NC0004987_Appendix A NRTR_20170613

Unpermitted Discharge Corrective Action Plan June 15, 2017
Marshall Steam Station, Terrell, NC
APPENDIX A
NATURAL RESOURCES TECHNICAL REPORT

NATURAL RESOURCES TECHNICAL REPORT
MARSHALL STEAM STATION
CATAWBA COUNTY, NORTH CAROLINA
Prepared for:
Duke Energy Business Services, LLC
526 South Church Street — EC13K
Charlotte, NC 28202
Prepared by:
amec
foster
wheeler
Amec Foster Wheeler Environment & Infrastructure, Inc.
4021 Stirrup Creek Drive, Suite 100
Durham, North Carolina 27703
June 19, 2015

TABLE OF CONTENTS
1.0 INTRODUCTION...................................................................................................................1
2.0 PROJECT SITE DESCRIPTION...........................................................................................1
3.0 METHODOLOGY..................................................................................................................1
4.0 RESULTS..............................................................................................................................4
5.0 CONCLUSIONS..................................................................................................................14
LIST OF TABLES
Table 1 Wetlands within the Marshall Steam Station Study Area, Catawba County, North
Carolina.
Table 2 Stream Classifications within the Marshall Steam Station Study Area, Catawba
County, North Carolina.
Table 3 Potential for Occurrence of Federally Listed Animal and Plant Species within the
Marshall Steam Station Study Area, Catawba County, North Carolina.
Table 4 Identified Archaeology and Historic Sites near the Marshall Steam Station Study
Area, Catawba 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 Foster Wheeler Project No. 7810150299 Natural Resources Technical Report
June 19, 2015 Marshall Steam Station
Catawba County, NC
1.0 INTRODUCTION
Amec Foster Wheeler Environment & Infrastructure, Inc. (Amec Foster Wheeler) conducted a
natural resources investigation at the Marshall Steam Station in Catawba County, North
Carolina (Figure 1) per the scope of work outlined in eMax Purchase Order No. 1088756 dated
November 21, 2014, and in eMax Purchase Order No. 1184393 dated March 25, 2015. This
scope includes a threatened and endangered species habitat assessment, review of a database
at the North Carolina Office of State Archaeology for archaeological resources within the study
area, and assessment of 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 in this report.
2.0 PROJECT SITE DESCRIPTION
Amec Foster Wheeler understands that Duke Energy is planning to perform ash basin closure
activities near the ash ponds at the Marshall Steam Station. The project area is shown on
Figures 1 and 2 and is approximately 1,386 acres. 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 Foster Wheeler performed an in-house review of potentially jurisdictional waters within
the study area. The review used the U.S. Department of Agriculture's Natural Resources
Conservation Service (NRCS) Catawba County Soil survey geographic information system
(GIS) data (Figure 3), the U.S. Geological Survey (USGS) digital 7.5 -minute topography (Figure
4; Lake Norman North, North Carolina Quadrangle), and the U.S. Fish and Wildlife Service
(USFWS) National Wetlands Inventory (NWI) 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.
After the in-house review, on January 7, April 29 to 30, and May 1, 2015, Amec Foster Wheeler
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 Foster Wheeler 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
Environmental Laboratory. 1987. "Corps of Engineers Wetlands Delineation Manual," Technical Report
Y-87-1. U.S. Army Engineer Waterways Experiment Station. Vicksburg, MS.

Amec Foster Wheeler Project No. 7810150299 Natural Resources Technical Report
June 19, 2015 Marshall Steam Station
Catawba County, NC
supplement2. This technique uses a multi -parameter approach, which requires positive evidence
of three criteria: hydrophytic vegetation, hydric soils, and wetland hydrology. Each area
identified as a wetland was evaluated using the North Carolina Wetland Assessment Method
(NC WAM) per the methodology outlined in the NC WAM User Manuals (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. USACE Stream Quality Assessment Worksheets also 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 potential
mitigation. Stream characteristics and commonly observable features resulting from
geomorphic, hydrologic, and biologic processes, 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. The numeric score is used by USACE to indicate what level of mitigation would
be required for stream impacts -- a score of 30 or less might not require mitigation, a score
between 40 and 50 would likely require a 1:1 mitigation credit ratio, a score between 50 and 60
would be either a 1:1 or 2:1 ratio based on a case-by-case review, and a score of over 60 would
likely require a 2:1 mitigation credit ratio (personal communication with Mr. David Bailey,
Wilmington District USACE, June 2015).
Areas exhibiting wetland characteristics and stream and tributary systems within the study area
were considered potentially jurisdictional waters. The landward limits of wetlands and the linear
extent 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 sub -meter accuracy
Global Positioning System (GPS) device.
Threatened and Endangered Species Habitat Characterization
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)]. The bald eagle is federally protected under the Bald and Golden Eagle
Protection Act (BGEPA) and the Migratory Bird Treaty Act (MBTA). Amec Foster Wheeler
accessed the USFWS Information, Planning, and Conservation System (IPaC) database
(available online at htti)://ecos.fws.gov/ipac/) on May 26, 2015 and the county list available on
the USFWS Asheville Ecological Services website (http://www.fws.gov/asheville/). These
information sources were used to determine whether federally listed threatened or endangered
plant or animal species (including designated critical habitat) may be near the study area. Amec
Foster Wheeler 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 noted through direct observations or sign (sighting, tracks, scat, nests, dens, or
call).
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.

Amec Foster Wheeler Project No. 7810150299
June 19, 2015
Cultural Resources Review
Natural Resources Technical Report
Marshall Steam Station
Catawba County, NC
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). 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
• 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
• Have yielded, or may be likely to yield, information important in prehistory or
history
Amec Foster Wheeler conducted a cultural resource screening to assess the presence/absence
of known cultural resources and NRHP listed resources in the project area. The research
included a review of archaeological 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 Foster Wheeler reviewed Digital Flood Insurance Rate Maps (DFIRMS) to determine
whether a portion of the study area lies within the regulatory 100 -year floodplain. Amec Foster
Wheeler also reviewed the Catawba County Unified Development Ordinance (available online at
http://www.catawbacountync.-gov/Planning/UDO/FloodDamagePrevention.pdf) for local govern-
ment requirements for work in floodplains. These results are based on our review of FEMA
DFIRM delineated flood boundaries.
Riparian Buffer Assessment
Amec Foster Wheeler reviewed local and state riparian buffer regulations to determine whether
a portion of the study area is subject to riparian buffer regulations. Amec Foster Wheeler
reviewed the NCDENR DWR Catawba River Basin Buffer Rules published in the State's
administrative code at 15A NCAC 02B .0243. Amec Foster Wheeler also reviewed the Catawba
County Unified Development Ordinance available online at the webpage named in the above
section regarding riparian buffer regulations within the study area.
3

Amec Foster Wheeler Project No. 7810150299
June 19, 2015
4.0 RESULTS
Wetland Delineation and Stream Determination
Natural Resources Technical Report
Marshall Steam Station
Catawba County, NC
During the in-house review, the NRCS Soil Survey (Figure 3) indicated the presence of several
soil map units within the study area. Hydric soils (soils that have a greater propensity to contains
wetlands) in the study area singularly include Chewacla loam, 0 to 2 percent slopes, frequently
flooded (ChA), Enon fine sandy loam, 2 to 6 percent slopes (EnB), and Roanoke loam, 0 to 2
percent slopes, occasionally flooded (RkA).
The USGS topographic map (Figure 4) shows much of the ash basin as wetlands and forested
areas. One unnamed dashed blue -line tributary (i.e., mapped as an intermittent stream
channel), Stream 5, was shown on the topographic map as draining to the south within the
northern portion of the study area. Three unnamed dashed blue -line tributaries (intermittent
stream channels), Streams 12, 14, and 18, were shown on the topographic map as draining to
the south or southeast within the northeastern portion of the study area. The USFWS NWI Map
(Figure 5) showed various surface water classification types; however, all were mapped
generally within the boundaries of the ash basin. These types included freshwater
forested/shrub wetland, freshwater emergent wetland, freshwater pond, and lake. The eastern
border of the study area abuts multiple fingers (coves) of Lake Norman, which are mapped as
lake on Figure 5.
The January 7, April 29 to 30, and May 1, 2015, field investigation was completed in
accordance with the wetland delineation and stream classification methodology described in
Section 3.0. Amec Foster Wheeler identified features that may be considered jurisdictional
waters of the U.S. by the USACE. There were 29 potentially jurisdictional wetlands and 17
potentially jurisdictional streams were identified within the study area beyond the limits of the
ash basin. 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. The limits of these features were GPS mapped and
have not been verified (inspected) by the USACE and/or the DWR.
Wetlands
There were 29 potentially jurisdictional wetland areas delineated within the study area beyond
the limits of the ash basin (Wetlands A through CC, Figure 6). Field indicators of hydrophytic
vegetation, wetland hydrology, and hydric soils were present in these wetlands at the time of the
evaluation. Though not contiguous, many of these wetlands were generally similar in hydrology,
vegetation, and soils. The wetland areas, their corresponding NC WAM classification, and
general location information are listed in Table 1. The USACE Eastern Mountains and Piedmont
Wetland Determination Data Forms for the wetlands are provided in Appendix B.
Wetland A was classified as a seep according to the NC WAM. Seeps discharge groundwater to
the surface on a slope. This wetland type usually occupies small areas on sloping hillsides in
interstream divides or on the valley wall outside floodplains; i.e., they do not occur in a
geomorphic floodplain or a natural topographic crenulation. The vegetation within Wetland A
included black willow (Salix nigra), sweetgum (Liquidambar styraciflua), soft rush (Juncus
effusus), woolgrass (Scirpus cyperinus), and blackberry (Rubus sp.). Field indicators of
hydrology and hydric soils were present in this wetland area at the time of the evaluation.
4

Amec Foster Wheeler Project No. 7810150299 Natural Resources Technical Report
June 19, 2015 Marshall Steam Station
Catawba County, NC
Wetlands B, C, D, E, F, G, H, L, P, Q, R, S, T, U, V, W, Y, AA, BB, and CC 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 NC WAM, 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 generally occupied the upper or middle reach of unnamed
tributaries that drained into lobes of the ash basin; i.e., open water/wetlands within the ash
basin, or filled/maintained portions of the ash basin. The vegetation in the canopy stratum of
these wetland areas included a mixture of red maple (Acer rubrum), river birch (Betula nigra),
sweetgum, tulip tree (Liriodendron tulipifera), and/or sugarberry (Celtis laevigata). The shrub
stratum consisted of small trees or saplings of the aforementioned hardwoods, American holly
(Ilex opaca), and/or Chinese privet (Ligustrum sinense). The groundstory vegetation included a
mixture of sedges (Carex spp.), Christmas fern (Polystichum acrostichoides), soft rush,
Japanese stiltgrass (Microstegium vimineum), netted chain fern (Woodwardia areolata), and
vines such as common greenbrier (Smilax rotundifolia) and muscadine (Vitis rotundifolia).
Wetlands I, J, K, and Z were classified as bottomland hardwood forest according to the NC
WAM. Wetlands I and Z were conterminous with Lake Norman (coves). Wetlands J and K
occupied depressional areas that drained into lobes of the ash basin near Holdsclaw Creek (see
Figures 1 and 6). The vegetation within these wetlands generally included plant species that
were common to the headwater forest community.
Wetlands M, X, and O were herbaceous and/or shrub/scrub wetlands which occurred within
maintained powerline corridors. Wetland N was included in this group of wetlands. It was
located within a ruderal area which abutted the power generation facility yard. The vegetation in
these areas was primarily herbaceous due to the nature of the maintenance activities within the
maintained areas which prevent development of a midstory and overstory. Because of the
disturbance to the vegetation, no NC WAM classification applies to these areas. These wetlands
comprised a mixture of opportunistic/ruderal plant species, including soft rush, dock (Rumex
crispus), rough -leaved goldenrod (So/idao rugosa and S. patula), blackberry, Japanese
stiltgrass, sedge (Carex lurida), cattail (Typha latifolia), and arrowleaf tearthumb (Persicaria
sagittata). Scattered occurrences of tulip tree and hazel alder (Alnus serrulata) were observed in
some of these areas.
Table 1 Wetlands within the Marshall Steam Station Study Area, Catawba County,
North Carolina.
Feature
Size
General Site
Flag #
NCWAM Classification
Flag ID
ID
(acres)
Location
Series
Wetland A
Seep
0.12
Central study area
BLUE—MAR—WA
001-011
Wetland B
Headwater Forest
0.20
North -central study area
BLUE—MAR—WB
001-012
Wetland C
Headwater Forest
0.04
North -central study area
BLUE MAR WC
001-007
contiguous with stream
Wetland D
Headwater Forest
0.11
Northwest study area
RED MAR
0541-0549
contiguous with stream
—
5

Amec Foster Wheeler Project No. 7810150299
June 19, 2015
Natural Resources Technical Report
Marshall Steam Station
Catawba County, NC
Feature
Size
General Site
Flag #
NCWAM Classification
Flag ID
ID
(acres)
Location
Series
Wetland E
Headwater Forest
0.09
Northwest study area
RED MAR
0553-0557
contiguous with stream
—
Wetland F
Headwater Forest
0.04
Northwest study area
RED MAR
0558-0563
contiguous with stream
—
Wetland G
Headwater Forest
0.34
Northwest study area
RED—MAR
0564-0581
Wetland H
Headwater Forest
1.27
Southwest study area
RED—MAR
0584-0600
Wetland I
Bottomland Hardwood Forest
0.23
Southeast study area
GREEN MAR WA
001-008
conterminous with lake
Wetland J
Bottomland Hardwood Forest
0.11
Central study area
GREEN_MAR_WB
001-006
Wetland K
Bottomland Hardwood Forest
2.07
Central study area
GREEN—MAR—WC
001-011
Wetland L
Headwater Forest
0.11
Southwest study area
GREEN MAR WD
001-012
contiguous with stream
— —
Wetland M
Herbaceous/Shrub/Scrub'
0.01
Southwest study area
GREEN—MAR—WE
001-005
Wetland N
Herbaceous/Shrub/Scrub
0.04
Southeast study area
BORIS—MAR—WA
001-008
Wetland O
Herbaceous/Shrub/Scrub"
0.08
Northeast study area
ENV1 MAR WE
001-003
contiguous with stream
— —
Wetland P
Headwater Forest
1.14
Southwest study area
ENV1 MAR WA
001-006
contiguous with stream
— —
Wetland Q
Headwater Forest
0.23
East -central study area
BORIS MAR WB
001-015
contiguous with stream
— —
Wetland R
Headwater Forest
0.02
East -central study area
BORIS MAR WE
001-004
contiguous with stream
Wetland S
Headwater Forest
0.04
East -central study area
BORIS MAR WG
001-005
contiguous with stream
Wetland T
Headwater Forest
0.13
East -central study area
BORIS MAR WF
001-011
contiguous with stream
Wetland U
Headwater Forest
0.03
East -central study area
BORIS MAR WH
001-005
contiguous with stream
Wetland V
Headwater Forest
0.33
East -central study area
BORIS _ MAR _WI
001-016
contiguous with stream
BORIS—MAR—WJ
001-002
Wetland W
Headwater Forest
0.02
East -central study area
BORIS MAR WK
001-004
contiguous with stream
Wetland X
Herbaceous/Shrub/Scrub'
0.33
North -central study area
BORIS _ MAR _WM
001-013
BORIS MAR WN
001-009

Amec Foster Wheeler Project No. 7810150299 Natural Resources Technical Report
June 19, 2015 Marshall Steam Station
Catawba County, NC
Feature
Flag ID
Size
General Site
USACE Stream
Score
Flag #
BLUE MAR SA0002
NCWAM Classification
Intermittent
43
Flag ID
GREEN MAR SA002
ID
Perennial
(acres)
Location
GREEN MAR SB002
Series
Wetland Y
Headwater Forest
0.10
Northeast study area
ENV1_MAR_WC
001-008
Wetland Z
Bottomland Hardwood Forest
0.55
Northeast study area
ENV1 MAR WF
001-010
contiguous with stream
Wetland AA
Headwater Forest
1.62
Northeast study area
ENV1 MAR WD
001-037
contiguous with stream
Wetland BB
Headwater Forest
0.01
East -central study area
BORIS MAR WC
001-005
contiguous with stream
Wetland CC
Headwater Forest
0.01
East -central study area
BORIS MAR WD
001-003
contiguous with stream
Note: Wetlands located within maintained powerline right-of-way corridors or facility open areas. The vegetation in these areas is
herbaceous and/or shrub/scrub due to the nature of the maintenance activities within the corridors and open areas that prevent
development of an overstory; thus, no NCWAM classification is applied to these areas.
Streams
There were 17 potentially jurisdictional stream features delineated within the study area beyond
the limits of the ash basin (Streams 1 through 19, Figure 6). Streams 6 and 17 were determined
to be ephemeral features, or non -jurisdictional. Streams 5, 12, 14, and 18 were shown on the
USGS topographic map. Streams 2, 4, 5, 8, 9, 10, 11, 12, 13, 14, 15, 16, 18, and 19 were
shown on the Soil Survey of Catawba County (October 1975). Streams 1, 3, 7, and 17 were not
shown on the Soil Survey of Catawba County.
The DWR Stream Identification Form scores and classifications and the USACE Stream Quality
Assessment Worksheet scores are presented in Table 2 for these 17 streams. The DWR
Stream Identification Forms and the USACE Stream Quality Assessment Worksheets are in
Appendix B. Stream Identification forms and Assessment Worksheets are labeled with the flag
location (Flag ID) at which they were completed. The Flag ID is listed in Table 2.
Table 2. Stream Classifications within the Marshall Steam Station Study Area,
Catawba County, North Carolina.
Stream ID
Flag ID
NC DWQ
Stream Score,
NC DWQ Stream
Classification
USACE Stream
Score
Stream 1
BLUE MAR SA0002
20.5
Intermittent
43
Stream 2
GREEN MAR SA002
30.5
Perennial
50
Stream 3
GREEN MAR SB002
27
Intermittent
23
Stream 4
BLUE MAR SB0003
30
Perennial
57
Stream 5
BLUE MAR SC0007
27
Intermittent
54
7

Amec Foster Wheeler Project No. 7810150299
June 19, 2015
Natural Resources Technical Report
Marshall Steam Station
Catawba County, NC
Stream ID
Flag ID
NC DWQ
Stream Score,
NC DWQ Stream
Classification
USACE Stream
Score
Stream 7
RED—MAR-0143
19
Intermittent
40
Stream 8
RED—MAR-0145
31
Perennial
47
Stream 9
RED—MAR-0155
33
Perennial
56
Stream 10
RED—MAR-0130
28.75
Intermittent
49
Stream 11
RED—MAR-0139
28.75
Intermittent
49
Stream 12
BORIS—MAR—SC-023
36.5
Perennial
67
Stream 13
BORIS—MAR—SD-002
21
Intermittent
53
Stream 14
ENV1 MAR SC
33
Perennial
60
Stream 15
ENV1 MAR SB
30
Perennial
47
Stream 16
ENV1 MAR SA
26
Intermittent
50
Stream 18
ENV4 MAR SA
24.5
Intermittent
64
Stream 19
ENV4 MAR SC
22.5
Intermittent
62
' NC DWQ scoring: <19= ephemeral; 19 to <30 = intermittent; >_30 = perennial
2 USACE scoring: <30 may not require mitigation; 40 to 50 likely requires 1:1 mitigation credit ratio; 50 to 60 may require
either a 1:1 or 2:1 ratio based on a case-by-case review; >60 would likely require a 2:1 mitigation credit ratio.
Threatened and Endangered Species Habitat Characterization
Amec Foster Wheeler completed a review of the USFWS IPaC database (Consultation Code:
04EN1000-2015-SLI-0278) and the county list available on the USFWS Asheville Ecological
Services website to determine whether federally listed threatened or endangered plant or animal
species (including designated critical habitat) have the potential to occur within the study area.
Table 3 and Figure 7 present the list of species that are known to presently occur, or to have
historically occurred, in Catawba County. The likelihood of occurrence, as listed in Table 3, is
based on (1) a comparison of the known habitat use by these species, (2) the habitats (if
present) within the study area, (3) the quantity, quality, and proximity of these habitats, and (4)
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 the above
criteria. A likelihood of occurrence given as "unlikely" indicates that no suitable habitat, or
extremely limited habitat, for the species exists within the study area.
0

Amec Foster Wheeler Project No. 7810150299 Natural Resources Technical Report
June 19, 2015 Marshall Steam Station
Catawba County, NC
Table 3. Potential for Occurrence of Federally Listed Animal and Plant Species
within the Marshall Steam Station Study Area, Catawba County, North
Carolina.
Common Name
Federal
General Habitat Description
Potential for
(Scientific Name)
Status
Occurrence
Mammals
Summer habitat includes deciduous forests and
mixed evergreen -deciduous forests, with bats
roosting singly or in colonies underneath bark, in
cavities, or in crevices of both live and dead
trees. Specifically, dead, or partially dead,
hardwood trees with exfoliating bark are
Northern long-eared bat
T
preferred (suitable roost trees). Winter
Medium
(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 roosting, and
Bald eagle
BGEPA
expanses of shallow fresh or salt water for
(Haliaeetus
foraging. Nesting habitat generally consists of
High
leucocephalus)
densely forested areas of mature trees that are
isolated from human disturbance.
Vascular Plants
Endemic to Piedmont physiographic province of
North Carolina and South Carolina. Habitat
Dwarf -flowered heartleaf
T
includes oak -hickory -pine plant communities.
(Hexastylis naniflora)
Typically grows on slopes near streams in moist,
High
acidic soils. It is associated with mountain laurel
and several species of oak, particularly scarlet
oak, chestnut oak, and black oak.
N

Amec Foster Wheeler Project No. 7810150299
June 19, 2015
Natural Resources Technical Report
Marshall Steam Station
Catawba County, NC
Common Name
(Scientific Name)
Federal
Status
General Habitat Description
Potential for
Occurrence
Endemic to Piedmont physiographic province of
North Carolina and South Carolina. Historical
habitat included post oak -blackjack oak
savannas maintained by some degree of
Schweinitz's sunflower
E
disturbance (fire). Occurs on glades and prairie-
(Helianthus schweinitzii)
like habitats which include right-of-ways for
Medium
roads, transmission and distribution lines,
highways, sewers, etc. Repeated mowing during
the flowering and fruiting season is harmful to the
species. Typically found growing on shallow,
poor, clayey, and/or rocky soils.
Sources: USFWS Environmental Conservation Online System — Species Profiles (web site);
County list (USFWS Asheville Ecological Services); NatureServe Explorer (web site).
E = Endangered; T = Threatened.
Low = no further surveys recommended.
Medium =additional surveys are recommended.
High = additional surveys are recommended
Amec Foster Wheeler completed a general field reconnaissance of the study area on January 7
and April 30, 2015.
Forested habitat within the study area may provide suitable summer roosting sites for the
northern long-eared bat (Myotis septentrionalis) (NLEB) where white oak (Quercus alba) trees
or dead/dying trees with exfoliated bark are present. Portions of the study area comprised
stands of loblolly pine (Pinus taeda) and/or Virginia pine (Pinus virginiana). These areas would
provide less opportunity for summer roosting by bats. With these considerations, the potential
for occurrence of the NLEB within the study area is reported as medium. Bat surveys (acoustic
or mist net) to confirm presence or absence of the NLEB may be required by the USFWS.
Although no longer afforded protection by the ESA as of June 29, 2007, the bald eagle
(Haliaeetus leucocephalus) is still protected under the BGEPA and the MBTA, 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. Lake Norman
provides abundant foraging habitat, and large trees along the lake shoreline provide suitable
roosting or nesting habitat for eagles. A bald eagle nest is known to occur near the Holdsclaw
Creek dam; therefore, additional surveys should be conducted to determine how much the site
is used by the nesting pair and other bald eagles in the area.
Dwarf -flowered heartleaf (Hexastylis naniflora) occurs on acidic, sandy loam soils on moist to
rather dry north -facing slopes of ravines and along bluffs and hillsides in boggy areas next to
streams. Vegetation is typically oak -hickory -pine forests of the Piedmont physiographic
province. Soil type is the most important habitat requirement for this species. The Pacolet,
Madison, or Musella types are often associated with occurrences of dwarf -flowered heartleaf.
The Pacolet and Madison types occur within the study area. The species also requires sunlight
in early spring for maximum flowering and seed production. During the January field
10

Amec Foster Wheeler Project No. 7810150299 Natural Resources Technical Report
June 19, 2015 Marshall Steam Station
Catawba County, NC
investigation, scattered occurrences of individual plants of the genus Hexastylis were observed
within the northeast portion of the study area along stream features and forested hill slopes. It is
not known whether these specimens were the more common wild ginger or the federally
protected dwarf -flowered heartleaf. During the field investigation in April, many individuals of the
genus Hexastylis were also observed. Not all of the plants were in flower, but of those that were
in flower, some were identified as dwarf -flowered heartleaf. There appeared to be a strong
affinity on this site between the genus Hexastylis and Pacolet soils. The Hexastylis was present
predominantly on north facing slopes, but was also observed on other slopes. Survey(s) for
dwarf -flowered heartleaf, when authorized by Duke Energy, should be conducted during mid-
March to early June.
The potential for occurrence of the Schweinitz's sunflower (Helianthus schweinitzii) was
presumed to be medium based on the quality and quantity of the habitat within the study area.
Suitable soils for this species were located within only a couple of areas within the study area. A
survey of specific areas of the study area during the flowering season (late August to October)
is recommended to confirm the presence/absence of Schweinitz's sunflower.
Amec Foster Wheeler 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 Marshall Steam Station. Mr. Fletcher stated that no known listed species occur
on Marshall Steam Station. However, he indicated that no surveys for dwarf -flowered heartleaf
or Schweinitz's sunflower were conducted in the last ten years except in several limited areas.
He also stated that potential habitat is present on Marshall Steam Station for the NLEB
(shingled/loose-bark hardwoods, snags/wolf trees) (personal communication via email January
13, 2015). Finally, according to Mr. Fletcher, a bald eagle nest is reported to occur at latitude
35.606236 and longitude 80.957211; i.e., within the southeastern portion of study area, near the
Holdsclaw Creek dam.
Cultural Resources Review
Amec Foster Wheeler conducted a desktop review of the study area based on available data
resources from the NRHP files and information on archaeological resources from the North
Carolina Archaeological Site File repository at the NC SHPO. Table 4 and Figure 8 present the
results of the desktop survey. According to the NC SHPO, a portion of the study area, Marshall
Steam Station (CT1303), is determined eligible for the NRHP, but has not been listed at this
time. The Terrell Historic District (CT0378 - listed) and the Motts Grove Campground (CT580 -
survey listed) are located next to the study area. According to the North Carolina Office of State
Archaeology records, the study area has been not been surveyed for archaeological resources.
During the review of the state files, 22 sites were identified within or around the study area.
However, only five sites have been previously identified within the study area. These sites are
31 CT19, 31 CT242, 31 CT205, 31 CT206, and 31 CT228, which have been assessed and are not
eligible for the NRHP due to low density of artifacts and/or high disturbance of soils from
erosion. The remaining 17 sites are outside the study area but within the half mile radius. These
sites have been assessed as not being eligible or are now submerged by Lake Norman. If
federal permits are required as part of future project plans, required consultation with the NC
SHPO will likely result in a request for a Phase I archaeological survey of the study area.
11

Amec Foster Wheeler Project No. 7810150299 Natural Resources Technical Report
June 19, 2015 Marshall Steam Station
Catawba County, NC
Table 4. Identified Archaeology and Historic Sites near the Marshall Steam
Station Study Area, Catawba County, North Carolina.
Archaeology Site
Number
Description
NRHP Status
31CT227
Prehistoric Lithic Debitage
Not Eligible
31CT228
Prehistoric Lithic Debitage
Not Eligible
31CT229
Historic 201h Century Domestic Scatter
Not Eligible
31CT226
Prehistoric Lithic Debitage
Not Eligible
31CT225
Prehistoric Lithic Debitage
Not Eligible
31CT219
Prehistoric Lithic Debitage
Not Eligible
31CT224
Prehistoric Lithic Debitage
Not Eligible
31CT207
Prehistoric and Historic Artifact Scatter
Not Eligible
31CT208
Historic Ceramics
Not Eligible
31CT206
Historic 20th Century Domestic Scatter
Not Eligible
31CT205
Prehistoric and Historic Artifact Scatter
Not Eligible
31CT204
Prehistoric Ceramic Scatter
Not Eligible
31CT203
Historic 18th -19th Century Cemetery
Not Eligible
31CT20
Prehistoric Lithic and Ceramic Scatter
Unassessed
31CT242
Historic 19_1h 201h Century Domestic Scatter
Not Eligible
31CT19
Prehistoric Lithic Scatter
Not Eligible
31CT18
Prehistoric Lithic Scatter
Unassessed
31CT1
Prehistoric Lithic and Ceramic Scatter
Unassessed
31CT2
Prehistoric and Historic Artifact Scatter
Unassessed
12

Amec Foster Wheeler Project No. 7810150299
June 19, 2015
Natural Resources Technical Report
Marshall Steam Station
Catawba County, NC
Archaeology Site
Number
Description
NRHP Status
311D6
Prehistoric Ceramic Scatter
Unassessed
311D7
Prehistoric Ceramic Scatter
Unassessed
31ID110
Prehistoric Ceramic Scatter
Unassessed
Historic Site Number
Description
NRHP Status
CT580
Motts Grove Campground
Survey Listed
CT1303
Marshall Steam Station
Determined Eligible
CT0378
Terrell Historic District
Listed
Floodplain Assessment
Our results are based on the review of FEMA DFIRM delineated flood boundaries. The
regulated 100 -year floodplain occurs within the central and eastern portions of the ash basin,
including Holdsclaw Creek. Occurrences of the floodplain within the study area are generally
limited to the eastern boundary where fingers of Lake Norman (coves) are conterminous with
the study area (Figure 9). Under Section 44-429 (Floodplain Management Overlay) of the
Catawba County Unified Development Ordinance (Ordinance No. 2007-14, 7/9/07), work
conducted within flood -prone areas would require a Floodplain Development Permit. The
application for the Floodplain Development Permit must be submitted for review by the county
before any development activity begins. Work conducted within the 100 -year floodplain would
require review/consultation with the Catawba County Floodplain Administrator.
Riparian Buffer Assessment
Amec Foster Wheeler reviewed the NCDENR DWR Catawba River Basin Buffer Rule to
determine whether a portion of the study area was subject to riparian buffer regulations. The
Catawba River Basin Buffer Rule only applies in North Carolina along the main -stem of the
Catawba River below Lake James and along the main -stem lakes from and including Lake
James to the North Carolina/South Carolina border. For the Catawba River, the buffer area (50
foot) measurement starts at the most landward limit of the top of the bank. For the main -stem
lakes, the buffer area measurement starts at the most landward limit of the full -pond level. None
of the stream features delineated within the study area were located along the main -stem of the
Catawba River. However, Streams 12, 14, and 18 (inclusive of two side tributaries, Streams 13
and 19) were located along fingers of Lake Norman, which is a main -stem lake. Streams 12, 14,
and 18 drain into these fingers, or coves, of Lake Norman. The Catawba River Basin Buffer
Rule, therefore, applies to these perennial (Streams 12 and 14) and intermittent (Streams 13,
18, and 19) features occurring within the study area.
13

Amec Foster Wheeler Project No. 7810150299 Natural Resources Technical Report
June 19, 2015 Marshall Steam Station
Catawba County, NC
Under Section 44-434.12 (Buffer Area Required) of the Catawba County Unified Development
Ordinance (Ordinance No. 2007-001, 2/5/07), "in the watershed protection overlay (WP -0), a
minimum 30 -foot wide vegetative buffer is required for all new development along all perennial
waters indicated on the most recent version of USGS 1:24,000 (7.5 minute) scale topographic
maps or as determined by local government studies." Streams 5, 12, 14, and 18 within the study
area were shown on the USGS topographic map as dashed blue -line tributaries; i.e., the
streams were mapped on the topographic map as intermittent stream channels. Stream 5 may
not require a minimum 30 -foot -wide vegetative buffer if new development were proposed which
would encroach into the buffer area, because this stream channel was classified as intermittent
based on the DWR Stream Identification Form score reported by Amec Foster Wheeler.
Streams 12 and 14 may require a vegetative buffer, however, because these stream channels
were classified as perennial based on the DWR Stream Identification Form scores reported by
Amec Foster Wheeler. Consultation with Catawba County regulatory staff is recommended
before land clearing activities that would encroach within 30 feet of the banks of Streams 5, 12,
14, and 18. The study area occurs within a Water Supply Watershed IV area, as mapped on
the WP -0 in Catawba County.
5.0 CONCLUSIONS
There were 29 potentially jurisdictional wetlands and 17 potentially jurisdictional streams
identified within the study area beyond the limits of the ash basin. Amec Foster Wheeler
recommends the completion of the verification of Jurisdictional Determination process with the
Wilmington District USACE before mechanized land clearing or other disturbance near potential
jurisdictional waters, including wetlands. Boundaries and classifications of these features in the
study area should be verified by the USACE and DWR. 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 permit which requires 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, with a Water Quality Certification from 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 streams 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, a
permit decision must consider additional floodway, floodplain fill, or storm water restrictions as
mandated by local ordinance, state requirements, or federal regulations.
The Catawba River Basin Buffer Rule applies to three perennial streams and one intermittent
stream occurring within the study area, because these delineated surface waters were located
along a main -stem lake of the Catawba River (i.e., Lake Norman). Pre -construction notification
to DWR will be required if impacts are proposed to these riparian buffers. Consultation with
Catawba County regulatory staff regarding riparian buffers is recommended before land clearing
activities that would encroach within 30 feet of the banks of perennial streams within the study
area.
Review of the FEMA -delineated 100 -year flood maps indicated that portions of the eastern edge
of the study area and a portion of the ash basin occur within the regulated 100 -year flood zone.
Work conducted within flood -prone areas would require a Floodplain Development Permit. The
14

Amec Foster Wheeler Project No. 7810150299 Natural Resources Technical Report
June 19, 2015 Marshall Steam Station
Catawba County, NC
application for the Floodplain Development Permit must be submitted for review by the county
prior to development activity.
Forested areas of suitable habitat for the NLEB were identified within the study area. Before
disturbance within these areas, the USFWS should be consulted to determine whether a
biological survey for the NLEB will be required.
Lake Norman provides abundant foraging habitat, and large trees along the lake shoreline
provide suitable roosting or nesting habitat for bald eagles. A bald eagle nest is known to occur
near the Holdsclaw Creek dam; therefore, additional surveys should be conducted to determine
if other bald eagles are in the area.
The potential for occurrence of dwarf -flowered heartleaf within the study area was high. During
the field investigation in April, many individuals of the genus Hexastylis were observed within
the study area. Some of these specimens were identified as dwarf -flowered heartleaf. Survey(s)
for dwarf -flowered heartleaf, when authorized by Duke Energy, should be conducted during mid-
March to early June.
The potential for occurrence of the Schweinitz's sunflower was presumed to be medium based
on the quality and quantity of the habitat within the study area. A survey of specific areas of the
study area during the flowering season (late August to October) is recommended to confirm the
presence/absence of Schweinitz's sunflower.
According to the NC SHPO, a portion of the study area, Marshall Steam Station (CT1303), is
determined eligible for the NRNP, but has not been listed at this time. The Terrell Historic
District (CT0378-listed) and Motts Grove Campground (CT0580-survey listed) are next to the
study area. According to the North Carolina Office of State Archaeology records, the study area
has been not been surveyed for archaeological resources. Five sites were identified previously
within the study area; however, these sites were assessed and determined to be not eligible for
the NRHP. If federal permits are required as part of future project plans, required consultation
with the NC SHPO will likely result in a request for a Phase IA archaeological survey of the
study area.
This report is intended for the use of Duke Energy, subject to the contractual terms between
Duke Energy and Amec Foster Wheeler. Reliance on this document by any other party is
prohibited without the expressed, written consent of Amec Foster Wheeler. Use of this report for
purposes beyond those reasonably intended by Duke Energy and Amec Foster Wheeler will be
at the sole risk of the user.
15

APPENDIX A
FIGURES

o
e0,a;
.1
Sherri IIs
Ford
0
!
� ESN RGY
Legend
l —_y Ash Ponds
QStudy Area
-
Q -a The map shown here has been created
with all due and reasonable care and is
274m �,` I " i � r, i strictly for use with AMEC project
�' � number 7810150299. AMEC assumes no
_j liability, direct or indirect, whatsoever or an
N" `' such third party or unintended use.
M rr1 1 \
-
'� tic
�S
WGled
\ l
S
\ 0 0.25 0.5
\ Miles
v v Washington
rv'
y
low 1 _
251 crf r 1
ayo t
1
`E�+� I`r' I 5atyth arD6n�a
r Sources: Esri, HERE, DeLorme, TomTom, Intermap, increment, P Corp., GEBCO, USGS, FAO, NPS, NRCAN, GeoBade, IGN, Kadaster NL,
"r crfrrr r
Ordnance Survey, Esri Japan, -'MET], Esri China (Hong; Kong)?swisstopo, Mapmylndia, ©OpenStreetMap contributors, and the GIS User ©OpenStreetMap (and)
Community ra contributors, CC -BY -SA
TITLE: PREPARED: Thursday, May 28, 2015 SOURCE: ArcGIS Base Data: 1 June 2014 Figure No.
_ Marshall Steam Station Although every effort has been made to ensure the accuracy ofinformation, errors and conditions originating from the physical
a m e efoster wheeler Catawba County N C sources used to de elop the database may at reflected in the data supplied. The rto postor sible
rs aware of data conditions and BY; RSK MAP PROJECTION: NC State Plane NAD83, GRS1980
ultimately bear responsibility for the appropriate use of the information with respect to possible errors, odginal map scale, collection
��.�� f methodology, currency of data, and other conditions specific to certain data.
Figure 1 - Site Location Map File: P:\Energy\Projects\Duke\2015\Carolinas Natural Resources Surveys\16 Sites\GIS\Figure_1 _SiteMap.mxd

