20190214 Ver 1_Questions about I-95 drawings_20190315

On permit drawing 9 of 70 and 11 of 70 — Site 4
Wetland WE is 0.16 acres in size. The propose impacts will result in 0.066 acres remaining with the CA
fence being proposed on the eastern side of the remaining wetland. Will this small remaining piece
remain viable?
On Permit Drawing Sheet 9 of 70 and sheet 12 of 70 — Site 5A
The JD sheet indicates that the jurisdictional pond within the ROW is 0.14 acres. The proposed impact
to the pond indicated on the impact summary sheet and the description on page 10 indicates the impact
to the pond is 0.182 acres, which is larger that what was shown on the JD maps. I am assuming that you
are now planning to drain the entire pond, so does the JD map need to be modified to reflect this?
On Permit Drawing 25 of 70 and 27 of 70 — Site 9
Will the proposed 9' X 8' RCBC be prefilled with sediment and if the existing channel is narrower than
the proposed RCBC will stream baffles be used to prevent the artificial widening of the stream?
On permit drawing sheet 65 of 70 and on sheet 67 of 70 - Site 10 C
The drawing shows a JS and the description of the impacts deals with open water impacts. The impact
summary sheet also shows open water impacts and not stream impacts. This feature is shown on the
permit drawing to be stream SE, so shouldn't the impacts be stream impacts and not open water?
Please correct.
On permit drawing 31 of 70 and 35 of 70 — Site 11
Will the proposed RCB be pre -filled with sediment and will it have baffles to keep the stream from
artificially widening if necessary?
On permit drawing 54 of 70 — Site 11A
Will the proposed8' X 7' RCB culvert under Long Branch Road be pre -filled with sediment and will it
have baffles to keep the stream from artificially widening if necessary?
On permit drawing 41 of 70 and sheet 43 and 44 of 70 Site 11B
Will it have baffles to keep the stream from artificially widening if necessary?
The PUE impacts are included with the temporary impacts? On both ends?
On permit drawing 31, 32, 35 and 54 of 70 — Site 12
The wetland impacts look fine.
The description on pages 12 and 13 for site 12 indicate open water impacts. The permit drawing shows
impacts to the JS with the 36" RCP and rip rap. The impact summary sheet it has both open water and
stream impacts.
I think that the permit drawing has the JS feature SE going further up into wetland WF than it should.
On the Stream call letter dated October 11, 2018 , the JS feature SE stops when it intersects with the JS

feature SF. If this isn't the correct open water impacts, then I could not find them on the drawings.
Please fix
On permit drawing sheet 31 of 70 and sheet 36 of 70 — Site 13
The drawings show a JS feature being impacted (stream SF?). The description states an open water
feature being impacted. On the impact summary sheet it has both surface water and stream impacts.
On Permit drawing 46, 47 of 70 — Site 15
The description on page 13 states that a 30" RCP pipe will be replaced under 1-95. On the drawings it
shows 18" RCP and 30" RCP. The description also describes impacts to open waters OWA. On the permit
drawings, this feature is identified as a JS feature. This is incorrect please fix. The impact summary
sheet indicates Impacts to stream as 31 permanent and 12 temporary. Please correct this.
Permit Drawing Sheet 46 of 70 - Site 17
The description of the impact on page 13 indicates impacts to an open water tributary 'OWB'. The
permit drawing indicates the feature as a JS. The impacts summary sheet also show the impacts as open
waters. Please fix.
On Permit Drawing 46, 47, 51, 52 and 53 of 70 — Site 18
The description of the impact indicates impacts to an open water tributary 'OWB'. The permit drawing
indicates the feature as a JS. The impact summary sheet also shows the impacts as open water. Please
correct the drawings to show that it is not a JS feature but an open water feature identified in the
stream call letter as 'OWB'.
On permit drawing 54 of 70 — Site 19
The description on page 13 is for open water impacts 'OWE'. The permit drawing shows the impacts to a
JS. The feature is also identified in the stream call letter as an open water feature 'OWE'. Please correct
the permit drawing to show this feature as the open water feature as 'OWE'. On the impact summary
sheet shows 16 If of JS impacts? Please also correct this.