20231596 Ver 1_Approval Letter & Decision Email_20240201

Baker, Caroline D
From:Thomas, Zachary T
Sent:Friday, February 2, 2024 2:40 PM
To:'Nancy Oberle'; 'Archer, C Alexi CIV USARMY CESAS (USA)'
Cc:'Hopper, Christopher D CIV USARMY CESAW (USA)'; Garrison, Gabriela; 'Jim Mason';
'Eric Kulz'; 'Capito, Rachel A CIV (USA)'; [e-mail]
Subject:RE: \[External\] RE: SAW-2023-01253 (Town of Cary Dredging Project / Cary NC / Wake
County)
Attachments:20231596_Town of Cary Dredging Project at Symphony Lake_Wake.docx.pdf
Hello,

Please find the 401 Cer?fica?on for the Town of Cary Dredging Project at Symphony Lake (DWR# 20231596) a?ached
above.

Please pay close a?en?on to Condi?ons 1-5.

If you have any ques?ons, please let me know.

Thank you,

Zach Thomas
Environmental Program Consultant, Division of Water Resources
North Carolina Department of Environmental Quality
Office: [phone]
[e-mail]

Raleigh Regional Office
1628 Mail Service Center
Raleigh, NC 27699-1628

Email correspondence to and from this address is subject to the North Carolina Public Records Law
and may be disclosed to third par?es.

From: Thomas, Zachary T
Sent: Thursday, February 1, 2024 10:22 AM
To: Jim Mason <[e-mail]>; Nancy Oberle <[e-mail]>;
Archer, C Alexi CIV USARMY CESAS (USA) <[e-mail]>
Cc: Hopper, Christopher D CIV USARMY CESAW (USA) <[e-mail]>; Eric Kulz
<[e-mail]>; Capito, Rachel A CIV (USA) <[e-mail]>
Subject: RE: \[External\] RE: SAW-2023-01253 (Town of Cary Dredging Project / Cary NC / Wake County)

Hi All,

Thank you for your response. I have added these items to my file, and I am finishing up my letter for signature.

1

Please be advised that there will be conditions pertaining to the maintenance of the turbidity curtain and visually
monitoring for downstream turbidity.

If you have any questions, please let me know.

Thank you,

Zach Thomas
Environmental Program Consultant, Division of Water Resources
North Carolina Department of Environmental Quality
Office: [phone]
[e-mail]

Raleigh Regional Office
1628 Mail Service Center
Raleigh, NC 27699-1628

Email correspondence to and from this address is subject to the North Carolina Public Records Law
and may be disclosed to third par?es.

From: Jim Mason <[e-mail]>
Sent: Tuesday, January 30, 2024 10:56 AM
To: Thomas, Zachary T <[e-mail]>; Nancy Oberle <[e-mail]>;
Archer, C Alexi CIV USARMY CESAS (USA) <[e-mail]>
Cc: Hopper, Christopher D CIV USARMY CESAW (USA) <[e-mail]>; Eric Kulz
<[e-mail]>; Capito, Rachel A CIV (USA) <[e-mail]>
Subject: RE: \[External\] RE: SAW-2023-01253 (Town of Cary Dredging Project / Cary NC / Wake County)

CAUTION: External email. Do not click links or open attachments unless verified. Report suspicious emails with the Report Message
button located on your Outlook menu bar on the Home tab.

Zach-

That is the most up-to-date overall drawing of the project site. For the impacts, that drawing was meant to show the
avoidance of the wetland impact from stockpiling and to show that the temporary bridge is now in-line with the existing
bridge footprint. Pages 3-5 in the attached package were intended to identify the permanent gabion being placed along
the stream edge.

At the 1/8 meeting USACE had not decided what the project would be authorized under yet; I believe that it was decided
that a NWP 14 was most appropriate after we re-submitted materials, since the only permittable impacts now for them
are due to the linear stream crossing.

