20170239 Ver 1_Question regarding 72 CSP on SR 1921 - U-3109A_20180226

Carpenter,Kristi
From:
Sent:
To:
Cc:
Subject:
Attachments:
Dave and April-
Mason, James S
Monday, February 26, 2018 11:04 AM
Bailey, David E CIV USARMY CESAW (US)
Norton, Apri) R
RE: [External] RE: Question regarding 72" CSP on SR
1921 (Mebane Rogers/Stage Coach Rd) - U-3109A
U3109A_Permit Package_l6 10 05.pdf
Attached is the proposed design for the culvert replacement that was originally included
in the U-3109A design before it was removed. Hydro believes that this will likely be what
is installed, or something close to this. The preliminary impacts are highlighted in yellow
below:
�i�� ��,�i��
I��a. �I�"�r���n����
1� 1'7���-�'���� -"r"����,-
� �' �����" -�"�'��
�t��w���uu��
�i�.� � ����
���� f�,��'.
'� � ����"' ����
�1��������� �1���11�,1��
I�^�rr�n��rr��n�� °�
�ill V��
'�"�t��rm�� "�
After discussion with the Division, it appears that this will likely be done now as part of
the Section B contract rather than the A, but likely later on in the process. Based on
when we plan to submit the Section B phased modification request, I do not believe that
the design on this culvert replacement would be completed at that time. With this now
being part of the Section B contract and knowing what the estimated impacts would be,
would a NWP 3 still be a possibility or would you rather have this done as a modification
to Section B?
April, as we discussed earlier today, since the site was not part of the Alternative 9
LEDPA or CP 4A design, NCDOT is assuming that this site is not exempt from the buffer
rules like the remainder of the project and is planning on providing buffer impacts for
the site in whichever permit we request.
If you could email me back when you have an opportunity regarding the permit type it
would be much appreciated.
Thanks,
Jim
1

Permanen� iemp- Euava�ion Mec�anlzaa CleeMg Permanen� Temp. C�ennel CM1ennel NeNrel
SIR SG�lon S�mGure Flllln Flllln In Qearing m SW SW Impacls ImpaGs S�ream
No. (Fmm/To) Slze/Type We�lentls We�lanOs Wellan0.v InWeYentls Wellands Impacts Impects Permanen� Temp. �esign

-----Original Message-----
From: Bailey, David E CIV USARMY CESAW (US)
[mailto:[e-mail]]
Sent: Friday, February 23, 2018 9:06 AM
To: Mason, James S<[e-mail]>; Norton, April R<[e-mail]>
Subject: [External] RE: Question regarding 72" CSP on SR 1921 (Mebane Rogers/Stage
Coach Rd) - U-3109A
CAUTION: External email. Do not click links or open attachments unless verified. Send all
suspicious email as an attachment to Report Spam.<mailto:[e-mail]>
Hi Jim, and thanks for the email/explanation. If the reason for replacing the culvert is
due to its current deteriorated condition, and the footprint of the new proposed culvert
would be basically in the same place, and length of the proposed culvert is justifiable
based on the current facility rather than the proposed facility, then it seems logical that
the culvert replacement could be done under a NWP 3 as a single and complete project.
Whether or not that would require notification through a PCN depends on the proposed
replacement structure. Are there any preliminary impact estimates?
-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: Mason, James S [mailto:[e-mail]]
Sent: Wednesday, February 21, 2018 12:51 PM
To: Bailey, David E CIV USARMY CESAW (US) <[e-mail]>;
Norton, April R <[e-mail]>
Subject: [Non-DoD Source] Question regarding 72" CSP on SR 1921 (Mebane
Rogers/Stage Coach Rd) - U-3109A
Dave and April-

Per the group discussion at the CP 4C meeting last week for U-3109B, Congestion
Management reviewed the possibility about whether the culvert on Mebane Rogers
Rd/Stage Coach Rd would need to be impacted due to the need to add a turn lane. This
was in the footprint of U-3109A, but we were not sure whether we would request a
modification to the A Section or include any potential work as part of the B Section.
They have reviewed the project design and have determined the following:
"The current design on the A section on a westbound approach of Mebane Rogers Rd.
consisting of a single left turn lane, a thru lane, and a right turn lane (3 lanes total)
should be sufficient based on the 2040 forecast. Even if there is excessive queueing in
the future, this can be mitigated by having the through lane share a left or right and the
current proposed design on the A section already has a through lane shared with a left
turn. Based on these recommendations, the existing 72" CSP will not need to be
impacted and the culvert design will not need to be added to the B section (or the A
section) as we discussed during the meeting last week."
Therefore, there is no plan to impact the culvert due to the addition of a turn lane to the
project. However, the culvert condition has been assessed recently and it is not in good
condition. Therefore, the Division would now like to replace the culvert due to its
deteriorated condition rather than due to congestion management-related issues. If
NCDOT were to replace this culvert, I wanted to ask whether it would be acceptable to
permit this as a permit modification to Section A of the project?
If you could email me back when you have an opportunity it would be much
appreciated.
Thanks,
�i'i'�1
���i"17�.7�
Environmental Program Consultant
Environmental Coordination and Permitting - Western Region
Environmental Analysis Unit
North Carolina Department of Transportation

919 707 6136 office
704 604 8358 mobile
[e-mail] <mailto:[e-mail]>
1598 Mail Service Center
Raleigh, NC 27699 -1598
1020 Birch Ridge Drive
Raleigh, NC 27610
Email correspondence to and from this sender is subject to the N.C. Public Records Law
and may be disclosed to third parties.