20072169 Ver 1_401 Application_20071207

07-2169
TA
Devine Tarbell & Associates, Inc.
Gawulting Rngineern, Scienacw, & Regulamry- Specialiatc
P~`~v~~~ E^'T
i~EC~~~:°~r~
December 18, 2007
Ms. Cyndi Karoly -Supervisor
North Carolina Department of Environment and Natural Resources
Division of Water Quality - 401/Wetlands Unit
1650 Mail Service Center
Raleigh, NC 27699-1650
Principals:
John J. Devine, P.E., President
John C. Tarbell, P.E.
James M. Lynch
Edwin C. Luttrell, P.E.
Q~c~~od~~
DEC 1 9 2007
DENR -WATER QUALITY
1NETlANDS AND STORMINATER BRANCH
Subject: Duke Energy Carolinas, LLC -Buck Combined Cycle Project, Impacts to
Jurisdictional Waters 401 Application Package
Rowan County, North Carolina
Dear Ms. Karoly:
On behalf of Duke Energy Carolinas, LLC (Duke), Devine Tarbell and Associates, Inc (DTA) is
pleased to present you with the Pre-Construction Notification (PCN) application for impacts to
jurisdictional waters associated with the Buck Combined Cycle Project (Project). Duke is
proposing to build a combined cycle generating facility, near the town of East Spencer in Rowan
County, North Carolina (Project Narrative, Appendix A, Figure 1). The subject property of the
Project is located between the end of Dukeville Road and the south shore of High Rock Lake
(adjacent to Duke's existing Buck Steam Station) at latitude 35° 42' 29" and longitude 80° 22'
28" (Project Narrative, Appendix A, Figures 1 and 2). The Project Boundary includes eight
adjacent Duke Parcels totaling 608.44 acres.
In association with this project, Duke has requested that DTA conduct a reconnaissance survey
of the subject property to identify jurisdictional streams and wetlands, as well as the location of
T: 704.377.4182 400 S. Tryon Street, Suite 2401, Charlotte, NC 28285 F: 704.377.4185
Portland, l~faine Charlotte, North Carolina Sacramento, Califonua York, Pennsylvania
207.775.4495 704.377.4182 916.564.4214 717.741.9850
www. Uevine 1'arbell.com
Syracuse, Ncw York Scattlc, Washington Bellingham, Washington l~oisc, Idaho
315.451.2325 425.391.0523 360.671.1150 208.319.1977

'~ Ms. Karoly
December 18, 2007
Page 2 of 3
TA
any federally protected species and historic resources occurring within the footprint of the
proposed Project.
On April 18, 2007 DTA scientists performed a wetland delineation of jurisdictional waters found
within the proposed Project footprint. Based on that survey one isolated wetland (Wetland 1),
approximately 0.43 acre, was delineated. In September of 2007 Steve Chapin of the United
States Army Corps of Engineers (USAGE) conducted an on-site visit and confirmed Wetland 1
as a non-404 jurisdictional isolated wetland (Project Narrative, Appendix D).
Proposed permanent impacts associated with the Project:
• Clearing and permanent fill of approximately 0.43 acre of isolated Wetland 1.
Due to the nature of the Project and the preferred site layout total avoidance of impacts to
waters of the state is not feasible. However, based on siting designs and proposed facility
locations, Duke was able to avoid substantial impacts to other natural resources, including waters
of the US and state, located on-site. Please refer to the attached Project Narrative for a complete
site description and discussion of Project alternatives. No other impacts to jurisdictional waters
of the US or state are proposed.
On behalf of Duke, DTA respectfully requests that all impacts to waters of the state be permitted
by the Division of Water Quality (DWQ) under the General Certification for Isolated Wetlands
(IWGP 100000). Please find enclosed with this letter seven copies of the PCN application
package and a check in the amount of $240 for the DWQ processing fee. In addition to
requesting certification from your office for impacts to jurisdictional waters of the state, DTA
has requested guidance and comments from the North Carolina State Historic Preservation

~ Ms. Karoly
December 18, 2007
Page 3 of 3
DTA
Office concerning impacts to historic resources, and from the United States Fish and Wildlife
Service concerning impacts to protected species. DTA requests that any comments received
from either agency be incorporated into the terms and conditions of the final 401 Water Quality
Certification.
DTA appreciates the opportunity to work with your office on this Project. Should you have any
questions or concerns please feel free to contact either me at [phone] or Mr. Mark
Landseidel at [phone].
Sincerely,
DEVINE TARBELL & ASSOCIATES, INC.
A.
Jay Wylie
Scientist
Sco t T. Fletcher, B, PWS
Senior Scientist
Manager of Regulatory/Scientific Services
JAW/STF/jni
Enclosures
cc w/o encl: M. Landseidel, Duke
S. Fletcher, DTA
File

t

P~,Y~~~Pn,T
~ECE~`s'" `l 0 7- 2 1 6 8
BUCK COMBINED CYCLE PROJECT
PRE-CONSTRUCTION NOTIFICATION
Prepared for: Prepared by:
DUKE ENERGY DEVINE TARBELL
CAROLINAS, LLC. ~ C~C~C OMC D & ASSOCIATES, INC.
DEC 1 8 207
~n~e~ Arsr~
D
i
T
A
November 2007 Devinc Tarbcll & Associates, Inc.
fie..Y.~ F.gmrrn.lreeow. 8 Nre.ir.n wnvln.

~ 7- 2 1 6 9
Office Use Only: Form Version March 05
USACE Action ID No. DWQ No.
(If any particular item is not applicable to this project, please enter "Not Applicable" or "N/A".)
I. Processing
Check all of the approval(s) requested for this project:
^ Section 404 Permit ^ Riparian or Watershed Buffer Rules
^ Section 10 Permit ® Isolated Wetland Permit from DWQ
^ 401 Water Quality Certification ^ Express 401 Water Quality Certification
2. Nationwide, Regional or General Permit Number(s) Requested:
' 3. If this notification is solely a courtesy copy because written approval for the 401 Certification
is not required, check here: ^
' 4. If payment into the North Carolina Ecosystem Enhancement Program (NCEEP) is proposed
for mitigation of impacts, attach the acceptance letter from NCEEP, complete section VIII,
and check here: ^
1 '
5. s twenty coastal counties (listed on page
If our project is located in any of North Carolina
Y
4), and the project is within a North Carolina Division of Coastal Management Area of
Environmental Concern (see the top of page 2 for further details), the G ~~
~~
II. Applicant Information
DEC
' 1 9 2001
1. Owner/Applicant Information ~R . WADER ~tJAIIN
Name: Duke Energy Carolinas LLC -Mark Lan ,c~,~--~-~~_~..__._
Mailing Address: 526 South Church Street
Mail Code: EC 11 X
Charlotte, NC 28202
' Telephone Number: (704) 382 - 4759 Fax Number:
E-mail Address: melandse>idel(a~duke-energy.com

2. Agent/Consultant Information (A signed and dated copy of the Agent Authorization letter
must be attached if the Agent has signatory authority for the owner/applicant.)
Name: Jay W~ie
Company Affiliation: Devine Tarbell and Associates
Mailing Address: 400 South Tryon Street Suite 2401
' Charlotte. NC 28285
Telephone Number: (704) 342 - 7364 Fax Number: (704) 377 - 4185
' E-mail Address: jav w~ie devinetarbell com
Updated 11 / I /2005
' Page 1 of 9

III. Project Information
' Attach a vicinity map clearly showing the location of the property with respect to local
landmarks such as towns, rivers, and roads. Also provide a detailed site plan showing property
boundaries and development plans in relation to surrounding properties. Both the vicinity map
and site plan must include a scale and north arrow. The specific footprints of all buildings,
impervious surfaces, or other facilities must be included. If possible, the maps and plans should
include the appropriate USGS Topographic Quad Map and NRCS Soil Survey with the property
boundaries outlined. Plan drawings, or other maps may be included at the applicant's discretion,
so long as the property is clearly defined. For administrative and distribution purposes, the
USACE requires information to be submitted on sheets no larger than 11 by 17-inch format;
1 however, DWQ may accept paperwork of any size. DWQ prefers full-size construction
drawings rather than a sequential sheet version of the full-size plans. If full-size plans are
reduced to a small scale such that the final version is illegible, the applicant will be informed that
' the project has been placed on hold until decipherable maps are provided.
1. Name of project: Buck Combined Cycle Proiect
'
2. T.I.P. Project Number or State Project Number (NCDOT Only):
3. Property Identification Number (Tax PIN): 600021 • 600024• 600025; 600029; 600039;
600042. 6501001 • and 6502016 (Adjoining Duke Energ~operties)
4. Location
County: Rowan Nearest Town: East Spencer
Subdivision name (include phase/lot number): Buck Combined C cl~ e Proiect
' Directions to site (include road numbers/names, landmarks, etc.): From Interstate 85 take
Ferry Road. Turn left onto Dukeville Road. Follow
Exit #81 Travel east on Long
_
Dukeville Road to site location.

5. Site coordinates (For linear projects, such as a road or utility line, attach a sheet that
separately lists the coordinates for each crossing of a distinct waterbody.)
' Decimal Degrees (6 digits minimum): 35.7072 °N 80.3761 °W
6. Property size (acres): 608 44 acres total (600021 - 203.29 acres; 600024 - 6.93 acres;
600025 - 20 50 acres• 600029 - 14 18 acres• 600039 - 4.29 acres; 600042 - 16.76 acre

6501001 - 332 07 acres• and 6502016 - 10.42 acres)
' 7. Name of nearest receiving body of water: N/A - Isolated Wetland (Town Creek is the
nearest stream to the isolated wetland• however the two waters have no hydrolo~ical
' connection )
8. River Basin: Yadkin River Basin
' (Note -this must be one of North Carolina's seventeen designated major river basins. The
River Basin map is available at http://h2o.enr.state.nc.us/admin/maps/.)

Updated I I / I /2005
Page 2 of 9

9. Describe the existing conditions on the site and general land use in the vicinity of the project
at the time of this application: See Project Narrative.
10. Describe the overall project in detail, including the type of equipment to be used: See
Project Narrative
1 11. Explain the purpose of the proposed work: See Project Narrative.
' IV. Prior Project History
If jurisdictional determinations and/or permits have been requested and/or obtained for this
1 project (including all prior phases of the same subdivision) in the past, please explain. Include
the USACE Action ID Number, DWQ Project Number, application date, and date permits and
certifications were issued or withdrawn. Provide photocopies of previously issued permits,
certifications or other useful information. Describe previously approved wetland, stream and
buffer impacts, along with associated mitigation (where applicable). If this is a NCDOT project,
list and describe permits issued for prior segments of the same T.LP. project, along with
construction schedules N/A
V. Future Project Plans
Are an future ermit re uests anticipated for this project? If so, describe the anticipated work,
Y P q
and provide justification for the exclusion of this work from the current application.
' No future permit requests are anticipated for this project as proposed by Duke. However
Piedmont Natural Gas is planning an ancillarysupporting natural gas lateral in an existing right-
of-way Piedmont Natural Gas will be responsible for obtaining any permits necessary for the
completion of this work including any wetland or waters of the US related permits.
' VI. Proposed Impacts to Waters of the United States/Waters of the State
1 It is the applicant's (or agent's) responsibility to determine, delineate and map all impacts to
wetlands, open water, and stream channels associated with the project. Each impact must be
listed separately in the tables below (e.g., culvert installation should be listed separately from
riprap dissipater pads). Be sure to indicate if an impact is temporary. All proposed impacts,
permanent and temporary, must be listed, and must be labeled and clearly identifiable on an
accompanying site plan. All wetlands and waters, and all streams (intermittent and perennial)
' should be shown on a delineation map, whether or not impacts are proposed to these systems.
Wetland and stream evaluation and delineation forms should be included as appropriate.
Photographs may be included at the applicant's discretion. If this proposed impact is strictly for
wetland or stream mitigation, list and describe the impact in Section VIII below. If additional
space is needed for listing or description, please attach a separate sheet.

Updated 1 I / 1 /2005
Page 3 of 9

L Provide a written description of the proposed impacts. The impacts are associated with the
construction of the proposed combined cycle plant. The proposed impacts are to an isolated
' wetland.
2. Individually list wetland impacts. Types of impacts include, but are not limited to
' mechanized clearing, grading, fill, excavation, flooding, ditching/drainage, etc. For dams,
separately list impacts due to both structure and flooding.
1

Wetland Impact Type of Wetland Located within
100-year Distance to
Nearest Area of
Impact
Site Number Type of Impact (e.g., forested, marsh, Floodplain Stream (acres)
(indicate on map) herbaceous, bog, etc.) ( es/no) (linear feet)
Wetland #1 A- permanent Fill Isolated Forested Wetland No 1,150 0.43
Line acres

Total Wetland Impact (acres) 0.43
3. List the total acreage (estimated) of all existing wetlands on the property: 5.48 acres
4. Individually list all intermittent and perennial stream impacts. Be sure to identify temporary
impacts. Stream impacts include, but are not limited to placement of fill or culverts, dam
construction, flooding, relocation, stabilization activities (e.g., cement walls, rip-rap, crib
walls, gabions, etc.), excavation, ditching/straightening, etc. If stream relocation is proposed,
plans and profiles showing the linear footprint for both the original and relocated streams
mnct ha inrlnrlPrl Tn ralrnlate acreauP m>>ltinly len¢th X width_ then divide by 43.560.
Stream Impact
Number
indicate on ma)
Stream Name
Type of Impact Perennial or
Intermittent? Average
Stream Width
Before Im act Impact
Length
linear feet Area of
Impact
acres)

N/A --
Total Stream Impact (by length and acreage) -- --
5. Individually list all open water impacts (including lakes, ponds, estuaries, sounds, Atlantic
Ocean and any other water of the U.S.). Open water impacts include, but are not limited to
fill excavatinn rlrPrlainu flnndinu_ drainage_ bulkheads. etc.
Open Water Impact ~
Name of Waterbody Type of Waterbody Area of
Site Number
(if applicable) Type of Impact (lake, pond, estuary, sound, bay, Impact
indicate on ma) ocean, etc.) acres)

N/A -- -- -- --
Total Open Water Impact (acres) --
6. List the cumulative impact to all Waters of the U.S. resulting from the project:
Updated 11 / 1 /2005
Stream Impact (acres): 0.00
Wetland Impact (acres): 0.00
Open Water Impact (acres): 0.00
Page 4 of 9

VII.

