20150053 Ver 2_Fwd RE R-2409C Project Request for stream relocation approval_20170426

Carpenter,Kristi
From: Barnett, Kevin
Sent: Monday, July 10, 2017 4:35 PM
To: Carpenter,Kristi
Subject: Fwd: RE: R-2409C Project Request for stream relocation approval
Attachments: Signed R-2409C consultation.pdf
This is the email request I received
Get Outlook for Android
From: McHenry, David G
Sent: Monday, July 3, 2017 8:52:13 AM
To: Beckwith, Loretta A CIV USARMY CESAW (US)
Cc: Barnett, Kevin
Subject: RE: R-2409C Project Request for stream relocation approval
Lor1,
Wanted to provide an update.
R/w acquisition (which should address item 4) is still in process.
Attached is a project consultation that George Hoops approved of for the project. It includes the
stream relocation area as well as two other project areas where we are eliminating or modifying
wall designs. I believe in one of the emails about this permit modification requests you inquired
about 106 verification. As noted in the consultation, Wilkerson did not believe the modification
warranted additional archaeological review.
Kevin is working on the 401.
Thanks
Dave
-----Original Message-----
From: Beckwith, Loretta A CIV USARMY CESAW (US)
[mailto: Loretta.A.Beckwith(a�usace. army. mil]
Sent: Monday, May 22, 2017 7:06 PM
To: McHenry, David G <[e-mail]>
Cc: Barnett, Kevin <[e-mail]>
Subject: RE: R-2409C Project Request for stream relocation approval
Hi Dave,
I'm going through the project file but haven't finished my review yet. While I don't usually send
questions until I've finished my review (because there may be more questions), I'll do so now
because I may not be able to get back to this until Thursday.
Just so you know - an IP modification can be a pretty involved process (from our end); the
previous modification re the tree cutting moratorium was an exception to this as it was pretty
simple. Typically, modifications require coordination with other agencies, a modified 401 GC (if
waters are impacted or for any other reason specified by DWR), and other things. In order to issue
this permit, we wrote a 40 page decision document (combination of EA, FONSI, and 404(b)(1)
analysis), since we look at more factors for IPs than we do for general permits (NWPs or RGPs).

That's the reason for issues 4 and 6 below.
1. I assume this is a medium/good quality stream. If not, please provide a NCSAM sheet.
2. If it is a medium quality stream, it will require mitigation at a 2:1, with the relocated portion
comprising almost 1/2, but will also require mitigation for the lost length. Please provide an
acceptance letter from NCDMS.
3. If it's a low quality stream, it will still require mitigation for the lost portion. Please provide an
acceptance letter.
4. Because the property owners had a number of concerns with the impacts in this general area,
Pm examining the file, but haven't completed my review yet to determine if this new impact would
affect any of the areas that concerned them. I attached the comment emails and letters that go to
this (storm water, effect on their green space, future hotel, aesthetics, etc.). If you'd like to look
into in, please feel free as I may send questions about this later - see the 2nd attachment and emails
from the property owners, especially the email and letter from Brook Cole.
5. Please coordinate this request with the NCWRC and the USFWS. The USFWS may not have
any comment on it, but you still need to coordinate with them because of the overall consultation.
6. I'm unclear about the text in your cover letter -"...by allowing some rock plating from the
bottom of the fill slope and up." Does this mean that one side of the stream will be hardened? If
so, it may not fully serve as 1:1 mitigation... Also, how would this affect flow?
Thank you,
Lori
-----Original Message-----
From: McHenry, David G[mailto:d�mchenry�,ncdot. o�v]
Sent: Thursday, May 18, 2017 10:11 AM
To: Beckwith, Loretta A CN USARMY CESAW (US) <[e-mail]>;
Barnett, Kevin <[e-mail]>
Subject: [Non-DoD Source] RE: R-2409C Project Request for stream relocation approval
Lori and Kevin,
Our folks and the contractor are working on scheduling and I believe they are close to grading
work near the stream relocation. If possible, I would appreciate if you would please look at this
modification request before anything else that may be in the stack for Division 14. I really
appreciate your assistance and sorry for the hassle.
Dave
From: McHenry, David G
Sent: Wednesday, Apri126, 2017 ll:28 AM
To: Beckwith, Loretta A CIV USARMY CESAW (US) <[e-mail]>;
Barnett, Kevin <[e-mail]>
Cc: Powell, Aaron C<[e-mail]>; James, Justin F<[e-mail]>; Eubanks,
Patrick A<[e-mail]>; Whitehead, Reid O<[e-mail]>
Subject: R-2409C Project Request for stream relocation approval

Folks,
Please accept the attached request for a permit modification for the R2409C proj ect, which is US
64 improvements in Toxaway. We are currently constructing this project and have run into a
situation where we need to hopefully soon relocate about 70 feet of stream (note picture in
attachment errantly specifies 75 feet). Please see the attached request and advise if you have any
comments or questions. I'm not sure I have ever requested a modification of an IP before, so I
apologize if there is a different process I need to use.
Thanks
Dave McHenry
Environmental Officer
NC Department of Transportation/Division 14
828 586 2141 office
[e-mail] <mailto:dgmchenry�a),ncdot..gov>
253 Webster Road
Sylva, NC 28779
Email correspondence to and from this address is subject to the
North Carolina Public Records Law and may be disclosed to third parties.
Email correspondence to and from this sender is subject to the N.C. Public Records Law and may
be disclosed to third parties.