20080915 Ver 2_IP Applicaiton_20100416

Pk Duke
Energy®
April 7, 2010
Mr. John Dorney - Supervisor
North Carolina Department of Environment and Natural Resources.
Division of Water Quality - Wetlands Unit
1650 Mail Service Center
Raleigh, North Carolina 27699-1650
MAJOR PROJECTS - CAROLINAS
Duke Energy Corporation
526 South Church St.
Charlotte, NC 28202
Project Mailing Address:
5657 Rays Dairy Avenue
Morganton, NC 28655
D8- Dq iS u?-
j) ORIGINAL
Re: Catawba Wateree Hydroelectric Project, Linville Dam
Embankment Seismic Stability Improvements at the Bridgewater
Development
Clean Water Act Section 404/401 Individual Permit
USACE File No.: 20082753
Dear Mr. Dorney:
Duke Energy Carolinas, LLC is submitting, for your review, this Individual Permit
Package (eight copies), for the jurisdictional waters of the U.S., including wetlands that
will be affected by the Linville Dam Embankment Seismic Stabilization Improvements
(ESSI) Project. Attached to this letter are the Permit Application and the Project
Narrative that describes the proposed ESSI Project. A check for $575.00 is also
included for the 401 Water Quality Certification Fee. This package will satisfy Duke
Energy and the Federal Energy Regulatory Commission (FERC) obligations under
Sections 404 and 401 of the Clean Water Act (CWA), and addresses project-related
concerns designed to determine what extent the proposed actions may affect any
jurisdictional waters of the U.S.
Should you have any questions or comments regarding this request or the federally
listed species consultation, please feel free to contact me at [phone] or James
McRacken with HDRIDTA at [phone]. In addition, my direct mailing address is
5657 Rays Dairy Ave, Morganton, North Carolina 28655.
Sincerely,
Duke Energy Carolinas, LLC
Jonathan R. Wise
Project Director
pre@rea.,7 10- 0
APR :b 2Ciu
r UVESANmS? a 9 WNCH
www.duke-energy.com
Attachments
cc: Brian Chrisman - HDRIDTA
James McRacken - HDRIDTA
APPLICATION FOR DEPARTMENT OF THE ARMY PERMIT
(33 CFR 325) t) s - u ot I
The Public burden for this collection of information is estimated to average 10 hours per response, although the majority of applications should require 5
hours or less. This includes 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 this collection of
information, including suggestions for reducing this burden, to Department of Defense, Washington Headquarters Service Directorate of Information
Operations and Reports, 1215 Jefferson Davis Highway, Suite 1204, Arlington, VA 22202-4302; and to the Office of Management and Budget,
Paperwork Reduction Project (0710-00031, Washington, DC 20503. 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, 33 USC 1413. 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. 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 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 14. DATE APPLICATION COMPLETED
(ITEMS BELOW TO BE FILLED BY APPLICANT)
5. APPLICANT'S NAME 8. AUTHORIZED AGENT'S NAME AND TITLE (an agent is not required)
Duke Energy Carolinas, LLC James A. McRacken Jr. / Senior Scientist
Jonathan R. Wise / Project Manager
6. APPLICANT'S ADDRESS
5657 Rays Dairy Ave, Morganton, NC 28655
Charlotte, NC 28201-1006
APPLICANT'S PHONE NOS. W/AREA CODE
j. Residence
9. AGENT'S ADDRESS
HDR DTA, 400 S. Tryon Street
WC2401 Charlotte, NC 28285
10. AGENT'S PHONE NOS. W/AREA CODE
a. Residence
b. Business [phone] b. Business 704.342.7373
11. STATEMENT OF AUTHORIZATION
I hereby authorize, James A. McRacken Jr. to act in my behalf as my agent in the processing of this application and to fumish,
upon request, supplemental information in support of this perm
it application. 1
10.
- I`- tJ AA.JL -- `7 140
CANT'S SIGNATURE
DATE
NAME, LOCATION, AND DESCRIPTION OR PROJECT OR ACTIVITY
12. PROJECT NAME OR TITLE (see instructions)
Linville Dam Embankment Seismic Stability Improvements Project
13. NAME OF WATERBODY, IF KNOWN (if applicable)
Linville River/Lake James
14. PROJECT STREET ADDRESS (if aA Mble)
/APR 1,
15. LOCATION OF PROJECT DE,YR - WATER OVAUTY
Burke North Carolina WETLANDS AND STORRM11VWER BRANCH
COUNTY STATE
16. OTHER LOCATION DESCRIPTIONS, IF KNOWN (see instructions) Section, Township, Range, Lat/Lon, and/or Accessors's Parcel Number, for example
Linville River below the Bridgewater Powerhouse/Linville Dam
17. DIRECTIONS TO THE SITE
1-40 to exit 100, turn south and travel to SR 1168 and turn right. Go to Main Street and take left. Take a right on Bridge St. And
travel to Linville St. / Powerhouse Rd. And take a left. Travel approximately 3.8 miles to the Bridgewater hydroelectric plant. Project
area is around the existing and the powerhouses. (See attached location map in narrative)
OMB APPROVAL NO. 0710-0003
Expires December 31, 2004
ENG FORM 4345NOD, Jul 97 EDITION OF FEB 94 IS OBSOLETE (Proponent: CECW-OR)
18. Nature of Activity (Description of project, include all features)
The construction of an approximately 100' counterweight stability berm on the downstream side of Linville Dam. This will involve the
placement of approximately 1 million cubic yards of fill on the downstream of the dam. In addition, offsite borrow areas are planned
to be utilized, therefore, temporary and permanent roadways will need to be constructed to transport the borrow material to the
construction site. (Please see attached narrative)
19. Project Purpose (Describe the reason or purpose of the project, see instructions)
To provide dam safety improvements in the event of a catastrophic earthquake event. These improvements have been mandated
by the Federal Energy Regulatory Commission (FERC).
USE BLOCKS 20-22 IF DREDGED AND/OR FILL MATERIAL IS TO BE DISCHARGED
20. Reason(s) for Discharge
The construction of the stability berm, the borrow haul roads, and the placement of sediment and erosion control structures will result
in a discharge of fill material into jurisdictional waters of the U.S., including wetlands. Please see attached narrative.
21. Type(s) of Material Being Discharged and the Amount of Each Type in Cubic Yards
Approximately 1 million cubic yards of soil for the stability berm and various amounts for haul road and sediment and erosion control
impacts. Please see attached narrative.
22. Surface Area in Acres of Wetlands or Other Waters Filled (see instructions)
Approximately 0.02 acres of jurisdictional wetland and approximately 748 feet of jurisdictional surface water (575 ft. permanent and
173 temporary) will be impacted. Please see attached narrative.
23. Is Any Portion of the Work Already Complete? Yes No X IF YES, DESCRIBE THE COMPLETED WORK
24. Addresses of Adjoining Property Owners, Lessees, Etc., Whose Property Adjoins the Waterbody (If more than can be entered here, please attach a supplemental
list).
See Attached Adjacent Property Owners List.
25. List of Other Certifications 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
See
Attached
Would include but is not restricted to zoning, building, and flood plain permits
26. To the best of my knowledge the proposed activity described in my permit application complies with and will be conducted in a manner that is
consistent with the Louisiana Coastal Management Program.
Application is hereby made for a permit or permits to authorize the work described in this application. I certify that the 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.
a44-- ??- 2 k6??
/r //6
SIGNATURE OF APPLICANT DATE SIGNATURE OF A NT DA E
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 4345NOD, Jul 97 EDITION OF FEB 94 IS OBSOLETE (Proponent: CECW-OR)
LINVILLE DAM EMBANKMENT SEISMIC
STABILITY IMPROVEMENTS PROJECT
INDIVIDUAL PERMIT NARRATIVE
Prepared for:
DUKE ENERGY
Charlotte, North Carolina
Prepared by:
HDR ENGINEERING, INC. OF THE CAROLINAS
Charlotte, North Carolina
APRIL 2010
I?Z D
T`,
PROJECT NARRATIVE
INTRODUCTION
This Individual Permit project narrative is provided to satisfy Duke Energy Carolinas, LLC.
(Duke Energy) and the Federal Energy Regulatory Commission (FERC) obligations under
Sections 404 and 401 of the Clean Water Act (CWA), and addresses project-related concerns
designed to determine what extent the proposed actions may affect any jurisdictional waters of
the U.S., including wetlands around the Linville Dam and associated nearby soil borrow areas.
Duke Energy is proposing to construct a seismic stability berm on the Linville Dam, which is
located on Lake James in North Carolina. The name for this Duke Energy Project is the Linville
Dam Embankment Seismic Stability Improvements (ESSI) Project.
PROJECT DESCRIPTION AND HISTORY
The Bridgewater Hydroelectric Development is owned and operated by Duke Energy and is
located approximately eight miles west of Morganton, North Carolina, in Burke County
(Figure 1). The Lake James reservoir was formed by the damming of three watercourses: the
Catawba River by the Catawba Dam; Paddy Creek by Paddy Creek Dam; and the Linville River
by Linville Dam (Figure 2).
The three dams were constructed by the semi-hydraulic fill method to approximately elevation
(EL) 1,224 feet mean sea level (MSL) between the years 1916 and 1919. Dams constructed
utilizing these methods are typically more susceptible to liquefaction under seismic loading
conditions. "Liquefaction is a phenomenon in which the strength and stiffness of a soil is
reduced by earthquake shaking or other rapid loading. Liquefaction and related phenomena have
been responsible for tremendous amounts of damage in historical earthquakes around the world.
Liquefaction occurs in saturated soils, that is, soils in which the space between individual
particles is completely filled with water. This water exerts a pressure on the soil particles that
influences how tightly the particles themselves are pressed together. Prior to an earthquake, the
water pressure is relatively low. However, earthquake shaking can cause the water pressure to
increase to the point where the soil particles can readily move with respect to each other"
(University of Washington, 2007).
1
Avery
ell
) Project Location
McDowell
Cataw?bal
1Buncombe
R
Cleveland
0 3 6 9 12
P \\
Miles 74 -?
X10 '
Lake Ad er
Duke Energy Carolinas, LLC
N O R T H C a R O L N A Legend BRIDGEWATER HYDRO STATION
* • _, <• Limited Access
•? Highway Figure 1.
o UT " Linville ESSI Project
C AR 01 1 N A Major Road Vicinity Map
Waterbody
Cou my
Project LocationoMa Sheet I of I March 09, 3010
1 P s'-'. ESRI 9 1 14axdmu, 7005.
r r?- ,??*t w xt ?,.a
°?c,';y,, j ?;f's `s _ `??7?'",;' r ; r { 1i+:r?'} t'r ?}
rfi
v
k?sa S/S r st. •"+. t +? .'?+t?^ .?L .sE ?.P L?r - t ? ^"?,?k6 ,
rv {
-.CSC I+ rr w!? f{.:.r 7 :k/,( Y Ti`c' r 4•.
i
gm -
vi
e; 7 a s ? u Wy
11 d ..r Y+ lair:
.ar..
1 L + 4
n j Ica m:?4. A aQ! 1'•„ (r r ' R't..,? 4 ` b ? `
ai t ,?' t? ? r i : 7 i?L• { ¦!?'p' ?yp? A
?* "'I` ? ?.S. 3:1''? (? A? Fem. ?+? J, • - ?f
r
?l.` pr `° ?f ?? t w. a?,, .??: i. r.,,i?- - .• ?'{ ?Asas;
.
0 0.5 1 1.5
Miles
+
Duke Energy Carolinas, LLC
NORTH CAROLINA BRIDGEWATER HYDRO STATION
*,..,,.. Legend
Figure 2.
S O U T H Stream Linville ESSI Project
CAROLINA Bridgewater Development Area Map
,:... ' Mt,la; l,u. ruin
Duke Energy Linville Dam ESSI Project
Preliminary post-seismic stability analyses for the Linville Dam indicate that improvements
conceptually identified as a counter weight stability berm constructed on the downstream slope
(the proposed alternative) are required to satisfy FERC specified factors of safety. The size of
the berm will be determined as part of design-level analyses.
The Linville Dam is an earthen embankment with grass covering the downstream slope. The
pavement along the crest is an asphalt two-lane secondary road (S.R. 1233/Upper Powerhouse
Road) maintained by the North Carolina Department of Transportation (NCDOT). Rip rap
protects a majority of the upstream slope with the freeboard covered with rip rap to approximate
elevation (EL) 1,200 transitioning to grass approximately 10 feet above full pond elevation. At
the base of the downstream side of the Linville dam there is the existing Bridgewater
powerhouse, new Bridgewater powerhouse, switchyard, and support buildings.
Photograph of Lake James, the Linville Dam, and the existing Bridgewater Powerhouse
Much of the approximately 40-acre Linville Dam ESSI Project area and associated borrow and
support areas are located within the Catawba River Basin have been modified and do not present
the types of natural communities to be expected had the area and associated habitats have been
left undisturbed (Figure 3).
4
'iFi`,
Borrow Area 3
+ ,? r
Paddy Creek ESSI
%C1
Project Area:._
j t I f JY + 2 h" 5y`, i k a
.f & p. d a> x'R'!' ?? W t1'?
-ji
?- ,t'!+".icT ? > L lv ?t'ttytyl ds.n-G ',... ?SC Fy ?,ylC'C f :. y .,?r
tli Y n ? ?4 A ? f. a5 y?',S??a•.. -'..?,,,Y .,C c ..4+' ?a ,?+1? by t
.
?' ? a a??! {? ?`? ?a ?1t*4 Q `?` .• ` air.
0.25 0.5 0.75 1
Miles
Duke Energy Carolinas, LLC
NORTH CAROLINA Legend BRIDGEWATER HYDRO STATION
Project Area Boundary Figure 3.
SOUTH Stream Linville ESSI Project
CAROLINA Boundary Area Map
Project
Source: Duke E,,, -,,, Carolinas, 11C - %1, Sid A-A Phoiourupim
2004; ESRI 9.3 13ascdata, 11008.
Sheet I of I March 09, 2010
Duke Energy Linville Dam ESSI Project
The impoundment of Lake James, an approximately 6,400-acre lake with approximately
150 miles of wooded shoreline, has changed the local topography and hydrology. Additionally,
many of the surrounding hillsides have been cleared within the recent past and are regenerating
as pine stands. Furthermore, many of the valley sections outside the project area have been
largely converted to nursery plots for woody ornamental tree stock or are utilized for rural
residential purposes.
The topography of the project area is comprised of strongly sloping to very steep uplands with
narrow, level floodplains along streams and wide, nearly level flood plains and gently sloping to
strongly sloping stream terraces along the Catawba River. The normal pool elevation for
Lake James is approximately 1,200 feet mean sea level (MSL). The approximate elevation at the
bottom of the Linville Dam is 1,062 feet MSL, indicating an approximate drop in elevation of
138 feet (Figure 4).
There are two offsite areas that are being studied for potential borrow to be used for the
construction of the Linville Dam ESSI berm. These areas are the Paddy Creek Dam ESSI Tract
and the Borrow Area 3 (Figure 3). The Paddy Creek Dam ESSI Tract is made up of
approximately 136-acres of disturbed and undisturbed land. This tract was largely used for
borrow for the construction of the Paddy Creek Dam ESSI berm and for the location of
work/support trailers and material lay-down (Figure 5). There were several areas of potential
borrow soil that was not utilized during the Paddy Creek ESSI and the Bridgewater Powerhouse
construction. These undisturbed borrow areas are slated to be used for the construction of the
Linville Dam ESSI Project.
The second parcel to be utilized for soil borrow to construct the Linville Dam ESSI Project berm
is the Borrow Area 3 tract. This tract is made up of approximately 280-acres of disturbed and
undisturbed land and is located approximately 1.8 miles down Powerhouse Road, southeast of
the Linville Dam (Figure 6). Borrow material from this tract will have to be trucked to the
Linville Dam ESSI Project via Powerhouse Road.
6
J??\ \\\\111111 \1 ??\?\\???? ? ? ?? ? ?\\
o +
N
M.
N W

