20041583 Ver 1_Complete File_20040927

O?O? VA
T
co r
D 'C
Mr. Jonathan R. Wise
Duke Power
P.O. Box 1006 (Mail Code EC 13J)
Charlotte, NC, 28201-1006
Michael F. Easley, Governor
William G. Ross Jr., Secretary
North Carolina Department of Environment and Natural Resources
Alan W. Klimek, P.E. Director
Division of Water Quality
October 10, 2005
Re: Stability Berm on the Downstream Side of the Existing Paddy Creek Dam
Burke County
DWQ #04-1583; USACE Action ID. No. 200331252
APPROVAL of 401 Water Quality Certification, MODIFICATION
Dear Mr. Wise:
Attached hereto is a copy of Certification No. 3484, modified as issued to Mr. Jonathan R. Wise of Duke
Power, dated October 10, 2005. In addition, you should get any other federal, state or local permits
before you go ahead with your project including (but not limited to) Solid Waste, Sediment and Erosion
Control, Stormwater, Dam Safety, Non-discharge and Water Supply Watershed regulations.
If we can be of further assistance, do not hesitate to contact us at 919-733-1786.
AWKlcbk
Attachments: Certificate of Completion
cc: Rebekah Newton, U.S. Army Corps of Engineers, Asheville Regulatory Field Office
Kevin Barnett, DWQ, Asheville Regional Office
File Copy
Central Files
Jim Mead, NC Division of Water Resources
Dave Toms, NC Division of Water Quality
Darlene Kucken, NC Division of Water Quality
Filename: 04583Paddy(B urke)401mod
401 Wetlands Certification Unit
1650 Mail Service Center, Raleigh, North Carolina 27699-1650
2321 Crabtree Boulevard, Suite 250, Raleigh, North Carolina 27604
Phone: [phone] /FAX [phone] / Intemet: httr)://h 2o. en r. state. no.us/ncwetlands
Noy` Carolina
Naturally
An Equal Opportunity/Affirmative Action Employer- 50% Recycled/10% Post Consumer Paper
Mr. Jonathan R. Wise of Duke Power.
Page 2 of 4
October 10, 2005
NORTH CAROLINA 401 WATER QUALITY CERTIFICATION
THIS CERTIFICATION is issued in conformity with the requirements of Section 401 Public Laws 92-
500 and 95-217 of the United States and subject to the North Carolina Division of Water Quality (DWQ)
Regulations in 15 NCAC 2H, Section .0500 to Mr. Jonathan R. Wise of Duke Power to fill 1.86 acres of
jurisdictional wetlands and 1,297 linear feet of streams (808 feet of which includes permanent impacts) in
the Catawba River Basin, associated with the construction of a stability berm on the downstream side of the
existing Paddy Creek Dam in Burke County, North Carolina, pursuant to an application filed on the 8th day
of October of 2004 (received October 18, 2004).
The application and supporting documentation provides adequate assurance that the proposed work will
not result in a violation of applicable Water Quality Standards and discharge guidelines. Therefore, the
State of North Carolina certifies that this activity will not violate the applicable portions of Sections 301,
302, 303, 306, 307 of PL 92-500 and PL 95-217 if conducted in accordance with the application, the
supporting documentation, and conditions hereinafter set forth.
This approval is only valid for the purpose and design submitted in the application materials and as
described in the Public Notice. If the project is changed, prior to notification a new application for a new
Certification is required. If the property is sold, the new owner must be given a copy of the Certification
and approval letter and is thereby responsible for complying with all conditions of this Certification. Any
new owner must notify the Division and request the Certification be issued in their name. Should wetland
or stream fill be requested in the future, additional compensatory mitigation may be required as described
in 15A NCAC 2H.0506 (h) (6) and (7). If any plan revisions from the approved site plan result in a
change in stream or wetland impact or an increase in impervious surfaces, the DWQ shall be notified in
writing and a new application for 401 Certification may be required. For this approval to be valid,
compliance with the conditions listed below is required.
Conditions of Certification:
1. Impacts Approved
The following impacts are hereby approved as long as all of the other specific and general
conditions of this Certification (or Isolated Wetland Permit) are met. No other impacts are
approved including incidental impacts:
Amount Approved
Units Plan Location or Reference
Stream 609 (feet) Public Notice
404/CAMA Wetlands 1.61 in 404 Permit Public Notice
Sediment and Erosion Control:
2. Erosion and sediment control practices must be in full compliance with all specifications governing
the proper design, installation and operation and maintenance of such Best Management Practices in
order to protect surface waters standards:
a. The erosion and sediment control measures for the project must be designed,
installed, operated, and maintained in accordance with the most recent version of the
North Carolina Sediment and Erosion Control Planning and Design Manual.
b. The design, installation, operation, and maintenance of the sediment and erosion
control measures must be such that they equal, or exceed, the requirements specified
in the most recent version of the North Carolina Sediment and Erosion Control
Mr. Jonathan R. Wise of Duke Power.
Page 3 of 4
October 10, 2005
Manual. The devices shall be maintained on all construction sites, borrow sites, and
waste pile (spoil) projects, including contractor-owned or leased borrow pits
associated with the project.
c. For borrow pit sites, the erosion and sediment control measures must be designed,
installed, operated, and maintained in accordance with the most recent version of the
North Carolina Surface Mining Manual.
d. The reclamation measures and implementation must comply with the reclamation in
accordance with the requirements of the Sedimentation Pollution Control Act.
3. No waste, spoil, solids, or fill of any kind shall occur in wetlands, waters, or riparian areas beyond the
footprint of the impacts depicted in the 404/401Permit Application. All construction activities,
including the design, installation, operation, and maintenance of sediment and erosion control Best
Management Practices, shall be performed so that no violations of state water quality standards,
statutes, or rules occur;
4. Sediment and erosion control measures shall not be placed in wetlands or waters to the maximum extent
practicable. If placement of sediment and erosion control devices in wetlands and waters is
unavoidable, they shall be removed and the natural grade restored within six months of the date that the
Division of Land Resources has released the project;
Continuing Compliance:
5. Mr. Jonathan R. Wise and Duke Power shall conduct construction activities in a manner consistent with
State water quality standards (including any requirements resulting from compliance with section
303(d) of the Clean Water Act) and any other appropriate requirements of State law and federal law. If
the Division determines that such standards or laws are not being met (including the failure to sustain a
designated or achieved use) or that State or federal law is being violated, or that further conditions are
necessary to assure compliance, the Division may reevaluate and modify this Certification to include
conditions appropriate to assure compliance with such standards and requirements in accordance with
15A NCAC 211.0507(d). Before modifying the Certification, the Division shall notify Mr. Jonathan R.
Wise and Duke Power and the US Army Corps of Engineers, provide public notice in accordance with
15A NCAC 211.0503 and provide opportunity for public hearing in accordance with 15A NCAC
211.0504. Any new or revised conditions shall be provided to Mr. Jonathan R. Wise and Duke Power in
writing, shall be provided to the United States Army Corps of Engineers for reference in any Permit
issued pursuant to Section 404 of the Clean Water Act, and shall also become conditions of the 404
Permit for the project;
Mitigation:
6. Compensatory Mitigation Using the Ecosystem Enhancement Program (EEP)
Mitigation must be provided for the proposed impacts as specified in the table below. We
understand that you wish to make a payment to the Wetlands Restoration Fund administered by
the NC Ecosystem Enhancement Program (EEP) to meet this mitigation requirement. This has
been determined by the DWQ to be•a suitable method to meet the mitigation requirement. Until
the EEP receives and clears your check (made payable to: DENR - Ecosystem Enhancement
Program Office), no impacts specified in this Authorization Certificate shall occur. The EEP
should be contacted at [phone] if you have any questions concerning payment into a
restoration fund. You have one month from the date of this approval to make this payment. For
accounting purposes, this Authorization Certificate authorizes payment into the Wetlands
Restoration Fund to meet the following compensatory mitigation requirement:
Mr. Jonathan R. Wise of Duke Power.
Page 4 of 4
October 10, 2005
Compensatory Mitigation
Required River and Sub-basin Number
Stream 609 (feet) 03050101
Wetlands 2.42 (acres) 03050101
An alternative form of stream mitigation that is acceptable to the Division of Water Quality to satisfy the
compensatory stream mitigation requirement would be to stabilize the steep, eroding slope at the toe of
the Paddy's Creek spillway. If Duke Power decides to pursue this option, then a written mitigation plan
will need to be submitted to DWQ for written approval before bank stabilization is done.
Other conditions:
8. Certificate of Completion
Upon completion of all work approved within the 401 Water Quality Certification or applicable
Buffer Rules, and any subsequent modifications, the applicant is required to return the attached
certificate of completion to the 401/Wetlands Unit, North Carolina Division of Water Quality,
1650 Mail Service Center, Raleigh, NC, 27699-1650.
Also, this approval to proceed with your proposed impacts or to conduct impacts to waters as
depicted in your application shall expire upon expiration of the 404 Permit.
If this Certification is unacceptable to you, you have the right to an adjudicatory hearing upon written
request within sixty (60) days following receipt of this Certification. This request must be in the form of a
written petition conforming to Chapter 150B of the North Carolina General Statutes and filed with the
Office of Administrative Hearings, 6714 Mail Service Center, Raleigh, N.C. 27699-6714. If
modifications are made to an original Certification, you have the right to an adjudicatory hearing on the
modifications upon written request within sixty (60) days following receipt of the Certification. Unless
such demands are made, this Certification shall be final and binding.
This the 10th day of October, 2005
DIVISION OF WATER QUALITY
3484 mod
jkr
imek,
AWK/cbk
W ATF9Q Michael F. Easley, Governor
William G. Ross Jr., Secretary
r North Carolina Department of Environment and Natural Resources
0 Alan W. Klimek, P.E. Director
Division of Water Quality
North Carolina Division of Water Quality
401 Water Quality Certification
Summary of Permitted Impacts and Mitigation Requirements
In accordance with 15A NCAC 2H.0500, Mr. Jonathan R. Wise of Duke Power has permission as outlined below
to impact 1.86 acres of wetlands and 1,297 linear feet of streams for the purpose(s) of construction of a stability
berm on the downstream side of the existing Paddy Creek Dam in Burke County. All activities associated
with these authorized impacts must be conducted with the conditions listed in the attached Permit transmittal letter.
THIS PERMIT IS NOT VALID WITHOUT THE ATTACHMENTS.
COMPENSATORY MITIGATION REQUIREMENTS, ECOSYSTEM ENHANCEMENT PROGRAM
LOCATION:
COUNTY
BASIN/ SUB BASIN
Paddy Creek Dam
Burke
03050101
As required by 15A NCAC 2H.0500, and the conditions of this Permit, you are required to compensate for the above
impacts through the restoration, creation, enhancement or preservation of wetlands and surface waters as outlined
below prior to conducting any activities that impact or degrade the waters of the state.
Note: Acreage requirements proposed to be mitigated through the Ecosystem Enhancement Program must be
rounded to one-quarter acre increments and linear foot requirements must be rounded up to the nearest foot
according to 15 2R.0503(b).
Impacts:
1.61 Acres of Class WL wetlands
609 Linear feet of streams (808 of which is permanent impacts)
Mitigation:
2.42 acres of Class WL wetlands
609 Linear feet of streams
In correspondence dated April 15, 2004, the EEP indicated that up to 5.8 acres and/or 1300 linear feet of mitigation
will be conducted by EEP if necessary.
One of the options you have available to satisfy the compensatory mitigation requirement is through the payment of
a fee to the Wetlands Restoration Fund per NCAC 2R.0503. If you choose this option, please sign this form and
mail it to the Ecosystem Enhancement Program at the address below. An invoice for the appropriate amount of
payment will be sent to you upon receipt of this form. PLEASE NOTE, THE ABOVE IMPACTS ARE NOT
AUTHORIZED UNTIL YOU RECEIVE NOTIFICATION THAT YOUR PAYMENT HAS BEEN PROCESSED
BY THE ECOSYTEM ENHANCMENT PROGRAM.
Signature Date
ECOSYSTEM ENHANCEMENT PROGRAM
1619 Mail Service Center
RALEIGH, N.C. 27669-1619
[phone]
Filename: 04583Paddy(B urke)EEP
l0`" Carolina
t!!ra!!f
401 Wetlands Certification Unit
1650 Mail Service Center, Raleigh, North Carolina 27699.1650
2321 Crabtree Boulevard, Suite 250, Raleigh, North Carolina 27604
Phone: [phone]/ FAX [phone]/ Internet: http://h2o.enr.state.nc.us/ncwetlands
An Equal Opportunity/Affirmative Action Employer- 50% Recycled/10% Post Consumer Paper
From: "Newton, Rebekah L SAW" <[e-mail]>
Date: Mon, 31 Jan 2005 09:10:17 -0500
To: <[e-mail]>
CC: <[e-mail]>
James,
Per our discussion this morning:
Mitigation ratios for the Paddy Creek Da project are fine. Ratios I have described and defended in our
EA are 1:1 for stream impacts an 0 1.5:1 or wetland impacts. The EA is in its final stages and I am moving
ahead towards 404 issuance.
If there is anything else I can do, let me know,
Rebekah
Rebekah L. Newton
Regulatory Specialist - DA Intern
USACE-Asheville Regulatory Field Office
151 Patton Avenue, Room 208
Asheville, NC 28806
828-271-7980 x232
[e-mail]
1 of 1 1/31/2005 4:10 PM
01 - 15? 3

Devine Tarbell & Associates, Inc.
Consulting Gngineve, Scientists, & Regulatory Specialists
February 23, 2005
Mr. David Robinson
Environmental Specialist
North Carolina Ecosystem Enhancement Program
1619 Mail Service Center
Raleigh, NC 27699-1619
Principals:
John J. Dcvine, PI:., President
John C. Tarbcll, PE.
Jaynes M. Lpch
Edwin C. Luttrell, P.E.
024.0065/2.55
J l-S I`"
MAR 0 4 2005
LEI,..
K-'ti'r?i ITY
Subject: Stream and Wetland Credit Time Extension Request,
Payment to NCWRP for Proposed Wetland and Stream Impacts,
Paddy Creek Dam ESSI Project
Burke County, North Carolina
Dear Mr. Robinson:
As the agent for Duke Energy Corporation (Duke), I would like to submit this letter requesting a
time extension for stream and wetland mitigation payment to the North Carolina Department of
Environment and Natural Resources (DENR) Wetland Trust Fund through the North Carolina
Ecosystem Enhancement Program (NCEEP) for impacts proposed as part of the Paddy Creek
Dam Embankment Seismic Stability Improvements (ESS1) Project. Paddy Creek Dam is a
component of the Bridgewater Hydroelectric Development, which is owned and operated by
Duke and regulated by the Federal Energy Regulatory Commission (FERC).
The August 24, 2004 letter from NCEEP granted Duke a time extension to accept payment for
stream and riparian wetland impacts identified as part of the Paddy Creek Darn ESS1 Project,
with payment required by February 24, 2005.
Duke understands that the NCEEP's acceptance of payment is contingent upon receiving the
Section 404 Permit from the U.S. Army Corps of Engineers and the 401 Water Quality
Certification from DENR. In addition, Duke understands that mitigation credit payment limits of
1300 linear feet for stream impacts and 5.8 acres for riparian wetland impacts are available for
use as mitigation on the ESSI Project.
400 South Tryon Street • Suite 2401 - Charlotte, North Carolina 28285
Portland, Maine Charlotte, North Carolina Sacramento, California Bothell, Washington
207-775-4495/1031 (fax) 704-377-4182/4185 (fax) 916-564-4214/4203 (fax) 425-485-5668/5934 (fax)
Syracuse, New York Bellingham, Washington
315-641-1623/1626 (fax) 360-671-1150/1152 (fax)
Mr. David Robinson
February 23, 2005 ??
Paec 2
As a result of changes to the project design and schedule, Duke requests that the NCEEP grant an
additional six-month extension to the February 24, 2005 deadline, allowing Duke to provide
payment to the NCEEP by August 24, 2005.
If additional information is needed concerning these requests, please contact me at (704) 342-
7373 or Mr. Jonathan R. Wise of Duke at [phone].
Sincerely,
DEVINE TARBELL & ASSOCIATES, INC.
James A. McRacken
Senior Wildlife Scientist
cc: Ms. Amanda Jones, USACE
Mr. Kevin Barnett, DWQ
Mr. Jonathan R. Wise, Duke
Ms. Cyndi Karoly, DWQ
NORTH CAROLINA ECOSYSTEM ENHANCEMENT PROGRAM
IN LIEU FEE REQUEST FORM (revised 1/25/05)
Print this form, fill in information and sign, and either mail to NCEEP, 1652 Mail Service Center, Raleigh,
NC 27699-1652, or fax to 919-715-2219. Attachments are acceptable to clarify information on the form.
1. Name of Applicant or Agent * JAMES A. McRACKEN
2. Name of Business * DEVINE TARBELL & ASSOCIATES (DTA)
3. Street Address * 400 S.TRYON ST. WC 2401
4. City, State, Zip * CHARLOTTE,NC 28285
5. Telephone * 704-342-7373
6. Fax
704-377-4185
7. E-mail fames.mcrackenrJdedinetarbell.com
8. Project Name
PADDY CREEK ESSI PROJECT
9. Project Location * PADDY CREEK DAM, LAKES JAMES
10. Lat-Long Coordinates N35° 44.2' W81° 50.88'
11. River Basin
CATAWBA
12. Cataloging Unit (8-digit) ***
03050101
13. Project County *
BURKE
14. Riparian Wetland Impact * 1.86 acres
15. Non-Riparian Wetland Impact * acres
0
16. Coastal Marsh Impact * acres
0
17. Stream-Cold Impact * 0 feet
18. Stream-Cool Impact * feet
0
19. Stream-Warm Impact * feet
1,297
20. ** Buffer-Zone 1 Impact * square feet
0
21. * Buffer-Zone 2 Impact * square feet
0
22. ** Buffer-Total (Zone 1 + Zone 2) * square feet
0
Date: Sianature of Applicant or gent.
I
2/23/2005
Attachments? N Yes 0 No
* Required information; zero answers in 14-22 sflould be indicated with "0" or "N/A", not left blank.
** Buffer mitigation applicable only in the Neuse, Tar-Pamlico and Catawba River Basins
and the Randleman Lake Water Supply Watershed.
*** Go to EPA "Surf Your Watershed" http://cfpub.epa.gov/surf/locate/index.cfm for CU determination.
Direct all questions to Carol Shaw at 919-733-5205 or carol. shaw(Dncmail.net
r
()q-1583

