20200405 Ver 1_More Info Received_20200518

Strickland, Bev
From: Thames, Kelly <[e-mail]>
Sent: Monday, May 18, 2020 9:35 AM
To: Johnson, Alan
Subject: RE: [External] RE: 20-0405
External email. Do not click links or open attachments unless you verify. Send all suspicious email as an attachment to
re [e-mail]
The PCN actually shows a design that is more impactful (to wetlands) where the design depicts the bridge approach as
permanent fill between the FERC boundary and Long Creek.
In the plan sheet I just sent you, there were some changes by the FERC reviewers, that pulled the bridge approach
outside of the FERC boundary (and outside the wetland that necessitates a much more expensive bridge span) with just a
bridge bent inside the FERC boundary (and in the wetland). The bridge bent is located in the same place for both designs
and pilings will be pile driven from the approach once built.
Beneath the proposed bridge, the trees would be hand cleared and stumps left in -situ.
Since the PCN shows greater impact, I was going to leave as is as it depicts the most impact and any final design would
have less impact. The FERC review has been challenging in regards to the design for my team and greatly depends on
cost of construction. They were driving for no land disturbance within the FERC boundary. Again, the PCN shows greater
disturbance. Buffer disturbance would not change beyond what I've just sent you, it could only decrease.
There are no wetlands outside the FERC boundary in this location; so either way, the rip rap would not be placed in a
wetland and therefore was not indicated as an impact to a wetland in the PCN.
I hope not too confusing. Call me if you want to talk through it.
Thanks!
Kelly Thames, Pws
D 704.338.6710 M 704.996.9986
hdrinc.com/follow-us fhdrinc.coml
From: Johnson, Alan [mailto:[e-mail]]
Sent: Monday, May 18, 2020 8:52 AM
To: Thames, Kelly <[e-mail]>
Subject: RE: [External] RE: 20-0405
rCAI Min [EXTERNAL] This email originated from outside of the organization. Do not click links or open attachments
unless you recognize the sender and know the content is safe.
So this ready to issue, with the buffer info included. Is the riprap included in the PCN as well?
DWR
Dl[vW*n of Water Resources

Alan D Johnson — Senior Environmental Specialist
NC Dept. of Environment & Natural Resources (NCDENR)
Division of Water Resources - Water Quality Regional Operations
610 East Center Ave., Suite 301, Mooresville, NC 28115
Phone: [phone] Fax:[phone]
E-mail correspondence to and from this address may be subject to the North Carolina Public Records Law and may be
disclosed to third parties unless the content is exempt by statute or other regulation.
From: Thames, Kelly [mailto:[e-mail]]
Sent: Monday, May 18, 2020 8:10 AM
To: Johnson, Alan <[e-mail]>
Subject: RE: [External] RE: 20-0405
External email. Do not click links or open attachments unless you verify. Send all suspicious email as an attachmentAn
[e-mail] S AL
Hi Alan,
Please see the attached plan sheet and the buffer impact table below for the Stowe project in Mecklenburg County.
The widest LOD point within the buffer is 130' on the west side and 105' on the east side.
6. Buffer Impacts (for DWQ)
If project will impact a protected riparian buffer, then complete the chart below. If yes, then individually list all buffer
impacts below. If any impacts require mitigation, then you MUST fill out Section D of this form.
6a. Project is in which protected basin?
❑ Neuse ❑ Tar -Pamlico ❑x Catawba ❑ Randleman ❑ Other:
6b.
Buffer Impact
number—
Permanent (P) or
Tem porar T
6c.
Reason for impact
6d.
Stream name
6e.
Buffer
mitigation
required?
6f.
Zone 1
impact
(square
feet)
6g.
Zone 2
impact
(square
feet
B1
P
bridge crossing
Long Creek
No
6,410
4,494
B2
_
Yes/No
B3
_
Yes/No
B4
_
Yes/No
B5
_
Yes/No
B6
_
Yes/No
6h. Total Buffer Impacts:
6,410 ft2
4,494 ft2
6i. Comments:
Let me know if you have any questions.
Thanks!
Kelly
Kelly Thames, Pws
D 704.338.6710 M 704.996.9986

