20091046 Ver 1_Email_20091201

Averitte, Ken
From: Mclamb, Erica S
Sent: Tuesday, December 01, 2009 9:13 AM
To: Averitte, Ken
Subject: RE: SAW -2009- 01941; 1 -4407
Attachments: Copy of 14407 Impact summaryrevl1- 18- 09b.xls
Ken,
Per our discussion on the phone today, in the impact summary table 4 feet of the permanent impacts are due to the
resetting of the pipe that had fallen in the stream. In the permit you issued, you required mitigation for 182 linear feet of
stream, which, at the request of USACE, includes the 4 feet for the resetting of the pipe. As we discussed this morning
this is not a new impact, and in your email dated November 12, 2009, you do not consider this an impact and therefore
will not require mitigation for the 4 feet of stream in which the pipe will be reset. Per our conversation this morning, please
revise the permit condition so that only 178 linear feet of mitigation is required.
If any further information is required for your records regarding this matter please let me know.
Thank you for your assistance, have a great day!
Erica McLamb
Environmental Specialist, NCDOT
919 - 431 -1595
From: Mclamb, Erica S
Sent: Wednesday, November 18, 2009 10:47 AM
To: 'Garvey, Kimberly L SAW'
Cc: Beauregard, Rachelle; Averitte, Ken; Lusk, Elizabeth L; King, Art C
Subject: RE: SAW - 2009 - 01941; I -4407
See comments below.
Erica McLamb
Environmental Specialist, NCDOT
919 -431 -1595
From: Garvey, Kimberly L SAW [mai Ito: Kim berly .L.Garvey @saw02.usace. army. mi1]
Sent: Tuesday, November 17, 2009 12:15 PM
To: Mclamb, Erica S
Cc: Beauregard, Rachelle; Averitte, Ken; Lusk, Elizabeth L; King, Art C
Subject: RE: SAW -2009- 01941; I -4407
Erica,
Thank you for your response to the items below and your email dated November 13, 2009 in regards to the resetting of
the pipe at impact Site 2. 1 have the following comments and questions:

A. Any work in waters of the United States including wetlands (WOUS) in the project area needs to be included in your
impact table. Please include the impact for the re- setting of the pipe at Site 2 in your impact table. As this is the
replacement of an existing damaged structure, I will not require compensatory mitigation for this specific activity in this
case. The revised impact summary table is attached to this email.
B. Numbers 3, 4 and 5 below, are relative to the JD request and will be necessary for my use in verifying the limits of
WOUS in the review area. Please provide the requested information to my by COB November 30th so I have time to
review the information prior to our site visit, your JD request is incomplete without it. In progress, will be submitted upon
completion.
C. Relative to number 8 below, I am requesting information pertaining to exactly what you are going to place in the
stream, below the plane of the ordinary high water mark, for "temporary erosion control measures" and how exactly you
plan to restore the streams "to their original grade and revegetate ".
I was given incorrect information. There will be no temporary erosion control placed in the stream for erosion control as
Mark said. The only in- stream work would be for dewatering during the pipe construction and/or stream stabilization. We
do not specify the particular method for dewatering; the contractor may use any method available in the Department's
Best management practice for Construction and Maintenance Activities manual. Typically for these size pipes, bypass
pumping would be the preferred method.
D. Relative to number 11 below, I was asking about the Action ID number and TIP number when Highway 220 was
constructed at this location. If the highway itself is relatively new, there may be old delineation information in the file which
can be useful during my site visit. As discussed in our phone conversation on 11/17/09, we do not have access to this
information.
In the future, I highly recommend that you call me if you don't understand what I am asking for or why I am asking for it.
That said, if you have ANY questions about what I am asking for above, Ip ease call me to discuss prior to submitting your
responses.
Please be aware that your application is still considered incomplete by this office.
Kimberly Garvey
Regulatory Project Manager
US Army Corps of Engineers
CE- SAW -RG -L
69 Darlington Avenue
Wilmington, North Carolina 28403 -1343
Phone: [phone]
Fax: [phone]
Email: kmberly.l.garvey(cDsaw02.usace.army.miI
http: / /www.saw.usace.army.m i IAN ETLANDS/
The Wilmington District is committed to providing the highest level of support to the public. To help
us ensure we continue to do so, please complete the Customer Satisfaction Survey located at our
website at http;Aregulatory.usacesurvey . com/ to complete the survey online.
From: Mclamb, Erica S [mailto:emclamb @ncdot.gov]
Sent: Tuesday, November 10, 2009 2:19 PM
To: Garvey, Kimberly L SAW
Cc: Beauregard, Rachelle; Averitte, Ken; Lusk, Elizabeth L
Subject: RE: SAW -2009- 01941; I -4407
See comments in red below.

