20170067 Ver 4_5 - NTE PCN Application_final (2017)_20220318

To:
From:
CC:
Date:
Re:
Environmental Consulting
.& Technology of
North Carolina, PLLC
David Bailey — U.S. Army Corps of Engineers, Sue Homewood — North
Carolina Division of Water Resources (NCDWR)
Christopher Wu — ECT
Garrett Weeks, Ted Sullivan —NTE Carolinas II, LLC; Jennifer Cassada - ECT
June 7, 2017
Preconstruction Notification for the Reidsville Energy Center
NTE Carolinas II, LLC (NTE) is proposing to develop, construct, own, and operate the
Reidsville Energy Center (REC) located at 4563 NC Highway 65 in Reidsville, NC. The
REC is a greenfield, natural gas -fired one-on-one combined cycle gas turbine facility with
a nominal output of 488 MW. The purpose of this project is to meet the growing need for
energy in North Carolina.
The power plant will employ one combustion turbine with supplementary duct firing. The
exhaust heat from the combustion turbine and the supplemental duct firing will be captured
and converted to steam in a Heat Recovery Steam Generator (HRSG) before passing
through a steam turbine to generate additional power. Combined cycle plants, such as the
REC, are beneficial in that they require approximately 90 percent less cooling water than
once -through cooling facilities which require significantly more water to generate the same
output. Combined cycle plants also require significantly less land than dry cooling
facilities, as the air-cooled condenser requires much more land to provide the same cooling
efficiency as a wet cooling tower proposed at the REC.
The REC will require a maximum of approximately 4.2 million gallons per day (MGD) of
source water, the majority of which will be used for cooling water. The majority of the
source water will be supplied by the Dan River but some potable water (approximately
0.06 MGD) will be provided by Rockingham County. The REC's effluent, primarily
consisting of treated cooling tower blowdown, will be discharged back to the Dan River.

For the REC, access roads that require two stream crossings will result in unavoidable
impacts to Waters of the U.S. NTE proposes to install two 48" culverts, of which 20 percent
of both will be buried to allow for unimpeded aquatic passage. A shorter, existing culvert
will be replaced at one of the proposed crossing locations. The extension of the existing
culvert will result in 15 linear feet of perennial stream impacts. The other proposed culvert
will result in 211.6 linear feet of perennial stream impacts for a total of 227 linear feet of
stream impacts for the REC.
For the purposes of this submittal, the intake, outfall, and pipelines associated with the
withdrawal and discharge will be permitted separately through Rockingham County, which
is responsible for the design, construction, ownership and operation of this infrastructure.
This preconstruction notification is solely focused on the construction and operation of the
REC. However, the combined impacts between both projects will result in less than 0.5
acre of impacts to wetlands/open waters and less than 300 linear feet of stream impacts, as
horizontal directional drilling will be employed to avoid impacts to jurisdictional features.
Figures and Appendices
This application submittal package includes the following appendices and figures:
Appendices
• Appendix A: Pre -Construction Notification
• Appendix B: Jurisdictional Determination & Stream Determination
• Appendix C: Division of Mitigation Services Acceptance of Mitigation
• Appendix D: Description of Wastewater Treatment
• Appendix E: Smooth Coneflower Survey Memorandum
• Appendix F: Agency Correspondence
Figures
• Figure
• Figure
• Figure
• Figure
• Figure
• Figure
• Figure
1. Site Location Map
2. Facility Layout
3. General Arrangement
4. Wetlands and Streams
5. Proposed Stream Crossings
6. Alternative Site Layout
7. Soil Map

APPENDICES

M Environmental Consulting
C & Technology of
. North Carolina, PLLC
APPENDIX A
PCN

Office Use Only:
Corps action ID no.
DWQ project no.
Form Version 1.3 Dec 10 2008
APPENDIX A: Pre -Construction Notification (PCN) Form
A. Applicant Information
1. Processing
la. Type(s) of approval sought from the
Corps:
10 Permit
0 Section 404 Permit ❑ Section
lb. Specify Nationwide Permit (NWP) number: 39 or General Permit (GP) number: 4092
lc. Has the NWP or GP number been verified by the Corps?
0 Yes ❑ No
ld. Type(s) of approval sought from
the DWQ (check all that apply):
— Regular ❑ Non-404 Jurisdictional General Permit
— Express ❑ Riparian Buffer Authorization
0 401 Water Quality Certification
❑ 401 Water Quality Certification
le. Is this notification solely for the record
because written approval is not required?
For the record only for DWQ 401
Certification:
For the record only for Corps Permit:
❑ Yes 0 No
❑ Yes /1 No
1f. Is payment into a mitigation bank or in -lieu fee program proposed for mitigation
of impacts? If so, attach the acceptance letter from mitigation bank or in -lieu
fee program.
0 Yes ❑ No
lg. Is the project located in any of NC's twenty coastal counties. If yes, answer lh
below.
❑ Yes 0 No
lh. Is the project located within a NC DCM Area of Environmental Concern (AEC)?
❑ Yes 0 No
2. Project Information
2a. Name of project:
Reidsville Energy Center
2b. County:
Rockingham County
2c. Nearest municipality / town:
Reidsville
2d. Subdivision name:
N/A
2e. NCDOT only, T.I.P. or state
project no:
3. Owner Information
3a. Name(s) on Recorded Deed:
Mark Overby, Pansy Wood Johnson
3b. Deed Book and Page No.
14E Pg: 138 (Overby); 675 Pg: 978 (Johnson)
3c. Responsible Party (for LLC if
applicable):
NTE Carolinas II, LLC - Garrett Weeks
3d. Street address:
4563 NC Highway 65
3e. City, state, zip:
Reidsville, NC 27320-9330
3f. Telephone no.:
904.436.6886
3g. Fax no.:
904.814.8022
3h. Email address:
[e-mail]
Page 1 of 14
PCN Form — Version 1.3 December 10, 2008 Version

4. Applicant Information (if different from owner)
4a. Applicant is:
0 Agent ❑ Other, specify:
4b. Name:
Garrett Weeks
4c. Business name
(if applicable):
NTE Energy
4d. Street address:
24 Cathedral Place, Suite 600
4e. City, state, zip:
Saint Augustine, FL 32084-4465
4f. Telephone no.:
904.436.6886
4g. Fax no.:
904.814.8022
4h. Email address:
[e-mail]
5. Agent/Consultant Information (if applicable)
5a. Name:
Jennifer Cassada
5b. Business name
(if applicable):
Environmental Consulting & Technology of North Carolina, PLLC
5c. Street address:
7208 Falls of Neuse Road, Suite 102
5d. City, state, zip:
Raleigh, NC 27615
5e. Telephone no.:
919-861-8888
5f. Fax no.:
919-615-2102
5g. Email address:
[e-mail]
Page 2 of 14

B. Project Information and Prior Project History
1. Property Identification
la. Property identification no. (tax PIN or parcel ID):
178009; 129944
1 b. Site coordinates (in decimal degrees):
Latitude: 36.333308
Longitude: - 79.833511
(DD.DDDDDD)
(-DD.DDDDDD)
lc. Property size:
157.1 acres
2. Surface Waters
2a. Name of nearest body of water (stream, river, etc.) to
proposed project:
Little Jacobs Creek
2b. Water Quality Classification of nearest receiving water:
Class C
2c. River basin: map is available at
http://h2o.enr.state.nc.us/admin/maps/
Roanoke
Page 3 of 14
PCN Form — Version 1.3 December 10, 2008 Version

3. Project Description
3a. Describe the existing conditions on the site and the general land use in the vicinity of the project at the time of this
application:
The proposed Reidsville Energy Center will be located on two parcels in Rockingham County, NC. The site is located
between New Lebanon Church Road on the west and NC 65 on the east and it currently contains mixed hardwood forests
with areas of hay field and a residence. It is crossed by a Duke Energy transmission line, Transco gas pipelines, and the
Plantation Pipeline.
The site is typical of the North Carolina Piedmont, hilly with moderately steep slopes and creeks in the valleys.
Neighboring land uses consist of single-family residences on large lots at low densities, and a Duke Energy power
generation facility to the south.
3b. List the total estimated acreage of all existing wetlands on the property:
2.7 acres
3c. List the total estimated linear feet of all existing streams (intermittent and perennial) on the property:
9,602 linear feet of perennial stream and 659 linear feet of intermittent stream
3d. Explain the purpose of the proposed project:
The purpose of the project is to construct a natural gas fired, combined cycle power plant to meet the area's growing
demand for energy.
Page 4 of 14

3e. Describe the overall project in detail, including the type of equipment to be used:
The project will include clearing and grading and installation of the facility. Impacts to Waters of the US are limited to the main
access road to the facility crossing UT102 (an unnamed tributary of Little Jacobs Creek) and an access road crossing UT3 (also
an unnamed tributary of Little Jacobs Creek) for connection to the electrical switchyard. NTE proposes to install two 48" culverts
for these stream crossings, of which 20 percent of each will be buried to allow for aquatic passage. The following is a general
description of the sequence of construction for the proposed project. Please note that the contractor may stage these activities
in different areas of the project, but each area would generally follow this sequence. Equipment to be used can include front-end
loaders, excavators, and cranes.
Site Preparation
• Contractor surveys and marks centerlines, tops of banks, and all buffers to jurisdictional streams and wetlands
• Construction erosion and sediment control plan is implemented, including installation of Best Management Practices
(BMPs)
• Clear and grub vegetated areas for project and construction laydown
Grading
• Initiate grading activities, including utilizing designated stockpile areas
• Excavate soils and other in situ materials to achieve designed project rough elevations
• Utilize in situ soils for fill or import structural fill as required to achieve designed project rough elevations
• Construct permanent and construction roads to an aggregate base course
• Inspect and maintain erosion and sediment control plan
Culvert Installation
• Prior to access road construction, install BMPs and temporary diversions, so installation can occur under dry conditions
• 48" culverts will be installed and partially buried (20 percent) to allow for unimpeded aquatic passage
• No fresh concrete will come in contact with jurisdictional waters until the concrete has cured
• Once access roads are constructed and the ground stabilized, temporary BMPs will be removed
Underground Utilities
• Install underground stormwater piping and control elements (e.g., oil -water separator)
• Install direct buried process piping, electrical duct bank, and pre -fabricated trenching
Foundations
• Install deep foundation as required
• Excavate, form, install reinforcement and pour building, equipment, and piping support foundations
Above Grade Construction
• Set and assemble major equipment and structural steel
• Construct buildings
• Install and clean process and steam piping
• Install electrical gear and cable
Interconnections
• Plant interconnections (i.e., HV electrical, process make-up water, process wastewater) are completed and put in
service
System Testing/Commissioning
• Each system is confirmed to be complete through testing, including hydrotesting of piping and electrical testing of cable
• All pieces of equipment are energized and tested individually
• The plant is tested as a complete system to confirm all safety and performance requirements are met.
Final Construction Activities
• Final paving of roads is completed
• Crushed stone is installed within the main plant where needed
• Temporary construction roads and laydown areas are restored to pre -construction conditions.
• Erosion and sediment control measures are repretderational stormwater system is fully commissioned
• Septic/leach field is put into operation.

4. Jurisdictional Determinations
4a. Have jurisdictional wetland or stream determinations by the
Corps or State been requested or obtained for this property /
project (including all prior phases) in the past?
Comments:
0 Yes ❑ No Unknown
4b. If the Corps made the jurisdictional determination, what type
of determination was made?
Preliminary i1 Final
4c. If yes, who delineated the jurisdictional areas?
Name (if known): David Bailey (Corps), Sue Homewood
(DWR)
Agency/Consultant Company: Jennifer Cassada, ECT
Other:
4d. If yes, list the dates of the Corps jurisdictional determinations or State determinations and attach documentation.
DWR provided a stream determination letter on 2/15/2017 (attached). David Bailey provided a JD on 4/28/2017. Both are
in Appendix B.
5. Project History
5a. Have permits or certifications been requested or obtained for
this project (including all prior phases) in the past?
Yes i1 No Unknown
5b. If yes, explain in detail according to "help file" instructions.
6. Future Project Plans
6a. Is this a phased project?
❑ Yes 0 No
6b. If yes, explain.
Page 6 of 14

C. Proposed Impacts Inventory
1. Impacts Summary
la. Which sections
❑ Wetlands
❑ Open Waters
were completed below
for your project (check all that apply):
- tributaries ❑ Buffers
Construction
0 Streams
❑ Pond
2. Wetland Impacts
If there are wetland impacts proposed on the site, then complete this question for each wetland area impacted.
2a.
Wetland impact
number —
Permanent (P) or
Temporary (T)
2b.
Type of impact
2c.
Type of wetland
(if known)
2d.
Forested
2e.
Type of jurisdiction
(Corps - 404, 10
DWQ — non-404, other)
2f.
Area of impact
(acres)
W1 ❑ P ❑ T
Yes
❑ No
Corps❑
❑ DWQ
W2 ❑P❑T
Yes
❑ No
Corps
❑ DWQ
W3 ❑P❑T
Yes
❑ No
Corps
❑ DWQ
W4 ❑ P ❑ T
Yes
❑ No
Corps❑
❑ DWQ
W5 ❑ P ❑ T
Yes
❑ No
Corps❑
❑ DWQ
W6 ❑P❑T
Yes
❑ No
Corps
❑ DWQ
2g. Total wetland impacts
2h. Comments: Not applicable
3. Stream Impacts
If there are perennial or intermittent stream impacts (including temporary impacts) proposed on the site, then complete this
question for all stream sites impacted.
3a.
Stream impact
number -
Permanent (P) or
Temporary (T)
3b.
Type of impact
3c.
Stream name
3d.
Perennial
(PER) or
intermittent
(INT)?
3e.
Type of jurisdiction
(Corps - 404, 10
DWQ — non-404,
other)
3f.
Average
stream
width
(feet)
3g.
Impact
length
(linear
feet)
Culvert
UT102
0 PER
0 Corps
3
15
UT102 0/ P ❑ T
❑ INT
❑ DWQ
Culvert
UT3
0 PER
0 Corps
7
212
UT3 0 P ❑ T
❑ INT
❑ DWQ
S3 ❑P❑T
PER
❑ INT
Corps
❑ DWQ
S4 ❑P❑T
PER
❑ INT
Corps
❑ DWQ
S5 ❑P❑T
PER
❑ INT
Corps
❑ DWQ
S6 ❑P❑T
PER
❑ INT
Corps
❑ DWQ
S7 ❑ P ❑ T
PER
❑ INT
Corps❑
❑ DWQ
S8 ❑P❑T
PER
❑ INT
Corps
❑ DWQ
3h. Total stream and tributary impacts
227
Page 7 of 14

3i. Comments: An existing culvert on UT102 will be replaced with another, longer culvert, resulting in 15 linear feet of impact.
4. Open Water Impacts
If there are proposed impacts to lakes, ponds, estuaries, tributaries, sounds, the Atlantic Ocean, or any other open water of
the U.S. then individually list all open water impacts below.
4a.
Open water
impact number —
Permanent (P) or
Temporary (T)
4b.
Name of waterbody
(if applicable)
4c.
Type of impact
4d.
Waterbody type
4e.
Area of impact (acres)
01 ❑P❑T
02 P T
03 P T
04 P T
4f. Total open water impacts
4g. Comments: Not applicable
5. Pond or Lake Construction
If pond or lake construction proposed, then complete the chart below.
5a.
Pond ID
number
5b.
Proposed use or purpose
of pond
5c.
Wetland Impacts (acres)
5d.
Stream Impacts (feet)
5e.
Upland
(acres)
Flooded
Filled
Excavated
Flooded
Filled
Excavated
Flooded
P1
P2
5f. Total
5g. Comments: Not applicable
5h. Is a dam high hazard permit required?
❑ Yes ❑ No If yes, permit ID no:
5i. Expected pond surface area (acres):
5j. Size of pond watershed (acres):
5k. Method of construction:
Page 8 of 14

6. Buffer Impacts (for DWQ)
If project will impact a protected riparian buffer, then complete the chart below. If yes, then individually list all buffer impacts
below. If any impacts require mitigation, then you MUST fill out Section D of this form.
6a.
Project is in which protected basin?
❑ Neuse ❑ Tar -Pamlico ❑ Other: Jordan
❑ Catawba ❑ Randleman
6b.
Buffer impact
number—
Permanent (P) or
Temporary (T)
6c.
Reason
for
impact
6d.
Stream name
6e.
Buffer
mitigation
required?
6f.
Zone 1 impact
(square feet)
6g.
Zone 2 impact
(square feet)
B1 ❑P❑T
Yes
❑ No
B2 ❑ P ❑ T
Yes
❑ No
B3 ❑ P ❑ T
Yes
❑ No
B4 ❑ P ❑ T
Yes
❑ No
6h. Total buffer impacts
61. Comments: Not applicable
Page 9 of 14

D. Impact Justification and Mitigation
1. Avoidance and Minimization
la. Specifically describe measures taken to avoid or minimize the proposed impacts in designing project.
NTE is proposing to disturb 227 linear feet of perennial stream for access roads. The proposed layout avoids disturbing
onsite wetlands (2.7 acres) and intermittent streams (659 linear feet) on 157.1 acres of potential development areas along
with 9,375 linear feet of perennial stream channels. A combined 10,034 of linear feet of onsite streams, or 98 percent of
onsite streams, and 100 percent of wetlands, would be avoided.
Avoidance of Waters of the U.S. was considered in the early stages of project planning. Combined cycle plants equipped
with wet cooling towers, such as the REC, are beneficial in that they require approximately 90 percent less cooling water
than once -through cooling facilities which require significantly more water to generate the same output. Combined cycle
plants also require significantly less land than dry cooling facilities, as the air-cooled condenser requires much more land
to provide the same cooling efficiency as a wet cooling tower proposed at the REC.
NTE originally proposed to fit the REC on solely the 83 acre Johnson tract. This proposed layout as originally designed
would have the access road to the site crossing the Johnson property from the east which would have resulted in four
stream crossings and the filling of one wetland (Figure 6). This would have resulted in 285 linear feet of stream impacts
and 0.06 acre of wetland impacts.
To minimize impacts, NTE optioned the additional property to the north (Overby) adding approximately 74 acres so that
the access road to the site would cross an existing culvert such that impacts to UT102 would be minimized. In addition,
NTE designed a retaining wall near the crossing of UT3 to further avoid and minimize impacts to the stream. While final
designs for two permanent stormwater detention ponds have yet to be finalized, NTE has determined the locations and
maximum footprints of disturbance for both ponds which will remain outside a voluntary, minimum 50-foot buffer for UT3.
No wetland impacts would occur under the proposed REC layout.
b. Specifically describe measures taken to avoid or minimize the proposed impacts through construction techniques.
NTE proposes to adhere to Federal, State, and Local guidance during construction of the project. In doing so,
unavoidable impacts will be minimized to the extent practicable through the use of best management practices (BMPs)
designed to prevent offsite transport of sediment. NTE will also maintain a 50-foot buffer for Waters of the U.S., the
boundaries of which will be flagged prior to construction.
Construction BMPs will be designed in accordance with applicable regulations such that downstream Waters of the U.S.
are protected. Further, NTE will conduct regular inspections of structural BMPs throughout the construction process to
ensure that BMPs are functioning appropriately as designed.
Installation of culverts will follow the North Carolina Department of Transportation (NCDOT) guidelines. Prior to any work,
erosion control BMPs, which can include silt fence, rock dams, or sediment traps, will be installed. Once installed, NTE
will employ temporary diversion measures, which can include pumping, piping, or impervious dikes, so work can occur
under dry conditions. The 48" culverts will be partially buried, approximately 10 inches, to allow for unimpeded aquatic
passage. No fresh concrete will come into contact with jurisdictional waters until the concrete has cured. Once the access
roads are constructed and the ground stabilized, NTE will remove temporary BMPs.
All construction work will be permitted through the NC Department of Energy, Minerals, and Land Resources (DEMLR).
2. Compensatory Mitigation for Impacts to Waters of the U.S. or Waters of the State
2a. Does the project require Compensatory Mitigation for
impacts to Waters of the U.S. or Waters of the State?
LI Yes ❑ No
2b. If yes, mitigation is required by (check all that apply):
LI DWQ 0 Corps
2c. If yes, which mitigation option will be used for this
project?
❑ Mitigation bank
L Payment to in lieu fee program
❑ Permittee Responsible Mitigation
Page 10 of 14
PCN Form — Version 1.3 December 10, 2008 Version

3. Complete if Using a Mitigation Bank
3a. Name of Mitigation Bank:
3b. Credits Purchased (attach receipt and letter)
Type
Quantity
3c. Comments:
4. Complete if Making a Payment to In -lieu Fee Program - See Appendix C
4a. Approval letter from in -lieu fee program is attached.
0 Yes
4b. Stream mitigation requested:
227 linear feet
4c. If using stream mitigation, stream temperature:
0 warm ❑ cool ❑cold
4d. Buffer mitigation requested (DWQ only):
square feet
4e. Riparian wetland mitigation requested:
acres
4f. Non -riparian wetland mitigation requested:
acres
4g. Coastal (tidal) wetland mitigation requested:
acres
4h. Comments:
5. Complete if Using a Permittee Responsible Mitigation Plan
5a. If using a permittee responsible mitigation plan, provide a description of the proposed mitigation plan.
Not applicable
6. Buffer Mitigation (State Regulated Riparian Buffer Rules) — required by DWQ
6a. Will the
buffer mitigation?
contact
project result in an impact within a protected riparian buffer that requires
If yes, you will have to fill out this entire form — please
Yes // No
the State for more information.
6b. If yes, then identify the square feet of impact to each zone of the riparian buffer that requires mitigation. Calculate the
amount of mitigation required.
Zone
6c.
Reason for impact
6d.
Total impact
(square feet)
Multiplier
6e.
Required mitigation
(square feet)
Zone 1
Zone 2
6f. Total buffer mitigation required:
6g. If buffer mitigation is required, discuss what type of mitigation is proposed (e.g., payment to private mitigation bank,
permittee responsible riparian buffer restoration, payment into an approved in -lieu fee fund).
6h. Comments:
Page 11 of 14

E. Stormwater Management and Diffuse Flow Plan (required by DWQ)
1. Diffuse Flow Plan
la. Does the project include or is it adjacent to protected riparian buffers identified
within one of the NC Riparian Buffer Protection Rules?
Yes // No
1 b. If yes, then is a diffuse flow plan included? If no, explain why.
Comments:
❑ Yes ❑ No
2. Stormwater Management Plan
2a. What is the overall percent imperviousness of this project?
4.3% not including crushed stone;
7.9% with crushed stone
2b. Does this project require a Stormwater Management Plan?
❑ Yes 0 No
2c. If this project DOES NOT require a Stormwater Management Plan, explain why: The proposed facility is located outside
the jurisdiction of both the State and Rockingham County. This was confirmed with Bethany Georgoulias of the North
Carolina Division of Energy, Minerals, and Land Resources (DEMLR) — Stormwater Section. However, NTE has
conducted preliminary stormwater BMP design, and while final design and drainage plans are not yet complete, the
location and maximum footprint of disturbance of BMPs have been determined as depicted in Figure 2.
2d. If this project DOES require a Stormwater Management Plan, then provide a brief, narrative description of the plan:
See Appendix B of the attached Alternatives Analysis.
2e. Who will be responsible for the review of the Stormwater Management Plan?
❑ Certified Local Government
❑ DWQ Stormwater Program
❑ DWQ 401 Unit
3. Certified Local Government Stormwater Review
3a. In which local government's jurisdiction is this project?
Not applicable
3b. Which of the following locally -implemented stormwater management programs
apply (check all that apply):
❑ Phase II
❑ NSW
❑ USMP
❑ Water Supply Watershed
❑ Other:
3c. Has the approved Stormwater Management Plan with proof of approval been
attached?
❑ Yes ❑ No
4. DWQ Stormwater Program Review
4a. Which of the following state -implemented stormwater management programs apply
(check all that apply):
❑ Coastal counties
❑ HQW
❑ ORW
❑ Session Law 2006-246
0 Other: Not applicable
4b. Has the approved Stormwater Management Plan with proof of approval been
attached?
❑ Yes ❑ No
5. DWQ 401 Unit Stormwater Review Not applicable
5a. Does the Stormwater Management Plan meet the appropriate requirements?
❑ Yes ❑ No
5b. Have all of the 401 Unit submittal requirements been met?
❑ Yes ❑ No
Page 12 of 14
PCN Form — Version 1.3 December 10, 2008 Version

F. Supplementary Information
1. Environmental Documentation (DWQ Requirement)
la. Does the project involve an expenditure of public (federal/state/local) funds or the
use of public (federal/state) land?
Yes // No
1 b. If you answered "yes" to the above, does the project require preparation of an
environmental document pursuant to the requirements of the National or State
(North Carolina) Environmental Policy Act (NEPA/SEPA)?
❑ Yes ❑ No
lc. If you answered "yes" to the above, has the document review been finalized by the
State Clearing House? (If so, attach a copy of the NEPA or SEPA final approval
letter.)
Comments: Not applicable
❑ Yes ❑ No
2. Violations (DWQ Requirement)
2a. Is the site in violation of DWQ Wetland Rules (15A NCAC 2H .0500), Isolated
Wetland Rules (15A NCAC 2H .1300), DWQ Surface Water or Wetland Standards,
or Riparian Buffer Rules (15A NCAC 2B .0200)?
❑ Yes /1 No
2b. Is this an after -the -fact permit application?
❑ Yes 0 No
2c. If you answered "yes" to one or both of the above questions, provide an explanation of the violation(s):
3. Cumulative Impacts (DWQ Requirement)
3a. Will this project (based on past and reasonably anticipated future impacts) result in
additional development, which could impact nearby downstream water quality?
Yes // No
3b. If you answered "yes" to the above, submit a qualitative or quantitative cumulative impact analysis in accordance with the
most recent DWQ policy. If you answered "no," provide a short narrative description.
The REC is a stand-alone facility that will not have any subsequent development. The electricity produced by the REC
will be sold into the electrical distribution system and will therefore not result in downstream impacts.
4. Sewage Disposal (DWQ Requirement)
4a. Clearly detail the ultimate treatment methods and disposition (non -discharge or discharge) of wastewater generated from
the proposed project, or available capacity of the subject facility.
Treated effluent will discharge to the southern bank of the Dan River near Settle Bridge Road via a 5.9-mile subsurface
pipeline. Source water will be comprised of Dan River water and some potable water from the City of Reidsville. The
combined source waters will be used for process water needs, the majority of which will be used for cooling tower makeup
water. Along with recycled water from the reverse osmosis system and the HRSG blowdown, makeup water will be cycled
through the cooling towers up to seven times. The cooling tower blowdown will be mixed with low volume waste streams,
including oil -water separator discharges, within a treated wastewater collection sump and discharged to the Dan River.
Sanitary waste will be disposed of through an onsite septic drain field system, and metal cleaning waste will be trucked offsite
for disposal. The final septic field will not be located within 100 feet of Waters of the U.S.
Additional treatment details are provided in Appendix D.
Page 13 of 14
PCN Form — Version 1.3 December 10, 2008 Version

5. Endangered Species and Designated Critical Habitat (Corps Requirement) — See Appendix E
5a. Will this project occur in or near an area with federally protected species or
habitat?
❑ No
0 Yes
5b. Have you checked with the USFWS concerning Endangered Species Act
impacts?
❑ No
0 Yes
5c. If yes, indicate the USFWS Field Office you have contacted.
0 Raleigh
❑ Asheville
5d. What data sources did you use to determine whether your site would impact Endangered Species or Designated Critical
Habitat?
US Fish and Wildlife Service, Information, Planning, and Consultation System (IPaC), NC Natural Heritage Program. See
Appendix E for additional information regarding the smooth coneflower.
6. Essential Fish Habitat (Corps Requirement)
6a. Will this project occur in or near an area designated as essential fish habitat?
❑ Yes
0 No
6b. What data sources did you use to determine whether your site would impact Essential Fish Habitat?
National Oceanic and Atmospheric Administration Essential Fish Habitat Website
7. Historic or Prehistoric Cultural Resources (Corps Requirement)
7a. Will this project occur in or near an area that the state, federal or tribal
governments have designated as having historic or cultural preservation
status (e.g., National Historic Trust designation or properties significant in
North Carolina history and archaeology)?
Yes //
No
7b. What data sources did you use to determine whether your site would impact historic or archeological resources?
Conducted survey and consulted with the North Carolina State Historic Preservation Office. See Appendix F.
8. Flood Zone Designation (Corps Requirement)
8a. Will this project occur in a FEMA-designated 100-year floodplain?
❑ Yes 0 No
8b. If yes, explain how project meets FEMA requirements:
8c. What source(s) did you use to make the floodplain determination? FEMA FIRM Panel 3710794400J
Jennifer Cassada
Applicant/Agent's Printed Name
7/7/i,ir"jfe406/07/2017
Date
Appli ant/Agent's Signature
(Agent's si ature is valid only if an authorization letter from the applicant
is provided.)
Page 14 of 14

