NC0003433_DEP Cape Fear Natural Resources (AMEC Draft)_20150902

NATURAL RESOURCES TECHNICAL
REPORT
CAPE FEAR STEAM STATION
MONCURE, NC
Prepared for:
Duke Energy Business Services, LLC
526 South Church Street — EC13K
Charlotte, NC 28202
Prepared by:
amec
fester
wheeler
AMEC Environment and Infrastructure, Inc.
4021 Stirrup Creek Drive, Suite 100
Durham, North Carolina 27703
January 30, 2014

TABLE OF CONTENTS
1.0 INTRODUCTION.................................................................................................................1
2.0 PROJECT SITE DESCRIPTION..........................................................................................1
3.0 METHODOLOGY................................................................................................................1
4.0 RESULTS............................................................................................................................3
5.0 CONCLUSIONS................................................................................................................11
LIST OF TABLES
Table 1 Stream Classifications within the Cape Fear Steam Station Study Area, Chatham
County, North Carolina.
Table 2 Potential for Occurrence of State Listed and Federally Listed Animal and Plant
Species within the Cape Fear Steam Station Study Area, Chatham 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 NWI 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 APPENDICES
Appendix A Figures
Appendix B Wetland/Stream Field Data Forms
Appendix C Photographic Log

AMEC Project No. 7810140191
January 30, 2015
1.0 INTRODUCTION
Natural Resources Technical Report
Cape Fear Steam Station
Chatham County, NC
AMEC Environment and Infrastructure, Inc. (AMEC) conducted a natural resources investigation
at the Cape Fear Steam Station located in Moncure, Chatham County, North Carolina (Figure 1)
per the scope of work outlined in eMax Purchase Order No. 1089371 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) in the study area and presents the findings of the field investigation. The results of
the threatened and endangered species database review, our assessment of the potential for
occurrence of listed plant and animal species within the study area, historical database review,
and floodplain and riparian buffer assessment are also included herein.
2.0 PROJECT SITE DESCRIPTION
AMEC understands that Duke Energy is planning to perform ash basin closure activities in
proximity to three ash ponds at the Cape Fear Steam Station. The project area is an approximate
300 foot boundary around each ash basin, which extends to approximately 600 feet south of the
1978 ash basin and extends to approximately 1,300 feet south of the 1985 ash basin or the
property line, whichever came first. The Cape Fear River was assessed 300 feet downstream
and 100 feet upstream of its discharge point. As specified in the above -referenced Duke Energy
purchase order, the ash basin was 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)
Chatham County Soil survey GIS data (Figure 3), the U.S. Geological Survey (USGS) digital 7.5'
topography (Figure 4; Moncure, North Carolina Quadrangle), and the U.S. Fish and Wildlife
Service (USFWS) National Wetlands Inventory (NWI) geographic information system (GIS) data
(Figure 5). 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 December 9-10 and 17, 2014, AMEC performed an on -site
evaluation for the presence of potentially jurisdictional surface waters in 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 USACE
Wetland Delineation Manual' and the Eastern Mountains and Piedmont regional supplementz.
Environmental Laboratory. 1987. "Corps of Engineers Wetlands Delineation Manual," Technical Report Y-
87-1. U.S. Army Engineer Waterways Experiment Station. Vicksburg, MS.

AMEC Project No. 7810140191 Natural Resources Technical Report
January 30, 2015 Cape Fear Steam Station
Chatham County, NC
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 3(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.
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 a hand-held, sub -meter
accuracy Global Positioning System (GPS) device.
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 http://ecos.fws.gov/ipac/) and the county list available on the
USFWS Raleigh Ecological Services website (http://www.fws.gov/raleigh/) to determine whether
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.
Cultural Resources Review
Section 106 of the National Historic Preservation Act, 36 CFR Part 800 (as amended) requires
that impacts to cultural resources be considered during a Federal undertaking or when a Federal
permit is needed. Impacts to cultural resources are regulated by the Lead Federal Agency in
cooperation with the North Carolina State Preservation Office (NC SHPO). In order for a cultural
Environmental Laboratory. 2010. "Interim Regional Supplement to the Corps of Engineers Wetland
Delineation Manual: Eastern Mountains and Piedmont," Technical Report ERDC/EL TR-10-9. U.S. Army
Engineer Waterways Experiment Station. Vicksburg, MS.
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.
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. 7810140191 Natural Resources Technical Report
January 30, 2015 Cape Fear Steam Station
Chatham County, NC
resource to be listed on the National Register of Historic Places (NRHP), it must meet at least one
of following four criteria for significance:
• associated with events that have made a significant contribution to broad patterns of
history;
• associated with the lives of persons significant in our past;
• that 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;
• That 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 project areas. The research included a review of
archeological files at the NC SHPO office and the online HPO Web GIS Service
(http://gis.ncdcr.gov/hpoweb/). Our investigation did not include field efforts to identify or verify
cultural resources within the study area.
Floodplain Assessment
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 a regulated 100-year floodplain. These results are based on our
review of FEMA DFIRM delineated flood boundaries.
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 Chatham County Watershed
Protection Ordinance and contacted the Chatham County Public Works Director regarding
riparian buffer regulations within the study area. AMEC also reviewed NCDENR DWR's riparian
buffer regulations.
4.0 RESULTS
Wetland Delineation and Stream Determination
During the in-house review, the NRCS Soil Survey (Figure 3) indicated the presence of six soil
map units within the study area. The study area is underlain by Chewacla and Wehadkee soils, 0
to 2 percent slopes (ChA), Mattaponi fine sandy loam, 0 to 2 percent slopes (MaA), Peawick fine
sandy loam, 0 to 2 percent slopes, rarely flooded (PcA), Peawick fine sandy loam, 0 to 2 percent
slopes (PeA), Riverview silt loam, 0 to 3 percent slopes (RvA), and Udorthens loamy, 0 to 10
percent slopes (UdC). The Chewacla and Wehadkee and Riverview soil series are considered
hydric by the NRCS. The USGS topographic map (Figure 4) depicted one blue -line stream feature
just east of the 1978 ash pond. No wetland areas were depicted within the study area on the
topographic map. Finally, the USFWS NWI Map (Figure 5) depicted freshwater forested wetlands
3

AMEC Project No. 7810140191 Natural Resources Technical Report
January 30, 2015 Cape Fear Steam Station
Chatham County, NC
in the area of the 1978 pond, and freshwater emergent wetlands and freshwater forested
wetlands in the area of the 1985 pond and no wetland in the area of the northern pond.
The December 9-10 and 17, 2014 field investigation 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, as well
as other features that the USACE may not exert jurisdiction over, as detailed herein. Eleven
potentially jurisdictional streams, 19 potentially jurisdictional wetland features, and one potentially
jurisdictional open water tributary were identified within the study area. 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 estimated from field observations and
GPS/GIS mapping and have not been verified (inspected) by the USACE and/or the DWR.
Wetlands
Nineteen (19) potentially -jurisdictional, wetland areas were delineated within the study area
(Wetlands A through S, Figure 6). These 19 wetlands were classified as one of three types found
within the study area, bottomland hardwood forest, herbaceous wetland within a maintained
power line right-of-way corridor, linear wetland, or as some mixture of the three types.
Wetlands A, B, D, H, I, J, L, R, and S are classified as a bottomland hardwood forest according to
NC WAM. These wetlands are dominated by an overstory of sweet gum (Liquidambar styraciflua),
Ioblolly pine (Pinus taeda), willow oak (Quercus phellos), red maple (Acer rubrum) and american
sycamore (Platanus occidentalis). The midstory consists of saplings of those same species, with
an understory of greenbrier (Smilax spp.), panicgrass (Panicum spp.), japanese honeysuckle
(Lonicera japonica), and sedges (Carex spp.). USACE Eastern Mountain and Piedmont Wetland
Determination Data Forms for wetlands B (Blue Cap 0004) and H (Red Cap 0092) are located in
Appendix B.
Wetlands C, M, N, O, and Q are herbaceous wetlands located within maintained powerline right-
of-way corridors. The vegetation in these areas is herbaceous due to the nature of the
maintenance activities within the corridors which prevent development of a mid and overstory.
Because of the disturbance to the vegetation, no NC WAM classification applies to these areas.
These wetlands are dominated by soft rush (Juncus effusus), panicgrass, sawtooth blackberry
(Rubus argutus), and sedges, with willow oak and sweetgum saplings.
Wetlands E, F, and G are linear wetlands, with geomorphological features that resemble a
stream, but a flow regime that is more conducive to growth of hydrophytic vegetation. These
wetlands are dominated by soft rush, sawtooth blackberry, broomsedge (Andropogon virginicus),
and panicgrass.
Wetlands K and P are bottomland hardwood forests with adjacent herbaceous wetlands. As
previously mentioned, the herbaceous wetlands are located in areas of maintained power line
right-of-ways. The dominant vegetation is described in the individual sections above.
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
Streams
Eleven potentially jurisdictional, drainage features (Streams 1 to 11, Figure 6) were delineated
within the study area. The DWR Stream Identification scores and classifications and the USACE
Stream Quality Assessment Worksheet scores are presented in Table 1 below for the
4

AMEC Project No. 7810140191
January 30, 2015
Natural Resources Technical Report
Cape Fear Steam Station
Chatham County, NC
aforementioned eleven 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.
Table 1. Stream Classifications within the Cape Fear Steam Station Study Area,
Chatham County, North Carolina.
Stream ID
Flag ID
NC DWQ Stream
Score
NC DWQ Stream
Classification
USACE Stream
Score
Stream 1
Green CAP 0068
25.75
Intermittent
NA
Stream 2
Blue CAP 0090s
30.75
Perennial
40
Stream 3
Green—CAP-1 04
30
Perennial
35
Stream 4
Green CAP 0151
32
Perennial
59
Stream 5
Blue CAP 0227
21.5
Intermittent
37
Stream 6
Green CAP 0121
20
Intermittent
31
Stream 7
Green CAP 0008
30
Perennial
52
Stream 8
Green CAP 0022
32
Perennial
68
Stream 9
Blue CAP 0241
25
Intermittent
34
Stream 10
Green CAP 0016
30
Perennial
52
Stream 11
Green CAP 0047
32
Perennial
61
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.
Open Waters
One potentially jurisdictional, open water tributary (Figure 6), the Cape Fear Steam Station intake
canal, was delineated within the central portion of the study area. The intake canal is associated
with energy generation at the Cape Fear Steam Plant, and flows from the Cape Fear River,

AMEC Project No. 7810140191 Natural Resources Technical Report
January 30, 2015 Cape Fear Steam Station
Chatham County, NC
northwest through the study area into the Plant. The water level in this open water tributary is
maintained through water control devices.
Ordinary High Water Mark
As a part of the jurisdictional waters delineation, the "ordinary high water" mark (OHWM) along
the Cape Fear 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-0161) to determine if any federally listed threatened or endangered plant and animal species,
designated critical habitat, or other natural resources of concern have the potential to occur within
the study area. As based on these review efforts, Table 2 presents 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 Chatham County. The likelihood of occurrence,
as listed within this table, is based on a comparison of the known habitat use by these species
and the habitats 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" indicates that no suitable habitat, or extremely limited habitat, for the species exists
within the study area.
N

AMEC Project No. 7810140191
January 30, 2015
Natural Resources Technical Report
Cape Fear Steam Station
Chatham County, NC
Table 2. Potential for Occurrence of State Listed and Federally Listed Animal and Plant
Species within the Cape Fear Steam Station Study Area, Chatham County, North
Carolina.
Common Name
Federal
State
General Habitat Description
Potential for
(Scientific Name)
Status
Status
Occurrence
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
Northern long-eared bat
PT
SR
are preferred (suitable roost trees).
(Myotis septentrionalis)
Winter hibernating habitat
Low
(hibernacula) includes caves and
mines, typically with large 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 averaging 70 to 100 years old.
Red -cockaded
Pine trees with red -heart disease are
woodpecker
E
E
preferred for cavity nesting. Suitable
Unlikely
(Picoides borealis)
foraging habitat typically exhibits
sparse understory (minimal
hardwood regeneration). Fire
(control burning) is important in
maintaining suitable foraging and
nesting habitat.
7

AMEC Project No. 7810140191
January 30, 2015
Natural Resources Technical Report
Cape Fear Steam Station
Chatham County, NC
Common Name
Federal
State
General Habitat Description
Potential for
(Scientific Name)
Status
Status
Occurrence
Fishes
Shallow, rocky shoals within main
river channels of the Cape Fear
River Basin. In winter months, the
species may migrate into smaller
tributary streams. Preferred habitat
includes large islands and bars of
water willow or other instream
Cape Fear shiner
vegetation. The species prefers
(Notropis
E
E
clean substrates composed of
Unlikely
mekistocholas)
gravel, cobble, and boulders.
Cape Fear River Basin within
Chatham County: Rocky River,
including Bear Creek; Deep River;
and Haw River. Note: These rivers
and creeks are located just
upstream of the Cape Fear Steam
Electric Plant.
Cape Fear and Pee Dee drainages.
Large rocky streams and rivers with
gravel shoals. Except during
spawning season, adults are usually
found in deeper water (> 6 feet.) with
Carolina redhorse
FSC
T
sluggish current, silt -sand bottoms,
(Moxostoma sp. 3)
and near large woody debris.
Unlikely
The species is known from the Deep
River within the Cape Fear drainage.
Note: Deep River is located just
upstream of the Cape Fear Steam
Electric Plant.

