NC0038377_DEP Mayo Natural Resources_20150902

NATURAL RESOURCES TECHNICAL REPORT
MAYO ELECTRIC GENERATING PLANT
PERSON COUNTY, NC
Prepared for:
Duke Energy Business Services, LLC
526 South Church Street — EC13K
Charlotte, NC 28202
Prepared by:
amec
faster
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................................................................................................................. 9
LIST OF TABLES
Table 1 Stream Classifications within the Mayo Electric Generating Plant Study Area,
Person County, North Carolina.
Table 2 Federally Listed Plant and Animal Species, Mayo Electric Generating Plant, Person
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. 7810140196
January 30, 2014
1.0 INTRODUCTION
Natural Resources Technical Report
Mayo Electric Generating Plant
Person County, NC
AMEC Environment and Infrastructure, Inc. (AMEC) conducted a natural resources investigation
at the Mayo Electric Generating Plant located in Roxboro, Person County, North Carolina
(Figures 1 and 2) per the scope of work outlined in eMax Purchase Order No. 1089374 dated
November 21, 2014. AMEC also conducted a threatened and endangered species habitat
assessment, reviewed a database at the North Carolina Office of State Archeology for
archeological resources within the study area, and assessed any potential riparian buffers and/or
regulatory floodplains within the study area.
This report documents the methodology used to assess the potential limits of U.S. Army Corps of
Engineers (USACE) jurisdictional surface waters (wetlands, streams, and other waterbodies),
results of the threatened and endangered species database review, historical database review,
and floodplain and riparian buffer assessment, assessment of the potential for occurrence of listed
plant and animal species within the study area, and presents the findings of the field investigation.
2.0 PROJECT SITE DESCRIPTION
AMEC understands that Duke Energy is planning to perform ash basin closure activities in
proximity to the ash basin at the Mayo Electric Generating Plant. The project area is an
approximate 400 foot boundary around the ash basin, and extends to Mayo Lake Road to the
north and a gravel road bordering the ash basin to the south. 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)
Person County Soil survey GIS data (Figure 3), the U.S. Geological Survey (USGS) digital 7.5'
topography (Figure 4; Cluster Springs, 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 January 12 and 15, 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 supplement2.
' Environmental Laboratory. 1987. "Corps of Engineers Wetlands Delineation Manual," Technical Report Y-
87-1. U.S. Army Engineer Waterways Experiment Station. Vicksburg, MS.
1

AMEC Project No. 7810140196
January 30, 2014
Natural Resources Technical Report
Mayo Electric Generating Plant
Person 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 Origins4 (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 and/or state regulations [Federal
Endangered Species Act 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 and the USFWS North Carolina website to determine if
any federally listed threatened or endangered plant and animal species, designated critical
habitat, or other natural resources of concern 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 on 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), 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.
K

AMEC Project No. 7810140196
January 30, 2014
Natural Resources Technical Report
Mayo Electric Generating Plant
Person County, NC
resource to be listed on the National Register of Historic Places (NRNP), 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 the regulatory 100 -year floodplain. AMEC also reviewed the Person
County ordinances for local government requirements in floodplains. These results are based on
our review of FEMA DFIRM delineated flood boundaries.
Riparian Buffer Assessment
AMEC reviewed NCDENR DWR's riparian buffer regulations to determine if any portion of the
study area is subject to riparian buffer regulations. AMEC also reviewed the Person County
ordinances available online.
4.0 RESULTS
Wetland Delineation and Stream Determination
During the in-house review, the NRCS Soil Survey (Figure 3) indicated the presence of several
soil map units within the study area, including loamy Uthordents, Wedowee sandy loam,
Chewacla and Wehadkee loams, and open water. The USGS topographic map (Figure 4)
depicted a named blue -line stream, Crutchfield Creek, flowing through the ash basin and crossing
the northern portion of the study area. Three blue -line streams are shown draining across the
south and east portions of the study area into the ash basin to form Crutchfield Creek. A pond is
shown at the location of delineated Wetland D. No wetland areas were depicted within the study
area on the topographic map. Finally, the USFWS NWI Map (Figure 5) depicted the ash basin as
a lake and a freshwater pond at the location of Wetland D.
3

AMEC Project No. 7810140196
January 30, 2014
Natural Resources Technical Report
Mayo Electric Generating Plant
Person County, NC
The January 12 and 15, 2015 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. Ten potentially -
jurisdictional streams and eight potentially -jurisdictional wetland features 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 mapped
with GPS and have not been verified (inspected) by the USACE and/or the DWR.
Wetlands
Eight potentially -jurisdictional, wetland areas were delineated within the study area (Wetlands A
through H, Figure 6). These eight wetlands were classified as one of three types found within the
study area, headwater forest, bottomland hardwood forest, or herbaceous wetland within a
maintained corridor, or as some mixture of the three types. USACE Eastern Mountain and
Piedmont Wetland Determination Data Forms for the wetlands are located in Appendix B.
Most of the wetland areas in the study area, Wetlands A, B, C, D, E, and H, were classified as
headwater forest according to the NC WAM. Headwater forests typically occur in geomorphic
floodplains of first -order or smaller streams and in topographic crenulations without a stream. For
the purposes of NCWAM, zero -order streams are tributaries not shown on the USGS 7.5 -minute
topographic map and first -order streams are the lowest -order streams shown on the topographic
map. These wetlands include an overstory of sweetgum (Liquidambar styraciflua), black willow
(Salix nigra), red maple (Acer rubrum), tulip poplar (Liriodendron tulipifera), loblolly pine (Pinus
taeda), and American sycamore (Platanus occidentalis). The midstory consists of saplings of
those same species, privet (Ligustrum sinense), musclewood (Carpinus caroliniana), and
baccharis (Baccharis halimifolia), with an understory of Japanese honeysuckle (Lonicera
japonica), soft rush (Juncus effusus), and Christmas fern (Polystichium acrostichoides). Most of
the delineated wetland areas occupied the upper reach of short tributaries or drainage swales.
Wetland F is an herbaceous wetland located within the maintained easement near the base of the
ash basin dam. The vegetation in this area 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 this area. The wetland is
dominated by baccharis, soft rush, and sedges.
Wetland G was classified as a bottomland hardwood forest according to NC WAM. This wetland
is dominated by an overstory of river birch (Betula nigra), sweetgum, red maple, and American
sycamore. The midstory consists of saplings of those same species, with an understory of
Japanese honeysuckle and Christmas fern.
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
Ten potentially jurisdictional drainage features (Streams 1 to 10, Figure 6) were delineated within
the study area. The NC DWQ Stream Identification Score and Classification and USACE Stream
Quality Assessment Worksheet Scores are identified in Table 1 below. Stream Identification
forms and Assessment Worksheets are labeled with the flag location (Flag ID) at which they were
completed. The Flag ID is provided in Table 1 below. Stream Forms are located in Appendix B.
V

AMEC Project No. 7810140196
January 30, 2014
Natural Resources Technical Report
Mayo Electric Generating Plant
Person County, NC
Table 1. Stream Classifications within the Mayo Electric Generating Plant Study Area,
Person County, North Carolina.
Stream ID
Flag ID
NC DWQ Stream
Score
NC DWQ Stream
Classification
USACE Stream
Score
Stream 1
Green MAY SA004
31
Perennial
54
Stream 2
Green—MAY—S13004
33.5
Perennial
56
Stream 3
Green MAY SC008
26.5
Intermittent
59
Stream 4
Green MAY SD001
25.5
Intermittent
21
Stream 5
Red—MAY-0205
19
Intermittent
47
Stream 6
Red—MAY-02011
25
Intermittent
52
Stream 7
Red—MAY-0196
15.5
Ephemeral
42
Stream 8
Red—MAY-0188
15.5
Ephemeral
42
Stream 9
Red—MAY-0251
29
Intermittent
45
Stream 10
Red—MAY-0245
28.5
Intermittent
53
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.
Threatened and Endangered Species Review
Certain plant and animal species are protected by federal regulations [Endangered Species Act of
1973 (16 USC 1531-1544, December 28, 1973, as amended 1976-1982, 1984, and 1988). The
bald eagle is federally protected under the Bald and Golden Eagle Protection Act and the
Migratory Bird Treaty Act. AMEC accessed the USFWS Information, Planning, and Conservation
System (IPaC) database (Consultation Code:04EN1000-2015-SLI-0157) and the USFWS North
Carolina website to determine if any federally listed threatened or endangered plant and animal
species or designated critical habitat may be in the vicinity of the study area. The list is below.
5

AMEC Project No. 7810140196 Natural Resources Technical Report
January 30, 2014 Mayo Electric Generating Plant
Person County, NC
Table 2. Federally Listed Plant and Animal Species, Mayo Steam Station, Person
County, North Carolina.
Common Name
Federal
General Habitat Description
Potential for
(Scientific Name)
Status
Occurrence
Mammals
Summer habitat includes deciduous
High
forests and mixed evergreen -
deciduous forests, with bats roosting
singly or in colonies underneath bark,
in cavities, or in crevices of both live
and dead trees. Specifically, dead, or
partially dead, hardwood trees with
exfoliating bark are preferred
Northern long-eared bat
PT
(suitable roost trees). Winter
(Myotis septentrionalis)
hibernating habitat (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
Forested habitats for nesting and
High
roosting, and expanses of shallow
Bald eagle
BGE
fresh or salt water for foraging.
(Haliaeetus
PA
Nesting habitat generally consists of
leucocephalus)
densely forested areas of mature
trees that are isolated from human
disturbance.
Mollusks
Low
Dwarf -wedge mussel
Waters with slow to moderate current
(Alasmidonta heterodon)
E
and relatively hard water on sand and
mixed sand and gravel substrates.
Vascular Plants
Primarily occurs in openings in
Medium
Smooth
woods, such as cedar barrens and
coneflower
clear cuts, along roadsides and
(Echinacea
T
utility line rights-of-way, and on dry
laevigata)
limestone bluffs. Usually found in
areas with magnesium- and
calcium -rich soils.
C.

AMEC Project No. 7810140196 Natural Resources Technical Report
January 30, 2014 Mayo Electric Generating Plant
Person County, NC
Common Name
(Scientific Name)
Federal
Status
General Habitat Description
Potential for
Occurrence
Occurs in two habitat types in the
Low
Piedmont: rocky/gravelly shoals or
cracks in bedrock outcrops beneath
the water surface in clear, swift-
Harperella
flowing streams (usually in
(Ptilimnium
E
microsites that are sheltered from
nodosum)
rapidly moving water) and granite
outcrop seeps. In both habitat -
types, the species occurs in a
narrow range of water depths; it is
intolerant of deep water and of
conditions that are too dry.
Sources: NCNHP List of Rare Plant Species of North Carolina; USFWS IPaC; USFWS Environmental
Conservation Online System - Species Profiles; NatureServe Explorer.
Explanation Codes: E = Endangered; T = Threatened; P=Proposed, BGEPA =Bald and Golden Eagle
Protection Act.
Low = no further surveys recommended.
Medium =additional surveys are recommended.
High = additional surveys are recommended.
AMEC personnel conducted a habitat assessment, consisting of pedestrian reconnaissance of the
plant communities and surface waters on the study area, to determine the likelihood of listed plant
and animal species occurring within the study area on January 12 and 15, 2015. 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), 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. No federally listed, threatened or endangered, animal or plant
species were observed during the field investigation.
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 Mayo
Steam Station. Mr. Fletcher stated there are no known federally protected species on-site
(personal communication via email January 13, 2015). In addition, he stated that there is
potential habitat (shingled/loose-bark hardwoods, snags/wolf trees) present for northern long-
eared bat.
The summer habitat of the northern long-eared bat includes deciduous forests and mixed
evergreen -deciduous forests, with bats roosting singly or in colonies underneath bark, in cavities,
or in crevices of both live and dead trees. Specifically, dead, or partially dead, hardwood trees
with exfoliating bark are preferred (suitable roost trees). Winter hibernating habitat (hibernacula)
includes caves and mines, typically with large passages and entrances, constant temperatures,
and high humidity with no air currents. There are no caves or mines on-site, therefore there are no
hibernacula onsite. There are scattered occurrences of dead/dying trees and shaggy bark trees
on the site along with some streams. We recommend additional surveys be conducted to
determine the presence or absence of the northern long-eared bat. The areas recommended for
survey are shown on Figure 7.
7

AMEC Project No. 7810140196
January 30, 2014
Natural Resources Technical Report
Mayo Electric Generating Plant
Person County, NC
Although no longer afforded protection by the Endangered Species Act as of June 29, 2007, the
bald eagle is still protected under the Bald and Golden Eagle Protection Act and the Migratory
Bird Treaty Act, both of which protect bald eagles by prohibiting killing, selling or otherwise
harming eagles, their nests, or eggs. Habitats include riparian areas along the coast and near
major rivers, wetlands, and reservoirs. Bald eagles typically nest in large, tall, open -topped pines
near open waters. They feed primarily on fish, but will also take a variety of birds, mammals, and
turtles. Mayo Lake and the ash ponds could provide suitable foraging habitat, and large trees
within the study area could provide suitable roosting or nesting habitat. No eagle nests were
observed, but we recommend additional surveys be conducted to determine if bald eagles are
nesting on-site or using the site as a foraging area.
The dwarf -wedge mussel is typically found in shallow to deep quick running water on cobble, fine
gravel, or on firm silt or sandy bottoms. Other habitats included are amongst submerged aquatic
plants, and near stream banks underneath overhanging tree limbs. The species commonly lives
on muddy sand, sand, and gravel bottoms in creeks and rivers of various sizes. It requires areas
of slow to moderate current, good water quality, and little silt deposits. There are no streams on-
site that can be considered suitable habitat for this mussel species. Therefore, we do not
recommend further surveys for this species.
Smooth coneflower formerly was a plant of prairie -like habitats or oak -savannas maintained by
natural or Native American -set fires. Now, primarily occurs in openings in woods, such as cedar
barrens and clear cuts, along roadsides and utility line rights-of-way, and on dry limestone bluffs.
Usually found in areas with magnesium- and calcium -rich soils. The species requires full or
partial sun.
There are three open areas along the southern boundary of the project area that are potential
habitat for smooth coneflower. These areas are early successional fields adjacent to forested
areas. The open areas are dominated by broom sedge (Andropogon virginicus), young loblolly
pine (Pinus teada), young short -leaf pine (P. echinata), Lespedeza (Lespedeza sp), and various
grasses. The adjacent forested areas are dominated by Eastern red cedar (Juniperus virginiana),
beech (Fagus sylvatica), flowering dogwood (Cornus florida), red maple (Acer rubrum), sweetgum
(Liquidambar stryraciflua), and southern red oak (Quercus falcata). We recommend that these
three areas be surveyed to determine the presence or absence of this species during the
flowering/fruiting period (i.e., late May — October). The areas recommended for survey are shown
on Figure 7.
Harperella occurs in two habitat types in the Piedmont: rocky/gravelly shoals or cracks in bedrock
outcrops beneath the water surface in clear, swift -flowing streams (usually in microsites that are
sheltered from rapidly moving water) and granite outcrop seeps. In both habitat -types, the species
occurs in a narrow range of water depths; it is intolerant of deep water and of conditions that are
too dry. There are no streams on-site that can be considered suitable habitat for this species. The
few streams noted were outfall from the ash ponds with constant flowing water in which harperella
cannot survive. Therefore, we do not recommend additional surveys for this species.
Cultural Resources Review
AMEC conducted a desktop review of the study area based on available data resources from the
National Register of Historic Places (NRNP) files and information on archeological resources from
the North Carolina Archeological Site File repository, located at the North Carolina Historic
Preservation office (SHPO). According to the North Carolina Office of State Archeology records,
at least a portion of the study area has been surveyed for archeological resources (Surveys ER -
E:3

AMEC Project No. 7810140196
January 30, 2014
Natural Resources Technical Report
Mayo Electric Generating Plant
Person County, NC
07-0328, Figure 8). No archeological remains were discovered during the surveys. However, 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, no NRHP listed historic architectural properties
are located within the study area.
Floodplain Assessment
Review of the FEMA DFIRM delineated 100 -year flood boundary for the project area identified
that none of the study area is located within the regulated 100 -year flood zone (FEMA Flood
Panels 3721002100J and 3721003100J [Person County], effective 6/4/2007, Figure 9).
Person County has floodplain regulations in its ordinances that "No encroachments, including fill,
new construction, substantial improvements or new development shall be permitted within a
distance of twenty (20) feet each side from top of bank or five times the width of the stream,
whichever is greater, unless certification with supporting technical data by a registered
professional engineer is provided demonstrating that such encroachments shall not result in any
increase in flood levels during the occurrence of the base flood discharge."
Riaarian 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.
Person County has the following text in its regulations:
"A minimum of a fifty (50) foot vegetative buffer, unless otherwise stated in this Article,
shall be provided along all perennial streams and waters, as shown on the most recent
version of U.S.G.S. 1:24,000 (7.5) scale topographic maps. The buffer shall be measured,
as applicable, from either the edge of both sides of the steam or landward from the normal
pool elevation of the perennial water. Projects that exceed the allowed built upon area
shall provide a one hundred (100) foot vegetative buffer along perennial waters.
No new development is allowed within the buffer. Water dependent structures, other
structures, such as flag poles, signs and security lights which result in only diminutive
increase in impervious area and public projects such as road crossing and greenways may
be allowed where no practical alternative exists. These activities should minimize built
upon surface area, divert runoff away from surface waters and maximize the utilization of
BMP's."
5.0 CONCLUSIONS
Eight potentially -jurisdictional wetlands and ten potentially -jurisdictional streams were 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
M

AMEC Project No. 7810140196
January 30, 2014
Natural Resources Technical Report
Mayo Electric Generating Plant
Person County, NC
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.
The potentially jurisdictional streams and wetlands in the study area are likely not subject to
Person County vegetative buffer requirements. Pursuant to North Carolina Dam Safety
Commission guidelines, Duke Energy adheres only to State (NCDENR) Riparian Buffer Rules for
the ash basin closure project sites; as such, Person County local buffer rules will not apply to this
site.
A high 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 threatened 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. Additionally, AMEC recommends
additional surveys be conducted to determine if bald eagles are nesting on-site or using the site
as a foraging area.
The potential for occurrence of smooth coneflower within the study area was medium. A survey
of select areas of the study area should be conducted during the flowering season to determine if
the species is located within the study area.
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.
Review of the FEMA delineated 100 -year flood boundary for the study area identified that none of
the study area is within the 100 -year flood zone.
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.

APPENDIX A
FIGURES

0 62.5 125 250 Miles
1 1 1 1 1 1 1 1 1
F NORTH CAROLINA
"hesus 1=h"'Ch,p d
Faulkner �
a
t1yo
Reservoir
a
s
5htire Rd
M1
i /. a
m
11
y � 'F
b �
n ,a"
r 3
� P
Notes To User:
ArcGIS Base Data: 1 June 2014
Study Area
cue
Q
�a
Snow m Hii1 Rq,
q
i
Cluster ! `
Springs
I�
+ e
erg
VIRGINI, f _
NORTH CAROLINA
a
a
1' a
I
�P
o,
z
t1
o erryhrrf Rd
3 �
Gr tti�n Rd G
* ieM
V7` gn'
1
11
h
I ir'"Y*aad
I �.
The map shown here has been created with all due and
reasonable care and is strictly for use with AMEC project
number 7810140197. AMEC assumes no liability, direct
or indirect, whatsoever for any such third party or
unintended use.
Legend
Existing Ash Pond / Excluded From Study Area
ects\Duke\2014\12 Wetland Delineations\7810140196 Mayo Station\Task 5 Report and Gra
h or v e sha
e To
d
bend Farm
Jj 96
x Ofi �r'br
'ra Rri
5 Of
FSiteLocation 96
I
VIRGINIA -- -
----- NORTH CAROLINA
t. r Mayo
c Reservoir
u
m
"man town
Jaa
��p�h trd
49
Duke Energy
Mayo Electric Generating Plant
Person County, NC
Figure 1 - Site Location Map
nu
let, is t
YGr
,os
G
yliYeb �,
cr
u
�4 17
_ Rd Willard%
aP �frfF
"iLiv ¢ a
hw1
� 0
I G
on
q-
t ut`h
0
'41,011,02 Rd E 96 @ t
sr
49 VIRGINIA N VIRGINIA °
NORTH -CAROLINA NORTH CAROLINi
o
5
r� Rq ale RQ z
G� y m
96
E
� p
t1 �
a a
i,°nnie Natrig @
or 96
r
U
Oak 1401 Rd
Li v
pn
T9tc`
O a
e
Sources: Esri, Del-orme, NAVTEQ, USGS,'NRCAN, METI, IPC, TomTom
amec
faster
wheeler
0 5,000 10,000 20,000 Feet
Projection: NAD83 State Plane FIPS 3200 (US Feet)
Vertical Datum: NAVD88

r •.fes IWC �`
:.� l•t r A
The map shown here has been created with all due and
Notes To User: reasonable care and is strictly for use with AMEC project
number 7810140197. AMEC assumes no liability, direct
AreGIS Base Data: 1 June 2014 or indirect, whatsoever for any such third party or
unintended use.
Legend
Study Area
ExistingAsh Pond / Excluded From Stud Area
L -------i Y
14\12 Wetland Delineations\781
4W
talG'Iobe,.;GeoEyeTE3arthstar Ge`ographics, CNES/Airbus C
Duke Energy
Mayo Electric Generating Plant
Person County, NC
Figure 2 - Study Area Map
L4
«��� �. d • 1 e� • � L
amec
faster
wheeler
0
I
450 900 1,800 Feet
I I I I I I I
Projection: NAD83 State Plane FIPS 3200 (US Feet)
Vertical Datum:
NAVD88