DWre FOSSIL-HYDRO GENERATION
P0We20 Duke Power
, 526 South Church St.
Charlotte, NC 28202
Mailing Address:
PO Box 1006
Charlotte. NC 28201-1006
April 4, 2005
FRVROVF=p
Ms. Rebekah L. Newton APR 7 2005
Asheville Regulatory Field Office DENR-WATER QUALITY
US Army Corps of Engineers Y,V WtDSNjDSTMXYATER6MV
151 Patton Avenue, Room 208
Asheville, North Carolina 28801-5006
Re: Catawba-Wateree Hydroelectric Project, Paddy Creek Dam
Embankment Seismic Stability Improvements at the Bridgewater
Development
Stream and Wetland Mitigation Addendum
USACE File No.: 200331252
Dear Ms. Newton:
Duke Power (Duke) is submitting, for your review and response, this addendum letter for
changes to the amount of stream and wetland mitigation needed for the Paddy Creek Dam
Embankment Seismic Stability Improvement (ESSI) Project, located within the Catawba
River Basin (Cataloging Unit 03050101). The Section 404 Individual Permit received on
February 15, 2005, from the U.S. Army Corps of Engineers (USACE) allows Duke to
permanently impact 639 linear feet of jurisdictional stream channel and 1.82 acres of
jurisdictional wetland. The purpose of this letter is to notify the USACE that due to
additional design work to minimize impacts to these jurisdictional areas, approximately
30 linear feet of jurisdictional stream channel and 0.21 acres of jurisdictional wetland
impacts have been eliminated.
These stream and wetland impact reductions are located within the previously noted 4-1
jurisdictional impact area (Figure 1). With these reductions, the final linear footage for
permanent impacts to jurisdictional streams is 609 linear feet and the final area for
permanent impacts to jurisdictional wetland is 1.61 acres. Duke will base its payment to
the North Carolina Ecosystem Enhancement Program (NCEEP) on these revised values.
www.dukepower.com
Page 2
Should you have any questions or comments regarding this letter, please feel free to call
me at [phone] or James A. McRacken of Devine Tarbell & Associates at (704)
342-7373.
Sincerely,
fit"- ? 014-?
onathan R. Wise
Project Manager
Duke Power
Attachment
Cc: James McRacken - DTA
Alex Grenoble - DTA
Cyndi Karoly - NCDWQ Raleigh
Kevin Barnett - NCDWQ Asheville
William Gilmore - NCEEP
Peter Yarrington - FERC
4-1
Impacted
Wetland
Proposed
•/ Stability Berm
Fill Limit
Existing Culvert
36 -Inch CMP
Proposed
Disturbance
Limits 4-1
Impacted
_ Wetland
Proposed
\ = _ Toe Drains
r30jrL.F.
Previouslypacted Stream
Inflowing
Stream
0.21 AC Previously
Impacted Wetlands j
Non -Impacted 1
Wetlands Proposed
Disturbance
Limits
Devine Tarbell & Associates, Inc. DUKE POWER A DIV. OF DUKE ENERGY CORP.
Consulting Engineers, Scientists. 6 Regulatory Specialists BRIDGEWATER HYDRO STATION
` 50 0 50 100 Figure 1
Revised Drainage st4
400 South Tryon Street
Suite 2401 Impact Map
1 Charlotte, NC 28285 1 DATE I REv
\Permit\IISACF\USACF-PC-15-don 3/24/2005 2:26:54 PM
i
I
I
I
1. �1-
Devine Tarbell & Associates, Inc. DUKE POWER A DIV. OF DUKE ENERGY CORP.
Consulting Engineers, Scientists. 6 Regulatory Specialists BRIDGEWATER HYDRO STATION
` 50 0 50 100 Figure 1
Revised Drainage st4
400 South Tryon Street
Suite 2401 Impact Map
1 Charlotte, NC 28285 1 DATE I REv
\Permit\IISACF\USACF-PC-15-don 3/24/2005 2:26:54 PM

Duke
Power,
A Duke Energy Company
September 21, 2004
Mr. John Dorney - Supervisor
North Carolina Department of Environment and Natural Resources
Division of Water Quality - Wetlands Unit
1650 Mail Service Center
Raleigh, North Carolina 27699-1650
Re: Catawba-Wateree Hydroelectric Project, Paddy Creek Dam
Embankment Seismic Stability Improvements at the Bridgewater
Development
Clean Water Act Section 404/401 Individual Permit
USACE File No.: 200331252
Dear Mr. Domey:
Duke Power
526 South Church Strcet
P.O. Box 1006
Charlotte, NC 28201-1006
D
S E P 2 7 2004
DENR • WATER QUAUTY
V,EWDS AND STOR}MWATER ERA1CN
Duke Power is submitting, for your review, this Individual Permit Package for the jurisdictional
waters of the U.S., including wetlands that will be affected by the Paddy Creek Embankment
Seismic Stabilization Improvements (ESSI) Project. Attached to this letter is the Permit
Application, the Project Narrative that describes the proposed ESSI Project, and a preliminary
copy of the erosion and sediment control plan. A check for $475.00 is also included for the 401
Water Quality Certification Fee. This package will satisfy Duke Power and the Federal Energy
Regulatory Commission (FERC) obligations under Section 401 of the Clean Water Act (CWA),
and addresses project-related concerns designed to determine what extent the proposed actions
may affect any jurisdictional waters of the U.S.
Should you have any questions or comments regarding the impact to jurisdictional waters, please
feel free to call me at [phone] or James A. McRacken Jr. at [phone].
Sincerely,
3 nathan R. Wise
Project Manager
Duke Power
Attachments
APPLICATION FOR DEPARTMENT OF THE ARMY PERMIT
(33 CFR 325)
OMB APPROVAL NO. 0710-0003
Expires December 31, 2004
The Public burden for this collection of information is estimated to average 10 hours per response, although the majority of applications should
require 5 hours or less. This includes 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 this
collection of information, including suggestions for reducing this burden, to Department of Defense, Washington Headquarters Service Directorate of
Information Operations and Reports, 1215 Jefferson Davis Highway, Suite 1204, Arlington, VA 22202-4302; and to the Office of Management and
Budget, Paperwork Reduction Project (0710-0003), Washington, DC 20503. 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, 33 USC 1413. 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. 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 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. 12. FIELD OFFICE CODE 1 3. DATE RECEIVED 14. DATE APPLICATION COMPLETED
(ITEMS BELOW TO BE FILLED BY APPLICANT)
5. APPLICANT'S NAME 8. AUTHORIZED AGENT'S NAME AND TITLE (an agent is not required)
Jonathan R. Wise / Project Manager James A. McRacken Jr. / Senior Scientist
6. APPLICANTS ADDRESS 9. AGENTS ADDRESS
Duke Power, P.O. Box 1006 (Mail Code EC 13J) Devine Tarbell & Associates, 400 S. Tryon Street
Charlotte, NC 28201-1006 WC2401 Charlotte, NC 28285
7. APPLICANT'S PHONE NOS. W/AREA CODE 10. AGENT'S PHONE NOS. W/AREA CODE
a. Residence a. Residence
b. Business 980. 373.4188 b. Business 704.342.7373
11. STATEMENT OF AUTHORIZATION
I hereby authorize, James A. McRacken Jr. to act in my behalf as my agent in the processing of this application and to furnish,
upon request, supplemental information in support of this permit application.
rx/L'
APPLIC2j S SIGNATURE DATE
? NAME, LOCATION, AND DESCRIPTION OR PROJECT OR ACTIVITY
12. PROJECT NAME OR TITLE (see instructions)
Paddy Creek Dam Embankment Seismic Stability Improvements Project
13. NAME OF WATERBODY, IF KNOWN (r applicable) 14. PROJECT STREET ADDRESS (if applicable)
Paddy Creek/Lake James
15. LOCATION OF PROJECT
Burke North Carolina
COUNTY STATE
16. OTHER LOCATION DESCRIPTIONS, IF KNOWN (see instructions) Section, Township, Range, Lat/Lon, and/or Accessors's Parcel Number, for example.
Paddy creek below the Lake James' Paddy Creek dam, but above the intersection of Muddy Creek
17. DIRECTIONS TO THE SITE
1-40 to exit 100, turn south and travel to SR 1168 and turn right. Go to Main Street and take left. Take a right on Bridge St. And
travel to Linville St. / powerhouse rd. And take a left. Travel approximately 3.8 miles to the Bridgewater hydroelectric plant. Project
area is on your left before you reach the powerhouse but after the bridge over the Catawba River. (See attached location map)
ENG FORM 4345NOD, Jul 97 EDITION OF FEB 94 IS OBSOLETE (Proponent: CECW-OR)
18. Nature of Activity (Descnption of project, include all features)
The construction of an approximately 100' counterweight stability berm on the downstream side of Paddy Creek Dam. This will
involve the placement of approximately 1 million cubic yards of fill on the downstream of the dam. In addition, onsite borrow areas
are planned to be utilized, therefore, temporary and permanent roadways will need to be constructed to transport the borrow material
to the construction site. (Please see attached)
19. Project Purpose (Describe the reason or purpose of the project, see instructions)
To provide dam safety improvements in the event of a catastrophic earthquake event. These improvements have been mandated
by the Federal Energy Regulatory Commission (FERC).
USE BLOCKS 20-22 IF DREDGED AND/OR FILL MATERIAL IS TO BE DISCHARGED
20. Reason(s) for Discharge
The construction of the stability berm, the borrow haul roads, and the placement of sediment and erosion control structures will result
in a discharge of fill material into jurisdictional waters of the U.S., including wetlands. Please see attached.
21. Type(s) of Material Being Discharged and the Amount of Each Type in Cubic Yards
Approximately 1 million cubic yards of soil for the stability berm and various amounts for haul road and sediment and erosion control
impacts. Please see attached.
22. Surface Area in Acres of Wetlands or Other Waters Filled (see instructions)
Approximately 1.86 acres of jurisdictional wetland and approximately 1297 feet of jurisdictional surface water (808 ft. permanent
and 489 temporary) will be impacted. Please see attached.
23. Is Any Portion of the Work Already Complete? Yes _ No X IF YES, DESCRIBE THE COMPLETED WORK
24. Addresses of Adjoining Property Owners, Lessees, Etc., Whose Property Adjoins the Waterbody (if more than can be entered here, please attach a supplemental list).
See Attached Adjacent Property Owners List.
25. List of Other Certifications or Approvals/Denials Received from other Federal, State, or Local Agencies for Work Described in This Application.
AGENCY TYPE APPROVAL IDENTIFICATION NUMBER DATE APPLIED DATE APPROVED DATE DENIED
See
Attached
Would include but is not restricted to zoning, building, and flood plain permits
26. To the best of my knowledge the proposed activity described in my permit application complies with and will be conducted in a manner that is
consistent with the Louisiana Coastal Management Program.
Application is hereby made for a permit or permits to authorize the work described in this application. I certify that the information in this application is
complete and accurate. 1 further certify that I possess the authority to undertake the work described herein or am acting as the duly authorized agent
of the applicant.
i, l 92-07 0 `l
GNATURE OF APPLICANT DATE SIGNATURE OF AG Dr AYE
Th? pplication 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 4345NOD, Jul 97 EDITION OF FEB 94 IS OBSOLETE (Proponent: CECW-OR)
Duke Power Paddy Creek Dam
ESSI Project
PROJECT NARRATIVE
INTRODUCTION
This Individual Permit Project Narrative is provided to satisfy Duke and the Federal Energy
Regulatory Commission (FERC) obligations under Sections 404 and 401 of the Clean Water Act
(CWA), and addresses project-related concerns designed to determine what extent the proposed
actions may affect any jurisdictional waters of the U.S., including wetlands around the Paddy
Creek Dam.
The Duke Power Corporation (Duke) is proposing to construct a seismic stability berm on the
Paddy Creek Dam, which is located on Lake James in North Carolina. The name for this Duke
project is the Paddy Creek Dam Embankment Seismic Stability Improvements Project (the ESSI
Project).
PROJECT DESCRIPTION AND HISTORY
The Bridgewater Hydroelectric Development is owned and operated by Duke and is located
approximately 10 miles west of Morganton, North Carolina, in Burke and McDowell Counties
16 (Figure 1). The reservoir, Lake James, was formed by the damming of three water courses: the
Catawba River by the Catawba Dam, Paddy Creek by Paddy Creek Dam, and the Linville River
by Linville Dam (Figure 2).
The three dams were constructed by the semi-hydraulic fill method to approximately elevation
(EL) 1224 feet mean sea level (MSL) between the years 1916 and 1919. Dams constructed
utilizing these methods are typically more susceptible to liquefaction under seismic loading
conditions. "Liquefaction is a phenomenon in which the strength and stiffness of a soil is reduced
by earthquake shaking or other rapid loading. Liquefaction and related phenomena have been
responsible for tremendous amounts of damage in historical earthquakes around the world.
Liquefaction occurs in saturated soils, that is, soils in which the space between individual
particles is completely filled with water. This water exerts a pressure on the soil particles that
influences how tightly the particles themselves are pressed together. Prior to an earthquake, the
water pressure is relatively low. However, earthquake shaking can cause the water pressure to
increase to the point where the soil particles can readily move with respect to each otheru."
r ?
1
i&
\
q� h
Hart
1
a _
1st
A ION L F R -y
+� _ w `o
��-
s
ra—
ddy "et'
Lek,
G3
OM11 1
F(r
`lfi
r IrMYe pra •
l \
LAKE
CeWW�
�l
r
/' C `Otp .1oer
7 g
1 rpl
6
�'' /" 1
S
�f+'t•' _ gee \. \ Mapn411a
_
'ky
0
r
n t
n
Cenl*r
so
i Patton
�'
r1lttOtn � �
. �o�� ,
! 1 •rr J oLoww
��---
—
SO
MOUNTAINS
Devine Tarbell & Associates, Inc.
DUKE POWER A DIV. OF DUKE ENERGY CORP.
Consulting Engineers, Scirntists, & Rcgulatory Specialists
Project area
BRIDGEWATER HYDRO STATION
TA 400 South Tryon Street
5,000
0 _5,000 10,000
rte-
Figure 1. Vicinity Location
Map
Suite 2401
Feet
Charlotte, NC 28285
Source
data:
r oatF
SHEET 1 OF 1 0830-04
n
Hickory, NC 1:100,000 -scale USGS planimetric map, 1986­snri

