20161217 Ver 1_Proposed Restoration Plan_20170515

Scarbraugh, Anthony
From: McNay, Tom <[e-mail]>
Sent: Monday, May 15, 2017 5:27 PM
To: Scarbraugh, Anthony; '[e-mail]'
Cc: 'William [e-mail]'; Tankard, Robert; Hayes, Tim; Johnston, Charlie
Subject: Windsor Cooper Hill - Follow-up with Proposed Plan for Resolution
Attachments: Windsor Soils Ltr - Proposed Resolution 05152017.pdf;
W i ndsor5ola r_Proposed Permitting. pdf
Gentlemen,
Based on the Soils Report that was submitted to you at the end of the day Friday, DER offers the attached as a proposed
resolution to the issues at Windsor. Please let us know if there are any questions once you have had an opportunity to
review.
Thank you,
Thomas McNay
General Manager, Engineering
40 DUKE
Y.
RENEWASLES
Office: [phone]
Mobile: [phone]

4' DUKE
ENERGY®
RENEWABLES
May 15, 2017
RECEIVED/NCDENR/DWR
MAY 17 2017
Water Quality Regional
Operations Section
Washington Regional Office
Kyle Barnes
Regulatory Specialist
US Army Corps of Engineers
Wilmington District
Washington Field Office
910-251-4584
Re: Windsor Solar Site, Proposed Resolution
Dear Messrs. Barnes and Scarbraugh:
Tom McNay
Vice President
Duke Energy Renewables NC Solar, LLC
139 E. Fourth St. EM32
Cincinnati, OH 45202
Anthony Scarbraugh
Environmental Senior Specialist
N.C. Division of Water Resources
943 Washington Square Mall
Washington NC 27889
252-948-3924
Please refer to the recently submitted "Investigation of Historical Extents of Hydric
Soils" prepared by Carolina Ecosystems, hereafter "Soils Report," which provides the findings
and conclusions of the recent soil boring investigation at the Windsor NC Solar Site.
Overall, the spatial location and extent of the hydric soils as mapped by CEI is very
similar to that depicted in the 2013 Energy Renewal Partners delineation sketch (and in the
subsequently permitted E&SC site plan). As shown in Figure 4 of the Soils Report, moving
southward along the linear feature, the depths to the 2013 soil surface increase sharply while
simultaneously the feature narrows from side -to -side. Notably, the only wetlands currently
present on the site (per the 2016 USACE field review) are in the northernmost section; this
area remains hydrologically connected to a pine flat wetland system extending offsite to the
north.
Per recent conversations, our understanding is that, given Duke Energy Renewables'
(DER) a priori acceptance of the 2013 jurisdictional impacts to be as given in Figure 5 of the
Soils Report, USACE has indicated it will consider a resolution that involves restoration of the
more ecologically -appropriate areas, combined with issuance of an after -the -fact Nationwide
Permit (NWP) for up to 0.5 acres of the remaining impacts.
Accordingly, we have attached a draft snap proposing the location and size of the
restoration and permitted impact areas in Attachment A. Some of the rationale for this layout
include the following.
Restoration of Impacts:
Please refer to Attachment A showing the proposed permitting scenario. The proposed
restoration area is hydrologically contiguous to the existing wetland pine flat extending off -
property to the north. As given in the Soil Report, the depth of the 2013 horizon in this area is
much shallower (24") than in the lower reach (48"- 95"). This area is also broader in spatial
extent than in the lower section.

The 2016 USACE field review found approximately 0.3 acres currently extant
wetlands in this area (dark green on Figure 4). Panels will be removed from this area. This
will de facto ultimately result in onsite wetlands larger than the 0.23 acres shown in the
Attachment A. Solar panels immediately to the east of the restoration would remain in place.
Restoration will comply with all NC DWR planting specifications including plant
selection, viability (stem count), adaptive management as needed, and monitoring and
reporting requirements. A detailed Restoration Plan will be submitted for Corps and DWR
approval prior to commencing work. DER anticipates that this restoration can be completed
by December 1, 2017.
Permitted Impacts:
The lower portion of the linear feature (0.37 acres) is now under 2 to 8 feet of fill,
making restoration of this area technically difficult at best. The amount of ecological gain
with restoration of this area would be minimal. The geometry of the linear feature, passing in
a rough diagonal through the solar arrays, would require a large number of solar panels to be
removed, resulting in a significant permanent loss in electrical generation.
The small feature (0.02 acres) abutting the eastern fence line is similarly under
approximately three feet of fill. Restoration of this area would require some removal of solar
panels, but more importantly it would preclude vehicular traffic around the perimeter of the
site at this area.
A small portion (0.03 acres) of existing wetland extending into the property from the
floodplain will be left undisturbed. Restoration of the southeastern impacted area is
challenging due to the depth of fill (up to 86") and the restrictive side slopes.
Following your review and consideration of this conceptual proposal to resolve this
issue, DER would like to meet with you either in person or via conference call to discuss
further. Upon concurrence of all of the parties, DER will proceed with the preparation and
submission of a Pre -Construction Notification, which will contain the detailed Restoration
Plan and agreed upon compensatory mitigation for permitted impacts.
We appreciate your consideration of this proposed resolution and hope to discuss
further at your earliest convenience.
�Respecct�full�y, ,(
Tom McNay (
Cc: Timothy Hayes — DER (via email)
Robert Tankard — NC DWR (via email)
Bill Biddlecome — US ACOE (via email)
Charles Johnston — DE-EHS (via email)
Samir Dumpor — NC DELMR (via email)
Attachment

Attachment A
Proposed Permitting Scenario Figure

-
§
/
d�^\
� \'
C«y>»»!
: » ua G&a \wrlay Remain ` ? ,
\:«..,
. . >. / . :y y<
±6 Acre