20170426 Ver 1_IP_App_Final_Submit_20170407

U.S. ARMY CORPS OF ENGINEERS
APPLICATION FOR DEPARTMENT OF THE ARMY PERMIT
OMB APPROVAL N0.0710-0003
EXPIRES: 28 FEBRUARY 2013
33 CFR 325. The proponent agency is CECW-CO-R.
Public reporting for this collection of information is estimated to average 11 hours per response, including the time for reviewing instructions, searching
existing data sources, gathering and maintaining the data needed, and completing and reviewing the collection of information. Send comments regarding
this burden estimate or any other aspect of the collection of information, including suggestions for reducing this burden, to Department of Defense,
Washington Headquarters, Executive Services and Communications Directorate, Information Management Division and to the Office of Management and
Budget, Paperwork Reduction Project (0710-0003). Respondents should be aware that notwithstanding any other provision of law, no person shall be
subject to any penalty for failing to comply with a collection of information if it does not display a currently valid OMB control number. Please DO NOT
RETURN your form to either of those addresses. Completed applications must be submitted to the District Engineer having jurisdiction over the location of
the proposed activity.
PRIVACY ACT STATEMENT
Authorities: Rivers and Harbors Act, Section 10, 33 USC 403; Clean Water Act, Section 404, 33 USC 1344; Marine Protection, Research, and Sanctuaries
Act, Section 103, 33 USC 1413; Regulatory Programs of the Corps of Engineers; Final Rule 33 CFR 320-332. Principal Purpose: Information provided on
this form will be used in evaluating the application for a permit. Routine Uses: This information may be shared with the Department of Justice and other
federal, state, and local government agencies, and the public and may be made available as part of a public notice as required by Federal law. Submission
of requested information is voluntary, however, if information is not provided the permit application cannot be evaluated nor can a permit be issued. One set
of original drawings or good reproducible copies which show the location and character of the proposed activity must be attached to this application (see
sample drawings and/or instructions) and be submitted to the District Engineer having jurisdiction over the location of the proposed activity. An application
that is not completed in full will be returned.
(ITEMS 1 THRU 4 TO BE FILLED BY THE CORPS)
1. APPLICATION NO.
2. FIELD OFFICE CODE
3. DATE RECEIVED
4. DATE APPLICATION COMPLETE
(ITEMS BELOW TO BE FILLED BYAPPLICAN7)
5. APPLICANT'S NAME
8. AUTHORIZED AGENTS NAME AND TITLE (agent is not required)
First - Wayne Middle -B. Last - Smith
First - Steve Middle - Last - Cahoon
Company - Duke Energy
Company - Duke Energy
E-mail [e-mail]
E-mail Address-steve. [e-mail]
6. APPLICANTS ADDRESS:
9. AGENT'S ADDRESS:
Address- 400 South Tryon Street
Address- 411 Fayetteville Street - Mail Code: NC14
City - Charlotte State - NC Zip -28202 Country -USA
City - Raleigh State - NC Zip -27601 Country -USA
7. APPLICANT'S PHONE NOs. w/AREA CODE
10. AGENTS PHONE NOs. w/AREA CODE
a. Residence b. Business c. Fax
a. Residence b. Business c. Fax
704-907-7310 704-382-1527 980-373-3220
919-546-7457 919-546-4409
STATEMENT OF AUTHORIZATION
11. 1 hereby authorize, Steve Cahoon to act in my behalf as my agent in the processing of this application and to fumish, upon request,
supplemental information in support of this permit application. y
A4001e,e Xe,
SXNATURE
OFA A T DATE
NAME, LOCATION, AND DESCRIPTION OF PROJECT OR ACTIVITY
12. PROJECT NAME OR TITLE (see instructions)
Asheville Combined Cycle Project Laydown Area
13. NAME OF WATERBODY, IF KNOWN (if applicable)
14. PROJECT STREET ADDRESS (if applicable)
Unnamed Tributaries of the French Broad River
Address New Rockwood Road
15. LOCATION OF PROJECT
Latitude: -N 35.462006 Longitude: <W 82.542633
City - Arden State- NC Zip- 28704
16. OTHER LOCATION DESCRIPTIONS, IF KNOWN (see instructions)
State Tax Parcel ID 9644-51-3806-00000 Municipality Buncombe County
Section - NA Township - NA Range - NA
ENG FORM 4345, OCT 2012 PREVIOUS EDITIONS ARE OBSOLETE. Page 1 of 3

caro rvrvvi Brava, w I cv is Page 2 of 3
17. DIRECTIONS TO THE SITE
From Asheville to Duke Energy Asheville Plant:
Take I-240 W/US-70 W to I-26 E (-11.8 mi.).
Take Exit 37 to NC -146 E towards Limestone, left off of the exit (-1.2 mi.).
Take CP and L Drive, on the right, and follow to the guard shack.
18. Nature of Activity (Description of project, include all features)
The 560 MW Asheville Combined Cycle (CC) Project Laydown Area will include construction of two new 280 MW CC natural gas -fueled
electric generating units, with fuel -oil backup and related transmission facilities at the site of the current Asheville Plant. During the
construction phase for the CC units, five construction laydown areas, approximately 25 acres (ac) of laydown, and on-site construction
parking will be necessary. The construction and establishment of one of the laydown areas, Laydown Area 3, would require impacts to
waters of the U.S. Additional information and details for the proposed project are included in the attached Wetland Master Plan (WMP).
The Plan View and Cross -Section drawings depicting the proposed impacts to the waters of the U.S. in Laydown Area 3 are included in
Appendix D of the WMP. The installation (construction) sequence details for the proposed culvert/piping of the streams with Laydown
Area 3 are depicted on the engineering drawings.
19. Project Purpose (Describe the reason or purpose of the project, see instructions)
The Western Carolinas Modernization Project (WCMP) will include the construction of two new 280 MW CC natural gas -fueled electric
generating units and the retirement of the No. 1 and No. 2 coal units at the Asheville Plant no later than 1/31/2020. The North Carolina
Utilities Commission (NCUC) issued a Certificate of Public Convenience and Necessity (CPCN) for this project in February 2016. The
purpose of the WCMP is to meet current and growing energy needs in the region. The proposed Asheville CC Project associated with the
WCMP has a need for approximately 25 ac of construction laydown (five laydown areas) and on-site construction parking beginning in the
fall of 2017. There are currently four laydown areas on-site providing only approximately 16.6 ac of laydown area. The impetus for this
permit application, and subsequent alternatives analysis, is the need for additional construction laydown area needed to support
construction activities and delivery of materials/equipment required early in project schedule. Additional information and detail regarding
the purpose and need of the project are included in the attached WMP.
USE BLOCKS 20-23 IF DREDGED AND/OR FILL MATERIAL IS TO BE DISCHARGED
20. Reason(s) for Discharge
Based on the proposed action, to complete the construction of the Asheville CC Plant, Laydown Area 3 will need to be established based
on the necessity for approximately 25 ac of laydown (due to the delivery of major equipment required early in the construction schedule).
Current designed laydown areas total approximately 22.5 ac. Laydown Area 3 provides approximately 5.9 ac and is necessary to achieve
workable laydown space. The proposed impacts are necessary for establishing the basin and piping, while site grading is required to
provide a suitably sized pad to accommodate laydown material and equipment. Additional information is included in the attached WMP.
***Please keep in mind that the cubic yards listed below include the fill that will raise the elevation of the area, and that all fill is above the
OHW***
21. Type(s) of Material Being Discharged and the Amount of Each Type in Cubic Yards:
Type Type Type
Amount in Cubic Yards Amount in Cubic Yards Amount in Cubic Yards
26,360 (topsoil) 1,010 (ABC stone/gravel surfacing)
22. Surface Area in Acres of Wetlands or Other Waters Filled (see instructions)
Acres 0.38 acre of Wetland L (fill)
or
Linear Feet 972.5 If portions of Streams 22, 23, and 24 (culvert)
23. Description of Avoidance, Minimization, and Compensation (see instructions)
Impacts to waters of the U.S. will be avoided to the maximum extent practicable, while impacts will be minimized by following best
management practices, erosion/sedimentation control plan requirements, NPDES permit requirements, etc. Impacts to waters of the U.S.
will be mitigated through compensatory mitigation (see WMP section 7.0 pp. 72-73). The ability to avoid/minimize impacts to
jurisdictional waters within Laydown Area 3 is limited by steep topography, geologic conditions, and construction of a sediment basin and
piping (see WMP section 6.2 pp. 63-71).
caro rvrvvi Brava, w I cv is Page 2 of 3

24. Is Any Portion of the Work Already Complete? ❑Yes QX No IF YES, DESCRIBE THE COMPLETED WORK
25. Addresses of Adjoining Property Owners, Lessees, Etc., Whose Property Adjoins the Waterbody (if more than can be entered here, please attach a supplemental list).
a. Address- NA, no parcel number is listed by the county (the only adjoining property that adjoins the waterbody is the I-26 corridor)
City - State - Zip -
b. Address -
City - State - Zip -
c. Address -
City - State - Zip -
d. Address -
City - State - Zip -
e. Address -
City - State - Zip -
26. List of Other Certificates or Approvals/Denials received from other Federal, State, or Local Agencies for Work Described in This Application.
AGENCY TYPE APPROVAL* IDENTIFICATION DATE APPLIED DATE APPROVED DATE DENIED
NUMBER
NCUC CPCN NA January 2016 February 2016 NA
* Would include but is not restricted to zoning, building, and flood plain permits
27. Application is hereby made for permit or permits to authorize the work described in this application. I certify that this information in this application is
complete and accurate. I further certify that I possess the authority to undertake the work described herein or am acting as the duly authorized agent of the
applicant.
S NATURE OF APPLICAN DATE SIGNATURE OF AGENT DATE
The Application must be signed by the person who desires to undertake the proposed activity (applicant) or it may be signed by a duly
authorized agent if the statement in block 11 has been filled out and signed.
18 U.S.C. Section 1001 provides that: Whoever, in any manner within the jurisdiction of any department or agency of the United States
knowingly and willfully falsifies, conceals, or covers up any trick, scheme, or disguises a material fact or makes any false, fictitious or
fraudulent statements or representations or makes or uses any false writing or document knowing same to contain any false, fictitious or
fraudulent statements or entry, shall be fined not more than $10,000 or imprisoned not more than five years or both.
ENG FORM 4345, OCT 2012 Page 3 of 3

�h 1-
amec
foster
wheeler
Asheville Combined Cycle Project
Laydown Area
Wetland Master Plan
Section 404 Individual Permit Support
USACE Action ID SAW -2014-00189
Prepared for:
(� DUKE
ENERGY
Arden, North Carolina
Prepared by:
Amec Foster Wheeler Environment & Infrastructure, Inc.
4021 Stirrup Creek Drive, Suite 100
Durham, North Carolina
April 7, 2017
Project No. 7810160781

Wetland Master Plan April 7, 2017
Asheville Combined Cycle Project Laydown Area
Arden, North Carolina
Project No. 7810160781
TABLE OF CONTENTS
Page
EXECUTIVE SUMMARY......................................................................................................ES-1
1.0 INTRODUCTION............................................................................................................ 1
1.1 BACKGROUND.................................................................................................. 1
1.2 PURPOSE AND OBJECTIVE............................................................................. 1
2.0 PROJECT PURPOSE AND NEED................................................................................. 3
2.1
PROJECT PURPOSE.........................................................................................
3
2.2
PROJECT NEED................................................................................................
3
3.0
PROPOSED PROJECT DEVELOPMENT.....................................................................
7
3.1
PROJECT OVERVIEW.......................................................................................
7
4.0
ALTERNATIVES ANALYSIS........................................................................................10
4.1
BACKGROUND INFORMATION.......................................................................10
4.2
REGULATORY AUTHORITY.............................................................................11
4.3
INITIAL SITE SCREENING................................................................................12
4.3.1 Alternative Sites......................................................................................12
4.3.2 Initial Site Screening Results...................................................................14
4.4
ANALYSIS OF REMAINING SITE ALTERNATIVES..........................................15
4.4.1 Screening Overview................................................................................15
4.4.2 Resource Considerations........................................................................17
4.4.3 Selection of Preferred Alternative............................................................47
5.0
WATERS
OF THE U.S./WETLANDS............................................................................51
5.1
OVERVIEW.......................................................................................................51
5.2
RELEVANT BACKGROUND INFORMATION....................................................51
5.2.1 Land Use.................................................................................................51
5.2.2 Geology and Topography........................................................................52
5.2.3 Soils........................................................................................................52
5.2.4 Terrestrial Communities..........................................................................54
5.2.5 Wetlands.................................................................................................55
5.2.6 Streams...................................................................................................57
5.2.7 Riparian Buffers.......................................................................................60
5.2.8 Open Waters...........................................................................................60
5.2.9 Floodplains..............................................................................................61
5.2. 10 Surface Water.........................................................................................61
5.2.11 Groundwater...........................................................................................62
6.0
PROPOSED WATERS OF THE U.S./WETLANDS IMPACTS......................................63
6.1
EXTENT OF IMPACTS......................................................................................63
6.2
AVOIDANCE AND MINIMIZATION....................................................................63
6.2.1 Laydown Area 3 Avoidance and Minimization Considerations .................
64
6.2.2 Construction Parking Area Avoidance and Minimization Considerations .66
6.3
CUMULATIVE IMPACTS...................................................................................70

Wetland Master Plan
Asheville Combined Cycle Project Laydown Area
Arden, North Carolina
Project No. 7810160781
TABLE OF CONTENTS
(Continued)
April 7, 2017
Paqe
7.0
WETLAND/STREAM COMPENSATORY MITIGATION PLAN.....................................72
8.0
PROTECTED SPECIES................................................................................................74
8.1 BACKGROUND.................................................................................................74
8.2 AFFECTED ENVIRONMENT.............................................................................74
9.0
CULTURAL RESOURCES...........................................................................................78
9.1 BACKGROUND.................................................................................................78
9.2 AFFECTED ENVIRONMENT.............................................................................78
10.0
ENVIRONMENTAL JUSTICE.......................................................................................80
10.1 BACKGROUND.................................................................................................80
10.2 AFFECTED ENVIRONMENT.............................................................................80
11.0
STORMWATER............................................................................................................84
12.0 NOISE...........................................................................................................................85
12.1 BACKGROUND.................................................................................................85
12.2 AFFECTED ENVIRONMENT.............................................................................86
13.0 AIR QUALITY...............................................................................................................87
13.1 AFFECTED ENVIRONMENT.............................................................................87
14.0 REFERENCES..............................................................................................................88

Wetland Master Plan April 7, 2017
Asheville Combined Cycle Project Laydown Area
Arden, North Carolina
Project No. 7810160781
LIST OF TABLES
Table 1 Identified cultural resource sites within a half -mile radius of Sites A, B, and C,
Buncombe County, North Carolina
Table 2 Potential for occurrence of federally listed animal and plant species within Sites A,
B, and C, Buncombe County, North Carolina
Table 3 Estimated impacts to wetlands, streams, and open waters within Sites A, B, and
C, Buncombe County, North Carolina
Table 4 Streams within Site A, Asheville Plant, Buncombe County, North Carolina
Table 5 Mitigation bank options for the Asheville Plant, Buncombe County, North Carolina
Table 6 Potential mitigation costs for impacts to wetlands and streams for Sites A, B, and
C, Buncombe County, North Carolina
Table 7 Summary of potential laydown area impacts and constraints
Table 8 Soil Types within the Asheville Plant, Buncombe County, North Carolina
Table 9 Soil types occurrence within the proposed work areas, Buncombe County, North
Carolina
Table 10 Jurisdictional wetlands within the Asheville Plant, Buncombe County, North
Carolina
Table 11 Jurisdictional streams within the Asheville Plant, Buncombe County, North
Carolina
Table 12 Potential for occurrence of federally listed animal and plant species within
construction areas, Asheville Plant, Buncombe County, North Carolina
Table 13 Identified cultural resource sites within a half -mile radius of the Asheville Plant,
Buncombe County, North Carolina
Table 14 Summary of demographic data for Buncombe County and North Carolina
Table 15 USEPA standard noise levels for various community types

Wetland Master Plan
Asheville Combined Cycle Project Laydown Area
Arden, North Carolina
Project No. 7810160781
April 7, 2017
LIST OF FIGURES
Figure 1
Site Location Map
Figure 2
Site Aerial Map
Figure 3
Site Aerial Map - Proposed Construction Areas
Figure 4
Alternatives Analysis: Initial Screening Sites
Figure 5
Alternatives Analysis: Fine -Level Screening Sites
Figure 6
Alternatives Analysis: Cultural Resources Map
Figure 7
Alternatives Analysis: NRCS Soils Map
Figure 8
Alternatives Analysis: USGS Topographic Map
Figure 9
Alternatives Analysis: USFWS National Wetlands Inventory Map
Figure 10
Alternatives Analysis: Floodplain Map
Figure 11
USGS Topographic Map
Figure 12
NRCS Soils Map
Figure 13
USFWS National Wetlands Inventory Map
Figure 14
Jurisdictional Waters Map
Figure 15
Floodplain Map
Figure 16
Cultural Resources Map
IN

Wetland Master Plan
Asheville Combined Cycle Project Laydown Area
Arden, North Carolina
Project No. 7810160781
April 7, 2017
LIST OF APPENDICES
Appendix A USFWS and NCNHP Database Search Queries
Appendix B NCWAM and NCSAM Data Forms
Appendix C CBI ROM Estimate
Appendix D Permit Drawings - Plan View and Cross -Section Drawings
Appendix E NCWRC Electronic Mail Correspondence
In

Wetland Master Plan
Asheville Combined Cycle Project Laydown Area
Arden, North Carolina
Project No. 7810160781
April 7, 2017
LIST OF ABBREVIATIONS AND ACRONYMS
Amec Foster Wheeler Amec Foster Wheeler Environment & Infrastructure, Inc.
AMSL
above mean sea level
BFE
Base Flood Elevation
BGEPA
Bald and Golden Eagle Protection Act
BMPs
best management practices
CB&I
CB&I Engineering and Construction operating group
CC
combined cycle
CCR
coal combustion residual
CEQ
Council on Environmental Quality
CO
carbon monoxide
CT
combustion turbines
CWA
Clean Water Act
dB
decibels
dBAs
A -weighted decibels
DEP
Duke Energy Progress
DWR
Division of Water Resources
ECOS
Environmental Conservation Online System
EO
Executive Order
E&SC
Erosion and Sedimentation Control
ESA
Endangered Species Act
FEMA
Federal Emergency Management Agency
FIRM
Flood Insurance Rate Map
FOM
fixed operating costs
GIS
geographic information system
gpm
gallons per minute
GPS
global positioning system
HUC
Hydrologic Unit Code
1-26
Interstate 26
1-40
Interstate 40
IP
Individual Permit
IPaC
Information for Planning and Conservation
IRP
Integrated Resource Plan
JD
Jurisdictional Determination
Ldn
Day/Night Levels
MBTA
Migratory Bird Treaty Act
Mph
miles per hour
MW
megawatt
NAAQS
National Ambient Air Quality Standards
NCAC
North Carolina Administrative Code
u

Wetland Master Plan
Asheville Combined Cycle Project Laydown Area
Arden, North Carolina
Project No. 7810160781
April 7, 2017
NCDENR
North Carolina Department of Environment and Natural Resources
NCDEQ
North Carolina Department of Environmental Quality
NCDMS
North Carolina Division of Mitigation Services
NCDOT
North Carolina Department of Transportation
NCGS
North Carolina Geologic Survey
NCNHP
North Carolina Natural Heritage Program
NC SAM
North Carolina Stream Assessment Method
NCSHPO
North Carolina State Historic Preservation Office
NCUC
North Carolina Utilities Commission
NC WAM
North Carolina Wetland Assessment Method
NCWRC
North Carolina Wildlife Resources Commission
NEPA
National Environmental Policy Act
NERC
North American Electric Reliability Corporation
NFIP
National Flood Insurance Program
NHPA
National Historic Preservation Act
NLEB
northern long-eared bat
NO2
nitrogen dioxide
NPDES
National Pollutant Discharge Elimination System
NRCS
Natural Resources Conservation Service
NRHP
National Register of Historic Places
NWI
National Wetlands Inventory
Os
ozone
%
percent
Pb
Lead
PM2.5
fine particulate matter
PM10
particulate matter
RCP
reinforced concrete pipe
ROM
rough order of magnitude
ROW
right of way
SO2
sulfur dioxide
SOP
USACE Standard Operating Procedures for the Regulatory Program
SPPP
Stormwater Pollution Prevention Plan
TWT
Taylor Wiseman Taylor
LIDO
Unified Development Ordinance
USACE
U.S. Army Corps of Engineers
USCB
U.S. Census Bureau
USDA
U.S. Department of Agriculture
USEPA
U.S. Environmental Protection Agency
USFWS
U.S. Fish and Wildlife Service
USGS
U.S. Geological Survey
WCMP
Western Carolinas Modernization Project
WMP
Wetland Master Plan
au

Wetland Master Plan April 7, 2017
Asheville Combined Cycle Project Laydown Area
Arden, North Carolina
Project No. 7810160781
-A*911110 lam+ -111J 1TiF_,1
The Western Carolinas Modernization Project (WCMP) announced in the spring of 2015 that
Duke Energy Progress's (DEP) combined Asheville Plant 1 and 2 coal units are to be retired no
later than January 31, 2020. Under WCMP, the 560 megawatt (MW) Asheville Combined Cycle
(CC) project will include construction of two new 280 MW CC natural gas -fueled electric
generating units with fuel -oil backup and related transmission facilities at the site of the current
Asheville Plant. Subsequently, DEP filed an application for Certificate of Public Convenience
and Necessity for the 560 MW Asheville CC Project with the North Carolina Utilities Commission
(NCUC) in January 2016 for which a certificate was approved in February 2016.
The WCMP components are needed to satisfy the growing demand for energy and to continue
to meet the applicable North American Electric Reliability Corporation reliability standards.
DEP's 2015 Integrated Resource Plan (IRP) Update Report demonstrated the need for new
generation in the DEP-Western Region. The 2015 IRP forecast showed the DEP-Western
Region peak demand is expected to grow at an annual rate of 1.6 percent (%) with a total
growth of approximately 17% over the next decade. Based on the 2015 IRP, and the
subsequent decision to cancel the proposed Foothills Transmission Line project in response to
extensive community concerns, the Asheville CC Project was selected as the best alternative to
meet the requirement of the WCMP. The benefits from the Asheville CC Project include, but are
not limited to:
• Significant fuel cost reductions through the new CC Plant coupled with the elimination of
the uneconomic utilization of the coal units
• Avoidance of significant capital expenditures for further environmental controls on the
coal units
• Avoidance of costs associated with three fuel oil combustion turbine units that would be
required in the absence of the WCMP
• Engagement in a unique opportunity to partner with the local gas distribution company to
bring cost-effective natural gas supply to the Western Carolinas
• Enhanced reliability following multiple polar vortex events
ES -1

Wetland Master Plan
Asheville Combined Cycle Project Laydown Area
Arden, North Carolina
Project No. 7810160781
April 7, 2017
The discharge of dredged or fill material into waters of the U.S. and most categories of work in
navigable water bodies requires U.S. Army Corps of Engineers (USACE) authorization under
Section 404 of the Clean Water Act (CWA). This Wetland Master Plan (WMP) provides the
Wilmington District of the USACE with a basis to evaluate and issue an Individual Permit (IP)
and associated certifications for the Asheville CC Project (proposed action).
The purpose of the WCMP is to meet current and growing energy needs in the region, and a
component of that is to construct and operate a CC facility at the Asheville Plant. The project
components include construction of two new 280 MW CC natural gas -fueled electric generating
units with fuel -oil backup and related transmission facilities at the site of the current Asheville
Plant, along with five construction laydown areas and an on-site construction parking area
necessary during construction. This WMP covers the "affected environment' for the project
footprint for the aforementioned project components, as well as alternatives analysis.
The impetus for the alternatives analysis for the Asheville CC Project is the need for an
additional laydown area and the compliance requirements for the National Environmental Policy
Act and Clean Water Act Section 404(b)(1) Guidelines. As mentioned previously, the proposed
Asheville CC Project has a need for five laydown areas, with four established on-site. The
additional laydown area is needed to support CC construction activities and would provide
space for the temporary storage of equipment and building materials and associated office
trailers and/or sheds.
The alternatives analysis of this WMP comprises the initial screening process for six sites
proposed for consideration for the construction laydown area. From the conclusions of the initial
screening process, a subsequent subset of three potentially suitable sites were advanced in the
alternatives analysis investigation: Sites A, B and C.
These three alternatives, along with the No Action alternative, were examined with respect to
project practicability limits and the need to avoid and/or minimize impacts to waters of the U.S.,
in addition to key site development characteristics that would affect the ability and/or opportunity
to construct and operate each of the three alternative laydown sites. Specifically, the location of
ES -2

Wetland Master Plan
Asheville Combined Cycle Project Laydown Area
Arden, North Carolina
Project No. 7810160781
April 7, 2017
the additional laydown site must be reasonably unencumbered when examined under this suite
of key site development characteristics.
The selection of the preferred alternative among the three action alternatives was based on the
review of resources and attributes associated with the potential development of each site along
with site restraints discussed in the WMP. Cultural resources and protected species would not
be a limiting factor to each of the three alternative sites and would not place one site over
another with respect to the magnitude of the potential affect. With regard to water resources,
potential impacts to wetlands and streams would be greatest on Site A. No wetlands or streams
occur on Site B, however, potential floodplain impacts would occur with the construction of Site
B, but not with Site A or C. A culverted stream occurs on Site C. The most restrictive or limiting
factor for the construction of the laydown area is related to the assemblage of potential
constraints to development as discussed in the WMP. The expression of all of these site factors
is clearly and significantly problematic with respect to the construction and operation of a
laydown area at Site B or Site C. In contrast to Site A, Sites B and C have additional
requirements for off-site security and transportation and have accessibility restraints due to
powerlines, public road conditions and the 1-40 bridge height over Glenn Bridge Road. In
addition, Site C access would not be ultimately subject to DEP's control. In comparison with
Sites B and C, Site A is unencumbered, or minimally limited, under these same factors. With
these considerations, Site A is the preferred alternative for the construction and operation of the
additional laydown area (Laydown Area 3).
The Asheville CC Project footprint (including the preferred alternative Laydown Area 3) will
impact jurisdictional wetlands and streams within the affected environment. However, there will
be minimal adverse effect to land use, geology and topography, soils, terrestrial communities,
floodplains, surface waters, groundwater, stormwater, environmental justice, culture resources,
noise and air quality within the project footprint.
Compensatory mitigation for the proposed impacts to the waters of the U.S. is required under
the Section 404 IP, including a permanent wetland impact of 0.38 acre and permanent stream
impacts of 972.5 linear feet. Appropriate avoidance and practicable minimization efforts have
been conducted through the analysis of alternative laydown areas. The ability to avoid and
ES -3

Wetland Master Plan
Asheville Combined Cycle Project Laydown Area
Arden, North Carolina
Project No. 7810160781
April 7, 2017
minimize impacts to jurisdictional waters within Laydown Area 3 is limited by steep topography
and geologic conditions.
Off-site construction parking was also considered for the project. Locations for off-site parking
were found to be limited and would not provide sufficient capacity or duration to accommodate
the parking needs for the entirety of the project. Off-site parking has four principal
disadvantages over parking on-site: (1) safety concerns would be elevated, (2) project schedule
would be impacted as to meeting the regulatory deadline, (3) worker productivity would be
diminished, and (4) capital expenditure would be magnified (see Section 6.2.2 of WMP). With
these considerations, unavoidable impacts to on-site waters of the U.S. are necessary to
complete the proposed action.
The compensatory mitigation options evaluated for the project included (1) credit purchase from
an approved private mitigation bank, (2) credit purchase through the North Carolina Division of
Mitigation Services (NCDMS) In -Lieu Fee Program, (3) in-kind restoration and enhancement of
onsite wetlands and/or stream restoration (permittee -responsible mitigation), and/or (4) in-kind
restoration and enhancement of off-site wetlands and/or stream restoration. Based on the
review of the mitigation options available, it was determined that credit purchase through private
mitigation bank(s) and/or the NCDMS In -Lieu Fee Program were the most viable options to
obtain compensatory mitigation for impacts to waters of the U.S. from the Asheville CC Project.
As an alternative and pending final approval by the USACE, stream and wetland credits may be
obtained in entirety from the NCDMS In -Lieu Fee Program. The Asheville Plant occurs within
the Upper French Broad Watershed, Hydrologic Unit Code (HUC) 06010105. This HUC is
subject to higher fees within the French Broad River Basin. The exact amount of wetland and
stream credits to be purchased, along with the associated cost, will be determined by the
USACE during the review of the IP application.
No federally listed, threatened or endangered, animal or plant species were observed or
documented by Amec Foster Wheeler Environment & Infrastructure, Inc. (Amec Foster
Wheeler) during field assessments at the Asheville Plant in 2015 and 2016. The quality of the
existing habitat within the Asheville CC Project area is less than suitable, or not present, for the
12 listed species with a potential for occurrence in Buncombe County. Based on database
ES -4

Wetland Master Plan
Asheville Combined Cycle Project Laydown Area
Arden, North Carolina
Project No. 7810160781
April 7, 2017
review and the site assessments, the occurrence of protected species is low for the northern
long-eared bat (Myotis septentrionalis) (NLEB), gray bat (Myotis grisescens), bald eagle
(Haliaeetus leucocephalus), and unlikely for the remaining species. Based on the level of
review requested by the U.S. Fish and Wildlife Service for two houses within Laydown Area 3
(Site A) during a February 23, 2017, IP pre -application meeting, and given the results of the
reviews, no further action is required regarding the use of the structures by bats or potential for
bats in the area.
ES -5

Wetland Master Plan April 7, 2017
Asheville Combined Cycle Project Laydown Area
Arden, North Carolina
Project No. 7810160781
1.0 INTRODUCTION
1.1 BACKGROUND
As part of the Western Carolinas Modernization Project (WCMP) announced in the spring of
2015, the combined Asheville Plant 1 and 2 coal units are to be retired no later than January 31,
2020. The WCMP is required to allow Duke Energy Progress (DEP) to reliably serve the energy
needs of the Western Carolinas and is an economically viable alternative to continuing to run
the Asheville coal units and constructing fast start combustion turbines (CT) in the region. A CT
is a type of gas turbine most frequently used in the power generation, aviation (jet engine), and
oil and gas industry (electricity generation and mechanical drives). The simple cycle CT differs
from a combined cycle (CC) operation in that it has only one power cycle (i.e., no provision for
waste heat recovery). The WCMP at the Asheville Plant will consist of two new 280 megawatt
(MW) (expected winter rating) CC natural gas -fueled electric generating units, with fuel oil
backup, and related transmission facilities. The Asheville Plant is located in Arden, Buncombe
County, North Carolina (Figures 1 and 2).
The discharge of dredged or fill material into waters of the U.S. and most categories of work in
navigable water bodies requires U.S. Army Corps of Engineers (USACE) authorization under
Section 404 of the Clean Water Act (CWA). This Wetland Master Plan (WMP) is to provide the
USACE Wilmington District with a basis to evaluate and issue an Individual Permit (IP) and
associated certifications for the proposed project (proposed action). The project is identified as
the Asheville CC Project Laydown Area. The impetus for the alternatives analysis is the need
for additional construction laydown area for the project.
1.2 PURPOSE AND OBJECTIVE
The purpose of this WMP is to serve as a source of supplemental information for the Section
404 IP application. This document provides documentation of the current ecological and
physical condition of jurisdictional waters and other resources that occur within the project site.
Further, this document describes the approach to wetland mitigation outlined in the CWA
Section 404 (b)(1) guidelines and followed by the State of North Carolina, to include avoidance,
minimization, and compensation. The specific objective of this investigation and the WMP

Wetland Master Plan
Asheville Combined Cycle Project Laydown Area
Arden, North Carolina
Project No. 7810160781
April 7, 2017
document is to provide the USACE Wilmington District, the North Carolina Department of
Environmental Quality (NCDEQ), and other commenting and reviewing agencies a basis to
evaluate and issue a Section 404 IP, and associated certifications, for the proposed action.
2

Wetland Master Plan
Asheville Combined Cycle Project Laydown Area
Arden, North Carolina
Project No. 7810160781
2.0 PROJECT PURPOSE AND NEED
2.1 PROJECT PURPOSE
Western Carolinas Modernization Project
April 7, 2017
The purpose of the WCMP is to meet current and growing energy needs in the region. One
component of the WCMP is to construct and operate a CC facility at the Asheville Plant. The
WCMP also includes the retirement of the combined Asheville Plant 1 and 2 coal units no later
than January 31, 2020. The retirement date for the coal units represents an acceleration of
approximately 10 years from previous planning assumptions (the previously planned coal units'
retirement was 2031). The retirement of the units, and the corresponding investments in the
required infrastructure to replace those units, are being accelerated due to a culmination of
several factors. These factors include the continued declines in natural gas prices, the unique
opportunity to take advantage of an economic gas delivery project by the local gas distribution
company, and the opportunity to avoid significant investments for additional environmental
controls at the coal units, which would be required by 2020.
Additional Laydown Area
A laydown area is a space of ground or pavement located near or at the construction site that is
for the receipt, storage or partial assembly of project equipment and materials to be installed or
constructed. The laydown area is constructed in a manner that will ensure accessibility and
safe maneuverability for transport, and for loading and unloading. For the Asheville CC Project,
an additional laydown area would be established to support construction operations, including
office trailer(s), shed(s) and space for storage of construction materials and equipment.
2.2 PROJECT NEED
Annually, DEP files an Integrated Resource Plan (IRP) Update Report with the North Carolina
Utilities Commission (NCUC). The IRP filed on September 1, 2015, demonstrated the need for
new generation in the DEP-Western Region. The IRP incorporates a 15 -year load forecast,
purchase power contracts, existing generation, energy efficiency and demand-side
management, new resource additions, and a minimum reserve margin. The 2015 IRP forecast
3

Wetland Master Plan
Asheville Combined Cycle Project Laydown Area
Arden, North Carolina
Project No. 7810160781
April 7, 2017
showed the DEP-Western Region peak demand is expected to grow at an annual rate of 1.6
percent (%), with a total growth of approximately 17% over the next decade.
Based on the 2015 IRP, and the subsequent decision to cancel the proposed Foothills
Transmission Line project in response to extensive community concerns, an application for
NCUC Certificate of Public Convenience and Necessity for the WCMP was filed with the NCUC
in January 2016. This application included the nominal 560 MW Asheville CC Project, for which
a certificate was approved in February 2016.
The Asheville location offered numerous advantages, both cost and environmental, for the
needed generation addition. These include (a) the location within the DEP Western Region
supports the IRP need forecast and enhances system reliability in the region; (b) the early
retirement of coal fired units which provides environmental benefit; (c) the cost savings for
customers due to existing infrastructure (e.g. water supply, water intake and discharge
structures, transmission capability, etc.); and (d) a unique opportunity to participate in an
intrastate gas pipeline project at incremental project cost rather than full project cost at the
previously planned coal unit retirement of 2031.
In addition to the rationale discussed above, the Asheville Plant is a logical choice for the siting
(location) of the two new electric generating units versus other power generating facilities in the
DEP-Western Region. The reasons include (a) the location of the Asheville Plant within the
center of the Western Region optimizes the overall distribution of power (supply) in the region;
(b) the reliability of the Asheville Plant with respect to past and current power generation supply
in the region (a known positive attribute of this facility); and (c) the existing infrastructure at the
Asheville Plant that will improve the opportunity for success in the construction and operation of
the new electric generating units.
WCMP Supporting Information
The WCMP components are needed to satisfy the growing demand for energy and to continue
to meet the applicable North American Electric Reliability Corporation (NERC) reliability
standards. While being a more favorable reliability option for the region, WCMP also produces
lower customer costs through fuel savings by transitioning from coal to natural gas.
4

Wetland Master Plan April 7, 2017
Asheville Combined Cycle Project Laydown Area
Arden, North Carolina
Project No. 7810160781
The benefits from the WCMP include, but are not limited to:
• Significant fuel cost reductions through the construction of new transmission
infrastructure and CC plant coupled the elimination of the uneconomic utilization of the
coal units
• Avoidance of significant capital expenditures for further environmental controls on the
coal units
• Avoidance of costs associated with three fuel oil CT units that would be required in the
absence of the WCMP
• Engagement in a unique opportunity to partner with the local gas distribution company
to bring cost-effective natural gas supply to the Western Carolinas
• Enhanced reliability following multiple polar vortex events
The WCMP is required to allow DEP to reliably serve the energy needs of the Western
Carolinas and is an economically viable alternative to continuing to run the Asheville Coal Units
and constructing fast start CTs in the region. The winter peak demand in the DEP-Western
Region outpaces that of the rest of the DEP system, and as previously stated herein, DEP-
Western Region peak demand is expected to grow at annual rate of 1.6% with a total growth of
about 17% over the next decade. In the absence of new transmission infrastructure into the
region, the preferred configuration that reliably meets the region's needs while also contributing
to DEP's overall system need is two new 280 MW (expected winter rating) CC natural gas -
fueled electric generating units, with fuel oil backup, and related transmission facilities. This
configuration would be in addition to the two existing simple cycle turbines currently located at
the Asheville Plant.
The economic justification for WCMP was developed by comparing the utility's Present Value
Revenue Requirements for the WCMP project (Change Case) to the original IRP (Base Case)
that assumed the continued operation of the coal units at the Asheville Plant site and the
construction of additional fast start CTs at the site. The 2015 IRP DEP-Western Region
Resource Plan (Base Case), which includes retirement of the Asheville Coal Plant in 2031 and
construction of fast start CTs in DEP-Western Region in winter of 2018/2019, is considered the
most likely alternative in the event DEP was unable to pursue the WCMP.
5

Wetland Master Plan April 7, 2017
Asheville Combined Cycle Project Laydown Area
Arden, North Carolina
Project No. 7810160781
The main economic benefits of the WCMP are:
• Reduced fuel and carbon dioxide (CO2) costs with the transition from coal to natural gas
• Avoidance of on-going capital and fixed operating costs (FOM) at the Asheville Plant
coal units with their retirement
• Avoidance of capital and FOM costs associated with future ash management systems
required for the Asheville Plant coal units
• Avoidance of capital and FOM costs associated with the fast start CTs that are no longer
required with the WCMP
The most significant cost of WCMP is the accelerated cost of the two new CC units. In the
absence of new transmission infrastructure into the DEP-Western Region, smaller CC units are
needed to comply with the NERC reliability standards. Additionally, because it is critical to keep
these units in operation during peak conditions, the design basis for the CC units include bypass
stacks to allow continued generation of power during steam turbine outages and cold weather
hardening features to allow the units to reliably operate down to a temperature of -16 degrees
Fahrenheit.
Another cost associated with WCMP is the accelerated cost of the new pipeline project. As a
result of the unique opportunity to jointly participate in the PSNC Energy pipeline project at
incremental project cost instead of a future project at full project cost, the accelerated costs of
the pipeline project are greatly reduced.
Additional Laydown Area
The proposed Asheville CC Project associated with the WCMP described above has a need for
five laydown areas, however, there are currently four laydown areas on-site. The additional
laydown area is needed to support CC construction activities, and would provide space for the
temporary storage of equipment and building materials and associated office trailers and/or
sheds.
1.1

Wetland Master Plan April 7, 2017
Asheville Combined Cycle Project Laydown Area
Arden, North Carolina
Project No. 7810160781
3.0 PROPOSED PROJECT DEVELOPMENT
3.1 PROJECT OVERVIEW
Descriptions of the construction elements comprising the Asheville CC Project Laydown Area
are presented below.
The WCMP will consist of the 560 MW Asheville CC project including construction of two new
280 MW CC natural gas -fueled electric generating units, with fuel -oil backup and related
transmission facilities, at the site of the current Asheville Plant. During the construction phase
for the CC units, five construction laydown areas and an on-site construction parking area will
be necessary (Figure 3).
New Asheville CC Plant:
The new Asheville CC Plant will include construction of two new 280 MW CC natural gas -fueled
electric generating units on the property of the current Asheville Plant. The new plant footprint
area is approximately 23.8 acres and is located in the eastern portion of the closed 82 Ash
Basin and cleared areas south of the current plant, just west of the southernmost portion of
Lake Julian. This area contained coal combustion residual (CCR) materials until they were
removed in 2016.
Laydown Area 1:
Laydown Area 1 would be established in the south central area of the CC plant site on a closed
ash pond with an approximate footprint of 1.2 acres. This laydown area will include a new
warehouse and will be adjacent to the new construction parking area and new access road.
This area contained CCR materials until they were removed in 2016.
Laydown Area 2:
Laydown Area 2 consists of approximately 2.6 acres and would be established in the southern
portion of the plant site directly south of Laydown Area 1. This area consists of former partially
developed properties acquired by DEP. This area was primarily categorized as residential land
use but is largely a mix of undeveloped shrub and brushland (cleared areas). This area is
7

Wetland Master Plan
Asheville Combined Cycle Project Laydown Area
Arden, North Carolina
Project No. 7810160781
April 7, 2017
bordered by Interstate 26 (1-26) to the west, a residential area to the east, and woodland to the
north and south.
Laydown Area 3:
Laydown Area 3 consists of approximately 12.2 acres and would be established south of the
plant site and south of Laydown Area 2. However, due to steep topography and geology only
5.9 acres of usable laydown space can be obtained through impacts to wetlands and streams
within the proposed laydown area. This area consists of partially developed properties acquired
by DEP. The area is largely a mix of undeveloped forested and cleared areas and includes
three houses and a farm pond. The area is bordered by 1-26 to the west and residential areas
to the east and south along Aberdeen Drive and New Rockwood Road, respectively. The area
contains a jurisdictional wetland and three stream features, as well as an open water area (farm
pond).
Laydown Area 4:
Laydown Area 4 consists of approximately 1.6 acres and would be established in the east-
southeast portion of the plant property, due east of Laydown Area 1. This area consists of a
former ash pond and cleared and wooded areas just east of the ash pond boundary. The area
is surrounded by undeveloped forested areas along the plant boundaries to the northeast and
east, and forested areas mixed with residential development to the south.
Laydown Area 5:
Laydown Area 5 consists of approximately 11.2 acres and would be established in the
northwestern portion of the plant property located north of the 64 Ash Basin and, west of CP
and L Drive and Lake Julian. This area consists of an undeveloped forested tract surrounded
by the greater Asheville Plant site and by additional undeveloped forested tracts, with the
exception of plant operations (access roads, maintained areas, and rail lines) to the south.
On-site Construction Parking Area:
On-site construction (craft) parking consists of approximately 3.2 acres and would be
established in the south central area of the plant property within the 82 Ash Basin and adjacent
to Laydown Area 1 on the east side. The construction parking area will accommodate
W

Wetland Master Plan
Asheville Combined Cycle Project Laydown Area
Arden, North Carolina
Project No. 7810160781
April 7, 2017
approximately 461 parking spaces and coordinate with the new access road. This area
contained CCR materials until they were removed in 2016.
9

