20181609 Ver 1_USFWS Determination Letter_20181220

Strickland, Bev
From: Bailey, David E CIV USARMY CESAW (US) < [e-mail] >
Sent: Thursday, December 20, 2018 3:01 PM
To: Terry Shelton; Scott Ehrhardt; Barksdale, Leslie
Cc: Bill, Briana; Beverly O'Dell; Michael Dougherty; Homewood, Sue;
[e-mail]
Subject: [External] RE: Request for Additional Information: City of Eden Waterline to SoVA
Mega Park; Rockingham Co.; SAW -2018-02188
Attachments: 20181220 USFWS Determination Letter.pdf
CAUTION: External email. Do not click links or open attachments unless verified. Send all suspicious email as an
attachment to Report Spam.<mailto:[e-mail]>
0
Please see the attached letter I received this afternoon from USFWS regarding this project. Note that they cannot concur
with proposed determinations for Roanoke logperch, James spinymussel, or smooth coneflower. Please provide
information concerning how you plan to address the concerns listed in the letter, and include that information in your
response to my Request for Additional Information submitted to you by email earlier today. Please let me know if you
have any questions.
-Dave Bailey
David E. Bailey, PWS
Regulatory Project Manager
US Army Corps of Engineers
CE -SAW -RG -R
3331 Heritage Trade Drive, Suite 105
Wake Forest, North Carolina 27587
Phone: [phone], Ext. 30.
Fax: [phone]
Email: David. [e-mail]
We would appreciate your feedback on how we are performing our duties. Our automated Customer Service Survey is
located at: http://corpsmapu.usace.army.mil/cm_apex/f?p=136:4:0
Thank you for taking the time to visit this site and complete the survey.
-----Original Message -----
From: Bailey, David E CIV USARMY CESAW (US)
Sent: Thursday, December 20, 2018 2:03 PM
To: 'Terry Shelton' <[e-mail]>; 'Scott Ehrhardt' <[e-mail]>; 'Barksdale, Leslie'
<[e-mail]>
Cc: 'Bill, Briana' <[e-mail]>; Beverly O'Dell <[e-mail]>; Michael Dougherty
<M [e-mail]>; 'Homewood, Sue' <[e-mail]>
Subject: Request for Additional Information: City of Eden Waterline to SoVA Mega Park; Rockingham Co.; SAW -2018-
02188

0
Thank you for your PCN and attached information, dated 11/21/2018, for the above referenced project. I have reviewed
the information and need clarification before proceeding with verifying the use of Nationwide Permit (NWP) 12
(http://www.saw.usace.army.miI/Portals/59/docs/regulatory/regdocs/NWP2012/NWP12_3-23.pdf). Please submit the
requested information below (via e-mail is fine) within 30 days of receipt of this Notification, otherwise we may deny
verification of the use of the Nationwide Permit or consider your application withdrawn and close the file:
1) Project plans require additional details:
a. Currently wetland areas are not clearly visible on the plan sheets. Add all wetland boundaries to the plans and
label them according to the delineation documentation provided by Dewberry on 8/24/2018. 1 recommend that a
different color be used on the plan sheets for wetland lines (such as green?). Show and label the wetland boundaries on
the profile drawings as well;
b. Clearly label all streams on the plan sheets according to the delineation documentation provided by Dewberry on
8/24/2018. 1 recommend that a different color be used on the plan sheets for stream lines (such as blue?). Show and
label the streams on the profile drawings as well;
C. Currently there is no way to match up itemized impacts listed in the PCN with the plans. As such, add Impact Site
labels to the plans, and add corresponding labels to Section D. of the PCN for clarity purposes:
i. Impact Site 1: Wetlands WD and WE
ii. Impact Site 2: Stream SH;
iii. Impact Site 3: Wetlands WC (2 areas);
iv. Impact Site 4: Streams SF and SG, Wetland WB;
V. Impact Site 5: Stream SE;
vi. Impact Site 6: Streams SC and SD;
vii. Impact Site 7: Streams SA and SB, Wetland WA;
d. Specify whether the utility corridor would include a permanent maintenance easement where vegetation would be
maintained in an herbaceous state. If so, include zoomed -in details of each stream and/or wetland crossing showing the
footprint of the permanent maintenance and temporary construction corridors. Such details must also show the extent
of temporary impacts (streams and wetlands) and extent of permanent maintenance impacts through wetland areas.
Further, for each applicable crossing, quantify the acreage of wetlands proposed to be converted from forested
wetlands and permanently maintained in an herbaceous state and add those as separate impacts in Section D of the
PCN;
2) Project plans indicate that stream crossings include discharging rip rap. If so, please confirm (including via profile
drawings) that any rip rap placed below the ordinary high water mark will be placed such that the top of the rip rap will
be no higher than the existing stream bed elevation (see NWP 12 Regional Condition 4.1.11). Note that the "Rip -Sap
Placement Detail" on Sheet C22 does not appear to comply with this Regional Condition. Also, since discharged rip rap

