NCDOT_89-13 Email Correspondance

Lane, Stephen
From:
Lane, Stephen
Sent:
Wednesday, February 18, 2015 11:13 AM
To:
Mathis, Stonewall D; Shaver, Brad E SAW ([e-mail]); Herndon,
Mason
Subject:
RE: R-3601
Hi Stoney,
After having reviewed the approved CAMA application and permit for this project, the Division of Coastal Management
has anticipated that the area under the bridge will be shaded and excavated, which will eliminate any Coastal Wetland
species currently growing there, and eventually convert the area under the bridge to a tidally flooded sand flat. The
temporary excavation as proposed in the attached email thread results in a de minimis change and will not require a
permit modification from our agency. Please let me know if I may be of further assistance with this project.
Thanks,
Stephen
From: Mathis, Stonewall D
Sent: Tuesday, February 17, 2015 10:01 AM
To: Shaver, Brad E SAW (Brad. E.Shaver(dusace.armv.mil); Herndon, Mason; Lane, Stephen
Cc: Mathis, Stonewall D
Subject: R-3601
Hey Guys,
We are working on the structure excavation that we met about on Feb. 11, 2015.
One thing which is of an immediate need which appears that it would not impact wetlands as they are shown on the
permit drawing (although they do appear as possibly wetland in the field) is the needed cut around interior bent 1 of
Structure 107 (the southern bridge at Alligator Creek). Please see the attached screen shot of Permit Drawing 29 of 44
with the area circled in blue which would need to have an area excavated of approximately 10 feet wide by one foot
deep by approximately 50 feet long on the current phase (northern part of Structure 107). This excavation is needed for
cutting off the two cans and placing the preformed cap. A similar area/volume would need to be excavated on the next
phase after the existing bridge is torn out for that other half of the bridge. Please. note that I went ahead and encircled
the entire proposed bent on the drawing; please know that the phase 1 is the northern half of the bent. The first phase
which is the northern half is at a point in the next few days of needing this excavation. The proposed excavation is
below the high tide line. The cut would be graded toward the little slough that we saw last week in order to drain the
hole during the timeframe of the cutting of the cans and placement of the cap. The excavated material would be placed
on high ground above the high tide line for temporary storage. After cutting of the cans and placement of the cap, the
previously excavated material would be placed and packed back around the cap to fill in the excess excavation of the
hole to preconstruction contours as much as possible and any remaining excess material would be removed and
properly disposed. The actual work would be done when the area is not inundated with water. Can we move forward
with this work without a permit modification, permit reissuance, letter of refinement, and/or the like since this is not in
a wetland per the permit drawing? Does the fact that this is below the high tide line affect this call? Please advise as to
whether we can move forward with the above described under our current permit situation.
Thank you,
Stoney

60 EMP. WORK BRIDGE 1.�* —1r
r e'
d fl
=mob
or ---------�-�-- •-s♦
I
RATER ELEV11.))'
4/22/09 9455 AM
HGH WATER
ELEV. I.T9•
& A r) A / - \kr_fi,*4 z % % %b -. `rw / - if I I
OTEMPORAR)
4N - WETU
_ HAND CLEARR
FILL IIr'O(ETLAND
HOULDER BERM
ND OF BRIDGE T
III `
IN WETL
w

Lane, Stephen
From: Shaver, Brad E SAW <[e-mail]>
Sent: Tuesday, December 30, 2014 8:50 AM
To: Herndon, Mason; Rivenbark, Chris; Hawk, Eric; Lane, Stephen
Cc: Sollod, Steve; James, Amy E; Mathis, Stonewall D; Westphal, Anneliese; Wilson, Travis W.
Subject: RE: Brunswick River, NC R-3601 Bent 1 in -water work request (UNCLASSIFIED)
Classification: UNCLASSIFIED
Caveats: NONE
Chris,
The Corps concurs with the request for additional work along the banks of the Brunswick River as described in your
12/19/2014 email request. Considering the coordination with both State and Federal Resource agencies, with no
objections, the project remains consistent with specific condition 6 of the verified nationwide 23. The work is limited to
the scope and timeframes reported in your original request.
Thanks,
Brad
-----Original Message -----
From: Herndon, Mason[mailto:[e-mail]]
Sent: Monday, December 22, 2014 8:10 AM
To: Rivenbark, Chris; Hawk, Eric; Lane, Stephen
Cc: Shaver, Brad E SAW; Sollod, Steve; James, Amy E; Mathis, Stonewall D; Westphal, Anneliese; Wilson, Travis W.
Subject: [EXTERNAL] RE: Brunswick River, NC R-3601 Bent 1 in -water work request
Chris,
Based on the NMFS comments below, consultation with Travis Wilson (NCWRC) via phone on Friday and our field
observations of the issues and site conditions on Thursday 12/18/14, DWR has no objection to the contractors proposal
to install two permanent casings for the R-3601 project at Bent 1 near the shoreline of the Brunswick River during the in -
water work moratorium period. However, the casings must be installed in accordance with the proposal and
methodology described below in this e-mail thread and completed by early February 2015.
Thanks!
MH
Mason Herndon
NCDENR, Division of Water Resources