Below are the requested details about the impacts:

 4 acres of open water dredging – Please describe in more detail how the dewatering process will occur. Merrell
Bros. will be completing the dredging. They will be using a bucket placed on a small barge to manually excavate
sediment off of the lake bottom and to remove the sediment island that has developed. The work can be
completed in-water; therefore, the lake will not be de-watered or lowered during dredging activities. A turbidity
curtain will be installed across the lake to contain any temporary stirring of sediment to the portion of the lake
2

being dredged. First, they will be piling dredge spoil in the lake on the existing, exposed sandbar/island; this
open water placement will be temporary in nature and would only be long enough to allow the dredge spoil to
dry out a bit (transitional placement). The open water stockpile, when large enough, will then be removed from
the top down and placed in a box on the barge for transport to shore to either an upland stockpiling area or
directly to trucks or a detached truck container, if the latter are available (the latter are preferable). The
sediment island itself will eventually be dredged out as well, as it is an accumulation of deposited sediment. The
portion of the lake being dredged will be dredged down far enough to match the original contours and slope.
Some micro-variations will be present on the pond bed due to the nature of the dredging; however, these will
naturally level out over time.
 21 LF of permanent stream impact for gabion repair – Is this occurring only within the current greenway
footprint? That is correct. The gabion will be placed under the existing bridge abutments on each bank. The
gabions are primarily being installed to stabilize the existing concrete abutments that will support the temporary
bridge; however, the intent is to leave them in place to protect the streambanks under the bridge since there is
noticeable scour present. Horizontally, the gabion will extend under the bridge on both sides and tie back into the
existing slope. Vertically, it will extend down to the streambed, but will not extend outward beyond where it ties
in. Please confirm which table of use item this is falling under: 15A NCAC 02B .0714 (11) (XX) (XX) We do not
propose any riparian buffer impacts, as the temporary bridge is being installed over top of the existing bridge
and greenway and the gabion is being placed in an area that is within the existing greenway maintenance
corridor. If a buffer impact were to occur as part of this activity and a type of use needed to be designated for the
work, we would assumed that it would either be 1) road crossing (15A NCAC 02B .0714 (11)(y)(i) less than or
equal to 1/10 acre (Deemed Allowable) or 2) temporary road crossing (15A NCAC 02B .0714 (11)(ee)(i) less than
or equal to 2,500 SF (Deemed Allowable).
 20 LF of temporary stream impact for road crossing access This is not identified in the attached package, but
was included to provide the contractor with some area on both sides of the gabion installation in case
temporary impact was needed to properly install the cages.

Please let us know if you have any questions or would like to discuss anything further. If a Teams meeting would be
beneficial, please let me know and we can set something up today or tomorrow to meet.

Thanks and have a great day,

Jim

From: Thomas, Zachary T <[e-mail]>
Sent: Monday, January 29, 2024 5:05 PM
To: Jim Mason <[e-mail]>; Nancy Oberle <[e-mail]>;
Archer, C Alexi CIV USARMY CESAS (USA) <[e-mail]>
Cc: Hopper, Christopher D CIV USARMY CESAW (USA) <[e-mail]>; Eric Kulz
<[e-mail]>; Capito, Rachel A CIV (USA) <[e-mail]>
Subject: RE: \[External\] RE: SAW-2023-01253 (Town of Cary Dredging Project / Cary NC / Wake County)

Some people who received this message don't often get email from [e-mail]. Learn why this is important
Hello,

I am currently reviewing the application for Town of Cary Dredging Project at Symphony Lake (DWR#20231596), and I
am curious if an updated impact map was provided that I may be missing (per the 1/17/24 email below). The most
recent version that I have been able to find in my email is the one attached above that has comments made in blue. If
an updated copy has been created, please send one for review and I will file it in our records.

3

It also appears that a Nationwide Permit 14 is being utilized instead of the requested NWP3 in the application. Since I
was not part of the 1/8/24 meeting, I just want to confirm I am reviewing under the correct corresponding permits.

