RE_ _External_ FW_ USACE review of PCN for U-5312_ Wilkes Co_

Wanucha, Dave
From: Hining, Kevin J
Sent: Thursday, March 30, 2023 12:35 PM
To: Beckwith, Loretta A CIV USARMY CESAW (USA)
Cc: Wanucha, Dave
Subject: RE: [External] FW: USACE review of PCN for U-5312, Wilkes Co.
Sounds good - thanks!
From: Beckwith, Loretta A CIV USARMY CESAW (USA) <[e-mail]>
Sent: Thursday, March 30, 2023 12:30 PM
To: Hining, Kevin J <[e-mail]>
Cc: Wanucha, Dave <[e-mail]>
Subject: RE: [External] FW: USACE review of PCN for U-5312, Wilkes Co.
CAUTION: External email. Do not click links or open attachments unless you verify. Send all suspicious email as an attachment to
Report Spam.
Hi Kevin,
Thanks for talking to me about this.
As we just discussed, since geotextile fabric will be used under the two rip rap areas,
mitigation will be required for those areas, as well as the pipe extensions/placement.
So please provide mitigation for 389' at a 2.1 ratio.
Regards,
Lori
From: Beckwith, Loretta A CIV USARMY CESAW (USA) <[e-mail]>
Sent: Thursday, March 30, 2023 11:29 AM
To: Wanucha, Dave <[e-mail]>
Cc: Hining, Kevin J <[e-mail]>
Subject: RE: [External] FW: USACE review of PCN for U-5312, Wilkes Co.
CAUTION: External email. Do not click links or open attachments unless you verify. Send all suspicious email as an attachment to
Report Spam.
Hi Dave,
I try to always ask this when rip rap will be placed on the stream bed to prevent any issues. I've seen
other projects (usually in divisions other than 11 and 13) where the rip rap wasn't embedded and then
NCDOT had to go back and do it, which can be problematic due to site accessibility, cost, etc. RGP
50 special condition d.(1) for culverts and pipes (and I would include outlet pads) notes that: "No
1

activity may result in substantial, permanent disruption of the movement of those species of aquatic
life indigenous to the waterbody, including those species that normally migrate through the area.
Measures will be included that will promote the safe passage of fish and other aquatic organisms..."
and special condition "n" notes "...The activity must not restrict or impede the passage of normal or
high flows..."
I can't think of when it shouldn't be done, but again, I've seen cases where it wasn't.
Many factors go into whether or not we'll require compensatory mitigation for such work — length of
fill, purpose, need, etc., but in this case, we've determined that compensatory mitigation will not be
required for the outlet work.
Make sense?
Regards,
Lori
From: Wanucha, Dave <[e-mail]>
Sent: Thursday, March 30, 2023 9:34 AM
To: Hining, Kevin J <[e-mail]>; Beckwith, Loretta A CIV USARMY CESAW (USA)
<[e-mail]>
Subject: [Non-DoD Source] RE: [External] FW: USACE review of PCN for U-5312, Wilkes Co.
Quick question on embedding riprap. I thought that embedding riprap in the streambed was a
standard practice. When would DOT not embed and why does the Corps need to make that
distinction? For mitigation?
Dave Wanucha
Environmentol Speciolist 11
Transportation Permitting Branch for NCDOT Divisions 9 and 11
Division of Water Resources, Department of Environmental Quality
Office/Cell: [phone]
[e-mail]
D7,-. E Q
NORTH CAROLINA
Department of Environmental Duality
Email correspondence to and from this address is subject to the North
Carolina Public Records Law and may be disclosed to third parties.
From: Hining, Kevin J <[e-mail]>
Sent: Wednesday, March 29, 2023 6:02 PM
To: Beckwith, Loretta A CIV USARMY CESAW (USA) <[e-mail]>