- r
aC
Ud
CaC 4
C PeE.
As,C,
PeE -Ca.
TITLE:
Marshall Steam Station
amec foster wheeler Q.Catawba County, NC
Figure 3 - NRCS Soils Map
(7 DUKE
! ENERGY
Legend
Ash Pond19 s
Study Area
The map shown here has been created
with all due and reasonable care and is
strictly for use with AMEC project
number 7810150299 . AMEC assumes no
ability, direct or indirect, whatsoever or any
such third party or unintended use.
N
W C h\ E
S
0 0.2 0.4
Miles
Washington
I� CaD CaD '
CaB PeE PeE PaE�3
'saC PeE
PeE C►aC CaC CaB
Cad,
CaB
Esri, D r to G obe, deo e, a hsta Ge g phu'cs CNE / irbus D DDA, = GS, AE , Get app g, e g d, M, OW, © OpenStreetMap (and)
po.,' ijnd the GI"S User Community i C►aC C•aD CaB contributors, CC -BY -SA
PREPARED: May 22 2015 SOURCE: ArcGIS Base Data: 1 June 2014 Fig—N..
Y
Although every effort has been made to ensure the accuracy of information, errors and conditions originating from the physical 3sources used to develop the database may be refiected in the data supplied. The requester must be aware of data conditions and BY: RSK MAP PROJECTION: GCS WGS 1894
ultimately bear responsibility for the appropriate use of the information with respect to possible errors, original map scale, collection
methodology, currency of data, and other conditions specific to certain data.
File: P:\Energy\Projects\Duke\2015\Carolinas Natural Resources Surveys\16 Sites\GIS\Figure_3_soilsgrid.mxd

y _ 4
" • \
DUKE
4 V t.
,
; )
_ ENERGY
.:
rr ., i_�,
• - -' r� -. _- :Ili � �' (i1 �, � +.
/ i f
• •_ /�' I I % 'y,Iw Irl\ v \ s - �.
\ / J
S.
o
� Fora` , � .- I � .• , � . � + ,! �, Legend
(� 1' J Ash Pond
"f .
r 1 \1 (I �� - / - - - - - ,:/ 1:3
Study Area
�` f �---•: ' . I I\ 7 I Ill`\ � /^1 ,�, '�' -- '..
F „
r i •
USGS Topographic Quad:
Lake Norman North Quad
_ The map shown here has been created
with all due and reasonable care and is
�; \` strictly for use with AMEC project
1 . .\ ` / ' _ \ ty \_�' \I, s.;�L�± number 7810150299. AMEC assumes no
liability, direct or indirect, whatsoever or any
5 f 00
�� such third party or unintended use.
1 #. • tz ( / Boa 2
amp
I
0 77 IN
Ivi
t
� f v
• +r. " a y� i r" ( / 0 0.2 0.4
Miles
w.E w
.. \. ��_ � Mrd _.� _ • �l s F . r - -
ti
�1fJ •.
.L
16
13 M
44
fe" • , • /i \ . 4 t aI - " © OpenStreetMap (and)
Copyright:© 2013 National_ Geographic Society, IGcontributors, CC -BY -SA
TITLE: PREPARED: Thursday, May 28, 2015 SOURCE: ArcGIS Base Data: 1 June 2014 Figure No.
1 Marshall Steam Station Athough every effort has been made to ensure he accuracy of into motion, errors and conditions originating from the physical
a m e e foster wheeler ' ' sources used to develop the database may at reflected in the data supplied. The rto possible
must be aware of data conditions and 4
Catawba County NC ultimately bearresponsibilityfor the appropdateuse ofthe information with respecitopossibleerrors,odginalmap scale, celleciion BY:RSK MAP PROJECTION: GCSWGS1894
methodology, currency of data, and other conditions specific to certain data.
Figure 4 - USGS Topographic Map FILE: P \Ene gy\Projec s\Duke 2075\Carolinas Natural Resources Surveys\i6 Sites\GIS\Figure_4_USGS_Topo.mxd

Il y I
t i f
Fresin wat.
rs ;� t
M.urr u ,[
Forested/Shrub I
'I r etand��
� � I
Lake
/ t
Po Yo Lake 1
l-- Lake
Lake Lake
Lake
Lake
e
g s Legend
Ash Ponds
!S' oStudy Area
Freshwater Emergent Wetland
n
Freshwater Forested/Shrub Wetland
- Freshwater Pond
Lake
1
-,7� n a ! / Freshwater '
rub�-,�`
� _ � �.,� ✓� _ r% 1jForested/Sh. � " \ice;
►y., , �Ir r. - Wetlarid—' / Freshwater' 1,
:w Freshwat r " - ' res w e
t r Pond
r v
• � :� � t. I `�P_o�nd: y, �,� �± '- � r The map shown here has been created
with all due and reasonable care and is
Via,. 1 3,F r Fre- water',\ --1 ; J. strictly for use with AMEC project
nd fohwater �, number 7810150299. AMEC assumes no
Emergent
i Eme
* Weuand Lake \Lake liability, direct or indirect, whatsoever or any
�\ Lake such third party or unintended use.
%lei
nr
r. ' �! � Freshwater \t \ ,� ` Lakeonci
r �
•� * y
I
Lake
o., - '�-• v �•. , Freshwater Pond s ��� '�% i ;
y'1
Lake "c?
0 0.2 0.4
Miles
t
+l * 90 r ,"
1
Ad
f
e
r
a
� ka � ,, .; M S� : 1, -.. •� � r,' X ry` '. _ � - .
{ v
•f
2
� r
Lake ��
OpenStreetMa (and)
4 p
:Lake contributors, CC -BY -SA
TITLE: PREPARED: Thursday, May 28, 2015 SOURCE: ArcGIS Base Data: 1 June 2014 Figure No.
Marshall Steam Station A thoughevery effort has database may
retheed in
a ainformation, he errorsandconditions originating from the physical
a m e e foster wheeler sources used to develop the database may be reflected in the data supplied. The requester must be aware of data conditions and BY: RSK MAP PROJECTION: GCS WGS 1894
�`* Catawba Count) N C ultimately bear respons Maty for Ne appropriate use of the information with respect to possible errors, onglnal map scale, collection G
� methodology, currency of data, and otherconditions specific to certain data. J
Figure 5 - US Fish and Wildlife Service National Wetland Inventory File: P:\Energy\Projects\Duke\2015\Carolinas Natural Resources Surveys\16 Sites\GIS\Figure_5_NWl.mxd
' '':{rte
•'�
&
a
a r�
N' a
4
a y.
y p ��-
Il y I
t i f
Fresin wat.
rs ;� t
M.urr u ,[
Forested/Shrub I
'I r etand��
� � I
Lake
/ t
Po Yo Lake 1
l-- Lake
Lake Lake
Lake
Lake
e
g s Legend
Ash Ponds
!S' oStudy Area
Freshwater Emergent Wetland
n
Freshwater Forested/Shrub Wetland
- Freshwater Pond
Lake
1
-,7� n a ! / Freshwater '
rub�-,�`
� _ � �.,� ✓� _ r% 1jForested/Sh. � " \ice;
►y., , �Ir r. - Wetlarid—' / Freshwater' 1,
:w Freshwat r " - ' res w e
t r Pond
r v
• � :� � t. I `�P_o�nd: y, �,� �± '- � r The map shown here has been created
with all due and reasonable care and is
Via,. 1 3,F r Fre- water',\ --1 ; J. strictly for use with AMEC project
nd fohwater �, number 7810150299. AMEC assumes no
Emergent
i Eme
* Weuand Lake \Lake liability, direct or indirect, whatsoever or any
�\ Lake such third party or unintended use.
%lei
nr
r. ' �! � Freshwater \t \ ,� ` Lakeonci
r �
•� * y
I
Lake
o., - '�-• v �•. , Freshwater Pond s ��� '�% i ;
y'1
Lake "c?
0 0.2 0.4
Miles
t
+l * 90 r ,"
1
Ad
f
e
r
a
� ka � ,, .; M S� : 1, -.. •� � r,' X ry` '. _ � - .
{ v
•f
2
� r
Lake ��
OpenStreetMa (and)
4 p
:Lake contributors, CC -BY -SA
TITLE: PREPARED: Thursday, May 28, 2015 SOURCE: ArcGIS Base Data: 1 June 2014 Figure No.
Marshall Steam Station A thoughevery effort has database may
retheed in
a ainformation, he errorsandconditions originating from the physical
a m e e foster wheeler sources used to develop the database may be reflected in the data supplied. The requester must be aware of data conditions and BY: RSK MAP PROJECTION: GCS WGS 1894
�`* Catawba Count) N C ultimately bear respons Maty for Ne appropriate use of the information with respect to possible errors, onglnal map scale, collection G
� methodology, currency of data, and otherconditions specific to certain data. J
Figure 5 - US Fish and Wildlife Service National Wetland Inventory File: P:\Energy\Projects\Duke\2015\Carolinas Natural Resources Surveys\16 Sites\GIS\Figure_5_NWl.mxd

1
r DUKE
§'IF ENERGY
4 4 ♦r
"K - Legend
Ash Ponds
Study Area
Ir
- Streams
Wetlands
The map shown here has been created
with all due and reasonable care and is
"'. strictly for use with AMEC project
_ number 7810150299 . AMEC assumes no
liability, direct or indirect, whatsoever or any
such third party or unintended use.
....ram'
• — • \ - N
� k P ,: M/ j i; � \ �{ •'� � 4 orf ,T�.
S
v
•" 15
_
An
t 3
rx • 1
r
TITLE: Marshall Steam Station at
amec foster wheeler o* Catawba County, IVC u�m
Figure 6 - Jurisdictional Waters Map
0 0.2 0.4
Miles
N do
+ r
T
Y •
© OpenStreetMap (and)
contributors, CC -BY -SA
PREPARED: June 05, 2015 SOURCE: ArcGIS Base Data: 1 June 2014 Figure No.
hough every effort has been made to ensure the accuracy of information, errors and conditions originating from the physical 6rtes used to develop the database may be refiected in the data supplied. The requester must be aware of data conditions and BY; RSK MAP PROJECTION: GCS WGS 1894
ately bear responsibility for the appropriate use of the information with respect to possible errors, original map scale, collection
methodology, currency of data, and other conditions specific to certain data.
FILE: P:\Energy\Projects\Duke\2015\Carolinas Natural Resources Surveys\16 Sties\GIS\Figure_ 6_ Jurisdictional_Map.mxd

Legend • .�r 7s
p
Threatened Species
0 Potential Habitat - Dwarf -Flowered Heartleaf F VI
0 Potential Habitat - Schweinitz's Sunflower - -' /�►
0 Potential Habitat - Northern Long -Eared Bat
0 Potential Habitat - Northern Long -Eared Bat & Dwarf -Flowered Heartleaf' r ~+
i Ash Ponds
r
QStudyArea � -- � 1kti � •'
u
t 41f
•.�I,a 11 � -� "•,,y _` - -� � �\ � j '
i
t
The map shown here has been created
' 1•with all due and reasonable care and is
r _ � •, r ' , �. � �. r i � �t`-�_ strictly for use with AMEC project
\ �.� number 7810150299. AMEC assumes no
\ I" \ \ j liability, direct or indirect, whatsoever or any
such third party or unintended use.
�; .! � \ iia`'.'., ;/ ,✓'� 'ht �.
♦l
041a'-E
r
W
AK
��,J' y�
'�1
�+`.,._
S
��.` ..,mss. y�
�- �•;'�ar
'7
-
lie
.....
OpenStreetMap (and)
contributors, CC -BY -SA
TITLE:
Steam
PREPARED: June 01, 2015
SOURCE: ArcGIS Base
Data: 1 June 2014
Figure No.
a m e c foster wheeler
IC
Marshall Station
Catawba County, NC
Although every effort has been made to ensure the accuracy of information,
sources used to develop the database may be reflected in the data supplied.
ultimately bear responsibility, farina appropriate use of the information
errors and conditions originating from the physical
The requester must be aware of data conditions and
with respect to possible errors, original map scale, collection
BY: RSK
MAP PROJECTION: GCS WGS 1894
methodology, currency of data, and other conditions
specific to certain data.
Figure 7 Threatened & Endangered Species Habitat Map
File: PaEnergytProjects\Duke\2015\Carolinas
Nat -1 Resources
Surveys\16 SltestGlS\Fgare_7_Threated-En°angered-Species—d

YAW
CT224
CT226 ` ° +� DUKE
ENERGY,,
219
1
if
n � CT225 �I .. ���� iCT207 ? Legend
CT227''E
`` - - ���.•03`.� e F _ - �__� Ash Ponds
M
CT229' ,� study Area
CT206 Potential Archaeological Sites
CT208 Previous Archaeological Surveys
l • CT228
CT205 V
\\ CT204 %t
CT203 /
\ \)✓ j -- CT20
CT19
i l
ID110 The map shown here has been created
- f with all due and reasonable care and is
strictly for use with AMEC project
number 7810150299. AMEC assumes no
' CT1303 r * r j, liability, direct or indirect, whatsoever or any
/ ✓ E. CT18 _ - such third party or unintended use.
ID62arrp "
\\ 777
F 1 '
CT2
/ C.zr ri
y ! E
W
� 0 0.25 0.5
Miles
ly _ ✓' 1 '-r +I Y.-�^' , - �` ©OpenStreetMap (and)
Copyright.© 2013 National Geographic Society, i -cubed contributors, CC -13Y -SA
TITLE: PREPARED: June 05, 2015 SOURCE: ArcGIS Base Data: 1 June 2014 Figure No.
Although Marshall Steam Station Confidential and Not for Public Release
amec foster wheeler I, Catawba County, NC surcesuevery dtoefforthasbeenmade ayberetheaccuracy of intedata supplied. The
ondtstbeaons greofdataconitionating from the nsal BY:RSK MAP PROJECTION: GCS WGS1894 (�Q�
used to develop the database maybe reflectedusof the the data suppled The rto possible
must rs aware of data conditions and `/
ultimately bear responsiblllly for the appropriate use of the information with respect to possible errors, original map scale, collection
Figure 8 - Cultural Resources Map methodology, currency ofdata, and other conditions specific to cenain data. FILE: P\Energy\Projects\Duke\2015\Carolinas Natural Resources Surveys\16 Sites\GIS\Eigure_8_Cultural Resources—d

s
,t
t
.y `mar. ' ..' � � • , .ri
TITLE: Marshall Steam Station
amec foster wheeler10V Catawba county, NC
Figure 9 - Floodplain Map
k
♦�+�. ?*t' -.sem. RIFE
Legend
Ash Ponds
Study Area
g 100yr Flood Boundary
Notes to User:
Panel 4618 Floodata Effective:
5 September 2007
ArcGIS Base Data: 1 June 2014
ft
k
1- The map shown here has been created
r with all due and reasonable care and is
^t strictly for use with AM EC project
number 7810150299. AMEC assumes no
l l liability, direct or indirect, whatsoever or any
such third party or unintended use.
I
\k N
\\
46a
4 W <� �> E
% / S
0 0.25 0.5
Miles
S
rt.! Washing; r�
Satrth�Cat
Pli
reriFie v
Source. Esri, Digita hbe, GeoE e, E@0RW Geographies, CNE -/Airbus DS, USDA, U G' ,AES , Getmapping, AerogK Owe cop, © OpenStreetMap (and)
swis b", and the GI' user Community contributors, CC -BY -SA
PREPARED: June 01, 2015 SOURCE: ArcGIS Base Data: 1 June 2014 Figure No.
Although every effort has been made to ensure the accuracy of information, errors and conditions originating from the physical �\
sources used to develop the database may be refiected in the data supplied. The requester must be aware of data conditions and gy; RSK MAP PROJECTION: GCS WGS 1894
ultimately bear responsibility for the appropriate use of the information with respect to possible errors, original map scale, collection _``///,
methodology, currency of data, and other conditions specific to certain data.
File: P:\Energy\Projects\Duke12015\Carolinas Natural Resources Surveys116 Sites\GIS\Figure_9_Flood_Plain_Daw.=d

APPENDIX B
WETLAND/STREAM FIELD DATA FORMS

WETLAND DETERMINATION DATA FORM -Eastern Mountains and Piedmont Wetland A - wetland side
Project/Site: Marshall City/Co.: Moorseville/Catawba Sampling Date: Jan 7 2015
Applicant/Owner: Duke Energy State: NC Sampling Point: BluMar-WA001C
Investigator(s): James Cutler, PWS Section, Township, Range:
Landform: (hillslope, terrace, etc.) hillslope seep Local Relief: concave Slope (%): <12
Subregion(LRR/MLRA P/136 Lat: 35.6143 Long: 80.9649 Datum:
Soil Map Unit Name: Wilkes loam, 10 to 25 percent slopes NWI Classification: none
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? 0 Yes ❑ No
Are Vegetation ❑ Soil ❑ or Hydrology ❑ naturally problematic? (If needed, explain any answers in Remarks.)
SUMMAKY OF I-INUINU5 - Attach site map snowing Sam
Hydrophytic Vegetation Present? Yes 0 No ❑
Hydric Soil Present? Yes 0 No ❑
Wetland Hydrology Present? Yes 0 No ❑
Remarks Seep wetland
HYD
3oint locations, transects, important teatures, etc.
Is the Sampled Area
within a wetland? Yes 0 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)
0 Surface Water (Al)
❑
True Aquatic Plants (B14)
❑
Sparsely Vegetated Concave Surface (138)
❑ High Water Table (A2)
❑
Hydrogen Sulfide Odor (Cl)
❑
Drainage Patterns (1310)
❑ Saturation (A3)
❑
Oxidized Rhizospheres on Living Roots (C3)
❑
Moss Trim Lines (1316)
❑ Water Marks (B1)
❑
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 (B3)
❑
Thin Much Surface (C7)
❑
Saturation Visible on Aerial Imagery (C9)
❑ Algal Mat or Crust (134)
❑
Other (Explain in Remarks)
❑
Stunted or Stressed Plants (D1)
❑ Iron Deposits (135)
❑
Geomorphic Position (D2)
❑ Inundation Visible on Aerial Imagery (137)
❑
Shallow Aquitard (D3)
❑ Water -Stained Leaves (139)
❑
Microtopographic Relief (D4)
❑ Aquatic Fauna (B13)
❑
FAC -Neutral Test (D5)
Field Observations:
Surface Water Present? 0 Yes
❑ No
Depth (inches): 1
Water Table Present? E] Yes
❑ No
Depth (inches):
Saturation Present? ❑Yes
❑ No
Depth (inches):
Wetland
Hydrology Present? 0 Yes ❑ No
(includes capillary fringe)
Describe Recorded Data (stream gauge, monitoring well, aerial photos, previous inspections), if available:
Remarks:
US Army Corps of Engineers Eastern Mountains and Piedmont - Version 2.0

VLUL I A I IVN I p-our,trata) - use SCIentitic names of plants.
Absolute Dominant Indicator
Tree Stratum (Plot size: 30ft radius) % Cover Species? Status
1. Salix nigra 10 Y OBL
2.
3.
4.
5.
6.
7.
8.
50% of total cover:
ing/Shrub Stratum (Plot size: 30ft radius)
1. Liquidambar styraciflua
2. Salix nigra
3.
4.
5.
6.
7.
8.
9.
10.
50% of total cover:
u Stratum (Plot size: 30ft radius)
1. Scirpus cyperinus
2. Juncus effusus
3. Lonicera japonica
4. Rubus sp.
5.
6.
7.
8.
9.
10.
11.
12.
50% of total cover:
)dv Vine Stratum (Plot size: 30ft radius)
1.
2.
3.
4.
5.
6.
10 = Total Cover
5 20% of total cover:
10 Y FAC
5 Y OBL
15 = Total Cover
7.5 20% of total cover:
30 Y FACW
20 Y FACW
10 FAC
10 FAC
Sampling Point: 131uMar-WAUU1C
Dominance Test Worksheet:
Number of Dominant Species
That Are OBL, FACW, or FAC: 5 (A)
Total Number of Dominant
Species Across All Strata: 5 (B)
Percent of Dominant Species
That Are OBL, FACW, or FAC: 100% (A/B)
Prevalence Index worksheet:
Total % Cover of: Multiply
OBL species 15 x 1 = 15
2 FACW species 50 x 2 = 100
FAC species 30 x 3 = 90
FACU species 0 x 4 = 0
UPL species 0 x 5 = 0
Column Totals: 95 (A) 205 (B)
Prevalence Index = B/A = 2.2
Hydrophytic Vegetation Indicators:
❑ Rapid Test for Hydrophytic Vegetation
Fil Dominance Test is > 50%
❑ Prevalence Index is <_ 3.0'
❑ Morphological Adaptations1 (Provide supporting
data in Remarks or on a separate sheet
3 ❑ Problematic Hydrophytic Vegetation' (Explain)
' Indicators of hydric soil and wetland hydrology must
be present, unless disturbed or problematic
Definitions of Four Vegetation Strata:
Tree - Woody plants, excluding vines, 3 in. (7.6 cm) or
more in diameter at breast height (DBH), regardless of
height.
Sapling/Shrub - Woody plants, excluding vines, less
than 3 in. DBH and greater than 3.28 ft (1 m) tall.
Herb - All herbaceous (non -woody) plants, regardless of
70 = Total Cover size, and woody plants less than 3.28 ft tall.
35 20% of total cover: 14
Woody Vines - All woody vines greater than 3.28 ft in height.
Hydrophytic
Vegetation Yes 0 No ❑
0 = Total Cover Present?
50% of total cover: 0 20% of total cover: 0
Remarks: (Include photo numbers here or on a separate sheet.)
ERDC/CRREL 2014 Regional Wetland Plant List (Eastern Mountains and Piedmont) used for indicator status.
US Army Corps of Engineers Eastern Mountains and Piedmont - Version 2.0

SOIL
Sampling Point: BluMar-WA001C
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 Remarks
0 - 8 10YR4/2 90 7.5YR4/6 10 C M silty clay loam
C = Concentration, D = depletion, RM = Reduced Matrix, MS = Masked Sand Grains `Location: PL = Pore Lining, M = Matrix
Hydric Soil Indicators:
Indicators for Problematic Hydric Soils':
❑
Histosol (Al)
❑
Dark Surface (S7)
❑
2 cm Muck (A10) (MLRA 147)
❑
Histic Epipedon (A2)
❑
Polyvalue Below Surface (S8) (MLRA 147, 148)
❑
Coatal Prairie Redox (A16)
❑
Black Histic (A3)
❑
Thin Dark Surface (S9) (MLRA 147, 148)
(MLRA 147, 148)
❑
Hydrogen Sulfide (A4)
❑
Loamy Gleyed Matrix (F2)
❑
Piedmont Floodplain Soils (F19)
❑
Stratified Layers (A5)
❑
Depleted Matrix (F3)
(MLRA 136, 147)
❑
2 cm Muck (A10) (LRR N)
❑
Redox Dark Surface (F6)
❑
Very Shallow Dark Surface (TF12)
❑
Depleted Below Dark Surface (A11)
❑
Depleted Dark Surface (F7)
❑
Other (Explain in Remarks)
❑
Thick Dark Surface (Al2)
❑
Redox Depressions (F8)
❑
Sandy Mucky Material (S1)
❑
Iron -Manganese Masses (F12) (LRR N, MLRA 136)
(LRR N, MLRA 147, 148)
❑
Umbric Surface (F13) (MLRA 136, 122)
3Indicators of hydrophytic vegetation and
❑
Sandy Gleyed Matrix (S4)
❑
Piedmont Floodplain Soils (F19) (MLRA 148)
wetland hydrology must be present,
❑
Sandy Redox (S4)
❑
Red Parent Material (F21) (MLRA 127, 147)
unless disturbed or problematic.
n
Stripped Matrix (S5)
estrictive Layer (if observed):
Type:
Depth (inches):
Hydric Soil Present? Yes Q No ❑
US Army Corps of Engineers Eastern Mountains and Piedmont - Version 2.0

WETLAND DETERMINATION DATA FORM - Eastern Mountains and Piedmont Wetland A - upland side
Project/Site: Marshall City/Co.: Moorseville/Catawba Sampling Date: Jan 7 2015
Applicant/Owner: Duke Energy State: NC Sampling Point: BluMar-WA001C
Investigator(s): James Cutler, PWS Section, Township, Range:
Landform: (hillslope, terrace, etc.) hillslope Local Relief: convex Slope (%): <12
Subregion(LRR/MLRA P/136 Lat: 35.6143 Long: 80.9649 Datum:
Soil Map Unit Name: Wilkes loam, 10 to 25 percent slopes NWI Classification: upland
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? 0 Yes ❑ No
Are Vegetation ❑ Soil ❑ or Hydrology ❑ naturally problematic? (If needed, explain any answers in Remarks.)
SUMMARY OF FINDINGS - Attach site map showing sampling point locations, transects, important features, etc.
Hydrophytic Vegetation Present? Yes ❑ No 0 Is the Sampled Area
Hydric Soil Present? Yes ❑ No 0 within a wetland? Yes ❑ No 121
Wetland Hydrology Present? Yes ❑ No 0
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 (136)
❑ Surface Water (Al)
❑
True Aquatic Plants (B14)
❑
Sparsely Vegetated Concave Surface (138)
❑ High Water Table (A2)
❑
Hydrogen Sulfide Odor (Cl)
❑
Drainage Patterns (1310)
❑ Saturation (A3)
❑
Oxidized Rhizospheres on Living Roots (C3)
❑
Moss Trim Lines (1316)
❑ Water Marks (B1)
❑
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 (B3)
❑
Thin Much Surface (C7)
❑
Saturation Visible on Aerial Imagery (C9)
❑ Algal Mat or Crust (134)
❑
Other (Explain in Remarks)
❑
Stunted or Stressed Plants (D1)
❑ Iron Deposits (135)
❑
Geomorphic Position (D2)
❑ Inundation Visible on Aerial Imagery (137)
❑
Shallow Aquitard (D3)
❑ Water -Stained Leaves (139)
❑
Microtopographic Relief (D4)
❑ Aquatic Fauna (B13)
❑
FAC -Neutral Test (D5)
Field Observations:
Surface Water Present? ❑ Yes
0 No
Depth (inches):
Water Table Present? E] Yes
❑ No
Depth (inches):
Saturation Present? ❑Yes
E] No
Depth (inches):
Wetland
Hydrology Present? ❑ Yes E] 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

VLUL I A I IVN I p-our,trata) - use SCIentitic names of plants.
Absolute Dominant Indicator
Tree Stratum (Plot size: 30ft radius) % Cover Species? Status
1.
2.
3.
4.
5.
6.
7.
8.
50% of total cover:
ing/Shrub Stratum (Plot size: 30ft radius)
1.
2.
3.
4.
5.
6.
7.
8.
9.
10.
50% of total cover:
u Stratum (Plot size: 30ft radius)
1. Paspalum notatum
2. Eupatorium capillifolium
3. Andropogon virginicus
4.
5.
6.
7.
8.
9.
10.
11.
12.
50% of total cover:
)dv Vine Stratum (Plot size: 30ft radius)
1.
2.
3.
4.
5.
6.
0 = Total Cover
0 20% of total cover:
0 = Total Cover
0 20% of total cover:
60 Y FACU
20 Y FACU
10 FACU
Sampling Point: 131uMar-WAUU1C
Dominance Test Worksheet:
Number of Dominant Species
That Are OBL, FACW, or FAC: 0 (A)
Total Number of Dominant
Species Across All Strata: 2 (B)
Percent of Dominant Species
That Are OBL, FACW, or FAC: 0% (A/B)
Prevalence Index worksheet:
Total % Cover of: Multiply
OBL species 0 x 1 = 0
0 FACW species 0 x 2= 0
FAC species 0 x 3 = 0
FACU species 90 x 4 = 360
UPL species 0 x 5 = 0
Column Totals: 90 (A) 360 (B)
Prevalence Index = B/A = 4.0
Hydrophytic Vegetation Indicators:
❑ Rapid Test for Hydrophytic Vegetation
❑ Dominance Test is > 50%
❑ Prevalence Index is <_ 3.0'
❑ Morphological Adaptations1 (Provide supporting
data in Remarks or on a separate sheet
0 ❑ Problematic Hydrophytic Vegetation' (Explain)
' Indicators of hydric soil and wetland hydrology must
be present, unless disturbed or problematic
Definitions of Four Vegetation Strata:
Tree - Woody plants, excluding vines, 3 in. (7.6 cm) or
more in diameter at breast height (DBH), regardless of
height.
Sapling/Shrub - Woody plants, excluding vines, less
than 3 in. DBH and greater than 3.28 ft (1 m) tall.
Herb - All herbaceous (non -woody) plants, regardless of
90 = Total Cover size, and woody plants less than 3.28 ft tall.
45 20% of total cover: 18
Woody Vines - All woody vines greater than 3.28 ft in height.
Hydrophytic
Vegetation Yes ❑ No F/I
0 = Total Cover Present?
50% of total cover: 0 20% of total cover: 0
Remarks: (Include photo numbers here or on a separate sheet.)
ERDC/CRREL 2014 Regional Wetland Plant List (Eastern Mountains and Piedmont) used for indicator status.
US Army Corps of Engineers Eastern Mountains and Piedmont - Version 2.0

SOIL
Sampling Point: BluMar-WA001C
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 Remarks
0 - 8 10YR4/4 100 silty clay loam
C = Concentration, D = depletion, RM = Reduced Matrix, MS = Masked Sand Grains `Location: PL = Pore Lining, M = Matrix
Hydric Soil Indicators:
Indicators for Problematic Hydric Soils':
❑
Histosol (Al)
❑
Dark Surface (S7)
❑
2 cm Muck (A10) (MLRA 147)
❑
Histic Epipedon (A2)
❑
Polyvalue Below Surface (S8) (MLRA 147, 148)
❑
Coatal Prairie Redox (A16)
❑
Black Histic (A3)
❑
Thin Dark Surface (S9) (MLRA 147, 148)
(MLRA 147, 148)
❑
Hydrogen Sulfide (A4)
❑
Loamy Gleyed Matrix (F2)
❑
Piedmont Floodplain Soils (F19)
❑
Stratified Layers (A5)
❑
Depleted Matrix (F3)
(MLRA 136, 147)
❑
2 cm Muck (A10) (LRR N)
❑
Redox Dark Surface (F6)
❑
Very Shallow Dark Surface (TF12)
❑
Depleted Below Dark Surface (A11)
❑
Depleted Dark Surface (F7)
❑
Other (Explain in Remarks)
❑
Thick Dark Surface (Al2)
❑
Redox Depressions (F8)
❑
Sandy Mucky Material (S1)
❑
Iron -Manganese Masses (F12) (LRR N, MLRA 136)
(LRR N, MLRA 147, 148)
❑
Umbric Surface (F13) (MLRA 136, 122)
3Indicators of hydrophytic vegetation and
❑
Sandy Gleyed Matrix (S4)
❑
Piedmont Floodplain Soils (F19) (MLRA 148)
wetland hydrology must be present,
❑
Sandy Redox (S4)
❑
Red Parent Material (F21) (MLRA 127, 147)
unless disturbed or problematic.
n
Stripped Matrix (S5)
estrictive Layer (if observed):
Type:
Depth (inches):
Hydric Soil Present? Yes ❑ No 0
US Army Corps of Engineers Eastern Mountains and Piedmont - Version 2.0

WETLAND DETERMINATION DATA FORM - Eastern Mountains and Piedmont Wetland B - wetland side
Project/Site: Marshall City/Co.: Moorseville/Catawba Sampling Date: Jan 7 2015
Applicant/Owner: Duke Energy State: NC Sampling Point: BluMar-WB000E
Investigator(s): James Cutler, PWS Section, Township, Range:
Landform: (hillslope, terrace, etc.) bottom slope seep Local Relief: concave Slope (%): <5
Subregion(LRR/MLRA P/136 Lat: 35.6181 Long: 80.963 Datum:
Soil Map Unit Name: Pacolet soils, 10 to 25 percent slopes NWI Classification: none
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? 0 Yes ❑ No
Are Vegetation ❑ Soil ❑ or Hydrology ❑ naturally problematic? (If needed, explain any answers in Remarks.)
5UMMAKY OF rlNuiNU5 - Attacn site map snowing sampling point locations, transects, Important teatures, 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 ❑
Remarks Seep wetland
HYD
Wetland Hydrology Indicators:
Secondary Indicators (minimum of two required)
Primary Indicators (minimum of one is required; check
all that apply):
❑
Surface Soil Cracks (136)
❑ Surface Water (Al)
❑
True Aquatic Plants (B14)
❑
Sparsely Vegetated Concave Surface (138)
0 High Water Table (A2)
❑
Hydrogen Sulfide Odor (Cl)
❑
Drainage Patterns (1310)
❑ Saturation (A3)
❑
Oxidized Rhizospheres on Living Roots (C3)
❑
Moss Trim Lines (1316)
❑ Water Marks (B1)
❑
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 (B3)
❑
Thin Much Surface (C7)
❑
Saturation Visible on Aerial Imagery (C9)
❑ Algal Mat or Crust (134)
❑
Other (Explain in Remarks)
❑
Stunted or Stressed Plants (D1)
❑ Iron Deposits (135)
❑
Geomorphic Position (D2)
❑ Inundation Visible on Aerial Imagery (137)
❑
Shallow Aquitard (D3)
❑ Water -Stained Leaves (139)
❑
Microtopographic Relief (D4)
❑ Aquatic Fauna (B13)
❑
FAC -Neutral Test (D5)
Field Observations:
Surface Water Present? ❑ Yes
❑ No
Depth (inches):
Water Table Present? E] Yes
❑ No
Depth (inches): 6
Saturation Present? E]Yes
❑ No
Depth (inches): 0
Wetland
Hydrology Present? 0 Yes ❑ No
(includes capillary fringe)
Describe Recorded Data (stream gauge, monitoring well, aerial photos, previous inspections), if available:
Remarks:
US Army Corps of Engineers Eastern Mountains and Piedmont - Version 2.0

VLUL I A I IVN I p-our,trata) - use SCIentitic names of plants.
Absolute Dominant Indicator
Tree Stratum (Plot size: 30ft radius) % Cover Species? Status
1. Acer rubrum 20 Y FAC
2.
3.
4.
5.
6.
7.
8.
50% of total cover:
ing/Shrub Stratum (Plot size: 30ft radius)
1. Acer rubrum
2. Ilex opaca
3.
4.
5.
6.
7.
8.
9.
10.
50% of total cover:
u Stratum (Plot size: 30ft radius)
1. Carex sp.
2.
3.
4.
5.
6.
7.
8.
9.
10.
11.
12.
50% of total cover:
)dv Vine Stratum (Plot size: 30ft radius)
1.
2.
3.
4.
5.
6.
20 = Total Cover
10 20% of total cover:
20 Y FAC
5 Y FAC
25 = Total Cover
12.5 20% of total cover:
5 Y FACW
Sampling Point: bluMar-WBUUUt
Dominance Test Worksheet:
Number of Dominant Species
That Are OBL, FACW, or FAC: 4 (A)
Total Number of Dominant
Species Across All Strata: 4 (B)
Percent of Dominant Species
That Are OBL, FACW, or FAC: 100% (A/B)
Prevalence Index worksheet:
Total % Cover of: Multiply
OBL species 0 x 1 = 0
4 FACW species 5 x 2 = 10
FAC species 45 x 3 = 135
FACU species 0 x 4 = 0
UPL species 0 x 5 = 0
Column Totals: 50 (A) 145 (B)
Prevalence Index = B/A = 2.9
Hydrophytic Vegetation Indicators:
❑ Rapid Test for Hydrophytic Vegetation
Fil Dominance Test is > 50%
❑ Prevalence Index is <_ 3.0'
❑ Morphological Adaptations1 (Provide supporting
data in Remarks or on a separate sheet
5 ❑ Problematic Hydrophytic Vegetation' (Explain)
' Indicators of hydric soil and wetland hydrology must
be present, unless disturbed or problematic
Definitions of Four Vegetation Strata:
Tree - Woody plants, excluding vines, 3 in. (7.6 cm) or
more in diameter at breast height (DBH), regardless of
height.
Sapling/Shrub - Woody plants, excluding vines, less
than 3 in. DBH and greater than 3.28 ft (1 m) tall.
Herb - All herbaceous (non -woody) plants, regardless of
5 = Total Cover size, and woody plants less than 3.28 ft tall.
2.5 20% of total cover: 1
Woody Vines - All woody vines greater than 3.28 ft in height.
Hydrophytic
Vegetation Yes 0 No ❑
0 = Total Cover Present?
50% of total cover: 0 20% of total cover: 0
Remarks: (Include photo numbers here or on a separate sheet.)
ERDC/CRREL 2014 Regional Wetland Plant List (Eastern Mountains and Piedmont) used for indicator status.
US Army Corps of Engineers Eastern Mountains and Piedmont - Version 2.0

