NC0001422_DEP Sutton Natural Resources (AMEC Draft)_20150805

NATURAL RESOURCES TECHNICAL
REPORT

SUTTON ENERGY COMPLEX
WILMINGTON, NC

Prepared for:

Duke Energy Business Services, LLC
526 South Church Street – EC13K
Charlotte, NC 28202

Prepared by:

AMEC Environment and Infrastructure, Inc.
4021 Stirrup Creek Drive, Suite 100
Durham, North Carolina 27703

January 30, 2015
i
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 Potential for Occurrence of State Listed and Federally Listed Animal and Plant
Species within the Sutton Energy Complex Study Area, New Hanover 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

1
AMEC Project No. 7810140199 Natural Resources Technical Report January 30, 2015 Sutton Energy Complex New Hanover County, NC

1.0 INTRODUCTION

AMEC Environment and Infrastructure, Inc. (AMEC) conducted a natural resources investigation
at the Sutton Energy Complex located in Wilmington, New Hanover County, North Carolina
(Figures 1 and 2) per the scope of work outlined in eMax Purchase Order No. 1089377 dated
November 21, 2014. AMEC also conducted a threatened and endangered species habitat
assessment, reviewed a database at the North Carolina Office of State Archeology for
archeological resources within the study area, and assessed any potential riparian buffers
and/or regulatory floodplains within the study area. This report documents the methodology
used to assess the potential limits of U.S. Army Corps of Engineers (USACE) jurisdictional
surface waters (wetlands, streams, and other waterbodies) in the study area and presents the
findings of the field investigation. The results of the threatened and endangered species
database review, our assessment of the potential for occurrence of listed plant and animal
species within the study area, historical database review, and floodplain and riparian buffer
assessment are also included herein.

2.0 PROJECT SITE DESCRIPTION

AMEC understands that Duke Energy is planning to perform ash basin closure activities in
proximity to an ash basin along Sutton Lake at the Sutton Energy Complex. The study area is
an approximate 300 foot boundary from the west, south, and east sides of the ash basin and
approximately 400 feet from the northern side of the ash basin. The ordinary high water mark of
Sutton Lake and any abutting or adjacent wetlands were also evaluated. As specified in the
above-referenced Duke Energy purchase order, Sutton Lake, a canal connecting to Sutton Lake
on the south side of the ash basin, and the ash basin itself were not assessed as part of this
investigation.
3.0 METHODOLOGY

Wetland Delineation and Stream Determination

AMEC performed an in-house review of potentially jurisdictional waters within the study area
using the U.S. Department of Agriculture’s Natural Resources Conservation Service (NRCS)
New Hanover County Soil survey GIS data (Figure 3), the U.S. Geological Survey (USGS)
digital 7.5’ topography (Figure 4; Castle Hayne, 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 2, 2015, 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
2
AMEC Project No. 7810140199 Natural Resources Technical Report January 30, 2015 Sutton Energy Complex New Hanover County, NC

Wetland Delineation Manual 1 and the Atlantic and Gulf Coastal Plain regional supplement 2. This
technique uses a multi-parameter approach, which requires positive evidence of three criteria:
hydrophytic vegetation, hydric soils, and wetland hydrology. Each area identified as a wetland
was evaluated using the North Carolina Wetland Assessment Method (NC WAM) per the
methodology outlined in the NC WAM User Manual 3(Version 4.1), effective October, 2010.
Potential streams were evaluated using the North Carolina Department of Environment and
Natural Resources (NCDENR) Division of Water Resources’ (DWR) Methodology for
Identification of Intermittent and Perennial Streams and Their Origins 4 (Version 4.11), effective
September 1, 2010. Also, USACE Stream Quality Assessment Worksheets were completed for
each stream. The USACE Stream Quality Assessment Worksheet is intended to be used as a
guide to assist landowners and environmental professionals in gathering data required by the
USACE to make a preliminary assessment of stream quality for jurisdictional determinations.
Stream characteristics and commonly observable features resulting from geomorphic,
hydrologic, and biologic processes, along with local site features such as riparian buffers and
proximity to local disturbances, are used in this stream quality assessment to produce a numeric
score.

Areas exhibiting wetland characteristics, as well as stream and tributary systems, within the
study area were considered potentially jurisdictional waters. The landward limits of wetlands and
the linear extents of these surface waters were marked in the field with labeled survey tape tied
to vegetation or stakes. The location of each flag point was acquired using a hand-held, sub-
meter accuracy Global Positioning System (GPS) device.

Threatened and Endangered Species Review

Certain plant and animal species are protected by federal regulations [Federal Endangered
Species Act (ESA) of 1973 (16 USC 1531-1544, December 28, 1973, as amended 1976-1982,
1984, and 1988). AMEC accessed the USFWS Information, Planning, and Conservation System
(IPaC) database (available online at http://ecos.fws.gov/ipac/) and the county list available on
the USFWS Raleigh Ecological Services website (http://www.fws.gov/raleigh/) to determine if
any federally listed threatened or endangered plant or animal species (including designated
critical habitat) may be in the vicinity of the study area. AMEC conducted a habitat assessment,
consisting of pedestrian reconnaissance of the plant communities and surface waters within the
study area to determine the likelihood of listed plant and animal species occurring within the
study area. Presence or absence of listed species was confirmed through direct observations or
sign (sighting, tracks, scat, nests, dens, or call). For those listed species that could potentially
occur within the study area (i.e., suitable habitat is present) and that may be readily detectable
during the time of the reconnaissance, AMEC provided a determination concerning the
likelihood of the species’ occurrence within the study area.

