Extension_ Decision Letter for TIP I-5898 U_S_ 220 at U_S_ 311_N_C_ 135 Interchange and Replacement of Bridge #780074 (2)

Carpenter,Kristi
From:Bode, Ray <[e-mail]>
Sent:Monday, July 25, 2022 10:09 AM
To:[e-mail]
Cc:Conchilla, Ryan
Subject:RE: \[External\] RE: Decision Letter for TIP I-5898 U.S. 220 at U.S. 311/N.C. 135
Interchange and Replacement of Bridge #780074
Attachments:image002.emz; image011.emz; image015.emz
CAUTION: External email. Do not click links or open attachments unless you verify. Send all suspicious email as an attachment to
Report Spam.

That’s great, thanks Dave.

JMT
Ray Bode, PWS
Direct: 984.269.4923
Mobile: [phone]

From: Bailey, David E CIV USARMY CESAW (USA) <[e-mail]>
Sent: Monday, July 25, 2022 9:21 AM
To: Bode, Ray <[e-mail]>
Cc: Conchilla, Ryan <[e-mail]>
Subject: \[EXTERNAL\] RE: \[External\] RE: Decision Letter for TIP I-5898 U.S. 220 at U.S. 311/N.C. 135 Interchange and
Replacement of Bridge #780074

Hi Ray. The Corps grants an additional 15 days to submit our requested information. Since our request was sent on
6/24/2022 and had a 30-day suspense, our requested information is now due on 8/8/2022. Please let me know if you
have any questions.
-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
Mobile: [phone]
Office: [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: https://regulatory.ops.usace.army.mil/customer-service-survey/
Thank you for taking the time to visit this site and complete the survey.

1

From: Bode, Ray <[e-mail]>
Sent: Monday, July 18, 2022 8:57 AM
To: Bailey, David E CIV USARMY CESAW (USA) <[e-mail]>
Cc: Conchilla, Ryan <[e-mail]>
Subject: \[URL Verdict: Neutral\]\[Non-DoD Source\] RE: \[External\] RE: Decision Letter for TIP I-5898 U.S. 220 at U.S.
311/N.C. 135 Interchange and Replacement of Bridge #780074

Hey Dave
If I counted the days correctly, the requested additional info is due to you by end of the day on 7/22. However, the
engineers are still working on getting the revisions made. Would it be possible to request an extension?
Thanks

JMT
Ray Bode, PWS
Direct: 984.269.4923
Mobile: [phone]

From: Bailey, David E CIV USARMY CESAW (USA) <[e-mail]>
Sent: Wednesday, July 6, 2022 1:54 PM
To: Bode, Ray <[e-mail]>
Cc: Conchilla, Ryan <[e-mail]>
Subject: \[EXTERNAL\] RE: \[External\] RE: Decision Letter for TIP I-5898 U.S. 220 at U.S. 311/N.C. 135 Interchange and
Replacement of Bridge #780074

That sounds good to me, Ray. 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
Mobile: [phone]
Office: [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: https://regulatory.ops.usace.army.mil/customer-service-survey/
Thank you for taking the time to visit this site and complete the survey.

From: Bode, Ray <[e-mail]>
Sent: Wednesday, July 6, 2022 12:16 PM
To: Conchilla, Ryan <[e-mail]>; Bailey, David E CIV USARMY CESAW (USA)
<[e-mail]>
Subject: \[URL Verdict: Neutral\]\[Non-DoD Source\] RE: \[External\] RE: Decision Letter for TIP I-5898 U.S. 220 at U.S.
311/N.C. 135 Interchange and Replacement of Bridge #780074

Ryan and Dave
2

I spoke with the engineering folks this morning and, at S5 we should be able to move the silt fence to the west side of
the stream so that the stream is not within the work area and the full length is no longer impacted. There will still be
~100 of temporary impact (we will get a firm measurement) in one spot where the space between the slope and
jurisdictional limit is too tight to install/un-install the fence without workers having to be within the jurisdictional limits
of the channel.
We will revise the plan sheet to show the smaller impact area and put a note on the plan sheet saying something along
the lines of “The proposed temporary impact will be from hand installation of silt fence. Proposed activities will involve
foot traffic only and no machinery will enter the jurisdictional limits. Any change to channel geometry and/or vegetation
will be restored by hand once the installation of the silt fence is complete. Riprap will be installed on the slope by
machine from the work side of the silt fence and no impact to stream is propose from this activity.”