Total Impact to Waters of the U.S. (acres) 0.00
Total Stream Impact (linear feet): 0.00
7. Isolated Waters
Do any isolated waters exist on the property? ®Yes ^ No
Describe all impacts to isolated waters, and include the type of water (wetland or stream) and
the size of the proposed impact (acres or linear feet). Please note that this section only
applies to waters that have specifically been determined to be isolated by the USACE.
Wetland #1 (A-Line) is an isolated water. Permanent fill is proposed for this 0.43 acre
wetland.
8. Pond Creation
If construction of a pond is proposed, associated wetland and stream impacts should be
included above in the wetland and stream impact sections. Also, the proposed pond should
be described here and illustrated on any maps included with this application.
Pond to be created in (check all that apply): ^ uplands ^ stream ^ wetlands
Describe the method of construction (e.g., dam embankment, excavation, installation of
draw-down valve or spillway, etc.): N/A
Proposed use or purpose of pond (e.g., livestock watering, irrigation, aesthetic, trout pond,
local stormwater requirement, etc.): N/A
Current land use in the vicinity of the pond: N/A
Size of watershed draining to pond: N/A Expected pond surface area: N/A
Impact Justification (Avoidance and Minimization)
Specifically describe measures taken to avoid the proposed impacts. It may be useful to provide
information related to site constraints such as topography, building ordinances, accessibility, and
financial viability of the project. The applicant may attach drawings of alternative, lower-impact
site layouts, and explain why these design options were not feasible. Also discuss how impacts
were minimized once the desired site plan was developed. If applicable, discuss construction
techniques to be followed during construction to reduce impacts.
Impact avoidance and minimization of impacts associated with this project is primarily a
result of careful site planning. The Proiect Narrative summarizes the options reviewed prior to
settling on the preferred option.
VIII. Mitigation
DWQ - In accordance with 15A NCAC 2H .0500, mitigation may be required by the NC
Division of Water Quality for projects involving greater than or equal to one acre of impacts to
freshwater wetlands or greater than or equal to 150 linear feet of total impacts to perennial
streams.
USACE In accordance with the Final Notice of Issuance and Modification of Nationwide
Permits, published in the Federal Register on January 15, 2002, mitigation will be required when
necessary to ensure that adverse effects to the aquatic environment are minimal. Factors
Updated 11 / 1 /2005
Page 5 of 9

' including size and type of proposed impact and function and relative value of the impacted
aquatic resource will be considered in determining acceptability of appropriate and practicable
' mitigation as proposed. Examples of mitigation that may be appropriate and practicable include,
but are not limited to: reducing the size of the project; establishing and maintaining wetland
and/or upland vegetated buffers to protect open waters such as streams; and replacing losses of
1 aquatic resource functions and values by creating, restoring, enhancing, or preserving similar
functions and values, preferable in the same watershed.
If mitigation is required for this project, a copy of the mitigation plan must be attached in order
for USACE or DWQ to consider the application complete for processing. Any application
lacking a required mitigation plan or NCEEP concurrence shall be placed on hold as incomplete.
An applicant may also choose to review the current guidelines for stream restoration in DWQ's
Draft Technical Guide for Stream Work in North Carolina (see DWQ website for most current
version.).
1. Provide a brief description of the proposed mitigation plan. The description should provide
as much information as possible, including, but not limited to: site location (attach directions
' and/or map, if offsite), affected stream and river basin, type and amount (acreage/linear feet)
of mitigation proposed (restoration, enhancement, creation, or preservation), a plan view,
preservation mechanism (e.g., deed restrictions, conservation easement, etc.), and a
description of the current site conditions and proposed method of construction. Please attach
a separate sheet if more space is needed.
No mitigation necessary
2. Miti ation may also be made by payment into the North Carolina Ecosystem Enhancement
g
Program (NCEEP). Please note it is the applicant's responsibility to contact the NCEEP at
[phone] to determine availability, and written approval from the NCEEP indicating
that they are will to accept payment for the mitigation must be attached to this form. For
additional information regarding the application process for the NCEEP, check the NCEEP
' website at http://www.nceep.net/pages/inlieureplace.htm. If use of the NCEEP is proposed,
please check the appropriate box on page five and provide the following information:
Amount of stream mitigation requested (linear feet): N/A
Amount of buffer mitigation requested (square feet): N/A
' Amount of Riparian wetland mitigation requested (acres): N/A
Amount of Non-riparian wetland mitigation requested (acres): N/A
Amount of Coastal wetland mitigation requested (acres): N/A
IX. Environmental Documentation (required by DWQ)
1. Does the project involve an expenditure of public (federal/state/local) funds or the use of
public (federal/state) land? Yes ^ No
2. If yes, does the project require preparation of an environmental document pursuant to the
requirements of the National or North Carolina Environmental Policy Act (NEPA/SEPA)?
Updated I I / 1 /2005
' Page 6 of 9

Note: If you are not sure whether aNEPA/SEPA document is required, call the SEPA
coordinator at [phone] to review current thresholds for environmental documentation.
Yes ^ No ^
3. If yes, has the document review been finalized by the State Clearinghouse? If so, please
' attach a copy of the NEPA or SEPA final approval letter. Yes ^ No ^
X. Proposed Impacts on Riparian and Watershed Buffers (required by DWQ)
It is the applicant's (or agent's) responsibility to determine, delineate and map all impacts to
required state and local buffers associated with the project. The applicant must also provide
' justification for these impacts in Section VII above. All proposed impacts must be listed herein,
and must be clearly identifiable on the accompanying site plan. All buffers must be shown on a
map, whether or not impacts are proposed to the buffers. Correspondence from the DWQ
Regional Office may be included as appropriate. Photographs may also be included at the
applicant's discretion.
1 1. Will the project impact protected riparian buffers identified within 15A NCAC 2B .0233
(Meuse), 15A NCAC 2B .0259 (Tar-Pamlico), 15A NCAC 02B .0243 (Catawba) 15A NCAC
2B .0250 (Randleman Rules and Water Supply Buffer Requirements), or other (please
identify )? Yes ^ No
2. If "yes", identify the square feet and acreage of impact to each zone of the riparian buffers.
1 If buffer mitigation is required calculate the required amount of mitigation by applying the
buffer multi Tiers.
Zone* Impact Multiplier Required
(s uare feet) Miti ation
1 3 (2 for Catawba)
2 1.5
Total
* Zone 1 extends out 30 feet perpendicular from the top of the near bank of channel; Zone 2 extends an
additional 20 feet from the edge of Zone 1.
3. If buffer mitigation is required, please discuss what type of mtt>gatton ><s proposed (t.e.,
Donation of Property, Riparian Buffer Restoration /Enhancement, or Payment into the
1 Riparian Buffer Restoration Fund). Please attach all appropriate information as identified
within 15A NCAC 2B .0242 or .0244, or .0260. N/A
' XI. Stormwater (required by DWQ)
Describe tmpervtous acreage (existing and proposed) versus total acreage on the site. Discuss
Stormwater controls proposed in order to protect surface waters and wetlands downstream from
the property. If percent impervious surface exceeds 20%, please provide calculations
demonstrating total proposed impervious level. The total site area is 608.44 acres based on the
Rowan County GIS Tax Database. The existing impervious area includes approximately the
Updated 1 1 / 1 /2005
Page 7 of 9

following• Powerhouse plant yard switchyards combustion turbines and parking lots - 50
acres Roads - 10 acres for a combined total of 60 acres. The total impervious area proposed is
' approximately equal to 30 acres. The combined impervious acres existing and proposed are 90
acres. The percent of impervious surface is equal to 14.79%.
' During the construction phase of the project stormwater will be managed in accordance with the
Erosion and Sediment Control Plan.
Stormwater controls for the Buck Combined Cycle Project will be tied into the existing system
associated with the Buck Steam Station. The existing system utilizes overland ditches and catch
basins, which are connected to a buried network of corrugated metal pipes to facilitate control of
runoff flows Runoff from areas potentially contaminated with oil is routed through oil trap
tanks prior to discharge There are 37 stormwater discharges and three National Pollutant
Discharge Elimination System (NPDES) discharges at Buck Steam Station. The NPDES permit
number for Buck Steam Station is N00004774.
Plant sums will be treated in an oil/water separator and discharged to the first ash settling basin.
' The water will flow through the second and third basin prior to being discharged from existing
NPDES Outfall 002.
' XIL Sewage Disposal (required by DWQ)
Clearly detail the ultimate treatment methods and disposition (non-discharge or discharge) of
wastewater generated from the proposed project, or available capacity of the subject facility.
Process wastewater from plant sumps will be treated in an oil water separator, prior to discharge
to the first ash settling basin Process wastewater from cooling tower blowdown will be
dischar ed to the first ash settling basin. Sanitary waste will be treated in a septic system. Septic
system effluent will discharge to the first ash settling basin. Water flows through a series of
three basins prior to discharge to NPDES Outfall 002. The water in the ash settling basins will
' be pH adjusted as needed~rior to discharge to NPDES Outfa11002.
XIII. Violations (required by DWQ)
Is this site in violation of DWQ Wetland Rules (15A NCAC 2H .0500) or any Buffer Rules?
Yes ^ No
Is this an after-the-fact permit application? Yes ^ No
' X1V. Cumulative Impacts (required by DWQ)
Will this project (based on past and reasonably anticipated future impacts) result in additional
development, which could impact nearby downstream water quality? Yes ^ No
If yes, please submit a qualitative or quantitative cumulative impact analysis m accordance with
' the most recent North Carolina Division of Water Quality policy posted on our website at
http://h2o.enr.state.nc.us/ncwetlands. If no, please provide a short narrative description:
This project is bein damped as a result of the need to meet existing and alreadyplanned
development to be served by Duke Energy Carolinas, LLC.
Updated 11 / 1 /2005
' Page 8 of 9

1
1
1
1
1

X~'. Other Circumstances (Optional):
[t is the; applicant's eespcrosibility to submit thi application sufti~iently in advance ~~1' desired
constructir~n date, to allow processing time for these pertiiits. iiowever. an appiicant may
chtxtise try list cc7nstraints associated with constr~rction or seyuencin~w that may impose limits can
work schedules (e.~~.. draw-dawn schedules for lakes, dates associated with Endangered and
Threatened Species, accessibihty prohlems, car other issues outside of the applicant's Ci~nh•t~l ).
ll_t9_Q
Applicant/Agent's Signature Date
t A~~cnt's si~~nature is valid only if an authca ration letter 1'rum the applicant is provided.)
t'~~d:nrd ~ utt'~n~~
1'a~r 9 of ~)

1
1
1
1
1
1
1
1
1
1
1
1
1
PAY~~E~'a i
EttC~~~~"`~`) 0 7- 2 1 6 9
BUCK COMBINED CYCLE PROJECT
JURISDICTIONAL RESOURCES AND
PROTECTED SPECIES REPORT
Prepared by:
DEVINE TARBELL & ASSOCIATES, INC.
Charlotte, North Carolina
NOVEMBER 2007
Prepared for:
DUKE ENERGY CAROLINAS, LLC
Charlotte, North Carolina
Devine Tarbell & Associates, Inc.
C.~~neuldnq En~;incc~s, Scicntism, & RcquEaton' Spcciilis~s

BUCK COMBINED CYCLE PROJECT
JURISDICTIONAL RESOURCES AND PROTECTED SPECIES REPORT
TABLE OF CONTENTS
Section Title Page No.
SECTION 1 INTRODUCTION .........................................................................................1
SECTION 2 STUDY METHODS ......................................................................................2
2.1 Wetlands and Stream Crossing Determinations ......................................................... ..2
2.2 Protected Species Survey ............................................................................................ ..3
SECTION ~ SURVEY RESULTS .....................................................................................4
3.1 Wetlands ..................................................................................................................... ..4
3.2 Surface Water ............................................................................................................. ..5
3.3 Protected Species ..........................................................................................................6
3.4 Natural Comrnunities .................................................................................................. 11
3.5 Other Resources of Note ............................................................................................. 12
SECTION 4 PROPOSED IMPACTS ................................................................................ 13
SECTIONS AVOIDANCE AND MINIMIZATION ............................................................ 14
5.1 Option # 1 ....................................................................................................................14
5.2 Option #2 ....................................................................................................................14
5.3 Option #3 ................................................................................................................... .15
SECTION 6 CONCLUSION ........................................................................................... 16
SECTION 7 REFERENCES ........................................................................................... 17
APPENDICES
' APPENDIX A
APPENDIX B
APPENDIX C
APPENDIX D
' APPENDIX E
APPENDIX F
1
FIGURES
BIOLOGICAL FIELD REPORT PREPARED FOR THE BUCK STEAM
STATION POWER GENERATION STATION PROJECT AUGUST 2000
WETLAND DELINEATION FORMS
U.S. ARMY CORPS OF ENGINEERS NOTIFICATION OF
JURISDICTIONAL DETERMINATION
SELECT RESOURCE PHOTOGRAPHS
AGENT AUTHORIZATION LETTER
i

1
1

1
BUCK COMBINED CYCLE PROJECT
JURISDICTIONAL RESOURCES AND PROTECTED SPECIES REPORT
LIST OF TABLES
Table Title Page No.
TABLE 1 STATE PROTECTED SPECIES, ROWAN COUNTY, NORTH
CAROLINA ...........................................................................................................10
TABLE 2 SUMMARY OF PROJECT IMPACT ...................................................................13
ii

1
1

1
Section 1
Introduction
Duke Energy Carolinas, LLC (Duke) is proposing to build a combined cycle generating facility,
known as the Buck Combined Cycle Project (Project), near the town of East Spencer in Rowan
County, North Carolina (Appendix A, Figure 1). The subject property of the Project is located
between the end of Dukeville Road and the south shore of High Rock Lake (adjacent to Duke's
existing Buck Steam Station) at latitude 35° 42' 29" and longitude 80° 22' 28" (Appendix A,
Figures 1 and 2). The Project Boundary includes eight adjacent Duke Parcels totaling 608.44
acres.
In association with this project, Duke has requested that Devine Tarbell & Associates, lnc.
(DTA) conduct a reconnaissance survey of the subject property to identify jurisdictional streams
and wetlands, as well as the location of any federally protected species and historic resources
occurring within the footprint of the proposed Project.
According to field study findings, there are three jurisdictional perennial streams, three
jurisdictional intermittent streams (total of six jurisdictional streams), one jurisdictional pond,
and three associated jurisdictional wetland systems located within the subject property. The
noted jurisdictional wetlands are associated with the perennial and intermittent streams, as well
as a spring located within the subject property. The wetland associated with the spring is
isolated and not jurisdictional to the USACE, but is jurisdictional to the NCDENR. These
features, with the exception of the spring (isolated wetland) drain to the Yadkin River.
Additionally, field studies for federally protected species were conducted; however, no protected
species were located. Additional information on this subject is provided in the Bic~l~~~~~icul Field
Report Prepared for the Buck Steam Station Power Generation Station Project (2OOf~)
(Appendix B).
Proposed impacts to jurisdictional waters are limited to impacts to the spring-fed wetland
mentioned above (known as wetland #1 and described further in Section 3) (Appendix A, Figure
3). This feature is classified by the U.S. Army Corps of Engineers (USACE) as aman-induced,
atypical wetland that is isolated. This isolated wetland is jurisdictional to the NCDENR.
1

Section 2
Study Methods
The field surveys were conducted on April 18, 2007, by DTA scientists to document specific
wetland and stream resources and the potential occurrence of federally rare, threatened, and
endangered (RTE) species located within the subject property, as well as historic resources.
' 2.1 Wetlands and Stream Crossing Determinations
' During the field surveys, jurisdictional waters of the U.S. (wetlands and streams) found within or
immediately adjacent to the subject property were delineated or located with a Global
Positioning System (GPS) unit with sub-meter accuracy (Thaler MobileMapper CE). The
wetlands were delineated using the 1987 USACE Wetland Delineation Method (Environmental
' Laboratory 1987). The "routine on-site determination method" was selected as the most
appropriate delineation technique. This technique uses amulti-parameter approach, which
requires positive evidence of three criteria:
' ^ Hydrophytic vegetation - Hydrophytic vegetation (i.e., wetland plants) were identified in
the field and cross-referenced with the national list of plant species that occur in
1 southeastern wetlands (USFWS 19$8).
^ Hydric soils - In the field, soil profiles and characteristics were documented through
' approximately 18 inches in depth from the surface or to immediately below the "A"
horizon, whichever was deeper. Field indicators for identifying hydric soils (e.g.,
' depletions, low chroma, and ironhnanganese concretions) were used to determine the
wetland status of the site.
' ^ Wetland hydrology -Primary and secondary hydrologic indicators such as soil saturation
to the surface, standing water in the soil auger pits, rafted debris, and surface drainage
patterns were also used to identify wetland areas.
t Areas exhibiting the above wetland characteristics, as well as surface waters, were considered
jurisdictional and marked in the field with surveyor tape or a GPS unit.
' 2