Additionally, it appears that the impacts have been reduced:
 4 acres of open water dredging – Please describe in more detail how the dewatering process will occur.
 21 LF of permenant stream impact for gabion repair – Is this occurring only within the current greenway
footprint? Please confirm which table of use item this is falling under: 15A NCAC 02B .0714 (11) (XX) (XX)
 20 LF of temporary stream impact for road crossing access

Please let me know if you have any ques?ons or would like to discuss further.

Thank you,

Zach Thomas
Environmental Program Consultant, Division of Water Resources
North Carolina Department of Environmental Quality
Office: [phone]
[e-mail]

Raleigh Regional Office
1628 Mail Service Center
Raleigh, NC 27699-1628

Email correspondence to and from this address is subject to the North Carolina Public Records Law
and may be disclosed to third par?es.

From: Jim Mason <[e-mail]>
Sent: Wednesday, January 17, 2024 1:15 PM
To: Nancy Oberle <[e-mail]>; Archer, C Alexi CIV USARMY CESAS (USA)
<[e-mail]>
Cc: Capito, Rachel A CIV USARMY CESAW (USA) <[e-mail]>; Hopper, Christopher D CIV USARMY
CESAW (USA) <[e-mail]>; Thomas, Zachary T <[e-mail]>; Eric Kulz
<[e-mail]>
Subject: \[External\] RE: SAW-2023-01253 (Town of Cary Dredging Project / Cary NC / Wake County)

CAUTION: External email. Do not click links or open attachments unless verified. Report suspicious emails with the Report Message
button located on your Outlook menu bar on the Home tab.

Hello Everyone –

After submitting the revised information, we realized that on the attached file, although the new stockpile location is
included, the old stockpile symbology and temporary crossing information are still included. We had described the
revision in the updated PCN, but had not updated this drawing. We are working to update the E&SC plans and
contractor plans to show the new proposed design. However, we wanted to provided a slightly updated version of the
drawing to note the changes that are being made that are not currently shown. These include:

1) The temporary crossing shown is no longer correct. It is no longer on new alignment and will now be a bridge
over the existing pedestrian bridge. The Submittal #2, Abutment Protection pdf that was provided shows the
temporary crossing that is to be permitted, including proposed perm. impacts resulting from this new design.
4

2) The rip rap, silt fence, and limits of disturbance still show the originally proposed stockpile area. However, since
then the stockpile has been reduced to eliminate wetland impacts (outlined in red). The rip rap, silt fence, and
limits of disturbance will be revised to match the new stockpile location.

Please let me know if you have any questions or require any additional information.

Thanks and have a great day,

Jim

From: Nancy Oberle <[e-mail]>
Sent: Friday, January 12, 2024 11:38 AM
To: Jim Mason <[e-mail]>; Archer, C Alexi CIV USARMY CESAS (USA)
<[e-mail]>
Cc: Capito, Rachel A CIV USARMY CESAW (USA) <[e-mail]>; Hopper, Christopher D CIV USARMY
CESAW (USA) <[e-mail]>; Thomas, Zachary T <[e-mail]>
Subject: RE: SAW-2023-01253 (Town of Cary Dredging Project / Cary NC / Wake County)

Hello All,
Thanks again for taking the time on Monday to discuss this project with us. Jim visited the site and found a small
portion of the wetland could be removed. However, the contractor has decided they can proceed without any
wetland impacts. Please see attached the updated PCN, updated site plans, and the drawings for the stream
crossing. I will also send this information through the DWR portal for official purposes. I can send the updated
wetland figure and photos separately, as the files are large (and I will include them on the portal as well).
Please let me know if there are any other details that I have missed.
Thank you again,
Nancy

From: Jim Mason <[e-mail]>
Sent: Friday, January 5, 2024 4:05 PM
To: Archer, C Alexi CIV USARMY CESAS (USA) <[e-mail]>; Nancy Oberle
<[e-mail]>
Cc: Capito, Rachel A CIV USARMY CESAW (USA) <[e-mail]>; Hopper, Christopher D CIV USARMY
CESAW (USA) <[e-mail]>
Subject: RE: SAW-2023-01253 (Town of Cary Dredging Project / Cary NC / Wake County)

Thank you very much for setting this up. I am also going to add Eric Kulz from the Town of Cary, who can answer any
questions about schedule and logistics.