Transportation Permitting Unit
Fayetteville/Wilmington Region
[e-mail]
Phone: [phone]
E-mail correspondence to and from this address may be subject to the
North Carolina Public Records Law and may be disclosed to third parties.
From: Rivenbark, Chris
Sent: Friday, December 19, 2014 2:13 PM
To: Eric Hawk- NOAA Federal; Lane, Stephen
Cc: Herndon, Mason; Shaver, Brad E SAW ([e-mail]); Sollod, Steve; James, Amy E; Mathis,
Stonewall D; Westphal, Anneliese
Subject: RE: Brunswick River, NC R-3601 Bent 1 in -water work request
Eric,
Thank you for the timely response. We appreciate your assistance.
Chris Rivenbark
NCDOT-Natural Environment Section
[phone]
From: Eric Hawk - NOAA Federal [mailto:[e-mail]]
Sent: Friday, December 19, 2014 2:11 PM
To: Lane, Stephen
Cc: Rivenbark, Chris; Herndon, Mason; Shaver, Brad E SAW ([e-mail]1); Sollod, Steve; James, Amy
E; Mathis, Stonewall D; Westphal, Anneliese
Subject: Re: Brunswick River, NC R-3601 Bent 1 in -water work request
Hi all,

I will go on record as saying that NMFS has no concerns either; no need to reinitiate ESA consultation on this; the
proposed minor work, as described, would not change the basis of our previous NLAA (not likely to adveresely affect)
conclusion. Thanks for the opportunity to comment.
Eric Hawk
On Fri, Dec 19, 2014 at 12:06 PM, Lane, Stephen <[e-mail]> wrote:
Hi Chris,
After careful consideration of the issues on this project and internal discussion amongst NCDCM staff, NCDCM does not
object to the proposal and methodology, as described in the attached email thread below, to install two permanent
casings for the R-3601 project within the Brunswick River during the in -water work moratorium period. Please let me
know if I may be of any additional assistance with this project.
Sincerely,
Stephen Lane
Coastal Management Representative
From: Herndon, Mason
Sent: Friday, December 19, 2014 8:47 AM
To: Rivenbark, Chris; Eric Hawk - NOAA Federal ([e-mail])
Cc: Shaver, Brad E SAW ([e-mail]); Lane, Stephen; Sollod, Steve; James, Amy E; Mathis, Stonewall
D; Westphal, Anneliese
Subject: RE: Brunswick River, NC R-3601 Bent 1 in -water work request
Chris and Eric,
Actually when we looked at this site yesterday there was mud flat between the casing and the water's edge at low tide.
The water in the picture is where the contractor attempted to install the casing and it created a sinkhole that holds
water. We realize that the window of opportunity to vibrate the casing in during low tide is short so the contractor has
agreed to push in a larger casing around the permanent casing to serve as a barrier when vibrating in the permanent
casing. Per the contractor, it should only take a hour to vibrate the permanent casing in and there should be little
resistance since they are going to pre -auger through whatever obstruction it is that they are hitting. Of course, there is
or will be a turbidity curtain in deeper water running parallel to the shoreline when the work is being done. Best case
scenario they get the casing completely installed while there is no water in the work area. Worst case scenario there

