HomeMy WebLinkAbout20160849 Ver 1_Reach 6 3 Concerns_20200408Strickland, Bev
From: Tugwell, Todd J CIV USARMY CESAW (USA) <Todd.J.Tugwell@usace.army.mil>
Sent: Wednesday, April 8, 2020 3:10 PM
To: Adam McIntyre; Cara Conder
Cc: Christopher Tomsic; Kayne Van Stell; Daniel Ingram; Roden Reynolds, Bryan K CIV
(US); Kim Browning; Haupt, Mac; Davis, Erin B; Wilson, Travis W.; Byron Hamstead;
Crumbley, Tyler A CIV USARMY CESAW (USA); Jones, M Scott (Scott) CIV USARMY
CESAW (USA)
Subject: [External] RE: Reach 6/3 Concerns
Follow Up Flag: Follow up
Flag Status: Completed
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<mailto:report.spam@nc.gov>
Adam,
Thank you for your input. I understand that WLS has invested a lot of effort in the development of the Upper
Rocky site, and I don't question that you are trying to make this the best site that you can. I definitely agree
that this system has the potential to provide significant ecological uplift, especially given the development
within the watershed. As you stated, there is a lot of sediment and storm water that enter the site, but these
factors also contribute to the risks associated with the project and the concerns of the IRT.
With regard to the IRT's view on the stream channel, please understand that our comments are driven not
only by the few hours that that we spent on the site or reviewing plans, but the experiences from many sites
that the IRT has seen over the years, and the lessons we have learned from those sites. I don't disagree that
your initial proposed alignment of streams on the site had them located in the same areas where they already
exist - that much is clear, but I do not agree that their current location is where they occurred naturally. I
think there is evidence that the system has been highly manipulated throughout the years, and that the
streams were likely straightened and relocated to the edges of the floodplain to accommodate farming and
agriculture, as is the case with many floodplain stream systems across the state. As we have already offered,
if you have a reference stream system with similar characteristics that you feel justifies your approach, please
let us know so that we may reconsider our comments.
Based on your response, you are clearly confident in your design; however, the IRT comments regarding the
appropriate confluence of the steams within the floodplain on this site were made during the initial site visit,
so I think we have provided consistent guidance to WLS, which is also consistent with the guidance that is
given to other providers. That said, I want to be sure that you understand that we are willing to move forward
with WLS' original plans, and that we are not dictating a particular design approach. That is not our job, nor
the job of the IRT. Our comments were intended to make you aware of our concerns with the risks of the
approach and how it may affect function of the site - it is these factors that led us to propose a reduction in
ratio for those reaches. We try to review all proposal with the mindset that these projects and the associated
uplift will be used to offset the functional losses associated with permits we issue, so if we did not address our
concerns about proposed projects, I don't believe we would be doing our job, and one thing I have learned
over the years is that we must address concerns up front rather than waiting until projects have been built.
We will move forward with the revised design unless you would prefer to discuss alternative credit ratios and
stay with the original design.
Thank you,
Todd Tugwell
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
-----Original Message -----
From: Adam McIntyre [mailto:adam@waterlandsolutions.com]
Sent: Wednesday, April 08, 2020 7:56 AM
To: Tugwell, Todd J CIV USARMY CESAW (USA)<Todd.J.Tugwell@usace.army.mil>; Cara Conder
<cara@waterlandsolutions.com>
Cc: Christopher Tomsic<tomsic@waterlandsolutions.com>; Kayne Van Stell
<kayne@waterlandsolutions.com>; Daniel Ingram<daniel@waterlandsolutions.com>; Roden Reynolds, Bryan
K CIV (US) <Bryan.K.Roden Reynolds@usace.army.miI>; Browning, Kimberly D CIV USARMY CESAW (USA)
<Kimberly.D.Browning@usace.army.mil>; Mac Haupt <mac.haupt@ncdenr.gov>; Erin Davis
<erin.davis@ncdenr.gov>; Travis Wilson <travis.wilson@ncwildlife.org>; Byron Hamstead
<byron_Hamstead@fws.gov>; Crumbley, Tyler A CIV USARMY CESAW (USA)
<Tyler.A.Crumbley@usace.army.mil>; Jones, M Scott (Scott) CIV USARMY CESAW (USA)
<Scott.Jones@usace.army.mil>
Subject: [Non-DoD Source] RE: Reach 6/3 Concerns
Wanted to attach the same figure as before but with the Reaches labeled. Again ... if you look at the shaded
portions of the topo you will see where the existing reaches are located when they were dredged in place. R3
design reach was shifted south and back within the floodplain. You should also notice that the R6 confluence
with R3 was well upstream of where it was historically, shortening the stream length from what it currently is.
