20080691 Ver 1_Email_20080723

Re: U=3M3A

Subject: Re: U-3303A
From: David Wainwright <David.Wainwri [e-mail]>
Date: Wed, 23 Jul 2008 14:59:06 -0400
To: "Nottingham, Andrew T" <[e-mail]>
CC: "Mclamb, Erica S" <[e-mail]>

Andrew,

Thank you for your response. Despite it being so obvious, I overlooked that note.
Taking the removal into account, it appears to be correct. Thanks again.
David Wainwright
NCDENR, Division of Water Quality
Transportation Permitting Unit
Raleigh, NC
[e-mail] 919-715-3415

Nottingham, Andrew T wrote:
Erica and David,
The enlargement is close to 1" = 50' but not exactly. I think the discrepancy may
be that the pipe length shown on the north quadrant is not all stream impact. We
removed part of the existing pipe on this end. The existing pipe extends to about
where the R is in the note that says "REM EXISTING CB AND OUTLET PIPE". The REM
stands for remove. There is about 20 feet of existing pipe that extends from the
existing CB that we are removing. We calculated approximately 56 feet of
permanent stream impact on the north side and approximately 20 feet of permanent
stream impact on the south side for a total of 76 feet.
Let me know if you have any questions.
Thanks,
Andrew
-----Original Message-----
From: Mclamb, Erica S
Sent: Tuesday, July 22, 2008 11:17 AM
To: Nottingham, Andrew T
Cc: [e-mail]
Subject: U-3303A
Andrew,
David Wainwright of NCDWQ called today with a question about the enlargement of
site 2 on sheet 9 for the A section of this project. There was not a scale on
this sheet, so David assumed it 1'"=501. He was concerned that the pipe extension
in the southern quadrant was not included in the impact summary sheet because
according to his measurements, the permanent impacts exceeded the 76 feet stated
in the impact summary table. I went to check the microstation file on the R:
drive to see if I could tell where the impacts were and get a measurement, but was
unable to locate the file.
Therefore, could you please check the impacts for site 2 and see if they were
correctly documented in the summary sheet. I will be out of the office tomorrow,
but I will be back on Thursday if you need any further information from me.
Thanks,
Erica

1 of 1 7/23/2008 2:59 PM

BE: U--3!03A

Subject: RE: U-3303A
From: "Nottingham, Andrew T" <[e-mail]>
Date: Wed, 23 Jul 2008 13:40:07 -0400
To: "Mclamb, Erica S" <[e-mail]>
CC: "David. [e-mail]" <[e-mail]>

Erica and David,
The enlargement is close to 1" = 50' but not exactly. I think the discrepancy may be
that the pipe length shown on the north quadrant is not all stream impact. We
removed part of the existing pipe on this end. The existing pipe extends to about
where the R is in the note that says "REM EXISTING CB AND OUTLET PIPE". The REM
stands for remove. There is about 20 feet of existing pipe that extends from the
existing CB that we are removing. We calculated approximately 56 feet of permanent
stream impact on the north side and approximately 20 feet of permanent stream impact
on the south side for a total of 76 feet.
Let me know if you have any questions.
Thanks,
Andrew
-----Original Message-----
From: Mclamb, Erica S
Sent: Tuesday, July 22, 2008 11:17 AM
To: Nottingham, Andrew T
Cc: David.WainwrightCa=mail.ne_t
Subject: U-3303A
Andrew,
David Wainwright of NCDWQ called today with a question about the enlargement of site
2 on sheet 9 for the A section of this project. There was not a scale on this sheet,
so David assumed it 1'1=50'. He was concerned that the pipe extension in the
southern quadrant was not included in the impact summary sheet because according to
his measurements, the permanent impacts exceeded the 76 feet stated in the impact
summary table. I went to check the microstation file on the R: drive to see if I
could tell where the impacts were and get a measurement, but was unable to locate the
file.
Therefore, could you please check the impacts for site 2 and see if they were
correctly documented in the summary sheet. I will be out of the office tomorrow, but
I will be back on Thursday if you need any further information from me.
Thanks,
Erica

1 of 1 7/23/2008 2:15 PM