20071868 Ver 2_401 Application_20071207

TA
Devine Tarbell & Associates, Inc.
Cwmauhing Enginee~a, Scienrutq & Regulamry Srecialixlx
December 14, 2007
~~1~~~~~
~ 2007
~fT~N~~~1~ Fp~Ry T1'
~Q~
0~1- ISc~a v2
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
Subject: Catawba-Wateree Hydroelectric Project (FERC No. 2232)
Bridgewater Powerhouse Construction Project
Section 401 Water Quality Certification
Nationwide Permit 33 and IWGP 100000
Dear Ms. Karoly:
Principals:
John J. Devine, P.E., President
John C. Tarbell, P.E.
James M. Lynch
Edwin C. Luttrell, P.E.
rAin
Based on updated construction sequencing and guidance from the US Army Corps of Engineers,
Devine Tarbell & Associates, Inc. (DTA) is pleased to submit the enclosed Pre-Construction
Notification (PCN) application for the Bridgewater Powerhouse Construction Project (FERC No.
2232).
Duke Energy Carolinas, LLC (Duke) is in the pre-construction planning phase of the
Bridgewater Powerhouse Construction Project (the Project) immediately adjacent to the Linville
Dam. The Bridgewater Development, consisting of the Bridgewater Powerhouse and the
Linville, Paddy Creek, and Catawba dams, is owned and operated by Duke and is located
approximately 10 miles west of Morganton, North Carolina, in Burke county. Duke is proposing
to construct a new powerhouse at the Linville Dam and has contracted with DTA to conduct the
regulatory and environmental work associated with this Project.
On July 20, 2007, DTA scientists conducted a formal delineation of waters of the US and a rare,
threatened, and endangered (RTE) species survey. Jurisdictional waters of the US, including
wetlands, were delineated and mapped using the routine methodology outlined within the 1987
US Army Corps of Engineers Delineation Manual.
T: 704.377.4182 400 S. Tryon Street, Suite 2401, Charlotte, NC 28285 F: 704.377.4185
Portland, i~faine Charlotte, North Carolina Sacramento, California York, Pennsylvania
207.775.4495 704.377.4182 916.564.4214 717.741.9850
www.Devine t'arbell.com
Syracuse, Ncw Yurk Seattle, W'ashinlrton Bellingham, W'ashin~rton Iioisc, Idaho
315.451.2325 425.391.0523 360.671.1150 208.319.1977

Ms. Cyndi Karoly
December 14, 2007
Page 2
DTA
Investigators identified and mapped two jurisdictional streams and one wetland associated with
one of the identified streams within the Project boundary. The revised permanent impacts to
jurisdictional areas include the following:
^ Hand-clearing of approximately 4,500 square feet of Catawba River buffer; and
^ Fill of approximately 0.30 acre of non-404 jurisdictional isolated waters of the state.
Proposed temporary impacts include the following:
^ Installation of a cofferdam or similar device to divert flow from Stream 1 into an existing
roadside drainage (Figure 3 of Project Narrative);
^ Filling of 170 feet of Stream 1 (Figure 3 of Project Narrative) and its associated wetland
(approximately 0.01 acre) downstream of the newly installed cofferdam (this area will be
used for a temporary stormwater retention basin);
^ Temporary hand-clearing of approximately 5,000 square feet of Catawba River buffer; and
^ Installation of a cofferdam within the Catawba River (Stream Impact #2) around the
proposed powerhouse outfall (tailrace) work area (approximately 2701inear feet) (Figure 3
of Project Narrative).
Due to the nature of the Project, total avoidance of impacts to jurisdictional waters of the US and
State, including wetlands, would be prohibitive. However, through an extensive siting and
sequencing process, proposed permanent impacts have been eliminated and proposed temporary
impacts have been designed to have a minimal adverse effect on aquatic life and hydrologic
functions. Best management practices (BMPs) will be utilized within the buffers including hand
clearing of trees, no grubbing of the root mat, and installation of silt fencing.
Upon Project completion all temporary fill will be removed, Stream 1 will be returned to original
grade and flow, and temporary impacts to the river buffer will be restored to the greatest extent
practical. Erosion and sediment control measures that meet or exceed the most current version of
the North Carolina Erosion and Sediment Control Planning and Design Manual will be installed
and maintained for the life of the Project. All erosion and sediment controls will also be
removed.
Because the Project is located in a North Carolina Wildlife Resources Commission (WRC)
designated trout county, a copy of all joint 404/401 application documents have been sent
concurrently to Mr. Ron Linville of the WRC for comments and approval for work within a
North Carolina trout county.
The North Carolina State Historic Preservation Office (SHPO) has been contacted regarding this
Project and has requested a formal archaeological survey of the area for historic resources.
Although Duke has contracted with an experienced archaeologist to identify and evaluate the
significance of archaeological remains that may be damaged or destroyed by the proposed
Project, the survey has not been completed at the time of this permit submittal. Duke will
furnish the completed survey to the SHPO for comments and to your office to append to the final

Ms. Cyndi Karoly
December 14, 2007
Page 3
DTA
permit document. At that time, Duke will request that the SHPO supply their comments to your
office directly to facilitate timely review of the permit application.
Furthermore, the North Carolina Natural Heritage Program Element Occurrence database and the
United States Fish and Wildlife Service (USFWS) RTE Species database have been consulted
for information and locations of known RTE species within Burke County. During the field
investigation, experienced personnel conducted surveys for all known elements and their
preferred habitats occurring within the county. In support of the Project, guidance has been
requested from the Asheville office of the USFWS by the Federal Energy Regulatory
Commission pertaining to potential impacts to protected species in the area and will be supplied
to your office upon receipt.
Please find the enclosed seven copies of all joint 404/401 permit application documents and a
check in the amount of $570 made payable to the North Carolina Division of Water Quality for
application processing. Two copies of all joint 404/401 application documents have been sent to
Mr. Steve Chapin of the US Army Corps of Engineers, Asheville Regional Office, for review
and authorization under the Clean Water Act Section 404. One copy has also been supplied to
the North Carolina Wildlife Resources Commission for comments and approval regarding work
within a designated trout county.
Should you have any questions or comments, please feel free to contact me at [phone] or
Mr. Tim Huffman with Duke at [phone].
Sincerely,
DEVINE TARBELL & ASSOCIATES, INC.
Jason Isbanioly
Associate Scientist
/~
Scott T. Fle cher, CWB, PWS
Senior Scientist
Manager of Regulatory/Scientific Services
JUSTF/cef
Enclosures
cc w/o encl: T. Huffman, Duke
W. McGarity, DTA
S. Fletcher, DTA
File

1
Duke
IEnergy~
Engineering & Technical ,Services
526 S. Church Street
Charlotte, NC ?0202
October 22, 2007
' Mr. Steve Chapin -Project Manager
Asheville Regional Office
United States Army Corps of Engineers
151 Patton Avenue, Room 208
Asheville, North Carolina 28801-5006

t
1
Re: Duke Energy Carolinas, LLC
Catawba-Wateree Hydroelectric Project (FERC No. 2232)
Bridgewater Powerhouse Construction Project
Agent Authorization Letter
Dear Mr. Chapin:
Duke Energy Carolinas, LLC. (Duke) of Charlotte, North Carolina is in the pre-
construction planning stage of a new hydroelectric powerhouse near on the Catawba
Kiver, below Lake James, near the town of Morganton in Burke County, North Carolina.
T'he preferred siting alternative of the powerhouse project will impact some potentially
jurisdictional waters of the US.
Duke has contracted with Devine Tarbell & Associates, Inc. (D"TA) to perform a wetland
delineation and resource assessment on the proposed site for the purpose of obtaining the
necessary Clean Water Act section 404/401 permits and water quality certifications.
DTA, as represented by Mr. Jason Isbanioly will be Duke's authorized agent in the
coordination, preparation, and submittal of the pre-construction notification permit
package. Mr. Isbanioly has full signatory authority for Chis project as granted by Duke.
If you have any questions or require further information on this matter feel free to call me
at (704) 382-51$5 or Mr. Isbanioly at [phone].
Sincerely,
Timothy L Huffman
Senior Project Manager

Offlce USe Only: Form Version March OS
USACE Action ID No. DWQ No. ~ ~ _ ~ $ tO g y 2
(lf any particular item is not applicahlc to this project, please emu "Not Applicable" or "N/A".)
I. Processing p A I ~
Check all of the approval(s) requested for this project:
® Section 404 Permit ® Riparian or Watershed Buffer Rules
^ Section 10 Permit ^ Isolated Wetland PermiC from DWQ
® 401 Water Quality Certification ^ Express 401 Water Quality Certification
2. Nationwide, Regional or General Permit Number(s) Requested: NWPs 33 (GC 3688),
IWGP: 100000
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:
5. If your project is located in any of North Carolina's twenty coastal counties (listed on page
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), check here: ^
t II. Applicant Information
1. Owner/Applicant Information
Name: Duke Energy Carolinas, LLC (Tim Huffman)
Mailing Address: 526 South Church StreeC _
Mail Code: EC l0A
Charlotte NC 28202

Telephone Number: [phone] Fax Number:
E-mail Address: TLHuffmanC~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: Jason Isbanioly (Associate Scientist)
Company Affiliation: Devine Tarbell & Associates Inc.
Mailing Address: 400 S. Tryon, Suite 2401
Charlotte NC 28285

Telephone Number: [phone] Fax Number: (704> 377-4185
E-mail Address: jason.isbaniol~@devinetarbell.com

Page 5 of ~ 4

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 MRCS 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
(.1SACE requires information to be submitted on sheets no larger than 11 by 17-inch format;
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.
L Name of project: Bridgewater Hydroelectric Powerhouse Demolition and Rebuild Project
2. T.LP. Project Number or State Protect Number (NCDOT Only):
3. Property Tdentifieation Number (Tax PIN): 17530087248$
4. Location
County: Burke Nearest Town: Glen Aline
Subdivision name (include phase/lot number): N/A
Directions to site (include road numbers/names, landmarks, etc.): From Interstate 40 take
exit 94, Dysartsville Road, turn north and ~o a proximately 0.5 mile. Turn left {west) on US
Highway 70 and go 1.7 miles. Turn right (north) onto Bridgewater Road and ~0 2.7 miles

(Bridgewater Road changes to N. Powerhouse Road). Turn right (southwest) onto Powerhouse Road
and go 0.5 mile. End at 5790 Powerhouse Road, powerhouse is on the left side of the road.

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): 35.7428 °N 81.8369 °W
6. Property size (acres): 26.8

7. Name of nearest receiving body of water: Catawba River (Old Linville River}
8. River Basin: Catawba 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.usladmin/ma~sl.)
9. Describe the existing conditions on the site and general land use in the vicinity of the project
at the time of this application: Site conditions reflect current usage as a hydroelectric
Pale 6 of I ~

powerhouse (i.e., powerhouse structure, out-building, switch ay rd, parking area, maintained
lawn ~~rea). Historic land use is heavily impacted by creation of Lake James. Prevailing
general land use in vicinity is primarily forested, agriculture, and small residential. Please
refer to the Project Narrative.
10. Describe the overall project in detail, including the type of equipment to be used: _
Construction of the new powerhouse will require the use of heav Qy~.r~ing equipment, dump
trucks, and a gantry crane. The construction of the new powerhouse will require the till of
the non-~04 jurisdictional stilling basin and the excavation of a new tailrace connected to the
Catawba River. Proposed impacts involve temporarily rerouting a~proximatelx 160 feet of
Stream l into an existing upland roadside drainage to provide space for a temporary
stormwater retention basin. Tailrace construction will require the temporary dewatering of a
section of the Catawba River. The Project will require impacts to the Catawba River buffer
as well. All impacts are described within the Project Narrative.
l 1. Explain the purpose of the proposed work: Anew powerhouse is being built to provide
additional power generation and dissolved ox~aen to the downstream aquatic habitat. Please
refer to the Project Narrative.
IV. Prior Project History
If jurisdictional determinations and/or permits have been requested and/or obtained for this
project (including all prior phases of the same subdivision) in the past, please explain. Include
Che 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.I.P. project, along with
construction schedules. NA
' V. Future Project Plans
Are any future pernut requests anticipated for this project? If so, describe the anticipated work,
and provide justification for the exclusion of this work from the current application.
No future permits are anticipated for this powerhouse construction project.
VI. Proposed Impacts to Waters of the United States/Waters of the State
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
Pa;~e 7 of I4

1

1
1
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 VllI below. If additional
space is needed for listing or description, please attach a separate sheet.
1. Provide a written description of the proposed impacts: The non-404 jurisdictional stilling
basin will be filled to provide space for the new powerhouse. Approximately 160 linear feet
of a stream will be temporarily rerouted to make room for a temporary stormwater retention
basin this will require the temporary fill of 0.01 acre of jurisdictional wetlandsZ
Approximately 0.25 acre of the Catawba River, parallel to the bank, will be dewatered using
a cofferdam in preparation of the tailrace excavation. Approximately 4,500 square feet of
river buffer will be permanently cleared and 5,000 square feet of buffer will be temporarily
cleared. Both of these impacts are in si~port of the new tailrace construction and are
described within the Proiect Narrative.
2, Individually list wetland impacts. Types of impacts include, but are not limited to
mechanized clearing, grading, till, excavation, flooding, ditching/drainage, etc. For dams,
separately list impacts due to both structure and flooding.
Wetland Impact
Type of Wetland Located within Distance to
Area of
Site Number Type of
(e.g., forested, marsh, 100-year Nearest
Impact
(indicate on Impact herbaceous, bog, etc.) Floodplain Stream (acres)
ma) ~ es/no) (linear feet)
1 Temporary PEM No 0 0.0I
Total Wetland Impact (acres) 0.01
3. List the total acreage (estimated> of all existing wetlands on the property: 0.013
4. individually list all intermittent and perennial scream 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
must be included. To calculate aereaQe_ multiply length X width. then divide by 43.560.
Stream Impact Average Impact Area of
Number Stream Type of Perennial or Stream Width Length Impact
(indicated on map) Name Impact Intermittent? Before Impact (linear feet) (acres)
(feet)
1 Stream I Temporary Perennial 3 160 0.01
~ Catawba Temporary Perennial 125 277 0?5
River
Total Stream Impact (hy length and acreage) 437 0.2R
Page 8 of l~

1

[ndividually 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 linuted to
fill, excavation, dredging, t7ooding, drainage, bulkheads, etc,
Open Water
Type of Waterbody
Area of
Impact Name of Waterbody Type of (fake, pond, estuary, Impact
Site Number (if applicable) Impact sound, bay, ocean, etc.) (acres)
(indicate on ma)
1 Stillin~* Basin Pcrmanen~ Isolated waters of the state 0.30
Total Open Water Impact (acres) 0.30
6. List the cumulative impact to all Waters of the U.S. resulting from the project:
Stream Impact (acres): 0.28
Wetland Impact' (acres): 0.01
C)pen Water Impact (acres): NA*
Total Impact to Waters of the U.S. (acres): 0.29
Total Stream Impact (linear feet): X37
"`Isolated open water impact 10.30) was not included because the basin is not a waters of the U.S.
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.
The stilling basin located adiacent to the powerhouse will be permanently tilled to provide
room for the new powerhouse footprint. A site visiC conducted by the United States Army
Corps of Engineers determined that the stilling basin is not a jurisdictional waters of the U.S.
At normal water levels the basin is approximately 0.30-acre. At generation t]ow the basin is
proximately 0.50-acre. Please refer to Appendix C of the Project Narrative for a copy of
the USACE Notification of Jurisdictional Determination.
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., damlembankment, excavation, installation of
draw-down valve or spillway, etc.): NA
Proposed use or purpose of pond (e.g., livestock watering, irrigation, aesthetic, trout pond,
local stormwater requirement, etc.): NA
Current land use in the ti~icinity of the pond; NA
Size of watershed draining to pond: NA Expected pond surface area: NA
1 VII. Impact Justification (Avoidance and Minimization)
Spe~citically 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
Pa_e 9 of 14

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 constil~ction
techniques to be followed during construction to reduce impacts. Site accessibility is constrained
by the small property size. Alternative impacts were analyzed for access practicality and
resource impacts. Impacts were reduced from approximately 366 feet of permanent stream
impacts to solely temporarypacts. Temporary impacts to the lower 160 feet of Stream (allow
the channel to be restored after project completion. Temporary dewatering impacts to the
Catawba River are necessary to install the tailrace. Please refer to the Project Narrative.
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 Co
freshwater wetlands or greater than or equal to 150 linear feet of Cotal impacts to perennial
slreallls.
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
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
initiation 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
andlor upland vegetated buffers to protect open waters such as streams; and replacing losses of
aquatic resource functions and values by creating, restoring, enhancing, or preserving similar
functions and values, preferable in the same watershed.
If ntigation 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, available at
http:l/h2o.enr.state.nc.us/ncwetlands/strm~ ide,html.
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, enhancemenC, 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.
Compensatory mitigation will be provided for in the form of payment into the Ecos sy tem
Enhancement Program's In-lieu Fee Fund. The EEP has approved the applicant's request to
pay into the in-lieu fee fund for permanent impacts to the Catawba River buffer. Please refer
to the Proiect Narrative Appendix C for a copy of the EEP approval letter.

Page 10 of 14

v
t
~ ...
~ ..
1
1
2. Mitigation may also be made by payment into the North Carolina Ecosystem Enhancement
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 ht~://h2o.enr.state,nc.ushvrp/index,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): NA
Amount of buffer mitigation requested (square feet): 4,500
Amount of Riparian wetland mitigation requested (acres): NA
Amount of Non-riparian wetland mitigation requested (acres): NA
Amount of Coastal wetland mitigation requested (acres): NA
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)'?
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 ^
Proposed Impacts on Riparian and Watershed Buffers (required by DWQ)
Tt 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 he included at the
applicant's discretion.
1. Will the project impact protected riparian buffers identified within 15A NCAC 2B .0233
(Neuse), I5A 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 ^
Pad*e l I oti l4

2. If "yes", identify the square feet and aerea¢e of impact to each zone of the riparian buffers.
If buffer mitigation is required calculate the required amount of mitigation by applying the
buffer multi Tiers.
"bone" Impact Multiplier Required
(s ware feet) Niiti ation
1 2,700 3 (2 for Catawba) 5,-100
2 1.800 t .5 2.700
Total x,500 8.100
r Zone 1 extends out .~0 feet perpendicular from the top of the near bank oC channel: Zone
extends an additional ?L) feet from the edee of Zone t.
3. If buffer mitigation is required, please discuss what type of mitigation is proposed (i.e.,
Donation of Property, Riparian Buffer Restoration /Enhancement, or Payment into the
Riparian Buffer Restoration Fund). Please attach all appropriate information as identified
within 15A NCAC 2B .0242 or .0244, or .0260. Unavoidable riparian buffer impacts are
associated with creation of the powerhouse tailrace. The proaosed tailrace is located within
Che existing ROW minimizing total disturbance. Disturbances associated with dam
maintenance to the riparian buffer are categorized as "allowable" under Catawba River
Bann: Protection and Maintenance of Existing Riparian Buffers, Section 6 Table of Uses.
Duke proposes to mitigate for impacts through payment into the Riparian Buffer Restoration
Fund. Additional temporary buffer impacts (approximately 5,000 scf. ft), as well as a
preliminary restoration plan are described in Section 4.2 of the attached Project Narrative.
XI. stormwater (required by DWQ)
Describe impervious 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~~c, please provide calculations
demonstrating total proposed impervious level Impervious surfaces will remain relatively
simil~~r to existing conditions and they include the building itself, the parking area, and the
driveway. Based on current impervious surfaces and proposed impervious surfaces, the
percentage of impervious surfaces in relation to total project area is estimated to be 2~Io.
stormwater mana4ement will follow current design and be channeled via vegetated conve, ay races
to an existing drainage Swale. A temporary stormwater retention basin is proposed to be
constructed in the dewatered portion of Stream 1. The basin will only be constructed after
Stream 1 flow has been rerouted. The basin will only process stormwater from the construction
site no flow from Stream l will enter the basin. Please refer to the Project Narrative.
XII. Sewage Disposal (required by DWQ)
Clearly det~ul the ultimate treatment methods and. disposition (non-discharge or discharge) of
wastewater generated from the proposed project, or available capacity of the subject facility.
' The sanitarywaste from the powerhouse facility bathroom (located on the Generator Floor) and
hand wash /utility sink (located on the Turbine Floor) shall be collected in a common header and
gravity drained to a holding tank (lift stationl. located in the basement. The lift station shall
include a sewage grinding pump. Once the sewage in the holding tank rises to apre-determined
Page 12 of 14

It is the applicant's responsibility to submit the application sufficiently in advance of desired
construction dates to allow processing time for these permits. However, an applicant may
choose to list constraints associated with construction or sequencing that may impose limits on
work schedules (e.g., draw-down schedules for lakes, dates associated with Endangered and
Threatened Species, accessibility problems, or other issues outside of the applicant's control).
~ _ r~
.~
~~ ~-
Applicant/Agent's Si ature Date
i

level the grinding pump shall pump the raw sewage out of the powerhouse to a septic tank. The
septic tank shall gravity drain to a leach field located on tine. The Contactor shall hire an outside
contractor to properly design and install all of the equipment for the sanitary sewer stem on the
site. The design and capacity requirements shall meet the Engineers approval alon~* with all
local and state recd. uirements for a sanitarysewer sXstem.
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 ^
XIV. Cumulative Impacts (required by DWQ)
Will this project (based on past and reasonably anticipated futtu-e 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 in 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 will not lead to increased development pressures in the area. No new roadway
construction is associated with the Project. As the Project will neither decrease nor increase
propertX values in the area, land development speculation is not anticipated as a result of the
Project.
XV. Other Circumstances (Optional):
(Agent's signature is valid only if an authorization letter from the applicant is provided.)
Page 13 of 14

Adjoining Land Owners
Crescent Resources LLC
X00 S. Tryon St. Suite 1300
Charlotte, NC 28285

t

1

1
1

Page to of i~

s
1
1
1
JURISDICTIONAL WATERS OF THE U.S. AND PROTECTED SPECIES REPORT
ASSOCIATED WITH THE
BRIDGEWATER HYDROELECTRIC POWERHOUSE CONSTRUCTION PROJECT
Prepared for: Prepared by:
DUKE ENERGY
CAROLINAS, LLC
Duke
IEnergy~
DEVINE TARBELL
& ASSOCIATES, INC.
T
~.
De~~ne Tarbell & Associates, Inc.
ti.wn4~~ F.gq~.k~r., v-~~n.e, k kcp.4.n 5iccvlwa
December 2007

1

Duke Energy Carolinas, LLC Bridgewater Powerhouse Project
Project Narrative
TABLE OF CONTENTS
1.0 INTRODUCTION .............................................................................................................. 1
2.0 STUDY METHODS ........................................................................................................... 2
3.0 SURVEY RESULTS .......................................................................................•-•-•-•-•------•-•- 3
3.1 Wetlands ........................................................................................................................... 3
3.2 Surface Waters .................................................................................................................. 4
3.3 Buffer Community ............................................................................................................ 5
4.0 PROPOSED IMPACTS ..................................................................................................... 5
4.1 Permanent Impacts .......................................................................................................... .. 7
4.1.1 Impacts to Catawba River Buffer ............................................................................ .. 7
4.1.2 Fill of Stilling Basin ................................................................................................. .. 7
4.2 Temporary Impacts ......................................................................................................... .. 8
4.2.1 Temporary Dewatering of Stream 1 ........................................................................ .. 8
4.2.2 Temporary Dewatering of Catawba River Section .................................................. .. 8
4.2.3 Temporary Impacts to the Catawba River Buffer .................................................... .. 9
5.0 MINIMIZATION AND AVOIDANCE MEASURES ................................................... 11
6.0 RARE, THREATENED, AND ENDANGERED SPECIES ......................................... 11
6.1 Species Accounts ............................................................................................................ 12
6.1.1 Plants ....................................................................................................................... 12
6.1.2 Animals .................................................................................................................... 17
7.0 CONCLUSION ................................................................................................................. 25
8.0 LITERATURE CITED .................................................................................................... 26
APPENDICES .............................................................................................................................. 31
APPENDIX A - FIG URES AND PHOTOGRAPHS
APPENDIB - WETLAND DELINEATIONAND STREAMSURVEYFORMS
APPENDIX C - AGENCY CORRESPONDENCE
APPENDIX D - STATEMENTS OF COMPLIANCE
APPENDIE- BRIDGEWATER POWERHOUSE DRAFT MEMORANDUM OF
AGREEMENT
i

1 Duke Energy Carolinas, LLC Bridgewater Powerhouse Project
Project Narrative
LIST OF TABLES
Table 1. Proposed Impacts to Jurisdictional Wetlands Within the Project Boundary .................... 6
Table 2. Proposed Impacts to Jurisdictional Waters Within the Project Boundary ........................ 6
1 Table 3. Proposed Impacts to Isolated Waters of the State Within the Project Boundary ............. 6
Table 4. Project Sequence Timetable (Figure 4) ............................................................................ 7

1

t

1
1
~~
1

' Duke Energy Carolinas, LLC Bridgewater Powerhouse Project
Project Narrative
1 1.0 INTRODUCTION
Duke Energy Carolinas, LLC (Duke) is proposing to construct a new hydroelectric powerhouse at
the Linville Dam, which is part of Duke's Bridgewater Hydroelectric Development. The Duke
Project name is the Bridgewater Hydroelectric Powerhouse Construction Project (Project). The
Project is located in Burke County, North Carolina, approximately 4 miles northwest of Glen
Alpine, North Carolina (Appendix A, Figures 1 and 2). The Project is part of the Catawba-
' Wateree Relicensing Project. The new powerhouse will be capable of meeting flow release
requirements that have that have been negotiated as part of the relicensing and as defined in the
Comprehensive Relicensing Agreement filed with the Federal Energy Regulatory Commission
(FERC). The construction of the new powerhouse will also allow Duke's efforts to increase the
1 safety of the Linville Dam as mandated by the FERC to proceed.
The Linville Dam was completed in 1919. Constructed by the semi-hydraulic fill method, the
Linville Dam was identified as a potential safety hazard in the event of an earthquake because
1 dams constructed by this method are more susceptible to liquefaction under seismic loading
conditions. Immediately after completion of the Bridgewater Hydroelectric Powerhouse
Construction Project, the Linville Dam will be reinforced by the construction of a large earthen
i berm downstream. The required configuration of the berm will cover the existing powerhouse
thus necessitating the current Project.
In association with the Project, Duke requested that Devine Tarbell & Associates, Inc. (DTA)
conduct a delineation to identify jurisdictional streams and wetlands within the Project boundary,
and conduct a protected species survey of the Project area. On behalf of Duke, DTA is
submitting all permit application materials to the United States Army Corps of Engineers
(USAGE), the North Carolina Division of Water Quality (DWQ), and the North Carolina Wildlife
Resources Commission (WRC).
' According to field study findings, there is one riverine habitat (Catawba River) and one
jurisdictional perennial stream, with an associated jurisdictional wetland system, noted within the
proposed Project boundary. The perennial stream is located within the Project boundary and is an
unnamed tributary (Stream 1) of the Catawba River. The associated wetland system (Wetland 1)
consists of fringe riparian wetlands of the unnamed perennial stream. In addition, a stilling basin
is located adjacent to the existing powerhouse. This basin was inspected by the USAGE on July
11, 2007 and was determined to be non jurisdictional under section 404 of the Clean Water Act,
1

1

Duke Energy Carolinas, LLC Bridgewater Powerhouse Project
Proiect Narrative
and therefore is not considered to be a water of the US. The basin, however, may be considered
an isolated waters of the State.
Duke respectfully requests that all proposed impacts to jurisdictional waters of the US including
wetlands be permitted under Nationwide Permit 33 (General Certification [GC] 3688). Impacts
to the stilling basin are requested to be permitted under Isolated Wetland General Permit (IWGP)
100000 by DWQ only. A full description of all proposed impacts and minimization and
avoidance measures can be found in Sections 4.0 and 5.0 of this report. Please refer to Appendix
A, Figure 3 for locations of resources and impacts, and Figure 4 for project sequencing.
' Permanent Impacts
No permanent impacts to jurisdictional waters of the US are anticipated from the Project.
However, approximately 0.25 acre of waters of the State (e.g., the stilling basin) is proposed to be
permanently filled. Due to site size constraints, the preferred location of the new powerhouse is
on the current stilling basin location. No other impacts to waters of the US or State are
anticipated from this Project.

1

1
1

Approximately 9,500 square feet (sq. ft.) (4,500 sq. ft. of temporary impacts and 5,000 sq. ft. of
permanent impacts) of Catawba River buffer are proposed to be disturbed. Unavoidable
encroachment into the buffer is associated with the building of the new powerhouse tailrace and
the expansion of the existing rights of way.
Temporary Impacts
Approximately 160 feet of Stream 1 and 0.01 acre of Wetland 1 are proposed to be temporarily
filled. An estimated 0.25 acre of the Catawba River (approximately 200 linear feet) is proposed
to be temporarily dewatered for tailrace construction.
2.0 STUDY METHODS
The field survey was conducted on July 20, 2007, by DTA scientists. The objective of the survey
was to document specific jurisdictional wetland and stream resources located within the proposed
Project boundary (Appendix A, Figure 3). Section 3.0 summarizes the results of the field survey
conducted at the Bridgewater Powerhouse site.
2

' Duke Energy Carolinas, LLC Bridgewater Powerhouse Project
Project Narrative

1

1

1

Wetlands and Stream Crossing Determinations
During the field survey, the jurisdictional wetlands found within or immediately adjacent to the
Project boundary 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
southeast wetlands (USFWS 1988).
• 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 iron/manganese 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 jurisdictional wetland areas.
Areas exhibiting the above wetland characteristics, as well as surface waters, were considered
jurisdictional were either located with a Global Positioning System (GPS) and/or flagged with
surveyor tape.
3.0 SURVEY RESULTS
3.1 Wetlands
Based on the field survey, one wetland system was determined to be located within the Project
boundary. This wetland (Wetland 1) consists of an emergent wetland type (Cowardin 1979).
Wetland 1 is located within the Project boundary directly abutting Stream 1. The dominant
vegetation in this wetland includes seedbox (Ludwigia alternifolia), Virginia meadow-beauty
(Rhexia virginica), soft rush (Juncus effusus), strawcolored flatsedge (Cyperus strigosus), and
shallow sedge (Carex lurida).
3

1
Duke Energy Carolinas, LLC Bridgewater Powerhouse Project
Project Narrative
Soils found within the wetland are considered hydric due to the low chroma colors found during
the survey (Appendix B, Wetland Data Form #1). Wetland hydrology indicators include
saturated soil at 6 inches and wetland drainage patterns. The hydrology for this wetland is
provided by flow from stormwater runoff and groundwater from the surrounding upland habitats.
The wetland and upland information associated with the Project is provided in the data forms in
Appendix B of this report. The general location of the wetland is depicted in Appendix A, Figure
3.
3.2 Surface Waters
Based on the field survey, the Catawba River and one unnamed jurisdictional perennial stream
(Stream 1) are located within the Project boundary (Appendix A, Figure 3). Additionally, one
isolated waters of the State is located adjacent to the east side of the powerhouse. As noted,
Stream 1 is a tributary of the Catawba River.
Drainage #1 (Catawba River) is a bed and bank river approximately 60 to 80 feet in width. The
' Catawba River drainage is several feet deep and has nearly vertical banks with a substrate
consisting of gravel, cobble, and bedrock. The level of the river is associated with the production
of electricity from the Bridgewater Powerhouse.
' Drainage #2 (Stream 1) is located on the downstream right bank of the Catawba River. This
drainage appears to be a bed and bank perennial stream approximately 2 to 3 feet in width. This
' drainage is approximately 1 foot in depth and has moderately to steeply sloping banks with a
substrate consisting of sand, gravel, and silt. The reach proposed to be impacted is located within
' a grass and fescue maintained lawn; the buffer consists of herbaceous cover only. Crayfish
chimneys and gilled snails were observed within the drainage. The channel is moderately to very
' incised. Overall, the drainage received a score of 36 using the USACE Stream Quality
Assessment Worksheet (Appendix B).
The stilling basin was constructed at the same time as the powerhouse to serve as a buffer in the
event of an emergency release of the emergency penstock valves. The basin is adjacent to the
' current powerhouse tailrace and water levels within the basin are affected by generation flows
from the powerhouse (Appendix A, Figure 3). At normal water levels (i.e., non-generation flows)
4

Duke Energy Carolinas, LLC Bridgewater Powerhouse Project
Project Narrative
the basin surface area is approximately 0.30 acre and approximately 8 to 10 feet at the deepest
point. The basin was constructed to handle a much larger amount of water (approximately 0.77
acre during an emergency release); however, the surface area at full generation flows is
approximately 0.50 acre.
A site visit by the USACE on July 11, 2007 concluded with the determination by the agent of the
District Engineer that the stilling basin is a non jurisdictional waters not subject to the permit
requirements of Section 404 of the Clean Water Act. However, the basin may still be considered
an isolated waters of the State, and subject to DWQ jurisdiction under Section 401 of the Clean
Water Act.
3.3 Buffer Community
The buffer vegetation community along the Catawba River within the Project boundary can best
be described as a mesic mixed hardwood forest (Piedmont Subtype) (Schafale and Weakley
1990). Dominant species found within the canopy include tulip poplar (Liriodendron tulipifera),
red maple (Ater rubrum), and northern red oak (Quercus rubs). Some white pine (Pinus
strobus) is present within the upper portions of the buffer and some sycamore (Platanus
occidentalis) is present near the river. Under-story species include immature canopy species as
well as hophornbeam (Ostrya virginiana). Shrub species present include blueberry species
(Yaccinium sp.) and mountain laurel (Kalmia latifolia). Herb and vine species are varied and
include various fescue species (Festuca sp.), flea bane (Erigeron sp.), path rush (Juncus tenuis),
blackberry (Rubus argutus), and poison ivy (Toxicodendron radicans).
4.0 PROPOSED IMPACTS
Proposed impacts to jurisdictional waters of the US associated with this FERC mandated project
will be limited to temporary impacts to Stream 1, Wetland 1, and the Catawba River. Other
impacts include permanent fill of the stilling basin, and both temporary and permanent impacts to
the Catawba River buffer. Tables 1 through 3 present listings of the proposed impacts to
jurisdictional wetlands, jurisdictional waters, and isolated waters of the state within the Project
boundary. Table 4 describes an approximate timetable for the proposed project phases.
5

1
1
1
1
1
1
1
1
1
1
Duke Energy Carolinas, LLC Bridgewater Powerhouse Project
Project Narrative
Table 1. Proposed Impacts to Jurisdictional Wetlands Within the Project Boundary
Wetland Impact Type of Wetland Located Distance Area
Site Number Type of (e.g., forested, within to Nearest of
(indicated on Impact marsh, 100-year Stream Impact
map) herbaceous, bog, Floodplain (linear (acres)
etc.) es/no) feet
1 Temporary PSS No 0 0.01
Total Wetland Impact (acres) 0.01
Table 2. Proposed Impacts to Jurisdictional Waters Within the Project Boundary
Average
Stream Impact Perennial Stream Impact Area
Number Stream Type of or Width Length of
(indicated on Name Impact Intermitt Before (linear Impact
map) ent? Impact feet) (acres)
(feet
1 Stream 1 Temporary Perennial 3 160 0.01
2 Catawba Temporary Perennial 125 277 0.25
Total Stream Impact (by length and acreage) 437 0.28
Table 3. Proposed Impacts to Isolated Waters of the State Within the Project Boundary
Open Water Area
Impact Name of Type of Type of Waterbody of
Site Number Waterbody
Impact (lake, pond, estuary, Impac
(indicated on (if applicable) sound, bay, ocean, etc.) t
ma) (acres)
1 Stilling Basin Permanent Isolated waters of the 0.30
State
Total Open Water Impact (acres) 0.30
6

' Duke Energy Carolinas, LLC Bridgewater Powerhouse Project
Project Narrative
1

1
1
1
Table 4. Project Sequence Timetable (Appendix A, Figure 4)
Project Phase Approximate Start Dates
L Flow rerouted out of Stream 1 and
temporary stormwater retention basin
constructed
Spring 2008
2. Stilling basin filled Spring to Summer 2008
3. Powerhouse construction Summer 2008 to Spring 2010
4. Tailrace excavation Winter to Spring 2010
5. Tailrace connection to Catawba River Spring 2010
6. Restoration of all temporary impacts to
Stream 1 and buffer, and removal of
cofferdam
Spring to Fa112010
4
1 P
I
.
ermanent
mpacts
Proposed permanent impacts are limited to the fill of approximately 0.30 acre of isolated waters
of the State (stilling basin). Duke respectfully requests that this impact be permitted by the DWQ
' as an impact to a non-404 Jurisdictional Waters (IWGP 100000). Anticipated impacts also
i
l
d
i
t
l
4
500
ft
f
di
b
h
b
i
nc
u
e approx
ma
y
,
e
sq.
. o
permanent
stur
ance to t
e Cataw
a R
ver buffer. All
permanent impacts are described below.