III Environmental Consulting
C Ai& Technology of
North Carolina, PLLC
APPENDIX B
JURISDICTIONAL DETERMINATION
& STREAM DETERMINATION

U.S. ARMY CORPS OF ENGINEERS
WILMINGTON DISTRICT
Action Id. SAW-2016-01608 County: Rockingham U.S.G.S. Quad: NC-BETHANY
NOTIFICATION OF JURISDICTIONAL DETERMINATION
Applicant: NTE Carolinas II, LLC
Attn.: Garret Weeks
Address: 24 Cathedral Place, Suite 300
Saint Augustine, FL 32084-4465
Size (acres) —160 Nearest Town Reidsville
Nearest Waterway Little Jacobs Creek River Basin Roanoke
USGS HUC 03010103 Coordinates 36.333308 N,-79.833511 W
Location description: The project is located between NC 65 and New Lebanon Church road, just west of Ernest
Drive, near Reidsville, Rockingham County, North Carolina. The project area is shown as the "Survey Area" on the
attached sketch labeled "Figure 1. Wetlands and Streams Map."
Indicate Which of the Following Apply:
A. Preliminary Determination
_ There are waters on the above described property, that may be subject to Section 404 of the Clean Water Act
(CWA)(33 USC § 1344) and/or Section 10 of the Rivers and Harbors Act (RHA) (33 USC § 403). The waters have been
delineated, and the delineation has been verified by the Corps to be sufficiently accurate and reliable. Therefore this
preliminary jurisdiction determination may be used in the permit evaluation process, including determining compensatory
mitigation. For purposes of computation of impacts, compensatory mitigation requirements, and other resource protection
measures, a permit decision made on the basis of a preliminary JD will treat all waters and wetlands that would be affected
in any way by the permitted activity on the site as if they are jurisdictional waters of the U.S. This preliminary
determination is not an appealable action under the Regulatory Program Administrative Appeal Process (Reference 33
CFR Part 331). However, you may request an approved JD, which is an appealable action, by contacting the Corps district
for further instruction.
_ There are wetlands on the above described property, that may be subject to Section 404 of the Clean Water Act
(CWA)(33 USC § 1344) and/or Section 10 of the Rivers and Harbors Act (RHA) (33 USC § 403). However, since the
waters have not been properly delineated, this preliminary jurisdiction determination may not be used in the permit
evaluation process. Without a verified wetland delineation, this preliminary determination is merely an effective
presumption of CWA/RHA jurisdiction over all of the waters at the project area, which is not sufficiently accurate and
reliable to support an enforceable permit decision. We recommend that you have the waters of the U.S. on your property
delineated. As the Corps may not be able to accomplish this wetland delineation in a timely manner, you may wish to
obtain a consultant to conduct a delineation that can be verified by the Corps.
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 (RHA) (33 USC § 403) and Section 404 of the Clean Water Act (CWA)(33 USC
§ 1344). Unless there is a change in 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 of the U.S., including wetlands, on the above described project area 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 recommend you have the waters of the U.S. on your property delineated. As the Corps may not be able to
accomplish this wetland delineation in a timely manner, you may wish to obtain a consultant to conduct a delineation that
can be verified by the Corps.
X The waters of the U.S., including wetlands, on the above described project area have been delineated and the
delineation has been verified by the Corps. If you wish to have the delineation surveyed, the Corps can review and
verify the survey upon completion. Once verified, this survey will provide an accurate depiction of all areas subject
to CWA and/or RHA 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.
Page 1 of 3

_ The waters of the U.S., including 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 project area 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.
_ The property is located in one of the 20 Coastal Counties subject to regulation under the Coastal Area Management Act
(CAMA). You should contact the Division of Coastal Management in Morehead City, NC, at [phone] to
determine their requirements.
Placement of dredged or fill material within waters of the US, including wetlands, without a Department of the Army permit
may constitute a violation of Section 301 of the Clean Water Act (33 USC § 1311). Placement of dredged or fill material,
construction or placement of structures, or work within navigable waters of the United States without a Department of the
Army permit may constitute a violation of Sections 9 and/or 10 of the Rivers and Harbors Act (33 USC § 401 and/or 403). If
you have any questions regarding this determination and/or the Corps regulatory program, please contact David Bailey at
[phone] X 30 or David.E.Bailey2(a,usace.army.mil
C. Basis For Determination
See attached Approved Jurisdictional Determination Forms.
D. Remarks
The waters of the US within the property were fla22ed by ECT, with changes made in the field by David E. Bailey
(USACE) on 8/12/2016 and 12/21/2016, and are approximated on the attached sketch labeled "Figure 1. Wetlands and
Streams Map."
E. Attention USDA Program Participants
This delineation/determination has been conducted to identify the limits of Corps' Clean Water Act jurisdiction for the
particular site identified in this request. The delineation/determination may not be valid for the wetland conservation
provisions of the Food Security Act of 1985. If you or your tenant are USDA Program participants, or anticipate participation
in USDA programs, you should request a certified wetland determination from the local office of the Natural Resources
Conservation Service, prior to starting work.
F. Appeals Information (This information applies only to approved jurisdictional determinations as indicated in
B. above)
This correspondence constitutes an approved jurisdictional determination for the above described site. If you object to this
determination, you may request an administrative appeal under Corps regulations at 33 CFR Part 331. Enclosed you will find a
Notification of Appeal Process (NAP) fact sheet and request for appeal (RFA) form. If you request to appeal this
determination you must submit a completed RFA form to the following address:
US Army Corps of Engineers
South Atlantic Division
Attn: Jason Steele, Review Officer
60 Forsyth Street SW, Room 10M15
Atlanta, Georgia 30303-8801
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 June 27, 2017.
**It is not necessary to submit an RFA form to the Division Office if you do not object to the determination in this
correspondence. * *
Corps Regulatory Official:
Date: Apri128, 2017 Expiration Date: Apri128, 2022

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 our Customer Satisfaction Survey, located online at
http://corpsmapu.usace.army. mil/cm_apex/f7p=136:4:0.
Copy furnished:
Sue Homewood, NCDEQ-DWR, 450 W. Hanes Mill Rd, Suite 300, Winston-Salem, NC 27105
Jennifer Cassada, Environmental Consulting & Technology, Inc., 7208 Falls of Neuse Road, Suite 102, Raleigh, NC 27615-3244

0
0
z
y
- Environmental Consulting
,& Technologyof
North Carolina, PLLC
r Feet tom{ �. _ T .'_
Ai "
,f - 1 - 4"
-
II
de . • cti; .1. • 4011°
~ 7 6*
y
1
AIIs ,_. , , '
•, ,
■ •
1' 7 >, `
MD) MI MD '---1
-."14111‘01141111. # W101 ,
y ■ d 01016Pier
J
r i l .
i-.k.
FIGURE 1.
WETLANDS AND STREAMS MAP
NTE CAROLINAS II, LLC
Sources LIDAR Contours, 2007, ESRI Wo61d Imagery, NAIP, 2014, ECT, 2016.

PROCESS AND
NOTIFICATION OF ADMINISTRATIVE APPEAL OPTIONS AND
REQUEST FOR APPEAL
Applicant: NTE Carolinas II, LLC File Number: SAW-2016-01608 Date: April 28, 2017
Attached is:
See Section below
❑
INITIAL PROFFERED PERMIT (Standard Permit or Letter of permission)
A
❑
PROFFERED PERMIT (Standard Permit or Letter of permission)
B
❑
PERMIT DENIAL
C
L
APPROVED JURISDICTIONAL DETERMINATION
D
❑
PRELIMINARY JURISDICTIONAL DETERMINATION
E
SECTION
information
Corps
I - The following identifies your rights and options regarding an administrative appeal
of the above decision. Additional
or
may be found at http://www.usace.army.mil/Missions/CivilWorks/RegulatoryProgramandPermits.aspx
regulations at 33 CFR Part 331.
A: INITIAL PROFFERED PERMIT: You may accept or object to the permit.
• ACCEPT: If you received a Standard Permit, you may sign the permit document and return it to the district engineer for final
authorization. If you received a Letter of Permission (LOP), you may accept the LOP and your work is authorized. Your
signature on the Standard Permit or acceptance of the LOP means that you accept the permit in its entirety, and waive 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 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.
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 district engineer. This form must be received
by the division engineer within 60 days of the date of this notice.
E: PRELIMINARY JURISDICTIONAL DETERMINATION: You do not need to respond to the Corps regarding the preliminary
JD. The Preliminary JD is not appealable. If you wish, you may request an approved JD (which may be appealed), by contacting
the Corps district for further instruction. Also you may provide new information for further consideration by the Corps to reevaluate
the JD.
SECTION
II - REQUEST FOR APPEAL or OBJECTIONS TO AN INITIAL PROFFERED PERMIT

REASONS FOR APPEAL OR OBJECTIONS: (Describe your
proffered permit in clear concise statements. You may attach additional
objections are addressed in the administrative record.)
reasons for appealing the decision or your objections to an initial
information to this form to clarify where your reasons or
ADDITIONAL INFORMATION: The appeal is limited to a review
record of the appeal conference or meeting, and any supplemental
clarify the administrative record. Neither the appellant nor the
of the administrative record, the Corps memorandum for the
information that the review officer has determined is needed to
Corps may add new information or analyses to the record. However,
of information that is already in the administrative record.
you may provide additional information to clarify the location
POINT OF CONTACT FOR QUESTIONS OR INFORMATION:
If you have questions regarding this decision and/or the
appeal process you may contact:
District Engineer, Wilmington Regulatory Division
attn: David E. Bailey
Raleigh Regulatory Field Office
3331 Heritage Trade Drive, Suite 105
Wake Forest, North Carolina 27587
If you only have questions regarding the appeal process you may
also contact:
Mr. Jason Steele, Administrative Appeal Review Officer
CESAD-PDO
U.S. Army Corps of Engineers, South Atlantic Division
60 Forsyth Street, Room 10M15
Atlanta, Georgia 30303-8801
Phone: [phone]
RIGHT OF ENTRY: Your signature below grants the right of entry to Corps of Engineers personnel, and any government
consultants, to conduct investigations of the project site during the course of the appeal process. You will be provided a 15 day
notice of any site investigation, and will have the opportunity to participate in all site investigations.
Date:
Telephone number:
Signature of appellant or agent.
For appeals on Initial Proffered Permits send this form to:
District Engineer, Wilmington Regulatory Division, Attn: David Bailey, 69 Darlington Avenue, Wilmington,
North Carolina 28403
For Permit denials, Proffered Permits and approved Jurisdictional Determinations send this form to:
Division Engineer, Commander, U.S. Army Engineer Division, South Atlantic, Attn: Mr. Jason Steele,
Administrative Appeal Officer, CESAD-PDO, 60 Forsyth Street, Room 10M15, Atlanta, Georgia 30303-8801
Phone: [phone]

APPROVED JURISDICTIONAL DETERMINATION FORM
U.S. Army Corps of Engineers
This form should be completed by following the instructions provided in Section IV of the JD Form Instructional Guidebook.
SECTION I: BACKGROUND INFORMATION
A. REPORT COMPLETION DATE FOR APPROVED JURISDICTIONAL DETERMINATION (JD): April 28, 2017
B. DISTRICT OFFICE, FILE NAME, AND NUMBER: Wilmington District, Reidsville Energy Center / NTE Carolinas / 4673 NC
Highway 65 / Reidsville / Rockingham County / commercial, SAW-2016-01608
C. PROJECT LOCATION AND BACKGROUND INFORMATION: JD Form 1— This form covers UT 6.
The project is located between NC 65 and New Lebanon Church road, just west of Ernest Drive, near Reidsville, Rockingham
County, North Carolina.
State: North Carolina County/parish/borough: Rockingham City: Reidsville
Center coordinates of site (lat/long in degree decimal format): Lat. 36.3333082526087°N, Long. -79.833511493116° W
Universal Transverse Mercator: 17 604690.83 4021549.7
Name of nearest waterbody: UT to Little Jacobs Creek (UT 6)
Name of nearest Traditional Navigable Water (TNW) into which the aquatic resource flows: Dan River
Name of watershed or Hydrologic Unit Code (HUC): Upper Dan, 03010103
® Check if map/diagram of review area and/or potential jurisdictional areas is/are available upon request.
❑ Check if other sites (e.g., offsite mitigation sites, disposal sites, etc...) are associated with this action and are recorded on a different
JD form:
D. REVIEW PERFORMED FOR SITE EVALUATION (CHECK ALL THAT APPLY):
❑ Offlce (Desk) Determination. Date:
® Field Determination. Date(s): 8/12/2016,12/21/2016
SECTION II: SUMMARY OF FINDINGS
A. RHA SECTION 10 DETERMINATION OF JURISDICTION.
There "navigable waters of the U.S." within Rivers and Harbors Act (RHA) jurisdiction (as defined by 33 CFR part 329) in the
review area. [Required]
❑ Waters subject to the ebb and flow of the tide.
❑ Waters are presently used, or have been used in the past, or may be susceptible for use to transport interstate or foreign commerce.
Explain:
B. CWA SECTION 404 DETERMINATION OF JURISDICTION.
There Are "waters of the U.S." within Clean Water Act (CWA) jurisdiction (as defined by 33 CFR part 328) in the review area. [Required
1. Waters of the U.S.
a. Indicate presence of waters of U.S. in review area (check all that apply): 1
❑ TN W s, including territorial seas
❑ Wetlands adjacent to TNWs
® Relatively permanent waters2 (RPWs) that flow directly or indirectly into TNWs
❑ Non-RPWs that flow directly or indirectly into TNWs
❑ Wetlands directly abutting RPWs that flow directly or indirectly into TNWs
❑ Wetlands adjacent to but not directly abutting RPWs that flow directly or indirectly into TNWs
❑ Wetlands adjacent to non-RPWs that flow directly or indirectly into TN W s
❑ Impoundments of jurisdictional waters
❑ Isolated (interstate or intrastate) waters, including isolated wetlands
b. Identify (estimate) size of waters of the U.S. in the review area:
Non -wetland waters: 97 linear feet, 2 wide, and/or acres.
Wetlands: acres.
c. Limits (boundaries) of jurisdiction based on: Established by OHWM.
Elevation of established OHWM (if known):
2. Non -regulated waters/wetlands (check if applicable):'
❑ Potentially jurisdictional waters and/or wetlands were assessed within the review area and determined to be not jurisdictional.
Explain:
SECTION III: CWA ANALYSIS
A. TNWs AND WETLANDS ADJACENT TO TNWs
Boxes checked below shall be supported by completing the appropriate sections in Section III below.
2 For purposes of this form, an RPW is defined as a tributary that is not a TNW and that typically flows year-round or has continuous flow at least "seasonally"
(e.g., typically 3 months).
3 Supporting documentation is presented in Section III.F.

-2-
The agencies will assert jurisdiction over TNWs and wetlands adjacent to TNWs. If the aquatic resource is a TNW, complete
Section III.A.1 and Section III D 1 only; if the aquatic resource is a wetland adjacent to a TNW, complete Sections III.A.1 and 2
and Section III.D.1.; otherwise, see Section III.B below.
1. TNW
Identity TNW:
Summarize rationale supporting determination:
2. Wetland adjacent to TNW
Summarize rationale supporting conclusion that wetland is "adjacent":
B. CHARACTERISTICS OF TRIBUTARY (THAT IS NOT A TNW) AND ITS ADJACENT WETLANDS (IF ANY):
This section summarizes information regarding characteristics of the tributary and its adjacent wetlands, if any, and it helps
determine whether or not the standards for jurisdiction established under Rapanos have been met.
The agencies will assert jurisdiction over non -navigable tributaries of TNWs where the tributaries are "relatively permanent
waters" (RPWs), i.e. tributaries that typically flow year-round or have continuous flow at least seasonally (e.g., typically 3
months). A wetland that directly abuts an RPW is also jurisdictional. If the aquatic resource is not a TNW, but has year-round
(perennial) flow, skip to Section III.D.2. If the aquatic resource is a wetland directly abutting a tributary with perennial flow,
skip to Section IILD.4.
A wetland that is adjacent to but that does not directly abut an RPW requires a significant nexus evaluation. Corps districts and
EPA regions will include in the record any available information that documents the existence of a significant nexus between a
relatively permanent tributary that is not perennial (and its adjacent wetlands if any) and a traditional navigable water, even
though a significant nexus fmding is not required as a matter of law.
If the waterbody4 is not an RPW, or a wetland directly abutting an RPW, a JD will require additional data to determine if the
waterbody has a significant nexus with a TNW. If the tributary has adjacent wetlands, the significant nexus evaluation must
consider the tributary in combination with all of its adjacent wetlands. This significant nexus evaluation that combines, for
analytical purposes, the tributary and all of its adjacent wetlands is used whether the review area identified in the JD request is
the tributary, or its adjacent wetlands, or both. If the JD covers a tributary with adjacent wetlands, complete Section III.B.1 for
the tributary, Section III.B.2 for any onsite wetlands, and Section III.B.3 for all wetlands adjacent to that tributary, both onsite
and offsite. The determination whether a significant nexus exists is determined in Section III.0 below.
1. Characteristics of non-TNWs that flow directly or indirectly into TNW
(i)
General Area Conditions:
Watershed size: 6 acres
Drainage area: 4 acres
Average annual rainfall: 41.66 inches
Average annual snowfall: 14 inches
Physical Characteristics:
(a) Relationship with "'NW:
❑ Tributary flows directly into "'NW.
® Tributary flows through 3 tributaries before entering "'NW.
Project waters are 5-10 river miles from TNW.
Project waters are 1 (or less) river miles from RPW.
Project waters are 2-5 aerial (straight) miles from TNW.
Project waters are 1 (or less) aerial (straight) miles from RPW.
Project waters cross or serve as state boundaries. Explain:
Identify flow route to TNW5: UT 6 (UT to Little Jacobs Creek, seasonal RPW) to Little Jacobs Creek (RPW) to
Jacobs Creek (RPW) to the Dan River (TNW)
Tributary stream order, if known: 1st
Note that the Instructional Guidebook contains additional information regarding swales, ditches, washes, and erosional features generally and in the arid
West.
5 Flow route can be described by identifying, e.g., tributary a, which flows through the review area, to flow into tributary b, which then flows into TNW.

-3-
(b) General Tributary Characteristics (check all that apply):
Tributary is: ® Natural
❑ Artificial (man-made). Explain:
❑ Manipulated (man -altered). Explain:
Tributary properties with respect to top of bank (estimate):
Average width: 2 feet
Average depth: 0.2 feet
Average side slopes: 2:1.
Primary tributary substrate composition (check all that apply):
® Silts ® Sands
❑ Cobbles ® Gravel
❑ Bedrock ❑ Vegetation. Type/% cover:
❑ Other. Explain:
❑ Concrete
❑ Muck
Tributary condition/stability [e.g., highly eroding, sloughing banks]. Explain: stable
Presence of run/riffle/pool complexes. Explain: present but few
Tributary geometry: Meandering
Tributary gradient (approximate average slope): 1 %
(c) Flow:
Tributary provides for: Seasonal flow
Estimate average number of flow events in review area/year: 6-10
Describe flow regime: seasonal stream
Other information on duration and volume: UT 6 (UT to Little Jacobs Creek) scored 21 points on the NC Division of
Water Quality (now the NC Division of Water Resources) "Stream Identification Form Version 4.11" during
ECT's 2/11/2016 site visit. This form was developed by the State of North Carolina and is intended to guide
natural resource professionals in the identification of ephemeral, intermittent and perennial streams using
geomorphic, hydrologic and biological stream features. The form and manual ("Methodology for Identification
of Intermittent and Perennial Streams and Their Origins") can be used to identify points on the landscape that
represent stream origins and to determine whether a stream is ephemeral, intermittent or perennial in reaches
that are some distance downstream of an origin. See the above referenced manual at:
http://ncdenr.s3.amazonaws.com/s3fs-
public/Water%20Quality/Surface%20Water%20Protection/401/Policies_GuidesManuals/StreamID_v_4point
11_Final_sept_01_2010.pdf. Note that the defmitiaion of "intermittent stream" in the above referenced manual
is similar to "Seasonal flow" as referenced in this Approved JD Form, namely: "a well-defined channel that
contains water for only part of the year, typically during winter and spring when the aquatic bed is below the
water table. The flow may be heavily supplemented by stormwater runoff. An intermittent stream often lacks
the biological and hydrological characteristics commonly associated with the conveyance of water."
Surface flow is: Confmed. Characteristics: Confmed to stream banks, no evidence of overbank flow
Subsurface flow: Unknown. Explain findings:
❑ Dye (or other) test performed:
Tributary has (check all that apply):
® Bed and banks
OHWM6 (check all indicators that apply):
® clear, natural line impressed on the bank
® changes in the character of soil
❑ shelving
® vegetation matted down, bent, or absent
® leaf litter disturbed or washed away
❑ sediment deposition
❑ water staining
❑ other (list):
® Discontinuous OHWM.' Explain: UT 6 flows from its origin approximately 97linear feet downstream
through its natural drainageway. UT 6 ends its contiguous bed and bank and other OHWM indicators approximately 125 feet
upslope of the confluence of its drainageway with Little Jacobs Creek. Between the end of UT 6's contiguous bed and bank and other
❑ the presence of litter and debris
❑ destruction of terrestrial vegetation
❑ the presence of wrack line
® sediment sorting
❑ scour
❑ multiple observed or predicted flow events
❑ abrupt change in plant community
6A natural or man-made discontinuity in the OHWM does not necessarily sever jurisdiction (e.g., where the stream temporarily flows underground, or where
the OHWM has been removed by development or agricultural practices). Where there is a break in the OHWM that is unrelated to the waterbody's flow
regime (e.g., flow over a rock outcrop or through a culvert), the agencies will look for indicators of flow above and below the break.
'Ibid.

-4-
OHWM indicators and Little Jacobs Creek are numerous drainage patterns and flow paths indicating frequent surface flow from
the terminus of UT 6 and Little Jacobs Creek.
If factors other than the OHWM were used to determine lateral extent of CWA jurisdiction (check all that apply):
❑ High Tide Line indicated by: ❑ Mean High Water Mark indicated by:
❑ oil or scum line along shore objects ❑ survey to available datum;
❑ fine shell or debris deposits (foreshore) ❑ physical markings;
❑ physical markings/characteristics ❑ vegetation lines/changes in vegetation types.
❑ tidal gauges
❑ other (list):
(iii) Chemical Characteristics:
Characterize tributary (e.g., water color is clear, discolored, oily film; water quality; general watershed characteristics, etc.).
Explain:
Identify specific pollutants, if known: pollutants were not assessed or observed. Note that the majority of the watershed
is forested.
(iv) Biological Characteristics. Channel supports (check all that apply):
® Riparian corridor. Characteristics (type, average width): Mixed pine/hardwood mature forest, >100' on each side
❑ Wetland fringe. Characteristics:
® Habitat for:
❑ Federally Listed species. Explain findings:
❑ Fish/spawn areas. Explain findings:
❑ Other environmentally -sensitive species. Explain findings:
® Aquatic/wildlife diversity. Explain findings: Habitat for common wildland/urban interface species.
2. Characteristics of wetlands adjacent to non-TNW that flow directly or indirectly into TNW
(i)
Physical Characteristics:
(a) General Wetland Characteristics:
Properties:
Wetland size: acres
Wetland type. Explain:
Wetland quality. Explain:
Project wetlands cross or serve as state boundaries. Explain:
(b) General Flow Relationship with Non-TNW :
Flow is: Pick List. Explain:
Surface flow is: Pick List
Characteristics:
Subsurface flow: Pick List. Explain findings:
❑ Dye (or other) test performed:
(c) Wetland Adjacency Determination with Non-TNW:
❑ Directly abutting
❑ Not directly abutting
❑ Discrete wetland hydrologic connection. Explain:
❑ Ecological connection. Explain:
❑ Separated by berm/barrier. Explain:
(d) Proximity (Relationship) to TNW
Project wetlands are Pick List river miles from TNW.
Project waters are Pick List aerial (straight) miles from TNW.
Flow is from: Pick List.
Estimate approximate location of wetland as within the Pick List floodplain.
(ii) Chemical Characteristics:
Characterize wetland system (e.g., water color is clear, brown, oil film on surface; water quality; general watershed
characteristics; etc.). Explain:
Identify specific pollutants, if known:
(iii) Biological Characteristics. Wetland supports (check all that apply):

-5-
❑ Riparian buffer. Characteristics (type, average width):
❑ Vegetation type/percent cover. Explain:
❑ Habitat for:
❑ Federally Listed species. Explain findings:
❑ Fish/spawn areas. Explain findings:
❑ Other environmentally -sensitive species. Explain findings:
❑ Aquatic/wildlife diversity. Explain findings:
3. Characteristics of all wetlands adjacent to the tributary (if any)
All wetland(s) being considered in the cumulative analysis: Pick List
Approximately acres in total are being considered in the cumulative analysis.
For each wetland, specify the following:
Directly abuts? (Y/N) Size (in acres) Directly abuts? (Y/N) Size (in acres)
Summarize overall biological, chemical and physical functions being performed:
C. SIGNIFICANT NEXUS DETERMINATION
A significant nexus analysis will assess the flow characteristics and functions of the tributary itself and the functions performed
by any wetlands adjacent to the tributary to determine if they significantly affect the chemical, physical, and biological integrity
of a TNW. For each of the following situations, a significant nexus exists if the tributary, in combination with all of its adjacent
wetlands, has more than a speculative or insubstantial effect on the chemical, physical and/or biological integrity of a TNW.
Considerations when evaluating significant nexus include, but are not limited to the volume, duration, and frequency of the flow
of water in the tributary and its proximity to a TNW, and the functions performed by the tributary and all its adjacent
wetlands. It is not appropriate to determine significant nexus based solely on any specific threshold of distance (e.g. between a
tributary and its adjacent wetland or between a tributary and the TNW). Similarly, the fact an adjacent wetland lies within or
outside of a floodplain is not solely determinative of significant nexus.
Draw connections between the features documented and the effects on the TNW, as identified in the Rapanos Guidance and
discussed in the Instructional Guidebook. Factors to consider include, for example:
• Does the tributary, in combination with its adjacent wetlands (if any), have the capacity to carry pollutants or flood waters to
TNWs, or to reduce the amount of pollutants or flood waters reaching a TNW?
• Does the tributary, in combination with its adjacent wetlands (if any), provide habitat and lifecycle support functions for fish and
other species, such as feeding, nesting, spawning, or rearing young for species that are present in the TNW?
• Does the tributary, in combination with its adjacent wetlands (if any), have the capacity to transfer nutrients and organic carbon that
support downstream foodwebs?
• Does the tributary, in combination with its adjacent wetlands (if any), have other relationships to the physical, chemical, or
biological integrity of the TNW?
Note: the above list of considerations is not inclusive and other functions observed or known to occur should be documented
below:
1. Significant nexus fmdings for non-RPW that has no adjacent wetlands and flows directly or indirectly into TNWs. Explain
findings of presence or absence of significant nexus below, based on the tributary itself, then go to Section III.D:
2. Significant nexus fmdings for non-RPW and its adjacent wetlands, where the non-RPW flows directly or indirectly into
TNWs. Explain findings of presence or absence of significant nexus below, based on the tributary in combination with all of its
adjacent wetlands, then go to Section III.D:
3. Significant nexus fmdings for wetlands adjacent to an RPW but that do not directly abut the RPW. Explain findings of
presence or absence of significant nexus below, based on the tributary in combination with all of its adjacent wetlands, then go to
Section III.D:
D. DETERMINATIONS OF JURISDICTIONAL FINDINGS. THE SUBJECT WATERS/WETLANDS ARE (CHECK ALL
THAT APPLY):
1. TNWs and Adjacent Wetlands. Check all that apply and provide size estimates in review area:
111 TN W s: linear feet, wide, Or acres.