R5 is designed essentially in place. The design confluence of R4 and R5 is literally within a few feet of the
existing confluence of those 2 tribs. You should also notice the design confluence of R5 and R3 is well
upstream of the existing confluence, again shortening the length of stream onsite. So this should be a clear
indication that WLS designed these reaches SHORTER than they exist today.
Adam V McIntyre
Water & Land Solutions
Blockedhttps://urldefense.com/v3/_http://www.waterlandsolutions.com_;!!HYmSToo!IzygStU1LN1MB2HH
M7N-XTtx8YxlUhmNVBlx_LIDkK1RZhRUXYRk_kawlgWbD--U5Ao$
7721 Six Forks Rd, Suite 130
Raleigh, North Carolina 27615
Office (919) 614-5111 1 Mobile (919) 632-5910 1 Email adam@waterlandsolutions.com
-----Original Message -----
From: Adam McIntyre
Sent: Tuesday, April 7, 2020 6:14 PM
To: Tugwell, Todd J CIV USARMY CESAW (USA)<Todd.J.Tugwell@usace.army.mil>; Cara Conder
<cara@waterlandsolutions.com>
Cc: Christopher Tomsic<tomsic@waterlandsolutions.com>; Kayne Van Stell
<kayne@waterlandsolutions.com>; Daniel Ingram<daniel@waterlandsolutions.com>; Roden Reynolds, Bryan
K CIV (US) < Bryan. K.Roden Reynolds@usace.army.miI>; Browning, Kimberly D CIV USARMY CESAW (USA)
<Kimberly.D.Browning@usace.army.mil>; Mac Haupt <mac.haupt@ncdenr.gov>; Erin Davis
<erin.davis@ncdenr.gov>; Travis Wilson <travis.wilson@ncwildlife.org>; Byron Hamstead
<byron_Hamstead@fws.gov>; Crumbley, Tyler A CIV USARMY CESAW (USA)
<Tyler.A.Crumbley@usace.army.mil>; Jones, M Scott (Scott) CIV USARMY CESAW (USA)
<Scott.Jones@usace.army.mil>
Subject: RE: Reach 6/3 Concerns
Importance: High
Todd,
Thanks for the response and information. WLS has listened to, thought about, and appreciates the
opinions of the IRT. I wanted to respond to the recent Upper Rocky IRT comments directly because I have
been working on this project for the entire 5 years since I first did the delineation. David Kroening and Brian
Sikes of Mecklenburg County stormwater and I first walked the project in 2015, long before the project
entered the portal of a mitigation bank. These are two of the most experienced restoration folks in the
business and were apart of the team that identified this as the top ranked water quality project in the Rocky
River watershed. Once the project become an opportunity for a mitigation bank, WLS began approaching this
differently than any mitigation site I have worked on. We immediately installed groundwater gauges with the
intent of collecting —2-3 years of data PRIOR to formal design. We delineated and mapped streams early on
because we understood that this floodplain was dynamic due to the presence of so many perennial streams
entering at the center of the "chicken foot". The sheer volume of water coming to these upper reaches of the
Rocky River is impressive. In addition to an already "active" floodplain, the flow dynamics associated with a
fast-growing watershed clearly indicate that the significantly impaired system will continue to change. The
amount of sediment that has flushed and will continue to flush downstream is significant.
