20130517 All Versions_Design Plans_20160718 (4)

Wrenn, Brian L
From:Wilson, Travis W.
Sent:Monday, July 18, 2016 3:10 PM
To:Lovinggood, Ray D; Wrenn, Brian L; [e-mail]; Eason, Patty P;
Lorenz, Kris; '[e-mail]'; Riffey, Deanna
Cc:Morgan, Stephen R; Shumsky, Michael J
Subject:RE: R-2413A
A 48” pipe at that slope and what looks to be fairly long due to the fill slopes will not allow aquatic passage anyway. I
can agree not to bury this pipe.

From: Lovinggood, Ray D
Sent: Monday, July 18, 2016 2:46 PM
To: Wrenn, Brian L <[e-mail]>; [e-mail]; Eason, Patty P <[e-mail]>;
Lorenz, Kris <[e-mail]>; '[e-mail]' <[e-mail]>; Wilson, Travis W.
<[e-mail]>; Riffey, Deanna <[e-mail]>
Cc: Morgan, Stephen R <[e-mail]>; Shumsky, Michael J <[e-mail]>
Subject: RE: R-2413A

Brian,
Thanks for your input.

Ray

From: Wrenn, Brian L
Sent: Monday, July 18, 2016 2:45 PM
To: Lovinggood, Ray D <[e-mail]>; [e-mail]; Eason, Patty P
<[e-mail]>; Lorenz, Kris <[e-mail]>; '[e-mail]' <[e-mail]>; Wilson,
Travis W. <[e-mail]>; Riffey, Deanna <[e-mail]>
Cc: Morgan, Stephen R <[e-mail]>; Shumsky, Michael J <[e-mail]>
Subject: RE: R-2413A

With a slope that steep, I don’t see the need to bury it. In the past, DWR hasn’t required pipe burial on stream crossings
of this slope. However, others may have information to warrant it.

Thanks,
Brian Wrenn
919-707-8792

From: Lovinggood, Ray D
Sent: Monday, July 18, 2016 2:27 PM
To: Wrenn, Brian L <[e-mail]>; [e-mail]; Eason, Patty P <[e-mail]>;
Lorenz, Kris <[e-mail]>; '[e-mail]' <[e-mail]>; Wilson, Travis W.
<[e-mail]>; Riffey, Deanna <[e-mail]>
Cc: Morgan, Stephen R <[e-mail]>; Shumsky, Michael J <[e-mail]>
Subject: R-2413A

All,
1

I am reviewing a construction change for the subject project and have three questions which are listed below the plan view
image.
25FD
-o
APP g7 2'
2 TON$ CL 8 RIPRAP
Proposed 48" CSP
'vt4
ON
Lih € +1Erc
FOR-
PNS PR
R#11
RLlMMEL, KLEP1
900 RIDGEHELD
RAL IGH, NORTH C�
NC LICENSE NO. F-
The 48" CSP cross pipe near —YC1- Sta 25+50 is shown as a 48" CSP, 16 Gage.
2

This pipe should be RCP-IV, not corrugated steel.

My questions are:

1. Was there a commitment to use a metal pipe at this location? Why?

2. With a slope of 7.74% and a stream slope of 5% downstream of the pipe, do we bury the pipe 20% of its diameter
and try to keep material in it? The plans call for it be buried 0.8’, but on a slope that steep, I doubt material would
stay in the pipe. To possibly keep material in the pipe, sills on both ends will be required. Also, the pipe would
need to be upsized to either a 54” or 60” to compensate for the area lost to burial of the pipe.

3. Plans show outlet protection as Cl I Riprap on the channel banks. I recommend Class I riprap also in the channel
bed, but without geotextile fabric.

Any comments?

Thanks,
Ray

Ray D. Lovinggood, P.E.

Engineer - Advanced

Hydraulics Unit

North Carolina Department of Transportation

919 707 6736 office

[e-mail]

NCDOT Hydraulics Unit
1020 Birch Ridge Drive

NCDOT Hydraulics Unit
1590 Mail Service Center

Raleigh, NC 27699-1590

Email correspondence to and from this address is subject to the

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

_____________________________________________________________

Facebook Twitter YouTube

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

3