t?Yti. u ?d ?\ l ! 1 S r`.
•?- ? ? ? ? l' ~ 1,
Oboth
Cern
o'Rock Hill
"r Ch d? P ?r Q .7
• 199 •?4 y ` !- ( ) j '// PIb7GAH/ w
1./,71• "-/FOREST C4 P q
W fff ,
net 8-ridge `o RIVE Linville Dam
vdle Da
Outlet Gate
owerho
LAKE JAMES
I' F
I N I I{' ??_`-J 7n NORMAL POOL fLEV /2pp ? A
r1 ( L L E f
.7 Paddy Creek V
` - Spillway
". _
wba River -? n ra A
Catawba Dam / Paddy Creek 11 4 Dry Dam Pad,.y ? f?
t \ 4 I 1 dv Creek
. r '
r2ri0' P???,
fr CoDenln
\a `0
q ?`.,J \t3 1115 L1? u
so 1 06
1/4 `? $ridgewete'
/ i 1094 / s
=a°.y IT pd ndgewater 701
Bri w;Wr Ch Ce 09
Devine Tarbell & Associates, Inc. ~ DUKE POWER A DIV. OF DUKE ENERGY CORP.
Consulting Engineers, Sciernsts,& Regulatory Specialists ® Dam BRIDGEWATER HYDRO STATION
T? S400 uite South Tryon Street 1,000 0 1,000 2,000 Figure 2. Dam Location Map
Suite 2401 Feet
Charlotte, NC 28285
tlouros data: Ashford, Oak Hill, Marlon Fiat, Ohm Alpha, NC BNEFT NO. O?TE aEv
UOO81:24,tM0.soale topographic maps SHEET1 OF1 0830 4
Duke Power Paddy Creek Dam
ESSI Project
Preliminary post-seismic stability analyses for the Paddy Creek Dam indicates that
improvements, conceptually identified as a counter weight stability berm constructed on the
downstream slope (the proposed alternative), are required to satisfy FERC specified factors of
safety. The size of the berm will be determined as part of design-level analyses.
The Paddy Creek Dam is an earthen embankment with grass covering the downstream slope. The
pavement along the crest is an asphalt two-lane secondary road (S.R. 1233/Upper Powerhouse
Road) maintained by the North Carolina Department of Transportation (NCDOT). Rip rap
protects a majority of the upstream slope with the freeboard covered with rip rap to approximate
elevation (EL) 1200 transitioning to grass approximately 10 feet above full pond elevation.
Much of the approximately 250-acre Paddy Creek ESSI Project area (Figure 3) and vicinity
(Figure 1), located within the Catawba River Basin, has been modified and does not present the
types of natural communities to be expected had the area and associated habitats been left
undisturbed. The impoundment of Lake James, an approximately 6,400-acre lake with
approximately 150 miles of wooded shoreline, has changed the local topography and hydrology.
Additionally, many of the surrounding hillsides have been cleared within the recent past and are
regenerating as pine stands. Furthermore, many of the valley sections have been largely
converted to nursery plots for woody ornamental tree stock or are utilized for rural residential
purposes.
The topography of the project area is comprised of strongly sloping to very steep uplands; with
narrow, level floodplains along streams; and wide, nearly level flood plains and gently sloping to
strongly sloping stream terraces along the Catawba River. The normal pool elevation for Lake
James is approximately 1,200 feet mean sea level (MSL). The approximate elevation at the
bottom of the Paddy Creek Dam is 1,070 feet MSL, indicating an approximate drop in elevation
of 130 feet.
STATED PURPOSE OF THE PROJECT
Duke began its preliminary planning and field studies in the early 1990's for the proposed
modifications to the Paddy Creek dam, which is one of the three dams that impound Lake James.
The other dams include both the Catawba and Linville dams. The work planned will increase the
stability of the dams in the event of a large earthquake. These improvements, mandated by the
E
4
-
710
1
eke
Z games a
$? Approx. 250 acres'
Padd Iti ?? .?•R
?-
,l ?
mail, a-
Cpl JC M\\
4P 4 \\
Devine Tarbell & Associates, Inc. DUKE POWER A DIV. OF DUKE ENERGY CORP.
'onsuftug Engineers. Scientists, h Regulal,Ky Sp"ahsls - - - - Project boundary BRIDGEWATER HYDRO STATION
T400 South Tryon Street 51!2.-_ 0 - NO 1,000 Figure 3. Project Boundary Map
Suite 2401 Feet
Charlotte, NC 28285
Source data: Oak HM and Alan Aplne, NC, 1:24,000-scaN US(3S SHEET ra. O?TE aEv
tapop apNc maps SHEET 1 OF 1 08.30-04
Duke Power Paddy Creek Dam
ESSI Project
FERC, are being constructed as part of a nationwide effort to increase the safety of dams during
potentially catastrophic earthquake events.
The proposed ESSI Project at Paddy Creek Dam is planned to consist of a large earthen
counterweight stability berm, which will support the downstream slope of the existing structure
during and following the design earthquake (Figure 4). Due to the quantity of soil and material
needed for this FERC mandated project, soil areas adjacent to the Paddy Creek dam have been
tested for suitability and accepted for their use in the construction of the counterweight stability
berm. In addition, the materials that will be taken from the existing dam will likely be unsuitable
for use in constructing the stability berm because of their high moisture content; however, when
practical, these materials are planned to be utilized as backfill in the onsite borrow areas as part of
the proposed site reclamation. At this time in the design planning process, it appears the berm
will be approximately 150 feet thick (Figure 4).
During the planning phase of the ESSI Project, field assessments for jurisdictional waters of the
U.S., including wetlands were conducted during March, April, and September 2003, as well as
February 2004, to identify the natural habitats and to delineate the jurisdictional waters of the
S U.S., including wetlands and streams and document the extent to which the resources of concern
would be affected by the proposed project.
PROJECT HABITAT DESCRIPTIONS
Much of the total ESSI Project area has been modified and does not present the types of natural
communities to be expected had the habitats been left undisturbed. Most dramatically, the
impoundment of Lake James, including the historic construction of the Paddy Creek, Catawba,
and Linville dams, has changed the local topography and hydrology. Associated construction of
the nearby Linville Dam powerhouse, substation, power lines, roadways, and river access
deployment areas has also significantly affected the natural environment. Additionally, broad
sections of the hillsides have been cleared within recent decades and are now densely forested
with planted white pine (Pinus strobes), and the flatter valley sections have been largely
converted to nursery plots for woody ornamental stock.
The more natural community assemblages are found in the portions of the landscape that have
proven less suitable for human use. These areas include the steeper hillsides and the wetter
40 drainage bottoms near the streams. The major natural communities found on the ESSI Project are
6
•
State Rood 1233
MCDOT Maintained)
t
Berm Top Width Elv. 1225 Ft.
Approximately Mean WSEL 1200 Ft
150 Feet
Lake James
coQo
,
Q e
,oQ
Existing
Qo?Z6 Paddy Creek
Dom
to.
try
•
Devine Torbell & Associotes, Inc. DUKE POWER A DIV. OF DUKE ENERGY CORP.
Consulting Engineers. Scientists.6 Regulatory Specialists BRIDGEWATER HYDRO STATION
Not To Scal F i gure 4
e Paddy Creek
l )Suit aae 5240 Tryon Street Stob i l i ty Berm Section
Chorlotte. NC 28285
nLE NAAE A REY
USACE-PC-O4.DGN 08-19-04
Duke Pmver Paddy Creek Dam
ESSI Project
stream riparian and upland habitats. The stream riparian areas and the wetlands are typically
composed of tulip poplar (Liriodendron tulipifera), red maple (Ater rubrum), river birch (Betula
nigra), and sweetgum (Liquidambar styraciua). Corresponding understory species were
ironwood (Carpinus caroliniana), silky dogwood (Corms anionulnl) and Chinese privet
(Ligustrlan sinense). Other common plants included giant cane (Arundinaria gigantea), Japanese
honeysuckle (Lonicera japonica), soft rush (Juncus eff uses), shallow sedge (Carex lurida), and
jewel-weed (Impatiens capensis).
In the adjacent uplands, the habitat consists of a mix of white pine, tulip poplar, sweet-gum and
red maple. Other canopy species present were American beech (Fagus grandifolia) and northern
red oak (Quercus rubra). Understory trees and shrubs included flowering dogwood (Corn us
jlorida), American holly (Ilex opaca), and rhododendron (Rhododendron inaxin111m1); common
herbaceous species included Christmas fern (Polystichum acrostichoides), little sweet Betsy
(Trillium cuneatunz), violets (Viola sp.) and heart-leaf foamflower (Tiarella cordifolia).
During the field assessments, jurisdictional waters of the U.S., including wetlands, within the
0 Paddy Creek ESSI Project boundary, were delineated using the 1987 Corps of Engineers Wetland
Delineation Manuals. The "routine on-site determination method" was selected as the most
appropriate delineation technique. Wetlands were considered present when observations of
vegetation, hydrology, and soils indicated that the three-parameter criteria for wetland
identification were met. The wetlands found within the Paddy Creek ESSI Project boundary were
classified using the U.S. Fish and Wildlife's (USFWS) wetland classification systemv.
Jurisdictional stream and wetland boundaries were flagged by Devine Tarbell & Associates
(DTA) personnel and located by professional surveyor for a jurisdictional verification from the
USACE.
During the jurisdictional waters assessment, five drainages which are made up of jurisdictional
creek and wetland habitats, were observed and documented within the subject property (Figure
5). A description and location of each of the drainages is provided below and in Table 1. In
addition, relevant photographs are included as an appendix to this narrative.

8
•
•
U
h
3 13 >
U
??
ftw, am- low-
?????¦
l A oo ?
? .a a a I,
N ?? A
¦
¦
A A
aiiiiati,
/ I
I
I
I
I

Devine Torbell & Associates, Inc.
Consulting Engineers. Scientists. 6 Regulolory Speciolisls
40 ?? k 400 South Tryon Street
Suite 2401
Charlotte, NC 28285
4V .420 _890

v ?e
v v
? U

40100120 ago?naa0a0
¦
¦
¦
¦
¦
A ¦
¦
¦
v
A
¦
¦
¦
¦
w/
x¦ ?
?/ O
U¦ p
¦
/
I
I
I
I
I
DUKE POWER A DIV. OF DUKE ENERGY CORP.
BRIDGEWATER HYDRO STATION
Figure 5
Droinope Feature
Loco ion map
FILE
U..L REV
OS-28.04
n
Duke Power
0 Table 1 - Jurisdictional Waters within the Paddy Creek Project Area

Paddy Creek Dam
ESSI Project
Total Stream
Drainage Stream Wetland Total Wetland
Length
Number Order(s) Type(s) Area (acres)
(linear feet)
D-0 1 First 455 PFO 0.04
D-02 First 371 PSS 0.08
D-03 First and 2904 PSS 0.03
Second
D-04 First and 4417 PFO/PSS/PEM 3.36
Second
D-05 First 1754 PFO/PSS 0.40
TOTAL 9901 3.91
Legend
PFO - Palustrine Forested
PSS - Palustrine Slirub/Scrub
PEM - Palustrine Emergent
Drainage #1 is located west of the tailrace of the Linville Dam Powerhouse and the Catawba
River. In addition, it is also located approximately 150 feet west from where Powerhouse Road
crosses the Catawba River (Figure 6). This drainage consists of a jurisdictional first order
perennial stream with an associated palustrine forested jurisdictional wetland (0.04-acres). The
stream originates in a power transmission line right-of-way and flows to the east for
approximately 455 feet (not including wetland length) within the Paddy Creek ESSI Project
boundary. The stream then flows through a culvert under Powerhouse Road, where it flows into
the Catawba River. The vegetation found in the drainage and wetland was river birch, ironwood,
sweetgum, rhododendron, American holly, wild garlic (.411hun sp.), goldenrod (Solidago sp.),
Christmas fern, rough bedstraw (Galiuni asprelhun), Japanese honeysuckle, blackberry (Rubes
sp.), and greenbrier (Smilax) sp.
The soil characteristics found within the drainage were taken from the jurisdictional wetland
located near the eastern end of the drainage. The soil was noted to range from a silty sand in the
upper profile to a sandy clay in the lower portion of the studied profile. The soil matrix colors
40 were of a low chroma with bright mottles per the MunselP' Soil Color Chart. In addition, mineral
concretions were found throughout the soil profile.
10
'Y ..
s
0
co
G
N
a
24 Culvert
? CZ
• d
Jurisdictiona
Stream `
Drainage
#I 1
1
1
I
1
I
Paddy Creek
ESSI Project
Boundary
Devine Torbell11 Associotes, Inc.
4 CConsulting Engineers. Scientists. 6 Regulotory Speclollsls
100 0 100 200 300
TX 400 South Tryon Street
Suite 2401
Charlotte. NC 28285
DUKE POWER A DIV. OF DUKE ENERGY CORP.
BRIDGEWATER HYDRO STATION
Figure 6
Drainage $0
Jurisdictional Map
FILE N-E
??; Power ,`?
Transmission `.?
1 R/W
1 ,
1 ?
Jur.isdiction`ol
Wet I nd `?
1 ,
Duke PoNver Paddy Creek Dam
ESSI Project
The hydrology indicators found in this Drainage #1 jurisdictional wetland area consisted of
standing surface water and saturated soils. In addition, sediment deposits, drainage patterns,
oxidized root channels, and water stained leaves were observed during the field wetland
assessment.
Drainage #2 is located in the southeastern portion of the Paddy Creek ESSI Project site, where it
is intersected by a dirt site access road before this small drainage flows into Muddy Creek (Figure
7). This drainage flows into Muddy Creek approximately 4000 feet upstream from the where
Muddy Creek converges with the Catawba River. Drainage #2 consists of two jurisdictional first
order perennial streams with an associated palustrine shrub/scrub jurisdictional wetland (0.08-
acres). The streams associated with Drainage #2 have a length of approximately 371 linear feet
(Figure 7).
The vegetation observed in the drainage and wetland habitats was red maple, black willow (Salix
uigra), ironwood, American holly, silky dogwood, soft rush, jewel-weed, and goldenrod. The
vegetation found in the surrounding uplands was black cherry (Primus serotina), white pine,
American beech, red cedar (Juuipents virginiana), ironwood, flowering dogwood, crossvine
(Biguonia capreolata), little sweet Betsy, violets, heart-leaf foamflower, and small Solomon seal
(Polygonatunt biflorum).
The soil characteristics found within the drainage was taken from the jurisdictional wetland
located near the middle of the drainage. The soil was observed to range from a silty sand in the
upper profile to a clayey silt in the lower portion of the studied profile. The soil matrix colors
were of a low chroma per the Munsellz' Soil Color Chart.
The hydrology indicators found in this jurisdictional wetland consisted of standing surface water
and saturated soils to the surface. In addition, drainage patterns and water-stained leaves were
observed during the field wetland assessments.
Drainage #3 starts at the toe of the Paddy Creek/Linville Spillway and flows south to Muddy
Creek (Figure 8). This drainage consists of the plunge pool that is located at the toe of the
spillway and a small first order intermittent/perennial stream with several areas of open water
pools and a small jurisdictional palustrine shrub/scrub wetland located on the west side of the
drainage and approximately 550 feet upstream from the stream intersects with Muddy Creek.
12

•
0
O
a?
U
U
Q
L
° Jurisdictional
Wetland
-8" Culvert
Jurisdictional Drainage
Stream #2

I?
•

.Lx
O
o?
?O
C
c?
PG
Paddy Creek
ESSI Project
Boundary
DUKE POWER A DIV. OF DUKE ENERGY CORP.
BRIDGEWATER HYDRO STATION
Figure 7
Drainage $$2
Jurisdictional Mop

Devine Torbell & Associates, Inc.
Consulting Engineers. Scientists. 6 Regulotory Spec;ofats
T 400 south Tryon street 1 00 0 100 200 300
l ll Suite 2401
Chorlotte. NC 28285
ME N-E
USACE-
05.11-04
•
J
•
i
r
1
1
Plunge
1
Poo I 1
1
1
1
1
1
1
1
1
Crgek.•••• ?•
M?pad:y. fiB ,.
oundory
so E551 proiec /
Open
Water
Drainage
#4
Paddy Creek - Linville
Spillway
Power
Transmission
R/W
I
Jurisdictional
Drainage Stream
#3

Power
Transmission ??.,•'?
U
xNZ oo Drainage
#5
0
Jurisdictional
Wetland
R/W
36" CMP
Culvert
Devine Torbell & Associates, Inc.
Consulting Engineers, Scientists, 6 Regulatory Specialists
?T{/?A???\ 100 0 100 200 300
i i I l I
400 South Tryon Street
Suite 2401
Charlotte. NC 28285
Q0
GG
PG
.Lx
O
a
0
Cl)
0
U
U
Q
x
l
O
ood -?
?
cao
GGeSy ?A-
11 Qp
? P c 0? i
opt aa?, ?° i
Qo o?
Jurisdictional
Stream
Drainage
#3
y
• b
0
DUKE POWER A OM OF DUKE ENERGY CORP.
BRIDGEWATER HYDRO STATION
Figure 8
Drainage #3
Jurisdictional flop
FILE N-E HEv
1 I USACE•PC•08.DGN 1 05.19.041
Duke Power Paddy Creek Dam
ESSI Project
This stream starts as a first order changes to a second order stream due to an additional first order
perennial stream, the Paddy Creek drainage (Drainage 4), which intersects just above the noted
jurisdictional wetland. The amount of wetland and stream found during the jurisdictional
assessment was approximately 0.03-acres of jurisdictional wetland and approximately 2904 linear
feet of jurisdictional stream.
The vegetation found within the drainage and jurisdictional wetland was tulip poplar, black
cherry, flowering dogwood, red maple, American holly, painted buckeye (Aesculus sylvatica),
swamp rose (Rosa palustris), Chinese privet, giant cane, shallow sedge, galax (Galax aphylla),
little sweet Betsy, marsh blue violet (Viola cucullata), and Japanese honeysuckle.
The soil characteristics found within the drainage were taken from the jurisdictional wetland and
the adjacent uplands. The soil observed in the upland portion of this drainage ranged from totally
rock fields to a clayey sand soil throughout the soil profile. The soil observed in the jurisdictional
wetland ranged from a silty clay to a sandy silty clay. The soil matrix colors in the wetland were
of a low chroma with brightly colored mottles per the Munsell" Soil Color Chart.
Is The hydrology indicators found in this jurisdictional wetland area consisted of standing surface
water and saturated soils. In addition, water marks on vegetation, drainage patterns, oxidized root
channels, and water stained leaves were observed during the field wetland determination.
Drainage #4 is located in the western portion of the Paddy Creek ESSI Project area and is in close
proximity with the toe of the slope for Paddy Creek Dam (Figure 9). This drainage consists of
three first order perennial streams which combine to make a second order stream. In addition,
adjacent to these surface waters is a jurisdictional wetland system made up of four separate but
connected jurisdictional wetlands. These wetlands are a mixture of palustrine forested,
shrub/scrub and emergent habitats. The amount of wetland and stream found during the
jurisdictional assessment was approximately 3.36-acres of jurisdictional wetland and 4417 linear
feet of jurisdictional stream not including the wetland length.
The vegetation found in the drainage and jurisdictional wetlands was river birch, ironwood, tulip
poplar, red maple, tulip poplar, black cherry, flowering dogwood, red maple, shallow sedge,
jewel-weed, fetterbush (Leucothoe racentosa), greenbrier, American holly, Chinese privet, giant
cane, shallow sedge, poison ivy (Toxicodendron radicans), and Japanese honeysuckle.
15
C7
t

M
m
U
O
C_
O
L
O

m O
Q C
C O E
O o

L u 0
U
O L
O ?-
2 v?
Co L
4- C
U O
}
2 s
•- 2
L
7
c
o?
}
U L/
vL
aN
L
?? 7
%
OJ
9O
a a
>r
O ?
m
Y ?
J ;
1
•
1
1
1
1
1
1
/
/
1
1
1
1
I
I
1
/
I
I
/
1
C ; ` ..........,,
U) / 0
m 3 I7CC
.: E
0 , ? m 1 0
. a 0 Im
U

