20120615 Ver 2_Individual_20180731

July 31, 2018
Ms. Karen Higgins
NCDEQ-DWR
401 and Buffer Permitting Branch
512 North Salisbury Street
Raleigh, North Carolina 27604
wood.
Subject: Section 404/401 Individual Permit Modification Request
Mayo CCP Monofill Site
Lined Retention Basin and Ash Basin Closure
Duke Energy Mayo Plant, Person County, NC
Ms. Higgins,
On behalf of Steve Cahoon of Duke Energy (Duke Energy Business Services, LLC, as agent and on
behalf of Duke Energy Carolinas, LLC,) (Duke Energy), Wood Environment and Infrastructure, Inc.
(Wood) is submitting the request to modify the existing Mayo CCP Monofill Site Individual Permit
(USACE Permit No: SAW -2011-00181) located in Person County, North Carolina. Duke Energy is
requesting to modify the existing Mayo CCP Monofill Site Individual Permit for impacts to waters of the
United States associated with the Lined Retention Basin construction and potential impacts associated
with future Ash Basin Closure activities. Please find supporting documentation and figures for the permit
modification request.
Included with this letter is a check for $570.00 for permits fees associated with the permit modification
request.
Sincerely,
Wood Environment & Infrastructure Solutions, Inc.
Josh Witherspoon, LSS, PWS
Senior Ecologist
Wood Environment & Infrastructure Solutions, Inc.
4021 Stirrup Creek Drive, Suite 100
Durham, North Carolina 27703
Tel: [phone] / Fax: [phone]
Licensure: NC Engineering F-1253 / NC Geology C-247
• • •

U.S. ARMY CORPS OF ENGINEERS
APPLICATION FOR DEPARTMENT OF THE ARMY PERMIT
OMB APPROVAL NO. 0710-0003
EXPIRES: 28 FEBRUARY 2013
33 CFR 325. The proponent agency is CECW-CO-R.
Public reporting for this collection of information is estimated to average 11 hours per response, including the time for reviewing instructions, searching
existing data sources, gathering and maintaining the data needed, and completing and reviewing the collection of information. Send comments regarding
this burden estimate or any other aspect of the collection of information, including suggestions for reducing this burden, to Department of Defense,
Washington Headquarters, Executive Services and Communications Directorate, Information Management Division and to the Office of Management and
Budget, Paperwork Reduction Project (0710-0003). Respondents should be aware that notwithstanding any other provision of law, no person shall be
subject to any penalty for failing to comply with a collection of information if it does not display a currently valid OMB control number. Please DO NOT
RETURN your form to either of those addresses. Completed applications must be submitted to the District Engineer having jurisdiction over the location of
the proposed activity.
PRIVACY ACT STATEMENT
Authorities: Rivers and Harbors Act, Section 10, 33 USC 403; Clean Water Act, Section 404, 33 USC 1344; Marine Protection, Research, and Sanctuaries
Act, Section 103, 33 USC 1413; Regulatory Programs of the Corps of Engineers; Final Rule 33 CFR 320-332. Principal Purpose: Information provided on
this form will be used in evaluating the application for a permit. Routine Uses: This information may be shared with the Department of Justice and other
federal, state, and local government agencies, and the public and may be made available as part of a public notice as required by Federal law. Submission
of requested information is voluntary, however, if information is not provided the permit application cannot be evaluated nor can a permit be issued. One set
of original drawings or good reproducible copies which show the location and character of the proposed activity must be attached to this application (see
sample drawings and/or instructions) and be submitted to the District Engineer having jurisdiction over the location of the proposed activity. An application
that is not completed in full will be returned.
(ITEMS 1 THRU 4 TO BE FILLED BY THE CORPS)
1. APPLICATION NO.
2. FIELD OFFICE CODE
3. DATE RECEIVED
4. DATE APPLICATION COMPLETE
(ITEMS BELOW TO BE FILLED BY APPLICAN7)
5. APPLICANT'S NAME
8. AUTHORIZED AGENT'S NAME AND TITLE (agent is not required)
First - Steve Middle - Last - Cahoon
First - Richard Middle - Last - Harmon
Company - Duke Energy
Company - Wood Environment and Infrastructure Solutions, Inc.
E-mail Address - [e-mail]
E-mail Address - [e-mail]
6. APPLICANT'S ADDRESS:
9. AGENT'S ADDRESS:
Address- 411 Fayettville Street
Address- 4021 Stirrup Creek Drive, Suite 100
City - Raleigh State - NC Zip - 2760 Country - US
City - Durham State - NC Zip - 2770 Country -US
7. APPLICANT'S PHONE NOs. WAREA CODE
10. AGENTS PHONE NOs. WAREA CODE
a. Residence b. Business c. Fax
a. Residence b. Business c. Fax
919-546-7457 919-546-4409
919-381-1366 919-381-9901
STATEMENT OF AUTHORIZATION
11. 1 hereby authorize, to act in my behalf as my agent in the processing of this application and to furnish, upon request,
supplemental information in support of this permit application.
SIGNATURE OF APPLICANT DATE
NAME, LOCATION, AND DESCRIPTION OF PROJECT OR ACTIVITY
12. PROJECT NAME OR TITLE (see instructions)
Section 404/401 Individual Permit Modification Mayo CCP Monofill Site Lined Retention Basin and Ash Basin Closure
13. NAME OF WATERBODY, IF KNOWN (if applicable)
14. PROJECT STREET ADDRESS (if applicable)
Mayo Lake
Address 10660 Boston Road
15. LOCATION OF PROJECT
Latitude: -N 36.534482 Longitude: oW -78.896258
City - Roxboro State- NC Zip- 27574
16. OTHER LOCATION DESCRIPTIONS, IF KNOWN (see instructions)
State Tax Parcel ID Municipality Roxboro
Section - Holloway Township - Bethel Hill Range -
ENG FORM 4345, OCT 2012 PREVIOUS EDITIONS ARE OBSOLETE. Page 1 of 3

17. DIRECTIONS TO THE SITE
The Mayo Monofill will eventually occupy approximately 104 acres of an approximately 660 -acre parcel on the east side of SR 1327
(Woody's Store Road) approximately 1.4 -miles northwest of the intersection of SR 1329 (Bethel Hill School Road) and US -501, north of
Roxboro, North Carolina.
1 B. Nature of Activity (Description of project, include all features)
Progress Energy Carolinas (now Duke Energy Progress) obtained a USACE and NCDENR DWQ Individual Permit for the Mayo Coal
Combustion Product (CCP) Monofill Site (Mayo Monofill) on August 22, 2012 (USACE Permit No.: SAW -2011-00181 and DWQ
Project No.: 20120615), authorizing the construction of a synthectically lined industrual landfill, leachate tanks, and access, maintenance
building, and rail access/unloading facilities to be constructed in multiple phases. Due to the USEPA's Coal Combustion Residual (CCR)
Rule (40 CFR 257 & 261) and revisions to 40 CFR 423, Duke Energy will make system -wide plant modifications to comply. The Process
Water Redirection Program and Ash Basin Closure is a phasde effort to bring the Mayo Plant into compliance with the new USEPA
effluent limitation guidelines and regulations for CCR. Construction of the Line Retention Basin (LRB) resulted in impacts to
jurisdictional waters (wetlands and streams). The closure of the ash basin may also result in impacts to jurisdictional waters. Duke Energy
proposes to permit these impacts by modifying the existing Mayo Plant Mayo CCP Monofill Site Individual Permit.
19. Project Purpose (Describe the reason or purpose of the project, see instructions)
Construction of the LRB resulted in impacts to jurisdictional waters (wetlands and streams). The closure of the ash basin may also result
in impacts to jurisdictional waters. Duke Energy proposes to permit these impacts by modifying the existing Mayo Plant Mayo CCP
Monofill Site Individual Permit (Monofill IP Modification).
The purpose of the IP Modification (proposed action) is to permit impacts to wetlands and streams from the LRB construction and
impacts associated with future Ash Basin Closure activities. Additionally, the IP Modification will provide a mechanism for providing
compensatory mitigation requirements for the LRB impacts as well as potential future Ash Basin Closure activity impacts.
USE BLOCKS 20-23 IF DREDGED AND/OR FILL MATERIAL IS TO BE DISCHARGED
20. Reason(s) for Discharge
Construction of the LRB resulted in permanent impacts to Wetlands D, E and MMM, and Streams 5 and 6. Wetlands UU and ZZ will be
permanently impacted by the implementation of the Ash Basin Closure operations. The impacted waters of the US are shown on the Plan
View drawings attached to the IP Modification supporting documentation.
21. Type(s) of Material Being Discharged and the Amount of Each Type in Cubic Yards:
Type Type Type
Amount in Cubic Yards Amount in Cubic Yards Amount in Cubic Yards
22. Surface Area in Acres of Wetlands or Other Waters Filled (see instructions)
Acres 1.15 acres (permanent fill impacts to Wetlands D, E, MMM, UU, and ZZO
or
Linear Feet 227 (permanent fill impacts to Streams 5 and 6)
23. Description of Avoidance, Minimization, and Compensation (see instructions)
Appropriate and practicable steps to minimize potential adverse impacts to wetlands and streams were considered through analysis of the
development concepts during project planning for the LRB construction and for the Ash Basin Closure. The complete avoidance of
waters of the US was not practicable during construction of the LRB. The complete avoidance of waters of the US is not practicable as the
excavation and disposal of CCR materials for the ash basin closure project at the Mayo Plant ultimately required under CAMA could not
be accomplished without some impact to such waters. Mitigation will be provided via credit purshase from NCDMS.
ENG FORM 4345, OCT 2012 Page 2 of 3

24. is Any Portion of the Work Already Complete? aYes Olo IF YES, DESCRIBE THE COMPLETED WORK
Construction of the LRB is currently ongoing. Ash Basin Closure activities have not been implemented at this time.
25. Addresses of Adjoining Property Owners, Lessees, Etc., Whose Property Adjoins the Waterbody fK mon than can be entensd hen., plea" attach a suppfem rftl iisti
a. Address -
City - State - 27p -
b. Address -
City - State - Zip -
c. Address -
City - State - 7Jp -
d. Address -
City - State - Zip -
e. Address-
City- State - Zip -
26. List of Other Certificates or Approvals/Denials received from other Federal, State, or Local Agencies for Work Described in This Application.
AGENCY TYPE APPROVAL' IDENTIFICATION DATE APPLIED DATE APPROVED DATE DENIED
NUMBER
USACE Individual Permit SAW -2011-00181 2012-02-09 2012-08-22
Would include but Is not restricted to zoning, building, and flood plain permits
27. Application is hereby made for permit or permits to authorize the work described in this application. I certify that this information In this application is
complete and accurate. I further certify that I possess the authority to undertake the work described herein or am acting as the duly authorized agent of the
applicant. r
_ Z 7
SIGNATURE OF APPLICANT _._ DATE SIGNATURE OF AGENT DATE
The Application must be signed by the person who desires to undertake the proposed activity (applicant) or It may be signed by a duly
authorized agent If the statement in block 11 has been filled out and signed.
18 U.S.C. Section 1001 provides that: Whoever, in any manner within the jurisdiction of any department or agency of the United States
knowingly and willfully falsifies, conceals, or covers up any trick, scheme, or disguises a material fact or makes any false, fictitious or
fraudulent statements or representations or makes or uses any false writing or document knowing same to contain any false, fictitious or
fraudulent statements or entry, shall be fined not more than $10,000 or imprisoned not more than five years or both.
ENG FORM 4345, OCT 2012 Page 3 of 3

Mayo Plant
Section 404/401 Individual Permit Modification
Mayo CCP Monofill Site Lined Retention Basin and Ash Basin Closure
Person County, North Carolina
Project No. 7810150300
wood.
Permit Drawings are included in Appendix B of the attached supporting
documentation

wood.
Duke Energy Mayo Plant
Section 404/401 Individual Permit Modification
Mayo CCP Monofill Site
Lined Retention Basin and Ash Basin Closure
Permit Support
USACE Action ID SAW -2011-00181
NCDWQ ID 20120615
Prepared for
DUKE
ENERGY
Mayo Plant
Roxboro, North
Prepared by
Wood Environment & Infrastructure Solutions, Inc.
4021 Stirrup Creek Drive, Suite 100
Durham, North Carolina 27703
31 July 2018
Project No. 7812180019

Duke Energy Mayo CCP Monofill Site Lined Retention Basin & Ash Basin Closure
Section 404/401 Individual Permit Modification wood.
Project No. 7812180019
TABLE OF CONTENTS
1.0 INTRODUCTION............................................................................................................................1-1
1.1 BACKGROUND...............................................................................................................................1-1
1.1.1 Mayo Ash Basin Closure........................................................................................................1-2
1.2 PURPOSE AND OBJECTIVE.............................................................................................................1-3
2.0 PROJECT PURPOSE AND NEED................................................................................................2-1
2.1 PROJECT PURPOSE.......................................................................................................................2-1
2.2 PROJECT NEED.............................................................................................................................2-1
3.0 PROPOSED PROJECT DEVELOPMENT....................................................................................3-1
3.1 PROJECT OVERVIEW......................................................................................................................3-1
3.2 PROJECT COMPONENTS................................................................................................................3-1
4.0 ALTERNATIVES ANALYSIS........................................................................................................4-1
4.1 BACKGROUND INFORMATION..........................................................................................................4-1
4.2 REGULATORY AUTHORITY..............................................................................................................4-1
4.3 LRB ACTION ALTERNATIVES............................................................................................................4-2
4.4 ASH BASIN CLOSURE ACTION ALTERNATIVES...................................................................................4-3
4.4.1 Option 1— Hybrid Closure......................................................................................................4-3
4.4.2 Option 2 — Closure-in-Place...................................................................................................
4-3
4.4.3 Option 3A — Closure -by -Removal (Existing Mayo Monofill)...................................................4-3
4.4.4 Option 3B — Closure -by -Removal (Existing Mayo Monofill and New On-site Landfill) ..........
4-3
4.4.5 Option 4 — Closure -by -Removal (Off-site Third -Party Landfill) ..............................................
4-4
4.4.6 No -Build Alternative...............................................................................................................
4-4
4.5 AVOIDANCE AND MINIMIZATION OF IMPACTS....................................................................................4-4
5.0 WATERS OF THE UNITED STATES............................................................................................5-1
5.1 OVERVIEW....................................................................................................................................5-1
5.2 RELEVANT BACKGROUND INFORMATION..........................................................................................5-1
5.2.1 Land Use................................................................................................................................5-1
5.2.2 Geology and Topography.......................................................................................................5-1
5.2.3 Soils........................................................................................................................................5-2
5.2.4 Terrestrial Communities.........................................................................................................
5-3
5.2.5 Wetlands................................................................................................................................
5-3
5.2.6 Streams..................................................................................................................................5-5
5.2.7 Riparian Buffers......................................................................................................................5-7
5.2.8 Open Waters..........................................................................................................................
5-7
5.2.9 Floodplains.............................................................................................................................5-7
5.2.10 Surface Waters...................................................................................................................5-8
5.2.11 Groundwater.......................................................................................................................5-8
6.0 PROPOSED IMPACTS TO WATERS OF THE UNITED STATES...............................................6-1
6.1 EXTENT OF IMPACTS......................................................................................................................6-1
6.2 CUMULATIVE IMPACTS...................................................................................................................6-1
7.0 COMPENSATORY MITIGATION..................................................................................................7-1
7.1 MITIGATION REQUIREMENTS..........................................................................................................7-1
8.0 PROTECTED SPECIES................................................................................................................8-1
8.1 BACKGROUND...............................................................................................................................8-1

Duke Energy Mayo CCP Monofill Site Lined Retention Basin & Ash Basin Closure
Section 404/401 Individual Permit Modification wood.Project No. 7812180019
9.0 CULTURAL RESOURCES............................................................................................................9-1
9.1 BACKGROUND...............................................................................................................................9-1
10.0 ENVIRONMENTAL JUSTICE......................................................................................................10-1
11.0 NOISE..........................................................................................................................................11-1
11.1 BACKGROUND.............................................................................................................................11-1
11.2 AFFECTED ENVIRONMENT............................................................................................................11-1
12.0 AIR QUALITY..............................................................................................................................12-1
12.1 BACKGROUND.............................................................................................................................12-1
12.2 AFFECTED ENVIRONMENT............................................................................................................12-1
12.3 REGULATORY REQUIREMENTS FOR AIR QUALITY —GENERAL CONFORMITY......................................12-1
12.4 PROPOSED MITIGATION MEASURES..................................................................................12-2
13.0 REFERENCES.............................................................................................................................13-1
LIST OF TABLES
Paqe
Table 1 LRB Alternative Analysis Impacts to Jurisdictional Features..............................4-2
Table 2 Soil types occurring within the LRB and Ash Basin Closure Project Areas, Mayo
Plant, Person County, North Carolina..............................................................5-2
Table 3 Wetlands within the LRB and Ash Basin Closure Project Areas, Mayo Plant
Person County, North Carolina.........................................................................5-5
Table 4 Streams within the LRB and Ash Basin Closure Project Areas, Mayo Plant,
Person County, North Carolina.........................................................................5-6
Table 5 Proposed Impacts to jurisdictional wetlands and streams for the LRB and Ash
Basin Closure Project Areas, Mayo Plant, Person County, North Carolina ........ 6-1
Table 6 Potential mitigation costs for impacts to waters of the US, LRB and Ash Basin
Closure Project Areas, Mayo Plant, Person County, North Carolina .................7-2
Table 7 Potential for effect for federally listed animal and plant species within the LRB
and Ash Basin Closure Project Areas, Mayo Plant, Person County, North
Carolina............................................................................................................8-1
Table 8 EPA standard noise levels for various community types..................................11-1

Duke Energy Mayo CCP Monofill Site Lined Retention Basin & Ash Basin Closure
Section 404/401 Individual Permit Modification
Project No. 7812180019
LIST OF FIGURES
(Figures are located after the text of the report)
Figure 1 Site Location Map
Figure 2
Site Aerial Map
Figure 3
NRCS Soils Map
Figure 4
Jurisdictional Waters Map
Figure 5
USGS Topographic Map
Figure 6
Floodplain Map
Figure 7
Cultural Resources Map
LIST OF APPENDICES
Appendix A LRB Location Alternative Analysis Figure
Appendix B Plan View and Cross -Section Drawings
wood.
Appendix C NC WAM and NC SAM Data Forms
Appendix D USFWS and NCNHP Database Queries
Appendix E Joint Permit Application — Mayo CCP Monofill Site. Golder Associates.
February 9, 2012.
Appendix F USACE Department of the Army Permit — Permit No: SAW -2011-00181.
August 22, 2012.
Appendix G NCDENR Approval of 401 Water Quality Certification with Additional
Conditions — Division # 2012-0612. August 27, 2012.

Duke Energy Mayo CCP Monofill Site Lined Retention Basin & Ash Basin Closure
Section 404/401 Individual Permit Modification wood.
Project No. 7812180019
LIST OF ABBREVIATIONS AND ACRONYMS
CAMA
Coal Ash Management Act of 2014
CCP
Coal Combustion Product
CCR
Coal Combustion Residual
CEQ
Council on Environmental Quality
CFR
Code of Federal Regulations
CY
Cubic Yards
CWA
Clean Water Act
dB
decibels
dBA
A -weighted decibels
DFIRM
Digital Flood Insurance Rate Map
DWQ
Division of Water Quality
ECOS
Environmental Conservation Online System
ELG
Effluent Limitation Guidelines
EO
Executive Order
ESA
Endangered Species Act
E&SC
Erosion & Sediment Control
FEMA
Federal Emergency Management Agency
FGD
Flue Gas Desulfurization
FR
Federal Register
GPS
Global Positioning System
HUC
Hydrologic Unit Code
IP
Individual Permit
IPaC
Information for Planning and Conservation
JD
Jurisdictional Determination
Ldn
Day/Night Levels
LRB
Lined Retention Basin
MW
megawatt
NAAQS
National Ambient Air Quality Standards
NCAC
North Carolina Administrative Code
NCDENR
North Carolina Department of Environment and Natural Resources
NCDEQ
North Carolina Department of Environmental Quality
NCDMS
North Carolina Division of Mitigation Services
NCDWR
North Carolina Division of Water Resources
NCGS
North Carolina Geologic Survey
NCNHP
North Carolina Natural Heritage Program
NC SAM
North Carolina Stream Assessment Method
NCSHPO
North Carolina State Historic Preservation Office
NC WAM
North Carolina Wetlands Assessment Method
NEPA
National Environmental Policy Act
NFIP
National Flood Insurance Program
NPDES
National Pollutant Discharge Elimination System
NRCS
Natural Resources Conservation Service
NRHP
National Register of Historic Places
%
percent
PM2.5
fine particulate matter
PM10
particulate matter

Duke Energy Mayo CCP Monofill Site Lined Retention Basin & Ash Basin Closure
Section 404/401 Individual Permit Modification
Project No. 7812180019
SR
State Road
USACE
US Army Corps of Engineers
USC
US Code
USCB
US Census Bureau
EPA
US Environmental Protection Agency
USFWS
US Fish and Wildlife Service
USGS
US Geological Survey
WP -O
Watershed protection overlay
WS
Water Supply
wood.

Duke Energy Mayo CCP Monofill Site Lined Retention Basin & Ash Basin Closure
Section 404/401 Individual Permit Modification wood.Project No. 7812180019
EXECUTIVE SUMMARY
The Mayo Plant is a 727 -megawatt (MW) single coal-fired power generating facility. The station
is in northern Person County near the North Carolina - Virginia state line (Figures 1 and 2).
Mayo Lake abuts the western, northern, and eastern edges of the plant property. The Mayo
Monofill will eventually occupy approximately 104 acres of an approximately 660 -acre parcel on
the east side of State Road (SR) 1327 (Woody's Store Road) approximately 1.4 -miles northwest
of the intersection of SR 1329 (Bethel Hill School Road) and US -501, north of Roxboro, North
Carolina.
Progress Energy Carolinas (now Duke Energy Progress) obtained a US Army Corps of
Engineers (USACE) and NC Department of Environmental and Natural Resources (NCDENR) —
Division of Water Quality (DWQ) Individual Permit (IP) for the Mayo Coal Combustion Product
(CCP) Monofill Site (Mayo Monofill) on August 22, 2012 (USACE Permit No: SAW -2011-00181
and DWQ Project No: 20120615). The Mayo Monofill IP authorized the construction of a
synthetically lined industrial landfill, (CCP Monofill), leachate tanks, and access, maintenance
building, and rail access/unloading facilities to be constructed in multiple phases. The permitted
impacts for total build -out of the facility (approximately 104 acres) is 4,649 linear feet of
intermittent stream impact with minimal aquatic function, and 84 linear feet of perennial stream.
No wetlands will be impacted through the project construction phases. Impacts for the first
phase (60.2 acres) totaled 1,990 feet of intermittent stream and 84 feet of perennial stream. The
Mayo Monofill IP expires on December 31, 2030.
Due to the Environmental Protection Agency's (EPA) Coal Combustion Residual (CCR) Rule
(40 CFR 257 & 261) -and revisions to the Steam Electric Power Generating Effluent Limitation
Guidelines (ELG) (40 Code of Federal Regulations [CFR] 423), Duke Energy will make system-
wide plant modifications to comply with the Rules. The redirection of process water will be
conducted to ensure the long-term integrity of CCR materials and facilitate future ash basin
closure activities at the Mayo Steam Station. The Process Water Redirection Program will
construct three new wastewater retention basins [flue gas desulfurization Settling Basin, Lined
Retention Basin (LRB), and Holding Basin] at the Mayo Plant as part of a phased effort to bring
the Mayo Plant into compliance with new EPA effluent limitation guidelines and regulations for
CCR as part of the ash basin closure. The Project includes the redirection of plant wastewater,
monofill leachate, cooling tower blowdown, and contact stormwater to the new LRB.
Construction of the LRB resulted in impacts to jurisdictional waters (wetlands and streams). The
closure of the ash basin may also result in impacts to jurisdictional waters. Duke Energy
proposes to permit these impacts by modifying the existing Mayo Plant Mayo CCP Monofill Site
Individual Permit (Monofill IP Modification).
The purpose of the IP Modification (proposed action) is to permit impacts to wetlands and
streams from the LRB construction and impacts associated with future Ash Basin Closure
activities. Additionally, the IP Modification will provide a mechanism for providing compensatory
mitigation requirements for the LRB impacts as well as potential future Ash Basin Closure
activity impacts.
The purpose of the IP Modification is based on the following need:

Duke Energy Mayo CCP Monofill Site Lined Retention Basin & Ash Basin Closure
Section 404/401 Individual Permit Modification wood.
Project No. 7812180019
• Address the North Carolina regulatory requirements related to redirecting process water
away from the ash basin for future disposal of CCR materials
• Permit impacts to waters of the US resulting from construction of the LRB
• Permit impacts to waters of the US resulting from Ash Basin Closure activities
Wetlands D, E, and MMM, and Streams 5 and 6 occurred within the LRB Project area and have
been impacted by the LRB construction. Wetlands B, C, F, G, H, UU, ZZ, JJJ, and LLL, and
Streams 1, 2, 3, 9, and 10, occur within the Ash Basin Closure Project area. Wetlands UU and
ZZ may be affected by the implementation of the ash basin closure operations. Impacts to
waters of the US from the implementation of the LRB construction and Ash Basin Closure
operations are classified herein as permanent. The impacts to Wetlands D, E, MMM, Streams 5
and 6 were due to filling these features during the LRB construction. The impacts to Wetlands
UU, and ZZ may occur due to excavating and fillings these features during ash removal as part
of the ash basin closure
Compensatory mitigation for the proposed impacts is required under the Section 404 IP.
Appropriate avoidance and practicable minimization efforts have been conducted through the
analysis of alternative stormwater redirection plan concepts. However, unavoidable impacts to
on-site waters of the US are necessary to complete the proposed action.
Mitigation requirements for the existing Mayo Monofill IP were satisfied by the purchase of
mitigation credits from the former NC Ecosystem Enhancement Program (currently North
Carolina Division of Mitigation Services [NCDMS]). Based on the review of the mitigation
options available, it was determined that credit purchase through the NCDMS In -Lieu Fee
Program was necessary because there are no private mitigation banks offering wetlands and
stream credits in the Roanoke River basin at this time. On-site mitigation and off-site mitigation
opportunities were not explored because the In -Lieu Fee option was already available.
Construction of the LRB and implementation of the Ash Basin Closure activities will have no
effect on federally protected species; is not expected to influence cultural resources or historic
properties; should have no effect on environmental justice for the surrounding residential
communities; is not expected to impact noise -sensitive land uses; and is not expected to impact
air quality locally or regionally.

Duke Energy Mayo CCP Monofill Site Lined Retention Basin & Ash Basin Closure
Section 404/401 Individual Permit Modification wood.Project No. 7812180019
1.0 INTRODUCTION
1.1 BACKGROUND
The Mayo Plant is a 727 -megawatt (MW) single coal-fired power generating facility. The station
is in northern Person County near the North Carolina - Virginia state line. (Figures 1 and 2).
Mayo Lake abuts the western, northern, and eastern edges of the plant property. The Mayo
Monofill will eventually occupy approximately 104 acres of an approximately 660 -acre parcel on
the east side of SR 1327 (Woody's Store Road) approximately 1.4 -miles northwest of the
intersection of SR 1329 (Bethel Hill School Road) and US -501, north of Roxboro, North
Carolina.
Progress Energy Carolinas (now Duke Energy Progress) obtained a US Army Corps of
Engineers (USACE) and NC Department of Environmental and Natural Resources (NCDENR) —
Division of Water Quality (DWQ) Individual Permit (IP) for the Mayo Coal Combustion Product
(CCP) Monofill Site (Mayo Monofill) on August 22, 2012 (USACE Permit No: SAW -2011-00181
and DWQ Project No: 20120615). The Mayo Monofill IP authorized the construction of a
synthetically -lined industrial landfill, (CCP Monofill), leachate tanks, and access, maintenance
building, and rail access/unloading facilities to be constructed in multiple phases. The permitted
impacts for total build -out of the facility (approximately 104 acres) is 4,649 linear feet of
intermittent stream impact with minimal aquatic function, and 84 linear feet of perennial stream.
No wetlands will be impacted through the project construction phases. Impacts for the first
phase (60.2 acres) totaled 1,990 feet of intermittent stream and 84 feet of perennial stream. The
Mayo Monofill IP expires on December 31, 2030.
On August 20, 2014, the North Carolina General Assembly passed S 729, the Coal Ash
Management Act of 2014 (CAMA), requiring Duke Energy to phase out wet ash handling. Under
CAMA, all coal ash in the state will be covered by North Carolina's solid waste laws. Further,
when coal ash is used as fill to build up land for large construction projects, measures like
groundwater monitoring and liners are required.
Duke Energy is following a timetable to close all its coal ash ponds and is committed to safely
dismantling its existing older plants as part of a complex, multiyear process known as
"decommissioning and demolition". By the end of 2013, Duke Energy retired units at nine coal-
fired generation sites in North Carolina and South Carolina (Duke Energy 2017). The long-term
vision for sites with retired coal units across the system is to demolish the structures and return
them to a more natural state through grading and revegetation. Most of the coal ash generated
by Duke Energy is being managed as dry ash and stored in on-site, lined landfills. The company
has accelerated the closure process to include closing all ash basins across its six -state service
area, both at retired and operating coal plants.
Schedules for closing ash basins depend significantly on a variety of factors, including state
requirements, the amount of ash at the site, whether plant system conversions are needed, and
whether new storage facilities will need to be designed, permitted, and constructed.
Due to the Environmental Protection Agency's (EPA) Coal Combustion Residual (CCR) Rule
(40 Code of Federal Regulations [CFR] 257 & 261) and revisions to the Steam Electric Power
Generating Effluent Limitation Guidelines (ELG) (40 CFR 423), Duke Energy will make system
1-1

Duke Energy Mayo CCP Monofill Site Lined Retention Basin & Ash Basin Closure
Section 404/401 Individual Permit Modification wood.
Project No. 7812180019
wide plant modifications to comply with the Rules (the Project). The redirection of process water
will be conducted to ensure the long-term integrity of CCR materials and facilitate future ash
basin closure activities at the Mayo Steam Station. The Process Water Redirection Program will
construct three new wastewater retention basins [flue gas desulfurization (FGD) Settling Basin,
Lined Retention Basin (LRB), and Holding Basin] at the Mayo Plant as part of a phased effort to
bring the Mayo Plant into compliance with new EPA effluent limitation guidelines and regulations
for CCR as part of the ash basin closure. The Project includes the redirection of plant
wastewater, monofill leachate, cooling tower blowdown, and contact stormwater to the new
LRB.
The perimeter containment dike for the LRB (dam) will provide water retention designed to treat
the effluent for total suspended solids and pH to meet the National Pollutant Discharge
Elimination System (NPDES) permit requirements prior to discharging into existing external
outfall 002.
Construction of the LRB resulted in impacts to jurisdictional waters (wetlands and stream). The
closure of the ash basin may also result in impacts to jurisdictional waters. Duke Energy
proposes to permit these impacts by modifying the existing Mayo Plant CCP Monofill Site
Individual Permit (Monofill IP Modification).
1.1.1 Mayo Ash Basin Closure
At the Mayo Plant, Duke Energy has initiated the planning of closing the ash basin. To ensure
the long-term integrity of the CCR facilities until the ash basin closure activities can commence,
process water will be redirected around the ash basin. The method to close the Ash Basin in
place will include:
• Removal and treatment of the bulk water/free liquids
• Interstitial/pore dewatering (as needed) and treatment
• Stabilization of remaining CCR materials sufficient to support the final cover system
• Grading of in-place CCR materials to promote positive drainage (no ponding) and prevent
sloughing or movement of the final cover system
• Installation of a final cover system, including stormwater management controls
• Partial lowering of the dam
• Post -closure groundwater monitoring and cover system maintenance
The final cover system will be designed to reduce infiltration; erosion; and meet, or exceed, the
requirements of the final cover system specified in 40 CFR § 257.102(d)(3)(i). Typically, this
involves the installation of a low permeability barrier layer and a vegetated soil cover to protect
the barrier layer. The existing embankments will be lowered pursuant to a North Carolina
Department of Environmental Quality (NCDEQ) Dam Safety permit approval. Lowering the
embankment is intended to promote free drainage of stormwater from the closure area.
As part of the Ash Basin Closure, slopes will be established that prevent the sloughing or
movement of the final cover system. The grades of the final cover system will be generally
slight, sufficient to promote run-off while reducing the potential for sloughing. Construction
quality assurance procedures will be completed to confirm conformance of the installed final
cover system to the design.
1-2

Duke Energy Mayo CCP Monofill Site Lined Retention Basin & Ash Basin Closure
Section 404/401 Individual Permit Modification wood.Project No. 7812180019
Alternatives for spillway location to route surface water from the final cover system are being
refined at this stage, and a final decision is yet to be made.
1.2 PURPOSE AND OBJECTIVE
The discharge of dredged or fill material into waters of the US and most categories of work in
navigable water bodies require USACE authorization under Section 404 of the Clean Water Act
(CWA). This document is to provide the Wilmington District of the USACE with a basis to
evaluate and issue a modification to the existing Mayo Monofill IP and associated certifications
for the proposed action. The impetus for the alternatives analysis is the need for the permitting
of impacts associated with the LRB construction and potential impacts associated with future
ash basin closure activities as linked to the requirement to be in compliance with CAMA.
The purpose of this IP Modification request supporting documentation is to serve as a source of
supplemental information for the existing Section 404 Mayo Monofill IP. The IP Modification
provides documentation of the current ecological and physical condition of jurisdictional waters
and other resources that occur within the project site. The IP Modification document is to
provide the USACE Wilmington District, the NCDEQ, and other commenting and reviewing
agencies with a basis to evaluate and issue a revision to the existing Section 404 Mayo Monofill
IP and associated certifications for the LRB construction and Ash Basin Closure.
Included as supporting documentation to this IP Modification request supporting documentation,
the following are found in the appendices:
• Plan View and Cross -Section Drawings (Appendix A)
• Wetland and Stream Data Forms (Appendix B)
• Listed Species Habitat Data (Appendix C)
Also provided at the end of this IP Modification, supplemental material (applications and plans)
regarding previous relevant permitting projects at the Mayo Plant includes the following
documentation:
Joint Permit Application — Mayo CCP Monofill Site. Golder Associates. February 9, 2012.
(Appendix D)
Department of the Army Permit. Mayo Coal Combustion Product Monofill Site. Permit No:
SAW -2011-00181. US Army Corps of Engineers. August 22, 2012. (Appendix E)
North Carolina Division of Water Quality 401 Water Quality Certification. Mayo CCP
Monofill Site. DWQ Project No: 20120615. N.C. Division of Water Quality. July 27, 2012.
(Appendix F)
1-3

Duke Energy Mayo CCP Monofill Site Lined Retention Basin & Ash Basin Closure
Section 404/401 Individual Permit Modification wood.Project No. 7812180019
2.0 PROJECT PURPOSE AND NEED
2.1 PROJECT PURPOSE
The purpose of the IP Modification request (proposed action) is to permit impacts to wetlands
and streams from the LRB construction and impacts associated with future Ash Basin Closure
activities. Additionally, the IP Modification will provide a mechanism for providing compensatory
mitigation requirements for the LRB impacts as well as potential future Ash Basin Closure
activity impacts.
2.2 PROJECT NEED
The purpose of the IP Modification is based on the following need:
Address the North Carolina regulatory requirements related to redirecting stormwater
away from the ash basin for future disposal of CCR materials
Permit impacts to waters of the US resulting from construction of the LRB.
Permit impacts to waters of the US resulting from ash basin closure activities.
North Carolina Regulatory Requirements
The principal action that has accelerated the excavation and removal of CCR materials from ash
basins at Duke Energy power generating plants with coal-fired facilities is the promulgation of
CAMA. The bill, enacted on August 20, 2014, requires Duke Energy to phase out wet ash
handling. As such, all coal ash in the state will be covered by North Carolina's solid waste laws.
In conjunction with CAMA, the NCDEQ has amassed comprehensive data about coal ash
facilities statewide. The information has been essential in NCDEQ's prioritization of closure
plans for the 14 facilities with coal ash storage ponds (NCDEQ 2016). The Mayo Plant is
identified as one of these 14 facilities with coal ash storage ponds. With these considerations,
the LRB construction and Ash Basin Closure will address North Carolina regulatory
requirements as related to the redirection of process water away from the ash basin and to help
facilitate the closure activities of CCR materials at the Mayo Plant.
2-1

Duke Energy Mayo CCP Monofill Site Lined Retention Basin & Ash Basin Closure
Section 404/401 Individual Permit Modification wood.Project No. 7812180019
3.0 PROPOSED PROJECT DEVELOPMENT
3.1 PROJECT OVERVIEW
The redirection of process water will be conducted to ensure the long-term integrity of CCR
materials and facilitate future ash basin closure activities at the Mayo Steam Station. The
Process Water Redirection Program will construct three new wastewater retention basins [FGD
Settling Basin, LRB, and Holding Basin]. The Process Water Redirection Program and Ash
Basin Closure is a phased effort to bring the Mayo Plant into compliance with the new EPA
effluent limitation guidelines and regulations for CCR.
3.2 PROJECT COMPONENTS
The primary driver for the schedule and sequence of the Project components is to meet CAMA
requirements to divert concentrated stormwater flow from the ash basin on or before December
31, 2019, specifically:
Per General Statute §130A -309.208(d), on or after December 31, 2019, the discharge of
stormwater into a coal combustion surface impoundment at an electric generating facility
where the coal-fired generating units are actively producing coal combustion residuals is
prohibited.
3-1

Duke Energy Mayo CCP Monofill Site Lined Retention Basin & Ash Basin Closure
Section 404/401 Individual Permit Modification wood.Project No. 7812180019
4.0 ALTERNATIVES ANALYSIS
4.1 BACKGROUND INFORMATION
The redirection of process water is a significant element of the overall process to ensure the
long-term integrity of CCR materials and facilitate future ash basin closure activities at the
Mayo Plant. The excavation and removal of CCR materials is a function of the promulgation of
CAMA. Therefore, the impetus for the alternatives analysis is linked to this process. The LRB
is one component of the Mayo Plant Process Water Redirection Program associated with the
Ash Basin Closure. Two options were evaluated to determine final location of the LRB. Duke is
currently evaluating several potential Ash Basin Closure options. The impacts to wetlands
presented in this IP Modification request supporting documentation represent the potential
impacts based on the approved Ash Basin Closure design option.
The alternatives analysis herein describes the alternative evaluated for the LRB Project and
the alternatives evaluated for the Ash Basin Closure Project. The No -Build Alternative (No
Action Alternative) is also presented in Sections 4.3 and 4.4.6.
The Project will be reviewed by the USACE with respect to the existing Mayo CCP Monofill IP
issued for the Mayo Plant by the USACE (Action ID SAW -2011-00181 dated August 22, 2012).
4.2 REGULATORY AUTHORITY
In the evaluation of CWA Section 404 permit applications to discharge dredged or fill material
into waters of the US including wetlands, the USACE is required to analyze alternatives that
could achieve purpose and need. The USACE conducts this analysis pursuant to two main
requirements:
1) National Environmental Policy Act of 1969 (NEPA)
NEPA requires federal agencies to consider environmental impacts of the proposed actions
and a range of reasonable alternatives to those actions. Reasonable alternatives do not
require consideration of every conceivable variation of an alternative (40 CFR §1502.14) and
must be capable of achieving the basic project goal. The Council on Environmental Quality
(CEO) describes "reasonable" alternatives as those that are practical or feasible from the
technical or economic standpoint and use common sense rather than simply desirable from
the standpoint of the applicant (CEQ 1981). For alternatives eliminated from further study, a
project's environmental documentation must "briefly discuss the reasons for having been
eliminated" (CEQ 1981).
2) CWA Section 404(b)(1) Guidelines
CWA Section 404(b)(1) Guidelines state "no discharge of dredged or fill material shall be
permitted if there is a practicable alternative to the proposed discharge which would have less
adverse impact on the aquatic ecosystem, so long as the alternative does not have other
significant adverse environmental consequences" (40 CFR § 230.10a). Practicable means
available and capable of being done after taking into consideration cost, existing technology,
and logistics considering the overall project purpose.
4-1

Duke Energy Mayo CCP Monofill Site Lined Retention Basin & Ash Basin Closure
Section 404/401 Individual Permit Modification
Project No. 7812180019
4.3 LRB ACTION ALTERNATIVES
wood.
As part of the Process Water Redirection Program at the Mayo Plant, Duke Energy evaluated
potential sites for the construction of the new Waste Water Treatment System and the LRB.
The existing ash basin will be closed to meet the requirements of the new CCR and ELG rules
which will require redirection of all the water flows currently going into the ash basin.
Additionally, the existing FGD blowdown settling basin will need to be replaced because it was
constructed on ash and must be closed.
A siting study was completed earlier in the design process that identified four potential
locations for the LRB. The siting study figure depicting the potential LRB locations is in
Appendix A. Due to the size of the basin needed to treat the wastewater volume from the
plant, one option (Option 3) was discounted because it simply was not large enough to
accommodate the 15 -acre, 18 million -gallon retention basin, needed to accommodate the 25
year 24 hour storm event and 10,000 gallon per minute wastewater flow. The remaining
options (Options 1, 2 and 4) were considered for the location of the lined retention basin.
Options 1 and 4 were eliminated for a variety of reasons, including distances from waste
sources, depth of ground water, visibility and permitting requirements. The table below (Table
1) shows a comparison of jurisdictional impacts associated with the three final options.
Table 1. LRB Alternative Analvsis Impacts to Jurisdictional Features.
LRB
permanent
Permanent
Location
Wetland Impacts
Stream Channel Impacts
Options
Option 1
0.05 acres
2,073 linear feet
Option 2
0.85 acres
227 linear feet
Option 4
0.30 acres
751 linear feet
Option 2 (preferred alternative) was chosen for construction of the lined retention because
there were only 0.85 acres of permanent jurisdictional wetlands impacts and 227 linear feet of
permanent stream channel impacts. Option 1 has .05 acres of permanent jurisdictional
wetlands impacts and 2,073 linear feet of permanent stream channel impacts. Option 4 has
0.30 acres of permanent wetlands impacts and 751 linear feet of permanent stream channel
impacts. Option 4 was not chosen as the preferred alternative for construction of the LRB. It
was, however, chosen for the construction of the smaller FGD settling basin (13 million -gallon
capacity). No wetlands were impacted in the construction of the FGD basin due to the smaller
size of the basin requirements.
The alternatives analysis indicted that Option 2 was the best choice for placement of the LRB
because of the minimal amount of jurisdictional impacts, the area had already been cleared
and used as a borrow site, and it has a lower depth of groundwater.
4-2