We interviewed and built very strong relationships with Beverly, George, and Paul ... the 3 original landowners.
We did so to understand the past land use practices on the property. As I have learned in my 21 years, if you
don't understand the past, you can't understand the present, and you surely won't understand the future.
The family grew corn in the 60's on George's property and moved—300-400 linear feet of R3 to the north
along the floodplain boundary to maximize the corn production. Because of the wet nature of the floodplain,
the streams were dredged in place (as is clearly indicated in the field). Paul's father (upstream landowner)
cleared and raised cattle until 1964 when he passed away. At that point the cattle were moved off site and
"those big green grass plants with big root balls moved in"...of course referring to juncus. This was before the
beaver moved in and a strong indication that this floodplain had tremendous potential for wetland
restoration. We have also been active in discussions on both proposed developments in the watershed to
help drive those as it relates to the mitigation bank. We have also obtained the rights to design the greenway
trail, which many IRT members don't care for. But we would rather design it then allow someone else that
doesn't take the mitigation site into account. As part of our desire to understand more about restoring stream
and wetland complexes in the Piedmont region rapidly urbanizing are such as Charlotte, we decided to install
twice the normal groundwater gauges and do a few extra transects. This was done so we could better
understand the groundwater hydrology elevation and subsurface movement before and after restoration.
The point of the 2 paragraphs above is to help explain that WLS considers this just as much if not more a
research project.for the industry. We want to better understand this watershed restoration approach and use
this project as a rare and unique opportunity to study the benefits and results across the entire upper
watershed. This is somewhat similar but on a much larger scale to the Monteith mitigation project which has
become a small subset of how watershed restoration should occur. To date WLS staff has spent well over 100
days on this property and has collected years of data. We have gone through 3 iterations of design concepts
between Kayne, Chris Tomsic, Daniel, Cara, and myself (-90 years of combined stream and wetland
restoration implementation). What we have learned in the 3-4 years of studying the past land use practices
and the dynamics of the watershed is awesome and led to what we KNOW is the ideal design for the property.
Please understand it's not our opinion or WLS chasing stream credits. It's based on science and engineering
done better than most mitigation sites I've seen in the past because the project isn't focused on profits and
revenue. The streams are being designed in the valleys where they occurred naturally. The only exception
being R3 which was moved to the south off the floodplain valley slope where Mr. Mayes had relocated this
section in the 40's and 50's (which technically shortened the linear footage). But let me reiterate again that if
you simply look at the topo footprint of the attached map and realize that the streams are being designed
where they occurred naturally, it should be evident to all IRT members that WLS isn't extending stream length
or trying to credit chase. What we have done is collect more data, take more time, do more research, and put
more experience, knowledge and understanding into this bank than any mitigation bank or full delivery site in
NC.
I want to defend my team and make sure that in no way shape or form did WLS extend streams or credit chase
on this or any project we have ever worked on. As it relates to this project, WLS has redesigned a portion of
R3 and R5 to accommodate the IRT's belief that the streams are "running parallel for too long" to keep this
project moving along toward approval. Let me make it clear: we do not agree with this redesign. The
redesign does represent a functional stream and wetland system just as the original design did. We shortened
the stream lengths not because of what science and engineering suggests, but purely because of your opinion
after spending less than 10 hours on the property. We hope that you and the IRT will see Upper Rocky as an
attempt to bring the best science, engineering, and investment to restore a site that doesn't fit the typical
"ditch in a cow pasture" mitigation bank. This project IS how we believe mitigation should be done. Being able
to restore almost 10,000 linear feet of degraded stream, 10+ acres of wetlands protected, and more
conservation easement than the minimum that others protect in an urbanized watershed provides a massive
amount of functional uplift. This project IS exactly how/what our education and passion as an industry should
be working towards.