AMEC Project No. 7810140191
January 30, 2015
Natural Resources Technical Report
Cape Fear Steam Station
Chatham County, NC
Common Name
(Scientific Name)
Federal
Status
State
Status
General Habitat Description
Potential for
Occurrence
Vascular Plants
Typically occurs on rocky or gravel
shoals (rocky riverbeds) and
sandbars and along the margins of
clear, swift -flowing stream sections.
The species is known from only two
locations in North Carolina. One
population occurs in the Tar River in
Harperella
Granville County. Another
(Ptilimnium nodosum)
E
E
population was reintroduced to the
Unlikely
Deep River recently after the original
population known from that area
disappeared. This reintroduced
population occurs in Chatham
County.
Note: Deep River is located just
upstream of the Cape Fear Steam
Electric Plant.
Sources: USFWS Environmental Conservation Online System — Species Profiles (web site); NatureServe
Explorer (web site); USFWS 2003 Recovery plan for the red -cockaded woodpecker.
E = Endangered; T = Threatened; P=Proposed.
Low = no further surveys recommended.
Medium =additional surveys are recommended.
High = additional surveys are recommended.
On December 9-10 and 17, 2014, AMEC completed a general field reconnaissance of the ash
ponds, forested habitat, and open maintained fields that comprise the study area. No federally
listed or state listed, threatened or endangered, animal species were observed during the field
investigation. The quality of the existing habitat in the study area is presumed to be significantly
less than suitable, or not present, for the listed species with a potential for occurrence in Chatham
County.
The mixed pine hardwood forests and scattered areas of mixed hardwood forests within the study
area were visually inspected to determine whether "suitable summer habitat" or "potential summer
habitat" for the northern long-eared bat was present. Specifically, dead, or partially dead,
hardwood trees with exfoliating bark, as well as white oak trees, were examined to determine
whether the quantity, quality, and location of the trees would be sufficient to attract northern long-
eared bats. This examination included trees of larger bole size ("suitable primary maternity roost
trees"; i.e., 9 to 16 inches or greater diameter at breast height) and trees of smaller bole size
("suitable roost trees"; i.e., 5 inches or greater diameter at breast height). Based on the results of
the field reconnaissance, there were very few trees which were considered suitable roost trees.
Most of the potentially suitable trees were overtopped within the canopy stratum, or were not
located within a desired canopy gap in the forest. Some of the potentially suitable trees were
enveloped by woody vines, while access to other roost trees would be impeded by branches.
Overall, dead or dying trees with exfoliating bark and/or white oak trees were not common. With
these considerations, it was presumed that "suitable summer habitat" or "potential summer
habitat' for the northern long-eared bat was low in quantity and quality.
.61

AMEC Project No. 7810140191 Natural Resources Technical Report
January 30, 2015 Cape Fear Steam Station
Chatham County, NC
Forested areas surrounding the on -site ash ponds are classified as mixed pine hardwood forests.
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.
The Carolina redhorse occurs within the Cape Fear and Pee Dee drainages. Suitable habitat
includes large rocky streams and rivers with gravel shoals. Specifically, the species is known
from the Deep River within the Cape Fear drainage. However, Deep River is located upstream of
the power plant. Stream features on site had very slow moving water, with no rocky outcrops and
poorly defined riffle and pool sequences; therefore, the potential for occurrence of the Cape Fear
shiner and harparella is presumed to be unlikely.
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 Cape
Fear Steam Station. Mr. Fletcher stated that no known listed species occur on site, although no
surveys have been conducted for Harperella. 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 Review
According to the North Carolina Office of State Archeology records, at least a portion of the study
area has been surveyed for archeological resources (Figure 7; survey ER-07-0328, Linear
Surveys). No archeological remains were discovered during the surveys. Several areas of
archeological resources were discovered in proximity but outside of the study area (CH 972, 973).
If federal permits are required as part of future project plans, required consultation with the SHPO
will likely result in a request for a Phase IA archeological survey in the unsurveyed portions of the
study area.
According to the online HPO Web GIS Service, the Cape Fear Steam Station was surveyed for
architectural significance but was not found to be eligible for the NRHP. No other NRHP listed
properties were found within the study area.
Floodplain Assessment
Review of the FEMA delineated 100-year flood boundary for the project area identified the
majority of the study area is located within the regulated 100-year flood zone (Figure 8).
Riparian Buffer Assessment
Review of the State of North Carolina Buffer Regulations indicate that the study area is not
located within a buffer river basin and is not subject to any state riparian buffer regulations.
Review of the Chatham County Watershed Protection Ordinance identified buffers around the
following stream and wetland features:
• Perennial Streams — 100 feet landward measured perpendicularly from the top of the
stream bank
• Intermittent Streams — 50 feet landward measured perpendicularly from the top of the
stream bank
• Ephemeral Streams — 30 feet landward measured perpendicularly from the top of the
stream bank
10

AMEC Project No. 7810140191
January 30, 2015
Natural Resources Technical Report
Cape Fear Steam Station
Chatham County, NC
Wetlands — 50 feet landward measured perpendicularly from the delineated wetland
boundary for both jurisdictional and non -jurisdictional (isolated) wetlands.
Perennial Water Body — 50 feet landward measured perpendicularly from the delineated
boundary
According to Mr. Dan LaMontagne, the Public Works Director from Chatham County, surface
water features and wetlands should be field verified by Chatham County to determine the
applicability of the buffer rules within the study area. Field verification with Chatham County was
outside of the scope of this report. Until a field verification is obtained, riparian buffers should be
applied to all streams based upon their DWR stream classification as described in the Stream
results section above, and to all wetlands and the open water tributary delineated within the study
area. Should disturbance to buffers be required as part of future activities on the site, Duke
Energy should obtain field verification with Chatham County and a Watershed Protection
Occupancy Permit if required by the Table of Uses set forth in Section 304 of the Ordinance.
5.0 CONCLUSIONS
Nineteen (19) potentially -jurisdictional wetlands, eleven (11) potentially -jurisdictional streams, and
one potentially -jurisdictional open water was identified within the study area. AMEC recommends
the completion of the verification of Jurisdictional Determination process with the Wilmington
District USACE prior to any mechanized land clearing or other disturbance in proximity to
potential jurisdictional waters, including wetlands. Boundaries and classifications of the
aforementioned features in the study area should be verified by the USACE. The boundaries of
jurisdictional waters may need to be surveyed by a registered Professional Land Surveyor to
facilitate the verification of Jurisdictional Determination by the USACE. Impacts to jurisdictional
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 NC DWR. A project may
qualify for a USACE Nationwide Permit if impacts to jurisdictional waters are limited to less than
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 over 0.10 acre.
Temporary impacts remaining in place for greater than one year are typically considered
permanent by the USACE. In this case, temporary impacts may require mitigation. Finally, any
permit decision must consider additional floodway, floodplain fill, or storm water restrictions as
mandated by local ordinance, state requirements, or federal regulations.
A low potential for suitable habitat for the northern long-eared bat was identified within the study
area. 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 areas, consultation with the USFWS should be conducted to
determine if a biological survey for the bat will be required.
If federal permits are required as part of future project plans, required consultation with the SHPO
may result in a request for a Phase IA archeological survey in the unsurveyed portions of the
study area.
The potentially jurisdictional streams, wetland, and open water tributary in the study area may be
subject to Chatham County buffer regulations. Field verification of the buffers by Chatham County
should be conducted prior to any ground disturbance within these areas. A Watershed Protection
11

AMEC Project No. 7810140191
January 30, 2015
Natural Resources Technical Report
Cape Fear Steam Station
Chatham County, NC
Occupancy Permit if required by the Table of Uses set forth in Section 304 of the Chatham
County Watershed Protection Ordinance.
Review of the FEMA delineated 100-year flood boundary for the project area identified the
majority of the study area is located within the regulated 100-year flood zone. Work conducted
within the 100-year floodplain may require review/consultation with Chatham County Water
Resources Department and/or Floodplain Administrator.
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

GJF
Site Location
LL,
Pd
s
O
4 1
h
01
Cy
r
e A'Fla6
eft
P
m e�
T S
Now 4� 4
o Cyur Rush Rd = �
rM
o
a
�1
4
Oaks
S VkeMr HiM1l�"
Holly Sprit`$
Dt
HIQC1CurB F° .04 Rd
1 >f5 1 C.ounM fl�F
0 62.5 125 250 Miles Qtid Site Location]
I I I I I I I I c 4d y f
5hearon
g"te Hams y�Rd s* Rn
4- F
•®� Reservoir N°+tie
rL rry r
d er ForF s Rd "h d� TL C� Psari7a4
v
Sanford -Leo y 9""r o°°
County Regional W. R"b,� �`
Airport e a ' 4
a ,
fi ' ao �
f� Y D a
�1 ti ��fill
d U
09
Zion
a/
Lees aP°I Rd 42
Evtretr D / 0 Al
01
41
Rd
alp
4zgo°d Rd
4'2 � � l _:_I/�_ _ •7'" � y,
S
Herr R'wer R m
L9 0
a d
5 t1 dges Rd �\ ,art °+ Rd
= Poi1411taa "�i ^
f
- 2
Notes To User:
ArcGIS Base Data: 1 June 2014 �� Si etodwarin ? tlr,dGa p`
dle Rtl ° Sources: Esri, DeLorme, NAVTEQ, USGS, a6CAN, METI, iPC, TomTom
Rid
Legend Duke Energy 4t
Cape Fear Steam Electric Plant foster
amec
Study Area Chatham County, NC wheeler
L J' Existing Ash Pond / Excluded From Study Area Figure 1 - Site Location Map o 5 000 10000 20 000 Feet
Projection: NAD83 State Plane FIPS 3200 (US Feet)
Vertical Datum: NAVD88

r
Notes To User:
ArcGIS Base Data: 1 June 2014
Legend
Study Area
L Existing Ash Pond / Excluded From Study Area
Duke Energy
Cape Fear Steam Electic Plant
Chatham County, NC
Figure 2 - Study Area Map
amec
foster
wheeler
0 625 1,250 2,500 Feet
Projection: NAD83 State Plane FIPS 3200 (US Feet)
Vertical Datum: NAVD88

..A)AA M
.-- ' � ..: - . � bra'•
� ' -�
4 Y? t
Notes To User:
ArcGIS Base Data: 1 June 2014
Ch
Legend
Study Area
L------
Existing Ash Pond / Excluded From Study Area
NRCS Soils
Duke Energy
Cape Fear Steam Electric Plant
Chatham County, NC
Figure 3 - NRCS Soils Map
Soil Code Soil Type N dric Status
ChA Chewacla and Wehadkee soils. 0 to 2 percent slopes H dric
PcA Peawick fine sandy loam. © to 2 percent slopes. rarely flooded Nan-h dric
PeA Peavick fine sap loam, 0 to 2 perrent slopes Non-h dric
RvA Riverview silt loam. 0 to 3 oercenk slopes Hvdric
amec
foster
wheeler
0 550 1,100 2,200 Feet
Projection: NAD83 State Plane FIPS 3200 (US Feet)
Vertical Datum: NAVD88

\
\ I
Peg
00
1 a u p
10 �` of
�\ "•fit+ I
Ail ;-
MWA
�� + rim Y -•r \ ` `\^\ - �` yam.+* g�
p` /fir• f + � �. � � �`\ \� ♦. I �% �; �
• �� \ �� I `' rl
r'IV
em
ee
Sha
Notes To User: %X
ArcGIS Base Data: 1 June 2014 •♦♦
Copyright:© 2013 National Geographic Society, -cubed
Legend Duke Ener
Study Area
Existing Ash Pond / Excluded From Study Area
gy
Cape Fear Steam Electric Plant
Chatham County, NC
Figure 4 - USGS Topographic Map
Moncure Quad
foster
wheeler
0 625 1,250 2,500 Feet
l i i i l i�i lI
Projection: NAD83 State Plane FIPS 3200 (US Feet)
Vertical Datum: NAVD88

1
"
r
Freshwater
Forested/Shrub
Freshwater
,Wetland
Freshwater" - ForestedlShrub 4
Pond Wetland
Freshwater
ForestedlShrub
FreP^n�ter �',f ✓'
�
14,
-"
1&1�
7 4
,
V�
1.
s
� • s y r
ti
t
AN
Notes To User:
ArcGIS Base Data: 1 June 2014
Study Area Legend
,I Existing Ash Pond / Excluded From Study Area
Wetland Type
Freshwater Emergent Wetland Lake
CFreshwater Forested/Shrub Wetland Other
E- Freshwater Pond
Freshwater
\ForestedlShrub
0 Wetland
Freshwater
ForestedlShrub
Wetland
Duke Energy
Cape Fear Steam Electric Plant
Chatham County, NC
Figure 5 - USFWS National Wetland Inventory Map
T.,
amec
foster
wheeler
0 1,200 2,400 4,800 Feet
I I I I I I I
Projection: NAD83 State Plane FIPS 3200 (US Feet)
Vertical Datum: NAVD88

fit.
Ilk
-WNW V
� „T'rt'.( baOV 7!.'� ems, w' ► �A
Notes To User: ZEN
ArcGIS Base Data: 1 June 2014
Legend o Ordinary Highwater Mark
Study Area
Existing Ash Pond / Excluded From Study Area
Streams
Wetlands
Open Water Tributary
Q 9 5
s r P
0
t
I B
A
K
E
J
H
10
7
Duke Energy
Cape Fear Steam Electric Plant
Chatham County, NC
Figure 6 - Jurisdictional Waters Map
Jurisdictional status of features on this map
are preliminary and may be subject to change
pending verification by the Army Corps of Engineers
L
f
�11
8 +7
r
amec
faster
Wheeler
0 550 1,100 2,200 Feet
I I I I I I I I
Projection: NAD83 State Plane FIPS 3200 (US Feet)
Vertical Datum: NAVD88

y
14
Notes To User:
ArcGIS Base Data: 1 June 2014 r
Legend
Study Area
Existing Ash Pond / Excluded From Study Area
L------ I
Potential Habitat -Northern Long -Eared Bat
Duke Energy
Cape Fear Steam Electric Plant
Chatham County, NC
Figure 7 - Threatened & Endangered Species Habitat
amec
foster
wheeler
0 650 1,300 2,600 Feet
Projection: NAD83 State Plane FIPS 3200 (US Feet)
Vertical Datum: NAVD88

"'T9
Jurisdictional status of features on this map
•"
are preliminary and may be subject to change
�� 4 f.r f' ► • pending verification by the Army Corps of Engineers
lop
{�10,OF
� '
dI
410
`\� ill p . Y
* +
dO' tic
r' \A _ ; •
� �f• s! r .l s i / � I /jam � —
19
40
33
w
ljll I .
lie.
CH 73
r z
1'iY a J?rf Vhi4jd",-
'J
`r •
/ R R
Notes To User: �,CH 972`
ArcGIS Base Data: 1 June 2014 - - •
Copyright:© 2013 National Geographic Society, i-eubed
Legend Duke Energy
Study Area Cape Fear Steam Electric Plant amec
Chatham County, NC foster
' Existing Ash Pond / Excluded From Study Area 'Wheeler
Figure 8 - Cultural Resources Survey Map 0 625 1,250 2,500 Feet
Previous Archeological Surveys I I I I I I I I I
Projection: NAD83 State Plane FIPS 3200 (US Feet)
Vertical Datum: NAVD88

OMPOWr
Iw, ;
A�
y
_1
o m E@O, Digital W(D, Q@M' e, EffftW O • p s, ONE Mkbw Dom , UW& UOWS AM (5 p • ng, A@r@PK I N, IGP, w s t • p • , Elm t e (92 UWT
Community