SOIL
Sampling Point: BluMar-WB000E
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 Remarks
0 - 8 10YR4/2 80 7.5YR4/5 20 C M silty clay loam
C = Concentration, D = depletion, RM = Reduced Matrix, MS = Masked Sand Grains `Location: PL = Pore Lining, M = Matrix
Hydric Soil Indicators:
Indicators for Problematic Hydric Soils':
❑
Histosol (Al)
❑
Dark Surface (S7)
❑
2 cm Muck (A10) (MLRA 147)
❑
Histic Epipedon (A2)
❑
Polyvalue Below Surface (S8) (MLRA 147, 148)
❑
Coatal Prairie Redox (A16)
❑
Black Histic (A3)
❑
Thin Dark Surface (S9) (MLRA 147, 148)
(MLRA 147, 148)
❑
Hydrogen Sulfide (A4)
❑
Loamy Gleyed Matrix (F2)
❑
Piedmont Floodplain Soils (F19)
❑
Stratified Layers (A5)
❑
Depleted Matrix (F3)
(MLRA 136, 147)
❑
2 cm Muck (A10) (LRR N)
❑
Redox Dark Surface (F6)
❑
Very Shallow Dark Surface (TF12)
❑
Depleted Below Dark Surface (A11)
❑
Depleted Dark Surface (F7)
❑
Other (Explain in Remarks)
❑
Thick Dark Surface (Al2)
❑
Redox Depressions (F8)
❑
Sandy Mucky Material (S1)
❑
Iron -Manganese Masses (F12) (LRR N, MLRA 136)
(LRR N, MLRA 147, 148)
❑
Umbric Surface (F13) (MLRA 136, 122)
3Indicators of hydrophytic vegetation and
❑
Sandy Gleyed Matrix (S4)
❑
Piedmont Floodplain Soils (F19) (MLRA 148)
wetland hydrology must be present,
❑
Sandy Redox (S4)
❑
Red Parent Material (F21) (MLRA 127, 147)
unless disturbed or problematic.
n
Stripped Matrix (S5)
estrictive Layer (if observed):
Type:
Depth (inches):
Hydric Soil Present? Yes Q No ❑
US Army Corps of Engineers Eastern Mountains and Piedmont - Version 2.0

WETLAND DETERMINATION DATA FORM - Eastern Mountains and Piedmont Wetland B - upland side
Project/Site: Marshall City/Co.: Moorseville/Catawba Sampling Date: Jan 7 2015
Applicant/Owner: Duke Energy State: NC Sampling Point: BluMar-WB000E
Investigator(s): James Cutler, PWS Section, Township, Range:
Landform: (hillslope, terrace, etc.) hillslope Local Relief: convex Slope (%): <12
Subregion(LRR/MLRA P/136 Lat: 35.6181 Long: 80.963 Datum:
Soil Map Unit Name: Pacolet soils, 10 to 25 percent slopes NWI Classification: none
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? 0 Yes ❑ No
Are Vegetation ❑ Soil ❑ or Hydrology ❑ naturally problematic? (If needed, explain any answers in Remarks.)
SUMMAKY OF I-INUINU5 - Attach site map snowing Sam
Hydrophytic Vegetation Present? Yes ❑ No 0
Hydric Soil Present? Yes ❑ No 0
Wetland Hydrology Present? Yes ❑ No 0
Remarks
HYD
3oint locations, transects, important teatures, etc.
Is the Sampled Area
within a wetland? Yes ❑ No 121
Wetland Hydrology Indicators:
Secondary Indicators (minimum of two required)
Primary Indicators (minimum of one is required; check
all that apply):
❑
Surface Soil Cracks (136)
❑ Surface Water (Al)
❑
True Aquatic Plants (B14)
❑
Sparsely Vegetated Concave Surface (138)
❑ High Water Table (A2)
❑
Hydrogen Sulfide Odor (Cl)
❑
Drainage Patterns (1310)
❑ Saturation (A3)
❑
Oxidized Rhizospheres on Living Roots (C3)
❑
Moss Trim Lines (1316)
❑ Water Marks (B1)
❑
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 (B3)
❑
Thin Much Surface (C7)
❑
Saturation Visible on Aerial Imagery (C9)
❑ Algal Mat or Crust (134)
❑
Other (Explain in Remarks)
❑
Stunted or Stressed Plants (D1)
❑ Iron Deposits (135)
❑
Geomorphic Position (D2)
❑ Inundation Visible on Aerial Imagery (137)
❑
Shallow Aquitard (D3)
❑ Water -Stained Leaves (139)
❑
Microtopographic Relief (D4)
❑ Aquatic Fauna (B13)
❑
FAC -Neutral Test (D5)
Field Observations:
Surface Water Present? ❑ Yes
0 No
Depth (inches):
Water Table Present? E] Yes
❑ No
Depth (inches):
Saturation Present? ❑Yes
E] No
Depth (inches):
Wetland
Hydrology Present? ❑ Yes E] 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

VLDL I A I IUN p-our,trata) - use SCIentitic names of plants. Sampling Point: bluMar-Wt3000E;
8.
9.
10.
11.
12.
0 = Total Cover
50% of total cover: 0 20% of total cover:
Woody Vine Stratum (Plot size: 30ft radius)
1.
2.
3.
4.
5.
6.
Sapling/Shrub - Woody plants, excluding vines, less
than 3 in. DBH and greater than 3.28 ft (1 m) tall.
Herb - All herbaceous (non -woody) plants, regardless of
size, and woody plants less than 3.28 ft tall.
0
Woody Vines - All woody vines greater than 3.28 ft in height.
Hydrophytic
Vegetation Yes ❑ No F/I
0 = Total Cover Present?
50% of total cover: 0 20% of total cover: 0
Remarks: (Include photo numbers here or on a separate sheet.)
ERDC/CRREL 2014 Regional Wetland Plant List (Eastern Mountains and Piedmont) used for indicator status.
US Army Corps of Engineers Eastern Mountains and Piedmont - Version 2.0
Absolute
Dominant Indicator
Dominance Test Worksheet:
Tree Stratum (Plot size: 30ft radius)
% Cover
Species? Status
Number of Dominant Species
1. Pinus virginiana
50
Y FACU
That Are OBL, FACW, or FAC: 1 (A)
2. Quercus rubra
20
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.
7.
Prevalence Index worksheet:
8.
Total % Cover of: Multiply
70
= Total Cover
OBL species 0 x 1 = 0
50% of total cover:
35 20% of
total cover: 14
FACW species 0 x 2 = 0
Sapling/Shrub Stratum (Plot size: 30ft radius)
FAC species 10 x 3 = 30
1. Fagus grandifolia
10
Y FACU
FACU species 80 x 4 = 320
2. Ilex opaca
10
Y FAC
UPL species 0 x 5 = 0
3.
Column Totals: 90 (A) 350 (B)
4.
Prevalence Index = B/A = 3.9
5.
6.
Hydrophytic Vegetation Indicators:
7.
❑ Rapid Test for Hydrophytic Vegetation
8.
❑ Dominance Test is > 50%
9.
❑ Prevalence Index is <_ 3.0'
10.
❑ Morphological Adaptations1 (Provide supporting
20
= Total Cover
data in Remarks or on a separate sheet
50% of total cover:
10 20% of total cover: 4
❑ Problematic Hydrophytic Vegetation' (Explain)
Herb Stratum (Plot size: 30ft radius)
1.
' Indicators of hydric soil and wetland hydrology must
2.
be present, unless disturbed or problematic
3.
Definitions of Four Vegetation Strata:
4.
5.
Tree - Woody plants, excluding vines, 3 in. (7.6 cm) or
6.
more in diameter at breast height (DBH), regardless of
7.
height.
8.
9.
10.
11.
12.
0 = Total Cover
50% of total cover: 0 20% of total cover:
Woody Vine Stratum (Plot size: 30ft radius)
1.
2.
3.
4.
5.
6.
Sapling/Shrub - Woody plants, excluding vines, less
than 3 in. DBH and greater than 3.28 ft (1 m) tall.
Herb - All herbaceous (non -woody) plants, regardless of
size, and woody plants less than 3.28 ft tall.
0
Woody Vines - All woody vines greater than 3.28 ft in height.
Hydrophytic
Vegetation Yes ❑ No F/I
0 = Total Cover Present?
50% of total cover: 0 20% of total cover: 0
Remarks: (Include photo numbers here or on a separate sheet.)
ERDC/CRREL 2014 Regional Wetland Plant List (Eastern Mountains and Piedmont) used for indicator status.
US Army Corps of Engineers Eastern Mountains and Piedmont - Version 2.0

SOIL
Sampling Point: BluMar-WB000E
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 Remarks
0 - 8 10YR4/4 100 silty clay loam
C = Concentration, D = depletion, RM = Reduced Matrix, MS = Masked Sand Grains `Location: PL = Pore Lining, M = Matrix
Hydric Soil Indicators:
Indicators for Problematic Hydric Soils':
❑
Histosol (Al)
❑
Dark Surface (S7)
❑
2 cm Muck (A10) (MLRA 147)
❑
Histic Epipedon (A2)
❑
Polyvalue Below Surface (S8) (MLRA 147, 148)
❑
Coatal Prairie Redox (A16)
❑
Black Histic (A3)
❑
Thin Dark Surface (S9) (MLRA 147, 148)
(MLRA 147, 148)
❑
Hydrogen Sulfide (A4)
❑
Loamy Gleyed Matrix (F2)
❑
Piedmont Floodplain Soils (F19)
❑
Stratified Layers (A5)
❑
Depleted Matrix (F3)
(MLRA 136, 147)
❑
2 cm Muck (A10) (LRR N)
❑
Redox Dark Surface (F6)
❑
Very Shallow Dark Surface (TF12)
❑
Depleted Below Dark Surface (A11)
❑
Depleted Dark Surface (F7)
❑
Other (Explain in Remarks)
❑
Thick Dark Surface (Al2)
❑
Redox Depressions (F8)
❑
Sandy Mucky Material (S1)
❑
Iron -Manganese Masses (F12) (LRR N, MLRA 136)
(LRR N, MLRA 147, 148)
❑
Umbric Surface (F13) (MLRA 136, 122)
3Indicators of hydrophytic vegetation and
❑
Sandy Gleyed Matrix (S4)
❑
Piedmont Floodplain Soils (F19) (MLRA 148)
wetland hydrology must be present,
❑
Sandy Redox (S4)
❑
Red Parent Material (F21) (MLRA 127, 147)
unless disturbed or problematic.
n
Stripped Matrix (S5)
estrictive Layer (if observed):
Type:
Depth (inches):
Hydric Soil Present? Yes ❑ No 0
US Army Corps of Engineers Eastern Mountains and Piedmont - Version 2.0

WETLAND DETERMINATION DATA FORM - Eastern Mountains and Piedmont Wetland C - wetland side
Project/Site: Marshall City/Co.: Moorseville/Catawba Sampling Date: Jan 7 2015
Applicant/Owner: Duke Energy State: NC Sampling Point: BluMar-WC0004
Investigator(s): James Cutler, PWS Section, Township, Range:
Landform: (hillslope, terrace, etc.) bottom slope seep Local Relief: concave Slope (%): <5
Subregion(LRR/MLRA P/136 Lat: 35.6211 Long: 80.9685 Datum:
Soil Map Unit Name: Pacolet soils, 10 to 25 percent slopes NWI Classification: none
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? 0 Yes ❑ No
Are Vegetation ❑ Soil ❑ or Hydrology ❑ naturally problematic? (If needed, explain any answers in Remarks.)
5UMMAKY OF rlNuiNU5 - Attacn site map snowing sampling point locations, transects, Important teatures, 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 ❑
Remarks Seep wetland
HYD
Wetland Hydrology Indicators:
Secondary Indicators (minimum of two required)
Primary Indicators (minimum of one is required; check
all that apply):
❑
Surface Soil Cracks (136)
❑ Surface Water (Al)
❑
True Aquatic Plants (B14)
❑
Sparsely Vegetated Concave Surface (138)
0 High Water Table (A2)
❑
Hydrogen Sulfide Odor (Cl)
❑
Drainage Patterns (1310)
❑ Saturation (A3)
❑
Oxidized Rhizospheres on Living Roots (C3)
❑
Moss Trim Lines (1316)
❑ Water Marks (B1)
❑
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 (B3)
❑
Thin Much Surface (C7)
❑
Saturation Visible on Aerial Imagery (C9)
❑ Algal Mat or Crust (134)
❑
Other (Explain in Remarks)
❑
Stunted or Stressed Plants (D1)
❑ Iron Deposits (135)
❑
Geomorphic Position (D2)
❑ Inundation Visible on Aerial Imagery (137)
❑
Shallow Aquitard (D3)
❑ Water -Stained Leaves (139)
❑
Microtopographic Relief (D4)
❑ Aquatic Fauna (B13)
❑
FAC -Neutral Test (D5)
Field Observations:
Surface Water Present? ❑ Yes
❑ No
Depth (inches):
Water Table Present? E] Yes
❑ No
Depth (inches): 10
Saturation Present? E]Yes
❑ No
Depth (inches): 4
Wetland
Hydrology Present? 0 Yes ❑ No
(includes capillary fringe)
Describe Recorded Data (stream gauge, monitoring well, aerial photos, previous inspections), if available:
Remarks:
US Army Corps of Engineers Eastern Mountains and Piedmont - Version 2.0

VLUL I A I IVN I p-our,trata) - use SCIentitic names of plants.
Absolute Dominant Indicator
Tree Stratum (Plot size: 30ft radius) % Cover Species? Status
1.
2.
3.
4.
5.
6.
7.
8.
50% of total cover:
ing/Shrub Stratum (Plot size: 30ft radius)
1.
2.
3.
4.
5.
6.
7.
8.
9.
10.
50% of total cover:
u Stratum (Plot size: 30ft radius)
1. Polystichum acrostichoides
2.
3.
4.
5.
6.
7.
8.
9.
10.
11.
12.
50% of total cover:
)dv Vine Stratum (Plot size: 30ft radius)
1.
2.
3.
4.
5.
6.
0 = Total Cover
0 20% of total cover:
0 = Total Cover
0 20% of total cover:
30 Y FAC
Sampling Point: 131uMar-WUUUU4
Dominance Test Worksheet:
Number of Dominant Species
That Are OBL, FACW, or FAC: 1 (A)
Total Number of Dominant
Species Across All Strata: 1 (B)
Percent of Dominant Species
That Are OBL, FACW, or FAC: 100% (A/B)
Prevalence Index worksheet:
Total % Cover of: Multiply
OBL species 0 x 1 = 0
0 FACW species 0 x 2= 0
FAC species 30 x 3 = 90
FACU species 0 x 4 = 0
UPL species 0 x 5 = 0
Column Totals: 30 (A) 90 (B)
Prevalence Index = B/A = 3.0
Hydrophytic Vegetation Indicators:
❑ Rapid Test for Hydrophytic Vegetation
Fil Dominance Test is > 50%
❑ Prevalence Index is <_ 3.0'
❑ Morphological Adaptations1 (Provide supporting
data in Remarks or on a separate sheet
0 ❑ Problematic Hydrophytic Vegetation' (Explain)
' Indicators of hydric soil and wetland hydrology must
be present, unless disturbed or problematic
Definitions of Four Vegetation Strata:
Tree - Woody plants, excluding vines, 3 in. (7.6 cm) or
more in diameter at breast height (DBH), regardless of
height.
Sapling/Shrub - Woody plants, excluding vines, less
than 3 in. DBH and greater than 3.28 ft (1 m) tall.
Herb - All herbaceous (non -woody) plants, regardless of
30 = Total Cover size, and woody plants less than 3.28 ft tall.
15 20% of total cover: 6
Woody Vines - All woody vines greater than 3.28 ft in height.
Hydrophytic
Vegetation Yes 0 No ❑
0 = Total Cover Present?
50% of total cover: 0 20% of total cover: 0
Remarks: (Include photo numbers here or on a separate sheet.)
ERDC/CRREL 2014 Regional Wetland Plant List (Eastern Mountains and Piedmont) used for indicator status.
US Army Corps of Engineers Eastern Mountains and Piedmont - Version 2.0

SOIL
Sampling Point: BluMar-WC0004
Profile Description: (Describe to the depth needed to document the indicator or confirm the absence of indicators).
Depth Matrix
Redox Features
(inches) Color (moist) %
Color (moist) % Type' LocZ
Texture Remarks
0 - 2 10YR2/2 95
7.5YR4/6 5 C M
silty clay loam
2 - 8 10YR3/4 100
silty clay loam
'Type C = Concentration, D = depletion, RM = Reduced Matrix, MS = Masked Sand Grains
`Location: PL = Pore Lining, M = Matrix
Hydric Soil Indicators:
Indicators for Problematic Hydric Soils3:
❑ Histosol (Al)
❑
Dark Surface (S7)
❑ 2 cm Muck (A10) (MLRA 147)
❑ Histic Epipedon (A2)
❑
Polyvalue Below Surface (S8) (MLRA 147, 148)
❑ Coatal Prairie Redox (A16)
❑ Black Histic (A3)
❑
Thin Dark Surface (S9) (MLRA 147, 148)
(MLRA 147, 148)
❑ Hydrogen Sulfide (A4)
❑
Loamy Gleyed Matrix (F2)
❑ Piedmont Floodplain Soils (F19)
❑ Stratified Layers (A5)
❑
Depleted Matrix (F3)
(MLRA 136, 147)
❑ 2 cm Muck (A10) (LRR N)
❑
Redox Dark Surface (F6)
❑ Very Shallow Dark Surface (TF12)
❑ Depleted Below Dark Surface (A11)
❑
Depleted Dark Surface (F7)
❑ Other (Explain in Remarks)
❑ Thick Dark Surface (Al2)
❑
Redox Depressions (F8)
❑ Sandy Mucky Material (S1)
❑
Iron -Manganese Masses (F12) (LRR N, MLRA 136)
(LRR N, MLRA 147, 148)
❑
Umbric Surface (F13) (MLRA 136, 122)
3Indicators of hydrophytic vegetation and
❑ Sandy Gleyed Matrix (S4)
❑
Piedmont Floodplain Soils (F19) (MLRA 148)
wetland hydrology must be present,
❑ Sandy Redox (S4)
❑
Red Parent Material (F21) (MLRA 127, 147)
unless disturbed or problematic.
❑ Stripped Matrix (S5)
Restrictive Layer (if observed):
Type:
Depth (inches):
Hydric Soil Present? Yes Q No ❑
Remarks:
US Army Corps of Engineers Eastern Mountains and Piedmont - Version 2.0

WETLAND DETERMINATION DATA FORM - Eastern Mountains and Piedmont Wetland C - upland side
Project/Site: Marshall City/Co.: Moorseville/Catawba Sampling Date: Jan 7 2015
Applicant/Owner: Duke Energy State: NC Sampling Point: BluMar-WC0004
Investigator(s): James Cutler, PWS Section, Township, Range:
Landform: (hillslope, terrace, etc.) hillslope Local Relief: convex Slope (%): <12
Subregion(LRR/MLRA P/136 Lat: 35.6211 Long: 80.9685 Datum:
Soil Map Unit Name: Pacolet soils, 10 to 25 percent slopes NWI Classification: none
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? 0 Yes ❑ No
Are Vegetation ❑ Soil ❑ or Hydrology ❑ naturally problematic? (If needed, explain any answers in Remarks.)
SUMMAKY OF I-INUINU5 - Attach site map snowing Sam
Hydrophytic Vegetation Present? Yes ❑ No 0
Hydric Soil Present? Yes ❑ No 0
Wetland Hydrology Present? Yes ❑ No 0
Remarks
HYD
3oint locations, transects, important teatures, etc.
Is the Sampled Area
within a wetland? Yes ❑ No 21
Wetland Hydrology Indicators:
Secondary Indicators (minimum of two required)
Primary Indicators (minimum of one is required; check
all that apply):
❑
Surface Soil Cracks (136)
❑ Surface Water (Al)
❑
True Aquatic Plants (B14)
❑
Sparsely Vegetated Concave Surface (138)
❑ High Water Table (A2)
❑
Hydrogen Sulfide Odor (Cl)
❑
Drainage Patterns (1310)
❑ Saturation (A3)
❑
Oxidized Rhizospheres on Living Roots (C3)
❑
Moss Trim Lines (1316)
❑ Water Marks (B1)
❑
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 (B3)
❑
Thin Much Surface (C7)
❑
Saturation Visible on Aerial Imagery (C9)
❑ Algal Mat or Crust (134)
❑
Other (Explain in Remarks)
❑
Stunted or Stressed Plants (D1)
❑ Iron Deposits (135)
❑
Geomorphic Position (D2)
❑ Inundation Visible on Aerial Imagery (137)
❑
Shallow Aquitard (D3)
❑ Water -Stained Leaves (139)
❑
Microtopographic Relief (D4)
❑ Aquatic Fauna (B13)
❑
FAC -Neutral Test (D5)
Field Observations:
Surface Water Present? ❑ Yes
0 No
Depth (inches):
Water Table Present? E] Yes
❑ No
Depth (inches):
Saturation Present? ❑Yes
E] No
Depth (inches):
Wetland
Hydrology Present? ❑ Yes E] 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

VLDL I A I IUNI p-our,trata) - use SCIentitic names of plants. Sampling Point: bIuMar-WCUUU4
Remarks: (Include photo numbers here or on a separate sheet.)
ERDC/CRREL 2014 Regional Wetland Plant List (Eastern Mountains and Piedmont) used for indicator status
US Army Corps of Engineers Eastern Mountains and Piedmont - Version 2.0
Absolute
Dominant Indicator
Dominance Test Worksheet:
Tree Stratum (Plot size: 30ft radius)
% Cover
Species? Status
Number of Dominant Species
1.
Quercus rubra
50
Y FACU
That Are OBL, FACW, or FAC: 1 (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: 25% (A/B)
6.
7.
Prevalence Index worksheet:
8.
Total % Cover of: Multiply
50
= Total Cover
OBL species 0 x 1 = 0
50% of total cover:
25
20% of
total cover: 10
FACW species 0 x 2 = 0
Sapling/Shrub
Stratum (Plot size: 30ft radius)
FAC species 10 x 3 = 30
1.
Fagus grandifolia
10
Y FACU
FACU species 70 x 4 = 280
2.
Ilex opaca
10
Y FAC
UPL species 0 x 5 = 0
3.
Quercus rubra
10
Y FACU
Column Totals: 80 (A) 310 (B)
4.
Prevalence Index = B/A = 3.9
5.
6.
Hydrophytic Vegetation Indicators:
7.
❑ Rapid Test for Hydrophytic Vegetation
8.
❑ Dominance Test is > 50%
9.
❑ Prevalence Index is <_ 3.0'
10.
❑ Morphological Adaptations1 (Provide supporting
30
= Total Cover
data in Remarks or on a separate sheet
50% of total cover:
15
20% of total cover: 6
❑ Problematic Hydrophytic Vegetation' (Explain)
Herb Stratum (Plot size: 30ft radius)
1.
' Indicators of hydric soil and wetland hydrology must
2.
be present, unless disturbed or problematic
3.
Definitions of Four Vegetation Strata:
4.
5.
Tree - Woody plants, excluding vines, 3 in. (7.6 cm) or
6.
more in diameter at breast height (DBH), regardless of
7.
height.
8.
9.
Sapling/Shrub - Woody plants, excluding vines, less
10.
than 3 in. DBH and greater than 3.28 ft (1 m) tall.
11.
12.
Herb - All herbaceous (non -woody) plants, regardless of
0
= Total Cover
size, and woody plants less than 3.28 ft tall.
50% of total cover:
0
20% of
total cover: 0
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 ❑ No E]
0
= Total Cover
Present?
50% of total cover:
0
20% of
total cover: 0
Remarks: (Include photo numbers here or on a separate sheet.)
ERDC/CRREL 2014 Regional Wetland Plant List (Eastern Mountains and Piedmont) used for indicator status
US Army Corps of Engineers Eastern Mountains and Piedmont - Version 2.0

SOIL
Sampling Point: BluMar-WC0004
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 Remarks
0 - 8 10YR4/4 100 silty clay loam
C = Concentration, D = depletion, RM = Reduced Matrix, MS = Masked Sand Grains `Location: PL = Pore Lining, M = Matrix
Hydric Soil Indicators:
Indicators for Problematic Hydric Soils':
❑
Histosol (Al)
❑
Dark Surface (S7)
❑
2 cm Muck (A10) (MLRA 147)
❑
Histic Epipedon (A2)
❑
Polyvalue Below Surface (S8) (MLRA 147, 148)
❑
Coatal Prairie Redox (A16)
❑
Black Histic (A3)
❑
Thin Dark Surface (S9) (MLRA 147, 148)
(MLRA 147, 148)
❑
Hydrogen Sulfide (A4)
❑
Loamy Gleyed Matrix (F2)
❑
Piedmont Floodplain Soils (F19)
❑
Stratified Layers (A5)
❑
Depleted Matrix (F3)
(MLRA 136, 147)
❑
2 cm Muck (A10) (LRR N)
❑
Redox Dark Surface (F6)
❑
Very Shallow Dark Surface (TF12)
❑
Depleted Below Dark Surface (A11)
❑
Depleted Dark Surface (F7)
❑
Other (Explain in Remarks)
❑
Thick Dark Surface (Al2)
❑
Redox Depressions (F8)
❑
Sandy Mucky Material (S1)
❑
Iron -Manganese Masses (F12) (LRR N, MLRA 136)
(LRR N, MLRA 147, 148)
❑
Umbric Surface (F13) (MLRA 136, 122)
3Indicators of hydrophytic vegetation and
❑
Sandy Gleyed Matrix (S4)
❑
Piedmont Floodplain Soils (F19) (MLRA 148)
wetland hydrology must be present,
❑
Sandy Redox (S4)
❑
Red Parent Material (F21) (MLRA 127, 147)
unless disturbed or problematic.
n
Stripped Matrix (S5)
estrictive Layer (if observed):
Type:
Depth (inches):
Hydric Soil Present? Yes ❑ No 0
US Army Corps of Engineers Eastern Mountains and Piedmont - Version 2.0

WETLAND DETERMINATION DATA FORM - Eastern Mountains and Piedmont Wetland D - wetland side
Project/Site: Marshall City/Co.: Mooresville/Catawba Sampling Date: 7 -Jan -15
Applicant/Owner: Duke Energy State: NC Sampling Point: RED_MAR_0544 wE1
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: Pacolet-Saw complex, 25 to 45 percent slopes, stony NWI Classification: none
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? 0 Yes ❑ No
Are Vegetation ❑ Soil ❑ or Hydrology ❑ naturally problematic? (If needed, explain any answers in Remarks.)
SUMMAKY OF I-INUINU5 - Attach site map snowing Sam
Hydrophytic Vegetation Present? Yes 0 No ❑
Hydric Soil Present? Yes 0 No ❑
Wetland Hydrology Present? Yes 0 No ❑
Remarks
All three criteria met; area is a wetland
Small wetland along stream overbank.
HYD
3oint locations, transects, important teatures, etc.
Is the Sampled Area
within a wetland? Yes 0 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)
❑ Surface Water (Al)
❑
True Aquatic Plants (B14)
❑
Sparsely Vegetated Concave Surface (138)
0 High Water Table (A2)
❑
Hydrogen Sulfide Odor (Cl)
❑
Drainage Patterns (1310)
❑ Saturation (A3)
❑
Oxidized Rhizospheres on Living Roots (C3)
❑
Moss Trim Lines (1316)
❑ Water Marks (B1)
❑
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 (B3)
❑
Thin Much Surface (C7)
❑
Saturation Visible on Aerial Imagery (C9)
❑ Algal Mat or Crust (134)
❑
Other (Explain in Remarks)
❑
Stunted or Stressed Plants (D1)
❑ Iron Deposits (135)
❑
Geomorphic Position (D2)
❑ Inundation Visible on Aerial Imagery (137)
❑
Shallow Aquitard (D3)
❑ Water -Stained Leaves (139)
❑
Microtopographic Relief (D4)
❑ Aquatic Fauna (B13)
❑
FAC -Neutral Test (D5)
Field Observations:
Surface Water Present? ❑ Yes
0 No
Depth (inches):
Water Table Present? E] Yes
❑ No
Depth (inches): 10
Saturation Present? E]Yes
❑ No
Depth (inches): 0
Wetland
Hydrology Present? 0 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

VLUL I A I IVN I p-our,trata) - use SCIentitic names of plants.
Absolute
Dominant
Indicator
Tree Stratum (Plot size: 30ft radius)
% Cover
Species?
Status
1.
Acer rubrum
10
Y
FAC
2.
Betula nigra
10
Y
FACW
3.
Celtis laevigata
5
FACW
4.
Liriodendron tulipifera
25
Y
FACU
5.
6.
7.
8.
50
= Total Cover
50% of total cover:
25 20% of
total cover:
1
Sapling/Shrub
Stratum (Plot size: 30ft radius)
1.
Acer rubrum
10
Y
FAC
2.
3.
4.
5.
6.
7.
8.
9.
10.
10
= Total Cover
50% of total cover:
5 20% of
total cover:
Herb Stratum (Plot size: 30ft radius)
1.
Juncus effusus
20
Y
FACW
2.
Microstegium vimineum
20
Y
FAC
3.
4.
5.
6.
7.
8.
9.
10.
11.
12.
40
= Total Cover
50% of total cover:
20 20% of
total cover:
Woody
Vine Stratum (Plot size: 30ft radius)
1.
Smilax rotundifolia
10
Y
FAC
2.
3.
4.
5.
6.
Sampling Point: RED_MAR_0544 WEI
Dominance Test Worksheet:
Number of Dominant Species
That Are OBL, FACW, or FAC: 6 (A)
Total Number of Dominant
Species Across All Strata: 7 (B)
Percent of Dominant Species
That Are OBL, FACW, or FAC: 86% (A/B)
Prevalence Index worksheet:
Total % Cover of: Multiply
OBL species 0 x 1 = 0
0 FACW species 35 x 2 = 70
FAC species 50 x 3 = 150
FACU species 25 x 4 = 100
UPL species 0 x 5 = 0
Column Totals: 110 (A) 320 (B)
Prevalence Index = B/A = 2.9
Hydrophytic Vegetation Indicators:
❑ Rapid Test for Hydrophytic Vegetation
Fil Dominance Test is > 50%
❑ Prevalence Index is <_ 3.0'
❑ Morphological Adaptations1 (Provide supporting
data in Remarks or on a separate sheet
2 ❑ Problematic Hydrophytic Vegetation' (Explain)
' Indicators of hydric soil and wetland hydrology must
be present, unless disturbed or problematic
Definitions of Four Vegetation Strata:
Tree - Woody plants, excluding vines, 3 in. (7.6 cm) or
more in diameter at breast height (DBH), regardless of
height.
Sapling/Shrub - Woody plants, excluding vines, less
than 3 in. DBH and greater than 3.28 ft (1 m) tall.
Herb - All herbaceous (non -woody) plants, regardless of
size, and woody plants less than 3.28 ft tall.
8
Woody Vines - All woody vines greater than 3.28 ft in height.
Hydrophytic
Vegetation Yes 0 No ❑
10 = Total Cover Present?
50% of total cover: 5 20% of total cover: 2
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_MAR_0544 WEl
Profile Description: (Describe to the depth needed to document the indicator or confirm the absence of indicators).
Depth Matrix
Redox Features
(inches) Color (moist) %
Color (moist) % Type' LOC2
Texture Remarks
0-4 7.5YR 4/3 100
SICK
4-12+ 10YR 4/2 70
10YR 4/5 30 C M
SiCL
'Type C = Concentration, D = depletion, RM = Reduced Matrix, MS = Masked Sand Grains
`Location: PL = Pore Lining, M = Matrix
Hydric Soil Indicators:
Indicators for Problematic Hydric Soils3:
❑ Histosol (Al)
❑
Dark Surface (S7)
❑ 2 cm Muck (A10) (MLRA 147)
❑ Histic Epipedon (A2)
❑
Polyvalue Below Surface (S8) (MLRA 147, 148)
❑ Coatal Prairie Redox (A16)
❑ Black Histic (A3)
❑
Thin Dark Surface (S9) (MLRA 147, 148)
(MLRA 147, 148)
❑ Hydrogen Sulfide (A4)
❑
Loamy Gleyed Matrix (F2)
❑ Piedmont Floodplain Soils (F19)
❑ Stratified Layers (A5)
❑
Depleted Matrix (F3)
(MLRA 136, 147)
❑ 2 cm Muck (A10) (LRR N)
❑
Redox Dark Surface (F6)
❑ Very Shallow Dark Surface (TF12)
❑ Depleted Below Dark Surface (A11)
❑
Depleted Dark Surface (F7)
❑ Other (Explain in Remarks)
❑ Thick Dark Surface (Al2)
❑
Redox Depressions (F8)
❑ Sandy Mucky Material (S1)
❑
Iron -Manganese Masses (F12) (LRR N, MLRA 136)
(LRR N, MLRA 147, 148)
❑
Umbric Surface (F13) (MLRA 136, 122)
3Indicators of hydrophytic vegetation and
❑ Sandy Gleyed Matrix (S4)
❑
Piedmont Floodplain Soils (F19) (MLRA 148)
wetland hydrology must be present,
❑ Sandy Redox (S4)
❑
Red Parent Material (F21) (MLRA 127, 147)
unless disturbed or problematic.
❑ Stripped Matrix (S5)
Restrictive Layer (if observed):
Type:
Depth (inches):
Hydric Soil Present? Yes Q No ❑
Remarks:
Hydric soil criterion is met.
US Army Corps of Engineers Eastern Mountains and Piedmont - Version 2.0

WETLAND DETERMINATION DATA FORM - Eastern Mountains and Piedmont Wetland D - upland side
Project/Site: Marshall City/Co.: Mooresville/Catawba Sampling Date: 7 -Jan -15
Applicant/Owner: Duke Energy State: NC Sampling Point: RED_MAR_0544 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: Long: Datum:
Soil Map Unit Name: Pacolet-Saw complex, 25 to 45 percent slopes, stony NWI Classification: upland
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? 0 Yes ❑ No
Are Vegetation ❑ Soil ❑ or Hydrology ❑ naturally problematic? (If needed, explain any answers in Remarks.)
SUMMARY OF FINDINGS - Attach site map showing sampling point locations, transects, important features, etc.
Hydrophytic Vegetation Present? Yes ❑ No 0 Is the Sampled Area
Hydric Soil Present? Yes ❑ No 0 within a wetland? Yes ❑ No 21
Wetland Hydrology Present? Yes ❑ No 0
Remarks
All three criteria not met; area is not a wetland.
Non -wet area adjacent to wetland closer to stream.
HYDROLOGY
Wetland Hydrology Indicators:
Secondary Indicators (minimum of two required)
Primary Indicators (minimum of one is required; check
all that apply):
❑
Surface Soil Cracks (136)
❑ Surface Water (Al)
❑
True Aquatic Plants (B14)
❑
Sparsely Vegetated Concave Surface (138)
❑ High Water Table (A2)
❑
Hydrogen Sulfide Odor (Cl)
❑
Drainage Patterns (1310)
❑ Saturation (A3)
❑
Oxidized Rhizospheres on Living Roots (C3)
❑
Moss Trim Lines (1316)
❑ Water Marks (B1)
❑
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 (B3)
❑
Thin Much Surface (C7)
❑
Saturation Visible on Aerial Imagery (C9)
❑ Algal Mat or Crust (134)
❑
Other (Explain in Remarks)
❑
Stunted or Stressed Plants (D1)
❑ Iron Deposits (135)
❑
Geomorphic Position (D2)
❑ Inundation Visible on Aerial Imagery (137)
❑
Shallow Aquitard (D3)
❑ Water -Stained Leaves (139)
❑
Microtopographic Relief (D4)
❑ Aquatic Fauna (B13)
❑
FAC -Neutral Test (D5)
Field Observations:
Surface Water Present? ❑ Yes
0 No
Depth (inches):
Water Table Present? E] Yes
❑ No
Depth (inches):
Saturation Present? ❑Yes
E] No
Depth (inches):
Wetland
Hydrology Present? ❑ Yes E] 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

