20150821 Ver 1_RE Bridge 103 WBS Project No 17BP 9 R 22_20160707

Wanucha, Dave
From:Chambers, Marla J
Sent:Thursday, July 07, 2016 2:00 PM
To:Euliss, Amy; Wanucha, Dave
Cc:Chapman, Amy; Guy, Jeremy M
Subject:RE: Bridge 103; WBS Project No. 17BP.9.R.22
I am concerned. Perhaps these aluminum culverts should not be used. DWQ did a study of them a few years ago and
provided recommendations, are those recommendations being followed? I noticed in the study that in almost every
case studied the stream fell apart through the culvert and did not maintain stream integrity. The intention for stream
crossings, and all stream work (restoration, etc.), is to maintain the natural dimension, pattern and profile of the stream
throughout the project. If equipment cannot be used to construct the appropriate channel width inside the culvert,
either the work needs to be done by hand or those types of culverts should not be used.

Of course, no blasting of bedrock should occur. It seems to me that the culvert was set at a lower grade than it should,
although it appears to be very shallow at the inlet sill. Perhaps that’s a function of the stream spreading out at that
point. Or maybe either the inlet or outlet wasn’t set correctly. It’s hard to tell what will happen over time, although with
the higher grade downstream it would be reasonable to expect siltation to build up, if there is a fair amount of it in the
system. Will it become a braided channel, like over-widened channels often do? That could hinder fish passage. I’d
prefer that when we walk away and call a crossing complete that it look and function like the permitted plans indicate. I
don’t mind a small natural or constructed pool at the outlet, but this one appears extreme. How close is the Dan R.?
Could this area be considered backwater from the river or does the channel narrow back down before it gets to the
Dan? It seems to me that building the benches up to above the water surface level in the culvert and downstream a
ways would be an appropriate fix. Just my opinion.

Marla

Marla Chambers // NCDOT Coordinator

Habitat Conservation Program

NC Wildlife Resources Commission
c/o NCDOT

206 Charter Street

Albemarle, North Carolina 28001
office: 704-982-9181
mobile: [phone]
[e-mail]

ncwildlife.org

From: Euliss, Amy
Sent: Wednesday, July 06, 2016 8:04 PM
To: Wanucha, Dave <[e-mail]>
Cc: Chambers, Marla J <[e-mail]>; Chapman, Amy <[e-mail]>; Guy, Jeremy M
<[e-mail]>
Subject: Re: Bridge 103; WBS Project No. 17BP.9.R.22
1

We do not see that there is a water quality issue at this site. We also do not see that there are barriers to aquatic
passage. Also, during the environmental preconstruction meeting attended by both you and John Thomas, backfilling
ramps at the sills was discussed and determined to be acceptable. Our contractor had concerns with being able to
backfill the culvert due to the height of the culvert and being able to get equipment in without damaging the
culvert. This discussion was had while I was on leave after you had asked us to do this at two other projects. We have
since addressed that issue. The culvert will eventually fill in on its own. However, when it does, we will likely still have
water pooling at the outlet, since the elevation of the bedrock in the channel downstream of the pipe is higher. There
was a natural pool here before we started work. The only way to fix that would be to address the pooling effect would
be to blast bedrock in the stream outside of our right of way. This would cause unnecessary disturbance to the stream
and could result in much worse water quality issues. We have the Dan River immediately downstream of the project,
and we do not want to take any unnecessary risks. If the lack of backfill was causing an aquatic passage issue or a water

quality problem, we would be willing to investigate further.

Amy

Sent from my iPhone

On Jul 6, 2016, at 5:08 PM, Wanucha, Dave <[e-mail]> wrote:
Hi Amy,
By way of follow-up to our discussion on June 24, DWR is concerned that the culvert referenced above is
not functioning as designed. There is no low flow channel through the center of the culvert and the
outlet floodplain benches are underwater (see attached pics). The permit application and plans
indicated that a low flow channel would be isolated to the center of the culvert with floodplain benches
at the inlet and outlet to prevent stream over widening, and that the culvert would be backfilled. As
constructed, the channel is over widened at the outlet which could lead to future instability and
maintenance issues. The NCWRC agreed that something should be done to correct the problem.

Please let us know (as soon as possible) why the culvert is not functioning as designed and what DOT will
do to remedy the problem.

Thanks.

Dave W.

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

2

Email correspondence to and from this address is subject to the

North Carolina Public Records Law and may be disclosed to third parties.

<Inlet final B103.jpg>
<Outlet final B103.jpg>

Email correspondence to and from this sender is subject to the N.C. Public Records Law and may be disclosed to third parties.
3