would not be removed, the lengths of stream subject to rip rap discharge must be added to the PCN as permanent
impacts;
3) Given the time past from the date of the USFWS Section 7 self -certification letter, as well as the known occurrences
of several aquatic species in Cascade Creek and the Dan River, we have initiated informal consultation with the USFWS.
Please note that the Corps cannot verify the use of a NWP until Section 7 consultation is complete;
4) Given that occurrences of Roanoke logperch are known is Cascade Creek, and occurrences of James spinymussel
are known just downstream in the Dan River, avoidance of impacts to Cascade Creek via HDD or jack and bore methods
seem reasonable. However, the plans note an alternative trenching method through Cascade Creek and the PCN
accounts for temporary impacts to Cascade Creek due to trenching. Please clear up this discrepancy in the plans and
PCN, such that the project would be compliant with NWP 12 Regional Condition 4.1.1. If the Cascade Creek crossing
would be installed via HDD, remove this impact from Section D of the PCN and add a note on this page clearly indicating
that the impact would be avoided in this manner;
5) Provide a plan including any pertinent detail sections for typical wetland impacts via trenching. Such plans should
including dewatering methods, lengths of time that trenches will be open in wetlands, and confirmation that the top 6
to 12 inches of the trench will be backfilled with topsoil from the trench. Per NWP 12 Regional Condition 4.1.9, provide a
specific wetland restoration plan including how grade and contour will be re-established, anti -compaction measures in
soils subject to construction traffic and matting, stabilization methods, and seeding/planting lists and specifications. Be
sure to specify wetland restoration differences in temporary and permanent easement areas. Such details should be
provided as an addendum that can be referenced in permit Special Conditions;
6) Plan sheet -specific comments:
a. Sheet C5: Wetland lines do not appear on the plan sheet (should be Wetlands WD and WE, per comment 1)a
above. The footprint of wetland areas proposed for impact (permanent maintenance as well as temporary construction
corridors) should be clearly shown on a zoom -in of the crossing (should be labeled "Impact Site 1" per comment 1)c.
above. The sheet references "Provide Stream Restoration per Details"; however, this area includes wetlands rather than
streams, and the plan sheet should reference a Wetland Restoration plan (see comment 5 above);
b. Sheet C6: Clearly show and label Stream SH per comment 1)b above. The footprint of the stream proposed for
impact should be clearly shown on a zoom -in of the crossing (should be labeled "Impact Site 2" per comment 1)c.
above);
C. Sheet C7: Wetland lines do not appear on the plan sheet (should be Wetland WC [2 segments], per comment 1)a
above). The footprint of wetland areas proposed for impact (permanent maintenance as well as temporary construction
corridors) should be clearly shown on a zoom -in of the crossing (should be labeled "Impact Site 3" per comment 1)c.
above). The sheet should also reference a Wetland Restoration plan (see comment 5 above);
d. Sheet C8: Clearly show and label Streams SF and SG per comment 1)b above. If applicable, the footprint of the
stream proposed for impact should be clearly shown on a zoom -in of the crossing. The plan sheet shows both an HDD
plan and an "Alternative Open -Cut Cascade" option. Please clear up this discrepancy (per comment 4 above). Wetland
lines do not clearly appear on the plan sheet (should be Wetland WB, per comment 1)a above). The footprint of wetland
areas proposed for impact (permanent maintenance as well as temporary construction corridors) should be clearly
shown on a zoom -in of the crossing. The sheet should also reference a Wetland Restoration plan (see comment 5
above); Note that both the stream and wetland crossing should be labeled "Impact Site 4" per comment 1)c. above;
e. Sheet C10: Clearly show and label Stream SE per comment 1)b above. The footprint of the stream proposed for
impact should be clearly shown on a zoom -in of the crossing (should be labeled "Impact Site 5" per comment 1)c.
above);
3