Duke Energy Mayo CCP Monofill Site Lined Retention Basin & Ash Basin Closure
Section 404/401 Individual Permit Modification wood.Project No. 7812180019
A No -Build alternative has not been considered in this IP modification since the LRB is currently
under construction. Impacts to waters of the US occurred during the LRB construction. These
impacts to waters of the US are discussed in Section 6.0.
4.4 ASH BASIN CLOSURE ACTION ALTERNATIVES
Duke Energy is currently evaluating six ash basin closure options, including a No -Build option.
These options include a Hybrid Closure, Closure -in -Place, Closure -by -Removal (Existing On -
Site Landfill), Closure -by -Removal (Existing and New On -Site Landfills), Closure -by -Removal
(Off -Site Third -Party Landfill). As part of the Ash Basin Closure Option analysis, Duke Energy is
evaluating stormwater runoff options for post -closure of the ash basin. The options being
evaluated include diverting all stormwater runoff into a single drainage feature, diverting all
stormwater runoff into Mayo Lake, or a hybrid option of these two. At the time of this IP
Modification submittal, the final Ash Basin Closure has not been determined or approved.
4.4.1 Option 1 — Hybrid Closure
The Project components of the Hybrid Closure option include installing stormwater controls, a
dewatering/wastewater treatment system, a deep mixing method wall or stabilized soil wedge as
needed. Once these activities have been completed, the ash will be excavated, and the
excavated material will be placed within the Hybrid ash closure area. A new liner system will be
installed over the lateral expansion areas and the closure cap system installed. Groundwater
remediation will begin if necessary. Potential impacts to waters of the US are discussed in
Section 6.0.
4.4.2 Option 2 — Closure -in -Place
The Project components of the Closure -in -Place option include installing stormwater controls, a
temporary dewatering/wastewater treatment system, removal of free water, and dewatering of
ash material as needed. The ash basin will be regraded, and the closure cap constructed.
Portions of the ash basin dam will be removed, and disturbed areas restored. Groundwater
remediation and long-term monitoring program will begin. Potential impacts to waters of the US
are discussed in Section 6.0.
4.4.3 Option 3A—Closure-by-Removal (Existing Mayo Monofill)
The Project components of the Closure -in -Place option include installing stormwater controls, a
temporary dewatering/wastewater treatment system, removal of free water, and dewatering of
ash material as needed. The ash will be excavated from the basin and the 5.5 million cubic
yards (CY) of excavated ash will be placed in the existing Mayo Monofill. The ash basin dam will
be removed, the closure -by -removal area regraded, and disturbed areas restored. Groundwater
remediation and long-term monitoring program will begin. Potential impacts to waters of the US
are discussed in Section 6.0.
4.4.4 Option 313 — Closure -by -Removal (Existing Mayo Monofill and New On-site Landfill)
The Project components of the Closure -in -Place option include installing stormwater controls, a
temporary dewatering/wastewater treatment system, removal of free water, and dewatering of
ash material as needed. Phases of a new on-site Industrial Landfill will be designed, permitted
on constructed. 2.5 million CY of excavated ash material will be placed in the new landfill site
4-3

Duke Energy Mayo CCP Monofill Site Lined Retention Basin & Ash Basin Closure
Section 404/401 Individual Permit Modification wood.Project No. 7812180019
with a new cap system installed. The remaining excavated ash material will be placed in the
existing Mayo Monofill. The ash basin dam will be removed, the closure -by -removal area
regraded, and disturbed areas restored. Groundwater remediation and long-term monitoring
program will begin. Potential impacts to waters of the US are discussed in Section 6.0.
4.4.5 Option 4 — Closure -by -Removal (Off-site Third -Party Landfill)
The Project components of the Closure -in -Place option include installing stormwater controls, a
temporary dewatering/wastewater treatment system, removal of free water, and dewatering of
ash material as needed. The ash material will be excavated from the ash basin boundary
(assumed 1,000,000 CY annually). The excavated ash material will be transported to an off-site
third -party landfill. The transport method has yet to be determined now. The ash basin dam will
be removed, the closure -by -removal area regraded, and disturbed areas restored. Groundwater
remediation and long-term monitoring program will begin. Potential impacts to waters of the US
are discussed in Section 6.0.
4.4.6 No -Build Alternative
Under the No -Build Alternative, implementation of the ash basin closure would not occur;
therefore, there would be no impacts to waters of the US However, under this scenario Duke
Energy could not comply with CAMA at the Mayo Plant.
The preferred method for Ash Basin Closure is to close the Ash Basin in place. Ash Basin in
place will include: removal and treatment of the bulk water/free liquids; interstitial/pore
dewatering (as needed) and treatment; stabilization of remaining CCR materials sufficient to
support the final cover system; grading of in-place CCR materials to promote positive drainage
(no ponding) and prevent sloughing or movement of the final cover system; installation of a final
cover system, including stormwater management controls; partial lowering of the dam; and post -
closure groundwater monitoring and cover system maintenance. The final cover system will be
designed to reduce infiltration; erosion; and meet, or exceed, the requirements of the final cover
system specified in 40 CFR § 257.102(d)(3)(i). Typically, this involves the installation of a low
permeability barrier layer and a vegetated soil cover to protect the barrier layer. The existing
embankments will be lowered pursuant to a NCDEQ Dam Safety permit approval. This lowering
is intended to promote free drainage of stormwater from the closure area.
4.5 AVOIDANCE AND MINIMIZATION OF IMPACTS
Appropriate and practicable steps to minimize potential adverse impacts to wetlands and
streams were considered through analysis of the development concepts during project planning
for the LRB construction and for the Ash Basin Closure. The complete avoidance of waters of
the US was not practicable during construction of the LRB. The complete avoidance of waters of
the US is not practicable as the excavation and disposal of CCR materials for the ash basin
closure project at the Mayo Plant ultimately required under CAMA could not be accomplished
without some impact to such waters.
All development projects in North Carolina that disturb an acre or greater of land require an
approved Erosion & Sediment Control (E&SC) Plan. E&SC Plans must be produced in
accordance with the North Carolina Erosion and Sediment Control Planning and Design
Manual, dated May 2013. Person County is not in NPDES Phase II nor is the watershed in a
4-4

Duke Energy Mayo CCP Monofill Site Lined Retention Basin & Ash Basin Closure
Section 404/401 Individual Permit Modification wood.
Project No. 7812180019
regulated community, it does not have post -construction soil and erosion or stormwater control
obligations. Person County relies upon the NCDEQ Raleigh Regional Office to oversee and
enforce their federal soil and erosion control requirements for new construction. The process
water redirection activities at the Mayo Plant will be completed in accordance with the NCDEQ
Raleigh Regional Office water quality rules and regulations.
4-5

Duke Energy Mayo CCP Monofill Site Lined Retention Basin & Ash Basin Closure
Section 404/401 Individual Permit Modification wood.Project No. 7812180019
5.0 WATERS OF THE UNITED STATES
5.1 OVERVIEW
Construction of the LRB resulted in impacts to jurisdictional wetlands and streams within the
affected environment. Ash basin closure activities will impact waters of the US, although an Ash
Basin Closure Plan has not been approved at the time of this submittal, the impacts to waters of
the US included in this IP Modification request are the impacts that may result from any of the
ash basin closure options. The waters of the US within the Mayo Plant and the affected
environment are discussed in this section. In addition, relevant background information is
presented and includes natural resources and physical features that occur within the plant
property and affected environment. The topics include land use, geology and topography, soils,
terrestrial communities, wetlands, streams, riparian buffers, open waters, floodplains, surface
waters, and groundwater.
5.2 RELEVANT BACKGROUND INFORMATION
5.2.1 Land Use
The Mayo Plant is a 727 -MW single unit coal-fired power generating facility. The station
property comprises the following features: power generation plant and associated operations
buildings, trailers, sheds, and parking areas; contractor parking area and trailers; utility rights-of-
way; paved and unpaved roadways; ash basin; materials and equipment yard; maintained areas
(grassed or landscaped); natural vegetated areas, including forested uplands and wetlands; and
stream features. Mayo Lake abuts the eastern boundary of the station property. Forested areas
abut the western and northern station boundaries. Surrounding land use includes low-density
residential, near the eastern and southern boundaries. The station is accessed from the west by
US -501.
Affected Environment
The LRB and Ash Basin Closure Project areas primarily encompass forested areas, open areas
(maintained, including ash basin fingers, or otherwise), twelve wetland areas, and seven
streams.
5.2.2 Geology and Topography
The Mayo Plant is in the Piedmont Physiographic Region of North Carolina. With respect to
geologic formations, the Mayo Plant is in the Carolina Slate Belt (metamorphic rock), which
dates from the Cambrian period/late Proterozoic Era (North Carolina Geologic Survey [NCGS]
1985). The Mayo Plant is located within two geologic terranes. The eastern half of the property
is within the Carolina terrane, which consists mostly of heated and deformed volcanic and
sedimentary rocks that range in age from about 540 to 630 million years old (NCGS 1985). The
western half of the property is within the Milton terrane, which consists mostly of gneiss, schist
and metamorphosed intrusive rocks that range in age from about 460 to 470 million years old
(NCGS 1985). The LRB and Ash Basin Closure Project areas primarily occur within the Carolina
terrane.
5-1

Duke Energy Mayo CCP Monofill Site Lined Retention Basin & Ash Basin Closure
Section 404/401 Individual Permit Modification
Project No. 7812180019
Affected Environment
wood.
The Mayo Plant lies between approximately 390 to 570 feet above mean sea level. The Project
will have no effect on the local geologic features of the Mayo Plant but will alter the topography
as contours will be redesigned to complete the proposed site activities. These alterations to site
topography are not presumed to be significant as the area of affect encompasses previously
disturbed topography.
5.2.3 Soils
Figure 3 depicts the soil types (map units) occurring within the LRB and Ash Basin Closure
Project areas of the Mayo Plant. The soil types are presented in Table 2 below. Among the nine
soil types that occur within the Project areas (excluding water and dam classifications), two are
listed as a hydric map unit; i.e., Chewacla/Wehadkee soils, 0 to 2 percent slopes, frequently
flooded Chewacla/Wehadkee and Helena sandy loam, 2 to 6 percent slopes Helena (NRCS
2018a). Both hydric map units occur to the north of the ash basin dam.
Table 2. Soil types occurring within the LRB and Ash Basin Closure Project Areas,
Mayo Plant, Person County, North Carolina.
Soil Type
Map Unit Symbol
Hydric / Non -hydric
Cecil sandy loam, 2 to 6 percent slopes
CeB
Non -hydric
Cecil sandy loam, 6 to 10 percent slopes
CeC
Non -hydric
Chewacla/Wehadkee soils, 0 to 2 percent slopes,
frequently flooded
ChA
Hydric
Dam
Dam
N/A
Helena sandy loam, 2 to 6 percent slopes
HeB
Hydric
Rion sandy loam, 25 to 45 percent slopes
RoF
Non -hydric
Udorthents, loamy, gently sloping
UdB
Non -hydric
Water
W
N/A
Wedowee sandy loam, 6 to 10 percent slopes
WeC
Non -hydric
Wedowee sandy loam, 10 to 15 percent slopes
WeD
Non -hydric
Wedowee sandy loam, 15 to 25 percent slopes
WeE
Non -hydric
5-2

Duke Energy Mayo CCP Monofill Site Lined Retention Basin & Ash Basin Closure
Section 404/401 Individual Permit Modification wood.Project No. 7812180019
Affected Environment
Two hydric soils, Chewacla/Wehadkee and Helena, occur to the north of the ash basin dam of
the Mayo Plant (Figure 3). Figure 4 shows the jurisdictional wetland areas and stream features
within the LRB and Ash Basin Closure Project areas. Wetland G and Stream 2 occur within the
Chewacla/Wehadkee soils. Wetlands F and H and Streams 1 and 3 occur to the west or south
(near vicinity) of this hydric soil.
5.2.4 Terrestrial Communities
The dominant terrestrial communities on the Mayo Plant are pine forest, upland hardwood
forest, and mixed pine -hardwood upland forest. Shrub and brushland and open, maintained
(grassed) areas also occur on the property, which encompass disturbed/altered land within the
plant property. Information on the terrestrial communities and species composition within the
LRB and Ash Basin Closure Project areas is discussed below.
Affected Environment
The predominant terrestrial community within the LRB and Ash Basin Closure Project areas is
mixed pine -hardwood upland forest. This community abuts most of the streams and wetlands
that occur within the Project areas. The canopy stratum includes Loblolly pine (Pinus taeda),
white oak (Quercus alba), northern red oak (Quercus rubra), southern red oak (Quercus
falcata), sweetgum (Liquidambar styraciflua), American beech (Fagus grandifolia), and
mockernut hickory (Carya alba). Scattered occurrences of Virginia pine (Pinus virginiana) are
also present in the canopy stratum. The shrub stratum consists of American holly (Ilex opaca),
sourwood (Oxydendrum arboreum), red maple (Acer rubrum var. rubrum), ironwood (Ostrya
virginiana), eastern red cedar (Juniperus virginiana var. virginiana), saplings of the hardwood
species, and scattered occurrences of Chinese privet (Ligustrum sinense), an invasive, noxious
shrub species. The groundstory vegetation, although sparse, includes common greenbrier
(Smilax rotundifolia), Japanese honeysuckle (Lonicera japonica), elephant's -foot (Elephantopus
sp.), panic grasses (Panicum spp.), blackberry (Rubus sp.), wild onion (Allium canadense),
Christmas fern (Polystichum acrostichoides), and hardwood seedlings. Botanical taxonomic
nomenclature is in accordance with Weakley (Weakley 2015).
Areas of shrub and brushland and maintained (mowed) land are interspersed with the forested
stands within the LRB and Ash Basin Closure Project areas. The vegetation includes a mixture
of woody shrubs, grasses, forbs, and vines.
The wetland community descriptions and information on species composition for the waters of
the US within the LRB and Ash Basin Closure Project areas are discussed in Section 5.2.5
below.
5.2.5 Wetlands
Waters of the US, including ponds, streams, and wetlands, are defined by 33 CFR Part 328.3 et
a/. and are protected by Section 404 and other applicable sections of the CWA (33 US Code
[USC] 1344). Impacts to regulated resources under Section 404 of the CWA are administered
and enforced by the USACE Wilmington District.
5-3

Duke Energy Mayo CCP Monofill Site Lined Retention Basin & Ash Basin Closure
Section 404/401 Individual Permit Modification wood.Project No. 7812180019
On June 3 to 5 and June 8 to 10, 2015, on-site evaluations for the presence of potentially
jurisdictional surface waters within the Mayo Plant were conducted. Delineation efforts were
previously completed in December 2014. Potentially jurisdictional wetland areas were
delineated (flagged) using the Routine On -Site Determination Method as defined in the USACE
Wetland Delineation Manual' and the Eastern Mountains and Piedmont regional supplement2.
This technique uses a multi -parameter approach which requires positive evidence of three
criteria: hydrophytic vegetation, hydric soils, and wetland hydrology. Areas exhibiting wetland
characteristics within the station boundary were considered potentially jurisdictional waters. The
landward limits of wetlands were subsequently marked in the field with labeled survey tape tied
to vegetation or stakes. The location of each flag point was acquired by a Global Positioning
System (GPS) device.
As part of the 2015 jurisdictional waters evaluation, an in-house review of the US Department of
Agriculture's Natural Resources Conservation Service (NRCS) Person County Soil Survey GIS
data (Figure 3) (NRCS 2018), and the US Geological Survey (USGS) digital 7.5'topography
(Figure 5); Cluster Springs, North Carolina Quadrangle) (USGS 2018). These maps were used
to direct the on-site investigation and highlight areas having listed hydric soils or topographic
configurations suggesting the presence of wetlands or streams.
A request for Verification of Jurisdictional Determination (JD) was submitted to the USACE
Raleigh Regulatory Field Office for the delineated wetland areas within the Mayo Steam Station.
This request for Verification of JD included the work areas within the Project area. Mr. Eric
Alsmeyer, Mr. David Bailey, and Ms. Tasha Alexander of the USACE conducted a site
inspection of the Mayo Plant on March 14, 2016, and June 22, 2016. Mr. David Bailey and Mr.
Ross Sullivan of the USACE conducted a site inspection on August 30, 2017. The USACE has
not issued an Approved JD at this time. The landward limits of the jurisdictional wetlands (flag
points) within the property were surveyed by McKim & Creed, a registered Professional Land
Surveyor.
Based on the field approved jurisdictional feature delineation, three jurisdictional wetland areas
occurred within the LRB project area and nine jurisdictional wetland areas and occurred within
the ash basin closure project area. (Figure 4). Eleven of these wetlands were classified as
headwater forest wetlands and one wetland was classified as a bottomland hardwood forest
(Schafale and Weakley 1990). The classifications of these wetlands were based on the North
Carolina Wetland Assessment Method (NC WAM) per the methodology outlined in the NC WAM
User ManuaP (Version 4. 1), effective October 2010. The level of function of each on site
wetland (relative to reference condition) was assessed using NC WAM on January 8, 2018, and
March 2, 2018. Information on the size, NC WAM classification, and riparian nature of the 12
wetlands on Duke Energy property is presented in Table 3. The USACE Eastern Mountain and
Piedmont Wetland Determination Data Forms for these wetland areas were included in the
' Environmental Laboratory. 1987. "Corps of Engineers Wetlands Delineation Manual," Technical Report Y-87-
1. US Army Engineer Waterways Experiment Station. Vicksburg, MS.
Z Environmental Laboratory. 2012. "Regional Supplement to the Corps of Engineers Wetland Delineation Manual:
Eastern Mountains and Piedmont Region (Version 2.0)," Technical Report ERDC/EL TR -12-9. US Army
Engineer Waterways Experiment Station. Vicksburg, MS.
3 N.C. Wetland Functional Assessment Team. 2010. "N.C. Wetland Assessment Method (NC WAM) User Manual, Version
4.1". North Carolina Wetland Functional Assessment Team. Raleigh, NC.
5-4

Duke Energy Mayo CCP Monofill Site Lined Retention Basin & Ash Basin Closure
Section 404/401 Individual Permit Modification
Project No. 7812180019
wood.
Verification of JD request package previously submitted to the USACE. The NC WAM Wetland
Assessment Forms are in Appendix B.
Table 3. Wetlands within the LRB and Ash Basin Closure Project Areas, Mayo Plant,
Person County, North Carolina.
Wetland ID
NC Classifil
cation
(acres) Size
Riparian / Non -riparian
Wetland B
Headwater Forest
0.12
Non -riparian
Wetland C
Headwater Forest
0.06
Non -riparian
Wetland D
Headwater Forest
0.11
Riparian
Wetland E
Headwater Forest
0.76
Non -riparian
Wetland F
Headwater Forest
0.02
Riparian
Wetland G
Headwater Forest
0.23
Non -riparian
Wetland H
Headwater Forest
0.05
Riparian
Wetland JJJ
Headwater Forest
0.07
Riparian
Wetland LLL
Headwater Forest
0.09
Riparian
Wetland MMM
Headwater Forest
0.28
Riparian
Wetland UU
Headwater Forest
0.02
Non -Riparian
Wetland ZZ
Headwater Forest
0.3
Non -riparian
Total Acreage
2.2
5.2.6 Streams
Potential jurisdictional streams on the Mayo Plant were evaluated on June 3 - 5 and June 8 - 10,
2015, using the NCDEQ Division of Water Resources (NCDWR) Methodology for Identification
of Intermittent and Perennial Streams and Their Origins' (Version 4.11), effective September 1,
2010. The extents of these streams were delineated and included in the request for Verification
of JD to the USACE Raleigh Regulatory Field Office. The USACE has not issued an Approved
JD at the time of this report. The landward limits of the jurisdictional streams (flag points) within
the station property were surveyed by McKim & Creed.
° North Carolina 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.
5-5

Duke Energy Mayo CCP Monofill Site Lined Retention Basin & Ash Basin Closure
Section 404/401 Individual Permit Modification
Project No. 7812180019
wood.
Based on the field approved jurisdictional feature delineation, two jurisdictional streams
occurred within the LRB project area and five jurisdictional streams occur within the ash basin
closure project area. (Figure 4). The NCDWR Stream Identification scores and classifications
and the USACE Stream Quality Assessment Worksheet scores are presented in Table 6 for
these 7 streams.
Affected Environment
Based on the field approved jurisdictional feature delineation, the LRB project area included two
intermittent streams (Streams 5 and 6). The ash basin closure project area includes two
perennial streams (Streams 2 and 3) and three intermittent streams (Streams 1, 9, and 10) (as
shown on Figure 4). The level of function of each stream (relative to reference condition) was
assessed on May 12, 2016 and July 17, 2018 by Wood using the North Carolina Stream
Assessment Method (NC SAM) per the methodology outlined in the NC SAM Draft User Manual
5, effective March 2013. Information on the reach length, NCDWR Stream Identification score
and classification of these five streams is presented in Table 4. The NCDWR Stream
Identification Forms for these streams were included in the Verification of JD request package
previously submitted to the USACE. The NC SAM Stream Assessment Forms for the streams
are in Appendix B.
Table 4. Streams within the LRB and Ash Basin Closure Project Areas, Mayo
Plant, Person County, North Carolina.
Stream ID
NCDWR
Stream Score'
NCDWR Stream
Classification'
Entire Reach
Length (linear
feet)
Stream 1
26.5
Intermittent
389
Stream 2
33.5
Perennial
1,105
Stream 3
31
Perennial
541
Stream 5
19
Intermittent
148
Stream 6
25
Intermittent
229
Stream 9
29
Intermittent
299
Stream 10
28.5
Intermittent
110
Total Linear Feet
979
5 N.C. Stream Functional Assessment Team. 2013. "N.C. Stream Assessment Method (NC SAM) Draft User Manual". North
Carolina Stream Functional Assessment Team. Raleigh, NC.
5-6

Duke Energy Mayo CCP Monofill Site Lined Retention Basin & Ash Basin Closure
Section 404/401 Individual Permit Modification wood.Project No. 7812180019
' NCDWR scoring: <19= ephemeral; 19 to <30 = intermittent; a30 =perennial
Streams 5, 6, 9 and 10, drain into the ash basin. Streams 1, 2, and 3, flow into Crutchfield
Branch. The USGS digital 7.5'topography (Figure 5) depicts Streams 2, 3, and 6. The NRCS
Person County Soil Survey (hardcopy version) (NRCS 1975) only depicts Stream 3. The Mayo
Plant is located within the Roanoke River Basin (Hydrologic Unit Code [HUC] 03010104).
5.2.7 Riparian Buffers
The Mayo Plant is in the Roanoke River Basin. Review of the State of North Carolina
Buffer Regulations indicate that the study area is not located within a buffer river basin
and is not subject to any state riparian buffer regulations.
Affected Environment
Since the Mayo Plant in not located within a river basin subject to state riparian buffer
regulations, there will be no impacts to state regulated riparian buffers within the Project area.
5.2.8 Open Waters
No jurisdictional ponds or lakes were delineated within LRB or ash basin closure project areas
of the Mayo Plant. Except for portions of the ash basin no ponds or lakes occur within the LRB
Project area or the ash basin closure Project area at the Mayo Plant. One pond was depicted on
the USGS topographic map within the LRB Project area (Figure 5). This feature was delineated
as a wetland (Wetland D) and not as a pond during the delineation effort. No ponds or lakes are
depicted within the Project area on the NRCS Person County Soil Survey (hardcopy version).
Affected Environment
Since no jurisdictional ponds or lakes are located within the Mayo Plant, there will be no open
water impacts within the Project area.
5.2.9 Floodplains
Floodplain Management is conducted in compliance with Executive Order 11988. 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). In partnership with FEMA, the State of North
Carolina has produced flood maps in accordance with FEMA standards. Wood reviewed Digital
Flood Insurance Rate Maps (DFIRM) to determine whether any portion of the Mayo Plant lies
within the regulatory 100 -year floodplain (Flood Insurance Rate Map [FIRM] Panels
3721002000J, 3721002100J, 3721003000J, 3721003100J, 3721004000J, 3721004100J, and
3721000000J (effective date June 4, 2007, for all panels) (FEMA 2018). Based on this review,
the regulated 100 -year floodplain primarily occurs within the eastern half of the Mayo Plant,
including Mayo Lake and Mayo Creek
A Floodplain Development Permit is typically required under the provisions of the Flood
Damage Prevention Ordinance of Person County prior to the commencement of any
development activities within Special Flood Hazard Areas determined in accordance with the
provisions of the ordinance (Person County 2018). The application for the Floodplain
5-7

Duke Energy Mayo CCP Monofill Site Lined Retention Basin & Ash Basin Closure
Section 404/401 Individual Permit Modification wood.Project No. 7812180019
Development Permit must be submitted for review by the county before development activity
begins. Work conducted within the 100 -year floodplain requires review/consultation with the
Person County Floodplain Administrator.
Affected Environment
The review of the FEMA DFIRM delineated flood boundaries for the Mayo Plant identified that
no jurisdictional surface waters within the LRB and Ash Basin Closure Project areas lie within
the 100 -year flood zone (Figure 6). Consultation with Person County regulatory staff is
recommended, however, to confirm that a Floodplain Development Permit would not be
required for work conducted within and limited to the project area.
5.2.10 Surface Waters
Surface waters include streams, rivers, lakes, and reservoirs. The Mayo Plant basin is located
entirely within the Roanoke River Basin (NCDEQ 2018a) and the Piedmont Physiographic
Region. Mayo Lake and Mayo Creek occur within the eastern half of the plant property. The
surface water classification listed for Mayo Creek (Mayo Lake) on the most recent NCDEQ
surface water data (NCDEQ 2018b) is "WS -V" (Water Supply V). This classification includes
waters protected as water supplies which are generally upstream and draining to Class WS -IV
waters or waters used by industry to supply their employees with drinking water or as waters
formerly used as water supply. These waters are also protected for Class C uses. Crutchfield
Branch is protected for Class B uses. Crutchfield Branch and Mayo Creek are not listed as
impaired near the Mayo Plant; i.e., it is not included on the "2016 Final 303(d) List" of impaired
waters (NCDEQ 2018c).
Affected Environment
Surface waters within the LRB and Ash Basin Closure Project areas include Streams 1, 2, 3, 5,
6, 9, and 10. All seven streams are jurisdictional waters. Streams 5, 6, 9, and 10, drain into the
ash basin. Streams 1, 2, and 3 occur at, or near, the toe of the ash basin dam embankment.
None of the streams are directly linked, hydrologically, to Mayo Lake or Mayo Creek.
5.2.11 Groundwater
Groundwater refers to subsurface hydrologic resources that are used for domestic, agricultural,
and industrial purposes. Groundwater is stored in natural geologic formations called aquifers. In
the Piedmont Physiographic Region of North Carolina, two major aquifer systems exist and
usually interact with one another (NCDEQ 2018d) [unconfined aquifer and surficial aquifer]. The
surficial materials or regolith of these provinces form the unconfined aquifer. The fractured rock
beneath is the unconfined, to semi -confined, bedrock aquifer. The surficial aquifer typically
feeds the fractures in the bedrock aquifer. These two aquifers are further described below
(NCDEQ 2018d).
Surficial aquifer: This aquifer is widely used throughout the state for individual home wells. The
surficial aquifer is the shallowest and most susceptible to contamination from septic tank
systems and other pollution sources. The surficial aquifer is also sensitive to variations in
rainfall amounts; i.e., they are the first to go dry in a drought.
W.*

Duke Energy Mayo CCP Monofill Site Lined Retention Basin & Ash Basin Closure
Section 404/401 Individual Permit Modification wood.Project No. 7812180019
Fractured bedrock aquifer: This aquifer is widely used for home water supply. Usually six-inch
wells are drilled to intercept water bearing fractures which are more common in valleys or
draws.
Affected Environment
The proposed action will not draw water from subsurface/groundwater sources. Therefore, the
implementation of the LRB and Ash Basin Closure Project should have no pronounced effect on
the surficial aquifer or the fractured bedrock aquifer.
5-9

Duke Energy Mayo CCP Monofill Site Lined Retention Basin & Ash Basin Closure
Section 404/401 Individual Permit Modification
Project No. 7812180019
wood.
6.0 PROPOSED IMPACTS TO WATERS OF THE UNITED STATES
6.1 EXTENT OF IMPACTS
Wetlands D, E and MMM, and Streams 5 and 6 occurred within the LRB Project area and have
been impacted by the LRB construction. Wetlands B, C, F, G, H, UU, ZZ, JJJ, and LLL, and
Streams 1, 2, 3, 9, and 10, occur within the Ash Basin Closure Project area. Wetlands UU and
ZZ will be affected by the implementation of the ash basin closure operations. Impacts to waters
of the US from the implementation of the LRB construction and ash basin closure operations are
classified herein as permanent. The impacts to Wetlands D, E, MMM, Streams 5 and 6 were
due to filling these features during the LRB construction. The impacts to Wetlands UU and ZZ
may be due to excavating and fillings these features during ash removal as part of the ash basin
closure. Table 5 presents acreage and linear foot values of the proposed impacts to
jurisdictional wetlands and streams within the Project areas. The Plan View and Cross-section
drawings of the LRB and Ash Basin Closure, including the work areas where the impacts to
waters of the US will occur, are provided in Appendix A.
Table 5. Proposed impacts to jurisdictional wetlands and streams for the LRB and Ash
Basin Closure Proiects, Mavo Plant, Person County, North Carolina.
*impacts have occurred due to the LRB construction
6.2 CUMULATIVE IMPACTS
The USACE is required to determine both potential short-term and long-term effects of a
proposed discharge of dredge and fill material on the physical, chemical, and biological
6-1
Proposed Impacts
Resource Type
Wetlands
(acres)
NCWAM Overall
Rating
Streams (linear
feet)
NCSAM Overall
Rating
LRB Project Impacts
Wetland D
0.11*
Medium
-
-
Wetland E
0.6*
Low
-
-
Wetland MMM
0.16*
Medium
-
-
Stream 5
-
-
132
Medium
Stream 6
-
-
95
Medium
Ash Basin Closure Project Impacts
Wetland UU
0.02
Low
-
-
Wetland ZZ
0.26
Medium
-
-
Total
1.15
227
*impacts have occurred due to the LRB construction
6.2 CUMULATIVE IMPACTS
The USACE is required to determine both potential short-term and long-term effects of a
proposed discharge of dredge and fill material on the physical, chemical, and biological
6-1

Duke Energy Mayo CCP Monofill Site Lined Retention Basin & Ash Basin Closure
Section 404/401 Individual Permit Modification wood.Project No. 7812180019
components of an aquatic environment, including the effects of cumulative impacts. A review of
potential cumulative impacts to waters of the US because of the construction of the LRB and the
implementation of the Ash Basin Closure operations indicates that the proposed discharge
would have no significant adverse effects on the aquatic ecosystem. The rationale for this
presumption is based on the following considerations:
No contact water (i.e., water containing CCR materials) will be discharged into waters of
the US (wetlands and streams); therefore, the water quality of downstream receiving
waters, specifically Mayo Lake, will not be impaired.
The proposed impacts to the waters of the US from the LRB construction and
implementation of ash basin closure activities should have no cumulative effect on the
quality of other jurisdictional waters occurring within the Mayo Plant or beyond the station
property. This presumption is based on the review of environmental documentation
regarding known current and past federal and non-federal actions at the steam station.
Projects in the planning phase were also considered, including reasonably foreseeable
(rather than speculative) actions that have the potential to interact with the proposed
action. To have reasonable assurances that there would be cumulative effects to projects
when considered together or incrementally, the projects need to occur within similar time
frames and within a geographic area coinciding with the proposed action.
6-2

Duke Energy Mayo CCP Monofill Site Lined Retention Basin & Ash Basin Closure
Section 404/401 Individual Permit Modification wood.Project No. 7812180019
7.0 COMPENSATORY MITIGATION
7.1 MITIGATION REQUIREMENTS
On April 10, 2008, the Department of Defense, in conjunction with the EPA, issued
Compensatory Mitigation for Losses of Aquatic Resources; Final Rule (33 CFR Parts 325 and
332; 40 CFR Part 230). This mitigation rule is designed to improve planning and management of
compensatory mitigation projects for impacts which are authorized under Department of the
Army permits. The rule stresses a watershed approach to mitigation project locations and
requires ecological performance standards and annual monitoring of an implemented mitigation
plan.
7.2 MITIGATION PLAN
Compensatory mitigation for the proposed impacts is required under the Section 404 IP.
Appropriate avoidance and practicable minimization efforts have been conducted through the
analysis of alternative stormwater redirection plan concepts. However, unavoidable impacts to
on-site waters of the US are necessary to complete the proposed action. The details of the
proposed compensatory mitigation plan for these unavoidable impacts are presented below for
the preferred gravity flow alternative.
The compensatory mitigation options evaluated for the proposed action included: (1) credit
purchase from an approved private mitigation bank or (2) credit purchase through the North
Carolina Division of Mitigation Services (NCDMS) In -Lieu Fee Program. Mitigation requirements
for the existing Mayo Monofill IP were satisfied by the purchase of mitigation credits from the
former NC Ecosystem Enhancement Program (currently NCDMS). Based on the review of the
mitigation options available, it was determined that credit purchase through the NCDMS In -Lieu
Fee Program was necessary because there are currently no mitigation banks offering wetlands
and stream credits in the Roanoke River basin. On-site mitigation and off-site mitigation
opportunities were not explored because the In -Lieu Fee option was already available.
Wetland and stream mitigation credits are currently available through the NCDMS In -Lieu Fee
Program. The Mayo Plant occurs within HUC 03010104. This HUC is subject to premium rates
within the Roanoke River basin. Table 5 presents the NCDMS mitigation costs for impacts to
jurisdictional riparian wetlands and cool water streams. Fees for wetlands are calculated in
quarter -acre increments. Mitigation ratios were applied as follows (final mitigation ratios will
need to be confirmed by the USACE):
• A mitigation ratio of 1:1 was applied for riparian and non -riparian wetlands with a NC WAM
overall rating of low or medium that are hydrologically connected to the ash basin.
• A mitigation ratio of 1:1 was applied for intermittent streams with a NC SAM overall rating
of low or medium and which drain directly into the ash basin.
As the Mayo Plant is not within a watershed where Riparian Buffer Rules are administered by
the State of North Carolina, mitigation is not included in Table 6 for impacts to riparian buffers.
The cost estimates presented below are preliminary estimates based on mitigation ratios that
have not been verified by the USACE.
7-1

Duke Energy Mayo CCP Monofill Site Lined Retention Basin & Ash Basin Closure
Section 404/401 Individual Permit Modification
Project No. 7812180019
wood.
Table 7. Potential mitigation costs for impacts to waters of the US, LRB and Ash Basin
Closure Project Areas, Mayo, Person County, North Carolina.
Fee Category
Features
Impact Total
NCDMS In -Lieu
Fee Unit Cost
Total Cost'
Riparian and Non-
Wetlands D, E, UU,
1.16 acres
Riparian Wetland
ZZ, and MMM
(1:1 ration; 1.25
$91,055.65
$113,820
(Roanoke HUC
(NC WAM Medium
quarter -acre
03010104)
Rating)
level
Streams 5 and 6
227 linear feet
Intermittent Stream
(NC WAM Medium
(1:1 ratio)
$507.32
$115,162
Rating)
Total
$228,982
Total cost not approved by the USACE or NCDWR as of this draft. Premium mitigation rates were formerly referred to as Higher
Fee HUCs by NCDMS.
7-2

Duke Energy Mayo CCP Monofill Site Lined Retention Basin & Ash Basin Closure
Section 404/401 Individual Permit Modification wood.Project No. 7812180019
8.0 PROTECTED SPECIES
8.1 BACKGROUND
Certain plant and animal species are protected by the Federal Endangered Species Act (ESA)
of 1973 (16 USC 1531-1544, December 28, 1973, as amended 1976-1982, 1984, and 1988),
which is administered and enforced by the US Fish and Wildlife Service (USFWS), Region 4.
USACE IP and Nationwide Permit General Condition 11 require that projects authorized by the
USACE do not adversely affect federally protected species. Should a finding of adverse effect
be presumed by the USACE, coordination with the USFWS is typically required to avoid impacts
or minimize impacts to the practicable extent (Section 7 Consultation).
A records search was conducted to identify documented federally protected species (threatened
or endangered) and federal Species of Concern which have elemental occurrences in Person
County. As specifically related to the North Carolina Natural Heritage Program (NCNHP)
database search, the query of elemental occurrences encompassed a one -mile radius of the
LRB and Ash Basin Closure Project areas. Both federal and state databases were reviewed:
• NCNHP database query request (NCNHP 2018)
• USFWS Information for Planning and Conservation (IPaC) database (USFWS 2018a)
• USFWS Environmental Conservation Online System (ECOS) (USFWS 2018b)
• Raleigh Ecological Services Field Office website (USFWS 2018c)
The purpose of the records search was to determine whether federally listed plant and animal
species or designated critical habitat may be near the Mayo Plant and, specifically, near the
LRB and Ash Basin Closure Project areas. Table 6 presents the results of the records search
for Person County. Known habitats used by the species listed in Table 6 were compared with
the habitats occurring within the Project areas to determine the potential for occurrence for each
species and the potential for effect that the implementation of the proposed site activities would
have on these species. Specifically, the potential for effect that the site activities would have on
the species listed in Table 6 was based on the following factors:
• A comparison of the known habitat uses by these species
• The habitats (if present) within the steam station
• The quantity, quality, and proximity of these habitats
• Observations of these species or their sign during field reconnaissance
• The proposed site activities (construction materials and equipment)
M

Duke Energy Mayo CCP Monofill Site Lined Retention Basin & Ash Basin Closure
Section 404/401 Individual Permit Modification wood.
Project No. 7812180019
Table 8. Potential for effect for federally listed animal and plant species within the LRB and
Asn tsasln Llosure Pro ect Areas, Mayo Plant, Person County, North Carolina.
Common Name Federal General Habitat Description Potential
(Scientific Name) Status for Effect
Mollusks
Dwarf -wedge mussel Waters with slow to moderate current and relatively
(Alasmidonta heterodon) E hard water on sand and mixed sand and gravel No Effect
substrates.
Sources: NCNHP List of Rare Species of North Carolina; USFWS IPaC; USFWS Environmental Conservation Online System -
Species Profiles; County list (USFWS Raleigh Ecological Services); NatureServe Explorer.
Codes: E = Endangered.
8.2 AFFECTED ENVIRONMENT
Wood conducted a general field reconnaissance of the LRB and Ash Basin Closure Project
areas on April 12, 2018, May 30, 2018, and July 17, 2018. No federally species for Person
County were observed during the field reconnaissance. The NCNHP database query results
(July 16, 2018, NCNHP report) did not include the federally endangered dwarf -wedge mussel
identified in Table 6; i.e., there were no reported elemental occurrences within a one -mile radius
of the Project areas. This report is included in Appendix C. The results of the July 17, 2018,
query of the USFWS IPaC database are also included in Appendix C.
The dwarf -wedge mussel is typically found in shallow to deep quick running water on cobble,
fine gravel, or on firm silt or sandy bottoms. Other habitats included are amongst submerged
aquatic plants, and near stream banks underneath overhanging tree limbs. The species
commonly lives on muddy sand, sand, and gravel bottoms in creeks and rivers of various sizes.
It requires areas of slow to moderate current, good water quality, and little silt deposits. There
are two streams within the Mayo Plant (i.e., Mayo Creek and Bowes Branch) that could be
considered suitable habitat for this mussel species. However, neither of these streams occur
within the LRB and Ash Basin Closure Project areas. Wood conducted visual reconnaissance of
the stream reaches within the Project areas to determine presence or absence of the species
within the proposed project limits. No specimens of the dwarf -wedge mussel were observed,
however, during the field investigations. Furthermore, suitable habitat for the species was not
found along the stream reaches within the Project areas. The stream habitat limiting factors
included stream length and stream quality. Because of the limited stream size, and the inherent
low quality of the stream substrate, it was presumed that the streams within the Project areas
cannot support reproductive populations of the dwarf -wedge mussel.
RM

Duke Energy Mayo CCP Monofill Site Lined Retention Basin & Ash Basin Closure
Section 404/401 Individual Permit Modification wood.Project No. 7812180019
9.0 CULTURAL RESOURCES
9.1 BACKGROUND
Section 404 of the CWA requires that projects authorized by the USACE do not adversely affect
historical properties which are listed or eligible for listing on the National Register of Historic
Places (NRHP). Cultural resources are protected by Section 106 of the National Historic
Preservation Act. The Section 106 process consists of consultation with state and federal
agencies, consultation with Native American tribes by the lead federal agency, and the
identification and evaluation of cultural resources for inclusion in the NRHP.
Wood conducted a cultural resource screening to assess the presence/absence of known
cultural resources and NRHP-listed resources within a half -mile search radius of the Mayo
Plant. The research included a review of the online North Carolina State Historic Preservation
Office (NCSHPO) Web GIS Service (NCSHPO 2018) (http://gis.ncdcr.gov/hpoweb/). The
investigation did not include field efforts to identify or verify cultural resources identified by the
online NCSHPO Web GIS Service, and no visits to the NCSHPO office or formal coordination
with the NCSHPO office was included in this review. As a part of the permit process, required
and routine consultation with the NCSHPO under Section 106 of the CWA will be undertaken by
the USACE Wilmington District.
9.2 AFFECTED ENVIRONMENT
A 2015 review of the state files demonstrated that thirteen sites were identified as being
near or within one half mile of the LRB and Ash Basin Closure Project areas. Please
see Figure 7. Twelve sites are unassessed. Site 31 PR66 is a historical tobacco barn
that has not been assessed. State records recommended no further work be done since
only the foundation stones remain. Sites 31 PR7, 31 PR8, 31 PR9, 31 PR13, 31 PR12,
31 PR21, 31 PR10, 31 PR20, 31 PR24, and 31 PR25 are either along eroded shore line or
completely inundated by the Mayo Lake. Sites 31 PR51 and 31 PR52 are cemeteries and
are either located along the eroded shore line or completely inundated. According to the
NCSHPO office's GIS Services web site there are three sites outside a 0.5 -mile radius
but within a 2.5 -mile radius of the project area. Site PR0059 is approximately 1.3 miles
southeast of the Project areas. It is described as a 19th century three story frame house.
It has no status, was not surveyed and is now gone from the location listed in the
NCSHPO records. Site PR0069 is located approximately 1.6 miles southwest of the
Project areas. It is described as a two-story clipped gable frame house. It has no status
and has not been surveyed. Site PR0028 (Fontaine House, also known as The Oaks) is
located approximately 2.2 miles southeast of the LRB and Ash Basin Closure Project
areas. It is described as a two-story Greek Revival frame house, was surveyed in 1975
and is now gone from the location listed in the NCSHPO records. The site has no
status. These three sites are outside the Area of Potential Effect for the Project areas
due to distance from the Project areas. If federal permits are required as part of future
project plans, required consultation with the NCSHPO may result in a request for a
Phase IA archaeological survey for portions of the Project areas not previously
surveyed.
9-1

Duke Energy Mayo CCP Monofill Site Lined Retention Basin & Ash Basin Closure
Section 404/401 Individual Permit Modification wood.Project No. 7812180019
According to the North Carolina Office of State Archaeology records, the LRB and Ash Basin
Closure Project areas do contain identified archaeological or historic resources and none of
these resources are adjacent to these project areas. This does not imply that a survey has been
conducted that yielded no data, but rather that no data are currently available, as no survey was
conducted. The LRB construction and implementation of Ash Basin Closure operations are not
expected to affect cultural resources or historical properties. Federal permits shall be sought for
the project. Consultation with NCSHPO may be a necessary as part of the USACE IP process.
9-2