1 Environmental Laboratory. 1987. “Corps of Engineers Wetlands Delineation Manual,” Technical
Report Y-87-1. U.S. Army Engineer Waterways Experiment Station. Vicksburg, MS. 2 Environmental Laboratory. 2010. “Regional Supplement to the Corps of Engineers Wetland
Delineation Manual: Atlantic and Gulf Coastal Plain (Version 2.0),” Technical Report ERDC/EL TR-
10-20. U.S. Army Engineer Waterways Experiment Station. Vicksburg, MS. 3 N.C. Wetland Functional Assessment Team. 2010. “N.C. Wetland Assessment Method (NC WAM)
User Manual, Version 4.1”. North Carolina Wetland Functional Assessment Team. Raleigh, NC. 4 Division of Water Quality. 2010. “Methodology for Identification of Intermittent and Perennial
Streams and their Origins, Version 4.11”. North Carolina Department of Environment and Natural
Resources, Division of Water Quality. Raleigh, NC.
3
AMEC Project No. 7810140199 Natural Resources Technical Report January 30, 2015 Sutton Energy Complex New Hanover County, NC

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 resource to be listed on the National Register of Historic Places (NRHP), it must
meet at least one of following four criteria for significance:

• associated with events that have made a significant contribution to broad
patterns of history;
• associated with the lives of persons significant in our past;
• that embody the distinctive characteristics of a type, period, or method of
construction, or that represent the work of a master, or that possess high artistic
values, or that represent a significant and distinguishable entity whose
components may lack individual distinction;
• That have yielded, or may be likely to yield, information important in prehistory or
history.

AMEC conducted a cultural resource screening to assess the presence/absence of known
cultural resources and NRHP listed resources in the project areas. The research included a
review of archeological files at the NC SHPO office and the online HPO Web GIS Service
(http://gis.ncdcr.gov/hpoweb/). Our investigation did not include field efforts to identify or verify
cultural resources within the study area.

Floodplain Assessment

The National Flood Insurance Program (NFIP) was created in 1968 to protect lives and property
and to reduce the financial burden of providing disaster assistance. The NFIP is administered by
the Federal Emergency Management Agency (FEMA). The NFIP is based on a mutual
agreement between the federal government and communities. In partnership with FEMA, the
state has produced flood maps in accordance with FEMA standards. Communities must adopt
and enforce minimum floodplain management regulations so that development, including
buildings, is undertaken in ways that reduce exposure to flooding. AMEC reviewed Digital Flood
Insurance Rate Maps (DFIRMS) to determine whether any portion of the study area is located
within the 100-year floodplain. These results are based on our review of FEMA DFIRM
delineated flood boundaries.

Riparian Buffer Assessment

AMEC reviewed local and state riparian buffer regulations to determine if any portion of the
study area is subject to riparian buffer regulations. AMEC reviewed City of Wilmington and New
Hanover County development regulations and NCDENR DWR’s riparian buffer regulations.

4.0 RESULTS

Wetland Delineation and Stream Determination

During the in-house review, the NRCS Soil Survey (Figure 3) indicated the presence of three
soil map units within the study area. The study area is underlain by Dorovan soils (DO), Kureb
sand, 1 to 8 percent slopes (Kr), and the Lakeland sand, 1 to 8 percent slopes (La). All three soil
4
AMEC Project No. 7810140199 Natural Resources Technical Report January 30, 2015 Sutton Energy Complex New Hanover County, NC

types are considered hydric by the NRCS. The USGS topographic map (Figure 4) depicted
Lake Sutton to the west of the ash basin (labeled Tailings Pond on Figure 4), and a cooling
canal to the south of the ash basin. A wetland area is depicted on the USFWS map, in the area
which is currently the southeast corner of the ash basin. Finally, the USFWS NWI Map (Figure
5) depicted freshwater emergent wetlands along the western boundary of the ash basin, two
freshwater ponds in the southwest corner of the ash basin, and a “lake” category overlapping
Lake Sutton and the cooling canal.

The January 2, 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. One
potentially jurisdictional wetland feature was identified within the study area. The locations/limits
of this features is shown on Figure 6. Wetland delineation data forms are provided in Appendix
B. Photographs of current site conditions are provided in Appendix C. Note: The limits of this
feature has been estimated from field observations and GPS/GIS mapping and have not been
verified (inspected) by the USACE and/or the DWR.

Wetlands
One (1) potentially jurisdictional wetland area was delineated within the study area (Wetland 1,
Figure 6). Wetland 1 is classified as a Pocosin according to NC WAM. These wetlands are
dominated by wax myrtle (Morella cerifera) and swamp bay (Persea palustris) with an
understory of common reed (Phragmites australis). Field indicators of hydrophytic vegetation,
wetland hydrology, and hydric soils were present at the time of the site evaluation for the
aforementioned wetland. USACE Atlantic and Gulf Coastal Plain Wetland Determination Data
Forms for Wetland 1 are located in Appendix B.

Streams
No potentially-jurisdictional streams were delineated within the study area.

Open Waters
One potentially jurisdictional, open water tributary (Figure 6), the Sutton Energy Complex
cooling canal, was observed just outside of the southern portion of the study area. The canal is
associated with energy generation at the Sutton Energy Complex, and flows from Lake Sutton,
southeast through the study area into the Plant. AMEC did not delineate the canal limits as the
canal is part of Lake Sutton and is not a part of the study area.

Threatened and Endangered Species Review

AMEC completed a review of the USFWS IPaC database to determine if any federally listed
threatened or endangered plant and animal species, designated critical habitat, or other natural
resources of concern have the potential to occur within the study area. As based on these
review efforts, Table 1 presents information on the potential for listed species of animals and
plants to occur in the vicinity of the study area, for species known to presently occur, or
historically have occurred, in New Hanover County. The likelihood of occurrence, as listed within
this table, is based on a comparison of the known habitat use by these species and the habitats
found (if present) within the study area and the quantity, quality, and proximity of these habitats,
as well as any observations of these species or their sign during field reconnaissance. The
likelihood of occurrence for listed species was rated as high, moderate, low, or unlikely based
on knowledge of a species’ habitat preference and site conditions and whether or not the
species was observed during field reconnaissance. A likelihood of occurrence given as
5
AMEC Project No. 7810140199 Natural Resources Technical Report January 30, 2015 Sutton Energy Complex New Hanover County, NC

“unlikely” indicates that no suitable habitat, or extremely limited habitat, for the species exists
within the study area.