All that being said, we would greatly appreciate an expedited response on the redesign so WLS can continue
moving the project forward towards an approval and construction this Fall.
Adam V McIntyre
Water & Land Solutions
Blockedhttps://urldefense.com/v3/_http://www.waterlandsolutions.com_;!!HYmSToo!IzygStU1LN1MB2HH
M7N-XTtx8YxlUhmNVBlx_LIDkK1RZhRUXYRk_kawlgWbD--U5Ao$
7721 Six Forks Rd, Suite 130
Raleigh, North Carolina 27615
Office (919) 614-5111 1 Mobile (919) 632-5910 1 Email adam@waterlandsolutions.com
-----Original Message -----
From: Tugwell, Todd J CIV USARMY CESAW (USA) <Todd.J.Tugwell@usace.army.mil>
Sent: Wednesday, April 1, 2020 2:10 PM
To: Cara Conder <cara@waterlandsolutions.com>
Cc: ChristopherTomsic<tomsic@waterlandsolutions.com>; Adam McIntyre
<adam@waterlandsolutions.com>; Kayne Van Stell <kayne@waterlandsolutions.com>; Daniel Ingram
<daniel@waterlandsolutions.com>; Roden Reynolds, Bryan K CIV (US)
<Bryan.K.Roden Reynolds@usace.army.miI>; Browning, Kimberly D CIV USARMY CESAW (USA)
<Kimberly.D.Browning@usace.army.mil>; Mac Haupt <mac.haupt@ncdenr.gov>; Erin Davis
<erin.davis@ncdenr.gov>; Travis Wilson <travis.wilson@ncwildlife.org>; Byron Hamstead
<byron_Hamstead@fws.gov>; Crumbley, Tyler A CIV USARMY CESAW (USA)
<Tyler.A.Crumbley@usace.army.mil>; Jones, M Scott (Scott) CIV USARMY CESAW (USA)
<Scott.Jones@usace.army.mil>
Subject: RE: Reach 6/3 Concerns
Ca ra,
Last week we received feedback from several IRT members on the questions related to the stream design at
the Upper Rocky site. It was the view of the IRT that for this site it is not appropriate to have channels running
parallel within the floodplain. In fact, there was concern expressed that this approach would actually increase
the risk of problems occurring with the streams on the site, not only because there is more overall length of
channel to be concerned with, but also because one system would dominate the floodplain and overwhelm
the tributary with the smaller watershed.
We did review the modified plan that was provided that has R6 flowing into R3 instead of R5, but this doesn't
really seem to address the overriding concern, because R5 still runs parallel to R6 for the same distance. Our
comments would be better addressed by having all the different channels flow into a primary channel within a
reasonable distance after entering the floodplain.
With regard to the functions provided by the streams within this system, it is our view that having multiple,
single -thread channels running parallel within a floodplain does not result in the same level of functional
return because many of the benefits provided by the floodplain and buffer are shared across the different
streams running within the floodplain. For instance, the floodplain will provide the roughly same level of
floodwater attenuation and filtration regardless of whether there is one larger vs. two or three smaller
channels occupying that floodplain - the floodplain still has the same storage capacity and the watershed
draining to it.
As we discussed during the conference call, this is a tricky situation because we cannot dictate a particular
design to a provider, but at the same time if we see something that is concerning, we still need to address it.
In this case, the IRT is in agreement that this does not seem to be an appropriate design for the system, and it
appears to be driven more by maximizing stream length on the project. This is something that we've
addressed in the past, and generally we don't see this type of approach any more. Given this, if it is the view
of WLS that there must be multiple channels designed to reduce the risk, an option to address IRT concerns
would be to reduce credit ratios (maybe more equivalent to an enhancement ratio) on reaches that run
parallel within and share functions across a single floodplain, similar to the way we would address a braided
system. Please let us know if you would prefer this approach over a redesign.
