20180364 Ver 1_401 Application_20180318

DWR
Division of water Resources
Pre -Construction Notification (PCN) Form
For Nationwide Permits and Regional General Permits
(along with corresponding Water Quality Certifications)
January 31, 2018 Ver 2.3
Please note: fields marked with a red asterisk below are required. You will not be able to submit the form until all mandatory questions are answered.
Also, if at any point you wish to print a copy of the E -PCN, all you need to do is right -click on the document and you can print a copy of the form.
Below is a link to the online help file.
https:lledocs.deq.nc.govMaterResources101edocl6247041PCN%20Help%20File%202018-1-30.pdf
A. Processing Information
County (or Counties) where the project is located:*
Catawba
Is this project a public transportation project?*(?)
f Yes f• No
1a. Type(s) of approval sought from the Corps:*
V Section 404 Permit (wetlands, streams and waters, Clean Water Act)
r Section 10 Permit (navigable waters, tidal waters, Rivers and Harbors Act)
1b. What type(s) of permit(s) do you wish to seek authorization?*
r% Nationwide Permit (NWP)
r Regional General Permit (RGP)
Nationwide Permit (NWP) Number: 03 - Maintenance
NWP Number Other:
List all NW numbers you are applying for not on the drop dow n list.
1c. Type(s) of approval sought from the DWR:*
check all that apply
W 401 Water Quality Certification - Regular r 401 Water Quality Certification - Express
F Non -404 Jurisdictional General Permit r Riparian Buffer Authorization
*
1d. Is this notification solely for the record because written approval is not required?
For the record only for DWR 401 Certification:
For the record only for Corps Permit:
C Yes O No
O Yes O No
1e. Is payment into a mitigation bank or in -lieu fee program proposed for mitigation of impacts?
It so, attach the acceptance letter from r igation bank or in -lieu fee program
G Yes r No
Acceptance Letter Attachment

Click the upload button or drag and drop files here to attach docunent
9_NCDMSAcceptance_Form.pdf 75.29K6
RLE TYPE MJST BE PDF
1f. Is the project located in any of NC's twe nty coasta I counties?*
f Yes r No
1h. Is the project located in a designated trout watershed?*
f Yes r No
Link to trout information: http://wAw.saw.usace.army.mil/Missions/Regulatory-Permit-ProgranVAgency-Coordination/Trout.aspx
B. Applicant Information
1a. Who is the Primary Contact?*
Eric Mularski
1b. Primary Contact Email:*
[e-mail]
1c. Primary Contact Phone:*
(XXX)XXX-XXXX
1d. Who is applying for the permit?
r Owner r Applicant (other than owner) IJ Agent/Consultant
(Check all that apply)
2. Owner Information
2a. Name(s) on recorded deed:
Duke Energy Carolinas
2b. Deed book and page no.:
OOCO/2006
2c. Responsible party:
(for Corporations)
Jon Wise. PE
2d. Address
Street Address
400 S. Tryon Street STE 30C
Address Line 2
City
Charlotte
Postal / Zip Code
28285
2e. Telephone Number:
[phone]
2f. Fax Number:
()xx)xxx-XXXX
2g. Email Address:*
[e-mail]
4. Agent/Consultant (if applicable)
4a. Name:
Eric Mularski, PWS
State/ Province/ Fbgion
North Carolina
Country
USA

4b. Business Name:
(if applicable)
HDR
4c. Address
Street Address
440 S. Church Street
Address Line 2
aty
Charlotte
Postal / Zip Code
288202
4d. Telephone Number:
[phone]
(xxx)xxx-xxxx
4e. Fax Number:
(XXX)XXX-XXXX
Email Address:*
[e-mail]
State / Province/ Pbgion
North Carolina
Country
USA
Agent Authorization Letter*
Pease provide the Agent Authorization Letter if you are submitting this docurrent.
3_AgentAuthorizationSigned. pdf 39.59KB
RLETYPE M -IST BE RIF
C. Project Information and Prior Project History
1. Project Information
1a. Name of project:*
Lookout Shoals Embankment Seismic Stability Improvements (ESSI) Project
1b. Subdivision name:
(if appropriate)
1c. Nearest municipality/ town:*
Catawba
1d. Driving directions*
V it is a new project and can not easily be found in a CPS mapping system Rease provide directions.
See attached map
2. Project Identification
2a. Property Identification Number:
(tax RN or parcel ID)
377302770605 &377302952468
2b. Property size:
(in acres)
122.76
2c. Project Address