Table 1. Potential for Occurrence of State Listed and Federally Listed Animal
and Plant Species within the Sutton Energy Complex Study Area,
New Hanover County, North Carolina.
Common Name
(Scientific Name)
Federal
Status
State
Status General Habitat Description Potential for
Occurrence
Mammals
Northern long-eared
bat
(Myotis
septentrionalis)
PT SR
Summer habitat includes deciduous
forests and mixed evergreen-
deciduous forests, with bats roosting
singly or in colonies underneath bark,
in cavities, or in crevices of both live
and dead trees. Specifically, dead, or
partially dead, hardwood trees with
exfoliating bark are preferred
(suitable 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.
Note: Informal consultation with
the USFWS may be required.
USFWS may require bat surveys
for ash pond closure.
Unlikely
West Indian manatee
(Trichechus manatus) E E
Warm waters of estuaries and river
mouths. The species inhabits both
salt and fresh water of sufficient
depth (5 feet to usually less than 20
feet). Found in canals, rivers,
estuarine habitats, and saltwater
bays. Between October and April,
manatees concentrate in areas of
warmer water. When water
temperatures drop below 21 to 22 C°,
they migrate to south Florida or form
large aggregations in natural springs
and industrial outfalls. During warmer
months they appear to choose areas
based on an adequate food supply,
water depth, and proximity to fresh
water.
Unlikely
6
AMEC Project No. 7810140199 Natural Resources Technical Report January 30, 2015 Sutton Energy Complex New Hanover County, NC

Common Name
(Scientific Name)
Federal
Status
State
Status General Habitat Description Potential for
Occurrence
Birds
Piping plover
(Charadrius melodus) T T
Ocean beaches and island-end flats.
North Carolina is at the northern extent
of the wintering range and is an
important stopover area during spring
and fall migration. In addition, North
Carolina is the only state on the
Atlantic coast where the breeding
range overlaps with the wintering
range. The species breeds on sand
flats, mainly near inlets or overwash
areas, and it forages mostly on sand
flats and on sandy shores, though
usually not at the ocean edge. The
species is very rarely seen inland; i.e.,
almost always on mudflats at
reservoirs.
Unlikely
Red-cockaded
woodpecker
(Picoides borealis)
E E
Mature pine forests, specifically those
with longleaf pines averaging 80 to
120 years old and loblolly pines
averaging 70 to 100 years old. Pine
trees with red-heart disease are
preferred for cavity nesting. Suitable
foraging habitat typically exhibits
sparse understory (minimal hardwood
regeneration). Fire (control burning) is
important in maintaining suitable
foraging and nesting habitat.
Unlikely
Wood stork
(Mycteria americana) T E
Freshwater and estuarine habitats for
nesting, roosting, and foraging. Nest
are typically constructed in medium to
tall trees that occur in stands located
either in swamps or on islands
surrounded by relatively broad
expanses of open water During the
nonbreeding season or while foraging,
the species occurs in a variety of
wetland habitats. Typical foraging
sites include freshwater marshes and
stock ponds, shallow, seasonally
flooded roadside or agricultural
ditches, narrow tidal creeks or shallow
tidal pools, managed impoundments,
and depressions in cypress heads and
swamp sloughs.
Low
Reptiles
Green sea turtle
(Chelonia mydas) T T Nests on beaches; forages in ocean
and sounds. Unlikely
7
AMEC Project No. 7810140199 Natural Resources Technical Report January 30, 2015 Sutton Energy Complex New Hanover County, NC

Common Name
(Scientific Name)
Federal
Status
State
Status General Habitat Description Potential for
Occurrence
Hawksbill sea turtle
(Eretmochelys
imbricata)
E E Oceans, very rarely in sounds. Unlikely
Kemp’s Ridley sea
turtle
(Lepidochelys kempii)
E E Ocean and sounds. Unlikely
Leatherback sea turtle
(Dermochelys
coriacea)
E E Oceans, rarely in sounds. Unlikely
Loggerhead sea turtle
(Caretta caretta) T T Nests on beaches; forages in ocean
and sounds. Unlikely
Fishes
Atlantic sturgeon
(Acipenser oxyrinchus
oxyrinchus)
E SC
Adult Atlantic sturgeon migrate to
upriver spawning areas in January and
February. They require clean, deep,
swiftly flowing freshwater, preferably
over a hard, rough or rocky bottom, to
successfully reproduce. Atlantic
sturgeon subsequently swim out to
sea, where they undertake extensive
migrations of up to 950 miles.
Unlikely
Shortnose sturgeon
(Acipenser
brevirostrum)
E E
Shortnose sturgeon inhabit the lower
sections of larger rivers and coastal
waters along the Atlantic coast. The
species may spend most of the year in
brackish or salt water and move into
fresh water only to spawn.
Unlikely
Vascular Plants
Cooley’s meadowrue
(Thalictrum cooleyi) E E
Ecotones between calcareous wet
savannas and adjacent swamp
forests, shallowly underlain by coquina
limestone ("marl"), generally within a
few feet of pond cypress and tuliptree.
Unlikely
Golden sedge
(Carex lutea) E E
Ecotones between very wet clay
savannas and swamp forests,
shallowly underlain by coquina
limestone, with open canopy of pond
cypress and tuliptree.
Unlikely
Rough-leaved
loosestrife
(Lysimachia
asperulaefolia)
E E
Low pocosins, high pocosins,
streamhead pocosins, savanna-
pocosin ecotones, sandhill pocosin
ecotones.
Low
8
AMEC Project No. 7810140199 Natural Resources Technical Report January 30, 2015 Sutton Energy Complex New Hanover County, NC

Common Name
(Scientific Name)
Federal
Status
State
Status General Habitat Description Potential for
Occurrence
Seabeach amaranth
(Amaranthus pumilus) T T Ocean beaches, fore-dunes, island
end flats, rarely on sound-side
beaches.
Unlikely

Sources: USFWS Environmental Conservation Online System – Species Profiles (web site);
NatureServe Explorer (web site); USFWS 2003 Recovery plan for the red-cockaded
woodpecker.
E = Endangered; T = Threatened; P=Proposed; FSC = Federal Species of Concern
Low = no further surveys recommended.
Medium =additional surveys are recommended.
High = additional surveys are recommended

On January 2, 2014, AMEC completed a general field reconnaissance of the forested habitat,
wetlands, and maintained electrical power transmission line right-of-way that occurred within the
study area. No federally listed or state listed, threatened or endangered, animal species were
observed during the field investigation. The quality of the existing habitat in the study area is
presumed to be low quality, less than suitable, or not present, for the listed species with a
potential for occurrence in New Hanover County.
Areas of planted long -leaf pine of less than 10-year age class occurred along the northern and
eastern boundaries of the study area. The plant associates included turkey oak (Quercus
laevis), laurel oak (Quecus laurifolia), broomsedge (Andropogon virginicus), yellow jessamine
(Gelsemium sempervirens), wiregrass (Aristida stricta), prickly-pear cactus (Opuntia humifusa),
panic grass (Panicum sp.), and lichen (Cladonia sp.). These areas would not provide suitable
nesting or foraging habitat for the red-cockaded woodpecker, as the age of the pine stands was
too young. A few, scattered, long-leaf pines of age exceeding approximately 30 years were
present within the northeast portion of the study area; however, no red-cockaded woodpecker
cavity holes or start holes were observed in the vicinity. Overall, the study area provides only
very limited suitable habitat for this species.

