20190061 Ver 1_U-4700A - Environmental Agency Request_20190815

Wanucha, Dave
From: Kichefski, Steven L CIV USARMY CESAW (US) <[e-mail]>
Sent: Thursday, August 15, 2019 2:43 PM
To: Audrey Burnette
Cc: [e-mail]; Kelvington, Joe; Sowell, Bryan K; Tina Swiezy; Brandon
McInnis; Andrew Nottingham; Cheely, Erin K; Beckwith, Loretta A CIV USARMY CESAW
(USA); Wanucha, Dave; [e-mail]
Subject: [External] RE: U-4700A - Environmental Agency Request concerning Frye Creek
Culvert
CAUTION: External email. Do not click links or open attachments unless you verify. Send all suspicious email as an
attachment to [e-mail]<mailto:[e-mail]>
Audrey,
Thank you for the information following up on this question from the 4B meeting. Based on the response provided and
our discussion, a 72" overflow pipe (instead of the proposed 48" pipe) would be needed to accommodate the addition of
a V sill and still maintain a FEMA'no rise' scenario. You further state that, "There is a driveway on the east side of US
321 that would prevent the installation of the 72" welded steel pipe." In order to fully evaluate this situation we will
need further information and NCDOT's response on a few items.
1) Does the current culvert situation meet the USACE aquatic life passage conditions under low flow scenarios? During
the meeting, it was stated that the stream in the area near the culverts was typically 13' wide and currently split thru
two 10x10 box culverts. Therefore, the flow is currently spread 20'wide thru the culverts (an additional 54% wider than
the average in the area) and those are the proposed conditions with the new project. The concern is that this widening
of the stream channel is currently and will continue to alter stream hydraulics and among other things (such as altered
sediment flow, increased stream blockage, etc.), reduce aquatic life passage through the culverts (especially during low
flow conditions). Please provide further information about water levels during low flow conditions and potential passage
issues.
2) During the meeting, a V sill was proposed as one idea to achieve closer to normal flow conditions thru one of the
10x10 pipes, since that is closer to the 13' normal width parameter provided to the merger team. Wouldn't the 72" pipe
needed, based upon modeling, be located under the driveway instead of next to it? Please clarify why there is no room
based on the driveway. Can it be placed in another location such as multiple smaller pipes, over the box culvert or to the
west? Does NCDOT have other ideas for bringing this stream conveyance closer to its more appropriate channel
dimensions?
As discussed on our call earlier this week, Lori Beckwith is the new USACE lead for this project. Please copy her on
responses moving forward and she will help resolve this issue in order to move this project forward with the 4C meeting
and the FEMA'No Rise'approvals.
Regards,
Steve Kichefski
Regulatory Project Manager
U.S. Army Corps of Engineers
Wilmington District, Asheville Field Office
151 Patton Avenue, Suite 208
Asheville, NC 28801

(828)-271-7980 Ext. 4234
The Wilmington District is committed to providing the highest level of support to the public. To help us ensure we
continue to do so, please complete the Customer Satisfaction Survey located at our website at
http://corpsmapu.usace.army.mil/cm_apex/f?p=136:4:0 to complete the survey online.
----- Original Message -----
From: Audrey Burnette [mailto:[e-mail]]
Sent: Friday, August 2, 2019 11:10 AM
To: Kichefski, Steven L CIV USARMY CESAW (US) <Steven. L. [e-mail]>
Cc: [e-mail]; Kelvington, Joe <[e-mail]>; [e-mail]; Tina Swiezy
<[e-mail]>; Brandon McInnis <[e-mail]>; Andrew Nottingham <[e-mail]>
Subject: [Non-DoD Source] U-4700A - Environmental Agency Request concerning Frye Creek Culvert
Please see attached letter.
Steven let me know if you need additional information.
Thank You
Audrey Burnette, PE, CFM
Project Manager, Water Resources
RK&K
900 Ridgefield Drive
Ste. 350
Raleigh, NC 2609
[phone] Direct 1 [phone] M
[phone] F
Blockedwww.rkk.com

< B I ocked https://www.face book. co m/rkke ngi nee rs? ref= b r — tf> <Blocked https://twitter.com/rkk — social>
<Blockedhttp://www.Iinkedin.com/company/rk&k-engineers-IIp?trk=prof-following-company-logo>
<Blockedhttp://www.youtube.com/c/Rkksocia1>
RESPONSIVE PEOPLE I CREATIVE SOLUTIONS
"RK&K" and "RK&K Engineers" are registered trade names of Rummel, Klepper & Kahl, LLP, a Maryland limited liability
partnership. This message contains confidential information intended only for the person or persons named above. If
you have received this message in error, please immediately notify the sender by return email and delete the message.
Thankyou.