20140050 Ver 2_Application_20150707

1
Herndon, Mason
From:Mathis, Stonewall D
Sent:Monday, July 06, 2015 12:32 PM
To:Shaver, Brad E SAW; Herndon, Mason
Cc:Mathis, Stonewall D
Subject:RE: Pender 202 Power Line Relocation Package (UNCLASSIFIED)
Attachments:Pender 202 Attachment G revised.pdf; Pender 202 Attachment L revision signed.pdf;
13-07-0017_Effects.pdf; Pender 202 Power Line Relocation Package Revised June 28
2015.pdf; Pender 202 SE quadrant June 28 2015.jpg; Pender 202 NE quadrant June 28
2015.jpg
Hey Mason and Brad,

Please see the revised Attachment L for Pender 202. Please note that Robert Turnbull had submitted
Attachment L with his original package which is why I now submit a revised Attachment L.

Please also see the revised Attachment G for Pender 202. The impacts and WBS have changed so the
Attachment G was revised accordingly. You may also notice that the revised attachment G has some notations
about historic clearance and two bar metal rail which you may not have seen before. I think this was because
you may have received a previous version of the attachment G prior to those notes being made. Please see
the attached architecture clearance in that regard as well and yes we do have two bar metal rail specified in
the construction plans accordingly.

Please see the attached revised permit drawings, revised impact summary table, and pictures which I had
originally forwarded with my June 28, 2015 email below. I will forward Robert Turnbull's original package via a
separate email to immediately follow.

Again, NCDWR has permission to debit the WBS # 45349.3.FD24 for the appropriate permit application fee(s).
Per Brad's email, I am thinking this project would upon approval be authorized by NWP3 and WQC 3883 as
well as NWP12 and WQC 3884. Please advise.

I think this was all of the requested information per the email from Mason again considering that the original
package from Turnbull is to follow in another email.

Please let me know whether you need additional information.

Thank you,
Stoney

-----Original Message-----
From: Shaver, Brad E SAW [mailto:[e-mail]]
Sent: Tuesday, June 30, 2015 11:50 AM
To: Herndon, Mason; Mathis, Stonewall D
Subject: RE: Pender 202 Power Line Relocation Package (UNCLASSIFIED)

Classification: UNCLASSIFIED
Caveats: NONE

2
Stoney,

Once you get the format together for the State I will file the request and the Corps will not need to take any
further action. The activity would be covered by NW 12 with no notice requirement triggered since you are
conducting hand clearing to facilitate the move.

Brad

-----Original Message-----
From: Herndon, Mason [mailto:[e-mail]]
Sent: Monday, June 29, 2015 9:17 AM
To: Mathis, Stonewall D; Shaver, Brad E SAW
Subject: [EXTERNAL] RE: Pender 202 Power Line Relocation Package

Stoney,

Unfortunately, you are correct, the additional hand clearing does increase the temporary and permanent
impacts over the threshold of requiring written approval under WQC 3883. I cannot process the application as
submitted. I need "Attachment L" of the LIBR process to be included in the application package (see
attachment). My suggestion would be to take the original application that Robert submitted that I sent to you
the other day and revise the Attachment L and include your revised drawings and submit the new package to
me for processing. I will forward it to Kristi Lynn because I need to help thru this one because it is a little
confusing. Robert had submitted the original package as a request for written approval but DWR logged it as a
courtesy notification and did not debit a permit fee because it was not over the threshold which will be
required this time.

If you have questions, give me a call.

MH

Mason Herndon

NCDENR, Division of Water Resources

Transportation Permitting Unit

Fayetteville/Wilmington Region

[e-mail] <mailto:[e-mail]>

Phone: [phone]

3
E-mail correspondence to and from this address may be subject to the

North Carolina Public Records Law and may be disclosed to third parties.

From: Mathis, Stonewall D
Sent: Sunday, June 28, 2015 10:14 AM
To: Shaver, Brad E SAW ([e-mail]); Herndon, Mason
Cc: Mathis, Stonewall D
Subject: RE: Pender 202 Power Line Relocation Package

Hey Mason and Brad,

Following up on this again, I went out to Pender 202 this morning June 28 2015 and took a look around.

The NE quadrant has quite a bit of cattails with some shrub/scrub looking trees growing up in it for the most
part throughout the NE quad. As suspected there is a group of trees (more than two, probably more like ten
or twelve) at the edge of the stream; this group can be seen in the attached photo of the NE quadrant. The SE
quadrant had some big trees along with a good bit of privette. I still think well of the calls of forest conversion
in the SE quadrant and no forest conversion in the NE quadrant as even the clump of trees along the creek
edge in the northeast quadrant I think are not large enough of an area overall to warrant calling it a forest or
considering it as one.

However, I do think that hand clearing is in order in this northeast quadrant whereas I had not officially
included handclearing in the northeast quadrant with my first submission other than to say in the email that a
couple of trees along the creek edge may need to be cleared. While I would wish to tease out the cattail areas
versus where the scrub/shrub trees are and the clump of trees on the edge of the creek in the NE quadrant in
order to minimize proposed handclearing impacts, I am not going to do that as I am not so sure the power line
folks would not go in and handclear cattails and all as part of the relocation. So I have just proposed as you
will see in this attached revised package, handclearing along this whole swath.