The forested uplands within the study area were visually inspected to determine if “suitable
summer habitat” or “potential summer habitat” for the northern long-eared bat was present.
Specifically, dead, or partially dead, hardwood trees with exfoliating bark, such as white oak
(Quercus alba) trees, provide roosting habitat for bats. Roost sites include trees of larger bole
size (“suitable primary maternity roost trees”; i.e., 9 to 16 inches or greater diameter at breast
height) and trees of smaller bole size (“suitable roost trees”; i.e., 5 inches or greater diameter at
breast height). No suitable roost sites were observed during the field reconnaissance of the
upland habitat. Therefore, it was presumed that “suitable summer habitat” or “potential summer
habitat” for the northern long-eared bat was not present within the study area.
AMEC has concluded from the habitat assessment that there is no habitat present within the
study area for sea turtles, the West Indian manatee, the piping plover, or the Atlantic sturgeon
and shortnose sturgeon. Wood storks may utilize the shoreline of Lake Sutton for foraging. No
stork nests were observed within the scattered, taller, pine trees that occurred near the
shoreline.

Suitable habitat for Cooley’s meadowrue, golden sedge, rough-leaved loosestrife, and
seabeach amaranth was either not present or very limited (i.e., very low in quantity and/or
quality). None of these listed plant species was observed during the site reconnaissance.
9
AMEC Project No. 7810140199 Natural Resources Technical Report January 30, 2015 Sutton Energy Complex New Hanover County, NC

Cultural Resources Review

AMEC conducted a desktop review of the study area based on available data resources from
the National Register of Historic Places (NRHP) 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, the study area has been not been surveyed for archeological resources. 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 of the study area.

According to the online HPO Web GIS Service, no NRHP listed historic architectural properties
are located within the study area. The Reeves AME Zion Church, located approximately 2 miles
southwest of the study area, was determined to be eligible for the NRHP in 1994.

Floodplain Assessment

Review of the FEMA DFIRM delineated 100-year flood boundary for the project area identified
that portions of the study area adjacent to The western boundary the study area along Lake
Sutton, and a small area in the northern section of the ash basin are located within the regulated
100-year flood zone (FEMA Map Panels 3720320000K and 3720310900K [New Hanover
County], effective date 06/02/2006, Figure 8). These results are based on our review of FEMA
DFIRM delineated flood boundaries.

Riparian Buffer Assessment

Review of the State of North Carolina Buffer Regulations indicate that the study area is not
located within a river basin with buffer rules and is not subject to any state riparian buffer
regulations.

Review of the City of Wilmington and New Hanover County development regulations indicate
that there are no applicable local riparian buffer regulations.

5.0 CONCLUSIONS

One (1) potentially-jurisdictional wetland and one (1) potentially-jurisdictional open water was
identified within the study area. AMEC recommends the completion of the verification of
Jurisdictional Determination process with the Wilmington District USACE prior to any
mechanized land clearing or other disturbance in proximity to potential jurisdictional waters,
including wetlands. Boundaries and classifications of the aforementioned features in the study
area should be verified by the USACE. The boundaries of jurisdictional waters may need to be
surveyed by a registered Professional Land Surveyor to facilitate the verification of Jurisdictional
Determination by the USACE. Impacts to jurisdictional features may require a Section 404/401
Clean Water Act (CWA) permit. AMEC further recommends that, if impacts to jurisdictional
surface waters on site are needed, these impacts be avoided and/or minimized to the extent
practicable.

Depending on the extent of proposed impacts to jurisdictional surface waters, a permit may be
required from the USACE, along with a Water Quality Certification from NC DWR. A project may
qualify for a USACE Nationwide Permit if impacts to jurisdictional waters are limited to less than
300 linear feet of aquatically-important stream and/or one-half acre of wetlands. These
thresholds include previous requests for the same permit coverage for projects on the same
1

AMEC Project No. 7810140199 Natural Resources Technical Report January 30, 2015 Sutton Energy Complex New Hanover County, NC

site. Mitigation may be required for permanent impacts to streams or for permanent impacts to
wetlands over 0.10 acre. Temporary impacts remaining in place for greater than one year are
typically considered permanent by the USACE. In this case, temporary impacts may require
mitigation. Finally, any permit decision must consider additional floodway, floodplain fill, or storm
water restrictions as mandated by local ordinance, state requirements, or federal regulations.

A low potential for suitable habitat for the proposed to be federally threatened wood stork and
federally endangered rough-leaved loosestrife was identified within the study area. Prior to
disturbance within these areas, consultation with the USFWS should be conducted to determine
if a biological survey for these species will be required.

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.

Review of the FEMA delineated 100-year flood boundary for the study area identified a portion
of the study area as 100-year flood zone. Work conducted within the 100-year floodplain may
require review/consultation with City of Wilmington Floodplain Administrator.

This report is intended for the use of Duke Energy, subject to the contractual terms between
Duke Energy and AMEC. Reliance on this document by any other party is prohibited without the
expressed, written consent of AMEC. Use of this report for purposes beyond those reasonably
intended by Duke Energy and AMEC will be at the sole risk of the user.

