Additional Response HE-0001 I-26 Interchange Future Exit 35 DWR#20230518

From: Turchy,Michael A
To: Mitchell,Robert K
Cc: Coates,McCrav;Cheely,Erin K; Locklear,Susan P; McHenry, David G;Wilson,Lauren B;Archual,Adam J.;
Beckwith,Loretta A CIV USARMY CESAW(USA)
Subject: RE: Request For Additional Information HE-0001 I-26 Interchange Future Exit 35 DWR#20230518
Date: Sunday,May 21,2023 8:16:58 PM
Attachments: imaae001.ono
imaae002.ona
Hi Kevin,
Please see the response to your question below, and feel free to let me know if you have any
additional questions.
Michael,
Sorry for the late reply on this. 1 do have one additional question about the response. As discussed
throughout the project, stormwater is a concern overall, but more importantly for the streams in
the undeveloped sections of the project(site 5, 6, and 7). On question #2 (below) I was specifically
referring to the outlet protection in the stream bed. This was shown in CP4C and removed in the
submitted plans. Can you explain why the protection was removed and demonstrate that the
channel below these outlets can handle the increased velocities?
2. Plans at CP 4c showed outlet protection on culverts at Site 5,. 6, and 7. The submitted plans
in the application did not show outlet protection on the culverts at Site 5. 6. and 7. Please
explain why the protection was removed and demonstrate that the stream can handle the
increased velocity at the outlet. L15A NCAC 02H.0506E
Due to the accelerated project schedule, the 4C Plans, i.e. draft permit plans, were completed
concurrently with redline drainage designs in January 2023. The drainage design and
corresponding impacts presented at CP 4C were considered worst case scenario. During NCDOT
Hydraulic review of the redline drainage designs, the rip rap/rock stream bed protection was
removed at Sites 5-7 to comply with current NCDOT design standards in jurisdictional streams. In
so doing, additional impacts are minimized to the subject streams.
The stormwater drainage design was dispersed along the-y-line where possible to avoid
concentrated discharges to jurisdictional streams. An effort was made to design discharges
downstream of proposed jurisdictional pipe crossings wherever possible. Sediment control
devices were included where practical and stormwater discharges detained and filtered through
vegetation to the maximum extent practical within the confines of the transportation project.
Specifically, the stormwater drainage design at each referenced site is described below:
• Site 5/Stream SG—The stormwater drainage system west of the jurisdictional stream
crossing is outlet (0905) through a rip rap energy dissipator(RRED) and into a grassed ditch
before crossing a rip rap embankment protection and entering Stream SG near the pipe
inlet (0917).The stormwater drainage system east of the jurisdictional stream crossing is
outlet downstream of the cross pipe outlet (0918) also through an RRED.These measures
will reduce the velocity of stormwater discharge prior to entering Stream SG.
• Site 6/Stream SE—The stormwater drainage system adjacent to Stream SE is mostly split
and discharged (1004 and 1018) downstream of the cross pipe outlet (1022) where it is
allowed to dissipate over natural ground before entering the jurisdictional stream channel.

These measures will reduce the velocity of stormwater discharge prior to entering Stream
SE. An inlet (1007) will collect a small amount of stormwater southwest of the stream
crossing and discharge into the pipe crossing.
• Site 7/Stream SA—The stormwater drainage system in this location primarily collects and
discharges stormwater downstream of the pipe crossing. A RRED (1017) and grass ditch
convey stormwater west of the stream crossing before crossing rip rap embankment
protection and entering Stream SA near the cross pipe outlet (1024). A Preform Scour Hole
(PSH) (1005) is used on the east side of the stream crossing. These measures will reduce
the velocity of stormwater discharge prior to entering Stream SA. An inlet (1012) will
collect a small amount of stormwater southwest of the stream crossing and is outlet (1013)
over rip rap embankment before entering Stream SA.
Based on the pre/post-analysis, Streams SE and SA do not show a significant change in velocity
and shear. Stream SA velocities decrease in the 2-, 5-, and 10-yr scenarios and shears remain the
same. Stream SE velocities increase in the 2-, 5-, and 10-yr scenarios by 7.8%; shears
correspondingly increase, but minimally.
The method utilized for pre/post-analysis for Stream SG assumed all discharges remained in the
channel. However,the channel is relatively shallow at 1.5 feet.The post-construction analysis
indicates 2.6 feet of water flows through the channel in a 2-yr storm event. As a result,the water
spreads 31 feet across the adjacent floodplain.This scenario results in dissipated flow and
reduced velocities.
Michael Turchy
Environmental Coordination and Permitting [ECAP] Group Leader
Environmental Analysis Unit
North Carolina Department of Transportation
919 707 6157 office
919 818 7427 mobile
[e-mail]
1598 Mail Service Center(Mail)
Raleigh, NC 27699-1598
1000 Birch Ridge Drive (Delivery)
Raleigh, NC 27610
FOR
Email correspondence to and from this address is subject to the
North Carolina Public Records Law and may be disclosed to third parties.
Facebook Twitter YouTube
From: Mitchell, Robert K<[e-mail]>
Sent:Tuesday, May 16, 2023 3:58 PM
To:Turchy, Michael A<[e-mail]>; Beckwith, Loretta A CIV USARMY CESAW (USA)

