FERC_Mitigation_20051110

BOARD:
D H �" C
Elizabeth M. Hagood
Chairman
1 1 L
Edwin H. Cooper, III
Vice Chairman
Steven G. Kisner
PROMOTE PROTECT PROSPER
Secretary
C. Earl Hunter, Commissioner
Promoting and protecting the health of the public and the environment.
November 10, 2005
Duke Power Company
Attn: Mr. Mark Oakley
Mail Code EC 12Y
P.O. Box 1006
Charlotte, NC 28201-1006
RE: Catawba-Wateree Hydro Project; FERC No. 2232
401 Water Quality Certification Requirements
Dear Mr. Oakley,
BOARD:
Henry C. Scott
Paul C. Aughtry, III
Glenn A. McCall
Coleman F Buckhouse, MD
During our recent meeting, you requested that the South Carolina Department of
Health and Environmental Control (the Department) provide Duke Power with a list of needed
information to facilitate the development of the Agreement in Principle (AIP) and Duke Power's future
application for 401 Water Quality Certification. The following is a list of items that Duke will need to
provide in order to demonstrate that the proposed activity is consistent with state 401 Water Quality
Certification requirements. Items 1-6 are broad in scope and it is anticipated that these items will become
more specific as more detailed studies are received and reviewed. Items 7, 8 and 9 reference specific
sections of the draft AIP that the Department has already notified Duke Power are unacceptable and that
still appear in the current draft.
1) A summary of reservoir and tailwater water quality data that has been collected to date. This
should be presented in the form of a standard technical report.
2) A summary of all tests that have been conducted at hydro facilities to determine how various
operational alternatives influence water quality.
3) A written assessment of the potential water quality impacts of the project, both direct and
indirect, over the life of the project. This assessment must also consider the cumulative impacts
of the proposed activity.
4) A written assessment of how the proposed activity may affect any threatened, rare or endangered
species.
5) An itemized list and summary of operational alternatives directed at enhancing water quality that
have been considered by Duke Power, and reasons for their implementation or why they have not
or will not be implemented.
6) A proposed operational plan that provides reasonable assurance that water quality standards and
uses will not be contravened by the proposed activity, including a proposed schedule for
hydromechanical and operational modifications and improvements or other actions that will
enhance water quality. This plan should also include proposed monitoring locations and a
proposed monitoring schedule for each hydrofacility.
7) Section 5.3. L(a) (Actions to Support Water User Needs) states "Duke Power and the relevant
state agencies agree that they will not require the applicants for these intake modifications to
conduct another basin -wide evaluation of the water quantity or water quality effects of their
proposed intake on Project Reservoirs or regulated river reaches..." The Department has
concerns regarding this section and cannot consent to any agreement that may restrict its ability to
fulfill its regulatory responsibilities.
SOUTH CAROLINA DEPARTMENT OF HEALTH AND ENVIRONMENTAL CONTROL
2600 Bull Street • Columbia, SC 29201 • Phone: [phone] • wwwscdhecgov

8) Section 13 (Water Quality Enhancements): SCDHEC, in correspondence to Duke Power dated
October 29, 2004 (see attached), has already objected to several statements in Section 13 (and
which still appear in the most recent draft AIP): "The Draft AIP states that the benefits of D.O.
improvements in the flows released from upstream hydro stations are marginalized at these
locations by the stratification and biochemical processes occurring in the reservoir." The
Department does not agree with this premise because D.O. standards apply to reservoirs as well
as rivers to protect aquatic life uses. Similarly, we object to the language in Section 13.3,
wherein meeting a state water quality standard is referred to as `enhancing water quality'." In
Section 13.1.2, the AIP states "If needed, Duke Power will work with the South Carolina
Department of Health and Environmental Control (SCDHEC) to identify a mixing zone that fully
complies with water quality standards." The language referring to a "mixing zone" is
unacceptable; also objectionable is Section 13.2 of the draft AIP, which refers to "site -specific
standards." Again, SCDHEC has already stated its position on mixing zones and site -specific
the October 29, 2004 correspondence.
Section 16 iscellaneous Agreements): The Department cannot sign any document that limits
to request or support new license requirements or reopeners, or is in any way
inconsistent with our regulatory responsibilities. Regarding Section 16.2.2 (Obligations During
the State Agencies' Process for Developing the 401 Water Quality Certification); the SCDHEC is
a public agency and, as such, cannot sign any agreement that restricts the ability of the public to
fully participate in the 401 Water Quality Certification process. Furthermore, the Department
cannot sign any agreement with respect to the conditions of water quality certification in advance
of the formal review process for 401 Water Quality Certification.
Although we have attempted to be thorough and complete in our list, it is extremely difficult and may
be impossible at this point to develop an entirely inclusive list of information that will be required for
certification or AIP development at this stage in the process. Further information may be required at a
later date. As always, we would be happy to meet with you throughout the process to discuss these
issues. Please call Vivianne Vejdani at (803) 8984243 if you have any questions.
Sincerely,
B. Quinton Epps, Program Manager
Q pp , S�'
401 Certifications, Standards and Navigable Waters
Bureau of Water
BQE:VV
CC: Darlene Kucken, NC Division of Water Quality
2

P-MUTAWN
[ANDS �OURVANU
Yoter land tricot. I gnu• grrald y al lr f e.
Board of Directors
Budd D. Berro^
J. Frank Bragg, Jr.
Michael F. Clement
Peggy R. Culbertson
Robert W. Elliot, Jr.
T. Thomas Gates
John R. Hairr. Ill
Kathryn S. Heath, Ph.D.
Thomas H. Howard, It
Jud F. Little
Charles W. IWRec
Karen D- McMillan
Charles J. &Ieakin, III, NID
Jacob M. Meckler
Michael 1'. Narth
William J. Price, V
Haywood F. Rankin
Teresa F. Rhyne
David K. Smoois
Mary C. Tribble
P. Jean Woods
Diane P. Wright
Board of Advisors
i\1clCay Belk
Philip Blumenthal
Jell' Burton
t'sdward Crutchfield
Frank Dowd, IV
William Grigg
February 20, 2006
William G. Ross
Secretary, North Carolina Department of Enemy and Natural Resources
1601 Nlail Service Center
Raleigh, NC 27699-1601
Re: Johnson Creek riparian buffer as mitigation for Mountain Island Lake; Catawba-
Wateree Re -Licensing Process
Dear Secretary Ross:
On behalf of Catawba Lands Conservancy I am writing to request your strong support
for proper mitigation of Mountain Island Lake flows in conjunction with Duke Energy's
re -license application process. The current Mountain Island Lake (MIL) mitigation plan
calls for additional, newly conserved lands Far upstream from the Lake along the Johns,
Catawba, and Linville Rivers. We feel this approach is incomplete and partially
misdirected in that it fails to address protection of Johnson Creek, a local, fragile and
threatened resource with direct influence on water quality in the Lake, We feel strongly
that MIL mitigation via protection of Johnson Creels is appropriate and critically
important to the region.
Johnson Creek is one of the most significant tributaries to mountain Island Lake, a water
resource providing drinking water to over 800,000 residents of Mecklenburg and Gaston
Counties. Located near the corridor for the new Highway 16, Johnson Creek is
positioned in an area facing immense development pressure and resultant increasing
threats from run-off. Crescent Resources owns significant lands along both sides of
Johnson Creek.
Non -point source pollution to Mountain Island Lake via Johnson Creek has been
significant in recent years, and pressures will only increase as both Gaston and Lincoln
Counties continue rapid development. These pollution problems are exacerbated by less
extensive stream buffer requirements and storm -water best management practices
(BiVIPs) in Lincoln County. During my relatively short tenure at the Conservancy, the
sediment buildup and pollution in the Creek have increased noticeably. As a result, we
are concerned for the future of Johnson Creek, and for the subsequent drinking water
quality deterioration for the Charlotte region.
Yet the opportunities for creating a significant conservation corridor along Johnson
Creek are immense, as are the benefits. Buffering the Johnson Creek corridor would add
immeasurably to significant, already protected lands in eastern Gaston and Lincoln
Counties. The Catawba Lands Conservancy and other conservation organizations have
helped conserve over 1,100 acres in the vicinity of Johnson Creek and MIL. An
additional 106 acres are under negotiation for conservation. Yet, despite these successes,
Johnson Creels, the primary tributary in the area, remains vulnerable and un-protected.
In reality, unprotected Johnson Creek is the weak link in the chain.
r m tn4 ttl wr.....ti-,..1 C..... .a I r`t. 1..,,- N1 • I 7n,1 z:r> 2Y4n 1 r: 7n,t zso zz.u% i .._..... .._......t...�__.r.. ._..

P-M WAR
[ANDS CONSUVANCt>✓
Kyur tand rnot. Your gtudd y of lily.
A 300-foot buffer along Johnson Creek would create an additional conservation area of
239 acres protecting over 14,000 linear feet of the Creek. The buffer area would not only
help protect water quality, but through connectivity, would greatly enhance wildlife in the
area by providing key linkage between the Conservancy's protected property and the 857-
acre Mountain Island Educational State Forest. The attached map better illustrates this
proposed Johnson Creek conservation corridor (shown in red as Woodcock Farm
parcel).
This important opportunity to conserve lands near Johnson Creek is fleeting. Duke
Energy, through its subsidiary Crescent Resources (or dba Carolinas Centers), has a
significant land holding along both sides of Johnson Creek. Although past commitments
by Crescent to conserve this property have not materialized, the re -licensing negotiations
create a new, and unique, chance to create one of the Charlotte reg-ion's most significant
water quality and wildlife protection zones.
Despite our repeated attempts to protect Johnson Creek as a stakeholder in the re -
licensing process, this valuable resource has not been included in the current negotiations
for mitigation on Mountain Island Lake. I hope we can work together to prevent this
opportunity from slipping away.
We stand ready to help in any way. Thanks so much for your consideration of this
request.
Sincerely,
6&
Davis J. Cabl
Executive Director
Enclosure: Area Map
cc w/ enclosures:
Senator David Hoyle
Rusty Rozzelle, Water Quality Program Manager, Mecklenburg County
Jennifer Stultz, Mayor, City of Gastonia
Senator Dan Clodfelter
Jeff Lineburger, Duke Energy
0 106 W. A'torAc d Street I Charlotte, iNC 28202 i 704.342.333() 1 L 704,3.12.3340 1 www.r:,rnwh:Jn-I, --

Huntersvi
Holly Charlotte
S
LINCOleco.
GAST Co
_.__. ___A .--- _ BYNUM FRANK V
Killian Farm Easements 133.1 acres
107.4 acres
MSTRON & CIARA
1 .5 acres
Proposed Woodcock Farm 7
Project: 239 acres
Potential Conservation Area
105 acres
SIFFORD JAMES C ETAI,�
102.8 acres
State Educational Forest
857.4 acres shown I
ANTHONY LEE & KAREN O)T `
177 1 n .ro 1 ttt
/�V J
__J ) -
Killian Forest Easement:
146.3 acres
State Educational Forest
857.4 acres shown
C _
14.348 feet (2.7 tulles)
of prolecied frontage
Trexler Propt ity
acres Protecting Drinking Water
Johnson Creek Conservaion4!
Catawba River
j
j LJ Crescent Resources Tracts
�- Woodcock Farm: 239 acres i
Conserved Parcels
- -- -i Potential Conservation °-;'r .
State Educational Forest Area: 105 acres
857.4 acres shown1r1
__._..... _ Feet �"—•
0 500 1.000 2,000
MECKLENBURG Co. 1 inch equals 1,500 feet 17 February 2006

MEMO
TO: Darlene Kucken
Jeff Lineberger
FROM: John Dorney
RE: Outline of proposed stream mitigation package for Duke Power FERC
relicensing for Catawba River projects
DATE" January 27, 2006
As you know, we met yesterday to develop a stream mitigation package for the
Duke FERC relicensing package. After that meeting, we met internally and then
discussed the approach with Jen Huff to refine the mitigation package. The following
should capture our discussions and final calculations that we used to derive the final
mitigation package. Please let me know if any of these calculations are in error.
I. Duke Stream Mitigation Needs
Impact location
Subtotals
Totals
Stream vs River
Paddy Creek
4,050 feet
4,050 feet
Stream
Oxford Reach
16,393 feet times
0.57 (correction for
fraction of flow
9,344
River
Lookout Shoals
1,929
1,929
River
Mountain Island
Lake
1,689
1,689
River
Totals
4,050
Stream
12,962
River
Therefore, there is a need for 4,050 feet of stream mitigation and 12,962 feet of river
mitigation to offset unavoidable impacts to streams and rivers from the FERC
relicensing.
II. Stream Mitigation Proposal
a. River im acts — 100 foot wide conservation easements.
Tract name
Stream
Mitigation
Streambank
Final
and number
Length
Factor — divide
factor —1 if
stream
by four if
protect both
mitigation
corridor
sides of stream;
credit
protection or by
divide by two if
three if
only one side
watershed
protected
rotection
Johns River
98,253
4
2
12,282 foot -
tracts and
credits
Catawba River
tracts
Linville River
17,224
14
12
1903

