20140762 Ver 1_2017 09 01 Baffle In Pipe Chart Sent To Agencies_20170901

Wanucha, Dave
From: Zerman, William S
Sent: Friday, September 01, 2017 12:03 PM
To: Chambers, Marla J; Wanucha, Dave; '[e-mail]'; Marella Buncick
([e-mail])
Cc: Jeff Meador ([e-mail]); Cheely, Erin K
Subject: RE: R-2915E Baffles In Round Pipes
Attachments: 2017 09 01 Baffle In Pipe Chart Sent To Agencies.pdf
�
As r�qu�st�d, vv� hav� r�visit�d th� f�asibility of placing baffl�s insid� round pip�s to I�sson pip� v�lociti�s and to promot� fish
passag� and hav� d�t�rmin�d that th�r� ar� tvvo sit�s, p�rmit sit�s 22 and 27 that ar� possibl� candidat�s if the strearr�s aquatic
habitat arrd water qualityjustify th� add�d initial �xp�ns� and futur� maint�nanc� �fforts involv�d in placing baffl�s in
pip�s. Our "filt�r°° for possibl� candidat�s was;
s Sit�s with mod�rat� to h�avy d�bris pot�ntial w�r� discard�d sinc� baffl�s h�lp to r�tain d�bris and cr�at�
flooding/maint�nanc� issu�s
s Pip�s 42,° and small�r vv�r� discard�d du� to possibl� flooding and maint�nanc� probl�ms r�lat�d to small�r pip� siz�s.
Pl�as� r�vi�w sit�s 22 and 27 and I�t m� know by 9/18/17 if the strearr�s aquatic habitat arrd water qualityjustify us moving
ah�ad with furth�r inv�stigation/d�sign of baffl�s in round pip�s. If you think oth�r t�am m�mb�rs, not includ�d in this �mail,
should w�igh in on this, pl�as� forward to th�m.
i : � ,�:. .
� • �� ,
. . ;
From: Zerman, William S
Sent: Thursday, June 22, 2017 8:50 AM
To: Chambers, Marla J<[e-mail]>; Wanucha, Dave <[e-mail]>
Cc: '[e-mail]' <[e-mail]>; Marella Buncick ([e-mail])
<[e-mail]>
Subject: RE: R-2915E 4B
i : * ,�:. .
R • u ,,
'' ' i
From: Chambers, Marla J
Sent: Wednesday, June 21, 2017 4:35 PM
To: Zerman, William S<k�z_e_r_rn�an(c�_n�dcrt.:.�ca.v>; Wanucha, Dave <dave_:wa_n_u�ha_(c�_n_cd_e_n_r.:.�crv>
Cc: '[e-mail]' <S.teven_,_I�:.IK.%�h_e�s_ki_(c�_usace arrrr�y rrr�_i.l>, Marella Buncick (rrr�a_re.l_I_a....._k�u_n_ci�k_��ws.:.�ca.v)

<rn�arella k�uncick�Fws...�ca.v>
................................................................................
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.
htt�r..:../..�www.:ats.-_e_nvi_rcr_n_rn�e nta.l..:_�ca.rn��sca.l_ut.%ca.ns./�u_Ive_rt.-�a F�I_es�
htt�a..:../..�www dca.t...ca �crv�hq/cr.p.pd/fishl�assa.�e/Cha.pter 7..._I�etrcrfit.-_�es.i.�n..:..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
i�� ���'�� �;E�1������� �;I��I����17 �;I� �,l�J�t����
IP'��urlll� �Ill�m�i�r�ll��ur� �� II'��III':'�t�..�.. ���ur�°�liiu�����ur
II...W�Il�lid.�d. ��u���:u���d.li�u� Il:�ir��ir�u�
II'�� liilll�°�Illlii�� III'����u�ur��� ��i�r�i�r�lii��lii�u��
��� II��II::��.'ll..
��Dc� �Il��u�d.�:ir �d.ir�:�:d.
�Illl��:u��irll�:, II��u�ll� ��ir�llliu�� ����°�
ir�c� ffic� l�in�e 70��2����907
u tt��ll�li II�;: .��D�...���... � �D.��D
IVl_�.irl�..�.Ih�m�b�ir�Ca�u��wildlif�.r�irq
ncwildlife.orq
i ��� � � ��
From: Zerman, William S
Sent: Tuesday, June 20, 2017 5:15 PM
To: Chambers, Marla J<rn�a_rla.:_charn�_�ers_(c�_n_�wi.l_dl.i�e_:cr_r�>; Wanucha, Dave <dave_:wa_n_u�ha_(c�_n_cd_e_n_r.:.�crv>
Cc: '[e-mail]' <S.teven I�...IKiche�s_ki_(c�_usa�e.._a_rrrr�.y.:_rrr�_i.l>; Marella Buncick (rrr�arella....._k�u_n_ci�k_��ws.:.�ca.v)
<m�arella k�uncick�Fws...�ca.v>
................................................................................