VLUL I A I IUN p-our,trata) - use SCIentitic names of plants.
2.
Absolute
Dominant
Indicator
Tree Stratum (Plot size: 30ft radius)
% Cover
Species?
Status
1.
Liriodendron tulipifera
40
Y
FACU
2.
Acer negundo
5
FAC
3.
Platanus occidentalis
5
FACW
4.
Betula nigra
5
FACW
5.
8.
6.
9.
7.
10.
8.
10
= Total Cover
55
= Total Cover
2
50% of total cover:
27.5 20% of
total cover:
11
Sapling/Shrub Stratum (Plot size: 30ft radius)
Polystichium acrostichoides
5
Y
1.
Ilex opaca
10
Y
FACU
2.
3.
4.
5.
6.
7.
8.
9.
10.
10
= Total Cover
50% of total cover:
5 20% of total cover:
2
Herb Stratum (Plot size: 30ft radius)
1.
Polystichium acrostichoides
5
Y
UPL
2.
Ilex opaca
2
FACU
3.
Ligustrum sinense
2
FACU
4.
Microstegium vimineum
10
Y
FAC
5.
6.
7.
8.
9.
10.
11.
12.
19
= Total Cover
50% of total cover:
9.5 20% of total cover:
3.8
Woody
Vine Stratum (Plot size: 30ft radius)
1.
Smilax rotundifolia
15
Y
FAC
2.
3.
4.
5.
6.
Sampling Point: RED MAR 0544 UP
ominance Test Worksheet:
Number of Dominant Species
That Are OBL, FACW, or FAC: 2 (A)
Total Number of Dominant
Species Across All Strata: 5 (B)
Percent of Dominant Species
That Are OBL, FACW, or FAC: 40% (A/B)
revalence Index worksheet:
Total % Cover of: Multiply
OBL species 0 x 1 = 0
FACW species 10 x 2 = 20
FAC species 30 x 3 = 90
FACU species 54 x 4 = 216
UPL species 5 x 5 = 25
Column Totals: 99 (A) 351 (B)
Prevalence Index = B/A = 3.5
lydrophytic Vegetation Indicators:
❑ Rapid Test for Hydrophytic Vegetation
❑ Dominance Test is > 50%
❑ Prevalence Index is <_ 3.0'
❑ Morphological Adaptations1 (Provide supporting
data in Remarks or on a separate sheet
❑ Problematic Hydrophytic Vegetation' (Explain)
' Indicators of hydric soil and wetland hydrology must
be present, unless disturbed or problematic
iefinitions of Four Vegetation Strata:
ree - Woody plants, excluding vines, 3 in. (7.6 cm) or
lore in diameter at breast height (DBH), regardless of
eight.
ing/Shrub - Woody plants, excluding vines, less
3 in. DBH and greater than 3.28 ft (1 m) tall.
- All herbaceous (non -woody) plants, regardless of
and woody plants less than 3.28 ft tall.
dy Vines - All woody vines greater than 3.28 ft in height
Hydrophytic
Vegetation Yes ❑ No F/I
15 = Total Cover Present?
50% of total cover: 7.5 20% of total cover: 3
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 criterion not met. Winter vegetation.
US Army Corps of Engineers Eastern Mountains and Piedmont - Version 2.0

SOIL
Sampling Point: RED_MAR_0544 UP
Profile Description: (Describe to the depth needed to document the indicator or confirm the absence of indicators).
Depth Matrix
Redox Features
(inches) Color (moist) %
Color (moist) % Type' LoCZ
Texture Remarks
0-1 7.5YR 4/5 100
SiCL Sedimentation layer
1-4 2.5Y 3/4 100
SiCL
4-12+ 5YR 4/4 100
SiCL
'Type C = Concentration, D = depletion, RM = Reduced Matrix, MS = Masked Sand Grains
`Location: PL = Pore Lining, M = Matrix
Hydric Soil Indicators:
Indicators for Problematic Hydric Soils3:
❑ Histosol (Al)
❑
Dark Surface (S7)
❑ 2 cm Muck (A10) (MLRA 147)
❑ Histic Epipedon (A2)
❑
Polyvalue Below Surface (S8) (MLRA 147, 148)
❑ Coatal Prairie Redox (A16)
❑ Black Histic (A3)
❑
Thin Dark Surface (S9) (MLRA 147, 148)
(MLRA 147, 148)
❑ Hydrogen Sulfide (A4)
❑
Loamy Gleyed Matrix (F2)
❑ Piedmont Floodplain Soils (F19)
❑ Stratified Layers (A5)
❑
Depleted Matrix (F3)
(MLRA 136, 147)
❑ 2 cm Muck (A10) (LRR N)
❑
Redox Dark Surface (F6)
❑ Very Shallow Dark Surface (TF12)
❑ Depleted Below Dark Surface (A11)
❑
Depleted Dark Surface (F7)
❑ Other (Explain in Remarks)
❑ Thick Dark Surface (Al2)
❑
Redox Depressions (F8)
❑ Sandy Mucky Material (S1)
❑
Iron -Manganese Masses (F12) (LRR N, MLRA 136)
(LRR N, MLRA 147, 148)
❑
Umbric Surface (F13) (MLRA 136, 122)
3Indicators of hydrophytic vegetation and
❑ Sandy Gleyed Matrix (S4)
❑
Piedmont Floodplain Soils (F19) (MLRA 148)
wetland hydrology must be present,
❑ Sandy Redox (S4)
❑
Red Parent Material (F21) (MLRA 127, 147)
unless disturbed or problematic.
❑ Stripped Matrix (S5)
Restrictive Layer (if observed):
Type:
Depth (inches):
Hydric Soil Present? Yes ❑ No 0
Remarks:
Hydric soil criterion not met.
US Army Corps of Engineers Eastern Mountains and Piedmont - Version 2.0

WETLAND DETERMINATION DATA FORM - Eastern Mountains and Piedmont Wetland E - wetland side
Project/Site: Marshall City/Co.: Mooresville/Catawba Sampling Date: 7 -Jan -15
Applicant/Owner: Duke Energy State: NC Sampling Point: RED_MAR_0554 wE1
Investigator(s): J.Bourdeau, S. Levine Section, Township, Range:
Landform: (hillslope, terrace, etc.) Bottom of slope Local Relief: concave Slope (%): <5
Subregion(LRR/MLRA P/136 Lat: see GPS data Long: see GPS data Datum:
Soil Map Unit Name: Pacolet soils, 10 to 25 percent slopes NWI Classification: none
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? 0 Yes ❑ No
Are Vegetation ❑ Soil ❑ or Hydrology ❑ naturally problematic? (If needed, explain any answers in Remarks.)
SUMMAKY OF I-INUINU5 - Attach site map snowing Sam
Hydrophytic Vegetation Present? Yes 0 No ❑
Hydric Soil Present? Yes 0 No ❑
Wetland Hydrology Present? Yes 0 No ❑
Remarks
All three criteria met; area is a wetland
Small wetland formed from upslope drainage.
HYD
3oint locations, transects, important teatures, etc.
Is the Sampled Area
within a wetland? Yes 0 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)
0 Surface Water (Al)
❑
True Aquatic Plants (B14)
❑
Sparsely Vegetated Concave Surface (138)
0 High Water Table (A2)
❑
Hydrogen Sulfide Odor (Cl)
❑
Drainage Patterns (1310)
❑ Saturation (A3)
❑
Oxidized Rhizospheres on Living Roots (C3)
❑
Moss Trim Lines (1316)
❑ Water Marks (B1)
❑
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 (B3)
❑
Thin Much Surface (C7)
❑
Saturation Visible on Aerial Imagery (C9)
❑ Algal Mat or Crust (134)
❑
Other (Explain in Remarks)
❑
Stunted or Stressed Plants (D1)
❑ Iron Deposits (135)
❑
Geomorphic Position (D2)
❑ Inundation Visible on Aerial Imagery (137)
❑
Shallow Aquitard (D3)
❑ Water -Stained Leaves (139)
❑
Microtopographic Relief (D4)
❑ Aquatic Fauna (B13)
❑
FAC -Neutral Test (D5)
Field Observations:
Surface Water Present? 0 Yes
❑ No
Depth (inches): 2
Water Table Present? E] Yes
❑ No
Depth (inches): 0
Saturation Present? E]Yes
❑ No
Depth (inches): 0
Wetland
Hydrology Present? 0 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

VLDL I A I IUNI pour strata) - use SCIentitic names of plants. Sampling Point: RED_MAR_0554 WEI
Absolute Dominant Indicator Dominance Test Worksheet:
Tree Stratum (Plot size: 30ft radius) % Cover Species? Status Number of Dominant Species
1. Acer rubrum 80 Y FAC That Are OBL, FACW, or FAC: 5 (A)
2.
Total Number of Dominant
3.
Species Across All Strata: 6 (B)
4.
Percent of Dominant Species
5.
That Are OBL, FACW, or FAC: 83% (A/B)
6.
7.
Prevalence Index worksheet:
8.
Total % Cover of: Multiply
80
= Total Cover
OBL species 0 x 1 = 0
50% of total cover:
40 20% of total cover: 16
FACW species 30 x 2 = 60
inq/Shrub Stratum (Plot size: 30ft radius)
FAC species 140 x 3 = 420
1. Liquidambar styraciflua
10
Y FAC
FACU species 5 x 4 = 20
2. Ligustrum sinense
5
Y FACU
UPL species 0 x 5= 0
3.
Column Totals: 175 (A) 500 (B)
4.
Prevalence Index = B/A = 2.9
5.
6.
Hydrophytic Vegetation Indicators:
7.
❑ Rapid Test for Hydrophytic Vegetation
8.
Fil Dominance Test is > 50%
9.
❑ Prevalence Index is <_ 3.0'
10.
❑ Morphological Adaptations1 (Provide supporting
15
= Total Cover
data in Remarks or on a separate sheet
50% of total cover:
7.5 20% of total cover: 3
❑ Problematic Hydrophytic Vegetation' (Explain)
u Stratum (Plot size: 30ft radius)
1. Juncus effusus
30
Y FACW
Indicators of hydric soil and wetland hydrology must
2. Microstegium vimineum
40
Y FAC
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
70
= Total Cover
size, and woody plants less than 3.28 ft tall.
50% of total cover:
35 20% of total cover: 14
)dv Vine Stratum (Plot size: 30ft radius)
Woody Vines - All woody vines greater than 3.28 ft in height.
1. Smilax rotundifolia
10
Y FAC
2.
3.
4.
5.
Hydrophytic
6.
Vegetation Yes 0 No ❑
10 = Total Cover Present?
50% of total cover: 5 20% of total cover: 2
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_MAR_0554 WEI
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
0-12+ 10YR 4/2 80 10YR 5/6 20 C M SCS
Remarks
C = Concentration, D = depletion, RM = Reduced Matrix, MS = Masked Sand Grains `Location: PL = Pore Lining, M = Matrix
Hydric Soil Indicators:
Indicators for Problematic Hydric Soils':
❑
Histosol (Al)
❑
Dark Surface (S7)
❑
2 cm Muck (A10) (MLRA 147)
❑
Histic Epipedon (A2)
❑
Polyvalue Below Surface (S8) (MLRA 147, 148)
❑
Coatal Prairie Redox (A16)
❑
Black Histic (A3)
❑
Thin Dark Surface (S9) (MLRA 147, 148)
(MLRA 147, 148)
❑
Hydrogen Sulfide (A4)
❑
Loamy Gleyed Matrix (F2)
❑
Piedmont Floodplain Soils (F19)
❑
Stratified Layers (A5)
❑
Depleted Matrix (F3)
(MLRA 136, 147)
❑
2 cm Muck (A10) (LRR N)
❑
Redox Dark Surface (F6)
❑
Very Shallow Dark Surface (TF12)
❑
Depleted Below Dark Surface (All 1)
❑
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.
n
Stripped Matrix (S5)
estrictive Layer (if observed):
Type:
Depth (inches):
Hydric soil criterion is met.
Hydric Soil Present? Yes Q No ❑
US Army Corps of Engineers Eastern Mountains and Piedmont - Version 2.0

WETLAND DETERMINATION DATA FORM - Eastern Mountains and Piedmont Wetland E - upland side
Project/Site: Marshall City/Co.: Mooresville/Catawba Sampling Date: 7 -Jan -15
Applicant/Owner: Duke Energy State: NC Sampling Point: RED_MAR_0554 UP
Investigator(s): J.Bourdeau, S. Levine Section, Township, Range:
Landform: (hillslope, terrace, etc.) Bottom of slope Local Relief: concave Slope (%): <5
Subregion(LRR/MLRA P/136 Lat: Long: Datum:
Soil Map Unit Name: Pacolet soils, 10 to 25 percent slopes NWI Classification: none
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? 0 Yes ❑ No
Are Vegetation ❑ Soil ❑ or Hydrology ❑ naturally problematic? (If needed, explain any answers in Remarks.)
5UMMAKY OF rlNuiNU5 - Attacn site map snowing sampiing point locations, transects, Important teatures, etc.
Hydrophytic Vegetation Present? Yes ❑ No 0 Is the Sampled Area
Hydric Soil Present? Yes ❑ No 0 within a wetland? Yes ❑ No 121
Wetland Hydrology Present? Yes ❑ No 0
Remarks
All three criteria not met; area is not a wetland.
Upland area outside of wetland.
HYD
Wetland Hydrology Indicators:
Secondary Indicators (minimum of two required)
Primary Indicators (minimum of one is required; check
all that apply):
❑
Surface Soil Cracks (136)
❑ Surface Water (Al)
❑
True Aquatic Plants (B14)
❑
Sparsely Vegetated Concave Surface (138)
❑ High Water Table (A2)
❑
Hydrogen Sulfide Odor (Cl)
❑
Drainage Patterns (1310)
❑ Saturation (A3)
❑
Oxidized Rhizospheres on Living Roots (C3)
❑
Moss Trim Lines (1316)
❑ Water Marks (B1)
❑
Presence of Reduced Iron (C4)
❑
Dry -Season Water Table (C2)
❑ Sediment Deposits (132)
❑
Recent Iron Reduction in Tilled Soils (C6)
❑
Crayfish Burrows (C8)
❑ Drift Deposits (133)
❑
Thin Much Surface (C7)
❑
Saturation Visible on Aerial Imagery (C9)
❑ Algal Mat or Crust (134)
❑
Other (Explain in Remarks)
❑
Stunted or Stressed Plants (D1)
❑ Iron Deposits (135)
❑
Geomorphic Position (D2)
❑ Inundation Visible on Aerial Imagery (137)
❑
Shallow Aquitard (D3)
❑ Water -Stained Leaves (139)
❑
Microtopographic Relief (D4)
❑ Aquatic Fauna (B13)
❑
FAC -Neutral Test (D5)
Field Observations:
Surface Water Present? ❑ Yes
0 No
Depth (inches):
Water Table Present? E] Yes
E] No
Depth (inches):
Saturation Present? ❑Yes
E] No
Depth (inches):
Wetland
Hydrology Present? ❑ Yes E] 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

VLUL I A I IVN I p-our,trata) - use SCIentitic names of plants.
Absolute
Dominant Indicator
Tree Stratum (Plot size: 30ft radius)
% Cover
Species? Status
1. Pinus virginiana
40
Y FAC
2. Acer rubrum
5
FAC
3.
4.
5.
6.
7.
8.
45
= Total Cover
50% of total cover:
22.5 20% of
total cover:
Sapling/Shrub Stratum (Plot size: 30ft radius)
1. Fagus grandifolia
10
Y FACU
2.
3.
4.
5.
6.
7.
8.
9.
10.
10
= Total Cover
50% of total cover:
5 20% of
total cover:
Herb Stratum (Plot size: 30ft radius)
1. Polystichium acrostichoides
2
Y UPL
2.
3.
4.
5.
6.
7.
8.
9.
10.
11.
12.
2
= Total Cover
Sampling Point: RED MAR 0554 UP
Dominance Test Worksheet:
Number of Dominant Species
That Are OBL, FACW, or FAC: 2 (A)
Total Number of Dominant
Species Across All Strata: 4 (B)
Percent of Dominant Species
That Are OBL, FACW, or FAC: 50% (A/B)
Prevalence Index worksheet:
Total % Cover of: Multiply
OBL species 0 x 1 = 0
9 FACW species 0 x 2= 0
FAC species 50 x 3 = 150
FACU species 10 x 4 = 40
UPL species 2 x 5 = 10
Column Totals: 62 (A) 200 (B)
Prevalence Index = B/A = 3.2
Hydrophytic Vegetation Indicators:
❑ Rapid Test for Hydrophytic Vegetation
❑ Dominance Test is > 50%
❑ Prevalence Index is <_ 3.0'
❑ Morphological Adaptations1 (Provide supporting
data in Remarks or on a separate sheet
2 ❑ Problematic Hydrophytic Vegetation' (Explain)
' Indicators of hydric soil and wetland hydrology must
be present, unless disturbed or problematic
50% of total cover: 1 20% of total cover: 0.4
Woody Vine Stratum (Plot size: 30ft radius)
1. Smilax rotundifolia 5 Y FAC
2.
3
4
5
6
Definitions of Four Vegetation Strata:
Tree - Woody plants, excluding vines, 3 in. (7.6 cm) or
more in diameter at breast height (DBH), regardless of
height.
ing/Shrub - Woody plants, excluding vines, less
3 in. DBH and greater than 3.28 ft (1 m) tall.
- All herbaceous (non -woody) plants, regardless of
and woody plants less than 3.28 ft tall.
dy Vines - All woody vines greater than 3.28 ft in height
Hydrophytic
Vegetation Yes ❑ No F/I
5 = Total Cover Present?
50% of total cover: 2.5 20% of total cover: 1
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 criterion not met. Winter vegetation.
US Army Corps of Engineers Eastern Mountains and Piedmont - Version 2.0

SOIL
Sampling Point: RED_MAR_0554 UP
Profile Description: (Describe to the depth needed to document the indicator or confirm the absence of indicators).
Depth Matrix
Redox Features
(inches) Color (moist) %
Color (moist) % Type' LoCZ
Texture Remarks
0-4 10YR 4/3 100
SCS
4-12 7.5YR 5/6 100
SCL
'Type C = Concentration, D = depletion, RM = Reduced Matrix, MS = Masked Sand Grains
`Location: PL = Pore Lining, M = Matrix
Hydric Soil Indicators:
Indicators for Problematic Hydric Soils3:
❑ Histosol (Al)
❑
Dark Surface (S7)
❑ 2 cm Muck (A10) (MLRA 147)
❑ Histic Epipedon (A2)
❑
Polyvalue Below Surface (S8) (MLRA 147, 148)
❑ Coatal Prairie Redox (A16)
❑ Black Histic (A3)
❑
Thin Dark Surface (S9) (MLRA 147, 148)
(MLRA 147, 148)
❑ Hydrogen Sulfide (A4)
❑
Loamy Gleyed Matrix (F2)
❑ Piedmont Floodplain Soils (F19)
❑ Stratified Layers (A5)
❑
Depleted Matrix (F3)
(MLRA 136, 147)
❑ 2 cm Muck (A10) (LRR N)
❑
Redox Dark Surface (F6)
❑ Very Shallow Dark Surface (TF12)
❑ Depleted Below Dark Surface (A11)
❑
Depleted Dark Surface (F7)
❑ Other (Explain in Remarks)
❑ Thick Dark Surface (Al2)
❑
Redox Depressions (F8)
❑ Sandy Mucky Material (S1)
❑
Iron -Manganese Masses (F12) (LRR N, MLRA 136)
(LRR N, MLRA 147, 148)
❑
Umbric Surface (F13) (MLRA 136, 122)
3Indicators of hydrophytic vegetation and
❑ Sandy Gleyed Matrix (S4)
❑
Piedmont Floodplain Soils (F19) (MLRA 148)
wetland hydrology must be present,
❑ Sandy Redox (S4)
❑
Red Parent Material (F21) (MLRA 127, 147)
unless disturbed or problematic.
❑ Stripped Matrix (S5)
Restrictive Layer (if observed):
Type:
Depth (inches):
Hydric Soil Present? Yes ❑ No 0
Remarks:
Hydric soil criterion not met.
US Army Corps of Engineers Eastern Mountains and Piedmont - Version 2.0

WETLAND DETERMINATION DATA FORM - Eastern Mountains and Piedmont Wetland N - wetland side
Project/Site: Marshall Steam Plant County Catawba Sampling Date: 30 -Apr -15
Applicant/Owner: Duke Energy State: NC Sampling Point: WA (001) wet
Investigator(s): Laura Meyer Section, Township, Range:
Landform: (hillslope, terrace, etc.) Valley Local Relief: Concave Slope (%): 15
Subregion(LRR/MLRA MLRA136 Lat: 35.5999 Long: -80.9602 Datum:
Soil Map Unit Name: Pacolet soils, 10 to 25 percent soils NWI Classification: none
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? 0 Yes ❑ No
Are Vegetation ❑ Soil ❑ or Hydrology ❑ naturally problematic? (If needed, explain any answers in Remarks.)
SumMAKY OF t-INUINU5 - Attacn site map snowing sampling point locations, transects, Important teatures, 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 ❑
Remarks
HYD
Wetland Hydrology Indicators:
Secondary Indicators (minimum of two required)
Primary Indicators (minimum of one is required; check
all that apply):
❑
Surface Soil Cracks (136)
❑ Surface Water (Al)
❑
True Aquatic Plants (B14)
❑
Sparsely Vegetated Concave Surface (138)
❑ High Water Table (A2)
❑
Hydrogen Sulfide Odor (Cl)
❑
Drainage Patterns (1310)
❑ Saturation (A3)
❑
Oxidized Rhizospheres on Living Roots (C3)
❑
Moss Trim Lines (1316)
❑ Water Marks (B1)
❑
Presence of Reduced Iron (C4)
❑
Dry -Season Water Table (C2)
0 Sediment Deposits (132)
❑
Recent Iron Reduction in Tilled Soils (C6)
❑
Crayfish Burrows (C8)
❑ Drift Deposits (B3)
❑
Thin Much Surface (C7)
❑
Saturation Visible on Aerial Imagery (C9)
❑ Algal Mat or Crust (134)
❑
Other (Explain in Remarks)
❑
Stunted or Stressed Plants (D1)
❑ Iron Deposits (135)
❑
Geomorphic Position (D2)
❑ Inundation Visible on Aerial Imagery (137)
❑
Shallow Aquitard (D3)
❑ Water -Stained Leaves (139)
❑
Microtopographic Relief (D4)
❑ Aquatic Fauna (B13)
❑
FAC -Neutral Test (D5)
Field Observations:
Surface Water Present? ❑ Yes
0 No
Depth (inches):
Water Table Present? E] Yes
❑ No
Depth (inches):
Saturation Present? ❑Yes
❑ No
Depth (inches): 5
Wetland
Hydrology Present? 0 Yes ❑ No
(includes capillary fringe)
Describe Recorded Data (stream gauge, monitoring well, aerial photos, previous inspections), if available:
Remarks:
US Army Corps of Engineers Eastern Mountains and Piedmont - Version 2.0

VhUt=1 A I IUN (tour Strata) - use scientITIC names of plants. Sampling Point: WA (UU1) wet
Absolute Dominant Indicator Dominance Test Worksheet:
% Cover Species? Status Number of Dominant Species
1.
2.
3.
4.
5.
6.
7.
8.
in(
1.
2.
3.
4.
5.
6.
7.
8.
9.
10
1.
2.
3.
4.
5.
6.
7.
8.
9.
10
11
12
1.
2.
3.
4.
5.
6.
im (Plot size: 30ft radius)
Number of Dominant Species
Liriodendron tulipifera
2 Y
FACU
That Are OBL, FACW, or FAC: 3 (A)
Total Number of Dominant
Species Across All Strata: 4 (B)
Percent of Dominant Species
That Are OBL, FACW, or FAC: 75% (A/B)
Prevalence Index worksheet:
Total % Cover of: Multiply
2 = Total Cover
OBL species 25 x 1 = 25
50% of total cover:
1
20% of total cover:
0.4
FACW species 5 x2= 10
rub Stratum (Plot size: 30ft radius)
FAC species 25 x 3 = 75
FACU species 2 x4= 8
UPL species 0 x 5 = 0
Column Totals: 57 (A) 118 (B)
Prevalence Index = B/A = 2.1
Hydrophytic Vegetation Indicators:
❑ Rapid Test for Hydrophytic Vegetation
❑ Dominance Test is > 50%
❑ Prevalence Index is <_ 3.0'
❑ Morphological Adaptations1 (Provide supporting
0 = Total Cover
data in Remarks or on a separate sheet
50% of total cover:
0
20% of total cover:
0
❑ Problematic Hydrophytic Vegetation' (Explain)
im (Plot size: 30ft radius)
Rumex crispus
5
FAC
' Indicators of hydric soil and wetland hydrology must
Typha latifolia
15 Y
OBL
be present, unless disturbed or problematic
Juncus effusus
5 FACW
Definitions of Four Vegetation Strata:
Euthamia caroliniana
20 Y
FAC
Persicaria sagittata
10 Y
OBL
Tree - Woody plants, excluding vines, 3 in. (7.6 cm) or
more in diameter at breast height (DBH), regardless of
height.
Sapling/Shrub - Woody plants, excluding vines, less
than 3 in. DBH and greater than 3.28 ft (1 m) tall.
Herb - All herbaceous (non -woody) plants, regardless of
55 = Total Cover
size, and woody plants less than 3.28 ft tall.
50% of total cover:
27.5
20% of total cover:
11
e Stratum (Plot size: 30ft radius)
Woody Vines - All woody vines greater than 3.28 ft in height.
Hydrophytic
Vegetation Yes 0 No ❑
0 = Total Cover
Present?
50% of total cover:
0
20% of total cover:
0
(Include photo numbers here or on a separate sheet.)
REL 2014 Regional Wetland Plant List (Eastern Mountains and Piedmont) used for indicator status
US Army Corps of Engineers Eastern Mountains and Piedmont - Version 2.0

SOIL
Sampling Point: WA (001) wet
Profile Description: (Describe to the depth needed to document the indicator or confirm the absence of indicators).
Depth Matrix
Redox Features
(inches) Color (moist) %
Color (moist) % Type' LoCZ
Texture Remarks
0-4 5 Y 5/6 100
Sand
4-10 5Y5/2 70
5 Y 4/6 30 D M
Silt
10-18+ 7.5 YR 5/4 90
5 Y 4/6 10 D M
Clay
'Type C = Concentration, D = depletion, RM = Reduced Matrix, MS = Masked Sand Grains
`Location: PL = Pore Lining, M = Matrix
Hydric Soil Indicators:
Indicators for Problematic Hydric Soils3:
❑ Histosol (Al)
❑
Dark Surface (S7)
❑ 2 cm Muck (A10) (MLRA 147)
❑ Histic Epipedon (A2)
❑
Polyvalue Below Surface (S8) (MLRA 147, 148)
❑ Coatal Prairie Redox (A16)
❑ Black Histic (A3)
❑
Thin Dark Surface (S9) (MLRA 147, 148)
(MLRA 147, 148)
❑ Hydrogen Sulfide (A4)
❑
Loamy Gleyed Matrix (F2)
❑ Piedmont Floodplain Soils (F19)
❑ Stratified Layers (A5)
❑
Depleted Matrix (F3)
(MLRA 136, 147)
❑ 2 cm Muck (A10) (LRR N)
❑
Redox Dark Surface (F6)
❑ Very Shallow Dark Surface (TF12)
❑ Depleted Below Dark Surface (A11)
❑
Depleted Dark Surface (F7)
❑ Other (Explain in Remarks)
❑ Thick Dark Surface (Al2)
❑
Redox Depressions (F8)
❑ Sandy Mucky Material (S1)
❑
Iron -Manganese Masses (F12) (LRR N, MLRA 136)
(LRR N, MLRA 147, 148)
❑
Umbric Surface (F13) (MLRA 136, 122)
3Indicators of hydrophytic vegetation and
❑ Sandy Gleyed Matrix (S4)
❑
Piedmont Floodplain Soils (F19) (MLRA 148)
wetland hydrology must be present,
❑ Sandy Redox (S4)
❑
Red Parent Material (F21) (MLRA 127, 147)
unless disturbed or problematic.
❑ Stripped Matrix (S5)
Restrictive Layer (if observed):
Type:
Depth (inches):
Hydric Soil Present? Yes Q No ❑
Remarks:
US Army Corps of Engineers Eastern Mountains and Piedmont - Version 2.0

WETLAND DETERMINATION DATA FORM - Eastern Mountains and Piedmont Wetland N - upland side
Project/Site: Marshall Steam Plant County Catawba Sampling Date: 30 -Apr -15
Applicant/Owner: Duke Energy State: NC Sampling Point: WA (001) up
Investigator(s): Laura Meyer Section, Township, Range:
Landform: (hillslope, terrace, etc.) Hillslope Local Relief: Convex Slope (%): 15
Subregion(LRR/MLRA MLRA136 Lat: 35.5999 Long: -80.9602 Datum:
Soil Map Unit Name: Pacolet soils, 10 to 25 percent soils NWI Classification: upland
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? 0 Yes ❑ No
Are Vegetation ❑ Soil ❑ or Hydrology ❑ naturally problematic? (If needed, explain any answers in Remarks.)
SUMMAKY OF I-INUINU5 - Attach site map snowing Sam
Hydrophytic Vegetation Present? Yes ❑ No 0
Hydric Soil Present? Yes ❑ No 0
Wetland Hydrology Present? Yes ❑ No 0
Remarks
HYD
3oint locations, transects, important teatures, etc.
Is the Sampled Area
within a wetland? Yes ❑ No 21
Wetland Hydrology Indicators:
Secondary Indicators (minimum of two required)
Primary Indicators (minimum of one is required; check
all that apply):
❑
Surface Soil Cracks (136)
❑ Surface Water (Al)
❑
True Aquatic Plants (B14)
❑
Sparsely Vegetated Concave Surface (138)
❑ High Water Table (A2)
❑
Hydrogen Sulfide Odor (Cl)
❑
Drainage Patterns (1310)
❑ Saturation (A3)
❑
Oxidized Rhizospheres on Living Roots (C3)
❑
Moss Trim Lines (1316)
❑ Water Marks (B1)
❑
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 (B3)
❑
Thin Much Surface (C7)
❑
Saturation Visible on Aerial Imagery (C9)
❑ Algal Mat or Crust (134)
❑
Other (Explain in Remarks)
❑
Stunted or Stressed Plants (D1)
❑ Iron Deposits (135)
❑
Geomorphic Position (D2)
❑ Inundation Visible on Aerial Imagery (137)
❑
Shallow Aquitard (D3)
❑ Water -Stained Leaves (139)
❑
Microtopographic Relief (D4)
❑ Aquatic Fauna (B13)
❑
FAC -Neutral Test (D5)
Field Observations:
Surface Water Present? ❑ Yes
0 No
Depth (inches):
Water Table Present? E] Yes
❑ No
Depth (inches):
Saturation Present? ❑Yes
E] No
Depth (inches):
Wetland
Hydrology Present? ❑ Yes E] 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

VLUL I A I IUN p-our,trata) - use SCIentitic names of plants.
Absolute Dominant Indicator
% Cover Species? Status
Stratum (Plot size: 30ft radius)
1.
2.
3.
4.
5.
6.
7.
8.
50% of total cover:
ing/Shrub Stratum (Plot size: 30ft radius)
1. Rubus candensis
2.
3.
4.
5.
6.
7.
8.
9.
10.
50% of total cover
D Stratum (Plot size: 30ft radius)
1. Dactylis glomerata
2. Potentilla simplex
3. Solidago rugosa
4. Setara viridis
5.
6.
7.
8.
9.
10.
11.
if:
50% of total cover:
)dy Vine Stratum (Plot size: 30ft radius)
1.
2.
3.
4.
5.
6.
0 = Total Cover
0 20% of total cover:
20 Y FACU
20 = Total Cover
10 20% of total cover:
10
FACU
10
FACU
20 Y
FAC
30 Y
NL
Sampling Point: WA (UU1) up
Dominance Test Worksheet:
Number of Dominant Species
Number of Dominant Species
That Are OBL, FACW, or FAC: 1 (A)
Total Number of Dominant
Species Across All Strata: 3 (B)
Percent of Dominant Species
That Are OBL, FACW, or FAC: 33% (A/B)
Prevalence Index worksheet:
Total % Cover of: Multiply
OBL species 0 x 1 = 0
0 FACW species 0 x 2= 0
FAC species 20 x 3 = 60
FACU species 40 x 4 = 160
UPL species 0 x 5 = 0
Column Totals: 60 (A) 220 (B)
Prevalence Index = B/A = 3.7
Hydrophytic Vegetation Indicators:
❑ Rapid Test for Hydrophytic Vegetation
❑ Dominance Test is > 50%
❑ Prevalence Index is <_ 3.0'
❑ Morphological Adaptations1 (Provide supporting
data in Remarks or on a separate sheet
4 ❑ Problematic Hydrophytic Vegetation' (Explain)
' Indicators of hydric soil and wetland hydrology must
be present, unless disturbed or problematic
Definitions of Four Vegetation Strata:
Tree - Woody plants, excluding vines, 3 in. (7.6 cm) or
more in diameter at breast height (DBH), regardless of
height.
Sapling/Shrub - Woody plants, excluding vines, less
than 3 in. DBH and greater than 3.28 ft (1 m) tall.
Herb - All herbaceous (non -woody) plants, regardless of
70 = Total Cover size, and woody plants less than 3.28 ft tall.
35 20% of total cover: 14
Woody Vines - All woody vines greater than 3.28 ft in height.
Hydrophytic
Vegetation Yes ❑ No F�j
0 = Total Cover Present?
50% of total cover: 0 20% of total cover: 0
Remarks: (Include photo numbers here or on a separate sheet.)
ERDC/CRREL 2014 Regional Wetland Plant List (Eastern Mountains and Piedmont) used for indicator status.
US Army Corps of Engineers Eastern Mountains and Piedmont - Version 2.0

SOIL
Sampling Point: WA (001) 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' LocZ Texture
0-12+ 5 Y 5/8 100 sand
Remarks
C = Concentration, D = depletion, RM = Reduced Matrix, MS = Masked Sand Grains `Location: PL = Pore Lining, M = Matrix
Hydric Soil Indicators:
Indicators for Problematic Hydric Soils':
❑
Histosol (Al)
❑
Dark Surface (S7)
❑
2 cm Muck (A10) (MLRA 147)
❑
Histic Epipedon (A2)
❑
Polyvalue Below Surface (S8) (MLRA 147, 148)
❑
Coatal Prairie Redox (A16)
❑
Black Histic (A3)
❑
Thin Dark Surface (S9) (MLRA 147, 148)
(MLRA 147, 148)
❑
Hydrogen Sulfide (A4)
❑
Loamy Gleyed Matrix (F2)
❑
Piedmont Floodplain Soils (F19)
❑
Stratified Layers (A5)
❑
Depleted Matrix (F3)
(MLRA 136, 147)
❑
2 cm Muck (A10) (LRR N)
❑
Redox Dark Surface (F6)
❑
Very Shallow Dark Surface (TF12)
❑
Depleted Below Dark Surface (All 1)
❑
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.
n
Stripped Matrix (S5)
estrictive Layer (if observed):
Type:
Depth (inches):
Hydric Soil Present? Yes ❑ No 0
US Army Corps of Engineers Eastern Mountains and Piedmont - Version 2.0

WETLAND DETERMINATION DATA FORM - Eastern Mountains and Piedmont Wetland P - wetland side
Project/Site: Marshall City/Co.: Catawba Sampling Date: 04.30.15
Applicant/Owner: Duke Energy State: NC Sampling Point: W -B -WET
Investigator(s): KP Haywood Section, Township, Range: NA
Landform: (hillslope, terrace, etc.) Hillslope Local Relief: Concave Slope (%): 0-2
Subregion(LRR/MLRA P/136 Lat: 35°36'07.53" Long: 80°58'39.63" Datum: NA
Soil Map Unit Name: Roanoke loam, 0 to 2 percent slopes, occasionally flooded NW I Classification: None
Are climatic/hydrologic conditions on the site typical for this time of year? 0 Yes ❑ No (If no, explain in Remarks.)
Are Vegetation ❑ Soil ❑ or Hydrology ❑ significantly disturbed? Are "Normal Circumstances" present? E] Yes
Are Vegetation ❑ Soil ❑ or Hydrology ❑ naturally problematic? (If needed, explain any answers in Remarks.)
SUMMARY OF FINDINGS - Attach site map showing sampling point locations, transects, important features, etc.
Hydrophytic Vegetation Present? Yes Q No ❑ Is the Sampled Area
Hydric Soil Present? Yes 0 No ❑ within a wetland? Yes El No ❑
Wetland Hydrology Present? Yes 0 No ❑
Remarks
HYDROLOGY
❑ 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)
0 Surface Water (Al)
❑
True Aquatic Plants (1314)
0
Sparsely Vegetated Concave Surface (138)
M High Water Table (A2)
❑
Hydrogen Sulfide Odor (Cl)
El
Drainage Patterns (B10)
M 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)
E]
Crayfish Burrows (C8)
❑i Drift Deposits (133)
❑
Thin Much Surface (C7)
❑
Saturation Visible on Aerial Imagery (C9)
❑ Algal Mat or Crust (B4)
❑
Other (Explain in Remarks)
❑
Stunted or Stressed Plants (D1)
❑ Iron Deposits (135)
❑
Geomorphic Position (D2)
❑ Inundation Visible on Aerial Imagery (137)
❑
Shallow Aquitard (D3)
0 Water -Stained Leaves (B9)
❑
Microtopographic Relief (D4)
❑ Aquatic Fauna (1313)
❑
FAC -Neutral Test (D5)
Field Observations:
Surface Water Present? 0 Yes
❑ No
Depth (inches): 0-6
Water Table Present? Yes
❑ No
Depth (inches): 3
Saturation Present? E]Yes
❑ No
Depth (inches): 0
Wetland
Hydrology Present? 0 Yes ❑ No
(includes capillary fringe)
Describe Recorded Data (stream gauge, monitoring well, aerial photos, previous inspections), if available:
Remarks:
US Army Corps of Engineers Eastern Mountains and Piedmont - Version 2.0

