20160742 Ver 1_Public Notice Comments_20160921

Homewood, Sue
From: Brown, David W SAW <[e-mail]>
Sent: Wednesday, September 21, 2016 8:24 AM
To: Mularski, Eric; [e-mail]
Cc: Homewood, Sue; Fox, Tim; Leslie, Andrea J; Tompkins, Bryan; Churchill, Christy
Subject: Comments Received to Public Notice - Cedar Cliff Spillway Upgrades Project
Attachments: 2015-02543 Cedar Cliff Spillway Upgrades Public Comments.pdf
Action ID 2015-02543
Jon Wise and Eric Mularski,
Attached are the comments the Corps received during the comment period of the public notice for your submitted permit
application associated with Cedar Cliff Development Auxiliary Spillway Upgrade Project in Tuckasegee, Jackson County, North
Carolina. You are requested to review the comments and submit to the Corps a document which responds/addresses the
comments/concerns/issues noted. Please submit this document by November 7, 2016. Once the Corps receives your response, a
meeting with USFWS, NCWRC, NCDEQ-DWR, and the Corps may be appropriate in order to review and discuss your submitted
response
Do note the letter received from NCWRC mentions no information was provided in the permit application on lake drawdown and
refill methods. Please provide the proposed methods for these events. The methods will need to meet state water quality
standards. If you have any questions about these water quality standards contact Tim Fox or Sue Homewood with NCDEQ-DWR.
If you have any questions please contact me.
Thank you,
David Brown, PG
Regulatory Specialist/Geologist
828-271-7980, ext. 232
[e-mail]
USACE Wilmington District - Asheville Regulatory Field Office
151 Patton Avenue, Room 208
Asheville, NC 28801-5006
The Wilmington District is committed to providing the highest level of support to the public. To help us ensure we continue to do
so, please complete the Customer Satisfaction Survey located at http://corpsmapu.usace.army.mil/cm_apex/f?p=136:4:0

(Sent via Electronic Mail)
UNITED STATES DEPARTMENT OF COMMERCE
National Oceanic and Atmospheric Administration
NATIONAL MARINE FISHERIES SERVICE
Southeast Regional Office
26313th Avenue South
St. Petersburg, Florida 33701-5505
http://sero. nmfs.noaa.gov
August 17, 2016
Colonel Kevin P. Landers Sr., Commander
U.S. Army Corps of Engineers Wilmington District
69 Darlington Avenue
Wilmington, North Carolina 28403-1398
Dear Colonel Landers:
NOAA's National Marine Fisheries Service (NMFS) reviewed the projects described in the public
notice(s) listed below.
Based on the information in the public notice(s), the proposed projects) would NOT occur in the
vicinity of essential fish habitat (EFH) designated by the South Atlantic Fishery Management Council or
NMFS. Present staffing levels preclude further analysis of the proposed activities and no further action
is planned. This position is neither supportive of nor in opposition to authorization of the proposed
work.
NOTTCF, NO _
2015-02543
A PPT .TCy ANT
Duke Energy
Carolinas, LLC
OTICE DATE
August 12, 2016
TAT TF. D A TF.
September 12, 2016
2015-01762 Development August 12, 2016 September 12, 2016
Solutions BRY, LLC
Please note these comments do not satisfy your consultation responsibilities under section 7 of the
Endangered Species Act of 1973, as amended. If the activity "may effect" listed species or critical
habitat that are under the purview of NMFS, consultation should be initiated with our Protected
Resources Division at the letterhead address.
Sincerely,
Pace Wilber (for)
Virginia M. Fay
Assistant Regional Administrator
Habitat Conservation Division

