20161220 Ver 2_USACE Correspondence_20190916 (2)

Carpenter,Kristi
From:Steve Kichefski
Sent:Monday, September 16, 2019 1:58 PM
To:Turchy, Michael A; Hood, Donna
Cc:Chapman, Amy; Braspennickx, Nicholle M CIV USARMY CESAW (US); Wyatt, Jeffrey L;
Beam, Patricia; Barrett, William A; Morgan, Stephen R; Anderson, Brook E; Berry,
Michelle G; Dagnino, Carla S; Carpenter, Larry S; Matthews, Monte K CIV USARMY
CESAW (USA)
Subject:RE: I-5000
Michael,
Thank you for the update. That answers some questions about our most timely concerns regarding the reduced culvert
conveyance. It seems that with the accumulated sediment levels within the culvert not being calculated CLOMAR factors
(despite the reality of the sediments presence) and the CLOMAR partially based on the base flood reduction due to the
Rankin Lake Road bridge removal (which has not yet happened) there is still some room for concern until construction is
complete, but I appreciate having NCDOT's written response to this issue.

As discussed prior to permitting and again during our August 22, 2019 meeting, the USACE expects the project to meet
GP31 special condition (i), which is copied below:
i. No activity may result in substantial permanent disruption of the movement of those
species of aquatic life indigenous to the waterbody, including those species that normally migrate
through the area. The dimension, pattern, and profile of the stream above and below a pipe or
culvert should not be modified by widening the stream channel or by reducing the depth of the
stream in connection with the construction activity. It is acceptable to use rock vanes at culvert
outlets to ensure, enhance, or maintain aquatic passage. Pre-formed scour holes are acceptable
when designed for velocity reduction. The width, height, and gradient of a proposed opening
should be such as to pass the average historical low flow and spring flow without adversely
altering flow velocity. Spring flow should be determined from gauge data, if available. In the
absence of such data, bankfull flow can be used as a comparable level. Where adjacent floodplain
is available, flows exceeding bank-full should be accommodated by installing culverts at the
floodplain elevation, if practicable. If multiple culverts are used, the construction of floodplain
benches and/or sills to maintain base flow is required, if practicable.

Meeting this condition was the intent of adding the sills and benching since the channel flow was spread across 3 box
culverts, especially with the volume of sediment received by this channel from the upstream watershed. It was also
thought that concentrating flow in 1 culvert barrel would help flush the deposited sediment and maintain a low flow
channel or channel thalweg after the Rankin Lake Road bridge removal. Is there any reason why NCDOT believes this is
incorrect or not attainable at this point? In the response provided and during the August 22, 2019 discussion, the sills
are proposed to be increased from 2 to 3 feet in height in order to help attain more natural channel dimension in this
area, however isn't this still level with the projected channel substrate height post Rankin Lake Road bridge
removal/sediment flushing? If yes, then is the increased channel velocity discussed thru via the modeling the only thing
projected to maintain the single barrel use and low flow channel dimensions?

I realized you may not be able to answer this until you can answer the remaining unresolved issues and provide us with
your proposed plan modifications for this area. I just want to reiterate that prior to moving forward with construction of
any modifications we would like to review and comment on that response. It may even mean that the sill elevation is not
needed.

1

All the questions above and really the main issue with this area prior to permitting involve the timing of the Rankin Lake
Road bridge removal. The uncertainty around how the channel will respond after the bridge removal and what steps are
needed to meet condition (i) mentioned above cannot be concluded until that happens. What is the bridge removal
waiting for, is it the opening of bulb avenue or construction access for other project components? If it is for construction
access, is there another way to access the area and did the previous construction phases limit the access to the area
needed via the bridge?

As a reminder, the special condition below was included with the permit verification for this project:

2) The stream channel (Highland Creek) within the project area between the I-85 culvert extension (Site 1) and
the rock check dam downstream of the Rankin Lake Road Bridge (Site 3) shall be visually monitored with photo stations
for at least two bankfull flow events occurring in separate calendar years to ensure channel stability post
construction.

Since the crucial step of the Rankin Lake Road bridge removal not happening early in the project phasing, this condition
was included to make sure that this area is monitored and not just forgotten after construction. The site monitoring
results are to be reported to us at least annually to help us determine if the channel adjusts as proposed by the NCDOT
in order to meet permit conditions and ensure that no other channel stability issues occur as a result of the project. I
welcome any other measurements NCDOT suggests to help demonstrate that the channel is adjusting as proposed, such
as fixed cross-section measurement points, post construction thalweg surveys or even bank pins safely installed in the
channel bed to quantify elevation change. Thinking through the monitoring and installing any fixed measurement points
(at least the photo station points) would be best done prior to the bridge removal for reference.