Duke Energy Mayo CCP Monofill Site Lined Retention Basin & Ash Basin Closure
Section 404/401 Individual Permit Modification wood.Project No. 7812180019
10.0 ENVIRONMENTAL JUSTICE
10.1 BACKGROUND
Environmental justice considers sensitive minority and low-income populations in the community
to determine whether a proposed action and its alternatives may have a disproportionately high
and adverse human health or environmental effect on those populations. Environmental Justice
analysis is conducted in compliance with Executive Order (EO) 12898 (59 Federal Register [FR]
7629), Federal Actions to Address Environmental Justice in Minority Populations and Low-
income Populations. Based on guidance from the CEQ, minority populations should be
identified where either (a) the minority population of the area exceeds 50 percent (%), or (b) the
minority population percentage of the affected area is substantially greater than the minority
population percentage in the general population or other appropriate unit of geographic analysis
(CEQ 1997). Hispanic or Latino populations are not defined as a racial designation, but rather
an ethnic population. Hispanics or Latinos may be white, black or any race. Low-income
populations are defined as those below the federal poverty thresholds identified using statistical
poverty thresholds from the US Census. EPA guidance states, "The composition of the
population should be compared to the characteristics of the population, e.g., percentage of
minority populations residing near a proposed project versus the percentage of minority
populations located within a single or multiple -county area surrounding the proposed project"
(EPA 1998). Applying this methodology, the percentage of low-income and minority populations
near the LRB and ash basin closure Project areas (Person County) is compared to the
percentage of low-income and minority populations located within North Carolina. A low-income
or minority population is identified when an area has a poverty rate or minority population
percentage that is substantially greater than the state.
To summarize, EO 12898 instructs federal agencies to identify and address, within the scope of
the proposed programs, policies and activities that may have disproportionately high adverse
effects on human health or environmental effects on minority and low-income populations.
Furthermore, according to CEQ guidelines, US Census Bureau (USCB) data are typically used
to determine minority and low-income population percentages in the affected area of a project to
conduct a qualitative assessment of potential environmental justice impacts.
10.2 AFFECTED ENVIRONMENT
Wood examined 2010, 2016 and 2017 USCB data to determine minority and low-income
population percentages in the affected area of the Project to facilitate the qualitative assessment
of potential environmental justice impacts. The avoidance of adverse impacts upon minority
and/or low-income communities is an important component of the LRB construction and ash
basin closure Project areas. The data used in this analysis is a combination of USCB Census
2010, along with 2016 and 2017 estimated populations. The Mayo Plant is in Census Block
Group 920100-1, Census Tract 9201, zip code 27574.
A census block is a geographic area defined by the USCB. On average, a block has
approximately 1,500 residents. This census block is comprised of several census tracts. Since
the census block is a large geographic area, population dynamics were interpreted on the tract
level to account for the population that would potentially be impacted by the Project. The two
10-1

Duke Energy Mayo CCP Monofill Site Lined Retention Basin & Ash Basin Closure
Section 404/401 Individual Permit Modification wood.
Project No. 7812180019
census tracts nearest the Duke Mayo CCP Monofill Site are Census Tract 9201 in Person
County and Census Tract 9303.02 in Halifax County, Virginia. Specific data for these census
blocks are available for 2016 and 2017 from the US Department of Census.
The population of Census Tract 9201 is 7,115, approximately 57.6% of which is Caucasian or
white and 39.5% is African-American or black. The percentage of Hispanic or Latino in this
Census Tract is 0.7%. The percentage of Asians in this Census Tract is 0%. The percentage of
Mixed is 0.9 %, and the percentage of Other is 1.7%. The percentage of Caucasian or white in
this Census Tract is lower, but not substantially lower than, the county and state percentages as
reported in the 2016 Census.
The total population for Person County is 7,115, according to the July 2016 Census estimated
data. For Person County, the percentage of the population that is Caucasian or white is 66%,
and the percentage of African-American or black is 24.8%. The approximate Hispanic or Latino
population within the county is 0.4%. The percentage of all minorities (including Hispanic or
Latino) for the Census Tract according to the USCB 2016 data is 37.8%, a higher percentage of
minorities than the county average of 31.4% and lower than the state percentage of 38.2%.
The number of seniors (967) is 13% which is slightly less than the county percentage of 19%
(7,780 persons). The percentage of seniors statewide is 15.9% (2,629,995 persons), similar to
the Census Tract 9201 and Person County percentages. The percentage of children under the
age of 18 in the Census Tract is 26% (1,692) and for Person County, 22% (9.114). The
percentage of the population under 18 is slightly (not significantly less) in North Carolina as
compared to Person County. For the state it is 21.3%, or 8,268 persons according to the
estimated 2017 Census data.
The number of persons living in poverty in Census Tract 9201 is 18% (1,467). For Person
County it is 18.5%, very close to the rate for the Census Tract studied. These percentages are
2% higher than the rate for North Carolina (16.9%). Median per capita income according to July
2016 Census data for the Tract is $22,791. The median adult income for the state of North
Carolina is $25,909 and for the county is $22,049.
The percentage of children living in poverty in the Census Tract is 27%. This is greater than the
percentage of children living in poverty for Person County (18.5%). The percentage for the
Census Tract is approximately 10% higher than the rate for children living in poverty in the state
of North Carolina (16.9%). The percentage of seniors living in poverty in the Census Tract 9201
is 11 %, the same as in Person County (11 %). This is only 1 % higher than the rate for North
Carolina (10%). The median home price in the Census Block where the Census Tract 9201 is
located is $116, 000. This is to the same as the county median home price of $116,000 and less
than the state median home price of $157,100.
Combining the data for a seventeen-year span, it is observed that the Census Tract 9201 does
not have a higher number of children living in poverty nor a higher number of adults aged 65
and over living in poverty than the county and the state data. The criteria for an environmental
justice community is not met in Census Tract 9201.
The other nearest Census Tract is 9403.02, located in Halifax County, Virginia. The population
of Census Tract 9201 is 4,759, approximately 69% of which is Caucasian or white and 28% of
10-2

Duke Energy Mayo CCP Monofill Site Lined Retention Basin & Ash Basin Closure
Section 404/401 Individual Permit Modification wood.Project No. 7812180019
which is African-American or black. The percentage of Hispanic or Latino in this Census Tract is
1 %. The percentage of Asians in this Census Tract is 0%. The percentage of Mixed is 2%, and
the percentage of Other is 0%. The percentage of Caucasian or white in this Census Tract is
higher than the county and state percentages of 60% and 62%, respectively, as reported in the
2016 Census.
The percentage of African-American or black is 37% for Halifax County, which is higher than the
Commonwealth of Virginia's at 19%. The approximate Hispanic or Latino population within the
county is 2%, a slightly larger percentage than for the Census Tract; both are lower than the
Commonwealth of Virginia's percentage of 9% as reported by the US Census data.
The percentage of all minorities (including Hispanic or Latino) for the Census Tract, according to
the USCB 2016 data, is 31 %, a lower percentage of minorities than the county average of 42%
and lower than the Commonwealth's percentage of 38.2%. The number of persons in Census
Tract 9303.02 who are 18 years of age and under is 999 (21 %) which is less than the county
percentage of 22% (9,114) and the state percentage of 22% (2,281,635).
The number of persons living in poverty in Census Tract 9303.2 is 666 (14.1 %). For Halifax
County poverty is 18.8%, and the Commonwealth of Virginia has 11 % of its total population
living in poverty. Median per capita income according to July 2016 Census data for Census
Tract 9303.2 is $21,386. The median adult income for the county is $20,706 and for the
Commonwealth is $36,206.
The percentage of children under the age of 18 in the Census Tract is 22 % and for Halifax
County, 26.9%. The percentage of the population under 18 of the Commonwealth (14%) is less.
The percentage of children living in poverty in the Census Tract 9303.2 is 14.1 %. This is less
than the percentage of children living in poverty for Halifax County (18.8%). This percentage is
higher than the rate for children living in poverty in the Commonwealth (11 %). The number of
seniors (1,036) is 18%, which is similar to the county percentage of 15%. The percentage of
seniors living in poverty in the Census Tract is 18%, similar to the percentage in Halifax County
(15%) and the Commonwealth of Virginia (15%). The median home price in the Census Block
where the Census Tract is located is $103,300. This is similar to the county median home price
of $109,200 and substantially less than the Commonwealth median home price of $264,000.
Combining the data for a seventeen-year span, it is observed that although the Census Tract
9303.2 has a similar number of children and adults aged 65 and over living in poverty as
compared to the county percentages, a higher number of children living in poverty and a higher
number of adults aged 65 and over are living in poverty than indicated by the state data. The
USCB criteria for an environmental justice community is met within Census Tract 9303.2 in
Halifax County.
The proposed project actions will occur entirely within the property of the Mayo Plant and will
not occur within these communities and no impacts to vehicular, bicycle or foot traffic access to
medical, school or employment are anticipated, nor are access to food and fiber production or
firewood to be impacted. No disproportionately high adverse impacts to human health or
environment of minority or low-income populations is expected. No conflicts with known
(documented) residential communities are anticipated.
10-3

Duke Energy Mayo CCP Monofill Site Lined Retention Basin & Ash Basin Closure
Section 404/401 Individual Permit Modification
Project No. 7812180019
11.0 NOISE
11.1 BACKGROUND
wood.
Noise is sound that is produced at levels that can be harmful and may be considered unwanted
by the surrounding community, properties, and residences. The Noise Control Act of 1972 (PL
92-574) and EO 12088 require that federal agencies assess the impact of noise to the
environment (EPA 2018). Guidelines for noise have been established by the EPA based on a
calculation of noise by the daytime and nighttime averages, referred to as the Day/Night Levels
(Ldn) (EPA 1974). The Ldn is reported as A -weighted decibels (dBA) that occur within a 24-hour
period. Table 7 presents EPA standard noise levels for various community types. Noise levels
can vary depending on setting, built environment, and distance to the noise source. Noise levels
by environment can be variable with levels at 40 decibels (dB) for wilderness areas and 90 dB
for urban areas. Rural communities typically have lower d6 than their urban counterparts with
rural communities around 50 dB or less. The EPA has calculated that an individual exposed to a
noise level of 73 dB for eight hours a day for 40 years would have a hearing loss smaller than 5
dB for 96% of the population.
Table 9. EPA standard noise levels for various community types.
Community
Day/Night Average
(Ldn-dBa)
Rural
30 to 55
Quiet Suburb
50
Normal Suburb
55
Urban Residential
60
Noisy Urban
65
Very Noisy Urban
70
11.2 AFFECTED ENVIRONMENT
Grading operations are the noisiest activities with equipment generating noise levels as high as
70 to 95 dBA within 50 feet of their operation. Distance would rapidly attenuate noise, and it is
not anticipated that the LRB construction and proposed ash basin closure operations will occur
close enough to existing residential areas to the south of the Project areas to cause
disturbances. In addition, these operations would occur during daytime hours when residents
are away from their homes; therefore, those living near the Mayo Plant are not likely to be
affected by noise generated by the Projects. Noise impacts will be generally localized at the
vicinity of the Project areas. Earth -moving equipment and other construction machinery and
vehicles will create localized increases in noise levels. These temporary noise impacts should
not disrupt normal Mayo Plant operations. Noise levels generally dissipate as distance from
their origin increases. Distance from the Project areas must be considered when evaluating
potential noise impacts to land uses adjacent to or near the Project area. The LRB construction
and proposed ash basin closure operations will take place entirely within the property
boundaries of the Mayo Plant. A mature pine/mixed hardwood stand occurs between the

Duke Energy Mayo CCP Monofill Site Lined Retention Basin & Ash Basin Closure
Section 404/401 Individual Permit Modification wood.Project No. 7812180019
southern plant boundary and residential properties. This woodland buffer would reduce noise
exposure to off-site residents during project activities. Because of the woodland buffer between
the Project areas, the Projects are not expected to impact noise -sensitive land uses.
11-2

Duke Energy Mayo CCP Monofill Site Lined Retention Basin & Ash Basin Closure
Section 404/401 Individual Permit Modification wood.
Project No. 7812180019
12.0 AIR QUALITY
12.1 BACKGROUND
The EPA classifies source emitted air pollutants that cause health, environmental, and property
damage as "criteria air pollutants", as the agency has developed criteria (science -based
guidelines) as the basis for setting permissible levels in ambient air. One set of limits (primary
standard) protects human health; another set of limits (secondary standard) protects human
welfare by preventing environmental and property damage.
The EPA has established National Ambient Air Quality Standards (NAAQS) in 40 CFR 50 for
the following criteria pollutants: sulfur dioxide, particulate matter (with an aerodynamic diameter
of less than 10 microns) (PM10), fine particulate matter (with an aerodynamic diameter of less
than 2.5 microns) (PM2.5), carbon monoxide, ozone, nitrogen dioxide, and lead. A geographic
area that meets or exceeds the primary NAAQS is classified as an attainment area; areas that
do not meet the primary NAAQS are classified as nonattainment areas. Areas that were
originally designated as nonattainment, but which have improved their air quality sufficiently to
have been redesignated to attainment, are classified as maintenance areas.
In addition to the federal NAAQS for criteria pollutants, NCDEQ (NCDEQ 2015) has adopted
ambient air quality standards in NCAC Title 15A Subchapter 2D Section 0400. Regulations that
limit air pollution emissions from stationary sources located within North Carolina are codified
under North Carolina Administrative Code (NCAC) Title 15A - Environment and Natural
Resources, Chapter 02 — Environmental Management, Subchapter 02D - Air Pollution Control
Requirements (15A NCAC 02D). Stationary source air quality permitting procedures are codified
under Subchapter 02Q — Air Quality Permit Procedures (15A NCAC 02Q) (NCDEQ 2013).
12.2 AFFECTED ENVIRONMENT
The entirety of the Mayo Plant is in Person County, North Carolina, approximately 50 miles
north-northwest of the Raleigh metropolitan area. The area is part of the Piedmont
physiographic region, where regional climate is impacted by a variety of influences, from the
Appalachian Mountains to the west and the Atlantic Ocean to the east, including the Gulf
Stream. The Bermuda High is a predominant climatological feature during the summer months,
providing calm winds and clear conditions that can result in a degradation of air quality. Winds
are predominantly from the west in North Carolina, which can result in pollution transport from
upwind states.
12.3 REGULATORY REQUIREMENTS FOR AIR QUALITY — GENERAL CONFORMITY
The 1990 Clean Air Act Amendments include the General Conformity rule, which is intended to
ensure that Federal Actions conform with applicable State Implementation Plans in
nonattainment or maintenance areas; thus, not adversely impacting the area's progress toward
attaining NAAQS standards. The General Conformity rule is codified in 40 CFR Part 51, Subpart
W and Part 93, Subpart B, "Determining Conformity of General Federal Actions to State or
Federal Implementation Plans" ("General Conformity Rule"). NCDEQ's general conformity rules
codified in NCAC Title 15A Subchapter 2D Section 1600 expired on February 1, 2016.
12-1

Duke Energy Mayo CCP Monofill Site Lined Retention Basin & Ash Basin Closure
Section 404/401 Individual Permit Modification wood.Project No. 7812180019
General Conformity is applicable to most federally funded or approved actions that are not
applicable to Clean Air Act Transportation Conformity regulations, and covers direct and indirect
emissions of criteria pollutants, or their precursors, caused by the action. The General
Conformity rule can be summarized as consisting of three parts: applicability, procedure, and
analysis. Applicability is an assessment of whether a proposed action is subject to the General
Conformity rule.
Person County was previously designated as nonattainment for the 1997 8 -hour Ozone NAAQS
standard of 0.080 ppm, but was redesignated to maintenance as of December 19, 2011. Per the
Implementation of the 2008 National Ambient Air Quality Standards for Ozone Final Rule,
effective April 6, 2015, the 1997 8 -hour Ozone NAAQS has been revoked in attainment and
maintenance areas, (80 FR 12264).
As the Mayo Plant LRB and ash basin closure projects are not located in an area designated as
nonattainment or maintenance for any criteria pollutant, as of June 30, 2018, the General
Conformity rule is not applicable, and a General Conformity Determination is not required for the
project.
At the state level, Person County is part of the Raleigh Air Monitoring Region. Air quality
monitoring stations in Person County include an ozone monitoring station in Hurdle Falls and a
sulfur dioxide monitoring station in Sempra. NCDEQ operates ozone monitor site 37-145-0003,
located at State Highway 49 South in Person County. In the most recent data available (2011
Ambient Air Quality Report) Site 37-145-0003 reported a mean annual fourth highest 8 -Hour
average ozone value, averaged over the three-year period from 2009-2011, of 0.070 ppm,
attaining the 8 -hour ozone state standard of 0.076 ppm.
As NCDEQ's general conformity rules, codified in 15A NCAC Subchapter 02D Section 1600,
expired on February 1, 2016, pursuant to G.S. 15013-21.3A, a state general conformity analysis
is not required for the Mayo Plant ash basin project.
Additionally, per 15A NCAC Subchapter 02Q Section 0300, the project is exempt from requiring
an air quality permit or permit modification, as any potential maintenance, structural changes, or
repair activities are not expected to "increase the capacity of such processes", or "cause any
change in the quality or nature or an increase in quantity of an emission of any regulated air
pollutants.
12.4 PROPOSED MITIGATION MEASURES
During the project construction phase, additional emissions control measures will include the
suppression of fugitive dust emissions. "Fugitive dust emissions" refers to particulate matter that
does not pass through a process stack or vent and that is generated within plant property
boundaries from activities such as unloading and loading areas, process areas, stockpiles,
stock pile working, plant parking lots, and plant roads (including access roads and haul roads).
During the construction phase, frequent water spraying on roadways will serve as the primary
suppression method to ensure that vehicle traffic does not spreading dust.
12-2

Duke Energy Mayo CCP Monofill Site Lined Retention Basin & Ash Basin Closure
Section 404/401 Individual Permit Modification wood.Project No. 7812180019
As the project is not located in a nonattainment or maintenance area for any criteria pollutants,
and given the fugitive dust mitigation measures, operations associated with the Mayo ash basin
project are not expected to impact air quality, either locally or regionally.
12-3

Duke Energy Mayo CCP Monofill Site Lined Retention Basin & Ash Basin Closure
Section 404/401 Individual Permit Modification wood.
Project No. 7812180019
13.0 REFERENCES
Amec Foster Wheeler Environment & Infrastructure, Inc. 2015. Natural Resources Technical
Report, Mayo Electric Generating Plant, Person County, North Carolina. July 2, 2015.
Barbour, M.T., J. Gerritsen, B.D. Snyder, and J.B. Stribling. 1999. Rapid Bioassessment Protocols
for Use in Streams and Wadeable Rivers: Periphyton, Benthic Macroinvertebrates and
Fish, Second Edition. EPA 841-B-99-002. US Environmental Protection Agency; Office of
Water; Washington, DC.
CEQ. 1981. Scoping Guidance, Memorandum of General Councils, NEPA Liaisons and
Participants Scoping. April 30, 1981. Notice of availability published in 46 FR 25461,
May 7, 1981.
CEQ. 1997. Environmental Justice Guidance under the National Environmental Policy Act.
http://www.nepa.gov/nepa/reqs/ei/iustice.pdf. December 10, 1997.
Duke Energy. 2017. Duke Energy Coal Plant Decommissioning web page https://www.duke-
energy.com/our-company/about-us/coal-plant-decommissioning-program. Website
accessed July 16, 2018.
Environmental Laboratory. 1987. "Corps of Engineers Wetlands Delineation Manual," Technical
Report Y-87-1. US Army Engineer Waterways Experiment Station. Vicksburg, MS. Duke
Energy.
Environmental Laboratory. 2012. "Regional Supplement to the Corps of Engineers Wetland
Delineation Manual: Eastern Mountains and Piedmont Region (Version 2.0)," Technical
Report ERDC/EL TR -12-9. US Army Engineer Waterways Experiment Station.
Vicksburg, MS.
Executive Order 11988. 1977. Floodplain Management. May 24, 1977.
Executive Order 12088. 1978. Federal Compliance with Pollution Control Standards. October
13, 1978.
Executive Order 12898. 1994. Federal Actions to Address Environmental Justice in Minority
Populations and Low -Income Populations. February 16, 1994.
FEMA. 2018. Federal Emergency Management Agency — Flood Map Service Center.
https://msc.fema.gov/portal. Website accessed July 16, 2018.
Golder Associates. 2012. Joint Permit Application — Mayo CCP Monofill Site. Golder
Associates. February 9, 2012.
13-1

Duke Energy Mayo CCP Monofill Site Lined Retention Basin & Ash Basin Closure
Section 404/401 Individual Permit Modification wood.Project No. 7812180019
NCDEQ. 2013. North Carolina Department of Environmental Quality. 2013. 2011 Ambient Air
Quality Report. https://ncdenr.s3.amazonaws.com/s3fs-
public/Air%20Quality/monitor/reports/2013-01.pdf . Website accessed July 19, 2018.
NCDEQ. 2015. North Carolina Department of Environmental Quality. Air Quality Rules,
Emission Control Standards. 2015. https:Hdeg.nc.gov/about/divisions/air-quality/air-
quality-rules/rules/emission-control-standards. Website accessed July 19, 2018.
NCDEQ. 2016. North Carolina Department of Environmental Quality. Introduction to Coal Ash in
North Carolina. https:Hdeg.nc.gov/news/hot-topics/coal-ash-nc/introduction-coal-ash-nc.
Website accessed July 17, 2018.
NCDEQ. 2018a. North Carolina Department of Environmental Quality. Office of Environmental
Education and Public Affairs - River Basin Interactive Map.
http://www.eenorthcarolina.org/riverbasins-interactive.html.Website accessed July 17,
2018.
NCDEQ. 2018b. North Carolina Department of Environmental Quality. River Basin Classification
Schedule. https://deg.nc.gov/river-basin-classification-schedule. Website accessed July
16, 2018.
NCDEQ. 2018c. North Carolina Department of Environmental Quality. 303(d) Files.
https://deg.nc.gov/about/divisions/water-resources/planning/classification-
standards/303d/303d-files. Website accessed July 16, 2018.
NCDEQ. 2018d. North Carolina Department of Environmental Quality. North Carolina aquifers.
http://www.ncwater.org/?page=525. Website accessed July 16, 2018.
NCDEQ. 2018e. North Carolina Department of Environmental Quality. NC Surface Water
Classifications.https://ncdenr.maps.arcgis.com/apps/webappviewer/index.html?id=6el 25
ad7628f494694e259c80dd64265 and https://deg.nc.gov/river-basin-classification-
schedule. Websites accessed July 19, 2018.
NCDWR. 2010. "Methodology for Identification of Intermittent and Perennial Streams and their
Origins, Version 4.11". North Carolina Department of Environment Quality, Division of
Water Resources. Raleigh, NC.
NCGS. 1985. Geologic Map of North Carolina. Available at:
https://deg.nc.gov/about/divisions/energy-mineral-land-resources/north-carolina-
geological-survey/ncqs-maps/1985-geologic-map-of-nc. Accessed July 16, 2018.
NCNHP. 2018. North Carolina Department of Environmental Quality, Natural Heritage Program
Data Services. http://ncnhp.org/web/nhp/database-search. Website accessed July 16,
2018.
NCSHPO. 2018. North Carolina State Historic Preservation Office. SHPO GIS Web Service
http://gis.ncdcr.gov/hpoweb/ Website accessed July 18, 2018.
13-2

Duke Energy Mayo CCP Monofill Site Lined Retention Basin & Ash Basin Closure
Section 404/401 Individual Permit Modification wood.Project No. 7812180019
NC Stream Functional Assessment Team. 2013. "N.C. Stream Assessment Method (NC SAM)
Draft User Manual". North Carolina Stream Functional Assessment Team. Raleigh, NC.
NC 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.
NRCS. 2018a. United States Department of Agriculture - Natural Resources Conservation
Service. Hydric Soils. https://www.nres.usda.gov/wps/portal/nres/main/soils/use/hydric/. Website
accessed July 16, 2018.
NRCS. 2018b. US Department of Agriculture, Natural Resources Conservation Service. Person
County Soil Survey geographic information system.
Person County. 2018. Flood Damage Prevention Ordinance of Person County. Planning and
Zoning Ordinances. http://www.personcounty.net/departments-services/departments-i-
z/planning-and-zoning/ordinances. Website accessed July 16, 2018.
Schafale, M.P., and A.S. Weakley. 1990. Classification of the natural communities of North
Carolina, third approximation. N.C. Natural Heritage Program, Raleigh, N.C. 325 pp.
US Bureau of the Census. 2018. Person County Interactive Population Search.
http://www.census.gov2010censu/popmap/ipmtext.php?fl=37. Website accessed July
18, 2018.
US Bureau of the Census. 2018. American Fact Finder, North Carolina Statistics.
https://factfinder.census.gov/faces/nav/Isf/pages/community facts.xhtml. Website
accessed July 18, 2018.
EPA. 1974. US Environmental Protection Agency. Information on Levels of Environmental Noise
Requisite to Protect Public Health and Welfare with an Adequate Margin of Safety.
Report 550/9-74-004, Washington, D.C.
EPA. 2018. Summary of the Noise Control Act. https://www.epa.gov/laws-regulations/summary-
noise-control-act. Website accessed July 19, 2018.
USFWS. 2018a. US Fish and Wildlife Service. Information for Planning and Conservation
(IPaC) database. http://ecos.fws.gov/ipac/. Website accessed July 17, 2018.
USFWS. 2018b. US Fish and Wildlife Service. ECOS Environmental Conservation Online
System. http://ecos.fws.gov/ecp/. Website accessed July 16, 2018.
USFWS. 2018c. US Fish and Wildlife Service. Raleigh Ecological Services Field Office.
http://www.fws.gov/raleigh/. Website accessed July 16, 2018.
13-3

Duke Energy Mayo CCP Monofill Site Lined Retention Basin & Ash Basin Closure
Section 404/401 Individual Permit Modification wood.Project No. 7812180019
USGS. 2018. US Geological Survey. Cluster Springs, North Carolina digital 7.5' topography.
Accessed July 17, 2018.
Weakley, A.S. 2015. Flora of the Southern and Mid -Atlantic States. UNC Herbarium, North
Carolina Botanical Garden, University of North Carolina at Chapel Hill. 1320 pp.
13-4

Mayo Plant
Section 404/401 Individual Permit Modification
Mayo CCP Monofill Site Lined Retention Basin and Ash Basin Closure
Person County, North Carolina
Project No. 7810150300
FIGURES
wood.

0 115 r
iMiles
Figure 1. Site Location Map
Mayo Plant
Section 404/401
Individual Permit Modification
Mayo CCP Monofill Site
Lined Retention Basin and
Ash Basin Closure
Person County, NC
Legend
Project Area
Plant Boundary
I i Ash Basin
L -----r
% DUKE
"*w ENERGY;
wood.
Job No. 7810150300
Drawn By:JAH
Reviewed By. ---
Date: 7/23/2018
The map shown here has been
created with all due and
reasonable care and is strictly for
use with Amec Foster Wheeler
project number 7810150300.
Amec Foster Wheeler assumes no
liability, direct or indirect,
whatsoever for any such third
party or unintended use.
x
s
n
vitjilina
cJ N—
�r �
�N�IIJ
`
z
S
Mayo IP Project Location
4°
�r
E
in
_I
rn
m
0
U
m
E
m
K
0
i
7
m
9
Sources: Esri, HERE, Del-orme, USGS, Intermap, increment P Corp., NRCAN, Esn Japan, METI, Esri China (Hong
m
Kong), Esn (Thailand), Mapmylndia, ®OpenStreelMap contributors, and the GIS User Community
w
a

N
I P.
0 5 10
Miles
Figure 2. Site Aerial Map
Mayo Plant
Section 404/401
Individual Permit Modification
Mayo CCP Monofill Site
Lined Retention Basin and
Ash Basin Closure
Person County, NC
Legend
Project
Plant Boundary
Ash Basin
. f*%, DUKE
*'ENERGY
wood.
Job No. 7810150300
Drawn ByJAH
Reviewed Bv� ---
Date: 7/20/2018
The map shown here has been
created with all due and
reasonable care and is strictly for
use with Amec Foster Wheeler
project number 7810150300.
Amec Foster Wheeler assumes no
liability, direct or indirect,
whatsoever for any such third
party or unintended use.
�z. 7° s' sj .r ay a�P>�«►+ate p4. r.i ma+o•`•.<*
� k� y.r'°� •k..1 .•` 4,,' ,�;°.-`�'�T'•s•`y ��, �K Y� V �..��'` N ��'t- ��tY r # �k+..-�� f «a. #+.+�
�+Var
Asa!
, (
,
«
" ^+�+ • C ^yet •.ti�", ."` .... �..w_�.� .-" •p -✓s.
,
r` y
,
r^
4
= re
,
Mayo ll Project Area
fk. �
F
K t, i�V1 it ay f .r
,
� r
,
e
y�
Y"
Y
. 1 r
-•` yt
i
S
•
tib", -1
I I
I
n
w K
« y
^
AP
fk. �
F
K t, i�V1 it ay f .r

I 0 5 10
Miles
Figure 3. NRCS Soils Map
Mayo Plant
Section 404/401
Individual Permit Modification
Mayo CCP Monofill Site
Lined Retention Basin and
Ash Basin Closure
Person County, NC
Legend
Project Area
Ash Basin
Soils
Plant Boundary
{ ok DUKE
`*" ENERGY,
wood.
Job No. 7810150300
Drawn By: JAH
Reviewed By:
Dale: 7/23/2018
The map shown here has been
created with all due and
reasonable care and is strictly for
use with Amec Foster Wheeler
project number 7810150300.
Amec Foster Wheeler assumes no
liability, direct or indirect,
whatsoever for any such third
party or unintended use.
i
Alm
or
;
kA
e r .4 �1
4 q
,y n
a
. ,IM
i
' 4
151
.';
Soil Type Map Unit
Symbol
Cecil sandy loam, 2 to 6 percent slopes
CeB
Cecil sandy loam, 6 to 10 percent slopes
CeC
Chewacla and Wehadkee soils, 0 to 2 percent slopes, frequently flooded
ChA
Dam
Dam
Helena sandy loam, 2 to 6 percent slopes
HeB
Rion sandy loam, 25 to 45 percent slopes
RoF
y
Udorthents, loamy, gently sloping
UdB
Water
W
Wedowee sandy loam, 6 to 10 percent slopes
WeC
Wedowee sandy loam, 10 to 15 percent slopes
WeD
Wedowee sandy loam, 15 to 25 percent slopes
WeE
Sources Esri, HERE UeLorme, US35-lnjLrmap, increment
��gqKong))YEsn(Thailand)�Mapm`ylndia?OpenSVeelMapcontnbutors
Esn - — sema
P Co p., NRCAN Esn Japan, MET nEsri China{Hong
Ise—,
and [heGIS,UserCommunlry
-contrrr^

110 4 8 I
Miles
Figure 4.
Jurisdictional Waters Map
Mayo Plant
Section 404/401
Individual Permit Modification
Mayo CCP Monofill Site
Lined Retention Basin and
Ash Basin Closure
Person County, NC
Legend
Project Area
Wetlands
- Streams
--- Ash Basin
Plant Boundary
(ft, DUKE
!'ENERGY,
wood.
Job No. 7810150300
Drawn By JAH
Reviewed By,
Date: 7/23/2018
The map shown here has been
created with all due and
reasonable care and is strictly for
use with Amec Foster Wheeler
project number 7810150300.
Amec Foster Wheeler assumes no
liability, direct or indirect,
whatsoever for any such third
party or unintended use.

F-1
I 0 2.25 4.5
Miles
Figure 5. USGS
Topographic Map
Mayo Plant
Section 404/401
Individual Permit Modification
Mayo CCP Monofill Site
Lined Retention Basin and
Ash Basin Closure
Person County, NC
Legend
Project
Plant Boundary
Ash Basin
./ DUKE
ENERGY;
wood.
Job No. 7810150300
Drawn By, JAH
Reviewed By
Date: 7/20/2018
The map shown here has been
created with all due and
reasonable care and is strictly for
use with Amec Foster Wheeler
project number 7810150300.
Amec Foster Wheeler assumes no
liability, direct or indirect
whatsoever for any such third
party or unintended use.
1
sources: Esri, HERE, Del-orme, USGS, Intermap, increment P Corp., NRCAN, Esd Japan, METI, Esd China (Hong I
Kong), Esd (Thailand), Mapmylndia, 0 OpenStreetMap contributors, and the GIs User Community

AN
I I 0 4 8 I
Miles
Figure 6. Floodplain Map
Mayo Plant
Section 404/401
Individual Permit Modification
Mayo CCP Monofill Site
Lined Retention Basin and
Ash Basin Closure
Person County, NC
Legend
Project Area
Plant Boundary
— — Ash Basin
Zone AE (100 yr)
-f DUKE
' ENERGY.
wood.
Job No. 7810150300
Drawn By JAH
Reviewed By- ---
Date: 7/20/2018
The map shown here has been
created with all due and
reasonable care and is strictly for
use with Amec Foster Wheeler
project number 7810150300.
Amec Foster Wheeler assumes no
liability, direct or indirect,
whatsoever for any such third
party or unintended use.
;
� � A
1a -
4L7@
4 Al
JJjj e
v
d
,
,
�.a
<
r$
»
:N
-_
x g
a `
x
s
a,
*
� a
i
4 I
., mss`=
.'
s„
` y;x.r D' •'1^ V5"�'as , .-A'!. fr',(�„ - ^.*N. '00 0�,�p�,
I
ON
jr
z 17A
"` , < , syr y� •�'r�7 j ��arr .�.'� a J ,:r, w I !° �
e
x rg
F,
ra »
,
w.
tS'
c >
P
}
Y! em Y
e
,r
5
-
n
m
3 ..
,
v
/�;. - , ., I"` Sources: Esd, HERE, DeLorme�US�S, IntennaP,_increment P,�C�P. NRCA�N,.Esd JaD�n, MITI,;
r
tG +'it
�S
f�
r a
. .
a
s
1
w. E
-
_
r
�
,
.a
�A
g
,1
• ,� ate. $:� „ �
r
fit
J�
a
,� ,
;
� � A
1a -
4L7@
4 Al
JJjj e
v
d
,
,
�.a
<
r$
»
:N
-_
x g
a `
x
s
a,
*
� a
i
4 I
., mss`=
.'
s„
` y;x.r D' •'1^ V5"�'as , .-A'!. fr',(�„ - ^.*N. '00 0�,�p�,
I
ON
jr
z 17A
"` , < , syr y� •�'r�7 j ��arr .�.'� a J ,:r, w I !° �
e
x rg
F,
ra »
,
w.
tS'
c >
P
}
Y! em Y
e
,r
5
-
n
m
3 ..
,
v
/�;. - , ., I"` Sources: Esd, HERE, DeLorme�US�S, IntennaP,_increment P,�C�P. NRCA�N,.Esd JaD�n, MITI,;

E:1
I 0 5 10
Miles
Figure 7. Cultural Resources Map
Mayo Plant
Section 404/401
Individual Permit Modification
Mayo CCP Monofill Site
Lined Retention Basin and
Ash Basin Closure
Person County, NC
Legend
Project Area
Plant Boundary
j Ash Basin
+ Surveyed &
Destroyed/Removed
+ Surveyed NCSHPO
Location
National Register
NCSHPO
,faDUKE
'lam ENERGY:.
Job No. 7810150300
Drawn Bv:JAH
Reviewed Bv' --
Date: 7/20/2018
The map shown here has been
created with all due and
reasonable care and is strictly for
use with Amec Foster Wheeler
project number 7810150300.
Amec Foster Wheeler assumes no
liability, direct or indirect,
whatsoever for any such third
Party or unintended use.
H2
+
3L�
�, rw
ry�
Z;
W r
hill R `Rd c.
�settti
Rd
House
House (Approximate site)
+ House
+ r�1
Holloway -Jones -Day House
Log House (Gone)
c
+
Burton House
Ca +
z
:= P
U
D
a411 #
Sanford House
M02,500 5,000
Feet

Mayo Plant
Section 404/401 Individual Permit Modification
Mayo CCP Monofill Site Lined Retention Basin and Ash Basin Closure
Person County, North Carolina
Project No. 7810150300
wood.
APPENDIX A
LRB Location Alternative Analysis Figure

Ax''
C ♦ C r.
s �O-z- f
MAYO LA
KE RD
/
OPTION
34 ACRES
VE
ASHIBASINOPTION 4
32 ACRES
OUTFALL 009 A
1981
LANDFILL
PERMIT NO.
" 73-B
.1R t.
i .., MAYO STE
STATION
I`
'a
k�
- `
NPDES OUTFALL 0011T.
MSW� AV
1.
t .
0 1,000
SCALE IN FEET
LEGEND
APPROXIMATE PROPERTY
BOUNDARY (NOTE 1)
LIMIT OF WETLANDS
(NOTE 2)
APPROXIMATE ASH STORAGE
AREA BOUNDARY
LIMIT OF FLOODPLAIN (NOTE 3)
POTENTIAL SETTLING
FEATURE AREA
NPDES OUTFALL LOCATION
A OUTFALL LOCATION
NOTES:
1. PROPERTY BOUNDARY WAS OBTAINED FROM
SYNTERRA DRAWING TITLED "FIGURE 3 -
GEOLOGY MAP, DUKE ENERGY PROGRESS,
MAYO STEAM ELECTRIC PLANT", DATED 24
DECEMBER 2014.
2. LIMIT OF WETLAND PROVIDED BY DUKE
ENERGY TO GEOSYNTEC ON 8 APRIL 2015 IN A
FILE NAMED "Mayo_Wetlands.DWG".
3. LIMIT OF 100 YEAR FLOODPLAIN OBTAINED
FROM FIRM, MAP NUMBER 37210031005 MAP
REVISED EFFECTIVE 04 JUNE 2007.
4. AERIAL PROVIDED BY NC ONEMAP DATED 20
FEBRUARY 2013.

Mayo Plant
Section 404/401 Individual Permit Modification
Mayo CCP Monofill Site Lined Retention Basin and Ash Basin Closure
Person County, North Carolina
Project No. 7810150300
APPENDIX B
Plan View and Cross -Section Drawings
wood.

