HomeMy WebLinkAbout20140762 Ver 1_RE R-2915E Site 22_20171006Carpenter,Kristi
From:
Sent:
To:
Cc:
Subject:
Attachments:
Dave,
Zerman, William S
Friday, September 29, 2017 12:46 PM
Wanucha, Dave; Buncick, Marella
Chambers, Marla J; Steven.L.Kichefski@usace.army.mil; Jeff Meador
(jmeador@rkk.com); Cheely, Erin K
RE: R-2915E Baffles In Round Pipes
04 0000 2016 R-2915C UT OLD FIELD CREEK US221 1 OF 2.PDF
On project R-2915E, I appreciate your input on sites 22 and 27 concerning aquatic
passage. I have not received any further agency input so I think we have adequately
vetted not proposing baffles in the pipes at those sites. We will move ahead with our
current design as we approach the 4c meeting in the near future. If additional
conversations are needed concerning this, please let me know. As we research baffles
in pipes, the Hydraulics Unit is open to their use if debris isn't an issues and the aquatic
habitat supports the initial installation costs and required future maintenance efforts.
FYI-if you remember, on the C section, we are calling for 1.5' baffles in an 84" pipe (see
permit site 13A) which would be good to monitor over time after it's been installed. It's
on plan sheet 11 (permit plan sheet 18). I have attached the CSR for reference.
�� � . ,
r',�
} f �'�'L � �uTH�� FJ ���p�
t f� LII�4A AaKER 7a•��� �'� x
EF ' �LE�+, h} i}�E .IT�_H •J,rNE 6aKEy
.- � �f� ��h� 5 � _ .�y
yL,LI; : ,I ��yy�'���,�nP ' f �'. 111 tnr � �
L7 . H, r.l.•.. 5� �iY�. , . I .,a+Y �
.`i .� �
{ ��Hrl1�E ,,. � _ � �
L' {I: f��. �. f
���' .�� � .�fr ''� � �:f ' � fy�IQ
.}f}�T.. �' m
�T_IIC� S"�F � { y - �� ' �� �� � �
,. , j .`� x�+ F r SITE l�A �� � K r�-
� �. Sw ..} ` ��. I' �h.
�F57 ��°�r�i�lu, ��, � 4 � �,', _ � ,� �"I�a�b� 3CL.
�t, i; i �. �
EtiT� SY�F .!.. xH .•� 'iH II J
��:' ' "'x _'�1 �T•'E. �
Y:
_ _ — -- - �ITE l� �.�'�T�;4
LL r;
,3'w: FL xa4�E
p{ y�� :'LI F:. w�'TE''•IhL
�� Fe LT. ST{. —
1,�Li —
�� � �
_ ��^ � _f _I.1 _.- - _ _
—�:`—�' ' — _ 5I'r_R --'
— — — — ii*� L�
�T— — F_ -- -
15' 1� y _ }'
�s�`cr�cr,� � I � � _ _
�. — r._�� � � ���v -�=.
EI. � �• o-�; ;r;_ _� � } ,
.._ _v LT. ' �� I
- }� � �_.
� � ---. -I _ -"' i�,
� -- -� -.� . �� -
..i�4"� I
�'V_�=. - y � ___ __
7fIF.". _ — _ _'
���� ..
L�F'EW6iE _' ' '
V� -
- �_�------- }� �
+..� - -
� � -
_,ri��-� ---- '
lY
ITE �3A ��'k
-^'�"- } ---- :
{ ,4 3rJ4�' *�9�}'' 4Y � ` L������
�' `_'_— --�---� { �� �E{'1...�'�.'.ri' i'�� n
E"f �L _ � �
'�� f .� ��: �;v '�F
.- �:.}
..#� �ITE 1�B �.
�
William (Bill) S. Zerman, Jr., PE
Direct (919) 707-6755
From: Wanucha, Dave
Sent: Thursday, September 14, 2017 4:19 PM
To: Zerman, William S<bzerman@ncdot.gov>; Buncick, Marella
<marella_buncick@fws.gov>
Cc: Chambers, Marla J <marla.chambers@ncwildlife.org>;
Steven.L.Kichefski@usace.army.mil; Jeff Meador (jmeador@rkk.com)
<jmeador@rkk.com>; Cheely, Erin K <ekcheely@ncdot.gov>
Subject: RE: R-2915E Baffles In Round Pipes
AI I,
I had time this morning to visit Site 22. There are three driveway culverts along the
UT. The first is at the gate as referenced in the plans, 90 meters upstream of confluence
with Naked Creek. It is functioning well with the invert below the stream bed and
channel bed material within. The second culvert is 246 meters upstream of the
confluence with Naked Creek. The outlet is perched 2.5 feet. The third is 65 meters
further upstream of the second. The outlet is perched 3 feet. The UT continues for
another 200 meters unimpacted up Mt. Jefferson where it ends. Habitat is similar to
ra
Site 27—low to poor quality, but improves as it enters the mostly forested areas
upstream of the third culvert.