Thanks and have a great weekend,

Jim

From: Archer, C Alexi CIV USARMY CESAS (USA) <[e-mail]>
Sent: Friday, January 5, 2024 3:46 PM
To: Nancy Oberle <[e-mail]>
Cc: Jim Mason <[e-mail]>; Capito, Rachel A CIV USARMY CESAW (USA)
<[e-mail]>; Hopper, Christopher D CIV USARMY CESAW (USA)
<[e-mail]>
Subject: RE: SAW-2023-01253 (Town of Cary Dredging Project / Cary NC / Wake County)

5

You don't often get email from [e-mail]. Learn why this is important
Yes, 11 am works for both Chris and I. I will send out a teams invite shortly after I send this email.

Alexi

Alexi Archer
Biologist
SAD Technical Regional Execution Center
U.S. Army Corp of Engineers
100 W Oglethorpe Ave
Savannah, GA 31401-3604
Phone: [phone]
[e-mail]

From: Nancy Oberle <[e-mail]>
Sent: Friday, January 5, 2024 12:23 PM
To: Archer, C Alexi CIV USARMY CESAS (USA) <[e-mail]>
Cc: Jim Mason <[e-mail]>; Capito, Rachel A CIV USARMY CESAW (USA)
<[e-mail]>; Hopper, Christopher D CIV USARMY CESAW (USA)
<[e-mail]>
Subject: \[Non-DoD Source\] Re: SAW-2023-01253 (Town of Cary Dredging Project / Cary NC / Wake County)

Hi Alexi,
I’m home with a sick kid today. How about early next week? Jim and I are flexible both Monday and Tuesday, other than
a 10 AM meeting Monday morning. Would 11 Monday morning work?
Thanks,
Nancy

On Jan 4, 2024, at 17:01, Archer, C Alexi CIV USARMY CESAS (USA) <[e-mail]>
wrote:

You don't often get email from [e-mail]. Learn why this is important
Hi Nancy,

Do you have some time tomorrow to discuss the wetland delineation and stream crossing with Chris and I?

Alexi

Alexi Archer
Biologist
SAD Technical Regional Execution Center
U.S. Army Corp of Engineers
100 W Oglethorpe Ave
Savannah, GA 31401-3604
Phone: [phone]
[e-mail]

From: Hopper, Christopher D CIV USARMY CESAW (USA) <[e-mail]>
Sent: Thursday, January 4, 2024 2:30 PM
6

To: Nancy Oberle <[e-mail]>; Jim Mason <[e-mail]>;
Archer, C Alexi CIV USARMY CESAS (USA) <[e-mail]>
Cc: Thomas, Zachary T <[e-mail]>; Hammond, Swade D CIV USARMY CESAS (USA)
<[e-mail]>; Capito, Rachel A CIV USARMY CESAW (USA) <[e-mail]>
Subject: RE: SAW-2023-01253 (Town of Cary Dredging Project / Cary NC / Wake County)

Thanks for the update, Nancy. We’ve been discussing internally and intend to reach out soon about the dredging
portion.
Note – I’ve switched Rachel in for Dave on this thread. As the new Chief he’s got a lot on his plate already.

Christopher. D. Hopper
TREC Team Lead / Wilmington District Liaison
US Army Corps of Engineers Savannah District
3331 Heritage Trade Drive, Suite 105
Wake Forest, NC 27587
[phone]

We would appreciate your feedback on how we are performing our duties. Our automated Customer Service Survey can
be accessed by copying and pasting the following link into your web browser:
https://regulatory.ops.usace.army.mil/customer-service-survey/. Thank you for taking the time to visit this site and
complete the survey.