Section 2 Study Methods
' 2.2 Protected Species Survey
' The field investigations for the proposed Project were focused on species that are listed as
federally threatened or endangered. The North Carolina Natural Heritage Program (NCNHP)
' maintains a database of elements of natural diversity, and this database was referenced to obtain
a current list of threatened or endangered species that could potentially occur on the subject
' property. In addition to the NCNHP database, the investigators also reviewed the U.S. Fish and
Wildlife Service's (USFWS) listing of Endangered, Threatened and Candidate Species and
' Federal Species of Concern for Rowan County, North Carolina (2007b).
' Guided by information compiled during the review process, field surveys were conducted to
ascertain and document the extent to which threatened or endangered species could potentially
' be affected by the proposed Project. The subject property was then searched by DTA biologists
with experience concerning the listed species.
1

1

1

1
1
1
Section 3
Survey Results
3.1 Wetlands
Based on the field surveys, three wetland systems were determined to be located within and/or
immediately adjacent to the subject property (Appendix A, Figure 3). These wetlands consist of
forested, scrub/shrub, and emergent wetlands (Cowardin et al. 1979). Only the wetland located
within the area of Project impact was delineated in an official manner (Wetland #1, A Line)
during the field investigation. The other wetland areas within the subject property were
identified in the field and located with GPS coordinates only during the survey. These include a
large beaver-induced wetland/stream/pond complex located outside of the project boundary to
the southwest and awetland/stream complex located outside of the project boundary to the
northeast. Additional information concerning these previously delineated (August 2000) wetland
locations can be found in the Biol~~gicul Field Re~c~rt Prepared fnr the Buck Steanx Statioe
Potiver Generative Stutive Project (Appendix B).
Wetland #l, marked in the field as the "A Line", is located on the subject property adjacent to
the Buck Steam Station's existing large ash basin (Appendix A, Figure 3). The dominant
vegetation in this isolated forested wetland includes sweetgum (Liyuidumhur ,S~tvraciflucr),
sugarberry (Celtis ~~cciderztulis), boxelder (Ater negunda), sycamore (Platcaeus occidentalis),
willow oak (Quercus phellos), common rush (Juecus effuses), fox sedge (Gcarex vulpinoideu),
soft woodreed (Cinea arundieacea), Canadian clearweed (Pilea numila), and poison ivy
(T~~xicodeedron radicans). chalk maple (Ater leucodern~e) was also observed in this area. The
hydrology for this wetland is provided by artesian flow from the associated seep and stormwater
runoff. Wetland hydrology indicators observed included ponding (2 to 3 inches at the time of the
survey), soil saturation at the surface, water-stained leaf litter, and wrack/drift debris lines.
Buttressing and shallow rooting of the canopy trees were also observed. The soils are considered
hydric due to the presence of low chroma colors found during the survey (Appendix C, Wetland
Data Sheet #5). This wetland is approximately 0.43 acres in size.
4

1
1

1
1
1
Section 3 Survey Results
As mentioned, Wetland #1 is adjacent to a large ash basin. The overflow drainage from the
basin was designed to transport water through culverts into a series of rip-rapped ditches that
traverse the face and base of the berm, partially encircling the basin, and eventually drain into a
large drainage system located outside of the project boundary to the southwest. Currently,
however, water collects in a low area in one of the ditches directly adjacent to Wetland #1 and
overflows into the wetland during and immediately after periods of heavy precipitation.
Hydrology in the wetland trends to the north and west, eventually disappearing underground,
possibly due to the presence of relic pasture drainage tiles. No other surface connection was
observed draining from the wetland. This wetland is considered an isolated wetland as
determined by the USACE (Appendix D).
Wetland #1 is bound to the west by an access road, which acts as a dike. Hydrology from the
wetland trends along the access road in tire ruts, eventually crossing over the road during and
immediately following periods of heavy precipitation. Water then collects in low depressional
areas, forming ephemeral pools. Although two wetland classification parameters are met in this
area (hydric vegetation and wetland hydrology), the soils within these depressional areas do not
meet the hydric soil criteria.
Wetland information associated with this project is provided in the data forms in Appendix C of
this report. The general locations of the wetlands are depicted in Appendix A, Figure 3. There is
evidence (e.g., foundation remnants, building materials) of several former home sites in and
around Wetland #1 (Appendix A).
3.2 Surface Water
Based on the field surveys, there are three jurisdictional intermittent stream systems and three
jurisdictional perennial stream systems located within the subject property, as well as one
jurisdictional pond. However, none are located within the project footprint and no impacts to
these waters are anticipated from this project. As stated previously, these surface water features
drain to the Yadkin River. The general locations of the surface water locations are depicted in
5

Section 3 Survey Results
Appendix A, Figure 3. Photographs of select drainages are also located in Appendix E of this
report.
' 3.3 Protected S ecies
P
t DTA reviewed the NCNHP and USFWS databases for Rowan Count ,North Carolina,
Y
concerning protected species in the project area. The databases listed several rare wildlife and
plant species for Rowan County. No known federally protected species were documented in the
' Project area during field surveys. The following are species accounts for plants and animals
having federal (federal species of concern, candidate, threatened, or endangered) and state
protected status. Species with only a state designation are listed in Table 1 at the end of this
section.
t
Schweinitz s Sunflower (Helianthus schweinitzii) [Federal E/State E]
This perennial herb produces solitary stems, up to 1 to 2 meters (m) in height from a cluster of
tuberous roots. The stem branches only at or above rnid-stem, with the branches departing from
the stem at about a 45-degree angle. The stem is usually pubescent but can be nearly glabrous; it
is often purple in color. Schweinitz's sunflower produces opposite leaves on the lower section of
the stem, transitioning to alternate leaves above. The leaves are variable in shape, lanceolate,
and typically wider near the base, typically larger in size near the base of the plant and gradually
reduced upwards. The upper leaf surface is rough to the touch with broad based spinose hairs
pointing toward the tip of the leaf. The lower surface is more or less pubescent having soft white
f hairs, which obscures the leaf surface (USFWS 1992). The sunflower produces small yellow
heads from September to October. The fruit is a glabrous nutlet 3.3 to 3.5 millimeter (mm) in
length with rounded tips (USFWS 1992).
' Schweinitz's sunflower inhabits clearings in, and edges of, upland oak-pine-hickory woods on
moist to dry clays, clay-looms, or sandy clay-loamy often in high gravel content, and are
i moderately podzolized. The underlying rock types are highly weatherable, generally contain low
amounts of resistant minerals such as quartz, and generally weather to fine-textured soils. This
Refer to Table 1 for a listing of federal and state status codes.
6

1
1

1

Section 3 Survey Results
endangered plant requires the full to partial sun of an open habitat, which was formerly
maintained over the species' range by wildfires and grazing by herds of bison and elk. Now
most occurrences are confined to roadsides (USFWS 1992 and Weakley 2006). Although some
appropriate habitat does exist within the subject property, no individuals or populations were
observed during the field survey. Additionally, no known populations are located near or within
the project boundary. No impacts to this species are anticipated from this project.
Carolina Birdfoot-trefoil (Lotus unifoliolatus var. helleri) [FSC/SR-T]
This summer flowering (June through September) member of the Legume family has leaves that
are 3-foliolate, the upper commonly 1-foliolate. It is a native annual herb with flowers that are
solitary in leaf axils (Weakley 2006).
Habitat for this plant includes dry woodlands and openings, generally on clayey soils, primarily
seen on roadbanks, along railroads, and in powerline rights-of-way (Weakley 2006). Although
the field survey for this plant took place outside of the normal flowering period, no evidence of
any type of trefoil was observed within the appropriate habitats. Moreover, a search of the
NCNHP element occurrence database did not show any known populations in or near the subject
area (NCNHP 2007). No impacts are anticipated to this species from this project.
Georgia Aster (Symphyotrichum georgianum) [C/T]
This fall flowering (October to mid-November) member of the Aster family has involucres 8 to
10 mrn high and disk flowers measuring 8 to 10 mm long. Flowers are white in color, with
purplish lobes (Weakley 2006). The heads are 4 to 5 cm long. This plant is strongly
rhizomatous, forming clonal colonies with the stems mostly scattered along the rhizome
(Weakley 2006).
Habitat for this plant is dry, rocky woodlands, woodland borders, roadbanks, and powerline
rights-of-way. They are primarily found in post oak (Quercus stellata) or blackjack oak
(Quercus rnarilandica) woodlands or savannas which have formerly burned (Weakley 2006).
Although some moderate habitat exists onsite for this species, no individuals or populations are
7

1

Section 3 Survey Results
known to be located within the project boundary. No impacts are anticipated to this species from
this project.
Virginia Quillwort (Isoetes virginica) [FSC/SR-L]
Like other quillworts, the Virginia quillwort has needle- or scalelike leaves measuring less than
1.5 centimeters (cm) long or longer, with a single midvein and a large sporangium imbedded in
the base (Wofford 1989). Their leaves are tufted, round above, and flattened at the pale base.
Leaf bases are brown and its leaves are recurved. The quillwort plants amphibiously in
temporary pools (Wofford 1989).
This species prefers upland depressional forests with clayey soils (Wofford 1989). Although this
species has historically been reported in Rowan County, neither the species nor the specific
habitat is found in the project area. No impacts to this species are anticipated from this project.
Bald Eagle (Haliaeetus leucocephalus) [BEGEPA/T]
The Bald Eagle is a lt~rge raptor in the order Falconiformes and family Accipitridae (Peterson
1986). Adult Bald Eagles characteristically have a white head and tail with a dark brown body.
Juvenile eagles are completely dark brown and do not fully develop the white head and tail until
their fifth or sixth year. Adults average 3 feet in length from head to tail, weigh approximately
10 to 12 lbs, and have a wingspan that can reach 7 feet. Generally, female bald eagles are
somewhat larger than the males (USFWS 2007c). Juveniles have a dark brown and white
mottled body, gradually attaining the adults white head and tail as they mature (approximately 5
years).
The breeding season is typically longer in the southeast than other regions, beginning in the
winter around the time that nest building occurs (USFWS 2007c). Breeding pairs usually bond
for life, and will often re-use the same nest site from year to year. Nest building begins as early
as October in North and South Carolina, with egg laying and incubation occurring from January
to April (USFWS 2007c). Courtship flights and other pair bonding behaviors generally occur in
late winter. Anywhere from one to three eggs will be laid and these will be incubated for
approximately 35 days. Hatching of eggs may occur on different days due to eggs being laid at
8

1

1

1

Section 3 Survey Results
different times, and the chicks will fledge 9 to 12 weeks after hatching. During the rearing
period, adults will bring prey items to the nest to feed the young. There is at least one known
active nest on the Yadkin-Pee Dee River, several miles downstream of the Buck Steam Station.
However, no individuals or breeding pairs are known to be located within the project boundary.
No impacts Co this species are anticipated from this project.
Yellow Lampmussel (Lampsilis cariosa) [FSC/E]
This freshwater mussel has an obovate-shaped shell and measures approximately 120 mm long
(Bogan 2002). As the mussel ages, the shell becomes thicker and moderately inflated. The
anterior margin of the lampmussel's shell is rounded, with the ventral margin slightly curved and
posterior margin bluntly rounded. Male shells are elliptical and somewhat elongate in outline,
with the ventral margin evenly convex. Female shells are subovate to obovate in outline, with
the ventral margin expanded near the posterior margin, sloping up to a very bluntly rounded
posterior margin. The periostracum (membrane-like shell coating) is waxy yellow and shiny,
often with a trace of green in it. Rays on Che periostracum are either absent or restricted to the
posterior slope or slightly in front of it. The rays are variable in width, but usually thin, sharp
and dark green to black, contrasting with the yellow of the background. Older specimens
become brownish and lose much of the luster; their nacre is often colored bluish-white, and
tinged with cream or salmon (Bogan 2002).
Gravid females have been observed in August, with glochidia appearing only in late August
(Bogan 2002). The species is bradytictic, releasing glochidia in the following spring or early
summer. The Yellow Lampmussel is found in medium to larger rivers, often in sand in bedrock
cracks, but also is found in si1C, sand, gravel, and cobble substrates (Bogan 2002). Although this
mussel is known to exist in the Pee Dee river basin, no impacts are proposed to High Rock Lake
or the Yadkin River. No impacts to this species are anticipated from this project.
Robust Redhorse (Moxostoma robustum) [FSC/SC]
This large sucker species, once thought to be extinct, has a bronze back and sides, can reach a
length of more than 66 cm, and can weigh more than 8 kilograms. Juveniles have an intense red
coloration in the caudal fin, which becomes less distinctive as they mature. During the spawning
9

Section 3
Survey Results
season (April through June), adult males develop large snout and head tubercles (USFWS
2007x).
This species prefers silt free, gravel bottom streams. Historically, this species ranged from
Georgia through the Carolinas. However, this species has only been found on the Oconee River
in Georgia and a historical record on the Pee Dee River (USFWS 2007x). There are no
waterbodies within the proposed project parcel. No impacts to this species are anticipated from
this project.
TABLE 1
STATE PROTECTED SPECIES, ROWAN COUNTY, NORTH CAROLINA
Major Group Scientific Name Common Name State
Status State
Rank Global
Rank
Invertebrate Dihusa angata A Caddisfly SR S3 GS
Invertebrate Homoecmeuria cahabensis Cahaba Sand-
filtering Ma fl SR S1, S2 G2, G3
Nonvascular Plant Brachythecium rc~taeanum Rota's feather moss SR-D S I G3
Nonvascular Plant Scopelophila cataractae Agoyan cataract
moss SR-D S 1 G3
Nonvascular Plant Scapelophila ligulata Copper moss SR-T S 1 G3
Vascular Plant Arnorpha schweri-~ii PiedmonC indigo-
bush SR-T S3 G3, G~
Vascular Plant Anemone berlandieri Southern anemone SR-P S2 G4
Vascular Plant Baptism albescens Thin-pnd white wild
indigo SR-P S2 G4
Vascular Plant Cardamine dissecxa Dissected toothwort SR-P S2 G~
Vascular Plant Carex bu.rhii Bush's sedge SR-P S 1 G~
Vascular Plant Cirsium carollnianum Carolina thistle SR-P S2 GS
Vascular Plant Dichantheliurra anrnclum A witch grass SR-P SH GNR
Vascular Plant Heleniuna brevifolium Littleleaf
sneezeweed E S2 G4
Vascular Plant Helianthus laevigatus Smooth sunflower SR-P S2 G4
Vascular Plant Isoetes piedmontana Piedmont quillwort T S2 G3
Vascular Plant Minuartia uniflora Single-flowered
sandwort E S1 G4
Vascular Plant Platanthera Integra Yellow fringeless
orchid T S2 G3, G4
Vascular Plant Portulaca smallii Small's portulaca T S2 G3
Vascular Plant Pseudognaphalium laelleri Heller's rabbit-
tobacco SR-P S3 G3, G4
Vascular Plant Solidago ptarmicoides Prairie goldenrod E S1 GS
Vertebrate Animal Ambystoma talpoideum Mole Salamander SC S2 GS
Vertebrate Animal Lanius ludoviciamcs Loggerhead Shrike SC S3B, S3N G4
Source: N(:NHt' ZUU~/
10

' Section 3
Notes:
Federal Status:

