20151279 Ver 1_Corps of Engineer Correspondence_20160208

Regulatory Division/1200A
DEPARTMENT OF THE ARMY
VM-Nim-ST*114 11r0Tr':W—'C#Pr1G 441'-U�CWC�E-nS'
69 DARLINGTON AVENUE
WILMINGTON, NORTH CAROLINA 28403-1343
Action ID: SAW -2015-01994
February 05, 2016
Virginia Electric and Power Company
Attn: Ms. Amanda Mayhew
701 East Cary Street, OJRP 12"' Floor
Richmond, VA 23219
Dear Ms. Mayhew:
Please reference your Individual Permit application for Department of the Army (DA)
authorization to discharge fill material into 1.035 acres of riparian, non-riverine wetlands and the
placement of fill material into a total of approximately 512 linear feet of perennial stream
channel associated with the construction of a proposed electrical switching station. The stream
impacts involve approximately 472 linear feet of stream relocation and the permanent fill of 40
feet for a proposed access road. The proposed project is located on the east side of U.S. Highway
301, south of Battleboro, in Nash County, North Carolina.
Your proposal was advertised by public notice dated December 21, 2015. Comments in
response to the notice were received from the United States Fish and Wildlife Service
(UWFWS), NCIAA's National Marine Fisheries Service (NMFS), the North Carolina
Department of Cultural Resources (NCDCR) and an adjacent property owner, Ms. Mary Benson..
The comments received are enclosed for your information and to provide you with the
opportunity to address any of the stated concerns. Please provide written responses to the
comments from Ms. Benson.
Further, on February 6, 1990, the Department of the Army (DA) and the U.S. Environmental
Protection Agency (EPA) signed a memorandum of agreement (MOA) establishing procedures
to determine the type and level of mitigation necessary to comply with Clean Water Act (CWA)
Section 404(b)(1) Guidelines. This MOA provides for first, avoiding impacts to waters and
wetlands through the selection of the least damaging, practical alternative; second, taking
appropriate and practical steps to reduce impacts on waters and wetlands; and finally,
compensation for remaining unavoidable impacts to the extent appropriate and practical. To
enable us to process your application, in compliance with the MOA, we request that you provide
the following additional information:
Printed on 0 Recycled Paper

-2-
a. Permits for work within wetlands or other special aquatic sites are available only if the
proposed work is the least environmentally damaging, practicable alternative. Please
furnish information regarding any other alternatives, including upland alternatives, to the
work for which you have applied and provide justification that your selected plan is the
least damaging to water or wetland areas.
1) Specifically, please add to the alternatives analysis provided in your Individual.
Permit application, received December 8, 2015, to further explore a No Permit
alternative, including avoiding all Waters of the U.S. subject to Clean Water Act
Section 404 jurisdiction. Note that this alternative is different from the No Build
alternative, which also needs to be presented. If a No Permit alternative is not
practicable, please explain why as Alternative C appears to be an alternative with
no jurisdictional impacts. In addition, you need to provide maps for Off -Site
Alternatives B and C and you should utilize soils and NWI maps at a minimum, if
you are going to utilize remote sensing for elimination of alternatives instead of
USGS mapping. We recommend utilizing your selection criteria in a tabular
format for comparison of the sites. finally, you need to provide maps of the
properties evaluated, which would include the layout of your building footprint on
those maps (can include topography, soils and NWI maps).
b. It is necessary for you to have taken all appropriate and practicable steps to minimize losses of
Waters of the U.S., including wetlands. Please indicate all that you have done, especially
regarding development and modification of plans and proposed construction techniques, to
minimize adverse impacts.
1) I have evaluated the on-site avoidance and minimization information included in your
application, and determined the need to provide comparisons, including cost, between the
4 alternatives presented, utilizing your selection criteria. This information also needs to
include the site layouts for the various alternatives as described in your permit application
that led you to exclude 3 of the 4 alternatives. This information would be utilized to
address those alternatives that have less jurisdictional impacts than the applicant's
preferred alternative.
2) In addition, historically, the construction of stormwater basins in jurisdictional areas by
applicants have typically been modified in a manner so as not to impact jurisdictional
waters of the US. These modifications are predicated on the basis that Nationwide Permit
(NWP) 43 for Stormwater Basins in perennial streams and jurisdictional wetlands is
prohibited by regional conditions in NC. Please provide justification as to why wetlands
need to be filled in order to construct your proposed stormwater facility, as the drawings
provided in the permit application, both the plan and cross sections, don't depict the
construction of a basin, only two elliptical shaped features. In your application, you state
Printed on G
Recycled Paper