Al lion
C3
QC
100 z.s s I
Miles
Mayo Plan View
Mayo Plant
Section 404/401
Individual Permit Modification
Mayo CCP Monofill Site
Lined Retention Basin and
Ash Basin Closure
Person County, NC
Legend
- — — - Cross Section (XS)
LOD
Fi7Wetland
- Stream
Project Area
Plant Boundary
Ash Basin
f DUKE
ENERGY,
wood.
Job No. 7810150300
Drawn By JAH
Reviewed By ---
Date: 7/20/2018
The map shown here has been
created with all due and
reasonable care and is strictly for
use with Amec Foster Wheeler
project number 7810150300.
Amec Foster Wheeler assumes no
liability, direct or indirect,
whatsoever for any such third
Party or unintended use.
I /
,
J I
•
6
I
r I
MMM
♦
t
•
♦
D`
•
I
I
i
I
I I
I
1
I
I
i
i
r'
J
i
118
/
I %
I
I
! i
�
5
/
i
I i
1
E
E
i
E
111
•
Sources: Earl, HERE, Delorme, USGS. Intermap, increment P Corp.. NRCAN, Esh Japan, METI, Esd China (Hong
Kong), Esn (Thailand), Mapmylndia, 0 OpenStreetMap contributors, and the GIS User Community

Mayo Wetland Cross Sections
Mayo Plant
Section 404/401
Individual Permit Modification
Mayo CCP Monofill Site
Lined Retention Basin and
Ash Basin Closure
Person County, NC
LR A
%., DUKE
*'ENERGY.
wood.
Job No. 7810150300
Drawn Bv: JAH
Reviewed By,
Date: 7/20/2018
The map shown here has been
created with all due and
reasonable care and is strictly for
use with Amec Foster Wheeler
project number 7810150300.
Amec Foster Wheeler assumes no
liability, direct or indirect,
whatsoever for any such third
party or unintended use.
West
Wetland MMM
East
514' Western extent
Eastern extent
512
of Wetland MMM 1 -
of Wetland MMM _ - •
_ •
510'
508' �` ? -••
506' `��`. ••-•'••
•-
504' - - - - -- - - - -
50 45 40 35 30 25 20 15 10 5 Feet 5 10 15 20 25 30 35 40 45 50
West
Wetland D East
I i I
512' - -
510' '.
♦ Western extent Eastern extent
508' ♦ of Wetland D of Wetland D
506'
i
♦ j I i'
504' ` '
502' ♦'-----------------------------------------------------------
50 45 40 35 30 25 20 15 10 5 Feet 5 10 15 20 25 30 35 40 45 50
North
_
Wetland E
I
South
Southern extent
524'
N -— —nt
exte
of Wetland Eorthern --
�
• •
520'
j of Wetland E
•
-
_ •
-•
-
516'
512'
508'
---------------------
100 90
80 70 60
50 40 30 20 10 10
20 30 40 50 60 70 80 90
100
Feet

IMayo Stream Cross Sections
Mayo Plant
Section 404/401
Individual Permit Modification
Mayo CCP Monofill Site
Lined Retention Basin and
Ash Basin Closure
Person County, NC
0 DRAFT
•( DUKE
ENERGY.
wood.
Job No. 7810150300
Drawn By, JAH
Reviewed By
Date: 7/23/2018
The map shown here has been
created with all due and
reasonable care and is strictly for
use with Amec Foster Wheeler
project number 7810150300.
Amec Foster Wheeler assumes no
liability, direct or indirect,
whatsoever for any such third
party or unintended use.
West Stream 6 East
504'
502'
500'
498, `. Western extent Eastern extent
of Stream 6 of Stream 6
496' ____ _—•
494'''-
492' — ------- -----'--
490'
50 45 40 35 30 25 20 15 10 5 0 5 10 15 20 25 30 35 40 45 50
Feet
North
Stream
5
South
512'
510'
`��`•
508'
������
Northern extent
506
of Stream 5
Southern extent
of Stream 5
504'
. � �
.�``
'o o
��
502'
---
500'
-------
50
45 40 35 30 25 20 15 10
5
5 10 15 20
25 30 35 40 45 50
Feet

0*00
7,100
1 _
I
WETLAND UU ` l
I WASTE
BOUNDARY
WETLAND UU - PLAN
510
500
490
480
470
460
\ t
1 1
ice' � 1 I11
I
X15
.I
475
4'`00
4.>
SCALE=1 "=100' O
WETLAND UU `}-PROPOSED
GRADE
510
500
490
480
470
460
475
\
� WASTE
BOUNDARY0+00 t, 1+00 0
v1
r�
COMPLIANCE
BOUNDARY
WETLAND ZZ
7
475
• . '0000 1
WETLAND ZZ - PLAN
500
490
480
470
460
450
EXISTING �
GRADE �
I
01
MAN -
PROPOSED
GRADE
w�'— 482
r -
a
SCALE=1 "=200' l 111 J
500
490
480
470
460
450
-Z+UU-I+UU U+UU ]+UU Z+UU .s+UU 4+UU S+UU b+UU-2+00-1+00 0+00 1+00 2+00 3+00 4+00 5+00 6+00
WETLAND UU - PROFILE WETLAND ZZ - PROFILE
PROFILE SCALE: H:1"=200' PROJECT MAYO CAMA ASH POND CLOSURE JOB NO. 60576646
V:1"=20' DUKE SUBJECT ALTERNATIVE A - WETLAND IMPACT EXHIBITS DATE 07/24/2018
L
DRAWN BY RD
. 4� ENERGY® DRAFT - FOR DISCUSSION ONLY FIGURE NO. 5 OF 5
G: \200\Du keCCP \Mayo CAMA Ash Pond Closure -2018 (60576646)\900- CAD- GIS\910-CAD\20-SHEETS\Spillway Alternatives\60576646-EXH-404_401Permit. dwg User: rick.douglas Jul 24, 2018 - 2:12pm
rn
n
00
r;
vi
Lci
r`
r`
r-
14-
It
510
500
490
480
470
460
475
\
� WASTE
BOUNDARY0+00 t, 1+00 0
v1
r�
COMPLIANCE
BOUNDARY
WETLAND ZZ
7
475
• . '0000 1
WETLAND ZZ - PLAN
500
490
480
470
460
450
EXISTING �
GRADE �
I
01
MAN -
PROPOSED
GRADE
w�'— 482
r -
a
SCALE=1 "=200' l 111 J
500
490
480
470
460
450
-Z+UU-I+UU U+UU ]+UU Z+UU .s+UU 4+UU S+UU b+UU-2+00-1+00 0+00 1+00 2+00 3+00 4+00 5+00 6+00
WETLAND UU - PROFILE WETLAND ZZ - PROFILE
PROFILE SCALE: H:1"=200' PROJECT MAYO CAMA ASH POND CLOSURE JOB NO. 60576646
V:1"=20' DUKE SUBJECT ALTERNATIVE A - WETLAND IMPACT EXHIBITS DATE 07/24/2018
L
DRAWN BY RD
. 4� ENERGY® DRAFT - FOR DISCUSSION ONLY FIGURE NO. 5 OF 5
G: \200\Du keCCP \Mayo CAMA Ash Pond Closure -2018 (60576646)\900- CAD- GIS\910-CAD\20-SHEETS\Spillway Alternatives\60576646-EXH-404_401Permit. dwg User: rick.douglas Jul 24, 2018 - 2:12pm

Mayo Plant
Section 404/401 Individual Permit Modification
Mayo CCP Monofill Site Lined Retention Basin and Ash Basin Closure
Person County, North Carolina
Project No. 7810150300
APPENDIX C
NC WAM and NC SAM Data Forms

NC SAM FIELD ASSESSMENT FORM
ies user manual version z.i
USACE AID #: NCDWR #:
INSTRUCTIONS: Attach a sketch of the assessment area and photographs. Attach a copy of the USGS 7.5 -minute topographic quadrangle,
and circle the location of the stream reach under evaluation. If multiple stream reaches will be evaluated on the same property, identify and
number all reaches on the attached map, and include a separate form for each reach. See the NC SAM User Manual for detailed descriptions
and explanations of requested information. Record in the "Notes/Sketch" section if supplementary measurements were performed. See the
NC SAM User Manual for examples of additional measurements that may be relevant.
NOTE EVIDENCE OF STRESSORS AFFECTING THE ASSESSMENT AREA (do not need to be within the assessment area).
PROJECT/SITE INFORMATION:
1. Project name (if any): Mayo Plant 2. Date of evaluation: July 17, 2018
3. Applicant/owner name: Duke Energy 4. Assessor name/organization: Josh Witherspoon/Wood
5. County: Person 6. Nearest named water body
7. River basin: Roanoake on USGS 7.5 -minute quad: Crutchfield Branch
8. Site coordinates (decimal degrees, at lower end of assessment reach): 36.534472 / -78.903461
STREAM INFORMATION: (depth and width can be approximations)
9. Site number (show on attached map): Stream 10 10. Length of assessment reach evaluated (feet): 100
11. Channel depth from bed (in riffle, if present) to top of bank (feet): 0.5 ❑Unable to assess channel dep
12. Channel width at top of bank (feet): 4 13. Is assessment reach a swamp steam? ❑Yes []No
14. Feature type: []Perennial flow ®Intermittent flow []Tidal Marsh Stream
STREAM CATEGORY INFORMATION:
15. NC SAM Zone: ❑ Mountains (M) ® Piedmont (P) ❑ Inner Coastal Plain (1) ❑ Outer Coastal Plain (0)
16. Estimated geomorphic ❑A�
valley shape (skip for
Tidal Marsh Stream): (more sinuous stream, flatter valley slope)
(less sinuous stream, steeper valley slope)
17. Watershed size: (skip ®Size 1 (< 0.1 mit) ❑Size 2 (0.1 to < 0.5 miz) ❑Size 3 (0.5 to < 5 mit) ❑Size 4 (z 5 miz)
for Tidal Marsh Stream)
ADDITIONAL INFORMATION:
18. Were regulatory considerations evaluated? []Yes ®No If Yes, check all that apply to the assessment area.
❑Section 10 water ❑Classified Trout Waters ❑Water Supply Watershed (❑l ❑11 ❑III ❑IV ❑V)
❑Essential Fish Habitat ❑Primary Nursery Area ❑ High Quality Waters/Outstanding Resource Waters
❑Publicly owned property ❑NCDWR Riparian buffer rule in effect []Nutrient Sensitive Waters
❑Anadromous fish ❑303(d) List ❑CAMA Area of Environmental Concern (AEC)
[]Documented presence of a federal and/or state listed protected species within the assessment area.
List species:
[]Designated Critical Habitat (list species)
19. Are additional stream information/supplementary measurements included in "Notes/Sketch" section or attached? ❑Yes ®No
1. Channel Water - assessment reach metric (skip for Size 1 streams and Tidal Marsh Streams)
❑A Water throughout assessment reach.
❑B No flow, water in pools only.
❑C No water in assessment reach.
2. Evidence of Flow Restriction - assessment reach metric
❑A At least 10% of assessment reach in -stream habitat or riffle -pool sequence is severely affected by a flow restriction or fill to the
point of obstructing flow or a channel choked with aquatic macrophytes or ponded water or impoundment on flood or ebb within
the assessment reach (examples: undersized or perched culverts, causeways that constrict the channel, tidal gates, debris jams,
beaver dams).
®B Not A
3. Feature Pattern - assessment reach metric
❑A A majority of the assessment reach has altered pattern (examples: straightening, modification above or below culvert).
®B Not A
4. Feature Longitudinal Profile - assessment reach metric
®A Majority of assessment reach has a substantially altered stream profile (examples: channel down -cutting, existing damming, over
widening, active aggradation, dredging, and excavation where appropriate channel profile has not reformed from any of these
disturbances).
❑B Not A
5. Signs of Active Instability - assessment reach metric
Consider only current instability, not past events from which the stream has currently recovered. Examples of instability include
active bank failure, active channel down -cutting (head -cut), active widening, and artificial hardening (such as concrete, gabion, rip -rap).
®A < 10% of channel unstable
❑B 10 to 25% of channel unstable
❑C > 25% of channel unstable

6. Streamside Area Interaction — streamside area metric
Consider for the
Left Bank (LB) and the Right Bank (RB).
LB RB
N
❑A ❑A
Little or no evidence of conditions that adversely affect reference interaction
®B ®B
Moderate evidence of conditions (examples: berms, levees, down -cutting, aggradation, dredging) that adversely affect
F❑G
reference interaction (examples: limited streamside area access, disruption of flood flows through streamside area, leaky
Submerged aquatic vegetation
or intermittent bulkheads, causeways with floodplain constriction, minor ditching [including mosquito ditching])
❑C ❑C
Extensive evidence of conditions that adversely affect reference interaction (little to no floodplain/intertidal zone access
❑H
[examples: causeways with floodplain and channel constriction, bulkheads, retaining walls, fill, stream incision, disruption
of flood flows through streamside area] or too much floodplain/intertidal zone access [examples: impoundments, intensive
Y
mosquito ditching]) or floodplain/intertidal zone unnaturally absent or assessment reach is a man-made feature on an
Sand bottom
interstream divide
7. Water Quality Stressors — assessment reach/intertidal zone metric
Check all that apply.
❑A Discolored water in stream or intertidal zone (milky white, blue, unnatural water discoloration, oil sheen, stream foam)
❑B Excessive sedimentation (burying of stream features or intertidal zone)
❑C Noticeable evidence of pollutant discharges entering the assessment reach and causing a water quality problem
❑D Odor (not including natural sulfide odors)
❑E Current published or collected data indicating degraded water quality in the assessment reach. Cite source in "Notes/Sketch"
section.
❑F Livestock with access to stream or intertidal zone
❑G Excessive algae in stream or intertidal zone
❑H Degraded marsh vegetation in the intertidal zone (removal, burning, regular mowing, destruction, etc)
❑I Other: (explain in "Notes/Sketch" section)
Si Little to no stressors
8. Recent Weather — watershed metric (skip for Tidal Marsh Streams)
For Size 1 or 2 streams, D1 drought or higher is considered a drought; for Size 3 or 4 streams, D2 drought or higher is considered a drought.
❑A Drought conditions and no rainfall or rainfall not exceeding 1 inch within the last 48 hours
❑B Drought conditions and rainfall exceeding 1 inch within the last 48 hours
®C No drought conditions
9. Large or Dangerous Stream — assessment reach metric
❑Yes ®No Is stream is too large or dangerous to assess? If Yes, skip to Metric 13 (Streamside Area Ground Surface Condition).
10. Natural In -stream Habitat Types — assessment reach metric
10a. []Yes ®No Degraded in -stream habitat over majority of the assessment reach (examples of stressors include excessive
sedimentation, mining, excavation, in -stream hardening [for example, rip -rap], recent dredging, and snagging)
(evaluate for Size 4 Coastal Plain streams only, then skip to Metric 12)
10b. Check all that occur (occurs if > 5% coverage of assessment reach)
(skip for Size 4 Coastal Plain streams)
❑A
Multiple aquatic macrophytes and aquatic mosses
N
❑F
5% oysters or other natural hard bottoms
(include liverworts, lichens, and algal mats)
F❑G
Submerged aquatic vegetation
013
Multiple sticks and/or leaf packs and/or emergent
o f
COC
❑H
Low -tide refugia (pools)
vegetation
Y
❑I
Sand bottom
❑C
Multiple snags and logs (including lap trees)
t
❑J
5% vertical bank along the marsh
❑D
5% undercut banks and/or root mats and/or roots
❑K
Little or no habitat
in banks extend to the normal wetted perimeter
®E
Little or no habitat
**********'*.
"REMAINING QUESTIONS ARE NOT APPLICABLE FOR TIDAL MARSH STREAMS****************************
11. Bedform and Substrate —assessment reach metric (skip for Size 4 Coastal Plain streams and Tidal Marsh Streams)
11a. ❑Yes ®No Is assessment reach in a natural sand -bed stream? (skip for Coastal Plain streams)
11 b. Bedform evaluated. Check the appropriate box(es).
®A Riffle -run section (evaluate 11c)
❑B Pool -glide section (evaluate 11d)
❑C Natural bedform absent (skip to Metric 12, Aquatic Life)
11 c. In riffle sections, check all that occur below the normal wetted perimeter of the assessment reach — whether or not submerged. Check
at least one box in each row (skip for Size 4 Coastal Plain streams and Tidal Marsh Streams). Not Present (NP) = absent, Rare
(R) = present but < 10%, Common (C) _ > 10-40%, Abundant (A) _ > 40-70%, Predominant (P) _ > 70%. Cumulative percentages
should not exceed 100% for each assessment reach.
NP R C A P
® ❑ ❑ ❑ ❑ Bedrock/saprolite
® ❑ ❑ ❑ ❑ Boulder (256 — 4096 mm)
® ❑ ❑ ❑ ❑ Cobble (64 — 256 mm)
❑ ® ❑ ❑ ❑ Gravel (2 — 64 mm)
® ❑ ❑ ❑ ❑ Sand (.062 — 2 mm)
❑ ❑ ❑ ❑ ® Silt/clay (< 0.062 mm)
® ❑ ❑ ❑ ❑ Detritus
® ❑ ❑ ❑ ❑ Artificial (rip -rap, concrete, etc.)
11d. ❑Yes ❑No Are pools filled with sediment? (skip for Size 4 Coastal Plain streams and Tidal Marsh Streams)

12. Aquatic Life — assessment reach metric (skip for Tidal Marsh Streams)
12a. ❑Yes ®No Was an in -stream aquatic life assessment performed as described in the User Manual?
If No, select one of the following reasons and skip to Metric 13. ®No Water ❑Other:
12b. ❑Yes [:]No Are aquatic organisms present in the assessment reach (look in riffles, pools, then snags)? If Yes, check all that
apply. If No, skip to Metric 13.
1 >1 Numbers over columns refer to "individuals" for Size 1 and 2 streams and
❑ ❑Adult frogs
❑ ❑Aquatic reptiles
❑ ❑Aquatic macrophytes and aquatic mosses (include liverworts, lichens, and algal
❑ ❑Beetles
❑ ❑Caddisfly larvae (T)
❑ ❑Asian clam (Corbicula)
❑ ❑Crustacean (isopod/amphipod/crayfish/shrimp)
❑ ❑Damselfly and dragonfly larvae
❑ ❑Dipterans
❑ ❑Mayfly larvae (E)
❑ ❑Megaloptera (alderfly, fishfly, dobsonfly larvae)
❑ ❑Midges/mosquito larvae
❑ ❑Mosquito fish (Gambusia) or mud minnows (Umbra pygmaea)
❑ ❑Mussels/Clams (not Corbicula)
❑ ❑Other fish
❑ ❑Salamanders/tadpoles
❑ ❑Snails
❑ ❑Stonefly larvae (P)
❑ ❑Tipulid larvae
❑ ❑Worms/leeches
"taxa" for Size 3 and 4 streams.
mats)
13. Streamside Area Ground Surface Condition — streamside area metric (skip for Tidal Marsh Streams and B valley types)
Consider for the Left Bank (LB) and the Right Bank (RB). Consider storage capacity with regard to both overbank flow and upland runoff.
LB RB
❑A ❑A Little or no alteration to water storage capacity over a majority of the streamside area
®B ®B Moderate alteration to water storage capacity over a majority of the streamside area
❑C ❑C Severe alteration to water storage capacity over a majority of the streamside area (examples: ditches, fill, soil compaction,
livestock disturbance, buildings, man-made levees, drainage pipes)
14. Streamside Area Water Storage — streamside area metric (skip for Size 1 streams, Tidal Marsh Streams, and B valley types)
Consider for the Left Bank (LB) and the Right Bank (RB) of the streamside area.
LB RB
❑A ❑A Majority of streamside area with depressions able to pond water 2 6 inches deep
❑B ❑B Majority of streamside area with depressions able to pond water 3 to 6 inches deep
❑C ❑C Majority of streamside area with depressions able to pond water < 3 inches deep
15. Wetland Presence — streamside area metric (skip for Tidal Marsh Streams)
Consider for the Left Bank (LB) and the Right Bank (RB). Do not consider wetlands outside of the streamside area or within the normal
wetted perimeter of assessment reach.
LB RB
®Y ®Y Are wetlands present in the streamside area?
❑N ON
16. Baseflow Contributors — assessment reach metric (skip for Size 4 streams and Tidal Marsh Streams)
Check all contributors within the assessment reach or within view of and draining to the assessment reach.
❑A Streams and/or springs (jurisdictional discharges)
❑B Ponds (include wet detention basins; do not include sediment basins or dry detention basins)
❑C Obstruction passing flow during low -flow periods within the assessment area (beaver dam, leaky dam, bottom -release dam, weir)
❑D Evidence of bank seepage or sweating (iron in water indicates seepage)
®E Stream bed or bank soil reduced (dig through deposited sediment if present)
OF None of the above
17. Baseflow, Detractors — assessment area metric (skip for Tidal Marsh Streams)
Check all that apply.
❑A Evidence of substantial water withdrawals from the assessment reach (includes areas excavated for pump installation)
❑B Obstruction not passing flow during low -flow periods affecting the assessment reach (ex: watertight dam, sediment deposit)
❑C Urban stream (z 24% impervious surface for watershed)
❑D Evidence that the streamside area has been modified resulting in accelerated drainage into the assessment reach
❑E Assessment reach relocated to valley edge
OF None of the above
18. Shading — assessment reach metric (skip for Tidal Marsh Streams)
Consider aspect. Consider "leaf -on" condition.
®A Stream shading is appropriate for stream category (may include gaps associated with natural processes)
❑B Degraded (example: scattered trees)
❑C Stream shading is gone or largely absent

19. Buffer Width — streamside area metric (skip for Tidal Marsh Streams)
Consider "vegetated buffer" and "wooded buffer" separately for left bank (LB) and right bank (RB) starting at the top of bank out
to the first break.
Vegetated Wooded
LB RB LB RB
®A ®A ®A ®A 100 feet wide or extends to the edge of the watershed
❑B ❑B ❑B ❑B From 50 to < 100 feet wide
❑C ❑C ❑C ❑C From 30 to < 50 feet wide
❑D ❑D ❑D ❑D From 10 to < 30 feet wide
❑E ❑E ❑E ❑E < 10 feet wide or no trees
20. Buffer Structure — streamside area metric (skip for Tidal Marsh Streams)
Consider for left bank (LB) and right bank (RB) for Metric 19 ("Vegetated" Buffer Width).
LB RB
®A ®A Mature forest
❑B ❑B Non -mature woody vegetation or modified vegetation structure
❑C ❑C Herbaceous vegetation with or without a strip of trees < 10 feet wide
❑D ❑D Maintained shrubs
❑E ❑E Little or no vegetation
21. Buffer Stressors — streamside area metric (skip for Tidal Marsh Streams)
Check all appropriate boxes for left bank (LB) and right bank (RB). Indicate if listed stressor abuts stream (Abuts), does not abut but is
within 30 feet of stream (< 30 feet), or is between 30 to 50 feet of stream (30-50 feet).
If none of the, following stressors occurs on either bank, check here and skip to Metric 22:
Abuts < 30 feet 30-50 feet
LB RB LB RB LB RB
❑A ❑A ❑A ❑A ❑A ❑A Row crops
❑B ❑B ❑B ❑B ❑B ❑B Maintained turf
❑C ❑C ❑C ❑C ❑C ❑C Pasture (no livestock)/commercial horticulture
❑D ❑D ❑D ❑D ❑D ❑D Pasture (active livestock use)
22. Stem Density - streamside area metric (skip for Tidal Marsh Streams)
Consider for left bank (LB) and right bank (RB) for Metric 19 ("Wooded" Buffer Width).
LB RB
®A ®A Medium to high stem density
❑B ❑B Low stem density
❑C ❑C No wooded riparian buffer or predominantly herbaceous species or bare ground
23. Continuity of Vegetated Buffer — streamside area metric (skip for Tidal Marsh Streams)
Consider whether vegetated buffer is continuous along stream (parallel). Breaks are areas lacking vegetation > 10 feet wide.
LB RB
®A ®A The total length of buffer breaks is < 25 percent.
❑B ❑B The total length of buffer breaks is between 25 and 50 percent.
❑C ❑C The total length of buffer breaks is > 50 percent.
24. Vegetative Composition — streamside area metric (skip for Tidal Marsh Streams)
Evaluate the dominant vegetation within 100 feet of each bank or to the edge of the watershed (whichever comes first) as it contributes to
assessment reach habitat.
LB RB
®A ®A Vegetation is close to undisturbed in species present and their proportions. Lower strata composed of native species,
with non-native invasive species absent or sparse.
❑B ❑B Vegetation indicates disturbance in terms of species diversity or proportions, but is still largely composed of native
species. This may include communities of weedy native species that develop after clear -cutting or clearing or
communities with non-native invasive species present, but not dominant, over a large portion of the expected strata or
communities missing understory but retaining canopy trees.
El ❑C Vegetation is severely disturbed in terms of species diversity or proportions. Mature canopy is absent or communities
with non-native invasive species dominant over a large portion of expected strata or communities composed of planted
stands of non -characteristic species or communities inappropriately composed of a single species or no vegetation.
25. Conductivity — assessment reach metric (skip for all Coastal Plain streams)
25a. ❑Yes ®No Was conductivity measurement recorded?
If No, select one of the following reasons. ®No Water ❑Other:
25b. Check the box corresponding to the conductivity measurement (units of microsiemens per centimeter).
❑A < 46 ❑B 46 to < 67 ❑C 67 to < 79 ❑D 79 to < 230 ❑E a 230
Notes/Sketch:

Draft NC SAM Stream Rating Sheet
Accompanies User Manual Version 2.1
Stream Site Name Mayo Plant Date of Assessment July 17, 2018
Stream Category Pb1 Assessor Name/Organization Josh WitherspoonMood
Notes of Field Assessment Form (Y/N) NO
Presence of regulatory considerations (Y/N) NO
Additional stream information/supplementary measurements included (Y/N) NO
NC SAM feature type (perennial, intermittent, Tidal Marsh Stream) Intermittent
USACE/
NCDWR
Function Class Rating Summary
All Streams
Intermittent
(1) Hydrology
MEDIUM
MEDIUM
(2) Baseflow
HIGH
HIGH
(2) Flood Flow
MEDIUM
MEDIUM
(3) Streamside Area Attenuation
MEDIUM
MEDIUM
(4) Floodplain Access
MEDIUM
MEDIUM
(4) Wooded Riparian Buffer
HIGH
HIGH
(4) Microtopography
NA
NA
(3) Stream Stability
MEDIUM
MEDIUM
(4) Channel Stability
HIGH
HIGH
(4) Sediment Transport
LOW
LOW
(4) Stream Geomorphology
MEDIUM
MEDIUM
(2) Stream/Intertidal Zone Interaction
NA
NA
(2) Longitudinal Tidal Flow
NA
NA
(2) Tidal Marsh Stream Stability
NA
NA
(3) Tidal Marsh Channel Stability
NA
NA
(3) Tidal Marsh Stream Geomorphology
NA
NA
(1) Water Quality
MEDIUM
MEDIUM
(2) Baseflow
HIGH
HIGH
(2) Streamside Area Vegetation
HIGH
HIGH
(3) Upland Pollutant Filtration
HIGH
HIGH
(3) Thermoregulation
HIGH
HIGH
(2) Indicators of Stressors
NO
NO
(2) Aquatic Life Tolerance
LOW
NA
(2) Intertidal Zone Filtration
NA
NA
(1) Habitat
MEDIUM
MEDIUM
(2) In -stream Habitat
LOW
LOW
(3) Baseflow
HIGH
HIGH
(3) Substrate
LOW
LOW
(3) Stream Stability
MEDIUM
MEDIUM
(3) In -stream Habitat
LOW
LOW
(2) Stream -side Habitat
HIGH
HIGH
(3) Stream -side Habitat
HIGH
HIGH
(3) Thermoregulation
HIGH
HIGH
(2) Tidal Marsh In -stream Habitat
NA
NA
(3) Flow Restriction
NA
NA
(3) Tidal Marsh Stream Stability
NA
NA
(4) Tidal Marsh Channel Stability
NA
NA
(4) Tidal Marsh Stream Geomorphology
NA
NA
(3) Tidal Marsh In -stream Habitat
NA
NA
(2) Intertidal Zone
NA
NA
Overall
MEDIUM
MEDIUM

NC WAM FIELD ASSESSMENT RESULTS
Evidence of stressors affecting the assessment area (may not be within the assessment area)
Please circle and/or make note on the last page if evidence of stressors is apparent. Consider departure from reference, if appropriate, in
recent past (for instance, within 10 years). Noteworthy stressors include, but are not limited to the following.
• Hydrological modifications (examples: ditches, dams, beaver dams, dikes, berms, ponds, etc.)
• Surface and sub -surface discharges into the wetland (examples: discharges containing obvious pollutants, presence of nearby septic
tanks, underground storage tanks (USTs), hog lagoons, etc.)
• Signs of vegetation stress (examples: vegetation mortality, insect damage, disease, storm damage, salt intrusion, etc.)
• Habitat/plant community alteration (examples: mowing, clear -cutting, exotics, etc.)
Is the assessment area intensively managed? ❑ Yes ® No
Regulatory Considerations - Were regulatory considerations evaluated? []Yes ®No If Yes, check all that apply to the assessment area.
❑ Anadromous fish
❑ Federally protected species or State endangered or threatened species
❑ NCDWR riparian buffer rule in effect
❑ Abuts a Primary Nursery Area (PNA)
❑ Publicly owned property
❑ N.C. Division of Coastal Management Area of Environmental Concern (AEC) (including buffer)
❑ Abuts a stream with a NCDWQ classification of SA or supplemental classifications of HQW, ORW, or Trout
❑ Designated NCNHP reference community
❑ Abuts a 303(d) -listed stream or a tributary to a 303(d) -listed stream
What type of natural stream is associated with the wetland, if any? (check all that apply)
❑ Blackwater
® Brownwater
❑ Tidal (if tidal, check one of the following boxes) ❑ Lunar ❑ Wind ❑ Both
Is the assessment area on a coastal island? ❑ Yes ® No
Is the assessment area's surface water storage capacity or duration substantially altered by beaver? ❑ Yes ® No
Does the assessment area experience overbank flooding during normal rainfall conditions? ❑ Yes ® No
1. Ground Surface Condition/Vegetation Condition — assessment area condition metric
Check a box in each column. Consider alteration to the ground surface (GS) in the assessment area and vegetation structure (VS) in the
assessment area. Compare to reference wetland if applicable (see User Manual). If a reference is not applicable, then rate the assessment
area based on evidence an effect.
GS VS
®A ®A Not severely altered
❑B ❑B Severely altered over a majority of the assessment area (ground surface alteration examples: vehicle tracks, excessive
sedimentation, fire -plow lanes, skidder tracks, bedding, fill, soil compaction, obvious pollutants) (vegetation structure
alteration examples: mechanical disturbance, herbicides, salt intrusion [where appropriate], exotic species, grazing, less
diversity [if appropriate], hydrologic alteration)
2. Surface and Sub -Surface Storage Capacity and Duration — assessment area condition metric
Check a box in each column. Consider surface storage capacity and duration (Surf) and sub -surface storage capacity and duration (Sub).
Consider both increase and decrease in hydrology. A ditch s 1 foot deep is considered to affect surface water only, while a ditch > 1 foot
deep is expected to affect both surface and sub -surface water. Consider tidal flooding regime, if applicable.
Surf Sub
®A ®A Water storage capacity and duration are not altered.
❑B ❑B Water storage capacity or duration are altered, but not substantially (typically, not sufficient to change vegetation).
❑C ❑C Water storage capacity or duration are substantially altered (typically, alteration sufficient to result in vegetation change)
(examples: draining, flooding, soil compaction, filling, excessive sedimentation, underground utility lines).
3. Water Storage/Surface Relief — assessment area/wetland type condition metric (skip for all marshes)
Check a box in each column. Select the appropriate storage for the assessment area (AA) and the wetland type (WT).
AA WT
3a. ❑A ❑A Majority of wetland with depressions able to pond water > 1 deep
❑B ❑B Majority of wetland with depressions able to pond water 6 inches to 1 foot deep
❑C ❑C Majority of wetland with depressions able to pond water 3 to 6 inches deep
®D ®D Depressions able to pond water < 3 inches deep
3b. ❑A Evidence that maximum depth of inundation is greater than 2 feet
❑B Evidence that maximum depth of inundation is between 1 and 2 feet
®C Evidence that maximum depth of inundation is less than 1 foot
Accompanies user Manual version 5.0
USACE AID #
NCDWR#
Project Name
Mayo LRB / Ash Closure
Date of Evaluation
7/17/18
Applicant/Owner Name
Duke Energy
Wetland Site Name
Wetland C
Wetland Type
Headwater Forest
Assessor Name/Organization
Witherspoon/Wood
Level III Ecoregion
Piedmont
Nearest Named Water Body
Crutchfield Branch
River Basin
Roanoke
USGS 8 -Digit Catalogue Unit
03010104
County
Person
NCDWR Region
Raleigh
❑ Yes ® No
Precipitation within 48 hrs?
Latitude/Longitude (deci-degrees)
36.535025/-78.901730
Evidence of stressors affecting the assessment area (may not be within the assessment area)
Please circle and/or make note on the last page if evidence of stressors is apparent. Consider departure from reference, if appropriate, in
recent past (for instance, within 10 years). Noteworthy stressors include, but are not limited to the following.
• Hydrological modifications (examples: ditches, dams, beaver dams, dikes, berms, ponds, etc.)
• Surface and sub -surface discharges into the wetland (examples: discharges containing obvious pollutants, presence of nearby septic
tanks, underground storage tanks (USTs), hog lagoons, etc.)
• Signs of vegetation stress (examples: vegetation mortality, insect damage, disease, storm damage, salt intrusion, etc.)
• Habitat/plant community alteration (examples: mowing, clear -cutting, exotics, etc.)
Is the assessment area intensively managed? ❑ Yes ® No
Regulatory Considerations - Were regulatory considerations evaluated? []Yes ®No If Yes, check all that apply to the assessment area.
❑ Anadromous fish
❑ Federally protected species or State endangered or threatened species
❑ NCDWR riparian buffer rule in effect
❑ Abuts a Primary Nursery Area (PNA)
❑ Publicly owned property
❑ N.C. Division of Coastal Management Area of Environmental Concern (AEC) (including buffer)
❑ Abuts a stream with a NCDWQ classification of SA or supplemental classifications of HQW, ORW, or Trout
❑ Designated NCNHP reference community
❑ Abuts a 303(d) -listed stream or a tributary to a 303(d) -listed stream
What type of natural stream is associated with the wetland, if any? (check all that apply)
❑ Blackwater
® Brownwater
❑ Tidal (if tidal, check one of the following boxes) ❑ Lunar ❑ Wind ❑ Both
Is the assessment area on a coastal island? ❑ Yes ® No
Is the assessment area's surface water storage capacity or duration substantially altered by beaver? ❑ Yes ® No
Does the assessment area experience overbank flooding during normal rainfall conditions? ❑ Yes ® No
1. Ground Surface Condition/Vegetation Condition — assessment area condition metric
Check a box in each column. Consider alteration to the ground surface (GS) in the assessment area and vegetation structure (VS) in the
assessment area. Compare to reference wetland if applicable (see User Manual). If a reference is not applicable, then rate the assessment
area based on evidence an effect.
GS VS
®A ®A Not severely altered
❑B ❑B Severely altered over a majority of the assessment area (ground surface alteration examples: vehicle tracks, excessive
sedimentation, fire -plow lanes, skidder tracks, bedding, fill, soil compaction, obvious pollutants) (vegetation structure
alteration examples: mechanical disturbance, herbicides, salt intrusion [where appropriate], exotic species, grazing, less
diversity [if appropriate], hydrologic alteration)
2. Surface and Sub -Surface Storage Capacity and Duration — assessment area condition metric
Check a box in each column. Consider surface storage capacity and duration (Surf) and sub -surface storage capacity and duration (Sub).
Consider both increase and decrease in hydrology. A ditch s 1 foot deep is considered to affect surface water only, while a ditch > 1 foot
deep is expected to affect both surface and sub -surface water. Consider tidal flooding regime, if applicable.
Surf Sub
®A ®A Water storage capacity and duration are not altered.
❑B ❑B Water storage capacity or duration are altered, but not substantially (typically, not sufficient to change vegetation).
❑C ❑C Water storage capacity or duration are substantially altered (typically, alteration sufficient to result in vegetation change)
(examples: draining, flooding, soil compaction, filling, excessive sedimentation, underground utility lines).
3. Water Storage/Surface Relief — assessment area/wetland type condition metric (skip for all marshes)
Check a box in each column. Select the appropriate storage for the assessment area (AA) and the wetland type (WT).
AA WT
3a. ❑A ❑A Majority of wetland with depressions able to pond water > 1 deep
❑B ❑B Majority of wetland with depressions able to pond water 6 inches to 1 foot deep
❑C ❑C Majority of wetland with depressions able to pond water 3 to 6 inches deep
®D ®D Depressions able to pond water < 3 inches deep
3b. ❑A Evidence that maximum depth of inundation is greater than 2 feet
❑B Evidence that maximum depth of inundation is between 1 and 2 feet
®C Evidence that maximum depth of inundation is less than 1 foot

4. Soil Texture/Structure — assessment area condition metric (skip for all marshes)
Check a box from each of the three soil property groups below. Dig soil profile in the dominant assessment area landscape feature.
Make soil observations within the top 12 inches. Use most recent National Technical Committee for Hydric Soils guidance for regional
indicators.
4a. ❑A Sandy soil
®B Loamy or clayey soils exhibiting redoximorphic features (concentrations, depletions, or rhizospheres)
❑C Loamy or clayey soils not exhibiting redoximorphic features
❑D Loamy or clayey gleyed soil
❑E Histosol or histic epipedon
4b. ❑A Soil ribbon < 1 inch
®B Soil ribbon Z 1 inch
4c. ®A No peat or muck presence
❑B A peat or muck presence
5. Discharge into Wetland — opportunity metric
Check a box in each column. Consider surface pollutants or discharges (Surf) and sub -surface pollutants or discharges (Sub). Examples
of sub -surface discharges include presence of nearby septic tank, underground storage tank (UST), etc.
Surf Sub
®A ®A Little or no evidence of pollutants or discharges entering the assessment area
❑B ❑B Noticeable evidence of pollutants or discharges entering the wetland and stressing, but not overwhelming the
treatment capacity of the assessment area
❑C ❑C Noticeable evidence of pollutants or discharges (pathogen, particulate, or soluble) entering the assessment area and
potentially overwhelming the treatment capacity of the wetland (water discoloration, dead vegetation, excessive
sedimentation, odor)
6. Land Use — opportunity metric (skip for non -riparian wetlands)
Check all that apply (at least one box in each column). Evaluation involves a GIS effort with field adjustment. Consider sources draining
to assessment area within entire upstream watershed (WS), within 5 miles and within the watershed draining to the assessment area (5M),
and within 2 miles and within the watershed draining to the assessment area (2M).
WS 5M 2M
❑A ❑A ❑A > 10% impervious surfaces
❑B ❑B ❑B Confined animal operations (or other local, concentrated source of pollutants
❑C ❑C ❑C a 20% coverage of pasture
❑D ❑D ❑D z 20% coverage of agricultural land (regularly plowed land)
®E ®E ❑E z 20% coverage of maintained grass/herb
❑F ❑F ❑F z 20% coverage of clear-cut land
❑G ❑G ®G Little or no opportunity to improve water quality. Lack of opportunity may result from little or no disturbance in
the watershed or hydrologic alterations that prevent drainage and/or overbank flow from affecting the
assessment area.
7. Wetland Acting as Vegetated Buffer — assessment area/wetland complex condition metric (skip for non -riparian wetlands)
7a. Is assessment area within 50 feet of a tributary or other open water?
❑Yes ®No If Yes, continue to 7b. If No, skip to Metric 8.
Wetland buffer need only be present on one side of the water body. Make buffer judgment based on the average width of wetland.
Record a note if a portion of the buffer has been removed or disturbed.
7b. How much of the first 50 feet from the bank is wetland? (Wetland buffer need only be present on one side of the .water body. Make
buffer judgment based on the average width of wetland. Record a note if a portion of the buffer has been removed or disturbed.)
❑A ? 50 feet
❑B From 30 to < 50 feet
❑C From 15 to < 30 feet
❑D From 5 to < 15 feet
❑E < 5 feet or buffer bypassed by ditches
7c. Tributary width. If the tributary is anastomosed, combine widths of channels/braids for a total width.
0:5 15 -feet wide ❑> 15 -feet wide ❑ Other open water (no tributary present)
7d. Do roots of assessment area vegetation extend into the bank of the tributary/open water?
❑Yes ❑No
7e. Is stream or other open water sheltered or exposed?
❑Sheltered — adjacent open water with width < 2500 feet and no regular boat traffic.
❑Exposed — adjacent open water with width Z 2500 feet or regular boat traffic.
8. Wetland Width at the Assessment Area — wetland type/wetland complex condition metric (evaluate WT for all marshes and
Estuarine Woody Wetland only; evaluate WC for Bottomland Hardwood Forest, Headwater Forest, and Riverine Swamp Forest
only)
Check a box in each column for riverine wetlands only. Select the average width for the wetland type at the assessment area (WT) and
the wetland complex at the assessment area (WC). See User Manual for WT and WC boundaries.
WT WC
❑A ❑A a 100 feet
❑B ❑B From 80 to < 100 feet
❑C ❑C From 50 to < 80 feet
El ❑D From 40 to < 50 feet
❑E ❑E From 30 to < 40 feet
❑F OF From 15 to < 30 feet
❑G ❑G From 5 to < 15 feet
❑H ❑H < 5 feet

9. Inundation Duration —assessment area condition metric (skip for non -riparian wetlands)
Answer for assessment area dominant landform.
❑A Evidence of short -duration inundation (< 7 consecutive days)
®B Evidence of saturation, without evidence of inundation
❑C Evidence of long -duration inundation or very long -duration inundation (7 to 30 consecutive days or more)
10. Indicators of Deposition — assessment area condition metric (skip for non -riparian wetlands and all marshes)
Consider recent deposition only (no plant growth since deposition).
®A Sediment deposition is not excessive, but at approximately natural levels.
❑B Sediment deposition is excessive, but not overwhelming the wetland.
❑C Sediment deposition is excessive and is overwhelming the wetland.
11. Wetland Size — wetland type/wetland complex condition metric
Check a box in each column. Involves a GIS effort with field adjustment. This metric evaluates three aspects of the wetland area: the
size of the wetland type (WT), the size of the wetland complex (WC), and the size of the forested wetland (FW) (if applicable, see User
Manual). Seethe User Manual for boundaries of these evaluation areas. If assessment area is clear-cut, select "K" for the FW column.
WT WC FW (if applicable)
❑A ❑A ❑A 2 500 acres
❑B ❑B ❑B From 100 to < 500 acres
❑C ❑C ❑C From 50 to < 100 acres
❑D ❑D ❑D From 25 to < 50 acres
❑E ❑E ❑E From 10 to < 25 acres
❑F ❑F ❑F From 5 to < 10 acres
❑G ❑G ❑G From 1 to < 5 acres
❑H ❑H ❑H From 0.5 to < 1 acre
01 ❑I 01 From 0.1 to < 0.5 acre
®J ®J ®J From 0.01 to < 0.1 acre
❑K ❑K ❑K < 0.01 acre or assessment area is clear-cut
12. Wetland Intactness — wetland type condition metric (evaluate for Pocosins only)
❑A Pocosin is the full extent (a 90%) of its natural landscape size.
❑B Pocosin type is < 90% of the full extent of its natural landscape size.
13. Connectivity to Other Natural Areas — landscape condition metric
13a. Check appropriate box(es) (a box may be checked in each column). Involves a GIS effort with field adjustment. This metric
evaluates whether the wetland is well connected (Well) and/or loosely connected (Loosely) to the landscape patch, the contiguous
naturally vegetated area and open water (if appropriate). Boundaries are formed by four -lane roads, regularly maintained utility line
corridors the width of a four -lane road or wider, urban landscapes, maintained fields (pasture and agriculture), or open water > 300
feet wide.
Well Loosely
❑A
❑A
i' 500 acres
❑B
❑B
From 100 to < 500 acres
❑C
❑C
From 50 to < 100 acres
❑D
❑D
From 10 to < 50 acres
❑E
®E
< 10 acres
OF
❑F
Wetland type has a poor or no connection to other natural habitats
13b. Evaluate for marshes only.
❑Yes ❑No Wetland type has a surface hydrology connection to open waters/stream or tidal wetlands.
14. Edge Effect — wetland type condition metric (skip for all marshes and Estuarine Woody Wetland)
May involve a GIS effort with field adjustment. Estimate distance from wetland type boundary to artificial edges. Artificial edges include
non -forested areas z 40 feet wide such as fields, development, roads, regularly maintained utility line corridors, and clear -cuts. Consider
the eight main points of the compass. Artificial edge occurs within 150 feet in how many directions? If the assessment area is clear cut,
select option "C."
❑A 0
®B 1 to 4
❑C 5to8
15. Vegetative Composition — assessment area condition metric (skip for all marshes and Pine Flat)
❑A Vegetation is close to reference condition in species present and their proportions. Lower strata composed of appropriate
species, with exotic plants absent or sparse within the assessment area.
®B Vegetation is different from reference condition in species diversity or proportions, but still largely composed of native species
characteristic of the wetland type. This may include communities of weedy native species that develop after clearcutting or clearing.
It also includes communities with exotics present, but not dominant, over a large portion of the expected strata.
❑C Vegetation severely altered from reference in composition, or expected species are unnaturally absent (planted stands of non -
characteristic species or at least one stratum inappropriately composed of a single species), or exotic species are dominant in at
least one stratum.
16. Vegetative Diversity — assessment area condition metric (evaluate for Non -tidal Freshwater Marsh only)
❑A Vegetation diversity is high and is composed primarily of native species (< 10% cover of exotics).
❑B Vegetation diversity is low or has > 10% to 50% cover of exotics.
❑C Vegetation is dominated by exotic species (> 50 % cover of exotics).

17. Vegetative Structure — assessment area/wetland type condition metric
17a. 'Is vegetation present?
®Yes ❑No If Yes, continue to 17b. If No, skip to Metric 18.
17b. Evaluate percent coverage of assessment area vegetation for all marshes only. Skip to 17c for non -marsh wetlands.
❑A a 25% coverage of vegetation
❑B < 25% coverage of vegetation
17c. Check a box in each column for each stratum. Evaluate this portion of the metric for non -marsh wetlands. Consider
structure in airspace above the assessment area (AA) and the wetland type (WT) separately.
AA WT
o ®A ®A Canopy closed, or nearly closed, with natural gaps associated with natural processes
m EIB 013 Canopy present, but opened more than natural gaps
U ❑C ❑C Canopy sparse or absent
Z
o ❑A
❑A
Dense mid-story/sapling layer
®B
®B
Moderate density mid-story/sapling layer
❑C
❑C
Mid-story/sapling layer sparse or absent
❑A
❑A
❑B
Dense shrub layer
Moderate density layer
=013
shrub
N ❑C
®C
Shrub layer sparse or absent
❑A
❑A
Dense herb layer
i ®B
❑B
Moderate density herb layer
❑C
®C
Herb layer sparse or absent
18. Snags — wetland type condition metric (skip for all marshes)
❑A Large snags (more than one) are visible (> 12 inches DBH, or large relative to species present and landscape stability).
®B Not A
19. Diameter Class Distribution — wetland type condition metric (skip for all marshes)
❑A Majority of canopy trees have stems > 6 inches in diameter at breast height (DBH); many large trees (> 12 inches DBH) are
present.
®B Majority of canopy trees have stems between 6 and 12 inches DBH, few are > 12 inch DBH.
❑C Majority of canopy trees are < 6 inches DBH or no trees.
20. Large Woody Debris — wetland type condition metric (skip for all marshes)
Include both natural debris and man -placed natural debris.
❑A Large logs (more than one) are visible (> 12 inches in diameter, or large relative to species present and landscape stability).
®B Not A
21. Vegetation/Open Water Dispersion — wetland type/open water condition metric (evaluate for Non -Tidal Freshwater Marsh only)
Select the figure that best describes the amount of interspersion between vegetation and open water in the growing season. Patterned
areas indicate vegetated areas, while solid white areas indicate open water.
❑A ❑B ❑C ❑D
pi rd'elA`i�
r v
22. Hydrologic Connectivity — assessment area condition metric (evaluate for riparian wetlands and Salt/Brackish Marsh only)
Examples of activities that may severely alter hydrologic connectivity include intensive ditching, fill, sedimentation, channelization, diversion,
man-made berms, beaver dams, and stream incision. Documentation required if evaluated as B, C, or D.
❑A Overbank and overland flow are not severely altered in the assessment area.
®B Overbank flow is severely altered in the assessment area.
❑C Overland flow is severely altered in the assessment area.
❑D Both overbank and overland flow are severely altered in the assessment area.
Notes
22: Water level of ash basin is regulated, limiting overbank flow.