4.1.1 Permanent Impacts to Catawba River Buffer
' Approximately 4,500 sq. ft. of permanent impacts to the Catawba River buffer are anticipated
from this Project. In order to comply with the Catawba River Buffer Rules and Burke County
' Watershed/Shoreline Protection Ordinances, a buffer protection and monitoring plan will be
developed in conjunction with the Burke County Planning Department. All necessary clearing
' will be done with hand tools. Photo monitoring stations may be established to determine bank
stability, with surveys performed and reports submitted quarterly pending guidance from the
Burke County Planning Department. Any observed bank instability will be documented and
addressed immediately.
' Equipment Used
' Chain-saws and other hand tools will be used to remove vegetation within the buffer.
4.1.2 Permanent Filling of Stilling Basin
The stilling basin (approximately 0.30 acre) will be filled to provide construction space for the
new powerhouse. During fill activity water will be pumped from the basin into adjacent tailrace
7

1

1
1

1

1

1

1
1
Duke Energy Carolinas, LLC Bridgewater Powerhouse Project
Project Narrative
and generation flows from the powerhouse will cease. Gasoline powered water pumps will be
maintained and operated away from the water, and will be contained and monitored to guard
against any spills.
Equipment Used
A backhoe or other earth moving equipment will be used to fill the basin. Gasoline powered
pumps will be used to dewater the basin.
4.2 Temporary Impacts
Proposed temporary impacts involve rerouting approximately 160 feet of Stream 1 into an
existing upland roadside drainage, and the temporary dewatering of a section of the Catawba
River. The existing roadside drainage flows into another small jurisdictional stream offsite.
Duke respectfully requests that these impacts be permitted under Nationwide Permit 33 (GC
3688). Anticipated temporary impacts also include approximately 5,000 sq. ft. of disturbance to
the Catawba River buffer. All temporary impacts are described below.
4.2.1 Temporary Dewatering of Stream 1
Approximately 170 linear feet of Stream 1 will be rerouted to dewater the downstream portion of
the channel. Approximately 170 feet of the original, dewatered channel and associated fringe
wetlands will be excavated and used as a temporary stormwater retention basin. After Project
completion, the drainage will be returned to original contours and elevations to the greatest
practical extent. The stonnwater retention basin will be removed. Flow will be returned to the
original channel and all construction materials will be removed. The original channel banks will
be seeded and secured against erosion.
Equipment Used
A backhoe or other earth moving equipment, high density polyethylene (HDPE) pipe, rip-rap,
cleaned rubble, native vegetation, and biodegradable erosion control fabric will be utilized to
dewater Stream 1.
4.2.2 Temporary Dewatering of Catawba River Section
As noted above, a cofferdam will be used to dewater a section of the Catawba River immediately
adjacent to the section of the right descending bank that is to be removed to connect the tailrace
with the river. The cofferdam will be removed in its entirety upon Project completion. The
8

Duke Energy Carolinas, LLC Bridgewater Powerhouse Project
Project Narrative
cofferdam will extend out from the bank approximately 25 to 30 feet to form a dewatered
semicircle around the work area. The estimated dewatered area is 0.25 acre. Downstream flows
' will not be impacted during construction of the cofferdam. A temporary turbidity curtain may be
used during the installation and removal of the cofferdam.
After tailrace construction, approximately 180 linear feet of the river bank will be excavated to
connect the powerhouse to the main river channel. Based on guidance received from the
USACE, this phase of the Project will not require a Nationwide Permit (Personal

Communication: S. Chapin November 2007). Aside from minimal incidental fallback, no fill will
be placed in waters of the US or the State during excavation. Likewise, once the bank is
excavated, the tailrace will be considered part of the river and under the jurisdictional purview of
regulatory agencies, as would any other waters of the US. Therefore, it is understood that any
future work requiring fill within the tailrace will be regulated under Sections 404 and 401 of the
CWA. The cofferdam will remain in place during excavation and downstream water quality will
be monitored per the terms and conditions of the 401 Water Quality Certification issued for the
Project.
Equipment Used
A temporary turbidity curtain, cofferdam, and backhoe or similar earth moving equipment will be
utilized to dewater the Catawba River section.
4.2.3 Temporary Impacts to the Catawba River Buffer
The temporary impacts to the Catawba River buffer are associated with the construction of the
tailrace. Duke is requesting allowance for this impact to provide construction and work
equipment, and room for crews to safely work on the portion of the tailrace that extends into the
buffer. Safe access to this area will require approximately 50 linear feet of impact on both sides
of the tailrace, resulting in approximately 5,000 sq. ft. of temporary impacts. These areas will be
hand cleared and will not be grubbed. Silt fencing and all other sediment and erosion control
measures required by the latest edition of the North Carolina Sediment and Erosion Control
manual will be installed prior to project commencement and will be maintained for the life of the
project.
Upon project completion, the areas will be restored using native woody and herbaceous
vegetation and the sediment and erosion control measures will be removed once the area is
9

' Duke Energy Carolinas, LLC Bridgewater Powerhouse Project
Project Narrative
stabilized. These areas will be monitored per the terms and conditions of the permit issued by
either the North Carolina Department of Environment and Natural Resources (DENR) or the
Burke County Planning Department, whichever is determined to be the lead agency in this case.
Equipment Used
Chain-saws and other hand tools will be used to remove vegetation within the buffer.

1

1

t

to

t

1

Duke Energy Carolinas, LLC Bridgewater Powerhouse Project
Proiect Narrative
5.0 MINIMIZATION AND AVOIDANCE MEASURES
Restrictions based on size and location make this site less than ideal for eliminating impacts to
jurisdictional waters and wetlands altogether. Therefore, the following minimization alternatives
were based on extensive siting and sequencing negotiations. The preferred alternative
(Alternative 3) represents the option with the least amount of impacts.
Alternative 1 - No Action
This alternative would leave the Catawba River, the unnamed stream, and its associated wetlands
intact. Duke would not be capable of meeting flow release requirements that have that have been
negotiated as part of the relicensing and as defined in the Comprehensive Relicensing Agreement
filed with the FERC. In addition, the construction of the new powerhouse would not be able to
assist the FERC mandated Linville Dam ESSI Project. The old powerhouse would remain in
place and the dam would be susceptible to liquefaction from seismic events.
Alternative 2 -Permanent Impacts to Stream 1
This alternative would require the installation of a culvert on the stream and permanent fill of the
entire channel. Permanent impacts would total approximately 300 linear feet of stream and all
associated wetlands in addition to impacts to the Catawba River. Because this alternative would
exceed impact limits set forth in Nationwide Permit 39, an individual permit would have to be
applied for. This option has the potential to move the FERC mandated embankment stability
Project back by several months or longer. Because this is a public safety project with a FERC
determined timetable, this option is not feasible.
Alternative 3 -Impacts Minimized (Preferred)
This alternative is the preferred option and is described in full above (Section 4.0). Permanent
impacts to jurisdictional waters of the US have been eliminated and all temporary impacts will be
restored upon Project completion. All unavoidable impacts have been determined to be those
absolutely necessary to perform the FERC mandated Project.
6.0 RARE, THREATENED, AND ENDANGERED SPECIES
A federally rare, threatened, and endangered (RTE) species survey of the area was performed as
part of the Catawba-Wateree relicensing process. Additionally, the United States Fish and
Wildlife Service (USFWS) Burke County RTE species database (2007a) and the North Carolina
Natural Heritage Program (NCNHP) element occurrence database (2007) were consulted to
11

' Duke Energy Carolinas, LLC Bridgewater Powerhouse Project
Project Narrative
t obtain a current list of RTE species occurring within the Project vicinity. This research formed
the basis for a site specific survey conducted within the Project site by DTA personnel
experienced in the target species. No RTE species were found within the Bridgewater Project
boundary. Two known populations of the federally protected dwarf-flowered heartleaf
' (Hexastylis nan~ora) are located near but outside of the Project boundary; one is located directly
across the Catawba River and the other is located across Powerhouse Road. No other RTE
1

1

1
species are known to exist near or within the Project boundary. No impacts to any RTE species
are anticipated from this Project. The FERC has been notified of the potentially occurring
protected species within the area and concurs that the Project will not affect any protected
species. A concurrence request has been submitted to the USFWS by the FERC on behalf of
Duke (Appendix C). The following species accounts describe species that have a federal
protection status.
6.1 Species Accounts
6.1.1 Plants
Butternut (Juglans cinerea) [FSC]
This member of the walnut family is generally found in moist, nutrient-rich mountain forests
(Weakley 2006). The leaflets are densely hirsute on the lower surface with 4 to 8 rayed fascicled
hairs. The densely pubescent, ellipsoid fruit is covered with reddish-brown glandular hairs. The
leaflets are 11 to 17 and the leaf scars have a velvety ridge. The pith is dark brown and the bark
of mature trees is pale. This formerly common species is now threatened by the butternut canker
disease.
No populations or individuals of this species were observed within the Project area. Furthermore,
no preferred habitat is located within the Project boundary. No impacts to this species are
anticipated from the Project activities.
Gray's Saxifrage (Saxifraga carolinianal [FSC/SR-Tl*
This perennial plant is an herb with a basal rosette of coarsely serrated leaves approximately 5.5
inches in length with leaves that narrow quickly to a winged leaf-stalk. This plant produces
flowers between May and June. The flowers are white with yellow spots (NatureServe 2003b).
12

Duke Energy Carolinas, LLC Bridgewater Powerhouse Project
Project Narrative
S. caroliniana inhabits cool, shaded, rocky woods and rock ledges. This herb roots in the thin
organic layer and mosses that grow on rock faces. A majority of the time this plant is found in a
very steep terrain in the mist areas of waterfalls or on rock faces where ground water flows out
and across the rocks (NatureServe 2003b).
i
Although no habitat exists for this species within the Project boundary, there are rock outcrops
immediately across the Catawba River. However, these areas are outside of the area of Project
impact and the Project boundary. No impacts to this species are anticipated from this Project.
1
Cuthbert's Turtlehead Chelone cuthbertii F
1 f SC/SR-Ll
1 This plant is a perennial herbaceous plant, which is approximately 19 to 39 inches tall. The
leaves are cauline and opposite with each leaf being toothed (Radford et al. 1968). In C.
1 cuthbertii the leaf base is rounded and sessile. This plant produces flowers between July and
S
t
b
Th
fl
i
l
i
ep
em
er.
e
owers are
rregu
ar
n shape and purple in color, with yellow beards. This
species inhabits bogs and wet meadows (Radford et al. 1968).

The plant's preferred habitat, consisting of wet bogs or wet meadows, was not located during the
field survey and no observations of this species were noted. The proposed Project will not have
any impact on this federal species of concern.

Dwarf-flowered Heartleaf (Hexas lis nani ora) fT/TL
This ginger species is found in the upper piedmont regions of both South Carolina and North
Carolina. In South Carolina, populations exist in Cherokee County; several populations of this
1 plant are located in Greenville County; and a few populations are located in Spartanburg County
(USFWS 1990). The range for this species in North Carolina ranges from Catawba, Lincoln,
1 Rutherford, Cleveland, and Burke counties. The North Carolina Natural Heritage Program also
lists populations in Alexander, Caldwell, and Polk counties (NCNHP 2002). In addition to its
known range, the plant may occur in isolated areas in northwestern Gaston County, western
Iredell County, and Yadkin County, all in North Carolina (USFWS 1990).
H. nan~ora grows in acidic, sandy loam soils along bluffs and nearby slopes, in boggy areas
adjacent to creek heads and streams, and along the slopes of hillsides and ravines. Soil type is the
j most important habitat requirement. The species needs Pacolet, Madison gravelly sandy loam, or
Musella fine sandy loam soils to grow and survive. Provided the soil type is right, the plant can
13

Duke Energy Carolinas, LLC Bridgewater Powerhouse Project
Project Narrative

t

survive in either dry or moderately moist habitat. For maximum flowering, the plant needs
sunlight in early spring. Creek heads where shrubs are rare, and bluffs with light gaps are the
habitat types most conducive to flowering and high seed production. Seed output is lowest in
bluff populations with abundant shade (USFWS 1990).
As mentioned, there are known populations of H. naniflora located across the Catawba River and
across Powerhouse Road near the Project boundary. However, neither population is within the
area of Project impact or within the Project boundary. No impacts to this species are anticipated
from this Project.
Heller's Blazing-star (Liatris helleril fT/T-SCl*
Heller's blazing star is a perennial herb that has one or more erect or arching stems coming up
from a tuft of narrow pale green basal leaves. Its stems reach up to approximately 16 inches tall
and are topped by a spike of lavender flowers, which are approximately 3 to 8 inches in length.
Its flowering season lasts from July through September, and its fruits are present from September
through October. The plant is distinguished from similar high altitude Liatris species by a shorter
pappus, ciliate petioles, internally pilose corolla tubes, and a lower, stockier habit (USFWS
1991).
outcrops in shallow, acid soils, which are exposed to full sunlight (USFWS 1991).
Heller's blazing star is native to the northern Blue Ridge Mountains of North Carolina. Only
seven of the original nine known populations still exist. Two populations were destroyed by
residential and recreational development. The plant exists on high elevation ledges of rock
No high elevation ledges of rock outcrops in shallow, acid soils which are exposed to full sunlight
were located during the field assessments and no observations of this species were noted. No
impacts to this species are anticipated from this Project.
Mountain Golden-heather (Hudsonia montana) [E CH/Tl*
This plant is a low perennial shrub with needle-leaves and yellow flowers, which measure
approximately 2 centimeters across. The plants occur on open, wind-swept rock ledges. The
continued existence of this plant and the fragile plant community in which it occurs are
threatened by trampling (USFWS 1991).
14

Duke Energy Carolinas, LLC Bridgewater Powerhouse Project
Project Narrative
Burke County, North Carolina, has an area designated as critical habitat for the mountain golden-
heather. The description of the critical habitat is the area bounded by the following: on the west
by the 2,200-foot MSL contour; on the east by the Linville Gorge Wilderness Boundary north
from the intersection of the 2,200-foot MSL contour and the Shortoff Mountain Trail to where it
intersects with the 3,400-foot MSL contour at "The Chimneys"; then follow the 3,400-foot MSL
contour north until it re-intersects the Linville Gorge Wilderness Boundary extending west from
' its intersection with the Linville Gorge Wilderness Boundary until it begins to turn south. At this
point the Boundary extends due east until it intersects the 2,200-foot MSL contour (USFWS
' 2003a).
' Neither the in-house research nor the Project area survey has located any preferred habitat,
individuals, or populations within the Project area. In addition, the above described critical
habitat for the mountain golden-heather is not located within the Project area. Therefore, the
proposed Project will not impact the mountain golden-heather.
Small Whorled Po~onia (Isotria medeoloidesZ[E/T]*
The small whorled pogonia is a perennial herb that stands approximately 4 to 10 inches in height
ending with a whorl of 5 or 6 light green, elliptical leaves that are slightly pointed. One or two
flowers are produced at the top of the stem. The flowering of this species occurs during mid-May
to mid-June, with the flowers apparently lasting only a few days to a week or so (USFWS 1996).
The habitat for this herb is generally open, dry, deciduous woods with acid soil. If it occurs in
1 habitats where there is relatively high shrub coverage or high sapling density, flowering appears
to be inhibited. The threat to this species appears to be attributed to loss of habitat and over-
utilization for scientific and private collections (USFWS 1996)
Neither the in-house research nor the Project area survey has located any preferred habitat,
individuals or populations of the small whorled pogonia within the Project area. Therefore, no
impacts to this species are anticipated from this Project.
S rep adin~ Avens (Geum radiatum) fFSC/SR-Tl*
This plant is a member of the Rosaceae family. The spreading avens is a perennial herb, topped
with an indefinite cyme of large and bright yellow flowers. Leaves are mostly basal with large
terminal lobes and small laterals, which arise from horizontal rhizomes. The stems of the plant

15

1

t

Duke Energy Carolinas, LLC Bridgewater Powerhouse Project
Project Narrative
will grow approximately 8 to 20 inches in height. Flowers appear from June through September,
and its fruits, which are achenes, are produced from August to October (USFWS 1990).
The reason for the plant's current status is that this species is being seriously impacted by both
recreational and residential development. The population sites occur on open mountain summits,
which are prime areas for recreational facilities. The construction of recreational facilities,
combined with the increased recreational usage by sightseers, has severely impacted the existing
populations. The spreading avens populations face increasing impacts from the results of heavy
recreational usage in the form of soil compaction, soil erosion, and trampling (USFWS 1990).
G. radiatum is restricted to a small number of scattered mountaintops in western North Carolina
and eastern Tennessee. Spreading avens was originally known from 16 sites, and 11 of these sites
still support populations. Three of the remaining spreading avens populations are in Ashe
County, North Carolina. Two others are situated on the Mitchell County, North Carolina/Carter
County, Tennessee line; and on the Avery/Watauga County line in North Carolina. One
population each remains in Avery, Transylvania, Watauga, Buncombe, and Yancey counties,
North Carolina. Seven of these 11 avens sites have less than 50 plants each (USFWS 1990).
G. radiatum is noted to inhabit high elevation cliffs, outcrops, and steep slopes which are exposed
to full sun (USFWS 1990). No habitat appropriate to this species was found within the Project
boundary. No impacts to this species are anticipated from this Project.
Sweet Pinesa Monotro si
u v s •a~rwtw2[FSC/SR-TL

1
The sweet pinesap prefers habitats consisting of dry oak-hickory and pine woods within the
Piedmont. The very fragrant, spicy flowers of this perennial appear early in the spring (February
- April), and the fruits are mature in May and June. It is similar to American pine-sap
(Monotropa hypopithys) except that the fruiting body associated with Monotropsis is a berry
rather than a capsule and the flower petals are united (Radford et al. 1983).
Although some habitat for this species does exist onsite within a small portion of the Catawba
River buffer, repeated surveys of this area have yielded no evidence of the target species. No
impacts to this species are anticipated from this Project.
16

Duke Energy Carolinas, LLC Bridgewater Powerhouse Project
Proiect Narrative

1

1

1

1
6.1.2 Animals
Alle hens Woodrat (Neotoma magister) fFSC/SCl*
The Allegheny Woodrat is a medium-sized nocturnal rodent similar in appearance to the White-
footed Mouse (Peromyscus leucopus). An adult woodrat is 15 to 18 inches in length, which
includes the 7-inch-long tail. The Allegheny Woodrat occurs along the Appalachian Mountains
from southwestern New York and northern New Jersey through most of Pennsylvania and
southwest into Tennessee and northeastern Alabama. The woodrat is usually found where
surrounding forest vegetation is mostly deciduous, although several populations have been noted
in areas composed predominantly of hemlock. Preferred food consists of grapes (Vitis sp.),
acorns, tulip poplar heads, and many other common items found throughout the forest (Limey
2002; Castleberry 2000; PGC 2003).
A common feature of this resident of caves, rock outcrops, and talus slopes along mountains is
the large fecal piles these rodents deposit on flat rocks scattered throughout the colony area.
Another feature common to areas inhabited by this species is the large caches of foodstuffs found
crumpled and stuffed into cracks and crevices in the rocks; in several instances, large acorn
"mounds" have been found in caves occupied by woodrats. Within the Project boundary there
were no signs of the Allegheny Woodrat, nor were habitat conditions a favorable match for this
species (PGC 2003). Therefore, no impacts to this species are anticipated from this Project.
American Eel (Anguilla rostrataZ[FSCI*
This elongate snakelike fish spawns in the winter and early spring in open ocean waters
(NatureServe 2007a). As the larvae mature they move towards estuaries and then migrate further
into freshwater rivers and streams, generally by age 11. After this lengthy stage, known as the
"yellow eel" stage, the eel may go through a physical and physiological transformation into a
distinct, sexually mature "silver eel" stage. Eels in this stage migrate downstream and into the
ocean to spawn.
Migrating young eels, or "elvers", may be partially dependent on soft, undisturbed bottom
sediments for upstream migration (NatureServe 2007a). Bottom-dwelling post larval eels tend to
dwell on the bottom, making use of tubes, snags, root and other plant masses for shelter.
17

1

1
1

1

1

Duke Energy Carolinas, LLC Bridgewater Powerhouse Project
Project Narrative
This species was not observed during the onsite survey for protected species. Additionally, there
are no known occurrences of this species within the immediate Project vicinity. No impacts to
this species are anticipated from the Project.
Bald Eagle (Haliaeetus leucocephalus2LBGPAL
The bald eagle is a large 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 three feet in length from head to tail, weigh
approximately 10 to 12 pounds and have a wingspan that can reach eight feet. Generally, female
bald eagles are somewhat larger than the males (USFWS 2004a). 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 2004a). 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 the North and South Carolina, with egg laying and incubation occurring from
January to April (USFWS 2007b). Courtship flights and other pair bonding behaviors generally
occur in late winter. Anywhere from 1-3 eggs will be laid which will be incubated for
approximately 35 days. Hatching of eggs may occur on different days due to eggs being laid at
different times, and the chicks will fledge 9 to 12 weeks after hatching. Young eagles will
typically stay around the nest site for several weeks after fledging because of their dependence on
food from the parents.
Bald Eagles are opportunistic feeders, with fish comprising most of the diet throughout its range.
Other prey consumed includes waterfowl, shorebirds/colonial waterbirds, small mammals, turtles,
and carrion (USFWS 2007b). Birds will often congregate at good feeding areas during the winter
and begin to establish breeding territories soon thereafter.
Although the Bald Eagle was removed from the Endangered Species list in 2007, the species
continues to be protected under the Bald and Golden Eagle Protection Act (BGPA) (USFWS
2007b). The BGEA essentially protects both eagles from disturbance or "take".
18

Duke Energy Carolinas, LLC Bridgewater Powerhouse Project
Project Narrative
' A Bald Eagle nest was observed in the Project area during the Catawba-Wateree Relicensing
project in April of 2005. At that time the nest had been abandoned. Currently, Bald Eagles are
known to nest and forage around Lake James, although there have not been any current sightings
near or within the Project area. No canopy-emergent trees suitable for nesting are in the Project
boundary. There are, however, potential foraging areas located adjacent to the Project. Project
activities would have relatively little permanent impact on these areas and should not disturb this
species. The onsite investigation yielded no evidence of this species within the Project area. No
impacts to this species are anticipated from the Project.
Bog Turtle (ClemmYs muhlenber,~ii) [T-SA/Tl*
The southern Bog Turtle species, considered threatened by similar appearance by the USFWS
' (Federal Register, November 1997), is a small turtle with a carapace that is light brown to black
(may have yellowish or reddish areas on large scutes), strongly sculptured with growth lines, and
has an inconspicuous keel; plastron is mainly dark brown to black; head is brown, with a large
yellow or orange and sometimes red, blotch above and behind the tympanum (blotch may be
' divided); adult carapace length usually is 3 to 3.5 inches and up to 4.5 inches. A hatchling
carapace ranges between 1.0 to 1.25 inches; the male vent is posterior to the rear edge of the
carapace and the plastron is concave (flat in female) (NatureServe 2003a).
This turtle differs from the Spotted Turtle (C. guttata) (a few of which lack yellow dots on the
carapace) by having a large orange patch on each side of the head rather than many small yellow
or orange spots on the head and neck; also, the southern Bog Turtle has prominent growth lines
on the carapace (NatureServe 2003a).
The habitat of this species consist of "slow, shallow, muck-bottomed rivulets of sphagnum bogs,
calcareous fens, marshy/sedge-tussock meadows, spring seeps, wet cow pastures, and shrub
i swamps; habitat usually contains an abundance of grassy or mossy cover. The turtles depend on
a mosaic of microhabitats for foraging, nesting, basking, hibernation, and shelter. Unfragmented
riparian systems that are sufficiently dynamic to allow the natural creation of open habitat are
needed to compensate for ecological succession. Beaver, deer, and cattle may be instrumental in
maintaining the essential open-canopy wetlands" (USFWS 2000).

1
19

1

1

1
1
Duke Energy Carolinas, LLC Bridgewater Powerhouse Project
Project Narrative
This species commonly basks on tussocks in the morning during the spring and early summer
months. It burrows into soft substrate of waterways, crawls under sedge tussocks, or enters
muskrat burrows during periods of inactivity in summer (NatureServe 2003a).
The Bog Turtle inhabits the mountain and upper piedmont areas of North Carolina. In this
region, the habitat preferred by the turtle is damp grassy fields, bogs and marshes (Martof et al.
1980). The species nests in open and elevated ground in areas of moss, grassy tussocks, or moist
earth. The turtle digs shallow nest or lays eggs in the top of a sedge tussock (NatureServe 2003a).
The southern Bog Turtle population is separated from the northern population by approximately
250 miles. However, individual Bog Turtles in the southern population closely resemble
individuals in the northern Bog Turtle population, causing difficulty in enforcing prohibitions
protecting the northern population. Therefore, the USFWS designated the southern population as
"threatened by similarity of appearance." Per the USFWS, "this designation prohibits collecting
individual turtles from this population and bans interstate and international commercial trade. It
has no effect on land management activities of private landowners in southern states where the
Bog Turtle lives" (USFWS 2004b).
Neither the in-house research nor the Project area survey has located any preferred habitat,
individuals, or populations within the Project area. Although there are some fringe wetlands
onsite, these emergent habitats are ecologically disconnected due to severe stream incising.
Grassy areas onsite are located within uplands and do not resemble known Bog Turtle habitats.
No impacts to this species are anticipated from this Project.
Brook Floater (Alasmidonta varicosaZ[FSC/El*
Typical habitat for the Brook Floater is in and near riffles due to its preference for swiftly flowing
water and gravelly substrates. Identified hosts for this species include Blacknose Dace
(Rhinichthys atratulus), Golden Shiner (Notemigonus crysoleucas), Longnose Dace (R.
cataractae), Margined Madtom (Noturus insignis), Pumpkinseed (Lepomis gibbosus), Slimy
Sculpin (Cottus cognatus), and Yellow Perch (Perca flavescens) (Bogan 2002).
Although a formal aquatic survey was not performed at the time of the site visit survey, no live or
relic bivalves of any type were observed within the property boundary. No impacts to this
species are anticipated from this Project.
20

1

1
1
1

1

1
i
1

Duke Energy Carolinas, LLC Bridgewater Powerhouse Project
Proiect Narrative
Cherokee Clubtail (Gomphus consanQUisZ[FSC/SRL
This slender, mostly black dragonfly has one black facial cross-stripe, a green occiput, and two
narrow black stripes on each side of the gray-green thorax. The larva is brown with flat oval
abdomen. Preferred habitat is a small, spring-fed stream with sand, gravel, and fine detritus
substrate in partly shaded to open areas. Adults and larvae are often concentrated in mud-
bottomed sections of these streams (NatureServe 2005).
Aquatic species sampling was not conducted as part of the field investigations. However,
Project-wide best management practices and prescribed buffers will serve to protect species
habitat to the greatest extent possible. No impacts to this species are anticipated from this
Project. At this time, this is a federal species of concern with no legal protection; however, if the
status of this species changes, a re-evaluation of this species and its habitat may be necessary.
Diana FriNllary (Sneyeria Jana) 1FSCl*
This large fritillary is unique in that it does not have silver spots (NatureServe 2007b).
Diagnostic male features include a plain two-tone brownish underside hindwing with some silver
at the margins. The basal portion of the wing is solidly dark and the outer thirds of both wings
are almost an unmarked orange. Diagnostic female features include a lack of tails and lack of any
orange spots on the hindwing. Also, the female has extensive blue on the hindwing which is
combined with three rows of white to bluish white spots on the forewing. These spots are not
yellowish.
Preferred breeding habitat for this species is deciduous to mixed forest (NatureServe 2007b).
Mesic forests appear to be selected for breeding, where females oviposit on violets of various
species. Adults may range from forested areas into adjacent fields to forage. Adults of this
species are coprovores and nectarivores.
Neither the in-house research nor the Project area survey has located any preferred habitat,
individuals, or populations within the Project area. No impacts to this species are anticipated
from this Project.
21

' Duke Energy Carolinas, LLC Bridgewater Powerhouse Project
Project Narrative
' Eastern Woodrat - Southern Appalachian Population (Neotoma floridana haematoreia)
FSC/SC
This relatively large rodent species, is a subspecies of the Eastern Woodrat (Neotoma floridana),
which has ears that are prominent and sparsely haired, and eyes that are black and somewhat
bulging. In addition, the vibrissae are long and conspicuous (Webster et al. 1985). This
subspecies prefers rocky places in deciduous or mixed Southern Appalachian forests, in southern
' mountains and adjacent population Piedmont (NCNHP 2001), and high-elevation forests and rock
ledges (GNHP 2003).
Neither the in-house research nor the Project area surve has located an referred habitat
J Y Yp ,
' individuals, or populations within the Project area. No impacts to this species are anticipated
from this Project.
Edmund's Snaketail (OphioQOmphus edmundo) fFSC/SR1* and Midget Snaketail (OnhioQOmnhus
howei~FSC/SRl
Ophiogomphus nymphs may be extremely abundant in sandy substrates of streams, but adults are
seldom seen because of their secretive nature. The adult flight of Carolina species of
' Ophiogomphus generally starts in late May and ends in July (Brigham et al. 1982).
' Midget Snaketail prefer clean, fast-flowing, and small to large streams with gravel or sand
substrates in largely forested watersheds (WDNR 2003) while Edmund's Snaketail prefer Blue
' Ridge Escarpment streams (NCNHP 2001). Both species are considered federal species of
concern.

Aquatic species sampling was not conducted as part of the field investi ations. However
g
Project-wide best management practices and prescribed buffers will serve to protect species
habitat to the greatest extent possible. No impacts to these species are anticipated from this
' Project. At this time, these are federal species of concern with no legal protection; however, if
th
t
f
h
i
e s
atus o
t
ese spec
es changes, a re-evaluation of these species and their habitat may be
necessary.
Margarita River skimmer (Macromia mar~~[FSC/SRl*
' This species is a large, metallic black dragonfly with a yellow band around the thorax. The male
has yellow bands on abdominal segment 2 and 7. In the male, the bands on segment 2 are

22

Duke Energy Carolinas, LLC Bridgewater Powerhouse Project
Project Narrative
interrupted dorsally; in the female, these bands are interrupted laterally. The larvae are not
described. The preferred habitat region is in the mountains (sometimes Piedmont), near streams
' and rivers with high water quality and silt deposits among rocks (NatureServe 2005).
Aquatic species sampling was not conducted as part of the field investigations. However,
Project-wide best management practices and prescribed buffers will serve to protect species
' habitat to the greatest extent possible. No impacts to this species are anticipated from this
Project. At this time, this is a federal species of concern with no legal protection; however, if the
status of this species changes, a re-evaluation of this species and its habitat may be necessary.
Rafinesque's Big-eared Bat -Mountain Subspecies (Corynorhinus ra~nesquii) [FSC/TL
An adult of this species of bat can have a total length of approximately 3.5 to 4.2 inches, with a
tail measuring approximately 1.6 to 2.2 inches and a weight of around 0.2 to 0.35 ounces. The
medium-sized Rafinesque's Big-eared Bat is easily distinguished from other bats by its very large
ears and prominent lumps near the nose. The ears are 1 inch long and are joined at their base.
' These bats are dark brown above and white below. The interfemoral membrane and wings are
unfurred (ATBI 2002).
' Rafines ue's Bi -eared Bat a federal
q g species of concern, is restricted to the southeastern United
' States. It ranges from southeastern Virginia, southern Illinois, central Indiana, and Ohio south to
the Gulf Coast; and from the Atlantic Ocean west to Missouri, eastern Oklahoma, and eastern
' Texas.
The typical habitat for the Rafinesque's Big-eared Bat includes roosts in hollow trees, caves,
mines, and buildings. Elsewhere documented, 22 individuals were found roosting on a hillside in
a discarded boiler 11 feet in diameter, and 4.5 feet long lying on its side (ATBI 2002).
Copulation in Rafinesque's Big-eared Bats, as with most bats that hibernate, takes place in
autumn and winter. Females congregate in nursery colonies, after emerging from the
hibernaculum, and give birth to a single young in late May or early June (ATBI 2003).
Big-eared Bats usually roost singly rather than in clusters. They leave their roost well after dark,
and return before dawn. Their flight is slow, and they can hover in one place. During feeding
maneuvers, the tail and wing membranes are used to capture and restrain prey. The bat must
' 23

Duke Energy Carolinas, LLC Bridgewater Powerhouse Project
Project Narrative
bend its head forward in order to grasp the insect with its teeth and take it into its mouth.
Sometimes the bat may use its mouth to capture an insect from its wing (ATBI 2003).
Neither the in-house research nor the Project area survey has located any preferred habitat,
individuals, or populations within the Project area. Additionally, no bats were found during the
powerhouse survey. No impacts to this species are anticipated from this Project.
Southern Appalachian Red Crossbill (Loxia curvirostra pop 1 fFSC/SCl*
Crossbills are generally 6.25 inches long, have a wing span of 11 inches, and on average weigh
1.3 ounces (Sibley 2000). This bird has a relatively large head and short tail, with long and
pointed wings. The generally stout bill is suited to cone seed removal. Found in single species
flocks year-round, Crossbills forage erratically for seed from the cones of pines, spruces, and firs.
There are nine types of Red Crossbills known to exist in North America (Sibley 2000).
Individuals of different types often commingle, making accurate field distinctions difficult. Bill
structure of each type is optimized for extracting seeds from a particular type of cone. Although
type distribution is still being studied, Type 1 is known to be present in Burke County, North
Carolina.
Minimal habitat exists for the species within the Project boundary (i.e., some coniferous trees
within the river buffer). There are no known species occurrences within the Project boundary.
No impacts to this species are anticipated from this Project.
*Federal and State status codes are listed below.
Federal Status: State Status:
^ E: Endangered E: Endangered
^ T: Threatened T: Threatened
^ C: Candidate SC: Special Concern
^ (P):Possible Occurrence C: Candidate
^ CH: Critical Habitat SR: Significantly Rare
^ T-SANE-SA: Threatened or endangered due
to similari of a earance EX: Extirpated
^
^ BGPA: Bald and Golden Eagle Protection
Act P_: Proposed (used only as a qualifier of
the ranks above
24

' Duke Energy Carolinas, LLC Bridgewater Powerhouse Project
Project Narrative
7.0 CONCLUSION
There are two jurisdictional streams and one jurisdictional wetland system located within the
' Bridgewater Powerhouse Project boundary. Unavoidable impacts to jurisdictional waters,
including wetlands, are: temporary impacts to approximately 160 feet of an unnamed tributary of
' the Catawba River and 0.01 acre of associated fringe wetland, and temporary dewatering of
approximately 0.25 acre of the Catawba River abutting the tailrace work area. Duke respectfully
' requests that these impacts be permitted under Nationwide Permit 33 (GC 3688).