Erica McLamb
Environmental Specialist, NCDOT
919 - 431 -1595
From: Garvey, Kimberly L SAW [ma ilto: Kimberly. L.Garvey @saw02.usace.army.mil]
Sent: Thursday, October 22, 2009 11:12 AM
To: Mclamb, Erica S
Cc: Averitte, Ken
Subject: SAW - 2009 - 01941; I -4407
Erica,
I have the following comments and requests for information. Please let me know if you have any questions:
1. I am unclear if you would like a Preliminary or Approved JD. Please clarify. If you would like a
Preliminary JD, you will need to submit the draft form electronically. If you would like an Approved JD, you
will need to submit the names and addresses of all the property owners that the verification you are looking for
was made on referenced by parcel number. I sent Rapanos forms, the previously submitted JD request that was sent
to Richard, and a permit application, do we have to say in the PCN that we want an approved JD ? But, yes, I would like
an approved JD. The names and addresses of all property owners as well as the landowner notifications were submitted
to you in an email on October 30, 2009.
2. If any of the waters and wetlands you are requesting verification for are on private property, please
provide evidence that landowner notification was sent to them. A copy of the landowner notification letter was
provided to you via email on October 30, 2009. However, most of the impact areas are within the NCDOT
Row,
3. You failed to clearly identify the review area. Please submit an aerial photo clearly depicting the review
area and waters and wetlands identified within that review area. The review area is the area included in the permit
drawings sheets 8 -11 clearly defined by the ROW and easement lines. The permit drawings clearly state our
reviewlpermitted areas with the jurisdictional boundaries. NCDOT has never submitted aerial photos with our permit
applications.
4. Please submit color quad maps of the review area. Quad maps were included on sheet 1 of the permit
drawings, furthermore, the quads were referenced into the permit drawings on sheets 9 and 11.
5. The soils map you submitted is illegible, please re- submit. As indicated in my FTS message, we do not
have soil surveys maps for Randolph County that can be copied or scanned legibly. In the FTS message a link to the
NRCS online soil survey mapping at http:ll websoilsurvey .nres.usda.gov /api) . Coordinates were provided in the Rapanos
forms and can be entered allowing you to efficiently navigate to the project area.
6. Once the above information is submitted I would like to do an onsite verification of the waters and
wetlands in the review area with someone who is familiar with the site and the location of the jurisdictional
areas. Please identify the contact person for the verification site meeting. Erica McLamb 919 - 431 -1595.
7. Please submit the legends page(s) for the plans you submitted. Attached.
8. Please clarify why you are requesting temporary impacts and the nature of these impacts. The reason for the
temporary impacts was described in the PCN on sheet 5. The impacts are requested in order to address impacts that
may result from the construction of temporary erosion control measures at these sites. NCDOT restores temporary
impacts to their original grade and revegatates.

