20160299 Ver 1_R-2536 Supplemental Information_20160510 (2)

Carpenter,Kristi
From:
Sent:
To:
Subject:
Dilday, Jason L
Tuesday, May 10, 2016 10:52 AM
Wrenn, Brian L
RE: R-2536 Supplemental information
Brian,
I think this was mainly referring to the original delineation that occurred sometime in the mid-2000s to the larger stream
impact numbers that occurred during the re-delineations between 2011 and 2014.
Jason
From: Wrenn, Brian L
Sent: Tuesday, May 10, 2016 9:46 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,
In the conclusions of the Historical Jurisdictional Features Impacts and LEDPA Summary, it is indicated that changes to
DWR's stream determination guidance potentially caused an increase in impacts. The last changes to the guidance
occurred in 2010. It is doubtful, considering the timeframe and the nature of the changes, that this resulted in any
significant difference in the impacts. This is a minor point, but I wanted to clarify it for the purposes of this
evaluation. Please let me know if you have any questions on this.
Thanks,
Brian Wrenn
919-707-8792
From: Dilday, Jason L
Sent: Friday, May 06, 2016 10:50 AM
To: '[e-mail]' <[e-mail]>; Wrenn, Brian L
<brian.wrenn@ncdenr.�ov>
Cc: Rivenbark, Chris <crivenbark@ncdot.�ov>; Shumsky, Michael J<mshumsky@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
Email correspondence to and from this sender is subject to the N.C. Public Records Law and may be disclosed to third parties.