FISH AND WILDLIFE SERVICE
Asheville Field Office
160 Zillicoa Street
Asheville, North Carolina 28801
August 19, 2016
Mr. David Brown
Asheville Regulatory Field Office
U.S. Army Corps of Engineers
151 Patton Avenue, Room 208
Asheville, North Carolina 28801-5006
Dear Mr. Brown:
This is the report of the U.S. Fish and Wildlife Service and the Department of the Interior on the
U.S. Army Corps of Engineers' (Corps) Public Notice (PN) of an Individual Permit Application
(IPA) submitted by Mr. Jonathan Ray of Duke Energy Carolinas, LLC (Duke Energy), represented
by Mr. Eric Mularski of HDR Engineering, Inc., to impact about 110 linear feet of stream impacts,
51.3 -acres of temporary open water impacts, and 9.61 -acres of permanent open water impacts within
the East Fork Hydroelectric Project Area, in Jackson County, North Carolina. Information for this
report is based on multiple site visits conducted by staff of this office with representatives from Duke
Energy and HDR, and a review of the PN issued by the Corps. The report is submitted in accordance
with the provisions of the National Environmental Policy Act; Fish and Wildlife Coordination Act, as
amended (16 U.S.C. 661-667e); and section 7 of the Endangered Species Act of 1973, as amended
(16 U.S.C. 1531-1543) (Act).
According to the information presented, the proposed project consists of modifying the existing
Cedar Cliff dam auxiliary spillway and main dam berm to safely pass the calculated Probable
Maximum Flood (PMF), which is defined as the Inflow Design Flood (IDF), without overtopping the
Cedar Cliff dam. The PMF peak inflow of the Cedar Cliff project is about 192,000 cfs, which was
approved by FERC on June 22, 1994. Based on this and engineering calculations, the auxiliary
spillway is incapable of passing the PMF and needs to be increased by about 112,000 cfs to prevent
overtopping the dam. The FERC identified the IDF as the PMF in correspondence to Duke Energy
dated April 24, 2014, and requested that the project be modified to safely pass all flows up to and
including the IDF. To meet this objective, Duke Energy is proposing to completely demolish the two
existing fuse plug chambers and single concrete splitter wall within the existing auxiliary spillway.
The existing auxiliary spillway channel will be widened by about 50 feet. To complete the widening
of the existing spillway, the existing rock wall along the spillway must be excavated and about
316,000 cubic yards of material will need to be removed. Duke Energy is proposing to dispose of
about 25,000 cubic yards of excavated rock material by placing it on the downstream face of the rock
fill dam. The remaining excavated material will be loaded onto barges and deposited into the Cedar

Cliff impoundment. Upon completion of the excavation, an 11 -feet high concrete parapet wall will
be constructed along the crest of the dam and six cast -in-place Hydroplus Fusegates will be
constructed in the control section of the spillway. Temporary impacts associated with the project
consist of constructing a culvert crossing of the East Fork bypass reach immediately downstream of
the Cedar Cliff dam. Three corrugated metal pipes (110 -feet long by 12 -feet in diameter) will be
placed in the East Fork bypass reach for this crossing. The culverts will be removed when
construction is completed.
Endangered Species. On March 23, 2016, Mr. Bryan Tompkins and Ms. Susan Cameron of this
office met with representatives from Duke Energy and HDR, Inc. at the project site to determine if
suitable habitat existed within the project area for Northern Long -Eared Bat (Myotic septentrionalis)
and/or Indiana Bat (Myotis sodalis). Northern Long -Eared Bat is currently federally listed as a
threatened species; and Indiana Bat is currently federally listed as an endangered species. No known
hibernacula for these species occurs within 1/a mile of the project area and no known maternity roosts
occur within 150 -feet of the project area. However, suitable maternity roosting habitat was found to
occur along the bluff adjacent to the auxiliary spillway. For this reason, Mr. Tompkins and Ms.
Cameron made recommendations to Duke Energy for summer acoustic surveys to be conducted,
within the 3 -acre blasting and clearing area of the project, to determine presence/absence of these
species. A survey plan was established and approved by this office and surveys were conducted at
two sites within the project area from May 16 — May 18, 2016. The final report of the findings from
the survey was submitted to this office on June 13, 2016. According to the report, five Indiana Bat
and eight Northern Long -Eared Bat call files were identified. Upon review, Mr. Tompkins informed
Mr. Mularski that the survey results indicated that both species (Indiana Bat and Northern Long -
Eared Bat) were present within the project area. Because the survey results indicated potential
presence, Duke Energy has proposed the following measures to be implemented into the project
plans to avoid impacts to Indiana Bat and Northern Long -Eared Bat:
1. Trees within the 3 -acre blasting and clearing area will be cut during the winter (October 15 -
April 15) to avoid impacts to avoid the maternity roost period for Indiana Bat and Northern Long -
Eared Bat.
2. If any random trees must be cut during the summer roost period, this office will be notified and
an experienced biologist will conduct an on-site habitat assessment to determine if trees are
suitable maternity roost trees. If the tree(s) to be cut are suitable roost trees, an emergence survey
will be conducted before tree removal.
3. All potential suitable roost trees identified adjacent to the project area will be marked and
protected during clearing activities.
We appreciate the proposal to implement the conservation measures to avoid impacts to Indiana Bat
and Northern Long -Eared Bat. However, we believe an additional measure is necessary if
emergence surveys are conducted before the removal of random tree(s) during the summer maternity
roost period. If emergence surveys are conducted, and bats are observed using the tree(s) to be
removed, we recommend that this office be contacted to establish a plan for proceeding before the
tree(s) is removed. If the above stated measures are implemented into the project plans (including
our additional recommendation), we could concur with a "may affect, not likely to adversely affect"
determination for Indiana Bat and Northern Long -Eared Bat; and the consultation requirements under
section 7 of the Act have been fulfilled.
2

