20171546 Ver 1_More Info Received_20171212

Johnson, Alan
From:Aliisa Harjuniemi <[e-mail]>
Sent:Tuesday, December 12, 2017 9:12 AM
To:Johnson, Alan
Cc:Shaeffer, David Leigh (Dave) CIV USARMY CESAW (US)
Subject:Re: \[External\] DWR# 17-1546 Taggart Crk Sewer Project
CAUTION: External email. Do not click links or open attachments unless verified. Send all suspicious email as an attachment to
[e-mail].

Hi Alan,

I see what you mean. We are working on a response which will include revising the stream stabilization methods and
looking into the alternative alignments.

Thanks,
Aliisa

On Fri, Dec 8, 2017 at 4:05 PM, Johnson, Alan <[e-mail]> wrote:
1. The information on the plan sheets need to detail the impacts. All plan sheets show riprap crossing the stream
and banks without clarity to the width. (again, the print was extremely small, that squinting of eyes is
necessary, and that still wasn’t enough.
2. Riprap from OHW to OHW, is a permanent impact.
3. Ok, I was focusing on the individual plan sheets, not the overall for looking at the impacts. On the individual
plan sheets (ie sheet 9 )the plan states 40 lf. But no clarity on rip rap. Forty linear feet, is an “allowable”
impact, but if 40 ft of stream bank isn’t impacted, it shouldn’t be shown as an impact. Why clear 40 ft (and
some will do that, if “approved”), if not needed.
4. You/they still have to explain what appears to be “chasing the grade” with the stream crossing back and forth.’
5. “proper shaping” was a general comment, so that with heavy matting, well stake, a planted vegetation, rip rap
on the banks isn’t need to stabilize.
6. 150 ft is potentially mitigatable. Regardless, rip rap has to be embedded in the channel to not change the
channel dimensions. (which often doesn’t happen)

From: Aliisa Harjuniemi \[mailto:[e-mail]\]
Sent: Friday, December 08, 2017 3:41 PM
To: Johnson, Alan <[e-mail]>
Subject: \[External\] DWR# 17-1546 Taggart Crk Sewer Project

CAUTION: External email. Do not click links or open attachments unless verified. Send all suspicious email as an attachment to
[e-mail].

1

Hi Alan,

I have a questing regarding your Upper Taggart Creek Sewer project comments:

"The PCN states temporary impacts, but the site plans shows rip rap stabilization (at each impact) for the entire
project. Proper shaping of bank, well staked heavy duty “coir” fiber matting, and planting of vegetation should work
well. Please submit plans showing the rip rap removed (soft stabilization) or request for mitigation for 600 plus feet of
stream."

The rip rap was limited to 10 lf within the stream bed per crossing, totaling 150 lf. Would this still require mitigation or
should the details still be changed? See the red note in the top of the plan set.

The engineer can revise the crossings to reduce the rip rap as suggested. Pertaining to the shaping of the bank, what
are you looking for? What slope? We have 2:1 now. Some of these were going to change to 4:1 for better access. So,
the creek bed should be just restored using soil? How far out into the creek is the rip rap allowed? The detail we
currently have, shows 4’, which for some of our crossings, would be the entire creek bottom width. I don't think the rip
rap extending 4' in the channel has been a problem before, but we are willing to revise the plans if needed.

We are working on responses to the other comments.

Thanks,
Aliisa

--
Aliisa Harjuniemi, WPIT
Project Manager
Carolina Wetland Services, Inc.
550 E. Westinghouse Boulevard
Charlotte, NC 28273
Direct: 980-259-1222
Office: 704-527-1177
www.cws-inc.net
2

--
Aliisa Harjuniemi, WPIT
Project Manager
Carolina Wetland Services, Inc.
550 E. Westinghouse Boulevard
Charlotte, NC 28273
Direct: 980-259-1222
Office: 704-527-1177
www.cws-inc.net
3