20201505_ B-5728 Permit Application_add info recieved

Carpenter,Kristi
From:Barrett, William A
Sent:Thursday, January 27, 2022 10:57 AM
To:[e-mail]
Cc:Conchilla, Ryan; Turchy, Michael A
Subject:RE: \[External\] RE: B-5728 Permit Application Distribution
Attachments:Pages from LINED_B5728_Wetland_Permit.pdf
Hey Dave,

Doing well, hope you are as well! Yeah, these drawings are a bit tough to digest, especially when Site 2 depicts the
majority of the impacts, but Site 1 impacts are presented first. Also, not having the Design Files to overlay on each other
like the engineers do, makes the determination of impacts and determining proper angle of perpendicularity quite
difficult.
I created sort of the overlap impact diagrams so that I could correctly understand the impacts (see attached). I’ve
responded to your questions below, in reference to the attached diagrams, that will hopefully bring some clarity.

For Site 1, it looks like the linear footage of temporary impacts scale out to ~81 lf instead of 17 lf. \[Please see attached
Figure\]
Also, I’m assuming that the 440 sq ft of impacts attributed to the detour interior bent in the notes is wrapped into the
0.08 acre of temporary surface water impacts? \[the Detour Bridge bent is within the impact footprint of Site 2’s
(permanent) bank stabilization impact; I say ‘footprint’, with the understanding that the bank stabilization impacts cover
impacts across the width of the stream.\]

For Site 2, I’m clear on the 0.18 acre/134 lf of temporary surface water impacts for the causeway, as well as the ~0.01
acre/66 lf of permanent impacts due to bank stabilization. But the notes list 516 sq ft of impact due to an interior bent;
I’m assuming this is a permanent impact? And, I see 2 interior bents for the replacement bridge on the plans, and both
of them scale to ~500 sq ft of permanent impacts, so wouldn’t there be ~1000 sq ft of permanent impacts due to bents
at Site 2, in addition to the impacts for the causeway and bank stabilization? \[the bent impact nearest the shoreline is
within the ‘footprint’ of the (permanent) bank stabilization impact (don’t want to count a permanent impact within a
permanent impact), leaving the permanent impact from the other bent to be calculated.\]

I hope that I have captured your questions correctly. If there are still have questions/concerns, let me know and
perhaps we can set up a phone call to discuss, if that works for you.

Thanks!
Bill

William A. Barrett
Environmental Coordinator
Environmental Coordination & Permitting
North Carolina Department of Transportation

919 707 6103 office
919 302 1908 mobile
[e-mail]

1598 Mail Service Center
Raleigh, NC 27699-1598

1000 Birch Ridge Drive
1

Raleigh, NC 27610

From: Bailey, David E CIV USARMY CESAW (USA) <[e-mail]>
Sent: Wednesday, January 26, 2022 4:12 PM
To: Barrett, William A <[e-mail]>
Cc: Conchilla, Ryan <[e-mail]>; Turchy, Michael A <[e-mail]>
Subject: \[External\] RE: B-5728 Permit Application Distribution

CAUTION: External email. Do not click links or open attachments unless you verify. Send all suspicious email as an attachment to
Report Spam.

Hi Bill, I hope you’re doing well. I reviewed the PCN for the above referenced bridge replacement project and have no
real concerns. However, I do need clarification on the proposed impacts:
For Site 1, it looks like the linear footage of temporary impacts scale out to ~81 lf instead of 17 lf. Also, I’m assuming that
the 440 sq ft of impacts attributed to the detour interior bent in the notes is wrapped into the 0.08 acre of temporary
surface water impacts?
For Site 2, I’m clear on the 0.18 acre/134 lf of temporary surface water impacts for the causeway, as well as the ~0.01
acre/66 lf of permanent impacts due to bank stabilization. But the notes list 516 sq ft of impact due to an interior bent;
I’m assuming this is a permanent impact? And, I see 2 interior bents for the replacement bridge on the plans, and both
of them scale to ~500 sq ft of permanent impacts, so wouldn’t there be ~1000 sq ft of permanent impacts due to bents
at Site 2, in addition to the impacts for the causeway and bank stabilization?

Splitting hairs here, admittedly; I just want to make sure I have the impacts correct when I process the permit. Thanks!

-Dave Bailey

---
David E. Bailey, PWS
Regulatory Project Manager
US Army Corps of Engineers
CE-SAW-RG-R
3331 Heritage Trade Drive, Suite 105
Wake Forest, North Carolina 27587
Office: [phone], Ext. 30.
Mobile: [phone]
Fax: [phone]
Email: [e-mail]

We would appreciate your feedback on how we are performing our duties. Our automated Customer Service Survey is
located at: https://regulatory.ops.usace.army.mil/customer-service-survey/
Thank you for taking the time to visit this site and complete the survey.

2

From: Turchy, Michael A <[e-mail]>
Sent: Thursday, January 6, 2022 8:55 PM
To: Bailey, David E CIV USARMY CESAW (USA) <[e-mail]>; Chapman, Amy
<[e-mail]>; Conchilla, Ryan <[e-mail]>; Parker, Jerry A <[e-mail]>
Cc: Barrett, William A <[e-mail]>; Dagnino, Carla S <[e-mail]>; Harmon, Beth
<[e-mail]>; smupef <[e-mail]>; Davenport, Ronald E <[e-mail]>;
Carpenter,Kristi <[e-mail]>; Morgan, Stephen R <[e-mail]>; Al-Dhalimy, Nadia
<[e-mail]>; Sanders, Byron <[e-mail]>; Hanks, Brian <[e-mail]>; NCDOT Service
Account - Roadway Design <[e-mail]>; Fischer, Kevin <[e-mail]>; Staley, Mark K
<[e-mail]>; Griffin, Randy W <[e-mail]>; Eason, Patty P <[e-mail]>
Subject: \[Non-DoD Source\] B-5728 Permit Application Distribution

The permit application for B-5728 (the replacement of bridge 112 on NC 87 over Reedy Fork in Alamance County) has
been posted to the NCDOT Permit Application Website.

The file named “B-5728 Alamance January 8 2022.pdf” can be viewed/downloaded
at: https://xfer.services.ncdot.gov/pdea/PermApps
or
Direct Link to Application:
https://xfer.services.ncdot.gov/pdea/PermApps/B-5728%20Alamance%20January%208%202022.pdf

The electronic Pre-Construction Notification (ePCN) was submitted to the USACE, NCDWR, NCWRC, and USFWS today
\[1/6/2022\].

Thank you,
Michael

Email correspondence to and from this sender is subject to the N.C. Public Records Law and may be disclosed to third parties.
3