20140762 Ver 1_RE R-2915E Baffles Site 27_20170908

Wanucha, Dave
From:
Sent:
To:
Cc:
Subject:
Attachments:
a�
Wanucha, Dave
Friday, September 08, 2017 12:17 PM
'Buncick, Marella'; Zerman, William S
Chambers, Marla J; [e-mail]; Jeff Meador ([e-mail]); Cheely, Erin K
RE: R-2915E Baffles In Round Pipes
Site 27 JS endjpg; Site 27 JS end_Pondjpg
I have a piece of information that may help the discussion for Site 27. After conducting an inspection at the C Section yesterday,
I had some time to visit the E Section and walk the stream channel upstream of Site 27. The channel ended after 260 meters
where the landowner built a duck pond which overflows into a culvert (see pictures). I'm not sure if it is worth the expense of
baffles at this location. In my judgement, habitat would be considered low or poor quality (using DWR's Biological Assessment
Branch's Habitat Assessment protocol), the landowner uses the channel to dump yard waste and it is a short segment. If the
pond was not in play, I would mostly support baffles at this location.
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
a������ �������,��:s���������� �� ����� ������ ��`��,� ����:����,�,� �,� ,�������� �� ��`��
�V����� �°��������� ��.����� ��������,� ��W�r ����:� a���.� �� ���,����,���� �� �������� �s�����,�.
From: Buncick, Marella [mailto:[e-mail]]
Sent: Thursday, September 07, 2017 10:17 AM
To: Zerman, William S <[e-mail]>
Cc: Chambers, Marla J<[e-mail]>; Wanucha, Dave <[e-mail]>;
[e-mail]; Jeff Meador ([e-mail]) <[e-mail]>; Cheely, Erin K
<ekcheely@ ncdot.gov>
Subject: Re: R-2915E Baffles In Round Pipes
HI Bill,
Thanks for looking into this. I will defer to Marla regarding the trout resources in Naked Creek because I have no other
data about aquatic life in these streams. I will say that although this is a somewhat "urban" stream because it is right in
Jefferson, it may make sense to maintain passage where possible for the tributaries because urban isn't very urban in
this setting. Maintaining connection for all aquatic life in the headwaters helps support the downstream organisms,
including trout.

marella
On Fri, Sep l, 2017 at 12:02 PM, Zerman, William S<bzerman(a�ncdot.gov> wrote:
All,
As reques�ed, we l�ave revisi�ed �l�e feasibili�y c�f placin� baffles inside rc�und pipes �c� lessc�n pipe velc�ci�ies and �c�
prc�mc��e fisl� passa�e and l�ave de�ermined �l�a� �l�ere are �wc� si�es, permi� si�es 22 and 27 �l�a� are pc�ssible candida�es
if ihe ,si��eam,s aquaiie habiiai and waie�� quality jus�ify �l�e added ini�ial expense and fii�ure main�enance effor�s
invc�lved in placin� baffles in pipes. Our "fil�er" fc�r pc�ssible candida�es was;
• Si�es wi�l� mc�dera�e �c� l�eavy debris pc��en�ial were discarded since baffles l�elp �c� re�ain debris and crea�e
flc�c�din�lmain�enance issues
• Pipes 42" and smaller were discarded due �c� pc�ssible flc�c�din� and main�enance prc�blems rela�ed �c� smaller pipe
sizes.
See �l�e a��acl�ed �able for a lis�in� c�f pipe si�e lc�ca�ic�ns ini�ially cc�nsidered for baffle ins�illa�ic�n.
Please review si�es 22 and 27 and le� me l�nc�w by 9l18117 if ihe ,si��eam,s aquaiie habiiai and waie�� quality jus�ify us
mc�vin� al�ead wi�l� fiir�l�er inves�i�a�ic�nldesi�n c�f baffles in rc�und pipes. If yc�u �1linlc c��l�er �eam members, nc��
included in �11is email, sl�c�uld wei�l� in c�n �11is, please forward �c� �l�em.
FYI�we are curren�ly reviewin� videc� inspec�ic�ns c�f a number c�f pipes c�n �11is prc�jec� �c� l�elp us de�ermine if liners are
feasible.
�
M ,
=i
NCDOT Hydraulics Unit
I)irec� (919) 707�6755
From: Zerman, William S
Sent: Thursday, June 22, 2017 8:50 AM

