20090261 Ver 1_email from agencies_20150511

Baker, Virginia
From: Steffens, Thomas A SAW <[e-mail]>
Sent: Monday, May 11, 2015 10:09 AM
To: Baker, Virginia; Elliott, Jason C
Cc: Wainwright, David
Subject: RE: U-5018A Harris Mill Run Surface Water Gauge
Jason,
The two bankfull event permit condition has been met; remove the gauge at your convenience. As discussed, a bankfull
event is currently taking place...
Thanks,
toms
-----Original Message-----
From: Baker, Virginia [mailto:vir�inia.baker@ncdenr.�ov]
Sent: Monday, May 11, 2015 10:04 AM
To: Elliott, Jason C
Cc: Wainwright, David; Steffens, Thomas A SAW
Subject: [EXTERNAL] RE: U-5018A Harris Mill Run Surface Water Gauge
Hi Jason,
I had noted that you had two bankful events in two separate yrs as well so I agree you don't need to keep that gauge at
the site. Thanks for the update.
Ginny
-----Original Message-----
From: Elliott, Jason C
Sent: Monday, May 11, 2015 9:42 AM
To: Steffens, Thomas A SAW; Wainwright, David; Baker, Virginia
Cc: Wilson, Travis W.; Gary Jordan (�ary jordan@fws.�ov); Todd Bowers (bowers.todd@epa.�ov); Allen, Pete; Griffin,
Randy W; Green, Matthew L
Subject: RE: U-5018A Harris Mill Run Surface Water Gauge
Thanks for the reply Tom. I've attached the 2014 and 2015 gauge data graphs to this email for your review. As you can
see the 2014 monitoring year experienced multiple bankfull events as was stated in the annual report. For the 2015
monitoring year, the gauge data graph for March through May (the battery failed the 1st couple of months of the year)
indicates that we've already had 4 bankfull events. I did go ahead and pull the gauge with the plan to reinstall if the
group felt that more data was necessary. Based on meeting the permit requirement of at least two events in separate
years, I'm planning to not reinstall the gauge at this time. All other monitoring at the site will continue throughout the 5
year monitoring period. Thanks and let me know if you have any questions.
-----Original Message-----
From: Steffens, Thomas A SAW [mailto:[e-mail]]
Sent: Monday, May 11, 2015 9:01 AM
To: Elliott, Jason C; Wainwright, David; Baker, Virginia
Cc: Wilson, Travis W.; Gary Jordan (�ary jordan@fws.�ov); Todd Bowers (bowers.todd@epa.�ov); Allen, Pete
Subject: RE: U-5018A Harris Mill Run Surface Water Gauge
Jason,

I see no reason to retain the stream gauge provided it has recorded two bankfull events from this year; or you have
other concrete evidence (pics, video etc) that the permit condition has been satisfied.
If either the gauge data or hard evidence isn't available for this year, I recommend it be relocated to a more stable area
of the stream.
Thomas Steffens
US Army Corps of Engineers
2407 West 5th Street
Washington, NC 27889
910-251-4615
-----Original Message-----
From: Elliott, Jason C [mailto:jelliott@ncdot.�ov]
Sent: Wednesday, May 06, 2015 2:10 PM
To: Steffens, Thomas A SAW; Wainwright, David; Baker, Virginia
Cc: Wilson, Travis W.; Gary Jordan (�ary jordan@fws.�ov); Todd Bowers (bowers.todd@epa.�ov); Allen, Pete
Subject: [EXTERNAL] U-5018A Harris Mill Run Surface Water Gauge
Good afternoon folks,
Hope you're all doing well. I wanted to see if it would be ok with you all if I removed the surface water gauge at the
Harris Mill Creek stream site in Pitt county. As you can see in the attached photos, the gauge is now in the middle of the
stream and has caused bank instability in this area so I feel like we should remove it or at the very least relocate it.
Permit conditions required a minimum of two bankfull events to be recorded in separate years. The gauge recorded
numerous bankfull events last year and we've already seen evidence of recent events this year. Let me know what you
guys think and we'll act accordingly. Thanks!!
Jason
Email correspondence to and from this sender is subject to the N.C. Public Records Law and may be disclosed to third
parties.