<[e-mail]>
Cc: Coates, McCray<[e-mail]>; Cheely, Erin K<[e-mail]>; Locklear, Susan
P <[e-mail]>; McHenry, David G <[e-mail]>; Wilson,
Lauren B<[e-mail]>; Archual,Adam J. <[e-mail]>
Subject: RE: Request For Additional Information HE-0001 1-26 Interchange Future Exit 35
DWR#20230518
Michael,
Sorry for the late reply on this. I do have one additional question about the response. As discussed
throughout the project, stormwater is a concern overall, but more importantly for the streams in the
undeveloped sections of the project (site 5, 6, and 7). On question #2 (below) I was specifically
referring to the outlet protection in the stream bed. This was shown in CP4C and removed in the
submitted plans. Can you explain why the protection was removed and demonstrate that the
channel below these outlets can handle the increased velocities?
2. Plans at CP 4c showed outlet protection on culverts at Site 5 6. and 7. The submitted plans in
the application did not show outlet protection on the culverts at Site 5. 6. and 7. Please
explain why the protection was removed and demonstrate that the stream can handle the
increased velocity at the outlet. [15A NCAC 02H .05061.
The submitted plans include protection at the outlets. The CP 4c plans included rip rap in the
stream bed at these outlet locations. The protection included in the submitted plans does not
impact the stream beds and is depicted in the details on the sheet(see details 9F& 10K).
Kevin Mitchell
Environmental Specialist 11
Division of Water Resources
401 & Buffer Transportation Permitting
NC Department of Environmental Quality
828-296-4650 Office
828-231-1580 Mobile
Email Kevin.mitchell(@deq.nc.gov
NC DEQ Asheville Regional Office
2090 U.S. Hwy. 70
Swannanoa, N.C. 28778

From:Turchy, Michael A<maturchy(@ncdot.gov>
Sent:Thursday, May 4, 2023 6:49 PM
To: Mitchell, Robert K<kevin.mitchell(@ncdenr.gov>; Beckwith, Loretta A CIV USARMY CESAW (USA)
<Loretta.A.Beckwith(@usace.army.mil>
Cc: Coates, McCray<hmcoates(@ncdot.gov>; Cheely, Erin K<ekcheely(@ncdot.gov>; Locklear, Susan
P <susan.locklear(@ncdenr.gov>; McHenry, David G <david.mchenry(@ncwildlife.org>; Wilson, Lauren
B <lauren_wilson(@fws.gov>; Archual, Adam J. <aarchual(@gfnet.com>
Subject: RE: Request For Additional Information HE-0001 1-26 Interchange Future Exit 35
DW R#20230518
Hi Kevin-
Please find attached word document which address your questions from Monday.
Kevin, Lori, Dave, and Lauren-
Some of these responses required revisions to the permit drawings. I have updated the permit
package at our website (direct link):
https://xfer.services.ncdot.gov/pdeazPermApps/H E-0001%20Buncombe%2OApril%202023.pdf
If the drawing page was revised, I retained the original drawing but marked through it. The revised
drawing page immediately follows and is labeled to indicate the date of the revision.
In addition, the Pre and Post Calculation page was revised and the SELDM Comparison Design was
added.
Please let me know if you have any questions.
Thanks,
Michael
Michael Turchy
Environmental Coordination and Permitting [ECAP] Group Leader
Environmental Analysis Unit
North Carolina Department of Transportation
919 707 6157 office
919 818 7427 mobile
maturchyg_ncdot.gov
1598 Mail Service Center(Mail)
Raleigh, NC 27699-1598

