20220529 Ver 1_NCWRC trout moratorium waived_20220403

From: Hining, Kevin J <[e-mail]>
Sent: Thursday, March 31, 2022 5:54 PM
To: Hining, Kevin J <[e-mail]>
Subject: FW: Hwy 105 project fish survey results - urgent response if possible

Hey Lori,

The email below is a little jumbled, but in short, I surveyed all the streams within R-2566B with NCWRC. We only found
trout in three of those streams. None were found in the proposed project area for the Shull’s Mill Intersection
Improvement – we surveyed both UT’s, and neither held any fish species.

Kevin

From: Johnson, Thomas C <[e-mail]>
Sent: Monday, July 26, 2021 10:40 AM
To: Hining, Kevin J <[e-mail]>; Chambers, Marla J <[e-mail]>; Hodges, Kinnon B
<[e-mail]>
Subject: RE: Hwy 105 project fish survey results - urgent response if possible

I’m good with dropping the trout moratoria for the trout-less waters in this project area. To be honest, I actually didn’t
realize that we did that, but I guess it makes sense for some projects/locations. And I understand the difficulty of trying
to navigate both trout and hellbender moratoria.

Thanks.

Thomas Johnson // District 7 Fisheries Biologist I
Division of Inland Fisheries

NC Wildlife Resources Commission
Marion, NC 28752
office: 828-237-0297 (NEW) // mobile: [phone]
[e-mail]
ncwildlife.org

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

From: Hining, Kevin J
Sent: Friday, July 16, 2021 7:06 PM
To: Johnson, Thomas C <[e-mail]>; Chambers, Marla J <[e-mail]>;
Hodges, Kinnon B <[e-mail]>
Subject: RE: Hwy 105 project fish survey results - urgent response if possible

Hey folks,

Bringing back up a project we last discussed in March - the proposed widening to HWY 105. Currently, we have a
hellbender moratorium (April 1 to Nov 1) for any work in the Watauga (at the HWY 105 bridge) as well as mainstem
Laurel Fork, and there is also a trout moratorium (Oct 15 to April 15th) planned for all work on the other streams. TJ and
I confirmed trout in three of those other streams (mentioned in the email below), and our consultant is working to
improve fish passage in all three of those crossings.

I’m assuming you will still want a trout moratorium for work on those three streams where we found wild trout
(mentioned below). But, I’m seeking your approval to wiggle out of the trout moratorium for those tribs that did not
hold trout.

Thanks a bunch for thinking this over!

Kevin

Kevin Hining
Division 11 Environmental Supervisor
North Carolina Department of Transportation

828-386-7202 cell
[e-mail]

801 Statesville Rd.
PO Box 250
North Wilkesboro, NC 28659

Email correspondence to and from this address is subject to the
North Carolina Public Records Law and may be disclosed to third parties.
_____________________________________________________________

From: Chambers, Marla J <[e-mail]>
Sent: Friday, February 26, 2021 2:56 PM
To: Hining, Kevin J <[e-mail]>; Johnson, Thomas C <[e-mail]>; Hodges, Kinnon B
<[e-mail]>
Subject: RE: Hwy 105 project fish survey results - urgent response if possible

Great work, all! This will be very helpful as we finalize plans for the road improvement project!

Thanks!
Marla

Marla Chambers // NCDOT Coordinator
Habitat Conservation Program

NC Wildlife Resources Commission
12275 Swift Road
Oakboro, NC28129
mobile: [phone]
[e-mail]

ncwildlife.org

From: Hining, Kevin J <[e-mail]>
Sent: Friday, February 26, 2021 7:28 AM
To: Johnson, Thomas C <[e-mail]>; Hodges, Kinnon B <[e-mail]>; Chambers,
Marla J <[e-mail]>
Subject: Hwy 105 project fish survey results - urgent response if possible

Hey folks,

TJ and I conducted some surveys yesterday for the HWY 105 widening project in Watauga. I think the surveys will prove
to be very helpful as we move forward. Anytime these projects are on the horizon, I’m always willing to assist if we
need data. And, it never hurts to have this information as early as we can in the process.

I think we left with 4 main points related to the surveys. Please confirm or let me know any edits as soon as you can,
and I’ll pass along to the rest of the work group. Currently, they are waiting on this information before they can move
forward.

1)After reviewing all of the streams, we found three that held trout. All the others were very small and/or fishless (we
found one Blacknose Dace on Big Branch), and I’m not planning to alter the existing plans for those.

2)The small trib of the Watauga by the confluence of HWY 105 and Shulls Mill held a diversity of species above and
below the crossing (steel pipe) , including Brown Trout. Passage is good at this location now, so I will ask the designer to
review the existing plans and make sure we maintain or improve existing passage at this stream.

3)The proposed replacement of two steel pipes with a single box culvert on a UT of Laurel Fork will need to be reviewed
to see if we can improve/provide passage. There are multiple ages of Brown Trout at the pipe outlet. We should be
able to improve the situation, as currently the flow is split between two pipes and slightly perched. TJ and I will survey
above the pipe soon, just in case it is serving as a beneficial barrier (protecting Brook Trout). If so, we can make last
minute changes to the design, but for now we will plan to improve passage.

4)The existing level of fish passage in Laurel Fork near the triple barrel box culvert is questionable, but not out of the
question at high flows. Also, we know wild trout are in this section, so with that data, we will ask for improved
passage. We have two things going on with the structure - an existing structure that will stay in place, and a new inlet
and outlet structure that will tie in and make the culvert long enough to cover the new road. I will request that the
designer look at options to increase the probability of passage in the new culvert, and see what we might be able to do
to retrofit/improve passage in the existing culvert. This will probably mean limiting flow in one of the barrels to increase
flow and depth in the other two, and installing sills to create steps through the culvert to lessen velocity. I’ll get back to
you when we get some options and weigh the cost/benefits. I would imagine the one thing we definitely would like to
avoid is having to remove/replace the existing culvert.

TJ – did I miss anything? If ya’ll can confirm with me then I’ll pass along. Again, if you can do this quickly, then it would
be most appreciated. I believe they are waiting on us at this point. In the future, I will get with WRC and request these
surveys earlier in the project (and I’m always happy to help collect the data – especially when I just follow TJ around and
watch him do all the work…).

Thanks again,

Kevin

Kevin Hining
Division 11 Environmental Officer
North Carolina Department of Transportation