20140762 Ver 4_RE_ _External_ RE_ R-2915 Compliance Inspection Sept 17_ 2019_20191009

Wanucha, Dave
From:Hining, Kevin J
Sent:Monday, October 7, 2019 12:27 PM
To:Steve Kichefski; Beckwith, Loretta A CIV USARMY CESAW (USA); Wanucha, Dave
Cc:Johnston, Gregory W; Hiatt, Todd M; Beaver, G Trent
Subject:RE: \[External\] RE: R-2915 Compliance Inspection Sept 17, 2019
Attachments:Site 1 B Section - soil built up on core fiber.pdf; Channel modification .JPG; rip rap in
low flow channel.JPG; Site 16 Culvert upstream dike.JPG; Site 16 Culvert dewatered
work area.JPG
Hey Steve, Lori, and Dave,

Hope everyone is doing well. I thought it would be a good time to address the issues raised during our R-2915 site visit
last month. I've compiled comments from the three of you (those emails are below) and will try and address each
one. As a result, I apologize for the length of the email. Please let me know if I’ve left anything out, or need to revisit
the comments I’ve provided for these issues.

Section A
Site 11 Issue - There is a low spot/gap between the inlet floodplain bench and the high flow barrel.

We discussed this site at our most recent R-2915 AB construction meeting. I think the primary issue was that the
upstream dike/sandbags used to dewater the high flow barrel remained in place longer than necessary. As a result, the
floodplain bench built up behind the sandbags, and there’s a depression where the sandbags used to be. However, now
that the sandbags have been removed, I’m hoping a couple good rain events will smooth things out, without having to
get equipment back into the area. In addition to the floodplain bench being well vegetated upstream of where the
sandbags were located, the barrels appear to be functioning properly, with little to no water entering the high flow
barrel at normal flows. With your consent, my suggestion is to keep an eye on the site through the winter months and
then make any alterations, if needed, in the spring after the trout moratorium. We will still have construction crews on
site in the spring, and can address any remaining issues then if needed. I’m also hopeful some of the material built up
on the upstream floodplain bench will travel down the culvert and build up the downstream floodplain bench during this
time.

Section B
Site 1A Issue - There is an area upstream of the structure wing wall that has some erosion, and the floodplain bench
appeared to be high.

I revisited this site last week with NCWRC. I noticed what appeared to be Brook Trout during a previous visit. NCWRC
didn't have any fish data for the stream, so I agreed to assist them with a survey. We found a great population of Brook
Trout. While conducting the survey, we quickly noticed multiple bank scars and erosion issues along the upstream banks
(these extend well upstream of the NCDOT structures on R-2915 and Idlewild Rd). The creek, like many in Ashe County,
has numerous bank erosion issues. Luckily, we have determined that we have some right of way just upstream of the
wing wall, so we should have the ability to repair the site if it begins to worsen. Our thought for now is to leave it as is
during the upcoming trout moratorium period, and see if it has worsened during the spring.

Regarding the floodplain bench height at this station– it does appear to be high. However, I don’t believe that is a result
of how it was constructed. See Site 1 photo above. The core fiber matting is several inches below the soil surface. I
believe much of the floodplain bench material was deposited by mother nature onto the core fiber matting during the
past year. I’m still fairly new at this, but this seems to be a common occurrence – we build the floodplain benches, and
1

mother nature alters them. Regardless, we will need to keep an eye on it to ensure it doesn’t build up to a level that
alters the hydrologic capacity of the high flow barrel.

Section C
Site 13 Issue – Bedrock near inlet needs to be removed so that channel can be relocated. Concerns over blasting given
the amount of bedrock.

The channel change was completed late last week, and appears to have went well. The water is now running through
the new structure. I’ve attached a photo of the upstream channel change immediately following its completion. There
is still work being done to finish dressing the area up, but all of the instream and trout buffer area work should be
complete early this week. I’m eager to see how the site changes through the upcoming months.

Miller Waste Pit, Watertank Road Issue – We agreed that great caution be followed when removing the skimmer basin,
and suggested collaboration with DOT stream restoration engineers in Raleigh to develop a plan to manage ground
water that has surfaced adjacent to the basin (build a stream channel or enhance existing wetlands).

I have contacted Byron Moore with NCDOT stream restoration and sent him several photos of the area. I will continue
to stay in contact with him. He is not able to travel at this time to the site due to budget issues, but I’m hopeful he may
be able to in the future. Luckily, we have some time before removing the basins. As we remove the basins, we will
capture the water from the numerous springs that have popped up on the property, and put the water into a single
channel that has formed on the west side of the property. We will stabilize the banks of this new channel/stream with
core fiber, rip rap where warranted, and vegetation. This water will be carried down to the NCDOT structure under
Watertank Rd., where it will leave the property and join a tributary of Old Field Creek. During all of this, we will continue
to monitor and hopefully enhance (given all the water that is now on the property) the wetland area in the southwest
corner of the property.

Section C
Site 16 Issue – On the outlet side, remove errant riprap that was washed into the baseflow channel side. Floodplain
bench appeared to be built per the plans. Inlet is still under construction.