E: Endangered
T: Threatened
C: Candidate
(P): Possible Occurrence
BEGEPA: Bald Eagle and
Golden Eagle Protection Act
State Status•
E: Endangered -T: Throughout
T: Threatened -D: Disjunct
SC: Special Concern -P: Peripheral
C: Candidate
SR: Significantly Rare
EX: Extirpated
P_: Proposed (used only as a qualifier of the ranks above)
Results
' State Rank:
1
1

1

1

S l : Critically imperiled in North Carolina because of extreme rarity or otherwise very vulnerable to extirpation in
the state.
S2: lmperiled in North Carolina because of rarity or otherwise vulnerable to extirpation in the state.
S3: Rare or uncommon in North Carolina.
S4: Apparently secure in North Carolina, with many occurrences.
S5: Demonstrably secure in North Carolina and essentially ineradicable under present conditions.
SH: Historic record: the element is either extirpated from the county or quad, or there have not een any recent
surveys to verify its continued existence.
S_B: Rank of breeding population in the state. Used for migratory species only.
S_N: Rank of non-breeding population in the state. Used for migratory species only.
Global Rank:
G1: Critically imperiled globally because of extreme rarity or otherwise very vulnerable to extinction throughout
its range.
G2: Imperiled globally because of rarity or otherwise vulnerable to extinction throughout its range.
G3: Either very rare and local throughout its range, or found locally in a restricted area.
G=1: Apparently secure globally, although it may be quite rare in parts of its range (especially at the periphery).
G5: Demonstrably secure globally, although it may be quite rare in parts of its range (especially at the periphery).
GNR: Unranked -global rank not yet assessed.
3.4 Natural Communities
Several rare natural communities are listed for Rowan County (e.g., granitic flatrock and diabase
glade); however, the only listed habitat that is adjacent to the Project area is a wading bird
rookery. This wading bird rookery, a large Great Blue Heron (Ardea herodias) breeding colony,
is located southeast of the subject property (Appendix A, Figure 3). Based on an August 2000
field review, at least 50+ active nests are located in a mature loblolly pine (Pinus taeda) stand
overlooking an existing ash basin. There are also a few nests associated with the immediate
hardwood fringe and dead standing trees within the permanently flooded basin. Most of the nest
are visible from the ground, as well as the accumulations of droppings, bird mortality, and nest
' 11

1
1
1
1
1
1
Section 3 Survey Results
debris. Several other species, including the Snowy Egret (Egretta thula) and Green Heron
(Butorides virescens), may also use this rookery.
Based on existing information from the various state and federal resource agencies, a "non-
disturbance" zone around the rookery varying from 800 feet (USFWS 1.985) to 300 feet
(SCDNR) is recommended during the breeding season (February 1 to September 1) to minimize
impacts to this resource. The USFWS definition of disturbance includes presence of homes,
construction, roads, commercial operations, and timber harvesting. There is research that
suggests that nesting herons can become habituated to noise such as the existing steam station.
During the August 2000 field effort, a GPS was used on the northern edge of the rookery to
determine the distance from the rookery to the proposed power plant site (Appendix A, Figure
3). Based on preliminary information, it appears that there is a suitable buffer between the
rookery edge and the current project footprint. This buffer should minimize disturbance to the
rookery, especially since the resource is already habituated to the existing noise emanating from
the Buck Steam Station (e.g., heavy trucks and road traffic).
3.5 Other Resources of Note
Only one other additional significant or unique resource (i.e., old home sites) was found (within
and adjacent to Wetland #1, A Line) during this survey. The general location of the old
Dukeville home sites are depicted in Appendix. A, Figure 3. Photographs of select old home
remains are also located in Appendix E of this report.

1

1
' 12

1
Section 4
Proposed Impacts
After extensive consultation and thorough siting evaluations, the only proposed unavoidable
' impact associated with the Project is the permanent removal of the isolated wetland described in
Section 3.1 (Wetland #1). This impact is listed in Table 2 below.

1
1
1
1

1

TABLE 2
SUMMARY OF PROJECT IMPACT
Impact Area Equipment Used
Permanent Fill of Wetland #1 Approximately 0.43 acre Grade-all (or similar), Bulldozer,
Dum Trucks
' 13

1
1
1

1
1
i

1
1
Section 5
Avoidance and Minimization Measures
Measures to avoid and/or minimize the impacts associated with this project are primarily
achievable through careful site planning. Below are the three options reviewed by DTA prior to
determining the preferred option (Option #3).
5.1 Option #1
Under this option, the footprint of the proposed plant would be located to the northeast of
Wetland #1 and closer to the wading bird rookery. Proposed impacts to jurisdictional resources
associated with this option would be limited to impacts from transmission lines and construction
access and lay down rheas (e.g., tree clearing, fill, and transmission tower pads) located in
Wetland #l. Under this option, the switchyard would be located approximately 1,000 feet to the
west of the combustion turbine plant. Transmission lines would connect on the southern edge of
the plant, trend west into Wetland #1, then angle northwest to the switchyard. The transmission
connection is not practical for this site location and Wetland #1 would still likely be impacted.
Option #1 is therefore eliminated as a possibility.
5.2 Option #2
This option would require impacting Wetland #1 for use as a construction laydown area.
Approximately five acres of the large jurisdictional beaver pond complex located to the
southwest of the Project boundary would be permanently impacted for use as a parking area.
This jurisdictional wetland provides several ecological services including nutrient and sediment
retention, flood control, wildlife habitat, and groundwater recharge. It is located low in the
watershed and receives hydrologic support from two first or second order streams, as well as a
high groundwater table. The receiving waterbody for this wetland is the Yadkin River, which is
immediately adjacent to the north.
Additionally, the perennial stream wetland complex located outside of the Project boundary to
the northeast would be partially impacted. This south to north trending swale contains multiple
14

1

Section 5 Avoidance and Minimization
headwater seeps, which form a perennial stream that empties into large riparian wetland. This
jurisdictional wetland also provides several ecological services including nutrient and sediment
retention, flood control, and wildlife habitat. Approximately 650 linear feet of this stream
system and an unknown amount of wetlands would be impacted under this option. The receiving
waterbody for this system is the Yadkin River, which is located at the mouth of the swale to the
north.
Economically speaking, impacts to jurisdictional waters would be at a significant cost. Payments
into the North Carolina Ecosystem Enhancement Program (EEP) -Mitigation Fund were
estimated to be near $758,765 based on the EEP July 2007 schedule of fees and assuming a 3:1
ratio for wetlands and 2:1 ratio for streams. Impacts permitted under this option would require
an Individual Permit from the USACE. Option #2 is therefore eliminated as a possibility.
' S.3

Option #3
Currently Option #3 is the preferred alternative. In this option, the construction footprint would
be adjusted to make use of an open field, eliminating the need to impact the jurisdictional beaver
wetland complex. Proposed impacts under this option are less than one acre of isolated wetlands
(Wetland #1: 0.43 acre) and no impacts would occur to any intermittent/perennial streams.
Hydrology entering the isolated wetland would not empty into a jurisdictional receiving
waterbody via a surface connection. It would instead be located high in the watershed and would
not provide the flood or nutrient control of the jurisdictional features described in Option #l. It
is, however, a source for groundwater recharge and does provide some wildlife habitat.
Since Wetland #1 is isolated as determined by the USACE, impacts will require a state general
permit for impacts to an isolated wetland issued by the North Carolina Division of Water
Quality. Option #3 was selected as the preferred plant site location.
' 15

Section 6
Conclusion
The jurisdictional waters survey performed on the subject property near Salisbury in Rowan
County, North Carolina, identified evidence of jurisdictional waters of the U.S., including
1 wetlands associated with jurisdictional intermittent and perennial drainages which drain to the
Yadkin River, as well as an isolated wetland (Wetland #1). These areas were marked in the field
' with flagging and/or GPS for construction/survey purposes. After an extensive siting review, the
preferred option (Option #3) was determined to both meet structural requirements and minimize
' environmental impacts. This option will require permanent impacts to Wetland #1.
The protected species survey performed on the subject property yielded no evidence of any
federally protected species within the project boundary. No impacts to any protected species are
anticipated from this project. Although a wading bird rookery is located near the proposed
project location, a suitable buffer will be maintained during construction and operation of the
plant.

1

16

1
1
Section 7
References
Bogan, A. E. 2002. Workbook and key to the freshwater bivalves of North Carolina. North
Carolina Freshwater Mussel Conservation Partnership, Raleigh, NC 101 pp, 10 color
plates.
Cowardin, L. M., V. Carter, F. C. Golet, and E. T. LaRoe. 1979. Classification of Wetlands and
Deepwater Habitats of the United States. U.S. Dept. of Interior, Fish and Wildlife
Service. FWS/OBS-79/31. 131pp.
Duke Energy Carolinas, LLC. 2007. Buck Project NCUC Rule R8-61(a) lnfarmation. [Online]
URL; http://www.duke-energy.com/pdfs/Buck-Updated-Preliminary-CPCN-Final-06-29-
07.pdf. (Accessed October 17, 2007).
Environmental Laboratory. 1987. Corps of Engineers Wetlands Delineation Manual. Dept. of
Army Waterways Experiment Station, U.S. Army Corps of Engineers, Vicksburg, MS.
Technical Report Y-87-1. 100 pp.
North Carolina Natural Heritage Program-Division of Parks and Recreation. 2007. Rowan
County Database Search. [Online] URL: http://www.ncnhp.org/Pages/heritagedata.html.
(Accessed Apri12007.)
Peterson, A. 1986. Habitat suitability index models: Bald Eagle (breeding season). U.S. Fish and
Wildlife Service Biological Report. 82(1.0.1.26). 25 pp.
Schafale, M. P. and A. S. Weakley. 1990. Classification of the natural communities of North
Carolina; Third approximation. North Carolina Natural Heritage Program-Division of
Parks and Recreation. Department of Environment, Health, and Natural Resources. 326
pp-
17

Section 7 References
United States Fish and Wildlife Service (USFWS). 1985. Hnbitc~t Suitability Index Model: Great
Blatie Heron. USFWS Biol. Rep. 82(10.99). 23 pp.
.1988. National List of Plant Species that Occur in Wetlands: Southeast (Re ion 2).
g
Biological Report 88 (26.2).
' .1.992. Species Accounts - SCHWEINITZ'S SUNFLOWER. Division of Endangered
Species. [Online] URL: Schweinitz's Sunflower (Accessed August I7, 2005.)
2007a. Candidate Conservation A reement with Assurances. Online URL:
g [
http:llwww.fws.gov/ahens/robust_redhorse_ccaa.html. (Accessed October 17, 2007).
1 . 2007b. Listing of Endangered, Threatened and Candidate Species and Federal Species of
Concern for Rowan County, North Carolina.
2
007c. National Bald Eagle Management Guidelines. [Online] URL:
http://www.fws.gov/migratorybirds/issues/BaldEagle/. (Accessed June 2007.)
' Weakley, A. S. 2006. Flora of the Carolinas, Virginia, Georgia, and surrounding areas. Working
draft of 17 January 2006. University of North Carolina Herbarium (NCU), North
Carolina Botanical Garden. University of North Carolina at Chapel Hill. 1026 pp.
Wofford, E. B. 1989. Guide to the Vascular Plants of the Blue Ridge. The University of Georgia
Press, Athens, GA. 384 pp.
i

18

APPENDICES

1
1

1

1

1

1
1
APPENDIX A
FIGURES
1

\a ~'~
s~~S~J
~~ ~•
.~
r~~k~~ ,
~.
Ridge ~~t 29 :;''' A~
~:.. cr 29
29 29 ~~-, _~ ~_~+~_xr~ x High Rock Lake
v `~ -- v
D° s
~ ~~
° o `'~. ~~~ ~~ ! duck Steam Station
g ,$
- ~~ eek ~ ~ ~~w
a~ ~ ~•
5
G3~~
~ Charles -•--
( -t` Dukeville Road "~
Spe
Hawkinsto~n '~ .~-- - wnCer`~- 29 ._ r Cog
2 ~" r hitehead , w._~err~, .. .
Grants ~ U; \\wnitenead ~~,,
Creek • t. 1 u~ ~~'. 'CO" ~ ~i
a~ 'a s ;
e~° c ~o~ ~ A
.,•5Q i `~~ {~
'" .East ~,~ .--~ .-4
r~
ySpencer ~ ,.,.~ ~P°~,° '~
y e T
~ ~,,
O,, j I
~Nj/~. Gryck - ....
'r'f Off' n e 0 3 ~,`~+
•~.~V mown roeko ,(\pa ~-o `r7
eek G-~ G U
A ~~*~ - ~~ Town
a~~ a ?~ Creek •'
a r
~~
3
s,` ~ 4
~v e `~ .'~
G~ ,
~ ///~ ..
J:
~c~ ~I
Gold ~G~e~'
Hill
Salbury e'~9,e
i~~
I
,/~
i
r
s2
Granite '~
Quarry
L_
d I`i
5 i
!Faith ~`t~
v
Legend BUCK COMBINED CYCLE PROJECT
Limped Access Other Road
T ~ ryl9hway -~^ Railroads (Local) Figure 1
Malor Road -Water
Loca~Road ~'tY Location Map
Minor Road state Rowan County, North Carolina
u r,,ono iz.uoo
Pcct

~ x;s ~r ~ ~
t • ~
~ ~, a °*~.. ., :~ ~` ''yam ~' ~~ ?~. >
Legend BUCK COMBINED CYCLE PROJECT
D ~ Historical Dukeville Location
- Srte Boundary F19Uf@ 3
A -51eims Historic Dukeville Sites
-~ Wet~and,
o ,o0 8DO with Wetlands and Site Boundary
Feel Rowan County, North Carolina

1

1
APPENDIX B
' BIOLOGICAL FIELD REPORT PREPARED FOR THE BUCK STEAM
STATION POWER GENERATION PROJECT
AUGUST 2000

1

~1 r,~`i ^~/~ r ~~fw?3....,.,~~~LaG3C~ ~ ~-~~~V~.~'~~3~~ ~~p~G~l~ ~f~y r/~p~ / 1 ~1 I r
' '`~l~r>L'~, l~) ~ C[~\J~.°~~~ J f G\~ ~~~~~,ilL~ 1, 1V/~,J l',I ~.P~1 L71CJ~.~~~-.1~ CnL~ ~ 1 (~i~ C'1lJ%L `J I)~.P i~~\~ J
~~~1J~~ s~~~)~~~~~~ C~rC~~~'~~G~] l

1
1
1

1

%~~~1c51Jc~ ra ~?~r~c~;c~;
CJI~~~~f~ic1l~~:~. ~~2\`l~~ ~
DcLC~~ ~~1~,~nc~~c~cr~~~ t~~~ ,~~~oc~~N==>
~~~~y'L~~01~~'Sfl Vs~~i~,r~ l~yC~U]'JL~1~

1.0 INTRODUCTION
At the request of Duke Power Company, Duke Engineering & Services (DE&S)
conducted a biological field investigation on an 80-acre tract of property southeast of Spencer,
North Carolina (Rowan County) in association with a potential power generation project at the
Buck Steam Station. Specifically, the investigation included:
• A wetland and waters of the United States (US) survey;
' A rare, threatened, and endangered (RTE) species survey; and
• A classification of vegetation communities and associated wildlife.
' The following report details the field investigation within the designated property boundaries.
' 2.0 STUDY METHODS
Based on information that was obtained from resource agencies, a field assessment was
conducted in August 2000 to document specific resources affected by the proposed project.
Resources assessed during this effort included wetlands, waterbodies, vegetative communities,
and rare, endangered, and threatened species (RTE). The following section will provide a
summary of methods associated with this field assessment.
2.1 Wetlands and Stream Determinations
During the August fieldwork, all wetlands within the designated property boundaries and
any associated areas (e.g., potential natural gas pipeline corridors) were reviewed using the
1987 Corps of Engineers (COE) wetland delineation method (Environmental Laboratory 1987).
The "routine on-site determination method" was selected as the most appropriate delineation
technique. Wetlands were considered present when observations of vegetation, hydrology, and
soils indicated that the three-parameter criteria for wetland identification were met. Typically,
' any identified wetlands are classified using the U.S. Fish and Wildlife's (USFWS) wetland
classification system (e.g., PEM/FOIC) (Cowardin et. al. 1979). Principal wetland functions and
values are also determined using professional judgement and based on rationale associated
with the Wetland Evaluation Technique (WET 2.0) (Adamus et. al. 1991) and the
Hydrogeomorphic Classification method (Brinson 1993). The Corps required wetland
delineation forms were also prepared (Attachment 1).
' Also, during this work on the site, any permanent or intermittent streams on the property
(i.e., waters of the US) were noted. Information such as stream width, depth, substrate, bank
characteristics, and flow was documented. Stream locations are typically mapped using the
' Global Positioning System (GPS) and added to project mapping---one utilizing U.S.G.S. 7.5
minute quadrangles as its base and the other using aerial photography.
' 2.2 Rare, Threatened, and Endangered (RTE) Plant and Wildlife Species
The North Carolina Natural Heritage Program as well as the United States Fish and
Wildlife Service (USFWS) were contacted (i.e., database search) to determine the likelihood of
RTE species and unique natural communities in the project area.