Street Address
4750 Lookout Dam Road
Address Line 2
aty State/ Province/ Region
Catawba North Carolina
Postal / Zip Code Country
28609 USA
2d. Site coordinates in decimal degrees
Please collect site coordinates in decimal degrees. Use between 4-6 digits (unless you are using a survey -grade GPS device) after the decimal place as
appropriate, based on how the location was determined. (For example, most mobile phones with GPS provide locational precision in decimal degrees to
map coordinates to 5 or 6 digits after the decimal place.)
Latitude:* Longitude:*
35.753941 -81.094389
ex: 34.208504 -77.796371
3. Surface Waters
3a. Name of the nearest body of water to proposed project:*
Catawba River
3b. Water Resources Classification of nearest receiving water:*
WS-IV;CA
Surface Water Lookup
3c. What river basin(s) is your project located in?*
Catawba
River Basin Lookup
4. Project Description
4a. Describe the existing conditions on the site and the general land use in the vicinity of the project at the time of this application:*
The existing conditions and general land use is undeveloped open space and mixed -forest lands.
4b. Attach an 8 1/2 X 11 excerpt from the most recent version of the USGS topographic map indicating the location of the project site. (for
DWR)
Cick the upload button or drag and drop files here to attach document
6_LookoutShoalsESSI_USGS.pdf 1.31MB
File type must be pdf
4c. Attach an 8 1/2 X 11 excerpt from the most recent version of the published County NRCS Soil Survey map depicting the project site.
(for DWR)
nick the upload button or drag and drop files here to attach document
NRCS.pdf 2.31 MB
File type crust be pdf
4d. List the total estimated acreage of all existing wetlands on the property:
5.85
4e. List the total estimated linear feet of all existing streams on the property:
(intermittent and perennial)
5845
4f. Explain the purpose of the proposed project:*

The Lookout Shoals Development, which was constructed in 1914-1915, is located on the Catawba River in
Catawba County, approximately 2.5 miles west of Sharon, North Carolina (Figure 1 and Figure 2). The
development consists of a powerhouse structure, concrete gravity spillway structure, and an earthen embankment
dam with two concrete gravity overflow sections. The existing earthen embankment dam is approximately 89 feet
high, 1,200 feet long, and has upstream and downstream slopes ranging between 2.5- and 3.0 -feet horizontal to
1.0 -foot vertical (H:V).
The existing earthen embankment dam section of the Lookout Shoals Development was determined to be
susceptible to liquefaction during a seismic event and is the subject of remediation for the ESSI Project. The
Lookout Shoals embankment dam was constructed using the semi -hydraulic fill method. This method consists of
hauling in and dumping soil from rail cars or trucks to form containment berms; dumped material is then sprayed
with water jets to create a soil -water slurry between the berms. Water percolates through the material, leaving
finer -grained soil between the berms and forming a low -permeability zone within the embankment (i.e., core).
Coarser grained material generally remains deposited near the face of the dam.
Construction by the semi -hydraulic fill method results in an earthen structure that retains a loose soil matrix and is
characterized by a low-density and a low -penetration resistance. Loose soils that comprise the dam become
saturated from normal reservoir water levels and, if subjected to strong ground motions from a seismic activity, can
be susceptible to liquefaction. Liquefaction is caused by cyclic shaking (i.e. earthquake ground motions) or other
rapid loading that increases the pore pressure between soil particles and results in a significant loss of strength in
the soil. The loss of strength in soils may cause slopes to fail under their own weight immediately after the
earthquake (or other ground motion) and compromise the ability of the dam to retain water (i.e. dam failure).
Studies from the Lookout Shoals embankment dam submitted to the Federal Energy Regulatory Commission
(FERC) in 2007 and 2014 analyzed the liquefaction potential of the embankment dam materials and determined
that the existing embankment does not meet the FERC -prescribed minimum safety factor for slope stability under
post -seismic conditions. Improvements to the downstream slope of the existing earthen embankment are required
to meet the minimum safety factor requirement for the post -seismic load case.
4g. Describe the overall project in detail, including indirect imapacts and the type of equipment to be used:*