Wetland Master Plan April 7, 2017
Asheville Combined Cycle Project Laydown Area
Arden, North Carolina
Project No. 7810160781
4.0 ALTERNATIVES ANALYSIS
4.1 BACKGROUND INFORMATION
As mentioned in Section 2.2 of the WMP, there is a need for five laydown areas for the Ashville
CC Project. The impetus for the alternatives analysis (Section 4) is the need for an additional
construction laydown area, as there are currently only four laydown areas on-site. Following the
selection of a preferred alternative in this section, Sections 5 through 13 of this WMP address
the potential impacts associated with the proposed Asheville CC Project including the selected
(preferred) alternative.
The alternatives analysis herein comprises the initial screening process and the range of six
sites proposed for consideration for the construction laydown site. From the conclusions of the
initial screening process, the subsequent subset of three potentially suitable sites are advanced
in the alternatives analysis investigation. A discussion of the suite of screening resources
(environmental considerations) that are examined in the alternatives analysis investigation of
the subset of sites (reasonable alternatives) is presented and includes the results of the analysis
of each resource for each reasonable alternative. The No Build Alternative (No Action
Alternative) is also presented, and a discussion of site development considerations is presented
for the action alternatives.
A two-step screening process, coarse -level (initial) site screening and fine -level (secondary) site
screening, was used to evaluate proposed laydown site alternatives using various selected
criteria. The purpose of the two-step screening process was to eliminate facility alternatives
burdened by major challenges. The coarse -level site screening was applied to the initial range
of facility alternatives, whereby unreasonable alternatives were eliminated from further
consideration. Fine -level screening was applied to the remaining alternatives; i.e., a
comparative analysis was conducted among the remaining alternatives to facilitate the
anticipated review under the National Environmental Policy Act (NEPA) process.
10

Wetland Master Plan April 7, 2017
Asheville Combined Cycle Project Laydown Area
Arden, North Carolina
Project No. 7810160781
4.2 REGULATORY AUTHORITY
With regard to the rationale for this investigation, in the evaluation of CWA Section 404 permit
applications to discharge dredged or fill material into waters of the U.S., including wetlands, the
USACE is required to analyze alternatives that could achieve the project purpose and need.
The USACE conducts this analysis pursuant to two main requirements:
1) National Environmental Policy Act of 1969
NEPA requires federal agencies to consider environmental impacts of the proposed actions and
a range of reasonable alternatives to those actions. Reasonable alternatives do not require
consideration of every conceivable variation of an alternative (40 CFR §1502.14) and must be
capable of achieving the basic project goal. The Council on Environmental Quality (CEQ)
describes "reasonable" alternatives as those that are practical or feasible from the technical or
economic standpoint and use common sense rather than simply desirable from the standpoint
of the applicant (CEQ 1981). For alternatives eliminated from further study, a project's
environmental documentation must "briefly discuss the reasons for their having been eliminated"
(CEQ 1981).
2) CWA Section 404(b)(1) Guidelines
CWA Section 404(b)(1) Guidelines state "no discharge of dredged or fill material shall be
permitted if there is a practicable alternative to the proposed discharge which would have less
adverse impact on the aquatic ecosystem, so long as the alternative does not have other
significant adverse environmental consequences" (40 C.F.R. § 230.10a). "Practicable" means
available and capable of being done after taking into consideration cost, existing technology,
and logistics in light of the overall project purpose.
The foremost objective of the CWA is to restore and maintain the chemical, biological and
physical integrity of the nation's waters through the elimination of discharges of pollutants (33
USC § 466 et seq.). Pollutants include dredged and fill materials [40 Code of Federal
Regulations (CFR) 230.3(o)], while the nation's waters, or waters of the U.S., include wetlands
[40 CFR 230.3(s) (7)]. The U.S. Environmental Protection Agency (USEPA) 404(b)(1)
Guidelines (40 CFR 230) provide the criteria that are used in reviewing USACE permit
applications, with respect to the authorization of discharge of dredged or fill material into waters
11

Wetland Master Plan
Asheville Combined Cycle Project Laydown Area
Arden, North Carolina
Project No. 7810160781
April 7, 2017
of the U.S. Under the USEPA Guidelines, the principal screening action to assess the necessity
of permitting a discharge of dredged or fill material into waters of the U.S. is the analysis of
practicable alternatives [40 CFR 230.10(a)].
According to 40 CFR Section 230.10(a), a discharge of dredged or fill material will be permitted
by the USACE if no practical alternatives to the proposed discharge will have less adverse
impact on the aquatic ecosystem and there are no other significant adverse environmental
consequences. Under 40 CFR Section 230.10(a)(2), a practicable alternative is an alternative
site that is available and capable of being developed after considering costs, existing technology
and logistics in light of overall project purposes. The permit applicant is only required to
evaluate alternatives that are considered practicable based on costs, technical factors or
logistical factors that are capable of achieving the overall purpose of the proposed activity.
According to the Army Corps of Engineers Standard Operating Procedures for the Regulatory
Program (SOP), dated October 15, 1999, the amount of information needed and the level of
scrutiny required by the USEPA 404(b)(1) Guidelines is commensurate with the severity of the
environmental impact and the scope/cost of the project. The SOP provides that the compliance
evaluation procedures under the USEPA 404(b)(1) Guidelines vary to reflect the degree of
potential for adverse impacts on the aquatic ecosystems. The alternatives that were considered
for the proposed action were evaluated pursuant to the SOP.
4.3 INITIAL SITE SCREENING
4.3.1 Alternative Sites
The initial, or coarse -level, site screening process to select potentially reasonable alternatives
that would be advanced into the alternatives analysis investigation comprised a total of six sites,
located either in the City of Asheville and/or Buncombe County, North Carolina. The original six
sites considered are listed below and followed by site descriptions (Figure 4):
1. Farm Pond (Site A — preferred alternative "Laydown Area 3")
2. Agricultural Field (Site B)
3. Airport (Site C)
12

Wetland Master Plan
Asheville Combined Cycle Project Laydown Area
Arden, North Carolina
Project No. 7810160781
4. Jumbo Storage at 36 Glenn Bridge Road (Site D)
5. Warehouse at 375 Rockwood Road (Site E)
6. Warehouse at 155 Bradley Branch Road (Site F)
Site A: Farm Pond (preferred alternative - Laydown Area 3)
April 7, 2017
Site A is approximately 12.2 acres and is close to the southernmost portion of the Asheville
Plant boundary, east and adjacent to 1-26 and the French Broad River (Figure 4). Site A is a
sloped, wooded area comprised of a farm pond, streams and an associated wetland. Site A is
bordered on the northeast, east and southeast by residential wooded areas and public roads.
Site A is the preferred alternative for Laydown Area 3. This site is owned by DEP.
Site B: Agricultural Field
Site B is approximately 29.3 acres and is located southwest of the Asheville plant, west of 1-26
and adjacent to the French Broad River on its southern boundary (Figure 4). It is a primarily flat,
maintained agricultural field bordered on the west, north and east by agricultural and wooded
areas with limited residential homes. This property is not owned by DEP.
Site C: Airport
Site C is approximately 23.2 acres and is located within the northeast portion of the Asheville
Regional Airport, to the south of the Asheville Plant (Figure 4). It is a primarily flat, clear field
maintained by the airport. The site is bordered on the east by 1-26, on the north by shrub and
brushland, and on the south and west by the airport facilities and runway. This property is not
owned by DEP.
Site D: Jumbo Storage
Site D is approximately 8.2 acres and is located at 36 Glenn Bridge Road east-southeast of the
Asheville Plant (Figure 4). This site is a primarily flat lot developed with a commercial/industrial
storage facility on-site, which is surrounded by commercial/industrial areas, high-density
residential (manufactured homes), and cleared fields and partially wooded areas. This property
is not owned by DEP.
Site E: Rockwood Road
13

Wetland Master Plan
Asheville Combined Cycle Project Laydown Area
Arden, North Carolina
Project No. 7810160781
April 7, 2017
Site E is approximately 3.3 acres and is located at 375 Rockwood Road south of the Asheville
Plant (Figure 4). This site is a primarily flat, partially cleared and wooded area with a
warehouse facility on-site, which is surrounded primarily by wooded areas and some residential
housing and commercial/industrial businesses. This property is not owned by DEP.
Site F: Bradley Branch Road
Site F is approximately 4.3 acres and is located at 155 Bradley Branch Road southeast of the
Asheville Plant (Figure 4). This site is a primarily flat, maintained lot with a warehouse facility
on-site, which is surrounded by wooded areas and residential and commercial areas. This
property is not owned by DEP.
4.3.2 Initial Site Screening Results
Among the original group of six potentially reasonable alternative sites, three locations were
determined to be potentially suitable sites for the construction and operation of the additional
laydown area. The three sites are Sites A, B and C: the Farm Pond, the Agricultural Field and
the Airport site, respectively. These three sites were subsequently advanced to secondary
screening (i.e., fine level screening) as potentially suitable sites, or action alternatives, for the
additional laydown area. The three sites that did not advance through the initial site screening
process were Sites D, E and F: the Jumbo Storage, Rockwood Road warehouse, and Bradley
Branch Road warehouse sites, respectively. Discussion of these sites and the rationale for
rejection follows below.
Site D: Jumbo Storage
The site was rejected because the landowner chose to build more storage units in the open
area to the north of the existing storage building. As a result, there would not be enough land
area within the property to accommodate the proposed additional laydown area.
Site E: Rockwood Road
This site was rejected because there was not enough land area within the property to
accommodate the proposed additional laydown area. The additional laydown site must be at
least six acres in size to support and accommodate the construction and operation of the
laydown facility. This warehouse property is only 3.31 acres in size.
14

Wetland Master Plan April 7, 2017
Asheville Combined Cycle Project Laydown Area
Arden, North Carolina
Project No. 7810160781
Site F: Bradley Branch Road
This site was rejected because there was not enough land area within the property to
accommodate the proposed additional laydown area. The additional laydown site must be at
least six acres in size to support and accommodate the construction and operation of the
laydown facility. This warehouse property is only 4.34 acres in size.
4.4 ANALYSIS OF REMAINING SITE ALTERNATIVES
4.4.1 Screening Overview
Fine -level, or secondary, site screening was conducted for the three remaining site alternatives
(action alternatives) from the initial site screening (Figure 5). The fine -level screening
essentially comprised a comparative analysis of the three site alternatives to facilitate the
anticipated review under the NEPA process. The No Build Alternative (No Action Alternative) is
also presented herein. During fine -level screening, the site alternatives were evaluated on their
potential to impact natural/environmental resources and cultural resources. Constraints to
development for each site were also considered in the screening process. The screening
criteria were selected from resources or attributes that were readily quantifiable or easy to
assess. These resources would typically require permits or approvals under the proposed
development action. Although not every resource that could be examined was considered for
the fine -level screening of alternatives, the resources that were selected for this analysis were
presumed to be potential key constraints to project development. The selected resources
included cultural and historic resources, threatened and endangered species, and water
resources. Water resources included wetlands, streams, riparian buffers, open water,
floodplains and stormwater. Compensatory mitigation of potentially impacted jurisdictional
waters was also examined.
The fine -level screening also included the examination of a suite of key site development
characteristics that would affect the ability and/or opportunity to construct and operate each of
the three alternative laydown sites. Specifically, the location of the additional laydown site must
be reasonably unencumbered when examined under this suite of key site development
characteristics. The site development characteristics are as follows:
15

Wetland Master Plan
Asheville Combined Cycle Project Laydown Area
Arden, North Carolina
Project No. 7810160781
April 7, 2017
• The size (acreage) of the laydown area must be of sufficient size to not be a hindrance
to the construction and operation of the laydown area.
• Any requirement for a variance in local zoning of the land encompassed by the laydown
area would be problematic to the establishment of the laydown area (note: DEP is in the
process of rezoning Site A).
• Regulated floodways/floodplain would create a hindrance to the construction of the
laydown area without the addition of stormwater retention/detention.
• Regulated floodways/floodplain would reduce the accessibility of some portions of the
laydown area.
• Existing electrical power transmission lines would impede the ingress/egress of large
truck, trailer and/or crane traffic between the laydown area and the plant facility,
particularly as related to transportation safety concerns and costs; e.g., lead cars would
be required to accompany cranes along public roadways.
• Ingress/egress to the laydown area is unsafe or problematic as a result of the existence
of unusually steep grades, poor quality road surfaces, poor traffic Level of Service at
intersections, or high degree curves or switchbacks.
• Suitability of existing soil substrate is acceptable as related to the construction and
operation of laydown area pad; i.e., unstable soil conditions may compromise load
bearing requirements (vehicle travel, equipment transport or installation, and temporary
structures installation).
• Control over the laydown area must be unencumbered; i.e., other entities must not have
absolute control over the use or operation of the laydown area during plant facility
construction such that the efficiency of laydown operation is compromised.
• Worker (contractors or others) access to the laydown area must be unencumbered; i.e.,
limitations or restrictions to the number of workers or their duties who are allowed to
access the laydown area would compromise the efficiency of laydown operations.
• The erection of security fencing, in addition to scheduled enclosure fencing around the
laydown area, would lead to unexpected and/or unreasonable cost expenditures on the
project.
• The necessity for additional site security personnel during and/or after day to day
operations (including night watch) at the laydown area would lead to unexpected and/or
unreasonable cost expenditures on the project.
16

Wetland Master Plan
Asheville Combined Cycle Project Laydown Area
Arden, North Carolina
Project No. 7810160781
April 7, 2017
• Additional contractor travel to and from the laydown area and the plant facility would
lead to a loss in productivity.
4.4.2 Resource Considerations
The following sections include considerations for resources that could potentially be influenced or
impacted by proposed activities associated with CC Project and the use of a laydown area.
4.4.2.1 Cultural and Historic Resources
Section 404 of the CWA requires that projects authorized by the USACE do not adversely affect
historical properties which are listed or eligible for listing on the National Register of Historic
Places (NRHP). Cultural resources are protected by Section 106 of the National Historic
Preservation Act (NHPA). The Section 106 process consists of consultation with state and
federal agencies, consultation with Native American tribes by the lead federal agency, and the
identification and evaluation of cultural resources for inclusion in the NRHP. Amec Foster
Wheeler Environment & Infrastructure, Inc. (Amec Foster Wheeler) conducted a cultural
resource screening to assess the presence/absence of known cultural resources and NRHP-
listed resources within the three alternative site areas and within a half -mile radius of each of
the sites (Sites A, B and C). The research included a review of available data from the North
Carolina State Historic Preservation Office (NCSHPO) online Web Geographic Information
System (GIS) Service (NCSHPO 2017). The investigation did not include field efforts to identify
or verify cultural resources, and no formal coordination with the NCSHPO office was included in
this review.
No structures or Districts were listed on the NRHP within the alternative sites or within the half -
mile radius of the sites. According to the North Carolina Office of State Archaeology records, a
portion of the search areas located along the French Broad River has been previously surveyed
for archaeological resources, The 1978 Archaeological Reconnaissance Survey of the Hominy
Valley Interceptor Sewer Project and the South Buncombe Interceptor Sewer Project,
Buncombe and Henderson Counties, North Carolina, by Harvard G. Ayers. This 39 -mile Phase
I survey looked at a 40 -foot wide survey corridor along the floodplain of the French Broad River
17

Wetland Master Plan
Asheville Combined Cycle Project Laydown Area
Arden, North Carolina
Project No. 7810160781
April 7, 2017
and its tributaries and resulted in the identification of five significant archaeological sites.
However, none of the sites identified were within any portion of the three alternative sites.
In addition to the archaeological survey, two sites and three historic structures were identified
within the search areas of the alternative sites (Table 1) as shown on Figure 6. Sites 31 BN642,
31 BN165 and HN1955 were determined not NRHP eligible. Structure BN2495 is a historic
bridge that has been surveyed only for the NRHP. Structure BN0440, a historic house, has not
been field verified. The results of this review included archival research that verified no
recorded archaeological or architectural resources are located within the boundaries of the three
alternative sites.
Table 1. Identified cultural resource sites within a half -mile radius of Sites A, B
and C, Buncombe County, North Carolina.
Site No.
Description
NRHP Status
31 BN642
Unassigned Prehistoric Lithic Scatter
Not Eligible
31 BN1 I
Multi-component Prehistoric Campsite with Middle Archaic, Late
Not Eligible
Archaic, Mississippian diagnostic artifacts from the surface
HN1955
1964 1 -story house with a synthetic siding and replacement
Not Eligible
windows
BN2495
Bridge
Not Eligible
BN0440
House
Not Eligible
Source: NCSHPO, Office of Archives and History
4.4.2.2 Threatened and Endangered Species
Certain plant and animal species are protected by federal regulations [Federal Endangered
Species Act (ESA) of 1973 (16 USC 1531-1544, December 28, 1973, as amended 1976-1982,
1984, and 1988)], which is administered and enforced by the U.S. Fish and Wildlife Service
(USFWS), Region 4. USACE IP and Nationwide Permit General Condition 11 require that
projects authorized by the USACE do not adversely affect federally protected species. Should a
finding of adverse effect be presumed by the USACE, coordination with the USFWS is typically
required to avoid impacts or minimize impacts to the practicable extent (Section 7 Consultation).
18

Wetland Master Plan
Asheville Combined Cycle Project Laydown Area
Arden, North Carolina
Project No. 7810160781
April 7, 2017
The bald eagle (Haliaeetus leucocephalus) is federally protected under the Bald and Golden
Eagle Protection Act (BGEPA) and the Migratory Bird Treaty Act (MBTA).
Amec Foster Wheeler conducted a records search to identify documented federally protected
species (threatened or endangered) and federal Species of Concern which have elemental
occurrences within Buncombe County and/or the vicinity of the three alternative sites (Sites A, B
and C). As specifically related to the North Carolina Natural Heritage Program (NCNHP)
database search, the queries of elemental occurrences encompassed a one -mile radius of each
alternative site. Both federal and state databases were reviewed:
• NCNHP database (NCNHP 2017)
• USFWS Information for Planning and Conservation (IPaC) database (USFWS 2016a)
• USFWS Environmental Conservation Online System (ECOS) (USFWS 2016b)
• Asheville Ecological Services Field Office website (USFWS 2016c)
The purpose of the records search was to determine whether federally listed plant and animal
species or designated critical habitat may be near each respective alternative site. Table 2
presents the results of the records search for Buncombe County. Known habitats used by the
species listed in Table 2 were compared with the habitats found within the alternative sites to
determine the potential for occurrence for each species. The potential, or likelihood, of
occurrence, as listed in Table 2, was based on the following factors:
• A comparison of the known habitats used by these species
• The habitats (if present) within each alternative site
• The quantity, quality, and proximity of these habitats
• Observations of these species or their sign during field reconnaissance
The likelihood of occurrence for listed species was rated as high, moderate, low, or unlikely
based on the above criteria.
19

Wetland Master Plan
Asheville Combined Cycle Project Laydown Area
Arden, North Carolina
Project No. 7810160781
Table 2. Potential for occurrence of federally listed animal and plant species
within Sites A, B and C, Buncombe County, North Carolina.
April 7, 2017
Common Name
Federal
General Habitat Description
Potential for Occurrence
Site A
Site B
Site C
(Scientific Name)
Status
Carolina northern
Prefers coniferous and mixed forest, will use
flying squirrel
deciduous woods, riparian woods. Optimal
(Glaucomys
E
conditions: cool, moist mature forest in high
Unlikely
Unlikely
Unlikely
sabrinus
mountainous areas with abundant standing and
coloratus)
down snags.
Summer habitat includes deciduous forests and
mixed evergreen -deciduous forests, with bats
Northern long-
roosting singly or in colonies underneath bark, in
eared bat
cavities, or in crevices of both live and dead trees.
(Myotic
T
Specifically, dead, or partially dead, hardwood trees
Low
Unlikely
Unlikely
septentrionalis)
with exfoliating bark are preferred (suitable roost
(NLEB)
trees). Winter hibernating habitat (hibernacula)
includes caves and mines, typically with large
passages and entrances, constant temperatures,
and high humidity with no air currents.
In the summer, maternity colonies prefer caves that
act as warm air traps or that provide restricted
rooms or domed ceilings that are capable of
trapping the combined body heat from thousands of
clustered individuals. Summer caves are nearly
Gray bat
always located within 1 kilometer of a river or
(Myotis
E
reservoir over which the bats forage.
Low
Unlikely
Unlikely
grisescens)
Forested areas along the banks of streams and
lakes provide important protection for adults and
young. Young often feed and take shelter in forest
areas near the entrance to cave roosts. Does not
feed in areas along rivers or reservoirs where the
forest has been cleared.
Forested habitats for nesting and roosting, and
Bald eagle
expanses of shallow fresh or salt water for foraging.
(Haliaeetus
BGEPA
Nesting habitat generally consists of densely
Low
Unlikely
Unlikely
leucocephalus)
forested areas of mature trees that are isolated from
human disturbance.
Found in gravelly substrate, often mixed with cobble
and boulder, or in cracks in bedrock. Water depths
typically have been shallow, and current velocities
Appalachian
have varied from moderate to fast. Reported from
elktoe
E
shallow, medium-sized creeks and rivers with cool,
Unlikely
Unlikely
Unlikely
(Alasmidonta
clean, well -oxygenated, and moderate to fast flowing
raveneliana)
water. Most often in riffles, runs, and shallow flowing
pools with stable, relatively silt -free, coarse sand
and gravel substrate with cobble, boulders, and/or
bedrock.
Spruce -fir moss
spider
High -elevation spruce -fir forest communities on
(Microhexura
E
moist but well -drained moss mats growing on rocks
Unlikely
Unlikely
Unlikely
montivaga)
and boulders in well -shaded locations.
20

Wetland Master Plan
Asheville Combined Cycle Project Laydown Area
Arden, North Carolina
Project No. 7810160781
April 7, 2017
Common Name
Federal
General Habitat Description
Potential for Occurrence
Site A
Site B
Site C
(Scientific Name)
Status
Blueridge
Bare rock, talus, barrens, and cliffs. This species
goldenrod
T
has close affinities with goldenrods in more northern
Unlikely
Unlikely
Unlikely
(Solidago
areas. This species is thought to be relict in nature,
spitamaea)
persisting on mountain tops.
Typically is found in very gently sloping areas with
Bunched
slow, continuous seepage of cool, clear water. The
arrowhead
continuous seepage appears to be the most
(Sagittaria
E
important factor in the ecology of the species.
Unlikely
Unlikely
Unlikely
fasciculata)
Canopy closure may differ greatly in different
populations but the slow continuous seepage is one
factor that is always present.
Mountain sweet
pitcherplant
E
Bogs and stream sides on granite rock faces along
Unlikely
Unlikely
Unlikely
(Sarracenia rubra
the Blue Ridge Divide.
ssp. jonesii)
Mature hardwood stands of beech, birch, maple,
Small -whorled
oak, and hickory that have an open understory.
pogonia
T
Occasionally grows in stands of softwoods such as
NA
NA
Unlikely
(Isotria
hemlock. Preferred habitat consists of acidic soils
medeoloides)
with a thick layer of dead leaves, often on slopes
near small streams.
Spreading avens
E
High -elevation cliffs, outcrops, steep slopes that are
Unlikely
Unlikely
Unlikely
(Geum radiatum)
exposed to full sun.
Swamp pink
Mountain bogs, swampy forested wetlands
(Helonias bullata)
T
bordering smalls streams, wet meadows, and spring
NA
NA
Unlikely
seepage areas.
Virginia spiraea
(Spiraea
T
Periodically flood -scoured banks of high -gradient
Unlikely
Unlikely
Unlikely
virginiana)
mountain streams, bare rock, talus.
Rich, basic soils in clearings and near the edges of
upland woods where the canopy cover is thin. In the
White irisette
past, the thin canopy cover (and possibly the thin
(Sisyrinchium
E
litter layer as well) was maintained by periodic fires
NA
NA
Low
dichotomum)
and by native grazing animals. Now, most
populations are in artificially disturbed areas, such
as power line and road right of way (ROW).
Rock gnome
lichen
On rocks in areas of high humidity, either at high
(Gymnoderma
E
elevations or on boulders and large rock outcrops in
Unlikely
Unlikely
Unlikely
lineare)
deep river gorges.
Notes: NCNHP List of Rare Plant Species of North Carolina; USFWS IPaC; USFWS Environmental
Conservation Online System - Species Profiles; County list (USFWS Asheville Ecological Services);
NatureServe Explorer. BGEPA = Bald and Golden Eagle Protection Act; E = Endangered; T = Threatened
NA = Not Applicable; i.e., species not identified (not included) in IPaC as potentially occurring at alternative site
location.
21

Wetland Master Plan April 7, 2017
Asheville Combined Cycle Project Laydown Area
Arden, North Carolina
Project No. 7810160781
Site A: Farm Pond
Amec Foster Wheeler queried the Buncombe County protected species list available on the
USFWS Asheville Ecological Services website, the USFWS IPaC database (Appendix A) on
December 30, 2016, and the NCNHP database (Appendix A) on January 5, 2017, to determine
the potential of listed species (Table 2) occurring within the Farm Pond site. Each listed species
is discussed below.
The northern long-eared bat (Myotis septentrionalis) (NLEB) is one of a number of species of
bats most impacted by the disease white -nose syndrome. Buncombe County is identified by the
USFWS as a county with infected hibernacula (within the white -nose syndrome zone of infection
in the United States) (USFWS 2017). Due to declines caused by white -nose syndrome and
continued spread of the disease, the NLEB was listed by the USFWS as threatened under the
ESA on April 2, 2015. The USFWS also developed a final 4(d) rule, which was published in the
Federal Register on January 14, 2016. The ESA protects threatened and endangered wildlife
from "take," which includes harming, harassing or killing a listed species. However, the USFWS
implemented a special rule under section 4(d) of the ESA providing flexibility to those working in
NLEB habitat.
Under the 4(d) rule all intentional take is prohibited except:
• Defense of human life (includes for public health monitoring)
• Removal of hazardous trees for protection of human life and property
• Removal of bats from human structures
• Limited research permit exemption through May 3, 2016
In western North Carolina, incidental take without a permit is prohibited:
• Within hibernation sites (includes disturbing or disrupting hibernating individuals and
alternation of hibernation habitat, including cave or mine entrance when bats are not
present)
• Within one-quarter mile of a known hibernation site
22

Wetland Master Plan April 7, 2017
Asheville Combined Cycle Project Laydown Area
Arden, North Carolina
Project No. 7810160781
• Within a 150 -foot radius of a known, occupied maternity roost during the pup season
(June 1- July 31)
The summer habitat of the NLEB includes deciduous forests and mixed evergreen -deciduous
forests with bats roosting singly or in colonies underneath bark, in cavities, or in crevices of both
live and dead trees. Potential roosts include live trees and/or snags that have exfoliating (flaky)
bark, cracks, crevices and/or cavities. Scattered occurrences of dead or dying trees and trees
with exfoliating bark (i.e., white oak [Quercus alba]) occur within the Farm Pond site. Foraging
areas (sources of insects) for the NLEB include waterbodies, such as rivers, large creeks lakes
and ponds. The farm pond on this alternative site may provide foraging opportunities for the
NLEB. The Farm Pond site is not contiguous to the French Broad River, however, as 1-26
occurs between the river and the site.
Winter hibernating habitat (hibernacula) for the NLEB includes caves and mines, typically with
large passages and entrances, constant temperatures, and high humidity with no air currents.
No caves or mines are within the Farm Pond site; therefore, no hibernacula are on site.
Furthermore, no caves or mines are within the Asheville Plant or Buncombe County
The NCNHP database query (January 5, 2017, Appendix A) identified one documented
occurrence of the NLEB within one mile of the Farm Pond site. This occurrence was further
classified by NCNHP personnel as a "specimen brought in by an unknown person to a lab in the
county and tested for rabies in 2001; location of capture not known" (Suzanne Mason personal
communication 2016 NCNHP). Furthermore, according to the USFWS, Asheville office, "there
are no northern long-eared bat records within one-quarter mile of the Asheville Plant" (Allen
Ratcliffe personal communication 2016 NCNHP).
Site reconnaissance was conducted on March 24, 2017, to confirm presence/absence of NLEB
and/or gray bat activity within two residential structures remaining in Laydown Area 3. No bats
were observed and no physical evidence was found indicating bats are using or have used the
two houses. Based on the level of review requested by the USFWS for the houses during the
February 23, 2017, IP pre -application meeting, and given the results of the review, Amec Foster
Wheeler believes no further action is required regarding the use of the structures by bats.
23

Wetland Master Plan
Asheville Combined Cycle Project Laydown Area
Arden, North Carolina
Project No. 7810160781
April 7, 2017
With the above considerations, the potential for the NLEB to occur within the Farm Pond site is
presumed to be low.
Maternity colonies of the gray bat (Myotis grisescens) are typically in caves that act as warm air
traps or that provide restricted rooms or domed ceilings that can trap the combined body heat
from thousands of clustered individuals. Summer caves are nearly always located within
approximately 0.62 miles of a river or reservoir over which the bats forage (USFWS 1982).
Forested areas along the banks of streams and lakes provide important protection for adults
and young. Young often feed and take shelter in forest areas near the entrance to cave roosts.
There are no known caves within 0.62 mile of the Farm Pond site. In addition, the Farm Pond
site is not contiguous to the French Broad River (foraging area), as 1-26 occurs between the
river and the site. Though it should be noted that gray bats are known to be roosting under the
Blue Ridge Parkway bridge over the French Broad River (Bryan Tompkins personal
communication 2017 USFWS).
With the above considerations, the potential for the gray bat to occur within the Farm Pond site
is presumed to be low.
Although no longer afforded protection by the ESA as of June 29, 2007, the bald eagle
(Haliaeetus leucocephalus) is still protected under the BGEPA and the MBTA, both of which
protect bald eagles by prohibiting killing, selling or otherwise harming eagles, their nests, or
eggs. Habitats include riparian areas along the coast and near major rivers, wetlands, and
reservoirs. Bald eagles typically nest in large, tall, open -topped pines near open waters. They
feed primarily on fish, but will also take a variety of birds, mammals and turtles. The pond on
the Farm Pond site is presumed to not be of sufficient size to provide suitable foraging habitat
(i.e., a significant fishery source) for eagles. No eagle nests are known to occur within this
alternative site. Furthermore, no bald eagles were observed during site reconnaissance on
November 29, 2016. Based on these considerations, the potential for occurrence is presumed
to be low.
The Appalachian elktoe (Alasmidonta raveneliana) is a riverine mussel species. The Farm
Pond site is not located within the limited portions of the upper French Broad River system (i.e.,
24

Wetland Master Plan April 7, 2017
Asheville Combined Cycle Project Laydown Area
Arden, North Carolina
Project No. 7810160781
Mills River and Little River) where the species has been reported. A perennial stream occurs
within the western portion of the site (downstream of the farm pond). A visual inspection of the
streambed of this perennial water on November 29, 2016, revealed no observations of the
Appalachian elktoe. The potential for occurrence of this species on the site is unlikely.
Bunched arrowhead (Sagittaria fasciculata) is typically found in very gently sloping areas with
slow, continuous seepage of cool, clear water. The continuous seepage appears to be the most
important factor in the ecology of the species. Canopy closure may differ greatly in different
populations, but the slow continuous seepage is one factor that is always present. Although a
small seepage area was present along the edge of a wetland within the eastern portion of the
Farm Pond site, no bunched arrowhead plants were observed during site reconnaissance on
November 29, 2016. In addition, somewhat stagnant hydrologic conditions were present in this
small seepage area. Based on these observations, this species is unlikely to occur due to the
absence of suitable habitat.
Virginia spiraea (Spiraea virginiana) occurs on periodically flood -scoured banks of high -gradient
mountain streams, bare rock or talus. These habitat types do not occur within the Farm Pond
site. Therefore, this plant species is unlikely to occur due to the absence of suitable habitat.
The Carolina northern flying squirrel (Glaucomys sabrinus coloratus), spruce -fir moss spider
(Microhexura montivaga), Blue Ridge goldenrod (Solidago spitamaea), mountain sweet
pitcherplant (Sarracenia rubra ssp. jonesii), spreading avens (Geum radiatum), and rock gnome
lichen (Gymnoderma lineare) are all species that occur in high elevation habitats. The elevation
of the Asheville Plant, including the Farm Pond site, is approximately 2,000 to 2,200 feet. (Note:
Western North Carolina ranges consist of low [<2,300 feet], moderate [2,300 — 4,000 feet], and
high [4,000 — 6,560 feet] peaks). Therefore, these six species are not considered further in this
characterization due to the absence of suitable habitat.
Amec Foster Wheeler also reviewed the NCNHP database for state -listed threatened and
endangered species with historic and current elements of occurrence in Buncombe County.
The stream features within the Farm Pond site do not offer suitable habitat for the following
listed freshwater mussel species: Appalachian elktoe (state endangered), slippershell mussel
25

Wetland Master Plan
Asheville Combined Cycle Project Laydown Area
Arden, North Carolina
Project No. 7810160781
April 7, 2017
(Alasmidonta viridis) (state endangered), Tennessee heelsplitter (Lasmigona holstonia) (state
endangered), and creeper (Strophitus undulatus) (state threatened). The project activities
within this alternative site will not impact the French Broad River; therefore, the paddlefish
(Polyodon spathula), a state endangered riverine species, will not be affected. Finally, the bog
turtle (Glyptemys muhlenbergii) (state threatened) is not expected to occur within the site. Bog
turtles inhabit open, unpolluted, emergent and scrub/shrub wetlands such as shallow spring -fed
fens, sphagnum bogs, swamps, marshy meadows and wet pastures. These types of habitat are
not present within the headwater forest wetland in the site.
Site B: Agricultural Field
Amec Foster Wheeler queried the Buncombe County protected species list available on the
USFWS Asheville Ecological Services website, the USFWS IPaC database (Appendix A) on
December 30, 2016, and the NCNHP database (Appendix A) on January 5, 2017, to determine
the potential of listed species (Table 2) occurring within the Agricultural Field site.
The Agricultural Field site is managed agricultural land that does not consist of any natural,
undisturbed, terrestrial or aquatic habitats. No natural vegetation succession occurs and any
vegetation that is present along the field borders is limited to ruderal plant species. Trees and
woody shrubs are essentially absent from this site. Occurrences of bats or eagles over the site
are serendipitous and related to foraging along the French Broad River which extends along the
southern boundary of the site. With these considerations, the potential for any listed species
(Table 2) occurring within the Agricultural Field site is highly unlikely.
With regard to the potential for occurrence of state -listed threatened and endangered species
within the Agricultural Field site, no stream features are present; therefore, the following mussel
species would not be present: Appalachian elktoe, slippershell, Tennessee heelsplitter, and
creeper. The site provides no riverine habitat for the paddlefish (i.e., French Broad River) or
suitable wetland habitat for the bog turtle; therefore, these species are not expected to occur
within the site.
26

Wetland Master Plan April 7, 2017
Asheville Combined Cycle Project Laydown Area
Arden, North Carolina
Project No. 7810160781
Site C: Airport
Amec Foster Wheeler queried the Buncombe County protected species list available on the
USFWS Asheville Ecological Services website, the USFWS IPaC database (Appendix A) on
December 30, 2016, and the NCNHP database (Appendix A) on January 5, 2017, to determine
the potential of listed species (Table 2) occurring within the Airport site.
The Airport site is a grassed field area that is routinely maintained by the airport. With the
exception of a strip of shrub and brushland at the northern end of the site, no natural,
undisturbed, terrestrial habitats occur. The routine mowing activities of the field prevent
vegetation succession and trees are absent from the site. There is a culverted stream feature,
approximately 1,000 feet in length, within the western portion of the site. This culverted stream
does not provide suitable habitat for the Appalachian elktoe, therefore potential for occurrence is
unlikely. The white irisette (Sisyrinchium dichotomum) typically grows in open, dry to moderate -
moisture oak -hickory forests and in shallow soils on regularly disturbed sites (such as woodland
edges, roadsides, and powerline right-of-ways) and over rocky, steep terrain. Although the
shrub and brushland strip at the northern portion of the Airport Site may provide marginal
habitat, the species is usually found on mid -elevation slopes which are higher than the elevation
of this site. The potential for occurrence of the white irisette on the Airport site is presumed to
be low. The potential for the remainder of listed species (Table 2) occurring within the Airport
site is highly unlikely.
With regard to the potential for occurrence of state -listed threatened and endangered species
within the Airport site, the stream that occurs within the western portion of the site does not
provide suitable habitat for the Appalachian elktoe, slippershell, Tennessee heelsplitter, and
creeper. As such, the potential for occurrence of these listed mussel species on the site is
unlikely. The site provides no riverine habitat for the paddlefish (i.e., French Broad River) or
suitable wetland habitat for the bog turtle; therefore, these species are not expected to occur
within the site.
27

Wetland Master Plan April 7, 2017
Asheville Combined Cycle Project Laydown Area
Arden, North Carolina
Project No. 7810160781
4.4.2.3 Water Resources
Wetlands
Waters of the U.S., including streams and wetlands, are defined by 33 CFR Part 328.3 et al.
and are protected by Section 404 and other applicable sections of the CWA (33 USC 1344).
Impacts to these regulated resources are administered and enforced by the Wilmington District
of the USACE, as well as other federal and state government agencies. Jurisdictional wetlands
are defined in the USACE Wetland Delineation Manual and the Eastern Mountains and
Piedmont Regional Supplement. These techniques use a multi -parameter approach which
requires positive evidence of three criteria for a determination of existence of wetlands:
hydrophytic vegetation, hydric soils, and wetland hydrology.
Site A: Farm Pond
Amec Foster Wheeler performed an evaluation for the presence of potentially jurisdictional
surface waters in the Asheville Plant and the Farm Pond site in 2015. Initially, Amec Foster
Wheeler performed an in-house review of potentially jurisdictional waters within the Asheville
Plant using the U.S. Department of Agriculture's (USDA) Natural Resources Conservation
Service (NRCS) Buncombe County Soil GIS data (Figure 7), the U.S. Geological Survey
(USGS) digital 7.5' topography (Figure 8; Skyland, North Carolina Quadrangle), and the USFWS
National Wetlands Inventory (NWI) GIS data (Figure 9). These maps were used to direct the
on-site investigation and highlight areas having listed hydric soils or topographic configurations
suggesting the presence of wetlands or streams.
After the in-house review and during June 2015, Amec Foster Wheeler personnel, including
Professional Wetland Scientists, evaluated the potentially jurisdictional waters within the
Asheville Plant using the Routine On -Site Determination Method as defined in the USACE
W-3

Wetland Master Plan
Asheville Combined Cycle Project Laydown Area
Arden, North Carolina
Project No. 7810160781
April 7, 2017
Wetland Delineation Manual' and the Eastern Mountains and Piedmont Regional Supplement2.
This technique uses a multi -parameter approach which requires positive evidence of three
criteria: hydrophytic vegetation, hydric soils and wetland hydrology. Areas exhibiting wetland
characteristics within the Asheville Plant were considered potentially jurisdictional waters. The
landward limits of wetlands were subsequently marked in the field with labeled survey tape tied
to vegetation or stakes. The location of each flag point was acquired by a global positioning
system (GPS) device. The field delineation effort included the Farm Pond site. Although the
Farm Pond site was located outside the Asheville Plant, it was included in the delineation effort
as the properties within the site were recently acquired by the applicant.
The NRCS Soil Survey (Figure 7) indicated the presence of no potential hydric soil map units
within the Farm Pond site. No wetlands were shown within the site on the USGS topographic
map (Figure 8). No wetland classifications were shown within the site on the USFWS NWI map
(Figure 9).
Amec Foster Wheeler, on behalf of DEP, submitted a request for Verification of Jurisdictional
Determination (JD) to the USACE Asheville Regulatory Field Office for the delineated wetland
areas within the Asheville Plant. This request for Verification of JD included the Farm Pond site.
The USACE-Asheville JD review was conducted on September 18, 2015, by David Brown, Scott
Jones and Tasha Alexander. The USACE subsequently issued an Approved JD for the
Asheville Plant on May 19, 2016 (Action ID SAW -2014-00189). The Approved JD included the
Farm Pond site. The landward limits of the jurisdictional wetlands (flag points) within the
Asheville Plant were surveyed by Taylor Wiseman Taylor (TWT), a registered Professional Land
Surveyor.
' Environmental Laboratory. 1987. "Corps of Engineers Wetlands Delineation Manual," Technical
Report Y-87-1. U.S. Army Engineer Waterways Experiment Station. Vicksburg, MS.
2 Environmental Laboratory. 2012. "Regional Supplement to the Corps of Engineers Wetland
Delineation Manual: Eastern Mountains and Piedmont," Technical Report ERDC/EL TR -12-9. U.S.
Army Engineer Waterways Experiment Station. Vicksburg, MS.
29

Wetland Master Plan
Asheville Combined Cycle Project Laydown Area
Arden, North Carolina
Project No. 7810160781
April 7, 2017
One jurisdictional wetland/farm pond area, Wetland L, occurs within the Farm Pond site. Based
on a January 16, 2017, survey by the firm Cardno of Wetland L, the wetland component of this
wetland/pond area was 0.38 acre in area. Wetland L was evaluated by Amec Foster Wheeler in
November 2016 using the North Carolina Wetland Assessment Method (NC WAM) per the
methodology outlined in the NC WAM User Manuals (Version 4. 1), effective October, 2010. The
wetland was classified as a headwater forest according to NC WAM (Schafale and Weakley
1990). The overall wetland rating (based on NC WAM results) was high. The vegetation
included an overstory of red maple (Acer rubrum) and tuliptree (Liriodendron tulipifera). The
midstory consisted of American holly (Ilex opaca), pondberry (Lindera melissifolia), and
hardwood saplings, while the groundstory comprised jewelweed (Impatiens capensis), early
meadow -rue (Thalictrum dioicum), false Solomon's seal (Maianthemum racemosum), and
southern lady -fern (Athyrium asplenioides). The USACE Eastern Mountain and Piedmont
Wetland Determination Data Form for Wetland L was included in the Verification of JD request
package previously submitted to the USACE. The NC WAM Wetland Assessment Form for
Wetland L is found in Appendix B.
Based on the proposed action, Wetland L must be entirely filled, thereby resulting in a
permanent wetland impact of 0.38 acre. Table 3 presents acreage and/or linear foot values of
proposed impacts to jurisdictional wetlands, streams and open waters on the Farm Pond site
and the other two alternative sites. Wetland L originally comprised the headwater forest and a
manmade pond; however, for the discussion of wetland areas, including proposed impacts to
jurisdictional wetlands, only the headwater forest portion of the Wetland L complex is presented.
3 N.C. Wetland Functional Assessment Team. 2010. "N.C. Wetland Assessment Method (NC WAM) User
Manual, Version 4.1 ". North Carolina Wetland Functional Assessment Team. Raleigh, NC.
30