1000 Birch Ridge Drive (Delivery)
Raleigh, NC 27610
8,
Email correspondence to and from this address is subject to the
North Carolina Public Records Law and may be disclosed to third parties.
Facebook Twitter YouTube
From:Turchy, Michael A
Sent: Monday, May 1, 2023 8:35 PM
To: Mitchell, Robert K<kevin.mitchell(@ncdenr.gov>
Cc: Beckwith, Loretta A CIV USARMY CESAW (USA) <Loretta.A.Beckwith(@usace.army.mil>; Coates,
McCray<hmcoates(@ncdot.gov>; Cheely, Erin K<ekcheely(@ncdot.gov>; Locklear, Susan P
<susan.locklear(@ncdenr.gov>; McHenry, David G <david.mchenry(@ncwildlife.org>
Subject: RE: Request For Additional Information HE-0001 1-26 Interchange Future Exit 35
DW R#20230518
Thank you Kevin. I'll forward to the team so they can review and get working on responses. As they
work though the items, if it would be better/clearer to explain in person, I'll let you know.
Thanks!
-Michael
Michael Turchy
Environmental Coordination and Permitting [ECAP] Group Leader
Environmental Analysis Unit
North Carolina Department of Transportation
919 707 6157 office
919 818 7427 mobile
maturch ncdot.gov
1598 Mail Service Center(Mail)
Raleigh, NC 27699-1598
1000 Birch Ridge Drive (Delivery)
Raleigh, NC 27610
8
Email correspondence to and from this address is subject to the
North Carolina Public Records Law and may be disclosed to third parties.
Facebook Twitter YouTube
From: Mitchell, Robert K<kevin.mitchell(@ncdenr.gov>

Sent: Monday, May 1, 2023 2:11 PM
To:Turchy, Michael A<maturchy(@ncdot.gov>
Cc: Beckwith, Loretta A CIV USARMY CESAW (USA) <Loretta.A.Beckwith(@usace.arm)l.mil>; Coates,
McCray<hmcoates(@ncdot.gov>; Cheely, Erin K<ekcheel)z(@ncdot.gov>; Locklear, Susan P
<susan.locklear(@ncdenr.gov>; McHenry, David G <david.mchenr)l(@ncwildlife.org>
Subject: Request For Additional Information HE-0001 1-26 Interchange Future Exit 35
DWR#20230518
Michael,
Feel free to give me a call if it would be easier to discuss some of these items on the phone.
On April 18, 2023, the Division of Water Resources (Division) received your application requesting a
401 Water Quality Certification from the Division for the subject project. The Division has
determined that your application is incomplete and cannot be processed. The application is on-hold
until the following information is received:
1. The stormwater drainage system from 1126+50—1131+50 WBL is currently being built for I-
4700 and should be shown in green. Please correct this on the plans and any other
stormwater drainage that is part of the 1-4700 project. [15A NCAC 02H .0502(c)]
2. Plans at CP 4c showed outlet protection on culverts at Site 5, 6, and 7. The submitted plans in
the application did not show outlet protection on the culverts at Site 5, 6, and 7. Please
explain why the protection was removed and demonstrate that the stream can handle the
increased velocity at the outlet. [15A NCAC 02H .0506]
3. Detail 5A stationing 24+50 RPC (Sheet 5) should read LT and not RT. Please correct on plans.
[15A NCAC 02H .0502(c)]
4. On the pre/post stormwater analysis table the applicant references a 55"RCP in the
interchange. Is that referring to the 66" RCP (Station 35+00 RPC) on the plans? Also,the
velocity table that was submitted in the 4C meeting minutes (table 1 page 5) is significantly
different from the pre/post numbers in the application table. For example Post 10-year
velocities for Stream SA below the proposed 36 inch RCP are 11.2 f/s; however, the table in
the application indicates that the velocity is 3.7 f/s post construction. Please clarify any
differences in these tables and indicate an approximate location on the table. Are the
velocities on the table in the application below the proposed outlets? I have attached the
meeting minutes from 4c for reference. [15A NCAC 02H .0502(c)]
5. On page 4 of 5 of the Stormwater Management Plan (SMP), under additional notes, please
reference the additional swales that did not meet the criteria, but were added into the
design. [15A NCAC 02H .0502(c)]
6. Please note on page 5 of 5 of the SMP whether the Pre Formed Scour Holes meet the design
criteria for the NCDOT BMP toolbox. [15A NCAC 02H .0502(c)]

7. Please include a narrative in the SMP that demonstrates that the applicant evaluated BMPs to
meet the NC SELDM Catalog recommendation. Documentation of the recommendations,
measures taken to meet the treatment goals, or restrictions to implementation were to be
included in the final SMP per CP 4A. [15A NCAC 02H .0506]
Pursuant to Title 15A NCAC 02H .0502(c), the applicant shall furnish all of the above requested
information for the proper consideration of the application. Please provide your response by June 1,
2023. If all of the requested information is not received,the Division will be unable to approve the
application and it will be denied as incomplete. The denial of this project will necessitate
reapplication to the Division for approval, including complete application and the appropriate fee.
Feel free to contact me if you have any questions.
Kevin Mitchell
Environmental Specialist II
Division of Water Resources
401 & Buffer Transportation Permitting
NC Department of Environmental Quality
828-296-4650 Office
828-231-1580 Mobile
Email Kevin.mitchell(@ncdenr.gov
NC DEQ Asheville Regional Office
2090 U.S. Hwy. 70
Swannanoa, N.C. 28778
01
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 address may be subject to the North Carolina Public Records Law and may be disclosed to third
parties by an authorized state official.