20130649 Ver 2_Pipe e-mail_20140404

Ward, Garcy
From:Yeung, Hon F
Sent:Friday, April 04, 2014 3:08 PM
To:Ward, Garcy; Steffens, Thomas A SAW ([e-mail])
Subject:RE: K-3800 Permit Modification
Thank you, Garcy. We will definitely let you know if things change. Have a good weekend.

From: Ward, Garcy
Sent: Friday, April 04, 2014 3:04 PM
To: Yeung, Hon F; Steffens, Thomas A SAW ([e-mail])
Subject: RE: K-3800 Permit Modification

Hon,
After further discussions, DWR has decided to waive the burial requirement for the pipe extension provided it does not
result in a perched pipe condition. If this proves to be the case, we may need to explore other options. Let me know if
you have any questions. Thanks.

Garcy Ward
Environmental Senior Specialist
North Carolina Division of Water Resources

Washington Regional Office

From: Yeung, Hon F
Sent: Wednesday, April 02, 2014 9:09 AM
To: Ward, Garcy; Steffens, Thomas A SAW ([e-mail])
Subject: FW: K-3800 Permit Modification

Garcy, Tom,

Can you please help answer the question below? Hydro is questioning whether the pipe needs to be replaced. Please let
me know if I could be of further assistance.

Thanks,

Hon Yeung
Assistant Resident Engineer
Greenville Construction

From: Johns, Linda M
Sent: Wednesday, April 02, 2014 8:28 AM
To: Rivenbark, Chris; Lauffer, Matthew S; Cashin, Gordon E
Cc: Hafeez, Mariko E; Bousquet, Corey D; Twisdale, John W; Yeung, Hon F; Kincannon, William C.
Subject: RE: K-3800 Permit Modification

Good Morning,

Regardless of the call, why should the drainage recommendation to retain the existing 54” CMP, collar and extend this
pipe crossing change? This pipe is in good condition and is hydraulically adequate. It is my understanding that we do
not have to bury a pipe that is simply being extended. If a decision is made to replace the pipe, then it is required to be
buried. This pipe does not need to be replaced. We just need to show that there are impacts to the stream.
1

From what I understand, Utilities will do a directional bore, and therefore permit mod is not required for this work.

However, a permit mod is required for Surface Water Impacts since extending the existing 54” cross pipe will now have
impacts on the intermittent stream. I will need guidance on how to proceed with this.

Please let me know if this is incorrect.

Thank you,

Linda M. Johns, PE
NCDOT Hydraulics Unit
Project Design Engineer
[phone]

From: Rivenbark, Chris
Sent: Wednesday, April 02, 2014 7:01 AM
To: Lauffer, Matthew S; Cashin, Gordon E
Cc: Hafeez, Mariko E; Johns, Linda M; Bousquet, Corey D
Subject: RE: K-3800 Permit Modification

Gordon’s email below sheds some light in that the agencies met Division staff at the site and worked out discrepancies
which resulted in the JS change. If my memory is correct, the DWR had issues with the original determination years ago
due to two agency reps making two different calls, ultimately ending up with the 50ft from the pipe endpoint.

The USACE does have the authority to modify the stream call due to them issuing a preliminary JD with the permit. We
often receive preliminaries with bridges and other fairly straightforward projects.

Chris Rivenbark
NCDOT, PDEA-Natural Environment Section

[phone] office

From: Lauffer, Matthew S
Sent: Tuesday, April 01, 2014 5:06 PM
To: Cashin, Gordon E; Rivenbark, Chris
Cc: Hafeez, Mariko E; Johns, Linda M; Bousquet, Corey D
Subject: RE: K-3800 Permit Modification
Importance: High

Hi Chris,

Would you all be able to explain why the stream call by DWR and the USACE is valid if NCDOT is not asking for a permit
mod. As I understand it, they made a call for the existing permit that ended the JS 50’ downstream of the existing 54”
pipe. If NCDOT is not going to ask for a permit modification for the waterline, does not the existing permit govern? Do
they have the legal authority to make a new call? Thanks for any input you can provide.

