20191073 Ver 1_More Information Received_20190814

Strickland, Bev
From: Bodnar, Gregg
Sent: Wednesday, August 14, 2019 1:10 PM
To: Hair, Sarah E CIV CESAW CESAD (US); Mairs, Robb L; Staples, Shane; Dunn, Maria T.
Subject: RE: [External] RE: Michael Richter
Thanks Liz,
I will pass along now and will let Sam know that more comments may be on the way. But this will help him start to
conceptualize his response.
G regg
-----Original Message -----
From: Hair, Sarah E CIV CESAW CESAD (US) <Sarah.E.Hai [e-mail]>
Sent: Wednesday, August 14, 2019 12:57 PM
To: Bodnar, Gregg <[e-mail]>; Mairs, Robb L <[e-mail]>; Staples, Shane
<[e-mail]>; Dunn, Maria T. <[e-mail]>
Subject: RE: [External] RE: Michael Richter
CAUTION: External email. Do not click links or open attachments unless you verify. Send all suspicious email as an
attachment to [e-mail]<maiIto: [e-mail]>
G regg,
I'm looking at it today... regarding the cost prohibitive response for a bridge, the applicant will need to provide details
regarding the cost of the fill, culvert, and bulkhead compared to that of a bridge which would support a trailer with a
small boat/Jetski/kayak as described in Sam's most recent response.
The applicant will also need to provide a cross-section showing the culvert. A 10" PVC pipe is likely not sturdy enough to
withstand compaction over years of driving across with a truck and trailer. The pipe will need to be upsized in diameter
and of a sturdy material, or install multiple sturdy pipes in order to maintain flow from the adjacent wetland.
Additionally, a 15 -foot wide crossing is excessive when most driveways are no larger than 10-12 feet. The applicant will
need to reduce the width of the crossing -this goes to the avoidance and minimization point.
Thanks,
Liz
-----Original Message -----
From: Bodnar, Gregg [mailto:[e-mail]]
Sent: Wednesday, August 14, 2019 8:21 AM
To: Hair, Sarah E CIV CESAW CESAD (US) <[e-mail]>; Mairs, Robb L <[e-mail]>;
Staples, Shane <[e-mail]>; Dunn, Maria T. <[e-mail]>
Subject: [Non-DoD Source] FW: [External] RE: Michael Richter
Hey all,

I wanted to touch base with everyone and see if anyone has any thoughts to the response below. I am planning on
getting more information on point 2 and will provide asap.
Thanks,
G regg
From: Sam Bell <[e-mail]>
Sent: Thursday, August 08, 2019 10:44 AM
To: Bodnar, Gregg <[e-mail]>; Hair, Sarah E CIV CESAW CESAD (US) <[e-mail]>;
Mairs, Robb L <[e-mail]>; Staples, Shane <[e-mail]>
Cc: Davenport, Ryan <[e-mail]>; Mike richter <[e-mail]>
Subject: [External] RE: Michael Richter
CAUTION: External email. Do not click links or open attachments unless you verify. Send all suspicious email as an
attachment to [e-mail] <mailto:[e-mail]>
Good Morning,
Mr. Richter's response below goes into more detail on the "need and purpose" and "avoidance and minimization"
aspects of the permit application:
"Sam,

Here are my thoughts on 1) the "Bridge" 2) " need and purpose" 3) "avoidance and minimization".
1) Bridge: The structure labeled on the plan as a bridge is actually only a footpath constructed of nominal 2" lumber
bearing directly on the ground. The grades on either side of the "bridge" are incompatible with footpath traffic for the
elderly- which I'm getting to be , and for those who can't climb grades.
2) Needs and Purpose: The needs and purpose is to provide for access to the water, and to the property adjacent to the
water for both pedestrian and vehicular traffic. The current wetlands bisects two sections of the property and prevents
vehicular traffic, including trailered sailboat, jet ski or other watercraft to the water. The slopes to and from the
wetlands limits water access by the elderly and for those who can't climb grades. Because of the difficult access, boat
docks and other water dependent accessory structures normally associated with the area are impracticable.
3) Avoidance and Minimization: From what research I can do this is highly subjective and subject to negotiation. Part of
the "negotiation" is to let the corp official know what has already been done to avoid and minimize impact. We have
significantly reduced the area of fill by (50)%, avoided CAMA wetlands, and maintained the natural area landward of the
high tide line. An alternate to the fill would be retaining/sea walls, fill, and a vehicular bridge which is cost prohibitive.
I am in the area the rest of today and tomorrow, and will be glad to meet with you and/or the local official to discuss.
Mike Richter"
I can confirm that we did reduce the total fill area by roughly 50% from the initial design. This was to avoid impact to the
coastal wetland area and keep the flow path on the west property line intact. An underdrain culvert was also added to
the design to retain the flow path from the wetland area on the adjacent property. Thank you again for taking the time
to review the project. Please let me know if you have any additional comments/concerns.
Best regards,
Sam Bell, P.E.
Project Engineer
3302-C Bridges Street
Morehead City, NC 28557
252-247-7479 x224
Click here<Blockedhttps://stroudengineer.sharefile.com/r-relOdfdddc5b47b78> to upload files.

From: Bodnar, Gregg <[e-mail] <mailto:[e-mail]> >
Sent: Monday, August 5, 2019 4:36 PM
To: Hair, Sarah E CIV CESAW CESAD (US) <[e-mail] <mailto:Sarah.E.Hai [e-mail]> >; Mairs,
Robb L <[e-mail] <mailto:[e-mail]> >; Staples, Shane <[e-mail]
<mailto:[e-mail]> >
Cc: Sam Bell <[e-mail] <mailto:[e-mail]> >; Davenport, Ryan
<[e-mail] <mailto: rya [e-mail]> >
Subject: Michael Richter
Afternoon all,
After discussions with Mr. Richter's agent, Sam Bell, the applicant has requested to place the project on applicant hold
to discuss the concerns of the review agencies. To summarize USACE and DWR have concerns over the purpose and
need of the proposed 404 fill and further concerns over avoidance and minimization. DMF has also noted concern over
avoidance and minimization.
Mr. Bell has been CC'd on this request. Mr. Bell, if you have any additional questions concerning the agency comments
please let us know and I will be happy to coordinate.
Thanks,
G regg