The URL can be used to link to this page

Home My WebLink About20170150 Ver 1_More info from Div 11_20170410Carpenter,Kristi From: Slaughter, Johnathan H Sent: Monday, April 10, 2017 9:09 AM To: Wanucha, Dave; Kichefski, Steven L SAW Subject: FW: Wilkes 317 Request_ Guys, Marla has lifted her objection for this permit request. We therefore request that the permits be issued based on the design plans that were submitted. From: Chambers, Marla J Sent: Friday, April 07, 2017 2:43 PM To: Slaughter, Johnathan H <hslaughter@ncdot.gov> Subject: RE: Wilkes 317 Request If you haven't heard, I did respond this morning and I won't object to the project as proposed. Such practices, however, should be avoided in the future wherever possible. 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: 704-984-1070 Marla.chambers(a�ncwildlife.orq ncwildlife.orq � � � � From: Slaughter, Johnathan H Sent: Thursday, April 06, 2017 11:05 AM To: Chambers, Marla J <marla.chambers@ncwildlife.or�> Cc: Fuchs, Eileen A <eafuchs@ncdot.�ov> Subject: FW: Wilkes 317 Request Importance: High Marla, Did you respond to Matt's email? We need an update for the contractor and consultant. From: Lauffer, Matthew S Sent: Monday, April 03, 2017 12:14 PM To: Chambers, Marla J <marla.chambers@ncwildlife.org> Cc: Lauffer, Matthew S <mslauffer@ncdot.�ov> Subject: Wilkes 317 Request Hi Marla, Thanks for your time the other week on Wilkes 317. The current discussion is that a 2@15X 6 would be more preferable than the proposed and completed design of the 3@10'X6". I would like to request that this project move forward as designed with the 3@10'X6' for the following reasons: The meeting minutes indicate that you were made aware of the proposed structure back in May of 2014. While you may not have been at the FSM ( It appears you were not based on the attendees list format), it is apparent that you were copied. Bringing forward a concern about the configuration this late in the project delivery process is difficult and requires redesign and delay in the project. The culvert configuration was clearly identified in the notes. �I+�d�au�i�s FEf�� A�prarra97 L��nniE�� eta�� #�udy I� Ther� 'Ur��s��N ��c�ur P'�it�r�tiaJ� �� tat� �1��mrrr�ter P�rrn�#? �+lc IS P�Cs;e�tipn Ihl��ed?' �tand �4r� Ba�r�� t�ble? Yes Is P�ro��r��ion iV�e�ded'? '�tan� Apjpr��ci�ble Arnoun� t�f La�r�� Ciebris�? Na �"I�r��+er�� t�� eni� Ir� i'�t� V�1�ter �� Il�aw+ed; YUher�: ��per�tru�lure Typ�; C�I+��r# d� �ri�lg�: Lea�+�1#� �f �kru�lut� f�1ar�. fV�rraber (]i �pans: li gir��r; +a�f-�' ��arr Arranc 11�'�ive �f�`�e#: �ap; �ketinred; 3 a� 10' x�' �i+�� bu��d' 1' +�vith 2' s�ll in r�ght l��n�l �rarrel (I�c��ing �dow The 3@10'X6' RCBC structure meets the existing stream channel configuration better than the 2@15 feet and will cause less impact to flow disturbance than the 2@15Feet. Measurements upstream and downstream of the crossing indicate widths that average 19 feet under bridge, 20 feet upstream, and 16 feet downstream. If these dimensions are averaged, it comes out to 18 feet. The 2@10X 6 foot culverts (not including high flow barrel) that will carry the majority of the flow for the base flow and bankfull events have a more consistent cross-sectional area than the 1@15X6 culvert (not including high flow barrel). The 2@10X6 are closer to the existing available cross-sectional area than the 1@15X6. While there is an 8" web that splits the flows, more efficient conveyance area is maintained. 