APPENDIX A
FIGURES

Sources: Esri, DeLorme, NAVTEQ, USGS, NRCAN, METI, iPC, TomTom
Duke Energy Sutton Energy Complex New Hanover County, NC
Legend
Study Area
Existing Ash Pond / Excluded From Study Area Figure 1 - Site Location Map
Projection: NAD83 State Plane FIPS 3200 (US Feet)
Vertical Datum: NAVD88
I 0 10,000 20,0005,000 Feet
Site Location
Site Location
I 0 125 25062.5 Miles
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.
Note to User:
ArcGIS Base Data: 1 June 2014
P:\Energy\Projects\Duke\2014\12 Wetland Delineations\7810140199 Sutton Station\Task 5 Report and Graphics
Source: Esri, DigitalGlobe, GeoEye, Earthstar Geographics, CNES/Airbus DS, USDA, USGS, AEX, Getmapping, Aerogrid, IGN, IGP, swisstopo, and the GIS User
Community
Duke Energy Sutton Energy Complex New Hanover County, NC
Legend
Study Area
Existing Ash Pond / Excluded From Study Area Figure 2 - Study Area Map
Projection: NAD83 State Plane FIPS 3200 (US Feet)
Vertical Datum: NAVD88
I 0 975 1,950487.5 Feet
P:\Energy\Projects\Duke\2014\12 Wetland Delineations\7810140199 Sutton Station\Task 5 Report and Graphics
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.
Note to User:
ArcGIS Base Data: 1 June 2014
Source: Esri, DigitalGlobe, GeoEye, Earthstar Geographics, CNES/Airbus DS, USDA, USGS, AEX, Getmapping, Aerogrid, IGN, IGP, swisstopo, and the GIS User
Community
Duke Energy Sutton Energy Complex New Hanover County, NC
Legend
Study Area
Existing Ash Pond / Excluded From Study Area
Figure 3 - NRCS Soils Map
Projection: NAD83 State Plane FIPS 3200 (US Feet)
Vertical Datum: NAVD88
I 0 950 1,900475 FeetSoil Code Soil Type Hydric Status
DO Dorovan soils Hydric
Kr Kureb sand, 1 to 8 percent slopes Hydric
La Lakeland sand, 1 to 8 percent slopes Hydric
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.
Note to User:
ArcGIS Base Data: 1 June 2014
P:\Energy\Projects\Duke\2014\12 Wetland Delineations\7810140199 Sutton Station\Task 5 Report and Graphics
Copyright:© 2013 National Geographic Society, i-cubed
Duke Energy Sutton Energy Complex New Hanover County, NC
Legend
Study Area
Existing Ash Pond / Excluded From Study Area Figure 4 - USGS Topographic Map
Belews Lake Quad
Projection: NAD83 State Plane FIPS 3200 (US Feet)
Vertical Datum: NAVD88
I 0 980 1,960490 Feet
P:\Energy\Projects\Duke\2014\12 Wetland Delineations\7810140199 Sutton Station\Task 5 Report and Graphics
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.
Note to User:
ArcGIS Base Data: 1 June 2014
Freshwater
Emergent
Wetland
Freshwater
Emergent
Wetland
Freshwater
Pond
Freshwater
Forested/Shrub
Wetland
Freshwater
Forested/Shrub
Wetland
Freshwater
Pond
Lake
Lake
Lake
Freshwater
Forested/Shrub
Wetland
Freshwater
Forested/Shrub
Wetland
Freshwater
Emergent
Wetland
Freshwater
Pond
Freshwater
Emergent
Wetland
Riverine
Freshwater
Emergent
Wetland
Source: Esri, DigitalGlobe, GeoEye, Earthstar Geographics, CNES/Airbus DS, USDA, USGS, AEX, Getmapping, Aerogrid, IGN, IGP, swisstopo, and the GIS User
Community
Duke Energy Sutton Energy Complex New Hanover County, NC
Legend
Study Area Existing Ash Pond / Excluded From Study Area
Wetland Type
Freshwater Emergent Wetland
Freshwater Forested/Shrub Wetland
Freshwater Pond
Lake
Riverine
Figure 5 - USFWS National Wetland Inventory Map
Projection: NAD83 State Plane FIPS 3200 (US Feet)
Vertical Datum: NAVD88
I 0 950 1,900475 Feet
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.
Note to User:
ArcGIS Base Data: 1 June 2014
P:\Energy\Projects\Duke\2014\12 Wetland Delineations\7810140199 Sutton Station\Task 5 Report and Graphics
1
NC OneMap, NC Center for Geographic Information and Analysis, NC 911 Board
Duke Energy Sutton Energy Complex New Hanover County, NC
Legend
Highwater Mark
Study Area
Existing Ash Pond / Excluded From Study Area
Wetlands
Figure 6 - Jurisdictional Waters Map
Projection: NAD83 State Plane FIPS 3200 (US Feet)
Vertical Datum: NAVD88
I 0 1,000 2,000500 Feet
Jurisdictional status of features on this map
are preliminary and may be subject to change
pending verification by the Army Corps of Engineers
P:\Energy\Projects\Duke\2014\12 Wetland Delineations\7810140199 Sutton Station\Task 5 Report and Graphics
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.
Note to User:
ArcGIS Base Data: 1 June 2014
Source: Esri, DigitalGlobe, GeoEye, Earthstar Geographics, CNES/Airbus DS, USDA, USGS, AEX, Getmapping, Aerogrid, IGN, IGP, swisstopo, and the GIS User
Community
Duke Energy Sutton Energy Complex New Hanover County, NC
Legend
Study Area
Marginal Habitat - Wood Stork & Rough-leaved Loosestrife
Existing Ash Pond / Excluded From Study Area Figure 7 - Threatened & Endangered Species Habitat Map
Projection: NAD83 State Plane FIPS 3200 (US Feet)
Vertical Datum: NAVD88
I 0 975 1,950487.5 Feet
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.
Note to User:
ArcGIS Base Data: 1 June 2014
P:\Energy\Projects\Duke\2014\12 Wetland Delineations\7810140199 Sutton Station\Task 5 Report and Graphics
NH 806
Copyright:© 2013 National Geographic Society, i-cubed
Duke Energy Sutton Energy Complex New Hanover County, NC
Legend
Study Area
Existing Ash Pond / Excluded From Study Area
Known Archeological Sites Figure 8 - Cultural Resources Map
Projection: NAD83 State Plane FIPS 3200 (US Feet)
Vertical Datum: NAVD88
I 0 1,000 2,000500 Feet
P:\Energy\Projects\Duke\2014\12 Wetland Delineations\7810140199 Sutton Station\Task 5 Report and Graphics
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.
Note to User:
ArcGIS Base Data: 1 June 2014
Sutton
Source: Esri, DigitalGlobe, GeoEye, Earthstar Geographics, CNES/Airbus DS, USDA, USGS, AEX, Getmapping, Aerogrid, IGN, IGP, swisstopo, and the GIS User
Community
Duke Energy Sutton Energy Complex New Hanover County, NC
Legend
Study Area
Existing Ash Pond / Excluded From Study Area
100yr Flood Boundary
Rivers/Streams
Figure 9 - Floodplain Map
Projection: NAD83 State Plane FIPS 3200 (US Feet)
Vertical Datum: NAVD88
I 0 1,100 2,200550 Feet
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.
Notes to User:
Panels 3109 & 3200 Flood Data Effective:
2 June 2006
ArcGIS Base Data:1 June 2014
P:\Energy\Projects\Duke\2014\12 Wetland Delineations\7810140199 Sutton Station\Task 5 Report and Graphics

