20111013 Ver 1_Public Comments_20120104 (4)

Mcmillan, Ian
From V Jordan [cjandvj@bellsouth net]
Sent Wednesday January 04 2012 10 09 AM
To Mcmillan Ian
Subject FW Some questions (UNCLASSIFIED)
Original Message
From V Jordan [mailto cjandvj@bellsouth net]
Sent Wednesday, January 04, 2012 9 12 AM
To Wescott, William G SAW
Subject RE Some questions (UNCLASSIFIED)
Mr McMillan,
This is the reply I received from Mr Wescott To say this man is not helpful would be a
gross understatement I had the initial impression this man was not considerate This email
confirms my initial impression It also alarms me I am very concerned about this project
I am not in the habit of misunderstanding I had the distinct impression this man believed
his approval of this project was already determined And he also repeatedly mentioned the
DWQ doing their own evaluation of the wetlands tool He remarked he is not the only one He
also remarked DWQ has the ability to deny this application and then the USACE would not be
able to approve it
You explained your department by law depends on the USACE data, unless they communicate with
you they invite you to do some wetlands work I do not believe I misunderstood him AT ALLI
In hindsight I wish I had taped the conversation
I am going to use only WRITTEN communication between this particular USACE officer and
myself I strongly urge all DWQ folks to do the same
For the record, the entire project is NOW MISSING from the USACE PUBLIC NOTICE system The
Wilmington office claim they only post the information provided by the field offices and Mr
Wescott would be the person to alert the Wilmington Office of the Public Comment extension
I asked him about this yesterday Now you have a copy of the reply he sent me I have never
seen this sort of sloppy work from the USACE before) Then again, this is my
first experience with Mr William Wescott
I hope you can see how even with this email Mr Wescott is very careful to SEPARATE YOU He
did the same during our conversation Apparently he is of the opinion the field regulators in
Washington are the only of contact he must consider? I have never seen this time of
departmentalization, especially since the DWQ s RALEIGH OFFICE is THE SECTION handling this
application, per AMY and PER the USACE s public notice' Doesn t make a lot of sense to me
I would have expected AMY to convey the same information she provided to me yesterday to Mr
Wescott She made it EXTREMELY CLEAR, repeatedly so, she had nothing to do this application
YOU were the person responsible for this application is same information to Mr Wescott
She refused to talk about the Pamlico, any of the watershed questions I had, etc She
deferred all to YOU It was most frustrating I have had to go to various other sections in
the DWQ (and as usual to other regulatory
agencies) to seek the data and answers to questions I continue to have I do appreciate your
offer to come to Raleigh and review this application I will
most assuredly be there before Friday'
If the regulators are so disjointed in scheduling, what else may not be the same page for
each? Per our conversation yesterday you said the application was dated on Nov 18 and you
received it on Nov 21 So do you have until Jan 21 to make your determination? You
1

remarked the Public Comment Notice went up on Dec 1 With that being extended will your
deadline-be extended or will it continue to be only 60 days? Can you please tell me the exact
law /rule involved? I continue to believe applications submitted during Nov /Dec need to be
extended because the work calendar is affected by holiday hours of operation
I can tell you I am very discouraged at this moment
I have reached out to Mr Wescott s supervisor I couldn t reach Mr Lekson yesterday Did
you know he is slated to go on a departmental assignment on the very day this project is
slated for public comments to close, Jan 14th
For some reason, that bothers me too
I wish you the best this week and am very sorry this is the best I could do so far regarding
the extension
Vicki Jordan
Original Message
From Wescott, William G SAW [mailto William G Wescott @usace army mil]
Sent Tuesday, January 03, 2012 2 33 PM
To V Jordan
Subject RE Some questions (UNCLASSIFIED)
Classification UNCLASSIFIED
Caveats NONE
Let s take your comments point by point since you misunderstood some of my responses during
our phone conversation
1) The comment period ends January 14
2) Local (Washington Field Office) DWQ commenters /reviewers are aware of the time extension
even if Mr McMillan is not
3) I did not say anything about DWQ doing wetland delineations DWQ processes the 401 water
quality certification for wetland permits
4) The proposed discharge is to be conveyed through two drainage easements (existing
silviculture ditches) to Blounts Creek
5) Kimley Horn provided the USACE with a copy of the Geomorphic and Hydraulic Analysis that
was submitted to NCDWQ
William Wescott
Original Message
From V Jordan [mailto cjandvj@bellsouth net]
Sent Tuesday, January 03, 2012 1 09 PM
To Wescott, William G SAW
Subject Some questions
Mr Wescott,
I understood you said the Public Comment time has been extended to Jan 14 for the Martin
Marietta Open Pit Mining Application per a request made by the Tarr Pamlico Riverkeepers I
understand the USACE works with the Riverkeepers in both the Neuse and Tarr Pamlico basins
I applaud this decision The thing is, I spoke to Ian McMillan at DWQ and he didn t see
where you sent him notice of the extension I also didn t see where the PUBLIC NOTICE on
your website reflected this extension Here are the links
2

http / /www saw usace army mil/Wetlands/Notices/Current—notices html
http / /www saw usace army mil /Wetlands /Notices /2011/PN %20SAW 2011 02235 pdf
Second question I asked Ian about wetlands You had mentioned DWQ also does wetlands
delineations or determinations Ian said the only time DWQ does any wetlands work is if the
USACE asks them to do it and so far that hasn t happened where this application goes Are
you planning to ask?
Third question you mentioned the applicant applied for ONE discharge permit
I asked Ian to check (because discharge was one of the areas I found errors where Kimley
Horn s Stoney Creek application went) He said he found TWO discharges on this application
Will you double back and check the application Which is it, one or two?
I am going to DWQ this week to get a copy and look at the full application
I plan to speak to Mr Hennessey and Mr Reeder while I am there
Did you say you did or did not have the GMA prepared ground water report?
How about the hydrologic work prepared by Kimley Horn?
Lastly, I wanted to bring to your attention this meeting I hope someone from the USACE
will be there'
http / /www witn com/ news /headlines/ Proposed_ Beaufort _County_Rock_Mine_Causes
Water Shortage_ Contamination _Concerns_136334848 html
My best to you and the USACE I hope this time the USACE sets the bar to protect the
wetlands and also does their part where the River Basins are concerned to protect the basins
from harm tool
Victoria Jordan
3

Classification UNCLASSIFIED
Caveats NONE