VtCitIAI IUN (rour,trata) - use SCIentltic names of plants.
Absolute Dominant Indicator
Tree Stratum (Plot size: 30ft radius) % Cover Species? Status
1. Acer rubrum 90 Y FAC
2.
3.
4.
5.
6.
7.
8.
50% of total cover:
ing/Shrub Stratum (Plot size: 30ft radius)
1. Acer rubrum
2. Ligustrum sinense
3.
4.
5.
6.
7.
8.
9.
10.
50% of total cover:
o Stratum (Plot size: 30ft radius)
1. Woodwardia areolata
2.
3.
4.
5.
6.
7.
8.
9.
10.
11.
12.
50% of total cover:
)dv Vine Stratum (Plot size: 30ft radius)
1. Vitis rotundifolia
2.
3.
4.
5.
6.
90 = Total Cover
45 20% of total cover: 1
15 Y FAC
5 Y FACU
20 = Total Cover
10 20% of total cover: 4
2 Y FACW
2 = Total Cover
1 20% of total cover: 0.4
1 Y FAC
Sampling Point: W -13 -WE I
ominance Test Worksheet:
Number of Dominant Species
That Are OBL, FACW, or FAC: 4 (A)
Total Number of Dominant
Species Across All Strata: 5 (B)
Percent of Dominant Species
That Are OBL, FACW, or FAC: 80% (A/B)
revalence Index worksheet:
Total % Cover of: Multiply
OBL species 0 x 1 = 0
FACW species 2 x 2 = 4
FAC species 106 x 3 = 318
FACU species 5 x4= 20
UPL species 0 x 5 = 0
Column Totals: 113 (A) 342 (B)
Prevalence Index = B/A = 3.0
ydrophytic Vegetation Indicators:
❑ Rapid Test for Hydrophytic Vegetation
0 Dominance Test is > 50%
❑ Prevalence Index is <_ 3.0'
❑ Morphological Adaptations1 (Provide supporting
data in Remarks or on a separate sheet
❑ Problematic Hydrophytic Vegetation' (Explain)
' Indicators of hydric soil and wetland hydrology must
be present, unless disturbed or problematic
efinitions of Four Vegetation Strata:
ree - Woody plants, excluding vines, 3 in. (7.6 cm) or
ore in diameter at breast height (DBH), regardless of
sight.
ing/Shrub - Woody plants, excluding vines, less
3 in. DBH and greater than 3.28 ft (1 m) tall.
- All herbaceous (non -woody) plants, regardless of
and woody plants less than 3.28 ft tall.
dy Vines - All woody vines greater than 3.28 ft in height
Hydrophytic
Vegetation Yes F/I No ❑
1 = Total Cover Present?
50% of total cover: 0.5 20% of total cover: 0.2
Remarks: (Include photo numbers here or on a separate sheet.)
ERDC/CRREL 2014 Regional Wetland Plant List (Eastern Mountains and Piedmont) used for indicator status.
US Army Corps of Engineers Eastern Mountains and Piedmont - Version 2.0

SOIL
Sampling Point: W -B -WET
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
0-4
7.5YR 4/6 70
7.5YR 4/2 30 C M SCL
4-12+
7.5YR 4/1 80
7.5YR 4/6 20 C M CL
Remarks
C = Concentration, D = depletion, RM = Reduced Matrix, MS = Masked Sand Grains Location: PL = Pore Lining, M = Matrix
Hydric Soil Indicators:
Indicators for Problematic Hydric Soils':
❑
Histosol (Al)
❑
Dark Surface (S7)
❑
2 cm Muck (A10) (MLRA 147)
❑
Histic Epipedon (A2)
❑
Polyvalue Below Surface (S8) (MLRA 147, 148)
❑
Coatal Prairie Redox (A16)
❑
Black Histic (A3)
❑
Thin Dark Surface (S9) (MLRA 147, 148)
(MLRA 147, 148)
❑
Hydrogen Sulfide (A4)
❑
Loamy Gleyed Matrix (172)
❑
Piedmont Floodplain Soils (F19)
❑
Stratified Layers (A5)
Depleted Matrix (173)
(MLRA 136, 147)
❑
2 cm Muck (A10) (LRR N)
❑
Redox Dark Surface (176)
❑
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.
n
StriDDed Matrix (S5)
estrictive Layer (if observed):
Type:
Depth (inches):
Hydric Soil Present? Yes 2] No ❑
US Army Corps of Engineers Eastern Mountains and Piedmont - Version 2.0

WETLAND DETERMINATION DATA FORM - Eastern Mountains and Piedmont Wetland P - upland side
Project/Site: Marshall City/Co.: Catawba Sampling Date: 04.30.15
Applicant/Owner: Duke Energy State: NC Sampling Point: W -B -UP
Investigator(s): KP Haywood Section, Township, Range: NA
Landform: (hillslope, terrace, etc.) Hillslope Local Relief: Concave Slope (%): 0-2
Subregion(LRR/MLRA P/136 Lat: 35°36'07.53" Long: 80°58'39.63" Datum: NA
Soil Map Unit Name: Roanoke loam, 0 to 2 percent slopes, occasionally flooded NW I Classification: upland
Are climatic/hydrologic conditions on the site typical for this time of year? 0 Yes ❑ No (If no, explain in Remarks.)
Are Vegetation ❑ Soil ❑ or Hydrology ❑ significantly disturbed? Are "Normal Circumstances" present? E] Yes ❑ No
Are Vegetation ❑ Soil ❑ or Hydrology ❑ naturally problematic? (If needed, explain any answers in Remarks.)
SUMMARY OF FINDINGS - Attach site map showing sampling point locations, transects, important features, etc.
Hydrophytic Vegetation Present? Yes 0 No ❑ Is the Sampled Area
Hydric Soil Present? Yes ❑ No El within a wetland? Yes ❑ No
Wetland Hydrology Present? Yes ❑ No 0
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 (136)
❑ Surface Water (Al)
❑
True Aquatic Plants (1314)
❑
Sparsely Vegetated Concave Surface (138)
❑ High Water Table (A2)
❑
Hydrogen Sulfide Odor (Cl)
❑
Drainage Patterns (B10)
❑ Saturation (A3)
❑
Oxidized Rhizospheres on Living Roots (C3)
❑
Moss Trim Lines (B16)
❑ Water Marks (131)
❑
Presence of Reduced Iron (C4)
❑
Dry -Season Water Table (C2)
❑ Sediment Deposits (132)
❑
Recent Iron Reduction in Tilled Soils (C6)
❑
Crayfish Burrows (C8)
❑ Drift Deposits (133)
❑
Thin Much Surface (C7)
❑
Saturation Visible on Aerial Imagery (C9)
❑ Algal Mat or Crust (B4)
❑
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 (B9)
❑
Microtopographic Relief (D4)
❑ Aquatic Fauna (1313)
❑
FAC -Neutral Test (D5)
Field Observations:
Surface Water Present? ❑ Yes
0 No
Depth (inches):
Water Table Present? ❑Yes
0 No
Depth (inches):
Saturation Present? []Yes
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:
US Army Corps of Engineers Eastern Mountains and Piedmont - Version 2.0

VtCitIAI IUN (rour,trata) - use SCIentltic names of plants.
Absolute
Dominant
Indicator
Tree Stratum (Plot size: 30ft radius)
% Cover
Species?
Status
1.
Acer rubrum
70
Y
FAC
2.
Juniperus virginiana
10
FACU
3.
4.
5.
6.
7.
8.
80
= Total Cover
50% of total cover:
40 20% of
total cover:
11
Sapling/Shrub Stratum (Plot size: 30ft radius)
1.
Liquidambar styraciflua
20
Y
FAC
2.
Ligustrum sinense
10
Y
FACU
3.
Rosa multiflora
5
FACU
4.
5.
6.
7.
8.
9.
10.
35
= Total Cover
50% of total cover:
17.5 20% of
total cover:
Herb Stratum (Plot size: 30ft radius)
1.
Microstegium vimineum
70
Y
FAC
2.
Parthenocissus quinquefolia
10
FACU
3.
Lonicera japonica
2
FAC
4.
5.
6.
7.
8.
9.
10.
11.
12.
82
= Total Cover
50% of total cover:
41 20% of
total cover:
16.,
Woody
Vine Stratum (Plot size: 30ft radius)
1.
2.
3.
4.
5.
6.
Sampling Point: W -1:3 -UH
ominance Test Worksheet:
Number of Dominant Species
That Are OBL, FACW, or FAC: 3 (A)
Total Number of Dominant
Species Across All Strata: 4 (B)
Percent of Dominant Species
That Are OBL, FACW, or FAC: 75% (A/B)
revalence Index worksheet:
Total % Cover of: Multiply
OBL species 0 x 1 = 0
FACW species 0 x 2 = 0
FAC species 162 x 3 = 486
FACU species 35 x4= 140
UPL species 0 x 5 = 0
Column Totals: 197 (A) 626 (B)
Prevalence Index = B/A = 3.2
ydrophytic Vegetation Indicators:
❑ Rapid Test for Hydrophytic Vegetation
0 Dominance Test is > 50%
❑ Prevalence Index is <_ 3.0'
❑ Morphological Adaptations1 (Provide supporting
data in Remarks or on a separate sheet
❑ Problematic Hydrophytic Vegetation' (Explain)
' Indicators of hydric soil and wetland hydrology must
be present, unless disturbed or problematic
efinitions of Four Vegetation Strata:
ree - Woody plants, excluding vines, 3 in. (7.6 cm) or
ore in diameter at breast height (DBH), regardless of
sight.
ing/Shrub - Woody plants, excluding vines, less
3 in. DBH and greater than 3.28 ft (1 m) tall.
- All herbaceous (non -woody) plants, regardless of
and woody plants less than 3.28 ft tall.
dy Vines - All woody vines greater than 3.28 ft in height
Hydrophytic
Vegetation Yes F/I No ❑
0 = Total Cover Present?
50% of total cover: 0 20% of total cover: 0
Remarks: (Include photo numbers here or on a separate sheet.)
ERDC/CRREL 2014 Regional Wetland Plant List (Eastern Mountains and Piedmont) used for indicator status.
US Army Corps of Engineers Eastern Mountains and Piedmont - Version 2.0

SOIL
Sampling Point: W -B -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' Locz Texture
0-12+ 7.5YR 4/4 100 SCL
Remarks
C = Concentration, D = depletion, RM = Reduced Matrix, MS = Masked Sand Grains Location: PL = Pore Lining, M = Matrix
Hydric Soil Indicators:
Indicators for Problematic Hydric Soils':
❑
Histosol (Al)
❑
Dark Surface (S7)
❑
2 cm Muck (A10) (MLRA 147)
❑
Histic Epipedon (A2)
❑
Polyvalue Below Surface (S8) (MLRA 147, 148)
❑
Coatal Prairie Redox (A16)
❑
Black Histic (A3)
❑
Thin Dark Surface (S9) (MLRA 147, 148)
(MLRA 147, 148)
❑
Hydrogen Sulfide (A4)
❑
Loamy Gleyed Matrix (172)
❑
Piedmont Floodplain Soils (F19)
❑
Stratified Layers (A5)
❑
Depleted Matrix (173)
(MLRA 136, 147)
❑
2 cm Muck (A10) (LRR N)
❑
Redox Dark Surface (176)
❑
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.
n
StriDDed Matrix (S5)
estrictive Layer (if observed):
Type:
Depth (inches):
Hydric Soil Present? Yes ❑ No 0
US Army Corps of Engineers Eastern Mountains and Piedmont - Version 2.0

WETLAND DETERMINATION DATA FORM - Eastern Mountains and Piedmont Wetland Q - wetland side
Project/Site: Marshall Steam Plant County Catawba Sampling Date: 30 -Apr -15
Applicant/Owner: Duke Energy State: NC Sampling Point: B (014) wet
Investigator(s): Laura Meyer Section, Township, Range:
Landform: (hillslope, terrace, etc.) Valley Local Relief: none Slope (%): 1
Subregion(LRR/MLRA MLRA 136 Lat: 36.6144 Long: -80.9614 Datum:
Soil Map Unit Name: Pacolet soils, 10 to 25 percent soils NWI Classification: none
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? 0 Yes ❑ No
Are Vegetation ❑ Soil ❑ or Hydrology ❑ naturally problematic? (If needed, explain any answers in Remarks.)
SumMAKY OF t-INUINU5 - Attacn site map snowing sampling point locations, transects, Important teatures, 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 ❑
Remarks
HYD
Wetland Hydrology Indicators:
Secondary Indicators (minimum of two required)
Primary Indicators (minimum of one is required; check
all that apply):
❑
Surface Soil Cracks (136)
❑ Surface Water (Al)
❑
True Aquatic Plants (B14)
❑
Sparsely Vegetated Concave Surface (138)
0 High Water Table (A2)
❑
Hydrogen Sulfide Odor (Cl)
0
Drainage Patterns (1310)
❑ Saturation (A3)
❑
Oxidized Rhizospheres on Living Roots (C3)
❑
Moss Trim Lines (1316)
❑ Water Marks (B1)
❑
Presence of Reduced Iron (C4)
❑
Dry -Season Water Table (C2)
❑ Sediment Deposits (132)
❑
Recent Iron Reduction in Tilled Soils (C6)
0
Crayfish Burrows (C8)
❑ Drift Deposits (B3)
❑
Thin Much Surface (C7)
❑
Saturation Visible on Aerial Imagery (C9)
❑ Algal Mat or Crust (134)
❑
Other (Explain in Remarks)
❑
Stunted or Stressed Plants (D1)
❑ Iron Deposits (135)
❑
Geomorphic Position (D2)
❑ Inundation Visible on Aerial Imagery (137)
❑
Shallow Aquitard (D3)
❑ Water -Stained Leaves (139)
❑
Microtopographic Relief (D4)
❑ Aquatic Fauna (B13)
❑
FAC -Neutral Test (D5)
Field Observations:
Surface Water Present? ❑ Yes
0 No
Depth (inches):
Water Table Present? E] Yes
❑ No
Depth (inches): 2
Saturation Present? E]Yes
❑ No
Depth (inches): 1
Wetland
Hydrology Present? 0 Yes ❑ No
(includes capillary fringe)
Describe Recorded Data (stream gauge, monitoring well, aerial photos, previous inspections), if available:
Remarks:
US Army Corps of Engineers Eastern Mountains and Piedmont - Version 2.0

VLUL I A I IUN p-our,trata) - use SCIentitic names of plants.
Absolute Dominant Indicatc
% Cover Species? Status
Tree Stratum (Plot size: 30ft radius)
1. Liriodendron tulipifera
10 FACU
2. Acer rubrum
35 Y FAC
3. Ilex opaca
10 FACU
4.
5.
6.
7.
8.
55 = Total Cover
50% of total cover:
27.5 20% of total cover:
Sapling/Shrub Stratum (Plot size: 30ft radius)
1.
2.
3.
4.
5.
6.
7.
8.
9.
10.
0 = Total Cover
50% of total cover:
0 20% of total cover:
Herb Stratum (Plot size: 30ft radius)
1.
2.
3.
4.
5.
6.
7.
8.
9.
10
11
12
1.
2.
3.
4.
5.
6.
if
Microstegium vimineum 50 Y FAC
Polystichum acrostichoides 10 FACU
60 = Total Cover
50% of total cover: 30 20% of total cover:
e Stratum (Plot size: 30ft radius)
0
Sampling Point: 1:3 (U14) wet
ominance Test Worksheet:
Number of Dominant Species
umber of Dominant Species
That Are OBL, FACW, or FAC: 2 (A)
Total Number of Dominant
Species Across All Strata: 2 (B)
Percent of Dominant Species
That Are OBL, FACW, or FAC: 100% (A/B)
revalence Index worksheet:
Total % Cover of: Multiply
OBL species 0 x 1 = 0
FACW species 0 x 2 = 0
FAC species 85 x 3 = 255
FACU species 30 x 4 = 120
UPL species 0 x 5 = 0
Column Totals: 115 (A) 375 (B)
Prevalence Index = B/A = 3.3
ydrophytic Vegetation Indicators:
❑ Rapid Test for Hydrophytic Vegetation
Dominance Test is > 50%
❑ Prevalence Index is <_ 3.0'
❑ Morphological Adaptations1 (Provide supporting
data in Remarks or on a separate sheet
❑ Problematic Hydrophytic Vegetation' (Explain)
' Indicators of hydric soil and wetland hydrology must
be present, unless disturbed or problematic
efinitions of Four Vegetation Strata:
ree - Woody plants, excluding vines, 3 in. (7.6 cm) or
lore in diameter at breast height (DBH), regardless of
eight.
Sapling/Shrub - Woody plants, excluding vines, less
than 3 in. DBH and greater than 3.28 ft (1 m) tall.
Herb - All herbaceous (non -woody) plants, regardless of
size, and woody plants less than 3.28 ft tall.
12
Woody Vines - All woody vines greater than 3.28 ft in height.
Hydrophytic
Vegetation Yes F�] No ❑
0 = Total Cover Present?
50% of total cover: 0 20% of total cover: 0
Remarks: (Include photo numbers here or on a separate sheet.)
ERDC/CRREL 2014 Regional Wetland Plant List (Eastern Mountains and Piedmont) used for indicator status.
US Army Corps of Engineers Eastern Mountains and Piedmont - Version 2.0

SOIL
Sampling Point: B (014) wet
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
0-18+ 10 YR 5/2 80 7.5 YR 4/6 20 C M SL
Remarks
C = Concentration, D = depletion, RM = Reduced Matrix, MS = Masked Sand Grains `Location: PL = Pore Lining, M = Matrix
Hydric Soil Indicators:
Indicators for Problematic Hydric Soils':
❑
Histosol (Al)
❑
Dark Surface (S7)
❑
2 cm Muck (A10) (MLRA 147)
❑
Histic Epipedon (A2)
❑
Polyvalue Below Surface (S8) (MLRA 147, 148)
❑
Coatal Prairie Redox (A16)
❑
Black Histic (A3)
❑
Thin Dark Surface (S9) (MLRA 147, 148)
(MLRA 147, 148)
❑
Hydrogen Sulfide (A4)
❑
Loamy Gleyed Matrix (F2)
❑
Piedmont Floodplain Soils (F19)
❑
Stratified Layers (A5)
❑
Depleted Matrix (F3)
(MLRA 136, 147)
❑
2 cm Muck (A10) (LRR N)
❑
Redox Dark Surface (F6)
❑
Very Shallow Dark Surface (TF12)
❑
Depleted Below Dark Surface (All 1)
❑
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.
n
Stripped Matrix (S5)
estrictive Layer (if observed):
Type:
Depth (inches):
Hydric Soil Present? Yes Q No ❑
US Army Corps of Engineers Eastern Mountains and Piedmont - Version 2.0

WETLAND DETERMINATION DATA FORM - Eastern Mountains and Piedmont Wetland Q - upland side
Project/Site: Marshall Steam Plant County Catawba Sampling Date: 30 -Apr -15
Applicant/Owner: Duke Energy State: NC Sampling Point: B (014) up
Investigator(s): Laura Meyer Section, Township, Range:
Landform: (hillslope, terrace, etc.) Hillslope Local Relief: convex Slope (%): 3
Subregion(LRR/MLRA MLRA 136 Lat: 36.6144 Long: -80.9614 Datum:
Soil Map Unit Name: Pacolet soils, 10 to 25 percent soils NWI Classification: upland
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? 0 Yes ❑ No
Are Vegetation ❑ Soil ❑ or Hydrology ❑ naturally problematic? (If needed, explain any answers in Remarks.)
SUMMAKY OF I-INUINU5 - Attach site map snowing Sam
Hydrophytic Vegetation Present? Yes ❑ No 0
Hydric Soil Present? Yes ❑ No 0
Wetland Hydrology Present? Yes ❑ No 0
Remarks
HYD
3oint locations, transects, important teatures, etc.
Is the Sampled Area
within a wetland? Yes ❑ No 121
Wetland Hydrology Indicators:
Secondary Indicators (minimum of two required)
Primary Indicators (minimum of one is required; check
all that apply):
❑
Surface Soil Cracks (136)
❑ Surface Water (Al)
❑
True Aquatic Plants (B14)
❑
Sparsely Vegetated Concave Surface (138)
❑ High Water Table (A2)
❑
Hydrogen Sulfide Odor (Cl)
❑
Drainage Patterns (1310)
❑ Saturation (A3)
❑
Oxidized Rhizospheres on Living Roots (C3)
❑
Moss Trim Lines (1316)
❑ Water Marks (B1)
❑
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 (B3)
❑
Thin Much Surface (C7)
❑
Saturation Visible on Aerial Imagery (C9)
❑ Algal Mat or Crust (134)
❑
Other (Explain in Remarks)
❑
Stunted or Stressed Plants (D1)
❑ Iron Deposits (135)
❑
Geomorphic Position (D2)
❑ Inundation Visible on Aerial Imagery (137)
❑
Shallow Aquitard (D3)
❑ Water -Stained Leaves (139)
❑
Microtopographic Relief (D4)
❑ Aquatic Fauna (B13)
❑
FAC -Neutral Test (D5)
Field Observations:
Surface Water Present? ❑ Yes
0 No
Depth (inches):
Water Table Present? E] Yes
❑ No
Depth (inches):
Saturation Present? ❑Yes
E] No
Depth (inches):
Wetland
Hydrology Present? ❑ Yes E] 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

VLUL I A I IUN p-our,trata) - use SCIentitic names of plants.
Absolute
Dominant Indicator
% Cover
Species? Status
Tree Stratum (Plot size: 30ft radius)
1. Prunus serotina
30
Y FACU
2.
3.
4.
5.
6.
7.
8.
30
= Total Cover
50% of total cover:
15 20% of
total cover:
Sapling/Shrub Stratum (Plot size: 30ft radius)
1.
2.
3.
4.
5.
6.
7.
8.
9.
10.
0
= Total Cover
50% of total cover:
0 20% of
total cover:
Herb Stratum (Plot size: 30ft radius)
1. Daucus carota
5
Y UPL
2. Parthenocissus quinquefolia
20
Y FACU
3.
4.
5.
6.
7.
8.
9.
10.
11.
12.
25
= Total Cover
50% of total cover:
12.5 20% of
total cover:
Woody Vine Stratum (Plot size: 30ft radius)
1. Vitis rotundifolia
10
Y FAC
2.
3.
4.
5.
6.
Sampling Point: 1:3 (U14) up
Dominance Test Worksheet:
Number of Dominant Species
Number of Dominant Species
That Are OBL, FACW, or FAC: 1 (A)
Total Number of Dominant
Species Across All Strata: 4 (B)
Percent of Dominant Species
That Are OBL, FACW, or FAC: 25% (A/B)
Prevalence Index worksheet:
Total % Cover of: Multiply
OBL species 0 x 1 = 0
6 FACW species 0 x 2= 0
FAC species 10 x 3 = 30
FACU species 50 x 4 = 200
UPL species 5 x 5 = 25
Column Totals: 65 (A) 255 (B)
Prevalence Index = B/A = 3.9
Hydrophytic Vegetation Indicators:
❑ Rapid Test for Hydrophytic Vegetation
❑ Dominance Test is > 50%
❑ Prevalence Index is <_ 3.0'
❑ Morphological Adaptations1 (Provide supporting
data in Remarks or on a separate sheet
0 ❑ Problematic Hydrophytic Vegetation' (Explain)
' Indicators of hydric soil and wetland hydrology must
be present, unless disturbed or problematic
Definitions of Four Vegetation Strata:
Tree - Woody plants, excluding vines, 3 in. (7.6 cm) or
more in diameter at breast height (DBH), regardless of
height.
Sapling/Shrub - Woody plants, excluding vines, less
than 3 in. DBH and greater than 3.28 ft (1 m) tall.
Herb - All herbaceous (non -woody) plants, regardless of
size, and woody plants less than 3.28 ft tall.
5
Woody Vines - All woody vines greater than 3.28 ft in height.
Hydrophytic
Vegetation Yes ❑ No F�j
10 = Total Cover Present?
50% of total cover: 5 20% of total cover: 2
Remarks: (Include photo numbers here or on a separate sheet.)
ERDC/CRREL 2014 Regional Wetland Plant List (Eastern Mountains and Piedmont) used for indicator status.
US Army Corps of Engineers Eastern Mountains and Piedmont - Version 2.0

SOIL
Sampling Point: B (014) 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' LocZ Texture
0-1 7.5 YR 4/3 100 Loam
1-18+ 7.5 YR 5/6 100 Loam
Remarks
C = Concentration, D = depletion, RM = Reduced Matrix, MS = Masked Sand Grains `Location: PL = Pore Lining, M = Matrix
Hydric Soil Indicators:
Indicators for Problematic Hydric Soils':
❑
Histosol (Al)
❑
Dark Surface (S7)
❑
2 cm Muck (A10) (MLRA 147)
❑
Histic Epipedon (A2)
❑
Polyvalue Below Surface (S8) (MLRA 147, 148)
❑
Coatal Prairie Redox (A16)
❑
Black Histic (A3)
❑
Thin Dark Surface (S9) (MLRA 147, 148)
(MLRA 147, 148)
❑
Hydrogen Sulfide (A4)
❑
Loamy Gleyed Matrix (F2)
❑
Piedmont Floodplain Soils (F19)
❑
Stratified Layers (A5)
❑
Depleted Matrix (F3)
(MLRA 136, 147)
❑
2 cm Muck (A10) (LRR N)
❑
Redox Dark Surface (F6)
❑
Very Shallow Dark Surface (TF12)
❑
Depleted Below Dark Surface (All 1)
❑
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.
n
Stripped Matrix (S5)
estrictive Layer (if observed):
Type:
Depth (inches):
Hydric Soil Present? Yes ❑ No 0
US Army Corps of Engineers Eastern Mountains and Piedmont - Version 2.0

WETLAND DETERMINATION DATA FORM -Eastern Mountains and Piedmont Wetland X - wetland side
Project/Site: Marshall Steam Plant County Catawba Sampling Date: 1 -May -15
Applicant/Owner: Duke Energy State: NC Sampling Point: WN (008) wet
Investigator(s): Laura Meyer Section, Township, Range:
Landform: (hillslope, terrace, etc.) Valley Local Relief: convex Slope (%): 1
Subregion(LRR/MLRA MLRA 136 Lat: 35.6179 Long: -80.959 Datum:
Soil Map Unit Name: Wilkes loam, 10 to 25 percent slopes NWI Classification: none
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? 0 Yes ❑ No
Are Vegetation ❑ Soil ❑ or Hydrology ❑ naturally problematic? (If needed, explain any answers in Remarks.)
SumMAKY OF t-INUINU5 - Attacn site map snowing sampling point locations, transects, Important teatures, 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 ❑
Remarks
HYD
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 (B14)
❑
Sparsely Vegetated Concave Surface (138)
0 High Water Table (A2)
❑
Hydrogen Sulfide Odor (Cl)
0
Drainage Patterns (1310)
❑ Saturation (A3)
❑
Oxidized Rhizospheres on Living Roots (C3)
❑
Moss Trim Lines (1316)
❑ Water Marks (B1)
❑
Presence of Reduced Iron (C4)
❑
Dry -Season Water Table (C2)
❑ Sediment Deposits (132)
❑
Recent Iron Reduction in Tilled Soils (C6)
0
Crayfish Burrows (C8)
❑ Drift Deposits (B3)
❑
Thin Much Surface (C7)
❑
Saturation Visible on Aerial Imagery (C9)
P] 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 (B13)
❑
FAC -Neutral Test (D5)
Field Observations:
Surface Water Present? 0 Yes
❑ No
Depth (inches): 3
Water Table Present? E] Yes
❑ No
Depth (inches): 0
Saturation Present? E]Yes
❑ No
Depth (inches): 0
Wetland
Hydrology Present? 0 Yes ❑ No
(includes capillary fringe)
Describe Recorded Data (stream gauge, monitoring well, aerial photos, previous inspections), if available:
Remarks:
US Army Corps of Engineers Eastern Mountains and Piedmont - Version 2.0

VLUL I A I IUN p-our,trata) - use SCIentitic names of plants.
Absolute Dominant Indicator
% Cover Species? Status
Stratum (Plot size: 30ft radius)
1.
2.
3.
4.
5.
6.
7.
8.
50% of total cover:
ing/Shrub Stratum (Plot size: 30ft radius)
1. Alnus serrulata
2. Rubus canadensis
3.
4.
5.
6.
7.
8.
9.
10.
50% of total cover
D Stratum (Plot size: 30ft radius)
1. Rumex crispus
2. Juncus effusus
3. Carex lurida
4. Microstegium vimineum
5. Solidago patula
6. Solidago rugosa
7.
8.
9.
10.
11.
if:
50% of total cover:
)dy Vine Stratum (Plot size: 30ft radius)
1.
2.
3.
4.
5.
6.
0 = Total Cover
0 20% of total cover:
5 Y OBL
10 Y FACU
15
= Total Cover
7.5 20% of total cover:
10
FAC
10
FACW
20
Y
OBL
25
Y
FAC
30
Y
OBL
5
FAC
Sampling Point: WN (UU8) wet
Dominance Test Worksheet:
Number of Dominant Species
Number of Dominant Species
That Are OBL, FACW, or FAC: 4 (A)
Total Number of Dominant
Species Across All Strata: 5 (B)
Percent of Dominant Species
That Are OBL, FACW, or FAC: 80% (A/B)
Prevalence Index worksheet:
Total % Cover of: Multiply
OBL species 55 x 1 = 55
0 FACW species 10 x 2 = 20
FAC species 40 x 3 = 120
FACU species 10 x 4 = 40
UPL species 0 x 5 = 0
Column Totals: 115 (A) 235 (B)
Prevalence Index = B/A = 2.0
Hydrophytic Vegetation Indicators:
❑ Rapid Test for Hydrophytic Vegetation
Dominance Test is > 50%
❑ Prevalence Index is <_ 3.0'
❑ Morphological Adaptations1 (Provide supporting
data in Remarks or on a separate sheet
3 ❑ Problematic Hydrophytic Vegetation' (Explain)
' Indicators of hydric soil and wetland hydrology must
be present, unless disturbed or problematic
Definitions of Four Vegetation Strata:
Tree - Woody plants, excluding vines, 3 in. (7.6 cm) or
more in diameter at breast height (DBH), regardless of
height.
Sapling/Shrub - Woody plants, excluding vines, less
than 3 in. DBH and greater than 3.28 ft (1 m) tall.
Herb - All herbaceous (non -woody) plants, regardless of
100 = Total Cover size, and woody plants less than 3.28 ft tall.
50 20% of total cover: 20
Woody Vines - All woody vines greater than 3.28 ft in height.
Hydrophytic
Vegetation Yes F�] No ❑
0 = Total Cover Present?
50% of total cover: 0 20% of total cover: 0
Remarks: (Include photo numbers here or on a separate sheet.)
ERDC/CRREL 2014 Regional Wetland Plant List (Eastern Mountains and Piedmont) used for indicator status.
US Army Corps of Engineers Eastern Mountains and Piedmont - Version 2.0

SOIL
Sampling Point: WN (008) wet
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 Remarks
0-10+ 2.5 Y 4/1 80 7.5 YR 5/8 20 C M Loam trace sand
C = Concentration, D = depletion, RM = Reduced Matrix, MS = Masked Sand Grains `Location: PL = Pore Lining, M = Matrix
Hydric Soil Indicators:
Indicators for Problematic Hydric Soils':
❑
Histosol (Al)
❑
Dark Surface (S7)
❑
2 cm Muck (A10) (MLRA 147)
❑
Histic Epipedon (A2)
❑
Polyvalue Below Surface (S8) (MLRA 147, 148)
❑
Coatal Prairie Redox (A16)
❑
Black Histic (A3)
❑
Thin Dark Surface (S9) (MLRA 147, 148)
(MLRA 147, 148)
❑
Hydrogen Sulfide (A4)
❑
Loamy Gleyed Matrix (F2)
❑
Piedmont Floodplain Soils (F19)
❑
Stratified Layers (A5)
❑
Depleted Matrix (F3)
(MLRA 136, 147)
❑
2 cm Muck (A10) (LRR N)
❑
Redox Dark Surface (F6)
❑
Very Shallow Dark Surface (TF12)
❑
Depleted Below Dark Surface (A11)
❑
Depleted Dark Surface (F7)
❑
Other (Explain in Remarks)
❑
Thick Dark Surface (Al2)
❑
Redox Depressions (F8)
❑
Sandy Mucky Material (S1)
❑
Iron -Manganese Masses (F12) (LRR N, MLRA 136)
(LRR N, MLRA 147, 148)
❑
Umbric Surface (F13) (MLRA 136, 122)
3Indicators of hydrophytic vegetation and
❑
Sandy Gleyed Matrix (S4)
❑
Piedmont Floodplain Soils (F19) (MLRA 148)
wetland hydrology must be present,
❑
Sandy Redox (S4)
❑
Red Parent Material (F21) (MLRA 127, 147)
unless disturbed or problematic.
n
Stripped Matrix (S5)
estrictive Layer (if observed):
Type:
Depth (inches):
Hydric Soil Present? Yes Q No ❑
US Army Corps of Engineers Eastern Mountains and Piedmont - Version 2.0

WETLAND DETERMINATION DATA FORM - Eastern Mountains and Piedmont Wetland X - upland side
Project/Site: Marshall Steam Plant County Catawba Sampling Date: 1 -May -15
Applicant/Owner: Duke Energy State: NC Sampling Point: WN (008) up
Investigator(s): Laura Meyer Section, Township, Range:
Landform: (hillslope, terrace, etc.) Hillslope Local Relief: convex Slope (%): 3
Subregion(LRR/MLRA MLRA 136 Lat: 35.6179 Long: -80.959 Datum:
Soil Map Unit Name: Wilkes loam, 10 to 25 percent slopes NWI Classification: upland
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? 0 Yes ❑ No
Are Vegetation ❑ Soil ❑ or Hydrology ❑ naturally problematic? (If needed, explain any answers in Remarks.)
SUMMARY OF FINDINGS - Attach site map showing sampling point locations, transects, important features, etc.
Hydrophytic Vegetation Present? Yes ❑ No 0 Is the Sampled Area
Hydric Soil Present? Yes ❑ No 0 within a wetland? Yes ❑ No 121
Wetland Hydrology Present? Yes ❑ No 0
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 (136)
❑ Surface Water (Al)
❑
True Aquatic Plants (B14)
❑
Sparsely Vegetated Concave Surface (138)
❑ High Water Table (A2)
❑
Hydrogen Sulfide Odor (Cl)
❑
Drainage Patterns (1310)
❑ Saturation (A3)
❑
Oxidized Rhizospheres on Living Roots (C3)
❑
Moss Trim Lines (1316)
❑ Water Marks (B1)
❑
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 (B3)
❑
Thin Much Surface (C7)
❑
Saturation Visible on Aerial Imagery (C9)
❑ Algal Mat or Crust (134)
❑
Other (Explain in Remarks)
❑
Stunted or Stressed Plants (D1)
❑ Iron Deposits (135)
❑
Geomorphic Position (D2)
❑ Inundation Visible on Aerial Imagery (137)
❑
Shallow Aquitard (D3)
❑ Water -Stained Leaves (139)
❑
Microtopographic Relief (D4)
❑ Aquatic Fauna (B13)
❑
FAC -Neutral Test (D5)
Field Observations:
Surface Water Present? ❑ Yes
0 No
Depth (inches):
Water Table Present? E] Yes
❑ No
Depth (inches):
Saturation Present? ❑Yes
E] No
Depth (inches):
Wetland
Hydrology Present? ❑ Yes E] 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

VLUL I A I IUN p-our,trata) - use SCIentitic names of plants.
Absolute Dominant Indicator
% Cover Species? Status
Stratum (Plot size: 30ft radius)
1.
2.
3.
4.
5.
6.
7.
8.
50% of total cover:
ing/Shrub Stratum (Plot size: 30ft radius)
1.
2.
3.
4.
5.
6.
7.
8.
9.
10.
50% of total cover
D Stratum (Plot size: 30ft radius)
1. Dactylis glomerata
2. Potentilla simplex
3. Solidago rugosa
4. Trifolium pratense
5.
6.
7.
8.
9.
10.
11.
if:
50% of total cover:
)dy Vine Stratum (Plot size: 30ft radius)
1.
2.
3.
4.
5.
6.
0 = Total Cover
0 20% of total cover:
0
= Total Cover
0 20% of total cover:
15
FACU
20
Y FACU
20
Y FAC
20
Y FACU
Sampling Point: WN (UU6) up
Dominance Test Worksheet:
Number of Dominant Species
Number of Dominant Species
That Are OBL, FACW, or FAC: 1 (A)
Total Number of Dominant
Species Across All Strata: 3 (B)
Percent of Dominant Species
That Are OBL, FACW, or FAC: 33% (A/B)
Prevalence Index worksheet:
Total % Cover of: Multiply
OBL species 0 x 1 = 0
0 FACW species 0 x 2= 0
FAC species 20 x 3 = 60
FACU species 55 x 4 = 220
UPL species 0 x 5 = 0
Column Totals: 75 (A) 280 (B)
Prevalence Index = B/A = 3.7
Hydrophytic Vegetation Indicators:
❑ Rapid Test for Hydrophytic Vegetation
❑ Dominance Test is > 50%
❑ Prevalence Index is <_ 3.0'
❑ Morphological Adaptations1 (Provide supporting
data in Remarks or on a separate sheet
0 ❑ Problematic Hydrophytic Vegetation' (Explain)
' Indicators of hydric soil and wetland hydrology must
be present, unless disturbed or problematic
Definitions of Four Vegetation Strata:
Tree - Woody plants, excluding vines, 3 in. (7.6 cm) or
more in diameter at breast height (DBH), regardless of
height.
Sapling/Shrub - Woody plants, excluding vines, less
than 3 in. DBH and greater than 3.28 ft (1 m) tall.
Herb - All herbaceous (non -woody) plants, regardless of
75 = Total Cover size, and woody plants less than 3.28 ft tall.
37.5 20% of total cover: 15
Woody Vines - All woody vines greater than 3.28 ft in height.
Hydrophytic
Vegetation Yes ❑ No F�j
0 = Total Cover Present?
50% of total cover: 0 20% of total cover: 0
Remarks: (Include photo numbers here or on a separate sheet.)
ERDC/CRREL 2014 Regional Wetland Plant List (Eastern Mountains and Piedmont) used for indicator status.
US Army Corps of Engineers Eastern Mountains and Piedmont - Version 2.0

