20110496 Ver 1_More Info Letter_20110603

?o
PrS`.1.
JO/V
STATE OF NORTH CAROLINA
DEPARTMENT OF TRANSPORTATI os ftM r
BEVERLY EAVES PERDUE EUGENE AWT1, JR.
GOVERNOR SECRETARY
May 23, 2011
U.S. Army Corps of Engineers
Wilmington Regulatory Field Office
69 Darlington Avenue
Wilmington, North Carolina 28403
ATTENTION: Mr. Brad Shaver
NCDOT Coordinator
??-C) ?-f C(b
SUBJECT: Addendum to Nationwide 14 Permit Application for Secondary Road Improvement on
SR 1728 (Edens Lane), Pender County. WBS#: 3C.071071
Dear Mr. Shaver:
Please find enclosed agency and NCDOT email correspondence regarding the above referenced project.
This information should have been included with the original permit application sent on May 19, 2011. 1
regret the omission. The originally submitted permit drawings are correct.
The correspondence discusses that NCDOT has proposed a waiver of the burial requirement at the
proposed Pipe C (Sta. 26+21) location of this project. As discussed, the twin 42" pipes will not be buried
8.4 inches as normally required for pipes 48 inches in diameter or less, but will be buried 2-4 inches
instead. Also discussed is the slope on the proposed pipe.
If you have any questions or need any additional information, please contact me at [phone].
Sincerely,
Anneliese Westphal
Division 3 Environmental Specialist
Enclosures
cc:
Mr. Mason Herndon, DWQ, Fayetteville (1 copy)
Mr. David Wainwright, DWQ, Raleigh (7 copies)
5501 BARBADOS BLVD. CASTLE HAYNE, NC 28429
PHONE: [phone] FAx: [phone]
Page 1 of 2
i
Westphal, Anneliese
From: Herndon, Mason
Sent: Monday, April 04, 2011 11:41 AM
To: Westphal, Anneliese
Subject: RE: Edens Lane SR 1728 pipe placement
Anneliese, as long as we get some burial (2-4") on the primary (low flow) pipe, I am fine with the proposal. Since
the pipes are discharging into an open water, I'm not overly concerned with the slope of the pipe. However any
decrease in slope would be beneficial for aquatic passage. 2.5 ft of slope could create a lot of velocity for
creatures to overcome if they wanted to migrate upstream.
Thanks!
MH
Mason Herndon
Environmental Senior Specialist
NCDENR, Division of Water Quality
Surface Water Protection
mason. herndon@ ncdenr.Rov
Phone: [phone]
E-mail correspondence to and from this address may be subject to the
North Carolina Public Records Law and may be disclosed to third parties.
From: Westphal, Anneliese
Sent: Monday, April 04, 2011 10:10 AM
To: Herndon, Mason
Subject: FW: Edens Lane SR 1728 pipe placement
Hi Mason,
I do not think I have heard from you regarding the proposal below. Let me know what you think. We will be
applying for a permit with drawings, but I thought I would make sure that you are OK with the proposal before
applying.
If we need to make another visit or discuss further, just let me know.
Also, we are seeing a lot of fall in the existing landscape from inlet to outlet. The plan at this time is to install the
pipes to match existing fall (about 2 1/2 feet). This is likely due to the possibility that the outlet (pond) was
deepened when created and bulkheaded. I am told that there are no structural reasons why the pipes can't be
set this way, so this is what we are proposing.
If you need any further information, please let me know.
Thanks,
Anneliese
From: Westphal, Anneliese
Sent: Thursday, March 17, 20113:06 PM
5/23/2011
Page 2 of 2
To: Shaver, Brad E SAW; '[e-mail]'
Subject: Edens Lane SR 1728 pipe placement
I
I
Brad and Mason,
After revisiting the Edens Lane site in Pender County and taking some elevation shots, I would like to propose
another option for setting the twin 42" pipes at Crossing C. It involves a request for a waiver of the 8.4 inch burial
requirement for our permit on the 2 @ 42" proposed pipes.
After walking upstream, I believe that the system here exhibits a wider channel, which appears to have flow over
a wider area, some of which is vegetated, much like a linear wetland. I measured the width at the water surface
at the RAN on the inlet end to be 21 feet across. I believe that fill at the road's existing edge is making the
conveyance seem more discreet and channelized, when it actually widens considerably away from the road.
Mason, you may have noticed this already when you were standing at the floodplain.
Given the constraints of the site, I would like to propose to set the twin 42" pipes at the existing stream grade (or
just barely buried-I am told a few inches would work), and then add a 1 foot baffle onto the second pipe. I
measured a 1.2 foot difference between the deepest part of the channel (at the RAM and the highest part of the
(dry at the surface) floodplain area to the left (as you are looking upstream).
Given the low energy of this system and the fact that this LIT outlets into a pond, I believe that setting the pipes at
just below grade with a T baffle on one will balance our need for sufficient hydraulic opening while maintaining the
floodplain and wetland area upstream.
If you feel that another site visit is needed, I would be glad to schedule it. I look forward to your comments.
Thank you,
Anneliese
Anneliese Westphal
Environmental Specialist
NCDOT - Division 3
5501 Barbados Blvd
Castle Hayne, NC 28429
Phone: [phone]
Email correspondence to and from this sender is subject to the N.C. Public Records Law and may be disclosed to third parties.
5/23/2011
Westphal, Anneliese
From: Shaver, Brad E SAW ([e-mail]]
Sent: Friday, March 18, 2011 7:45 AM
To: Westphal, Anneliese; Herndon, Mason
Subject: RE: Edens Lane SR 1728 pipe placement
Anneliese,
Thanks for the additional information. At this point just include your waiver request with
the application and I will be on the clock to review in the field if necessary. Your
rationale sounds very reasonable but I will decide whether to revisit based on available
time.
Brad
-----Original Message-----
From: Westphal, Anneliese [mailto:[e-mail])
Sent: Thursday, March 17, 2011 3:06 PM
To: Shaver, Brad E SAW; Herndon, Mason
Subject: Edens Lane SR 1728 pipe placement
Brad and Mason,
After revisiting the Edens Lane site in Pander County and taking some elevation shots, I
would like to propose another option for setting the twin 42" pipes at Crossing C. It
involves a request for a waiver of the 8.4 inch burial requirement for our permit on the 2
@ 42" proposed pipes.
After walking upstream, I believe that the system here exhibits a wider channel, which
appears to have flow over a wider area, some of which is vegetated, much like a linear
wetland. I measured the width at the water surface at the R/W on the inlet end to be 21
feet across. I believe that fill at the road's existing edge is making the conveyance
seem more discreet and channelized, when it actually widens considerably away from the
road.
Mason, you may have noticed this already when you were standing at the floodplain.
Given the constraints of the site, I would like to propose to set the twin 42" pipes at
the existing stream grade (or just barely buried-I am told a few inches would work), and
then add a 1 foot baffle onto the second pipe. I measured a 1.2 foot difference between
the deepest part of the channel (at the R/W) and the highest part of the (dry at the
surface) floodplain area to the left (as you are looking upstream).
Given the low energy of this system and the fact that this UT outlets into a pond, I
believe that setting the pipes at just below grade with a 1' baffle on one will balance
our need for sufficient hydraulic opening while maintaining the floodplain and wetland
area upstream.
If you feel that another site visit is needed, I would be glad to schedule it. I look
forward to your comments.
Thank you,
Anneliese
Anneliese Westphal
Environmental Specialist
NCDOT - Division 3
5501 Barbados Blvd
Castle Hayne, NC 28429
Phone: [phone]