20160299 Ver 1_R-2536 Supplemental Information_20160512

Wrenn, Brian L
From: Dilday, Jason L
Sent: Thursday, May 12, 2016 7:59 AM
To: Wrenn, Brian L; '[e-mail]'
Cr. Rivenbark, Chris; Shumsky, Michael J; Jim Eisenhardt [e-mail])
Subject: RE: R-2536 Supplementa) information
I will contact our consultant who put the information together and have something for you guys shortly.
�
From: Wrenn, Brian L
Sent: Thursday, May 12, 2016 7:56 AM
To: Dilday, Jason L <[e-mail]>; '[e-mail]' <[e-mail]>
Cc: Rivenbark, Chris <[e-mail]>; Shumsky, Michael J<[e-mail]>; Jim Eisenhardt
([e-mail]) <[e-mail]>
Subject: RE: R-2536 Supplemental information
Jason,
Will you be sending out a table detailing the wetland impact sites where the 1:1 mitigation is proposed for the un-
impacted wetland portions? I'd like to have something to include in our records.
From: Dilday, Jason L
Sent: Friday, May 06, 2016 10:50 AM
To:'[e-mail]' <[e-mail]�t.mil>; Wrenn, Brian L
<brian.wrenn@ncdenr.�ov>
Cc: Rivenbark, Chris <crivenbark@ncdot.�ov>; Shumsky, Michael J<mshumsk�t@ncdot.�ov>; Jim Eisenhardt
([e-mail]) <[e-mail]>
Subject: R-2536 Supplemental information
Andy,
Attached are two documents pertaining to R-2536. One is a summary/history of impacts that addresses the LEDPA for
the project. The other is the construction consultation. This consultation, at the moment, is unsigned. They are
currently working to get the required signatures for the document. I will send along the signed copy when it becomes
available.
Also, as Brian has noted, there are minor discrepancies in our impact numbers between the permit application, permit
drawings and DMS mitigation acceptance letter. We are showing a difference of 31,990/31,992 If for stream impacts
and 6.43/6.44 ac. of wetland impacts between the various sources. It appears that in both instances the differences
were due to the rounding of numbers. Currently DMS is committed to 31,992 If of stream and 6.43 ac. of wetlands. So
potentially we are 0.01 ac. short of the needed mitigation for the project.
I know we had spoken previously about the wetland impacts and instances on the project where we claimed a"total
take" but portions of the wetland would not be impacted. It had been suggested that for the un-impacted portions of

these wetlands, we could possibly mitigate this at a 1:1 ratio. The consultants went back and looked through the project
and determined there were five sites that met this criteria, totaling approximately 0.1 ac. If it is acceptable, we would
like to pursue the use of the 0.1 ac. as an offset to the 0.01 deficiency in the DMS mitigation, if you are agreeable. If not,
I will request an adjustment to the DMS acceptance for the 0.01 ac.
Jason
�nr�i'. �;e rr�,��ar,ci�r��;t� :a �r�ci 'ranr :4�,i;� ;��r�ci�r i;, ;,ubj��;: :a :4�,� �;.C`. ;�=ubii�; r�t�carc:7;� _�Ua �r�ci nr�, b� c:7�;��;�a;��G:7 :� :4�,irc:7 ��r:i�s.