Totals I I 1 113,185
Therefore, there is no shortfall for larger order streams since the total of the
mitigation credits for the Johns, Catawba and Linville tracts (13,185 feet)
exceeds the mitigation needs (12, 962 feet).
b. Stream impacts — fee simple acquisition with conservation easements
along streams for the following tracts
Tract name
Stream
Mitigation Factor —
Streambank
Final
and number
Length
divide by four if
factor — 1 if
stream
corridor protection or
protect both
mitigation
by three if watershed
sides of stream;
credit
protection
divide by two if
only one side
protected
Tract 17136
7,248*
1
2,416
foot -
credits
Tract 17136
4,086
4
1
1,022
Tract 16977
528
3
1
176
Tract 16977
7897
4
1
1,974
Tract 16977
527
4
1
132
Tract 57888
908
4
2
114
Tract 57887
5280*
3
1
1760
Tract 57887
1996
3
1
665
Tract 57887
1669
4
2
1209
Totals
I
1
1 8468
Therefore, preservation of streams on these four tracts will be sufficient to offset
the unavoidably lost uses of Paddy's Creek.
• Length based on estimates by DWQ from 1:24,000 topographic map. Field
verification is needed (see below).
III. Additional remaining work needed which may result in small refinements of
the above numbers.
1. Locate where 100 foot buffers are not possible on the Johns
River due to existing road and building locations
2. Measure the length of streams on selected tracts to check
DWQ estimates
3. Develop revised conservation easement language
4. Revise maps to show the locations of above easements
5. Revise data layer and attributes accordingly.
6. DWQ/DWR communicate the results of this work to other
stakeholders.
7. DWQ obtain approval of mitigation guidance for the January
9, 2006 version of policy.
Cc: Dave Toms, DWQ
Steve Reed, DWR
Stratford Kay, DWQ
Jen Huff, Duke Power

w .1
17 _ 1 .,.1
Vill
eq,

Item - Mitigation Follow-up with Duke today
Subject: Item - Mitigation Follow-up with Duke today
From: Tom Kenney<[e-mail]>
Date: Thu, 26 Jan 2006 09:21:24 -0500
To: Darlene Kucken <[e-mail]>
CC: Steve Reed <[e-mail]>, Chris Goudreau
<[e-mail]>
Darlene,
I would like to bring to your attention this item regarding the
Catawba R mainstem Northbend Tract where Agencies-FCNC are now
proposing to Duke that 100 ft of the mainstem buffer serve as
mitigation. Within this fee acquisition tract we are trying to
achieve via the relicensing is the 10acre public recreation
access site (parking, restrooms, boat put-in/take-out) at the
Second Powerhouse Rd bridge . We know Crescent owns the site
for the access site and that also it is a portion of the large
Northbend tract.
I my opinion, I advise that a mitigation easement not apply to
the 10acre recreation access site that will obviously involve a
small amount of mainstem frontage (relative to the approx 2.8
miles of frontage on mainstem the Northbend tract has). This is
in order to accommodate the facilities proposed for the 10 ac
site. As Duke is already in AIP acquiring at its cost the
10acres of this developed site, Foothills is not needing CWMTF
dollars for any buffer of this 10 acres of Northbend; however,
it serves as acquisition project match for the larger CWMTF
funding request.
Tom
Tom Kenney L
Land Protection & Planning Director `JQ C1
Foothills Conservancy
P.O. Box 3023
Morganton, NC 28680
828-437-9930/828-437-9912 Fax
I of 1 1/27/2006 1:12 PM

CDƒ
E
ƒ
3ƒ/
/
3/
E
\
i�
& a
<
a 3
2
]
$
%
® § §
§
& 0
_. o
E
C
/ m m
°
p m
_
CD
m
= m m
CD
_
/ ]
k
c
k k B
m
\§
C
®
¥
°
& ° m
e
n
\�
&
23W
m
70)
E
9
z
e k 0
\
§ c
e
W
®
\
M
E<
E
/
/
f
E
/ \
n
/
0
CO
0
\
4
0
\
7
a
�
R
=
w
<
/2
R
4 g
4
7
/
su
k 7
\
.
/PD
N
E
CO to
CD.
2 ƒ \
i «
7%
a
.
woQ
g
##
222
<
»##
\
\
�
/ »
■
®
2
CD
\
w
2
.
�
e
.
:.
g
§
\
\
cn/
�
\
�:3
K
_
<
\
�
^
Cl)
9
�
m
20
Cc
.
m�
\.
E k
I
q
CD
4
k
s
�
c
fCD°
2
\
»
ƒ
]
?
\
\
$IV
°
\ 0
_
n_
6
d
E\3
0
g
n
£ CL ;--
cl
/
\
o
CD
k
m k
&
\
]
CD
m
® J
<
]
o
) »
k $
\ k
_
<
d
e
0
/
\
2
CD
�
n
�
�
�
coco %
oR
\
9
CD
»
CD
M
c
CD
%
\
%co/
o
t &
&
<ca
»»
¥
,
C
$ %
o
�d
2
®
\
o
�
\
w
2
].
�w
kk_
/

N
W

Re: Results of DWQ and Duke Power meeting about Catawba FERC ...
Subject: Re: Results of DWQ and Duke Power meeting about Catawba FERC stream
mitigation
From: John Dorney <[e-mail]>
Date: Fri, 27 Jan 2006 10:34:41 -0500
To: [e-mail]
CC: Chris Goudreau <[e-mail]>, 'Dwayne Stutzman'
<[e-mail]>, Susie Hamrick Jones
<[e-mail]>, Darlene Kucken <[e-mail]>,
Dave Toms <[e-mail]>, Steve Reed <[e-mail]>
The acquisition is to be fee simple with management (probably at
least) through the Lake James State Park folks (at least that is
my understanding but Darlene can correct me as needed!). The
main purpose of the tracts was to enable them to get the
watershed preservation credit ratio for the smaller streams that
were entirely contained on those tracts.
Darlene - anything to add?
Tom Kenney wrote:
Agency Folks ... I ask for some clarification.
Under Package item 3, are these fee simple aquisition
tracts ( I think) .. or preservation by easement on
entire tracts? Under 3, tract 16977 (Paddy
dam -Linville R-old Catawba frontage tract) is this all
237 acres? It was my understanding the significant
value for this tract (fee simple acquisition) was only
a rather limited portion - the triangle of Crescent
land southeast of Bridgewater access area with the
frontage on the regulated river (Linville) in addition
to only some fee simple frontage on Muddy Creek (old
Catawba channel). Most of the tract seems to be
impacted by dam reinforcement work that significantly
diminishes the tracts economic value, resource value
and public recreation value for the next 20 years -
think of the restoration time needed after all the dam
work is done. The important value of this tract in my
opinion was only fee simple acquisition of about 50 -
60 acres for the "triangle of land" plus public access
under conservation easements to permit the siting of
the Overmountain Victory Trail and public access to
the rest of the Muddy Creek frontage for the tract
(upstream of the land triangle).
The reason I point this out is that FCNC-WRC really
1 of 1/27/2006 11:42 AM

Re: Results of DWQ and Duke Power meeting about Catawba FERC
need Duke Energy cost of relicensing
fee simple acquisition of uplands for
River confluence tracts. Tom
John Dorney wrote:
value directed to
the lower Johns
Staff from DWQ (John Dorney, Darlene Kucken and
Dave Toms) , DWR (Steve Reed) , and Duke Power (Jeff
Lineberger and Jen Huff) met today to refine a
stream mitigation package for the 401 Certification
of the FERC relicensing for the Catawba-Wateree
project. Discussions revolved around requirements
for DWQ's 401 Certification rules and water quality
standards in order to offset unavoidable stream
impacts in Paddy Creek, the Oxford reach, Lookout
Shoals reach and the Mountain Island reach.
After extensive discussion and calculations, as
well as examination of various alternatives, the
following stream mitigation package was determined
to meet the mitigation needs for the aquatic
habitat portion of the 401 Certification and
includes additional mitigation credits to
compensate needs that may arise as calculations are
refined.. Some additional fieldwork needs to be
completed in the next month to finalize and confirm
the adequacy of this package. This package does not
address all 401 Certification issues related to
water quality impacts from project operations but
does address the compensatory stream mitigation
requirements.
1. Permanent protection of 100 foot conservation
easements along the Crescent Resources and Duke
Power parcels along the Catawba River and Johns
River except for three outlying tracts along the
Catawba (tract numbers 37216, 17090 and 17076),
2. Permanent protection of 100 foot conservation
easements along the Linville River (tracts 16977,
2 of 3 1/27/2006 11:42 AM

Re: Results of DWQ and Duke Power meeting about Catawba FFRC
17133, and 49994), and
3. Preservation of three entire tracts including
streams and uplands (17136, 57888 and 16977).
I expect this tentative agreement will satisfy the
401compensatory stream mitigation requirements, but
does not preclude continued discussions to include
additional tracts in the AIP. It is our hope that
the selection of the above tracts will allow more
resources to be focused on preserving the Lower
John's River tracts.
If you have any questions about this basic
agreement, please call me at 919-733-9646 or send
an email message. We except that the details of
this agreement will be discussed next week at the
scheduled meeting with Duke and the Joint
Aquatics/Water Quality Committee members.
3 of 3 1/27/2006 1 1:42 AM

Re: Results of DWQ and Duke Power meeting about Catawba FERC
Subject: Re: Results of DWQ and Duke Power meeting about Catawba FERC stream
mitigation
From: Tom Kenney <[e-mail]>
Date: Fri, 27 Jan 2006 09:37:14 -0500
To: John Dorney <[e-mail]>
CC: Chris Goudreau<[e-mail]>, "'Dwayne Stutzman"'
<[e-mail]>, Tom Kenney <[e-mail]>,
Susie Hamrick Jones<[e-mail]>, Darlene Kucken
<[e-mail]>, Dave Toms <[e-mail]>, Steve Reed
<[e-mail]>
Agency Folks ... I ask for some clarification.
Under Package item 3, are these fee simple aquisition tracts ( I
think) .. or preservation by easement on entire tracts? Under
3, tract 16977 (paddy dam -Linville R-old Catawba frontage tract)
is this all 237 acres? It was my understanding the significant
value for this tract (fee simple acquisition) was only a rather
limited portion - the triangle of Crescent land southeast of
Bridgewater access area with the frontage on the regulated river
(Linville) in addition to only some fee simple frontage on Muddy
Creek (old Catawba channel). Most of the tract seems to be
impacted by dam reinforcement work that significantly diminishes
the tracts economic value, resource value and public recreation
value for the next 20 years - think of the restoration time
needed after all the dam work is done. The important value of
this tract in my opinion was only fee simple acquisition of
about 50 - 60 acres for the "triangle of land" plus public
access under conservation easements to permit the siting of the
Overmountain Victory Trail and public access to the rest of the
Muddy Creek frontage for the tract (upstream of the land
triangle).
The reason I point this out is that FCNC-WRC really need Duke
Energy cost of relicensing value directed to fee simple
acquisition of uplands for the lower Johns River confluence
tracts. Tom
John Dorney wrote:
Staff from DWQ (John Dorney, Darlene Kucken and Dave
Toms), DWR (Steve Reed), and Duke Power (Jeff
Lineberger and Jen Huff) met today to refine a stream
mitigation package for the 401 Certification of the
FERC relicensing for the Catawba-Wateree project.
Discussions revolved around requirements for DWQ's 401
I of 3 1 /27/2006 1:21 PM

Re: Results of DWQ and Duke Power meeting about Catawba FERC ...
Certification rules and water quality standards in
order to offset unavoidable stream impacts in Paddy
Creek, the Oxford reach, Lookout Shoals reach and the
Mountain Island reach.
After extensive discussion and calculations, as well
as examination of various alternatives, the following
stream mitigation package was determined to meet the
mitigation needs for the aquatic habitat portion of
the 401 Certification and includes additional
mitigation credits to compensate needs that may arise
as calculations are refined. Some additional fieldwork
needs to be completed in the next month to finalize
and confirm the adequacy of this package. This package
does not address all 401 Certification issues related
to water quality impacts from project operations but
does address the compensatory stream mitigation
requirements.
1. Permanent protection of 100 foot conservation
easements along the Crescent Resources and Duke Power
parcels along the Catawba River and Johns River except
for three outlying tracts along the Catawba (tract
numbers 37216, 17090 and 17076),
2. Permanent protection of 100 foot conservation
easements along the Linville River (tracts 16977,
17133, and 49994), and
3. Preservation of three entire tracts including
streams and uplands (17136, 57888 and 16977).
I expect this tentative agreement will satisfy the
401compensatory stream mitigation requirements, but
does not preclude continued discussions to include
additional tracts in the AIP. It is our hope that the
selection of the above tracts will allow more
resources to be focused on preserving the Lower John's
River tracts.
If you have any questions about this basic agreement,
please call me at 919-733-9646 or send an email
message. We except that the details of this agreement
2 of 3 1/27/2006 1:21 PM

Re: Results of DWQ and Duke Power meeting about Catawba FERC
will be discussed next week at the scheduled meeting
with Duke and the Joint Aquatics/Water Quality
Committee members.
Tom Kenney
Land Protection & Planning Director
Foothills Conservancy
P.O. Box 3023
Morganton, NC 28680
828-437-9930/828-437-9912 Fax
3 of 3 1/27/2006 1:21 PM

Q Y4�CCr5clCt W�dC i pf '1'adi94 �r}c 1`3''- ?p,Sto GQSSuNt
6, f - :r- sl _ I , (.
f a, 9
� =u3�3�
c
o,glo
1 J r
01�1 �#e 3�ari F I`1 ogat r-7�7 Lo 33io0 e��-
t
�
1 � C '-((��O
SI O S9 ► Il r 33�
7�yq
o
��, �SCc ��• �L� 5,1� ra�r5oo
LI =
I q�7 5W ��r �,e, = ( -7Lo x a = 35a st' y��o �7 a2,
70SR�°' 1 &t = r`j xar = 3,`I�f9 st, 13,19to Ildt�`115
s;q' "e9or�c� x S ' - �0 5q r �idv(v
5-7 8-7 = S,aBo'� 3 x a' 3, Sao s�
6q. LjxCPO
'-��3y� Sf,
3, 19 ko

Meeting — Duke Power and DWQ
FERC relicensing — Catawba River plants
January 26, 2006
DRAFT AGENDA
10:00 am
Introductions and Agenda discussion
Everyone
10:15 am
DWQ — Purpose and proposed outcome of meeting:
John Dorney
10:30 am
Duke — Proposed outcome of meeting:
Jeff Lineberger
10:45 am
Schedule for remaining action for relicensing:
Darlene Kucken
11:00 am
Summary of DWQ mitigation position paper and discussion of conservation
easement language:
John Dorney
11:15 am
Summary of mitigation needs:
Steve Reed
11:45 am
Summary of DWQ estimates of streams on tracts:
John Dorney
Noon
Lunch on own or as group
Everyone
1:30 pm
Comparison of tracts with mitigation needs
Everyone
2:30 pm
Development of mutually acceptable mitigation package
Everyone
3:00 pm
Outline of remaining work to be done
Everyone
3:30 pm
Adjourn

3'3C.o`1 -- aloy <R-t 3b IT �$r1
— r c y° S
Ll j as �(o�s R ��� 3 wl g
01,
iLt xy(,o 5-1a,4L1
bg0t 910 - sl D, yyD ss l , -7 s, y 7a
— 1 cL I , 5 S U S� I.�a�grY � C@ 3QLi
C©r(-E
Q1�-1- 37a I ,
Av R-7-7) 5 -7is &R+ 1113 (,.
M,d,� ,-�,-o� J2 �, V► Q c� O �r . �=, c�-� ��:s�a ca Cd 19-c.-a
CkO
C4aA� 1C)O( Cl-)"Ia4�1 J-rk"� e,
*-•�c.- 5
y� CAM,S,
w-^Ia,o "o -.o sza a v�--�k S
i
rD l� c2� �.J Q c.�►.�N,-.w�, c eft W� a 7i EN 2 c��e�-cam•, i l��'

Jam_ 171r4 5-7/3r
too'