NC WAM Wetland Rating Sheet
Accompanies User Manual Version 5.0
Wetland Site Name Wetland C Date of Assessment
7/17/18
Wetland Type Headwater Forest Assessor Name/Organization
Witherspoon/Wood
Notes on Field Assessment Form (Y/N)
YES
Presence of regulatory considerations (Y/N)
NO
Wetland is intensively managed (Y/N)
NO
Assessment area is located within 50 feet of a natural tributary or other open water (Y/N)
NO
Assessment area is substantially altered by beaver (Y/N)
NO
Assessment area experiences overbank flooding during normal rainfall conditions (Y/N)
NO
Assessment area is on a coastal island (Y/N)
NO
Sub -function Rating Summary
Condition
Function Sub -function Metrics
Rating
Hydrology Surface Storage and Retention Condition
MEDIUM
Sub -surface Storage and
Opportunity Presence (Y/N)
Retention Condition
MEDIUM
Water Quality Pathogen Change
Condition
MEDIUM
Hydrology
Condition/Opportunity
MEDIUM
Water Quality
Opportunity Presence (Y/N)
NO
Particulate Change
Condition
MEDIUM
Condition/Opportunity
NA
Habitat
Opportunity Presence (Y/N)
NA
Soluble Change
Condition
MEDIUM
Condition/Opportunity
MEDIUM
Opportunity Presence (Y/N)
NO
Physical Change
Condition
LOW
Condition/Opportunity
LOW
Opportunity Presence (Y/N)
NO
Pollution Change
Condition
NA
Condition/Opportunity
NA
Opportunity Presence (Y/N)
NA
Habitat Physical Structure
Condition
MEDIUM
Landscape Patch Structure
Condition
LOW
Vegetation Composition
Condition
MEDIUM
Function Ratina Summa
Function
Metrics
Rating
Hydrology
Condition
MEDIUM
Water Quality
Condition
MEDIUM
Condition/Opportunity
MEDIUM
Opportunity Presence (Y/N)
NO
Habitat
Condition
LOW
Overall Wetland Rating MEDIUM

USACE AID #
Applicant/Owner Name
Wetland Type
Level III Ecoregion
River Basin
County
❑ Yes ® No
Duke Energy
Headwater Forest
Piedmont
Roanoke
Person
NC WAM FIELD ASSESSMENT RESULTS
roes user manual version a.0
Date of Evaluation
Wetland Site Name
Assessor Name/Organization
Nearest Named Water Body
USGS 8 -Digit Catalogue Unit
NCDWR Region
Wetland E I
Crutchfield Branch I
Evidence of stressors affecting the assessment area (may not be within the assessment area)
Please circle and/or make note on the last page if evidence of stressors is apparent. Consider departure from reference, if appropriate, in
recent past (for instance, within 10 years). Noteworthy stressors include, but are not limited to the following.
• Hydrological modifications (examples: ditches, dams, beaver dams, dikes, berms, ponds, etc.)
• Surface and sub -surface discharges into the wetland (examples: discharges containing obvious pollutants, presence of nearby septic
tanks, underground storage tanks (USTs), hog lagoons, etc.)
• Signs of vegetation stress (examples: vegetation mortality, insect damage, disease, storm damage, salt intrusion, etc.)
• Habitat/plant community alteration (examples: mowing, clear -cutting, exotics, etc.)
Is the assessment area intensively managed? ❑ Yes ® No
Regulatory Considerations - Were regulatory considerations evaluated? ❑Yes ®No If Yes, check all that apply to the assessment area.
❑ Anadromous fish
❑ Federally protected species or State endangered or threatened species
❑ NCDWR riparian buffer rule in effect
❑ Abuts a Primary Nursery Area (PNA)
❑ Publicly owned property
❑ N.C. Division of Coastal Management Area of Environmental Concern (AEC) (including buffer)
❑ Abuts a stream with a NCDWQ classification of SA or supplemental classifications of HQW, ORW, or Trout
❑ Designated NCNHP reference community
❑ Abuts a 303(d) -listed stream or a tributary to a 303(d) -listed stream
What type of natural stream is associated with the wetland, if any? (check all that apply)
❑ Blackwater
® Brownwater
❑ Tidal (if tidal, check one of the following boxes) ❑ Lunar ❑ Wind ❑ Both
Is the assessment area on a coastal island? ❑ Yes ® No
Is the assessment area's surface water storage capacity or duration substantially altered by beaver? ❑ Yes ® No
Does the assessment area experience overbank flooding during normal rainfall conditions? ❑ Yes ® No
1. Ground Surface Condition/Vegetation Condition — assessment area condition metric
Check a box in each column. Consider alteration to the ground surface (GS) in the assessment area and vegetation structure (VS) in the
assessment area. Compare to reference wetland if applicable (see User Manual). If a reference is not applicable, then rate the assessment
area based on evidence an effect.
GS VS
❑A ❑A Not severely altered
®B ®B Severely altered over a majority of the assessment area (ground surface alteration examples: vehicle tracks, excessive
sedimentation, fire -plow lanes, skidder tracks, bedding, fill, soil compaction, obvious pollutants) (vegetation structure
alteration examples: mechanical disturbance, herbicides, salt intrusion [where appropriate], exotic species, grazing, less
diversity [if appropriate], hydrologic alteration)
2. Surface and Sub -Surface Storage Capacity and Duration — assessment area condition metric
Check a box in each column. Consider surface storage capacity and duration (Surf) and sub -surface storage capacity and duration (Sub).
Consider both increase and decrease in hydrology. A ditch <_ 1 foot deep is considered to affect surface water only, while a ditch > 1 foot
deep is expected to affect both surface and sub -surface water. Consider tidal flooding regime, if applicable.
Surf Sub
❑A ❑A Water storage capacity and duration are not altered.
❑B ❑B Water storage capacity or duration are altered, but not substantially (typically, not sufficient to change vegetation).
®C ®C Water storage capacity or duration are substantially altered (typically, alteration sufficient to result in vegetation change)
(examples: draining, flooding, soil compaction, filling, excessive sedimentation, underground utility lines).
3. Water Storage/Surface Relief — assessment area/wetland type condition metric (skip for all marshes)
Check a box in each column. Select the appropriate storage for the assessment area (AA) and the wetland type (WT).
AA WT
3a. ❑A ❑A Majority of wetland with depressions able to pond water > 1 deep
❑B ❑B Majority of wetland with depressions able to pond water 6 inches to 1 foot deep
❑C ❑C Majority of wetland with depressions able to pond water 3 to 6 inches deep
®D ®D Depressions able to pond water < 3 inches deep
3b. ❑A Evidence that maximum depth of inundation is greater than 2 feet
❑B Evidence that maximum depth of inundation is between 1 and 2 feet
®C Evidence that maximum depth of inundation is less than 1 foot

4. Soil Texture/Structure — assessment area condition metric (skip for all marshes)
Check a box from each of the three soil property groups below. Dig soil profile in the dominant assessment area landscape feature.
Make soil observations within the top 12 inches. Use most recent National Technical Committee for Hydric Soils guidance for regional
indicators.
4a. ❑A Sandy soil
®B Loamy or clayey soils exhibiting redoximorphic features (concentrations, depletions, or rhizospheres)
❑C Loamy or clayey soils not exhibiting redoximorphic features
❑D Loamy or clayey gleyed soil
❑E Histosol or histic epipedon
4b. ❑A Soil ribbon < 1 inch
®B Soil ribbon Z 1 inch
4c. ®A No peat or muck presence
❑B A peat or muck presence
5. Discharge into Wetland — opportunity metric
Check a box in each column. Consider surface pollutants or discharges (Surf) and sub -surface pollutants or discharges (Sub). Examples
of sub -surface discharges include presence of nearby septic tank, underground storage tank (UST), etc.
Surf Sub
®A ®A Little or no evidence of pollutants or discharges entering the assessment area
❑B ❑B Noticeable evidence of pollutants or discharges entering the wetland and stressing, but not overwhelming the
treatment capacity of the assessment area
❑C ❑C Noticeable evidence of pollutants or discharges (pathogen, particulate, or soluble) entering the assessment area and
potentially overwhelming the treatment capacity of the wetland (water discoloration, dead vegetation, excessive
sedimentation, odor)
6. Land Use — opportunity metric (skip for non -riparian wetlands)
Check all that apply (at least one box in each column). Evaluation involves a GIS effort with field adjustment. Consider sources draining
to assessment area within entire upstream watershed (WS), within 5 miles and within the watershed draining to the assessment area (5M),
and within 2 miles and within the watershed draining to the assessment area (2M).
WS 5M 2M
❑A ❑A ❑A > 10% impervious surfaces
❑B ❑B ❑B Confined animal operations (or other local, concentrated source of pollutants
❑C ❑C ❑C z 20% coverage of pasture
❑D ❑D ❑D >_ 20% coverage of agricultural land (regularly plowed land)
®E ®E ❑E >_ 20% coverage of maintained grass/herb
❑F ❑F ❑F z 20% coverage of clear-cut land
❑G ❑G ®G Little or no opportunity to improve water quality. Lack of opportunity may result from little or no disturbance in
the watershed or hydrologic alterations that prevent drainage and/or overbank flow from affecting the
assessment area.
7. Wetland Acting as Vegetated Buffer — assessment area/wetland complex condition metric (skip for non -riparian wetlands)
7a. Is assessment area within 50 feet of a tributary or other open water?
❑Yes ®No If Yes, continue to 7b. If No, skip to Metric 8.
Wetland buffer need only be present on one side of the water body. Make buffer judgment based on the average width of wetland.
Record a note if a portion of the buffer has been removed or disturbed.
7b. How much of the first 50 feet from the bank is wetland? (Wetland buffer need only be present on one side of the .water body. Make
buffer judgment based on the average width of wetland. Record a note if a portion of the buffer has been removed or disturbed.)
❑A > 50 feet
❑B From 30 to < 50 feet
❑C From 15 to < 30 feet
❑D From 5 to < 15 feet
❑E < 5 feet or buffer bypassed by ditches
7c. Tributary width. If the tributary is anastomosed, combine widths of channels/braids for a total width.
05 15 -feet wide ❑> 15 -feet wide ❑ Other open water (no tributary present)
7d. Do roots of assessment area vegetation extend into the bank of the tributary/open water?
[]Yes [:]No
7e. Is stream or other open water sheltered or exposed?
❑Sheltered — adjacent open water with width < 2500 feet and no regular boat traffic.
❑Exposed — adjacent open water with width ? 2500 feet or regular boat traffic.
S. Wetland Width at the Assessment Area — wetland type/wetland complex condition metric (evaluate WT for all marshes and
Estuarine Woody Wetland only; evaluate WC for Bottomland Hardwood Forest, Headwater Forest, and Riverine Swamp Forest
only)
Check a box in each column for riverine wetlands only. Select the average width for the wetland type at the assessment area (WT) and
the wetland complex at the assessment area (WC). See User Manual for WT and WC boundaries.
WT WC
❑A ®A >— 100 feet
❑B ❑B From 80 to < 100 feet
❑C ❑C From 50 to < 80 feet
❑D ❑D From 40 to < 50 feet
❑E ❑E From 30 to < 40 feet
❑F ❑F From 15 to < 30 feet
❑G ❑G From 5 to < 15 feet
❑H ❑H < 5 feet

9. Inundation Duration — assessment area condition metric (skip for non -riparian wetlands)
Answer for assessment area dominant landform.
❑A Evidence of short -duration inundation (< 7 consecutive days)
®B Evidence of saturation, without evidence of inundation
❑C Evidence of long -duration inundation or very long -duration inundation (7 to 30 consecutive days or more)
10. Indicators of Deposition — assessment area condition metric (skip for non -riparian wetlands and all marshes)
Consider recent deposition only (no plant growth since deposition).
®A Sediment deposition is not excessive, but at approximately natural levels.
❑B Sediment deposition is excessive, but not overwhelming the wetland.
❑C Sediment deposition is excessive and is overwhelming the wetland.
11. Wetland Size — wetland type/wetland complex condition metric
Check a box in each column. Involves a GIS effort with field adjustment. This metric evaluates three aspects of the wetland area: the
size of the wetland type (WT), the size of the wetland complex (WC), and the size of the forested wetland (FW) (if applicable, see User
Manual). Seethe User Manual for boundaries of these evaluation areas. If assessment area is clear-cut, select "K" for the FW column.
WT WC FW (if applicable)
❑A ❑A ❑A 2 500 acres
❑B ❑B ❑B From 100 to < 500 acres
❑C ❑C ❑C From 50 to < 100 acres
❑D ❑D ❑D From 25 to < 50 acres
❑E ❑E ❑E From 10 to < 25 acres
❑F ❑F ❑F From 5 to < 10 acres
❑G ❑G ❑G From 1 to < 5 acres
❑H ❑H ❑H From 0.5 to < 1 acre
®I ®I ❑I From 0.1 to < 0.5 acre
❑J ❑J ❑J From 0.01 to < 0.1 acre
❑K ❑K ®K < 0.01 acre or assessment area is clear-cut
12. Wetland Intactness — wetland type condition metric (evaluate for Pocosins only)
❑A Pocosin is the full extent (2 90%) of its natural landscape size.
❑B Pocosin type is < 90% of the full extent of its natural landscape size.
13. Connectivity to Other Natural Areas — landscape condition metric
13a. Check appropriate box(es) (a box may be checked in each column). Involves a GIS effort with field adjustment. This metric
evaluates whether the wetland is well connected (Well) and/or loosely connected (Loosely) to the landscape patch, the contiguous
naturally vegetated area and open water (if appropriate). Boundaries are formed by four -lane roads, regularly maintained utility line
corridors the width of a four -lane road or wider, urban landscapes, maintained fields (pasture and agriculture), or open water > 300
feet wide.
Well Loosely
❑A
❑A
a 500 acres
❑B
❑B
From 100 to < 500 acres
❑C
❑C
From 50 to < 100 acres
❑D
❑D
From 10 to < 50 acres
❑E
®E
< 10 acres
OF
❑F
Wetland type has a poor or no connection to other natural habitats
13b. Evaluate for marshes only.
❑Yes ❑No Wetland type has a surface hydrology connection to open waters/stream or tidal wetlands.
14. Edge Effect — wetland type condition metric (skip for all marshes and Estuarine Woody Wetland)
May involve a GIS effort with field adjustment. Estimate distance from wetland type boundary to artificial edges. Artificial edges include
non -forested areas z 40 feet wide such as fields, development, roads, regularly maintained utility line corridors, and clear -cuts. Consider
the eight main points of the compass. Artificial edge occurs within 150 feet in how many directions? If the assessment area is clear cut,
select option "C"
❑A 0
[:1B 1 to 4
®C 5to8
15. Vegetative Composition — assessment area condition metric (skip for all marshes and Pine Flat)
❑A Vegetation is close to reference condition in species present and their proportions. Lower strata composed of appropriate
species, with exotic plants absent or sparse within the assessment area.
❑B Vegetation is different from reference condition in species diversity or proportions, but still largely composed of native species
characteristic of the wetland type. This may include communities of weedy native species that develop after clearcutting or clearing.
It also includes communities with exotics present, but not dominant, over a large portion of the expected strata.
®C Vegetation severely altered from reference in composition, or expected species are unnaturally absent (planted stands of non -
characteristic species or at least one stratum inappropriately composed of a single species), or exotic species are dominant in at
least one stratum.
16. Vegetative Diversity — assessment area condition metric (evaluate for Non -tidal Freshwater Marsh only)
❑A Vegetation diversity is high and is composed primarily of native species (< 10% cover of exotics).
❑B Vegetation diversity is low or has > 10% to 50% cover of exotics.
❑C Vegetation is dominated by exotic species (> 50 % cover of exotics).

17. Vegetative Structure — assessment area/wetland type condition metric
17a. Is vegetation present?
®Yes ❑No If Yes, continue to 17b. If No, skip to Metric 18.
17b. Evaluate percent coverage of assessment area vegetation for all marshes only. Skip to 17c for non -marsh wetlands.
❑A i 25% coverage of vegetation
❑B < 25% coverage of vegetation
17c. Check a box in each column for each stratum. Evaluate this portion of the metric for non -marsh wetlands. Consider
structure in airspace above the assessment area (AA) and the wetland type (WT) separately.
AA WT
c EIA ❑A Canopy closed, or nearly closed, with natural gaps associated with natural processes
❑B ❑B Canopy present, but opened more than natural gaps
U ®C ®C Canopy sparse or absent
Z
g ❑A
❑A
Dense mid-story/sapling layer
CD ®B
®B
Moderate density mid-story/sapling layer
❑C
❑C
Mid-story/sapling layer sparse or absent
❑A
❑A
Dense shrub layer
L ®B
®B
Moderate density shrub layer
cO ❑C
❑C
Shrub layer sparse or absent
®A
®A
Dense herb layer
_ ❑B
❑B
Moderate density herb layer
❑C
❑C
Herb layer sparse or absent
18. Snags — wetland type condition metric (skip for all marshes)
❑A Large snags (more than one) are visible (> 12 inches DBH, or large relative to species present and landscape stability).
®B Not A
19. Diameter Class Distribution — wetland type condition metric (skip for all marshes)
❑A Majority of canopy trees have stems > 6 inches in diameter at breast height (DBH); many large trees (> 12 inches DBH) are
present.
❑B Majority of canopy trees have stems between 6 and 12 inches DBH, few are > 12 inch DBH.
®C Majority of canopy trees are < 6 inches DBH or no trees.
20. Large Woody Debris — wetland type condition metric (skip for all marshes)
Include both natural debris and man -placed natural debris.
❑A Large logs (more than one) are visible (> 12 inches in diameter, or large relative to species present and landscape stability).
®B Not A
21. Vegetation/Open Water Dispersion — wetland type/open water condition metric (evaluate for Non -Tidal Freshwater Marsh only)
Select the figure that best describes the amount of interspersion between vegetation and open water in the growing season. Patterned
areas indicate vegetated areas, while solid white areas indicate open water.
❑A ❑B ❑C ❑D
� ' ': ,' ���! dip. . �• 4 �..
22. Hydrologic Connectivity — assessment area condition metric (evaluate for riparian wetlands and Salt/Brackish Marsh only)
Examples of activities that may severely alter hydrologic connectivity include intensive ditching, fill, sedimentation, channelization, diversion,
man-made berms, beaver dams, and stream incision. Documentation required if evaluated as B, C, or D.
❑A Overbank and overland flow are not severely altered in the assessment area.
❑B Overbank flow is severely altered in the assessment area.
❑C Overland flow is severely altered in the assessment area.
®D Both overbank and overland flow are severely altered in the assessment area.
Notes

NC WAM Wetland Rating Sheet
Accompanies User Manual Version 5.0
Wetland Site Name Wetland E Date of Assessment
7/17/18
Wetland Type Headwater Forest Assessor Name/Organization
Witherspoon/Wood
Notes on Field Assessment Form (Y/N)
NO
Presence of regulatory considerations (Y/N)
NO
Wetland is intensively managed (Y/N)
NO
Assessment area is located within 50 feet of a natural tributary or other open water (Y/N)
NO
Assessment area is substantially altered by beaver (Y/N)
NO
Assessment area experiences overbank flooding during normal rainfall conditions (Y/N)
NO
Assessment area is on a coastal island (Y/N)
NO
Sub -function Rating Summary
Opportunity Presence (Y/N)
Function Sub -function Metrics
Rating
Hydrology Surface Storage and Retention Condition
LOW
Sub -surface Storage and
Condition/Opportunity
Retention
Condition
LOW
Water Quality Pathogen Change
Condition
LOW
Water Quality
Condition/Opportunity
LOW
Opportunity Presence (Y/N)
NO
Particulate Change
Condition
LOW
Habitat
Condition/Opportunity
NA
Opportunity Presence (Y/N)
NA
Soluble Change
Condition
LOW
Condition/Opportunity
LOW
Opportunity Presence (Y/N)
NO
Physical Change
Condition
LOW
Condition/Opportunity
LOW
Opportunity Presence (Y/N)
NO
Pollution Change
Condition
NA
Condition/Opportunity
NA
Opportunity Presence (Y/N)
NA
Habitat Physical Structure
Condition
LOW
Landscape Patch Structure
Condition
LOW
Vegetation Composition
Condition
LOW
Function Ratina Summa
Function
Metrics
Rating
Hydrology
Condition
LOW
Water Quality
Condition
LOW
Condition/Opportunity
LOW
Opportunity Presence (Y/N)
NO
Habitat
Condition
LOW
Overall Wetland Rating LOW

NC WAM FIELD ASSESSMENT RESULTS
Evidence of stressors affecting the assessment area (may not be within the assessment area)
Please circle and/or make note on the last page if evidence of stressors is apparent. Consider departure from reference, if appropriate, in
recent past (for instance, within 10 years). Noteworthy stressors include, but are not limited to the following.
• Hydrological modifications (examples: ditches, dams, beaver dams, dikes, berms, ponds, etc.)
• Surface and sub -surface discharges into the wetland (examples: discharges containing obvious pollutants, presence of nearby septic
tanks, underground storage tanks (USTs), hog lagoons, etc.)
• Signs of vegetation stress (examples: vegetation mortality, insect damage, disease, storm damage, salt intrusion, etc.)
• Habitat/plant community alteration (examples: mowing, clear -cutting, exotics, etc.)
Is the assessment area intensively managed? ❑ Yes ® No
Regulatory Considerations - Were regulatory considerations evaluated? ❑Yes ®No If Yes, check all that apply to the assessment area.
❑ Anadromous fish
❑ Federally protected species or State endangered or threatened species
❑ NCDWR riparian buffer rule in effect
❑ Abuts a Primary Nursery Area (PNA)
❑ Publicly owned property
❑ N.C. Division of Coastal Management Area of Environmental Concern (AEC) (including buffer)
❑ Abuts a stream with a NCDWQ classification of SA or supplemental classifications of HQW, ORW, or Trout
❑ Designated NCNHP reference community
❑ Abuts a 303(d) -listed stream or a tributary to a 303(d) -listed stream
What type of natural stream is associated with the wetland, if any? (check all that apply)
❑ Blackwater
® Brownwater
❑ Tidal (if tidal, check one of the following boxes) ❑ Lunar ❑ Wind ❑ Both
Is the assessment area on a coastal island? ❑ Yes ® No
Is the assessment area's surface water storage capacity or duration substantially altered by beaver? ❑ Yes ® No
Does the assessment area experience overbank flooding during normal rainfall conditions? ❑ Yes ® No
1. Ground Surface ConditionNegetation Condition — assessment area condition metric
Check a box in each column. Consider alteration to the ground surface (GS) in the assessment area and vegetation structure (VS) in the
assessment area. Compare to reference wetland if applicable (see User Manual). If a reference is not applicable, then rate the assessment
area based on evidence an effect.
GS VS
❑A ®A Not severely altered
®B ❑B Severely altered over a majority of the assessment area (ground surface alteration examples: vehicle tracks, excessive
sedimentation, fire -plow lanes, skidder tracks, bedding, fill, soil compaction, obvious pollutants) (vegetation structure
alteration examples: mechanical disturbance, herbicides, salt intrusion [where appropriate], exotic species, grazing, less
diversity [if appropriate], hydrologic alteration)
2. Surface and Sub -Surface Storage Capacity and Duration — assessment area condition metric
Check a box in each column. Consider surface storage capacity and duration (Surf) and sub -surface storage capacity and duration (Sub).
Consider both increase and decrease in hydrology. A ditch 5 1 foot deep is considered to affect surface water only, while a ditch > 1 foot
deep is expected to affect both surface and sub -surface water. Consider tidal flooding regime, if applicable.
Surf Sub
❑A ®A Water storage capacity and duration are not altered.
❑B ❑B Water storage capacity or duration are altered, but not substantially (typically, not sufficient to change vegetation).
®C ❑C Water storage capacity or duration are substantially altered (typically, alteration sufficient to result in vegetation change)
(examples: draining, flooding, soil compaction, filling, excessive sedimentation, underground utility lines).
3. Water Storage/Surface Relief — assessment area/wetland type condition metric (skip for all marshes)
Check a box in each column. Select the appropriate storage for the assessment area (AA) and the wetland type (WT).
AA WT
3a. ®A ®A Majority of wetland with depressions able to pond water > 1 deep
❑B ❑B Majority of wetland with depressions able to pond water 6 inches to 1 foot deep
❑C ❑C Majority of wetland with depressions able to pond water 3 to 6 inches deep
E3 ❑D Depressions able to pond water < 3 inches deep
3b. ❑A Evidence that maximum depth of inundation is greater than 2 feet
®B Evidence that maximum depth of inundation is between 1 and 2 feet
❑C Evidence that maximum depth of inundation is less than 1 foot
Accompanies user Manual Version 5A
USACE AID #
NCDWR#
Project Name
_ Mayo LRB / Ash Closure
Date of Evaluation
7/17/18
Applicant/Owner Name
Duke Energy
Wetland Site Name
Wetland UU
Wetland Type
Basin Wetland
Assessor Name/Organization
Witherspoon/Wood
Level III Ecoregion
Piedmont
Nearest Named Water Body
Crutchfield Branch
River Basin
Roanoke
USGS 8 -Digit Catalogue Unit
03010104
County
Person
NCDWR Region
Raleigh
❑ Yes ® No
Precipitation within 48 hrs?
Latitude/Longitude (deci-degrees)
36.538502/-78.898848
Evidence of stressors affecting the assessment area (may not be within the assessment area)
Please circle and/or make note on the last page if evidence of stressors is apparent. Consider departure from reference, if appropriate, in
recent past (for instance, within 10 years). Noteworthy stressors include, but are not limited to the following.
• Hydrological modifications (examples: ditches, dams, beaver dams, dikes, berms, ponds, etc.)
• Surface and sub -surface discharges into the wetland (examples: discharges containing obvious pollutants, presence of nearby septic
tanks, underground storage tanks (USTs), hog lagoons, etc.)
• Signs of vegetation stress (examples: vegetation mortality, insect damage, disease, storm damage, salt intrusion, etc.)
• Habitat/plant community alteration (examples: mowing, clear -cutting, exotics, etc.)
Is the assessment area intensively managed? ❑ Yes ® No
Regulatory Considerations - Were regulatory considerations evaluated? ❑Yes ®No If Yes, check all that apply to the assessment area.
❑ Anadromous fish
❑ Federally protected species or State endangered or threatened species
❑ NCDWR riparian buffer rule in effect
❑ Abuts a Primary Nursery Area (PNA)
❑ Publicly owned property
❑ N.C. Division of Coastal Management Area of Environmental Concern (AEC) (including buffer)
❑ Abuts a stream with a NCDWQ classification of SA or supplemental classifications of HQW, ORW, or Trout
❑ Designated NCNHP reference community
❑ Abuts a 303(d) -listed stream or a tributary to a 303(d) -listed stream
What type of natural stream is associated with the wetland, if any? (check all that apply)
❑ Blackwater
® Brownwater
❑ Tidal (if tidal, check one of the following boxes) ❑ Lunar ❑ Wind ❑ Both
Is the assessment area on a coastal island? ❑ Yes ® No
Is the assessment area's surface water storage capacity or duration substantially altered by beaver? ❑ Yes ® No
Does the assessment area experience overbank flooding during normal rainfall conditions? ❑ Yes ® No
1. Ground Surface ConditionNegetation Condition — assessment area condition metric
Check a box in each column. Consider alteration to the ground surface (GS) in the assessment area and vegetation structure (VS) in the
assessment area. Compare to reference wetland if applicable (see User Manual). If a reference is not applicable, then rate the assessment
area based on evidence an effect.
GS VS
❑A ®A Not severely altered
®B ❑B Severely altered over a majority of the assessment area (ground surface alteration examples: vehicle tracks, excessive
sedimentation, fire -plow lanes, skidder tracks, bedding, fill, soil compaction, obvious pollutants) (vegetation structure
alteration examples: mechanical disturbance, herbicides, salt intrusion [where appropriate], exotic species, grazing, less
diversity [if appropriate], hydrologic alteration)
2. Surface and Sub -Surface Storage Capacity and Duration — assessment area condition metric
Check a box in each column. Consider surface storage capacity and duration (Surf) and sub -surface storage capacity and duration (Sub).
Consider both increase and decrease in hydrology. A ditch 5 1 foot deep is considered to affect surface water only, while a ditch > 1 foot
deep is expected to affect both surface and sub -surface water. Consider tidal flooding regime, if applicable.
Surf Sub
❑A ®A Water storage capacity and duration are not altered.
❑B ❑B Water storage capacity or duration are altered, but not substantially (typically, not sufficient to change vegetation).
®C ❑C Water storage capacity or duration are substantially altered (typically, alteration sufficient to result in vegetation change)
(examples: draining, flooding, soil compaction, filling, excessive sedimentation, underground utility lines).
3. Water Storage/Surface Relief — assessment area/wetland type condition metric (skip for all marshes)
Check a box in each column. Select the appropriate storage for the assessment area (AA) and the wetland type (WT).
AA WT
3a. ®A ®A Majority of wetland with depressions able to pond water > 1 deep
❑B ❑B Majority of wetland with depressions able to pond water 6 inches to 1 foot deep
❑C ❑C Majority of wetland with depressions able to pond water 3 to 6 inches deep
E3 ❑D Depressions able to pond water < 3 inches deep
3b. ❑A Evidence that maximum depth of inundation is greater than 2 feet
®B Evidence that maximum depth of inundation is between 1 and 2 feet
❑C Evidence that maximum depth of inundation is less than 1 foot

4. Soil Texture/Structure — assessment area condition metric (skip for all marshes)
Check a box from each of the three soil property groups below. Dig soil profile in the dominant assessment area landscape feature.
Make soil observations within the top 12 inches. Use most recent National Technical Committee for Hydric Soils guidance for regional
indicators.
4a. ❑A Sandy soil
®B Loamy or clayey soils exhibiting redoximorphic features (concentrations, depletions, or rhizospheres)
❑C Loamy or clayey soils not exhibiting redoximorphic features
❑D Loamy or clayey gleyed soil
❑E Histosol or histic epipedon
4b. ❑A Soil ribbon < 1 inch
®B Soil ribbon a 1 inch
4c. ®A No peat or muck presence
❑B A peat or muck presence
5. Discharge into Wetland — opportunity metric
Check a box in each column. Consider surface pollutants or discharges (Surf) and sub -surface pollutants or discharges (Sub). Examples
of sub -surface discharges include presence of nearby septic tank, underground storage tank (UST), etc.
Surf Sub
®A ®A Little or no evidence of pollutants or discharges entering the assessment area
❑B ❑B Noticeable evidence of pollutants or discharges entering the wetland and stressing, but not overwhelming the
treatment capacity of the assessment area
❑C ❑C Noticeable evidence of pollutants or discharges (pathogen, particulate, or soluble) entering the assessment area and
potentially overwhelming the treatment capacity of the wetland (water discoloration, dead vegetation, excessive
sedimentation, odor)
6. Land Use — opportunity metric (skip for non -riparian wetlands)
Check all that apply (at least one box in each column). Evaluation involves a GIS effort with field adjustment. Consider sources draining
to assessment area within entire upstream watershed (WS), within 5 miles and within the watershed draining to the assessment area (5M),
and within 2 miles and within the watershed draining to the assessment area (2M).
WS 5M 2M
❑A ❑A ❑A > 10% impervious surfaces
❑B ❑B ❑B Confined animal operations (or other local, concentrated source of pollutants
❑C ❑C ❑C z 20% coverage of pasture
❑D ❑D ❑D z 20% coverage of agricultural land (regularly plowed land)
®E ®E ❑E >_ 20% coverage of maintained grass/herb
❑F ❑F ❑F >_ 20% coverage of clear-cut land
❑G ❑G ®G Little or no opportunity to improve water quality. Lack of opportunity may result from little or no disturbance in
the watershed or hydrologic alterations that prevent drainage and/or overbank flow from affecting the
assessment area.
7. Wetland Acting as Vegetated Buffer — assessment area/wetland complex condition metric (skip for non -riparian wetlands)
7a. Is assessment area within 50 feet of a tributary or other open water?
❑Yes ®No If Yes, continue to 7b. If No, skip to Metric 8.
Wetland buffer need only be present on one side of the water body. Make buffer judgment based on the average width of wetland.
Record a note if a portion of the buffer has been removed or disturbed.
7b. How much of the first 50 feet from the bank is wetland? (Wetland buffer need only be present on one side of the .water body. Make
buffer judgment based on the average width of wetland. Record a note if a portion of the buffer has been removed or disturbed.)
❑A 2 50 feet
❑B From 30 to < 50 feet
❑C From 15 to < 30 feet
❑D From 5 to < 15 feet
❑E < 5 feet or buffer bypassed by ditches
7c. Tributary width. If the tributary is anastomosed, combine widths of channels/braids for a total width.
❑5 15 -feet wide ❑> 15 -feet wide ❑ Other open water (no tributary present)
7d. Do roots of assessment area vegetation extend into the bank of the tributary/open water?
❑Yes [:]No
7e. Is stream or other open water sheltered or exposed?
❑Sheltered — adjacent open water with width < 2500 feet and no regular boat traffic.
❑Exposed — adjacent open water with width Z 2500 feet or regular boat traffic.
8. Wetland Width at the Assessment Area — wetland type/wetland complex condition metric (evaluate WT for all marshes and
Estuarine Woody Wetland only; evaluate WC for Bottomland Hardwood Forest, Headwater Forest, and Riverine Swamp Forest
only)
Check a box in each column for riverine wetlands only. Select the average width for the wetland type at the assessment area (WT) and
the wetland complex at the assessment area (WC). See User Manual for WT and WC boundaries.
WT WC
❑A ❑A z 100 feet
❑B ❑B From 80 to < 100 feet
❑C ❑C From 50 to < 80 feet
❑D ❑D From 40 to < 50 feet
❑E ❑E From 30 to < 40 feet
❑F ❑F From 15 to < 30 feet
❑G ®G From 5 to < 15 feet
[:1H ❑ H < 5 feet

9. Inundation Duration — assessment area condition metric (skip for non -riparian wetlands)
Answer for assessment area dominant landform.
❑A Evidence of short -duration inundation (< 7 consecutive days)
❑B Evidence of saturation, without evidence of inundation
❑C Evidence of long -duration inundation or very long -duration inundation (7 to 30 consecutive days or more)
10. Indicators of Deposition — assessment area condition metric (skip for non -riparian wetlands and all marshes)
Consider recent deposition only (no plant growth since deposition).
❑A Sediment deposition is not excessive, but at approximately natural levels.
❑B Sediment deposition is excessive, but not overwhelming the wetland.
❑C Sediment deposition is excessive and is overwhelming the wetland.
11. Wetland Size — wetland type/wetland complex condition metric
Check a box in each column. Involves a GIS effort with field adjustment. This metric evaluates three aspects of the wetland area: the
size of the wetland type (WT), the size of the wetland complex (WC), and the size of the forested wetland (FW) (if applicable, see User
Manual). See the User Manual for boundaries of these evaluation areas. If assessment area is clear-cut, select "K" for the FW column.
WT WC FW (if applicable)
❑A ❑A ❑A Z 500 acres
❑B ❑B ❑B From 100 to < 500 acres
❑C ❑C ❑C From 50 to < 100 acres
❑D ❑D ❑D From 25 to < 50 acres
❑E ❑E ❑E From 10 to < 25 acres
❑F ❑F ❑F From 5 to < 10 acres
❑G ❑G ❑G From 1 to < 5 acres
❑H ❑H ❑H From 0.5 to < 1 acre
❑I ❑I ❑I From 0.1 to < 0.5 acre
❑J ❑J ❑J From 0.01 to < 0.1 acre
®K ®K ®K < 0.01 acre or assessment area is clear-cut
12. Wetland Intactness — wetland type condition metric (evaluate for Pocosins only)
❑A Pocosin is the full extent (t 90%) of its natural landscape size.
❑B Pocosin type is < 90% of the full extent of its natural landscape size.
13. Connectivity to Other Natural Areas — landscape condition metric
13a. Check appropriate box(es) (a box may be checked in each column). Involves a GIS effort with field adjustment. This metric
evaluates whether the wetland is well connected (Well) and/or loosely connected (Loosely) to the landscape patch, the contiguous
naturally vegetated area and open water (if appropriate). Boundaries are formed by four -lane roads, regularly maintained utility line
corridors the width of a four -lane road or wider, urban landscapes, maintained fields (pasture and agriculture), or open water > 300
feet wide.
Well Loosely
❑A
❑A
Z 500 acres
❑B
❑B
From 100 to < 500 acres
❑C
❑C
From 50 to < 100 acres
❑D
❑D
From 10 to < 50 acres
❑E
®E
< 10 acres
OF
❑F
Wetland type has a poor or no connection to other natural habitats
13b. Evaluate for marshes only.
❑Yes [:]No Wetland type has a surface hydrology connection to open waters/stream or tidal wetlands.
14. Edge Effect — wetland type condition metric (skip for all marshes and Estuarine Woody Wetland)
May involve a GIS effort with field adjustment. Estimate distance from wetland type boundary to artificial edges. Artificial edges include
non -forested areas z 40 feet wide such as fields, development, roads, regularly maintained utility line corridors, and clear -cuts. Consider
the eight main points of the compass. Artificial edge occurs within 150 feet in how many directions? If the assessment area is clear cut,
select option "C."
❑A 0
®B 1 to 4
❑C 5to8
15. Vegetative Composition — assessment area condition metric (skip for all marshes and Pine Flat)
❑A Vegetation is close to reference condition in species present and their proportions. Lower strata composed of appropriate
species, with exotic plants absent or sparse within the assessment area.
®B Vegetation is different from reference condition in species diversity or proportions, but still largely composed of native species
characteristic of the wetland type. This may include communities of weedy native species that develop after clearcutting or clearing.
It also includes communities with exotics present, but not dominant, over a large portion of the expected strata.
❑C Vegetation severely altered from reference in composition, or expected species are unnaturally absent (planted stands of non -
characteristic species or at least one stratum inappropriately composed of a single species), or exotic species are dominant in at
least one stratum.
16. Vegetative Diversity — assessment area condition metric (evaluate for Non -tidal Freshwater Marsh only)
❑A Vegetation diversity is high and is composed primarily of native species (< 10% cover of exotics).
❑B Vegetation diversity is low or has > 10% to 50% cover of exotics.
❑C Vegetation is dominated by exotic species (> 50 % cover of exotics).