...��
♦�
w
3
61
ip
OOF
L i
/rte
/
fry
i -
i
The map shown here has been created with all due and
Notes TO User: reasonable care and is strictly for use with AMEC project r , 1 `'• '��:'`
number 7810140197. AMEC assumes no liability, direct r
C
ArcGIS Base Data: 1 June 2014 or indirect, whatsoever for any such third party or b\� = j/ _
OW
unintended use.
� Copyrig t�© 2013 Natiohal Geographic � ociet�� �-r.�uhari
Legend Duke Energy
Study Area Mayo Electric Generating Plant amec
Person County, NC foster
wheeler
Existing Ash Pond / Excluded From Study Area
---- Figure 4 - USGS Topographic Map 0 450 900 1,800 Feet
Cluster Springs Quad 1 1 1 1 1 1 1 1 1
Projection: NAD83 State Plane FIPS 3200 (US Feet)
PAEnergy\Projects\Duke\2014\12 Wetland Delineations\7810140196 Mayo Station\Task 5 Report and Graphics Vertical Datum: NAVD88

s - Freshwater
Pond
i
Freshwater
Pond
'tom :�.. ��lyL �i�a�s � �� ���� ♦•��.:
s- l t'
The map shown here has been created with all due and
Notes To User: reasonable care and is strictly for use with AMEC project
number 7810140197. AMEC assumes no liability, direct
ArcGIS Base Data: 1 June 2014 or indirect, whatsoever for any such third party or
unintended use.
Legend Study Area I_=_=i Existing Ash Pond / Excluded From Study Area
Wetland Type
Estuarine and Marine Deepwater
CEstuarine and Marine Wetland
Freshwater Emergent Wetland
Freshwater Forested/Shrub Wetland
Freshwater Pond
Lake
Other
Riverine
Freshwater
Freshwater
Freshwater
Pond
s fy
ri. D;iaitalGl be, G.e u: Ea ar Ge`ograghics. CN
Duke Energy
Mayo Electric Generating Plant
Person County, NC
Figure 5 - USFWS National Wetland Inventory Map
14\12 Wetland Delineations\7810140196 Mayo Station\Task 5 Report an
a
C
Mak,
40
Wer hwater
3res0d/Shrt
I(Wetland 1
and the GIS User
amec
foster
wheeler
0
450 900 1,800 Feet
Projection:
NAD83 State Plane FIPS 3200 (US Feet)
Vertical Datum: NAVD88

I,'i 1 -"' � j• r X11 _ .`
The map shown here has been created with all due and
Notes To User: reasonable care and is strictly for use with AMEC project
number 7810140197. AMEC assumes no liability, direct
ArcGIS Base Data: 1 June 2014 or indirect, whatsoever for any such third party or
unintended use.
Legend
Study Area
-
Existing Ash Pond / Excluded From Study Area
-
Habitat - Northern Long -Eared Bat
- Habitat - Smooth Coneflower
-gy\Projects\Duke\2014\12 Wetland Delineations\7810140196 Mayo Station\Task 5 Report and Graphic
r
N
.A
Y ,r
tdiGl be,.;GeoE... arthstar Ge`ographics, CN
Duke Energy
Mayo Electric Generating Plant
Person County, NC
Figure 7 - Threatened & Endangered Species Habitat Map
L4
amec
faster
wheeler
0
I
450 900 1,800 Feet
I I I I I I I
Projection: NAD83 State Plane FIPS 3200 (US Feet)
Vertical Datum:
NAVD88

I
!- SI t_ '1 .-� -ice " � •� f ' '��''
Note to User: The map shown here has been created with all due and
reasonable care and is strictly for use with AMEC project
Panel 0031 Flood Data Effective: number 7810140197. AMEC assumes no liability, direct
4 June 2007 or indirect, whatsoever for any such third party or
ArcGIS Base Data: 1 June 2014 unintended use.
Legend
Study Area
Existing Ash Pond / Excluded From Study Area
100yr Flood Boundary
Rivers/Streams
P - zrf�'
i
' T
Esri, Di. i4alGlobe,,,,GeoE,ye E- Fut tar Geogcaphics, CNES/Airbus D
nit, 9 �
Duke Energy
Mayo Electric Generating Plant
Person County, NC
Figure 9 - Floodplain Map
I
amec
faster
wheeler
0 485 970 1,940 Feet
I I I I I I I I I
Projection: NAD83 State Plane FIPS 3200 (US Feet)
Vertical Datum: NAVD88
�rr f�1 • f
�d 4
,
:l i •: iF��•,�' L �� �•. •'rte
•
• Vr :�'x •�
.Y7/fes
��" •�:'�� + 1 _
I
!- SI t_ '1 .-� -ice " � •� f ' '��''
Note to User: The map shown here has been created with all due and
reasonable care and is strictly for use with AMEC project
Panel 0031 Flood Data Effective: number 7810140197. AMEC assumes no liability, direct
4 June 2007 or indirect, whatsoever for any such third party or
ArcGIS Base Data: 1 June 2014 unintended use.
Legend
Study Area
Existing Ash Pond / Excluded From Study Area
100yr Flood Boundary
Rivers/Streams
P - zrf�'
i
' T
Esri, Di. i4alGlobe,,,,GeoE,ye E- Fut tar Geogcaphics, CNES/Airbus D
nit, 9 �
Duke Energy
Mayo Electric Generating Plant
Person County, NC
Figure 9 - Floodplain Map
I
amec
faster
wheeler
0 485 970 1,940 Feet
I I I I I I I I I
Projection: NAD83 State Plane FIPS 3200 (US Feet)
Vertical Datum: NAVD88

APPENDIX B
WETLAND/STREAM FIELD DATA FORMS

WETLAND DETERMINATION DATA FORM - Eastern Mountains and Piedmont
Project/Site: Mayo Steam Station City/Co.: Roxboro/Person Sampling Date: 1/15/2015
Applicant/Owner: Duke Energy State: NC Sampling Point: red_may_0708 wet
Investigator(s): J. GAY Section, Township, Range:
Landform: (hillslope, terrace, etc.) drainway Local Relief: none Slope (%): 0
Subregion(LRR/MLRA LRR P Lat: 36.537200 Long: -78.898000 Datum:
Soil Map Unit Name: Udorthents NWI Classification: N/A
Are climatic/hydrologic conditions on the site typical for this time of year? Ebs Elio (If no, explain in Remarks.)
Are Vegetation p Soil p or Hydrology ❑ significantly disturbed? Are "Normal Circumstances" present? Yes [21 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 0 No ❑ within a wetland? Yes 0 No ❑
Wetland Hydrology Present? Yes 0 No ❑
RemarkE
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)
0 High Water Table (A2)
❑
Hydrogen Sulfide Odor (Cl)
❑
Drainage Patterns (610)
0 Saturation (A3)
❑
Oxidized Rhizospheres on Living Roots (C3)
❑
Moss Trim Lines (B16)
❑ Water Marks (131)
❑
Presence of Reduced Iron (C4)
❑
Dry -Season Water Table (C2)
❑ Sediment Deposits (132)
❑
Recent Iron Reduction in Tilled Soils (C6)
❑
Crayfish Burrows (C8)
❑ Drift Deposits (63)
❑
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)
0
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
A No
Depth (inches):
Water Table Present? p Yes
❑ No
Depth (inches): 0
Saturation Present? LJYes
❑ No
Depth (inches): 0
Wetland Hydrology Present? Qes ❑ 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

V CbC I A I IUIV (rive Jirata) -use sclenTITlc names OT plants.
sampling F oint: red_may_0708 wet
Absolute Dominant
Indicator
Dominance Test Worksheet:
Tree Stratum (Plot size: 30 ft )
% Cover Species?
Status
Number of Dominant Species
1.
Pinus taedo
60 y
FAC
That Are OBL, FACW, or FAC: 5
(A)
2.
Total Number of Dominant
3.
Species Across All Strata: 5
(B)
4.
Percent of Dominant Species
5.
That Are OBL, FACW, or FAC: 100%
(A/B)
6.
60 =Total Cover
Prevalence Index worksheet:
50% of total cover:
30 20% of total cover:
12
CBL species 0 x 1 = 0
Sapling Stratum (Plot size: 30 ft )
FACW species 5 x 2 = 10
1.
Liquidambar styracifluo
10 y
FAC
FAC species 80 x 3 = 240
2.
Pinus taeda
5 y
FAC
FACU species 0 x4= 0
3.
Baccharis halimifolia
5 y
FACW
UPL species 0 x 5= 0
4.
Column Totals: 85 (A) 250
(B)
5.
Prevalence Index = B/A = 2.9
6.
20 = Total Cove
Hydrophytic Vegetation Indicators:
50% of total cover:
10 20% of total cover:
4
Shrub Stratum (Plot size: 30 ft )
H Dominance Test is > 50%
1.
none present
--
p Prevalence Index is 5 3.0'
2,
❑ Problematic Hydrophytic Vegetation' (Explain)
3.
❑
4,
' Indicators of hydric soil and wetland hydrology must
5.
❑ be present, unless disturbed or problematic
6.
= Total COVE
Definitions of Vegetation Strata:
50% of total cover:
20% of total cover:
Herb Stratum (Plot size: 10 ft )
Tree - Woody plants, excluding woody vines, approximately
1.
none present
---
20 ft (6 m) or more in height and 3 in. (7.6 cm) or larger in
2.
diameter at breast height (DBH).
3.
Sapling - Woody plants, excluding woody vines,
4.
approximately 20 ft (6 m) or more in height and less than 3
5.
in. (7.6 cm) DBH.
6.
Shrub - Woody plants, excluding woody vines,
7.
approximately 3 to 20 ft (1 to 6 m) in height.
8.
Herb - All herbaceous (non -woody) plants, including
9
herbaceous vines, regardless of size. Includes woody
10.
plants, except woody vines, less than approximately 3 ft (1
11.
m) in height.
= Total Cove
Woody vine - All woody vines, regardless of height.
50% of total cover:
20% of total cover:
Woody Vine Stratui (Plot size: 30 ft )
1.
Lonicerajaponica
5 y
FAC
2.
3.
Hydrophytic
4.
Vegetation Yes 21 No ❑
5.
Present?
5 =Total Cover
50% of total cover:
2.5 20% of total cover:
1
Remarks: (If observed, list morphological adaptations below)
US Army Corps of Engineers Eastern Mountains and Piedmont - Version 2.0

SOIL
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
-12 10YR 5/2 95 10YR 5/4 5 c m SCL
'Type C = Concentration, D = depletion, RM = Reduced Matrix, MS = Masked Sand Grains
ydric Soil Indicators:
❑ Histosol(At)
❑ Histic Epipedon (A2)
❑ Black Histic (A3)
❑ Hydrogen Sulfide (A4)
❑ Stratified Layers (A5)
❑ 2 cm Muck (At 0) (LRR N)
❑ Depleted Below Dark Surface (A11)
❑ Thick Dark Surface (Al2)
❑ Sandy Mucky Material (S1)
(LRR N, MLRA 147, 148)
❑ Sandy Gleyed Matrix (S4)
❑ Sandy Redox (S4)
❑ Stripped Matrix (S5)
estrictive Layer (if observed):
Type:
Depth (inches):
EA
0
Dark Surface (S7)
Polyvalue Below Surface (S8) (MLRA 147, 148)
Thin Dark Surface (S9) (MLRA 147, 148)
Loamy Gleyed Matrix (F2)
Depleted Matrix (F3)
Redox Dark Surface (F6)
Depleted Dark Surface (F7)
Redox Depressions (F8)
EA
Iron -Manganese Masses (F12) (LRR N, MLRA 136)
EA
Umbric Surface (F13) (MLRA 136, 122)
EA
Piedmont Floodplain Soils (F19) (MLRA 148)
Red Parent Material (F21) (MLRA 127, 147)
Sampling Point: red_may_0708 wet
Remarks
2Location: PL = Pore Lining, M = Matrix
Indicators for Problematic Hydric Soils3:
❑
2 cm Muck (A10) (MLRA 147)
❑
Coatal Prairie Redox (A16)
(MLRA 147, 148)
❑
Piedmont Floodplain Soils (F19)
(MLRA 136, 147)
❑
Very Shallow Dark Surface (TF1 2)
❑
Other (Explain in Remarks)
3Indicators of hydrophytic vegetation and
wetland hydrology must be present,
unless disturbed or problematic.
Hydric Soil Present? Yes 0 No ❑
US Army Corps of Engineers Eastern Mountains and Piedmont - Version 2.0

WETLAND DETERMINATION DATA FORM - Eastern Mountains and Piedmont
Project/Site: Mayo Steam Station City/Co.: Roxboro/Person Sampling Date: 1/15/2015
Applicant/Owner: Duke Energy State: NC Sampling Point: red_may_0708 up
Investigator(s): J. GAY Section, Township, Range:
Landform: (hillslope, terrace, etc.) side slope Local Relief: none Slope (%): 0
Subregion(LRR/MLRA LRR P Lat: 36.537200 Long: -78.898000 Datum:
Soil Map Unit Name: Udorthents NWI Classification: N/A
Are climatic/hydrologic conditions on the site typical for this time of year? Ebs Elio (If no, explain in Remarks.)
Are Vegetation p Soil p or Hydrology ❑ significantly disturbed? Are "Normal Circumstances" present? Yes [21 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
RemarkE
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 (610)
❑ Saturation (A3)
❑
Oxidized Rhizospheres on Living Roots (C3)
❑
Moss Trim Lines (B16)
❑ Water Marks (131)
❑
Presence of Reduced Iron (C4)
❑
Dry -Season Water Table (C2)
❑ Sediment Deposits (132)
❑
Recent Iron Reduction in Tilled Soils (C6)
❑
Crayfish Burrows (C8)
❑ Drift Deposits (63)
❑
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
A No
Depth (inches):
Water Table Present? ❑ Yes
A No
Depth (inches):
Saturation Present? LJ Yes
A No
Depth (inches):
Wetland Hydrology Present? Qes 0 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

V CbC I A I IUIV (rive Jirata) -use sclenTITlc names OT plants.
sampling F oint: red_may_0708 up
Absolute Dominant
Indicator
Dominance Test Worksheet:
Tree Stratum (Plot size: 30 ft )
% Cover Species?
Status
Number of Dominant Species
1.
Pinus taedo
70 y
FAC
That Are OBL, FACW, or FAC: 2
(A)
2.
Total Number of Dominant
3.
Species Across All Strata: 2
(B)
4.
Percent of Dominant Species
5.
That Are OBL, FACW, or FAC: 100%
(A/B)
6.
70 =Total Cover
Prevalence Index worksheet:
50% of total cover:
35 20% of total cover:
14
CBL species 0 x 1 = 0
Sapling Stratum (Plot size: 30 ft )
FACW species 0 x 2 = 0
1.
Liquidambar styracifluo
5
FAC
FAC species 116 x 3 = 348
2.
Pinus taeda
40 y
FAC
FACU species 5 x4= 20
3.
Quercus falcata
5
FACU
UPL species 0 x 5 = 0
4.
Column Totals: 121 (A) 368
(B)
5.
Prevalence Index = B/A = 3.0
6.
50 = Total Cove
Hydrophytic Vegetation Indicators:
50% of total cover:
25 20% of total cover:
10
Shrub Stratum (Plot size: 30 ft )
p Dominance Test is > 50%
1.
none present
--
p Prevalence Index is 5 3.0'
2,
❑ Problematic Hydrophytic Vegetation' (Explain)
3.
❑
4,
' Indicators of hydric soil and wetland hydrology must
5.
❑ be present, unless disturbed or problematic
6.
= Total COVE
Definitions of Vegetation Strata:
50% of total cover:
20% of total cover:
Herb Stratum (Plot size: 10 ft )
Tree - Woody plants, excluding woody vines, approximately
1.
none present
---
20 ft (6 m) or more in height and 3 in. (7.6 cm) or larger in
2.
diameter at breast height (DBH).
3.
Sapling - Woody plants, excluding woody vines,
4.
approximately 20 ft (6 m) or more in height and less than 3
5.
in. (7.6 cm) DBH.
6.
Shrub - Woody plants, excluding woody vines,
7.
approximately 3 to 20 ft (1 to 6 m) in height.
8.
Herb - All herbaceous (non -woody) plants, including
9
herbaceous vines, regardless of size. Includes woody
10.
plants, except woody vines, less than approximately 3 ft (1
11.
m) in height.
= Total Cove
Woody vine - All woody vines, regardless of height.
50% of total cover:
20% of total cover:
Woody Vine Stratui (Plot size: 30 ft )
1.
Lonicerajaponica
1
FAC
2.
3.
Hydrophytic
4.
Vegetation Yes 21 No ❑
5.
Present?
1 =Total Cover
50% of total cover:
0.5 20% of total cover:
0.2
Remarks: (If observed, list morphological adaptations below)
US Army Corps of Engineers Eastern Mountains and Piedmont - Version 2.0

SOIL
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' Loc' Texture
-12 10YR 5/3 100 SCL
'Type C = Concentration, D = depletion, RM = Reduced Matrix, MS = Masked Sand Grains
ydric Soil Indicators:
❑ Histosol(At)
❑ Histic Epipedon (A2)
❑ Black Histic (A3)
❑ Hydrogen Sulfide (A4)
❑ Stratified Layers (A5)
❑ 2 cm Muck (At 0) (LRR N)
❑ Depleted Below Dark Surface (A11)
❑ Thick Dark Surface (Al2)
❑ Sandy Mucky Material (S1)
(LRR N, MLRA 147, 148)
❑ Sandy Gleyed Matrix (S4)
❑ Sandy Redox (S4)
❑ Stripped Matrix (S5)
estrictive Layer (if observed):
Type:
Depth (inches):
Dark Surface (S7)
Polyvalue Below Surface (S8) (MLRA 147, 148)
Thin Dark Surface (S9) (MLRA 147, 148)
Loamy Gleyed Matrix (F2)
Depleted Matrix (F3)
Redox Dark Surface (F6)
Depleted Dark Surface (F7)
Redox Depressions (F8)
Iron -Manganese Masses (F12) (LRR N, MLRA 136)
Umbric Surface (F13) (MLRA 136, 122)
Piedmont Floodplain Soils (F19) (MLRA 148)
Red Parent Material (F21) (MLRA 127, 147)
Sampling Point: red_may_0708 up
Remarks
'Location: PL = Pore Lining, M = Matrix
Indicators for Problematic Hydric Soils3:
❑
2 cm Muck (A10) (MLRA 147)
❑
Coatal Prairie Redox (A16)
(MLRA 147, 148)
❑
Piedmont Floodplain Soils (F19)
(MLRA 136, 147)
❑
Very Shallow Dark Surface (TF1 2)
❑
Other (Explain in Remarks)
3Indicators of hydrophytic vegetation and
wetland hydrology must be present,
unless disturbed or problematic.
Hydric Soil Present? Yes ❑ No RI
US Army Corps of Engineers Eastern Mountains and Piedmont - Version 2.0

WETLAND DETERMINATION DATA FORM - Eastern Mountains and Piedmont
Project/Site: Mayo Steam Station City/Co.: Roxboro/Person Sampling Date: 1/15/2015
Applicant/Owner: Duke Energy State: NC Sampling Point: red_may_0720 wet
Investigator(s): J. GAY Section, Township, Range:
Landform: (hillslope, terrace, etc.) drainway Local Relief: none Slope (%): 0
Subregion(LRR/MLRA LRR P Lat: 36.535400 Long: -78.900800 Datum:
Soil Map Unit Name: Udorthents NWI Classification: N/A
Are climatic/hydrologic conditions on the site typical for this time of year? Ebs Elio (If no, explain in Remarks.)
Are Vegetation p Soil p or Hydrology ❑ significantly disturbed? Are "Normal Circumstances" present? Yes [21 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 0 No ❑ within a wetland? Yes 0 No ❑
Wetland Hydrology Present? Yes 0 No ❑
RemarkE
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)
0 High Water Table (A2)
❑
Hydrogen Sulfide Odor (Cl)
❑
Drainage Patterns (610)
0 Saturation (A3)
❑
Oxidized Rhizospheres on Living Roots (C3)
❑
Moss Trim Lines (B16)
❑ Water Marks (131)
❑
Presence of Reduced Iron (C4)
❑
Dry -Season Water Table (C2)
❑ Sediment Deposits (132)
❑
Recent Iron Reduction in Tilled Soils (C6)
❑
Crayfish Burrows (C8)
❑ Drift Deposits (63)
❑
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)
0
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
A No
Depth (inches):
Water Table Present? p Yes
❑ No
Depth (inches): 0
Saturation Present? LJYes
❑ No
Depth (inches): 0
Wetland Hydrology Present? Qes ❑ 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

V tbt I A I IUIV (rive Jirata) -use sclenTiTlc names OT plants.
sampling F oint: red_may_0720 wet
Absolute Dominant
Indicator
Dominance Test Worksheet:
Tree Stratum (Plot size: 30 ft )
% Cover Species?
Status
Number of Dominant Species
1.
Pinus taeda
60 y
FAC
That Are OBL, FACW, or FAC: 3
(A)
2.
Salix nigra
10
OBL
Total Number of Dominant
3.
Species Across All Strata: 4
(B)
4.
Percent of Dominant Species
5.
That Are OBL, FACW, or FAC: 75%
(A/B)
6.
70 = Total Cover
Prevalence Index worksheet:
50% of total cover:
35 20% of total cover:
14
CBL species 10 x 1 = 10
Sapling Stratum (Plot size: 30 ft )
FACW species 10 x 2 = 20
1.
Liquidambar styraciflua
10 y
FAC
FAC species 70 x 3 = 210
2.
Platanus occidentalis
10 y
FACW
FACU species 17 x4= 68
3.
Ligustrum sinense
2
FACU
UPL species 0 x 5 = 0
4.
Column Totals: 107 (A) 308
(B)
5.
Prevalence Index = B/A = 2.9
6.
22 = Total Cove
Hydrophytic Vegetation Indicators:
50% of total cover:
11 20% of total cover:
4.4
Shrub Stratum (Plot size: 30 ft )
H Dominance Test is > 50%
1.
none present
--
p Prevalence Index is 5 3.0'
2,
❑ Problematic Hydrophytic Vegetation' (Explain)
3.
❑
4,
' Indicators of hydric soil and wetland hydrology must
5.
❑ be present, unless disturbed or problematic
6.
= Total COVE
Definitions of Vegetation Strata:
50% of total cover:
20% of total cover:
Herb Stratum (Plot size: 10 ft )
Tree - Woody plants, excluding woody vines, approximately
1.
none present
---
20 ft (6 m) or more in height and 3 in. (7.6 cm) or larger in
2.
diameter at breast height (DBH).
3.
Sapling - Woody plants, excluding woody vines,
4.
approximately 20 ft (6 m) or more in height and less than 3
5.
in. (7.6 cm) DBH.
6
Shrub - Woody plants, excluding woody vines,
7.
approximately 3 to 20 ft (1 to 6 m) in height.
8.
Herb - All herbaceous (non -woody) plants, including
9.
herbaceous vines, regardless of size. Includes woody
10.
plants, except woody vines, less than approximately 3 ft (1
11.
m) in height.
= Total Cove
Woody vine - All woody vines, regardless of height.
50% of total cover:
20% of total cover:
Woody Vine Stratui (Plot size: 30 ft )
1.
Rubus orgutus
15 y
FACU
2.
3.
Hydrophytic
4.
Vegetation Yes 21 No ❑
5.
Present?
15 =Total Cover
50% of total cover:
7.5 20% of total cover:
3
Remarks: (If observed, list morphological adaptations below)
US Army Corps of Engineers Eastern Mountains and Piedmont - Version 2.0

