RE_ Ashe bridge 8 design change request

Wanucha, Dave
From:Hining, Kevin J
Sent:Wednesday, April 13, 2022 12:08 PM
To:Wanucha, Dave; [e-mail]
Subject:RE: Ashe bridge 8 design change request_one
Hey Dave,

We should be able to utilize the existing temporary impacts to perform our dewatering needs for the installation of the
BDO and pipe, and the existing permanent impacts should cover us. I’m glad you asked about the outlet protection, as I
forgot to mention that the drop inlet is very deep, so it dissipates the flows, and then the 24” pipe that comes off of it
and carrys the water to the UT of Buffalo is pretty flat/level. I’ve pasted a photo below of the pipe outlet. You can see
how the pipe is holding material, so I think that speaks to the low gradient of the pipe. Also, I think the new flow from
permit Site 1 might actually help keep the pipe from clogging up even more, and reduce future maintenance needs.

I think it will be fine to leave as is. But, could we commit to keeping an eye on it, and if things start to alter from the
attached photo and we begin to get some scour, then possibly move around some existing rock in the channel and
create a small dissipater pad at the outlet? There are few larger existing flat rocks below this photo that should work if
needed.

Thanks again!

Kevin

1

From: Wanucha, Dave <[e-mail]>
Sent: Wednesday, April 13, 2022 9:55 AM
To: Hining, Kevin J <[e-mail]>; [e-mail]
Subject: RE: Ashe bridge 8 design change request

Hi Kevin,
I think what you have proposed is an improvement to the existing drainage pattern. The new
pipe will more efficiently manage water within the project area during construction and post-
construction, will not degrade water quality and quite possibly help to maintain good water
quality and designated uses.

Will there be any additional temporary or permanent impacts (or a revision to impacts) at Site
1 other than what was originally permitted?
Would a need arise (due to the additional flow) for outlet protection improvement at the 24”
CMP?

As far as requiring a modification, I’m thinking nothing more is needed other than to provide
answers to the above questions. However, if the Corps believes a formal modification is
needed, DWR will concur with their decision. Thanks.

Dave W.

Dave Wanucha
Division of Water Resources
401 & Buffer Transportation Permitting
NCDOT Divisions 9 and 11
NC Department of Environmental Quality

336-403-5655 Mobile
336-776-9703 Office
[e-mail]

NC DEQ Winston Salem Regional Office
450 West Hanes Mill Road, Suite 300Hi
Winston Salem, NC 27106

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

From: Hining, Kevin J <[e-mail]>
Sent: Tuesday, April 12, 2022 5:11 PM
To: [e-mail]; Wanucha, Dave <[e-mail]>
Subject: Ashe bridge 8 design change request

Hey Lori and Dave,
3

We are currently working on a permitted bridge replacement project in Ashe County. I’ve attached the permit package,
titled “BR-0002 Ashe June 23 2020”.

Our staff would like to request a design change to one of the permitted sites – Site 1. This request is not driven by a
construction issue, but more of an environmental/stewardship related request. See “Ashe bridge 8 – proposed change
to permit site 1” pdf to see the original design (page 1) and alteration we are proposing (page 2). The only change is for
permit Site 1.

Currently, there is a small, odd (for lack of a different label) JS feature that makes up permit site 1. I didn’t permit this
site, but I’ve spoken to our Raleigh staff that did, and they said the JS feature at permit site 1 was not considered a JS
above or below the permitted site, so the ditch below the site along the road was not a considered JS. Our staff
reported that this small section of JS was a low flow system that only accessed the ditch/roadside when the water would
pool high enough to flow into it. So, most of the water, most of the time, just dissipates into the ground. However,
there is a pretty big hillside/mountainside that feeds this area, via a manmade ditch on the adjoining property, and the
water from this area runs along the roadside during rain events. As such our NCDOT Hydro decided to give the stream a
roadside ditch to flow through. They assumed that there must have been an old pipe under HWY 194 that filled over the
years that discharged directly to Buffalo Creek, but no pipe at that time was found at either end.

Our fear with the proposed system is that it will result in water running through the project during it’s duration, and
then for ever more right along HWY 194. This presents a possible environmental issue since non-point and point sources
of petroleum products from the road will be continually washing into the ditch and then will enter Buffalo Creek. Our
revision would involve taking this water and turning it directly to a nearby junction box, which would go into an existing
24” CMP and then enter Buffalo Creek. In this way, we can get the water off the project (which will help us in the short
term) and keep it from running along the road (which will help the receiving stream in the long-term). The proposed
ditch along the road would still be built, and would catch runoff from the adjacent cut slope within the project, but the
amount of water it will carry will be greatly diminished.

We have run this proposal by our central permitting staff and hydro group, and they are fine with it, and actually in
support of it. The change we are recommending will require work outside of existing right of way, which is probably
why it wasn’t designed that way in the first place. However, we have spoken to the adjoining landowner and obtained
the necessary agreements with them to make the change. I believe this will be the most environmentally friendly
approach, and will help get the water from permit site 1 (including the stormwater that feeds that permit site) off the
project quickly. I’m hoping our USACE and NCDWR coordinators will agree with the change. I also want to mention that
it appears we have already mitigated for the JS at permit Site 1 (2:1 ratio = 46’ of mitigation). That info is on page 43 of
the attached permit application.

Definitely let me know if you need more information or would like to discuss over the phone. I’m hoping it will be a
fairly straightforward design change that doesn’t require an actual permit modification, but regardless, I’ll be more than
happy to get you whatever you need.

Thanks!

Kevin

Kevin Hining
Division 11 Environmental Supervisor
North Carolina Department of Transportation

828-386-7202 cell
[e-mail]

801 Statesville Rd.
4

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.
_____________________________________________________________

Email correspondence to and from this sender is subject to the N.C. Public Records Law and may be disclosed to third parties.
5