1

The agency-provided information was augmented through direct observations made
during the field assessment conducted in August 2000. The entire study area was walked and
any likely habitats (e.g., existing right-of-ways, rock outcrops) were searched for rare species.
In areas of high potential, several transects in the area of likely habitat are made in an effort to
intensify the search. Where natural communities exist, vegetative communities were classified
through the use of the Classification of the Natural Communities of North Carolina (Schafale
and Weakley 1990). Common wildlife species observed or expected in the study area were
also recorded.
3.0 SURVEY RESULTS
' 3.1 General Project Area Description

1

The evaluated property (an 80-acre tract) is located in a generally rural area south of
Interstate 85 and Spencer, North Carolina. The property is located along the northeastern
border of Rowan County and is just south of the Yadkin River and High Rock Lake.
Surrounding the proposed project tract are the facilities associated with Duke Power's Buck
Steam Station. These facilities include the power plant related facilities and substation to the
north; several active and inactive ash basins to the south, and east; and other company lands to
the west. Several right-of-way corridors including existing 230kV transmission lines, an ash
slurry line, and a natural gas pipeline are also located on company lands.
Vegetative conditions over the majority of the proposed project tract consists of
selectively cut pine woodland. The surrounding area consists mostly of active cattle pastures,
other agricultural area, woodland, and the lake. Elevations within the tract range from 700 feet
to 710 feet MSL. The tract is located within the Upper Piedmont Plateau Region of North
Carolina.
3.2 Wetlands
Based on the National Wetland Inventory (NWI) maps, existing Duke Power maps, and
the field survey, no jurisdictional wetlands were found within the 80-acre parcel designated for
the proposed plant. However, one wetland is associated with the proposed natural gas pipeline
corridor leading to the proposed plant site. This wetland area is located along the steam
station's main access road. The existing Piedmont Natural Gas line to the steam plant already
crosses this wetland. According to project planners, a new pipeline paralleling the existing line
will be needed and will cross this wetland. The jurisdictional boundary of this wetland, as
depicted in Duke Power's Cooperative Site Based Environmental Projects-1995 update, have
changed (i.e., expanded) due to the presence beavers. This wetland is described in Table 1
and the following text. The associated wetland delineation form is provided in Attachment 1.

Table 1. Wetlands Associated with the Buck Steam Station Project Area.
Wetland Wetland Approximate Soils Associated Principal
No. T e Acrea a Stream Functions
W-1 PFO/SS1 Fb 2.1 acres* Oakboro silt Unnamed Wildlife Habitat,
loam Tributary to Sediment
Yadkin Retention, Nutrient
River Retention
Approximately 2.1 acres of wetland are in the immediate vicinity of the pipeline corridor
' (general area of impact). However, this wetland extends both upstream and downstream of the
pipeline crossing.
' This Piedmont alluvial, forested and scrub wetland is located on the north side of the
main plant access road. The forested wetland portion is characterized by a tree canopy
consisting of sweet gum (Liquidambar styraciflua), sycamore (Platanus occidentalis), American
elm (Ulmus americans), and red maple (Acer rubrum). The scrub portion of the wetland
consists of red maple, and black willow (Salix nigra) and is associated with the fringes of the
ponded area. Soft rush (Juncus effusus), straw-color flatsedge (Cyperus strigosus), broad-leaf
cattail (Typha latifolia), and shallow sedge (Carex lurida) are the common herbs. Standing dead
' timber is present in the deeper portion of the ponded area. The wetland was semi-permanently
flooded to saturated during the survey, and surface flooding and standing water was evident.
Other hydric indicators include silt stained leaves, surficial roots, scouring, crayfish chimneys,
' and evidence of soil depletion (i.e., low chroma and mottling). Beavers have dammed up the
outlet of this wetland and have enlarged it by approximately 40 percent. The beaver lodge is
located in the upper ponded area.
' The proposed pipeline to the potential plant site will parallel the existing pipeline route
through this wetland. Impacts to the forested portion of the wetland will be avoided and only the
scrub-shrub and ponded areas will be temporarily affected by the construction. Due to the
' standard pipeline installation techniques, no permanent impacts are anticipated. The
applicability of a US Army Corps of Engineers permit (i.e., Nationwide 12-Utility line activities)
will have to be investigated once specific wetland impacts are determined.
The wetland boundaries in the vicinity of the pipeline crossing were GPS'ed. However,
the boundary was not flagged due to the presence of cattle and the potential ingestion
' problems.
' 3.3 Streams
Based on the field investigation, there are no streams associated with the 80-acre parcel.
3.4 Vegetation Communities
One distinct vegetation community was noted within the boundaries of the 80-acre tract. This
' community includes the following characteristics:

1
1
The vegetative community found on the tract consists of an even-aged and selectively
cut loblolly pine (Pinus taeda) stand. It was estimated that these pines are from 35 to 40 years
of age and have been thinned in the last 10 years. Schafale and Weakley (1990) states that
this community is typically associated with previously cultivated or disturbed areas that are
slowly replaced by climax oak and hickory as the pines die off. Based on early aerial
photographs from the 1940's and 1950's this area consisted of both agricultural fields and
facilities associated with the construction of the steam plant. The sub-canopy and understory is
represented by sapling sweetgum (Liquidambarstyraciflua), red maple (Acerrubrum), and
sourwood (Oxydendrum arboreum). The shrub and vine layer consists of blackberry (Rubus
argutus), smooth sumac (Rhus glabra), red maple, Japanese honeysuckle (Lonicera japonica),
muscadine (Vitis rotundifolia), and poison ivy (Toxicodendron radicans). Common herbs include
lespedeza (lespedeza spp.), fleabane species (Erigeron spp.), and bracken (Pteridium
aquilinum). Approximately 100 percent of the 80-acre tract consists of this vegetative
community.
The adjacent communities consist of arrested early successional areas associated with
the existing rights-of-way (i.e., electrical and natural gas) crossing the facility lands. These
areas are dominated by herbs such as dallisgrass (Paspulum dilatatum), broomsedge
(Andropogon virginicus), fescue (Festuca spp.), and lespedeza. In each of these corridors,
most of the woody vegetation has been suppressed through mowing or chemical spraying. This
community will not be permanently affected by the proposed project.
The other adjacent vegetative community consists of a mature oak-hickory forest. The
typical canopy and subcanopy consists of white oak (Quercus alba), red oak (Q. rubra), pignut
hickory (Carya glabra), American beech (Fagus grandifolia), red maple, tuliptree (Liriodendron
tulipifera), loblolly pine, flowering dogwood (Cornus florida), and sourwood. Shrubs and vines
include muscadine, Japanese honeysuckle, and various blueberry species (Vaccinium spp.).
The herb layer includes rattlesnake plantain (Goodyera pubescens), cranefly orchid (Tipularia
discolor), running pine (Lycopodium flabelliforme), Christmas fern (Polysticium aristichoides),
dissected grapefern (Botrychium dissectum), Virginia creeper (Parthenocissus quinquefolia),
false solomon's seal (Smilicina racemosa), and groundnut (Apios americans). This community
is located southwest of the proposed project area and will not be affected by the project.
3.5 Wildlife
Land use strongly influences the wildlife of the area. The pine and hardwood forests on
and adjacent to the 80-acre tract offer habitat for gray squirrels (Sciurus carolinensis), white-
tailed deer (Odocoileus virginianus), and bobwhite quail (Colinus virginianus). Other
representative species found in the forested areas include the southern flying squirrel
(Glaucomys volans), coyote (Canis latrans), white-footed mouse (Peromyscus leucopus),
opossum (Didelphis virginiana), common flicker (Colaptes auratus), Carolina chickadee (Poecile
carolinensis), red-eyed vireo (Vireo olivaceus), Carolina wren (Thryothorus ludovicianus), great-
crested flycatcher (Myiarchus crinitus), eastern wood pewee (Contopus virens), black and white
warbler (Mniotilta varia), indigo bunting (Passerine cyanea), Eastern towhee (Pipilio
erythrophthalmus), eastern box turtle (Terrapene Carolina), American toad (Bufo americanus),
and black rat snake (Elaphe obsolete obsolete).
The grassed and early successional areas (i.e., fields and existing rights-of-way) provide
feeding areas for birds such as the turkey vulture (Cafhartes aura), eastern meadowlark
(Sturnella magna), field sparrow (Spizella pusilla), barn swallow (Hirundo rustics), indigo bunting

(Passerine cyanea), and eastern bluebird (Sialia sialis); small game such as cottontail rabbit
(Sylvilagus floridanus), bobwhite quail and mourning dove (Zenaida macroura); and reptiles
such as the black racer (Coluber constrictor), rough green snake (Opheodrys aestivus), and the
broadhead skink (Eumeces laticeps). Other species include the golden mouse (Ochrotomys
nutfal~~, red fox (Vulpes fulva), and the red-tailed hawk (Buteo jamaicensis). These areas
provide seed, insects and small prey as a food source as well as essential cover.
The wetland area associated with the existing pipeline right-of-way offers habitat for the
beaver (Castor canadensis), wood duck (Aix sponsa), green-backed heron (Butorides striatus),
common yellowthroat (Geothlypis trichas), red-winged blackbird (Agelaius phoeniceus), song
sparrow (Melospiza melodic), midland water snake (Nerodia sipedon pleuralis), spring peeper
(Pseudacris crucifer), and the green frog (Rana clamifans). The flooding regime within this
wetland area is maintained by an active beaver colony.
3.6 Rare, Threatened, and Endangered Species
Information concerning listed rare plant and animal species in the vicinity of the 80-acre
tract was obtained from the North Carolina Natural Heritage Program inventory database. The
current US Fish and Wildlife County list was also reviewed (USFWS 2000). The Heritage
Program and USFWS currently list the following species as occurring in Rowan County and the
general area.
Animal
' Bald Eagle (Haliaeetus leucocephalus) (State Endangered and Federal Threatened) is a
large conspicuous raptor found throughout North America in riparian areas associated with
the coasts, rivers, and lakes. The eagle usually nests near the bodies of water in which it
' feeds. Nest selection, usually in a dominant pine, includes elements such as within one-half
mile of water; largest tree in the area; and an open view of the surrounding area. The
coastal areas of the Carolinas have the largest concentrations of eagles. Bald eagles are
frequently observed along the Yadkin and Pee Dee River. There is at least one active nest
on the Yadkin-Pee Dee River, several miles downstream of the Buck Steam Station. The
proposed facility is not expected to affect this raptor.
• Loggerhead shrike (Lanius ludovicianus ludovicianus) (State Species of Concern) is a
songbird that prefers open fields and shrubby clearings with thickets and abundant
' hedgerows consisting of barberry, hawthorne and apple, among the more preferred plant
species. Its habitat is characterized by barbed wire fences or trees/shrubs with thorns or a
multitude of small crotches in which to impale prey such as small mammals, birds, and large
insects. In areas of known concentrations, this species can be found scouting from high,
exposed perches or sitting on wire fences. This species is perhaps one of the most seriously
declining bird in North America. Although the preferred habitat of this species is abundant
through most of the Buck Steam Station property (i.e., fenced areas, shrubby thickets, and
hedgerows), no loggerhead shrikes were documented within the specific project parcel.
• Mole Salamander (Ambystoma talpoideum) (State Species of Concern) is a large, burrowing
' salamander that is typically found in lowland bottoms and river valleys. This species, as well
as the other Ambystomid salamanders, can be found in rather large breeding groups in late
winter. The species breeds in vernal pools and semi-permanent depressions absent of fish
1

life. This salamander is fairly common in the southeast, although the populations in North
Carolina are disjunct and localized. One of these disjunct populations is centered over the
' upper Yadkin River basin. This salamander is not expected in the pine dominated project
parcel.
' Robust Redhorse (Moxostoma robustum) (State Species of Concern) is a large redhorse
sucker that can attain a length of more than 26 inches and more than 17 pounds.
Historically, this species ranged from Georgia through the Carolinas. However, this species
has only been found on the Oconee River in Georgia and a historical record on the Pee Dee
' River. This species prefers silt free gravel bottom streams. There are no waterbodies within
the proposed project parcel.
Vascular Plants
• Piedmont Indigo Bush (Amorpha schwerini~) (State Rare) is a shrub member of the pea
' family found only in the central Piedmont of North Carolina, Alabama, and Georgia. This
purple flowered indigo is found on rocky river bluffs and woods in several counties centered
on Rowan County. The species blooms from April through May and fruits from June through
October. Neither the species nor the specific habitat was found within the project area.
• Southern Anemone (Anemone berlandieri) (State Candidate) is a herbaceous perennial in
' the buttercup family. This rare windflower prefers thin soils around rock outcrops and has
been recently reported in Rowan County. The species occurs through Florida and Texas.
Neither the species nor the specific habitat was found within the project area.
' Georgia Aster (Astergeorgianus) (State Threatened) is a rare aster species found in dry and
thin woodland habitats and open areas such as rights-of-way. This species is very similar to
the late purple aster (Aster patens). The Georgia aster can be identified by the more
' sagittate or lanceolate leaves. The species blooms from August through October. This
species was not documented within the project area.
• Thin-pod White Wild Indigo (Baptisia a/bescens) (State Rare) is another rare indigo of the
Pea family. This white flowered indigo is found in Piedmont open woods and clearings. It
flowers from May to July and fruits into October. The species has a historical occurrence in
' Rowan County but has not been recorded in the last 25 years.
• Dissected Toothwort (Cardamine dissects) (State Candidate) is a rare toothwort in the
' Brassies family. The species is found in rich alluvial woods, cove woods, and adjacent
slopes. The species flowers from April through June. There is an obscure record for this
species in Rowan County. The habitat for this species is not found in the project area.
• Bush's Sedge (Carex bushii) (State Rare) is a rare sedge found in calcareous and
circumneutral meadows and open woods of Ashe and Rowan Counties, as well as in
Virginia, Georgia, Tennessee, and West Virginia. The plant is evident through September.
Neither the species nor the specific habitat is found in the project area.
• Carolina Thistle (Cirsium carolinianum) (State Candidate) is a rare thistle found in the
central Piedmont of North and South Carolina. This thistle prefers forests and disturbed
areas (e.g., ROWs) over basic and calcareous soils. The species flowers from May through
July. Neither the species nor the specific habitat is found in the project area.
1
1