Wetland Master Plan
Asheville Combined Cycle Project Laydown Area
Arden, North Carolina
Project No. 7810160781
April 7, 2017
Table 3. Estimated impacts to wetlands, streams, and open waters within Sites
A, B and C, Buncombe County, North Carolina.
Resource Type
Estimated Impacts via Alternative Sites
Site A
Site B
Site C
Wetland (acres)
0.38
0
0
Stream (linear feet)
972.5
0
0
Open Water (acres)
0.87
0
0
Site B: Aaricultural Field
The NRCS Soil Survey (Figure 7) indicated the presence of six potential hydric soil map units
within the Agricultural Field site: Biltmore loamy sand, 0 to 3 percent slopes, occasionally
flooded (BeA); Braddock clay loam, 2 to 8 percent slopes, moderately eroded (BkB2); lotla
loam, 0 to 2 percent slopes, occasionally flooded (IoA); Kanaga-Swannanoa complex, 2 to 8
percent slopes (KsB); Rosman fine sandy loam, 0 to 3 percent slopes, occasionally flooded
(RsA); and Unison loam, 2 to 8 percent slopes (UnB). No wetlands were shown within the site
on the USGS topographic map (Figure 8). No wetland classifications were shown within the site
on the USFWS NWI Map (Figure 9).
Site C: Airport
The NRCS Soil Survey (Figure 7) indicated the presence of no potential hydric soil map units
within the Airport site. No wetlands were shown within the site on the USGS topographic map
(Figure 8). No wetland classifications were shown within the site on the USFWS NWI map
(Figure 9).
No Build Alternative
Under the No Build Alternative, no construction activities would take place; therefore, there
would be no impacts to wetlands.
Streams
Site A: Farm Pond
Potential jurisdictional streams on the Asheville Plant were evaluated during June 2015 by
Amec Foster Wheeler personnel using the NCDEQ, Division of Water Resources' (DWR)
31

Wetland Master Plan
Asheville Combined Cycle Project Laydown Area
Arden, North Carolina
Project No. 7810160781
April 7, 2017
Methodology for Identification of Intermittent and Perennial Streams and Their Origins4
(Version 4.11), effective September 1, 2010. The extents of these streams were delineated and
included in the request for Verification of JD to the USACE Asheville Regulatory Field Office.
Following the site inspection, the USACE issued the Approved JD for the Asheville Plant (Action
ID SAW -2014-00189), which included the Farm Pond site. The extents of the jurisdictional
streams (flag points) were surveyed by TWT.
The Farm Pond site is located within the Upper French Broad Watershed (Hydrologic Unit Code
[HUC] 06010105). The NRCS Soil Survey (hardcopy version) indicated the presence of one
stream within the central portion of the site. This same stream feature was also shown on the
USGS topographic map (Figure 8). No stream classifications were shown within the site on the
USFWS NWI map (Figure 9).
Three jurisdictional streams, Streams 22, 23 and 24, occur within the Farm Pond site. The
DWR Stream Identification scores, classifications and reach lengths for the three streams are
presented in Table 4. The DWR Stream Identification Forms for these streams were included in
the Verification of JD request package previously submitted to the USACE. Streams 22, 23 and
24 were also evaluated by Amec Foster Wheeler in November 2016 using the North Carolina
Stream Assessment Method (NC SAM) per the methodology outlined in the NC SAM Draft User
Manual 5, effective March, 2013. Stream 24 was the longest drainage feature (520.5 feet) within
the site. The eastern (upstream) portion of Stream 24 originated at the overflow drain of a man-
made farm pond, while the western (downstream) portion of the stream terminated at 1-26.
Stream 24 had a NC SAM overall rating of high and occurred within an upland hardwood forest.
Stream 22, also with an NCSAM rating of high (406 feet), drained into the pond above Stream
24. Stream 23, an intermittent stream with a NC SAM rating of medium (46 feet), flowed into
4 Division of Water Quality. 2010. "Methodology for Identification of Intermittent and Perennial
Streams and their Origins, Version 4.11". North Carolina Department of Environment and Natural
Resources, Division of Water Quality. Raleigh, NC.
5 N.C. Stream Functional Assessment Team. 2013. "N.C. Stream Assessment Method (NC SAM) Draft User
Manual". North Carolina Stream Functional Assessment Team. Raleigh, NC.
32

Wetland Master Plan
Asheville Combined Cycle Project Laydown Area
Arden, North Carolina
Project No. 7810160781
April 7, 2017
Stream 22 just upstream of its terminus into the man-made pond. Stream 23 occurred within
Wetland L, while Stream 22 occurred within Wetland L and an upland hardwood forest. The NC
SAM Stream Assessment Forms are located in Appendix B.
Based on the proposed action, Streams 22, 23 and 24 will need to be culverted to
accommodate the specified slopes necessary for construction, thereby resulting in permanent
stream impacts of 972.5 linear feet. Table 3 presents acreage and/or linear foot values of
proposed impacts to jurisdictional wetlands, streams and open waters on Site A and the other
two alternative sites.
Table 4. Streams within Site A, Asheville Plant, Buncombe County, North
Carolina.
NC DWR scoring and classification: <19= ephemeral; 19 to <30 = intermittent; >_30 = perennial
Site B: Aaricultural Field
The Agricultural Field site is located within the Upper French Broad Watershed (HUC
06010105). No streams were shown within the site on the NRCS Soil Survey (Figure 7) or the
USGS topographic map (Figure 8). No stream classifications were shown within the site on the
USFWS NWI Map (Figure 9).
Site C: Airport
The Airport site is located within the Upper French Broad Watershed (HUC 06010105). The
NRCS Soil Survey (hardcopy version) indicated the presence of one stream, approximately
1,000 feet in length, within the western portion of the site. This same stream feature was also
33
NC DWR
NC DWR
NC SAM
Reach Length
Stream ID
Stream Score'
Stream 1
Classification
Overall Rating
(linear feet)
Stream 22
(downstream/western portion
28.5
Intermittent
High
406
of reach)
Stream 23
23
Intermittent
Medium
46
Stream 24
33.5
Perennial
High
520.5
(mid reach)
Total Linear Feet
972.5
NC DWR scoring and classification: <19= ephemeral; 19 to <30 = intermittent; >_30 = perennial
Site B: Aaricultural Field
The Agricultural Field site is located within the Upper French Broad Watershed (HUC
06010105). No streams were shown within the site on the NRCS Soil Survey (Figure 7) or the
USGS topographic map (Figure 8). No stream classifications were shown within the site on the
USFWS NWI Map (Figure 9).
Site C: Airport
The Airport site is located within the Upper French Broad Watershed (HUC 06010105). The
NRCS Soil Survey (hardcopy version) indicated the presence of one stream, approximately
1,000 feet in length, within the western portion of the site. This same stream feature was also
33

Wetland Master Plan
Asheville Combined Cycle Project Laydown Area
Arden, North Carolina
Project No. 7810160781
April 7, 2017
shown on the USGS topographic map (Figure 8). However, this reach of stream has been
culverted. No stream classifications were shown within the site on the USFWS NWI Map
(Figure 9). As a result, potential impacts to streams are not expected from proposed action at
this site (Table 3).
No Build Alternative
Under the No Build Alternative, no construction activities would take place; therefore, there would
be no impacts to streams.
Riparian Buffers
Review of the State of North Carolina Buffer Regulations indicate that the Farm Pond,
Agricultural Field and the Airport sites are not located within a river basin with buffer rules and is
not subject to state riparian buffer rule regulations.
Site A: Farm Pond
Site A occurs within Buncombe County. The Buncombe County Code of Ordinances states that
no land disturbing activity during periods of construction or improvement to land shall be
permitted in proximity to a lake or natural watercourse unless a buffer zone is provided along
the margin of the watercourse to confine siltation within the 25% of the buffer zone nearest the
land disturbing activity.
Site B: Agricultural Field
The Agricultural Field site occurs within Buncombe County. No lake or natural watercourse
occurs within this site; therefore, no buffer restrictions apply and no buffer impacts are
addressed as a result of land disturbing activities under the proposed action.
Site C: Airport
The Airport site occurs within the municipal boundaries of the City of Asheville. The City of
Asheville Unified Development Ordinance (UDO) Section states that land disturbing activity
shall not occur within a 30 -foot undisturbed buffer around all perennial and intermittent surface
waters. The buffer width is measured horizontally from the top of bank to the landward side of
the watercourse. Land disturbing activities shall observe a buffer zone around lakes and natural
34

Wetland Master Plan
Asheville Combined Cycle Project Laydown Area
Arden, North Carolina
Project No. 7810160781
April 7, 2017
water courses along the margin of the water course of sufficient width to confine visible siltation
within the 25 percent of the buffer zone nearest the land disturbing activity. A culverted stream
occurs within this site; therefore, no buffer restrictions apply and no buffer impacts are
addressed as a result of land disturbing activities under the proposed action.
No Build Alternative
Under the No Build Alternative, no construction activities would take place; therefore, there
would be no impacts to riparian buffers.
Open Waters
Site A: Farm Pond
A manmade farm pond is located within the central portion of the Farm Pond site. The limits of
the open water, as part of Wetland L (wetland/pond area), were delineated and included in the
request for Verification of JD to the USACE Asheville Regulatory Field Office. Following the site
inspection, the USACE issued the Approved JD for the Asheville Plant (Action ID SAW -2014-
00189), which included the Farm Pond site. The farm pond is hydrologically connected to the
wetland component of Wetland L; i.e., the eastern end of the pond abuts the western end of the
headwater wetland. Based on the January 16, 2017, survey of the interface between the open
water area and the wetland component of Wetland L, the open water (farm pond) component of
this wetland/pond area was 0.87 acre in area. An earthen dam comprises the western end of
the pond and overflow drainage from the pond is channeled, via a culvert, into Stream 24. The
pond was shown as Water (W) on the NRCS Soil Survey (Figure 7); i.e., as indicating an open
water area within the site. No pond was shown within the site on the USGS topographic map
(Figure 8). The USFWS NWI Map (Figure 9) showed a "freshwater pond" classification feature
at the same general location as the farm pond.
Based on the proposed action, the open water area (farm pond) will need to be entirely filled
resulting in a permanent impact of 0.87 acre. Table 3 presents acreage and/or linear foot
values of proposed impacts to jurisdictional wetlands, streams and open waters on the Farm
Pond site and the other two alternative sites. Wetland L originally comprised the headwater
forest and the farm pond; however, for the discussion of open water areas, including proposed
35

Wetland Master Plan
Asheville Combined Cycle Project Laydown Area
Arden, North Carolina
Project No. 7810160781
April 7, 2017
impacts to such jurisdictional waters, only the manmade pond portion of the Wetland L area is
presented.
Site B: Agricultural Field
No open water areas were shown within the site on the NRCS Soil Survey (Figure 7) or the
USGS topographic map (Figure 8). No open water classifications were shown within the site on
the USFWS NWI Map (Figure 9).
Site C: Airport
No open water areas were shown within the site on the NRCS Soil Survey (Figure 7) or the
USGS topographic map (Figure 8). No open water classifications were shown within the site on
the USFWS NWI Map (Figure 9).
No Build Alternative
Under the No Build Alternative, no construction activities would take place; therefore, there
would be no impacts to open water (freshwater ponds).
Floodplains
Floodplain Management is conducted in compliance with Executive Order (EO) 11988.
Site A: Farm Pond
Review of the Federal Emergency Management Agency (FEMA) delineated 100 -year flood
boundary for the Farm Pond site identified that no portions of the site are within the 100 -year
flood zone (Figure 10) (Flood Insurance Rate Map [FIRM] Panel 9644, effective date January 6,
2010) (FEMA 2014).
Site B: Agricultural Field
Review of the FEMA -delineated 100 -year flood boundary for the Agricultural Field site identified
that much of the southern half of the site along the French Broad River is within the 100 -year
flood zone (Figure 10) (FIRM Panel 9643, effective date January 6, 2010) (FEMA 2014). The
National Flood Insurance Program (NFIP) guidelines states that any new structures built within
an identified 100 -year flood zone (Zone AE) must have its lowest floor, at minimum, one (1) foot
36

Wetland Master Plan
Asheville Combined Cycle Project Laydown Area
Arden, North Carolina
Project No. 7810160781
April 7, 2017
above the established Base Flood Elevation (BFE) at the development site. Section 404 of the
CWA requires that projects authorized by the USACE comply with applicable FEMA approved
state or local floodplain management requirements.
Buncombe County joined the NFIP in 1980 and began regulating development within the 100 -
year flood zone. Buncombe County's Flood Damage Prevention Ordinance (Chapter 34 in the
County Code of Ordinances) regulates development within the 100 -year floodplain, including
new structures, additions or changes to existing structures, grading, filling or any other
manmade change within the floodplain. A permit application for activities proposed within the
100 -year flood zone must be submitted to the Buncombe County Planning Department.
Total site -accessibility is presently limited by the presence of flood -prone portions of the site.
This condition adds additional logistics considerations to the development of the property and
the completion of the proposed action.
Site C: Airport
Review of the FEMA -delineated 100 -year flood boundary for the Airport site identified that no
portions of the site are within the 100 -year flood zone (Figure 10) (FIRM Panel 9643, effective
date January 6, 2010) (FEMA 2014).
No Build Alternative
Under the No Build Alternative, no construction activities would take place; therefore, there
would be no impacts to floodplains.
Stormwater
Site A: Farm Pond
Construction Stormwater
The North Carolina Erosion and Sediment Control (E&SC) and Buncombe County Stormwater
requirements become effective when the ground cover is changed from residential lawns/woods
to gravel laydown and the limit of disturbance is greater than one acre. As such, the
development of Site A would require an approved E&SC Plan. NCDEQ Asheville is the
designated authority to approve DEP's E&SC plans. E&SC Plans must be produced in
37

Wetland Master Plan
Asheville Combined Cycle Project Laydown Area
Arden, North Carolina
Project No. 7810160781
April 7, 2017
accordance with the North Carolina Erosion and Sediment Control Planning and Design
Manual, dated May 2013. This manual includes best management practices (BMPs) for
reducing erosion and sedimentation during construction. This requires proper site preparation
techniques, surface stabilization, runoff control measures, diffuse flow through the riparian
buffer, inlet and outlet protection, and stream protection.
Post -Construction Stormwater
Proper management of stormwater runoff protects property, lessens stream channel erosion,
prevents increased flooding, and provides additional protection of floodplains, wetlands and
water resources, riparian and aquatic ecosystems. The Asheville Plant currently has a National
Pollutant Discharge Elimination System (NPDES) stormwater permit. This permit requires the
implementation of a Stormwater Pollution Prevention Plan (SPPP). If new outfalls are
developed under the Asheville CC Project in Site A, they would be incorporated into the existing
NPDES permit, and the SPPP would be subsequently updated to reflect the new outfalls.
Specific Site Considerations
A permanent stormwater basin is proposed to be constructed within the western portion of this
alternative site. Piping would be installed entering the eastern side of the basin and exiting the
western side of the basin. An existing 48 -inch reinforced concrete pipe (RCP) on the westerly
side of New Rockwood Road will be piped through a series of stormwater manholes and
underground RCP. This new system would convey the stormwater runoff from the upstream
neighborhood located on the east side of New Rockwood Road to the new stormwater basin
located at the southeast corner of Laydown Area 3.
Site B: Agricultural Field
Construction Stormwater
The discussion regarding the submittal and approval of an E&SC plan by NCDEQ, as presented
above for the Site A alternative, is applicable to the Agricultural Field site alternative.
Post -Construction Stormwater
The discussion regarding Stormwater Management Plan review, as presented above for the
Site A alternative, is applicable to the Agricultural Field site alternative.
0.

Wetland Master Plan
Asheville Combined Cycle Project Laydown Area
Arden, North Carolina
Project No. 7810160781
April 7, 2017
The discussion regarding the relevancy of a NPDES stormwater permit and associated
implementation of a SPPP, as presented above for the Site A alternative, is applicable to the
Agricultural Field site alternative.
Specific Site Considerations
Approximately 1.0 acre of the site will need to be used for retention (stormwater management
pond) for erosion and sediment control.
Site C: Airport
Construction Stormwater
The Stormwater Services Division of the Public Works Department for the City of Asheville
reviews and approves grading and erosion control plans within the city corporate limits. If the
disturbed area is 10,000 square feet or larger, a design professional is required to complete the
grading and erosion control plans and calculations by using the guidelines in Section 4, Soil
Erosion and Sedimentation Control of the Standard Details and Specifications manual, NCDEQ
Stormwater BMPs manual, and the UDO section7-12-2.
Post -Construction Stormwater
The Stormwater Services Division of the Public Works Department is a delegated authority by
the NCDEQ to review and approve stormwater plans within the City of Asheville's corporate
limits. The division reviews plans when a development is required to apply for a Stormwater
Permit. The stormwater plans and calculations must be prepared using the guidelines in
Section 8 — Stormwater of the City of Asheville Standard Details and Specifications manual,
NCDEQ's Stormwater BMPs manual, and the LIDO.
The City of Asheville received its initial NPDES permit (#NCS000435) for the discharge of
stormwater from the NCDEQ Division of Water Quality in July 2005. The permit was renewed
on November 11, 2011, and was effective until November 10, 2016. The permit was
subsequently renewed and is valid for another five years until 2021. No state or federal
resources are provided to municipalities to implement these measures.
39

Wetland Master Plan April 7, 2017
Asheville Combined Cycle Project Laydown Area
Arden, North Carolina
Project No. 7810160781
Specific Site Considerations
None in addition to the considerations identified above.
No Build Alternative
Under the No Build Alternative, no construction activities would take place; therefore, there
would be no impacts to stormwater runoff.
Compensatory Mitigation
The compensatory mitigation options evaluated for the three action alternatives include (1)
credit purchase from an approved private mitigation bank, (2) credit purchase through the North
Carolina Division of Mitigation Services (NCDMS) In -Lieu Fee Program, and/or (3) in-kind
restoration and enhancement of on-site wetlands and/or stream restoration (permittee -
responsible mitigation). Based on the review of the mitigation options available, it was
determined that credit purchase from an approved mitigation bank and credit purchase through
the NCDMS In -Lieu Fee Program are both viable options to obtain compensatory mitigation for
impacts under the proposed action. On-site mitigation is not feasible because the
aforementioned mitigation bank and In -Lieu Fee options were already available.
Currently, stream mitigation credits for Fiscal Year 2017 are available from two private
mitigation bankers within the Upper French Broad Watershed (HUC 06010105): the Wash
Creek mitigation bank, Henderson County, and the Anderson Farm mitigation bank, Buncombe
County. Wash Creek is located in Henderson County, while Anderson Farm is located in
Buncombe County. Wetland mitigation credits, however, are not available from either of these
two banks. Wetland and stream mitigation credits are currently available through the NCDMS
In -Lieu Fee Program. Table 5 presents the compensatory mitigation information on the
aforementioned two mitigation banks and the NCDMS In -Lieu Fee Program, including the
comparative mitigation costs for impacts to jurisdictional riparian wetlands and cool water
streams. None of the alternative sites occur within any watershed in the state where State
Riparian Buffer Rules are administered by the State of North Carolina; therefore, no mitigation
options are presented in Table 5 for impacts to riparian buffers.
40

Wetland Master Plan
Asheville Combined Cycle Project Laydown Area
Arden, North Carolina
Project No. 7810160781
Table 5. Mitigation bank options for the Asheville Plant, Buncombe County,
North Carolina.
April 7, 2017
1 One credit unit = one linear foot of stream.
2 2016-17 Statewide Stream & Wetland Fees. Project site occurs within Upper French Broad Watershed HUC
06010105, which is subject to higher fees.
3 One credit unit = one acre of wetland. Fees for wetlands are calculated in quarter -acre increments. There is a flat
fee for each increment of 0.25 acres; as such, amounts up to 0.25 acres are invoiced at the quarter -acre level;
amounts between 0.25 and 0.50 acres are invoiced at the half -acre level.
Site A: Farm Pond
Based on the proposed action, Wetland L and Streams 22, 23 and 24 will need to be entirely
impacted, thereby resulting in a permanent wetland impact of 0.38 acre and permanent stream
impacts of 972.5 linear feet. No mitigation is being offered herein for the proposed impact of
0.87 acre to the open water area (farm pond) of Wetland L. The potential mitigation costs for
wetland and stream impacts for the Farm Pond site are presented in Table 6. Stream 22
(intermittent) and Stream 24 (perennial) were reported with NC SAM overall ratings of high. A
2:1 ratio is presumed to be appropriate for the purchase of credits for proposed impacts to these
41
Bank Sponsor
Credits Available / Cost per Credit
Point of Contact
Cool Stream
Riparian
Mitigation Bank
Wetland
French Broad Mitigation Partners, LLC
166/$390
Wash Creek
(301 total credits
Credits not
Mr. Clement Riddle
(Henderson County)
224 S. Grove Street, Suite F
available in early
established
Hendersonville, NC 28792
2017)
[phone] / [e-mail]
AFFP, LLC
427/$350
Mr. Brent Manning
(additional 1800
Anderson Farm
Headwaters Restoration, LLC
credits available
Credits not
(Buncombe County)
60 Pearson Drive
pending future
established
Asheville, NC 28801
completion of
[phone] / [e-mail]
remaining
monitoring events)
Sluder Branch Mitigation Bank, LLC
Site is not an
Site is not an
Mr. Grant Lewis
approved bank at
approved bank at
Sluder Branch
Axiom Environmental, Inc.
this time; i.e., bank
this time; i.e.,
(Buncombe County)
218 Snow Avenue
creation is not a
bank creation is
Raleigh, NC 27603
priority with
not a priority with
[phone] /
landowner
landowner
[e-mail]
NC Division of
1652 Mail Service Center
Mitigation Services
Raleigh, NC 27699-1652
$391
$71,273 3
(In -Lieu Fee
Ms. Kelly Williams
mitigation program) 2
[phone] / [e-mail]
1 One credit unit = one linear foot of stream.
2 2016-17 Statewide Stream & Wetland Fees. Project site occurs within Upper French Broad Watershed HUC
06010105, which is subject to higher fees.
3 One credit unit = one acre of wetland. Fees for wetlands are calculated in quarter -acre increments. There is a flat
fee for each increment of 0.25 acres; as such, amounts up to 0.25 acres are invoiced at the quarter -acre level;
amounts between 0.25 and 0.50 acres are invoiced at the half -acre level.
Site A: Farm Pond
Based on the proposed action, Wetland L and Streams 22, 23 and 24 will need to be entirely
impacted, thereby resulting in a permanent wetland impact of 0.38 acre and permanent stream
impacts of 972.5 linear feet. No mitigation is being offered herein for the proposed impact of
0.87 acre to the open water area (farm pond) of Wetland L. The potential mitigation costs for
wetland and stream impacts for the Farm Pond site are presented in Table 6. Stream 22
(intermittent) and Stream 24 (perennial) were reported with NC SAM overall ratings of high. A
2:1 ratio is presumed to be appropriate for the purchase of credits for proposed impacts to these
41

Wetland Master Plan
Asheville Combined Cycle Project Laydown Area
Arden, North Carolina
Project No. 7810160781
April 7, 2017
two streams. Stream 23 (intermittent) was reported with a NC SAM overall rating of medium. A
1:1 ratio is presumed to be appropriate for the purchase of credits for the proposed impact to
this stream. Stream credits will be obtained from the Wash Creek mitigation bank and/or the
Anderson Farm mitigation bank. Riparian wetland credits will be obtained from the NCDMS In -
Lieu Fee Program as wetland credits are not available from the two existing mitigation banks. A
mitigation ratio of 2:1 is presumed to be appropriate for the purchase of credits for the proposed
impact to Wetland L.
Table 6. Potential mitigation costs for impacts to wetlands and streams for Sites
A, B and C, Buncombe County, North Carolina.
Fee
Unit
Estimated
NCDMS In -Lieu
Private Mitigation
Total Cost
Category
Impacts
Fee Unit Cost
Bank Unit Cost
Site A
Riparian
acre
0.38
$71,273
credits not
$71,273
Wetland
established
$740,610 (Wash
$390 (Wash
Creek) or
linear
Creek)
$664,650
Stream
foot
972.5
$391
$350 (Anderson
(Anderson Farm)
Farm)
or
$742,509
(NCDMS)
Site B
Riparian
acre
0
$71,273
credits not
0
Wetland
established
$390 (Wash
Stream
linear
0
$391
Creek)
0
foot
$350 (Anderson
Farm)
Site C
Riparian
acre
0
$71,273
credits not
0
Wetland
established
$390 (Wash
Stream
linear
0
$391
Creek)
0
foot
$350 (Anderson
Farm)
42

Wetland Master Plan April 7, 2017
Asheville Combined Cycle Project Laydown Area
Arden, North Carolina
Project No. 7810160781
Site B: Agricultural Field
No jurisdictional waters occur on the Agricultural Field site; therefore, compensatory mitigation
would not be applicable.
Site C: Airport
The approximately 1,000 linear feet of stream have been previously culverted at the Airport Site;
therefore, compensatory mitigation would not be applicable.
No Build Alternative
Under the No Build Alternative, no construction activities would take place; therefore, there
would be no impacts to jurisdictional waters and, as such, no required compensatory mitigation.
4.4.2.4 Constraints to Site Development
The location of the additional laydown area must be reasonably unencumbered when examined
under key site development characteristics. Existing site conditions or other factors may be
constraints to the development and operation of the laydown area, as discussed in Section 4.4.1
of the WMP. The potential constraints to the development and operation of the additional
laydown area for Site A (Farm Pond), Site B (Agricultural Field), and Site C (Airport) are
presented below.
Site A: Farm Pond
Jurisdictional waters within this site (specifically, three stream features and a wetland area) are
presumed to be the most significant constraint to the development of the site. The dredge or
filling of these jurisdictional surface waters would be required to complete the proposed action.
Compensatory mitigation would be required for the impacts to these jurisdictional waters.
Clearing and grubbing of the forested (upland) portion of the site are necessary prior to grading.
The site occurs within Buncombe County and, as such, rezoning would be required to complete
the proposed action.
43

Wetland Master Plan April 7, 2017
Asheville Combined Cycle Project Laydown Area
Arden, North Carolina
Project No. 7810160781
Site B: Agricultural Field
Much of the southern half of the site along the French Broad River is within the 100 -year flood
zone; therefore, total site -accessibility is limited. This condition adds additional logistics
considerations to the development of the property and the completion of the proposed action.
The site also occurs within Buncombe County and, as such, rezoning will likely be required to
complete the proposed action.
This alternative site is not located within the Asheville Plant property and, therefore, does not
have the added protection and in-place security measures that are afforded by the plant.
Additional security measures, including on-site security personnel and perimeter fencing, would
need to be provided to the laydown area from construction to demobilization. An additional
expenditure of monies would be required for the construction and operation of the site.
A powerline right-of-way crosses the central portion of the site. The location of this powerline
(wires) diminishes the use and travel of cranes within the site without significant logistical
administration. Safety concerns are also heightened as the potential for powerline and crane
(operator) contact exists.
Glenn Bridge Road abuts the western and southern boundaries of the site. Although a portion
of this roadway has been recently improved through resurfacing, other sections of Glenn Bridge
Road are in need of surface improvement. This existing roadway condition affects the safe and
efficient travel of vehicles and the transport of equipment and construction materials to and from
the laydown site and the Asheville Plant.
The Interstate 40 (1-40) eastbound bridge over Glenn Bridge Road is already signed for
substandard vertical clearance (13 feet - 2 inches). Current North Carolina Department of
Transportation (NCDOT) policy would require a 15 feet - 0 inch minimum vertical clearance over
local roads and streets for new construction with a minimum of 14 feet vertical clearance for
bridges that are proposed to remain in place. With a 13 feet - 2 inch vertical clearance and the
potential increase in truck and truck haul, there could be an increased concern for vertical
impact to the structure.
44

Wetland Master Plan
Asheville Combined Cycle Project Laydown Area
Arden, North Carolina
Project No. 7810160781
April 7, 2017
Glenn Bridge Road has a number of sharp curves in the horizontal alignment with existing
curves likely well below criteria for posted speed of 45 miles per hour (mph) (west of 1-40) and
35 mph (east of 1-40). Loaded trucks could experience load shifts, again creating unsafe
conditions for the drivers on the roadway.
A signed school bus stop on Glenn Bridge Road exists near Sumner Drive and another near
Glenview Road. The introduction of heavy trucks and hauling routes would be incompatible on
this residential route where school busses pick up and drop off students daily and should be
avoided if at all possible.
Approximately 1.0 acre of the site will need to be used for retention (stormwater management
pond) for erosion and sediment control.
This alternative site will result in added cost expenditures and increased safety concerns
associated with the transport of equipment and materials to and from the laydown site and the
Asheville Plant. Furthermore, there would be a loss in productivity and increased safety
concerns associated with the travel of contractors (labor force) to and from the laydown site and
the Asheville Plant.
There would be a need to transport workers and materials to and/or from the laydown area and
the plant facility. This effort would lead to unexpected and/or unreasonable cost expenditures
on the project.
CB&I Engineering and Construction operating group (CB&I) has developed a rough order of
magnitude (ROM) estimate for off-site impacts in support of the construction and operation of
this alternative laydown site for off-site construction parking. The ROM estimate (included in
Appendix C) is $12,161,174. In addition to the cost of site preparation (civil works and stone),
there would be significant additional cost in site services, equipment operators, and overtime
due to the location away from the Asheville CC Plant construction site. The use for off-site
construction parking would be prohibitive, considering:
• Parking facility is five miles or less from job site (Asheville Plant).
45

Wetland Master Plan
Asheville Combined Cycle Project Laydown Area
Arden, North Carolina
Project No. 7810160781
• Travel time round trip is less than 45 minutes.
• Parking facility is paid for by DEP (land lease).
• Parking lot permitting is performed and paid for by DEP.
• Parking lot clearing and grubbing is paid for by DEP.
• Parking lot fencing is paid for by DEP.
• Parking lot gravel for five acres is paid for by DEP.
• Parking lot security is paid for by DEP.
• Parking lot lighting/power is paid for by DEP.
• Parking lot maintenance during construction use is paid for by DEP.
• Parking lot restoration to farmland once job is complete is paid for by DEP.
• The assumed duration is 19 months.
Positive attributes for the selection of this alternative site include:
• Site is essentially cleared and grubbed in its present condition.
Site C: Airport
April 7, 2017
The most significant constraint to the development of this alternative site as a temporary
laydown area is the fact that the proposed work area is part of the airport property and, as such,
is subject to a "restricted access" environment and the day to day operations of a "federally
controlled airfield." By occurring within the airport property, there are complications associated
with DEP "control" over the proposed action. Specifically, if an incident occurs during the
construction or operation of the laydown area, the project may be put on hold by the airport
administration. The airport is subject to spontaneous temporary closure by the Department of
Homeland Security, which would affect the day to day operation of the laydown area. The
airport administration also has the opportunity to significantly limit the number of contractors that
would be allowed access to the laydown area at any time during the construction and operation
of the site. This limitation of site access is problematic; for example, typical material handling
entails 10 to 15 individuals to operate and maneuver cranes and associated equipment and
support vehicles (forklifts, tractors, trucks and trailers).
46

Wetland Master Plan
Asheville Combined Cycle Project Laydown Area
Arden, North Carolina
Project No. 7810160781
April 7, 2017
This alternative site is not located within the Asheville Plant property and does not have the
added protection and in-place security measures that are afforded by the plant. Additional
security measures, including on-site security personnel and perimeter fencing, would need to be
provided to the laydown area from construction to demobilization. An additional expenditure of
monies would be required for the construction and operation of the site. In addition, as this
alternative site would be located within the airport property, additional security measures may
be required by the airport administration.
The substrate at the site includes unconsolidated material; therefore, the establishment of the
laydown pad would require the removal of some of the substrate material and the placement of
fill to satisfy load-bearing thresholds.
The only roadway access to the site is steep (i.e., greater than typically acceptable road
grades). This existing roadway condition affects the safe and efficient travel of vehicles and the
transport of equipment and construction materials to and from the laydown site and the
Asheville Plant.
As this alternative site is not located within the Asheville Plant property or at least abutting the
plant property, there would be a need for contractors to drive to and from the laydown area and
the plant facility. This effort would lead to a loss in productivity for the project. The greatest
cost expenditure would entail the added construction of a parking area at this alternative
laydown site for the contractor work force that would work between the alternative site and the
Asheville Plant.
4.4.3 Selection of Preferred Alternative
The selection of the preferred alternative among the three action alternatives was based on the
review of resources and attributes associated with the potential development of each site, along
with site restraints discussed in the previous section. A summary of the potential impacts and
constraints to each alternative is provided below in Table 7.
47

Wetland Master Plan
Asheville Combined Cycle Project Laydown Area
Arden, North Carolina
Project No. 7810160781
April 7, 2017
Cultural resources and protected species would not be a limiting factor to each of the three
alternative sites and would not place one site over another with respect to the magnitude of the
potential affect.
With regard to water resources, potential construction impacts to wetlands and streams would
occur on Site A (Laydown Area 3). No wetlands or stream impacts would occur on Site B
(Agricultural Field) or Site C (Airport). Potential floodplain impacts (100 -year flood boundary)
would occur with the construction of Site B, but not with Site A or Site C.
The most restrictive, or limiting, factor for the construction of the laydown area is related to the
assemblage of potential constraints to development as discussed in Section 4.4.1 of the WMP.
The expression of all of these site factors is clearly and significantly problematic with respect to
the construction and operation of a laydown area at Site B or Site C. In contrast to Site A, Sties
B and C have additional requirements for off-site security and transportation and have
accessibility restraints due to powerlines, public road conditions, and the 1-40 bridge height over
Glenn Bridge Road. In addition, Site C access would be subject to the airport's access
restrictions and control. In comparison with Sites B and C, Site A is unencumbered, or
minimally limited, under these same factors. Finally, the combination of Site B and Site C would
not improve the construction and operation of the laydown area as total cost would be
compounded; i.e., area security and its associated cost would need to be doubled.
Furthermore, the coordination of transporting building materials and/or equipment from different
off-site locations would need to be expanded.
With the above considerations, Site A (Laydown Area 3) is the preferred alternative for the
construction and operation of the additional laydown area. The positive attributes of Site A are
summarized below:
• Site A is sufficient size for the construction and operation of the laydown area.
• The rezoning of Site A is currently underway by DEP and will not affect the construction
schedule.
• Site A does not occur within a regulated floodway; therefore, additional stormwater
restrictions or requirements related to floodplain development will not be encountered.
48

Wetland Master Plan April 7, 2017
Asheville Combined Cycle Project Laydown Area
Arden, North Carolina
Project No. 7810160781
In addition, site accessibility will not be hindered as no portion of the site is situated
within a floodplain.
• The ingress/egress of large truck, trailer and/or crane traffic between Site A and the
plant facility would not be impeded by electrical power transmission lines.
• The ingress/egress in the vicinity of Site A, particularly for access to Laydown Areas 1
and 2 and the construction parking area to the north, is not compromised by unusually
steep grades, poor quality road surfaces, poor traffic Level of Service at intersections, or
high degree curves or switchbacks.
• The suitability of the existing soil substrate within Site A is acceptable (after clearing and
grading) for the construction and operation of the laydown area pad.
• Control over Site A will not be restricted or encumbered; i.e., other entities will not have
absolute or partial control over the use or operation of the laydown area.
• Worker (contractors or others) access to Site A will not be encumbered; i.e., there will be
no limitations or restrictions on the number of workers allowed entry to the site for
construction and day to day laydown operations. In addition, there will no unreasonable
limitations or restrictions to their duties on the site.
• No additional security measures (i.e., security staff, including night watch) will be
required at Site A above the level of security that is normally established by DEP at the
Asheville Plant.
• Worker productivity will be optimized by the selection of Site A, whereas productivity at
the off-site alternatives will be minimized from the additional time required to travel
between these off-site laydown areas and the Asheville Plant.
• Worker safety will be optimized by the selection of Site A, whereas safety will be
minimized for the off-site alternatives from the additional driving effort required to travel
between these off-site laydown areas and the Asheville Plant.
• Level of Service and roadway conditions can be optimized for Site A as the
transportation route between the laydown area and the Asheville Plant can be controlled
and/or improved by DEP, whereas Level of Service and roadway conditions between the
off-site alternatives and the Asheville Plant would require action by Buncombe County to
initiate and complete roadway improvements.
49

Wetland Master Plan
Asheville Combined Cycle Project Laydown Area
Arden, North Carolina
Project No. 7810160781
Table 7. Summary of potential laydown area impacts and constraints.
April 7, 2017
Potential Impacts/Constraints
Site A
(Farm Pond)
Site B
(Ag. Field)
Site C
(Airport)
Cultural Resource Impacts
None
None
None
Protected Species Impacts
Low -Unlikely
Unlikely
Unlikely
Dredge/Fill of USACE Waters
Required
None
None
Floodplain Impacts
No
Yes
No
Additional Security Staff Required
No
Yes
Yes
Site Ultimately Controlled by DEP
Yes
Yes
No
Rezoning Required
Yes
Yes
No
Site Accessibility
Good
Difficult:
Restricted
Transportation (additional measures)
None
Required
Required
Off-site Construction Parking Required
No
Yes
Yes
Site Preparation (pre -construction)
Required
Required
Required
Site Restoration (post -construction)
None
Required
None
Access Restraints
None
Glenn Bridge Rd.,
1-40 bridge height,
transmission lines
t
Glenn Bridge Rd.,
I-40 bridge height
Notes: Yellow = potential project encumbrance; Orange = major potential project encumbrance.
50

Wetland Master Plan April 7, 2017
Asheville Combined Cycle Project Laydown Area
Arden, North Carolina
Project No. 7810160781
5.0 WATERS OF THE U.S.IWETLANDS
5.1 OVERVIEW
The waters of the U.S. that occur within construction areas are discussed in this chapter. In
addition, relevant background information is also presented and includes the suite of natural
resources and physical features that occur within the plant property and the affected
environment for the Asheville CC Project; i.e., the construction work areas. The topics include
land use, geology and topography, soils, terrestrial communities, wetlands, streams, riparian
buffers, open waters, floodplains, surface water and groundwater.
5.2 RELEVANT BACKGROUND INFORMATION
5.2.1 Land Use
The Asheville CC Plant site, construction parking, and laydown areas are predominantly used
for current Asheville Plant operations (Figure 3). The majority of these areas, including the CC
Plant site, construction parking, Laydown Area 1 and Laydown Area 4, were devoted to CCR
material storage (ash ponds) until removal in 2016. These areas are surrounded by the greater
Asheville Plant site and property, with the exception of a small residential area to the south
along Aberdeen Drive. Other land use and cover types within the Asheville Plant property
include tracts of undeveloped forested land, Lake Julian, utility ROW, existing roadways,
construction areas, and waters of the U.S. including forested wetlands, creeks and smaller
stream channels.
Laydown Area 2 and Laydown Area 3 are former partially developed properties acquired by
DEP. Although these two areas were primarily categorized as residential land uses and contain
three houses, they are largely a mix of undeveloped forested and cleared areas. The areas are
bordered by the Asheville Plant to the north, 1-26 to the west, and residential areas to the east
and south along Aberdeen Drive and New Rockwood Road, respectively.
Laydown Area 5 consists of an undeveloped forested tract located to the west of CP and L Drive
within the Asheville Plant. The area is surrounded by the greater Asheville Plant site and
51

Wetland Master Plan
Asheville Combined Cycle Project Laydown Area
Arden, North Carolina
Project No. 7810160781
April 7, 2017
additional undeveloped forested tracts, with the exception of plant operations (access roads,
maintained areas and rail lines) to the south.
5.2.2 Geology and Topography
The Asheville CC Plant site, construction parking, and laydown areas are located in the Broad
Basin USEPA Level IV Ecoregion of the Blue Ridge USEPA Level III Ecoregion. Blue Ridge
terrain occurs primarily on metamorphic rocks with minor areas of igneous and sedimentary
geology, though the Broad Basin has lower elevations, less relief, less boulder colluvium, and
more saprolite than the surrounding mountainous Blue Ridge regions (USEPA 2017).
The geomorphic surfaces of Asheville CC Plant site, construction parking, and laydown areas
are Muscovite -biotite gneiss, a part of the Ashe Metamorphic Suite and Tallulah Falls Formation
within the Blue Ridge Belt (North Carolina Geologic Survey [NCGS] 1985). This geologic layer
is locally sulfidic and is interlayered and gradational with mica schist, minor amphibolite and
hornblende gneiss (NCGS 1985).
The topography of the Asheville Plant is relatively flat with some gently rolling terrain in the
areas of current operation; however, the surrounding topography, including some laydown
areas, is dominated by moderate to steep slopes from uplands down to tributaries of the French
Broad River (Figure 11). The Asheville CC Plant site, construction parking, and laydown areas
have elevations from approximately 2050 feet (below the pond in Laydown Area 3) to 2200 feet
(Laydown Area 5) above mean sea level (AMSL). The majority of the proposed CC Plant site,
which was previously devoted to ash storage, is located at approximately 2160 feet AMSL.
5.2.3 Soils
The Asheville CC Plant development areas include the following soil series that are mapped:
Clifton clay loam, Clifton -Urban land complex, Evard-Cowee complex, Evard-Cowee-Urban land
complex, Tate -Urban land complex, Udorthents, and Udorthents-Urban land complex. The
majority of these soils are well drained. Most of the soils on the Asheville Plant are composed
of clay and loam. Figure 12 depicts the soil types (map units). Table 8 presents the soil types
52

Wetland Master Plan
Asheville Combined Cycle Project Laydown Area
Arden, North Carolina
Project No. 7810160781
April 7, 2017
and their respective hydric soil groups within the Asheville Plant, while Table 9 presents the
occurrence of soils by development area.
Table 8. Soil types within the Asheville Plant, Buncombe County, North Carolina.
Map Unit
Symbol
Soil Type'
Hydric Soil
Group
CkB2
Clifton clay loam, 2 to 8 percent slopes, moderately eroded
B
CkC2
Clifton clay loam, 8 to 15 percent slopes, moderately eroded
B
CkD2
Clifton clay loam, 15 to 30 percent slopes, moderately eroded
B
CuC
Clifton -Urban land complex, 8 to 15 percent slopes
B
CuD
Clifton -Urban land complex, 15 to 30 percent slopes
B
DAM
Dam
--
EvD2
Evard-Cowee complex, 15 to 30 percent slopes, moderately eroded
B
ExD
Evard-Cowee-Urban land complex, 15 to 30 percent slopes
B
TmC
Tate -Urban land complex, 8 to 15 percent slopes
B
Ud
Udorthents, loamy
C
UhE
Udorthents-Urban land complex, 2 to 50 percent slopes
A
W
Water
--
Source: USDA NRCS Soil Data Mart.
2 Group A. Soils having a high infiltration rate (low runoff potential) when thoroughly wet. These consist mainly of deep,
well drained to excessively drained sands or gravelly sands. These soils have a high rate of water transmission.
Group B. Soils having a moderate infiltration rate when thoroughly wet. These consist chiefly of moderately deep or
deep, moderately well drained or well drained soils that have moderately fine texture to moderately coarse texture.
These soils have a moderate rate of water transmission.
Group C. Soils having a slow infiltration rate when thoroughly wet. These consist chiefly of soils having a layer that
impedes the downward movement of water or soils of moderately fine texture or fine texture. These soils have a slow
rate of water transmission.
53

