20210344 Ver 1_B_122 Add info_20210616

Wanucha, Dave
From:Hining, Kevin J
Sent:Thursday, May 27, 2021 5:35 PM
To:Wanucha, Dave
Subject:RE: Ashe 122 question
Thanks Dave!, and yes, we plan to remove all of the material. I believe there are also some old bents form the bridge
before this one at this location that I’d like to have removed as well. It’s shallow, and typically clear, so should be easy
to visually see any pieces remaining.

I’m going to take your response and the email Lori sent today, and revisit everything with our staff and our
consultant. After that, I’ll provide a summary of all changes along with a new version of the permit drawings. Those will
show the updated causeway and the updated impact summary table (since the temporary impacts from the causeway
may change). From what I gather, I’ll provide that to you and Lori and hopefully you can just swap it out for the old
version of the permit drawings on the PCN, and then we can move forward from there regarding any additional 401 and
404 needs.

Thanks again!

Kevin

From: Wanucha, Dave <[e-mail]>
Sent: Thursday, May 27, 2021 11:11 AM
To: Hining, Kevin J <[e-mail]>
Subject: RE: Ashe 122 question

Kevin,
Yep, sounds reasonable to me. As long as the operation maintains 50% open flow I think removing the bent in
the manner you describe will not adversely effect water quality. As you say, the bent is in the water now
surrounded by existing channel sediments. Channel disturbances will not be any more invasive (probably less
than) placing riprap for the temporary causeway and then removing it.

There may be an issue with retrieving all pieces of the bent (i.e., portions underwater) that may be left
following the grab or knock over of the main portion extending above waters surface. I assume the goal is to
remove all of it, to the river bottom and not leave any pieces protruding above channel bottom?

I think that the consultant needs to include some sort of written contingency plan that explains/describes how
they will remove any/all portions of the bent that are left below the surface after the majority of the bent is
grabbed and removed. Other than that, I think it is reasonable to proceed with permit drawing modifications
and have them include a brief narrative of the operation.

Thanks and let me know if you have any questions.

Dave W.

Division of Water Resources
1

401 & Buffer Transportation Permitting
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.

From: Hining, Kevin J <[e-mail]>
Sent: Wednesday, May 26, 2021 5:07 PM
To: Wanucha, Dave <[e-mail]>
Subject: Ashe 122 question

Hey Dave,

Sorry to hit you with another email, but I have a PCN/permit related question regarding our proposed phased causeway
for Ashe 122. The exiting bridge, which we have to remove, has a middle bent, right in the middle of the river. In order
to surround it and dewater it, we will have to reach out beyond the middle of the river with the causeway. To get the
river blockage from the causeway below 50%, the consultant has proposed to use several pipes in the causeway. Since
this is a large river with the potential of recreational river uses, it sounds like the Corp is not going to allow us to use the
pipes due to safety concerns (which I understand).

So, after talking to Lori with the Corp, I have a question. If we had a solid causeway going out to 50% of the river, that
would get us to the middle bent of the old bridge. If the contractor had a trackhoe and reached out from the causeway
and grabbed the middle bent and pulled it out, probably in pieces, I don’t think we would have much sedimentation, if
any….the river bottom is largely rock and sand, and shallow (approx. 3’). So, I think any particulates kicked up would be
large and settle quickly. Plus, you could argue no dirt/sediment was added to the river, like you would have with runoff,
but just churned up what was already in the river. If we can do this without dewatering that middle bent, then we
should be able to do the work without extending the causeway beyond 50%, or the need for pipes.

Would you be ok with us doing that for that middle bent removal? In other words, we wouldn’t surround and dewater
it, but would instead reach out from the causeway, grab it, and pull it out. This way we could use a solid causeway with
no pipes, but still stay below the 50% blockage requirement. The work should only take a few hours, at most. It makes
sense to me, as I’m not sure dewatering that middle bent for removal is really necessary since the material will primarily
be large chunks of concrete vs dirt or anything that might muddy the water. Also, since it is an old bridge, my bet is the
bent is just sitting on the river bottom or barely in the river bottom. If this is ok with you, I will ask the consultant to
revise the permit drawings.

As far as the new bridge, it only has two instream bents, neither of which are in the middle, so we should be able to
surround it and dewater for construction.

Give me a shout if you need more information or would like to discuss.
2

Thanks!

Kevin

Kevin Hining
Division 11 Environmental Supervisor
North Carolina Department of Transportation

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.
_____________________________________________________________

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