20140762 Ver 5_R-2915 E modification request_SW response_20210901

Wanucha, Dave
From:Hining, Kevin J
Sent:Tuesday, August 31, 2021 10:28 AM
To:Wanucha, Dave; Beckwith, Loretta A CIV USARMY CESAW (USA)
Subject:RE: \[External\] RE: R-2915 E modification request_SW response
Hey Dave,

I do plan for a rip rap pad at the outlet to dissipate flows. It’s shown on the drawing, but I may not have mentioned it in
the written information and should have. My first thought was to set that dissipator pad back so the discharge could go
over vegetation prior to entering the wetland/stream. My thoughts were to try this option first, but we could carry the
rip rap onto the streambank if scour still occurred. The latter option would result in some (10’) permanent impacts to
the streambank.

Regarding the modeled discharge velocities, I’ll check with our hydraulics group. They reviewed this change, so may
have that info. I’ll get that to you as soon as possible.

There are no drop inlets proposed, but I’ll double check that option with hydraulics as well.

I also wanted to note, that this proposed plan will actually reduce the amount of stormwater we will be carrying in the
system compared to the permitted plans. In the permitted plans, all the water from the hillside and roadway were
going out the same system. In this revision, we are breaking that system into two systems – one that carries the hillside
stormwater, and the other that carries the roadway water. Hope that makes sense.

Regardless, your comment about the outlet scour is definitely justified, especially since that new pipe system will be
pretty steep and straight – hopefully the dissipator pad will do the trick, but I’ll also see what supporting info I can dig
up from our hydraulics group.

Thanks,

Kevin

From: Wanucha, Dave <[e-mail]>
Sent: Tuesday, August 31, 2021 9:57 AM
To: Hining, Kevin J <[e-mail]>; Beckwith, Loretta A CIV USARMY CESAW (USA)
<[e-mail]>
Subject: RE: \[External\] RE: R-2915 E modification request - stream impact clarification

Kevin,
I think your write-up presents justifiable reasons to proceed prior to receiving written approval, but in regards
to stormwater, we are concerned that stormwater discharge velocities may cause scour at the outlet.
What are the modeled discharge velocities with the revised stormwater system/new pipe?
Will there be a need for a drop structure to reduce velocities?

Dave W.
1

Division of Water Resources
401 & Buffer Transportation Permitting
NCDOT Divisions 9 and 11
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: Monday, August 30, 2021 4:05 PM
To: Beckwith, Loretta A CIV USARMY CESAW (USA) <[e-mail]>; Wanucha, Dave
<[e-mail]>
Subject: RE: \[External\] RE: R-2915 E modification request - stream impact clarification

Good question! I guess I didn’t fully explain that
???? It’s not storm related, but there are some issues.

Right beside the bore and jack area, at Stat 746 to Stat 747, we have an existing slope failure directly beside the north
bound lane, on the east side of the road. This issue has been ongoing for several years, and has resulted in several
similar slope failures, although the existing slope failure we are dealing with is relatively recent. The issue is believed to
be caused by saturated soils from the hillside on the west side of the road. In addition, we have to cut into the hillside
on the west side of the road to expand the roadway. We can’t do that until we dry that hillside up, which will require
the bore and jack. Also, we can’t fix the existing slope failure until that hillside is dry, so we make the planned cuts into
the hillside, and switch traffic over.

So, the ultimate fix to the slope failure and the saturated hillside is the bore and jack. Another issue is the bore and jack
subcontractor is on site with other bore and jack operations, but he is near completion with those other sites. If he
finishes and disbands to another project, it will be pretty expensive to bring him back to R-2915 E. So, that part is
monetary.

The third issue we are up against is the oncoming winter. It can get pretty brutal in Ashe County during the winter
months, but October can be a good time to get vegetation established. Our hopes are to start work on the bore and
jack soon, so we can complete it (2-4 weeks) by late September/early October, and get vegetation at least started on
the wetland and streambanks prior to winter setting in. My assumption is the permit modification may take several
weeks, which means we might have to wait till spring, since we can’t risk doing this type of work during the winter.

I hope that explains everything.

Thanks again,

2

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.
_____________________________________________________________

From: Beckwith, Loretta A CIV USARMY CESAW (USA) <[e-mail]>
Sent: Monday, August 30, 2021 3:35 PM
To: Wanucha, Dave <[e-mail]>; Hining, Kevin J <[e-mail]>
Subject: RE: \[External\] RE: R-2915 E modification request - stream impact clarification

CAUTION: External email. Do not click links or open attachments unless you verify. Send all suspicious email as an attachment to
Report Spam.

Yes, I agree Dave. I was thinking that the storms were the reason you asked (Kevin) – maybe I was mistaken…

Kevin - please send us a write up about the reason(s) for working before receiving the written approval for our files.