D
\\? \\\ 111 ????\\???\\\ V,
LLI
LLJ ? U
1 \?A 11??v??? o ?w i 6
LLJ j
?(n lea
p? _
\ I N `Q J
\ \? cn W
m
W
?^ W

w
N
I 0
O
O TT

} C; M

W
?
V o N
w '- o
wj
Q a
?m Q
w
a O w
w

a
a
LLJ 1 Y
ga p U
oz zw
>o Rg v,o
i s LL.J
? ? 3 LLJ M

H1a0N ON
?- Fn Z
LLj :3
?cy-
\ \ °Z
LLJ
N \ \ w00
° \ ?m
U
W W i
3
O
a as
cr
w o
a o
w
vi 3
°
0-0
am oGro \?\
ZW
z, _ o
0
O
O
d'
a
Z
O
m
CO)
Q
W
J
J
!3
~
w jig
w
z J?
W
J m
Q V
U z
07
i
I
Zck: cr
Jr W U
J W
J }
J
Qw OZ>c
ZZ)
cr } U
WZ a cc
0 3 oz \ Y SR 126
p m O w m
J U I J M> W W U U o
W W W J
J? acr (nU J 07
Z Q Q Z N? Z 00
Ja oi0? J as oa

I
a
iJ
z

0
O
O
N
fn -'
W
J
Q W
? Q
W Z
go
a
J
J
W

3
`l
I?
0
0
PL r,

w W (I
U
oQ
o?
?Q
? U

1-

W
w 3 O
_ W a
OWQ!-
a
in zz aW
W W ?
U U)s QQZN
Q'
Q
Qa wa o=O
w

W
JV I U
}
}

YJ w o Q
z
? o

wa Y:)
w0 o
=Q Y
w
w (n of ?
U x
u Ut-
U UDZ
zx3 U
o,

z o
00 -3
?ZO
}
o
a
7 as uiu
i
a
0\
o
N
V
M)
O
a
U)
W
Q
G
J
J
Z
J
C?
i
z
m
W
W
W
D
a
V is
O
O
O
m
r
4
O
O
0
0
~ _ U?U
W J` Z
LL.
z =
W Wv
U v
cr
w
t w Q
? U
Q
? Z
0
? U
p
Ckf In
?.
Z 1\
Q
i

?\lO I

(rr ,,,
- w }
O w

o m
N M.
N_ W
w O ? ?
r
LLI
Z?
O w
Q? ,I???ji_ ?I
/ - I
CO W
U ?_ J
I
GoN NCR R° e I
Ui LL
?lx
r 3 0 3 a
o? O6
LL.
LL. LL.
J J
LL.
LA-
1
C

5?
1 t?

k<<
4
? K\
° z
w0
crm
Oa U F- '"
U 1I
>- LLJ
'
Q
Qom
as _

Q
v
m
a
CO)
W
a
W
J
z
J
0
m
v
m
a
W
a
0
m
0
on
O
•
r
LL.
ICI
o Lw
L?
W n1u
J
O U v
=
o CIO
?b
2
Duke Energy Linville Dam ESSI Project
STATED PURPOSE OF THE PROJECT
Duke Energy began its preliminary planning and field studies in the early 1990's for the
proposed modifications to the Linville Dam, which, as stated above, is one of the three dams that
impound Lake James. The seismic stability work planned for the Lake James dams has already
increased the stability of the Paddy Creek Dam and the Catawba Dam in the event of a large
earthquake. These improvements, mandated by the FERC, are being constructed as part of a
nationwide effort to increase the safety of dams during potentially catastrophic earthquake
events. The construction of the large earthen counterweight stability berm at Paddy Creek Dam
was completed in December 2006 and the work on the Catawba Dam was completed January
2010.
The Linville Dam is an earthen embankment dam measuring approximately 1,325 feet in length
across the crest with a penstock running through the dam to the Bridgewater Powerhouse. The
embankment at Linville Dam has a maximum height of approximately 160 feet above the
riverbed of the Linville River as it exits the powerhouse.
The proposed ESSI Project at the Linville Dam is planned to consist of a large earthen
counterweight stability berm, which will support the downstream slope of the existing structure
during and following the design earthquake (Figure 7). Due to the quantity of soil and material
needed for this FERC mandated project, soil areas adjacent to the Linville Dam, Paddy Creek
Dam and off site borrow areas have been tested for suitability and accepted for their use in the
construction of the counterweight stability berm. In addition, the materials that will be taken
from the existing dam will likely be unsuitable for use in constructing the stability berm because
of their high moisture content; however, when practical, these materials are planned to be
utilized as backfill in the offsite borrow areas (Paddy Creek ESSI and Borrow Area 3) as part of
the proposed site reclamation. At this time in the design planning process, it appears the berm
will be approximately 100 feet thick at the top and a bench at the base that adds approximately
290 feet to the width which includes the base of the slope.
10

w
N
O
Mm
?3
za
lllllll
llllllllL
l1N llll
llw lll'
11? 111
ll? 111
?9 w l l
ll
Z O
0(6 1111 `i
a-0111 LL w
0
N
N
J
w
t7i
w
LL
O
O
a
Z
!-
cf)
X
w
x

O N >
3
co
'- 'n w
0

Lu
?N
Om
I V) II N
O Ow OJ

w Oa
O Om
Q
m m a v) CL
J
0
w
J
J
Q
w
co
ce
1
o

o c?
C*j G:
N
M
0
H
V
W Z
O
CL v
W
W
W
Q m
W
J J
J -
? m
Z
J ?
f1
m
O
a3
Z w
m
ci
Duke Energy Linville Dam ESSI Project
During the planning phase of the ESSI Project, field assessments for jurisdictional waters of the
U.S., including wetlands were conducted during the summer and fall of 2008. These
assessments were to identify the natural habitats, to delineate the jurisdictional waters of the
U.S., including wetlands and streams, and to document the extent to which the resources of
concern would be affected by the proposed project.
PROJECT HABITAT DESCRIPTIONS
Much of the Linville Dam ESSI Project area has been modified and does not present the types of
natural communities expected had the habitats been left undisturbed. Most dramatically, the
impoundment of Lake James, including the historic construction of the Linville, Paddy Creek,
and Catawba dams, has changed the local topography and hydrology. Associated construction of
the nearby Linville Dam powerhouse, substation, power lines, and roadways has also
significantly affected the natural environment.
The more natural community assemblages are found in the portions of the landscape that have
proven less suitable for human use. These areas include the steeper hillsides and the wetter
drainage bottoms near the streams. The major natural communities found on the Linville Dam
ESSI Project are stream riparian and hillside upland habitats. The stream riparian areas and the
wetlands are typically composed of the following: tulip poplar (Liriodendron tulipifera); red
maple (Acer rtibrum); river birch (Betula nigra); American sycamore (Platanus occidentalis);
red mulberry (Mortis rtibra); mockernut hickory (Carya tomentosa); and sweetgum
(Liquidambar styraciflzta).
Corresponding understory species are ironwood (Carpintts caroliniana); American holly (Ilex
opaca); silky dogwood (Corntts amomtim); alder (Alms serrulata); and Chinese privet
(Ligustrum sinense). Other common plants included giant cane (Arundinaria gigantea),
browntop (Microstegium vimineum), Japanese honeysuckle (Lonicera japonica), soft rush
(Juncus effitstts), bog rush (Juncus biflortis), dotted smartweed (Polygonitm punctatum), shallow
sedge (Carex lurida), netted chainfern (Woodwardia areolata) and yellow violet (Viola
pubescens var. pubescens).
12
Duke Energy Linville Dam ESSI Project
In the adjacent hillside uplands, the habitat consists of a mix of white pine (Pinus strobus),
Virginia pine (Pinus virginiana), tulip poplar, sweetgum, and red maple. Other canopy species
present were black cherry (Prunus serotina), American beech (Fagus grandifolia), river birch,
and northern red oak (Quercus rubra). Understory trees and shrubs include ironwood, Chinese
privet, eastern hemlock (Tsuga canadensis), flowering dogwood (Cornus florida), American
holly, red cedar (Juniperus virginiana), and rhododendron (Rhododendron maximum). The
common herbaceous species observed include Japanese honeysuckle, Christmas fern
(Polystichum acrostichoides), giant cane, violets (Viola sp.) and blackberry (Rubus sp.).
During the field assessments, jurisdictional waters of the U.S., including wetlands, within the
Linville ESSI Project and Borrow Tract 3 boundaries, were delineated. The areas considered
jurisdictional wetlands were delineated using the 1987 Corps of Engineers Wetland Delineation
Manual (Environmental Laboratory, 1987). The "routine on-site determination method" was
selected as the most appropriate delineation technique. Wetlands were considered present when
observations of vegetation, hydrology, and soils indicated that the three-parameter criteria for
wetland identification were met. The wetlands found within the Linville Dam ESSI Project and
Borrow Tract 3 boundaries were classified using the U.S. Fish and Wildlife's (USFWS) wetland
classification system. Jurisdictional stream and wetland boundaries were flagged by HDRIDTA
personnel and located by professional land surveyor for a jurisdictional determination from the
U.S. Army Corps of Engineers (USACE) Action ID 2008-2753, dated December 15, 2008, (see
Appendix A).
During the jurisdictional waters assessment, four main drainage features which are made up of
jurisdictional creek and wetland habitats were observed and documented within the subject
properties (Figures 4 and 6). A description and size of each of the drainage within the ESSI
project boundaries is provided below and in Table 1.
13
Duke Energy
Linville Dam ESSI Project
TABLE 1 - JURISDICTIONAL WATERS WITHIN THE LINVILLE DAM ESSI
PROJECT AREA*
Total Stream Total
Wetland
Drainage Name Stream Order(s) Length
Type(s) Wetland
linear feet Area (acres)
Linville River to Bride Fourth or above 1,279 NA NA
Linville River Tributary 1 Second 333 PEM 0.02
Linville River Tributary 2 First 444 NA NA
Borrow Area Tributary 1 First and Second 4,403 PFO 0.1
TOTAL 6,459 0.12
*Does not include jurisdictional areas located within the Paddy Creek areas of the Linville ESSI Project
Legend PFO - Palustrine Forested
PEM - Palustrine Emergent
Linville River
The Linville River within the Project boundaries starts at the Bridgewater Powerhouse
discharge/tailrace and proceeds downstream approximately 1,279 feet to the SR 126 Bridge
(Figure 4), where it flows outside the Project boundaries. The Linville River within the Project
boundaries has an approximate width from bank to bank of 118 feet.
Photograph of the Bridgewater Powerhouse tailrace and Linville River
The vegetation community along the Linville River directly below the old Bridgewater
Powerhouse can best be described as a mesic mixed hardwood forest (Piedmont Subtype)
(Schafale, et al., 1990). Dominant species found within the canopy include tulip poplar, red
14
Duke Energy Linville Dam ESSI Project
maple, and northern red oak. Some white pine is present within the upper portions of the buffer
and some American sycamore is present near the river. Under-story species include immature
canopy species as well as hop hornbeam (Ostrva virginiana). Shrub species present include
rhododendron, blueberry species (Vaccinium sp.) and mountain laurel (Kalmia latifolia). Herb
and vine species are varied and include various fescue species (Festuca sp.), flea bane (Erigeron
sp.), path rush (Juncus tenuis), blackberry (Rubus argutus), and poison ivy (Toxicodendron
radicans).
Linville River Tributaries
The Linville River has two tributaries that connect to it prior to going under the SR 126 Bridge.
The first drainage is located directly adjacent to and east of the Linville Dam (Figure 4). Two
small wetland drainages that are part of this tributary are supplied by the seepage from the
Linville Dam. This drainage consists of the two wetland seepage collection areas and a second
order perennial stream. The jurisdictional second order stream associated with this drainage
measures approximately 333 linear feet inside the Project boundary before it flows into the
Linville River (Figure 4).
15
Photograph of the eastern tributary of the Linville River
Duke Energy Linville Dam ESSI Project
The jurisdictional wetlands within the Project Boundary are associated with the seepage at the
base of the dam (0.02-acres) and are made up of emergent wetland types (Cowardin et. al.,
1979). The hydrology indicators found in this jurisdictional wetland consisted of standing
surface water and saturated soils to the surface. In addition, drainage patterns and water-stained
leaves were observed during the field wetland assessments.
Photograph of the Linville Dam toe wetland drains looking east
The second tributary is located on the downstream right bank of the Linville River below the
existing powerhouse. This first-order drainage appears to be a bed and bank perennial stream
approximately 2 to 3 feet in width and approximately 444 linear feet in length. This tributary is
approximately 0.5 feet in depth and has moderately to steeply sloping banks with a substrate
consisting of sand, gravel, and silt. The area around this tributary is mostly a grass and fescue
maintained lawn. (See photograph below.) At present, this drainage is buffered from the
surrounding new powerhouse construction project.
16
Duke Energy
Linville Dam ESSI Project
`?. a ,
?.ri• ._ y t x r r
k' a '??„.???. ? '.;? ? • ? ?, '.?t?iK? ? ? 'Fx.
Photograph of the tributary observed on the right bank of the Linville River
The vegetation community along the Linville River tributaries directly below the old
Bridgewater Powerhouse can best be described as a mesic mixed hardwood forest (Piedmont
Subtype) (Schafale and Weakley 1990). The canopy species found in this drainage are made up
of tulip poplar, red maple, American beech, sourwood (Oxydendrum arboreum), and white oak
(Quercus alba). The midstory trees and shrubs included American holly, rhododendron,
flowering dogwood, and Chinese privet. The herbaceous layer is made up of Japanese
honeysuckle, Christmas fern, giant cane, highland doghobble (Leucothoe fontanesiana), Virginia
creeper (Parthenocissus quinquefolia), galax (Galax urceolata), false nettle (Boehmeria
cylindrica), sedges (Carex sp.), browntop, and cardinal flower (Lobelia cardinalis).
The soil series found within these drainage areas and the adjacent uplands are Rhodhiss sandy
loam, and Udorthents. Rhodhiss sandy loam is found on 25 to 45 percent slopes and is a well-
drained soil found in the uplands. Permeability for this soil is moderate and shrink-swell
potential is low. Seasonal high water table is below 6.0 feet. This fine-loamy, mixed,
semiactive, mesic Typic Hapludults is usually found in hillslopes on ridges (Knight, 2006).
Udorthents is a soil that consists of areas where the natural soils have been altered by digging,
grading, or filling, to the extent that individual soil types can no longer be recognized. These
17
Duke Energy Linville Dam ESSI Project
areas consist primarily of borrow areas; fill areas, or sanitary landfills. The characteristic of the
soil material varies such that interpretive statements cannot be made without an on-site
investigation (Knight, 2006).
Paddy Creek ESSI Drainages
The Paddy Creek ESSI site will be used to obtain soil borrow material, construction material and
equipment laydown and houses the offices for the Linville ESSI construction as it has since the
Paddy Creek ESSI and the Bridgewater Powerhouse Projects. A fraction of the areas associated
with the Paddy Creek ESSI Project for construction will be utilized as part of the Linville ESSI
Project. The jurisdictional areas noted to be undisturbed in USACE Individual Permit
200331252 will remain undisturbed (Appendix B). All remaining temporary disturbances from
the Paddy Creek ESSI Permit will be restored at the end of the Linville Dam ESSI Project.
Borrow Area 3 Drainage
The Borrow Area 3 jurisdictional drainage intersects the Catawba River approximately
5,733 feet downstream of the second bridge over the Linville/Catawba River after the existing
the Bridgewater Powerhouse (Figure 6). This drainage consists primarily of consists of a
drainage with six small first-order, two second-order and one third-order perennial streams with
three jurisdictional wetlands located at the head of first order streams. The third-order stream
flows directly into the Catawba River. The jurisdictional wetlands associated with this drainage
within the ESSI Project Boundary are approximately 0.1 acres and is considered to be a forested
wetland (Cowardin et. al., 1979).
The vegetation found in the drainage and wetlands were the following: alder (Alnus serrulata),
sweet scented joe pye weed (Eupatorium purpureitm), bulrush (Scirpits cyperinus), soft rush,
shallow sedge, common boneset (Eupatorium perfoliatum), Japanese honeysuckle, Christmas
fern, browntop, touch-me-not (Impatiens capensis), slender woodoats (Chasmanthium laxum),
threeway sedge (Dulichium arundinaceum), American holly, red maple, Chinese privet, and
sensitive fern (Onoclea sensibilis).
18
Duke Energy
Linville Dam ESSI Project
Photograph of typical Borrow Area 3 Drainage stream.
The soil series found within the drainage area and the adjacent uplands are Biltmore loamy sand
Arkaqua loam and Rhodhiss sandy loam. Biltmore loamy sand is found on zero to five percent
slopes and is a well-drained occasionally flooded soil with rapid permeability. This nearly level
19
Photograph of typical Borrow Area 3 wetland habitat.
Duke Energy Linville Dam ESSI Project
or gently sloping, mixed, mesic Typic Udipsamments is usually found in Piedmont river valleys
of North Carolina (Knight, 2006).
Arkaqua loam is found on zero to two percent slopes and is somewhat poorly drained with a
moderate permeability rating. This nearly level fine-loamy, mixed, active mesic Fluvaquentic
Dystrudepts is usually found on piedmont river valleys within the flood plains of a river (Knight,
2006).
The hydrology indicators found in the Borrow Area 3 drainage jurisdictional wetland area
consisted of saturated soils. In addition, drainage patterns and water stained leaves were
observed during the field wetland assessment.
IMPACTS TO JURISDICTIONAL WATERS OF THE U.S., INCLUDING WETLANDS
AND STREAMS
Due to the construction of the Linville Dam ESSI Project, there will be unavoidable impacts to
jurisdictional waters of the U.S. including wetlands. Within the drainages that have been noted
within the Linville Dam ESSI Project boundaries, two of the four drainages will have permanent
impacts to approximately 575 feet of jurisdictional streams. One of the four drainages will have
permanent impacts to approximately 0.02 acres of jurisdictional wetlands (Figure 8). In addition,
throughout the drainages, approximately 173 linear feet of jurisdictional streams will be
impacted temporarily by this ESSI Project (see Table 2).
TABLE 2. JURISDICTIONAL WATERS WITHIN THE LINVILLE ESSI PROJECT
BOUNDARIES TO BE IMPACTED

rainage Stream
Impacted
Perm.
linear feet) Stream
Impacted
Temp. *
linear feet)
Wetland Area
Impacted Perm.
acres

