HomeMy WebLinkAbout20160849 Ver 1_USACE Correspondence_20200323Strickland, Bev
From: Tugwell, Todd J CIV USARMY CESAW (USA) <Todd.J.Tugwell@usace.army.mil>
Sent: Monday, March 23, 2020 9:40 AM
To: Haupt, Mac; Davis, Erin B; Wilson, Travis W.; Bowers, Todd; Steve Kichefski; Jones, M
Scott (Scott) CIV USARMY CESAW (USA); Byron Hamstead
Cc: Roden Reynolds, Bryan K CIV (US); Crumbley, Tyler A CIV USARMY CESAW (USA)
Subject: [External] Upper Rocky Bank
Attachments: Upper Rocky Plan Sheets.pdf
CAUTION: External email. Do not click links or open attachments unless you verify. Send all suspicious email as an
attachment to report.Spam@nc.gov<maiIto: report.spam@nc.gov>
All,
We had a conference call last week with WLS regarding the Upper Rocky Bank site, located outside Charlotte. There
were a number of issues discussed, but there is one that I would like feedback on from the IRT. The mitigation plan
includes several streams entering the floodplain, and two in particular that run parallel with one another for
approximately 1,000 feet. At some points during this streach, the streams are located within 50 feet of each other. I've
attached the design overview and plan sheets. The tributaries in question are R3, which has a drainage of approximately
339 acres, and R6, with a drainage area of approximately 147 acres. When we conducted the field review of the site,
WLS was told that we did not agree that these two channels should run parallel down the floodplain, but should flow
together farther upstream. The existing streams on the site appear to have been channelized in the past, with R3
running along the floodplain edge, so they currently run parallel and flow together in the same general areas where WLS
proposes, but the question is whether the restored streams should do this. The USGS topo map shows the streams
coming together much farther upstream, and there is no defined crenulation or valley visible on the Lidar, though you
can see the streams in their current location.
We have reviewed the proposed mitigation plan and told WLS that we continue to have problems with the proposed
approach. According to WLS, they believe that having two streams within the floodplain reduces overall risk to the
system by dispersing the flows (this is an urban system). My concern is that this approach is something we've seen in
the past, and we have also had numerous projects where we were unhappy with the results of this type of approach.
Obviously, there is a lot of incentive for the provider to take this approach, as it will likely add upwards of 800 additional
stream credits to the site. This is something that we used to see frequently, but don't generally see now that providers
are aware that we are looking for it.
So I'm looking to the IRT for input. Please take a look at the attached plans and let me know your thoughts. We've
committed to WLS to try to work through these concerns by the end of the week.
Thanks,
Todd TugwelI
Mitigation Project Manager
Wilmington District, US Army Corps of Engineers
3331 Heritage Trade Drive, Suite 105
Wake Forest, North Carolina 27587
(919) 554-4884 ext. 58
f,.::...
'%"r*s.F-':;•oa: ., III �:•:::•: - , I7
7►1
WATER & LAND
SOLUTIONS
(919)614-5111
,.• •
EM
m
ROCKY
MITIGATION
■■:■■
■
SEES
M■■■■■■■■■■■■■W■
MEN
■■■EE■
■
■■■■■
S■■■■■E■■Em■■
:-■•■■■::■�■■::■■■■MOM■■■■S■■SM■■■■■■M■NONE
SEES■■
E■■■u■■■■m■
■■■■■■u■■■■■■■■■■■■■u■■■■Mu■■■■■■■■■■■■■■■■■
■u■u■■M■■BANK
■■■mu■■■u■■■■■■■M■■■m■■■u■■■■■■■■■■■■■■■
■■E■N■MMEN■o■■a�m
■■�■■■■■E1■■■7■
■■■■■■
■■■■■■■■■■■■■■■■■
■■■SEEN■■■■■■■■■■
.
omit,
i■■
: R�w�■u�uM�
M■■■■EM■■wMMM■■■■
MMuuM■■E
:
g
uu
If
Elf,
I■■■m■���■■;
■SEEP°I■!■■F?
INN
!■■OEM
■E�■M'�MM■■EIOS■S■■■
'ME
on
0
mom
■
�.
No
SEES■®■■.■■■■■■■■■■
■■�
:■
ino
IN
IN
�
■
■.
.
