20141169 Ver 1_More information email_20150130

Wainwright,
From: [ashir, Gordon E
Sent: Friday, January 3U' ZUl5ll:UlAK4
To: Wainwright, David
Cc Tom Steffens; Rivenbark, Chris; Mellor, Colin
Subject: RE: R,2514 2, [, & D Improvements to US 17 from Belgrade to New Bern Bypass
David,
Here is yet another update an where vxeare:
• All sections—| need to know which stream impacts are to perennial and which are to intermittent— | sentta
you inane-mai|. | noticed that is not in your on-hold letter; da you want msta include this information inthe
pending hard copy submittal?
• Section B—At Site 14, it appears as if the fill impact and excavation impact numbers are reversed... Hydraulics
checked the calculations and says they are correct. Which detail are you looking at? Perhaps the symbology is
confusing?
• 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.S9acres). Hydraulics has re-checked the totals
and says the permanent impact summary sheet should beg.61acres. The remaining difference is due ta
rounding, and the way Hydraulics handles significant figures vs. the way | had to in the cover letter tables. Da
you want a revised summary sheet?
• 3ectionC—The3tormvxaterManagementP|anstatesthatapproximate|yZ/3rd`oftheprojectareintheNeuse
River Basin,which is a riparian buffer basin. However,the plan does not include a svxa|e summary table... The
svva|e summary table is being prepared by Hydraulics, but | sd|| don't have it. | also don't have the revised
drawings showing other revisions ta the Csection.
• 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 tota|).This may be rounding issue, but | want toverify. Hydraulics says this is
due to rounding.
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... Utilities says this isfor
power line maintenance.
• Section C—The hand clearing impacts sum (-1.89 acres)do not match the column total (1.69 acres). Utilities
says 1.8gis correct and they don't know why the spreadsheet is producing 1.6g.
• 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— For Section C, Utilities is consolidating their plans, but | sd|| don't have them. Hopefully,this will also
fix the spreadsheet problem mentioned above.
• Section D—At Utility Site I there appears to be a power pole/line relocation.The amount of hand clearing
requestedseemstobeexcessive— Seebe|am/
• Section D—It is unclear why such a large area is required to be hand cleared at Utility Site 2... The Utility plans
for D have been revised,which dramatically reduces the amount of handclearing. However, it appears that the
summary sheet was incorrect in the permit application. |f you look at the Utility Permit Drawings Sheet 2, Site 1
shows 1.25g533 acres, and Site 2asO.5gg3acres. These were transferred ta the summary sheet asO.O1and
0.60 acres, respectively, making the total impacts 0.61 an the summary sheet when they should have been 1.86
acres. The site 1 error was a rather large mistake that | should have caught before the application went out.
Fortunately,the new drawings show the trimmed down impact areas asO.35 and O.4O acres for Sites 1 & 2. Sa
the actual impacts from minimizing the clearing has reduced the impacts from 1.86 acres ta 0.75 acres
1

I am still hoping for those revised plans from Hydraulics and Utilities for the C section any day, at which point we will
make a formal hard copy reply to your hold letter It will also present an application modification, since some of the
plans have slightly changed.
Regards,
Gordon
From: Wainwright, David
Sent: Tuesday, January 27, 2015 3:31 PM
To: Hancock, Richard W
Cc: Cashin, Gordon E; Tom Steffens; Mellor, Colin; Rivenbark, Chris; Van Der Wiele, Cynthia
(VanDerWiele.Cynthia @epa.gov); Sollod, Steve
Subject: R-2514 B, C, & D - Improvements to US 17 from Belgrade to New Bern Bypass
Please find the attached on-hold letter/request for more information for STIP R-2514 B, C, & D (Improvements to US 17
from south of Belgrade at SR 1330/SR 1439 to the New Bern Bypass;Jones, Onslow, and Craven Counties). Please
note that a certified mail copy with a return receipt request has been sent to the NCDOT. Should you have any
questions, please let me know.
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