20140762 Ver 4_RE_ R-2915 Section B compliance review_20200217

Wanucha, Dave
From:Hining, Kevin J
Sent:Monday, February 17, 2020 12:42 PM
To:Wanucha, Dave
Cc:Greer, Brandon S; [e-mail]; Hiatt, Todd M
Subject:RE: R-2915 Section B compliance review
Attachments:downstream of wetland 57 stone 2-17-20.jpg; Station 182 PSH 2-17-20.jpg
Hey Dave,

The contractor went out to HWY 221 / R-2915 B at Station 182 last week and did some work regarding the 57 stone. The
removed the bulk of the stone, but there is still some in the creek channel and some next to the creek channel. My
guess is they left that portion because it is fairly embedded. I’m not sure if we will do more damage than good by
dipping the remaining stone out, but can direct them to remove if needed. For now, I thought we would leave as is,
until we get you back out this spring to look at that site as well as the other issues we discussed during your last site
visit. Regardless, if you think more needs to be done at that time then we can get it taken care of quickly.

Also, the contractor completed some work on the PSH at station 182. They did a good job of completing the work
without damaging the wetland directly below it. Photo attached.

We have our monthly construction meeting for this project later this week, and I’m going to look at the PSH at station
182 and discuss the other areas we visited with Todd Hiatt and Brandon Greer. I’ll keep you posted on those other
items, but my goal is to get everything fixed up as soon as we can once the moratorium is lifted, and then see about
getting you back out there to review.

Thanks,

Kevin

Kevin Hining
Division 11 Environmental Officer
North Carolina Department of Transportation

336 903 9129 office
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.
1

_____________________________________________________________

From: Wanucha, Dave <[e-mail]>
Sent: Monday, February 10, 2020 2:45 PM
To: Hining, Kevin J <[e-mail]>
Cc: Greer, Brandon S <[e-mail]>; [e-mail]; Hiatt, Todd M <[e-mail]>
Subject: RE: R-2915 Section B compliance review

Kevin,
Let me know when the 57 stone is removed from the wetland and be sure that NPDES records are updated to
reflect that maintenance.

I attached a design sheet for PSH from the plans. It shows that geotextile should be placed underneath the
riprap, of which was missing at PSH at Station 182+75-L-Lt.

A PSH vs. riprap may be a better solution for the outlet into the wetland (Site 5). The outfall may be receiving
significantly more stormwater than was originally designed for at the location due the upstream revisions to
the drainage pattern. The scour hole suggests that.

Thanks for the follow-up.

Dave W.

Division of Water Resources
401 & Buffer Transportation Permitting
NC Department of Envirionmental Quality

336-776-9703 office
336-403-5655 mobile
[e-mail]

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

From: Hining, Kevin J <[e-mail]>
Sent: Monday, February 10, 2020 8:24 AM
To: Wanucha, Dave <[e-mail]>
Cc: Greer, Brandon S <[e-mail]>; [e-mail]
Subject: RE: R-2915 Section B compliance review

Hey Dave,

I’ve provided a response to each of your items below. Let me know if you have any issues or questions. We have a
construction meeting with the contractor for this project later this month, and will discuss all of these items with
2

them. I’ll let you know once we get these items fixed. It will likely be several months, as we’ll need to wait till after the
th
April 15 trout moratorium end date for most of these.

Thanks again and talk to you soon,

Kevin

Kevin Hining
Division 11 Environmental Officer
North Carolina Department of Transportation

336 903 9129 office
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: Wanucha, Dave <[e-mail]>
Sent: Wednesday, February 5, 2020 3:49 PM
To: Hining, Kevin J <[e-mail]>; Greer, Brandon S <[e-mail]>
Cc: [e-mail]
Subject: R-2915 Section B compliance review

Kevin,
Yesterday during our project review with Brandon Greer (DOT) and Jack Huskins (RK & K), we visited permit
Sites 2, 3, 4 (wetland restoration), 5, 6, 7, 9 and a few post-construction stormwater structures in the area --
preformed scour holes (PSH).

According to DOT’s permit modification dated April 7, 2017, the wetland at Site 4 was to be temporarily filled
to serve as an erosion control basin until construction was complete, at which time the wetland would be
restored. A summary of our review is below. Please let me know if I missed anything. A few pictures are
attached.

