20130918 Ver 4_Mitigation Site Visit Email_20141209

Baker, Virginia
From:
Wanucha, Dave
Sent:
Tuesday, December 09, 2014 10:45 AM
To:
Baker, Virginia
Cc:
Chapman, Amy
Subject:
RE: U -2525B Mitigation site visit (UNCLASSIFIED)
There are three separate on -site mitigation sites: 1307', 386' and 362'. I'll keep you apprised as they move forward with
the project. Thanks.
Dave W
Dave Wanucha
NC DENR Winston Salem Region Office
NC Division of Water Resources
Transportation Permitting Unit
450 W. Hanes Mill Rd, Suite 300
Winston - Salem, NC 27105
Cell (336) 403 -5655
Office (336) 776 -9703
Dave.Wanucha @ncdenr.gov
E -mail correspondence to and from this address may be subject to the North Carolina Public Records Law and may be
disclosed to third parties.
- - - -- Original Message---- -
From: Baker, Virginia
Sent: Tuesday, December 09, 2014 8:05 AM
To: Wanucha, Dave
Cc: Chapman, Amy
Subject: FW: U -2525B Mitigation site visit (UNCLASSIFIED)
Hi Dave,
I talked to Amy about this project yesterday and she said to keep the requirement of Level 1 analysis as per the existing
permit conditions. "Plant survival analysis" and "channel stability ", ie veg plots and cross sections. Over 2000 feet of
stream is too large a project for visual observation. However, the long pro only needs to be done for the as- built. If
sections of the stream demonstrate instability then we would request another long pro be done in those sections. These
requirements are consistent with what we have been asking of other mitigators for this length stream.
Ginny
- - - -- Original Message---- -
From: Bailey, David E SAW [ mailto: David.E.Bailey2 @usace.army.mil]
Sent: Monday, November 24, 2014 11:18 AM
To: Baker, Virginia
Cc: Wanucha, Dave; Chapman, Amy
Subject: RE: U -2525B Mitigation site visit (UNCLASSIFIED)

Classification: UNCLASSIFIED
Caveats: NONE
I completely understand where you're coming from, Ginny. Addressing these items ahead of time is definitely the way
to go. As we move into proposed permitee responsible mitigation plans for future projects, coordination between our
shops may not be a bad idea so we're on the same page.
-Dave Bailey
David E. Bailey, PWS
Regulatory Project Manager
US Army Corps of Engineers
CE- SAW -RG -R
3331 Heritage Trade Drive, Suite 105
Wake Forest, North Carolina 27587
Phone: [phone], Ext. 30.
Fax: [phone]
Email: David. E. Bailey2 @usace.army.mil
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 http : / /regulatory.usacesurvey.com /.
- - - -- Original Message---- -
From: Baker, Virginia [ mailto :virginia.baker @ncdenr.gov]
Sent: Wednesday, November 19, 2014 8:53 PM
To: Bailey, David E SAW
Cc: Wanucha, Dave; Chapman, Amy
Subject: [EXTERNAL] Re: U -2525B Mitigation site visit (UNCLASSIFIED)
Thanks for responding Dave. I kind of figured if you (ie anyone at the ACOE) had told DOT what was in their mitigation
plan was sufficient then it is probably too late for the COE to say anything. I will see what we can do acting alone, but
DOT is pushing us to reduce our requirements as the ACOE was ok with reduced requirements. Anyway in the future I
would like to get on these projects in the front end. I also did not make this site visit having heard about it last minute
and thinking I would be unavailable.
thanks again, ginny
Sent from my iPad
> On Nov 19, 2014, at 1:30 PM, Bailey, David E SAW < David.E.Bailey2 @usace.army.mil> wrote:
• Classification: UNCLASSIFIED
• Caveats: NONE
> Thanks for the email, Ginny. I inherited this project from Andy Williams recently and don't have much individual
knowledge on the background of why we required what we required. I do know that whatever we (the Corps) required
as part of our permit conditions on the project is what we will hold DOT accountable for. If our permit conditions
pointed back to their mitigation plan and we didn't otherwise specifically require additional monitoring then that is all
we can require on this project. Internally we have had a number of discussions on consistency of compensatory
mitigation requirements between NCDOT /EEP /private banks, etc. and we realize things haven't necessarily been
consistent in the past; we're working on those issues. Todd is definitely the go to person as far as Corps programmatic