APPENDIX B
WETLAND/STREAM FIELD DATA FORMS

WETLAND DETERMINATION DATA FORM - Eastern Mountains and Piedmont Upland Point
Project/Site: Cape Fear City/Co.: Moncure/Chatham Sampling Date: Dec 9 2014
Applicant/Owner: Duke Energy State: NC Sampling Point: Blue-Cap-0004
Investigator(s): James Cutler, PWS Section, Township, Range:
Landform: (hillslope, terrace, etc.) bottomland Local Relief : flat Slope (%): <2
Subregion (LRR/MLRA P/136 Lat: Long: Datum:
Soil Map Unit Name: Udorthents, loamy, 2 to 10 percent slopes NWI Classification: Upland data point
Are climatic/hydrologic conditions on the site typical for this time of year? 0 Yes ❑ No (If no, explain in Remarks.)
Are Vegetation ❑ Soil ❑ or Hydrology ❑ significantly disturbed? Are "Normal Circumstances" present? 0 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 0 No ❑ Is the Sampled Area
Hydric Soil Present? Yes ❑ No 0 within a wetland? Yes ❑ No 0
Wetland Hydrology Present? Yes ❑ No 0
Remarks Adjacent wetland area is disturbed from severe ground rutting/gouging, as resulting in troughs and spoil piles.
Photograph taken of upland using 'Blue" tablet.
HYDROLOGY
Wetland Hydrology Indicators:
Secondary Indicators (minimum of two required)
Primary Indicators (minimum of one is required; check all that apply):
❑
Surface Soil Cracks (136)
❑ Surface Water (Al)
❑
True Aquatic Plants (B14)
❑
Sparsely Vegetated Concave Surface (68)
❑ High Water Table (A2)
❑
Hydrogen Sulfide Odor (Cl)
❑
Drainage Patterns (610)
❑ Saturation (A3)
❑
Oxidized Rhizospheres on Living Roots (C3)
❑
Moss Trim Lines (616)
❑ Water Marks (Bi)
❑
Presence of Reduced Iron (C4)
❑
Dry -Season Water Table (C2)
❑ Sediment Deposits (62)
❑
Recent Iron Reduction in Tilled Soils (C6)
❑
Crayfish Burrows (C8)
❑ Drift Deposits (B3)
❑
Thin Much Surface (C7)
❑
Saturation Visible on Aerial Imagery (C9)
❑ Algal Mat or Crust (134)
❑
Other (Explain in Remarks)
❑
Stunted or Stressed Plants (D1)
❑ Iron Deposits (135)
❑
Geomorphic Position (D2)
❑ Inundation Visible on Aerial Imagery (137)
❑
Shallow Aquitard (D3)
❑ Water -Stained Leaves (139)
❑
Microtopographic Relief (D4)
❑ Aquatic Fauna (1313)
❑
FAC-Neutral Test (D5)
Field Observations:
Surface Water Present? ❑ Yes
❑ No
Depth (inches):
Water Table Present? ❑ Yes
❑ No
Depth (inches):
Saturation Present? ❑ Yes
❑ No
Depth (inches):
Wetland
Hydrology Present? ❑ Yes No
(includes capillary fringe)
Describe Recorded Data (stream gauge, monitoring well, aerial photos, previous inspections), if available:
Remarks:
US Army Corps of Engineers Eastern Mountains and Piedmont - Version 2.0

VLULIAI IVN (tour Strata) - use SCIenturic names of plants.
Absolute Dominant Indicator
Tree Stratum (Plot size: 30ft radius)
% Cover Species? Status
1. Pinus taeda
50 Y FAC
2. Quercus falcata
10 FACU
3. Quercus rubra
10 FACU
4.
5.
6.
7.
8.
70 = Total Cover
50°% of total cover:
35 20°% of total cover: 1
Sapling/Shrub Stratum (Plot size: 30ft radius)
1.
2.
3.
4.
5.
6.
7.
8.
9.
10.
0 = Total Cover
50% of total cover:
0 20% of total cover:
Herb Stratum (Plot size: 30ft radius)
1.
2.
3.
4.
5.
6.
7.
8.
9.
10.
11.
12.
0 = Total Cover
50% of total cover:
0 20% of total cover:
Woody Vine Stratum (Plot size: 30ft radius)
1.
2.
3.
4.
5.
6.
Sampling Point: blue-Crap-0004
minance Test Worksheet:
Number of Dominant Species
That Are OBL, FACW, or FAC: 1 (A)
Total Number of Dominant
Species Across All Strata: 1 (B)
Percent of Dominant Species
That Are OBL, FACW, or FAC: 100% (A/B)
Prevalence Index worksheet:
Total % Cover of: Multiply
OBL species 0 x 1 = 0
4 FACW species 0 x 2= 0
FAC species 50 x 3 = 150
FACU species 20 x 4 = 80
UPL species 0 x 5 = 0
Column Totals: 70 (A) 230 (B)
Prevalence Index = B/A = 3.3
Hydrophytic Vegetation Indicators:
❑ Rapid Test for Hydrophytic Vegetation
0 Dominance Test is > 50%
❑ Prevalence Index is <_ 3.0'
❑ Morphological Adaptationsl (Provide supporting
data in Remarks or on a separate sheet
0 ❑ Problematic Hydrophytic Vegetation' (Explain)
' Indicators of hydric soil and wetland hydrology must
be present, unless disturbed or problematic
Definitions of Four Vegetation Strata:
Tree - Woody plants, excluding vines, 3 in. (7.6 cm) or
more in diameter at breast height (DBH), regardless of
height.
Sapling/Shrub - Woody plants, excluding vines, less
than 3 in. DBH and greater than 3.28 ft (1 m) tall.
Herb - All herbaceous (non -woody) plants, regardless of
size, and woody plants less than 3.28 ft tall.
0
Woody Vines - All woody vines greater than 3.28 ft in height.
Hydrophytic
Vegetation Yes 0 No ❑
0 = Total Cover I Present?
50% of total cover: 0 20% of total cover: 0
Remarks: (Include photo numbers here or on a separate sheet.)
ERDC/CRREL 2014 Regional Wetland Plant List (Eastern Mountains and Piedmont) used for indicator status.
US Army Corps of Engineers Eastern Mountains and Piedmont - Version 2.0

JVIL
roini:
rofile 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' Loc2 Texture Remarks
0-2 10YR5/4 100 silt loam
2-6 10YR5/6 100 silt loam
6 - 12 10YR6/4 100 silt loam
C = Concentration, D = depletion, RM = Reduced Matrix, MS = Masked Sand Grains 2Location: PL = Pore Lining, M = Matrix
Hydric Soil Indicators:
Indicators for Problematic Hydric Soils':
❑
Histosol (At)
❑
Dark Surface (S7)
❑
2 cm Muck (A10) (MLRA 147)
❑
Histic Epipedon (A2)
❑
Polyvalue Below Surface (S8) (MLRA 147, 148)
❑
Coatal Prairie Redox (A16)
❑
Black Histic (A3)
❑
Thin Dark Surface (S9) (MLRA 147, 148)
(MLRA 147, 148)
❑
Hydrogen Sulfide (A4)
❑
Loamy Gleyed Matrix (F2)
❑
Piedmont Floodplain Soils (F19)
❑
Stratified Layers (A5)
❑
Depleted Matrix (F3)
(MLRA 136, 147)
❑
2 cm Muck (A10) (LRR N)
❑
Redox Dark Surface (F6)
❑
Very Shallow Dark Surface (TF12)
❑
Depleted Below Dark Surface (At 1)
❑
Depleted Dark Surface (F7)
❑
Other (Explain in Remarks)
❑
Thick Dark Surface (Al2)
❑
Redox Depressions (F8)
❑
Sandy Mucky Material (Si)
❑
Iron -Manganese Masses (F12) (LRR N, MLRA 136)
(LRR N, MLRA 147, 148)
❑
Umbric Surface (F13) (MLRA 136, 122)
3Indicators of hydrophytic vegetation and
❑
Sandy Gleyed Matrix (S4)
❑
Piedmont Floodplain Soils (F19) (MLRA 148)
wetland hydrology must be present,
❑
Sandy Redox (S4)
❑
Red Parent Material (F21) (MLRA 127, 147)
unless disturbed or problematic.
I —I
Stripped Matrix (S5)
Restrictive Layer (if observed):
Type:
Depth (inches):
Remarks:
Hydric Soil Present? Yes ❑ No 0
US Army Corps of Engineers Eastern Mountains and Piedmont - Version 2.0

WETLAND DETERMINATION DATA FORM - Eastern Mountains and Piedmont
Project/Site: Cape Fear City/Co.: Moncure/Chatham Sampling Date: Dec 9 2014
Applicant/Owner: Duke Energy State: NC Sampling Point: Blue-Cap-0004
Investigator(s): James Cutler, PWS Section, Township, Range:
Landform: (hillslope, terrace, etc.) bottomland Local Relief : flat Slope (%): <2
Subregion (LRR/MLRA P/136 Lat: Long: Datum:
Soil Map Unit Name: Udorthents, loamy, 2 to 10 percent slopes NWI Classification: none
Are climatic/hydrologic conditions on the site typical for this time of year? 0 Yes ❑ No (If no, explain in Remarks.)
Are Vegetation ❑ Soil 0 or Hydrology 0 significantly disturbed? Are "Normal Circumstances" present? ❑ Yes
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.
0 No
Hydrophytic Vegetation Present? Yes 0 No ❑ Is the Sampled Area
Hydric Soil Present? Yes 0 No ❑ within a wetland? Yes El No ❑
Wetland Hydrology Present? Yes 0 No ❑
Remarks Area is disturbed from severe ground rutting/gouging, as resulting in troughs and spoil piles. Troughs are saturated or shallow floode
Photograph taken of wetland using 'Blue" tablet.
HYDROLOGY
Wetland Hydrology Indicators:
Secondary Indicators (minimum of two required)
Primary Indicators (minimum of one is required; check all that apply):
❑
Surface Soil Cracks (136)
❑ Surface Water (Al)
❑
True Aquatic Plants (B14)
❑
Sparsely Vegetated Concave Surface (68)
❑ High Water Table (A2)
❑
Hydrogen Sulfide Odor (Cl)
❑
Drainage Patterns (610)
0 Saturation (A3)
❑
Oxidized Rhizospheres on Living Roots (C3)
❑
Moss Trim Lines (616)
❑ Water Marks (Bi)
❑
Presence of Reduced Iron (C4)
❑
Dry -Season Water Table (C2)
❑ Sediment Deposits (62)
❑
Recent Iron Reduction in Tilled Soils (C6)
❑
Crayfish Burrows (C8)
❑ Drift Deposits (B3)
❑
Thin Much Surface (C7)
❑
Saturation Visible on Aerial Imagery (C9)
❑ Algal Mat or Crust (134)
❑
Other (Explain in Remarks)
❑
Stunted or Stressed Plants (D1)
❑ Iron Deposits (135)
❑
Geomorphic Position (D2)
0 Inundation Visible on Aerial Imagery (137)
❑
Shallow Aquitard (D3)
❑ Water -Stained Leaves (139)
❑
Microtopographic Relief (D4)
❑ Aquatic Fauna (1313)
❑
FAC-Neutral Test (D5)
Field Observations:
Surface Water Present? ❑ Yes
❑ No
Depth (inches):
Water Table Present? ❑ Yes
❑ No
Depth (inches): 2
Saturation Present? El Yes
❑ No
Depth (inches):
Wetland
Hydrology Present? 0 Yes ❑ No
(includes capillary fringe)
Describe Recorded Data (stream gauge, monitoring well, aerial photos, previous inspections), if available:
Remarks:
US Army Corps of Engineers Eastern Mountains and Piedmont - Version 2.0

VtUtIAI IVN (tour Strata) - use SCIentITIC names of plants. Sampling Point: blue-cap-0004
Absolute
Dominant Indicator
Dominance Test Worksheet:
Tree Stratum (Plot size: 30ft radius)
% Cover
Species? Status
Number of Dominant Species
1.
Liquidambar styraciflua
30
Y FAC
That Are OBL, FACW, or FAC: 3 (A)
2.
Total Number of Dominant
3.
Species Across All Strata: 3 (B)
4.
Percent of Dominant Species
5.
That Are OBL, FACW, or FAC: 100% (A/B)
6.
7.
Prevalence Index worksheet:
8.
Total % Cover of: Multiply
30
= Total Cover
OBL species 0 x 1 = 0
50°% of total cover:
15
20°% of
total cover: 6
FACW species 0 x 2 = 0
Sapling/Shrub Stratum (Plot size: 30ft radius)
FAC species 65 x 3 = 195
1.
Liquidambar styraciflua
30
Y FAC
FACU species 0 x 4 = 0
2.
UPL species 0 x 5 = 0
3.
Column Totals: 65 (A) 195 (B)
4.
Prevalence Index = B/A = 3.0
5.
Hydrophytic Vegetation Indicators:
6.
7.
❑ Rapid Test for Hydrophytic Vegetation
8.
0 Dominance Test is > 50%
9.
0 Prevalence Index is <_ 3.0'
10.
❑ Morphological Adaptationsl (Provide supporting
30
= Total Cover
data in Remarks or on a separate sheet
50% of total cover:
15
20% of total cover: 6
❑ Problematic Hydrophytic Vegetation' (Explain)
Herb Stratum (Plot size: 30ft radius)
1.
Smilax rotundifolia
5
Y FAC
Indicators of hydric soil and wetland hydrology must
2.
be present, unless disturbed or problematic
3.
Definitions of Four Vegetation Strata:
4.
5•
Tree - Woody plants, excluding vines, 3 in. (7.6 cm) or
6.
more in diameter at breast height (DBH), regardless of
7.
height.
8.
9.
Sapling/Shrub - Woody plants, excluding vines, less
10.
than 3 in. DBH and greater than 3.28 ft (1 m) tall.
11.
12.
Herb - All herbaceous (non -woody) plants, regardless of
5
= Total Cover
size, and woody plants less than 3.28 ft tall.
50% of total cover:
2.5
20% of
total cover: 1
Woody
Vine Stratum (Plot size: 30ft radius)
Woody Vines - All woody vines greater than 3.28 ft in height.
1.
2.
3.
4.
5.
Hydrophytic
6.
Vegetation Yes 0 No ❑
0
= Total Cover
Present?
50% of total cover:
0
20% of
total cover: 0
Remarks: (Include photo numbers here or on a separate sheet.)
ERDC/CRREL 2014 Regional Wetland Plant List (Eastern Mountains and Piedmont) used for indicator status
US Army Corps of Engineers Eastern Mountains and Piedmont - Version 2.0

