ri<♦«<♦< i<♦< ir<<♦ < ♦ <i «r< < ♦ri <� <i < ♦ <♦ < ♦ri « <♦ <r:♦� <Gi < ?i <Pi «ri < ♦<i �
EXISTING •
IL
DETAIL NOTES:
1. ENDS OF •.
RECOMMENDED 2. ARE 1 LONG.
3. STAKES SHALL NOT ABOVE THE STRAW MORE
4. RECOMMENDED STAKE SPACING (d) EQUAL TO: 5'ON 1 HAV, 1 O'ON 2HAV, 15'ON
AND 1 • SLOPES.
5 DETAIL
3 STRAW WATTLE
SCALE: NTS
1 1 2 1 3 1 4 1
7
SEEDING MIXTURE (NOTE 2)
COMMON NAME BOTANICAL NAME RATE (LB /ACRE) PURPOSE OPTIMAL PLANTING DATES
(NOTE 3) (NOTE 4)
INDIAN GRASS SORGHASTRUM NUTANS /RUMSEY, 15 PRIMARY STABILIZATION 12/1-4/1
OSAGE, OR CHEYENNE
VIRGINIA WILD RYE ELYMUS VIRGINICUS 7 PRIMARY STABILIZATION 2/15 - 3/20 AND 9/1 - 11/1
BIG BLUESTEM ANDROPGON GERADII /EARL 7 PRIMARY STABILIZATION 12/1-5/1
SWITCHGRASS PANICUM VIRGATUM/BLACKWELL 7 PRIMARY STABILIZATION 12/1-4/1
OR SHELTER
RYE GRAIN SECALE CEREALE 40 NURSE CROP 8/15-4/15
MAINTENANCE NOTES:
1. FOR MAINTENANCE REQUIREMENTS, SEE TECHNICAL SPECIFICATION SECTION 32 92 00.
3 DETAIL
3 PERMANENT SEEDING
SOURCE:NCDENR
6 DETAIL
3 TEMPORARY SEEDING
SOURCE: NCDENR
W1
C•?
C
F 07.02.15 RE- ISSUED FOR PERMIT - NCDENR SAFE DAMS JHS WS
E 06.18.15 ISSUED FOR PERMIT MRD VIVID
D 10.13.14 ISSUED TO NCDENR FOR REVIEW JHS RK
C 09.03.14 ISSUED TO DEC FOR REVIEW JHS RK
B 08.26.14 ISSUED TO DEC FOR REVIEW JHS RK E
A 07.31.14 ISSUED TO DEC FOR REVIEW MRS RK
REV DATE DESCRIPTION DRN APP
Geosyntec'% DUKE
CMSUltantS OF INC, PC
NC LICENSE NO.: C -3500 E N E R%.7Q
1300 SOUTH MINT STREET, SUITE 410
CHARLOTTE, INC 28203 USA _
TELEPHONE: 704 - 227 -0840
TITLE:
CIVIL AND EROSION AND SEDIMENT CONTROL DETAILS
NOTES: PROJECT: ACTIVE ASH POND - VEGETATIVE STABILIZATION OF SLOPES
1. EROSION AND SEDIMENT CONTROL SHALL BE IN ACCORDANCE WITH TECHNICAL AND TREE REMOVAL
SPECIFICATION SECTION 01 57 13.
SITE:
2. VEGETATION SHALL BE IN ACCORDANCE WITH TECHNICAL SPECIFICATION GOLDSBORO, NORTH CAROLINA
SECTION 32 92 19. FERTILIZER RATES SHALL BE DETERMINED BY A SOIL TEST. F
3. SEEDING RATE IS BASED UPON TABLE 6.11.d OF THE NCDENR EROSION AND THIS DRAWING MAY NOT BE ISSUED DESIGN BY: JAS DATE: JULY 2015
SEDIMENT CONTROL PLANNING AND DESIGN MANUAL. FOR PROJECT TENDER OR
CONSTRUCTION, UNLESS SEALED.