17. Vegetative Structure — assessment area/wetland type condition metric
17a. Is vegetation present?
®Yes ❑No If Yes, continue to 17b. If No, skip to Metric 18.
17b. Evaluate percent coverage of assessment area vegetation for all marshes only. Skip to 17c for non -marsh wetlands.
❑A z 25% coverage of vegetation
❑B < 25% coverage of vegetation
17c. Check a box in each column for each stratum. Evaluate this portion of the metric for non -marsh wetlands. Consider
structure in airspace above the assessment area (AA) and the wetland type (WT) separately.
AA WT
c®A ®A Canopy closed, or nearly closed, with natural gaps associated with natural processes
m [:1B EIB Canopy present, but opened more than natural gaps
U ❑C ❑C Canopy sparse or absent
Z
g ❑A
❑A
Dense mid-story/sapling layer
❑B
❑B
Moderate density mid-story/sapling layer
®C
®C
Mid-story/sapling layer sparse or absent
❑A
❑A
Dense shrub layer
Moderate density layer
=013
❑B
shrub
U) ®C
®C
Shrub layer sparse or absent
a ❑A
❑A
Dense herb layer
X: EIBFIB
Moderate density herb layer
®C
®C
Herb layer sparse or absent
18. Snags — wetland type condition metric (skip for all marshes)
❑A Large snags (more than one) are visible (> 12 inches DBH, or large relative to species present and landscape stability).
®B Not
19. Diameter Class Distribution — wetland type condition metric (skip for all marshes)
®A Majority of canopy trees have stems > 6 inches in diameter at breast height (DBH); many large trees (> 12 inches DBH) are
present.
❑B Majority of canopy trees have stems between 6 and 12 inches DBH, few are > 12 inch DBH.
❑C Majority of canopy trees are < 6 inches DBH or no trees.
20. Large Woody Debris — wetland type condition metric (skip for all marshes)
Include both natural debris and man -placed natural debris.
❑A Large logs (more than one) are visible (> 12 inches in diameter, or large relative to species present and landscape stability).
®B Not A
21. Vegetation/Open Water Dispersion — wetland type/open water condition metric (evaluate for Non -Tidal Freshwater Marsh only)
Select the figure that best describes the amount of interspersion between vegetation and open water in the growing season. Patterned
areas indicate vegetated areas, while solid white areas indicate open water.
❑A ❑B ❑C ❑D
22. Hydrologic Connectivity — assessment area condition metric (evaluate for riparian wetlands and Salt/Brackish Marsh only)
Examples of activities that may severely alter hydrologic connectivity include intensive ditching, fill, sedimentation, channelization, diversion,
man-made berms, beaver dams, and stream incision. Documentation required if evaluated as B, C, or D.
❑A Overbank and overland flow are not severely altered in the assessment area.
❑B Overbank flow is severely altered in the assessment area.
❑C Overland flow is severely altered in the assessment area.
El Both overbank and overland flow are severely altered in the assessment area.
Notes

NC WAM Wetland Rating Sheet
Accompanies User Manual Version 5.0
Wetland Site Name Wetland UU
Date of Assessment
7/17/18
Wetland Type Basin Wetland
Assessor Name/Organization
Witherspoon/Wood
Notes on Field Assessment Form (Y/N)
Opportunity Presence (Y/N)
NO
Presence of regulatory considerations (Y/N)
Condition
NO
Wetland is intensively managed (Y/N)
Condition/Opportunity
NO
Assessment area is located within 50 feet of a natural tributary or other open water (YIN)
NO
Assessment area is substantially altered by beaver (Y/N)
Soluble Change
NO
Assessment area experiences overbank flooding during normal rainfall conditions (Y/N)
NO
Assessment area is on a coastal island (Y/N)
NA
NO
Sub -function Rating Summary
NA
Physical Change
Function Sub -function
Metrics
Rating
Hydrology Surface Storage and Retention
Condition
NA
Sub -surface Storage and
NA
Pollution Change
Retention
Condition
NA
Water Quality Pathogen Change
Condition
NA
Hydrology
Condition/Opportunity
NA
Water Quality
Opportunity Presence (Y/N)
NA
Particulate Change
Condition
NA
Condition/Opportunity
NA
Habitat
Opportunity Presence (Y/N)
NA
Soluble Change
Condition
NA
Condition/Opportunity
NA
Opportunity Presence (Y/N)
NA
Physical Change
Condition
NA
Condition/Opportunity
NA
Opportunity Presence (Y/N)
NA
Pollution Change
Condition
LOW
Condition/Opportunity
LOW
Opportunity Presence (Y/N)
NO
Habitat Physical Structure
Condition
LOW
Landscape Patch Structure
Condition
LOW
Vegetation Composition
Condition
MEDIUM
Function Ratina Summa
Function
Metrics
Rating
Hydrology
Condition
LOW
Water Quality
Condition
LOW
Condition/Opportunity
LOW
Opportunity Presence (Y/N)
NO
Habitat
Condition
LOW
Overall Wetland Rating LOW

NC WAM FIELD ASSESSMENT RESULTS
Evidence of stressors affecting the assessment area (may not be within the assessment area)
Please circle and/or make note on the last page if evidence of stressors is apparent. Consider departure from reference, if appropriate, in
recent past (for instance, within 10 years). Noteworthy stressors include, but are not limited to the following.
• Hydrological modifications (examples: ditches, dams, beaver dams, dikes, berms, ponds, etc.)
• Surface and sub -surface discharges into the wetland (examples: discharges containing obvious pollutants, presence of nearby septic
tanks, underground storage tanks (USTs), hog lagoons, etc.)
• Signs of vegetation stress (examples: vegetation mortality, insect damage, disease, storm damage, salt intrusion, etc.)
• Habitat/plant community alteration (examples: mowing, clear -cutting, exotics, etc.)
Is the assessment area intensively managed? ❑ Yes ® No
Regulatory Considerations - Were regulatory considerations evaluated? ❑Yes ®No If Yes, check all that apply to the assessment area.
❑ Anadromous fish
❑ Federally protected species or State endangered or threatened species
❑ NCDWR riparian buffer rule in effect
❑ Abuts a Primary Nursery Area (PNA)
❑ Publicly owned property
❑ N.C. Division of Coastal Management Area of Environmental Concern (AEC) (including buffer)
❑ Abuts a stream with a NCDWQ classification of SA or supplemental classifications of HQW, ORW, or Trout
❑ Designated NCNHP reference community
❑ Abuts a 303(d) -listed stream or a tributary to a 303(d) -listed stream
What type of natural stream is associated with the wetland, if any? (check all that apply)
❑ Blackwater
® Brownwater
❑ Tidal (if tidal, check one of the following boxes) ❑ Lunar ❑ Wind ❑ Both
Is the assessment area on a coastal island? ❑ Yes ® No
Is the assessment area's surface water storage capacity or duration substantially altered by beaver? ❑ Yes ® No
Does the assessment area experience overbank flooding during normal rainfall conditions? ❑ Yes ® No
1. Ground Surface Condition/Vegetation Condition — assessment area condition metric
Check a box in each column. Consider alteration to the ground surface (GS) in the assessment area and vegetation structure (VS) in the
assessment area. Compare to reference wetland if applicable (see User Manual). If a reference is not applicable, then rate the assessment
area based on evidence an effect.
GS VS
❑A ®A Not severely altered
®B ❑B Severely altered over a majority of the assessment area (ground surface alteration examples: vehicle tracks, excessive
sedimentation, fire -plow lanes, skidder tracks, bedding, fill, soil compaction, obvious pollutants) (vegetation structure
alteration examples: mechanical disturbance, herbicides, salt intrusion [where appropriate], exotic species, grazing, less
diversity [if appropriate], hydrologic alteration)
2. Surface and Sub -Surface Storage Capacity and Duration — assessment area condition metric
Check a box in each column. Consider surface storage capacity and duration (Surf) and sub -surface storage capacity and duration (Sub).
Consider both increase and decrease in hydrology. A ditch s 1 foot deep is considered to affect surface water only, while a ditch > 1 foot
deep is expected to affect both surface and sub -surface water. Consider tidal flooding regime, if applicable.
Surf Sub
®A ®A Water storage capacity and duration are not altered.
❑B ❑B Water storage capacity or duration are altered, but not substantially (typically, not sufficient to change vegetation).
❑C ❑C Water storage capacity or duration are substantially altered (typically, alteration sufficient to result in vegetation change)
(examples: draining, flooding, soil compaction, filling, excessive sedimentation, underground utility lines).
3. Water Storage/Surface Relief — assessment area/wetland type condition metric (skip for all marshes)
Check a box in each column. Select the appropriate storage for the assessment area (AA) and the wetland type (WT).
AA WT
3a. ❑A ❑A Majority of wetland with depressions able to pond water > 1 deep
❑B ❑B Majority of wetland with depressions able to pond water 6 inches to 1 foot deep
®C ®C Majority of wetland with depressions able to pond water 3 to 6 inches deep
❑D ❑D Depressions able to pond water < 3 inches deep
3b. ❑A Evidence that maximum depth of inundation is greater than 2 feet
❑B Evidence that maximum depth of inundation is between 1 and 2 feet
®C Evidence that maximum depth of inundation is less than 1 foot
Accompanies user manual version om
USACE AID #
NCDWR#
Project Name
Mayo LRB / Ash Closure
Date of Evaluation
7/17/18
Applicant/Owner Name
Duke Energy
Wetland Site Name
Wetland ZZ
Wetland Type
Headwater Forest
Assessor Name/Organization
Witherspoon/Wood
Level III Ecoregion
Piedmont
Nearest Named Water Body
Crutchfield Branch
River Basin
Roanoke
USGS 8 -Digit Catalogue Unit
03010104
County
Person
NCDWR Region
Raleigh
❑ Yes ® No
Precipitation within 48 hrs?
Latitude/Longitude (deci-degrees)
36.537698/-78.897861
Evidence of stressors affecting the assessment area (may not be within the assessment area)
Please circle and/or make note on the last page if evidence of stressors is apparent. Consider departure from reference, if appropriate, in
recent past (for instance, within 10 years). Noteworthy stressors include, but are not limited to the following.
• Hydrological modifications (examples: ditches, dams, beaver dams, dikes, berms, ponds, etc.)
• Surface and sub -surface discharges into the wetland (examples: discharges containing obvious pollutants, presence of nearby septic
tanks, underground storage tanks (USTs), hog lagoons, etc.)
• Signs of vegetation stress (examples: vegetation mortality, insect damage, disease, storm damage, salt intrusion, etc.)
• Habitat/plant community alteration (examples: mowing, clear -cutting, exotics, etc.)
Is the assessment area intensively managed? ❑ Yes ® No
Regulatory Considerations - Were regulatory considerations evaluated? ❑Yes ®No If Yes, check all that apply to the assessment area.
❑ Anadromous fish
❑ Federally protected species or State endangered or threatened species
❑ NCDWR riparian buffer rule in effect
❑ Abuts a Primary Nursery Area (PNA)
❑ Publicly owned property
❑ N.C. Division of Coastal Management Area of Environmental Concern (AEC) (including buffer)
❑ Abuts a stream with a NCDWQ classification of SA or supplemental classifications of HQW, ORW, or Trout
❑ Designated NCNHP reference community
❑ Abuts a 303(d) -listed stream or a tributary to a 303(d) -listed stream
What type of natural stream is associated with the wetland, if any? (check all that apply)
❑ Blackwater
® Brownwater
❑ Tidal (if tidal, check one of the following boxes) ❑ Lunar ❑ Wind ❑ Both
Is the assessment area on a coastal island? ❑ Yes ® No
Is the assessment area's surface water storage capacity or duration substantially altered by beaver? ❑ Yes ® No
Does the assessment area experience overbank flooding during normal rainfall conditions? ❑ Yes ® No
1. Ground Surface Condition/Vegetation Condition — assessment area condition metric
Check a box in each column. Consider alteration to the ground surface (GS) in the assessment area and vegetation structure (VS) in the
assessment area. Compare to reference wetland if applicable (see User Manual). If a reference is not applicable, then rate the assessment
area based on evidence an effect.
GS VS
❑A ®A Not severely altered
®B ❑B Severely altered over a majority of the assessment area (ground surface alteration examples: vehicle tracks, excessive
sedimentation, fire -plow lanes, skidder tracks, bedding, fill, soil compaction, obvious pollutants) (vegetation structure
alteration examples: mechanical disturbance, herbicides, salt intrusion [where appropriate], exotic species, grazing, less
diversity [if appropriate], hydrologic alteration)
2. Surface and Sub -Surface Storage Capacity and Duration — assessment area condition metric
Check a box in each column. Consider surface storage capacity and duration (Surf) and sub -surface storage capacity and duration (Sub).
Consider both increase and decrease in hydrology. A ditch s 1 foot deep is considered to affect surface water only, while a ditch > 1 foot
deep is expected to affect both surface and sub -surface water. Consider tidal flooding regime, if applicable.
Surf Sub
®A ®A Water storage capacity and duration are not altered.
❑B ❑B Water storage capacity or duration are altered, but not substantially (typically, not sufficient to change vegetation).
❑C ❑C Water storage capacity or duration are substantially altered (typically, alteration sufficient to result in vegetation change)
(examples: draining, flooding, soil compaction, filling, excessive sedimentation, underground utility lines).
3. Water Storage/Surface Relief — assessment area/wetland type condition metric (skip for all marshes)
Check a box in each column. Select the appropriate storage for the assessment area (AA) and the wetland type (WT).
AA WT
3a. ❑A ❑A Majority of wetland with depressions able to pond water > 1 deep
❑B ❑B Majority of wetland with depressions able to pond water 6 inches to 1 foot deep
®C ®C Majority of wetland with depressions able to pond water 3 to 6 inches deep
❑D ❑D Depressions able to pond water < 3 inches deep
3b. ❑A Evidence that maximum depth of inundation is greater than 2 feet
❑B Evidence that maximum depth of inundation is between 1 and 2 feet
®C Evidence that maximum depth of inundation is less than 1 foot

4. Soil Texture/Structure — assessment area condition metric (skip for all marshes)
Check a box from each of the three soil property groups below. Dig soil profile in the dominant assessment area landscape feature.
Make soil observations within the top 12 inches. Use most recent National Technical Committee for Hydric Soils guidance for regional
indicators.
4a. ❑A Sandy soil
®B Loamy or clayey soils exhibiting redoximorphic features (concentrations, depletions, or rhizospheres)
❑C Loamy or clayey soils not exhibiting redoximorphic features
❑D Loamy or clayey gleyed soil
❑E Histosol or histic epipedon
4b. ❑A Soil ribbon < 1 inch
®B Soil ribbon;., 1 inch
4c. ®A No peat or muck presence
❑B A peat or muck presence
5. Discharge into Wetland — opportunity metric
Check a box in each column. Consider surface pollutants or discharges (Surf) and sub -surface pollutants or discharges (Sub). Examples
of sub -surface discharges include presence of nearby septic tank, underground storage tank (UST), etc.
Surf Sub
®A ®A Little or no evidence of pollutants or discharges entering the assessment area
❑B ❑B Noticeable evidence of pollutants or discharges entering the wetland and stressing, but not overwhelming the
treatment capacity of the assessment area
❑C ❑C Noticeable evidence of pollutants or discharges (pathogen, particulate, or soluble) entering the assessment area and
potentially overwhelming the treatment capacity of the wetland (water discoloration, dead vegetation, excessive
sedimentation, odor)
6. Land Use — opportunity metric (skip for non -riparian wetlands)
Check all that apply (at least one box in each column). Evaluation involves a GIS effort with field adjustment. Consider sources draining
to assessment area within entire upstream watershed (WS), within 5 miles and within the watershed draining to the assessment area (5M),
and within 2 miles and within the watershed draining to the assessment area (2M).
WS 5M 2M
❑A ❑A ❑A > 10% impervious surfaces
❑B ❑B ❑B Confined animal operations (or other local, concentrated source of pollutants
❑C ❑C ❑C z 20% coverage of pasture
❑D ❑D ❑D 2 20% coverage of agricultural land (regularly plowed land)
®E ®E ❑E z 20% coverage of maintained grass/herb
❑F ❑F ❑F z 20% coverage of clear-cut land
❑G ❑G ®G Little or no opportunity to improve water quality. Lack of opportunity may result from little or no disturbance in
the watershed or hydrologic alterations that prevent drainage and/or overbank flow from affecting the
assessment area.
7. Wetland Acting as Vegetated Buffer — assessment area/wetland complex condition metric (skip for non -riparian wetlands)
7a. Is assessment area within 50 feet of a tributary or other open water?
❑Yes ®No If Yes, continue to 7b. If No, skip to Metric 8.
Wetland buffer need only be present on one side of the water body. Make buffer judgment based on the average width of wetland.
Record a note if a portion of the buffer has been removed or disturbed.
7b. How much of the first 50 feet from the bank is wetland? (Wetland buffer need only be present on one side of the .water body. Make
buffer judgment based on the average width of wetland. Record a note if a portion of the buffer has been removed or disturbed.)
❑A 2 50 feet
❑B From 30 to < 50 feet
❑C From 15 to < 30 feet
❑D From 5 to < 15 feet
❑E < 5 feet or buffer bypassed by ditches
7c. Tributary width. If the tributary is anastomosed, combine widths of channels/braids for a total width.
❑s 15 -feet wide ❑> 15 -feet wide ❑ Other open water (no tributary present)
7d. Do roots of assessment area vegetation extend into the bank of the tributary/open water?
❑Yes ❑No
7e. Is stream or other open water sheltered or exposed?
[]Sheltered — adjacent open water with width < 2500 feet and no regular boat traffic.
❑Exposed — adjacent open water with width z 2500 feet or regular boat traffic.
8. Wetland Width at the Assessment Area — wetland type/wetland complex condition metric (evaluate WT for all marshes and
Estuarine Woody Wetland only; evaluate WC for Bottomland Hardwood Forest, Headwater Forest, and Riverine Swamp Forest
only)
Check a box in each column for riverine wetlands only. Select the average width for the wetland type at the assessment area (WT) and
the wetland complex at the assessment area (WC). See User Manual for WT and WC boundaries.
WT WC
❑A ❑A z 100 feet
❑B ❑B From 80 to < 100 feet
❑C ®C From 50 to < 80 feet
❑D ❑D From 40 to < 50 feet
❑E ❑E From 30 to < 40 feet
❑F ❑F From 15 to < 30 feet
❑G ❑G From 5 to < 15 feet
❑H n < 5 feet

9. Inundation Duration — assessment area condition metric (skip for non -riparian wetlands)
Answer for assessment area dominant landform.
❑A Evidence of short -duration inundation (< 7 consecutive days)
®B Evidence of saturation, without evidence of inundation
❑C Evidence of long -duration inundation or very long -duration inundation (7 to 30 consecutive days or more)
10. Indicators of Deposition — assessment area condition metric (skip for non -riparian wetlands and all marshes)
Consider recent deposition only (no plant growth since deposition).
®A Sediment deposition is not excessive, but at approximately natural levels.
❑B Sediment deposition is excessive, but not overwhelming the wetland.
❑C Sediment deposition is excessive and is overwhelming the wetland.
11. Wetland Size — wetland type/wetland complex condition metric
Check a box in each column. Involves a GIS effort with field adjustment. This metric evaluates three aspects of the wetland area: the
size of the wetland type (WT), the size of the wetland complex (WC), and the size of the forested wetland (FW) (if applicable, see User
Manual). Seethe User Manual for boundaries of these evaluation areas. If assessment area is clear-cut, select "K" for the FW column.
WT WC FW (if applicable)
❑A ❑A ❑A z 500 acres
❑B ❑B ❑B From 100 to < 500 acres
❑C ❑C ❑C From 50 to < 100 acres
❑D ❑D ❑D From 25 to < 50 acres
❑E ❑E ❑E From 10 to < 25 acres
❑F ❑F ❑F From 5 to < 10 acres
❑G ❑G ❑G From 1 to < 5 acres
❑H ❑H ❑H From 0.5 to < 1 acre
❑I ❑I ❑I From 0.1 to < 0.5 acre
®J Ni ®J From 0.01 to < 0.1 acre
❑K ❑K ❑K < 0.01 acre or assessment area is clear-cut
12. Wetland Intactness — wetland type condition metric (evaluate for Pocosins only)
❑A Pocosin is the full extent (z 90%) of its natural landscape size.
❑B Pocosin type is < 90% of the full extent of its natural landscape size.
13. Connectivity to Other Natural Areas — landscape condition metric
13a. Check appropriate box(es) (a box may be checked in each column). Involves a GIS effort with field adjustment. This metric
evaluates whether the wetland is well connected (Well) and/or loosely connected (Loosely) to the landscape patch, the contiguous
naturally vegetated area and open water (if appropriate). Boundaries are formed by four -lane roads, regularly maintained utility line
corridors the width of a four -lane road or wider, urban landscapes, maintained fields (pasture and agriculture), or open water > 300
feet wide.
Well Loosely
❑A
❑A
s 500 acres
❑B
❑B
From 100 to < 500 acres
❑C
❑C
From 50 to < 100 acres
❑D
❑D
From 10 to < 50 acres
❑E
®E
< 10 acres
OF
❑F
Wetland type has a poor or no connection to other natural habitats
13b. Evaluate for marshes only.
❑Yes ❑No Wetland type has a surface hydrology connection to open waters/stream or tidal wetlands.
14. Edge Effect — wetland type condition metric (skip for all marshes and Estuarine Woody Wetland)
May involve a GIS effort with field adjustment. Estimate distance from wetland type boundary to artificial edges. Artificial edges include
non -forested areas Z 40 feet wide such as fields, development, roads, regularly maintained utility line corridors, and clear -cuts. Consider
the eight main points of the compass. Artificial edge occurs within 150 feet in how many directions? If the assessment area is clear cut,
select option "C."
❑A 0
®B 1 to 4
❑C 5to8
15. Vegetative Composition — assessment area condition metric (skip for all marshes and Pine Flat)
❑A Vegetation is close to reference condition in species present and their proportions. Lower strata composed of appropriate
species, with exotic plants absent or sparse within the assessment area.
®B Vegetation is different from reference condition in species diversity or proportions, but still largely composed of native species
characteristic of the wetland type. This may include communities of weedy native species that develop after clearcutting or clearing.
It also includes communities with exotics present, but not dominant, over a large portion of the expected strata.
❑C Vegetation severely altered from reference in composition, or expected species are unnaturally absent (planted stands of non -
characteristic species or at least one stratum inappropriately composed of a single species), or exotic species are dominant in at
least one stratum.
16. Vegetative Diversity — assessment area condition metric (evaluate for Non -tidal Freshwater Marsh only)
❑A Vegetation diversity is high and is composed primarily of native species (< 10% cover of exotics).
❑B Vegetation diversity is low or has > 10% to 50% cover of exotics.
❑C Vegetation is dominated by exotic species (> 50 % cover of exotics).

17. Vegetative Structure — assessment area/wetland type condition metric
17a. Is vegetation present?
®Yes ❑No If Yes, continue to 17b. If No, skip to Metric 18.
17b. Evaluate percent coverage of assessment area vegetation for all marshes only. Skip to 17c for non -marsh wetlands.
❑A Z 25% coverage of vegetation
❑B < 25% coverage of vegetation
17c. Check a box in each column for each stratum. Evaluate this portion of the metric for non -marsh wetlands. Consider
structure in airspace above the assessment area (AA) and the wetland type (WT) separately.
AA WT
o[:]A EIA Canopy closed, or nearly closed, with natural gaps associated with natural processes
®B ®B Canopy present, but opened more than natural gaps
U ❑C ❑C Canopy sparse or absent
Z
❑A
❑A
Dense mid-story/sapling layer
®B
®B
Moderate density mid-story/sapling layer
❑C
❑C
Mid-story/sapling layer sparse or absent
❑A
❑A
Dense shrub layer
Z ®B
®B
Moderate density shrub layer
CO ❑C
❑C
Shrub layer sparse or absent
n ❑A
❑A
Dense herb layer
®B
®B
Moderate density herb layer
❑C
❑C
Herb layer sparse or absent
18. Snags — wetland type condition metric (skip for all marshes)
❑A Large snags (more than one) are visible (> 12 inches DBH, or large relative to species present and landscape stability).
®B Not A
19. Diameter Class Distribution — wetland type condition metric (skip for all marshes)
❑A Majority of canopy trees have stems > 6 inches in diameter at breast height (DBH); many large trees (> 12 inches DBH) are
present.
®B Majority of canopy trees have stems between 6 and 12 inches DBH, few are > 12 inch DBH.
❑C Majority of canopy trees are < 6 inches DBH or no trees.
20. Large Woody Debris — wetland type condition metric (skip for all marshes)
Include both natural debris and man -placed natural debris.
❑A Large logs (more than one) are visible (> 12 inches in diameter, or large relative to species present and landscape stability).
®B Not A
21. Vegetation/Open Water Dispersion — wetland type/open water condition metric (evaluate for Non -Tidal Freshwater Marsh only)
Select the figure that best describes the amount of interspersion between vegetation and open water in the growing season. Patterned
areas indicate vegetated areas, while solid white areas indicate open water.
❑A ❑B ❑C ❑D
z
ird
22. Hydrologic Connectivity — assessment area condition metric (evaluate for riparian wetlands and Salt/Brackish Marsh only)
Examples of activities that may severely alter hydrologic connectivity include intensive ditching, fill, sedimentation, channelization, diversion,
man-made berms, beaver dams, and stream incision. Documentation required if evaluated as B, C, or D.
❑A Overbank and overland flow are not severely altered in the assessment area.
®B Overbank flow is severely altered in the assessment area.
❑C Overland flow is severely altered in the assessment area.
❑D Both overbank and overland flow are severely altered in the assessment area.
Notes
22: Water level of ash basin is controlled, limiting overbank flow.

NC WAM Wetland Rating Sheet
Accompanies User Manual Version 5.0
Wetland Site Name Wetland ZZ Date of Assessment
7/17/18
Wetland Type Headwater Forest Assessor Name/Organization
Witherspoon/Wood
Notes on Field Assessment Form (Y/N)
YES
Presence of regulatory considerations (Y/N)
NO
Wetland is intensively managed (Y/N)
NO
Assessment area is located within 50 feet of a natural tributary or other open water (Y/N)
NO
Assessment area is substantially altered by beaver (Y/N)
NO
Assessment area experiences overbank flooding during normal rainfall conditions (Y/N)
NO
Assessment area is on a coastal island (Y/N)
NO
Sub -function Rating Summary
Condition
Function Sub -function Metrics
Rating
Hydrology Surface Storage and Retention Condition
MEDIUM
Sub -surface Storage and
Opportunity Presence (Y/N)
Retention Condition
MEDIUM
Water Quality Pathogen Change
Condition
MEDIUM
Hydrology
Condition/Opportunity
MEDIUM
Water Quality
Opportunity Presence (Y/N)
NO
Particulate Change
Condition
MEDIUM
Condition/Opportunity
NA
Habitat
Opportunity Presence (Y/N)
NA
Soluble Change
Condition
MEDIUM
Condition/Opportunity
MEDIUM
Opportunity Presence (Y/N)
NO
Physical Change
Condition
LOW
Condition/Opportunity
LOW
Opportunity Presence (Y/N)
NO
Pollution Change
Condition
NA
Condition/Opportunity
NA
Opportunity Presence (Y/N)
NA
Habitat Physical Structure
Condition
LOW
Landscape Patch Structure
Condition
LOW
Vegetation Composition
Condition
MEDIUM
Function Ratina Summa
Function
Metrics
Rating
Hydrology
Condition
MEDIUM
Water Quality
Condition
MEDIUM
Condition/Opportunity
MEDIUM
Opportunity Presence (Y/N)
NO
Habitat
Condition
LOW
Overall Wetland Rating MEDIUM

Mayo Plant
Section 404/401 Individual Permit Modification
Mayo CCP Monofill Site Lined Retention Basin and Ash Basin Closure
Person County, North Carolina
Project No. 7810150300
APPENDIX D
USFWS and NCNHP Database Queries
wood.

► r r-
North Carolina Department of Natural and Cultural Resources
Natural Heritage Program
Governor Roy Cooper Secretary; Susi H_ Hamilton
NCNHDE-6472
July 16, 2018
Julia Tillery
Wood PLC Environment & Infrastructure Solutions
4021 Stirrup Creek Drive
Durham, NC 27703
RE: Duke Energy Mayo Plant; 7810150300.01.03
Dear Julia Tillery:
The North Carolina Natural Heritage Program (NCNHP) appreciates the opportunity to provide information
about natural heritage resources for the project referenced above.
A query of the NCNHP database, based on the project area mapped with your request, indicates that there are
no records for rare species, important natural communities, natural areas, and/or conservation/managed areas
within the proposed project boundary, or within a one -mile radius of the project boundary.
Please note that although there may be no documentation of natural heritage elements within or near the project
boundary, it does not imply or confirm their absence; the area may not have been surveyed. The results of this
query should not be substituted for field surveys where suitable habitat exists. In the event that rare species are
found within the project area, please contact the NCNHP so that we may update our records.
Please also note that natural heritage element data are maintained for the purposes of conservation planning,
project review, and scientific research, and are not intended for use as the primary criteria for regulatory
decisions. Information provided by the NCNHP database may not be published without prior written notification
to the NCNHP, and the NCNHP must be credited as an information source in these publications. Maps of
NCNHP data may also not be redistributed without permission.
If you have questions regarding the information provided in this letter or need additional assistance, please
contact Rodney A. Butler at rodney.butlerancdcr.gov or 919.707.8603.
Sincerely,
NC Natural Heritage Program
MAILING ADDRESS Telephone [phone] LOCATION
1651 Mail Service Center awnv.ncnhp.org 121 West Jones Street
Raleigh, NC 27694-1651 Raleigh, NC 27603

NCNHDE-6472: Duke Energy Mayo Plant
_r
V
C
a
"it t
r.?,? h
a
N r
c
NN+ E
S F"
July 16, 2018
Project Boundary
Buffered Project Boundary
Page 2of2
1 *30,689
0 :25 0.5 1 mi
0 OA 0.8 1.6 km
Sr, -n , Fari H=RF : in InW—I Fnr —, F Cnrp, =aCC' 115:5
FAC, NPS, NRCM. Gevease, 13N, Kadx4sr N_. Crd ince SuNey, Esc Japan,
Al=TI, Esn Ch is 1 -ON Kuy' =_xisstxa. •41 CpenStrWK4ap OC-ffAA S. and
.he G 3 CUs Camrnin ty

e ars ;. ry Visit � i ours
United States Department of the Interior" n""-�
n
v
FISH AND WILDLIFE SERVICE
Raleigh Ecological Services Field Office
Post Office Box 33726
Raleigh, NC 27636-3726
Phone: [phone] Fax: [phone]
In Reply Refer To: July 24, 2018
Consultation Code: 04EN2000-2018-SLI-1099
Event Code: 04EN2000-2018-E-02244
Project Name: Mayo Plant IP Mod
Subject: List of threatened and endangered species that may occur in your proposed project
location, and/or may be affected by your proposed project
To Whom It May Concern:
The species list generated pursuant to the information you provided identifies threatened,
endangered, proposed and candidate species, as well as proposed and final designated critical
habitat, that may occur within the boundary of your proposed project and/or may be affected by
your proposed project. The species list fulfills the requirements of the U.S. Fish and Wildlife
Service (Service) under section 7(c) of the Endangered Species Act (Act) of 1973, as amended
(16 U.S.C. 1531 et seq.).
New information based on updated surveys, changes in the abundance and distribution of
species, changed habitat conditions, or other factors could change this list. Please feel free to
contact us if you need more current information or assistance regarding the potential impacts to
federally proposed, listed, and candidate species and federally designated and proposed critical
habitat. Please note that under 50 CFR 402.12(e) of the regulations implementing section 7 of the
Act, the accuracy of this species list should be verified after 90 days. This verification can be
completed formally or informally as desired. The Service recommends that verification be
completed by visiting the ECOS-IPaC website at regular intervals during project planning and
implementation for updates to species lists and information. An updated list may be requested
through the ECOS-IPaC system by completing the same process used to receive the enclosed list.
Section 7 of the Act requires that all federal agencies (or their designated non-federal
representative), in consultation with the Service, insure that any action federally authorized,
funded, or carried out by such agencies is not likely to jeopardize the continued existence of any
federally -listed endangered or threatened species. A biological assessment or evaluation may be
prepared to fulfill that requirement and in determining whether additional consultation with the
Service is necessary. In addition to the federally -protected species list, information on the
species' life histories and habitats and information on completing a biological assessment or

07/24/2018 Event Code: 04EN2000-2018-E-02244
evaluation and can be found on our web page at http://www.fws.gov/raleigh. Please check the
web site often for updated information or changes
If your project contains suitable habitat for any of the federally -listed species known to be
present within the county where your project occurs, the proposed action has the potential to
adversely affect those species. As such, we recommend that surveys be conducted to determine
the species' presence or absence within the project area. The use of North Carolina Natural
Heritage program data should not be substituted for actual field surveys.
If you determine that the proposed action may affect (i.e., likely to adversely affect or not likely
to adversely affect) a federally -protected species, you should notify this office with your
determination, the results of your surveys, survey methodologies, and an analysis of the effects
of the action on listed species, including consideration of direct, indirect, and cumulative effects,
before conducting any activities that might affect the species. If you determine that the proposed
action will have no effect (i.e., no beneficial or adverse, direct or indirect effect) on federally
listed species, then you are not required to contact our office for concurrence (unless an
Environmental Impact Statement is prepared). However, you should maintain a complete record
of the assessment, including steps leading to your determination of effect, the qualified personnel
conducting the assessment, habitat conditions, site photographs, and any other related articles.
Please be aware that bald and golden eagles are protected under the Bald and Golden Eagle
Protection Act (16 U.S.C. 668 et seq.), and projects affecting these species may require
development of an eagle conservation plan (http://www.fws.gov/windenergy/
eagle_guidance.html). Additionally, wind energy projects should follow the wind energy
guidelines (http://www.fws.gov/windenergy/) for minimizing impacts to migratory birds and
bats.
Guidance for minimizing impacts to migratory birds for projects including communications
towers (e.g., cellular, digital television, radio, and emergency broadcast) can be found at: http://
www.fws.gov/migratorybirds/CurrentBirdIssues/Hazards/towers/towers.htm; http://
www.towerkill.com; and http://www.fws. ov�/mi rg atorybirds/CurrentBirdIssues/Hazards/towers/
comtow.html.
Not all Threatened and Endangered Species that occur in North Carolina are subject to section 7
consultation with the U.S Fish and Wildlife Service. Atlantic and shortnose sturgeon, sea
turtles,when in the water, and certain marine mammals are under purview of the National Marine
Fisheries Service. If your project occurs in marine, estuarine, or coastal river systems you should
also contact the National Marine Fisheries Service, http://www.mnfs.noaa.gov/
We appreciate your concern for threatened and endangered species. The Service encourages
Federal agencies to include conservation of threatened and endangered species into their project
planning to further the purposes of the Act. Please include the Consultation Tracking Number in
the header of this letter with any request for consultation or correspondence about your project
that you submit to our office. If you have any questions or comments, please contact John Ellis
of this office at john—[e-mail].

07/24/2018 Event Code: 04EN2000-2018-E-02244
Attachment(s):
• Official Species List

07/24/2018 Event Code 04EN2000-2018-E-02244
Official Species List
This list is provided pursuant to Section 7 of the Endangered Species Act, and fulfills the
requirement for Federal agencies to "request of the Secretary of the Interior information whether
any species which is listed or proposed to be listed may be present in the area of a proposed
action".
This species list is provided by:
Raleigh Ecological Services Field Office
Post Office Box 33726
Raleigh, NC 27636-3726
[phone]

07/24/2018 Event Code: 04EN2000-2018-E-02244 2
Project Summary
Consultation Code: 04EN2000-2018-SLI-1099
Event Code: 04EN2000-2018-E-02244
Project Name: Mayo Plant IP Mod
Project Type: POWER GENERATION
Project Description: USACE Individual Permit modification
Project Location:
Approximate location of the project can be viewed in Google Maps: https:
www.google.com/maps/place/36.533866816997104N78.88752479735703W
Counties: Person, NC

07/24/2018 Event Code: 04EN2000-2018-E-02244
Endangered Species Act Species
There is a total of 0 threatened, endangered, or candidate species on this species list.
Species on this list should be considered in an effects analysis for your project and could include
species that exist in another geographic area. For example, certain fish may appear on the species
list because a project could affect downstream species.
IPaC does not display listed species or critical habitats under the sole jurisdiction of NOAA
Fisheriesi, as USFWS does not have the authority to speak on behalf of NOAA and the
Department of Commerce.
See the "Critical habitats" section below for those critical habitats that lie wholly or partially
within your project area under this office's jurisdiction. Please contact the designated FWS office
if you have questions.
1. NOAA Fisheries, also known as the National Marine Fisheries Service (NMFS), is an
office of the National Oceanic and Atmospheric Administration within the Department of
Commerce.
Critical habitats
THERE ARE NO CRITICAL HABITATS WITHIN YOUR PROJECT AREA UNDER THIS OFFICE'S
JURISDICTION.

Mayo Plant
Section 404/401 Individual Permit Modification
Mayo CCP Monofill Site Lined Retention Basin and Ash Basin Closure
Person County, North Carolina
Project No. 7810150300
APPENDIX E
wood.
Joint Permit Application — Mayo CCP Monofill Site
Golder Associates
February 9, 2012

JOINT PERMIT APPLICATION
MONOFILL
Person County, North Carolina
Submitted To: U.S. Army Corps of Engineers
Attn: Mr. Eric Alsmeyer
Raleigh Regulatory Field Office
3331 Heritage Trade Drive,.Suite 105
Wake Forest, NC 27587 USA
�r4
Progress Energy
Progress Energy Carolinas, Inc.
410 South Wilmington Street, PEB4
Raleigh, NC 27601 USA
Golder Associates Inc.
513 Oak Branch Drive
Greensboro, NC 27407-2710 USA
=ebruary 9, 2012
Project No. 0636562024
Golder
Associates

February 2012 ES -1 Project No. 0636562024
EXECUTIVE SUMMARY
Carolina Power and Light Company, doing business as Progress Energy Carolinas, Inc. (PEC), is
submitting the enclosed Application for Department of the Army Permit (Application) for the proposed
Mayo Coal Combustion Product (CCP) Monofill Site (hereafter referred to as site) in Person County,
North Carolina. The purpose of the Application is to seek authorization for impacts to jurisdictional waters
of the United States (U.S.) that include filling intermittent streams and a perennial stream crossing that
are necessary to construct the proposed facility. Due to the long-term nature of the project, PEC is
requesting authorization for the entire site, but proposes to construct the CCP monofill in phases along
with the appropriate compensatory mitigation. Therefore, PEC proposes to construct only Phase I of the
project at this time and mitigate for Phase I impacts in accordance with the April 2008 Final
Compensatory Mitigation Rule. The second and subsequent phases of the project will be mitigated for in
accordance with the mitigation standards applicable at the time stream impacts are to be taken.
Compensatory mitigation for subsequent project phases will be proposed in advance of construction
activities when additional capacity in needed. Information provided in this report provides additional detail
and clarification beyond the standard Application forms.
Waters of the U.S. were identified based on the 1987 U.S. Army Corps of Engineers (USACE) Wetland
Delineation Manual and the subsequently issued Regional Supplement to the USACE Wetland
Delineation Manual: Eastern Mountains and Piedmont Region. Streams were then classified as
perennial, intermittent, or ephemeral based on the Methodology for Identification of Intermittent and
Perennial Streams and their Origins, Version 4.11, issued by the North Carolina Department of
Environment and Natural Resources (NCDENR), Division of Water Quality (DWQ). Raleigh, NC.
The Mayo CCP Monofil) Site covers approximately 660 acres. The site is located on the east side of
Woodys Store Road, approximately 1.4 miles west of the intersection of Bethel Hill Road and Boston
Road (US -501) in Person County, North Carolina (see Figure 1: Vicinity Map). The intersection of Bethel
Hill Road and Boston Road (US -501) is approximately 2 miles south of the Virginia/North Carolina state
line on US -501.
PEC evaluated four sites to determine the best location for the CCP monofill project. The four potential
properties were owned by Progress and within close proximity to the Mayo Electric Plant. The purpose of
this alternative site analysis was to avoid and minimize impacts to waters of the U.S. and maximizes the
CCP storage capacity. The site and design selected by PEC avoids wetland impacts and reduces the
amount of stream impacts. Additionally, the size of the final CCP monofill footprint, as proposed, is a
condensed version of the original design footprint that further minimizes disturbance to waters of the U.S.
Through extensive alternatives analysis to avoid and minimize impacts to waters of the U.S., it has been
determined that no other alternatives exist to the proposed impacts.
01Pf0;<_ctslpr0Fss energy. nc mayo-ccb-site%individual-perm,t6p-Q20912.dc�cx
,_ Golder
Associates

February 2012
ES -1 Project No. 0636562024
The proposed impacts total 4,676.75 linear feet of permanent stream impacts, including 2,074.03 linear
feet impacts from Phase I. PEC is seeking authorization from the USACE pursuant to Section 404 of the
Clean Water Act, and from the NCDENR DWQ pursuant to Section 401 of the Clean Water Act.
9:W *Jw&Wtopea erwV - nclmeyw eb-slt*WxM&ml-pem Np QDOI2.dom
- - = Gol4er
Asso ates

February 2012 i Project No. 0636562024
Table of Contents
t✓Y;=ri iTiVF SUMMARY........................................................................................................................ ES -1
ITEMS1 THRU 4..........................................................................................................................................1
ITEMS5 THRU 10 APPLICANT INFO.........................................................................................................1
STATEMENTOF AUTHORIZATION............................................................................................................1
NAME, LOCATION, AND DESCRIPTION....................................................................................................1
17. DIRECTIONS TO THE SITE...................................................................................................................2
18. NATURE OF ACTIVITY.......................................................................................................................... 2
ProjectDescription.................................................................................................................................... 2
BaseLiner System.................................................................................................................................... 2
LeachateManagement System................................................................................................................ 2
StormwaterManagement.......................................................................................................................... 3
AccessRoad............................................................................................................................................. 3
19. PROJECT PURPOSE.............................................................................................................................3
Purpose..................................................................................................................................................... 3
Schedule................................................................................................................................................... 3
BLOCKS 20-23 DREDGED AND/OR FILL MATERIAL................................................................................4
20. Reason(s) for Discharge..................................................................................................................... 4
21. Type(s) of Material Being Discharged.................................................................................................4
22. Surface Area in Acres......................................................................................................................... 4
23. DESCRIPTION OF AVOIDANCE, MINIMIZATION, AND COMPENSATION........................................2
Avoidance and Alternate Site Analysis: .................................................................................................... 2
Minimization: ............................................................................................................................................. 3
Compensation:.......................................................................................................................................... 4
24. IS ANY PORTION OF THE WORK ALREADY COMPLETE?................................................................4
25. ADDRESSES OF ADJOINING PROPERTY OWNERS......................................................................... 5
26. LIST OF OTHER CERTIFICATES OR APPROVALS/DENIALS............................................................5
27. SIGNATURE...........................................................................................................................................6
PROPERTYDETAILS..................................................................................................................................6
CLOSING...................................................................................................................................................... 6
REFERENCES................................................................................................................................... 7
(RssodatcsGolder
9lprortdslprogoss energy. ne4mayo.ccb•siteVndivkkW-permittip.020912.docz

_ —
February 2012 ii Project No. 0636562024
List of Figures
Figure 1
Vicinity Map
Figure 2
Alternate Site Analysis Map
Figure 2A
Alternate Site A
Figure 2B
Alternate Site B
Figure 2C
Alternate Site C
Figure 2D
Alternate Site D
List of Drawings
Drawing 1 Site Development Plan
Drawing 2 Stream Impacts Map
List of Appendices
Appendix A NCEEP Mitigation Letter
g 1pro;ectsiprogrss energy - ncl,nayo-ccb-sdelindivudual-permit%ip-020912.decx
B
Golder
Associates

February 2012 1 Project No. 0636562024
U.S. ARMY CORPS OF ENGINEERS
APPROVAL NO. 0710-0003
APPLICATION FOR DEPARTMENT OF THE ARMY PERMIT
FEXRES: 31 AUGUST 2012
33 CFR 325
Pubkt rsportng for Yrrs ockelon d aformaWn u estimated 10 WMIle 11 tours per response. indud.ng Ye Wns for revioseng instructions seatclnng
ex"% data somas. Bath" and maintakft Ye data needed. and complabag and mmnmN the conectlon or rionnabon send conwnaft ro9a'd no
ttds bmWn esWrab of any other aspect d Yre co0acbon of Wormadon. Yw:hxlaro suooesfions for redueft WA burden. to OeparYMM d DOW".
ftstw oton Headquarters. Exaeubve Services and Communra0ans 0099 rah, WAMM90011 MarapsereM DMSM and to Itis Office of Mr+aom+OM and
Budoat. Paperwork Reduelion Pmjod (07M.0003). Respondaft M*M be aware Yat not*Nhafsndwro any o0et provision d law. no Pwson shAl be
sub)sU b any peneMy for ft*rd to comply wO a adlee ion of bbrnlalon If to does not display a currently valid OMB control number Please DO NOT
RE1 URN yow form to either of Vase addresses Completed appNeabons must be M&nM*d to tM Dbba Enoineer having Wadcuon owr Ye location of
Yr. proposed **Ay
PRIVACY ACT STATEMENT
AuVotikes: Rivers and Harbors Act, section 10.33 USC 403. clean Water Ad. Seebon 404.33 USC 1344. Marne Prutecbon. Rewa+ch. and Sanetub ies
Act. Sedwn 103. 33 USC 1413: Repwlalm Programs of floe Corps of Engineers: I"Rute 33 CFR 320332 Prindpat Purpose Information P-*dsd on
Yds bmn wril be used in uvelwft Ye appkcabon for a permit. Rou*w Uses This WonnoWn may be stored wilh the Department of Jusbcs and other
federal, stale. and local govurwnonl agencies. and the pubk WO may be made Available as part d a pubkc rola, as roqutred by Federal haw.
Submission or request0d kdwrrtaNr r is vokmtwy, howevet, Y Worrag on is net providad Ye perad appkeadon cent be evalw(ad nor can a Psrmrl be
iswed. Ona eW of orpinal dnw tags or good rapiodt"" copies whkh Nor+ Yrs location and daracler of tha proposed adM ly must be attached to this
apphcoon (sea sample dtawings and/or instntcbons) and be submiYsd In the District Enpinaw low" )rrrndckm over the bcation of Yw PwPosed
activity An appla-AWn OW Is not completed in fill witi ba nekrmsd
ITEMS 1 THRU 4 (TO 06 FILLED 13Y THE CORPS)
1. APPLICATION NO.
2. FIELD OFFICE CODE
3. GATE RECEIVED
4.OATE APPLICATION COMPLETE
ITEMS 5 THRU /0 APPLICANT INFO (IO BEflLLED13YAPPUCAKn
8. AUTHORIZED AGENTS NAME AND TITLE
5. APPLICANT'S NAME
(agent is not required)
First - Steve Middle - Last - Cahoon
First - William Middle - J Last - Thacker
Company - Progress Energy Carolinas, Inc.
Company - Progress Energy Carolinas, Inc.
E-mail Address -
E-mail Address - [e-mail]
6. APPUCANT'S ADDRESS:
9. AGENT'S ADDRESS:
10660 Boston Road
300 Spring Forest Drive
Roxboro, NC, 27674
Raleigh, NC, 27616
7. APPLICANTS PHONE NOs. WAREA CODE
10. AGENTS PHONE NOS. WAREA CODE
a. Business b. Mobile c. Fax
a. Business b. Mobile c. Fax
336-597-7331
919-646-7457 919.632-0129 919-546.4409
STATEMENT OF
AUTHORIZATION
11. I hereby authorize, , to act in my behalf as my agent in the processing of this
application and to furnish, upon request, s pplemental information in support of this permit application.
_ Z
SIGNA E OF APPLICANT DA
NAME, LOCATION, AND DESCRIPTION OF PROJECT OR ACTIVITY
12. PROJECT NAME OR TITLE (see instructions)
Mayo CCP Monofill Site
13. NAME OF WATERBODY (if known/applicable)
14. PROJECT STREET ADDRESS (if applicable)
Bowes Branch
15. LOCATION OF PROJECT
Let ('N) •78.924140 Lon ('W) 36.531610
16. OTHER LOCATION DESCRIPTIONS, IF KNOWN (see instructions)
State Tax Parcel ID- Municipality- Person County
Section - Township - Range -
ENO FORM 4345, OCT 2010 EDITION OF OCT 2004 IS OBSOLETE
Q1pr4easrproQesss++or0r n:►�o•ub•avtmripO't03+2 ea.
7AS MOICS