hdrinc.com/follow-us fhdrinc.coml [nam05.safelinks.protection.outlook.comI
From: Johnson, Alan[mailto:[e-mail]]
Sent: Monday, May 11, 2020 11:37 AM
To: Thames, Kelly <[e-mail]>
Subject: RE: [External] RE: 20-0405
CAUTION: [EXTERNAL] This email originated from outside of the organization. Do not click links or open attachments
unless you recognize the sender and know the content is safe.
Yep. And a site plan showing the buffer impact. I can copy to the database
From: Thames, Kelly [mailto:[e-mail]]
Sent: Monday, May 11, 2020 10:48 AM
To: Johnson, Alan <[e-mail]>
Subject: RE: [External] RE: 20-0405
nal email. Do not click links or open attachments unless you verify. Send all suspicious email as an attachment
No unfortunately, it will be greater than 40 feet. It will be more than 40 but right at or below 150 feet. It will not exceed
150 feet.
Do you need me to fill out the below and send it to you?
Kelly Thames, Pws
D 704.338.6710 M 704.996.9986
hdrinc.com/follow-us fhdrinc.coml fnam05.safelinks.protection.outlook.coml fnam05.safelinks.protection.outlook.coml
From: Johnson, Alan[mailto:[e-mail]]
Sent: Monday, May 11, 2020 10:01 AM
To: Thames, Kelly <[e-mail]>
Subject: RE: [External] RE: 20-0405
CAUTION: [EXTERNAL] This email originated from outside of the organization. Do not click links or open attachments
unless you recognize the sender and know the content is safe.

Got it. Is the cut through the buffer going to be less than 40 ft wide? If so, we can move on
and get this thing out the door
From: Thames, Kelly [mailto:[e-mail]]
Sent: Monday, May 11, 2020 8:56 AM
To: Johnson, Alan <[e-mail]>
Subject: [External] RE: 20-0405
External email. Do not click links or open attachments unless you verify. Send all suspicious email as an attachment to
reaort.saam(@nc.cov
See the attached!
Will you let me know if you receive it?
DWR 20200405
SAW-2019-01988
Per our conversation, the southern bridge/road over Long Creek will impact the Catawba Buffer per the FERC boundary
location going up river into Long Creek.
Widest width of LOD within a 50 foot buffer will be greater than 40 feet but equal to or less than 150 feet (on west side of
Long Creek). The width on the east side of Long Creek is much narrower.
If it was a 30 foot buffer, the widest width would still be greater than 40, but much narrower than 150.
So we are for sure within the `allowable with written authorization' category.
Let me know if you have any questions!
Thanks!
Kelly
Kelly Thames, Pws
D 704.338.6710 M 704.996.9986
hdrinc.com/follow-us fhdrinc.coml fnam05.safelinks. protection. outlook.coml fnam05.safelinks.protection.outlook.comI
f nam05.safelinks. protection. outlook. coml
From: Johnson, Alan[mailto:[e-mail]]
Sent: Monday, May 11, 2020 8:53 AM
To: Thames, Kelly <[e-mail]>
Subject: FW: 20-0405
CAUTION: [EXTERNAL] This email originated from outside of the organization. Do not click links or open attachments
unless you recognize the sender and know the content is safe.
Still send me the good pcn
thanks
From: Strickland, Bev
Sent: Friday, May 8, 2020 3:37 PM

To: Johnson, Alan <[e-mail]>
Cc: Montalvo, Sheri A <[e-mail]>
Subject: RE: 20-0405
I found it. For some reason it did not file. It is in there now.
Beverly Strickland
Laserfiche Administrator
Division of Water Resources
Department of Environmental Quality
919-707-3876 New Office Number
Y�xr ;cam
From: Johnson, Alan
Sent: Friday, May 8, 2020 3:36 PM
To: Montalvo, Sheri A <[e-mail]>; Strickland, Bev <[e-mail]>
Subject: 20-0405
This project has been paid and has a number but somehow it is lost and not showing up in LF
I will have her send me a copy and approve, since I also have a number
DNIA16n of WAter ReAaimmo!�
Alan D Johnson — Senior Environmental Specialist
NC Dept. of Environment & Natural Resources (NCDENR)
Division of Water Resources - Water Quality Regional Operations
610 East Center Ave., Suite 301, Mooresville, NC 28115
Phone: [phone] Fax: [phone]
E-mail correspondence to and from this address may be subject to the North Carolina Public Records Law and may be
disclosed to third parties unless the content is exempt by statute or other regulation.