Buffers
(square feet)
Linville River 290 173 0 31,767
Linville River Tributary 1 285 0 0.02 N/A
Borrow Area 3 Tributary 1 0 0 0 7,500
TOTAL 575 173 0.02 399267
- noes not mctuae the temporary outage impact due to the penstock tie-in
20
Duke Energy
Linville River
Linville Dam ESSI Project
The temporary and permanent impacts to jurisdictional areas in Linville River will consist of
surface water impacts. The impacts will be the results of filling the river bed with material to be
used in the construction of the Linville Dam ESSI berm. Both permanent and temporary impacts
start at the toe of the dam/base of the existing powerhouse and ends approximately 426 linear
feet downstream (Figure 8).
The temporary impacts to the Linville River will measure approximately 173 linear feet. The
temporary impacts to the river are primarily due to the construction of a proposed sediment and
erosion control basins. This basin could be placed in the river channel due to the lack of area
required to construct a basin in the adjacent uplands. All temporary river impacts will be
returned to original contours and elevations.
The permanent impacts to surface waters (290 linear feet) in the Linville River/Bridgewater
tailrace is primarily due to the construction of the stability berm and the excavation of the toe of
the existing dam to replace the alluvium with compacted backfill (Figure 8). These surface water
impacts are unavoidable impacts and will be included in the proposed mitigation.
Approximately 31,767 square feet (0.73 acres) of permanent impacts to the Catawba River buffer
are anticipated from this Linville Dam ESSI Project. The permanent impacts to main stem
buffers along the Linville River/Bridgewater tailrace is primarily due to the construction of the
stability berm (Figure 8). Due to this project being considered dam maintenance that causes
additional buffer disturbance beyond the footprint of the existing dam or not covered under the
U.S. Army Corps of Engineers Nationwide Permit #3, these buffer impacts are considered
"Allowable". This fact was also verified in conversations with the NC Division of Water Quality
(A. Chapman, personal communication, February 16, 2010), which oversees the Catawba River
buffer rules (15A NCAC 02B .0243). Therefore, no mitigation for impacts to buffers along the
Catawba River main stem will be necessary
21

w H
F-U
wa F- (~j
}U >- Q
X CL
MQ
wa w YL ? go- 9
? o-
LA-
w
Z mM w3? w? a j :2
Lv a a a? W? LLI?
U)
L4
lllllllil
C! 0 ix
w cn > J
W N LL.
/
U? W
z m c0 WV W uj < F- CD
z 3N V° mU ix dU J?z J /
LO Q LLJ Q Q > O > >
- z co W m > w a zxo z
Z 04
cwno w ° W" Ia Zi am
(L Q U
X w w
am aM aM ?W
I w°Qo
aow
O 3
wwo
aooa
iz
w y„
J z
>m
z?
J W
? W
WzO H
3o5.) °1 °
o ao
N
N_ W
o m
a

V
W
o
w
a ?
V
a
a
CO)
CO)
W W

Q Q
D O
W W

J J

z z
J J
V is
O
O
N
Duke Energy
Linville River Tributaries
Linville Dam ESSI Project
As stated previously, the Linville River has two tributaries that connect to it prior to going under
the SR 126 Bridge within the Project boundary. The only tributary proposed to be impacted by
the construction of the Linville ESSI stability berm is the located directly adjacent to and east of
the Linville Dam. This drainage, described previously as Tributary #1 consists of the two small
wetland seepage collection areas and a second order perennial stream (Figure 8).
There are only permanent impacts planned for this drainage. The permanent impacts to the
wetlands will be due to the filling of these areas with material to be used in the construction of
the Linville Dam ESSI berm. Approximately 0.02 acres of wetland habitat will be impacted due
to their proximity to the dam. Due to the jurisdictional stream to be impacted continuing offsite,
the flows from this drainage will be piped downstream into the tailrace of the new Bridgewater
powerhouse. The amount of streambed that will be replaced by the piping of the stream is
approximately 285 linear feet.
The second tributary to the Linville River that was previously impacted and permitted as a
temporary impact under the Bridgewater Powerhouse permit is not planned to be impacted by the
construction to the Linville Dam ESSI Project.
Borrow Area 3 Tributary #1
There is an existing road crossing over the second order perennial stream in Borrow Area 3.
A temporary haul road will be constructed within the footprint of the pre-existing road crossing.
The roadway will assist in the transportation of borrow material to the berm construction areas
for use during the ESSI construction project. Therefore, with this crossing consisting of pre-
existing impacts, no mitigation will be necessary for the temporary impacts to these jurisdictional
areas (Table 2).
Approximately 7,500 square feet of temporary impacts to the Catawba River buffer are
anticipated on this borrow tract as a result of the Linville Dam ESSI Project. The temporary
impacts to main stem buffers along the Catawba River are primarily due to the construction of
erosion and sediment control outfall structures. At present, the exact locations of the impacts are
not known due to the lack of an approved erosion and sediment control plan. As stated
previously, due to this project being considered dam maintenance that causes additional buffer
23
Duke Energy Linville Dam ESSI Project
disturbance beyond the footprint of the existing dam or not covered under the U.S. Army Corps
of Engineers Nationwide Permit #3, these buffer impacts are considered "Allowable." This fact
was also verified in conversations with the NC Division of Water Quality (A. Chapman, personal
communication, February 16, 2010), which oversees the Catawba River buffer rules (15A NCAC
02B .0243). Therefore, no mitigation for impacts to buffers along the Catawba River main stem
will be necessary.
Paddy Creek ESSI Drainages
Any planned impacts to jurisdictional waters of the US, including wetlands have previously been
permitted under the Paddy Creek ESSI Project. No additional impacts to jurisdictional features
are planned at this time for the Paddy Creek ESSI tract.
ADDITIONAL TEMPORARY IMPACTS
As part of the Linville Dam ESSI Project, there is one notable work task that has to be completed
prior to the placement of fill needed to construct the stabilization berm. This task is the tying in
of the existing Bridgewater hydro-penstock to the penstock of the new Bridgewater powerhouse.
The penstock is the pipe that is utilized to carry water from Lake James to the turbines inside the
powerhouses. Due to this tying in of the penstock, an outage of the hydro plant is necessary.
This outage will result in a shutoff of water coming out of the Bridgewater power plant, from
both generation or seepage. This temporary outage will result in approximately 4,846 linear feet
(0.92 miles) of the Linville River reach, prior to the confluence of Muddy Creek/Old Catawba
River channel, being shut off from normal flows (Figure 9). The only flows into the Linville
River above the confluence of Muddy Creek/Old Catawba River channel will be from potential
dam seepage and small tributaries along the Linville River reach.
The new Bridgewater powerhouse will be a reinforced concrete structure housing three vertical
shaft Francis type turbine generating units. There will be two main generating units and one
auxiliary unit sized to supply continuous minimum flow downstream. Each unit is equipped
with an isolation valve. The generating units are sized and configured so that they can be run
individually or in combinations to support the requirements for continuous minimum flow and
24
W
W
Q
o -
:) O
? ? O Y
? U
Z 00
W MMZ
0 L -a
W
J
wZ 0C
- o w Y SR 126
<ca
J
Uai: m
w V W U H o
?r J U
J W r ?- J >- W
> o0
1 !Y z
.:•- \? ? `??a -? as a
_ J a
- O
LL.
oaf
WjW LLJ
0 1 ZMM
W U
?W
!• L` J Q
_j -J
?I
W
Q
W W
0 N
D
90
co x
W
33
z a.

0
H18ON ON
ryb
?o
z
0
0
(V
(n ^
W
? J
Q W
W Z
°
?a
J
J

W
W

O O
N L6
N W
M

? a
7
o W
?y
?
Ii '
^

co) O
oC
W
>
0
J J

J J
X13
U
O
p O
Q
?a 4
O W ?_
LLJ
?A Z, z
- J v
w ul
•V r,?/ f in
i Q
t//r' o C) z
Duke Energy Linville Dam ESSI Project
recreation flow in the Bridgewater tailrace as defined in the Comprehensive Relicensing
Agreement (CRA) for the Catawba-Wateree Hydro Project. In addition, the units will be capable
of providing flow aeration to enhance dissolved oxygen levels in the tailrace and Linville River
reach.
At present, the seepage flow/groundwater from the existing Bridgewater powerhouse, dam, and
flow from the tributaries is estimated to be around 55 cfs (cubic feet per second) when the
turbines are charged (under pressure) but not operating. During this temporary outage, after the
lakeside intake has been sealed, it is estimated that there will only be minimal flows in the
Linville River reach (1 to 2 cfs) from adjacent tributaries below the existing Bridgewater
powerhouse.
The current schedule for this temporary outage is planned to start on at May 5, 2011, and be
completed by August 3, 2011 (approximately 90 days). An explanation for the process involved
in tying in the penstock and why the process will result in a three month outage is described
below. The process in which the penstock will be tied in involves several tasks.
These tasks are but not limited to:
• The existing lakeside intake will need to be shut-off and sealed to prevent lake water
from entering the penstock area during the outage. This process will likely involve the
use of professional divers to seal any leaks on the lakeside of the intake seal.
• The existing penstock will also need to be disconnected and sealed from the existing
powerhouse turbines. This work is significant and cannot progress until the penstock is
drained and safely isolated from the lake. In addition, the existing powerhouse will have
to be disconnected electrically from the switchyard and re-connected to the new
powerhouse during this outage.
• After the intake is sealed, the entire penstock will have to be dewatered slowly into an
existing basin so not to cause sediment transport and erosion.
• After the penstock has been dewatered, the end of the existing steel penstock which is
where the new penstock will be tied into will need to be removed. This is a large
diameter pipe that is cone shaped and encased in reinforced concrete.
• Once concrete and cone shaped portion of the old penstock are removed, the new
penstock section will require a precise fit-up and a significant amount of welding and
26
Duke Energy
Linville Dam ESSI Project
testing of the welds. The new penstock section is approximately 20 feet in diameter. The
ability to do this work will require substantial temporary supports and scaffolding which
will be both internal and external to the penstock.
• Once welding and inspections have been completed and the internal metal bracing is
removed, a protective coating will be applied to the internal and external surfaces to
protect the penstock piping from corrosion. This protective coating has to cure for a
period of time (manufacturer's specification) before any exposure to water.
i

,
S
f. eTC' f°P!

W, MR

n t
?t
_ _ r
J

_ tl

rt 4 "' ? ?

