20161033 Ver 1_More Info Received - Email_20161122 (42)

Strickland, Bev
From:Tomas Will <[e-mail]>
Sent:Tuesday, November 22, 2016 6:38 PM
To:Dailey, Samantha J CIV USARMY CESAW (US); Smith, Cherri L
Cc:Jim Spangler; '[e-mail]'; John Spurrell; Ryan Akers; Brian Purdy
Subject:RE: SAW-2016-01345 Waterstone NWP 29
Ms. Dailey, as we discussed on the phone earlier today, I have provided a detailed avoidance and minimization narrative
that I believe will address the questions that you had and will add some clarity to our process for reducing impacts to
jurisdictional resources. If you have any questions or would benefit from clarification, please do not hesitate to ask. If
possible, I would appreciate it if both you and Ms. Smith could confirm whether or not your concerns have been
addressed once you have had time to review the attached documentation.

I have also included a revised impact table which corrects some typos in the original, please use the attached revised
impact table for your records.

Tomas Will
Environmental Project Scientist
Spangler Environmental, Inc.
www.SpanglerEnvironmental.com
Raleigh Office 919-875-4288
4338 Bland Road
Raleigh, NC 27609
This e-mail transmission (and any attachments thereto) is confidential and privileged. It is intended only for viewing by
the entity to which it is addressed. This document and attachments may contain information subject to attorney work-
product doctrines or attorney-client privilege. If you are not the addressee, your disclosure, copying, distribution or use
of the contents of this message for any purpose is prohibited. If you have received this message in error, please notify
the sender by return e-mail.

-----Original Message-----
From: Dailey, Samantha J CIV USARMY CESAW (US) \[mailto:[e-mail]\]
Sent: Tuesday, November 22, 2016 8:43 AM
To: Tomas Will <[e-mail]>
Cc: Smith, Cherri L <[e-mail]>
Subject: SAW-2016-01345 Waterstone NWP 29

Good morning Tomas,

I have several concerns with the proposed project as it stands. The PCN states that the proposed project would impact
0.31 acres of wetland, which is approximately half of the wetlands on-site. Additionally, the PCN application states that
various site layouts were explored and that the final design was chosen based on minimization of impacts to wetlands.
Please further explain how impacts to wetlands on-site were avoided and minimized, and provide any previous layouts
that were evaluated. As it stands, there appear to be areas where additional avoidance and minimization can be further
implemented (i.e., eliminating the construction of 2-3 units and re-designing Street B would significantly reduce impacts
to waters of the United States). If the project is constructed according to the submitted plan, please explain how
impacts to Wetland I will not impede on the jurisdictional connection to the downstream tributary system. If the surface
connection is lost, and the feature is no longer jurisdictional, then all of Wetland I would be considered a loss. Lastly, 2h.
1

of the PCN states that a wetland impact table is attached, however I was unable to located this information. Please
provide a copy of the wetland impact table.

In order for the Corps to evaluate a project under the nationwide permitting process we must be able to justify that
impacts to waters of the United States were avoided and minimized to the maximum extent practical. Upon receipt of
your additional information, I will continue processing your permit application.

If you have any questions please do not hesitate to contact me.

Thank you,
Samantha

Samantha Dailey
Regulatory Specialist
U.S. Army Corps of Engineers
Regulatory Division
3331 Heritage Trade Drive, Suite 105
Wake Forest, NC 27587
[phone], Ext. Ext. 22

2