Alternative 1 — Stability Berm (Preferred Alternative)
The stability berm remediation alternative, which is the preferred alternative, includes improving the downstream
slope of the existing earthen embankment through excavation and placement of compacted fill for berm
construction.
Ground motions used to design the proposed berm were specified by the FERC. The FERC required that ground
motions from the 2011 central Virginia earthquake, with a moment magnitude (M) of 5.8 and an unscaled peak
ground acceleration (PGA) of 0.26 g, be scaled down to represent a local earthquake and used in analyses. The
representative local earthquake was given designated as a 5.4 M event with a PGA of 0.16 g. Iterative analyses
were performed to determine the dimensions of a stability berm that would accommodate the FERC -required
ground motions.
Analyses determined that an earthen berm approximately 140 feet wide at a crest elevation of 865 feet above
mean sea level (ft msl) with a 2.5:1.0 (H:V) slope placed downstream of the existing dam would meet the FERC's
minimum post -seismic condition safety factor requirements. In the event of deformation resulting from liquefaction
and failure of the existing embankment dam slope, the berm geometry would retain sufficient undisturbed
embankment crest width and freeboard to serve as a water -retaining structure, thereby greatly reducing the risk of
total loss. It is anticipated that approximately 340,000 cubic yards of embankment fill material may be required for
construction of the stability berm. Berm construction would effectively extend the toe of the existing dam
approximately 150 feet downstream and would tie into the existing hillsides (abutments) on either side of the
existing dam.
Berm construction support activities will require the development of temporary access roads, excavated soil spoil
areas, material stockpile areas, a borrow area, a construction laydown area, erosion and sediment control basins,
and a permanent transmission line relocation right-of-way.
Alternative 2 — Roller -Compacted Concrete Alternative
The concept of a roller -compacted concrete (RCC) gravity retaining wall at the downstream slope of the existing
Lookout Shoals earthen embankment dam was explored as a possible alternative for the ESSI Project. The RCC
alternative was investigated as a reduced cost option compared to an earthen stability berm owing to the large
quantity of embankment fill material necessary for construction of a compacted fill berm. If an on-site borrow
source could not be identified, the purchase and transportation of off-site borrow soil to build the stability berm
could potentially exceed the cost of purchasing concrete materials for an RCC gravity retaining wall.
The maximum width cross-section of the dam was used for qualitative comparison of material quantities between
the compacted fill berm alternative and the RCC retaining wall alternative. The cross-sections were developed
using existing ground surface elevations, estimated top of competent rock elevations, typical foundation
excavation requirements, and an assumed RCC gravity retaining wall geometry. The comparison showed that the
RCC retaining wall alternative was likely to require less soil material than would be required to construct a
compacted soil berm; however, the reduced soil material quantity was not significant enough to offset the quantity
and cost of concrete that would be necessary to construct an RCC gravity retaining wall. The assessment of
material costs was based on an estimate that the unit price for in-place concrete in RCC retaining wall construction
would be at least five times the unit price of in-place compacted soil fill berm (i.e. every cubic yard of concrete
placed would need to save more than five cubic yards of compacted soil fill to be cost effective). The assessment
concluded that construction of an RCC retaining wall alternative would not result in a lower construction costs than
the compacted fill berm alternative and the RCC retaining wall alternative was not further developed.
Alternative 3 — No Build Alternative
The post -seismic stability analysis results indicated that improvements, however constructed, are required to
satisfy FERC -prescribed factors of safety for the Lookout Shoals embankment dam. If a No Build alternative was to
be considered, Duke Energy would be in violation of the mandated safety improvements required by FERC;
therefore, a No Build alternative is not a viable option.
4h. Please upload project drawings for the proposed project.
Click the upload button or drag and drop files here to attach document
Lookout Shoals 100% For Bids Drawing Submittal_Reduced.pdf 106.13MB
File type rrust be pdt
5. Jurisdictional Determinations
5a. Have the wetlands or streams been delineated on the property or proposed impact areas?*
f• Yes r No r Unknown
Comments:
5b. If the Corps made a jurisdictional determination, what type of determination was made?*
r Preliminary R Approved r Unknown f N/A
Corps AID Number:
Example: SAW -2017-99999
Action ID: 2014-00699