-%r ACA,­ Cjk� r�C�O
NCDENR
North Carolina Department of Environment and Natural Resources
Division of Water Quality
Michael F. Easley, Governor William G. Ross, Jr., Secretary
Alan W. Klimek, P.E., Director
DRAFT
Stream Mitigation for FERC-related 401 Certifications
Internal DWQ Guidance
NC Division of Water Quality
January 9, 2006
Version 1.2
I. Regulatory background
The Division of Water Quality must issue 401 Water Quality Certifications for FERC
licenses and has done so for several years. The review process that DWQ uses is
outlined in the 401 Water Quality Certification rules (15A NCAC 2H .0500) and
generally follows the 404(b)(1) guidelines — namely, avoid the impact, minimize the
impact to the maximum extent practical and then mitigate for unavoidable impacts.
The following guidelines assume that the FERC project has been reviewed for
avoidance and minimization and that the remaining unavoidable impacts to stream
channels are to be addressed through compensatory stream mitigation. In some
cases, stream restoration or enhancement can be done to replace the unavoidably
lost uses. The process for these practices is well outlined in various documents but
primarily in the joint state/federal stream mitigation guidelines (US Army Corps of
Engineers 2003). In other situations, preservation of streams, their adjacent buffers
or perhaps entire watersheds can be acceptable alternatives. This guidance focuses
on the preservation option in order to provide additional details to DWQ staff and the
regulated community on this approach.
IL Stream buffers and water quality
From review of the scientific literature, it is clear that wooded stream buffers provide
essential water quality benefits to the adjacent stream. Indeed, stream restoration
and enhancement projects in NC have always required restoration or enhancement
of the stream buffers (generally, 50 feet in the piedmont and coastal plain or 30 feet
in the mountains). There is also a positive relationship between the width of the
stream buffer and the degree of water quality benefit whereby a larger buffer has
greater water quality benefit. However, the relationship is not linear but rather above
a certain buffer width, increases in water quality benefits tend to level off. From
analysis of data on buffer width and pollutant removal (Figures 1, 2 and 3), the
incremental water quality benefits of stream buffers wider than 50 feet tend to be
relatively small. It should be noted that the sediment removal curve (Figure 2)
provides support for buffers greater than 50 feet wide. Several comprehensive
reviews of the buffer literature (Castelle, et. al. 1994, Doohaluk 2000 and Wenger
1999) suggest that a 100 (200) foot buffer is important for long-term water quality
protection since most of the studies that are reflected in Figures 1 — 3 are based on
401 Wetlands Certification Unit
1650 Mail Service Center, Raleigh, North Carolina 27699.1650 One
2321 Crabtree Boulevard, Suite 250, Raleigh, North Carolina 27604 North Carolina
Phone: [phone] / FAX [phone] Internet: httP://h2o.enr-.state.ne.us/ncwetlands Vatumlly
An Equal Opportunity/Affirmative Action Employer — 50% Recycled/10% Post Consumer Paper

short-term research. Therefore, DWQ believes that protected buffers of 50 feet
should generally be the minimal width but that protected buffers of 100 (200) feet
should be encouraged and receive more beneficial credit ratios.
III. Existing state/federal stream mitigation guidelines
In 2003, the state and federal regulatory agencies developed and adopted the
"Stream Mitigation Guidelines" (April 2003) to provide guidance to the US Army
Corps of Engineers, US Environmental Protection Agency, NC Wildlife Resources
Commission and NC Division of Water Quality as well as the regulated community in
our review and approval of stream mitigation projects. These guidelines are
intended to be used for 404 and 401 permitting decisions but also provide a useful
framework for FERC-related stream mitigation issues.
The guidelines define four types of stream mitigation (Restoration, Enhancement
Level I, Enhancement Level II and Preservation) with corresponding mitigation
ratios (1:1, 1.5:1, 2.5:1 and 5:1, respectively). Preservation sites must meet the
criteria shown on page 16 of this document. Foremost in those criteria is that in
addition to the biological value of the streams, the site must be in an area with
threats to development. In many cases for FERC permits, preservation is a
viable option. The following guidance is intended to expand upon the Stream
Mitigation Guidelines in the FERC-context. DWQ intends to open discussions
with the other state and federal agencies to include these items in a revised
tream Mitigation Guidelines once we have more experience with these issues in
the FERC-context. Additionally if stream buffers can only be protected on one
side of a stream, then one-half the credit is available. Finally, if an existing
regulatory buffer exists, then any additional buffer must go beyond the protected
buffer in order to count for mitigation credit.
IV. Proposed policy
Demonstrable threat
Sites proposed for preservation must have a demonstrable threat as defined in
Appendix 1. This definition was developed for and approved by the Performance
Assessment and Consistency Group (PACG) by the relevant state and federal
agencies including DWQ. Written documentation of the demonstrable threat to a
particular site or group of sites is needed before a preservation site can be
approved by DWQ.
b. Preservation mechanism
Preservation should be fee simple acquisition with title given to a relevant state
or federal land management agency or responsible local conservation group
(non -governmental organization) such as The Nature Conservancy or local land
trust. A conservation easement shall also be provided with the land. Provisions
for land management, access and other activities shall be clearly spelled out in
the conservation easement using guidance available from agencies such as the
US Army Corps of Engineers, EEP or the Clean Water Management Trust Fund.
c. Preservation of 100 200 foot stream buffers

Preservation of 100 (200) foot stream buffers shall receive a 4:1 mitigation ratio
since preservation of this wider buffer is more important to water quality than
preservation of the typical 50 foot buffer.
d. Preservation of entire watersheds
Preservation of an entire local watershed surrounding a particular stream
channel shall receive a 3:1 mitigation ratio for the length of streams in the
watershed since preservation of the entire watershed will protect water quality in
these streams in perpetuity. Protection of the entire watershed provides longer
term water quality benefits than protection of 50 or 100 (200) foot buffers.
e. Example (hypothetical)
The following example (Figure 4) is provided to illustrate the use of the above
preservation ratios. This example is hypothetical and is therefore not based on a
particular site. This example assumes that the site has a demonstrable threat
and that a fee simple acquisition is contemplated with a conservation easement.
In this example, there are 10,000 feet of stream impact for a particular project. A
proposed mitigation package includes 24,000 feet of stream in Parcel A and
9,000 feet of streams outside Parcel A. We will presume that an applicant
propose to preserve the entire Parcel A as well as 100 foot wide buffers along
4,000 feet of streams outside Parcel A and 100 foot wide buffers along 5,000 feet
of streams outside Parcel A. The following amount of stream credit would then
be available for this proposal:
Table 1: Stream mitigation credits from different types of stream
preservation assuming impact and mitigation sites are within one stream
order of each other. This example assumes 10,000 feet of stream
mitigation is required.
Type of Length of Mitigation
Preservation streams (feet) Mitigation Ratio Credits
Watershed 24,000 3:1 8,000 foot -credits
preservation
100 (200) foot wide 4,000 4:1 1,000
buffers
50 foot wide 5,000 5:1 1,000
buffers
Totals 33,000 10,000 credits
Therefore this proposed stream mitigation package provides sufficient
compensatory mitigation for the 10,000 feet of stream impact assuming that
stream size considerations (discussed below) are met.
Stream size considerations
The Stream Mitigation Guidelines state that mitigation should be within one
stream order of the impact. In many cases for FERC projects, mitigation will
need to be done for larger stream impacts with preservation on smaller stream
channels. When the mitigation is beyond one stream order (defined as streams
shown on the most recent version of the 1:24,000 USGS topographic map), then

a correction must be made to account for the extent of the aquatic resource. In
these cases, the length of the channel shall be multiplied by the average width of
the channel to estimate the average area of the channel. A comparison of the
impact site (often a river) shall then be made to the mitigation site (often a
smaller channel) and adjustments made accordingly to the required mitigation.
In most cases, this will result in the need for additional stream mitigation. For
instance, if 1000 feet of a 50 foot wide channel (50,000 units) is proposed to be
mitigated with smaller streams, it would take 10,000 feet of 5 foot wide channels
or 25,000 feet of a 2 foot wide channel to replace the aquatic resource. This
adjustment would be in addition to the calculations shown in Table 1 above.
FinaVJmittent
eservation should focus on the perennial stream segments rather than
the i segments unless the impact is on intermittent streams.
g. Statistically -based estimates of stream length
Once the above calculations are made to determine the amount of mitigation
requirement for a particular project, it will be necessary to tally the length of
stream on a particular site. If an exact stream length can be readily determined
in the field, this is the preferred approach. If questions arise as to whether a
particular feature is a stream or not, then NC DWQ's "Identification Methods for
the Origins of Intermittent and Perennial Streams" (Version 3.1; January 1, 2005)
should be used to make this determination.
However in many cases of watershed preservation, it is not practical to map all
the streams found in the watershed. Unfortunately there are no available maps
which accurately depict stream length in NC. As an initial, rough estimate, the
length of stream shown on the 1:24,000 USGS topographic maps can be used
along with regional correction data. However for a specific mitigation proposal, a
more accurate determination of stream length is required.
In lieu of comprehensive mapping of watersheds, it may be possible to collect
statistically -based estimates of stream length as long as the preservation sites
are similar in geology and topography. DWQ would need to approve this study
design which should be based on the on -going stream mapping effort
coordinated by DWQ, NC Center for Geographic Information and Analysis
(CGIA) and DOT and based on the US Environmental Protection Agency's
Ecoregion Map (Griffith, G.E., et. al. 2002). If statistically valid data are collected,
then these data can be used to accurately predict the length of streams in a
particular watershed without extensive stream mapping in that watershed.
V. References
Castelle, A.J, et. al. 1994. Wetland and stream buffer requirements — A review.
Journal of Environmental Quality 23:878-882.
Doohaluk, D.A. 2000. A summary of the integration of science and policy: A case
study on riparian forest buffers. Master of Public Health report, Institute for Public
Affairs, University of South Carolina. Columbia, SC.
Griffith, G.E., et. al. 2002. Ecoregions of North and South Carolina. Reston, VA.
!I

N.C. Division of Water Quality. 2005. Identification Methods for the Origins of
Intermittent and Perennial Streams. Version 3.1. Raleigh, NC
U.S. Army Corps of Engineers, U.S. Environmental Protection Agency, NC Wildlife
Resources Commission and NC Division of Water Quality. 2003. Stream Mitigation
Guidelines. Wilmington, NC.
Wenger, S. 1999. A review of the scientific literature on riparian buffer width, extent
and vegetation. Institute of Ecology, University of Georgia. Athens, GA.

Appendix 1
Preservation Demonstrable Threat Guidance Criteria
(Prepared for use by the NC EEP Program Assessment and Consistency Group - PACG)
April S, 2004
Version 1.1
The 1995 Federal Guidance for the Establishment, Use and Operation of Mitigation Banks and Corps Mitigation
RGL 02-2 (12-26-02) have almost identical language concerning preservation and the demonstrable threat
requirement. Both documents state that the use of preservation as a sole basis for mitigation should only be under
exceptional circumstances and should meet the following requirements:
"Districts will consider whether the wetlands or other aquatic resources: 1) perform important physical, chemical or
biological functions, the preservation and maintenance of which is important to the region where those aquatic
resources are located; and, 2) are under demonstrable threat of loss or substantial degradation from human activities
that might not otherwise be avoided. The existence of a demonstrable threat will be based on clear evidence of
destructive land use changes that are consistent with local and regional (i.e., watershed) land use trends, and
that are not the consequence of actions under the permit applicant's control." (RGL 02-2)
These two guidance documents establish two conditions that must be met for "stand alone" preservation to be used
for mitigation credit. Stand alone preservation is defined as preservation not augmenting the functions of newly
established, restored or enhanced aquatic resources. The EEP Program Assessment and Consistency Group (PACG)
developed the Preservation Criteria Guidance to use for determining if preservation sites satisfy the first criteria, i.e.,
ecologically significant to the region. The following guidance is to be used to determine if the second criteria, i.e.,
"clear evidence of demonstrable threat" has been satisfied.
It is often difficult to document whether a "demonstrable threat" exists to an aquatic resource and the resource
agencies have not developed specific guidelines for making this determination. For this reason, the PACG has
prepared the following list of items to be considered when preparing the "clear evidence of a demonstrable threat of
loss or substantial degradation from human activities" documentation. When consulting this list, one should
consider what is reasonably foreseeable within the next ten years and realize there may be additional items which
should be considered for individual scenarios.
Demonstrable Threat Items*
■ Development trends in the watershed.
■ Nearby tracts being developed
■ Proximity of metropolitan areas
■ Water and/or sewer lines extension plans for the area
■ Local and DOT thoroughfare plans
■ Specific development plans for tract
■ Timbering threat to stream buffers
■ Local land trust (or other sources) of local information on potential development
• Age of landowners in the area
■ Threats to listed species (if present)
• Buffer protection rules in watershed, trout waters, etc.
■ Permitting issues — how likely to be permitted for fill activities (high quality wetlands, etc.)
■ To what extent is resource already protected by local/state/federal ordinances and regulations
*This list is not intended to be used as a checklist. The above are items to be considered when preparing the
demonstrable threat discussion for preservation sites for mitigation during the EEP transition phase.
G

C
O
t
U
7
Width (feet)
Figure 1. Reduction of nitrate nitrogen as a function of riparian buffer width
0 50 100 150 200
Width (feet)
Figure 2. Sediment reduction
7

0
Width (feet)
Figure 3. Phosphorus reduction

Tract Number
Additional strea
Watershed?
Mitigation type
miles
17133
0.5
yes
Preservation
16977
0.1
yes
Preservation
57687
1
yes
Preservation
57888
0
no
Preservation
17136
1
yes
Preservation
16900
1.6
yes
Preservation
-� 56615
0.5
yes
Preservation
37211
0.1
yes
Preservation
17076
0
no
Preservation
17090
_ 0
no
Preservation
33607
_ 0
no
Preservation
33365
0
no
Preservation
17615
1.6
yes
Preservation
33350
5.6
yes
Preservation
40446
2.6
yes
Preservation
33422
2.2
yes
Preservation
33491
0.6
no
Restoration
33417
3.2
yes
Preservation
57825
0.1
no
Restoration
56741
0.7
one half
Preservation
33568
0.2
no
Preservation
99999
1.26
yes
Preservation
Total
22.86
Subtotal by watershed?
1.1
no
21.79
yes
Subtotal by mitigation type
0.7
Restore
22.16
Preserve

