20130223 Ver 6_U-2524D permit mod info request SAW-2001-21125_20160711

Wrenn, Brian L
From:Bailey, David E SAW <[e-mail]>
Sent:Monday, July 11, 2016 12:05 PM
To:Cheely, Erin K
Cc:Wrenn, Brian L; Mellor, Colin; Dagnino, Carla S
Subject:RE: U-2524D permit mod info request; SAW-2001-21125
Thanks Erin. No, we won't advertise Sites 11 and 12 for Public Notice in this case. It's already been on PN and the Public
chose to have no comments about it. Thanks for the information and I'll look for more updated stuff this week.
-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]

The Wilmington District is committed to providing the highest level of support to the public. To help us ensure we
continue to do so, please complete the Customer Satisfaction Survey located at
http://corpsmapu.usace.army.mil/cm_apex/f?p=136:4:0.

-----Original Message-----
From: Cheely, Erin K \[mailto:[e-mail]\]
Sent: Friday, July 08, 2016 4:09 PM
To: Bailey, David E SAW <[e-mail]>
Cc: Wrenn, Brian L <[e-mail]>; Mellor, Colin <[e-mail]>; Dagnino, Carla S
<[e-mail]>
Subject: \[EXTERNAL\] RE: U-2524D permit mod info request; SAW-2001-21125

Dave,

I have some answers for you with regard to #1 that I will also try to incorporate in the Updated/Modified Modification
memo I will hopefully get to you early next week (I'm aiming for Monday afternoon or Tuesday).

1) Yes, yes, yes, yes, and no. All of those measures also apply to the D section, with the exception of the pre-formed
scour holes. All 4 of those are in the C section and there are none in the D Section. Mark said that technically it is
accurate to say DSSW apply through the entire project and he clarified that extra provisions for ESA will apply to the
tribs of Horsepen Creek, since it is CA. As a side note, it appears Site 2 is a trib to Horsepen Creek, not Richland. I will
verify and make any necessary changes in the memo next week.

2) I will update Table 5 as appropriate in the memo next week.

1

We have (somehow on a Friday afternoon) managed to talk with Hydro, Roadway and Contracts with regard to how to
handle Sites 11 and 12 in terms of construction timing and advertisement. Apparently we have to talk with Traffic
Management on Monday to see if somebody can give the reason for the inclusion of these sites and whether or not they
can just be kicked down the road entirely to include with the full phased mod for U-2525C. If not, the logistics of trying
to advertise this work along with U-2524D might be super tricky, depending on ROW acquisition and rushing the other
mod for advertising.

If we did have to rush a sort of early partial phased mod for sites 11 and 12 for U-2525C, that would not need to go on
public notice, correct? I was looking through the preliminary plans for U-2525C submitted back in 2013, and Site 12 is
depicted on Sheet 23. The Site 11 wetland (albeit shaped differently before the JD reverification) is shown as outside of
the U-2525C project limits (on Sheet 24) and unimpacted.

Brian,

Thanks so much for issuing the 401 so quickly. However, I think that once I submit the updated/modified modification
memo next week, this will require updating the 401 to match the 404 and not include sites 11 and 12 as I discussed with
Monte and Dave this afternoon. Do you think there will be any issue with that?

Thanks so much for everybody's hard work, erin

-----Original Message-----
From: Bailey, David E SAW \[mailto:[e-mail]\]
Sent: Friday, July 08, 2016 10:35 AM
To: Cheely, Erin K <[e-mail]>
Cc: Wrenn, Brian L <[e-mail]>
Subject: U-2524D permit mod info request; SAW-2001-21125

Hi Erin. A few things I need clarification on and one item to clarify for you for the above referenced project:

1) Are the following avoidance and minimization items from the original permit still proposed:
-Utilization NCDOT's Best Management Practices (BMPs) for the protection of surface waters; -Use of Design Standards
in Sensitive Watersheds throughout the project; -Minimization of wetland and stream impacts through the proposed
construction of 2:1 slopes where practicable; -Design of ditches with diffuse flow and velocity reducing discharge points
where they drain directly into wetlands; -Use of pre-formed scour holes at four (4) locations;

2) As we discussed on the phone the other day, Permit Site 7 is a low quality stream according to the Corps' SQAW form.
As such, we will only require 1:1 mitigation for that 291 l.f. culvert impact.

Thanks, and please respond as soon as you can.

-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.
2

Fax: [phone]
Email: [e-mail]

The Wilmington District is committed to providing the highest level of support to the public. To help us ensure we
continue to do so, please complete the Customer Satisfaction Survey located at
Blockedhttp://corpsmapu.usace.army.mil/cm_apex/f?p=136:4:0.

________________________________

Email correspondence to and from this sender is subject to the N.C. Public Records Law and may be disclosed to third
parties.

3