20210925 Ver 1_Record of Decision Comments_20211115

Carpenter,Kristi
From:Conchilla, Ryan
Sent:Monday, November 15, 2021 1:41 PM
To:Della Moore; Parker, Jerry A; Archer III, Wright
Cc:Carpenter,Kristi; Wanucha, Dave
Subject:Comments- Bridge 584 / SR 3412 / Tabernacle Church Road / Guilford County;
SAW-2019-00875
Attachments:Tabernacle Church Road Cover Letter.doc; SF-400584_Permit Drawings_20211112
Revised.pdf; SF-400584_Permit Drawings_BUFFER_20210922.pdf
Della,
I’ve reviewed the additional info attached, and there is still inconsistency with the Impact Sites listed in the permit
drawings and the buffer permit drawings. Please re-submit a complete application package to satisfy the comments
below:

Comments
1) In the Buffer Permit drawings, (page 1 and 2) Impact Site 2 is still depicted.
2) In the Buffer Permit tables, (page 3) Impacts at Site 2 are still listed.
3) In the Cover letter, a description of the impacts proposed at Site 1 (temp/perm fill, hand clearing, etc) should be
provided.
4) In the Cover letter, Site 2 is listed in the Impact Table, which should be updated.
5) The impact sites in the permit drawings and buffer permit drawings (dated 8/31/21) do not match.

Let me know if I can provide further assistance.

Ryan Conchilla, PWS
Environmental Specialist II
401 and Buffer Transportation Permitting Branch (DOT Divisions 7+8)
Division of Water Resources, NC Department of Environmental Quality
[e-mail]

From: Della Moore <[e-mail]>
Sent: Friday, November 12, 2021 4:36 PM
To: Conchilla, Ryan <[e-mail]>; Parker, Jerry A <[e-mail]>; Archer III, Wright
<[e-mail]>
Cc: Wanucha, Dave <[e-mail]>; Carpenter,Kristi <[e-mail]>
Subject: Re: \[External\] Re: NWP 3 - NCDOT Div. 7 / Bridge 584 / SR 3412 / Tabernacle Church Road / Guilford County;
SAW-2019-00875

CAUTION: External email. Do not click links or open attachments unless you verify. Send all suspicious email as an attachment to
Report Spam.

Hi Ryan,
Please find the attached cover letter and design plans as requested.
Thanks,
1

___________________________________

Della Moore
Environmental Assistant Engineer

1101 East Wendover Ave, Suite 200
Greensboro, NC 27405
336-334-3515P | 443-983-1580 C
www.rkk.com
Responsive People | Creative Solutions

From: Conchilla, Ryan <[e-mail]>
Sent: Wednesday, November 10, 2021 10:43 AM
To: Della Moore <[e-mail]>; Parker, Jerry A <[e-mail]>; Archer III, Wright <[e-mail]>
Cc: Wanucha, Dave <[e-mail]>; Carpenter,Kristi <[e-mail]>
Subject: RE: \[External\] Re: NWP 3 - NCDOT Div. 7 / Bridge 584 / SR 3412 / Tabernacle Church Road / Guilford County;
SAW-2019-00875

Della,
As a follow up to our phone conversation yesterday, the following information is requested to complete review for this
project:
 A cover letter with a project description and proposed impacts.
 TRC Design plans depicting the proposed impact site locations with corresponding Impact Tables.

Please provide the anticipated timeline for completion.
Let me know if you have any questions.
Thanks-

Ryan Conchilla, PWS
Environmental Specialist II
401 and Buffer Transportation Permitting Branch (DOT Divisions 7+8)
Division of Water Resources, NC Department of Environmental Quality
[e-mail]

From: Della Moore <[e-mail]>
Sent: Tuesday, November 9, 2021 11:01 AM
To: Conchilla, Ryan <[e-mail]>; Parker, Jerry A <[e-mail]>; Archer III, Wright
<[e-mail]>
Cc: Wanucha, Dave <[e-mail]>; Carpenter,Kristi <[e-mail]>
Subject: \[External\] Re: NWP 3 - NCDOT Div. 7 / Bridge 584 / SR 3412 / Tabernacle Church Road / Guilford County; SAW-
2019-00875