SOIL
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
-12 10YR 5/2 95 10YR 5/4 5 c m SCL
'Type C = Concentration, D = depletion, RM = Reduced Matrix, MS = Masked Sand Grains
ydric Soil Indicators:
❑ Histosol(At)
❑ Histic Epipedon (A2)
❑ Black Histic (A3)
❑ Hydrogen Sulfide (A4)
❑ Stratified Layers (A5)
❑ 2 cm Muck (At 0) (LRR N)
❑ Depleted Below Dark Surface (A11)
❑ Thick Dark Surface (Al2)
❑ Sandy Mucky Material (S1)
(LRR N, MLRA 147, 148)
❑ Sandy Gleyed Matrix (S4)
❑ Sandy Redox (S4)
❑ Stripped Matrix (S5)
estrictive Layer (if observed):
Type:
Depth (inches):
EA
0
Dark Surface (S7)
Polyvalue Below Surface (S8) (MLRA 147, 148)
Thin Dark Surface (S9) (MLRA 147, 148)
Loamy Gleyed Matrix (F2)
Depleted Matrix (F3)
Redox Dark Surface (F6)
Depleted Dark Surface (F7)
Redox Depressions (F8)
EA
Iron -Manganese Masses (F12) (LRR N, MLRA 136)
EA
Umbric Surface (F13) (MLRA 136, 122)
EA
Piedmont Floodplain Soils (F19) (MLRA 148)
Red Parent Material (F21) (MLRA 127, 147)
Sampling Point: red_may_0720 wet
Remarks
2Location: PL = Pore Lining, M = Matrix
Indicators for Problematic Hydric Soils3:
❑
2 cm Muck (A10) (MLRA 147)
❑
Coatal Prairie Redox (A16)
(MLRA 147, 148)
❑
Piedmont Floodplain Soils (F19)
(MLRA 136, 147)
❑
Very Shallow Dark Surface (TF1 2)
❑
Other (Explain in Remarks)
3Indicators of hydrophytic vegetation and
wetland hydrology must be present,
unless disturbed or problematic.
Hydric Soil Present? Yes 0 No ❑
US Army Corps of Engineers Eastern Mountains and Piedmont - Version 2.0

WETLAND DETERMINATION DATA FORM - Eastern Mountains and Piedmont
Project/Site: Mayo Steam Station City/Co.: Roxboro/Person Sampling Date: 1/15/2015
Applicant/Owner: Duke Energy State: NC Sampling Point: red_may_0720 up
Investigator(s): J. GAY Section, Township, Range:
Landform: (hillslope, terrace, etc.) side slope Local Relief: none Slope (%): 0
Subregion(LRR/MLRA LRR P Lat: 36.535400 Long: -78.900800 Datum:
Soil Map Unit Name: Udorthents NWI Classification: N/A
Are climatic/hydrologic conditions on the site typical for this time of year? Ebs Elio (If no, explain in Remarks.)
Are Vegetation p Soil p or Hydrology ❑ significantly disturbed? Are "Normal Circumstances" present? Yes [21 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
RemarkE
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 (610)
❑ Saturation (A3)
❑
Oxidized Rhizospheres on Living Roots (C3)
❑
Moss Trim Lines (B16)
❑ Water Marks (131)
❑
Presence of Reduced Iron (C4)
❑
Dry -Season Water Table (C2)
❑ Sediment Deposits (132)
❑
Recent Iron Reduction in Tilled Soils (C6)
❑
Crayfish Burrows (C8)
❑ Drift Deposits (63)
❑
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
A No
Depth (inches):
Water Table Present? ❑ Yes
A No
Depth (inches):
Saturation Present? LJ Yes
A No
Depth (inches):
Wetland Hydrology Present? Qes 0 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

V CbC I A I IUIV (rive Jirata) -use sclenTITlc names OT plants.
sampling F oint: red_may_0720 up
Absolute Dominant
Indicator
Dominance Test Worksheet:
Tree Stratum
(Plot size: 30 ft )
% Cover Species?
Status
Number of Dominant Species
1.
Pinus taedo
80 y
FAC
That Are OBL, FACW, or FAC: 2
(A)
2.
Total Number of Dominant
3.
Species Across All Strata: 2
(B)
4.
Percent of Dominant Species
5.
That Are OBL, FACW, or FAC: 100%
(A/B)
6.
80 =Total Cover
Prevalence Index worksheet:
50% of total cover:
40 20% of total cover:
16
CBL species 0 x 1 = 0
Sapling Stratum
(Plot size: 30 ft )
FACW species 0 x 2 = 0
1.
Liquidambar styracifluo
10
FAC
FAC species 100 x 3 = 300
2.
Pinus taeda
10 y
FAC
FACU species 0 x4= 0
3.
UPL species 0 x 5 = 0
4.
Column Totals: 100 (A) 300
(B)
5.
Prevalence Index = B/A = 3.0
6.
20 = Total Cove
Hydrophytic Vegetation Indicators:
50% of total cover:
10 20% of total cover:
4
Shrub Stratum
(Plot size: 30 ft )
H Dominance Test is > 50%
1.
none present
--
p Prevalence Index is 5 3.0'
2,
❑ Problematic Hydrophytic Vegetation' (Explain)
3.
❑
4,
' Indicators of hydric soil and wetland hydrology must
5.
❑ be present, unless disturbed or problematic
6.
= Total COVE
Definitions of Vegetation Strata:
50% of total cover:
20% of total cover:
Herb Stratum
(Plot size: 10 ft )
Tree - Woody plants, excluding woody vines, approximately
1.
none present
---
20 ft (6 m) or more in height and 3 in. (7.6 cm) or larger in
2.
diameter at breast height (DBH).
3.
Sapling - Woody plants, excluding woody vines,
4.
approximately 20 ft (6 m) or more in height and less than 3
5.
in. (7.6 cm) DBH.
6.
Shrub - Woody plants, excluding woody vines,
7.
approximately 3 to 20 ft (1 to 6 m) in height.
8.
Herb - All herbaceous (non-woody) plants, including
9
herbaceous vines, regardless of size. Includes woody
10.
plants, except woody vines, less than approximately 3 ft (1
11.
m) in height.
= Total COVE
Woody vine - All woody vines, regardless of height.
50% of total cover:
20% of total cover:
Woody Vine Stratui
(Plot size: 30 ft )
1.
2.
3.
Hydrophytic
4.
Vegetation Yes 21 No ❑
5.
Present?
= Total Cover
50% of total cover:
20% of total cover:
Remarks: (If observed, list morphological adaptations below)
US Army Corps of Engineers Eastern Mountains and Piedmont - Version 2.0

SOIL
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' Locz Texture
-12 10YR 5/3 100 SCL
'Type C = Concentration, D = depletion, RM = Reduced Matrix, MS = Masked Sand Grains
ydric Soil Indicators:
❑ Histosol(At)
❑ Histic Epipedon (A2)
❑ Black Histic (A3)
❑ Hydrogen Sulfide (A4)
❑ Stratified Layers (A5)
❑ 2 cm Muck (At 0) (LRR N)
❑ Depleted Below Dark Surface (A11)
❑ Thick Dark Surface (Al2)
❑ Sandy Mucky Material (S1)
(LRR N, MLRA 147, 148)
❑ Sandy Gleyed Matrix (S4)
❑ Sandy Redox (S4)
❑ Stripped Matrix (S5)
estrictive Layer (if observed):
Type:
Depth (inches):
Dark Surface (S7)
Polyvalue Below Surface (S8) (MLRA 147, 148)
Thin Dark Surface (S9) (MLRA 147, 148)
Loamy Gleyed Matrix (F2)
Depleted Matrix (F3)
Redox Dark Surface (F6)
Depleted Dark Surface (F7)
Redox Depressions (F8)
Iron -Manganese Masses (F12) (LRR N, MLRA 136)
Umbric Surface (F13) (MLRA 136, 122)
Piedmont Floodplain Soils (F19) (MLRA 148)
Red Parent Material (F21) (MLRA 127, 147)
Sampling Point: red_may_0720 up
Remarks
2Location: PL = Pore Lining, M = Matrix
Indicators for Problematic Hydric Soils3:
❑
2 cm Muck (A10) (MLRA 147)
❑
Coatal Prairie Redox (A16)
(MLRA 147, 148)
❑
Piedmont Floodplain Soils (F19)
(MLRA 136, 147)
❑
Very Shallow Dark Surface (TF1 2)
❑
Other (Explain in Remarks)
3Indicators of hydrophytic vegetation and
wetland hydrology must be present,
unless disturbed or problematic.
Hydric Soil Present? Yes ❑ No RI
US Army Corps of Engineers Eastern Mountains and Piedmont - Version 2.0

WETLAND DETERMINATION DATA FORM - Eastern Mountains and Piedmont
Project/Site: Mayo Steam Station City/Co.: Roxboro/Person Sampling Date: 1/15/2015
Applicant/Owner: Duke Energy State: NC Sampling Point: red_may_0734 wet
Investigator(s): J. GAY Section, Township, Range:
Landform: (hillslope, terrace, etc.) drainway Local Relief: none Slope (%): 0
Subregion(LRR/MLRA LRR P Lat: 36.535100 Long: -78.901800 Datum:
Soil Map Unit Name: Udorthents NWI Classification: N/A
Are climatic/hydrologic conditions on the site typical for this time of year? Ebs Elio (If no, explain in Remarks.)
Are Vegetation p Soil p or Hydrology ❑ significantly disturbed? Are "Normal Circumstances" present? Yes [21 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 0 No ❑ within a wetland? Yes 0 No ❑
Wetland Hydrology Present? Yes 0 No ❑
RemarkE
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)
0 High Water Table (A2)
❑
Hydrogen Sulfide Odor (Cl)
❑
Drainage Patterns (610)
0 Saturation (A3)
❑
Oxidized Rhizospheres on Living Roots (C3)
❑
Moss Trim Lines (B16)
❑ Water Marks (131)
❑
Presence of Reduced Iron (C4)
❑
Dry -Season Water Table (C2)
❑ Sediment Deposits (132)
❑
Recent Iron Reduction in Tilled Soils (C6)
❑
Crayfish Burrows (C8)
❑ Drift Deposits (63)
❑
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)
0
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
A No
Depth (inches):
Water Table Present? p Yes
❑ No
Depth (inches): 5
Saturation Present? LJYes
❑ No
Depth (inches): 0
Wetland Hydrology Present? Qes ❑ 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

V tbt I A I IUIV (rive Jirata) -use sclenTiTlc names OT plants.
sampling F oint: red_may_0734 wet
Absolute Dominant
Indicator
Dominance Test Worksheet:
Tree Stratum (Plot size: 30 ft )
% Cover Species?
Status
Number of Dominant Species
1.
Liriodendron tulipifera
10 y
FACU
That Are OBL, FACW, or FAC: 4
(A)
2.
Platanus occidentalis
10 y
FACW
Total Number of Dominant
3.
Liquidambarstyracifluo
5 y
FAC
Species Across All Strata: 6
(B)
4.
Percent of Dominant Species
5.
That Are OBL, FACW, or FAC: 67%
(A/B)
6.
25 = Total Cover
Prevalence Index worksheet:
50% of total cover:
12.5 20% of total cover:
5
CBL species 0 x 1 = 0
Sapling Stratum (Plot size: 30 ft )
FACW species 20 x 2 = 40
1.
Liquidambar styracifluo
30 y
FAC
FAC species 35 x 3 = 105
2.
Juniperus virginiana
5 y
FACU
FACU species 15 x4= 60
3.
UPL species 0 x 5 = 0
4.
Column Totals: 70 (A) 205
(B)
5.
Prevalence Index = B/A = 2.9
6.
35 = Total Cove
Hydrophytic Vegetation Indicators:
50% of total cover:
17.5 20% of total cover:
7
Shrub Stratum (Plot size: 30 ft )
H Dominance Test is > 50%
1.
none present
--
p Prevalence Index is 5 3.0'
2,
❑ Problematic Hydrophytic Vegetation' (Explain)
3.
❑
4,
' Indicators of hydric soil and wetland hydrology must
5.
❑ be present, unless disturbed or problematic
6.
= Total COVE
Definitions of Vegetation Strata:
50% of total cover:
20% of total cover:
Herb Stratum (Plot size: 10 ft )
Tree - Woody plants, excluding woody vines, approximately
1.
Juncus effusus
10 y
FACW
20 ft (6 m) or more in height and 3 in. (7.6 cm) or larger in
2.
diameter at breast height (DBH).
3
Sapling - Woody plants, excluding woody vines,
4.
approximately 20 ft (6 m) or more in height and less than 3
5.
in. (7.6 cm) DBH.
6
Shrub - Woody plants, excluding woody vines,
7.
approximately 3 to 20 ft (1 to 6 m) in height.
8.
Herb - All herbaceous (non-woody) plants, including
9.
herbaceous vines, regardless of size. Includes woody
10.
plants, except woody vines, less than approximately 3 ft (1
11.
m) in height.
10 = Total Cove
Woody vine - All woody vines, regardless of height.
50% of total cover:
5 20% of total cover:
2
Woody Vine Stratui (Plot size: 30 ft )
1.
none present
2.
3.
Hydrophytic
4.
Vegetation Yes 21 No ❑
5.
Present?
= Total Cover
50% of total cover:
20% of total cover:
Remarks: (If observed, list morphological adaptations below)
US Army Corps of Engineers Eastern Mountains and Piedmont - Version 2.0

SOIL
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' Loc' Texture
-6 10YR 5/1 100 SCL
'Type C = Concentration, D = depletion, RM = Reduced Matrix, MS = Masked Sand Grains
ydric Soil Indicators:
❑ Histosol(At)
❑ Histic Epipedon (A2)
❑ Black Histic (A3)
❑ Hydrogen Sulfide (A4)
❑ Stratified Layers (A5)
❑ 2 cm Muck (At 0) (LRR N)
❑ Depleted Below Dark Surface (A11)
❑ Thick Dark Surface (Al2)
❑ Sandy Mucky Material (S1)
(LRR N, MLRA 147, 148)
❑ Sandy Gleyed Matrix (S4)
❑ Sandy Redox (S4)
❑ Stripped Matrix (S5)
estrictive Layer (if observed):
Type:
Depth (inches):
unable to retreive past 6 inches
EA
0
Dark Surface (S7)
Polyvalue Below Surface (S8) (MLRA 147, 148)
Thin Dark Surface (S9) (MLRA 147, 148)
Loamy Gleyed Matrix (F2)
Depleted Matrix (F3)
Redox Dark Surface (F6)
Depleted Dark Surface (F7)
Redox Depressions (F8)
EA
Iron -Manganese Masses (F12) (LRR N, MLRA 136)
EA
Umbric Surface (F13) (MLRA 136, 122)
EA
Piedmont Floodplain Soils (F19) (MLRA 148)
Red Parent Material (F21) (MLRA 127, 147)
Sampling Point: red_may_0734 wet
Remarks
'Location: PL = Pore Lining, M = Matrix
Indicators for Problematic Hydric Soils3:
❑
2 cm Muck (A10) (MLRA 147)
❑
Coatal Prairie Redox (A16)
(MLRA 147, 148)
❑
Piedmont Floodplain Soils (F19)
(MLRA 136, 147)
❑
Very Shallow Dark Surface (TF1 2)
❑
Other (Explain in Remarks)
3Indicators of hydrophytic vegetation and
wetland hydrology must be present,
unless disturbed or problematic.
Hydric Soil Present? Yes 0 No ❑
US Army Corps of Engineers Eastern Mountains and Piedmont - Version 2.0

WETLAND DETERMINATION DATA FORM - Eastern Mountains and Piedmont
Project/Site: Mayo Steam Station City/Co.: Roxboro/Person Sampling Date: 1/15/2015
Applicant/Owner: Duke Energy State: NC Sampling Point: red_may_0734 up
Investigator(s): J. GAY Section, Township, Range:
Landform: (hillslope, terrace, etc.) side slope Local Relief: none Slope (%): 0
Subregion(LRR/MLRA LRR P Lat: 36.535100 Long: -78.901800 Datum:
Soil Map Unit Name: Udorthents NWI Classification: N/A
Are climatic/hydrologic conditions on the site typical for this time of year? Ebs Elio (If no, explain in Remarks.)
Are Vegetation p Soil p or Hydrology ❑ significantly disturbed? Are "Normal Circumstances" present? Yes [21 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
RemarkE
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 (610)
❑ Saturation (A3)
❑
Oxidized Rhizospheres on Living Roots (C3)
❑
Moss Trim Lines (B16)
❑ Water Marks (131)
❑
Presence of Reduced Iron (C4)
❑
Dry -Season Water Table (C2)
❑ Sediment Deposits (132)
❑
Recent Iron Reduction in Tilled Soils (C6)
❑
Crayfish Burrows (C8)
❑ Drift Deposits (63)
❑
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
A No
Depth (inches):
Water Table Present? ❑ Yes
A No
Depth (inches):
Saturation Present? LJ Yes
A No
Depth (inches):
Wetland Hydrology Present? Qes 0 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

V CbC I A I IUIV (rive Jirata) -use sclenTITlc names OT plants.
sampling F oint: red_may_0734 up
Absolute Dominant
Indicator
Dominance Test Worksheet:
Tree Stratum (Plot size: 30 ft )
% Cover Species?
Status
Number of Dominant Species
1.
Pinus taeda
60 y
FAC
That Are OBL, FACW, or FAC: 4
(A)
2.
Platanus occidentalis
10
FACW
Total Number of Dominant
3.
Liquidambarstyracifluo
20 y
FAC
Species Across All Strata: 6
(B)
4.
Percent of Dominant Species
5.
That Are OBL, FACW, or FAC: 67%
(A/B)
6.
90 =Total Cover
Prevalence Index worksheet:
50% of total cover:
45 20% of total cover:
18
CBL species 0 x 1 = 0
Sapling Stratum (Plot size: 30 ft )
FACW species 10 x 2 = 20
1.
Liquidambar styracifluo
20 y
FAC
FAC species 105 x 3 = 315
2.
Juniperus virginiana
5 y
FACU
FACU species 15 x4= 60
3.
UPL species 0 x 5 = 0
4.
Column Totals: 130 (A) 395
(B)
5.
Prevalence Index = B/A = 3.0
6.
25 = Total Cove
Hydrophytic Vegetation Indicators:
50% of total cover:
12.5 20% of total cover:
S
Shrub Stratum (Plot size: 30 ft )
H Dominance Test is > 50%
1.
none present
--
p Prevalence Index is 5 3.0'
2.
❑ Problematic Hydrophytic Vegetation' (Explain)
3.
❑
4,
' Indicators of hydric soil and wetland hydrology must
5.
❑ be present, unless disturbed or problematic
6.
= Total COVE
Definitions of Vegetation Strata:
50% of total cover:
20% of total cover:
Herb Stratum (Plot size: 10 ft )
Tree - Woody plants, excluding woody vines, approximately
1.
Polystichum acrostichoides
10 y
FACU
20 ft (6 m) or more in height and 3 in. (7.6 cm) or larger in
2.
diameter at breast height (DBH).
3
Sapling - Woody plants, excluding woody vines,
4.
approximately 20 ft (6 m) or more in height and less than 3
5.
in. (7.6 cm) DBH.
6
Shrub - Woody plants, excluding woody vines,
7.
approximately 3 to 20 ft (1 to 6 m) in height.
8.
Herb - All herbaceous (non -woody) plants, including
9.
herbaceous vines, regardless of size. Includes woody
10.
plants, except woody vines, less than approximately 3 ft (1
11.
m) in height.
10 = Total Cove
Woody vine - All woody vines, regardless of height.
50% of total cover:
5 20% of total cover:
2
Woody Vine Stratui (Plot size: 30 ft )
1.
Lonicerajaponica
5 y
FAC
2.
3.
Hydrophytic
4.
Vegetation Yes 21 No ❑
5.
Present?
5 =Total Cover
50% of total cover:
2.5 20% of total cover:
1
Remarks: (If observed, list morphological adaptations below)
US Army Corps of Engineers Eastern Mountains and Piedmont - Version 2.0