DRAFT
I]
Duke Power Flow Mitigation Stream Buffer Easement
Width: 100' from bank
Term: Permanent if held by state of NC
Management Fund: N/A
Effective Date: -Within 30 days of the issuance of the New License
Public access: Controlled by the owner of the property.
Prohibited Uses:
Construction of any buildings or structures other than those specifically identified as an
allowable use.
Any alteration of the surface of the land including excavation, removal of sand, gravel, rock or
sod other than activities specifically identified as an allowable use.
The alteration of vegetation other than those activities identified as an allowable use.
Exploration for, or development or extraction of, minerals and hydrocarbons by any method.
Allowable Uses:
Access Trails: Pedestrian access trails leading to the surface water, docks, fishing piers, boat
ramps, and other water dependent activities. Pedestrian access trails are restricted to the
minimum width practicable and do not exceed 4 feet in width of buffer disturbance, and provided
that installation and use does not result in removal of trees and no impervious surfaces is added
to the riparian buffer. [NOTE: Trees are defined as woody plants with a DBH equal to or
exceeding five inches.]
Drainage ditches, roadside ditches and stormwater outfalls through riparian buffers:
Existing drainage ditches, roadside ditches and storm water outfalls provided that they are
managed to minimize the sediment, nutrients and other pollution convey to waterbodies
Fences: Fences provided that disturbance is minimized and installation does not result in removal
of trees.
Non -electric utility lines: Non -electric utility lines are allowed subject to the following BMP's:
• Maintenance corridor equal to or less than 10 feet wide.
• Lines are not allowed within 50' of the water.
• No fertilizer shall be used other than a one-time application to re-establish vegetation.
• Construction activities shall minimize the removal of woody vegetation, the extent of the
disturbed area, and the time in which areas remain in a disturbed state.
• Measures shall be taken after construction and during routine maintenance to ensure
diffuse flow of stormwater through the buffer.
Rev Date: 1/24/06

DRAFT
Overhead utility lines: Perpendicular crossings are allowed subject to the following BMP's:
• A minimum zone of 10' wide immediately adjacent to the waterbody shall be managed
such that only vegetation that poses a hazard or has the potential to grow tall enough to
interfere with the line is removed.
• Woody vegetation shall be cleared by hand. No land grubbing or grading is allowed.
• Vegetative root systems shall be left intact to maintain the integrity of the soil. Stumps
shall remain where trees are cut.
• Rip rap shall not be used unless it is necessary to stabilize a tower.
• No fertilizer shall be used other than a one-time application to re-establish vegetation.
• Construction activities shall minimize the removal of woody vegetation, the extent of the
disturbed area, and the time in which areas remain in a disturbed state.
• Measures shall be taken after construction and during routine maintenance to ensure
diffuse flow of stormwater through the buffer.
• Poles or towers shall not be installed within 10' of water.
Pumps for agricultural irrigation provided that installation and use does not result in the removal
of trees.
Shoreline stabilization: Shoreline stabilization is allowed subject to the following requirements.
Stabilization is allowed only if it is necessary to prevent erosion of the shoreline:
• No trees can be removed.
• Any vegetation disturbed during the stabilization project must be restored within six
monthgjni'tial disturbance.
• �� 7�
Temporary roads that disturb less than or equal to 2500 sq ft provided that vegetation is restored
within six months of initial disturbance.
Underground electric utility lines: Perpendicular crossings the buffer subject to the following
BMPs:
• Woody vegetation shall be cleared by hand. No land grubbing or grading is allowed.
• Except as specified within these BMP's, vegetative root systems shall be left intact to
maintain the integrity of the soil. Stumps shall remain, except in the trench, where trees
are cut.
• Underground cables shall be installed by vibratory plow or trenching.
• The trench shall be backfilled with the excavated soil material immediately following
cable installation.
• No fertilizer shall be used other than a one-time application to re-establish vegetation.
• Construction activities shall minimize the removal of woody vegetation, the extent of the
disturbed area, and the time in which areas remain in a disturbed state.
Vegetation management: Planting vegetation to improve water quality protection function of the
buffer; pruning forest vegetation provided that the health and function of the forest vegetation is
not compromised; removal of poison ivy; removal of understory nuisance vegetation listed in
Appendix III of. Smith, Cherri L. 1998. Exotic Plant Guidelines. Department of Environment
and Natural Resources. Division of Parks and Recreation. Raleigh, NC Guideline #30
Rev Date: 1/24/06

DRAFT
View corridors: Thinning of underbrush, shrubs, and limbs up to 50% of individual tree height to
enhance a view provided soils are undisturbed, diffuse flow is maintained and no stems of woody
vegetation larger than 3" DBH are removed.
Water wells: Single family residential water wells that do not result in the removal of trees.
Rev Date: 1/24/06

January 23, 2006
CATAWBA -WATEREE RELICENSING
Status & Remaining Schedule
Jan 10. Rev 11 of the Agreement In Principle (AIP) was provided to stakeholders.
Jan 20. Draft License Application (DLA) sent to stakeholders for 90-day review.
Janl5. NC Joint Advisory Group meeting.
Jan 26. DWQ 401/Duke meeting on potential C-W mitigation package.
Jan 30. Joint Aquatics/Water Quality Resource Committee meeting, finalize AIP
sections on gaging and compliance monitoring and water quality enhancements.
Feb 2-3. Joint State Relicensing Teams meetings, finalize the AIP, focus on items which
potentially could prevent stakeholders from signing in agreement with the AIP.
Feb 6. "Pencils Down" date, last opportunity for sending comments to facilitators.
Feb 15. Distribute signature version of AIP for review.
(To be signed by the authorized representatives)
'FPS aZ, — M}� wI Secre"�Qr�
Marl- . All Teams meetings, explanation of final AIP and status of Final Agreement
S #�
Apr 13 AIP signing ceremony, Rock Hill,SC (signing period open until 4/17)
Apr 21. Deadline for submitting comments on the DLA for consideration for inclusion
in the Final License Application
May 1. First draft Final Agreement (FA) distributed to stakeholders.
Jun 1. Distribute signature version of FA.
Jul 27. All teams FA signing ceremony (signing period open until Aug 1)
(To be signed by the Parties' decision -maker)
Aug `06 Duke Power files Final License Application and FA with FERC.
Aug `08. FERC issues new License for Catawba-Wateree before 8/31/2008
Duke Energy Corporation, FERC License No. 2232, expires 8/31/2008

January 23, 2006
CATAWBA-WATEREE RELICENSING
Status & Remaining Schedule
Jan 10. Rev 11 of the Agreement In Principle (AIP) was provided to stakeholders.
Jan 20. Draft License Application (DLA) sent to stakeholders for 90-day review.
Jan 25. NC Joint Advisory Group meeting.
Jan26. DWQ 401 /Duke meeting on potential C-W mitigation package.
Jan 30. Joint Aquatics/Water Quality Resource Committee meeting, finalize AIP
sections on gaging and compliance monitoring and water quality enhancements.
Feb 1-2. Joint State Relicensing Teams meetings, finalize the Alp, focus on items which
potentially could prevent stakeholders from signing in agreement with the AIP.
Feb 6. "Pencils Down" date, last opportunity for sending comments to facilitators.
Feb 15. Distribute signature version of AIP for review.
(To be signed by the authorized representatives)
Mar 1-2. All Teams meetings, explanation of final AIP and status of Final Agreement
Apr 13. AIP signing ceremony, Rock Hill,SC (signing period open until 4/17)
Apr 21. Deadline for submitting comments on the DLA for consideration for inclusion
in the Final License Application
May 1. First draft Final Agreement (FA) distributed to stakeholders.
Jun 1. Distribute signature version of FA.
Jul 27. All teams FA signing ceremony (signing period open until Aug 1)
(To be signed by the Parties' decision -maker)
Aug `06 Duke Power files Final License Application and FA with FERC.
Aug `08. FERC issues new License for Catawba-Wateree before 8/31/2008
Duke Energy Corporation, FERC License No. 2232, expires 8/31/2008

•
Catawba -- Wateree Flow Mitigation Process
12/14/2005
Facts/Assumptions:
• Flows presented in the Mutual Gains Flow Scenario are the products of several months of
analysis and negotiations of natural resource experts and are balanced with the interests of
aquatic resources, recreation resources, drinking water supply, downstream water users, low -
inflow management, hydroelectric power generation and reservoir levels.
• The published stream mitigation guidelines cited by the North Carolina Department of
Environment and Natural Resources allow some flexibility in application on a site -specific
basis and in consideration of other resource needs.
• North Carolina has promulgated a 50-ft buffer on the main stem of the Catawba River.
• Conservation easements placed on streams for mitigative purposes should be at least 100 feet
-includrrrg the 50-ft buffer established for the Catawba River mainstem.
NC Stream Mitigation Guidelines allow an equivalent amount of protection on smaller
streams to mitigate for habitat losses in higher order streams.
Area to be
Distance
NC
Mitigation Rationale
Duke Mitigation
Mitigated
Mitigation
Proposal
Guidelines
Paddy Creek
4,050 ft
5 x 4,050 ft =
Per NC Stream Mitigation
Duke Power will provide
Bypassed
20,250 ft
Guidelines
conservation easements
Reach
(3.84 miles)
on both sides of 3.84
miles of I" to 3`d order
streams
Oxford
16,693 ft
5 x 16,393 ft
Based on habitat gains from
Duke Power will provide
Regulated River
= 81,965 ft
the flows provided (see
conservation easements
Reach
(15.52 miles)
attached sheet) Duke receives
on both sides of 7.76
a 50% credit for this stream
miles or on one side of
reach. Therefore mitigation
15.52 miles of 4`h to 6`h
needed is based on the
order steams (or an
following: 0.50 x 81,965 ft =
equivalent combination)
40983 ft or 7.76 miles of 4th
to 6th order stream (or
equivalent in smaller order
streams)
Lookout Shoals
1929 ft
5 x 1,929 ft =
The Lookout Shoals reach
Duke Power will provide
Regulated River
A��
9645 ft (1.83
only approaches being a
conservation easements
Reach
miles) -=7
regulated river reach when
on both sides of 0.91
Sees °
Lake Norman elevations are
miles or on one side of
at 96 or lower. Since this
1.82 miles of 4`h to 6`h
condition occurs in Lake
order steams (or an
Norman about 6 months of
equivalent combination)
the year and Duke is
providing some flows in this
reach, o
creditlw4his-stream rear#.
There itigation ne,ed'ed
is based on the foll®zac nS:
0.50 x 9W- ft = 4822.5 fit r
0.9 L fiiles of 4`h to 6`h order

stream (or equivalent in
smaller order streams)
Mountain
1689 ft
5 x 1,689 ft =
Per NC Stream Mitigation
Duke Power will provide
Island Bypassed
8,445 ft (1.6
Guidelines
conservation easements
Reach
miles)
on both sides of 1.6
miles or on one side of
3.2 miles of 4`h to Oh
order steams (or an
equivalent combination)
I$o
Additional Duke Pro osals for use in Calculating Mitigation Credits:
• When conservation easements are greater than 100 ft, the multiplier for calculating mitigation o
should be reduced by 1 for each additional 50 feet of buffer provided
;1
• When establishing conservation easements on I" to 3' order streams as mitigation for habitat
losses on 5'h or 61h order streams, Duke proposes the following set of multiplies: li- 0
Stream Order
Equivalency Multiplier
1
3
2
2.5
3
2
S
Example: In calculating mitigation credits for the Mountain Island Bypassed Reach, if no 4th
to 6'h order stream corridors can be located for the application of conservation easements,
then 4.8 miles of I" order (3 x 1.6 miles), 4 miles of 2nd order (2.5 x 1.6 miles), or 3.2 miles
of 3rd order stream conservation easements could be considered as mitigation for the
Mountain Island Bypassed Reach.

Oxford Reach
Minimum Continuous Flows Habitat Summary
The MMG (Modified Mutual Gains) flow proposal provides the following minimum
continuous flows below Oxford Hydro.
Month
Minimum
Continuous
Flows
(cfs)
Critical
Flows
(cfs)
Jan
150
100
Feb
200
100
Mar
200
100
Apr
200
100
May
200
l00
Jun
150
100
Jul
150
100
Aug
150
100
Sep
150
100
Oct
150
100
Nov
150
100
Dec
150
too
�6L "-"�.
The Oxford interactive spreadsheet tool was used to determine the amount of physical
habitat that is created based on the minimum continuous flows. Habitat results (expressed
as both a percentage of unregulated habitat and existing habitat) are provided below for
the seven tentative driver species in this reach.
"A.
Oxford Reach Instream Flow Tentative Driver Species
Modified Mutual Gains Flow Proposal
Tentative Driver Species
Percent of
Unregulated Habitat
Percent of
Existing Habitat
Deep Slow Generic Guild with Cover
93%
173%
Deep Slow Generic Guild w/ Proximal Cover
91 %
173%
Shallow Fast Guild with Moderate Velocity
77%
279%
Deep Fast Guild with Coarse Mix Substrate
44%
144%
Deep Fast Guild with Fine Substrate
41 %
273%
Deep Fast Guild w/ Gravel Cobble Substrate
4%
1642%
Tricho tera
77%
154%
Average
61 %
405%
Minimum
4%
144%
Average(excluding DF Guild w/ rav-cobb
71 %
199%
Minimum(excluding DF Guild w/ rav-cobb
41 %
144%

The Deep Fast Guild with gravel cobble substrate was further analyzed to determine why
there was such a large spread in percent habitat between the comparison to the
unregulated flow condition and the existing flow condition. The Habitat Suitability Index
(H S I) curves indicate that the preferred depth range is 2 — 5 ft, the preferred velocity
range is 1 — 3 ft/sec, and the preferred substrate is small gravel, large gravel, and small
cobble. In fact, any other substrate results in a habitat value of zero.
Transect weighting criteria for the Oxford Reach is provided below. Note that only
transect 6 (which represents 19.6 % of the Oxford Reach) provides the preferred substrate
for the Deep Fast Guild with gravel cobble substrate.
Final transect habitat type, numbering, and weighting for Catawba-Wateree
Oxford Reach — Lookout Shoals Buoys to Oxford Dam. (RM 226.9 — 229.7).
Transect
Number
Description
Transect Weighting
%
1
Island — boulder run
3.1
2
Island — boulder run
3.1
3
Island — boulder glide
19.4
4
Bedrock run/glide
6.4
5
Pool; ravel/sand/silt substrate
9.3
6
Shallow glide, avel/cobble substrate
19.6
7
Bedrock run/glide
6.4
8
Shallow glide, gravel/bedrock/bldr substrate
19.6
9
Bedrock run/glide
6.4
10
Bedrock run/glide
6.4
Next, the RHABSIM model output for transect 6 was analyzed for depth and velocity
suitability criteria. The results are provided below.
106 21
102 A,
99 60
9676
9391
91 07
3B 23
'j—,7 ah Mrtl ". for. .mYW —
Fler.9unu]n.e[d i
3
3 0
]00
1100
2600
3200
63f1O
Analysis of the RHABSIM depth and velocity figure indicates that the depth criteria (2 —
2