JVIL
roini:
rofile 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' Loc2 Texture Remarks
0 - 12 5GY4/1 100 silty clay loam
C = Concentration, D = depletion, RM = Reduced Matrix, MS = Masked Sand Grains 2Location: PL = Pore Lining, M = Matrix
Hydric Soil Indicators:
Indicators for Problematic Hydric Soils':
❑
Histosol (At)
❑
Dark Surface (S7)
❑
2 cm Muck (A10) (MLRA 147)
❑
Histic Epipedon (A2)
❑
Polyvalue Below Surface (S8) (MLRA 147, 148)
❑
Coatal Prairie Redox (A16)
❑
Black Histic (A3)
❑
Thin Dark Surface (S9) (MLRA 147, 148)
(MLRA 147, 148)
❑
Hydrogen Sulfide (A4)
❑
Loamy Gleyed Matrix (F2)
❑
Piedmont Floodplain Soils (F19)
❑
Stratified Layers (A5)
❑
Depleted Matrix (F3)
(MLRA 136, 147)
❑
2 cm Muck (A10) (LRR N)
❑
Redox Dark Surface (F6)
❑
Very Shallow Dark Surface (TF12)
❑
Depleted Below Dark Surface (At 1)
❑
Depleted Dark Surface (F7)
❑
Other (Explain in Remarks)
❑
Thick Dark Surface (Al2)
❑
Redox Depressions (F8)
❑
Sandy Mucky Material (Si)
❑
Iron -Manganese Masses (F12) (LRR N, MLRA 136)
(LRR N, MLRA 147, 148)
❑
Umbric Surface (F13) (MLRA 136, 122)
3Indicators of hydrophytic vegetation and
0
Sandy Gleyed Matrix (S4)
❑
Piedmont Floodplain Soils (F19) (MLRA 148)
wetland hydrology must be present,
❑
Sandy Redox (S4)
❑
Red Parent Material (F21) (MLRA 127, 147)
unless disturbed or problematic.
I —I
Stripped Matrix (S5)
Restrictive Layer (if observed):
Type:
Depth (inches):
Remarks:
Hydric Soil Present? Yes 2] No ❑
US Army Corps of Engineers Eastern Mountains and Piedmont - Version 2.0

WETLAND DETERMINATION DATA FORM - Eastern Mountains and Piedmont
Project/Site: Cape Fear Steam Electric Plant City/Co.: Moncure, Lee County Sampling Date: 12/10/2014
Applicant/Owner: Duke Energy State: NC Sampling Point: RED _CAP _0093
Investigator(s): J. Bourdeau, S. Levine Section, Township, Range: n/a
Landform: (hillslope, terrace, etc.) Terrace Local Relief: Gentle slopes Slope (%): <5
Subregion(LRR/MLRA) Lat: Long: Datum:
Soil Map Unit Name: Chewacla & Wehadkee Soils NWI Classification: PFO
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? ❑'es Do
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 2 within a wetland? Yes ❑ No 2
Wetland Hydrology Present? Yes ❑ No ❑�
Remark:
Upslope from wetland area in NE are of site off of Corinth Rd. Comparison to RED_CAP_0092.
HYDROLOGY
Wetland Hydrology Indicators:
Secondary
Indicators (minimum of two required)
Primary Indicators (minimum of one is required; check all that apply):
❑
Surface Soil Cracks (136)
❑ Surface Water (Al)
❑
True Aquatic Plants (1314)
❑
Sparsely Vegetated Concave Surface (138)
❑ High Water Table (A2)
❑
Hydrogen Sulfide Odor (Cl)
❑
Drainage Patterns (B10)
❑ Saturation (A3)
❑
Oxidized Rhizospheres on Living Roots (C3)
❑
Moss Trim Lines (616)
❑ Water Marks (131)
❑
Presence of Reduced Iron (C4)
❑
Dry -Season Water Table (C2)
❑ Sediment Deposits (B2)
❑
Recent Iron Reduction in Tilled Soils (C6)
❑
Crayfish Burrows (C8)
❑ Drift Deposits (133)
❑
Thin Much Surface (C7)
❑
Saturation Visible on Aerial Imagery (C9)
❑ Algal Mat or Crust (134)
❑
Other (Explain in Remarks)
❑
Stunted or Stressed Plants (D1)
❑ Iron Deposits (135)
❑
Geomorphic Position (D2)
❑ Inundation Visible on Aerial Imagery
(137)
❑
Shallow Aquitard (D3)
❑ Water -Stained Leaves (139)
❑
Microtopographic Relief (D4)
❑ Aquatic Fauna (1313)
❑
FAC-Neutral Test (D5)
Field Observations:
Surface Water Present? []Yes
❑ No
Depth (inches):
Water Table Present? ❑Yes
❑ No
Depth (inches):
Saturation Present? []Yes
No
Depth (inches):
Wetland Hydrology
Present? ❑ Yes No
(includes capillary fringe)
Describe Recorded Data (stream gauge, monitoring well, aerial photos, previous inspections), if available:
Remarks:
No wetland hydrology indicators present.
US Army Corps of Engineers Eastern Mountains and Piedmont - Version 2.0

VhUh I A I IVN (tour Strata) - use scientitic names of plants.
Absolute Dominant Indicator
Tree Stratum (Plot size: 30ft radius) % Cover Species? Status
1
2
3
4
5
6
7
8
50% of total cover:
ling/Shrub Stratum (Plot size: 30ft radius)
1. Baccharis hamilifolia
2.
3.
4.
5.
6.
7.
8.
9.
10.
50% of total cover
Stratum (Plot size: 30ft radius)
1. Euoatorium caoillifolium
2.
3.
4.
5.
6.
7.
8.
9.
10.
11.
12.
50% of total cover:
)dv Vine Stratum (Plot size: 30ft radius)
1. Smilax rotundifolia
2.
3.
4.
5.
6.
0 = Total Cover
0 20% of total cover: 0
5 Y FACW
5 = Total Cover
2.5 20% of total cover:
10 Y
1]
10 = Total Cover
5 20% of total cover: 2
2 Y FAC
Sampling Point: RED _CAP _0093
ominance Test Worksheet:
Number of Dominant Species
That Are OBL, FACW, or FAC: 2 (A)
Total Number of Dominant
Species Across All Strata: 3 (B)
Percent of Dominant Species
That Are OBL, FACW, or FAC: 67% (A/B)
revalence Index worksheet:
Total % Cover of: Multiply
OBL species 0 x 1 = 0
FACW species 5 x 2 = 10
FAC species 2 x 3 = 6
FACU species 10 x 4 = 40
UPL species 0 x 5 = 0
Column Totals: 17 (A) 56 (B)
Prevalence Index = B/A = 3.3
ydrophytic Vegetation Indicators:
❑ Rapid Test for Hydrophytic Vegetation
[D Dominance Test is > 50%
❑ Prevalence Index is <_ 3.0'
❑ Morphological Adaptations1 (Provide supporting
data in Remarks or on a separate sheet
ID Problematic Hydrophytic Vegetation' (Explain)
' Indicators of hydric soil and wetland hydrology must
be present, unless disturbed or problematic
efinitions of Four Vegetation Strata:
ree - Woody plants, excluding vines, 3 in. (7.6 cm) or
lore in diameter at breast height (DBH), regardless of
eight.
ing/Shrub - Woody plants, excluding vines, less
3 in. DBH and greater than 3.28 ft (1 m) tall.
- All herbaceous (non -woody) plants, regardless of
and woody plants less than 3.28 ft tall.
dy Vines - All woody vines greater than 3.28 ft in height
Hydrophytic
Vegetation Yes M No ❑
2 = Total Cover I Present?
50% of total cover: 1 20% of total cover: 0.4
Remarks: (Include photo numbers here or on a separate sheet.)
ERDC/CRREL 2014 Regional Wetland Plant List (Eastern Mountains and Piedmont) used for indicator status
Winter vegetation
Meets wetland vegetation criteria
US Army Corps of Engineers Eastern Mountains and Piedmont - Version 2.0

JVIL S
Ina NOlnt: KtU LAN
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' Loc2 Texture
0-3 10YR 5/4 95
3-12+ 10YR 5/4 80 10YR 5/3 20 D M clay loam
Remarks
'Type C = Concentration, D = depletion, RM = Reduced Matrix, MS = Masked Sand Grains
`Location: PL = Pore Lining, M = Matrix
Hydric Soil Indicators:
Indicators for Problematic Hydric Soils :
❑
Histosol (Al)
❑
Dark Surface (S7)
❑
2 cm Muck (A10) (MLRA 147)
❑
Histic Epipedon (A2)
❑
Polyvalue Below Surface (S8) (MLRA 147, 148)
❑
Coatal Prairie Redox (A16)
❑
Black Histic (A3)
❑
Thin Dark Surface (S9) (MLRA 147, 148)
(MLRA 147, 148)
❑
Hydrogen Sulfide (A4)
❑
Loamy Gleyed Matrix (F2)
❑
Piedmont Floodplain Soils (F19)
❑
Stratified Layers (A5)
❑
Depleted Matrix (F3)
(MLRA 136, 147)
❑
2 cm Muck (A10) (LRR N)
❑
Redox Dark Surface (F6)
❑
Very Shallow Dark Surface (TF12)
❑
Depleted Below Dark Surface (A11)
❑
Depleted Dark Surface (F7)
❑
Other (Explain in Remarks)
❑
Thick Dark Surface (Al2)
❑
Redox Depressions (F8)
❑
Sandy Mucky Material (S1)
❑
Iron -Manganese Masses (F12) (LRR N, MLRA 136)
(LRR N, MLRA 147, 148)
❑
Umbric Surface (F13) (MLRA 136, 122) 3Indicators of hydrophytic vegetation and
❑
Sandy Gleyed Matrix (S4)
❑
Piedmont Floodplain Soils (F19) (MLRA 148) wetland hydrology must be present,
❑
Sandy Redox (S4)
❑
Red Parent Material (F21) (MLRA 127, 147) unless disturbed or problematic.
❑
Stripped Matrix (S5)
Restrictive Layer (if observed):
Type:
Depth (inches):
Hydric Soil Present? Yes ❑ No ❑�
not meet hydric soil criteria
US Army Corps of Engineers Eastern Mountains and Piedmont - Version 2.0

WETLAND DETERMINATION DATA FORM - Eastern Mountains and Piedmont
Project/Site: Cape Fear Steam Electric Plant City/Co.: Moncure, Lee County Sampling Date: 12/10/2014
Applicant/Owner: Duke Energy State: INC Sampling Point: RED_CAP_0092
Investigator(s): J. Bourdeau, S. Levine Section, Township, Range: n/a
Landform: (hillslope, terrace, etc.) Terrace Local Relief: Gentle slopes Slope (%): <5
Subregion(LRR/MLRA) Lat: Long: Datum:
Soil Map Unit Name: Chewacla & Wehadkee Soils NWI Classification: PFO
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? ❑'es Do
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 0 No ❑ within a wetland? Yes ❑ No ❑
Wetland Hydrology Present? Yes [21 No ❑
Remark:
Wetland area in NE are of site off of Corinth Rd
HYDROLOGY
Wetland Hydrology Indicators:
Secondary
Indicators (minimum of two required)
Primary Indicators (minimum of one is required: check all that apply):
❑
Surface Soil Cracks (136)
❑r Surface Water (Al)
❑
True Aquatic Plants (1314)
❑
Sparsely Vegetated Concave Surface (138)
❑ High Water Table (A2)
❑
Hydrogen Sulfide Odor (Cl)
❑
Drainage Patterns (B10)
❑ Saturation (A3)
M
Oxidized Rhizospheres on Living Roots (C3)
❑
Moss Trim Lines (1316)
❑ Water Marks (131)
❑
Presence of Reduced Iron (C4)
❑
Dry -Season Water Table (C2)
❑ Sediment Deposits (132)
❑
Recent Iron Reduction in Tilled Soils (C6)
❑
Crayfish Burrows (C8)
❑ Drift Deposits (133)
❑
Thin Much Surface (C7)
❑
Saturation Visible on Aerial Imagery (C9)
❑ Algal Mat or Crust (134)
❑
Other (Explain in Remarks)
❑
Stunted or Stressed Plants (D1)
❑ Iron Deposits (135)
❑
Geomorphic Position (D2)
❑ Inundation Visible on Aerial Imagery
(137)
❑
Shallow Aquitard (D3)
❑ Water -Stained Leaves (139)
❑
Microtopographic Relief (D4)
❑ Aquatic Fauna (1313)
❑
FAC-Neutral Test (D5)
Field Observations:
Surface Water Present? Ed Yes
❑ No
Depth (inches): 1"
Water Table Present? Yes
❑ No
Depth (inches): surf
Saturation Present? Yes
[I No
Depth (inches): surf
Wetland Hydrology
Present? ❑� Yes ❑ No
(includes capillary fringe)
Describe Recorded Data (stream gauge, monitoring well, aerial photos, previous inspections), if available:
Remarks:
Wetland hydrology indicators present.
US Army Corps of Engineers Eastern Mountains and Piedmont - Version 2.0

1.
2.
3.
4.
5.
6.
T.
B.
t.
2.
3.
4,
5.
6.
.
8.
9.
10.
1.
2.
3.
4.
5.
6.
?.
8.
9.
10.
12.
1.
2.
3.
4.
5.
6.
an (Plot size: 30ft radius)
% Cover
Species?
Status
Liouidambar styraciflua
30
Y
FAG
Uncidendron tulipifera
5
FACU
Plnus teed.
5
FAC
40
=Total Cover
50% of total cover:
20
20% oftotal
cover:
rub Stratum (Plot size: 30g radius)
Liouidambar styradflua
15
Y
FAC
Uriodendron tulipifera
5
Y
FACU
20
=Total Cover
60% of total cover.
10
20% of
total cover:
for (Plotsize:301tredi s
0
=Total Cover
50% of total cover:
0
20% of
total cover:
e Stratum (Plot size: 308 radius)
Smilax rotund'Rolia
2
Y
FAG
2
=Total Cover
Number of Dominant Species
That Are OBL, FACW, or FAC:
3 (A)
Total Number of Dominant
Species Across All Strata:
4 (B)
Percent of Dominant Species
That Are OBL, FACW, or FAC:
75 % (AIB)
Total %Cover of:
Multiply
OBL species 0
x 1 •
0
FACW species 0
x 2:
0
FAC species 52
x 3 •
156
FACU species 10
x 4:
40
UPL species 0
x 5 •
0
Column Totals: 62
(A)
196 (B)
Prevalence Index = BIA =
3.2
❑ Ropid Test for Hydrophy0c Vegetation
❑+ Dominance Test is > 50%
❑ Prevalence Index is s 3.01
❑ Morphological Adapta8cnsl (Provide supporting
data in Remarks or on a separate sheet
❑ Emblematic Hydrophyfic Vegetation (Explain)
Indicators of hydric soil and wetland hydrology mus'
be present, unless disturbed or problematic
- Woody plants, excluding vines, 3 in. ITS cm) or
in diameter at breast height (DBH), regardless of
'shrub - Woody plants, excluding vines, less
DBH and greater than 3,28 It (1 m) tall.
- All herbaceous(non-waody) plants, regardless of
and woody plants less than 3.28 ft tall.
dy Vines - All wordy vines greater than 3.28 R in height.
Hydrophytic
Vegetation Yes ❑+ No ❑
Present?
Dem rem or on a separate sneet.t
Wetland Plant List (Eastern Mountains and Piedmont)used for Indicator status.
vegetation
veelland vegetation criteria
US Amy Corps of Engineers Eastern Mountains and Piedmont- Version 2.0