Wetland Master Plan April 7, 2017
Asheville Combined Cycle Project Laydown Area
Arden, North Carolina
Project No. 7810160781
Table 9. Soil types occurrence within the proposed work areas, Buncombe County,
North Carolina.
5.2.4 Terrestrial Communities
The dominant terrestrial communities on the Asheville Plant comprise pine forest, upland
hardwood forest, and mixed pine -hardwood upland forest. Shrub and brushland and open
maintained (grassed) areas also occur on the plant property. These latter areas encompass
disturbed/altered land within the plant property which may have been forested in the past. The
pine forest community comprises stands of Virginia pine (Pinus virginiana) or eastern white pine
(Pinus strobus). The upland hardwood forest community consists of a mixture of oaks, hickories
and other hardwoods. The species mix includes white oak, northern red oak (Quercus rubra
var. rubra), southern red oak (Quercus falcata), black oak (Quercus velutina), post oak
(Quercus stellata), mockernut hickory (Carya alba), sweetgum, red maple, tuliptree, black gum
(Nyssa sylvatica), black cherry (Prunus serotina), American hornbeam (Carpinus caroliniana
54
Occurrence
Map Unit
Symbol
CC Plant
Site
Constr.
Parking
Laydown
Area 1
Laydown
Area 2
Laydown
Area 3
Laydown
Area 4
Laydown
Area 5
CkB2
X
CkC2
X
X
CkD2
X
CuC
X
X
X
CuD
X
DAM
X
X
EvD2
X
X
ExD
X
TmC
X
X
X
Ud
X
X
X
X
UhE
X
X
W
X
X
X
X
X
5.2.4 Terrestrial Communities
The dominant terrestrial communities on the Asheville Plant comprise pine forest, upland
hardwood forest, and mixed pine -hardwood upland forest. Shrub and brushland and open
maintained (grassed) areas also occur on the plant property. These latter areas encompass
disturbed/altered land within the plant property which may have been forested in the past. The
pine forest community comprises stands of Virginia pine (Pinus virginiana) or eastern white pine
(Pinus strobus). The upland hardwood forest community consists of a mixture of oaks, hickories
and other hardwoods. The species mix includes white oak, northern red oak (Quercus rubra
var. rubra), southern red oak (Quercus falcata), black oak (Quercus velutina), post oak
(Quercus stellata), mockernut hickory (Carya alba), sweetgum, red maple, tuliptree, black gum
(Nyssa sylvatica), black cherry (Prunus serotina), American hornbeam (Carpinus caroliniana
54

Wetland Master Plan
Asheville Combined Cycle Project Laydown Area
Arden, North Carolina
Project No. 7810160781
April 7, 2017
var. virginiana), and sourwood (Oxydendrum arboreum). The understory includes grasses,
forbs, vines, persimmon (Diospyros virginiana), flowering dogwood (Cornus florida), American
holly, and saplings and seedlings of the aforementioned hardwood species. The mixed pine -
hardwood upland forest community is a mixture of pines and hardwoods. Botanical taxonomic
nomenclature is in accordance with Weakley (Weakley 2015).
The majority of the proposed Asheville CC Plant site, Laydown Area 1, Laydown Area 4, and
construction parking area are predominantly used for current Asheville Plant (coal-fired)
operations; therefore, terrestrial plant communities are absent from these areas. Laydown Area
2 is a former, partially developed, residential property acquired by DEP and, as such,
encompasses old field areas vegetated with grasses, forbs, vines and seedlings/saplings of
hardwoods and pines. Laydown Area 5 consists of an undeveloped forested tract. A stand of
dense pine trees occupies the western half of this area, while an upland hardwood forest occurs
in the eastern half. Laydown Area 3 comprises undeveloped forested land. The terrestrial plant
communities include upland hardwood forest and mixed pine -hardwood upland forest.
5.2.5 Wetlands
The USFWS NWI indicates the presence of freshwater ponds, ash pond (lake), Lake Julian
(lake), and riverine wetlands associated with the French Broad River (Figure 13); however,
following delineations there were 13 jurisdictional wetland areas identified within the Asheville
Plant (Table 10, Figure 14). A discussion of the methods associated with the evaluation and
delineation of these wetlands is included in Section 4.4.2.3 of the WMP. The wetland areas,
their corresponding NC WAM classification, size (acreage), and general location information are
listed in Table 10. The size, or areal limits, of each wetland is based on the land survey of these
areas by TWT. The land survey was conducted to complete the Verification of JD. A
discussion of the USACE site inspection and the issuance of the Approved JD (Action ID SAW -
2014 -00189) is included in Section 4.4.2.3 of the WMP.
Wetland A is classified as a headwater forest according to NC WAM. This wetland is dominated
by an overstory of sweetgum (Liquidambar styraciflua) and tuliptree (Liriodendron tulipifera)
trees. The midstory consists of saplings of Chinese privet (Liqustrum sinese) with an
herbaceous layer of New York fern (Parathelypteris noveboracensis) and lizard's tail (Saururus
55

Wetland Master Plan
Asheville Combined Cycle Project Laydown Area
Arden, North Carolina
Project No. 7810160781
April 7, 2017
cernuus). There was also a vine stratum that consisted of roundleaf greenbrier (Smilax
rotundifolia).
Wetland B is classified as a headwater forest according to NC WAM. The portion of the wetland
within the plant property is an emergent portion of a headwater forest dominated by an
herbaceous layer that consists of white grass (Leersia virginica), impatiens (Impatiens
capensis), hop sedge (Carex lupulina), and soft rush (Juncus effusus).
Wetlands C, K, L and P are classified as headwater forest according to NC WAM. These
wetlands are dominated by an overstory of red maple (Acer rubrum), tuliptree (Liriodendron
tulipifera), and American elm (Ulmus Americana) trees. The midstory consists of saplings of
American holly (Ilex opaca) with an herbaceous layer of early meadow -rue (Thalictrum dioicum),
false solomon's-seal (Maianthemum racemosum), and southern lady -fern (Athyrium
asplenioides).
Wetlands F, G, H, I, J, M and N are classified as bottomland hardwood forest according
to NC WAM. These wetlands are dominated by an overstory of red maple, American
elm and tuliptree trees. The midstory consists of saplings of red maple, American elm,
sweetgum (Liquidambar styraciflua) and American holly, with an herbaceous layer of
Japanese stilt -grass (Microstegium vimineum), tuliptree, poison ivy (Toxicodendron
radicans), cinnamon fern (Osmundastrum cinnamomea) and impatiens.
56

Wetland Master Plan
Asheville Combined Cycle Project Laydown Area
Arden, North Carolina
Project No. 7810160781
April 7, 2017
Table 10. Jurisdictional wetlands within the Asheville Plant, Buncombe County,
North Carolina.
Wetland ID
NC WAM Classification
Area
(acres)
General Location
within Plant Property
Wetland A
Headwater forest
4.51
Northwest area
Wetland B
Headwater forest
0.11
Northern area
Wetland C
Hardwood forest
0.52
Northeast area
Wetland F
Bottomland hardwood forest
0.18
Southeast area
Wetland G
Bottomland hardwood forest
0.31
Southeast area
Wetland H
Bottomland hardwood forest
1.63
Western area
Wetland I
Bottomland hardwood forest
0.03
Western area
Wetland J
Bottomland hardwood forest
9.86
Southwest area
Wetland K
Headwater forest
1.35
Southwest area
Wetland L
Headwater forest
1.25
Southwest area
Wetland M
Bottomland hardwood forest
2.19
Southern area
Wetland N
Bottomland hardwood forest
2.46
Southern area
Wetland P
Headwater forest
0.57
Northwest area
No potentially jurisdictional wetland areas were delineated within the CC Plant footprint,
construction parking footprint, or in Laydown Areas 1, 2, 4 and 5 (Figure 14). However,
one jurisdictional wetland area, Wetland L, occurs within Laydown Area 3. The wetland
(1.25 acres) was classified as a headwater forest according to NC WAM and includes an
open water (farm pond) component. Additional information and detail for Wetland L is
provided in Section 4.4.2.3.
5.2.6 Streams
Twenty-two jurisdictional streams occur within the Asheville Plant (Table 11, Figure 14). A
discussion of the methods associated with the evaluation and delineation of these streams is
57

Wetland Master Plan April 7, 2017
Asheville Combined Cycle Project Laydown Area
Arden, North Carolina
Project No. 7810160781
included in Section 4.4.2.3 of the WMP. The streams, their corresponding DWR scores and
classifications, corresponding USACE scores, and reach lengths are listed in Table 11. The
extent of each stream is based on the land survey of these jurisdictional waters by TWT. The
land survey was conducted to complete the Verification of JD. A discussion of the USACE site
inspection and the issuance of the Approved JD (Action ID SAW -2014-00189) is included in
Section 4.4.2.3 of the WMP.
58

Wetland Master Plan
Asheville Combined Cycle Project Laydown Area
Arden, North Carolina
Project No. 7810160781
Table 11. Jurisdictional streams within the Asheville Plant, Buncombe County,
North Carolina.
April 7, 2017
Stream ID
Reach Length
(linear feet)
NC DWR Stream
Score
NC DWR Stream
Classification
USACE Stream
Score
Stream 2
910
39.5
Perennial
73
Stream 3
415
No data form
Perennial
No data form
Stream 4
304
32
Perennial
53
Stream 5
846
39.5
(Similar to Stream 2)
Perennial
39.5
(Similar to Stream 2)
Stream 6
390
33.5
Perennial
52
Stream 7
210
25
(Similar to Stream 8)
Intermittent
46
(Similar to Stream 8)
Stream 8
25
25
Intermittent
46
Stream 10
87
21
Intermittent
40
Stream 11
594
24.5
Intermittent
71
Stream 13
600
33
Perennial
72
Stream 14
45
25
Intermittent
51
Stream 15
133
22
Intermittent
56
Stream 16
42
23
Intermittent
46
Stream 17
93
24
Intermittent
46
Stream 18
464
32
Perennial
47
Stream 19
17
22.5
Intermittent
45
Stream 20
694
28
Intermittent
44
Stream 21
159
21
Intermittent
44
Stream 22
406
28.5
Intermittent
44
Stream 23
46
23
Intermittent
49
Stream 24
520.5
33.5
Perennial
56
Stream 26
346
28
Intermittent
46
59

Wetland Master Plan April 7, 2017
Asheville Combined Cycle Project Laydown Area
Arden, North Carolina
Project No. 7810160781
No potentially jurisdictional drainage features were delineated within the CC Plant footprint,
construction parking footprint, or in Laydown Areas 1, 2, 4 and 5 (Figure 14). However, three
jurisdictional streams, Streams 22, 23 and 24 occur within Laydown Area 3. Streams 22 and 23
were classified as intermittent, while Stream 24 was classified as perennial. Additional
information and detail for Streams 22, 23 and 24 is provided in Section 4.4.2.3 of the WMP.
5.2.7 Riparian Buffers
Review of the State of North Carolina Buffer Regulations indicate that the Asheville Plant is not
located within a river basin with buffer rules and is not subject to state riparian buffer rule
regulations.
Review of the Buncombe County Code of Ordinances states that no land disturbing activity
during periods of construction or improvement to land shall be permitted in proximity to a lake or
natural watercourse unless a buffer zone is provided along the margin of the watercourse to
confine siltation within the 25% of the buffer zone nearest the land disturbing activity.
5.2.8 Open Waters
The NRCS Soil Survey (Figure 12) shows three potential areas as open water within the
Asheville Plant, while no open water areas were shown on the USGS topographic map (Figure
11). Two of the three waters depicted on the NRCS Soil Survey are the Asheville Plant ash
pond and a process pond adjacent to Lake Julian, while a third area is shown in Laydown
Area 3.
Three open water classifications are shown on the USFWS NWI Map, the Asheville Plant ash
pond and two freshwater ponds (Figure 13). One pond corresponds to the open water in
Laydown Area 3 and Wetland L, while the second corresponds to Wetland J (Figure 14).
Based on a review of these data, along with field reconnaissance and jurisdictional waters
delineations, there were no potential open waters documented within the CC Plant footprint,
construction parking footprint, or in Laydown Areas 1, 2, 4 and 5. However, one open water, an
.e

Wetland Master Plan
Asheville Combined Cycle Project Laydown Area
Arden, North Carolina
Project No. 7810160781
April 7, 2017
approximately 0.87 acre farm pond, associated with Wetland L occurs within Laydown Area 3.
Additional information and detail for the farm pond is provided in Section 4.4.2.3.
5.2.9 Floodplains
Review of the FEMA -delineated 100 -year flood boundary for the project area identified that much
of the western boundary of the Asheville Plant along the French Broad River and portions of the
plant property around Lake Julian are within the 100 -year flood zone (Figure 15).
5.2.10 Surface Water
Surface water includes streams, rivers, lakes and reservoirs. The Asheville Plant is located in
the Cane Creek -French Broad River 12 -digit HUC within the Upper French Broad sub -basin 8 -
digit HUC contained within the French Broad River Basin, part of the Blue Ridge Physiographic
Region. No major natural water bodies occur within the Asheville Plant, though the French
Broad River abuts the western boundary of the plant. The French Broad River begins just west
of the Eastern Continental Divide. From there it flows northeasterly through the Appalachian
Mountains. The river flows for approximately 218 miles draining large portions of the Pisgah
National Forest and the Cherokee National Forest. Originating near the town of Rosman, North
Carolina, in Transylvania County, and continuing into the state of Tennessee, the French
Broad's confluence with the Holston River in Knoxville, Tennessee, forms the Tennessee River.
The surface water classification listed for the French Broad River based on the most recent
NCDEQ surface water data (NCDEQ 2017a) is "B". This classification includes waters
protected for uses such as primary recreation, fresh water, fishing, wildlife, fish consumption,
aquatic life including propagation, survival and maintenance of biological integrity, and
agriculture. Primary recreational activities include swimming, skin diving, water skiing and
similar uses involving human body contact with water where such activities take place in an
organized manner or on a frequent basis. The French Broad River is listed as impaired in the
vicinity of the Asheville Plant. The section of the French Broad River from its confluence of Mud
Creek to the NC 146 (Long Shoal Rd.) Bridge is included on the "Draft 2016 303(d) List" of
impaired waters for exceeding the criteria for fecal coliform (NCDEQ 2017b).
61

Wetland Master Plan
Asheville Combined Cycle Project Laydown Area
Arden, North Carolina
Project No. 7810160781
April 7, 2017
Three stream features and a man-made pond occur within the project area. The pond, along
with streams 22, 23 and 24, occur within Laydown Area 3. Streams 22 and 23, classified as
intermittent, drain into the pond, while Stream 24, classified as perennial, conveys flow west
from the pond and into the French Broad River. Additional information and detail for Streams
22, 23 and 24 is provided in Section 4.4.2.3 of the WMP.
5.2.11 Groundwater
Groundwater refers to subsurface hydrologic resources that are used for domestic, agricultural
and industrial purposes. Groundwater is stored in natural geologic formations called aquifers.
In the Blue Ridge Physiographic Region of North Carolina, two major aquifer systems exist and
usually interact with one another (NCDEQ 2017c). The surficial materials or regolith of the Blue
Ridge province forms the unconfined aquifer, while the fractured rock beneath forms the
unconfined to semi -confined bedrock aquifer. Usually the surficial aquifer feeds the fractures in
the bedrock aquifer. These two aquifers are further described below (NCDEQ 2017c):
• Surficial aquifer: This aquifer is widely used throughout the State for individual home
wells. The surficial aquifer is the shallowest and most susceptible to contamination from
septic tank systems and other pollution sources. Commonly, large diameter wells (up to
3 feet in diameter) are drilled up to 60 feet deep to store large quantities of water in the
well casing. The surficial aquifer is also very sensitive to variations in rainfall amounts
(i.e., they are the first to dry -up in a drought). Surficial aquifer wells typically yield 25 to
200 gallons per minute (gpm).
• Fractured bedrock aquifer: This aquifer is widely used for home water supply. Usually
six-inch wells are drilled to intercept water bearing fractures which are more common in
valleys or draws. Thick sequences of regolith (surficial aquifer) above fractured bedrock
can improve well yields to 200 gpm or more. As a result, industry or municipal well fields
typically use these bedrock wells because they are higher yielding.
The proposed activities within the CC Plant footprint, construction parking footprint, or Laydown
Areas will not draw water from subsurface/groundwater sources. Therefore, the project should
have no pronounced effect on the surficial aquifer or the fractured bedrock aquifer.
62

Wetland Master Plan April 7, 2017
Asheville Combined Cycle Project Laydown Area
Arden, North Carolina
Project No. 7810160781
6.0 PROPOSED WATERS OF THE U.S./WETLANDS IMPACTS
6.1 EXTENT OF IMPACTS
To complete the construction of the Asheville CC Plant, Laydown Area 3 will need to be
established. The limits of disturbance associated with Laydown Area 3 will encompass Wetland
L and Streams 22, 23 and 24. The impact to the headwater wetland of Wetland L will be 0.38
acre and permanent. The proposed impacts to Streams 22, 23 and 24 will be 972.5 feet and
permanent. The impact to the open water component (farm pond) of Wetland L will be 0.87
acre and permanent. No mitigation is being offered herein for the proposed impact of 0.87 acre
to this farm pond. The Plan View and Cross -Section drawings depicting the proposed impacts to
the waters of the U.S. in Laydown Area 3 are included in Appendix D. The installation
(construction) sequence details for the proposed culvert/piping of the streams with Laydown
Area 3 are depicted on the CBI engineering drawings.
6.2 AVOIDANCE AND MINIMIZATION
The Mountain Energy Act requires that DEP permanently cease operations of all coal-fired
generating units at the Asheville Steam Electric Generating Plant no later than January 31,
2020. During the construction phase for the CC units, approximately 25 acres will be necessary
for construction laydown areas and on-site construction parking for up to 750 vehicles. Site
factors were evaluated and construction management measures were reviewed to optimize the
final selection of the construction laydown areas and on-site construction parking areas.
Utilization of Duke Energy property adjacent to the site was preferable to the purchase of
additional property that would require relocation of existing residences. The selection of on-site
construction parking, rather than off-site parking, is considered integral to meeting the regulatory
deadline and necessary to maintain worker productivity and reduce safety hazards and
accidents. This effort considered and included ways to avoid and minimize impacts to
jurisdictional waters. The avoidance and minimization considerations focused on the location of
Laydown Area 3 because this area could impact jurisdictional waters. The avoidance and
minimization considerations also focused on the selection of an on-site construction parking
area as well as laydown areas. Project phasing was also examined as related to availability of
areas that could be utilized alternately as laydown or construction parking, dependent upon
63

Wetland Master Plan
Asheville Combined Cycle Project Laydown Area
Arden, North Carolina
Project No. 7810160781
April 7, 2017
scheduled receipt and use of project materials as well as variability in work force size based on
schedule. These considerations are discussed in more detail below.
6.2.1 Laydown Area 3 Avoidance and Minimization Considerations
Typically CB&I requires approximately 25 acres of on-site laydown space to construct a CC
plant. This is due to the delivery of major equipment required early in the construction schedule.
Current designed laydown areas total approximately 22.5 acres for construction laydown.
Laydown Area 3, with impacts, will provide approximately 5.9 acres of usable area and is
necessary to achieve workable laydown space.
The ability to avoid and minimize impacts to jurisdictional waters within Laydown Area 3 is
limited by steep topography and geologic conditions. The contributory drainage of the laydown
space is greater than 5 acres; therefore, construction of a sediment basin is required by the
North Carolina Division of Energy, Mineral and Land Resources. The topography in Laydown
Area 3 drops from the northeast to the southwest. Placement of the proposed sediment basin
is, therefore, optimized at the low point in the westerly corner of Laydown Area 3. The basin
could not be constructed at another location within this laydown area as the area is not large
enough to accommodate alternate locations, given topography and geology. Wetland L and
Streams 22, 23 and 24 occur within/near the center of Laydown Area 3; therefore, avoidance of
these features is problematic with respect to the configuration of construction elements and
proximity to jurisdictional waters. The proposed impacts to Wetland L and Streams 22, 23 and
24 within Laydown Area 3 are necessary for establishing the basin and piping, while site grading
is required to provide a suitably sized pad to accommodate laydown material and equipment.
The proposed impact to the farm pond within Laydown Area 3 is also related to the topographic
and geologic site conditions effects on site configuration (i.e., optimization of design
components). The steep topography pushes the development to the middle of the site where
contours are flatter. However, the presence of the pond within the central portion of the
laydown area prevents site utilization without impacts to jurisdictional waters. To develop the
site for a laydown area of suitable size, which includes the establishment of a sediment basin,
the pond must be filled to raise the grade, as excavation of the surrounding steeper slopes is
not feasible due to site topography and geologic conditions. The farm pond could not be used
64

Wetland Master Plan
Asheville Combined Cycle Project Laydown Area
Arden, North Carolina
Project No. 7810160781
April 7, 2017
for a sediment basin due to inadequate storage volume from the top of pond water surface to
the top of the existing embankment (approximately 1 foot). Even if sediments in the pond
bottom were excavated, the pond is not of sufficient size to handle stormwater volume flowing
through the system and still meet North Carolina E&SC and Buncombe County stormwater
requirements. Given the location of the pond and the existing site contours surrounding the
pond, construction stormwater could not be routed through the pond and simultaneously meet
stormwater requirements. The upstream contributory drainage area to the farm pond is
approximately 55.0 acres, comprising 39.5 acres on the east side of New Rockwood Road
(outside DEP property) and 15.0 acres on the west side of New Rockwood Road (within DEP
property). This runoff has been accounted for in the proposed sediment basin and results in a
larger detention basin to meet NC E&SC design standards and Buncombe County peak rate
reductions for the 1 -year, 24-hour storm event. Therefore, to meet regulatory requirements for
stormwater management as related to the existing site conditions and parameters, a sediment
basin needs to be constructed. The location of the basin is directed and limited by existing site
conditions including steep topography and site geology and the location of the farm pond within
the center of the site. Site optimization is further compounded by the fact that the pond cannot
be used as a sediment basin due to inadequate storage volume capacity.
The proposed access to Laydown Area 3 is from Laydown Area 2. Laydown Area 2 abuts the
northern edge of Laydown Area 3 (see Figure 3). Laydown Area 2 is located within the other
site construction facility areas, which are all contained inside Owner controlled fencing. If the
farm pond (Wetland L) and Streams 22 and 23 were to remain post -development, a new
driveway access from New Rockwood Road would be required to access Laydown Area 3. This
driveway would result in negative impacts to residents near the laydown area resulting from
nuisance traffic, noise, fugitive dust and safety concerns. Specifically, the transport of material
and equipment on a public road that is not controlled by DEP would be problematic.
Access to Laydown Area 3 across the westerly embankment for the existing farm pond would
result in additional safety concerns. The westerly embankment is not able to adequately
support HS -20 vehicle loading and would require significant improvements resulting in fill
impacts to Stream 24 (i.e., a portion of the stream segment would be filled rather than piped).
65

Wetland Master Plan
Asheville Combined Cycle Project Laydown Area
Arden, North Carolina
Project No. 7810160781
April 7, 2017
Additionally, there is a significant drop-off from the westerly embankment to Stream 24 which
would cause safety issues for vehicle traffic.
6.2.2 Construction Parking Area Avoidance and Minimization Considerations
The Asheville CC Plant project proposes three parking areas to meet the project needs. The
total amount of parking required for the project is 4.95 acres, which will accommodate up to 750
parking spaces:
• On-site Construction Parking Area (craft personnel parking), comprising 3.2 acres and
461 parking spaces
• A portion of Laydown Area 1 to be converted in the future for peak overflow parking,
comprising 0.8 acre and 100 parking spaces
• A portion of Laydown Area 2 to be converted in the future for peak overflow parking,
comprising 0.95 acre and 116 parking spaces
Duke Energy considered using the areas listed above in entirety for laydown instead of a portion
for parking. However, using all the above areas for laydown would only provide approximately 5
acres for laydown and not avoid the need to use Laydown Area 3. Off-site construction parking
was considered for the project. Specific site locations for off-site construction parking
opportunities are limited and would not provide sufficient capacity or duration to accommodate
the parking needs of craft workers for the entirety of the Asheville CC Plant project. These
locations included the following:
• Agricultural Center: Through discussions between CB&I, DEP, and the Western North
Carolina Agricultural Center, the use of the parking area at the Agricultural Center was
determined to be an unsuitable option for off-site construction parking. This
determination was based on the expected duration of construction for the Asheville CC
Plant project (two years) and the unavailability of parking at the Agricultural Center
during portions of that year (e.g., the North Carolina Mountain State Fair and other
activities) (personal communication between Matt Buchanan, Agricultural Center; Clay
Parker, Duke Energy, March 14, 2017). A long-term parking arrangement would be

Wetland Master Plan
Asheville Combined Cycle Project Laydown Area
Arden, North Carolina
Project No. 7810160781
April 7, 2017
difficult to offer with the amount of parking that is needed from time to time during the
year by the Agricultural Center for the various activities and functions they engage in
(personal communication between Matt Buchanan, Agricultural Center; Clay Parker,
Duke Energy, March 14, 2017).
• Asheville Regional Airport: Construction of a parking deck is ongoing at the Asheville
Regional Airport. A gravel lot provides parking for workers at this location. The lot will
be no longer used when construction of the parking deck is completed (scheduled for
summer 2017). However, the size of this gravel lot (approximately equal to or less than
2 acres) is not sufficient to support craft parking for the Asheville CC Plant project.
• Biltmore Baptist Church: The opportunity for off-site parking at local churches was
considered. The Biltmore Baptist Church located on Clayton Road is the largest of
these. However, due to the use of the parking lot by church members at times during
the week and consistently on the weekend, this off-site parking opportunity was
considered impractical; i.e., the parking lot could not be used on a consistent long-term
basis without interruption (in addition to weekdays, construction parking is required on
weekends as they are used for make-up days that are lost due to inclement weather).
• On-site laydown areas: Alternate configurations utilizing the proposed on-site laydown
areas for parking (in addition to laydown and/or in place of) were examined. Due to the
acreage needed for laydown (approximately 25 acres) and parking (approximately 5
acres) none of the alternate on-site configurations (without impacts to Laydown Area 3)
provided the necessary laydown and parking combination.
o Without the impacts to the wetland and streams, Laydown Area 3 cannot be
configured to meet the laydown and/or parking needs. This site is bisected by
the jurisdictional waters into at least two smaller subareas. Given the size and
location of the wetland and streams as well as topography and geology, the site
cannot be sufficiently configured for laydown of material and equipment, or craft
parking in excess of 250 parking spaces.
• Off-site storage facilities: Off-site storage facilities were examined in the initial screening
process for selection of additional laydown area (see Section 4.3 of WMP). The three
off-site storage facilities included Jumbo Storage, the Rockwood Road property, and the
Bradley Branch Road property. These sites were dismissed from further alternatives
analysis as there was not enough land area within the property to accommodate
67

Wetland Master Plan April 7, 2017
Asheville Combined Cycle Project Laydown Area
Arden, North Carolina
Project No. 7810160781
additional laydown area and/or the landowner was hesitant or unwilling to relinquish the
property for laydown of material and equipment. These results would be consistent with
the potential for use of the properties as off-site craft parking.
• Other projects around the Asheville area (e.g., the Buncombe County Health and Human
Services Building) use off-site parking since parking is extremely limited at the project
location. The 15 parking spaces available at this location are reserved for transporting
and delivering materials, although vans are occasionally used for transporting craft
personnel. In this case, there are multiple pay -to -park lots near this work site and
workers park and walk or make their own travel arrangements. This scenario is not
comparable to the Asheville CC Plant project in terms of the number of workers, the
regulatory constraints on schedule, or the availability of nearby parking.
The constraints with respect to the potential availability and use of off-site construction parking
are safety, risk, liability, cost, public impact and productivity. The Mountain Energy Act requires
that DEP permanently cease operations of all coal-fired generating units at the Asheville Steam
Electric Generating Plant no later than January 31, 2020. Productivity and project schedule are
crucial as this regulatory deadline cannot be extended. The following points eliminated the off-
site parking consideration:
• Reduction in productivity due to bussing workers; that is, loss of work time for workers
who are limited by the bussing option to enter and leave the Asheville CC Plant work site
(Note: this also becomes a density issue, which may prohibit increases to the work
force).
• CB&I has examined off-site parking opportunities within a 10 -mile radius of the Asheville
Plant and could not find acceptable sites to accommodate up to 750 vehicles at a single
site for the duration of the project. There may be other sites located, but parking would
have to be split between several locations in this scenario, again, this would impact
productivity.
• The reduction in productivity would affect the opportunity to complete the project by the
regulatory deadline (i.e., schedule delays).
.:

Wetland Master Plan
Asheville Combined Cycle Project Laydown Area
Arden, North Carolina
Project No. 7810160781
April 7, 2017
• To counteract worker productivity losses resulting from travel time, multi -shift and/or
night-time operations may be necessary to maintain the project schedule. This scenario
would impact the residential neighborhood via light emissions, dust, traffic and noise.
• Regarding risk and liability, the proposed laydown and parking areas for the project are
all located within a secure area with planned design. If laydown and/or parking areas
were established outside of the secured plant boundary, risk to public safety resulting
from required travel and/or movement of material to/from these areas would increase.
• Liability related to loss or damage to equipment from off-site laydown would increase.
The transport of large equipment and large material loads across major roads and
highways increases the potential for interactions with power lines and commuter traffic
(i.e., safety and liability issues).
• For off-site parking locations with residential neighborhoods occurring between the plant
construction site and the off-site parking areas, negative impacts to residents would
occur resulting from nuisance traffic, noise related to traffic, fugitive dust and safety
concerns.
• It is safer and more efficient to allow for craft personnel to have direct access to the CC
Plant work site rather than requiring workers to walk/travel through one or more laydown
areas to access to the work site. Under the proposed design of the laydown and parking
areas, access to the CC Plant work site is achieved via one entrance, and craft
personnel do not walk or travel through laydown areas. This scenario reduces risk
liability and DEP will be able to comply with the regulatory deadline in the Mountain
Energy Act.
As previously discussed in Section 4.4.2.4 of the WMP, CB&I developed a ROM ($12
million) estimate for off-site impacts in support of the construction and operation of the
Agricultural Field alternatives site for off-site construction parking. In addition to the cost
of site preparation (civil works and stone), there would be significant additional cost in
site services, equipment operators, and overtime wages due to the location of the off-site
construction parking area away from the Asheville CC Plant construction site. The cost
to acquire, secure and maintain an off-site parking area for construction workers at other
off-site locations within Buncombe County or the metropolitan Asheville area would be
similarly high.
.•

Wetland Master Plan
Asheville Combined Cycle Project Laydown Area
Arden, North Carolina
Project No. 7810160781
April 7, 2017
• A simplified parking plan for craft personnel improves productivity and ensures the
completion of the project in a timely manner. Increasing the work force leads to
significant inefficiencies resulting from increased wait times between working groups on
site due to the congested nature of the power block during construction. The peak craft
plans optimize the productivity while accounting for work area size limitations.
• An off-site craft parking scenario is also problematic from density standpoint; i.e., such a
scenario would require adding a second shift, thus causing significant community
relation issues.
In summary, off-site parking has four principal disadvantages over parking on-site:
• Safety concerns would be elevated.
• Project schedule would be impacted as to meeting the regulatory deadline.
• Worker productivity would be diminished.
• Capital expenditure would be magnified.
With the above considerations, on-site construction parking represents the most feasible,
practicable, safe, cost-effective and temporally efficient parking option. Consequently, since
approximately 25 acres of on-site laydown space is required to construct the Asheville CC Plant
due to the delivery of major equipment required early in the construction schedule, Laydown
Area 3, as it is currently designed, is necessary to achieve sufficient laydown space.
6.3 CUMULATIVE IMPACTS
The USACE is required to determine both potential short-term and long-term effects of a
proposed discharge of dredge and fill material on the physical, chemical and biological
components of an aquatic environment including the effects of cumulative impacts. A review of
potential cumulative impacts to waters of the U.S. as a result of the establishment of Laydown
Area 3 indicates that the proposed discharge would have no significant adverse effects on the
aquatic ecosystem. The rationale for this presumption is based on the following considerations:
70

Wetland Master Plan
Asheville Combined Cycle Project Laydown Area
Arden, North Carolina
Project No. 7810160781
April 7, 2017
• A permanent stormwater basin will be constructed within the western portion of Laydown
Area 3.
• An E&SC Plan will be prepared and submitted to NCDEQ for approval.
• BMPs will be established to reduce erosion and sedimentation during construction.
• Outfalls developed under the Asheville CC Project will be incorporated into DEP's
existing NPDES permit.
• DEP's SPPP will be subsequently updated to reflect new outfalls.
The proposed impacts to waters of the U.S. from construction of Laydown Area 3 should not
have any cumulative effect on the quality of other jurisdictional waters occurring within the
Asheville Plant or beyond the plant property. This presumption is based on the review of
environmental documentation regarding known current and past federal and non-federal actions
at the plant. Projects in the planning phase were also considered, including reasonably
foreseeable (rather than speculative) actions that have the potential to interact with the
proposed action. To have reasonable assurances that there would be cumulative effects to
projects when considered together or incrementally, the projects need to occur within similar
timeframes and within a geographic area coinciding with the proposed action. The construction
of Laydown Area 3 will not have a cumulative effect on jurisdictional waters within other recent
CC projects in the Carolinas with laydown and parking usage. These other projects are not
located in the same river basin as the Asheville Plant:
• Dan River Steam Station, Rockingham County (Roanoke River Basin)
• W.S. Lee Steam Station, Anderson County, South Carolina (Santee River Basin)
71

Wetland Master Plan April 7, 2017
Asheville Combined Cycle Project Laydown Area
Arden, North Carolina
Project No. 7810160781
7.0 WETLAND/STREAM COMPENSATORY MITIGATION PLAN
The compensatory mitigation options evaluated for the Asheville CC Plant construction, as
specifically concerning the proposed impacts to the jurisdictional waters within Laydown Area 3,
include the following: (1) credit purchase from an approved private mitigation bank, (2) credit
purchase through the NCDMS In -Lieu Fee Program, and/or (3) in-kind restoration and
enhancement of on-site wetlands and/or stream restoration (permittee -responsible mitigation).
Based on the review of the mitigation options available, credit purchase from an approved
mitigation bank and credit purchase through the NCDMS In -Lieu Fee Program are both viable
options to obtain compensatory mitigation for impacts under the proposed action. On-site
mitigation is not feasible because the aforementioned mitigation bank and In -Lieu Fee options
are already available.
Currently, stream mitigation credits for Fiscal Year 2017 are available from two private
mitigation bankers within the Upper French Broad Watershed (HUC 06010105): the Wash
Creek mitigation bank, Henderson County, and the Anderson Farm mitigation bank, Buncombe
County. Wetland mitigation credits, however, are not available from either of these two banks.
Wetland and stream mitigation credits are currently available through the NCDMS In -Lieu Fee
Program. Table 5 presents the compensatory mitigation information on these two mitigation
banks and the NCDMS In -Lieu Fee Program, including the comparative mitigation costs for
impacts to jurisdictional riparian wetlands and cool water streams. Note: The Asheville CC
Plant location does not occur within any watershed in the state where State Riparian Buffer
Rules are administered by the State of North Carolina; therefore, no mitigation options are
presented in Table 5 for impacts to riparian buffers.
The mitigation costs for wetland and stream impacts associated with the establishment of
Laydown Area 3 are presented in Table 6. Stream 22 (intermittent) and Stream 24 (perennial)
were reported with NC SAM overall ratings of high. A 2:1 ratio is presumed to be appropriate
for the purchase of credits for proposed impacts to these two streams. Stream 23 (intermittent)
was reported with a NC SAM overall rating of medium. A 1:1 ratio is presumed to be
appropriate for the purchase of credits for the proposed impact to this stream. Stream credits
will be obtained from the Wash Creek mitigation bank and/or the Anderson Farm mitigation
72

Wetland Master Plan
Asheville Combined Cycle Project Laydown Area
Arden, North Carolina
Project No. 7810160781
April 7, 2017
bank. As an alternative and pending final approval by the USACE, stream credits may be
obtained in entirety from the NCDMS In -Lieu Fee Program. Riparian wetland credits will be
obtained from the NCDMS In -Lieu Fee Program as wetland credits are not available from the
two existing mitigation banks. A mitigation ratio of 2:1 is presumed to be appropriate for the
purchase of credits for the proposed impact to Wetland L.
73

Wetland Master Plan April 7, 2017
Asheville Combined Cycle Project Laydown Area
Arden, North Carolina
Project No. 7810160781
8.0 PROTECTED SPECIES
8.1 BACKGROUND
The investigation to determine the potential for occurrence of protected species within the
Asheville CC Plant site, construction parking, and five laydown areas was conducted in an
identical manner as described in Section 4.4.2.2 of the WMP for the alternatives analysis. The
effort included a review of federal and state databases to identify documented federally
protected species (threatened or endangered) and federal Species of Concern which have
elemental occurrences within a half -mile radius of the Asheville Plant inclusive of the
aforementioned construction areas. The federal and state databases which were reviewed
were identified in Section 4.4.2.2.
8.2 AFFECTED ENVIRONMENT
The potential for listed species occurring within the Asheville Plant is presented in Table 12 for
each of the proposed construction areas.
74

Wetland Master Plan
Asheville Combined Cycle Project Laydown Area
Arden, North Carolina
Project No. 7810160781
Table 12. Potential for occurrence of federally listed animal and plant species
within construction areas, Asheville Plant, Buncombe County, North
Carolina.
April 7, 2017
75
Potential for Occurrence
Common Name
(Scientific Name)
CC Plant
Constr.
Laydown
Laydown
Laydown
Laydown
Laydown
Parking
Area 1
Area 2
Area 3
Area 4
Area 5
Carolina northern
flying squirrel
(Glaucomys
Unlikely
Unlikely
Unlikely
Unlikely
Unlikely
Unlikely
Unlikely
sabrinus coloratus)
Northern long-eared
bat (NLEB)
(Myotis
Unlikely
Unlikely
Unlikely
Unlikely
Low
Unlikely
Low
septentrionalis)
Gray bat
(Myotis grisescens)
Unlikely
Unlikely
Unlikely
Unlikely
Low
Unlikely
Low
Bald eagle
(Haliaeetus
Unlikely
Unlikely
Unlikely
Unlikely
Low
Unlikely
Unlikely
leucocephalus)
Appalachian elktoe
(Alasmidonta
Unlikely
Unlikely
Unlikely
Unlikely
Unlikely
Unlikely
Unlikely
raveneliana)
Spruce -fir moss
spider
(Microhexura
Unlikely
Unlikely
Unlikely
Unlikely
Unlikely
Unlikely
Unlikely
montivaga)
Blueridge goldenrod
(Solidago
Unlikely
Unlikely
Unlikely
Unlikely
Unlikely
Unlikely
Unlikely
spitamaea)
Bunched arrowhead
(Sagittaria
Unlikely
Unlikely
Unlikely
Unlikely
Unlikely
Unlikely
Unlikely
fasciculata)
Mountain sweet
pitcherplant
(Sarracenia rubra
Unlikely
Unlikely
Unlikely
Unlikely
Unlikely
Unlikely
Unlikely
ssp. jonesii)
Spreading avens
(Geum radiatum)
Unlikely
Unlikely
Unlikely
Unlikely
Unlikely
Unlikely
Unlikely
Virginia spiraea
(Spiraea virginiana)
Unlikely
Unlikely
Unlikely
Unlikely
Unlikely
Unlikely
Unlikely
Rock gnome lichen
(Gymnoderma
Unlikely
Unlikely
Unlikely
Unlikely
Unlikely
Unlikely
Unlikely
lineare)
75

Wetland Master Plan
Asheville Combined Cycle Project Laydown Area
Arden, North Carolina
Project No. 7810160781
April 7, 2017
The CC Plant site, construction parking, Laydown Area 1, and a portion of Laydown Area 4
were devoted to ash storage until 2016. These construction areas provide no habitat to the
listed plant and animal species identified in Table 12.
Laydown Area 2 is a former, partially developed, residential property acquired by DEP and, as
such, encompasses old field areas which are vegetated with grasses, forbs, vines and
seedlings/saplings of hardwoods and pines. There are no waterbodies within Laydown Area 2;
therefore, no fishery opportunity for the bald eagle or aquatic -based foraging opportunity
(insects) for the NLEB and the gray bat. There are no suitable summer roost trees for the
NLEB. No streams or seeps occur within this area which could provide habitat for the
Appalachian elktoe or bunched arrowhead, respectively.
Laydown Area 5 consists of an undeveloped forested tract. A stand of dense pine trees
occupies the western half of this area, while an upland hardwood forest occurs in the eastern
half. No streams or seeps occur within this area which could provide habitat for the
Appalachian elktoe or bunched arrowhead. There is no fishery opportunity for the bald eagle.
There is no aquatic -based foraging opportunity for the NLEB and the gray bat as there are no
waterbodies. There are no suitable summer roost trees for the NLEB within the dense pine
stand in the western half of this area. The upland hardwood forest in the eastern half of the
area could provide some opportunity for summer roosting, although no known maternity roost
trees are documented. No caves or mines are within the proposed Laydown Area 5; therefore,
no hibernacula are available for the NLEB or the gray bat.
Laydown Area 3 comprises upland hardwood forest, mixed pine -hardwood upland forest,
wetland (headwater forest), streams and a farm pond. The potential for occurrence for most of
the species in Table 12 is unlikely. The potential for occurrence of the bald eagle, NLEB and
gray bat is low. A discussion of these three species was previously presented for Laydown
Area 3 in Section 4.4.2.2 of the WMP (i.e., Site A in the alternatives analysis discussion).
Farm Pond Fisheries
The limits of disturbance associated with Laydown Area 3 will include the open water
component (farm pond) of Wetland L. No listed fish species are likely to exist in the farm pond.
76

Wetland Master Plan
Asheville Combined Cycle Project Laydown Area
Arden, North Carolina
Project No. 7810160781
April 7, 2017
The North Carolina Wildlife Resources Commission (NCWRC) has stated that no fish from a
private farm pond should be allowed to escape into public waters (Powell Wheeler personal
communication NCWRC January 2017). In addition, the NCWRC preference is that any fish
contained in the pond should be buried on site (Powell Wheeler personal communication
NCWRC January 2017). The electronic mail correspondence for the above personal
communication is provided in Appendix E.
77

