20180364 Ver 1_USFWS_18-023 ESSI Remediation - P-2232_20180314

United States Department of the Interior
FISH AND WILDLIFE SERVICE
Asheville Field Office
160 Zillicoa Street Suite #B
Asheville, North Carolina 28801

November 14, 2017

Mr. Eric Mularski
HDR, Inc.
440 South Church Street, Suite 900
Charlotte, North Carolina 28202

Subject: Federally Listed Species Assessment for the Proposed Lookout Shoals Dam
Embankment Seismic Stability Improvement Project, located on Lookout Dam Road, near the
Town of Catawba, in Catawba County, North Carolina

Dear Mr. Mularski:
On October 12, 2017, we received a letter from you requesting our review and comments on the
subject project. We have reviewed the information presented and are providing the following
comments in accordance with the provisions of the Fish and Wildlife Coordination Act, as
amended (16 U.S.C. 661-667e), and section 7 of the Endangered Species Act of 1973, as
amended (16 U.S.C. 1531-1543) (Act).

Project Description
According to the information that you presented, Duke Energy is proposing to remediate the
existing earthen embankment dam to meet the minimum Federal Energy Regulatory Commission
(FERC) safety factor requirements for post-seismic load cases. Construction activities for the
remediation will occur on a 120-acre predominantly forested tract currently owned by Duke
Energy. Construction activities will include improvements to the downstream slope of the
existing earthen embankment through excavation and placement of compacted fill for berm
construction. Completion of the berm construction will require the development of temporary
access road, excavated soil stockpile areas, a borrow area, a downstream cofferdam, a
construction laydown area, erosion and sedimentation control basins, and a permanent
transmission line relocation right-of-way. Your letter indicates that unavoidable impacts to
jurisdictional waters is necessary to complete the construction of the project and that a Section
404 Clean Water Act permit from the U.S. Army Corps of Engineers will be required. However,
no specific details or plans indicating the type or amount of stream and/or wetland impacts were
provided in your letter.
Mr. Eric Mularski – HDR, Inc. 2

Federally Listed Endangered and Threatened Species
Per your letter, the proposed project area was surveyed for federally listed species that are known
to occur in Catawba County. Specifically, surveys were conducted for dwarf-flowered heartleaf
(Hexastylis naniflora) which is currently federally listed as threatened; and for Schweinitz’s
sunflower (Helianthus schweinitzii) which is currently federally listed as endangered. Suitable
habitat for these species occurs on the site. Plants in the Hexastylis genus were found within the
project area. Further examination of individual plants revealed larger calyx tube openings and
ovary positions did not match the identification characteristics of Hexastylis naniflora. For this
reason, HDR concluded that the plants were not Hexastylis naniflora and provided a “no effect”
determination for this species. Surveys for Helianthus schweinitzii were conducted in areas of
suitable habitat (maintained transmission right-of-way) within the project area. No individuals
of this species were found and a “no effect” determination was provided for this species. We
concur with HDR’s “no effect” determination for these species.

As you indicated in your letter, the project site contains suitable maternity roost habitat for
northern long-eared bat (Myotis septentrionalis), which is currently federally listed as a
threatened species. There are no known hibernacula for Myotis septentrionalis within ¼ mile of
the project area and no known maternity roosts occur within 150-feet of the project area. The
closest known record for Myotis septentrionalis is about 35-miles from the project site.
Although tree clearing activities will be associated with the project, we believe the probability of
“take” that could occur from this project is discountable. Therefore, we could concur with a
“may affect, not likely to adversely affect” determination for northern long-eared bat. We
recommend that the cutting moratorium of June 1-July 31 be implemented into the plans if
possible. Though the “not likely to adversely affect” determination would not dependent on this
action, the cutting moratorium is a measure that can be implemented to further reduce the
probability of “take” of this species.