From: Nancy Oberle <[e-mail]>
Sent: Thursday, January 4, 2024 1:34 PM
To: Jim Mason <[e-mail]>; Hopper, Christopher D CIV USARMY CESAW (USA)
<[e-mail]>; Archer, C Alexi CIV USARMY CESAS (USA) <[e-mail]>
Cc: Thomas, Zachary T <[e-mail]>; Bailey, David E CIV USARMY CESAW (USA)
<[e-mail]>; Hammond, Swade D CIV USARMY CESAS (USA)
<[e-mail]>
Subject: \[Non-DoD Source\] RE: SAW-2023-01253 (Town of Cary Dredging Project / Cary NC / Wake County)

Hi All,
I wanted to provide the updated information about the proposed crossing that I mentioned in my email on Tuesday.
Please see the attached info from the contractor. In summary, the new impact to the stream would be a permanent
impact, totaling 21 lf of stream (previously applied for 38 lf of temporary stream impact). The permanent impacts are
due to the instability of the existing bridge and the fact that the gabions would be left in as permanent support.
However, the buffer impact would be eliminated (previously applied for 3,120 sqft of BZ1 and 2,017 sqft of BZ2), as the
approach would be within the existing approach and would require no tree clearing (see note below that 1-2 trees may
be taken down to the stump).

Below is from the contractor:
“Drawings are on pages 3-5 of the attached document. Sheet 4 prescribes the gabion install for abutment
protection. There will be 7 each 3’ X 1’ X 6’ gabions on each side of the bridge. They will be roughly 1.5’ into the stream
at observed regular creek stage. Impact of the gabions themselves per side is 7 each times 3’ long time 6’ wide or 126
SF. Round up to 150 SF to 200 SF and include both sides and you are looking at impacts of 300 to 400 SF. We would
recommend that these be permanent as does your on call structural engineer I believe.

7

Drawing 5 shows temporary earth pressure shoring for the abutments. All of that work should be on the bank of the
stream. If that is located in the buffer, those impacts would be approximately 200 SF on each side of the bridge for a
total of 400 SF.

Only other impact would be construction of the approach to the bridge on either side. Width of the road would be
approximately 15’. By my calculations, we should be well below the 2,500 SF for temporary roads.

We will be doing some tree trimming to facilitate installation, but no wholesale tree clearing. May involve taking a tree
or two down to the stump.”

Please let us know if you have any further questions or would like to discuss any of this.
Thank you,
Nancy

From: Nancy Oberle
Sent: Tuesday, January 2, 2024 4:15 PM
To: Jim Mason <[e-mail]>; Hopper, Christopher D CIV USARMY CESAW (USA)
<[e-mail]>; Archer, C Alexi CIV USARMY CESAS (USA) <[e-mail]>
Cc: Thomas, Zachary T <[e-mail]>; Bailey, David E CIV USARMY CESAW (USA)
<[e-mail]>; Hammond, Swade D CIV USARMY CESAS (USA)
<[e-mail]>
Subject: RE: SAW-2023-01253 (Town of Cary Dredging Project / Cary NC / Wake County)

Hi Alexi & Chris,
Please below responses (in green) to the comments that Alexi provided. The Town and the designer have reworked their
plan to reduce the size of the wetland impact from 0.26 acre to 0.05 acre. See attached updated plan sheets showing the
adjusted staging area. As you’ll see on the updated plan sheets, they are also working on avoiding the temporary stream
impacts by utilizing the existing pedestrian bridge. This would require only minor temporary stream impacts and would
eliminate the need for riparian buffer impacts.

Please let us know if any further clarification is needed. As Jim mentioned, we would be happy to have a call/Teams
meeting to discuss any of this with folks.
Thank you and Happy New Year!
Nancy

1. The disposal site, a lagoon south of the South Cary Wastewater Treatment Plant, is .85 acre in size. Four acres of
sediment (12,400 cubic yards) would be placed there. The application further states that material would not
be placed within 1-foot of the crest of the lagoon’s surrounding dike. Please verify that the lagoon will be
capable of receiving all dredged material. Are secondary disposal locations also being considered?