SOIL
Sampling Point: RED CAP 009:
Profile Description: (Describe to the depth needed to document the indicator or confirm the absence of Indicators).
Depth Matrix
Retlox Features
(Inches) Color(..an) %
Color (moist) % Type Lac'
Texture Remarks
0-10+ 10VR 4@ 80
10VR 518 20 C M
CI
'Type C = Concentration, D = depletion, RM =
Reduced Matrix, MS = Masked Sand Gains
`Location: PL = Pore Lining, M = Matrix
Hydric Sell Indicators:
Indicators for Problematic Hydric Soils :
❑ Histosol (At)
❑
Dark Surface (S])
❑ 2 cm Muck (A10) (k1LRA 147)
❑ Hiatic Epipadon (A2)
❑
Polyvalue Below Surface (Ski (111147,148)
❑ Conrad Prairie Redox (A16)
❑ Black Histic (A3)
❑
Thin Dark Surface (S9) (MLRA 147, 148)
(MLRA 147, 148)
❑ Hydrogen Sulfide (A4)
❑
Loamy Glayed Matrix (F2)
❑ Piedmont Floodplain Soile (F19)
❑ Stratifed Layers (AS)
0
Depleted Matrix (F3)
(MI -RA 136, 149)
❑ 2 cm Muck (Al 0) (LRR N)
❑
Red. Dark Surface (F6)
❑ Very Shallow Dark Surface (TF12)
❑ Depleted Below Dark Surface (At 1)
❑
Depleted Dark Surface (FT)
❑ Other (Explain In Remarks)
❑ Thick Dark Saface(Al2)
❑
Retlox Depressor.(F8)
❑ Sandy Mucky Material (Si)
❑
Ian -Manganese Masses (F12) (LRR N, MLRA 136)
(LRR N, MUM 147, 148)
❑
Umbdc Surface (F13) (MLRA 136,122)
°Indicators of hydroph tic vegelelion and
❑ Sandy Gieyed Malrix(S4)
❑
Piedmont Floodplain Soils (Fi9)(MLRA 148)
walland hydrology must be present,
❑ Sandy Retlox (S4)
❑
Red Parent Material (F21) (MI -RA 127,147)
unless disturbed or problematic.
❑ Shipped Matrix SS
Restrictive Layer (If observed):
Type:
Depth (inches):
Hydric Soil Present? yes ❑+ No ❑
Remarks:
Meets hydric soil criteria
US Amy Corps of Engineers Eastern Mountains and Piedmont- Version 2.0

NC DWQ Stream Identification Form Version 4.11
Data: 10 January, 2014
Projecdsits: Cape Fear
Latitude: See GPS data
Evaluator: James Cutler
County: Chatham
Longitude: See GPS data
Total Points: 25.75
Stream Determination (circle one)
Other Green _Cap _0068
Stream is at least intermittent
Ephemeral Intermittent Perennial
eg. Quad
it>_ 19 crperennialiR 30'
Name:
A. Geomo holo Subtotal = 10.0
Absent
Weak
Moderate
Strong
1e. Continuity of channel bed and bank
0
1
2
3
2. Sinuosity of channel along thalweg
0
1
2
3
3. In -channel structure: ex. rime -pool, step -pool,
'0
1
2
3
4. Particle size of stream substrate
0
1
2
3
5. Active/relict floodplain
0
1
2
3
6. Depositional bars or benches
0
1
2
3
7. Recent alluvial deposits
0
1
2
3
8. Headcuts
0
1
2
3
9. Grade control
0
us:
1
1.5
10. Natural valley
0
0.5
1 1
1.5
11. Second or greater order channel
No = 0I
Yes = 3
a artificial ditches are not rated: see discussions in manual
B. Hydrology (Subtotal = 9.0
12. Presence of Baseflow
0
1
2
3
13. Iran oxidizing bacteria
0
1
2
3
14. Leaf litter
1.5
1
0.5
0
15. Sediment on plants or debris
0
0.5
1
1.5
16. Organic debris lines or piles
0
0.5
1
1.5
7. Soil -based evidence oig water table?
No=0
Yes =3
C. Biology (Subtotal = 6.75
18. Fibrous roots in streambed
3
2
1
0
19. Rooted upland plants in streambed
3
2
1
0
20. Macrobenthos (note diversity and abundance)
0
1
2
3
21. Aquatic Mollusks
b
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
1.5
25. Algae
0
0.5
1
1.5
26. Wetland plants in streambed
FACW = 0.75; GEL
= 1.5 Other = 0
'perennial streams may also be identified using other methods. Sae p. 35 of manual.
Notes:
Sketch:

NC DWQ Stream Identification Form Version 4.11
Date: 10 December 2014
ProjectlSite: Cape Fear
Latitude: See GPs data
Evaluator: James Cutler
County: Chatham
Longitude: See GPS data
Total Points: 30.75
Stream Determination (circle one)
Other Blue Cap_0090s
-
Stream is at least intermittent
if >_ 19 or perennial if >_ 30'
Ephemeral Intermittent Perennial
e.g. Quad
Name:
A. Geomorphology Subtotal = 12.0
Absent
Weak
Moderate
Strong
1 a. Continuity of channel bed and bank
0
1
2
3
2. Sinuosity of channel along thalweg
0
1
2
3
3. In -channel structure: ex. riffle -pool, step -pool,
0
1
2
3
4. Particle size of stream substrate
0
1
2
3
5. Active/relict floodplain
0
1
2
3
6. Depositional bars or benches
0
1
2
3
7. Recent alluvial deposits
0
1
2
3
8. Headcuts
0
1
2
3
9. Grade control
0
0.5
1
1.5
10. Natural valley
0
0.5
1
1.5
11. Second or greater order channel
No = 0
Yes = 3
a aniriciai aitcnes are not ratea; see aiscussions in manual
B. Hydrology (Subtotal = 1 o_5 )
12. Presence of Baseflow
0
1
2
3
13. Iron oxidizing bacteria
0
1
2
3
14. Leaf litter
1.5
1
0.5
0
15. Sediment on plants or debris
0
0.5
1
1.5
16. Organic debris lines or piles
0
0.5
1
1.5
17. Soil -based evidence of high water table?
No = 0
Yes = 3
C. Biology (Subtotal = 8.25
18. Fibrous roots in streambed
3
2
1
0
19. Rooted upland plants in streambed
3
2
1
0
20. Macrobenthos (note diversity and abundance)
0
1
2
3
21. Aquatic Mollusks
0
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
1.5
25. Algae
0
0.5
1 1
1.5
26. Wetland plants in streambed
FACW = 0.75; OBE = 1.5 Other = 0
perennial streams may also be identified using other methods. See p. 35 of manual.
Notes:
Sketch:

USACEAID# DWQ# Site#_ (indicateonaterched map)
ST 'I��jU/`p/-�' [- QUALITY ASSESSMENT W"ORKSHEET`
fi6rf(�C4tr
Provide the following informs' foci the stream reach under assessment: /t
1. Applicant's name: 1)-. {C1? Gt's=1� .� 2. Evaluator's time:
// 7
3. Date of evaluation bp- IV, Z * 4. Time of evaluation: 0 NDTa4
5.Nameofstream: Lfnga�uea-�/-'i>'1S(Ll"'/l 6. River basin: �.t0'C-T✓sP
J
7. Approximate drainage azea:.V /0 S. 5ffiam order.
9. Length of reach evaluated: O �% 'ter t 10. County:
11. Site coordinates (if known): prefer in decimal degrees. 12. Subdivision time (if any):
Latimdc(es. b1872312): S�Ie e14 f Longitude(cs.-77s56611): le.�(f78tb�4 rr-
Method location de[ennin W (circle): nPS Tope Sheet Oruo (Aerial) PhoveGIS Of ve G15 Other
13. Location of reach under evaluation (note nearby roads and landmarks and attach map identifying stream(s) location):
522- YEOOht"�7`P.rl�-
U'
34, Proposed channel work (if any): �-
15. Recent weather conditions' N / /�-�v/ �rti � q/ JW ro//es. z
16. Site conditions at time of visit: J5- T�AU/V SIG AV Yzr7n
✓ ✓ /'
.. dentify any special waterway classifications know[[ _Section 10 _Yids! ???'zte,•s _Essential Fisheries Habitat
_Trout Waters _Outstanding Resource Waters _Nutrient Sensitive Waters _Water Supply Watershed]_(1-N)
I& Is there a pond or lake located upstream of the evaluation point? YES /NO Af yes, estimaze the water surface area: 1
19. Does channel appear on USGS quad map? YES NO 20. Does channel appear on USDA Soil Survey? YE NO
21. Estimated watershed )and use: %Residential _/ Commercial _%Industrial _% Agricultural F
NO- er,, 1retj/- _%Forested _/ Cleared /Lagged _%Other( �-+
22. BmIrfull width: is %4 Z✓ -F-e-,ty jBe- 23,Bankbeight(frombedtotopofbank): 340 1S 1"'�+T O--
24. Channel slope down scoter of stream: Flat (0 to 2%) _Gentle (2 to 4%) _Moderate (4 to 10%) _Sleep (>10%)
M. Channel sinuosity: _Straight')OC.Perasional bends _Frequent meander _Very sinuous _Braided channel
instructions for completion of worksheet (located on page 2): Begin by determining the most appropriate ecoregion based on
location, lenain, vegetation, stream classification, etc. Every characteristic must be scored using the same ecoregion. Assign points
to each characteristic within the range shown for the ecoregion. Page 3 provides a brief description of how to review the
characteristics identified in the workshect. Scores should reflect ad 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 sneam flows fiom a pasture
into a forest), the stream may be divided into smaller reaches that display more continuity, and a separate form used to evaluate such
reach. The total score assigned to a stream reach must range between 0 and 100, with a score of 100 representing a stream of the
highest quality.
Total Score (from reverse): F' Comments: QJ WR SCow
Evaluator's Signature-� i Date#AO/y
This channel evaluation form is intended 16be used only as a guide to assist landowners and environmental professionals in
gathering the data required by the United States Army Corps of Engineers to make a preliminary assessment of stream
quality. The total score resulting from the completion of this form is subject to USACE approval and does not imply a
particular mitigation ratio or requirement. Form subject to change -version 06/03. To Comment, please call 919-876-84141 x 26_

g6t
SIRE gQUALITY ASSESSMENT WORYSHEET
I
3
,nflb
G
-- Rta *ran zone
�
(n0 on �z Q, eontt nJLS wtie Mane min,. i>nint 5
0
M -
pidt�l—veeof7rmient am cIvanRe al dimehay-es
JtSC1NlrRu3 QS{194"1sa"Vs RL4a p4)bl'm1
�SOnnd{Y tL IS`StH IL' -.
1
c
Ino 2ts.na.L_ f snmu, sons ,etla d
_ �
:res�grs of a09etenl f7 dni x
dnn [iao ten=tl h.ner ellooa'elmn mex Vom.c
�
,
���
Evu enchmen Ifloodpl ina s
1
✓/
�
�
{�L n7 cmR ached 0 Im n ,i 7ieam rn •r wmtsl
1
Prepee, a{ dlatew Wd nn.'
`�
(l ry []-'� �
p�2 "i
1 i¶L AV. lid a(i4 � �Sti�A(IILLJt Nlt dlSd� ma. ➢NO ,1
J
�-
1.YAn.1
(e: tuisn chu nehzl nan Jniuira}ne nd ui zVau fc�
i
(eziensna e..nosihnn 0 ntth nr no setm i�n5 nuvz pnml �
.*
11
UzL S hvenm at rannii 4 e rosr^.0
a
ol
(In homo Lnon P ]n rhY woes nu ncm)
1
�.. S
ff it r
L Idtn ao-fchrun Im ctb r s,oe mud' rrm ,,:� a
12
;.a W75 m i LU='1 v a 7 ned iA�dnl inas norm 1
�.
_
L�
13
r tt`br 01 duj.r Mali f iVva,
-
�]CYCL CYpSNn i1:IJ IO IOn. St62li. JSni�S ]ILq,P IStt 1
d mrt depth and aensiry oe bs mni
o s
14
UIt14ilIh10IDrt �1 (I4n6C (OD1Y 1hiOl1 h6ll( ll:J pool
_
li
Trouz hv-t„nctdtuic nYectoe6,i timlir p odnerou
IurostanWnl 1*uoaoi fl nq a deuce rr x p nn41
ie
presence aftiffiepooirnnpiepnnl oomph,%,,
Pr 3 U i
�
U' 6
ratirrtfl7s npn�"'br >oois U. wztl-dWelor�.,o .nnw p(n+hs)
� m"+'�Ww`i
17
fiablY 4mmnr •rtr
0 (
p.
Onm_=or no6lbn it ,U ue�u nCti S-i dhabiat� mar Vo 1
i
i
li
Caw(; my ra vo owarntreembed g p.
1
I B
6to shnlLn v..ecnhnu Q, cnnonnem cannnv nYzr pLn 1 1
19
Subm, e.beddeduess
1vA' ' 0 1
0-4
+�
free cmbaddan 0.leoYc smuoiorc intief
Tres neeQ SW A301n trf i.4 l C(see page 4)
p i � 0-5
0�- �
y� 00
Rk Vd ncti OLj0a nlm nun o,"5 v, es ma.pnlnt,l
21
2f a nenrRaF xars :
tr_.�
�7
r`I
�{
,.i moncc 9; emnm n, m.m xo ns tvnu, matinumL)
'I L
>
llmame ui ash
6 y i 6. 4
0
faocsideme 0: oommmn, numerousAVvzs niax.mm.W
a Emd ne o-id8ib se..
once= 0. uonn
-
�G/
'T
' These characteristics are not assessed in coastal streams.