5c. If 5a is yes, who delineated the jurisdictional areas?
Name (if known): Eric Mularski, PWS
Agency/Consultant Company: HDR
Other:
5d. If yes, list the dates of the Corps jurisdictional determinations or State determinations and attach documentation.
Issue Date of JD: May 21, 2014
5d1. Jurisdictional determination upload
Click the upload button or drag and drop files here to attach docurrent
8_USACE_ApprovedJD_20140521.pdf 1.35MB
File type rrust be FDF
6. Project History
6a. Have permits or certifications been requested or obtained for this project (including all prior phases) in the past?
f Yes C No r Unknown
7. Future Project Plans
7a. Is this a phased project?*
r Yes F No
Are any other NWP(s), regional general permit(s), or individual permits(s) used, or intended to be used, to authorize any part of the
proposed project or related activity? This includes other separate and distant crossing for linear projects that require Department of the
Army authorization but don't require pre -construction notification.
D. Proposed Impacts Inventory
1. Impacts Summary
1a. Where are the impacts associated with your project? (check all that apply):
V Wetlands W Streams -tributaries r Buffers
r Open Waters r Pond Construction
2. Wetland Impacts
If there are wetland impacts proposed on the site, then complete this question for each wetland area impacted.
2a. Site # - Reason for impact*
2b. Impact type *
2c. Type of wetland *
W1 -Stability Berm
P
Bottomland Hardwood
Ivhp label (e.g. Fbad Crossing 1 - Culvert,
Fern -anent () or
Forest
dewatering, etc)
Tenporary (1)
(acres)
W2 - Cofferdam/Sediment
T
Bottomland Hardwood
Basin
F2rrranent()or
Forest
Nhp label (e.g. Pbad Crossing 1 - Q lvert,
Terrporary (_0
(acres)
dewatering, etc)
other)
2g. Total Temporary Wetland Impact
1.600
2g. Total Permanent Wetland Impact
0.600
2g. Total Wetland Impact
2.200
2h. Comments:
2d. Wetland name *2e.
2f. Type of
2g. Impact
Forested*
Jurisdicition*
area*
Wetland 4 No
Both
0.600
(404, 10) or DAR (401,
(acres)
other)
Wetland 4 No
Both
1.600
(404, 10) or DAR (401,
(acres)
other)

see attached project impact drawings
3. Stream Impacts
If there are perennial or intermittent stream impacts (including temporary impacts) proposed on the site, then complete this question for all stream sites
impacted.
3a. Reason for impact*3b.lmpact 3c. Type of impact*3d. Stream name *
type *
3f. Type of
S1 Culvert P Culvert
Tributary to the
Nhp label (e.g. Finad Crossing 1) Ferrranent (P) or
Catawba
Temporary (T)
Perennial
S2 Dewatering T Dewatering
butarytothe
Nhp label (e.g. Fbad Crossing 1) Permanent () or
Catawba
Temporary (1)
Average (feet) (linear feet)
S3 Access Road P Fill Tributary to the
tvbp label (e.g. Fbad Crossing 1) Fbrmanent () or Catawba
Temporary (T)
3e. Stream
3f. Type of
3g. Stream 3h. Impact sgfe
Type*
Jurisdiction*
width* length*
Perennial
Both
5 83
4
Perennial (PER) or
Average (feet) (linear feet)
1
internittent (INT)
5
Perennial
Both
5 200
1
Pbrennial (PER) or
Average (feet) (linear feet)
intermttent (INT)
0
0
0
Intermittent
Both
2 55
1
Fbrennial (PER) or
Average (feet) (linear feet)
1
internittent (IN)
0
** All Perennial or Intermittent streams must be verified by DWR or delegated local government.
3i. Total jurisdictional ditch impact in square feet:
0
3i. Total permanent stream impacts:
138
31. Total temporary stream impacts:
200
3i. Total stream and tributary impacts:
338
3j. Comments:
see attached project impact drawings
E. Impact Justification and Mitigation
1. Avoidance and Minimization
1a. Specifically describe measures taken to avoid or minimize the proposed impacts in designing the project:*

