The URL can be used to link to this page

Home My WebLink About20161268 Ver 1_Email_20170515 (2)Carpenter,Kristi From: Steenhuis, Joanne Sent: Monday, May 15, 2017 2:45 PM To: Carpenter,Kristi Subject: FW: U 4751 Follow Up Flag: Follow up Flag Status: Flagged -----Original Message----- From: Herndon, T. Mason Sent: Monday, March 27, 2017 4:08 PM To: Stanton, Tyler P <tstanton@ncdot.gov> Cc: Steenhuis, Joanne <joanne.steenhuis@ncdenr.gov>; Rivenbark, Chris <crivenbark@ncdot.gov>; Shaver, Brad E CIV USARMY CESAW (US) <Brad.E.Shaver@usace.army.mil> Subject: RE: U 4751 Per our conversation, 5ft of inechanized of clearing on the -L- line is adequate until we get to the fill sections for the interchange at I-40 which will need 10 ft. of inechanized clearing. Also, L&S is adding the JS lines back to the fsn file that were not showing up on the CFI plan sheets. They will also correct the wlb line from overlapping the JS at �Sta. 151+00 (Site 15). Thanks! Mason Herndon Environmental Program Supervisor Division 3 NCDOT- Division of Highways 910-341-2036 office 910-604-0050 mobile tmherndon@ncdot.gov 5501 Barbados Blvd Castle Hayne, NC 28429 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: Stanton, Tyler P Sent: Monday, March 27, 2017 3:27 PM To: Herndon, T. Mason <tmherndon@ncdot.gov> Cc: Steenhuis, Joanne <joanne.steenhuis@ncdenr.gov>; Rivenbark, Chris <crivenbark@ncdot.gov>; Shaver, Brad E CIV USARMY CESAW (US) <Brad.E.Shaver@usace.army.mil> Subject: RE: U 4751 Mason, I've talked with Brad about his concerns below. Before I request Hydro to revise the drawings for mechanized clearing I wanted to check with you. I wasn't sure if there were reasons you were aware of as to why they'd designed sites with 5' on one side and 10' on the other. Thanks, Tyler -----Original Message----- From: Shaver, Brad E CIV USARMY CESAW (US) [mailto:Brad.E.Shaver@usace.army.milJ Sent: Friday, March 24, 2017 3:20 PM To: Stanton, Tyler P <tstanton@ncdot.gov> Cc: Steenhuis, Joanne <joanne.steenhuis@ncdenr.gov>; Herndon, T. Mason <tmherndon@ncdot.gov>; Rivenbark, Chris <crivenbark@ncdot.gov> Subject: U 4751 Tyler, I recently finished reviewing the permit drawings in great detail keeping in mind past issues we have had with construction projects that led to permit modifications. I know I can't predict them all but if I see something that I know has been an issue in the past I view it better to deal with it now than later. I noted some mapping errors with sheets 31 and 32 of 81. This will be hard to describe but if you zoom in on the inlet and outlet of the proposed structure the wetland layer extends beyond the Top of bank on both sides of the open water feature. This results in unnecessary excavation and fill impacts into the tributary as well as two triangle pieces of uplands, mis labeled. Hopefully when the mapping is correct the MC will go away in exchange for TS. This is a hard one to describe so feel free to give me a call if you want. Mechanized land clearing labeling is fairly unpredictable in the later sheets around the interchange. Sheets 43 and up have in some cases 5' MC next to 10' MC, I know this will cause confusion during construction and should be corrected now. During the 4C meeting we discussed any L line that has less than 10' of fill should possess 5' MC area but any area greater than 10 should utilize 10' of MC. Therefore, as I suspect some of the 10' MC in the interchange is to address significant grade changes with flyovers and super sections please uniformly label 10' MC in the interchange areas. On that same line of thinking please use 5' of MC on the L line as I don't think I saw any fill sections greater than 10'. I am trying to avoid sheets with S' MC next 10' MC or across the road from one another, I know how that would turn out. Finally, it is very clear from the new Regional Conditions that permanent conversion require mitigation if cumulative impacts exceed 0.10, see conditions below: "4.1.10 Any permanently maintained corridor along the utility right of way within forested wetlands shall be considered a permanent impact. A compensatory mitigation plan will be required for all such impacts associated with the requested activity if the activity requires PCN and the cumulative total of permanent forested wetland impacts exceeds 1/10-acre, unless the District Engineer determines in writing that either some other form of mitigation would be more environmentally appropriate or the adverse effects of the proposed activity are minimal. For permanent forested wetland impacts of 1/10-acre or less, the District Engineer may determine, on a case-by-case basis, that compensatory mitigation is required to ensure that the activity results in minimal adverse effects on the aquatic environment." Generally speaking if a project has permanent conversion (HC in forested wetland to be permanently maintained) near an acre I have required mitigation as they are considered permanent. Looking through the utility plans and google earth it appears you will have 1.09 acres of permanent conversion for power line movements. Please propose a mitigation plan to address this impact. Thanks and if you have any questions please don't hesitate to give me a call, Brad Email correspondence to and from this sender is subject to the N.C. Public Records Law and may be disclosed to third parties.