1
1

1

Heller's Rabbit-Tobacco (Gnaphalium helleri var. helleri) (State Rare) is a member of the
composite family that is found in dry woods, openings, and glades over mafic rocks (e.g.,
amphibolite and biotite). It is similar to the more common cudweed (G. obtusifolium) except
that it has a green, glandular stem instead of a plain, white stem. The species flowers from
September through October. Neither the species nor the specific habitat is found in the
project area.
• Littleleaf Sneezeweed (Helenium brevifolium) (State Endangered) is rare, composite
sneezeweed found in bogs, seeps and river banks in several scattered counties of North
Carolina. This species can be identified from the other sneezeweeds by a reddish disk
flower with narrow decurrent leaf bases (fused to the stem). The species flowers in the
summer. No sneezeweed or the specific habitat is found in the project area.
• Dissected Sneezeweed (H. pinnatifidum) (State Rare) is a sneezeweed found in open and
wet, mucky areas. The majority of the plant stations are found along the Coastal Plain. The
disjunct populations are found in Rowan and Lincoln counties. The species has yellow disc
flowers and non-decurrent leaf bases. Neither the species nor the specific habitat is found
in the project area.
• Smooth Sunflower (Helianthus laevigatus) (State Rare) is a rare sunflower found in dry,
shaly woodlands and road embankments in the piedmont of North and South Carolina. The
small yellow flowers are observed from August to October. This species is similar to the
small wood sunflower (H. microcephalus). It is currently recorded in Rowan County. This
sunflower was not documented within the project area.
• Schweinitz's Sunflower (H. schweinitzii) (State Endangered and Federal Endangered) is a
rare sunflower associated with upland woods, thickets and open areas over basic or
circumneutral soils. It is only found in several Piedmont counties of North and South
Carolina. The combination of small flowering heads, narrow lance-shaped leaves with
dense hairiness beneath and turned-under margins separate it from the other similar
sunflowers. This species nor the specific habitat is not found within the project area.
• Piedmont Quillwort (Isoetes piedmontana) (State Threatened) is a rare quillwort associated
with granite flatrocks and diabase glades. This species has been historically reported in
Rowan County. Neither the species nor the specific habitat is found in the project area.
• Virginia Quillwort (l. virginica) (State Candidate) is another rare quillwort preferring upland
depression forests with clayey soils. This species has been historically reported in Rowan
County. Neither the species nor the specific habitat is found in the project area.
• Carolina Birdfoot-trefoil (Lotus helleri) (State Candidate) is an annual member of the pea
family that is found in dry, open woods and roadsides over clayey soils. This species can
be identified from the more common birdfoot trefoil (L. corniculatus) by aone-flowered
inflorescence and athree-foliate leaf. Although habitat is available for this species, no
populations were encountered within the project area.
• Single-flowered Sandwort (Minuartia uniflora) (State Endangered) is a very small annual
associated with granite outcrops of the lower Piedmont of North Carolina, South Carolina,
Georgia, and Alabama. This chickweed-like plant blooms from April through May. Neither
the specific habitat nor the species is found within the project area.
1

• Yellow Fringeless Orchid (Platanthera Integra) (State Endangered) is a rare orchid that is
found in swamps, wet pine flats, and pine barrens along the Coastal Plain and within some
central Piedmont counties. The species blooms from July through September. This orchid
has been historically recorded in Rowan County. Neither the specific habitat nor the
species is found within the project area.
• Small's Portulaca (Portulaca smallii) (State Threatened) is a succulent, annual herb that is
associated with granite flatrocks and diabase glades. The species is only found in a few of
North Carolina's central Piedmont counties. There is a current record of this plant in Rowan
County. Neither the specific habitat nor the species is found within the project area.
• Prairie Goldenrod (Solidago ptarmicoides) (State Endangered) is a goldenrod species
associated with diabase glade areas. There is a historical record of this species in Rowan
County. Neither the specific habitat nor the species is found within the project area.

1
1
1

1

1
1
1

• There are several other species recorded in Rowan County, including the Agoyan Cataract
Moss (Scopelophila cataractea), and two mayflies (Homoeoneuria cahabensis and
Timpanoga lita). However, these three species are associated with very specific habitats
well away from the project area. The moss is only found in areas with copper-rich soils.
The mayfly H. cahabensis is found several miles up the Yadkin River within Third Creek.
The mayfly T. lita is found in larger creeks of localized areas in North Carolina.
Several rare natural communities are also listed for Rowan County (e.g., granitic flatrock
and diabase glade), however, the only listed habitat that is adjacent to the project area is a
Wading Bird Rookery. This Wading Bird Rookery, a large great blue heron breeding colony, is
located southeast of the proposed site. Based on the August 2000 field review, at least 50+
active nests are located in a mature loblolly pine stand overlooking an existing facility ash basin.
There are also a few nests associated with the immediate hardwood fringe and dead standing
trees within the permanently flooded basin. Most of the nests are visible from the ground, as
well as the accumulations of droppings, bird mortality and nest debris. Several other species
including the green-backed heron may also use this rookery.
Based on existing information from the various state and federal resource agencies, a
"non-disturbance" zone around the rookery varying from 800 feet (USFWS 1985) to 300 feet
(SCDNR) is recommended during the breeding season (February 1 to September 1) to minimize
impacts to this resource. The USFWS definition of disturbance includes presence of homes,
construction, roads, commercial operations, and timber harvesting. There is research that
suggests that nesting herons can become habituated to noise such as the existing steam
station.
During the field effort, the northern edge of the rookery was GPS'ed to determine the
distance from the rookery to the proposed power plant site. Based on preliminary information, it
appears that there is at least a 700 linear foot, well-wooded buffer between the rookery edge
and the current project footprint. This buffer should minimize disturbance to the rookery,
especially since the resource is already habituated to the existing noise emanating from the
Buck Steam Station (e.g., heavy trucks, and road traffic).

No other state or federal listed species or unique natural communities were identified
within the property boundaries or immediately adjacent.
3.7 Other Resources of Note
' No other additional significant or unique resources (e.g., old home sites, and geologic
formations) were found on the tract during this assessment.
' 4.0 LITERATURE CITED
Adamus, Paul R., L. T. Stockwell, E J. Clairain, M. E. Morrow, P.L. Rozas, and R. D. Smith.
1 1991. "Wetland Evaluation Technique (WET); Volume l: Literature Review and
Evaluation Rationale, "Technical Report WRP-DE-2, US Army Engineer Waterways
Experiment Station, Vicksburg, MS.
' Brinson, M.M. 1993. A Hydrogeomorphic Classification for Wetlands. Technical Report WRP-
DE-4, US Army Engineer Waterways Experiment Station, Vicksburg, MS.
Cowardin, L.M., V. Carter, F.C. Golet, E.T. LaRoe. 1979. Classification of Wetlands and
' Deepwater Habitats of the United States. U.S. Dept. of Interior, Fish and Wildlife
Service. FWS/OBS-79/31. 131 pp.
Environmental Laboratory. 1987. Corps of Engineers Wetlands Delineation Manual. Dept. of
Army Waterways Experiment Station, Corps of Engineers, Vicksburg, MS. Technical
Report Y-87-1. 100 pp.
' Justice, William S., and C. Ritchie Bell. 1968. Wild Flowers of North Carolina. The University
of North Carolina Press. Chapel Hill. 217 pp.

1
North Carolina Department of Environment and Natural Resources. 2000. Rare, Threatened &
Endangered Species Inventory Database. North Carolina Natural Heritage Program,
Raleigh, NC.
Radford, Albert. E., H.E. Ahles, and C.R. Bell. 1983. Manual of the Vascular Flora of the
Carolinas. University of North Carolina Press, Chapel Hill, NC. 1183 pp.
Schafale, M.P. and A. S. Weakley. 1990. Classification of the Natural Communities of North
Carolina: Third Approximation. North Carolina Natural Heritage Program, Division of Parks
and Recreation, Department of Environment and Natural Resources.
United States Fish and Wildlife Service. 2000. Endangered, Threatened, and Candidate
Species and Federal Species of Concern, By County, In North Carolina. Raleigh Field
Office, NC. 51 pp.
United States Fish and Wildlife Service (USFWS). 1991. Endangered Species and Threatened
Species of the Southeastern United States (The Red Book). USFWS Region 4.
United States Fish and Wildlife Service (USFWS). 1985. Habitat Suitability Index Model: Great
Blue Heron. USFWS Biol. Rep. 82(10.99). 23 pp.

1

ATTACHMENTS

1

1

1

1
ATTACHMENT 1
WETLAND DELINEATION FORMS
1

DATA FORM lA
' WETLAND DETERMINATION
Applicant Name: Duke Energy Project Name: Buck Steam Station development
' State: NC County: Rowan Date: 8/9/00
Plot No.: W-la (wetland) PFO/SS1Fb: crossing is PSS/EM1Fb

1

1
Vegetation (dominant three species)
Species Indicator Species Indicator status
status
Trees Herbs
Juncus e usus OBL
C erus stri osus FACW
Sa lin s/shrubs T ha lati olia OBL
Salix ni ra OBL Carex lurida OBL

of species that are OBL, FACW, and/or FAC: 100% .Other indicators: buttressing
Hydrophytic vegetation: Yes: X .No:_. Basis: 100% of FAC and wetter,
Soil
Series and phase: Mapped- Oakboro silt Mottled: Yes:_No: X
. Mottled color: ;Matrix color: 7.SYR 4/1
' Gleyed: Yes:_ No: X Other indicators: oxidized rhizospheres, crayfish chimneys
Hydric soils: Yes: X . No: Basis: Hydric indicators

Profile Description
Depth Horizon Matrix
Color Mottle
Color Mottle
Abundance/size Texture etc.
0-1" Oe 7.SYR4/6 - - Silty clay with sapric organics,
saturated
1-15"+ A 7.SYR4/1 - - Sil cla ,indicators, oxirhizo

Hydrology
Inundated: Yes: X No:_ Depth of standing water: 3 feet -beaver impoundment
Saturated soils: Yes: X No: Depth to saturated soil: surface
Other indicators: drainagespatterns, surficial roots, scouring, rafted debris
Wetland hydrology: Yes: X No: Basis: indicators
Atypical situation: Yes:_No: X
Normal Circumstances? Yes: X No:
Wetland Determination: Wetland: Yes Nonwetland:
Comment: beaver pond along unnamed trib. to Yadkin River
Determined by: Scott T. Fletcher, Duke Engineering & Services, PO Box 1004,
Charlotte, NC 28201-1004, [phone]
1

DATA FORM 1B
WETLAND DETERMINATION
Applicant Name: Duke EnerQV Project Name: Buck Steam Station development
' State: NC .County: Rowan Date: 8/9/00
Plot No: W-lb (~landZpasture edge

1
t
1
Vegetation (three dominant species)
Species Indicator Species Indicator status
status
Trees Herbs
Andro 0 on vir inicus FAC-
Festuca rubra FACU+
Sa lip s/shrubs Smallanthus uvedalius FACU
Robinia seudo-acacia UPL Wood vine
Lonicera 'a onica FAC-
of species that are OBL, FACW, and/or FAC: 0% .Other indicators:
Hydrophytic vegetation: Yes::.No: X .Basis: 0% of FAC and wetter,
Soil
Series and phase: Mapped- Unknown.
Mottled: Yes:_No: X Mottled color: ;Matrix color: SYR4/6
' Gleyed: Yes:_ No: X Other indicators: None
Hydric soils: Yes: No: X Basis: no hydric indicators
1

Prole Description
Depth Horizon Matrix
Color Mottle
Color Mottle
Abundance/size Texture etc.
0-12"+ A SYR4/6 - - Loam, com acted

' Hydrology
Inundated: Yes:_ No: X Depth of standing water: N/A
Saturated soils:_No: X Depth to saturated soil: None 12"+
Other indicators: None
Wetland hydrology: Yes: No: X Basis: No hydrologic indicators
Atypical situation: Yes: No: X
Normal Circumstances? Yes: X No:_
Wetland Determination: Wetland: Nonwetland: Yes
' Comment: no wetland hydrology, no parameters met
Determined by: Scott T. Fletcher, Duke Engineering & Services, PO Box 1004,
' Charlotte, NC 28201-1004, [phone]

1
1
1
1
1
1

1
APPENDIX C
WETLAND DELINEATION FORMS

1
1
1
1
1
1
1
1
1
1
1
DATA FORM
ROUTINE WETLAND DETERMINATION
(1987 USAGE Wetlands Delineation Manual)
Project Site: Buck Steam Station Date: 4-18-07
Applicant/Owner: Duke Energy County: Rowan
Investigator: Jason isbaniol /Ja W lie (Devine Tarbell & Associates) State: NC

Do normal circumstances exist on the site? Yes^ No® Community ID: Upland
Is the site significantly disturbed (Atypical Situation)? Yes® No^ Transect ID: A Line
[s the area a potential problem area?
(if needed, explain on reverse) Yes^ No® Plot ID: West of Wetland #1
Data Point # 1

V1!a:1J iA 11U1V tin Uraer of stratum) Note those species ohservetl to have morpholo~icat adaptations to wetlands with an
Dominant Plant Species Stratum Indicator Dominant Plant Species Stratum
1. Liguidambar styraciflua trees Fac+ 9. Toxicodendron radicans woody vines
2. Acer rubrum trees Fac 10. Lonicera japonica woody vines
3. Pines taeda trees Fac 11. Parthenocissus yuinyuefolia woody vines
4. Liriodendron tz~lipifera trees Fac 12. Allium vineale herbaceous
5. Acer rubrum saplings/shru Fac 13.
6. Fraxinus pensylvanica saplings/shru FacW 14.
7. Ligustrum sinense saplings/shru Fac I5.
8. Ulmus americana saplings/shru FacW 16.
Indicator
Fac
Fac-
Fac
FacU
Percent of Dominant Species that are OBL, FACW or FAC (excluding FAC-): 83
Include species noted (*) as showing morphological adaptations to wetlands.
Describe Morphological Adaptations:
Remarks: A ical situation; unintentional man created situation
HYDROLOGY
RECORDED DATA PRIMARY (1 or more required)
(Describe in Remarks) INDICATORS
^ Stream, Lake or Tide Gage ® Inundated
^ Aerial Photograph ® Saturated in Upper 12 Inches
^ Other ^ Water Marks
® No Recorded Data Available ^ Drift Lines
^ Drainage Patterns in Wetlands
FIELD OBSERVATIONS: ^ Sediment de osits
Depth of Surface Water: 1 (in.) SECONDARY (2 or more required)
INDICATORS
Depth to Free Water in Pit: 0 (in.) ^ Oxidized Root Channels in Upper 12 Inches
® Water-Stained Leaves
Depth to Saturated Soil: 0 (in.) ^ Local Soil Survey Data
^ Other (Explain in Remarks)
^ FAG-Neutral Test
Remarks: Hydrology for wetland system was created by man-induced activities. Upland drainage was observed.

