20150811 Ver 1_RE SR 1369 Caldwell ditch line issue_20161116

Strickland, Bev
From:Slaughter, Johnathan H
Sent:Wednesday, November 16, 2016 9:12 AM
To:Kichefski, Steven L CIV USARMY CESAW (US); Wanucha, Dave
Cc:Eller, Douglas W; Greer, Brandon S; Souther, Zachary S
Subject:RE: SR 1369, Caldwell, ditch line issue
Steve/Dave,

After coordinating with our engineers, we have elected to remove the riprap and follow that up with riparian seed mix
and coir fiber matting. Since the ditch has been cleaned out, it may drain appropriately now. Paving will not take place
until next year so we have time to monitor the situation for potential future subgrade saturation. If the same problem
redevelops, we can coordinate with you then. Thanks.

-----Original Message-----
From: Kichefski, Steven L CIV USARMY CESAW (US) \[mailto:[e-mail]\]
Sent: Tuesday, November 15, 2016 1:57 PM
To: Wanucha, Dave <[e-mail]>; Slaughter, Johnathan H <[e-mail]>
Cc: Eller, Douglas W <[e-mail]>; Greer, Brandon S <[e-mail]>; Souther, Zachary S
<[e-mail]>
Subject: RE: SR 1369, Caldwell, ditch line issue

Heath,
The Corps stance would be similar to DWR's and really depend on whether we would consider the area a linear wetland
or a stream (doesn't seem like we have enough info to make/document that decision yet). Either way it's just as you
described...permit it (can't modify a NWP so would just issue a new one with the same project id) or remove the riprap
and liner. If it's a wetland I wouldn't require mitigation for just the excavation in this situation as long as it's
stabilized/seeded appropriately. If the fill stays (based on what DOT feels is appropriate in this area), mitigation would
depend on acreage and pre-impact quality.

If it ends up being more of a stream channel then like always, mitigation would be required and the ratio would typically
start at 2:1 depending on the channel type and documentation of channel function. Let me know if you have
documentation of the feature prior to impact or was any part of it left alone to assess now (maybe I can visit soon if
needed). Let me know if you need anything further from me.

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. 234

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
http://corpsmapu.usace.army.mil/cm_apex/f?p=136:4:0 to complete the survey online.

1

-----Original Message-----
From: Wanucha, Dave \[mailto:[e-mail]\]
Sent: Thursday, November 10, 2016 9:50 AM
To: Slaughter, Johnathan H <[e-mail]>; Kichefski, Steven L CIV USARMY CESAW (US)
<[e-mail]>
Cc: Eller, Douglas W <[e-mail]>; Greer, Brandon S <[e-mail]>; Souther, Zachary S
<[e-mail]>
Subject: \[EXTERNAL\] RE: SR 1369, Caldwell, ditch line issue

Yes, if you leave the riprap and liner, DWR would require mitigation (at 1:1) because the feature is greater than 150
linear feet; and, we would require a permit modification. If the Corps calls it a wetland, and if the wetland area is less
than one acre, then no. DWR cannot require mitigation for wetlands less than one acre. However, because the area is
so large, we would require a formal permit modification.

If you remove the riprap and liner (assuming that the road can hold up relative to the saturated soil-DOT would have to
make that call) then no harm no foul assuming that you return the feature to a functioning linear wetland/stream and
reseed.

Let me know if you need anything further.

Dave W.

Dave Wanucha

Division of Water Resources

Transportation Permitting Unit

NC Department of Environmental Quality

2

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 27105

Email correspondence to and from this address is subject to the

North Carolina Public Records Law and may be disclosed to third parties.

From: Slaughter, Johnathan H
Sent: Thursday, November 10, 2016 8:51 AM
To: Wanucha, Dave <[e-mail]>; Kichefski, Steven L SAW <[e-mail]>
Cc: Eller, Douglas W <[e-mail]>; Greer, Brandon S <[e-mail]>; Souther, Zachary S
<[e-mail]>
Subject: SR 1369, Caldwell, ditch line issue

Dave/Steve,

We have a jurisdictional feature in a ditch line at station 76+50 left on the subject SR in Caldwell County. Up slope, this
is a stream that enters our ditch near station 75+50 and then functions more like a linear wetland. Preconstruction, the
ditch line had flowing and standing water with vegetation and sediment accumulation. During the permitting process,
the decision was made to avoid this area. A "No Embankment Construction Station 75+15 - 80+50" note was placed on
the plans on sheet 16.

3

During construction, our contract inspector noted that this poorly drained wet ditch line was creating soil saturation
under the subgrade of the road in this area. He discussed this situation with our former Assistant District Engineer (no
longer employed by DOT). I don't know what direction the inspector was given, if any. When I inspected the project
yesterday, the ditch had been excavated to improve drainage. A geotextile liner was rolled out with riprap placed on
top. It was felt that the liner was needed to prevent saturation of the soil under the road, which would have created
issues once the road is paved.

In the past, we have been allowed to excavate areas where ditches or pipes are being clogged by sediment deposition
without permits as long as we stabilized the area with seed and coir fiber matting afterwards. In this case, riprap with a
liner was used instead. I seems to me that we either need to modify the permit or remove the riprap and liner.
According to plan measurements, the area in question is about 191 feet. If the riprap stays, would mitigation be
required by the corps? I assume DWR would require 1:1. Is that correct Dave?

________________________________

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

4