4
C
L
u
m
O
C_
O
L /
O
t
r
DI-
X10
a:a
1N
1
IW
I
1
I
I
I
I
I
I
I
v ?? O yy
? } E
U O
D L
N N
I? L
7
Devine Torbell & Associates, Inc.
Consulting Engineers. Scientists. 6 Regulolory Specialists
400 South Tryon Street
rTt?ly Suite 2401
Charlotte, NC 28285
DUKE POWER A DIV. OF DUKE ENERGY CORP.
BRIDGEWATER HYDRO STATION
200 0 200 400 600
Figure 9
Drainage u 4
Jurisdictional Mop
FILE N-C
05-12-04
Duke Power Paddy Creek Dam
ESSI Project
The soil characteristics found within the drainage was taken from the jurisdictional wetlands
located throughout the drainage. The soils ranged from silty clay to a sandy silt. The soil matrix
colors were of a low chroma with some areas of bright mottles per the Munsell" Soil Color
Chart.
The hydrology indicators found in this jurisdictional wetland consisted of standing surface water
and saturated soils to the ground surface. In addition, oxidized root channels in the upper 12
inches, drainage patterns, and water stained leaves were observed during the field wetland
assessments.
Drainage #5 is located in the southeast portion of the Paddy Creek ESSI Project site (Figure 10).
This drainage consists of a first order stream that flows north from the southern Paddy Creek
ESSI Project boundary to where it intersects with Drainage #3 just before the drainage flows into
Muddy Creek. The jurisdictional palustrine forested and shrub/scrub wetland is located on the
west side of the stream and is approximately 0.40-acres in size. The amount of stream found
during the jurisdictional assessment was approximately 1754 linear feet of jurisdictional stream,
not including the wetland length.
0, The vegetation found in the drainage and jurisdictional wetlands was silky dogwood, soft rush,
goldenrod, microstegium (Microsteghun vimineum), tearthumb (Polygomun sagittatum), Indian
strawberry (Duchesnea indica) shallow sedge, and Japanese honeysuckle.
The soil characteristics found within the drainage was taken from the jurisdictional wetland
located on the west side of the drainage. The soil observed was silty clay throughout the studied
profile. The soil matrix colors were of a low chroma with some areas of bright mottles per the
Munsell" Soil Color Chart.
The hydrology indicators found in this jurisdictional wetland consisted of saturated soils in the
upper 12 inches (two inches from the surface). In addition, oxidized root channels in the upper
12 inches and drainage patterns were observed during the field wetland assessments.
•
17

t
.1
Power
Transmission
R/W
Drainage
#5 f
1
Drainage i
#3
100-Year
?Floodplain
Jurisdictional r'?
Stream
Jurisdictional
/ Wetland
.r-.Jurisdictional
Stream
Paddy Creek
ESSI Project
Boundary
i
r
Paddy Creek
ESSI Project : i
Boundary
i
Devine Torbell & Associates, Inc.
Consulting Engineers. Scientists. & Regulatory Specialists
100 0 100 200 300
?T:X? 400 South Tryon Street
Suite 2401
Charlotte. NC 28285
DUKE POWER A DIV. OF DUKE ENERGY CORP.
BRIDGEWATER HYDRO STATION
Figure 10
Drainage s$5
Jurisdictional Map
FILE NN E
USACE-PC-10
Duke Power Paddy Creek Dam
ESSI Project
IMPACTS TO JURISDICTIONAL WATERS OF THE U.S. INCLUDING WETLANDS
• AND STREANIS
Due to the construction of the Paddy Creek ESSI Project, there will be unavoidable impacts to
jurisdictional waters of the U.S. including wetlands. Within the five drainages that have been
noted within the Paddy Creek ESSI Project boundary, four of the drainages will have permanent
impacts to approximately 1.86-acres of jurisdictional wetland habitat. In addition, approximately
1280-linear feet of jurisdictional streams will be impacted either temporarily (472 linear feet) or
permanently (808 linear feet) by this ESSI Project (Table 2).
Table 2. Jurisdictional Waters within the Paddy Creek Project Area to be Impacted
•

Drainage
And
Impact
Number Temporary or
Permanent
Impact Stream Length
Impacted
Permanent
linear feet Stream Length
Impacted
Temporary
linear feet Wetland Area
Impacted Permanently
(acres)
1-1 Permanent 169 - 0.04
2-1 Permanent 231 - 0.08
3-1 Permanent and
Temporary 16 54 -
4-1 Permanent 30 - 0.87
4-2 Permanent - - 0.53
4-3 Permanent - - 0.30
44 Permanent 310 -
4-5 Temporary - 270 -
4-6 Temporary - 50 -
4-7 Permanent - - 0.04
4-8 Temporary and
Permanent 52 25 -
5-1 Temporary - 73 -
TOTAL 808 472 1.86
Drainage #1
The impacts to jurisdictional areas in Drainage #1 will consist of a small perennial stream and an
associated small wetland (Figure 11). The small stream associated with the impacts starts within
19
Linville Power Station
•
•
fisting
24" Culvert
0

Access Road n
t
? ? co
Power :?
`% Transmission :??
`? R/W ??
Paddy Creek ??? ??? -5
ESSI Project oG
Boundary 0 ? (J)
? ? co
a
Drainage `?
O ' # 1 ? /?
411" 401
Stream •
Impact
1 -1
1-1.
Non-Impacted Wetland
Stream Impact Stream
Impact
100 0 100 200 300
1120
1100
1080
0+00
Proposed
Construction
ExistinRl Ground
1-00 2100
Stream Crossing 1-1
f ? t
400 South Tryon Street
Suite 2401
Charlotte. NC 28285
DUKE POWER A DIV. OF DUKE ENERGY CORP.
BRIDGEWATER HYDRO STATION
I Figure 11 I
Drainage #11
Impact Mop
FILE -E
USACE-PC-
Devine Torbell & Associates, Inc.
Consulting Engineers, Scientists, 6 Regulatory Specialists
Duke Power Paddy Creek Dam
ESSI Project
• the power transmission right-of-way and flows to the east toward the Catawba River.
Approximately 169 linear feet of stream in this drainage will be impacted by culverting due to the
proposed construction of the Paddy Creek ESSI Project (Table 2).
In addition, the jurisdictional wetland found in this drainage will also be impacted due to the
culverting. The entire wetland, approximately 1,742-square feet (0.04-acres), and associated
stream will be impacted due to the roadway crossing (Table 2). This crossing is essential, so that
the vehicles hauling the fill material for the construction of the stabilization berm can transport
material from the borrow areas in the eastern portion of the site to the proposed berm located in
the western portion of the site. This crossing will be a permanent crossing of jurisdictional areas
and will be noted as Impact Number 1-1 (Table 2).
Drainage #2
The impacts to jurisdictional areas in Drainage #2 will consist of two small perennial streams and
the associated jurisdictional wetland (Figure 12). The small streams associated with the impacts
start approximately 105 feet above the associated wetland and intersect approximately 65 feet
above the wetland. The streams flow into the wetland that was created by the improper
40 installation of a culvert pipe under an existing dirt access roadway. The invert of the culvert
appears to have been installed too high, which created a damming effect. As water flows under
the roadway through the culvert, it is re-established as a stream and flows approximately 230 feet,
so
where it intersects with Muddy Creek. Approximately 231 linear feet of stream in this drainage
will be impacted due to the proposed construction of the ESSI Project. The entire jurisdictional
wetland, approximately 3,485-square feet (0.08-acres) will also be impacted (Table 2).
The impacts to the jurisdictional stream and wetland will be necessary due to the construction of a
material haul road; a sediment control basin (Figure 12) and the excavation of borrow material
from the area surrounding this drainage. This impact to wetland and stream habitat is noted as
Impact Number 2-1 (Table 2). The construction of the material haul road and a sediment basin
will result in the culverting or piping of the stream. This road crossing is essential, so that the
vehicles hauling the fill material for the construction of the stabilization berm can transport
material from the borrow areas to the proposed berm. The sediment basin is also essential to
insure sediments do not impact off site areas, such as Muddy Creek and the Catawba River,
which would result in violations of water quality regulations.
21

t

L ?
?
Qo
0°
Q Proposed
S e d i ment
Basins
2-1
Stream
Impact
C7
C-7
O
a ?
2-1 2-1 o°
o;
Stream lmapacted
Impac Wetland
t
2-1
Stream
Impact
Drainage \?- Existing 8" Culvert
Non-Impacted -._ 2-1
Stream
Stream Impact
Proposed
Sediment
?
Basins .?
?
Ex. Dirt ?• ?
Access
Road Proposed
Disturbance
Limits `?

0. i
q 'L
? ??
,
Qt° ??
Paddy Creek ?`.?
• ESSI Project `
• Boundary

?
v
i b

Devine Torbell & Associates, Inc.
Consulting Engineers, Scientists, 6 Regulatory Specialists
400 South Tryon Street
Suite 2401
Charlotte, NC 28285
100 0 100 200 300
DUKE POWER A DIV. OF DUKE ENERGY CORP.
BRIDGEWATER HYDRO STATION
Figure 12
Drainage $r2
I rrpoct Mop
FILE MADE DATE I REV
Duke Power Paddy Creek Dam
ESSI Project
• Drainage #3
The impacts to jurisdictional areas in Drainage #3 will consist of only a road crossing of the
perennial stream (Figure 13). The stream associated with the impacts starts at the bottom of the
Paddy Creek Dam spillway (Figure 8) and flows to Muddy Creek. As proposed, approximately
70 linear feet of stream in this drainage will be impacted due to the proposed construction of the
ESSI Project (Table 1). The impact to this stream is due to the construction of a
permanent/temporary road crossing. As presently planned this crossing will be constructed as a
stream ford (Figure 14). This crossing is essential, so that the vehicles hauling the fill material
for the construction of the stabilization berm can transport material from the borrow areas in the
eastern portion of the site to the proposed berm in the western portion of the site. The ford will
be built as a 70 foot wide crossing, however, this crossing will be returned to original contours
and elevations after the ESSI Project is completed with the exception of approximately 16 feet of
streambed which will be left as a permanent stream ford for future access to the Paddy Creek
Dam and surrounding areas. This crossing is noted as Impact Number 3-1 in Table 2.
Drainage #4
The impacts in Drainage #4 will consist of the majority of the jurisdictional impacts caused by the
construction of the stabilization berm, which is the main focus of the Paddy Creek ESSI Project.
There are proposed impacts to both jurisdictional streams as well as jurisdictional wetlands
(Figure 15).
There are five impact areas associated with jurisdictional streams in Drainage #4 (Impact
Numbers 4-1, 44, 4-5, 4-6, and 4-8). Impact Number 4-1 is located at the toe of the existing dam
and will be directly impacted by the construction of the stabilization berm due to its location
within the proposed footprint of the berm, its planned excavation, and the construction of
necessary toe drains (Figure 15). This impact area has both jurisdictional stream and wetland
impacts associated with it. The size of the stream impact in this impact area is approximately 30
linear feet (Table 2). This impact is necessary due to the rerouting of the stream around the
proposed construction. The size of this jurisdictional wetland impact is approximately 0.34-acres
in size (Table 2). The impact to the wetland is due to the placement of fill for the stabilization
berm and the associated excavation of soil due to soil conditions at the base of the existing dam.
This impact is noted as Impact Number 4-1 in Table 2.
Impact Number 4-4 is a stream impact that is directly associated with the construction of the
stabilization berm and the dewatering of the groundwater in the dam. The stream is located in the
23

•

Z.)

l O
O ?
Proposed -
Disturbance U
A Limits
r
U

0,00 Q
Drainage Proposed
e #3 Sediment
?
,yo Basin

?o
oa FtOOd
N
au 1
d?
?r Temporary osed
Stream Impact prop
0

Permanont
Stream Impact L a
3-1
4?
0 Q
I
mpacted
Stream ?9
Co

o O
? c?
6
o
O?
OQ
O
Q t
Jurisdictional
Existing Wetland
36" CLIP
Culvert
50 50 100

1100

1080
Existing Ground

1060
- --- - -------
-
----------------

LC if
0+00 1+00
STREAM CROSSING 3-1
Devine Tarbell & Associates, Inc. DUKE POWER A DIV. OF DUKE ENERGY CORP.
Consulting Engineers. Scientists.6 Regulatory Specialists BRIDGEWATER HYDRO STATION
Figure 13
400 South Tryon Street
Suite 2401
Chorl0tte
NC 28285 Drainage $$3
Impact Map
. fILC NAIK A flEV
USACE-PCJ IDGN 09.16.04
SURFACE FLOW
DIVERSION TO TRAP
FILTER
PLACE FILTER STONE
AROUND PIPE TO
PREVENT CRUSHING.
STONE
(6' DEEI
Levine I ar?aeu & Assoclazes, inc
Co sulting Engkxers, Scientists, L Regulatory SpeclaUsts
400 South Tryon Street
ulte 2401
horlotte, NC 28285
2-3' DIAMETER WASHED STONE. 6' DEEP
EXTEND 50' DEYONO BANK ON EACH SIDE
1 FP
SECTION VIEW
NOT TO SCALE
STREAMBANK BEYOND
ROADWAY
SURFACE FLOW
DIVERSION TO TRAP
FILL WITH RIP-RAP
(CLASS 'A:)
DUKE POWER COMPANY
BRIDGEWATER HYDRO STATI[
FIGURE 14
TYPICAL FORD CROSSING
0
r
t
4-1
Impacted
Wetlond
Proposed
Stability Berm Existing Culvert
Fill Limit 36-Inch CMP
Proposed
Disturbance
Limits 4-1
Impacted
Wot I and
?' •? Proposed
Dual Toe Drains
Inflowinp ??, ---_
Stream
Non-Impacted
Wetlands "I, Proposed
v
.,Disturbance
Limits o
N
4-
m ?
C
m
?1- C
N
' U
t
tCC
U
Ali Ji
Devine Tarbell & Associates, Inc. DUKE POWER A DIV. OF DUKE ENERGY CORP.
Consulting Engineers, Scientists.6 Regulatory Specialists BRIDGEWATER HYDRO STATION
/50 0 50 100 Figure 1
Drainage tt4
400 South Tryon Street Impact Map
r]L 1 Suite 2401 1 of 4
Charlotte, NC 28285
FILL NAME A REV
USACE-PC-IS.DGN 09-16-04
r
s

Proposed
Impacted Stability Berm
Wetland Fill Limit O
4-1 _.,
C_m
m
c ?-
JL
V1
V
t
Existing Culvert 2 m
36-Inch CMP
Impacted
Stream v
4-4
0
Proposed Dual
Toe Drains Existing Culvert
18-Inch CMP -
v
w
0
tm
m
mC
in J
Ov
o
m?
C
U
Ii
V/
Impacted
Wet I and
4 -2
,J/ -1?/ ?J/
Proposed
Disturbance ZZ
Limits
Existing Culverts
Two 36-Inch CMP
\ Non-Impacted
Wet I and
Impacted Wetland
4-3
Non-Impacted
?/ ? Wetland
.L
Proposed
Disturbance
Limits
Devine Torbeli & Associates, Inc. DUKE POWER A DIV. OF DUKE ENERGY C
Consulting Engineers.Scientists.& Regulatory Specialists BRIDGEWATER HYDRO STATION
/50 0 50 100 Figure 1 Drainage $A
400 South Tryon Street Impact Map
IZTL Spite zaot of 4
Charlotte, NC 28285
? F
I I I USACE-PC-16.DGN 109 16-041
1
•
.•
11010 Non-Impacted
Stream ,