Unavoidable impacts to isolated waters of the State located within the Project boundary include
the permanent fill of approximately 0.30 acre of the stilling basin located adjacent to the
Bridgewater Powerhouse. Duke respectfully requests that this impact be permitted by the North
Carolina Division of Water Quality as a non-404 jurisdictional waters of the State.
Unavoidable impacts to the Catawba River Buffer will consist of some permanent and temporary
disturbance to approximately 9,500 square feet of the buffer. Duke will coordinate with the
Burke County Planning Department and the Division of Water Quality to secure the necessary
permits and to develop a mitigation and/or monitoring plan.
No RTE species were found within the Bridgewater Project boundary. Two known populations
of the federally protected dwarf-flowered heartleaf are located near but outside of the Project
boundary. No other RTE species are known to exist near or within the Project boundary. No
impacts to any RTE species are anticipated from this Project.
2s
1

1

Duke Energy Carolinas, LLC Bridgewater Powerhouse Project
Project Narrative
8.0 LITERATURE CITED
All Taxa Biological Inventory (ATBI). 2002. Rafinesque's (Eastern) Big-Eared Bat Corynorhinus
rafinesquii (Lesson). Great Smoky Mountains National Park, [Online] URL:
http: //www. smokies-atbi. org/atbi/species/animals/mammals/
Corynorhinus_rafinesquii.html. (Accessed December 2007).
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.
Brigham, Allison R., W. U. Brigham, and A. Gnilka. 1982. Aquatic Insects and Oligochaetes of
North and South Carolina. Midwest Aquatic Enterprises.
Castleberry, Nikole Lee. 2000. Food Habits of the Allegheny Woodrat (Neotoma Ma inter).
Master's Thesis, West Virginia University. Abstract. [Online] URL:
https://etd.wvu.edu/etd/etd/DocumentData.jsp?jsp_etdId=1413. (Accessed December
2007).
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. 131 pp.
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.
Gaddy, L. L., Ph.D. 2002. A Biological Survey for Plant Communities, Wetlands, and Rare
Plants Associated with the Duke Power - Nantahala Area Relicensing Project Area,
2002.
Georgia Natural Heritage Program (GNHP). 2003. Tracking List of Special Concern Plants of
Georgia. Department of Natural Resources. 15 pp.
26

Duke Energy Carolinas, LLC Bridgewater Powerhouse Project
Proiect Narrative
Gleason, Henry A., Ph.D. and Arthur Cronquist, Ph.D. 1963. Manual of Vascular Plants of
Northeastern United States and Adjacent Canada. The New York Botanical Garden. D.
Van Nostrand Co. New York. 812 pp.
Limey, Don, Christy Brecht. 2002. Neotoma ma i~ -Allegheny Woodrat. [Online] URL:
http://www.discoverlife.org/nh/tx/Vertebrata/Mammalia/Murideae/ Neotoma/magister/.
(Accessed December 2007)..
Martof, Bernard S., William M. Palmer, Joseph R. Bailey, and Julian R. Harrison III, 1980.
Amphibians and Reptiles of the Carolinas and Virginia. The University of North Carolina
Press, Chapel Hill, NC.
NatureServe. 2003a. NatureServe Explorer: An online encyclopedia of life [web application].
Version 1.8. NatureServe, Arlington, Virginia. [Online] URL:
http://www.natureserve.org/explorer. (Accessed December 2007). Bog Turtle.
. 2003b. NatureServe Explorer: An online encyclopedia of life [web application]. Version
' 1.8. NatureServe, Arlington, Virginia. [Online] URL:
http://www.natureserve.org/explorer. (Accessed December 2007). Carolina Saxifrage.
. 2005. NatureServe Explorer: An online encyclopedia of life [web application]. Version
' 4.5. NatureServe, Arlington, Virginia. [Online] URL:
http://www.natureserve.org/explorer. (Accessed December 2007). Cherokee Clubtail.

2007a. NatureServe Explorer: An online encyclopedia of life [web application]. Version
4.5. NatureServe, Arlington, Virginia. [Online] URL:
http://www.natureserve.org/explorer. (Accessed December 2007). American Eel.
2007b. NatureServe Explorer: An online encyclopedia of life [web application]. Version
4.5. NatureServe, Arlington, Virginia. [Online] URL:
http://www.natureserve.org/explorer. (Accessed December 2007). Diana Fritillary.
27

Duke Energy Carolinas, LLC Bridgewater Powerhouse Project
Project Narrative
North Carolina Natural Heritage Program (NCNHP). 2001. List of the Rare Animal Species of
North Carolina. Division of Parks and Recreation, N.C. Department of Environment and
Natural Resources. 90 pp.
2002. List of the Rare Plant Species of North Carolina. Division of Parks and Recreation,
N.C. Department of Environment and Natural Resources. 105 pp.
.2007. Heritage Data. Database search: Burke County. [Online] URL:
http://www.ncnhp.org/Pages/heritagedata.html. (Accessed June 2007).
Pennsylvania Game Commission (PGC). 2003. Eastern Woodrat (Neotoma magister). [Online]
URL: http://sites.state.pa.us/PA_ExeclPGC/woodrat/profile.htm. (Accessed December
2007).
Peterson, A. 1986. Habitat suitability index models: Bald Eagle (breeding season). U.S. Fish
and Wildlife Service Biological Report. 82(10.126). 25 pp.
Radford, Albert. E., H. E. Ahles and C. R. Bell. 1968. Manual of the Vascular Flora of the
Carolinas. The University of North Carolina Press, Chapel Hill, NC. 1183 pp.
1983. Manual of the Vascular Flora of the Carolinas. The University of North Carolina
Press, Chapel Hill, NC. 1183 pp.
Schafale, Michael P. and Alan S. Weakley. 1990. Classification of the Natural Communities of
North Carolina (Third Approximation). 325 pp.
Sibley, David A. 2000. The Sibley Guide to Birds. Chanticleer Press, Inc., New York. 546 pp.
United States Fish and Wildlife Service (USFWS). 1988. National List of Plant Species that
Occur in Wetlands: Southeast (Region 2). Biological Report 88 (26.2).
1990. Endangered and Threatened Species of the Southeastern United States (The Red
Book) USFWS Region 4 - As of August 1990. [Online] URL:
28

i Duke Energy Carolinas, LLC Bridgewater Powerhouse Project
Project Narrative
' http://cc.msnscache.com/cache.aspx?q=72395682629312&lang=en-US&w=617cc85.
(Accessed December 2007). Dwarf-flowered Heartleaf.
. 1991. Endangered and Threatened Species of the Southeastern United States (The Red
' Book) USFWS Region 4 - As of February 1991. [Online] URL:
http://cc.msnscache.com/cache.aspx?q=72399880725221 &lang=en-US&w=cc2bba62.
(December 2007). Heller's Blazing Star.
.1996. Endangered and Threatened Species of the Southeastern United States (The Red
Book) USFWS Region 4 - As of January 1996. [Online] URL:
http://cc.msnscache.com/cache.aspx?q=72396526984018&lang=en-US&w=3527c9c3.
(December 2007). Small-whorled Pogonia.
1

2000. Bog Turtle (Clemmys muhlenbergii), Northern Population, Recovery Plan, agency
draft. Hadley, Massachusetts. 90 pp.
2004a. Bald Eagle Habitat Model. On-line Document http://www.fws.gov/
r5gomp/~om/habitatstudy/metadata/bald eagle model.htm. (Accessed November 2007).
.2004b. Bog Turtles in North Carolina. [Online] URL: http://nc-
es.fws.gov/reptile/bogtur.html. (Accessed December 2007).
2007a. Endangered Species, Threatened Species, Federal Species of Concern, and
Candidate Species, Burke County, North Carolina. [Online] URL:
http://www.fws.gov/nc-es/es/countyfr.html. (Accessed November 2007).
2007b. National Bald Eagle Management Guidelines. On-line Document.
http://www.fws. og v/mi rg atorybirds/issues/BaldEagle (Accessed December 2007).
Webster, William David, James F. Parnell, Walter C. Biggs Jr., 1985, Mammals of the Carolinas,
Virginia, and Maryland. The University of North Carolina Press, Chapel Hill, NC, 243pp.
29

Duke Energy Carolinas, LLC

1

1

1
Bridgewater Powerhouse Project
Project Narrative
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.
Wisconsin Department of Natural Resources (WDNR). 2003. Pygmy (Midget) Snaketail
Ophiogomphus howei: [Online] URL: http://www.dnr.state.wi.us/org/land/er/
invertebrates/dragonflies/pygmy.htm. (Accessed December 2007).
' 30

' Duke Energy Carolinas, LLC Bridgewater Powerhouse Project
Project Narrative

1
1

1

APPENDICES

' Duke Energy Carolinas, LLC Bridgewater Powerhouse Project
Proiect Narrative
' APPENDIX A

1
1
1
1
1
1

FIGURES AND PHOTOGRAPHS
1

l ~ - i ~! ~ Y,f.. .~'!{~•~~ir ~i Y ~f ~ I ~ I i!r ~*`f' y~ lye
'~~~.~ I~, III~• ~ ,~~r4 ~I i~~ t !r~ r''"r 1~~,: f --J ,I~~~ ~ I '~`I
f ~~~ , `,71 r -~, I `~I ~ ~i' ~ _ ~ `~ ~ :~ ~ ~'~ it -_~ l ,`
-i~" is I G4.+ ~I u ~ is% _~,J'~'~ ~r - ,ts -
~ I ~ ..JN
r s~ i- I I -"' Y _ -
- (l : ~ r 1 I X14' ~.
J 1
ill I'='4 lr• ::1. I = ,~ rTl rJ ~ I - ~1$ ~~ .~ ~ ..\ +. i. -
~~7 - ~~i~~a~1 '~t'T~ nR'uti~ ~~ 11 l r / y~ _ ! { ,T l
1 1 :ti:
a~ \ ~ .
-' ~ L ~ ~` ,, f - ~,
~ f ~~~ t~~4 - ~• Linville Dam 4ti~~,~1 ~ }~_ ,' ~ f~-~ „~`1
I h f
i ~~ ~~ ; ~~, ~ - I ~ ~ "r; r•` Bridgewater Powerhouse ~~~
~ 3 ~aElet :•gtE I _. 11
,, 1~ ~ h f. .T ti ~ '
I' k M .sr" S.r-"1 j J ~. .y s
J.Ir 9x l~ f ~ 's~~ I , ~I
~'„' N
- ~ I _~- I r r ~, h _ _ r ~' ~ r~ t - r- .'ter. - 1'.' #=.? _ i~ ,~,~-~ ~ - '-
' ~ :~ anC I ~ '~
Ali. ~' •~~ ~„ „ ~ ~ ~ ~.I ., Y5: - ~ i I _ ~ -
I~' iF'V - •' % F,' fe ~ ~ '4 ~';~~;' I !+~R dQI /'i, 1"La;;,f J KS~r ` ~ ~ T, 'r 1 J"~ ',-
J 0 ,. 1 I ae 1 = ed~{yl.lY4t• '.{~ta,~.. ~.,y~'. \~ ~':: ,.l I YJ'
H~.1 __ '~ - ~`,~~ ~ ~ s~: ~~ r 'I`r J ~' ~~,',. `I 1 5, _~I }~~'x .`.471
I _~ 1 ~ r -~ ~' ~~~ ~ ~;I I ~ J IY C'i] Y I i .7 JI ~ - . _ _ il'. '`~ ~ ~` ~ ~,`
~-ii~Il } : ' I ti ~ ~- . , : ~- T.l, l - - 1 f _ - 't u~~ r - . ` ~. ~ 1,
~'• ,r f f ~ ':~I "'_ ~%Errae~ ."', r,~ ' - G _ _ ~ ~~t ~ ';J i~' l ~' `- ~ ~
r '_...' a . ; I _ I ' .. 'S ~ .I .
~q- %r ,: I.: ~r~l~I r ;~ .rte ~^,: c~ I ~' ly,~ ~' L'7~+' ~ ~_ '- 14~
+~~ t 1-<aa ~ 14~. i -`r r. ~v I O`~' li~~ ~ j'1~~ -_ - ~~~`„Tr ~r I
,l II ~r_~`fx~ S. :~L, i~ ~r1 ~I I.J r5 kj' - .~~.~vr e~~ I S", y-
'~S4 ~~-``. ,~C' k % :j ivr~ ~`.'~ „'~"'1~" ~ I ~ A it
4 I h._ `'~. L ~. ~Y.~' ~ - l_ ~'r r "I ~i4' ',r' . - I _-:,i _ l
_ t~ K>
DUKE ENERGY CAROLINAS, LLC
® Linville Dam Area Bridgewater Hydroelectric Powerhouse
Construction Project:
z.ooo o z,ooo Linville Dam Location
Feet Figure 1
Source data: Ashtord, Oak Hill, Marion East, Glen Alpine, NC
USGS 1:24,000-scale topographic maps
SHEET 1 OF 1 06.20-07

`5 = ,
~~ -
l
_ i _
_ ~~ '*,..~- ,.l -`-~,~ nor.--~,.- -~~~_ ;~ ,' ~ 81 - {Y
_ ;
~ ,
Prs~p~ Natioaa( Forest -~-~ '~~ '~:
a ~, - ~-•.
I ~ ~ 126
i
,~, Lake James ,'
"~~• Linville Dam ---_
.. ~ - ~~•~
.- _ _
_,
~.~.~,~.
~4 f,. ~~'~ '~ Morganton
~~
_ _ ,,J ,__ _I ___ I Glen Alpin~/~~ _ ~-i-_,--' .ti.
,- ,ter,-,~ °~ - -__ _ _ I' ~ _ '
-- -- - - (~.r~~ -- --' '~
---
;'
-- -
- _
__- , 70 v 4
~- ?t.
- ~ - ~ ~ - :fl -- I~ i --....-
'i - r;. Salem
_ ~ ~
~ l I' '' i ~ ~~- ~ I -f~t i=-
'I _ ,y I i, ~ ~ i, lr-
~•~ ,v ~ -•~,5 '•j -,
-, ~ ~, I' , I ' 64 ~ I ~~--
26 ' ~~ ~ ~ ~
-- ~ ty -_
~?;~
~~ 1 ' %
-~ ~~ +'
~- ~~, ,~`
-- _ ~~ -
_--
f
M,mm~~ Legend
Awry DUKE ENERGY CAROLINAS, LLC
raimvdi ~ Interstate
'^°y ~ Highway Bridgewater Hydroelectric Powerhouse
a"^`• ~ Road
~.< ~~^,^e, __ Construction Project:
~'~"'` _ -~ Railroad
~°"`II ~ ~` Y Lake/Pond/StreamlRiver 10,000 0 10.000 Overview Vicinity Map
Stale Boundary Feet
Figure 2
fit'" County Boundary
uncd Source data: Ashford, Oak Hill, Marion East, Glen Alpine, NC
Populated Area USGS 1:24,000-scale topographic maps
authMatl tlewlanJ
National Forest SHEET 1 OP 1 06-20-07

E v
E
0
V
CD LL 0
cu a) co J
3
IZ d
a) a) J U O m
CD
O +. U E o
CD , U)°- } Q a ° :3
=� � �M p0 c } L LL o
U)+ N O O i O LO u) co o = cn
a
Lrj 00
a UJ
a)0 0�
E 0 0 0 (B U o
co o LLJ ro
Q Q Q E W o
El E E 0 m y
M a) a) m a) c a) L_ c- „ -
a� F— a) a) c- ca E - a) 0. 9 ® o 0 " b
Cn *k � 5 *k C� 4t LY Fm � E m o
qPlMi
'•O .::Jar ��, •� J: :' Y} �'� S.f , .. � ♦ ,.T �•.a +�
Vis.
�}
7v
v '�►
IN
• •f
slit
t
r
y
III
r
,.
:
k'. O • a yt; fi
Oar
" L
f •
a-
�I �
a.
� s
« 7
a.
d.
F u
C
S_
N.
16
AO
�,• 7r L: 6� u - •if k• �n
R t w J
s"
'- a •� � ' "` * , ``,irk`'
m m m m m m m m r r m m w m m= m= m

i rr '9J ♦�� r��¢ a
a �
x '3� -:yi � it ry�y !'•1 4 4 ,, •�b.i�,'.r r yr
(9 jr
t .G. bA CC ci
it �s C
C yS 4, r
� i
d G,x ► C O O
.� •� tom+.
.: .,� •� i�- .. ` v� C� � � '.� � ��,, Thr y •� O , - ,� 'i k
Ilk
r• � �v♦' '.F' �b: •� � ,� •� � � :' �, � .moi .�[i � • � � "'��•,,. •_
� �' -iii 9I,� •�` '� .. . •y l�^ 4w C� RS V _ �... ; }�
Y'� 4&'
0.
f'��t ,p♦ ^�l".`'RT'J�4 r ` ,'a • .a4 :- ;� ..'� ,la►utr f -� ;..
Ilt X
`�Ry ti
r
�1614,
.L! ;� \
0^ • r�. \\ \\
t
X.
PF
,' � 4 f j � � ~♦ •yy•aam�
!f
* - r �h .►1p..:�, .'!� i t F I� _Yti t l,•rr` 4 .b. 1.
'��r i �dY. 3" 'r .Y :, s has > ��s s"'�, �' �frr a i f : n- _ „g ,, • /
+` * `{ a • t -o'. r f Vit,Ir
���jj r�' ♦'tom ix � q�i- J. 9r .� lj����}
IE�.� ,. ,. r- � N - + .' l : � '� � ;.!4 a _.`5idfe� '. -i• ::�.,1� Y� 2�1�+"F - �. , _ .
m m m m r== m r= m m m m m m m= m
N
�v
U
o
a
o
�
O
OOL)U
U)00
ro
C) c'
Q
O j
b
N o
Z
a U
CIS
ro v
(!) oN O
J
U O
N
m
Eoa, o
o
M
O
a
o0
C%4
U
o
E
E O
Q
O C
O
bN
O
O
(n 0 U) LL
o
C+/r)
00
O N ,
Q0OO
UO
N N
-0 :3 U
b o
Q
0'0'E " 0)0)
Oo
a)c
c ,_ c c
o
—
m
CLCL� as
U)
W
O�
;b
¢ 3
L
(n (A U) (n CO
zO
()
a
�NCli466
i
Z
W
v
Q) a) a) N N
G1
O
cococumcuco
m
�roro
a
aaaaaa
J
p
m
g�Y
i rr '9J ♦�� r��¢ a
a �
x '3� -:yi � it ry�y !'•1 4 4 ,, •�b.i�,'.r r yr
(9 jr
t .G. bA CC ci
it �s C
C yS 4, r
� i
d G,x ► C O O
.� •� tom+.
.: .,� •� i�- .. ` v� C� � � '.� � ��,, Thr y •� O , - ,� 'i k
Ilk
r• � �v♦' '.F' �b: •� � ,� •� � � :' �, � .moi .�[i � • � � "'��•,,. •_
� �' -iii 9I,� •�` '� .. . •y l�^ 4w C� RS V _ �... ; }�
Y'� 4&'
0.
f'��t ,p♦ ^�l".`'RT'J�4 r ` ,'a • .a4 :- ;� ..'� ,la►utr f -� ;..
Ilt X
`�Ry ti
r
�1614,
.L! ;� \
0^ • r�. \\ \\
t
X.
PF
,' � 4 f j � � ~♦ •yy•aam�
!f
* - r �h .►1p..:�, .'!� i t F I� _Yti t l,•rr` 4 .b. 1.
'��r i �dY. 3" 'r .Y :, s has > ��s s"'�, �' �frr a i f : n- _ „g ,, • /
+` * `{ a • t -o'. r f Vit,Ir
���jj r�' ♦'tom ix � q�i- J. 9r .� lj����}
IE�.� ,. ,. r- � N - + .' l : � '� � ;.!4 a _.`5idfe� '. -i• ::�.,1� Y� 2�1�+"F - �. , _ .
m m m m r== m r= m m m m m m m= m

~ ~ r s ~ ~ ~ ~ ~ ~ ~ ~ +~ r ~ ~ ~ ~ ~
~.
a
a
a
0
.r
ara
...
0
b
0
0
0
0
i
-~
a
ar4
b
0
S
0
0
~.
~a
0
c
0
~s
~s
...

1

1

1

t

Photo 003 -Northeastern edge of the basin.
Photo 004 -Unnamed tributary to the Catawba River with fringe wetlands.

Photo U05 -Unnamed tributary, picture taken from culvert.
rnoto uub - ~tuimg nasin and vocation of the tai race. lvote location of existing
rights of way.

' Duke Energy Carolinas, LLC Bridgewater Powerhouse Project
Project Narrative
APPENDIX B
WETLAND DELINEATION AND STREAM SURVEY FORMS

1

1

1
1

' APPROVED JURISDICTIONAL DETERMINATION FORM
U.S. Army Corps of Engineers
This form should be completed by following the instructions provided in Section IV of the JD Form Instructional Guidebook.
' SECTION I: BACKGROUND INFORMATION
A. REPORT COMPLETION DATE FOR APPROVED JURISDICTIONAL DETERMINATION (JD):
' B. DISTRICT OFFICE, FILE NAME, AND NUMBER: Wilmington (Asheville Regional), Bridgewater Powerhouse Construction
Project, Action Id. 2007-2247
C. PROJECT LOCATION AND BACKGROUND INFORMATION:
' State:North Carolina County/parish/borough: Burke City: Glen Alpine
Center coordinates of site (lat/long in degree decimal format): Lat. 35.7428° N, Long. 81.8369° W.
Universal Transverse Mercator:
Name of nearest waterbody: Catawba River (Old Linville)
Name of nearest Traditional Navigable Water (TNW) Into which the aquatic resource flows: Catawba-Wateree River
Name of watershed or Hydrologic Unit Code (HUC): 03050101
® Check if map/diagram of review area and/or potential jurisdictional areas is/are available upon request.
' ® Check if other sites (e.g., offsite mitigation sites, disposal sites, etc...) are associated with this action and are recorded on a
different JD form.
D. REVIEW PERFORMED FOR SITE EVALUATION (CHECK ALL THAT APPLY):
^ Office (Desk) Determination. Date:
® Field Determination. Date(s): 07/25/07
SECTION II: SUMMARY OF FINDINGS
' A. RHA SECTION 10 DETERMINATION OF JURISDICTION.
There Appear to be no "navigable waters of the U.S." within Rivers and Harbors Act (RHA) jurisdiction (as defined by 33 CFR part 329) in
the review area. [Required)
' ^ Waters subject to the ebb and flow of the tide.
^ Waters are presently used, or have been used in the past, or may be susceptible for use to transport interstate or foreign commerce.
Explain:
B. CWA SECTION 404 DETERMINATION OF JURISDICTION.
There Are "waters of the U.S."within Clean Water Act (CWA) jurisdiction (as defined by 33 CFR part 328) in the review area. [Required)
' 1. Waters of the U.S.
a. Indicate presence of waters of U.S. in review area (check all that apply): 1
® TNWs, including territorial seas
^ Wetlands adjacent to TNWs
^ Relatively permanent waters2 (RPWs) that flow directly or indirectly into TNWs
^ Non-RPWs that flow directly or indirectly into TNWs
^ Wetlands directly abutting RPWs that flow directly or indirectly into TNWs
^ Wetlands adjacent to but not directly abutting RPWs that flow directly or indirectly into TNWs
' ^ Wetlands adjacent to non-RPWs that flow directly or indirectly into TNWs
^ Impoundments of jurisdictional waters
^ Isolated (interstate or intrastate) waters, including isolated wetlands
' b. Identify (estimate) size of waters of the U.S. in the review area:
Non-wetland waters: 270 linear feet: 125 width (ft) and/or acres.
Wetlands: NA acres.
' c. Limits (boundaries) of jurisdiction based on: 198'1 Delition Manual
Elevation of established OHWM (if known): Catawba River 1062 msl.
2. Non-regulated waters/wetlands (check if applicable):3
' ^ Potentially jurisdictional waters and/or wetlands were assessed within the review area and determined to be not jurisdictional.
Explain:
' 'Boxes checked below shall be supported by completing the appropriate sections in Section III below.
Z For purposes of this form, an RPW is defined as a tributary that is not a TNW and that typically flows year-round or has continuous flow at least "seasonally"
(e.g., typically 3 months).
' Supporting documentation is presented in Section III.F.

1

1
1

1
SECTION III: CWA ANALYSIS
A. TNWs AND WETLANDS ADJACENT TO TNWs
The agencies will assert jurisdiction over TNWs and wetlands adjacent to TNWs. If the aquatic resource is a TNW, complete
Section III.A.1 and Section III.D.1. only; if the aquatic resource is a wetland adjacent to a TNW, complete Sections III.A.1 and 2
and Section IILD.1.; otherwise, see Section IH.B below.
1. TNW
Identify TNW: Catawba River, below Linville Dam.
Summarize rationale supporting determination: Although not used for commercial transport, this reach of the Catawba River
supports secondary recreational uses (e.g., kayaking and canoeing) during generation flows. An actively stocked trout fishery
is located immediately below the review area.
2. Wetland adjacent to TNW
Summarize rationale supporting conclusion that wetland is "adjacent":
B. CHARACTERISTICS OF TRIBUTARY (THAT IS NOT A TNW) AND ITS ADJACENT WETLANDS (IF ANY):
This section summarizes information regarding characteristics of the tributary and its adjacent wetlands, if any, and it helps
determine whether or not the standards for jurisdiction established under Rapanos have been met.
The agencies will assert jurisdiction over non-navigable tributaries of TNWs where the tributaries are "relatively permanent
waters" (RPWs), i.e. tributaries that typically flow year-round or have continuous flow at least seasonally (e.g., typically 3
months). A wetland that directly abuts an RPW is also jurisdictional. If the aquatic resource is not a TNW, but has year-round
(perennial) flow, skip to Section iII.D.2. If the aquatic resource is a wetland directly abutting a tributary with perennial flow,
skip to Section III.D.4.
A wetland that is adjacent to but that does not directly abut an RPW requires a significant nexus evaluation. Corps districts and
EPA regions will include in the record any available information that documents the existence of a significant nexus between a
relatively permanent tributary that is not perennial (and its adjacent wetlands if any) and a traditional navigable water, even
though a significant nexus finding is not required as a matter of law.
If the waterbody° is not an RPW, or a wetland directly abutting an RPW, a JD will require additional data to determine if the
waterbody has a significant nexus with a TNW. If the tributary has adjacent wetlands, the significant nexus evaluation must
consider the tributary in combination with all of its adjacent wetlands. This significant nexus evaluation that combines, for
analytical purposes, the tributary and all of its adjacent wetlands is used whether the review area identified in the JD request is
the tributary, or its adjacent wetlands, or both. If the JD covers a tributary with adjacent wetlands, complete Section III.B.1 for
the tributary, Section III.B.2 for any onsite wetlands, and Section III.B.3 for all wetlands adjacent to that tributary, both onsite
and offsite. The determination whether a significant nexus exists is determined in Section III.C below.
1. Characteristics of non-TNWs that flow directly or indirectly into TNW
' (i) General Area Conditions:
Watershed size: Regulated by releases from upstream powerhouse.Pick List
Drainage area: 0.13 square miles
' Average annual rainfall: 49.5 inches
Average annual snowfall: 7.3 inches
(ii) Physical Characteristics:
(a) Relationship with TNW:
^ Tributary flows directly into TNW.
^ Tributary flows through Pick List tributaries before entering TNW.

Project waters are Pick List river miles from TNW.
Project waters are Pick List river miles from RPW.
Project waters are PiekList aerial (straight) miles from TNW.
Project waters are Pick )t.ist aerial (straight) miles from RPW.
Project waters cross or serve as state boundaries. Explain: The Catawba River crosses into South Carolina approximately
100 miles from its headwaters.
Note that the Instructional Guidebook contains additional information regarding swales, ditches, washes, and erosional features generally and in the acid
West.

Identify flow route to TNWS: River becomes a TNW in South Carolina near the confluence with the Wateree River.
' Tributary stream order, if known:
(b) General Tributary Characteristics (check all that annlv):
Tributary is: ^ Natural
1 ^ Artificial (man-made). Explain:
^ Manipulated (man-altered). Explain:
Tributary properties with respect to top of bank (estimate):
' Average width: feet
Average depth: feet
Average side slopes: Pick List.
1
1

1
Primary tributary substrate composition (check all that apply):
^ Silts ^ Sands ^ Concrete
^ Cobbles ^ Gravel ^ Muck
^ Bedrock ^ Vegetation. Type/% cover:
^ Other. Explain:
Tributary condition stability [e.g., highly eroding, sloughing banks]. Explain: Catawba River stability =Very stable;
Stream 1 =Moderately unstable, some sloughing, herbaceous vegetation on banks only.
Presence of run/riffle/pool complexes. Explain:
Tributary geometry: Pick List
Tributary gradient (approximate average slope):
(c) Flow:
Tributary provides for: Pick List
Estimate average number of flow events in review area/year: Pick List
Describe flow regime:
Other information on duration and volume:
Surface flow is: Pick List. Characteristics:

1
1
Subsurface flow: Pick List. Explain findings:
^ Dye (or other) test performed:
Tributary has (check all that apply):
^ Bed and banks
^ OHWM6 (check all indicators that apply):
^ clear, natural line impressed on the bank ^
^ changes in the character of soil ^
^ shelving ^
^ vegetation matted down, bent, or absent ^
^ leaf litter disturbed or washed away ^
^ sediment deposition ^
^ water staining ^
^ other (list):
^ Discontinuous OHWM.' Explain:
If factors other than the OHWM were used to determ
^ High Tide Line indicated by: ^
^ oil or scum line along shore objects
^ fine shell or debris deposits (foreshore)
^ physical markings/characteristics
^ tidal gauges
^ other (list):
the presence of litter and debris
destruction of terrestrial vegetation
the presence of wrack line
sediment sorting
scour
multiple observed or predicted flow events
abrupt change in plant community
ine lateral extent of CWA jurisdiction (check all that apply):
Mean High Water Mark indicated by:
^ survey to available datum;
^ physical markings;
^ vegetation lines/changes in vegetation types.
(iii) Chemical Characteristics:
Characterize tributary (e.g., water color is clear, discolored, oily film; water quality; general watershed characteristics, etc.).
Explain:
Identify specific pollutants, if known:
5 Flow route can be described by identifying, e.g., tributary a, which flows through the review area, to flow into tributary b, which then flows into TNW.
~A natural or man-made discontinuity in the OHWM does not necessazily sever jurisdiction (e.g, where the stream temporarily flows underground, or where
the OHWM has been removed by development or agricultural practices). Where there is a break in the OHWM that is unrelated to the waterbody's flow
regime (e.g., flow over a rock outcrop or through a culvert), the agencies will look for indicators of flow above and below the break.
'[bid.
1

s

1

(iv) Biological Characteristics. Channel supports (check all that apply):
^ Riparian corridor. Characteristics (type, average width):
^ Wetland fringe. Characteristics:
^ Habitat for:
^ Federally Listed species. Explain findings:
^ Fish/spawn areas. Explain findings:
^ Other environmentally-sensitive species. Explain findings:
^ Aquatic/wildlife diversity. Explain findings:
2. Characteristics of wetlands adjacent to non-TNW that flow directly or indirectly into TNW
(i) Physical Characteristics:
(a) General Wetland Characteristics:
Properties:
Wetland size: acres
Wetland type. Explain:
Wetland quality. Explain:
Project wetlands cross or serve as state boundaries. Explain:
(b) General Flow Relationship with Non-TNW:
Flow is: Pick List. Explain:
Surface flow is: Pick List
Characteristics:
Subsurface flow: Pick List. Explain findings:
^ Dye (or other) test performed:
(c) Wetland Adjacency Determination with Non-TNW:
^ Directly abutting
^ Not directly abutting
^ Discrete wetland hydrologic connection. Explain:
^ Ecological connection. Explain:
^ Separated by berm/barrier. Explain:
(d) Proximity (Relationship to TNW
Project wetlands are Pick List river miles from TNW.
Project waters are Pik List aerial (straight) miles from TNW.
Flow is from: Pick List.
Estimate approximate location of wetland as within the Pick List floodplain.
e

t

(ii) Chemical Characteristics:
Characterize wetland system (e.g., water color is clear, brown, oil film on surface; water quality; general watershed
characteristics; etc.). Explain:
Identify specific pollutants, if known:
(iii) Biological Characteristics. Wetland supports (check all that apply):
^ Riparian buffer. Characteristics (type, average width):
^ Vegetation type/percent cover. Explain:
^ Habitat for:
^ Federally Listed species. Explain findings:
^ Fish/spawn areas. Explain findings:
^ Other environmentally-sensitive species. Explain findings:
^ Aquatic/wildlife diversity. Explain findings:
3. Characteristics of all wetlands adjacent to the tributary (if any)
All wetland(s) being considered in the cumulative analysis: P1Ck ~t
Approximately ( )acres in total are being considered in the cumulative analysis.
1

t
i

r

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

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

Provide estimates for jurisdictional waters in the review area (check all that apply):
^ Tributary waters: linear feet width (ft).
1 ^ Other non-wetland waters: acres.
Identify type(s) of waters:
^ Wetlands: acres.
F. NON-JURISDICTIONAL WATERS, INCLUDING WETLANDS (CHECK ALL THAT APPLY):
~~
B. ADDITIONAL COMMENTS TO SUPPORT JD:
^ If potential wetlands were assessed within the review area, these areas did not meet the criteria in the 1987 Corps of Engineers
Wetland Delineation Manual and/or appropriate Regional Supplements.
~ ^ Review area included isolated waters with no substantial nexus to interstate (or foreign) commerce.
~ ^ Prior to the Jan 2001 Supreme Court decision in "SWANCC," the review area would have been regulated based solely on the
"Migratory Bird Rule" (MBR).
^ Waters do not meet the "Significant Nexus" standard, where such a finding is required for jurisdiction. Explain:
^ Other: (explain, if not covered above):
Provide acreage estimates for non-jurisdictional waters in the review area, where the sole potential basis of jurisdiction is the MBR
fact ors (i.e., presence of migratory birds, presence of endangered species, use of water for irrigated agriculture), using best professional
judgment (check all that apply):
^ Non-wetland waters (i.e., rivers, streams): linear feet width (ft).
^ Lakes/ponds: acres.
^ Other non-wetland waters: acres. List type of aquatic resource:
^ Wetlands: acres.
Provide acreage estimates for non jurisdictional waters in the review area that do not meet the "Significant Nexus" standard, where such
a finding is required for jurisdiction (check all that apply):
^ Non-wetland waters (i.e., rivers, streams): linear feet, width (ft).
^ Lakes/ponds: acres.
^ Other non-wetland waters: acres. List type of aquatic resource:
^ Wetlands: acres.