AW 111WA Qi____ 1AO"t;Finat7nn T+nrm Voreinn A-1I
Date: Zoiq
ProjecilStte: O A.?F (7 l2 .,- ,w
Latitude:
Evaluator: /f'T*rl
County: �' �{�,,,
Longitude
Total Points:
Stream Determination (circle one)
Other­ee+ Cr'., clog
e.g. Quad
Stream is at least Intermittent
Ephemeral lntermittk, erennial „°
a
Name:
if �_-19 or perennial If ; 3M*
- .
A. Geomorphology Subtotal =
1 a. Continuity of channel bed and bank"
Absent
0
Weak
1
Moderate
'2
Strong
3'.
2. Sinuosity of channel along thalweg>
1
2
3
3. In -channel structure: ex. riffle -pool, step -pool,
S P
0
2
3
RtP-l?oDLaeau
4. Particle size of stream substrate
0
2
3
5. Active/relict floodpiain
0
1
2
3
6. Depositional bars or benches
0
C7
2
3
7. Recent alluvial deposits
0
)
2
3
8. Headcuts
t
1
2
3
9. Grade control
0
� 0 5
1
1.5
10. Natural valley
0=
0:a
11. Second or greater order channel
No = Q
Yes = 3 wm
R arllllU dl UltU ]M MU Ilur I ORM, avo u104t. .1-. ❑....
. /n..t.t..t-1 i A \
12. Presence of Baseflow
0
1
2
13. Iron oxidizing bacteria
0
1,
2
14. Leaf litter
1.5
1
0.5
0
15. Sediment on plants or debris
0
0.5
16, Organic debris lines or piles
17. boll-Dased evidence of highwater tablel
0 0.5
No = 0
- Yes 3
...r. F.+.. ij y lvuv.v..... p
18. Fibrous roots in streambed
2
1
0
19. Rooted upland plants in streambed
3
2
1
0
20. Macrobenthos (note diversity and abundance)
1
2
3
21. Aquatic Mollusks
1
2
3
22, Fish
%
0.5
1
1.5
23. Crayfish
0.5
1
1.5
24. Amphibians
>
0.5
1
1.5
25. Algae
26. Wetland plants in streambed
0
0.5
FACW = 0.75; OB
1.
= .5 Other = 0
1.5
'perennial streams may also be identified using other methods. See p. 35 of manual.
Notes:
Sketch: .

Site # ac -niap- .
FJSAC E Ai3? IWC # (indicate on attached map)
M ST aEAM QU LITY SSESS ENT V ORKSHEET
Provide the following information for the stream reach under assessment:
1. Applicant's name; 1 e:`t 2. Evaluator's name:
3. Date of evaluation: /0 0c 4.'Time of evaluation: /0 ',fie)
5. Name of stream QN ` 10 OAF Eak 6. River basin: CAPIE C sl k
7. Approximate drainage urea: 2400 ,-&' 8. Stream order:
9. Length of reach evaluated: :50 " 10. County: Cltu:Ki
11. Site coordinates (if known): prefer in decimal degrees. 12. Subdivision name (if tiny):
Latitude (ex.34.872312); a' ' Lorrgitudetex w?7.SSf(rt};
Method location determined (circle): 1 S , Topo Sheet Ortho (Aerial) Photo/GIS Other GIS Other
13. Location of reach rudder evaluation (Mote nearby roads and landmarks and attach map identifying stream(s) location):14. Proposed channel work (if any):____v�__�
15, Recent weather conditions: r
16. Site conditions at time of visit: c
17. Identify any special waterway, classifications known: Section 1.0 Tidal Waters Essential Fisheries Habitat
Trout Waters ____Outstanding Resource Waters — Nutrient Se sitive Waters ,_.Water Sapply Watershed (I -.IV)
18. Is there a pond or lake located upstream of the evaluation poinV. YES NO If yes, estimate the water surface area:/ :!
19. Does channel appear on USGS quad map? YES 20. Does channel appear on USDA Soil Survey? YES eO
21. Estimated watershed land use: % Residential % Commercial % Industrial �% Agricultural
x !% Forested �m°.'o Cleared / Logged —% Other ( )
22. Bankf all width; 23. Bank height (from bed to top of bank);
24. Channel slope down center of stream: __LFIat (0 to 2%) ,_Cfentic (2 to 4%) _Moderate (4 to l0%) _Steep (>1.0%)
25. Channel sinuosity Straight occasional bends Frequent meander Very sinuous Braided channel
Instructions for completion of worksheet (located on page 2): Begin by determining the most appropriate ecoregion based on
location, terrain, vegetation, stream classification, etc. 'Every characteristic must be scored using the same ecoregion. Assign points
to each characteristic within the range shown for the ecoregion. Page 3 provides a brief description of how to review the
characteristics identified in the workshect. Scores should reflect air overall assessment of the stream reach under evaluation. If a
characteristic cannot be evaluated due to site or weather conditions, enter 0 in the scoring box and provide an explanation in the
comment section. Where there are obvious changes in the character of a stream under review (e.g., the stream flows from a pasture
into a forest), the stream may be divided into smaller reaches that display more continuity, and a separate form used to evaluate each
reach. The total score assigned to a stream reach must range between 0 and 100, with a score of 100 representing a stream of the
highest quality.
Total Score (from reverse): , Comments: ea, ",
Evaluator's Signat a'µ Dated t2vC 1",
This channel eval i l n is ante d"ed to be used only as a guide to assist landowners and environmental professionals in
gathering the data required by the "united States Army Corps of Engineers to make a preliminary assessment of stream
quality. The total score resulting from the completion of this form is subject to `'USACE approval and does not imply a
particular mitigation ratio or requirement. Form subject to change— version 06103. To Comment, please call 919-876-8441 x 26.

STREAM QUALITY ASSESSMENT WORKSHEET

NC DWQ Stream Identification Form Version 4.11
Date: 10 December 2014
ProjectlSite: Cape Fear Plant
Latitude: 35.5991
Evaluator: Jan Gay
county: Chatham
Longitude:-79.0500
Total Points: 32.0
Stream Determination (circle one)
Other Green CAP 0151
- -
Stream is at least intermittent
if >_ 19 or perennial if >_ 30'
Ephemeral Intermittent Perennial
e.g. Quad
Name:
A. Geomorphology Subtotal = 19.0
Absent
Weak
Moderate
Strong
1 a. Continuity of channel bed and bank
0
1
2
3
2. Sinuosity of channel along thalweg
0
1
2
3
3. In -channel structure: ex. riffle -pool, step -pool,
0
1
2
3
4. Particle size of stream substrate
0
1
2
3
5. Active/relict floodplain
0
1
2
3
6. Depositional bars or benches
0
1
2
3
7. Recent alluvial deposits
0
1
2
3
8. Headcuts
0
1
2
3
9. Grade control
0
0.5
1
1.5
10. Natural valley
0
0.5
1
1.5
11. Second or greater order channel
No = 0
Yes = 3
a aniriciai aitcnes are not ratea; see aiscussions in manual
B. Hydrology (Subtotal = 9_o )
12. Presence of Baseflow
0
1
2
3
13. Iron oxidizing bacteria
0
1
2
3
14. Leaf litter
1.5
1
0.5
0
15. Sediment on plants or debris
0
0.5
1
1.5
16. Organic debris lines or piles
0
0.5
1
1.5
17. Soil -based evidence of high water table?
No = 0
Yes = 3
C. Biology (Subtotal = 5.0
18. Fibrous roots in streambed
3
2
1
0
19. Rooted upland plants in streambed
3
2
1
0
20. Macrobenthos (note diversity and abundance)
0
1
2
3
21. Aquatic Mollusks
0
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
1.5
25. Algae
0
0.5
1 1
1.5
26. Wetland plants in streambed
FACW = 0.75; OBE = 1.5 Other = 0
perennial streams may also be identified using other methods. See p. 35 of manual.
Notes:
Sketch:

c. e m W- c-,
USACE AID# DWQ # Site # (indicate on attached map) I
STREAM QUALITY ASSESSMENT WORKSHEET t.=
Provide the following information for the stream reach under assessment:
1. Applicant's name: ©Ar. EA-oo 2. Evaluator's name: All
3. Date of evaluation: 1� 4. Time of evaluation: 1 2�OZ
5. Name of stream: 6. River basin:Cft,e&- CPF A(t
7. Approximate drainage area: 8. Stream order: 3 00
9. Length of reach evaluated: 100 10. County: C. \v\A-i �A
11. Site coordinates (if known): prefer in decimal degrees. 12. Subdivision name (if any):
Latitude (ex. 34.872312): -�)s a 5cy� \ Longitude (ex.-77.556611): 7cl,
Method location determined (circle): GPS Topo Sheet Ortho (Aerial) Photo/GIS 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. Site conditions at time of visit:
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 -IV)
18. Is there a pond or lake located upstream of the evaluation point? YES NO 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
% Forested % Cleared / Logged _% Other ( 1
22. Bankfull width: 23. Bank height (from bed to top of bank):
24. Channel slope down center of stream: _Flat (0 to 2%) _Gentle (2 to 4%) _Moderate (4 to 10%) _Steep (>101/o)
25. Channel sinuosity: Straight _Occasional bends _Frequent meander _Very sinuous Braided channel
Instructions for completion of worksheet (located on page 2): Begin by determining the most appropriate ecoregion based on
location, terrain, vegetation, stream classification, etc. Every characteristic must be scored using the same ecoregion. Assign points
to each characteristic within the range shown for the ecoregion. Page 3 provides a brief description of how to review the
characteristics identified in the worksheet. Scores should reflect an overall assessment of the stream reach under evaluation. If a
characteristic cannot be evaluated due to site or weather conditions, enter 0 in the scoring box and provide an explanation in the
comment section. Where there are obvious changes in the character of a stream under review (e.g., the stream flows from a pasture
into a forest), the stream may be divided into smaller reaches that display more continuity, and a separate form used to evaluate each
reach. The total score assigned to a stream reach must range between 0 and 100, with a score of 100 representing a stream of the
highest quality.
Total Score (from reverse): 1. Comments:
Evaluator's Signature Date_
This channel evaluation rm is intended to be used only as a guide to assist landowners and environmental professionals in
gathering the data required by the United States Army Corps of Engineers to make a preliminary assessment of stream
quality. The total score resulting from the completion of this form is subject to USACE approval and does not imply a
particular mitigation ratio or requirement. Form subject to change — version 06/03. To Comment, please call 919-876-8441 x 26.

STREAM QUALITY ASSESSMENT WORKSHEET
* These characteristics are not assessed in coastal streams.

NC DWQ Stream Identification Form Version 4.11
Date: 17 January, 2014
Project/Site: Cape Fear
Latitude: See GPs data
Evaluator: James Cutler
county: Chatham
Longitude: See GPS data
Total Points: 21.5
Stream Determination (circle one)
Other Blue_Cap_0227
Stream is at least intermittent
if >_ 19 or perennial if >_ 30"
Ephemeral Intermittent Perennial
e.g. Quad
Name:
A. Geomorphology (Subtotal = 9.0 1 Absent I Weak I Moderate I Strong
1a. Continuity of channel bed and bank
0
1
2
3
2. Sinuosity of channel along thalweg
0
1
2
3
3. In -channel structure: ex. riffle -pool, step -pool,
0
1
2
3
4. Particle size of stream substrate
0
1
2
3
5. Active/relict floodplain
0
1
2
3
6. Depositional bars or benches
0
1
2
3
7. Recent alluvial deposits
0
1
2
3
8. Headcuts
0
1
2
3
9. Grade control
0
0.5
1
1.5
10. Natural valley
0
0.5
1
1.5
11. Second or greater order channel
No = 0
Yes = 3
a artificial ditches are not rated; see discussions in manual
B. Hydrology (Subtotal = 8.5 )
12. Presence of Baseflow
0
1
2
3
13. Iron oxidizing bacteria
0
1
2
3
14. Leaf litter
1.5
1
0.5
0
15. Sediment on plants or debris
0
0.5
1
1.5
16. Organic debris lines or piles
0
0.5
1 1
1 1.5
1 .Soil -based evidence of high water table?
No = 0 1 Yes = 3
C. Biology (Subtotal = 4.5
18. Fibrous roots in streambed
3
2
1
0
19. Rooted upland plants in streambed
3
2
1
0
20. Macrobenthos (note diversity and abundance)
0
1
2
3
21. Aquatic Mollusks
0
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
1.5
25. Algae
01
0.5
1 1
1 1.5
26. Wetland plants in streambed
FACW =
0.75; OBL = 1.5 Other = 0
'perennial streams may also be identified using other methods. See p. 35 of manual.
Notes:
Sketch:

USACE AIDq DWQ K Site g_ (indicate on atiacfied map)
STREAM QUALITY ASSESSMENT WORKSHEET
3n�-�P-S�nd s
Provide the following inform
ation for the stream reach under assessment:
1. Applicant's name:2. Evaluator's name: ��ts`J- 6�60�r
3. Date of evaluation: DP CPr•+fGr� %� �/ff 4. Time ofevaluatiot' ��
5. Name of stream: u 14 iI RMf�G�%f'%YGC/ARt1 6. River basin: y/-9l-
(/
7. Approximate drxinage area: NOS CQPifErpv'+t¢a% 8. Stream coder. /I^
9. Length of reach evaluated: - O 'Y"'% 10. County: �ft
11. Site coordinates (ifknown): yyamp-refer m decimal dcgmes. 12. Subdivision name (if any): -
Lotimde (a `y 34.871112): of Longitude eex.-47556611): ' t� r✓ f
Method location determined (circle): GP Tops Sheet Odho (Aerial) Phom/GIS Other GIS Other
13. Location of macb under evaluation (note nearby mads and landmarks and attach map identifying stream(s) location):
ort 4o re
,TP2- M'O
14. Proposed channel work (if any): /
15. Recent weather conditions: ✓ld`F-Z!r^
16. Site conditions at time of visit: c� -IG t�- C 4ok r
17. Identify any special waterway clarifications known: _Section 10 _Tidal Waters _Essential Fisheries Flanker
_Trout Waters _Outstanding Resource Waters _ Nutrient Sensitive Waders _Water Supply Watershed —(I-IV)
18. Is (here a pond or lake located upstream of the evaluation point? YES NO If yes, estimate the water surface area:
19. Does channel appear on USGS quad map? YE NO 20. Does channel appear on USDA Soil Survey? YES 0
21. Estimated watershed laud use: %Residential _% Commercial _% Industrial _/ Agricultural
N6 I LQP lY �r 10� % Forested _% Cleared / Logged _% Other
22. Bum full width: 23.. Bank height (from bed to top ofbank): O Si}-fz '� {si.
24. Channel slope down center of stream: XFlat (0 to 2%) _Gentle (2 to 4%) Moderate (4 to 10%) _Steep (>10%)
25; Channel sinuosity: _Straight Occasional bends _Frequentmeander _Very sinuous _Braided channel
Instructions for completion of worksheet (located on page 2): Begin by determining the most appropriate ecoregion based on
location, retain, vegetation, stream classification, etc. Every characteristic must be scored using the same ecoregion. Assign points
to each characteristic within the range shown for the ecoregion. Page 3 provides a brief description of how to review the
characteristics identified in the worksheet. Scores should reflect an overall assessment of the stream reacb under evaluation. If.
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 Rom a pasture
into a forest), the stream may be divided into smaller reaches that display more confinuity, and a separate form used to evaluate each
reach. The total score assigned to a stream reach must range between 0 and 100, with a score of 100 representing. a stream of the
highest auahty. �✓-{/^ y/
Total Sears (from reverse): Comments:
Evaluator's Signature �AwrOp Z.'s-tegi lZ// �/�
This channel evaluation form is intended'161te used only as a guide to assist landownera Domes ne vironmental professionals in
gathering the data required by the'United States Army Corps of Engineers to make a preliminary assessment of stream
quality. The total score resulting from the completion of this form is subject to USACE approval and does not imply a
particular mitigation ratio or requirement. Form subject to change - version 06/03, To Comment, please call 919-876-6441 x 26.