-6-
❑ Wetlands adjacent to TNWs: acres.
2. RPWs that flow directly or indirectly into TNWs.
❑ Tributaries of TNWs where tributaries typically flow year-round are jurisdictional. Provide data and rationale indicating that
tributary is perennial:
® Tributaries of TNW where tributaries have continuous flow "seasonally" (e.g., typically three months each year) are
jurisdictional. Data supporting this conclusion is provided at Section III.B. Provide rationale indicating that tributary flows
seasonally: UT 6 (UT to Little Jacobs Creek) occurs in the upper reaches of a natural drainage way and has bed and
banks and characteristics of an OHWM as documented in Section III(B)(1). Substrate sorting and presence of bed
and banks, in particular, are reliable indicators of seasonal stream status in this ecoregion.
Provide estimates for jurisdictional waters in the review area (check all that apply):
® Tributary waters: 97 linear feet 2 wide.
❑ Other non -wetland waters: acres.
Identify type(s) of waters:
3. Non-RPWs8 that flow directly or indirectly into TNWs.
❑ Waterbody that is not a TNW or an RPW, but flows directly or indirectly into a TNW, and it has a significant nexus with a
TNW is jurisdictional. Data supporting this conclusion is provided at Section III.C.
Provide estimates for jurisdictional waters within the review area (check all that apply):
❑ Tributary waters: linear feet, wide.
❑ Other non -wetland waters: acres.
Identify type(s) of waters:
4. Wetlands directly abutting an RPW that flow directly or indirectly into TNWs.
❑ Wetlands directly abut RPW and thus are jurisdictional as adjacent wetlands.
❑ Wetlands directly abutting an RPW where tributaries typically flow year-round. Provide data and rationale indicating that
tributary is perennial in Section III.D.2, above. Provide rationale indicating that wetland is directly abutting an RPW:
❑ Wetlands directly abutting an RPW where tributaries typically flow "seasonally." Provide data indicating that tributary is
seasonal in Section III.B and rationale in Section III.D.2, above. Provide rationale indicating that wetland is directly
abutting an RPW:
Provide acreage estimates for jurisdictional wetlands in the review area: acres.
5. Wetlands adjacent to but not directly abutting an RPW that flow directly or indirectly into TNWs.
❑ Wetlands that do not directly abut an RPW, but when considered in combination with the tributary to which they are adjacent
and with similarly situated adjacent wetlands, have a significant nexus with a TNW are jurisidictional. Data supporting this
conclusion is provided at Section III.C.
Provide acreage estimates for jurisdictional wetlands in the review area: acres.
6. Wetlands adjacent to non-RPWs that flow directly or indirectly into TNWs.
❑ Wetlands adjacent to such waters, and have when considered in combination with the tributary to which they are adjacent and
with similarly situated adjacent wetlands, have a significant nexus with a TNW are jurisdictional. Data supporting this
conclusion is provided at Section III.C.
Provide estimates for jurisdictional wetlands in the review area: acres.
7. Impoundments of jurisdictional waters.9
As a general rule, the impoundment of a jurisdictional tributary remains jurisdictional.
❑ Demonstrate that impoundment was created from "waters of the U.S.," or
❑ Demonstrate that water meets the criteria for one of the categories presented above (1-6), or
❑ Demonstrate that water is isolated with a nexus to commerce (see E below).
'See Footnote # 3.
9 To complete the analysis refer to the key in Section III.D.6 of the Instructional Guidebook.

-7-
E. ISOLATED [INTERSTATE OR INTRA-STATE] WATERS, INCLUDING ISOLATED WETLANDS, THE USE,
DEGRADATION OR DESTRUCTION OF WHICH COULD AFFECT INTERSTATE COMMERCE, INCLUDING ANY
SUCH WATERS (CHECK ALL THAT APPLY):"
❑ which are or could be used by interstate or foreign travelers for recreational or other purposes.
❑ from which fish or shellfish are or could be taken and sold in interstate or foreign commerce.
❑ which are or could be used for industrial purposes by industries in interstate commerce.
❑ Interstate isolated waters. Explain:
❑ Other factors. Explain:
Identify water body and summarize rationale supporting determination:
Provide estimates for jurisdictional waters in the review area (check all that apply):
❑ Tributary waters: linear feet, wide.
❑ Other non -wetland waters: acres.
Identify type(s) of waters:
❑ Wetlands: acres.
F. NON -JURISDICTIONAL WATERS, INCLUDING WETLANDS (CHECK ALL THAT APPLY):
❑ If potential wetlands were assessed within the review area, these areas did not meet the criteria in the 1987 Corps of Engineers
Wetland Delineation Manual and/or appropriate Regional Supplements.
❑ Review area included isolated waters with no substantial nexus to interstate (or foreign) commerce.
❑ Prior to the Jan 2001 Supreme Court decision in "SWANCC," the review area would have been regulated based solely on the
"Migratory Bird Rule" (MBR).
❑ Waters do not meet the "Significant Nexus" standard, where such a finding is required for jurisdiction. Explain:
❑ Other: (explain, if not covered above):
Provide acreage estimates for non jurisdictional waters in the review area, where the sole potential basis of jurisdiction is the MBR
factors (i.e., presence of migratory birds, presence of endangered species, use of water for irrigated agriculture), using best professional
judgment (check all that apply):
❑ Non -wetland waters (i.e., rivers, streams): linear feet, wide.
❑ Lakes/ponds: acres.
❑ Other non -wetland waters: acres. List type of aquatic resource:
❑ Wetlands: acres.
Provide acreage estimates for non jurisdictional waters in the review area that do not meet the "Significant Nexus" standard, where such
a finding is required for jurisdiction (check all that apply):
❑ Non -wetland waters (i.e., rivers, streams): linear feet, wide.
❑ Lakes/ponds: acres.
❑ Other non -wetland waters: acres. List type of aquatic resource:
❑ Wetlands: acres.
SECTION IV: DATA SOURCES.
A. SUPPORTING DATA. Data reviewed for JD (check all that apply - checked items shall be included in case file and, where checked
and requested, appropriately reference sources below):
® Maps, plans, plots or plat submitted by or on behalf of the applicant/consultant: Aerial, soils, and topo maps (ECT)
® Data sheets prepared/submitted by or on behalf of the applicant/consultant.
® Office concurs with data sheets/delineation report.
❑ Office does not concur with data sheets/delineation report.
❑ Data sheets prepared by the Corps:
❑ Corps navigable waters' study:
❑ U.S. Geological Survey Hydrologic Atlas:
❑ USGS NHD data.
❑ USGS 8 and 12 digit HUC maps.
® U.S. Geological Survey map(s). Cite scale & quad name: 1:24K; NC-BETHANY
® USDA Natural Resources Conservation Service Soil Survey. Citation: Rockingham Co. Soil Survey
❑ National wetlands inventory map(s). Cite name:
❑ State/Local wetland inventory map(s):
❑ FEMA/FIRM maps:
io Prior to asserting or declining CWA jurisdiction based solely on this category, Corps Districts will elevate the action to Corps and EPA HQ for
review consistent with the process described in the Corps/EPA Memorandum Regarding CWA Act Jurisdiction Following Rapanos.

-8-
❑ 100-year Floodplain Elevation is: (National Geodectic Vertical Datum of 1929)
® Photographs: ® Aerial (Name & Date): ESRUNAIP 2014
or ® Other (Name & Date): Site phots of features (ECT, 2/10 and 2/11/2016)
❑ Previous determination(s). File no. and date of response letter:
❑ Applicable/supporting case law:
❑ Applicable/supporting scientific literature:
® Other information (please specify): LiDAR (NC Floodmaps) for natural drainage way, drainage and watershed size
determinations;
B. ADDITIONAL COMMENTS TO SUPPORT JD:
JD Form 1— This form covers UT 6 (seasonal RPW). Section III.B.1 provides the available information that documents the existence
of a significant nexus between UT 6 and the Dan River (a TNW).

APPROVED JURISDICTIONAL DETERMINATION FORM
U.S. Army Corps of Engineers
This form should be completed by following the instructions provided in Section IV of the JD Form Instructional Guidebook.
SECTION I: BACKGROUND INFORMATION
A. REPORT COMPLETION DATE FOR APPROVED JURISDICTIONAL DETERMINATION (JD): April 28, 2017
B. DISTRICT OFFICE, FILE NAME, AND NUMBER: Wilmington District, Reidsville Energy Center / NTE Carolinas / 4673 NC
Highway 65 / Reidsville / Rockingham County / commercial, SAW-2016-01608
C. PROJECT LOCATION AND BACKGROUND INFORMATION: JD Form 2 — This form covers UT 8.
The project is located between NC 65 and New Lebanon Church road, just west of Ernest Drive, near Reidsville, Rockingham
County, North Carolina.
State: North Carolina County/parish/borough: Rockingham City: Reidsville
Center coordinates of site (lat/long in degree decimal format): Lat. 36.3333082526087°N, Long. -79.833511493116° W
Universal Transverse Mercator: 17 604690.83 4021549.7
Name of nearest waterbody: UT to Little Jacobs Creek (UT 6)
Name of nearest Traditional Navigable Water (TNW) into which the aquatic resource flows: Dan River
Name of watershed or Hydrologic Unit Code (HUC): Upper Dan, 03010103
® Check if map/diagram of review area and/or potential jurisdictional areas is/are available upon request.
❑ Check if other sites (e.g., offsite mitigation sites, disposal sites, etc...) are associated with this action and are recorded on a different
JD form:
D. REVIEW PERFORMED FOR SITE EVALUATION (CHECK ALL THAT APPLY):
❑ Offlce (Desk) Determination. Date:
® Field Determination. Date(s): 8/12/2016,12/21/2016
SECTION II: SUMMARY OF FINDINGS
A. RHA SECTION 10 DETERMINATION OF JURISDICTION.
There "navigable waters of the U.S." within Rivers and Harbors Act (RHA) jurisdiction (as defined by 33 CFR part 329) in the
review area. [Required]
❑ Waters subject to the ebb and flow of the tide.
❑ Waters are presently used, or have been used in the past, or may be susceptible for use to transport interstate or foreign commerce.
Explain:
B. CWA SECTION 404 DETERMINATION OF JURISDICTION.
There Are "waters of the U.S." within Clean Water Act (CWA) jurisdiction (as defined by 33 CFR part 328) in the review area. [Required
1. Waters of the U.S.
a. Indicate presence of waters of U.S. in review area (check all that apply): 1
❑ TN W s, including territorial seas
❑ Wetlands adjacent to TNWs
® Relatively permanent waters2 (RPWs) that flow directly or indirectly into TNWs
❑ Non-RPWs that flow directly or indirectly into TNWs
❑ Wetlands directly abutting RPWs that flow directly or indirectly into TNWs
❑ Wetlands adjacent to but not directly abutting RPWs that flow directly or indirectly into TNWs
❑ Wetlands adjacent to non-RPWs that flow directly or indirectly into TN W s
❑ Impoundments of jurisdictional waters
❑ Isolated (interstate or intrastate) waters, including isolated wetlands
b. Identify (estimate) size of waters of the U.S. in the review area:
Non -wetland waters: 57 linear feet, 3 wide, and/or acres.
Wetlands: acres.
c. Limits (boundaries) of jurisdiction based on: Established by OHWM.
Elevation of established OHWM (if known):
2. Non -regulated waters/wetlands (check if applicable):'
❑ Potentially jurisdictional waters and/or wetlands were assessed within the review area and determined to be not jurisdictional.
Explain:
SECTION III: CWA ANALYSIS
A. TNWs AND WETLANDS ADJACENT TO TNWs
Boxes checked below shall be supported by completing the appropriate sections in Section III below.
2 For purposes of this form, an RPW is defined as a tributary that is not a TNW and that typically flows year-round or has continuous flow at least "seasonally"
(e.g., typically 3 months).
3 Supporting documentation is presented in Section III.F.

-2-
The agencies will assert jurisdiction over TNWs and wetlands adjacent to TNWs. If the aquatic resource is a TNW, complete
Section III.A.1 and Section III D 1 only; if the aquatic resource is a wetland adjacent to a TNW, complete Sections III.A.1 and 2
and Section III.D.1.; otherwise, see Section III.B below.
1. TNW
Identity TNW:
Summarize rationale supporting determination:
2. Wetland adjacent to TNW
Summarize rationale supporting conclusion that wetland is "adjacent":
B. CHARACTERISTICS OF TRIBUTARY (THAT IS NOT A TNW) AND ITS ADJACENT WETLANDS (IF ANY):
This section summarizes information regarding characteristics of the tributary and its adjacent wetlands, if any, and it helps
determine whether or not the standards for jurisdiction established under Rapanos have been met.
The agencies will assert jurisdiction over non -navigable tributaries of TNWs where the tributaries are "relatively permanent
waters" (RPWs), i.e. tributaries that typically flow year-round or have continuous flow at least seasonally (e.g., typically 3
months). A wetland that directly abuts an RPW is also jurisdictional. If the aquatic resource is not a TNW, but has year-round
(perennial) flow, skip to Section III.D.2. If the aquatic resource is a wetland directly abutting a tributary with perennial flow,
skip to Section III.D.4.
A wetland that is adjacent to but that does not directly abut an RPW requires a significant nexus evaluation. Corps districts and
EPA regions will include in the record any available information that documents the existence of a significant nexus between a
relatively permanent tributary that is not perennial (and its adjacent wetlands if any) and a traditional navigable water, even
though a significant nexus fmding is not required as a matter of law.
If the waterbody4 is not an RPW, or a wetland directly abutting an RPW, a JD will require additional data to determine if the
waterbody has a significant nexus with a TNW. If the tributary has adjacent wetlands, the significant nexus evaluation must
consider the tributary in combination with all of its adjacent wetlands. This significant nexus evaluation that combines, for
analytical purposes, the tributary and all of its adjacent wetlands is used whether the review area identified in the JD request is
the tributary, or its adjacent wetlands, or both. If the JD covers a tributary with adjacent wetlands, complete Section III.B.1 for
the tributary, Section III.B.2 for any onsite wetlands, and Section III.B.3 for all wetlands adjacent to that tributary, both onsite
and offsite. The determination whether a significant nexus exists is determined in Section III.0 below.
1. Characteristics of non-TNWs that flow directly or indirectly into TNW
(i)
General Area Conditions:
Watershed size: 7 acres
Drainage area: 7 acres
Average annual rainfall: 41.66 inches
Average annual snowfall: 14 inches
Physical Characteristics:
(a) Relationship with "'NW:
❑ Tributary flows directly into "'NW.
® Tributary flows through 3 tributaries before entering "'NW.
Project waters are 5-10 river miles from TNW.
Project waters are 1 (or less) river miles from RPW.
Project waters are 2-5 aerial (straight) miles from TNW.
Project waters are 1 (or less) aerial (straight) miles from RPW.
Project waters cross or serve as state boundaries. Explain:
Identify flow route to TNW5: UT 8 (UT to Little Jacobs Creek, seasonal RPW) to Little Jacobs Creek (RPW) to
Jacobs Creek (RPW) to the Dan River (TNW)
Tributary stream order, if known: 1st
Note that the Instructional Guidebook contains additional information regarding swales, ditches, washes, and erosional features generally and in the arid
West.
5 Flow route can be described by identifying, e.g., tributary a, which flows through the review area, to flow into tributary b, which then flows into TNW.

-3-
(b) General Tributary Characteristics (check all that apply):
Tributary is: ® Natural
❑ Artificial (man-made). Explain:
❑ Manipulated (man -altered). Explain:
Tributary properties with respect to top of bank (estimate):
Average width: 3 feet
Average depth: 1 feet
Average side slopes: 2:1.
Primary tributary substrate composition (check all that apply):
® Silts
❑ Cobbles
❑ Bedrock
❑ Other. Explain:
® Sands
® Gravel
❑ Vegetation. Type/% cover:
❑ Concrete
❑ Muck
Tributary condition/stability [e.g., highly eroding, sloughing banks]. Explain: eroding, incised
Presence of run/riffle/pool complexes. Explain: present but few
Tributary geometry: Relatively straight
Tributary gradient (approximate average slope): 1 %
(c) Flow:
Tributary provides for: Seasonal flow
Estimate average number of flow events in review area/year: 6-10
Describe flow regime: seasonal stream
Other information on duration and volume: UT 8 is a stream incised approximately 4 feet below the adjacent land
surface, and has thus intercepted the seasonal high water table.
Surface flow is: Confmed. Characteristics: Confmed to stream banks, no evidence of overbank flow
Subsurface flow: Unknown. Explain findings:
❑ Dye (or other) test performed:
Tributary has (check all that apply):
® Bed and banks
® OHWM6 (check all indicators that apply):
® clear, natural line impressed on the bank
® changes in the character of soil
® shelving
® vegetation matted down, bent, or absent
® leaf litter disturbed or washed away
❑ sediment deposition
❑ water staining
❑ other (list):
❑ Discontinuous OHWM.7 Explain:
❑ the presence of litter and debris
❑ destruction of terrestrial vegetation
❑ the presence of wrack line
® sediment sorting
❑ scour
❑ multiple observed or predicted flow events
❑ abrupt change in plant community
If factors other than the OHWM were used to determine lateral extent of CWA jurisdiction (check all that apply):
❑ High Tide Line indicated by: ❑ Mean High Water Mark indicated by:
❑ oil or scum line along shore objects ❑ survey to available datum;
❑ fine shell or debris deposits (foreshore) ❑ physical markings;
❑ physical markings/characteristics ❑ vegetation lines/changes in vegetation types.
❑ tidal gauges
❑ other (list):
(iii) Chemical Characteristics:
Characterize tributary (e.g., water color is clear, discolored, oily film; water quality; general watershed characteristics, etc.).
Explain:
Identify specific pollutants, if known: pollutants were not assessed or observed. Note that the entirety of the watershed is
forested.
6A natural or man-made discontinuity in the OHWM does not necessarily sever jurisdiction (e.g., where the stream temporarily flows underground, or where
the OHWM has been removed by development or agricultural practices). Where there is a break in the OHWM that is unrelated to the waterbody's flow
regime (e.g., flow over a rock outcrop or through a culvert), the agencies will look for indicators of flow above and below the break.
'Ibid.

-4-
(iv) Biological Characteristics. Channel supports (check all that apply):
® Riparian corridor. Characteristics (type, average width): Mixed pine/hardwood mature forest, >100' on each side
❑ Wetland fringe. Characteristics:
® Habitat for:
❑ Federally Listed species. Explain findings:
❑ Fish/spawn areas. Explain findings:
❑ Other environmentally -sensitive species. Explain fmdings:
® Aquatic/wildlife diversity. Explain findings: Habitat for common wildland/urban interface species.
2. Characteristics of wetlands adjacent to non-TNW that flow directly or indirectly into TNW
(i)
Physical Characteristics:
(a) General Wetland Characteristics:
Properties:
Wetland size: acres
Wetland type. Explain:
Wetland quality. Explain:
Project wetlands cross or serve as state boundaries. Explain:
(b) General Flow Relationship with Non-TNW:
Flow is: Pick List. Explain:
Surface flow is: Pick List
Characteristics:
Subsurface flow: Pick List. Explain findings:
❑ Dye (or other) test performed:
(c) Wetland Adjacency Determination with Non-TNW:
❑ Directly abutting
❑ Not directly abutting
❑ Discrete wetland hydrologic connection. Explain:
❑ Ecological connection. Explain:
❑ Separated by berm/barrier. Explain:
(d) Proximity (Relationship) to TNW
Project wetlands are Pick List river miles from TNW.
Project waters are Pick List aerial (straight) miles from TNW.
Flow is from: Pick List.
Estimate approximate location of wetland as within the Pick List floodplain.
(ii) Chemical Characteristics:
Characterize wetland system (e.g., water color is clear, brown, oil film on surface; water quality; general watershed
characteristics; etc.). Explain:
Identify specific pollutants, if known:
(iii) Biological Characteristics. Wetland supports (check all that apply):
❑ Riparian buffer. Characteristics (type, average width):
❑ Vegetation type/percent cover. Explain:
❑ Habitat for:
❑ Federally Listed species. Explain findings:
❑ Fish/spawn areas. Explain findings:
❑ Other environmentally -sensitive species. Explain fmdings:
❑ Aquatic/wildlife diversity. Explain findings:
3. Characteristics of all wetlands adjacent to the tributary (if any)
All wetland(s) being considered in the cumulative analysis: Pick List
Approximately acres in total are being considered in the cumulative analysis.
For each wetland, specify the following:
Directly abuts? (Y/N) Size (in acres) Directly abuts? (Y/N) Size (in acres)

-5-
Summarize overall biological, chemical and physical functions being performed:
C. SIGNIFICANT NEXUS DETERMINATION
A significant nexus analysis will assess the flow characteristics and functions of the tributary itself and the functions performed
by any wetlands adjacent to the tributary to determine if they significantly affect the chemical, physical, and biological integrity
of a TNW. For each of the following situations, a significant nexus exists if the tributary, in combination with all of its adjacent
wetlands, has more than a speculative or insubstantial effect on the chemical, physical and/or biological integrity of a TNW.
Considerations when evaluating significant nexus include, but are not limited to the volume, duration, and frequency of the flow
of water in the tributary and its proximity to a TNW, and the functions performed by the tributary and all its adjacent
wetlands. It is not appropriate to determine significant nexus based solely on any specific threshold of distance (e.g. between a
tributary and its adjacent wetland or between a tributary and the TNW). Similarly, the fact an adjacent wetland lies within or
outside of a floodplain is not solely determinative of significant nexus.
Draw connections between the features documented and the effects on the TNW, as identified in the Rapanos Guidance and
discussed in the Instructional Guidebook. Factors to consider include, for example:
• Does the tributary, in combination with its adjacent wetlands (if any), have the capacity to carry pollutants or flood waters to
TNWs, or to reduce the amount of pollutants or flood waters reaching a TNW?
• Does the tributary, in combination with its adjacent wetlands (if any), provide habitat and lifecycle support functions for fish and
other species, such as feeding, nesting, spawning, or rearing young for species that are present in the TNW?
• Does the tributary, in combination with its adjacent wetlands (if any), have the capacity to transfer nutrients and organic carbon that
support downstream foodwebs?
• Does the tributary, in combination with its adjacent wetlands (if any), have other relationships to the physical, chemical, or
biological integrity of the TNW?
Note: the above list of considerations is not inclusive and other functions observed or known to occur should be documented
below:
1. Significant nexus fmdings for non-RPW that has no adjacent wetlands and flows directly or indirectly into TNWs. Explain
findings of presence or absence of significant nexus below, based on the tributary itself, then go to Section III.D:
2. Significant nexus fmdings for non-RPW and its adjacent wetlands, where the non-RPW flows directly or indirectly into
TNWs. Explain findings of presence or absence of significant nexus below, based on the tributary in combination with all of its
adjacent wetlands, then go to Section III.D:
3. Significant nexus fmdings for wetlands adjacent to an RPW but that do not directly abut the RPW. Explain findings of
presence or absence of significant nexus below, based on the tributary in combination with all of its adjacent wetlands, then go to
Section M.D.
D. DETERMINATIONS OF JURISDICTIONAL FINDINGS. THE SUBJECT WATERS/WETLANDS ARE (CHECK ALL
THAT APPLY):
1. TNWs and Adjacent Wetlands. Check all that apply and provide size estimates in review area:
❑ TN W s: linear feet, wide, Or acres.
❑ Wetlands adjacent to TN W s: acres.
2. RPWs that flow directly or indirectly into TNWs.
❑ Tributaries of TNWs where tributaries typically flow year-round are jurisdictional. Provide data and rationale indicating that
tributary is perennial:
® Tributaries of TNW where tributaries have continuous flow "seasonally" (e.g., typically three months each year) are
jurisdictional. Data supporting this conclusion is provided at Section III.B. Provide rationale indicating that tributary flows
seasonally: UT 8 (UT to Little Jacobs Creek) occurs in t a natural drainage way and has bed and banks and
characteristics of an OHWM as documented in Section III(B)(1). Substrate sorting, absence of fine roots, and
presence of bed and banks, in particular, are reliable indicators of seasonal stream status in this ecoregion.
Provide estimates for jurisdictional waters in the review area (check all that apply):
® Tributary waters: 57 linear feet 3 wide.
❑ Other non -wetland waters: acres.
Identify type(s) of waters:

-6-
3. Non-RPWs8 that flow directly or indirectly into TNWs.
❑ Waterbody that is not a TNW or an RPW, but flows directly or indirectly into a TNW, and it has a significant nexus with a
TNW is jurisdictional. Data supporting this conclusion is provided at Section III.C.
Provide estimates for jurisdictional waters within the review area (check all that apply):
❑ Tributary waters: linear feet, wide.
❑ Other non -wetland waters: acres.
Identify type(s) of waters:
4. Wetlands directly abutting an RPW that flow directly or indirectly into TNWs.
❑ Wetlands directly abut RPW and thus are jurisdictional as adjacent wetlands.
❑ Wetlands directly abutting an RPW where tributaries typically flow year-round. Provide data and rationale indicating that
tributary is perennial in Section III.D.2, above. Provide rationale indicating that wetland is directly abutting an RPW:
❑ Wetlands directly abutting an RPW where tributaries typically flow "seasonally." Provide data indicating that tributary is
seasonal in Section III.B and rationale in Section III.D.2, above. Provide rationale indicating that wetland is directly
abutting an RPW:
Provide acreage estimates for jurisdictional wetlands in the review area: acres.
5. Wetlands adjacent to but not directly abutting an RPW that flow directly or indirectly into TNWs.
❑ Wetlands that do not directly abut an RPW, but when considered in combination with the tributary to which they are adjacent
and with similarly situated adjacent wetlands, have a significant nexus with a TNW are jurisidictional. Data supporting this
conclusion is provided at Section III.C.
Provide acreage estimates for jurisdictional wetlands in the review area: acres.
6. Wetlands adjacent to non-RPWs that flow directly or indirectly into TNWs.
❑ Wetlands adjacent to such waters, and have when considered in combination with the tributary to which they are adjacent and
with similarly situated adjacent wetlands, have a significant nexus with a TNW are jurisdictional. Data supporting this
conclusion is provided at Section III.C.
Provide estimates for jurisdictional wetlands in the review area: acres.
7. Impoundments of jurisdictional waters.'
As a general rule, the impoundment of a jurisdictional tributary remains jurisdictional.
❑ Demonstrate that impoundment was created from "waters of the U.S.," or
❑ Demonstrate that water meets the criteria for one of the categories presented above (1-6), or
❑ Demonstrate that water is isolated with a nexus to commerce (see E below).
E. ISOLATED [INTERSTATE OR INTRA-STATE] WATERS, INCLUDING ISOLATED WETLANDS, THE USE,
DEGRADATION OR DESTRUCTION OF WHICH COULD AFFECT INTERSTATE COMMERCE, INCLUDING ANY
SUCH WATERS (CHECK ALL THAT APPLY):"
❑ which are or could be used by interstate or foreign travelers for recreational or other purposes.
❑ from which fish or shellfish are or could be taken and sold in interstate or foreign commerce.
❑ which are or could be used for industrial purposes by industries in interstate commerce.
❑ Interstate isolated waters. Explain:
❑ Other factors. Explain:
Identify water body and summarize rationale supporting determination:
Provide estimates for jurisdictional waters in the review area (check all that apply):
❑ Tributary waters: linear feet, wide.
❑ Other non -wetland waters: acres.
Identity type(s) of waters:
❑ Wetlands: acres.
Nee Footnote # 3.
9 To complete the analysis refer to the key in Section III.D.6 of the Instructional Guidebook.
io Prior to asserting or declining CWA jurisdiction based solely on this category, Corps Districts will elevate the action to Corps and EPA HQ for
review consistent with the process described in the Corps/EPA Memorandum Regarding CWA Act Jurisdiction Following Rapanos.