• At station 165-L-Lt, the storm pipe was installed but the PSH was not installed per the plans (see
picture). Please follow-up and explain what DOT intends to do at this location. We will remove the
excess length of pipe. There was very little scouring occurring at the existing pipe outlet, even though
the PSH was not installed and the pipe was discharging over soft, sandy soil. This suggests to me that
3

the pipe is not carrying much flow during storm events. While the plans call for a PSH, we would like to
investigate the option of a rip rap dissipater pad instead of a PSH. This could be installed by hand or
with minimal equipment. As a result, it could be done with little to no removal of the existing
vegetation, but should still serve as an adequate stormwater measure at this location.

• Site 2 outlet and Site 3 appeared to be in good shape and installed per the plans. (Site 3 was also part
of the above referenced modification of which reduced the length of impact due to a change in
driveway configuration.) We will monitor in case issues arise, but will leave as is for now.

• The PSH at station 171+50-L-Lt was eliminated and replaced with riprap. We discussed that it would
improve drainage by directing the discharge towards the wetland (Site 4) vs. draining to the
landowners property. The existing berm along the wetland boundary will be extended to direct the
discharge into the wetland. The existing riprap may need to repositioned to reduce scouring although
no significant scouring was observed at the outlet. We will keep an eye on it and will install rip rap if
scouring occurs.

• Site 4 wetland still has several baffles installed along the linear channel within the wetland that need to
be removed (see picture). Core fiber matting was in place. Please follow-up and explain if a wetland
seed mix was broadcasted and what other efforts have been made to restore the wetland. We will
remove all baffles and NCDOT debris from the wetland and surrounding area (orange barrel, discarded
plastic pipe, etc.). At the landowners request, we plan to level out the top of the berm along the
wetland so it will be easier for him to mow and maintain. We plan to use the collected soil from the
leveling process to fill in gaps/low spots in the berm. Native seed mix was previously broadcast when
the coir fiber matting was installed. However, additional native seed mix will be broadcast over any
exposed/unvegetated portions of the berm after we reshape it, and any areas of the wetland that look
in need of additional vegetation.

• At the most downstream end of the wetland (near Site 7), a temporary rock silt check was present
which was likely an outlet of the temporary erosion control basin. We observed approximately two 5-
gallon buckets of 57 stone in the channel downstream of the check that had been washed out (see
picture). The area upstream of the rock check appeared to be unstable and a small head-cut was
forming. Three issues in this area need to be addressed of which include: 1) please remove the 57
stone/gravel from the channel downstream of the check (this should have been addressed during
weekly inspections), 2) follow-up and explain what DOT intends to do with the temporary rock check;
and, 3) explain how DOT intends to stabilize the head cut and restore the wetland. We will remove
the 57 stone in the lower portion of the wetland and downstream channel. We will replace the
existing temporary structure with a permanent rock cross vane (or similar structure) that will serve to
back up water into the lower portion of the wetland. This will help maintain wetland like conditions in
the most downstream portion of the wetland vs. the more flowing streamlike appearance that it has
now. This will reduce the velocity of the water leaving the lower portion of the wetland, which will
help replenish sediment to the scoured portions of the wetland, and prevent any future headcutting.

• The outlet at Site 5 needs riprap protection. Scouring is evident. We will install rip rap against the
portion of the bank that is directly in front of the pipe outlet, and will monitor to ensure additional
scouring does not occur.

• Site 6 stormwater pipe was installed. However, as discussed, it does not carry stormwater due to a
change in the upstream drainage system. Please follow-up and explain what DOT intends to do with
4

the section of pipe extending into the wetland. We will double check to sure the pipe has been
abandoned/doesn’t carry any stormwater, and then we will remove the excess pipe and ensure it is
filled and capped.

• The PSH at station 182+75-L-Lt was not built per design. Please follow-up and explain what DOT
intends to do at this location. We will improve the PSH – one of the primary issues appeared to be a
lack of rip rap in the center of the PSH. Hopefully we can improve the condition of the PSH by adding
that, by hand, limiting impacts to the surrounding area, which is well vegetated and has an additional
wetland (separate for the one at permit site 4) directly adjacent to it.

• Site 9 outlet was not stabilized with riprap per the plan. There was scour evident. Please follow-up
and explain how DOT will stabilize the outlet at this location. We will remove the roots and debris at
the outlet of the new pipe. This should help to turn the flow of the stream towards the stream
channel, and prevent additional undermining of the streambank. We will install rip rap where
appropriate to prevent additional scouring and erosion.

Let me know if I missed anything or misinterpreted our conversations. Please respond in writing by the end of
next week if not sooner. Thanks.

Dave W.

Division of Water Resources
401 & Buffer Transportation Permitting
NC Department of Envirionmental Quality

336-776-9703 office
336-403-5655 mobile
[e-mail]

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

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