For all other federally listed species known to occur in Jackson County, we concur with the "no
effect" determination issued by Duke Energy and HDR, Inc. Therefore, we believe the requirements
under section 7 of the Act are fulfilled. However, obligations under section 7 of the Act must be
reconsidered if: (1) new information reveals impacts of this identified action that may affect listed
species or critical habitat in a manner not previously considered, (2) this action is subsequently
modified in a manner that was not considered in this review, or (3) a new species is listed or critical
habitat is determined that may be affected by the identified action.
Erosion Control. The PN included a statement that erosion control would be addressed as
established in the Shoreline Management Plan for the project. We are not aware of any specific
information in the Shoreline Management Plan concerning erosion control measures for a reservoir
drawdown of the magnitude necessary for the proposed project. We recommend that Duke Energy
develop a plan to monitor and mitigate for erosion along the exposed reservoir banks. After rain
events, areas near storm water outfall pipes or culverts that release high velocity discharges onto
exposed banks should be inspected for erosive reels or mass wasting. The plan should include
measures that will be implemented should erosive/mass wasting areas be found that are contributing
sediment to the river channel We recommend the use of straw bales or other devices at problem
sites to decrease velocity of water, decrease erosion, and minimize the amount of sediment released.
Any problem areas should be documented. Information on documented problem areas should be
maintained to focus efforts on erosion control during any future drawdowns.
Reservoir Drawdown. The PN indicated that the water level in the reservoir will be drawn down
about 30 feet for a duration of 14 to 16 months to facilitate construction of the spillway
modifications. The PN did not include a drawdown schedule for the project. To ensure that aquatic
resources within the reservoir are not adversely affected by the drawdown of the reservoir, we
recommend that Duke Energy consult and reach agreement with the USFWS, other natural resource
agencies, and regulatory agencies concerning any reasonable and necessary measures to minimize the
impacts of the drawdown.
We appreciate the opportunity to provide these comments. If we can be of assistance or if you have
any questions, please do not hesitate to contact Mr. Bryan Tompkins of our staff at 828/258-3939,
Ext. 240. In any future correspondence concerning this project, please reference our Log Number
4-2-16-547.
Sincerely,
- - original signed - -
Janet Mizzi
Field Supervisor
E -Copy: Mr. Eric Mularski, HDR, Inc.
Mr. Steve Johnson, Duke Energy Carolinas, LLC

North Carolina Department of Natural and Cultural Resources
State Historic Preservation Office
Ramona M. Bartos, Administrator
Governor Pat McCrory
Secretary Susan Kluttz
August 30, 2016
Office of Archives and History
Deputy Secretary Kevin Cherry
Christy Churchill Christy. Churchill(?
duke-energy.com
Duke Energy
550 South Tryon Street
Charlotte, NC 28202
Re: Cedar Cliff Development Auxiliary Spillway Upgrade Project, East Fork Hydroelectric Project,
FERC 2698-033, Jackson County, ER 16-1388
Dear Ms. Churchill:
Thank you for your letter of August 5, 2016, regarding the above -referenced undertaking. We have
reviewed the materials submitted and offer the following comments.
Based on our knowledge of the. area, it is unlikely that any archaeological resources that may be eligible for
inclusion in the National Register of Historic Places will be adversely affected by the project.
The East Fork Hydroelectric Project is eligible for listing in the National Register of Historic Places
(NRNP) under Criterion A for "Engineering." However, when the East Fork Hydroelectric Project was
evaluated in 2014, the Cedar Cliff Development (JK0729); was determined to be a non-contributing
element of the historic property. Therefore, proposed improvements to the Cedar Cliff Development dam
will not diminish the integrity for which the East Fork Hydroelectric Project is considered to be historic.
Before improvements to the dam at Cedar Cliff are initiated, we request photographs thoroughly
documenting the current condition of the dam and its surroundings. Please refer to our guidelines for labeling
and submitting digital images at http://www.hpo.ncdcr.gov/digital/NCHPO Digital Photo Policy.tml.
The above comments are made pursuant to Section 106 of the National Historic Preservation Act and the
Advisory Council on Historic Preservation's Regulations for Compliance with Section 106 codified at 36
CFR Part 800.
Location: 109 East Jones Street, Raleigh NC 27601 Mailing Address: 4617 Mail Service Center, Raleigh NC 27699-4617 Telephone/Fax: [phone]-6599