CAUTION: External email. Do not click links or open attachments unless you verify. Send all suspicious email as an attachment to
Report Spam.
2

Ryan,

In response to the stream impacts for sites 1 and 2 are for site (1) only. There is a pipe network at site 1 that
has two types of impacts due to having to remove a portion of what's there and extend the pipe (proposed). It
lists two separate types of impacts for the same pipe location. Only site 1 is being impacted; however, there
are two impacts-(1) permanent fill and (2) temporary fill. The PCN does not allow you to include two types of
impacts per site. In return, the second impact for the site 1 is listed as S2 on the application because there was
no other line item that it could be entered under.

Does this clear up the confusion and would we need to submit again (only reason asking is the PCN application
is not saving the drafts and it is making it difficult to resubmit or add to existing drafts from starters).
Thanks,

___________________________________

Della Moore
Environmental Assistant Engineer

1101 East Wendover Ave, Suite 200
Greensboro, NC 27405
336-334-3515P | 443-983-1580 C
www.rkk.com
Responsive People | Creative Solutions

From: Conchilla, Ryan <[e-mail]>
Sent: Monday, November 8, 2021 1:41 PM
To: Parker, Jerry A <[e-mail]>; Della Moore <[e-mail]>; Archer III, Wright <[e-mail]>
Cc: Wanucha, Dave <[e-mail]>; Carpenter,Kristi <[e-mail]>
Subject: RE: NWP 3 - NCDOT Div. 7 / Bridge 584 / SR 3412 / Tabernacle Church Road / Guilford County; SAW-2019-00875

Jerry,
Good afternoon. The PCN application submitted on 10/28/2021 for the above referenced site has been reviewed, with
the following comments:

1. In the PCN, Stream Impact Table, page 5. Sites S1 and S2 are listed.
In the TRC Plans 20210128 issued on 10/12/2021, Site 2 is not depicted on-site on pages 2-5. In the Wetland
and Surface Water Impact Summary Table (Page 7) only impacts for S1 are listed. Please identify the location of
Site 2 impacts (pages 2-5) and include the impacts proposed at Site 2.

Please update these items and resubmit a new PCN.
Let me know what questions you have.
Thanks-

Ryan Conchilla, PWS
Environmental Specialist II
401 and Buffer Transportation Permitting Branch (DOT Divisions 7+8)
3

Division of Water Resources, NC Department of Environmental Quality
[e-mail]

From: Conchilla, Ryan
Sent: Wednesday, August 4, 2021 1:46 PM
To: Parker, Jerry A <[e-mail]>; '[e-mail]' <[e-mail]>; Archer III, Wright
<[e-mail]>
Cc: Wanucha, Dave <[e-mail]>; Carpenter,Kristi <[e-mail]>
Subject: NWP 3 - NCDOT Div. 7 / Bridge 584 / SR 3412 / Tabernacle Church Road / Guilford County; SAW-2019-00875

Jerry,
The PCN and permit drawings (attached) for the project above have been reviewed.
Updates are requested to the wetland impacts and wetland mitigation sections in both the PCN and Plans (clarify
between hand clearing and/or mechanized).

Section 6 in the PCN lists parallel buffer impacts and bridge impacts (parallel impacts would only be listed if there is an
intermittent or perennial stream that flows parallel to the road, crosses into the buffers and that is impacted by the
project—is there one?). Impacts related to bridge crossings are exempt from mitigation per the buffer rules unless there
are parallel stream impacts in play, if so, those parallel stream impacts would require mitigation. Temp. wetland
impacts are listed in the buffer mitigation section (are they permanent or temporary?)

Wetlands may be located within the stream buffer, but we cannot see them on the plans— did they not include the
wetland layer for the buffer plans? (wetland mitigation would not be required unless impacts exceed wetland
thresholds -- 0.1 ac,-- if that was the case, mitigation would be required as part of the 401 permit, not as part of our
Buffer Certification. In this case, none are required.

Stream impacts (temp and perm impacts listed in the PCN and Plans do not match).
The permit drawings and buffer drawings do not depict the same wetland boundary (WLB) (no wetland boundaries show
on buffer plan maps). The labeling and boundaries of Wetland WLB and WLC depicted on the permit drawings do not
match the wetland delineation map.