Subject: R-2915E 4B
Hi Marla & Dave,

During the June 7t" 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.�ov
1590 Mail Service Center
Raleigh, NC 27699-1590
1020 Birch Ridge Drive
Raleigh, NC 27610
�P'f'�;ttf r;�-aPPa�,���-aP�c.la�P�r,a� �r;:b ;-tP�c.l fPrbP'f� �P�f,� ;tc�lc.lPa�,�,� t,� ,�Ca�r�r�,r;� �rb �P��"
�Fr:rrtP� a.;;-rrr:rfr��;-� F"����fr�° �'�r;�-arc.l,� �;r�i�;-���a.l�rr;-�}r���r� �lr,�r;frr,���l �rr �P�rr�l�;-�rtr�,�.
I!Irr�7ail �;urre,�l�ui�dc,i��:e, C�u ai�d ��ruir7 U•ii� �ci�dcr i� �ul����;�E� �C�u U•ic, I"J,�, I ul�li�; I'�Ee,�;ur;� I...aw ai�d rr�7ay I�c rll��:lu�crl �C�u �C�h•ih�rl I�artle,�,

POTENTIAL FOR BAFFLES IN CIRCULAR PIPES
OUTLET OUTLET FEASIBLE7
UPSTREAM LENGTH OF OROP
PERMIT SITE STRURURE PIPE SIZE (>42"�` SLOPE OF PIPE VELOCITY, 10 NOTES 46 COMMENT PHOTO Y�N RECOMMENDATION
NUMBER CONDITION SYSTEM (FT) YR f 5 STRUCTURE7
. _�..,
. f *' �' jr,.. -
'+�4i� ` .. - j� � THE CURRENT PROPOSED DESIGN USWG A DRO
UPSTREAM EXISTIN6 SYSTEM (WITH � � �,,, .%s' n STRUCTURE TO REDUCE PIPE OUTLET VELOCITY
SLOPES>IO%) IS UNDERSIZED AND _ ;"• ��p ' �. IS RECOMMENDED DUE TO; 1) THE EXISTIN6
EXISTING 36' CMP IS "DUE TO ALMOST 14%SLOPE . :�t��+¢.��� _ PIPE SLOPE OF "14% 2) THE PROPOSED SYSTEM
TRAVELING UNDER CANDLELIGHT IN EXISTING UPSTREAM LENGTH AND SLOPE 3) EXISTING AQUATIC
PERCHEDI'ABOVE ., :l'.+"'�
25% (3025-1032�, DRIVE, JURISIOICTIONAL STREAM
14A 1027 60" STREAM (CROSSES Z83 0.5% (1032-1027) 9�4 YES BETWEEN EXISTING OUTLET (36" CMP) SYSTEM, NO FISH TRAVEL IN - N HABITAT MAY NOT WARRANT AN ALTERNATIVE
UNDER CANDLELIGHT AND PROPOSED INLET (60") IS A TOTAC CURRENT CONDITION"- KEEP. DESIGN AS THE 15 ORIGINATES AT THE POND
DRIVE) TAKE DUE TO A STD. BASE DITCH W/ CL DESIGN �' - OUTLET PIPE LOCATED IMMEDIATELY
II RIP RAP / ;.k.� UPSTREAM AND ITS 15 FLOW IS MIXED WITH
� STORM DRAIN WATER ORIGINATING IN AN
✓ EXISTING OFF SITE PIPE SVSTEM.
� ;K„ ..�+
_ _ _ �:�� � ..
� ��� � �
.e ��, 1. � THE CURRENT PROPOSED DESIGN USING A 1
• „� �� £ � FOOT DROP STRUCTURE (ACTUALLV A
�� STANDARD DESIGN SINCE OUR STANDARD IS TO
"NOTSUREIFFISHWILLTAKE ,.y"� � .',�". � E� �'
CONVEftGENCE OF TVJO EXSITING PIPES PASSAGE THROUGH SUCH A ,� • � � MAHE P REOUOE 5 OR CROWNS IN A BOX) TO
UPSTREAM JURISOIQIONAL YES,STANDARD � w�� � ��' PIPEOUTLETVELOCITYIS
PIPE=48° CMP, STREAM; BASE=2.5', 5.6% (13EX1-1314), (48" CMP & 30° CMP) TO PROPOSED LONG PIPE (EXISTING 48" CMP � ' ���S �' T ��� `� N RECOMMENDED DUE TO� 1 LENGTH OF PIPE
21 1313 380 9.1 PIPE SVSTEM . . *� � . ."� • • �
DOWNSTREAM TOP=11', DEPTH=3', 0.4% (1312-1313) 60", BOTH BEING LWED, TOO SMALL L=317'�", "PROBABLY NOT .� �
DESIGN M` i � �� � .� � `�- CROSSING 2) PROPOSE� DROP IS ONLY 1 POOT
PIPE=66" RCP 0.1' WATER FOR BAFRES MUCH PASSGE, LEAVE DESIGN � pi��y,��1� ' , f .F �r �+. r�%� 1
q?� � -N: 3 WHEN LWED,THE48" PIPE DIAMETER MAY
ASIS" �.� �..'y�""�' ..t�* .id�:.�-.....ti'+•
/ �� �, � t� .�'�'.:y� v�,:p, REDUCETOA42"DIAMETERMAKINGTHE
/ �- i r:-,' �� E;�.� �� ADDITION & MAINTENANCE OF BAFFLES AN
� ,xi �'� �,�'�< 4 � ISSUE.