SOIL
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' Loc' Texture
-12 10YR 5/3 100 SCL
'Type C = Concentration, D = depletion, RM = Reduced Matrix, MS = Masked Sand Grains
ydric Soil Indicators:
❑ Histosol(At)
❑ Histic Epipedon (A2)
❑ Black Histic (A3)
❑ Hydrogen Sulfide (A4)
❑ Stratified Layers (A5)
❑ 2 cm Muck (At 0) (LRR N)
❑ Depleted Below Dark Surface (A11)
❑ Thick Dark Surface (Al2)
❑ Sandy Mucky Material (S1)
(LRR N, MLRA 147, 148)
❑ Sandy Gleyed Matrix (S4)
❑ Sandy Redox (S4)
❑ Stripped Matrix (S5)
estrictive Layer (if observed):
Type:
Depth (inches):
Dark Surface (S7)
Polyvalue Below Surface (S8) (MLRA 147, 148)
Thin Dark Surface (S9) (MLRA 147, 148)
Loamy Gleyed Matrix (F2)
Depleted Matrix (F3)
Redox Dark Surface (F6)
Depleted Dark Surface (F7)
Redox Depressions (F8)
Iron -Manganese Masses (F12) (LRR N, MLRA 136)
Umbric Surface (F13) (MLRA 136, 122)
Piedmont Floodplain Soils (F19) (MLRA 148)
Red Parent Material (F21) (MLRA 127, 147)
Sampling Point: red_may_0734 up
Remarks
'Location: PL = Pore Lining, M = Matrix
Indicators for Problematic Hydric Soils3:
❑
2 cm Muck (A10) (MLRA 147)
❑
Coatal Prairie Redox (A16)
(MLRA 147, 148)
❑
Piedmont Floodplain Soils (F19)
(MLRA 136, 147)
❑
Very Shallow Dark Surface (TF1 2)
❑
Other (Explain in Remarks)
3Indicators of hydrophytic vegetation and
wetland hydrology must be present,
unless disturbed or problematic.
Hydric Soil Present? Yes ❑ No RI
US Army Corps of Engineers Eastern Mountains and Piedmont - Version 2.0

WETLAND DETERMINATION DATA FORM - Eastern Mountains and Piedmont
Project/Site: Mayo Electric Generating Plant City/Co.: Roxboro/Person County Sampling Date: 12 -Jan -15
Applicant/Owner: Duke Energy State: NC Sampling Point: RED -MAY -0642 wET
Investigator(s): J.Bourdeau, S. Levine Section, Township, Range:
Landform: (hillslope, terrace, etc.) stream overbank Local Relief: concave Slope (%): <5
Subregion(LRR/MLRA P/136 Lat: See GPS data Long: See GPS data Datum:
Soil Map Unit Name: Uthordents, loamy NWI Classification: PFO
Are climatic/hydrologic conditions on the site typical for this time of year? E Yes ❑ No (If no, explain in Remarks.)
Are Vegetation ❑ , Soil ❑ , or Hydrology ❑ significantly disturbed? Are "Normal Circumstances" present? R] Yes [] No
Are Vegetation ❑ , Soil ❑ , or Hydrology ❑ naturally problematic? (If needed, explain any answers in Remarks.)
bUMMAKY OF FINUINGS - Attacn Site map Snowing sampling point locations, transects, Important teatures, etc.
Hydrophytic Vegetation Present? Yes No ❑
Hydric Soil Present? Yes Q No ❑
Wetland Hydrology Present? Yes Q No ❑
Remarks
All three criteria met; area is a wetland.
Relict pond, dam has been dismantled.
Wetland D - wetland data point
HYDROLOGY
Is the Sampled Area
within a wetland? Yes Q No ❑
Wetland Hydrology Indicators:
Secondary Indicators (minimum of two required)
Primary Indicators (minimum of one is required; check all that apply):
❑
Surface Soil Cracks (136)
El Surface Water (Al)
❑
True Aquatic Plants (614)
❑
Sparsely Vegetated Concave Surface (138)
El High Water Table (A2)
❑
Hydrogen Sulfide Odor (Cl)
❑
Drainage Patterns (610)
El Saturation (A3)
❑
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 (63)
❑
Thin Much Surface (C7)
❑
Saturation Visible on Aerial Imagery (C9)
El 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 (67)
❑
Shallow Aquitard (D3)
❑ Water -Stained Leaves (139)
❑
Microtopographic Relief (D4)
❑ Aquatic Fauna (B13)
❑
FAC -Neutral Test (D5)
Field Observations:
Surface Water Present? ❑ Y(3s
❑ No
Depth (inches): 12"
Water Table Present? DYes
❑ No
Depth (inches): surf
Saturation Present? [ZYes
❑ No
Depth (inches): surf
Wetland
Hydrology Present? [Z Yes ❑ No
(includes capillary fringe)
Describe Recorded Data (stream gauge, monitoring well, aerial photos, previous inspections), if available:
Remarks:
Multiple hydrology indicators present. Hydrology criterion is met.
US Army Corps of Engineers Eastern Mountains and Piedmont - Version 2.0

VtUt I A I IUN (Four Strata) - use SCIentnic names oT plants. Sampling Point: RED_MAY_0642 wET
US Army Corps of Engineers Eastern Mountains and Piedmont - Version 2.0
Absolute
Dominant Indicator
Dominance Test Worksheet:
Tree Stratum (Plot size: 30ft radius)
% Cover
Species? Status
Number of Dominant Species
1.
Liquidambar styraciflua
60
Y FAC
That Are OBL, FACW, or FAC: 4 (A)
2.
Liriodendron tulipifera
30
Y FACU
Total Number of Dominant
3.
Species Across All Strata: 6 (B)
4.
Percent of Dominant Species
5.
That Are OBL, FACW, or FAC: 67% (A/B)
6.
7.
Prevalence Index worksheet:
8.
Total % Cover of: Multiply
90
= Total Cover
OBL species 0 x 1 = 0
50% of total cover:
45 20% of total cover: 18
FACW species 12 x 2 = 24
Sapling/Shrub Stratum (Plot size: 30ft radius)
FAC species 124 x 3 = 372
1.
Liquidambar styraciflua
60
Y FAC
FACU species 35 x 4 = 140
2.
Liriodendron tulipifera
5
FACU
UPL species 2 x 5 = 10
3.
Platanus occidentalis
5
FACW
Column Totals: 173 (A) 546 (B)
4.
Acer rubrum
4
FAC
Prevalence Index = B/A = 3.2
5.
6.
Hydrophytic Vegetation Indicators:
7.
❑ Rapid Test for Hydrophytic Vegetation
8.
F,1 Dominance Test is > 50%
9.
❑ Prevalence Index is <_ 3.0'
10.
❑ Morphological Adaptations1 (Provide supporting
74
= Total Cover
data in Remarks or on a separate sheet
50% of total cover:
37 20% of total cover: 14.8
❑ Problematic Hydrophytic Vegetation' (Explain)
Herb Stratum (Plot size: 30ft radius)
1.
Juncus effusus
5
Y FACW
Indicators of hydric soil and wetland hydrology must
2.
Scirpus cyperinus
2
Y FACW
be present, unless disturbed or problematic
Definitions of Four Vegetation Strata:
3. Polystichium acrostichoides 2 Y UPL
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
9
= Total Cover
size, and woody plants less than 3.28 ft tall.
50% of total cover:
4.5 20% of total cover: 1.8
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 Q 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.
Hydrophytic vegetation criteria is met.
Winter vegetation.
US Army Corps of Engineers Eastern Mountains and Piedmont - Version 2.0

SOIL
Sampling Point: RED_MAY_0642 WE7
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
0-10+ 10YR 4/1 70 7.5YR 4/6 20 C M Clay loam
C = Concentration, D = depletion, RM = Reduced Matrix, MS = Masked Sand Grains zLocation: 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)
0
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.
F
StrlDDed Matrix (S5)
estrictive Layer (if observed):
Type:
Depth (inches):
Hydric soil criterion is met.
Hydric Soil Present? Yes E] No ❑
US Army Corps of Engineers Eastern Mountains and Piedmont - Version 2.0

WETLAND DETERMINATION DATA FORM - Eastern Mountains and Piedmont
Project/Site: Mayo Electric Generating Plant City/Co.: Roxboro/Person County Sampling Date: 12 -Jan -15
Applicant/Owner: Duke Energy State: NC Sampling Point: RED -MAY -0642 UP
Investigator(s): J.Bourdeau, S. Levine Section, Township, Range:
Landform: (hillslope, terrace, etc.) stream overbank Local Relief: concave Slope (%): <5
Subregion(LRR/MLRA P/136 Lat: See GPS data Long: See GPS data Datum:
Soil Map Unit Name: Uthordents, loamy NWI Classification: PFO
Are climatic/hydrologic conditions on the site typical for this time of year? E Yes ❑ No (If no, explain in Remarks.)
Are Vegetation ❑ , Soil ❑ , or Hydrology ❑ significantly disturbed? Are "Normal Circumstances" present? R] Yes ❑ No
Are Vegetation ❑ , Soil ❑ , or Hydrology ❑ naturally problematic? (If needed, explain any answers in Remarks.)
bUMMAKY OF FINUINGS - Attacn Site map Snowing sampling point locations, transects, Important teatures, etc.
Hydrophytic Vegetation Present? Yes No ❑
Hydric Soil Present? Yes ❑ No 0
Wetland Hydrology Present? Yes ❑ No 0
Remarks
All three criteria not met; area is not a wetland.
Non -wet area adjacent to relict pond.
Wetland D - non -wet sample
HYDROLOGY
Is the Sampled Area
within a wetland? Yes ❑ No 0
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 (614)
❑
Sparsely Vegetated Concave Surface (138)
❑ High Water Table (A2)
❑
Hydrogen Sulfide Odor (Cl)
❑
Drainage Patterns (610)
❑ Saturation (A3)
❑
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 (63)
❑
Thin Much Surface (C7)
❑
Saturation Visible on Aerial Imagery (C9)
El 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 (67)
❑
Shallow Aquitard (D3)
❑ Water -Stained Leaves (139)
❑
Microtopographic Relief (D4)
❑ Aquatic Fauna (B13)
❑
FAC -Neutral Test (D5)
Field Observations:
Surface Water Present? ❑ Y(3s
❑ No
Depth (inches):
Water Table Present? ❑Yes
0 No
Depth (inches):
Saturation Present? ❑Yes
E No
Depth (inches):
Wetland
Hydrology Present? ❑ Yes 0 No
(includes capillary fringe)
Describe Recorded Data (stream gauge, monitoring well, aerial photos, previous inspections), if available:
Remarks:
Hydrology criterion not met.
US Army Corps of Engineers Eastern Mountains and Piedmont - Version 2.0

VtUt I AI IUN (Four Strata) - use SCIentinc names oT plants. Sampling Point: RED -MAY -0642 UP
US Army Corps of Engineers Eastern Mountains and Piedmont - Version 2.0
Absolute Dominant Indicator
Dominance Test Worksheet:
Tree Stratum (Plot size: 30ft radius)
% Cover Species? Status
Number of Dominant Species
1.
Pinus virginiana
20 Y FAC
That Are OBL, FACW, or FAC: 3 (A)
2.
Liquidambar styraciflua
5 FAC
Total Number of Dominant
3.
Species Across All Strata: 4 (B)
4.
Percent of Dominant Species
5.
That Are OBL, FACW, or FAC: 75% (A/B)
6.
7.
Prevalence Index worksheet:
8.
Total % Cover of: Multiply
25 = Total Cover
OBL species 0 x 1 = 0
50% of total cover:
12.5 20% of total cover: 5
FACW species 0 x 2 = 0
Sapling/Shrub Stratum (Plot size: 30ft radius)
FAC species 55 x 3 = 165
1.
Acer rubrum
10 Y FAC
FACU species 15 x 4 = 60
2.
Juniperus virginiana
15 Y FACU
UPL species 2 x 5 = 10
3.
Column Totals: 72 (A) 235 (B)
4.
Prevalence Index = B/A = 3.3
5.
6.
Hydrophytic Vegetation Indicators:
7.
❑ Rapid Test for Hydrophytic Vegetation
8.
F,1 Dominance Test is > 50%
9.
❑ Prevalence Index is <_ 3.0'
10.
❑ Morphological Adaptations1 (Provide supporting
25 = Total Cover
data in Remarks or on a separate sheet
50% of total cover:
12.5 20% of total cover: 5
❑ Problematic Hydrophytic Vegetation' (Explain)
Herb Stratum (Plot size: 30ft radius)
1.
Lycopodium clavatum
20 Y FAC
Indicators of hydric soil and wetland hydrology must
2.
Polystichium acrostichoides
2 UPL
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
22 = Total Cover
size, and woody plants less than 3.28 ft tall.
50% of total cover:
11 20% of total cover: 4.4
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 Q 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.
Hydrophytic vegetation criteria met.
Winter vegetation.
US Army Corps of Engineers Eastern Mountains and Piedmont - Version 2.0

SOIL
Sampling Point: RED_MAY_0642 UP
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
0-4 10YR 4/3 95 sCL
4-9 7.5YR 4/4 95 sCL
9-12+ 7.5YR 4/5 95 sCL
Remarks
C = Concentration, D = depletion, RM = Reduced Matrix, MS = Masked Sand Grains zLocation: 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.
F
StrlDDed Matrix (S5)
estrictive Layer (if observed):
Type:
Depth (inches):
Hydric soil criterion not met.
Hydric Soil Present? Yes ❑ No El
US Army Corps of Engineers Eastern Mountains and Piedmont - Version 2.0

WETLAND DETERMINATION DATA FORM - Eastern Mountains and Piedmont
Project/Site: Mayo Steam Station City/Co.: Roxboro/Person Sampling Date: 1/15/2015
Applicant/Owner: Duke Energy State: NC Sampling Point: red_may_0687 wet
Investigator(s): J. GAY Section, Township, Range:
Landform: (hillslope, terrace, etc.) drainway Local Relief: none Slope (%): 0
Subregion(LRR/MLRA LRR P Lat: 36.527900 Long: -78.899700 Datum:
Soil Map Unit Name: Udorthents NWI Classification: N/A
Are climatic/hydrologic conditions on the site typical for this time of year? Ebs Elio (If no, explain in Remarks.)
Are Vegetation p Soil p or Hydrology ❑ significantly disturbed? Are "Normal Circumstances" present? Yes [21 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 0 No ❑ within a wetland? Yes 0 No ❑
Wetland Hydrology Present? Yes 0 No ❑
RemarkE
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 (610)
0 Saturation (A3)
❑
Oxidized Rhizospheres on Living Roots (C3)
❑
Moss Trim Lines (B16)
❑ Water Marks (131)
❑
Presence of Reduced Iron (C4)
❑
Dry -Season Water Table (C2)
❑ Sediment Deposits (132)
❑
Recent Iron Reduction in Tilled Soils (C6)
❑
Crayfish Burrows (C8)
❑ Drift Deposits (63)
❑
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)
0
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
A No
Depth (inches):
Water Table Present? p Yes
❑ No
Depth (inches): 14
Saturation Present? LJYes
❑ No
Depth (inches): 8
Wetland Hydrology Present? Qes ❑ 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

V tbt I A I IUIV (rive Jirata) -use sclenTITlc names OT plants.
sampling F oint: red_may_0687 wet
Absolute Dominant
Indicator
Dominance Test Worksheet:
Tree Stratum (Plot size: 30 ft )
% Cover Species?
Status
Number of Dominant Species
1.
Liquidambar styraciflua
30 y
FAC
That Are OBL, FACW, or FAC: 6
(A)
2.
Acer rubrum
20 y
FAC
Total Number of Dominant
3.
Liriodendron tulipifera
5
FACU
Species Across All Strata: 6
(B)
4.
Platanus occidentalis
2
FACW
Percent of Dominant Species
5.
That Are OBL, FACW, or FAC: 100%
(A/B)
6.
57 =Total Cover
Prevalence Index worksheet:
50% of total cover:
28.5
20% of total cover:
11.4
CBL species 0 x 1 = 0
Sapling Stratum (Plot size: 30 ft )
FACW species 8 x 2 = 16
1.
Liquidambar styraciflua
10 y
FAC
FAC species 75 x 3 = 225
2.
Acer rubrum
10 y
FAC
FACU species 7 x4= 28
3.
Platonus occidentalis
5 y
FACW
UPL species 0 x 5= 0
4.
Column Totals: 90 (A) 269
(B)
5.
Prevalence Index = B/A = 3.0
6.
25 = Total Cove
Hydrophytic Vegetation Indicators:
50% of total cover:
12.5
20% of total cover:
5
Shrub Stratum (Plot size: 30 ft )
H Dominance Test is > 50%
1.
none present
--
p Prevalence Index is 5 3.0'
2.
❑ Problematic Hydrophytic Vegetation' (Explain)
3.
❑
4,
' Indicators of hydric soil and wetland hydrology must
5.
❑ be present, unless disturbed or problematic
6.
= Total COVE
Definitions of Vegetation Strata:
50% of total cover:
20% of total cover:
Herb Stratum (Plot size: 10 ft )
Tree - Woody plants, excluding woody vines, approximately
1.
Polystichum acrostichoides
2
FACU
20 ft (6 m) or more in height and 3 in. (7.6 cm) or larger in
2.
Carex intumescens
1
FACW
diameter at breast height (DBH).
3.
Sapling - Woody plants, excluding woody vines,
4.
approximately 20 ft (6 m) or more in height and less than 3
5.
in. (7.6 cm) DBH.
6.
Shrub - Woody plants, excluding woody vines,
7.
approximately 3 to 20 ft (1 to 6 m) in height.
8.
Herb - All herbaceous (non -woody) plants, including
9.
herbaceous vines, regardless of size. Includes woody
10.
plants, except woody vines, less than approximately 3 ft (1
11.
m) in height.
3 = Total COVE
Woody vine - All woody vines, regardless of height.
50% of total cover:
1.5
20% of total cover:
0.6
Woody Vine Stratui (Plot size: 30 ft )
1.
Lonicerajaponica
5 y
FAC
2.
3.
Hydrophytic
4.
Vegetation Yes 21 No ❑
5.
Present?
5 =Total Cover
50% of total cover:
2.5
20% of total cover:
1
Remarks: (If observed, list morphological adaptations below)
US Army Corps of Engineers Eastern Mountains and Piedmont - Version 2.0

SOIL
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' Loc' Texture
-4 10YR 5/4 100 SCL
-6 10YR 5/2 98 10YR 5/4 2 c m SCL _
-14 10YR 5/1 90 10YR 5/4 10 c m SCL
'Type C = Concentration, D = depletion, RM = Reduced Matrix, MS = Masked Sand Grains
ydric Soil Indicators:
❑ Histosol (Al)
❑ Histic Epipedon (A2)
❑ Black Histic (A3)
❑ Hydrogen Sulfide (A4)
❑ Stratified Layers (A5)
❑ 2 cm Muck (A10) (LRR N)
❑ Depleted Below Dark Surface (A11)
❑ Thick Dark Surface (Al2)
❑ Sandy Mucky Material (S1)
(LRR N, MLRA 147, 148)
❑ Sandy Gleyed Matrix (S4)
❑ Sandy Redox (S4)
❑ Stripped Matrix (S5)
estrictive Layer (if observed):
Type:
Depth (inches):
EA
0
Dark Surface (S7)
Polyvalue Below Surface (S8) (MLRA 147, 148)
Thin Dark Surface (S9) (MLRA 147, 148)
Loamy Gleyed Matrix (F2)
Depleted Matrix (F3)
Redox Dark Surface (F6)
Depleted Dark Surface (F7)
Redox Depressions (F8)
EA
Iron -Manganese Masses (F12) (LRR N, MLRA 136)
EA
Umbric Surface (F13) (MLRA 136, 122)
EA
Piedmont Floodplain Soils (F19) (MLRA 148)
Red Parent Material (F21) (MLRA 127, 147)
Sampling Point: red_may_0687 wet
Remarks
'Location: PL = Pore Lining, M = Matrix
Indicators for Problematic Hydric Soils3:
❑
2 cm Muck (A10) (MLRA 147)
❑
Coatal Prairie Redox (A16)
(MLRA 147, 148)
❑
Piedmont Floodplain Soils (F19)
(MLRA 136, 147)
❑
Very Shallow Dark Surface (TF12)
❑
Other (Explain in Remarks)
3Indicators of hydrophytic vegetation and
wetland hydrology must be present,
unless disturbed or problematic.
Hydric Soil Present? Yes 0 No ❑
US Army Corps of Engineers Eastern Mountains and Piedmont - Version 2.0

WETLAND DETERMINATION DATA FORM - Eastern Mountains and Piedmont
Project/Site: Mayo Steam Station City/Co.: Roxboro/Person Sampling Date: 1/15/2015
Applicant/Owner: Duke Energy State: NC Sampling Point: red_may_0687 up
Investigator(s): J. GAY Section, Township, Range:
Landform: (hillslope, terrace, etc.) side slope Local Relief: none Slope (%): 0
Subregion(LRR/MLRA LRR P Lat: 36.527900 Long: -78.899700 Datum:
Soil Map Unit Name: Udorthents NWI Classification: N/A
Are climatic/hydrologic conditions on the site typical for this time of year? Ebs Elio (If no, explain in Remarks.)
Are Vegetation p Soil p or Hydrology ❑ significantly disturbed? Are "Normal Circumstances" present? Yes [21 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
RemarkE
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 (610)
❑ Saturation (A3)
❑
Oxidized Rhizospheres on Living Roots (C3)
❑
Moss Trim Lines (B16)
❑ Water Marks (131)
❑
Presence of Reduced Iron (C4)
❑
Dry -Season Water Table (C2)
❑ Sediment Deposits (132)
❑
Recent Iron Reduction in Tilled Soils (C6)
❑
Crayfish Burrows (C8)
❑ Drift Deposits (63)
❑
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
A No
Depth (inches):
Water Table Present? ❑ Yes
A No
Depth (inches):
Saturation Present? LJ Yes
A No
Depth (inches):
Wetland Hydrology Present? Qes 0 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

