20181638 Ver 3_USACE More Info Request_20190905

U.S. ARMY CORPS OF ENGINEERS
WILMINGTON DISTRICT
Action Id. SAW -2018-00887 County: Alamance/Rockingham U.S.G.S. Quad: multiple
INCOMPLETE APPLICATION
Applicant: Mountain Valley, LLC Agent: TRC Environmental Corporation
Attn: Kathy Salvador Attn: Heather Patti
Address: 700 Universe Boulevard Address: 5540 Centerview Drive, Suite 100
Juno Beach, FL 33408 Raleigh, NC 27606
Location/Description of Proposed Activity: The project area includes a 100 -foot wide corridor, approximately
47 miles long, extending from the Virginia/North Carolina border near Ruffin, Rockingham County
(36.541389°N, -79.632645°W), southeast to Graham, Alamance County (36.0454801N, -79.3652521W), North
Carolina.
The North Carolina portions of the proposed project, known as Mountain Valley Pipeline — Southgate (MVP
Southgate), would construct a 24 -inch natural gas pipeline, originating at the southern terminus of the
Virginia portion of MVP Southgate (milepost IMPI 26.1), extending southwest approximately 4.3 miles to a
proposed delivery interconnect (T-15 Dan River Interconnect) at MP 30.4. From the interconnect, the project
would involve construction of a 16 -inch natural gas pipeline running southeast to its delivery terminus (T-21
Haw River Interconnect) located at MP 73.1, approximately 2.5 miles southeast of Graham, North Carolina.
The facility would generally require a 100 -foot wide construction right-of-way (limit of disturbance) during
construction consisting of a 50 -foot permanent right-of-way and 50 feet of temporary workspace. The
proposed project would involve temporary impacts to wetlands, streams, and open waters for installation of
the pipeline, permanent impacts from the conversion of forested wetlands to herbaceous wetlands within the
pipeline permanent maintenance corridor, and permanent and temporary impacts to wetlands and streams
from the construction of access roads to facilitate construction and long term maintenance.
Approximately 26 miles of MVP Southgate would occur in Virginia and are not evaluated by the Wilmington
District. MVP Southgate would receive gas from the Mountain Valley Pipeline mainline in Pittsylvania
County, Virginia.
Type of Permit Applied For (check one): IP ❑ NWP N GP ❑
Applicable law: Section 404 of the Clean Water Act N; Section 10, Rivers and Harbor Act ❑
YOUR APPLICATION IS INCOMPLETE AND CANNOT BE PROCESSED UNTIL THE FOLLOWING
INFORMATION IS RECEIVED (CHECK ALL THAT APPLY):
❑ Your application form has not been completed and/or signed (see remarks)
N Under the conditions of the Nationwide Permit, mitigation is required for your project. The
mitigation proposal submitted with your application is insufficient. (see remarks.)
❑ Your application did not include a statement explaining how avoidance and minimization for losses of
waters of the U.S. were achieved on the project site. (see remarks)
N Your submitted project plans or maps were insufficient, too large, or not legible (see remarks).
❑ Your application did not include a delineation of affected special aquatic sites, including wetlands, vegetated
shallows, and riffle and pool complexes as required.
❑ You must submit a copy of your application to the NC Wildlife Resources Commission (WRC) since your
proposed work is in a designated trout water county (see remarks section below for the address of your
WRC representative)
N Other (see remarks below).
"Please reference your PCN, plans, and other attachments submitted via email on August 9, 2019.
Page 1 of 2

REMARKS:
1. While the U.S. Army Corps of Engineers, Wilmington District, Raleigh Regulatory Field Office (Corps) has
verified the delineation of potential waters of the US within a majority of the proposed pipeline route in North
Carolina, there are still sections of the route (approximately 10%) that have not been delineated or the
delineation has not been verified. Pending submittal of additional delineations, the Corps may choose to field -
verify the delineation for these areas, as well as an re-routed sections of pipeline, in order to determine not only
the extent of the jurisdictional impacts, but also the functional quality of the resources, upon which to determine
appropriate compensatory mitigation requirements. (see PCN Section B.4b.)