Photograph of the end of the existing penstock and new powerhouse construction.
• The new powerhouse will still not be able to operate the new units (i.e. pass water) until
check-out and start-up testing has been completed. This testing includes but not limited
to pressure testing which can take a significant amount of time to ensure there are no
leaks or problems. This is a significant effort to assure the new powerhouse functions as
designed and is safe to start operation.
• The area below and around the newly connected penstock must be backfilled to provide
structural support for the later filling of the penstock with water and operating of the
turbines.
27
Duke Energy
Linville Dam ESSI Project
• While the penstock is being connected to the new powerhouse, the new tailrace must be
excavated and constructed. The construction will include the placement of concrete walls
and floors and rock, which will be opened into the Linville River.
• After all the testing and backfilling is completed, the gates will be opened to allow the
water into the newly constructed penstock and then the turbines will be turned on to
allow water to flow back into the Linville River reach.
Consultation with agencies and municipalities prior to the Individual Permit submittal have
raised some concerns in regards to the temporary outage in the Linville River reach. The two
concerns that were voiced were the affect of the outage on drinking water availability for the
City of Morganton and the potential impacts on fisheries immediately downstream. These two
issues are discussed below:
Drinking Water for the City of Morganton
As stated above, the City of Morganton has expressed concern about the availability of drinking
water for the city during the temporary outage. Per the Catawba-Wateree Hydroelectric
Relicensing Project's Water Supply Study report (HDR 2006), the City of Morganton uses
roughly 8.9 million gallons per day which equals approximately 14 cfs.
During the temporary outage, it is approximated that the Muddy Creek drainage alone will
provide at least 51 cfs to the reach below confluence of the Linville River and Muddy Creek.
This amount was measured during a flow study that took place in the drought conditions in 2001
(Knight 2003). During the outage, the 55 cfs seepage flow from the Bridgewater powerhouse, as
noted above, may be provided by utilizing the new minimum flow valve that has been installed
in the Catawba Dam, which is designed to provide flow into the Catawba River bypass reach.
This valve is designed to provide 50 to 75 cfs into the bypassed reach. At the valves lowest
setting, it will replace the seepage flows from the powerhouse. This water will not be released
from the Linville Dam, but from the Catawba Dam and will flow to the confluence of the
Linville River and Muddy Creek.
Fisheries Impacts
Per discussions with the NCDENR and NCWRC, these agencies have expressed concerns about
the temporary impacts to the fisheries within the affected reach and immediately downstream of
28
Duke Energy Linville Dam ESSI Project
the confluence of the Linville River and Muddy Creek/Catawba River. These issues center
around the potential for a fish kill within the reach and downstream in regards to fish strandings
and water temperature that could result in a Notice of Violation (NOV).
Duke Energy believes that the relevant guidance regarding fish kills is North Carolina General
statute 143-215.3.(a)(7) which states "To direct the investigation of any killing of fish and
wildlife which, in the opinion of the Commission, is of sufficient magnitude to justify
investigation and is known or believed to have resulted from the pollution of the waters or air as
defined in this Article, and whenever any person, whether or not he shall have been issued a
certificate of approval, permit or other document of approval authorized by this or any other
State law, has negligently, or carelessly or unlawfully, or willfully and unlawfully, caused
pollution of the waters or air as defined in this Article, in such quantity, concentration or manner
that fish or wildlife are killed as the result thereof, the Commission, may recover, in the name of
the State, damages from such person."
In this case, Duke Energy respectfully advises that its actions result primarily from two federal
mandates and do not "negligently, or carelessly or unlawfully, or willfully and unlawfully, cause
pollution of the waters or air as defined in this Article, in such quantity, concentration or manner
that fish or wildlife are killed as the result thereof." This temporary outage is logistically
necessary in order to disconnect and tie-in the existing penstock to the new Bridgewater
powerhouse. Duke Energy has not been negligent, careless, or willfully unlawful about the
entire project that includes the temporary outage. This dam upgrade project, which includes the
temporary outage, is a FERC-mandated project that the agencies, such as the NCDENR and
NCWRC, were advised of in 2006. In addition, the construction of the new powerhouse
implements the flow release and water quality requirements that were agreed to in Duke
Energy's CRA (and are anticipated in the new FERC license) and complies with Duke Energy's
Catawba-Wateree 401 Water Quality Certification issued by NC Division of Water Quality in
November 2008.
In addition, per the statute, there has to be an introduction of pollution (e.g. chemicals, sewage
etc.) from the event that "in such quantity, concentration or manner that fish or wildlife are killed
as the result thereof." This temporary outage will not result in the introduction of pollution into
the water.
29
Duke Energy Linville Dam ESSI Project
In regards to the potential for fish strandings during the initial shutoff and as advised by both
NCDENR and NCWRC, Duke Energy will decrease flows in the Linville River reach by
stepping down the amount of seepage from the powerhouse. This reduction in flows will allow a
majority of the fish in the reach to relocate downstream as the water subsides. Any pools left
after the total reduction of flows will be surveyed for remaining fish. These fish will be removed
by approved methods (e.g. seining, electroshocking, etc.) and released downstream. These best
management practices should avoid any significant impacts to fisheries within the Linville River
reach for the duration of the temporary outage.
In addition, Duke Energy will stay in contact with the NCWRC fisheries biologist to advise the
agency of when the potential for the outage is to occur so the NCWRC can suspend their
stocking efforts on the hatchery supported waters in the Linville River reach just below the
powerhouse.
Water temperature in the reach below the confluence of the Linville River and Muddy
Creek/Catawba River was also a concern raised by the state agencies. The potential for stress on
the fisheries (downstream Brown Trout fishery) due to the temperature of the water coming out
of the Muddy Creek/ Catawba River channel could be too warm during the summer months.
This potential impact will be mitigated if the construction schedule allows the timing of the
outage outside the summer months (July through September). If the outage cannot be completed
outside the summer months, the temperature of the Muddy Creek/Catawba River channel will be
monitored with temperature loggers. If the temperature of the Muddy Creek/Catawba River was
to become critical, Duke Energy will evaluate options of providing additional water to the
Muddy Creek reach.
Addition to the temperature monitoring, fish monitoring will be performed in the reach below the
Linville River/Muddy Creek confluence to survey for fish mortalities during the temporary
outage. Observer(s) will walk the reach from the confluence downstream to the second bridge
(Powerhouse Road) over the Catawba River, where access is possible. The observer(s) will
tabulate numbers of fish mortalities as well as any signs of stress on the downstream fish
populations. The location, species, and approximate length of each fish will be recorded and
reported to the appropriate state agency on a weekly basis.
30
Duke Energy Linville Dam ESSI Project
To minimize the length of time the outage will occur, Duke Energy has already removed an old
penstock external valve arrangement and concrete support pedestal that otherwise would have
had to be done during the outage. In addition, for structural support, Duke Energy is planning to
utilize flowable fill as backfill instead of soil. This change has also minimized the time needed
for the outage.
Several additional alternatives to flow outage in the Linville River reach to the confluence of the
Muddy Creek/Catawba River channel were reviewed. These alternatives include:
Pumping over the State Road 1233
This alternative involves the pumping of lake water from Lake James over North Powerhouse
Road (State Road 1233). This alternative would involve the placement of 15 six-inch water
pumps to provide approximately 50 cfs to the Linville River reach. These pumps would have to
run 24 hours a day for the entire length of the outage. This would require an enormous amount
of fuel to execute. At six gallons of diesel per hour per pump, this means for the entirety of the
outage (90 days), approximately 195,000 gallons of diesel will be consumed during the proposed
outage. At an average cost of $2.84 a gallon, the cost of fuel to maintain the flows during the
outage would be approximately $554,000. This cost does not include of the pump rental, or the
man-hours to supervise the pumps 24 hours a day, etc.
To place the pumps on a level surface, an area of the Linville Dam would have to be excavated.
The FERC would consider this a dam safety issue and would not allow this action. In addition,
the hoses would have to be either placed across the road, which would mean a road closure or the
pipes would have to be suspended over the roadway. This would cause a traffic hazard for larger
vehicles and the supports would have to be embedded in the dam, which means the FERC would
see this, too, as a dam safety issue. Therefore due to dam safety and cost issues, this alternative
was not chosen.
Pumping through the Linville Dam
As stated previously, this alternative would involve the placement of 15 six-inch water pumps
that would have to run 24 hours a day for the entire length of the outage. The fuel cost, plus the
additional cost of supervision, would still be included in this alternative. Additionally, this
31
Duke Energy
Linville Dam ESSI Project
alternative would require multiple borings through the dam for the placement of the pipes from
the pumps under the roadway from the upstream side of the Linville Dam. The FERC would
consider this a dam safety issue and would not allow this action. Therefore, this alternative was
not chosen.
Flows from Paddy Creek Spillway
This alternative would be to put numerous (approximately 20) large diameter hoses into the lake
and let them gravity feed down the spillway. This alternative would only provide additional
flows into the Muddy Creek Creek/Catawba River channel and not into the Linville River reach
below the Bridgewater powerhouse. The spillway flows directly into the Muddy Creek/Catawba
River channel. Therefore, this alternative was not chosen.
At present there is an inability to augment flows in the Linville River reach above the confluence
with Muddy Creek during the planned temporary outage; therefore, the alternative to decrease
the flows slowly and survey the remaining pools is the proposed alternative.
AVOIDANCE AND MINIMIZATION
During the planning and design stages of the Linville Dam ESSI project, jurisdictional waters of
the U.S. and other natural resource issues were taken into account to minimize the permanent
impacts to jurisdictional areas and other resource areas.
Some of the measures taken to minimize and avoid impacts are as follows:
• The stabilization berm has been redesigned to be significantly smaller than originally
planned. This redesign decreased the amount of stream impacts at the toe of the dam,
plus decreased the amount of borrow material needed to complete the Linville Dam ESSI
Project.
• The temporary impacts located in the Linville River will be removed once the berm and
adjacent uplands are stabilized with vegetation.
• If necessary, Duke Energy will plan to cross where the streams are either degraded or
disturbed, where crossings of jurisdictional areas are necessary and no existing roadway
is available. This minimizes impacts to undisturbed jurisdictional areas.
32
Duke Energy
Linville Dam ESSI Project
• Where applicable, crossings of jurisdictional areas will be constructed as close to
perpendicular as possible. This will minimize the length of the jurisdictional crossings.
• The location and access of borrow areas have been planned to minimize any impacts to
jurisdictional areas.
• Duke Energy has minimized impacts by establishing, where possible, a 50-foot buffer
around all non-impacted jurisdictional streams and only proposes to encroach within
these buffers when logistically necessary (i.e. sediment basin dissipater pads).
• During planning and the development of the Biological Assessment for the U.S. Fish and
Wildlife Service, an approximate 100-foot buffer is proposed by Duke Energy to avoid
any potential foraging habitat of the Bald Eagle (Haliaeetus leucocephalus) adjoining the
Linville Dam ESSI Project boundary.
In addition, in order to minimize siltation impacts to jurisdictional areas during construction,
appropriate erosion and siltation control measures, including the installation of silt fencing, will
be installed along construction limits near jurisdictional features. The disturbed areas will be
stabilized as soon as practicable after achieving final grades. Construction monitoring will take
place to assure the erosion and sediment control measures are functioning properly and are
properly maintained. In addition, no fescue will be utilized in wetland or riparian areas.
ALTERNATIVES ANALYSIS
Duke Energy conducted an earthquake stability analysis for Linville Dam and concluded the dam
could experience an unacceptable strength loss due to soil liquefaction during the design
earthquake. The design earthquake is a magnitude 5.3 to 5.7 event with a recurrence interval of
10,000 years. Nine alternatives for modifications to improve the earthquake performance of the
dam were considered:
• Alternative 1: No build
• Alternative 2: Permanent Reduction in Normal Lake Level
• Alternative 3: Removal of the Dam
• Alternative 4: Remove and Replace the Dam
• Alternative 5: Improve the Strength of the Downstream Slope Soils
• Alternative 6: A Slurry Wall
33
Duke Energy Linville Dam ESSI Project
• Alternative 7: An Upstream Earthfill Berm
• Alternative 8: An Upstream Rockfill Berm
• Alternative 9: Downstream Roller Compacted Concrete (RCC) Berm
Alternative 1: No Build
The No Build alternative would lead to the Linville Dam not being modified to improve the
seismic stability in the event of a design earthquake. As stated previously, the preliminary post-
seismic stability analyses for Linville Dam indicates that improvements, however constructed,
are required to satisfy FERC specified factors of safety for this dam. Therefore, if a No Build
alternative were chosen, Duke Energy would be in violation of the mandated safety
improvements which were required by the FERC. Due to this mandated request, this alternative
was not available to Duke Energy.
Alternative 2: Permanent Reduction in Normal Lake Level
The second alternative considered was to permanently lower the normal lake level. The slope
stability calculations indicated that it is not possible to stabilize the upstream slope of the dam by
lowering Lake James. In order to stabilize the downstream slope, the lake level would have to be
lowered enough to lower the downstream slope phreatic surface below the bottom of the
liquefiable soil zone. A review of several years of monthly piezometer data indicated that a 10-
foot decrease in lake level has very little effect on the location of the downstream phreatic
surface. Based on this observation, it was concluded that Lake James would have to be lowered
at least 20 to 40 feet to achieve the desired result.
Effect on Lake Shoreline
The effect of lowering the normal operating lake level on the lake surface area will expose
approximately 2,180-acres of shoreline. The cost of reseeding this area would be significant.
Much of the exposed area is steep and would require silt fences, erosion matting, and other
erosion control measures be installed at significant additional cost. Reseeding is only a small
part of the overall cost of permanently lowering the lake. Other costs will include compensating
lakefront homeowners for lost property values, reconstruction of public access areas,
modifications to one or both spillways to lower the crest elevation, and the cost of the
engineering and legal services needed to obtain necessary permits and design the modifications.
34
Duke Energy Linville Dam ESSI Project
In addition, to the cost of the above, there would be a loss in the recreational uses of the lake.
Docks would have to be lengthened or reconstructed for landowners to have deepwater access.
Furthermore, there would be a significant loss of fringe wetlands, as well as a loss of littoral zone
around the perimeter of the reservoir.
IMPACT OF RESERVOIR LEVEL REDUCTION ON TURBINE PERFORMANCE
Existing Turbines
Permanently lowering the level of Lake James will also have a significant impact on the
performance of the turbines located at the new Bridgewater Powerhouse. Performance and
design characteristics of the existing generating units, located in the Bridgewater powerhouse,
were reviewed to assess the impact of a permanently reduced headwater (reservoir) level from an
energy production standpoint. Approximate net head for the Bridgewater turbines is 135 feet
(full pond is an estimated 1,200 feet and normal tailwater is an estimated 1,063 feet). As noted
above, level reductions in the range of 20 to 40 feet or more would be required to mitigate the
seismic stability issues for the Linville Dam. Accordingly, unit performance at net heads of
115 feet and 95 feet was examined. These would correspond to reservoir levels of 1,180 and
1,160 respectively. The performance efficiency would drop to an undesirable level if the lake
were lowered permanently.
In terms of power output, a permanent reduction in reservoir level would result in a decrease in
energy production capability (for a given volume of water) of approximately 13.9 percent for a
20 foot level decrease and approximately 30.5 percent for a 40 foot level decrease. This
calculation is in terms of turbine power only. The reduction in generator efficiency at lower
power levels would increase the power reduction percentage.
This alternative is not practicable for several reasons. The total cost of a permanent drawdown
will be well in excess of the cost of some of the other alternatives considered. In addition, a
permanent drawdown would have a significant negative impact on the energy production from
the Bridgewater powerhouse, as well as natural and recreational resources. Consequently, a lake
level reduction of this magnitude was judged to be unacceptable. This alternative was not
pursued further.
35
Duke Energy Linville Dam ESSI Project
Alternative 3: Removal of the Dam
The effect of removing the Linville Dam would lower the normal operating lake level of Lake
James back to a riverine system. This would reduce the lake level by approximately 140 feet and
would add estimated 8,320 acres of new upland and shoreline habitat. The cost of just reseeding
this area would be significant. Much of the exposed area is steep and would require silt fences,
erosion matting, and other erosion control measures installed at significant additional cost.
Reseeding is only a small part of the overall cost of permanently removing the dam.
Reforestation of the uplands and shoreline habitat would be a significant cost.
Costs of this alternative could also include demands for compensating lakefront homeowners for
lost property values. For example, one subdivision adjacent to Lake James has approximately
260 lots and costs per lot on the market on Lake James averages approximately $758,290.
Therefore, the loss of revenue in the example subdivision would be approximately
$197.2 million. Another example of potential compensation that would have to occur would be
if the lots were developed with homes. Several single-family home properties for sale adjacent
to Lake James were reviewed for price. The average price of these properties was $937,850 per
single family home. Assuming a 260-lot subdivision that has been built out with this average
home price, the cost of compensating the homeowners of just that subdivision would be
approximately $244 million. In addition, the loss of businesses and jobs that are in direct
correlation with the existence of Lake James would be very significant to the local and regional
economic status.
The recreational use of the lake would also be lost due to the removal of the dams on Lake
James. This alternative would result in a loss of all motorized recreational boating and sail
boating.
Also, the removal of the dams would result in the loss of an important cool water fishery which
includes largemouth bass (Micropterus salmoides), smallmouth bass (Micropterus dolomieu),
walleye (Stizostedion vitreum), white bass (Morone chrysops), crappie (Pomoxis spp.), sunfishes
(Lepomis spp.) and catfish (ktalurus spp. and Ameiurus spp.), northern pike (Esox lucius),
muskellunge (Esox masquinongy), and yellow perch (Perca flavescens).
36
Duke Energy Linville Dam ESSI Project
In addition to the above stated boating and fisheries impacts, there would also be adverse impacts
to other recreational activities such as camping, education and events, hiking, picnicking, and
swimming. The Lake James State Park and the recreation activities created by the existence of
the lake would likely be adversely impacted by the removal of the dam.
With the removal of the dam, there would be a loss of power created by the new hydroelectric
plant at the base of the Linville Dam. This power plant will have the capacity to produce
approximately 33.1 megawatts of power (two units at 15.7 megawatts and one continuously
running unit at 1.7 megawatts), which is utilized to meet peak demands at times when electricity
usage is greatest, such as hot summer days or cold winter nights. With the removal of the power
plant, it is possible that a non-hydroelectric plant (coal burning or nuclear) would need to be
utilized to make up for the lost generation capacity. Additionally, removal of the dam would
cost the Catawba River Basin a significant percentage (26%) of its useable water storage.
Finally, the removal of the dams would adversely impact existing habitat for mammals, birds,
reptiles, amphibians, and other species that utilize the lacustrine and littoral habitats created by
Lake James. An example of this would be the impacts to the population of Bald Eagles that
inhabit the area adjacent to the lake. If the dams were removed, the lacustrine and littoral
habitats utilized by the fish and waterfowl species that comprise a majority of the eagle's diet
would no longer exist, therefore, potentially having an adverse effect on the continued existence
of the Bald Eagles that utilize Lake James and adjacent lands for nesting and foraging. Due to
the above stated factors, this alternative was not considered feasible.
Alternative 4: Remove and Replace the Dam
Another alternative is to remove the existing Linville Dam and replace it with a well-compacted
earthfill embankment. The existing dam soils could be potentially stockpiled and reused; and if
so, there would be no cost for a borrow area and haul distances would be minimal. The lake
would have to be drained throughout the duration of the construction process resulting in a
significant loss in power generation income, as well as significant costs to address environmental
and public relations issues. In addition to the relatively high cost of excavating, handling, and
recompacting the large volume of material in the existing dam, these costs were judged to be
much higher than costs for some other options and this option was not considered feasible.
37
Duke Energy Linville Dam ESSI Project
In addition, similar adverse impacts associated with the permanent removal of the dam apply to
the removal and replacement of the dam. This was also factored in the reason for the
abandonment of this alternative.
Alternative 5: Improve the Strength of the Downstream Slope Soils
The zone of liquefiable soils on the downstream slope of Linville Dam encompasses only a
portion of the slope and is located relatively close to the surface. Construction methods are
available to increase the strength of these soils in place. These methods include densifying the
soil (deep dynamic compaction, vibro-flotation, vibro-replacement, compaction grouting),
methods to cement the soil particles together (cement grouting, chemical grouting, soil mixing),
and the construction of various mechanical systems to contain liquefied soil and/or increase
shear resistance along the potential failure surface (driven piles, cast in place piles, secant piles).
Duke Energy explored these alternatives and came to the conclusion that although there are
several techniques which could strengthen these soils in place the cost would likely be
prohibitive due to the volume of soil to be treated and the difficulty of operating large machinery
on the dam slope.
Downstream Berm (As Proposed)
A second option under this alternative is to stabilize the downstream slope and allow the
upstream slope to fail (Figure 7). A review of property maps showed that there is sufficient
Duke Energy land near the dam to construct the berm and to develop borrow areas to obtain the
necessary soil. The berm design used to develop the construction cost estimate is similar to that
which was utilized successfully at the Paddy Creek and Catawba dams, two of the three dams
creating Lake James. This was determined to be the simplest and most cost-effective repair
alternative for the Linville Dam.
Alternative 6: Slurry Wall
A slurry wall could be constructed by excavating a trench along one shoulder of the road from
the dam crest to sound rock. The trench would extend along the full length of the dam and
would be backfilled with a mixture of cement and bentonite (clay) or with concrete. Assuming
that the wall does not crack, that a water-tight seal can be achieved between adjacent sections of
the wall, and that a seal can be achieved along the full length of the contact between the wall and
the underlying rock, the slurry wall should significantly lower the phreatic surface in the
38
Duke Energy Linville Dam ESSI Project
downstream slope of the dam, perhaps enough to stabilize the slope. Previous experience with
slurry wall construction has shown that it can be extremely difficult to achieve the required level
of water-tightness, and the technical literature contains case studies of several slurry walls, which
have not performed as required. This lack of certainty about wall performance, combined with
high construction cost, and high risk led to the conclusion that a slurry wall is not a viable
alternative.
Alternative 7: Upstream Earthfill Berm
Constructing an upstream earthfill berm could stabilize the upstream slope. Assuming nothing is
done to stabilize it, the downstream slope would still be expected to fail during a design
earthquake. The critical downstream slope failure surface extends to the upstream slope, and
there would be an unacceptably narrow section of intact dam remaining at the normal full pond
level following an earthquake. To ensure that there would be an adequate width of intact dam
following the earthquake, the upstream berm would have to be extended to within a few feet of
the existing dam crest. The volume of soil needed to construct such a berm would be quite large.
In addition, a compacted earthfill berm cannot be constructed under water, so the lake would
have to be drained for an extended period of time while the berm is constructed. This alternative
would have a large amount of impact to jurisdictional waters of the U.S.; and as discussed
previously for Alternatives 3 and 4, the costs and associated adverse impacts with temporarily
draining the lake are likely to be very high making this alternative not feasible.
Alternative 8: Upstream Rockfill Berm
Constructing an upstream berm out of rockfill could stabilize the upstream slope. A rockfill
berm is advantageous in that it can be constructed by dumping the fill from barges without
draining the lake. The major drawback to this option is that it will be difficult to control and
document construction quality because most of the work will be done underwater. An additional
major drawback is that the rockfill is not impervious. Consequently, it will not be possible to
provide an adequate width of water-retaining material at the full pond level by simply extending
the berm above the normal lake level as was discussed above for the earthfill berm alternative.
Instead, it would be necessary to lower the normal operating lake level somewhat to increase the
horizontal distance between the water surface and the downstream face of the portion of the dam,
which is expected to be remaining after an earthquake. The necessary drawdown could be less
than the 20 to 25 feet discussed above under Alternative 2, but still may not be acceptable based
39
Duke Energy Linville Dam ESSI Project
on its effect on power plant operation, on potential environmental impacts, and on the effects on
property and structures along the Lake James shoreline. As in Alternative 7, this alternative
would have a large amount of impact to jurisdictional waters of the U.S. Due to these reasons,
this alternative is considered not to be feasible.
Alternative 9: Downstream RCC Retaining Wall
Another construction alternative considered was the construction of a downstream retaining wall
constructed out of roller compacted concrete (RCC). The main drawback to this option is that a
relatively large excavation would be needed to prepare the foundation for the RCC wall. The
upstream edge of the excavation would be roughly 200 feet upstream of the toe of the slope, and
at the maximum cross-section, the excavation would be approximately 20 feet deep. The
upstream excavation face would be supported by an anchored soldier pile retaining wall.
Because of the high phreatic surface in the downstream slope, it would be necessary to install a
series of dewatering wells in the slope, which would be pumped continuously during
construction to lower the phreatic surface. If the phreatic surface were not lowered, there would
be a significant risk that the resulting seepage could wash soil out of the remaining portion of the
slope, potentially leading to slope instability. In addition, a large quantity of seepage could cause
significant construction difficulties. In addition, the cost of the construction of the RCC was
estimated to be at least double the cost of the construction of a downstream earthfill berm and the
potential for pile driving would potentially have noise impacts on area recreational, residential
and wildlife resources including the Bald Eagle. For the above stated reasons, this alternative
was not considered feasible.
PROPOSED MITIGATION PLAN
Duke Energy is planning to mitigate for the impact to streams and wetlands through the North
Carolina Ecosystem Enhancement Program (EEP) in-lieu fee program for jurisdictional losses
(See EEP acceptance letter in the Appendix). Per discussions with the USAGE, Duke Energy
plans to mitigate for the permanent impacts to the Linville River at a 2:1 ratio and impacts to the
tributary of the Linville River at a 1.5:1 ratio. The jurisdictional wetlands that will be impacted
will be mitigated through EEP at a 2:1 ratio and rounded up to the nearest 0.25 acres. For the
amount of mitigation need for each impact, see Table 3 below.
40
Duke Energy Linville Dam ESSI Project
TABLE 3. LINVILLE DAM ESSI MITIGATION TOTALS
Impact Location Actual footage Ratio Total
Linville River