-7-
F. NON -JURISDICTIONAL WATERS, INCLUDING WETLANDS (CHECK ALL THAT APPLY):
❑ If potential wetlands were assessed within the review area, these areas did not meet the criteria in the 1987 Corps of Engineers
Wetland Delineation Manual and/or appropriate Regional Supplements.
❑ Review area included isolated waters with no substantial nexus to interstate (or foreign) commerce.
❑ Prior to the Jan 2001 Supreme Court decision in "SWANCC," the review area would have been regulated based solely on the
"Migratory Bird Rule" (MBR).
❑ Waters do not meet the "Significant Nexus" standard, where such a finding is required for jurisdiction. Explain:
❑ Other: (explain, if not covered above):
Provide acreage estimates for non jurisdictional waters in the review area, where the sole potential basis of jurisdiction is the MBR
factors (i.e., presence of migratory birds, presence of endangered species, use of water for irrigated agriculture), using best professional
judgment (check all that apply):
❑ Non -wetland waters (i.e., rivers, streams): linear feet, wide.
❑ Lakes/ponds: acres.
❑ Other non -wetland waters: acres. List type of aquatic resource:
❑ Wetlands: acres.
Provide acreage estimates for non jurisdictional waters in the review area that do not meet the "Significant Nexus" standard, where such
a finding is required for jurisdiction (check all that apply):
❑ Non -wetland waters (i.e., rivers, streams): linear feet, wide.
❑ Lakes/ponds: acres.
❑ Other non -wetland waters: acres. List type of aquatic resource:
❑ Wetlands: acres.
SECTION IV: DATA SOURCES.
A. SUPPORTING DATA. Data reviewed for JD (check all that apply - checked items shall be included in case file and, where checked
and requested, appropriately reference sources below):
® Maps, plans, plots or plat submitted by or on behalf of the applicant/consultant: Aerial, soils, and topo maps (ECT)
® Data sheets prepared/submitted by or on behalf of the applicant/consultant.
® Office concurs with data sheets/delineation report.
❑ Office does not concur with data sheets/delineation report.
❑ Data sheets prepared by the Corps:
❑ Corps navigable waters' study:
❑ U.S. Geological Survey Hydrologic Atlas:
❑ USGS NHD data.
❑ USGS 8 and 12 digit HUC maps.
® U.S. Geological Survey map(s). Cite scale & quad name: 1:24K; NC-BETHANY
® USDA Natural Resources Conservation Service Soil Survey. Citation: Rockingham Co. Soil Survey
❑ National wetlands inventory map(s). Cite name:
❑ State/Local wetland inventory map(s):
❑ FEMA/FIRM maps:
❑ 100-year Floodplain Elevation is: (National Geodectic Vertical Datum of 1929)
® Photographs: ® Aenal (Name & Date): ESRUNAIP 2014
or ® Other (Name & Date): Site phots of features (ECT, 2/10 and 2/11/2016)
❑ Previous determination(s). File no. and date of response letter:
❑ Applicable/supporting case law:
❑ Applicable/supporting scientific literature:
❑ Other information (please specify): LiDAR (NC Floodmaps) for natural drainage way, drainage and watershed size
determinations; NCDWQ "Stream Identification Form Version 4.11" (see Approved JD Form Section III.B.1(ii)(c))
B. ADDITIONAL COMMENTS TO SUPPORT JD:
JD Form 1— This form covers UT 8 (seasonal RPW). Section IILB.1 provides the available information that documents the existence
of a significant nexus between UT 8 and the Dan River (a TNW).

APPROVED JURISDICTIONAL DETERMINATION FORM
U.S. Army Corps of Engineers
This form should be completed by following the instructions provided in Section IV of the JD Form Instructional Guidebook.
SECTION I: BACKGROUND INFORMATION
A. REPORT COMPLETION DATE FOR APPROVED JURISDICTIONAL DETERMINATION (JD): April 28, 2017
B. DISTRICT OFFICE, FILE NAME, AND NUMBER: Wilmington District, Reidsville Energy Center / NTE Carolinas / 4673 NC
Highway 65 / Reidsville / Rockingham County / commercial, SAW-2016-01608
C. PROJECT LOCATION AND BACKGROUND INFORMATION: JD Form 3 — This form covers UT 1 and Wl.
The project is located between NC 65 and New Lebanon Church road, just west of Ernest Drive, near Reidsville, Rockingham
County, North Carolina.
State: North Carolina County/parish/borough: Rockingham City: Reidsville
Center coordinates of site (lat/long in degree decimal format): Lat. 36.3333082526087°N, Long. -79.833511493116° W
Universal Transverse Mercator: 17 604690.83 4021549.7
Name of nearest waterbody: UT to Little Jacobs Creek (UT 6)
Name of nearest Traditional Navigable Water (TNW) into which the aquatic resource flows: Dan River
Name of watershed or Hydrologic Unit Code (HUC): Upper Dan, 03010103
® Check if map/diagram of review area and/or potential jurisdictional areas is/are available upon request.
❑ Check if other sites (e.g., offsite mitigation sites, disposal sites, etc...) are associated with this action and are recorded on a different
JD form:
D. REVIEW PERFORMED FOR SITE EVALUATION (CHECK ALL THAT APPLY):
❑ Office (Desk) Determination. Date:
® Field Determination. Date(s): 8/12/2016,12/21/2016
SECTION II: SUMMARY OF FINDINGS
A. RHA SECTION 10 DETERMINATION OF JURISDICTION.
There "navigable waters of the U.S." within Rivers and Harbors Act (RHA) jurisdiction (as defined by 33 CFR part 329) in the
review area. [Required]
❑ Waters subject to the ebb and flow of the tide.
❑ Waters are presently used, or have been used in the past, or may be susceptible for use to transport interstate or foreign commerce.
Explain:
B. CWA SECTION 404 DETERMINATION OF JURISDICTION.
There Are "waters of the U.S." within Clean Water Act (CWA) jurisdiction (as defined by 33 CFR part 328) in the review area. [Required]
1. Waters of the U.S.
a. Indicate presence of waters of U.S. in review area (check all that apply): 1
❑ TNWs, including territorial seas
❑ Wetlands adjacent to TNWs
® Relatively permanent waters2 (RPWs) that flow directly or indirectly into TNWs
❑ Non-RPWs that flow directly or indirectly into TNWs
® Wetlands directly abutting RPWs that flow directly or indirectly into TNWs
❑ Wetlands adjacent to but not directly abutting RPWs that flow directly or indirectly into TNWs
❑ Wetlands adjacent to non-RPWs that flow directly or indirectly into TNWs
❑ Impoundments of jurisdictional waters
❑ Isolated (interstate or intrastate) waters, including isolated wetlands
b. Identify (estimate) size of waters of the U.S. in the review area:
Non -wetland waters: 936 linear feet, 3 wide, and/or acres.
Wetlands: acres.
c. Limits (boundaries) of jurisdiction based on: Established by OHWM.
Elevation of established OHWM (if known):
2. Non -regulated waters/wetlands (check if applicable):3
❑ Potentially jurisdictional waters and/or wetlands were assessed within the review area and determined to be not jurisdictional.
Explain:
SECTION HI: CWA ANALYSIS
A. TNWs AND WETLANDS ADJACENT TO TNWs
1 Boxes checked below shall be supported by completing the appropriate sections in Section III below.
For purposes of this form, an RPW is defined as a tributary that is not a TNW and that typically flows year-round or has continuous flow at least "seasonally"
(e.g., typically 3 months).
3 Supporting documentation is presented in Section III.F.

-2-
The agencies will assert jurisdiction over TNWs and wetlands adjacent to TNWs. If the aquatic resource is a TNW, complete
Section IH.A.1 and Section HLD.1. only; if the aquatic resource is a wetland adjacent to a TNW, complete Sections IH.A.1 and 2
and Section HI.D.1.; otherwise, see Section HI.B below.
1. TNW
Identify TNW:
Summarize rationale supporting determination:
2. Wetland adjacent to TNW
Summarize rationale supporting conclusion that wetland is "adjacent":
B. CHARACTERISTICS OF TRIBUTARY (THAT IS NOT A TNW) AND ITS ADJACENT WETLANDS (IF ANY):
This section summarizes information regarding characteristics of the tributary and its adjacent wetlands, if any, and it helps
determine whether or not the standards for jurisdiction established under Rapanos have been met.
The agencies will assert jurisdiction over non -navigable tributaries of TNWs where the tributaries are "relatively permanent
waters" (RPWs), i.e. tributaries that typically flow year-round or have continuous flow at least seasonally (e.g., typically 3
months). A wetland that directly abuts an RPW is also jurisdictional. If the aquatic resource is not a TNW, but has year-round
(perennial) flow, skip to Section IH.D.2. If the aquatic resource is a wetland directly abutting a tributary with perennial flow,
skip to Section HLD.4.
A wetland that is adjacent to but that does not directly abut an RPW requires a significant nexus evaluation. Corps districts and
EPA regions will include in the record any available information that documents the existence of a significant nexus between a
relatively permanent tributary that is not perennial (and its adjacent wetlands if any) and a traditional navigable water, even
though a significant nexus fmding is not required as a matter of law.
If the waterbody4 is not an RPW, or a wetland directly abutting an RPW, a JD will require additional data to determine if the
waterbody has a significant nexus with a TNW. If the tributary has adjacent wetlands, the significant nexus evaluation must
consider the tributary in combination with all of its adjacent wetlands. This significant nexus evaluation that combines, for
analytical purposes, the tributary and all of its adjacent wetlands is used whether the review area identified in the JD request is
the tributary, or its adjacent wetlands, or both. If the JD covers a tributary with adjacent wetlands, complete Section HI.B.1 for
the tributary, Section HI.B.2 for any onsite wetlands, and Section IH.B.3 for all wetlands adjacent to that tributary, both onsite
and offsite. The determination whether a significant nexus exists is determined in Section HI.0 below.
1. Characteristics of non-TNWs that flow directly or indirectly into TNW
(i)
General Area Conditions:
Watershed size: 15 acres
Drainage area: 10 acres
Average annual rainfall: 41.66 inches
Average annual snowfall: 14 inches
Physical Characteristics:
(a) Relationship with TNW:
❑ Tributary flows directly into TNW.
® Tributary flows through 3 tributaries before entering TNW.
Project waters are 5-10 river miles from TNW.
Project waters are 1 (or less) river miles from RPW.
Project waters are 2-5 aerial (straight) miles from TNW.
Project waters are 1 (or less) aerial (straight) miles from RPW.
Project waters cross or serve as state boundaries. Explain:
Identify flow route to TNW5: UT 1 (UT to Little Jacobs Creek, seasonal RPW which becomes perennial) to Little
Jacobs Creek (RPW) to Jacobs Creek (RPW) to the Dan River (TNW)
Tributary stream order, if known: 1st
Note that the Instructional Guidebook contains additional information regarding swales, ditches, washes, and erosional features generally and in the arid
West.
5 Flow route can be described by identifying, e.g., tributary a, which flows through the review area, to flow into tributary b, which then flows into TNW.

-3-
()
(b) General Tributary Characteristics (check all that apply):
Tributary is: ® Natural
❑ Artificial (man-made). Explain:
❑ Manipulated (man -altered). Explain:
Tributary properties with respect to top of bank (estimate):
Average width: 3 feet
Average depth: 0.2 feet
Average side slopes: 2:1.
Primary tributary substrate composition (check all that apply):
® Silts
❑ Cobbles
❑ Bedrock
❑ Other. Explain:
® Sands
® Gravel
❑ Vegetation. Type/% cover:
❑ Concrete
❑ Muck
Tributary condition/stability [e.g., highly eroding, sloughing banks]. Explain: eroding, incised in certain areas
Presence of run/riffle/pool complexes. Explain: present but few
Tributary geometry: Relatively straight
Tributary gradient (approximate average slope): 1 %
(c) Flow:
Tributary provides for: Seasonal flow
Estimate average number of flow events in review area/year: 6-10
Describe flow regime: seasonal stream
Other information on duration and volume:
Surface flow is: Confined. Characteristics: Confined to stream banks, no evidence of overbank flow
Subsurface flow: Unknown. Explain findings:
❑ Dye (or other) test performed:
Tributary has (check all that apply):
® Bed and banks
OHWM6 (check all indicators that apply):
® clear, natural line impressed on the bank
® changes in the character of soil
® shelving
® vegetation matted down, bent, or absent
® leaf litter disturbed or washed away
❑ sediment deposition
❑ water staining
❑ other (list):
❑ Discontinuous OHWM.7 Explain:
❑ the presence of litter and debris
❑ destruction of terrestrial vegetation
❑ the presence of wrack line
® sediment sorting
❑ scour
❑ multiple observed or predicted flow events
❑ abrupt change in plant community
If factors other than the OHWM were used to determine lateral extent of CWA jurisdiction (check all that apply):
❑ High Tide Line indicated by: ❑ Mean High Water Mark indicated by:
❑ oil or scum line along shore objects ❑ survey to available datum;
❑ fine shell or debris deposits (foreshore) ❑ physical markings;
❑ physical markings/characteristics ❑ vegetation lines/changes in vegetation types.
❑ tidal gauges
❑ other (list):
Chemical Characteristics:
Characterize tributary (e.g., water color is clear, discolored, oily film; water quality; general watershed characteristics, etc.).
Explain:
Identify specific pollutants, if known: pollutants were not assessed or observed. Note that the entirety of the watershed is
forested.
(iv) Biological Characteristics. Channel supports (check all that apply):
6A natural or man-made discontinuity in the OHWM does not necessarily sever jurisdiction (e.g., where the stream temporarily flows underground, or where
the OHWM has been removed by development or agricultural practices). Where there is a break in the OHWM that is unrelated to the waterbody's flow
regime (e.g., flow over a rock outcrop or through a culvert), the agencies will look for indicators of flow above and below the break.
'Ibid.

-4-
® Riparian corridor. Characteristics (type, average width): Mixed pine/hardwood mature forest, >100' on each side
❑ Wetland fringe. Characteristics:
® Habitat for:
❑ Federally Listed species. Explain findings:
❑ Fish/spawn areas. Explain findings:
❑ Other environmentally -sensitive species. Explain findings:
® Aquatic/wildlife diversity. Explain findings: Habitat for common wildland/urban interface species.
2. Characteristics of wetlands adjacent to non-TNW that flow directly or indirectly into TNW
(i)
Physical Characteristics:
(a) General Wetland Characteristics:
Properties:
Wetland size: 0.012 acres
Wetland type. Explain: PFO (Cowardin), Headwater Forest (NCWAM)
Wetland quality. Explain: medium quality, wetland WI exists within the drainageway along with the stream,
and occurs between the seasonal and perennial reaches of UT 1.
Project wetlands cross or serve as state boundaries. Explain:
(b) General Flow Relationship with Non-TNW:
Flow is: Intermittent flow. Explain: Wetland WI receives flow directly from intermittent reach of UT 1.
Surface flow is: Overland sheetflow
Characteristics: Flow from seasonal reach of UT 1 spreads out into sheetflow within twetland Wl.
Subsurface flow: Unknown. Explain findings:
❑ Dye (or other) test performed:
(c) Wetland Adjacency Determination with Non-TNW:
® Directly abutting
❑ Not directly abutting
❑ Discrete wetland hydrologic connection. Explain:
❑ Ecological connection. Explain:
❑ Separated by berm/barrier. Explain:
(d) Proximity (Relationship) to TNW
Project wetlands are 5-10 river miles from TNW.
Project waters are 2-5 aerial (straight) miles from TNW.
Flow is from: Wetland to navigable waters.
Estimate approximate location of wetland as within the 500-year or greater floodplain.
(ii) Chemical Characteristics:
Characterize wetland system (e.g., water color is clear, brown, oil film on surface; water quality; general watershed
characteristics; etc.). Explain: pollutants were not assessed or observed. Note that the entirety of the watershed is
forested.
Identify specific pollutants, if known:
(iii) Biological Characteristics. Wetland supports (check all that apply):
® Riparian buffer. Characteristics (type, average width): Wetland W1 exists within the riparian buffer of UT 1
® Vegetation type/percent cover. Explain: 75% cover, small hardwood trees and herbaceous cover.
® Habitat for:
❑ Federally Listed species. Explain findings:
❑ Fish/spawn areas. Explain findings:
❑ Other environmentally -sensitive species. Explain findings:
® Aquatic/wildlife diversity. Explain findings: Habitat for common wildland/urban interface species.
3. Characteristics of all wetlands adjacent to the tributary (if any)
All wetland(s) being considered in the cumulative analysis: 1
Approximately 0.012 acres in total are being considered in the cumulative analysis.
For each wetland, specify the following:
Directly abuts? (Y/N)
Wl (Y)
Size (in acres)
0.012
Directly abuts? (Y/N) Size (in acres)

-5-
Summarize overall biological, chemical and physical functions being performed: Wetland W1 is located in a landscape
position that receives intermittent flow from the seasonal reach of UT 1. As such, this wetland area can attenuate
downstream flows, filter sediment through physical capture, and filter nutrients through anearobic processes (i.e.
nitrate reduction), all prior to the water being released into the perennial downstream reach of UT 1. This wetland
area also serves as wildlife habitat in the form of a water and food source for common wildland/urban interface
species.
C. SIGNIFICANT NEXUS DETERMINATION
A significant nexus analysis will assess the flow characteristics and functions of the tributary itself and the functions performed
by any wetlands adjacent to the tributary to determine if they significantly affect the chemical, physical, and biological integrity
of a TNW. For each of the following situations, a significant nexus exists if the tributary, in combination with all of its adjacent
wetlands, has more than a speculative or insubstantial effect on the chemical, physical and/or biological integrity of a TNW.
Considerations when evaluating significant nexus include, but are not limited to the volume, duration, and frequency of the flow
of water in the tributary and its proximity to a TNW, and the functions performed by the tributary and all its adjacent
wetlands. It is not appropriate to determine significant nexus based solely on any specific threshold of distance (e.g. between a
tributary and its adjacent wetland or between a tributary and the TNW). Similarly, the fact an adjacent wetland lies within or
outside of a floodplain is not solely determinative of significant nexus.
Draw connections between the features documented and the effects on the TNW, as identified in the Rapanos Guidance and
discussed in the Instructional Guidebook. Factors to consider include, for example:
• Does the tributary, in combination with its adjacent wetlands (if any), have the capacity to carry pollutants or flood waters to
TNWs, or to reduce the amount of pollutants or flood waters reaching a TNW?
• Does the tributary, in combination with its adjacent wetlands (if any), provide habitat and lifecycle support functions for fish and
other species, such as feeding, nesting, spawning, or rearing young for species that are present in the TNW?
• Does the tributary, in combination with its adjacent wetlands (if any), have the capacity to transfer nutrients and organic carbon that
support downstream foodwebs?
• Does the tributary, in combination with its adjacent wetlands (if any), have other relationships to the physical, chemical, or
biological integrity of the TNW?
Note: the above list of considerations is not inclusive and other functions observed or known to occur should be documented
below:
1. Significant nexus fmdings for non-RPW that has no adjacent wetlands and flows directly or indirectly into TNWs. Explain
findings of presence or absence of significant nexus below, based on the tributary itself, then go to Section IILD:
2. Significant nexus fmdings for non-RPW and its adjacent wetlands, where the non-RPW flows directly or indirectly into
TNWs. Explain findings of presence or absence of significant nexus below, based on the tributary in combination with all of its
adjacent wetlands, then go to Section III.D:
3. Significant nexus fmdings for wetlands adjacent to an RPW but that do not directly abut the RPW. Explain findings of
presence or absence of significant nexus below, based on the tributary in combination with all of its adjacent wetlands, then go to
Section III.D: Wetland W1 provides the functions and services noted in Section III.B.3, which then improves the water
quality within Little Jacobs Creek whose flow enters the Dan River (a TNW) within 10 river miles of the review area. As
such, Wetland W1 has a significant nexus with the Dan River.
D. DETERMINATIONS OF JURISDICTIONAL FINDINGS. THE SUBJECT WATERS/WETLANDS ARE (CHECK ALL
THAT APPLY):
1. TNWs and Adjacent Wetlands. Check all that apply and provide size estimates in review area:
❑ TN Ws: linear feet, wide, Or acres.
❑ Wetlands adjacent to TNWs: acres.
2. RPWs that flow directly or indirectly into TNWs.
® Tributaries of TNWs where tributaries typically flow year-round are jurisdictional. Provide data and rationale indicating that
tributary is perennial: The lower reach of UT 1 occurs in the lower portion of a natural drainage way, and has bed and
banks and characteristics of an OHWM including a clear, natural line impressed on the bank, the presence of litter
and debris, changes in the character of soil, destruction of terrestrial vegetation, shelving, vegetation matted down,
bent, or absent, sediment sorting, leaf litter disturbed or washed away, and scour.

-6-
® Tributaries of TNW where tributaries have continuous flow "seasonally" (e.g., typically three months each year) are
jurisdictional. Data supporting this conclusion is provided at Section III.B. Provide rationale indicating that tributary flows
seasonally: The upper reach of UT 1 (UT to Little Jacobs Creek) occurs in the uppermost portion of a natural
drainage way and has bed and banks and characteristics of an OHWM as documented in Section IH(B)(1). Substrate
sorting, absence of fine roots, and presence of bed and banks, in particular, are reliable indicators of seasonal stream
status in this ecoregion.
Provide estimates for jurisdictional waters in the review area (check all that apply):
® Tributary waters: 939 linear feet 3 wide.
❑ Other non -wetland waters: acres.
Identify type(s) of waters:
3. Non-RPWs8 that flow directly or indirectly into TNWs.
❑ Waterbody that is not a TNW or an RPW, but flows directly or indirectly into a TNW, and it has a significant nexus with a
TNW is jurisdictional. Data supporting this conclusion is provided at Section III.C.
Provide estimates for jurisdictional waters within the review area (check all that apply):
❑ Tributary waters: linear feet, wide.
❑ Other non -wetland waters: acres.
Identify type(s) of waters:
4. Wetlands directly abutting an RPW that flow directly or indirectly into TNWs.
® Wetlands directly abut RPW and thus are jurisdictional as adjacent wetlands.
❑ Wetlands directly abutting an RPW where tributaries typically flow year-round. Provide data and rationale indicating that
tributary is perennial in Section III.D.2, above. Provide rationale indicating that wetland is directly abutting an RPW:
® Wetlands directly abutting an RPW where tributaries typically flow "seasonally." Provide data indicating that tributary is
seasonal in Section III.B and rationale in Section III.D.2, above. Provide rationale indicating that wetland is directly
abutting an RPW: Wetland W1 is a contiguous wetland unit that extends to the banks of the upper reach of UT 1
(seasonal RPW).
Provide acreage estimates for jurisdictional wetlands in the review area: 0.012 acres.
5. Wetlands adjacent to but not directly abutting an RPW that flow directly or indirectly into TNWs.
❑ Wetlands that do not directly abut an RPW, but when considered in combination with the tributary to which they are adjacent
and with similarly situated adjacent wetlands, have a significant nexus with a TNW are jurisidictional. Data supporting this
conclusion is provided at Section III.C.
Provide acreage estimates for jurisdictional wetlands in the review area: acres.
6. Wetlands adjacent to non-RPWs that flow directly or indirectly into TNWs.
❑ Wetlands adjacent to such waters, and have when considered in combination with the tributary to which they are adjacent and
with similarly situated adjacent wetlands, have a significant nexus with a TNW are jurisdictional. Data supporting this
conclusion is provided at Section III.C.
Provide estimates for jurisdictional wetlands in the review area: acres.
7. Impoundments of jurisdictional waters.9
As a general rule, the impoundment of a jurisdictional tributary remains jurisdictional.
❑ Demonstrate that impoundment was created from "waters of the U.S.," or
❑ Demonstrate that water meets the criteria for one of the categories presented above (1-6), or
❑ Demonstrate that water is isolated with a nexus to commerce (see E below).
E. ISOLATED [INTERSTATE OR INTRA-STATE] WATERS, INCLUDING ISOLATED WETLANDS, THE USE,
DEGRADATION OR DESTRUCTION OF WHICH COULD AFFECT INTERSTATE COMMERCE, INCLUDING ANY
SUCH WATERS (CHECK ALL THAT APPLY):19
Nee Footnote # 3.
9 To complete the analysis refer to the key in Section III.D.6 of the Instructional Guidebook.
io Prior to asserting or declining CWA jurisdiction based solely on this category, Corps Districts will elevate the action to Corps and EPA HQ for
review consistent with the process described in the Corps/EPA Memorandum Regarding CWA Act Jurisdiction Following Rapanos.

-7-
❑ which are or could be used by interstate or foreign travelers for recreational or other purposes.
❑ from which fish or shellfish are or could be taken and sold in interstate or foreign commerce.
❑ which are or could be used for industrial purposes by industries in interstate commerce.
❑ Interstate isolated waters. Explain:
❑ Other factors. Explain:
Identify water body and summarize rationale supporting determination:
Provide estimates for jurisdictional waters in the review area (check all that apply):
❑ Tributary waters: linear feet, wide.
❑ Other non -wetland waters: acres.
Identify type(s) of waters:
❑ Wetlaands: acres.
F. NON -JURISDICTIONAL WATERS, INCLUDING WETLANDS (CHECK ALL THAT APPLY):
❑ If potential wetlands were assessed within the review area, these areas did not meet the criteria in the 1987 Corps of Engineers
Wetland Delineation Manual and/or appropriate Regional Supplements.
❑ Review area included isolated waters with no substantial nexus to interstate (or foreign) commerce.
❑ Prior to the Jan 2001 Supreme Court decision in "SWANCC," the review area would have been regulated based solely on the
"Migratory Bird Rule" (MBR).
❑ Waters do not meet the "Significant Nexus" standard, where such a finding is required for jurisdiction. Explain:
❑ Other: (explain, if not covered above):
Provide acreage estimates for non -jurisdictional waters in the review area, where the sole potential basis of jurisdiction is the MBR
factors (i.e., presence of migratory birds, presence of endangered species, use of water for irrigated agriculture), using best professional
judgment (check all that apply):
❑ Non -wetland waters (i.e., rivers, streams): linear feet, wide.
❑ Lakes/ponds: acres.
❑ Other non -wetland waters: acres. List type of aquatic resource:
❑ Wetlaands: acres.
Provide acreage estimates for non -jurisdictional waters in the review area that do not meet the "Significant Nexus" standard, where such
a finding is required for jurisdiction (check all that apply):
❑ Non -wetland waters (i.e., rivers, streams): linear feet, wide.
❑ Lakes/ponds: acres.
❑ Other non -wetland waters: acres. List type of aquatic resource:
❑ Wetlands: acres.
SECTION IV: DATA SOURCES.
A. SUPPORTING DATA. Data reviewed for JD (check all that apply - checked items shall be included in case file and, where checked
and requested, appropriately reference sources below):
® Maps, plans, plots or plat submitted by or on behalf of the applicant/consultant: Aerial, soils, and topo maps (ECT)
® Data sheets prepared/submitted by or on behalf of the applicant/consultant.
® Office concurs with data sheets/delineation report.
❑ Office does not concur with data sheets/delineation report.
❑ Data sheets prepared by the Corps:
❑ Corps navigable waters' study:
❑ U.S. Geological Survey Hydrologic Atlas:
❑ USGS NHD data.
❑ USGS 8 and 12 digit HUC maps.
® U.S. Geological Survey map(s). Cite scale & quad name: 1:24K; NC-BETHANY
® USDA Natural Resources Conservation Service Soil Survey. Citation: Rockingham Co. Soil Survey
❑ National wetlands inventory map(s). Cite name:
❑ State/Local wetland inventory map(s):
❑ FEMA/FIRM maps:
❑ 100-year Floodplain Elevation is: (National Geodectic Vertical Datum of 1929)
® Photographs: ® Aerial (Name & Date): ESRI/NAIP 2014
or ® Other (Name & Date): Site phots of features (ECT, 2/10 and 2/11/2016)
❑ Previous determination(s). File no. and date of response letter:
❑ Applicable/supporting case law:
111 Applicable/supporting scientific literature:

-8-
® Other information (please specify): LiDAR (NC Floodmaps) for natural drainage way, drainage and watershed size
determinations;
B. ADDITIONAL COMMENTS TO SUPPORT JD:
JD Form 3 — This form covers UT 1 (seasonal RPW and perennial RPW) as well as wetland W1 (abutting a seasonal RPW). Section
III.B.1 provides the available information that documents the existence of a significant nexus between UT 1 and the Dan River (a
TNW).

