20120240 Ver 1_Emails_20120713

FW R 2303A Application 12 0240
FW R -2303A Application 12 -0240
Herndon, Mason
Sent Friday July 13 2012 10 29 AM
To Carrillo Sonia
Importance High
Sonia good mornings 111 call you in a little while so we can discuss
Thanksl
MH
Mason Herndon
Environmental Senior Specialist
NCDENR Division of Water Quality
Surface Water Protection
mason herndon @ncdenr gov
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 Herndon, Mason
Sent Tuesday, April 10, 2012 11 04 AM
To Manley, Chris Shaver, Brad E SAW, Rivenbark, Chris
Cc Wrenn, Brian
Subject R 2303A Application
Importance High
Page 1 of 2
Chris I have reviewed the application for R 2303A and have several Items that need to be addressed before I
can consider this a complete application Several of these Items were brought to your attention In an a mall
from Brad Shaver on March 16th but are still outstanding Please provide the Information requested below by
April 17th If this Information is not provided by April 17th DWQ will Issue a hold letter on this application
1 Application was missing pages 8 & 10 1 retrieved these pages from the application posted online and
noted that the application was revised on March 8 2012 Please confirm that the only revision to date
was the removal of Sediment and erosion control measures shall adhere to the Design Standards in
Sensitive Watersheds during construction of the project in the Avoidance and Minimization Section
(11 1) of the Individual Permit Application
2 Provide cross sections for Site 2 Stations 80 +00 and 80 +50 to confirm that 3 1 slopes are being
proposed to minimize wetland impacts
3 The permit drawing and plan sheets for Site 2 should included a note that the equalizer pipes will be
installed at natural grade and not buried This was discussed in 4C
4 The proposed mitigation of 67 If of stream restoration at site #8 should be labeled mitigation on the
permit drawings and included in the on site mitigation package dated February 17 2012 The mitigation
site should be treated as the other mitigation sites in the aforementioned package Furthermore it is
noted that NSD (natural steam design) would be implemented at this site Provide additional
information on how DOT is going to implement NSD at this site This should include at a minimum a
plan sheet showing the proposed design and a reforestation /planting plan Furthermore DOT should
address how they are proposing to monitor this site
5 Clarify permit drawing 12 of 44 The drawing is labeled Site 10 but it appears to be the for the twin 54 s
at Site 8 however Sheet 30 of 44 is labeled Site 8 and shows a profile view of the twin 54 s
Furthermore the elevation and skew for these pipes are different on these two sheets which one is
https //ma11 nc gov /owa/ ?ae= Item &t =IPM Note &id= RgAAAADMSzLcd9W2TJH14 %2bm 7/16/2012

FW R 2303A Application 12 0240
Page 2 of 2
correct?
6 The application Indicates that there will be twin 54 s Installed at Site 8 The 401 will be conditioned as
follows If multiple pipes or barrels are required they shall be designed to mimic natural stream cross
section as closely as possible Including pipes or barrels at flood plain elevation and /or sills where
appropriate Widening the stream channel should be avoided Stream channel widening at the Inlet or
outlet end of structures typically decreases water velocity causing sediment deposition that requires
Increased maintenance and disrupts aquatic life passage Provide a detail or cross section on how DOT
will comply with this condition This has been an issue on several projects that are under construction
and has required field modifications
7 Permit drawing 17 of 44 the wetland boundary for Site 5 on the permit drawing appears to be cutoff
and extends further east based on the wetland boundaries provided by ESI on April 2 2012 Please
confirm that that the wetland boundary on Site 5 Is accurate and additional wetland Impacts will not
occur
8 Permit drawing 36 of 44 (Cross Sections 321 +00 through 322 +00) appear to indicate that 4 1 and 5 1
slopes are proposed within Site 9 Please provide an explanation on why DOT is not proposing 3 1
slopes to minimize impacts
9 The application does not address how DOT is proposing to provide mitigation for the riparian wetland
impacts that will occur The letter from EEP dated February 28 2012 only indicates that they will
provide mitigation for 434 If of stream and 5 22 acres of non riparian wetlands How is DOT proposing
to provide compensatory mitigation for the 2 46 acres of riparian wetland Impacts that are to occur on
this project?
I apologize for not getting these request to you sooner however I was hoping that DOT would have provided
some this Information which was requested by the USACE In a e mall on March 16 2012 and I did not receive
the final JD information that I requested on February 14 2012 until April 3 2012
If you have any questions about the additional Information that has been requested please do not hesitate to
contact me
Thanksl
MH
Mason Herndon
Environmental Senior Specialist
NCDENR Division of Water Quality
Surface Water Protection
mason herndon @ncdenr gov
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
https //mail nc gov /owa/ ?ae= Item &t =IPM Note &id= RgAAAADMSzLcd9W2TJHI4 %2bm 7/16/2012