Also, I'm not sure if I answered your earlier question regarding the failure/suspension of credits due to a
hurricane. I don't know that we have suspended credits directly as a result of a hurricane, but we certainly
have had many projects damaged as a result of hurricanes or tropical depressions. I'm also certain that that
there have been numerous delays in the release of credits or project closeouts due to major flooding events
and droughts, sometimes as a result of the need to conduct stream repairs or replant sites.
One of the big issues is that there is nothing in either the instrument or assurance document that defines what
constitutes an "Act of God". Is it the amount of precipitation, the type or category of storm, the drought
index, or something else. As you know, we have some unnamed storms that pop up and that dump more
water on a site that some of our named hurricanes. I think someone could argue that all storms are Acts of
God, and with regard to failing streams in particular, they are almost all a result of some storm event, not base
flow, so you can imagine why this is a major concern for us.
I think the more important point for the assurance providers is that I don't know of any instance where we
have called in financial assurances as a result of a storm. Fortunately, the mitigation providers we've worked
with have all opted to repair and replant sites, or in some cases reduce credits, rather than walking away from
a site, but that possibility is really the main reason why we have financial assurances in the first place. As long
as providers are still around to work with, we shouldn't have to call on assurances. It will always be a better
for us to rely on credit release as a way of dealing with site performance issues rather than using the threat of
financial assurances (despite what the RGL suggests). Let me know if you have any other questions about this.
Thank you,
Todd Tugwell
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
-----Original Message -----
From: Cara Conder[mailto:cara@waterlandsolutions.com]
Sent: Tuesday, March 31, 2020 1:27 PM
To: Tugwell, Todd J CIV USARMY CESAW (USA) <Todd.J.Tugwell@usace.army.mil>
Cc: Christopher Tomsic <tomsic@waterlandsolutions.com>
Subject: [Non-DoD Source] FW: Reach 6/3 Concerns
Hi Todd,
I wanted to see if you have gotten feedback from the IRT and also saw the email Chris sent last week about
Upper Rocky. We are eager to keep this project moving along.
Thanks,
Ca ra
From: ChristopherTomsic <tomsic@waterlandsolutions.com>
Sent: Monday, March 23, 2020 1:26 PM
To: Tugwell, Todd J CIV USARMY CESAW (US)<Todd.J.Tugwell@usace.army.mil>; Haupt, Mac
<mac.haupt@ncdenr.gov>; Davis, Erin B <erin.davis@ncdenr.gov>
Cc: Daniel Ingram<daniel@waterlandsolutions.com>; Cara Conder <cara@waterlandsolutions.com>; Kayne
Van Stell <kayne@waterlandsolutions.com>; Adam McIntyre <adam@waterlandsolutions.com>
Subject: Reach 6/3 Concerns
Todd/Erin/Mac,
Thanks again for you all taking time last week to speak with our crew about Upper Rocky. You all's comments
are always important to us and we want to make sure that all of us are in lock step with the design approach
and overall project goals.
Following our conversation last week our team discussed the concerns you all have with Reach 6 and 3
running parallel. We revised the Reach 6 tie-in to be more in with what we all discussed on the phone. Please
review the attached PDF showing the revised alignment and provide any feedback that you all may have. We
believe this new alignment should address your concern of reaches running parallel while at the same time
meeting our project goals and objectives.
Take care,
Christopher A. Tomsic PE, CFM
Water & Land Solutions
BlockedBlockedhttps://urldefense.com/v3/_http://www.waterlandsolutions.com_;! ! HYmSToo! IzygStUlLN1
MB2HHM7N-XTtx8YxlUhmNVBlx_LIDkK1RZhRUXYRk_kawlgWbD--U5Ao$
<BlockedBlockedhttp://www.waterlandsolutions.com/>
6 Dula Springs Rd.,
Weaverville, North Carolina 28787
Mobile (828) 493-3287 1 Email tomsic <mailto:adam@waterlandsolutions.com> @waterlandsolutions.com
<mailto:adam@waterlandsolutions.com>