20110381 Ver 1_More Info Letter_20110603

FW: Baum Town Rd Page 1 of 3
FW: Baum Town Rd
Ward, Garcy
Sent: Friday, June 03, 20112:37 PM
To: Carrillo, Sonia
Hey Sonia- Here is an e-mail thread to place with the file for 11-0381. Thanks and have a good weekend. - Garcy
E-mail correspondence to and form this address may be subject to the North Carolina Public Records Law and
may be disclosed to third parties.
From: Willis, Thomas C
Sent: Thursday, June 02, 20114:41 PM
To: Biddlecome, William J SAW ([e-mail]); Ward, Garcy; Lane, Stephen
Subject: FW: Baum Town Rd
Here is your response from the district office on Baumtown.
From: Hoadley, James W
Sent: Thursday, June 02, 20114:05 PM
To: Willis, Thomas C
Cc: Byrum, Gretchen A; Sexton, Eugene L; Russell, Allen; Baker, Sterling D
Subject: RE: Baum Town Rd
Clay,
I have read your email as well as the agencies concerns. However; the County Maintenance Engineer, his
Assistant, the District Engineer and myself have looked at elevations, road bed, water, bottom of the canals, and
past history of this area, and have decided that we will continue with replacing the existing pipe with one (1)
twenty four inch pipe, we will lengthen the pipe as well by 10 feet from its current length. Reasoning for not
increasing the size is at the current time if we bury a foot of pipe as required we will have a foot out of the mud
and open water followed byjust enough stone on top of pipe prior to the asphalt to then reach the current
elevation of the road. Any increase in pipe diameter will only mean it will be buried in the mud that additional
amount and you have the same result as we will have with the 24". This pipe would only be an equalizing pipe
as well and therefore is not going to enhance the flushing in this area. Both canals drain directly into the
adjacent sound, and on several inspections we have noted that when the wind is blowing out both, are lowered
the same and when wind is blown in they are raised to the same elevations. We actually see no reason for
having one there but with one being there now we will replace it rather than remove it.
I also have my own notifications from the agencies that while these agencies can state the benefits to increase
diameters and more pipes neither agency, as they have mentioned to me, can negate a permit issuance to the
Department of Transportation for going back with current sized pipes as in no way it violates their permit
conditions specifically section 3.6 of the Nationwide permit or any other guidelines of a nationwide
permit/CAMA Major permit. It is the Department of Transportation's job to size the pipes accordingly as well as
how many to put in.
Please advise the agencies that we would like to replace this pipe before we have additional failures within the
roadway.
Thanks
https:Hmail.nc.gov/owa/?ae-Item&t=IPM.Note&id=RgAAAADMSzLcd9 W2TJHI4°/u2bm... 6/6/2011
FW: Baum Town Rd
Jim Hoadley
From: Willis, Thomas C
Sent: Tuesday, May 24, 20114:18 PM
To: Hoadley, James W
Subject: FW: Baum Town Rd
Jim,
Gretchen referred the question below to you. Can you respond to the email?
Thanks,
Clay
From: Willis, Thomas C
Sent: Monday, May 23, 20118:01 AM
To: Byrum, Gretchen A
Subject: FW: Baum Town Rd
Gretchen,
Page 2 of 3
I sent the application in for permits on this project in Wanchese. Below is the response from DWQ and the COE
has also recommended 2 or 3 - 24 inch pipes or a larger 36 inch pipe. This is not out of the norm and in the past
we usually upgrade to a larger pipe sizes to accommodate burial and hydraulic conveyance, especially for a
coastal drainage system that supports shellfishing and is classified as HOW. I think there is a good chance
another 24 in. pipe that is buried 12 in. will likely silt back in within a short time frame. If we go back with a 36
in. pipe it will help the drainage system and prevent the pipe from silting back in. If there is some explanation as
to why we can't, could you let me know, so I can respond to DWQ and Marine Fisheries.
Thanks,
Clay
From: Ward, Garcy
Sent: Thursday, May 19, 20112:42 PM
To: Willis, Thomas C
Cc: Lane, Stephen; Biddlecome, William J SAW; Hart, Kevin
Subject: Baum Town Rd
Clay,
I've reviewed your application requesting a NW 13 for bank stabilization and a pipe replacement on Baum Town
Road in Dare Co. The existing 24" pipe on the Baum Cr. canal has failed and is no longer.functioning which is
apparent by the noticeable lack of flushing. The canal at this point is approximately 25' wide and the proposed
24" pipe does not seem adequate, especially after complying with the burial requirement. DWQ believes water
quality in this system could be improved by installing a larger pipe and/or multiple pipes' at this location which
allow for better flushing. Please explain if this is or is not a viable option. Thanks and I look forward to your
response.
Ga rcy
https://mail.nc.gov/owa/?ae=Item&t=IPM.Note&id=RgAAAADMSzLcd9 W2TJHI4°/u2bm... 6/6/2011
FW: Baum Town Rd
Page 3 of 3
E-mail correspondence to and form this address may be subject to the North Carolina Public Records Law and
may be disclosed to third parties.
Email correspondence to and from this sender is subject to the N.C. Public Records Law and may be disclosed to third parties.
L
https://mail.ne.gov/owa/?ae=Item&t=IPM.Note&id=RgAAAADMSzLcd9 W 2TJH14e/`2bm... 6/6/2011