The URL can be used to link to this page

Home My WebLink About20200260 Ver 1_Turbidity curtain question for Wilkes 166 and 663_original_20210302 Wanucha, Dave From:Hining, Kevin J Sent:Friday, February 26, 2021 8:45 AM To:Wanucha, Dave Subject:Turbidity curtain question for Wilkes 166 and 663_original Attachments:Wilkes 166 photo 1.jpg; Wilkes 166 photo 2.jpg; Wilkes 166 photo 4.jpg; Wilkes 166 photo 3.jpg; Wilkes 663 photo 2.jpg; Wilkes 663 photo 1.jpg Hey Dave, Sorry about this - I was asked to go by the other two bridges I mentioned to you in the email below (Wilkes 166 and 663) to see if we might get the turbidity curtain dropped at those as well. These were also permitted out of Raleigh. I’m going to get out on the front end in the future with these – it sounds like the turbidity curtain was mentioned as an option, but intended to be left up to the contractor to determine if feasible or not. However, I told our division staff that since it is in the permit, we need to follow it unless we get regulatory approval to not use them. So, hopefully I can prevent this issue in the future, but still utilize them where they might work (slower flows with adequate depth). I took some photos (attached above) and really don’t see them working well at either spot. At bridge 166, the water is very shallow (only inches deep), and we are leaving the old abutments in, so they will serve as an additional EC measure. For bridge 663, there is adequate depth, for the most part (approx. 2 ft). However, the bigger issue is the creek really narrows down at the bridge, so it is very swift, even at low flows. At both sites, we would still use or typical dewatering measures, and ensure all other EC measures follow the plan. But, I think it would be a constant struggle to keep the turbidity curtain up at 663, and even then, I think the high velocities would prevent the curtains from working. For 166, it’s so shallow that I don’t see them working well there wither. Luckily, both of these bridges should involve very minimal stream work. It looks like you are on leave, so definitely no rush, and just let me know if you need more information or would like to do a site visit when you get back. Thanks! Kevin Kevin Hining Division 11 Environmental Officer North Carolina Department of Transportation 828-386-7202 cell kjhining@ncdot.gov 801 Statesville Rd. PO Box 250 North Wilkesboro, NC 28659 1 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 <dave.wanucha@ncdenr.gov> Sent: Monday, February 15, 2021 10:27 AM To: Hining, Kevin J <kjhining@ncdot.gov> 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 NC Department of Environmental Quality 336-776-9703 office 336-403-5655 mobile Dave.Wanucha@ncdenr.gov 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 2 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. From: Hining, Kevin J <kjhining@ncdot.gov> Sent: Monday, February 15, 2021 8:50 AM To: Wanucha, Dave <dave.wanucha@ncdenr.gov> Subject: turbidity curtain question Hey Dave, We have three Raleigh permitted projects that are starting this spring that all involve turbidity curtains. They are all three, fairly shallow, high velocity streams. The residing engineer for one of the projects (Yadkin 189) has already called me to see if they have to install the curtains. I wouldn’t be surprised to hear grumblings from the contractor and our staff about them blowing out at the other two projects (Wilkes 166 and Wilkes 663). But, I haven’t heard anything about those two projects, so my plan is to let them try them out. Regarding Yadkin 189 (permit and plans attached), the stream is surrounded by cattle (which should make things interesting even without the turbidity curtain ????), and the stream is super shallow and primarily bedrock (see photos). I don’t see any way that the curtains will be helpful at this project, but I do think they will be a maintenance issue and a potential cattle issue due to the steel cables they use to keep them in place. In addition – I really can’t see what purpose the turbidity curtain will serve, as they plan to leave the old abutments in the stream. So, there shouldn’t be any instream work, and only 14 feet of permanent impacts (bank stabilization). The one common denominator among all three of the bridges is that they were all designed by the same firm - STV. My guess is they put them in all their plans, and I’m sure they probably work great in a slower piedmont or coastal plain stream. In the future, I’ll try and question the need for these / head these off early on before the permit is issued. Since these were Raleigh managed, I wasn’t involved as much as the typical, division led project. For all of these projects, the turbidity curtain are not meant to be a dewatering device, so all crews will still dewater the work area when needed (removing instream abutments, etc.). They seem to just serve as an additional measure. As I mentioned, no one has asked to strike them from the plans at the other two bridges (Wilkes 166 and Wilkes 663). But, hoping we can leave them off of Yadkin 189. More than happy to set up a site visit if you’d like to see it. Thanks, Kevin Kevin Hining Division 11 Environmental Officer North Carolina Department of Transportation 828-386-7202 cell kjhining@ncdot.gov 801 Statesville Rd. PO Box 250 North Wilkesboro, NC 28659 3 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. 4