' SOILS

Map Unit Name Unknown
(Series and Phrase): Drainage Class:
Field Observations ^ ^
Taxonomy (Subgroup): Confirm Mapped Type? Yes No
PROFILE DESCRIPTION
Dcnth Matrix Color Mottlc Colors Mottlc Tcxturc, Concrctions.
Inches Horizon (Munsell Moist (Munsell Moist) Abundance/Contrast Rhizospheres, etc.
0-8 Al 2.SYR 3/4 -- -- Cla
8-18 A2 2.SYR 5/6 -- -- Cla
Hydric Soil Indicators:
^ Histosol ^ Concretions
^ Histic Epipedon ^ High Organic Content in Surface Layer in Sandy Soils
^ Sulfide Odor ^ Organic Streaking in Sandy Soils
^ Aquic Moisture Regime ^ Listed on Local Hydric Soils List
^ Reducing Conditions ^ Listed on National Hydric Soils List
^ Gleyed or Low-Chroma Colors ^ Other (Explain in Remarks)
H dric Soil Present? Yes ^ No
Remarks: Hydric soils are not present.
WETLAND DETERMINATION

1
1
1

Hydrophytic Vegetation Present? Yes® No^
Hydric Soils Present? Yes^ No® Wetland Hydrology Present? Yes® No^
Is this Sampling Point Within A Wetland? Yes^ No®
Remarks: H dric soils arameter is not met.

1
1
1
1

1
1
1
1
DATA FORM
ROUTINE WETLAND DETERMINATION
(1987 USACE Wetlands Delineation Manual)
Project Site: Buck Steam Station Date; 4-18-07
Applicant/Owner: Duke Energy County: Rowan
Investigator. Jason Isbaniol /Ja W lie (Devine Tarbell & Associates) State: NC

Do normal circumstances exist on the site? Yes^ No® Community ID: Upland
Is the site significantly disturbed (Atypical Situation)? Yes® No^ Transect ID: A Line
[s the area a potential problem area?
(if needed, explain on reverse) Yes^ No® Plot [D: Northwest of Wetland
#1
Data Point #2

Vr;l;laAl1U1V Iln Urder of Jtratuml Note those species observed to have r
Dominant Plant Species Stratum Indicator
1. Celtis laeviRata trees FacW 9.
2. Liquidambar styraciflua trees Fac+ 10.
3. Ulmus americans saplings/shru FacW l I.
4. Acer negundo saplings/shru FacW 12.
5. Smilax sp. woody vines 13.
6. Lonicera japonica woody vines Fac- 14.
7. 15.
8. 16.
olo ical ada tations to wetlands with an
Dominant Plant Species Stratum Indicator
Percent of Dominant Species that are OBL, FACW or FAC (excluding FAC-): 67
Include species noted (*) as showing morphological adaptations to wetlands.
Describe Morphological Adaptations:
Remarks: A ical situation; unintentional man created situation
IIYDROi,OC.Y
RECORDED DATA PRIMARY (1 or more required)
(Describe in Remarks) INDICATORS
^ Stream, Lake or Tide Gage ® Inundated
^ Aerial Photograph ® Saturated in Upper 12 Inches
^ Other ^ Water Marks
® No Recorded Data Available ^ Drift Lines
^ Drainage Patterns in Wetlands
FIELD OBSERVATIONS: ^ Sediment de osits
Depth of Surface Water: 2 (in.) SECONDARY (2 or more required)
INDICATORS
Depth to Free Water in Pit: 0 (in.) ^ Oxidized Root Channels in Upper 12 Inches
® Water-Stained Leaves
Depth to Saturated Soil: 0 (in.) ^ Local Soil Survey Data
^ Other (Explain in Remarks)
^ FAC-Neutral Test
Remarks: Hydrology for wetland system was created by man-induced activities.

solLs

1
1
1
1
1
1

1

1

Map Unit Name Unknown
(Series and Phrase): Drainage Class:
Field Observations ^ ^
Taxonomy (Subgroup): Confirm Mapped Type? Yes No
PROFILE DESCRIPTION
Dcnth Matrix Color Mottle Colors Mottle Tcxturo, Concretions,
Inches Horizon (Munsell Moist) (Munsell Moist) Abundance/Contrast Rhizospheres, etc.
0-8 Al 2.SYR 3/4 -- -- Cla
8-18 A2 2.SYR 5/6 -- -- Cla
Hydric Soil Indicators:
^ Histosol ^ Concretions
^ Histic Epipedon ^ High Organic Content in Surface Layer in Sandy Soils
^ Sulfide Odor ^ Organic Streaking in Sandy Soils
^ Aquic Moisture Regime ^ Listed on Local Hydric Soils List
^ Reducing Conditions ^ Listed on National Hydric Soils List
^ Gleyed or Low-Chroma Colors ^ Other (Explain in Remarks)
H dric Soil Present? Yes ^ No
Remarks: Hydric soils are not present.
WETLAND DETERMINATION
Hydrophytic Vegetation Present? Yes® No^
Hydric Soils Present? Yes^ No® Wetland Hydrology Present? Yes® No^
Is this Sampling Point Within A Wetland? Yes^ No®
Remarks: H dric soils arameter is not met.
1

1
1
1
1
1
1

DATA FORM
ROUTINE WETLAND DETERMINATION
(1987 USAGE Wetlands Delineation Manual)
Project Site: Buck Steam Station Date: 4-18-07
Applicant/Owner: Duke Energy County: Rowan
Tnvestigator: Jason Isbaniol /Ja W lie (Devine Tarbell & Associates) State: NC

Do normal circumstances exist on the site? Yes® No^ Community ID: Upland
Is the site significantly disturbed (Atypical Situation)? Yes^ No® Transect ID: A Line (U land)
Is the area a potential problem area?
(if needed, explain on reverse) Yes^ No® Plot ID: Data Point #3

vr.t;r.iaiit~i~ tin vrser o[ ~tratuml ivote inose suedes observes to nave morUnotoElcal asabtarions to wetlands with an "
Dominant Plant Species Stratum Indicator Dominant Plant Species Stratum
1. Prunus virginiana trees FacU 9. Toxicodendron radicanr woody vines
2. Liriodendron tulipifera trees Fac 10. Microstegium vimineum herbaceous
3. Liyuidamburstyracifluu trees Fac+ 11. Galiumupartne herbaceous
4. Acer rtzbrzzm saplings/shru Fac 12.
5. Cornus,florida saplings/shru FacU 13.
6. Magnolia tripetala saplings/shru Fac 14.
7. Elaeagnur angustifolia saplings/shrn Fac 15.
8. Lonicera sempervirens saplings/shru Fac 16.
Indicator
Fac
Fac+
FacU
Percent of Dominant Species that are OBL, FACW or FAC (excluding FAC-): 63
Include species noted (*) as showing morphological adaptations to wetlands.
Describe Morphological Adaptations:
Remarks: Parameter is met. Greater than 50% of dominant ve elation is FAC or wetter.
HYDRni.nGY
RECORDED DATA PRIMARY (1 or more required)
(Describe in Remarks) INDICATORS
^ Stream, Lake or Tide Gage ^ Inundated
^ Aerial Photograph ^ Saturated in Upper 12 Inches
^ Other ^ Water Marks
® No Recorded Data Available ^ Drift Lines
^ Drainage Patterns in Wetlands
FIELD OBSERVATIONS: ^ Sediment de osits
Depth of Surface Water: 0 (in.) SECONDARY (2 or more required)
INDICATORS
Depth to Free Water in Pit: 15+ (in.) ^ Oxidized Root Channels in Upper 12 Tnches
^ Water-Stained Leaves
Depth to Saturated Soil: 15+ (in.) ^ Local Soil Survey Data
^ Other (Explain in Remarks)
^ FAG-Neutral Test
Remarks: Parameter is not met. Upland Sample Point
1

' solLs

1
Map Unit Name Unknown
(Series and Phrase): Drainage Class:
Field Observations ^ ^
Taxonomy (Subgroup): Confirm Mapped Type? Yes No
PROFILE DESCRIPTION
Dcnth Matrix Color Mottle Colors Mottle Tcxturc. Concretions.
Inches Horizon (Munsell Moist) (Munsell Moist Abundance/Contrast Rhizospheres, etc.
0-7 A lOYR 3/4 -- -- Cla -Loam
7-15 Ref. B SYR 4/3 -- -- Loam -Cla
Hydric Soil Indicators:
^ Histosol ^ Concretions
^ Histic Epipedon ^ High Organic Content in Surface Layer in Sandy Soils
^ Sulfide Odor ^ Organic Streaking in Sandy Soils
^ Aquic Moisture Regime ^ Listed on Local Hydric Soils List
^ Reducing Conditions ^ Listed on National Hydric Soils List
^ Gleyed or Low-Chroma Colors ^ Other (Explain in Remarks)
H dric Soil Present? Yes ^ No
Remarks: Parameter is not met. Upland Sample. Refusal at 15 inches.
' WETLAND DETERMINATION

Hydrophytic Vegetation Present? Yes® No^
Hydric Soils Present? Yes^ No® Wetland Hydrology Present? Yes^ No®
Is this Sampling Point Within A Wetland? Yes^ No®
Remarks: H dric soils and wetland h drolo arameters are not met. U land Sam le Location
1

1
1
1
DATA FORM
ROUTINE WETLAND DETERMINATION
(1987 USAGE Wetlands Delineation Manual)
Project Site: Buck Steam Station Date: 6-19-07
Applicant/Owner: Duke Energy County: Rowan
Investigator-. Jason Isbaniol (Devine Tarbell & Associates) State: NC

Do normal circumstances exist on the site'? Yes^ No® Community ID: Upland
Is the site significantly disturbed (Atypical Situation)? Yes® No^ Transect ID: A Line
Is the area a potential problem area?
(if needed, explain on reverse) Yes^ No® Plot ID: Data Point #4 -Data
collected outside of A
line at fla A26.

v>!.~.>!.rAUVi~ rn vraer OI Jtrarum mote tnose s ecres ooservea to nave r
Dominant Plant Species Stratum Indicator
1. Celtis laevigata trees FacW 9.
2. Liquidambar styraciflua trees Fac+ 10.
3. Ulmus americana saplings/shru FacW 1 1.
4. Acer negundo saplings/shru FacW 12.
5. Pilea pumila herbaceous FacW 13.
6. Microstegium viminea herbaceous Fac+ 14.
7. Lonicera japonica woody vines Fac- 15.
8. Smilax rotundifolia woody vines Fac 16.
oro rear aaa Canons to weuanas wnn an F
Dominant Plant Species Stratum Indicator
Percent of Dominant Species that are OBL, FACW or FAC (excluding FAC-): 88
Include species noted (*) as showing morphological adaptations to wetlands.
Describe Morphological Adaptations:
Remarks: A ical situation; unintentional man created situation
~TYI)Rni,(1C:V
RECORDED DATA PRIMARY (1 or more required)
(Describe in Remarks) INDICATORS
^ Stream, Lake or Tide Cage ® Inundated
^ Aerial Photograph ^ Saturated in Upper 12 Inches
^ Other ^ Water Marks
® No Recorded Data Available ^ Drift Lines
^ Drainage Patterns in Wetlands
FIELD OBSERVATIONS: ^ Sediment de osits
Depth of Surface Water: 2 (in.) SECONDARY (2 or more required)
INDICATORS
Depth to Free Water in Pit: N/A (in.) ^ Oxidized Root Channels in Upper 12 Inches
® Water-Stained Leaves
Depth to Saturated Soil: N/A (in.) ^ Local Soil Survey Data
^ Other (Explain in Remarks)
^ FAG-Neutral Test
Remarks: Hydrology for wetland system was created by man-induced activities. Hydrology is perched on buried clay lens. Water in pit is a result of
surface infiltration. Soil is not saturated between 4 and 30 inches +. Water table reater than 30 inches dee .

SOILS

1

Map Unit Name Unknown
(Series and Phrase): Drainage Class:
Field Observations ^ ^
Taxonomy (Subgroup): Confirm Mapped Type? Yes No
PROFILE DESCRIPTION
Dcnth Matrix Color Mottle Colors Mottlc Tcxturc, Concretions,
Inches Horizon (Munsell Moist) (Munsell Moist) Abundance/Contrast Rhizospheres, etc.
0-1 O -- -- Hemic
1-4 A 7.5 YR 4/2 -- -- Silt Loam
4-9 B 5 YR 4/4 Sil Cla
9-18+ B2 5 YR 4/6 Loam Cla
Hydric Soil Indicators:
^ Histosol ^ Concretions
^ Histic Epipedon ^ High Organic Content in Surface Layer in Sandy Soils
^ Sulfide Odor ^ Organic Streaking in Sandy Soils
^ Aquic Moisture Regime ^ Listed on Local Hydric Soils List
^ Reducing Conditions ^ Listed on National Hydric Soils List
^ Gleyed or Low-Chroma Colors ^ Other (Explain in Remarks)
H dric Soil Present? Yes ^ No
Remarks: Hydric soils are not present.
WETLAND DETERMINATION

1

Hydrophytic Vegetation Present? Yes® No^
Hydric Soils Present? Yes^ No® Wetland Hydrology Present? Yes® No^
Is this Sampling Point Within A Wetland? Yes^ No®
Remarks: H dric soils arameter is not met.

1
1
1
1
1
DATA FORM
ROUTINE WETLAND DETERMINATION
(1987 USAGE Wetlands Delineation Manual)
Project Site: Buck Steam Station Date: 6-19-07
Applicant/Owner: Duke Energy County: Rowan
Investigator. Jason Isbaniol (Devine Tarbell & Associates) State: NC

Do normal circumstances exist on the site'? Yes^ No® Community ID: PFO
Is the site significantly disturbed (Atypical Situation)? Yes® No^ Transect ID: A Line
[s the area a potential problem area?
(if needed, explain on reverse) Yes^ No® Plot ID: Wetland # I
Data Point #5

vr.~.r/ tAtlvw Itn vraer of ~tratuml ivote those species observed to nave morDholofltcal atlaotattons to wetlands with an
Dominant Plant Species Stratum Indicator Dominant Plant Species Stratum
1. Celtic laevigata trees FacW 9. Cinna arundinacea herbaceous
2. Liquidambar styraciflua trees Fac+ 10. Pilea pumila herbaceous
3. Ulmus americana saplings/shru FacW 1 I. Toxicodendron radicans herbaceous
4. Acer negundo ~ saplings/shru FacW 12.
5. Platanus occidentalis saplings/shru FacW- 13.
6. Quercus phellos saplings/shru FacW- 14.
7. Juncus effusus herbaceous FacW+ 15.
8. Carex vulpinoidea herbaceous Obl 16.
Indicator
FacW+
Fac W
Fac
Percent of Dominant Species that are OBL, FACW or FAC (excluding FAC-): 100
Include species noted (*) as showing morphological adaptations to wetlands.
Describe Morphological Adaptations:
Remarks: Greater than 50% of dominant ve etation is FAC or wetter. H dro h tic ve etation resent due to man-induced artesian s rin .
HYDROLOGY
RECORDED DATA PRIMARY (1 or more required)
(Describe in Remarks) INDICATORS
^ Stream, Lake or Tide Gage ® Inundated
^ Aerial Photograph ^ Saturated in Upper 12 Inches
^ Other ^ Water Marks
® No Recorded Data Available ^ Drift Lines
^ Drainage Patterns in Wetlands
FIELD OBSERVATIONS: ^ Sediment de osits
Depth of Surface Water: 34 (in.) SECONDARY (2 or more required)
INDICATORS
Depth to Free Water in Pit: 0 (in.) ^ Oxidized Root Channels in Upper 12 Inches
® Water-Stained Leaves
Depth to Saturated Soil: 0 (in.) ^ Local Soil Survey Data
® Other (Explain in Remarks)
^ FAC-Neutral Test
Remarks: Hydrology for wetland system was created by man-induced activities. Flowing water was observed during the field investigation.
Indicators of iron oxidizin bacteria observed.

