20140762 Ver 4_Sept Inspection issues_20190923

Wanucha, Dave
From:Hining, Kevin J
Sent:Friday, September 20, 2019 3:09 PM
To:Wanucha, Dave
Cc:Steve Kichefski; Beckwith, Loretta A CIV USARMY CESAW (USA)
Subject:RE: R-2915D, Site 6
Hey Dave,

That’s an excellent point, and not one I intended to overlook. In addition to fish, I usually think of amphibians, crayfish,
and mussels. If those conversations are needed for this instance, I’m more than happy to talk to Lori Williams (NCWRC
Herpetologist) about possible amphibian species in the area, and in general, their ability to navigate NCDOT
structures. I’ve been under the impression amphibians have an easier time navigating these structures than fish, but
regardless, it’s an additional thing to take into account. I can also contact NCWRC nongame aquatic staff (Luke Etchison
and Dylan Owensby), who cover crayfish, mussels, etc. in this region, to see if they have concerns that outweigh the
benefit that Brook Trout might receive from maintaining the current state of passage.

My initial response was based on some comfort knowing that the current state of passage might be helpful with respect
to preserving Brook Trout upstream of the structure. And, because I’m not sure we could improve passage for fish,
given the slick wall interior and length of the pipes. However, I plan to re-survey this area with NCWRC fisheries staff
this fall, and more than happy to get a confirmation of their thoughts at that time if needed.

I guess I’m still not clear if improving fish passage was an expectation for this permit site. Given the structural issues I
mentioned, I hope it isn’t an expectation. If it was, I think we might have been better replacing the structure with a new
one, vs. retrofitting the existing pipe structure.

Regarding the scour issue. I think Heath outlined a course of action in the previous emails that NCDOT is still prepared
to take. Those comments are highlighted at the very bottom of this email chain. In the absence of other concerns,
would that suffice for this permit site?

Thanks and hope everyone has a good weekend,

Kevin

Kevin Hining
Division 11 Environmental Officer
North Carolina Department of Transportation

336 903 9129 office
828-386-8687 cell
[e-mail]

801 Statesville Rd.
PO Box 250
North Wilkesboro, NC 28659

1

Email correspondence to and from this address is subject to the
North Carolina Public Records Law and may be disclosed to third parties.
_____________________________________________________________

From: Wanucha, Dave <[e-mail]>
Sent: Friday, September 20, 2019 1:17 PM
To: Hining, Kevin J <[e-mail]>
Cc: Steve Kichefski <[e-mail]>; Beckwith, Loretta A CIV USARMY CESAW (USA)
<[e-mail]>
Subject: RE: R-2915D, Site 6

Kevin,

Native fish issue aside, as I understand it, the upstream passage issue is not just about fish. Are there no other aquatic
organisms we are trying to maintain within the stream ecosystem that move upstream/require passage in addition to
fish? We really need WRC to confirm that passage is not an issue here relative to fish and other aquatics.

Once passage is settled, I believe we need to address the other issue of scour/instability, whether or not a cross vane is
needed, and if more work in needed to fix the headwall structure itself as proposed by Heath last year.

Thanks.

Dave W.

Dave Wanucha
Division of Water Resources
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 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: Hining, Kevin J <[e-mail]>
Sent: Thursday, September 19, 2019 1:50 PM
To: Wanucha, Dave <[e-mail]>
2

Cc: Steve Kichefski <[e-mail]>; Beckwith, Loretta A CIV USARMY CESAW (USA)
<[e-mail]>
Subject: RE: R-2915D, Site 6

Hey Dave,

My pleasure, and glad it worked out that we could all tour the project together. I’ve been working on some of the issues
we discussed at the end of our meeting, but will wait to get your summary to make sure I cover everything.

Regarding permit site 6 – I checked with Heath and he doesn’t have any more recent emails than the ones you sent
regarding that issue. However, I contacted NCWRC yesterday regarding fish distributions above and below the double
pipe structure. Their surveys (2017, 2004 and 2000) show only Brook Trout upstream of the pipe, along with Rosyside
Dace and Mottled Sculpin (two presumably native species – hyperlinks embedded in case any of you haven’t seen them
before). Downstream of the structure there are wild Brown Trout, and stocked Rainbow, Brown and Brook trout (no
NCWRC stocking occurs upstream of the pipe). So, our current assumption is the pipe has been a barrier to fish passage,
and in this case, it appears to be a beneficial barrier.

