20200262 Ver 1_turbidity curtain question for Yadkin 189_Corps_20210301

Wanucha, Dave
From:Beckwith, Loretta A CIV USARMY CESAW (USA) <[e-mail]>
Sent:Monday, March 1, 2021 12:06 PM
To:Hining, Kevin J
Cc:Wanucha, Dave; Matthews, Monte K CIV USARMY CESAW (USA)
Subject:\[External\] RE: turbidity curtain question for Yadkin 189_Corps
CAUTION: External email. Do not click links or open attachments unless you verify. Send all suspicious email as an attachment to
Report Spam.

Hi Kevin,

Thank you for contacting us about modifying the plans for the replacement of Bridge 189 on SR 1325 in Yadkin
County (SAW-2020-00337 (BR-0127)) in accordance with special condition #1 of the NWP verification letter
that was issued for this project.

As discussed, the original proposal included a turbidity curtain, but after further review Division 11 doesn’t
believe that a turbidity curtain is necessary or practical for this project based on stream depth and substrate.
DWR agreed and noted that no formal permit modification request is required for their purposes.

After reviewing the file and your request, the USACE agrees as well. No formal request for modification of the
project plans to exclude the turbidity curtain will be required for our purposes. Please note that the terms of
the NWP, all applicable general and regional conditions, and all special conditions of the NWP verification
letter issued for this proejct still apply.

Thank you,

Lori

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

From: Hining, Kevin J <[e-mail]>
Sent: Friday, February 26, 2021 4:53 PM
To: Beckwith, Loretta A CIV USARMY CESAW (USA) <[e-mail]>
Subject: \[Non-DoD Source\] turbidity curtain question for Yadkin 189

Hey Lori,

Attached are some photos to assist with the turbidity curtain question for Yadkin 189. The permit has your signature,
but I can send if needed – it’s SAW – 2020-00337 (BR-0127).
1

I think the stream is too shallow and rocky to allow the turbidity curtain to work. Also, the abutments in the photos are
staying in, so there shouldn’t be any instream work. Dave was ok taking them out/not using them. His response is
below. I emailed him today about Wilkes 166 and 663, but haven’t hear back (I think he is on leave till next week).

I’ll send the other two bridges (Wilkes 166 and 663) in separate emails next, and sounds like you have those
permits/PCN’s in hand for those (but I can send the permit if needed).

Thanks,

Kevin

From: Hining, Kevin J
Sent: Tuesday, February 16, 2021 8:27 AM
To: Wanucha, Dave <[e-mail]>
Subject: RE: turbidity curtain question

Thanks a bunch Dave - I appreciate the quick response!

From: Wanucha, Dave <[e-mail]>
Sent: Monday, February 15, 2021 10:27 AM
To: Hining, Kevin J <[e-mail]>
Subject: RE: turbidity curtain question

Hey Kevin,
Yep, I think this might have been the project that opened the discussion on NW3 vs. NW14. This project could
have been permitted under a non-reporting NW3 for the Corp and DWR. In any case, I agree that it makes no
sense to install a turbidity curtain. Based on the stream depth and substrate in the pictures you sent, it would
be challenge to install and maintain. In some cases, if stream depth was consistently over 2’ – 3’ along the
banks, one could install a curtain parallel to the bank. I believe this came up on the SFNew River bridge on 221
project. Heath may remember that one. We requested it to protect HQWs. As long as you ensure that some
type of erosion control measures are in place to prevent sediment discharge to the river and control turbidity
you’re good to go. You probably need to make contact with the Corps because you’re eliminating temp
impacts of which were requested in the NW 14 permit application. No need for a formal permit modification
from us (unless the Corps requests it).

If similar stream conditions are evident at the other two bridges (166 and 663), send me some pictures to
verify. If it isn’t practical to install curtains at those locations, we will likely waive them as well.

These emails will be placed in the project archive for future reference. Thanks for the notification. Let me
know if you need anything further.

Dave W.

Division of Water Resources
401 & Buffer Transportation Permitting
2

NC Department of Environmental 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

Based on the current guidance to minimize the spread of COVID-19, the Department of Environmental Quality has
adjusted operations to protect the health and safety of the staff and public. Many employees are working remotely or
are on staggered shifts. To accommodate these staffing changes, all DEQ office locations are limiting public access to
appointments only. Please check with the appropriate staff before visiting our offices, as we may be able to handle your
requests by phone or email. We appreciate your patience as we continue to serve the public during this challenging
time.

Email correspondence to and from this sender is subject to the N.C. Public Records Law and may be disclosed to third parties.
3