APPENDIX B
WETLAND/STREAM FIELD DATA FORMS

WETLAND DETERMINATION DATA FORM - Atlantic and Gulf Coastal Plain Region
Project/Site:City/County:Sampling Date:
Applicant/Owner:State:Sampling Point:
Investigator(s):Section, Township, Range:
Landform: (hillslope, terrace, etc.)Local Relief (concave, convex, none): Slope (%):none
Subregion (LRR or MLRA)LRR T Lat:Long:Datum:
Soil Map Unit Name:NWI Classification:
Are climatic/hydrologic conditions on the site typical for this time of year? Yes No (If no, explain in Remarks.)
Are Vegetation , Soil , or Hydrology significantly disturbed? Are "Normal Circumstances" present? Yes No
Are Vegetation , Soil , or Hydrology naturally problematic? (If needed, explain any answers in Remarks.)
SUMMARY OF FINDINGS - Attach site map showing sampling point locations, transects, important features, etc.
Hydrophytic Vegetation Present?Yes No Is the Sampled Area
Hydric Soil Present?Yes No within a wetland?Yes No
Wetland Hydrology Present?Yes No
Remarks:
HYDROLOGY
Wetland Hydrology Indicators:Secondary Indicators (minimum of two required)
Primary Indicators (minimum of one is required; check all that apply):Surface Soil Cracks (B6)
Surface Water (A1)Aquatic Fauna (B13)Sparsely Vegetated Concave Surface (B8)
High Water Table (A2)Marl Deposits (B15) (LRR U)Drainage Patterns (B10)
Saturation (A3)Hydrogen Sulfide Odor (C1)Moss Trim Lines (B16)
Water Marks (B1)Oxidized Rhizospheres on Living Roots (C3)Dry-Season Water Table (C2)
Sediment Deposits (B2)Presence of Reduced Iron (C4)Crayfish Burrows (C8)
Drift Deposits (B3)Recent Iron Reduction in Tilled Soils (C6)Saturation Visible on Aerial Imagery (C9)
Algal Mat or Crust (B4)Thin Muck Surface (C7)Geomorphic Position (D2)
Iron Deposits (B5)Other (Explain in Remarks)Shallow Aquitard (D3)
Inundation Visible on Aerial Imagery (B7)FAC-Neutral Test (D5)
Water-Stained Leaves (B9)Sphangum moss (D8) (LRR T,U)
Field Observations:
Surface Water Present? Yes No Depth (inches):1 inch
Water Table Present? Yes No Depth (inches):surface
Saturation Present? Yes No Depth (inches):surface Wetland Hydrology Present? Yes No
(includes capillary fringe)
Describe Recorded Data (stream gauge, monitoring well, aerial photos, previous inspections), if available:
Remarks:
US Army Corps of Engineers Atlantic and Gulf Coastal Plain Region - Version 2.0
none
Multiple hydrology indicators present. Hydrology criterion is met.
All three wetland criteria met, area is a wetland
Wetland located adjacent to a utility line right of way, at the toe of the dike for Ash Ponds 1 & 2.
Sutton Energy Complex
Wilmington/New
Hanover 1/2/2015
Duke Energy Red_SUT_0480
J. Cutler, C.Conchilla
KR - Kureb sand none
VEGETATION (Five Strata) - Use scientific names of plants.Sampling Point:
Tree Stratum (Plot size:30 ft )
Absolute
% Cover
Dominant
Species?
Indicator
Status
1.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.
= Total Cover
50% of total cover:20% of total cover:OBL species 0 x 1 =0
Sapling Stratum (Plot size:30 ft )FACW species 25 x 2 =50
1.FAC species 80 x 3 =240
2.FACU species 0 x 4 =0
3.UPL species 0 x 5 =0
4.Column Totals:105 (A)290 (B)
5.
6.
= Total Cover Hydrophytic Vegetation Indicators:
50% of total cover:20% of total cover:
Shrub Stratum (Plot size:30 ft )Dominance Test is > 50%
1.80 Y FAC Prevalence Index is ≤ 3.01
2.5 FACW Problematic Hydrophytic Vegetation1 (Explain)
3.
4.1 Indicators of hydric soil and wetland hydrology must
5.be present, unless disturbed or problematic
6.
85 = Total Cover Definitions of Vegetation Strata:
50% of total cover:42.5 20% of total cover:17
Herb Stratum (Plot size:30 ft )
1.20 Y FACW
2.
3.
4.
5.
6.
7.
8.
9.
10.
11.
20 = Total Cover Woody vine - All woody vines, regardless of height.
50% of total cover:10 20% of total cover:4
Woody Vine Stratum (Plot size:30 ft )
1.
2.
3.Hydrophytic
4.Vegetation Yes No
5.Present?
= Total Cover
50% of total cover:20% of total cover:
Remarks: (If observed, list morphological adaptations below)
ERDC/CRREL 2014 Regional Wetland Plant List (Atlantic and Gulf Coastal Plain) used for indicator status.
US Army Corps of Engineers Atlantic and Gulf Coastal Plain Region - Version 2.0
Morella cerifera
Persea palustris
Red_SUT_0480
Prevalence Index worksheet:
Dominance Test Worksheet:
Number of Dominant Species
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.
Hydrophytic vegetation criteria is met.
Phragmites australis
Shrub - Woody plants, excluding woody vines,
approximately 3 to 20 ft (1 to 6 m) in height.
2.8Prevalence Index = B/A =
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.
SOIL Sampling Point:
Profile Description: (Describe to the depth needed to document the indicator or confirm the absence of indicators).
