20130319 Ver 1_Application_20130404

Hiss, Amy
From:
Slaughter, Johnathan H
Sent:
Thursday, April 04, 2013 8:24 AM
To:
Matthews, Monte K SAW; Euliss, Amy; Chambers, Marla J
Subject:
FW: bridge to culvert justification Br Nos 130 and 189, Ashe
Attachments:
Permitting Response for Div.11.docx
I hope everyone will find this response satisfactory.
From: Eleni Riggs [mailto:eriggs @rkk,com]
Sent: Wednesday, April 03, 20131:18 PM
To: Slaughter, Johnathan H
Cc: Guynn, Jami C; Johnston, Gregory W
Subject: Re: bridge to culvert justification Br Nos 130 and 189, Ashe
Heath,
Attached is a word document with an explanation for each of the two structures. They have essentially the same reasoning in both descriptions. The description
is probably longer than what you are looking for but I was trying to explain the logic behind the HEC -RAS model and why the culverts are preferred from that
standpoint. The main point is that since both of these models significantly overtop in the FEMA 100 -year storm event, a longer bridge means more blockage
from rails which means a rise in water surface elevations between the existing and proposed is likely. We did not try to model a proposed bridge so I don't know
that this rise would definitely occur but that is the general logic that we follow,
Ricky Keith with our Structures group is working on getting a cost estimate together for all the options and we should be able to get that to you in the next
couple of days. If you need any additional information please let me know and I will do my best to get you what you need. Let me know if you have any
questions or comments.
Thanks,
Eleni
RK &K
900 Ridgefield Drive, Suite 350
Raleigh, NC 27609

919 - 878 -9560 P
919 - 790 -8382 F
www.rkk.com
From: "Johnathan H Slaughter" <hslaughter _ ncdot.gov>
To: "Jami C Guynn" <1cquynn ncdot.gov >, "Gregory W Johnston" <glohnston ncdot.gov>
Cc: "Eleni Riggs (eri s rkk.com) (eri s rkk.com)" <eri s rkk.com>
Sent: Tuesday, April 2, 2013 8:41:30 AM
Subject: FVW: bridge to culvert justification Br Nos 130 and 189, Ashe
Eleni,
Looks like additional information is needed and I can't answer the specifics that are now requested for each individual project. Can you provide that please?
Looks like the permit is on hold until we get these answers.
From: Euliss, Amy
Sent: Tuesday, April 02, 2013 8:26 AM
To: Slaughter, Johnathan H
Cc: Monte. K.Matthews @usace,army,mi1; Chambers, Marla J; Guynn, Jami C; Johnston, Gregory W
Subject: RE: bridge to culvert justification Br Nos 130 and 189
Thanl(s Heath. For bridge to culvert projects, especially when they are in sensitive areas, we need the application to include a
justification for the individual project. You can do this in your cover letter. I Know you vigorously screen these, but you need to include
this discussion in the application. We're not asking you to do extra work, but rather get credit for the work you have done.
So for the two projects in question, I need specifics on why culverts were chosen over the bridges i.e. what's the drainage area, what's
the cutoff for using a bridge, a general cost comparison, and any other information that's relative to the given project. I'm happy to
discuss this more. I'm heading out for the day, but will be in the office tomorrow and Thursday.
Amy
From: Slaughter, Johnathan H
Sent: Thursday, March 28, 2013 3:51 PM
To: Euliss, Amy
Cc: Monte, K. Matthews( usace,army, mi 1; Chambers, Marla J; Guynn, Jami C; Johnston, Gregory W
Subject: RE: bridge to culvert justification Br Nos 130 and 189

We are going to have more of these in the near future so I guess the best way to handle this is in a generic fashion.
1) As you guys know, we have a ton of bridges that are nearing the end of their life expectancy. That's why we have the new LIBR process. Unfortunately,
we have more bridges to replace than we have money. As a result, in order to avoid closing roads, some of these replacements need to be pipes. That's
just the financial reality. Generally speaking (with some variability) the bridge is going to cost us 4 more $,
2) Sometimes the funding source mandates the structure type. That is not the case with these two though.
3) Due to the relatively small drainage area, the Hydraulics Unit recommended pipe at these locations.
4) We will have quite a bit less ground disturbance with the pipes.
5) We are mitigating for the impacts.
6) Probably the best justification however is the fact that we vigorously screen these candidate sites. For us, we try to give sunfish the same protection as
the trout. By that I mean we only pursue pipes /culverts if we believe that the structure will function well at that location, regardless of what fish species
are present. If we see bedrock then the pipe plan is scraped. We recently had a design come across my desk where the consultant designed a bridge to
culvert with about 8 baffles on about an 8% grade. The problem with that design is that the steeper the grade, the more sills /baffles you must have to
retain the alluvium. If the baffle length is longer than the sill spacing, the low flow notches can get clogged and the structure may not function as
designed. I immediately brought this to Jami's attention and she instructed the consultant to discontinue the culvert design due to the steep grade. We
are going back with a bridge at that location because we love fish! The point is we do not accept every design that we are given. If we are
uncomfortable with the design, we get it changed.
I hope this addresses your concerns.
From: Euliss, Amy
Sent: Tuesday, March 26, 20131;35 PM
To: Slaughter, Johnathan H
Cc: Monte. K.Matthews @usace,army,mi1; Chambers, Marla J
Subject: bridge to culvert justification Br Nos 130 and 189
need a detailed justification for not replacing the bridges with bridges, i.e, drainage area, cost comparisons, etc. An explanation via
email will suffice. Thanks.
Please note my new email address: amy,euliss ancdenr,gov
Amy Euliss
NC DEN Winston -Salem Regional Office
Division of Water Quality, Surface Water Protection
585 Waughtown Street
Winston - Salem, NC 27107
Voice: (336) 771 -5000

FAX; (336) 771 -4630
Email U -.re ron en e, to and from this i� to `he II v, Fr;k=1i. Recor'� La, acrd ma, he 'i_UI -.se' to `hir' par -iP -,
°RI, -aP:" and " FE. -aP: Engineers" are registered trade names of Rummel, Klepper Pahl, LLP, a Ilan. -land limited liatilit.-
partnership. This message --ontains --onfidential information intended fcr the person or persons named atcY.-e. If ;ou
ha-.---- this message in error, please immeediatel- notif- the sender t- return email and delete the message. Thank
--ou.
4