5 ft) is met by flows as low as 80 cfs. However, the flow must be in the 1100 — 2600 cfs
range to meet the preferred velocity criteria (1 — 3 ft/sec).
The conclusion of the Deep Fast Guild with gravel cobble substrate analysis is that the
preferred combination of depth, velocity and substrate criteria is exceedingly difficult to
meet without providing minimum continuous flows that exceed 1100 cfs. Therefore, it is
recommended that this species be dropped from the tentative driver list for the Oxford
Reach.
Excluding this guild from the driver species list would result in minimum habitat
percentages of 41 % compared to unregulated conditions and 144% compared to existing
conditions. Averaging the remaining driver species on the list would result in average
habitat percentages of 71 % compared to unregulated conditions and 199% compared to
existing conditions.
3

DRAFT
Duke Power Flow Mitigation Stream Buffer Easement
Width. 100' from bank
Term: Permanent if held by state of NC
Management Fund: N/A
Effective Date: Within 30 days of the issuance of the New License
Public access: Controlled by the owner of the property.
Prohibited Uses:
Construction of any buildings or structures other than those specifically identified as an
allowable use.
Any alteration of the surface of the land including excavation, removal of sand, gravel, rock or
sod other than activities specifically identified as an allowable use.
The alteration of vegetation other than those activities identified as an allowable use.
Exploration for, or development or extraction of, minerals and hydrocarbons by any method.
Allowable Uses:
Access Trails: Pedestrian access trails leading to the surface water, docks, fishing piers, boat
ramps, and other water dependent activities. Pedestrian access trails are restricted to the
minimum width practicable and do not exceed 4 feet in width of buffer disturbance, and provided
that installation and use does not result in removal of trees and no impervious surfaces is added
to the riparian buffer. [NOTE: Trees are defined as woody plants with a DBH equal to or
exceeding five inches.]
Drainage ditches, roadside ditches and stormwater outfalls through riparian buffers:
Existing drainage ditches, roadside ditches and storm water outfalls provided that they are
managed to minimize the sediment, nutrients and other pollution convey to waterbodies
Fences: Fences provided that disturbance is minimized and installation does not result in removal
of trees.
Non -electric utility lines: Non -electric utility lines are allowed subject to the following BMP's:
• Maintenance corridor equal to or less than 10 feet wide.
• Lines are not allowed within 50' of the water.
• No fertilizer shall be used other than a one-time application to re-establish vegetation.
• Construction activities shall minimize the removal of woody vegetation, the extent of the
disturbed area, and the time in which areas remain in a disturbed state.
• Measures shall be taken after construction and during routine maintenance to ensure
diffuse flow of stormwater through the buffer.
Rev Date: 1 /24/06

Catawba — Wateree Aquatic Habitat Flows
NC Mitigation Options Development
1 /11 /2006
Attendees:
Steve Reed — NCDWR
Chris Goudreau — NCWRC
Tom Kenney — FCNC
Dwayne Stutzman — NCDPR
Jeff Lineberger — Duke
Jen Huff — Duke
Steve Johnson — Duke
Tim Leonard — DTA
Ty Ziegler — DTA
Ken Kearns — Kearns & West
Each available parcel in the Catawba and Johns River was evaluated for stream order,
distances, and watershed attributes. Based on this review the group decided that there were
no parcels which would provide any significant flow mitigation for the Project using the
Watershed Approach identified in previous meetings with the NC Division of Water Quality
and other agencies.
A basic package, consisting of 100 foot conservation easements along identified streams, that
fully mitigated for the Paddy Creek Bypassed and the Oxford Regulated River Reaches was
then identified. The Basic Mitigation Package also includes partial mitigation for the
Mountain Island Bypassed Reach, and the Lookout Shoals Regulated River Reach.
However, the basic mitigation package lacks 3.03 miles of mitigation for 6 h order streams.
Since all readily available parcels on the Catawba and Johns Rivers have been identified for
in the basic mitigation package, we considered several mitigation option packages which
may be suitable the remaining 3.03 miles, pending further consideration and management
review. The base package and five potential options are covered in the following table:
Mitigation
Area Covered/Mitigation
Required
Description
Identified in spreadsheet and ma
Basic Mitigation
Paddy Creek— 6.12 Miles
Paddy Creek: 100 foot Conservation
Package
(5.34 miles of V order + 0.80
Easements on 6.28 miles of 15t and 2n4
miles of 2°d order)
order streams
Oxford — 14.16 Miles of 5`h
Oxford: 100 foot Conservation
and/or 6th order stream
Easements on 14.42 miles of 5d' and 6d'
Order Streams
Mountain Island — 2.56 miles
of 6th order stream
Mountain Island (partial): 100 foot
Conservation Easements on 1.38 miles
Lookout Shoals -- 2.92 miles
of 5`h Order Stream (Johns River)
of Sth and/or 6th order stream
Lookout Shoals (partial): 100 foot

Conservation Easements on 1.07 miles
of 6`h Order Stream (Johns River and
Catawba River -- downstream of
Lookout Shoals Dam
Option 1
Mountain Island:
Increase buffer widths to 150 feet and
(Remaining 1.18 miles)
reduce stream mitigation ratio to 1:3.5
Lookout Shoals:
(Remaining 1.85 miles)
Total: 3.03 miles of 6`� Order
Stream
Option 2
Mountain Island:
Fee Simple Acquisition of Tract # 16977
(Remaining 1.18 miles)
(Catawba — Paddy Creek Linville Tract)
Lookout Shoals:
with provision for Public Access
(Remaining 1.85 miles)
Total: 3.03 miles of 6`h Order
Stream
Option 3
Mountain Island:
Enhance Buffers on Tract # 57887
(Remaining 1.18 miles)
(Muddy Creek Tract) to a minimum of
Lookout Shoals:
150 Feet
(Remaining 1.85 miles)
Total: 3.03 miles of 6'h Order
Stream
Option 4
Mountain Island:
Duke provides up to 50% of the total
(Remaining 1.18 miles)
acquisition costs for North Bend Tracts
Lookout Shoals:
in addition to the Clean Water
(Remaining 1.85 miles)
Management Trust Fund grant and
Total: 3.03 miles of 6`h Order
guaranteeing the purchase of this
Stream
property.
Option 5
Mountain Island:
Fee Simple acquisition of Tract # 37211
(Remaining 1.18 miles)
(Catawba Mainstem) or other similar
Lookout Shoals:
tracts along the Catawba or Johns River
(Remaining 1.85 miles)
to provide for Public Access.
Total: 3.03 miles of 6 h Order
Stream

Attendees
Steve Reed — NCDWR
Chris Goudreau — NCWRC
Tom Kenney — FCNC
Dwayne Stutzman — NCDPR
Jeff Lineberger — Duke
Catawba — Wateree Aquatic Habitat Flows
NC Mitigation Options Development
1 /11/2006
Jen Huff — Duke
Steve Johnson — Duke
Tim Leonard — DTA
Ty Ziegler — DTA
Ken Kearns — Kearns & West
Each available parcel in the Catawba and Johns River was evaluated for stream order, distances, and watershed attributes.
Based on this review the group decided that there were no parcels which would provide any significant flow mitigation for
the Project using the Watershed Approach identified in previous meetings with the NC Division of Water Quality and
other agencies.
A basic package, consisting of 100 foot conservation easements along identified streams, that fully mitigated for the
Paddy Creek Bypassed and the Oxford Regulated River Reaches was then identified. The Basic Mitigation Package also
includes partial mitigation for the Mountain Island Bypassed Reach, and the Lookout Shoals Regulated River Reach.
However, the basic mitigation package lacks 3.03 miles of mitigation for 6'b order streams. Since all readily available
parcels on the Catawba and Johns Rivers have been identified for in the basic mitigation package, we considered several
mitigation option packages which may be suitable the remaining 3.03 miles, pending further consideration and
management review. The base package and five potential options are covered in the following table:
Mitigation
Area Covered/Mitigation Required
Description
Identified inspreadsheet and ma
Basic
Paddy Creek — 6.12 Miles (5.34 miles of I" order
Paddy Creek: 100 foot Conservation Easements on 6.28 miles
Mitigation
+ 0.80 miles of 2nd order)
of I" and 2nd order streams
Package
Oxford — 14.16 Miles of 5 h and/or 6 h order stream
Oxford: 100 foot Conservation Easements on 14.42 miles of 5d'
and 6`s Order Streams
Mountain Island — 2.56 miles of 6`s order stream
Mountain Island (partial): 100 foot Conservation Easements
on 1.38 miles of 5'h Order Stream (Johns River)
Lookout Shoals — 2.92 miles of 5'h and/or 6'h order
Lookout Shoals (partial): 100 foot Conservation Easements
stream
on 1.07 miles of 6 Order Stream (Johns River and Catawba
River — downstream of Lookout Shoals Dam
Option 1
Mountain Island: (Remaining 1.18 miles)
Increase buffer widths to 150 feet and reduce stream mitigation
Lookout Shoals: (Remaining 1.85 miles)
ratio to 1:3.5
Total: 3.03 miles of 6'" Order Stream
Option 2
Mountain Island: (Remaining 1.18 miles)
Fee Simple Acquisition of Tract # 16977 (Catawba — Paddy
Lookout Shoals: (Remaining 1.85 miles)
Creek Linville Tract) with provision for Public Access
Total: 3.03 miles of 6 h Order Stream
Option 3
Mountain Island: (Remaining 1.18 miles)
Enhance Buffers on Tract # 57887 (Muddy Creek Tract) to a
Lookout Shoals: (Remaining 1.85 miles)
minimum of 150 Feet
Total: 3.03 miles of 6's Order Stream
Option 4
Mountain Island: (Remaining 1.18 miles)
Duke provides up to 50% of the total acquisition costs for North
Lookout Shoals: (Remaining 1.85 mules)
Bend 'Tracts in addition to the Clean Water Management Trust
Total: 3.03 miles of 6 h Order Stream
Fund grant and guaranteeing the purchase of this property.
Option 5
Mountain Island: (Remaining 1.18 miles)
Fee Simple acquisition of Tract # 37211 (Catawba Mainstem) or
Lookout Shoals: (Remaining 1.85 miles)
other similar tracts along the Catawba or Johns River to provide
Total: 3.03 miles of 6`" Order Stream
for Public Access.

NCDENR
Noah Carolina Department of Environment and Natural Resources
Division of Water Quality
Michael F. Easley, Governor
William G. Ross, Jr., Secretary
Alan W. Klimek, P.E., Director
Stream Mitigation for FERC-related 401 Certifications
Internal DWQ Guidance
NC Division of Water Quality
January 9, 2006
Version 1.2
Regulatory background
The Division of Water Quality must issue 401 Water Quality Certifications for FERC
licenses and has done so for several years. The review process that DWQ uses is
outlined in the 401 Water Quality Certification rules (15A NCAC 2H .0500) and
generally follows the 404(b)(1) guidelines — namely, avoid the impact, minimize the
impact to the maximum extent practical and then mitigate for unavoidable impacts.
The following guidelines assume that the FERC project has been reviewed for
avoidance and minimization and that the remaining unavoidable impacts to stream
channels are to be addressed through compensatory stream mitigation. In some
cases, stream restoration or enhancement can be done to replace the unavoidably
lost uses. The process for these practices is well outlined In various documents but
primarily in the joint state/federal stream mitigation guidelines (US Army Corps of
Engineers 2003). In other situations, preservation of streams, their adjacent buffers
or perhaps entire watersheds can be acceptable alternatives. This guidance focuses
on the preservation option in order to provide additional details to DWQ staff and the
regulated community on this approach.
II. Stream buffers and water quality
From review of the scientific literature, it is clear that wooded stream buffers provide
essential water quality benefits to the adjacent stream. Indeed, stream restoration
and enhancement projects in NC have always required restoration or enhancement
of the stream buffers (generally, 50 feet in the piedmont and coastal plain or 30 feet
in the mountains). There is also a positive relationship between the width of the
stream buffer and the degree of water quality benefit whereby a larger buffer has
greater water quality benefit. However, the relationship is not linear but rather above
a certain buffer width, increases in water quality benefits tend to level off. From
analysis of data on buffer width and pollutant removal (Figures 1, 2 and 3), the
incremental water quality benefits of stream buffers wider than 50 feet tend to be
relatively small. It should be noted that the sediment removal curve (Figure 2)
provides support for buffers greater than 50 feet wide. Several comprehensive
reviews of the buffer literature (Castelle, et. al. 1994, Doohaluk 2000 and Wenger
1999) suggest that a 100 (200) foot buffer is important for long-term water quality
protection since most of the studies that are reflected in Figures 1 — 3 are based on
401 Wetlands Certification Unit
1650 Mail Service Center, Raleigh, North Carolina 27699-1650 One
2321 Crabtree Boulevard, Suite 250, Raleigh, North Carolina 27604 North Carolina
Phone: [phone]/ FAX [phone]/ Internet: httv://h2o.enr.state.nc.us/ncwetlands .A 1,.1, th ,

short-term research. Therefore, DWQ believes that protected buffers of 50 feet
should generally be the minimal width but that protected buffers of 100 (200) feet
should be encouraged and receive more beneficial credit ratios.
Ill. Existing state/federal stream mitigation guidelines
In 2003, the state and federal regulatory agencies developed and adopted the
"Stream Mitigation Guidelines" (April 2003) to provide guidance to the US Army
Corps of Engineers, US Environmental Protection Agency, NC Wildlife Resources
Commission and NC Division of Water Quality as well as the regulated community in
our review and approval of stream mitigation projects. These guidelines are
intended to be used for 404 and 401 permitting decisions but also provide a useful
framework for FERC-related stream mitigation issues.
The guidelines define four types of stream mitigation (Restoration, Enhancement
Level I, Enhancement Level II and Preservation) with corresponding mitigation
ratios (1:1, 1.5:1, 2.5:1 and 5:1, respectively). Preservation sites must meet the
criteria shown on page 16 of this document. Foremost in those criteria is that in
addition to the biological value of the streams, the site must be in an area with
threats to development. In many cases for FERC permits, preservation is a
viable option. The following guidance is intended to expand upon the Stream
Mitigation Guidelines in the FERC-context. DWQ intends to open discussions
with the other state and federal agencies to include these items in a revised
Stream Mitigation Guidelines once we have more experience with these issues in
the FERC-context. Additionally if stream buffers can only be protected on one
side of a stream, then one-half the credit is available. Finally, if an existing
regulatory buffer exists, then any additional buffer must go beyond the protected
buffer in order to count for mitigation credit.
IV. Proposed policy
a. Demonstrable threat
Sites proposed for preservation must have a demonstrable threat as defined in
Appendix 1. This definition was developed for and approved by the Performance
Assessment and Consistency Group (PACG) by the relevant state and federal
agencies including DWQ. Written documentation of the demonstrable threat to a
particular site or group of sites is needed before a preservation site can be
approved by DWQ.
b. Preservation mechanism
Preservation should be fee simple acquisition with title given to a relevant state
or federal land management agency or responsible local conservation group
(non -governmental organization) such as The Nature Conservancy or local land
trust. A conservation easement shall also be provided with the land. Provisions
for land management, access and other activities shall be clearly spelled out in
the conservation easement using guidance available from agencies such as the
US Army Corps of Engineers, EEP or the Clean Water Management Trust Fund.
c. Preservation of 100 (200) foot stream buffers