V CbC I A I IUIV (rive Jirata) -use scienTiTIC names OT plants.
sampling F oint: red_may_0687 up
Absolute Dominant
Indicator
Dominance Test Worksheet:
Tree Stratum (Plot size: 30 ft )
% Cover Species?
Status
Number of Dominant Species
1.
Liriodendron tulipifera
20 y
FACU
That Are OBL, FACW, or FAC: 3
(A)
2.
Quercus alba
10
FACU
Total Number of Dominant
3.
Liquidombarstyracifluo
20 y
FAC
Species Across All Strata: 5
(B)
4.
Acer rubrum
10
FAC
Percent of Dominant Species
5.
Platanus occidentalis
5
FACW
That Are OBL, FACW, or FAC: 60%
(A/B)
6.
65 = Total Cover
Prevalence Index worksheet:
50% of total cover:
32.5 20% of total cover:
13
CBL species 0 x 1 = 0
Sapling Stratum (Plot size: 30 ft )
FACW species 5 x 2 = 10
1.
Liquidambar styracifluo
5 y
FAC
FAC species 40 x 3 = 120
2.
Acer rubrum
5 y
FAC
FACU species 35 x4= 140
3.
Quercus alba
5 y
FACU
UPL species 0 x 5= 0
4.
Column Totals: 80 (A) 270
(B)
5.
Prevalence Index = B/A = 3.4
6.
15 = Total Cove
Hydrophytic Vegetation Indicators:
50% of total cover:
7.5 20% of total cover:
3
Shrub Stratum (Plot size: 30 ft )
H Dominance Test is > 50%
1.
none present
--
p Prevalence Index is 5 3.0'
2,
❑ Problematic Hydrophytic Vegetation' (Explain)
3.
❑
4,
' Indicators of hydric soil and wetland hydrology must
5.
❑ be present, unless disturbed or problematic
6.
= Total COVE
Definitions of Vegetation Strata:
50% of total cover:
20% of total cover:
Herb Stratum (Plot size: 10 ft )
Tree - Woody plants, excluding woody vines, approximately
1.
none present
---
20 ft (6 m) or more in height and 3 in. (7.6 cm) or larger in
2.
diameter at breast height (DBH).
3
Sapling - Woody plants, excluding woody vines,
4.
approximately 20 ft (6 m) or more in height and less than 3
5.
in. (7.6 cm) DBH.
6.
Shrub - Woody plants, excluding woody vines,
7.
approximately 3 to 20 ft (1 to 6 m) in height.
8.
Herb - All herbaceous (non-woody) plants, including
9
herbaceous vines, regardless of size. Includes woody
10.
plants, except woody vines, less than approximately 3 ft (1
11.
m) in height.
= Total COVE
Woody vine - All woody vines, regardless of height.
50% of total cover:
20% of total cover:
Woody Vine Stratui (Plot size: 30 ft )
1.
none present
2.
3.
Hydrophytic
4.
Vegetation Yes 21 No ❑
5.
Present?
= Total Cover
50% of total cover:
20% of total cover:
Remarks: (If observed, list morphological adaptations below)
US Army Corps of Engineers Eastern Mountains and Piedmont - Version 2.0

SOIL
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' Loc' Texture
-8 10YR 5/4 100 SCL
-14 10YR 5/3 100 SCL
'Type C = Concentration, D = depletion, RM = Reduced Matrix, MS = Masked Sand Grains
ydric Soil Indicators:
❑ Histosol (Al)
❑ Histic Epipedon (A2)
❑ Black Histic (A3)
❑ Hydrogen Sulfide (A4)
❑ Stratified Layers (A5)
❑ 2 cm Muck (A10) (LRR N)
❑ Depleted Below Dark Surface (A11)
❑ Thick Dark Surface (Al2)
❑ Sandy Mucky Material (S1)
(LRR N, MLRA 147, 148)
❑ Sandy Gleyed Matrix (S4)
❑ Sandy Redox (S4)
❑ Stripped Matrix (S5)
estrictive Layer (if observed):
Type:
Depth (inches):
Dark Surface (S7)
Polyvalue Below Surface (S8) (MLRA 147, 148)
Thin Dark Surface (S9) (MLRA 147, 148)
Loamy Gleyed Matrix (F2)
Depleted Matrix (F3)
Redox Dark Surface (F6)
Depleted Dark Surface (F7)
Redox Depressions (F8)
Iron -Manganese Masses (F12) (LRR N, MLRA 136)
Umbric Surface (F13) (MLRA 136, 122)
Piedmont Floodplain Soils (F19) (MLRA 148)
Red Parent Material (F21) (MLRA 127, 147)
Sampling Point: red_may_0687 up
Remarks
'Location: PL = Pore Lining, M = Matrix
Indicators for Problematic Hydric Soils3:
❑
2 cm Muck (A10) (MLRA 147)
❑
Coatal Prairie Redox (A16)
(MLRA 147, 148)
❑
Piedmont Floodplain Soils (F19)
(MLRA 136, 147)
❑
Very Shallow Dark Surface (TF12)
❑
Other (Explain in Remarks)
3Indicators of hydrophytic vegetation and
wetland hydrology must be present,
unless disturbed or problematic.
Hydric Soil Present? Yes ❑ No RI
US Army Corps of Engineers Eastern Mountains and Piedmont - Version 2.0

WETLAND DETERMINATION DATA FORM - Eastern Mountains and Piedmont
Project/Site: Mayo Steam Station City/Co.: Roxboro/Person Sampling Date: 1/12/2015
Applicant/Owner: Duke Energy State: NC Sampling Point: green_may_wa003 wet
Investigator(s): J. GAY Section, Township, Range:
Landform: (hillslope, terrace, etc.) grainway Local Relief: none Slope (%): 0
Subregion(LRR/MLRA LRR P Lat: 36.538900 Long: -78.893300 Datum:
Soil Map Unit Name: Udorthents NWI Classification: N/A
Are climatic/hydrologic conditions on the site typical for this time of year? Ebs Elio (If no, explain in Remarks.)
Are Vegetation p Soil p or Hydrology ❑ significantly disturbed? Are "Normal Circumstances" present? Yes [21 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 0 No ❑ within a wetland? Yes 0 No ❑
Wetland Hydrology Present? Yes 0 No ❑
RemarkE
area is fill s
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)
0 Surface Water (Al)
❑
True Aquatic Plants (1314)
❑
Sparsely Vegetated Concave Surface (138)
❑ High Water Table (A2)
❑
Hydrogen Sulfide Odor (Cl)
0
Drainage Patterns (610)
0 Saturation (A3)
❑
Oxidized Rhizospheres on Living Roots (C3)
❑
Moss Trim Lines (B16)
❑ Water Marks (131)
❑
Presence of Reduced Iron (C4)
❑
Dry -Season Water Table (C2)
❑ Sediment Deposits (132)
❑
Recent Iron Reduction in Tilled Soils (C6)
❑
Crayfish Burrows (C8)
❑ Drift Deposits (63)
❑
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)
0
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? p Yes
❑ No
Depth (inches): 4
Water Table Present? p Yes
❑ No
Depth (inches): 0
Saturation Present? LJYes
❑ No
Depth (inches): 0
Wetland Hydrology Present? Qes ❑ 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

vtbt l Al IUIV (rive Jirata) -use sclenTITlc names OT plants.
sampling F'Olnt: green_may_wa003 wet
Absolute Dominant
Indicator
Dominance Test Worksheet:
Tree Stratum
(Plot size: 30 ft )
% Cover Species?
Status
Number of Dominant Species
1.
none present
---
That Are OBL, FACW, or FAC: 1
(A)
2.
Total Number of Dominant
3.
Species Across All Strata: 1
(B)
4.
Percent of Dominant Species
5.
That Are OBL, FACW, or FAC: 100%
(A/B)
6.
=Total Cover
Prevalence Index worksheet:
50% of total cover:
20% of total cover:
OBL species 0 x 1 = 0
Sapling Stratum
(Plot size: 30 ft )
FACW species 57 x 2 = 114
1.
Baccharis halimifolia
2
FACW
FAC species 0 x 3 = 0
2.
FACU species 0 x4= 0
3.
UPL species 0 x 5 = 0
4.
Column Totals: 57 (A) 114
(B)
5.
Prevalence Index = B/A = 2.0
6.
2 = Total Cove
Hydrophytic Vegetation Indicators:
50% of total cover:
1 20% of total cover:
0.4
Shrub Stratum
(Plot size: 30 ft )
H Dominance Test is > 50%
1.
none present
--
p Prevalence Index is 5 3.0'
2,
❑ Problematic Hydrophytic Vegetation' (Explain)
3.
❑
4,
' Indicators of hydric soil and wetland hydrology must
5.
❑ be present, unless disturbed or problematic
6.
= Total COVE
Definitions of Vegetation Strata:
50% of total cover:
20% of total cover:
Herb Stratum
(Plot size: 10 ft )
Tree - Woody plants, excluding woody vines, approximately
1.
Juncus effusus
5
FACW
20 ft (6 m) or more in height and 3 in. (7.6 cm) or larger in
2.
Carex intumescens
50 y
FACW
diameter at breast height (DBH).
3
Sapling - Woody plants, excluding woody vines,
4.
approximately 20 ft (6 m) or more in height and less than 3
5.
in. (7.6 cm) DBH.
6.
Shrub - Woody plants, excluding woody vines,
7.
approximately 3 to 20 ft (1 to 6 m) in height.
8.
Herb - All herbaceous (non-woody) plants, including
9
herbaceous vines, regardless of size. Includes woody
10.
plants, except woody vines, less than approximately 3 ft (1
11.
m) in height.
55 = Total COVE
Woody vine - All woody vines, regardless of height.
50% of total cover:
27.5 20% of total cover:
11
Woody Vine Stratui
(Plot size: 30 ft )
1.
none present
2.
3.
Hydrophytic
4.
Vegetation Yes 21 No ❑
5.
Present?
= Total Cover
50% of total cover:
20% of total cover:
Remarks: (If observed, list morphological adaptations below)
US Army Corps of Engineers Eastern Mountains and Piedmont - Version 2.0

SOIL
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
-6 10YR 5/1 100 SL
'Type C = Concentration, D = depletion, RM = Reduced Matrix, MS = Masked Sand Grains
ydric Soil Indicators:
❑ Histosol(At)
❑ Histic Epipedon (A2)
❑ Black Histic (A3)
❑ Hydrogen Sulfide (A4)
❑ Stratified Layers (A5)
❑ 2 cm Muck (At 0) (LRR N)
❑ Depleted Below Dark Surface (A11)
❑ Thick Dark Surface (Al2)
❑ Sandy Mucky Material (S1)
(LRR N, MLRA 147, 148)
❑ Sandy Gleyed Matrix (S4)
❑ Sandy Redox (S4)
❑ Stripped Matrix (S5)
estrictive Layer (if observed):
Type:
Depth (inches):
EA
0
Dark Surface (S7)
Polyvalue Below Surface (S8) (MLRA 147, 148)
Thin Dark Surface (S9) (MLRA 147, 148)
Loamy Gleyed Matrix (F2)
Depleted Matrix (F3)
Redox Dark Surface (F6)
Depleted Dark Surface (F7)
Redox Depressions (F8)
EA
Iron -Manganese Masses (F12) (LRR N, MLRA 136)
EA
Umbric Surface (F13) (MLRA 136, 122)
EA
unable to retreive past 6 inches due to water
Piedmont Floodplain Soils (F19) (MLRA 148)
Red Parent Material (F21) (MLRA 127, 147)
Sampling Point: green_may_wa003 wet
Remarks
2Location: PL = Pore Lining, M = Matrix
Indicators for Problematic Hydric Soils3:
❑
2 cm Muck (A10) (MLRA 147)
❑
Coatal Prairie Redox (A16)
(MLRA 147, 148)
❑
Piedmont Floodplain Soils (F19)
(MLRA 136, 147)
❑
Very Shallow Dark Surface (TF12)
❑
Other (Explain in Remarks)
3Indicators of hydrophytic vegetation and
wetland hydrology must be present,
unless disturbed or problematic.
Hydric Soil Present? Yes 0 No ❑
US Army Corps of Engineers Eastern Mountains and Piedmont - Version 2.0

WETLAND DETERMINATION DATA FORM - Eastern Mountains and Piedmont
Project/Site: Mayo Steam Station City/Co.: Roxboro/Person Sampling Date: 1/12/2015
Applicant/Owner: Duke Energy State: NC Sampling Point: green_may_wa003 up
Investigator(s): J. GAY Section, Township, Range:
Landform: (hillslope, terrace, etc.) grainway Local Relief: none Slope (%): 0
Subregion(LRR/MLRA LRR P Lat: 36.538900 Long: -78.893300 Datum:
Soil Map Unit Name: Udorthents NWI Classification: N/A
Are climatic/hydrologic conditions on the site typical for this time of year? Ebs Elio (If no, explain in Remarks.)
Are Vegetation p Soil p or Hydrology ❑ significantly disturbed? Are "Normal Circumstances" present? Yes [21 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
RemarkE
area is fill s
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 (610)
❑ Saturation (A3)
❑
Oxidized Rhizospheres on Living Roots (C3)
❑
Moss Trim Lines (B16)
❑ Water Marks (131)
❑
Presence of Reduced Iron (C4)
❑
Dry -Season Water Table (C2)
❑ Sediment Deposits (132)
❑
Recent Iron Reduction in Tilled Soils (C6)
❑
Crayfish Burrows (C8)
❑ Drift Deposits (63)
❑
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
A No
Depth (inches):
Water Table Present? ❑ Yes
A No
Depth (inches):
Saturation Present? LJ Yes
A No
Depth (inches):
Wetland Hydrology Present? Qes 0 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

V CbC I A I IUIV (rive Jirata) -use scienTiTIC names OT plants.
sampling F oint: green_may_wa003 up
Absolute Dominant
Indicator
Dominance Test Worksheet:
Tree Stratum (Plot size: 30 ft )
% Cover Species?
Status
Number of Dominant Species
1.
Pinus taedo
5 y
FAC
That Are OBL, FACW, or FAC: 3
(A)
2.
Total Number of Dominant
3.
Species Across All Strata: 5
(B)
4.
Percent of Dominant Species
5.
That Are OBL, FACW, or FAC: 60%
(A/B)
6.
5 = Total Cover
Prevalence Index worksheet:
50% of total cover:
2.5 20% of total cover:
1
CBL species 0 x 1 = 0
Sapling Stratum (Plot size: 30 ft )
FACW species 10 x 2 = 20
1.
Ligustrum sinense
5 y
FACU
FAC species 10 x 3 = 30
2.
FACU species 15 x4= 60
3.
UPL species 0 x 5 = 0
4.
Column Totals: 35 (A) 110
(B)
5.
Prevalence Index = B/A = 3.1
6.
5 = Total Cove
Hydrophytic Vegetation Indicators:
50% of total cover:
2.5 20% of total cover:
1
Shrub Stratum (Plot size: 30 ft )
H Dominance Test is > 50%
1.
none present
--
p Prevalence Index is 5 3.0'
2,
❑ Problematic Hydrophytic Vegetation' (Explain)
3.
❑
4,
' Indicators of hydric soil and wetland hydrology must
5.
❑ be present, unless disturbed or problematic
6.
= Total COVE
Definitions of Vegetation Strata:
50% of total cover:
20% of total cover:
Herb Stratum (Plot size: 10 ft )
Tree - Woody plants, excluding woody vines, approximately
1.
Andropogon virginicus
10 y
FACU
20 ft (6 m) or more in height and 3 in. (7.6 cm) or larger in
2.
Bidens pilosa
10 y
FACW
diameter at breast height (DBH).
3
Sapling - Woody plants, excluding woody vines,
4.
approximately 20 ft (6 m) or more in height and less than 3
5.
in. (7.6 cm) DBH.
6
Shrub - Woody plants, excluding woody vines,
7.
approximately 3 to 20 ft (1 to 6 m) in height.
8.
Herb - All herbaceous (non -woody) plants, including
9
herbaceous vines, regardless of size. Includes woody
10.
plants, except woody vines, less than approximately 3 ft (1
11.
m) in height.
20 = Total Cove
Woody vine - All woody vines, regardless of height.
50% of total cover:
10 20% of total cover:
4
Woody Vine Stratui (Plot size: 30 ft )
1.
Lonicerajaponica
5 y
FAC
2.
3.
Hydrophytic
4.
Vegetation Yes 21 No ❑
5.
Present?
5 =Total Cover
50% of total cover:
2.5 20% of total cover:
1
Remarks: (If observed, list morphological adaptations below)
US Army Corps of Engineers Eastern Mountains and Piedmont - Version 2.0

SOIL
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
-8 10YR 5/3 100 SCL
'Type C = Concentration, D = depletion, RM = Reduced Matrix, MS = Masked Sand Grains
ydric Soil Indicators:
❑ Histosol(At)
❑ Histic Epipedon (A2)
❑ Black Histic (A3)
❑ Hydrogen Sulfide (A4)
❑ Stratified Layers (A5)
❑ 2 cm Muck (At 0) (LRR N)
❑ Depleted Below Dark Surface (A11)
❑ Thick Dark Surface (Al2)
❑ Sandy Mucky Material (S1)
(LRR N, MLRA 147, 148)
❑ Sandy Gleyed Matrix (S4)
❑ Sandy Redox (S4)
❑ Stripped Matrix (S5)
estrictive Layer (if observed):
Type:
Depth (inches):
Dark Surface (S7)
Polyvalue Below Surface (S8) (MLRA 147, 148)
Thin Dark Surface (S9) (MLRA 147, 148)
Loamy Gleyed Matrix (F2)
Depleted Matrix (F3)
Redox Dark Surface (F6)
Depleted Dark Surface (F7)
Redox Depressions (F8)
Iron -Manganese Masses (F12) (LRR N, MLRA 136)
Umbric Surface (F13) (MLRA 136, 122)
Piedmont Floodplain Soils (F19) (MLRA 148)
Red Parent Material (F21) (MLRA 127, 147)
Unable to penetrate past 8 inches due to rock
Sampling Point: green_may_wa003 up
Remarks
2Location: PL = Pore Lining, M = Matrix
Indicators for Problematic Hydric Soils3:
❑
2 cm Muck (A10) (MLRA 147)
❑
Coatal Prairie Redox (A16)
(MLRA 147, 148)
❑
Piedmont Floodplain Soils (F19)
(MLRA 136, 147)
❑
Very Shallow Dark Surface (TF12)
❑
Other (Explain in Remarks)
3Indicators of hydrophytic vegetation and
wetland hydrology must be present,
unless disturbed or problematic.
Hydric Soil Present? Yes ❑ No RI
US Army Corps of Engineers Eastern Mountains and Piedmont - Version 2.0

WETLAND DETERMINATION DATA FORM - Eastern Mountains and Piedmont
Project/Site: Mayo Steam Station City/Co.: Roxboro/Person Sampling Date: 1/12/2015
Applicant/Owner: Duke Energy State: NC Sampling Point: green_may_wbo06 wet
Investigator(s): J. GAY Section, Township, Range:
Landform: (hillslope, terrace, etc.) grainway Local Relief: none Slope (%): 0
Subregion(LRR/MLRA LRR P Lat: 36.538900 Long: -78.891400 Datum:
Soil Map Unit Name: Udorthents NWI Classification: N/A
Are climatic/hydrologic conditions on the site typical for this time of year? Ebs Elio (If no, explain in Remarks.)
Are Vegetation p Soil p or Hydrology ❑ significantly disturbed? Are "Normal Circumstances" present? Yes [21 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 0 No ❑ within a wetland? Yes 0 No ❑
Wetland Hydrology Present? Yes 0 No ❑
RemarkE
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)
0 High Water Table (A2)
❑
Hydrogen Sulfide Odor (Cl)
❑
Drainage Patterns (610)
0 Saturation (A3)
0
Oxidized Rhizospheres on Living Roots (C3)
❑
Moss Trim Lines (B16)
❑ Water Marks (131)
❑
Presence of Reduced Iron (C4)
❑
Dry -Season Water Table (C2)
❑ Sediment Deposits (132)
❑
Recent Iron Reduction in Tilled Soils (C6)
❑
Crayfish Burrows (C8)
❑ Drift Deposits (63)
❑
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)
0
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
A No
Depth (inches):
Water Table Present? p Yes
❑ No
Depth (inches): 1
Saturation Present? LJYes
❑ No
Depth (inches): 0
Wetland Hydrology Present? Qes ❑ 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

VCbCIAI IUIV (rive Jirata) -use sclenTITlc names OT plants.
sampling Foint: green_may_Wb006wet
Absolute Dominant
Indicator
Dominance Test Worksheet:
Tree Stratum (Plot size: 30 ft )
% Cover Species?
Status
Number of Dominant Species
1.
Betula nigra
40 y
FACW
That Are OBL, FACW, or FAC: 3
(A)
2.
Liquidombarstyraciflua
20 y
FAC
Total Number of Dominant
3.
Platonus occidentalis
10
FACW
Species Across All Strata: 4
(B)
4.
Acer rubrum
5
FAC
Percent of Dominant Species
5.
That Are OBL, FACW, or FAC: 75%
(A/B)
6.
75 =Total Cover
Prevalence Index worksheet:
50% of total cover:
37.5 20% of total cover:
15
OBL species 0 x 1 = 0
Sapling Stratum (Plot size: 30 ft )
FACW species 50 x 2 = 100
1.
Liquidambar styracifluo
20 y
FAC
FAC species 52 x 3 = 156
2.
Fagus grandifolia
5
FACU
FACU species 15 x4= 60
3.
Acer rubrum
5
FAC
UPL species 0 x 5 = 0
4.
Column Totals: 117 (A) 316
(B)
5.
Prevalence Index = B/A = 2.7
6.
30 = Total Cove
Hydrophytic Vegetation Indicators:
50% of total cover:
15 20% of total cover:
6
Shrub Stratum (Plot size: 30 ft )
H Dominance Test is > 50%
1.
none present
--
p Prevalence Index is 5 3.0'
2,
❑ Problematic Hydrophytic Vegetation' (Explain)
3.
❑
4,
' Indicators of hydric soil and wetland hydrology must
5.
❑ be present, unless disturbed or problematic
6.
= Total COVE
Definitions of Vegetation Strata:
50% of total cover:
20% of total cover:
Herb Stratum (Plot size: 10 ft )
Tree - Woody plants, excluding woody vines, approximately
1.
Polystichum acrostichoides
10 y
FACU
20 ft (6 m) or more in height and 3 in. (7.6 cm) or larger in
2.
diameter at breast height (DBH).
3.
Sapling - Woody plants, excluding woody vines,
4.
approximately 20 ft (6 m) or more in height and less than 3
5.
in. (7.6 cm) DBH.
6.
Shrub - Woody plants, excluding woody vines,
7.
approximately 3 to 20 ft (1 to 6 m) in height.
8.
Herb - All herbaceous (non -woody) plants, including
9
herbaceous vines, regardless of size. Includes woody
10.
plants, except woody vines, less than approximately 3 ft (1
11.
m) in height.
10 = Total Cove
Woody vine - All woody vines, regardless of height.
50% of total cover:
5 20% of total cover:
2
Woody Vine Stratui (Plot size: 30 ft )
1.
Lonicerajaponica
2
FAC
2.
3.
Hydrophytic
4.
Vegetation Yes 21 No ❑
5.
Present?
2 =Total Cover
50% of total cover:
1 20% of total cover:
0.4
Remarks: (If observed, list morphological adaptations below)
US Army Corps of Engineers Eastern Mountains and Piedmont - Version 2.0