f. Sheet C14: Clearly show and label Streams SC and SD per comment 1)b above. The plan sheet indicates that the
waterline would be installed essentially within the bank of Stream SC. As such it is reasonable to assume that the
waterline would impact Stream SC itself. Provide information to justify that impacts to Stream SC would be avoided with
the current plan, or quantify proposed impacts and add to the plan/profile sheets and PCN. The footprint of the streams
proposed for impact should be clearly shown on a zoom -in of the crossing (should be labeled "Impact Site 6" per
comment 1)c. above);
g. Sheet C17: Clearly show and label Streams SA and SB per comment 1)b above. The footprint of the streams
proposed for impact should be clearly shown on a zoom -in of the crossing. Wetland lines do not clearly appear on the
plan sheet (should be Wetland WA, per comment 1)a above). The footprint of wetland area proposed for impact
(permanent maintenance as well as temporary construction corridors) should be clearly shown on a zoom -in of the
crossing. The sheet should also reference a Wetland Restoration plan (see comment 5 above); Note that both the
streams and wetland crossing should be labeled "Impact Site 7" per comment 1)c. above.
Sincerely,
Dave Bailey
David E. Bailey, PWS
Regulatory Project Manager
US Army Corps of Engineers
CE -SAW -RG -R
3331 Heritage Trade Drive, Suite 105
Wake Forest, North Carolina 27587
Phone: [phone], Ext. 30.
Fax: [phone]
Email: David. [e-mail]
We would appreciate your feedback on how we are performing our duties. Our automated Customer Service Survey is
located at: http://corpsmapu.usace.army.mil/cm_apex/f?p=136:4:0
Thank you for taking the time to visit this site and complete the survey.

United States Department of the Interior
FISH AND WILDLIFE SERVICE
Raleigh ES Field Office
Post Office Box 33726
Raleigh, North Carolina 27636-3726
December 20, 2018
David E. Bailey, PWS
Regulatory Project Manager
US Army Corps of Engineers
CE -SAW -RG -R
3331 Heritage Trade Drive, Suite 105
Wake Forest, North Carolina 27587
Subject: SoVA Mega Site at Berry Hill — Phase 1 NC Water
Rockingham County, NC
Dear Mr. Bailey:
This letter is in response to your December 20, 2018 email, notifying the U.S. Fish and Wildlife
Service of tree removal related to the northern long-eared bat SLOPES agreement, and also
requesting concurrence concerning several federally -listed and proposed species at the SoVA
Mega Site at Berry Hill — Phase 1 NC Water Project, in Eden, Rockingham County, North
Carolina. The U.S. Fish and Wildlife Service (Service) has reviewed the maps provided for the
proposed project and various sources of information concerning the area. According to the
submitted information, the project involves the potential installation of a 20 -inch waterline,
including six (6) stream crossings of Cascade Creek and its tributaries. Little to no information
is provided on the stream crossing locations or construction methods.
The Service acknowledges that a self -certification package was submitted to our office for this
project on April 20, 2017. Unfortunately, the package contained minimal information about the
project location and construction methods, and we did not provide any feedback to the project at
that time. We regret our tardiness in providing this information on listed species for the project
site.
Federally Protected Species
If your project contains suitable habitat for any of the federally -listed species known to be
present within Rockingham County, the proposed action has the potential to adversely affect
those species. The Service has reviewed its Geographic Information System (GIS) database for
recorded locations of federally listed threatened and endangered species on or adjacent to the