SOIL
Sampling Point: WN (008) 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' LocZ Texture
0-2 7.5 YR 4/4 100 Loam
2-18+ 7.5 YR 5/6 100 Loam
Remarks
C = Concentration, D = depletion, RM = Reduced Matrix, MS = Masked Sand Grains `Location: PL = Pore Lining, M = Matrix
Hydric Soil Indicators:
Indicators for Problematic Hydric Soils':
❑
Histosol (Al)
❑
Dark Surface (S7)
❑
2 cm Muck (A10) (MLRA 147)
❑
Histic Epipedon (A2)
❑
Polyvalue Below Surface (S8) (MLRA 147, 148)
❑
Coatal Prairie Redox (A16)
❑
Black Histic (A3)
❑
Thin Dark Surface (S9) (MLRA 147, 148)
(MLRA 147, 148)
❑
Hydrogen Sulfide (A4)
❑
Loamy Gleyed Matrix (F2)
❑
Piedmont Floodplain Soils (F19)
❑
Stratified Layers (A5)
❑
Depleted Matrix (F3)
(MLRA 136, 147)
❑
2 cm Muck (A10) (LRR N)
❑
Redox Dark Surface (F6)
❑
Very Shallow Dark Surface (TF12)
❑
Depleted Below Dark Surface (All 1)
❑
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.
n
Stripped Matrix (S5)
estrictive Layer (if observed):
Type:
Depth (inches):
Hydric Soil Present? Yes ❑ No 0
US Army Corps of Engineers Eastern Mountains and Piedmont - Version 2.0

NV nWn fitra-am THPn"vntinn Fnrm VPrcinn 4.11
Data: 7ttl�'!^L' 7t I
Projectl5ite: f� lGi`I^S61 ti'✓
Latitude: 33"
Evaluator:Ti-,
��y j �
County: � �
Longitude: %
Total Points:r
f -7
Stream is at least intermittent`'
Stream Determination circle one)
Others.%[jy�r
f
Ephemeralermittent ` erenniai
e.g. Quad ame:
if?
if 19 or perennial 30'
2`'
3
A. Geomorphology (Subtotal = 1 t 1
Absent
Weak
Moderate
Strong
1"Continuity of channel bed and bank
0
1
1
3
2. Sinuosity of channel along thalweg
0
1
2`'
3
3. In -channel structure: ex. riffle -pool, step-pool,0
ri ie- of sequence
0
1
2
3
4. Particle size of stream substrate
0
0.5
2
3
5. Active/relict floodplain
0
-(0.5'1
No = 0
2
3
6. Depositional bars or benches
0
1
2
3
7. Recent alluvial deposits
0
1
2
3
8. Headcuts
0
1
2
3
9. Grade control
0
0.5
1
1.5
10. Natural valley
0
0.5
1'
1.5
11. Second or greater order channel
No
0)
Yes = 3
Sketch:
artificial ditches are not rated; see discussions in manual
R. Hvdrnlnnv lSiehtntal = t"q 1
12. Presence of Baseflow
0
1
2
3
13. Iron oxidizing bacteria
0
1
1
3
14. Leaf litter
1.5
1
0.5
0
15. Sediment on plants or debris
0
(15-11
1
1.5
16. Organic debris Lines or piles
0
0.5
1
1.5
17. Soil -based evidence of high watertable?
4
-(0.5'1
No = 0
1
Yes ±3
(- Rininnv fRithtntal = a S )
18. Fibrous roots in strearnbed
3
2 1
1
0
19. Rooted upland plants in streambed
3
2 r
1
0
20. Macrobenthos (note diversity and abundance)
-
1
2
3
21. Aquatic Mollusks
0
1
2
3
22. Fish
FO)
0.5
1
1.5
23. Crayfish
4
0.5
1
1.5
24. Amphibians
0
CAUJ
1
1.5
25. Algae
0
0.5
1
1.5
26. Wetland plants in streambed
I
FACW = 0.75; OBI-= 1.5
Other 10 1
'perennial streams may also be identified using other methods. See P. 35 of manual.
Notes:
Sketch:
ky'�

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: ii. kf—, evyz 2. Evaluator's name: (,7I -
3. Date of evaluation:_ -Td k1 aAeV 4. Time of evaluation: %' �•�
5. Name of stream: V t ri �� 1 6. River basin:
7. Approximate drainage area: S. Stream order: /y-
9. Length of reach evaluated: -� =+t' + ^_ 10. County: C -,l ,cEl_/ wk rx-
11. Site coordinates (if known): �prefer in decimal, degrees. 12. Subdivision name (if any); --
Latitude (ex. 34.872312): 3.! . e/ 5 -4 -de Longitude (ex- —77,556611): eel � -1—J 3 p
—�—
Method location determined (circle):GPS Zopo Sheet Ortho (Aerial) Photo/GIS Other GIS Other
13. Location of reach under evalu note nearby roads and landmarks and attach map identifying stream(s) location):
14. Proposed channel work (if any);
15. Recent weather conditions: 4t,40 GPs^
16. Site conditions at time of visit: tP6/91C/014
rOF
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 -N)
18. Is there a pond or lake located upstream of the evaluation point? YESIfe f yes, estimate the water surface area:
19. Does channel appear on USGS quad trap? YES NO 20. Does channel appear an USDA Soil Survey? YES NO
21. Estimated watershed land use: % Residential
?4"/o Forested
22. Bankfull width: 1- 40 -�eet
24. Channel slope down center of stream: _Flat (0 to 2%)
25. Channel sinuosity: Straight _Occasional bends
,% Commercial
_% Industrial
_% Agricultural
,% Cleared / Logged
2-0°fo Other ( ,/f
��%r AzsZ ' L )
23. Bank height (from bed to top of bank):
i9S0 .1AV / 4,
Gcntle (2 to 4%)
Moderate (4 to 10%) _Steep (>10%)
X 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): W Comments:
Evaluator's Signature �"' _C��k Date_ *)3-
I
This channel evaluation form is intended to be used only as a guide to assist landowners and environmental professionals in
gathering the data required by the United States Army Corps of Engineers to make a 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.

SREAM QUALITY ASSESSMENT WORKSHEET
* These characteristics are not assessed in coastal streams.
ECEIREGI()N POINT RANGE
SCORE
Coastal
Piedmont `
Mountain
CHARACTERISTICS
Presence of flow 1 persistent pools in stream
0-5
0-4
.0-5
1:
(no flow or saturation = 0, strong flow = maxpoints)
Evidence of past human alteration
0-6
0-5
0 - 5
(extensive alteration = 0; no alteration = maxpoints)
3
Riparian zone
0- 6
0-4
0-5
3r
no buffer = 0; continuous, Nvide buffer = maxpoints)
Evidence of nutrient or chemical discharges:
0-5
0-4
0-4
(extensive discharges = 0; no discharges - maxpoints)
Groundwater discharge
{i --3
0-4
0_4
(no dischar e = 0 springs, see s, wetlands,. etc. = max points)
Presence of adjacent floodplain
0-4
0-4
0-2
6
no floodplain = 0: extensive floodplain = maxpoints)
Entrenchment 1 floodplain access
0-5
0_4
0-2
1S:
7
(deeply entrenched = 0. frequent flooding = max oints)
-
Presence of adjacent wetlands
0-6
0-4
0 -,2
0
$
(no wetlands = 0; large adjacent wetlands = maxpoints)
Channel sinuosity
0-5
0-4
0-3
( extensive channelization = 0; natural meander _ max oints)
Sediment input
0-5
0-4
0-4
7
10
extensive deposition= 0; little or no sediment = max oints)
Size & diversity of channel bed substrate
NA*
0-4
0-5
l l
(fine, homogenous = 0; lame, diverse sizes = maxpoints)
Evidence of channel incision or widening
0-5
- }
0 - 5
.3
12
(deeply incised= 0; stable bed & banks= maxpoints)
_
"
Presence of major bank failures
0 - 5
01-5
0-5
3
(severe erosion = 0; no erosion, stable banks = max Dints)
d"
Root depth and density on banks
0 - 3
0-4
0-5
14
(no visible roots = 0; dense roots throughout = max points)
"
Impact by agriculture, livestock, or timber production
0-5
0-4
0-5
15
(substantial impact =0; no evidence.= max point
Presence of riffle-pool/ripple-pool complexes
6
0-5
0-6
16
(no riffles/ripples or pools = 0; well-developed = max points)
0-3
�-
habitat complexity
0-6
0-6
0-6
F�
17
(little or no habitat = 0; frequent, varied habitats = max points)
C
Canopy coverage over streambed
0-5
0-5
0-5
�
18
(no shading vegetation = 0; continuous cart y = max oints)
Substrate embeddedness
N4*
0-4
0-4
19
(deeply embedded = 0; loose structure = max)
i
Presence of streaminvertebrates (see page 4)
0-4
0-5
0=5
?0
no evidence =:0; common, numerous es = max points)
Presence of amphibians
0-4
0-4
0-4
1
(no evidence = 0: common; numerous types = max points)
04
C3
Presence of fish
0-4
0-4
0-4
i
+.-+
22
(no evidence = 0; common; numerous types = max oints)
Evidence of wildlife: use 0-6 0-5 0-5�
23
no evidence = 0; abundant evidence = max points)
Total Points Possible 100 100 100 "
i
TOTAL SCORE (also enter on first page)
* These characteristics are not assessed in coastal streams.

NC DWQ Stream Identification Form Version 4.11
Date: .,,t,,ry `
ProjectlSite:)r1-g1' lt4!//
Latitude: , -/` /
Evaluator:gis
County: �%L4�
Longitude:. /
Total Points: .� nStream
Determination (circ
Other
Stream is at least intermittent j CA 1,
!f? 19 or perennial if? 30*
Ephemeral Intermitten erennia
e.g. Quad Name:
% fl
A. GeoMo holo (Subtotal=
Absent
Weak
Moderate
Strong
18, Continuity of channel bed and bank
0
1
2
3 j
2. Sinuosity of channel along thalweg
0
1
2 d
3
3. In -channel structure: ex. riffle -pool, step -pool,
ripple -pool se uence
0
0
2
3
4. Particle size of stream substrate
0
1 )
2
3
5. Active/relict floodplain
0
1 y
2
3
6. Depositional bars or benches
0
1
20
3
7. Recent alluvial deposits
0
1
2.1
3
8. Headcuts
0
y
2
3
9. Grade control
0
(0.5j
1
1.5
10. Natural valley
0
0.5
1
11. Second or greater order channel
No
O i
Yes = 3
Sketch:
a artificial ditches are not rated; see discussions in manual
B. H drolo Subtotal= 4
12. Presence of Baseflow
0
1
2 3
13. Iron oxidizing bacteria
0
1
i 3
14. Leaf litter
1.5
1
0.5 0
15. Sediment on plants or debris
0
0.5
i 1.5
16. Organic debris lines or piles
0
0.5
1 1.5
17. Soil -based evidence of high watertable?
No = 0
Yes 431
C. Biology (Subtotal ` 4 , � )
18. Fibrous roots in streambed
2 `s
1
0
19. Rooted upland plants in streambed
C3
2
1
0
20. Macrobenthos (note diversity and abundance)
0
1
2
3
21. Aquatic Mollusks
1
2
3
22. Fish
0.5
1
1.5
23. Crayfish
0
0.5
1
1.5
24. Amphibians
0
0.
1
1.5
25. Algae
0
0.5
1
1.5
26. Weiland plants in. streambed
FACW = 0.75, OBL = 1.5
Other f0 -
'perennial streams may also be identified using other methods. See p. 35 of manual.
Notes:
Sketch:
►07003

USACE AID# —741 DWQ # Site # (indicate on attached map)
STREAMQUALYTY ASSESSMENT WORKSHEET
Provide the following information for the stream reach under assessor t'
1. Applicant's name:c�1eQ- Vi.ev�r 2. Evaluator's name:_ t��" 11ek-
3. Date of evaluation:V Y(a � d/7' 4. Time of evaluation: __ V M
5. Name of stream: UK A h &1 jl 14h (-G 6. River basin: h7 o4 a
7. Approximate drainage area:_ tV* f fe S. Stream order: -R)^ i`
9. Length of reach evaluated: toe -Pett` 10. County: er �Vbcx
11. Site coordinates (if known): prefer in decimal degrees. 12. Subdivision name (if any):
Latitude (ex.34.872312):_ J% �! { 1 7t7 Longitude (ex. —77.556611):
Method location determined (circle):GPS ' Topo Sheet Ortho (Aerial) Photo/GIS Other GIS Other
13. Location of reach under evaluation (note nearb roads and landmarks and attach map identifying stream(s) location):
Yex— VVPr r f 7 914f -k -
14. Proposed chane
15. Recent weather
16. Site conditions
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 N� If yes, estimate the water surface area:
19. Does channel appear on USGS quad map? YES (NO J 20. Does channel appear on USDA Soil Survey? (YES) NO
21. Estimated watershed land use: % Residential
✓✓ ,% Commercial % Industrial % Agricultural
E% Forested % Cleared / Logged '400/o Other ( 11ZSIi sQ.Siy )
22. BankM width: B -t `EeO 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 (>I 0%)
25. Channel sinuosity: Straight Occasional bends !<Frequent meander _Very sinuous Braided channel
Instructions for completion of worksheet (located on page 2): Begin by determining the most appropriate ecoregion based on
location, terrain, vegetation, stream classification, etc. Everycharacteristic 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): e I Comments:
Evaluator's Signature � ' C Date
This channel evaluation form is intended to be used only as a guide to assist landowners and environmental professionals in
gathering the data required by the United States Army Corps of Engineers to make a preliminary assessment of stream
quality. The total score resulting from the completion of this form is subject to USAGE approval and does not imply a
particular mitigation ratio or requirement. Foran subject to change - version 06103. To Comment, please call 519-876-8441 x 26.

STREAM QUALITY ASSESSMENT WORKSHEET
* These characteristics are not assessed in coastal streams.
ECOREGION POINT
RANGE
SCORE
i.
#
CHARACTERISTICS
Coastal 'pied nt , j�
j.4
Mountain
3
Presence of flow 1persistent pools in stream
0-5
0-4
0-5
1
(no flow or saturation - 0-, strong* flow = maxpoints)
Evidence of past human alteration
0-6
0-5
0-5
2
(extensive alteration = 0; no alteration = max points)
Riparian zone
0-6
0-4
0-5
'(no
buffer = 0, contiguous, wide buffer T maxpoints)
Evidence of nutrient or chemical discharges
0-5
0-4
0-4
4
(extensive discharges = 0; no discharges = maxpoints)
Groundwater discharge
0-3
0-4
0--4
no discharge= 0; springs, seeps, wetlands; etc. = maxoints)
j
6
Presence of adjacent floodplain
0_ 4
0 4
0_?
l(no
floodplain = 0: extensive floodplain = max points)
7
Entrenchment I floodplain access
0— 5
0-4
0-2
�=
(deeply entrenched = 0; frequent flooding = maxpoints)
g
Presence. of adjacent ri etlands
0-6
0-4
0-2
(no wetlands = 0; large adiacent wetlands = maxpoints)
9
Channel sinuosity
0-5
0-4
0-3
(extensive channelization = 0; natural meander — maxpoints)
30
Sediment input
0-5
0-4
0-4
>
(extensive deposition= 0: little or no sediment = maxpoints)
� 11
Size & diversity of channel bed substrate
NA
0-4
0_5
1
(fine, bomo enous = 0: large, diverse sizes = maxpoints)
Evidence of channel incision or widening
0-5
0-4
0 — 5
3
12
(deeply incised = 0; stable bed & banks = maxpoints)
Presence of major bank failures13
0-5
0-5
0-5
(severe erosion= 0; no erosion. stable banks= maxpoints)
Root depth and density on banks
0-3
II
I O-4
0-S
14
(no visible roots = 0: dense roots throughout = max oints)
Impact by agriculture, livestock, or timber production
0-5
0 - 4
15
(substantial impact =0; no evidence = max dints)
G
.0-5
Presence of riffle-po€►llripple-pool complexes
0-3
0 5
0 - 6
16
(no riffles/ri les or ools - 0; well-develo ed = max pints
lHabitat
17
complexity .
0-6
0'-6
0-6
little or no habitat = 0, fre went; varied habitats = maxpoints)
113
Canopy coverage over streambed
0-5
0-5
0-5
(no shadingvegetation = 0 � continuous canopy = maxpoints)
`
1
Substrate embeddedness
NA*
O-4
0-4
(deeply embedded = 0; loose structure = max)
20
t t
Presence of stream invertebrates (see page 4)
0--4
0-5
0-5
�J
no evidence = 0; common, numerous types = maxpoints)
21
Presence of amphibians '
0-4
0-4 ,
0-4
(no evidence = 0- common, numerous types = maxpoints)
0.4 G
22
Presence of fish
0-4
0--4
0-4
(no evidence 0 common, numerous types = maxpoints)
*
73
Evidence of wildlife use
0-6
0-5
0 - 5
no evidence= 0; abundant evidence = maxpoints)
Total Points Possible
100
10{3
100
TOTAL SCORE, (also enter on lust page)
* These characteristics are not assessed in coastal streams.

i!
NC DWO Stream Identification Form Version 4.11 57 e"11 r� C
Date: Z 1! Cl
Project[Site: %�l�
Latitude: �-!7,
Evaluator: �� �-
County:-
Longitude: �i'�. wig,( %
Total Points;
Stream is at least intermittent
Stream Determinat' circle one)
Other�'�'�,yy �/�' X&u i 5[
if ? o 19 or perennial if _ 30' f
Ephemeral ermittent, Perennial
e.g. Q&ad7Vame:
A. Geomorphology (Subtotal= 1r®)
Absent
Weak
Moderate
Strong
10 Continuity of channel bed and bank
0
1
%
3
2. Sinuosity of channel along thalweg
0
1
_.°
3
3. In -channel structure: ex. riffle -pool, step -pool,
ri le- I sequence
0
1'
2
3
4. Particle size of stream substrate
0
1►
2
3
5. Active/relict floodplain
0
1C23
1
1.5
6. Depositional bars or benches
0
r,15
2
3
7. Recent alluvial deposits
0
1
2
3
8. Headcuts
0
1
2
3
9. Grade control
0
0.5
1
1.5
10, Natural valley
0
0.5
i o
1.5
11, Second or greater order channel
No
0>
Yes = 3
Sketch:
a artificial ditches are not rated; see di scions in manual
B. H drolo Subtotal = s
12. Presence of Baseflow
0
1
2 l 3
13. Iron oxidizing bacteria
0
1'
2 3
14 Leaf litter
1.5
1 .
0
15. Sediment on plants or debris
0
0.5
1 1.5
16, Organic debris lines or piles
0
0.5
1.5
17. Soil -based evidence of high water table?
0
No W 0
Yes 3 /
C. Biolo Subtotal = ,
18, Fibrous roots in streambed
3
2
1
0
19. Rooted upland plants in streambed
3
(2,1
1
0
20. Macrobenthos (note diversity and abundance)
rU
1
2
3
21, Aquatic Mollusks
01)
1
2
3
22. Fish
0
0.5
1
1.5
23, Crayfish
0
0.5
1
1.5
24, Amphibians
0.5 x
1
1.5
25. Algae
0
1
1.5
26. Wetland plants in strearnbed
FACW = 0.75; OBL e 1.5
Other 0
'perennial streams may also be identified using other methods. See p. 35 of manual.
Notes:
Sketch:
red`' 7

I USACE AID# DWQ # Site €# (indicate on attached map)
STREAM 6u
W—/11'1'.t � 0Ce0
ASSESSMENT WO
Provide the following information for the stream reach under assessment:
T
1. Applicant's name: aC-e- _ + y" 2. Evaluator's name:
3. Date of evaluation;_ --,I-a w 'T 4. Time of evaluation: %f 3! 1PA4
5, Name of stream: U t'`M444 " c' c�' 7�Y�'WAY 6. River basin: �.Q Cl z
7. Approximate drainage area: .AJC % o,,01�7 S. Stream order: I r-rr,74
9. Length of reach evaluated: - 1`' 10. County: C'� fit'el
11. Site coordinates (if knownn)):` / pre/fern in decimal degrees. 12. Subdivision name (if any); ---{�' Q
Latitude (ex. 34.872312): ✓ r fJ -1 �O l Longitude (ex. -77.536611): e� Y
Method location determined (circle): GFS Topo Sheet Ortho (Aerial) Fhoto/GIS Other GIS Other
13. Location of reach under eval n (note nearby roads and landmarks and attach map identifying stream(s) location):
14. Proposed channel work (if any):
15. Recent weather
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 Iocated upstream of the evaluation point? YES NO If yes, estimate the water surface area:
19. Does channel appear on USGS quad map? YES NO ^ 20. Does channel appear on USDA Soil Survey? (!!S/110
21. Estimated watershed land use; % Residential _% Commercial Y% Industrial % Agricultural
60% Forested �% Cleared / Logged Z -D %o Other ( J4 0,L,5>f7 )
22. Bankfull width: 4't- 23. Bank height (from bed to top of bank): 1,A ;?- -t "—t1"
24. Channel slope down center of stream: Flat (0 to 2%) X. Gentle (2 to 4°l0) _Moderate (4 to 10%) ,Steep (>10%0)
25. Channel sinuosity: Straight _Occasional bends Frequent meander _Very sinuous _Braided channel
Instructions for completion of worksheet (located on page 2): Begin by determining the most appropriate ecoregion based on
location, terrain, vegetation, stream classification, etc. Every characteristic must be scored using the same ecoregion. Assign points
to each characteristic within the range shown for the ecoregion. Page 3 provides a brief description of how to review the
characteristics identified in the 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
continent 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). i./ / Comments:
Evaluator's Signature ,,� 1> CGt'r Date /Az/ -57'
This channel evaluation form is intended to be used only as a guide to assist landowners an�ronmental 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 919-876-844I x 26_

4;
STREAM QUALITY
ASSESSMENT WORKSHEET
* These characteristics are not assessed in coastal streams.
7
CHARACTERISTICS
ECOREGION POINT
RANGE
SCORE
Coastal
Piedmont
Mountain
!
�
Presence of flow f persistent pools in stream
0-5
0 _ 4
0-5
(no flow or saturation = 0; strong flow = max points)
2
Evidence of past human alteration
-
0-5
0 5
(extensive alteration = 0; no alteration = max points)
Riparian zone
0-6
0-4
0-5
4-7
no buffer = 0; contiguous, wide buffer = mat points)
�--5
4
Evidence of nutrient or chemical discharges
0 - 5
0-4
0-4
(extensive discharges = 0; no disc"har4es -max amts)
5
Groundwater discharge
0-3
0-4
0-4
(no discharge = 0; springs, see s, wetlands, etc, = max -points)
r�
6
Presence of adjacent floodplain
0-4
0-4
0-2
no floodplain = 0: extensive floodplain = maxpoints)
Entrenchment / floodplain access
0-5
0 9
0 7
A
(dee iv entrenched = 0; fre uent flooding =max oints)
-
-
8
Presence of adjacent wetlands"
0-6
0_4
0-:2'
(no wetlands = 0; large adjacent wetlands = max points)
�--
9
Channel sinuosity
0-5
0-4
0-3
(extensive channelization = 0: natural meander = maxpoints)
30
Sediment input
0-5
0--4
0-4
(extensive deposition= 0; little or no sediment = maxpoints)
Size & diversity of channel bed substrate
NA*
0-4
0-5
(fine, homogenous = 0: large, diverse sizes - maxpoints)
12
Evidence of channel incision or widening
0-5
0-4
0-5
_____(deeplyincised = 0; stable bed & banks = maxpoints)
13
Presence of major bank failures
0-5
0-m5
0-5
5
„�
.-w
(severe erosion = 0; no erosion, stable banks = max points)
" 14
Root depth and density on banks
0-3
0 -4
0 5
Ey
(no visible roots = 0: dense roots throughout = maxpoints)
15
Impact by agriculture, livestock, or timber production
0-5
0 4
0-5
(substantial impact =0; no evidence = maxpoints)
.�?
16
Presence of riffle-pooUripple-pool complexes
0-3
0-5
0-6
?
(no riffles/ripples or pools = 0: well-developed = maxpoints)
.7
17
Habitat complexity
0-6
0-"6
0-6
little or no habitat = 0; frequent. varied habitats = maxpoints)
l
18
Canopy coverage over streambed
0-5
0-5
0._5
"f
(no shading vegetation = 0; continuous canopy =max points)
t
I9
Substrate embeddedness
NA*
0--4
0-4
'7
(deeply embedded = 0, loose structure = max)
20
Presence of stream invertebrates (see page 4)
0-4
0 - 5
0-5
no evidence = 0; common; numerous types = max points)
21
Presence of amphibians
0-4
o -a
0-4
Q
(no evidence = 0: common, numerous types = maxpoints)
22
Presence of fish
(no
0-4
0- 4
0-4
evidence = 0; common, numerous tv es = max points)
1
Evidence of wildlife use
0-6
0-5
0-5
no evidence = 0; abundant evidence = matpoints)
Total Points Passible `
100
100
100
TOTAL SCORE (also enter oil first page)
* These characteristics are not assessed in coastal streams.

NC DWQ Stream identification Form Version 4.11
Date: '741, r, u a
Project/Site; X14 r1
Latitude:
Evaluator: T A.
County: Lry
Longitude: S ,. -)
Total Points:
Stream is at least iratermrtlant ��� .
Stream Determination (' ej
Ephemeral Intermitten erennial
'Other
e.g. quant
if X99 or perennial if X30*
2. Sinuosity of channel along thalweg
Name:
A. Geomorphology Subtotal = 1 S . 's
Absent
Weak
Moderate
Strong
1. Continuity of channel bed and bank
0
1
2
1
2. Sinuosity of channel along thalweg
0
1
2)
3
3. In -channel structure: ex.. riffle -pool, step -pool,
0
1
2 j
3
4. Particle size of stream substrate
0
[ 1f
2
3
5. Active/relict floodplain
0
1
1 _
3
6. Depositional bars or benches
0
2
3
7. Recent alluvial deposits
0
0.5
2
3
8. Headcuts
0
A_
r 2
3
9. Grade control
0
0.5
1
1.5
10. Natural valley
0
0.5F
1.5
11. Second or greater order channel
No= 0 '•
Yes = 3
Sketch:
a artificial ditches are not rated; see discussions in manual
B. Hydrology (Subtotal = f t
12.
Presence of Baseflow
0
1
'2
3
13.
Iron oxidizing bacteria
0
1
2
�0
14.
Leaf litter
1.5
1
0.
0
15.
Sediment on plants or debris
0
0.5
;' 1
1.5
16,
O7 an c debris lines or piles
0
0.9
1 _
1.5
24. Amphibians
Soil-basedevidence of highwater table?
No = 0
Yes =
25. Algae
C. Biology (Subtotal =
18. Fibrous roots in streambed -
3
)
1
0
19. Rooted upland plants in streambed
3)
2
1
0
20. Macrobenthos (note diversity and abundance)
�0
1
2
3
21. Aquatic Mollusks
( 0
1
2
3
22. Fish
0
0.5
1
1.5
23. Crayfish
'0
0.5
1
1.5
24. Amphibians
a0.5
1
1.5
25. Algae
C0:
0.5
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:

Grail- MALS400Z
USACE AID# DW,Qr # Site # (indicate on attached map)
STREAM QUALITY ASSESSMENT WORKSHEET Abp
Provide the fallowing information for the stream reach under assessment.
2. Evaluator's name: q
4. Time of evaluation: 14 5
6. River basin: 06,+w,t
& Stream order: l
10. County: cjev6c,.
1. Applicant's name:
3. Date of evaluation: inn v y��i-t5
5. Name of stream: 'UNT To lt#ICl&w CC
7. Approximate drainage area: 10 1(0
9. Length of reach evaluated: ')Z e el
11. Site coordinates (if known): prefer in decimal degrees. 12. Subdivision name (if any):
Latitude (ex. 34.$73312):(a O � Longitude (ex. -77.5568] ] )' + '
Method location determined (circle): P Topo Sheet Ortho (Aerial) Photo/GIS Other GIS Other
13. Location of reach under evaluation (note nearby `roads and landmarks and attach map identif*g strear(s) location):
20t" �-e} w9d aF �,11eC f S r�ty ,2t•.t , S~' ii �e � r.�yi `� �1 � f icy
14. Proposed channel work (if any):
15.
N
15. Recent weather conditions: 1 g'
16. Site conditions at time ofvisit:5
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?YF N If yes, estimate the water surface area:
19. Does channel appear on USES quad map? YES 20. Does c annel appear on USDA Soil Survey? YES
21. Estimated watershed land use: ^% Residential ,% Commercial ZLOA Industrial --Yo Agricultuai
r {{ D -%Forested
22. Bankfull width: C �uo`i'
_% Cleared 1 Logged e Dfo Other ( -)
23. Bank height (from bed to top of bank): C:' • X
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 iBraided 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 paints
to each characteristic within the range shown for the ecoregion. Page 3 provides a brief description of how to review the
characteristics identified in the worksheet. Scores should reflect an overall assessment of the stream reach under evaluation. If a
characteristic cannot be evaluated due to site or weather conditions, enter 4 in the scoring box and provide an explanation in the
comment section. Where there are obvious changes in the character of a stream under review (e.g., the stream flows from a pasture
into a forest), the stream may be divided into smaller reaches that display more continuity, and a separate form used to evaluate each
reach. The total score assigned to a stream reach must range between 0 and 100, with a score of 100 representing a stream of the
highest quality.
Total Score (from reverse): Comments: 5 VFAA1 t E
_ _ r
Evaluator's Signature Date
This channel evoluatio ointendpkfo be used only as a ,guide to assist landowners and enviroi6ental professionals in
gathering the data require by the United States Army Corps of Engineers to make a preliminary assessment of stream
quality. The total score resulting from the completion of this form is subject to USACE approval and does not imply a
particular mitigation ratio or requirement! Form subject to change — version 06143. To Comment, please call 919-876-8441 x 26.

STREAM QUALITY ASSESSMENT WORKSHEET
IMMWIRMW
# CHARACTERISTICS
ECOREGION POINT
RANGE
SCORE
Coastal
Piedmont
Mountain
I Presence of flow 1 persistent pools in stream
0- 5
0 _ 4
0 - 5
no flow or saturation = 0; strong flow max paints)
2 Evidence of past human alteration
0-6
0-5
0-5
extensive alteration = 0; no alteration = maxpoints)_
3 Riparian zone
0-6
0-4
0-5
no buffer= 0; contiguous, wide bufi'er = max Dints
w]
4 Evidence of nutrient or chemical discharges
0-5
0-4
0-4
(extensive discharges = 0;_no discharges = muxpoints)
5 Groundwater discharge
0-3
0-4
0-4
no dischar e = 0; springs, see s, wetlands ete. - maxpoints)
a� Presence of adjacent floodplain
0F4
0-4
0-2
no floodplain - 0; extensive floodplain =max amts
7 Entrenchment 1 floodplain aces
0-5
0-4
0-2
___(deeply entrenched 0; frequent flooding = maxpoints)
S Presence of adjacent wetlands
0-6
0- 4
0- 2
no wetlands = 0; large adiacent wetlands = max points)
9 Channel sinuosity
0 -- 5
0-4
0- 3
extensive channelization = 0; natural meander = max points)
_ _
10 Sediment input
0-5
0-4
0-4
extensive de osition9 0• little or no sediment = mar points)
11 Size & diversity of channel bed substrate
NA*
0-4
0-5
fine, homogenous = 0; lame, diverse sizes = maxpoints)
12 Evidence of channel incision or widening
0-5
0-4
0-5
-Q
y+ _(deeply incised= 0; stable bed & banks= max Dams
Presence of major bank failures
13
0-5
0-5
0-5
(severe erosion = 0; no erosion, stable banks - maxpoints)
14 Root depth and density on banks
0-3
0 - 4
0-5
p
(atn visible roots a 0; dense roots throughout = max points)
15 lin pact by agriculture, livestock, or timber ,production
0-5
0-4
0-5
(substantial impact =0; no evidence = maxpoints)
16 Presence of riffle-pooilripple-pool complexes
0-3
0--5
0-6
C�
ata riffles/ripples or pools = 0; well-developed n max Dints
Habitat complexity
1
0-6
0 h
0-6
(little ar na habitat = 0' fre dent varied habitats max Dints
Canopy coverage over streambed
l$
0-5
0-5
0-5
(no shading vegetation = 0; continuous canopy =rnax oink
19 Substrate embeddedness
NA*
0-4
0--4
(dccply embedded - 0; loose structure = mase
20 Presence of stream invertebrates (see page 4)
0-4
0-5
0-5
no evidence = 0; common numerous types = maxpoints)
U 21Presence of amphibians
0-4
0-4
0-4
L
O no evidence= 0; common, numerous types= max points)
Presence of fish
{7 22
0-4
0-4
0-4
no evidence = 0• common, numerous types = maxpoints)
23 Evidence of wildlife use
0- G
0 5
0- 5
no evidence = 0; abundant evidence = max points)
Total Points Possible
100
100 1
100
TOTAL SCORE (also enter on first page)
--
I hese characteristics are not assessed in coastal streams.

NC DWO Stream Identification Form Version 4.11
Date: Z0)
Project/Site: /t fq,Y
Latitude: 'y
Evaluator,
County: �- *-' -bA-
Longitude:- j6 r�__7J
� i 9A
Total Points.1410
0
Stream D circke one)
Other � � V z,
Stream is at least intermittent
ff X19 or parenni$i if ?80'77__�Name:
Epherat IntermitteDLPerennial
0
A. Geomorphology Subtotal = 6,10
Absent
Weak
Moderate
Strung
1 a. Continuity of channel bed and bank
0
10
0
3
2. Sinuosity of channel along thalweg
0
1.5
1
3
3. In -channel structure: ex, riffle -pool, step -pool,
0
1
/22
0
3
4. Particle size of stream substrate
0
1
0.
3
5. Active/relict floodplain
0
1
No = o
3
B. Depositional bars or benches
0
28. Welland plants in streambed FACW
2
3
7. Recent alluvial deposits
0
2
3
8. Headcuts
0
2
3
9. Grade control
0
0
1
1.5
10. Natural valla
0
0.5
1
1.5
11. Second or greater order channel
No = 0
Yes = 3
e artificial ditches are nor rated; see discussions in manual
B_ Hvdm1r)avfSubtntal = q,O
12.
Presence of Baseflow
0
1
3
13.
Iron oxidizing bacteria
0
0
2 3
14.
Leaf litter
1.5
1
0.5 0
15.
Sediment on plants or debris
0
1
1 1.5
16.
Organic debris lines or piles
0
0.
1 1.5
17.
Soil-basedevidence of higliwater table?
1.5
No = o
Yes =
C Biology (Subtotal = 19
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
0.5
1
1.5
23. Crayfish
o.5
1
1.5
24. Amphibians
0.5
1
1.5
25. Algae
0.5
1
1.5
28. Welland plants in streambed FACW
= 0.75; ObC
: 1.5 ter =
`perennial streams may also be identified using other methods. See p. 35 of manual.
Notes:
Sketch:

eeyl_AAZt.CIcu'z-
USAGE AID# DWQ # site # (indicate on attached map)
MSTREAM QUALUrY ASSESSMENT WORKSHEET
Provide the following information for the stream reach under assessment:
1. Applicant's name:. _"DJ�,E- lr W t C`j2. Evaluator's name: %S - 4 1 _
3. Date of evaluation: �1 ` -T* r^ Jc,r� ?-411 4. Time of evaluation: ) 5 0
5. Name of stream: U t%m 10 1405 A c 'j C Ce ey 6. River basin:_ A- A W A
s�
7. Approximate drainage area: to k C- 8. Stream order:
9. Length of reach evaluated: SU 10. County: C le V C\ 2'A
11. Site coordinates (if known): prefer in decimal degrees. 12. Subdivision name (if any):
Latitude (ex 34.872312): �� . L 0 t4 q Longitude (ex. -77.556611):_- t o , q I
Method location determined (circle): D 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: N° r mw i
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 -III)
18. Is there a pond or lake located upstream of the evaluation point? YES 0 If yes, estimate the water surface area:
19. Does channel appear on USGS quad reap? YES (�bi) 20. Does channel appear on USDA Soil Survey? YES (Nb
21. Estimated watershed land use: °/a Residential % Commercial 1(O % Industrial % Agricultural
% Forested ,°/a Cleared 1 Logged --_% Other ( _
22. Bankfull width: 23. Bank height (from bed to top of bank): Ci . r
24. Channel slope down center of stream: Flat (0 to 2%1�-J­Gentle (2 to 4%) Moderate (4 to 10%) Steep (>100/6)
25. Channel sinuosity: Straight �­Qccasional bends Frequent meander !Very sinuous Firaided channel
Instructions for completion of worksbeet (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 106, with a score of 100 representing a stream of the
highest quality.
Total Score (from
C-1ueA 1.1
71 J
: 4-- Comments: STZ � A ^ -60 1, 6 ell t v ( het
t, rr c•r� ,,ale vv
C-.F,�J
Evaluator's Signature -,"42 4z Date t3 -j rsA.:w 2i 5
This channel evaluati 'intended to be used only as a guide to assist landowners and envir amental 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 46103. To Comment, please call 919-876-8441 x 26.

