HomeMy WebLinkAbout20140762 Ver 1_RE R-2915E 4B_20170622
Wanucha, Dave
From:Wanucha, Dave
Sent:Thursday, June 22, 2017 11:57 AM
To:Zerman, William S; Chambers, Marla J
Cc:'Steven.L.Kichefski@usace.army.mil'; Marella Buncick (marella_buncick@fws.gov)
Subject:RE: R-2915E 4B
Attachments:Site 6 channel.jpg; Site 6 Upstream.jpg
All,
At site 6, the existing inlet is ~60’ downstream from a cattle watering trough. Apparently the landowner tapped the spring since
the JD. In any case, aquatic habitat is minimal at this location. A drop structure seems warranted here. See attached pics. The
fence is the approx. R/W.
Unfortunately, due to steepness and vegetation at Site 22, I could not put eyes on the outlet at this location. The inlet looked to
be in good shape and the channel upstream of the inlet appeared to have good habitat/substrate with strong flow and extends
upstream as shown on the plan sheets. Do you all have any pictures of the outlet? I agree with Marla in terms of investigating
other feasible methods to enhance aquatic passage.
I did not have time to review other locations per Steve’s email. Perhaps DOT could double check those in the field and let us
know?
Dave W.
Dave Wanucha
Division of Water Resources
Transportation Permitting Unit
NC Department of Environmental Quality
336-776-9703 office
336-403-5655 mobile
Dave.Wanucha@ncdenr.gov
NC DEQ Winston Salem Regional Office
450 West Hanes Mill Road, Suite 300
Winston Salem, NC 27105
Email correspondence to and from this address is subject to the
North Carolina Public Records Law and may be disclosed to third parties.
From: Zerman, William S
Sent: Thursday, June 22, 2017 8:50 AM
To: Chambers, Marla J <marla.chambers@ncwildlife.org>; Wanucha, Dave <dave.wanucha@ncdenr.gov>
Cc: 'Steven.L.Kichefski@usace.army.mil' <Steven.L.Kichefski@usace.army.mil>; Marella Buncick (marella_buncick@fws.gov)
<marella_buncick@fws.gov>
Subject: RE: R-2915E 4B
Thanks Marla. I’ll check further into the feasibility of installing baffles in pipes. It will need to be done on a site by site basis.
-Bill
1
William (Bill) S. Zerman, Jr. P.E.
NCDOT Hydraulics Unit
Direct (919) 707-6755
From: Chambers, Marla J
Sent: Wednesday, June 21, 2017 4:35 PM
To: Zerman, William S <bzerman@ncdot.gov>; Wanucha, Dave <dave.wanucha@ncdenr.gov>
Cc: 'Steven.L.Kichefski@usace.army.mil' <Steven.L.Kichefski@usace.army.mil>; Marella Buncick (marella_buncick@fws.gov)
<marella_buncick@fws.gov>
Subject: RE: R-2915E 4B
I am interested in Dave’s input after visiting the sites. Currently, for Site 6 I’m leaning toward concurring with the drop since
there is only a relatively short stretch of aquatic habitat upstream. For Site 22, not burying seems reasonable due to the 8%
slope, however I believe there should be another consideration for reducing velocities and/or improving fish passage for this
crossing and others. Marella asked if there was a way to put baffles in concrete pipes, and while the answer given was ‘no’, I
googled ‘baffles in round culverts’ and found that it is possible. The first two resulting links are below, the first is from New
Zealand and seems to be simple, inexpensive, and can be installed in the dry or wet. Those don’t appear to take up much of the
pipes capacity, especially the blue flexible type. There were a few videos demonstrating installation and effectiveness.
http://www.ats-environmental.com/solutions/culvert-baffles/
http://www.dot.ca.gov/hq/oppd/fishPassage/Chapter-7-Retrofit-Design.pdf
One of my general questions from the plan sheets is ‘why are the retained culverts lined with a smooth lining?’ That seems
counter to reducing velocities. Are there no other alternatives that would provide roughness? I recommend that baffles in round
culverts be investigated for this project to see what benefits can be gained. Perhaps this can be used and studied on this project
for potential use statewide.
Other questions I have on the plan sheets and meeting notes are:
Sheet 4 – On the far left of the page, the drainage structure “outlets to concrete lined ditch”, I was thinking the plan was to
eliminate the concrete ditches. I may be thinking of another project, but it seems like it was this one. Can we remove the
concrete lined ditch and install something that helps with velocity reduction and stormwater treatment? Are there others that
are still on the project?
Site 2A – Will the pipe still be perched? How much?
I’ll check with our biologists on trout waters.
Marla
**PLEASE NOTE MY NEW PHONE NUMBER**
Marla Chambers // NCDOT Coordinator
Habitat Conservation Program
NC Wildlife Resources Commission
c/o NCDOT
206 Charter Street
Albemarle, North Carolina 28001
Direct Office Line: 704-244-8907
mobile: 704-984-1070
Marla.chambers@ncwildlife.org
ncwildlife.org
2
From: Zerman, William S
Sent: Tuesday, June 20, 2017 5:15 PM
To: Chambers, Marla J <marla.chambers@ncwildlife.org>; Wanucha, Dave <dave.wanucha@ncdenr.gov>
Cc: 'Steven.L.Kichefski@usace.army.mil' <Steven.L.Kichefski@usace.army.mil>; Marella Buncick (marella_buncick@fws.gov)
<marella_buncick@fws.gov>
Subject: R-2915E 4B
Hi Marla & Dave,
th
During the June 7 4B meeting for R-2915E, there were two sites, #6 and #22 where we were discussing aquatic habitat issues
and need your input.
At site 6, the proposed 60” pipe (without a drop structure) has excessive outlet velocities so we are proposing a drop structure
verses the use of a rock energy dissipator. We proposed a drop structure to dissipate outlet velocities thinking that aquatic
habitat may not have had a chance to develop in the short upstream section of stream (~230 feet) from the spring to the pipe
inlet. If we propose a rock energy dissipator, it would mean additional stream impacts caused by the length of stream we would
need to protect with rock (probably +/- 25 additional feet). If you think that the aquatic habitat is there and that additional
stream impacts are justified by providing a rock energy dissipator vrs a drop structure, we can make that change. Please let me
know what your thoughts are.
At site 22, we were discussing the need to bury the proposed pipe or not. Since the proposed pipe (~160 feet long) is on an 8%
slope, we opted to not bury it. From previous discussions concerning the bury/not bury issue, I use 4% as a maximum slope to
require the burying of pipe. The thought is that pipes exceeding a 4% slope may not hold material inside them. Please let me
know your thoughts on this site as well.
Steve & Marella, please let me know if the above does not accurately represent Agency concerns.
-Bill
William (Bill) S. Zerman, Jr. P.E.
Project Manager-TIP WEST
NCDOT Hydraulics Unit
North Carolina Department of Transportation
919 707 6755 office
919 810 8990 mobile
bzerman@ncdot.gov
1590 Mail Service Center
Raleigh, NC 27699-1590
1020 Birch Ridge Drive
Raleigh, NC 27610
Email correspondence to and from this address is subject to the
North Carolina Public Records Law and may be disclosed to third parties.
Email correspondence to and from this sender is subject to the N.C. Public Records Law and may be disclosed to third parties.
3