z
proposed project site. The GIS database is a compilation of data received from several sources.
The current Federally -listed species that are known to be currently or historically present in the
project area, within close proximity, or downstream of the project area include Roanoke logperch
(Percina rex), James spinymussel (Pleurobenna collina), and smooth coneflower (E'chinacea
laevigata). Additional guidance concerning these species may be found on our website at
http:flwkv,,v.fws.,=oviraleiahles tes.html. In addition, the Atlantic pigtoe (Fusconaia inasoni) is
currently proposed for listing as threatened. A final decision whether to list the Atlantic pigtoe is
anticipated in October 2019.
The applicant and the Corps have made a determination of "may affect" for the Roanoke
logperch and James spinymussel, and "not likely to adversely affect" for smooth coneflower.
However, the information provided on April 20, 2017 and with the November 21, 2018 Pre -
Construction Notice (PCN) does not include any information on the number, location, or type of
road crossings, surveys, determinations of suitable habitat, or any other specific information on
the project.
In the April 20, 2017 self -certification package, the applicant indicates that time -of -year
restrictions will be implemented for spawning season of Roanoke logperch and James
spinymussel. However, the implementation of these restrictions will not avoid or minimize
adverse impacts to these aquatic species, because both species spend the entire year within a
relatively short stretch of stream. As discussed below, the Service recommends directional
drilling to completely avoid stream impacts at all crossings (Cascade Creek and all five
tributaries to Cascade Creek).
Roanoke logperch
Our records indicate that Roanoke logperch is found in Cascade Creek. There is no current data
for the five tributaries (which we note are unidentified in the PCN and self -certification
package); however, if suitable habitat is present in the tributaries, then the Service would assume
that the species is present. Also, land- and stream -disturbing activities in the tributaries could
impact Cascade Creek and the Dan River downstream.
The Roanoke logperch was listed as endangered on August 18, 1989. The Roanoke logperch is a
Iarge darter (up to 165 mm total length) with 8-11 vertical lateral blotches, dark green "worm-
like" markings interspersed between dorsal saddles, speckled fins with the first dorsal fin having
an orange band (particularly vivid in males), and a bulbous snout. Roanoke logperch typically
inhabit medium -to -large sized warm, clear streams and small rivers of moderate to low gradient.
Adults usually occupy riffles, runs, and pools containing sand, gravel, or boulders that are free of
silt. Young -of -year congregate in mixed -species schools in shallow habitat underlain by sand and
gravel along stream margins. Spawning occurs in April or May in deep runs over gravel and
small cobble, and logperch typically bury their eggs with no subsequent parental care. Larval

drift is likely an important dispersal and recolonization mechanism. Roanoke logperch mature at
2-3 years of age and commonly live five to six years.
Roanoke logperch actively feed during the warmer months by utilize their snout to overturn
gravel to forage on benthic aquatic macro invertebrates. Generally, the logperch exist in low-
density populations.
James spinymussel
The James spinymussel is found approximately one mile downstream of the project site in the
Dan River.
The James spinymussel was listed as endangered on July 22, 1988. The James spinymussel is a
small freshwater mussel slightly less than three inches in length. Adults have a dark brown shell
with prominent growth rings and occasionally, short spines on each valve. Young mussels have a
shiny yellow shell with or without one to three short spines. Like other freshwater mussels, this
species is a filter feeder. It feeds on plankton collected from water that is passed over its gills.
Reproduction occurs sexually. Females carry eggs in their gills. During spawning, the male
releases sperm into the water column and the sperm is taken into the female through the gills.
The resulting Iarvae (known as glochidia) are released from the female into the water column
and must attach to a fish host to survive. While attached to the fish host, development of the
glochidia continues. Once metamorphosis is complete, the juvenile mussel drops off the fish host
and continues to develop on the stream bottom. Known fish hosts for this species include the
bluehead chub (Nocomis leptocephalus), rosyside dace (Clinostomus f niduloides), blacknose
dace (Rhinichthys atratulus), mountain redbelly dace (Phoxinus oreas), rosefn shiner (Lythr•w•us
ardens), satinfin shiner (Cyprinella analostana), central stoneroller (Campostoma anomahon),
and swallowtail shiner (Noti-opis pi-ocne).
Suitable habitat for this species includes free-flowing streams with a variety of flow regimes.
The James spinymussel is found in a variety of substrates that are free from silt. This freshwater
mussel is found in the upper James and Dan River basins. The species has declined rapidly
during the past two decades and now exists only in small, headwater tributaries of the upper
James River basin in Virginia and West Virginia. In 2000, it was discovered in the Dan River
basin in North Carolina and Virginia.
Atlantic pigtoe
Currently, there are no known occurrences of Atlantic pigtoe in the project area. It is unclear at
this time whether specific surveys have been conducted in Rockingham County for the Atlantic
pigtoe. However, any conservation measures that are conducted for Roanoke logperch and James
spinymussel will be also protective of Atlantic pigtoe.