Based on a conservative estimate of the capacity within the lagoon, leaving one foot of freeboard, there is sufficient
capacity to receive all of the material we are likely to be able to dredge within the time constraints of this project.

2. There appear to be significant waters surrounding the lagoon. Have delineations been conducted in these areas?
What measures are proposed to ensure no impact to adjacent waters results?
All work will be conducted within the footprint of the former lagoon and from high ground areas around the
lagoon. Access is via an existing gravel roadway. The lagoon area and access road are all elevated a minimum of five
feet above all forested and wetland areas, and are part of the operational footprint of the wastewater treatment facility
that has been on the site and operating since the early 1990s.

8

3. How will material be moved from the spillway dredge area to the temporary storage area?

The material will dredged using hydraulic methods and pumped into the mechanical dewatering facility. Once
dewatered, the material will be trucked to the disposal area.

4. The application states that alternative lands to the south are residential but Wake County iMaps documents a
large upland forest area is shown owned by GI ETS Regency Woods. Please detail why these uplands are not
usable in lieu of clearing forested wetland for dredge storage.

The property discussed in the comment is not owned or controlled by the Town of Cary. The project as proposed is
being conducted entirely on land owned by the Town. In addition, this property has extremely steep topography (see
map) and would require extensive grading to be usable as a staging area. Also, trucks would not be able to negotiate the
90-degree turn that would be required to access the section of greenway that leads out of the site. In addition, this
would necessitate addressing another pedestrian greenway bridge (installing another temporary bridge that would
allow truck traffic).

<image001.png>

5. The application states that live-staking with saplings would occur if required in the future. Please explain how
this requirement would be triggered, when in the future the decision would be made, and why replacing
woody vegetation once complete is not currently proposed.

The cleared areas will be seeded and strawed to stabilize them after work is complete. The cleared wetland area will be
seeded with wetland seed mix. Cary will replant the site with a mix of hardwood trees in winter of 2024-2025 (dormant
season).
6. The avoidance and minimization discussion doesn’t discuss wetland impacts for dredge spoil. Please explain why
clearing a forested wetland for dredge spoil is required, when the town owns both the Koka Booth property
(uplands), and the existing greenway trail (which presumably could be temporarily detoured/closed).

Any impacts due to stockpiling of dredge spoil will be temporary. The revised plan shows the proposed temporary
stockpile area has been reduced in size, as has the wetland impacted.

From: Jim Mason <[e-mail]>
Sent: Tuesday, December 26, 2023 11:44 AM
To: Hopper, Christopher D CIV USARMY CESAW (USA) <[e-mail]>; Nancy Oberle
<[e-mail]>; Archer, C Alexi CIV USARMY CESAS (USA)
<[e-mail]>
Cc: Thomas, Zachary T <[e-mail]>; Bailey, David E CIV USARMY CESAW (USA)
<[e-mail]>; Hammond, Swade D CIV USARMY CESAS (USA)
<[e-mail]>
Subject: Re: SAW-2023-01253 (Town of Cary Dredging Project / Cary NC / Wake County)

Chris – thank you for the quick response. We will pass along the information regarding permits being needed prior to
starting to the town. We are also working on Alexi‘s request for additional information. We hope to have that to you
after the holiday week and are happy to have a meeting, either in person or via Teams, to discuss the project further, if
needed.