??
Paddy Creek ???
ESSI Project,--." ??
Boundary ??
t
Proposed
Disturbance
Limits
PrOPOSed Houl Route
t
v
0
N
t
m C
m
N J
r.C
a U
N a
m?
C
Temporary
Impacted
Stream
4-5
Non-Impacted
Stream
Existing Culvert
18-Inch CMP
I
Proposed Haul Route
Temporary
Impacted
Stream
4-6
Non-Impacted
Stream
Non-Impacted - `1
Wet I and
I
Proposed
Disturbance
Limits
=1i
Non-Impacted
Wet I and
ZZ Impacted
Proposed
Disturbance
Limits
Wet I and
4-7
i
Existing
Culvert
18-Inch CMP
Match Line
Continues on Sheet 4 of 4
Devine Tarbell & Associates, Inc.
Consulting lo,moers. Scientists. d Regulotory Speciofis is
QDI 50 0 50 100
400 South Tryon Street
Suite 2401
Charlotte. NC 28285
DUKE POWER A DIV. OF DUKE ENERGY CORP.I
BRIDGEWATER HYDRO STATION
Figure 15
Drainage ss4
Impact Mop
FILE -E
USACE-PC-17.DGN
Continues on Sheet 3 of 4
Match Line
10
Proposed
Disturbance
Limits
Nan-Impacted
Stream
v
0
of
W
E
Temporary
Stream Impact 4-8
Permanent
Stream Impact
Impacted
Stream
4-8
o;
?o
9@
'17
O
a
O
1n
CD
a
2
O
C
O
0
a
Non-Impacted
E
/ O f Stream
Existing
Culvert
36-Inch CMP
Non-Impacted
Wetland
Devine Torbell & Associates, Inc.
Consulting Engineers, Scientists, G Regulatory Specialists
AAA V
400 South Tryon Street
suite zaol
Charlotte, NC 28285
/50 0 50 100
6w W
Proposed
Disturbance
Limits
i
Non-Impacted
Stream
AO
?O
O?
Impacted
Stream
3-1
Proposed
Disturbance
Drainage •? Limits
#3
DUKE POWER A DIV. OF DUKE ENERGY CORP.I
BRIDGEWATER HYDRO STATION
Figure 15
Drainage u4
Impact Mop
USACE-PC-18.DGN 109-16-041 1
Duke Power Paddy Creek Dam
ESSI Project
footprint of the planned berm and could not be avoided. Approximately 310 feet of this
10 jurisdictional stream will be filled permanently as a result of the construction. The temporary
impact will be returned to original contour and elevation after construction is completed (Figure
15).
Impact Number 4-5 is located northeast of the existing Paddy Creek dam (Figure 15). This first
order stream starts at a cistern and flows southeast where it intersects the drainage ditch from the
toe of the Paddy Creek dam. This stream will be impacted by a road crossing that is necessary
due to the need for an access road to bring in the borrow material that is needed to construct the
stability berm (Figure 15). Approximately 270 linear feet of stream will be temporary impacted
due to the proposed construction of the ESSI Project. This crossing is so large due to the extreme
slope in which the roadway will be constructed. This crossing will be returned to original
contours and elevations after the ESSI Project is completed, therefore the impacts were not
counted in the proposed stream mitigation.
Impact Number 4-6 is located on the stream associated with Drainage #4 (Figure 15). This
temporary impact is located where the stream intersects the drainage ditch from the toe of the
06 Paddy Creek dam. The 50 foot impact will be a temporary impact that will be returned to original
contours and elevations after the ESSI Project is completed; therefore the impacts were not
counted in the proposed stream mitigation (Table 2).
The Impact Number 4-8 is also located in Drainage #4 and is located on the Paddy Creek dam
drainage (the historic Paddy Creek drainage way). As proposed, approximately 90 linear feet of
stream at this crossing will be impacted due to the proposed construction of the ESSI Project
(Table 2). The impact to this stream is due to the construction of a necessary road crossing
(Figure 15). This crossing is essential, so that the vehicles hauling the fill material for the
construction of the stabilization berm can transport material from the borrow areas in the eastern
portion of the site to the proposed berm in the western portion of the site. The crossing will be
built as a 77 foot wide crossing, however, this crossing will be returned to original contours and
elevations after the ESSI Project is completed with the exception of approximately 52 feet of
streambed which will be left as a stream crossing for future access to the Paddy Creek Dam and
surrounding areas. Therefore, making 25 feet of the crossing temporary, so no stream mitigation
is necessary with exception of the 52 feet that will remain permanently impacted.
Cif
30
Duke Power Paddy Creek Dam
ESSI Project
Som,: of the jurisdictional wetlands found in this drainage will also be impacted due to the
construction of the Paddy Creek ESSI Project (Figure 15). The wetlands in this drainage are
associated with the current and historical drainage pattern for Paddy Creek. Only a portion of
these wetlands are proposed to be impacted. The need for these permanent impacts results
directly from the construction of the stabilization berm at the Paddy Creek dam. With the
additional length due to the installation of the stabilization berm, the wetlands that are located
imm:diately below the existing Paddy Creek dams will be filled by the construction (Figure 15).
Additional wetlands will be filled due to their proximity to the toe of the existing dam, the need
for construction staging areas, sediment and erosion control structures and the widening of
roadways for material transportation.
Impact Number 4-1 as previously stated is located at the toe of the existing dam and will be
impacted by the direct construction of the stabilization berm due to its location within the
prop )sed footprint of the berm (Figure 15). The size of this jurisdictional wetland impact is
approximately 0.34-acres in size (Table 2).
Impact Number 4-2 is partially located in the footprint of the proposed berm and the remaining
portion of the wetland is located within a planned sediment control structure and the proposed
construction staging area at the toe of the dam (Figure 15). The size of this jurisdictional wetland
impact is approximately 0.53-acres (Table 2).
Impact Number 4-3 is located near the eastern toe of the dam. This wetland will be partially
impacted by the construction of a necessary sediment control structure (Figure 15). The size of
this wetland impact is approximately 0.30-acres (Table 2). The above three impacts are necessary
due to their proximity to the toe of the dam.
Impact Number 4-7 is a partial impact to jurisdictional wetland along the main access roadway to
the cam. The size of this wetland impact is approximately 0.04-acres (Table 2). This impact is
due -o the placement of a culvert and fill necessary to widen the roadway to handle the traffic
associated with the hauling of borrow material which will be used in the construction of the
stability berm.
Drainage #5
• There is one road crossing (Impact Number 5-1) planned of the perennial stream in Drainage #5
(Figure 16). However, a road crossing of this stream (approximately 73 feet) will be constructed
31
lJ
?.J
C?
?reeK
Muddy js?'
i 2-
0
Y En
N T
,L
U 00
? 0
Ta_ C
'0-0
Nm o
Or N tn
W
Q)
UE
00
L
L
I N
C
O
Z
U
'0U
O0?
Ojos
0. L +L- E , o
L
o
?o
0 0
t
E?
N
Q

0
oQ
Q?
a?
? U
NOtn
Lo 0 f-

L
Q.
0
CL
U E
040
E LL
I N
C
O
Z
sv;, N0
G
'O
V
Devine Tarbell BE Associates, Inc.
ngi
nee
rs. Scientists, t4 Regulotory Speciollsts
E
Consulting tting
?
?
in
er
jL/
A
400 South Tryon Street
Suite 2401
Chorlo tte, NC 28285

'D
C
7
O
L

C

U
•
X
W

@ @
@ 00
@ C vi0vi L
CD
@
@
@
Ln
U
C
0
U
E
(D
L
V)
@
@
@
DUKE POWER A DIV.OF DUKE ENERGY CORP.
BRIDGEWATER HYDRO STATION
Figure 16
Drainage 95
Rood Crossing Location Map
FILE -E •r AEV
USACE•PC•19.DGN o&19•o4
Duke Power Paddy Creek Dam
ESSI Project
only for use during the Paddy Creek ESSI construction project and will be removed after the
project is completed and returned to original contour and elevations; therefore no mitigation is
necessary for impacts to this jurisdictional stream (Table 2).
The total of jurisdictional waters contained within the Paddy Creek ESSI Project boundary is
approximately 9901 linear feet of jurisdictional surface waters (streams, creeks and etc.) and
3.91-acres of jurisdictional wetland. Of the linear footage, approximately 1280 linear feet of
jurisdictional surface waters, associated with intermittent/perennial streams, will be impacted by
the construction of the project. Of the 1280 linear feet to be impacted, only 808 linear feet of the
impacts will be permanent and is subject to state and federal stream mitigation requirements
(Table 2). Furthermore, 472 linear feet of stream will be impacted temporarily and returned to
original contours and elevations. Per conversations with regulatory personnel, no stream
mitigation is required for these temporary impacts.
Of the above stated 3.91-acres of jurisdictional wetland observed on the subject property,
approximately 1.86-acres of jurisdictional wetland will be permanently impacted due to the
construction of the ESSI Project (Table 2).
PROPOSED MITIGATION PLAN
Due to pre-application discussions with both state and federal agencies, Duke contacted the North
Carolina Ecosystem Enhance Program (NCEEP), which was formally known as the Wetlands
Restoration Program (WRP) to discuss in-lieu payment for the wetland and stream mitigation.
The in-lieu payments are proposed to compensate for unavoidable stream and wetland impacts
associated with the Paddy Creek ESSI Project.
Duke, in a letter dated October 9, 2003, contacted Mr. Jeff Jurek of the NCEEP, requesting
payment to the North Carolina Department of Environment and Natural Resources (NCDENR)
Wetland Trust Fund for proposed wetland impacts associated with the Paddy Creek ESSI
Project. On October 15, 2003, a letter was sent to Duke from NCEEP concerning the request for
in-lieu payment. The letter stated that the NCEEP was willing to accept payment for the riparian
wetland impacts associated with the ESSI Project. The letter further stated that the NCEEP
indicated that there was a maximum amount of mitigation they would accept for this project. The
maximum amount of mitigation was noted to be 5.8-acres. This maximum amount appears to be
estimated utilizing a 2:1 ratio of the proposed impacts to wetlands of 2.9-acres as stated in the
October 9, 2003 letter. The letters are included as an appendix of this narrative.
33
Duke Pmi,er Paddy Creek Dam
ESSI Project
In addition, on April 7, 2004, a letter was sent by Duke to Ms. Deborah Sawyer (now known as
Ms. Deborah Anderson) of the NCEEP, which has been created by the merger of the WRP and
the North Carolina Department of Transportation's Office of Natural Environment, concerning an
extension on the acceptance period and the availability of stream mitigation that could be
purchased by Duke through the in-lieu payment program. The letter was sent to Ms. Sawyer, due
to the fact that she has taken over the project from Mr. Jeff Jurek after the creation of the
NCEEP. This letter is included as an appendix of this narrative.
An April 15, 2004 response letter from NCEEP was sent to Duke extending the time frame for
purchase of wetland mitigation credits. In addition, the letter stated that the NCEEP was willing
to accept payment for the stream impacts associated with the Paddy Creek ESSI Project. The
letter further stated that the NCEEP indicated that there was a maximum amount of mitigation
they would accept for this project. The maximum amount of credits available to Duke in this
letter is 1300 linear feet. This letter is included as an appendix of this narrative.
On August 20, 2004, a letter was sent by Duke to Ms. Deborah Anderson of the NCEEP
concerning an extension on the acceptance period and the availability of addition stream
mitigation credits that could be purchased by Duke through the in-lieu payment program due to
design changes in the Paddy Creek ESSI Project.
On August 24, 2004, a response letter from NCEEP was sent to Duke extending the time frame
for purchase of wetland mitigation credits to February 24, 2005. In addition, the letter stated that
the NCEEP was willing to accept payment for the stream impacts associated with the Paddy
Creek ESSI Project. The letter further stated that the NCEEP indicated that there was a
maximum amount of mitigation they would accept for this project. The maximum amount of
credits available to Duke in this letter is 1650 linear feet. This letter is included as an appendix of
this narrative.
Duke is requesting a ratio for wetland mitigation to be a 1.5:1 ratio through the in-lieu payment
program. Duke would like to compensate the EEP for 3.0-acres, which is one and half times the
actual acreage of impact (1.86-acres) plus the additional acreage to round up the total to the
nearest 0.25-acre (EEP criteria). The reasoning behind the 1.5:1 ratio finding is the majority of
49 the impacts to jurisdictional wetlands are in either palustrine shrub/scrub or emergent wetlands.
Approximately 0.82-acres of the impacts to jurisdictional wetlands on the Paddy Creek ESSI
34
Duke Power Paddy Creek Dam
ESSI Project
Project are either scrub/scrub or emergent (Table 1). Due to planning and design efforts, only
1.04-acres of forested jurisdictional wetland will be impacted. In addition, 0.95-acres of the
forested wetland impacts planned by the Paddy Creek ESSI Project could not be avoided due to
their location immediately below the toe of the existing Paddy Creek Dam.
In addition to the wetland impacts, Duke has applied for and been approved to utilize stream
mitigation provided through the in-lieu payment program of the NCEEP for impacts to
jurisdictional streams located within the Paddy Creek ESSI Project boundaries. Duke proposes
that a ratio of 1:1 be utilized for mitigation of jurisdictional stream impacts. Duke proposes to
compensate the NCEEP for approximately 808 linear feet of permanent stream impacts. As noted
in Table 2, there is approximately 1280 linear feet of stream to be impacted by the Paddy Creek
ESSI Project, however, approximately 489 linear feet of impact will be temporary and per the
USACE, mitigation for these impacts will not be necessary.
The reasoning behind the 1:1 ratio finding is that the majority of the impacts to jurisdictional
streams are previously disturbed crossings (fords, existing culverts, and etc.) or channelized and
degraded streams. Due to planning and design efforts, the impacts have been decreased to
approximately 808 linear feet. Some of the efforts included minimization of crossings and the
utilization of temporary crossings. The temporary impacts will be returned to original contours
and elevations after the Paddy Creek ESSI Project is completed.
All project construction will implement BMP's during all construction phases. BMP's will
remain in place and in good condition until final stabilization of all construction contours.
AVOIDANCE AND MINIMIZATION
During the planning and design stages of the Paddy Creek ESSI project, jurisdictional waters of
the U.S. and other natural resource issues were taken into account to minimize the impacts to
jurisdictional areas and other resource areas. This can be noted from the letter dated October 9,
2003, from Duke to NCDENR. In the letter, it was estimated that approximately 2.9-acres of
jurisdictional wetland would be impacted by the construction of the Paddy Creek ESSI Project.
Through planning and design changes since that submittal, Duke has reduced planned impacts to
jurisdictional wetlands by more than an acre. Some of the measures taken to minimize and avoid
impacts are as follows:

35
Duke Power Paddy Creek Dam
ESSI Project
¦ The stabilization berm has been redesigned to be significantly smaller than originally
planned. This redesign decreased the amount of wetland and stream impacts at the toe of
the dam, plus decreased the amount of borrow material needed to complete the ESSI
Project.
¦ The large stream crossing that is located to the northeast of the Paddy Creek dam will be
one crossing instead of multiple crossings. This temporary crossing will be utilized to
access the downstream face of the Paddy Creek dam, which will be the location of the
stabilization berm.
¦ Duke has proposed to maximize the utilization of existing roads for material haul roads.
This will minimize clearing and other road-building activities that would impact
additional streams, wetlands and buffers located on the Paddy Creek ESSI Project site.
¦ Where crossings of jurisdictional areas are necessary and no existing roadway is
available, Duke has planned to cross where the streams are either degraded or disturbed.
This minimizes impacts to undisturbed jurisdictional areas.
¦ During planning, Duke has planned material haul roads to avoid forested wetland
whenever applicable. This is one of the reasons for the decrease in wetland impacts from
the October 15, 2003 letter from Duke to NCDENR.
¦ Where applicable, crossings of jurisdictional areas will be constructed as close to 90
degrees. This will minimize the length of the jurisdictional crossings.
¦ Duke has minimized impacts by establishing, where applicable, a 50-foot buffer around
all non-impacted jurisdictional wetlands and streams (Figure 17) and only proposes to
encroach within these buffers when logistically necessary (i.e. a 25-foot buffer was
proposed near the toe of the dam due to construction congestion, numerous sediment
basin dissipater pads, and areas located with the contractor disturbance boundaries).
¦ Duke has avoided riparian habitats along the Catawba River by establishing a 100-foot
buffer along the west bank. This eliminates any impacts to the Catawba River (Figure
17).
¦ During planning and the development of the Biological Assessment for the U.S. Fish and
Wildlife Service, an approximate 200 foot buffer is proposed by Duke to avoid two
populations of Hexastylis nanii fora within the Paddy Creek ESSI Project boundary
(Figures 18 and 19).
In addition, in order to minimize siltation impacts to streams and wetlands during construction,
appropriate erosion and siltation control measures, including the installation of silt fencing, will
be installed along construction limits near jurisdictional areas. The disturbed areas will be
36
Duke Power Paddy Creek Dam
ESSI Project
stabilized as soon as practicable after achieving final grades. Construction monitoring will take
place to assure the erosion and sediment control measures are functioning properly and are
properly maintained.
MONITORING AND CONTINGENCY PLAN
Due to the planned use of the EEP in-lieu mitigation program, no monitoring of the wetland or
stream mitigation will be necessary. To insure that no additional wetlands or streams are
impacted due to the construction contractor activities and are to assure the BMP erosion and
sediment control measures are functioning properly and are properly maintained, Duke personnel
will assist in making sure all buffers set around wetlands, streams and protected species
populations will remain undisturbed.
If there are no stream credits available through the EEP, Duke will pursue other forms of stream
mitigation to mitigate for proposed impacts due to the construction of the Paddy Creek ESSI
Project. Prior to the implementation of the contingency stream mitigation plan, the plan will be
submitted to the Asheville Field Office of the Wilmington District USACE for approval.
•
•
37
A

•
Od
h
U
M
M .?
ro CG
U
? U
3
` a u o U
\ G u '° oD N 8 '^
3 m O c
G? ? ?? ?? G y p
o q U .? ?
Oi9 4p? o U -d
O U h
O H 2 b.r U
,? .$ q O u ? u cc3 ?
-a ? rn \ A G
a
N
h ?
CD CD
O CD
Q w ? ?
u
^? ? 'u0 'u0
p V]
\ z
u
N
e? r
?aa ?P
J
qy
a
ti
?u
c!
.a
1-
U ,C
4? .N

C
o ?
vi q
? 1

t
13
p u C v
q A
`
N
` -u- v1 u
7 N 'C
\
u
7
O
p
O
a

q
0
v'1
Devine Torbell & Associates. Inc.
Consulting Engineers, Scientists, & Regulatory Specialists DUKE POWER A DIV. OF DUKE ENERGY CORP.
BRIDGEWATER HYDRO STATION
QDt
A 400 South Tryon Street
Suite 2401
Chorlotte
NC 28285 40 40 80 Figure 17
Buffer Location
Map
, 111E H,w[ P
USACE-PC-20.DGN 05-3104
-
Q
0
A 'y
? A
a
a
•
Lake James
Linville Dam
Catawba River
Linville(
Power \
Station
Road '.?
4a?;ecb°?
ode'' - ?,

z X.
•
1
+I U_
o EL
o?
N m
Devine Tarbell & Associates, Inc.
Consulting Engineers. Scientists, & Regulatory Specialists
?400 South Tryon Street
Suite 2401
Charlotte, NC 28285
N. powerhouse Road

Maintenance
Rood
100 0 100 200 300
Area Not Included h
I n Proposed
Conservation tt
Easement 'i
DUKE POWER A DIV. OF DUKE ENERGY C
BRIDGEWATER HYDRO STATION
Figure 18
Hexostylis nonifloro
Popu l at i on $$I
Buffer Location Mop
FILE NAME AIE
USAGE-PC-21.0GN 08-19-0?