Wetland Master Plan April 7, 2017
Asheville Combined Cycle Project Laydown Area
Arden, North Carolina
Project No. 7810160781
9.0 CULTURAL RESOURCES
9.1 BACKGROUND
Section 404 of the CWA requires that projects authorized by the USACE do not adversely affect
historical properties which are listed or eligible for listing on the NRHP. Cultural resources are
protected by Section 106 of the NHPA. The Section 106 process consists of consultation with
state and federal agencies, consultation with Native American tribes by the lead federal agency,
and the identification and evaluation of cultural resources for inclusion in the NRHP. Amec
Foster Wheeler conducted a cultural resource screening to assess the presence/absence of
known cultural resources and NRHP-listed resources within a half -mile search radius of the
Asheville Plant (Figure 16). The research included a review of available data from the NCSHPO
online Web GIS Service (NCSHPO 2017). The investigation did not include field efforts to
identify or verify cultural resources, and no formal coordination with the NCSHPO office was
included in this review.
9.2 AFFECTED ENVIRONMENT
No structures or Districts were listed on the NRHP within the search area. According to the
North Carolina Office of State Archaeology records, a portion of the search area located along
the French Broad River has been previously surveyed for archaeological resources, The 1978
Archaeological Reconnaissance Survey of the Hominy Valley Interceptor Sewer Project and the
South Buncombe Interceptor Sewer Project, Buncombe and Henderson Counties, North
Carolina, by Harvard G. Ayers. This 39 -mile Phase I survey of a 40 -foot wide corridor along the
floodplain of the French Broad River and its tributaries (survey area portion within the half -mile
search radius shown on Figure 16) resulted in the identification of five significant archaeological
sites, however, none of the sites identified were within the search radius.
In addition to the archaeological survey, two historic structures were identified within the
search area (Table 13) as shown on Figure 16. Structure BN2495 is a historic bridge
that has been surveyed only for the NRHP. Structure BN0440, a historic house, has not
been field verified. The results of this review included archival research that verified
78

Wetland Master Plan
Asheville Combined Cycle Project Laydown Area
Arden, North Carolina
Project No. 7810160781
April 7, 2017
that no recorded archaeological or architectural resources are located within the plant
boundaries.
Table 13. Identified cultural resource sites within a half -mile radius of the
Asheville Plant, Buncombe County, North Carolina.
Site No.
Description
NRHP Status
BN2495
Bridge
Not Eligible
BN0440
House
Not Eligible
Source: NCSHPO, Office of Archives and History
79

Wetland Master Plan April 7, 2017
Asheville Combined Cycle Project Laydown Area
Arden, North Carolina
Project No. 7810160781
10.0 ENVIRONMENTAL JUSTICE
10.1 BACKGROUND
Environmental justice considers sensitive minority and low-income populations in the community
to determine whether the proposed action and its alternatives may have a disproportionate high
and adverse human health or environmental effect on those populations. Environmental justice
analysis is conducted in compliance with EO 12898, Federal Actions to Address Environmental
Justice in Minority Populations and Low-income Populations. Based on guidance from the
CEQ, minority populations should be identified where either (a) the minority population of the
area exceeds 50%, or (b) the minority population percentage of the affected area is
meaningfully greater than the minority population percentage in the general population or other
appropriate unit of geographic analysis (CEQ 1997). Low-income populations are defined as
those below the federal poverty thresholds identified using statistical poverty thresholds from the
U.S. Census. USEPA guidance states, "The composition of the population should be compared
to the characteristics of the population (e.g., percentage of minority populations residing near a
proposed project versus the percentage of minority populations located within a single or
multiple -county area surrounding the proposed project" (USEPA 1998). Applying this
methodology to the identification of low-income populations and minorities in this WMP, the
percentage of low-income and minority populations in the vicinity of the Asheville Plant
(Buncombe County) is compared to the percentage of low-income and minority populations
located within North Carolina. Specifically, a low-income or minority population is identified
when an area has a poverty rate or minority population percentage that is significantly greater
than the state. The data used in this analysis is a combination of U.S. Census Bureau (USCB)
Census 2010 and the 2015 estimated populations.
10.2 AFFECTED ENVIRONMENT
Ethnic compositions of Buncombe County and the State of North Carolina are summarized in
Table 14. In 2015, persons of Hispanic and African American populations constituted the
largest percentage minority group in Buncombe County (both 6.6%), which were below the
percentages in North Carolina (9.1 % and 22.1 %, respectively). Census Tract 22.03 includes
the Asheville Plant and the neighborhoods to the south; the 2016 population was 5,666 for this

Wetland Master Plan
Asheville Combined Cycle Project Laydown Area
Arden, North Carolina
Project No. 7810160781
April 7, 2017
tract. In the total population in the tract, the percentage of persons earning income below the
poverty threshold is 24.9%. The median income for Census Tract 22.03 was $35,540, in 2015
dollars. The African American alone or in combination with one or more races population is
1,001, while the Latino or Hispanic population for is approximately 8.1 %. Of those with income
below the poverty level, 4.8% are age 65 and over. As a result, the vicinity of the Asheville
Plant (Buncombe County) is well below the CEQ threshold of 50% for minority and elderly
populations, but above the county poverty percentage of 15.2%. Census Tract 22.03 does not
meet the criteria for environmental justice populations.
Table 14 summarizes the socioeconomics within Buncombe County and the State of North
Carolina. The median household income for Buncombe County was $45,167, comparable to
the median household income of $46,868 for the State of North Carolina. However, Buncombe
County has a lower proportion of persons living below poverty (15.2%) compared to the
proportion for North Carolina (16.4%).
81

Wetland Master Plan
Asheville Combined Cycle Project Laydown Area
Arden, North Carolina
Project No. 7810160781
April 7, 2017
Table 14. Summary of demographic data for Buncombe County and North Carolina.
Demographic Characteristic
Buncombe
County
North
Carolina
Population
Population, (2015 Estimate)
253,178
10,042,802
Population, (2010 Census)
238,308
9,535,692
Percent Change (2010-2015)
6.2%
5.3%
Persons Under 5 Years (2015)
5.2%
6.0%
Persons Under 18 years (2015)
19.2%
22.8%
Persons 65 Years Over (2015)
18.6%
15.1%
Racial Characteristics
White Alone (2015)*
89.5%
71.2%
Black or African American Alone (2015)*
6.6%
22.1%
American Indian and Alaska Native Alone (2015)*
0.5%
1.6%
Asian Alone (2015)*
1.3%
2.8%
Native Hawaiian and Other Pacific Islander Alone (2015)*
0.2%
0.1%
Two or More Races (2015)
2.0%
2.1%
Hispanic or Latino (2015)t
6.6%
9.1%
Economic Characteristics
Per Capita Income in Past 12 months (2011-2015, 2015 dollars)
$27,066
$25,920
Median Household Income (2011-2015, 2015 dollars)
$45,167
$46,868
Persons Below Poverty Level (2011-2015)
15.2%
16.4%
Housing
Housing Units (2015)
116,638
4,490,948
Homeownership Rate (2011-2015)
63.4%
65.1%
Median Value of Owner -Occupied Housing Units (2011-2015)
$192,400
$154,900
Households (2011-2015)
101,860
3,775,581
Persons per Household (2011-2015)
2.36
2.54
Source: USCB State and County QuickFacts, 2017
* Includes persons reporting only one race
t Hispanics may be of any race, so also are included in applicable race categories.
M

Wetland Master Plan April 7, 2017
Asheville Combined Cycle Project Laydown Area
Arden, North Carolina
Project No. 7810160781
Impacts to local populations would be temporary occurring during the construction of the
Asheville CC Plant. Impacts from the project would be largely limited to increased construction
traffic on local surface roads and limited fugitive dust and noise associated with construction,
and would subside following the completion of the plant. Regardless, these impacts are
expected to be consistent between the alternative sites discussed in Section 4.4.2. In addition,
available data does not indicate minority or low income populations in the vicinity that could be
disproportionately impacted; minority populations in Buncombe County and Census Tract 22.03
are well below the CEQ threshold of 50%, while poverty rates for Buncombe are below the state
average and per capita income is above the state average. As a result, it is unlikely that the
proposed project would have disproportionate adverse impacts to minority or low income
populations in the community.
83

Wetland Master Plan April 7, 2017
Asheville Combined Cycle Project Laydown Area
Arden, North Carolina
Project No. 7810160781
11.0 STORMWATER
Appropriate and practicable steps to minimize potential adverse impacts to wetlands and
streams were considered through analysis of the development concepts during project planning
and the examination of the action alternatives. To generate the final preferred design for the
construction of the Asheville CC Plant, laydown areas, and construction parking area, the
complete avoidance of waters of the U.S. is not practicable. The construction of the additional
laydown area at the Asheville Plant is necessary to the project and cannot be completed without
the proposed impact to such waters. However, project construction will be conducted in a
manner to reduce the potential for degradation of downstream waters.
The North Carolina E&SC and Buncombe County Stormwater requirements become effective
when the ground cover is changed from residential lawns/woods to gravel laydown and the limit
of disturbance is greater than one acre. Project construction will be completed under the E&SC
Plan prepared in accordance with the North Carolina Erosion and Sediment Control Planning
and Design Manual, dated May 2013. Project construction will also meet NCDEQ Stormwater
Management program requirements for the control of adverse impacts due to stormwater runoff
as NCDEQ Asheville is the designated authority to approve DEP's E&SC plan.
A permanent stormwater basin is proposed to be constructed within the western portion of
Laydown Area 3. The existing 48 -inch RCP on the westerly side of New Rockwood Road will
be piped through a series of stormwater manholes and underground RCP. This new system
conveys the stormwater runoff from the upstream neighborhood located on the east side of New
Rockwood Road to the new stormwater basin located at the southeast corner of Laydown Area
3. Only treated stormwater will be discharged to prevent degradation to downstream waters.
The NPDES regulations require that energy facilities obtain a stormwater permit. The Asheville
Plant currently has a NPDES stormwater permit. This permit requires the implementation of a
SPPP. New outfalls developed under the Asheville CC Project will be incorporated into the
existing NPDES permit, and the SPPP will be subsequently updated to reflect the new outfalls.
84

Wetland Master Plan
Asheville Combined Cycle Project Laydown Area
Arden, North Carolina
Project No. 7810160781
12.0 NOISE
12.1 BACKGROUND
April 7, 2017
Noise is sound that is produced at levels that can be harmful and may be considered as
unwanted by surrounding community, properties and residences. The Noise Control Act of
1972 (PL 92-574) and EO 12088 require that federal agencies assess the impact of noise to the
environment. Guidelines for noise have been established by the USEPA based on a calculation
of noise by the Daytime and Nighttime averages, referred to as the Day/Night Levels (Ldn). The
Ldn is reported as A -weighted decibels (dBAs) that occur within a 24-hour period (Table 15).
Noise levels can vary depending on setting, environment and distance to the noise source.
Typical noise levels by environment can be variable between levels at 40 decibels (dB) for
wilderness areas and 90 dB for urban areas. Rural communities typically have lower dBs than
urban areas, around 50 dB or less. The USEPA has calculated that an individual exposed to a
noise level of 73 dB for eight hours a day for 40 years would have a hearing loss smaller than 5
dB for 96% of the population.
Table 15. USEPA standard noise levels for various community types
Community
Day Night Average
(Ldn — dBA)
Rural
35 to 50
Quiet Suburb
50
Normal Suburb
55
Urban Residential
60
Noisy Urban
65
Very Noisy Urban
70
Source: USEPA 1974
The USEPA has established National Ambient Air Quality Standards (NAAQS) in 40 CFR 50 for
the following criteria pollutants: sulfur dioxide (SO2), particulate matter (with an aerodynamic
diameter of less than 10 microns) (PM 10), fine particulate matter (with an aerodynamic diameter
M.

Wetland Master Plan
Asheville Combined Cycle Project Laydown Area
Arden, North Carolina
Project No. 7810160781
April 7, 2017
of less than 2.5 microns) (PM2.5), carbon monoxide (CO), ozone (Os), nitrogen dioxide (NO2),
and lead (Pb).
Air quality standards are provided by NCDEQ (NCDEQ 2015), while regulations are contained
in two subchapters of the North Carolina Administrative Code (NCAC). Regulations that limit air
pollution emissions from stationary sources located within North Carolina are codified under
NCAC Title 15A - Environment and Natural Resources, Chapter 02 — Environmental
Management, Subchapter 02D - Air Pollution Control Requirements (15A NCAC 02D).
Stationary source air quality permitting procedures are codified under Subchapter 02Q — Air
Quality Permit Procedures (15A NCAC 02Q).
12.2 AFFECTED ENVIRONMENT
Grading operations would likely be the noisiest of the proposed activities. Heavy equipment can
generate noise levels as high as 70 to 95 dBA within 50 feet of their operation. However,
distance would rapidly attenuate noise, and it is not anticipated that construction will occur close
enough to existing residential areas to the south and southwest to cause disturbances. In
addition, construction would occur during daytime hours when residents are likely away from
their homes; therefore, those living in the vicinity are not likely to be affected by construction
noise.
Noise impacts would be generally localized at the vicinity of the project. Earthmoving
equipment and other construction machinery and vehicles will create localized increases in
noise levels. These temporary noise impacts should not disrupt normal Asheville Plant
operations. Noise levels generally dissipate as distance from their origin increases. Distance
from the construction site must be considered when evaluating potential noise impacts to land
uses adjacent to or near the construction areas. The proposed construction activities will take
place entirely within the property boundaries of the Asheville Plant. Because of the absence of
noise -sensitive land uses (i.e., religious, commercial, retail, residential, recreational and
educational) immediately adjacent to the CC Plant site, construction parking, or laydown areas,
the proposed project is not expected to impact noise -sensitive land uses.
:.

Wetland Master Plan April 7, 2017
Asheville Combined Cycle Project Laydown Area
Arden, North Carolina
Project No. 7810160781
13.0 AIR QUALITY
13.1 AFFECTED ENVIRONMENT
The proposed project will not increase air emissions. Controlled actions will include the control
of fugitive dust emissions. "Fugitive dust emissions" means particulate matter that does not
pass through a process stack or vent and that is generated within plant property boundaries
from activities such as unloading and loading areas, process areas, stockpiles, plant parking
lots, and plant roads (including access roads and haul roads). Dust suppression measures
include limiting dusty work on windy days, watering or sweeping roadways often to ensure that
vehicle traffic is not spreading dust, reducing speed limits on unpaved surfaces to ten miles per
hour and enclose storage piles, and handling areas if dusty materials are frequently loaded and
unloaded.
The nearest air quality monitoring station to the Asheville Plant in Buncombe County is the
station at Bent Creek, northwest of the plant in Asheville near Idlewood Drive (NCDEQ 2017d).
The station is overseen by the Western North Carolina Regional Air Quality Agency
(WNCRAQA). 03 is the parameter measured. Additional stations in Asheville includes stations
at the Board of Education Building and at AB Tech, which measure PM2.5 and air toxins,
respectively. Buncombe County is an attainment area for 03, PM 2.5, CO, and SO2 (NCDEQ
2017e). The proposed project is not expected to impact air quality standards either locally or
regionally.
87

Wetland Master Plan April 7, 2017
Asheville Combined Cycle Project Laydown Area
Arden, North Carolina
Project No. 7810160781
14.0 REFERENCES
Amec Foster Wheeler Environment & Infrastructure, Inc. 2015. Natural Resources Technical
Report, Asheville Plant. July 22, 2015.
CEQ. 1981. Scoping Guidance, Memorandum of General Councils, NEPA Liaisons and
Participants Scoping. April 30, 1981. Notice of availability published in 46 FR 25461,
May 7, 1981.
CEQ. 1997. Environmental Justice Guidance under the National Environmental Policy Act.
http://www.nepa.gov/nepa/regs/ej/justice.pdf. December 10, 1997.
Cowardin, L. M., V. Carter, F. C. Golet, and E. T. LaRoe. 1979. Classification of Wetlands and
Deepwater Habitats of the United States. FWS/OBS-79-31. US Fish and Wildlife
Service, Washington, DC.
Division of Water Resources. 2010. "Methodology for Identification of Intermittent and Perennial
Streams and their Origins, Version 4.11". North Carolina Department of Environmental
Quality, Division of Water Resources. Raleigh, NC.
Environmental Laboratory. 1987. "Corps of Engineers Wetlands Delineation Manual," Technical
Report Y-87-1. U.S. Army Engineer Waterways Experiment Station. Vicksburg, MS.
Environmental Laboratory. 2012. "Regional Supplement to the Corps of Engineers Wetland
Delineation Manual: Eastern Mountains and Piedmont," Technical Report ERDC/EL TR -
12 -9. U.S. Army Engineer Waterways Experiment Station. Vicksburg, MS.
Executive Order 11988. 1977. Floodplain Management. May 24, 1977.
Executive Order 12088. 1978. Federal Compliance with Pollution Control Standards. October
13, 1978.
-1

Wetland Master Plan
Asheville Combined Cycle Project Laydown Area
Arden, North Carolina
Project No. 7810160781
April 7, 2017
Executive Order 12898. 1994. Federal Actions to Address Environmental Justice in Minority
Populations and Low -Income Populations. February 16, 1994.
FEMA. 2014. Federal Emergency Management Agency. ArcGIS Base Data (June 1, 2014);
FIRM Panels 9643 and 9644, Effective Date January 6, 2010.
NCDEQ. 2015. Air Quality Rules, Emission Control Standards. Available at:
https:Hdeq. nc.gov/aboutldivisions/air-quality/air-quality-rules/rules/emission-control-
standards. Accessed January 20, 2017.
NCDEQ. 2017a. North Carolina Department of Environmental Quality, Classifications and
Standards. Available at: https://deq.nc.gov/about/divisions/water-
resources/planning/classification-standards. Accessed January 18, 2017.
NCDEQ. 2017b. North Carolina Department of Environmental Quality, 303(d) Files. Draft 2016
303(d) List (updated June 6, 2016). https://deq.nc.gov/about/divisions/water-
resources/planning/classification-standards/303d/303d-files. Website accessed January
18, 2017.
NCDEQ. 2017c. North Carolina Department of Environmental Quality, North Carolina Aquifers.
http://www.ncwater.org/?page=525. Website accessed January 18, 2017.
NCDEQ. 2017d. Available Ambient Data. Available at:
https:Hxapps.nedenr.org/aq/ambient/AmbtSite.jsp?loggerList=UH&date=01 %2F1 9%2F2
017. Accessed January 20, 2017.
NCDEQ. 2017e. Attainment Status of National Ambient Air Quality Standards. Available at:
https:Hdeq.nc.gov/aboutldivisions/air-quality/air-quality-planning/attainment. Accessed
January 20, 2017.
NCGS. 1985. Geologic Map of North Carolina. Available at:
https://deq. nc.gov/aboutldivisions/energy-mineral-land-resources/north-carolina-
geological-survey/ncgs-maps/1985-geologic-map-of-nc. Accessed January 10, 2017.
:•

Wetland Master Plan
Asheville Combined Cycle Project Laydown Area
Arden, North Carolina
Project No. 7810160781
April 7, 2017
NC Wetland Functional Assessment Team. 2010. "N.C. Wetland Assessment Method (NC
WAM) User Manual, Version 4.1". North Carolina Wetland Functional Assessment Team.
Raleigh, NC.
NC Stream Functional Assessment Team. 2013. "N.C. Stream Assessment Method (NC SAM)
Draft User Manual". North Carolina Stream Functional Assessment Team. Raleigh, NC.
NCNHP. 2017. North Carolina Department of Environmental Quality, Natural Heritage Program
Data Services. http://ncnhp.org/web/nhp/database-search. Website accessed January 5,
2017.
NCSHPO. 2017. North Carolina State Historic Preservation Office. NCSHPO GIS Web Service
(http://gis.ncdcr.gov/hpoweb/. Website accessed January 6, 2017.
NRCS. 2017. U.S. Department of Agriculture, Natural Resources Conservation Service.
Buncombe County Soil Survey geographic information system.
Schafale, M.P., and A.S. Weakley. 1990. Classification of the natural communities of North
Carolina, third approximation. N.C. Natural Heritage Program, Raleigh, N.C. 325 pp.
USCB. 2017. Quickfacts: Buncombe County, North Carolina. Available at:
https://www.census.gov/quickfacts/. Accessed January 12, 2017.
USEPA. 1974. Information on levels of environmental noise requisite to protect public health
and welfare with an adequate margin of safety. Report 550/9-74-004, Washington, D.C.
USEPA. 1998. Final guidance for incorporating environmental justice concerns in EPA's NEPA
compliance analysis.
USEPA. 2017. Level III and IV Ecoregions of the Continental United States. Available at:
https://www.epa.gov/eco-research/level-iii-and-iv-ecoregions-continental-united-states.
Accessed January 10, 2017.
.o

Wetland Master Plan April 7, 2017
Asheville Combined Cycle Project Laydown Area
Arden, North Carolina
Project No. 7810160781
USFWS. 1982. Gray Bat Recovery Plan. 143pp.
USFWS. 2016a. U.S. Fish and Wildlife Service. Information Planning and Conservation (IPaC)
database. http://ecos.fws.gov/ipac/. Website accessed December 30, 2016.
USFWS. 2016b. U.S. Fish and Wildlife Service. ECOS Environmental Conservation Online
System. http://ecos.fws.gov/ecp/. Website accessed December 30. 2016.
USFWS. 2016c. U.S. Fish and Wildlife Service. Asheville Ecological Services Field Office.
http://www.fws.gov/ashevilie/. Website accessed December 30, 2016.
USFWS. 2016. U.S. Fish and Wildlife Service. National Wetlands Inventory Wetlands Mapper.
http://www.fws.gov/wetlands/. Website accessed December 30, 2016.
USFWS. 2017. U.S. Fish and Wildlife Service. Northern Long -Eared Bat Final 4(d) Rule.
https://www.fws.gov/Midwest/endangered/mammals/nleb/pdf/WNSZone.pdf. Website
accessed January 1, 2017.
USGS. 2017. U.S. Geological Survey. Skyland, North Carolina digital 7.5' topography.
Weakley, A.S. 2015. Flora of the Southern and Mid -Atlantic States. UNC Herbarium, North
Carolina Botanical Garden, University of North Carolina at Chapel Hill. 1320 pp.
91

Wetland Master Plan
Asheville Combined Cycle Project Laydown Area
Arden, North Carolina
Project No. 7810160781
FIGURES
April 7, 2017

Fnnxvllle - I I i' — ':;�••Py - -
A i' Barnardsville i
Ch u F e Madison Yancey
n
Columbia Florence
ansa Augusta ,•_ � ,, , �, �.�-- .l �; 1, "'.\ /
s J ^J
Alexander F Weaverville
eetsys „P Rn �f s�
/ rev
Leicester a
\' WoodtinNC 2W
j byn Rd rdmt,-t
V McDowell
,\ / s,d Pa
r
Old Fat
Black
Buncombe
'\ � JNountain
Sv:annanoa
Asheville rwr °Raga a° ('
�l Hwy \sok �nw,niv % r
Haywood --e
We �'~0_- `IG - �• `��` _`�
Clyde`�-
19 csrd;n. ewd Canton /' candler
_a� °o• Biltmore � a o�d Fort Pa `\
taluska r °R„ Forest:
o- �\
d
CF, Rd VA - F d+ 74 ♦Q _
t' S L P.sO 4 Btya Ride ------- ••\
Fairview ---
L215
J 1
Ra t'
-j J '
Royal Pines
Henderson Rutherford
/ PO
Henderson
Service Layer Credits: © OpenStreetMap (and) contributors, CC-
amec
foster
wheeler
NOTE: THIS FIGURE IS FOR REFERENCE ONLY.
Plant Boundary
I County Boundary
A
11 1 i__ o F H°wa,� C,..* R° w, Chimney Rock 0 3 6 Miles
Fletcher
n+
P:\Energy\Projects\Duke\2016\7810160781 - CCP ASV indiv permit support\GIS\Figure1.mxd, User: jason.hightower; Date: 1/10/2017 1:50:18 PM, Checked By; XXX Date: XX/XX/XXXX
Figure 1 - Site Location Map
Asheville Plant
Buncombe County, NC
PROJECT NO: 7810-16-0781 FIGURE NO:
1
DUKE
ENERGY.

•' ^ `rr- • _-0a-��
7JJ���9," . mss- •
All
Ak
" WN
VIP
. � � '— �;-• ,,jay, `, �• � ^ �-►�-�as � � j .! 1 � ' `^'' � . �i ' rC'
401
-;* 10, -A
It, All
" 7-D OIF
`� y�W ya. .mss R -•AAS . �• , `•
Q "�+~ai•.�y„���;y„ � ,7.s � �`1•.:� ✓ + f. ^-..r'rS3 . ��Ki Tie ; i� � drlq .y� S � t• - �r � �rr � ��`� t r �Z r
�' + /"!" D'"y '�� •sr,�t .,� .�Rr • ;1�1�,` a��3,. 1t "•o"f.?'.'�, -.` ;`. �V/ � y�f• .�.. � � � .171
a ✓ � � /, •.

wee. ` - , cam _�iiX c�. ^ T : F rY(z + �► •� _ w 4%'. ZZ1 t �►
Tf
�'S •` it . � 1 � `i*� i �• ` � Gl crf•
Age PS
14
1 .� �. i '� � / / 1 .� � •: NrAl
Y' ri • � .'r RRR777JJJ ,
I' •
1
0 IL
Az
zz
JAR
.•• \ \ I' , _ ` ,y
i / • � ! Ii 1
� � r, •��1* _ ter' ��. 11 V �,,, ♦ 1 :w ,I
5 X
ti � ta^w • t T: � � r :.
/` .� ` +1`I+'ld : ,: r =' ' ��.tt�` in.�'IM`•, "'��. (y�,,.� .�y,�.�'. , �"'� f� �. , f � f � FJi.. / l' i -I �. 'r 1 � L ,
r _ t11.1r t L. y - M+ ! 1 - ♦ r j�it�l 40
/1/ ♦ Mme, � 'L T y..�M. rJ - �4 4 �`.• ry' i • )•• 'Jt CJ+ �` ,, ♦�
sk
"�✓ _� ` ;�
x t ` Y. � moi' i.- �. � �. � - . '` � y• � � /� A. � t
1-3Ash Ponds Laydown Area 3
..V, i l'��� , \• �1 �i �1► �.
F 7� Plant Boundary Laydown Area 2 Laydown Area 5 Site Aerial Map - Proposed Construction Areas
1 ---71 Construction Parking a-QWPx/illP P12 -sit

.� , • �• .•/+. + � - }' � - i � ek•�`'_i�, � � ~+�� � \•fir • • V �� - � I � �, , ♦ ' , ` �.
t r �yS dr i ..." O \ + .. T `�� t ,r •moi , t"- ,� • t ' ' r . ''�l I
!` a '��'' :�'•�: '�' ,r � d ,.�, � '� � . }. � • .; �• 1
1 000
40
rpT
fit
Ave
ILL
� / _l * {.� , -.t .+i/•• r fir•;. = a
• ... � - , J `� Y,�R `� � • , ' .,ice -
L
1 -
rn r •'
vo 7
�_\♦ R ►:�,' al`. ` - ' h ' ' _'t' 1 '11 3,000

ew
I a _ i
w
10
NJ
t
!fir `�••r 1 , '� ` - ' f�•. ,,r•. •. ''� /r" ; � , '
+yam . I !/ , r T •t �r t�
.. �' i � Ywg�'y: t • �X.
' >�: \ F a !� • ` °. �•'`. `„•fir h• . � - j l
0 1,000 2,000 Feet
I}rAsPlant Boundary A - Laydown Area #3 Alternatives Analysis: Fine -Level
Screening Sites

P:\Energy\Projects\Duke\2016\7810160781 - CCP ASV indiv permit support\GIS\Figure6.mxd, User: jason.hightower; Date: 1/26/2017 10:42:01 AM, Checked By; XXX Date: XX/XX/XXXX

P:\Energy\Projects\Duke\2016\7810160781 - CCP ASV indiv permit support\GIS\Figure7.mxd, User: jason.hightower; Date: 1/25/2017 12:37:47 PM, Checked By; XXX Date: XX/XX/XXXX

• .ir • t ►•J ^ • �• • • ,j��r •tip.• • •�^iry f/• �..,�
fir
lb
• • li •
1`� _ �-.�r .-' �, �� _•• -� 204'
r �� f • •�
1 •
lo,'� •
MeAn
oil, 0/
er
r�: Pack jr► t �F' 't' \j 7t It
.,�• —,
• • • :�� 1
• • a • rte_• r� R � • •i :. _ f I r' � ! • � • • •
; �, ' v \ ( • • ! • • j 0 1,000 2,000 Feet
Se1viC� Layer Credits: fight: 2013 NVional Ge rpl `, ' I �� •. ti\
\\\h �3` 1lit
Figure 8 - Alternatives Analysis: USGS Topographic Map
Plant Boundary Q A - Laydown Area #3 DUKE
amec _ _ Ash Ponds B -Agricultural Field Site Asheville Plant t, ENERGY.
foster Buncombe County, NC
wheeler ® C -Airport Site
NOTE: THIS FIGURE IS FOR REFERENCE ONLY. PROJECT NO: 7810-16-0781 FIGURE NO: 8
P:\Energy\Projects\Duke\2016\7810160781 - CCP ASV indiv permit support\GIS\Figure8.mxd, User: jason.hightower; Date: 1/25/2017 12:39:25 PM, Checked By; XXX Date: XX/XX/XXXX

P:\Energy\Projects\Duke\2016\7810160781 - CCP ASV indiv permit support\GIS\Figure9.mxd, User: jason.hightower; Date: 1/25/2017 12:42:57 PM, Checked By; XXX Date: XX/XX/XXXX

� ms`s • ,
41
�� T� . / .yam- �a . - � .- t y• �, �J ■
37 14
' R raYi'. .. ' l - .. t- 4 . • � • . � s • ►'. 1. . � `�
Ar
lo
.) JVolti; ' qa:
K � J
�, ". J■ •� ). ■w- -• ,.� _ �� _'' ,.. ' -� �I 11,000 2,000
Feet
w �
FigurePlant Boundary A - Layclown Area #3
10 -Alternatives Analysis: Floodplain Ma•

Vi Ch jh ; ••�� a.irre
'� r • • • i . �•• ` • 1 •.t •1�
Sc17 ) Y �jj Spr • .. -,c; • • t •
''�' � `J -'E-==yam \�r�_`..J'/ �� �� �� ! • _ -- • • , •1.• • ��• T• � � •f ��' ;
= J
- � A� `� 6 + ..- • • � • •� i:T • •• •
Go 4 29
• 1 L h. • . •�` �1 'yam._• — '
• ,� • �. ` 1, � �.,.• -: •• r • � , � .. /�� � � . - -
Ilkel
40-
viii e� H Y+ • • 'ri • • • • i • ��I _%• • •
. � 3: �� � , ,• � •• • • •.� �'�� ,�� i, ►
VF8 I 3t 00
Substall
'�- , ���_ � I--- . • . _sem. IN.. • • • � • •..
! rr _ ri I - ' dubs trQln ohevI /� ``' • p \. ��
- I .•
It
Oil Dile"
71
Ar
�• •L f `�\ .,''�\. �, ��� .\ �- --' Mc aim '` •. ••� ��JO(J _l.` .. YV /
A0.
W O}(i
C 1 7 •, NS
, ••
• �' - � , rte. • - � ` �' �l ,. ; � ���
�� • . \ t l IrAll.Sty 6a na Ch ; • • • a
i R ^\\\` • ♦ • • ♦ - —�"1 0 1,100 2,200 Feet
Service Layer Credi CopyrighLC�i 2013� Nati..I Geographic �� • •• .-- `�_ • 1 I I
® Plant Boundary Laydown Area 2 Laydown Area 5 Figure 11 - USGS Topographic Map
amec
� I_____, Ash Ponds � Laydown Area 3 Construction Parking Asheville Plant
DUKE�,
foster Laydown Area 1 Laydown Area 4 Proposed CC Plant Boundary Buncombe County, NC ENERGY.
wheeler
NOTE: THIS FIGURE IS FOR REFERENCE ONLY. PROJECT NO: 7810-16-0781 FIGURE NO:
P:\Energy\Projects\Duke\2016\7810160781 - CCP ASV indiv permit support\GIS\Entire_Site_Alternatives\Figure11.mxd, User: jason.hightower; Date: 3/30/2017 2:55:38 PM, Checked By; XXX Date: XX/XX/XXXX

P:\Energy\Projects\Duke\2016\7810160781 - CCP ASV indiv permit support\GIS\Entire_Site_Alternatives\Figure12.mxd, User: jason.hightower; Date: 1/25/2017 1:40:10 PM, Checked By; XXX Date: XX/XX/XXXX

P:\Energy\Projects\Duke\2016\7810160781 - CCP ASV indiv permit support\GIS\Entire_Site_AlternativesTigure13.mxd, User: jason.hightower; Date: 3/30/2017 3:59:14 PM, Checked By; XXX Date: XX/XX/XXXX

�- IV rte._ . - ` 9• , , _ ,� N� , r.,• -qA
,J , .,,�
� I C / �y���9` � i Jt�L�"��- � i� r t ►�� �� r e. +f �� �. f i I y,�
f�ia���j!�` �P•oLf �t i'r4� .[+i' �,�: �ti .w i r
�', J `il i'. ` _�`V I�_� '•.i. _ 14
° 4 ' /- •� y`•I �, - •AC �i ,,,,./'� .�T !�- - •777
fir/ �• ; t T ► ,.y a� ! i +
y.e' • � .� .t `'� 1 S may, r /� -., � \ t T C7+ i '�` t • . ♦ (~ � /�
s/
t Y £ �. ��. ��-.ixl.1' `�,+.. 1_ i SIS- .h• F1
Ito 'Aw
IVIV.
t I^,` •ice. � f° 1',\ f \ �_t. %", � - \ 'yltj, / �` ���JjI _
\ ` 4 1` /
o`•
•
•t'4hF/r a`��,f .. 'w + -.tip �` ! !-�•, • ,r+,^ �I `,, t•1' .1 ; I���
_Plant Boundary •• Area •• Area O•

ip
! • 1( 1� t 1
AM
,may r z;!�, - \ -. /� `?, '1� i 1 •' f� • it r A?�}•r 1t
A Kit,
'.;iry'^�/,y�J •!� "f ` \'; I ' ./� ` ` ti f ,[ • a I t 1. w� ` I �_ 3`7� , j`.'.'�
i Y - � '�. J � � •JY
f i 4 � 1 \ A� ^'�,S � � •'+' r.. I 'h .rQ � ' ,J, � i,- � � y � `� '\ ' i(-t •
' `"�•'r„ � f ',�. ,' _! ,:i,,1i i I \' ter') � �:.m'•+ ; / •
�� 1 �..._ _. r t3 �"y?Y'�y 7y�[ � r• • f \„ �, 1 11 11
4I 1�. � ! � .lr- .. �.. _ ,4'._y.'.,• � 1Y•'v. lr I�'• t, r � ' � .l �_- - 1 � �i1i.'s � � • ...

ep-� ter- L • . L
1 \
_ .... j
� �, _s •. 1, � � �. • !�� l � ' ; 1-'t a � t _ -�` j 7 :. '
� �(; V • �, `' - � .-. � s " � �« ' : �' ^' 4 ` y. �� ^ i+ it � i r i,s . . _
. 1 .4 J ssl• �" a'(a "Cit l � �. I;;' � � 1 � 1
FL
IL
AUW
Ilk
tot A 10
� a� � _ by 1� ,� •• •' � . l . � _�)[{) -
M.
o, AfA
rl
\
ry _ / K s v 1";r" Y 'Vf . `•
!7. C /. �� . j may',. I - � � i y- ,, t 1 1 � � -/ • � • � � { . .. .3 r �i
It
.10
it
ov
I! �r �• r �. �' " . ., f : w°�' t' .'I :r - « �` ;fir, '1r'i• ��.
r u r fit) r l.. �� I � \ i, �• r, - � � M � - • � r. ,'ir � U. � t -.S. r � �
n�: ��-' ..�,;x '�� 1a '�R• .� \ �. r .. �'� w . r `,.. 3, 1A• .�," `i'�,+ � "+1 r r• _ r'' t
1 411 rill Feet ;.W
wow
�-. r . • '..- -. _ '' � lam_.._ _ �� *� .� w � � � - -
'

Wetland Master Plan
Asheville Combined Cycle Project Laydown Area
Arden, North Carolina
Project No. 7810160781
APPENDIX A
USFWS AND NCNHP DATABASE SEARCH QUERIES
April 7, 2017

IPaC: Explore Location
IPaC
IPaC resource list
Location
Buncombe County, North Carolina
Local office
Asheville Ecological Services Field Office
t. [phone]
JEJ [phone]
160 Zillicoa Street
Asheville, NC 28801-1082
http://www.fws.gov/nc-es/es/countyfr.html
Endangered species
Page 1 of 9
U.S. Fish & Wildlife Service
This resource list is for informational purposes only and should not be used for
planning or analyzing project level impacts.
https://ecos.fws.gov/ipac/location/3QJJVTO5GVGUZG2AVOG76SJ64Y/resources 12/30/2016

IPaC: Explore Location
Page 2 of 9
Section 7 of the Endangered Species Act requires Federal agencies to "request of
the Secretary information whether any species which i5 /i5ted or proposed to be
listed maybe pre5entin the area of5uch proposed action" for any project that is
conducted, permitted, funded, or licensed by any Federal agency.
A letter from the local office and a species list which fulfills this requirement
can only be obtained by requesting an official species list either from the
Regulatory Review section in IPaC or from the local field office directly.
For project evaluations that require USFWS concurrence/review, please return to
the IPaC website and request an official species list by creating a project and
making a request from the Regulatory Review section.
Listed species
are managed by the Endangered Species Program of the U.S. Fish and Wildlife
Service.
1. Species listed under the Endangered Species Act are threatened or endangered;
IPaC also shows species that are candidates, or proposed, for listing. See the listing
status page for more information.
The following species are potentially affected by activities in this location:
Arachnids
NAME
Spruce -fir Moss Spider Microhexura montivaga
There is a final critical habitat designated for this species.
Your location is outside the designated critical habitat.
http://ecos.fws.gov/ecp/species/4801
Clams
►_I1VAIq
Appalachian Elktoe Alasmidonta raveneliana
There is a final critical habitat designated for this species.
Your location is outside the designated critical habitat.
http://ecos.fws.gov/ecp/species/5039
Flowering Plants
STATUS
Endangered
STATUS
Endangered
https://ecos.fws.gov/ipac/location/3QJJVTO5GVGUZG2AVOG76SJ64Y/resources 12/30/2016

IPaC: Explore Location
NAME
Blue Ridge Goldenrod Solidago spithamaea
No critical habitat has been designated for this species.
http://ecos.fws.gov/ecp/species/5821
Bunched Arrowhead Sagittaria fasciculata
No critical habitat has been designated for this species.
http://ecos.fws.gov/ecp/species/1720
Mountain Sweet Pitcher -plant Sarracenia rubra ssp.
jonesii
No critical habitat has been designated for this species.
http://ecos.fws.gov/ecp/species/4283
Spreading Avens Geum radiatum
No critical habitat has been designated for this species.
http://ecos.fws. og v/ecp/species/6854
Virginia Spiraea Spiraea virginiana
No critical habitat has been designated for this species.
http://ecos.fws.gov/ecp/species/1728
Lichens
NAME
Rock Gnome Lichen Gymnoderma lineare
No critical habitat has been designated for this species.
http://ecos.fws.gov/ecp/species/3933
Mammals
NAME
Carolina Northern Flying Squirrel Glaucomys sabrinus
coloratus
No critical habitat has been designated for this species.
http://ecos.fws.gov/ecp/species/2657
STATUS
Threatened
Endangered
Endangered
Endangered
Threatened
STATUS
Endangered
STATUS
Endangered
Page 3 of 9
https://ecos.fws.gov/ipac/location/3QJJVTO5GVGUZG2AVOG76SJ64Y/resources 12/30/2016

IPaC: Explore Location
Gray Bat Myotis grisescens
No critical habitat has been designated for this species.
http://ecos.fws.gov/ecp/species/6329
Northern Long-eared Bat Myotis septentrionalis
No critical habitat has been designated for this species.
http://ecos.fws.gov/ecp/species/9045
Critical habitats
Endangered
Threatened
Page 4 of 9
Potential effects to critical habitat(s) in this location must be analyzed along with
the endangered species themselves.
THERE ARE NO CRITICAL HABITATS AT THIS LOCATION.
Migratory birds
Birds are protected under the Migratory Bird Treaty Act
and the Bald and Golden Eagle Protection Act?.
Any activity that results in the take (to harass, harm, pursue, hunt, shoot, wound, ki
trap, capture, or collect, or to attempt to engage in any such conduct) of migratory
birds or eagles is prohibited unless authorized by the U.S. Fish and Wildlife Service
3. There are no provisions for allowing the take of migratory birds that are
unintentionally killed or injured.
Any person or organization who plans or conducts activities that may result in the
take of migratory birds is responsible for complying with the appropriate regulations
and implementing appropriate conservation measures.
1. The Migratory Birds Treaty Act of 1918.
2. The Bald and Golden Eagle Protection Act of 1940.
3. 50 C.F.R. Sec. 10.12 and 16 U.S.C. Sec. 668(a)
Additional information can be found using the following links:
https://ecos.fws.gov/ipac/location/3QJJVT05GVGUZG2AVOG76SJ64Y/resources 12/30/2016

IPaC: Explore Location
Page 5 of 9
• Birds of Conservation Concern http://www.fws.gov/birds/management/managed-
species/
bi rds-of-conservation-concern.php
• Conservation measures for birds http://www.fws.gov/birds/management/project-
assessment-tools-and-guidance/
conservation-measures.php
• Year-round bird occurrence data
http://www.birdscanada.org/birdmon/default/datasummaries.jsp
The following species of migratory birds are potentially affected by activities in this
location:
NAME SEASON(S)
Bald Eagle Haliaeetus leucocephalus Year-round
http://ecos.fws.gov/ecp/species/1626
Black -billed Cuckoo Coccyzus erythropthalmus Breeding
http://ecos.fws.gov/ecp/species/9399
Blue -winged Warbler Vermivora pinus Breeding
Brown -headed Nuthatch Sitta pusilla Year-round
Canada Warbler Wilsonia canadensis Breeding
Cerulean Warbler Dendroica cerulea Breeding
http://ecos.fws. og v/ecp/species/2974
Fox Sparrow Passerella iliaca Wintering
Golden -winged Warbler Vermivora chrysoptera Breeding
http://ecos.fwsgov/ecp/species/8745
Kentucky Warbler Oporornis formosus Breeding
Loggerhead Shrike Lanius ludovicianus Year-round
http://ecos.fws.gov/ecp/species/8833
https://ecos.fws.gov/ipac/location/3QJJVT05GVGUZG2AVOG76SJ64Y/resources 12/30/2016

IPaC: Explore Location
Louisiana Waterthrush Parkesia motacilla Breeding
Peregrine Falcon Falco peregrinus Breeding
http://ecos.fws.gov/ecp/species/8831
Prairie Warbler Dendroica discolor Breeding
Red Crossbill Loxia curvirostra Year-round
http://ecos.fws.gov/ecp/species/8743
Red-headed Woodpecker Melanerpes erythrocephalus Breeding
Rusty Blackbird Euphagus carolinus Wintering
Short -eared Owl Asio flammeus Wintering
http://ecos.fws.gov/ecp/species/9295
Swainson's Warbler Limnothlypis swainsonii Breeding
Wood Thrush Hylocichla mustelina Breeding
Worm Eating Warbler Helmitheros vermivorum Breeding
Yellow -bellied Sapsucker sphyrapicus varius Breeding
http://ecos.fws.gov/ecp/species/8792
Facilities
Wildlife refuges
Page 6 of 9
Any activity proposed on National Wildlife Refuge lands must undergo a 'Compatibility
Determination' conducted by the Refuge. Please contact the individual Refuges to
discuss any questions or concerns.
https://ecos.fws.gov/ipac/location/3QJJVTO5GVGUZG2AVOG76SJ64Y/resources 12/30/2016