SOIL
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
-12 10YR 5/2 96 10YR 5/4 2 C PL SCL
10YR 5/4 2 C M
'Type C = Concentration, D = depletion, RM = Reduced Matrix, MS = Masked Sand Grains
ydric Soil Indicators:
❑ Histosol (Al)
❑ Histic Epipedon (A2)
❑ Black Histic (A3)
❑ Hydrogen Sulfide (A4)
❑ Stratified Layers (A5)
❑ 2 cm Muck (A10) (LRR N)
❑ Depleted Below Dark Surface (A11)
❑ Thick Dark Surface (Al2)
❑ Sandy Mucky Material (S1)
(LRR N, MLRA 147, 148)
❑ Sandy Gleyed Matrix (S4)
❑ Sandy Redox (S4)
❑ Stripped Matrix (S5)
estrictive Layer (if observed):
Type:
Depth (inches):
Dark Surface (S7)
Polyvalue Below Surface (S8) (MLRA 147, 148)
Thin Dark Surface (S9) (MLRA 147, 148)
Loamy Gleyed Matrix (F2)
Depleted Matrix (F3)
Redox Dark Surface (F6)
Depleted Dark Surface (F7)
Redox Depressions (F8)
Iron -Manganese Masses (F12) (LRR N, MLRA 136)
Umbric Surface (F13) (MLRA 136, 122)
Piedmont Floodplain Soils (F19) (MLRA 148)
Red Parent Material (F21) (MLRA 127, 147)
Sampling Point: green_may_wb006 wet
Remarks
2Location: PL = Pore Lining, M = Matrix
Indicators for Problematic Hydric Soils3:
❑
2 cm Muck (A10) (MLRA 147)
❑
Coatal Prairie Redox (A16)
(MLRA 147, 148)
❑
Piedmont Floodplain Soils (F19)
(MLRA 136, 147)
❑
Very Shallow Dark Surface (TF12)
❑
Other (Explain in Remarks)
3Indicators of hydrophytic vegetation and
wetland hydrology must be present,
unless disturbed or problematic.
Hydric Soil Present? Yes 0 No ❑
US Army Corps of Engineers Eastern Mountains and Piedmont - Version 2.0

WETLAND DETERMINATION DATA FORM - Eastern Mountains and Piedmont
Project/Site: Mayo Steam Station City/Co.: Roxboro/Person Sampling Date: 1/12/2015
Applicant/Owner: Duke Energy State: NC Sampling Point: green_may_wbo06 up
Investigator(s): J. GAY Section, Township, Range:
Landform: (hillslope, terrace, etc.) grainway Local Relief: none Slope (%): 0
Subregion(LRR/MLRA LRR P Lat: 36.538900 Long: -78.891400 Datum:
Soil Map Unit Name: Udorthents NWI Classification: N/A
Are climatic/hydrologic conditions on the site typical for this time of year? Ebs Elio (If no, explain in Remarks.)
Are Vegetation p Soil p or Hydrology ❑ significantly disturbed? Are "Normal Circumstances" present? Yes [21 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
RemarkE
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 (610)
❑ Saturation (A3)
❑
Oxidized Rhizospheres on Living Roots (C3)
❑
Moss Trim Lines (B16)
❑ Water Marks (131)
❑
Presence of Reduced Iron (C4)
❑
Dry -Season Water Table (C2)
❑ Sediment Deposits (132)
❑
Recent Iron Reduction in Tilled Soils (C6)
❑
Crayfish Burrows (C8)
❑ Drift Deposits (63)
❑
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
A No
Depth (inches):
Water Table Present? ❑ Yes
A No
Depth (inches):
Saturation Present? LJ Yes
A No
Depth (inches):
Wetland Hydrology Present? Qes 0 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

V CbC I A I IUIV (rive Jirata) -use sclenTITlc names OT plants.
sampling F oint: green_may_Wb006 up
Absolute Dominant
Indicator
Dominance Test Worksheet:
Tree Stratum (Plot size: 30 ft )
% Cover Species?
Status
Number of Dominant Species
1.
Liquidambar styraciflua
30 y
FAC
That Are OBL, FACW, or FAC: 4
(A)
2.
Acer rubrum
10 y
FAC
Total Number of Dominant
3.
Species Across All Strata: 5
(B)
4.
Percent of Dominant Species
5.
That Are OBL, FACW, or FAC: 80%
(A/B)
6.
40 =Total Cover
Prevalence Index worksheet:
50% of total cover:
20 20% of total cover:
8
CBL species 0 x 1 = 0
Sapling Stratum (Plot size: 30 ft )
FACW species 0 x 2 = 0
1.
Carpinus caroliniana
20 y
FAC
FAC species 120 x 3 = 360
2.
Liquidambar styraciflua
30
FAC
FACU species 10 x4= 40
3.
UPL species 0 x 5 = 0
4.
Column Totals: 130 (A) 400
(B)
5.
Prevalence Index = B/A = 3.1
6.
50 = Total Cove
Hydrophytic Vegetation Indicators:
50% of total cover:
25 20% of total cover:
10
Shrub Stratum (Plot size: 30 ft )
p Dominance Test is > 50%
1.
none present
--
p Prevalence Index is 5 3.0'
2.
❑ Problematic Hydrophytic Vegetation' (Explain)
3.
❑
4,
' Indicators of hydric soil and wetland hydrology must
5.
❑ be present, unless disturbed or problematic
6.
= Total COVE
Definitions of Vegetation Strata:
50% of total cover:
20% of total cover:
Herb Stratum (Plot size: 10 ft )
Tree - Woody plants, excluding woody vines, approximately
1.
Polystichum acrostichoides
10 y
FACU
20 ft (6 m) or more in height and 3 in. (7.6 cm) or larger in
2.
diameter at breast height (DBH).
3.
Sapling - Woody plants, excluding woody vines,
4.
approximately 20 ft (6 m) or more in height and less than 3
5.
in. (7.6 cm) DBH.
6.
Shrub - Woody plants, excluding woody vines,
7.
approximately 3 to 20 ft (1 to 6 m) in height.
8.
Herb - All herbaceous (non -woody) plants, including
9
herbaceous vines, regardless of size. Includes woody
10.
plants, except woody vines, less than approximately 3 ft (1
11.
m) in height.
10 = Total Cove
Woody vine - All woody vines, regardless of height.
50% of total cover:
5 20% of total cover:
2
Woody Vine Stratui (Plot size: 30 ft )
1.
Lonicerajaponica
30 y
FAC
2.
3.
Hydrophytic
4.
Vegetation Yes 21 No ❑
5.
Present?
30 =Total Cover
50% of total cover:
15 20% of total cover:
6
Remarks: (If observed, list morphological adaptations below)
US Army Corps of Engineers Eastern Mountains and Piedmont - Version 2.0

SOIL
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
-13 10YR 5/2 100 SCL
'Type C = Concentration, D = depletion, RM = Reduced Matrix, MS = Masked Sand Grains
ydric Soil Indicators:
❑ Histosol(At)
❑ Histic Epipedon (A2)
❑ Black Histic (A3)
❑ Hydrogen Sulfide (A4)
❑ Stratified Layers (A5)
❑ 2 cm Muck (At 0) (LRR N)
❑ Depleted Below Dark Surface (A11)
❑ Thick Dark Surface (Al2)
❑ Sandy Mucky Material (S1)
(LRR N, MLRA 147, 148)
❑ Sandy Gleyed Matrix (S4)
❑ Sandy Redox (S4)
❑ Stripped Matrix (S5)
estrictive Layer (if observed):
Type:
Depth (inches):
Dark Surface (S7)
Polyvalue Below Surface (S8) (MLRA 147, 148)
Thin Dark Surface (S9) (MLRA 147, 148)
Loamy Gleyed Matrix (F2)
Depleted Matrix (F3)
Redox Dark Surface (F6)
Depleted Dark Surface (F7)
Redox Depressions (F8)
Iron -Manganese Masses (F12) (LRR N, MLRA 136)
Umbric Surface (F13) (MLRA 136, 122)
Piedmont Floodplain Soils (F19) (MLRA 148)
Red Parent Material (F21) (MLRA 127, 147)
Sampling Point: green_may_wb006 up
Remarks
2Location: PL = Pore Lining, M = Matrix
Indicators for Problematic Hydric Soils3:
❑
2 cm Muck (A10) (MLRA 147)
❑
Coatal Prairie Redox (A16)
(MLRA 147, 148)
❑
Piedmont Floodplain Soils (F19)
(MLRA 136, 147)
❑
Very Shallow Dark Surface (TF12)
❑
Other (Explain in Remarks)
3Indicators of hydrophytic vegetation and
wetland hydrology must be present,
unless disturbed or problematic.
Hydric Soil Present? Yes ❑ No RI
US Army Corps of Engineers Eastern Mountains and Piedmont - Version 2.0

WETLAND DETERMINATION DATA FORM - Eastern Mountains and Piedmont
Project/Site: Mayo Steam Station City/Co.: Roxboro/Person Sampling Date: 1/12/2015
Applicant/Owner: Duke Energy State: NC Sampling Point: green_may_=004 wet
Investigator(s): J. GAY Section, Township, Range:
Landform: (hillslope, terrace, etc.) drainway Local Relief: none Slope (%): 0
Subregion(LRR/MLRA LRR P Lat: 36.537200 Long: -78.889900 Datum:
Soil Map Unit Name: Udorthents NWI Classification: N/A
Are climatic/hydrologic conditions on the site typical for this time of year? Ebs Elio (If no, explain in Remarks.)
Are Vegetation p Soil p or Hydrology ❑ significantly disturbed? Are "Normal Circumstances" present? Yes [21 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 0 No ❑ within a wetland? Yes 0 No ❑
Wetland Hydrology Present? Yes 0 No ❑
RemarkE
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)
0 High Water Table (A2)
❑
Hydrogen Sulfide Odor (Cl)
❑
Drainage Patterns (610)
0 Saturation (A3)
❑
Oxidized Rhizospheres on Living Roots (C3)
❑
Moss Trim Lines (B16)
❑ Water Marks (131)
❑
Presence of Reduced Iron (C4)
❑
Dry -Season Water Table (C2)
❑ Sediment Deposits (132)
❑
Recent Iron Reduction in Tilled Soils (C6)
❑
Crayfish Burrows (C8)
❑ Drift Deposits (63)
❑
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)
0
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
A No
Depth (inches):
Water Table Present? p Yes
❑ No
Depth (inches): 1
Saturation Present? LJYes
❑ No
Depth (inches): 0
Wetland Hydrology Present? Qes ❑ 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

vtbt l Al IUIV (rive Jirata) -use scienTiTIC names OT plants.
Number of Dominant Species
Absolute Dominant
Indicator
Total Number of Dominant
Tree Stratum (Plot size: 30 ft )
% Cover Species?
Status
1.
Liquidombor styrociflua
5 y
FAC
2.
Prevalence Index worksheet:
3.
FACW species 0 x 2 = 0
4.
FACU species 2 x4= 8
5.
Column Totals: 12 (A) 38
(B)
6.
Hydrophytic Vegetation Indicators:
H Dominance Test is > 50%
5 =Total Cover
❑ Problematic Hydrophytic Vegetation' (Explain)
50% of total cover:
2.5 20% of total cover:
1
' Indicators of hydric soil and wetland hydrology must
Sapling Stratum (Plot size: 30 ft )
❑ be present, unless disturbed or problematic
1.
Carpinus caroliniana
5 y
FAC
2.
20 ft (6 m) or more in height and 3 in. (7.6 cm) or larger in
3.
Sapling - Woody plants, excluding woody vines,
4.
in. (7.6 cm) DBH.
5.
approximately 3 to 20 ft (1 to 6 m) in height.
6.
herbaceous vines, regardless of size. Includes woody
plants, except woody vines, less than approximately 3 ft (1
5 =Total Cove
Woody vine - All woody vines, regardless of height.
50% of total cover:
2.5 20% of total cover:
1
Shrub Stratum (Plot size: 30 ft )
1.
none present
--
2.
3.
4.
5.
6.
= Total Cove
50% of total cover:
20% of total cover:
Herb Stratum (Plot size: 10 ft )
1.
Polystichum acrostichoides
2 y
FACU
2.
3.
4.
5.
6.
7.
8.
9.
10.
11.
2 =Total Cove
50% of total cover: 1 20% of total cover: 0.4
Woody Vine Stratui (Plot size: 30 ft )
1. none present
2.
3.
4.
5.
= Total Cover
50% of total cover: 20% of total cover:
Remarks: (If observed, list morphological adaptations below)
Sampling F'olnt: green_may_wc004 wet
Dominance 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)
Prevalence Index worksheet:
CBL species 0 x 1 = 0
FACW species 0 x 2 = 0
FAC species 10 x 3 = 30
FACU species 2 x4= 8
UPL species 0 x 5 = 0
Column Totals: 12 (A) 38
(B)
Prevalence Index = B/A = 3.2
Hydrophytic Vegetation Indicators:
H Dominance Test is > 50%
Li Prevalence Index is 5 3.0'
❑ Problematic Hydrophytic Vegetation' (Explain)
' Indicators of hydric soil and wetland hydrology must
❑ be present, unless disturbed or problematic
Definitions of Vegetation Strata:
Tree - Woody plants, excluding woody vines, approximately
20 ft (6 m) or more in height and 3 in. (7.6 cm) or larger in
diameter at breast height (DBH).
Sapling - Woody plants, excluding woody vines,
approximately 20 ft (6 m) or more in height and less than 3
in. (7.6 cm) DBH.
Shrub - Woody plants, excluding woody vines,
approximately 3 to 20 ft (1 to 6 m) in height.
Herb - All herbaceous (non -woody) plants, including
herbaceous vines, regardless of size. Includes woody
plants, except woody vines, less than approximately 3 ft (1
m) in height.
Woody vine - All woody vines, regardless of height.
Hydrophytic
Vegetation Yes 21 No ❑
Present?
US Army Corps of Engineers Eastern Mountains and Piedmont - Version 2.0

SOIL
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' Loc' Texture
-6 10YR 2/1 100 SCL
-10 10YR 5/1 100 SCL
'Type C = Concentration, D = depletion, RM = Reduced Matrix, MS = Masked Sand Grains
ydric Soil Indicators:
❑ Histosol (Al)
❑ Histic Epipedon (A2)
❑ Black Histic (A3)
❑ Hydrogen Sulfide (A4)
❑ Stratified Layers (A5)
❑ 2 cm Muck (A10) (LRR N)
❑ Depleted Below Dark Surface (A11)
❑ Thick Dark Surface (Al2)
❑ Sandy Mucky Material (S1)
(LRR N, MLRA 147, 148)
❑ Sandy Gleyed Matrix (S4)
❑ Sandy Redox (S4)
❑ Stripped Matrix (S5)
estrictive Layer (if observed):
Type:
Depth (inches):
EA
0
Dark Surface (S7)
Polyvalue Below Surface (S8) (MLRA 147, 148)
Thin Dark Surface (S9) (MLRA 147, 148)
Loamy Gleyed Matrix (F2)
Depleted Matrix (F3)
Redox Dark Surface (F6)
Depleted Dark Surface (F7)
Redox Depressions (F8)
EA
Iron -Manganese Masses (F12) (LRR N, MLRA 136)
EA
Umbric Surface (F13) (MLRA 136, 122)
EA
Piedmont Floodplain Soils (F19) (MLRA 148)
Red Parent Material (F21) (MLRA 127, 147)
Sampling Point: green_may_=004 wet
Remarks
'Location: PL = Pore Lining, M = Matrix
Indicators for Problematic Hydric Soils3:
❑
2 cm Muck (A10) (MLRA 147)
❑
Coatal Prairie Redox (A16)
(MLRA 147, 148)
❑
Piedmont Floodplain Soils (F19)
(MLRA 136, 147)
❑
Very Shallow Dark Surface (TF12)
❑
Other (Explain in Remarks)
3Indicators of hydrophytic vegetation and
wetland hydrology must be present,
unless disturbed or problematic.
Hydric Soil Present? Yes 0 No ❑
US Army Corps of Engineers Eastern Mountains and Piedmont - Version 2.0

WETLAND DETERMINATION DATA FORM - Eastern Mountains and Piedmont
Project/Site: Mayo Steam Station City/Co.: Roxboro/Person Sampling Date: 1/12/2015
Applicant/Owner: Duke Energy State: NC Sampling Point: green_may_=004 up
Investigator(s): J. GAY Section, Township, Range:
Landform: (hillslope, terrace, etc.) drainway Local Relief: none Slope (%): 0
Subregion(LRR/MLRA LRR P Lat: 36.537200 Long: -78.889900 Datum:
Soil Map Unit Name: Udorthents NWI Classification: N/A
Are climatic/hydrologic conditions on the site typical for this time of year? Ebs Elio (If no, explain in Remarks.)
Are Vegetation p Soil p or Hydrology ❑ significantly disturbed? Are "Normal Circumstances" present? Yes [21 No ❑
Are Vegetation ❑ Soil ❑ or Hydrology ❑ naturally problematic? (If needed, explain any answers in Remarks.)
SUMMARY OF FINDINGS - Attach site map showing sampling point locations, transects, important features, etc.
Hydrophytic Vegetation Present? Yes ❑ No 0 Is the Sampled Area
Hydric Soil Present? Yes ❑ No 0 within a wetland? Yes ❑ No 0
Wetland Hydrology Present? Yes ❑ No 0
RemarkE
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 (610)
❑ Saturation (A3)
❑
Oxidized Rhizospheres on Living Roots (C3)
❑
Moss Trim Lines (B16)
❑ Water Marks (131)
❑
Presence of Reduced Iron (C4)
❑
Dry -Season Water Table (C2)
❑ Sediment Deposits (132)
❑
Recent Iron Reduction in Tilled Soils (C6)
❑
Crayfish Burrows (C8)
❑ Drift Deposits (63)
❑
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
A No
Depth (inches):
Water Table Present? ❑ Yes
A No
Depth (inches):
Saturation Present? LJ Yes
A No
Depth (inches):
Wetland Hydrology Present? Qes 0 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

V CbC I A I IUIV (rive Jirata) -use sclenTITlc names OT plants.
sampling F oint: green_may_Wc004 up
Absolute Dominant
Indicator
Dominance Test Worksheet:
Tree Stratum (Plot size: 30 ft )
% Cover Species?
Status
Number of Dominant Species
1.
Quercus velutina
30 y
---
That Are OBL, FACW, or FAC: 1
(A)
2.
Quercus alba
30 y
FACU
Total Number of Dominant
3.
Species Across All Strata: 4
(B)
4.
Percent of Dominant Species
5.
That Are OBL, FACW, or FAC: 25%
(A/B)
6.
60 =Total Cover
Prevalence Index worksheet:
50% of total cover:
30 20% of total cover:
12
CBL species 0 x 1 = 0
Sapling Stratum (Plot size: 30 ft )
FACW species 0 x 2 = 0
1.
Fagus grandifolia
20 y
FACU
FAC species 10 x 3 = 30
2.
Liquidambar styracifluo
10 y
FAC
FACU species 50 x4= 200
3.
UPL species 0 x 5 = 0
4.
Column Totals: 60 (A) 230
(B)
5.
Prevalence Index = B/A = 3.8
6.
30 = Total Cove
Hydrophytic Vegetation Indicators:
50% of total cover:
15 20% of total cover:
6
Shrub Stratum (Plot size: 30 ft )
H Dominance Test is > 50%
1.
none present
--
p Prevalence Index is 5 3.0'
2,
❑ Problematic Hydrophytic Vegetation' (Explain)
3.
❑
4,
' Indicators of hydric soil and wetland hydrology must
5.
❑ be present, unless disturbed or problematic
6.
= Total LOVE
Definitions of Vegetation Strata:
50% of total cover:
20% of total cover:
Herb Stratum (Plot size: 10 ft )
Tree - Woody plants, excluding woody vines, approximately
1.
20 ft (6 m) or more in height and 3 in. (7.6 cm) or larger in
2.
diameter at breast height (DBH).
3
Sapling - Woody plants, excluding woody vines,
4.
approximately 20 ft (6 m) or more in height and less than 3
5.
in. (7.6 cm) DBH.
6.
Shrub - Woody plants, excluding woody vines,
7.
approximately 3 to 20 ft (1 to 6 m) in height.
8.
Herb - All herbaceous (non-woody) plants, including
9
herbaceous vines, regardless of size. Includes woody
10.
plants, except woody vines, less than approximately 3 ft (1
11.
m) in height.
= Total COVE
Woody vine - All woody vines, regardless of height.
50% of total cover:
20% of total cover:
Woody Vine Stratui (Plot size: 30 ft )
1.
none present
2.
3.
Hydrophytic
4.
Vegetation Yes ❑ No 0
5.
Present?
= Total Cover
50% of total cover:
20% of total cover:
Remarks: (If observed, list morphological adaptations below)
US Army Corps of Engineers Eastern Mountains and Piedmont - Version 2.0

