20181597 Ver 1_More Info Received_20181127

Carpenter,Kristi
From: Rivenbark, Chris
Sent: Tuesday, November 27, 2018 8:58 AM
To: Shaver, Brad E CIV USARMY CESAW (US)
Cc: Herndon, T. Mason; Steenhuis, Joanne; Riffey, Deanna
Subject: RE: [External] Bridge 47 B 4438
Thank you both for looking at this so quickly. I can answer #3 by confirming no jurisdictional impacts due to utilities. We usually
don't mention utilities if we're not proposing impacts.
I'll ask Deanna to respond to the other items.
Chris Rivenbark
NCDOT- Environmental Analysis Unit
[phone]
-----Original Message-----
From: Shaver, Brad E CIV USARMY CESAW (US) <[e-mail]>
Sent: Tuesday, November 27, 2018 8:40 AM
To: Rivenbark, Chris <[e-mail]>
Cc: Herndon, T. Mason <[e-mail]>; Steenhuis, Joanne <[e-mail]>
Subject: [External] Bridge 47 B 4438
CAUTION: External email. Do not click links or open attachments unless verified. Send all suspicious email as an attachment to
Report Spam.<mailto:[e-mail]>
Chris,
Joanne and I have complied our additional information requests below regarding Bridge 47 replacement. This project is over a
half acre of wetland impact therefore thoughtful responses need to be returned to address the justification necessary for our
decision documents.
1. The project proposes to construct the new bridge to the east side of the existing bridge. There is no information or
description provided that the old bridge will be removed. Whether or not the DOT uses the removal for mitigation (as they are
proposing DMS mitigation) a description of the old bridge removal should be included in the application package.
2. In addition, there is no justification provided as to why the new bridge is to be constructed on the east side. The west side
looks to have less wetlands. Please provide justification as to why the bridge needs to be placed on the east side. During the
scoping meeting it was noted that the project has a WRC Bear Sanctuary on the West side but projects have expanded to the
side of WRC game lands in the past. When Deanna sent this project out for comment months ago this was the same response
returned at that time. The NCDOT needs to show why moving the project to the West side, which appears to have fewer
wetlands, is not practicable.
No utility drawings are provided. Will there be no impacts due to utilities. If not please provide a statement indicating this,
otherwise provide the utility drawings with the proposed impacts.
4. Please provide a justification to the increased width of the road and therefore the amount of wetland impacts.
5. "IS THE PROJECT AREA KNOWN FOR POTENTIAL INDIAN, COLONIAL, OR OTHER ARCHAEOLOGICAL SITES: Yes", the
preceding statement was taken from the Field Scoping Sheet (May 2015). The PCN indicates no what has changed since the
scoping meeting. If things have changed or further investigations have occurred indicating otherwise, please provide this
supportive information in the response.
If you have any questions about the list above please don't hesitate to give one or both of us 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.