To: Chambers, Marla J<marla.chambers(a�ncwildlife.org>; Wanucha, Dave <dave.wanucha(a�ncdenr.gov>
Cc: 'Steven.L.Kichefslci(a�usace.army.mil' <Steven.L.Kichefslci(a�usace.army.mil>; Marella Buncick
(marella_buncicic(a�fws.gov) <marella buncicic(a�fws.gov>
Subject: RE: R-2915E 4B
Tl�anlcs Marla. I'll cl�ecic fiir�l�er in�c� �l�e feasibili�y c�f ins�allin� baffles in pipes. I� will need �c� be dc�ne c�n a si�e by
si�e basis.
�
M ,
=i
NCDOT Hydraulics Unit
I)irec� (919) 707�6755
From: Chambers, Marla J
Sent: Wednesday, June 21, 2017 4:35 PM
To: Zerman, William S<bzerman(a�ncdot.gov>; Wanucha, Dave <dave.wanucha(a�ncdenr.gov>
Cc: 'Steven.L.Kichefslci(a�usace.army.mil' <Steven.L.Kichefslci(a�usace.army.mil>; Marella Buncick
(marella_buncicic(a�fws.gov) <marella buncicic(a�fws.gov>
Subject: RE: R-2915E 4B
I am interested in Dave's input after visiting the sites. Currently, for Site 6 Pm 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�://www.ats-environmental.com/solutions/culvert-baffles/
htt�://www.dot.ca. o� v/hc�/o�d/fishPassa e� /Cha�ter-7-Retrofit-Design.�df
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
��� �� � , ���
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�� ����°�
u tt��ll�li II�;: .��D�...���... � �D.��D
Marla.chambers(c�ncwildlife.orq
ncwildlife.orq
4

From: Zerman, William S
Sent: Tuesday, June 20, 2017 5:15 PM
To: Chambers, Marla J<marla.chambers(a�ncwildlife.org>; Wanucha, Dave <dave.wanucha(a�ncdenr.gov>
Cc: 'Steven.L.Kichefslci(a�usace.army.mil' <Steven.L.Kichefslci(a�usace.army.mil>; Marella Buncick
(marella_buncicic(a�fws.gov) <marella buncicic(a�fws.gov>
Subject: R-2915E 4B
Hi Marla & Dave,
During the June 7�h 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.
�
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(a�ncdot.gov
1590 Mail Service Center
Raleigh, NC 27699-1590
1020 Birch Ridge Drive
Raleigh, NC 27610
�Pf�;tff ,r;�."aPPa�,���-aP'�c�la�P�r,� �r;:b;tP�c.lfPr;:bPf� �P�f,� ;tc.lc.lPa�,�,� f,� ,�Ca�'r�r�r,� �rb �P��"
�FrrrtP� a:;;rrrrfr��;-� Fp����rfr�° �°�r;�-arc:l,� �;-��i�;-���cl�rr;-�}r���r� c.lr,�r;frr,��c.l �rr ���rrc.l�;-�rtr�,�.
l lrr7ail �:urre,�l�ui�de,i��;a �C�u ai�d �fruir7 C�h•il� �ci�de,r I� �ul����:�E� �C�u U•ie, I"J,� I ul�li�: 4����Ec�;ur;� I...aw ai�d rr�7ay I�a rll��;lu�c,rl �C�u �C�h•ih�rl I�artie,�,
l lrr7ail �:urre,�l�ui�de,i��;a �C�u ai�d �fruir7 C�h•il� �ci�de,r I� �ul����:�E� �C�u U•ie, I"J,� I ul�li�: 4����Ec�;ur;� I...aw ai�d rr�7ay I�a rll��;lu�c,rl �C�u �C�h•ih�rl I�artie,�,
Marella Buncick
USFWS
160 Zillicoa St
Asheville, NC 28801
[phone] ext 237
fax [phone]

NOTE: This email correspondence and arry attachmenls to and from this sender is subject to the Freedom of Information Act (FOIA) and may be
disclosed to third parties.