Depth
(inches)%%Type1 Loc2 Texture
0-4 100 muck
4-10 100 coarse sand
1Type C = Concentration, D = depletion, RM = Reduced Matrix, MS = Masked Sand Grains 2Location: PL = Pore Lining, M = Matrix
Hydric Soil Indicators:Indicators for Problematic Hydric Soils3:
Histosol (A1)Polyvalue Below Surface (S8) (LRR S,T,U)1 cm Muck (A9) (LRR O)
Histic Epipedon (A2)Thin Dark Surface (S9) (LRR S,T,U)2 cm Muck (A10) (LRR S)
Black Histic (A3)Loamy Mucky Mineral (F1) (LRR O)Reduced Vertic (F18) (outside MLRA 150A,B)
Hydrogen Sulfide (A4)Loamy Gleyed Matrix (F2)Piedmont Floodplain Soils (F19) (LRR P,S,T)
Stratified Layers (A5)Depleted Matrix (F3)Anomalous Bright Loamy Soils (F20)
Organic Bodies (A6) (LRR P,T,U)Redox Dark Surface (F6)(MLRA 153B)
5 cm Mucky Mineral (A7) (LRR P,T,U)Depleted Dark Surface (F7)Red Parent Material (TF2)
Muck Presence (A8) (LRR U)Redox Depressions (F8)Very Shallow Dark Surface (TF12)
1 cm Muck (A9) (LRR P,T) Marl (F10) (LRR U)Other (Explain in Remarks)
Depleted Below Dark Surface (A11)Depleted Ochric (F11) (MLRA 151)
Thick Dark Surface (A12)Iron-Manganese Masses (F12) (LRR O,P,T)3Indicators of hydrophytic vegetation and
Coast Prairie Redox (A16) (MLRA 150A)Umbric Surface (F13) (LRR P,T,U)wetland hydrology must be present,
Sandy Mucky Mineral (S1) (LRR O,S)Delta Ochric (F17) (MLRA 151)unless disturbed or problematic.
Sandy Gleyed Matrix (S4)Reduced Vertic (F18) (MLRA 150A, 150B)
Sandy Redox (S5)Piedmont Floodplain Soils (F19) (MLRA 149A)
Stripped Matrix (S6)Anomalous Bright Loamy Soils (F20) (MLRA 149A, 153C, 153D)
Dark Surface (S7) (LRR P,S,T,U)
Restrictive Layer (if observed):
Type:
Depth (inches)Hydric Soil Present? Yes No
Remarks:
Hydric soil criterion is met.
US Army Corps of Engineers Atlantic and Gulf Coastal Plain Region - Version 2.0
10YR 2/1
10YR 5/1
Red_SUT_0480
Matrix
RemarksColor (moist)Color (moist)
Redox Features
WETLAND DETERMINATION DATA FORM - Atlantic and Gulf Coastal Plain Region
Project/Site:City/County:Sampling Date:
Applicant/Owner:State:Sampling Point:
Investigator(s):Section, Township, Range:
Landform: (hillslope, terrace, etc.)Local Relief (concave, convex, none): Slope (%):0
Subregion (LRR or MLRA)LRR-T Lat:Long:Datum:
Soil Map Unit Name:NWI Classification:
Are climatic/hydrologic conditions on the site typical for this time of year? Yes No (If no, explain in Remarks.)
Are Vegetation , Soil , or Hydrology significantly disturbed? Are "Normal Circumstances" present? Yes No
Are Vegetation , Soil , or Hydrology naturally problematic? (If needed, explain any answers in Remarks.)
SUMMARY OF FINDINGS - Attach site map showing sampling point locations, transects, important features, etc.
Hydrophytic Vegetation Present?Yes No Is the Sampled Area
Hydric Soil Present?Yes No within a wetland?Yes No
Wetland Hydrology Present?Yes No
Remarks:
HYDROLOGY
Wetland Hydrology Indicators:Secondary Indicators (minimum of two required)
Primary Indicators (minimum of one is required; check all that apply):Surface Soil Cracks (B6)
Surface Water (A1)Aquatic Fauna (B13)Sparsely Vegetated Concave Surface (B8)
High Water Table (A2)Marl Deposits (B15) (LRR U)Drainage Patterns (B10)
Saturation (A3)Hydrogen Sulfide Odor (C1)Moss Trim Lines (B16)
Water Marks (B1)Oxidized Rhizospheres on Living Roots (C3)Dry-Season Water Table (C2)
Sediment Deposits (B2)Presence of Reduced Iron (C4)Crayfish Burrows (C8)
Drift Deposits (B3)Recent Iron Reduction in Tilled Soils (C6)Saturation Visible on Aerial Imagery (C9)
Algal Mat or Crust (B4)Thin Muck Surface (C7)Geomorphic Position (D2)
Iron Deposits (B5)Other (Explain in Remarks)Shallow Aquitard (D3)
Inundation Visible on Aerial Imagery (B7)FAC-Neutral Test (D5)
Water-Stained Leaves (B9)Sphangum moss (D8) (LRR T,U)
Field Observations:
Surface Water Present? Yes No Depth (inches):
Water Table Present? Yes No Depth (inches):
Saturation Present? Yes No Depth (inches):Wetland Hydrology Present? Yes No
(includes capillary fringe)
Describe Recorded Data (stream gauge, monitoring well, aerial photos, previous inspections), if available:
Remarks:
US Army Corps of Engineers Atlantic and Gulf Coastal Plain Region - Version 2.0
Sutton Energy Complex
Wilmington/New
Hanover 1/2/2015
Duke Energy Red_SUT_0485
J. Cutler, C. Conchilla
KR - Kureb sand None
none
No hydrology indicators present.
All three wetland criteria are not met, area is not a wetland.
VEGETATION (Five Strata) - Use scientific names of plants.Sampling Point:
Tree Stratum (Plot size:30 ft )
Absolute
% Cover
Dominant
Species?
Indicator
Status
1.50 Y FAC That Are OBL, FACW, or FAC:3 (A)
2.Total Number of Dominant
3.Species Across All Strata:4 (B)