3. In your email on February 3, 2017 (attached) you noted "redesign is needed for this project in order to minimize impacts; to maintain the natura/ dimension, pattern and profile of the waterway through the crossing; and to avoid the negative impacts that can occur from splitting the base flow of the river." While the stream is in a Trout County, the West Prong Roaring River is a Class C stream and not 303d and not designated as trout (WRC or DWR). There are also other more adverse impacts in the watershed as identified in the photo below (poultry farming and logging operations) that will impact the natural dimension, pattern and profile of the waterway more than the crossing. E�vlr�r�mera��f Lh'Uil:ir'id� !�t �i@� w1p �4r�i�t'r�rskS �a�n+�er�� 50��,�'s In C�u�nty E3�'�+�ryl�r: �}oa�#r�rrn ��+�=E.�r�r�i Ba# T�E spe�iss elYcct Hv �rol� �rCl�niy Y�a, �C ��t "lrt�4�k �tr�B#m T`�+A �+�un�y �+I�p �AIh�IA �t+u�ty�: hEo Rrirn�ry hlufsery Ar��: INo h,�+pral�prrta. �Jn UYh�i�h �gci+gg: �}ur�Cran Rarnn�Cs VW�pter f]u,�l�ty �lassaCrca�u�€ti: C 3#i3d: No �tr�3t �u�ea� Pe�,�1''� l,f�r Dr��rti� 6�5�r� if��kir� i�,�r�r, ��f�r Ru��s No Ps Tt�e i'ra� S�t� 9n �rr r��r Any C3! �h� �Qi�cr�n+� h1�l�crn+3f FOr�sC= NO 1�:dtr6B ftetug+�f��k��d�: k� ��e. ��sun�r. �}r Lo�l �a�nc�; !Vo ►Ndr! Arrd �ic �dnrer: N�o J�a�sCrrt: hf� Rat�ro$ticxr �}f P�r �en�rat�a�r: dwi� '1�Y�ler ��R�y ��scrva�T; N+� Nuttrtlnt aen�tt�w�e'N�Gers; C�� ub� l,��r �t R�mp; N� C�rraeter�5' Nt� tYf6fR C-`e...AK.,.# m...�.•....�i....,� .L7... � � � iT � ��+,,ir '�it;-� wa..r- �,r` a� �g � � �1," ` j,� : �'�, }� � q , +v+' r �4 .,` t �, y�i�' �4� a k �. tr � �. ' ,�,,. r '� �A� '�ti '� , i '� „My y t' 1 I��e '� , a -��'"{!' s, � � � +``~v��' �, '� � '� ; J� �';' ` q� j �, i I � � �. I!F g .�4 " s. ' 6 o y"� a��( Y. .S�S �� 3til w' . 'Jg� f t,' � �f ! ta . � � a '��'7`�� ,'�'�I�� : �'�ar��.��i ��r�'} ;'� � 4J,'�` � y+* � „� � '� ; � "�.�� y� �*� j', � w �; ;r �� : �. � �:�#•.� r � � �; � - r T " . I ,�T' �,'f, �'' * �au, 4n�,� `'�b6 �;'r��'k�"a i�+ir �..s.�y�+�,.y,# '�,� �� .-�'#�j� ��ir .`.� +�Y, !'�' !^` �5`r #; M rg'1P_ �� + � .� -� `�� a � �1�� ' � iX�i'.+T '`ry i�� ., � ♦ � � } T� �'� �` �, e y - .._. jM Y. �r r'^'I(r,�� a��`r-y .�'.. ��y •��4� {, �� .�� d�-� ,� � � �.5 . R� �� ".7�4 'i ,'e� �#:� �'y�'� ti ti'�; �?..4� iJ I�r,� 'a• �,y;�+r� , + + �p �� M" y � F 'k �'i �. x rt# .'�� + � i1.' i �.r f '� '�tt" �'; � �'r : �' ' ��h ' f � �f �' d�� {f +i� � �; r� � �� `' � . y"�� i �� 1V�i. >,:.,.,t i d s l e , � t-,' ; p �, �b,� } .�n T _ . .� � , � f � i.,�tir •'� * t �� ^� ti �� ' � -� . � f„� � ��y,�' -'�p } � ^� *4+,_ i'p y ` � � � ,,�, �°'� y� � .' r� s 7� ` � t �` � `'�k{r� �� r 0 '�� ., �� .' e�' � ' � �, ° ,- � .iU y �� ''�� !} � �.4� x�� `_� , ��:�,�i� ,TM� �� ' '. � �� 1 w�� a1. � -�� i r�h j. `�' � _ �. �' * ,�. ry �1r � a�c� - �,1 :,;. �e��.r �`. ..:� a � �.'