Once the culvert is complete, we will remove riprap from the low flow channel and build back the floodplain bench at
the outlet of the high flow barrel (See photo). This structure is moving along, and NCDOT intends to request a
moratorium extension from NCWRC. If granted, I’ll be sure to get that extension in writing from NCWRC and will pass
along to the three of you, along with our new deadline. While our initial thoughts were to halt the project until April
th
15, the contractor has done a good job of moving forward, working on weekends and evenings at times. Furthermore,
leaving the structure in an unfinished state for several months will prolong issues for motorists, and leaves it open to
issues that winter weather events may cause. Furthermore, the contractor is doing a good job to dewater the area (see
photos of upstream dike and dewatered work area), and to handle any water in the work area (they are using a
combination of silt bags with 3 stair step basins).

Section D
Site 6 Issue – We need to confirm with NCWRC that aquatic passage is not warranted here and then determine if
headwall structure needs shoring-up, if the channel needs more stabilizing and if the rock vane needs to be installed per
the plans.

I completed surveys of this stream with NCWRC staff last week. NCWRC conducted several surveys between 2000 and
2017 above the structure, and all of those surveys indicated only Brook Trout. My hopes were that the pipe structure
was acting as a beneficial barrier, with regards to Brook Trout. However, based on our recent survey, Brown Trout are
now found throughout the stream, and above the pipe structure. Additionally, we found very few Brook Trout in the
stream, possibly as a result of competition with Brown Trout. With regards to nongame species like Rosyside Dace,
Creek Chub, Fantail Darter, etc., there was no difference in the species composition above and below the structure. In
essence, and to my surprise, the structure does not appear to be a barrier to fish passage.
2

Likewise, the condition of the stream below the culvert is much better than we observed in other areas of the stream. I
think this is largely due to the woody vegetation along the banks downstream of the pipe. In comparison, upstream of
the pipe is primarily field habitat and residential areas, and there are numerous eroding banks. NCDOT has also looked
at the structure with regard to potential issues/possible failure. However, the headwall appears to be stable and there
are no current concerns about it collapsing. Given the high number of trout and diversity of fish species found above
and below this structure, and stability of the structure headwall, I would suggest we keep a watchful eye on this
structure, but leave it as is.

Assuming the group is ok with these comments, I would suggest a re-visit to the project later this winter or spring. At
that time, we should have all of the major structures complete on the project. However let me know if you would like to
discuss any of this further, and/or revisit in the near future.

Thanks,

Kevin

Kevin Hining
Division 11 Environmental Officer
North Carolina Department of Transportation

336 903 9129 office
828-386-8687 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.
_____________________________________________________________

-----Original Message-----
From: Kichefski, Steven L CIV USARMY CESAW (US) <[e-mail]>
Sent: Wednesday, October 2, 2019 1:33 PM
To: Beckwith, Loretta A CIV USARMY CESAW (USA) <[e-mail]>; Hining, Kevin J
<[e-mail]>; Wanucha, Dave <[e-mail]>
Cc: Johnston, Gregory W <[e-mail]>; Hiatt, Todd M <[e-mail]>; Beaver, G Trent
<[e-mail]>
Subject: \[External\] RE: R-2915 Compliance Inspection Sept 17, 2019
3

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

Sorry for the delayed response, but Dave and Lori's comments cover most of my notes. I would only add the following:

1) We expected to hear something soon about the inlet channel relocation for Section C Site 13 due to the impending
trout moratorium. Has this been completed or will it be prior to the moratorium date? If completed were there any
issues getting appropriate channel dimensions/alignment with the potential bedrock in the area?

2) Section C - Site 16: Although likely not this year, we discussed potentially lowering the bench height a few inches on
the inlet and outlet of the overflow culvert to allow for more sediment/vegetation to fill in on top of the rock bench.

3) Section B - Site 1a: I believe the inlet bench height was going to be verified since it seemed high in the field. Also I
would reiterate that DOT was to consider some form of bank stabilization just upstream/outside the easement area,
which would require cooperation from the landowner and preferably something more natural like laying the bank back
if conducive. This was discussed due to the culvert location/alignment exaggerating the existing channel curve.

Let me know if you have any questions and thank you for all your time doing that site visit. I think it was good not only
for project review, but introducing Lori to Div11 staff and that project.

Regards,

Steve Kichefski
Regulatory Project Manager
U.S. Army Corps of Engineers
Wilmington District, Asheville Field Office
151 Patton Avenue, Suite 208
Asheville, NC 28801
(828)-271-7980 Ext. 4234

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 our website at
http://corpsmapu.usace.army.mil/cm_apex/f?p=136:4:0 to complete the survey online.

-----Original Message-----
From: Beckwith, Loretta A CIV USARMY CESAW (USA)
Sent: Tuesday, September 24, 2019 3:59 PM
To: Hining, Kevin J <[e-mail]>; Wanucha, Dave <[e-mail]>
Cc: Kichefski, Steven L CIV USARMY CESAW (US) <[e-mail]>; Johnston, Gregory W
<[e-mail]>; Hiatt, Todd M <[e-mail]>; Beaver, G Trent <[e-mail]>
Subject: RE: R-2915 Compliance Inspection Sept 17, 2019

Hello,

Thanks to everyone for adjusting your schedules for the site visit last week.

