20141169 Ver 1_Hand Clearing Request_20150205

Wainwright, David
From:
Sent:
To:
Cc:
Subject:
Rivenbark, Chris
Thursday, February O5, 2015 7:05 AM
Wainwright, David; [e-mail]; Lane, Stephen; Ward, Garcy;
Sollod, Steve
Cashin, Gordon E
RE: Handclearing for uilities
Good morning David,
While we understand DWR's concern with conducting activities in wetlands occurring prior to the issuance of the 401 we
do not consider hand clearing as an impact. As you know, hand clearing is clearing without grubbing. We include hand
clearing in our applications to show the agencies work that will be done in wetlands, in my thoughts primarily to assist
with compliance inspections. We are also unclear as to how hand clearing is considered an impact by DWR even though
it is not regulated by the USACE.
I would ask for DWR to reconsider their decision for two reasons: the amount of utility relocation required by this
project and the fact that we rarely, if ever, ask for this ahead of permit issuance. In response to the DWR on-hold letter,
we plan to submit the revised application tomorrow and with that in hand we hope that it will give everyone a greater
level of comfort.
Please feel free to contact me if you have any questions.
Chris Rivenbark
NCDOT-Natural Environment Section
[phone]
From: Wainwright, David
Sent: Wednesday, February 04, 2015 4:02 PM
To: Rivenbark, Chris; [e-mail]; Lane, Stephen; Ward, Garcy; Sollod, Steve
Cc: Cashin, Gordon E
Subject: RE: Handclearing for uilities
Chris,
During previous discussions of this matter, the DWR expressed concern over incurring unapproved impacts to
wetlands. The DWR has not received copies of the revised plans, so we are not sure to what extent the impacts are
going to occur. Additionally, the DWR 401 certifications are what allow hand clearing impacts in wetlands. The impacts
the power company is seeking to incur are incorporated into the permit application for the project because we rnust
consider the scope and impact of the project as a whole. As the 401 WQC has not been issued yet, these impacts have
not been approved. To incur any impacts which require a 401 WQC certification would be in violation of Title 15A NCAC
2H .0500. Violating Title 15A NCAC 2H .0500 could involve civil penalties if the DWR chose to pursue the violation. The
DWR does not support moving ahead with relocating the overhead power lines until the 401 WQC has been issued.
David Wainwright
NCDENR, Division of Water Resources
16ll Mail Service Center, Raleigh, North Carolina 27699-1617
Phone: [phone] Fax: [phone]
David. Wainwri�[e-mail]
n f;�
� C,.A..i..
�L �/�,�I�I � L•
` �� � ,�p\k
,

Emal mrrespondence to and from this address is subjec[ to [he No«h Carollna Public Records Law and may be dlsclosed
lo third parties unless the contenCis exempt 6y statute or other regidatlon.
`'� Please consider ihe environment before printing this email.
From: Rivenbark, Chris
Sent: Wednesday, February 04, 2015 12:29 PM
To: thomas.a.steffensC�usace.army.mil; Wainwright, David; Lane, Stephen; Ward, Garcy; Sollod, Steve
Cc: Cashin, Gordon E
Subject: RE: Handclearing for uilities
I'll be attending a meeting tomorrow that will likely include this topic, primarily due to the size of the project and the
amount of utility relocations that will be necessary. Tom and I spoke this morning and as a follow up, I would like to
update evervone with the status of our resqonse to DWR's letter. We've received revisions to address comments in the
on hold letter, including updated (overall reduced) hand clearing due to utility relocation. These revised drawings will be
provided to the contractor to help ensure that they only clear as indicated on the plans.
If possible, I would like to hear from you guys so I can inform the utility company if they can perform hand clearing in
accordance with the most recent plans, either those submitted with our original application or the relevant revisions
that will be provided with our revised application and response to DWR.
Tom, please add anything that I have left off from our conversation and thank you all for your consideration of this
request.
Chris Rivenbark
NCDOT-Natural Environment Section
[phone]
From: Cashin, Gordon E
Sent: Tuesday, December 02, 2014 3:41 PM
To: Rivenbark, Chris
Subject: FW: Handclearing for uilities
From: Steffens, Thomas A SAW [mailto:Thomas.A.SteffensC�usace.army.mil]
Sent: Tuesday, December 02, 2014 3:04 PM
To: Cashin, Gordon E
Cc: Wainwright, David; Lane, Stephen; Sollod, Steve; Ward, Garcy
Subject: RE: Handclearing for uilities
All,
My response to this question was essentially "ok, but w/strong reservations". I based it on
the fact that the Corps doesn't regulate the removal of vegetation in wetlands; as long as
ground disturbance is not occurring. Also, I based the "ok" on the immediacy of the
forthcoming permit application, (which I now have in hand); and that the "ok" was specific to
R-2514, and no other projects.

My notes also include discussion about the potential problems and reservations shared by the
Corps and DWR reps.
-There'd be a minimum 90-120 day time lag between the activity if it started right now and
when/if the Corps permit gets issued.
-The activity would present DOT with a high risk potential for unauthorized activity (UA)
prior to permitting. (consider 16 miles of corridor).
-Who would be making sure the utility and their contractors stay within the hand clearing
only areas?
-And, would those areas be marked so it's clear where the activity could take place?
-I also recall a question about whether vegetation could be cleared in the DWR buffers prior
to permitting, but have no notes that speak to that.
Summation: I can't out right say "NO", but I would advise against moving forward with this
activity.
-----Original Message-----
From: Cashin, Gordon E [mailto:�cashin�ncdot.ROV]
Sent: Monday, November 17, 2014 1:26 PM
To: Steffens, Thomas A SAW
Cc: Wainwright, David; Lane, Stephen; Sollod, Steve; Ward, Garcy
Subject: [EXTERNAL] RE: Handclearing for uilities
No problem, Tom.
The utility company wants to get started on some of their work on the project. Some of the
areas where they need to work require handclearing in wetlands. So the question for you was
whether it was acceptable for them to begin work in these areas before the project permits
are issued?
We had some reservations about telling them yes, because of how things can get out of
hand. But we agreed to pose the question to y'all, which I did in the truck on our JD
verification visit.
Your thoughts?
Gordon Cashin
919-707-6107
-----Original Message-----
From: Steffens, Thomas A SAW [mailto:Thomas.A.Steffens�usace.army.mil]
Sent: Monday, November 17, 2014 11:03 AM
To: Cashin, Gordon E
Cc: Wainwright, David; Lane, Stephen; Sollod, Steve; Ward, Garcy
Subject: RE: Handclearing for uilities
Gordon,
For the benefit of those who were not present; could you please repeat the question we
discussed on 06 Nov 2014? It will save a lot of back and forth and prevent any
misunderstandings. Thanks, toms
-----Original Message-----
From: Sollod, Steve [mailto:steve.sollod@ncdenr.�ov]
Sent: Friday, November 14, 2014 1:44 PM
To: Cashin, Gordon E; Steffens, Thomas A SAW
Cc: Wainwright, David; Lane, Stephen
3

Subject: [EXTERNAL] RE: Handclearing for uilities
I wasn't in on this conversation... Does Stephen Lane know about it?
From: Cashin, Gordon E
Sent: Friday, November 14, 2014 11:08 AM
To: 'Steffens, Thomas A SAW'
Cc: Wainwright, David; Sollod, Steve
Subject: Handclearing for uilities
Tom,
]ust following up on our conversation the other day...
You were going to send me an e-mail regarding hand clearing for utility work along the US 17
project.
Regards,
Gordon
Email correspondence to and from this sender is subject to the N.C. Public Records Law and
may be disclosed to third parties.
4