mitigation consistency. As for me I didn't have a chance to attend the site visit early this week due to a prior
commitment and I haven't made myself that familiar with the on -site mitigation plans of this project yet. Hopefully over
the next few weeks I'll have a better chance to review the conditions and make sure DOT is at least consistent with our
permit- specific requirements. Not sure I've helped much. But if you have any other questions please let me know.
> -Dave Bailey
> - --
> David E. Bailey, PWS
> Regulatory Project Manager
> US Army Corps of Engineers
> CE- SAW -RG -R
> 3331 Heritage Trade Drive, Suite 105
> Wake Forest, North Carolina 27587
> Phone: [phone], Ext. 30.
> Fax: [phone]
> Email: David. E. Bailey2 @usace.army.mil
> 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 http : / /regulatory.usacesurvey.com /.
> - - - -- Original Message---- -
> From: Baker, Virginia [ mailto :virginia.baker @ncdenr.gov]
> Sent: Tuesday, November 18, 2014 4:44 PM
> To: Bailey, David E SAW
> Cc: Wanucha, Dave; Chapman, Amy
> Subject: [EXTERNAL] FW: U -2525B Mitigation site visit
> Hi Dave,
> Hope you are doing well. I just had some communication with one of our regional staff, Dave Wanucha, about the
Greensboro East Loop project (U- 2525B). Dave thought you were the ACOE manager on this project? If that is incorrect
then maybe you could point me to the right person.
> This project has 2055' of on -site stream mitigation. In our permit conditions we asked them to follow Level 1
monitoring, which I would interpret to include cross sections and veg plots. They would like to do just visual biannual
monitoring for the stream and vegetation. For that length stream I thought that more involved monitoring should be
required.
> I had talked to Todd Tudwell a while back about some of the inconsistencies with DOT mitigation plans and what is
required for monitoring as compared to what is required of EEP sites and Bank sites. There also seem to be some other
inconsistencies with crediting and monitoring length. For the smaller sites having this level of monitoring may not make
sense.

> I have not had a chance to get out and see this site. Dave had said DOT told him that the ACOE said just to follow the
mitigation plan. There may not be anything that can be done about this site at this time but I wanted to follow up with
you and get your opinion.
> I will be in the field the next three days but plan to ck my email in the evening.
> Thanks much, Ginny Baker
> From: Wanucha, Dave
> Sent: Monday, November 17, 2014 5:09 PM
> To: Baker, Virginia
> Subject: RE: U -2525B Mitigation site visit
> Hi Ginny,
> We looked at one of the mitigation sites for U -2525B where they intend to begin construction once it dries out some.
Basically, they do not want to wait an entire growing season before returning the stream to the new channel. They
intend to stabilize with core fiber and then move on downstream managing the existing stream flow with a series of
pump arounds. They intend to request field visits as they complete each section. The upstream catchment is —0.08 sq
miles and mostly forested. There is barely any stream flow. If there are blow -outs, which are not likely but possible,
they will repair. Let me know if you want to take a look.
> They also wanted to discuss the Monitoring Protocol. In our 401, we required Level 1, but they said that was not part
of the Mitigation Plan which states visuals. More on this to come once they send me more info and I review the Plan.
> Dave W.
> Please be advised: Beginning October 23, 2014, the Winston Salem Regional Office (WSRO) of the NC Department of
Environment and Natural Resources (NCDENR) will begin moving to a new location. Starting October 22, 2014 at 5:00
pm, our new main telephone number will change to 336- 776 -9800. If you contact staff at their prvious telephone
number, you will be directed to their new direct telephone number. All regional office services, including file review, will
continue and all appointments need to be prescheduled with WSRO staff during this transition. If you have any
questions or concerns, please contact the main number provided above during our normal hours of operation, 8:00 am
to 5:00 pm.
> Effective October 22, 2014 at 5:00 pm, my office telephone number will change to 335 - 776 -9703.