February 2012 2 Project No. 0636562024
17. DIRECTIONS TO THE SITE
The site is located on a vacant parcel of land owned by PEC approximately one mile, west of US -501 from
the Mayo Plant. The site is east of North Carolina Route 1327 (Woodys Store Road), south of the Norfolk
Southern railroad right-of-way and west of Bowes Branch in Roxboro, North Carolina (Figure 1).
From the Virginia/North Carolina state line drive south approximately 2 miles on Boston Road (US -501)
and tum west on Bethel Hill Rd. Take the first right onto Woodys Store Road (Route 1327) and the site
entrance is approximately 1.4 miles on the right.
18. Nature of Activity (Description of project, include
Prosect Description
PEC plans to construct a coal combustion product (CCP) monofill site at its Mayo Plant. Modifications to
the Mayo Plant's current ash handling system and disposal methods are necessary. Proposed
modifications include converting the current wet system for handling bottom ash to a dry system in order to
minimize environmental risk. Fly ash was converted in 2009. With this modification, a new dry ash
monofill facility will be required. The CCP monofill site will be a synthetically lined industrial landfill, as
defined by state regulation, with a leachate collection system for the disposal of CCPs generated from the
production of electricity. The waste management unit will occupy approximately 103.8 acres of the 659.9
acre site. Only CCPs from PEC power plants will be permitted Into the proposed Mayo CCP Monofill
facility.
Conceptual development of the site includes an approximate 103.8 acre monofill, access roads, leachate
tanks, maintenance/office building, and potential future rail access to the site.
Base Liner System
The proposed composite liner system will consist of the following components from top to bottom:
• 24 -inch granular protective/drainage layer;
• Double -sided drainage Geocomposite (GC) with a triaxial geonet core;
• 60 mil high density polyethylene (HDPE) geomembrane;
• Double -sided drainage Geocomposite (GC) with a triaxial geonet core;
• 60 mil high density polyethylene (HDPE) geomembrane; and
• Gundseal (or equivalent) geosynthetic clay liner with bonded 60 -mil mil high density
polyethylene (HDPE) geomembrane.
The composite liner system is proposed for use in all disposal areas as shown on the design plans.
Leachate Management System
The leachate collection and removal system will include the following components:
• 24 -inch granular protective/drainage layer,
• Network of leachate lateral and header collector pipes;
• Double -sided drainage Geocomposite (GC) with a triaxial geonet core; and
• Three leachate holding/storage tanks.
9: W0J8d6WW"tenergy-n*-Y0-A)-4N6UrdV k1W-pMmitlip82 W2d=
` Gol*r
Associates

— - = February 2012 3 Project No. 0636562024
Stormwater Management
Stormwater management systems are included that meet state design criteria. Within each disposal unit,
or monofill phase, a temporary system of berms, dikes, and one or more surface pumps and hoses, will be
used to divert and transport uncontaminated stormwater from coming into contact with CCP material and
entering the leachate collection system.
This will be accomplished by covering inactive areas with an intermediate cover and diverting stormwater
runoff to a temporary impoundment area for collection and then pumping or siphoning it to a drainage ditch
that flows directly into a sediment basin(s).
Access Road
A new access road is proposed to accommodate hauling vehicles for the transportation of CCPs from the
Mayo Plant to the proposed CCP monofill site. This roadway will be owned, operated, and maintained by
PEC, and access will be restricted. This corridor will include a proposed bridge spanning Bowes Branch at
a point where the stream is 26.82 feet wide at the top of bank and the stream bed is approximately 16 feet
wide. The proposed bridge will be 18.67 feet wide constructed with two (2) box culverts.
19. Project Purpose (Describe the reason or purpose of the project, see
Purpose
CCPs are disposed of in industrial solid waste landfills and the proposed CCP monofill site is necessary
for the Mayo Plant to continue to operate. The ash handling modifications and proposed CCP Monofill
are integral to ensure that a sufficient supply of power is available to the existing and future residents of
Person County and the surrounding area.
The Mayo Plant uses a single -unit, coal-fired boiler to generate 727- megawatt (MW) of electricity per
hour, the single largest coal-fired unit in PEC's system. PEC has installed state-of-the-art flue -gas
desulfurization controls at the Mayo Plant to reduce emissions. PEC anticipates its total emission -control
investment in the Person County plants to be about $800 million (1995 - 2009).
Flue gas desulphurization (FGD) products are classified as either wet or dry. Wet products, such as
those generated at the Mayo Plant, are those produced by wet scrubbing and primarily consist of water,
calcium sulfite/sulfate solids and small quantities of fly ash. The wet FGD product may also contain
magnesium sulfite/sulfate, barium sulfite/sulfate, boron and traces of fly ash. Wet FGD products are non-
hazardous.
CCPs are the byproduct of generating electricity from coal and include byproducts from the emission
controls. The Mayo Plant generates approximately 180,000 tons of ash and 170,000 tons of gypsum and
other coal combustion byproducts per year. As designed, the monofill has approximately 55 years of
disposal capacity, approximately 17,000,000 cubic yards.
Schedule
The project will be constructed in multiple stages with the monofill expected to be in-service by August
2013. Only a portion of the monofill, the leachate tanks and the access roads will be developed in the
first five years of site operations. The monofill is expected to be built in approximately 11 phases, each
with an approximate 5 -year capacity as required by State Regulation. The anticipated construction
activities associated with the first phase 5 -year phase of the facility will require approximately six months
The maintenance building and rail access/unloading facilities may not be built during the first five years of
operation and have yet to be designed. The date of the additional phases is dependent on site
operations and monofill usage. Detailed designs of the maintenance building and rail access/unloading
a'W*iad%Vonwu enww - rcUrevo-ccb ft%irdiMid' W -Den ff iv.M 12.d=
- Golder
Associlates

February 2012 4 Project No. 0636562024
facilities will be produced and submitted to the Person County Planning Department for approval prior to
their construction.
BLOCKS 20-23 DREDGED AND/OR FILL MATERIAL TO BE DISCHARGED
20. Reason(s) for Discharge
The majority of intermittent stream impacts will result from excavating the proposed monofill in
preparation for disposal of CCPs. The remainder of intermittent stream impacts will result from
necessary grading and slope stabilization. The perennial stream impact will result from the construction
of an access road to the proposed CCP monofill.
21. Type(s) of Material Being Discharged and the Amount of Each Type in Cubic Yards:
Type — concrete Type — stone rip rap Type - clean soil fill
Amount in cubic yards — 30.4 Amount in cubic yards -16 Amount in cubic yards - unknown
The proposed road crossing will require triple box culverts and rip rap aprons within the stream channel.
The proposed CCP monofill project is a synthetically lined industrial landfill for disposal of coal
combustion products. Development of the monofill is expected to require approximately 1.6 million yards
of soil cut and 1.0 million yards of soil fill to achieve base grades (i.e., grades below the liner). Grading to
support the monofill will include either cutting or filling areas to grade, and the quantities of cut/fill
associated with the stream impacts is not known.
22. Surface Area in Acres of Wetlands or Other Waters Filled (see instructions)
Construction equipment to be used will include excavators and dozers.
Acres NA
or
Linear Feet The proposed Phase I impacts total 2,074.04 linear feet of permanent impacts to
streams: 1,990.04 intermittent streams and 84 linear feet are to perennial streams.
The project total proposed impacts are 4,732.88 linear feet of permanent impacts to
streams: 4,648.88 linear feet of intermittent and 84 linear feet of perennial streams.
Phase
Impact ID Linear Feet Classification
HP 84.00 ft. perennial
m
XI 1,068.53 ft. intermittent
z
a
Yl 921.51 ft. intermittent
Phase 1 Total: 2,074.04 intermittent & poEennial
II 308.34 ft. intermittent
®
MI 138.77 ft. Intermittent
U)
NI 325.77 ft. intermittent
r
a
Ot 242.62 ft. intermittent
TI 852.61 ft. intermittent
UI 790.75 ft. intermittent
U.
XI 1,068.53 ft. intermittent
Yl 921.51 ft. intermittent
Future Phases Total: 2,658-85 ft. Intermittent
Project Total: 4,732.88 ft. intermittent 8 perennial
0'2-1 = Golder
, n
o:,orc.0 �,,,�, rcVns o-mb4a 0912d- Assodates

February 2012 2 Project No. 0636562024
23. Description of Avoidance, Minimization, and Compensation (see instructions)
Avoidance and Alternate Site Analysis:
An alternate site analysis was completed by Golder on the behalf of Progress that identified and
evaluated potential sites for the proposed CCP monofill. The analysis initially identified four potential
properties owned by Progress within close proximity to the Mayo Plant (see Figure 2). The four sites,
their suitability and impacts are discussed below.
Site A
Potential Site A is located west of the Mayo Plant across US -501, and north of the Norfolk Southern rail
line as shown on Figure 2A. The potential monofill footprint is located between two perennial streams
and straddles a public gravel -surface road. In order to develop a CCP monofill, the public gravel road
would have to be relocated. Based on a preliminary site assessment, the proposed monofill would
impact several ephemeral/intermittent streams and forest wetlands. Relocating the existing gravel road
would impact the perennial stream located north of the potential facility and is expected to result in
additional wetland impacts.
Although a Jurisdictional Determination was not obtained to confirm the streams and wetlands on this
site, it was estimated that 5,000 linear feet of perennial and intermittent stream impacts would result from
the preliminary monofill design.
Due to the extent of site constraints, the projected life of the facility would be approximately 20 years.
Considering the amount of projected impacts to wetland, intermittent and perennial streams, and the low
projected life of the facility (approximately 20 years), Site A was not evaluated further for its potential
suitability as a CCP Monofill.
Site B
Potential Site B is located west of the Mayo Plant across US -501, and south of the Norfolk Southern rail
line as shown on Figure 2B. During a preliminary site assessment, the proposed footprint was found to
impact multiple intermittent streams and two perennial stream reaches. The estimated stream impacts
would exceed 10,000 linear feet. Due to the extensive impacts to intermittent and perennial streams,
siting a CCP disposal facility at Site B was not evaluated further.
Site C
Potential Site C is located immediately southeast of the Mayo Plant between the Plant and Mayo
Reservoir as shown on Figure 2C. The proposed CCP monofill would have been located on a northwest
trending upland area, bound to the north and south by southeast trending drainages filled by waters of
the Mayo Reservoir. Steep slopes on either side of the upland area have natural drainage features that
discharge to the reservoir.
This site was extensively evaluated; a subsurface investigation, preliminary design, and wetiand
delineation (including submission of a Request for Jurisdictional Determination) were completed for this
site. The wetland delineation identified several ephemeral and intermittent streams as well as extensive
wetland areas and portions of Mayo Reservoir.
The estimated impacts resulting from the preliminary CCP monofill design would include approximately
one acre of wetlands and 4,000 linear feet of perennial and intermittent streams. Preliminary design of
the proposed monofill was revised to avoid wetlands as much as possible, but the resultant CCP monofill
had an expected life of less than 8 years. Therefore, due to the limited life, stream impacts (after
redesign), proximity and potential impacts to Mayo Reservoir, siting a CCP disposal facility at Site C was
not considered practicable and was not evaluated further.
abroisGsl OW" Www - ndmavo_wb He ' 12.do-
eir
Wates

February 2012 3 Project No. 0636562024
Site D
Potential Site D is located west of the Mayo Plant across US -501, and south of the Norfolk Southern rail
line as shown on Figure 2D. The proposed CCP monofill will be located on a northwest trending upland
area, bounded to the east by a northeast trending drainage. Steep slopes on either side of the upland
area have natural drainage features, most becoming intermittent streams that flow east into Bowes
Branch, a perennial stream, or west into a perennial tributary to Bowes Branch.
This site was extensively evaluated; a subsurface investigation, preliminary design, and wetlands
evaluation (including submission of a Request for Jurisdictional Determination) were completed for this
site. The wetlands evaluation indentified several ephemeral and intermittent streams within the site and
a perennial stream (Bowes Branch) with moderate wetland areas along the eastern project study limits.
Phase I of the CCP monofill at Site D will impact approximately 1,990 linear feet of intermittent stream
and the access road will impact a small section of a perennial stream (approximately 84 linear feet).
Total project development of a CCP monofill at Site D will result in impacts to approximately 4,650 linear
feet of intermittent streams (including Phase I) and the 84 linear feet of perennial stream impacts from
the access road. However, the proposed impacts associated with Site D are less than the amount of
impacts that would be necessary at the other Sites, especially considering the proposed CCP monofill
facility at Site D will provide more than 50 years of disposal life. No wetland impacts or perennial stream
impacts are necessary at Site D.
Site D was selected for development of the CCP monofill due to the reduced amount of impacts to
intermittent streams, lack of impacts to wetlands and perennial streams, and the increased site longevity
of approximately 50 years.
Minimization:
The proposed impacts are the minimum necessary to satisfy the project purpose and need. Impacts to
streams and wetlands were avoided to the greatest practicable extent. Where intermittent stream
impacts were unavoidable, measures were taken to minimize the areas affected. The design and site
layout avoids all wetlands on the site. Due to the dendritic pattern formed by the intermittent streams on
the site, impacts to the smaller intermittent streams were unavoidable. These intermittent streams
fragment the uplands and make most of the non -wetland areas too small and misshapen for use as CCP
monofill sites. The design team strove to minimize impacts to intermittent streams and this is evident in
that the proposed impacts are limited to the upper limits (headwaters) and intermittent streams that
fragment the usable upland space.
The proposed CCP monofill requires an access road that the design team has successfully laid out to
avoid all stream and wetland impacts except an unavoidable crossing over Bowes Branch. To minimize
impacts, the road crossing is proposed at the location of an existing logging road crossing. This area
already contains rip rap to provide stability for logging equipment.
During the design process, the limits of the CCP monofill were pulled back to avoid wetlands located
northeast of the proposed project and south of the rail road. The original footprint was reduced to avoid
impacting the intermittent stream located south of the proposed CCP monofill. The original footprint was
also reduced to minimize impacts to streams located west of the proposed CCP monofill.
o kuniw**Vwnnms wwnv . r e eukvo ab-"a%indvk uebmn*%ip 0 12.dou
f" --Golder
Golder
Associates

February 2012 4 Project No. 0636562024
Compensation:
Compensatory mitigation for the initial phase is proposed through the purchase of credits from the North
Carolina Ecosystem Enhancement Program (NCEEP). The NCEEP is willing to accept payment for
compensatory mitigation for the Mayo CCP Monofill Site. A copy of NCEEP's letter dated January 18,
2012 is included in Appendix A.
Compensation for the initial phase includes:
HP: 84.00 ft.
XI: 1,068.53 ft.
YI: 921.51 ft.
Compensation for the initial phase totals: 2,074.04 ft.
No further disturbance is expected for 15-20 years after commencement of construction on the initial
phase. Since the need for impacts to intermittent streams, beyond the impacts associated with the initial
phase, are anticipated 15 to 20 years from the date of this permit application, no specific method of
providing compensatory mitigation is proposed at this time. Compensatory mitigation for future stream
impacts beyond those required in the initial phase (Phase 1) will be provided by PEC in a manner that is
acceptable to the USACE at the time of taking. Possible methods of providing compensatory mitigation
Include: preservation of perennial, intermittent, and ephemeral streams on the PEC's adjacent property
located east of the proposed monofill; purchase of commercially available credits; purchase of credits
from NCEEP; payment of an in -lieu fee; or a combination of available compensatory mitigation approved
by the USACE.
24. Is Any Portion of the Work Already Complete? No If yes, describe the completed work
W-**45WO96" WWGY - Ivo -cc sil.undrviaW"rrWtW-O2Wl2.do=
AML
ap
Gol r
ates

_ - February 2012
5 Project No. 0636562024
25. Addresses of Adjoining Property Owners, Lessees, Etc., Whose Property Adjoins the
Waterbod if more than can be entered here please attach a supplemental list).
a. Hails Agri Business: 975 Claude Hail Rd, Roxboro, NC 27574
PIN: 0021-00-05-5121.000 0010-00-86-2767.000 0011-00-60-5713.000
b. James E. Bowes: 2048 Woodys Store Rd, Roxboro, NC 27574
PIN: 0011-00-93-6050.000
c. Susie M Seamster: 2000 Woodys Store Rd, Roxboro, NC 27574
PIN: 0011-00-92-6763.000
d. Cannon Queen/Wiliiam/JoiNicto: 2515 Bayberry Ct., Burlington, NC 27215
PIN: 0021-00-02-1473.000
e. Oteiia Brandon & Others: 156 Nannie Brandon Rd, Semora, NC 27343
PIN: 0011-00-92-9292.000
f. Willoree & Robert Perry: PO Box 25010, Durham, NC 27702
PIN: 0021-00-014813.000
g. Donna Ray Lattimore: 115 Wildwood Dr, Morganton, NC 28655
PIN: 0021-00-01-3152.000
h. Leron Brandon: 304 Hawthorne Dr, Roxboro, NC 27574
PIN: 0011-00-91-8680.000
1. Louis Lawson: 156 Nannie Brandon Rd, Semora, NC 27343, c/o Obra
PIN: 0021-00-01-0120.000
j. Nathaniel Lawson: 1550 Woodys Store Rd, Roxboro, NC 27574
PIN: 0021-00-00-3628.000
k. Johnny J. Downy: 1235 Woodys Store Rd, Roxboro, NC 27574
PIN: 0020-00-19-0298.000
1. Andrew H. & Sheila Walker: 1212 Woodys Store Rd, Roxboro, NC 27574
PIN: 0020-00-29-0422.000
m. Ronnie R. Bowes: 922 Woodys Store Rd, Roxboro, NC 27574
PIN: 0020-00-28-3894.000 & 0020-00-28-5534.000
n. Ronnie R. & Kenneth Bowes: 922 Woodys Store Rd, Roxboro, NC 27574
PIN: 0020-00-38-1109.000
o. Jonathan K. Adam: 890 Woodys Store Rd, Roxboro, NC 27574
PIN: 0020-00-28-7249.000
p. Ronnie R. & Sandra H. Bowes: 922 Woodys Store Rd, Roxboro, NC 27574
PIN: 0020-00-28-6317.000
q. Roy Kevin & Aimee Wilmoth: 728 Woodys Store Rd, Roxboro, NC 27574
PIN: 0020-00-37-3800:000
r. Louisiana Pacific Corporation: PO Box 130, New Waverly, TX 77305
PIN: 0020-00-57-0857.000 0020-00-67-8622.000 & 0020-00-68-6834.000
s. Jimmy & Sandra Blanks: 930 RT Hester Rd, Roxboro, NC 27574
26. List of Other Certificates or Approvals/Denials
received from other Federal, State, or Local
Agencies for Work Described in This Application.
AGENCY TYPE APPROVAL* IDENTIFICATION
NUMBER
DATE APPLIED DATE APPROVED DATE DENIED
USACE JD 2011-00181
8/3/2010 1/27/2011 NA
NCDENR PFD**
10/27/2010 3/21/2011 NA
" Would include but is not restricted to zoning, building, and flood plain permits.
**PFD = perennial flow determination.
7Wq#d4 0PGI —9Y --V-YO-b-elle s,i.dom
G014er
Assoociates

: FEbwary 2012 6 Project No. 0636562024
:7. Sipn�tir•
Application is hereby made for permit or permits to authorize the work described in this application. I
certify that this information in this application is complete and accurate. I further certify that I possess the
authority to undertake the work described herein or am acting as the duly authorized agent of the
applicant ) Z
SIGNATUR O APPCICAN DATE SIGNATURE OF AGENT DATE
The Application must be signed by the person who desires to undertake the proposed activity (applicant)
or it may be signed by a duly authorized agent if the statement in block 11 has been filled out and signed.
18 U.S C. Section 1001 provides that: Whoever, in any manner within the jurisdiction of any department
or agency of the United States knowingly and willfully falsifies, conceals. or covers up any trick, scheme,
or disguises a material fact or makes any false, fictitious or fraudulent statements or representations or
makes or uses any false writing or document knowing same to contain any false, fictitious or fraudulent
statements or entry, shall be fined not more than $10,000 or imprisoned not more than five years or both.
PROPERTY DETAILS
Applicant/Owner: Progress Energy Carolinas, Inc.
USGS Quad: Cluster Springs
Watershed: Lower Dan (HUC 03010104)
Nearest Waterway Bowes Branch
CLOSING
Please review the information enclosed in this Application for a Department of the Army Permit and
contact William Thacker at [phone] if you have any questions or need additional information.
Thank you in advance for your time and assistance.
PROGRESS ENERGY CAROLINAS, INC.
William J. Thacker
KLVS/CH
P��Y`•C.l;rraC'.st•n-%,y-w.Vm1r}c:b 1.:,w 0;0312 docs

February 2012
REFERENCES
7 Project No. 0636562024
Cowardin, L. M., V. Carter, F. C. Golet, and E. T. LaRoe. 1979. Classification of wetlands and deepwater
habitats of the United States. U.S. Department of the Interior, Fish and Wildlife Service, Washington,
D.C.
National List of Hydric Soils 2010, United States Department of Agriculture Natural Resource
Conservation Service, http://soils.usda.gov/use/hydric/
National Soil Information System (NASIS) database selection criteria for hydric soils
hftp://soils.usda.gov/use/hydric/criteria.html
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.
Radford, A. E., H. E. Ahles, and C. R. Bell. 1968. Manual of the Vascular Flora of the Carolinas.
University of North Carolina Press, Chapel Hill, N.C.
Web Soil Survey. United States Department of Agriculture. Natural Resources Conservation Service
hftp://websoilsurvey.nrcs.usda.gov/app-/
U.S. Army Corps of Engineers. 2010. Interim Regional Supplement to the Corps of Engineers Wetland
Delineation Manual., Eastern Mountains and Piedmont Region, ed. J. S. Wakeley, R. W. Lichvar, C.
V. Noble, and J. F. Berkowitz. ERDC/EL TR -10-9. Vicksburg, MS: U.S. Army Engineer Research and
Development Center.
USDA-NRCS. 2010. PLANTS Database. Natural Resource Conservation Service, U.S. Department of
Agriculture. Accessed June 2010. (http://plants.usda.aov/)
U.S. Fish and Wildlife Service. 1988. National list of vascular plant species that occur in wetlands. U.S.
Fish &Wildlife Service Biological Report 88 (26.9).
U.S. Fish and Wildlife Service. 1993. 1993 supplement to list of plant species that occur in wetlands:
Northeast (Region 1). Supplement to U.S. Fish & Wildlife Service Biological Report 88 (26.9).
United States Fish and Wildlife Service. National Wetlands Inventory http://www.fws.gov/nwi/
Wetland Training Institute. 1995. Field Guide for Wetland Delineation: 1987 Corps of Engineers Manual,
Wetland Training Institute, Glenwood, NM, USA.
Golder
Assodates

Figures
and
Drawings

i'
VIRGINIA
NORTH CAROLINA t Et
• �+a
• f
f
„ t
1
Projection: NAD 1983.
0 2,050 4,100
Feet
1 in = 2,000 feet
2108 W Labumum Ave. Project: Title
Richmond, VA 23227 0636562024
Date: 8-31-2011
- Golder
Associates Design:
L
Review: Client
tiandMap.m d
Mayo Steam
Electric Plant
1
Legend
M Project Study Limits
Progress Energy
VICINITY MAP
Mayo CCP Monofill Site
Person County, North Carolina
Progress Energy Figure 1

#. r "` �� �;�_ � ly�?. 'SKS !'�`�•"'�� ;�, ^ , . • �-'�C 1
'1'lI.•. ry
��` .• . �• N �t "�• Iii. %�it�i, .
IVY- IiA:
1i o-
r T:. Ly
i � .�h{ � � • . r � -.� ! � , � : �.,�` +' � _ \ #•'.-�' � . � .may `*eX� 1
`+ 1F
M � 1�`�`"�„ ':+'� � -• r} "fit. `Yi�` _ �� x s �' ��� �;�� �
J �
j �• i�F r
�-`� �t ► ; ` •TM�� ,� y, :s� �w�1 ice',• ,fit T '4� ,..
r ,
►-",�i•'•`'.
i�t O t • a ;t _ �'_ ,_
'� • rr ~'"``.2�,� F�-�,�..,; r��. �` � .. ��� ,r� Irv.
Np
Legend
�� -�" ,,,Pa� �. _;•.h� - $•ti..-. ��Ti+� � c. ``�f f.�#�.,(,7::�'�y►��_'yt`a��,�v�'. T" 4�1„�M: `a #�,y' „ •'� �`�s
y. d .,#- __'�• Wit' . Y4 ^; 7►'.�,.. �3 �? ��j�5,�y�� 5' � � '�
i�
,a "^SLi.

0 500 1,000 Corporations, Surdex, 200904, Person County, NC 2008 1" = 100' Orthophotography. I
FM Feet Projection: NAD 1983.
2108 W Laburnum Ave. Project: Title
Richmond, VA 23227 0636562024 ALTERNATE SITE B
Date: 10-12-2011 Mayo CCP Monofill Site
Golder
Associates Design: Person County, North Carolina
Review: I Client
Fig-2B-AltemateSiteB.mA
Progress Energy I Figure 2B

` A
r
%. �
L14 s .
Vit..
\Z
\l.� • M �{ j�I 2•-wy-
IV �
%-,
1n% `- •.1
Legend
�• Prouress Energy
® Alternate Site Boundaries
0 500 1,000 Corporations, Surdex, 200904, Person County, NC 2008 1" = 100' Orthophotography.
FM iiiiiQ Feet Projection: NAD 1983.
1 in = 500 feet
2108 W laburnum Ave. Project: Title
Richmond, VA 23221 0636562024 ALTERNATE SITE C
_ Date: o CCP Monofill Site 10-12-2011 Mayo y
Associates Design:Person County, North Carolina
ie: Review: Client
Fig-2C-AlternateSiteC.mxd Progress Energy Figure 2C

L 'moi t � y 1 t l vC, a-�' K a`'�f� �L! ._ y rrR r+ w +� f 'i•.i
f _i y' .�,P r •�' t1:rwlrj,�� 3i� �11tY. 'ill.
w�,�-. r " ..•r "% Y �:� S�� sl� 'Lti'S' ���•_ � �'r' F7rR � ''1 �. s � �l�
l
�.'.rt,.r��s -t �•� ,d, ,}s� f.,L. " jt' � � �I r',� x�.'R. . �.., . � 'Kv �, L•��.I � � � 1� .• .1
a y1', � RR�•tt tl�y� ' � �� ,�'L`1� y7� i� �jYrC , ` t; �'� � Yj'
�, t`�,� v.�. .''a x IT'q,s lT.l'• roi 1�a.Y t �s•�d.�r`(�
. .° '.�•.1.'_+1`O-i,Lti••R-.ate• _. 'a.� .��'�'1'�.Y'�.cd► ,f'_z...`T*T :fi1.Ci{�%.''F� L�:
�. r .,� ;�.:� ,.- � ,. F _ rte. � ,,- �,;• �,; _
r..'�i, i j%. •° ;' �' ., ., tti ry�1`•"irr'�.
"F i • t� 2� a 4Y
+r t�,' ' lf�"�;(�G��( a S° ;'`.'�^ at -� rR;�?�`��r `�+�i F�?. i�,{��4••-y!_''.i
�"'! • _ `. B�•ffi =`,ti''fe,'�; � �.i Czs�'�! .•-'.".x." ": 1.`.li-7� ��F'fY�` '• � i 17�: ..?
7
Progress�
���?,��, �,r � ,_; " �� �� 4 � 'y �i ,•tt ",�; f.,i `. ,may, <+�i�f'`.ry
`� it , r �. t f` •t � .' '} T
.r
r , ti ••}j 7•'x•1 Sir J - _ a ��y � y • ° ,"„�
�. aS`"� �• +' ahitt: F rx• � ^ ti.,',Y-� Y Vii` F, •,�
z Mr. ..» � �y 's'�f �r •�.-' i t^w + f i•, e. ����s'�'�
--
'.x
- Y r

r
&a Mrem
PROORAM
January 18, 2012
Steve Cahoon
CP & L d/bJa/ Progress Energy Carolinas
410 South Wilmington St.
Raleigh, NC 27601
Expiration of Acceptance: July 17, 2012
Project: Mayo CCP Monofill Site County: Person
The purpose of this letter is to notify you that the North Carolina Ecosystem Enhancement Program (NCEEP) is willing to accept
payment for compensatory mitigation for impacts associated with the above referenced project as indicated in the table below. Please
note that this decision does not assure that participation in the NCEEP will be approved by the permit issuing agencies as mitigation
for project impacts. It is the responsibility of the applicant to contact these agencies to determine if payment to the NCEEP will be
approved. you must also comely with all other state federal or local government permits. regulations or authorintio s associated
with the prgp=d activity including SL 2009-337: An Act to Promote the Use of Compensatory- MttigaAion Banks as amended by
S.L. 2011-343.
This acceptance is valid for six months from the date of this letter and is not transferable. If we have not received a copy of the
issued 404 Permit/401 Certification/CAMA permit within this time frame, this acceptance will expire. It is the applicant's.
responsibility to send copies of the permits to NCEEP. Once NCEEP receives a copy of the permit(s) an invoice will be issued based
on the required mitigation in that permit and payment must be made prior to conducting the authorized work. The amount of the in
Lieu Fee to be paid to NCEEP by an applicant is calculated based upon the Fee Schedule and policies listed at www.neeep.net.
Based on the information supplied by you in your request to use the NCEEP, the impacts that may require compensatory mitigation are
summarized in the following table. The amount of mitigation required for this impact is determined by permitting agencies.
a
CU
Stream (feet)
Wetlands (acres)
Buffer I
Buffer Il
(Sq. Ft.)
(Sq. Ft.)
EBswmein
Location
Cold Cool Warm
Riparian I Non -Riparian
Coastal Marsh
Impact Roanoke
03010104
0 0 2,075
OA 0
0
0
0
Upon receipt of payment, EEP will take responsibility for providing the compensatory mitigation. The mitigation will be performed in
accordance with the N.C. Department of Environment and Natural Resources' Ecosystem Enhancement Program In -Lieu Fee
Instrument dated July 28, 2010.
Thank you for your interest in the NCEEP. If you have any questions or need additional information, please contact Kelly Williams at
[phone].
Sincerely, n
Micha llison v
Deputy Director
cc: Karen Higgins, NCDWQ Wetlands/401 Unit
Eric Alsmeyer, USACE-Raleigh
Lauren Witherspoon, NCDWQ-Raleigh
File
i
AZA
North Carolina Ecosystem Enhancement Program, 1652 Mail Service Center, Raleigh, NC 27699-1652 / 919-715-0476 / www.nceep.net

Mayo Plant
Section 404/401 Individual Permit Modification
Mayo CCP Monofill Site Lined Retention Basin and Ash Basin Closure
Person County, North Carolina
Project No. 7810150300
APPENDIX F
USACE Department of the Army Permit
Permit No: SAW -2011-00181
August 22, 2012
wood.

DEPARTMENT OF THE ARMY
WILMINGTON DISTRICT, CORPS OF ENGINEERS
69 DARLINGTON AVENUE
WILMINGTON, NORTH CAROLINA 28403-1343
August 22, 2012
Regulatory Division
Action ID: SAW -2011-00181
Mr. William J. Thacker
Progress Energy Carolinas, Inc.
10660 Boston Road
Roxboro, North Carolina 27574
Dear Mr. Thacker:
In accordance with your written request of February 9, 2012, including the revisions
submitted on March 20 and April 27, 2012, and the ensuing administrative record, enclosed are
two copies of a permit to discharge fill material into waters of the United States, associated with
construction of the Mayo Coal Combustion Product Monofill Site, in Person County, North
Carolina.
You should acknowledge that you accept the terms and conditions of the enclosed permit by
signing and dating each copy in the spaces provided ("Permittee" on page 3). Your signature, as
permittee, indicates that, as consideration for the issuance of this permit, you voluntarily accept
and agree to comply with all of the terms and conditions of this permit. All pages of both copies
of the signed permit with drawings should then be returned to this office for final authorization.
A self-addressed envelope is enclosed for your convenience.
Title 33, Part 325.1(0, of the Code of Federal Regulations reads, in part, that, "A $10 fee will
be charged for permit applications when the work is noncommercial in nature and provides
personal benefits that have no connection with a commercial enterprise...", and "A fee of $100
will be charged for permit applications when the planned or ultimate purpose of the project is
commercial or industrial in nature and is in support of operations that charge for the production,
distribution, or sale of goods or services." As your application fits the latter category, you are
requested to remit your check for $100, made payable to the Finance and Accounting Officer,
USAED, Wilmington. ]*he check should accompany the signed and dated copies of your permit.
This correspondence contains a proffered permit for the above described site. If you object
to this decision, you may request an administrative appeal under Corps regulations at 33 CFR
part 331. Enclosed you will find a Notification of Appeal Process (NAP) fact sheet and request
for appeal (RFA) form. Ifyou request to appeal this decision you must submit a completed RFA
form to the following address:
Printed on ® Recycled Paper

-2 -
District Engineer, Wilmington Regulatory Division
Attn: Eric Alsmeyer
69 Darlington Avenue
Wilmington, North Carolina 28403
In order for an RFA to be accepted by the Corps, the Corps must determine that it is
complete, that it meets the criteria for appeal under 33 CFR part 331.5, and that it has been
received by the Division Office within 60 days of the date of the NAP. Should you decide to
submit an RFA form, it must be received at the above address by October 22, 2012.
It is not necessary to submit an RFA form to the Division Office if you do not object to the
decision in contained in this correspondence.
After the permit is authorized in this office, the original copy will be returned to you; the
duplicate copy will be permanently retained in this office. If you have questions, please contact
Eric Alsmeyer at the Raleigh Regulatory Field Office, telephone [phone], extension 23.
Thank you in advance for completing our Customer Survey Form. This can be accomplished
by visiting our web site at http://Mr2.nwp.usace.ariiiy.mil/survey.Litml and completing the survey
on-line. We value your comments and appreciate your taking the time to complete a survey each
time you interact with our office.
Sincerely,
, At �
Monte Matthews
Acting Chief, Raleigh Regulatory
Field Office
Enclosures

DEPARTMENT OF THE ARMY PERMIT
Permittee: PROGRESS ENERGY CAROLINAS, INC., A1TN: MR. WILLIAM J. ITIACKER
Permit No: SAW -2011-00181
Issuing Office: USAED, WILMINGTON
NOTE: The term "you" and its derivatives, as used in this permit, means the permittee or any future transferee. The
term "this office" refers to the appropriate district or division office of the Corps of Engineers having jurisdiction over
the permitted activity or the appropriate official of the office acting under the authority of the commanding officer.
You are authorized to perform work in the accordance with the terms and conditions specified below.
Project Description: The overall proposed project includes construction of a synthetically -lined industrial
landfill (Coal Combustion Product monofill), leachate tanks, an access road, maintenance building and rail
access/unloading facilities. The project will be constructed in multiple phases. The total impacts for the
ultimate build -out of the facility (approximately 104 acres) will be 4,649 linear feet of intermittent stream
with only minimal aquatic function, and 84 linear feet of perennial stream. There will be no wetland
impacts. Impacts for the first phase (60.2 acres) total 1,990 linear feet of intermittent stream and 84 linear
feet of perennial stream.
Project Location: The proposed waste management unit for the CCP tnonofill will occupy approximately
104 acres of an approximately 660 -acre parcel on the east side of SR 1327 (Woodys Store Road,
approximately 1.4 miles northwest of the intersection of SR 1329 (Bethel Hill School Road) and US 501
(Boston Road), north of Roxboro, North Carolina, within the drainage of Bowes Branch. Latitude 36.531
N, Longitude 78.924 W.
Permit Conditions:
General Conditions:
1. The time Limit for completing the work authorized ends on December 31, 2030. If you find that you need more
time to complete the authorized activity, submit your request for a time extension to this office for consideration at least
one month before the above date is reached.
2. You must maintain the activity authorized by this permit in good condition and in conformance with the terms
and conditions of this permit. You are not relieved of this requirement if you abandon the permitted activity, although
you may make a good faith transfer to a third party in compliance with General Conditions 4 below. Should you wish
to cease to maintain the authorized activity or should you desire to abandon it without a good faith transfer, you must
obtain a modification of this permit from this office, which may require restoration of the area.
3. If you discover any previously unknown historic or archeological remains while accomplishing the activity
authorized by this permit, you must immediately notify this office of what you have found. We will initiate the Federal
and state coordination required to determine if the remains warrant a recovery effort or if the site eligible for listing hi
the National Register of Historic Places.
ENG Form 1721, Nov 86 EDITIONS OF SGP 82 IS OIISOI.E..TI:. (33 DFR 325 (Appen(fix�f))

4. If you sell the property associate with this permit, you must obtain the signature of the new owner in the space
provided and forward a copy of the permit to this office to validate the transfer of this authorization.
5. If a conditioned water quality certification has been issued for your project, you must comply with the conditions
specified in the certification as special conditions to this permit. For your convenience, a copy of the certification is
attached if it contains such conditions.
6. You must allow representatives from this office to inspect the authorized activity at any time deemed necessary to
ensure that it is being or has been accomplished in accordance with the terms and conditions of your permit.
Special Conditions:
SEE ATTACHED SPECIAL CONDITIONS
Further Information:
1. Congressional Authorities: You have been authorized to undertake the activity described above pursuant to:
( ) Section 10 of the Rivers And Harbors Act of 1899 (33 U.S. C. 403).
(X) Section 404 of the clean Water Act (33 U.S.C. 1344).
( ) Section 103 of the Marine Protection, Research and Sanctuaries Act of 1972 (33 U.S.C. 1413).
2. Limits of this authorization.
a. This permit does not obviate the need to obtain other Federal, state, or local authorizations required bylaw.
b. This permit does not grant any property rights or exclusive privileges.
c. This permit does not authorize any injury to the property or rights of others.
d. This permit does not authorize interference with any existing or proposed Federal project.
3. Limits of Federal Liability. In issuing this permit, the Federal Government does not assume any liability for the
following:
a. Damages to the permitted project or uses thereof as a result of other permitted or unpermitted activities or from
natural causes.
b. Damages to the permitted project or uses thereof as a result of current or future activities undertaken by or on
behalf of the United states in the public interest.
c. Damages to persons, property, or to other permitted or unpermitted activities or structures caused by the activity
authorized by this permit.
d. Design or construction deficiencies associated with the permitted work.
2 *U-& GOVE'RNJIENT PRINTING OFFICE: 1986-717-425

e. Damage claims associated with any future modification, suspension, or revocation of this permit.
4. Reliance on Applicant's Data: The determination or this orrice that issuance of this permit is not contrary to lite public interest was mad in reliance
on the information you provided.
5. Reevaluation of Permit Decision. This office may reevaluate its decision on this permit at any time the circumstances
warrant. Circumstances that could require a reevaluation include, but are not limited to, the following:
a. You fail to comply with the terms and conditions of this permit.
b. The information provided by you in support of your permit application proves to have been false, incomplete, or
inaccurate (see 4 above).
c. Significant new information surfaces which this office did not consider in reaching the original public interest
decision.
Such a reevaluation may result in a determination that it is appropriate to use the suspension, modification, and
revocation procedures contained in 33 CFR 325.7 or enforcement procedures such as those contained in 33CFR 326.4
and 326.5. The referenced enforcement procedures provide for the issuance of an administrative order requiring you to
comply with the terms and conditions of your permit and for the initiation of legal action where appropriate. You will
be required to pay for any corrective measures ordered by this office, and if you fail to comply with such directive, tills
office may in certain situations (such as those specified in 33 CFI1209.170) accomplish the corrective measure by
contract or otherwise and bill you for the cost.
6. Extensions. General condition 1 establishes a time limit for the completion of the activity authorized by this permit.
Unless there are circumstances requiring either a prompt completion of the authorized activity or a reevaluation of the
public interest decision, the Corps will normally give favorable consideration to a request for an extension of this time
limit.
Your signature below, as permittee, indicates that you accept and agree to comply with the terms and conditions of this
permit.
w&
(PERmITTEE) PROGRLS� EKERGY CAkOLINAS, INC.
ATTN: MR. WILLIAM J. THACKER
�I�r/zd�L
(DATE)
This permit becomes effective when the Federal official, designated to act for the Secretary of the Army, has signed
below.
(DISTRICT ENGINEER) STEVEN A. BAKER, COLONEL
(DATE)
When the structures or work authorized by this permit are still in existence at the time the property is transferred, the terms and conditions of this
permit will continue to be binding on the new owner(s) of the property. To validate the transfer of this permit and the associated liabilities associated
with compliance with its terms and conditions, have lite transferee sign and date below.
(Transferee)
(DATE)
*U.S. GOVERN.NIF,NT PRINTING OFFICE: 1986-717-425

SPECIAL CONDITIONS
ACTION ID. SAW -2011-00181
PROGRESS ENERGY CAROLINAS, INC.
MAYO COAL COMBUSTION PRODUCT (CCP) MONOFILL SITE
Work Limits
a) All work authorized by this pen -nit must be performed in strict compliance with
the attached plans, which are a part of this permit. Any modification to these
plans must be approved by the US Army Corps of Engineers (USACE) prior to
implementation.
b) Except as authorized by this permit or any USACE approved modification to this
pen -nit, no excavation, fill or mechanized land -clearing activities shall take place
at any time in the construction or maintenance of this project, within waters or
wetlands. This permit does not authorize temporary placement or double
handling of excavated or fill material within waters or wetlands outside the
permitted area. This prohibition applies to all borrow and fill activities connected
with this project.
c) Except as specified in the plans attached to this permit, no excavation, fill or
mechanized land -clearing activities shall take place at any time in the construction
or maintenance of this project, in such a manner as to impair normal flows and
circulation patterns within waters or wetlands or to reduce the reach of waters or
wetlands.
Related Laws
d) All mechanized equipment will be regularly inspected and maintained to prevent
contamination of waters and wetlands from fuels, lubricants, hydraulic fluids, or
other toxic materials. In the event of a spill of petroleum products or any other
hazardous waste, the permittee shall immediately report it to the N.C. Division of
Water Quality at [phone], Ext. 526 or [phone] and provisions of
the North Carolina Oil Pollution and Hazardous Substances Control Act will be
followed.
Project Maintenance
e) The permittee shall advise the Corps in writing prior to beginning the work
authorized by this permit and again upon completion of the work authorized by
this permit.
t) Unless otherwise authori7cd by this permit, all fill material placed in waters or
wetlands shall be generated from an upland source and will be clean and free of
any pollutants except in trace quantities. Metal products, organic materials

SPECIAL CONDITIONS
ACTION ID. SAW -2011-00181
PROGRESS ENERGY CAROLINAS, INC.
MAYO COAL COMBUSTION PRODUCT (CCP) MONOFILL SITE
(including debris from land clearing activities), or unsightly debris will not be
used.
g) The permittee shall require its contractors and/or agents to comply with the terms
and conditions of this permit in the construction and maintenance of this project,
and shall provide each of its contractors and/or agents associated with the
construction or maintenance of this project with a copy of this permit. A copy of
this permit, including all conditions, shall be available at the project site during
construction and maintenance of this project
h) The permittee shall employ all sedimentation and erosion control measures
necessary to prevent an increase in sedimentation or turbidity within waters and
wetlands outside the permit area. This shall include, but is not limited to, the
immediate installation of silt fencing or similar appropriate devices around all
areas subject to soil disturbance or the movement of earthen fill, and the
immediate stabilization of all disturbed areas. Additionally, the project must
remain in full compliance with all aspects of the Sedimentation Pollution Control
Act of 1973 (North Carolina General Statutes Chapter 1 I 3 Article 4).
i) The permittee, upon receipt of a notice of revocation of this permit or upon its
expiration before completion of the work will, without expense to the United
States and in such time and manner as the Secretary of the Army or his authorized
representative may direct, restore the water or wetland to its pre -project condition.
Enforcement
j) Violations of these conditions or violations of Section 404 of the Clean Water Act or
Section 10 of the Rivers and Harbors Act must be reported in writing to the
Wilmington District U.S. Army Corps of Engineers within 24 hours of the
permittee's discovery of the violation.
Mitigation
k) In order to compensate for impacts to 2,074 linear feet of stream, for the first
phase of this project, the permittee shall make payment to the North Carolina
Ecosystem Enhancement Program (NCEEP) in the amount determined by the
NCEEP, sufficient to perform the restoration of 2,074 linear feet of warm water
2

SPECIAL CONDITIONS
ACTION ID. SAW -2011-00181
PROGRESS ENERGY CAROLINAS, INC.
MAYO COAL COMBUSTION PRODUCT (CCP) MONOFILL SITE
stream in the Lower Dan River Basin, Cataloging Unit 03010104. Construction
within jurisdictional areas on the property shall begin only after the permittee has
made full payment to the NCEEP and provided a copy of the payment
documentation to the Corps, and the NCEEP has provided written confirmation to
the Corps that it agrees to accept responsibility for the mitigation work required,
in compliance with the NCEEP In -Lieu Fee Instrument, approved by the United
States Army Corps of Engineers, Wilmington District on July, 28, 2010.
Future Phases
1) This permit only authorizes jurisdictional impacts on Phase 1 of the monofrll.
Jurisdictional impacts for fixture phases shall not begin until final design has been
completed for those phases, the permittee has minimized impacts to waters and
wetlands to the maximum extent practicable, and any modifications to the plans
and an appropriate compensatory mitigation plan have been approved by the US
Army Corps of Engineers.
Road Crossing
in) Use of rip -rap or any other engineered structures to stabilize the stream bed
should be minimized to the maximum extent practicable. Riprap stabilization
placed in the stream bed, the finished top elevation of the riprap should not
exceed that of the original stream bed.
3

NOTIF'ICAT'ION OF AI)iIIINISTRA7'lyl,, APPLAL 017IONS;AN]
REQUEST FOR APPEA.I,
Applicant: Progress Energy Carolinas, Inc. File Number: SAW -2011-00181
Attn: Mr. William J. Thacker
Attached is:
_ INITIAL PROFFERED PERMIT (Standard Permit or Letter
❑ PROFFERED PERMIT (Standard Permit or Letter of permis
11 PEiZMiT DENIAL
APPROVED JURISDICTIONAL DETERMINATION
❑ PRELIMINARY JURISDICTIONAL DETERMINATION
Date: August 22, 2012
See Section below
A
B —
C
E
SECTION I - The following identifies your rights and options regarding an administrative Appeal of the above decision.
Additional information may be found at h�://Ny«iv.usace.army.mil/inet/functions!cw/cecivo/reg or
Corps regulations at 33 CFR Part 331.
A: INITIAL PROFFERED PERMIT: YOU may accept or object to the permit.
• ACCEPT: If you received a Standard Permit, you may sign the permit document and return it to the district engineer for final
authorization. If you received a Letter of Permission (LOP), you may accept the LOP and your work is authorized. Your
signature on the Standard Permit or acceptance of the LOP means that you accept the permit in its entirety, and waive al I
rights to appeal the permit, including its terms and conditions, and approved jurisdictional determinations associated with the
permit.
OBJECT: If you object to the permit (Standard or LOP) because of certain terms and conditions therein, you may request
that the permit be modified accordingly. You must complete Section Ii of this form and return the form to the district
engineer. Your objections must be received by the district engineer within 60 days of the date of this notice, or you will
forfeit your right to appeal the permit in the future. Upon receipt of your letter, the district engineer will evaluate your
objections and may: (a) modify the permit to address all of your concerns, (b) modify the permit to address some of your
objections, or (c) not modify the permit having determined that the permit should be issued as previously written. After
evaluating your objections, the district engineer will send you a proffered permit for your reconsideration, as indicated in
Section B below.
13: PKUI-I t -.KED PERMIT: You may acceptor appeal the permit
• ACCEPT: if you received a Standard Permit, you may sign the permit document and return it to the district engineer for final
authorization. if you received a Letter of Permission (LOP), you may accept tite LOP and your work is authorized. Your
signature on the Standard Permit or acceptance of the LOP means that you accept the permit in its entirety, and waive all
rights to appeal the permit, including its terms and conditions, and approved jurisdictional determinations associated with the
permit.
APPEAL_.: Ifyou choose to decline the proffered permit (Standard or LOP) because of certain terns and conditions therein,
you may appeal the declined permit under the Corps of Engineers Administrative Appeal Process by completing Section If of
this form and sending the form to the division engineer. This form must be received by the division engineer within 60 days
of the date of this notice.
U: rtKMI I utNIA1...: You may, appeal the denial of a permit under the Corps of Engineers Administrative Appeal Process by
completing Section 11 of this form and sending the form to the division engineer. This form must be received by the division
engineer within 60 days of the date of this notice.
D: APPROVED JURISDICTIONAL DETERMINATION: You may accept or appeal the approved JD or provide new
information.
• ACCEPT: You do not need to notify the Corps to accept an approved JD. Failure to notify the Corps within 60 days of the
date of this notice means that you accept the approved JD in its entirety, and waive all rights to appeal the approved JD.
• APPEAL: If You disagree with the approved JD, you may appeal the approved JD under the Corps of Engineers
Administrative Appeal Process by completing Section 11 of this form and sending the form to the district engineer. This form
must be received by the division engineer within 60 days of the date of this notice.