g(ta, Gap—XKKx — S �
STREAM QUALITY ASSESSMENT WORKSHEET

NC DWQ Stream Identification Form Version 4.11
Date: 10 December 2014
ProjectlSite: Cape Fear Plant
Latitude: 35.5856
Evaluator: Jan Gay
county: Chatham
Longitude:-79.0407
Total Points: 20.0
Stream Determination (circle one)
Other Green CAP 0121
- -
Stream is at least intermittent
if >_ 19 or perennial if >_ 30'
Ephemeral Intermittent Perennial
e.g. Quad
Name:
A. Geomorphology Subtotal = 6.0
Absent
Weak
Moderate
Strong
1.. Continuity of channel bed and bank
0
1
2
3
2. Sinuosity of channel along thalweg
0
1
2
3
3. In -channel structure: ex. riffle -pool, step -pool,
0
1
2
3
4. Particle size of stream substrate
0
1
2
3
5. Active/relict floodplain
0
1
2
3
6. Depositional bars or benches
0
1
2
3
7. Recent alluvial deposits
0
1
2
3
8. Headcuts
0
1
2
3
9. Grade control
0
0.5
1
1.5
10. Natural valley
0
0.5
1
1.5
11. Second or greater order channel
No = 0
Yes = 3
a aniriciai aitcnes are not ratea; see aiscussions in manual
B. Hydrology (Subtotal = 9_o )
12. Presence of Baseflow
0
1
2
3
13. Iron oxidizing bacteria
0
1
2
3
14. Leaf litter
1.5
1
0.5
0
15. Sediment on plants or debris
0
0.5
1
1.5
16. Organic debris lines or piles
0
0.5
1
1.5
17. Soil -based evidence of high water table?
No = 0
Yes = 3
C. Biology (Subtotal = 5.0
18. Fibrous roots in streambed
3
2
1
0
19. Rooted upland plants in streambed
3
2
1
0
20. Macrobenthos (note diversity and abundance)
0
1
2
3
21. Aquatic Mollusks
0
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
1.5
25. Algae
0
0.5
1 1
1.5
26. Wetland plants in streambed
FACW = 0.75; OBE = 1.5 Other = 0
*perennial streams may also be identified using other methods. See p. 35 of manual.
Notes:
Sketch:

USACE AID#
DWQ#
CO-C1
Site # (indicate on attached map)
M STREAM QUALITY ASSESSMENT WORKSHEET �A..Q
Provide the following information for the stream reach under assessment: _
1. Applicant's name: `j o0 2. Evaluator's name: 3 • G
3. Date of evaluation: 10 P ,2..c ,t *b.,{ 2-LA 4. Time of evaluation:
5. Name of stream: V 07 to CAPE PEA? 1kV,-A 6. River basin:
Sr
7. Approximate drainage area: �5 U C , 8. Stream order:
9. Length of reach evaluated: ` 0 10. County: Ci, Pi } W ✓v
11. Site coordinates (if known): prefer in decimal degrees. 12. Subdivision name (if any):
Latitude (ex. 34.872312): 3 s ` S g b 6 Longitude (ex.-77.556611): -4-4 , U`l 6
Method location determined (circle): GPS Topo Sheet Ortho (Aerial) Photo/GIS 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: Wy ly\0
16. Site conditions at time of visit: FL., 5y) AN
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 -IV)
18. Is there a pond or lake located upstream of the evaluation point?OYESNO If yes, estimate the water surface area l0
19. Does channel appear on USGS quad map? YES 20. Does channel appear on USDA Soil Survey? YES NO
21. Estimated watershed land use: % Residential ?-0 % Commercial _% Industrial _% Agricultural
3d % Forested % Cleared / Logged _% Other
22. Bankfull width:e 23. Bank height (from bed to top of bank): 3�
24. Channel slope down center of stream'.-�_Flat (0 to 2%) _Gentle (2 to 4%) _Moderate (4 to 10%) _Steep (>10%)
25. Channel sinuosity:-,,�-_Straight _Occasional bends _Frequent meander _Very sinuous Braided channel
Instructions for completion of worksheet (located on page 2): Begin by determining the most appropriate ecoregion based on
location, terrain, vegetation, stream classification, etc. Every characteristic must be scored using the same ecoregion. Assign points
to each characteristic within the range shown for the ecoregion. Page 3 provides a brief description of how to review the
characteristics identified in the worksheet. Scores should reflect an overall assessment of the stream reach under evaluation. If'a
characteristic cannot be evaluated due to site or weather conditions, enter 0 in the scoring box and provide, an explanation in the
comment section. Where there are obvious changes in the character of a stream under review (e.g., the stream flows from a pasture
into a forest), the stream may be divided into smaller reaches that display more continuity, and a separate form used to evaluate each
reach. The total score assigned to a stream reach must range between 0 and 100, with a score of 100 representing a stream of the
highest quality.
Evaluator's Signatu Date 10 Dec. Ze-y
This channel evaluation fo in d �' used only as a guide to assist landowners and environmental professionals in
gathering the data requi d by the d&ted States Army Corps of Engineers to make a preliminary assessment of stream
quality. The total score resulting from the completion of this form is subject to USACE approval and does not imply a
particular mitigation ratio or requirement. Form subject to change — version 06/03. To Comment, please call 919-876-8441 x 26.

STREAM QUALITY ASSESSMENT WORKSHEET
* These characteristics are not assessed in coastal streams.

NC DWQ Stream Identification Form Version 4.11
Date: 9 December 2014
ProjectlSite: Cape Fear Plant
Latitude: 35.5819
Evaluator: Jan Gay
county: Chatham
Longitude:-79.0373
Total Points: 30.0
Stream Determination (circle one)
Other Green CAP 0008
- -
Stream is at least intermittent
if >_ 19 or perennial if >_ 30'
Ephemeral Intermittent Perennial
e.g. Quad
Name:
A. Geomorphology Subtotal = 16.0
Absent
Weak
Moderate
Strong
1 a. Continuity of channel bed and bank
0
1
2
3
2. Sinuosity of channel along thalweg
0
1
2
3
3. In -channel structure: ex. riffle -pool, step -pool,
0
1
2
3
4. Particle size of stream substrate
0
1
2
3
5. Active/relict floodplain
0
1
2
3
6. Depositional bars or benches
0
1
2
3
7. Recent alluvial deposits
0
1
2
3
8. Headcuts
0
1
2
3
9. Grade control
0
0.5
1
1.5
10. Natural valley
0
0.5
1
1.5
11. Second or greater order channel
No = 0
Yes = 3
a aniriciai aitcnes are not ratea; see aiscussions in manual
B. Hydrology (Subtotal = 9_o )
12. Presence of Baseflow
0
1
2
3
13. Iron oxidizing bacteria
0
1
2
3
14. Leaf litter
1.5
1
0.5
0
15. Sediment on plants or debris
0
0.5
1
1.5
16. Organic debris lines or piles
0
0.5
1
1.5
17. Soil -based evidence of high water table?
No = 0
Yes = 3
C. Biology (Subtotal = 5.0
18. Fibrous roots in streambed
3
2
1
0
19. Rooted upland plants in streambed
3
2
1
0
20. Macrobenthos (note diversity and abundance)
0
1
2
3
21. Aquatic Mollusks
0
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
1.5
25. Algae
0
0.5
1 1
1.5
26. Wetland plants in streambed
FACW = 0.75; OBE = 1.5 Other = 0
perennial streams may also be identified using other methods. See p. 35 of manual.
Notes:
Sketch:

r _ C A P 000
USACE AID# DWQ # Site # (indicate on attached map)
M STREAM QUALITY ASSESSMENT WORKSHEET
Provide the following information for the stream reach under assessment: LAW
` f
1. Applicant's name: Dut1 ,, E.3gc*r4Aa 2. Evaluator's name: J + CAA
3. Date of evaluation:_ q )2L' C'"of Zy d 4. Time of evaluation:
5. Name of stream: U WI- Td C V F FEAR 'Z\ ✓e e 6. River basin: C A P r Fl A f-
7. Approximate drainage area: 300 (�C re 5 8. Stream order: 2- n1
9. Length of reach evaluated: ZOO �-eei 10. County: C_V\P�i�\& ►^n
11. Site coordinates (if known): prefer in decpal degrees. 12. Subdivision name (if any):
o �
Latitude (ex. 34.872312): �s Ti'�7- � ��• -�, o 5e6 1 Longitude (ex.-77.556611): �d r w v o O 225
Method location determined (circle): GDTopo Sheet Ortho (Aerial) Photo/GIS Other GIS Other
13. Location of reach under evaluation (note nearby roads and landmarks and attach map identifying stream(s) location):
C_Af .Fr-lt(L S-tAT�cA e,,54 �C C Afe Fear '1N: VQr
14. Proposed channel work (if any
15. Recent weather conditions: I�J o c 4y\j
16. Site conditions at time of visit: --D r •�aske
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 -IV)
18. Is there a pond or lake located upstream of the evaluation point? YES NO If yes, estimate the water surface a rea:J 4c ,6
19. Does channel appear on USGS quad map? 0 NO 20. Does channel appear on USDA Soil Survey? YES NO
21. Estimated watershed land use: S % Residential 30 % Commercial Ja% Industrial S % Agricultural
%Forested %Cleared /Logged % Other
22. Bankfull width: SE'E 23. Bank height (from bed to top of bank): �e f
24. Channel slope down center of stream`--_,A_Flat (0 to 2%) _Gentle (2 to 4%) _Moderate (4 to 10%) _Steep (>10%)
25. Channel sinuosity: Straight _Occasional bends —�v Frequent meander _Very sinuous Braided channel
Instructions for completion of worksheet (located on page 2): Begin by determining the most appropriate ecoregion based on
location, terrain, vegetation, stream classification, etc. Every characteristic must be scored using the same ecoregion. Assign points
to each characteristic within the range shown for the ecoregion. Page 3 provides a brief description of how to review the
characteristics identified in the worksheet. Scores should reflect an overall assessment of the stream reach under evaluation. If a
characteristic cannot be evaluated due to site or weather conditions, enter 0 in the scoring box and provide an explanation in the
comment section. Where there are obvious changes in the character of a stream under review (e.g., the stream flows from a pasture
into a forest), the stream may be divided into smaller reaches that display more continuity, and a separate form used to evaluate each
reach. The total score assigned to a stream reach must range between 0 and 100, with a score of 100 representing a stream of the
highest quality.
Tol Score (from reverse � A� Comments: U11101,r`4\E
ai
Evaluator's Signature "1, / 1� Date ci Dece4pr Z0 Y
This channel evaluation form is inWnde bpdsed only as a guide to assist landowners and environmental professionals in
gathering the data required by/he Unite States Army Corps of Engineers to make a preliminary assessment of stream
quality. The total score resulting from the completion of this form is subject to USACE approval and does not imply a
particular mitigation ratio or requirement. Form subject to change — version 06/03. To Comment, please call 919-876-8441 x 26.

STREAM QUALITY ASSESSMENT WORKSHEET
* These characteristics are not assessed in coastal streams.
3
74

NC DWQ Stream Identification Form Version 4.11
Date: 9 December 2014
ProjectlSite: Cape Fear Plant
Latitude: 35.5851
Evaluator: Jan Gay
county: Chatham
Longitude:-79.0349
Total Points: 32.0
Stream Determination (circle one)
Other Green CAP 0022
- -
Stream is at least intermittent
if >_ 19 or perennial if >_ 30'
Ephemeral Intermittent Perennial
e.g. Quad
Name:
A. Geomorphology Subtotal = 17.0
Absent
Weak
Moderate
Strong
1 a. Continuity of channel bed and bank
0
1
2
3
2. Sinuosity of channel along thalweg
0
1
2
3
3. In -channel structure: ex. riffle -pool, step -pool,
0
1
2
3
4. Particle size of stream substrate
0
1
2
3
5. Active/relict floodplain
0
1
2
3
6. Depositional bars or benches
0
1
2
3
7. Recent alluvial deposits
0
1
2
3
8. Headcuts
0
1
2
3
9. Grade control
0
0.5
1
1.5
10. Natural valley
0
0.5
1
1.5
11. Second or greater order channel
No = 0
Yes = 3
a aniriciai aitcnes are not ratea; see aiscussions in manual
B. Hydrology (Subtotal = 9_o )
12. Presence of Baseflow
0
1
2
3
13. Iron oxidizing bacteria
0
1
2
3
14. Leaf litter
1.5
1
0.5
0
15. Sediment on plants or debris
0
0.5
1
1.5
16. Organic debris lines or piles
0
0.5
1
1.5
17. Soil -based evidence of high water table?
No = 0
Yes = 3
C. Biology (Subtotal = 5.0
18. Fibrous roots in streambed
3
2
1
0
19. Rooted upland plants in streambed
3
2
1
0
20. Macrobenthos (note diversity and abundance)
0
1
2
3
21. Aquatic Mollusks
0
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
1.5
25. Algae
0
0.5
1 1
1.5
26. Wetland plants in streambed
FACW = 0.75; OBE = 1.5 Other = 0
perennial streams may also be identified using other methods. See p. 35 of manual.
Notes:
Sketch:

c 4 o (40 L z
USACE AID# DWQ # Site # (indicate on attached map) I
M STREAM QUALITY ASSESSMENT WORKSHEET r
Provide the following information for the stream reach under assessment:
1. Applicant's name: .�z E e rn A 2. Evaluator's name: T
3. Date of evaluation: O Dec2w.�be- ta) 4. Time of evaluation: 115.5
5. Name of stream: 1Ji-JT" ru (I 1tr=- VEAt 6. River basin: C-W�--- F PA 1Z
7. Approximate drainage area: IUD Acz 8. Stream order: 1 .5
9. Length of reach evaluated: sU 10. County: C-'y\ AT N 0►
11. Site coordinates (if known): prefer in decimal degrees. 12. Subdivision name (if any):
Latitude (ex. 34.872312): �-5 - S tCW I Longitude (ex.—77.556611). 3� q 6
Method location determined (circle): GPS Topo Sheet Ortho (Aerial) Photo/GIS Other GIS Other
13. Location of reach under evaluat�ote nearby roads and landmarks and attach map identifying stream(s) location):
65 ' ` cy �-a- NURi It o ► 'K Ir" r
14. Proposed channel work (if any):
15. Recent weather conditions: NL a-/nAC
16. Site conditions at time of visit:
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 -IV)
18. Is there a pond or lake located upstream of the evaluation point? YES NO If yes, estimate the water surface area:
19. Does channel appear on USGS quad map? & NO 20. Does channel appear on USDA Soil Survey? YES NO
21. Estimated watershed land use: I U % Residential _% Commercial % Industrial / Q % Agricultural
RU % Forested % Cleared / Logged _% Other ( )
22. Bankfull width: � 23. Bank height (from bed to top of bank):
24. Channel slope down center of stream:'_Flat (0 to 2%) _Gentle (2 to 4%) _Moderate (4 to 10%) _Steep (>10%)
25. Channel sinuosity: Straight _Occasional bends Frequent meander _Very sinuous Braided channel
Instructions for completion of worksheet (located on page 2): Begin by determining the most appropriate ecoregion based on
location, terrain, vegetation, stream classification, etc. Every characteristic must be scored using the same ecoregion. Assign points
to each characteristic within the range shown for the ecoregion. Page 3 provides a brief description of how to review the
characteristics identified in the worksheet. Scores should reflect an overall assessment of the stream reach under evaluation. If a
characteristic cannot be evaluated due to site or weather conditions, enter 0 in the scoring box and provide an explanation in the
comment section. Where there are obvious changes in the character of a stream under review (e.g., the stream flows from a pasture
into a forest), the stream may be divided into smaller reaches that display more continuity, and a separate form used to evaluate each
reach. The total score assigned to a stream reach must range between 0 and 100, with a score of 100 representing a stream of the
highest quality.
Total Score (from reverse): Comments:
cs
Evaluator's Signature Date Ok DeC_t m of 201
This channel evaluation for s in t be used only as a guide to assist landowners and environmental professionals in
gathering the data requir by the ed States Army Corps of Engineers to make a preliminary assessment of stream
quality. The total score resulting from the completion of this form is subject to USACE approval and does not imply a
particular mitigation ratio or requirement. Form subject to change — version 06/03. To Comment, please call 919-876-8441 x 26.