-3 -
that the transmission facility would be about 3.5 acres in size and that the total site would
be 5.5 acres. As the size of the stormwater feat -Lire is not depicted, please provide
information as to the size and actual location of the feature in the form of a detailed map
that shows the transmission station along with the associated stormwater device,
preferably construction ready drawings on 11 " X 17" paper. Full size construction
drawings are not acceptable. These need. to also depict the jurisdictional impacts as the
maps submitted in the application are not suitable for permit issuance.
c. The MOA requires that appropriate and practicable mitigation will be required for all
-unavoidable adverse impacts remaining after the applicant has employed all appropriate
and practicable minimization. Please indicate your plan to mitigate for the projected,
unavoidable loss of waters or wetlands or provide information as to the absence of any
such appropriate and practicable measures.
1) 1 have evaluated the compensatory mitigation plan included in your application, in which
you indicate that you plan to mitigate for the proposed 1.035 acres of wetland and 40
linear feet of perennial stream loss through the purchase of wetland and stream credits
from an approved mitigation bank within the service area. While you included NCSAM
and NCWAM forms for various impacted areas, there is no map provided to allow me to
fully evaluate your findings in order to come to a conclusion as to the appropriate ratio
that would be required for unavoidable impacts. You need to include an acceptance letter
from the mitigation provider indicating that they have the appropriate type and amount of
credits available for purchase in the 03 020101 HUC.
2) In addition, you propose to relocate approximately 472 linear feet of perennial stream
channel, which would involve the filling of the existing channel and the construction of a
new channel around the base of the fill pad for the switching station. Currently, such
proposals are viewed as permanent losses and require compensatory mitigation, which
you are not proposing. Instead, you are proposing the utilization of natural channel design
in the channels reconstruction; however, the plans you submitted with your permit
application do not provide sufficient detail to fully evaluate your proposal. Typically,
such proposals involve the submission of the construction plan to include plantings,
monitoring plan, and a means of preservation through either conservation easements,
restrictive covenants or deed restrictions. This information is necessary to allow us to
evaluate whether other forms of compensatory mitigation would be required should a
permit be issued for your proposal.
The aforementioned requested information is essential to the expeditious processing of your
application; please forwarded this information to us within 30 days of your receipt of this letter.
Printed on G Recycled Paper

-4 -
If you have any questions regarding these matters, please contact me at [phone]
extension 24 or Jeari.B.Gibby qcusace.armv.mil.
Sincerely,
Jean B. Gibby, Chief
Raleigh Regulatory Field Office
Enclosures
Copies Furnished:
Ms. Anna Reusche
Angler Environmental
613 Poole Drive
Garner, NC 27529
Mr. Todd Bowers
Water Protection Division
U.S. Environmental Protection Agency - Region IV
61 Forsyth Street, SW
Atlanta, Georgia 30303
Ms. Karen Higgins
401 Oversight/Express Review Permitting Unit
Division of Water Resources
North Carolina Department of Environment
and Natural Resources
1617 Mail Service Center
Raleigh, North Carolina 27604
LIM"
CESAW-RG-R/Gibby
Printed on G) Recycled Paper

United States Department of the Interior
FISH AND WILDLIFE SERVICE ,
Ralei'L,h ES Field Office
Post Off= Bw(33726
Raleigh, North Carolina 27636-3726 JAN 2 8 2016
January 20, 2016
Jean Gibby
U.S. Army Corps of Engineers, Wilmington District
Raleigh Regulatory Field Office
3331 Heritage Trade Drive, Suite 105
Wake Forest, NC 27587
Re: Virginia Electric & Power Company / SAW -2015-01994/ Nash County
Dear Ms. Gibby:
The U.S. Fish and Wildlife Service (Service) has reviewed the project advertised in the above
referenced Public Notice. The project, as advertised in the Public Notice, is expected to have minimal
adverse impacts to fish and wildlife resources. Therefore, we have no objection to the activity as
described in the permit application.
In accordance with the Endangered Species Act of 1973, as amended, (ESA) and based on the
information provided, and other available information, it appears the action is not likely to adversely
affect federally listed species or their critical habitat as defined by the ESA. We believe that the
requirements of section 7 (a)(2) of the ESA have been satisfied for this project. Please remember that
obligations under the ESA Must be reconsidered if: (I ) new information identifies impacts of this
action that may affect listed species or critical habitat in a manner not previously considered; (2) this
action is modified in a manner that was not considered in this review; or, (3) a new species is listed or
critical habitat determined that may be affected by the identified action.
For your convenience a list of all federally protected endangered and threatened species in North
Carolina is now available on our website at <Iittp://www.fws.gov/raleigh>. Our web page contains a
complete and updated list of federally protected species, and a 'J'IsT of federal species of concerti
known to occur in each county in North Carolina.
The Service appreciates the opportunity to review and provide comments on the proposed action.
Should you have any questions regarding the project, please contact John Ellis at [phone],
extension 26.
Sincerely,
2
P t min,
Field Supervisor
cc: NMFS, Beaufort, NC
EPA, Atlanta, GA
WRC, Raleigh

