RE Richmond County A Basin

Strickland, Bev
From:Williams, Andrew E SAW <[e-mail]>
Sent:Monday, August 22, 2016 8:51 AM
To:Paugh, Leilani Y; Wrenn, Brian L
Cc:King, Art C; Griffin, Randy W; Cail, William G; Matthews, Monte K SAW
Subject:RE: Richmond County A Basin
All:

Thanks for taking a look at this and developing a draft restoration plan. I was finally able to obtain a portion of the file
and found that the basin was authorized via a NWP. However, there was no condition regarding restoration, etc.
So........in order for us to authorized the proposed plan, we will need a PCN. We will authorize the restoration work with
a NWP 27 (provided there is no loss of wetlands and the final plan meets all other NWP 27 conditions). The plan looks
and sounds like it should work, but we will need some more detail. The plan should include some minimal success
criteria (stability). We will also need to monitor it for a few years (Level 3 will be fine). Please let me know if you have
any questions. Thanks.

Andrew Williams
Regulatory Project Manager
US Army Corps of Engineers
3331 Heritage Trade Drive, Suite 105
Wake Forest, North Carolina 27587

919-554-4884 ex. 26

-----Original Message-----
From: Paugh, Leilani Y \[mailto:[e-mail]\]
Sent: Friday, August 19, 2016 3:21 PM
To: Williams, Andrew E SAW <[e-mail]>; Wrenn, Brian L <[e-mail]>
Cc: King, Art C <[e-mail]>; Griffin, Randy W <[e-mail]>; Cail, William G <[e-mail]>
Subject: \[EXTERNAL\] Richmond County A Basin

Andy and Brian

Randy and I have reviewed the site with Division and Hydraulics. The stream is fairly stable where it enters the site and
then divides into several channels where the willows have established. The flow continues through the cattails and then
dumps into the ponded area at the riser. The vegetation has stabilized the sediment that has accumulated in the upper
end of the site but the sediment at the lower end is not vegetated.

The existing stream bed drops about 0.5 ft from where it enters the site to the beginning edge of the willows and then
another 2 feet down to the cattails. However, there is almost a 4 foot drop from the cattails to the pipe invert at the
riser. If we completely remove the riser, it may cause a head cut through the sediment at the lower end of the site
because of the difference in elevation.

1

The first figure in the attached file shows the site survey data. The second figure shows the proposed design. We
recommend cutting the riser down 2.5 feet from the top, bringing it to the same elevation as the cattail area. Then a
notch would be cut in the front of the riser at 0.5 ft deep and 2.5 ft wide to mimic the channel dimensions.

This will reduce the ponded elevation and allow for sediment to fill in the basin near the riser, letting the channel form
its own path with vegetation establishing over time.

Please review and provide us your comments.

Thank you.

LeiLani Paugh

ICI/OSM Group Supervisor

919 707 6146

[e-mail] <mailto:[e-mail]>

NCDOT

Project Development & Environmental Analysis

1020 Birch Ridge Dr.

Raleigh, NC 27610

Email correspondence to and from this address is subject to the

North Carolina Public Records Law and may be disclosed to third parties.

From: Cail, William G
2

Sent: Friday, August 19, 2016 10:49 AM
To: Griffin, Randy W; Paugh, Leilani Y; Lindsey, Jerry L
Subject: Riser mod #2

Revised the riser view......per Jerry's comment, showing appropriate 54" CMP view facing the riser.

Galen Cail

Maintenance-Operations Support

Hydraulics Unit

Department of Transportation

________________________________

Email correspondence to and from this sender is subject to the N.C. Public Records Law and may be disclosed to third
parties.

________________________________

Email correspondence to and from this sender is subject to the N.C. Public Records Law and may be disclosed to third
parties.

3