STREAM QUALITY ASSESSMENT WORKSHEET
* These characteristics are not assessed in coastal streams.
2

NC DWQ Stream Identification Form Version 4.11
Date: 9 December 2014
ProjectlSite: Cape Fear Plant
Latitude:
Evaluator: Jan Gay
county: Chatham
Longitude:
Total Points: 30.0
Stream Determination (circle one)
Other Green CAP 0016
- -
Stream is at least intermittent
if >_ 19 or perennial if >_ 30'
Ephemeral Intermittent Perennial
e.g. Quad
Name:
A. Geomorphology Subtotal = 16.0
Absent
Weak
Moderate
Strong
1 a. Continuity of channel bed and bank
0
1
2
3
2. Sinuosity of channel along thalweg
0
1
2
3
3. In -channel structure: ex. riffle -pool, step -pool,
0
1
2
3
4. Particle size of stream substrate
0
1
2
3
5. Active/relict floodplain
0
1
2
3
6. Depositional bars or benches
0
1
2
3
7. Recent alluvial deposits
0
1
2
3
8. Headcuts
0
1
2
3
9. Grade control
0
0.5
1
1.5
10. Natural valley
0
0.5
1
1.5
11. Second or greater order channel
No = 0
Yes = 3
a aniriciai aitcnes are not ratea; see aiscussions in manual
B. Hydrology (Subtotal = 9_o )
12. Presence of Baseflow
0
1
2
3
13. Iron oxidizing bacteria
0
1
2
3
14. Leaf litter
1.5
1
0.5
0
15. Sediment on plants or debris
0
0.5
1
1.5
16. Organic debris lines or piles
0
0.5
1
1.5
17. Soil -based evidence of high water table?
No = 0
Yes = 3
C. Biology (Subtotal = 5.0
18. Fibrous roots in streambed
3
2
1
0
19. Rooted upland plants in streambed
3
2
1
0
20. Macrobenthos (note diversity and abundance)
0
1
2
3
21. Aquatic Mollusks
0
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
1.5
25. Algae
0
0.5
1 1
1.5
26. Wetland plants in streambed
FACW = 0.75; OBE = 1.5 Other = 0
perennial streams may also be identified using other methods. See p. 35 of manual.
Notes:
Sketch:

tJSACL AID{t _ DWQ tt Site t#_ _ (indicate on attached map)
M TRE.AM QUALITY A,SSE SME NT 1u(JRKSH ET
Provide the following information for the stream reach under assessment.
1. Applicant's narne: —UA.a to 2. Evaluator's nantc:
3. Date of evaluation: C'" ._ ' « 4. Time of evaluation 1 G
5. Name of stream: l) i' 8, 6. River basin:
7. Approximate drainage area: 8. Stream order: / 6
s
9. Length of reach evaluated: 10, County:
11. Site coordinates (ifknown): prefer in decimal degrees. 12. SubdiViS'ron name (if any): �?
latitude (ex. X872312): ���_ Lonbittrdc
Method location determined (eirole): 'PS ,Topo Sheet Ortho (Aerial) Photo/CaIS Other GIS Other
13. Location of reach under evaluation note nearby roads and landmarks and attach neap identifying stream(s) location):
14, Proposed channel work (if any): r —
1.5. Recent weather conditions: We'W 1
16. Site conditions at time of visit: tt X"J—
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 -IV)
18. Is there a pond or lake located upstream of the evaluation point? YES NO If yes, estimate the water surface area:
1.9. Does channel appear on USGS quad map? YES C_ 20. Does chamxel appear on USDA Soil Survey? YES NO
21. Estimated watershed land use: % Residential 2 % Commercial _% Industrial �% Agricultural
,% Forested --% Cleared / Logged ,-% Other ( )
22. Bankfull width: 23. Bank height (from bed to top of bank): L Ae I
24. Channel slope down center ofstream . Flat (0 to 22�%) Gentle (2 to 4%) _____Moderate (4 to 10%) _,___.Steep (>10%)
25. Channel sinuosity: Straight _____Occasional bendq ; Frequent meander Very sinuous Braided channel
Instructions for completion of worlisheet (located on page 2): Begin by determining the most appropriate ecoregion based on
location, terrain, vegetation, stream classification, etc. Every characteristic must be scored using the same ecoregion. Assign points
to each characteristic within the range shown for the ecoregion. Page 3 provides a brief description of how to review the
characteristics identified in the worksheet. Scores should reflect an overall assessment of the stream reach under evaluation. If a
characteristic cannot be evaluated due to site or weather conditions, enter 0 in the scoring box and provide an explanation in the
comment section. Where there are obvious changes in the character of a stream under review (e.g., the stream flows from a pasture
into a forest), the stream may be divided into smaller reaches that display more continuity, and a separate form used to evaluate each
reach. The total score assigned to a stream reach must range between 0 and 100, with a score of 100 representing a stream of the
highest duality.
"total Score (front reverse):Comments:
Evaluator's Signat Date
This channel evaluatio rat is intended to be used only as a guide to assist landowners and euviromnentul professionals in
gathering the data r quired by the United States Army Corps of Engineers to matte a preliminary assessment of stream
quality. The total score resulting from tine completion of this form is subject to USACE approval and does not imply a
partictilar mitigation ratio or requirement. Form subject to change -- version 06/03. To Comment, please call 919-876-8441 x 26.

STREAM QUALITY ASSESSMENT WORKSHEET

NC DWQ Stream Identification Form Version 4.11
Date: 9 December 2014
ProjectlSite: Cape Fear Plant
Latitude: 35.5847
Evaluator: Jan Gay
county: Chatham
Longitude: -79.0334
Total Points: 32.0
Stream Determination (circle one)
Other Green CAP 0047
- -
Stream is at least intermittent
if >_ 19 or perennial if >_ 30'
Ephemeral Intermittent Perennial
e.g. Quad
Name:
A. Geomorphology Subtotal = 18.0
Absent
Weak
Moderate
Strong
1 a. Continuity of channel bed and bank
0
1
2
3
2. Sinuosity of channel along thalweg
0
1
2
3
3. In -channel structure: ex. riffle -pool, step -pool,
0
1
2
3
4. Particle size of stream substrate
0
1
2
3
5. Active/relict floodplain
0
1
2
3
6. Depositional bars or benches
0
1
2
3
7. Recent alluvial deposits
0
1
2
3
8. Headcuts
0
1
2
3
9. Grade control
0
0.5
1
1.5
10. Natural valley
0
0.5
1
1.5
11. Second or greater order channel
No = 0
Yes = 3
a aniriciai aitcnes are not ratea; see aiscussions in manual
B. Hydrology (Subtotal = 9_o )
12. Presence of Baseflow
0
1
2
3
13. Iron oxidizing bacteria
0
1
2
3
14. Leaf litter
1.5
1
0.5
0
15. Sediment on plants or debris
0
0.5
1
1.5
16. Organic debris lines or piles
0
0.5
1
1.5
17. Soil -based evidence of high water table?
No = 0
Yes = 3
C. Biology (Subtotal = 5.0
18. Fibrous roots in streambed
3
2
1
0
19. Rooted upland plants in streambed
3
2
1
0
20. Macrobenthos (note diversity and abundance)
0
1
2
3
21. Aquatic Mollusks
0
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
1.5
25. Algae
0
0.5
1 1
1.5
26. Wetland plants in streambed
FACW = 0.75; OBE = 1.5 Other = 0
perennial streams may also be identified using other methods. See p. 35 of manual.
Notes:
Sketch:

iee n _ C/1 r 6 6_ l
USACE AID# DWQ # Site # (indicate on attached map)
M STREAM QUALITY ASSESSMENT WORKSHEET
Provide the following information for the stream reach under assessment:
1. Applicant's name: DO 0— r V\e(- ,14 2. Evaluator's name:
3. Date of evaluation: % -C; rOy 7p p- Zy r 4. Time of evaluation: 12Sd
5. Name of stream: V N'f' 10 0 fAA% PW "LI N-4 6. River basin: C 9P
5 t•
7. Approximate drainage area: 100 4C2e-5 8. Stream order:
9. Length of reach evaluated: '; (d 10. County: C\ pf�p, !�
11. Site coordinates (if
2k�nown):` q prefer in decimal degrees. 12. Subdivision name (if any):
26 Latitude (ex. 34.872312): . J A � Longitude (ex.-77.556611):
Method location determined (circle): GPS ' Topo Sheet Ortho (Aerial) Photo/GIS 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: Ncfi* rn c ,
16. Site conditions at time of visit: C Ao A,% ,
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 -IV)
18. Is there a pond or lake located upstream of the evaluation point? YES NO If yes, estimate the water surface area:
19. Does channel appear on USES quad map?03 NO 20. Does channel appear on USDA Soil Survey? YES NO
21. Estimated watershed land use: _% Residential _% Commercial _% Industrial % Agricultural
-�L% Forested % Cleared / Logged % Other (
22. Bankfull width: 23. Bank height (from bed to top of bank): 3
24. Channel slope down center of stream: -- Flat (0 to 2%) _Gentle (2 to 4%) _Moderate (4 to 10%) _Steep (>10%)
25. Channel sinuosity: Straight _Occasional bends Frequent meander _Very sinuous _Braided channel
Instructions for completion of worksheet (located on page 2): Begin by determining the most appropriate ecoregion based on
location, terrain, vegetation, stream classification, etc. Every characteristic must be scored using the same ecoregion. Assign points
to each characteristic within the range shown for the ecoregion. Page 3 provides a brief description of how to review the
characteristics identified in the worksheet. Scores should reflect an overall assessment of the stream reach under evaluation. If a
characteristic cannot be evaluated due to site or weather conditions, enter 0 in the scoring box and provide an explanation in the
comment section. Where there are obvious changes in the character of a stream under review (e.g., the stream flows from a pasture
into a forest), the stream may be divided into smaller reaches that display more continuity, and a separate form used to evaluate each
reach. The total score assigned to a stream reach must range between 0 and 100, with a score of 100 representing a stream of the
highest quality.
Total Score (from reverse): Comments:
Evaluator's Signature 0 f Date q -Dc-<1: m%F-?- wry
This channel evaluation orm is i ended to 4ja sed only as a guide to assist landowners and environmental professionals in
gathering the data required b the United States Army Corps of Engineers to make a preliminary assessment of stream
quality. The total score resulting from the completion of this form is subject to "USAGE approval and does not imply a
particular mitigation ratio or requirement. Form subject to change — version 06/03. To Comment, please call 919-876-8441 x 26.

STREAM QUALITY ASSESSMENT WORKSHEET
* These characteristics are not assessed in coastal streams.
2
gar
N
3
u
rk,

APPENDIX C
PHOTOGRAPHIC LOG

AMEC Project No. 7810140191
January 26, 2015
Site Photographs
Cape Fear Steam Station
Chatham County, NC
Photograph No. 1 Remarks
• A view of Stream 1,
facing south.
9
K
�rt t
l
8
�'ytt rn IV'R
Y nil h ifs g,Pg. 5x 4
� �. 1� �r.,�.a,'i
�qk,
-rasu�r��:'s�l�+.':�'

AMEC Project No. 7810140191 Site Photographs
January 26, 2015 Cape Fear Steam Station
Chatham County, NC
11 Photograph No. 4 Remarks 11
• A view of Stream 6. II
2

^
�fi f
,4 y s

AMEC Project No. 7810140191
January 26, 2015
Site Photographs
Cape Fear Steam Station
Chatham County, NC
Photograph No. 7 Remarks
A view of Stream 9
and Wetland Q.
I
4

AMEC Project No. 7810140191 Site Photographs
January 26, 2015 Cape Fear Steam Station
Chatham County, NC
Photograph No. 10 Remarks
• View of Wetland B,
facing south.
Wetland A has
similar vegetation
and hydrology.
5

AMEC Project No. 7810140191 Site Photographs
January 26, 2015 Cape Fear Steam Station
Chatham County, NC
t P + !y r Wetland facing
l� 4
a

AMEC Project No. 7810140191 Site Photographs
January 26, 2015 Cape Fear Steam Station
Chatham County, NC
Photograph No. 13 Remarks
r a
k M Wetland I, facing
x southeast. Wetland
~ J has similar
vegetation and
r' hydrology.
O
� �� �;���� �, �, .� a«.o-urn ��•,�
k
a�
9
� •y A k~ - k � .t��f

AMEC Project No. 7810140191 Site Photographs
January 26, 2015 Cape Fear Steam Station
Chatham County, NC
11 Photograph No. 16 Remarks 11
• Wetland O, facing
south. Note this
wetland it is located
within a maintained
power line right-of-
way.
8