would be — 4 inches of water over the mudflat and around the temporary casing before the installation is complete.
There are two casing along this shoreline that will need to be installed in this manner.
I'll be in the field today so if either of you have any questions please feel free to give me a call. I will be back in the office
on Monday.
Thanks!
Mason
Mason Herndon
NCDENR, Division of Water Resources
Transportation Permitting Unit
Fayetteville/Wilmington Region
[e-mail]
Phone: [phone] <tel:%28910%29%20308-4021>
E-mail correspondence to and from this address may be subject to the
North Carolina Public Records Law and may be disclosed to third parties.
From: Rivenbark, Chris
Sent: Friday, December 19, 2014 8:32 AM
To: Eric Hawk- NOAA Federal ([e-mail])
Cc: Shaver, Brad E SAW ([e-mail]); Herndon, Mason; Lane, Stephen; Sollod, Steve; James, Amy E;
Mathis, Stonewall D
Subject: Brunswick River, NC R-3601 Bent 1 in -water work request
Eric,
It was good speaking with you this morning. To follow up on our conversation, due to casing installs taking longer than
expected, the contractor has asked for a variance to allow limited in -water work to install (via drill rig) one to two
casings during the moratorium. As I understand, the area is 6-8 inches deep at low tide. They feel that the work can be
performed with two, two hours durations and at this point they would complete this before Feb.15.

I'm cc'ing our regulatory agencies as they are aware of this request and ask them to add anything that I may have left
out.
Thank you for considering this request and please let me know if you need any additional information.
Chris Rivenbark I Eastern Regional Manager I Environmental Coordination & Permitting Group
Natural Environment Section I PDEA I N.C. Department of Transportation
[phone] <tel:%28919%29%20707-6152> office 1 [phone] <tel:%28919%29%20212-5785> fax
[e-mail]
Email correspondence to and from this sender is subject to the N.C. Public Records Law and may be disclosed to third
parties.
Eric G. Hawk
NMFS Southeast Region
ESA Regional Section 7 Coordinator/PCTS Regional Manager
Ofc [phone]
Fax [phone]
"How inappropriate to call this planet'Earth' when it is quite clearly'Ocean'."
Arthur C. Clarke
Classification: UNCLASSIFIED
Caveats: NONE

Lane, Stephen
From: .-... Herndon, Mason -- --- -
Sent: Friday, August 29, 2014 3:01 PM
To: James, Amy E
Cc: Rivenbark, Chris; [e-mail]; Lane, Stephen; Sollod, Steve
Subject: RE: R-3601 roadway plan sheet changes
Amy,
I met with the Hydraulic Engineer with Stantec yesterday during our site visit and we went over the redline drawings and
I'm good with the revised plans that eliminate the drop boxes at Bridge 108. 1 was confusing percent slope with ratios,
so stormwater will runoff the shoulder prior to reaching the bridge. Therefore -the deck drains will only discharge rainfall
that directly falls onto the bridge which was the original commitment.
Sorry for all the work I put you through.
Have a great Labor Day weekend!
ItLAI:I
Mason Herndon
NCDENR, Division of Water Resources
Transportation Permitting Unit
Fayetteville/Wilmington Region
mason. [e-mail]
Phone: [phone]
E-mail correspondence to and from this address may be subject to the
North Carolina Public Records Law and may be disclosed to third parties.
From: James, Amy E
Sent: Thursday, August 28, 2014 8:38 AM
To: Herndon, Mason
Cc: Rivenbark, Chris; [e-mail]; Lane, Stephen; Sollod, Steve
Subject: RE: R-3601 roadway plan sheet changes
See attached drawings —hopefully these will give you more insight.
From: Herndon, Mason
Sent: Wednesday, August 27, 2014 1:00 PM
To: James, Amy E
Cc: Rivenbark, Chris; [e-mail]; Lane, Stephen; Sollod, Steve
Subject: RE: R-3601 roadway plan sheet changes
Amy,
Redline drawings would be helpful.
Thanks!
MH

