HomeMy WebLinkAbout20130223 Ver 4_RE Sediment Loss on U-2524C_20151116From: Bailey, David E SAW <David.E.Bailey2@usace.army.mil>
Sent: Monday, November 16, 2015 9:32 AM
To: Parker, Jerry A
Cc: Wanucha, Dave; Eason, Patty P; Thomson, Nicole J; Nicole Thomson
(nthomson@sepiengineering.com); Smith, Brian V; Snell, William H; Mills, James M
Subject: RE: Sediment Loss on U-2524C (UNCLASSIFIED)
Classification: UNCLASSIFIED
Caveats: NONE
Thanks Jerry. I appreciate the pictures and additional detail. In this case, based on the additional information you
provided, I am satisfied with your suggested course of action. Please continue to coordinate these issues with us and let
me know if you have any questions.
-Dave Bailey
David E. Bailey, PWS
Regulatory Project Manager
US Army Corps of Engineers
CE-SAW-RG-R
3331 Heritage Trade Drive, Suite 105
Wake Forest, North Carolina 27587
Phone: (919) 554-4884, Ext. 30.
Fax: (919) 562-0421
Email: David.E.Bailey2@usace.army.mil
The Wilmington District is committed to providing the highest level of support to the public. To help us ensure we
continue to do so, please complete the Customer Satisfaction Survey located at
http://corpsmapu.usace.army.mil/cm_apex/f?p=136:4:0.
-----Original Message-----
From: Parker, Jerry A [mailto:jparker@ncdot.gov]
Sent: Friday, November 13, 2015 10:15 AM
To: Bailey, David E SAW
Cc: Wanucha, Dave; Eason, Patty P; Thomson, Nicole J; Nicole Thomson (nthomson@sepiengineering.com); Smith, Brian
V; Snell, William H; Mills, James M
Subject: [EXTERNAL] RE: Sediment Loss on U-2524C (UNCLASSIFIED)
Dave,
The six inches that I reported was definitely a high end estimate. I generally like to present the worst case scenario so that
we can feel comfortable that our proposed solutions will cover most possible impacts. The potential six inches of
sediment appeared to be mostly in the unvegetated areas immediately next to the silt fence and therefore will be
removed. The vegetated areas appeared to contain a lot less sediment with the type of vegetation that I believe would be
able to easily survive the sediment accumulation. The vegetated areas are pretty dense with mostly shrubs and saplings
with lesser populations of herbaceous plants (see attached pictures). Some of the species present were Tag alder, Maple,
Dogwoods, Black Willows, Green Ash, Tulip Poplar, Sycamores, Cattails, Joe Pye Weeds, Sedges and Juncus species. I felt
that a lot of these species had pretty extensive root systems that would have been destroyed by trying to remove the
sediment. Please share your thoughts as I would like to be consistent and in compliance with environmental policies.
Jerry Parker
-----Original Message-----
From: Bailey, David E SAW [mailto:David.E.Bailey2@usace.army.mil]
Sent: Monday, November 09, 2015 2:01 PM
To: Parker, Jerry A; Wanucha, Dave; Thomson, Nicole J; Nicole Thomson (nthomson@sepiengineering.com)
Subject: RE: Sediment Loss on U-2524C (UNCLASSIFIED)
Classification: UNCLASSIFIED
Caveats: NONE
Jerry et al.,
Thanks as always for the notice. Per usual I will defer to Dave Wanucha's wisdom in these situation, especially if he has
been to the site and seen the issue. I will note, however, that 6" of sediment in a wetland is substantial. I understand not
wanting to disturb existing vegetation during the removal process. However, given the potential of this amount of
sediment to remove the hydrology or soils criteria from these wetland systems (not to mention seriously reduce
functional capacity), I would like more information on the density and type of vegetation. For instance, if the vegetation is
young, herbaceous, and would be expected to regenerate quickly after sediment removal, then it may be well worth it to
cut the vegetation where necessary to get shovels/buckets in for clean up. Similarly, if the vegetation is primarily
invasives (i.e. Chinese privet) there is relatively little risk in cutting the vegetation to allow sediment removal. There are
definitely circumstances where the costs outweigh the gains in these situations, but the above information would be
helpful in making case-by-case decisions. It may be beneficial to discuss this further during our next on-site meeting.
I hope all are well. Good luck out there.
-Dave Bailey
David E. Bailey, PWS
Regulatory Project Manager
US Army Corps of Engineers
CE-SAW-RG-R
3331 Heritage Trade Drive, Suite 105
Wake Forest, North Carolina 27587
Phone: (919) 554-4884, Ext. 30.
Fax: (919) 562-0421
Email: David.E.Bailey2@usace.army.mil
The Wilmington District is committed to providing the highest level of support to the public. To help us ensure we
continue to do so, please complete the Customer Satisfaction Survey located at
Blockedhttp://corpsmapu.usace.army.mil/cm_apex/f?p=136:4:0.
-----Original Message-----
From: Parker, Jerry A [mailto:jparker@ncdot.gov]
Sent: Friday, October 30, 2015 12:38 PM
To: Bailey, David E SAW; Wanucha, Dave; Snell, William H; Mills, James M; Eason, Patty P; Thomson, Nicole J; Nicole
Thomson (nthomson@sepiengineering.com); Harrington, Barry W
Subject: [EXTERNAL] Sediment Loss on U-2524C
Dave and Dave,
This email is to report sediment loss at Site 9 on U-2524C. The area recently received two and one half inches of rain
which resulted in silt fence failure. As a result, approximately four hundred square feet of wetlands received
approximately two to six inches of sediment. The contractor has agreed to repair the silt fence and make some field
adjustments to decrease run-off to that area. I have recommended that the contractor hand remove the sediment in two
unvegetated areas (approximately one third of the impacted site) while leaving the remaining vegetated area as is. My
opinion is that trying to remove the sediment from the vegetated areas would only further damage the wetland. Due to
the fact that my camera quit working I was not able to take pictures. However, the contractor should be emailing me
pictures which I plan to forward to you. Please let me know if you have any questions or comments.
Jerry Parker
Email correspondence to and from this sender is subject to the N.C. Public Records Law and may be disclosed to third
parties.
Classification: UNCLASSIFIED
Caveats: NONE
Email correspondence to and from this sender is subject to the N.C. Public Records Law and may be disclosed to third
parties.
Classification: UNCLASSIFIED
Caveats: NONE
3