APPROVED JURISDICTIONAL DETERMINATION FORM
U.S. Army Corps of Engineers
This form should be completed by following the instructions provided in Section IV of the JD Form Instructional Guidebook.
SECTION I: BACKGROUND INFORMATION
A. REPORT COMPLETION DATE FOR APPROVED JURISDICTIONAL DETERMINATION (JD): April 28, 2017
B. DISTRICT OFFICE, FILE NAME, AND NUMBER: Wilmington District, Reidsville Energy Center / NTE Carolinas / 4673 NC
Highway 65 / Reidsville / Rockingham County / commercial, SAW-2016-01608
C. PROJECT LOCATION AND BACKGROUND INFORMATION: JD Form 4 — This form covers Little Jacobs Creek and UTs
2, 3, 5, 7, 101, 102, 103, and wetlands W2, W3, W4, W5, W6, W7, W8, W9, W101, W102, W103, W104, W105, W106, W107, W108,
W109.
The project is located between NC 65 and New Lebanon Church road, just west of Ernest Drive, near Reidsville, Rockingham
County, North Carolina.
State: North Carolina County/parish/borough: Rockingham City: Reidsville
Center coordinates of site (lat/long in degree decimal format): Lat. 36.3333082526087°N, Long. -79.833511493116° W
Universal Transverse Mercator: 17 604690.83 4021549.7
Name of nearest waterbody: Little Jacobs Creek
Name of nearest Traditional Navigable Water (TNW) into which the aquatic resource flows: Dan River
Name of watershed or Hydrologic Unit Code (HUC): Upper Dan, 03010103
® Check if map/diagram of review area and/or potential jurisdictional areas is/are available upon request.
❑ Check if other sites (e.g., offsite mitigation sites, disposal sites, etc...) are associated with this action and are recorded on a different
JD form:
D. REVIEW PERFORMED FOR SITE EVALUATION (CHECK ALL THAT APPLY):
['Office (Desk) Determination. Date:
® Field Determination. Date(s): 8/12/2016,12/21/2016
SECTION II: SUMMARY OF FINDINGS
A. RHA SECTION 10 DETERMINATION OF JURISDICTION.
There "navigable waters of the U.S." within Rivers and Harbors Act (RHA) jurisdiction (as defined by 33 CFR part 329) in the
review area. [Required]
❑ Waters subject to the ebb and flow of the tide.
❑ Waters are presently used, or have been used in the past, or may be susceptible for use to transport interstate or foreign commerce.
Explain:
B. CWA SECTION 404 DETERMINATION OF JURISDICTION.
There Are "waters of the U.S." within Clean Water Act (CWA) jurisdiction (as defined by 33 CFR part 328) in the review area. [Required]
1. Waters of the U.S.
a. Indicate presence of waters of U.S. in review area (check all that apply): 1
❑ TNWs, including territorial seas
❑ Wetlands adjacent to TNWs
® Relatively permanent waters (RPWs) that flow directly or indirectly into TNWs
❑ Non-RPWs that flow directly or indirectly into TNWs
® Wetlands directly abutting RPWs that flow directly or indirectly into TNWs
❑ Wetlands adjacent to but not directly abutting RPWs that flow directly or indirectly into TNWs
❑ Wetlands adjacent to non-RPWs that flow directly or indirectly into TNWs
❑ Impoundments of jurisdictional waters
❑ Isolated (interstate or intrastate) waters, including isolated wetlands
b. Identify (estimate) size of waters of the U.S. in the review area:
Non -wetland waters: 936 linear feet, 3 wide, and/or acres.
Wetlands: acres.
c. Limits (boundaries) of jurisdiction based on: Established by OHWM.
Elevation of established OHWM (if known):
2. Non -regulated waters/wetlands (check if applicable):3
❑ Potentially jurisdictional waters and/or wetlands were assessed within the review area and determined to be not jurisdictional.
Explain:
SECTION III: CWA ANALYSIS
1 Boxes checked below shall be supported by completing the appropriate sections in Section III below.
2 For purposes of this form, an RPW is defined as a tributary that is not a TNW and that typically flows year-round or has continuous flow at least "seasonally"
(e.g., typically 3 months).
3 Supporting documentation is presented in Section III.F.

-2-
A. TNWs AND WETLANDS ADJACENT TO TNWs
The agencies will assert jurisdiction over TNWs and wetlands adjacent to TNWs. If the aquatic resource is a TNW, complete
Section III.A.1 and Section III.D.1. only; if the aquatic resource is a wetland adjacent to a TNW, complete Sections III.A.1 and 2
and Section III.D.1.; otherwise, see Section III.B below.
1. TNW
Identify TNW:
Summarize rationale supporting determination:
2. Wetland adjacent to TNW
Summarize rationale supporting conclusion that wetland is "adjacent":
B. CHARACTERISTICS OF TRIBUTARY (THAT IS NOT A TNW) AND ITS ADJACENT WETLANDS (IF ANY):
This section summarizes information regarding characteristics of the tributary and its adjacent wetlands, if any, and it helps
determine whether or not the standards for jurisdiction established under Rapanos have been met.
The agencies will assert jurisdiction over non -navigable tributaries of TNWs where the tributaries are "relatively permanent
waters" (RPWs), i.e. tributaries that typically flow year-round or have continuous flow at least seasonally (e.g., typically 3
months). A wetland that directly abuts an RPW is also jurisdictional. If the aquatic resource is not a TNW, but has year-round
(perennial) flow, skip to Section III.D.2. If the aquatic resource is a wetland directly abutting a tributary with perennial flow,
skip to Section IILD.4.
A wetland that is adjacent to but that does not directly abut an RPW requires a significant nexus evaluation. Corps districts and
EPA regions will include in the record any available information that documents the existence of a significant nexus between a
relatively permanent tributary that is not perennial (and its adjacent wetlands if any) and a traditional navigable water, even
though a significant nexus fmding is not required as a matter of law.
If the waterbody4 is not an RPW, or a wetland directly abutting an RPW, a JD will require additional data to determine if the
waterbody has a significant nexus with a TNW. If the tributary has adjacent wetlands, the significant nexus evaluation must
consider the tributary in combination with all of its adjacent wetlands. This significant nexus evaluation that combines, for
analytical purposes, the tributary and all of its adjacent wetlands is used whether the review area identified in the JD request is
the tributary, or its adjacent wetlands, or both. If the JD covers a tributary with adjacent wetlands, complete Section III.B.1 for
the tributary, Section III.B.2 for any onsite wetlands, and Section III.B.3 for all wetlands adjacent to that tributary, both onsite
and offsite. The determination whether a significant nexus exists is determined in Section III.0 below.
1. Characteristics of non-TNWs that flow directly or indirectly into TNW
(i)
General Area Conditions:
Watershed size: 1875 acre
Drainage area: 850 acres
Average annual rainfall: 41.66 inches
Average annual snowfall: 14 inches
Physical Characteristics:
(a) Relationship with TNW:
❑ Tributary flows directly into TNW.
® Tributary flows through I tributaries before entering TNW.
Project waters are 5-1 river miles from TNW.
Project waters are 1 (or less) river miles from RPW.
Project waters are 2-5 aerial (straight) miles from TNW.
Project waters are 1 (or less) aerial (straight) miles from RPW.
Project waters cross or serve as state boundaries. Explain:
Identify flow route to TWO: Little Jacobs Creek (RPW) to Jacobs Creek (RPW) to the Dan River (TNW)
Tributary stream order, if known: 2nd
Note that the Instructional Guidebook contains additional information regarding swales, ditches, washes, and erosional features generally and in the arid
West.
5 Flow route can be described by identifying, e.g., tributary a, which flows through the review area, to flow into tributary b, which then flows into TNW.

-3-
()
(b) General Tributary Characteristics (check all that apply):
Tributary is: ® Natural
❑ Artificial (man-made). Explain:
❑ Manipulated (man -altered). Explain:
Tributary properties with respect to top of bank (estimate):
Average width: 12 feet
Average depth: 1.5 feet
Average side slopes:
Primary tributary substrate composition (check all that apply):
® Silts ® Sands
® Cobbles ® Gravel
® Bedrock ❑ Vegetation. Type/% cover:
❑ Other. Explain:
❑ Concrete
❑ Muck
Tributary condition/stability [e.g., highly eroding, sloughing banks]. Explain: eroding, incised in certain areas
Presence of run/riffle/ ool complexes. Explain: present but few
Tributary geometry: Mtively straight
Tributary gradient (approximate average slope): 1 %
(c) Flow:
Tributary provides for: Seasonal flow
Estimate average number of flow events in review area/year: •
Describe flow regime: seasonal stream
Other information on duration and volume:
Surface flow is: Eonfined. Characteristics: Confined to stream banks, no evidence of overbank flow
Subsurface flow: Unknowq. Explain findings:
❑ Dye (or other) test performed:
Tributary has (check all that apply):
® Bed and banks
® OHWM6 (check all indicators that apply):
® clear, natural line impressed on the bank
® changes in the character of soil
® shelving
® vegetation matted down, bent, or absent
® leaf litter disturbed or washed away
® sediment deposition
❑ water staining
❑ other (list):
❑ Discontinuous OHWM.7 Explain:
❑ the presence of litter and debris
❑ destruction of terrestrial vegetation
® the presence of wrack line
® sediment sorting
scour
® multiple observed or predicted flow events
❑ abrupt change in plant community
If factors other than the OHWM were used to determine lateral extent of CWA jurisdiction (check all that apply):
❑ High Tide Line indicated by: ❑ Mean High Water Mark indicated by:
❑ oil or scum line along shore objects ❑ survey to available datum;
❑ fine shell or debris deposits (foreshore) ❑ physical markings;
❑ physical markings/characteristics ❑ vegetation lines/changes in vegetation types.
❑ tidal gauges
❑ other (list):
Chemical Characteristics:
Characterize tributary (e.g., water color is clear, discolored, oily film; water quality; general watershed characteristics, etc.).
Explain:
Identify specific pollutants, if known: pollutants were not assessed or observed.
(iv) Biological Characteristics. Channel supports (check all that apply):
6A natural or man-made discontinuity in the OHWM does not necessarily sever jurisdiction (e.g., where the stream temporarily flows underground, or where
the OHWM has been removed by development or agricultural practices). Where there is a break in the OHWM that is unrelated to the waterbody's flow
regime (e.g., flow over a rock outcrop or through a culvert), the agencies will look for indicators of flow above and below the break.
'Ibid.

-4-
® Riparian corridor. Characteristics (type, average width): Mixed pine/hardwood mature forest, >100' on each side
® Wetland fringe. Characteristics: Fringing wetlands in the project area are PEM (Cowardin) due to cleared utility
corridor
® Habitat for:
❑ Federally Listed species. Explain findings:
® Fish/spawn areas. Explain findings: Little Jacobs Creek is a large perennial stream and includes habitat for
numerous common fish species
❑ Other environmentally -sensitive species. Explain findings:
® Aquatic/wildlife diversity. Explain findings: Habitat for common wildland/urban interface species.
2. Characteristics of wetlands adjacent to non-TNW that flow directly or indirectly into TNW
(i)
Physical Characteristics:
(a) General Wetland Characteristics:
Properties:
Wetland size: 0.023 acres
Wetland type. Explain: PFO (Cowardin), Bottomland Hardwood Forest (NCWAM)
Wetland quality. Explain: medium quality, wetland W7 exists within the floodplain of Little Jacobs Creek, with
it's closest edge occuring wihtin 25 linear feet of the bank of Little Jacobs Creek.
Project wetlands cross or serve as state boundaries. Explain:
(b) General Flow Relationship with Non-TNW:
Flow is: Ephemeral . Explain: Wetland W7 receives flow from Little Jacobs Creek during flow events, and
contributes flow to Little Jacobs Creek as ephemeral sheet flow during precipitation events.
Surface flow is: erly amend sheetflow
Characteristics: Wetland W7 receives overland flow from upslope areas and contributes flow to Little Jacobs
Creek as ephemeral sheet flow during precipitation events.
Subsurface flow: Unknown. Explain findings:
❑ Dye (or other) test performed:
(c) Wetland Adjacency Determination with Non-TNW:
❑ Directly abutting
® Not directly abutting
❑ Discrete wetland hydrologic connection. Explain:
❑ Ecological connection. Explain:
® Separated by berm/barrier. Explain: Wetland W7 occurs within the flooplain of Little Jacobs Creek, and is
very proximate (within 25 feet) to this stream. Wetland W7 is seperated from Little Jacobs Creek by a
natural levee berm, but this berm is fairly low in height and thus floodwaters from Little Jacobs Creek
would inundate Wetland W7.
(d) Proximity (Relationship) to TNW
Project wetlands are 5-10 river miles from TNW.
Project waters are 2-5 aerial (straight) miles from TNW.
Flow is from: Wetland to navigable waters.
Estimate approximate location of wetland as within the 100 - 500-yeaj floodplain.
(ii) Chemical Characteristics:
Characterize wetland system (e.g., water color is clear, brown, oil film on surface; water quality; general watershed
characteristics; etc.). Explain: pollutants were not assessed or observed.
Identify specific pollutants, if known:
(iii) Biological Characteristics. Wetland supports (check all that apply):
® Riparian buffer. Characteristics (type, average width): Wetland W7 exists within the riparian buffer of Little Jacobs
Creek
® Vegetation type/percent cover. Explain: 75% cover, large hardwood trees and herbaceous cover.
® Habitat for:
❑ Federally Listed species. Explain findings:
❑ Fish/spawn areas. Explain findings:
® Other environmentally -sensitive species. Explain findings: Suitable amphibian breeding habitat due to ability to
pond water and lack of fish
® Aquatic/wildlife diversity. Explain findings: Habitat for common wildland/urban interface species.

-5-
3. Characteristics of all wetlands adjacent to the tributary (if any)
All wetland(s) being considered in the cumulative analysis: 11
Approximately 0.023 acres in total are being considered in the cumulative analysis.
For each wetland, specify the following:
Directly abuts? (Y/N)
W7 (N)
Size (in acres)
0.023
Directly abuts? (Y/N) Size (in acres)
Summarize overall biological, chemical and physical functions being performed: Wetland W7 is located in the geomorphic
floodplain of Little Jacobs Creek and is thus in a landscape position that receives occasional floodwater as well as
overland flow that reaches Little Jacobs Creek during precipitation events. This wetland area can attenuate
downstream flows by slowing and capturing precipitation -derived runnoff, filter sediment through physical capture,
and filter nutrients through anearobic processes (i.e. nitrate reduction), all prior to the water being released into the
Little Jacobs Creek. This wetland area also serves as wildlife habitat in the form of a water and food source for
common wildland/urban interface species, as well as suitable breeding habitat for amphibians.
C. SIGNIFICANT NEXUS DETERMINATION
A significant nexus analysis will assess the flow characteristics and functions of the tributary itself and the functions performed
by any wetlands adjacent to the tributary to determine if they significantly affect the chemical, physical, and biological integrity
of a TNW. For each of the following situations, a significant nexus exists if the tributary, in combination with all of its adjacent
wetlands, has more than a speculative or insubstantial effect on the chemical, physical and/or biological integrity of a TNW.
Considerations when evaluating significant nexus include, but are not limited to the volume, duration, and frequency of the flow
of water in the tributary and its proximity to a TNW, and the functions performed by the tributary and all its adjacent
wetlands. It is not appropriate to determine significant nexus based solely on any specific threshold of distance (e.g. between a
tributary and its adjacent wetland or between a tributary and the TNW). Similarly, the fact an adjacent wetland lies within or
outside of a floodplain is not solely determinative of significant nexus.
Draw connections between the features documented and the effects on the TNW, as identified in the Rapanos Guidance and
discussed in the Instructional Guidebook. Factors to consider include, for example:
• Does the tributary, in combination with its adjacent wetlands (if any), have the capacity to carry pollutants or flood waters to
TNWs, or to reduce the amount of pollutants or flood waters reaching a TNW?
• Does the tributary, in combination with its adjacent wetlands (if any), provide habitat and litecycle support functions for fish and
other species, such as feeding, nesting, spawning, or rearing young for species that are present in the TWO
• Does the tributary, in combination with its adjacent wetlands (if any), have the capacity to transfer nutrients and organic carbon that
support downstream foodwebs?
• Does the tributary, in combination with its adjacent wetlands (if any), have other relationships to the physical, chemical, or
biological integrity of the TNW?
Note: the above list of considerations is not inclusive and other functions observed or known to occur should be documented
below:
1. Significant nexus fmdings for non-RPW that has no adjacent wetlands and flows directly or indirectly into TNWs. Explain
findings of presence or absence of significant nexus below, based on the tributary itself, then go to Section IILD:
2. Significant nexus fmdings for non-RPW and its adjacent wetlands, where the non-RPW flows directly or indirectly into
TNWs. Explain findings of presence or absence of significant nexus below, based on the tributary in combination with all of its
adjacent wetlands, then go to Section III.D:
3. Significant nexus fmdings for wetlands adjacent to an RPW but that do not directly abut the RPW. Explain findings of
presence or absence of significant nexus below, based on the tributary in combination with all of its adjacent wetlands, then go to
Section III.D: Wetland W7 provides the functions and services noted in Section III.B.3, which then improves the water
quality within Little Jacobs Creek whose flow enters the Dan River (a TNW) within 10 river miles of the review area. As
such, Wetland W7 has a significant nexus with the Dan River.
D. DETERMINATIONS OF JURISDICTIONAL FINDINGS. THE SUBJECT WATERS/WETLANDS ARE (CHECK ALL
THAT APPLY):
1. TNWs and Adjacent Wetlands. Check all that apply and provide size estimates in review area:
111 IN Ws: linear feet, wide, Or acres.

-6-
❑ Wetlands adjacent to TNWs: acres.
2. RPWs that flow directly or indirectly into TNWs.
® Tributaries of TNWs where tributaries typically flow year-round are jurisdictional. Provide data and rationale indicating that
tributary is perennial: Little Jacobs Creek and UTs 2, 3, 5, 7,101, 102, and 103 occur in natural drainage ways, and
have bed and banks and characteristics of OHWMs including a clear, natural line impressed on the bank, the
presence of litter and debris, changes in the character of soil, destruction of terrestrial vegetation, shelving, vegetation
matted down, bent, or absent, sediment sorting, leaf litter disturbed or washed away, and scour.
❑ Tributaries of TNW where tributaries have continuous flow "seasonally" (e.g., typically three months each year) are
jurisdictional. Data supporting this conclusion is provided at Section III.B. Provide rationale indicating that tributary flows
seasonally:
Provide estimates for jurisdictional waters in the review area (check all that apply):
® Tributary waters: 8178 linear feet 3-10 wide.
❑ Other non -wetland waters: acres.
Identify type(s) of waters:
3. Non-RPWs8 that flow directly or indirectly into TNWs.
❑ Waterbody that is not a TNW or an RPW, but flows directly or indirectly into a TNW, and it has a significant nexus with a
TNW is jurisdictional. Data supporting this conclusion is provided at Section III.C.
Provide estimates for jurisdictional waters within the review area (check all that apply):
❑ Tributary waters: linear feet, wide.
❑ Other non -wetland waters: acres.
Identify type(s) of waters:
4. Wetlands directly abutting an RPW that flow directly or indirectly into TNWs.
® Wetlands directly abut RPW and thus are jurisdictional as adjacent wetlands.
® Wetlands directly abutting an RPW where tributaries typically flow year-round. Provide data and rationale indicating that
tributary is perennial in Section III.D.2, above. Provide rationale indicating that wetland is directly abutting an RPW:
Wetlands W2, W3, W4, W5, W6, W8, W9, W101, W102, W103, W104, W105, W106, W107, W108, and W109
are all contiguous wetland units that extend to the banks of RPWs.
❑ Wetlands directly abutting an RPW where tributaries typically flow "seasonally." Provide data indicating that tributary is
seasonal in Section III.B and rationale in Section III.D.2, above. Provide rationale indicating that wetland is directly
abutting an RPW:
Provide acreage estimates for jurisdictional wetlands in the review area: 0.012 acres.
5. Wetlands adjacent to but not directly abutting an RPW that flow directly or indirectly into TNWs.
® Wetlands that do not directly abut an RPW, but when considered in combination with the tributary to which they are adjacent
and with similarly situated adjacent wetlands, have a significant nexus with a TNW are jurisidictional. Data supporting this
conclusion is provided at Section III.C.
Provide acreage estimates for jurisdictional wetlands in the review area: 0.023 acres.
6. Wetlands adjacent to non-RPWs that flow directly or indirectly into TNWs.
❑ Wetlands adjacent to such waters, and have when considered in combination with the tributary to which they are adjacent and
with similarly situated adjacent wetlands, have a significant nexus with a TNW are jurisdictional. Data supporting this
conclusion is provided at Section III.C.
Provide estimates for jurisdictional wetlands in the review area: acres.
7. Impoundments of jurisdictional waters.'
As a general rule, the impoundment of a jurisdictional tributary remains jurisdictional.
❑ Demonstrate that impoundment was created from "waters of the U.S.," or
❑ Demonstrate that water meets the criteria for one of the categories presented above (1-6), or
❑ Demonstrate that water is isolated with a nexus to commerce (see E below).
'See Footnote # 3.
9 To complete the analysis refer to the key in Section III.D.6 of the Instructional Guidebook.

-7-
E. ISOLATED [INTERSTATE OR INTRA-STATE] WATERS, INCLUDING ISOLATED WETLANDS, THE USE,
DEGRADATION OR DESTRUCTION OF WHICH COULD AFFECT INTERSTATE COMMERCE, INCLUDING ANY
SUCH WATERS (CHECK ALL THAT APPLY):"
❑ which are or could be used by interstate or foreign travelers for recreational or other purposes.
❑ from which fish or shellfish are or could be taken and sold in interstate or foreign commerce.
❑ which are or could be used for industrial purposes by industries in interstate commerce.
❑ Interstate isolated waters. Explain:
❑ Other factors. Explain:
Identify water body and summarize rationale supporting determination:
Provide estimates for jurisdictional waters in the review area (check all that apply):
❑ Tributary waters: linear feet, wide.
❑ Other non -wetland waters: acres.
Identify type(s) of waters:
❑ Wetlaands: acres.
F. NON -JURISDICTIONAL WATERS, INCLUDING WETLANDS (CHECK ALL THAT APPLY):
❑ If potential wetlands were assessed within the review area, these areas did not meet the criteria in the 1987 Corps of Engineers
Wetland Delineation Manual and/or appropriate Regional Supplements.
❑ Review area included isolated waters with no substantial nexus to interstate (or foreign) commerce.
❑ Prior to the Jan 2001 Supreme Court decision in "SWANCC," the review area would have been regulated based solely on the
"Migratory Bird Rule" (MBR).
❑ Waters do not meet the "Significant Nexus" standard, where such a finding is required for jurisdiction. Explain:
❑ Other: (explain, if not covered above):
Provide acreage estimates for non -jurisdictional waters in the review area, where the sole potential basis of jurisdiction is the MBR
factors (i.e., presence of migratory birds, presence of endangered species, use of water for irrigated agriculture), using best professional
judgment (check all that apply):
❑ Non -wetland waters (i.e., rivers, streams): linear feet, wide.
❑ Lakes/ponds: acres.
❑ Other non -wetland waters: acres. List type of aquatic resource:
❑ Wetlaands: acres.
Provide acreage estimates for non -jurisdictional waters in the review area that do not meet the "Significant Nexus" standard, where such
a finding is required for jurisdiction (check all that apply):
❑ Non -wetland waters (i.e., rivers, streams): linear feet, wide.
❑ Lakes/ponds: acres.
❑ Other non -wetland waters: acres. List type of aquatic resource:
❑ Wetlands: acres.
SECTION IV: DATA SOURCES.
A. SUPPORTING DATA. Data reviewed for JD (check all that apply - checked items shall be included in case file and, where checked
and requested, appropriately reference sources below):
® Maps, plans, plots or plat submitted by or on behalf of the applicant/consultant: Aerial, soils, and topo maps (ECT)
® Data sheets prepared/submitted by or on behalf of the applicant/consultant.
® Office concurs with data sheets/delineation report.
❑ Office does not concur with data sheets/delineation report.
❑ Data sheets prepared by the Corps:
❑ Corps navigable waters' study:
❑ U.S. Geological Survey Hydrologic Atlas:
❑ USGS NHD data.
❑ USGS 8 and 12 digit HUC maps.
® U.S. Geological Survey map(s). Cite scale & quad name: 1:24K; NC-BETHANY
® USDA Natural Resources Conservation Service Soil Survey. Citation: Rockingham Co. Soil Survey
❑ National wetlands inventory map(s). Cite name:
❑ State/Local wetland inventory map(s):
❑ FEMA/FIRM maps:
io Prior to asserting or declining CWA jurisdiction based solely on this category, Corps Districts will elevate the action to Corps and EPA HQ for
review consistent with the process described in the Corps/EPA Memorandum Regarding CWA Act Jurisdiction Following Rapanos.

-8-
❑ 100-year Floodplain Elevation is: (National Geodectic Vertical Datum of 1929)
® Photographs: ® Aerial (Name & Date): ESRI/NAIP 2014
or ® Other (Name & Date): Site phots of features (ECT, 2/10 and 2/11/2016)
❑ Previous determination(s). File no. and date of response letter:
❑ Applicable/supporting case law:
❑ Applicable/supporting scientific literature:
® Other information (please specify): LiDAR (NC Floodmaps) for natural drainage way, drainage and watershed size
determinations;
B. ADDITIONAL COMMENTS TO SUPPORT JD:
JD Form 4 — This form covers:
Little Jacobs Creek and UTs 2, 3, 5, 7, 101, 102, 103 (all RPWs), as well as
Wetlands W2, W3, W4, W5, W6, W8, W9, W101, W102, W103, W104, W105, W106, W107, W108, and W109 (wetlands abutting
RPWs), and
Wetland W7 (wetland adjacent to RPW).

1141C-
Water Resources
Environmental Quality
February 15, 2017
Ms. Jennifer Cassada
Environmental Consulting & Technology Inc
7208 Falls of Neuse Rd, Suite 102
Raleigh, NC 27615-3244
ROY COOPER
Governor
MICHAEL S. REGAN
Secretary
S. JAY ZIMMERMAN
Director
Subject: On -Site Determination for Applicability to the Mitigation Rules (15A NCAC 2H .0500)
Subject Property: NTE Carolinas II, LLC, Hy 65, Reidsville NC, Rockingham County
Dear Ms. Cassada:
On August 12, 2016 and December 21, 2016, at your request, Sue Homewood conducted on -site
determinations to review features located within the subject project area for stream determinations with
regards to the above noted state regulations. David Bailey with the US Army Corps of Engineers was also
present during the site visits.
The Division acknowledges the areas and boundaries identified as jurisdictional wetlands by the USACE.
The attached map accurately depicts all stream determinations conducted during the site visits.
Please note that at the time of this letter, all perennial stream channels and jurisdictional wetlands found on
the property are subject to the mitigation rules cited above. These regulations are subject to change in the
future.
The owner (or future owners) should notify the Division (and other relevant agencies) of this decision in
any future correspondences concerning this property. This on -site determination shall expire five (5) years
from the date of this letter.
Landowners or affected parties that dispute a determination made by the Division or Delegated Local
Authority that a surface water exists and that it is subject to the buffer rule may request a determination by
the Director. A request for a determination by the Director shall be referred to the Director in writing c/o
401 & Buffer Permitting Branch, 1650 Mail Service Center, Raleigh, NC 27699-1650. Individuals that
dispute a determination by the Division or Delegated Local Authority that "exempts" surface water from
the buffer rule may ask for an adjudicatory hearing. You must act within 60 days of the date that you
receive this letter. Applicants are hereby notified that the 60-day statutory appeal time does not start until
the affected party (including downstream and adjacent landowners) is notified of this decision. The
Division recommends that the applicant conduct this notification in order to be certain that third party
appeals are made in a timely manner. To ask for a hearing, send a written petition, which conforms to
Chapter 150B of the North Carolina General Statutes to the Office of Administrative Hearings, 6714 Mail
Service Center, Raleigh, N.C. 27699-6714. This determination is final and binding unless you ask for a
hearing within 60 days.
- Nothing Compares'= _
State of North Carolina Environmental Quality
450 West Hanes Mill Road, Suite 300 Winston-Salem, North Carolina 27105
336-776-9800

This letter only addresses the applicability to the mitigation rules and does not approve any activity within
Waters ofthe United States or Waters ofthe State. If you have any additional questions or require additional
information, please contact me at 336-776-96923 or [e-mail].
Sincerely,
Sue Homewood
Winston-Salem Regional Office
Enclosures: USGS Topo Map
ECT Stream Map
Cc: David Bailey, USACE Raleigh Regulatory Field Office (via email)
Garrett Weeks, NTE Energy ([e-mail])
Mark Overby, 5810 Willow Way Ct, Oak Ridge, NC 27310-9698
John Wood, 4673 NC Highway 65, Reidsville NC 27320-9330
DWR, Winston-Salem Regional Office

III Environmental Consulting
C Ai& Technology of
North Carolina, PLLC
APPENDIX C
DIVISION OF MITIGATION
SERVICES ACCEPTANCE OF
MITIGATION

Fic
Mitigation Services
ENVIRONMENTAL QUALITY
June 1,2017
Garrett Weeks
NTE Carolinas II, LLC
24 Cathedral Place Suite 300
St. Augustine, FL 32084
ROY COOPER
Govenio.
MICI3AEL S. REGAN
secreran
Expiration of Acceptance: December 1. 2017
Project: Reidsville Energy Center County: Rockingham
The purpose of this letter is to notify you that the NCDEQ Division of Mitigation Services (DMS) is willing to accept
payment for compensatory mitigation for impacts associated with the above referenced project as indicated in the
table below. Please note that this decision does not assure that participation in the DMS in -lieu fee mitigation
program will be approved by the permit issuing agencies as mitigation for project impacts. It is the responsibility
of the applicant to contact permitting agencies to determine if payment to the DMS 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 G.S. § 143-214.11.
This acceptance is valid for six months from the date of this letter and is not transferable. If we have not
received a copy of the issued 404 Permit/401 Certification/CAMA permit within this time frame, this
acceptance will expire. It is the applicant's responsibility to send copies of the permits to DMS. Once DMS
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 by an
applicant is calculated based upon the Fee Schedule and policies listed on the DMS website.
Based on the information supplied by you in your request to use the DMS, the impacts for which you are
requesting compensatory mitigation credit are summarized in the following table. The amount of mitigation
required and assigned to DMS for this impact is determined by permitting agencies and may exceed the impact
amounts shown below.
River
Basin
CU Location
(8-digit HUC)
Stream (feet)
Wetlands (acres)
Buffer I
(Sq. Ft.)
Buffer II
(Sq. Ft.)
Cold
Cool
Warm
Riparian
Non -Riparian
Coastal Marsh
Impact
Roanoke
03010103
0
0
227
0
0
0
0
0
Upon receipt of payment, DMS will take responsibility for providing the compensatory mitigation. The mitigation
will be performed in accordance with the In -Lieu Fee Program instrument dated July 28, 2010 and 15A NCAC
02B .0295 as applicable. Thank you for your interest in the DMS in -lieu fee mitigation program. If you have any
questions or need additional information, please contact Kelly Williams at [phone].
cc: Chris Wu, agent
Sincerely,
�t+
Jame-. B Stanfill
Asset Management Supervisor
State of North Carolina I Environmental Quality J Mitigation Services
1652 Mail Service Center I Raleigh, NC 27699-1652 , 217 W. Jones Street, Suite 3000
919 707 8976 T

Environmental Consulting
.& Technology of
North Carolina, PLLC
APPENDIX D
DESCRIPTION OF WASTEWATER
TREATMENT
N:APRJ\NTE ENERGY \ECO\PCN \NTE PCN NARRATIVE.DOCX

Description of Wastewater Treatment
Dan River Supply Water Treatment
Dan River water will flow through passive intake screens and be pumped from the Dan
River Intake Pump Station to the REC through a raw water pipeline. Provisions will be
made to feed sodium hypochlorite to the river water at the Intake Pump Station to help
control microbiological growth in the water supply pipeline.
At the REC site, the river water will be treated first by clarification to remove natural
suspended solids in the water and a portion of the dissolved solids that is amenable to
removal by coagulation and flocculation using aluminum or iron -based coagulants. A
polymer will also be used to enhance flocculation. Clarified river water will then be treated
by media filtration as a polishing step to further reduce any carryover of suspended solids
and floc material. Filtered water will be pumped to the cooling tower basin and service
water and fire water storage tank.
Periodically, the settled solids (sludge) removed by the clarifier will be removed and sent
to a thickener to be partially dewatered. A polymer will be fed to the sludge to enhance
thickening. Thickened sludge will be further dewatered to a solids cake using additional
polymer and a filter press. The solids cake will be sent to an off -site disposal site.
Thickener overflow and pressate streams will be recovered and pumped to the inlet of the
clarification process. Periodically each media filter will be backwashed with filtered water
to remove accumulated solids within the filter media bed. The filter backwash waste
stream will also be recovered and pumped to the inlet of the clarification process.
Service Water and Fire Water
Filtered water is used to satisfy fire water and service water demands. At the REC, service
water is used as makeup water to the main cooling towers and evaporative coolers, plant
washdown water, and HRSG blowdown quench water.
Environmental
Consulting
&
Technology, Inc.