I will rely on Marla and Marella to determine if perched culverts are a barrier to aquatic
movement in this case and the stream segment length needed to facilitate passage. Let
me know if you need anything further.
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(a�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: Friday, September 08, 2017 1:03 PM
To: Wanucha, Dave <dave.wanucha@ncdenr.�ov>; Buncick, Marella
<marella buncick@fws.�ov>
Cc: Chambers, Marla J <marla.chambers@ncwildlife.or�>;
Steven.L.Kichefski@usace.armv.mil; Jeff Meador (imeador@rkk.com)
<imeador@rkk.com>; Cheely, Erin K <ekcheelv@ncdot.�ov>
Subject: RE: R-2915E Baffles In Round Pipes
Dave,
I'm glad you had a chance to visit site 27 and I appreciate your input. Did you perhaps
take a look at site 22?
William (Bill) S. Zerman, Jr., PE
Direct (919) 707-6755
From: Wanucha, Dave
Sent: Friday, September 08, 2017 12:17 PM
To: Buncick, Marella <marella buncick@fws.�ov>; Zerman, William S
<bzerman@ncdot.�ov>
Cc: Chambers, Marla J <marla.chambers@ncwildlife.or�>;
Steven.L.Kichefski@usace.army.mil; Jeff Meador (imeador@rkk.com)
<imeador@rkk.com>; Cheely, Erin K <ekcheely@ncdot.�ov>
Subject: RE: R-2915E Baffles In Round Pipes
AI I,
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
Dave.Wanucha(a�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: Buncick, Marella [mailto:marella buncick@fws.�ov]
Sent: Thursday, September 07, 2017 10:17 AM
To: Zerman, William S <bzerman@ncdot.�ov>
Cc: Chambers, Marla J<marla.chambers@ncwildlife.or�>; Wanucha, Dave
<dave.wanucha@ncdenr.�ov>; Steven.L.Kichefski@usace.army.mil; Jeff Meador
(jmeador@rkk.com) <jmeador@rkk.com>; Cheely, Erin K <ekcheely@ncdot.�ov>
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 1, 2017 at 12:02 PM, Zerman, William S<bzerman(a�ncdot.gov>
wrote:
All,
As requested, we have revisited the feasibility of placing baffles inside round
pipes to lesson pipe velocities and to promote fish passage and have determined
that there are two sites, permit sites 22 and 27 that are possible candidates if the
streams aquatic habitat and water quality justify the added initial expense and
future maintenance efforts involved in placing baffles in pipes. Our "filter" for
possible candidates was;
• Sites with moderate to heavy debris potential were discarded since baffles
help to retain debris and create flooding/maintenance issues
• Pipes 42" and smaller were discarded due to possible flooding and
maintenance problems related to smaller pipe sizes.
See the attached table for a listing of pipe site locations initially considered for
baffle instillation.
Please review sites 22 and 27 and let me know by 9/18/17 if the streams aquatic
habitat and water quality justify us moving ahead with further
investigation/design of baffles in round pipes. If you think other team members,
not included in this email, should weigh in on this, please forward to them.
FYI-we are currently reviewing video inspections of a number of pipes on this
project to help us determine if liners are feasible.
�
William (Bill) S. Zerman, Jr. P.E.
NCDOT Hydraulics Unit
Direct (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.Kichefski(a�usace.armv.mil'
<Steven.L.Kichefski(a�usace.army.mil>; Marella Buncick
(marella buncick(a),fws.gov) <marella buncick(a�fws.�ov>
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.
:
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(a�ncdot.�>; Wanucha, Dave
<dave.wanucha(c�ncdenr. gov>
Cc: 'Steven.L.Kichefski(a�usace.army.mil'
<Steven.L.Kichefski(a�usace.armv.mil>; Marella Buncick
(marella_buncick(a�fws.gov) <marella_buncick(a�fws. _�>
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.