Mason Herndon
NCDENR, Division of Water Resources
_- Transportation Permitting Unit
Fayetteville/Wilmington Region
[e-mail]
Phone: [phone]
E-mail correspondence to and from this address maybe subject to the
North Carolina Public Records Law and may be disclosed to third parties.
From: James, Amy E
Sent: Wednesday, August 27, 2014 12:08 PM
To: Herndon, Mason
Cc: Rivenbark, Chris; brad.e.shaver(cbusace.army.mil; Lane, Stephen; Sollod, Steve
Subject: RE: R-3601 roadway plan sheet changes
Mason,
Here is what I got from the design -build team —basically, the numbers you reference on the cross sections have to be
converted to a percentage, so the raw numbers are misleading:
See permit drawing 30 and 31 of 44 for the roadway profile -LLT- and notes below:
• There is additional vertical PI (grade break) at sta 108+05 with 0.0%slope. This means zero slope toward
the bridge beginning at sto 108+05. Therefore drainage will flow perpendicular to the centerline toward
the grass shoulder due to the 2.5 % cross slope. The cross slope is 2.5 % not 0.25%. The .025 is ff/ft.
• There is additional vertical PI ( grade break) at sta 111+25, bridge is sloping away from river at 0.037 %,
with a low point at sta 112+00. Other direction slopes 0.9091 % to the low point. Therefore drainage will
flow off of bridge to the sag. The cross slope is 2.5 % not 0.25%. The .025 is ff/ff. Therefore the crown slope
is greater than the roadway slope and drainage will flow toward grass shoulder.
If this is still confusing, their design folks can redline the drawings for more clarification, just let me know if you would
prefer that.
Thanks,
From: Herndon, Mason
Sent: Tuesday, August 26, 2014 1:51 PM
To: James, Amy E
Cc: Rivenbark, Chris; brad.e.shaver(cbusace.army.mil; Lane, Stephen; Sollod, Steve
Subject: RE: R-3601 roadway plan sheet changes
Amy,
The cross sections on Permit Drawings 32 of 34 show the crown of the roadway at 0.025% and the profile view on
permit drawing 31 of 34 show a grade break at -LLT-114+25 sloping down to the bridge at a 0.9091% slope to the end of
the bridge at -LLT- 111+83.31. Since the slope is greater on the roadway approach to the bridge in comparison to the
roadway crown and shoulders, wouldn't additional runoff go to the bridge rather than off the shoulder? The scenario is
similar on the other side of the bridge between Sta. 106+35 to 108+96.43. Would inlets intercept some of this flow
before reaching the deck drains? I'm just trying to make sure that runoff to the deck drains is minimized as much as
possible. Now that I've looked at the profile at this crossing more closely, I have a better understanding of the obstacles
that have to be overcome in managing the stormwater. [just want to make sure that DOT is doing everything possible
to minimize discharge through the deck drains.
MH

Mason Herndon
NCDENR, Division of Water Resources
Transportation Permitting Unit
Fayetteville/WilmingtortRegion
[e-mail]
Phone: [phone]
E-mail correspondence to and from this address maybe subject to the
North Carolina Public Records Law and may be disclosed to third parties.
From: James, Amy E
Sent: Tuesday, August 26, 2014 11:39 AM
To: Herndon, Mason
Cc: Rivenbark, Chris; brad.e.shaver(Ousace.army.mil; Lane, Stephen; Sollod, Steve
Subject: RE: R-3601 roadway plan sheet changes
Mason,
I talked with the design -build team about your concerns and I was basically told that what they said on June 18 was in
error —the inlets proposed on either side of the bridge were never designed to drain the road; the road run-off is being
directed to the grassed shoulder:
Inlets at the ends of the bridge were in the original design because the bridge deck had no drains and runoff
concentrated at the ends of the bridge would cause erosion to the shoulder; therefore, inlets were required to
intercept the flow. The bridge slopes away from the river with a low point about 50' past the bridge end.
With deck drains on the bridge, there is no longer runoff at the end of the bridge, so no inlets are required. The
roadway cross slope directs the runoff to the grass shoulder where it will drain as sheet flow and will never reach
the bridge.
If you need more explanation, please let me know.
Amy
From: Herndon, Mason
Sent: Monday, August 25, 2014 9:40 AM
To: James, Amy E; brad.e.shaver(ftsace.army.mil; Lane, Stephen; Sollod, Steve
Cc: Rivenbark, Chris
Subject: RE: R-3601 roadway plan sheet changes
Importance: High
Amy, this revision conflicts with Item 1 on your response to me on June 18, 2014 which reads as follows:
1) Are you capturing and discharging stormwater water from the roadway prior to it reaching the bridge and
discharging through the deck drains?: Inlets are proposed on the roadway just off each end of the bridge to
capture stormwater before it reaches the bridge. Only bridge deck water would be discharged through deck
drains.

