20180292 Ver 1_More Info Received_20180321

Strickland, Bev
From: Fuemmeler, Amanda J CIV (US) <[e-mail]>
Sent: Wednesday, March 21, 2018 10:10 AM
To: Homewood, Sue
Subject: [External] FW: [Non-DoD Source] Russ Cornett Driveway
CAUTION: External email. Do not click links or open attachments unless verified. Send all suspicious email as an
attachment to Report Spam.<mailto:[e-mail]>
Below is some further explanation on why Mr. Green chose the route for his driveway...
Amanda
828-271-7980 ext. 4225
-----Original Message -----
From: Jason Green [mailto:[e-mail]]
Sent: Wednesday, March 21, 2018 9:57 AM
To: Fuemmeler, Amanda J CIV (US) <[e-mail]>
Subject: [Non-DoD Source] Russ Cornett Driveway
Amanda,
I have reviewed the comments sent by Andrea Leslie and they seem to echo what you said and what I plan to do. The
one comment that surprised me was comment 4, recommending against using smooth-walled HDPE culverts. All of the
road builders up here use that regularly. I wan't to avoid metal, as they tend to erode rather quickly in the acidic water.
What would you recommend?
To follow up on our recent phone conversation, let me lay out my logic in the routing of the road as proposed.
Regarding the choice of site along Russ Cornett Rd.:
My initial plan was to bring the driveway in where the current short driveway is (where you parked in the tight bend in
the road). However, when I met the DOT representative, he was not comfortable with the low visibility there and was
concerned that regular use would create a possible dangerous situation to the regular flow of traffic. We then
considered the entire length of the road frontage south of the existing driveway. Because of the very steep slope along
that road frontage, and because that area is a power line right of way with low hanging lines, is was apparent to us that
this was not a reasonable way to route the driveway. The DOT representative recommended obtaining a right of way
where the the driveway is currently proposed. This would avoid the visibility, steep slope, and power line issues. I agreed
and was able to purchase the neighboring property outright.
Regarding the location of the crossing of unnamed tributary to Winkler Creek:
The crossing site I have chosen is a former driveway crossing site, as evidenced by the existing undersized culverts. As
such, the existing "roadbed" is built up higher than the surrounding areas, and has therefore created a much more
defined stream channel. It seemed logical to contain this defined channel in a culvert and provide an additional culvert

for high water events. All other crossing points would involve impacting much wider lowland areas, thereby likely having
more impact on the ecosystems.
Regarding the spring crossing:
The proposed crossing is on grade with the proposed building site. If necessary, the driveway could be moved uphill, but
it seems quite possible that even uphill we would be uncovering the spring and have to channel it under the driveway.
As the spring is barely a trickle, moving the driveway uphill seems like quite a gamble.
I hope this helps.
Jason Green