Please note that I added a note on the permit drawing about a guy wire in the NE quadrant on the existing
pole which I saw in closer observation of the power line relocation drawing; I think this is needed due to the
new alignment of the power line. Also, I have made a note on the permit drawing that timber mats may be
used in handclearing areas to facilitate the clearing and power line relocation.

4

You will notice a significant increase in the handclearing area now revised to show 0.20 acres (yes, two tenths
of an acre) on the permit drawing and impact table. Mason, I realize this may trigger written notification for
you. If that is the case then I will probably go back to HNTB and ESI and see if they can put together that
package. I already gave Jamie a call the other day to discuss this and told him I would try to handle, however,
that was before I realized we may be looking at such significant increase in handclearing. If somehow you can
utilize the attached package as the written notice, that would be great, and consider this as the approval to
deduct the applicable permit application fee from WBS # 45349.3.FD24

Please see the attached revised package along with pictures showing the NE and SE quadrant vegetation each
titled accordingly. Please let me know how we need to proceed in order to obtain the necessary approvals for
the now proposed. Please let me know whether you need additional information in this regard.

Thank you,

Stoney

From: Mathis, Stonewall D
Sent: Friday, June 26, 2015 7:59 PM
To: Shaver, Brad E SAW ([e-mail] <mailto:[e-mail]> ); Herndon,
Mason
Cc: Mathis, Stonewall D
Subject: RE: Pender 202 Power Line Relocation Package

Hey Guys,

One more thought. If you do not like the couple of trees thing on the NE quadrant getting cleared without
being noted on the permit drawing (maybe impact table also) then I can change it to reflect this as well. I
probably need to ride out there and take a look at what the existing situation is as I have not been out there in
months. I was trying to do this from office review. However, from the aerial imagery and the permit drawing,
it appeared little to no large trees and maybe nothing wooded/forested in that NE quad. However, it did look
like a couple of large trees may be near the edge of the main flow line in this NE quadrant. Please advise on
how to proceed.

Thank you,

5
Stoney

From: Mathis, Stonewall D
Sent: Friday, June 26, 2015 7:20 PM
To: Shaver, Brad E SAW ([e-mail] <mailto:[e-mail]> ); Herndon,
Mason
Cc: Mathis, Stonewall D
Subject: Pender 202 Power Line Relocation Package

Hey Mason and Brad,

Please reference the Pender 202 bridge replacement project and your attached reply emails to the original
application package for subject project.

I attended a preconstruction meeting yesterday 6/25/15, which I mentioned this situation to you yesterday, in
which it was discussed that a power pole on the SE quadrant area would need to be relocated further to the
east to facilitate bridge construction (swing of crane, safety, etc). One of the drawings in the attachment
"Power Line Relocation Package" is the power line relocation drawing. I translated the information as best I
could from the power line relocation drawing onto the revised permit drawing (also in same attachment along
with the revised impact table).

I went ahead and attributed hand clearing in this southeast quadrant from bridge area out to the 15 feet
needed clearing beyond the relocated power line proposal. Part of the wetlands nearest the bridge area is not
wooded according to the permit drawing and according to review of Google Map aerial imagery; see the
attached Google Aerial image and the area to the immediate west of the area encircled with the number 3
within. The area on the permit drawing that is not wooded is left with white background (although hatched)
while the area that is wooded within the wetlands in this southeast corner (part of the area encircled with the
number 3 on the Google image which appears to show larger trees consistent with a wooded area) has been
highlighted with blue on the permit drawing to signify permanent forest conversion. I checked with HNTB and
this is a permanent relocation of this power line, not temporary, so this would be permanent forest
conversion in this area.

Review of the Google Map aerial imagery suggests larger trees in this southeast quadrant area in the area in
question (area 3). The NE quadrant area does not appear to be wooded both on the permit drawing and on
the Google Map aerial imagery for the most part (reference the area encircled with 1 on the Google image in
which it looks like a cutover area mostly on the Google Map aerial). There may be a tree or two right near the
6
bank per my review of the Google Map area (reference the Google Image with 2 encircled), but it is sparse
apparently and I hope worthy of not needing to be called out for hand clearing. This apparent lack of woods
on the NE quadrant is why no permanent forest conversion has been proposed in this area; also it is
anticipated that no new hand clearing other than perhaps the couple of apparent trees mentioned above is
needed in this NE quadrant area which is why no new hand clearing is proposed (none new referring to the
already permitted hand clearing around the storm drain proposed) other than perhaps the couple of trees
mentioned above.

Also, one other item I want to address is that the wetland line in the SE quadrant appears to die out in the
area of the proposed clearing on the far side (away from the road) of the proposed power line. I looked up
lidar imagery which suggests to me that the wetland line may take more of a south/southwestern turn from
where it dies off on the permit drawing. However, as the point where the wetland delineation dies off is very
close to the outer edge of the proposed clearing (forest conversion) and as the power line relocation as it
heads back to the south/southwest from the power pole to be moved goes back toward the existing pole
further to the west which is near the existing ROW and not to be moved, I think that I have likely done a good
job representing the proposed impacts as shown in the attached package. Please see the footnotes of the
revised impact summary table for a better breakdown of the revised proposed impacts.

Please let me know whether you approve of this revised proposal as described above and in the attached
package. Please let me know whether you need additional information.

Thank you,

Stoney

________________________________

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

Classification: UNCLASSIFIED
Caveats: NONE