Good notes Dave - thanks!
4

Just a couple of things:

Site 13 (C) - Steve mentioned that blasting can cause problems with the stream/stream flow, so we're open to discussing
other solutions to relocate the stream to the inlet.

Site 6 (D) - once the engineers get a chance to review this site, and if they determine that additional vanes are necessary
(vs the one on the plans), we're open to that discussion, as well.

I read your previous emails about fish passage and how it's not just about fish (the USACE uses the term "aquatic
organisms"), and those are all good points. Looks like we'll be discussing this further...

Thanks again,

Lori

Lori Beckwith
Regulatory Project Manager
U.S. Army Corps of Engineers
Wilmington District
Asheville Regulatory Field Office
828-271-7980, ext. 4223

-----Original Message-----
From: Hining, Kevin J \[mailto:[e-mail]\]
Sent: Monday, September 23, 2019 11:56 AM
To: Wanucha, Dave <[e-mail]>
Cc: Kichefski, Steven L CIV USARMY CESAW (US) <[e-mail]>; Beckwith, Loretta A CIV USARMY
CESAW (USA) <[e-mail]>; Johnston, Gregory W <[e-mail]>; Hiatt, Todd M
<[e-mail]>; Beaver, G Trent <[e-mail]>
Subject: \[Non-DoD Source\] RE: R-2915 Compliance Inspection Sept 17, 2019

Thanks Dave. I'll send a response with action items regarding all of these sites soon, but will wait a little bit in case Steve
or Lori have additional comments/issues to add to your list.

Also, I've contacted Byron Moore with NCDOT regarding the waste site on Watertank Rd. I spoke to him this morning
about our potential issues there, and plan to send him some photos as well.

Kevin

Kevin Hining

Division 11 Environmental Officer

5

North Carolina Department of Transportation

336 903 9129 office

828-386-8687 cell

[e-mail] <mailto:[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: Wanucha, Dave <[e-mail]>
Sent: Friday, September 20, 2019 3:59 PM
To: Hining, Kevin J <[e-mail]>
Cc: Steve Kichefski <[e-mail]>; Beckwith, Loretta A CIV USARMY CESAW (USA)
<[e-mail]>; Johnston, Gregory W <[e-mail]>; Hiatt, Todd M
<[e-mail]>; Beaver, G Trent <[e-mail]>
Subject: R-2915 Compliance Inspection Sept 17, 2019

6

Kevin,

Below is a summary of my observations following our 401/404 compliance review. If anyone wants to add comments or
make revisions, please do when you can. Thanks.

* Site 3 Section A - Culvert appeared to be functioning well and to be built to plans including sills and internal
alternating baffles;
* Site 11 Section A - Culvert outlet appeared to be built to plans including flood plain bench, we agreed that
overtime, the voids in the riprap would backfill with sediment and revegetate; floodplain bench at inlet was not
complete nor built per plans. There was a gap between high flow and low flow barrels that needed to be repaired to
keep from splitting low flow. We agreed that the floodplain bench needed to be built/repaired per the plans as soon as
possible. If the flood plain bench cannot or should not be built per the plans, please explain.
* Site 1A Section B - The culvert was built per the plan, although, the alignment with the stream was not favorable at
the inlet (no fault of construction, a design issue?) and there was no space at the outlet to build a floodplain bench due
to road fill. We agreed that DOT would try to stabilize the far streambank on the inlet side if right-of-way limits allowed.
* Site 13 Section C - Inlet and outlet work still not complete. Bedrock near inlet needs to be removed so that channel
can be relocated. No other comments/compliance issues.
* Waste Pit/Mountain on Watertank Road - We agreed that great caution be followed when removing the skimmer
basin, and suggested collaboration with DOT stream restoration engineers in Raleigh to develop a written plan to
manage ground water that has surfaced adjacent to the basin (build a stream channel or enhance existing wetlands).
* Site 16 Section C - On the outlet side, remove errant riprap that was washed into baseflow channel side. Floodplain
bench appeared to be built per the plans. Inlet is still under construction.
* Site 6 Section D - We need to confirm with NCWRC that aquatic passage is not warranted here and then determine
if headwall structure needs shoring-up, if the channel needs more stabilizing and if the rock vane needs to be installed
per the plans. (Kevin has addressed this one already per earlier email today).

Dave

Dave Wanucha

Division of Water Resources

401 & Buffer Transportation Permitting <Blockedhttps://deq.nc.gov/about/divisions/water-resources/water-quality-
permitting/transportation-permitting>

NC Department of Environmental Quality

336-776-9703 office

336-403-5655 mobile

[e-mail] <mailto:[e-mail]>
7

NC DEQ Winston Salem Regional Office

450 West Hanes Mill Road, Suite 300

Winston Salem, NC 27105

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.

8