Makeup water to the main cooling towers replaces water lost from the recirculating water
system as a result of cooling tower evaporation, drift, and blowdown (controlled release of
recirculating water). The dissolved solids concentration of the makeup water cycles up in
the recirculating water system by a factor approximately equal to the ratio of the makeup
water flow rate to the cooling tower blowdown flow rate. This is called the cycles of
concentration (COC) of the cooling tower. At the REC, the COC will be limited to
approximately seven (7) under normal operation to control potential scaling and corrosion
of recirculating water wetted components using chemical scale and corrosion inhibitors.
Sodium hypochlorite will also be continuously added to the recirculating water to control
biofouling. The blowdown stream will be dechlorinated with sodium bisulfate prior to
being collected in the plant' s wastewater collection sump.
The dissolved solids concentration in the makeup water to the evaporative coolers will also
cycle up due to evaporation. However, it will only be operated at approximately two (2)
COC. No inhibitors or biocide are added to the evaporative cooler recirculating water. The
evaporative cooler blowdown stream is recovered as makeup to the main recirculating
water system.
Washdown water streams from various areas of the plant will be directed to an oil/water
separator for treatment prior to being collected in the wastewater collection sump. Oily
waste from the oil -water separator will be disposed off -site.
A portion of the service water that is used to cool (quench) HRSG blowdown will be
recovered as makeup to the main recirculating water system.
Municipal Water Treatment
The Reidsville municipal water system will provide water to the REC site for potable and
sanitary needs. Municipal water will also be used as feedwater to the plant' s treatment
system that produces high purity demineralized water. This treatment system will include
Environmental
Consulting &
Technology, Inc.

reverse osmosis (RO) that produces a concentrated waste stream (concentrate) that has a
dissolved solids concentration that is approximately four (4) times that of the potable water
based on 80-percent water recovery. This stream will be recovered as makeup to the main
recirculating water system. Mixed bed ion exchange vessels will polish the product water
from the RO system. The ion exchange resin in these vessels will be regenerated off -site
and thus there will be no on -site waste stream from this treatment process.
Demineralized water will primarily be used as makeup to the steam/water power cycle to
replace water lost as HRSG blowdown, water and steam sampling, HRSG quench water,
and miscellaneous non -recoverable losses. HRSG blowdown will be recovered as makeup
to the main recirculating water system. Water and steam sampling drains will be directed
to the wastewater collection sump.
Plant Wastewater Discharges and Chemical Characteristics
Various plant waste streams that will be collected in the plant wastewater collection sump
include:
• Dechlorinated main cooling tower blowdown.
• Service water washdown, including non -chemical cleaning waste, that has been
processed through the plant oil/water separator. Chemical cleaning wastes will be
trucked offsite.
• Water and steam sampling drains.
The contents of the wastewater collection sump will be monitored prior to being pumped
through a discharge line back to the Dan River. The design discharge of the proposed
Project will be 1.057 MGD with an average discharge rate of approximately 0.411 MGD.
Environmental
Consulting &
Technology, Inc.

APPENDIX E
SMOOTH CONEFLOWER SURVEY
MEMORANDUM
Environmental
Consulting 8
C Technology, Inc.

MEMORANDUM June5,2017
To:
From:
CC:
Date:
Re:
Sara McRae, Fish and Wildlife Service
Jennifer Cassada — ECT
John Ellis — Fish and Wildlife Service; Garrett Weeks, Ted Sullivan — NTE
Carolinas II, LLC; Bill Lester - LKC Engineering; Adam Kiker - LKC
Engineering; Christopher Wu - ECT
June 6, 2017
Botanical Survey Report for Proposed Combined -Cycle Power Plant
Reidsville Energy Center
Rockingham County, NC
NTE Carolinas II, LLC (NTE) and LKC Engineering on behalf of Rockingham County,
contracted Environmental Consulting & Technology, of North Carolina (ECT), to conduct
a botanical survey for a listed plant species on a site under consideration for construction
of a natural gas -fired, combined -cycle facility and a water supply and discharge line located
near the town of Reidsville in Rockingham County, North Carolina (Figure 1). In a meeting
on February 24, 2017 the U.S. Fish and Wildlife Service (FWS) requested a survey for
smooth coneflower (Echinacea laevigata) be conducted on the site. The survey area,
depicted in Figure 1, consists of the proposed plant site (157.1 acres) and a water supply
(7.3 miles) and discharge line (5.9 miles) leading to and from the Dan River. The water
intake and discharge lines are collocated for approximately 1.1 miles. The combined cycle
power plant will be constructed by NTE and the water supply and discharge will be
constructed by Rockingham County.
Surveys were conducted during the week of May 22, 2017 during the optimum survey
window for the smooth coneflower. No occurrences of the target species were found within
the survey area.
1.1.1 METHODS
Prior to the field survey, ECT biologists familiarized themselves with the target species'
habitat requirements and taxonomic details through the use of published and online
resources. In addition, ECT biologists visited a site (Penny's Bend) with a known
population of the species to verify that it is blooming and further familiarize themselves
with the plant and its current status.
N: \PRJ \NTE ENERGY \ECO\CONEFLO WER SURVEY \CONEFLO WER SURVEY MEMO_060517.DOCX1
Environmental!
Techrro
Consulting &
�9Y

MEMO
TO: Sara McRae
May 23, 2017
Page 2
The proposed project site and waterline routes were surveyed by two qualified ECT
biologists. Biologists traversed the site on foot by making transects through the suitable
habitat found on the site and along the waterline routes. The surveys were completed May
22 through 24, 2017. The late -May timeframe occurs during the optimal survey window
for the target species. During the surveys general habitats were characterized, and a list of
species noted on the site was compiled (Table 1).
1.1.2 RESULTS
No occurrences of smooth coneflower were located during the survey. Table 1 presents a
list of species noted during the surveys. The physical setting, land use types, and vegetative
communities encountered during the survey are described in the following paragraphs.
Attachment 1 contains representative photographs (locations are depicted in Figure 1).
Species Description
Smooth coneflower is a perennial herb in the sunflower family (Asteraceae). It is 2 to 4
feet tall with basal leaves that are up to 6 inches long and 3 inches wide. The light pink to
purplish flowers are borne in solitary heads on the tips of the shoots. It flowers from May
to July and fruits from July to October. Fruits are persistent. It is found in dry, open woods,
forest edges, and fields. It was historically found in areas maintained in an early
successional state by fire and is now mainly found in maintained clearings such as right of
ways (ROWs) and roadsides.
1.1.2.1 Physical Setting
The site is located in central North Carolina in the Piedmont physiographic province. The
site is characterized by rolling hills with intermittent and perennial streams in the valleys.
Little Jacobs Creek bisects the site on the western side from south to north and several
small unnamed tributaries also traverse the site. Topography on the site ranges from a high
of about 820 feet in the northwestern corner of the site to a low of around 700 feet along
Little Jacobs Creek. The waterline routes follow roads for the majority of the route with
the intake and discharge located on the Dan River (Figure 1).
The site is bordered to the south by a Duke Energy electrical generation facility and
otherwise surrounded by a Williams natural gas compressor station and rural areas
consisting of large residential tracts interspersed with forest and farm fields.
1.1.2.2 Land Use/Vegetative Communities
The site is mainly forested on the western side with open areas consisting of natural gas
and transmission line ROWs and farm fields in the eastern half. The majority of the water
line routes are located within the ROW for roads. The ROW is typically comprised of
maintained turf grasses. Land uses adjacent to the ROW include mixed hardwood forest,
N: \PRJ \NTE ENERGY \ECO\CONEFLO WER SURVEY \CONEFLO WER SURVEY MEMO_060517.DOCX2
Environmental!
Techrro
Consulting &
�9Y

MEMO
TO: Sara McRae
May 23, 2017
Page 3
pine plantation, agriculture, and rural residential. Attachment 1 presents representative
photographs, and photograph locations are depicted in Figure 1. Additional photographs of
wetlands and streams and adjacent uplands areas can be found in the project's wetlands
delineation reports. Much of the survey area has been previously disturbed, and several
invasive species were encountered.
The open fields on the site consist of old farm fields maintained for hay production. There
are three ROWs that cross the site: a transmission line ROW crosses the southeastern
corner, a natural gas ROW crosses north/south to the east of the center of the site, and the
Plantation pipeline crosses also north/south on the western side of the site. Open areas are
dominated by grasses, including small carpetgrass (Arthraxon hispidus), redtop panic grass
(Panicum rigidulum), and broomsedge (Andropogon virginicus), as well as goldenrods
(Solidago spp.), blackberry (Rubus spp.), lespedeza (Lespedeza spp.), and honeysuckle
(Lonicera j aponica).
Forested areas are typical of secondary growth mesic mixed hardwood forest and basic
mesic forest. Dominant species in the overstory include sweetgum (Liquidambar
styraciflua), tulip poplar (Liriodendron tulipifera), white oak (Quercus alba), red oak
(Quercus rubra), and southern red oak (Quercus falcata). Mockernut hickory (Carya
tomentosa), red maple (Acer rubrum), black cherry (Prunus serotina), and Virginia pine
(Pinus virginiana) were also observed in the overstory, as well as in the sapling/shrub layer.
Understory species noted include American beech (Fagus grandifolia), dogwood (Cornus
Florida), American holly (Ilex opaca), sourwood (Oxydendron arboreum), redbud (Cercis
canadensis), Japanese stilt grass (Migrostegium vimineum), greenbriar (Smilax
rotundifolia), Christmas fern (Polystichum acrosticoides), ground cedar (Diphasiastrum
digutatatum), rattlesnake plantain (Goodyeara pubescens), heartleaf (Hexastylis sp.), and
spotted wintergreen (Chimaphila maculata).
1.1.3 CONCLUSIONS
The project is not expected to impact the smooth coneflower as none were located within
the limits of disturbance of the project. Biologists surveyed transects through the entire
survey area and noted no smooth coneflower.
N: \PRJ \NTE ENERGY \ECO\CONEFLO WER SURVEY \CONEFLO WER SURVEY MEMO_060517.DOCX3
Environmental!
Techrro
Consulting &
�9Y

P
a
Ia
c
mo
rtillil
lej
111M00,1111Var
11.111411
4"
i',2
FIGURE 1. Page 1 of 11
SMOOTH CONEFLOWER SURVEY
ROCKINGHAM COUNTY
Sources ESRI World Imagery, NAIP, 2016 ECT, 2017
Feet `r _ `�
�! ....
Lr l
It \:014 11.1.: * :2,4..
, • ,.
,...,..,,. ,. ,
...
•
�„ '}it,
- `1 ..._........
..TIhnels — .. deille.........-.• ...... .../ Photo2 s� .,, '1 , 3._. i. J,
- '•� 4 e� •Photo 1
• 4 . Ita' �;
ti -- r1� .
; "4 1 Photo 'Y�'. +�. ���
i,�
Z. , •
al
Jrl� 1 `J`t i F+ • 1
ll
•
, i ' . . ._ ., ' 7 401)011110.1"..' — fr. i
• 1
jlt 1
,j ,' Phntn 4

o zoo aoo CD. yr
Feet . irva. 1
, i
,° k•
.1"
' t sS
•
41
4 1 ,iii;
its
•
{�\ - 1 NC 65 _ Ai' \i +0 ,- + '�.JV `s .+ ,J . . - 4
-
—
Yip
1111111h
t V r; 4yi% 4' ra til1
+ r !% i Y y . 4..
•
•
���
Illtilhlii
._:
Ai
11
Y
t
f
g
a
'y
LI
111
FIGURE 1. Page 2 of 11
SMOOTH CONEFLOWER SURVEY
ROCKINGHAM COUNTY
Sources : ESRI World Imagery, NAIP, 2016 ECT, 2017

i0 200 400 ®"
err-.r �' I
Feet �j�' , f r _
•
l .Yt{•1.f nr: ffilir.—
i NM
i-,,4
-1",‘
t•
.f n
11
•
Photo 7 1,33
-
r �. d w '�! ..4 4 yFr - r1 '
•
v.
7 +• ,.
,
,�"i" Lf
•
• + + itr. • 'fir �.;-
�f . 3 r Y 3';',"bt J •
♦ 111
170
•/�
"may
EQ.'o
Q Eck
It-1
‘14)
Iq
FIGURE 1. Page 3 of 11
SMOOTH CONEFLOWER SURVEY
ROCKINGHAM COUNTY
Sources : ESRI World Imagery NAIP, 2016 ECTT 2017

Ii19:AR1177TdL19C�3F91 � /W1nll�.mF-�..�u.a

Ii19:AR1177TdL19C�3F91 � /W1nll�.mF-�..�u.a

Ii19:AR1177TdL19C�3F91 � /W1nll�.mF-�..�u.a

f
Feet
i
iii, r;
' ../ • • 44* '
yt
***4 '1
1.1111"::,. - ,/‘ A
j y'ki• t� °y Air
1
,\
'i.
4: .
...,
, \
....
.t.,,,,
4 • 4 P .. . _
iiiiii 4: 1
1-. ` A. �as.�BERT F '1 \ ,� .
r ...--A, - _ S. ARM -'.r-
•
.ram , _ + G�J�°� . if
0
,L,
1
'
z
iii
lq-----,,‘,4

-
����I 41
.+ . #.-
•
V
—"—
i
Wg
$rc_
##
1
-1J �Y 1,
;
rf •
legg
,.j.., i.....:noi t Photo 6
0r
r
I�x
111
FIGURE 1. Page 8 of 11
SMOOTH CONEFLOWER SURVEY
ROCKINGHAM COUNTY
Sources ESRI World Imagery, NAIP, 2016 ECT, 2017

y
11
u
... \ .
0 200 400
FeetIll
r Joy 1 AI*
I
SPAN �i'� ;%Mi1�' „¢•
�
it
.t,
} •,♦ Qs,/ .yam -" � 6
f. A \•,,
!
CO"
r F I ..
'N
URY,BRIDGE �•
/
! - ,.z,
•
il
4likiXIGI", ..
11
1 1 0 r
9
/
FIGURE 1. Page 9 of 11
SMOOTH CONEFLOWER SURVEY
ROCKINGHAM COUNTY
Sources : ESRI World Imagery, NAIP, 2016 ECT, 2017

.
boa
c S
I°°x
114/1
I
40
�QG
L
44.
•
4a
tr .
. , , .
. . .
.- NC_70_4_ -
114
! If
1 4.
1 '
r
L
gedir
31,44pz_
ill°
1
IN
`
c tt.
FIGURE 1. Page 10 of 11
SMOOTH CONEFLOWER SURVEY
ROCKINGHAM COUNTY
Sources : ESRI World Imagery NAIP, 2016 ECTT 2017

09114,11
a
A"
bo
Qo
ztiz
M. \
14
a
I'
.s. -. , �'' �s
,,
. 4.4 ... ". 4g„,
._ ..,,,
, .,,,,,
•
. 7 ' 44 -
tin •Ir. Ir * N r ♦�y,
K7 ,• 'I
i , SI,' %er
ti r
meth r. "
, f . iit
..
4
i 11
r ` ,. i. ` , // j
I
FIGURE 1. Page 11 of 11
SMOOTH CONEFLOWER SURVEY
ROCKINGHAM COUNTY
Sources ESRI World Imagery, NAIP, 2016 ECT, 2017

Table 1. List of Plant Species Noted at the Site
Scientific Name
Common Name
Box elder
Acer negundo
Red maple
Acer rubrum
American yarrow
Achillea borealis
Onion
Allium sp.
Tag alder
Alnus serrulata
Common ragweed
Ambrosia artemissiifolia
Common bushy bluestem
Andropogon glomeratus
Broomsedge
Andropogon virginicus
Jack -in -the -Pulpit
Arisaema triphyllum
Small carpetgrass
Arthraxon hispidus
Common milkweed
Asclepias syriaca
Butterfly weed
Asclepias tuberosa
Asters
Aster sp.
Southern lady fern
Athyrium asplenioides
Carpetgrass
Axonopus affinis
Trumpet creeper
Campsis radicans
Sedge
Carexsp.
Ironwood
Carpinus caroliniana
Mockernut hickory
Carya tomentosa
Eastern redbud
Cercis canadensis
Spotted wintergreen
Chimaphila maculata
Oxeye daisy
Chrysanthemum leucanthemum
Carolina dayflower
Commelina caroliniana
Silky dogwood
Cornus amomum
Flowering dogwood
Cornus florida
Flatsedge
Cyperus sp.
Deptford pink
Dianthus aremeria
Running cedar
Diphasiastrum digitatum
Virginia wildrye
Elymus virginicus
Daisy fleabane
Erigeron strigosum
N: \PRJ \NTE ENERGY \ECO\CONEFLO WER SURVEY \ CONEFLOWER SURVEY MEMO_060517.DOCX4
Environmental!
Tech
Connofr gy,
suling
C
tinc.

Scientific Name
Common Name
Dog fennel
Eupatorium perfoliatum
American beech
Fagus grandifolia
Wild strawberry
Fragaria virginiana
White ash
Fraxinus americana
Green ash
Fraxinus pennsylvanica
Catchweed bedstraw
Galium aparine
Rattlesnake plantain
Goodyeara pubescens
Witch hazel
Hamamelis virginiana
Heartleaf
Hexastylis sp.
Manyflower marsh pennywort
Hydrocotyle umbellata
American holly
Ilex opaca
Jewelweed
Impatiens capensis
Black Walnut
Juglans nigra
Soft rush
Juncus effusus
Eastern red cedar
Juniperus virginiana
Sweetgum
Liquidambar styraciflua
Tulip tree
Liriodendron tulipifera
Japanese honeysuckle
Lonicera japonica
Cucumber tree
Magnolia acuminata
False salomon's seal
Maianthemum racemosum
Japanese stilt grass
Microstegium vimineum
Black gum
Nyssa sylvatica
Sundrops
Oenothera fruticosa
Sensitive fern
Onoclea sensibilis
Cinnamon fern
Osmundastrum cinnamomeum
Sourwood
Oxydendron arboreum
Redtop panic grass
Panicum rigidulum
Pokeweed
Phytolacca americana
Loblolly pine
Pinus taeda
Virginia pine
Pinus virginiana
Sycamore
Platanus occidentalis
N: \PRJ \NTE ENERGY \ECO\CONEFLO WER SURVEY \ CONEFLOWER SURVEY MEMO_060517.DOCXS
Environmental!
Tech
Connofr gy,sulting
C inc.

Scientific Name
Common Name
Striped knotweed
Polygonum striatum
Christmas fern
Polystichum acrosticoides
Black cherry
Prunus serotina
Kudzu
Pueraria lobata
White oak
Quercus alba
Southern red oak
Quercus falcata
Red oak
Quercus rubra
Blackberry
Rubus argutus
Carolina willow
Salix caroliniana
Elderberry
Sambucus canadensis
Lizard's tail
Saururus cernuus
Catbriar
Smilax rotundifolia
Tall goldenrod
Solidago gigantea
Goldenrods
Solidago sp.
Meadowrue
Thalictrum sp.
Poison ivy
Toxicodendron radicans
Red clover
Trifolium pratense
White clover
Trifolium repens
Muscadine
Vitis rotundifolia
Grape
Vitis sp.
Netted chain fern
Woodwardia areolata
Virginia chain fern
Woodwardia virginiana
Cocklebur
Xanthium strumarium
Source: ECT, 2017.
N: \PRJ \NTE ENERGY \ECO\CONEFLO WER SURVEY \CONEFLO WER SURVEY MEMO_060517.DOCX6
Environmental!
Tech
Connofr gy,
suling
C
tinc.

ATTACHMENT 1
SITE PHOTOGRAPHS
N: \PRJ \NTE ENERGY \ECO\CONEFLO WER SURVEY \CONEFLO WER SURVEY MEMO_060517.DOCX7
Environmental!
Techr
Conrolsuloging
C y,
tinc.

Photograph 1—View to the west showing typical habitat
in cleared areas of northeast corner of site
Photograph 2—View to the north showing typical habitat
in the north central portion of the site
II ,i1' Environmental
Consulting &
Technology, inc.

Photograph 3—View to the south of the Plantation Pipeline
Photograph 4—View to the west showing typical habitat in south central portion of the site
— Environmental
Consulting &
Technology, Inc.

Photograph 5—View to the west showing typical habitat
in the field at the southwestern corner of the site
Photograph 6—NC 65 just north of the intersection with Bakers Crossroads showing typical
roadside habitat.
Environmental
EWC &
Technology, Inc.

Photograph 7—View to the west showing typical habitat in cleared areas of landfill site
— Environmental
Consulting &
Technology, Inc.

APPENDIX F
AGENCY CORRESPONDENCE
Environmental
EWC m &
Technology, Inc.

Kathryn Johnston
Secretary
J. Brian Ratledge
General Counsel
State Environmental
Review Clearinghouse
AAh4I NtSTRATi6N
September 30, 2016
Ms. Paige Morris
North Carolina Department of Commerce
Utilities Commission
4325 Mail Service Center
Raleigh, North Carolina 27699-4325
Re: SCH File # 17-E-4600-0119; Application of NTE Carolinas II, LLC for Certificate to
construct a 500 MW Natural Gas -Fueled Merchant Power Plant in Rockingham Co.
Docket # EMP-92, Sub 0.
Dear Ms. Morris:
The above referenced environmental impact information has been reviewed through the State
Clearinghouse under the provisions of the North Carolina Environmental Policy Act.
Attached to this letter are comments made in the review of this document. Because of the
nature of the comments, it has been determined that no further State Clearinghouse review
action on your part is needed for compliance with the North Carolina Environmental Policy Act.
The attached comments should be taken into consideration in project development.
Attachments
cc: Region G
Sincerely,
Crystal`Best
State Environmental Review Clearinghouse
Nothing Compares..`
State of North Carolina 1 Administration
116 West Jones St. 1 1301Mail Service Center I Raleigh, NC 27699-1301
[e-mail] 1 919 807 2419 T
OFFICIAL COPY
r
0
t1
0
01,
N

Environmental
Quality
PAT MCCRORY
Governor
DONALD R. VAN DER VAART
Secretary
MEMORANDUM
To:
From:
RE:
Crystal Best
State Clearinghouse Coordinator
Department of Administration
Lyn Hardison ,1
Division of Environmental Assistance and Customer Service
Environmental Assistance and Project Review Coordinator
17-0119
Environmental Review —Application of NTE Carolinas il, LLC for the Certificate to
construct a 500-MW Natural Gas -Fueled Merchant Power Plant
Rockingham County
Date: September 22, 2016
The Department of Environmental Quality has reviewed the proposal for the referenced project. Based on
the information provided, several of our agencies have identified permits that may be required and offered
some valuable guidance to minimize impacts to the natural resources, aquatic and terrestrial wildlife
resources within and around the project area. The comments are attached for the applicant's review.
if the applicant has any questions pertaining to NCDEQ permitting processes, please suggest to the
applicant to contact Marcia Allocca, Permit Assistance Coordinator, in the Department's Mooresville
Regional Office, [phone]. The proposed project is located within her geographic working territory.
Thank you for the opportunity to respond.
Attachment
State of North Carolina I Environmental Qrial'Ety
943 W ash'rngton. Square Mall Washington, North Carolina 27889
252-946-6481
0
0
J
0
LL
1lI
O

orth Carolina Wildlife Resources Commission
Gordon Myers, Executive Director
MEMORANDUM
TO: Lyn Hardison, Environmental Assistance and SEPA Coordinator
NCDEQ Division of Environmental Assistance and Customer Services
FROM:
Gabriela Garrison
Eastern Piedmont Coordinator
Habitat Conservation
DATE: September 21, 2016
SUBJECT: Comments on NTE Carolinas II, LLC Natural Gas Power Plant Facility in Rockingham
County; Project Number 17-0119.
Biologists with the North Carolina Wildlife Resources Commission (NCWRC) have reviewed the
proposed project description. Comments are provided in accordance withcertain provisions of the North
Carolina Environmental Policy Act (G.S. 1.13A-1 through 113A-10; 1 NCAC 25) and the Fish and
Wildlife Coordination Act (48 Stat. 401, as amended; 16 U.S.C. 661 et seq.).
NTE Carolinas I£, LLC proposes to construct a 500 MW natural gas fueled merchant power plant in
Rockingham County. The site would be located at 4781 NC Highway 65 North, west of Reidsville. A
map of the proposed location (provided with the application materials) suggests the project is sited on
primarily forested land. Clearing trees from this site will displace wildlife species. Constructing on
previously cleared and disturbed land will have less impact and is therefore the preferred option. Projects
should be sited to avoid impacts to wetlands, streams, riparian buffers and priority wildlife habitat.
Aerial images and maps indicate Little Jacobs Creepbisects the proposed project site. The NCWRC
offers the following recommendations to minimize impacts to aquatic and terrestrial wildlife resources:
1. Maintain or establish aminimum 100-foot undisturbed, native forested buffer along each side of
perennial streams and 50-foot undisturbed, native forested buffer along each side of intermittent
streams and wetlands. Forested riparian buffers provide habitat areas and travel corridors for
wildlife species. In addition, forested riparian buffers protect water quality by stabilizing stream
banks and filtering stormwater runoff.
2. The project footprint should be surveyed for wetlands and streams to ensure there are no impacts
to surface waters. In addition to providing wildlife habitat, wetland areas and streams aid in flood
control and water quality protection. United States Army Corps of Engineers Section 404
Permits and NC Division of Water Resources Section 401 Certifications are required for any
impacts to jurisdictional streams or wetlands.
Mailing Address: Habitat Conservation • 1721 Mail Service Center • Raleigh, NC 27699-1721
Telephone: [phone] • Fax: [phone]