E: PRELIMINARY JURISDICTIONAL DETERMINATION: You do not need to respond to the Corps regarding the
preliminary JD. The Preliminary JD is not appealable. If you wish, you may request an approved JD (which may be appealed),
by contacting the Corps district for further instruction. Also you may provide new information for further consideration by the
Corps to reevaluate the JD.
SECTION Ii - REQUEST FOR APPEAL or OBJECTIONS TO AN INITIAL PROFFERED PERMIT
REASONS FOR APPEAL OR OBJECTIONS: (Describe your reasons for appealing the decision or your objections _ to an initial
proffered permit in clear concise statements. You may attach additional information to this form to clarify where your reasons or
objections are addressed in the administrative record.)
ADDITIONAL INFORMATION: The appeal is limited to a review of the administrative record, the Corps memorandum for the
record of the appeal conference or meeting, and any supplemental information that the review officer has determined is needed to
clarify the administrative record. Neither the appellant nor the Corps may add new information or analyses to the record.
However, you may provide additional information to clarify the location of information that is already in the administrative
record.
POINT OF CONTACT FOR QUESTIONS OR INFORMATION:
if you have questions regarding this decision and/or the
If you only have questions regarding the appeal process you may
appeal process you may contact:
also contact:
District Engineer, Wilmington Regulatory Div.
Mr. Jason Steele, Administrative Appeal Review Officer
Attn: Mr. Eric Alsmeyer
CESAD-PDO
3331 Heritage Trade Drive
U.S. Army Corps of Engineers, South Atlantic Division
Raleigh, North Carolina 27587
60 Forsyth Street, Room 1011115
Phone: [phone], extension 23
Atlanta, Georgia 30303-8801
Phone: [phone]
RiGHT OF ENTRY: Your signature below grants the right of entry to Corps of Engineers personnel, and any government
consultants, to conduct investigations of the project site during the course of the appeal process. You will be provided a 15 day
notice of any site investigation, and will have the oortunit to artici ate in all site investi rations.
Date:
Telephone number:
Signature of appellant or agent.
For appeals on Initial Proffered Permits send this form to:
District Engineer, Wilmington Regulatory Division, Attn: Eric Alsme�er, 69 Darlington Avenue, Wilmington, North
Carolina 28.103
For Permit denials, Proffered Permits and approved Jurisdictional Determinations send this form to:
Division Engineer, Commander, U.S. Army Engineer Division, South Atlantic, Attn: Mr. Jason Steele,
Administrative Appeal Officer, CESAD-PDO, 60 Forsyth Street, Room IOM15, Atlanta, Georgia 30303-8801
Phone: [phone]

i
MOM
DE10
AUG
t
0 2 2011
North Carolina Department of Environment and Natural Resources
Division of Water Quality
�-r":.;' `'` ` ' `"l'"
Beverly Eaves Perdue Charles Wakild, P. E. "'
Dee freeman=-
Governor • ' Director
Secretary
July 27, 2012
Mr. William J. Thacker
Progress Energy, LLC, Inc. (PEC)
10660 Boston Road
Roxboro, NC 27574
IZc: Maya CCP Mono#ill Site., Person County
Bowes Branch (030205, 22-58-14, C)
DIVISION #2012-0615; USACE Action ID. No. SAW -2011-00181
APPROVAL of 401 Water Quality Certification with Additional Conditions
Dear Mr. Thacker:
Attached hereto is a copy of Certification No. 3935 issued to Mr. William J. 'rhackerand PEC, dated July
27, 2012. In addition, you should get any other federal, state or local permits before you go ahead with
your project including (but not limited to) Solid Waste, Sediment and Erosion Control, Stormwater, Dam
Safety, Non -discharge and Water Supply Watershed regulations.
If we can be of further assistance, do not hesitate to contact us.
Sincerely,
1 if '
I//
.Eharles Waklld, P.E.
Attachments: Certificate of Completion
NCDWQ 401 WQC Summary of Permanent Impacts and Mitigation Requirements
cc: Jeff Garnett, EPA, Sam Nunn Federal Center, 61 Forsyth Street SW, Atlanta, GA 30303
U.S. Army Corps of Engineers, Raleigh Regulatory Field Office, Wilmington District, USACOE
Lauren Witherspoon, Division, Raleigh Regional Office
DLR Raleigh Regional Office
File Copy
Filename: 120615 MayoCCPMonofil lSite(Person)l0l _IC

Mr. William J. Thacker and PrC
Page 2 of 5
July 27, 2012
NORTH CAROLINA 401 WATER QUALITY CERTHTICATION
THIS CERTIFICATION is issued in conformity with the requirements of Section 401 Public Laws 92-
500 and 95-217 of the United States and subject to the North Carolina Division of Water Quality (Division)
Regulations in 15 NCAC 2H, Section .0500 to Mr. William J. Thacker and PEC have permission to fill or
otherwise impact 4,733 linear feet of stream (2,074 linear feet associated with Phase I and 2,659 linear feet
associated with proposed future phases of the site) associated with the proposed construction of the Mayo
Coal Combustion Product (CCP) Monofill site (a dry ash monofill facility to replace the current wet ash
handling system that that directs CCPs to be disposed in wetponds), which is located on the east side of SR
1327 (Woodys Store Road, approximately 1.4 miles northwest of the intersection of SR 1329 (Bethel Hill
School Road) and US 501 (Boston Road), north of Roxboro, Person County, North Carolina, pursuant to an
application dated February 9, 2012, and received by the Division on June 20, 2012, and by Public Notice by
the U.S. Army Corps of Engineers issued on the 12`d day of April of2012,and received by the Division on
June 25, 2012.
The application and supporting documentation provides adequate assurance that the proposed work will
not result in a violation of applicable Water Quality Standards and discharge guidelines. Therefore, the
State of North Carolina certifies that this activity will not violate the applicable portions of Sections 301,
302, 303, 306, 307 of PL 92-500 and PL 95-217 if conducted in accordance with the application, the
supporting documentation, and conditions hereinafter set forth.
This approval is only valid for the purpose and design submitted in the application materials and as
described in the Public Notice. If the project is changed, prior to notification a new application for a new
Certification is required. If the property is sold, the new owner must be given a copy of the Certification
and approval letter and is thereby responsible for complying with all conditions of this Certification. Any
new owner must notify the Division and request the Certification be issued in their name. Should wetland
or stream fill be requested in the future, additional compensatory mitigation may be required as described
in 15A NCAC 2H.0506 (h) (6) and (7). If any plan revisions from the approved site plan result in a
change in stream or wetland impact or an increase in impervious surfaces, the DIVISION shall be notified
in writing and a new application for 401 Certification may be required. For this approval to be valid,
compliance with the conditions listed below is required.
Conditions of Certification:
1. Lnpacts Approved
The following impacts are hereby approved as long as all of the other specific and general
conditions of this Certification (or Isolated Wetland Permit) are met. No other impacts are
approved including incidental impacts:
I e 01 tm act Amount A roved nits Plan Location or Reforence
Streatn 4,733 ftlinear feet) 2,074 Application and Public Notice
linear feet associated with
Phase I and 2,659 linear feet
associated with proposed
future phases of the sitel
2. Compensatory Mitigation — Phased Mitigation
Mitigation must be provided for the proposed impacts associated with Phase I as specified in the
table below. We understand that you wish to make a payment to the Stream Restoration Fund

Mr. William J. Thacker and PEC
Page 3 of 5
July 27, 2012
administered by the NC Ecosystem Enhancement Program (EEP) to meet this mitigation
requirement. This has been detennined by the DIVISION to be a suitable method to meet the
mitigation requirement. Until the EEP receives and clears your check (made payable to: DENR —
Ecosystem Enhancement Program Office), no impacts spccificd in this Authorization Certificate
shall occur. The EEP should be contacted at [phone] if you have any questions
concerning -payment into a restoration fund. You have 60 days from the date of this approval to
make this payment. For accounting purposes, this Authorization Certificate authorizes
payment into the Stream Restoration Fund to meet the following compensatory mitigation
requirement:
Type of impact Compensatory Mitigation Required ' River and Sub -basin Number
Stream 2,075 linear feet Roanoke/03010104 7
It is our understanding based on your application that no further disturbance on the site will occur
for 15-20 years. Therefore, no specific method for providing compensatory mitigation at this
time is proposed. However, compensatory mitigation for proposed future stream impacts will be
provided by PEC in a manner that is acceptable to the USACE and the Division, and approved by
the USACE and the Division, prior to the occurrence of the proposed impacts.
3. final Construction Plans shall be submitted to the Division upon receipt of a landfill permit issued by
the Division of Solid Waste and at least 90 days prior to any impacts to jurisdictional waters. The
Permittee shall submit a permit modification request if jurisdictional impacts increase beyond those
approved in this certification as a result of final design and the landfill permitting process, no impacts
shall occur during the review of any permit modification requests.
4. Erosion and sediment control practices must be in full compliance with all specifications governing
the proper design, installation and operation and maintenance of such Best Management Practices and
if applicable, comply with the specific conditions and requirements of the NPDES Construction
Storinwater Penn it issued to the site:
a. Design, installation, operation, and maintenance of the sediment and erosion control
measures must be such that they equal, or exceed, the requirements specified in the most
recent version of the North Carolina Sediment and Erosion Control Manual. The devices
shall be maintained on all construction sites, borrow sites, and waste pile (spoil) projects,
including contractor -owned or leased borrow pits associated with the project.
b. For borrow pit sites, the erosion and sediment control measures must be designed, installed,
operated, and maintained in accordance with the most recent version of the North Carolina
Surface Mining Manual.
c. Reclamation measures and implementation must comply with the reclamation in accordance
with the requirements of the Sedimentation Pollution Control Act and the Mining Act of
1971.
d. Sufficient materials required for stabilization and/or repair of er6s—ionconti-of measures an
stonnwater routing and treatment shall be on site at all times.
5. No waste, spoil, solids, or fill of any kind shall occur in wetlands, waters, or riparian areas beyond the
footprint of the impacts depicted in the 4041401 Permit Application, including incidental impacts. All
construction activities, including the design, installation, operation, and maintenance of sediment and
erosion control Best Management Practices, shall be performed so that no violations of state water

Mr. William J. Thacker and PEC
Page 4 of 5
July 27, 2012
quality standards, statutes, or rules occur. Approved plans and specifications for this project are
incorporated by reference and are enforceable parts of this permit.
5. Sediment and erosion control measures shall not be placed in wetlands or waters. Exceptions to this
condition require application submittal to, and written approval by, the Division of Water Quality. If
placement of sediment and erosion control devices in wetlands and waters is unavoidable, then design
and placement of temporary erosion control measures shall not be conducted in a manner that may
result in dis-equilibrium of wetlands or stream beds or banks, adjacent to or upstream and down stream
of the above structures. All sediment and erosion control devices shall be removed and the natural
grade restored within two (2) months of the date that the Division of Land Resources or locally
delegated program has released the specific area within project.
7. All work in or adjacent to stream waters shall be conducted so that the flowing stream does not come in
contact with the disturbed area. Approved best management practices from the most current version of
the NC Sediment and Erosion Control Manual, or the NC DOT Construction and Maintenance
Activities Manual, such as sandbags, rock berms, cofferdams, and other diversion structures shall be
used to minimize excavation in flowing water. Exceptions to this condition require application
submittal to, and written approval by, the Division of Water Quality.
Mr. William J. Thacker and PEC, shall conduct construction activities in a manner consistent with
State water quality standards (including any requirements resulting from compliance with section
303(d) of the Clean Water Act) and any other appropriate requirements of State law and federal law.
If the Division determines that such standards or laws are not being met (including the failure to
sustain a designated or achieved use) or that State or federal law is being violated, or that further
conditions are necessary to assure compliance, the Division may reevaluate and modify this
Certification to include conditions appropriate to assure compliance with such standards and
requirements in accordance with 15A NCAC 2H.0507(d). Before modifying the Certification, the
Division shall notify Mr. William J. Thacker and PEC and the US Army Corps of Engineers, provide
public notice in accordance with I SA NCAC 2H.0503 and provide opportunity for public hearing in
accordance with 15A NCAC 2H.0504. Any new or revised conditions shall be provided to Mr.
William J. Thacker and PEC in writing, shall be provided to the United States Army Corps of
Engineers for reference in any Permit issued pursuant to Section 404 of the Clean Water Act, and
shall also become conditions of the 404 Permit for the project;
R. A copy of the surface water monitoring plan, as approved by the Division of Solid Waste, shall be
submitted to the Division. Any modifications to approved surface water monitoring plans shall be
submitted to the Division for the life of the landfill. Additional monitoring requirements may be
added by the Division upon review of the surface water monitoring plan approved by the Division of
Solid Waste.
10. All mechanized equipment operated near surface waters should be inspected and maintained often to
prevent contamination of stream waters from fuels, lubricants, hydraulic fluids or other toxic
materials. Concrete is toxic to aquatic life and should not be allowed to come in contact with surface
-_
maters-until-cured
1 t . Sediment and erosion control measures should be installed prior to any land clearing or construction.
These measures should be routinely inspected and properly maintained. Excessive silt and sediment
loads can have numerous detrimental effects on aquatic resources including destruction of spawning
habitat, suffocation of eggs, and clogging of gills of aquatic species.
12. This Certification does not relieve the applicant of the responsibility to obtain all other required
Federal, State or Local approvals.

Mr. William J. Thacker and PEC
Page 5 of 5
July 27, 2012
Re -opener Clause
13. Mr. William J. Thacker and PEC, and its authorized agents shall conduct its :activities in a manner
consistent with State water quality standards (including any requirements resulting from compliance
with section 303(d) of the Clean Water Act) and any other appropriate requirements of State law and
federal law. Mr. William J. Thacker and PEC, shall require its contractors (and/or agents) to comply
with all of the terms of this Certification, and shall provide each of its contractors (and/or agents) a
copy of this Certification. A copy of this Certification shall be included in the construction contract
and available on the job site at all times. If the Division determines that such standards or laws are
not being met (including the failure to sustain a designated or achieved use) or that State or federal
law is being violated, or that further conditions are necessary to assure compliance, the Division may
reevaluate and modify this certification to include conditions appropriate to assure compliance with
such standards and requirements in accordance with I5A NCAC 02H.0507(d). Before modifying the
certification, the Division shall notify Mr. William J. Thacker and PEC, and the US Army Corps of
Engineers, provide public notice in accordance with 15A NCAC 02H.0503 and provide opportunity
for public hearing in accordance with I SA NCAC 0211.0504. Any new or revised conditions shall be
provided to Mr. William J. Thacker and PEC, in writing, shall be provided to the United States Army
Corps of Engineers for reference.in any permit issued pursuant to Section 404 of the Clean Water
Act, and shall also become conditions of the 404 Permit for the project.
14. Upon completion of all permitted impacts included within the approval and any subsequent
modifications, the applicant shall be required to return the certificate of completion attached to the
approval. One copy of the certificate shall be sent to the DWQ Central Office in Raleigh at 1650
Mail Service Center, Raleigh, NC, 27699-1650
15. This certification grants permission to the director, an authorized representative of the Director, or
DENR staff, upon the presentation of proper credentials, to enter the property during normal business
hours.
This Certification shall expire on the same day as the expiration date of the corresponding 404
Permit. The conditions in effect on the date of issuance of Certification shall remain in effect for the
life of the project, regardless of the expiration date of this Certification
If this Certification is unacceptable to you, you have the right to an adjudicatory hearing upon written
request within sixty (60) days following receipt of this Certification. This request must be in the form of a
written petition conforming to Chapter 150B of the North Carolina General Statutes and filed with the
Office of Administrative Hearings, 6714 Mail Service Center, Raleigh, N.C. 27699-6714. If
modifications are made to an original Certification, you have the right to an adjudicatory hearing on the
modifications upon written request within sixty (60) days following receipt of the Certification. Unless
such demands are made, this Certification shall be final and binding.
T-his-the-27!� day-afJuly- 12 --
DNI LION F 7WAATALITY
/•� .-�,
�.t
Charles Wakild, P.E.
CW/kah/Ym
3935

Mayo Plant
Section 404/401 Individual Permit Modification
Mayo CCP Monofill Site Lined Retention Basin and Ash Basin Closure
Person County, North Carolina
Project No. 7810150300
APPENDIX G
wood.
NCDENR Approval of 401 Water Quality Certification with Additional Conditions
Division # 2012-0612
August 27, 2012

CCDER
North Carolina Department of Environment and Natural Resources
Division of Water Quality
Beverly Eaves Perdue Charles Wakild, P. E. Dee Freeman
Governor Director Secretary
July 27, 2012
Mr. William J. Thacker
Progress Energy, LLC, Inc. (PEC)
10660 Boston Road
Roxboro, NC 27 5 74
Re kFayo t'C'P mo
norm Cite, Person Comity
Bowes Branch (030205, 22-58-14, C)
DIVISION #2012-0615, USACE Action ID. No. SAW -2011-00181
APPROVAL of 401 Water Quality Certification with Additional Conditions
Dear Mr. Thacker:
Attached hereto is a copy of Certification No. 3935 issued to Mr. William J. Thacker and PEC, dated July
27, 2012. In addition, you should get any other federal, state or local permits before you go ahead with
your project including (but not limited to) Solid Waste, Sediment and Erosion Control, Stormwater, Dam
Safety, Non -discharge and Water Supply Watershed regulations.
If we can be of further assistance, do not hesitate to contact us.
Sincerely,
lI
.Charles Wakild,
Attachments: Certificate of Completion
NCDWQ 401 WQC Summary of Permanent Impacts and Mitigation Requirements
cc: Jeff Garnett, EPA, Sam Nunn Federal Center, 61 Forsyth Street SW, Atlanta, GA 30303
U.S. Army Corps of f;ngineers, Raleigh Regulatory Field Office, Wilmington District, USACOE
Lateen Witherspoon, Division, Raleigh Regional Office
DLR Ralcigh Regional Office
File Copy
Hlenaimc: 12061?\IarnCCl'`duunlillSiac(I'crsonWl)1 K'

Mr. William J. Thacker and PEC
Page 2 of 5
July 27, 2012
NORTH CAROLINA 401 WATER QUALITY CERTIFICATION
TII IS CERTIFICATION is issued it, with the requirements of Section 401 Public Laws 92-
500 and 95-217 of the United States and subject to the worth Carolina Division of Water (duality (Division)
Regulations in 15 NCAC 2H, Section .0500 to Mr. William J. Thacker and PEC have permission to fill or
otherwise impact 4,733 linear feet of stream (2,074 linear feet associated with Phase I and 2,659 linear feet
associated with proposed future phases of the site) associated with the proposed construction of the Mayo
Coal Combustion Product (CCP) MonoGll site (a dry ash monofill facility to replace the current wet ash
handling system that that directs CCPs to be disposed in wetponds), which is located on the east side of SR
1327 (Woodys Store Road. approximately 1.4 miles northwest of the intersection of SR 1329 (Bethel Hill
School Road) and US 501 (Boston Road), north of Roxboro, Pcrson County, North Carolina, pursuant to an
application dated February 9, 2012, and received by the Division on June 20, 2012, and by Public Notice by
the U.S. Army Corps of Engineers issued on the 12'd day of April ot'2012,and received by the Division on
June 25, 2012.
The application and supporting documentation provides adequate assurance that the proposed work will
not result in a violation of applicable Water Quality Standards and discharge guidelines. Therefore, the
State of North Carolina certifies that this activity will not violate the applicable portions of Sections 301,
302, 303, 306, 307 of PL 92-500 and PL 95-217 if conducted in accordance with the application, the
supporting documentation, and conditions hereinafter set forth.
This approval is only valid for the purpose and design submitted in the application materials and as
described in the Public Notice. If the project is changed, prior to notification a new application for a new
Certification is required. if the property is sold, the new owner must be given a copy of the Certification
and approval letter and is thereby responsible for complying with al I conditions of this Certification. Any
new owner must notify the Division and request the Certification be issued in their name. Should wetland
or stream fill be requested in the future, additional compensatory mitigation may be required as described
in 15A NCAC 2H .0506 (h) (6) and (7). If any plan revisions from the approved site plan result in a
change in stream or wetland impact or an increase in impervious surfaces, the DIVISION shall be notified
in writing and a new application for 401 Certification may be required. For this approval to be valid,
compliance with the conditions listed below is required.
Conditions of Certification:
1. Impacts Approved
The following impacts are hereby approved as long as all of the other specific and general
conditions of this Certification (or Isolated Wetland Permit) are met. No other impacts are
approved including incidental impacts:
Tye of Im act
Amount Approved Units
Plan Location or Reference
Stream
4,733 ((linear feet) 2,074
Application and Public Notice
linear feet associated with
Phase I and 2,659 linear feet
associated with proposed
_
.future phases of the site
_____ __� _
2. Compensatory Mitigation — Phased Mitigation
Mitigation must be provided for the proposed impacts associated with Phase I as specified in the
table below. We understand that you wish to make a payment to the Stream Restoration Fund

Mr. William J. Thacker and PEC
Page 3 of j
July 27, 2012
administered by the NC Ecosystem Enhancement Program (EEP) to meet this mitigation
requirement. This has been determined by the DIVISION to be a suitable method to meet the
mitigation requirement. Until the EEP receives and clears your check (made payable to: DENR —
Ecosystem Enhancement Program Officc), no impacts specified in this Authorization Certificate
shall occur. The EEP should be contacted at [phone] if you have any questions
concerning payment into a restoration fund. You have 60 days from the date of this approval to
make this payment. For accounting purposes, this Authorization Certificate authorizes
payment into the Stream Restoration Fund to meet the following compensatory mitigation
requirement:
Type of Impact_I Compensatory Mitigation Required _ River and Sub -basin Number
Stream _2,075 (linear feet) Roanokc/03010104
it is our understanding based on your application that no further disturbance on the site will occur
for 15-20 years. Therefore, no specific method for providing compensatory mitigation at this
time is proposed. However, compensatory mitigation for proposed future stream impacts will be
prgvided by PEC in a manner that is acceptable to the USACE and the Division, and approved by
the USACE and the Division, prior to the occurrence of the proposed impacts.
3. Final Construction Plans shall be submitted to the Division upon receipt of a landfill permit issued by
the Division of Solid Waste and at least 90 days prior to any impacts to jurisdictional waters. The
Permittee shall submit a permit modification request if jurisdictional impacts increase beyond those
approved in this certification as a result of final design and the landfill permitting process, no impacts
shall occur during the review of any permit modification requests.
4. Erosion and sediment control practices must be in full compliance with all specifications governing
the proper design, installation and operation and maintenance ofsuch Best Management Practices and
if applicable, comply with the specific conditions and requirements of the NPDES Constriction
Stornwater Permit issued to the site:
a. Design, installation, operation, and maintenance of the sediment and erosion control
measures must be such that they equal, or exceed, the requirements specified in the most
recent version of the North Carolina Sediment and Erosion Control Manual. The devices
shall be maintained on all construction sites, borrow sites, and waste pile (spoil) projects,
including contractor -owned or leased borrow pits associated with the project.
b. For borrow pit sites, the erosion and sediment control measures must be designed, installed,
operated, and maintained in accordance with the most recent version of the North Carolina
Surface Mining Manual.
c. Reclamation measures and implementation Hurst comply with the reclamation in accordance
with the requirements of the Sedimentation Pollution Control Act and the Mining Act of
1971.
d. Sufficient materials required for stabilization and/or repair ofcrosion control measures and
stormwater routing and treatment shall be on site at all times.
5. No waste, spoil, solids, or fill of any kind shall occur in wetlands, waters, or riparian areas beyond the
footprint of the impacts depicted in the 404/401 Permit Application, including incidental impacts. All
construction activities, including the design, installation, operation, and maintenance of sediment and
erosion control Best Management Practices, shall tx: performed so that no violations of state water

Mr. William I Thacker and PEC
Page 4 or 5
July 27, 2012
quality standards, statutes, or rules occur. Approved plans and specifications for this project are
incorporated by reference and are enforceable parts of this permit.
r, Scdi:nc:tt and eroEion ontro! measures shall not be placed in wetlands or graters. Exceptions to this
condition require application submittal to, and written approvai by, the Division of Nater Quaiity. if
placement of sediment and erosion control devices in wetlands and waters is unavoidable, then design
and placement of temporary erosion control measures shall not be conducted in a manner that may
result in dis-equilibrium of wetlands or stream beds or banks, adjacent to or upstream and down stream
of the above structures. All sediment and erosion control devices shall be removed and the natural
grade restored within two (2) months of the date that the Division of Land Resources or locally
delegated program has released the specific area within project.
7. All work in or adjacent to stream waters shall be conducted so that the flowing stream docs not conic in
contact with the disturbed area. Approved best management practices from the most current version of
the NC Sediment and Erosion Control Manual, or the NC DOT Construction and Maintenance
Activities Manual, such as sandbags, rock ben -ns, cofferdams, and other diversion structures shall be
used to minimize excavation in flowing water. Exceptions to this condition require application
submittal to, and written approval by, the Division of Water Quality.
8. Mr. William J. Thacker and PEC, shall conduct construction activities in a manner consistent with
State water quality standards (including any requirements resulting from compliance with section
303(d) of the Clean Water Act) and any other appropriate requirements of State law and federal law.
If the Division determines that such standards or laws are not being met (including the failure to
sustain a designated or achieved use) or that State or federal law is being violated, or that further
conditions are necessary to assure compliance, the Division may reevaluate and modify this
Certification to include conditions appropriate to assure compliance with such standards and
requirements in accordance with 15A NCAC 2H.0507(d). Before modifying the Certification, the
Division shall notify Mr. William J. Thacker and PEC and the US Army Corps of Engineers, provide
public notice in accordance with 15A NCAC 2H.0503 and provide opportunity for public hearing in
accordance with 15A NCAC 2H.0504. Any new or revised conditions shall be provided to Mr.
William J. Thacker and PEC in writing, shall be provided to the United States Anny Corps of
Engineers for reference in any Permit issued pursuant to Section 404 of the Clean Water Act, and
shall also become conditions of the 404 Permit for the project,
>. A copy of the surface water monitoring plan, as approved by the Division of Solid Waste, shall be
submitted to the Division. Any modifications to approved surface water monitoring plans shall b,-
submitted
esubmitted to the Division for the life of the landfill. Additional monitoring requirements may be
added by the Division upon review of the surface water monitoring plan approved by the Division of
Solid Waste.
10. All mechanized equipment operated near surface waters should be inspected and maintained often to
prevent contamination of stream waters from fuels, lubricants, hydraulic fluids or other toxic
materials. Concrete is toxic to aquatic life and should not be allowed.to come in contact with surface
waters until cured.
11. Sediment and erosion control measures should be installed prior to any land clearing or construction.
These measures should be routinely inspected and properly maintained. Excessive silt and sediment
loads can have numerous detrimental effects on aquatic resources including destruction of spawning
habitat, suffocation of eggs, and clogging of gills of aquatic species.
12. This Certification does not relieve the applicant of the responsibility to obtain all other required
Federal, State or Local approvals.

Mr. William J. Thacker and PEC
Page 5 of 5
July 27, 2013
Re -opener Clause
13. Mr. William J. Thacker and PEC, and its authorized agents shall conduct its acti v ities in a mariner
consistent with State water quality standards (including any requirements resulting from compliance
with section 303(d) of the Clean Water Act) and any other appropriate requirements of State law and
federal law. Mr. William J. Thacker and PEC, shall require its contractors (and/or agents) to comply
with all of the terms of this Certification, and shall provide each of its contractors (and/or agents) a
copy of this Certification. A copy of this Certification shall be included in the construction contract
and available on the job site at all times. If the Division determines that such standards or laws are
not being met (including the failure to sustain a designated or achieved use) or that State or federal
law is being violated, or that further conditions are necessary to assure compliance, the Division may
reevaluate and modify this certification to include conditions appropriate to assure compliance with
such standards and requirements in accordance with ISA NCAC 021-1.050(d). before modifying the
certification, the Division shall notify Mr. William J. Thacker and PEC, and the US Army Corps of
Engineers, provide public notice in accordance with 15A NCAC 021-1.0503 and provide opportunity
for public hearing in accordance with ISA NCAC 02H.0504. Any new or revised conditions shall he
provided to Mr. William J. Thacker and PEC, in writing, shall be provided to the United States Army
Corps of Engineers for reference in any permit issued pursuant to Section 404 of the Clean Water
Act, and shall also become conditions of the 404 Permit for the project.
14. Upon completion of all permitted impacts included within the approval and any subsequent
modifications, the applicant shall be required to return the certificate of completion attached to the
approval. One copy of the certificate shall be sent to the DWQ Central Office in Raleigh at 1650
Mail Service Center, Raleigh, NC, 27699-1650
15. This certification grants permission to the director, an authorized representative of the Director, or
DENR staff, upon the presentation of proper credentials, to enter the property during normal business
hours.
This Certification shall expire on the same day as the expiration date of the corresponding 404
Permit. The conditions in effect on the date of issuance or Certification shall remain in effect for the
life of the project, regardless of the expiration date of this Certification
If this Certification is unacceptable to you, you have the right to an adjudicatory hearing upon written
request within sixty (60) days following receipt of this Certification. 'Phis request must be in the form of a
written petition conforming to Chapter 150D of the North Carolina General Statutes and filed with the
Office of Administrative Hearings, 6714 Mail Service Center, Raleigh, N.C. 27699-6714. If
modifications are made to an original Certification, you have the right to an adjudicatory hearing on the
modifications upon written request within sixty (60) days following receipt of the Certification. Unless
such demands are made, this Certification shall be final and binding.
This the 27"' day of July 20'12
DIVI§ ION OF 1V4,;1'� I, ALITY
'
Jim
/ Charles Wakild, P.E.
C; W/kah/ fm
3935

NDENR
North Carolina Department of Environment and Natural Resources
Division of Water Quality Dee Freeman
Beverly Eaves Pe due Chuck Wakikl, P.E.
Governor Director Secretary
!�;n��h (_ rUl!!1 Lli�rii':'1 c+f !�'aiC,• rllralit..
401 Water Quality Certification
Summary of Permitted Impacts and Mitigation Requirements
In accordance with 15A NCAC 2H.0500, Mr. William J. Thacker and Progress Energy, LLC, Inc. Belews Creek
Steam Station have permission to fill or, otherwise impact 4,733 linear feet of stream (2,074 linear feet associated
with Phase 1 and 2,659 linear feet associated wide proposed future phases of the site) associated with the proposed
construction of the Mayo Coal Combustion Product (CCP) Monofill site (a dry ash monofill Facility to replace the
current wet ash handling system that that directs CCPs to be disposed in wetponds), which is located on the east side
of SR 1327 (Woodys Store Road, approximately 1.4 miles northwest of the intersection of SR 1329 (Bethel Hill
School Ro,1d) and US 501 (Boston Road), north or Roxboro, Person County, North Carolina. All activities
associated with these authorized impacts must be conducted with the conditions listed in the attached Permit
transmittal letter. THIS CER"fIFICATION IS NOT VALID WITHOUT THE ATTACHMENTS.
COMPENSATORY MITIGATION REQUIREMENTS, ECOSYSTEM ENHANCEMENT PROGRAM
FEP Project Name: Mayo CCP Monofill Site
DWQ PROJECT #: 20120615
LOCATION: Roxboro
COUNTY Person
BASIN/ SUB BASIN Roanoke,'03010104
As required by 15A NCAC 21-1.0500, and the conditions of this Certification, you are required to compensate for the
above mitigable impacts through the restoration, creation, enhancement or preservation of wetlands, surface waters
and riparian buffers as outlined below prior to conducting any activities that impact or degrade the waters of the
state.
Note: Acreage requirements proposed to be mitigated through the Ecosystem Enhancement Program must be
rounded to one-quarter acre increments and linear foot requirements must be rounded up to the nearest foot
according to 15 211.0503(b).
lm acts
Miti stion
�2,075eet
2,075 Linear Feet of Stream
of Stream
One orthe options you have available to satisfy the compensatory mitigation requirement is through the payment of
a fee to the Wetlands Restoration Fund per NCAC 2R.0503. If you choose this option, please sign this form and
mail the Corm along, with a copy ofyour 401 Certification or Butler Approval to the Ecosystem Enhancement
Program at the address below. An invoice for the appropriate amount of payment will be sent to you upon receipt of
this form. PLEASE NOTE, THE ABOVE IMPACTS ARE NOT AUTHORIZED UNTIL YOU RF'.CEIVh
NOT IFICA"PION 'I'HA'1' YOIJR PAYMENT I IAS BEEN PROCESSED BY THE ECOSYTF.M ENLIANCMENT
PROGRAM.
Signature — Date
ECOSYSTEM ENHANCEMENT PROGRAM
1652 Mail Service Center
RALEIGH. N.C. 27699-1652
[phone]
I�ilenamc: 120GIiMn�oCC'1'�1�wofillSitclPcrson}101 K_Ii1P
... .. ... ... x..11. � ���1

• • A • 1► .
• •
' � � . t -.1 ��y�U� T�� a • �S 4 k t
_ � yy� :�;• ��• eta.,,.
. i • fO'1•♦'•i�/' L l �� .�', ,'1•xNA•` 11S •Y.:, is �' �' •li'
t f �- i x.' fit �' � .•i!' i ♦ i Y
Ift
1 alt ��c ? .."`,'\�7�•}+ Ott }.. y j,' .Y r •�, ,1i } < e , �f •XY/`,�, • � • y�fy[
4r� { �' �`! -� •'� inti �?4;,:
r�i�• t• • R . �j if 1;� ,, ��cr
r•t. < �. ' + �' el,•''�4,�' P�'., r,�• 4' �. .:moi !f �-
+'1 rt E :���i'.4 „�... +rt ¢;. � t � Py� .t� t�ttt•!s�����i ,
M
f Y i T,l'f
i z,
•
f
',:A world of
capabilities
delivered locally

A11%,
�+_ -
North Carolina Department of Environment and Natural Resources
Division of Water Quality
Beverly Eaves Perdue Chuck Wakild, P.L. Dee Freeman
Governor Director
Secretary
North Carolina Division of Water Quality
401 Water Quality Certification
Summary of Permitted Impacts and Mitigation Requirements
In accordance with 15A NCAC 21-1.0500, Mr. William J. Thacker and Progress Energy, LLC, Inc. Belews Creek
Steam Station have permission to fill or otherwise impact 4,733 linear feet of stream (2,074 linear feet associated
with Phase I and 2,659 linear feet associated with proposed future phases of the site) associated with the proposed
construction of the Mayo Coal Combustion Product (CCP) Monofill site (a dry ash monofill facility to replace the
current wet ash handling system that that directs CCPs to be disposed in wetponds), which is located on the east side
of $R 1327 (Woodys Store Road, approximately 1.4 miles northwest of the intersection of SR 1329 (Bethel Hill
School Road) and US 501 (Boston Road), north of Roxboro, Person County, North Carolina. All activities
associated with these authorized impacts must be conducted with the conditions listed in the attached Permit
transmittal letter. THIS CERTIFICATION IS NOT VALID WITHOUT THE ATTACHMENTS.
COMPENSATORY MITIGATION REQUIREMENTS, ECOSYSTEM ENHANCEMENT PROGRAM
EEP Project Name:
Mayo CCP Monofill Site
DWQ PROJECT #:
20120615
LOCATION:
Roxboro
COUNTY
Person
BASIN/ SUB BASIN
Roanoke/ 03010104
As required by 15A NCAC 2H.0500, and the conditions of this Certification, you are required to compensate for the
above mitigable impacts through the restoration, creation, enhancement or preservation of wetlands, surface waters
and riparian buffers as outlined below prior to conducting any activities that impact or degrade the waters of the
state.
Note: Acreage requirements proposed to be mitigated through the Ecosystem Enhancement Program must be
rounded to one-quarter acre increments and linear foot requirements must be rounded up to the nearest foot
according to 15 2R.0503(b).
Impacts Miti atlon _
2,075 Linear Feet of Stream 12,075 Linear Feet of Stream
One of the options you have available to satisfy the compensatory mitigation requirement is through the payment of
a fee to the Wetlands Restoration Fund per NCAC 2R.0503. If you choose this option, please sign this form and
mail the form along with a copy of your 401 Certification or Buffer Approval to the Ecosystem Enhancement
Program at the address below. An invoice for the appropriate amount of payment will be sent to you upon receipt of
this form. PLEASE NOTE, THE ABOVE IMPACTS ARE NOT AUTHORIZED UNTIL YOU RECEIVE
NOTIFICATION THAT YOUR PAYMENT HAS BEEN PROCESSED BY THE ECOSYTEM ENHANCMENT
PROGRAM.
Signature Date
ECOSYSTEM ENHANCEMENT PROGRAM
1652 Mail Service Center
RALEIGH, N.C. 27699-1652
[phone]
Filename: 12061SMayoCCPMonofillSite(Person)401_ic EEP
Val':^41; hl,rifs, tr`•:i11�8tF' L'?!1;t9?!eA xi l'i1' 1:'t�l i)ItIU ti [ i(1;•t'gl
1, r is"ty1}Uy .. 1.I,::rQ
r, .t'I*.:1 h1t1 :'p,•":i. wi w r --tc, -4% .'11 : s
l E':tai Jt��'u:;l.•�ly' ptftc , t:•,l. �..�' •:� =ntp