2. The "Revised Wetland and Waterway Delineation Maps" provided in Appendix K of the application, do not
reflect changes to the wetland/stream delineation based on the Corps field and office reviews per our email sent
July 22, 2019; please also note the additional data requested in that email to enable further office determinations
on specific delineated features. Also ensure that Alignment Sheets (Appendix B) and Impact Drawings
(Appendix M) reflect all Corps -approved changes to the delineation to date. Please review all delineation maps
and plan sheets to ensure that the field-approved/office-verified delineation is shown, and update all
acreages/linear feet and impact proposals accordingly.
Further, it is possible that our office will not agree with some of your forested vs. non -forested wetland
designation. However, these distinctions will be made following the completion of field delineations, field
verifications (if necessary), and re -submittal of your PCN and attachments.
3. Please provide detailed plan and profile views for all proposed permanent fills of wetlands, streams, and other
waters, including culvert sizes and lengths, overlaid on the approved delineation.
4. Although no rip rap is currently proposed in wetland or stream areas, reference was made in the project
narrative to decisions on rip rap needs being made during construction. Further, the "Type 2 - Stream Bank
Restoration" detail as shown on the Stream Bank Restoration Typicals drawing (Appendix E) shows rip rap
placed below the Ordinary High Water Mark. Please note that the Corps Wilmington District considers rip rap
to be a permanent impact (though not necessarily a permanent loss). As such, any rip rap proposed would need
to be included in the PCN/application as a permanent impact and authorized prior to construction.
5. Based on the alignment sheets (Appendix B), additional avoidance and minimization of stream and wetland
impacts could be achieved. Please review and update all project plan sheets based on the following comments.
If additional avoidance and minimization is not practicable in these circumstances, please provide
documentation to that effect:
a. The pipeline would presumably be constructed under roadways via conventional bore methods. As such,
wetland and stream resources located next to roadways (e.g. W -1318-99/S-1318-99, W -1318 -78/S -B 18-74,
etc.) could be avoided by extending conventional bores slightly beyond roadways. Costs for extending
bores already planned should be considerably less than mobilizing for entirely new bores.
b. Several streams are proposed to be trenched through along their channel length rather than near -
perpendicular (e.g. S -A18-140, S-A 18-143, S -A18-147, etc.). Several hundred linear feet of stream
disturbance could be avoided by slight redesigns in pipe centerline.
c. The pipe centerline is proposed to trench through several stream confluences (e.g. S -C18 -38/S -C18-53,
etc.). Prolonged stream disturbance would be expected in these locations due to inherent stream bank
instability at stream confluences, difficulty in reconstructing intersecting stream banks in their original
location, and lack of woody vegetation along stream banks due to long term maintenance. Slight redesigns
in pipe centerline could avoid these issues.
6. Appendix M (Proposed Pipeline Route and Impacts):
a. The "Operational Workspace" layer seems to disappear along at the edges of wetland areas; please
adjust the layer order such that the "Operational Workspace" can be clearly shown where it necks
down at wetland boundaries.
b. The "Operational Workspace" appears to reduce to 10 feet within wetland areas, however the
project narrative describes permanent maintenance of the pipeline corridor out to 30 feet;
c. The project narrative states that the construction workspace will reduce to 75 feet within wetland
areas, however this does not appear to be reflected in Appendix M (scale appears to show 100 foot
construction workspace);
2

d. Please note that the impact drawings should clearly show the permanent maintenance corridor as
well as the temporary construction corridor to accurately reflect and calculate proposed project
impacts and compensatory mitigation requirements. Given the discrepancies currently shown in
Appendix M, please ensure that proposed impacts to potential waters of the US are calculated and
reported accurately in the permit application.