SOIL
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' Loc' Texture
-14 10YR 6/3 100 SCL
SCL
'Type C = Concentration, D = depletion, RM = Reduced Matrix, MS = Masked Sand Grains
ydric Soil Indicators:
❑ Histosol(At)
❑ Histic Epipedon (A2)
❑ Black Histic (A3)
❑ Hydrogen Sulfide (A4)
❑ Stratified Layers (A5)
❑ 2 cm Muck (At 0) (LRR N)
❑ Depleted Below Dark Surface (A11)
❑ Thick Dark Surface (Al2)
❑ Sandy Mucky Material (S1)
(LRR N, MLRA 147, 148)
❑ Sandy Gleyed Matrix (S4)
❑ Sandy Redox (S4)
❑ Stripped Matrix (S5)
estrictive Layer (if observed):
Type:
Depth (inches):
Dark Surface (S7)
Polyvalue Below Surface (S8) (MLRA 147, 148)
Thin Dark Surface (S9) (MLRA 147, 148)
Loamy Gleyed Matrix (F2)
Depleted Matrix (F3)
Redox Dark Surface (F6)
Depleted Dark Surface (F7)
Redox Depressions (F8)
Iron -Manganese Masses (F12) (LRR N, MLRA 136)
Umbric Surface (F13) (MLRA 136, 122)
Piedmont Floodplain Soils (F19) (MLRA 148)
Red Parent Material (F21) (MLRA 127, 147)
Sampling Point: green_may_=004 up
Remarks
'Location: PL = Pore Lining, M = Matrix
Indicators for Problematic Hydric Soils3:
❑
2 cm Muck (A10) (MLRA 147)
❑
Coatal Prairie Redox (A16)
(MLRA 147, 148)
❑
Piedmont Floodplain Soils (F19)
(MLRA 136, 147)
❑
Very Shallow Dark Surface (TF1 2)
❑
Other (Explain in Remarks)
3Indicators of hydrophytic vegetation and
wetland hydrology must be present,
unless disturbed or problematic.
Hydric Soil Present? Yes ❑ No RI
US Army Corps of Engineers Eastern Mountains and Piedmont - Version 2.0

NC DW@ Stream Identification Form Version 4.11
Date:. I Z -J-A �J\.) NZI -20 rS
Project/Site: MAjo $TE&A P)a,N
Latitude: -34 , 5'3 c� j
Evaluator:
County:' Q�SC ✓
Longitude:
Total Points: /
Stream is at least intermittent 3
Stream Determination
Other r�eh- ��X !S� goo y
e.g. Qua
l
if >_99 or perennial if >_30*
Ephemeral Intermi ent Perennial
Name:
Name:
A. Geomorphology Subtotal = 1
Absent
Weak
Moderate
Strong
1 a. Continuity of channel bed and bank
0
1
2
1
2. Sinuosity of channel along thalweg
0
1
0.5
3
3. In -channel structure: ex. riffle -pool, step -pool,
0
1
5
3
4. Particle size of stream substrate
0
1
1
3
5. Active/relict floodplain
0
No = 0
2
3
6. Depositional bars or benches
0
1
2
3
7. Recent alluvial deposits
0
2
3
8. Headcuts
0
2
3
9. Grade control
0
0.5
1.5
10. Natural valley
00.5
1
1.5
11. Second or greater order channel
No = 0
Yes = 3
a amnciai aircnes are not rayed; see discussions in manual �,•��
B. Hydrology (Subtotal = 16.(, 1
12. Presence of Baseflow
0
1
�
3
13. Iron oxidizing bacteria
0
1
2
1
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 of high water table?
1
No = 0
Yes =
0.5 1
C. Biology (Subtotal = h -b )
18. Fibrous roots in streambed 3
2
1
0
19. Rooted upland plants in streambed
2
1
0
20. Macrobenthos (note diversity and abundance) 0
1
2
3
21. Aquatic Mollusks
1
2
3
22. Fish C9
0.5
1
1.5
23. Crayfish 0
0.5
1
1.5
24. Amphibians
0.5
1
1.5
25. Algae
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:

I USACE AID# DWQ # Site # (indicate on attached map) I
i ; STREAM QUALITY ASSESSMENT WORKSHEET r1W
, ,
Provide the following information for the stream reach under assessment:
1. Applicant's name: Z—,!
pp � � r Nr 2 � 2. Evaluator's name:
3. Date of evaluation: I -- 20 V-5
5. Name of stream: Cci+C,�, �� ��a Ce�--et4
7. Approximate drainage area:y Ae rP,
9. Length of reach evaluated: 5c)
4. Time of evaluation: Z l D
6. River basin:
8. Stream order: I 't
10. County: ��6-so y�
11. Site coordinates (if known): 2prefer in decimal degrees. 12. Subdivision name (if any):
Latitude (ex. 34.872312): JC \ Longitude (ex. —77.556611):
Method, location determined (circle): GP 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):
LA kr 'i�cckl
14. Proposed channel work (if
15. Recent weather conditions: N- r A l
16. Site conditions at time of visit: 5 0 G , L c�k
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? 'ES) NO If yes, estimate the water surface area: loo I -L
19. Does channel appear on USGS quad map? 11'ES 1 NO 20. Does channel appear on USDA Soil Survey? YES NO
21. Estimated watershed land use: _% Residential _% Commercial 9 S % Industrial _% Agricultural
O/o Forested _% Cleared / Logged _% Other
22. Bankfull width: S �etA 23. Bank height (from bed to top of bank): ( •
24. Channel slope down center of stream: _Fiat (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 X,- A /// Date I L
This channel evaluation6mlintenfi6d 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:-
cz,►w Z�ri�'
Project/Site: a
Latitude:
36, S3
Evaluator:
County:
Longitude: -
Total Points:
Stream is at least intermittent
Stream Determination
Other
e.g. Quad
if >_19 or perennial if ?30*
Ephemeral Intermit nt Perennial
Name:
A. Geomorphology Subtotal = 1V/
Absent
Weak
Moderate
Strong
1 a. Continuity of channel bed and bank
0
1
2
3
2. Sinuosity of channel along thalweg
0
1
0.5
3
3. In -channel structure: ex. riffle -pool, step -pool,
spaupnrp
0
1
1
3
4. Particle size of stream substrate
0
0 .5
2
3
5. Active/relict floodplain
0
1
=
3
6. Depositional bars or benches
0
26. Wetland plants in streambed
2
3
7. Recent alluvial deposits
0
2
3
8. Headcuts
0
1
3
9. Grade control
0
0.5
1.5
10. Natural valley
0
0.5
1.5
11. Second or greater order channel
No = 0
Yes =
a amticiai ditches are not rated; see discussions in manual
B. Hydrology (Subtotal = 4 F )
12.
Presence of Baseflow
0 1
0
3
13.
Iron oxidizing bacteria
0 ,
2
3
14.
Leaf litter
1.
0.5
0
15.
Sediment on plants or debris
0 0
1
1.5
16.
Organic debris lines or piles
0 .5
1
1.5
7.
Soil -based evidence of highwater table?
No = 0es
=
0.5 1
C. Bioloqy (Subtotal = (p ) `---'
18. Fibrous roots in streambed
2
1
0
19. Rooted upland plants in streambed
2
1
0
20. Macrobenthos (note diversity and abundance)
1
2
3
21. Aquatic Mollusks
1
2
3
22. Fish CD
0.5
1
1.5
23. Crayfish CD_
0.5
1
1.5
24. Amphibians 9
0.5
1
1.5
25. Algae W 1
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:

G trees_ A / y 5 j� Le`(
E USACE AID# DWQ # Site # (indicate on attached map) 1
STREAM QUALITY ASSESSMENT WORKSHEET
Provide the following information for the stream reach under assessment:
1. Applicant's name: 2. Evaluator's name: 6:h V
3. Date of evaluation:_ / Z �1kb)y wj 24) jS 4. Time of evaluation: 13K G
5. Name of stream:Cc,&; A k ccef K 6. River basin:
7. Approximate drainage area: �o 6 8. Stream order: P
9. Length of reach evaluated: SO Fes- 10. County:cx''
11. Site coordinates (if known): prefer in decimal degrees. 12. Subdivision name (if any
Latitude (ex. 34.872312): 36.53i5i Longitude(ex.-77.556611):_-g6'r111
Method location determined (circle. GPS Topo Sheet Ortho (Aerial) Photo/GIS Other GIS Other
13. Location of reach under eva (note nearby roads and landmarks and attach map identifying stream(s) location).
APPcvx;rnu�<<� 2s -b q� oBSVeu 4 Cvlyoft oy\ pr MayO L(} -f -E `
14. Proposed channel work (if
15. Recent weather conditions: Mcj((Pv 1
16. Site conditions at time of visit: S -d
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' If yes, estimate the water surface area:
19. Does channel appear on USGS quad map? YDS NO 20. Does channel appear on USDA Soil Survey? YES NO
21. Estimated watershed land use: -% Residential _% Commercial Ct�-% Industrial _% Agricultural
Forested _% Cleared / Logged _% Other ( )
22. Bankfull width:.5 r4 23. Bank height (from bed to top of bank):Or 5-f
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 bendsFrequent 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, anda 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): J �' Comments:
/J /
Evaluator's Signature �, Date « J�.»+� �r� �aJS
This channel evaluatiinkndcdto 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.
2
3
3
3
3
Z
,7-

NC DWQ Stream Identification Form Version 4.11
Date:. Z� J
Project/Site:Mkvo Sri
Latitude: 36, r,3:7 6
Evaluator: �� ,�
County: �
Longitude: - q 03
Total Points:
!�
Stream is at least intermittent
Stream Deter (circle one)
Other _ M �, o�
G y
e.g. Quad
c�
if >_19 or perennial if >_30*
Ephemera ntermitten Perennial
Name:
W_ ^
A. Geomorphology Subtotal = 17 v
rt
Absent
Weak
Moderate
Strong
1 a. Continuity of channel bed and bank
0
1
14. Leaf litter
3
2. Sinuosity of channel along thalweg
0
1
0"
3
3. In -channel structure: ex. riffle -pool, step -pool,
0
1
1
3
4. Particle size of stream substrate
0
1
1.5
3
5. Active/relict floodplain
0
1
25. Algae 0
3
6. Depositional bars or benches
0
26. Wetland plants in streambed
2
3
7. Recent alluvial deposits
0
1
2
3
8. Headcuts
0
1
3
9. Grade control
0
0.5
(D
1.5
10. Natural valley
0
0.5
1)
1.5
11. Second or greater order channel
No = 0
Yes = 3
a a i icia itc es are not rate , see iscussmis in manual
B. Hydrology (Subtotal = 6.5 )
12. Presence of Baseflow
0
2
3
13. Iron oxidizing bacteria
0
2
3
14. Leaf litter
5 1
0.5
3
15. Sediment on plants or debris
0"
1
1.5
16. Organic debris lines or piles
0 .5
1
1.5
7. Soil -based evidence of high water table?
No = 0
Yes`=
1.5
l�. biology (Subtotal = 5-, U ) I, 11- ,./
18. Fibrous roots in streambed 3
1
0
19. Rooted upland plants in streambed
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 0
0.5
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:

GCee o- MAS &--co8
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: . VF- 'E n e r�r 2. Evaluator's name: V ,'V
3. Date of evaluation:_ 1 Z Z -a i u ,t 2�b j 4. Time of evaluation:__���
5. Name of stream: UNT IU Croy, t;-f'd (Y -t 6. River basin:
7. Approximate drainage area: Q cLct' 8. Stream order: 15-
9. Length of reach evaluated: 50 �—ee 10. County: Pori c.
11. Site coordinates (if k�4nown): prefer in decimal degrees. 12. Subdivision .name (if any):
Latitude (ex. 34.872312)sD
: •5-3q/- Longitude (ex. —77.556611): - 9 W % 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: %Jm M.
16. Site conditions at time of visit: "�& I ; 5k,+ c„r
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 20: Does channel appear on USDA Soil Survey? YES
21. Estimated watershed land use: _% Residential _% Commercial _% Industrial _% Agricultural
/0 % Forested _% Cleared / Logged _% Other
22. Bankfull width: l �o�'� 23. Bank height (from bed to top of bank): 0 • 5-1
1
24. Channel slope down center of stream: Flat (0 to 2%) _Gentle (2 to 4%) v Moderate (4 to 10%) _Steep (>10%)
25. Channel sinuosity: Straight _Occasional bends "�j 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):zzv
Comments:
Evaluator's Signa t e v �/ Date /Z 3wn��21 26
�
This channel evaluation f is inte to be used only as a guide to assist landowners and environmental professionals in
gathering the data req fired 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.
2
Pw

NC DWO Stream Identification Form Version 4.11
Date: r, -
Project/Site:Latitude:
s
Evaluator; t e N
County: �
Longitude: - a
,q
Total Points:Stream
Stream isatleast intermittent �/'
�
Deter�' on (circle one)
Ephemer i'fntermitte t Perennial
Other
e•9• Quad
.
X19 or perennial if ?30
2. Sinuosity of channel along thalweg
Name:
SDr-r1/
A. Geomorphology (Subtotal _
Absent
Weak
Moderate
Strong
1a. Continuity of channel bed and bank
0
1
2
CT
2. Sinuosity of channel along thalweg
0
1
2
3
3. In -channel structure: ex. riffle -pool, step -pool,
0
iD.S- `y
2
3
4. Particle size of stream substrate
0
,- 6 5
2
3
5. Activelrelict floodplain
`0
1
2
3
6. Depositional bars or benches...?
1
2
3
7. Recent alluvial deposits
00,
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.
11. Second orreater order channel
9
� ""
' ' ". 7` "-
No =�Q�.:., ,�
Yes = 3
a ai ui Waal uuw eoa a10 11vL IaLcu, aee U10GUA.71VI 10 111 RIC111UC11
B. Hvdrolociv (Subtotal = A6, 1
12. Presence of Baseflow
0
1
2
0
13. Iron oxidizing bacteria
0
1
1
3
14. Leaf litter
1.5
1
0.5
0
15. Sediment on plants or debris
0
iD.S- `y
1
1.5
16. Organic debris lines or piles
0
,- 6 5
1
1.5
7. Soil -based evidence of highwater table?
(0}
No = 0
`
Yes = 3y,_ r"
L, tMology (Subtotal
18. Fibrous roots in streambed
2
1
0
19. Rooted upland plants in streambed
631
2
1
0
20. Macrobenthos (note diversity and abundance)
0
1
2
3
21. Aquatic Mollusks
0
1
2)
3
22. Fish
0.5
1
1.5
23. Crayfish
(0}
0.5
1
1.5
24. Amphibians
0.5
1
1.5
25. Algae
0
0.5
1
1.5
26. Wetland plants in streambed
FACW = 0.75; OB.L = 1.5 Other = 0
*perennial streams may also be identified using other methods. Seep. 35 of manual.
Notes:
Sketch:

USACE AID# DWQ # Site # (indicate on attached map) I
M -
STREAM QUALITY ASSESSMENT WORKSHEET ham, -
Provide the following information for the stream reach under assessment:
1. Applicant's name: 'Duk—r:— .+4&r
3. Date of evaluation: r k mt UA e g
5. Name of stream:_ 007 F -w, Qc, t , a-
7. Approximate drainage area: o?O 4e- iY
9. Length of reach evaluated: /fl © Pad
2. Evaluator's name: T 6"88'x"
4. Time of evaluation: 3,�
6. River basin:
8. Stream order:
10. County: rya tt
11. Site coordinates (if Imown): prefer is decimal degrees. 12. Subdivision name (if any):
Latitude (ex. 34.672312): 3� ° �� �� Longitude (ex. --77.556611): to
Method location determined (circle): GPS Topo Sheet Ortho (Aerial) Photo/GIS Other GIS Other
13. Location of reach under evaluation (note nearby roads and Iandmarks and attach map identifying stream(s) location):
a� o-,Jf -Plo o- PC, 1 �
14. Proposed channel work. (if
15. Recent weather conditions: No(,is -t
16. Site conditions at time of visit: 1)0' 010
17. Identify any special waterway classifications known: Section 10 Tidal Waters Essential Fisheries Habitat
_Trout Waters —Outstanding Resource Waters Nutrient,asltive Waters Water Supply Watershed J -M
18. Is there a pond or lake located upstream of the evaluation point YFSNO 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 J�
21. Estimated watershed land use: % Residential Jr2 % Commercial % Industrial �% Agricultural
Forested % Cleared / Logged _% Other ( __
22. Bankfull width: IS Eft 23. Bank height (from bed to top of bank): /Z
24. Channel slope do: n center of stream: -\\J 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 an
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 Date /5 31V-
This channel evaluation form ' t to be used only as a guide to assist landowners and environmental professionals in
gathering the data reQ by the United States Arany 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
11hese cnaractenstles are not assessed In coastal streams.

NC D`VQ Stream Identification Form Version 4.11
Date: O l /l D� 115--
Project/Site: / ✓I e o
Latitude:
Evaluator: R
iJv Jf � Gam✓
County: por g p^
Longitude:
Total Points:
0 .. g 1 .... 1.5.. .
2
Stream Is at least Intermittent � �
Stream Determl a#ia (circle one)
Other
if? 99 or perennial if >_ 30"
Ephemeral ermitte t Perennial
e.g. Quad Name:
r.'1
A. Geomorphology (Subtotalt: f d` ` J)
Absent
Weak
Moderate
Strong
1a' Continuity of channel bed and bank
0
0 .. g 1 .... 1.5.. .
2
3
2. Sinuosity of channel along thalweg
0
1
2
3
3. In-channelstructure: ex. riffle -pool, step -pool,
ripple -pool sequence
0
1
2
3
4. Particle size of stream substrate
0
0.5
2
3
5. Active/relict floodplain
0
1`
2
3
•6. Depositional bars or benches.
0
0.5
2
3
7. Recent alluvial deposits
0
1
2
3
8, Headcuts
0
1
2
*perennial streams may also be identified using other methods. See p. 35 of manual.
9. Grade control
0
5)
1
1.5
10. Natural valley
0
0,5
1.5
11. Second or greater order channel
a
o =
Yes = 3
anindal ditches are not rated; See discussyi0 S. in manual
B. Hydrology (Subtotal = 5 )
12. Presence of Baseflow
0 1 3
13. Iron oxidizing bacteria
0 1 2 3
14. Leaf litter
1.5 0.5 0
15..Sediment on plants or•debris.......
0 .. g 1 .... 1.5.. .
16. Organic debris lines or piles
0.5 1 1.5
17. Soil -based evidence of high water table?
o = 0 Yes = 3
C. Bi01ogv (Subtotal = off- )
18. Fibrous roots In streambed
3
2
0.
19. Rooted upland plants in streambed
3
2
0
20. Macrobenthos (note diversity and abundance)
0
1
2
3
21. Aquatic Mollusk's '
1
2
3
22. Fish
00
0.5
1
1.5
23. Crayfish
0.5
1
1,5
24. Amphibians
0.5
1
1.5
25. Algae
0
0.5
1
1.5
26. Wetland plants in streambed
FACW = 0.75; OBL = 1.5 rther ='O
*perennial streams may also be identified using other methods. See p. 35 of manual.
Notes:
Sketch:

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; ,!k -e— y 2. Evaluator's name:
3. Date of evaluation: OL/ /-)- / / S 4. Time of evaluation:
5. Name of stream: /V A 6. River basin: R6 2.n 6 htc
7. Approximate drainage area: c,J�n-yC,�-tow✓ 8, Stream order:
9. Length of reach evaluated:y� 10. County: Q oc-sn%,
11. Site coordinates (if known): prefer in decimal degrees. 12. Subdivision name (if any): ^^/V�
Latitude (ex, 34.872312): � Cr Q-5 Longitude (ex. -77.556611): d� G u
Method location determined (circle): C> 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: Arm 9 elm
16. Site conditions at time of visit: �� L"e.
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? 6 NO If yes, estimate the water surface area: < C , 0Cr,�-
19. Does channel appear on USGS quad map? 0 NO 20. Does channel appear on USDA Soil Survey? (D NO
21. Estimated watershed land use: % Residential �% Commercial % Industrial % Agricultural
N� C) mow► �, , e-,-� % Forested % Cleared / Logged % Other ( )
22. Bankfull width: 3 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 rising 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): v( Comments: AitlC) LA/ . -SC-flrp `
G
Evaluator's Signature Date I / I ", / /
f ,�
This channel evaluation tom is intended to be used only as a guide to assist landowners and environmental professionals in
gathering the data requir d y 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.
a

STREAM QUALITY ASSESSMENT WORKSHEET s,� 6
111VJV V11Cl1 ClV LV11J 11VJ C- 11VC CIJJ VJJVU 111 -CLJCCLI JCI VCL111J,

NC DWQ Stream Identification Form Version 4.11 '7 b-eG 4, �'-
Date; ©t / 12// S
ProjectlSite: Mc',V,
Latitude:
Evaluator: �5 fJc.,,j (-Jeo-,,
County:pe('S On
Longitude;
Total Points:
Stream is at least intermittent
Stream DeterrU f (circle one)
Other
if? 99 or erennial if >_ 30*
E hemeral termitt Perennial
p
e, Quad Name:
g•
A. Geomorphology (Subtotal = Lb )
Absent
Weak
Moderate
Strong
I" Continuity of channel bed and bank
01
1
D. 0
3
2. Sinuosity of channel along thalweg
0
1
0 1, 0.5
3
3. In-channelstructure: ex. riffle -pool, step -pool,
ripple -pool sequence
0
1
1
3
4. Particle size of stream substrate
0
1
1.5
3
5. Active/relict floodplain
0
1
25. Algae
3
.6. Depositional bars or benches.
0
26. Wetland plants in streambed
2
3
7. Recent alluvial deposits
0
2
3
8. Headcuts
0
2
3
9. Grade control
0
0.5
Sketch:
1.5
10. Natural valley
0
0.5
0
1.5
11. Second or greater order channelo
a
= 0
Yes = 3
ar inciat ditches are not rated; see discussions in manual
B. Hydrology (Subtotal= C )
12. Presence of Baseflow
0 1
2 3
13. Iron oxidizing bacteria
0
2 3
14. Leaf litter
1.5 1
D. 0
15. -Sediment on plants or debris.....
0 .. 5
1 .... 1.5.. .
16. Organic debris lines or piles
0 1, 0.5
1 1.5
17. Soil -based evidence of high water table?o
= 0
Yes = 3
C. biology (Subtotal =
18. Fibrous roots in streambed ' 3
2
0.
19. Rooted upland plants in streambed 3
2
1
0
20. Macrobenthos (note diversity and abundance)
1
2
3
21. Aquatic Mollusk's ' -
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
0.5
1
1.5
26. Wetland plants in streambed
FACW = 0.75; OBL = 1.6
er =
perennial streams may also be identified using other methods. See p. 35 of manual.
Notes:
Sketch:

FuSACE AID# DWQ # Site # (indicate on attached map)
STREAM QUALITY ASSESSMENT WORKSHEET
Provide the following information for the stream reach under assessment:
1. Applicant's name: d kC- rV1p oA-y2. Evaluator's name: 3. �p,)raezL,)
3. Date of evaluation:
0110 // 5- U 1— 4. Time of evaluation: l ' 30
5. Name of stream: AIA 6. River basin: A6 -,)-As ft -e-
7. Approximate drainage area: V ✓A- kwD vs✓\ 8. Stream order:
9. Length of reach evaluated: 5-o
10. County: PeS Q/-
11. Site coordinates (if known): prefer in decimal degrees. 12. Subdivision name (if any): NA
Latitude (ex. 34.872312): �['�!' GP -s Longitude (ex. —77.556611): Se � G�S 1:41,43r—
Method location determined (circle):PS Topo Sheet Ortho (Aerial) Photo/GIS Other GIS Other
13. Location of reach under evaluation (note nearby loads and landmarks and attach map identifying stream(s) location):
11-0 moc-d— 44v( -e-
14. Proposed channel work (if any): AIA
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 6 If yes, estimate the water surface area:
19. Does channel appear on USGS quad snap? YES 6i0 20. Does channel appear on USDA Soil Survey? YES
21. Estimated watershed land use: �% Residential _% Commercial _% Industrial _% Agricultural
IAJDA-
_% Forested _% Cleared /Logged _% Other
i
22. Bankfull width. 2-3 23. Bank height (from bed to top of bank): I
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): S �, Comments: N C I J t -Al �z .S -c o re �S
Evaluator's Signature Date—
int
ate
This channel evaluation o m is intended to be used only as a guide to assist landowners and environmental professionals in
gathering the data requi ed 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. Folin subject to change - version 06/03. To Comment, please call 919-876-8441 x 26.