(cold water) 290 2:1 580
Linville Tributary

(warm water) 285 1.5:1 428
Linville Tributary

(wetland) 0.02 2:1 0.25*
*Rounded up to the nearest 0.25
MONITORING AND CONTINGENCY PLAN
Due to the planned use of the EEP in-lieu mitigation program, no monitoring of the wetland or
stream mitigation will be necessary. To ensure that no additional wetlands or streams are
impacted due to the construction contractor activities and are to assure the BMP erosion and
sediment control measures are functioning properly and are properly maintained, Duke Energy
personnel will assist in making sure all areas around jurisdictional features and federally
protected species populations will remain undisturbed.
If there are no stream credits available through the EEP, Duke Energy will pursue other forms of
mitigation for proposed impacts due to the construction of the Linville Dam ESSI Project. Prior
to the implementation of the contingency mitigation plan, the plan will be submitted to the
Asheville Field Office of the Wilmington District USACE for approval.
OTHER LOCAL. STATE AND FEDERAL ACTIVITIES
City of Morganton
Mr. Don Danford, the Director of Water Resources for the City of Morganton attended a
March 3, 2010, meeting to discuss the outage and to address any concerns that the city might
have about the availability of drinking water for the city during the outage. During the meeting,
Mr. Danford agreed that the City of Morganton uses roughly 8.9 million gallons a day from the
Catawba River.
41
Duke Energy Linville Dam ESSI Project
After the discussions about the plan to supplement flows during the outage from the new
minimum flow valve that has been installed in the Catawba Dam of approximately 50 to 75 cfs,
Mr. Danford said that the flows would meet Morganton's water requirements and had no further
comments or concerns.
Burke County
Ms. Susan Berley, Planning Director and Mr. Pete Minter, Burke County Zoning Administrator
of the Burke County Planning Department attended a March 3, 2010, meeting to discuss the
outage and to address any concerns that the county might have during the outage. During the
meeting, Ms. Berley agreed that the county had no concerns with the outage but did want to be
notified of the pending schedule or if any changes to the planned outage occur.
The Federal Energy Regulatory Commission
The FERC is the regulatory influence behind the Linville Dam ESSI Project. The improvements
are being constructed as part of a nationwide effort to increase the safety of dams during
potentially catastrophic events, which is mandated by the FERC. In addition, Duke is in the
process of requesting from the FERC to act as the non-federal agency representative in the
section 7 informal or formal consultation process with the USFWS (See attached letter).
U.S. Fish and Wildlife Service
Based upon completed field surveys for federal protected species, including candidate,
threatened and endangered species, Duke Energy is in the process of working with the FERC and
the USFWS on the proposed Linville Dam ESSI Project.
As stated above, Duke Energy is requesting from FERC to be allowed to act as the non-federal
representative for FERC. With the acceptance of this request, Duke Energy can request informal
consultation with the USFWS pursuant to section 7 of the Endangered Species Act of 1973, as
amended. The formal consultation could be requested which would involve the submittal of the
Biological Assessment to the USFWS by FERC. If necessary, a copy of any developed
Biological Assessment will be provided to the USACE under a separate cover if necessary.
42
Duke Energy Linville Dam ESSI Project
North Carolina State Historic Preservation Office (NCSHPO)
Duke Energy has had all of the sites to be utilized as part of the Linville Dam ESSI Project area
surveyed for archaeological and historic resources in compliance with Section 106 of the
National Historic Preservation Act of 1966 and amendments thereto that are eligible for
inclusion in the National Register of Historic Places. Three separate tracts were evaluated: The
Paddy Creek ESSI site, The Linville Dam ESSI site, and the Borrow Area 3 Tract. The
clearance letters from the NCSHPO are provided as attachments. There are several sites that
were assessed to be potentially significant; however, they will not be affected by ground
disturbing activities and will be preserved in place during the life of the Linville Dam ESSI
Project.
43
APPENDICES
APPENDIX A
USACE JURISDICTIONAL DETERMINATION
U.S. ARMY CORPS OF ENGINEERS
WILMINGTON DISTRICT
Action Id. 2008-2753 County: Burke U.S.G.S. Quad: Glen Alpine
NOTIFICATION OF JURISDICTIONAL DETERMINATION
Property Owner/Agent: Duke Energy Carolinas, LLC / Attn: Jon Wise
Address: P.O. Box 1007
Charlotte, NC 28201
Telephone No.: 828-657-2115
Property description:
Size (acres) >20 acres Nearest Town Marion
Nearest Waterway Catawba River River Basin Catawba River
USGS RUC Coordinates 35.7463 / -81.6934
Location description The site is located at the existing Linville River dam and associated Borrow Areas on Lake
James, near Glen Alpine, Burke County, North Carolina.
Indicate Which of the Following Apply:
A. Preliminary Determination
Based on preliminary information, there may be waters and wetlands on the above described property. We strongly
suggest you have this property inspected to determine the extent of Department of the Army (DA) jurisdiction. To be
considered final, a jurisdictional determination must be verified by the Corps. This preliminary determination is not an
appealable action under the Regulatory Program Administrative Appeal Process ( Reference 33 CFR Part 331).
B. Approved Determination
There are Navigable Waters of the United States within the above described property subject to the permit requirements of
Section 10 of the Rivers and Harbors Act and Section 404 of the Clean Water Act. Unless there is a change in the law or
our published regulations, this determination may be relied upon for a period not to exceed five years from the date of this
notification.
X There are waters and wetlands on the above described property subject to the permit requirements of Section 404 of the
Clean Water Act (CWA)(33 USC § 1344). Unless there is a change in the law or our published regulations, this
determination may be relied upon for a period not to exceed five years from the date of this notification.
We strongly suggest you have the waters and wetlands on your property delineated. Due to the size of your property
and/or our present workload, the Corps may not be able to accomplish this wetland delineation in a timely manner. For a
more timely delineation, you may wish to obtain a consultant. To be considered final, any delineation must be verified by
the Corps.
X The waters and wetlands on your property have been delineated and the delineation has been verified by the Corps.
We strongly suggest you have this delineation surveyed. Upon completion, this survey should be reviewed and verified by
the Corps. Once verified, this survey will provide an accurate depiction of all areas subject to CWA jurisdiction on your
property which, provided there is no change in the law or our published regulations, may be relied upon for a period not to
exceed five years.
_ The waters and wetlands have been delineated and surveyed and are accurately depicted on the plat signed by the Corps
Regulatory Official identified below on . Unless there is a change in the law or our published regulations, this
determination may be relied upon for a period not to exceed five years from the date of this notification.
There are no waters of the U.S., to include wetlands, present on the above described property which are subject to the
permit requirements of Section 404 of the Clean Water Act (33 USC 1344). Unless there is a change in the law or our
published regulations, this determination may be relied upon for a period not to exceed five years from the date of this
notification.
Action Id. 2008-2753
Placement of dredged or fill material within waters of the US and/or wetlands without a Department of the Army permit may
constitute a violation of Section 301 of the Clean Water Act (33 USC § 1311). If you have any questions regarding this
determination and/or the Corps regulatory program, please contact Amanda Jones at 828-271-7980.
C. Basis For Determination
The site contains wetlands as determined by the USACE 1987 Wetland Delineation Manual and is adjacent to stream channels
located on the property that exhibit indicators of ordinary high water marks. The stream channels on the property are unnamed
tributaries to Catawba River and include the Catawba River. The Catawba River ultimately flows to the Atlantic Ocean through
Winyah Bay in South Carolina.
D. Remarks
E. Appeals Information (This information applies only to approved jurisdictional determinations as indicated in
B. above)
Attached to this verification is an approved jurisdictional determination. If you are not in agreement with that approved
jurisdictional determination, you can make an administrative appeal under 33 CFR 331. Enclosed you will find a Notification
of Appeal Process (NAP) fact sheet and request for appeal (RFA) form If you request to appeal this determination you must
submit a completed RFA form to the following address:
District Engineer, Wilmington Regulatory Program
Attn: Amanda Jones, Project Manager
151 Patton Avenue, Room 208
Asheville, North Carolina 28801
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 February 15, 2009.
**It is not necessary to submit an RFA form to the Division Office if you do not object to the determination in this
cor espondence.**
Corps Regulatory Official: Amanda Jones
Issue Date: December 15, 2008 Expiration Date: December 15, 2013
The Wilmington District is committed to providing the highest level of support to the public. To help us ensure we continue to
do so, please complete the Customer Satisfaction Survey located at our website at http://reeulatory.usacesurvey.com/ to
complete the survey online.
SURVEY PLATS, FIELD SKETCH, WETLAND DELINEATION FORMS, PROJECT PLANS, ETC., MUST BE
ATTACHED TO THE FILE COPY OF THIS FORM, IF REQUIRED OR AVAILABLE.
CF: Devine, Tarbell, & Associates, Attn: James McRacken, 400 S.Tryon Street, Suite 2401, Charlotte, NC 28285
APPENDIX B
PADDY CREEK ESSI INDIVIDUAL PERMIT
SOOT Z Z 833 03AI3338
DEPARTMENT OF THE ARMY
WILMINGTON DISTRICT, CORPS OF ENGINEERS
151 PATTON AVENUE
ROOM 208 ORIGINAL
ASHEVILLE, NORTH CAROLINA 28801-5006 February 15, 2005