SECTION IV: DATA SOURCES.
1 A. SUPPORTING DATA. Data reviewed for JD (check all that apply -checked items shall be included in case file and, where checked
and requested, appropriately reference sources below):
® Maps, plans, plots or plat submitted by or on behalf of the applicant/consultant:Location/vicinity and resource maps are located in
the attached project narrative.
® Data sheets prepared/submitted by or on behalf of the applicant/consultant.
^ Office concurs with data sheets/delineation report.
^ Office does not concur with data sheets/delineation report.
_ ^
^ Data sheets prepared by the Corps:
Corps navigable waters' study:
^ U.S. Geological Survey Hydrologic Atlas:
^ USGS NHD data.

^ ^USGS 8 and 12 digit HUC maps.
U.S. Geological Survey map(s). Cite scale & quad name:
^ USDA Natural Resources Conservation Service Soil Survey. Citation:
^ National wetlands inventory map(s). Cite name:
^ State/Local wetland inventory map(s):
FEMA/FIRM maps:
100-year Floodplain Elevation is: (National Geodectic Vertical Datum of 1929)
Photographs: ^ Aerial (Name & Date):
or ^ Other (Name & Date):
^ Previous determination(s). File no. and date of response letter:
^ Applicable/supporting case law:
Applicable/supporting scientific literature:
Other information (please specify):
t
1

1
APPROVED JURISDICTIONAL DETERMINATION FORM
I U.S. Army Corps of Engineers
This form should be completed by following the instructions provided in Section IV of the JD Form Instructional Guidebook.
SECTION I: BACKGROUND INFORMATION
A. REPORT COMPLETION DATE FOR APPROVED JURISDICTIONAL DETERMINATION (JD):
I B. DISTRICT OFFICE, FILE NAME, AND NUMBER: Wilmington (Asheville Regional), Bridgewater Powerhouse Construction
Project, Action Id. 2007-2247
C. PROJECT LOCATION AND BACKGROUND INFORMATION:
State:North Carolina County/parish borough: Burke City: Glen Alpine
Center coordinates of site (lat/long in degree decimal format): Lat. 35.7428° N, Long. 81.8369° W.
Universal Transverse Mercator:
Name of nearest waterbody: Catawba River (Old Linville)
Name of nearest Traditional Navigable Water (TNW) Into which the aquatic resource flows: Catawba-Wateree River
Name of watershed or Hydrologic Unit Code (HUC): 03050101
® Check if map/diagram of review area and/or potential jurisdictional areas is/are available upon request.
® Check if other sites (e.g., offsite mitigation sites, disposal sites, etc...) are associated with this action and are recorded on a
different JD form.
D. REVIEW PERFORMED FOR SITE EVALUATION (CHECK ALL THAT APPLY):
^ Office (Desk) Determination. Date:
® Field Determination. Date(s): 07/25/07
SECTION II: SUMMARY OF FINDINGS
A. RHA SECTION 10 DETERMINATION OF JURISDICTION.
There Appear to be no "navigable waters of the U.S."within Rivers and Harbors Act (RHA) jurisdiction (as defined by 33 CFR part 329) in
the review area. [Required)
^ Waters subject to the ebb and flow of the tide.
^ Waters are presently used, or have been used in the past, or maybe susceptible for use to transport interstate or foreign commerce.
Explain:
B. CWA SECTION 404 DETERMINATION OF JURISDICTION.
There Aye "waters of the U.S."within Clean Water Act (CWA) jurisdiction (as defined by 33 CFR part 328) in the review area. [Required)
I 1. Waters of the U.S.
a. Indicate presence of waters of U.S. in review area (check all that apply):'
^ TNWs, including territorial seas
Wetlands adjacent to TNWs
^ Relatively permanent watersz (RPWs) that flow directly or indirectly into TNWs
^ Non-RPWs that flow directly or indirectly into TNWs
^ Wetlands directly abutting RPWs that flow directly or indirectly into TNWs
^ Wetlands adjacent to but not directly abutting RPWs that flow directly or indirectly into TNWs
^ Wetlands adjacent to non-RPWs that flow directly or indirectly into TNWs
^ Impoundments of jurisdictional waters
® Isolated (interstate or intrastate) waters, including isolated wetlands
b. Identify (estimate) size of waters of the U.S. in the review area:
Non-wetland waters: linear feet: width (ft) and/or acres.
Wetlands: acres.
c. Limits (boundaries) of jurisdiction based on: Not Applicable.
Elevation of established OHWM (if known):
2. Non-regulated waters/wetlands (check if applicable):3
Potentially jurisdictional waters and/or wetlands were assessed within the review area and determined to be not jurisdictional.
Explain: In addition to the jurisdictional streams and wetlands located onsite, a non-jurisdicitonal stilling basin is
located adjacent to the the powerhouse. Please refer to the attached Project Narrative for a complete description of
this feature and a copy of the Notification of Jurisdictional Determination.
Boxcs checked below shall be supported by completing the appropriate sections in Section III below.
s For purposes of this form, an RPW is defined as a tributary that is not a TNW and that typically flows year-round or has continuous flow at least "seasonally"
(c.g., typically 3 months).
' Supporting documentation is presented in Section III.F.

SECTION III: CWA ANALYSIS
A. TNWs AND WETLANDS ADJACENT TO TNWs
The agencies will assert jurisdiction over TNWs and wetlands adjacent to TNWs. If the aquatic resource is a TNW, complete
Section III.A.1 and Sectiou III.D.1. only; if the aquatic resource is a wetland adjacent to a TNW, complete Sections III.A.1 and 2
and Section IILD.1.; otherwise, see Section IILB below.
1. TNW
Identify TNW:
Summarize rationale supporting determination:
2. Wetland adjacent to TNW
Summarize rationale supporting conclusion that wetland is "adjacent":
1 B. CHARACTERISTICS OF TRIBUTARY (THAT IS NOT A TNW) AND ITS ADJACENT WETLANDS (IF ANY):
This section summarizes information regarding characteristics of the tributary and its adjacent wetlands, if any, and it helps
determine whether or not the standards for jurisdiction established under Rapanos have been met.
' The agencies will assert jurisdiction over non-navigable tributaries of TNWs where the tributaries are "relatively permanent
waters" (RPWs), i.e. tributaries that typically flow year-round or have continuous flow at least seasonally (e.g., typically 3
months). A wetland that directly abuts an RPW is also jurisdictional. If the aquatic resource is not a TNW, but has year-round
(perennial) flow, skip to Section III.D.2. If the aquatic resource is a wetland directly abutting a tributary with perennial flow,
skip to Section IILD.4.
A wetland that is adjacent to but that does not directly abut an RPW requires a significant nexus evaluation. Corps districts and
EPA regions will include in the record any available information that documents the existence of a significant nexus between a
relatively permanent tributary that is not perennial (and its adjacent wetlands if any) and a traditional navigable water, even
though a significant nexus finding is not required as a matter of law.
If the waterbody° is not an RPW, or a wetland directly abutting an RPW, a JD will require additional data to determine if the
waterbody has a significant nexus with a TNW. If the tributary has adjacent wetlands, the significant nexus evaluation must
consider the tributary in combination with all of its adjacent wetlands. This significant nexus evaluation that combines, for
analytical purposes, the tributary and all of its adjacent wetlands is used whether the review area identified in the JD request is
' the tributary, or its adjacent wetlands, or both. If the JD covers a tributary with adjacent wetlands, complete Section III.B.1 for
the tributary, Section III.B.2 for any onsite wetlands, and Section III.B.3 for all wetlands adjacent to that tributary, both onsite
and offsite. The determination whether a significant nexus exists is determined in Section III.C below.
1. Characteristics of non-TNWs that flow directly or indirectly into TNW
(i) General Area Conditions:
Watershed size: NA Pick List
Drainage area: NA Pick List
Average annual rainfall: 49.5 inches
Average annual snowfall: 7.3 inches

' (ii) Physical Characteristics:
(a) Relationship with TNW:
^ Tributary flows directly into TNW.
1 ^ Tributary flows through Pick List tributaries before entering TNW.
Project waters are Pick List river miles from TNW.
Project waters are )Pick List river miles from RPW.
Project waters are Pick Liat aerial (straight) miles from TNW.
Project waters are Pick List aerial (straight) miles from RPW.
Project waters cross or serve as state boundaries. Explain:
Identify flow route to TNWS:
Tributary stream order, if known:
'Note that the Instructional Guidebook contains additional information regarding swales, ditches, washes, and erosional features generally and in the grid
West.
s Flow route can be described by identifying, e.g., tributary a, which flows through the review area, to flow into tributary b, which then flows into TNW.

(b) General Tributary Characteristics (check all that apply):
Tributary is: ^ Natural
^ Artificial (man-made). Explain:
^ Manipulated (man-altered). Explain:
Tributary properties with respect to top of bank (estimate):
Average width: feet
Average depth: feet
' Average side slopes: Pick List.
Primary tributary substrate composition (check all that apply):
^ Silts ^ Sands ^ Concrete
^ Cobbles ^ Gravel ^ Muck
^ Bedrock ^ Vegetation. Type/% cover:
^ Other. Explain:
Tributary condition stability [e.g., highly eroding, sloughing banks]. Explain:
Presence of run riffle/pool complexes. Explain:
Tributary geometry: Pick List
Tributary gradient (approximate average slope):
(c) Flow:
Tributary provides for: Pick List
Estimate average number of flow events in review area/year: Pick List
Describe flow regime:
Other information on duration and volume:
Surface flow is: Pick List. Characteristics:
' Subsurface flow: Pick List. Explain findings:
^ Dye (or other) test performed:
Tributary has (check all that apply):
^ Bed and banks
^ OHWM6 (check all indicators that apply):
^ clear, natural line impressed on the bank ^ the presence of litter and debris
' ^ changes in the character of soil ^ destruction of terrestrial vegetation
^ shelving ^ the presence of wrack line
^ vegetation matted down, bent, or absent ^ sediment sorting
^ leaf litter disturbed or washed away ^ scour
' ^ sediment deposition ^ multiple observed or predicted flow events
^ water staining ^ abrupt change in plant community
^ other (list):
^ Discontinuous OHWM.' Explain:
If factors other than the OHWM were used to determine lateral extent of CWA jurisdiction (check all that apply):
^ High Tide Line indicated by: ^ Mean High Water Mark indicated by:
^ oil or scum line along shore objects ^ survey to available datum;
^ fine shell or debris deposits (foreshore) ^ physical markings;
^ physical markings/characteristics ^ vegetation lines/changes in vegetation types.
^ tidal gauges
^ other (list):
(iii) Chemical Characteristics:
Characterize tributary (e.g., water color is clear, discolored, oily film; water quality; general watershed characteristics, etc.).
Explain:
Identify specific pollutants, if known:
6A natural or man-made discontinuity in the OHWM dots not necessarily sever jurisdiction (e.g., where the stream temporarily flows underground, or where
the OHWM has been removed by development or agricultural practices). Where there is a break in the OHWM that is unrelated to the watcrbody's flow
regime (e.g., flow over a rock outcrop of through a culvert), the agencies will look for indicators of flow above and below the break.
'Ibid.
t

(iv) Biological Characteristics. Channel supports (check all that apply):
^ Riparian corridor. Characteristics (type, average width):
^ Wetland fringe. Characteristics:
^ Habitat for:
^ Federally Listed species. Explain findings:
^ Fish/spawn areas. Explain findings:
^ Other environmentally-sensitive species. Explain findings:
^ Aquatic/wildlife diversity. Explain findings:
2. Characteristics of wetlands adjacent to non-TNW that flow directly or indirectly into TNW
(i) Physical Characteristics:
(a) General Wetland Characteristics:
Properties:
Wetland size: acres
Wetland type. Explain:
Wetland quality. Explain:
1 Project wetlands cross or serve as state boundaries. Explain:
(b) General Flow Relationship with Non-TNW:
Flow is: Pick List. Explain:
Surface flow is: Pick List
Characteristics:
Subsurface flow: Pick List. Explain findings:
^ Dye (or other) test performed:
(c) Wetland Adjacency Determination with Non-TNW:
^ Directly abutting
^ Not directly abutting
^ Discrete wetland hydrologic connection. Explain:
^ Ecological connection. Explain:
^ Separated by berm/barrier. Explain:
(d) Proximity (Relationship) to TNW
Project wetlands are Pick List river miles from TNW.
Project waters are Pick List aerial (straight) miles from TNW.
Flow is from: Pick List.
Estimate approximate location of wetland as within the Pick List floodplain.
(ii) Chemical Characteristics:
Characterize wetland system (e.g., water color is clear, brown, oil film on surface; water quality; general watershed
characteristics; etc.). Explain:
Identify specific pollutants, if known:
(iii) Biological Characteristics. Wetland supports (check all that apply):
^ Riparian buffer. Characteristics (type, average width):
^ Vegetation type/percent cover. Explain:
^ Habitat for:
^ Federally Listed species. Explain findings:
^ Fish/spawn areas. Explain findings:
^ Other environmentally-sensitive species. Explain findings:
^ Aquatic/wildlife diversity. Explain findings:
3. Characteristics of all wetlands adjacent to the tributary (if aay)
All wetland(s) being considered in the cumulative analysis:l'ick List
Approximately ( )acres in total are being considered in the cumulative analysis.
1
1
1

1

1

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

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

s

t

1

1

1
1
Provide estimates for jurisdictional waters in the review area (check all that apply):
^ Tributary waters: linear feet width (ft).
^ Other non-wetland waters: acres.
Identify type(s) of waters:
^ Wetlands: acres.
F. NON-JURISDICTIONAL WATERS, INCLUDING WETLANDS (CHECK ALL THAT APPLY):
® If potential wetlands were assessed within the review area, these areas did not meet the criteria in the 1987 Corps of Engineers
Wetland Delineation Manual and/or appropriate Regional Supplements.
® Review area included isolated waters with no substantial nexus to interstate (or foreign) commerce.
^ Prior to the Jan 2001 Supreme Court decision in "SWANCC," the review area would have been regulated based solely on the
"Migratory Bird Rule" (MBR).
^ Waters do not meet the "Significant Nexus" standard, where such a finding is required for jurisdiction. Explain:
^ Other: (explain, if not covered above):
Provide acreage estimates for non-jurisdictional waters in the review area, where the sole potential basis of jurisdiction is the MBR
factors (i.e., presence of migratory birds, presence of endangered species, use of water for irrigated agriculture), using best professional
judgment (check all that apply):
^ Non-wetland waters (i.e., rivers, streams): linear feet width (ft).
^ Lakes/ponds: acres.
^ Other non-wetland waters: acres. List type of aquatic resource:
^ Wetlands: acres.
Provide acreage estimates for non jurisdictional waters in the review area that do not meet the "Significant Nexus" standard, where such
a finding is required for jurisdiction (check all that apply):
^ Non-wetland waters (i.e., rivers, streams): linear feet, width (ft).
^ Lakes/ponds: acres.
^ Other non-wetland waters: acres. List type of aquatic resource:
^ Wetlands: acres.
SECTION IV: DATA SOURCES.
A. SUPPORTING DATA. Data reviewed for JD (check all that apply -checked items shall be included in case file and, where checked
and requested, appropriately reference sources below):
® Maps, plans, plots or plat submitted by or on behalf of the applicant/consultant:Location/vicinity and resource maps are located in
the attached project narrative.
Data sheets prepared/submitted by or on behalf of the applicant/consultant.
^ Office concurs with data sheets/delineation report.
^ Office does not concur with data sheets/delineation report.
^ Data sheets prepared by the Corps:
^ Corps navigable waters' study:
^ U.S. Geological Survey Hydrologic Atlas:
^ USGS NHD data.
^ USGS 8 and 12 digit HUC maps.
^ U.S. Geological Survey map(s). Cite scale & quad name:
^ USDA Natural Resources Conservation Service Soil Survey. Citation:
^ National wetlands inventory map(s). Cite name:
^ State/Local wetland inventory map(s):
^ FEMA/FIRM maps:
^ 100-year Floodplain Elevation is: (National Geodectic Vertical Datum of 1929)
^ Photographs: ^ Aerial (Name & Date):
or ^ Other (Name & Date):
Previous determination(s). File no. and date of response letter:
Applicable/supporting case law:
^ Applicable/supporting scientific literature:
^ Other information (please specify):
B. ADDITIONAL COMMENTS TO SUPPORT JD:
i

APPROVED JURISDICTIONAL DETERMINATION FORM
U.S. Army Corps of Engineers
This form should be completed by following the instructions provided in Section IV of the 7D Form Instructional Guidebook.
1 SECTION I: BACKGROUND INFORMATION
A. REPORT COMPLETION DATE FOR APPROVED JURISDICTIONAL DETERMINATION (JD):
B. DISTRICT OFFICE, FILE NAME, AND NUMBER: Wilmington (Asheville Regional Office), Bridgewater Powerhouse
Construction Project
C. PROJECT LOCATION AND BACKGROUND INFORMATION:
1 State:North Carolina County/parish/borough: Burke City: Glen Alpine
Center coordinates of site (lat/long in degree decimal format): Lat. 35.7428° N, Long. 81.8369° W.
Universal Transverse Mercator:
Name of nearest waterbody: Catawba River (Old Linville)
Name of nearest Traditional Navigable Water (TNW) Into which the aquatic resource flows: Catawba-Wateree River
Name of watershed or Hydrologic Unit Code (HUC): 03050101
® Check if map/diagram of review area and/or potential jurisdictional areas is/are available upon request.
® Check if other sites (e.g., offsite mitigation sites, disposal sites, etc...) are associated with this action and are recorded on a
1 different JD form.
D. REVIEW PERFORMED FOR SITE EVALUATION (CHECK ALL THAT APPLY):
^ Office (Desk) Determination. Date:
® Field Determination. Date(s): 07/25/07
SECTION II: SUMMARY OF FINDINGS
A. RHA SECTION 10 DETERMINATION OF JURISDICTION.
There Appear to be no "navigable waters of the U.S."within Rivers and Harbors Act (RHA) jurisdiction (as defined by 33 CFR part 329) in
the review area. [Required)
^ Waters subject to the ebb and flow of the tide.
I ^ Waters are presently used, or have been used in the past, or may be susceptible for use to transport interstate or foreign commerce.
Explain:
1 B. CWA SECTION 404 DETERMINATION OF JURISDICTION.
There Are "waters of the U.S." within Clean Water Act (CWA) jurisdiction (as defined by 33 CFR part 328) in the review area. [Required)
1. Waters of the U.S.
a. Indicate presence of waters of U.S. in review area (check all that apply):'
^ TNWs, including territorial seas
^ Wetlands adjacent to TNWs
I Relatively permanent waters (RPWs) that flow directly or indirectly into TNWs
^ Non-RPWs that flow directly or indirectly into TNWs
® Wetlands directly abutting RPWs that flow directly or indirectly into TNWs
^ Wetlands adjacent to but not directly abutting RPWs that flow directly or indirectly into TNWs
^ Wetlands adjacent to non-RPWs that flow directly or indirectly into TNWs
^ Impoundments of jurisdictional waters
^ Isolated (interstate or intrastate) waters, including isolated wetlands
' b. Identify (estimate) size of waters of the U.S. in the review area:
Non-wetland waters: 2301inear feet: 3 width (ft) and/or acres.
Wetlands: 0.013 acres.
c. Limits (boundaries) of jurisdiction based on: 1987 DelloeatYoa Manual
Elevation of established OHWM (if known):Unknwn.
2. Non-regulated waters/wetlands (check if applicable) 3
1 ^ Potentially jurisdictional waters and/or wetlands were assessed within the review area and determined to be not jurisdictional.
Explain:
1 ~ Boxes checked below shall be supported by completing the appropriate sections in Section III below.
z For purposes of this form, an RPW is defined as a tributary that is not a TNW and that typically flows year-round or has continuous flow at least "seasonally"
(e.g., typically 3 months).
Supporting documentation is presented in Section IILF.

SECTION III: CWA ANALYSIS
1 A. TNWs AND WETLANDS ADJACENT TO TNWs
The agencies will assert jurisdiction over TNWs and wetlands adjacent to TNWs. If the aquatic resource is a TNW, complete
' Section III.A.1 and Section III.D.1, only; if the aquatic resource is a wetland adjacent to a TNW, complete Sections III.A.1 and 2
and Section IILD.1.; otherwise, see Section IILB below.
1. TNW
I Identify TNW:
Summarize rationale supporting determination:
I 2. Wetland adjacent to TNW
Summarize rationale supporting conclusion that wetland is "adjacent":
B. CHARACTERISTICS OF TRIBUTARY (THAT IS NOT A TNW) AND ITS ADJACENT WETLANDS (IF ANY):
This section summarizes information regarding characteristics of the tributary and its adjacent wetlands, if any, and it helps
determine whether or not the standards for jurisdiction established under Rapanoshave been met.
The agencies will assert jurisdiction over non-navigable tributaries of TNWs where the tributaries are "relatively permanent
waters" (RPWs), i.e. tributaries that typically flow year-round or have continuous flow at least seasonally (e.g., typically 3
months). A wetland that directly abuts an RPW is also jurisdictional. If the aquatic resource is not a TNW, but has year-round
(perennial) flow, skip to Section III.D.2. If the aquatic resource is a wetland directly abutting a tributary with perennial flow,
skip to Section IILD.4.
A wetland that is adjacent to but that does not directly abut an RPW requires a significant nexus evaluation. Corps districts and
1 EPA regions will include in the record any available information that documents the existence of a significant nexus between a
relatively permanent tributary that is not perennial (and its adjacent wetlands if any) and a traditional navigable water, even
though a significant nexus finding is not required as a matter of law.
If the waterbody4 is not an RPW, or a wetland directly abutting an RPW, a JD will require additional data to determine if the
waterbody has a significant nexus with a TNW. If the tributary has adjacent wetlands, the significant nexus evaluation must
consider the tributary in combination with all of its adjacent wetlands. This significant nexus evaluation that combines, for
' analytical purposes, the tributary and all of its adjacent wetlands is used whether the review area identified in the JD request is
the tributary, or its adjacent wetlands, or both. If the JD covers a tributary with adjacent wetlands, complete Section III.B.1 for
the tributary, Section III.B.2 for any onsite wetlands, and Section III.B.3 for all wetlands adjacent to that tributary, both onsite
and offsite. The determination whether a significant nexus exists is determined in Section III.C below.
1. Characteristics of non-TNWs that flow directly or indirectly into TNW
(i) General Area Conditions:
1 Watershed size: 0.030square tulles
Drainage area: 0.027 square miles
Average annual rainfall: 49.5 inches
Average annual snowfall: 7.3 inches

' (ii) Physical Characteristics:
(a) Relationship with TNW:
^ Tributary flows directly into TNW.
^ Tributary flows through Pick List tributaries before entering TNW.
Project waters are Pick List river miles from TNW.
Project waters are Pick List river miles from RPW.
Project waters are Pick List aerial (straight) miles from TNW.
Project waters are Pick List aerial (straight) miles from RPW.
Project waters cross or serve as state boundaries. Explain:
Identify flow route to TNWs:
Tributary stream order, if known:
1 ° Note that the Instructional Guidebook contains additional information regarding swales, ditches, washes, and erosional features generally and in the arid
West.
s Flow route can be described by identifying, e.g., tributary a, which flows through the review area, to flow into tributary b, which then flows into TNW.

(b) General Tributary Characteristics (check all that avulvl:
Tributary is: ^ Natural
^ Artificial (man-made). Explain:
^ Manipulated (man-altered). Explain:

1
t
1

t

1
1

Tributary properties with respect to top of bank (estimate):
Average width: feet
Average depth: feet
Average side slopes: Pick List.
Primary tributary substrate composition (check all that apply):
^ Silts ^ Sands ^ Concrete
^ Cobbles ^ Gravel ^ Muck
^ Bedrock ^ Vegetation. Type/% cover:
^ Other. Explain:
Tributary condition stability [e.g., highly eroding, sloughing banks]. Explain: Banks are moderately stable with some
sloughing in some areas. Bank vegetation is herbaceous.
Presence of run/riffle/pool complexes. Explain:
Tributary geometry: Pick List
Tributary gradient (approximate average slope):
(c) Flow:
Tributary provides for: Pick List
Estimate average number of flow events in review area/year: Pick List
Describe flow regime:
Other information on duration and volume: Flow appears to be perennial.
Surface flow is: Pick List. Characteristics:
Subsurface flow: Pick List. Explain findings:
^ Dye (or other) test performed:
Tributary has (check all that apply):
^ Bed and banks
^ OHWM6 (check all indicators that apply):
^ clear, natural line impressed on the bank ^
^ changes in the character of soil ^
^ shelving ^
^ vegetation matted down, bent, or absent ^
^ leaf litter disturbed or washed away ^
^ sediment deposition ^
^ water staining ^
^ other (list):
^ Discontinuous OHWM.~ Explain:
If factors other than the OHWM were used to determ
^ High Tide Line indicated by: ^
^ oil or scum line along shore objects
^ fine shell or debris deposits (foreshore)
^ physical markings/characteristics
^ tidal gauges
^ other (list):
the presence of litter and debris
destruction of terrestrial vegetation
the presence of wrack line
sediment sorting
scour
multiple observed or predicted flow events
abrupt change in plant community
ine lateral extent of CWA jurisdiction (check all that apply)
Mean High Water Mark indicated by:
^ survey to available datum;
^ physical markings;
^ vegetation lines/changes in vegetation types.
(iii) Chemical Characteristics:
Characterize tributary (e.g., water color is clear, discolored, oily film; water quality; general watershed characteristics, etc.).
Explain:
Identify specific pollutants, if known:

~A natural or man-made discontinuity in the OHWM does not necessarily sever jurisdiction (e.g., where the stream temporarily flows underground, or where
1 the OHWM has been removed by development or agricultural practices). Where there is a break in the OHWM that is unrelated to the waterbody's flow
regime (e.g., flow over a rock outcrop or through a culvert), the agencies will look for indicators of flow above and below the break.
'Ibid.

1

(iv) Biological Characteristics. Channel supports (check all that apply):
^ Riparian corridor. Characteristics (type, average width):
^ Wetland fringe. Characteristics: Palustrine emergent wetland directly abutting stream 1.
^ Habitat for:
^ Federally Listed species. Explain findings:
^ Fish/spawn areas. Explain findings:
^ Other environmentally-sensitive species. Explain findings:
^ Aquatic/wildlife diversity. Explain findings: Macro-benthic invertebrates.
2. Characteristics of wetlands adjacent to non-TNW that flow directly or indirectly into TNW
(i) Physical Characteristics:
(a) General Wetland Characteristics:
Properties:
Wetland size: acres
Wetland type. Explain:
Wetland quality. Explain:
Project wetlands cross or serve as state boundaries. Explain:
(b) General Flow Relationship with Non-TNW:
Flow is: Pick List. Explain:
Surface flow is: Pick List
Characteristics: Some sheet flow was observed at the time of the field survey.
Subsurface flow: Unknown. Explain findings:
^ Dye (or other) test performed:
(c) Wetland Adjacency Determination with Non-TNW:
® Directly abutting
^ Not directly abutting
^ Discrete wetland hydrologic connection. Explain:
^ Ecological connection. Explain:
^ Separated by berm/barrier. Explain:
(d) Proximity (Relationship) to TNW
Project wetlands are Pick List river miles from TNW.
' Project waters are Pick List aerial (straight) miles from TNW.
Flow is from: Pick List.
Estimate approximate location of wetland as within the Pick List floodplain.

t

1

(ii) Chemical Characteristics:
Characterize wetland system (e.g., water color is clear, brown, oil film on surface; water quality; general watershed
characteristics; etc.). Explain:
Identify specific pollutants, if known:
(iii) Biological Characteristics. Wetland supports (check all that apply):
^ Riparian buffer. Characteristics (type, average width):
^ Vegetation type/percent cover. Explain:
^ Habitat for:
^ Federally Listed species. Explain findings:
^ Fish/spawn areas. Explain findings:
^ Other environmentally-sensitive species. Explain findings:
^ Aquatic/wildlife diversity. Explain findings:
3. Characteristics of all wetlands adjacent to the tributary (if any)
All wetland(s) being considered in the cumulative analysis: Pick List
Approximately ( )acres in total are being considered in the cumulative analysis.
1

For each wetland, specify the following:
Directly abuts? (Y/Nl Size (in acres) Directly abuts? (Y/N) Size in acres)
Summarize overall biological, chemical and physical functions being performed: Fringe wetland associated with Stream
1 performs flood water retention, pollution retention, and ground water recharge services. Near the upper limits of the relevant
reach wetland serves as groundwater source to Stream 1.
C. SIGNIFICANT NEXUS DETERMINATION
A significant nexus analysis will assess the flow characteristics and functions of the tributary itself and the functions performed
by any wetlands adjacent to the tributary to determine if they significantly affect the chemical, physical, and biological integrity
of a TNW. For each of the following situations, a significant nexus exists if the tributary, in combination with all of its adjacent
wetlands, has more than a speculative or insubstantial effect on the chemical, physical and/or biological integrity of a TNW.
Considerations when evaluating significant nexus include, but are not limited to the volume, duration, and frequency of the flow
of water in the tributary and its proximity to a TNW, and the functions performed by the tributary and all its adjacent
wetlands. It is not appropriate to determine significant nexus based solely on any specific threshold of distance (e.g. between a
tributary and its adjacent wetland or between a tributary and the TNW). Similarly, the fact an adjacent wetland lies within or
outside of a tloodplain is not solely determinative of significant nexus.

1

t
1

Draw connections between the features documented and the effects on the TNW, as identified in the Rapanos Guidance and
discussed in the Instructional Guidebook. Factors to consider include, for example:
• Does the tributary, in combination with its adjacent wetlands (if any), have the capacity to carry pollutants or flood waters to
TNWs, or to reduce the amount of pollutants or flood waters reaching a TNW?
• Does the tributary, in combination with its adjacent wetlands (if any), provide habitat and lifecycle support functions for fish and
other species, such as feeding, nesting, spawning, or rearing young for species that are present in the TNW?
• Does the tributary, in combination with its adjacent wetlands (if any), have the capacity to transfer nutrients and organic carbon that
support downstream foodwebs?
• Does the tributary, in combination with its adjacent wetlands (if any), have other relationships to the physical, chemical, or
biological integrity of the TNW?
Note: the above list of considerations is not inclusive and other functions observed or known to occur should be documented
below:
1. Significant nexus findings for non-RPW that has no adjacent wetlands and flows directly or indirectly into TNWs. Explain
findings of presence or absence of significant nexus below, based on the tributary itself, then go to Section III.D:
2. Significant nexus findings for non-RPW and its adjacent wetlands, where the non-RPW flows directly or indirectly into
TNWs. Explain findings of presence or absence of significant nexus below, based on the tributary in combination with all of its
adjacent wetlands, then go to Section IILD:
3. Significant nexus findings for wetlands adjacent to an RPW but that do not directly abut the RPW. Explain findings of
presence or absence of significant nexus below, based on the tributary in combination with all of its adjacent wetlands, then go to
Section IILD:
D. DETERMINATIONS OF JURISDICTIONAL FINDINGS. THE SUBJECT WATERS/WETLANDS ARE (CHECK ALL
THAT APPLY):
1. TNWs and Adjacent Wetlands. Check all that apply and provide size estimates in review area:
TNWs: linear feet width (ft), Or, acres.
^ Wetlands adjacent to TNWs: acres.
2. RPWs that flow directly or indirectly into TNWs.
® Tributaries of TNWs where tributaries typically flow year-round are jurisdictional. Provide data and rationale indicating that
tributary is perennial: Stream 1 appears to be a bed and bank perennial stream. Evidence of groundwater recharge and
continous flow were observed, as well as an OHWM, substrate sorting, and the presence of macrobenthic invertebrates.
Tributaries of TNW where tributaries have continuous flow "seasonally" (e.g., typically three months each year) are
jurisdictional. Data supporting this conclusion is provided at Section III.B. Provide rationale indicating that tributary flows
seasonally:

Provide estimates for jurisdictional waters in the review area (check all that apply):
^ Tributary waters: linear feet width (ft).
^ Other non-wetland waters: acres.
Identify type(s) of waters:
3. Non-RPWss that flow directly or indirectly into TNWs.
' ^ Waterbody that is not a TNW or an RPW, but flows directly or indirectly into a TNW, and it has a significant nexus with a
TNW is jurisdictional. Data supporting this conclusion is provided at Section IILC.
Provide estimates for jurisdictional waters within the review area (check all that apply):
^ Tributary waters: linear feet width (ft).
^ Other non-wetland waters: acres.
Identify type(s) of waters:
' 4. Wetlands directly abutting an RPW that flow directly or indirectly into TNWs.
® Wetlands directly abut RPW and thus are jurisdictional as adjacent wetlands.
® Wetlands directly abutting an RPW where tributaries typically flow year-round. Provide data and rationale
indicating that tributary is perennial in Section IILD.2, above. Provide rationale indicating that wetland is
directly abutting an RPW: Wetland is typical fringe PEM wetland. Wetland is not separated from Stream 1 by an
upland feature and therefore is not considered adjacent. Provides groundwater flow to the stream during periods
of low flow and groundwater recharge at other times.
^ Wetlands directly abutting an RPW where tributaries typically flow "seasonally." Provide data indicating that tributary is
seasonal in Section IILB and rationale in Section IILD.2, above. Provide rationale indicating that wetland is directly
abutting an RPW:
i Provide acreage estimates for jurisdictional wetlands in the review area: 0.013acres.
5. Wetlands adjacent to but not directly abutting an RPW that flow directly or indirectly into TNWs.
^ Wetlands that do not directly abut an RPW, but when considered in combination with the tributary to which they are adjacent
and with similarly situated adjacent wetlands, have a significant nexus with a TNW are jurisidictional. Data supporting this
conclusion is provided at Section IILC.
' Provide acreage estimates for jurisdictional wetlands in the review area: acres.
6. Wetlands adjacent to non-RPWs that flow directly or indirectly into TNWs.
^ Wetlands adjacent to such waters, and have when considered in combination with the tributary to which they are adjacent and
with similarly situated adjacent wetlands, have a significant nexus with a TNW are jurisdictional. Data supporting this
conclusion is provided at Section IILC.
Provide estimates for jurisdictional wetlands in the review area: acres.
' 7. Impoundments of jurisdictional waters 9
As a general rule, the impoundment of a jurisdictional tributary remains jurisdictional.
^ Demonstrate that impoundment was created from "waters of the U.S.," or
^ Demonstrate that water meets the criteria for one of the categories presented above (1-6), or
^ Demonstrate that water is isolated with a nexus to commerce (see E below).
E. ISOLATED [INTERSTATE OR INTRA-STATE] WATERS, INCLUDING ISOLATED WETLANDS, THE USE,
DEGRADATION OR DESTRUCTION OF WHICH COULD AFFECT INTERSTATE COMMERCE, INCLUDING ANY
SUCH WATERS (CHECK ALL THAT APPLY):10
^ which are or could be used by interstate or foreign travelers for recreational or other purposes.
^ from which fish or shellfish are or could be taken and sold in interstate or foreign commerce.
I KSee Footnote # 3.
e To complete the analysis refer to the key in Section IILD.6 of the Instructional Guidebook.
' 10 Prior to asserting or declining CWA jurisdiction based solely on this category, Corps Districts will elevate the action to Corps and EPA HQ for
review consistent with the process described in the Corps/EPA Memorandum Regarding CWA Act Jurisdiction Following Rapanos.