Wetland Impacts
The proposed permanent and temporary wetland impacts are described below.
• Permanent Impacts:
o The construction of the proposed stability berm will result in approximately 0.6 acres of unavoidable impacts to
USACE verified scrub -shrub wetlands.
o A mitigation request will be submitted to the NCDEQ's Department of Mitigation Services (DMS) In -Lieu Fee
program for unavoidable impacts at a 2:1 ratio. Fees for wetland credits are calculated in quarter -acre increments.
A 1.25 -credit for impacts to riparian wetlands will be requested to accommodate the mitigation ratio. Current fees
located in the higher fee Hydrologic Unit (03050101) are $71,772 per acre credit. An approval letter NCDEQ's
DMS will is attached.
• Temporary Impacts:
o The excavation and fill activities for the proposed temporary coffer dam and sediment basin below the berm
stability structure will result in approximately 1.0 acre of temporary impacts.
o Excavated wetland soils will be stockpiled in uplands and used during post- construction restoration activities.
o Wetland restoration activities will consist of replacing stockpiled wetland soils, re -grading impacted areas to
original pre -construction contours, and re -seeding disturbed areas with a native wetland seed mix The restoration
area will remain undisturbed to allow the wetland system to reforest naturally.
o The impacted wetland area will be photo -documented prior to any land disturbance activities.
o The restoration site will be monitored for two (2) years after construction during the growing season. Monitoring
will consist of establishing several photo monitoring stations and documenting the percent vegetative cover.
o Success criteria will be defined by 60 percent vegetative cover following the first full growing season and 80
percent vegetative cover following the second growing season. Greater than 50 percent of the dominant species
must be hydrophytic plants (Wetland Indicator Status of FAC or wetter).
Stream Impacts
The proposed permanent and temporary stream impacts are described below.
• Permanent Impacts:
o The existing deteriorated 40 -foot long, 36 -inch corrugated metal pipe will be replaced with an approximate 90 -
foot long, 36 -inch reinforced concrete pipe (RCP) lowflow culvert and a 48 -inch RCP high flow culvert to
accommodate the proposed access road. A 30 -foot long rip rap apron will be placed downstream of the proposed
culverts to dissipate energy from high flows. These activities will result in approximately 83 linear feet of
unavoidable impacts to a perennial tributary to the Catawba River.
❑ The replacement culverts will be located entirely within the footprint of the existing deteriorated structure to
avoid and minimize impacts.
❑ Culverts were sized to accommodate the hydraulic capacity of the channel and surrounding watershed and to
promote passage of fish and other aquatic organisms.
❑ The culvert inverts will be installed at an elevation below the existing stream at slopes that allowfor aquatic
passage and movement of aquatic life.
❑ The culverts will be staggered in elevation to create a lowflow culvert and "floodplain" culverts.
❑ Excavated stream bed material (i.e., cobbles/gravels) will be stockpiled and placed in the culverts to mimic
natural instream conditions.
❑ Rip rap outlet protection below the proposed culverts will be keyed in to prevent washout and installed at an
elevation to maintain aquatic passage and promote surface water flow during lowflow conditions.
❑ A pump -around will be employed when installing the culverts to work in the dry. Water will be pumped through a
sediment filter bag before returning to the stream.
❑ Disturbed stream banks will be sloped back, seeded with native vegetation (including live stakes), and matted
with biodegradable erosion control material.
o Construction of the proposed access road near the base of the dam will result in approximately 55 linear feet of
unavoidable impacts to an intermittent tributary to the Catawba River.
o The USACE Final 2017 Regional Condition for Nationwide Permits Section 3.2 indicates that compensatory
mitigation for stream losses less than 150 linear feet that require a PCN may be required by the District Engineer
on a case-by-case basis to ensure that the proposed activities result in minimal adverse effects on the aquatic
environment. The ESSI Project was designed to avoid and minimize stream losses to the greatest extent
practicable. No mitigation payments are proposed for unavoidable impacts unless required by the District
Engineer.
• Temporary Impacts:
o Approximately 200 linear feet of temporary impacts will be associated with the de -watering for the pump -around,
impervious dikes, and sediment removal device for the culvert and headwall installation.
1b. Specifically describe measures taken to avoid or minimize the proposed impacts through construction techniques:*

