20071841 Ver 7_Pages from Duke_ARA_USACE_Individual_Permit_Application_20211108

Strickland, Bev
From: David Vance <[e-mail]>
Sent: Monday, November 8, 2021 1:39 PM
To: Homewood, Sue; Fuemmeler, Amanda J CIV (USA)
Cc: 'Steve Cahoom ([e-mail])'; Robert Dunn; Chris Jordan; Victor
Damasceno
Subject: RE: [External] Asheville Airport Comments Received/Add'I Information Requested
Attachments: Pages from Duke_ARA_USACE_Individual_Permit_Application.pdf
Follow Up Flag: Follow up
Flag Status: Flagged
CAUTION: External email. Do not click links or open attachments unless you verify. Send all suspicious email as an attachment to
Report Spam.
Amanda,
I just left a vmail about what we just sent over. Figures 5 and 6 of our submittal provide the accounting (graphically) of
the stream and wetland resources (figure 5) and impacts (figure 6). While these values may be missing in the figures I
previously sent over, I was trying to get a handle on whether what I've sent provides the documentation requested or
whether additional edits are being requested.
The "Construction" Drawings provided in Attachment G of our permit application submittal were last updated on 14
December 2020. These drawings did not have the Wood delineation incorporated. Now that the project is getting closer
to implementation (once we reach conclusion of permitting), Duke Energy project management has requested for
Geosyntec to begin development of an "Issue for Bid" drawing set in a month or so. It was at this stage that Geosyntec
planned to include the Wood delineation data and the permitted impact areas and lengths. Therefore, at this time we
do not have an "updated" construction drawing set to provide other than the figures I sent in my earlier email.
Please advise if what has been provided is acceptable in lieu of revised "construction" drawings depicting the
wetlands/streams and impact areas.
I'm happy to discuss to clarify any of this on my cell 678-361-4801. Q
Thank you!
David
From: David Vance
Sent: Monday, November 8, 2021 12:54 PM
To: Homewood, Sue <[e-mail]>; Fuemmeler, Amanda J CIV (USA) <[e-mail]>
Cc: 'Steve Cahoom ([e-mail])' <[e-mail]>
Subject: RE: [External] Asheville Airport Comments Received/Add'I Information Requested
Sue and Amanda,
Attached are the revised civil engineering figures 1 and 2 for existing conditions and final grading with the non -JD
wetland removed. If you need the full set of engineering drawings with these edits, please advise.
Thank you,
1

David
David J. Vance, P.G. (GA)
Principal Scientist
Natural Systems Engineering Lead
Geosyntec Consultants, Inc.1
Geosyntec Consultants of NC, P.C.2
Phone: [phone] Mobile: [phone]
1 — Outside of North Carolina
2 — When working in North Carolina
From: Homewood, Sue <[e-mail]>
Sent: Sunday, November 7, 2021 9:23 AM
To: Fuemmeler, Amanda J CIV (USA) <[e-mail]>; David Vance <[e-mail]>
Cc: 'Steve Cahoom ([e-mail])' <[e-mail]>
Subject: RE: [External] Asheville Airport Comments Received/Add'I Information Requested
CAUTION: This email originated from outside of the organization. Do not click links or open attachments unless you recognize the
sender and know the content is safe. If you have any suspicion, please confirm with the sender verbally that this email is authentic.
Hi David,
I was working on this 401 and just realized that I never received a copy of any response. Particularly I want to be sure I
have the most up to date set of plans as noted by Amanda, could you please forward those to me asap.
Thanks,
Sue Homewood
Division of Water Resources, Winston Salem Regional Office
Department of Environmental Quality
336 776 9693 office
336 813 1863 mobile
[e-mail]
450 W. Hanes Mill Rd, Suite 300
Winston Salem NC 27105
From: Fuemmeler, Amanda J CIV (USA) <[e-mail]>
Sent: Wednesday, September 29, 2021 1:11 PM
To: David Vance <[e-mail]>
Cc: Homewood, Sue <[e-mail]>
Subject: [External] Asheville Airport Comments Received/Add'I Information Requested
CAUTION: External email. Do not click links or open attachments unless you verify. Send all suspicious email as an attachment to
Report Spam.
Hi David,
2

Attached are the comments we received in response to the Public Notice. The comment that will need responding to is
the proposed 1:1 mitigation ratio. Based on the NCWAM ratings of medium and what I remember of the site, typically a
2:1 ratio would be required for the wetland impacts.
Also, I will need to get an updated plan drawing that has an accurate overlay/depiction of wetland impacts (and wanted
to verify the impact acreage as well). I didn't realize the plans put out in the Public Notice didn't accurately show the
wetland extent impacts (attached) and should look more like what was presented during the pre -application call
(attached) but using the corrected wetland boundaries (fig-6). Give me a call if this is confusing...
Amanda Jones
Regulatory Specialist
USACE-Asheville Regulatory Field Office
828-271-7980 ext. 4225
3

Jurisdictional Wetlands and Waterbodies
z
Parcel Boundary
0
a)
C)
O
O LL
0
Jurisdictional Wetland
A:1
Jurisdictional Stream
L(�
0
U)
0
(7
r
0
2-
5
0
0)
r
0
Q
Q
0I
L
QI
0
0
Y
0
6
z

2
/
f CL ±
`4 as kch
/
mM 0 . ECL
k\
§o ° m
\4) $ u %
c■ Gc ' ƒk O
\ /c / \
ka �M - <o 4-J 5
2/ cn
0-0
�0 crc
0 �� »
o ±
a Co
< §
� 2 �
� §_
\'
. )
02
CL
. e£01
� o=
mLL
k7
uj
k�
E
r u !
E k
7 E E a
/kCL
}\ \!
) ) ) \ 0
) ) § 2 / \
. � 2 �
- x !
+
/
:\ U- C ) §
®o
\ � �
Z E W � §\
? _ a
° E / \ . r ƒ,
m- ®
\ \\ ■ c o\
� \E -2
ipk\ �� r
� VIPo
� \ � \ -0 -0\
. [99 :ys
� --, /)2// \ƒ/

6e1WCp t0t10*Maeoataalrletaltattet*
AteltdidaeRablbRe ombLewandowbtclbcb a ielf idpaist