20150266 Ver 2_WRC Comments_20171219

Moore, Andrew W
From: Leslie, Andrea J
Sent: Tuesday, December 19, 2017 12:56 PM
To: carson dellinger; Fuemmeler, Amanda J CIV (US)
Cc: Moore, Andrew W; Tompkins, Bryan; Nathan V. Bass
Subject: RE: [External] Re: Application Incomplete/Request for Add'I Information - AID
2017-019100
Hi Carson,
I also want to chime in here. In addition to many of the issues raised by Andrew and Amanda, here are some
general items we'd like addressed:
1. Please provide the temporary and permanent seeding specifications for the project. We strongly
recommend that the permanent seeding mix consist of native grasses and forbs with an emphasis on
pollinator species. This was recently done for another gas pipeline project in the upper
piedmont. NCWRC can work with USFWS to provide recommendations, if needed.
2. We recommend against using double-barreled culverts. Double culverts set at the same elevation often
result in one culvert carrying most or all of the flows over time; this can cause channel instability and
problems with aquatic organism passage.
3. We recommend avoiding rock outcrops and cliffs within the right of way; are there any of these
features in the ROW?
4. In order to lessen the impacts of the project to various amphibian species, we recommend leaving
downed woody debris on the edge of the corridor. Can this be done?
Thank you,
Andrea
Andrea Leslie
Mountain Habitat Conservation Coordinator
NC Wildlife Resources Commission
645 Fish Hatchery Rd., Building B
Marion, NC 28752
828-803-6054 (office)
828-400-4223 (cell)
www.ncwildlife.org
Get NC Wildlife Update delivered to your inbox from the N.C. Wildlife Resources Commission.
Email correspondence to and from this sender is subject to the N.C. Public Records Law and may be disclosed to third parties.
From: carson dellinger [mailto:[e-mail]]
Sent: Tuesday, December 19, 2017 9:31 AM
To: Fuemmeler, Amanda J CIV (US) <[e-mail]>

Cc: Moore, Andrew W <[e-mail]>; Leslie, Andrea J <[e-mail]>; Tompkins,
Bryan <[e-mail]>; Nathan V. Bass <[e-mail]>
Subject: [External] Re: Application Incomplete/Request for Add'I Information - AID 2017-019100
CAUTION: External email. Do not click links or open attachments unless verified. Send all suspicious email as an attachment to
[e-mail].
Hi, folks,
Attached is the current ME survey. It does include a table with concise details. We are working on responses
to the rest of the questions/concerns that were posed by USACE and DWQ and will be in touch shortly.
Best regards,
Carson Dellinger
EROC, Inc
828-45o-oi6i
On Mon, Dec 18, 2017 at 11:21 AM, Fuemmeler, Amanda J CIV (US) <[e-mail]> wrote:
Ms. Dellinger,
We have received your request for a Nationwide Permit #12 for the construction of the Sugar Mountain Transmission
Line and need the following information to consider the application complete and continue the review of this request.
Some of these items have been previously discussed but feel free to contact me with questions, thanks.
1. Updated/revised threatened and endangered species assessment report that includes all currently listed species for
this area/county (to include bat species). Again not requesting actually survey results but a complete list/description of
relevant species and their habitat and what if any habitat exists within the right-of-way/construction corridor. The
report should also note any anticipated effects on these species/habitats from the proposed work (see #2 for related
question).
2. Also please provide information on the amount of trees that will be cleared within a) the impact areas and b) the
right-of-way in its entirety and if there are any percussive activities planned (e.g. drilling, explosives, jack -hammering).
3. Plan/cross-sectional profile of proposed culvert impacts so that can determine if pipes are properly sized, buried, and
if any rip rap is proposed.
4. If proposed permanent impacts are 190 linear feet of stream channel, then a mitigation plan needs to be submitted
that will compensate for these permanent impacts.
5. Mapping labels/corrections for Jurisdictional Waters: a) There are several discrepancies between what is
labeled/shown as jurisdictional waters on the USGS topographic maps - not all waters have been labeled on the overall
topo maps even though streams are shown (assuming these are S2, S3, S6, S11, S14?). Sugar Creek (S6) is also not
labeled as such on the enlarged or the overall.
6. Impact clarification: On the PCN, the S9 is listed as 30 linear feet but it appears that the plan label shows 40 linear
feet.
7. Please include a discussion on if the cleared vegetation will be left in place or hauled off. If hauled off, where is the
planned disposal sites.
8. Please provide/include any correspondence from SHPO regarding previous cultural resources review/coordination.

Amanda Jones
Regulatory Specialist
U.S. Army Corps of Engineers
Asheville Regulatory Field Office
151 Patton Avenue, Room 208
Asheville, NC 28801-5006
828-271-7980 ext. 4225
Best regards,
Carson Dellinger
Project Manager, Scientist
Environmental Resources of the Carolinas, Inc
72 Brownwood Ave, Asheville, NC 28806
E: CarsonDellingerPgmail.com
M: 828.450.or6r