Preservation of 100 (200) foot stream buffers shall receive a 4:1 mitigation ratio
since preservation of this wider buffer is more important to water quality than
preservation of the typical 50 foot buffer.
Preservation of entire watersheds
Preservation of an entire local watershed surrounding a particular stream
channel shall receive a 3:1 mitigation ratio for the length of streams in the
watershed since preservation of the entire watershed will protect water quality in
these streams in perpetuity. Protection of the entire watershed provides longer
term water quality benefits than protection of 50 or 100 (200) foot buffers.
e. Example (hypothetical)
The following example (Figure 4) is provided to illustrate the use of the above
preservation ratios. This example is hypothetical and is therefore not based on a
particular site. This example assumes that the site has a demonstrable threat
and that a fee simple acquisition is contemplated with a conservation easement.
In this example, there are 10,000 feet of stream impact for a particular project. A
proposed mitigation package includes 24,000 feet of stream in Parcel A and
9,000 feet of streams outside Parcel A. We will presume that an applicant
propose to preserve the entire Parcel A as well as 100 foot wide buffers along
4,000 feet of streams outside Parcel A and 100 foot wide buffers along 5,000 feet
of streams outside Parcel A. The following amount of stream credit would then
be available for this proposal:
Table 1: Stream mitigation credits from different types of stream
preservation assuming impact and mitigation sites are within one stream
order of each other. This example assumes 10,000 feet of stream
mitigation is required.
Type of Length of Mitigation
Preservation streams feet Mitigation Ratio Credits
Watershed 24,000 3:1 8,000 foot -credits
preservation
100 (200) foot wide 4,000 4:1 1,000
buffers
50 foot wide buffers 5,000 5:1 1,000
Totals 33,000 10,000 credits
Therefore this proposed stream mitigation package provides sufficient
compensatory mitigation for the 10,000 feet of stream impact assuming that
stream size considerations (discussed below) are met.
Stream size considerations
The Stream Mitigation Guidelines state that mitigation should be within one
stream order of the impact. In many cases for FERC projects, mitigation will
need to be done for larger stream impacts with preservation on smaller stream
channels. When the mitigation is beyond one stream order (defined as streams
shown on the most recent version of the 1:24,000 USGS topographic map), then

a correction must be made to account for the extent of the aquatic resource. In
these cases, the length of the channel shall be multiplied by the average width of
the channel to estimate the average area of the channel. A comparison of the
impact site (often a river) shall then be made to the mitigation site (often a
smaller channel) and adjustments made accordingly to the required mitigation.
In most cases, this will result in the need for additional stream mitigation. For
instance, If 1000 feet of a 50 foot wide channel (50,000 units) is proposed to be
mitigated with smaller streams, it would take 10,000 feet of 5 foot wide channels
or 25,000 feet of a 2 foot wide channel to replace the aquatic resource. This
adjustment would be in addition to the calculations shown in Table 1 above.
Finally preservation should focus on the perennial stream segments rather than
the intermittent segments unless the impact is on intermittent streams.
g. Statistically -based estimates of stream length
Once the above calculations are made to determine the amount of mitigation
requirement for a particular project, it will be necessary to tally the length of
stream on a particular site. If an exact stream length can be readily determined
in the field, this is the preferred approach. If questions arise as to whether a
particular feature is a stream or not, then NC DWQ's "Identification Methods for
the Origins of Intermittent and Perennial Streams" (Version 3.1; January 1, 2005)
should be used to make this determination.
However in many cases of watershed preservation, it is not practical to map all
the streams found in the watershed. Unfortunately there are no available maps
which accurately depict stream length in NC. As an initial, rough estimate, the
length of stream shown on the 1:24,000 USGS topographic maps can be used
along with regional correction data. However for a specific mitigation proposal, a
more accurate determination of stream length is required.
In lieu of comprehensive mapping of watersheds, it may be possible to collect
statistically -based estimates of stream length as long as the preservation sites
are similar in geology and topography. DWQ would need to approve this study
design which should be based on the on -going stream mapping effort
coordinated by DWQ, NC Center for Geographic information and Analysis
(CGIA) and DOT and based on the US Environmental Protection Agency's
Ecoregion Map (Griffith, G.E., et. al. 2002). If statistically valid data are collected,
then these data can be used to accurately predict the length of streams in a
particular watershed without extensive stream mapping in that watershed.
V. References
Castelle, A.J, et. al. 1994. Wetland and stream buffer requirements — A review.
Journal of Environmental Quality 23:878-882.
Doohaluk, D.A. 2000. A summary of the integration of science and policy: A case
study on riparian forest buffers. Master of Public Health report, Institute for Public
Affairs, University of South Carolina. Columbia, SC.
Griffith, G.E., et. al. 2002. Ecoregions of North and South Carolina. Reston, VA.

N.C. Division of Water Quality. 2005. Identification Methods for the Origins of
Intermittent and Perennial Streams. Version 3.1, Raleigh, NC
U.S. Army Corps of Engineers, U.S. Environmental Protection Agency, NC Wildlife
Resources Commission and NC Division of Water Quality. 2003. Stream Mitigation
Guidelines. Wilmington, NC.
s
Wenger, S. 1999. A review of the scientific literature on riparian buffer width, extent
and vegetation. Institute of Ecology, University of Georgia. Athens, GA.

Preservation Demonstrable Threat Guidance Criteria
(Prepared for use by the NC EEP Program Assessment and Consistency Group - PACG)
April 5, 2004
Version 1.1
The 1995 Federal Guidance for the Establishment, Use and Operation of Mitigation Banks and Corps Mitigation
RGL 02-2 (12-26-02) have almost identical language concerning preservation and the demonstrable threat
requirement. Both documents state that the use of preservation as a sole basis for mitigation should only be under
exceptional circumstances and should meet the following requirements:
"Districts will consider whether the wetlands or other aquatic resources: 1) perform important physical, chemical or
biological functions, the preservation and maintenance of which is important to the region where those aquatic
resources are located; and, 2) are under demonstrable threat of loss or substantial degradation from human activities
that might not otherwise be avoided. The existence of a demonstrable threat will be based on clear evidence of
destructive land use changes that are consistent with local and regional (i.e., watershed) land use trends, and
that are not the consequence of actions under the permit applicant's control." (RGL 02-2)
These two guidance documents establish two conditions that must be met for "stand alone" preservation to be used
for mitigation credit. Stand alone preservation is defined as preservation not augmenting the functions of newly
established, restored or enhanced aquatic resources. The EEP Program Assessment and Consistency Group (PACG)
developed the Preservation Criteria Guidance to use for determining if preservation sites satisfy the first criteria, i.e.,
ecologically significant to the region. The following guidance is to be used to determine if the second criteria, i.e.,
"clear evidence of demonstrable threat" has been satisfied.
It is often difficult to document whether a "demonstrable threat" exists to an aquatic resource and the resource
agencies have not developed specific guidelines for making this determination. For this reason, the PACG has
prepared the following list of items to be considered when preparing the "clear evidence of a demonstrable threat of
loss or substantial degradation from human activities" documentation. When consulting this list, one should
consider what is reasonably foreseeable within the next ten years and realize there may be additional items which
should be considered for individual scenarios.
Demonstrable Threat Items*
■ Development trends in the watershed.
■ Nearby tracts being developed
■ Proximity of metropolitan areas
■ Water and/or sewer lines extension plans for the area
■ Local and DOT thoroughfare plans
■ Specific development plans for tract
■ Timbering threat to stream buffers
• Local land trust (or other sources) of local information on potential development
■ Age of landowners in the area
■ Threats to listed species (if present)
• Buffer protection rules in watershed, trout waters, etc.
• Permitting issues — how likely to be permitted for fill activities (high quality wetlands, etc.)
• To what extent is resource already protected by local/state/federal ordinances and regulations
*This list is not intended to be used as a checklist. The above are items to be considered when preparing the
demonstrable threat discussion for preservation sites for mitigation during the EEP transition phase.

4
1
E
0 50 100 150 200
Width (feet)
Figure 1. Reduction of nitrate nitrogen as a function of riparian buffer width
0 50 100 150 200
Width (feet)
Figure 2. Sediment reduction

1
00
80
•
60
■
■
40
20
■
0
zv 3u 4U 50
Width (feet)
Figure 3. Phosphorus reduction
60 70

A,11A
NCDENR
North Carolina Department of Environment and Natural Resources
Division of Water Quality
Michael F. Easley, Governor William G. Ross, Jr., Secretary
Alan W. Klimek, P.E., Director
DRAFT
Stream Mitigation for FERC-related 401 Certifications
Internal DWQ Guidance
NC Division of Water Quality
January 5, 2006
Version 1.1
I. Regulatory background
The Division of Water Quality must issue 401 Water Quality Certifications for FERC
licenses and has done so for several years. The review process that DWQ uses is
outlined in the 401 Water Quality Certification rules (15A NCAC 2H .0500) and
generally follows the 404(b)(1) guidelines — namely, avoid the impact, minimize the
impact to the maximum extent practical and then mitigate for unavoidable impacts.
The following guidelines assume that the FERC project has been reviewed for
avoidance and minimization and that the remaining unavoidable impacts to stream
channels are to be addressed through compensatory stream mitigation. In some
cases, stream restoration or enhancement can be done to replace the unavoidably
lost uses. The process for these practices is well outlined in various documents but
primarily in the joint state/federal stream mitigation guidelines (US Army Corps of
Engineers 2003). In other situations, preservation of streams, their adjacent buffers
or perhaps entire watersheds can be acceptable alternatives. This guidance focuses
on the preservation option in order to provide additional details to DWQ staff and the
regulated community on this approach.
11. Stream buffers and water quality
From review of the scientific literature, it is clear that wooded stream buffers provide
essential water quality benefits to the adjacent stream. Indeed, stream restoration
and enhancement projects in NC have always required restoration or enhancement
of the stream buffers (generally, 50 feet in the piedmont and coastal plain or 30 feet
in the mountains). There is also a positive relationship between the width of the
stream buffer and the degree of water quality benefit whereby a larger buffer has
greater water quality benefit. However, the relationship is not linear but rather above
a certain buffer width, increases in water quality benefits tend to level off. From
analysis of data on buffer width and pollutant removal (Figures 1, 2 and 3), the
incremental water quality benefits of stream buffers wider than 50 feet tend to be
relatively small. It should be noted that the sediment removal curve (Figure 2)
provides support for buffers greater than 50 feet wide. Several comprehensive
reviews of the buffer literature (Castelle, et. al. 1994, Doohaluk 2000 and Wenger
1999) suggest that a 100 (200) foot buffer is important for long-term water quality
protection since most of the studies that are reflected in Figures 1 — 3 are based on
401 Wetlands Certification Unit
1650 Mail Service Center, Raleigh, North Carolina 27699-1650 One
2321 Crabtree Boulevard, Suite 250, Raleigh, North Carolina 27604 NorthCarofina
Phone: [phone] / FAX [phone] / Internet: httn,//h2o.enr.stare.nc.us/ncwctlands )Vaturally
An Equal opportunity/Affirmative Action Employer — 50% Recycled/10% Post Consumer Paper

short-term research. Therefore, DWQ believes that protected buffers of 50 feet
should generally be the minimal width but that protected buffers of 100 (200) feet
should be encouraged and receive more beneficial credit ratios.
III. Existing state/federal stream mitigation guidelines
In 2003, the state and federal regulatory agencies developed and adopted the
"Stream Mitigation Guidelines" (April 2003) to provide guidance to the US Army
Corps of Engineers, US Environmental Protection Agency, NC Wildlife Resources
Commission and NC Division of Water Quality as well as the regulated community in
our review and approval of stream mitigation projects. These guidelines are
intended to be used for 404 and 401 permitting decisions but also provide a useful
framework for FERC-related stream mitigation issues.
The guidelines define four types of stream mitigation (Restoration, Enhancement
Level I, Enhancement Level II and Preservation) with corresponding mitigation ratios
(1:1, 1.5:1, 2.5:1 and 5:1, respectively). Preservation sites must meet the criteria
shown on page 16 of this document. Foremost in those criteria is that in addition to
the biological value of the streams, the site must be in an area with threats to
development. In many cases for FERC permits, preservation is a viable option. The
following guidance is intended to expand upon the Stream Mitigation Guidelines in
the FERC-context. DWQ intends to open discussions with the other state and
federal agencies to include these items in a revised Stream Mitigation Guidelines
once we have more experience with these issues in the FERC-context.
IV. Proposed policy
a. Demonstrable threat
Sites proposed for preservation must have a demonstrable threat as defined in
Appendix 1. This definition was developed for and approved by the Performance
Assessment and Consistency Group (PACG) by the relevant state and federal
agencies including DWQ. Written documentation of the demonstrable threat to a
particular site or group of sites is needed before a preservation site can be
approved by DWQ.
b. Preservation mechanism a
Preservation ee simple acquisition with title given to a relevant state or
federal land management agency or responsible local conservation group (non-
governmental organization) such as The Nature Conservancy or local land trust.
A conservation easement shall also be provided with the land. Provisions for
land management, access and other activities shall be clearly spelled out in the
conservation easement using guidance available from the US Army Corps of
Engineers.
c. Preservation of 100 (200) foot stream buffers
Preservation of 100 (200) foot stream buffers shall receive a 4:1 mitigation ratio
since preservation of this wider buffer is more important to water quality than
preservation of the typical 50 foot buffer.
C
�- 2

d. Preservation of entire watersheds
Preservation of an entire local watershed surrounding a particular stream
channel shall receive a 3:1 mitigation ratio for the length of streams in the
watershed since preservation of the entire watershed will protect water quality in
these streams in perpetuity. Protection of the entire watershed provides longer
term water quality benefits than protection of 50 or 100 (200) foot buffers.
e. Example (hypothetical)
The following example (Figure 4) is provided to illustrate the use of the above
preservation ratios. This example is hypothetical and is therefore not based on a
particular site. This example assumes that the site has a demonstrable threat
and that a fee simple acquisition is contemplated with a conservation easement.
In this example, there are 10,000 feet of streams in Parcel A and 700 feet of
streams outside Parcel A. We will presume that an applicant propose to
preserve the entire Parcel A as well as 100 foot wide buffers along 500 feet of
streams outside Parcel A and 50 foot wide buffers along 200 feet of streams
outside Parcel A. The following amount of stream credit would then be available
for this proposal:
Table 1: Stream mitigation credits from different types of stream
preservation assuming impact and mitigation sites are within one stream
order of each other.
Type of
Length of
Mitigation
Preservation
streams (feet) Mitigation Ratio
Credits
Watershed
10,000 t: 3 3:1
30,000 foot -
preservation
credits
100 (200) foot wide
500 k-{ 4:1
2,000
buffers
50 foot wide 200
buffers I ; 5:1 1000
Totals 10.700 33.000 credits
f. Stream size considerations
The Stream Mitigation Guidelines state that mitigation should be within one
stream order of the impact. In many cases for FERC projects, mitigation will
need to be done for larger stream impacts with preservation on smaller stream
channels. When the mitigation is beyond one stream order (defined as streams
shown on the most recent version of the 1:24,000 USGS topographic map), then
a correction must be made to account for the extent of the aquatic resource. In
these cases, the length of the channel shall be multiplied by the average width of
the channel to estimate the average area of the channel. A comparison of the
impact site (often a river) shall then be made to the mitigation site (often a
smaller channel) and adjustments made accordingly to the required mitigation.
In most cases, this will result in the need for additional stream mitigation. For
instance, if 1000 feet of a 50 foot wide channel (50,000 units) is proposed to be
mitigated with smaller streams, it would take 10,000 feet of 5 foot wide channels
3