We concur with the determinations made by HDR for the above listed species and we believe the
requirements under section 7 of the Act are fulfilled for the proposed project. However,
obligations under section 7 of the Act must be reconsidered if: (1) new information reveals
impacts of this identified action that may affect listed species or critical habitat in a manner not
previously considered, (2) this action is subsequently modified in a manner that was not
considered in this review, or (3) a new species is listed or critical habitat is determined that may
be affected by the identified action.

Erosion Control
Your letter does not include details regarding erosion control and storm-water control measures
that will be implemented at the site. We recommend that Duke Energy develop a plan to monitor
and mitigate for erosion issues within the project area. After rain events, areas near storm water
outfall pipes or culverts that release high velocity discharges should be inspected for erosion
problems. The plan should include measures that will be implemented should erosive/mass
wasting areas be found that are contributing to sediment discharge off-site. Disturbed areas
should be re-seeded and stabilized as soon as possible. We strongly recommend that only plant
species native to the natural communities within the project area be used in association with all
aspects of this project including re-seeding of disturbed areas.
Mr. Eric Mularski – HDR, Inc. 3

In-stream Flows
No remediation activities at the Lookout Shoals Dam should conflict with, or complicate the
development of, adequate delivery systems to provide flows for aquatic habitat at and
downstream of the project. The proposed remediation activities should consider alternatives for
providing appropriate base flows for aquatic habitat and other ecological functions during the
seismic remediation activities.

Additional Project Recommendations
We are concerned with the potential impacts that the proposed project will have on fish and
wildlife resources in the area. We provide the following recommendations to further minimize
the impacts associated with the project:

1. Throughout the site, sow native seed mixes with plant species that are beneficial to
pollinators. We are concerned about the introduction and spread of invasive exotic
species in association with the proposed project. Therefore, we strongly recommend
that only species native to the natural communities within the project area be used in
association with all aspects of this project. Furthermore, we recommend that seeds for
native plants that are beneficial to pollinators be included in any erosion control seed
mixes.

2. Measures to avoid or minimize impacts to sensitive resources, including the
significant beaver impoundments and associated streamside wetlands, should
be implemented during construction. Where impacts to wetlands are
unavoidable, we recommend mitigation for any losses. In addition to
providing wildlife habitat, wetland areas perform the important functions of
flood control and water-quality protection. Disturbed wetland areas should be
returned to their original soils and contours. Plant communities should be
reestablished that would result in wetland plant community succession into
habitat of equal or greater value than the habitat that is destroyed.

3. Maintain or establish forested buffers that are a minimum of 100 feet wide
along perennial streams and 50 feet wide along intermittent streams and
wetlands throughout the area of the proposed action. Additionally, where
practicable, no disturbance should occur in these buffer areas. These buffers
would provide travel corridors and habitat areas for wildlife displaced by
secondary development in addition to protecting water quality, stabilizing
stream banks, and providing habitat for aquatic and fishery resources.

4. Maintain new right-of-way and any permanent open areas in a manner that
establishes a complex habitat structure and a sustainable level of grasses, forbs,
and flowering shrubs. We recommend that Duke Energy establish an
Integrated Vegetation Management (IVM) practice using low-volume
herbicide applications when planning management activities for such areas.
Pollinator nest sites in ROWs managed with IVM practices have been found to
contain about 30% more pollinator nesting sites and species richness than
traditionally mowed maintenance areas. Aside from removing problem
Mr. Eric Mularski – HDR, Inc. 4

vegetation, the primary focus should be placed on establishing early-mid
successional forest habitat along the edges of right-of-way with compact
flowering shrubs, native grasses, and wildflowers in open areas.

We appreciate the opportunity to provide these comments. If we can be of assistance or if you
have any questions, please do not hesitate to contact Mr. Bryan Tompkins of our staff at
828/258-3939, Ext. 240. In any future correspondence concerning this project, please reference
our Log Number 4-2-18-023.

Sincerely,

- - original signed - -

Janet Mizzi
Field Supervisor