20120935 Ver 1_Emails_20121210

�
e
Carrillo, Sonia
From: Herndon, Mason
Sent: Monday, December 10, 2012 11:44 AM
To: Carrillo, Sonia
Subject: FW: R-3432 Application
Sonia, below is a e-mail request for additional informatio,n regarding the application for R-3432 (DWQ project #
�
20120935). Sorry for not forwarding this to you sooner.
m
Mason Herndon
NCDENR, Division of Water Quality
Surface Water Protection/Transportation Permitting
mason.herndon@ncdenr.�ov
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: Herndon, Mason
Sent: Monday, November 19, 2012 2:04 PM
To: Atkinson, Paul
Cc: Stanton, Tyler P; [e-mail]; Rivenbark, Chris; Evans, Rachel C
Subject: RE: R-3432 Application
Paul,
Thanks for the revised drawings. I have a couple of questions:
• Whys does Detail Q basically show a cross section of a typical base ditch instead of a natural stream channel
with floodplain benches?
• If the channel cross section was modified to a natural stream cross section with earthen flood plain benches
would rip rap bank stabilization still be required? At a minimum it should eliminate armoring of the stream
bank.
� Can Enlargement B be modified to eliminate rip rap in the channel downstream of the culvert?
Thanks!
MH
Mason Herndon
NCDENR, Division of Water Quality
Surface Water Protection/Transportation Permitting
[e-mail]
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: Atkinson, Paul
Sent: Friday, November 16, 2012 4:02 PM
To: Herndon, Mason
Cc: Stanton, Tyler P; Brad.E.ShaverCc�usace.army.mil; Rivenbark, Chris; Evans, Rachel C
Subject: RE: R-3432 Application

Mason,
Attached please find our revised design per our conversation. We have eliminated rip rap in the bed and have revised
the design to utilize several log sills as grade control structures rather than the single rock cross vane from the previous
design. We examined using log cross vanes but due to the small size of the channel we feel that the log sills are better
suited to the site. We have included a copy of the detail as well as the revised detail showing bank stabilization.
If you have any questions please to do hesitate to contact me. Thanks.
Paul Atkinson, PE
Project Manager, TIP East
NCDOT Hydraulics Unit
Phone: [phone] Fax: (919j250-4108
Mai(: 1590 Maii Service Center, Raleigh, NC 27699-1590
Delivery: 1020 Birch Ridge Dr., Raleigh, NC 27610
From: Herndon, Mason
Sent: Monday, November 05, 2012 11:12 AM
To: Stanton, Tyler P
Cc: Brad.E.ShaverCa�usace.army.mil; Rivenbark, Chris; Evans, Rachel C; Atkinson, Paul
Subject: RE: R-3432 Application
Importance: High
Tyler & Rachel,
Thank you for addressing DWQ's questions. Based on the explanations you provided we have no further comments on
Sites 2 and 3, however we still have concerns with DOT's proposal for Site 5. The permanent stream impacts for this
project have gone from "no impacts" in the FONSI, to 277 If (which included slope stake plus 10 ft offset) after the
revised delineation (e-mail 7/26/11)and now to 366 If in the application. The latest increase in impacts appears to be a
result of the proposed channel work at Site 5. DWQ request that DOT address the following comments and concerns
before we can proceed with processing your application.
DWQ does not understand why the proposed channel relocation is being designed to have rip rap in the.bottom
of the channel rather than a more natural channel design. DWQ's 401 conditions states: "Riprap shall not be
placed in the active thalweg channel or placed in the streambed in a manner that precludes aquatic life passage.
Bioengineering boulders or structures should be properly designed, sized and installed." If slope and velocity is
the issue, why can't an additional grade control measure be installed rather than rip rapping the entire channel.
Please provide us an explanation on why a more natural stream design is not proposed for this for this site.
DWQ asked why a log vane was not proposed at this site rather than an rock vane. DOT's explanation stated
that" The vane is proposed to be constructed from rock rather than longs to ensure longevity of the structure
and maintain stability of the existing and the relocated channel." If this is indeed the case, why were log vanes
used on the Jacksonville Bypass, Smith Ave and Military Cutoff projects? Has DOT ever installed a rock cross
vane in a coastal county? DWQ believes that a log vane is a more natural grade control structure for the
coastal plain and would like for DOT to provide additional information on why it is not being proposed on this
project?
Please provide us with the requested information prior to the end of commenting period for the public notice
(11/19/12). If we do not receive this information prior to this date DWQ will issue a hold letter on the application.
If you have any questions about the information requested, please do, not hesitate to contact me.
Thanks!
MH

Mason Herndon
NCDENR, Division of Water Quality
Surface Water Protection/Transportation Permitting
[e-mail]_
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: Stanton, Tyler P
Sent: Monday, October 29, 2012 7:26 AM
To: Herndon, Mason
Cc: Brad.E.ShaverCc�usace.army.mil; Rivenbark, Chris; Evans, Rachel C; Atkinson, Paul
Subject: RE: R-3432 Application
Mason,
Since all of your questions pertained to hydraulic design, the Hydraulics Unit has provided answers in the attached
email. Let me know if you have any further questions.
Tyler
From: Herndon, Mason
Sent: Monday, October 22, 2012 3:08 PM
To: Stanton, Tyler P
Cc: [e-mail]; Rivenbark, Chris
Subject: R-3432 Application
Importance: High
Tyler, I have reviewed the application for R-3432 (Old Georgetown Road Ext) in Brunswick County and have a couple of
questions and request:
• Site 2— Permit Drawing 10, Why is rip rap being proposed in the stream channel on the outlet of the pipe that
conveys stream SB?
• Site 2— Please provide a stream profile for this crossing. Example Permit Drawing 6& 26
• Site 3—Permit Drawing 8& 9. There appears to be a conveyance at this pipe location, was this claimed as a
tributary and part of the wetland? Is DOT proposing to bury this pipe or is it going to serve as an equalizer pipe
and be placed at natural grade?
• Site 5— Permit Drawing 22-26. It appears that DOT is proposing to rip rap the entire new proposed inlet channel
and install a rip rap pad on the outlet of this pipe crossing. Please provide a detailed description of why the
inlet channel has to be rip rap and why a rip rap pad is required on the outlet? Can additional vanes be
constructed on the inlet to flatten the slope of the new proposed channel on the inlet and level out the pipe?
Please explain why a rock vane is being proposed rather than a log vane which is typical for the coastal plain.
Please provide the requested material by November 30. If you cannot provide the requested material within the 7 days
requested, DWQ will have to issue a hold letter on this project.
Please let me know if you have questions about the information requested.
Thanks!
MH
Mason Herndon
NCDENR, Division of Water Quality
Surface Water Protection/Transportation Permitting

�
mason.herndon@ncdenr.�ov
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.
Finafl cerrespondc�ncc� to ar�d fra�n this sender is sub,ject ta fhe N.C. Pubiir, Recards Law and may k�e disclosed to third p<�rties.