Regulatory Division
Action ID. 200331252
Mr. Jonathan R. Wise, Project Manager
Duke Power
Post Office Box 1006
Charlotte, NC 28201
Dear Mr. Wise:
In accordance with your written request of September 27, 2004, and the ensuing
administrative record, enclosed are two copies of a Department of the Army permit to
permanently impact 1.82 acres of jurisdictional wetlands and 639 linear feet of jurisdictional
stream channel; and temporarily impact 472 linear feet of jurisdictional stream channel,
associated the construction of a stability berm on the downstream side of the existing Paddy
Creek Dam at Lake James in Burke 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 the Regulatory Division,
Wilmington District, Corps of Engineers 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 $100.00, made payable to the Finance and Accounting Officer,
USAED, Wilmington. The check should accompany the signed and dated copies of your permit.
In addition, I have enclosed a copy of the Notification of Administrative Appeal Process
and Options and Request for Appeal. Please carefully read Section "A" of this form for
information regarding the appeal process for proffered permits.
2
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. Should you have questions, contact
Ms. Rebekah L. Newton, Regulatory Division, telephone [phone], extension 232.
Sincerely,
Scott McLendon
Chief, Asheville Regulatory Field Office
Enclosures
Copy Furnished with enclosures:
44r. James McRacken
Devine Tarbell & Associates
400 South Tryon Street WC2401
Charlotte, NC 28285.
oo? WAr4?9pc
r
>
o c
Michael F. Easky. Governor
William G. Ross Jr., Secretary
North Carolina Department of Environment and Natural Resources
December 4, 2004
Mr. Jonathan R. Wise
Duke Power
P.O. Box 1006 (Mail Code EC 13J)
Charlotte, NC, 28201-1006
Alan W. Klimek, P.E. Director
??Divicion of water Quality
El1 VEQ
DEC U 920041,
CESAWCO_RA
Re: Stability Berm on the Downstream Side of the Existing Paddy Creek Dam
Burke County
DWQ #04-1583; USACE Action ID. No. 200331252
APPROVAL of 401 Water Quality Certification
Dear Mr. Wise:
Attached hereto is a copy of Certification No. 3484 issued to Mr. Jonathan R. Wise of Duke Power, dated
December 4, 2004. 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 at 919-733-1786.
Sincerely,
/64
///-"'Alan W. Klimek, P.E.
AW Klcbk
Attachments: Certificate of Completion
cc: U.S. Army Corps of Engineers, Asheville Regulatory Field Office
Wilmington District, USACOE
Kevin Barnett, DWQ, Asheville Regional Office
DLR Asheville Regional Office
File Copy
Central Files
Filename: 04583Paddy(Burke)401
401 Wetlands CerWlcedon unit
1650 Mall Service Center, Raleigh, North Carolina 27695-1850
2321 Crabtree Boulevard, Sidle 250, Raleigh. North Cardhe 27604
Phony 919.733.17861 FAX [phone] f intemet hUojA2o.enr.state.nc.us/ncwetiands
? ,a b
Mr. Jonathan R. Wise of Duke Power.
Page 2 of 4
December 4, 2004
NORTH CAROLINA 401 WATER QUALITY CERTIFICATION
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 (DWQ)
Regulations in 15 NCAC 2H, Section.0500 to Mr. Jonathan R. Wise of Duke Power to fill 1.86 acres of
jurisdictional wetlands and 1,297 linear feet of streams (808 feet of which includes permanent impacts) in
the Catawba River Basin, associated with the construction of a stability berm on the downstream side of the
existing Paddy Creek Dam in Burke County, North Carolina, pursuant to an application filed on the 8th day
of October of 2004 (received October 18, 2004).
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 DWQ 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:
Amount Approved Plan Location or Reference
(Units)
Stream 1,297 (feet) Public Notice
404/LAMA Wetlands At least 1.86 (acres) Public Notice
final ratio to be
determined by Corps
of Engineers in 404
Permit
Waters N/A (acres)
Buffers N/A (square ft.)
Sediment and Erosion Control:
2. 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 in
order to protect surface waters standards:
Mr. Jonathan R. Wise of Duke Power.
Page 3 of 4
December 4, 2004
a. The erosion and sediment control measures for the project must be designed,
installed, operated, and maintained in accordance with the most recent version of the
North Carolina Sediment and Erosion Control Planning and Design Manual.
b. The 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.
c. 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.
d. The reclamation measures and implementation must comply with the reclamation in
accordance with the requirements of the Sedimentation Pollution Control Act.
3. 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 404/401Permit Application. 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 quality standards,
statutes, or rules occur,
4. Sediment and erosion control measures shall not be placed in wetlands or waters to the maximum extent
practicable. If placement of sediment and erosion control devices in wetlands and waters is
unavoidable, they shall be removed and the natural grade restored within six months of the date that the
Division of Land Resources has released the project;
Continuing Compliance:
5. Mr. Jonathan R. Wise and Duke Power 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. Jonathan R.
Wise and Duke Power 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. Jonathan R. Wise and Duke Power 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;
Mitigation:
6. Compensatory Mitigation Using the Ecosystem Enhancement Program (EEP)
Mitigation must be provided for the proposed impacts as specified in the table below. We
understand that you wish to make a payment to the Wetlands Restoration Fund administered by
the NC Ecosystem Enhancement Program (EEP) to meet this mitigation requirement. This has
been determined by the DWQ to be a suitable method to meet the mitigation requirement. Until
Mr. Jonathan R. Wise of Duke Power.
Page 4 of 4
December 4, 2004
the EEP receives and clears your check (made payable to: DENR - Ecosystem Enhancement
Program Office), 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 one month from the date of this approval to make this payment. For
accounting purposes, this Authorization Certificate authorizes payment into the Wetlands
Restoration-Fund to meet the following compensatory mitigation requirement:
Compensatory Mitigation
Required River and Sub-basin Number
Stream 808 feet 03050101
Wetlands 1.86 (acres) 03050101
Waters N/A (acres)
Other conditions:
8. Certificate of Completion
Upon completion of all work approved within the 401 Water Quality Certification or applicable
Buffer Rules, and any subsequent modifications, the applicant is required to return the attached
certificate of completion to the 401/Wedands Unit, North Carolina Division of Water Quality,
1650 Mail Service Center, Raleigh, NC, 27699-1650.
Also, this approval to proceed with your proposed impacts or to conduct impacts to waters as
depicted in your application shall expire upon expiration of the 404 Permit.
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 150E 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 4th day of December 2004
DIVISION OF WATER QUALITY
11,61, Al W. Klimek, P.E.
3484
AWKlcbk
oaOF WA
TF?ppG Michael F. Easley, Governor
y William G. Ross Jr., Secretary
C r North Carolina Department of Environment and Natural Resources
0 Alan W. Klimek, P.E. Director
Division of Water Quality
North Carolina Division of Water Quality
401 Water Quality Certification
Summary of Permitted Impacts and Mitigation Requirements
In accordance with 15A NCAC 2H.0500, Mr. Jonathan R. Wise of Duke Power has permission as outlined below
to impact 1.86 acres of wetlands and 1,297 linear feet of streams for the purpose(s) of construction of a stability
berm on the downstream side of the existing Paddy Creek Dam in Burke County. All activities associated
with these authorized impacts must be conducted with the conditions listed in the attached Permit transmittal letter.
THIS PERMIT IS NOT VALID WITHOUT THE ATTACHMENTS.
COMPENSATORY MITIGATION REQUIREMENTS, ECOSYSTEM ENHANCEMENT PROGRAM
LOCATION: Paddy Creek Dam
COUNTY Burke
BASIN/ SUB BASIN 03050101
As required by 15A NCAC 211.0500, and the conditions of this Permit, you are required to compensate for the above
impacts through the restoration, creation, enhancement or preservation of wetlands and surface waters 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:
1.86 Acres of Class WL wetlands
1,297 Linear feet of streams (808 of which is permanent impacts)
Mitigation:
At least1.86 Acres of Class WL wetlands; final ratio to be determined by Corps of Engineers
808 Linear feet of streams
In correspondence dated April 15, 2004, the EEP indicated that up to 5.8 acres and/or 1300 linear feet of mitigation
will be conducted by EEP if necessary.
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 it 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
AUPHORIZED UNTIL YOU RECEIVE NOTIFICATION THAT YOUR PAYMENT HAS BEEN PROCESSED
BY THE ECOSYTEM ENHANCMENT PROGRAM.
Signature Date
ECOSYSTEM ENHANCEMENT PROGRAM
1619 Mail Service Center
RALEIGH, N.C. 27669-1619
[phone]
Filename: 04583Paddy(Burke)EEP
40t Wetlands Certficalion Unit -
1650 MGM Servioa Center, Raleigh, North Carolina 27699.1650
2321 Crabtree Soulevard, Suite 250, Releiph, North Carolina 27604
Phone: [phone]/ FAX [phone] Internet; h tp jM.erx state no usft wetlands
An Equal OpportuntylAtlhnaWe Action Emobver - 50X, Recvdo&lo% Post Crxk"mnr Parer
1?` Caro 'nor
,lu/n?}y
A licant: Duke Power, Jonathan Wise File Number: 200331252 Date:02/10/2005
Attached is: See Section below
X INITIAL PROFFERED PERMIT Standard Permit or Letter of permission) A
PROFFERED PERMIT Standard Permit or Letter of permission) B
PERMIT DENIAL C
APPROVED JURISDICTIONAL DETERMINATION D
PRELIMINARY JURISDICTIONAL DETERMINATION E
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 all 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.
B: PROFFERED PERMIT: You may accept or 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 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 all rights
to appeal the permit, including its terms and conditions, and approved jurisdictional determinations associated with the permit.
• APPEAL: If you choose to decline the proffered permit (Standard or LOP) because of certain terms and conditions therein,
you may appeal the declined permit under the Corps of Engineers Administrative Appeal Process by completing Section II 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.
C: PERMIT DENIAL: 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 II 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.
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.
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.
If you have questions regarding this decision
process you may contact:
Rebekah L. Newton
CESAW-RG-A
U.S Army Corps of Engineers, Wilmington District
151 Patton Avenue, Room 208
North Carolina 28801-5006
appeal If you only have questions regarding the appeal process you may
also contact:
Mr. Michael F. Bell, Administrative Appeal Review Officer
CESAD-ET-CO-R
U.S. Army Corps of Engineers, South Atlantic Division
60 Forsyth Street, Room 9M15
Atlanta, Georgia 30303-8801
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 opportunity to participate in all site investigations.
Date:
of appellant or
DIVISION ENGINEER:
Commander
Telephone number:
U.S. Army Engineer Division, South Atlantic
60 Forsyth Street, Room 9M15
Atlanta, Georgia 30303
DEPARTMENT OF THE ARMY PERMIT
Permittee DUKE POWER
Permit No. 200331252
Issuing Office CESAW-RGA
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 that office acting under the authority of the commanding officer.
You are authorized to perform work in accordance with the terms and conditions specified below.
Project Description to construct an Earthen Counterweight Stability Berm that will support the
downstream slope of the existing structure during and following an earthquake. Approximately 1.82 acres
of jurisdictional wetlands and 639 linear feet of jurisdictional stream channel will be permanently
impacted; and 472 linear feet of jurisdictional stream channel will be temporarily impacted due to the
construction of the stability berm on the downstream side of the existing Paddy Creek Dam at Lake James.
Project Location: Lake James, west of Morganton, Burke County, North Carolina
Permit Conditions:
General Conditions:
1. The time limit for completing the work authorized ends on December 31, 2008 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 Condition 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 is eligible for listing in the National Register of
Historic Places.
ENG FORM 1721, Nov 86 EDITION OF SEP 82 IS OBSOLETE. (33 CFR 325 (Appendix A))
4. If you sell the property associated 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. Foryour 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 by law.
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.
e. Damage claims associated with any future modification, suspension, or revocation of this permit.
4. Reliance on Applicant's Data: The determination of this office that issuance of this permit is not contrary to the public
interest was made 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 33 CFR 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, this office may in certain situations
(such as those specified in 33 CFR 209.170) accomplish the corrective measures 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.
(PERM=S) DUKE POWER
(DATE)
This permit becomes effective when the Federal official, designated to act for the Secretary of the Army, has signed below.
(DISTRICT ENGINEER) CHARLES R. ALEXANDER, JR, 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 the transferee sign and date below.
(TRANSFEREE)
(DATE)
"U.S. GOVERNMENT PRINTING OFFICE: 1996 - 717-425
SPECIAL CONDITIONS
Work Limits
a) All work authorized by this permit 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 permit,
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) If the North Carolina Division of Water Quality has issued a conditioned Water Quality
Certification for your project, the conditions of that certification are hereby incorporated as
special conditions of this permit. For your convenience, a copy of the certification is
attached if it contains such conditions.
e) 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 (919) 733-
5083, Ext. 526 or [phone] and provisions of the North Carolina Oil Pollution and
Hazardous Substances Control Act will be followed.
Project Maintenance
f) Unless otherwise authorized 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 (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
2
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 I I3A 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.
k) Upon completion of the Paddy Creek Dam ESSI project, all temporary crossings will be
removed and all temporary impacts areas will be returned to their original contours and
elevations.
Mitigation
1) The permittee shall mitigate for 639 linear feet of unavoidable stream impacts and 1.82
acres of unavoidable wetland impacts associated with this project by payment to the
North Carolina Ecosystem Enhancement Program (NCEEP) in the amount necessary to
perform restoration to 639 linear feet of cool water stream channels and 2.73 acres of
riparian wetlands in the Catawba River Basin (Cataloging Unit 03050101). Construction
within jurisdictional areas on the property shall begin only after the permittee has made
full payment with certified check to the NCEEP and provided a copy of the payment
documentation to the Corps, and the NCEEP has made written confirmation to the
District Engineer, that it agrees to accept responsibility for the mitigation work required,
pursuant to Paragraph IV.D. of the Memorandum of Understanding between the North
Carolina Department of Environment and Natural Resources and the U.S. Army Corps of
Engineers, Wilmington District, dated November 4, 1998.
m) As part of on-site measures to protect the remaining two dwarf-flowered heartleaf
populations, the permittee shall implement the Conservation Measures outlined in the US
Fish and Wildlife Service Biological Opinion dated October 28, 2004.
V.-OML
IMIAW\\�

Stale Road 1233
ROMT Maintained)
Berns Top Width
Approximately
150 foot
F•
Ae
urine Tarbsib Alsumiates. Inc.
COMMA NO tNw*a lid M A6 • AepdMery lpeIdeb
'41 TA J?0iO1Asa,l n try.* Sweet
G'hW"tte.MC 2a26s
Existing
Paddy Creek
Darn -
1225 Ft. •I-
Late jams
PCVM A
F 19we 4
Paddy Creak
StaDi)ity Sere Smation
Proposed
Construction
Access Road
Power
Transmission
R/lI
Paddy Creels
ESSI Project
Boundary
O

Non-Impacted
Streom
Devine TarbelIt Associates. Inc.
CO-Mine [ndn..r., SC46q.e.. 6 tt rmory spWbr t.
T 400 South Tryon Str..t
?A sate z4ot
Choratt.. NC 28285
Linville Power Station
......
-o
isting
24 Culvert
Drainage a
le ft
1 ?
x
1
x
1
Non-Impacted 00 ° 00 200 300
Wetland
A DIV.OF DUKE
TATION
Figure 11
Revised Drainage ail Mop
Proposed r
Sod Iment '
11 Stream
2-1
Stream
Impact
2-1
Impact ?t ? ?? o?ty
. •. rj ay
2-1 0, 0
imopacted
Wetland-.,--' ?'
•
• ?
I '
Stream'
Impact ,
1
DWn
2
Non-lnpacted
Stream
Proposed
Sediment
Bas;ns
Ex. Dirt
Access
Rood
,
e,
U
?a
/• '0 I
?- Exis#4/nq 8;'? ,
Culvert
•Strea
Proposed
Didfwbance
Unfits
Pad dy Creek
FSSI Boundary
* 5044k Tryon str." 100 0 100 200 300
400
V +.. 24206
11 J!!n=
%

A
Figure 12
Orvinoge Q
I ffowt Map
r
Proposed
DistLwtaneS
A Limits
y?G?\
\°ba
J?
?O
?0a
Q<
/ExiatinS
,36' CUP
?u 1 ver t
1100
1080
1060
y- O
Q Q
h
I to
U
f U
? Q
DraiaW Proposed
i SeduMnt
/ Basin
Y ?
S f ??t pr?osed t1o
permanent
Stream Impact
?? 3-1 /
,r ?? ??
•..? Impacted y
?.` Strewn
JurisdIctiOrwl I
Met land !
• --.._.____._ ?` ?? 50 0 50 t OQ
ExistinglGround
0+00 1+00
STREAM CROSSING 3-1
M. ? ? 7Me?rws
aoo = rrym sv.d
olI = 5
i
i
I
CORP.
N
Fiqure 13
Drainage 03
Impost um
4-t
Iepocted
Vat Iand
prCpossd
Stability Be Exisil Culvert
Fill Limit 36-Inch CUP
j
Pro~
Disturbance
Limits
?.?. 4-1
?. ? Inpocted .
wetland
t
PrWased
Owl Toe Drains
Inf$Owinq??•?
str
•
Hon-Inpoctsd - - j
we tlands l Proposed
1 Disturbarce
Ltwtt&
?
N
1 1 ? ?
1
1• j
f
. f
•,I 1 • 1
• y
1 1 1 1 1,.
i . 1.
6 Associotes. inc.
1 4 ,SwAk Tryon su"t
?W 2b2eS
so 0 so 100
MLJw
A DM W I
s wl
Mop
Proposed
lspacted Stability Berle
wetiano Flit Limit
4-1
Existing Culvert
36-Inch CMP
Impacted
Streams
r? 4-4
Proposed Dual
Tae Drains ExTsting Culvert
16-inch Cif
n?
J
a5
?w
•
u

4!