0
or 25,000 feet of a 2 foot wide channel to replace the aquatic resource. This
adjustment would be in addition to the calculations shown in Table 1 above.
g. Statistically -based estimates of stream length
Once the above calculations are made to determine the amount of mitigation
requirement for a particular project, it will be necessary to tally the length of
stream on a particular site. If an exact stream length can be readily determined
in the field, this is the preferred approach. If questions arise as to whether a
particular feature is a stream or not, then NC DWQ's "Identification Methods for
the Origins of Intermittent and Perennial Streams" (Version 3.1; January 1, 2005)
should be used to make this determination.
However in many cases of watershed preservation, it is not practical to map all
the streams found in the watershed. Unfortunately there are no available maps
which accurately depict stream length in NC. In lieu of comprehensive mapping
of watersheds, it may be possible to collect statistically -based estimates of
as long as
are
in
topography.peam length
gt DWQ wouldhe needeservation to approve this study design n whichgeology
shou d b
pp Y g
based on the on -going stream mapping effort coordinated by DWQ nd DOT and
based on the US Environmental Protection Agency's Ecoregion Map (Griffith,
G.E., et. al. 2002). If statistically valid data are collected, then these data can be
used to accurately predict the length of streams in a particular watershed without
extensive stream mapping in that watershed.
References
Casteile, A.J, et. al. 1994. Wetland and stream buffer requirements — A review.
Journal of Environmental Quality 23:878-882.
Doohaluk, D.A. 2000. A summary of the integration of science and policy: A case
study on riparian forest buffers. Master of Public Health report, Institute for Public
Affairs, University of South Carolina. Columbia, SC.
Griffith, G.E., et. al. 2002. Ecoregions of North and South Carolina. Reston, VA.
N.C. Division of Water Quality. 2005. Identification Methods for the Origins of
Intermittent and Perennial Streams. Version 3.1. Raleigh, NC
U.S. Army Corps of Engineers, U.S. Environmental Protection Agency, NC Wildlife
Resources Commission and NC Division of Water Quality. 2003. Stream Mitigation
Guidelines. Wilmington, NC.
Wenger, S. 1999. A review of the scientific literature on riparian butter width, extent
and vegetation. Institute of Ecology, University of Georgia. Athens, GA.
n

Appendix 1
Preservation Demonstrable Threat Guidance Criteria
(Prepared for use by the NC EEP Program Assessment and Consistency Group - PACG)
April 5, 2004
Version 1.1
The 1995 Federal Guidance for the Establishment, Use and Operation of Mitigation Banks and Corps Mitigation
RGL 02-2 (12-26-02) have almost identical language concerning preservation and the demonstrable threat
requirement. Both documents state that the use of preservation as a sole basis for mitigation should only be under
exceptional circumstances and should meet the following requirements:
"Districts will consider whether the wetlands or other aquatic resources: 1) perform important physical, chemical or
biological functions, the preservation and maintenance of which is important to the region where those aquatic
resources are located; and, 2) are under demonstrable threat of loss or substantial degradation from human activities
that might not otherwise be avoided. The existence of a demonstrable threat will be based on clear evidence of
destructive land use changes that are consistent with local and regional (i.e., watershed) land use trends, and
that are not the consequence of actions under the permit applicant's control." (RGL 02-2)
These two guidance documents establish two conditions that must be met for "stand alone" preservation to be used
for mitigation credit. Stand alone preservation is defined as preservation not augmenting the functions of newly
established, restored or enhanced aquatic resources. The EEP Program Assessment and Consistency Group (PACG)
developed the Preservation Criteria Guidance to use for determining if preservation sites satisfy the first criteria, i.e.,
ecologically significant to the region. The following guidance is to be used to determine if the second criteria, i.e.,
"clear evidence of demonstrable threat" has been satisfied.
It is often difficult to document whether a "demonstrable threat" exists to an aquatic resource and the resource
agencies have not developed specific guidelines for making this determination. For this reason, the PACG has
prepared the following list of items to be considered when preparing the "clear evidence of a demonstrable threat of
loss or substantial degradation from human activities" documentation. When consulting this list, one should
consider what is reasonably foreseeable within the next ten years and realize there may be additional items which
should be considered for individual scenarios.
Demonstrable Threat Items*
■ Development trends in the watershed.
• Nearby tracts being developed
• Proximity of metropolitan areas
■ Water and/or sewer lines extension plans for the area
■ Local and DOT thoroughfare plans
■ Specific development plans for tract
■ Timbering threat to stream buffers
■ Local land trust (or other sources) of local information on potential development
• Age of landowners in the area
■ Threats to listed species (if present)
■ Buffer protection rules in watershed, trout waters, etc.
■ Permitting issues — how likely to be permitted for fill activities (high quality wetlands, etc.)
• To what extent is resource already protected by local/state/federal ordinances and regulations
*This list is not intended to be used as a checklist. The above are items to be considered when preparing the
demonstrable threat discussion for preservation sites for mitigation during the EEP transition phase.
5

C
O
U
7
07
Q
0 50 100 150 200
Width (feet)
Figure 1. Reduction of nitrate nitrogen as a function of riparian buffer width
100
90
80
0
m 70
Cr
60
50
■
■
1
■
r
■
■
0 50 100
Width (feet)
Figure 2. Sediment reduction
150 200

10 20 30 40 50 60 70
Width (feet)
Figure 3. Phosphorus reduction

0

3 A-
f

\�t

-,,,bu
Ll
1 kA- 3uu
ion a- '- -- -

millompEs
CS,
j �
�(1� 1 _
Sup26 _. R U EG S S
OQJ
3 `� = 90 f

k� O r MA-Q- n-. S

NC Mitigation "Counterproposal" (in priority order)
I Mainstem Catawba River: Fee Simple Acquisition: 100' wide (4:1 / 2.5:1 with
planting). Focus on:
a) Riverbend North Tract
b) Watermill Tract
c) Muddy Creek Tract
11 Upper Johns River Corridor (upstream of confluence with Catawba): 100' wide (4:1 /
2.5:1 with planting)
III Watersheds along the Johns River (including the Lower Creek confluence)
a) Factors to consider in calculations:
i) Use 50% correction factor for 1/24,000 USGS mapped streams
ii) Use the following average stream widths for calculations:
(1) 1" order: 1 foot wide
(2) 2nd order: 5 foot wide
(3) 3rd order: 20 foot wide
(4) 4`h order: 30 foot wide
IV Riparian Corridors for remaining areas along tributaries: 100' wide (4:1 / 2.5:1 with
planting)
Action Items•
DENR: Confirm the need for fee simple access on the mainstem of the Catawba
Duke: Which tracts (priority III) are useful for mitigation purposes
Duke: Fee simple acquisition along the mainstem a possibility
Agencies: Prioritize tracts.

5 4000.7 17615 1 Johns River 4000.7 0.76
5 1998.2 33365 1 Johns River 1998.2 0.38
2 200.7 51667 2 LIT 401.3 0.08
1 5000.2 16977 2 Paddy Creek 10000.4 1.89
1 1762.0 16977 2 Paddy Ck spillway 3523.9 0.67
4 616.6 17133 1 Catawba River 615.6 0.12
4 921.1 49994 1 Catawba River 921.1 0.17
4 9249.4 33350 2 Lower Creek 18498.8 3.50
4 2767.6 33350 2 Lower Creek 5535.1 1.05
6 557.8 99998 1 Catawba river 557.8 0.11
6 1740.0 99997 1 Catawba River 1740.0 0.33
\S Lvr_
1�
0,�� :L -Cp

Rec_Ord
Eligible
MitFor
56741-5
yes
Oxford
33432-5
yes
Oxford
33432-1
yes
40446-5
yes
Oxford
40446-1
yes
33350-1
yes
33350-5
no
33350-5
no
17615-5
no
17136-2
yes
17136-1
yes
57887-1
yes
Paddy
16977-1
yes
Paddy
57887-2
yes
Paddy
17133-1
yes
57888-1
yes
17136-1
yes
17136-1
yes
37211-1
yes
Paddy
33350-4
yes
33350-4
no
33350-1
yes
33350-3
yes
33350-1
yes
33350-1
yes
33350-1
yes
33350-1
yes
40446-1
yes
33432-1
yes
33417-1
yes
33417-1
yes
56741-1
yes
16983-2
yes
Paddy
17615-6
no
33350-4
no
57887-5
yes
Oxford
57887-5
yes
Oxford
57887-5
yes
Oxford
57887-5
yes
Oxford
16977-5
yes
Oxford
16977-5
yes
Oxford
16977-4
yes
16997-4
yes
16997-4
yes
17136-5
yes
17136-5
yes
57888-5
yes
16983-3
yes
Paddy
16983-3
yes
Paddy
16983-3
yes
Paddy
16983-3
yes
Paddy

StrmOrder
LenFt
ParclRec
Sides StrmNme
EffLenFt
EffLenMi
5
2004.9
56741
1 Johns River
2004.9
0.38
5
3594.3
33432
1 Johns River
3594.3
0.68
1
3852.4
33432
2 Ut
7704.9
1.46
5
3134.6
40446
1 Johns River
3134.6
0.59
1
5284.9
40446
1 Ut
5284.9
1.00
1
3044.7
33350
2 Ut
6089.4
1.15
5
9272.9
33350
1 Johns River
9272.9
1.76
5
5157.9
33350
1 Johns River
5157.9
0.98
5
9083.5
17615
1 Johns River
9083.5
1.72
2
957.1
17136
2 Ut
1914.2
0.36
1
1969.3
17136
2 Ut
3938.5
0.75
1
1996.4
57887
2 Ut
3992.7
0.76
1
1134.5
16977
2 Ut
2269.0
0.43
2
1668.6
57887
2 Reedy Creek
3337.2
0.63
1
384.9
17133
2 Ut
769.9
0.15
1
907.7
57888
1 Ut
907.7
0.17
1
1686.8
17136
2 Ut
3373.5
0.64
1
1441.5
17136
2 Ut
2883.0
0.55
1
2091.2
37211
2 Ut
4182.4
0.79
4
1687.9
33350
1 Lower Creek
1687.9
0.32
4
4882.4
33350
1 Lower Creek
4882.4
0.92
1
3015.7
33350
1 Ut
3015.7
0.57
3
4628.0
33350
2 Bristol Creek
9255.9
1.75
1
751.4
33350
2 Ut
1502.8
0.28
1
856.3
33350
2 Ut
1712.5
0.32
1
469.7
33350
1 Ut
469.7
0.09
1
980.3
33350
2 Ut
1960.7
0.37
1
4934.7
40446
2 Ut
9869.3
1.87
1
4353.3
33432
2 Ut
8706.5
1.65
1
1267.7
33417
1 Sims Branch
1267.7
0.24
1
4554.8
33417
2 Ut
9109.5
1.73
1
1097.9
56741
1 Ut
1097.9
0.21
2
451.6
16983
2 UT
903.2
0.17
6
6155.8
17615
1 Catawba River
6155.8
1.17
4
2879.2
33350
1 Lower Creek
2879.2
0.55
5
259.5
57887
1 Muddy Creek
259.5
0.05
5
2135.6
57887
1 Catawba River
2135.6
0.40
5
1246.8
57887
1 Catawba River
1246.8
0.24
5
6345.1
57887
1 Muddy Creek
6345.1
1.20
5
3039.2
16977
1 Muddy Creek
3039.2
0.58
5
453.3
16977
1 Muddy Creek
453.3
0.09
4
790.4
16977
1 Catawba River
790.4
0.15
4
1407.8
16997
1 Catawba River
1407.8
0.27
4
142.6
16997
1 Catawba River
142.6
0.03
5
383.9
17136
1 Catawba River
383.9
0.07
5
5918.2
17136
1 Catawba River
5918.2
1.12
5
6358.3
57888
1 Catawba River
6358.3
1.20
3
324.0
16983
1 Old Catawba River
324.0
0.06
3
626.5
16983
1 Old Catawba River
626.5
0.12
3
715.8
16983
1 Old Catawba River
715.8
0.14
3
432.3
16983
1 Old Catawba River
432.3
0.08

