20140090 Ver 4_Re External RE U-2579B permit site 23B and 28_20180227

Wanucha, Dave
From: Euliss, Amy
Sent: Tuesday, February 27, 2018 12:54 PM
To: Lastinger, James C CIV USARMY CESAW (US); Wanucha, Dave
Cc: Roden Reynolds, Bryan K CIV (US); Archer Sr, Wright; Matthews, Monte K CIV USARMY CESAW (US)
Subject: Re: [External] RE: U-2579B permit site 23B and 28_
We anticipate it being a process to modify the permit. We will be happy to meet on-site to discuss. We are really pinched in
with the series of ponds, so relocation would be quite difficult. I haven't revisited the CP3 decision, but can do that before we
meet. Revisiting it might be problematic since the project was part of a larger project but not permitted that way.
Let me know when would be a good time for you to meet us out there.
Get Outlook for iOS
From: Lastinger, James C CIV USARMY CESAW (US) <[e-mail]>
Sent: Tuesday, February 27, 2018 12:37:37 PM
To: Euliss, Amy; Wanucha, Dave
Cc: Roden Reynolds, Bryan K CIV (US); Archer Sr, Wright; Matthews, Monte K CIV USARMY CESAW (US)
Subject: [External] RE: U-2579B permit site 23B and 28
CAUTION: External email. Do not click links or open attachments unless verified. Send all suspicious email as an attachment to
Report Spam.<mailto:report.spam@nc.�ov>
Amy,
I have to admit this is modification would be a pretty big deal, and not something that can be accomplished quickly. Permit
modifications, in particular, are very time consuming and problematic for all concerned parties due to the relatively short
timeframe required for resolution. The CP3 LEDPA decision would need to be reconfirmed, an addendum to the EA would need
to written, and the modification would mostly likely need to go back out on public notice due the large increase in impact
amounts at this specific location. The burden would also be on DOT to demonstrate why these impacts are no longer avoidable
as I assume the retaining walls were proposed and discussed at CP2A as an avoidance and minimization measure and further
refined at CP 4A, 4B, and 4C.
I would almost rather see the channel moved back over away from the fill slope and the retaining wall constructed as proposed
in the original IP. I would also like to schedule a time when we can meet out in the field to look at and discuss the issue at this
particular site.
James Lastinger
Regulatory Project Manager
Raleigh Regulatory Field Office
US Army Corps of Engineers, Wilmington District
ADDRESS: 3331 Heritage Trade Drive, Suite 105 Wake Forest, NC 27587
Tel: [phone], x32
Cell: [phone]
Fax: [phone]
-----Original Message-----
From: Euliss, Amy [mailto:aeuliss@ncdot.�ov]
Sent: Monday, February 26, 2018 3:30 PM
To: Lastinger, James C CIV USARMY CESAW (US) <[e-mail]>; Wanucha, Dave

<[e-mail]>
Cc: Roden Reynolds, Bryan K CIV (US) <[e-mail]>; Archer Sr, Wright <[e-mail]>
Subject: [Non-DoD Source] U-2579B permit site 23B and 28
On the U-2579B project, Smith Creek parallels existing I-40 Business in a steep ravine with unstable banks. On the opposite side
of Smith Creek there are a series of fish hatchery ponds. The permitted plan in the area is install rock plating involving a
retaining wall with soil nails. Since the project was permitted, Smith Creek has migrated closer to the proposed fill slope. The
Division is concerned about the constructability and long term stability of the wall, and the long term impacts to sedimentation
into Smith Creek. We permitted for 388' of permanent impacts and 188' of temporary impacts to Smith Creek at site 28 and
135' of permanent at site 23B. In discussing internally with our Hydraulics Unit and Division Construction, we believe our best
option long term for stability and maintenance of the transportation system would be to culvert the entire reach from the
existing culvert at site 23B until the end of existing site 28. I went back and reviewed the 4B and 4C minutes on the project to
see how, and the team was also concerned about the long term stability at the site.
Before we put a design on paper, we wanted to let you know what we were looking at and get your input. I'm thinking
permanent impacts from the outlet of the existing culvert to the end of site 28 would be approximately 770'. We would propose
mitigation for all new permanent (previously unmitigated) impacts. Please let me know your thoughts and/or concerns as soon
as possible so we can proceed with planning. Thanks.
I've attached a copy of the permitted drawings for this site for your reference.
Amy Euliss
Division 9 Environmental Officer
North Carolina Department of Transportation
336 747 7802 office
[e-mail] <mailto:aeuliss@ncdot.�ov>
375 Silas Creek Parkway
Winston Salem, NC 27127-7167

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