Cc: Wanucha, Dave <[e-mail]>
Subject: RE: [External] FW: USACE review of PCN for U-5312, Wilkes Co.
Hey Lori,
RGP 50 sounds good - thanks!
Below are my responses to your questions. I'm seeking additional information on one of them (checking on new traffic
data), but should have that information soon.
Thanks again to both of you for working with us on the time crunch!! Don't hesitate to ask for anything — whatever I can
do to help, I'm happy to do.
Kevin
From: Beckwith, Loretta A CIV USARMY CESAW (USA) <[e-mail]>
Sent: Wednesday, March 29, 2023 1:43 PM
To: Hining, Kevin J <[e-mail]>
Cc: Wanucha, Dave <[e-mail]>
Subject: [External] FW: USACE review of PCN for U-5312, Wilkes Co.
CAUTION: External email. Do not click links or open attachments unless you verify. Send all suspicious email as an attachment to
Report Spam.
just talked to Monte — we'll process this project under RGP 50.
Thanks!
From: Beckwith, Loretta A CIV USARMY CESAW (USA)
Sent: Wednesday, March 29, 2023 12:59 PM
To: Hining, Kevin J <[e-mail]>
Cc: Wanucha, Dave <[e-mail]>
Subject: FW: USACE review of PCN for U-5312, Wilkes Co.
Hello again,
apologize but I left out one question.
12. Please provide the engineering rationale for such large outlet pads/stabilization at
Sites 1 and 5 (especially Site 1). Also, will the rip rap for all outlet stabilization on the
project be embedded?
The two rip rap pads were installed to prevent scour, and were based on the 10-year
anticipated velocities (Site 1 = 15 ft/s, Site 2 = 22 ft/s). I've been told, that a general rule for
these outlet pads is that the length is approximately 3 X the pipe width. I double checked, and
seems like they are using a similar formula. The combined width of the two culverts at Site 1
was 132" = 11' x 3 = 33'. The length of the proposed rip rap pad is 35, but my bet is the
3

difference is because the creek does turn a little. Similarly, at Site 5, the combined width of
the two culverts was 22' x 3 = 66'. Likewise, not exactly the same as the outlet pad length
(57'), but close.
And, they are planning to embed the rip rap into the streambed at both sites.
Regards,
Lori
From: Beckwith, Loretta A CIV USARMY CESAW (USA)
Sent: Wednesday, March 29, 2023 12:48 PM
To: Hining, Kevin J <[e-mail]>
Cc: Wanucha, Dave <[e-mail]>
Subject: USACE review of PCN for U-5312, Wilkes Co.
Hi Kevin,
reviewed the PCN package for the U-5312 project and have the following comments
and questions-
1 . In answer to your comment in the cover letter, yes - please consult with the USFWS
since you're representing the lead federal agency/the FHWA. I would do this now to
give them as much time as possible to process your concurrence request - you
shouldn't need to wait until you have the answers to all my questions below to do
this. Re what I need — please copy me on what you submit to them in your
concurrence request and then send me a copy of their concurrence letter, as I'll
need the concurrence letter before I can issue any authorization.
Sounds good I sent Holland and Lauren an email Monday, and they said they would respond
as soon as possible. I'm assuming we will probably agree to about anything we can that they
request, given the urgency. We are definitely ok with the tree cutting moratorium, and I told
them I'm happy to check all the pipes. However, we will possibly have night work and possibly
some small, underground blasting since work involves some long bore and jacks (assuming
they may hit rock...). But, any blasting would have to be small scale since we'd be blasting
under the roadway. Regardless, I'll keep you posted and will get you my concurrence request
and their response soon.
2. 1 need to talk to Monte about using RGP 50 for this project. I'll get back with you both
as soon as possible about this.
3. Prior project history? The PCN notes that no permits have been obtained previously
for this project. Why does it have a 2012 file number then? I'm working on getting the
old file...
4

