20161014 Ver 1_RE 17BP 6 R 63 Bridge 308 SR 1005 Columbus County Reply_20161129

Strickland, Bev
From: Hair, Sarah E CIV CESAW CESAD (US) <[e-mail]>
Sent: Tuesday, November 29, 2016 1:42 PM
To: Rerko, James J; Steenhuis, Joanne
Subject: RE: 17BP.6.R.63 Bridge 308 SR 1005 Columbus County Reply
Ok-that rings a bell now. Thanks.
Liz
-----Original Message-----
From: Rerko, James J [mailto:[e-mail]]
Sent: Tuesday, November 29, 2016 1:36 PM
To: Hair, Sarah E CIV CESAW CESAD (US) <[e-mail]>; Steenhuis, Joanne
<[e-mail]>
Subject: [EXTERNAL] RE: 17BP.6.R.63 Bridge 308 SR 1005 Columbus County Reply
Liz
Yes, the impacts would remain the same. The only change would be in the inlet and outlet inverts. I had talked to
Joanne about the possible revision and we agreed that it could be a permit condition.
I was at the bridge the other week and there didn't seem to be a noticeable change in the channel.
James J. Rerko, PWS
Division 6 Environmental Officer
North Carolina Department of Transportation
910 437 0207 office
910 486 1959 fax
[e-mail] Email
1000 Transportation Drive
Fayetteville, NC 28302
Email correspondence to and from this address is subject to the North Carolina Public Records Law and may be disclosed
to third parties.
-----Original Message-----
From: Hair, Sarah E CIV CESAW CESAD (US) [mailto:[e-mail]]
Sent: Tuesday, November 29, 2016 1:30 PM
To: Rerko, James J; Steenhuis, Joanne
Subject: RE: 17BP.6.R.63 Bridge 308 SR 1005 Columbus County Reply
1

Thanks Jim. So with regard to the potential redesign of the box culvert, is that very likely to happen? Would the impacts
remain the same? Just want to make sure that if I go ahead and issue the verification that we won't be looking at a mod
right away....otherwise, I would just wait to issue until I had that.
Thanks,
Liz
-----Original Message-----
From: Rerko, James J [mailto:[e-mail]]
Sent: Tuesday, November 29, 2016 9:57 AM
To: Steenhuis, Joanne <[e-mail]>; Hair, Sarah E CIV CESAW CESAD (US)
<[e-mail]>
Subject: [EXTERNAL] 17BP.6.R.63 Bridge 308 SR 1005 Columbus County Reply
Joanne / Liz
Attached is the revised drawings for Bridge 308 along SR 1005 in Columbus County.
The impact areas have been revised so the type of impact is clear. Besides the hatching, arrows point to the
impact areas also.
2. We had discussed the proposed bench which has been enlarged upon sheets 2& 3 of 8.
3. The inlet and outlet detail was enlarged on sheets 2& 3 of 8.
4. The one foot box culvert burial was based upon a slope 75 foot up and downstream of the culvert.
5. The temporary wetland fill is for erosion control.
6. The temporary impacts are for erosion control and remain on the Wetland Impact Summary Sheet.
7. The rip-rap along the stream will be installed to form the entrance and exit channel while maintaining the
floodplain bench.
Sheet x-2 was added to the back of the submittal for the cross-section view of the access drives. A 3:1 side slope is
proposed along the wetland area.
Wetland impacts less than 0.01 acre were calculated to the square foot as requested.
I believe that your comments from November 10, 2016 have been addressed with this revised set of Permit Drawings. I
have discussed the need to re-survey the stream channel to determine if redesign of the Box Culvert is required. If you
should have any questions or comments, please call me.
James J. Rerko, PWS

Division 6 Environmental Officer
North Carolina Department of Transportation
910 437 0207 office
910 486 1959 fax
[e-mail] <mailto:[e-mail]> Email
1000 Transportation Drive
Fayetteville, NC 28302
Email correspondence to and from this address is subject to the
North Carolina Public Records Law and may be disclosed to third parties.
Email correspondence to and from this sender is subject to the N.C. Public Records Law and may be disclosed to third
parties.
Email correspondence to and from this sender is subject to the N.C. Public Records Law and may be disclosed to third
parties.