Regards,

Matt

Matthew (Matt) Lauffer, PE, CPM

Project Manager
2

TIP Central Region
Hydraulics Unit
North Carolina Department of Transportation

Mail:
1590 Mail Service Center
Raleigh, NC 27699-1590

Delivery:
1020 Birch Ridge Dr.
Raleigh, NC 27610

Phone: [phone]
Cell: 919-621-0443
Fax: [phone]

Email: [e-mail]

From: Yeung, Hon F
Sent: Tuesday, April 01, 2014 10:59 AM
To: Cashin, Gordon E; Rivenbark, Chris
Cc: Hafeez, Mariko E; Lauffer, Matthew S; Johns, Linda M; Kincannon, William C.; Lively, Saundra F
Subject: RE: K-3800 Permit Modification

Everyone,

Mr. Garcy Ward with DWQ and Mr. Tom Steffens with ACoE extended the JS limits up to Harding Road. The 54” x-line is
required to be replaced at this point. Ms. Linda and Mr. Lauffer are currently working on whether the x-line needs to be
upsized. The x-line is to be replaced by open cut installation. With the pipe being lowered and the time needed for a
permit mod, the Division and the Contractor agree that directional bore would be the best option at this point. Ms.
Mariko has already started the plan revision process. The utility will not require a permit mod at this point but the x-line
will since the JS limits is up to Harding Road now. I believe Hydro can provide the impact area once they finish their
calculation. Please let me know if anyone has any questions or comments.

Thanks,

Hon Yeung
Assistant Resident Engineer
Greenville Construction

From: Cashin, Gordon E
Sent: Tuesday, April 01, 2014 9:03 AM
To: Rivenbark, Chris
Cc: Yeung, Hon F; Hafeez, Mariko E; Lauffer, Matthew S; Johns, Linda M
Subject: RE: K-3800 Permit Modification

Chris, et al.,

Here is where I think we are:

(1) We have an open permit modification request to the agencies that depicted changes in the utilities on the site

(Dated 3/13/14).
(2)That request did not include the changes the agencies made to the JS limits, which was done in the field without

PDEA & Hydraulics knowing about it before we submitted the request.
3

(3)The agencies also now want the 54” pipe to be replaced and buried, rather than extended. Division is now

suggesting directional bore.
(4)Whatever is resolved upon, we need to compile drawings that show our current plans.

(5)We will then have to submit a revised request to modify the permit for the project.

Gordon

From: Rivenbark, Chris
Sent: Tuesday, April 01, 2014 8:28 AM
To: Cashin, Gordon E
Subject: FW: K-3800 Permit Modification

Is this consistent with what you heard last week?

Chris Rivenbark
NCDOT, PDEA-Natural Environment Section

[phone] office

From: Yeung, Hon F
Sent: Tuesday, April 01, 2014 8:27 AM
To: Rivenbark, Chris; Hafeez, Mariko E
Subject: RE: K-3800 Permit Modification

Chris, Mariko,

DWQ and ACoE has claimed the stream all the way to Harding Road instead of having the buffer zone 2 ends at Harding
Road. This probably will require more impact than before. The 54” x-line is to be replaced and require 1’ burial from
existing grade. We believe the best option now would be directional bore. Ms. Mariko, can you facilitate some plans for
that?

Thanks,

Hon Yeung
Assistant Resident Engineer
Greenville Construction

From: Rivenbark, Chris
Sent: Tuesday, April 01, 2014 8:19 AM
To: Hafeez, Mariko E
Cc: Yeung, Hon F
Subject: RE: K-3800 Permit Modification

Mariko,
We submitted the mod request on 3/13/14 but it has not been issued. We’ll contact the agency and ask for an update.

Chris Rivenbark
NCDOT, PDEA-Natural Environment Section

[phone] office

From: Hafeez, Mariko E
Sent: Monday, March 31, 2014 7:34 AM
To: Rivenbark, Chris
4

Cc: Yeung, Hon F
Subject: FW: K-3800 Permit Modification

Chris,

Could you please update me on the status of the K-3800 permit modification?

Thanks

Ms. Mariko Hafeez
Utilities Squad Eastern Region
1555 Mail Service Center
Raleigh NC 27699-1555

PH: 919-707-6695
FX: 919-250-4151
E-mail: [e-mail]

From: Yeung, Hon F
Sent: Friday, March 28, 2014 8:18 AM
To: Hafeez, Mariko E
Subject: K-3800 Waterline

Ms. Mariko,

Can you please check and see what is the status of the permit mod? The Division and the Contractor agreed that if we
cannot have the permit mod anytime soon, it would be best to directional bore in the waterline so as not to delay the
project. Please advise.

Thank you,

Hon Yeung
Assistant Resident Engineer
Greenville Construction Office
NCDOT

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

5