Thanks and have a great holiday week, Jim

James Mason
9

Three Oaks Engineering, Inc.
[phone]

From: Hopper, Christopher D CIV USARMY CESAW (USA) <[e-mail]>
Sent: Friday, December 22, 2023 3:06:46 PM
To: Nancy Oberle <[e-mail]>; Archer, C Alexi CIV USARMY CESAS (USA)
<[e-mail]>
Cc: Thomas, Zachary T <[e-mail]>; Jim Mason <[e-mail]>; Bailey,
David E CIV USARMY CESAW (USA) <[e-mail]>; Hammond, Swade D CIV USARMY CESAS (USA)
<[e-mail]>
Subject: RE: SAW-2023-01253 (Town of Cary Dredging Project / Cary NC / Wake County)

Thank you for the email, Nancy:

The Corps’ position on this project is that it does not yet qualify for use of the (any) requested permit. Avoidance and
minimization have not been adequately addressed. We regret the situation your client finds themselves in, but our
process must be completed in advance of any work in waters. Please ensure they are aware that an after-the-fact permit
for work on this project as proposed would be a heavy lift, and mitigation at a minimum of 2:1 for all impacts associated
with the work, and a detailed restoration plan for disturbed resources, would be considered. As proposed, the project
would set a concerning precedent in our area of responsibility.

Please also convey our commitment to working with them as fairly and expeditiously as possible, within the limits of our
program. We hope they do not choose to proceed knowing that proper authorizations have not been secured.

Apologies for jumping in, Alexi, but this situation is unique in the TREC’s experience.

Christopher. D. Hopper
TREC Team Lead / Wilmington District Liaison
US Army Corps of Engineers Savannah District
3331 Heritage Trade Drive, Suite 105
Wake Forest, NC 27587
[phone]

We would appreciate your feedback on how we are performing our duties. Our automated Customer Service Survey can
be accessed by copying and pasting the following link into your web browser:
https://regulatory.ops.usace.army.mil/customer-service-survey/. Thank you for taking the time to visit this site and
complete the survey.

From: Nancy Oberle <[e-mail]>
Sent: Friday, December 22, 2023 12:52 PM
To: Archer, C Alexi CIV USARMY CESAS (USA) <[e-mail]>
Cc: Hopper, Christopher D CIV USARMY CESAW (USA) <[e-mail]>; Thomas, Zachary T
<[e-mail]>; Jim Mason <[e-mail]>
Subject: \[Non-DoD Source\] FW: SAW-2023-01253 (Town of Cary Dredging Project / Cary NC / Wake County)

Hi Alexi,
We have received your request for additional information for the subject project. We are coordinating with the Town of
Cary to answer/address all of your questions/comments.
In the meantime, I wanted to make you aware of the information below. I had sent this email thinking Rachel Capito
would be the Corps rep reviewing the permit application. We wanted to get your feedback on the scheduling issue.
Obviously, we will need to address all of the comments you sent previously before you would provide any sort of
approval. Apologies for not getting this information to you sooner.
10

Please let us know how you would like us to proceed, and we will go from there.
Thanks so much and Happy Holidays!
Nancy

From: Nancy Oberle
Sent: Tuesday, December 5, 2023 3:50 PM
To: Capito, Rachel A CIV USARMY CESAW (USA) <[e-mail]>
Cc: Jim Mason <[e-mail]>
Subject: SAW-2023-01253 (Town of Cary Dredging Project / Cary NC / Wake County)

Ms. Capito,
As you may be aware, we have recently submitted an ePCN for the subject project. The client has informed us that, due
to the finances of the project, the project will be let for bid in the near future. This means that construction work may
need to begin before you have had time to issue the permit. We are wondering if we could get your general approval for
the impacts as they are presented. Alternatively, we could ask for the permit to be issued as an after-the-fact.
Please let us know how you would like us to proceed given this new information.
Thank you,
Nancy

Nancy Scott Oberle
Three Oaks Engineering
324 Blackwell Street, Suite 1200
Durham, NC 27701
919-732-1300 - office
919-900-6535 - direct
[e-mail]
www.threeoaksengineering.com

<SAW-2023-01253_Wetland Data Image Lidar.png>
<SAW-2023-01253_Wetland Data Image.png>

Email correspondence to and from this address may be subject to the North Carolina Public Records Law and may be disclosed to third parties by an authorized
state official.
11