20130223 Ver 7_Pages from 20190111 Permit Mod Request_20190220

Carpenter,Kristi
From: Bailey, David E CIV USARMY CESAW (USA)
<[e-mail]>
Sent: Wednesday, February 20, 2019 12:17 PM
To: Cheely, Erin K
Cc: Norton, Apri) R
Subject: [External] RE: Request for Additional Information_
20130223v7 U-2524CD Modification Guilford
Attachments: Pages from 20190111 Permit Mod Request.pdf
CAUTION: External email. Do not click links or open attachments unless you verify. Send
all suspicious email as an attachment to
[e-mail]<mailto:[e-mail]>
Hi Erin, and thanks for the updated information. 2 quick things:
1) can you confirm that the footprint of the rock stepdown structures occurs within the
70 I.f. footprint of bank stabilization?
2) it looks like Sheet 25 needs to be revised to show that sites 11 and 12 and their
associated impacts were removed from the U-2524D project to be included in the U-
2525C project, per our Permit Mod for U-2525C dated 8/11/2016. Can you confirm? If
so, please send the revised Sheet 25.
Thanks!
-Dave Bailey
David E. Bailey, PWS
Regulatory Project Manager
US Army Corps of Engineers
CE-SAW-RG-R
3331 Heritage Trade Drive, Suite 105
Wake Forest, North Carolina 27587
Phone: [phone], Ext. 30.
Fax: [phone]
Email: [e-mail]
We would appreciate your feedback on how we are performing our duties. Our
automated Customer Service Survey is located at:
http://corpsmapu.usace.army.mil/cm_apex/f?p=136:4:0
Thank you for taking the time to visit this site and complete the survey.
-----Original Message-----
From: Cheely, Erin K [mailto:[e-mail]]
Sent: Tuesday, February 19, 2019 12:08 PM
To: Norton, April R <[e-mail]>
Cc: Bailey, David E CIV USARMY CESAW (USA) <[e-mail]>;
Patterson, Robert D<[e-mail]>; Moon, Chris D
<[e-mail]>; Thomson, Nicole J<[e-mail]>; Parker, Jerry A

<[e-mail]>; Carpenter,Kristi <[e-mail]>; Dagnino,
Carla S <[e-mail]>
Subject: [Non-DoD Source] RE: Request for Additional Information_20130223v7_U-
2524CD Modification Guilford
April,
Attached and below are responses to your on-hold request for additional information.
1. Please see the attached engineering response from Craig Lee (NCDOT Hydraulics)
and Byron Moore (NCDOT Onsite Engineering) showing the calculations and reasoning
for the rock size in the proposed bank stabilization and grade controls at Permit Site 4.
2. Please see the revised Sheet 12a of 25 reflecting the rock size recommendations
and the addition of geotextile for added stability.
3. Please see the attached map from the 1995 FEIS marked with the location of Site 4
with respect to the project corridor. This site was within the project footprint at the
time the preferred alternative (LEDPA) was selected for this project prior to buffer rules
and is therefore not subject.
Please let me know if you have any additional questions or need any additional
information, thanks!
-erin
Erin Cheely
Environmental Program Consultant
Environmental Analysis Unit
N.C. Department of Transportation

919 707 6108 office
919 323 5192 mobile
[e-mail] <mailto:[e-mail]>
1598 Mail Service Center
Raleigh, NC 27699-1598
Email correspondence to and from this address is subject to the
North Carolina Public Records Law and may be disclosed to third parties.
From: Norton, April R <[e-mail]>
Sent: Friday, January 25, 2019 2:56 PM
To: Cheely, Erin K <[e-mail]>
Cc: [e-mail]; Patterson, Robert D
<[e-mail]>; Moon, Chris D <[e-mail]>; Thomson,
Nicole J<[e-mail]>; Parker, Jerry A<[e-mail]>;
Carpenter,Kristi <[e-mail]>
Subject: RE: Request for Additional Information_20130223v7_U-2524CD
Modification Guilford
Erin,
The Division of Water Resources received your application dated January 11, 2019,
requesting a 401 Water Quality Certification for the subject project. The Division has
determined that your application is incomplete and cannot be processed. The
application is on-hold until all the following information has been addressed.

1. Please provide calculations to ensure that the rocks/boulders are appropriately
sized, based on stream flow/velocity/shear stress. [15A NCAC 02B .0216]
2. It appears as though a geotextile is not proposed for stability within the rock step-
down structures. If this is the case, please explain why geotextile is not proposed. [15A
NCAC 02H .0506]
3. If riparian buffers are impacted, please locate all of the protected riparian buffers
as overlays on the site plan, clearly showing Zone 1 and Zone 2 and enumerate all
riparian buffer impacts on the site plan and clearly label impacts (Buffer Impact 1, etc.).
The Division recommends highlighting by hatching or shading all impacts areas for
temporary impact areas and permanent impact areas. Please keep in mind that any new
buffer impacts may not fall under the previous buffer exemptions for this project. [15A
NCAC 02 .0262]
Please respond within 30 days in writing.
Thanks,
April
From: Cheely, Erin K
Sent: Thursday, January 24, 2019 11:27 AM
To: Norton, April R <[e-mail] <mailto:[e-mail]> >
Cc: [e-mail] <mailto:[e-mail]> ;
Patterson, Robert D <[e-mail]
<mailto:[e-mail]> >; Moon, Chris D <[e-mail]
<mailto:[e-mail]> >; Thomson, Nicole J <[e-mail]
<mailto:[e-mail]> >
Subject: RE: Request for Additional Information_20130223v7_U-2524CD
Modification Guilford
April,
I reached out to the Division with regard to your questions and below is the response I
received from Chris Moon. Let me know if further information or changes are needed:

1. The As-Built plan drawing I created was based on the conversation between David
Bailey and I. I wasn't given any design criteria/calculations to go by other than to draw it
based on the same drawing I created for Permitted site 7. The rock size was based on:
(A) What can be typically found in Class 1(sifting through loads of rock to meet the
parameters in the drawing) length, width, height.
(B)Trying to find flat tops and bottoms and being wide enough to meet the embedment
to hold the rocks in place during heavy flow in the stream.
2. There was no geotextile utilized because it wasn't requested when it was done at site
7 so it wasn't drawn for this site as well. If it is something that needs to be incorporated
we will use it.
Basically I have drawn the As-Built per the agency request. If I need to mock up the
drawing just let me know what I need to add.
Thanks,
erin
From: Norton, April R <[e-mail] <mailto:[e-mail]> >
Sent: Tuesday, January 22, 2019 9:38 AM
To: Cheely, Erin K <[e-mail] <mailto:[e-mail]> >
Cc: [e-mail] <mailto:[e-mail]> ;
Patterson, Robert D <[e-mail]
<mailto:[e-mail]> >
Subject: Request for Additional Information_20130223v7_U-2524CD
Modification Guilford
Erin,

Thank you for your 401 Water Quality Certification application, dated January 11, 2019.
To continue the 401 Water Quality Certification review for the subject project, please
provide the below additional information:
1. Please provide calculations to ensure that the rocks/boulders are appropriately
sized, based on stream flow/velocity/shear stress.
2. It appears as though a geotextile is not proposed for stability within the rock step-
down structures. If this is the case, please explain why geotextile is not proposed.
Thanks,
April
April R. Norton
Environmental Senior Specialist
Transportation Permitting Unit
Division of Water Resources
NC Department of Environmental Quality
919-707-9111 office
919-710-6516 mobile
[e-mail] <mailto:[e-mail]>
512 North Salisbury Street, 12th Floor (physical)
1617 Mail Service Center (mailing)
Raleigh, NC 27699
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.
Email correspondence to and from this sender is subject to the N.C. Public Records Law
and may be disclosed to third parties.

WETLAND PERMIT IMPACT SUMMARY
WETLAND IMPACTS SURFACE WATER IMPACTS
Hand Existing Existing
Permanent Temp. Excavation Mechanized Clearing Permanent Temp. Channel Channel Natural
Site Station Structure Fillln Fillln in Clearing in SW SW Impacts Impacts Stream
No. (From/To) Size / Type Wetlands Wetlands Wetlands in Wetlands Wetlands impacts impacts Permanent Temp. Design
(ac) (ac) (ac) (ac) (ac) (ac) (ac) (ft) (ft) (ft)
1 -L- 434+26 - 434+49 Bank Stabilization < 0.01 < 0.01 15 15
2 -L- 440+16 - 443+31 48" / 30" RCP 0.05 < 0.01 414 10
3A -L- 458+38 - 458+84 4' Base Ditch < 0.01 96
3 -L- 462+49 - 471 +23 4' Base Ditch / 60" RCP 0.09 996
Bank Stabilization < 0.01 < 0.01 24 10
4 -L- 478+25 - 494+65 1@ 8' X 7' RCBC 0.15 < 0.01 1581 12
5 -L- 491 +99 - 503+80 1@ 10' X 7' / 2@ 10' X 7' RCB 0.27 0.01 1192 43
6 -L- 492+63 - 493+02 1@ 10' X 7' RCBC 0.02 < 0.01 158 16
7 -L- 497+58 - 499+12 48" RCP 0.04 291
Bank Stabilization < 0.01 < 0.01 23 10
8 -L- 502+83 - 503+29 Bank Stabilization 0.01 < 0.01 46 18
9 -L- 504+11 - 505+91 1@ 7' X 8' RCBC 0.07 < 0.01 388 20
10 -L- 505+41 - 505+96 Bank Stabilization 0.01 < 0.01 34 20
11 -L- 508+61 - 510+08 Roadway Fill 0.05 0.03
12 -L- 521 +16 - 521 +61 72"RCP 0.05 < 0.01 284 10
Bank Stabilization < 0.01 < 0.01 24 5
TOTALS*: 0.05 0.03 0.77 0.04 5566 189 0
*Rounded totals are sum of actual impacts
NOTES:
- 780 LF OF STREAM BETWEEN SITES 3& 4 WILL REQUIRE 0.5 : 1 MITIGATION DUE TO INDIRECT PROJECT IMPACTS & LOSS OF FUNCTION.
Revised 2013 10 24