I appreciate all the modeling and other work that has gone into more thoroughly addressing our concerns with this
project. I'm sure all involved would like to see this issue concluded and I trust that the remaining responses will not take
another 5.5 months to answer.

Let me know if you have any questions regarding my response or would like to have further discussions.

Regards,

Steve Kichefski
Regulatory Project Manager
U.S. Army Corps of Engineers
Wilmington District, Asheville Field Office
151 Patton Avenue, Suite 208
Asheville, NC 28801
(828)-271-7980 Ext. 4234

The Wilmington District is committed to providing the highest level of support to the public. To help us ensure we
continue to do so, please complete the Customer Satisfaction Survey located at our website at
https://urldefense.com/v3/__http://corpsmapu.usace.army.mil/cm_apex/f?p=136:4:0__;!!HYmSToo!PJ59wnJOaHN1t4R
A3ytgavG-JFNjoHWYSjWFa0VZehtHUOHnZCnQRKUE3P5V1xKaeV4$ to complete the survey online.

-----Original Message-----
From: Turchy, Michael A \[mailto:[e-mail]\]
Sent: Monday, September 16, 2019 12:08 AM
To: Hood, Donna <[e-mail]>; Kichefski, Steven L CIV USARMY CESAW (US)
<[e-mail]>
2

Cc: Chapman, Amy <[e-mail]>; Braspennickx, Nicholle M CIV USARMY CESAW (US)
<[e-mail]>; Wyatt, Jefffrey L <[e-mail]>; Beam, Patricia
<[e-mail]>; Barrett, William A <[e-mail]>; Morgan, Stephen R <[e-mail]>;
Anderson, Brook E <[e-mail]>; Berry, Michelle G <[e-mail]>; Dagnino, Carla S
<[e-mail]>; Carpenter, Larry S <[e-mail]>
Subject: \[Non-DoD Source\] Re: I-5000

Please find attached responses to the March/April DWR and USACE concerns. While some questions/comments are still
unresolved, we attempted to provide a history, status, and/or update to document the activities that have occurred
since the requests.

Pursuant to the August 22 update and modeling meeting, additional coordination will continue as NCDOT is working to
refine the recommendations to determine which actions are practicable and appropriate to help improve the situation
at Site 1.

Please let me know if you have any questions.
Thanks,
Michael

Michael Turchy

Environmental Coordination and Permitting

North Carolina Department of Transportation

919 789-1102 <tel:(919)%20789-1102> mobile

919 707-6157 <tel:(919)%20707-6157> office

1598 Mail Service Center

Raleigh, NC 27699-1598

1000 Birch Ridge Drive

Raleigh, NC 27610

________________________________

From: Turchy, Michael A
Sent: Thursday, September 12, 2019 5:12 PM
3

To: Hood, Donna <[e-mail]>; Dagnino, Carla S <[e-mail]>
Cc: Chapman, Amy <[e-mail]>; Steve Kichefski <[e-mail]>; Braspennickx,
Nicholle M CIV USARMY CESAW (US) <[e-mail]>; Wyatt, Jefffrey L
<[e-mail]>
Subject: RE: I-5000

Yes. The team is working on answering some of the outstanding questions from the meeting (e.g. depth to waterline,
etc). However, I've requested everyone to send me what they have so I can provide a response by COB Friday.

-Michael

From: Hood, Donna <[e-mail]>
Sent: Thursday, September 12, 2019 11:32 AM
To: Dagnino, Carla S <[e-mail]>; Turchy, Michael A <[e-mail]>
Cc: Chapman, Amy <[e-mail]>; Steve Kichefski <[e-mail]>; Braspennickx,
Nicholle M CIV USARMY CESAW (US) <[e-mail]>; Wyatt, Jefffrey L
<[e-mail]>
Subject: I-5000

Carla and Michael,

Is there going to be a written response the ACOE and NC DWR concerns for the I-5000 project?

Thank You,

Donna

Donna Hood - [e-mail] <mailto:[e-mail]>

North Carolina Dept. of Environmental Quality

Division of Water Resources

Transportation Permitting Branch

610 E. Center Ave.

Mooresville, NC 28115

Ph: 704.663.1699 Cell: 704.682.2839

4

Fax: [phone]

________________________________

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

5