HomeMy WebLinkAbout20211508 Ver 1_More Info Received_202111051
Mitchell, Robert K
From:McHenry, David G
Sent:Friday, November 5, 2021 1:23 PM
To:Mitchell, Robert K
Cc:Amschler, Crystal C CIV USARMY CESAW (US)
Subject:RE: TS Fred Storm Repairs ATF
Attachments:20211105_ReplaceBridge3onSR1887_APPRV.docx.pdf
I worked on this right before going to the Tuscola‐Pisgah football game, so I am not surprised I messed up, as did
Tuscola, – yet again.
1. Site 4 is actually on Beaverdam and the impact is about 30 feet as shown in the PCN. Sorry, I did not notice the
spreadsheet listed Pigeon River for that site. I think that is the only error, on that site anyway.
2. Yes, Site 459 is about 250 feet and I missed entering it in the PCN (In the pictures it is the site with the skeletons
in the front yard getting married). Do you need me to resubmit the pcn?
3. Yes, the one’s in blue shading are being (were) permitted separately and so they are not in the PCN table. I did
that because of more complex impacts, pending designs, and possibly permitting before construction unlike the
whirlwind repair needs. Site 55 (bridge 382) will be coming soon and Barnett submitted 143 (bridge 5) couple
days ago, though you will soon see revisions on bridge 5 application ‐ sorry. Site 151 is bridge 3 that we received
the 401 for today – thanks. I do see however that in the spreadsheet the stream is labeled Pisgah Creek, but it is
actually East Fork Pigeon River. But the stream name was correct in that PCN and is correct in the WQC
(attached).
Sorry, trying to pick it up and not doing so well, again.
Dave
From: Mitchell, Robert K <kevin.mitchell@ncdenr.gov>
Sent: Friday, November 5, 2021 12:22 PM
To: McHenry, David G <dgmchenry@ncdot.gov>
Cc: Amschler, Crystal C CIV USARMY CESAW (US) <Crystal.C.Amschler@usace.army.mil>
Subject: TS Fred Storm Repairs ATF
Dave,
Can you confirm a few things for me? There have been a lot of emails so I hope I didn’t miss anything.
1. S1 (Site 4) of the PCN impact table calls the stream Beaverdam Creek, but the narrative discusses a triple barrel
on the Pigeon. The corresponding photo on page 1 also shows a smaller creek with rip rap bank
stabilization. Can you clarify that the impact is the Pigeon and the impact numbers are correct?
2. Site 459 is not in the PCN impact table, but I did find it in the spreadsheet that you submitted. Can you confirm
that the stream impact is 250 feet? If that is the case the total impact numbers will increase as well.
3. Site 151 – I was also confused about what is being proposed at that location. I didn’t see it in the impact
table. Is that being submitted separately?
Kevin Mitchell
Environmental Specialist II
Division of Water Resources
401 & Buffer Transportation Permitting
NC Department of Environmental Quality
2
828‐296‐4650 Office
828‐231‐1580 Mobile
Email Kevin.mitchell@ncdenr.gov
NC DEQ Asheville Regional Office
2090 U.S. Hwy. 70
Swannanoa, N.C. 28778
Email correspondence to and from this sender is subject to the N.C. Public Records Law and may be disclosed to third parties.