^ which are or could be used for industrial purposes by industries in interstate commerce.
' ^ Interstate isolated waters. Explain:
^ Other factors. Explain:
Identify water body and summarize rationale supporting determination:
Provide estimates for jurisdictional waters in the review area (check all that apply):
^ Tributary waters: linear feet width (ft).
^ Other non-wetland waters: acres.
Identify type(s) of waters:
^ Wetlands: acres.
' F. NON-JURISDICTIONAL WATERS, INCLUDING WETLANDS (CHECK ALL THAT APPLY):
^ If potential wetlands were assessed within the review area, these areas did not meet the criteria in the 1987 Corps of Engineers
Wetland Delineation Manual and/or appropriate Regional Supplements.
^ Review area included isolated waters with no substantial nexus to interstate (or foreign) commerce.
^ Prior to the Jan 2001 Supreme Court decision in "SWANCC," the review area would have been regulated based solely on the
"Migratory Bird Rule" (MBR).
^ Waters do not meet the "Significant Nexus" standard, where such a finding is required for jurisdiction. Explain:
^ Other: (explain, if not covered above):
Provide acreage estimates for non-jurisdictional waters in the review area, where the sole potential basis of jurisdiction is the MBR
' factors (i.e., presence of migratory birds, presence of endangered species, use of water for irrigated agriculture), using best professional
judgment (check all that apply):
^ Non-wetland waters (i.e., rivers, streams): linear feet width (ft).
^ Lakes/ponds: acres.
' ^ Other non-wetland waters: acres. List type of aquatic resource:
^ Wetlands: acres.
' Provide acreage estimates for non jurisdictional waters in the review area that do not meet the "Significant Nexus" standard, where such
a finding is required for jurisdiction (check all that apply):
^ Non-wetland waters (i.e., rivers, streams): linear feet, width (ft).
^ Lakes/ponds: acres.
^ Other non-wetland waters: acres. List type of aquatic resource:
^ Wetlands: acres.
' SECTION IV: DATA SOURCES.
A. SUPPORTING DATA. Data reviewed for JD (check all that apply -checked items shall be included in case file and, where checked
and requested, appropriately reference sources below):
® Maps, plans, plots or plat submitted by or on behalf of the applicant/consultant:Location/vicinity and resource maps included in
project narrative.
® Data sheets prepared/submitted by or on behalf of the applicant/consultant.
^ Office concurs with data sheets/delineation report.
' ^ Office does not concur with data sheets/delineation report.
^ Data sheets prepared by the Corps:
^ Corps navigable waters' study:
^ U.S. Geological Survey Hydrologic Atlas:
^USGS NHD data.
^ USGS 8 and 12 digit HUC maps.
® U.S. Geological Survey map(s). Cite scale & quad name:1:24,000, Glen Alpine.
^ USDA Natural Resources Conservation Service Soil Survey. Citation:
[Q National wetlands inventory map(s). Cite name:
^ State/Local wetland inventory map(s):
^ FEMA/FIRM maps:
^ 100-year Floodplain Elevation is: (National Geodectic Vertical Datum of 1929)
Photographs: ^ Aerial (Name & Date):
or ®Other (Name & Date):
Previous determination(s). File no. and date of response letter:
[~ Applicable/supporting case law:
^ Applicable/supporting scientific literature:
^ Other information (please specify):

1
' B. ADDITIONAL COMMENTS TO SUPPORT JD:

1
1

1

DATA FORM
ROUTINE WETLAND DETERMINATION
(1987 USAGE Wetlands Delineation Manual)
Project Site: Brid ewater Powerhouse Date: 5/20/07
Applicant/Owner: Duke Ener Carolinas, LLC County: Burke
Investigator: Jason Isbaniol (DTA) State: NC

Do normal circumstances exist on the site? Yes® No^ Community ID: U
Is the site significantly disturbed (Atypical Situation)? Yes^ No® Transect ID: U land 1
Is the area a potential problem area?
(if needed, explain on reverse) Yes^ No® Plot ID: Outside of Line Z.

1
1
1
1
1
Note those soectes observes to have
Stratum
herbaceous Indicator
FacU+
9.
herbaceous Fac 10.
herbaceous FacU 11.
herbaceous FacU 12.
13.
14.
15.
16.
tolo kcal ass tarlous ro weuanss warn an
Dominant Plant Species Stratum Indicator
Percent of Dominant Species that are OBL, FACW or FAC (excluding FAC-): 25%
Include species noted (*) as showing morphological adaptations to wetlands.
Describe Morphological Adaptations:
Remarks: Parameter is not met. H dro h tic ve etation a ual to or less than 50%.
' HYDROLOGY

1
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: NA (in.) SECONDARY (2 or more required)
INDICATORS
Depth to Free Water in Pit: NA (in.) ^ Oxidized Root Channels in Upper 12 Inches
^ Water-Stained Leaves
Depth to Saturated Soil: NA (in.) ^ Local Soil Survey Data
^ Other (Explain in Remarks)
^ FAC-Neutral Test
Remarks: Parameter is not met. No primary or secondary indicators of wetland hydrology are present.

' SOILS
e

f

1

Map Unit Name Udorthents, Loamy Well Drained
(Series and Phrase): Drainage Class:
Unknown Field Observations ^
Taxonomy (Subgroup): Confirm Mapped Type? Yes No
PROFILE DESCRIPTION
Death Matrix Color Redoximorphic Redoximorphic Texture. Concretions,
Inches Horizon (Munscll Moist Features Colors Features Rhizospheres, etc.
(Munscll Moistl Abundance/Contrast
0-18 A 10 YR 4/3 Silt Loam
Hydric Soil Indicators: 0
^ 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. No hydric soil indicators are 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: No wetland arameters are resent.

i
1

i
1
1
DATA FORM
ROUTINE WETLAND DETERMINATION
(1987 USAGE Wetlands Delineation Manual)
Project Site: Brid ewater Powerhouse Date: 7/20/07
Applicant/Owner: Duke Ener Carolinas, LLC County: Burke
Investigator: Jason Isbaniol (DTA) State: NC

Do normal circumstances exist on the site? Yes® No^ Community ID: PEM
Is the site significantly disturbed (Atypical Situation)? Yes^ No® Transect ID: Wetland 1
Is the area a potential problem area?
(if needed, explain on reverse) Yes^ No® Plot 1D: Line Z.

VI]a:L7A11V1V to Vraer of stratum Plote tnose s ectes ooservea to nave
Dominant Plant Species Stratum Indicator
1. Ludwigia alternifolia herbaceous FacW+ 9.
2. Rhexia virginica herbaceous FacW+ ]0.
3. Carex lurida herbaceous Obl 11.
4. Juncus effusus herbaceous FacW+ 12.
5. Cyperus strigosus herbaceous FacW 13.
6. 14.
7. 15.
8. 16.

noto teat aaa Canons ro weuanas wtrn an
Dominant Plant Species Stratum Indicator
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: Parameter is met. Greater than 50% of dominant ve etation is FAC or wetter.
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: NA (in.) SECONDARY (2 or more required)
INDICATORS
Depth to Free Water in Pit: NA (in.) ^ Oxidized Root Channels in Upper 12 Inches
^ Water-Stained Leaves
Depth to Saturated Soil: 6 (in.) ^ Local Soil Survey Data
^ Other (Explain in Remarks)
^ FAG-Neutral Test
Remarks: Paramter is met. Primary wetland hydrology indicators are present.

' SOILS

t

t

f

Map Unit Name Unknown Unknown
(Series and Phrase): Drainage Class:
Unknown Field Observations ^
Taxonomy (Subgroup): Confirm Mapped Type? Yes No
PROFILE DESCRIPTION
Depth Matrix Color Redoximorphic Redoximorphic Texture, Concretions,
Inches Horizon (Munsell Moist Features Colors Features Rhizospheres, etc.
(Munsell Moist) Abundance/Contrast
0-3 A 10 YR 4/3 7.5 YR 4/6 Sil Loam
3-10 B 7.5 YR 4/2 7.5 YR 4/4 Common, Fine, Sandy Loam
Distinct
10-18 B2 7.5 YR 5/3 7.5 YR 4/4 Few, Fine, Faint Sand Loam
Hydric Soil Indicators: 1
^ 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 met. Low chroma colors (Gleyed) accompanied by bright redoximorphic features.
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 met.

t

1

USACE AID#
DWQ#
Site # (indicate on attached map)
_ __ ___
;,~,; STREAM QUALITY ASSESSMENT WORKSHEET
Provide the following information for the stream reach under assessment:
1. Apphcant~s name: Duke Energy Carolinas, LLC 2. Evaluaklr~s name: Jason Isbanioly
3. Date of evaluation: ~/2o,io~
5, Name Of StrCam; tpnamed tributary of Catawba R.
7. Approximate drainage area: <. to sg. mile
9. Length of reach evaluated: Approximately z5o
a. Time of evacuation: l o : o o am
6. River basin: Catawba
g. Slreanl Ofder: 1St
10. County: Burke
l 1. Site coordinates (iC kl2own): prefer in decimal degrees. 12. Subdivision name (if any):
Latitude(e~x.34.s?33I3j: 35.'741858 Longitude(ex. -7'.Si66111: -81.835939
N~tethod location determined (circle): GPS Topo Sheet Ortho (Atrial) Photu%GIS Other G1S Other
l3. Locatiun of rcarh under evaluation (note nearby roads and landmarks and attach map identifying stream(s) location):
Located off of and parallel to Powerhouse Rd. Adjacent to Bridgewater Powerhouse.
Ia.PTOpOSed channel WOCIC(Ilany): Minor Discharge (NWP 18) of approximately 30 linear feet (<10 r_ubic yards).
1S. Recent 4veatherconditions: Fair Rainfall w/n previous 48 hours.
16. Site Conditions at time of visit: Non-impacted, flowing water w/n channel .
17. Identify any special waterway classilications known: _____Section 1(l _,,,_1`idal Waters Essential Fisheries Habitat
-Trout Waters -Outstanding Resource Waters _ Nutrient Sensitive Waters -Water Supply ~Vatcrshed (1-TV)
18. Ts there a pond or lake located upstream of the evaluation point`' YES ?~O If yes, estimate the water surface, area:
t9. Does channel appear on USC;S quad map° YES NO 20. Does channel appear on USDA Soil Survey`' YES NO
21. Estimated watershed land use: '?o Residential °~« Commercial °'6 Industrial °'~ Agricultural
55 0,~ ForestCd 30 "-o Cleared % Logged s °r~o Other ( Paved Road )
22. Bankfull width: 4 ft 23. Bank height (from bed to top of bank): 3 ft
24. Channel slope down center ofstream: -Flat (d to 2°~) ? Gentle (2 to ~"a~o} Moderate (4 to 10°~~) _Stce;p (>l0°~~}
25. Channel sinuosity: Straight x Occasional bends -Frequent meander -Very sinuous -Braided channel
Instructions for completion of worksheet (located on page 2): Begin by determining the most appropriate eroregion based on
location, terrain, vegetation, stream classification, etc. Every characteristic must be scored using the same ccorcgiun. Assign. points
to each characteristic within the range shown Cor the ecoregion. Page 3 provides a brief description of how to review the
characteristics identified in the worksheet. Scores should reflect an overall assessment of the stream reach under evaluation. If a
characteristic cannot be evaluated due to site or weather conditions, enter 0 in the scoring box and provide an explanation in the
comment section. Where there are obvious changes in the character of a stream under review (e.g., the stream slows from a pasture
into a forest), the stream may be divided into smaller reaches that display more continuity, and a separate form used to evaluate each
reach. The total score assigned to a stream reach must range between 0 and 100, with a score of 100 representing a stream of the
highest quality.
1 36 Stream has been ditched and straightened. Bank soils
Total Score (from reverse): Comments:
exhibit evidence of past saturation (i.e., hydric soils). Fringe wetlands reforming active flood-
plain. Numerous crayfish chimneys and gilled snails observed.
Evaluator's Signatur ~i++'t Date ~/-~ ~,~~ ~'
This channel evaluati~ form is intended to be us only as a guide to assist landowners and environmental professionals in
gathering the dat I~required by the United States Army Corps of Engineers to make a preliminary assessment of stream
quality. The total score resulting from the completion of this form is subject to USACE approval and does not imply a
particular mitigation ratio or requirement. Form subject to change -version 06/03. To Comment, plea.5e call 919-876-841 s 26.
1

STREAM QUALITY ASSESSMENT WORKSHEET

1

y
?~ y
'4+~ i
.. ,
~ Presence of flow /persistent pools in stream 0
5 4
0 0
S
1 (no flow or saturation = 0; strong flow = max oints) - - - 3
2 Evidence of past human alteration 0- 6 0- S 0- S
(extensive alteration = 0; no alteration = max oints) 1
3 Riparian zone 0- 6 0- 4 0- 5
(no buffer = 0; Conti uous, wide buffer = max points) o
'~ Evidence of nutrient or chemical discharges
0
S
4
0
0
4
;~ 4 (extensive dischar es = 0; no discharges = max oints) - - - 3
+~.
' S Groundwater discharge 0- 3 0- 4 0- 4
!~; (no dischar e = 0; sprin s, seeps, wetlands, etc. = max oints) 3

~
6 Presence of adjacent floodplain
0 - 4
0 - 4
0 - 2
~` (no flood lain = 0; extensive floodplain = max points) 1
~~ ~ Entrenchment /floodplain access 0- 5 0- 4 0- 2
(deepl entrenched = 0; fre went flooding = max points) ~
8 Presence of adjacent wetlands 0- 6 0- 4 0- 2
(no wetlands = 0; large adjacent wetlands = max oints) i
9 Channel sinuosity 0- 5 0- 4 0- 3
(extensive channelization = 0; natural meander = max points) 1

10 Sediment input
0-S
0-4
0-4
~~ (extensive deposition= 0; little or no sediment = max points) 2
11 Size & diversity of channel bed substrate '" ;~~~; .;; 0 - 4 0 - S
(fine, homogenous = 0; lar e, diverse sizes = max points) 2
'~# Evidence of channel incision or widening 0
S 4
0 0
5
12 (deepl incised = 0; stable bed & banks = max points) - - - ~
_ 13 Presence of major bank failures 0 - 5 0 - 5 0 - 5
(severe erosion = 0; no erosion, stable banks = max points) 2
14 Root depth and density on banks 0 - 3 0 - 4 0 - S
(no visible roots = 0; dense roots throu bout = max points) 2
~` Impact by agriculture, livestock, or timber production 0
5 4
0 0
S
~~ 15 (substantial impact =0; no evidence = max points) - - - 4
"'~
' Presence of riffle-pooUripple-pool complexes
3
0
S
0
6
:-~ 16 (no riffles/ri les or ools = 0; well-develo ed = max points) 0- - - 2
l ~ Habitat complexity 0- 6 0- 6 0- 6
(little or no habitat = 0; frequent, varied habitats = max oints) 2

18 Canopy coverage over streambed
0 5
0 - 5
0 - S
(no shading ve etation = 0; continuous cano = max oints) o
[; Substrate embeddedness F ~`'
d (dee 1 embedded = 0; loose structure = max) ~ a..~~j 2
~~ Presence of stream invertebrates (see page 4) 0
4 0
5 0
S
"' 20 (no evidence = 0; common, numerous es = max points) - - - 2
21 Presence of amphibians 0- 4 0- 4 0- 4
(no evidence = 0; common, numerous es = max points) 1
22 Presence of fish 0- 4 0- 4 0- 4
(no evidence = 0; common, numerous t es = max points) o

23 Evidence of wildlife use
0 6
0 5
0 5
,~ (no evidence 0; abundant evidence mat points)
Sl~
~'~.1 'P t~ I ?..
~ 4 ~1 ~'' 1 ~ W sY
~~ Y ~ -. ~{,~,,[Cy,~f
1
~
l ~r
4~"'S+~sr l
-
?`s,t,L cur..t~ ~~. '~;~
~ '4
,k
e 3-
a +
.~ .'
.,a ,~~.,. ~ r u
-
,ti}. ~.
~ L~y'-R+tts".~K A~+-. 3"4i 1'~4)w Y
K~y 4:.1VJK N i, F CPU ~.1. lati _~.
~K .f J
1 >2 A Y'ic ~l~t'~ ~. 71 N wY 4ii: t k~S:7't*~'/~ t t .t , 7 "~:, s
~ ~~~~ "'#"f~CF;'~ ~
~' i
i
3 6 '
~
„~„
,; .
~
* These characteristics are not assessed in coastal streams.

t

t

1

Notes on Characteristics Identified in Assessment Worksheet
1. Consider channel flow with respect to channel cross-sectional area (expected flow), drainage area, recent precipitation, potential
drought conditions, surrounding land use, possible water withdrawals, presence of impoundments upstream, vegetation growth in
channel bottom (as indicator of intermittent flow), etc.
2. Human-caused alterations may include relocation, channelization, excavation, riprap, gabions, culverts, levees, berms, spoil piles
adjacent to channel, etc.
3. The riparian zone is the area of vegetated land along each side of a stream or river that includes, but is not limited to, the
floodplain. Evaluation should consider width of riparian area with respect to floodplain width, vegetation density, maturity of
canopy and understory, species variety, presence of undesirable invasive species (exotics), breaks (utility corridors, roads, etc.),
presence of drainage tiles, logging activities, other disturbances which negatively affect function of the riparian zone.
4. Evidence of nutrient or chemical discharges includes pipes, ditches, and direct draining from commercial and industrial sites,
agricultural fields, pastures, golf courses, swimming pools, roads, parking lots, etc. Sewage, chlorine, or other foul odors,
discolored water, suds, excessive algal growth may also provide evidence of discharge.
5. Groundwater discharge may be indicated by persistent pools and saturated soils during dry weather conditions, presence of
adjacent wetlands, seeps, and springs feeding channel, reduced soils in channel bottom.
6. Presence of floodplains may be determined by topography and the slope of the land adjacent to the stream, terracing, the extent of
development within the floodplain, FEMA designation if known, etc.
7. Indicators of floodplain access include sediment deposits, wrack lines, drainage patterns in floodplain, local stream gauge data,
testimony of local residents, entrenchment ratio, etc. Note that indicators may relic and not a result of regular flooding.
8. Wetland areas should be evaluated according to their location, size, quality, and adjacency relative to the stream channel, and
may be indicated by beaver activity, impounded or regularly saturated areas near the stream, previous delineations, National
Wetland Inventory maps, etc. (Wetlands must meet criteria outlined in 1987 delineation manual and are subject to USACE approval.)
9. Channel sinuosity should be evaluated with respect to the channel size and drainage area, valley slope, topography, etc.
10. To evaluate sediment deposition within the channel consider water turbidity, depth of sediment deposits forming at point bars and
in pools, evidence of eroding banks or other sediment sources within watershed (construction sites, ineffective erosion controls). In
rare cases, typically downstream of culverts or dams, a sediment deficit may exist and should be considered in scoring.
11. When looking at channel substrate, factor in parent material (presence of larger particles in soil horizons adjacent to the stream), average
size of substrate (bedrock, clay/silt, sand, gravel, cobble, boulder, etc.), and diversity of particle size (riprap is excluded).
12. Indications of channel incision and deepening may include a v-shaped channel bottom, collapsing banks, evidence of recent
development and increased impervious surface area resulting in greater runoff in the watershed.
13. Evaluation should consider presence of major bank failures along the entire reach under evaluation, including uprooted trees on
banks, banks falling into channel, formation of islands in channel as they widen, exposed soil, active zones of erosion, etc.
14. Increased root depth and density result in greater bank stability. Consider the depth and density that roots penetrate the bank
relative to the amount of exposed soil on the bank and the normal water elevation.
15. Assessment of agriculture, livestock, and/or timber production impacts should address areas of stream bank destabilization,
evidence of livestock in or crossing stream, loss of riparian zone to pasture or agricultural fields, evidence of sediment or high
nutrient levels entering streams, drainage ditches entering streams, loss of riparian zone due to logging, etc.
16. Riffle-pool steps can be identified by a series of alternating pools and riffles. Abundance, frequency, and relative depth of riffles
and pools should be considered with respect to topography (steepness of terrain) and local geology (type of substrate).
Coastal plain streams should be evaluated for the presence of ripple-pool sequences. Ripples are bed forms found in sand bed
streams with little or no gravel that form under low shear stress conditions, whereas, dunes and antidunes form under moderate
and high shear stresses, respectively. Dunes are the most common bed forms found in sand bed streams.
17. Habitat complexity is an overall evaluation of the variety and extent of in-stream and riparian habitat. Types of habitat to look
for include rocks/cobble, sticks and leafpacks, snags and logs in the stream, root mats, undercut banks, overhanging vegetation,
pool and riffle complexes, wetland pockets adjacent to channel, etc.
18. Evaluation should consider the shading effect that riparian vegetation will provide to the stream during the growing season. Full
sun should be considered worst case, while good canopy coverage with some light penetration is best case.
19. Stream embeddedness refers to the extent that sediment that has filled in gaps and openings around the rocks and cobble in the
streambed. The overall size of the average particle in the streambed should be considered (smaller rocks will have smaller gaps).
20. Evaluation should be based on evidence of stream invertebrates gathered from multiple habitats. Scores should reflect
abundance, taxa richness, and sensitivity of stream invertebrate types. (see attached examples of common stream invertebrates on page
4).
21. Evaluation should include evidence of amphibians in stream channel. Tadpoles and frogs should receive minimum value, while
salamanders, newts, etc. may be assigned higher value.
22. Evaluation of fish should consider the frequency and, if possible, the variety of different fish taxa observed.
23. Evaluation of wildlife should include direct observation or evidence (tracks, shells, droppings, burrows or dens, hunting stands, evidence
of fishing, etc.) of any animals using the streambed or riparian zone, to include small and large mammals, rodents, birds, reptiles,
insects, etc.

Common Stream Invertebrates
Sensitive Taxa -Pollution sensitive or anisms that ma be found in ood quali water.
~~
~-~, .,~
~~~:
,~ -
Caddisfly Mayfly Stonefly Dobsonfly
,,
..
1
Riffle Beetle Water Penny Gilled Snail
Somewhat Tolerant Taxa -Somewhat pollution tolerant or anisms that ma be found in ood or

~s.
~~
~ '~~

Y
~f
~J
Beetle Larva Clam Sowbug Cranefly
/ ~
f
Crayfish Damselfly Nymph Scud Dragon Fly Nymph
Tol
.ter.
' Blackfly Larva Leech Midge Fly Larva
.r
~,,
Aquatic Worm Pouch & Pond Snail
4

11 Duke Energy Carolinas, LLC Bridgewater Powerhouse Project
Proiect Narrative
I' APPENDIX C
'~

'1

AGENCY CORRESPONDENCE

Unofficial E'ERC-Generated PDF of 20070719-0108 Received by FERC OSEC 07/17/2007 in Docket#: ER07-923-000

[~ ^J~ f SfAlt' o
^~~3~_ ~
~ .~
.,~~,,~
North Carolina Department of Cultural Resources
State Historic Preservation Office
Peter B. Sandbeck, Administrator
OPGcc of Archives and History
Division of Historical Resources
David Brook, Dirtxtor
Michael F. Easley. Governor
11 Lisbeth C F~~ans, Secretary
Jeffrey J. Crow, Deputy Secretary
June 19, 2007

Catherine E. Heigel r; -~? r-
Duke Energy =~' ~~= ~ ~._-- -
EC03T/ PO Box 1006 _ -- -'
Charlotte, NC 28202-1006
~~~~.
Re: Replace Bridgewater Hydroelectric Powerhouse, E-7, SUB 827, Lake fames, Bur~Count~_
ER 07-0923 ~- -
Dear Ms. Heigel:
We have received notification from the State Clearinghouse concerning the above project.
The Bridgewater Powerhouse on Lake James was determined eligible for listing in the National Register of
Historic Places as part of the Catawba-Wateree relicensing process and its treatment, in part, is covered in
programmatic Agreement (PA) between FERC, Duke Energy, the Advisory Council on Historic
Preservation, and the North and South Carolina State Historic Preservation Clfficers.
Given that the proposed demolition of the powerhouse will result in an adverse effect upon an eligible
property, we recommend that Duke Energy immediately begin consultation with us under the terms of the
PA to fulfill its responsibilities for addressing the adverse effect.
There are no known recorded archaeological sites within the project boundaries. However, the project area
has never been systematically surveyed to determine the location or significance of archaeological resources.
Based on the topographic and hydrological situation, and the proximity of previously recorded sites, there is a
high probability for the presence of prehistoric or historic archaeological sites at this location.
We recommend that a comprehensive survey be conducted by an experienced archaeologist to identify and
evaluate the significance of archaeological remains that may be damaged or destroyed by the proposed
project. Potential effects on urilmowr, resources must be assessed prior ro the initiation of construction
activities.
Two copies of the resulting archaeological survey report. as well as one copy of the appropriate site forms,
should be forwarded to us for review and comment as soon as they are available and well in advance of any
construction activities.
Location Mailing Address TclephoadFas
ADMINISTRATION >07 N. Hlount Street, Raleigh NC 4617 Mail Service Cents. Raleigh NC 27649-06t7 (919}733-4763/733.8653
RESTORATION 515 N. Hlount Street, Raleigh NC 4617 Mail Service Center, Raleigh NC 27699617 {919)733-6547/115.4801
SORYEY & PLANNING 515 N. Blount Street, Raleigh, NC 4617 Mail Service Center, Raleigh NC 27649.4617 (919}733-6545~7r 5-4801

Unofficial FERC-Generated PDF of 20070719-0108 Received by FE RC OSEG 07/17/2007 1n DocketN: ER07-923-000
A list of archaeological consultants who have conducted or expressed an interest is contract work in North
' Carolina is available a ~~;~ 9Trh der SL c n uS/coasul[s.htm. The archatologists listed, or anp other
experienced archacologiat, may bt contacted to conduct the recommended survey.
' 'Ihe above comments are made pursuant to Section 106 of the National Historic Prgav~ation Act and the
Advisory Council on Historic Preservation's Regulations for Compliance with Section 106 codified at 36 CFR
i Part 800.
'Ibanlc you for gout cooperation and consideration. If you have questions concerning the above comment,
contact Renee Gledhill-Earley, environmental review coordinator, at 419/733-4763 ext. 246. In all future
' communicatioc~ coneeming this project, please cite the about referenced tracking number
sincerely,
~ ~_
eter Sandbeck
cc: Janet Hutzel, FERC
Jennifer Hufl; Duke Energy
' State Cl~niririghouse

i
1
1

1

T,A
De~~ine Tarbell & Associates, Inc.
(imauhin~ L•.n~.incerc, liientixte, & Retiulaxon ~~ alieE
Iune ' ~ .. 2f)O'7
1

iti1r..~ste~t. Chapll]
U.S. Army Corps oi~ Engineers
Ashc~ ille Rct~ulator~ Fuld C)fii~~
I S l P~ittr~n Avenue Ra_wm ~'O2i
Asheville, '~C' ?KSt)1 -~()Ck~
Subjc~:t. C'ata~~ ba-~'~'ateree h;<ydt~oelerfrie Frojert (I'EI2f' Iwo. 223'}
Bridgewater Powerhouse Construction Project
Pre-site Visit Package
can ;pats.
~. eluae F ~ Pre dent
_. L'.T h. T2. ~.`E ~~. ~". E.
`Anlpc, ~V~ ~=T:
I:~ear qtr. Chapin:
Dukc ~nerg_yCarolinas, LI_.C` (L7uke) i5 in the precunstructi~:7n planning phrtsc of the Brid~ew~ater
1-'t?wc;rhr~use ('onstri:cti~~n pr~~Eect tthc pr~~j~ct) i~~tlz~edtate(ti~ adjacent tt~ the Lin~~ille Dam. The
development i5 awned an~i r~pc rated by Duke tend is Ic~cated approximately 1 U miles west of
'~lorgjanton, tiorth Carolina, in Burke :ind ;11cDo~tell counties. Dul:c Energy is proposing tr7
construct a clew powerhouse at the I.rnville Dane. This facili[y is fict:nscd ~.uul ~cgulated by the
Federal Ener~rv R~~~tilatt~ry C`~~mmis~i<~n (FERC) and the Frr~pc~sed improvements <~re the result a
nationwide effort to increase the safety of dams and structures for potentially catastrophic events.
Duke has contrac'(ed «~ith Devine Tarhell ~~: Associates, Inc. (DTAI R~ c~.~nduct the re~Tulator~~ rind
~:rtvirtuu7~eittal work related to this lx~oject.
The existing powerhouse is cun-ent(v~ located within the proposed footprint of the counterweight
,tahility hernt as~oc~atcd r~itf~t the future Fmhankntient Sc:iantic Stability httl?r~~~°cment tLSSD
['roject on the Linville Dam. In order to hegira the ESSI Project, the powerh~>use will ht re-built
tuit.~ide of the berm footprint t~? the' cap>t. {)race the new' po~~~erhotise is. ~>itline. the t~kl
pou~~h~7t~5e wit) 1~e: demolisi~ed.
1

1
._ _ --
T': 704.377.4IL2 400 S. 'I'r~~un Street, Suite 2401, charlotte, NC 282t~5 I~: 704.377.4ISS
t'„rrlan~i, ~~laui~ t I?:ul~~ttc,'~~~xti~ ~.on~lura
tiacc.uncutu~ (.a,tl~,rus.~ ~ ~,rk. I'rnu>vlvanm
r~16.7G1.~a~11 -t ~-#I <1~f51)
~c~~'u-.l )c~ me I arbclLcr~r3~
w.tcu ., ti~a 1 ~trk . loge, ~C zh.nEru~n I~cIGr3Lha~ i A\ ,sl_nut;tvn li n~~~. l~l.ihu