.. Imported
•otIand
?•
C 4 -2
?CC' J
O?
5
u Fd00esd
Disturbance
Limits
Existing Culverts
Two 36-Inch CMP.
q .
Non-iavactsa
wetland
i
i
i
•? r ?i• •1 •L
L?
•!•
Nan- I apoct ad
.? wetland
.1,
rd
InpOCted Metland
4 -3
r --------------
Proposed
r•-- Disturbance
Disturbance
1 Limits
f
i
f
i
1
I
I
•
l
wssvcwawsnn.t?u
s. u+c. UUM 8 POWU 1TDATE R. If
a.?r
/5?O X10. 50 100 a lour
sU. 4=7 Ispool
2e2l6
O N4
Mop
.•
00 0, Non-Impoctod
Stream .
Paddy Crook
ESSI Project ??
Boundary •?
rr*rrr
P1 0118d
O 1 atu•AR1 M
Limits
V
Is
N •

Tenporory
Impacted
Stream
4-S
Non-lapocted
Stream
Existing Culvert
1d-Inch CMP,
Propoaed
Haul ` -
Route
p????-kot11 ftotit
e
Teeporory
Impacted
Stream
4-6

impacted
stet I and
+-7 Ndn-Impacted
I / Vetland

Non-Impacted / ?; '? ?.
Stream r t - •? \•
•
Non-Iroacted m ?? ,•` ?•N
Wet Iand Exiatinq ?? •\
'.L i.
V? .y. 18cuIt h C1P •?• •\
1. ? l w .- t ?? •\.
rte,~T~?? \•
•? ??1r?rr•rrr ?
?'? PraPOasO Motch Lin&
rte' 01sturpanae
?•? L imits Cant Inyss an Sflsst _ 01 s
Devine. TorbeY i Associates. Inc.
C.Mnw1M ENO-9. teiMtW?. • e. wr s?«IrM/.
,I, So o 50 ,oo
.A Tryon ? -+
,. +
Proposed
Ol atu rban ce
Linos
A' DIV. Or OUIL DOW CON
ATER 14YORO STATION
Figure, V?
Oral --go 04
1 rooct map
Continues an Sheaf S of 4
Match Line '?.
Proposed
DistWbonce
Llwita
non-Inpocted'
Strewn
Tenparary
Stream lapact 4-0
?`` .` t
Or'Op? ` ? ,?'? 1
1 ?
1 J
`? { 1 J
? ? t J
Permanent
Stream 1mDOCt 4-1
lepactea
Stream
4-0 .ice'
1 { 1
1
? ? I 1 J
? d+ 1 1
? a 1 1 t
{ 1 ?t
{ 1
1 j 1
• r
1 1
t {
I
Prapoeed
? ? Oiafvrbonae
1 Ltwifs
I ?
,`??? ?1 Iron-tapocted ?,
Strom ?I
1
t
'I
I f
Stream
J . Existing rt
I i Culvert
3t:-inch CUP
' ? Np1-lapocted
Wet i and
arbelt i Associates, Inc.
t.rw..rasi swe..• p.r".y sees
so 0 50 100
free sueet
ClgrbttR NC 282s3
ispocted
Str
eam \
3-1
Orain9e"?"n
Li
L ..._,
Pla POWER A DIV. or DUKF Im
MIOCEIitAMR NY= St
Orai r?iage rai
IePact Mop
$5

CORP.
Mindy $
x?
moo
ull..'u o
T, . C
-0r 8
Ohm
ID IA al
V
m
OQ0
E L
r N
Z
V
0 t ?I
,0?
g}
J
r
a•
r ?
00.-
w .`.. E
to .-..
ke-