STREAM QUALITY ASSESSMENT WORKSHEET
- -
- -
ECOREGION POINT
RANGE
CHAItAC't Clf�1 TICS
CC]Ri+;
Coastal
0 - 5
Piedmont
Mountain
1
Presence of flow I persistent pools in stream
0-4
0--5
-,
,•`i
(no flow or saturation - 0; stroriIlaw = max points)
2
evidence of past human alteration
0 - b
0-5
0_5
(extensive alteration = 0; no alteration = max o_ints)�
Riparian zone
0-6
0._4
0-5
t�
no buffer =- 0; contiguous, wide buFier = maxpoints)
40-5
Evidence of nutrient or chemical discharges
0--4
0--4.
(extensive discharges = 0; no dischar es = max oints)--
—._
-
5
Groundwater discharge
0-3
0- 4
0-4
(no dischar e =0; sprins, seeps,_ wetlands etc. = max points)
'
Presence of adjacent floodplain
0-4
0-4
0-2
no floodplain = 0• extensive floodplain - max points)
70-
Entrenchment / floodplain access
5
0-4
0-2(deeplyentrenched
.,
= 0• frequent flooding _ max points)
$
of adjacent wetlands
0-6
0-4
0-2
{__,--
no wetlands
s 9 0• IMSe adjacent wetlands =max points)._
Channel sinuosity
-
0-4
0-3
+
4
extensive channelization - 0; natural meander = maxpoints)
-
+
10
Sediment input
0-5
0-4
0-4
extensive deposition= 0• little or no sediment = max-oints
I 1
Size & diversity of channel bed substrate
0-4
0-5
(fine, homogenous -- 0; large, diverse sizes = maxpoints)
-
12
Evidence of channel incision or widening
0-5
0 - 4
0-5
(deeply incised = 0; stable bed & banks = maxpoints)
13
Presence of major bank failures
0- 5
0-5
0-5
(severe erosion = 0; no erosion, stable banks = maxpoints)
14
Borst depth and density on banks
0-3
0--4
0
no visible roots = 0; dense roots throughout = max points)
'
I5
Impact by agriculture, livestock, or timber production
0-5
0-4
0-5
(substantial Impact =0; no evidence - max points)
16
Presence of riffle-poaUrip,ple-pool complexes
0-3
0- 5
0-6
no riffles/ripples or pools = 0; well-developed maxpoints)_
Habitat complexity
H
17
0--6
0-G
0-6
(�)
little or no habitat = 0• fre uent varied habitats = max points)
18
Canopy coverage over streambed
0-5
0-5
0--5
0
(no sbading vegetation - 0• continuous canopy = max points)
-
1
Substrate embeddedness
-
0-4
0 - �4
1
(deeply embedded � 0; loose structure = max
2t1
Presence of stream invertebrates (see page 4)
0-4
0-5
0-50
no evidence = 0• common numerous types = max oohs
r
Presence of amphibians
21
0-4
0-4
d- 4
(no evidence = 0; common, numerous es = roax paints)
Presence of fish
22
�
0 4
{?--4
3
no evidence --0; common, numerous es = max points)0-4
23
,Evidence of wildlife use
0--6
0-5
0-5
%
(no evidence = 0; abundant evidence = maxpoints)
Total Points Possible
100
100
too
,TOTAL SCOW.' (also enter aro first page)
zr
* These characteristics are not assessed in coastal slrL�ai11 -.

Rc-n.-�_lys
NC D'4 Q Stream identification Form Version 4.11
mate:1 7 / yr
Project/Site: U+�
u
Latitude: (�
Evaluator: , eXr
County: (�
Longitude: S -C ()a
Total Points:
Stream is at least intermittent YYi
Stream OeterMlnat' (circle one)
Other
ife 19 or erennial if� 30- f f
Ephemeral n#ertnitte i Perennial
e.g. Quad Name:
A. Ueomo holo (Subtotal = v ' )
Absent
Weak
Moderate
Strong
1a` Continuity of channel bed and bank
01
1
2
1.5CV
2. Sinuosity of channel along thalweg
0
15. Sediment on plants or debris
2
3
3. In -channel structure: ex. riffle -pool, step -pool,
ri le- ool se uence
E 0
0.5
2
1.5
4. Particle size of stream substrate
0
Yes = 3
2
3
5. Active/relict floodplain
0
Q
2
3
6. Depositional bars or benches
L4?
1
2 +
3
7. Recent alluvial deposits
0
2
3
8. Headcuts
0
1
3
9. Grade control
0.5
1
1.5
10. Natural valley
0
0.5
1.5
11. Second or greater order channelo
=
Yes = 3
ardlicial ditches are not rated; see discussions 'in manual
B. Hydrology {Subtotal =t ]
12. Presence of Baseflow
0 0 1
2
3
13. iron oxidizing bacteria
1
2
3
14. Leaf litter
1.5CV
0.5
0
15. Sediment on plants or debris
0.5
1
1.5
16. Organic debris lines or piles
0.5
1
1.5
17. Sol] -based evidence of high water table?
No = 0
Yes = 3
1.5
U, tilology (subtotal = L�' )
18. Fibrous roots in strearnbed 3
2
1
0
19. Rooted upland plants in streambed 3
0
1
4
20. Macrobenthos (note diversity and abundance)
1
2
3
21. Aquatic Mollusks
1
2
3
22. Fish !
0.5
1 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 strearnbed
FACW = 0.75; OBL -1.5
Other - 4
'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; N4 -v- CA" 2. Evaluator's name: � � Ro'dea'—
3. Date of evaluation: 11 t 4. Time of evaluation: }
5. Name of stream: 4C.aK, -7 AAAA —Of 6. River basin: CZ4-ar,,,�Zk�
3. Approximate drainage area: 1-1 S. Stream order:
FF
9. Length of reach evaluated: 3h 44 10. County:_
11. Site coordinates (if known): prefer in decimal degrees_ 12. Subdivision name (if
Latitude (ex, 34.872312): _ SCC G P.f GdzfLongitude (ex. -77.556611):
Method location determined (circle); PS T'opo Sheet Ortiia (Aerial) PhotalGIS Other GIS Other
13. Location of reach under evaluation (note nearby roads and landmarks and attach map identifying streams) location):
4 +v Mpo/+ 41 vrr-
14. Proposed channel work (if any):
15. Recent weather conditions: GI's f. ''jet
16. Site conditions at time of C 16.E ll
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 0If yes, estimate the water surface area:
19. Does channel appear on USGS quad map? YES qO� 20. Does channel appear on USDA Soil Survey? YES Cob
21. Estimated watershed land use: % Residential _% Commercial _% Industrial `% Agricultural
U0h(At1 rr.0,-X % Forested %+Cleared 1 Logged _% Cather ( )
22. Bankfull width: q f 23. Bank height (from bed to top of bank): Q-3 r
24. Channel slope down center of stream; _Flat (0 to 2%) ,Gentle (2 to 4%) XI Moderate (4 to 10%) _Steep (>10%)
25. Channel sinuosity: Straight ©ccasional 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 Hurst range between 0 and 100, with a scare of 100 representing a stream of the
highest quality.
Total 'Score (from reverse): 0 Comments:
Evaluator's Signature ` Date
This channel evaluation form f i tended to he used only as a guide to assist landowners and environmental professionals in
gathering the data required by he United States Army Corps of Engineers to make a preliminary assessment of stream
quality. The total score resulting from the completion of this form is subject to USACE approval and does not imply a
particular mitigation ratio or requirement. Form subject to change— version 06103. To Comment, please call 919-876-8441 x 26.

7
STREAM QUALITY ASSESSMENT WORKSHEET
* These charactenstics are not assessed in coastal streams.
CHARACTERISTICS
ECOREGION POINT
RANGE
S(-- ��E
Coastal
Presence of flow / persistent pools in stream
_N110untain
(no flow or saturation = 0; strong flow = max points)
0- 5
0-4
5
2
Evidence of past human alteration
0-6
0-5
0-5
(extensive alteration = 0; no alteration = max points)
3
Riparian zone
0-6
0-4
0-
(no buffer = 0; contiguous, wide buffer max points)
4
Evidence of nutrient or chemical discharges
0-5
0-4
0-4
(extensive discharges = 0; no discharges = max points)
5
Groundwater discharge
0-3
0-4
0-4
(no discharge = 0; springs, seeps, wetlands, etc. = max points)
6
Presence of adjacent floodplain
0-4
0-4
0-2
(no floodplain = 0; extensive floodplain = max points)
7
Entrenchment/ floodplain access
0-5
(deeply entrenched = 0-Jreqcent flooding = max pomts)
0-4
0-2
8
Presence of adjacent wetlands
0- 6
0-4
O-2
(no wetlands = 0; large adjacent wetlands= max points)
9
Channel sinuosity
0-5
0-4
0-3
(extensive channelization = 0'. natural meander = max points)
10
Sediment input
0-5
0-4
0-4
(extensive deposition= 0; little or no sediment = max points)
I I
Size & diversity of channel bed substrate0-4
(fine, homogenous = 0; large, diverse sizes = max points)
;'M
'I
0-5
12
Evidence of channel incision or widening
(deeply incised - O; stable bed & banks = max points)
0-5
0-4
0-5
13
Presence of major bank failures
0-5
0-5
0-5
(severe erosion = 0 no erosion, stable banks = max pints )
<
14
Root depth and density on banks
0-3
0-4
4-5
(no visible roots = 0; dense roots throughout � max points)
15
Impact by agriculture, livestock, or timber production
0-5
0-4
0-5
(substantial impact =0; no evidence = max poi L,;)
16
Presence of riffle-pool/ripple-pool complexes
0-3
0-5
0-6
(no rifflesiripples or pools = 0. well-developed max points)
170-6
Habitat complexity 1
E o-6
0-6
(little or no habitat = 0, frequent- varied habitats max points)
18
Canopy coverage over streambed
0-5
-
0-5
0- 5
(no shading vegetation = 0, continuous canopy = max points)
19
Substrate embeddedness
��A
0-4
0-4
rj
- -(deeply embedded = 0, loose structure = max)
'.-- -1
20
Presence of stream invertebrates (see page 4)
0-4
0-5
D 5
(no evidence = 0; common, numerous types = max points)
-
D
Presence of amphibians
0-4
0-4
0-4
0
(no evidence = 0; cone ion, numerous Lacs = max points)
Presence of fish
22
0-4
0-4
0-4
0
(no evidence = 0; common, numerous types = max pDints)
23 Evidence of wildlife use
0-6
0-5
0-5
1";
(no evidence = 0.- abundant evidence = max points)
Total Points Possible
100
100
100
ti TOTAL SCORE (also enter on first page)
* These charactenstics are not assessed in coastal streams.

. - ._ M,¢► 4 a lqY
NC DW'Q Stream Identification Form Version 4.11
Rate: t/ -711
ProjectlSite: MM 62, r ►
Latitude: }'�� � dz�
Evaluator: r0✓/d��v
County:},
Longitude:
Total Points:
Stream is at least Int
Stream Determination (clr 47bnv)
Other
ermJ�ent
it! 19 orperennial if _ 30"
Ephemeral intermittent erennlal
e.g. Quad Name:
tr
R. Geomorphology (Subtotal � �
A sent
`V"w'eak
fVlcaderate
Strong
1*' Continuity of channel bed and hank
0
1
2
15. Sediment on plants or debris
2. Sinuosity of channel along thalweg
0
1
0 0.5
3"
3, In-channei.structure: ex. riffle -pool, step -pool,
ripple -pool sequence
0
es =
2
3
4. Particle size of stream substrate
0
0,5
2
3
5. Activelrelict floodplain
0
1Z
1
3
6. Depositional bars or benches
0
0.5
2
3
7. Recent alluvial deposits
0
0.5
2
3
8. Headcuts
AP,(yj
FACW = 0,75; CtL
2
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
es
Sketch: - �L
a artificial ditches are not rated; see discussions in manual
B. Hydrology (Subtotal = A ,'�_ )
12, Presence of Baseflow
0 1
2
13, Iron oxidizing bacterla
62 1
2 3
14, Leaf litter
1.5
0.5 0
15. Sediment on plants or debris
0 Cp
1 1.5
15. Organic debris lines or piles
0 0.5
1.5
17. Sall -based evidence of high water table?
No = 0
es =
C. Biclogy (Subtotal= _&.) _? "
18, Fibrous roots in streambed
3
1
0
19. Rooted upland plants in streambed
3
1
0
20. Macrobenthos (note diversfty and abundance)
0
1
2
3
21. Aquatic Mollusks
1
2
3
22. Fish
0,5
1
1.5
23, Crayfish
0
0,6
1
1.5
24. Amphibians
t
0.5
1
1,5
25. Algae
0
0.5
1
1.5
26. Wetland plants in strearnbed
FACW = 0,75; CtL
- 1.5 Other = 0
'perennial streams may also be Identified using Other methods. Sea p, 35 of manual.
Dotes:
Sketch: - �L

USACF AIDS DWQ # Site (indicate on attached map)
FOO STREAM QUALITY ASSESSMENT WORKSHEET
Provide the following information for the stream reach under assessment:
1. Applicant's none: O mt e_ CAe j� 2. Evaluator's name:
3. Bate of evaluation: _ / 7 4. Time of evaluation
5. Name of stream:. � �p "� Ale - 0 114 � 6. River basin:
7. Approximate drainage area: UA Q novh S. Strewn order
9. Length of reach
IOb '0 - - 14. County: C
b.)
11. Site coordinates (if known): prefer in decimal degrees. 12, Subdivision name (if airy): A/a_v
Latitudc (m 34,872312): 5-e- 6 N G Longitude (ex. - f,�77,555611):_ 51C P'
Method location determined (circle); T❑po Sheet Ortho (Aerial) Ptioto1G15 Gd-ier GIS Other
13. Location of reach under evaluation (note nearby roads and landmarks and attach snap identifying streams) location):
14. Proposed channel %kork (if any): 47
15. Recent weather conditions: -- qbi C (e �-
15. Site conditions at time of visit: 011.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 (I-iV)
18.. Is there a pond or lake located upstream of the evaluation point? YES Olf 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 __% Industrial `% Agricultural
LAI J e,4 -AI _% Forested __% Cleared / Logged ._____°/n (Mier ( )
22. Bankfull width: -( 23.Bank height (from bed to top of bank): �{ r
24. Channel slope down center of stream: Flat (0 to 2%) Y—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): Begirt by determining die roost appropriate ocoregion 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 scaring box and provide an explanation in the
continent 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 104, with a score of 100 representing a stream of the
highest duality. 0 �n
Total Score (from reverse): Comments: V- Q- _ -'-v- - 3
Evaluator's Signature L nw��Date J -7115-
This
7{ 15 -This channel evaluation forma 4fi fendedi3 to be used ,only as s guide to assist landowners and environmental professionals in
gathering the data required 6 t ie United States Army Corks of Engineers to make a preliminary assessment of stream
quality. The total score resulting from the completion of this form is subject to USAGE approval and does not imply a
particular mitigation ratio or requirement. Forim subject to change - version 06/03. To Comment, please call 919-876-8441 x 26.

STREAM QUALITY ASSESSMENT WORKSHEET
" These cliaracteristics are not assessed in coastal streams,
3 S1
a
��iYr�
131- m0lorepEl:
Ll
om
0
MVINI.
yW AtY li, Nrrl 111
0 I Nq
11
fol
POW
ME",
'Han a
rJ`� ei�lim m Ok.
r , , - , -3
ty 4 'b r"ll
o I'VO m 'A
n
I in
1, F . ..
. . . . . .
KI
12-x
100
IMF,-
_'9.4
WO
arl
&I'll,
H
'll
i=ri
11,13 . I . . . . . . . .
Z Mti
'3
�1'
.1ii
IS III
"0
M
0
-
i's W, 1
11"t, HIT
A In
" These cliaracteristics are not assessed in coastal streams,

K
ep- IIA9- ot5r
NC DWQ Stream Identification Farm Version 4.11
Date: /
Project/Site: eA
GAJ
Latitude: ��.�
dzk
o
Eva] uatr: r '�a� J
County:
114z
Longitude:
Total Paints:
Stream Ps of Intermittent
Stream Determination (cir }
Ephemeral Intermitter -11
Other
nni
If z Igor perennial if? 3 30"
0
er
e.g. Quad Name:
A. Geomorphology (Subtotal =
)
Absent Weak
Moderate
Strong
1"' Continuity of channel bed and bank
0
1
3
2. Sinuosity of channel along thalweg
0
1
3
3, In -channel structure: ex. riffle -poo(, step -pool,
0
d le- ool sequence
3
4. Particle size of stream substrate
0
1
3
5. Active/rOct floodplain
p
I
3
6, Depositional bars or benches
0
1
2
3
7, Recent alluvial deposits
0
2
3
S, Headcuts
0
1
2
9. Grade control
0
0.5
1.5
10. Natural valley
0
05
t5
11. Second or greater order channel
o 4 ,
Yes = 3
a artificial ditches are not rated; see discus 'ons in manual
B. H drolo (Subtotal= ( r
12. Presence of Baseflow
0
2
3
13. Iron oxidizing baclerla
0
1
3
14, Leaf litter
1.5
1
0
15. Sediment on plants or debris
0
0.5
1.6
16. Organic debris lines or piles
0
0.5
1,5
17. Soil -based evidence of high water table?
No = 0
es -
C. Biology Subtotal =
18. Fibrous roots in streambed
3
1
0
19. Rooted upland plants in streambed
3
Q
1
0
20. Macrobenthos (note diversity and abundance)
1
2
3
21, Aquatic Mollusks
1
2
- 3
22, Fish
1
1.5
23. Crayfish
0
0,
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, DBL = 1.5 Cit
'perennial streams may also be identlfled using other methods. See P. 35 of manual
Notes:
Sketch: --
-.....
r6x4wt.
J14A

[_AACCE AID# DWQ # Site # (indicate on attached map)
4,i,; STREAM QUALITY ASSESSMENT WORKSHEET A
Provide the following information for the stream reach under assessment:
1. Applicant's name: �/One-rl,2. Evaluator's narne: 3+ �0(ldea.l
3. Date of evaluation: _ �/ J r I;— 4, Time of evaluation: I LI 6 �r
5. Name of stream:
7. Approximate drainage area: 1J#!(r++
9. Length of reach evaluated:
6, River basin: CCA? i« 6 .2
S. Stream order:
10, County. CA b2
11. Site coordinates (if known): prefer in decirnal degrees. 12. 'Subdivision name (if any): 1u/4
r
Latitude (ex. 34.872312): tee_ C tppJ J2 viz Longitude (ex. --•77.55661 D} -- - �",c 6 P-( .44
Method location doterrained (circle): GP 'Popo Sheet Ortho (Aerial) PhotolGIS Other GIS Cather
13. Locatiop of reach under evaluar ra (ta nearby roads and landmarks and attach trap identifying streams) location);
14. Proposed channel work (if any): -
15. Recent weather conditions.yb d s , C6,-
16. Site conditions at rime of visit: 364 4---
17.
--
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 (1-M
18. Is there a pond or lake located upstream of the evaluation point? YES If yes, estimate the water surface area: -
14. Does chantrel appear on USGS quad map? YES 20. Does channel appear on USDA Soil Survey? YES
21. Estimated watershed land use: __°fo Residential % Commercial % Industrial °/n Agricultural
°r4 Forested �% Cleared J Logged % Other ( _ )
22. Bankfull width; `- 4� 23. Bank height (from bed to trap of bank): 3 -LI
24. Chantel slope down center of stream: Flat (0 to 2%) ,Gentle (2 to ala) 6)rSteep (31[1°l0)
25. Channel sinuosity: Straight XOccasional 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 forth used to evaluate each
reach, The total score assigned to a stream reach roust range between 0 and 100, with a scare of 100 representing a stream of the
highest duality.
Total Score (front reverse): 01 Comments:
Evaluator's Signature Date,I)
This channel evaluation for intended to be used only as a guide to assist landowners and environmental professionals in
gathering the data require 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 06103. To Comment, please. call 919-876-5441 x 26.

ACPL SAA - d i VS_
STREAM QUALITY ASSESSMENT WORKSHEET
" ; liese characteristics are not assessed in coastal sireams
is
&III 1_15
"To ............
Qj t i a
12 A
rmmaw 15PI.IMNIMI'M �Aicll_
lar w,�rs_Wo
4
la-'
,
MA&ai SI.
TIN' rf
wr
'g,
IN
all
ONE K, � - ; mul, I
MROA, IMS C.
. . . . . . . . . . _0 t
1I'
REMOMPA'.
I ME-`
��•'
g
ANN
WE
M .1
MAPf'A ME 'M
Mr
- - - - - - - 11MAti Iffill
ME,
16P
ME
WIN,
1
t I I I I I
Ims,
t4�10 bc KS ... .......
o cue
vwwli W,
r 00
;v
cTIN, W MUM -
11, mm, W
1_4
Yi
MW
7" VIIINIv 'I'll-wEll INVE
MI—NM M.
" ; liese characteristics are not assessed in coastal sireams

NC DW Stream Identification Form Version 4.11
Date: f
Project/Site: M-trA2,1 M
Latitude:
Evaluator: �' ,dJltt
County:
Longitude:
Total Points: Z4�
Stream Qete�.rninatic3?r circle one)
Other
Stream is at least' intermittent
if219or erennialif?30*
Ephemeral fntermitte Perennial
e.g. Quad Name:
A. Geomorphology (Subtotal= >At
Absent
Weak
Moderate
Strong
,a, Continuity of channel bed and bank_
0
1
2
3
2. Sinuosity of channel along thalweg
0
1
t7'
3
3. In -channel structure; ex. riffle -pool, step -pool,
ripple -pool sequence
0
1
1
3
4. Particle size of stream substrate
0
1
1
3
5. Active/relict floodplain
0
61
2
3
6. Depositional bars or benches
0
G)
2
3
7. Recent alluvial deposits
0
1
�
3
8. Headcuts
0
1
2
6)
9. Grade control
0
(13>
1
1.5
10. Natural valley
0
0.5
1.5
11. Second or greater order channel
No = 0
es =V3
Sketch:
artificial ditches are not rated; see discussions in manual
B. Hydrology (Subtotal = ]
12. Presence of Basedow
0
1
2
3
13. Iron oxidizing bacteria
"2'i
1
2
3
14. Leaf litter
1.5
1
t7'
0
15. Sediment on plants or debris
0
C0
1
1.5
16. Organic debris lines or piles
0
0.5
1
1.5
17. Soil -based evidence of 'high water table?
o = 0
Yes - 3
1.5
C. Biniogv (Subtotal = -75
18. Fibrous roots in streambed
3
1
0
19. Rooted upland ,plants in streambed
3
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
0.5
1
1.5
26. Wetland plants in streambed
F '
10.
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}
F1 ,�,; STREAM QUALITY ASSESSMENT WORKSHEET A40P
Provide the following information for the stream reach under assessment:
1. Applicant's name: nr 2. Evaluator's name: i J,vr
3. Date of evaluation: IZI 4. Time of evaluation:
5. Name of stream: sN ,v Ilk -6130 6. River basin: 0271-.)"4 t
7. Approximate drainage area: tr0V_hb.Al 1l 8. Stream order: j
9. Length of reach evaluated: r 00 +4 10. County:
11. Site coordinates (if known): prefer in decimal degrees. 12. Subdivision name (if any):
Latitude (ex, 34.872312): 50c 6 Pj r(1 tt Longitude (".-77.556(111): -!�,ee 6 0-1 dah
Method location determined (circle): GP T'opo Sheet Ortho (Aerial) Photo/GIS Other GIS Other
13. (vocation of reach under evalualierrInote nearby roads and landmarks and attach map identifying stream(s) location):
F1 Vv[ -
14. Proposed channel work (if any): h%A
15. Recent weather conditions: q() ' . ' (epi
16. Site conditions at time of visit: I W1 ' C (box
17. Identify any special waterway classifications Mown: _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 'i If yes, estimate the water surface area:
19. Does channel appear on USGS quad map? YES 61) 20. Does channel appear on USDA Soil Survey? YES
21. Estima ed watershed 1 nd use: d/n Residential % Commercial % Industrial % Agricultural
_afu Forested % Cleared 1 Logged i% Other (
22. Bankfull width: 14-6 C4- 23. Bank height (from bed to top of hank): `I
24. Channel slope down center of stream: Flat (0 to 2%) _Gentle (2 to 4%g) V Moderate (4 to 14%) —Steep (>10%)
25. Chantel 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 mast 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 reacbes 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. p f�
Total Score (from reverse): Comments:
Evaluator's Signature l 12, Date 1/-/m- 11
This channel evaluation for s intended to he used only as a guide to assist landowners and environmenkai professionals in
gathering the data required 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 USAGE approval and: does not imply a
particular mitigation ratio or requirement. Form subject to change— version 06103. To Comment, please call 919-876-8441 x 26.

� (-P- mw - 'q I
5' rexv1 JG/ 71
STREAM QUALITY ASSESSMENT WORKSHEET
* These characteristics are not assessed in coastal streams.
CHARACTERISTICS
ECOREGION POINT
—'d-mont
RANGE
SCORE
oastal
Cn
Mountain
Presence of flow / persistent pools in stream
0-5
0-4
0- 5
(no flow or saturation = 0; strong flow = max points)
2
Evidence of past human alteration
0-6
0-5
0-5
(extensive alteration = 0-, no alteration =rnax points)-
3
Riparian zone
0-6
0-4
0-5
-7
no buffer = 0; contiguous, wide buffer = max points)
4
Evidence of nutrient or chemical discharges
0-5
0-4
0-4
(extensive discharges = 0; no discharges = max points)
5
Groundwater discharge
0-3
0-4
0-4
(no discharge = 0; springs, seeps, wetlands, etc, = max points)
6
Presence of adjacent floodplain
0-4
0-4
0-2
fl
no floodplain = 0; extensive floodplain = max points)
7
Entrenchment / floodplain access
0-5
0-4
0-2
fdeeply entrenched = 0; frequent flooding = max points)
8
Presence of adjacent wetlands
(no wetlands = 0; large adjacent wetlands = max points)
0-6
0-4
0-2
9
Channel sinuosity
0-5
0-4
0-3
(extensive chaanclization = 0; natural meander = max oints)
I
10
Sediment input
0-5
0-4
0-4
(extensive deposition= 0; little or no sediment = max points)
I1
Size & diversity of channel bed substrate
A;1
0-4
0-5
(fine, homogenous = 0; large, diverse sizes = max points)
12
Evidence of channel incision or widening
0-5
0-4
0-5
(deeply incised = 0. stable bed & banks = max points)
13
Presence of major bank failures
0-5
0-5
0 5
(severe erosion = 0; no erosion, stable banks = max points)
14
Root depth and density on banks
0-3
0-4
0-5
no visible roots = 0; dense roots throuahout = max points) 1
15
Impact by agriculture, livestock, or timber production
0-5
0-4
0-5
(substantial impact =0; no evidence = max points)
16
Presence of riffle-pooFripple-pool complexes
0 — 3
0-5
0-6
1
(no riffles/ripples or pools= 0; well-develoned =max 2oints)
17
Habitat complexity
0-6
0-6
0-6
(little or no habitat = 0; frequent, varied habitats = max points)
18
Canopy coverage over streambed
0 -5
0-5
0-5
�4
(no shading vegetation = 0; continuous canopy = rn&x points)
19
Substrate embeddedness
-
0-4 I
0- 4
(deeply embedded = 0; loose structure = niax)
10
Presence of stream invertebrates (see page 4)
0-4
0-5
0-5
no evidence = 0; common, numerous tvpes = max points)
21
Presence of amphibians
0-4
0-4
0-4
(no evidence = 0; con -u -non, numerous qes = max points)
0
22
Presence of fish
0-4
0-4
0-4
(no evidence — 0; common, numerous types = max points)
23 Evidence of wildlife use 0-6 0-5 0-5
(no evidence = 0: abundant evidence= max points)
Total Points Possible 100 100
TOTAL SCORE (also enter on first page)
* These characteristics are not assessed in coastal streams.

NC DWQ Stream Identifieatioa Form Version 4.11
Date: -5 01
ProjecVS1te: bIniI � C �
� Latitude: �jAC
Evaluator: lir, ,
County: 7we;,
Longitude: 'r jA
Total Points:
Stream is atleast inter,774t'ent
Stream Determination (circle one)
Other
if a 19 or perennial ff a 30"
Ephemeral Intermittent Perennial
F
R
e d
�. �} rau Jam_
A. Geomorphology (Subtotal = i�f �� J
absent
Weak
' Moderate
Strong
is Continuity of channel bed and hank
0
1
j 2
15. Sedirnant on pEG :s or rteo-ls
2. Sinuosity of channel along thalweg
0
1
0 f�.5
g
3. In -channel structure: ex. riffle -pool, step -pmol,
d le-ocol sequence
0
Yes =�3�
2
3
4. Particle size of stream substrate
0
1
{
3
5. ActNelrelict floodplain
0
1
{ 2
61
E. Depositional bars or benches
0
26. Vletland plants in streambed
FACW = 0.75;
C9L = 1.5 Cther =A
7. Recent alluvial deposits
0
1
3
5. Headcuts
Q
3
0. Grade control
f].6
(fir
1,'
10. Natural valley
j 0
0.5
1
11, S econd or creater order channel
y
No - 0
Yes = 3
-artnclai citches are not rated; Seeei$CUssiCns in manual
S. H droit {Subtotal 2,5
! 12. Presence o` E-=seflow
Q 1
3
13. Iron ox?dizir- _`sra
Q
2 g
1
0
20. Macrcben:hos {note diversity and abundance) I4a2
15. Sedirnant on pEG :s or rteo-ls
0.5 1
72 I 1.5
16, Organic debris lines or pias
0 f�.5
t.5
17. Soli -based evidence or high water table'?
No = 0 1
Yes =�3�
G. Biology Subtotal =
18. Fibrous roots in streambed {
2
1 {
0
19. RoWed upland plants in streambed
2
1
0
20. Macrcben:hos {note diversity and abundance) I4a2
1
2
3
21. Aquatic Mollusks f
1
2
3
22. Fish ,
0.5
1 J
1.5
23. Craysisn
0.4
1
1.5
24. Amphibians I
0.5
1 {
1.5
25. Algae
0.5
1
1.5
26. Vletland plants in streambed
FACW = 0.75;
C9L = 1.5 Cther =A
'perennial streams may also be ider,tinad using other methods See p.35 of manual,
Notes:
Sketch:

USACE Ail]# ]7W(� # Site # (indicate nn attached map?
a] STREAM QUALITY ASSESSNI[ENT WORKSHEET AOP
Provide the following information for the stream reach under assessment:
1. Applicant's name: `' 2. Evaluator's name:
3. Date of evaluation: D,; n 1 b
5. Name of stream. Nin
7. Approximate drainage area: <
4, Length of reach evaluated: } t`y
11. Site coordinates (if known) : prefer in decimal degrees.
Latitude (ex. 34.87231):
4. Time of evaluation: 1 D5b
6. River basin:
8. Stream order:
10. County:Nl`t� •� 1�
12. Subdivision name (if any): f'4A
Longirude (ex. -77.556611): I'J
Method location determined (circie); P Topo Sheet Ortho (Aerial) PhatkvGIS Ober GIS Other
13. Location of reach tumder evaluation (note nearby roads and landmarks and attach map identifying stream(s) location):
14. Proposed channel work (if any):
15. Recent weather conditions:I)
16. Site conditions at time of visit: IN C r ro 1.
17. Identify any special waterway classifications known: _Section 10 _Tidal Waters _Essential Fisheries Habitat
Trout Waters _Outstandin Resource Waters � Nutrient Sensitive Waters Water Supply Watershed (I-I'v`)
18. Is there a pond or lake located upstream of the evaluation point? YES (9- If yes, estimate the water surface area:
19. Does channel appear on USGS quad map? ()'E NO 20. Does [panel appear on USDA Soil Survey? ,19 NO
21. Estimated watershed land usc: --% Residential --% Commercial _% Industrial �% Agricultural
/ °xia Forested ,°,U Cleared f bogged _% Other ( )
22. Bankfull width: ''' L 23. Batik height (from bed to top of bank): J !
24. Channel slope down center of stre:irn:Flat (0 to 2%*) f Gentle (2 to 41rp) Moderate (4 to 10%) Steep (> i 01rm)
25. Channel sinuosity; Straight _Occasional bends / Frequent meander _Very sinuous _Braided channel
Instructions for completion of worksheet (located on page 2): Begin by determining die 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 ccoregiun. Page 3 provides a brief description of how to review the
characteristics identified in the worksbect. 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 d 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): LoComments:
Evaluator's Signature
�l± Date CS.C�1 iS
This Channel evaluation foal[ is iutcnded to h se oat} as a guide to assist landowners and environmental professionals in
gathering the data required by the United S tes Arm) 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 e Version 06.103. To Comment, please call 919-876-8441 x 25.

STREAn3 QUALITY ASSESSMENT WORKSHEET
mss; p
f ba in str"' tf t7 4 CI
Pr
esenee of fiu'�v f p —
�_� 1
Milk
(tl� i1o:x_nr 1ku2 tto I = U4
`- j ---
Evidence ldence• of gaatit huulart alteration 6-- i_
x
at'-atln �(l noallot �uo,=nal l; i 0-
Lj(c\t n lxl t 0-4
k' arian zona
f�
t�f i f
bu
�atic'fael r' ndischarges
a pn 1�[1
lhideneeof11tttrient or ch.S-Vlax P�
4 r }; ndisch^r, :nts) —
l-
-
ttelidiscGhamr osx0 _4 0
D
ndwatersc
. `I
57 { Ti1O cllslilrz ();S rseLp', 4� Ltlankls, etc. = m ^ r pottt5l (,)-4 U ' t} J
Presence of adjacent {lalotiplLin
v (n,) flood�Ffte
li= 0: extensive floudpl linax oLnts) �` 0 -2
[)-_
saclanactat 1 floodltlain aeltss 5r -- 1117Y 411$ltti
ed - Ufult fl,odlu _ ente of adaacenk x+etlandsR _I'ca x `. lar_ c xdl lceui xvetlanciti nl �u rots} y 0 J T o - 3
Ch'Int) I sinunsaty 0
i Z���vv.. - �! - tTMX PE7lnts
'� {r, tCn`�1L'e C.la all.Ilel9Z tt:4�L7 t} a1 ltilrc n1t+llt�ft%r —-�----, —tl F l�, —
t Sediment inlaut j 0
l U --;
e tten;tt c ❑e i�sitican= 0; llttl� Ur no 3cdurnnt - t 1 e2;n[sl i y� (1- 0-5 Sut dLv ersth of channel he[l sulMti alt rti,
1 l F:
(tt�1uloze,16u = t]; large; tit�<r e sues= m x {�lr lris) 0-4 0 5
idence n r elaannel incision
4 j {dcc alti i� nc iseti - 0: stablq C �c b iril.� ^4oint,�
sZ I �i}u- 5 �majorb ank failurp -5 13 1 se`'t re crosi�n = 0; no ertasionst lhlc aauksints)ftoQt depth anddensit/' on banfi- 314 (no ti isihle routs = 0: dense roots tllrcru�llouints) -
0-5✓�15Impact Iagriculture, li.x cst+�el., ar tlrlil)t tir�n {� _ 5 U - , { slit t it[t1l lrr1 :lamno eyidencZ}
l — --G- 6
Presence of riffle-pool/ripple-pawl easaaplezes Il - ? 0 - S y
16( 31(.1 (31(.1 rifIlc.S,'n1)ples or polls -� fl; xxcil dc�•cll�tlecl � n1a&: Points)
r — Habitat complexity u _ {7 0- 6
17 (li(tle or no llabitat = 0, Frcqucnt. v, rie,d habimis -nit.; tln nts) --
Canopy coyerage over streamlx 1)•-
]8
1 �attl,r. e U e�llttinuclus c:stu�i •�' � tn.l:t 1o:lli,}
f nn s-aadin�ve,ct' --
r j - -- - - - Sari�stt a[e eilahetlslcrincs5 \=i+x+� it -1 0 -
_ al
_ -- ' _ t�i«p9y clrtirldtierl U loose stri.t�ttlrt.: A) ane Iu.x) I
Pe 1,cnc� tlt stream txx ca tchruttx p 7
— 5 4 G [i
t II —
i
I, t1V CV1itt.m:t —.0 tiOM1110Ia 111S 2 Cr u2 lr F'47 I11.�'I'uiirtaj _.. ---
r�' - PreSCncL of am hibi inti
LYl
(rltl ClCfl1 L' = i) Collin ail, I1 Li111�I't1afS t4l)e - max points)
Pr ewlice or f ull 21 2 �
( nu CVider.ce a cus rifles mapints) � �v
} Lvidencc of•wildlife rase 5
slhttrnlyin( c t icictx_ r = ma_ points) -----' - --
- — '1 ntal Yrlfnl� 1'nwil�lt• � 1(nk I , lfldr - � - � 1{lfl
T[11Afi .SCT} . ( if5t llttil t+II ftl 't i),. I �)
11'e Characteristics are not assessed in coastal stwarn5.