2 241.8
16983
1 Old Catawba River
241.8
0.05
2 510.6
16983
2 Old Catawba River
1021.1
0.19
1 506.3
16983
1 Ut
506.3
0.10
3 540.9
51667
1 Old Catawba River
540.9
0.10
3 725.5
51667
1 Old Catawba River
725.5
0.14
5 2129.3
16977
1 Catawba River
2129.3
0.40
5 204.1
57888
1 Catawba River
204.1
0.04
5 366.8
57888
1 Catawba River
366.8
0.07
5 1357.4
16977
1 Muddy Creek
1357.4
0.26
4 1458.0
16977
1 Catawba River
1458.0
0.28
5 2264.2
57887
1 Catawba River
2264.2
0.43
5 2002.5
17136
1 Catawba River
2002.5
0.38
5 4582.2
16900
1 Catawba River
4582.2
0.87
5 442.8
16900
1 Catawba River
442.8
0.08
5 629.6
56615
1 Catawba River
629.6
0.12
5 1245.4
37211
1 Catawba River
1245.4
0.24
5 899.2
37211
1 Catawba River
899.2
0.17
5 1472.0
17090
1 Catawba River
1472.0
0.28
5 411.4
17076
1 Catawba River
411.4
0.08
5 1796.0
33607
1 Warrior Fork
1796.0
0.34
6 307.6
33607
1 Catawba River
307.6
0.06
6 502.0
17615
1 Catawba River
502.0
0.10
6 690.3
33350
1 Catawba River (Rhodhiss Lake below elevation 995)
690.3
0.13
4 2738.9
33350
1 Lower Creek
2738.9
0.52
6 4255.0
33350
1 Catawba River (Rhodhiss Lake below elevation 995)
4255.0
0.81
5 4044.7
33350
1 Johns River
4044.7
0.77
5 124.2
33432
1 Johns River
124.2
0.02
5 2272.6
33432
1 Johns River
2272.6
0.43
5 3712.5
33491
1 Johns River
3712.5
0.70
5 9666.6
40446
1 Johns River
9666.6
1.83
5 1676.1
33417
1 Johns River
1676.1
0.32
1 5160.3
33417
2 Ut
10320.6
1.95
1 455.4
33417
1 Ut
455.4
0.09
1 531.2
57825
1 Ut
531.2
0.10
5 3625.0
33417
1 Johns River
3625.0
0.69
5 3456.0
33491
1 Johns River
3456.0
0.65
5 2507.7
33417
1 Johns River
2507.7
0.47
5 934.0
33417
1 Johns River
934.0
0.18
5 2403.6
57825
1 Johns River
2403.6
0.46
5 2361.2
33417
1 Johns River
2361.2
0.45
5 1202.8
56741
1 Johns River
1202.8
0.23
5 2502.4
33568
1 Johns River
2502.4
0.47
5 1398.6
33568
1 Johns River
1398.6
0.26
5 1582.7
99999
1 Johns River
1582.7
0.30
1 3571.0
99999
1 Ut
3571.0
0.68
5 1844.8
99999
1 Johns River
1844.8
0.35
2 3920.5
33417
2 Sims Branch
7841.1
1.49
2 630.9
33417
1 Sims Branch
630.9
0.12
6 3882.8
-99999
1 Catawba River
3882.8
0.74
2 344.8
-99999
2 UT
689.6
0.13
2 527.1
16977
2 Paddy Ck below confluence with spillway
1054.2
020
4 1888.5
16977
1 Catawba River
1888.5
0.36

•
16983-2
yes
Paddy
16983-2
yes
Paddy
16983-1
yes
Paddy
51667-3
yes
51667-3
yes
16977-5
yes
Oxford
57888-5
yes
57888-5
yes
Oxford
16977-5
yes
Oxford
16977-4
yes
57887-5
yes
Oxford
17136-5
yes
16900-5
yes
Oxford
16900-5
yes
Oxford
56615-5
yes
Oxford
37211-5
yes
Oxford
37211-5
yes
Oxford
17090-5
yes
Oxford
17076-5
yes
Oxford
33607-5
yes
Oxford
33607-6
yes
Oxford
17615-6
no
33350-6
no
33350-4
no
33350-6
no
33350-5
no
33432-5
yes
Oxford
33432-5
yes
Oxford
33491-5
yes
Oxford
40446-5
yes
Oxford
33417-5
yes
Oxford
33417-1
yes
33417-1
yes
57825-1
yes
33417-5
yes
Oxford
33491-5
yes
Oxford
33417-5
yes
Oxford
33417-5
yes
Oxford
57825-5
yes
Oxford
33417-5
yes
Oxford
56741-5
yes
Oxford
33568-5
yes
Mt Island
33568-5
yes
Mt Island
99999-5
yes
Mt Island
99999-1
yes
99999-5
yes
Mt Island
33417-2
yes
33417-2
yes
-99999-6
no
Lookout
-99999-2
yes
16977-1
yes
Paddy
16977-4
yes

17615-5
no
33365-5
yes
Oxford
51667-2
yes
16977-1
yes
Paddy
16977-1
yes
Paddy
17133-4
yes
49994-4
yes
33350-4
yes
33350-4
yes
99998-6
yes
99997-6
no
Lookout

Miles
Miles to mitigate 6th 0.37
Miles needed 2.92
Parcel StmOrder EffMil
99999 6 0.74
duke 6 0.33
also look at corridor below Riverbend Park
total 1.07
remainder 1.85

(Note: @$4000/acre
(Note: @$4000/acre
(Note: @$4000/acre
(Note: @$4000/acre
a P "S ri�l Ow c..Ij i S-M V--
�O w-4?-v cY{C c_rel0x
Card° il� C,+�
e Vn es Oq tb over rh�n
P9 aj�e #I� o-7(0�v+ii
sS! Co C" 2
hG 9 e
�Gt� ri o f Vot lL
5(flCa I S - sl`4se

Cumul Acres Cumul Buff -Flood
251 93 37
365 157 43
578 276

Northbend-All
578 276 48
Estimated Cost -All
3.1
CWMTF Funds -All
1.6
Duke Rec10 10%
0.3
Duke Rec10 20%
0.6
Duke Rec10 10Ac Site
0.055
Min Fund Gap
0.845
Max Fund Gap
1.145
Sec14 Need from Duke
0.845 - 1.145
Johns Confluence North -All
2360 39
Estimated Cost -All
9.94
CWMTF Funds -All
3.91
(Note: ID of more 1 st order streams to increase amount)
Duke Rec10 10%
0.994
Duke Rec10 20%
1.988
Shift from Muddy Cr tract
Duke Rec10 10%
0.174
Shift from Muddy Cr tract
Duke Rec10 20%
0.347
Min Fund Gap (20% + 20% Shift)
3.695
Max Fund Gap (10% + No Shift)
5.036
Sec14 Need from Duke
3.695 - 5.036
Johns Confluence South -All
Estimated Cost -All
3.27
CWMTF Funds -All APPROVED
1.325
Duke Rec10 10%
0.327
Duke Rec10 20%
0.654
Min Fund Gap
1.291
Max Fund Gap
1.618
Sec14 Need from Duke
1.291 - 1.618
TOTAL CWMTF FEE TRACT - ALL
FUNDING GAP 5.831 - 7.799
Alternative 1 - Fee Tract Portion
Northbend Tract - Portion
2.01 365
CWMTF Funds -Portion (147 Ac)
0.81
Duke Rec10 10Ac Site
0.055
Duke Rec10 10%
0.2
Duke ReC10 20%
0.4
Shift from Muddy Cr tract
Duke ReC10 10%
0.174
Shift from Muddy Cr tract
Duke Rec10 20%
0.347
Min Fund Gap (20% + 20% Shift)
0.4
Max Fund Gap (10% + No Shift)
0.945
Sec14 Need from Duke

Alternative 2 - Fee Tract Portion
Paddy Dam Tract - Portion ?? 50 - 60
(Crescent or combination Crescent/DP)
Duke Rec10 10% ?? 43.4
Shift from Muddy Cr tract
Duke Recl0 20%
Shift from Muddy Cr tract 86.8
Duke Rec10 1 Ac Site
(On Muddy Creek)
Tract -Portion $ (million)
Northbend-1
Northbend-2
Northbend-3
Northbend-4
45 - 55
Acres
Buffer -Flood
78
55
173
38
114
64
213
119
CWMTF%
70
22
56
56

o m < m n
3 m 3 0
CD�. N w CD C)
m
(Do ro
0 CL o
O 0 N
7 �
C
0
V)
CD
mmcnoommmmmmmmmmmmmmmmmmmc�
C C C C C C C C C L= G C C C C C C C C G G C C
7C x F x F F F F F F F 7C 7C x x F F
0
C
ro m ro m m m m m m ro ro ro ro ro ro ro ro ro ro ro m m ro
Ch al m Ch (n C" A .A W W W W W W W W
V V V m m 8 CO 0 V W W WC� wC� wC,� W W
CO CO CO V O) CD ? ry O) En A A W W 0 O O (O CO CO
CO CO N A cn CO A O O) (O W p) (!1 W (p V W —1 O
co V Ln Ul V A o) i V OD j N �I 01 O fJ7 [� O(m W V O
O
(D
nn nnrL-nncyc-c-c-cy(-nn0C)hrhG)
w w 0 0 m sv 0 w w o 0 0 0 0 0 w w m w m w
m
>> >>>m" S m
(A �{ rn N N N O) N F
CD
< CD <
a-a-w c a °= w m m 0-w
a
w (D
w fl m w
CDa m m a 00 w
0
O ^ to F r, > O K ^ '"' Ci i 7 � ^ ^ w 0 CZ CS
(D
w ro Qo a-j n' CTw o a ZZ a
N o N w o o po o n n a 0
0
CD o v (� o
CD
CD f a 5 o g ro 0 w ro w �_
a o 3 jD
1— C7 o CP -0 n n N a 3
C= 0 O C) (D0 0 O C ro
C CD g v D g� 3
@ a CD] `° (p
7
a 3 7 W
(D 7. a 7
U3 U3
D
_ _ N _
O W N O W m
Q
(D
V CAJ W CVO m i� OD O� W N
[D A OD [ri --� O W W C', [T cT N V O pO A Cl A OO r1 W
N
W Cn V (D N A 01 OD
0
C
.Z1
u
O
O
D
m
n
Z
n
O
m
m
((DD m m (D(Df(DD m m m w
0
(D 0 N w ro (D (D (D u)
0
(D CD Q)
a
a
N N N N LA.
CD 333 ��D
cu CD 0 CD CD
m
3
m
w w
�
(D rn m
w m m wm
CD 0
y
cwi z 0 m a� (i 0 z
(D D' m0 nam m w
N O (9 ((A N N O
7 7
C
{n
N
0
ro
O
7
Cl
N
T] Z7
01
n n
w
m
Z
0
w

) -Eat Joy ,t co-,Q
C� V �-b vS v � 11 lA �-�-�'`-t9` ".U� , 11�'lr� 4� , l� �,� C.�`71 • d-�.�r� c , 11 V Ir 'VlaC-t
�' p Y� S . Y�` u'9 3 a t �'�`• ;j4 Bv. % Ac,

Catawba — Wateree Flow Mitigation in NC
12/14/2005
3:30 PM
Objective: Develop a mutually agreeable approach to calculation of mitigation
credits for the Catawba — Wateree flows
Agenda
1. Introductions
2. Review objectives and agenda
3. Review/Discuss Duke's Proposed mitigation
4. Finalize mitigation process
5. Set next meeting date
6. Adjourn

Water Resources Research Institute
www.ncsu.edu/wrri
K\���c,,� oll 3l0�-
ran
1 n /� l v � y � n _ ! F� w. .. L\� �n� _ � � . n 9 `� A J I ' . � � _ _ \ •. w Q .1Yr. � it � A. . �n
1 1 / n-D 00_.4 h„n \f\ � n L— .. A n
Tl �'►r� Fes" . c

A
Duke Power Trial Balloon - For Discussion Purposes Only
% Xr,
A
Nk- I
mi Vt—
C.k
N,
A
L-
...
J.
I ��Mll
3
PIP
V., Mn4l,
rW
-A
(7 7T 0? :V
A\
Ik 11-k
A,
Overmountain North Bend
4 r,,t Victory NHT
AD
QUAWKN mElof)w
AEC A AIRS
V
F
J:
�7 3.
Creek Paddy ?
, V�x
La
L
Second Bridge below z'
AA Powerhouse
house AA
Catawba -Linville River
Confluence Gameland
ZZ C.t.,
L
v:-'
'j-
?
N
%
'YO
It
r -
—�N
7
N
PJ
to
J,
r
I'M
C3-) P.
C,l
J
A
V31r2ODS

Duke Power Trial Balloon - For Discussion Purposes Only
!i f 11
(. Wilson
w,l
g d i'. C1�1 ,/�/ / .�, . ti.� ,tJ �•T
�\ ..LOWRtl
1
lira �R :���` � , • ez''�'ti� ( p, ., i +• //• ,, % i _. i •
�..� . ' 4 '_ �••\rU \1 r" J o' 11 i - -
1• ��. -,' ii_ !\. •D• •'r_ s' I, £ ,N O 1'- Y, Iti111 ..
/ _ )
Corpening Bridge
_-V
� `� '�,y^„ • Boy
(Glyptemys muhlenberyn)
Location Area
f
r L
S M S M U K, Y
IN
S.. ,r• \\ '� �7 ( Johns River Gamelandsl ~�1
U A w E: R, rr M E A li VVi �',_ �3 rh _ � l , f
4 �•
Y P. �
1 ,
\. I
l.r
Johns River Gamelands �fcxyYy
i - _ t l.-, � � . G � t _ , - � L y ,--• i rim
� g
9�' t All"' i-Tt. /�1 ��: 1 -.. v y,,`• {!
'L _
I � � �;t I? ` t - 1++�1;��� !VJ; � J'r•. / / ,�- � i -,\ I / � II ��`'' y�` �I
/ ti��.•' �7
,� � '^/ t�'� "rr11� -�'°" ' a' 1 ,\1 `i � r \ �i�"�I?.� •, � ' �.� p � �`� I I .
� / l
y. �\ � .i • .. ��.f'.'- i ..i�t`•,� .�i� 1� �• • F ��� �A� , 1 \ Q � s ` J ;,,. � t ! � '�,`� �( f I ` i '.� �. 1 i� •-
Q K E 1t \i A P U W
�� t ai.ur�,

Duke Power Trial Balloon - For Discussion Purposes Only
1 /31 /2006

Duke Power Trial Balloon - For Discussion Purposes Only
1 /31 /2006

Duke Power Trial Balloon - For Discussion Purposes Only
� WOW
JIM
7:
h"A
1/31/2006

Duke Power Trial Balloon - For Discussion Purposes Only
113112006

Duke Power Trial Balloon - For Discussion Purposes Only
t11 ! I j r :•i}l '� �i jig. t
i-'
757
f
\ I t •%
r -•` 1� � ^��jl�. `�,\ III LY � 1, I �4 E 1' `r. 1�
I ;r
Molly Creek Park
,�.. •,• L - .. WA URF.B
WATEReV LAKE E•
' �. . � i r Teal lil� � � / r 4�. �• ��/
I 3
WatereerTailrace
i _ tl 0 • r Bird Habitat
All
` � f
/ \\` n /
1 '1 �\,_,
�� - ! T' �'f: ��i' i I t 6. I '- ~ � `vim � f .• �w - - f . r�l 4 i �- �1 1�1_� "�
.4,4
:
' 1 f N .,., I n 1J%/Y/ �' ' ..,3� ! i (•.�_l�_.- r � /J i1/ . � i'\
•%'�'y,'' fir'! t 1 I � sl. .._= ..T" -� � I/ I
(
t I 1 F''� '�f < - '✓ nr � � � 1 I � ��7��� ... �„ 5\�1 •�5t1 ', (•�,��
1 /31 /2006