20191029 Ver 1_Email_20190910

Carpenter, Kristi
From: Rivenbark, Chris
Sent: Tuesday, September 17, 2019 2:33 PM
To: Lastinger, James C CIV USARMY CESAW (USA); Matthews, Monte K CIV USARMY
CESAW (USA)
Cc: Ridings, Rob; Riffey, Deanna; Dagnino, Carla S
Subject: RE: [External] I-5700
Attachments: I-5700 GP 31 Additional Info GP31.pdf, I-5700 - RW - NS 01.pdf
James,
Our response is attached. Thank you both for your help with this one and let us know if you have any questions.
Chris Rivenbark
NCDOT- Environmental Analysis Unit
[phone]
-----Original Message -----
From: Matthews, Monte K CIV USARMY CESAW (USA) <[e-mail]>
Sent: Thursday, September 12, 2019 1:55 PM
To: Dagnino, Carla S <[e-mail]>
Cc: Lastinger, James C CIV USARMY CESAW (USA) <[e-mail]>; Rivenbark, Chris
<[e-mail]>; Riffey, Deanna <[e-mail]>
Subject: [External] I-5700
CAUTION: External email. Do not click links or open attachments unless you verify. Send all suspicious email as an
attachment to [e-mail]<maiIto: [e-mail]>
Hi Carla -
Thanks for the clarification on the plan scales, it helped to determine which impacts are separate and distant enough to
consider them as an independent crossing. Here is what I have determined:
1) All 4 quadrants of the interchange act together and therefore the impacts must be cumulative. We must also include
any impacts that are close enough to the interchange as to be influenced by changes to the interchange. Stated another
way, if you tweak the interchange design (through avoidance and minimization) would it alter the next impact because
of their close proximity. For example, Site 5D is only a couple of hundred feet from the interchange, then only 200 more
feet to Sites 5E, 813, and 8A (and on the same stream). Their close proximity could make the argument that they would
influence the other through a design change. This is a very hard determination to make, especially on a project like this
with several small impacts scattered around. The impacts that I've grouped into the broader definition of the
interchange (due to proximity of impacts) would be: 5A, 5C, 413, 4, 6, 813, 8A, 5E, 9, 213, 313, 3A, 2A, 5D, and 7. If I've done
my math correctly, this is 489 linear feet of permanent stream loss (not bank stabilization or temporary impact).
2) Site 1 is far enough removed from other impacts (about 1,200 feet) to act independently. This impact is 20 linear feet
of stream loss.
3) 4) Site 10A, 1013, and 10C are far enough removed (approximately 1,000 feet) from the interchange and the other
impacts to act independently. Together, their cumulative loss is 57 linear feet.

4) Site 11, 11A, and 12 are far enough removed from the interchange and the other impacts (about 1,300 feet from sites
10) to act independently. Together, their cumulative loss is 45 linear feet.
Please realize that this is a very tough project for this type of exercise.... since every project brings a different scenario, a
project specific decision is warranted. Other projects may not be able to separate impacts to the extent that they fit
within the General Permits.
Also, please double check that I've added correctly and not made a simple mathematical error, or inadvertently missed
an impact site.
Thanks -
Monte
Monte Matthews
Regulatory Division
Wilmington District, USACE
[phone] X31
Email correspondence to and from this sender is subject to the N.C. Public Records Law and may be disclosed to third
parties.