•
/
fiat
'OQa
Paddy Crcck
Dam

1 V.
•
40 Figure 19
b? k t?e
Lake James

Privatld
Property
Jr?
? c
Area Not Included In
Proposed Conservation \(
Easement
/ ?C
O?
??? as?1? 200 Ft
r
Buffer
rI>

U
--? -
Devine Torbell & Associotes, Inc. DUKE POWER A DIV. OF DUKE ENERGY CORP.
Consulting Engineers, Scientists,6 Regulatory Specialists BRIDGEWATER HYDRO STATION

100 0 100 200 300 Hexostylis nonifloro
X) 400 South Tryon Street Popu I of i on #2
Suite 2401
Charlotte, NC 28285
Buffer Locot i on MO

NEv
rIEC HM1E
GA rt
USACE-PC-22.OGN 08-19-04
Duke Power Paddy Creek Dam
ESSI Project
ALTERNATIVES ANALYSIS
Duke conducted an earthquake stability analysis for Paddy Creek Dam and concluded that the
dam could experience an unacceptable strength loss due to soil liquefaction during the design
earthquake. The design earthquake is a magnitude 5.3 to 5.7 event with a reoccurrence interval of
10,000 years. Nine alternatives for modifications to improve the earthquake performance of the
dam and one construction alternative were considered:
¦ Alternative 1: No build;
¦ Alternative 2: Permanent Reduction in Normal Lake Level;
¦ Alternative 3: Removal of the Dam;
¦ Alternative 4: Remove and Replace the Dam;
¦ Alternative 5: Improve the Strength of the Downstream Slope Soils;
¦ Alternative 6: A Slurry Wall;
¦ Alternative 7: An Upstream Earthfill Berm;
¦ Alternative 8: An Upstream Rockfill Berm;
¦ Alternative 9: Downstream Roller Compacted Concrete (RCC) Berm; and
¦ Alternative 10: Onsite Borrow versus Offsite.
0 Alternative 1: No Build

The No Build alternative would lead to the Paddy Creek, Linville, or Catawba Dams not being
modified to improve the seismic stability in the event of a design earthquake. As stated
previously, the preliminary post-seismic stability analyses for Paddy Creek Dam indicates that
improvements, however constructed, are required to satisfy FERC specified factors of safety for
this dam. Therefore, if a No Build alternative is chosen, Duke would be in violation of the
mandated safety improvements which were required by the FERC. Due to this mandated request,
this alternative was not available to Duke.
Alternative 2: Permanent Reduction in Normal Lake Level
The second alternative considered was to permanently lower the normal lake level. The slope
stability calculations indicated that it is not possible to stabilize the upstream slope of the dam by
lowering Lake James. In order to stabilize the downstream slope, the lake level would have to be
lowered enough to lower the downstream slope phreatic surface below the bottom of the
liquefiable soil zone. A review of several years of monthly piezometer data indicated that a 10
Is foot decrease in lake level has very little effect on the location of the downstream phreatic
41
Duke Power Paddy Creek Dam
ESSI Project
surface. Based on this observation, it was concluded that Lake James would have to be lowered
at least 20 to 40 feet to achieve the desired result.
Effect on Lake Shoreline
The effect of lowering the normal operating lake level on the lake surface area will expose
approximately 2180-acres of shoreline. The cost of reseeding this area would be significant.
Much of the exposed area is steep and would require silt fences, erosion matting, and other
erosion control measures be installed at significant additional cost. Reseeding is only a small part
of the overall cost of permanently lowering the lake. Other costs will include compensating
lakefront homeowners for lost property values, reconstruction of public access areas,
modifications to one or both spillways to lower the crest elevation, and the cost of the engineering
and legal services needed to obtain necessary permits and design the modifications.
In addition, to the cost of the above, there would be a loss in the recreational uses of the lake.
Docks would have to be lengthened or reconstructed for landowners to have deepwater access.
Furthermore, there would be a significant loss of fringe wetlands as well as a loss of littoral zone
around the perimeter of the reservoir.
•
Impact of Reservoir Level Reduction on Turbine Performance
Existing Turbines
Permanently lowering the level of Lake James will also have a significant impact on the
performance of the turbines located at the Linville Powerhouse. Performance and design
characteristics of the existing Bridgewater generating units, located in the Linville powerhouse,
were reviewed to assess the impact of a permanently reduced headwater (reservoir) level from an
energy production standpoint. Approximate net head for the Bridgewater turbines is 135 feet
(full pond is an estimated 1200 ft and normal tailwater is an estimated 1063 ft). As noted above,
level reductions in the range of 20 to 40 feet or more would be required to mitigate the seismic
stability issues for the Paddy Creek Dam. Accordingly, unit performance at net heads of 115 feet
and 95 feet was examined. These would correspond to reservoir levels of 1180 and 1160
respectively. The performance efficiency would drop to an undesirable level if the lake were
lowered permanently.
In terms of power output, a permanent reduction in reservoir level would result in a decrease in
energy production capability (for a given volume of water) of approximately 13.9% for a 20 ft
42
Duke Power Paddy Creek Dam
ESSI Project
level decrease and approximately 30.5% for a 40 ft level decrease. This calculation is in terms of
turbine power only. The reduction in generator efficiency at lower power levels would increase
the power reduction percentage.
New Turbines
The impact of installing new `state-of-the-art' turbine runners was evaluated. The lost energy
production due to permanently reduced reservoir level, if new turbine runners were installed, is
approximately 8% for 20 ft and 24.8% for 40 ft. This does not take into account the benefit
derived by more production being available in the peak time window with the new runners. The
cost of new runners is estimated to be sizeable.
This alternative is not practicable for several reasons: the total cost of a permanent drawdown will
be well in excess of the cost of some of the other alternatives considered. In addition, a
permanent drawdown would have a significant negative impact on the energy production from
the Linville powerhouse as well as natural and recreational resources. Consequently, a lake level
reduction of this magnitude was judged to be unacceptable, and this alternative was not pursued
further.
Alternative 3: Removal of the Dam
The effect of removing the Paddy Creek Dam would lower the normal operating lake level of
Lake James back to a riverine system. This would reduce the lake level by approximately 140
feet and would add an estimated 8320-acres of new upland and shoreline habitat. The cost of just
reseeding this area would be significant. Much of the exposed area is steep and would require silt
fences, erosion matting, and other erosion control measures installed at significant additional
cost. Reseeding is only a small part of the overall cost of permanently removing the dam.
Reforestation of the uplands and shoreline habitat would be a significant cost.
Costs of this alternative will also include compensating lakefront homeowners for lost property
values. For example, one subdivision adjacent to Lake James has approximately 260 lots and
costs per lot averages approximately $40,000. Therefore, the loss of revenue in the example
subdivision would be approximately $10.4 million. Another example of potential compensation
that would have to occur would be if the lots were developed with homes. Several single family
home properties that were for sale adjacent to Lake James were reviewed for price. The average
40 price of these properties was $677,000 per single family home. Assuming a 260 lot subdivision
that has been built out with an average home priced at 5677,000 per single family home, the cost
43
Duke Power Paddy Creek Dam
ESSI Project
of compensating the homeowners of just that subdivision would be approximately 5176 million.
In addition, the loss of businesses and jobs that are in direct correlation with the existence of Lake
James would be very significant to the local and regional economic status.
The recreational use of the lake would also be lost due to the removal of the dams on Lake
James. This alternative would result in a loss of all motorized recreational boating and sail
boating.
Also, the removal of the dams would result in the loss of an important cool water fishery which
includes largemouth bass (Micropterus sahnoides), smallmouth bass (Micropterus dolomieu),
walleye (Stizostedion vitreum), white bass (Morone chrysops), crappie (Pomoxis spp.), sunfishes
(Lepomis spp.) and catfish (Ictalurus spp. and Ameiurus spp.), northern pike (Esox hicius),
muskellunge (Esox masquinongy), and yellow perch (Percahavescens).
In addition to the above stated boating and fisheries impacts, there would also be adverse impacts
to other recreational activities such as camping, education and events, hiking, picnicking, and
swimming. The Lake James State Park and the recreation activities created by the existence of
to the lake would likely be adversely impacted by the removal of the dam.
With the removal of the dam, there would be a loss of power created by the hydroelectric plant at
the base of the Linville Dam. This power plant has the capacity to produce approximately 20
megawatts of power, which is utilized to meet peak demands, at times when electricity usage is
greatest, like hot summer days or cold winter nights. With the removal of the power plant, it is
possible that a non-hydroelectric plant would need to be utilized to make up for the lost
generation capacity.
Finally, the removal of the dams would adversely impact existing habitat for mammals, birds,
reptiles, amphibians, and other species that utilize the lacustrine and littoral habitats created by
Lake James. An example of this would be the impacts to the population of bald eagles that
inhabit the area adjacent to the lake. If the dams were removed, the lacustrine and littoral habitats
utilized by the fish and waterfowl species that comprise a majority of the eagle's diet would no
longer exist, therefore, potentially having an adverse effect on the continued existence of the bald
eagles that utilize Lake James and adjacent lands for nesting and foraging. Due to the above
40 stated factors, this alternative was not considered feasible.
44
Duke Power
Paddy Creek Dam
ESSI Project
Alternative 4: Remove and Replace the Dam
Another alternative is to remove the existing dam and replace it with a well-compacted earthfill
embankment. The existing dam soils could be potentially stockpiled and reused, and if so there
would be no cost for a borrow area and haul distances would be minimal. The lake would have
to be drained throughout the duration of the construction process resulting in a significant loss in
power generation income as well as significant costs to address environmental and public
relations issues. These costs, in addition to the relatively high cost of excavating, handling, and
recompacting the large volume of material in the existing dam, were judged to be much higher
than costs for some other options and this option was not considered feasible.
In addition, similar adverse impacts associated with the permanent removal of the dam apply to
the removal and replacement of the dam. This was also factored in the reason for the
abandonment of this alternative.
Alternative 5: Improve the Strength of the Downstream Slope Soils
The zone of liquefiable soils on the downstream slope of Paddy Creek Dam encompasses only a
portion of the slope and is located relatively close to the surface. Construction methods are
41 available to increase the strength of these soils in place. These methods include densifying the
soil (deep dynamic compaction, vibro-flotation, vibro-replacement, compaction grouting),
methods to cement the soil particles together (cement grouting, chemical grouting, soil mixing),
and the construction of various mechanical systems to contain liquefied soil and/or increase shear
resistance along the potential failure surface (driven piles, cast in place piles, secant piles). Duke
explored these alternatives and came to the conclusion that, although there are several techniques
which could strengthen these soils in place, the cost would be likely be prohibitive due to the
volume of soil to be treated and the difficulty of operating large machinery on the dam slope.
Downstream Berm (As Proposed)
A second option under this alternative is to stabilize the downstream slope and allow the
upstream slope to fail. (Figure 4) A review of property maps showed that there is sufficient Duke
land available downstream of the dam to construct the berm and to develop borrow areas to
obtain the necessary soil. The berm design used to develop the construction cost estimate is
similar to that which was utilized successfully at Wateree Dam in South Carolina. This was
determined to be the simplest and most cost-effective repair alternative for Paddy Creek Dam.
40 45

Duke Power
Paddy Creek Dam
ESSI Project
Alternative 6: Slurry Nall
A slurry wall could be constructed by excavating a trench along one shoulder of the road from the
dam crest to sound rock. The trench would extend along the full length of the dam and would be
backfilled with a mixture of cement and bentonite (clay) or with concrete. Assuming that the
wall does not crack, that a water-tight seal can be achieved between adjacent sections of the wall,
and that a seal can be achieved along the full length of the contact between the wall and the
underlying rock, the slurry wall should significantly lower the phreatic surface in the downstream
slope of the dam, perhaps enough to stabilize the slope. Previous experience with slurry wall
construction has shown that it can be extremely difficult to achieve the required level of water-
tightness, and the technical literature contains case studies of several slurry walls, which have not
performed as required. This lack of certainty about wall performance, combined with high
construction cost, and high risk led to the conclusion that a slurry wall is not a viable alternative.
Alternative 7: Upstream Earthfill Berm
Constructing an upstream earthfill berm could stabilize the upstream slope. Assuming nothing is
done to stabilize it; the downstream slope would still be expected to fail during a design
earthquake. The critical downstream slope failure surface extends to the upstream slope, and
so there would be an unacceptably narrow section of intact dam remaining at the normal full pond
level following an earthquake. To ensure that there would be an adequate width of intact dam
following the earthquake, the upstream berm would have to be extended to within a few feet of
the existing dam crest. The volume of soil needed to construct such a berm would be quite large.
In addition, a compacted earthfill berm cannot be constructed under water, so the lake would have
to be drained for an extended period of time while the berm is constructed. This alternative
would have a large amount of impact to jurisdictional waters of the U.S. and as discussed
previously for Alternatives 3 and 4, the costs and associated adverse impacts with temporarily
draining the lake are likely to be very high, making this alternative not feasible.
Alternative 8: Upstream Rockfill Berm
Constructing an upstream berm out of rockfill could stabilize the upstream slope. A rockfill berm
is advantageous in that it can be constructed by dumping the fill from barges without draining the
lake. The major drawback to this option is that it will be difficult to control and document
construction quality because most of the work will be done underwater. An additional major
drawback is that the rockfill is not impervious. Consequently, it will not be possible to provide
an adequate width of water-retaining material at the full pond level by simply extending the berm
above the normal lake level as was discussed above for the earthfill berm alternative. Instead, it
46
Duke Power Paddy Creek Dam
ESSI Project
• would be necessary to lower the normal operating lake level somewhat to increase the horizontal
distance between the water surface and the downstream face of the portion of the dam, which is
expected to be remaining after an earthquake. The necessary drawdown could be less than the 20
to 25 feet discussed above under Alternative 2, but still may not be acceptable based on its effect
on power plant operation, on potential environmental impacts, and on the effects on property and
structures along the Lake James shoreline. As in Alternative 7, this alternative would have a
large amount of impact to jurisdictional waters of the U.S. Due to these reasons this alternative is
considered not to be feasible.
Alternative 9: Downstream RCC Retaining Nall
Another construction alternative considered was the construction of a downstream retaining wall
constructed out of roller compacted concrete (RCC). The main drawback to this option is that a
relatively large excavation would be needed to prepare the foundation for the RCC wall. The
upstream edge of the excavation would be roughly 200 feet upstream of the toe of the slope, and
at the maximum cross-section the excavation would be approximately 75 feet deep. The
upstream excavation face would be supported by an anchored soldier pile retaining wall.
Because of the high phreatic surface in the downstream slope, it would be necessary to install a
series of dewatering wells in the slope, which would be pumped continuously during construction
to lower the phreatic surface. If the phreatic surface is not lowered, there would be a significant
risk that the resulting seepage could wash soil out of the remaining portion of the slope,
potentially leading to slope instability. In addition, a large quantity of seepage could cause
significant construction difficulties. In addition, the cost of the construction of the RCC was
estimated to be at least double the cost of the construction of a downstream earthfill berm and the
potential for pile driving would potentially have noise impacts on area recreation and wildlife
including the bald eagle. For the above stated reasons, this alternative was not considered
feasible.
Alternative 10: Onsite Borrow versus Offsite Borrow
The above alternatives deal mainly with the type of construction and where the stability structure
is constructed. However, this alternative deals with where the soil borrow will come from if the
Paddy Creek ESSI Project is constructed as proposed with a downstream earthfill berm. The
preferred alternative for the locations of the soil borrow is from the onsite sources within the
Paddy Creek ESSI Project area rather than have the soil borrow brought in from an offsite
source. However, approximately 75,000 cubic yards of manufactured sand will need to be
47
Duke Power Paddy Creek Dam
ESSI Project
brought in from a regional source. The Paddy Creek earthfill berm is planned at present to utilize
approximately one million cubic yards of soil borrow from within the project area. The reasons
for utilizing the soil borrow from onsite instead of offsite sources include safety, cost, and
feasibility.
Safety
Safety is a big issue in the choice of the location of the borrow soil. One of the main issues was
the number of vehicles that would have to be placed on public roadways. When utilizing an
offsite borrow source, smaller trucks must be used to comply with roadway weight.and size
requirements. With the ability to utilize onsite borrow; larger trucks can be utilized with no
weight or size requirements. The use of smaller trucks increases the number of vehicles that will
be placed on public roads in residential and public access areas which could increase the potential
for roadway accidents. For example, a smaller dump truck can carry approximately nine to 10
cubic yards per trip, with one million cubic yards needed, that means there would be
approximately 111,000 round trips made by the smaller trucks for the Paddy Creek ESSI Project.
In addition to the potential for accidents, that many trips could damage the existing infrastructure,
including both roadways and small bridges.
The ability to utilize the onsite borrow areas; would greatly reduce the need for transportation on
public roads or the crossing of bridges, such as the bridge across the Catawba River just
downstream of the Linville power station.
Cost
Another reason to use the onsite borrow versus the offsite borrow area is the cost difference
between the two alternatives. The first cost difference would be the cost of the material. For
example, if the soil borrow had to come from an offsite source, the soil would more than likely
come from a land owner other than Duke. So either additional land would have to be purchased
or there would be a per ton cost levied by the landowner. This would add to the already high cost
of the construction. Besides the elevated cost of the soil associated by offsite borrow purchase,
there would be additional cost per mile traveled to get the soil borrow to the ESSI Project
construction area. In addition, as stated above in the safety section of this alternative, there would
have to be extensive upgrades and repairs to the area infrastructure such as roadways and bridges.
•
48
Duke Power Paddy Creek Dam
ESSI Project
With the additional land offsite that would be utilized as borrow, additional studies (engineering
and environmental) would have to be completed to assess the potential material for borrow and if
additional impacts to resources are present, which could lead to additional project delays.
Feasibility
The above reasons not to utilize offsite borrow are also directly linked to the feasibility of
utilizing the onsite borrow areas. The aging bridge that is slated to be replaced by the NCDOT
may not hold up to the stress of the shear volume of truck traffic. With the onsite borrow, Duke
and its affiliates already own the land from which the borrow is planned to come from unlike the
offsite alternative.
Additionally, the impacts to resources such as wetlands and streams have been kept to a minimum
outside the footprint of the proposed downstream earthfill berm at Paddy Creek. Offsite borrow
areas could be spread out over a large area where as the onsite borrow is located in the immediate
vicinity of the Paddy Creek dam. Therefore, with the above stated information, the utilization of
onsite borrow is the best alternative.
0 OTHER STATE AND FEDERAL ACTIVITIES
The Federal Energy Regulatory Commission
The Federal Energy Regulatory Commission (FERC) is the regulatory influence behind the Paddy
Creek ESSI project. The improvements are being constructed as part of a nationwide effort to
increase the safety of dams during potentially catastrophic events, which is mandated by the
FERC. In addition, the FERC is acting as the federal agency representative in the section 7
consultation process with the USFWS regarding the dwarf-flowered heartleaf and the bald eagle.
U.S. Fish and Wildlife Service
Based upon surveys for federal protected species, including candidate, threatened and endangered
species, Duke and FERC have determined that the proposed Paddy Creek ESSI Project "may
affect and is likely to adversely affect" the federally threatened dwarf-flowered heartleaf
(Hexaslylis nanillora). Duke and FERC also have determined that the proposed project is "not
likely to adversely affect but is likely to be beneficial" to the bald eagle (Haliaeetus
leucocephalus).
•
49
Duke Power Paddy Creek Dam
ESSI Project
The FERC and Duke, the non-federal representative for FERC, have requested formal
consultation with the USFWS pursuant to section 7 of the Endangered Species Act of 1973, as
amended (16 U.S.C. 1531 et seq.). The formal consultation was requested with the submittal of
the Biological Assessment to the USFWS by FERC on May 5, 2004. A copy of the Biological
Assessment will be provided to the USACE under a separate cover at a later date.
North Carolina State Historic Preservation Office
Duke has surveyed the Paddy Creek ESSI Project area for archaeological and historic resources in
compliance with Section 106 of the National Historic Preservation Act of 1966 and amendments
thereto that are eligible for inclusion in the National Register of Historic Places. Based on the
surveys for archaeological and historic resources, one eligible and several non-eligible resources
were located within the proposed project area of potential effect. The eligible resource (Site
31BK421) that was found during the initial assessment has been placed within an approximate 25
foot buffer and will remain outside of any construction disturbance limits.
Concurrence from the North Carolina State Historic Preservation office has been received due to
the plan to protect the eligible site and that no other eligible sites were located within the
disturbance limits of the proposed project. Therefore, no further archaeological investigation will
be need to be conducted. Please find the North Carolina State Historic Preservation Office letter
in the Appendices section of this narrative.
•
50
t
•
•
Duke Power
APPENDIX
Paddy Creek Dam
ESSI Project
51

