20011231 Ver 1_RE R-2248D charlotte mitigation sites 16 and 19_20150108

Carpenter,Kristi
From: Johnson, Alan
Sent: Thursday, January 08, 2015 3:07 PM
To: Baker, Virginia
Subject: RE: R-2248D charlotte mitigation sites 16 and 19
Well, it is "my" option!
It looks more like a"right turn" than a curve meander...don't you think. They may not be able to round it, but I threw it
out there.
From: Baker, Virginia
Sent: Thursday, January 08, 2015 11:54 AM
To: Johnson, Alan
Subject: RE: R-2248D charlotte mitigation sites 16 and 19
Hi Alan,
Thanks for updating Byron on our thoughts. I would agree with your assessment. Rounding that curve is a good idea. I
did not realize that was an option. I am kind of surprised Kimberly Horn did not make the same recommendation.
Ginny
From: Johnson, Alan
Sent: Wednesday, January 07, 2015 1:48 PM
To: Moore, Byron G
Cc: Baker, Virginia
Subject: RE: R-2248D charlotte mitigation sites 16 and 19
I concur with site 16.
The review of site 19 states the geometry is within reason. On the upstream meander (especially) to be repaired I
would suggest, if possible, if they can "round it out" some. If I remember correctly in large flow the flows shoot across
the bench on the opposing side and is blowing out the bank on the opposite site. Ginnie mentioned maybe a brush
mattress used on the meanders, rather than typical matting and live stakes.
The entire buffer did look weak with vegetative growth.
Thanks
Alan
From: Moore, Byron G
Sent: Tuesday, January 06, 2015 10:49 AM
To: Crystal.C.AmschlerCa�usace.army.mil; Johnson, Alan; marella buncickCa�fws.gov; Chambers, Marla J
Cc: Elliott, Jason C; Green, Matthew L; Thompson, Larry B; Moore, Byron G
Subject: R-2248D charlotte mitigation sites 16 and 19
Hello all,
I tried to speak with each of you on the phone before I sent this out.

Sites 16 and 19 on R-2248D are 2 stream mitigation sites we reviewed last year.
Site 16 was the site where we added log sills to try and create some grade control. After review 2 years ago, it was
agreed we should remove the log sills as they were possibly causing additional bank scour. At the review last year we
agreed to look at the site one more year for minor localized stability issues before closing the site out.
Site 19 was the site where we had some bank stability problems in a couple of the tight meanders. We agreed to look at
this site and try to come up with some remedial action suggestions.
NCDOT hired Kimley-Horn to do an independent qualitative review and report on both of these sites. I have attached
their findings and recommendations. I would appreciate any additional comments you may have. Right now we plan on
doing some additional supplemental plantings (live stakes) in some areas on Site 16. We plan on further developing
construction plans on Site 19 (including rebuilding structures and grading bank slopes) to try and solve the bank stability
problems.
Let me know if I can answer any questions.
Thank you,
Byron Moore
Email correspondence to and from this sender is subject to the N.C. Public Records Law and may be disclosed to third parties.