1

1
1
Mr. Steve Chapin
tune ?I.?OU7
Page

The new powerhouse is propotied to be built on what is currently a n~~an-made lagoon adjacent to
the current powerhouse. In the. event of a dramatic increase in hydraulic pressure, the penstock
was built with an emergency' release valve that empties into the lagoon, 7`he lagoon eras built to
serve as a plunge pool that would aid in dissipating energy in the event cat an emergency release.
It should he noted that the crmstructit?t~ <~f the new powerhouse is ron~idered a separate fn~oject
frt~m the [.ind'ilic T"SSI Project.
Until agency guidance is received stating otherwitie, ll"1'A will act under the assumption that the
plnn~e po~~1 i~~ jurisdictu~n~~l and that impacts i3i~~u(vinr di«harge will he re~~ulated by the US
.~~rmy Corps of h,ngineers «~ith jurisdictional authority granted by the Clean Water tlct.
Proposed impacts invc>lving discharge: of apprt:wed till materials into the. potentially jurisdictional
waters will exceed the ?~ cubic yard threshold set by Nationwide Permit #1R -Minor hischarges
and thus will reyu~re srrt~mittal and appr~>~al ref an Individual Permit. This fill will he ~rsu~ciated
U ith the ~~uustruction cif the new potierh~~us~~ (i.e.. lrx~sei~ill) and tl~e new pr°nstock stru~~tur~~s.
1
1
I)u e z~s currently ~n the l~>rt)Ccti; r~~f crrl~tr~~_~ a f~n~rt;al }urtsdjet~c~nal deternunattun package t~_~ he
~~~hmttted tt~ ~ r~ur ~~tfice f~>r r~vie'~s :~l~u, ~~~e would like to thank y~nr in advtrn~~e fret- th~~
upcr:~tnin r site visit schedul<d fen July 1 ! . ?OU?. Enclosed please. (ind location, tr,pographv, i;r,d
p~op~~~ed ft~c~tprint snaps of the site. S1«~uld you have any questions, please do not hesitate t~~
ci~ntact eitlrer rtiti self at (7t)-)) ?-l' 7't~-) c}r :'11r, ~;c ;>tt F letch~r rt (?t)-~ ~-~~. ~'~().
Sincerely.

D[y'`i\E lyRl3[,1.1. ~4 ~StiC)(-1,-~"11.ti. l`tiC'.
,-'
Jason lsbarri~_>Iy
,~~ssc}date `>~ ientit
JUcef
t-;nclo,rrre
~~• ~~~lcnc'!: h. Nuffrnan. I?ukr'
~'+. ~'lc~(~arity. L31.1
f:. l.uttr~ll, i>T,~
S. Fletcher. I )'I ,1
F~ii~.

t
Action Id. 2007-2247
1

1

Property Owner/Agent: Duke Energv Carolinas, LLC
Address: 526 South Church St.
Charlotte, NC 28202
Telephone No,:
Size and location of property (waterbody, road namelnumber, town, etc. Bridewater Powerhouse at the Linville Dam on
Lake James -Powerhouse Road; NW of Glen Alpine. area inspected was the STILLING BASIiy (see remarks).
Indicate Which of the Follawin~ Apply:
Based on preliminary information, there may be wetlands on the above described property. We strongly suggest you have
this property inspected to deternuue the extent of Department of the Army (DA) jurisdiction. To be considered final, a
jurisdictional determination must be verified by the Corps.
_ There are 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 maybe
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 andior 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 Chips.
_ The wetland on your property have been delineated and the delineation has been verified by the Corps. We strongly
suggest you have this delineation surveyed. iJpon completion, this survey should be reviewed and verified by the Corps.
Once verified, this survey will provide an accw~ate 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 may be relied upon for a period not to exceed five years from the date of this notification.
X 'There are no waters of the U.S., to include wetlands, present on the above described project area which are subject to the
permit requirements of Section 404 of the Clean Water Act (33 USC 1344). Unless there is a change in the law or our
published regulations, this determination may be relied upon for a period not to exceed five years from the date of this
notification,
_ The property is located in one of the 20 Coastal Counties subject to regulation under the Coastal Area Management Act
(LAMA). You should contact the Division of Coastal Management in Washington, NC, at [phone] to determine
their requirements.
U.S. ARMY CORPS OF ENGINEERS
WILMINGTON DISTRICT
County: Burke U.S.G.S. Quad: Glen Alpine
NOTIFICATION OF JURISDICTIONAL DETERMINATION
Remarks: The area_in question is the stilline basin located lust below the penstock at the dam powerhouse. The stilling
basin is not a jurisdictional waters of the U.S. Just adjacent to the stilling basin is the Catawba Ri~~er which is
jurisdictional. ~.~---
Corps Regulatory Official: `~.~ctkr`~ct--'
Date 07/25/2007
Expiration Date 07f05/2012
Page 1 of 2
1

Action Id. 2007-2247
Placerl~ent of dredged or fill material within waters of the US and/or wetlands without a Department of the Army permit may
constitute a violation of Section 301 of the Clean Water Act (33 USC ~ 13I I). If you have any questions regarding this
determination and/or the Corps regulatory program, please contact Steve Chapin at {828) 271-7980.
Basis For Determination: ylA.
Corps Regulatory Official (Initial): 5~~.
FOR OFFICE USE ONLY:
• A plat or sketch of the property and the wetland data form must be attached to the file copy of this form.
• A copy of the "Notification Of Administrative Appeal Options And Process And Request For Appeal" form must be
' transmitted with the property ownertagent copy of this form.
• If the property contains isolated wetlandslwaters, please indicate in "Remarks" section and attach the "Isolated
Deternination Information Sheet" to the file copy of this form.
Page 2 of 2

1
1

1

1
TA
De~~ine "t'arbell & Associates, Inc.
f meulnnC LnGrnccrs, 4ienti«., &RcGulvn rn-S~n~i,.a
August O, 2Of17
M~lrc ('ollins - Planning Director
Planning aril Development
I I U N~)rth (been Street
YC~ I3<lx ? 19
F~~;~- ~a:,.
john::. 1"arbe(l. F.E.
fames h4. Lcn--h
Ed;~in~~ L,~LC~Fu."~
Prct~ect '~'~~.
0)24.015 2.O9t )t)
Re: ('ata~~ha-~i~'ateree ;E~ydroelectric Project, Prgject Itio. 2232
I~r[~be~atrr Powee•htluse Construction
l~nr~e County ~~ater~shed/Shoreline Nrotection Preliminary Consultation
I7c<tr NIr t`c~Eiirl
l)~_~k~~ 4-~.r~er<,v C ~irc>Iin~zs. LL(~ tDu(.ei is in the, planning stages of a }-~~°d~t-al E:n~r~y tZ~,culat~r~
Corllnli,sion (I~:RC) mandated emhankment seismic stability irnproti~ement (F,.SSI) project on
the Linv~i?le Dam, C3ul~ke L~ounty. North C"arolina (Figures I & 2)_ The Bridgewater Powerh~)usc
i~ loczlte~l below the dan~l on the Linville. Ri~~er < nd will he affected by the pmpo~ed ESSI project.
I?evule T~trbell ~c ,~~ssociatcs tI)TA) under contract froth Duke is conducting the en~ircnruetltal
studies and permitting asst~)ciateii with the powerhouse project.
The Linville Dam was c•onstnicted by the semi-hydraulic fill method to an approximate elevation
tELt of 1,224 feet mean sea level (MSI_) between the years 1916 and 1919. Dams constructed
utilizing= these methods are typicaii}~ more susceptible t~? liyuefacti~,~n under seisn>jc loading
c~~nditit~ti~. `'I .ic}uefacti~~il is a phenorleru)n in v4~hich the strength and stiffness oT a <<~rl is
reduced by earthquake shaking or other rapid Loading." The Linville Dam (along with the other
damp nl the Bridgewater Ue.~elopmcnt} was identified its a potential safety hazard in the event of
~ln e;irthqual.c, heli~•e the uee~l f~-~r the F~SSI proiecL
I~he i)r~~pitsed herill ~~~il( e~tenri approsinlateiy ZOU feet past tl~ie exi~iin~~ f3lidgr~~at~~r
I'~~<<ellloux~ (huift titr~)und the ~amc tinlc as the iianl), rec{uirrng the detll~?lition ~~i~ i(te ex~~t~n
I)t~~,~erh~~rs~~~ aiul the rvn~.Sl~urtic~ll t+i~a ncti*~ one. The nc w tailrace astior~iated with the p~?t~~erht)usc
X1,1 i;~iL.i1(I ~ii1)ii~ .,l:;t ~.`, i.~.P i, f,C..€l~. _.,C'd ,~. tI_,, f'Y1`~tlt?~ I1..~1tC C!f G1~ilV (}~nWa ffir tI1~
iti~lor~anton transmission fine (Fi«ure 3). This site location was chosen, in part, to rtlinimve
iml)acts to the t:`ata~~ba River huffc;r. However, the tailraoe w-iil ert~nrl sc)uth past the ~~urrently
_ __
"I`: 704.377.4182 40o S. 'I'n'c;n Serect, Suite 2402, (:.hark~tte, NC 282$5 F: 704.377.4185
Prrt1 ~,xi, '~tnne t !rarlnrte, ti„rth t xr~ilina ~acramcut~,, t _.tlituntC,l ~, ~rl:. Puu~~~~ti,inia
?(~ ti-!-i'l -(I~ },.41~`+} t71o.ti(,11_'14 -1--11',~~~(J
wu~w Ue~~ine l arbell o n ~~
acs:=~u~r. !~:~~~+ l ugh ~<atti, , ~~aattinLton --- tS~thr,~r:h,im. A~'a<-kunr~hni I3„ix, Itfa~hn
'>1~-171 ?57 1_4 i9't ~)~ 3(i(lG~l 11SO ?ii,c yl~ t9-_

s
~I'
cleared ROW by approximately 70 te'et. This wiI( require approxinu~tely >,100 ul. feet of
enc"ruachnlent into the huhfer.
Z~hc Burke Corinty Watershed Protection Ordinance states "a minimum thirty tout ve~etati~rc
buffer for develc>pment activities i~ required aion~~ all Perennial raters indicated on the most
reeent ~er~ic~ns of l?.5.(t.S. 1:24,0()U (7.5 minute) scale topographic maps or as cietcrminei by
1c7cal gc~~~ernment studies." The required thirty foot ~~egetative buffers will be placed along all
perennial maters within the powerhouse project boundary where applicable. "hhe only exceptions
~rre where tf~iere arc. I>lanned impacts tr? perennial ;trcams, i»caudin~~ (try ('ataw°ba Riper
(described heliEwj. alihou~rh there is an unnamed perennial ~strcam onsite that is hropu~ed t~~ he
irnp~rcted, it is 1c~C~+ted within a n~r~intained lawn area arrd does not h~ry~, a riparian hufft.r_ ,ill
planned i~zr~ac(ti io juri~~iictional r~'atcr5 wiil tEe c~alitat~d by the [`.S .-~rniti C'or}E ~~f I l~<Eii,~•~~r~
and the !ti'~~rth (.'ar~~lin,+, I)ii~i~tErn nt Water t)u.rlrty fr,r perr~litting ur~cier the ('le~in ~~,iter~ ~1ct
f)uke is committed to toil compliance: of all pertinent Burke C'otirnty watershed and shoreline.
prc,tt~r~it~~n ordinance, `!o that end we respectfull}~ r~E=1ru:~~ ~~ui~f•n~ce fror~~ the E3~u~ke (",-,unto
Planning Office can buffer monitoring requirements, lees, and all ether ~tpplicahle <~uidehne~..
Construrait,n i_; tentatitiely set to begin in ;ti'[arch of 2(~0&, but due to the potential feu a lengthy
1>e1"llltitln~' I't'VlE'GV pT'C?~'t'tiS ~~'~' wtlLtlC~ aI?pleClatc' rf°CC'14tn~' ~~nL Ct)Illmi'niS ~~~~lt rTla~ I1tIV~. ~~~'
Septerriher _~, ?007. Please find enclosed loe•ation and ~icinit~E Wraps of the area as ~~elf as a
preliminary map Show~in~~ the impact outline. Thank-yc~u tc}r your attention to dais prc~>jcct and we
look f<_>n~ard to >~c~rhini7 ~~ith F3urke County Ern this and i'uturc prc~jec~~.
Sinccrelti.

Ja~>E.~n l~harzic~l_v
i.lEi I
cc ~~'+> encl: -hiruothv Huffman. Ihike Ener~,y Car<.~linas, I.LC
1lac Mc~larity, IYf A
SrE>tt 'l . F~letrher_ t>~C~~

1

t

TA
Devine Tarbell & Associates, Inc.
(i.r~ulonR LnRinccn:, ScicnriStt & Rcgu4a~n S~xciwl~,a
September 28, 2007
Kelly t'~'iiliauis - Irt-Lieu Fee Prttg~-ant C~~=nrdin_ttor
North Carolina Ecosystem Enhancement Probram
1612 R-tai) `>k•svice Center
Raleigh, North Carolina 27699-i62
Rey CataKba-Wateree Hydroelectric Project, Project'lia. 223'
Bridgewater Hydroelectric Development
Bridgewater Hydroelectric powerhouse Construt°tion Project
Roues: Payrment to EEP for Proposed Impacts
Dear'~fi~. ~~'illiams:
Prncipals~
J.,h;: ,': Uev;ne, r t, , P;esi~ent
J~>hn C. Tarbell, P. n.
James M. Lunch
~~w,n :. LuttcPli,~P.L
Project No. 024.0I52.09C-0
Duke Energy Carolinas, I.,LC'. (L)uke? is in the planning stages of a Fedcrat F,ner~~~ Re~ulator~
Cammis,ian (FERCI mandated embankment seismic stability irnpravemc,nt fESSIj project on the Linvtll~'
Dam. Burke County, North Carolina (Fig~ure~ I ~~ ''}. The I3rid;e~~atcr Powerhouse is located helow the:
dam ran the Linville River and ~y~ilf he affected by the proposed ESSI project. Devine Tarbell &
~ssaciates tDTf~} under contract from Duke is conducting the environmental studies and perrnitiing
associated with the powerhouse pri~ject,
'The Linville Darn was constructed by the semi-hydraulic fill method to an approximate e-lc;vation (EL) of
1,2''4 feet mean sea Ic vel (1vISL) between the years 1916 and 1919. Dams constnrcted utilizing these
metht?ds are typically more susceptible to liquefaction under seismic loading conditions. '"T.iquEf~aetion rs
a phenomenon in which the strength and stiffness of a Sail is reduced by earthquake shaking or other rapid
loading.° The Linville Dam (along with the other dam, in the Bridgewater Development) was identified
as a potential safety hazard in the event of an earthquake, hence the need far the ESSI prc~}ect. The
proposed bean will extend approximately 200 feet. past the existing Bridgewater Powerhouse (built
around the same time a5 the dam), r-egt~iring the demolition of the existing powerhouse a-td the
construction of a new one.
I3uke. has tiui ve.yrd and mapped the jurisdretional waters of the U.S. within the Prnjei~t area a~ta
determined that Pro}eet construction ectivitie, ti~rill permanently impact approximately 230-linear feet of
streams, 0. 25acres of z~~:~lated open waters, an<i O.t~2-acres of wetlands. ~~pprvximatcly -x,500 square feet
(tiy ft.t of~the Catawba Ritter buffer will be unavoidably impacted from Project activities (2,7U0-sq. ft. in
~t,u,-~ 1 ,end ! R00-sq. fr. in z~me ?1. Thece impact< are associated with the. creation of the new powerhouse
tailrace, which will be partiaiiy located within the existing rights-of-way (ROW} (Figure 3). The tailrace
is proposed to be 1 RO-feet wide. The existing ROW is appmxirnate(y 90-feet wide, for a total of 9Ca-feet
of new permanent impacts to the buffer. Fifty feet an either side of the tailrace will be temporarily
cleared to provide working space to construct the tailrace. Impacts due ro tailrace construction are related
"t: 704.377.4182 400 S. Tryon Street, Suite 2401, Charlotte, NC 28285 F: 704.377.4185
P;~rrland- ;~tamc~ t .hadurrr.':Aurth t.zrohna
>i)~ _-~ 449; ,r14.3~^ 418'_
~~r.ia V~c;v 1orl. ~ atd~ ~~a:htn}n<,n
i 5 4~ ~ ~?~~ S ;91 0733
~k Nw.t)evinel~anc~ Il.cc>m
~arramrntu_(`ahtniui~ Y~>r}. P~~an-rhama
91(.564 ~?14 1, '41 98 i0
Bcltingh~am, ~t'a~hin~u~n B~~i~<, lduhu
3GQ G? L t l ~t) '-08319 l 9~~

to dam maintenance and classified as "allr~wed" under the North Carolina Em~ironrnental ManagerT~ent
Cc~nrrnisic>n's Catawba River )3asin: Riparian Buffers Proection Rule IAA NCAC 0?B .(??43 Serticrn fi
~ Table of C!ties.
All temporary impacts ~~ill be returned to the ori~ainal contours and conditions. Tfiis w~it1 include
replan[ing of veKetatiin~ v~ ithu: the temporarily cleared puffery. .'`dative woody and hetfiaceot_is plant
species appropriate to the physiographic region wi]1 be used. Photo monitoring stations will he placed
within tht~ replanted buffer to monitor vegetation establishment and buffer rnte~*rity.
Dui.c~ re~lucty ap}~r-u4a1 for payment into, EEP's In-lieu I-~ee F~`un~J to provide cr~rnpt~nsatorv off-site
rYUtr~~ation for ail perm<.nent rmpacts. Duke understands that the F~1=P's ~rc~~eptance of paynre,nt r~
c~uttingent upon recei~~ing Sections 404 Yennit from the i ~S .Army l~orps of Engineers and 401 Water
1 t)riality Certification from it~e NC' I7i~ i:i~,u of N'at~~r t~trality.
Ihake rc~pecifu!!v rec{uests written documentation x,f this appro~-al to include in the ~it)=~.i4OI permit
application. If you have env questions pleat,e feel free to contact rte at 7(1-f-312-?3b4 or !~~tr 7~irn
Nuffrnan v~ ith Du},e at it)~l ~~' S 1 ~~~.
i Sincerely.
I)e~ inc f~crbe~ll ~~ :~stiociatc~. lrr
r~~~
1 Jason Isbanioly
,~1s,ocitrte Scientist
.zttucnt,lent
~~: w~lo att~rchrnents~ I`irn Huffman, [)uke F:ner~zy (~`aroiinas, I [_.('
Mac McGarity, UTA
~~otl }~letcher, I1'f':~
Project I ilt~

NORTH CAROLINA ECOSYSTEM ENHANCEMENT PROGRAM, NCEEP
IN-LIEU FEE REQUEST FORM
Revised 7/9/2007
Print this form, fill in requested information, sign and date, and either mail to NGEEP, 1652 Mail Service Center, Raleigh, NC
27699-1652, fax to 919-715-2219, or email to [e-mail]. Attachments are acceptable for clarification
purposes (location map is required).
CONTACT INFORMATION APPLICANT'S AGENT (optional) APPLICANT
': 1. Business or Individual Name Devine Tarbell & Associates '. Duke Energy Carolinas, LLC i
_. ___ _.
2. Street Address or P O Box 400 S. Tryon St . 52.6 South Church Street, EC10A
3. Clty, State, Zlp i Charlotte, NC 28285 ;Charlotte, NC 28202
4. Contact Person Jason Isbanioly Timothy Huffman
5. Telephone Number (7041 342- 7354 ("7041 382-5185
__ ___ ;
6. Fax Number t7o4> 377 41a5
__ _ ,
7. E-Mail AddreSS (OptlOnal} 7ason.isbanioly':devinetarbell.com TLHuffman~duke-energy.com
PROJECT INFORMATION
8. Project Name 1
;Bridgewater Powerhouse Construction
9. Project Location (nearest town, city)
"ATTACH MAP SHOWING IMPACT LOCATION*' 'town of Morganton, North Carolina
', 10. Lat-Long Coordinates (optional) N 3s 44 ~ 34 ° w a 1 so ~ 13 ~~
11. Project County
Burke
12. River Basin Catawba
13. Cataloging Unit (8-digit) (see rvote ~~ ! o3osolol
14. Riparian Wetland Impact (ac.} (e.g., 0.13} o , 013
15. Non-Riparian Wetland Impact (ac.) None
16. Coastal Marsh Impact (ac.) None
17. Stream Impact (ft.) (e.g. 1,234) ~ ~ m Wa~rm~ Cool Cold
(See Note 2) ~ ~ ~ 1 '
~ ~ C ' 230 ~ 1 i
t ;~,-,...,~.,.,-,,. , 3 .
18. Buffer Impact-Zone (sq. ft.) (e.g. 12,345) .....""-."".,.~. ~.. °,..m._ .,_....~_....._rw-_._ ,...x.~.wM ..___.__ ..-.._.~..a ~
(see tvote 3) Zone 1 2 700 Zone 2: 1, eoo
mv_.-...-_..~..._._~-......~~~,....~.~..--a.~..~.~__u~ ..~._~~~ ~m~_~ ~~.~., ,
19. Regulatory Agency Staff Contacts
(Indicate names, if known) USACE: steve Chapin Dy~Q; xevin Barnett
__
20. Other Regulatory ID Information
(e.g., USACE Action ID, if known)
IMPORTANT
Check (~~) below if this request is a: Signature of Applicant or Agent;
.mss-+-~. ,,~,.~._.f.-
_ revision to a current acceptance, or
_ re-submission of an expired acceptance ~ Date: ,~~, ~ ~~f
_.
Note 1: For help in determining the Cataloging Unit, go to EPA's "Surf Your Watershed" web page:
http:/lcfpub.epa.gov/surf/locate/index.cfm Note (9) above: requirement to attach location map.
Note 2: For guidance on stream temperatures, go to:
http:/Iwww.saw.usace.army. mil/WETLAN DSlMitigationlDocuments/Stream/Aooendices/Aooendixl.odf
Note 3: Buffer mitigation applicable only in the Neuse, Tar-Pamlico and Catawba river basins, and the Randleman Lake
Water Supply Watershed. Direct all questions to Kelly Williams at 919-716-1921 or [e-mail]

ETA
Devine Tarbell & Associates, Inc.
('e ~mrultin,~+L•nKincem. k.icniicd~, &ReGuFamnSreci~liFCc
October- 26, 2007
Mr. Steve Chapin
US Army Corps of Engineers
Asheville Re,ulatory Field Office
l51 Patton Avenue Room 208
Asheville, NC 28801-SOOb
Subject: Catawba-Wateree Hydroelectric Project (FERC No. 2232)
Bridgewater Powerhouse Construction Project
Clean Water Act Section 404 Nationwide Permit Application
Nationwide Permits 33 and 39
Prmapais:
John L Devine, P.E., Pcesident
fahn C. Tacbe':I, P.E.
James A.1. Lynch
Edwin C. Li~ttceil, F E.
1 Dear Mr. Chapin:
Duke Energy Carolinas, LLC (Duke) is in the preconstruction planning phase of the Bridgewater
Powerhouse Construction project (the praject) immediately adjacent to tl7e Linville Dam. The
development is owned and operated by Duke and is located approximately 10 miles west of
Morganton, North Carolina, in Burke and McDowell counties. Duke is proposing to constn~ct a
new powerhouse at the Linville Dam. This facility is licensed and regulated by the Federal
Energy Regulatory Cornnussion (FERC) and the proposed improvements are the result a
nationwide effort to increase the safety of dams and structures for potentially catastrophic events.
1 Duke has contracted with Devine Tarbe(I & Associates, Inc. (DTA) to conduct the re,ulatory and
environmental work associated with this project.
1 On July 20, 2007, DTA scientists conducted a formal delineation of waters of the US and a rare,
threatened, and endangered (RTE) species survey. Jurisdictional wetlands and waters of the US
were surveyed and mapped using the routine methodology outlined within the 1987 US Army
Corps of Engineers Delineation Manual. The North Carolina Natural Heritage Program Element
Occurrence database and the United States Fish and Wildlife Service RTE Species database were
1 consulted for information and locations of known RTE species within Burke County. During the
field investigation, all known elements and their preferred habitats occurring within the county
were surveyed Ior by experienced personnel.
T: 704.377.41 2
8 400 S. Tn'on Street, Suite 2401, Charlotte, NC 2$285 F: 704.377.4185
P~ ~rdand, '~Isi~tc (.har6 rrrr_ i~~,rth (.an Mina Say rnmrn[u. (ah6 ~n~ia l"~ irk 1'cnns~ Ivani:~
''0",~ti-l-19~ ~0t.3"~ 118? 91bSG-t.-F~1 ! l'?-}1.9451)
w~ti~r.l)rv~nc~ larbdl.cc,m
~cra~'u;c, ~~cw burl. ~cattlc, Ax;ishio,~t+,n 13~~tlin}~ham, ~F-u~hinghm (iui,c. IdaMu
il'i.~1~1 ?3S 1?~ 391 t)~?3 360.G~1.11~U ?I13.319.19-'

1

1

1
Mr. Steve Chapin
October 26, 2007
Page 2

Investigators identified and mapped two jurisdictional waters of the US and one wetland within
the area of project impact. Proposed permanent impacts to jurisdictional waters including
wetlands include the following:
^ Installation of a culvert and fill along 50 feet of an unnamed perennial tributary (Stream
#1) of Che Catawba River and a small segment of associated wetlands (less than 0.01 acre);
^ Excavation of approximately 180 feet of the Catawba River bank to connect the tailrace of
the new powerhouse with the river;
^ Nand-clearing of approximately 4,500 square feet of Catawba River buffer; and
^ Fill of approximately 0.30 acre of isolated open water of the state.
Proposed temporary impacts include the following:
^ Fill of 170 feet of Stream #1 and its associated wetland (approximately 0.02 acre);
^ Installation of a coffer dam or similar device to divert flow from Stream #1 in order to
maintain downstream Lows;
^ Temporary hand-clearing of approximately 5,000 squt~re feet of Catawba River buffer; and
^ Installation of a coffer dam within the Catawba River around the proposed tailrace work
area (approximately 270 linear feet).
Due to the nature of the project, total avoidance of impacts to jurisdictional waters of the US and
state including wetlands would be prohibitive. However, through an extensive siting process,
proposed permanent impacts have been niininiized and proposed temporary impacts have been
designed to have a minimal adverse effect on aquatic life and hydrologic functions. Best
management practices (BMPs) will be utilized within the buffers including hand clearing of
trees, no grubbing of the root mat, and installation of silt fencing, All temporary fill will he
removed upon project completion and the site will be returned to original grade. Erosion and
sediment control -Tleasures that meet or exceed the most current version of the North Cnj-oli~iu
E'rc~sic~n crrtd Sediment C'orltrol Plct~mirl~~r and Desi~~rt Mcmi~.crl will be installed and maintained for
the life of the project.
Because the project is located in a North Carolina Wildlife Resources Commission (WRC)
designated trout county a copy of all joint 4041401 application documents have been sent
concurrently to Mr. Ron Linville of the WRC for comments and approval for work within a
North Carolina trouC county. The North Carolina State Historic Preservation Office (SHPO) has
been contacted regarding this project and has requested a formal archaeological survey of the
area for historic resources. Althou¢h Duke has contracted with an experienced archaeologist to
identify and evaluate the significance of archaeological remains that may be damaged or
destroyed by the proposed project, the survey has not been completed at the time of this writing.
Duke will furnish the completed survey to the SHPO for comments and to your office to append
to the final permit document. At that time Duke will request that the SHPO supply their
comments to your office directly to facilitate timely review of the permit application. Due to
time constraints associated with the permit review backlog currently being experienced by the
Wilmington District, Duke respectfully requests that the review of this joint 404/401 permit
1

1
1

Mr. Steve Chapin
October 26, ?007
Pane 3

application begin upon receipt of the application package and that authorization for impacts be
granted pending comments and approval from the SHPO.
Enclosed please find two copies of all joint 404!401 permit application documents. Seven copies
of the permit package have been supplied to the North Carolina Division of Water Quality for
review and approval ander the Clean Water Act Section 401 and one copy has been supplied to
the North Carolina Wildlife Resources Commission for comments regarding work in a
designated trout county. Should you have any questions or comments, please feel free to contact
me at [phone] or Mr. Tim Huffman with Duke at (704) 382-51$5.
Sincerely,
DEVINE TARBELL & ASSOCIATES, [NC.
s _ ~' ~~
Jason Isbanioly
Associate Scientist
JUcef
1 Enclosures

1

1
cc: "f. Huffman, Duke
W. McGarity, DTA
S. Fletcher, DTA
File

1

TA
Devine Tarbetl & Associates, Inc.
C.nmulung B~ineem, Scieniwa, & Regu4ecry SrecirMr
October 26, 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
Subject: Catawba-Wateree Hydroelectric Project (FERC No. 2232)
Bridgewater Powerhouse Construction Project
Clean Water Act Section 401 Water Quality Certification
General Certifications 3634 and 3631; IWGP 100000
Principals:
John J. Devine, P.E., President
John C. Tubell, P.E.
James M. Lynch
Edwin C. Luttrell, P.E.
Dear Ms. Karoly:
Duke Energy Carolinas, LLC (Duke} is in the preconstruction planning phase of the Bridgewater
' Powerhouse Construction project (the project) immediately adjacent to the Linville Dam. The
development is owned and operated by Duke and is located approximately 10 rules west of
Morganton, North Carolina in Burke and McDowell Counties. Duke is proposing to construct a
new powerhouse at the Linville Dam. This facility is licensed and regulated by the Federal
Energy Regulatory Commission (FERC) and the proposed improvements are the result of a
nationwide effort to increase the safety of dams and structures for potentially catastrophic events.
' Duke has contracted with Devine Tarbell & Associates, Inc. {DTA} to conduct the regulatory and
environmental work associated with the powerhouse project.
' On July 20, 2007, DTA scientists conducted a formal delineation of waters of the US and a rare,
threatened, and endangered (RTE) species survey. Jurisdictional wetlands and waters of the US
were surveyed and mapped using the routine methodology outlined within the 1987 US Army
' Corps of Engineers Delineation Manual. The North Carolina Natural Heritage Program Element
Occurrence database and the United States Fish and Wildlife Service RTE Species database were
consulted for information and locations of known RTE species within Burke County. During the
fleid investigation, all known elements and their preferred habitats occurring within the county
were surveyed for by experienced personnel.
' T: 704.377.4182 400 S. Tryon Street, Suite 2401, Charlotte, NC 28285 F: 704.377.4185
Portland, Maine Charlotte, North Carolina Sacramento, CaGfvrnia York, Pennsylvania
207.775.4495 704.377.4182 916.564.4214 717.741.9850
www.I)evine 1'~r~i~]I.com
Syracuse, New York Seattle, Washington Bellingham, WashinLon Boisq Idaho
315.451.2325 425.391.0523 360.671.17 50 208.319.1977

i

1
i

1
Ms. Karoly
October 26, 2007
Page 2
-;I,A\
Investigators identified and mapped two jurisdictional waters of the US and one wetland within
the area of project impact. Proposed permanent impacts to jurisdictional waters including
wetlands include the following:
^ Installation of a culvert and fill along 50 feet of an unnamed perennial tributary (Stream
#1) of the Catawba River and a small segment of associated wetlands (less than 0.01 acre);
^ Excavation of approximately 180 feet of the Catawba River bank to connect the tailrace of
the new powerhouse with the river;
^ Hand-clearing of approximately 4,500 square feet of Catawba River buffer; and
^ Fill of approximately 0.30 acre of isolated open water of the state.
Proposed temporary impacts include the following:
^ Fill of 170 feet of Stream #1 and its associated wetland (approximately 0.02 acre);
^ Installation of a coffer dam or similar device to divert flow from Stream #1 in order to
maintain downstream flows;
^ Temporary hand-clearing of approximately 5,000 square feet of Catawba River buffer; and
^ Installation of a coffer dam within the Catawba River around the proposed tailrace work
area {approximately 2701inear feet).
Due to the nature of the project, total avoidance of impacts to jurisdictional waters of the US and
state including wetlands would be prohibitive. However, through an extensive siting process,
proposed permanent impacts have been minimized and proposed temporary impacts have been
designed to have a minimal adverse effect on aquatic life and hydrologic functions. Best
management practices (BMPs) will be utilized within the buffers including hand clearing of
trees, no grubbing of the root mat, and installation of silt fencing. All temporary fill will be
removed upon project completion and the site will be returned to original grade. Erosion and
sediment control measures that meet or exceed the most current version of the North Carolina
Erosion and Sediment Control Planning and Design Manual will be installed and maintained for
the life of the project.
Because the project is located in a North Carolina Wildlife Resources Commission (WRC)
designated trout county, a copy of all joint 404/401 application documents have been sent
concurrently to Mr. Ron Linville of the WRC for comments and approval for work within a
North Carolina trout county. The North Carolina State Historic Preservation Office (SHPO) has
been contacted regarding this project and has requested a formal archaeological survey of the
area for historic resources. Although Duke has contracted with an experienced archaeologist to
identify and evaluate the significance of archaeological remains that may be damaged or
destroyed by the proposed project, the survey has not been completed at the time of this writing.
Duke will furnish the completed survey to the SHPO for comments and to your office to append
to the final permit document. At that lime Duke will request that the SHPO supply their
comments to your office directly to facilitaie timely review of the permit application.
1

1

1

Ms. Karoly
October 26, 2007
Page 3
TAB
Enclosed please find seven copies of all joint 404/401 permit application documents and a check
in the amount of $475 made payable to the North Carolina Division of Water Quality for
application processing. Two copies of a!I joint 404/401 application documents have been sent to
Mr. Steve Chapin of the US Army Corps of Engineers, Asheville Regional Office for review and
authorization under the Clean Water Act Section 404 and one copy has been supplied to the
North Carolina Wildlife Resources Commission for comments and approval regarding work
within a designated trout county. Should you have any questions or comments, please feel free
to contact me at [phone] or Mr. Tim Huffman with Duke at (704) 382-51$5.
' Sincerely,

1
1
1

DEVINE TARBELL & ASSOCIATES, INC.
/ - ~"
~-
Jason Isbanioly
Associate Scientist
Jl/cef
Enclosures
cc w/o encl: T. Huffman, Duke
W. McGarity, DTA
S. Fletcher, DTA
File

1

TA
Devine Tarbell & Associates, Inc.
Cw~ultin~ Gngimxrs, Scicnaea, & Regulamn~ Spcculiaa
October 26.2007
Mr. Ron Linville
Western Piedmont Region Coordinator
2$55 Idlewild Road
Kernersville, NC 27284-~ 180
Pt~~~~Pais:
J»hn J. C~etnne, P.E., President
Iohn C, Tarbell, P.E.
James h4. Lynch
Edwin C. Luttcell,~P E-
Subject: Catawba-Wateree Hydroelectric Project (FERC No. 2232)
Bridgewater Powerhouse Construction Project
Work Within a North Carolina Trout Count
Dear Mr. Linville:

DLike Energy Carolinas, LLC (Duke} is in the preconstruction planning phase of the Bridgewater
Powerhouse Construction project (the project) immediately adjacent to the Linville Dam. The
development is owned and operated by Duke and is located approximately 10 miles west of
Morganton, North Carolina, in Burke and McDowell counties. Duke Energy is proposing to
construct a new powerhouse at the Linville Dam. This facility is licensed and regulated by the
Federal Energy Regulatory Commission (FERC] and the proposed improvements are the result a
nationwide effort to increase the safety of dams and structures for potentially catastrophic events.
Duke has contracted with Devine 'Tarbell & Associates, Inc. (DTA) to conduct the regulatory and
environmental work associated with this project.
On July 20, 2007, DTA scientists conducted a formal delineation of waters of the US and a rare,
threatened, and endangered (RTE) species survey. Jurisdictional wetlands and waters of the US
were surveyed and mapped using the routine methodology outlined within the 198? US Army
Corps of Engineers Delineation Manual. "The North Carolina Natural Heritage Program Element
Occurrence database and the United States Fish and Wildlife Service RTE Species database were
consulted for information and locations of known RTE species within Burke County. During the
field investigation all known elements and their preferred habitats occurring within the county
were surveyed for by experienced personnel.
T: 704.377.4182 400 S. Tryon Street, Suite 2401, Charlotte, NC 28285 F: 704.377.41$5
P~~rdan~l, ~faiue t:hark~tte, with t`arulina S;u_r.~mrna~,(~tlifuaiia 1~nrk, Prnn.~-h~auia
?I) ~,-t~9 '0-I.~'~ tlA? 91G.~G-4,-1?i 4 ~1-.~`i1 9870
1b'49tY.~)CVltli ~ AT~IC~~.G01T1
Srracu~c, A~c~~~ 1~,r~ ~cxttlc, AX'a~{~in~Um 13cllin~hwn. ~~";ishin~r~m I~uisc, l~l;ihu
31 ~.-Fi 1?35 35.39 Lb7?3 360.6' l . I 1 ~U ?4)8.319. l9"~

1

1
1
1
1

1

1

Mr. Ron Linville
October 26, 2007
Page

Investigators identified and mapped two jurisdictional waters of the US and one wetland within
the area of project impact. Proposed permanent impacts to jurisdictional waters including
wetlands include the following:
^ Installation of a culvert and fill along 50 feet of an unnamed perennial tributary (Stream
#I) of the Catawba River and a small segment of associated wetlands (less than 0.01 acre);
^ Excavation of approximately 180 feet of the Catawba River bank to connect the tailrace of
the new powerhouse with the river,
^ Hand-clearing of approximately x,500 square feet of Catawba River buffer; and
^ Fill of approximately 0.30 acre of isolated open water of the state.
Proposed temporary impacts include the following:
^ Fill of 170 feet of Stream #1 and its associated wetland (approximately 0.02 acre);
^ Installation of a coffer dam or similar device to divert flow from Scream #1 in order to
maintain downstream flows;
^ Temporary hand-clearing of approximately 5,000 square feet of Catawba River buffer; and
^ Installation of a coffer dam within the Catawba River around the proposed tailrace work
area (approximately 270 linear feet).
Due to the nature of the project, total avoidance of impacts to jurisdictional waters of the US and
state including wetlands would be prohibitive. However, through an extensive siting process,
proposed permanent impacts have been minin~iized and proposed temporary impacts have been
desi~~ned to have a minimal adverse effect on aquatic life and hydrologic fuTlctlOlls. Best
management practices (BMPs) will he utilized within the buffers including; hand clearing of
trees, no grubbing of the root mat and installation of silt fencing. All temporary till will be
removed upon project completion and the site will be returned to original grade. Erosion and
Sediment control measures that meet or exceed the most current version of the North Carolina
Erosi~~n quid Sediment C~~ntrot Pktrming anc~ Design Manual will be installed and maintained for
the life of the project.
The Catawba River is classified as a VVS-V, B waters from the North Fork Catawba River to the
Bridgewater (Linville) Dam. This is the section of the river proposed to be impacted by project
activities. The river reach beginning O,b mile downstream of the dam is classified as trout
waters. Duke is aware that this section of river supports a North Carolina Wildlife Resources
Commission stocked trout fishery. Water temperatures within this reach are made possible by
cold water releases from Lake James through the Bridgewater Powerhouse. Water released from
the new powerhouse will be the same temperature a5 those currently observed within the trout
waters and should contimie to support the fishery. Additionally, minimum flows will be
maintained in accordance with stipulations agreed to in the final Catawba-Wateree Relicensing
Agreement once the new powerhouse is online.

t
t

s

Mr. Ron Linville
October 26, 2007
Page 3

In order to satisfy obligations under the Clean Water Act Section 4041401, Duke is applying for
authorization to conduct work within jurisdictional waters of the iJS and state from the IIS Army
Corps of Engineers (Corps) and North Carolina Division of Water Quality. Duke seeks
comments and approval to the Co--ps from your office to conduct work within a North Carolina
designated trout county to satisfy regional conditions of the nationwide permits. Should you
have any questions or comments, please feel free to contact me at [phone] or Mr. Tim
Huffman with Duke at [phone].
Sincerely,
DEVINE TARBELL & ASSOCIATES, INC.
T
"„''"",!,J° 1,
a ,.
~'; J
Jason Isbanioly
Associate Scientist
JUcef
Enclosures.
c.c: T. Huffman, Duke
W. McGarity, DTA
S. Fletcher, DTA
File.

t

1--
iEcosystem
~E :.r"
PROGRAM
November 8, 2007
Timothy Huffman
Duke Energy Carolinas, LLC
526 S. Church St. ECIOA
Charlotte, NC 28202
Project: Bridgewater Powerhouse Construction
Expiration of Acceptance: May 8, 2008
County: Burke
We have received your request to access the North Carolina Ecosystem Enhancement Program's (NCEEP) in-Lieu Fee
mitigation program for the above referenced project. We regret to inform you that we are unable to accept the full amount of
credit requested at this time.
EEP recently proposed a revision to the fee schedule far wetland and stream mitigation as a means of allowing the program
to collect fees commensurate with our project implementation costs. The revision was passed by the Environmental
Management Commission and Rules Review Commission but has been delayed due to administrative rules regarding
comment submittals. Per established protocols for rule-making, the fee revision will now be considered during the next
legislative session beginning in May 2008. Until that time, EEP has developed a strategy that considers the financial
implications to the program for new requests to access the In-Lieu Fee Program and has determined that we are unable to
provide your mitigation, If you want to resubmit your request form at a Iater time, EEP will reconsider the request in the
future. We anticipate updating our strategy as new data and opportunities become available. EEP will consider all requests
on a case-by- case basis.
Based on the information supplied by you the impacts that may require compensatory mitigation are summarized in the
following table.
Catawba
03050101 Stream (feet) Wetlands (acres} Suffer I
(Sq. Ft.) Buffer II
(Sq. Ft.)
Cold Cool Warm Ri azian Non-Ri orlon Coastal Marsh
Impacts Requested 0 230 0 0.013 0 0 2,700 1,800
Impacts Accepted 0 0 0 0.013 0 0 2,700 1,800
Credits 0 0 0 0.026 0 0 8,100 2,700
EEP is willing to accept payment for impacts associated with the above referenced project as indicated in the table above.
Please note that this decision does not assure that the payment will be approved by the permit issuing agencies as mitigation
for project impacts. It is the responsibility of the applicant to contact these agencies to determine if payment to the NCEEP
will be approved.
This acceptance is valid for six months from the date of this letter and is not transferable. If we have not received a copy of
the issued 404 PermiU441 Certification/CAMA permit within this time frame, this acceptance will expire. It is the
applicant's responsibility to send copies of the permits to NCEEP. Once NCEEP receives a copy of the permit(s) an invoice
will be issued based on the required mitigation in that permit and payment must be made prior to conducting the authorized
work. The amount of the In Lieu Fee to be paid to NCEEP by an applicant is calculated based upon the Fee Schedule and
policies listed at www.nceep.net.
Upon receipt of payment, EEP will take responsibility for providing the compensatory mitigation. If the regulatory agencies
require mitigation credits greater than indicated above, and the applicant wants NCEEP to be responsible for the additional
mitigation, the applicant will need to submit a mitigation request to NCEEP for approval prior to permit issuance. The
mitigation will be performed in accordance with the Memorandum of Understanding between the N. C. Department of
Environment and Natural Resources and the U. S. Army Corps of Engineers dated November 4, 1998. ©~~
t R.P.StDYLK~... ~ ~ ... PYDtP,GtLt~ OGLY StU,tP~ I~CDETdR
North Carolina Ecosystem Enhancement Program, 1652 Mail Service Center, Raleigh, NC 27699-1652 / 919-715-0476 / www.nceep.net

If you have any questions ar need additional information, please contact Kelly Williams at (919) 716- 1921.
Sincerely,
William D. Gilmore, PE
Director
cc: Cyndi Karoly, NCDWQ Wetlands/401 Unit
Steve Chapin, USACE-Asheville
Kevin Barnett, NCDWQ-Asheville
Jason Isbanioly, agent
File

e~~
R,ESt"DYLl~L9... F ~ ... PYDtP.C~l.K~ UGLY State I~~NR
North Carolina Ecosystem Enhancement Program, 1652 Mail Service Center, Raleigh, NC 27699-9652 / 919-715-4476 / www.nceep.net

' t'JO~J-~B-cl'JO7 14: i5 FROM: TO:'317E~4377~185 P.2'4
I'
FEDERAL ENERGY REGULATORY CnMiH15SIUN
', ~Vashiugron, D.C. 20AZ6
orricF orE;vErcr'v PRO.rrcrs Project No. 2232 - 4 North Carolina
Catawba~Vlrateree Project
' ! Duke Energy Carolinas, LLC
Brian Cole, Supervisor November 28, 2007
1 Asheville Field pffice
U.S. Fish and Wildlife Service
Ib0 Zillicoa Street
~~ Asheville, NC 2$$O1
Subject: Request for concurrence with endangered species determination
Dear Mr. Gold
1 .Duke Power (licensee) is currently preparing for seismic stabilization work at the
Linville Dun, part of the Bridgewater Development at the Catawba-'UV'ateree
Hydroelectric Project. This remediation work is required by the Commission under l $
CFR Part 12 of the Commission's regulations. The licensee needs to move the
develapment'sBridgcwater Powerhouse, which is located at the tae of the darn, before
proceeding with the seismic stability work at the clam. The Bridgewater Development is
located on the Catawba River in McDowell and Burke counties, North Carolina,
'I
The licerrsce provided the Commission with preliminary plans And drawings for
the powerhouse work on March $, 2007, and expects to provide final drawings soon. The
I' existing powerhouse would remain o erati
p oval whsle the new powerhouse is under
construction.. The new powerhouse would be completed and fully operational prior to the
~' initiation of the seismic remediation work on Linville Dam. Work an the dam is not
planned to begin until July 2()10, and is not part of our present review.
Construction ofth~ new powerhouse would start April 9, 200$, and be completed
~I ~
Apri17, 2010. ~'he new powerhouse would be constructed approximately 200 feet
downstream troXn the existing powerhouse. No modifiictitions to the existing water intake
are required, an'tI a new length of steel penstock would connect to the new powerhouse,
Flows from the a'-ew powerhouse would be released into a short tailrace channel leading to
t; the Catawba Riy' er.
Removal~of t1~e existing powerhouse would begin June 2, 2010, and would be
completed November 2, 2010. 'The majority of the area to be disturbed for the
1. powerhouse removal and construction is land that is alrcad dis
y turbed, with 11tt1e or no
veget.ttive cover. The total area of land disturbance is 7.$ acres,
1

Ta:917E~437741~5 F'. ~'~

In its report of March $, 2UU7, the licenscc included copies of correspondence with
the North Carolina Departmera.C of Environment, Natural Resources and the North

' Carolina Wildlife Resources Commission, and other state and local agencies indicatinb
, that it will be iromplying with the applicable environmental requirements of these entities.
~
'~ The licensee provided us with a copy of the TJ.S. kish and Wildlife Service list of
, federally-listed species that may occur in the Bridgewater area, updated November 5,
2007. 'Che updated list includes the bog turtle, dwarf-flowered heartleaf, Heller's blazing
1 star, rnout~tai ~ golden heather, and small-whorled begonia. The licensee indicates in Dui
October 2UU7 ~'eport on jurisdictional wetlands and protected species that a rare,
threatened, and endangered species survey has been conducted of the work area as part of
' Catawba-Wateree Project reliecnsing. The survey determined that no federally-listed
species, including dwarf-flowered heartleaf, tivauld be disturbed by the powerhouse
removal and construction work. "I'wo known populations ofdwarf-flowered. heartleaf are
b
' located near,
ut outside, the powerhouse work boundary. Qne is located on the other
side of the Catawba. River from the
ro
osed wo
k
d th
h
i
p
p
r
, an
e ot
er
s across Powerhouse
~
~~ Road. The licensee does not anticipate any impacts to federally-listed species from the
powerhouse work
.
~ The November 5, 2UU7 species list for the area includes the de-listed bald eagle,
,~ with the notation that the bald and Golden Eagic Protection Act (Eagle Act) is now the
primary law pr,~otecting bald eagles. The licenscc indicates that it will work to comply
'i with the Fagle'Act using the National Bald Eagle Management Guideli~ies as necessary.
After review of the available information, we conclude that the proposed work is

~ not likc~y to adversely affect any federally-listed endangered or threatened species,
` including dwarf-flowered hcartlea£ Therefore, we da not believe that formal
consultation is,rcquired.
I
,I
Please inform us in writing, within 3U days of the date of this letter, if you agree
with our determination. Please .file copses of your response with:
~~ The Secretary
F~cderal Energy Regulatory Commission
1
1
1 ~1ai
Code: PJ-12.3
8$8 First Street, N.E.
~/ashington, p.C. 20426.
i
1
s'
i
i

hJOV-~~-2~~ i 14:._5 FP,UM:
T0: 91~©4374185 F.4'4
3
Should~you need to informally discuss any concerns before making your
determination, please contact B. Peter Yarrington at (202) 502-E 129. Thank you for your
cooperation in~th~s matCer.
Sincerely,
~' J~a"'"'''L„~.J
Ccorge H, Taylor
Chief, -Biological Resources Branch
~ Division of Hydropower Administration
,. ~ w- ,... a.nr..-,~r•---~-arn~,,
and Compliance
cc: Mark A. Cantrell
Asheville Field Office
ll,S. Fish and «ildlife Service
160 Zi13~coa Strcct
Asheville, NC 28801
Jeff ~,ineberber
Manager, Hydra Licensing
Duke B>4ieray Carolinas
>/C 1.2Y1 P.O. Box l OC~b
Charlotte, NC 28201-100t~
James McRackCn
Devine T~ubcll and Associates
400 Sough Tryon Street
Sui to 2401
Charlotte, NC 28285
t

t

DTA
Devine Tarbell & Associates, Inc.
(imaulnn~ Ln~inccic, ScicntiRae, & Rcgulau.n S~cislirsrs
November 30, 2007
Ms. Cyndi Karoly -Supervisor
North Carolina Department of Environment and Natural Resources
Division of Water Quality -Wetlands Unit
1650 Mail Service Center
Raleigh, North Carolina 27699-1650
Pnncipals:
John j. Dwine, F.E., President
John C. Tsrbell, L.E.
lames D;1. L;tm.-h
Ed~ssin C. Luttreil, F.E.
' Re: Duke Energy Carolinas, LLC Bridgewater Powerhouse Demolition and
Rebuild Project, FERC Project No. 2232
401 Water Quality Certification Application Review Cancellation Request
Dear Ms. Karoly:
This letter serves as a request ~by Duke Energy Carolinas, LLC (Duke) to your office to cancel
the review process of the Bridgewater Powerhouse Demolition and Rebuild Project (Project) ~O1
Water Quality Certification application. Based on updated site designs and construction
sequencing, Devine Tarbell & Associates, Inc. (DTA) has been able to minimize and/or
eliminate permanent impacts to jurisdictional waters of the US located onsite. DTA is in the
process of preparing an updated application to send to your office for review and approval.
Although DTA regrets the interruption in the review process, we are pleased to be able to
provide a project that minimizes impacts to jurisdictional waters and maintains water quality.
Thank-you for your attention to this project and should you have any questions or concerns
please do not hesitate to contact me at 704-342-7364.
Sincerely,
1

Devine Tarbell & Associates, Inc.
.~-`-~'t
Jason Isbanioly
Associate Scientist
Cc: T. Huffman, Duke Energy Carolinas, LLC
M. McGarity, DTA
S. Fletcher, DTA
T: 704.377.4182 400 S. Trion Street, Suite 2401, Charlotte, NC 28285 F: 704.377.4185
I'urtlin~l, lLiinc Charlr>rre. A~~rrh C'arulii~a
30'. 5.-1-495 '0-F.3 ".-4183
ticrncusc, Ncw Turk ticatt(c, l'l'a.hingtun
3 t 5.-t51?335 -4?5.39 L05?3
www.l)evine'4'arb~lLcum
~aer~imrnru, (alifurni~a S'urk. Pennst Ivanra
91G ~G-t.~i?1-4 ~t~.,-41 9850
1idJin4;ham, A~(ashingh.~n liuisc, tclahu
3Gi).G'1.1150 203.319.19-'

FrinrtPals:
John 1. DevinF, P.E., President
(ohn C. Tarbell, P-.E.
Devine Tarbell & Associates, Inc, ~ lames h~. Lyn~.n
GmRUIrinG Lngi~crrR, Scicntixu, &Rc{~ul.n,n~Spcciuliea Edwip (;, L,Uttre ~~. P'. E.
December 14, ?007
Mr. Steve Chapin
US Army Corps of Engineers
Asheville Regulatory Field Office
l51 Patton Avenue Room ?08
Asheville, NC 28801-5006
Subject: Catawba-Wateree Hydroelectric Project (FERC No. 2232)
Bridgewater Powerhouse Construction Project
Section 404 Nationwide Permit Application
Nationwide Permit 33
' Dear Mr. Chapin:
Based on updated construction sequencing and guidance, Devine Tarbell & Associates, Inc.
(DTA) i5 pleased to submit the enclosed updated Pre-Construction Notification (PCN)
application for the Bridgewater Powerhouse Construction Project (FERC No. 2?32).
Duke Energy Carolinas, LLC (Duke) is in the pre-construction planning phase of the
Bridgewater Powerhouse Construction Project (the Project) immediately adjacent to the Linville
Dam. The Bridgewater Development, consisting of the Bridgewater Powerhouse and the
Linville, Paddy Creek, and Catawba dams, is owned and operated by Duke and is located
approximately 10 nines west of Morganton, North Carolina, in Burke and McDowell counties.
Duke is proposing to construct a new powerhouse at the Linville Dam and has contracted with
DTA to conduct the regulatory and environmental work associated with the powerhouse Project.
On July 20, 2007, DTA scientists conducted a formal delineation of waters of the US and a rare,
threatened, and endangered (RTB) species survey. Jurisdictional waters of the US, including
wetlands, were delineated and mapped using the routine methodology outlined within the 1987
US Army Corps of Engineers Delineation Manual.

T: 704.377.4182 400 S. Tryon Street, Suite 2401, Charlotte, NC 28285 F: 704.377.4185
Portlmd. ~fainr l:harkrtte.'Vurth Cerr,~lina Sacramento, (:aliEuruia furl. Penns~~lvania
?~'., ~~.-1-495 'Q-43 '.-4182 91G.~C>-4.-i?1-1 '1~.~-~1 9850
~~~ww. [)ccuic'rarbcll.ami
s~rac usc, Ncw fork ;tun kicllin~ham, ~C"ashiitgton
Sti°attlc, ~ta;hin} 4~uisc, Idaho
1 31 ~.-4~ 133?5 _
-t2~. i9 L0533 3GQ.G"'1.ll 50 21)8.319.19'

