20140957 Ver 2_NCWRC_20170621

Burdette, Jennifer a
From: Stancil, Vann F
Sent: Wednesday, June 21, 2017 11:55 AM
To: Higgins, Karen; Burdette, Jennifer a; Garrison, Gabriela
Subject: ACP PCN questions & comments
Hey Karen and Jennifer, here are some comments and questions I made based on the 02_PCN Supplemental Info
file. We've also reviewed the water crossing table and remain somewhat confused on a few issues so we're looking for
some clarity on that. Talk to you at 3:00...
Thanks,
Vann
From: Stancil, Vann F
Sent: Tuesday, June 20, 2017 5:39 PM
To: Garrison, Gabriela <[e-mail]>
Subject: RE: compressed table
Hey, so it looks like there are a few discrepancies — intermittent/perennial and miles posts, plus a few new ones. Would
be good to know why. In addition, there's still the issue of the blue line, named streams/swamps that they just call
wetlands or (hopefully not) have overlooked entirely. We named these in our DEIS comments, will be interesting to see if
they change it for the Final. These are Mingo Swamp, Black River, Big Marsh Swamp, Tenmile Swamp, and Saddletree
Swamp. We should mention these again for the 401.
Other comments that I've come up with (with page numbers as on the printed PCN Supplement) are:
p. 12 —they discuss ROW thru wetlands, with the 10' herbaceous width and 30' no tree area. I'm thinking this is the same
for forested areas (including riparian areas) but couldn't see where it said it.
p. 16 and also p. 78 — construction equipment will be allowed 1 pass thru waterbodies before bridges are installed. It's
not clear if this refers to 1 piece of equipment or several pieces one time each. I assume that streams crossed with HDD
would never be crossed —that equipment would come from both directions beyond the stream, but this is not crystal
clear either. This needs clarification and the timing as well. Is the temporary crossing put in at the time of ROW clearing
and stays there the whole time? That could be 8 months or so. Is it sized properly to handle large flows (doubtful). How
do we want to revise our relocation efforts in light of this??
p. 19—talks about removing fish that are trapped —should also include other aquatic organisms
p. 23 — source of water for HDD is still up in the air
p. 25 — equipment will also be allowed to pass thru wetlands once before stabilization. Stabilization methods will include
rip rap and timber mats. Temporary materials will be removed during restoration.
p. 27—JDs are 98 % done but access was not allowed some places so other sources including NWI was used. Does the 98
represent only those done on the ground or does it include NWI assessments?
p. 48 — 49 — Progress Energy alt. route in Cumberland Co. was not used.
p. 76 or nearby— maybe add something about equipment/ chemical storage in floodplains— avoiding it.
1

p. 77 — details of wetlands restoration monitoring — how long will it be done? How long for success?
p. 79 — adding fuel 100' from waterbodies/wetlands or from the water's edge??
p. 84—discussion of buffer mitigation for Tar and Neuse
p. 90— cumulative impacts section does not address the fact that there will be more impacts like this (on a smaller scale)
because of the new supply of natural gas
p. 94— NC spiny crayfish counties should be the same as for Neuse River waterdog
p. 95 — WRC mussel relocation description is not totally accurate — but will probably suffice.
Later,
VS
From: Garrison, Gabriela
Sent: Tuesday, June 20, 2017 1:30 PM
To: Stancil, Vann F <[e-mail]>
Subject: compressed table
I hope this doesn't choke up your email. I got it down to 18MB.
Let me know if it works.
G.
Gabriela Garrison
Eastern iedrConservation abitat onservalion 'l oordinator
'4
N( Wildlife Pesoi.irces Commission
5andni 4; Depot, P.v, pox 149
?
v, man, tiiC Z2834,
Office and CO: "' 7
eabriela.earrison(@ncwildlife.ore
www.ncwildlife.org
C3 91 n "51hiMFMMMM
Entail. cormspondpiice to acid foci this spndpr is subjpct to thp N.C. ;Public Records _aw and may by disclos d o Uiiird paries.
PEI