20120270 Ver 1_More Info Received_20120525

Strickland, Bev
From:
Steenhuis, Joanne
Sent:
Friday, May 25, 2012 2:09 PM
To:
Mcmillan, Ian
Cc:
Strickland, Bev
Subject:
FW: RAI responses w figure DWQ project 2012 0270
From: Jason Evert [mailto:jevert()dialcordy.com]
Sent: Monday, April 30, 2012 11:42 AM
To: 'Shaver, Brad E SAW'; Steenhuis, Joanne
Cc: 'Korenek CIV Martin G; 'Jones, Myra W'
Subject: RE: RAI responses w figure
Thanks, Brad. I didn't recall those two alternatives that you noted that I had left out of
the response; I believe that perhaps my response to 7oanne did address at least one of those.
I will investigate, and initiate a supplementary letter to that effect.
In the meantime, I believe that you can expect the formal response from the Base this week.
I appreciate the heads -up so that we can keep the permit on track.
Best Regards,
7ason
Jason D. Evert
Senior Ecologist
Dial Cordy and Associates Inc.
Join me on Linkedln®
Email me at jevertca�dialcordy.com
Call me at 904.476.9571
L11
- - - -- Original Message---- -
From: Shaver, Brad E SAW [ mailto :Brad.E.Shaver(@usace.army.mil]
Sent: Monday, April 30, 2012 11:34 AM
To: 7ason Evert; 'Steenhuis, 7oanne'
Cc: Korenek CIV Martin G
Subject: RE: RAI responses w figure
7ason,
I have taken a quick look at the responses and submit a few comments. We spoke in mid March
about several different alternatives which may reduce wetland impacts further. You mentioned
1

in an email dated March 22 that you specifically discussed three alternatives I had mentioned
to Haskell and they provided reasons why they would not work. In your latest avoidance and
minimization discussion you really only mention splitting the facility to minimize impacts.
It would be appreciated if you discuss the others we spoke about that day. I remember
discussing reconfiguring the warehouse which may allow for a southern shifting of the hangar
and I also recall discussing moving the filtration basin to the north and then shifting the
complex south. It sounds like you had those conversations and they had good reasons why not
please provide their rationale.
The reason the question was asked about the borrow source is that this District requires some
sort of drainage consideration if a borrow site will be within 400 feet of a wetland
boundary. Therefore, you will need to pinpoint the borrow site. There will be a condition in
the permit to that effect and it would be better now to know if the borrow source being
considered will need to be modeled or not.
As more questions arise I will let you know.
EM
- - - -- Original Message---- -
From: 7ason Evert [mailto:jevert(@dialcordy.com]
Sent: Friday, April 27, 2012 10:50 AM
To: 'Steenhuis, 7oanne'; Shaver, Brad E SAW
Subject: FW: RAI responses w figure
Importance: High
91710,01.00,10571. "Iff-3
The attached are unofficial, read -ahead copies of our RAI responses. I anticipate that Marty
will approve these and submit them with an additional cover letter for the official submittal
coming from the Base. If you have a moment to peruse and reply with any preliminary comments,
it would be greatly appreciated. One correction, however, per 7oanne0s question: I had
indicated that piles would secure the bulkhead along the road, but it will in fact be spread
footing (another diagram is attached for your perusal).
Thanks for your comments /assistance.
rP5.09r,
2