1
Mr. Steve Chapin
December 14, 2007
Page 2

Investigators identified and mapped two jurisdictional streams and one wetland associated with
one of the identified streams within the Project boundary. The revised permanent in~ipacts to
jurisdictional areas include the following:
^ Hand-clearing of approximately 4,500 squire feet of Catawba River buffer; and
^ Fill of approximately 0.30 acre of non-~04 jurisdictional isolated waters of the state.
Proposed temporary impacts include the following:
^ Installation of a cofferdam or similar device to divert flow from Stream 1 into an existing
roadside drainage (Figure 3 of Project Narrative);
^ Filling of 170 feet of Stream I (Figure 3 of Project Narrative) and its associated wetland
(approximately 0.01 acre) downstream of the newly installed cofferdam (this area will be
used for a temporary stormwater retention basin);
^ Temporary hand-clearing of approximately 5,000 square feet of Catawba River buffer; and
^ Installation of a cofferdam within the Catawba River (Stream Impact #2) around the
proposed powerhouse outfall (tailrace) work tu-ea (approximately 270 linear feet) (Figure 3
of Project Narrative).
Due to the nature of the Project, total avoidance of impacts to jurisdictional waters of the [1S and
State, including wetlands, would be prohibitive. However, through an extensive siting and
sequencing process, proposed permanent impacts have been eliminated and proposed temporary
impacts have been designed to have a minimal adverse effect on aquatic life and hydrologic
h~nctions. t3est management practices (BMPsj will be utilized within the buffers including hand
clearing of trees, no grubbing of the root mat, and installation of silt fencing.

1

Upon Project completion all Cemporary fill will be removed, Stream 1 will be returned to original
grade and flow, and temporary impacts to the river buffer will be restored to the greatest extent
practical. Erosion and sediment control measures that meet or exceed the most current version of
the N~~rtlt Cctrolutu Erosion urad Sediment Co-ttrnl Plajaraing crud De.eig~t Munuctl will be installed
and maintained for the life of the Project. All erosion and sediment controls will also be
removed.
Because the Project is located in a North Carolina Wildlife Resources Commission (WRC}
designated trout county, a copy of all joint 404/401 application documents have been sent
concurrently to Mr. Ron Linville of the WRC for comments and approval for work within a
North Carolina trout county.
The North Carolina State Historic Preservation Office (SHPO) has been contacted regarding this
Project and has requested a formal archaeological survey of the area for historic resources.
Although Duke has contracted with an experienced ~~rchaeologist to identify and evaluate the
significance of archaeological remains that may be damaged or destroyed by the proposed
Project, the survey has not been completed at the time of this permit submittal. Duke will
furnish the completed survey to the SHPO for comments and to your office to append to the final
1

1

1

Mr. Steve Chapin
December I ~, 2007
Page 3

permit document. At that time Duke will request that the SHPO supply their comments to your
office directly to Facilitate timely review of the permit application.
Furthermore, the North Carolina Natural Heritage Program Element Occurrence database and the
United States Fish and Wildlife Service (USEWS) RTE Species database have been consulted
for information and locations of known RTE species within Burke County. During the field
investigation, experienced personnel conducted surveys for all known elements and their
preferred habitats occurring within the county. In support of the Project, guidance has been
requested from the Asheville office of the USFWS by the Federal Energy Regulatory
Commission pertaining to potential impacts to protected species in the area and will be supplied
to your office upon receipt.
Please find the enclosed two copies of all joint X04/401 permit application documents. Seven
copies of the permit package have been supplied to Ms. Cyndi Karoly of the North C~u•olina
Division of Water Quality for review and approval under the Clean Water Act Section 401. One
copy has also been supplied to the North Carolina Wildlife Resources Commission for comments
and approval regarding work in a designated trout county.
Should you have any questions or comments, please fee( free to contact me at (704} 342-7364 or
Mr. Tim Huffman with Duke at [phone].
Sincerely,
DEVINE T/ARBELL & ASSOCIATES, INC.
~` `._.-
Jason Isbanioly
Associate Scientist
JUSTF/cef
Enclosures
cc w/o enc1: T. Huffman, Duke
W. McGarity, DTA
S. T. Fletcher, DTA
File
Scott T. Fletcher, WB, PWS
Senior Scientist
Manager of RegulatorylScientific Services