Sediment released during ground disturbance and project construction has the potential to result in adverse
impacts to adjacent surface waters and aquatic organisms. Avoidance and minimization measures will include
implementing a minimum 30 -foot riparian buffer on eAsting surface waters, including wetlands, to reduce the
potential for sedimentation and protect water quality and aquatic habitat. In addition, Duke Energy has developed
an Erosion and Sediment Control (E&SC) Plan, which was submitted and approved by the NCDEQ Land Quality
Section (CATAW-2018-013). The E&SC plan will be implemented during construction to prevent sedimentation
impacts to water resources. Best Management Practices (BMP) will include, but will not be limited to, installing
protective silt fencing, restricting the use of wet concrete within surface waters, and implementing and maintaining
an on-site spill prevention plan for heavy equipment. The work area will be inspected daily for signs of erosion or
degradation and BMP device failure. Following construction, all disturbed areas will be restored and re -graded to
pre -construction grades and re -vegetated with native trees, shrubs, and herbs (see attached Restoration Plan
Drawings).
2. Compensatory Mitigation for Impacts to Waters of the U.S. or Waters of the State
2a. Does the project require Compensatory Mitigation for impacts to Waters of the U.S. or Waters of the State?
r Yes r No
2c. If yes, mitigation is required by (check all that apply):
rJ DWR rJ Corps
2d. If yes, which mitigation option(s) will be used for this project?
r- Mitigation bank ra Payment to in -lieu fee program r Permittee Responsible Mitigation
4. Complete if Making a Payment to In -lieu Fee Program
4a. Approval letter from in -lieu fee program is attached.
V Yes
4b. Stream mitigation requested:
(linear feet)
4c. If using stream mitigation, what is the stream temperature:
4d. Buffer mitigation requested (DWR only):
(square feet)
4e. Riparian wetland mitigation requested:
(acres)
1.25
4f. Non -riparian wetland mitigation requested:
(acres)
4g. Coastal (tidal) wetland mitigation requested:
(acres)
4h. Comments
6. Buffer mitigation (State Regulated Riparian Buffer Rules) - required by DWR
6a. Will the project result in an impact within a protected riparian buffer that requires buffer mitigation? If yes, you must fill out this entire
form - please contact DWR for more information.
r Yes r No
F. Stormwater Management and Diffuse Flow Plan (required by DWR)
*** Recent changes to the stormwater rules have required updates to this section .-
1. Diffuse Flow Plan

1a. Does the project include or is it adjacent to protected riparian buffers identified within one of the NC Riparian Buffer Protection
Rules?
f Yes r No
For a list of options to meet the diffuse flow requirements, click here.
If no, explain why:
The project is not adjacent to protected riparian buffers within one of the NC Riparian Buffer Protection Rules
2. Stormwater Management Plan
2a. Is this a NCDOT project subject to compliance with NCDOT's Individual NPDES permit NCS000250?
C Yes r No
2b. Does this project meet the requirements for low density projects as defined in 15A NCAC 02H .1003(2)?*
r Yes
r No
To look up low density requirement click here 15A NCAC 02H.1003(2)
G. Supplementary Information
1. Environmental Documentation
1a. Does the project involve an expenditure of public (federal/state/local) funds or the use of public (federal/state) land?
t' Yes r No
2. Violations (DWR Requirement)
2a. Is the site in violation of DWR Water Quality Certification Rules (15A NCAC 2H .0500), Isolated Wetland Rules (15A NCAC 2H .1300), or
DWR Surface Water or Wetland Standards or Riparian Buffer Rules (15A NCAC 2B .0200)?*
r Yes r No
2b. Is this an after -the -fact permit application?*
f Yes r No
3. Cumulative Impacts (DWR Requirement)
3a. Will this project (based on past and reasonably anticipated future impacts) result in additional development, which could impact
nearby downstream water quality?*
t' Yes r No
3b. If you answered "no," provide a short narrative description.
This project will not result in additional development of the surrounding area.
4. Sewage Disposal (DWR Requirement)
4a. Is sewage disposal required by DWR for this project?*
f Yes r Nor N/A
5. Endangered Species and Designated Critical Habitat (Corps Requirement)
5a. Will this project occur in or near an area with federally protected species or habitat?
f Yes r No
5b. Have you checked with the USFWS concerning Endangered Species Act impacts?*
r Yes r No
5c. If yes, indicate the USFWS Field Office you have contacted.