Will that cover the needed information for S5, or is additional detail needed?
Thanks

JMT
Ray Bode, PWS
Direct: 984.269.4923
Mobile: [phone]

From: Conchilla, Ryan <[e-mail]>
Sent: Wednesday, July 6, 2022 11:47 AM
To: Bode, Ray <[e-mail]>
Subject: \[EXTERNAL\] RE: \[External\] RE: Decision Letter for TIP I-5898 U.S. 220 at U.S. 311/N.C. 135 Interchange and
Replacement of Bridge #780074

Sounds good Ray.
Thanks for keeping me posted.

Ryan Conchilla, PWS
Environmental Specialist II
401 and Buffer Transportation Permitting Branch (DOT Divisions 7+8)
Division of Water Resources, NC Department of Environmental Quality
[e-mail]

From: Bode, Ray <[e-mail]>
Sent: Tuesday, July 5, 2022 8:57 AM
To: Conchilla, Ryan <[e-mail]>
Subject: \[External\] RE: Decision Letter for TIP I-5898 U.S. 220 at U.S. 311/N.C. 135 Interchange and Replacement of
Bridge #780074

CAUTION: External email. Do not click links or open attachments unless you verify. Send all suspicious email as an attachment to
Report Spam.

Hi Ryan
Below are the site photos you requested.
Also, I wanted to let you know that Dave and I spoke last week, and we’ve agreed that the 16 lf of impacts proposed at
impact Site S2 (Stream SC Reach 3) and 211 lf of impacts proposed at impact Site S3 (Stream SD Reach 2), occur within
degraded streams (see NCSAM forms attached). Those impacts will be mitigated at a 1:1. Further, the 7 lf of impacts
proposed at impact Site S4 (Stream SD Reach 1) involve rip rap only on the banks (per Permit Drawing Sheets 4 and 5);
and will not require compensatory mitigation. This brings the total stream mitigation need to 227 linear feet.
3

Stream SD Reach 1 at Stream SD Reach 1
Flag SD-02
We also discussed the temporary impacts at S5, and I’m working with the design team to see if the LOD boundary can be
shifted so that the channel is not within the workspace. Regardless, I will get more details to you soon.
Thanks

4

Stream SD Reach 1

JMT
Ray Bode, PWS
Direct: 984.269.4923
Mobile: [phone]

From: Conchilla, Ryan <[e-mail]>
Sent: Thursday, June 23, 2022 3:51 PM
To: Bode, Ray <[e-mail]>
Subject: \[EXTERNAL\] Decision Letter for TIP I-5898 U.S. 220 at U.S. 311/N.C. 135 Interchange and Replacement of Bridge
#780074

Ray,
During further review, additional information is requested regarding the 925ft of temporary impacts proposed at S5.
The construction sequencing of impacts should be provided along with plans for revegetation of the area.
The PCN Application Supplemental Text provided on sheet 24 does not specify what impact activities are anticipated
along S5 beyond those listed in the impact table as roadway fill. Provide further detail on what stormwater control
measures will be used along S5 to minimize impacts from roadway fill beyond those provided on sheet 26.
Provide Photo documentation of the current site conditions along Stream SD Reach 1.

Let me know what questions you have.
Thanks-

Ryan Conchilla, PWS
Environmental Specialist II
401 and Buffer Transportation Permitting Branch (DOT Divisions 7+8)
Division of Water Resources, NC Department of Environmental Quality
[e-mail]

5

From: Bode, Ray <[e-mail]>
Sent: Friday, June 17, 2022 11:06 AM
To: [e-mail]
Cc: Conchilla, Ryan <[e-mail]>
Subject: \[External\] RE: Decision Letter for TIP I-5898 U.S. 220 at U.S. 311/N.C. 135 Interchange and Replacement of
Bridge #780074

CAUTION: External email. Do not click links or open attachments unless you verify. Send all suspicious email as an attachment to
Report Spam.

