20071840 Ver 1_Email_20071207 (2)

Re [Fwd B-4281, Dan River Stokes Co ]
Subject: Re [Fwd B-4281, Dan River Stokes Co ]
From: Sue Homewood <Sue Homewood@ncmail net>
Date: Fri, 07 Dec 2007 13 06 21 -0500
To: Brian Wrenn <bnan wrenn@ncmail net>
ok, i guess there have been some meetings i wasn't involved in I think i rememberjohn mentioning
that I'm not trying to hang on to things now that I'm not the DOT person, but I will say that I'm listed on
the formal appeal of the stokes bridge If it should go to through appeal and I end up before a judge or
lawyers etc, I would like to be sure I was aware of everything that DOT and DWQ discussed So for that
reason I would appreciate staying involved in the one bridge I did work on and any meetings that are
scheduled to discuss that project or negotiations on that project As for the others, I'm here and happy to
stay involved and help if you'd like(i'm suffering from not having the previous employee handy to ask
historical questions and very sensitive to it right now) And will try to share comments that came up
during my bridge project that may help us or not Dust wanted to bring up that decisions now might hurt
our appeal if we don't have clear lines of distinction why one is different from the other Glad to hear we
do I guess I feel like if we give DOT an inch they are going to demand a mile as usual At least if we
give the inch, lets make them work hard for it
Sue Homewood
NC DENR Winston-Salem Regional Office
Division of Water Quality
585 Waughtown Street
Winston-Salem, NC 27107
Voice [phone]
FAX [phone]
On 12/7/2007 12 59 PM, Brian Wrenn wrote
My understanding on the difference between the other Stokes Co bridge and this one is the habitat
Although a similar assemblage is present apparently the habitat on this Stokes co project is not as
good this was discussed at one of the meetings on your original stokes co project not sure how
different the habitat is, but it was enough to deem mentioning
Sue Homewood wrote
This is similar to what Marla put together for that other bridge in Stokes I think if we were
willing to go forward with that one and back off this one without a clear difference, it will
weaken our case on mine (in my opinion) I know in the other stokes bridge project, many of
the fish were host species to many of the mussels, so the fish might not be listed species but the
mussels were and they needed the fish also, marla did a good fob showing that many of the
fish life cycles are extremely short 1-3 years, so a disruption of even one breeding season could
be very detrimental to the population, unlike fish that live 20 years etc
again, not sure if you have this project or david, but i would like to stay involved please
Original Message
1 of 2 9/15/2008 2 58 PM
Re [Fwd B-4281, Dan River Stokes Co ]
Subject B-4281, Dan River Stokes Co
Date Fri, 7 Dec 2007 12 15 34 -0500
From marla chambers <marla chamberset?ctc net>
To 'Easterly, Sara E ' <seeasterly(a?dot state nc us>, 'Lusk, Elizabeth Lee'
<ellusk@!dot state nc us>, 'Dagnmo, Carla S ' <cdagnino(a dot state nc us>
CC 'Thomas, John T ,JR' <John T Thomas JRpsaw02 usace army mll>, 'Homewood, Sue'
<Sue Homewood(a'?ncmail net>
Here is the spreadsheet of fish and mussel species in the project area, as
we discussed earlier I'm looking forward to receiving your detailed info
on the cost increase and time delay that you indicated you would provide
I'll be sending written comments on the project next week
Marla Chambers
Western NCDOT Permit Coordinator
NC Wildlife Resources Commission
12275 Swift Rd
Oakboro, NC 28129
marla chambers(c';ctc net
phone (cell) 704-984-1070
Sue Homewood
NC DENR Winston-Salem Regional Office
Division of Water Quality 585 Waughtown Street
Winston-Salem, NC 27107
Voice [phone]
FAX [phone]
2 of 2 9/15/2008 2 58 PM