Regards,

Lori

From: Wanucha, Dave <[e-mail]>
Sent: Monday, August 30, 2021 3:26 PM
To: Hining, Kevin J <[e-mail]>; Beckwith, Loretta A CIV USARMY CESAW (USA)
<[e-mail]>
Subject: \[Non-DoD Source\] RE: \[External\] RE: R-2915 E modification request - stream impact clarification

Lori,
I suppose Kevin needs to explain why DOT needs to move forward sooner, rather than wait for a formal
written approval. If DOT started today, they would be hit by a storm (if not Ida, than some other one), which
3

may result in problems with open pits, etc. My guess is that this work will take several months? On the other
hand, if the current situation does not pose a safety risk to road travelers (more so than any other future
storm event may cause) why not wait for a formal written approval? DWR is amenable to fast tracking this
one but only if there is justifiable reason(s).

Dave W.

Division of Water Resources
401 & Buffer Transportation Permitting
NCDOT Divisions 9 and 11
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: Monday, August 30, 2021 3:23 PM
To: Beckwith, Loretta A CIV USARMY CESAW (USA) <[e-mail]>; Wanucha, Dave
<[e-mail]>
Subject: RE: \[External\] RE: R-2915 E modification request - stream impact clarification

Good deal, and thanks to both of you for giving the idea of going to work before the permit modification is complete
some thought. I will tell our staff/contractor to hold tight for now, but just let me know once you reach a decision.

In the meantime, I’ll continue to work with Erin Cheely on the permit modification.

Kevin

From: Beckwith, Loretta A CIV USARMY CESAW (USA) <[e-mail]>
Sent: Monday, August 30, 2021 3:15 PM
To: Hining, Kevin J <[e-mail]>; Wanucha, Dave <[e-mail]>
Subject: RE: \[External\] RE: R-2915 E modification request - stream impact clarification

CAUTION: External email. Do not click links or open attachments unless you verify. Send all suspicious email as an attachment to
Report Spam.
4

Ok – if you’re going to do all those things, iit sounds like it would be temporary.

From: Hining, Kevin J <[e-mail]>
Sent: Monday, August 30, 2021 3:06 PM
To: Beckwith, Loretta A CIV USARMY CESAW (USA) <[e-mail]>; Wanucha, Dave
<[e-mail]>
Subject: \[Non-DoD Source\] RE: \[External\] RE: R-2915 E modification request - stream impact clarification

Hey Lori,

That’s correct, we will excavate in the wetland, so we can install the temporary dewatering pipe. We may have some
excavation within the wetland for the back corner of the bore pit as well. We plan to stockpile this material on site by
itself, beside the wetland, and return it to the wetland when done. The same for the stream material – we will isolate it
in it’s own stockpile, and then return it to the stream.

I’m sure we will be removing vegetation in this area, but we plan to cover the area with riparian/native seed mix and
core fiber, and we can also commit to planting livestakes (willow and silky dogwood) as well. So, my hopes are this will
return things more or less like they were and allow us to call the impacts to both the wetland and stream as temporary
impacts. All this said, if the wetland impacts are to severe to call temporary, then we are prepared to pay mitigation.

I also wanted to note that I met with our survey crew this morning and obtained more accurate impact numbers for the
wetland. We used their MicroStation program, and the wetland impact area highlighted in yellow on the plansheet I
sent you and Dave (also shown below) is 0.132 acres. I had estimated that it was 0.2 acres, but is actually less than
that.

Thanks and hope this clarifies a few things,

Kevin

Kevin Hining
Division 11 Environmental Supervisor
North Carolina Department of Transportation

5

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: Beckwith, Loretta A CIV USARMY CESAW (USA) <[e-mail]>
Sent: Monday, August 30, 2021 2:44 PM
To: Hining, Kevin J <[e-mail]>; Wanucha, Dave <[e-mail]>
Subject: \[External\] RE: R-2915 E modification request - stream impact clarification

CAUTION: External email. Do not click links or open attachments unless you verify. Send all suspicious email as an attachment to
Report Spam.

Dave – please let me know what you find/think about starting without a modification, esp. considering all the rain we’ve
had (and will have).

Kevin – re mitigation. If the impact will be temporary, no mitigation will typically be required, but it sounds like you’re
going to excavate in the WL, remove any vegetation in this area, and then maybe place some fill for the bore and jack –
is that correct or am I mistaken?.

From: Hining, Kevin J <[e-mail]>
Sent: Monday, August 30, 2021 2:20 PM
To: Wanucha, Dave <[e-mail]>; Beckwith, Loretta A CIV USARMY CESAW (USA)
<[e-mail]>
Subject: \[Non-DoD Source\] RE: R-2915 E modification request - stream impact clarification

Thanks Dave!

