20141132 All Versions_Email_20111004

Wainwright, David
From: Jeff Benton �[e-mail]]
Sent: Tuesday, October 04, 2011 3:16 PM
Ta Wainwright, David
Subject: RE: R-2501 Rockingham Bypass
Attachments: R-2501 1 of4.pdf
David,
In response to our most recent discussion on the US 1 project, Deanna Riffey has produced maps that depict the
proposed right-of-way in relation to the streams in question. There are four separate maps that when combined, have a
file size that is too large to send in a single e-mail. I have attached the first of the three maps to this message, but will be
sending the rest in three subsequent e-mails. I apologize for clogging up your inbox, but I figured it would be easier than
sending a CD via regular mail.
It appears that the majority of streams listed below fall outside of the proposed right-of-way with the exception a very
small portion of S6 and possibly 519. If you need any further information for your review of these areas, please let me
or Deanna know.
Thanks,
Jeff
�j ENVIRON�'IEVTAL
1�7 SERVICFS, I\C.
Jeff Benton � Senior Scientist
9401-C Southern Pine Boulevard � Charlotte, North Carolina 28273
704-523-7225 Phone � 704-523-7226 Fax
ESI Websile� Read ESI News� Follow Us on Twitter�ESI Green News Bloa
Confidentiality Notice:The informa[ion and all a[tachmen[s contained in[his elec[ronic communica[ion are privileged and confdential informa[ion,and intended only far the
use of the intended recipient(s�. If[he reader of[his message i5 not an intended recipient,you are hereby notifed tha[any review,use,dissemination,distribution,or copying
of this communication is stricNy prohibired. If you have received this mmmunication in error,please notify me immediately of the error by retum e-mail and please
permanently remove any mpies of this message from your system and do not retain any ropies,whether in electronic or physical form or otherwise.Thank you.
`�Think before you print._ �
From: Wainwright, David [mailto:[e-mail]] �
Sent: Monday, August 22, 2011 8:59 AM
To: ]eff Benton �
Cc: Riffey, Deanna
Subject: RE: R-2501 Rockingham Bypass
Jeff,
Thank you once again for your response to my questions. Per our phone conversation last Thursday, here is a list of the
streams I'd like to have re-evaluated to ensure that they are still intermittent and not ephemeral:
• S6 score = 19.5
• S7 score= 19
• S8 score= 20

• S15 score = 19.5
• S17 score = 19.5
• S19 score = 19.5
David Wainwright
� NCDENR, Division of Water Quality
Transportation Permitting Unit
1650 Mail Service Center,Raleigh, North Carolina 27699-1650
Phone:[phone] Fax:(919�807-6494
David.Wainwrieht(a�ncden r.QOv
Email correspondence[o and from[his address is su6ject to the North Carolina Public Remrds Law and may be disclosed
[o[hird par[ies unless the con[ent is exempt by statute or other regulation.
`'� Please consider lhe environment before printing this email.
From: ]eff Benton [mailto:jbentonCalESINC.CC1
Sent: Tuesday, August 16, 2011 5:05 PM
To: Wainwright, David
Cc: Riffey, Deanna; Paui Petitgout
Subject: RE: R-2501 Rockingham Bypass
David,
Thanks for your review of the R-2501 jurisdictional package. Please see the comments below in response to your
questions.
• I find no DWQ forms for anything that was rated ephemeral. Why is this?
ESI was not scoped to complete DWQ forms for ephemeral streams. For intermittent streams that have their
origins within the study area, a DWQ form was completed at the uppermost point of that intermittent stream
channel. For questionable breaks, ephemeral scores were documented in the delineator's field notebook, but
not submitted as part of the 1D package.
• Watery Branch, associated with W14, does not have a channel line through it. Is there a defined channel
through the wetland?
Larger wetland systems within the project study area such as Watery Branch generally do not have defined
channels on the ground, even when a blue line is mapped on the USGS quad. These wetland systems are
inundated to the point where flagging a single distinct channel is not possible. This issue has been discussed in
previous agency meetings and the general consensus between the agencies, including DWQ, has been to leave
the wetland systems as is instead of approximating a blue line through the middle.
• South Prong Falling Creek, associated with W26, does not have a channel line through it. Is there a defined
channel through the wetland?
Please see the response for Watery Branch above.
• On the USGS map, there is a blue line feature that exists at WL44 er.tending to and wrapping around W46 before
!eaving the study corridor.This Feati re is not sho.vn o:i your maps.
I z