IPaC: Explore Location
THERE ARE NO REFUGES AT THIS LOCATION.
Fish hatcheries
THERE ARE NO FISH HATCHERIES AT THIS LOCATION.
Wetlands in the National Wetlands
Inventory
Impacts to NWI wetlands and other aquatic habitats
may be subject to regulation under Section 404 of the
Clean Water Act, or other State/Federal statutes.
For more information please contact the Regulatory
Program of the local
U.S. Army Corps of Engineers District.
DATA LIMITATIONS
The Service's objective of mapping wetlands and deepwater
habitats is to produce reconnaissance level information on the
location, type and size of these resources. The maps are
prepared from the analysis of high altitude imagery. Wetlands
are identified based on vegetation, visible hydrology and
geography. A margin of error is inherent in the use of imagery;
thus, detailed on -the -ground inspection of any particular site
may result in revision of the wetland boundaries or classification
established through image analysis.
The accuracy of image interpretation depends on the quality of
the imagery, the experience of the image analysts, the amount
and quality of the collateral data and the amount of ground
truth verification work conducted. Metadata should be
consulted to determine the date of the source imagery used and
any mapping problems.
Page 7 of 9
https://ecos.fws.gov/ipac/location/3QJJVT05GVGUZG2AVOG76SJ64Y/resources 12/30/2016

IPaC: Explore Location
Wetlands or other mapped features may have changed since
the date of the imagery or field work. There may be occasional
differences in polygon boundaries or classifications between the
information depicted on the map and the actual conditions on
site.
DATA EXCLUSIONS
Certain wetland habitats are excluded from the National
mapping program because of the limitations of aerial imagery
as the primary data source used to detect wetlands. These
habitats include seagrasses or submerged aquatic vegetation
that are found in the intertidal and subtidal zones of estuaries
and nearshore coastal waters. Some deepwater reef
communities (coral or tuberficid worm reefs) have also been
excluded from the inventory. These habitats, because of their
depth, go undetected by aerial imagery.
DATA PRECAUTIONS
Federal, state, and local regulatory agencies with jurisdiction
over wetlands may define and describe wetlands in a different
manner than that used in this inventory. There is no attempt, in
either the design or products of this inventory, to define the
limits of proprietary jurisdiction of any Federal, state, or local
government or to establish the geographical scope of the
regulatory programs of government agencies. Persons
intending to engage in activities involving modifications within
or adjacent to wetland areas should seek the advice of
appropriate federal, state, or local agencies concerning specified
agency regulatory programs and proprietary jurisdictions that
may affect such activities.
This location overlaps the following wetlands:
FRESHWATER POND
PUBHh
A full description for each wetland code can be found at the National Wetlands
Inventory website: https://ecos.fws.gov/ipac/wetlands/decoder
Page 8 of 9
https://ecos.fws.gov/ipac/location/3QJJVT05GVGUZG2AVOG76SJ64Y/resources 12/30/2016

IPaC: Explore Location
Page 9 of 9
https:Hecos.fws.gov/ipac/location/3QJJVTO5GVGUZG2AVOG76SJ64Y/resources 12/30/2016

IPaC: Explore Location
IPaC
IPaC resource list
Location
Buncombe County, North Carolina
04,
Gbn ELrbVe
Rwop A
Pcnic Pm
Local office
10
Asheville Ecological Services Field Office
t. [phone]
JEJ [phone]
160 Zillicoa Street
Asheville, NC 28801-1082
http://www.fws.gov/nc-es/es/countyfr.htmI
Endangered species
Pagel of 8
U.S. Fish & Wildlife Service
This resource list is for informational purposes only and should not be used for
planning or analyzing project level impacts.
https://ecos.fws.gov/ipac/location/CI7UZ7JA3BBLBKD5V7CWD5RNUM/resources 12/30/2016

IPaC: Explore Location
Page 2 of 8
Section 7 of the Endangered Species Act requires Federal agencies to "request of
the Secretary information whether any species which is listed or proposed to be
listed maybe present in the area ofsuch proposed action" for any project that is
conducted, permitted, funded, or licensed by any Federal agency.
A letter from the local office and a species list which fulfills this requirement
can only be obtained by requesting an official species list either from the
Regulatory Review section in IPaC or from the local field office directly.
For project evaluations that require USFWS concurrence/review, please return to
the IPaC website and request an official species list by creating a project and
making a request from the Regulatory Review section.
Listed species
are managed by the Endangered Species Program of the U.S. Fish and Wildlife
Service.
1. Species listed under the Endangered Species Act are threatened or endangered;
IPaC also shows species that are candidates, or proposed, for listing. See the listing
status page for more information.
The following species are potentially affected by activities in this location:
Arachnids
NAME
Spruce -fir Moss Spider Microhexura montivaga
There is a final critical habitat designated for this species.
Your location is outside the designated critical habitat.
http://ecos.fws.gov/ecp/species/4801
Clams
►_I1VAIq
Appalachian Elktoe Alasmidonta raveneliana
There is a final critical habitat designated for this species.
Your location is outside the designated critical habitat.
http://ecos.fws.gov/ecp/species/5039
Flowering Plants
STATUS
Endangered
STATUS
Endangered
https://ecos.fws.gov/ipac/location/CI7UZ7JA3BBLBKD5V7CWD5RNUM/resources 12/30/2016

IPaC: Explore Location
NAME
Blue Ridge Goldenrod Solidago spithamaea
No critical habitat has been designated for this species.
http://ecos.fws.gov/ecp/species/5821
Bunched Arrowhead Sagittaria fasciculata
No critical habitat has been designated for this species.
http://ecos.fws.gov/ecp/species/1720
Mountain Sweet Pitcher -plant Sarracenia rubra ssp.
jonesii
No critical habitat has been designated for this species.
http://ecos.fws.gov/ecp/species/4283
Spreading Avens Geum radiatum
No critical habitat has been designated for this species.
http://ecos.fws. og v/ecp/species/6854
Virginia Spiraea Spiraea virginiana
No critical habitat has been designated for this species.
http://ecos.fws.gov/ecp/species/1728
Lichens
NAME
Rock Gnome Lichen Gymnoderma lineare
No critical habitat has been designated for this species.
http://ecos.fws.gov/ecp/species/3933
Mammals
NAME
Carolina Northern Flying Squirrel Glaucomys sabrinus
coloratus
No critical habitat has been designated for this species.
http://ecos.fws.gov/ecp/species/2657
STATUS
Threatened
Endangered
Endangered
Endangered
Threatened
STATUS
Endangered
STATUS
Endangered
Page 3 of 8
https://ecos.fws.gov/ipac/location/CI7UZ7JA3BBLBKD5V7CWD5RNUM/resources 12/30/2016

IPaC: Explore Location
Gray Bat Myotis grisescens
No critical habitat has been designated for this species.
http://ecos.fws.gov/ecp/species/6329
Northern Long-eared Bat Myotis septentrionalis
No critical habitat has been designated for this species.
http://ecos.fws.gov/ecp/species/9045
Critical habitats
Endangered
Threatened
Page 4 of 8
Potential effects to critical habitat(s) in this location must be analyzed along with
the endangered species themselves.
THERE ARE NO CRITICAL HABITATS AT THIS LOCATION.
Migratory birds
Birds are protected under the Migratory Bird Treaty Act
and the Bald and Golden Eagle Protection Act?.
Any activity that results in the take (to harass, harm, pursue, hunt, shoot, wound, ki
trap, capture, or collect, or to attempt to engage in any such conduct) of migratory
birds or eagles is prohibited unless authorized by the U.S. Fish and Wildlife Service
3. There are no provisions for allowing the take of migratory birds that are
unintentionally killed or injured.
Any person or organization who plans or conducts activities that may result in the
take of migratory birds is responsible for complying with the appropriate regulations
and implementing appropriate conservation measures.
1. The Migratory Birds Treaty Act of 1918.
2. The Bald and Golden Eagle Protection Act of 1940.
3. 50 C.F.R. Sec. 10.12 and 16 U.S.C. Sec. 668(a)
Additional information can be found using the following links:
https://ecos.fws.gov/ipac/location/CI7UZ7JA3BBLBKD5V7CWD5RNUM/resources 12/30/2016

IPaC: Explore Location
Page 5 of 8
• Birds of Conservation Concern http://www.fws.gov/birds/management/managed-
species/
bi rds-of-conservation-concern.php
• Conservation measures for birds http://www.fws.gov/birds/management/project-
assessment-tools-and-guidance/
conservation-measures.php
• Year-round bird occurrence data
http://www.birdscanada.org/birdmon/default/datasummaries.jsp
The following species of migratory birds are potentially affected by activities in this
location:
NAME SEASON(S)
Bald Eagle Haliaeetus leucocephalus Year-round
http://ecos.fws.gov/ecp/species/1626
Black -billed Cuckoo Coccyzus erythropthalmus Breeding
http://ecos.fws.gov/ecp/species/9399
Blue -winged Warbler Vermivora pinus Breeding
Brown -headed Nuthatch Sitta pusilla Year-round
Canada Warbler Wilsonia canadensis Breeding
Cerulean Warbler Dendroica cerulea Breeding
http://ecos.fws. og v/ecp/species/2974
Fox Sparrow Passerella iliaca Wintering
Golden -winged Warbler Vermivora chrysoptera Breeding
http://ecos.fwsgov/ecp/species/8745
Kentucky Warbler Oporornis formosus Breeding
Loggerhead Shrike Lanius ludovicianus Year-round
http://ecos.fws.gov/ecp/species/8833
https://ecos.fws.gov/ipac/location/CI7UZ7JA3BBLBKD5V7CWD5RNUM/resources 12/30/2016

IPaC: Explore Location
Louisiana Waterthrush Parkesia motacilla Breeding
Peregrine Falcon Falco peregrinus Breeding
http://ecos.fws.gov/ecp/species/8831
Prairie Warbler Dendroica discolor Breeding
Red Crossbill Loxia curvirostra Year-round
http://ecos.fws.gov/ecp/species/8743
Red-headed Woodpecker Melanerpes erythrocephalus Breeding
Rusty Blackbird Euphagus carolinus Wintering
Short -eared Owl Asio flammeus Wintering
http://ecos.fws.gov/ecp/species/9295
Swainson's Warbler Limnothlypis swainsonii Breeding
Wood Thrush Hylocichla mustelina Breeding
Worm Eating Warbler Helmitheros vermivorum Breeding
Yellow -bellied Sapsucker sphyrapicus varius Breeding
http://ecos.fws.gov/ecp/species/8792
Facilities
Wildlife refuges
Page 6 of 8
Any activity proposed on National Wildlife Refuge lands must undergo a 'Compatibility
Determination' conducted by the Refuge. Please contact the individual Refuges to
discuss any questions or concerns.
https://ecos.fws.gov/ipac/location/CI7UZ7JA3BBLBKD5V7CWD5RNUM/resources 12/30/2016

IPaC: Explore Location
THERE ARE NO REFUGES AT THIS LOCATION.
Fish hatcheries
THERE ARE NO FISH HATCHERIES AT THIS LOCATION.
Wetlands in the National Wetlands
Inventory
Impacts to NWI wetlands and other aquatic habitats
may be subject to regulation under Section 404 of the
Clean Water Act, or other State/Federal statutes.
For more information please contact the Regulatory
Program of the local
U.S. Army Corps of Engineers District.
DATA LIMITATIONS
The Service's objective of mapping wetlands and deepwater
habitats is to produce reconnaissance level information on the
location, type and size of these resources. The maps are
prepared from the analysis of high altitude imagery. Wetlands
are identified based on vegetation, visible hydrology and
geography. A margin of error is inherent in the use of imagery;
thus, detailed on -the -ground inspection of any particular site
may result in revision of the wetland boundaries or classification
established through image analysis.
The accuracy of image interpretation depends on the quality of
the imagery, the experience of the image analysts, the amount
and quality of the collateral data and the amount of ground
truth verification work conducted. Metadata should be
consulted to determine the date of the source imagery used and
any mapping problems.
Page 7 of 8
https://ecos.fws.gov/ipac/location/CI7UZ7JA3BBLBKD5V7CWD5RNUM/resources 12/30/2016

IPaC: Explore Location
Wetlands or other mapped features may have changed since
the date of the imagery or field work. There may be occasional
differences in polygon boundaries or classifications between the
information depicted on the map and the actual conditions on
site.
DATA EXCLUSIONS
Certain wetland habitats are excluded from the National
mapping program because of the limitations of aerial imagery
as the primary data source used to detect wetlands. These
habitats include seagrasses or submerged aquatic vegetation
that are found in the intertidal and subtidal zones of estuaries
and nearshore coastal waters. Some deepwater reef
communities (coral or tuberficid worm reefs) have also been
excluded from the inventory. These habitats, because of their
depth, go undetected by aerial imagery.
DATA PRECAUTIONS
Federal, state, and local regulatory agencies with jurisdiction
over wetlands may define and describe wetlands in a different
manner than that used in this inventory. There is no attempt, in
either the design or products of this inventory, to define the
limits of proprietary jurisdiction of any Federal, state, or local
government or to establish the geographical scope of the
regulatory programs of government agencies. Persons
intending to engage in activities involving modifications within
or adjacent to wetland areas should seek the advice of
appropriate federal, state, or local agencies concerning specified
agency regulatory programs and proprietary jurisdictions that
may affect such activities.
THERE ARE NO KNOWN WETLANDS AT THIS LOCATION.
Page 8 of 8
https://ecos.fws.gov/ipac/location/CI7UZ7JA3BBLBKD5V7CWD5RNUM/resources 12/30/2016

IPaC: Explore Location
IPaC
IPaC resource list
Location
Buncombe and Henderson counties, North Carolina
qLG
Local office
Asheville Ecological Services Field Office
t. [phone]
JEJ [phone]
160 Zillicoa Street
Asheville, NC 28801-1082
http://www.fws.gov/nc-es/es/countyfr.htmI
Endangered species
Page 1 of 9
U.S. Fish & Wildlife Service
This resource list is for informational purposes only and should not be used for
planning or analyzing project level impacts.
https://ecos.fws.gov/ipac/location/QOEEXPEETJFA5G3L6MFNLO5TQA/resources 12/30/2016

IPaC: Explore Location
Page 2 of 9
Section 7 of the Endangered Species Act requires Federal agencies to "request of
the Secretary information whether any species which i5 /i5ted or proposed to be
listed maybe pre5entin the area of5uch proposed action" for any project that is
conducted, permitted, funded, or licensed by any Federal agency.
A letter from the local office and a species list which fulfills this requirement
can only be obtained by requesting an official species list either from the
Regulatory Review section in IPaC or from the local field office directly.
For project evaluations that require USFWS concurrence/review, please return to
the IPaC website and request an official species list by creating a project and
making a request from the Regulatory Review section.
Listed species
are managed by the Endangered Species Program of the U.S. Fish and Wildlife
Service.
1. Species listed under the Endangered Species Act are threatened or endangered;
IPaC also shows species that are candidates, or proposed, for listing. See the listing
status page for more information.
The following species are potentially affected by activities in this location:
Arachnids
NAME
Spruce -fir Moss Spider Microhexura montivaga
There is a final critical habitat designated for this species.
Your location is outside the designated critical habitat.
http://ecos.fws.gov/ecp/species/4801
Clams
►_I1VAIq
Appalachian Elktoe Alasmidonta raveneliana
There is a final critical habitat designated for this species.
Your location is outside the designated critical habitat.
http://ecos.fws.gov/ecp/species/5039
Flowering Plants
STATUS
Endangered
STATUS
Endangered
https://ecos.fws.gov/ipac/location/QOEEXPEETJFA5G3L6MFNLO5TQA/resources 12/30/2016

IPaC: Explore Location Page 3 of 9
NAME STATUS
Blue Ridge Goldenrod Solidago spithamaea Threatened
No critical habitat has been designated for this species.
http://ecos.fws.gov/ecp/species/5821
Bunched Arrowhead Sagittaria fasciculata Endangered
No critical habitat has been designated for this species.
http://ecos.fws.gov/ecp/species/1720
Mountain Sweet Pitcher -plant Sarracenia rubra ssp. Endangered
jonesii
No critical habitat has been designated for this species.
http://ecos.fws.gov/ecp/species/4283
Small Whorled Pogonia Isotria medeoloides Threatened
No critical habitat has been designated for this species.
http://ecos.fws. og v/ecp/species/1890
Spreading Avens Geum radiatum Endangered
No critical habitat has been designated for this species.
http://ecos.fws.gov/ecp/species/6854
Swamp Pink Helonias bullata Threatened
No critical habitat has been designated for this species.
http://ecos.fws.gov/ecp/species/4333
Virginia Spiraea Spiraea virginiana Threatened
No critical habitat has been designated for this species.
http://ecos.fws.gov/ecp/species/1728
White Irisette Sisyrinchium dichotomum Endangered
No critical habitat has been designated for this species.
http://ecos.fws.gov/ecp/species/8097
https://ecos.fws.gov/ipac/location/QOEEXPEETJFA5G3L6MFNLO5TQA/resources 12/30/2016

IPaC: Explore Location
Lichens
NAME STATUS
Rock Gnome Lichen Gymnoderma lineare Endangered
No critical habitat has been designated for this species.
http://ecos.fws.gov/ecp/species/3933
Mammals
NAME STATUS
Carolina Northern Flying Squirrel Glaucomys sabrinus Endangered
coloratus
No critical habitat has been designated for this species.
http://ecos.fws.gov/ecp/species/2657
Gray Bat Myotis grisescens Endangered
No critical habitat has been designated for this species.
http://ecos.fws.gov/ecp/species/6329
Northern Long-eared Bat Myotis septentrionalis Threatened
No critical habitat has been designated for this species.
http://ecos.fws.gov/ecp/species/9045
Critical habitats
Page 4 of 9
Potential effects to critical habitat(s) in this location must be analyzed along with
the endangered species themselves.
THERE ARE NO CRITICAL HABITATS AT THIS LOCATION.
Migratory birds
Birds are protected under the Migratory Bird Treaty Act
and the Bald and Golden Eagle Protection Act?.
https://ecos.fws.gov/ipac/location/QOEEXPEETJFA5G3L6MFNL05TQA/resources 12/30/2016

IPaC: Explore Location
Page 5 of 9
Any activity that results in the take (to harass, harm, pursue, hunt, shoot, wound, kill,
.................................. _..............................................................................................._ ...._.................................
trap, capture, or collect, or to attempt to engage in any such conduct) of migratory
birds or eagles is prohibited unless authorized by the U.S. Fish and Wildlife Service
3. There are no provisions for allowing the take of migratory birds that are
unintentionally killed or injured.
Any person or organization who plans or conducts activities that may result in the
take of migratory birds is responsible for complying with the appropriate regulations
and implementing appropriate conservation measures.
1. The Migratory Birds Treaty Act of 1918.
2. The Bald and Golden Eagle Protection Act of 1940.
3. 50 C.F.R. Sec. 10.12 and 16 U.S.C. Sec. 668(a)
Additional information can be found using the following links:
• Birds of Conservation Concern htto://www.fws.Lyov/birds/management/managed-
species/
birds -of -conservation -concern . p h p
• Conservation measures for birds http://www.fws.gov/birds/management/project-
assessment-tools-and-guidance/
conservation-measures.php
• Year-round bird occurrence data
htto://www.birdscanada.ore/birdmon/default/datasummaries.is
The following species of migratory birds are potentially affected by activities in this
location:
NAME
Bald Eagle Haliaeetus leucocephalus
http://ecos.fws.gov/ecp/species/1626
Black -billed Cuckoo Coccyzus erythropthalmus
http://ecos.fws.gov/ecp/species/9399
Blue -winged Warbler Vermivora pinus
Brown -headed Nuthatch Sitta pusilla
SEASON(S)
Year-round
Breeding
Breeding
Year-round
https://ecos.fws.gov/ipac/location/QOEEXPEETJFA5G3L6MFNL05TQA/resources 12/30/2016

IPaC: Explore Location
Canada Warbler Wilsonia canadensis Breeding
Cerulean Warbler Dendroica cerulea Breeding
http://ecos.fws.gov/ecp/speci es/2974
Fox Sparrow Passerella iliaca Wintering
Golden -winged Warbler Vermivora chrysoptera Breeding
http://ecos.fws.gov/ecp/species/8745
Kentucky Warbler Oporornis formosus Breeding
Loggerhead Shrike Lanius ludovicianus Year-round
http://ecos.fws.gov/ecp/species/8833
Louisiana Waterthrush Parkesia motacilla Breeding
Peregrine Falcon Falco peregrinus Breeding
http://ecos.fws.gov/ecp/species/8831
Prairie Warbler Dendroica discolor Breeding
Red Crossbill Loxia curvirostra Year-round
http://ecos.fws.gov/ecp/species/8743
Red-headed Woodpecker Melanerpes erythrocephalus Breeding
Rusty Blackbird Euphagus carolinus
Short -eared Owl Asio flammeus
http://ecos.fws.gov/ecp/species/9295
Swainson's Warbler Limnothlypis swainsonii
Wood Thrush Hylocichla mustelina
Wintering
Wintering
Breeding
Breeding
Page 6 of 9
https://ecos.fws.gov/ipac/location/QOEEXPEETJFA5G3L6MFNLO5TQA/resources 12/30/2016

IPaC: Explore Location
Worm Eating Warbler Helmitheros vermivorum
Yellow -bellied Sapsucker sphyrapicus varius
http://ecos.fws.gov/ecp/sped es/8792
Facilities
Wildlife refuges
Breeding
Breeding
Page 7 of 9
Any activity proposed on National Wildlife Refuge lands must undergo a 'Compatibility
Determination' conducted by the Refuge. Please contact the individual Refuges to
discuss any questions or concerns.
THERE ARE NO REFUGES AT THIS LOCATION.
Fish hatcheries
THERE ARE NO FISH HATCHERIES AT THIS LOCATION.
Wetlands in the National Wetlands
Inventory
Impacts to NWI wetlands and other aquatic habitats
may be subject to regulation under Section 404 of the
Clean Water Act, or other State/Federal statutes.
For more information please contact the Regulatory
Program of the local
U.S. Army Corps of Engineers District.
DATA LIMITATIONS
https://ecos.fws.gov/ipac/location/QOEEXPEETJFA5G3L6MFNL05TQA/resources 12/30/2016

Ncrrural an d
Cultural Resources
January 5, 2017
Julia Tillery
Amec Foster Wheeler Environment & Infrastructure, Inc.
5710 Oleander Dr., Ste 110
Wilmington, NC 28403
RE: Duke Energy Asheville Plant IP; 7810160781
Dear Julia Tillery:
PAT 'McC.'RORY
GaswnVir
SUSAN KLUTTZ
semerart'
NCNHDE-2701
The North Carolina Natural Heritage Program (NCNHP) appreciates the opportunity to provide information
about natural heritage resources for the project referenced above.
A query of the NCNHP database indicates that there are records for rare species, important natural
communities, natural areas, or conservation/managed areas within the proposed project boundary. These
results are presented in the attached `Documented Occurrences' tables and map.
The attached `Potential Occurrences' table summarizes rare species and natural communities that have been
documented within a one -mile radius of the property boundary. The proximity of these records suggests that
these natural heritage elements may potentially be present in the project area if suitable habitat exists and is
included for reference. Tables of natural areas and conservation/managed area within a one -mile radius of the
project area, if any, are also included in this report.
Please note that natural heritage element data are maintained for the purposes of conservation planning, project
review, and scientific research, and are not intended for use as the primary criteria for regulatory decisions.
Information provided by the NCNHP database may not be published without prior written notification to the
NCNHP, and the NCNHP must be credited as an information source in these publications. Maps of NCNHP
data may not be redistributed without permission.
Also please note that the NC Natural Heritage Program may follow this letter with additional correspondence if a
Dedicated Nature Preserve (DNP), Registered Heritage Area (RHA), Clean Water Management Trust Fund
(CWMTF) easement, or an occurrence of a Federally -listed species is documented near the project area.
If you have questions regarding the information provided in this letter or need additional assistance, please
contact Suzanne Mason at suzanne.mason&ncdcr.gov or 919.707.8637.
Sincerely,
NC Natural Heritage Program
--"-'Nothing Compares
State o1FNorck C=Ll a I Deparunent cfl,==Bal and 09� Rmauras
109 Fast am_- Street I Rale46NC27601
919407-730D

No Natural Areas are Documented within the Project Area
No Managed Areas Documented within the Project Area
Definitions and an explanation of status designations and codes can be found at https://ncnhde.natureserve.org/content/help. Data query generated on January 5, 2017; source: NCNHP, Q3 October 2016. Please resubmit your
information request if more than one year elapses before project initiation as new information is continually added to the NCNHP database.
Page 2 of 5
Natural Heritage Element Occurrences, Natural Areas, and Managed Areas Intersecting the Project Area
Duke Energy Asheville Plant IP
Project No. 7810160781
January 5, 2017
NCNHDE-2701
Element Occurrences Documented Within Pro'ect Area
Taxonomic
EO ID
Scientific Name Common Name
Last Element
Accuracy
Federal
State
Global
State
Group
Observation Occurrence
Status
Status
Rank
Rank
Date Rank
Freshwater
33458
Strophitus undulatus Creeper
2015-09-21 E
3 -Medium
---
Threatened
G5
S3
Bivalve
Freshwater Fish
5893
Erimystax insignis Blotched Chub
2005-08-25 E
3 -Medium
---
Significantly
G4
S2
Rare
Freshwater Fish
9302
Percina williamsi Sickle Darter
1940 -Pre X?
3 -Medium
Species of
Special
G2
SX
Concern
Concern
No Natural Areas are Documented within the Project Area
No Managed Areas Documented within the Project Area
Definitions and an explanation of status designations and codes can be found at https://ncnhde.natureserve.org/content/help. Data query generated on January 5, 2017; source: NCNHP, Q3 October 2016. Please resubmit your
information request if more than one year elapses before project initiation as new information is continually added to the NCNHP database.
Page 2 of 5

Page 3 of 5
Natural Heritage Element Occurrences, Natural Areas, and Managed Areas Within a One -mile Radius of the Project Area
Duke Energy Asheville Plant IP
Project No. 7810160781
January 5, 2017
NCNHDE-2701
Element Occurrences Documented
Within a One -mile
Radius of the Project Area
Taxonomic
EO ID
Scientific Name
Common Name
Last
Element
Accuracy
Federal
State
Global
State
Group
Observation Occurrence
Status
Status
Rank
Rank
Date
Rank
Amphibian
2672
Cryptobranchus
Eastern Hellbender
1947-07-20
H
3 -Medium
Species of
Special
G3G4T
S3
alleganiensis
Concern
Concern
3T4
alleganiensis
Amphibian
10556
Necturus maculosus
Mudpuppy
1947-07-08
H
3 -Medium
---
Special
G5
S1
Concern
Bird
487
Vireo gilvus
Warbling Vireo
1986-06-05
C
3 -Medium
---
Significantly
G5
S2B
Rare
Crustacean
32839
Cambarus reburrus
French Broad River
2012-04-17
E
3 -Medium
Species of
Significantly
G3
S2
Crayfish
Concern
Rare
Dragonfly or
33442
Calopteryx amata
Superb Jewelwing
2004 -Pre
H?
5 -Very
---
Significantly
G4
S1S2
Damselfly
Low
Rare
Freshwater
33458
Strophitus undulatus
Creeper
2015-09-21
E
3 -Medium
---
Threatened
G5
S3
Bivalve
Freshwater Fish
5893
Erimystax insignis
Blotched Chub
2005-08-25
E
3 -Medium
---
Significantly
G4
S2
Rare
Freshwater Fish
9302
Percina williamsi
Sickle Darter
1940 -Pre
X?
3 -Medium
Species of
Special
G2
SX
Concern
Concern
Freshwater Fish
11061
Polyodon spathula
Paddlefish
1983
H?
4 -Low
Species of
Endangered
G4
SH
Concern
Mammal
15637
Myotis leibii
Eastern Small -footed
Bat 2013-03-21
E
2 -High
Species of
Special
G4
S2
Concern
Concern
Mammal
32144
Myotis septentrionalis
Northern Long-eared
Bat 2001
E
4 -Low
T -4(d)
Significantly
G1G2
S2
Rare
Mayfly
17679
Macdunnoa brunnea
a mayfly
1992-07-08
E
3 -Medium
---
Significantly
G3G4
S2
Rare
Natural
35608
Montane Floodplain
---
2015-05-07
BC
2 -High
---
---
G1
S1
Community
Slough Forest
Reptile
6227
Glyptemys muhlenbergii
Bog Turtle
2008
B
3 -Medium
Threatened
Threatened
G3
S2
Similar
Appearance
Page 3 of 5

Element Occurrences Documented Within a One -mile Radius of the Project Area
Taxonomic EO ID Scientific Name Common Name Last Element Accuracy Federal State Global State
Group Observation Occurrence Status Status Rank Rank
Date Rank
Vascular Plant 8701 Sarracenia jonesii Mountain Sweet Pitcher 1987 -Pre X 3 -Medium Endangered Endangered G4T2 S1
Plant
Natural Areas Documented Within a One -mile Radius of the Project Area
Site Name Representational Rating t Collective Rating
Long Shoals Wetland Complex 4 -Moderate 4 -Moderate
Managed Areas Documented Within a One -mile Radius of the Project Area
Managed Area Name Owner Owner Type
Buncombe County Open Space Buncombe County: multiple local government Local Government
RiverLink Conservation Easement RiverLink Private
Definitions and an explanation of status designations and codes can be found at https://ncnhde.natureserve.org/content/help. Data query generated on January 5, 2017; source: NCNHP, Q3 October 2016. Please resubmit your
information request if more than one year elapses before project initiation as new information is continually added to the NCNHP database.
Page 4 of 5

NCNHDE-2701: Duke Energy Asheville Plant IP
January 5, 2017
4
/• Ducder
Mountain
Buffered Project Boundary
E]
NHP Natural Area (NHNA)
El
Managed Area (MAREA)
sus
_
Frady Mofnxarr,
a J
r
�.
�.
�� • !
26321 -1,
d
pP Blake
_MWnfan
y��notr f
Ry 7;
Ioo,FP _
San tl
Bottom
titer°\
N roved N:e,.r _ •.
///
m
o
Brk
(
�'StedO
y
,�
_
more
P rk To.cn
K'y� �.
_
✓,
-
Square
'7�
4
d. o� •'tf
f7 olo
1�61te
cid
'allay
'
B
n'
3p""9a Lnn,
r "d Sl
–
r o w, M o
F: re
Iza '3
/
QL
/
,Slxa
t4,t(•
R
a
tit
•
- Barton c
/
Mountain -
v
Azdat
c
a
Cj � '
o
d�
_
Av eta'
•ehh�
(�lsl'
''&n. Ur
-
•�
/
Glenn 1300P
N �,l
j
¢fid
5�
Pd
�
oP -
W P�
a�
.
Fav
2801
�T
W E
2?16fr
y.
0
t
January 5, 2017
Project Boundary
Buffered Project Boundary
E]
NHP Natural Area (NHNA)
El
Managed Area (MAREA)
Page 5 of 5
1:37,899
0 0.325 0.65 1.3 mi
0 0.5 1 2 km
Sources: Esri, HERE, DeLorme, Intermap, increment P Corp., GEBCO, USGS,
FAO, NPS, NRCAN, GeoBase, ION, Kadaster NL, Ordnance Survey, Est Japan,
METI, Esri China (Hong Kong), swisstopo, Mapmylndia, © OpenStreetMap
contributors, and the GIS User Community

IPaC: Explore Location
The Service's objective of mapping wetlands and deepwater
habitats is to produce reconnaissance level information on the
location, type and size of these resources. The maps are
prepared from the analysis of high altitude imagery. Wetlands
are identified based on vegetation, visible hydrology and
geography. A margin of error is inherent in the use of imagery;
thus, detailed on -the -ground inspection of any particular site
may result in revision of the wetland boundaries or classification
established through image analysis.
The accuracy of image interpretation depends on the quality of
the imagery, the experience of the image analysts, the amount
and quality of the collateral data and the amount of ground
truth verification work conducted. Metadata should be
consulted to determine the date of the source imagery used and
any mapping problems.
Wetlands or other mapped features may have changed since
the date of the imagery or field work. There may be occasional
differences in polygon boundaries or classifications between the
information depicted on the map and the actual conditions on
site.
DATA EXCLUSIONS
Certain wetland habitats are excluded from the National
mapping program because of the limitations of aerial imagery
as the primary data source used to detect wetlands. These
habitats include seagrasses or submerged aquatic vegetation
that are found in the intertidal and subtidal zones of estuaries
and nearshore coastal waters. Some deepwater reef
communities (coral or tuberficid worm reefs) have also been
excluded from the inventory. These habitats, because of their
depth, go undetected by aerial imagery.
DATA PRECAUTIONS
Federal, state, and local regulatory agencies with jurisdiction
over wetlands may define and describe wetlands in a different
manner than that used in this inventory. There is no attempt, in
either the design or products of this inventory, to define the
limits of proprietary jurisdiction of any Federal, state, or local
government or to establish the geographical scope of the
regulatory programs of government agencies. Persons
intending to engage in activities involving modifications within
or adjacent to wetland areas should seek the advice of
appropriate federal, state, or local agencies concerning specified
agency regulatory programs and proprietary jurisdictions that
may affect such activities.
Page 8 of 9
https://ecos.fws.gov/ipac/location/QOEEXPEETJFA5G3L6MFNL05TQA/resources 12/30/2016

IPaC: Explore Location
THERE ARE NO KNOWN WETLANDS AT THIS LOCATION.
Page 9 of 9
https://ecos.fws.gov/ipac/location/QOEEXPEETJFA5G3L6MFNL05TQA/resources 12/30/2016

Wetland Master Plan
Asheville Combined Cycle Project Laydown Area
Arden, North Carolina
Project No. 7810160781
APPENDIX B
NCWAM AND NCSAM DATA FORMS
April 7, 2017

NC WAM WETLAND ASSESSMENT FORM
Accompanies User Manual Version 5
Project Name Asheville Plant Date of Evaluation 11129/2016
Applicant/Owner Name Duke Energy Wetland Site Name Wetland L
Wetland Type Headwater Forest Assessor Name/Organization James CutlerlAmecFW
Level III Ecoregion Blue Ridge Mountains Nearest Named Water Body French Broad River
River Basin French Broad USGS 8 -Digit Catalogue Unit 06010105
County Buncombe NCDWR Region Asheville
ro. Yes r No Precipitation within 48 hrs? Latitude/Longitude (deci-degrees) 35.56181-82.4515
Evidence of stressors affecting the assessment area (may not be within the assessment area)
Please circle andlor make note on last page if evidence of stressors is apparent. Consider departure from reference, if
appropriate, in recent past (for instance, approximately within 10 years). Noteworthy stressors include, but are not limited
to the following.
• Hydrological modifications (examples: ditches, dams, beaver dams, dikes, berms, ponds, etc.)
• Surface and sub -surface discharges into the wetland (examples: discharges containing obvious pollutants, presence of nearby
septic tanks, underground storage tanks (USTs), hog lagoons, etc.)
• Signs of vegetation stress (examples: vegetation mortality, insect damage, disease, storm damage, salt intrusion, etc.)
• Habitatlplant community alteration (examples: mowing, clear -cutting, exotics, etc.)
Is the assessment area intensively managed? r Yes ; No
Regulatory Considerations -Were regulatory considerations evaluated? iR* Yes 1- No If Yes, check all that apply to the assessment
r Anadromous fish
r Federally protected species or State endangered or threatened species
F NCDWR riparian buffer rule in effect
r Abuts a Primary Nursery Area (PNA)
F Publicly owned property
r N.C. Division of Coastal Management Area of Environmental Concern (AEC) (including buffer)
F Abuts a stream with a NCDWQ classification of SA or supplemental 6assifications of HQW, ORW, or Trout
r Designated NCNHP reference community
F Abuts a 303(d) -listed stream or a tributary to a 303(d) -listed stream
What type of natural stream is associated with the wetland, if any? (check all that apply)
f- Blackwater
(T Brownwater
r Tidal (if tidal, check one of the following boxes) r Lunar t^ Wind f7 Both
Is the assessment area on a coastal island? f— Yes f+" No
Is the assessment area's surface water storage capacity or duration substantially altered by beaver? I— Yes f: No
Does the assessment area experience overbank floodin
normal rainfall conditions?
Z— Yes
No
1. Ground Surface Condition[Vegetation Condition —assessment area condition metric
Check a box in each column. Consider alteration to the ground surface (GS) in the assessment area and vegetation structure
(VS) in the assessment area. Compare to reference wetland if applicable (see User Manual). If a reference is not applicable,
then rate the assessment area based on evidence of an effect.
GS VS
f* A f* A Not severely altered
f" B (— B Severely altered over a majority of the assessment area (ground surface alteration examples: vehicle tracks, excessive
sedimentation, fire -plow lanes, skidder tracks, bedding, fill, soil compaction, obvious pollutants) (vegetation structure
alteration examples: mechanical disturbance, herbicides, salt intrusion [where appropriate], exotic species, grazing,
less diversity [if appropriate], hydrologic alteration)
2. Surface and Sub -Surface Storage Capacity and Duration — assessment area condition metric
Check a box in each column. Consider surface storage capacity and duration (Surf) and sub -surface storage capacity and
duration (Sub). Consider both increase and decrease in hydrology. A ditch <_ 1 foot deep is considered to affect surface water only,
wNi e a ditch > 1 foot deep is expected to affect both surface and sub -surface water. Consider tidal flooding regime, if applicable.
Surf Sub
ti A f« A Water storage capacity and duration are not altered.
1-6 i ` B Water storage capacity or duration are altered, but not substantially (typically, not sufficient to change vegetation).
r C lir' C Water storage capacity or duration are substantially altered (typically, alteration sufficient to result in vegetation
change) (examples: draining, flooding, soil compaction, filling, excessive sedimentation, underground utility lines).
3. Water StoragelSurface Relief —assessment area/wetland type condition metric (skip for all marshes)
Check a box in each column for each group below. Select the appropriate storage for the assessment area (AA) and the wetland
type (WT).
AA WT
3a. C A r A Majority of wetland with depressions able to pond water > 1 foot deep
+,"- B f ' B Majority of wetland with depressions able to pond water 6 inches to 1 foot deep
i~+ C t+ C Majority of wetland with depressions able to pond water 3 to 6 inches deep
(-, D (7, D Depressions able to pond water < 3 inches deep
3b. f"' A Evidence that maximum depth of inundation is greater than 2 feet
r B Evidence that maximum depth of inundation is between 1 and 2 feet
f+' C Evidence that maximum depth of inundation is less than 1 foot

4. Soil Texture/Structure - assessment area condition metric (skip for all marshes)
Check a box from each of the three soil property groups below. Dig soil profile in the dominant assessment area landscape
feature. Make soil observations within the 12 inches. Use most recent National Technical Committee for Hydric Soils guidance for
regional indicators.
4a. r.A Sandy soil
(F� B Loamy or clayey soils exhibiting redoximorphic features (concentrations, depletions, or rhizospheres)
C? C Loamy or clayey soils not exhibiting redoximorphic features
? D Loamy or clayey gleyed soil
C E Histosol or histic epipedon
4b. (�; A Soil ribbon < 1 inch
(7, B Soil ribbon >- 1 inch
4c. r', A No peat or muck presence
r. B A peat or muck presence
S. Discharge into Wetland -opportunity metric
Check a box in each column. Consider surface pollutants or discharges (Surf) and sub -surface pollutants or discharges (Sub).
Examples of sub -surface discharges include presence of nearby septic tank, underground storage tank (UST), etc.
Surf Sub
Ce A CS A Little or no evidence of pollutants or discharges entering the assessment area
Ce B r, B Noticeable evidence of pollutants or discharges entering the wetland and stressing, but not overwhelming the
treatment capacity of the assessment area
r, C (" C Noticeable evidence of pollutants or discharges (pathogen, particulate, or soluble) entering the assessment area and
potentially overwhelming the treatment capacity of the wetland (water discoloration, dead vegetation, excessive
sedimentation, odor)
6. Land Use - opportunity metric (skip for non -riparian wetlands)
Check all that apply (at least one box in each column). Evaluation involves a GIS effort with field adjustment. Consider sources
draining to assessment area within entire upstream watershed (WS), within 5 miles and within the watershed draining to the
assessment area (5M), and within 2 miles and within the watershed draining to the assessment area (2M). Effective riparian buffers
are considered to be 50 feet wide in the Coastal Plain and Piedmont ecoregions and 30 feet wide in the Blue Ridge Mountains ecoregion.
WS 5M 2M
)-v A r A r A a 10% impervious surfaces
r B r B r B Confined animal operations (or other local, concentrated source of pollutants)
I- C R C (? C z 20% coverage of pasture
r D r D r D a 20% coverage of agricultural land (regularly plowed land)
r E lv E 177 E a 20% coverage of maintained grass/herb
r F r F r F z 20% coverage of clear-cut land
(-' G r G r G Little or no opportunity to improve water quality. Lack of opportunity may result from little or no disturbance in
the watershed or hydrologic alterations that prevent dainage and/or overbank flow from affectio the
assessment area.
7. Wetland Acting as Vegetated Buffer -assessment arealwetland complex condition metric (skip for non -riparian wetlands)
7a. Is assessment area within 50 feet of a tributary or other open water?
r:, Yes r No If Yes, continue to 7b. If No, skip to Metric 8.
71b. How much of the first 50 feet from the bank is weltand? (Wetland buffer need only be present on one side of the water body. Make
buffer judgment based on the average width of wetland. Record a note if a portion of the buffer has been removed or disturbed.)
(,,A a50feet
(i1 B From 30 to < 50 feet
C) C From 15 to < 30 feet
(` D From 5 to < 15 feet
(, E < 5 feet or buffer bypassed by ditches
7c. Tributary width. If the tributary is anastomosed, combine widths of channels/braids for a total width.
r s 15 -feet wide r > 15 -feet wide (- Other open water (no tributary present)
7d. Do roots of assessment area vegetation extend into the bank of the tributary/open water?
(-? Yes (`: No
7e. Is tributary or other open water sheltered or exposed?
M Sheltered - adjacent open water with width < 2500 feet and no regular boat traffic.
C, Exposed - adjacent open water with width >_ 2500 feet or regular boat traffic.
8. Wetland Width at the Assessment Area -wetland type/wetland complex condition metric (evaluate WT for all marshes
and Estuarine Woody Wetland only; evaluate WC for Bottomland Hardwood Forest, Headwater Forest, and Riverine Swamp
Forest only)
Check a box in each column. Select the average width for the wetland type at the assessment area (WT) and the wetland complex at the
assessment area (WC). See User Manual for WT and WC boundaries.
WT WC
A (7 A >_ 100 feet
(` B r B From 80 to < 100 feet
6- C (e C From 50 to < 80 feet
D {' D From 40 to < 50 feet
( E rE From 30 to < 40 feet
r, F (7 F From 15 to < 30 feet
C G C5 G From 5 to < 15 feet
C'- H rH < 5 feet

9. Inundation Duration — assessment area condition metric (skip for non -riparian wetlands)
Answer for assessment area dominant landform.
(" A Evidence of short -duration inundation (< 7 consecutive days)
(- B Evidence of saturation, without evidence of inundation
C C Evidence of long -duration inundation or very long -duration inundation (7 to 30 consecutive days or more)
10. Indicators of Deposition —assessment area condition metric (skip for non -riparian wetlands and all marshes)
Consider recent deposition only (no plant growth since deposition).
ro A Sediment deposition is not excessive, but at approximately natural levels.
(" B Sediment deposition is excessive, but not overwhelming the wetland.
(" C Sediment deposition is excessive and is overwhelming the wetland.
11. Wetland Size — wetland typelwetland complex condition metric
Check a box in each column. Involves a GIS effort with field adjustment. This metric evaluates three aspects of the wetland area: the
size of the wetland type (WT), the size of the wetland complex (WC), and the size of the forested wetland (FW) (if applicable, see User
Manual). See the User Manual for boundaries of these evaluation areas. If assessment area is clear-cut, select X" for the FW column.
WT WC FW (if applicable)
A (", A rA 2 500 acres
{"? B (" B C) B From 100 to < 500 acres
t^•• C ("; C r, C From 50 to < 100 acres
r, D (` D r,, D From 25 to < 50 acres
['S E {" E r, E From 10 to < 25 acres
(".F CF r,F From 5 to< 10 acres
G C= G (` G From 1 to < 5 acres
H r H r, H From 0.5 to < l acre
( I G I [.j I From 0.1 to < 0.5 acre
(_^,J r,J r,J From 0.01 to< 0.1 acre
K r, K r,, K < 0.01 acre or assessment area is clear-cut
12. Wetland Intactness —wetland type condition metric (evaluate for Pocosins only)
r2 A Pocosin is the full extent (i 90%) of its natural landscape size.
(": B Pocosin is < 90% of the full extent of its natural landscape size.
13. Connectivity to Other Natural Areas — landscape condition metric
13a. Check appropriate box(es) (a box may be checked in each column). Involves a GIS effort with field adjustment. This
evaluates whether the wetland is well connected (Well) and/or loosely connected (Loosely) to the landscape patch, the contiguous
metric naturally vegetated area and open water (if appropriate). Boundaries are formed by four -lane roads, regularly maintained utility
line corridors the width of a four -lane road or wider, urban landscapes, fields (pasture open and agriculture), or water > 300 feet wide.
Well Loosely
(":A (;A 2500 acres
r, B r, B From 100 to < 500 acres
r; C C".; C From 50 to < 100 acres
r D is D From 10 to < 50 acres
C E ('r E < 10 acres
(— F (`) F Wetland type has a poor or no connection to other natural habitats
13b. Evaluate for marshes only.
C'. Yes (` No Wetland type has a surface hydrology connection to open waters/stream or tidal wetlands.
14. Edge Effect — wetland type condition metric (skip for all marshes and Estuarine Woody Wetland)
May involve a GIS effort with field adjustment. Estimate distance from wetland type boundary to artificial edges. Artificial edges include
non -forested areas z 40 feet wide such as fields, development, roads, regularly maintained utility line corridors and clear -cuts. Consider
the eight main points of the compass. Artificial edge occurs within 150 feet in how many directiions? If the assessment area is clear-cut,
select option "C."
(yA 0
( B 1 to 4
("'. C 5 to 8
15. Vegetative Composition — assessment area condition metric (skip for all marshes and Pine Flat)
rF A Vegetation is close to reference condition in species present and their proportions. Lower strata composed of appropriate
species, with exotic plants absent or sparse within the assessment area.
(") B Vegetation is different from reference condition in species diversity or proportions, but still largely composed of native species
characteristic of the wetland type. This may include communities of weedy native species that develop after clearcutting or
clearing. It also includes communities with exotics present, but not dominant, over a large portion of the expected strata.
(". C Vegetation severely altered from reference in composition, or expected species are unnaturally absent (planted stands of non -
characteristic species or at least one stratum inappropriately composed of a single species), or exotic species are dominant in
at least one stratum.
16. Vegetative Diversity— assessment area condition metric (evaluate for Non -tidal Freshwater Marsh only)
(" A Vegetation diversity is high and is composed primarily of native species (<10% cover of exotics).
r, B Vegetation diversity is low or has > 10% to 50% cover of exotics.
r C Vegetation is dominated by exotic species (>50% cover of exotics).

