The URL can be used to link to this page

Home My WebLink About20201505 _B-5728 Permit Application Distribution_additional info Carpenter,Kristi From:Barrett, William A Sent:Thursday, January 27, 2022 3:41 PM To:David.E.Bailey2@usace.army.mil Cc:Conchilla, Ryan; Turchy, Michael A Subject:RE: \[External\] RE: B-5728 Permit Application Distribution Attachments:Revised Wetland_Impact_Summary_Form.pdf Hey Dave, Yes, thanks for the discussion, and I’m glad we could get it squared away. I have attached a revised page of the Impact Summary Sheet that includes the second bent and its associated square footage in the Notes section. I hope you are able to exchange the pages. I was great speaking with you, Bill William A. Barrett Environmental Coordinator Environmental Coordination & Permitting North Carolina Department of Transportation 919 707 6103 office 919 302 1908 mobile wabarrett@ncdot.gov 1598 Mail Service Center Raleigh, NC 27699-1598 1000 Birch Ridge Drive Raleigh, NC 27610 From: Bailey, David E CIV USARMY CESAW (USA) <David.E.Bailey2@usace.army.mil> Sent: Thursday, January 27, 2022 3:11 PM To: Barrett, William A <wabarrett@ncdot.gov> Cc: Conchilla, Ryan <ryan.conchilla@ncdenr.gov>; Turchy, Michael A <maturchy@ncdot.gov> Subject: RE: \[External\] 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. 1 Hi Bill, and thanks for the information. Based on our phone call a minute ago it appears that the permanent impact area for the rightmost (i.e. northernmost) replacement interior bridge bent should be added to the notes section of the Wetland and Surface Water Impacts Summary sheet; per my scaling on Permit Drawing Sheet 4, this additional permanent impact area is approximately 516 sq ft. Please let me know if this makes sense and, if so, simply respond to this email requesting to add that impact amount to your project proposal. As we discussed, the purpose of this clarification is to ensure that all of the impacts for this project are reported correctly and consistently among the Corps and NCDWR. Further, although stream impacts are typically reported in linear feet for most NCDOT projects, the impact acreages are important in this case due to the width of the stream and in an effort to best capture the magnitude of impacts proposed for this project. Thanks again for your time this afternoon, and please let me know if you have any questions. -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: (919) 554-4884, Ext. 30. Mobile: (919) 817-2436 Fax: (919) 562-0421 Email: David.E.Bailey2@usace.army.mil 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. From: Barrett, William A <wabarrett@ncdot.gov> Sent: Thursday, January 27, 2022 10:57 AM To: Bailey, David E CIV USARMY CESAW (USA) <David.E.Bailey2@usace.army.mil> Cc: Conchilla, Ryan <ryan.conchilla@ncdenr.gov>; Turchy, Michael A <maturchy@ncdot.gov> Subject: \[URL Verdict: Neutral\]\[Non-DoD Source\] RE: \[External\] RE: B-5728 Permit Application Distribution 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? \[the Detour Bridge bent is within the impact footprint of Site 2’s (permanent) bank stabilization impact; I say ‘footprint’, with the understanding that the bank stabilization impacts cover impacts across the width of the stream.\] 2 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 wabarrett@ncdot.gov 1598 Mail Service Center Raleigh, NC 27699-1598 1000 Birch Ridge Drive Raleigh, NC 27610 From: Bailey, David E CIV USARMY CESAW (USA) <David.E.Bailey2@usace.army.mil> Sent: Wednesday, January 26, 2022 4:12 PM To: Barrett, William A <wabarrett@ncdot.gov> Cc: Conchilla, Ryan <ryan.conchilla@ncdenr.gov>; Turchy, Michael A <maturchy@ncdot.gov> 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? 3 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: (919) 554-4884, Ext. 30. Mobile: (919) 817-2436 Fax: (919) 562-0421 Email: David.E.Bailey2@usace.army.mil 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. From: Turchy, Michael A <maturchy@ncdot.gov> Sent: Thursday, January 6, 2022 8:55 PM To: Bailey, David E CIV USARMY CESAW (USA) <David.E.Bailey2@usace.army.mil>; Chapman, Amy <amy.chapman@ncdenr.gov>; Conchilla, Ryan <ryan.conchilla@ncdenr.gov>; Parker, Jerry A <japarker3@ncdot.gov> Cc: Barrett, William A <wabarrett@ncdot.gov>; Dagnino, Carla S <cdagnino@ncdot.gov>; Harmon, Beth <beth.harmon@ncdenr.gov>; smupef <smupef@ncdot.gov>; Davenport, Ronald E <rondavenport@ncdot.gov>; Carpenter,Kristi <kristilynn.carpenter@ncdenr.gov>; Morgan, Stephen R <smorgan@ncdot.gov>; Al-Dhalimy, Nadia <naaldhalimy@ncdot.gov>; Sanders, Byron <bsanders@ncdot.gov>; Hanks, Brian <bhanks@ncdot.gov>; NCDOT Service Account - Roadway Design <roadwaydesign@ncdot.gov>; Fischer, Kevin <wkfischer@ncdot.gov>; Staley, Mark K <mstaley@ncdot.gov>; Griffin, Randy W <rgriffin@ncdot.gov>; Eason, Patty P <peason@ncdot.gov> 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 4 Email correspondence to and from this sender is subject to the N.C. Public Records Law and may be disclosed to third parties. Email correspondence to and from this sender is subject to the N.C. Public Records Law and may be disclosed to third parties. 5