Thanks Dave.
This is an interchange improvement, so we will be using RGP 50.

Ryan,
What other information is needed?

Thank you

JMT
Ray Bode, PWS
Direct: 984.269.4923
Mobile: [phone]

From: Bailey, David E CIV USARMY CESAW (USA) <[e-mail]>
Sent: Wednesday, June 15, 2022 3:01 PM
To: Bode, Ray <[e-mail]>
Cc: Conchilla, Ryan <[e-mail]>
Subject: \[EXTERNAL\] RE: Decision Letter for TIP I-5898 U.S. 220 at U.S. 311/N.C. 135 Interchange and Replacement of
Bridge #780074

Hi all. Apologies for the delay in my response. I’ve been out of the office and am struggling to catch up. If the project
would fit the description/thresholds of RGP 50 (https://saw-reg.usace.army.mil/RGP/RGP50.pdf) NCDOT has typically
chosen to purse RGP 50 vs. NWP 14, particularly given the changes with the 401 requirements for NWP 14 with the
latest renewal. RGP 50 can generally authorize the following activities for NCDOT projects:
a. (1) Road widening, and/or (2) construction, maintenance, and/or repair of bridges. For bridge projects, work can
include the approaches.
b. (1) Improvement of interchanges or intersections, or (2) construction of interchanges or intersections over, or on,
existing roads.

Make sure you read the full description on pg. 1 and 2 of the terms and conditions linked above.

Ray, you and NCDOT as the applicant will need to confirm which permit you’re pursuing based on the above. The Corps
has no particular preference if the project would fit either permit. Ryan Conchilla (NCDWR) could better advise you of
401 requirements for each, but my understanding is that an Individual 401 WQC would be required if you requested use
of NWP 14, and Water Quality General Cert # 4135 would apply if you requested use of RGP 50 (if it fits, per the above).

Hopefully this helps.

-Dave Bailey
6

---
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
Mobile: [phone]
Office: [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: https://regulatory.ops.usace.army.mil/customer-service-survey/
Thank you for taking the time to visit this site and complete the survey.

From: Bode, Ray <[e-mail]>
Sent: Wednesday, June 15, 2022 11:14 AM
To: Conchilla, Ryan <[e-mail]>; Bailey, David E CIV USARMY CESAW (USA)
<[e-mail]>
Subject: \[URL Verdict: Neutral\]\[Non-DoD Source\] RE: Decision Letter for TIP I-5898 U.S. 220 at U.S. 311/N.C. 135
Interchange and Replacement of Bridge #780074

Hello Ryan and Dave
I’m following back to this.
Dave, please advise on the permit type you would prefer to use for this project - NWP14 or RGP 50. Total stream loss is
234 feet. Total wetland loss is <.01 acres.
Please let me know if anything else is needed from our end. We’d like to get this resolved as soon as we can to keep the
project moving.

Thanks

JMT
Ray Bode, PWS
Direct: 984.269.4923
Mobile: [phone]

From: Bode, Ray
Sent: Monday, June 6, 2022 9:03 AM
To: Conchilla, Ryan <[e-mail]>; Bailey, David E CIV USARMY CESAW (USA)
<[e-mail]>
Subject: RE: Decision Letter for TIP I-5898 U.S. 220 at U.S. 311/N.C. 135 Interchange and Replacement of Bridge #780074

Hi Ryan
My copy of the permit application has a dated signature (attached), not sure why it wasn’t on the one you received.
Please let me know if anything else is needed.
I’m copying Dave here so that he can weigh in on the type 404 permit required or this project – NWP14 or RGP 50. Total
stream loss is 234 feet. Total wetland loss is <.01 acres. Dave, please advise.
Thank you

7

JMT
Ray Bode, PWS
Direct: 984.269.4923
Mobile: [phone]