17. Vegetative Structure — assessment area/wetland type condition metric
17a. Is vegetation present?
6- Yes r, No If Yes, continue to 17b. If No, skip to Metric 18,
17b. Evaluate percent coverage of assessment area vegetation for all marshes only. Skip to 17c for non -marsh wetlands.
{) A z 25% coverage of vegetation
(, B < 25% coverage of vegetation
17c. Check a box in each column for each stratum. Evaluate this portion of the metric for non -marsh wetlands. Consider structure
in airspace above the assessment area (AA) and the wetland type (WT) separately.
AA WT
o A 07.... A Canopy closed, or nearly closed, with natural gaps associated with natural processes
r B r, B Canopy present, but opened more than natural gaps
U (S C r C Canopy sparse or absent
or A C, A Dense mid-story/sapling layer
uJ
0- B (7 B Moderate density mid-story/sapling layer
r C {"} C Mid-story/sapling layer sparse or absent
M {' A
r.. A
Dense shrub layer
z {:` B
{'_ B
Moderate density shrub layer
0 C C
t^ C
Shrub layer sparse or absent
a A
() A
Dense herb layer
B
(.T B
Moderate density herb layer
r C
C C
Herb layer sparse or absent
18. Snags — wetland type condition metric (skip for all marshes)
(7 A Large snags (more than one) are visible (> 12 -inches DBH, or large relative to species present and landscape stability).
r,B Not
19. Diameter Class Distribution —wetland type condition metric (skip for all marshes)
f A Majority of canopy trees have stems > 6 inches in diameter at breast height (DBH); many large trees (> 12 inches DBH) are
present.
0- B Majority of canopy trees have stems between 6 and 12 inches DBH, few are > 12 -inch DBH.
(' C Majority of canopy trees are < 6 inches DBH or no trees.
20. Large Woody Debris —wetland type condition metric (skip for all marshes)
Include both natural debris and man -placed natural debris.
(!'- A Large logs (more than one) are visible (> 12 inches in diameter, or large relative to species present and landscape stability).
CB Not
21. Vegetation/Open Water Dispersion — wetland type/open water condition metric (evaluate for Non -Tidal Freshwater
Marsh only)
Select the figure that best describes the amount of interspersion between vegetation and open water in the growing season. Patterned
areas indicate vegetated areas, while solid white areas indicate open water.
I
22. Hydrologic Connectivity— assessment area condition metric (evaluate for riparian wetlands and Salt/Brackish Marsh only)
Examples of activities that may severely alter hydrologic connectivity include intensive ditching, fill, sedimentation, channelization,
diversion, man-made berms, beaver dams, and stream incision. Documentation required W evaluated as B, C, or D.
(+5 A Overbank and overland flow are not severely altered in the assessment area.
(". B Overbank flow is severely altered in the assessment area.
i C Overland flow is severely altered in the assessment area.
{` D Both overbank and overland flow are severely altered in the assessment area.
Photo No. 1 - view to west; photo No. 2 - view to north; photo No. 3 - view to south. Beaver activity is historic and not recent (tree cuttings; no dam

NC WAM Wetland Rating Sheet
Accompanies User Manual Version 5.0
Wetland Site Name Wetland L Date 11/29/2016
Wetland Type Headwater Forest Assessor Name/Organization James Cutler/AmecFW
Notes on Field Assessment Form (YIN) YES
Presence of regulatory considerations (YIN) NO
Wetland is intensively managed (YIN) NO
Assessment area is located within 50 feet of a natural tributary or other open water (YIN) YES
Assessment area is substantially altered by beaver (YIN) NO
Assessment area experiences overbank flooding during normal rainfall conditions (YIN) NO
Assessment area is on a coastal island (YIN) NO
Sub -function Rating Summary
Function Sub -function Metrics Rating
Hydrology Surface Storage and Retention Condition HIGH
Sub -Surface Storage and Retention Condition HIGH
Water Quafity Pathogen Change Condition HIGH
Condition/Opportunity HIGH
Opportunity Presence? (YIN) YES
Particulate Change
Condition
HIGH
Hydrology
Condition/Opportunity
NA
Water Quality
Opportunity Presence? (YIN)
NA
Soluble Change
Condition
MEDIUM
Condition/Op port unity
HIGH
Habitat
Opportunity Presence? (YIN)
YES
Physical Change
Condition
HIGH
Condition/Opportunity
HIGH
Opportunity Presence? (YIN)
YES
Pollution Change
Condition
NA
Con ditionlOpportunity NA
Opportunity Presence? (YIN) NA
Habitat Physical Structure Condition HIGH
Landscape Patch Structure Condition LOW
Vegetation Composition Condition HIGH
Function Rating Summary
Function
Metrics/Notes
Rating
Hydrology
Condition
HIGH
Water Quality
Condition
HIGH
Con ditionlOpportunity
RIGH
Opportunity Presence? (YIN)
YES
Habitat
Condition
HIGH
Overall Wetland Rating HIGH

user manual version z.i
INSTRUCTIONS: Attach a sketch of the assessment area and photographs. Attach a copy of the USGS 7.5 -minute topographic
quadrangle, and circle the location of the stream reach under evaluation. If multiple stream reaches will be evaluated on the same
property, identify and number all reaches on the attached map, and include a separate form for each reach. See the NC SAM User
Manual for detailed descriptions and explanations of requested information. Record in the "Notes/Sketch" section if any supplementary
measurements were performed. See the NC SAM User Manual for examples of additional measurements that may be relevant.
NOTE EVIDENCE OF STRESSORS AFFECTING THE ASSESSMENT AREA (do not need to be within the assessment area).
PROJECT! SITE INFORMATION:
1. Project name (if any): Asheville Duke Plower Plant 2, Date of evaluation: 11-29-16
3. Applicantlowner name: Duke Energy 4. Assessor name/organization: J.Howard
5. County: Buncombe 8. Nearest named water body
7. River Basin: French Broad on USGS 7.5 -minute quad: French Broad
8. Site coordinates (decimal degrees, at lower end of assessment reach): See GPS Data
STREAM INFORMATION: (depth and width can be approximations)
9. Site number (show on attached map): SI 002-011 (Stream 22) 10. Length of assessment reach evaluated (feet): 200'
11. Channel depth from bed (ie riffle, if present) to top of bank (feet): 2-3.9 r— to assess channel depth.
12, Channel width at top of bank (feet): 5-5' 13. Is assessment reach a swamp stream? (" Yes (", No
14. Feature type: 6' Perennial flaw ,. Intermittent flow %' Tidal Marsh Stream
STREAM RATING INFORMATION:
15. NC SAM Zone: I+ Mountains (M) (: Piedmont (P) ( Inner Coastal Plain (1) r. Outer Coastal Plain (0)
16. Estimated geomorphic
valley shape (skip for ( a b
Tidal Marsh Stream): (more sinuous stream, flatter valley slope) (less sinuous stream, steeper valley slope)
17. Watershed size: (skip C Size 1 (< 0.1 mil) lrSize 2 (0.1 to < 0.5 mi`) C7 Size 3 (0.5 to < 5 mi`) f" Size 4 (L� 5 mix)
for Tidal Marsh Stream)
ADDITIONAL INFORMATION:
18. Were regulatory considerations evaluated? (: Yes ("r No If Yes, check all that appy to the assessment area.
F Section 10 water I—" Classified Trout Waters F- Water Supply Watershed ( (` I r II r, III (7 IV C V)
r— Essential Fish Habitat r Primary Nursery Area r High Quality Waters/Outstanding Resource Waters
r" Publicly owned property r NCDWR riparian buffer rule in effect F_ Nutrient Sensitive Waters
'f— Anadromous fish r— 303(d) List I— CAMA Area of Environmental Concern (AEC)
F Documented presence of a federal andlor state listed protected species within the assessment area.
List species:
7 Designated Critical Habitat (list species):
19. Are additional stream informationlcunnl—rilan,
1. Channel Water— assessment reach metric (skip for Size 1 streams and Tidal Marsh Streams)
(7- A Water throughout assessment reach
(7 B No flow, water in peels only,
(7 C No water in assessment reach.
2. Evidence of Flow Restriction — assessment reach metric
(" A At least 10% of assessment reach in -stream habitat or riffle -pool sequence is adversely affected by a flow restriction or fill to the
point of obstructing flow or a channel choked with aquatic macrophytes or ponded water or impounded on flood or ebb within
the assessment reach (examples: undersized or perched culverts, causeways that constrict the channel, tidal gates).
B Not A
3. Feature Pattern — assessment reach metric
f''. A A majority of the assessment reach has altered pattern (examples:: straightening, modification above or below cuivert)..
(+°- B Not A.
4. Feature Longitudinal Profile — assessment reach metric
(" A Maturity of assessment reach has a substantially altered stream. profile (examples: channel dowrncutting, existing damming,
over widening, active aggradation, dredging, and excavation where appropriate channel profile has not reformed from any of
these disturbances).
B Not A
5. Signs of Active Instability —assessment reach metric
Consider only current instability, not past events from which the stream has currently recovered. Examples of instability include
active bank failure, active channel down -cutting (head -cut), active widening, and artificial hardening (such as concrete, gablon, rip -rap).
(+ A < 10% of channel unstable
(".. B 10 to 25% of channel unstable
C.'' C a 25% of channel unstable
6. Streamside Area Interaction—streamside area metric
Consider for the Left Bank (LB) and the Right Bank (RB).
LB RB
(t A (- A Little or no evidence of conditions that adversely affect reference interaction
C B (" B Moderate evidence of conditions (examples: berms, levees, down -cutting, aggradation, dredging) that adversely affect
reference interaction (examples: limited streamside area access, disruption of flood flows through streamside area,
leaky or intermittent bulkheads, causeways with floodplain constriction, minor ditching [including mosquito ditching])
(".. C C.} C Extensive evidence of conditions that adversely affect reference interaction (little to no floodplain/intertidal zone access
[examples: causeways with floodplain and channel constriction, bulkheads, retaining walls, fill, stream incision,
disruption of flood' flaws through streamside area] or too much floodplainlintert'idal zone access [examples:
impoundments, intensive mosquito ditching]) Rr fleodplain/interlidal zone unnaturally absent or assessment reach is a
man-made feature on an interstream divide

7. Water Quality Stressors -assessment reach/intertidal zone metric
Check all that apply.
(" A Discolored water in stream or intedidal zone (milky white, blue, unnatural wafer discoloration, oil sheen, stream foam)
F- B Excessive sedimentation (burying of stream features or intertitlal zone)
F- C Noticeable evidence of Pull discharges entering the assessment reach and causing a water quality problem
F D Odor (not Including natural sulfide odors)
C E Current published or collected data Indicating degraded water quality in the assessment reach. Cite spume in the'Notes/Sketch•
section.
C F Livestock with access to stream or intertidal zone
17 G Excessive algae in stream or Intel zone
i H Disgust marsh vegetation in the intertidal zone (removal, burning, regular mowing, destruction, etc.)
(- I Other: (explain in'Notes/Sketch' section)
7 J LiMe to no stressors
B. Recent Weather -watershed metric
For Size 1 or 2 streams, 01 drought or higher is considered a drought: for Size 3 or 4 streams, D2 drought or higher is considered a
drought.
C A Drought conditions and no rainfall or rainfall not exceeding 1 inch within the last 48 hours
(ti B Drought conditions and rainfall exceeding 1 inch within the last 48 hours
C C No drought conditions
9 Large or Dangerous Stream - assesament reach metric
C Yes 6- No Is stream is lea large or dangerous to assess? N Yes, skip to Metric 13 (Strearrslde Area Ground Surface Condition),
10. Natural in -stream Habitat Types- assessment reach metric
10a. (s Yes C No Degraded In -stream habitat over majority of the assessment reach (examples of stressors include excessive
sedimentation, mining, excavation, In -stream hardening [for example, rp+ap7, recent dredging, and snagging)
(evaluate for size 4 Coastal Plain streams only, then skip to Metric 12)
10b. Check all that occur (occurs if > 5% coverage of assessment reach)(skip for Size 4 Coastal Plain streams)
F- A Multiple aquatic macrophyles and aquatic mosses m g r F 5% system or other natural hard bottoms
(Include Iiveworts, lichens, and algal mats) r (-• G Submerged aquatic vegetation
CJ B Multiple sticks and/or leaf packs antllor emergent r H Low4cle refugia (pools)
vegetation s co F- I Send bottom
Fr C Multiple snags and logs (including lap trees) (- J 50% vertical bank along the marsh
P D 5% undercut banks and/or root mats and/or mots um C K Little or no habitat
in banks extend to the normal waded perimeter
F E Little or no habitat
---—REMAINING QUESTIONS ARE NOT APPLICABLE FOR TIDAL MARSH STREAMS•"•"""""'••"••""`•'
11. Bedform and Substrate- assessment reach metric (skip for Size 4 Coastal Plain streams and Tidal Marsh Streams)
11 a. f. Yes C No Is assessment reach in a natural sand -bad stream? (skip for Coastal Plain streams)
11 b. Bedform evaluated. Check the appropriate box(es).
R A Riffs run section (evaluate l lc)
F- B Pool -glide section (evaluate 11d)
r- C Natural notion absent (skip to Metric 12, Aquatic Life)
11c. In nates sections, check all that occur below the normal waited perimeter of the assessment reach -whether or not submerged.
Check at least one box In each row (skip for Size 4 Coastal Plain Streams and Tidal Marsh Streams). Not Present (NP) _
absent, Rare (R) = present but 510%, Common (C) _ > 10-00%, Abundant (A) _ > 40-70%, Predominant (P) _ > 70%. Cumulative
percentages should not exceed 100% for each assessment reach.
NP R C A P
C (_` C C Bedrock/saprofte
C C Boulder (256-4096 mm)
C C C r, C Cobble (64 - 256 mm)
C C C r C Gravel (2 -St mm)
( C C C r Sand (.062-2 mm)
(� r C C C Sillmlay (, 0.062 mm)
(' C G C C Duns
C C C C C Artificial (dip -rap, concrete, etc.)
1 td. C Yes r No Are pools filled with sediment? (skip for Size 4 Coastal Plain streams and Tidal Marsh Streams)

12. Aquatic Life -assessment reach metric (skip for Size 4 Coastal Plain streams and Tidal Marsh Streams)
12a. G Yes C No Was an in -stream aquatic Ile assessment performed as described in Ne User Manual?
If No, select one of the following reasons and skip to Metric 13. O No Water O Other:
12b. r Yes (t No Are aquatic organisms present in the assessment reach (look in riffles, pools, then snags)? If Yes, check
all that apply. If No. skip to Maine 13.
1 >1 Numbers over columns refer to 'individuals' for size l and 2 streams and'tax3 for size 3 and 4strreans.
r F Adult frogs
F- t- Aquatic reptiles
1• r" Aquatic macrophytes and aquatic mosses (include Liverworts, lichens, and algal mats)
r- r Beetles (including water pennies)
P r••• Caddisfly larvae (Trichoptem p7)
r• C Asian clam (Corbicula )
r r" Crustacean (isopod/amphipod/cayrisNshorni
f- r Damselfly and dragonfly larvae
r r- Dipterans (true flies)
r r Mayny larvae (Ephemereplers [E])
O r- Megaloptem (aldefly, flsMly, dobscor ly larvae)
F- r- Midges/mosquito larvae
r- r Mosquito fish (Gee ia) or mud minnows (Umbo pygmeea)
r C Mussais/Gams (net Cord'cWa )
7 F Other fish
f- Salamantle.Aatlpoles
r fd' Snails
r- C Stoney larvae(Pleceptena(Pr)
r r Tpulid larvae
F- r- Wonnslleeches
13. Streamslde Area Ground Surface Condition - stea n ide area metric (skip for Tidal Marsh Streams and B valley types)
Consider for the Left Bank (LB) and the Right Bank (RS). Consider storage capacity with regard to both overbook flaw and
upland runoff.
LB RB
t"• A G• A Little or no alteration to water storage capacity over a majority of the streamside area
O B Q B Moderate alteration to water storage capacity over a majority of the streamside area
11"1 C C C Severe alteration to water storage capacity over a majority of the streamside area (examples include: ditches,1111,
sail, compaction, livestock disturbance, buildings, man-made levees, drainage pipes)
14. Streamslde Area Water Storage -streamside area metric (skip for Size 1 streams, Tidal Marsh Streams, and B valley types)
Consider for the Left Bank (LB) and the Right Bank (RB) of the streamside area.
LB RB
O A O A Majority of streamsitle area with depressions able to pond water a 6 inches deep
T B CZ B Majority of streamside area with depressions able to pond water 3 to 6Inches deep
Q C O C Majority of streamsitle area with depressions able to pond water <3 inches deep
15. Weiland Presence- streamside area metric (skip for Tidal Marsh Steams)
Consider for the Left Bank (LB) and the Right Bank (RS). Do not consider wetlands outside of the streamside area or within the
normal wetted perimeter of assessment reach.
LB RB
f? Y (�+ Y Are wetlands present in the streamside area?
ON ON
16. BaseHow, Contributors- assessment reach metric (skip for size 4 streams and Tidal Marsh Streams)
Check all contributors within the assessment reach or within view of and tlrelning M the assessment reach.
C A Streams and/or springs (juradictional discharges)
F B Ponds (include wet detention basins; do not include sediment basins or dry detention basins)
7- Obstruction that passes some flow, during low -flow periods within assessment area (beaver dam, bottom -release dam)
f7 D Evidence of bank seepage or sweating (into oxidizing bacteria in water Indicates seepage)
Iran E Stream bed or bank soll reduced (dig through deposited sediment t present)
r- F None of the above
17. Basellow Detractors- assessment area metric (skip for Tidal Marsh Streams)
Check all that apply.
r' A Evidence of substantial water withdrawals from the assessment reach (Includes areas excavated for pump installation)
r" B Obstruction not passing flow during low flow periods affecting the assessment reach Mc wateNght dam, sediment deposit)
r -C Urban stream (=24% impervious surface for watershed)
r- D Evidence that the streamside area has been modified resulting in accelerated drainage into the assessment reach
f- E Assessment reach relocated to valley edge
(✓ F None of the above
18. Shading - assessment reach metric (skip for Tidal Marsh Streams)
Consideraspect. Consitler"leaf-on"conchon.
(7 A Stream shading Is appropriate for stream category (may Include gaps associated with natural processes)
r B Degraded (example: scattered trees)
O C Stream shading is gone or largely absent
19. Buffer Width- streamside area metric (skip for Tidal Marsh Streams)
Consider "vegetated buffer" and "wooded buffer' separately for left bank (LB) and right bank (RB) starting at the top
of bank out to the Rest break.
Vegetated Wooded!
LB RB LB RB
rA fA f;A tie.A a1MfieetwdeQextends to the edge of the watershed
O B r B O B O B From 50 to < 100 -feet wide
C7 OC C,RC !yC From 30 to<50-feet aloe
OD r i -D (`-D Faced 10toI30-feet wide
Q E O E Q E O E < 10 -feel wide or no trees
20. Buffer Structure -streamside area metric (skip for Tidal Marsh Streams)
Consider for left bank (LB) and right bank (RS) for Metric 19 ("Vegetated. Buffer Width).
LB RB
G A C;1 A Mature forest
O B l B Non -mature woody vegetation 2 modified vegetation structure
C C f? C Herbaceous vegetation with or without a strip of trees < 10 feet witle
r D C D Maintained shrubs
r E O E Little or no vegetation

21. Buffer Stressors— streamslde area metric (skip for Tidal Marsh Streams)
Check all appropriate boxes for left bank (LB) and right bank (RS). Indicate ff listed stressor abuts stream (Abuts), does not abut but
is within 30 feet of stream (< 30 feet), or is between 30 to 50 feet of stream (30-50 feet).
If none of the following stressors occurs on either bank, check here and skip to Metric 22: r
Abuts <30 feet 30-50 feet
LB RB LB RB LB RB
CA r rA CA r CA Row craps
C, B C B r B r s r B r B Maintained tuff
C C r, C C C r C r C r C Pasture (no livestockNcommercial horticulture
r D r D r D r 0 r D r D Pasture (active livestock use)
22. Stem Density —streamside area metric (skip for Tidal Marsh Streams)
Consider for left bank (LB) and right bank (RS) for Metric 19 ("Wooded" Buffer Width).
LB RB
r A G A Medium to high stem density
r B r B Low stem density
r C r C No wooded riparian buffer or predominantly herbaceous species or bare ground
23. Continuity of Vegetated Buffer— streamslde area metric (skip for Tidal Marsh Streams)
Considerwhether vegetated buffer is continuous along stream (parallel). Breaks are areas lacking vegetation > 10-feet wide.
LB RB
C• A r) A The total length of buffer breaks is <25 percent.
C B r B The tonal length of buffer breaks is between 25 and W peroent.
r C C C The total length of buffer breaks Is > 50 percent.
24. Vegetative Composition— First 100 feet of streamslde area metric (skip for Tidal Marsh Streams)
Evaluate the dominant vegetation within 100 feet of each bank or to the edge of the watershed (whichever comes Orsi) as it contributes
to assessment reach habitat.
LB RB
(7 A G A Vegetation is close to undisturbed in species present and their proportion. Lower strata composed of native
species, with non-native invasive species absent or spares.
r B r B Vegetation indicates disturbance in terms of species diversity or proportions, but is still largely composed of native
species. This may include communkias of weedy native species that develop after clear-cutting or clearing or
communities with non-native invasive species present, but not dominant, over a large portion of the expected strata w
communities missing understory but retaining canopy trees.
r C r C Vegetation is severely disturbed in terms of species diversity or proportions. Mature canopy is absent or communities
with non-native invasive species dominant over a large portion of expected strata or communities composed of planted
stands of non-characteristic species or communities inappropriately composed of a single species or no vegetation.
25. Conductivity— assessment reach metric (skip for all Coastal Plain streams)
25a. r Yes r No Was a conductivity measurement recmded?
If No, select one of the fallowing reasons. r No Water rDnhec No Meter
25b. Check the box corresponding to the conductivity measurement (units of microsiemens per centimeter).
C A <46 r B 46 to <67 r C 67t.179 r D n to < 230 CE 3 230
Notes/Sketch.
Photo 3: Down stream Photo 4: Up stream

NC SAM Stream Rating Sheet
Accompanies User Manual Version 2.1
Stream Site Name Asheville puke Plower Plant
Stream Category Mat
Notes of Field Assessment Form (YIN)
Presence of regulatory considerations (YIN)
Additional stream inform ationlsuppiementary measurements included (YIN)
NC SAM feature type (perennial, intermittent, Tidal Marsh Stream)
Date of Evaluation
Assessor Name/Organization
11-29-16
J.Howard
YES
NO
YES
Perennial
NCDWR
Intermittent
USACEI
Function Class Rating Summary
All Streams
(1) Hydrology
HIGH
(2) Baseflow
HIGH
(2) Flood Flow
HIGH
(3) Streamside Area Attenuation
HIGH
(4) Floodplain Access
HIGH
(4) Wooded Riparian Buffer
HIGH
(4) Microtopography
MEDIUM
(3) Stream Stability
HIGH
(4) Channel Stability
HIGH
(4) Sediment Transport
HIGH
(4) Stream Geomorphology
HIGH
(2) Stream/[ntertidaI Zone Interaction
NA
(2) Longitudinal Tidal Flow
NA
(2) Tidal Marsh Stream Stability
NA
(3) Tidal Marsh Channel Stability
NA
(3) Tidal Marsh Stream Geomorphology
NA
(1) Water Quality
HIGH
(2) Baseflow
HIGH
(2) Streamside Area Vegetation
HIGH
(3) Upland Pollutant Filtration
HIGH
(3) Thermoregulation
HIGH
(2) Indicators of Stressors
NO
(2) Aquatic Life Tolerance
MEDIUM
(2) Intertidal Zone Filtration
NA
(1) Habitat
HIGH
(2) In -stream Habitat
HIGH
(3) Baseflow
HIGH
(3) Substrate
HIGH
(3) Stream Stability
HIGH
(3) In -stream Habitat
HIGH
(2) Stream -side Habitat
HIGH
(3) Stream -side Habitat
HIGH
(3) Thermoregulation
HIGH
(2) Tidal Marsh In -stream Habitat
NA
(3) Flow Restriction
NA
(3) Tidal Marsh Stream Stability
NA
(4) Tidal Marsh Channel Stability
NA
(4) Tidal Marsh Stream Geomorphology
NA
(3) Tidal Marsh in -stream Habitat
NA
(2) Intertidal Zone Habitat
NA
Overall
HIGH
11-29-16
J.Howard
YES
NO
YES
Perennial
NCDWR
Intermittent

Version 2.1
INSTRUCTIONS: Attach a sketch of the assessment area and photographs. Attach a copy of the USES 7.5 -minute topographic
quadrangle, and circle the location of the stream reach under evaluation. If multiple stream reaches will be evaluated an the same
property, identify and number all reaches on the attached map, and include a separate form for each reach. See the NG SAM User
Manual for detailed descriptions and explanations of requested information. Record in the "NoteslSketch" section if any supplementary
measurements were performed. See the NC SAM User Manual for examples of additional measurements that may be relevant.
NOTE EVIDENCE OF STRESSORS AFFECTING THE ASSESSMENT AREA (do not need to be within the assessment area).
PROJECT I SITE INFORMATION:
1. Project name (if any): Asheville Duke Plower Plant 2. Date of evaluation: 11-29-15
3. Applicantlowner name: Duke Energy 4. Assessor name/organization: J.Howard
5. County: Buncombe 6. Nearest named water body
7. River Basin: French Broad on USGS 7.5 -minute quad: French Broad
8. Site coordinates (decimal degrees, at lower end of assessment reach): See GPS Data
STREAM INFORMATION: (depth and width can be approximations)
9. Site number (show on attached map): SJ_001-003 (Stream 23 10. Length of assessment reach evaluated (feet): 80,
11. Channel depth from bed (in riffle, if present) to top of bank (feet): 1.0' r Unable to assess channel depth.
12. Channel width at top of bank (feet): 2-3' 13. Is assessment reach a swamp stream? r Yes r No
14. Feature type: t~"'- Perennial now f+" Intermittent flow r Tidal Marsh Stream
STREAM RATING INFORMATION:
15. NC SAM Zone: t: Mountains (M) r Piedmont (P) O Inner Coastal Plain (1) Outer Coastal Plain (0)
16. Estimated geomorphic L J
valley shape (skip for f+ a �►�� r.. b
Tidal Marsh Stream): (more sinuous stream, flatter valley slope) (less sinuous stream, steeper valley slope)
17. Watershed size: (skip (+ Size 1 (< 0.1 mi`) r Size 2 (0.1 to < 0.5 mil) i~• Size 3 (0.5 to < 5 mi`) Size 4 (>_ 5 mit)
for Tidal Marsh Stream)
ADDITIONAL INFORMATION:
18. Were regulatory considerations evaluated? f+ Yes (" No If Yes, check all that appy to the assessment area.
F Section 10 water F Classified Trout Waters I- Water Supply Watershed ( r, I (- II (" 111 (`, IV ?7 V)
F_ Essential Fish Habitat r Primary Nursery Area I-" High Quality Waters/Outstanding Resource Waters
F Publicly owned property f-" NCDWR riparian buffer rule in effect I- Nutrient Sensitive Waters
F Anadromous fish F 303(d) List f- CAMA Area of Environmental Concern (AEC)
F Documented presence of a federal and/or state listed protected species within the assessment area.
List species:
I* Designated Critical Habitat (list species):
stream
measurements
1. Channel Water- assessment reach metric (skip for Size f streams and Tidal Marsh Streams)
i -o A Water throughout assessment reach.
t' B No flow, water in pools only.
L"7 C No water in assessment reach.
2. Evidence of Flow Restriction - assessment reach metric
r A At least 10% of assessment reach in -stream habitat or riffle -pool sequence is adversely affected by a flow restriction or fill to the
point of obstructing flow or a channel choked with aquatic macrophytes or ponded water or impounded on flood or ebb within
the assessment reach (examples: undersized or perched culverts, causeways that constrict the channel, tidal gates).
0-B Not
3. Feature Pattern - assessment reach metric
r A A majority of the assessment reach has altered pattern (examples: straightening, modification above or below culvert).
{+ B Not A.
4. Feature Longitudinal Profile - assessment reach metric
i` A Majority of assessment reach has a substantially altered stream profile (examples: channel down -cutting, existing damming,
over widening, active aggradation, dredging, and excavation where appropriate channel profile has not reformed from any of
these disturbances).
B Not
5. Signs of Active Instability -assessment reach metric
Consider only current instability, not past events from which the stream has currently recovered. Examples of instability include
active bank failure, active channel down -cutting (head -cut), active widening, and artificial hardening (such as concrete, gabion, rip -rap).
i+ A < 10% of channel unstable
C': B 10 to 25% of channel unstable
(7 C > 25% of channel unstable

6. Streamside Area Interaction- streamside area metric
Consider for the Left Bank (LB) and the Right Bank (RB).
LB RB
C A t.: A Little or no evidence of conditions that adversely affect reference Interaction
C) B C'- B Moderate evidence of conditions (examples: banns, levees, down -cutting, aggradation, dredging) that adversely affect
reference interaction (examples: limited streamside area access, disruption of flood flows through streamside area,
leaky or intermittent bulkheads, causeways with floodplain constriction, minor ditching [including mosquito ditching])
C ('' C Extensive evidence of conditions that adversely affect reference interscbon (little to no floodplain/intertldal zone access
[examples: causeways with floodplain and channel constriction, bulkheads, retaining walls, fill, stream incision,
disruption of flood flows through streamside area] or too much floodplairdinterlidal zone access [examples:
impoundments, Intensive mosquito ditching]) or floodplain/intertidal zone unnaturally absent or assessment reach is a
man-made feature on an interstream divide
7. Water Quality Stressors- assessment reach/intertidal zone metric
Check all that apply.
r A Discolored water in stream or intertidal zone (milky white, blue, unnatural water discoloration, oil sheen, stream foam)
i- B Excessive sedimentation (burying of stream features or intertidal zone)
f C Noticeable evidence of pollutant discharges entering the assessment reach and causing a water quality problem
r- D Odor (not including natural sulfide odors)
C E Current published or collected data indicating degraded water quality in the assessment reach. Cite source in the'Notes/Sketch"
sec&m.
r F Livestock with access to stream or intertidal zone
f- G Excessive algae in stream or intertidal zone
C H Degraded marsh vegetation in the intertidal zone (removal, burning, regular mowing, destruction, etc.)
f- I Other. (explain in "Notes/Sketch" section)
r J Little to no stressors
8. Recent Weather -watershed metric
For Sae 1 ort streams, 01 drought or higher is considered a drought; for Sae 3 or streams, D2 drought or higher is considered a
drought
f- A Drought conditions and no rainfall or rainfall not exceeding 1 inch within the last 48 hours
r B Drought conditions and rainfall exceeding 1 inch within the last 48 hours
r, C No drought conditions
9 Large or Dangerous Stream - assessment reach metric
r Yes r No Is stream is too large ordangerous to assess? If Yes, skip to Metric 13 (Streamside Area Ground Surface Condition).
10. Natural In -stream Habitat Types- assessment reach metric
10a. r7 Yes (-, No Degraded In -stream habitat over majority of the assessment reach (examples of stressors include excessive
sedimentation, mining, excavation, in -stream hardening [for example, rlp-rep], recent dredging, and snagging)
(evaluate for size 4 Coastal Plain streams only, then skip to Metric 12)
lob. Check all that occur (occurs If , 6% coverage of assessment reach) (skip for Size 4 Coastal Plain streams)
r A Multiple aquatic macrophytes and aquatic mosses m m C F 5% oysters or other natural hard bottoms
(include liverworts, lichens, and algal mats) r f- G Submerged aquatic vegetation
(- B Multiple sficks and/or leaf packs and/or emergent ` m 1 H Low -fide refugia (pools)
vegetation x t o r I Sand bottom
r C Multiple snags and kgs (including lap trees) t m r- J 5% vertical bank along the marsh
C D 5% undercut banks and/or root mats and/or mots O r K Little or no habitat
in banks extend to the normal wetted perimeter
r E Little or no habitat
" REMAINING QUESTIONS ARE NOT APPLICABLE FOR TIDAL MARSH STREAMS"""•""••""'^""•••"
11. Becifonm and Substrate - assessment reach metric (skip for Size 4 Coastal Plain streams and Tidal Marsh Streams)
iia. C Yes r, No Is assessment reach in a natural sand -bed stream? (skip for Coastal Plain streams)
11 It. Bedform evaluated. Check the appropriate box(es).
F A Riffle -run section (evaluate 11c)
r- B Pool -glide section (evaluate 11d)
r C Natural bedform absent (skip to Metric 12, Aquatic Life)
11c. In riffles sections, check all that occur below the normal wetted perimeter of the assessment reach -whether or not submerged.
Check at least one box in each now (skip for Size 4 Coastal Plain Streams and Tidal Marsh Streams). Not Present (NP) _
absent, Rare (R)= present but 510%, Common (C) _> 10-40%, Abundant (A) _> 40-70%, Predominant (P) _> 70%. Cumulative
percentages shouldnot exceed 100% for each assessment reach.
NP R C A P
t«. r r.'. r r Bedrock/saprolits
r r r~• r r Boulder (256 - 4096 mm)
rF r' C:- r r Cobble (64 - 256 mm)
r. C' C. r r Gravel (2-64 mm)
(. r r''' r r Sand (.062 - 2 mm)
r r` r r r Silt/clay (< 0.062 mm)
C C +.±• fl I- Detritus
G r''•• f' r'' (-, Artificial (nit -rap, concrete, etc.)
11d. C Yes r No Are pools filled with sediment? (skip for Size 4 Coastal Plain streams and Tidal Marsh Streams)

12. Aquatic Life —assessment reach metric (skip for Size 4 Coastal Plain streams and Tidal Marsh Streams)
12a. is Yes r No Was an in -stream aquatic fife assessment performed as described in the User Manual?
If No, select one of the following reasons and skip to Metric 13. r No Water C Other:
12b. (, Yes ro No Are aquatic organisms present in the assessment reach (look in riffles, pools, then snags)? If Yes, check
all that apply. If No, skip to Metric 13.
1 >l Numbers over columns refer to "individuals" for size 1 and 2 streams and "taxa" for size 3 and 4 streams.
r r Adult frogs
r r Aquatic reptiles
r r Aquatic macrophytes and aquatic mosses (include Liverworts, lichens, and algal mats)
r r Beetles (including water pennies)
F_ r Caddisfly larvae (Trichoptera [T])
F r Asian clam (Corbicula )
r r Crustacean (isopod/amphipod/crayfush/shrimp)
r r Damselfly and dragonfly larvae
F r Dipterans (true flies)
r r Mayfly larvae (Ephememptem [E])
F r Megaloptem (aiderfly, fishfiy, dobsonfly larvae)
r r Midges/mosquito larvae
r r Mosquito fish (Gembusia) or mud minnows (Umbre pygmaea)
r rMussels/Clams (not Corbicula)
F r Other fish
r r Salamanders/tadpoles
r r Snails
r r Stonefly larvae (Plecoptera [P])
F r Tipulid larvae
r r Worms/leeches
13. Slreamside Area Ground Surface Condition—streamside area metric (skip for Tidal Marsh Streams and B valley types)
Consider for the Left Bank (LB) and the Right Bank (RS). Consider storage capacity with regard to both overbank flow and
upland mnoff.
LB RB
IT A ($ A Little or no alteration to water storage capacity over a majority of the streamside area
f"B r B Moderate alteration to water storage capacity over a majority of the streamside area
r C (" C Severe alteration to water storage capacity over majority of the streamside area (examples include: ditches, fill,
sail, compaction, livestock disturbance, buildings, man-made levees, drainage pipes)
14. Streamside Area Water Storage— streamside area metric (skip for Size l streams, Tidal Marsh Streams, and B valley types)
Consider for the Left Bank (LB) and the Right Bank (RB) of the streamside area.
LB RB
r, A r A Majority of streamside area with depressions able to pond water t 6 inches deep
rW B ro B Majority of streamside area with depressions able to pond water to 6 inches deep
(' C C` C Majority of streamside area with depressions able to pond water a 3 inches deep
15. Wetland Presence — streamside area metric (skip for Tidal Marsh Streams)
Consider for the Lett Bank (LB) and the Right Bank (RB). Do not consider wetlands outside of the streamside area or within the
normal wetted perimeter of assessment reach.
LB RB
C Y re Y Are wetlands present in the streamside area?
t,N r
16. Baseflow Contributors —assessment reach metric (skip for size 4 streams and Tidal Marsh Streams)
Check all contributors within the assessment reach or within view of and draining to the assessment reach.
F A Streams and/or springs (jurisdictional discharges)
r B Ponds (include wet detention basins; do not include sediment basins or dry detention basins)
r C Obstruction that passes some flow during low -flow periods within assessment area (beaver dam, bottom -release dam)
R D Evidence of bank seepage or sweating (iron oxidizing bacteria in water indicates seepage)
]+• E Stream bed or bank soil reduced (dig through deposited sediment if present)
F F None of the above
17. Baseflow Detractors—assessment area metric (skip for Tidal Marsh Streams)
Check all that apply.
r A Evidence of substantial water withdrawals from the assessment reach (includes areas excavated for pump installation)
r B Obstruction not passing flow during low flow perods affecting the assessment reach (ex: watertight dam, sediment deposit)
F Urban stream( 24% impervious surface for watershed)
C D Evidence that the stream -side area has been modified resuffng in accelerated drainage into the assessment reach
r E Assessment reach relocated to valley edge
r7 None of the above
18. Shading —assessment reach metric (skip for Tidal Marsh Streams)
Consider aspect. Consider"leaf-on"condiion.
(-� A Stream shading is appropriate for stream category (may include gaps associated with natural processes)
r, B Degraded (example: scattered trees)
r, C Stream shading is gone or largely absent