Please update these items and resubmit a new PCN.
The new PCN for the Corps, can also include our revisions requested above.
Let me know what questions you have.
Thanks-

Ryan Conchilla, PWS
Environmental Specialist II
401 and Buffer Transportation Permitting Branch (DOT Divisions 7+8)
Division of Water Resources, NC Department of Environmental Quality
[e-mail]

From: Bailey, David E CIV USARMY CESAW (USA) <[e-mail]>
Sent: Thursday, July 29, 2021 7:04 AM
To: Parker, Jerry A <[e-mail]>
Cc: Conchilla, Ryan <[e-mail]>; Della Moore <[e-mail]>; Archer III, Wright
4

<[e-mail]>; Carpenter,Kristi <[e-mail]>
Subject: \[External\] NWP 3 - NCDOT Div. 7 / Bridge 584 / SR 3412 / Tabernacle Church Road / Guilford County; SAW-
2019-00875

CAUTION: External email. Do not click links or open attachments unless you verify. Send all suspicious email as an attachment to
Report Spam.

All,

Please reference the PCN and plans received from your office on 6/23/2021 requesting use of Nationwide Permit (NWP)
14. However, based on the revised plans (attached) received via email from your office on 7/28/2021, the above
referenced bridge replacement project is authorized under NWP 3 and does not require notification. If use of NWP 3 is
acceptable to NCDOT for this project please let me know, and notify NCDWR as well for the purposes of their 401 Water
Quality Certification.

Please note that the project must be accomplished in strict accordance with the attached conditions and your submitted
description, and any violation of the attached conditions or deviation from your submitted description may subject the
permittee to a stop work order, a restoration order and/or appropriate legal action. Attached is a copy of the NWP 3
and the applicable permit conditions. The Action Identification Number for this project is SAW-2019-00875.

Note that NCDOT is still responsible for the following conditions pertaining to the Northern long-eared bat and (LIST ANY
MUSSELS SUBJECT TO THE APPLICABLE MUSSEL PBO), as this project occurs in NCDOT Divisions 1-8:

The U.S. Fish and Wildlife Service’s (USFWS’s) Programmatic Biological Opinion (PBO) titled, “NCDOT Program Effects on
the Northern Long-eared Bat in Divisions 1-8”, dated November 6, 2020, contains agreed upon conservation measures
for the NLEB. As noted in the PBO, applicability of these conservation measures varies depending on the location of the
project. Your authorization under this Department of the Army permit is conditional upon your compliance with all
applicable agreed upon conservation measures in the PBO, which are incorporated by reference in this permit. Failure to
comply with the applicable these conservation measures would constitute non-compliance with your Department of the
Army permit. The USFWS is the appropriate authority to determine compliance with the terms and conditions of its PBO,
and with the ESA.

Please let me know if you have any questions regarding the above information.

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
Office: [phone], Ext. 30.
Mobile: [phone]
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: https://regulatory.ops.usace.army.mil/customer-service-survey/
5

Thank you for taking the time to visit this site and complete the survey.

"RK&K" and "RK&K Engineers" are registered trade names of Rummel, Klepper & Kahl, LLP, a Maryland limited liability partnership. This message contains
confidential information intended only for the person or persons named above. If you have received this message in error, please immediately notify the
sender by return email and delete the message. Thank you.
RK&K is an equal opportunity employer that values diversity at all levels. RK&K does not discriminate in employment on the basis of race, color, religion, sex
(including pregnancy), national origin, political affiliation, sexual orientation, marital status, disability, genetic information, age, parental status, military and
veteran status, and any other characteristic protected by applicable law. Consistent with the requirements of Title VI of the Civil Rights Act of 1964, as
amended and other nondiscrimination laws and authorities, we also note that RK&K does not discriminate in its selection or retention of subcontractors on
the grounds of race, color, or national origin. We also note that RK&K will ensure that Minorities will be afforded full opportunity to submit proposals and not
be discriminated against on the grounds of race, color, or national origin in consideration for an award.
6