Thank you for your cooperation and consideration. If you have questions concerning the above comment,
contact Renee Gledhill -Earley, environmental review coordinator, at 919-807-6579 or
environmental.reviewg
,ncdcr.gov. In all future communication concerning this project, please cite the
above referenced tracking number.
Sincerely,
(f(Ramona M. Bartos
cc: John Eddy, John. EddyLa duke-energy.com
Jon Wise, Jon. WiseAduke-energy.com
Tim Banta, Tim.BantaAhdrinc.com
David Brown, ACOE

0 North Carolina Wildlife Resources Commission 0
Gordon Myers, Executive Director
September 1, 2016
Mr. David Brown
U.S. Army Corps of Engineers, Regulatory Branch
151 Patton Avenue, Room 208
Asheville, North Carolina 28801-5006
SUBJECT: Duke Energy Cedar Cliff Development Auxiliary Spillway Upgrade Project
East Fork Tuckasegee River, Jackson County
Dear Mr. Brown:.
Biologists with the North Carolina Wildlife Resources Commission (NCWRC) reviewed the
individual 404 permit application for Duke Energy's Cedar Cliff auxiliary spillway upgrade
project on the East Fork of the Tuckasegee River in Jackson County. Our comments on this
application are offered for your consideration under provisions of the Clean Water Act of 1977
(33 U.S.C. 466 et. seq.) and Fish and Wildlife Coordination Act (48 Stat. 401, as amended; 16
U.S.C. 661-667d).
The application proposes to modify the auxiliary spillway and main dam berm on the Cedar Cliff
reservoir in order to safely pass the Probable Maximum Flood, defined as the Inflow Design
Flood, without overtopping the dam. In order to achieve this, the spillway discharge capacity
would need to be increased by at least 112,000 cfs. Multiple alternatives were considered, and
that chosen involves the expansion of the auxiliary spillway channel width and depth,
construction of a 11 -ft high concrete parapet on the dam's crest, and the addition of 25,000 yd
of rock spoil at the downstream face of the rockfill dam.
The chosen alternative also involves the disposal of 316,600 yd of rock as permanent fill in
Cedar Cliff Lake within a 9.6 -acre area, which consists of 3% of the lake's surface area. In order
to perform the construction work, the lake will be drawn down 30 feet for 14=16 months, limiting
fishing access to the lake during that time. In addition, a submerged rock weir will be
constructed at the upstream end of the lake at the Bear Creek powerhouse.
The chosen alternative will allow Duke to minimize, impacts to streams and wetlands; however,
it will impact the public's use of Cedar Cliff Lake. NCWRC and Duke Energy have discussed
options to offset impacts to angling- due to lake drawdown and loss of lake acreage. The permit
Mailing Address: Habitat Conservation - 1721 Mail Service Center - Raleigh, NC 27699-1721
Telephone: [phone] - Fax: [phone]

Duke E Cedar Cliff Auxiliary Spillway Page 2 September 1, 2016
E Fork Tuckasegee River, Jackson County
application proposes installing fish attractors. In lieu of fish attractors, NCWRC has proposed
that Duke Energy renovate'the public access area on Cedar Cliff Lake in order to reduce erosion
at the site and improve public access. Duke Energy and NCWRC are currently in discussions to
accomplish this alternative.
As the lake will be drawn down 30 feet for a considerable period of time, we recommend that
Duke Energy assess the need for erosion control measures after the lake has been drawn down
and install remediation measures as needed.
There is no information provided in the permit application on lake drawdown and refill methods.
According to Duke Energy staff, agencies will be consulted before they file a drawdown plan
FERC.
Thank you for the opportunity to review and comment on this project. Please contact me at
[phone] if you have any questions about these comments.
Sincerely,
Andrea Leslie
Mountain Region Coordinator, Habitat Conservation Program
ec: Eric Mularski, HDR
Steve Johnson, Duke Energy
Tim Fox, NC Division of Water Resources
Bryan Tompkins, US Fish and Wildlife Service
Chris Goudreau & Powell Wheeler, NCWRC