20160849 Ver 1_RE Reach 6 3 Concerns_20200408

Strickland, Bev
From:
Sent:
To:
Subject:
Follow Up Flag:
Flag Status:
Bryan, Todd,
Haupt, Mac
Wednesday, April 8, 2020 1:36 PM
Tugwell, Todd J CIV USARMY CESAW (US); Roden Reynolds, Bryan K CIV (US); Kim
Browning; Davis, Erin B; Wilson, Travis W.; Byron Hamstead; Crumbley, Tyler A CIV
USARMY CESAW (USA); Jones, M Scott (Scott) CIV USARMY CESAW (USA)
Re: [External] RE: Reach 6/3 Concerns
Follow up
Completed
First of all, the map that Adam sent was different than the map sent by Chris Tomsic initially (3/23/2020
email). In that map, they moved R6 upstream, which was good, but did not address R5 and where its
confluence was with R3.
In Adam's map that he sent, it looks like they have now moved R5 upstream as well. On the design sheets in
the mitigation plan R5 has its confluence with R3 at approximately station 26+75, while in the most recent
map from Adam, it was moved up to approximately station 23+50.
I can go with the current representation, however, if we had not pushed a second time, they would not have
moved R5 upstream. I am willing to move forward at this point.
Thanks,
Mac
From: Tugwell, Todd J CIV USARMY CESAW (USA) <[e-mail]>
Sent: Wednesday, April 8, 2020 12:42 PM
To: Roden Reynolds, Bryan K CIV (US) <[e-mail]>; Kim Browning
<[e-mail]>; Haupt, Mac <[e-mail]>; Davis, Erin B
<[e-mail]>; Wilson, Travis W. <[e-mail]>; Byron Hamstead
<[e-mail]>; Crumbley, Tyler A CIV USARMY CESAW (USA) <[e-mail]>; Jones,
M Scott (Scott) CIV USARMY CESAW (USA) <[e-mail]>
Subject: [External] RE: Reach 6/3 Concerns
CAUTION: External email. Do not click links or open attachments unless you verify. Send all suspicious email as an
attachment to report. [e-mail]<mailto:report.spam(a)nc.gov>
Not sure if you all have had the chance to read the entirety of Adam's email, but below is my proposed response. Please
let me know if you have concerns with this. I'd like to respond ASAP.
Thanks,
Todd
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
[phone] ext. 58
-----Original Message -----
From: Adam McIntyre[mailto:[e-mail]]
Sent: Wednesday, April 08, 2020 7:56 AM
To: Tugwell, Todd J CIV USARMY CESAW (USA) <[e-mail]>; Cara Conder
<[e-mail]>
Cc: Christopher Tomsic<[e-mail]>; Kayne Van Stell <[e-mail]>; Daniel
Ingram<[e-mail]>; Roden Reynolds, Bryan K CIV (US)
<[e-mail]>; Browning, Kimberly D CIV USARMY CESAW (USA)
<[e-mail]>; Mac Haupt <[e-mail]>; Erin Davis <[e-mail]>;
Travis Wilson <[e-mail]>; Byron Hamstead <[e-mail]>; Crumbley, Tyler A CIV
USARMY CESAW (USA) <[e-mail]>; Jones, M Scott (Scott) CIV USARMY CESAW
(USA) <[e-mail]>
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!JZ3 cUETizJxZUeCP5tYk3XiM
oLPvAaDA8zWv7NnNzdHrfxi410o5PTBhJGz Ki-K13Q$
7721 Six Forks Rd, Suite 130
Raleigh, North Carolina 27615
Office [phone] 1 Mobile [phone] Email [e-mail]
-----Original Message -----
From: Adam McIntyre
Sent: Tuesday, April 7, 2020 6:14 PM
To: Tugwell, Todd J CIV USARMY CESAW (USA) <[e-mail]>; Cara Conder
<[e-mail]>
Cc: Christopher Tomsic<[e-mail]>; Kayne Van Stell <[e-mail]>; Daniel
Ingram<[e-mail]>; Roden Reynolds, Bryan K CIV (US)
<[e-mail]>; Browning, Kimberly D CIV USARMY CESAW (USA)
<[e-mail]>; Mac Haupt <[e-mail]>; Erin Davis <[e-mail]>;
Travis Wilson <[e-mail]>; Byron Hamstead <[e-mail]>; Crumbley, Tyler A CIV
USARMY CESAW (USA) <[e-mail]>; Jones, M Scott (Scott) CIV USARMY CESAW
(USA) <[e-mail]>
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!JZ3cUETizJxZUeCP5tYk3XiM
oLPvAaDA8zWv7NnNzdHrfxi410o5PTBhJGz Ki-K13Q$
7721 Six Forks Rd, Suite 130
Raleigh, North Carolina 27615
Office [phone] 1 Mobile [phone] Email [e-mail]
-----Original Message -----
From: Tugwell, Todd J CIV USARMY CESAW (USA) <[e-mail]>
Sent: Wednesday, April 1, 2020 2:10 PM
To: Cara Conder <[e-mail]>
Cc: Christopher Tomsic<[e-mail]>; Adam McIntyre <[e-mail]>; Kayne
Van Stell <[e-mail]>; Daniel Ingram<[e-mail]>; Roden Reynolds, Bryan
K CIV (US) <[e-mail]>; Browning, Kimberly D CIV USARMY CESAW (USA)
<[e-mail]>; Mac Haupt <[e-mail]>; Erin Davis <[e-mail]>;

Travis Wilson <[e-mail]>; Byron Hamstead <[e-mail]>; Crumbley, Tyler A CIV
USARMY CESAW (USA) <[e-mail]>; Jones, M Scott (Scott) CIV USARMY CESAW
(USA) <[e-mail]>
Subject: RE: Reach 6/3 Concerns
Cara,
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
[phone] ext. 58
-----Original Message -----
From: Cara Conder[mailto:[e-mail]]
Sent: Tuesday, March 31, 2020 1:27 PM
To: Tugwell, Todd J CIV USARMY CESAW (USA) <[e-mail]. mil>
Cc: Christopher Tomsic <[e-mail]>
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,
Cara
From: Christopher Tomsic <[e-mail]>
Sent: Monday, March 23, 2020 1:26 PM
To: Tugwell, Todd J CIV USARMY CESAW (US) <[e-mail]>; Haupt, Mac
<[e-mail]>; Davis, Erin B <[e-mail]>
Cc: Daniel Ingram<[e-mail]>; Cara Conder <[e-mail]>; Kayne Van Stell
<[e-mail]>; Adam McIntyre <[e-mail]>
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!JZ3cUETizJxZUeCP5t
Yk3XiMoLPvAaDA8zWv7NnNzdHrfxi410o5PTBhJGz_Ki-
K13Q$<BlockedBlockedhttp://www.waterlandsolutions.com/>
6 Dula Springs Rd.,
Weaverville, North Carolina 28787
Mobile [phone] Email tomsic <mailto:[e-mail]> @waterlandsolutions.com
<mailto: [e-mail]>