From: Wanucha, Dave <[e-mail]>
Sent: Monday, August 30, 2021 2:11 PM
To: Hining, Kevin J <[e-mail]>; Beckwith, Loretta A CIV USARMY CESAW (USA)
<[e-mail]>
Subject: RE: R-2915 E modification request - stream impact clarification

6

I’ll take a look and get back to you later this week regarding starting without a modification approval. At first
glance it appears to be straight forward. Not sure if DWR would require mitigation for temporary wetland
impacts, we’ll wait on the Corps interpretation. In the meantime, I’ll consult with our stormwater engineer
for his comments as well. Thanks.

Dave W.

Division of Water Resources
401 & Buffer Transportation Permitting
NCDOT Divisions 9 and 11
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: Friday, August 27, 2021 5:29 PM
To: Beckwith, Loretta A CIV USARMY CESAW (USA) <[e-mail]>; Wanucha, Dave
<[e-mail]>
Subject: RE: R-2915 E modification request - stream impact clarification

I forgot to spell out the stream impacts (170’ temp) in my email, but they are shown in the attachment. To summarize,
we will dewater 150’ of Little Naked Creek, plus 10’ of temporary impacts for connecting the inlet and outlet of the
temporary pipe to the stream = 170’ of temporary stream impacts.

So, impacts to streams are temporary and equal 170’. Wetland impacts are 0.2 acres, and while we plan for them to be
temporary (no fill involved), we are prepared to call them permanent and mitigate for them.

I’m hoping you both have already started your weekend and don’t get this till Monday, but if not, Happy Friday!

Kevin

From: Hining, Kevin J
Sent: Friday, August 27, 2021 5:14 PM
To: Beckwith, Loretta A CIV USARMY CESAW (USA) <[e-mail]>; Wanucha, Dave
<[e-mail]>
Subject: R-2915 E modification request
7

Hey Lori and Dave,

I’m working on a permit modification to R-2915 E (SAW-2012-00882; NCDWR # 20140762v.3). I’m working with our
central office staff Erin Cheely to prepare everything, but wanted to give you a heads up about the issue, our plans to fix
the issue, and to see about the possibility of moving forward before the permit modification is approved.

We have a saturated slope that has routinely caused issues to the road shoulder (apparently for 15+ years) and most
recently, resulted in a slide on the eastern road shoulder of HWY 221 in the vicinity of Stat 746-Stat 747. We believe the
issue is runoff from the slope on the western side of HWY 221. Originally, we planned to take this water and pipe it to a
30” RCP-III pipe system that ran north under the new road and finally discharged into Little Naked Creek. This system
was intended to carry roadway runoff from HWY 221 and the western slope. The original plansheet is attached above,
titled “R-2915 E Stat 748 – original plan”. See Stat 748 to view this system (shown within black rectangle).

Our central hydraulics unit and division staff no longer believe this system will handle all of the water. So, we plan to
keep much of the proposed stormwater system intact, to carry roadway runoff. However, we would like to direct the
runoff from/along the western slope into a new 42” pipe that will go directly under the road and discharge onto a rip
rap pad and then allowed to flow over vegetation and into Little Naked Creek. Currently, there is a 24” CMP at this
location, but it can’t handle the flow and is no longer serviceable – it will be filled with flowable fill. See “proposed bore
and jack” attachment to view the proposed 42” pipe, and for referencing the information below.

This modification, at first glance, would only involve stormwater changes. However, we can’t realistically excavate this
new 42” pipe due to the depth of the pipe (> 15’) and the inability to close the road (high traffic, including several
business and the Ashe County high school, with no realistic option for a detour). So, our only option is a bore and
jack. The issue with this option is we will need to place the bore pit partially within Little Naked Creek and the
surrounding wetlands. This will involve temporary impacts (stream dewatering) and permanent impacts (wetland
impacts) at permit site 8B. Rather than try and pump water around, and risk pump failures during the operation, we
think it would be best to install a temporary diversion, by way of a 175’ x 42” HDPE pipe.

The temporary dewatering pipe and part of the bore pit will impact 0.2 acres of wetlands. While we think the wetland
will return to its original condition fairly quickly once the work is done and repairs made, we are prepared to call these
impacts permanent and mitigate for them if required (0.2 acres).

Finally, since part of the bore pit will be within stream and wetland habitats, we know it will take on water. Luckily, the
bore pit will be shallow, only 3-5 feet in depth, and any water that infiltrates the bore pit will be pumped out and ran
through a silt bag, placed on the west bank of the stream below the wetland complex (so not in the wetland). This
water will be allowed to run over natural vegetation before entering the stream.

I know this is a lot, so more than happy to talk by phone and go over this together at your earliest convenience.

Thanks a bunch!

Kevin

Kevin Hining
Division 11 Environmental Supervisor
North Carolina Department of Transportation

828-386-7202 cell
[e-mail]

801 Statesville Rd.
PO Box 250
8

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.

Email correspondence to and from this sender is subject to the N.C. 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.
9