\/ - . �. � �` � �.e�-'}�,��a:
� - �:' . ..5�� ^=S.ti`,��..d
;,�� „
�� h'Ci, �!% 7i
r ' . . ��
, f i, '�"'� y "t� BAFfLES fOk FISH PASSAG[ M�V 6[ fE�SIEILG IF
�1� h�... . .'. ... ir�h ,�
t ,� ' a SIREAMHABITATANDWATERQUALIi1'
60" (NOT BURIED) � d
o Y _
��y.,� g
JURISDICTIONAL . STEEP PIPE TO FLAT PIPE WITH "BAFRES IN PIPE?" "DO WE ..-- _ WARRANT. IF BAFFLES PROVIDED; ELIMINATE
IF BAFRES NOT .��- i. ��� -.'�. JUNCTION BOX AND LAY PIPE AT ONE SLOPE
STREAM; BASE=2', 8.2% (14406-1412), JUNCTION BOX NEAR OUTLET TO UN-6URV DUE TO STEEP SLOPE � '?., z�'r s .'', Y
22A 1413 USED, 66" 160 9.1 NO �" -•�.'` ++ ,- qCR055 ROADAY. BAFRES IN PIPE TO PROVIDE �,
(BURIED) IF TOP=S', DEPTH=1', 0.1' O.SYo (1412-1413) CHANGE PIPE SLOPE AND REDUCE (4% USED AS A BURYING sr^} ��y�y� , -
WATER OUTLET VELOCITY CONSTRAINT�?" fyy.:-F T� , , ENERGY DISSIPATION. PROVIDE SILLAT
BAFFLESUSED �' ��•i�� �'.�fi'�� "�
HEADWALL ON INLET END TO MINIMIZE
c � � �0' � ''"�� HEADCUTS NOTE;"LOW DEBRIS POTENTIAL
J GjCi ��.`�G C�J�J/:✓ �r %l�%'� �'�� c yiJ',�i�`- ��� � .
/ ' " �/ .> . .�` . ..
'S `�l `'��' '� t�t,
`We �.,�• r. � � � , �
>
� i y
����a � ���r�'%` �`T '. * ''�
; ` 4� /p ' ?i
-".1I 't ' 2'! ���F9h
�� � .D-;.� 3s ,p . C � - .; '
EXISTING 24" CMP '< 2� a 5`� �, BAFFLE FOR FlSH PASSA6E NOT
��1��jPJ UPSTREAM (OUTLET UPSIZING PIPE FROM 42' TO 60' IN .,i . ` J� ..l.� `�`�y� � RECOMMENDEDJS STREAM ENDS APPROX. SO'
WATERAPPEARSTO SAMELOCATION,REMOVINGIB' EXIST �'"�
24A&B 1505 60" TRAVEL UNDER 139 0.50% 10.4 NO, BUPoED 1.0' CMP UPSTREAM AND RECONNECTING NO COMMENTS- KEEP DESIGN y� ��� � � ` N UPSTREAM AT STORM DRAIN OUTFALL FROM
' � '� SHOPPING CENTER. PIPE LAID ON RAT (0.5%)
J5, PROPOSED STRAIGHT FLAT PIPE �*.* }'"�
��t'�'J 7�/� GROUND,SEDIMENT .� �� `"���" SLOPE.
ju+/ � F' e IN STREAM) � .. ' !�";!3' "-1��
V t �
h dY"..R',y� %,� `•:�eD
!� a �%z G�r , �+�iS�y190 dn;
� ,�,�, � ,
f� -
�f�+. . y $1;
� , -a�r
42" (NOT BURIED)
IF BAFFLES NOT UPSI2ING EXISTING 24" SYSTEM , ��- -� �- -�� .. ;� BAFFLES FOR FISN PASSAGE MAY BE FEASIBLE IF
EXISTING 24" CMP 9.6% (1607-1610), "UNBURY DUE TO STEEP ��
27 1608 USED, 48" UNDER CHERRY DRNE 151 0.5% (1610-1608� $'S NO IUNCTION BOX WITH NO DROP„ STEEP SLOPE?" ''=`.�„_ 4,K;.- ��. �- N STREAM HABITAT AND WATER QUALIN
(BURIED) IF SLOPE IN PORTION � s,+;.r'�'.� � WARRANL NOTE; LOW �EBRIS POTENTIAI.
BAFFLES USED - �%;,3e ,
��st>%� ) ���� f b v��� �� r, -..
.�
-r -
*NOTE: PIPES 42" AND BELOW NOT CONSIDERED FEASIBLE FOR BAFFLES DUE TO POTENTIAL FOR CLOGGING AND LIMITED ABILITY TO ACCESS IN EVENT OF CLOGGIN�
�o '�.� 5 ��f c �ry.-., �'`��� J s