20110745 Ver 1_More Info Received by Email_20120111 (6)

Strickland, Bev
From:
Steenhuis, Joanne
Sent:
Wednesday, January 11, 2012 9:12 AM
To:
Strickland, Bev
Cc:
Dennison, Laurie
Subject:
FW: Main Battle Tank Connector Road DWQ # 2011 0745
- - - -- Original Message---- -
From: Shaver, Brad E SAW fmailto: Brad. E.Shaver_na usace.army.mill
Sent: Monday, January 09, 2012 2:11 PM
To: Steenhuis, Joanne
Subject: FW: Main Battle Tank Connector Road
I put the wrong person earlier this was meant for you.
Brad
- - - -- Original Message---- -
From: Shaver, Brad E SAW
Sent: Monday, January 09, 2012 2:08 PM
To: Johnson, Ron
Cc: Lapp, Kevin; 'martin.korenek @usmc.mil'; Harris, Jennifer
Subject: Main Battle Tank Connector Road
Ron,
I am finishing the decision document and noted a couple things from our meeting that needs clarification
1) Response 20 to the October 28, 2011 correspondence indictaes that
sheet CP 205 would be adjusted to show the two 36 ❑ pipes. I don't see that revised sheet in the returned plans. Please forward
that sheet electronically and I can print out and include with the current drawing set.
2) Finally during our meeting on October 18, 2011, we discussed hand
clearing versus temporary impact. We further discussed that temporary impact must be restored to grade and revegetated, I
understood that the revisions would include a revegetation plan for those areas. That said I am including a condition in the
special conditions that states all temporary impact areas should be graded to preexisting conditions and re seeded with a native
wetland seed mix. Further these areas should not be mowed or maintained and allowed to restore to a full canopy. Two things I
want to make sure we are clear on, first that the clearing is not grubbing even temporarily because if so the Corps requires the
DOT to mitigate for the mech cleared areas which are grubbed at a one to one ratio and it should be the same case for this
project. Second, these temporary impact areas shall not be maintained in the future or we will need to treat them simsialr to the
Hadnot Creek utility permit and require mitigation again at 1:1. I just want clarification on these two points so they can be
addressed in my decisuion document. If either case is true the Base may need to get an updated EEP acceptance letter for the
additional impact.
Again I am ready to push along my EA to my supervisor once I have these two tems addressed
Thanks,
Brad
Brad E Shaver
Project Manager

US Army Corps of Engineers
69 Darlington Ave
Wilmington, NC 28403
(910) 251 -4611
Fax# [phone]
The Wilmington District is commited to providing the highest level of support to the public. To help us ensure we continue to
do so, please complete the Customer Satisifaction Survey located at our website at http:/ /per2.nwp.usaee.arLuy.mil/survey.html
to complete the survey online.