' SOILS

1
1
1

1

1
1
1
Map Unit Name Unknown
(Series and Phrase): Drainage Class:
Field Observations ^ ^
Taxonomy (Subgroup): Confirm Mapped Type? Yes No
PROFILE DESCRIPTION
Dcnth Matrix Color Mottle Colors Mottle Tcxturc, Concretions,
Inches Horizon (Munsell Moist) (Munsell Moist) Abundance/Contrast Rhizospheres, etc.
0-2 A 7.5 YR 4/2 -- -- Clayey Silt
2-9 B 1 2.5 YR 5/2 7.5 YR 4/2 Few, Coarse, Silty Clay
Distinct
5 Y 7/4 Few, Fine,
Prominent
9-18+ B2 2.5 YR 4/2 5 Y 7/4 Few, Coarse, Clay
Prominent
Hydric Soil Indicators:
^ Histosol ^ Concretions
^ Histic Epipedon ^ High Organic Content in Surface Layer in Sandy Soils
® Sulfide Odor ^ Organic Streaking in Sandy Soils
^ Aquic Moisture Regime ^ Listed on Local Hydric Soils List
^ Reducing Conditions ^ Listed on National Hydric Soils List
® Gleyed or Low-Chroma Colors ^ Other (Explain in Remarks)
H dric Soil Present? Yes ® No ^
Remarks: Hydric-soil indicators are present. Buried clay layer may be present dLie to historic construction activities related to the
Dttkeville homestead. Slight sulfidic odor present within the A horizon.
WETLAND DETERMINATION
Hydrophytic Vegetation Present? Yes® No^
Hydric Soils Present`? Yes® No^ Wetland Hydrology Present? Yes® No^
Is this Sampling Point Within A Wetland? Yes® No^
Remarks: All wetland arameters are resent. Man-induced site is currentl functionin as an established wetland.

1

APPENDIX D
U.S. ARMY CORPS OF ENGINEERS
NOTIFICATION OF JURISDICTIONAL DETERMINATION

II U.S. ARMY CORPS OF ENGINEERS
WILMINGTON DISTRICT
II Action Id. 2007-2204 County: Rowan U.S.G.S. Quad: S encer
NOTIFICATION OF JURISDICTIONAL DETERMINATION
' Property Owner/Agent: Duke Enersy Corporation
Address: 526 S. Church St.
Charlotte. NC 28202
' Telephone No.:
Property description:
Size (acres) 84 Nearest Town Spencer
Nearest Waterway High Rock Lake and Tribs River Basin Yadki°
USGS HUC Coordinates N 35.7072 W 80.37ti1
Location description Buck Steam Station located on the east side of I-85 adjacent to High Rock Lake.
' Indicate Which of the Followint? Auuly:
' A. Preliminary Determination
_ Based on preliminary information, there maybe wetlands on the above described property. We strongly suggest you have
this property inspected to determine the extent of Department of the Army {DA) jurisdiction. To be considered final, a
' jurisdictional determination must be verified by the Corps. This preliminary determination is not an appealable action
under the Regulatory Program Administrative appeal Process (Reference 33 CFR Part 331).
' B. Approved Determination
_ There are Navigable Waters of the United States within the above described property subject to the permit requirements of
Section 10 of the Rivers and Harbors Act and Section 404 of the Clean Water Act. Unless there is a change in the law or
' our published regulations, this determination maybe relied upon for a period not to exceed five years from the date of this
notification.
' X There are waters of the U.S. including wetlands on the above described property subject to the permit requirements of
Section 404 of the Clean Water Act {CWA}(33 USC § 1344). Unless there is a change in the law or our published
regulations, this determination may be relied upon for a period not to exceed five years from the date of this notification.
' _ We strongly suggest you have the wetlands on your property delineated. Due to the size of your property and/or our
present workload, the Corps may not be able to accomplish this wetland delineation in a timely manner. For a more timely
delineation, you may wish to obtain a consultant. To be considered final, any delineation must be verified by the Corps.
' Iti The waters of the U.S. including wetland on your property have been delineated and the delineation has been verified
by the Corps. We strongly suggest you have this delineation surveyed. Upon completion, this survey should be reviewed
and verified by the Corps. Once verified, this survey will provide an accurate depiction of all areas subject to CWA
' jurisdiction on your property which, provided there is no change in the law or our published regulations, may be relied
upon for a period not to exceed five years.
The wetlands have been delineated and surveyed and are accurately depicted on the plat signed by the Corps
' Regulatory Official identified below on .Unless there is a change in the law or our published regulations, this
determination maybe relied upon for a period not to exceed five years from the date of this notification.
There are no waters of the U.S., to include wetlands, present on the above described property which are subject to the
permit requirements of Section 404 of the Clean Water Act {33 USC 1344). Unless there is a change in the law or our
published regulations, this determination maybe relied upon for a period not to exceed five yeazs from the date of this
notification.

' _ The property is located in one of the 20 Coastal Counties subject to regulation under the Coastal Area Management Act
(CAMA). You should contact the Division of Coastal Management in Washington, NC, at [phone] to determine
their requirements.
' Placement of dredged or fill material within waters of the US and/or wetlands without a Department of the Army permit may
constitute a violation of Section 30I of the Clean Water Act (33 USC § 1311). If you have any quesrions regarding this
determination and/or the Corps regulatory program, please contact Steve Chapin at {828) 271-7980 x224.
C. Basis For Determination
UT's-Hieh Rock Lake>Yadkin River which is navi¢abie in fact at Biewett Falls Dam in NC
' D. Remarks
E. Appeals Information (This information applies only to approved jurisdictional determinations as indicated in
' B. above}
This correspondence constitutes an approved jurisdictional detetmination for the above described site. If you object to this
' determination, you may request an administrative appeal under Cotps regulations at 33 CFR part 331. Enclosed you will find a
Notification of Appeal Process (NAP) fact sheet and request for appeal (RFA) forn~. If you request to appeal this
determination you must submit a completed RFA form to the following address:
District Engineer, Wilmington Regulatory Division
Attn:Steve Chapin, Project Manager,
Ashevi[le Regulatory Field Office
' 151 Patton Avenue, Room 208
Asheville, North Carolina 28801-5006
In order far an RFA to be accepted by the Corps, the Corps must determine that it is complete, that it meets the criteria for
appeal under 33 CFR part 331.5, and that it has been received by the District Office within 60 days of the date of the NAP.
Should you decide to submit an RFA form, it must be received at the above address by 12/2/07.
**It is not necessary to submit an RFA farm to the District Office if you do not object to the determination in this
' correspondence.**
Corps Regulatory Official: ~ ~i1
Date 10/02/2007
Expiration Date 10/02/2012
' The Wilmington District is committed to providing the hi hest level of su ort to the ublic. To hel us ensur w
g PP p p e e continue to
do so, please complete the attached customer Satisfaction Survey or visit
' http://www.saw.usace.army.mil/WETLANDS/index.html to complete the survey online.

1

~1.pplicant: Duke Energy Corp. ~ File Number: 2007-2204 ~ Date: 10/2/07 ~
Attached is: See Section below -~
INITIAL PROFFERED PERMIT (Standard Permit or Letter of
A
PROFFERED PERMIT Standard Permit or Letter of ermission B
PERMIT DENIAL C
APPROVED JURISDICTIONAL DETERMINATION D
PRELIMINARY JURISDICTIONAL DETERMINATION E
'~E~TI~`N I~_'The following icienfifies your.rghts'and options regarding an ad~uriiStt'ativ~ appeai'of the above
_ ,
ecision. Additional infaririation nriay be found at ~t~p•%/www.u~ace.atmy.mUiriet/functiol~s/Cw/cecwolzeg or
s re atibns~ at 33 CFR Part 33`l . ... ... -
A: INITIAL PROFFERED PERMIT: You may accept or object to the permit.
ACCEPT: If you received a Standard Permit, you may sign the permit document and return it to the district engineer for final
authorization. If you received a Letter of Permission (LOP}, you rrtay accept the LOP and your work is authorized. Your signature
on the Standard Permit or acceptance of the LOP means that you accept the permit in its entirety, and waive all rights to appeal the
pemut, including its terms and conditions, and approved jurisdictional determinations associated with the permit.
OBJECT: If you object to the permit (Standard or LOP) because of certain terms and conditions therein, you may request that the
permit be modified accordingly. You must complete Section II of this form and return the form to the district engineer. Your
objections must be received by the district engineer within 60 days of the date of this notice, or you will forfeit your right to appeal
t the permit in the future. Upon receipt of your letter, the district engineer will evaluate your objections and may: {a) modify the
pernut to address all of your concerns, (b) modify the permit to address some of your objections, or (c) not modify the permit
having determined that the permit should be issued as previously written. After evaluating your objections, the district engineer
will sand you a proffered permit for your reconsideration, as indicated in Section B below.
. PROFFERED PERMIT: You may accept or appeal the permit
ACCEPT: If you received a Standard Permit, you may sign the permit document and return it to the district engineer for final
authorization. If you received a Letter of Permission {LOP), you may accept the LOP and your work is authorized. Your signature
on the Standard Pernut or acceptance of the LOP means that you accept the permit in its entirety, and waive all rights to appeal the
permit, including its terms and conditions, and approved jurisdictional determinations associated with the permit.
' APPEAL: If you choose to decline the proffered permit (Standard or LOP) because of certain terms and conditions therein, you
may appeal the declined permit under the Corps of Engineers Administrative Appeal Process by completing Section II of this form
and sending the form to the division engineer. This form must be received by the division engineer within 60 days of the date of
this notice.
~: PERMIT DENIAL: You may appeal the denial of a permit under the Carps of Engineers Administrative Appeal Process by
leting Section II of this form and sending the form to the division engineer. This form must be received by the division engineer
hin 60 days of the date of this notice.
~: APPROVED JURISDICTIONAL DETERMINATION: You may accept or appeal the approved JD or
vide new information.
ACCEPT: You do not need to notify the Corps to accept an approved JD. Failure to notify the Corps within 60 days of the date of
this notice, means that you accept the approved JD in its entirety, and waive all rights to appeal the approved JD.
' APPEAL: If you disagree with the approved JD, you may appeal the approved JD under the Corps of Engineers Administrative
Appeal Process by completing Section II of this form and sending the form to the district engineer. This form must be received by
'the division engineer within 60 days of the date of this notice.

~: PRELIMINARY JURISDICTIONAL DETERMINATION: You do not need to respond to the Corps
~egarding the preliminary JD. The Preliminary JD is not appealable. If you wish, you may request an approved
JD (which maybe appealed), by contacting the Corps district for further instruction. Also you may provide new
nformation for further consideration by the Corps to reevaluate the JD.
.~ .. ,, ,
fiCTTON, II ~ RE UST FOR: APPEAL ar:0-BJECT10i~i:S.. T.C?, AN INITIAL PR4FFEREI? PE~ZMIT'
ASONS FOR APPEAL OR OBJECTIONS: (Describe your reasons for appealing the decision or yow
objections to an initial proffered permit in clear concise statements. Yau may attach additional information to
s form to clarify where your reasons or objections are addressed in the administrative record.}

DITIONAL INFORMATION: The appeal is limited to a review of the administrative record, the Corps
memorandum for the record of the appeal conference or meeting, and any supplemental information that the
view offcer has determined is needed to clarify the administrative record. Neither the appellant nor the Corps
~
ay add new information or analyses to the record. However, you may provide additional information to clarify
the location of information that is alread in the administrative record.
IN~"~F CONTACT,F`i~R ~LTESTIt)NS OR INF 4RM~1TIC31~F
you have questions regazding this decision If you only have questions regarding the appeal process you
and/or the appeal process you may contact: may also contact:
eve Chapin Mr. Mike Bell, Administrative Appeal Review Officer
SACE CESAD-ET-CO-R
151 Patton Avenue, Room 208 U.S. Anmy Corps of Engineers, South Atlantic Division
~heville, NC 28801-5006 60 Forsyth Street, Room 9M15
Atlanta, Geor is 30303-8801
RIGHT OF ENTRY: Your signature below grants the right of entry to Corps of Engineers personnel, and any
vernment consultants, to conduct investigations of the project site during the course of the appeal process. You
Il be provided a 15 day notice of any site investigation, and will have the opportunity to participate in all site
nvesti ations.
Date: Telephone number:
ii ature of a ellant or a ent.
For appeals on Initial Proffered Permits and approved Jurisdictional Determinations send this
' form to: .
D>IStr>ICt Engineer, Wilmington Regulatory Division, Attn:Steve Chapin, Protect Manager, Ashev>~Ile
' Regulatory Field Office, 151 Patton Avenue, Room 20$, Asheville, North Carolina 28801-5006
For Permit denials and Proffered Permits send this form to:
t Division Engineer, Commander, U.S. Army Engineer Division, South Atlantic, Attn: Mr. Mike Bell,
Administrative Appeal Officer, CESAD-ET-CO-R, 60 Forsyth Street, Room 9M15, Atlanta,
Georgia 30303-8801

1
1

1

APPENDIX E
SELECT RESOURCE PHOTOGRAPHS

Photo 001. Wetland #1. Taken near artesian spring. Note ash basin berm in the upper
left-hand corner.

Photo 002. Data Point #4. Note high chroma soils.

Photo 003. Data Point #2. Ephemeral depressional area outside of wetland #1.
' Photo 004. Beaver induced stream/wetland/pond complex, located outside project
boundary to the southwest.
i

Photo 005. Perennial stream, located offsite to the southwest. Drains into the
beaver induced wetland complex.
i
t3 - ; h .
~~i ,j k~.t'':
'- a
1 ~ .,~'S
~'., , .
r ~. ~'~
~'w: ;.
Photo 006. Stream/wetland slough located offsite to the northeast.

~ 1

~ ~
' Photo 008. Osprey nest located onsite. Alternative nesting platforms are located nearby in
the event of disturbance.

Photo 007. Nesting Great Blue Heron. Part of the wading bird rookery.

1
1
1
1
1
1
1
1
1
1
1
1
1
1
APPENDIX F
AGENT AUTHORIZATION LETTER

1

1
1
1

Duke
•Energyx~
November 19. 2007
Ms. Cyndi Karoly
Division of Water Quality
40[JWctlands Linit
16>0 Mail Service Center
Ralc: igh, NC, 27699- [ 6~+0
DU1fE ENERGY CORPORATION
. ~~.. ,
~,
r,.l, :a ... .
. '„ ~,~- .
Rc: - ,gent Authoricatian t.etter -Duke Energy Carolinas. [_LC'. Buck Combined
Cycle ['reject, Rowan County, North Carolina
Ucar Ms. Karoly:
Duke E;nerly Carolinas, I.I.C. (Duke) of Charlotte, North Carolina is in the pre-
' ronstrui:tion planning stage o1~ a rombincd cycle project at the Buck Steam Station.
located in Rowan County, North Curalina.
"
fanc~:ll & Associates, lnc. (DTI) to perform a formal
Duke has contracted 4vitlt Devine
wetland delineation and rc aurce assessment on the proposed site for the purpose of`
' obtaining permits. U~I~A, as rcprc:sented by Mr. Jay A. Wylie, 4vill be Duke's authorised
agent in the coordination, preparation, and submittal of all future permit packabcs. Mr.
t~~'ylir is hereby authorised to act as Duke's went tar this isolated wetlands permit
application and review.
If you have any clutstions or require further intormation on this matter licl free to call me
at (7U4) 3~2-~7a9 or Mr. Wylie at (70~} 3~}2-7376.
s;n~~r~ly.
. ~ -._
~~
Mark [_andsridel
Genera( (vianaler
C'~I•CC E'rojicts -New Generation
Dukt Energy Carolinas, LLC.
1