20191460 Ver 1_No Written Concurrence_20191029

Carpenter, Kristi
From:
Steenhuis, Joanne
Sent:
Tuesday, October 29, 2019 4:35 PM
To:
Shaver, Brad E CIV USARMY CESAW (USA); Cashin, Gordon E
Cc:
Rivenbark, Chris; Herndon, T. Mason
Subject:
RE: [External] RE: Notification for BR-0121, Samson County
Gordon,
The DWR has reviewed your courtesy application for the Bridge 178 (BR-0121) replacement in Sampson County. The
DWR concurs that the project does not require a written concurrence letter. Please be reminded that you must still
comply with the activity specific conditions and the general conditions set forth in GC#4132 that corresponds to the
USACE's NW 3.
For future reference the DWR has assigned this project a DWR# of 20191460.
Please let me know if I can be of further assistance.
Joanne Steenhuis
-----Original Message -----
From: Shaver, Brad E CIV USARMY CESAW (USA) <[e-mail]>
Sent: Monday, October 28, 2019 3:11 PM
To: Steenhuis, Joanne <[e-mail]>; Cashin, Gordon E <[e-mail]>
Cc: Rivenbark, Chris <[e-mail]>; Herndon, T. Mason <[e-mail]>
Subject: [External] RE: Notification for BR-0121, Samson County
CAUTION: External email. Do not click links or open attachments unless you verify. Send all suspicious email as an
attachment to [e-mail]<maiIto: [e-mail]>
Gordon,
I will file the drawings. Please attach NW 3 with any contracts which are executed, attached.
Brad
-----Original Message -----
From: Steenhuis, Joanne [mailto:[e-mail]]
Sent: Monday, October 28, 2019 2:49 PM
To: Cashin, Gordon E <[e-mail]>; Shaver, Brad E CIV USARMY CESAW (USA) <[e-mail]>
Cc: Rivenbark, Chris <[e-mail]>; Herndon, T. Mason <[e-mail]>
Subject: [Non-DoD Source] RE: Notification for BR-0121, Samson County
Gordon,
Mason explained it to me. I am fine with the drawings as they are, so go ahead and submit them for a non -reporting
NW 3.

Joanne
From: Cashin, Gordon E <[e-mail]>
Sent: Monday, October 28, 2019 1:24 PM
To: Steenhuis, Joanne <[e-mail]>; '[e-mail]'
<[e-mail]>
Cc: Rivenbark, Chris <[e-mail]>; Herndon, T. Mason <[e-mail]>
Subject: RE: Notification for BR-0121, Samson County
Doanne,
The design team is a bit confused by your question and aren't sure what you mean, But, they can easily change the HC
impacts to mechanized if that addresses it.
Gordon
From: Steenhuis, Joanne <[e-mail] <mailto:[e-mail]> >
Sent: Monday, October 28, 2019 12:05 PM
To: Cashin, Gordon E <[e-mail] <mailto:[e-mail]> >; '[e-mail]'
<[e-mail] <mailto: Brad. [e-mail]> >
Cc: Rivenbark, Chris <[e-mail] <mailto:[e-mail]> >; Herndon, T. Mason
<[e-mail] <mailto:[e-mail]> >
Subject: RE: Notification for BR-0121, Samson County
Gordon,
Have you determined if there would be additional impacts because of the barriers?
From: Steenhuis, Joanne
Sent: Tuesday, October 22, 2019 3:11 PM
To: Cashin, Gordon E <[e-mail] <mailto:[e-mail]> >; '[e-mail]'
<[e-mail] <mailto: Brad. [e-mail]> >
Cc: Rivenbark, Chris <[e-mail] <mailto:[e-mail]> >; 'Terry M Herndon
([e-mail] <mailto:[e-mail]> )'<[e-mail] <mailto:[e-mail]> >
Subject: RE: Notification for BR-0121, Samson County

Gordon,
I have a question about the drawings and impacts. On Sheet 3 of 5, with the use of the impervious barriers on the
approaches. You have the barriers around the hand clearing, how would that not impact those hand clearing areas (as
they are small)?
From: Cashin, Gordon E <[e-mail] <mailto:[e-mail]> >
Sent: Tuesday, October 22, 2019 1:26 PM
To: 'Brad. [e-mail]' <[e-mail] <mailto: Brad. [e-mail]»;
Steenhuis, Joanne <[e-mail] <mailto:[e-mail]> >
Cc: Rivenbark, Chris <[e-mail] <mailto:[e-mail]> >
Subject: Notification for BR-0121, Samson County
Brad and Joanne,
We are all set to submit the permit application for BR-0121, Bridge No. 178 over Sevenmile Swamp on SR 1804 (Houses
Mill Road), not too far from its brother BR-0122 (Bridge No. 348) which I sent a few weeks back. BR-0121 will also be
replaced on the existing alignment while detouring traffic offsite.
The drawings from Hydraulics shows a total of <0.01 acre of fill and <0.01 acre of permanent surface water impacts.
They are showing 40 feet of permanent channel impacts and 70 feet of temporary because they appear to be counting
the already bridged stream banks as channel impacts. I don't think any actual channel is begin lost, but that is for y'all to
say I guess. Utilities does not anticipate any impacts to waters, wetlands or buffers. We would prefer to handle this as a
non -written NW 3, if possible. I have attached the drawings, final CE checklist and Utility narrative.
Please let us know how you would like to proceed.
Regards,
Gordon Cashin
Environmental Program Consultant
NCDOT Environmental Analysis Unit
[phone]

Email correspondence to and from this sender is subject to the N.C. Public Records Law and may be disclosed to third
parties.