: //www. ats-environmental. com/solutions/culvert-baffles/
http://www.dot.ca. o�q/o�d/fishPassa eg /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(a�ncwildlife.orq
ncwildlife.orq
� • '
L�J �"
From: Zerman, William S
Sent: Tuesday, June 20, 2017 5:15 PM
To: Chambers, Marla J<marla.chambers(c�ncwildlife.org>; Wanucha, Dave
<dave.wanucha(a�ncdenr. gov>
Cc: 'Steven.L.Kichefski(a�usace.army.mil'
<Steven.L.Kichefski(c�usace.army.mil>; Marella Buncick
(marella_buncick(c�fws.gov) <marella_buncick(a�fws.gov>
Subject: R-2915E 4B
Hi Marla & Dave,
During the June 7th 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.
Se�ffl
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
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.
Email correspondence to and from this sender is subject to the N.C. Public Records Law and may be disclosed to
third parties.
Marella Buncick
USFWS
160 Zillicoa St
Asheville, NC 28801
(828) 258-3939 ext 237
fax (828) 258-5330
NOTE: This email correspondence and any attachments to and from this sender is subject to the
Freedom of Information Act (FOIA) and may be disclosed to third parties.
10
---------- ---------- ---- -
- - - ' ----------------------------------------- ------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------__.__
ADDITIONAL INFORMATION AND COMPUTATIONS ` ; ; cse , oF z
SITE DATA
� Drainage Area ________ 2�9_ A�res (0.44 Sq. Mi.) Source _________________ USGS QUAD - FLEETNOOD o,
� - ----- ---------------- � �� CULVERT SURVEY & HYDRAULIC DESIGN REPORT
HISTORICAL INFORMATION: � � NEW RURAL - BLUE WDGE ' N'
----------- ------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------ . River Basin ----------- -----------------------------. Character ; LL;
---------------------------------------------------------- o� N. C DEPARTMENT OF TRANSPORTATION
JASON STOPPER HAS LIVED IN THE AREA FOR 5 YEARS AND STATED THAT HIE HAS NEVER SEEN THE
WATER RISE OUT OF THE STREAM BANKS.
NCDOT BRIDGE MAINTENANCE SUPERVISOR, CHAD COX, HAS WORKED IN THE AREA FOR 20 YEARS AND
STATED THAT SEVERAL VERY HIGH WATER EVENTS HAVE BEEN OBSERVED, HOWEVER, THE ROAD HAS NEVER
BEEN AT RISK OF OVERTOPPING DUE TO THE HIGH FILLS IN THIS AREA. MR. COX ALSO STATED THAT
- -------- --- -- -- -------- --------- --------- --------- -------- -------- --------- - ---------
DEBRIS HAS BEEN REMOVED SEVERAL TIMES.
- ---------------------------------'-------"-"""'-""'-"'. .. . . . . . .,_._...--'--'....-'---"--_"""'
ALLOWABLE HW DEPTH ESTABLISHED AT 4.18' ABOVE EXISTING BASED ON THE FOLLOWING:
__._STREAM IS NOT FEMA REGULATED.
- THERE ARE NO STRUCTURES IN THE UPSTREAM FLOOD PLAIN.
- THE EXISTING WSEL @ RS 1518.43 IS "CRITICAL".
- THE PROPOSED WSEL @_ RS 1728_lb TIES TO THE EXISTING WSEL @ RS_1721.48.
THE 6.68' INCREASE IN STREAM LENGTH FROM EXISTING TO PROPOSED IS THE RESULT OF REALIGNING
THE CULVERT AND STREAM FOR THE PROPOSED CONDITIONS.
RURAL Q: HC ____ 7� Qso__=_ _260_ cfs; A/L�=_ j279_4)f43560�/f5550��= 0.40, USE C 200.4 CF - 1.10
_ ____ Qio ___ 260 cfs_X 0.53 X_1.10 __ 152 cfs, SAY 750 cfs;_ ____ ____ ____ ________
- ---- Qso -- 260 cfs_X 1.70 -_2S6 cfs�SAY 290_ cfs - _- ----- ---- ---- --------
_ _____ Qioo =__ 260 cfs_X 121 X 1_10 __346 cfs, SAY 350 cfs;_
..____._._Qsoo__, .260_tfs_X 1.82__X 1.10 =___521 cfs_ SAY 500_cfs�_
EXISTING 6' X 6' RCBC - 36sf; PROPOSED 84" SPP /WSP 32.4sf.
LOSSES AT JBs WERE NOT COMPUTED DUE TO SUPERCRITICAL FLOW IN CULVERT.
THERE ARE NO STRUCTURES UPSTREAM OR DOWNSTREAM OF THE PROPOSED SPP /WSP ADVERSELY
AFFECTED BY THE PROPOSED 100 YR WSEL.
DESIGN BASED ON STATEWIDE TIER GUIDELINES.