DRAWN BY: MRD PROJECT NO.: GK5851
4. OPTIMAL PLANTING DATES ARE BASED UPON THE COASTAL PLAIN REGION FROM
TABLES 6.11.a AND 6.11.c OF THE NCDENR EROSION AND SEDIMENT CONTROL CHECKED BY: TLF FILE: 5651 -006
PLANNING AND DESIGN MANUAL.
SIGNATURE REVIEWED BY: LMG DRAWING NO.:
PERMIT DRAWINGS DATE APPROVED BY: WS 4 of 4
5 6 1 7 8
J
F M A I M J J
A S O 1 N D
Mountains
Above 2500'
Below 2500'
3
Piedmont
Coastal Plain Plain
I 4
I 1
Recommended Plantings
Legend
1
Korean Lespedeza with ..............................
50 lb/acre
Rye Grain ................... ...............................
120 lb/acre
2
Kobe Lespedeza with ... ...............................
50 lb/acre
Rye Grain ................... ...............................
120 lb/acre
3
German Millet or ........... ...............................
40 lb/acre
Sudangrass ................. ...............................
50 lb/acre
4
German Millet ............... ...............................
40 lb/acre
Rye R Y a Grain ........... ...............................
........ 12 0 lb/acre
6 DETAIL
3 TEMPORARY SEEDING
SOURCE: NCDENR
W1
C•?
C
F 07.02.15 RE- ISSUED FOR PERMIT - NCDENR SAFE DAMS JHS WS
E 06.18.15 ISSUED FOR PERMIT MRD VIVID
D 10.13.14 ISSUED TO NCDENR FOR REVIEW JHS RK
C 09.03.14 ISSUED TO DEC FOR REVIEW JHS RK
B 08.26.14 ISSUED TO DEC FOR REVIEW JHS RK E
A 07.31.14 ISSUED TO DEC FOR REVIEW MRS RK
REV DATE DESCRIPTION DRN APP
Geosyntec'% DUKE
CMSUltantS OF INC, PC
NC LICENSE NO.: C -3500 E N E R%.7Q
1300 SOUTH MINT STREET, SUITE 410
CHARLOTTE, INC 28203 USA _
TELEPHONE: 704 - 227 -0840
TITLE:
CIVIL AND EROSION AND SEDIMENT CONTROL DETAILS
NOTES: PROJECT: ACTIVE ASH POND - VEGETATIVE STABILIZATION OF SLOPES
1. EROSION AND SEDIMENT CONTROL SHALL BE IN ACCORDANCE WITH TECHNICAL AND TREE REMOVAL
SPECIFICATION SECTION 01 57 13.
SITE:
2. VEGETATION SHALL BE IN ACCORDANCE WITH TECHNICAL SPECIFICATION GOLDSBORO, NORTH CAROLINA
SECTION 32 92 19. FERTILIZER RATES SHALL BE DETERMINED BY A SOIL TEST. F
3. SEEDING RATE IS BASED UPON TABLE 6.11.d OF THE NCDENR EROSION AND THIS DRAWING MAY NOT BE ISSUED DESIGN BY: JAS DATE: JULY 2015
SEDIMENT CONTROL PLANNING AND DESIGN MANUAL. FOR PROJECT TENDER OR
CONSTRUCTION, UNLESS SEALED.
DRAWN BY: MRD PROJECT NO.: GK5851
4. OPTIMAL PLANTING DATES ARE BASED UPON THE COASTAL PLAIN REGION FROM
TABLES 6.11.a AND 6.11.c OF THE NCDENR EROSION AND SEDIMENT CONTROL CHECKED BY: TLF FILE: 5651 -006
PLANNING AND DESIGN MANUAL.
SIGNATURE REVIEWED BY: LMG DRAWING NO.:
PERMIT DRAWINGS DATE APPROVED BY: WS 4 of 4
5 6 1 7 8