■y,..__•
-
u
:m
■■■■■■■E■■■■■■■■■■
■E
■MEMO
m■uuErJ■■■■■■
■■■
■■■■�■
0
ENE
■MMi
■■ESi
EMEME
EMEM
EM■■u■u■ie■■■■MN■M
:m■
nmM■■M■MMm■■■■■M■■■uM■■■■■u■M
SEEM■■
u
■■m■■■■■■■■■■■■u
■■Eu■■■M
■■■■■:i:■■■■■■Mi:■■■
■:■
■uu■
M■E■■EE■E■■■■■■■■
mom
:iMMESSINESS
■■■■■M■■■■■■■■■■■■■M■■■■MM■E:■■■=M
No
Emo
mo
�■:::::::ENEESEE■E
EEEE
■
mEEEEEE■E
::■■■■■■■■
:�::ON
...MIN
....................
.■m:::�
■■■■■■■■■:■■■■■■■E■
M■■■S■■■■■
■■
■N■■M■
■■■M■■■■
■■■■■■■■■M■m■M■
.■■■■E■■■■■■■■■■■■■M■■�O■■S■■■N■E
ME:■■■E■■:S■■■O■■
:N■SS■E■O■S■■■........
•
:::'::ME::::'.■:'.::.E::EEESEEEC■::■
•
PROFILE
E:EM.::::::..E:::E:::::•..■
— •n /f f BEGIN CONSTRUCTION RB
NF /_ / WATER &LAND
SYPARTNERSLIP �D VERNAL POOL (TYP)
DONOT INGDISTURBVVETLA / i MUi �_1 \ SOLUTIONS
INSTALL CHANNEL TO \ EXISTING WETLAND (TYP.)� -AV Ma 1
��,/- eI• � V. _ _ / PIN 007y5101 A yMOi C
V. BLOCK(TYP.) I — DB DY70J RGAVtiWai '
ON, e / — i—Avmai---A�Awi---(- /�. •' 7721 Six Forks C 76Sui15130
\ S W V. T �" ENO CONS ACTION RB I a1Fr ` - Raleigh. NC 27615
/ \ \ twe'�0 �' — I J \ (9191614.5111
30 l••���Q •� VYI TOEALL W DO E(TYPr \ WLB�<L� ✓/ '� � , . / INSTALL LOG VANE (yYP.I� �- \ / watedandwEJEons.com
IyLB — Le 30 / --. - / \ / PROJECT ENGINEER
An"' 0�
CHANNEL FILL(TYP) i a�2B p��tN CAR \
GIF
CIF G R,P- d. d�110E �Qf�iLT'��i
T i FLOW L'(' �• FOWAV FLOW '
• T�� y4•4•• \_ •, INSTALLSTONEAND Lad/�~ '� •�
Lp \ —_ STEP POOL TYP) AJ (CQ •'S�
V INSTALLCONSTRUCTEDNFLE(TYED -
JJ STONE RIFFLE ITYP)) �R✓ �� f •`0,��
ALLCONSTR GTED / \ / —� '1 y FDH'AY No POW PHER 11• PF
/ ' 4r�. �}•�j� LGGRISFLmP)ry' iMJ. �ow uuu�uP�
n°iB ` / �. ` I A �y • / v 3 O EEGIN NG SERVICES BY
\ STALL , Jl� =� 1 ~ dROPOBE01Y WIDE STNICK- IS ENGrvEERwG PLLC
` 'AGGREGATE BASE COURSE "�� L'AY y� FlRnn uCE ENO P. 1460
CTIONF r(fY y�f�'v •a J I ENl CONS�R``U�TKIN R3 I �•" PATH FOR FUTRE GREENWAY Q:/ REVISIONS
IN m ar 1".•_�' •' r� J END I �(SEE DETAIL) CE- A —PLAN PUN an-•]
6L / �� - •W BEGI CONSTRUCTION RI I (v �� Eyy,i urpw1 ]a-zo
EMSU CERAMIC 5TA ]S• 0 '� GE
A
\ / FDWAY PIPE 76 SERSMOVED I �� - CS
MEMOS M mE��m EMS
E ■■■■W■� ■E !7■■ J E■■EI■■■1' WEMEN ENWIIIIIIIIIIIIIES
W •
E■■■IS CIMMEN
■ .. W■■ ■"CAI■■■■
ME
_ 110.1E I■■■■
ME
■E■■ ■■■ ■■■■■ 1■■
■■■■■ ■■■ MEMONo ■■■E
■■■■■ m-mmm
EME■ M■■■■O■■O�■■■■B ■■■W■ ■W
■■■■�■■Eml■■ME■�mMMMMMMM
PROJECT NAME
UPPER ROCKY
MITIGATION
BANK
MECKLENBURG COUNTY. NC
A R w
GRAPHIC SCALE
SHEET NAME
R3&R 1
PLAN AND
PROFILE
SHEET N LP
12