20070047 Ver 1_More Info Received_20070209

RE: B-3853, Halifax County
Subject: RE: B-3853, Halifax County
From: "Wilson, Travis W." <[e-mail]>
Date: Fri, 9 Feb 2007 15:12:44 -0500
To: "'Rob Ridings"' <[e-mail]>
I couldn't locate the original comments from David Cox, however after
reviewing the location of the bridge project I would concur with DOT's
request to remove the moratorium. I'm not sure why or how it happens, but
on occasion DOT will have a CE document that contains a moratorium when we
did not request one (and our comments are attached to the CE), however I
seldom receive the CE document with a permit application and I do not have
the time to review applications that include moratoriums. I commonly review
applications that do NOT include moratoriums to confirm they should not.
-----Original Message-----
From: Rob Ridings [mailto:rcb.ridingsc~ncmail.net
Sent: Friday, February 09, 2007 2:36 PM
To: Travis.Wilsan~ncwildife.org
Subject: B-3853, Halifax County
Travis,
I need some input from you. In November, I wrote the 401 for this
project. In it, I included a condition that in-stream work for the
bridge replacement would avoid spawning season for Shad from Feb 15 to
June 15. This was a commitment in the Categorical Exclusion package, so
I figured it made sense to include in the 401.
Now Chris Underwood has sent a revision request saying that WRC's
comments from October 2001 didn't request such a moratorium, therefore
we ought to revise the 401 to leave that condition out of it. (I
believe you are CC'ed on this revision request.)
Do you concur with this or have any issues against such a revision?
Let me know...Thanks!
-Rob Ridings
1 of 1 2/9/2007 3:25 PM

Re: revised R-2245
Subject: Re: revised R-2245
From: Elizabeth Lee Lusk <[e-mail]>
Date: Fri, 16 Feb 2007 18:12:18 -0500
To: Brian Wrenn <[e-mail]>
CC: Chris Rivenbark <[e-mail]>, "Brett M. Feulner" <[e-mail]>,
Agency DWQ -John Hennessy <[e-mail]>, Lisa Glover <[e-mail]>,
"Deborah M. Barbour PE" <[e-mail]>
Brian,
We appreciate the changes reflected in this 401. The addition of the word "approximately" clarifies the
C/A distance on ACC4. However, the C/A for ACC3 is only 675 feet. Granted, the plans are slightly
confusing in that the survey line extends 1,000 feet. But the ROW and C/A is 675 feet (see Brett's email
from Feb 15). See edits below...
Also, the DOT is locating the Accesses, rather than constructing them at the particular station. Not a
big deal, but if it's a simple change... We apologize for missing this one the first time.
Thanks very much for your help,
Elizabeth
2. Although all three access breaks are approved by the MOU, only Access 3 and Access 4 are approved
for construction under this Water Quality Certification. Access 3 shall be located ^~~ at -L-
Station No. 192+55.00 and shall maintain control of access for 100 feet of width for approximately 675
~;89A linear feet from the eastern edge of the mainline right-of--way. Small animal passage shall be
provided under Access 3 by four 60" by 46" corrugated aluminum pipes with a continuous aluminum
barrier at both ends. The small animal passage pipes shall be buried one foot deep and backfilled with
one foot of soil. Access 4 shall be located ^^~~ at -L- Station No. 151+55.00 and shall maintain
control of access for 100 feet of width for approximately 1,500 feet from the western edge of the
mainline right-of--way.
Brian Wrenn wrote:
Please find attached the revised 401. I think we have addressed all of
your comments. We should have this out on Mon.
Brian
Name: R-2245 (brunswick 2-16-2007).doc
R-2245 (brunswick 2-16-2007).doc Type: Microsoft Word Document (application/msword)
Encoding: base64
Download Status: Not downloaded with message
1 of 2 2/19/2007 11:18 AM