NC DWO Strearn Identification Form Version 4.11
Date: uL(. --Ile-) t%
Project/Sita: "jxx-S LY•rrl; L ��
Latitude: NA
Evaluator: 1cp H
County: N -F-1 >--1
Longitude: N,4
Total Paints:
Stream is at leasrintermittent
Stream Determination (circle one)
Other
ifa 19 or perennial if? 30-
Ephemeral intermittent Perennial
P
e. Quad Name:
A. Geornorphdo {Subtotal j
Absent
Weak
Moderate
Strong
12 Co.n'inuity of channel bed and bank
0
1
2
15. Sedirne.ntan plants or debris
2. Slnuosity d chanr16 along thalweg
0
1
2
3
3. in -channel structure: ex. riffle -poral. step -pool,
ripple -pool sevruence
0
1
_
3
3
4. Particle size of stream substrate
0
1
2
3
5. Active/relict foodplain
0
1
2
3
6. Dspositianai bars or benches
[ 0
1
3
T Recent alluvial deposlts
0
,
j 2
3
E. Headcuts
0
1
f 2
tither methods. See p. z5 of manual.
G. Grade control
0
0.5
Notes:
+ 5
10. Natural valley
0
0.5
1.5
11. Second or greater order Channel
Nc = 0
Yes = 3
/
i
i
-arurCial ditctles are notrated; see G'i: cuW ions in manual
B. Hvdrelaaa lSubtotal =
12. 'Presence of Baseliow
0 1
j2 3
13. Iron oxidizing bacteria
0� 1
f 3
141 LI'Ci ' tter �-
h -1.5 ��
p
V.5 0
15. Sedirne.ntan plants or debris
-
0 0.
1 1.5
16. Organic debris lines or pilas
0 B -P
1.5
17. Soil -based evidence of high water table"
I No = 0
Yes zl3
U. b1clogy (Subtotal = _ � )
y' 18. Fibrous roots in streambed
3
(
1
0
19. Rooted up'and plants in strearnbed
2
1
4
20. Macrobenthos (note diversltyand abundance)
1
2
3
21. Aquatic Mollusks
1
2
_
3
22. Fish
0.5
1
1.5
23. CrGyllsh
0.5
1
1.5
2. Amphibians
'
0.5
25. Algae
0.5
26. Wetland plants in streambed
FAUN = 0.75, OSL = 1.0 COther
'perennial streams rnay also be iden tided using
tither methods. See p. z5 of manual.
Notes:
Sketch:
/
i
i

LFSACE AIDS rJWQ # Site » (indicate on attached map)
STREAM QUALITY ASSESSMENT WORKSHEET
Provide the following information for the stream reach underassessment'.
1. Applicant's name: 2. ,Evaluator's name_'_ "!
3. Date of evaluation: Dt7 ' i 4. Time of evaluation:
5. Name of stream: t�JA 6. River basin:.
7. Approximate drainage area: `- f `' f 8. Stream order: 1}
9. Length of reach evaluated: t
11. Site coordinates (if known): prefer in decimal degrees.
Latitude (ex. 34.872312);
10. County: KevJ-tr-!1 V2
12. Subdivision name (ifany): NA
Longitude (ex. -77,556611
Method location determined (circle). i�ii) Topo Sheet Ortho (Aerial) PhotDIGIS Other GIS Other
13. Location of reach tinder evaluation (note nearby roads and landmarks and attach map identifying stream(s) location):
14. Proposed channel work (if any): N
15. Recent weather conditions: ) r'-
16, Site conditions at time of visit: tJ 0r,t
17. Identify any special waterway classifications known: ,Section 10 Nidal 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 map? YES '91�) 20. Does ebaimel appear on USDA Soil Survey? YES NO
21. Estimated watershed land use. _% Residential __t'/o Commercial i% Industrial !1/n Agricultural
% Forested % Cleared 1 Logged i°fi Other
22, Bankfull width: f - 23, Bank height (from bed to top of bank): K
24. Channel slope down center of stream: ,Flat (0 to 2%) Gentle (2 to 4%) „Moderate (4 to 10%) .,Steep (>I 0%)
25. Channel sinuosity: Straight __v' 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 sante ecoregion. Assign points
to each characteristic within the range shaven 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 104, with a score of 104 representing a stream of the
highest quality.
Total Score (from reverse): Comments
Evaluator's Signature Date
This channel evaluation form is intended to 4& 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 USAGE approval and does not imply a
particular mitigation ratio or requirement. Form subject to change — version 46103. To Corrunem, please call 919-876-8441 x 26.

STREAM QUALITY ASSESSMENT WORKSHEET
^,'�� �aSFMl4t-iK+.i fT-e.�flKN�+.�"+ �v'S;?:i� C _'zes'i�4.-.1• LF,"Wr S •I ��'li`L.''�7i1`,��`3'p
y.,tCdr6�Unt on illrl
" Presence ref floys� l.pertirwtr ni pails in strcan,
�.
1110 fl0'rx . ur s ituratibn 0; SiS, f t7iy' = ina� !aint 1
m__�
Evidence of -p ast huiiian alteration - -- --
--IGxtcn�tl, i, altCrition - {i ilif alwr.i !t1I1 1111A Point")
-- Riparian ,zone
_vuft�i-C; �cni; (nn Otis, wide
buffer. max points)
Cv idciiceof nut, int or cfletrrrtal rlisch:ir" cs --
I Semeilsive discharus 0, nodt�cit gyr es agaaxpcainttij 0 _ y - 0- 0-4
Grom16N.ater discharge
�' �. a-3 f 0-4 0-4 .
(nu discl,arr�c Ci; spnni;s, aectls, t=+c,Ll tn::s, etc. =max uints)
Presence of ndlacent floodplain
(no floodplain= 0,- exteive. tlooclplftin --max points] 0 - C1- 0 _?
tle
' Entrenchment l floodplair, access
7 0-5 0 4 t}- 2
(deeply eiltiencacd O; frequent fli,,tdin + = Max points}
Presence of adjacent we tlnnds 0 -6 fJ - ,1 0 - 2
(no vvotIands = Cy lsri e . !' max pc intsl
C1ia1111:l sirt!irosii� - -
(extensivc uhaiiaclizatiun - 0, natural meander = iIjiYx l u,nt: U - Cl - 4 i1 3
Sediment input
input I ..
14 0, little or � 7 - 0-4 ? - 4sE- uintsfextcl ,
n8 I l Size &, diversify of channel her] substrate
" `?l (fine, hoii gcnoils = 0; fad ; di G!sc sizes = nl»x pints)
I`vide nce of chanitvI incisuan or vyidvning F
{deeply incised 0- stable bed &- b i;aks max points}
' Presence of major b ink failures
13. _4 5 .
t (s -ever eerosion - 4 no erosion st tb.c bans tna: x }quints)
14 !toot depth :incl density on 1)anl s -- —
(no x'isi)ie rants •r
= 4; dense roots thioullc,!at = max puruts) -3 0'4
I S Imp;sct by agriculture, livestock, or thriller production � -; �—
D-Y 0-5
_&tsf (substantial irrlpact =4, no eviden�c = illi.) lauints`)
Presence of riffle-poral/ripple-pool cuiuplexes
lG /, 0-`i t?-� 0-6
� (no riffles/ripples or pools = (}; yvell cleve]npccl _max points)
]' Habitat Complexity i
(little or no habitat= 0; frequent, varied habitats = max points)
0 6 ii -C, 0-6
Canopy coveraa over strenrhedlb
x poirl,S)I {ri7 il13�1n_' yC et3t4lC=c4L[iIlUCIS Cirlop4—lila(r flj ]_-5
L
+ Substa:ate Cinbeddcdn sti
19 _ 3e0* —. Ct = t.l -4
_ - (dc.ep!v emb dJCd - 4. liaise Structuit ---
`I fl f'rescncc of stream invertebrates (tir pa c 4)
•
(n) cvidancc' (1: CQ aaI7;CsIr numeinu.s ivpc, mak
. Presence of unihibians�1 f I.
4
12 I2
ro, Presence of frsla�
Ont' evicitncc = i!; ,..Cmt- non ntill 1Crti1nS ti rC PC) j
,3 F:v[ilenret,fvtiildlifeuse
flci �' icirnr.c - I}
Int;rl l`uint. 14,+silrle IS)U 100
r� fll•.LI, 4('t}ltl {ttEca Lntir r-�tl ttri lr;!� r•} '
* These characteristics are not assessed in coastal szrca;r.=.
rel
-71
�-

NC D` O Strum Identification Form Version 4.11
Date: Dti sic'. l S
Project/Site: A,)
Latitude: i j ^>
Evaluator:
County: tiJ�. ,-,
Longitude;!
Total Points:
Stream Determination (circle one)
Other
Stream is at leas,' irtermitte.;t 2(p
Ephemeral Intermittent Perennial
p
e. +0i1adNarrie:
if? 19 cr verennial rf a, 30'
2
3
A. Georrlarphola (Subtotal=
Absent
Weak
Moderate
Strong
1a Continuity of channel bed and bank
0
1IV
Lr f' t-.er
3
2. Sinuosity of channel along thaNveg
0
15. uedirnent on plants or deb :s
2
3
3. In -channel structure: ex. rifle -pool, step -pool,
ri le- ool sequence
j 0
I
,1 2
�!
2
3
4. Particle Size of stream Sut;57ate
0
No = 0
2
3
5. Activelrelictfoodplain
0
1
2
0.5
6, Depositional bars or benches
0
1i'
2
3
7. Recent alluvial deposits
0
1
3
S. Headcuts
42
2
3
9, Grade control
0
0.5
f:
1.5
10. Natural valley
j 0
0 5
1.5
11. Second or creator order channel
NO
Yes = 3
`artificial ditches are not rated; se= discussions in manual
B. Hydro loev f S+u btotal
12. Presence of Baseflow
0
(
2 3
13. Iron oxidizing bacteria
0
i
3
Lr f' t-.er
1
2
3
15. uedirnent on plants or deb :s
n
4,5
1.5
_�`
1+3. Organic debris lines or p; es
0.5
05
1 1.5
- -
17. Soil -based evidence of high vra!e, tables
i
No = 0
Yes 3
C. Biolclov fSuhtntnl = 1
0.5
1
1.5
18. Fibrous rccts In st-eambed 3
L/�v
I 1 I
G
19. Rooted up:and plants in streambed 3 4
2
1
G
20. I` iacrobenthos {nate diversity and at ur.dancel
1
2
3
21. Aquatic Mollusks
1
2
3
22. Fish
0.5
i
1.5
23, Crayfish
0 5
1
1.5
24. Amphiibiaris -
0.5
1
1.5
25. Algae
0.5
1
1.0-
.526.
26.Wetland plants in streambed I
FACW = 0.75:
05L = 1.5 Other
'perennial streams may also Fie identified using ott^eF r;et+ods. See p �3 of manual
Nukes:
Sketch:
i. T Y

USAGE AID#,
DWQ t
Site # (indicate on attached map)
STREAM QUALITY ASSESSMENT WORKSHEET
M Z-.-:AQ-p
Provide the following information for the stream reach under assessment: I
1. Applicant's name:
3. Date of evaluation:,''
5. Name of stream:, N A -
7. Approximate drainage area:
9° Length ofreach evaluated:
11. Site coordinates (if known); prefer in decimal degrees
Latitude (ex, 34.872313);
2. Evaluator's name: Win` `'"tel'
4, Time of evaluation: {-7 L --q>
6. River
S. Stream order:
10, County:�'��-�r
12° Subdivision name (if any):
Longitude (ex. -7 7.55661 1): 1")A
Method location detc,-=fined (circle):S Topo Sheet Ortho (Aerial) FhotolGIS Other GIS Other
13. Location of reach under evaluati(note nearby roads and landmarks and attach map identifying stream(s) location):
14. Proposed channel work (if any); ---L
1.5. Recent weather conditions: -- --I
!
16. Site conditions at time of
17. Identify any special waterway classifications known:Section 10 „Tidal WatersEssential Fisheries Habitat
_Trout Waters _Outstanding Resource Waters , Nutrient Sensitive Waters !Water Supply Watershed (I-I'v7
18. Is there a pared or lake located upstream of the evaluation point? YES 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 NO
21. Estimated watershed land use: ____°/a Residential ��a Commercial �OK Industrial _ _°✓a Agricultural
% Forested °fo Cleared I Lodged ,ora Other
22. Bankfull width;
24. Channel slope down center of stream: —flat (0 to 2%) Gentle (2 to 4a/o) Moderate (4 to 10%) .Steep (>10%)
25. Channel sinuosity Straight % Occasional bends Frequent meander ,Very sinuous _Braided channel
-- I . °; 23. Hank height (from bed to top of bank); `- L> 5 r
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 haw 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 conditioma, enter 4 in the scoring box and provide an explanation in the
comment section. Where there are obvious changes in the character of a stream under review {e.r., 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 been 0 and 100, with a score of 100 representing a stream of the
highest quality.
Total Score (from reverse): Comments
Evaluator's Signature Bate yy
This channel evaluation form is intetltlt d to be se my as a guide to Bassist landowners acid environmental professionals in
gathering the data required by the United States Artrty Carps 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 914-876-8441 x 26.

��ic��'Sl.ca.11
STREAM QUALITY ASSESSMENT WORKSHEET
r _T7..
LSA
1 Presence of Voir 1 persistent pools In treant 1
> (ia4) C14 477 Salura 1i6n 0 SLnron i10w In3.l' l7ointsl j !) _. S 5 -7
E'V idence of past human .alter aril;n
q (extcn nc a?tst lhnn = ti ni) 1[cr Itiiiil a]:a {ro:ni ) I) { - 1
I. rr
Riparian zone — - --- `�
{na butyl = 0; centi'IIOUS ,yiilc buf.#'e: = nn:Ix lioitatsi E' - 1 C}
R ' Evidence of nulricart—nr clterilacal tlrsch.ir-g; .s _ -- -
ry
w (extensi� c Giisch'*rar s (}. [1 -_ ' C1 - 0-4
I10 dt,ch�l� �c� maz pc)itjtsl
i
- -
GI,"oti., iter discharot ,
'R (n() ellscllar e '- {1' t --�,
}�rin s, a cps, iGctl antes, etc. = rZ7 tx lae;oi,:) ' 0'-'p 0
-4
->
-� I
Presence of.idjaccnt floodpl iiri
no flotad laia7 = fJ eVensive floodplain = max prints) 0-4 . � 0 -4 0-2
Entrenchrnent 1 floodplain access -
�• (4ieeply etlticnc;lz ci 0; frequent flc,cxlin, = m:ax ptinls) 0 - � U 4 t} -
8 I'resrnce tit'' adjacent ar�etlan&
�?I 0-6 0 -1 0 2
fno wetlands` = 0 lark add l cit �� tlailds max points}
c-} ` Clianncl sinuaslt;�•
(exteusisc 11WlaxleIi : )[t [], natural meander = 111.11 _( tc) (1 - 5 0 1 U - I
-
_
Sediment input
tenr4e czp�SiiolUlitler,r nI exetma%puats) a
Size c --- v
11 ' rlirersi of t: cannel bed ul�,trcttc
!fine, hoinac Mous Ola, c. ellwcl c s[Lt5 -max intsj
�'A� 0--5
+� 12 r idence of channel incision ()I• rticli ictal
l _ I} 0,.4 0.5
{deep! incised 0, stable lacca & banks = max paints} �
'.' _
13 Prrscrace of major bank, f'rilurc3 � 0-5--
C (severe erosinta -=0, no ero¢ion stub h uLt s nlax pnttlts 0 5 0 -- 5
l l Rona depth and &nsih on !lana
{nt �Jsiblc r,c,ts = 0, do se roots tailou_1,t"11, = max points I)- 3 0-4 {}
l5 Imp:ict by agriculture, liVCStDC , or timber produetiott
Lf
U-5 -: -i
{siibstatatial inaptict =0:iau evidence = to i)
,x c7'M0--5
Lts)�
1 fi Presence of rifi7e-poolJripplt pariE eratltplexcs,
(no riffles ripples or pools = 0; well-[icvcic ped = riaax t7irtsl 0-3 � ` 5 U - 6 �
- , -- llabifat c4alplexity U ( R�--
Oittl,, or no habitat -- 0; freciuent varied habitats Iua i ptlilits} i i 0 - 6 � . 0 - 6
- F� Canopy coverage oi er strt alnbed i
--- --i. 7 S}1dtl1P,? veneta-,ion — f); +✓t]tltllliti L 3 e�,i_>�l'r�—Pn 1.1 pUlll[y} - {, , -
19lii1]tC:ite L'IIII)edtledr]eS5
i -- Ideehlr cmbcddct. = C}, lurasc �;IILMt: =Tatar NA ? � 0- ` I 0 4
t) Presence of strc Iii lntici tel)r ries fti t' lac 4)
�•. lll� L 4lefl e -
C}; t. C,ra 1lnOIl I... Cre7i w [L j7iti F11.,:?,.f713 ant$} t7 {) - 5, I}
r esence of .Imp'lllhi ins
!} Y I1
,- Int c ltle:acc —(j: cc�mn:ola, trurnchutl5 tG'7c5 - n:ax ?o!u[s) `I
�-^ ,: � • Presence of
(no cv Idcntt I1 cnaltniJn 111 1I'rut s t})*e�; ala : uir,[s3
1}- 4
2" E's Wk,lice of 1> it
.-
_ -
lotai Pniltt I'rFsil7le Ii(1 if}ii
� ,!fail ,
*These characteristics are not assessed in coastal strcaml .
2

NC DWIO Stxlelam Identificlaticln Fom Veirsion 4.11 V -c
Datel:
Prcijelctlaiile:/V ,
daV �p r�td Fl
L21ftuce:
l3vailuator: GI
Courty:
LongitLce:
(
1
1�
7c11a1Roinils:
Stieaim0ciUrimiratfcnilclrcllelonel)
ON
Stream is pere east l h --a 3iiieinai
if? 119 cir erennial ii ? 30`� o -
Eph emewal Iriieirrmiitteni Rerenrllal
ei.g. Quao Namer
A. Geomorphology (Sub clef = lr9, 6-)
Absent
Weak
N cic urate
S-Ircirg
1" Ccriiiriuity al charnel ted and bank
(
1
1�
3
2. Sinucsiity of cHar fief alcng thalweg
(
12
0.5
3
.1. In -channel siruclurE: EIX riffle -gaol, step -gaol,
ripple -pool se uenaEi
C
1
2
3
4. Particle :Ziac of sirEem si bstualE
C
(0.5)
1
3
EI. A(rtiti e, rEilici f aoc plc in
C1j
Nc =0
�I
3
EL Depositional bars ofi benchEia
Cl
216. WEItl<'nc glenis in aiuearnbei<
3
. Reic earl alluvia I deposits
CO)
1
"1
3
E. I-Eacculs
C
12
3
9. C fiat ei cani rol
Cl.5
SkEltc 1-
1
'.5
10. atu nal valley
0
(1.5
1
'.5
11.: e cc nc on greater one E r channel
I, c = 0
Yes = 3
Zirbiiciai diicnes arEi not paled; scie discussions in rnalual
E. Hvc roloav (Su In ata I = t-1
1
'12. RfiesencEi of Bc'Iu40o�A
C
1
2
3
'13. Iron c)(!( icing baiciE ria
' C
1
21
3
'14. LEalf littEin
1.51
T. Aquatic Mollusks
0.5
0
'15. Sec inlEir l an plants ar del: nis
C
0.5
1
1.5
-16. Organic dEibnis IinEs c n piles
CI
(0.5)
1
'.5
'17. Saike[a Ec Evidence of hiclh waiefi leblEa'
C1.5 .1
Nc =0
Yes
C
(_ . t loloav (Su 1:1a ail = :13 1
'18. Rib nous fiocis in sineanibE c
3
2
0
'19. Rcoiec upla nd G lanis in stieembec
.`�
2 1
0
210. MacratenIhc s (note diveisit�l and abi. ndanae)
0,
a
3
T. Aquatic Mollusks
C
a
3
32. I'kil-
0
0.5 .1
1.5
213. Crayfish
CI
(w,0.5
1.5
214. Amphit fans
(; `0
C1.5 .1
1.5
215. AlgaEi
C
C1.5
1.5
216. WEItl<'nc glenis in aiuearnbei<
FACW = 0.75; O9L = 1.5 Otheu 0
'perennial sti eams may also be !der (fled using otter mett ods. See p. 3:1 a manual.
N CltEl9:
SkEltc 1-

511AC D AID# E W� I Al� �_ite Al 4' (Itnchcal9 art alttacHec map)
M
STRBAM QUAIL ITYASISEcSNIEI EWCRKS1E-A
Provide thea fbIlawirlg inikirmaticin fair tl a stil cam rex oh under assessmia nit:
1. Applicant's name: :I. Eh alt' altor's nama:
it
3. Dane cif evaluation: J, '%F = i a `rt . Tirrie of ava.ual'or: c,:,
5. Name of I stream:_ (.:I /',1 ` i (. River H asinr
7. Ar praxirr ate drair eagle ai ea:
9. Length aflteacl e,,ialuatec:
l L Title coardiiniaie: ("fllmc wrl;: prefer in decin a 1 degreaa
Latftuc e flax. 3x.8'1', 312):
FI. Stream orcer:
10. Caunty:
13. E ul: divisiari name (if arty;:
Ilongituda (ax. -'17.'196611):®
Methoc lacatian delermir ad ( circ la): GFS Tc p Sheel Clrtha i[Aar al; I hoto, CQS Clthen GIS Ott er
131. Lacaiticn of i eai undler evah ati on (note neaiii toads and l an&. atkd anic a trach miapl idemfying stream(i,' Ic cation;:
14. h or osed c hanriel vvionk (if ar. Y: N6
1z.Recertweatharoand'tion9: C
16. E ii a car ditiom at -lime of visit:
11. ]Identify any sreoia Aatemq cJassificaticinikdcwr: _Sectictn 10 _Tidal Wal ers _Ill Iisherie3Habitt
_Trawl Waltars _Oulslanc'ng ResourceWarters Nuitrfenrd 9en,lil:iveWaters _ _Water 'Supply Wal ershed J'I-1V)
18. ]Is there a plorid an lake Iocaled tpiti t air of tl e evaluatfar plaint? YEIS No 1113 as, estimate the waiter ;lurfaae ajaa:
19. Does ahanneil aplpear on LIEGE quiad marl? Iia I` Cl 20. Bae9 channe"I aplrIc a>t or U.IDA Soi] Survey,? YFIS 1` C
'11.E9titraied weitershed I and wia: �°/c ResicenIial _a/o Commenuial _°/c Industria" _%Agricuilttiral
'd o/c Forested _a/o CIeaned�lLcgged _o/c O11he: I
:13. Bankful.1 wkth: 231. BankEcigHt I1from bed to 11orl of Hank;:
N. CHannel silall le cown cenlerofstream: _1131 (1010:1c/) -4-Gentlt (1,110 4'/0; Moderale (14 to 10%' _,IIteep (-,I 01/o'
.15 . CH ane I situ: cosi ty: S traigH t _C l casi c n al b e nc s _Frequ er t ma arc er —y t ry sinu ons _Bnaidec channel
Insiruatians for comp"Wor of worklbeet illocatod cn page :,: Begin EN ceterminira the mast aplprclllr'ate ecoregior based ori
acaticn, ieniais, veglatation, stream clasiificaition, tic. Every cHataclenslia must be scored uiirig tha same ecoregliori. Assign points
la each characicr.al Nith'r the naniga shown fcr the econfgion. Aage 3 plrovkes a brief de,icriplticm afl Haw to review the
characteristics ;idertified it the woiclheetl. 1 cares A(u.ld reflect an mitral assessnerl of the ,itieain reach under evalualiori. :Ifla
characteristic cannai be evaluiaited cue to site or weatler corlditians, ertetu 0 in t1e scoring Hc)- and piwiide an axrl analion iri the
coo mart se ctian. Where tl are atie abviious changes in the cliaracler of a strearn unc ar neview (e.g., the stleam f avis frons a plaitme
inlo a-farest;, the stream may be CA( ed rota smaller reaches that displla) mare cardituity, anc a separala forma used la evali to eaah
reach. Tle tata"I scone ass:igred to a stream ieaah musi range between 0 avid 100, with a scatie of IN replreaentinig a stream of the
highest qua ity.
Tota: 9a eire 1prom reverse': C c mment;i
Bvoilu altar's Sisnailure A l�, � �'1 "All f Tlaile
Thai: channel e,%alluat'ani form is iniiencladl 1( be used cn:y as o Iguide to assist landlownars andl environme talprofevionals in
catHerinn 1he claita required) 1) the Unitidl States Arm} Corpls of f1r.opnoars ie miake a preliminary as,cssmenl of sheam
quality. Tl a total] scaro resultfng from the ccirin icm of this Ecom is sul]'ect to _USACB ap,Iproii aid coe; not imply) a
1 arecu lair mitidatian ratio or reqs iremenl. Form iullje ct la change —ve ns:ioni 06103. lo Comrrieml, please call 9 9-876••8441 x 26.

SIRE IAM QUAL] TY A SSES S NH N 11 WORKSHEET
* TEmc characteristics are not as! eu( d in coasuI streams,
J

NC E Wn Stream Identif cation florm VErsiou 4.11 P3.iv
DE ter. � �
�✓
Projuatl.liile: / ^-r"`G
�� t�
LEtitEd(i:
EMilt a tcur
Caur iy:
Lar gltL c e:
Tolled Paints:
Stuearr Deiteulmineiiior I1circleorie)
Ciheul
51tream is at deasd irA nnitter,il
Epfleimcival Ir icuirr it eir 1 Reireinnial
e.g. Quad Name:
hit - 119 cir perennial if >_ ::0"
2
3
A. GEIOfilc rph olo (SL t tatd = Pi, - )
At Eient
Weak
M oc ciliate
Strang
'1 a. Clc niinL ity C`1 channel ted and bank
0
1
(2)
3
a. Sinuosity a-1 channE I along thalweg
0
D
2
3
3. In -channel slnuciwie: er. nifflei-PCol, stEip-Paul,
ripple -pool sequence
0
L�
2
3
4. Flarticle size c- siream subsiraie
(
O.E
11
3
9. AclIN a, rElliai floodplain
0
'1
11
3
EI. Deposiiianal t ars un bEincheis
0
1
2
3
71. REICElni alluvial deposiis
CO)
1
2
3
8. HEiadau is
0
1
OBL = '1.5 0 hEln
3
9. Gra( E coninal
0
0.5
1
'I."
'I C. Nai u nal valley
0
O.E
Cib
'I."
'11. SEiacmc c ri gneatEr c ndeiichannEil
�
YEs =
SkE tc h:
artifl< tai ditches ai a not naiec1; see discussions 1n manual
R Hvrirnlnnv (Siihinsd-
1
-I. PrEISeinCIEI of BasEfkiuv
0
1
t3
3
'I 3. Irc n c Nk izing bacdEOEI
1
2
3
'I . U eafl IittEin
.E
1
0.E
0
1E. SEICImont an plants on dEltlli9
0
0.5
I
'1.5
'16. Organic dEibris linEIS ar piles
0
O.E
0
1.5
'17. Sail--li asEid E videncEi all I igh waiEin iablo i
0
Na = 0
YES 3
1.5
C Bic Innv (SuF in al = _ 1
'18. Fit nous noats in sine arribEid
3
1141
Cl)
0
'19. RactEid upland plants in sinEiarnbEid
1141
1
0
30. Macriat enihos (note diversity and abundance)
Cl)
1
2
3
a1. Aquatic NcINsks
0D
1
2
3
M. Fish
0
(.0.5
1
1.5
a,l. Crayfish
0
0.5
1
1.5
214. Amphibians
000.5
'1.5
.31. Algae
CO)
O.E
I
'1.5
36. "ei land planis in sireambec
RAC" = (1.71, ;
OBL = '1.5 0 hEln
*perennial screams may also t e identified using atter melhads. SeEi p. 35 at manual
NatE:I:
SkE tc h:

..,1 SACE AID# DWC # Elile.# < lir,cicala oriattactlec. rrap,
„®,i STREAM QUA A,'; ,; , SMINT WORKSHEET -�-
Providle th a fallawinig information for the stream reg ch ur dler assessmeni:
1. AFff Ucant's name: � �� 1, b h' ((�f 3. Eva] ualoi's c ame:
?I. E age cif evaluation: 0J c Fa �i% �� 4. Time of evalual:iorr.
5. Nama of smear: (..t, 6. Riva basin:
7. AFII i axiin ite di air age arear E. Sltileam order:.
%Length of reach eva:uadad:
11. Site caarcinates (if lknown): prefer in decimal degrees
Lattude (lex.3�.872312):
10. Courity;
1:1. Subl division name (if any:
Lori gitu de (ex.—17.:1s601):_
Method lacatforidatErmiued (ahcla): G11,1 TopoSbeel Clrti( IlAerial' PljotaAGIS Othei GIS Otter
131. Ilacaitian of reach under eN alt ation Qnol e nearl: y i oac s ar d 1 andmanks and attach mail is entlfyirlg stream(s) loa at ion;
14, f raposed channea wioik Ilif any,: /V
15. Recent weether coridilior a: / Y ='t 'v on G�
16. Site caniditions at Ikrie oflvi9:1: <��' /0 z,� 4, r`.�i ' `r" N-1
0.1dentfy any special waterway classiflaatorskrown: _lection 1(I _Tidal Waters _Essentia. Fisheries Hat it, t
_Trou:WlaiQTS _Cutsiancir- MesouraeWaters _NutrientSersitiveWaters �WaterSuyjINWagarshec
18. Is there ai F orad or lake 1 ocal ed upstream of the eve uatl ion F air t? YEFI¢I NO) If yes, estimal e the wate surface area:
19. Does channel aFl ear on USG: cluac mal ? YE,NC ."10. Does channel apl ear an L SDA Soil Sun ay? YESI NC
21.Estirraded wateishec lard use: _°/. Residential _%a Comn iaia: °/a Industria _°ia Agrictllh:ra
_%Iloaestec �°/ Cleared ILoggec _°/a Other
22. Bankfi 11 wkth: s"13. Bank height ifrom Ilk to top of tank):
24. Channel slope c own center of stream: _Flat (0 tai %; Gertle (1:1 to 4°7a) _ / oc erale lI4 to 10%; _ Sleap (>l Cl'/a)
25. Channel sinuiosity: Straiglhl Occasional bends _Freduertmeandeii _Verysinuums _Braided channel
Instructicns for comp:atfon of worksheet (11(c2ted on rage ."1): Begin by delermining the mos:l appropriate econgion teased on
lacatior, ternair, vecletation, staleatr clamifl(atfor, eta. Every cbaiauteristic must he,icorec using Ille same eaoregion. Assign poirl:
to each characteristic withir.i the range shown fbti the ecoiegior. Page I llpaVd.es ai brief) description of howi to renew the
characteristics identified in the work�baet. 'I(ore,i shatilc reflect an overall assessment aflthe stream ieaah undeii eualuatiori. If a
characteristic cannot Ile evahated dte to :its on weather aarditions, er.tei (I in tle scoring hex avid provide ar explaratiarn in the
cammertt section. - Where tt ere are allv'ous ahanges it tl a character of a strearr raider review 114.%, the stileam f aws fi on a Flastuie
inta a foresf, , the stream may be di -,iced into smaullt ti leaches that disp ay mane continuity, and a saparartef6nri used to evaluate each
reeiah. Tt (j tata. score assignt d to a stream reach lru: t range b etweer. Cl ar d 100, with a score of 1 OCI rapreseniilino a stream of the
highest qualityj.
Total `care I1from reverse): a'`„ Comment;
4 �
I valuator's Signature Date
This charruel evaluiaitiem foin ':i intended to 1 e usedl onuly as 21 guide to avid landasvnar: and environnofital professional; 'n
gates err n g tt a darts required h y 1Ih e Ur ftl a dl State:i Army Corps of Er &eers to maA e a I 1 el irisin ar3 w se! smend of stream
quadityj. The total score resultinn from the completion of tlh's fora is :ubjectl to USACE aiplroval arid 6e! not imp:y a
pairticular mitigation ratio or requiremenutl. Ilom subject to change—vensiarii Q(/10=1. To Comment, l lease call 919-8',16-844'1 x:16.

Y
,-TREAM QLALITY ASSESS N11 WORKSHEET
*These ct araderistics are not assessed in coas to stream!.

APPENDIX C
PHOTOGRAPHIC LOG

Amec Foster Wheeler Project No. 7810150299
June 10, 2015
Site Photographs
Marshall Steam Station
Catawba County, NC
jj Photograph No. 2 Remarks
f ,a
• View of Wetland
B, facing south
(1/7/2015).
i

_ •r< R -z
4 t R E f
Ir• � � ,' � �'rt�y�JAll
r
Y 4 "
. 'Ie
j
M ,
-'1
MJL
��'A
. 'Ie
j
M ,
ti,. a y,�+Td►��,
Rry .Lc ".r $��
��'A
' t
f..
/,.
. 'Ie
j
M ,

Amec Foster Wheeler Project No. 7810150299 Site Photographs
June 10, 2015 Marshall Steam Station
Catawba County, NC
Photograph
View of Wetland
E, facing south4
3

ri, PP
IMPT
Sk� ti!� '+ � � 'f } 941 �I� 4 � �y � S }n�• 4 k 5' }1
7r, \
YN
r
t I +� * � �#i � 7 ' y 5� i r t�•
_ n 1\� 5^�'i`''�'�S •i' e1pi �p� j`y', � A - '� Y6
4 ,i rF'i i�1T vc

CAI �Vr

Air
w7—
Ilk
CA
Ar
Ai
733
w,
All.
7b
5

Amec Foster Wheeler Project No. 7810150299 Site Photographs
June 10, 2015 Marshall Steam Station
Catawba County, NC
Photograph No.
ViewofWetland
facingsouth
�g
I.� ]
7 qy ,
NI
9
ryY 'i
�.!"�
�k u
7

k� w �:
x�
r
a

F
lop
IR
§
R..
- r H �� .. 4 •a � +. � ' Tei• ' I.�, ���. ..
x
�.
.ar _ _ . ,..L` , 3�.��� _ �` dam,. ,p��•f 3'`,�:" _ _ i , --.f

IN
Y
�j lit
; s
5 R 1¢
An'
"""���
�7
[ � r
>t

Amec Foster Wheeler Project No. 7810150299
June 10, 2015
Site Photographs
Marshall Steam Station
Catawba County, NC
Y
Photograph •
JLII
of Wetland
A•
j
•
�
T
I
f �x
? �
j
_f.`J'�, .1Yi' � d. �s _r3.:�4�P
M 4
'� tie.d-''d's' r, _t �x
-
=.. d'•F�
11

Cr ,-- ���`�` � �� v�`g'"�• Aft �.
t't`dn� fi'h- r
s 4+F
Ag
�� �.�9 F wad • a.''- � M.dz
Cr ,-- ���`�` � �� v�`g'"�• Aft �.
t't`dn� fi'h- r
s 4+F

.+ r
w l.. .
a 7
ej
e x
' !�p'� �p,r�1M . ..•f. ,� � fiy!M1�, ;�' r4 ,' f'�S•r �, Yuri �.
Y S
• } � A A S• �7(WpY��r
+� N � '•? i9 �4 ni. t'a'r �• .!,�
' � m ; .rf..1 �06e-rte: ia� ....2 ` � 1ir�• '�c� _ � �

Amec Foster Wheeler Project No. 7810150299
June 10, 2015
Site Photographs
Marshall Steam Station
Catawba County, NC
Photograph No. 27 Remarks
�. �_ . ��►+ �s View of Stream 4,
facing north
(1/7/2015).
Photograph No. 28
Remarks
;
View of Stream 5,
facing south
(1/7/2015).
i''^'3x�
w' 7`
vem
14

a T r bjo
q � _
t
u,
41
AL
yr j a � � ; ,,'• any
if
lb
Y Al
At �- F w'.. �+� �,. y,•,_
a ..
!1• X
,

r �
T.
y��
. 1
fa t
fwt
f�1
y
Ell

s
1 V
`;
rs
i •rte ��
iw
At
AK
Y �� f �3���� P �`,�,-!. ,,¢� } x A �✓ �'-'�/ .gip

f It err
ya lk i
r
Sri �► �'�` .;_ ic.:_. .+*_'_ Irk
v 'v . ` A✓ � -� a - ^yip t ; ,iyM� ` r

r
_ "� r •-Nr A is
b
2 Y � ✓�
q• .
47e'n if t „ � r •_
.� 0, Er

Amec Foster Wheeler Project No. 7810150299 Site Photographs
June 10, 2015 Marshall Steam Station
Catawba County, NC
Photograph No. 39
Remarks
No. 40
IE—Remarks
I
View of Stream
17, facing west
(4/30/2015).
View •f Stream
: facing north
{
--
T
'¢s� r •.'�S�x. �, �� .� .- (+fir $ �
-
Fp—ho—tograph
No. 40
IE—Remarks
I
View •f Stream
: facing north
{
1
T
'¢s� r •.'�S�x. �, �� .� .- (+fir $ �
-
�
.4 Fig '�S
-_ . r►e � �
�"`30
,
20