I discussed this with the project manager, and our guess is it could be from work done on
other areas of US 421— we had a project several miles (10-15 miles) to the west several years
ago, as well as some work to a couple on -ramps 1-2 miles to the east — but to our knowledge,
nothing tied to/within or immediately adjacent to this project. But, let me know if you find
something, or need more information and I'll do some more digging.
4. Since the CE was signed in 2015 and uses traffic data from 2012 to support the
need, does NCDOT or the FHWA plan on doing an update to this document? I don't
remember what they call this update process (consultation maybe - which is
confusing). Especially since the purpose of the project (per the CE — Section 1.2), is
to improve the traffic carrying capacity of US 421 by providing movement Level of
Service (LOS) of D or better in the design year and the traffic data may have
changed ... If not, please provide rationale that supports using 11-year-old traffic data
to support the need.
Our consultant is working on a Consultation to the CE and hope to have it this week. I also
emailed them and passed along your question concerning the traffic information. I told them
we needed new data or a good justification for using the old data.
5. Section 3.19 of the CE — "Relocation of gas, electric, telephone, CATV, water, and
sewer lines will be required with this project." Will any of these relocations impact
waters of the U.S.? If so, are they included in the impacts in the PCN?
I talked to our utility engineer today and sounds like there are no utility impacts planned — the
streams are pretty far down the slope, under a bunch of fill, so all the utilities are up high
along the roadway or above ground all together. And, our one wetland didn't have any
utilities in or over it, so no wetland related hand or mechanized clearing for utilities
needed. I'm going to meet in person with him tomorrow morning and double check, but
unless you hear from me later tomorrow, then no utility impacts.
6. Plans — the outlet of Stream SC — I'm unclear on the outlet situation.
No instream impacts proposed (no rip rap pad), but there are a few areas at
stormwater pipe outlets (one at inlet side — site 2, and three at outlet side — site 2A)
where we will add rock to the stream bank, to prevent stormwater erosion at the
stormwater pipe outlets. I labeled all of these as bank stabilization (15' at site 2 and
25' at site 2A), but I suppose rip rap on the embankment might be a better
wording? I can relabel that if needed. Let me know if more information is needed.
7. How would the pipe extension and fill affect the rest of the wetland at Site 7? Please
provide rationale.
5

I discussed this with the consultant a couple of weeks back (Heather Smith with
VHB) and she was confident that the wetland is mainly fed by groundwater and
rainwater. I also visited the site and agree. It's almost like an old pond/basin, and
while I think it's a nice wetland, the portion we are impacting is drier/marginal
compared to the other portions of the wetland. Originally, they were going to put a
rock line ditch in the corner of the wetland to keep the toe of the road shoulder/
embankment dry, but we did fear that could change it/drain it, so we took it
out. Happy to provide more info if needed.
8. 1 calculated 380' of stream impacts that requires mitigation (permanent loss) but
may have missed something. You have 389' in the cover letter. Please double check
and obtain an acceptance letter for mitigation for the correct amount at a 2.1 ratio
and forward that letter. As for wetland mitigation, if your answer to #6 above is that
the rest of the wetland won't be affected, then please obtain the wetland mitigation
you have listed (0.12 acre). If more of the wetland will be affected, please provide
details.
I'll work on getting the mitigation this week. I keep coming up with 389, so will stick with that,
and assuming my answer for question #7 was ok, then I'll stick with 0.12 acres of wetland
mitigation.
9. If WRC has unusual recommendations or comments, I'll have additional questions.
I spoke to Dave McHenry today and told him I'd make sure he had a chance to
review. If he doesn't get the info via Laserfiche then I'll send him the materials to
review. Sounded like he could do a quick turnaround. No trout on this one, so that's
good.
10. Please forward the tribal letters that you just sent out and any responses once
the 30-day period is up.
Sounds good - I'll combine all the letters and responses into one document.
11. Early May should work (May 5?), but in order to issue authorization for this
project I'll need everything I've mentioned above.
Just let me know if you have any questions.
Regards,
Lori
Lori Beckwith
Regulatory Project Manager
A

U.S. Army Corps of Engineers
Wilmington District
WRDA Branch / Transportation Permitting
828-271-7980, ext. 4223
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.