Stream Classification (Such as Trout, High Quality Water, etc.) -_,______________C_7r_+ _ _ _ _ _ __ __ _
Data on Existing $tructure �_@__6' X 6' BOTfOMlE55 RCBC, HT. CROWN TO BED = 48', L= 175.7'
_� . -' - ---- - -- ---- -
Debris Potential: Low______Moderate.__.._.__High___X____
Data on $tructures Up and Down $tream UPSTREAM_f0_51 MI) ON PRIVATE DRIVE, 36" CMP HT. CROWN
---- ------- --`------- ----------------
TO BED = 20'� _DOWNSTREAM: j0_02 MIl ON PRIVATE DRIVE, 72" CMP, HT. CROWN TO BED = 6.5'.
'Gage Station No.._...____..__ N_ /A_____ _ Period of Records .________________N_/_A
-------�------------ Yrs.
Max: Discharge------------N-/9---------_c.f.s Date--------_N-�?------------_ Frequency------_N-LA
HIStOfICOI FIOOC) IIlfOPl7latl0�1: (SEE ADDITIONAL INFORMATION AND COMPUTATIONS)
Period of
Date - Elev._________ ft.Est. Freq. __.-._..yr. Source JASON STOPPER _ Knowledge____5___yrs
------------- .
-- --------------------------------- -
Period of
Date_____-_____ Elev._________ ft.Est. Freq. ___=____yr. Source _____..___._ CHAD_COX_.____.__..Knowledge_.20__yrs.
Allowable HW Elev.--- 2969.40 (100-YR WSEL @ RS 1524_73) fF. Normal Water $urFace Elev. ____295�.8�` ft.
----------
(SEE ADDITIONAL INFORMATION AND COMPUTATIONS) FIELD
Manning'S n: Left O.B. 0.70./0.035 Channel __ 0_05 Right O.B. 0.055 /0,07 Obtained -From ...QBSERVATION__
Non-Encroachment
Flood Study/Status No_Fennn_Fis s7uov__._ _______ ___ Area Established? _____-_
-- - - - - -------
With Non- Without Non-
Flood Study 100 yr. Discharge _-_ c.f.s.; WS Elev.: Encroachment _.._-____ ft. Encroachment ._____ :___._ fF.
Area Area
DESIGN DATA
� Hydrologiml Method.:____ ______ NCDOT DRAINAGE CHARTS C2002 & C200.4 _ _ _ _ _
Hydraulic Design Method . . tieC kaS v 4 t.o
Design Tailwater � Q -- - Lo -- ff.� (� --}t.; Q 7 9 {}.;(� 2.21 fi,� Q _2.8 --- ft.
10 ' S- 50 100 ' S00
..�@ RS 1222.00 2941.0' 2941 9'� 2942 21' 2942.8'
INY. IN EL.=2960.0', INV. OUT EL.=2938.5' (INVERTS ARE 1.5' BELOW STREAM BED) � -
� SIZE & TYPE: 1@ 84" SPP/1 @ 84" WSP @ STATION 7524J3, 9.0' UPSTREAM OF CULVERT.
- Inlet Control Outlet Confrol �
FREQUENCY q Remnrks
� � (ds) � HWiD H.W. WSEL H.W. WSEL
10 YR 750 0.6 3.5' 2965.0' 4.2' �� 2965J' O.C.
.50 YR � 290 12 6.4' 2967.9' 6.8' 2968.3' .. O.C., (DESIGN)
1D0 YR 350 7.44 7.90' 2969.40' 7.87' 2969.37' I.C.
500 YR 500 2.3 72.5' 2974.0' 10.9' 2972.4' I.C.
Is a Floodway Revision Required? ------------------ -------- --- wA .. -------------------------------------- --
Outlet Valocity (V�o) --.-_-_-- 72.7----_-------f.ps. Natural Channel Velocity (�/�o) -------,---- �,Q----....._..f.p.s.
� � @ RS 1220.05 �
Required Outlet Protection _____________________________CLASS 'I' RIP-RAP AS SHOWN
INFORMATION TO �BE SHOWN ON PLANS
�rva ��. iaKe
Design: Discharge ______290_____ c.f.s.
Base Flood: Discharge ______350 _ c.f.s.
Overtopping: Discharge ____500(+) _ c.f.s.