> Dave Wanucha
> NC DENR Winston Salem Region Office
> NC Division of Water Resources
> Transportation Permitting Unit
> Winston - Salem, NC
> Cell (336) 403 -5655
> Office (336) 776 -9703
> Dave.Wanucha @ncdenr.gov < mai Ito: Dave.Wanucha @ncdenr.gov>
> - - - --
> E -mail correspondence to and from this address may be subject
> to the North Carolina Public Records Law and may be disclosed to third parties.
• From: Baker, Virginia
• Sent: Monday, November 17, 2014 12:57 PM
> To: Wanucha, Dave
> Subject: RE: U -2525B Mitigation site visit
> thanks
• From: Wanucha, Dave
• Sent: Monday, November 17, 2014 12:54 PM
> To: Baker, Virginia
> Subject: RE: U -2525B Mitigation site visit
> Sorry, we had the meeting this morning. I send u a synopsis when I get back to my office.
> Dave w
5

> Sent from my Verizon Wireless 4G LTE smartphone
> 336- 403 -5655
> -- - - - - -- Original message -- - - - - --
> From: "Baker, Virginia"
> Date:11/17/2014 12:16 PM (GMT- 05:00)
> To: "Wanucha, Dave"
> Subject: RE: U -2525B Mitigation site visit
> Hi Dave,
> My jury duty was cancelled for today. This meeting was today not tomorrow, right? Let me know how things went. I
ended up having to meet a contractor this morning however if the meeting is tomorrow and myjury duty is cancelled
again I could attend.
> Ginny
• From: Wanucha, Dave
• Sent: Friday, November 14, 2014 3:47 PM
> To: Baker, Virginia
> Subject: U -2525B Mitigation site visit
> Hey Ginny,
> DOT scheduled a site visit to review a mitigation site for the above project. The contractor wants to start with the
restoration work. We're meeting at 10:00 near Greensboro. Let me know if you want to come see. Sorry about the
short notice but I found out a few days ago. I would be happy to meet you out there at a later date. I will likely visit the
site on several occasions.
> Dave W.
6

> Please be advised: Beginning October 23, 2014, the Winston Salem Regional Office (WSRO) of the NC Department of
Environment and Natural Resources (NCDENR) will begin moving to a new location. Starting October 22, 2014 at 5:00
pm, our new main telephone number will change to 336- 776 -9800. If you contact staff at their prvious telephone
number, you will be directed to their new direct telephone number. All regional office services, including file review, will
continue and all appointments need to be prescheduled with WSRO staff during this transition. If you have any
questions or concerns, please contact the main number provided above during our normal hours of operation, 8:00 am
to 5:00 pm.
> Effective October 22, 2014 at 5:00 pm, my office telephone number will change to 335 - 776 -9703.
> Dave Wanucha
> NC DENR Winston Salem Region Office
> NC Division of Water Resources
> Transportation Permitting Unit
> Winston - Salem, NC
> Cell (336) 403 -5655
> Office (336) 776 -9703
> Dave.Wanucha @ncdenr.gov < mai Ito: Dave.Wanucha @ncdenr.gov>
> - - - --
> E -mail correspondence to and from this address may be subject
> to the North Carolina Public Records Law and may be disclosed to third parties.
• Classification: UNCLASSIFIED
• Caveats: NONE
Classification: UNCLASSIFIED
Caveats: NONE
7