20201102 Ver 1_More Info Received_20201009

Strickland, Bev
From: Nick Creidler <[e-mail]>
Sent: Friday, October 9, 2020 11:03 AM
To: [e-mail]; [e-mail]
Cc: Homewood, Sue
Subject: [External] Re: SAW-2019-01884--May site / cellular tower / 4226 Camp Burton Road /
McLeansville / Guilford County / Commercial
Attachments: Sections D1-D2g.JPG; Sections D2h-D3i.JPG
Follow Up Flag: Follow up
Flag Status: Flagged
External email. Do not click links or open attachments unless you verify. Send all suspicious email as an attachment to
[e-mail]
David,
Sorry for the slow response on this. I've attached some screenshots of the updated Section D Proposed
Impacts Inventory. Please let me know if this is sufficient or if you need anything else from me.
Once these sections are updated, when should we expect the final permit?
Best,
Nick Creidler, Environmental Scientist
Headwater Environmental, Inc. - Linkedin
1121 Military Cutoff Road, Suite C #306
Wilmington, NC 28405
Ph: 910-777-8386 Fax: [phone]
From: Bailey, David E CIV USARMY CESAW (USA) <[e-mail]>
Sent: Friday, September 18, 2020 10:36 AM
To: [e-mail] <[e-mail]>; Nick Creidler
<nick@ headwaterenvironmental.com>
Cc: Homewood, Sue <[e-mail]>
Subject: RE: SAW-2019-01884--May site / cellular tower / 4226 Camp Burton Road / McLeansville / Guilford County /
Commercial
Hi all. I reviewed the PCN and plans for the above referenced site. I am in favor of the plan generally, and it closely
follows my discussion with Paul Pascarosa in the field on 11/21/2019. However, given that this is partially an after -the -
fact action (drive/road originally installed 2015-2017), 1 have to make certain assumptions and use any pre -disturbance
information available to estimate impact amounts. The assumptions that differ with your PCN are as follows:
1. Stream Impacts: The PCN proposes 40 If of stream impacts, which equals the length of culvert pipe proposed.
However, Piedmont streams are rarely straight. In this case QL2 LiDAR was flown prior to the installation of the
drive/road. By georeferencing the project plans and overlaying on the QL2 LiDAR data which clearly shows the
stream channel (see QL2 LiDAR Attachment), a more accurate estimate is 46 If of stream impacts;
2. Wetland impacts: The PCN proposes no wetland impacts. However, the field delineation showed wetlands on
both side of the stream and on both sides of the drive/road that extended to the fill slope. As such, we will make

the assumption that the drive/road impacted wetlands. Further, the project plans appear to show fill slopes
extending a minor amount into existing wetlands. Using a conservative scaled measurement from the project
plans (see Plan Sheet C-2.1 Attachment), the project would impact approximately 0.04 ac of wetlands.
Neither of these revisions would affect the type of permit requested or compensatory mitigation decision (none
required), but rather is included for accuracy and consistency purposes. Please update Section D of the PCN accordingly.
You may submit this information via email for simplicity. If you have any questions, please let me know.
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: [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.
From: Thames, Joyce A CIV USARMY CESAW (USA) <[e-mail]>
Sent: Tuesday, September 1, 2020 7:31 PM
To: [e-mail]; [e-mail]
Cc: Bailey, David E CIV USARMY CESAW (USA) <[e-mail]>
Subject: SAW-2019-01884--May site / cellular tower / 4226 Camp Burton Road / McLeansville / Guilford County /
Commercial
Importance: High
(Submittal Website) [e-mail]
We received your request. We have assigned the request EXISTING FILE# SAW-2019-01884 and forwarded it to (Dave
Bailey) for processing, please refer to this number on all correspondence, and supporting information and send to:
[e-mail]
Also, please feel free to contact assigned Project Manager above via email if you have any questions or concerns.
Sincerely,
Joyce Thames

1. Impacts Summary
1a. Where are the impacts associated with your project? (check all that apply):
p Wetlands p Streams -tributaries Q Buffers
❑ Open Waters ❑ Pond Construction
2. Wetland Impacts
If there are wetland impacts proposed on the site, then complete this question for each wetland area impacted.
"W." will be used in the table below to represent the word "wetland".
2a. Site #` .
2a1 Reason' G:'
2b. Impact lype`f')
2c. Type of W. `
2tl. W. name`
2e. Forested"
2f. Type of JuristlicRion"
Impact area
Wetland A
Access road
NCWAMTYPES
Wetland A
Yes
Corps
0.040
IaQe=I
Add
2g. Total Temporary Wetland Impact
0.000
2g. Total Permanent Wetland Impact
0.040
2g. Total Wetland Impact
0.040

Permanent wetland impacts of 0.04-acre associated with improvement of an existing access road. The
proposed impact area is currently wooded along the existing access road. Some tree clearing is expected
to widen the existing access road.
3. Stream Impacts
If there are perennial or intermittent stream impacts (including temporary impacts) proposed on the site, then complete this question for all stream sites impacted.
"S." will be used in the table below to represent the word "stream".
❑
3a. Reason for impact" (')
3b.lmpacl type`
3c. Type of impact
3d. S. name"
3e. Stream Type"
�I
3f. Type of *
Jurisdiction
3g. S. width"
3h. Impact
length*
St
Access to project an
Permanent
Culvert
Stream A
Perennial �
Both
Avem3e peep
46
Oirearteep
Add another impact
"All Perennial or Intermittent streams must be verified by DWR or delegated local government.
3i. Total jurisdictional ditch impact in square feet:
3i. Total permanent stream impacts:
46
3i. Total temporary stream impacts:
3i. Total stream and ditch impacts:
0