t
•
Duke Power
Paddy Creek Dam
ESSI Project
PHOTOGRAPHS
52
•
•
•
Photo 002 - Photograph of the jurisdictional wetland in Drainage #2
north up the drainage (Impact Number 2-1).
Photo 001- Photograph of the jurisdictional wetland in Drainage #1 looking
west up the drainage (Impact Number 1-1).
E
•
•
r*
^t je ,
R?Tl4' w>t aitYi Iv l._. Y'.? :? i?. 1
Y ? Nye ' r
(•r
1
r, .k J
? ?t `? M1 f ? ? .. r
r
?0 # r
if -
I?
1. .

1 -.4
Photo 003 - Photograph of the jurisdictional perennial stream located in
Drainage #3 looking upstream (Impact Number 3-1)
Photo 004 - Photograph of the jurisdictional perennial stream located in
Drainage #3 looking downstream (Impact Number 3-1).
•

•
•
Photo 005 - Photograph of the jurisdictional perennial stream located in
Drainage #3 looking at the location of the planned crossing (Impact Number 3-1).
y 00jr T ._.
0

i7v

J 7-;
t !
Photo 006 - Photograph of the jurisdictional wetland within Drainage #4
which is the historic channel for Paddy Creek.
•

•
•

Photo 007 - Photograph of an existing culvert crossing within Drainage #4 to
be utilized as a haul roadway for material.
Photo 008 - Photograph of a jurisdictional wetland area located near the southwest
toe of the Paddy Creek dam and will be impacted by the berm (Impact Number 4-1).
•
?2? ' 1
•
•
Photo 009 - Photograph of jurisdictional wetland on west side of Drainage #4.
This area will not be impacted due to the construction of the berm.
Photo 010 - Photograph of jurisdictional wetland on west side of Drainage #4.
A portion of this area is proposed for impacts due to the construction of the berm (4-1).

•
•
Photo 011 - Photograph of the jurisdictional areas located immediately below
the Paddy Creek dam. These areas are located in Drainage #4 (Impact Number 4-1).
1
vt
1
ry t
t 4,
1 j ? ttad ?\ {-
1
Oe"
- 1'.t YV ? Rte.: M1 ?jy ?L1 * ? _' 6

Photo 012 - Photograph of a jurisdictional wetland from Drainage #4 near the
southeastern toe of the Paddy Creek Dam, looking northeast (Impact Number 4-3).
•
•
•
Photo 013 - Photograph of a jurisdictional wetland from Drainage #4 near the
southeast toe of the Paddy Creek dam.
t l ?r r' i d
1 j
4 ? ?"?.. • d j iYt?'yd' „?' ti 5r=.,,?i? r r''fl
v?.??, vR
Photo 014 - Photograph of a wetland from Drainage #4, which is connected to Paddy
Creek. This is the location of a proposed road crossing (Impact Number 4-7).
•
•

4
i

Photo 015 - Photograph of the jurisdictional wetland noted in Photo 014. This
photo shows inundation in this wetland (Impact Number 4-7).
Photo 016 - This photograph is of Paddy Creek looking northeast from the
access road at the southeast toe of the Paddy Creek Dam (Impact Number 4-4).
•
•
•
F
IM
¦
r.
9i IF 1,1
w
f+ i
i+
r° M
Photo 017 - Photo of Paddy Creek where it crosses the power line ROW, prior to its
rnnnertinn with the Dminaoe 41 T .nratinn of Imnart Nnmher 4-R- looking, NW_
Photo 018 - Additional view of Paddy Creek where it crosses the power line ROW.
Looking southwest from the overlooking ridge at the location Impact Number 4-8.
•
f , r
66,
?+ ' ?? ,f J i;r 7pMv

J • N,

•
•
Photo 019 - Photograph of stream that is parallel to Paddy Creek Dam.
This stream is associated with Impact Numbers 4-5 and 4-6.
Photo 020 - Photograph of the jurisdictional wetland located in Drainage #5.
•

r
Duke Power
Duke Letter dated October 9, 2003
Paddy Creek Dam
ESSI Project
53
W Duke
oPower,
A Duke Energy Company
October 9, 2003
Mr. Jeff Jurek
The North Carolina Wetlands Restoration Program
1619 Mail Services Center
Raleigh, NC 27699-1619
FOSSIL-HYDRO
Duke Power
526 South Church Street
Charlotte, NC 28202-1802
Subject: Request, Payment to NCWRP, Proposed Wetland Impacts, Paddy Creek
Dam Embankment Seismic Stability Improvements Project
Dear Mr. Jurek:
Duke Energy requests that payment to the DENR Wetland Trust Fund through the
NCWRP be accepted as mitigation for proposed wetland impacts associated with the
Paddy Creek Dam Embankment Seismic Stability Improvements (ESSI) Project. The
. project site (see attached location map) is located approximately 3 miles west of the town
of Glen Alpine, NC, in Burke County and is within the Catawba River Basin (Catalogue
Unit 0305010). The site includes the dam and proposed borrow areas, which are all
located on Duke Energy-owned properties. Proposed construction consists of a large
earthen counterweight stability berm and is part of the Bridgewater ESSI Project, which
is directed at improving the Paddy Creek, Catawba, and Linville Dams for a highly
unlikely seismic event. The dams impound Lake James and are included in Duke
Energy's Bridgewater Hydroelectric Development, which is licensed and regulated by the
Federal Energy Regulatory Commission (FERC).
Duke Energy mapped wetlands within the proposed berm construction area and adjacent
borrow areas in spring 2003. Based on preliminary site plans, Duke Energy estimates
that approximately 2.9 acres of wetlands will be impacted by the proposed activities. The
majority of these impacts are associated with the construction of the berm and are
unavoidable. One small wetland area (approximately 0.09 acres) will be impacted within
the borrow areas. Impacts include approximately 2.33 acres within a Palustrine Emergent
(PEM)/Forested (PFO)/Scrub-shrub (PSS) wetland complex near the foot of the existing
dam. Additionally there are approximately 0.30 acres of PFO and 0.13 acres of PEM
impacts. There is no proposed clearing within riparian buffers along the Catawba River
as defined in 15A NCAC 02B .0244.
Please contact me at [phone] or Mr. Chris Vera of Devine Tarbell & Associates
(DTA) at 704-342-7381 with questions or comments.
www. duke-energy. corn

Sincerely,
tic
UJ nathan R Wise
Project Manager
F H Projects and Outage Management
cc: Ms. Amanda Jones, ACOE
Mr. Kevin Barnett, DWQ
Mr. Chris Vera, DTA
Mr. Steve Johnson
r?
?J
E
Duke Power
Paddy Creek Dam
ESSI Project
40 NCDENR Letter dated October 15, 2003
11
•
54
North Carolina
Department of Environment and Natural Resources
Alsl F. Easley, Governor
William G. Ross Jr., Secretary
e rn
NCDENR
October 15, 2003
Jonathan R. 'Vise
Duke Power
526 South Church Street
Charlotte, NC 28202-1802
Subject: Project: Paddy Creek Dam Improvements
County: Burke
The purpose of this letter is to notify you that the North Carolina Wetlands Restoration Program (NCWRP) is
willing to accept payment for riparian wetlands impacts associated with the subject project. Please note that the
decision by the NCWRP to accept the mitigation requirements of this project does not assure that this payment
will be approved by the U.S. Army Corps of Engineers and the N.C. Division of Water Quality Wetlands/401
Unit. It is the responsibility of the applicant to contact these agencies to determine if payment to the NCWRP for
impacts associated with this project is appropriate.
This acceptance is valid for six months from the date of this letter. If Nve have not received a copy of the issued
404 Permit/401 Certification within this time frame, this acceptance will expire.
0 Based on the information supplied by you in a letter dated October 9, 2003 the riparian wetlands restoration that is
necessary to satisfy the compensatory mitigation requirements for this project is summarized in the following
table. The maximum amount of mitigation that the NCWRP will accept for this project is also indicated in this
table.
Stream
Wetlands Riparian
Riparian Buffer
(linear feet) (acres) (ft')
Impacts 2.9
Mitigation Maximum 5.8

