20120270 Ver 1_Other Agency Comments_20120525 (2)

Strickland, Bev
From: Steenhuis, Joanne
Sent: Friday, May 25, 2012 2:10 PM
To: Mcmillan, Ian
Cc: Strickland, Bev
Subject: FW: SAW - 2010 *017971 DWQ- 2012 -0270 MCAS New River MV -22 Application
Attachments: SKMBT_C45212051609410.pdf
Importance: High
From: Jason Evert [mailto:jevert()dialcordy.com]
Sent: Wednesday, May 16, 2012 4:53 PM
To: 'Shaver, Brad E SAW'
Cc: 'Myra.Jones @haskell.com'; 'martin.korenek @usmc.mil'; Steenhuis, Joanne; 'martin.korenek @usmc.mil'
Subject: SAW- 2010 *017971 DWQ- 2012 -0270 MCAS New River MV -22 Application
Importance: High
Action 10 No. SAW - 2010017971 Department of the Army Permit Request
New River Marine Corps Air Station, Camp Lejeune, NC 285420004
Brad,
In response to your questions received via email dated 30 April 2012 (below) regarding the above project,
further discussed the design alternatives with the project engineer.
In Item 5.e. of our response to USACE dated 26 April 2012, we noted that, "Due to the existing
structure (water tower), the squadron warehouse cannot be oriented east /west." More precisely, if the
position of the warehouse were rotated in place, with its center remaining in approximately the same
position, that would be the case. However, we believe that your intention was to suggest an additional
plan where the warehouse's proposed south half of the building becomes its east half, and it is oriented
east/west, parallel to, and close to the existing road (see attached sketch). In this scenario, the apron
and hangar would move south approximately 300 feet, and the perimeter road could be pushed west
around Wetland 4, avoiding it or minimizing impacts. This alternative was not selected because of the
natural grade of the land on which the apron will be constructed; it drains naturally to the south, which is
why that position was selected for the infiltration basin. I believe that the submittal dated 27 April 2012
to NCDENR indicated a few other alternative arrangements; USACE was copied on that
correspondence. However, if there are any other possible means by which we could avoid the wetland
area, our client will investigate them at your suggestion; we appreciate your critical comments on the
project that will ultimately facilitate our compliance with Section 404 of CWA.
2. The source of fill will be the material removed from the construction of the infiltration basin, noted on
our drawings as "filtration basin."
3. Finally, if you have any further comments, or if the public has submitted any questions to you, please let
us know at your earliest convenience.
Best Regards,
Jason
Jason D. Evert

Senior Ecologist
904.476.9571
Join me on Linkedln®
Email me at jevertca�dialcordy.com
ilDial Cordy and Associates Inc.
490 Osceola Ave, Jax Beach FL 32250
Visit us on the Web, like us on Facebook,
and follow us on Twitter and Linkedln.
- - - -- Original Message---- -
From: Shaver, Brad E SAW [ mailto :Brad.E.Shaver(@usace.army.mil]
Sent: Monday, April 30, 2012 11:34 AM
To: 3ason Evert; 'Steenhuis, 3oanne'
Cc: Korenek CIV Martin G
Subject: RE: RAI responses w figure
3ason,
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
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
2

9 yea
q f '4
m
1 11;,
Future I
Squadn