0
SSE
? ? O

z
Devine Torbell4 Associotss. ZIncT 4 A Try*^ SI?fd
, NC 30213

D

L
V
P
C

t
_b
X
W

m
m
m CO CD
I
m i
t
to i
0 ?
V
m
m
+
M
Figure 16 05
Roos Crossing Location map
APPENDIX C
AGENCY LETTERS
I/
-,?c?stem
PROGRAM
March 9, 2010
Jon Wise
Duke Energy Carolinas, LLC
PO Box 1006
Charlotte, NC 28201-1006 Expiration of Acceptance: December 9, 2010
Project: Linville Dam ESSI Project County: Burke
The purpose of this letter is to notify you that the North Carolina Ecosystem Enhancement Program (NCEEP) is willing to accept
payment for impacts associated with the above referenced project. Please note that this decision does not assure that the payment 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 comply with all other state, federal or local
government permits regulations or authorizations associated with the proposed activity including SL 2009-337: An Act to Promote
Compgnsatory Mitigation by Private Mitigation Banks.
This acceptance is valid for nine 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.nceep.net.
Based on the information supplied by you the impacts that may require compensatory mitigation are summarized in the following
table.
River
Basin CU
Location Stream (feet) Wetlands (acres) Buffer I
(Sq. Ft.) Buffer 11
(Sq. Ft.)
Cold Cool Warm Riparian Non-Riparian Coastal Marsh
Impact Catawba 03050101 580 0 428 0.25 0 0 0 0
Credits Catawba 03050101 1,160 0 856 0.50 0 0 0 0
Upon receipt of payment, EEP will take responsibility for providing the compensatory mitigation. If the regulatory agencies require
mitigation credits greater than indicated above, and the applicant wants NCEEP to be responsible for the additional mitigation, the
applicant will need to submit a mitigation request to NCEEP for approval prior to permit isst.ance. The mitigation will be performed
in accordance with the Memorandum of Understanding between the N.C. Department of Environment and Natural Resources and the
U.S. Army Corps of Engineers dated November 4, 1998.
If you have any questions or need additional information, please contact Kelly Williams at [phone].
Sincerely,
t eq_
Wi i D. Gilmore, PE
Director
cc: Ian McMillan, NCDWQ Wetlands/401 Unit
Amanda Jones, USACE-Asheville
James McRacken, agent
File
Rutoru2,... E ... Prot" Our State,
RNA
North Carolina Ecosystem Enhancement Program, 1652 Mail Service Center, Raleigh, NC 27699-16521919-715-0476 / www.nceep.net
phniuke
E
e.
April 1, 2010
Ms. Kimberly D. Bose, Secretary
Federal Energy Regulatory Commission
8881st Street, NE
Washington D.C. 20426
MAJOR PROJECTS- CAROUNAS
s so" Cr &
Cimlonte, NC 28202
Protect MadbwAdWers
5657 Rays Daby Avenue
Morganton, NC 28655
Re: Catawba Waterse Hydroelectric Project, Project No. 2232
Embankment Seismic Stability Improvements at the Bridgewater
Development
ESA Section 7 Nonfederal Representative Request Letter Re-submittal
Dear Ms. Bose:
Duke Energy Carolinas, LLC. (Duke Energy) is re-submitting this request for Duke Energy to
act as the Federal Energy Regulatory CornmissWs (FERC) nonfederal restive in regards
to the section 7 consultation process of the Endangered Species Act. The accepianoe of this
request will streamline any future consultation with the U.S. Fish and Wildlife Service (USFWS)
regarding the Linville Dam Embankment Seismic Stabilization Improvements (ESSI) Project.
This request is identical to a previous request dated March 16 and mailed to FERC but
apparently has not arrived.
The Linville Dan ESSI project could potentially impact federally listed species during planned
construction. The Linville Dam is looted in Burke County, North Carolina, and is a component
of the Bridgewater Hydroelectric Development, which is owned and operated by Duke Energy.
The current county list for Burke County from the USFWS is dated August 28, 2009 (A.
Ratzlaff, personal communication, March 9, 2010) which presented a list of federally
endangered, threatened, and federal species of concern. The species that are federally protecIed
that could occur within the county are the Bald Eagle (Haliaeetus leucocephalus), Bog Turtle
(Clemmys muhlenbergrir), dwarf-flowered heartleaf (Hexastylis nanitlora), whine irisette
(Sisyrinchium dichotomum), Heller's blazing star (Liatris hellen), mountain golden heather
(Hudsonia montane), small whorled pogonia (Isotda medeoloides), spreading avens (Geum
radiatum) and 19 other federal species of concern. Although preliminary, the only potential
project impacts are in association with the dwarf-flowered heartleaf and the Bald Eagle (Bald
and Golden Eagle Protection Act).
www.duke-energy.com
The status of consultation between Duke Energy and the USFWS and a surrrrrary of ongoing and
planned activities are provided below.
• Duke Energy is in the process of discussing the project work scope with the USFWS,
which primarily consists of construction of an earthfill =mle m eW stability, berm
along the downstream slope of Linville Dam. The work is being perfomried to increase
the seismic stability of the dam, as required by the FERC's Division of Dam Safety aid
Irrr$.
• Duke Energy is in the process of performing field surveys to determine species prieseynoe
and intends to submit, on FERC's behalf, a Biological Assessment (BA). The BA will
dim= potential indirect and direct impacts required as part of the project.
• After the BA is submitted to the USFWS, the need for formal consultation will be
assessed.
Should you have any questions or comments regarding this rent or the federally listed species
oonsultation, please heel free to contact me at [phone] or Jaynes Mc tacker with
HDRIDTA at [phone]. In addition, my direct mailing address is 5657 Rays Dairy Ave,
Morganton, North Carolina 28655.
Sincerely,
Duke Energy Carolinas, LLC
L a W?
R. Wise
Project Director
CC. Brian Chrisrnan - HDRIDTA
,lames Mc Radw - HDRIDTA
?s+aAAigo?
North Carolina Department of Cultural Resources
State Historic Preservation Office
Peter B. Sandbeck, Administrator
Michael F. Easley, Governor
Usbeth C Evans, Secretary
Jeffrey J. Crow, Deputy Secretary
August 21, 2008
Michael O'Neal
Archaeological Consultants of the Carolinas, Inc.
121 E. First Street
Clayton, NC 27520
Office of Archives and History
Division of Historical Resources
David Brook, Director
Re: Linville Dam ESSI Tracts, Bridgewater Hydroelectric Powerhouse, Lake James, Burke County, ER 07-0923
Dear Mr. O'Neal:
Thank you for your letter of July 9, 2008, transmitting the archaeological survey for the above project. During the
course of the survey, three sites were located within the project area and one previously recorded site location was
investigated.
For purposes of compliance with Section 106 of the National Historic Preservation Act, we concur that the
following properties are not eligible for listing in the National Register of Historic Places:
31BK9, 31BK489** and 31BK490**
No further work is recommended at these sites in connection with this project.
One cemetery, 31BK488*, was not fully evaluated for National Register eligibility. If the cemetery cannot be
avoided by borrow activities, additional background research is recommended to assess the significance of the site,
and procedures outlined in G.S. 65-13 must be followed for removal of graves. A North Carolina cemetery survey
form should be completed for the cemetery.
The above comments are made pursuant to Section 106 of the National Historic Preservation Act and the Advisory
Council on Historic Preservation's Regulations for Compliance with Section 106 codified at 36 CFR Part 800.
Thank you for your cooperation and consideration. If you have questions concerning the above comment, please
contact Renee Gledhill-Earley, environmental review coordinator, at 919/807-6579. In all future communication
concerning this project, please cite the above referenced tracking number.
Sincerely,
IL? %%&U?- &
eter Sandbeck
Location: 109 Hast)oncs Strcct, Raleigh NC 27601 Mailing Address: 4617 Mail Service Center, Raleigh NC 2769911617 Telephone/Fax: [phone]-6599
1231'2003 21:30 FAX
?J 02
G- 50
North Carolina Department of Cultural Resources
State Historic Preservation Office
David L. S. Brook, Adminietratxr
Michael l Esaley, Governor Division of Historical Resotuses
Lisbeth ( Ev tne, Secretary
Jeffroy J. 'mw. Deputy Secretary
Office o. krcItives and History
December 19, 2003
cobby Southerlin
Arc laeological Consultants of the Carolinas, Inc.
Chase Drive
.elma, NC 27376
Rg- Bridgewater Paddy Creek Borrow Tracts, Burke and McDowell Counties, ER03-3017
Dear ,Mr. 5outherhn:
?hank you for your letter of October 19, 2003, transmitting the archaeological survey report for the
d bo to project-
During the course of the ,L rvcv, four sites were located W"Ithin the project area. One potentially
eligible site w dl be avoided and protected during construction. The report authors have
recommended that no further archaeological inve,tigauon be conducted in connection, with this
project. We concur with this recommerdation since the project will not involve significant
d,retaeological or historic arch:tccrurai resources
The above comments are made pursuant to Section 106 of the National 1-hstonc Preservation Act
d nd the Advisory Council on Historic Preservation's Regulations for Compliance with Section 106
codified at 36 CFR Part 800.
Thank you for your cooperation and consideration. If you have questions concerning the above
e orr went, please contact Renee Gledhill-Earley, environmeutal review coordinator, at 919/733-
761. In all future corrtnurucation concerning this project, please cite the above-referenced tracking
number.
,inc erekv,
David Brook
J
www.hoo.der.at&te.nc.us
I'Muou Mailles Addreo TekproselFu
ADMINI.' r1tAT10N 507 N. Blount St, Raleigh NC 4611 Maul Smrke Center. Raleigh NC 27699-4617 [phone] •733.8653
JUM 010 TICN 515 N Blount St. Raleigh NC 4617 Mail Smioe Crater, Ra ciglt NC 276994617 (919) 7336547 .715-4SOl
SURVEY 4 PIANNLNG 515 N Blount St. Raleigh NC 4617 Mail Smlcc Ccn=. Raleigh NC 27699-4617 [phone] •7154WI
sr?
North Carolina Department of Cultural Resources
State Historic Preservation Office
Peter B Sen&cdr. Administrawr
Michael F. Easley, Ooveraor
Lisbeth C. Evans, Secretary
Jeffrey J. Crow, Deputy Secretary
August 2, 2004
Jonathan R. Wise, Project Manager
Duke Power
526 S. Church Street
Charlotte, NC 28202-1802
Re: Cultural Resources Survey Addendum Submittal
Catawba-Wateree Hydroelectric Project, Project No. 2232
Bridgewater Paddy Creek Borrow 'T'racts, ER 03-3017
Burke and McDowell Counties
Dear Mr. Wise:
Office of Archives and History
Division of Historical Resources
David Brook, Director
Thank you for your letter of April 22, 2004 transmitting the addendum archaeological research report by
Bobby Southerlin of Archaeological Consultants of the Carolinas, Inc. We apologize for the delay in our
response.
During the course of the survey, the remains of a cistern or springhouse and one Native American
archaeological site (31BK424) were located within the project area The cistern may not meet the 50-year age
requirement and the major portion of the prehistoric site is located outside the project area. Due to these
factors, Mr. Southerlin has recommended that no further archaeological investigation be conducted in the
project area covered by this addendum report. We concur with this recommendation.
The above comments are made pursuant to Section 106 of the National Historic Preservation Act and the
Advisory Council on Historic Preservation's Regulations for Compliance with Section 106 codified at 36 CFR
Part 800.
Thank you for your cooperation and consideration. If you have questions concerning the above comment,
please contact Renee Gledhill-Earley, environmental review coordinator, at 919/733-4763. In all future
communication concerning this project, please cite the above referenced tracking number.
*Ferely,
[1 eter Sandbeck
Deputy State Historic Preservation Officer
Location Malting Addrna Telepbone/Faz
ADMINISTRATION 507 N. Blount Street, Raleigh NC 4617 Mail Service Cents. Raleigh NC 276994617 [phone]/733 8653
RESTORATION 515 N. Blount Strew Raleigh NC 4617 Mail Service Center. Raleigh NC 276994617 (919)7334W/715A801
smvEY & PLANM NG 515 N Blount Street, Raleigh, NC 4617 Mail Service Center, Raleigh NC 27699.4617 [phone]!715-4801
M SWF V
wee
North Carolina Department of Cultural Resources
State Historic Preservation Office
Michael F. Easley, Governor
Lisbcth C. Evans, Secretary
Jeffrey J. Crow, Deputy Secretary
Office of Archives and History
Division of l listurical Rt ,ouu ccs
David L. S. Brook, Dir :u>r
April 28, 2004
Jonathan It. Wise
Project Manager
Duke Power
526 S. Church Street
Charlotte, NC 28202-1802
KEVIN P. SNYDER
MAY 1 1 2004
Re: Paddy Creek I?SSI Project Borrow and Waste Area, Burke Count-, h:R 04-0916
Dear Mr. Wise:
Thank you for your letter of April 6, 2004, transmitting the borrow pit/waste area form for
the above project.
As indicated in the forth attachment, Archaeological Consultants of the Carolinas, Inc.
completed an archaeological survey of a large portion of the project area in )uh. 2003. We look
forward to receiving the archaeological survey report for the additional areas to be included in
the project.
During the initial survey two archaeological sites, 31 BK420 and 31 BK421, were identified
within the area marked on your current project map. The report authors assessed 31 BK420 as
not eligible for inclusion in the National Register of historic ]'laces, and recommended no
further work at the site. We concurred with that recommendation.
31 BK421 was assessed as potentially significant. Iiowcver, according to the survey report,
project plans were modified to allow for the site to be preserved it1 place. Your current map
includes 31 BK421 within the project boundaries. If 31 BK421 will be affected by ground
disturbing activities, additional archaeological work is required prior to initiation of the
project. Archaeological testing to assess the significance of the site will be necessary. If
31 BK421 is to be avoided, please send an updated map indicating the area to be excluded
from the project, including any proposed buffer. If the site is to be protected within the
COnSMLIC6011 zone, equipment operators must be notified and the boundaries must be clearly
marked to ensure that it is not inadvertently disturbed.
The above comments are made pursuant to Section 106 of the National I Iistoric Preservation
Act and the Advisory Council on Historic Preservation's Regulations for Compliance with
Section 106 codified at 36 CPR Part 900.
www.h po.dc r.sta te. nc.us
Location Mailing Address Telephone/Fax
ADMINISTRATION 507 N. Blount St, Raleigh, NC 4617 Mail Service Center, Raleigh, NC 27699-4617 [phone].733-8653
RESTORATION 515 N. Blount St, Raleigh, NC 4617 Mail Service Center, Raleigh, NC 276994617 [phone].7154801
SURVEY & PLANNING 515 N. Blount St, Raleigh, NC 4617 Mail Service Center, Raleigh, NC 276994617 [phone].715-4801
April 28, 2004
Valve 2
"Thank cou for your cooperation and consideration. If you have questions concerning the
above comment, please contact Kence Gledhill Farlcv, environmental rc? lew co,,-dill.W . ?r
919/733-4763. In all future communication concerning this project, please cite the above
referenced tracking number.
Sincerely,
? rl
/ ?-
?David Brook
?J
?aa?STy to?
.w'
North Carolina Department of Cultural Resources
State Historic Preservation Office
Peter B. Sandbeck, Administrator
Michael F. Easley, Governor Office of Archives and History
Lisbeth C. Evans, Secretary Division of Historical Resources
Jeffrey J. Crow, Deputy Secretary David Brook, Director
May 19, 2008
Jennifer Huff
Duke Energy Caolinas
EC12Y/P. O. Box 2006
Charlotte, NC 28201-1006
Re: Replacement of Bridgewater Hydroelectric Powerhouse, F-7, SUB 827, Lake James, Burke
County, ER 07-0923
Dear Ms. Huff:
Thank you for your letter of December 18, 2007, transmitting the archaeological survey report by
Archaeological Consultants of the Carolinas for the above project. We apologize for the delay in our response.
During the course of the survey, no sites were located within the project area. The report authors have
recommended that no further archaeological investigation be conducted in connection with this project. We
concur with this recommendation since the project will not involve significant archaeological resources.
The above comments are made pursuant to Section 106 of the National Historic Preservation Act and the
Advisory Council on Historic Preservation's Regulations for Compliance with Section 106 codified at 36 CFR
Part 800.
Thank you for your cooperation and consideration. If you have questions concerning the above comment,
please contact Renee Gledhill-Earley, environmental review coordinator, at 919/807-6579. In all future
communication concerning this project, please cite the above referenced tracking number.
Sincerely, j
eter Sandbeck
cc: Michael O'Neal and Bobby Southerlin, Archaeological Consultants of the Carolinas, Inc.
Location: 109 bast Jones Street, Raleigh NC 27601 Mailing Address: 4617 Mail Service Center, Raleigh NC 27699-4617 Telephone/Fax: [phone]-6599
APPENDIX D
ADJACENT LANDOWNERS
Date: February 3, 2010
Subject: Linville ESSI Project (Paddy Creek Property) - Adjacent Property Owners List
Note: *Address information obtained from Burke County GIS website 03-31-2004.
*Owner names, parcel numbers, and PIN's obtained are a combination of information from the
Burke County GIS website and research done by Sanborn.
PIN:1753947891
Parcel Address: 5457 5459 POWERHOUSE RD
Parcel Owner: GOOD JOHN R & SHERRY WHITE
5459 POWERHOUSE RD
MORGANTON NC 28655
Deed Reference: Bk. 1582 Pg. 69
PIN: 1753521118
Parcel Address: 5520 RAYS DAIRY AVE
Parcel Owner: BUCHANAN HELEN C
5516 RAYS DAIRY AVE
MORGANTON NC 28655
Deed Reference: Bk. 836 Pg. 172
PIN:1753523140
Parcel Address: 5514 RAYS DAIRY AVE
Parcel Owner: WRIGGELSWORTH RICHARD A & KAY
7401 SPYGLASS WAY
RALEIGH NC 27615
Deed Reference: Bk. 1763 Pg. 341
PIN:1753422262
Parcel Address: RAYS DAIRY AVE
Parcel Owner: LINVILLE METHODIST CHURCH
RT 5 BOX 340
MORGANTON NC 28655
Deed Reference: Bk. 506 Pg. 62
PIN:1753513960
Parcel Address:
Parcel Owner: DUKE ENERGY CAROLINAS LLC
400 SOUTH TRYON ST SUITE 30C
CHARLOTTE NC 28285
Deed Reference: Bk. 1776 Pg. 772
PIN:1753321059
Parcel Address: 2851 CORPENING CHAPEL RD
Parcel Owner: BURLESON CHRISTOPHER EUGENE
2910 CORPENING CHAPEL RD
MORGANTON NC 28655
Deed Reference: Bk. 1451 Pg. 842
PIN: 1753511837
Parcel Address: 5516 RAYS DAIRY AVE
Parcel Owner: BUCHANAN HELEN
5516 RAYS DAIRY AVE
MORGANTON NC 28655
Deed Reference: Bk. 746 Pg. 879
PIN:1763040448
Parcel Address:
Parcel Owner: GREENE T J ET AL
P O BOX 292
CROSSNORE NC 28616
Deed Reference: Bk. 888 Pg. 330
PIN:1763122306
Parcel Address: 5195 POWERHOUSE RD
Parcel Owner: WEBB PHYLLIS & HENSLEY ROBERT
202 LENOIR ST
MORGANTON NC 28655
Deed Reference: Bk. 808 Pg. 1933
PIN:1763124222
Parcel Address: 5175 POWERHOUSE RD
Parcel Owner: SMAWLEY JODI S
5175 POWERHOUSE RD
MORGANTON NC 28655
Deed Reference: Bk. 1752 Pg. 307
PIN:1763025922
Parcel Address:
Parcel Owner: CRESWELL WANDA SUE
5245 POWERHOUSE RD
MORGANTON NC 28655
Deed Reference: Bk. 888 Pg. 814
PIN:1753700108
Parcel Address: 5490 RAYS DAIRY AVE
Parcel Owner: SIMPSON CRK FARMS LLC & KICKIN
3890 SIMPSON CREEK RD
MORGANTON NC 28655
Deed Reference: Bk. 1582 Pg. 627
PIN:1763120507
Parcel Address: 5219 POWERHOUSE RD
Parcel Owner: WHITE VIRGINIA
2770 R R WHITE DR
MORGANTON NC 28655
Deed Reference: Bk. 797 Pg. 883
PIN:1763034613
Parcel Address:
Parcel Owner: GREENE T J ET AL
P O BOX 292
CROSSNORE NC 28616
Deed Reference: Bk. 888 Pg. 330
PIN:1763028771
Parcel Address: 5231 POWERHOUSE RD
Parcel Owner: CRESWELL DONALD SHANE
5231 POWERHOUSE RD
MORGANTON NC 28655
Deed Reference: Bk. 1803 Pg. 701
PIN:1753720152
Parcel Address:
Parcel Owner: KICKINASS LAND & SIMPSON CREEK
4100 TURNER MILL RD
MORGANTON NC 28655
Deed Reference: Bk. 1700 Pg. 103
PIN:1753721770
Parcel Address:
Parcel Owner: KICKINASS LAND & SIMPSON CREEK
4100 TURNER MILL RD
MORGANTON NC 28655
Deed Reference: Bk. 1700 Pg. 91
Date: February 3, 20 10
Subject: Linville ESSI Project (Powerhouse) - Adjacent Property Owners List
Note: *Address information obtained from Burke County GIS website 03-31-2004.
*Owner names, parcel numbers, and PIN's obtained are a combination of information from the
Burke County GIS website and research done by Sanborn.
PIN: 1753975545
Parcel Address:
Parcel Owner: CRESCENT RESOURCES LLC
400 SOUTH TRYON ST SUITE 1300
CHARLOTTE NC 28285
Deed Reference: Bk. 1470 Pg. 913
Date: February 3, 2010
Subject: Linville ESSI Project (Borrow Area 3 Tract) - Adjacent Property Owners List
Note: *Address information obtained from Burke County GIS website 03-31-2004.
*Owner names, parcel numbers, and PIN'S obtained are a combination of information from the
Burke County GIS website and research done by Sanborn.
PIN:1763379283
Parcel Address: 2371 CONLEY BUMGARNER RD
Parcel Owner:
MILLER SHIRLEY JEAN
2371 CONLEY BUMGARNER RD
MORGANTON NC 28655
Deed Reference: Bk. 874 Pg. 763
PIN:1763379016
Parcel Address: 2385 CONLEY BUMGARNER RD
Parcel Owner:
CHADWICK JAMES A TRUSTEE
991 WATERFALL RD
MILLERS CREEK NC 28651
Deed Reference: Bk. 1570 Pg. 376
PIN:1763470400
Parcel Address: 2359 CONLEY BUMGARNER RD
Parcel Owner:
HELTON GARY DEAN & BEVERLY B
2359 CONLEY BUMGARNER RD
MORGANTON NC 28655
Deed Reference: Bk. 867 Pg. 1514
PIN: 1763826960
Parcel Address: 4105 POLLARD AVE
Parcel Owner:
ACUFF CALVIN C TRUSTEE
4105 POLLARD AVE
MORGANTON NC 28655
Deed Reference: Bk. 1713 Pg. 993
PIN: 1763368920
Parcel Address: 2393 2397 CONLEY BUMGARNER RD
Parcel Owner:
KELLEY ALLEN R & BETH K
PO BOX 612
GLEN ALPINE NC 28628
Deed Reference: Bk. 874 Pg. 604
PIN: 1763366668 and 1763362429
Parcel Address: 2414 CONLEY BUMGARNER RD
Parcel Owner:
CRAETON MITCHELL C
P O BOX 1422
LAKE JUNALUSKA NC 28745
Deed Reference: Bk. 1833 Pg. 764
PIN:1763765191
Parcel Address: 4326 POLLARD AVE
Parcel Owner:
CHW MANAGEMENT LLC
712 S STERLING ST
MORGANTON NC 28655
Deed Reference: Bk. 1628 Pg. 127
PIN:1763590487
Parcel Address: 2093 CONLEY BUMGARNER ROAD
Parcel Owner:
SMITH CHARLES ALVIN
3115 CORPENING CHAPEL RD
MORGANTON NC 28655
Deed Reference: Bk. 912 Pg. 1507
PIN:1763988385
Parcel Address: 3736 ST PAULS CHURCH RD
Parcel Owner:
TATE DORA BAKER LIFE ESTATE
P O BOX 1031
BOONE NC 28607
Deed Reference: Bk. 914 Pg. 1406
PIN: 1763830644
Parcel Address:
Parcel Owner:
ACUFF CALVIN C JR
4113 POLLARD AVE
MORGANTON NC 28655
Deed Reference: Bk. 1840 Pg. 505
PIN: 1763481063
Parcel Address: 2301 CONLEY BUMGARNER RD
Parcel Owner:
DUCKWORTH RANDY LEE
2301 CONLEY BUMGARNER RD
MORGANTON NC 28655
Deed Reference: Bk. 756 Pg. 521
PIN:1763695951
Parcel Address: 4155 ST PAULS CHURCH RD
Parcel Owner:
EPLEY KENNETH D & PIERCY MIKAL
4135 ST PAULS CHURCH RD
MORGANTON NC 28655
Deed Reference: Bk. 1422 Pg. 119
PIN:1763718499
Parcel Address:
Parcel Owner:
MORGAN JAMES E & ELIZABETH W
2575 GLENEAGLES DR
TUCKER GA 30084
Deed Reference: Bk. 796 Pg. 36
PIN:1763819779
Parcel Address:
Parcel Owner:
ACUFF CALVIN C TRUSTEE
4105 POLLARD AVE
MORGANTON NC 28655
Deed Reference: Bk. 1713 Pg. 993
PIN: 1763597644
Parcel Address: 2043 CONLEY BUMGARNER RD
Parcel Owner:
KING ELIZABETH ANN
PO BOX 581
GLEN ALPINE NC 28628
Deed Reference: Bk. 937 Pg. 1657
PIN: 1763797559
Parcel Address: 4005 ST PAULS CHURCH RD
Parcel Owner:
LA GUERRE JOANN
1863 HARRISON AVE
BRONX NY 10453
Deed Reference: Bk. 975 Pg. 540
PIN: 1763472711
Parcel Address:
Parcel Owner:
ALLEN BOBBY JOE JR & CAROL W
P 0 BOX 229
GLEN ALPINE NC 28628
Deed Reference: Bk. 952 Pg. 1790
PIN:1763699800
Parcel Address: 4105 ST PAULS CHURCH RD
Parcel Owner:
GRAVELY JAMES W & JANICE D
4105 ST PAULS CHURCH RD
MORGANTON NC 28655
Deed Reference: Bk. 662 Pg. 671
APPENDIX E
REFERENCES CITED
REFERENCES CITED
Cowardin et. al. 1979. Classification of Wetlands and Deepwater Habitats of the United States.
Washington, D.C: U.S. Department of Interior, Fish and Wildlife Service, 1979.
Environmental Laboratory. 1987. Corps of Engineers Wetlands Delineation Manual," Technical
Report Y-87-1. Vicksburg, MS: U.S. Army Engineer Waterways Experiment Station,
1987.
HDR Engineering Inc. of the Carolinas. 2006. Water Supply Study Final Report, Catawba-
Wateree Hydroelectric Relicensing Project. For Duke Energy. April 2006
Knight, David T. 2006. Soil Survey of Burke County, North Carolina. [Online] 2006. [Cited:
October 28, 2008.] http://soildatamart.nres.usda.gov/Manuscripts/NC023/0/Burke.pdf.
Knight, Jon. 2003, Dissolved Oxygen Concentrations and Water Temperature Downstream from
Bridgewater Hydroelectric Station, Duke Energy. September 2003
Schafale, M. P. and Weakley, A. S. 1990. Classification of natural communities of North
Carolina. s.l. North Carolina Heritage Program, N. C. Department of Environment,
Health, and Natural Resources, 1990. Vol. Third approximation.
University of Washington. 2007. What is Soil Liquefaction? Soil Liquefaction. [Online] January
27, 2007. [Cited: January 6, 2009.]
http://www.ce.washington.edu/-Iiquefaction/html/what/what l .html.