The riparian wetlands mitigation will be provided as specified in ine wui wafer YUUIILy %.U1L,,,%?u..V„ --
Section 404 Permit for impacts associated with the subject project in Cataloging Unit 03050101 of the Catawba
River Basin. The mitigation will be performed in accordance with the Memorandum of Understanding between
the N.C. Department of Environment and Natural Resources and the U.S. Army Corps of Engineers dated
November 4, 1998.
If you have any questions or need additional information, please contact Carol Shaw at [phone].
Sincerely, n
g?
Ronald E. Ferrell,
Program Manager
cc: Cyndi Karoly, Wetlands/401 Unit
Amanda Jones, USACOE-Asheville
• Kevin Barnett, DWQ Regional Office-Asheville
File
Wetlands Restoration Program 1619 Mail Service Center Raleigh, NC 27699-1619
[phone] Fax: [phone]
•
FI-I
LJ
•
Duke Power
Paddy Creek Dam
ESSI Project
Duke Letter dated April 6, 2004
55
fflikk Duke
®Powero
A Duke Energy Company
April 6, 2004
Ms. Deborah Sawyer
Environmental Specialist
1619 Mail Service Center
Raleigh, NC 27699-1619
-- -- :: _` FOSSIL-HYDRO
Duke Power
526 South Church St.
Charlotte, NC 28202-1802
Subject: Extension Request, Payment to NCWRP, Proposed Wetland Impzcts,
Paddy Creek Dam Embankment seismic Stability Improvements Project
Dear Ms. Sawyer:
Duke Energy, on October 9, 2003, requested that payment to the North Carolina
• Department of Environment and Natural Resources (DENR) Wetland Trust Fund through
the North Carolina Wetland Restoration Program (NCWRP) be accepted as mitigation for
proposed jurisdictional wetland impacts associates with the Paddy Creek Dam
Embankment Seismic Stability Improvements (ESSI) Project.
On October 15, 2003, the NCWRP notified Duke Energy, that it was willing to accept
payment for riparian wetlands impacts associated with the Paddy Creek Dam ESSI
Project. The NCWRP stated that this acceptance is contingent ?.iper 71, receiving 404/401 Certification and will be valid for six months until Aprii i.;, -,UA
Duke Energy now understands that a new program, the Ecosystem Enhancement Program
(EEP), has been created by the merger of the NCWRP and the North Carolina
Department of Transportation's Office of Natural Environment. In addition, Duke
Energy understands that you, Ms. Deborah Sawyer, have taken over the project from Mr.
Jeff Jurek.
Due to the immensity of this project and changes in project tasks and scheduling, Duke
Energy would like to request a six month extension to the existing acceptance to purchase
wetland mitigation for the proposed wetland impacts associated with the construction of
the Paddy Creek ESSI.
In addition to the impacts to jurisdictional wetlands, there is the potential for impacts to
• jurisdictional surface waters as well. Duke Energy has mapped jurisdictional streams
within the proposed construction of the berm and associated structures. These impacts
wwu. fln4n-onn.nv nnm
• Ms. Deborah Sawyer Page 2
will need to be compensated for through compensutery mitigation. Duke Energy world
like to know the availability of any stream credits that could be purchased through the in-
lieu fee program.
If any additional information is ne° ;ed. concerning t' f., extension request and th° stream
mitigation request, please feel &ec .n cc;-it. ct me at [phone] or Mr. Jamies A.
McRacken Jr. of Devine Tarbell & Associates (DTA) at [phone].
Sincerely,
Jonathan R. Wise
Project Manager
cc: Ms. Amanda Jones, USACE
Mr. Kevin Barnett, DWQ
• Mr. Steve Johnson, Duke Energy
Mr. Scott T. Fletcher, DTA
Mr. James A. McRacken, DTA
C?
r
•
•
Duke Power
Paddy Creek Dam
ESSI Project
NCDENR Letter dated April 15, 2004
56
? NCDENR
North Carolina Department of Environment and Natural ReSO 'CE;S
Nl,Dae; F. Eas.ev, Governor Vi is n G. , ..r .
Jonathan R. Wise
Project Manager
Duke Power
April 15, 2004
526 South Church Street
Charlotte, NC 28202-1802
Subject: Project: Paddy Creek Dam embankment - extension
County: Burke
The purpose of this letter is to notify you that the North Carolina Ecosystem Enhancement Program (NCEEP) is will lig to
accept payment for stream and riparian wetlands impacts associated with the subject project. Please note tha,, the decision
by the NCEEP to accept the mitigation requirements of this project does not assure that this payment will be approved by
the U.S. Army Corps of Engineers and the N.C. Division of Water Quality Wetlands/401 Unit. It is the responsibility of
the applicant to contact these agencies to determine if payment to the NCEEP for impacts associated wan this projeci i;
appropriate.
his acceptance is valid for six months from the date of this letter. If we have not received a copy of the issued 404
mit/401 Certification within this time frame, this acceptance will expire.
Based on the information supplied by you in a letter dated April 6, 2004, the stream and wetlands restoration that is
necessary to satisfy the compensatory mitigation requirements for this project is summarized in the following table. The
maximum amount of mitigation that the NCEEP will accept for this project is also indicated in this table.
Stream
(linear feet) Wetlands Riparian
(acres) Wetlands Non-
Riparian (acres) Riparian Buffer
(s q. ft.)
Impact 650 2.9
Mitigation Max 1300 5.8 I
The stream and riparian wetlands mitigation will be provided as specified in the 401 Water Quality Ceriific;atiuo a and/or
Section 404 Permit for impacts associated with the subject project in Cataloging Unit 03050101 of the Catawba River
Basin. The mitigation will be performed in accordance with the Memorandum of Understanding between the N.C.
Department of Environment and Natural Resources and the U.S. Army Corps of Engineers dated November 4, 1 99S.
If you have any questions or need additional information, please contact Carol Shaw at (919) 7`z ?20R.
Since ely, n
QLl ?Y?C
Ronald E. Ferrell,
Director of Operations
cc: Cyndi Karoly, Wetlands/401 Unit
Amanda Jones, USACOE-Asheville
Kevin Barnett, DENR Regional Office-Asheville
File
DENF Ecosystem En"ancement Program One
161 -a %lail Service Center, Raleigh, North Caro;in:a 27099 1619 NorthCarolina
Phon-?: 919-733-5208', FAX: [phone] ; Internet: h2o.enr.state.nc.us;?tWp:- :Fs?:
•
•
E
Duke Power
Paddy Creek Dam
ESSI Project
NCDENR Letter dated August 24, 2004
57
•
- Ecos stem
-PROGRAM
Revised - August 24, 2004
Jonathan R. Wise
Project Manager
Duke Power
526 S. Church Street
Charlotte, NC 28202-1802
Subject: Project: Paddy Creek Dam Improvements
County: Burke
The purpose of this letter is to notify you that the North Carolina Ecosystem Enhancement Program (NCEEP) is willing to
accept payment for stream and wetlands impacts associated with the subject project. Please note that the decision by the
NCEEP to accept the mitigation requirements of this project does not assure that this payment will be approved by the
U.S. Army Corps of Engineers and the N.C. Division of Water Quality Wetlands/401 Unit. It is the responsibility of the
applicant to contact these agencies to determine if payment to the NCEEP for impacts associated with this project is
appropriate.
This acceptance is valid for six months from the date of this letter. If we have not received a copy of the issued 404
Permit/401 Certification within this time frame, this acceptance will expire.
0sed on the information supplied by you in a letter dated August 20, 2004, the stream and riparian wetlands restoration
that is necessary to satisfy the compensatory mitigation requirements for this project is summarized in the following table.
The maximum amount of mitieation that the NCEEP will accept for this project is also indicated in this table.
Stream
(linear feet) Wetlands Riparian
(acres) Wetlands Non-
Riparian (acres) Riparian Buffer
(s q. ft.)
Impact 650 2.9
Mitigation Max 1650 5.8
The stream and riparian wetlands mitigation will be provided as specified in the 401 Water Quality Certification and/or
Section 404 Permit for impacts associated with the subject project in Cataloging Unit 03050101 of the Catawba River
Basin. The mitigation will be performed in accordance with the Memorandum of Understanding between the N.C.
Department of Environment and Natural Resources and the U.S. Army Corps of Engineers dated November 4, 1998.
If you have any questions or need additional information, please contact Carol Shaw at [phone].
Sincerely, '' nn
Deborah D. Anderson,
In-Lieu-Fee Administrator
cc: Cyndi Karoly, Wetlands/401 Unit
Amanda Jones, USACOE-Asheville
Kevin Barnett, DWQ Regional Office-Asheville
File
torte... _F ... Prot" our State
?!•tiA
NCDENR
North Carolina Ecosystem Enhancement Program, 1619 Mail Service Center, Raleigh, NC 27699-1619 / 919-733-5208 / www.nceep.net
Duke Power
Paddy Creek Dam
ESSI Project
0 Adjacent Land Owners
•
•
sS
Page 1 of 3
Date: 03-31-04
Subject: Paddy Creek ESSI Project - Adjacent Propcrh, Owners List
Note: *Address information obtained from Burke County GIS website 03-31-2004.
*Owner names, parcel numbers, and PIN's obtained are a combination of
information from the Burke County GIS website and research done by Sanborn.
PIN 1753-0032-1059
Parcel # Deed 729 Page 1570
Owner: BURLESON DOUGLAS E & TERESA V
Address: 2910 CORPENING CHAPEL RD
MORGANTON NC 28655
PIN
Parcel # 38310 Deed 506 Page 62
Owner: LINVILLE METHODIST Cl IURCH
Address: RT 5 BOX 340
MORGANTON NC 28655
PIN 1753-0051-1837
Parcel # 18083 Deed 746 Page 879
Owner: Helen A Buchanon & son Jimmy R. Buchanon
Address: 5516 RAYS DAIRY AVE
MORGANTON NC 28655
PIN
Parcel #
Owner:
Address:
PIN
Parcel #
Owner:
Address:
1753-0052-1118
41920 Deed 836 Page 172
Helen C. Buchanon
5516 RAYS DAIRY AVE
MORGANTON NC 28655
1753-0052-3102
36393 Deed 879 Page 985
Helen C. Buchanon
303 MAPLEWOOD DR
MORGANTON NC 28655
PIN 1753-0070-0108
Parcel # 25801 Deed 1067 Page 275
Owner: Michael Fitzgerald, Sr. and wife Paula V. and Michael Fitzgerald, Jr. and
wife Cameron P.
Address: 4100 TURNER MILL ROAD
MORGANTON NC 28655
PIN 1753-0070-0108
Parcel # Deed 918 Page 2207
Owner: Lake James Farm, Inc.
Address: 4100 TURNER MILL ROAD
MORGANTON NC 28655
W:\fosshydr\Brid-exvater Seismic\Bridgewater Environmental\404 Permitting\PC - Adjacent Property
Owners.doc
Page 2 of 3
PIN 1753-0041-0774
Parcel # Deed 656 Page 453
• Owner: Terry D. Burleson
Address: 3308 TRINITY CHURCH ROAD
VALDESE NC 28690
PIN 1753-0031-7798
Parcel # Deed 767 Pale 1650
Owner: Terry D. Burleson
Address: 3308 TRINITY CHURCH I ROAD
VALDESE NC 28690
PIN 1753-0031-6836
Parcel # Deed 656
Owner: Andy Keith Pope
Address: 5664 RAYS DAIRY AVE
MORGANTON NC 28655
•
•
PIN 1753-0031-4845
Parcel # Deed 656
Owner: Andy Keith Pope
Address: 5664 RAYS DAIRY AVE
MORGANTON NC 28655
PIN 1753-0021-7882
Parcel # Deed 17
Owner: Crescent Resources, Inc.
Address: P O BOX 1003
CHARLOTTE NC 28201
PIN 1753-0032-0976
Parcel # 47587 Deed 17
Owner: Crescent Resources, Inc.
Address: P O BOX 1003
CHARLOTTE NC 28201
PIN 1753-0032-0976
Parcel # 47587 Deed 17
Owner: Crescent Resources, Inc.
Address: P O BOX 1003
CHARLOTTE NC 28201
PIN 1753-0074-1426
Parcel # Deed 351
Owner: Crescent Resources. Inc.
Address: P O BOX 1003
CHARLOTTE NC 28201
Page 666
Page 666
Page 35
Page 35
Page 35
Page 229
W:\1bsshydr\Bridge\vatcr SeismicTridgewater Environmenta1\404 Permitting\PC - Adjacent Property
Owners.doc
Page 3 of 3
•
e
•
PIN 1753-0094-7891
Parcel # Deed 781
Owner: MCLEAN SHERRY WI IITE
Address: 4067 REID ROAD
ROCKI-IILL SC 29730
PIN 1763-0004-0448
Parcel # Deed 888
Owner: GREENE T J ET AL
Address: P O BOX 292
CROSSNORE NC 28616
PIN 1763-0003-4613
Parcel # Deed 888
Owner: GREENE T J ET AL
Address: P O BOX 292
CROSSNORE NC 28616
PIN 1763-0002-5922
Parcel # Deed 888
Owner: CRESWELL WANDA SUE
Address: 5245 POWERHOUSE RD
MORGANTON NC 28655
Page1829
Page 330
Page 330
Page 814
W:\fosshydr\Bridgewatcr Seismic\Bridge%vater Environmenta1\404 Permitting\PC - Adjacent Property
Owners.doc
Duke Power
Paddy Creek Dam
ESSI Project
9 North Carolina State Historic Preservation Office Concurrence Letter
•
r?
59
?Y 1N?q
3Y e ?_?
aw
North Carolina Department of Cultural Resources
State Historic Preservation Office
Peter B. Sandbeck4 Administrator
Michael F. Easley, Governor
f.isbeth C. Evans, Secretary
Jeffrey J. Crow, Deputy Secretary
August 2, 2004
Jonathan R. Wise, Project Manager
Duke Power
526 S. Church Street
Charlotte, NC 28202-1802
Re: Cultural Resources Survey Addendum Submittal
Catawba-Wateree Hydroelectric Project, Project No. 2232
Bridgewater Paddy Creek Borrow Tracts, ER 03-3017
Burke and McDowell Counties
Dear Mr. Wise:
Office of Archives and History
Division of Historical Resources
David Brook, Director
Thank you for your letter of April 22, 2004 transmitting the addendum archaeological research report by
Bobby Southerlin of Archaeological Consultants of the Carolinas, Inc. We apologize for the delay in our
response.
During the course of the survey, the remains of a cistern or springhouse and one Native American
archaeological site (31BK424) were located within the project area. The cistern may not meet the 50-year age
requirement and the major portion of the prehistoric site is located outside the project area. Due to these
factors, Mr. Southerlin has recommended that no further archaeological investigation be conducted in the
project area covered by this addendum report. We concur with this recommendation.
The above comments are made pursuant to Section 106 of the National Historic Preservation Act and the
Advisory Council on Historic Preservation's Regulations for Compliance with Section 106 codified at 36 CFR
Part 800.
Thank you for your cooperation and consideration. If you have questions concerning the above comment,
please contact Renee Gledhill-Earley, environmental review coordinator, at 919/733-4763. In all future
communication concerning this project, please cite the above referenced tracking number.
S' erely,
tom-
eter Sandbeck
Deputy State Historic Preservation Of cer
I.ocatlon Mailing Address Telephone/Fax
ADINUNISTRAnON 507 N. Blount Street, Raleigh NC 4617 Mail Service Center, Raleigh NC 2769913617 (919)7333763/733-8653
RESTORATION 515 N. Blount Street, Raleigh NC 4617 Mail Service Center, Raleigh NC 276994617 (919)733.6547111 5.4801
SURVEY & PI.ANN'ViG 5 15 N. Blount Street, Raleigh, NC 4617 Mail Service Center, Raleigh NC 2769913617 [phone]ni 54801

r
s
Duke Power
Paddy Creek Dam
ESSI Project
REFERENCES
11 University of Washington, Geotechnical Engineering Program. Soil Liquefaction website. 2004
1?1 Environmental Laboratory. (1987). "Corps of Engineers Wetlands Delineation Manual,"
Technical Report Y-87-1, U.S. Army Engineer Waterways Experiment Station, Vicksburg, MS.
c31 Cowardin, L. M., V. Carter, F. C. Golet, E. T. LaRoe. 1979. Classification of wetlands and
deepwater habitats of the United States. U. S. Department of the Interior, Fish and Wildlife
Service, Washington, D.C. 131pp.
60
Re: Combined Tracking and Tardy Notice, for RRO, AR...
Subject: Re: Combined Tracking and Tardy Notice, for RRO, ARO, WIRO,
WARO & MRO
From: Kevin Barnett <Kevin.BarnettC ncmail.net>
Date: Mon, 29 Nov 2004 16:44:16 -0500
To: Cyndi Karoly <[e-mail]>
CC: Forrest Westall <Forrest.Westall @ ncmail. net>
Cyndi Karoly wrote:
Asheville:
04-1555, Marlene P. Brown, Macon Co., NW18? 10/13/04 12/11/04
On my desk trying to figure out how to deal with this one.
04-1680, G.E. Lighting Systems, Henderson Co., NW39 10/18/04
12/16/04
Issued last month
04-1695, Haw Creek Enhancement, Buncombe Co., NW13 10/20/04
12/18/04
Problems with this project.
04-1688, Theresa Emmanuel, Buncombe Co., NW13 10/15/04
12/13/04
Issued this month.
04-1583, Duke Power Paddy Creek Dam, Burke Co., IP **must be
issued from
Central** 10/18/04 12/16/04 (note to Kevin - I attended the
pre-application and site visits while you were on paternity leave.
They've done a thorough job covering the bases on this project.
I'll be
happy to go ahead and handle, especially since it's an IP anyway,
so you
can focus on other projects. Just let me know your preference.
Please handle as needed.
04-1634, Dry Creek at South Pointe, Burke Co., CBR 10/7/04
12/5/04
Need to address minimization issues.
04-1611, Norman J. Payne, Buncombe Co., NW3 10/4/04 12/2/04
Incomplete. Working with property owner.
1 of 2 12/4/2004 3:05 PM
2
Copies Furnished (without enclosure):
Diane Long
NCDENR - Coastal Management Division
1601 Mail Service Center
Raleigh, North Carolina 27699-1601

DEPARTMENT OF THE ARMY
WILMINGTON DISTRICT, CORPS OF ENGINEERS
151 PATTON AVENUE
ROOM 208
ASHEVILLE, NORTH CAROLINA 28801-5006
REPLY TO p
ATTENTION OF: October 8, 2004
Regulatory Division
Action ID No. 200431252
u L 1 T 2 2004
Ms. Cyndi Karoly
North Carolina Department of Environment
and Natural Resources
Division of Water Quality, Wetland/401 Unit
1650 Mail Service Center
Raleigh, North Carolina 27699-1650
Dear Ms. Karoly:
D
CENR - WATER QUALITY
VVETLA?;CSA.',DSTC„ tt,ti;4TERBRANCH
Enclosed is the application submitted by Duke Power, for Department of the Army
authorization and a State Water Quality Certification to authorize the proposed placement of fill
within 1,297 linear feet of jurisdictional stream channels and 1.86 acres of wetlands, which are
adjacent to and include unnamed tributaries to the Catawba River, in order to construct a stability
berm on the downstream side of the Paddy Creek Dam on Lake James, west of Morganton,
Burke County, North Carolina.
We are considering authorizing the proposed activity pursuant to Section 404 of the Clean
Water Act, and we have determined that a water quality certification is required under the
provisions of Section 401 of the same law. A Department of the Army permit will not be granted
until the certification has been obtained or waived.
In accordance with our administrative regulations, in most cases, 60 days after receipt of a
request for certification is a reasonable time for State action. Therefore, if you have not acted on
the request, or asked for an extension of time, by December 7, 2004, the District Engineer will
deem that waiver has occurred.
Questions or comments may be addressed to Ms. Amanda Jones, Asheville Field Office,
Regulatory Division, telephone [phone] extension 231.
Sincerely,
Scott McLendon
Chief, Asheville Regulatory Field Office
Enclosure

REPLY TO
ATTENTION OF:
DEPARTMENT OF THE ARMY
WILMINGTON DISTRICT, CORPS OF ENGINEERS
151 PATTON AVENUE
ROOM 208
ASHEVILLE, NORTH CAROLINA 28801-5006
October 8, 2004
Regulatory Division
Action ID No. 200431252
Ms. Cyndi Karoly
North Carolina Department of Environment
and Natural Resources
Division of Water Quality, Wetland/401 Unit
1650 Mail Service Center
Raleigh, North Carolina 27699-1650
Dear Ms. Karoly:
RL)
V
O C T 1 2 2004
CEP:R - V ATER QUALITY
Enclosed is the application submitted by Duke Power, for Department of the Army
authorization and a State Water Quality Certification to authorize the proposed placement of fill
within 1,297 linear feet of jurisdictional stream channels and 1.86 acres of wetlands, which are
adjacent to and include unnamed tributaries to the Catawba River, in order to construct a stability
berm on the downstream side of the Paddy Creek Dam on Lake James, west of Morganton,
Burke County, North Carolina.
We are considering authorizing the proposed activity pursuant to Section 404 of the Clean
Water Act, and we have determined that a water quality certification is required under the
provisions of Section 401 of the same law. A Department of the Army permit will not be granted
until the certification has been obtained or waived.
In accordance with our administrative regulations, in most cases, 60 days after receipt of a
request for certification is a reasonable time for State action. Therefore; if you have not acted on
the request, or asked for an extension of time, by December 7, 2004, the District Engineer will
deem that waiver has occurred.
Questions or comments may be addressed to Ms. Amanda Jones, Asheville Field Office,
Regulatory Division, telephone [phone] extension 231.
Scott McLendon

Chief, Asheville Regulatory Field Office
Enclosure
2
Copies Furnished (without enclosure):
Diane Long
NCDENR - Coastal Management Division
1601 Mail Service Center
Raleigh, North Carolina 27699-1601
U.S. Fish and Wildlife Service
160 Zillicoa Street
Asheville, North Carolina 28801-1082
2A74
MCDENR
North Carolina Department of Environment and Natural Resources
Division of Water Quality
Michael F. Easley, Governor
MEMORANDUM
TO: Rick Shiver
Wilmington Regional Office
FROM: Cyndi Karoly Cry
RE: 401 Certification Review
Attn: Noelle Lutheran
October 7, 2004
William G. Ross, Jr., Secretary
Alan W. Klimek, P.E., Director
Please review the enclosed 401 Certification applications by the dates listed for each project. Please call
me if you or your staff have any questions, or need assistance in these reviews.
Please complete the staff report and recommendation form on Filemaker Pro.
1. The Center at College & Market (Individual Permit)
04-1593
New Hanover County
Central Office Received 9/29/04
Clock won't start until Public Notice issued
2. Town of Swansboro
04-0385
Onslow County
Central Office Received 10/5/04
Clock expires 12/3/04
The other enclosed material is for your general information and use as appropriate.
Enclosures
401 Wetlands Certification Unit
1650 Mail Service Center, Raleigh, North Carolina 27699.1650
2321 Crabtree Boulevard, Suite 250, Raleigh, North Carolina 27604
Phone: [phone] / FAX [phone] / Intemet: http://h2o.enr.state.nc.us/ncwctlands
An Equal Opportunity/Affirmative Action Employer-50% Recycled/10% Post Consumer Paper
NorthCarolina
;VatutY71111
P Duke
®Power®
A Duke Energy Company
September 21, 2004
Ms. Amanda D. Jones, Project Manager
Asheville Regulatory Field Office
US Army Corps of Engineers
151 Patton Avenue, Room 208
Asheville, North Carolina 28801-5006
Re: Catawba-Wateree Hydroelectric Project, Paddy Creek Dam
Embankment Seismic Stability Improvements at the Bridgewater
Development
Clean Water Act Section 404/401 Individual Permit
USACE File No.: 200331252
Dear Ms. Jones:
Duke Power
526 South Church Street
P.O. Box 1006
Charlotte, NC 25201-1006
Rpm C?G0MC= p
D
SE? 3 0 2004
DENR - WATER QUALITY
Vi cTMIDS AND STOWAVATER EW4H
Duke Power is submitting, for your review, this Individual Permit Package (eight copies), for the
jurisdictional waters of the U.S., including wetlands that will be affected by the Paddy Creek
Embankment Seismic Stabilization Improvements (ESSI) Project. Attached to this letter is the
Permit Application and the Project Narrative that describes the proposed ESSI Project. This
package will satisfy Duke Power and the Federal Energy Regulatory Commission (FERC)
obligations under Sections 404 and 401 of the Clean Water Act (CWA), and addresses project-
related concerns designed to determine what extent the proposed actions may affect any
jurisdictional waters of the U.S.
Should you have any questions or comments regarding this submittal, please feel free to call me
at [phone] or James A. McRacken Jr. at [phone].
Sincerely,
cvi, r/ UA?'-
Jo than R. Wise
Project Manager
Duke Power
Attachments