20140762 Ver 1_NCWRC Comments Site 22_20170929

Carpenter,Kristi
From: Chambers, Marla J
Sent: Friday, September 29, 2017 4:07 PM
To: Zerman, William S; Wanucha, Dave; Buncick, Marella
Cc: [e-mail]; Jeff Meador ([e-mail]);
Cheely, Erin K
Subject: RE: R-2915E Baffles In Round Pipes
Thank you all for your efforts to investigate baffles in pipes and the conditions of the
streams we're considering using them in! I truly appreciate it!
I am fine with the plans for Sites 6 and 27. As for Site 22, I can see abandoning the baffle
idea if there's no hope of the upstream perched culverts being fixed and stream
condition being improved. Any chance of using that stretch of stream for mitigation?
Does it appear to be a candidate? We are not requesting a trout moratorium for Naked
Creek.
I agree that Site 13A would be good to monitor in the future.
Have a nice weekend,
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: [phone]
Marla.chambers(c�ncwildlife.orq
ncwildlife.orq
11' � j Ym
From: Zerman, William S
Sent: Friday, September 29, 2017 12:46 PM
To: Wanucha, Dave <[e-mail]>; Buncick, Marella
<[e-mail]>
Cc: Chambers, Marla J <[e-mail]>;
[e-mail]; Jeff Meador ([e-mail])
<[e-mail]>; Cheely, Erin K <[e-mail]>
Subject: RE: R-2915E Baffles In Round Pipes
Dave,

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.
EA _ �
°�_ . „� ,,"�"�
��
��� ue
�i+i,f�ai: iira:'- ` _
�!
William (Bill) 5. Zerman, Jr., PE
Direct [phone]
� �� ; }-
1� a�
/ � �,� _ .u�a• e v� ��:�.�,,,
=_� r�rrC 6�aiE*
� v�- . . '��
S1TE 13� - _
�G! '"
� + �f'�
�a� ,;,= �
�
,� �_
-_=�
.= -- 4_
From: Wanucha, Dave
Sent: Thursday, September 14, 2017 4:19 PM
To: Zerman, William S<[e-mail]>; Buncick, Marella
<marella [e-mail]>
Cc: Chambers, Marla J <[e-mail]�>;
ra

[e-mail]; Jeff Meador ([e-mail])
<[e-mail]>; Cheely, Erin K <ekcheely@ncdot.�ov>
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
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 <[e-mail]�>;
[e-mail]; Jeff Meador ([e-mail])
<[e-mail]>; 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 [phone]
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 <[e-mail]�>;
[e-mail]; Jeff Meador ([e-mail])
<[e-mail]>; 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(c�.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<[e-mail]�>; Wanucha, Dave
<dave.wanucha@ncdenr.�ov>; [e-mail]; Jeff Meador
([e-mail]) <[e-mail]>; 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 wateN 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 [phone]
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.army.mil'
<Steven.L.Kichefski(c�usace.army.mil>; Marella Buncick
(marella_buncick(a�fws.�) <marella_buncick(a�fws.�>
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 [phone]

From: Chambers, Marla J
Sent: Wednesday, June 21, 2017 4:35 PM
To: Zerman, William S<bzerman(a�ncdot.�ov>; Wanucha, Dave
<dave.wanucha(a�ncdenr. gov>
Cc: 'Steven.L.Kichefski(a�usace.army.mil'
<Steven.L.Kichefski(a�usace.army.mil>; Marella Buncick
(marella buncick(a�fws.�) <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.
http : //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: [phone]
Marla.chambers(a�ncwildlife.orp
ncwildlife.orq
I � � I ��, i�1 �
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(a�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.
:
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
io

USFWS
160 Zillicoa St
Asheville, NC 28801
[phone] ext 237
fax [phone]
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.
11

S�plp� _., Kry � r�� • �5)
Oi re
.,:fi�.�{�t.a
"' �� � � ,�
r �,� � _ ' . � SITE 13A � ���
II €i ° `�`� � j � ' " .a � � ,
� �_/ � u Y
v
SITE 17 iS;3F � �� ��.-.-.
FMSF �.:i1f � .,•.
— — _ -..
__"—.'_____-_�_ ".;'._�_...--.
�r —__ __ _��p: . _
,w.�
- � �,' _.._..-_._"..
---=v. �Ci/
i � w35n i
( ___-
_ �}4