OF Co%.
0
T�O
SrA'rr I S . 04
(Sent via Electronic Mail)
UNITED STATES DEPARTMENT OF COMMERCE
National Oceanic and Atmospheric Administration
NATIONAL MARINE FISHERIES SERVICE
Southeast Regional Office
26313th Avenue South
St, Petersburg, Florida 33701-5505
http://sero.nmfs.noaa.gov
January 8, 201.6
Colonel Kevin P. Landers, Sr., Commander
U.S. Army Corps of Engineers Wilmington District
69 Darlington Avenue
Wilmington, North Carolina 28403-1398
)98
Dear Colonel Landers:
NOAA's National Marine Fisheries Service (NMFS) reviewed the projects described in the public
notice(s) listed below.
Based on the information in the public notice(s), the proposed project(s) would NOT occur in the
vicinity of essential fish habitat (EFH) designated by the South Atlantic Fishery Management Council or
NMFS. We also anticipate that any adverse effects that might occur from the project(s) to NOAA trust
resources would be minimal. Consequently, NMFS offers no EFH conservation recommendations
pursuant to the Magnuson- Stevens Fishery Conservation and Management Act and no recommendations
under the Fish and Wildlife Coordination Act.
NOTICE NO.
APPLICANT
NOTICE DATE
DUE DATE
2015-01994
VA Electric and Power Company
December 21, 2015
January 20, 2016
Please note these comments do not satisfy your consultation. responsibilities under section 7 of the
Endangered Species Act of 1973, as amended. If the activity "may effect" listed species or critical
habitat that are under the purview of NMFS, consultation should be initiated with our Protected
Resources Division at the letterhead address.
Sincerely,
Pace Wilber (for)
Virginia M. Fay
Assistant Regional Administrator
Habitat Conservation Division

SrATE
1A
North Carolina Department of Natural and Cultural Resources
State Historic Preservation Office
Ramona M. Bartos, Administrator
Governor Pat McCrory
Secretary Susan Kluttz
January 12, 2016
Jean Gibby
Raleigh Regulatory Field Office
3331 Heritage Trade Drive, Suite 105
Wake Forest, NC 27587
Office of Archives and History
Deputy Secretary Kevin Cherry
Re: Construct 115 kV & 230 kV Switching Station, Battleboro, SAW 2015-01994, Nash County,
ER 15-2831
Dear Ms. Gibby:
We have received a public notice concerning the above project.
We have conducted a review of the project and are aware of no historic resources which would be affected
by the project. Therefore, we have no comment on the project as proposed.
The above comments are made pursuant to Section 106 of the National Historic Preservation Act and the
Advisory Council on Historic Preservation's Regulations for Compliance with Section 106 codified at 36
CFR Part 800.
Thank you for your cooperation and consideration. If you have questions concerning the above comment,
contact Renee Gledhill -Earley, environmental review coordinator, at 919-807-6579 or
ciivironiiieiital.review(a-),ncdcr.L,�ov. In all future communication concerning this project, please cite the
above referenced tracking number.
Sincerely,
�,O-'�Ramona M. Bartos
jj
Location: 109 East Jones Street, Raleigh NC 27601 Mailing Address: 4617 Mail Service Center, Raleigh NC 27699-4617 Teleplione/]Fax:[phone]-6599