19. Buffer Width- streamside area metric (skip for Tidal Marsh Streams)
Consider"vegetated buffer" and "wooded buffer" separately for left bank (LB) and right bank (RB) starting at the top
of bank out to the first break.
Vegetated Wooded
LB RS LB RB
45` A (T A { ,. A (' A a 100 -feel wide or extends to the edge of the watershed
r S r B r B r B From 50 to < 100 -feet wide
r C r C r C r C From 30 to < 50 -feet wide
("•• D r D r D (, D From 10 to < 30 -feat wide
E r E r E r E < 10 -feet wide or no trees
20. Buffer Structure- streamside area metric (skip for Tidal Marsh Streams)
Consider for left bank (LB) and right bank (RB) for Metric 19 ('Vegetated" Buffer Width).
LB RB
A r? A Mature forest
("? B r B Nan -mature woody vegetation or modified vegetation structure
r C r C Herbaceous vegetation with or without a strip of trees < 10 feel wide
r D r D Maintained shrubs
r E (' E Little or no vegetation
21. Buffer Stressors -streamside area metric (skip for Tidal Marsh Streams)
Check all appropriate boxes for left bank (LB) and right bank (RB). Indicate N listed stressor abuts stream (Abuts), does not abut but
is within 30 feat of stream (< 30 feet), or Is between 30 to 50 feet of stream (30-50 feet).
If none of the following stressors occurs on either bank, check here and skip to Metric 22: R
Abuts <30 feet 30-50 feet
LB RB LB RB LB RB
r rA C rA rA r Row crops
(-' B ('.' B r B r B r 6 r B Maintained turf
r C r C r C r C r C (" C Pasture (no livestockycommemial horticulture
r D r D r D r D r D r D Pasture (active livestock use)
22. Stem Density-streamside area metric (skip for Tidal Marsh Streams)
Consider for left bank (LB) and right bank (RB) for Metric 19 ("Wooded" Buffer Width).
LB RB
r, A (•'`. A Medium to high stem density
(-B r B Low stem density
r C r C No wooded riparian buffer or predominantly herbaceous species or bare ground
23. Continuity of Vegetated Buffer -streamside area metric (skip for Tidal Marsh Streams)
Consider whether vegetated buffer is continuous along stream (parallel). Breaks are areas lacking vegetation> 10 -feet wide.
LB RB
{%: A re A The total length of buffer breaks is < 25 percent
r B r B The total length of buffer breaks is between 25 and 50 percent.
r C r C The total length of buffer breaks is > 50 percent.
24. Vegetative Composition - First 100 feet of streamside area metric (skip for Tidal Marsh Streams)
Evaluate the dominant vegetation within 100 feet of each bank or to the edge of the watershed (whichever comes first) as itcontributes
to assessment reach habitat.
LB RS
rt A (Z A Vegetation is close to undisturbed in species present and their proportions. Lower strata composed of native
species, with non-native invasive species absent or sparse.
r B r B Vegetation indicates disturbance in terms of species diversityor proportions, but is still largely composed of native
species. This may include communities ofweedy native species that develop after clear -cutting or clearing or
communities with non-native invasive species present, but not dominant, over a large portion of the expected strata or
communities missing understory but retaining canopy trees.
r C r C Vegetation is severely disturbed in tens of species diversity or proportions. Mature canopy is absent or communities
with non-native Invasive species dominant over a large porion of expected strata or communities composed of planted
stands of non-charactenstic species or communNes inappropriately composed of a single species or no vegetation.
25. Conductivity -assessmentreach metric (skip for all Coastal Plain streams)
25a. r Yes (?. No Was a conductivity measurement recorded?
If No, select one of the following reasons. r No Water is Other. No Meter
25b. Check the box corresponding to the conductivity measurement (units of microsiemens per centimeter).
(: A 146 r B 46 to < 67 r C 67 to < 79 r D 79 to < 230 r E 2 230
Photo 5: Upstream Photo 6: Downstream

NC SAM Stream Rating Sheet
Accompanies User Manual Version 2.1
Stream Site Name Asheville Duke Plower Plant Date of Evaluation 11-29-16
Stream Category Mal Assessor Name/Organization J.Howard
Notes of Field Assessment Form (YIN) YES
Presence of regulatory considerations (YIN) NO
Additional stream informationlsupplementary measurements included (YIN) YES
NC SAM feature type (perennial, intermittent, Tidal Marsh Stream) Intermittent
USACE!
NCDWR
Function Class Rating Summary
All Streams
Intermittent
(1) Hydrology
HIGH
HIGH
(2) Baseflow
HIGH
HIGH
(2) Flood Flow
HIGH
HIGH
(3) Streamside Area Attenuation
HIGH
HIGH
(4) Floodplain Access
HIGH
HIGH
(4) Wooded Riparian. Buffer
HIGH
HIGH
(4) Microtopography
HIGH
HIGH
(3) Stream Stability
HIGH
HIGH
(4) Channel Stability
HIGH
HIGH
(4) Sediment Transport
LOW
LOW
(4) Stream Geomorphology
HIGH
HIGH
(2) Stream/Intertidal Zone Interaction
NA
NA
(2) Longitudinal Tidal Flow
NA
NA
(2) Tidal Marsh Stream Stability
NA
NA
(3) Tidal Marsh Channel Stability
NA
NA
(3) Tidal Marsh Stream Geomorphology
NA
NA
(1) Water Quality
MEDIUM
MEDIUM
(2) Baseflow
HIGH
HIGH
(2) Streamside Area Vegetation
HIGH
HIGH
(3) Upland Pollutant Filtration
HIGH
HIGH
(3) Thermoregulation
HIGH
HIGH
(2) Indicators of Stressors
NO
NO
(2) Aquatic Life Tolerance
LOW
NA
(2) Intertidal Zone Filtration
NA
NA
(1) Habitat
LOW
HIGH
(2) In -stream Habitat
LOW
MEDIUM
(3) Baseflow
HIGH
HIGH
(3) Substrate
LOW
LOW
(3) Stream Stability
HIGH
HIGH
(3) In -stream Habitat
LOW
HIGH
(2) Stream -side Habitat
HIGH
HIGH
(3) Stream -side Habitat
HIGH
HIGH
(3) Thermoregulation
HIGH
HIGH
(2) Tidal Marsh In -stream Habitat
NA
NA
(3) Flow Restriction
NA
NA
(3) Tidal Marsh Stream Stability
NA
NA
(4) Tidal Marsh Channel Stability
NA
NA
(4) Tidal Marsh Stream Geomorphology
NA
NA
(3) Tidal Marsh In -stream Habitat
NA
NA
(2) Intertidal Zone Habitat
NA
NA
Overall
MEDIUM
HIGH

user manual version z.1
INSTRUCTIONS: Attach a sketch of the assessment area and photographs. Attach a copy of the USGS 7.6 -minute topographic
quadrangle, and circle the location of the stream reach under evaluation. If multiple stream reaches will be evaluated on the same
property, identify and number all reaches on the attached map, and include a separate form for each reach. See the NC SAM User
Manual for detailed descriptions and explanations of requested information. Record in the "Notes7Sketch" section if any supplementary
measurements were performed. See the NC SAM User Manual for examples of additional measurements that may be relevant.
NOTE EVIDENCE OF STRESSORS AFFECTING THE ASSESSMENT AREA (do not need to be within the assessment area).
PROJECT 1 SITE INFORMATION:
1. Project name (if any): Asheville Duke Plower Plant 2. Date of evaluation: 11-29-16
3. Applicantlowner name: Duke Energy 4. Assessor name/organization: J.Howard
5. County; Buncombe 6. Nearest named water body
7. River Basin: French Broad on USGS 7.6 -minute quad: French Broad
8. Site coordinates (decimal degrees, at lower end of assessment reach): See GPS Data
STREAM INFORMATION: (depth and width can be approximations)
9. Site number (show on attached map): SH_001-011 (Stream 2410. Length of assessment reach evaluated (feet): 150-200'
11. Channel depth from bed (in riffle, if present) to top of bank (feet): 2-3' r-- Unable to assess channel depth.
12. Channel width at top of bank (feet): 20' 13. Is assessment reach a swamp stream? C Yes ?- No
14, Feature type: (;` Perennial flow 7 Intermittent flaw t Tidal Marsh Stream
STREAM RATING INFORMATION:
15. NC SAM Zone: f: Mountains (M) r Piedmont (P) C Inner Coastal Plain (1) 47 Outer Coastal Plain (0)
16. Estimated geomorphic /
valley shape (skip for
Tidal Marsh Stream): (more sinuous stream, Flatter valley slope) (less sinuous stream, steeper valley slope)
17. Watershed size: (skip ('. Size 1 (< 0.1 mi') t*. Size 2 (0.1 to <0.5 mf) ("r Size 3 (0.5 to < 5 mi') t" Size 4 (z 5 mi')
for Tidal Marsh Stream)
ADDITIONAL INFORMATION:
18. Were regulatory considerations evaluated? (: Yes r No If Yes, check all that appy to the assessment area.
r- Section 10 water r- Classified Trout Waters r- Water Supply Watershed ( r I c it r ri r N f"' v
f- Essential Fish Habitat F- Primary Nursery Area t-' High quality WaterslCutstanding Resource Waters
r- Publicly owned property i NGDWR riparian buffer rule in effect l- Nutrient Sensitive Waters
F Anadromcus fish ii 303(d) List 17 CAMA Area of Environmental Concern (AEC)
r Documented presence of a federal and/or state listed protected species within the assessment area.
List species:
I- Designated Critical Habitat (list species):
19. Are additional stream informationlsuppementary measurements included in "NotesrSkelch" section or attached? . Yes r No
1. Channel Water - assessment reach metric (skip for Size 1 streams and Tidal Marsh Streams)
fF A Water throughout assessment reach.
r B No flow, water in pools only.
f- C No water in assessment reach.
2. Evidence of Flow Restriction - assessment reach metric
lr' A At least 10% of assessment reach in -stream habitat or riffle -pool sequence is adversely affected by a flow restriction or fill to the
point of obstructing flaw ora channel choked with aquatic macrophytes or ponded water or impounded on flood or ebb within
the assessment reach (examples: undersized or perched culverts, causeways that constrict the channel, tidal gates).
r B Not A
3. Feature Pattern - assessment reach metric
r A A majority of the assessment reach has altered pattern (examples: straightening, modification above or below culvert).
t` B Not A.
4. Feature Longitudinal Profile - assessment reach metric
` A Majority of assessment reach has a substantially altered stream profile (examples: channel down -cutting, existing damming,
over widening, active aggradation, dredging, and excavation where appropriate channel profile has not reformed from any of
these disturbances).
{: B Not A
5. Signs of Active Instability - assessment reach metric
Consider only current instability, not past events from which the stream has currently recovered. Examples of instability include
active bank failure, active channel down -cutting (head -cut), active widening, and artificial hardening (such as concrete, gabion, rip -rap).
r A < 10% of channel unstable
( B 10 to 25% of channel unstable
i C > 25% of channel unstable
6. Streamside Area Interaction - streamside area metric
Consider for the Left Bank (LB) and the Right Bank (RB).
LB RB
1+ A r A Little or no evidence of conditions that adversely affect reference interaction
f- B (` B Moderate evidence of conditions (examples: berms, levees, down -cutting, aggradatlon, dredging) that adversely affect
reference interaction (examples: limited streamside area access, disruption of flood flows through streamside area,
leaky or intermittent bulkheads, causeways with floedplain constriction, minor ditching [including mosquito ditching])
t` C (`: C Extensive evidence of conditions that adversely affect reference interaction (little to no floedplainlintertidal zone access
[examples: causeways with floodplain and channel constriction, bulkheads, retaining walls, fill, stream incision,
disruption of flood flows through streamside area] or too much floodplainlinlertidal zone access [examples:
impoundments, intensive mosquito ditching]) or fleodplainlintertidal zone unnaturally absent or assessment reach is a
man-made feature on an interstream divide

7. Water Quality Stressors— assessment reach/intertidal zone metric
Check all that apply.
r A Discolored water in stream or intertidal zone (milky white, blue, unnatural water discoloration, oil sheen, stream foam)
r R Excessive sedimentation (burying of stream features or Intertidal zone)
r C Noticeable evidence of pollutant discharges entering the assessment reach and causing a water quality problem
r D Odor (not including natural sulfide odors)
r E Current published or collected data indicating degraded water quality in the assessment reach. Cite source in the "Notes/Sketch"
section.
r F Livestock with access to stream or intertidal zona
r G Excessive algae in stream or intertidal zone
r H Degraded marsh vegetation in the intertidal zone (removal, burning, regular mowing, destruction, etc.)
r I Other. (explain in "Notes/Sketch" section)
F J Little to no stressors
B. Recent Weather— watershed metric
For Size 1 or 2 streams, D1 drought or higher is considered a drought: for Size 3 or 4 streams, D2 drought or higher is considered a
drought.
{, A Drought conditions and no rainfall or rainfall not exceeding 1 inch within the last 48 hours
(Z B Drought conditions and rainfall exceeding 1 inch within the [set 48 hours
(i C No drought conditions
9 Large or Dangerous Stream —assessment reach metric
r Yes (F No Is stream is too large or dangerous to assess? If Yes, skip to Metric 13 (Streamside Area Ground Surface Condition),
10. Natural In -stream Habitat Types— assessment reach metric
10a. r Yes r No Degraded in -stream habitat over majority of the assessment reach (examples of stressors include excessive
sedimentation, mining, excavator, in -stream hardening (for example, rip -rap], recent dredging, and snagging)
(evaluate for size 4 Coastal Plain streams only, then skip to Metric 12)
10b. Check all that occur (occurs ff> 50% coverage of assessment reach) (skip for Size 4 Coastal Plain streams)
r— A Multiple aquatic macrophytes and aquatic masses v E r F 5% oysters or other natural hard bottoms
(include liverworts, lichens, and algal mats) 1= a r G Submerged aquatic vegetation
r B Multiple sticks andfor leaf packs and/or emergent :2 h r H Low-0de refugia (pools)
vegetation x o r I Sand bottom
F C Multiple snags and logs (including lap trees) t B r J 5% vertical bank along the marsh
P D 5% undercut banks and/or root mals and/or roofs r K Little or no habitat
in banks extend to the normal wetted perimeter
f— E Little or no habitat
REMAINING QUESTIONS ARE NOT APPLICABLE FOR TIDAL MARSH STREAMS -
11. Bedform and Substrate— assessment reach metric (skip for Size 4 Coastal Plain streams and Tidal Marsh Streams)
fie. r Yes r7 No Is assessment reach in a natural sand -bed stream? (skip for Coastal Plain streams)
111b. Bedform evaluated. Check the appropriate box(es).
PA Riffle -ran section (evaluate 11c)
RB Pool-glidesecten (evaluate lld)
r C Natural bedform absent (skip to Metric 12, Aquatic Life)
Ila. In riffles sections, check all that occur below the normal wetted perimeter of the assessment reach —whether or not Submerged.
Check at least one box in each row (skip for Size 4 Coastal Plain Streams and Tidal Marsh Streams). Not Present (NP) _
absent, Rare (R) = present buts 10%, Common (C) _ > 10-40%, Abundant (A) _ > 40-70%, Predominant (P) _ > 70%. Cumulative
percentages should not exceed 100% for each assessment reach.
NP R C A P
r Bedrocklsaprolite
% C• C (", r` Boulder (256 — 4096 mm)
G r G d'; Cobble (64-256 mm)
r' C' (7 C) (^; Gravel (2-64 mm)
r r G r) r Sand (.062-2 mm)
f r (7 r r Sitclay 1, 0.062 mm)
r`. Q E r, r Detritus
r, r= C r'- r Artificial (rip -rap, concrete, etc.)
11d. r Yes G No Are pools filled with sediment? (skip for Size 4 Coastal Plain streams and Tidal Marsh Streams)
12. Aquatic Life— assessment reach metric (skip for Size 4 Coastal Plain streams and Tidal Marsh Streams)
12a. ('f Yes r No Was an nstream aquatic life assessment performed as described in me User Manual?
If No, select one of the following reasons and slip to Metric 13. C`- No Water r Other.
126 r Yes r No Are aquatic organisms present in the assessment reach (look in riffles, pools, then snags)? If Yes, check
all that apply. If No, skip to Metric 13.
1 >1 Numbers over columns refer to individuals" for size 1 and 2 streams and 'tam' for size 3 and 4 streams.
r r7 Adult frogs
r r Aquatic reptiles
r r Aquatic macrophytes and aquatic mosses (include liverwor s, lichens, and algal mats)
r r Beeks, (including water pennies)
r r Czddmfly larvae (Trichoptere (T])
r r Asian clam (Corbloula)
r r Crustacean (isopod/amphipod/creyflshfshrimp)
r r Damselfly and dragonfly larvae
r r Dipterans (true files)
r r Mayfly larvae (Ephemeroptera [E])
C r Megaloplera mider0y, fishily, dobsonfly larvae)
r r Midges/mosquito larvae
r r Mosquito fish (Gambusia) or mud minnows (Umbra pygmaea)
C r MusseWCiams(not Corbicula)
r r—Other fish
r r Salamanders/tadpoles
r 17 Snails
r r Stormily larvae (Plecoptera JP])
r r Tipulid larvae
T- r Wormsfleaches

13. Streamside Area Ground Surface Condition- streamside area metric (skip for Tidal Marsh Streams and B valley types)
Consider for the Left Bank (LB) and the Right Bank (RB). Consider storage capacity with regard to both overbank flow and
upland runoff.
LB RB
r A Co' A Little or no alteration to water storage capacity over a majority of the streamside area
C B C B Moderate alteration to water storage capacity over a majority of the streamside area
C C C C Severe alteration to water storage capacity over a majority of the streamside area (examples include: ditches, fill,
soli, compaction, livestock disturbance, buildings, man-made levees, drainage pipes)
14. Streamside Area Water Storage- streamside area metric (skip for Size l streams, Tidal Marsh Streams, and B valley types)
Consider for the Left Bank (LB) and the Right Bank (RB) of the streamside area.
LB RB
C A C A Majority of streamside area with depressions able to pond water 2 6 inches deep
C B C: B Majority of streamside area with depressions able to pond water 3 to 6 inches deep
r C C C Majority of streamside area with depressions able to pond water < 3 inches deep
15. Wetland Presence - streamside area metric (skip for Tidal Marsh Streams)
Consider for the Left Bank (ILS) and the Right Bank (RB). Do not consider wetlands outside of the streamside area or within the
normal wetted perimeter of assessment reach.
LB RB
C V (Z V Are wetlands present in the streamside area?
%'N r^N
16. Baseflow Contributors -assessment reach metric (skip for size 4 streams and Tidal Marsh Streams)
Check all contributors within the assessment reach or within view of and draining to the assessment reach.
r A Streams and/or springs Gumidictional discharges)
r B Ponds (include wet detention basins; do not include sediment basins or dry detention basins)
r C Obstruction that passes some flow, during low-fiow periods within assessment area (beaver dam, bottom -release dam)
Fir D Evidence of bank seepage or sweating (iron oxidizing bacteria in water, indicates seepage)
Pr E Stream bed or bank soil reduced (dig through deposited sediment rf present)
r•: F None of the above
17. Baseflow Detractors -assessment area metric (skip for Tidal Marsh Streams)
Check all that apply.
r A Evidence of substantial water withdrawals from the assessment reach (includes areas excavated for pump installation)
r- B Obstruction net passing flow during low, flow periods affecting the assessment reach (ex: watertight dam, sediment deposit)
r C Urban stream (� 24% impervious surface for watershed)
r D Evidence met the stream -side area has been modified resulting in accelerated drainage into the assessment reach
F Assessment reach relocated to valley edge
r F None of the above
18. Shading -assessment reach metric (skip for Tidal Marsh Streams)
Consider aspect. Consider'leaf-on" condition.
A Stream shading is appropriate for steam category (may include gaps associated with natural processes)
r, B Degraded (example: scattered trees)
C C Stream shading is gone or largely absent
19. Buffer Width- streamside area metric (skip for Tidal Marsh Streams)
Consider "vegetated buffer" and "wooded buffer" separately for left bank (LB) and right bank (RB) starting at the top
of bank out to the first break.
Vegetated Wooded
LB RB LB RB
r A G A tP A G. A z 1W -feet wide ar extends to the edge of the watershed
C B C B C B C B From 50 to < 100 -feet wide
CC r,C CC CC From 30 to<504eet wide
C D r D rr D r D From 10 to < 30 -feet wide
r7E CE CE rSE 110-feetwideprnotrees
20. Buffer Structure -streamside area metric (skip for Tidal Marsh Streams)
Consider for left bank (LB) and right bank (RB) for Metric 19 ('Vegetated' Buffer Width).
LB RB
(Z A IT A Mature forest
C B r B Non -mature woody vegetation or modified vegetation structure
C C t^ C Herbaceous vegetation with or without a strip of trees < 10 feel wide
C D C D Maintained shrubs
C E C E Little or no vegetation
21. Buffer Stressors- streamside area metric (skip for Tidal Marsh Streams)
Check all appropriate boxes for left bank (LB) and right bank (RB). Indicate if listed stressor abuts stream (Abuts), does not abut but
is within 30 feet of stream (< 30 feet), or is between 30 to 50 feet of stream (30-50 feet).
If none of the following stressors occurs on either bank, check here and skip to Metric 22: r
Abuts <30 feet 30-50 feel
LB RB LB RB LB RB
CA C", -A r' -:A r,A CA CA Row crops
C B C B C B C B C B r` B Maintained turf
C C C C r? C C C C C C C Pasture (no livestockj(commercial horticulture
C D C D r- D C D C D C D Pasture (active livestock use)
22. Stem Density- streamside area metric (skip for Tidal Marsh Streams)
Consider for left bank (LB) and right bank (RB) for Metric 19 ("Wooded' Buffer Width).
LB RB
r A r•`- A Medium to high stem density
r; B C B Low stem density
C C C C No wooded riparian buffer or predominantly herbaceous species or bare ground
23. Continuity of Vegetated Buffer- streamside area metric (skip for Tidal Marsh Streams)
Consider whether vegetated buffer is continuous along stream(parallel). Breaks are areas lacking vegetation>10-feel wide.
LB RB
47A rr A The total length of buffer breaks is <25 percent.
r B C B The total length of buffer breaks is between 25 and 50 percent.
C C C C The total length of buffer breaks is > 50 percent.

24. Vegetative Composition— First 100 feet of streamside area metric (skip for Tidal Marsh Streams)
Evaluate the dominant vegetation within 100 feel of each bank or to the edge of the watershed (whichever comes first) as it contributes
to assessment reach habitat.
LB RB
C A 6 A Vegetation is close to undisturbed in species present and their proportions. Lower strata composed f native
species, with non-native invasive species absent or sparse.
r B r B Vegetation indicates disturbance in terms of species diversity or proportions, but is still largely composed of native
species. This may include communities of weedy native species that develop after clearcufting or clearing or
communities with non-native invasive species present, but not dominant, over a large portion of the expected strata or
communities missing understory but retaining canopy tees.
r- C C C Vegetation is severely disturbed in terms of species diversity or proportions. Mature canopy is absent or communities
with non-native invasive species dominant over a large portion of expected strata or communities composed of planted
stands of non-characteristic species or communities inappropriately composed of a single species or no vegetation.
25. Conductivity— assessment reach metric (skip for all Coastal Plain streams)
25a. r Yes i% No Was a conductivity measurement recorded?
If No, select one of the following reasons. f", No Water ¢Other: No Meter
25b. Check the box corresponding to the conductivity measurement (units of microsiemens per centimeter).
C' A <46 Q? B 4610 <67 ['. C 671. < 79 C D 79 to a 230 Q- E ' 230
Notes/Sketch:
Photo 1: Upstream Photo 2: Downstream

NC SAM Stream Rating Sheet
Accompanies User Manual Version 2.1
Stream Site Name Asheville nuke Plower Plant
Stream Category Mb2
Notes of Field Assessment Form (YIN)
Presence of regulatory considerations (YIN)
Additional stream informationtsupplementary measurements included (YIN)
NC SAM feature type (perennial, intermittent, Tidal Marsh Stream)
Date of Evaluation
Assessor Name/Organization
11-29-16
J. Howard
YES
NO
YES
Perennial
NCDWR
Intermittent
USACEI
Function Class Rating Summary
All Streams
(1) Hydrology
HIGH
(2) Baseflow
MEDIUM
(2) Flood Flow
HIGH
(3) Streamside Area Attenuation
HIGH
(4) Floodplain Access
HIGH
(4) Wooded Riparian Buffer
HIGH
(4) Microtopography
NA
(3) Stream Stability
HIGH
(4) Channel Stability
HIGH
(4) Sediment Transport
HIGH
(4) Stream Geomorphology
HIGH
(2) Streamllntertidal Zone Interaction
NA
(2) Longitudinal Tidal Flow
NA
(2) Tidal Marsh Stream Stabflity
NA
(3) Tidal Marsh Channel Stability
NA
(3) Tidal Marsh Stream Geomorphology
NA
(1) Water Quality
MEDIUM
(2) Baseflow
MEDIUM
(2) Streamside Area Vegetation
HIGH
(3) Upland Pollutant Filtration
HIGH
(3) Thermoregulation
HIGH
(2) Indicators of Stressors
NO
(2) Aquatic Life Tolerance
LOW
(2) Intertidal Zone Filtration
NA
(1) Habitat
HIGH
(2) In -stream Habitat
HIGH
(3) Baseflow
MEDIUM
(3) Substrate
HIGH
(3) Stream Stability
HIGH
(3) In -stream Habitat
HIGH
(2) Stream -side Habitat
HIGH
(3) Stream -side Habitat
HIGH
(3) Thermoregulation
HIGH
(2) Tidal Marsh In -stream Habitat
NA
(3) Flow Restriction
NA
(3) Tidal Marsh Stream Stability
NA
(4) Tidal Marsh Channel Stability
NA
(4) Tidal Marsh Stream Geomorphology
NA
(3) Tidal Marsh In -stream Habitat
NA
(2) Intertidal Zone Habitat
NA
Overall
HIGH
11-29-16
J. Howard
YES
NO
YES
Perennial
NCDWR
Intermittent

Wetland Master Plan
Asheville Combined Cycle Project Laydown Area
Arden, North Carolina
Project No. 7810160781
APPENDIX C
CBI ROM ESTIMATE
April 7, 2017

Project: Asheville Combined Cycle Project
Summary of Revised Delta to Original
CB&I
Laydown Option # 3
Div
Revised Quantity
Delta Qty
UM
MH/UM MH
Labor $
Material/
Equipment $
Unit Sub
Subcontract
TOTAL $
UM
Division 0- Civil / Sitework
NIA
Structural Concrete
N/A
Division 2- Structural Steel / Buildings / Arch & Metals
N/A
Clearing/Grading
Site Clear and Grubbing
0
-
LS
$
$
$
$ -
$
-
LS
Site Cut (10 acre of placed stone)
48400
48,400.00
SY
$
$
$
$ 254,100
$
254,100
SY
Site Cut (Build Silt Basin)
0
-
CY
$
$
$
$ -
$
-
CY
Site Fill (Stone)
48400
48,400.00
SY
$
$
$
$ 1,022,208
$
1,022,208
SY
Erosion & Sediment Control, Permits, Misc Items
0
-
LS
$
$
$
$ -
$
-
LS
Geotech Fabric
48400
48,400.00
SY
$
$
$
$ 119,064
$
119,064
SY
Geotech Fabric (Removal)
48400
48,400.00
SY
$
$
$
$ 60,500
$
60,500
SY
Culverts (HDPE)
60
60.00
LF
$
$
$
$ 1,349
$
1,349
LF
Silt Fence
8500
8,500.00
LF
$
$
$
$ 34,000
$
34,000
LF
Site Finish Grade (Return corn field to orginal state)
48400
48,400.00
SY
$
$
$
$ 145,200
$
145,200
SY
Rip Rap
70
70.00
CY
$
$
$
$ 8,450
$
8,450
CY
Total Direct Cost Delta
$ -
$
$
$ 1,644,871
$
1,644,871
Division 8- EPC Indirect Cost
Field Management
2,840
$ 261,876
$
261,876
Office/Field Overhead Expenses
$ -
$ 20,845
$
$
20,845
Temporary Facilities & Services
$ -
$ 584,000
$
$
584,000
Site Services (Material Handling, Cleanup, Tool Room, Survey, Other)
72,260
$ 2,263,657
$ 64,525
$
$
2,328,182
Safety - Incentives, Drug Testing, Background Checks,Safety Orientation, Training
759
$ 26,121
$ 1,104
$
$
27,225
Small Tools & Consumables
$ -
$ 59,525
$
$
59,525
Construction Equipment / Operators
47,959
$ 1,550,566
$ 91,264
$
1,275,234
$
2,917,064
Scaffolding
3,061
$ 108,948
$ 15,306
$
-
$
124,254
OT/Premium Time - Craft (Define Basis) (Includes PF adjustment)
20,050
$ 1,108,000
$ -
$
$
1,108,000
Per Diem
$ 1,151,000
$
$
$
1,151,000
Division 9- Home Office Engineering / Project Indirects
$
-
Detail Design/Engineering
-
$ -
$
$
-
Contingency
$
608,750
Escalation
$
589,675
Profit and Fee
$
569,731
Performance Payment Bond/Letter(s) of Credit
$
79,513
Sales and Use Tax
$
49,660
Warranty
$
37,003
Total Division 8 & 9 Delta
146,929
$ 6,470,168
$ 836,569
$
1,275,234
$
10,516,303
Grand Total Cost Delta
$ 6,470,168
$ 836,569
$
1,275,234
$
12,161,174
Notes:
This estimate does not include the lease cost of the
property or any cost associated with zoning variance.
This estimate does include staffing the remote laydown,
additional fencing, security, transportation to/from the
construction site, and removal of site improvements at
project completion so that we return of the land to its
current farmland use.
Copy of Copy of Laydown Options 2 (revised) and 3 7-15-16.xlsx _ Laydown Option 8 3 Page 1 of 1

Wetland Master Plan
Asheville Combined Cycle Project Laydown Area
Arden, North Carolina
Project No. 7810160781
APPENDIX D
April 7, 2017
PERMIT DRAWINGS - PLAN VIEW AND CROSS-SECTION DRAWINGS

' TTP5 26'PVC:
NON W\A, T p STREAM #26 �'• -
(APP X.346.3 FT.l
L .RCP �`` �. EXISTING PAVED RO
= 2 1.71
= ER E TLY IMPACTED STREAM #g4
(APPROX. 520.5 FT.)
SEE NOTE 2
EX ST1 G 18" CPP
s SHAL , RE DOVE`
Tc �S$i�A LOBE E YED
EPLSST ICInICf })�U1LVERTb
x •'�r SHALL �C RE OVED ; 2056041
••'1, EXISTING 54 -INCH
REINFORCED CONCRET
PIPE(RCP) r,
TO SERVE AS FALL a'
t E.=
O _,ALEX T l f� 42 F
O / ,SHALL,, BE It V
EX
0 BE
n \O C�.\ °��• 2�m
,P
a O 0 F
o IAP Ox.
J 'LF 4
s
g � (
� O
i
+_+ '\ O O O
0 00 O
i \0
y o
a \
i
y
Q)
ON -IMPACTED WETLAND # K
APPROX. 58.765.6 SO.FT.)
❑*
ff r
l
i�
EXISTING MONITORING
WELLS TO REMAIN
rl aft*
0 7V_.
TOP OF PIPE.
2063.41 `\ \ ``
-11 VXa $TING CORRUGATED RISER —Y
'RCP INV: PIPE AND 8.. PVC OUTLET
1.55 'LIPE.SHALL BE REMOVED
r`
ISLTI HOUSE �'� EXISTING
D ISHED) '� RTO BE DEMOLI
ROPOS O ibl SOIL
STOIC P�� `AREA
\15.058 9I � FT) I
T\ EE IDEI I D) i
a
1. FOR PROPOSED LAYDOWN AREA U3 CONSTRUCTION DRAWING INDEX.
REFER TO DWG ACCOO-CV-C-CS.PL-30.
2. WETLANDS AND WATERS OF THE U.S. SHOWN ON THIS PLAN ARE
BASED ON A MAP OF APPROVED JURISDICTIONAL DETERMINATIONS
MAY 19. 2016. REFERENCE U.S. ARMY CORPS OF ENGINEERS
WILMINGTON DISTRICT ACTION 10 NUMBER SAW -2014-00189.
A ISSUED FOR KVIEV
NO. REVISION
X
s w {
� OOUG�AS FIR
FAPPOOX I MATE
FA_
INV
2108
L
RUN
IV IN: O
,10.3
EX SING 4$ ���C�I��i� RR AT
�L PIPE _( CULVER
SH L RE EXT Nf O TO A NE
NHQLE=1)
PERMANENTL T D WE
SEE NOTE
l' O O O
o � c
00,
c
AC E
CK'O I APPO I DATE IORAVN: ICA'D:
SCALE: 1:200'
r
FIGURE 1
PERMANENTLY IMPACTED
OPEN WATER 37.847.0 SO.FT.
WETLAND/STREAM COMPLEX 16.572.0 SO.FT.
STREAM #22
406.0
FT.
STREAM #23
46.0
FT.
STREAM #24
520.5
FT.
TOTAL
972.5
FT.
NON -IMPACTED
WETLAND K
STREAM #26
1 E:nl:KIFI•
58.765.6 SO.FT.
346.3 FT.
EXISTING STREAM
-"-"-' °
EXISTING WETLANDS
PROJECT BOUNDARY
PERMANENTLY IMPACTED
r•%%%;'
WETLAND/STREAM COMPLEX
�� _4.j
PERMANENTLY IMPACTED
17777177'
OPEN WATER
'\A
TROPOSED TOP SOIL
• 00 •/ /• .01
00
coDUKE ASHEVILLE COMBINED CYCLE
)
ENERGY, Arden, North Carol ino
CLIENT OMC NO:
CIVIL
LAYDOWN AREA #3
PLAN VIEW
FOR: Duke Energy Prole s. LLC
PROJ NO: 205210 DWG NO: ACCOO—CV—C—S I . PL -36 REV: A

O 0GL9S FIR
EXISTING PAVED ROAD P�y�OP° \�, o` �4 ° x q�E r� o
ERMANENTLY IMPACJED STREAM U24 �P�° FIGURE 2
Z
(APPROX. 520.5 FT , -� ° AP ROXL ATE PROPERTY L
i 1 SEE N J�'�`• •� BOUN A Y (TYPICAL)
EX I ST r G 18" CPP "�'�'-I" ._.fi`� `� °�• � � � �� `- r
HALL BE♦ REMOVED o �' • : , �� 0 0
a �
EXI..TI ATCH'QASIN P�y�°P 1� /I PERMANENTLY IMP CT M #2
tHAL E REM VE �P �, C00 CV C-SI.SD 30 �'1 (APPROX. 46.OF ) 0
\ \ �, ACCOo-C-% SEE DTE 2 0
EXIST IN Q-INCR 18 CC V SCSI.
EX AT A T 206R. xro *� S�_3 PERMANE YNT YNT ACTED- T� R 2
CORRUGATED EDS ASTIC C ,.. (APPROX. FT)
PIPE (CPP) UL VERT TO 61.9 �, '�� '�'�a/�. .SEE NOT 2 �°
SHALL BE REMOVED _� C / , C
.,,. ti.
= 30'2056.04
CPP I •. % \ \ \ \ \ \ \\ \���,,°' / ,` s� ` INV OUT, • J
♦ s�`.✓ : \ \ \ K' \ \ \ \ \ \ \ \. I� 2108.5 0
♦ ••� "TOP OF 0
P1�' \ \ \ \ \ \ \ \ \ , 4 INV IN: J(�
S 2063.41 \ / / /x ♦ 2110.3
CPP
EXISTING CORRUGATED RISER ` '\ \'ry ; „� _,_ .._ _,►�,�^
Tc 6'
y!► PIPE AND 8"PVC OUTLET PIPE
3 \ / SHALL BE REMOVED N
m 1 TI G 54-INCH RC1.P IN'... ` '�'
RE I NF�Rb�OI CONCRETE
ONC REE
TO SERVEWAS OUTFALLr LEGEND:
an `
t ) \ 8-INC
EXISTING 0 CORRUTA` PJ EXISTING STREAM
n XI TING 42% P � (TO BE DEMOLISHED) �) (� (XTE� CD TORA NEALL BE —••—••—
H LL 8 REMOVED T Jf ISTING HOUSE ♦ ° 0 0 0 00 ��IOLE (IrH-1) PROJECT BOUNDARY
CPN 0 E E OL IS ED 0 0 << PERMANENTLY IMPACTED r' ;-;-''
97F `., w e' �� 0 ° �� WETLAND/STREAM COMPLEX IL 4.4.1
�s R0 0 TOP SOIL ♦ �`' MANENTLY A TEb WETLAND # L 177\7 c-ti
STAN PILE AREA '1 1`.
� � � � NATE 2 -� PERMANENTLY IMPACTED�
(APPROX. 15.055 9 SO.FT) ., o I �� OPEN WATER day�s�
XISTING HOUSE-� PROPOSED TOP SOIL
(TO DEMOLISHED) I SHED l I �� 0 0 STOCK PILE AREA
�° I`CT �� D4
!s0 0 I ¢ c R , 9 CR ) , /� 0 75150' 300' 450'
0 1
0 Q ° `1� ��i �� `ter �J _ 150'
., �( =
� 0�� 0 � � 0 0 SCALE 1ii
OOo 4`!5DUKE ASHEV I LLE COMBINED CYCLE
ENERGIE
o Arden North Carol in0
QO •* 0 °
C
)61 CLIENT OWG NO:
1. FOR PROPOSED L AYDOWN AREA 93 CONSTRUCTION DRAWING INDEX. �=����► � CIVIL
REFER TO DWG ACCOO-CV-C-CS.PL-30. '�� �•\\
2. WETLANDS AND WATERS OF THE U.S. SHOWN ON THIS PLAN ARELAYpOWN AREAS
BASED ON A MAP OF APPROVED JURISDICTIONAL DETERMINATIONS ',.��,,\
MAY 19. 2016. REFERENCE U.S. ARMY CORPS OF ENGINEERS PLAN
WILMINGTON DISTRICT ACTION ID NUMBER SAW-2014-00189. ,� ♦..� ;�� ; i,//
`��7�FOR IC fir Progress, ess
� ISSUED FOR REvIEr • Duke Energy gy pg LLC
N0. REVISION DRAWN CK'O APPO DATE DRAWN: CVD: APPD: DATE: SCALE:1 :, 50' PROJ NO: 205210 DWG NO: ACCOO-CV-C-S I . PL -37 REV: A

- --- - --- - - --- - --- - -------- ---
--- - ---- - - - -
------- -- --- - --- - - --- - --- - -------- --
------- -- --- - --- - - --- - --- - -------- ---
-------- ----- - ----- - --- �-
-------- - --- - - --
- - - - - WETLAND WETLAND '
EDGE -EDGE---, =---------
- --- - --- - -- ---- ------ I -- -----
- - -- - - - - - ---- ----'
- I - --------- ---- - ---f--/--- ---------
- - \- ------------------------r-/-------------------
- ----� ----------------- ---- /--------— ..........
------------------- -
----------------- --------------------------
2090
-150 -100
I
2140
2130
2100
2090
100 150
SECTION A
SCALE:1:100.0'(HOR) ACC00-CV-C-SI.PL-37
1: 20.0'(VER)
A
NO.
ISSUED FOR REVIEV
REVISION
2140
2130
2120
2110
w
Z
0 2100
Q
w
w
2090
2080
2070
2060 -.
-150 -100
2140
2130
2120
2110
E
E
Z
2100 0
Q
w
w
2090
2080
2070
- 2060
100 150
SECTION B
SCALEA:100.0'(HOR) AC000-CV-C-SI.PL-37
1: 20.0'(VER)
CK'O I APPO I DATE IORAMN: ICA'D:
FIGURE 3
0 50' 100' 200' 300'
SCALE: 1 "= 100'(HOR)
0 10' 20' 40' 60'
SCALE: 1 "= 20' (VER)
DUKE ASHEVILLE COMBINED CYCLE
ENERGIE_, Arden, North Carol ino
CLIENT OMC NO:
CIVIL
LAYDOWN AREA #3
SECTIONS
FOR: puke Energy Progress. LLC
SCALE:AS SHOWN PROJ NO: 205210 OMC NO: ACC00-CV-C-S I . SO -30
REV: A
2140
2130
r
2120
Z
0
a
>
2110
s w
S
2100
- --- - --- - - --- - --- - -------- ---
--- - ---- - - - -
------- -- --- - --- - - --- - --- - -------- --
------- -- --- - --- - - --- - --- - -------- ---
-------- ----- - ----- - --- �-
-------- - --- - - --
- - - - - WETLAND WETLAND '
EDGE -EDGE---, =---------
- --- - --- - -- ---- ------ I -- -----
- - -- - - - - - ---- ----'
- I - --------- ---- - ---f--/--- ---------
- - \- ------------------------r-/-------------------
- ----� ----------------- ---- /--------— ..........
------------------- -
----------------- --------------------------
2090
-150 -100
I
2140
2130
2100
2090
100 150
SECTION A
SCALE:1:100.0'(HOR) ACC00-CV-C-SI.PL-37
1: 20.0'(VER)
A
NO.
ISSUED FOR REVIEV
REVISION
2140
2130
2120
2110
w
Z
0 2100
Q
w
w
2090
2080
2070
2060 -.
-150 -100
2140
2130
2120
2110
E
E
Z
2100 0
Q
w
w
2090
2080
2070
- 2060
100 150
SECTION B
SCALEA:100.0'(HOR) AC000-CV-C-SI.PL-37
1: 20.0'(VER)
CK'O I APPO I DATE IORAMN: ICA'D:
FIGURE 3
0 50' 100' 200' 300'
SCALE: 1 "= 100'(HOR)
0 10' 20' 40' 60'
SCALE: 1 "= 20' (VER)
DUKE ASHEVILLE COMBINED CYCLE
ENERGIE_, Arden, North Carol ino
CLIENT OMC NO:
CIVIL
LAYDOWN AREA #3
SECTIONS
FOR: puke Energy Progress. LLC
SCALE:AS SHOWN PROJ NO: 205210 OMC NO: ACC00-CV-C-S I . SO -30
REV: A

Wetland Master Plan
Asheville Combined Cycle Project Laydown Area
Arden, North Carolina
Project No. 7810160781
APPENDIX E
NCWRC ELECTRONIC MAIL CORRESPONDENCE
April 7, 2017

From: Kapur, Arun [mailto:[e-mail]]
Sent: Tuesday, January 31, 2017 6:09 AM
To: Smith, Wayne B <[e-mail]>; Ackerman, Jana <[e-mail]>; Parish,
Ty C <[e-mail]>; Harmon, Richard G <[e-mail]>
Subject: FW: Pond Closure
Please see the email below on what to do with the fish in the Farm Pond. Please let me know if you have any
questions. Thanks.
From: Garrett, Reid
Sent: Monday, January 30, 2017 4:54 PM
To: Kapur, Arun
Cc: Williams, Teresa Lynne; Brown, Jason S; Hickok, Linda Drisko; Woodward, Tina
Subject: Pond Closure
All, I spoke with the District 9 Fisheries Biologist, Powell Wheeler, about closure of the "Farm Pond" within the Laydown
Area # 3 site on our property near the Asheville Plant. He said the NCWRC position is that they do not want any fish
from a private pond to escape into public waters. It is the preference of the NCWRC that any fish contained in the pond
are to be buried on site (in place even). Let me know if you have any additional questions.
W. Keid Garrett, CF i
Lead F nvironmental jcientist
F nvironmental Healtk & `jafety
DuLe L,nergy
bell Line g 19 546-5434
Cell 919 632-4 66
}zeiJ.Garrett@Juke-energci com
0 t-. DUKE
%. ` ENERGY.