7. Given the numerous proposed crossings of wetlands, streams, and open waters, please provide the itemized
proposed impact information in digital format to facilitate efficient processing. Once additional delineations and
any required field verification are complete and you plan to submit the updated PCN and attachments, please
contact David Bailey for the latest ORM upload sheets, as the upload sheets are frequently revised.
Further, our office is under the impression that all of the delineated wetlands would be classified as either
Headwater Forest, Bottomland Hardwood Forest, Floodplain Pool, or Non -Tidal Freshwater Marsh types based
on the North Carolina Wetland Assessment Method (NCWAM). As such, for mitigation purposes, the
appropriate Wetland Group/Credit Classification would be Riparian non-Riverine or Riparian Riverine. If
applicable, please identify any delineated wetlands that you would classify instead as Basin Wetland, Seep, or
any other NCWAM type that would better fit the Non -Riparian Wetland Group/Credit Classification.
8. Your current proposal is to acquire compensatory mitigation through private mitigation banks. We recommend
that you also consider contingencies such as acquiring compensatory mitigation through the North Carolina
Division of Mitigation Services (NCDMS) in the event that there are not enough appropriate private mitigation
bank credits available. Further, provide letters from private Mitigation Banks and/or NCDMS stating that they
are willing to provide the appropriate type and amount of compensatory mitigation credits required for this
project. Note that a complete compensatory mitigation plan, including the letters referenced above, is required
by our office for review and approval prior to verifying the use of NWP 12. (see PCN Sections D.2 and D.3.)
Further, although our office typically requires compensatory mitigation for permanent conversion of forested
wetlands to another wetland type at a 1:1 ratio, compensatory mitigation for permanent fill of wetlands (see
Access Road PA-RO-000 at MP 28.7) is typically required at a 2:1 ratio. Please update all relevant sections of
your project narrative and other application documents accordingly.
9. We are aware that the FERC (Lead Federal Agency) is preparing an Enviromnental Impact Statement which
addresses the requirements of Section 106 of the National Historic Preservation Act (NHPA) and Section 7 of
the Endangered Species Act (ESA).
a. Their final opinion on whether the proposed activity may affect properties listed, or eligible for listing, in
the National Register of Historic Places is needed before the use of a Nationwide Permit can be verified for
this project. Please provide documentation showing compliance with Section 106 of the NHPA. (see PCN
Sections F.7)
b. Their final opinion on whether or not the project "may affect" a listed species or critical habitat is needed
before the use of a Nationwide Permit can be verified for this project. Please provide documentation
showing compliance with Section 7 of the ESA. (see PCN Sections F.8)
"Note that, due to the large volume of information submitted and reviewed for the project described in your PCN
and attachments, items in addition to those listed above may be identified by our office upon submittal of any
revised information.
Please submit the above information within 30 days of receipt of this Notification (via e-mail ifpreferred) or we
may consider your application withdrawn and close the file. Please contact David Bailey at [phone] X 30
or David.E.Bailey2(a�usace.army.mil if you have any questions.
Date: September 5, 2019
04'00'
Date: 2019.09.004'00'
01 5
Corps Regulatory Official: 12:56:50 -04'00'
David E. Bailey
Corps Regulatory Field Office Address:
USACE Raleigh Regulatory Field Office, 3331 Heritage Trade Drive, Suite 105, Wake Forest, NC 27587
3

Copy furnished (electronic):
Scott McLendon (Corps -SAW), Tyler Crumbley (Corps -SAW), Jean Gibby (Corps -SAW), Todd Miller (Corps-
NAO), Jennifer Frye (Corps-NAO), Karen Higgins (NCDWR), Sue Homewood (NCDWR), Alex Miller (NextEra),
Travis Faul (NextEra), Amanda Mardiney (FERC), John Ellis (USFWS), Renee Gledhill -Early (NCSHPO)