This area is a pine flat that includes areas of hydric soils, but no distinct channel with ordinary high water mark.
There is an ephemeral channel that forms within W46, but the channel does not become intermittent until
outside of the project study area.
• There is no connection on S13 between North Road and the centerline of the project to the north. Why is this?
This channel falls apart on the lower side of North Street and becomes more of a linear wetland along the
' uppermost finger of W24.
• It appears that there are two stretches of S3 near the confluence of S1 which are not connected—why is this?
I have not seen this section of S3 in particular, but given the behavior of other perennial channels within larger
wetland systems in the area, there's a good chance that S3 loses its bed and bank for a short reach just above
the confluence with Sl. I checked with our graphics department to see if this was an error in gps correction, but
our files show this gap in 53 as far back as 1997.
If you need any further clarification, please feel free to contact us. I'll also follow up this e-mail with a phone call to
answer any other questions that you might have.
Thanks!
-leff
, '�j ENV[RON�7ENTAL
1�7 SERVICF..S, 1\�C.
Jeff Benton � Senior Scientist
9401-C Southern Pine Boulevard � Charlotte, North Carolina 28273
704-523-7225 Phone � 704-523-7226 Fax
ESI Website�Read ESI News �Follow Us on Twitter� ESI Green News Bloa
Confidentiality Notice:The information and all attachmentr contained in this electroniccommunication are privileged and confidential information,and intended only for the
use of the intended recipient(s). If the reader of thls message is not an intended recipient,you are hereby notified that any review,use,dissemination,distribution,or copying
of this communication is strictly prohi6ited. If you have rereived this mmmunication in error,please notify me immediately of the error by remm e-mail and please .
permanently remove any mpies of this message from your system and do not retain any copies,whether in elec[ronic or physicai form or otherwise.Thank you.
`�Think before you print...
From: Wainwright, David <david.wainwrightColncdenr.qov>
To: Paul Petitgout
Cc: Riffey, Deanna <driffeyC�a ncdot.qov>
Sent: Mon Jul 25 10:07:36 2011
Subject: R-2501 Rockingham Bypass
Pa u,
I have reviewed the jurisdictional package you have provided along with other information I could find. Here are a few
questions I have at this point:
• I find no DWQ forms for anything that was rated ephemeral.Why is this?
• Watery Branch, associated with W14, does not have a channel line through it. Is there a defined channel
� through the wetland?
3
)

• South Prong Falling Creek,associated with W26, does not have a channel line through it. Is there a defined
channel through the wetland?
• On the USGS map, there is a blue line feature that exists at WL44 extending to and wrapping around W46 before
leaving the study corridor.This feature is not shown on your maps.
• There is no connection on S13 between North Road and the centerline of the project to the north. Why is this?
• It appears that there are two stretches of 53 near the confluence of Sl which are not connected—why is this?
Thankyou.
David Wainwright
NCDENR,Division of Water Quality
Transportation Permitting Unit
1650 Mail Service Center,Raleigh,North Carolina 27699-1650- �
Phone:�919)807-6405 Fax:[phone]
David.W a inwrieht@ ncden r.¢ov
Email mrrespondence to and from this address is subject to the North Carolina Public Records Law and may be disdosed
to[hird parties unless the content is exempt 6y statute or other regulation.
4

Wainwright, David
From: Jeff Benton [[e-mail]]
Sent: Tuesday, August 16, 2011 5:05 PM
To: Wainwright, David
Cc: Riffey, Deanna; Paul Petitgout
Subject: RE: R-2501 Rockingham Bypass
David,
Thanks for your review of the R-2501 jurisdictional package. Please see the comments below in response to your
questions.
• I find no DWQ forms for anything that was rated ephemeral. Why is this?
ESI was not scoped to complete DWQ forms for ephemeral streams. For intermittent streams that have their
origins within the study area, a DWQ form was completed at the uppermost point of that intermittent stream
channel. For questionable breaks, ephemeral scores were documented in the delineator's field notebook, but
not submitted as part of the 1D package.
• Watery Brench,associated with W14, does not have a channel line through it. Is there a defined channel
through the wetland?
Larger wetland systems within the project study area such as Watery Branch generally do not have defined
channels on the ground, even when a blue line is mapped on the USGS quad. These wetland systems are
inundated to the point where flagging a single distinct channel is not possible. This issue has been discussed in
previous agency meetings and the general consensus between the agencies, including DWQ has been to leave
� the wetland systems as is instead of approximating a blue line through the middle.
• South Prong Falling Creek,associated with W26, does not have a channel line through it. Is there a defined
channel through the wetland?
Please.see the response for Watery Branch above.
• On the USGS map,there is a blue line feature that exists at WL44 extending to and wrapping around W46 before
leaving the study corridor.This feature is not shown on your maps.
This area is a pine flat that inc!udes areas of hydric soils, but no distinct channel with ordinary high water mark.
There is an ephemeral channel that forms within W46, but the channel does not become intermittent until
outside of the project study area.
• There is no connection on S13 between North Road and the centerline of the project to the north. Why is this?
This channel falls apart on the lower side of North Street and becomes more of a linear wetland along the
uppermost finger of W24.
• It appears that there are two stretches of S3 near the confluence of Sl which are not connected—why is this?
I have not seen this section of S3 in particular, but given the behavior of other perennial channels within larger
wetland systems in the area,there's a good chance that S3 loses its bed and bank for a short reach just above

David.W a inwrizht(?ncdenr.¢ov
Email correspondence to and from this address is subject m the North Carolina Public Records Law and may be disdosed
� to third parties unless the content is exempt by statute or other regulation.
3