4.Percent of Dominant Species
5.That Are OBL, FACW, or FAC:75%(A/B)
6.
50 = Total Cover
50% of total cover:25 20% of total cover:10 OBL species 0 x 1 =0
Sapling Stratum (Plot size:30 ft )FACW species 40 x 2 =80
1.20 Y FAC species 60 x 3 =180
2.40 Y FACW FACU species 0 x 4 =0
3.UPL species 0 x 5 =0
4.Column Totals:100 (A)260 (B)
5.
6.
60 = Total Cover Hydrophytic Vegetation Indicators:
50% of total cover:30 20% of total cover:12
Shrub Stratum (Plot size:30 ft )Dominance Test is > 50%
1.Prevalence Index is ≤ 3.01
2.Problematic Hydrophytic Vegetation1 (Explain)
3.
4.1 Indicators of hydric soil and wetland hydrology must
5.be present, unless disturbed or problematic
6.
= Total Cover Definitions of Vegetation Strata:
50% of total cover:20% of total cover:
Herb Stratum (Plot size:30 ft )
1.
2.10 Y FAC
3.
4.
5.
6.
7.
8.
9.
10.
11.
10 = Total Cover Woody vine - All woody vines, regardless of height.
50% of total cover:5 20% of total cover:2
Woody Vine Stratum (Plot size:30 ft )
1.
2.
3.Hydrophytic
4.Vegetation Yes No
5.Present?
= Total Cover
50% of total cover:20% of total cover:
Remarks: (If observed, list morphological adaptations below)
ERDC/CRREL 2014 Regional Wetland Plant List (Atlantic and Gulf Coastal Plain) used for indicator status.
US Army Corps of Engineers Atlantic and Gulf Coastal Plain Region - Version 2.0
Quercus laurifolia
Gelsemium sempervirens
Shrub - Woody plants, excluding woody vines,
approximately 3 to 20 ft (1 to 6 m) in height.
2.6Prevalence Index = B/A =
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.
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.
Hydrophytic vegetation criteria is met.
Prevalence Index worksheet:
Pinus palustris
Dominance Test Worksheet:
Number of Dominant Species
Red_SUT_0485
Pinus palustris
SOIL Sampling Point:
Profile Description: (Describe to the depth needed to document the indicator or confirm the absence of indicators).
Depth
(inches)%%Type1 Loc2 Texture
0-4 coarse sand
4-10 coarse sand
1Type C = Concentration, D = depletion, RM = Reduced Matrix, MS = Masked Sand Grains 2Location: PL = Pore Lining, M = Matrix
Hydric Soil Indicators:Indicators for Problematic Hydric Soils3:
Histosol (A1)Polyvalue Below Surface (S8) (LRR S,T,U)1 cm Muck (A9) (LRR O)
Histic Epipedon (A2)Thin Dark Surface (S9) (LRR S,T,U)2 cm Muck (A10) (LRR S)
Black Histic (A3)Loamy Mucky Mineral (F1) (LRR O)Reduced Vertic (F18) (outside MLRA 150A,B)
Hydrogen Sulfide (A4)Loamy Gleyed Matrix (F2)Piedmont Floodplain Soils (F19) (LRR P,S,T)
Stratified Layers (A5)Depleted Matrix (F3)Anomalous Bright Loamy Soils (F20)
Organic Bodies (A6) (LRR P,T,U)Redox Dark Surface (F6)(MLRA 153B)
5 cm Mucky Mineral (A7) (LRR P,T,U)Depleted Dark Surface (F7)Red Parent Material (TF2)
Muck Presence (A8) (LRR U)Redox Depressions (F8)Very Shallow Dark Surface (TF12)
1 cm Muck (A9) (LRR P,T) Marl (F10) (LRR U)Other (Explain in Remarks)
Depleted Below Dark Surface (A11)Depleted Ochric (F11) (MLRA 151)
Thick Dark Surface (A12)Iron-Manganese Masses (F12) (LRR O,P,T)3Indicators of hydrophytic vegetation and
Coast Prairie Redox (A16) (MLRA 150A)Umbric Surface (F13) (LRR P,T,U)wetland hydrology must be present,
Sandy Mucky Mineral (S1) (LRR O,S)Delta Ochric (F17) (MLRA 151)unless disturbed or problematic.
Sandy Gleyed Matrix (S4)Reduced Vertic (F18) (MLRA 150A, 150B)
Sandy Redox (S5)Piedmont Floodplain Soils (F19) (MLRA 149A)
Stripped Matrix (S6)Anomalous Bright Loamy Soils (F20) (MLRA 149A, 153C, 153D)
Dark Surface (S7) (LRR P,S,T,U)
Restrictive Layer (if observed):
Type:
Depth (inches)Hydric Soil Present? Yes No
Remarks:
Hydric soil criterion is not met.
US Army Corps of Engineers Atlantic and Gulf Coastal Plain Region - Version 2.0
Red_SUT_0485
Matrix
RemarksColor (moist)Color (moist)
Redox Features
5YR 5/3
5YR 6/3

APPENDIX C
PHOTOGRAPHIC LOG

AMEC Project No. 7810140199 Site Photography
January 22, 2015 Sutton Energy Complex
New Hanover County, NC

1

Photograph No. 1 Remarks

 A view of Wetland
1, to the north of
the ash pond,
looking east.

Photograph No. 2 Remarks

 A view of uplands
adjacent to Wetland
1, north of the ash
pond, looking
northeast.

AMEC Project No. 7810140199 Site Photography
January 22, 2015 Sutton Energy Complex
New Hanover County, NC

2

Photograph No. 3 Remarks

 A view of Wetland
1, west of the ash
pond, along Lake
Sutton, looking
southwest.

Photograph No. 4 Remarks

 A view of Lake
Sutton from the
ash basin dam,
looking southwest.
AMEC Project No. 7810140199 Site Photography
January 22, 2015 Sutton Energy Complex
New Hanover County, NC

3

Photograph No. 5 Remarks

 A view of the
cooling canal,
looking south
from the north
bank of the
canal.