STREAM QUALITY ASSESSMENT WORKSHEET S 7-
*
* These characteristics are not assessed in coastal streams.

NC DWQ Stream Identification Form Version 4.11 S4re`n" 6 -
Date: of /l a l / ';�
Project/Site: MrALyo
Latitude:
Evaluator:'- u r� ��
County: �� CSo
Longitude:
Total Points:S:trea
Stream is at least intermittent 0 -{ �
ptermination (circle one)
Other
if>_ 99 or perennial if? 30*
ph emer I Intermittent Perennial
e,g. Quad Name:
A.eomor o o (Subtotal = )
Absent
Weak
Moderate
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,
ripple -pool sequence
0
0.5
2
3
4. Particle size of stream substrate
0
Yes = 3
2
3
5. Active/relict floodplain
0
1
G -D
3
6. Depositional bars or benches.
0
0
2
3
7, Recent alluvial deposits
0
0.5
2
3
8, Headcuts
0
1
2
3
9. Grade control
00
- J'
1
1.5
10. Natural valley
0
0
1
1.5
11. Second or greater order channel
a
I Cf
-c = 0
Yes = 3
Sketch:
artmnciai ditches are not rated; see discussions in manual
B. Hydrology (Subtotal = OQ- )
12. Presence of Baseflow
0
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
0.5
1
1.5
17. Soil -based evidence of high water table?
o =
Yes = 3
1
0. BiOiogy (Subtotal = 1
18. Fibrous roots In streambed '
3
2
0
19. Rooted upland plants in streambed
3
2
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
0,5
1
1,5
24. Amphibians
0
0.5
1
1.5
25. Algae
Uy
0.5
1
1.5
26, Wetland plants in streambed
FACW = 0.75; CBL =1.5Other
= 0
*perennial streams may also be identified using other methods. See p. 35 of manual.
- J'
Notes:
Sketch:

USACE AID#
DWQ#
Site # (indicate on attached map)
M
STREAM QUALITY ASSESSMENT WORKSHEET x y
Provide the following information for the stream reach under assessment: 11
1. Applicant's name: DJke- r- ill &-r9,' 2. Evaluator's name:
3. Date of evaluation: 00Z&�-
5. Name of stream; N14
7. Approximate drainage area: U^a�n
9. Length of reach evaluated: / DD 41j-
4. Time of evaluation: /*K-)
6. River basin:
Ao2,ylo 1(r_
8. Stream order:: /
10. County: Rem -S5 /N
11. Site coordinates (if known): prefer in decimal degrees, 12. Subdivision name (if airy): N�
Latitude (ex. 34,872312): + -- PS AaAl' Longitude (ex, -77.556611): Ste, - " (mss CL"
GPS
Method location determined (circle): Topo Sheet Ortho (Aerial) Photo/GIS Other GIS Other
13,�ocation 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: CJn,5X lkA; Cis w jJ2 iv !'L
16, Site conditions at time of visit: C -(e --,C
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? YENO f yes, estimate the water surface area:
19. Does channel appear on USES quad map? YES 20. Does channel appear on USDA Soil Survey? YES
21. Estimated watershed land use: % Residential % Commercial %e Industrial % Agricultural
Nva ern -true
% Forested % Cleared / Logged % Other ( )
22. Bankfull width: 3 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): �l 1 Comments: ! � � VW
Evaluator's Signature LAila Date t //k/15-
This channel evaluationrm is intended to be used only as a guide to assist landowners and environmental professionals in
gathering the data requ' ed 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,
0

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

NC DWQ Stream Identification Form Version 4.11 S4re`n" 6 -
Date: of /l a l / ';�
Project/Site: MrALyo
Latitude:
Evaluator:'- u r� ��
County: �� CSo
Longitude:
Total Points:S:trea
Stream is at least intermittent 0 -{ �
ptermination (circle one)
Other
if>_ 99 or perennial if? 30*
ph emer I Intermittent Perennial
e,g. Quad Name:
A.eomor o o (Subtotal = )
Absent
Weak
Moderate
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,
ripple -pool sequence
0
0.5
2
3
4. Particle size of stream substrate
0
Yes = 3
2
3
5. Active/relict floodplain
0
1
G -D
3
6. Depositional bars or benches.
0
0
2
3
7, Recent alluvial deposits
0
0.5
2
3
8, Headcuts
0
1
2
3
9. Grade control
00
- J'
1
1.5
10. Natural valley
0
0
1
1.5
11. Second or greater order channel
a
I Cf
-c = 0
Yes = 3
Sketch:
artmnciai ditches are not rated; see discussions in manual
B. Hydrology (Subtotal = OQ- )
12. Presence of Baseflow
0
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
0.5
1
1.5
17. Soil -based evidence of high water table?
o =
Yes = 3
1
0. BiOiogy (Subtotal = 1
18. Fibrous roots In streambed '
3
2
0
19. Rooted upland plants in streambed
3
2
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
0,5
1
1,5
24. Amphibians
0
0.5
1
1.5
25. Algae
Uy
0.5
1
1.5
26, Wetland plants in streambed
FACW = 0.75; CBL =1.5Other
= 0
*perennial streams may also be identified using other methods. See p. 35 of manual.
- J'
Notes:
Sketch:

USACE AID#
DWQ#
Site # (indicate on attached map)
M
STREAM QUALITY ASSESSMENT WORKSHEET x y
Provide the following information for the stream reach under assessment: 11
1. Applicant's name: DJke- r- ill &-r9,' 2. Evaluator's name:
3. Date of evaluation: 00Z&�-
5. Name of stream; N14
7. Approximate drainage area: U^a�n
9. Length of reach evaluated: / DD 41j-
4. Time of evaluation: /*K-)
6. River basin:
Ao2,ylo 1(r_
8. Stream order:: /
10. County: Rem -S5 /N
11. Site coordinates (if known): prefer in decimal degrees, 12. Subdivision name (if airy): N�
Latitude (ex. 34,872312): + -- PS AaAl' Longitude (ex, -77.556611): Ste, - " (mss CL"
GPS
Method location determined (circle): Topo Sheet Ortho (Aerial) Photo/GIS Other GIS Other
13,�ocation 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: CJn,5X lkA; Cis w jJ2 iv !'L
16, Site conditions at time of visit: C -(e --,C
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? YENO f yes, estimate the water surface area:
19. Does channel appear on USES quad map? YES 20. Does channel appear on USDA Soil Survey? YES
21. Estimated watershed land use: % Residential % Commercial %e Industrial % Agricultural
Nva ern -true
% Forested % Cleared / Logged % Other ( )
22. Bankfull width: 3 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): �l 1 Comments: ! � � VW
Evaluator's Signature LAila Date t //k/15-
This channel evaluationrm is intended to be used only as a guide to assist landowners and environmental professionals in
gathering the data requ' ed 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,
0

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

NC DW@ Stream Identification Form Version 4.11
Date: .1 .aw
Project/Site: MAIO �F�
Latitude: 3 G -31 Z
Evaluator:
County: t5� r
Longitude:-T&,cO3`7
Total Points:
Stream Deter circle one)
Other
Stream is at least intermittent
if >_19 or perennial if >_30*
Ephemeral ntermittent rennial
e.g. Quad
Name:
1 4 -PAI/ ®75-1
A. Geomorphology Subtotal = lS
Absent
Weak
Moderate
Strong
1 a. Continuity of channel bed and bank
0
1
14. Leaf litter
3
2. Sinuosity of channel along thalweg
0
1
0
3
3. In -channel structure: ex. riffle -pool, step -pool,
ripple -pool sent ence
0
1
2'
3
4. Particle size of stream substrate
0
No = 0
2
3
5. Active/relict floodplain
0
1.5
2
3
6. Depositional bars or benches
0
26. Wetland plants in streambed
2
3
7. Recent alluvial deposits
0
V
2
3
8. Headcuts
0
1
2
9. Grade control
0
0.5
1.5
10. Natural valley
0
0.5
1.5
11. Second or greater order channel
No = 0
Yes = 3
a ciumuai uucncs W U nuL i aieu; see un:iw5sions in manual
B. Hydrology (Subtotal = ' )
12. Presence of Baseflow
0
1
3
13. Iron oxidizing bacteria
0
1
2 3
14. Leaf litter
1.5
1
0
15. Sediment on plants or debris
0
5
1.5
16. Organic debris lines or piles
0
0.5
1.5
7. oil-based evidence of high water table?
0.5
No = 0
Yes = 3
U. biology (Subtotal = �
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
0.5
1
1.5
23. Crayfish
0.5
1
1.5
24. Amphibians
0.5
1
1.5
25. Algae
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 AID# DWQ # Site # (indicate on attached map)
U„ STREAM QUALITY ASSESSMENT WORKSHEET r;,,
Provide the following information for the stream reach under assessment:
1. Applicant's name: lr,.04�q 2. Evaluator's name:
3. Date of evaluations 5 Va,,wKiq 5� 4. Time of evaluation: 14
5. Name of stream: a yJ i TU cw� A � CCJ 6. River basin:
7. Approximate drainage area: 16 U 8. Stream order: f r
9. Length of reach evaluated: 5D 4 10. County: Po -f -5v
11. Site coordinates (if known): prefer in decimal degrees. 12. Subdivision name (if any):
Latitude (ex. 34.872312): I c - 5 3 i L Longitude (ex. -77.556611):
Method location determined (circle): GPS Topo Sheet Ortho (Aerial) Photo/GIS Other GIS Other
13. Location of reach under evaluaiote nearby roads and landmarks and attach map identifying stream(s) location):
loo F-0-� r,-�T Ms Sv
14. Proposed channel work (if any):
15. Recent weather conditions: l\1c� mw
16. Site conditions at time of visit: S+�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 yes, estimate the water surface area:
19. Does channel appear on USGS quad map? YES 00 20: Does channel appear on USDA Soil Survey? YES CDT
21. Estimated watershed land use: _% Residential _% Commercial _% Industrial _% Agricultural
q5% Forested 5% Cleared / Logged _% Other
22. Bankfull width: V' -p -A 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:
Evaluator's Signature Date
This channel evaluati m ' int o be used only as a guide to assist landowners and environ ental professionals in
gathering the data required y the ited 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
N
►e
H
* These characteristics are not assessed in coastal streams.

NC DWQ Stream Identification Form Version 4.11 P, I q mo _ GZK 5 -
Date: 'I "S'_ CykN 1� W4 Zo tis
ProjectlSite: MAID ST1.
Latitude: C `?
Evaluator; �j (f
`�
County: Pef5©
Longitude:
Total Points:
Stream is at least intermittent
Stream De (circle one)
Epheme Intermittent erennial
Other
e.g. Quad
if >_99 or perennial if z3o*
2. Sinuosity of channel along thalweg
Name:
R-eA - M Al -oz -4 S
A. Geomorphology Subtotal =
Absent
Weak
I Moderate
Strong
1 a. Continuity of channel bed and bank
0
1
14. Leaf litter
3
2. Sinuosity of channel along thalweg
0
1
0
3
3. In -channel structure: ex. riffle -pool, step -pool,
rinnip-nool spot
0
LJ
2
3
4. Particle size of stream substrate
0
1
Ye =
3
5. Active/relict floodplain
0
1.5
2
3
6. Depositional bars or benches
0
26. Wetland plants in streambed IFACW
2
3
7. Recent alluvial deposits
0
1
2
Notes:
S. Headcuts
0
1
3
9. Grade control
0
0.5
1.5
10. Natural valley
0
0.5
1
1.5
11. Second or greater order channel
No = 0
Yes = 3
a artiticial ditches are not rated; see discussions in manual
B. Hydrology (Subtotal = 6 - �_ )
12. Presence of Baseflow
0
1
2 3
13. Iron oxidizing bacteria
0
Cl)
2 3
14. Leaf litter
1.5
1
0
15. Sediment on plants or debris
0
0.
1.5
16. Organic debris lines or piles
0
0.
1 1.5
7. Soil -based evidence of high water table?
0.5
No = 0
Ye =
C. Biology (Subtotal =
18. Fibrous roots in streambed
2
1
0
19. Rooted upland plants in streambed
2
1
0
20. Macrobenthos (note diversity and abundance) ISO
1
2
3
21. Aquatic Mollusks
1
2
3
22. Fish 0
0.5
1
1.5
23. Crayfish 0
0.5
1
1.5
24. Amphibians
0.5
1
1.5
25. Algae 1 19 1
0.5 1
1 1
1.5
26. Wetland plants in streambed IFACW
= 0.75; OBL = 1.5 Other = 0
*perennial streams may also be identified using other methods. See p. 35 of manual.
Notes:
Sketch:

RA —/,A4-/ G 2," <,
I USACE AID# DWQ # Site # (indicate on attached map)
STREAM QUALITY ASSESSMENT WORKSHEET
Provide the following information for the stream reach under assessment:
1. Applicant's name: f)uLG G,n e
3. Date of evaluation: 1 S 0 0.41Q CXU. 20
5. Name of stream: Wl Tb Gres I Qc e. `- CW
7. Approximate drainage area: X00 Ages
9. Length of reach evaluated: S 0 P-0— 2 f
2. Evaluator's name: � •
4. Time of evaluation: I > O
6. River basin:
� Sr
8. Stream order:
10. County: �0 rSo %4
11. Site coordinates (if known): `prefer in decimal degrees. 12. Subdivision name (if any):
Latitude (ex. 34.872312): -6C 5 3L i Longitude (ex. —77.556611): ` —q a ' 9 0 3,
Method location determined (circle): 0 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):
t o e 1�&k r:7-6-511 ver U S G0 1
14. Proposed channel work (if
15. Recent weather
d
16. Site conditions at time of visit: S ui\ At i
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 (MV)
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 N� 20: Does channel appear on USDA Soil Survey? YES
21. Estimated watershed land use: _% Residential _% Commercial _% Industrial _% Agricultural
% Forested % Cleared / Logged % Other ( )
22. Bankfull width: �` 23. Bank height (from bed to top of bank): Fes"
24. Channel slope down center of stream: Flat (0 to 2%) _Gentle (2 to 4%) _ 1 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. Ifa
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 Date 16- �� w�^� 201h
This channel evaluati ors irrfedeeto be used only as a guide to assist landowners and environmental professionals in
gathering the data require by th ited 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.
ra
w
N
0
0
a

APPENDIX C
PHOTOGRAPHIC LOG

AMEC Project No. 7810140196 Site Photography
January 30, 2015 Mayo Electric Generating Plant
Person County, NC
Photograph Ni
Remarks
�-y
j�
• Wetland B (looking
�'
EEP
southwest) located
I
on the northwest
�iy
��Wetland'ing
iu •
basin.
a
northeast), located
fS t'hlti i, I T..
h � .
on the north side of
the ash basin, west
d M y I
I
of the main pond.
rte' �y �F �� • � .. ���
e
a'
Photograph No. 2
Remarks
�-y
j�
• Wetland B (looking
19
southwest) located
I
on the northwest
side of the ash
basin.
fS t'hlti i, I T..
h � .
°+$�R
F: � �
rte' �y �F �� • � .. ���

�.
�ls� � � �y�. d� .�,_��� -• -: A .. �yc��.�``.s ti "gyp p. � 'h!y. &'.� a1y1.
7 °�i, YjF,�'y ''y s�i�; S' v�lir '_' � ,( ' �' �;•1�.�, yt .� 3ir.'� ..1,.�-r��'� � ; e�� K a-� s�

AMEC Project No. 7810140196
January 30, 2015
Site Photography
Mayo Electric Generating Plant
Person County, NC
Photograph Ni
F I i
-
east), located in the
�°`
southwest comer of
the study area,
u
of the ash
Portions of Wetland
1
3� -s` �>;i���y�"i k.;e
�
E have been' •
�ie"i
ilk
h •"k `� r
by right-of-way
r
maintenance
{
rylAAY4�'{. a
act v ties.
�Tj�
1�
11 Photograph No. 6 Remarks 11
3
• Wetland F (looking
south), located on
the northeast side of
the ash basin.
Wetland F has been
altered by
maintenance
activities near the
base of the ash
basin dam.

AMEC Project No. 7810140196
January 30, 2015
Site Photography
Mayo Electric Generating Plant
Person County, NC
Photograph No.
•
° F7
1 L k 9
s i i ai
11"«
S.�i ( a �z
+' Aq j V DI- P f -a. •1[
• • • •
z
northeast), located
on the northeast
C
basin. Wetland
forms the
.:�` l �l L��.j. i -
}e rs ,.Cy. •, � F -
g ''moi
as 1y
gg
Stream I*
}.• �- .. 4 r =s � h �,:... Rs
7 1
{�114-
"�"' s r,. � �,y-�t«'"�` r ' ;rte h,q� ri.'t�i' w <�'.., c�
4
P
r
ri• -
Photograph
° F7
1 L k 9
s i i ai
11"«
S.�i ( a �z
+' Aq j V DI- P f -a. •1[
• • • •
z
northeast), located
on the northeast
C
basin. Wetland
forms the
headwaters for
4
Stream I*
ri• -
-

--
� Tw
tA-6.7
I - llff

AMEC Project No. 7810140196 Site Photography
January 30, 2015 Mayo Electric Generating Plant
Person County, NC
Photograph No. •
70i, • •
L �k
00 R
}. p 4k3.eI xAtli
Photograph No. 12
Remarks
�a
7
��`� I. ':
• Stream 4 (looking
south), located on
the east side of the
ash basin, just
below the large
pond.
�A
�r
iw
w �
_
dpi
YY g p
6

AMEC Project No. 7810140196
January 30, 2015
Site Photography
Mayo Electric Generating Plant
Person County, NC
Photograph
Photograph
No. 13
Remarks
Remarks
e G f
• Stream 5 (looking
Stream 6 (looking
east), located in the
on the southwest
southwest corner of
side of the ash
the study area, west
of the ash basin.
!7r
W.
k kms. t
Of
�f
-21
No.4
Remarks
e G f
Stream 6 (looking
locatedsouthwest)
on the southwest
side of the ash
!7r
W.

AMEC Project No. 7810140196
January 30, 2015
Site Photography
Mayo Electric Generating Plant
Person County, NC
Photograph No. 15
Remarks
r 1�
Stream 7 (looking
_
•(looking
northwest), located
on the west side of
north), located on
f
�
the ash basin.
- ,w ,;t �, 1
J
the west sideof
,
:•.r +.� F'" �, 'dPt ,.�
h d
_!4.—
yrs
Yl'
••
�_
�,ii
'� -rte..,. �� �� (
y
�
t •
,� �
� r
• � ��: �
til .
�
Y
�, , y
.1
Photograph
r 1�
_
•(looking
north), located on
f
�
,•-y^*'�,,�;� .� i ,••,moi:, : ,�
"
- ,w ,;t �, 1
J
the west sideof
,
:•.r +.� F'" �, 'dPt ,.�
h d
_!4.—
yrs
Yl'
••
/
�.''
i `�^�
,� �
� r
• � ��: �
til .
�
Y
�, , y
'•'�
y
`rte
�
- � �. ��' �' I�u
'`+�►
fig , ;�
.y�►- 1,
r
'

AMEC Project No. 7810140196 Site Photography
January 30, 2015 Mayo Electric Generating Plant
Person County, NC
Photograph No. 17
Remarks
31
Remarks
J ` � Vic" '
;: -` . �` s �;` a:� .::
u
1 � s
'�
• Stream 9 (looking
west), located on
W
the northwest side
* Stream 1
of the ash basin.
Stream 9 flows
'
;.. I
from a culvert at
:.� .
-
west side of the
Boston Road to the
ash basin.
ashbasin.
4
W
h
1
1
-s 1.
Photograph N1
Remarks
J ` � Vic" '
'4 � 'I +
V�,.
u
1 � s
'�
.
W
* Stream 1
locatedthe
;.. I
-
west side of the
ashbasin.
4
W
h
1
VI
P 7-
2
JI
Ik