20140090 Ver 7_Permit Mod information_20191031

Wanucha, Dave
From:Braspennickx, Nicholle M CIV USARMY CESAW (US)
<[e-mail]>
Sent:Thursday, October 31, 2019 9:06 AM
To:Chambers, Marla J; Wanucha, Dave
Subject:\[External\] FW: Can you get a map of the catfish pond area?
Attachments:Smith Creek and Ponds.JPG
CAUTION: External email. Do not click links or open attachments unless you verify. Send all suspicious email as an
attachment to [e-mail]<mailto:[e-mail]>

This is a great areal to have in your file for U 2579B if you don't have it already.. It makes discussing it w/ people that
haven't been in the field to see it - A LOT easier..

Thank you !

Sincerely,

Nicholle B.
704-510-0162

-----Original Message-----
From: Turchy, Michael A \[mailto:[e-mail]\]
Sent: Thursday, September 19, 2019 7:02 PM
To: Braspennickx, Nicholle M CIV USARMY CESAW (US) <[e-mail]>
Subject: \[Non-DoD Source\] RE: Can you get a map of the catfish pond area?

The title of this email is: Can you get a map of the catfish pond area - I'd like to be able to show folks where this is on
google earth so they can see what I'm talking about. Even just a good vicinity map could help. Right now - I'm not even
sure what road is up against the property.

Sure!

I've attached a google map screen capture, which actually seems to display things the best.

Also, here's the coordinates that you can copy and paste into google:

36.112334, -80.118876

1

At our weekly meeting, I expressed all of your concerns and stressed the reminder of the cost of this activity versus the
POTENTIAL benefit.

Here was the response, which I wish had been better articulated up front...

As you know, the two options at this site are:

1. Build the long parallel culvert or

2. Attempt natural stream design.

1. As they further explained the issues, the long culvert parallel is really not practicable. In fact, I wish it was not
proposed. While it is technically constructible, it has several main faults:

- FEMA compliance difficulties,

- the maintenance of the structure and the required inspections of the structure would be very difficult long-term,

- it does not solve the stream instability issues in all places

- it too is very expensive.

2. The Division feels the natural stream design is the best long term solution for the stream AND the road, even if it does
not meet the requirements of a mitigation site, and no credit is achieved. The Division IS aware we would have to go
back to DMS in this scenario. While again, we hope all of this effort is successful, we're doing it because it is the best
option long term - not as an attempt to save money by self-mitigating.

Does this help, or make things more confusing!?

FYI, on a side note, we would expect that we would have to excavate the pond bottoms. We probably would have to
from an elevation standpoint anyhow, but we do know that the IRT does not allow those, and thus, we would also not
be discharging that material back into Smith Creek.

Tomorrow's Friday, so we should chat anyhow!

-Michael

-----Original Message-----
2

From: Braspennickx, Nicholle M CIV USARMY CESAW (US) <[e-mail]>
Sent: Thursday, September 12, 2019 4:22 PM
To: Turchy, Michael A <[e-mail]>
Subject: \[External\] Can you get a map of the catfish pond area?

CAUTION: External email. Do not click links or open attachments unless you verify. Send all suspicious email as an
attachment to [e-mail]<mailto:[e-mail]
<mailto:[e-mail]%3cmailto:[e-mail]> >

Hello !

Well- I stand corrected on the 3 hour tour w/ Steve K.. in a half an hour (it's all he had) - he did a very good job
explaining to me what is what.. And you've probably do-see-doed w/ the concepts of relocation, restoration, and on site
mitigation...

The purpose and need for the job is the W-S NB project- not a different purpose and need for the potential
relocation/mitigation site - however, the stream was moved to accommodate the road that is there now ... and DOT is
moving it again to make more room for a wider road. If DOT can demonstrate uplift - DOT may be able to get credit for
it or parts of it.. but Monte wasn't comfortable w/ splitting it like that.. probably some wisdom there.

The title of this email is: Can you get a map of the catfish pond area - I'd like to be able to show folks where this is on
google earth so they can see what I'm talking about. Even just a good vicinity map could help. Right now - I'm not even
sure what road is up against the property.

As far as taking water out of a mitigation site - it's not done... not for mitigation - there are kinds of protections on on-
site mitigation ... obviously if DOT owns it - no need for conservation easement - but as far as taking water off of a
mitigation site - I don't think Steve has ever run into that.. I did in Idaho - but it involved ITD not buying the water right
w/ the land.. that only happened 1 time in my tenure - we all learned a valuable lesson... but there aren't water rights
here.

Anyway - let's just get to the map for now.

Steve K. does want to go out in the Field - I do too w/ DOT environmental (Raleigh and maybe Amy's helper, Stephanie
for now - although Stephanie is not a 404 person.. still - she's fun to have around and asks a lot of questions.. Maybe you
3

and/or Erin (I am not sure how often you can go in field now) Byron, and Dave Wanucha - who is also somewhat familiar
w/ site..

Maybe October? Maybe it will be cooler by then.. maybe not.

While I would also like someone there from DOT design or engineering side of things.. they are not at all familiar w/
permitting requirements.. (as evidenced from the questions I get in field, and when I was in the 2 day NEPA/SEPA
training.. the Corps really hasn't done a good job of getting our program out there.. however, John Jamison also told me
- people don't listen to the environmental people at DOT - and sometimes - you just have to let them discover the
process for themselves... )

And I KNOW you understand what I'm concerned about - the person making this decision is unaware of the money and
time that would accompany this relocation if it were to be a mitigation site - but again - w/ removal of water.. not sure
that it CAN be a mitigation site.. OK - enough talking myself rummy on this project.

Sincerely,

Nicholle Braspennickx

U.S. Army Corps of Engineers

Regulatory Project Manager

Charlotte Regulatory Office

Desk: 704-510-0162

The Wilmington District is committed to providing the highest level of support to the public. To help us ensure we
continue to do so, please complete the Customer Satisfaction Survey located at
Blockedhttp://corpsmapu.usace.army.mil/cm_apex/f?p=136:4:0
<Blockedhttp://corpsmapu.usace.army.mil/cm_apex/f?p=136:4:0>

________________________________

4

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

5