9. Please provide better details for Impact areas 1 and 2. Enlargements of the impact areas were provided in
the permit application in sheets 3 through 6 of l l .
Site one is an intermittent stream caused by erosive forces that_ over time, lowered the existin(T lateral ditch
elevation below the water table. New roadway till will extend over this stream for the majority of its length. To
alleviate norther erosion. the highway drainage will be piped along the toe of the fill in this area and will outlet
at the 36" cross pipe (site: 2).
Site two involves the re- setting of an existing 36" section of pipe that has separated from the cross pipe under
the existing road due to erosion. Also. a 15" metal slope drain pipe will outlet near this location. The 15" pipe
will funnel water away from the shoulder via a curb and gutter section. Rip Rap is being its to stabilize the
stream bed and the end of the 36" pipe. It will also act as a dissipation device fbi- the 15" lateral pipe (site l ) and
the 15" down -slope metal pipe.
a. It is unclear where the head of this system is based on the drawings you provided. The stream is flowing
east to west as indicated by the arrow on the stream line. The head of the system is the pond located on the eastern side
of the highway, as seen on the plans .
b. Please describe why the cut/fill line extends further out at this specific location than at
either end of the impact area. The fill slope juts out at a point as you mentioned due to roadway
improvements which consist of creating a longer deceleration lane for Ramp Al of SR 1138.
These traffic improvements require widening the existing shoulder and fill I slope,
10. Based on the plans you submitted, it appears that there may be an impact around Station 210 + 80 L.
Please clarify. There is not a jurisdictional stream at this location, however, we can review this area during the site
visit.
11. Please provide Corps Action ID numbers and TIP numbers if any for the construction of the highway. I
am not sure I understand this question. The TIP numbers is clearly indicated in the permit drawings, roadway plans,
Rapanos forms, JD request packet, permit application cover letter: PCN, and the subject line of this email. An action ID
was not issued because Richard Spencer never issued a written JD, so I would assume the action ID is the one included
in the subject line of this email.
Apparently there was a minor error in the impact table submitted in the permit application. At site 1 the acreage was
0.014 not 0.14. The linear footage was correct. I have attached the revised impact summary sheet.
NCDOT believes by sending this email that our application is complete.
Kimberly Garvey
Regulatory Project Manager
US Army Corps of Engineers
CE- SAW -RG -L
69 Darlington Avenue
Wilmington, North Carolina 28403 -1343
Phone: [phone]
Fax: [phone]
Email: kimberl .I. arve saw02.usace.arm .mil
http://www.saw.usace.army.mil/WETLANDS/
The Wilmington District is committed to providing the highest level of support to the public. To help

us ensure we continue to do so, please complete the Customer Satisfaction Survey located at our
website at http://regulatory. usacesurvey.coml to complete the survey online.
Email correspondence to and from this sender is subject tc the N' Public Fccords Law acid may tie divjosed to third parties es

(D 6 H z
co H �-
Niel
N
00
III
Elm
co
E
co
IL
4
+
+
+
C)
00
a)
C)
C,
(n
t5
:3
a>
ct
(D
— b!
U)
cu
2
E
W
Oo
+
r,
4
U)
U)
co
U L3
(D
C,
Ca
N cm
L
E
CI)
Lx
u
F—
CO
LU
M V
• CL
LO
Nr
11
,jj 4)
w
LL
CL
0
0
CL `moo
o
0
0
0
0
(U
"0
1= '5�
- a
r
(D
LU
_0
Z
m ca
w
<
-,2
>
m
z
0
x
<
i
w
F-
w
E 12
0) CL
Lo
4i 27
cmq
(D 6 H z
co H �-
Niel
N
00
III
Elm
co
c
0
IL
4
+
+
+
C)
00
:3
C)
C,
(n
t5
:3
a>
ct
(D
— b!
U)
cu
2
E
W
Oo
+
r,
4
U)
r-
cc
2
(D
C,
(D 6 H z
co H �-
Niel
N
00
III
Elm
co
0
0
4
+
+
+
11
00
0
m
C,
cu
2
CI)
+
co
+
Oo
+
r,
4
ui ILL
r-
00
00
C,
(D 6 H z
co H �-
Niel
N
00
III
Elm