o-
X i
i 7 �,
Z}.9F' tziG43
SS6..dYr
M AtltlP
q 44+dEQ
(,y-$(r'JS`X 2h'ii`=4#}IYE r"k
eKilMi!°YM1%a�i G4�lU2E'nF%%#LT'
#44
N5 Mu Fqu
"" i#ae enrsn au.
� ix.. i.15 »fir 34.YX. ie.
tli RN, 1
C,
♦ry °fix.x.� ii\�r�aV
This revision is not acceptable to DWR since it directly conflicts with a our discussion with NCDOT about the need to add
deck drains on the south side of Bridge 108 and what measures would be implemented to reduce discharge from the
bridge deck drains. If we need to discuss this further, please feel free to contact me.
MH
Mason Herndon
NCDENR, Division of Water Resources
Transportation Permitting Unit
Fayetteville/Wilmington Region
mason.herndon Cod ncdenr.eov
Phone: [phone]
E-mail correspondence to and from this address may be subject to the
North Carolina Public Records Law and may be disclosed to third parties.
From: James, Amy E
Sent: Friday, August 22, 2014 1:43 PM
To: brad.e.shaver(cbusace.armv.mil; Herndon, Mason; Lane, Stephen; Sollod, Steve
Cc: Rivenbark, Chris
Subject: R-3601 roadway plan sheet changes
Hello all,
Please find attached revised roadway plan sheets 9 and 10 for R-3601. These sheets have been updated to reflect the
removal of drainage structures at the approaches of bridge 108 over Alligator Creek, which are no longer necessary due
to the addition of deck drains over the bridge. This design update does not result in a change of grading or impacts to
waters of the U.S. I will also update the permit application where the roadway plans reside (May 21, 2014) on the DOT
website @ https://connect.ncdot.gov/resources/Environmental/Pages/default aspx.
Have a good weekend!
Amy
Amy James
Biologist, Project Management
NCDOT, Natural Environment Section
Direct919.707-6129
ae![e-mail]