1
Comment from Mary Ellen Benson, January 11,2U16
Corps Action ID Number: SAW -2015-01994
Corps Action |D Number: SAVV-2015-01994
Comment Deadline: January 2O,IOt6
Description: Comment regarding the application from Virginia Electric and Power Company seeking
Department of the Army authorization to discharge fill material into waters of the United States,
associated with the construction of new 115kVand 230kV switching station near Ratt|eboro, in Nash
County, North Carolina.
Date of Comment: January 11, 2016
Commentator: Mary Ellen Benson
Mailing Address: lOSouth Dover Street
Lakewood, Colorado 003Z6
Home phone: (3U3)232-3852
E-mai|Addresn:benoon@cn|orado.edu
Affiliation: Property Owner of Potentially Impacted Residential Properties Immediately Adjacent to the
Subject Property (Owner of4821Crape Myrtle Street, 8att|eboro,NC278O9,and Co-owner of4817
Crape Myrtle Street, Butt|eboro,NCZ78U9).
Concern #1.Effectiveness ofStorm Water Drainage Plan
I am concerned about the effectiveness of the storm water drainage mitigation proposed by
Angler Environmental and its potentially negative impact on local flooding in the incidence of multiple or
prolonged storm events.
Specifically, information provided in the proposal, as it pertains to relocating and restoring the
stream channel, does not disclose the method or calculations used to determine the actual geometry of
the new drainage area after the stream channel isrelocated. There isnoassurance that the new
drainage area would be sufficient to accommodate the potential run-off volume lost by the filling of the
currently low-lying terrain and relocation of the stream channel; therefore, without further information,
it is not possible to evaluate the hydrological soundness of this proposal.
Additionally, the materials provided do not include any provisions for maintaining the implied
steep grade for the relocated stream channel as indicated in the graphic cross sectional drawing. Such
steep grade built in fill dirt or other granular materials would seem to be rather unstable without some
type of cement lined walls or some other type of artificial structure to support and maintain the position
of the relocated stream channel and to control bank slumping during high run-off and sediment capture
inthe channel during periods ofsluggish water flow. Would the proposed substation grade be
vulnerable toerosion along the margin ofthe relocated stream? Again, not enough information is
provided to convince the reader that sufficient consideration of these hydrological concerns has been
incorporated into the engineering plan.
Also, has the volume of water up -take by the current vegetation within the drainage basin been
figured into the calculations ofwater-volume holding capacity inthe stream relocation plan? One
assumes that, once filling of the targeted low-lying vegetated areas has been completed, the resulting
altered landscape will be barren of vegetation, and the additional water (that has no plants to absorb it)
will need tnbeaccounted for inthe storm water management plan.
Concern #Z.Potential for Groundwater Impact atConstruction Site
I am concerned about the absence of any reference to the depth and seasonal fluctuations of
the water table in the materials provided in the proposal.

Comment from Mary Ellen Benson, January 11,3O16
Corps Action |DNumber: 54VV-2Ol5-01994
What is the relationship between surface run-off in this site and the groundwater table? Are
there any springs inthe vicinity ofthe site? Will filling the current wetland and the stream channel and
moving the surface water channel create adry and stable substrate orwill bcontinue tobewater-
saturated andpotentia||yunstab|e?
Additionally, if there is a contribution of groundwater into the current stream channel, how will
that volume ofwater change when the stream channel isrelocated?
Concern #3.Potential for Slope Failure atConstruction Site
I am concerned about the soundness of a construction plan to build a 5.5 acre power switching
station on the slope of hill that has been retrofitted with fill -dirt placed on top ofwatepsaturated soils
of an historic wetland and stream channel, despite the relocation of the current stream channel.
Specifically, what type offooting will the power station structures have? Will the footing reach
bedrock? |fnot, how will the structures besecured?
Additionally, can such a pile of unconsolidated material be made stable enough to maintain its
elevation above the relocated stream and the railroad grade? How susceptible will the newly graded
construction site be to erosion?
Concern #4. Potential Impact on Groundwater Quality
If there is any communication between the current wetland and stream channel and the
groundwater, how might the construction materials used in the filling of the low-lying areas and the
materials used in the construction of the substation impact the local groundwater quality?
Concern #5.Negative Impacts toLocal Residents
There is no reference in the proposal to providing a buffer around the residential area that is
immediately adjacent to the project property line or to compensate the property owners for potential
loss of enjoyment of wholesome and peaceful occupancy or for loss of value to our property.
Locally, there will be immediate negative impacts due to construction activity such as increased
noise, increased dust (diminution of air quality), increased traffic on neighborhood streets, and
potentially increased safety concerns due to the influx of non-resident persons.
In the long term, the visual and health impacts of the substation and its bordering area
immediately adjacent to the residential properties could have a negative impact on property values.
There is no reassurance as to how visually intrusive such a substation will be, how tall it will be, or how
noisy itwill be. Also, | have concerns about the safety ofliving adjacent toanelectrical power facility nf
this sort. How safe isit? What level and frequency of monitoring will be maintained to ensure public
safety for local residents?
Concern #6.Historic Building inNortheast Area ofProperty
I am aware of an old residence in the northeast area of the project property that pre -dates
1950,atleast. In local folk lore, it was the home of early residents of the town of Battleboro. |tisvisible
on Google Earth. Is it of historic importance as to preservation?