4
The Atlantic pigtoe is found in seven of the 12 river basins the mussel used to occupy. The
current distribution includes the James, Chowan, Roanoke, Tar, Neuse, Cape Fear and the
Yadkin -Pee Dee river basins. The Atlantic pigtoe primarily burrows in coarse sand and gravel
that it needs for breeding, feeding and sheltering. Historically, the best populations existed in
small creeks to larger rivers with excellent water quality, where flows are sufficient to maintain
clean, silt -free substrates.
Smooth coneflower
A historical occurrence of smooth coneflower is located along Highway 770, in the vicinity of
the project's southwest end. Although suitable habitat is present along the highway right-of-
way, it does not appear that the applicant conducted any surveys for this species in the project
area.
Smooth coneflower was listed as endangered on October 8, 1992. Smooth coneflower is a
perennial herb in the Aster family (Asteraceae) that grows up to 3.3 feet (ft) (1 meter; m) tall
from a vertical root stock. The large elliptical to broadly lanceolate basal leaves may reach 8
inches (in) (20 centimeters; cm) in length and 3.0 in (7.5 cm) in width and taper into long
petioles toward the base. They are smooth to slightly rough in texture. The stems are smooth,
with few leaves. The mid -stem leaves are smaller than the basal leaves and have shorter petioles.
Flower heads are usually solitary. The rays of the flowers (petal -like structures) are light pink to
purplish in color, usually drooping, and 2 — 3.2 in (5 - 8 cm) long. Flowering occurs from late
May through mid-July and fruits develop from late June to September. The fruiting structures
often persist through the fall. Reproduction is accomplished both sexually (by seed) and
asexually (by rhizome).
Habitat: Smooth coneflower is typically found in open woods, glades, cedar barrens, roadsides,
clearcuts, dry limestone bluffs, and power line rights-of-way, usually on magnesium and calcium
rich soils associated with amphibolite, dolomite or limestone (in Virginia), gabbro (in North
Carolina and Virginia), diabase (in North Carolina and South Carolina), and marble (in South
Carolina and Georgia). Smooth coneflower occurs in plant communities that have been described
as xeric hardpan forests, diabase glades or dolomite woodlands. Optimal sites are characterized
by abundant sunlight and little competition in the herbaceous Iayer. Natural fires, as well as Iarge
herbivores, historically influenced the vegetation in this species' range. Many of the herbs
associated with Smooth coneflower are also sun -loving species that depend on periodic
disturbances to reduce the shade and competition of woody plants.
Recommendations:
1. The Service cannot concur with the determination of "may affect, not likely to adversely
affect" for smooth coneflower, because it does not appear that any surveys were

5
conducted in the suitable habitat at the project site. The Service recommends that
surveys be conducted in all areas of suitable habitat, during the growing season (May to
October). Alternatively, the applicant may contact our office to discuss the potential to
conduct surveys outside of this optimal survey window.
2. At this time, the Service cannot concur with a determination of "may affect, not likely to
adversely affect" for the Roanoke logperch and James spinymussel, due to the proposal to
trench across tributaries to Cascade Creek (and perhaps Cascade Creek), which may
directly and indirectly adversely affect both species. Adverse effects may include direct
destruction of habitat, direct mortality of individuals within the crossing footprint, and
siltation/sedimentation from in -water activities and removal of the stream buffer.
3. The Service recommends that all in -water work activities be avoided. Directional drilling
is recommended for all stream crossings.
4. Water for directional drilling should not be pumped from Cascade Creek, its tributaries,
or the Dan River.
5. Tree removal within the 100 -foot buffer of the streams should be limited to the maximum
extent possible.
6. To minimize disturbance as well as possible accidental spills, the areas required for
staging construction activities, storage of equipment, materials, and spoil should be kept
at least 300 feet from the Dan River, Cascade Creek, and its tributaries.
The Service is concerned that a maintained right-of-way may attract recreationists to the
stream buffer and the stream itself. The applicant should incorporate methods such as
fences, gates, and no trespassing signs, to prevent illegal access to the stream buffers and
crossings by off-road vehicles (such as four -wheelers).
We apologize for the lateness of our response on this project, but appreciate the opportunity to
provide comment. If you have any questions concerning these comments, please contact Kathy
Matthews at [phone], Ext; -27, or by e-mail at <[e-mail]>.
Sincerely,
�r
Pe Benjamin
Field Supervisor
cc: Olivia Munzer