20231000 Ver 1_USACE RFAI & Response_20230731

Baker, Caroline D
From: Capito, Rachel A CIV USARMY CESAW (USA) < [e-mail] >
Sent: Tuesday, August 22, 2023 11:38 AM
To: Inscore, Chris
Cc: Pridgen, Tucker; David Revoir; Myers, Joseph M; Thomas, Zachary T
Subject: [External] RE: SAW-2022-02375 Duke Cary Triangle Expressway 230kV Substation
CAUTION: External email. Do not click links or open attachments unless verified. Report suspicious emails with the Report Message
button located on your Outlook menu bar on the Home tab.
Hi Chris,
Thank you for your response. Please accept this as a request for additional information.
1. As noted in request #1. The Corps requested a 2:1 mitigation ratio unless documentation was provided to justify
a lower ratio. In the mitigation letters provided you only requested a 1:1 ratio. You will need to provide NCWAM
forms to justify reduced mitigation. The direct impacts will require a 2:1 ratio. The Corps would allow a 1:1 ratio
for the conversion area.
2. The mitigation ratio for the streams is also insufficient. Impacts to the onsite stream features are approximately
0.06 acre (2,823 linear feet). A 2:1 ratio for stream impacts is required for the crossings unless an NCSAM is
provided for a lower mitigation ratio justification. The Corps also believes the impacts to the stream crossings
themselves can be further reduced. Please provide justification why a 3:1 side -slope is required and why such
large crossings are necessary for a gravel access road.
3. 1 did not see notes on how the circulation and flow would be maintained to wetland WB once the road crossing
is constructed. Please provide information showing how the remaining northern wetland finger will still be
connected to the larger wetland feature. The Corps may require mitigation for secondary impacts to the wetland
finger that may be cut off or monitoring to ensure hydrology remains.
Please let me know if you have any additional questions.
Thanks,
Rachel
From: Inscore, Chris <[e-mail]>
Sent: Tuesday, August 15, 2023 1:48 PM
To: Capito, Rachel A CIV USARMY CESAW (USA) <[e-mail]>
Subject: [Non-DoD Source] RE: SAW-2022-02375 Duke Cary Triangle Expressway 230kV Substation
Rachel,
I have attached two SOA letters from mitigation banks to show credit availability for the total amount of proposed
impacts. Additionally, I have attached drawings from the engineer to clarify how circulation and flow will be maintained
as per comment No. 3. He also indicated they would be using bypass pumping during construction.
If you have any additional questions, please don't hesitate to contact me.

Regards,
Chris Inscore
From: Capito, Rachel A CIV USARMY CESAW (USA) <[e-mail]>
Sent: Monday, July 31, 2023 2:23 PM
To: Inscore, Chris <[e-mail]>
Subject: SAW-2022-02375 Duke Cary Triangle Expressway 230kV Substation
Chris,
Thank you for your PCN dated 7/13/2023, (received 7/13/2023), for the above referenced project. I have reviewed
the information and need clarification before proceeding with verifying the use of Nationwide Permit 57. Please
submit the requested information below 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:
Please note that compensatory mitigation is required for wetland impacts if the total amount of loss of wetlands
exceeds 0.1 acre (NWP Condition 23(c)). Please note that any wetland impacted authorized will require
compensatory mitigation at a 2:1 ratio, unless otherwise justified based on aquatic function.
Please also be aware that compensatory mitigation is also required for stream impacts that exceed 0.03 acre
(NWP Condition 23(d)).
Please clarify impact drawings to show only WOTUS impacts. It appears the hydrologic connection to a portion
of WB may be severed by Creek Crossing #2. Please provide information how the circulation and flow will be
maintained. If maintenance of wetland/stream hydrology is unable to be justified as appropriate, the Corps
would consider these areas as reasonably foreseeable indirect impacts (see NWP General Condition 32(b)(4)(i)
and NWP District Engineer's Decision part 2) resulting from a loss of hydrology. In such cases compensatory
mitigation may be required for indirect impacts resulting in a loss of hydrology and therefore aquatic function,
compensatory mitigation.
Please let me know if you have any additional questions.
Thanks,
Rachel
Rachel Capito
Regulatory Project Manager
Wilmington District
U.S. Army Corps of Engineers
3331 Heritage Trade Drive, Suite 105
Wake Forest, NC 27587
919.440.1823