I hope to talk to Marla soon, and NCWRC Inland Fisheries staff, about these somewhat counterintuitive fish passage
issues. There will definitely be more times than not that we should improve fish passage, but these cases where
maintaining an existing barrier might be helpful are pretty interesting to me.

Thanks,

Kevin

Kevin Hining
Division 11 Environmental Officer
North Carolina Department of Transportation

336 903 9129 office
828-386-8687 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: Wanucha, Dave <[e-mail]>
Sent: Wednesday, September 18, 2019 11:32 AM
3

To: Hining, Kevin J <[e-mail]>
Cc: Steve Kichefski <[e-mail]>; Beckwith, Loretta A CIV USARMY CESAW (USA)
<[e-mail]>
Subject: FW: R-2915D, Site 6

Kevin,

Thanks for hauling us around in the nice ride yesterday, and thanks to Lori and Steve for coordinating schedules for our
joint compliance inspection.

I found this email from last year regarding Site 6 on Section D to provide some background. The verbiage below for Site
6 was taken from the permit application. Heath followed-up (emails below) but not sure if anything was finalized. I’ll
send a summary of yesterday’s inspection in a few days.

Dave

Dave Wanucha
Division of Water Resources
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 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: Wanucha, Dave
Sent: Tuesday, August 28, 2018 9:29 AM
To: Slaughter, Johnathan H <[e-mail]>; Steve Kichefski <[e-mail]>
Cc: Beaver, G Trent <[e-mail]>
Subject: RE: R-2915D, Site 6

Have we determined whether or not aquatic passage is an issue at this location? I cannot find in the Merger minutes
where it was discussed and it is not stated on the plans. Another issue is that the permit application and Public Notice
stated that the rock cross vane at Site 6 would be installed for Avoidance and Minimization. Not sure if that is an
obstacle or not, Steve would need to weigh-in on that. If we can determine that passage is not an issue, I think that sort
of paves the way for DOT to do what it needs to do to stabilize the outlet in terms of minimizing downstream scour and
4

stabilizing the structure itself (if needed). If passage is required at Site 6, then DOT needs to engineer ways to ensure
passage is maintained in addition to stabilizing the outlet and minimizing downstream scour by using some other type of
energy dissipater/plunge pool structure.

Dave Wanucha
Division of Water Resources
Transportation Permitting Unit
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 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: Monday, August 27, 2018 11:08 AM
To: Steve Kichefski <[e-mail]>; Wanucha, Dave <[e-mail]>
Cc: Beaver, G Trent <[e-mail]>
Subject: R-2915D, Site 6

Guys,

I just spoke with the hydraulic engineer from Sungate, Henry Wells, regarding the rock vane shown on the plans at site
6. As you recall we eliminated this structure because we saw no benefit.

According to Henry, the rock vane was not shown in the initial CSR but was added later, presumably after a request was
made during a concurrence meeting. The rock vane wasn’t needed for a hydraulic reason. Initially, we installed the
class II riprap in the plunge pool and that held up well. Later it was determined that one of the pipes had separated,
which we repaired/sealed. Additional rock was added to the rock lined plunge pool to protect against additional scour
under the end wall footer. That rock was displaced by storm events because we had essentially eliminated the energy
dissipating plunge pool.

At this point, my recommendation is to remove the additional rock that was added while leaving the class II in the
bottom of the pool as shown on the plans. It DOT engineers have concerns about the structure settling further, we
should probably dewater, form up and pump concrete under the footer to fill the voids and create a more permanent fix
to the issue. We also need to add about 10 feet of class II on the far bank as we discussed in the field.

Are you agreeable to this proposal?

Email correspondence to and from this sender is subject to the N.C. Public Records Law and may be disclosed to third parties.
5

Permit Site 6: The existing pan of SW' CJRs canying Old Field Creek (S56) will be
extended to the west with 84" CSPs(corrugael steel pipes). Additionally, due t0 extensive
wow an the downstream end of the existing pipes, the entire channel will be stabilized with
rip mp and a rock cross vine structure wig be constructed to direct flow and control stream
gads. These activities will result in 120 Hof permanent impacts m Old Field Creek, There
will also be 48 If of bank stabilization on the upstream side of the extension end <0.01 acre
(2510 of temporary impacts to Old Field Creek associated with the pipe extension.