20150079 Ver 1_DOT question-mitigation_20150415

Baker, Virginia
From:Homewood, Sue
Sent:Wednesday, April 15, 2015 9:53 AM
To:Baker, Virginia
Subject:RE: windy rd permit process (UNCLASSIFIED)- DOT question
Then maybe it's not a good candidate for credit. I have had projects in the past when I've said that a stream relocations
can't be done naturally enough or provided enough floodplain, or buffer, or protections etc that it doesn't qualify for
mitigation credit.

I'm not sure I understand though, if it's a stream relocation then why does the 4' incised drop in the existing channel
matter? It won't be in that location, will it?

Please note my new contact information

Sue Homewood
NC DENR Winston-Salem Regional Office
Division of Water Resources – Water Quality Programs
450 W. Hanes Mill Rd, Suite 300
Winston Salem NC 27105
Voice: [phone]
Cell: [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.

-----Original Message-----
From: Baker, Virginia
Sent: Wednesday, April 15, 2015 9:49 AM
To: Homewood, Sue
Subject: RE: windy rd permit process (UNCLASSIFIED)- DOT question

Thanks Sue,
David was thinking that DOT would not want to put in log sills due to how narrow and incised the channel is and moving
the earth would be hard. I just spoke with Kevin about this one and he has seen rip rap put in narrow streams meant to
mimic riffles that have failed as the rip rap did not mimic the size of natural rock that should have been installed and the
stream just by passed the rip rap and resulted in the stream needing repair. If the riprap is the right size for the stream
or embedded with natural rock on top it might work. The size of the stone I had been thinking could be an issue and that
is basically what Kevin thought.
Thanks for your input Sue.

-----Original Message-----
From: Homewood, Sue
Sent: Wednesday, April 15, 2015 9:25 AM
To: Baker, Virginia; Barnett, Kevin
Cc: Johnson, Alan; Wainwright, David
Subject: RE: windy rd permit process (UNCLASSIFIED)- DOT question

1

I have seen small streams with grade control (and that would mimic natural channels in the mtns). Usually I see log sills
in small channel designs but I've seen crossvanes too. I don't think that the size of the stream should justify riprap in the
channel. That said, if they are using "constructed riffles" to reduce velocity/address grade, that might be reasonable.

Please note my new contact information

Sue Homewood
NC DENR Winston-Salem Regional Office
Division of Water Resources – Water Quality Programs
450 W. Hanes Mill Rd, Suite 300
Winston Salem NC 27105
Voice: [phone]
Cell: [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.

-----Original Message-----
From: Baker, Virginia
Sent: Tuesday, April 14, 2015 2:18 PM
To: Homewood, Sue; Barnett, Kevin
Cc: Johnson, Alan; Wainwright, David
Subject: FW: windy rd permit process (UNCLASSIFIED)- DOT question

Hi Sue and Kevin,

I have a question about a stream relocation DOT is proposing. I have not seen the site, although Alan has.

DOT is proposing 360' of stream relocation. The stream is narrow 1-2' wide, and has a 4'deep incision in the lower
section. Slope is 0.01. They want to put in four 10-12' sections of embedded rip-rap rather than more natural structures
to deal with the drop in elevation. The rip-rap is to be used due to the drop in elevation and how narrow the stream
channel is.

Rip Rap in the channel raises a flag right off. Is this something we have permitted narrow stream relocations in the
Mountains for DOT in the past? Seems like there must be better options out there.

-----Original Message-----
From: Wainwright, David
Sent: Tuesday, April 14, 2015 1:39 PM
To: Baker, Virginia
Subject: FW: windy rd permit process (UNCLASSIFIED)

-----Original Message-----
From: Johnson, Alan
Sent: Monday, March 30, 2015 8:58 AM
To: Wainwright, David
Subject: FW: windy rd permit process (UNCLASSIFIED)

2

This is project just outside of Mooresville. An IP, in name only. They need to push over a stream (that also functions as
a ditch line). The proposal should be better than what is currently existing. It should be about 12 inches wide and about
6 inches deep. Because it cuts down to get to the main creek, it quickly incises to about 4 ft deep.

It is the Windy Road Project. WE have met at the site a couple of times to discuss. Se comments below.

-----Original Message-----
From: Amschler, Crystal C SAW \[mailto:[e-mail]\]
Sent: Wednesday, March 25, 2015 9:54 AM
To: Johnson, Alan
Subject: FW: windy rd permit process (UNCLASSIFIED)

Classification: UNCLASSIFIED
Caveats: NONE

Hey alan,

I can't keep it straight. Would this ip application go to you or Raleigh? Its for the windy road site we met on last year
where they want to replace the bridge with a culvert and relocate a stream.

Anyway, below is some additional information I requested from larry to get the permit process going but wanted to see
your thoughts on the mitigation. They are proposing what we recommended on the relocation, embedded rip rap at
intervals and they've got it at a 2' base channel with floodplain benches, bank side slopes of 2:1 with planted vegetation
on banks. I've suggested visual monitoring for stability for 2 to 3 years. Was wondering if you thought 2 years would be
enough and if that would meet your permitting needs?

Crystal C. Amschler
Project Manager
Asheville Regulatory Field Office
151 Patton Avenue, Room 208
Asheville, NC 28403
(828)-271-7980 Ext 231

-----Original Message-----
From: Amschler, Crystal C SAW
Sent: Wednesday, March 25, 2015 9:51 AM
To: 'Thompson, Larry B'
Subject: windy rd permit process (UNCLASSIFIED)

Classification: UNCLASSIFIED
Caveats: NONE

Just a heads up Larry,

I'm about to send you the standard formal letter we send out at this point when processing an IP application. The letter
formally asks the following questions:

NCDOT's road standard requirements that you are trying to achieve with this project to bring it up to par: standard
roadway widths, shoulder requirements, slope requirements, whatever it is you need to achieve with this project to
satisfy the need to get it up to grade.
3

A bit more info on alternatives. I'm guessing the new location will have a ton more impacts to jurisdictional waters but
we need to somehow quantify that to be able to document why it's not the LEDPA in our record. I'm thinking just
identifying potential routs and using USGS maps calculate the amount have impact that would occur within however
wide corridor would be needed to build the road. Doesn't have to be precise or too complicated as long as the data
clearly shows that the new location road would have much more jurisdictional water impact (and impact to residential
property if you can throw that in too).

We also need to discuss replacing the bridge with a bridge instead of a culvert. I know that was explained to me during
our site meeting, but we have to have some sort of explanation in writing for the record for why that won't work for this
project.

And last thing on the mitigation. My letter will indicate that the mitigation plan should be updated to include
monitoring for stability for a certain amount of time. I'm thinking visual monitoring to make sure the embedded rip rap
is holding in place for maybe two to three years?? And also, there needs to be mitigation for the culvert replacing the
bridge in emerson creek. I saw the EEP accepatance letter for the fifty some feet and that would do the trick at a 2:1 just
fine.

So the letter is heading your way but again, I wanted to give you a heads up and describe a little less formally what it is
I'm looking for. If you have any questions now or once you get the letter give me a call or shoot me an email.

Crystal C. Amschler
Project Manager
Asheville Regulatory Field Office
151 Patton Avenue, Room 208
Asheville, NC 28403
(828)-271-7980 Ext 231

Classification: UNCLASSIFIED
Caveats: NONE

Classification: UNCLASSIFIED
Caveats: NONE

4