Page 2 11:1.
0
September 21, 2016 0
NTE Carolinas II. LLC
DEQ Project No. 17-0119
0
3. Use bridges for all permanent roadway crossings of streams and associated wetlands to eliminate LPL
the need to fill and culvert, where practicable. If culverts must be used, the culvert should be
designed to allow aquatic life passage. Fords may be appropriate and preferred for intermittent 0
stream crossings or where crossings will be used only once or twice a year. For fords, crossings
in riffles are preferred with the banks lowered upstream and downstream of the crossing.
Stabilize the stream bottom with geo-textile fabric and rock; concrete should not be used for bed
stabilization.
4. Re -seed disturbed areas with seed mixtures that are beneficial to wildlife. Avoid fescue -based
mixtures as fescue is invasive and provides little benefit to wildlife. A list of wildlife -friendly
plants is available upon request. In addition, the use of non-invasive, native species is
recommended. Using native species instead of ornamentals should reduce the need for water,
fertilizers and pesticides.
5. If pesticides or chemicals will be used for site maintenance, stormwater runoff from the site
should be funneled to bio-retention areas prior to discharge to streams or wetlands. Pesticides,
fertilizers and other chemicals should not be used in wetland areas or near streams.
b. Sediment and erosion control measures should be installed prior to any land clearing or
construction. The use of biodegradable and wildlife -friendly sediment and erosion control
devices is strongly recommended. Silt fencing, fiber rolls and/or other products should have
loose -weave netting that is made of natural fiber materials with movable joints between the
vertical and horizontal twines. Silt fencing or similar materials that have been reinforced with
plastic or metal mesh should be avoided as they impede the movement of terrestrial wildlife
species. Excessive silt and sediment loads can have detrimental effects on aquatic resources
including destruction of spawning habitat, suffocation of eggs and clogging of gills.
Thank you for the opportunity to review andcomment on this project. If .1 can be of further assistance,
please contact me at [phone] or

PAT MCCRORY
DONALD R. VAN DER VAART
MI.CHAEL SCOTT
September 20, 2016
To: Michael Scott, Director
Division of Waste Management
From: Bill Hunneke, Eastern. Region Compliance Supervisor,
Compliance Branch, Hazardous Waste Section
Subject: Hazardous Waste Section Comments on Application of NTE Carolinas 11, LLC for Certificate
to construct a 500 MW Natural Gas Fueled Merchant Power Plant
(Rockingham County)
Project Number: 17-0119
The hazardous Waste Section (HWS) has reviewed the environmental review for the Application of NTE
Carolinas 11, LLC for a Certificate to construct a 500 MW Natural Gas Fueled Merchant Power Plant in
Rockingham County.
Any hazardous waste generatedfrom the demolition, construction, operation, maintenance, and/or
remediation (e.g. excavated soil) from the proposed project must be inanaged in accordance with the North
Carolina Hazardous Waste Rules. The demolition, construction, operation, maintenance, and remediation
activities conducted will most likely generate a solid waste, and a determination must be made whether it
is a hazardous waste. If a project site generates more than 220 pounds of hazardous waste in a calendar
month. the 1-IWS must be notified, and the site must comply with the small quantity generator requirements.
If a project site generates more than 2200 pounds of hazardous waste in a calendar month, the HWS must
be notified, and the facility must comply with the large quantity generator requirements.
Should any questions arise, please contact me at 252-364-8977.
Kind regards,
tw°
William Hunneke
Eastern Region Compliance Supervisor
State of North Carolina I Environmental Quality Waste Manaaaelnent
1646 Mail Service Center' 217 West ?ones Street j Raleigh, NC 27699-1646
919 707 8200 T
5.4

Date: September 6, 2016
To:
Michael Scott, Director
Division of Waste Management
Through: Dave Lown, Head
Federal Remediation Branch
From:
Harry Zinn, Federal Remediation Branch
PAT MCCRORY
DONALD R. VAN DER. VAART
MICHAEL SCOTT
Subject: SEPA Project #17-0119-Application of NTE Carolinas II, LLC for Certificate to
construct a 500 MW Natural Gas -Fueled Merchant Power Plant in Rockingham
County, NC.
The Superfund Section has reviewed the proximity of CERCLIS and other sites under their
jurisdiction to the construction of a 500 MW Natural Gas -Fueled Merchant Power Plant in
Rockingham County, NC.
No sites were identified within one mile of the project as shown on the attached map.
Please contact me at 919.707.8374 if you have any questions.
State of North Carolina j Environmental Quality l Waste Management
1646 Mail Service Center', 217 West Jones Street 1 Raleigh, NC 27699-1646
919 707 8200 Telephone
OFFICIAL COPY

Ad00 1if101dd0
9 L-OE OC dos
0)
on SEPA Review
Superfund Sec
0
co-
ember 6, 2016
E
6 cs
N i
N
6 6
4Li
6 6
NC 1Map_Parcelp_Features - ParceEs

PAT MCCRORY
DONALD R. VAN DER VAART
MICHAEL SCOTT
DATE: September 21, 2016
TO: Michael Scott, Division Director through Sharon Brinkley
FROM: Deb Aja, Western District Supervisor - SoIid Waste Section
RE: SEPA Review Project #i 7-0119, Rockingham County, N.C.
NTE Carolinas II, LLC Proposed Power Plant Construction
The Solid Waste Section has reviewed the Application of NTE Carolinas II, LLC {redacted
version) for Certificate to construct a 500 MW Natural Gas Fueled Merchant Power Plant
located at the Reidsville Energy Center in Rockingham County, North Carolina. The review
has been completed and has seen no adverse impact on the surrounding community and
likewise knows of no situations in the community, which would affect this project from a solid
waste perspective.
During construction, every feasible effort should be made to minimize the generation of
waste, to recycle materials for which viable markets exist, and to use recycled products and
materials in the development of this project where suitable. Any waste generated by this
project that cannot be beneficially reused or recycled must be disposed of at a solid waste
management facility approved to manage the respective waste type. The Section strongly
recommends that any contractors are required to provide proof of proper disposal for all
waste generated as part of the project. The nearest permitted facility to the project is the
Rockingham County Landfill, a lined MSW landfill, Rockingham County, North Carolina.
Please contact Susan Heim, Environmental Senior Specialist, for with any questions
regarding solid waste management. Ms. Heim may be reached at (336)-776-9672 or by
email at susan.he-inar:cdenovr.
Cc: Jason Watkins, Field Operations Branch Head
Susan Heim, Environmental Senior Specialist
Sarah Rice, Compliance Officer
State of North Carolina Environmental Quality Waste Management
2090 US 70 Hwy Swannanoa, NC 28778-821
828 296 4500 T
OFFICIAL COPY

Reviewing Office: WSRO
State of North Carolina
Department of Environment and Natural Resources
INTERGOVERNMENTAL REVIEW - PROJECT COMMENTS
Project Number 17-0119 Due Date: 9/21/2016.
County Rockingham
After review of this project it has been determined that the ENR permit(s) and/or approvals indicated may need to be obtained in order for this project to comply with
North Carolina Law. Questions regarding these permits should be addressed to the Regional Office indicated on the reverse of the form. All applications, information
and guidelines relative to these plans and permits are available from the same Regional Office.
Normal Process Time
(,statutory time limit)
PERMITS
SPECIAL APPLICATION PROCEDURES al REQUIREMENTS
Permit to construct & operate wastewater treatment facilities,
sewer system extensions & sewer systems not discharging
into State Surface waters,
Application 90 days before begin construction or award of construction
contracts. On -site inspection. Post -application technical conference usual.
30 days
(90 days)
NPDES -permit to discharge into surface avatar andlor
permit to operate and construct wastewater facilities
discharging into state surface waters,
Application 180 days before begin activity. On -site inspection. Pre-
application conference usual. Additionally, obtain permit to construct
wastewater treatment facility -granted after All DES. Reply time-, 30 days Lifter
receipt of plans or issue of NI'OES permit -whichever is later.
90-1.20 days
(N/A)
ElWater
Use Permit
Pre -application technical conference usually necessary
30 days
(NIA)
El
Well Construction PermitComplete
application must. be received and permit issued prior to the
installation of a well.
7 days
(15 days)
Dredge and Fill Permit
Application copy must be served on each adjacent riparian property owner.
On -site inspection. Pre -application conference usual. Filling may require
Easement to Fill from N.C. Department of Administration and
Federal Dredge and Fill Permit.
55 days
(90 days)
Permit to construct & operate Air Pollution Abatement
facilities an Uar Emission Sources as per 15 A NCAC
(2Q.0100 thru 2Q.0300)
Application must be submitted and permit received prior to
construction and operation of the source. If a permit is required in an
area without local zoning then there are additional requirements and
timelines (2Q.0113).
90 days
Permit to construct & operate Transportation Facility as per
1 SA NCAC (2D.0800, 2Q.0601.
Application must he submitted at least 90 days prior to construction
or modification of the source.
90 days
ni
L—Iin
Any open burning associated with subject proposal must he
compliance with 1.5 A NCAC 2D.1900
NIA
60 days
(90 days)
Demolition or renovations of structures containing asbestos
material must be in compliance with 15 A NCAC 20.111.0
(a) (1) which requires notification and removal prior to
demolition. Contact Asbestos Control Group 919-707--5950.
❑Complex.
Source Permit required under 15 A NCAC
2D.0800
®
The Sedimentation Pollution Control Act of 1973 must be properly addressed for any land disturbing activity. An erosion & sedimentation
control plan will he required if one or more acres to be disturbed. Plan filed with proper Regional Orrice (Land Quality Section) At least 30
days before beginning activity. A fee of $65 for the first acre or any part of an acre. An express review option is available with additional
fees.
20 days
(30 days)
Sedimentation and erosion control must he addressed in accordance with NCDOT's approved prograin. Particular attention should be given
to design and installation of appropriate perimeter sediment trapping devices as well as stable stonmvater conveyances and outlets.
(30 days')
■
Mining Permit
On -site inspection usual. Surety bond filed with ENR Bond amount varies
with type mine and number of acres of affected land. Any arc mined greater
than one acre must be permitted. The appropriate bond lnust be received
before the permit can be issued.
30 days
(60 days)
North Carolina Burning permit
On -site inspection by N.C. Division Forest Resources if permit exceeds 4
days
1 da y
(N/A)
Special Ground Clearance Burning Permit 22
counties 1n Coastal N.C. With organic soils
On -site inspection by N.C. Division Forest Resources required "if more than
acres of ground clearing activities are involved. Inspections should be
requested at least. ten days before actual bum is planned."
1 day
(NIA)
E
Oil Refining facilities
N/A
90-i20 days
(NIA)
E
[,'.-ern-r
Darn Safety Permit
' 11 ')111 i
If permit required, application 60 days before begin construction. Applicant
must hire N.C. qualified engineer to: prepare plans, inspect construction.
certify Construction is according to ENR approved plans. May also require
permit under mosquito control program. And a 404 permit from Corps of
Engineers. An inspection of site is necessary to verify Hazard Classification.
A minimum fee of S200.00 muss accompany the application. An additional
processing fee based on a percentage or the total project cost will be required
upon completion.
30 days
(60 days)
OFFICIAL COPY

(
County Rockingham
Project Number: 17-01 19 Due Date: 09/21/201.6
Normal Process Time
(statutory time limit)
PERMITS
SPECIAL APPLICATION PROCEDURES or REQUIREMENTS
❑
Permit to drill exploratory oil or gas well
Geophysical Exploration Permit
File surety bond of 15,000 with ENR running to State of NC conditional that any well
opened by drill operator shall, upon abandonment, be plugged according to ENR rules
and regulations,
10 days
N/A
❑
Application filed with ENR at least 10 days prior to issue of permit. Application by letter.
No standard application form.
10 days
N/A
State Lakes Construction Permit
Application fee based on structure size is charged. Must include descriptions &
drawings of structure Sc. proof of ownership of riparian property.
15-20 days
N/A
III
1,1
401 Water Quality Certification
N/A
60 days
(130 days)
❑P
CAMA Permit for MAJOR development
S250.00 fee must accompany application
P� )'(150clays)
55 days
CAMA Permit. for MINOR development
S50.00 fee must accompany application
22 days
(25 days)
1111
Several geodetic monuments are located in or near the project trea. If any monument needs to be moved or destroyed, please notify:
N.C. Geodetic Survey, Box 27687 Raleigh, NC 27613.
Abandonment of any wells, if required must be in accordance with TiIle 1.5A. Subchapter 2C.0100.
Notification of the proper regional office is requested if "orphan" underground storage tanks (LISTS) are discovered during any excavation operation.
la
Compliance with 15A NCAC 214 1000 (Coastal Stormwater Rules) is requited.
45 days
(N/A)
•
Catawba, Jordan Lake, Randalman, Tar Pamlico or Neuse Riparian Buffer Rules required.
Plans and specifications for the construction, expansion, or alteration of a public water system must be approved by the Division of Water
Resources/Public Water Supply Section prior to the award of a contract or the initiation of construction as per 15A NCAC 18C .0300 at, seq. Plans and
specifications should be submitted to 1634 Mail Service Center, Raleigh, North Carolina 27699-1634. All public water supply systems trust comply
with state and federal drinking water monitoring requirements. For more information, contact the Public Water Supply Section, [phone].
30 days
If existing water lines will be relocated during the construction; plans for the water line relocation must be submitted to the Division of Water
Resources/Public Water Supply Section at 1634 Mail Service Center, Raleigh, North Carolina 27699-1634. For more information, contact the Public
Water Supply Section, [phone].
30 days
y
Other comments (attic
additional pages as necessary, be
certain to cite comment authority)
Division
initials
No
comment
Comments
Date
Review
DAQ
LDE
n
Requires an air quality permit - application already submitted
9/6/16
DWR-WQROS
(Aquifer & Surface)
GSS
n
7
see above
9/8/16
/ /
DWR-PWS
EAH
❑
See above comments
9/8/16
DEMLR (IQ & SW)
MEG
J
See Above comment
9/2/16
DWM - UST
CLK
J
See Comment Above 1
9/13/16
REGIONAL OFFICES
Questions regarding these permits should be addressed to the Regional Office marked below.
❑ Asheville Regional Office
2090 US Highway 70
Swannanoa, NC 28778
[phone]
❑ Fayetteville Regional Office
225 North Green Street, Suite 714
Fayetteville, NC 28301-5043
910)433-3300
❑ Mooresville Regional Office
610 East Center Avenue, Suite 301
Mooresville, NC 28115
[phone]
E Raleigh Regional Office
3800 Barrett Drive, Suite 1.01
Raleigh, NC 27609
(91.9)791-4200
❑ Washington Regional Office
943 Washington Square Mall
Washington, NC 27889
[phone]
❑ Wilmington Regional Office
127 Cardinal Drive Extension
Wilmington, NC 28405
[phone]
® Winston-Salem Regional Office
450 West Hanes Mii1 Road, Suite 300
Winston-Salem, NC 27105
[phone]
OFFICIAL COPY
February 11, 2015

NORTH CAROLINA STATE CLEARINGHOUSE
DEPARTMENT OF ADMINISTRATION
INTERGOVERNMENTAL REVIEW
Witra. Awe:.
COUNTY: ROCKINGHAM
0
H11:ENERGY RELATED STATE NUMBER: 17-E-4600-0111O
FACILITIES/ACTIVITIES DATE RECEIVED: 08/30/2016 J
AGENCY RESPONSE: 09/21/2016 4C
REVIEW CLOSED: 09/26/2016
U .
U .
MS CARRIE ATKINSON
CLEARINGHOUSE COORDINATOR
DEPT OF TRANSPORTATION
STATEWIDE PLANNING - MSC #1554
RALEIGH NC
REVIEW DISTRIBUTION
DEPT OF AGRICULTURE
DEPT
DEPT
DEPT
DNCR
OF ENVIRONMENTAL QUALITY
OF NATURAL & CULTURAL RESOURCE
OF TRANSPORTATION
- DIV OF PARKS AND RECREATION
DPS - DIV OF EMERGENCY MANAGEMENT
PIEDMONT TRIAD REGIONAL COUNCIL
PROJECT INFORMATION
APPLICANT: North Carolina Department of Commerce
TYPE: State Environmental Policy Act
Environmental Review
DESC: Application of NTE Carolinas II, LLC for Certificate to construct a 500 MW
Natural Gas -Fueled Merchant Power Plant in Rockingham Co. Docket #
- View document at
http://starwi.ncuc.net/NCUC/portal/ncuc/page/Dockets/portal.aspx,
0 in the Docket Number search line,
Located approximately 90 acre tract located at 4781 NC Highway 65
NC Highway 65 to the east and New Lebanon Church Road to the west,
The attached project has been submitted to the N. C. State Clearinghouse
intergovernmental review. Please review and submit your response by the
indicated date to 1301 Mail Service Center, Raleigh NC 27699-1301.
EMP-92, Sub 0.
Type EMP-92 Sub
and bounded by
Reidsville, NC
for
above
If additional review time is needed, please contact this office at [phone].
AS A RESULT OF THIS REVIEW THE FOLLOWING IS SUBMITTED: 4 NO COMMENT
SIGNED BY:
DATE:
COMMENTS ATTACHED
0
r
CD
CV
CD
01
CL
OD

COUNTY: ROCKINGHAM
NORTH CAROLINA STATE CLEARINGHOUSE
DEPARTMENT OF ADMINISTRATION
INTERGOVERNMENTAL REVIEW 0.
ii11:ENERGY RELATED STATE NUMBER: 17-E-4600-011
FACILITIES/ACTIVITIES
MR JOSEPH HUDYNCIA
CLEARINGHOUSE C00RDINATOR
DEPT OF AGRICULTURE
1001 MSC - AGRICULTURE BLDG
RALEIGH NC
REVIEW DISTRIBUTION
DEPT OF AGRICULTURE
DEPT OF ENVIRONMENTAL QUALITY
DEPT OF NATURAL & CULTURAL RESOURCE
DEPT OF TRANSPORTATION
DNCR - DIV OF PARKS AND RECREATION
BPS - DIV OF EMERGENCY MANAGEMENT
PIEDMONT TRIAD REGIONAL COUNCIL
PROJECT INFORMATION
APPLICANT: North Carolina Department of Commerce
TYPE: State Environmental Policy Act
Environmental Review
DATE RECEIVED: 08/30/2016 J
AGENCY RESPONSE: 09/21/2016 41(
REVIEW CLOSED: 09/26/2016
DESC: Application of NTE Carolinas II, LLC for Certificate to construct a 500 MW
Natural Gas -Fueled Merchant Power Plant in Rockingham Co. Docket # EMP-92, Sub 0.
- View document at
http://starwl.ncuc.net/NCUC/portal/ncuc/page/Dockets/portal.aspx, Type EMP-92 Sub
0 in the Docket Number search line.
Located approximately 90 acre tract located at 4781 NC Highway 65 and bounded by
NC Highway 65 to the east and New Lebanon Church Road to the west, Reidsville, NC
The attached project has been submitted to the N. C. State Clearinghouse for
intergovernmental review. Please review and submit your response by the above
indicated date to 1301 Mail Service Center, Raleigh NC 27699-1301.
If additional review time is needed, please contact this office at [phone].
AS A RESULT OF THIS REVIEW THE FOLLOWING IS SUBMITTED:
SIGNED BY:
NO COMMENT
DATE:
COMMENTS ATTACHED
LL
1L
0
r
CD
CV
CD
01

COUNTY: ROCKINGHAM
NORTH CAROLINA STATE CLEARINGHOUSE
DEPARTMENT OF ADMINISTRATION
INTERGOVERNMENTAL REVIEW
iill: ENEz GY RELATED
FACILITIES/ACTIVITIES
MR JUSTIN WI LL IAMSON
CLEARINGHOUSE COORDINATOR
DNCR -- DIV OF PARKS AND RECREATION
1615 MAIL SERVICE CENTER
RALEIGH NC
REVIEW DISTRIBUTION
DEPT OF AGRICULTURE
DEPT OF ENVIRONMENTAL QUALITY
DEPT OP NATURAL & CULTURAL RESOURCE
DEPT OF TRANSPORTATION
DNCR - DIV CF PARKS AND RECREATION
DPS - DIV OF EMERGENCY MANAGEMENT
PIEDMONT TRIAD REGIONAL COUNCIL
PROJECT INFORMATION
AP'LICANt: North Carolina Department of Commerce
TYPE: State Environmental Policy Act
Environmental Review
STATE DER: 17-F-4600-0119
DATE RECEIVED 08/30/2016
AGENCY RESPONSE: 09/21/2016
REVIEW CLOSED: 09/26/2016
DESC: Application of NTE Carolinas II, LLC for Certificate to construct a 500 MVO
Natural Gas -Fueled Merchant Power Plant in Rockingham Co. Docket # EMP-92, Sub 0.
- View document et
hLtp://starw1.ncuc.net/NCUC/portal/ncuc/page/Dockets/portal.aspx, Type EMP-92 Sub
0 in the Docket Number search line.
Located approximately 90 acre tract located at 4781 NO Highway 65 and bounded by
NC Highway 65 to the east and New Lebanon Church Road to the west, Reidsville, NC
The attached project has been submitted to the N. C. State Clearinghouse for
intergovernmental review. Please review and submit your response by the above
indicated date to 1301 Mail Service Center, Raleigh NC 27699-1301.
If additional review time is needed, please contact this office at [phone].
AS A RESULT Or THIS REVIEW THE FOLLOWING IS SUBMITTED: O COMMENT
SIGNED BY:
C0I EN-" S ATTAC ED
G�r DATE: �j�-
OFFICIAL C OP

COUNT': ROCKINGHAM
NORTH CAROLINA STATE CLEARINGHOUSE
DEPARTMENT OF ADMINISTRATION
INTERGOVERNMENTAL REVIEW
all:ENERGY RELATED
FACILITIES/ACTIVITIES
MS PAULA CUTTS
CLEARINGHOUSE COORDINATOR
DPS - DIV OF EMERGENCY MANAGEMENT
FLOODPLAIN MANAGEMENT PROGRAM
4218 MAIL SERVICE CENTER
RALEIGH NC
REVIEW DISTRIBUTION
DEPT OF AGRICULTURE
DEPT OF ENVIRONMENTAL QUALITY
DEPT OF NATURAL & CULTURAL RESOURCE
DEPT OF TRANSPORTATION
DNCR - DIV OF PARKS AND RECREATION
DPS --- DIV OF EMERGENCY MANAGEMENT
PIEDMONT TRIAD REGIONAL COUNCIL
PROJECT INFORMATION
APPLICANT: North Carolina Department of Commerce
TYPE: State Environmental Policy Act
Environmental Review
DESC: Application of NTE Carolinas II,
STATE NUMBER:
DATE RECEIVED:
O.
0
17-E-4600-0110
08/30/2016 J
AGENCY RESPONSE: 09/21/2016 CC
REVIEW CLOSED: 09/26/2016
LL
LL
0
LLC for Certificate to construct a 500 MW
Natural Gas -Fueled Merchant Power Plant in Rockingham Co. Docket 6 EMP-92, Sub 0.
- View document at
http://starwl.ncuc.net/NCUC/portal/ncuc/page/Dockets/portal.aspx, Type EMP-92 Sub
0 in the Docket Number search line.
Located approximately 90 acre tract located at 4781 NC Highway 65 and bounded by
NC Highway 65 to the east and New Lebanon Church Road to the west, Reidsville, NC
The attached project has been submitted to the N. C. State Clearinghouse for
intergovernmental review. Please review and submit your response by the above
indicated date to 1301 Mail Service Center, Raleigh NC 27699-1301.
If additional review time is needed, please contact this office at [phone].
AS A RESULT OF THIS REVIEW THE FOLLOWING IS SUBMITTED:
P42--?iu artiA
COMMENTS ATTACHED
DATE: 4W,/e5";

Kathryn Johnston
Secretary
J. Brian Ratledge
General Counsel
State Environmental
Review Clearinghouse
ADMINISTRATION
November 1, 2016
Ms. Paige Morris
North Carolina Department of Commerce
Utilities Commission
4325 Mail Service Center
Raleigh, North Carolina 27699-4325
Re: SCH File # 17-E-4600-0208; Application of NTE Carolina II, LLC for Certificate to
construct a SOO MW Natural Gas Fueled Merchant Power Plant in Rockingham Co.
Docket # EMP-92 Sub O.
Dear Ms. Morris:
The above referenced environmental impact information has been reviewed through the State
Clearinghouse under the provisions of the North Carolina Environmental Policy Act.
Attached to this letter are comments made in the review of this document. Because of the
nature of the comments, it has been determined that no further State Clearinghouse review
action on your part is needed for compliance with the North Carolina Environmental Policy Act.
The attached comments should be taken into consideration in project development.
Attachments
cc: Region G
Sincerely,
State Environmental Review Clearinghouse
Compares_
State of North Carolina I Administration
116 West Jones St, 1301 Mail Service Center I Raleigh, NC 27699-1301
[e-mail] 919 807 2419 T
OFFICIAL COPY
Nov 01 2016

Environmental
Quality
PAT MCCRORY
Governor
DONALD R. VAN DER VAART
Secre!ard
MEMORANDUM
To:
From:
RE:
Crystal Best
State Clearinghouse Coordinator
Department of Administration
Lyn Hardison L ?
Division of Environmental Assistance and Customer Service
Environmental Assistance and Project Review Coordinator
17-0208 (17-0119)
Environmental Review — Application of NTE Carolina II, LLC for the Certificate to
construct a 500 MW Natural Gas Fueled Merchant Power Plant
Rockingham County
Date: October 25, 2016
The Department of Environmental Quality has reviewed the proposal for the referenced project. Based on
the information provided, several of our agencies have identified permits that may be required and offered
some valuable guidance to minimize impacts to the natural resources, aquatic and terrestrial wildlife
resources within and around the project area. The comments are attached for the applicant's review.
if the applicant has any questions pertaining to NCDEQ permitting processes, please suggest to the
applicant to contact Marcia Allocca, Permit Assistance Coordinator, in the Department's Mooresville
Regional Office, [phone]. The proposed project is located within her geographic working territory.
Thank you for the opportunity to respond.
Attachment
State of North Carolina l Environmental quality
943 Washington Square Mali l Washington, North Carolina 27889
252-945-6481
I_
0
0
J
0
IL
ILL
0
Nov 01 2016

0. North Carolina Wildlife Resources Commission
Gordon Myers, Executive Director
MEMORANDUM
TO: Lyn Hardison, Environmental Assistance and SEPA Coordinator
NCDEQ Division of Environmental Assistance and Customer Services
FROM:
Gabriela Garrison
Eastern Piedmont Coordinator
Habitat Conservation
DATE: October 24, 2016
SUBJECT: Comments on NTE Carolinas 11, LLC Amended Natural Gas Power Plant Facility in
Rockingham County; Project Number 17-0208.
Biologists with the North Carolina Wildlife Resources Commission (NCWRC) have reviewed the
proposed project description. Comments are provided in accordance with certain provisions of the North
Carolina Environmental Policy Act (G.S. 113A-1 through 113A-10; 1. NCAC 25) and the Fish and
Wildlife Coordination Act (48 Stat. 401, as amended: 16 U.S.C. 661 et seq.).
NTE Carolinas II, LLC proposes to construct a 500 MW natural gas fueled merchant power plant in
Rockingham County; this project was previously circulated under Project #17-01 19. The site would be
located at 4781 NC Highway 65 North, west of Reidsville. A map of the proposed location (provided
with the application materials) suggests the project is sited on both cleared and forested land. Clearing
trees from this site will displace wildlife species. Constructing on previously cleared and disturbed land
will have less impact and is therefore the preferred option. Projects should be sited to avoid impacts to
wetlands, streams, riparian buffers and priority wildlife habitat.
Aerial images and maps indicate a tributary to Little Jacobs Creek bisects the proposed project site. The
NCWRC offers the following recommendations to minimize impacts to aquatic and terrestrial wildlife
resources:
1. Maintain or establish a minimum 100-foot undisturbed, native forested buffer along each side of
perennial streams and 50-foot undisturbed, native forested buffer along each side of intermittent
streams and wetlands. Forested riparian buffers provide habitat areas and travel corridors for
wildlife species. In addition, forested riparian buffers protect water quality by stabilizing stream
banks and filtering stormwater runoff.
2. The project footprint should be surveyed for wetlands and streams to ensure there are no impacts
to surface waters. In addition to providing wildlife habitat, wetland areas and streams aid in flood
control and water quality protection. United States Army Corps of Engineers Section 404
Mailing Address: Habitat Conservation ® 1721 Mail Service Center ° Raleigh, NC 27699-1721
Telephone: [phone] Fax: [phone]
to
2