1

1
1
1

TA
Devine Tarbell & Associates, Inc.
G mxuldn~ GngiM-e's, Se:entic~e, & Regu4anrn• Specinliaec
December 14, 2007
Ms. Cyndi Karoly -Supervisor
North Carolina Department of Environment and Natural Resources
Division of Water Quality - 401/Wetlands Unit
160 Mail Service Center
Raleigh, NC 27699-1650
Subject: Catawba-Wateree Hydroelectric Project (FERC No. 2232)
Bridgewater Powerhouse Construction Project
Section 401 Water Quality Certification
Nationwide Permit 33 and IWGP 100000
Dear Ms. Karoly:
Principals:
Jahn J. ~e*nr.~, F.E.. President
~nhn C. Tar6eil, F.E.
(amesDa. Lech
E:iwtr. ~. Luttrell, t'.E.
Based on updated construction sequencing and guidance from the US Army Corps of Engineers,
Devine Tarbell & Associates, Inc. (DTA) is pleased to submit the enclosed Pre-Construction
Notification (PCN) application for the Bridgewater Powerhouse Construction Project (FERC No.
~~~?)
Duke Enemy Carolinas, LLC (Duke) is in the pre-construction planning phase of the
Bridgewater Powerhouse Constriction Project (the Project) immediately adjacent to the Linville
Dam. The Bridgewater Development, consisting of the Bridgewater Powerhouse and the
Linville, Paddy Creek, and Catawba dams, is owned and operated by Duke and is located
approximately l0 miles west of Morganton, North Carolina, in Burke county. Duke is proposing
to construct a new powerhouse at the Linville Dam and has contracted with DTA to conduct the
regulatory and environmental work associated with this Project.
On July 20, ?007, DTA scientists conducted a formal delineation of waters of the US and a rare,
threatened, and endangered (RTE) species survey. J~u~isdictional waters of the US, including
wetlands, were delineated and mapped using the routine methodology outlined within the 1987
US Army Corps of Engineers Delineation Manual.
T: 704.377.4182 400 S. Tryon Street, Suite 2401, Charlotte, NC 28285 F: 704.377.4185
I'urtlln~i, hiaitx~ (:harlortr, Kurth (:ar<~lina Sacramrnt~~, (.alif~>ruia ~~ur~., Prnu~~lvuuia
?0'."~.-1-95 'i)-F-3''.-183 91(i.SG-~.-1?1-t 'I'.?-11.9370
~a~~sw.l)cvinc'1~arbclLa~m
Jcraai.c, New l'~~rk Seattle, ~K'ashin~mn t~clLin,~ham, A~'ashin~t~m l~uisc, (ilahu
3li. t51.23'?~ -43391.05?3 3G0.G"1.11~0 ?08319.19"

Ms. C ndi Karoly
December 1 ~, ?007 ~~
y D
' Page 2
Investigators identified and mapped two j~u~isdictional streams and one wetland associated with
one of the identified streams within the Project boundary. The revised permanent impacts to
jurisdictional areas include the following:
^ Hand-clearing of approximately 4,500 square feet of Catawba River buffer; and
^ Fill of approximately 0.30 acre of non-404 jurisdictional isolated waters of the state.
Proposed temporary impacts include the following:
^ Installation of a cofferdam or similar device to divert flow from Stream 1 into an existing
roadside drainage (Figure 3 of Project Narrative);
^ Filling of 170 feet of Stream l (Figure 3 of Project Narrative) and its associated wetland
(approximately 0,01 acre) downstream of the newly installed cofferdam (this area will be
used for a temporary stormwater retention basin);
^ Temporary hand-clearing of approximately 5,000 square feet of"Catawba River buffer; and
^ [nstallation of a cofferdam within the Catawba River (Stream [mpact #2) around the
proposed powerhouse outfall (tailrace) work area (approxitzlately 270 linear feet) (Figure 3
of Project Narrative).
Due to the nature of the Project, total avoidance of impacts to jurisdictional waters of the US and
State, including wetlands, would be prohibitive. However, through an extensive siting and
sequencing process, proposed permanent impacts have been eliminated and proposed temporary
impacts have been designed to have a minimal adverse effect on aquatic life and hydrologic
functions. Best management practices (BMPs} will be utilized within Che buffers including hand
clearing of trees, no grubbing of the root mat, and installation of silt fencing.

1

Upon Project completion all temporary fill will be removed, Stream I will be returned to original
grade and flow, and temporary impacts to the river buffer will be restored to the greatest extent
practical. Erosion and sediment control measures that meet or exceed the most current version of
the Nr~rtfz Curolirut Erosic~rt ctrzd Seclirnertt C~»ttrol Pktr~rzing anc~ De.czgn Mc~rauctl will be installed
and maintained for the life of the Project. All erosion and sediment controls will also be
removed.
Because the Project is located in a North Carolina Wildlife Resources Commission (WRC)
designated trout county, a copy of all joint 404/401 application documents have been sent
concurrently to Mr. Ron Linville of the WRC for comments and approval for work within a
North Carolina t-~out county.
The North Carolina State Historic Preservation Office (SHPO) has been contacted regarding this
Project and has requested a formal archaeological survey of the area for historic resources.
Although Duke has contracted with an experienced archaeologist to identify and evaluate the
significance of archaeological remains that may be damaged or destroyed by the proposed
Project, the survey has not been completed at the time of this permit submittal. Duke will
furnish the completed survey to the SHPO for comments and to your office to append to the final

Ms. Cyndi Karoly
December 14, 20Q7
Page 3
permit document. At that time, Duke will request that the SHPO supply their comments to your
office directly to facilitate timely review of the permit application.
Furthermore, the North Carolina Natural Heritage Program Element Occurrence dat~fbase and the
United States Fish and Wildlife Service (USFWS) RTE Species database have been consulted
for information and locations of known RTE species within Burke County. During the Oeld
investigation, experienced personnel conducted surveys for all known elements and their
preferred habitats occurring within the county. In support of the Project, guidance has been
requested from the Asheville office of the USFWS by the Federal Energy Regulatory
Commission pertaining to potential impacts Co protected species in the area and will be supplied
to yoiu• office upon receipt.
Please tied the enclosed Seven copies of all joint 404/401 permit application documents and a
check in the amount of $570 made payable to the North Carolina Division of Water Quality for
application processing. Two copies of at( joint 404/401 application documents have been sent to
Mr. Steve Chapin of the US Army Corps of Engineers, Asheville Regional Office, for review
and authorization under the Clean Water Act Section 404. One copy has also been supplied to
the North Carolina Wildlife Resources Commission for comments and approval regarding work
within a designated trout county.
Should you have any questions or comments, please feel free to contact me at [phone] or
Mr. Tim Huffman with Duke at [phone].
DTA
Sincerely,

DEVINE TARBELL & ASSOCIATES, INC.
Jason Isbanioly
Associate Scientist
~~
i _ ~'~r
` % ~~ ,'-
,' ~~
Scott T. Fletcher, CWB, PWS
Senior Scientist
Manager of Regulatory/Scientific Services

1

1

JUSTF/cef
Enclosures
cc w/o encL• T. Huffman, Duke
W. McGarity, DTA
S. Fletcher, DTA
File

TA
Devine Tarbell & Associates, Inc.
G.nedrin{, fingi~rceis, Scicotisee, & Rcgulum~ S~ci+li a
December l~l, 2007
Mr. Ron Linville
Western Piedmont Region Coordinator
3855 Idlewild Read
Kernersville. NC 2728-9180
Principals:
lobo J. C~e~ine, P.B., President
lobo L. Tart~eli. P.E.
;aeries ^.1. Lfnch
Edwin ::_ Luttrell, F.E.
Subject: Catawba-Wateree Hydroelectric Project (IhERC No. 2232)
Bridgewater Powerhouse Construction Project
Work Within a North Carolina Trout Count
Dear Mr. Linville:
1
t

Based on updated construction sequencing and guidance, Devine Tarbell & Associates, Inc.
(D"I'A) is pleased to submit the enclosed updated Pre-Constn~ction Notification (PCN)
application for the Bridgewater Powerhouse Constnlction Project (PERC No. '232).
Duke Energy Carolinas, LLC (_Duke) is in the pre-construction planning phase of the
Bridgewater Powerhouse Const-liction Project (the Project) immediately adjacent to the Linville
Dam. The Bridgewater Development, consisting of the Bridgewater Powerhouse and the
Linville, Paddy Creek, and Catawba dams, is owned and operated by D~-ke and is located
approximately 10 miles west of Morganton, North Carolina, in Burke and McDowell counties.
Duke is proposing to construct a new powerhouse at the Linville Dam and has contracted with
DTA to conduct the regulatory and environmental work associated with the powerhouse Project.
On July 20, 2007, DTA scientists conducted a formal delineation of waters of the US and a rare,
threatened, and endangered (RTE) species survey. Jurisdictional waters of the US, including
wetlands, were delineated and mapped using the routine methodology outlined within the 1987
US Army Corps of Engineers Delineation Manual.
T: 704.377.4182 400 S. Tr~~on Street, Suite 2401, Charlotte, NC 2$285 F: 704.377.4185
Pr,rd end, .Maine Chadutte, '.Aurth (:~arr>lina Sacrcunenrrr, (:alifunua l~~nk, 1'rnnsrl~ ;mia
?0'.~ , ~.-4.197 '(i~}.3-".~F 18°_ 91 CiSG-F.~l? I-t 1'."-11.9$50
www.l~ecinc' I'arbc~Lcom
~~-rarux, Ncw' 1"~xk ticattlc, ~`~'ashingtrm licllinsrrharn, ~"ashingtun I~r» sc, Idaho
3f~.1~1.~335 -t2~.391.0523 3GO.G?1.1150 ?03.319.19"

Mr. Ron Linville
December 14, ?007
Pave 2

Investigators identified and mapped two jurisdictional streams and one wetland associated with
one of the identified streams within the Project bound~rry. The revised permanent impacts Co
jurisdictional areas include the followin~~:
^ Hand-clewing of approximately 4,500 square feet of Catawba River buffer; and
^ Fill of approximately 0.30 acre of non-404 jurisdictional isolated waters of the state.
Proposed temporary impacts include the following:
^ Installation of a cofferdam or similar device to divert flow from Stream l into an existing
roadside drainage (Figure 3 of Project Narrative);
^ Filling of 170 feet of Scream l (Figure 3 of Project Narrative) and its associated wetland
(approximately 0.01 acre) downstream of the newly installed cofferdam (this area will be
used for a temporary stormwater retention basin);
^ Temporary hand-clearing of approximately 5,000 square feet of Catawba River buffer; and
^ Installation of a cofferdam within the Catawba River (Stream [mpact #2) around the
proposed powerhouse outfall (tailrace} work area (approximately 270 linear feet) (Figure 3
of Project Narrative).
Due to the nature of the Project, total avoidance of impacts to jurisdictional waters of the US and
State, including wetlands, would be prohibitive. However, through an extensive siting and
sequencing process, proposed permanent impacts have been eliminated and proposed temporary
impacts have been designed to have a minimal adverse effect on aquatic life and hydrologic
functions. Best management practices (BMPs) will be utilized within the buffers including hand
clearing of trees, no grubbing of the root mat, and installation of silt fencing.
Upon Project completion all temporary fill will be removed, Stream 1 will be returned Co original
grade and flow, and temporary impacts to the river buffer will be resrored to the greatest extent
practical. Erosion and sediment control measures that meet or exceed the most current version of
the N~~rth Curolirut Ern.ti~i~~fz urtc! Sedirrlei~it Go~ctrol Pkzruai~tg grad Design Mcuatrul will be installed
and maintained for the life of the Project. All erosion and sediment controls will also be
removed.
The North Carolina State Historic Preservation Office (SHPO) has been contacted regarding this
Project and has requested a formal archaeological survey of the area for historic resources.
Although Duke has contracted with an experienced archaeologist to identify and evaluate the
significance of archaeological remains that may be damaged or destroyed by the proposed
Project, the survey has not been completed at the time of this permit subr7littal. Duke will
furnish Che completed survey to the SHPO for comments and to your office to append to the final
permit document. At that time Duke will request that the SHPO supply their comments to your
office directly to facilitate timely review of the permit application.
Furthermore, the North Carolina Natural Heritage Program Element Occurrence database and the
United States Fish and Wildlife Service (USFWS} RTE Species database have been consulted
t

t

Mr. Ron Linville
December 1 ~, 2f)07
Pace 3

for information and locations of known RTE species within Burke County. During the field
investigation, experienced personnel conducted surveys far all known elements and their
preferred habitats occuiTing within the county. In support of the Project, guidance has been
requested from the Asheville office of the USFWS by the Federal Energy Regulatory
Commissian pertaining to potential impacts to protected species in the area and will he supplied
to yaur office upon receipt.
Because the Project is located in a North Carolina Wildlife Resources Comnussion (WRC)
designated trout county, a copy of all joint 404/401 application documents have been sent to your
office far comments and approval for work within a North Carolina trout county.
Should you have any questions or comments, please feel free to contact me at (70~) 342-736 or
Mr. Tim Huffman with Duke at {704) 382-5185.
Sincerely,
e

DEVIN6 TARBELL & ASSOCIATES, INC.
. ~~ ~ ,~
L
Jason Isbanialy
Associate Scientist
J /STF/c ~f
Enclosures
c c w/o en l

1

1
T. Huffman, Duke
W. M~Garity, DTA
S. T. Fletcher, DTA
File
`-_
li ~ f,+ ~ -~~_ - ~
( / ~ JO.
Scott T. Fletcher, CWI~, PWS
Senior Scientist
Manager of Regulatory/Scientific Services
1

' Duke Energy Carolinas, LLC Bridgewater Powerhouse Project
Project Narrative
APPENDIX D

1

STATEMENTS OF COMPLIANCE

' Duke Energy Carolinas, LLC Bridgewater Powerhouse Project
Project Narrative
Statement of Compliance With Nationwide Permit Conditions (NWP 33)
(1) Navi ag tion
No navigable waters of the US, are located within or near the Project boundary. No
impacts to navigable waters are anticipated from this Project.
(2) Aquatic Life Movements
' All culverts and pipe around systems will be installed to maintain low flow conditions.
All temporary impacts will be removed and the area restored to pre-Project conditions (as
close as practical) before Project completion.
(3) Spawning Areas
Although located near stocked trout waters, no significant spawning areas occur in or
near the Project boundary. The North Carolina Wildlife Resources Commission will be
' consulted regarding any work within Burke County and their comments incorporated into
the fina1404 permit.
(4) Mi rg atory Bird Breeding Areas
There are no significant breeding areas within or near the Project boundary. No impacts
to significant breeding areas are anticipated from this Project.
(5) Shellfish Beds
No shellfish beds are located within or near the Project boundary. No impacts to shellfish
' beds are anticipated from this Project.
(6) Suitable Material
Only suitable fill material will be used in conjunction with this Project. No live or
uncured concrete and only washed rip-rap and rubble will be used for fill material. All
materials will be free of pollutants in toxic amounts.
(7) Water Supply Intakes
' There are no public water supply intakes within or near the Project boundary.
(8) Adverse Effects From Impoundments
' No permanent impoundments will be created during this Project. During construction
downstream flow will be maintained.
(9) Management of Water Flows
The pre-construction course, condition, capacity, and location of open waters will be
maintained for the Project to the greatest extent practical. All stormwater BMPs and
erosion control measures will be designed to withstand expected high flows.

' Duke Energy Carolinas, LLC Bridgewater Powerhouse Project
Project Narrative
(10) Fills Within 100-Year Floodplains
This Project will comply with applicable FEMA-approved state or local floodplain
' management requirements.
(ll) Equipment
' Heavy equipment working in wetlands will be placed on mats, or otherwise permitted
under Nationwide Permit 33 to work within wetlands.
(12) Soil Erosion and Sediment Controls
All appropriate soil erosion and sediment controls will be installed prior to Project
commencement and maintained through-out the life of the Project. An erosion and
sediment control plan will be submitted to the Federal Energy Regulatory Commission
and the North Carolina Division of Land Resources. Any work below the ordinary high
water mark will be permanently stabilized at the earliest practicable date.
(13) Removal of Temporary
Temporary fills will be removed in their entirety and disposed of in an approved upland
site. The affected areas will be revegetated and returned to their pre-construction
condition, as appropriate.
(14) Proper Maintenance
Th
h
d t
il
ill b
i
t
i
d
i
t
t
th
i
ti
d
d
e power
ouse an
race w
a
e ma
n
a
ne
as appropr
a
e
o
e
r con
nue
use an
function. The permanent culvert will be maintained so as to not block or impede
downstream flow.
(15) Wild and Scenic Rivers
' No wild or scenic rivers occur within or near the Project boundary.
(16) Tribal Rights
This Project will not impact or impair reserved tribal rights.
(17) Endan ered Species
(a) No impacts to any threatened or endangered species or a species proposed for such a
designation, as identified under the Federal Endangered Species Act (ESA) are
anticipated from this Project.
(b) Duke Energy Carolinas, LLC is anon-government, private entity.
' (c) As noted in the Project narrative, there are populations of the federally protected
dwarf-flowered heartleaf (Hexastylis nan~ora) near the Project boundary. These
populations are outside of the area of Project impact. The population located south of the
Project area has been formally delineated and, section 7 consultation was entered into,
during the Paddy Creek ESSI Project. Anon-disturbance of approximately 200 feet

1

Duke Energy Carolinas, LLC Bridgewater Powerhouse Project
Project Narrative
buffer, where applicable, exists around this population. No impacts to this population are
anticipated from this Project. Another population exists to the northeast of the Project
across the Catawba River. Although no formal consultation has been entered into for this
population, it has been surveyed and delineated by professionals experienced with this
species. No H. nan~ora individuals or populations were found to be within the area of
Project impact. No impacts to this population are anticipated from this Project.
(d) NA
(e) Duke understands that authorization of activities by the NWP does not authorize the
"take" as defined under the ESA.
(18) Historic Properties
(a) A National Register of Historic Places (NRHP) Assessment was conducted as part of
the Catawba-Wateree relicensing process on the Bridgewater Development in late 2004
by TRC of Atlanta, Georgia. The assessment, which has been reviewed by the North
Carolina State Historic Preservation Office (SHPO), determined that although the
development is not unique as the first or the oldest surviving example of its type, the
development retains distinctive characteristics of its historic type and method of
construction. The assessment recommended that the development be included in the
NRHP under criteria A and C. Additionally, Archaeological Consultants of the
Carolinas, Inc. investigated the area in November 2007 and has documented the
powerhouse per SHPO requirements.
During the relicensing process a Historic Properties Management Plan (HPMP) was
developed to provide management strategies for historic properties located within the
area of Project effect. Because of the aforementioned potential for catastrophic damages
associated with dam failure, the powerhouse is slated for demolition after the new
powerhouse is online to make way for the Linville Dam embankment seismic stability
berm project. Options contained within the HPMP to mitigate for the demolition of the
Bridgewater Powerhouse are listed below.
1. Photo-documentation of the powerhouse.
2. Development of interpretative signage.

1
3. Development of interpretative written materials.
(b) Duke Energy Carolinas, LLC is anon-government, private entity.
(c) The SHPO has been contacted about the proposed impacts to the powerhouse
and their comments have been included in this PCN (Appendix C).

tl Duke Energy Carolinas, LLC Bridgewater Powerhouse Project
Project Narrative
'~ (19) Designated Critical Resource Waters
The portion of the Catawba River proposed to be impacted is designated as Water Supply
'I V-B. Neither it nor Stream 1 located onsite are listed as Critical Resource Waters.
(20) Mitigation
" (a) The activity has been designed and will be constructed to avoid and minimize
adverse effects, both temporary and permanent, to waters of the United States to the
'I maximum extent practicable at the Project site.
(b) Less than 1/10 of an acre of wetlands and greater than 150 feet of streams are
proposed to be temporarily impacted. Duke respectfully requests that payment into the
North Carolina Ecosystem Enhancement Program (EEP) in-lieu fund be accepted for
'~ compensatory mitigation for permanent riparian buffer impacts if necessary.
(c) As stated proposed wetland impacts are estimated to be 0.01 acres.
(d) Because this Project is in a North Carolina Wildlife Resources Commission
~~ designated trout county, a PCN is required for all impacts to jurisdictional waters.
(e) Compensatory mitigation will not be used to increase the amount of impacts to
11 jurisdictional waters.
(f) Impacts to the Catawba River buffer will require a mitigation and monitoring plan
'I developed in conjunction with the Burke County Planning Department.
(g) Duke proposes the use of in-lieu fee arrangements to the EEP for any required
'I compensatory mitigation.
(h) No permanent impacts to streams or other waters of the US are anticipated, therefore
~I no stream or wetland mitigation is necessary.
(21) Water Quality
'I Duke is submitting all PCN materials to the DWQ concurrently with this submittal for
review and approval under Section 401 of the CWA.
'I (22) Coastal Zone Management
This Project is not located in one of the North Carolina CAMA counties.
'~ (23) Regional and Case-bv-Case Conditions
All Project activity will comply with regional and specific conditions set forth by the
'I Division Engineer and the DWQ set within the terms and conditions of the 401 Water
Quality Certification.
(24) Use of Multiple Nationwide Permits
The use of multiple NWPs will not be used to increase the amount of permanent impacts

~I authorized by the NWP with the highest specified acreage limit.

'I Duke Energy Carolinas, LLC Bridgewater Powerhouse Project
Project Narrative
'I (25) Transfer of Nationwide Permit Verifications
If a transfer of property occurs, the permittee will transfer the authorized NWPs by
'~ submitting a letter to Asheville USACE office.
(26) Compliance Certification
'I Upon completion of the work described within this PCN Project narrative, the applicant
will submit a signed certificate of completion regarding the completed work and any
'~ required mitigation.
(27) Pre-construction Notification
~~ Project construction is tentatively set to begin in March 2008. All USACE materials
required within the PCN will be sent to the Asheville USACE office on or around
December 14, 2007. Concurrently, all PCN materials will be sent to the DWQ for review
'I and approval under Section 401 of the CWA, and to the WRC for approval of work
'~ conducted within a trout county.
(28) Single and Complete Project
'I The Project described within this PCN Project narrative constitutes a single and complete
Project. No other Project or other Project activities will be authorized under the NWP
currently being applied for.
'I
1

Duke Energy Carolinas, LLC Bridgewater Powerhouse Project
Project Narrative
Statement of Compliance with Regional Conditions for Nationwide Permits Issued in the
Wilmington District
1.0 Excluded Waters
1.1 Anadromous Fish Spawning Areas
No anadromous fish spawning areas are located within or near the Project
boundary or within the area of Project impact.
1.2 Trout Waters
Burke County is identified as a North Carolina WRC trout county. A copy of
all PCN materials have been sent to the WRC for guidance and
recommendations to be sent to the USACE and included in the 404 permit
terms and conditions.
1.3 Stur eg on Spawning Areas
There are no sturgeon spawning areas located within or near the Project or
within the area of Project impact.
2.0 Waters Requiring Additional Notification
2.1 Western NC Counties that Drain to Designated Critical Habitat
Burke County is not listed as a western NC county that drains to a designated
critical habitat.
2.2 ~ecial Designation Waters
This section of the Catawba River is designated as a Water Supply V-B by the
North Carolina Environmental Management Commission, and as such does
not require additional notification.
2.3 Coastal Area Management Act (CAMA) Areas of Environmental Concern
Burke County is not listed as a CAMA county and is not covered under the
act.
2.4 Barrier Islands
Burke County is not located on barrier island.
2.5 Mountain or Piedmont Bogs
There are no mountain or piedmont bogs located onsite.
2.6 Animal Waste Facilities
The applicant is not proposing to construct an animal waste facility.
2.7 Trout Waters
1

'I Duke Energy Carolinas, LLC Bridgewater Powerhouse Project
Project Narrative
'~ The applicant shall comply with NWP General Condition 27. This shall
include notification and submittal of copies of all PCN materials to the
'I Western Piedmont Regional Office of the WRC.
3.0 USACE Regional Conditions for All Nationwide Permits
~~ 3.1 Limitation of Loss of Perennial Stream Bed
There are no permanent impacts to perennial streams associated with the
~I Project. In no case shall any NWP be used to authorize permanent impacts
exceeding 300 feet.
~I 3.2 Mitigation for Loss of Stream Bed Exceeding 150 Feet
If unavoidable impacts are estimated to exceed 150 linear feet the applicant
~~ shall submit a plan to provide compensatory mitigation. The applicant shall
submit a mitigation plan to ensure that permitted Project activities result in
minimal adverse effects on the aquatic environment.
'~ 3.3 Pre-construction Notification for Loss of Streambed Exceeding 150 Feet
Because the Project is located within a designated trout county a PCN is
' re
i
d
dl
f th
t
f
ti
t
d i
t
t
i
di
ti
l
t
qu
re
regar
ess o
e amoun
o
es
ma
e
mpac
s
o jur
ona
s
c
wa
ers.
3.4 Restriction on Use of Live Concrete
' Measures will be taken to prevent live or fresh concrete from coming into
contact with waters of the state until the concrete has hardened/cured.
3.5 Requirements for Using Riprap for Bank Stabilization
3.5.1 Filter cloth shall be placed underneath any riprap used for bank
stabilization.
3.5.2 The placement of riprap shall be limited to areas depicted on
submitted work plan drawings.
3.5.3 All riprap material shall be clean and free from loose dirt or any
' pollutant except in trace amounts that would not have an adverse
environmental effect.
3.5.4 Riprap shall be of a size sufficient to prevent its movement from the
authorized alignment by natural forces under normal conditions.
3.5.5 Riprap shall consist of clean rock or masonry material such as, but not
limited to, granite, marl, or broken concrete.
3.5.6 If a waiver is sought from this Regional Condition it will be requested
in writing. If one is sought the applicant will attempt to demonstrate

Duke Energy Carolinas, LLC Bridgewater Powerhouse Project
Project Narrative
' that the impacts of complying with this Regional condition would
result in greater adverse impacts to the aquatic environment.
3.6 Safe Passage Requirements for Culvert Placement
The installation of culverts will be done in a manner that promotes the safe
passage of aquatic organisms. The height and width of the proposed openings
will be of sufficient size to pass the average historical low flow and spring
flow without adversely altering flow velocity. The culverts proposed to be
installed shall be less than 48 inches in diameter and as such shall be buried in
the stream bed as practicable and appropriate to maintain aquatic passage. The
bottom of the culvert shall be placed at a depth below the natural stream
' bottom to provide for passage during drought or low flow conditions. Per
WRC guidelines 20% of the diameter of the pipe will be placed below the
ordinary high water mark.
3.7 Notification to NCDENR Shellfish Sanitation
The Project area does not contain and is not located near any shellfish beds.
3.8 Preservation of Submersed Aquatic Ve etg ation
Burke County is not located within the coastal area and is not covered by the
'~ CAMA.

~I Duke Energy Carolinas, LLC Bridgewater Powerhouse Project
Project Narrative
i` Statement of Compliance for General Certification WOC #3688
'I (1) Project activities will require written concurrence from the Division of Water Quality.
(2) The Project is located within Burke County and more specifically adjacent to the
,~ Catawba River. Unavoidable impacts associated with this Project include encroachment
into the 50 foot wide riparian buffer area. This development shall be in accordance with
~I 15A NCAC 2B .0200. Best management practices shall be used to ensure that the Project
will have minimal adverse effect, to the greatest extent practicable, on water quality and
~I the aquatic environment.
(3) Sediment and erosion control practices shall be employed that equal or exceed those
outlined in the most. recent version of the "North Carolina Sediment and Erosion Control
Planning and Design Manual."
(4) All sediment and erosion control measures placed in wetlands or waters shall be removed
and the natural grade restored within two months after the Division of Land Resources
releases the Project.
(5) An environmental document is not required for this Project.
(6) The use of culverts will kept to the minimum necessary to complete the Project. All
culverts will be installed to ensure downstream flows at periods of low flow, and to sized
large enough to ensure downstream flow during periods of high water.
(7) All measures will be taken to prevent live or fresh concrete form coming into contact
with waters of the state until the concrete has hardened.
(8) The site will be stabilized to prevent erosion and all temporary fill shall be removed to
the original grade after construction is complete.
(9) All pipes will be installed to carry the 25 year storm event at the minimum as outlined in
the 2006 edition of the North Carolina Sediment and Erosion Control Planning and
Design Manual during use of the certification.
(10) Total proposed impacts estimated for this Project will require a fee in the amount of
$575.
(11) The applicant will comply with all site-specific conditions set forth in the terms and
' conditions of the certification.
(12) Certification from the DWQ for this Project shall expire three years from the date of the
Certification cover letter.

Duke Energy Carolinas, LLC Bridgewater Powerhouse Project
Project Narrative
(13) The applicant will submit the most recent version of the Certification of Completion form
to notify the DWQ when all work included in the 401 Certification has been completed.

i

1

Duke Energy Carolinas, LLC Bridgewater Powerhouse Project
Project Narrative
Statement of Compliance for State General Permit for Impacts to Isolated Waters

II Permit IWGP 100000
1) Impact Totals
~~ i) Application Thresholds
(a) Isolated streams (NA)
~~ (b) Isolated lakes and ponds -Due to the unique nature of the stilling basin the
exact surface area is difficult to estimate. During normal water levels (i.e.,
non-generating flows) the basin surface area is approximately 0.30-acre.
During generating flows the basin surface area is approximately 0.50-acre.
Because of this fluctuation and the closeness of the normal water level
surface to the permit threshold (1/3-acre) the applicant is providing written
notification and requesting written approval from the Division of Water
lit
f
i
Q
thi
t
ua
y
or
s
mpac
.
(c) Isolated wetlands (NA)
(d) Unique isolated wetlands (NA)
ii) Activities which are Deemed Permitted: No activities that cause impacts to the
stilling basin are permitted without written approval from the Division of Water
Quality.
1 iii) Totaling and Reporting of Impacts
(a) Isolated streams (NA)
I (b) Isolated lakes and ponds - As stated, the stilling basin proposed to be filled is
0.30-acre.
(c) Isolated wetlands (NA)
iv) Public Notice Requirement -Anticipated project impacts fall below the threshold for
1 requiring either a public notice or an individual permit.
v) Fees - A check in the amount of $570 has been included with this joint 401/404
' permit application.
vi) Buffers -The Project is located within the Catawba River watershed and is subject to
buffer protection rules. Duke is requesting written concurrence from DWQ for this
permit in accordance with 15A NCAC 2B. 0200.
vii) The Project will result in a diminimus increase in impermeable surfaces.
2) On-Site Stormwater Management

I Duke Energy Carolinas, LLC Bridgewater Powerhouse Project
Project Narrative
i) The Project will result in a negligible increase in impervious surfaces. The original
powerhouse and parking areas will be removed once the new powerhouse is
operational. Both powerhouses have similar footprint sizes. The new parking area
will be the same size as the old (e.g., both sized for two cars). Existing stormwater
I management practices will continue to be utilized post-construction.
3) Compensatory Mitigation
' i) Compensatory stream mitigation (NA)
ii) Because the Project does not involve impacts to an isolated stream or wetland no
compensatory mitigation is required for this phase of the Project.
iii) Stream relocation (NA)
iv) No culverts or other structures will be utilized during this phase of the Project.
4) Sedimentation and Erosion Control
i) All. erosion and sediment control practices will be in full compliance with all
specifications governing the proper design, installation, operation and maintenance of
such Best Management Practices.
(a) Sediment and erosion control measures which equal or exceed the proper
design, installation, operation and maintenance outlined in the most recent
version of the "North Carolina Sediment and Erosion Control Planning and

t

i

design Manual".
(b) Mining activities (NA)
(c) Agricultural sites (NA)
(d) Forestry sites (NA)
ii) All sediment and erosion control measures placed in wetlands and waters shall be
removed and the original grade restored within two months after the Division of Land
Resources or DLR delegated program has released the project.
5) Compliance with Water Quality Standards
i) Duke will comply with all additional site-specific conditions that are by the DWQ in
relation to this phase of the Project.
ii) Measures will be taken to prevent live or fresh concrete from coming into contact
with waters of the state.
iii) Access to building sites (NA)
6) Possible requirement for an Individual Permit and Public Meetings
i) Duke will comply with all requests from the Director of the Division of Water
Quality for the submission of an Individual Permit.

Duke Energy Carolinas, LLC
1

1
Bridgewater Powerhouse Project
Project Narrative
ii) Duke will comply with and participate in any public meetings should they be deemed
necessary by the Director of the Division of Water Quality.
7) Compliance and Reporting
i) No environmental documents are required in conjunction with this Project.
ii) Duke understands that deed notifications will be placed on file regarding the future
use of the Project in relation to jurisdictional streams and wetlands.

t
t

iii) Upon Project completion Duke will use the most recent version of the Certificate of
Completion to inform DWQ that authorized work has been completed.
iv) Duke understands that concurrence from DWQ regarding this permit shall expire five
years from the date of the cover letter from DWQ or on the same day as the
expiration date of the corresponding USACE 404 Permit, whichever sooner unless
explicitly allowed in the approval letter from DWQ.
v) Duke understands that non-compliance with or violation of the conditions specified
in this permit may be cause for civil and/or criminal penalties.
vi) Duke understands that failure to abide by the conditions and limitations contained in
this permit may subject the Permittee to an enforcement action by the Division of
Water Quality in accordance with 143-215.6A to 143-215.6C.
vii) Duke understands that this permit may be modified, revoked and reissued or
terminated for cause. Also, the filing of a request for a permit modification,

revocation and reissuance, or termination does not stay any permit condition.
viii) Duke understands that the issuance of this Permit does not prohibit he Director

from reopening and modifying the Permit, revoking and reissuing the Permit, or
terminating the Permit as allowed by the laws, rules, and regulations contained in
Title 15A of the North Carolina Administrative Code 3, Subchapter 02H. 1300, and
North Carolina General Statute 143-215.1 et. Al.
ix) Duke understands that this Permit is not transferable to any person or entity except
after notice to and written approval by the Director.
x) Duke understands that the issuance of this Permit does not preclude the Permittee
from complying with and and all statutes, rules, regulations, or ordinances, which
may be imposed by other government agencies (local, state, and federal) which have
jurisdiction. If any of those permits results in revisions to the plans, a permit
modification must be submitted.
xi) Duke grants permission to DENR Staff to enter the property during business hours
for the purposes of inspections and compliance review.

Duke Energy Carolinas, LLC Bridgewater Powerhouse Project
Project Narrative
xii) Duke shall notify the Division of Water Quality of any mailing address changes

t
1

within 30 days.

Duke Energy Carolinas, LLC Bridgewater Powerhouse Project
Project Narrative
APPENDIX E
BRIDGEWATER POWERHOUSE DRAFT MEMORANDUM OF AGREEMENT

i

1
1

1

1

Memorandum of Agreement
Project No. 2232 -North Carolina
DRAFT
' MEMORANDUM OF AGREEMENT
AMONG
THE FEDERAL ENERGY REGULATORY COMMISSION
' AND
THE NORTH CAROLINA STATE HISTORIC PRESERVATION OFFICER REGARDING THE
REMOVAL AND REPLACEMENT OF THE BRIDGEWATER POWERHOUSE OF THE
CATAWBA-WATEREE HYDROELECTRIC PROJECT
WHEREAS, Duke Energy Carolinas, LLC (hereinafter, "licensee") intends to remove and replace the
Bridgewater Powerhouse, located on the Linville River in Burke County, North Carolina, at the
Bridgewater Development of the Catawba-Wateree Hydroelectric Project (FERC No. 2232), in
conjunction with the Linville Dam phase (hereinafter, "Linville Dam Project") of the Bridgewater
Seismic Remediation Project; and
' WHEREAS, the Bridgewater Powerhouse and other structures affected by the Linville Dam Project are
eligible for inclusion in the National Register of Historic Places (hereinafter, "historic
1 properties"); and
WHEREAS, the Federal Energy Regulatory Commission (hereinafter; "Commission") may authorize the
Linville Dam Project; and
WHEREAS, the Commission has determined that the Linville Dam Project has the potential to adversely
affect the Bridgewater Powerhouse and other historic properties, and has consulted with the North
Carolina State Historic Preservation Officer (hereinafter; "North Carolina SHPO") pursuant to 36
C.F.R. Part 800 of the Advisory Council on Historic Preservation's (hereinafter, "Advisory
Council") regulations implementing section 106 of the National Historic Preservation Act (16
U.S.C. 470f; hereinafter, "section 106"); and
WHEREAS, Appendix A of this Memorandum of Agreement provides a description of the Bridgewater
powerhouse and other historic properties identified as of the date of this Memorandum of
Agreement, and anticipated effects as of the date of this Memorandum of Agreement; and
WHEREAS, the licensee has participated in the consultation leading to the execution of this
Memorandum of Agreement and is invited to concur in it.
NOW THEREFORE, the Commission and the North Carolina SHPO agree that the execution and
implementation of the Memorandum of Agreement, in accordance with the following
stipulations, evidences that the Commission has taken into account the effects of the undertaking
and that the Commission's responsibility under section 106 is satisfied.
Stipulations
' The Commission will ensure that the following measures are carried out:
I. TREATMENT OF HISTORIC RESOURCES
i
I 1 Rev Date: 8/8/07

t

Memorandum of Agreement
Project No. 2232 -North Carolina
Prior to removal of the powerhouse and other historic properties within the Area of Potential
Effect (APE)' of the Linville Dam Project, the licensee shall prepare a Historic American Buildings
Survey/Historic American Engineering Record (HABS/HAER) of the powerhouse, warehouse, portions
of the switchyard, and light standard as mitigation for the adverse effects to the historic properties.
During the development of the HABS/HAER, the licensee will consult with the North Carolina SHPO to
determine the level of recordation that is required. The licensee shall provide a copy of the HABS/HAER
document to the North Carolina SHPO and any other repository as designated by the North Carolina
SHPO. The licensee shall provide to the Commission the HABS/HAER document and documentation
that the HABS/HAER document has been accepted by the North Carolina SHPO.
II. TREATMENT OF ARCHAEOLOGICAL SITES
A. Prior to construction of the replacement powerhouse, the licensee shall conduct an archaeological
survey of the area within the boundaries of the APE that have not been previously surveyed for
archaeological and historic resources. The Phase I survey will be completed in accordance with
the following conditions:
1. Prior to the commencement of the Phase I survey, the licensee shall consult with the
North Carolina SHPO to determine the scope of work needed for the Phase I survey; and
2. All of the resulting documentation will be provided to the North Carolina SHPO and any
other repository as designated by the North Carolina SHPO.
3. Should any historic properties be located during the archaeological survey, the licensee
will consult with the North Carolina SHPO to develop an appropriate treatment plan.
B. Should any previously unknown archaeological sites be discovered during the course of the
Linville Dam Project, the licensee will stop work and immediately enter into consultation with
the North Carolina SHPO to determine an appropriate treatment plan.
III. DISPUTE RESOLUTION
A. If at any time during implementation of this Memorandum of Agreement, the North Carolina
SHPO, the licensee, or the Advisory Council objects to the manner in which the terms of the
Memorandum of Agreement are being implemented, they may file written objections with the
Commission. The Commission will consult with the objecting party, and with other above listed
parties, as appropriate, to resolve the objection.
B. If the Commission determines that the objection cannot be resolved, the Commission will forward
all documentation relevant to the dispute to the Advisory Council and request that the Advisory
Council comment. Within 30 days after receiving all pertinent documentation, the Advisory
Council will either:
1. provide the Commission with recommendations, which the
Commission will take into account in reaching a final decision regarding the
dispute; or

1
'The APE for the Linville Dam Project includes the area affected by construction of the new earthen berm at the
existing Linville Dam and the area affected by construction of the replacement powerhouse.
2 Rev Date: 8/8/07

' Memorandum of Agreement
Project No. 2232 -North Carolina
2. noti the Commission that it will comment ursuant to 36 CFR
fY p
Part 800.7(c)(1) through (3) and section 110(1) of the National Historic
Preservation Act, and proceed to comment.
C. The Commission will take into account any Advisory Council comment, provided in response to
' such a request, with reference to the subject of the dispute, and will issue a decision on the matter.
The Commission's responsibility to carry out all actions under this Memorandum of Agreement
that are not the subject of dispute will remain unchanged.
IV. AMENDMENT AND TERMINATION OF THIS MEMORANDUM OF AGREEMENT

1

A. During the time that this Memorandum of Agreement is in effect, the Commission, the North
Carolina SHPO, or the licensee may request that this Memorandum of Agreement be amended,
whereupon these parties will consult in accordance with 36 CFR Part 800.6(c)(7), to consider
such amendment.
B. The Commission or the North Carolina SHPO may terminate this Memorandum of Agreement by
providing 30 days written notice to the other parties, provided that the Commission, the North
Carolina SHPO, and the licensee consult during the 30-day notice period in order to seek
agreement on amendments or other actions that would avoid termination. In the event of
termination, the Commission will comply with 36 CFR Part 800.6(c)(8).
V. OTHER TERMS AND CONDITIONS
A. This Memorandum of Agreement is limited in scope to such activities associated with the Linville
Dam Project.
B. Execution of this Memorandum of Agreement and subsequent implementation is evidence that
the Commission has satisfied its responsibilities pursuant to section 106 of the National Historic
Preservation Act, as amended. This Memorandum of Agreement has no independent legal effect
for any specific license applicant or project, except when incorporated by reference into any
authorizing Commission order.
I 3 Rev Date: 8/8/07

1
1
1
1
1
1
1
1
1
1
Memorandum of Agreement
Project No. 2232 -North Carolina
FEDERAL ENERGY REGULATORY COMMISSION
By:
4
Date:
Rev Date: 8/8/07

Memorandum of Agreement
Project No. 2232 -North Carolina
NORTH CAROLINA STATE HISTORIC PRESERVATION OFFICE
By: Date:
Jeffrey J. Crow, State Historic Preservation Officer
1

1
1
1
1
1
i
1
1
1
1
1
1
1
1
Memorandum of Agreement
Project No. 2232 -North Carolina
CONCUR: DUKE ENERGY CAROLINAS, LLC
By: Date:
Steven D. Jester, Vice-President
Hydro Licensing and Lake Services
1
Rev Date: 8/8/07

' Memorandum of Agreement
Project No. 2232 -North Carolina
' Appendix A to:
MEMORANDUM OF AGREEMENT AMONG THE FEDERAL ENERGY REGULATORY
COMMISSION AND THE NORTH CAROLINA STATE HISTORIC PRESERVATION
OFFICER REGARDING THE REMOVAL AND REPLACEMENT OF THE BRIDGEWATER
' POWERHOUSE OF THE CATAWBA-WATEREE HYDROELECTRIC PROJECT
The purpose of this appendix is to specify the factual basis of the Memorandum of Agreement.
Here, relevant facts concerning the licensee's proposed undertaking are reviewed; historic properties
subject to the Memorandum of Agreement's stipulations are, in part, identified; and the anticipated effects
of the undertaking are disclosed.
' We, the parties to the Memorandum of Agreement, anticipate that authorizing the Linville Dam
Project would pose adverse effects to the historic properties within the APE. We anticipate that any
adverse effects can be mitigated by executing a Memorandum of Agreement requiring the licensee to
' develop a HABS/HAER and conduct a Phase I survey of the areas to be disturbed in conjunction with the
Linville Dam Project.
I. PROPOSED UNDERTAKING
' Duke, the licensee of the Catawba-Wateree Hydroelectric Project, FERC No. 2232, is
implementing the Bridgewater Development Seismic Remediation Project. The Bridgewater
Development, one of eleven developments comprising the Catawba-Wateree Hydroelectric Project, is
located on the Linville River, in Burke County, North Carolina. The Bridgewater Development was
constructed from 1916-1923 and contains three dams. Beginning in the 1980's, a series of analyses
indicated that portions of the project dams are susceptible to strength loss during certain modeled seismic
' events. Therefore, the licensee, in accordance with the Commission's dam safety regulations, began an
effort to strengthen the three Project dams in 2005.
In order to strengthen the Linville Dam, which is located adjacent to the Bridgewater
' Powerhouse, the powerhouse must be demolished. It will also be necessary to remove or modify other
historic properties including a warehouse, the existing switchyard, a light standard, and other non-historic
structures lying within the footprint of the proposed berm. A new powerhouse will be constructed
' approximately 200 meters downstream. This work is being conducted under the Commission's Safety of
Water Power Projects and Project Works regulations (18 CFR Part 12).
' On June 19, 2007, the North Carolina SHPO stated that the replacement of the Bridgewater
Powerhouse, eligible for the National Register of Historic Places, would constitute an adverse effect upon
the historic property and recommended that the licensee enter into consultation with the North Carolina
SHPO. In this same letter, the North Carolina SHPO recommended that an archaeological survey be
conducted in association with the construction of the new powerhouse.
1
1
1
1
The Catawba-Wateree Project's existing license expires in August 2008. In accordance with
Commission regulations for the relicensing of existing hydroelectric projects, the licensee submitted a
timely application to the Commission for continued operation of the project. This application clearly
anticipated the removal of the powerhouse and its replacement with either a new powerhouse or a valve
release system. As part of the relicensing consultation process, the licensee developed a draft Historic
Properties Management Plan (HPMP) for the Catawba-Wateree Project in consultation with, among
others, the North Carolina SHPO. The HPMP stipulates that the licensee will consult with the North
Rev Date: 8/8/07

Memorandum of Agreement
Project No. 2232 -North Carolina
Carolina SHPO to develop appropriate mitigation for adverse affects to Historic Properties. It also
stipulates that the licensee will consult with the North Carolina SHPO about any proposed ground-
disturbing activities that are not categorically excluded from review. This Memorandum of Agreement is
consistent with the draft HPMP.
II. HISTORIC PROPERTIES IDENTIFIED
A. Area of Potential Effects (APE)
The APE for the proposed Linville Dam Project encompasses lands affected by construction of
the new earthen berm, the modified switchyard, and the lands utilized in construction of the replacement
powerhouse.
B. Historic Structures
In 2004, the licensee commissioned a National Register evaluation of the Catawba-Wateree
Hydroelectric Project facilities in association with its application for a new license. ~ The 2004 historical
survey stated that the development is representative of the development of hydroelectric power in North
Carolina in the 1910s and 1920s. The assessment identified the powerhouse, warehouse, the switchyard,
and light standard as contributing elements to the Bridgewater Development's eligibility for the National
Register. The North Carolina SHPO concurred with these findings.
The Bridgewater Powerhouse is a six-story brick structure with a concrete base. The exterior
' features brick pilasters dividing the window bays, a decorative metal cornice, and both historic and
modern multi-light windows. The powerhouse contains two vertical Francis-type generating units, a
control room, a concrete mezzanine, and associated equipment. A warehouse associated with the
' powerhouse and a light standard adjacent to the powerhouse, both eligible for the National Register, will
also be removed during the Linville Dam Project. The existing switchyard, also a historic property, will
also be modified.
C. Archaeological Sites
Archaeological surveys of portions of the borrow areas for the Bridgewater Seismic Remediation
' Project have been conducted. No archaeological sites are known to lie within areas associated with the
Linville Dam Project.
III. ANTICIPATED EFFECTS AND MITIGATIVE NEEDS
The proposed Linville Dam Project would have an adverse effect on historic properties in the
project's APE; however, the adverse effects would be mitigated through the execution of a Memorandum
of Agreement.
2 The results of the study are included in: TRC. 2005. National Register of Historic Places Assessment for the
Catawba-Wateree Hydroelectric Project Bridgewater, Rhodhiss, Oxford, Lookout Shoals, Cowans Ford, and
Mountain Island Developments, North Carolina.
3 Rev Date: 8/8/07

Memorandum of Agreement
Project No. 2232 -North Carolina
' A. Historic Structures
' Authorizing the Linville Dam Project and removing the powerhouse and other historic properties
would adversely affect historic properties within the APE. However, we anticipate that adverse effects
would be taken into account by executing a Memorandum of Agreement requiring the licensee to develop
' a HABS/HAER report prior to removal of the powerhouse. The HABS/HAER report would provide both
written and photo documentation of the powerhouse and other historic properties. The documentation
would be available from the repository designated by the North Carolina SHPO.
' B. Previously Undiscovered Historic Properties
' Since the APE has not been completely evaluated for its archaeological potential, there is a
possibility that undiscovered historic properties could be adversely affected during the implementation of
the Linville Dam Project. The Memorandum of Agreement would require the licensee to conduct an
archaeological survey of areas not previously surveyed and develop appropriate treatment plans. If any
' sites are discovered during the project, the licensee will enter into consultation with the North Carolina
SHPO to develop an appropriate treatment plan.

1

' 4 Rev Date: 8/8/07