Frequency _ --- 5� ------ Yr. Elev. ----------2968_3----------iF. ;
Frequency --------- 100---------Yr. Elev. --------- 2969.40---------�� '
Fre uenc soo (+) yr. Elev. 3008.62 {t �
9 Y ---------------- ---- -------- -
SP @ SAG -L- STA. 351+85.66 ,
Y; DIVISION OF HIGHWAYS ��
HYDRAULICS UNIT
�! RALEIGH, N. C.
o;
w�
pj I.D. No.----- R-2975C_--- Projed No. --------- 34518.7,4-_-----_-_- Proj. Station ------_-351+34--L -----------
O: - - -
r., County ----------- ASHE_,--.--.-- Stream ---------------- UT TO. OLD_ FIELD CREEK-_.---_.------ Stru. No. -_-- ----.-
�. - -
�� On Highway--------US_HWY_221-_--_- Between --------SR_11o6-------- and -----------------SR_it77---------------
P; (RAILR0.4D GR?.DE RD.) (VJATER T,4tJK RD.)
�; Recommended Structure � C� 84" STRUCTURAL PLATE PIPE (SPP)/1 @ 84" WELDED STEEL PIPE �WSP)
m, ------ / -------- ------------2---1----------------------------
�O' 1.0" THICK, GRADE B w/HWs AND 1.5' SILLS AND BAFFLES. ! J� f� S___�_� U C JJ
7
o� -"-----------------------------------------------------4 --�---�-e ---5-------- -----------------------...
N•
o; Recommended Width of Roadway -_-_--__-93' (EP---EP)------------------- Skew -_-_-__'8� °_---------
o•
o;
o; Recommended Location is �� �^, ^' n_..,_i c.___ .., c__„., �..:_i:„,, r_,.. �:..,. 20' SOUTH OF EXISTING LOCATION
' ---------------------- -----------
�
LL Statewide Tier � Regional Tier ❑ Sub-Regional Tier ❑
�
g Bench Mork is _________ ________ BASELINE MARKER "-BL C15_'�7.21'.RT OF -L STA,352+15.82
�' --------------------------------------------------------------- Elev. --- 3003.47---ft. Datum: ----- NAVD 88
�n�' NOT REQUIRED, TRAFFIC TO BE MAINTAINED ON EXISTING US 227
: Temporary Crossing --------------------------------------------------------------------- ------------ -----------
�;
� �.: '�� •.f�I yA ^ igYr�":9n� i',a:...� ali �:�I�� �,� ?�•Fe`,..'._.. _ . _ �-�
o � }'-�. %�'� � ° ,� Y � � .. � � 9i � � � f ��
Z i .;ti 2� a . , �,. , ,� jp- �. � � � �
iJ � �U 1 �y ,� � .I����n�, .�1 y• . I
�
� A `� �I -�- ' " '`�l`��,'n�r�I
U� I
N; I
P. . . ) 1 : . . � . N' .. � r1?
N�
�� u. �
' , " ��
o a �
�i
Z ,}f�� � ' �y
„
O �,.
- . . � i `;. n.' .
I; ;I i ti.� . , .
, , . .:'i5,` .
O � . ' :� � ..- �: i
Z L� s
' �'1C ` µ,r �^�jJ"""^� ��,� �"' � .
� � �i,`
� , x'�M.r m „W� . i. - � ...
� �A Jt � ��� a .r� �..� � �
'n f �Y *�n': �. r^,�a 1�.iv�-"�.4rT i
Wi ��f..^ . . ' lI,��G - _J
w�
� �izei� ,�.���;� o�a���
U� HNTB NOflTlI CAPOLINA, P.C. �l
ne
r�ecu
m
s„ m
5 P
r i 0
3V3 E. Six a�ks flodtl Sui[e 200 ,f 9 e B
o; �INTB Aaieian. rvo�xn ca�oii�a z�sos �•J 7!//� ��� o"� �y\ �'.iIPQ s�po
J� NC L.icense N0: C-1554 ^ � p
w. tro^��,�� �'•. q,�s
' o. �J
J' Desi ned b - --------------BENTON CARROLL, PE------_ ----- / � --.------. � �ve�0 F / �.,.
Y --------------- -------- °----- � 0. �ij�,A
9 Y r _
o;
O; Assisted b: BEN HENEGAR EI _ ___ � � •
�; Project Engineer �: JAMES A_ BYRD, PE Date ,__ ____ ��76 �
------ ------ ------------ . a
--
�; « •., �`'� e,� r �.
, �°y ✓ �•., � I NE,,:' p ��
� Reviewed by- ------ - - - --- - -- -------------------- '�'o°sti1 f S A. ���°e,,
e
�, �q-, F � �a��
� 'i��it^i,;,.
[M�.r:p!.�i.
€7i+a'�wu � ��'' � "��:���€ .
���..". 2� � t. � �,.; . ,