From: Conchilla, Ryan <[e-mail]>
Sent: Friday, June 3, 2022 1:19 PM
To: Bode, Ray <[e-mail]>
Subject: \[EXTERNAL\] Decision Letter for TIP I-5898 U.S. 220 at U.S. 311/N.C. 135 Interchange and Replacement of Bridge
#780074

Hi Ray,
The PCN submitted on 5-9-22 was incomplete, the heading on page one appears to be blank as well as the signature
page, listing a date of 1-11-22.
If the USACE has reached a decision regarding the NWP 14 or GP 50 selection for the project, please forward that
information.
Thanks-

Ryan Conchilla, PWS
Environmental Specialist II
401 and Buffer Transportation Permitting Branch (DOT Divisions 7+8)
Division of Water Resources, NC Department of Environmental Quality
[e-mail]

From: Bode, Ray <[e-mail]>
Sent: Tuesday, May 31, 2022 1:26 PM
To: Conchilla, Ryan <[e-mail]>
Subject: \[External\] RE: Decision Letter for TIP I-5898 U.S. 220 at U.S. 311/N.C. 135 Interchange and Replacement of
Bridge #780074

CAUTION: External email. Do not click links or open attachments unless you verify. Send all suspicious email as an attachment to
Report Spam.

Thanks Ryan
I’m a little confused what you mean here though. Could you clarify a bit – what is USACE confirming and is something
missing from our end?
Thanks

JMT
Ray Bode, PWS
Direct: 984.269.4923
Mobile: [phone]

From: Conchilla, Ryan <[e-mail]>
Sent: Tuesday, May 31, 2022 11:44 AM
To: Bode, Ray <[e-mail]>
Subject: \[EXTERNAL\] Decision Letter for TIP I-5898 U.S. 220 at U.S. 311/N.C. 135 Interchange and Replacement of Bridge
#780074
8

Hi Ray,
The application is on hold until confirmation is provided by the USACE regarding the 404.

Ryan Conchilla, PWS
Environmental Specialist II
401 and Buffer Transportation Permitting Branch (DOT Divisions 7+8)
Division of Water Resources, NC Department of Environmental Quality
[e-mail]

From: Bode, Ray <[e-mail]>
Sent: Thursday, May 26, 2022 12:17 PM
To: Conchilla, Ryan <[e-mail]>
Subject: FW: \[EXTERNAL\] Decision Letter for TIP I-5898 U.S. 220 at U.S. 311/N.C. 135 Interchange and Replacement of
Bridge #780074

CAUTION: External email. Do not click links or open attachments unless you verify. Send all suspicious email as an attachment to
Report Spam.

Hello Ryan
I received an incomplete application notification for TIP I-5898 (below). I’ve looked over the review form, but am not
seeing information about what is outstanding. Please advise.
Thanks

JMT
Ray Bode, PWS
Direct: 984.269.4923
Mobile: [phone]

This message is intended for the use of the individual or entity to which it is addressed and may contain information that is confidential, privileged and exempt from disclosure
under applicable law. If the reader of this message is not the intended recipient or the employee or agent of the intended recipient, you are hereby notified that any
dissemination, distribution, or copying of this communication is strictly prohibited. If you have received this communication in error, please contact the sender immediately and
delete it from your system.
Thank You.
From: [e-mail] <[e-mail]>
Sent: Thursday, May 26, 2022 11:16 AM
To: Bode, Ray <[e-mail]>
Subject: \[EXTERNAL\] Decision Letter for TIP I-5898 U.S. 220 at U.S. 311/N.C. 135 Interchange and Replacement of Bridge
#780074

We have reviewed for this project and additional information is needed to complete the review of this project a copy of
the letter can be found at the link below. If you have any questions, contact information has been provided in the
decision letter. This project will remain on hold until the information requested has been received.

Project Link: https://edocs.deq.nc.gov/WaterResources/Browse.aspx?dbid=0&startid=2318724
9

To submit the requested information online please go to: http://wv2dnlsfhap02.eapps.ncads.net/Forms/Supplemental-
Information-Form

This email was automatically generated by Laserfiche workflow. Please do not respond to this email address, as
responses aren’t monitored.
10