Asheville
5d. Is another Federal agency involved?*
f Yes r No r Unknown
5e. Is this a DOT project located within Division's 1-8?
r Yes r No
5f. Will you cut anytrees in order to conduct the work in waters of the U.S.?*
r Yes r No
5g. Does this project involve bridge maintenance or removal?*
f Yes r No
Link to the NLEB SLOPES document: http://saw-reg.usace.army.mil/NLEB/1-30-17-signed_NLEB-SLOPES&apps.pdf
5h. Does this project involve the construction/installation of a wind turbine(s)?**
f Yes r No
5i. Does this project involve (1) blasting, and/or (2) other percussive activities that will be conducted by machines, such as jackhammers,
mechanized pile drivers, etc.?*
r Yes r No
5j. What data sources did you use to determine whether your site would impact Endangered Species or Designated Critical Habitat?*
USFWS IPaC and NC Natural Heritage Program Data E)plorer Reports. See attached USFWS concurrence letter.
6. Essential Fish Habitat (Corps Requirement)
6a. Will this project occur in or near an area designated as an Essential Fish Habitat?*
f Yes r No
6b. What data sources did you use to determine whether your site would impact an Essential Fish Habitat?*
NOAA Essential Fish Habitat (EFH) Mapper http://habitat.noaa.gov/protection/efh/efhmapper/
7. Historic or Prehistoric Cultural Resources (Corps Requirement)
Link to the State Historic Preservation Office Historic Properties Map (does not include archaeological data: http://gis.ncdcr.gov/hpov,eb/
7a. Will this project occur in or near an area that the state, federal or tribal governments have designated as having historic or cultural
preservation status (e.g., National Historic Trust designation or properties significant in North Carolina history and archaeology)?*
f Yes r No
7b. What data sources did you use to determine whether your site would impact historic or archeological resources?*
North Carolina State Historic Preservation Office (NCHPO) HPOWEB GIS Web Service
(http://gis.ncdcr.gov/hpovveb/). See attached NCHPO concurrence letter.
7c. Historic or Prehistoric Information Upload
aick the upload button or drag and drop files here to attach docunent
File crust be FDF
8. Flood Zone Designation (Corps Requirement)
Link to the FEMA Floodplain Maps: https://msc.fema.gov/portal/search
8a. Will this project occur in a FEMA -designated 100 -year floodplain?*
r Yes r No
8b. If yes, explain how project meets FEMA requirements:
Ongoing coordination with Catawba County Floodplain administrator.
8c. What source(s) did you use to make the floodplain determination?*

FEMA Map Service Center National Flood Hazard Layer
Miscellaneous
Miscellaneous attachments not previously requested.
aick the upload button or drag and drop files here to attach document
4_LookoutShoalsPCN_Form.pdf
478.07KB
5_LookoutShoaIsESS I_ProjectVicinity.pdf
939.8KB
7_LookoutShoalsESSI_WOUS.pdf
2.07MB
10_CATAW-2018-013_20180131_A-M- Exp ress.pdf
462.2KB
11_5035 NCSHPO Concurrence ER 16-2264 2-22-18.pdf
99.18KB
12_USFWS_18-023 Duke Energy - Lookout Shoals ESSI Remediation - P-2232.pdf
113.92KB
13_LookoutShoalsSitelmpactDrawings.pdf
5.81 MB
2_LookoutShoalsESSI_404401_Coverletter.pdf
3.69MB
File mast be FDF or KrVZ
Signature
V By checking the box and signing below, I certify that:
■ I have given true, accurate, and complete information on this form;
■ I agree that submission of this PCN form is a "transaction" subject to Chapter 66, Article 40 of the NC General Statutes (the "Uniform Electronic
Transactions Act');
■ I agree to conduct this transaction by electronic means pursuant to Chapter 66, Article 40 of the NC General Statutes (the "Uniform Electronic
Transactions Act');
■ I understand that an electronic signature has the same legal effect and can be enforced in the same way as a written signature; AND
■ I intend to electronically sign and submit the PCN form.
Full Name:*
Eric Mularski
Signature
Initial Review
Is this project a public transportation project?*(?
r Yes f• No
Change only ff needed.
Has this project met the requirements for acceptance in to the review process?
r Yes
r No
BIMS # Assigned
20180364
Version#*
1
Reviewing Office*
Mooresville Regional Office - [phone]
Select Project Reviewer*
Alan Johnson:eads\adjohnson1
Is a payment required for this project?*

r No payment required
r Fee received
r Fee needed - send electronic notification
What amout is owed?*
f $240.00
r $570.00