20141169 Ver 1_R-2514B,C,&D_20150107

Wainwright, David
From: Cashin, Gordon E
Sent: Wednesday, January 07, 2015 11:30 AM
To: Wainwright, David
Cc: Tom Steffens
Subject: RE: R-2514B,C, & D Application
Attachments: StreamStatusTable.pdf
David and Tom,
Item 1....
R-251413: Permit Sites 6 and 16 are perennial, Site 13 is Intermittent
R-2514C:All sites are intermittent
R-2514D: Only permit Site 3 is perennial. This site is a tributary to Trent River, and is identified as stream T15 in the EIS
and other documentation. FEIS site 131 is a wetland associated with T15, so this is a mistake in Table 2.
Most of these stream calls are identified in Table 2 from the Wetland and Stream Delineation Reevaluation and Neuse
River Buffer Reassessment(ESI, Oct. 3, 2007). 1 got an update on Sites G2 and W22 from Matt Smith, since they aren't
specifically listed in the 2007 table. I have attached a copy of this table so you don't have to dig for it.
Let me know if you want me to submit a new table that calculates the Perennial vs. Intermittent impacts.
All other items on your list are in process...
Gordon
From: Wainwright, David
Sent: Monday, January 05, 2015 2:48 PM
To: Cashin, Gordon E
Cc: Tom Steffens
Subject: R-2514B,C, & D Application
Gordon,
I have been working to review the application submitted for R-2514 B, C, & D. As we discussed, I have several questions,
concerns, or clarifications. Specifically:
• All sections—I need to know which stream impacts are to perennial and which are to intermittent. I didn't
notice the stream calls included in the package anywhere.
• Section B—At Site 14, it appears as if the fill impact and excavation impact numbers are reversed.The impacts
table indicates 0.02 acres fill impact and 0.04 acres excavation impact, but in looking at the detail there appears
to be twice as much fill as excavation. Please verify the impacts at this site.
• Application—Table 1, R-251413,the stated subtotal of permanent wetland impacts (9.63 acres) do not total the
sum of the impacts presented nor the impacts summary sheet(9.59 acres).
• Section C—The Stormwater Management Plan states that approximately 2/3 rd,of the project are in the Neuse
River Basin,which is a riparian buffer basin. However,the plan does not include a swale summary table (similar
to the one included for Section D). A summary table for the portions located within the Neuse River Basin should
be included. Please forward a copy.
i

• Section C—The mechanized clearing impacts do not add up to the total at the bottom of the page (2.63 acres
actual totaled; 2.61 acres column total).This may be a rounding issue, but I want to verify.
Utilities:
• Section B—Utility Site 3;the impact is triangle shaped on the edge of a wetland.The purpose of this impact is
unclear to me. It is listed as a power line impact, but I see no pole indicated in the area and it does not appear to
be for part of a maintenance corridor. Please indicate the purpose of this impact.
• Section C—The hand clearing impacts sum (^'1.89 acres)do not match the column total (1.69 acres).
• Section C—There are two sets of impacts for power lines—one has impact sites 1-5 and the other has impacts
sites 1-27. It is unclear to me why two sets of different power utility impacts are included (versus including all
power line impacts in one table). Additionally, between the three wetland utility impacts tables included in the
application for Section C, there are 46 sites presented. However, of those 46 sites only 19 are shown on the
utility plans for Section C.
• Section D—At Utility Site 1 there appears to be a power pole/line relocation.The amount of hand clearing
requested seems to be excessive and not reflected correctly on the impact summary sheet.The impact summary
sheet indicates that there is 0.01 acres of hand clearing;the hand clearing impact appears to be closer to 1.23
acres. Also,the impact depicted on the plan sheet seems excessive for the planned activities. Please clarify the
amount of impact as well as the need for such a large impact.
• Section D—It is unclear why such a large area is required to be hand cleared at Utility Site 2. As drawn, it
appears that hand clearing limits on the eastern side of the power line is near 60 feet, while near 110 feet on the
west side of the power lines.The proposed 170 foot wide hand clearing limits at this site seem excessive. Please
provide an explanation as to why such a wide hand clearing corridor is required.
David Wainwright
NCDENR,Division of Water Resources
1617 Mail Service Center,Raleigh,North Carolina 27699-1617
Phone: [phone] Fax: [phone]
David.Wainwright @ncdenr.gov
Email correspondence to and from this address is subject to the North Carolina Public Records Law and may be disclosed
to third parties unless the content is exempt by statute or other regulation.
Please consider the environment before printing this email.
small curreslpoindoinco Co and troi,n'H'Is scindor is sulsjoc��o dh°io IN C I::"ulslic tccun:;s I..aw and may Iso disclusod�o U'li'd loartios,
2