20140371 Ver 1_Email_20140423

4 '
Wainwright, David
%I�WI�r�=UIYbS /� �'�� GS3//
-�, �" 3> ,-�piG � ,.�t �
�n���� �•
From: King, Art C
Sent: Wednesday, April 23, 2014 5:48 PM
To: Wainwright, David
��: [e-mail]
Subject: RE: Bridge/Culvert #31 and #97 Randolph County
David,
Question 1: The sills designed into the culvert should direct the base flow of the northern most channel to the base flow
barrel. The existing open spam allows for the two channels to merge before going through the structure. I don't believe
that hydro expects the flow pattern to be drastically altered through new culvert during base flow.
Question 2: This has come up before with some of the different DWR �DWQ) folks in the past, and I have gotten
canflicting opinions.
What we had concluded in the past was; because the temporary impacts for dewatering are within the same foot print
as the permanent impacts from stabilization, we just went with the permanent impacts to cover both. The temporary
impacts for dewatering should be roughly 15ft on both end of the culvert, the upstream rip-rap stabilization impacts
should scale out at about 20ft, and the downstream at about 40ft.
Question 3: 49.6ft is the corrected revised number I got from hydro, I just didn't hand correct it on the plans. EEP has
actually issued mitigation for SOft of mitigation for each culvert.
The temporary impact issue is the same as on #31. I have no problem changing it on the PCN if either you or Liz want it
done a different way.
Again, I apologize for all the confusion on these two projects. It all goes back to us miss-identifying the type of
structures, and having to rush these through at the last minute.
Thanks,
Art
From: Wainwright, David
Sent: Wednesday, April 23, 2014 1:01 PM
To: King, Art C
Cc: Sarah.E.HairCalusace.army.mil
Subject: Bridge/Culvert #31 and #97 Randolph County
Art,
I have some questions that I should have asked when we spoke a few days ago:
Culvert #31, in looking at Wetlands and Surface Waters Impacts drewings, sheet 4 of 6, I'm curious about Bob's
brench going into the culvert. It appears that there are two channels of Bob's Brench. The one to the north
appear to be flowing into the high flow barrel, with no-or-little chance of reaching the main barrel. My question

is will the northern branch of Bob's erench flow through the high flow barrel or will it be directed to the main
culvert?
• Culvert #31, the impact summary sheet indicates that there are 30 feet of temporery impacts, which I assume
are for dewatering. This impact is not included in the PCN table on page 4. Please clarify.
• Culvert #97, the impact summary sheet states there are 48' perm. structure impact while the PCN states 49.6'.
The impact summary sheet indicates 17' temp. impacts which are not reflected in the PCN. Please clarify.
Thanks.
David Wainwright
NCDENR, Division of Water Resources
Transportation Permitting Unit
1617 Mail Service Center, Raleigh, North Carolina 27699-1617
Phone:[phone] Fax:(919�733-1290
David. Wainwri¢[e-mail]
Email correspondence to and from this address is subject ro the North Carolina Public Rewrds Law and may be disdosed
[o [hird parties unless [he con[ent is exempt by statute or other regulation.
'� Please consider the environment before printing this email.
f�n3il �nrrqgpcntl.nce I�� ar•�' f,m thig ;.:n I�i ...r�1.i��J i, �,n nl �.. "�.ihn. :,.- �„rl, �, �.,,i ,�, ap ht .��,. I...�..,,I I�.II I �,i�p�.,.