Page 2
October 24,2016
NTE Carolinas 11, LLC
DEQ Project No. 17-0208
Permits and NC Division of Water Resources Section 401 Certifications are required for any
impacts to jurisdictional streams or wetlands.
3. Use bridges for all permanent roadway crossings of streams and associated wetlands to eliminate
the need to fill and culvert, where practicable. If culverts must be used, the culvert should be
designed to allow aquatic life passage. Fords may be appropriate and preferred for intermittent
stream crossings or where crossings will be used only once or twice a year. For fords, crossings
in riffles are preferred with the banks lowered upstream and downstream of the crossing.
Stabilize the stream bottom with geo-textile fabric and rock; concrete should not be used for bed
stabilization.
4. Re -seed disturbed areas with seed mixtures that are beneficial to wildlife. Avoid fescue -based
mixtures as fescue is invasive and provides little benefit to wildlife. A list of wildlife -friendly
plants is available upon request. In addition, the use of non-invasive, native species is
recommended. Using native species instead of ornamentals should reduce the need for water,
fertilizers and pesticides.
5. If pesticides or chemicals will be used for site maintenance, stormwater runoff from the site
should be funneled to bio-retention areas prior to discharge to streams or wetlands. Pesticides,
fertilizers and other chemicals should not be used in wetland areas or near streams.
6. Sediment and erosion control measures should be installed prior to any land clearing or
construction. The use of biodegradable and wildlife -friendly sediment and erosion control
devices is strongly recommended. Silt fencing, fiber rolls and/or other products should have
loose -weave netting that is made of natural fiber materials with movable joints between the
vertical and horizontal twines. Silt fencing or similar materials that have been reinforced with
plastic or metal mesh should be avoided as they impede the movement of terrestrial wildlife
species. Excessive silt and sediment loads can have detrimental effects on aquatic resources
including destruction of spawning habitat, suffocation of eggs and clogging of gills.
Thank you for the opportunity to review and comment on this project. [f l can be of further assistance,
please contact me at [phone] or tb iclagarrison lic.wiicdtife.or .
OFFICIAL COPY
Nov 01 2016

PAT MCCRORY
DONALD R. VAN DER VAART
MICHAEL SCOTT
September 20, 2016
To: Michael Scott, Director
Division of Waste Management
From: Pill Hunneke, Eastern Region Compliance Supervisor,
Compliance Branch, Hazardous Waste Section
Subject: Hazardous Waste Section Comments on Application of NTE Carolinas 11, LLC for Certificate
to construct a 500 MW Natural Gas Fueled Merchant Power Plant
(Rockingham County)
Project Number: 17-0119
The Hazardous Waste Section (HWS) has reviewed the environmental review for the Application of NTE
Carolinas 11, LLC for a Certificate to construct a 500 MW Natural Gas Fueled Merchant Power Plant in
Rockingham County,
Any hazardous waste generated from the demolition, construction, operation, maintenance, and/or
remediation (e.g. excavated soil) from the proposed project must be managed in accordance with the North
Carolina Hazardous Waste Rules. The demolition, construction, operation, maintenance, and remediation
activities conducted will most likely generate a solid waste, and a determination must be made whether it
is a hazardous waste. if a project site generates more than 220 pounds of hazardous waste in a calendar
month, the 1-1WS must be notified, and the site must comply with the small quantity generator requirements.
If a project site generates more than 2200 pounds of hazardous waste in a calendar month, the HWS must
be notified, and the facility must comply with the large quantity generator requirements.
Shouldany questions arise, please contact me at 252-364-8977.
Kind regards,
l
Wra
William Hunneke
Eastern Region Compliance Supervisor
State of North Carolina i Environmental Quality j Waste Management
164G Mail Service Center 121'7 West lanes Street ; Raleigh, NC 27699-1646
919 707 8200 T
OFFICIAL COPY
Nov 01 2016
et,* .g044K4

Date: September 6, 2016
To:
Division of Waste Management
Michael Scott, Director
Through: Dave Lown, Head
Federal Remediation Branch
From:
Harry Zinn, Federal Remediation Branch
PAT MCCRORY
0
DONALD R. VAN DER VAART
J
MICHAEL SCOTT
Subject: SEPA Project #17-0119-Application of NTE Carolinas ll, LLC for Certificate to
construct a 500 MW Natural Gas -Fueled Merchant Power Plant in Rockingham
County, NC.
The Superfund Section has reviewed the proximity of CERCLIS and other sites under their
jurisdiction to the construction of a 500 MW Natural Gas -Fueled Merchant Power Plant in
Rockingham County, NC.
No sites were identified within one mile of the project as shown on the attached map.
Please contact me at 919.707.8374 if you have any questions.
State of North Carolina Environmental Quality [ Waste Management
1646 Mail Service Center', 217 West Jones Street !Raleigh, NC 27699-1646
919 707 8200 Telephone
Nov 01 2016
ZZIA

A00 Tfl3ldd0
91.0Z 1.0 AoN
Superfund Section SEPA Review 17-0119
September 6, 2016
NC1Map Parce Featums-Parcels
E

PAT MCCRORY
DONALD R. VAN DER VAART
MICHAEL SCOTT
DATE: September 21, 2016
TO: Michael Scott, Division Director through Sharon Brinkley
FROM: Deb Aja, Western District Supervisor - Solid Waste Section
RE: SEPA Review Project #17-011.9, Rockingham County, N.C.
NTE Carolinas 11. LLC Proposed Power Plant Construction
The Solid Waste Section has reviewed the Application of NTE Carolinas II, LLC (redacted
version) for Certificate to construct a 500 MW Natural Gas Fueled Merchant Power Plant
located at the Reidsville Energy Center in Rockingham County, North Carolina. The review
has been completed and has seen no adverse impact on the surrounding community and
likewise knows of no situations in the community, which would affect this project from a solid
waste perspective.
During construction, every feasible effort should be made to minimize the generation of
waste, to recycle materials for which viable markets exist, and to use recycled products and
materials in the development of this project where suitable. Any waste generated by this
project that cannot be beneficially reused or recycled must be disposed of at a solid waste
management facility approved to manage the respective waste type. The Section strongly
recommends that any contractors are required to provide proof of proper disposal for all
waste generated as part of the project. The nearest permitted facility to the project is the
Rockingham County Landfill, a lined M.SW landfill, Rockingham County, North Carolina.
Please contact Susan Heim, Environmental Senior Specialist, for with any questions
regarding solid waste management. Ms. Heim may be reached at (336)-776-9672 or by
email at s k5a -t.: ire' ;rte,de. l ~.go -
Cc: Jason Watkins, Field Operations Branch Head
Susan Heim, Environmental Senior Specialist
Sarah Rice, Compliance Officer
State of North Carolina Environmental Quality ? Waste Management
2090 US 70 Hwy I Swannanoa, NC 28778-8211
828 296 4500 T
OFFICIAL COPY
Nov 01 2016

Reviewing Office: WSRO
State of North Carolina
Department of Environment and Natural Resources
INTERGOVERNMENTAL. REVIEW - PROJECT COMMENTS
Project Number 17-0208 Due Date: 10/24/2016
County Rockingham
After review of this project it has been determined that the ENR permit(s) and/or approvals indicated may need to be obtained in order for this project to comply with
North Carolina Law- Questions regarding these permits should be addressed to the Regional Office indicated on the reverse of the form. All applications, information
and guidelines relative to these plans and permits are available from the same Regional Office.
Normal Process Time
(statutory time limit)
PERMITS
SPECIAL APPLICATION PROCEDURES or REQUIREMENTS
Permit to construct & operate wastewater treatment facilities,
sewer system extensions & sewer systems not discharging
into Stltt0 surface waters.
Application 90 days before begin construction or award of construction
contacts. On -site inspection. Post -application technical conference usual.
30 days
(90 days)
IVi'Dl'.5 permit to discharge into surface water and/or
permit to operate and construct wastewater Cacllities
discharging into state surface waters.
Application 180 days before begin activity. On -site inspection. Pre-
application conference usual, Additionally, obtain permit to construct
wastewater treatment facility -granted after NPDES. Reply time, 30 days alfter
receipt of plans or issue of NI DES permit -whichever is later.
90-120 days
(N/A)
ElWater
Use Permit
Pre -application technical conference usually necessary
30 days
(NIA)
Well Construction Permit
Complete application must be received and permit issued prior to the
installation of a well.
7 days
(1.5 days)
Dredge and Pill Permit
Application copy trust be served on each adjacent riparian property owner.
On -site inspection. Pre -application conference usual. Filling may require
Easement to Fill from N.C. Department of Administration and
Federal Dredge and 1i11 Permit.
55 days
(90 days)
Pe -mitt to construct & operate Air Pollution Abatement
facilities and/orErnission Sources as per 15 A NCAC
2Q.0100 thru 2Q.0300)
Application must be submitted and permit received prior'to
construction and operation of the source. if a permit is required in an
area without Local zoning, then there are additional requirements and
timelines (2Q.0113).
90 days
❑Permit
to construct & operate Transportation Facility as per
15A NCAC (2D.0800.2Q.0601
Application must be submitted at least 90 days prior to construction
or modification of the source,
90 days
❑Any
open burning associated with subject proposal must be
in compliance with 15 A NCAC 2D.1900
N/A
60 days
{90 days)
Demolition or renovations of structures containing asbestos
material must be in compliance with 15 A NCAC 20.1110
(a) (1) which requires notification and removal prior to
demolition. Contact Asbestos Control Group 919-707-5950.
R
❑
Complex Source Permit required under 15 A NCAC
2D.0800
The Sedimentation Pollution Control Act of 1973 must be properly addressed for any land disturbing activity. An erosion & sedimentation
control plan will be required if one or more acres to be disturbed. Plan filed with proper Regional Office (Land Quality Section) At least 30
days before beginning activity. A fee of $65 for the first acre or any parr. of an acre. An express review option is available with additional
fees.
20 days
(30 days)
ri
1-1
Sedimentation and erosion control must be addressed in accordance with NCDOT's approved program. Particular attention should be given
to design and installation of appropriate perimeter sediment rapping devices as well as stable atormvaterconveyances and outlets.
(30 days)
Minting Permit
On -sirs inspection usual. Surety bond filed with ENR Bond amount varies
with type mine and number of acres of affected land. Any arc mined greater
than one acre must be permitted. The appropriate bond must be received
before the permit can be issued.
30 days
(60 days)
■
North Carolina Burning permit
On -,wife inspection by N.C. Division Forest Resources if permit exceeds 4
days
1 day
{N/A)
❑Special
Ground Clearance Burning Permit - 2
counties in coastal N.C. with organic soils
On -site inspection by N.C. Division Forest Resources required "if more than
five acres of ground clearing activities are involved. Inspections should be
requested at least ten days before actual bum is planned."
1 day
(N/A)
Oil Refining Facilities
N/A
90-120 days
(N/A)
P.
Dam Safety Permit
- -,ter., 1 1 1 115
If permit required, application 60 days before begin construction. Applicant
must hire N.C. qualified engineer to: prepare plans, inspect construction.
certify construction is according to ENR approved plans. May also require
permit under mosquito control program. And a 404 permit front Corps of
Engineers. An inspection of site is necessary to verify Hazard Classification.
A minimum fee of $200.00 must accompany the application. An additional
processing fee based on a percentage or the total project cost will be required
upon completion.
30 days
(60 days)
OFFICIAL COPY
Nov 01 201

County Rockingham
Project Number: 17-0208 Due Date: 10/24/201.6
Normal Process Time
(statutory time limit}
PERMITS
SPECIAL APPLICATION PROCEDURES or REQUIREMENTS
❑
Permit to drill exploratory oil or gas well
Geophysical Exploration Permit
File surety bond of $5,000 with ENR running to State of NC conditional that any well
opened by drill operator shall, upon abandonment, be plugged according to ENR rules
and regulations.
io days
N/A
❑
Application filed with ENR at least I 0 days prior to issue of perrnit. Application by letter.
No standard application form.
10 days
NIA
State Lakes Construction Permit
Application fee based on structure size is charged. Must include descriptions &
drawings of structure & proof of ownership of riparian property.
15-20 days
NIA
®
401 Water Quality Certification
NIA
60 days
(130 days)
CAMA Permit for MAJOR development
S250.00 fee trust accompany application
55 days
(150 days)
•
CAMA, Permit for MINOR development
S50.00 fee must accompany application
55 days
(25 days)
❑
Several geodetic monuments are located in or near the project area. If any monument needs to be moved or destroyed, please notify:
N.C. Geodetic Survey, Box 27687 Raleigh, NC 27611
Abandonment of any wells, if required must be in accordance with Title 15A. Subchapter 2C.0100.
Notification of the proper regional office is requested if "orphan" underground storage tanks (LISTS) are discovered during any excavation operation.
mir
❑
Compliance with 15A NCAC 2H 1000 (Coastal Stormwater Rules) is required.
45 days
(NIA)
Catawba, Jordan Lake, Randal.naan, Tar Pamlico or Neuse Riparian Buffer Rules required
Plans and specifications for the construction, expansion, or alteration of a public water system must be approved by the Division of Water
Resources/Public Water Supply Section prior to the- award of a contract or the initiation of construction a5 per 15A NCAC 18C .0300 et. seq. Plans and
specifications should be submitted to 1634 Mail. Service Center, Raleigh, North Carolina 27699-1634. All public water supply systems must comply
with state and federal drinking water monitoring requirements. For more information, contact the Public Water Supply Section, (919) 707-9 100.
30 days
pri
If existing water lines will be relocated during the construction, plans for the water line relocation must be submitted to the Division of Water
Resources/Public Water Supply Section at 1634 Mail Service Center, Raleigh, North Carolina 27699-1634. For more information, contact the Public
Water Supply Section, [phone].
30 days
ri
Other comments ("attach additional pages as necessary, heirs
certain to cite comme
uthority)
Division
Initials
No
comment
Comments
Date
Review
DAQ
LDE
❑
Air Quality permit required -application already submitted
10/5/16
DWR-WQROS
(Aquifer & Surface)
GSS
•
see above
10/14/16
/ /
DWR-RWS
EAH
See above comments
10/6/16
DEMLR (LQ & SW)
MEG
•
See Above
10/5/16
DWM - UST
CLK
❑
See Comment Above
10/19/16
REGIONAL OFFICES
Questions regarding these permits should be addressed to the Regional Office marked below.
❑ Asheville Regional Office
2090 US Highway 70
Swannanoa, NC 28778
[phone]
❑ Fayetteville Regional Office
225 North Green Street, Suite 714
Fayetteville, NC 28301.-5043
910) 433-3300
❑ Mooresville Regional Office
610 East Center Avenue, Suite 301
Mooresville, NC 28115
[phone]
❑ Raleigh Regional Office
3800 Barrett Drive. Suite 101
Raleigh, NC 27609
[phone]
❑ Washington Regional Office
943 Washington Square Mall
Washington, NC 27889
[phone].
❑ Wilmington Regional Office
127 Cardinal Drive Extension
Wilmington, NC 28405
[phone]
Winston-Salern Regional Office
450 West Hanes Mill Road, Suite 300
Winston-Salem, NC 27105
[phone]
0
a
J
0
I.L
LL
0
Nov 01 2016
February 11, 2015

COUNTY: ROCKINGHAM
NORTH CAROLINA STATE CLEARINGHOUSE
DEPARTMENT OF ADMINISTRATION
INTERGOVERNMENTAL REVIEW
Mli : ENERGY RELATED
FACILITIES/ACTIVITIES
MS PAULA CUTTS
CLEARINGHOUSE COORDINATOR
DPS - DIV Or EMERGENCY MANAGEMENT
FLOODPLAIN MANAGEMENT PROGRAM
4218 MAIL SERVICE CENTER
RALEIGH NC
REVIEW DISTRIBUTION
DEPT OF AGRICULTURE
DEPT OF ENVIRONMENTAL QUALITY
DEPT OF NATURAL & CULTURAL RESOURCE
DEPT OF TRANSPORTATION
DNCR - DIV OF PARKS AND RECREATION
DPS -- DIV OF EMERGENCY MANAGEMENT
PIEDMONT TRIAD REGIONAL COUNCIL
PROJECT INFORMATION
APPLICANT: North Carolina Department of Commerce
TYPE: State Environmental Policy Act
Environmental Review
CIL
STATE NUMBER: 17-E-4600-020
DATE RECEIVED: 09/28/2016 J
AGENCY RESPONSE: 10/24/2016 4C
REVIEW CLOSED: 10/28/2016
1L
1L
0
•,r
C/
.; j
DESC: Application of NTE Carolina II, LLC for Certificate to construct a 500 MW Natural
Gas Fueled Merchant Power Plant in Rockingham Co. Docket # EMP-92 Sub 0. - View
document at http://starwl.ncuc.net/NCUC/portal/ncuc/page/Dockets/portal.aspx,
Type EMP-92 Sub 0 in the Docket Number search line.
Located approximately 170 acre tract located at 4781 NC Highway 65, bounded on
the west by New Lebanon Church Road, with the facility being located on the west
side of NC Highway 65, and a small portion of the site on the east side of NC
Highway 65, near Reidsville, NC
The attached project has been submitted to the N. C. State Clearinghouse for
.intergovernmental review. Please review and submit your response by the above
indicated date to 1301 Mail Service Center, Raleigh NC 27699-1301.
If additional review time is needed, please contact this office at [phone].
AS A RESULT OF THIS REVIEW THE FOLLOWING IS SUBMITTED:
SIGNED BY:
COMMENT
COMMENTS ATTACHED
daLtkeI DATE: «kt6

COUNTY: ROCKINGHAM
NORTH CAROLLINA STATE CLEARINGHOUSE
DEPARTMENT OF ADMINISTRATION
INTERGOVERNMENTAL REVIEW
Hil:ENERGY RELATED
FACILITIES/ACTIVITIES
MS RENEE GLEDHILL-EARLEY
CLEARINGHOUSE COORDINATOR
DEPT OF NATURAL & CULTURAL RESOURCE
STATE HISTORIC PRESERVATION OFFICE
MSC 4617 - ARCHIVES BUILDING
RALEIGH NC
REVIEW DISTRIBUTION
DEPT OF AGRICULTURE
DEPT OF ENVIRONMENTAL QUALITY
DEPT OF NATURAL & CULTURAL RESOURCE
DEPT OF TRANSPORTATION
DNCR - DIV OF PARKS AND RECREATION
DPS - DIV OF EMERGENCY MANAGEMENT
PIEDMONT TRIAD REGIONAL COUNCIL
PROJECT INFORMATION
APPLICANT: North Carolina Department of Commerce
TYPE: State Environmental Policy Act
Environmental Review
10,
STATE NUMBER:
DATE RECEIVED:
AGENCY RESPONSE:
REVIEW CLOSED:
OL
17-E-4600-0208
09/28/2016 J
10/24/2016 4C
10/28/2016
DESC: Application of 1TTE Carolina II, LLC for Certificate to construct a 500 MW Natural
Gas Fueled Merchant Power Plant in Rockingham Co. Docket # EMP-92 Sub 0. - View
document at http://starwl.ncuc.net/NCUC/portal/ncuc/page/Dockets/portal.aspx,
Type EMP-92 Sub 0 in the Docket Number search line.
Located approximately 170 acre tract located at 4781 NC Highway 65, bounded
the west by New Lebanon Church Road, with the
side of NC Highway 65, and a small portion of
Highway 65, near Reidsville, NC
The attached project has been submitted to the N. C.
intergovernmental review. Please review and submit
indicated date to 1301 Mail Service Center, Raleigh
on
facility being located on the west
the site on the east side of NC
State Clearinghouse for
your response by the above
NC 27699-1301.
If additional review time is needed, please contact this office at [phone]
AS A RESULT OF THIS REVIEW THE FOLLOWING IS SUBMITTED:
SIGNED BY:
NO COMMENT
COMMENTS ATTACHED
DAT E :
Offico
DOA OCT 0 21
0
Nov 01 2016

NORTH CAROLINA STATE CLEARINGHOUSE
DEPARTMENT OF ADMINISTRATION
INTERGOVERNMENTAL REVIEW
I v P
vCOUN YROC KINGHAM
MA:ENERGY RELATED
FACILITIES/ACTIVITIES
MS CARRIE ATKINSON
CLEARINGHOUSE COORDINATOR
DEPT OF TRANSPORTATION
STATEWIDE PLANNING - MSC #1554
RALEIG`ri NC
REVIEW DISTRIBUTION
DEPT OF AGRICULTURE
DEPT OF ENVIRONMENTAL QUALITY
DEPT OF NATURAL & CULTURAL RESOURCE
DEPT OF TRANSPORTATION
DNCR - DIV OF PARKS AND RECREATION
DPS - DIV OF EMERGENCY MANAGEMENT
PIEDMONT TRIAD REGIONAL COUNCIL
PROJECT INFORMATION
APPLICANT: North Carolina Department of Commerce
TYPE: State Environmental Policy Act
Environmental Review
STATE NUMBER: 17-E-4600-020
DATE RECEIVED: 09/28/2016 J
AGENCY RESPONSE: 10/24/2016 41(
REVIEW CLOSED: 10/28/2016
DESC: Application of NTE Carolina II, LLC for Certificate to construct a 500 MW Natural
Gas Fueled Merchant Power Plant in Rockingham Co. Docket 5 EMP-92 Sub 0. -- View
document at http://starwl.ncuc.net/NCUC/portal/ncuc/page/Dockets/portal.aspx,
Type EMP-92 Sub 0 in the Docket Number search line.
Located approximately 170 acre tract located at 4781 NC Highway 65, bounded on
the west by New Lebanon Church Road, with the facility being located on the west
side of NC Highway 65, and a small portion of the site on the east side of NC
Highway 65, near Reidsville, NC
The attached project has been submitted to the N. C. State Clearinghouse for
intergovernmental review. Please review and submit your response by the above
indicated date to 1301 Mail Service Center, Raleigh NC 27699-1301.
If additional review time is needed, please contact this office at [phone].
AS A RESULT OF THIS REVIEW THE FOLLOWING IS SUBMITTED:
SIGNED BY:
NO COMMENT
COMMENTS ATTACHED
DATE: /6/0/00/4a
G
ODA
LL
LL
0
Nov 01 2016

Transportation
MEMORANDUM
To:
From:
PAT McCRORY
Governor
NICHOLAS J. TENNYSON
Secretary
August 30, 2016
Jeanetta Furney
NC Clearing House
Administrative Building, Sth Floor, Room #5026
Michael Abuya, EIT
Transportation Engineer
Transportation Planning Branch
Subject: Review of 17-E-4600-0208
NTE Carolina II, LLC for a 500MW Natural Gas Fueled Merchant
Power Plant in Rockingham County
The proposed project is located in Rockingham County. Roadway facilities, which may be
impacted by the proposed project and are part of the current Rockingham County
Comprehensive Transportation Plan (CTP):
NC 65 Major Thoroughfare (Needs Improvement)
The proposed access road to the project will tie onto NC 65, just north of Earnest Drive.
The Rockingham County CTP can also be viewed at:
https://connect.ncdot.gov/projects/planning/Pages/CTP-
Details.aspx?study id=Rockingham County
Attachment
�Noth€ng Compares_
OFFICIAL COPY
Nov 01 2016
State of North Carolina, Department of Transportation, Transportation Planning Branch
1554 Mail Service Center, 3 South Wilmington Street, Raleigh, NC 27601
919-70 7-0900

AdO 7b'113�C

COUNTY: ROCKINGHAM
NORTH CAROLINA STATE CLEARINGHOUSE
DEPARTMENT OF ADMINISTRATION
INTERGOVERNMENTAL REVIEW
Hl l z ENERGY RELATED
TED
FACILITIES/ACTIVITIES
MR. OU S T IN W I '.LL IAMSON
CLEARINGHOUSE COORDINATOR
DNCR - DIV OF PARKS AND RECREATION
1615 MAIL, SERVICE CENTER
RALEIGH NC
REVIEW DISTRIBUTION
DEPT OF AGRICULTURE
DEPT OF ENVIRONMENTAL QUALITY
DEPT OF NATURAL. & CULTURAL RESOURCE
DEPT OF TRANSPORTATION
DNCR - DIV OF PARKS AND RECREATION
DPS - DIV OF EMERGENCY MANAGEMENT
PIEDMONT TRIAD REGIONAL COUNCIL
PROJECT INFORMATION
APPLICANT: North Carolina Department of Commerce
TYPE: State Environmental Policy Act
Environmental Review
STATE NUMBER: 17-E-4600-0208
DATE RECEIVED 09 / 2 8 / 201 6
AGENCY RESPONSE:10/24/2016
REVIEW CLOSED: 1 0/ 2 8/ 2 01 6
DESC: Application of NTR Carolina II, LLC for Certificate to construct a 500 MW Natural
Gas Fueled Merchant Power Plant in Rockingham Co. Docket n EMP-92 Sub 0. - View
document at http://starwl.ncuc.net/NCUC/portal./ncuc/page/Dockets/portal.aspx,
Type EMP-92. Sub 0 in the Docket Number search line.
Located approximately 170 acre tract, located at 4781 NC Highway 65, bounded on
the west by New Lebanon Church Road, with, the facility being located on the west
side of NC Highway 65, and a small portion of the site on the east side of NC
Highway 65, near Reidsville, NC
The attached project has been submitted to the N. C. State Clearinghouse for
intergovernmental review. Please review and submit your response by the above
indicated date to 1301 mail Service Center, Raleigh NC 27699-1301.
If additional review time is needed, please contact this office at [phone].
AS A RESULT Off' THIS REVIEW THE FOLLOWING IS SUBMITTED:
SIGNED By.
17.
NC COMENT
COMMENTS ATTACHED
DATE: /d 6
OFFICIAL COPY
Nov 01 2016

Environmental Consulting
.& Technology of
North Carolina, PLLC
FIGURES
N:APRJ\NTE ENERGY \ECO\PCN \NTE PCN NARRATIVE.DOCX

2
a
O
co
0
N
co
N
a
w
w
U
a
x
0
U
O
J
w
0)
w
z
z
0)
0
X
2
0)
c>
0)
W
w
H
z
a
z
:fir ►ii4'__: —IJ/f
erby Tract
iitional Johnson Tract
ginal Johnson Tract
ginal Proposed Access Road
kL
1 1 wr
11
,41,,,,1
_ , y OIL
s �
Environmental Consulting
r Technology of
,rth Carolina, PLLC
i
J)
•. _ 1
-r.\ •
ilk% iiiMiL 1
-
I
t.... %
...._.,_
_,... ul 4%, . ‹lb
l"
il .4.01‘k. .....-
a
--..
\ ,_) 1/ - - i kg
R
es.„/ . i 4
_ ,
} I
...�
,.
..-, iir
prip- 1.I.M.
likr : --t. /
-111krift., rAti "Neal f1"6,...! i
k_ ,, 16.N-74-4;:jr---;4 P7Vile,,-% . API
"r` ���_� �f,�
.r-.:mow -
',
iir
t'.7----..iiim---- ':
419
._- . �'..
1+ ._� i v
\\„,....jc.,___,
L
/] _ =�
---.7.
N...... ,.._\___Tf (0
Southeast Eden
)\\
a
,..--
ti
ITE Energy, 2016.
a
it
0
0
1 \_
1 (
•
� 'de r
Southwest
I m
E 1.
OCATION MAP
AROLINAS II, LLC
GS Topographic Quadrangle, 197
m�
•
co
w x;
�WW
r . l . ..\ ]!!/ .1 1
l -- 7 — - - �'�ar� � -� c. f, .. firy
LL (n Z 01

0
0
z
y
— Environmental Consulting
,& Technologyof
North Carolina, PLLC
r Feet .c.{ 4. _ T �}.'_
,f - 1 - IT 4"
�'
de . . . cti; ...
~ . 7 6*
1
,. Aihkillk_...4 ,
f 7 `
>,
—."14111‘01141111. # W101 ,
y ■ d ; J
r i l .
�Y
FIGURE 4.
WETLANDS AND STREAMS MAP
NTE CAROLINAS II, LLC
Sources LIUAR Contours, 11J11/, LSHI VVoeO Imagery, NAP, 11114, ,I, .10.

po

If<
`
......
r
•+I
aca
w tit
222
IQ
Iu
4
;OIL SURVEY
y, 1992
;
C_‘,
w
0—
51
\ '''W . .
?4.
•.:.
.........
:_)
al
ii
CO
L
Cr
1.2
f
h
V' C
v
IGURE 7.
OCKINGHAM CO
TE CAROLINAS I
urces: USDA SoiI Survey of Rock
o
C z
a1 IZil
J
F
•,A.,