DETAIL 9A
sPFOACUT WE DITCH
I wetmy
PROJECT REFERENCE NO.
R-360!
6HEEf NO.
9
��ryry��II
RW SHEET
Stantec RO mGwmDESIGN
NO.
ENND6
-LRT-
P1 Sta 101+4822 PIS Sto 106+78.06
Mn O- 1FI
B- 2 H.
RTwwtn COrpmtion
Bbnbc CwuultlnB servbn5lnc
6T J. Franlmn ft O THIS DOCUMENT
THIS DOCUMENT
= 657'S33'lLTJ Os= O'45'033'
-uLr_6Tw lob+a>ro su nD+oo nn
slw9 soo ORIGINutr
OxI�INALLr
D = 0.45'033• Ls = 200.W
ON
[e-mail]27808 SIGNED AND
SIGNED AND
L = 927.49' LT = 13333'
F .Eel9)851- Es SEATED BY
F. LB1sl61.Tve4
sEAIElO ITr
T = 46432' ST = 66E7'
(+�
�� D026Ns» RIEN
BON
R = 7.630,00'
L ®I� x wBn
iii 1276DOR
SE = 0A25
NNE 27,2014
JUNE 27,2014
- OS = 60 MPH
RI Q
ti Q
g�
RELEASE FOR
CONSTRUCTION
Date: June 27,201
x
AT APPROIDMVE 6 ME%IMIJM STAGING
_•-'#_- \�`.
O kr^ _ O
TWP'�.e
SEE EEOSE_mwINGs
XCNMLOGTION3lkOM `n -•.:
____.
y-_ --_ __
._,JT y.y „�.--aR-..j"-,..f - .-_P �. :a
'�+-...
-_ __ 3„�_ NORTHWEST
S
_+t _fSR ----_t' f --
}
*- TOWNCHEER TWP
09+20 TO IOW+5D Ri
-1Li-1+68 TO 10+98 Ri, z
109
-0T-110+16 TO 110+46 Ri, } z
-0-,1107" TO T10+94 IT,
S s.,.x A
TO
11+42 R,}
46LLTT--�11111++6120
O
00
BiEG, Ili N BRCGID� NO[ 08
r
�
323AE`rRMSM-roN
LTSTA/08+96.43W
rC
W`
yw
t _II
L
LU
-F GEAl 350.. W
W
_ _
-
a
_..... ,--- :. - _._...-..- ....... -
W
N
to
r, 9s n s) us 74 w) us )s w 7 we ,v s vavAmE mr-
— T—
G �'
EXIST. RF/OGE TO B£ WIDENED
w .�
W
b
i F F _ ______ __
F F F
FFF3'SRCLLL
r---
F
1
-OFF
'-
Zj l
M B15E OITC�
TO STA110+00 LT i"\
SEE OETNL 9A
SHOULDER P . GURFA
-LO-106+H LTro BWOGE.
SEE NOTE 1.
56i \ -1 pY
!NC CL IIRP RAP
TO SHOULDER R. Z
,
CL 8 RIF PAP t Z.�9
'
505' i+37
LBG
t ". "ry E,&�OUIOER
I LLT-, .IR+833I
Q
I�
s
ti
NP w1.
.... OUD_ET PROlECT10NN
o--olEcn c
N
C UDET 9
�i
- -
J
- F
F
------
i3 ti Ti 090
••f '..
N
C'r E ,JA1.79
` _L
LE-1
a _
I
J
_ BO
_ _ F F
-
_ .L _ F
T G-��
__ F ___ 'C i
D� u '. --.J \
FNDSHOUUXA OF BHDfiE TO
END OF MI LT -gym
I
.._. SOUP.STRANsITMN !
GRAU 350 Tl'.i n
b 09 F'T011E 0.n �.
SEE NOIEF. 90
J
Lu
Z
-- _
1576 V / M /J3 5 i VA9/�E gii
jV••:
a
r
N
_ _ .� ,-
1v-Sr .:..
A
- �1
Lu
`
�.
_
Z
:
b to
J
-
LII PWP
D
] t C
[� a ^7. F � . LG J.L..
--•Y- y."-�v'yti'n r'ay' -"-1ri f F t ,.� F- F 8as7 -
z y ^ F y-GR�',�5f1 TWA
_-TB 3GI W
�--- �-
i MEB-71%
- - 3 FG
TF-
V
p
_'_- F ry ...,� F
_ w•'
_ J fr`v�
r CL 4+JP�I
F C
_ wYl£ _
0
RO'(1Nf TMER Cl/Ts/ 4
OE RGH
Y ING
`� j
RN�j 1
4
4
i
( SHOULDER BEAM GUTTER
....: 1 ( R, 'END Of [JUDGE TO -INF 6 RT Ill+
[JUDGE[JUDGEPROACN
y t=s•'j~"'-` �,; ...'`"'1t.
'i _ ,4 '� .� ,��../. � � �'"
/
v y M
t T `�`..-.7 BEGIN BRIDGE NO.107
I.' `t END I4SLAB.
w _ JA4E rRAxsYroW
�,,-, .•
x -LRT STA.709+68.50
\ I _"" 1 RT= STA:I/2+77.69
—LRT—S S/O. 106+1139
4_ /
r
APPRA"S
D
}NO.107}GIN
}
..
.
LRT ST H2+53S0
7- 57 Sfo.
_ ,.,t 'y � —� _-_-- 1
108+1/39 --- �
`�"— •_
f .�'Y�I�
✓
-
SUITER
�
ARl-1W+31 P TO BRIDGE 1
} k i /
z v' Y�
CietE F�RlS AUI±Ox iTl
,(�
/ O
__ 20a FC 273
\F.
} 7
SLABS OTE ON"� SIDEE OGO F . DUNNG PHASEE 0 CO n MON REFERENCE:
SIWIM coMRETwE BAM OF CURB NAGE FROM ONSSTWCTION 107 TO D JU G FRULNGE TO LL FOR
—LLT— & —LRT— PROFILE VIEW, SEE SHEETS
/9-20
RA NG F" ER"' FOR
—LLT— & —LRT— BRIDGE SKETCH SEE
SHEET 2—H