+��_ � �� ' .� + � � � d�� '` � q- � � �� . � �� ' 't, � �k�� '�i��'� � �.� .. �Y' � � . � 5 4� �� Y '�^� .�f M� � '4 � 6�. Y�L i�''�■ � � � ` +' ' �� F'r � h � `'�S� �� , � � ;�� s .. e � � a�,$ � �+� � �SF1`ar E�r �� ' �'�s ` � � ��,�''� �'k 1 �',�' ,r'p ,3� �. � "� �y. � � � ^r�, . - � .�,� . y,��-�F"y� '�I'�,8 �'� � Y�ti ��` � +[�y� F�,t� � �*. :��`� . ` � �p�,��,� '''�" `,i� �'"'�.� .� � �� ;� .��,�� ; � �� F ,,,� '9-�w ��Sr��`� � k' p�i � � � «'M , y+'�; �� . �F +� yi :�q;h ��'� +��M 1��, ' � t � ��. � ? ,y� "�. ��e 1 ti i= "`54 fi.i�.. �7i�r; ��w�,�.MPF1' � c IF, f�� "_. a� �� — 1� . �� S % �' � . � L��..�'l�.i 4. In addition, in your February 3, 2017 email, you state, "1'm not sure why the news that this practice is inappropriate has not gotten out to all those that design waterway crossings, but we need to try to correct that." Based on Yancey 16, SF-700353, and Wilkes 153 ( A few recent projects) NCDOT is not trending towards splitting base flow but just the opposite. Yancey 16 was a specific case 3 where the proposed 2@8 X3 was redesigned to a bridge. The other projects were a 2@13X8 RCBC and 20' X 1' bottomless culvert respectively. Many other projects over the last several years were designed not to split the base flow or put in the appropriate sills and baffles to maintain low flow depth. The potential for debris blockage for the 3@10'X6' is not anymore a concern than the 2@15'X6'. While a 15' opening is larger, the watershed has not been prone to blockage and it is not anticipated that this will be a concern. I greatly appreciate your consideration of this request. I am available for further discussion. Respectfully, M att Matthew (Matt) Lauffer, PE, CPM Assistant State Hydraulics Engineer Hydraulics Unit Department of Transportation 919 707 6703 office 919 621 0443 mobile mslauffer(c�ncdot.gov 1590 Mail Service Center Raleigh, NC 27699-1590 1020 Birch Ridge Dr. Raleigh, NC 27610 ' :��t�., r'"�,.... �,. � �i ��; .� r�'�= - � . � �.; ,�' ,+w....�r. 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. Hvtlrauli<s FEMAAppmvaPL�mlletl0eb115taEy State5lotmwaterPermn'+ No ISTM1ereUnusualSC0urP01enliali No ISPr01eC1ionNe¢tletl9 Stantlartl AreBanksSaUle? Yea ISPmteclionNeeEe4? StanEarE RppreciableNmouniOlLargeDe0ris9 No Placemen101BenISInT�eWalerBehllowetl'. W�ete'. Superslmclure Type'. CulveH IIBnOge: Ilgirtler wM1y9 LengIM1OtSWCWre�. Min.Num�erOlSpans: SW�A«angemenl'. Waiv¢ ol/se��. Cap: SkeweO�. 3� 10' x e' RCBC LutleJ 1' wiM 3' elll In ri8ht M1entl bartel Qooking tlownalnam�. Envlmnmenlal wevanasPiSue xo Commms ENnngeeu5parosinCoumy BopTurl6:NMbrnLonp�Eaeo08a� IDEaµvwaotlen� X ronCamry Yo�.Oulrwiwu��veam NACwn�y N CM1PLwniy:Xo nmaryNux Pe�m. . . a Wmurpunes. Wrairon WeMYGaaKuwm.0 . Coa5lfwardPermipMo DramppeBppn WpXin qparanBUllerNubs xo Ia llw Rcµva Snu In O� Xmi PnY q iM Fa W xvp. : Ho Wq4leReluge�GmNMS: o Suv�Cwcnry51OrLwaiYaM'. Xe /.MSnn¢Rrvee: e Nqan: mnqVmerGpnomm�: e e�SuppNAeurvoi��. nl5enrmwWaMrs'. Xa PuMCVw9oetFamp: e Cqne¢rq['Mo y �'.�i j � ��•' ..... ��; . �n � . � � � . . . � r� . _ � �`�' � a ��'�.- ...e . . --..>., .. �� . t . s„- Aa�s _.