Loading...
HomeMy WebLinkAboutNCDOT_89-13 Email CorrespondanceLane, Stephen From: Lane, Stephen Sent: Wednesday, February 18, 2015 11:13 AM To: Mathis, Stonewall D; Shaver, Brad E SAW (Brad.E.Shaver@usace.army.mil); Herndon, Mason Subject: RE: R-3601 Hi Stoney, After having reviewed the approved CAMA application and permit for this project, the Division of Coastal Management has anticipated that the area under the bridge will be shaded and excavated, which will eliminate any Coastal Wetland species currently growing there, and eventually convert the area under the bridge to a tidally flooded sand flat. The temporary excavation as proposed in the attached email thread results in a de minimis change and will not require a permit modification from our agency. Please let me know if I may be of further assistance with this project. Thanks, Stephen From: Mathis, Stonewall D Sent: Tuesday, February 17, 2015 10:01 AM To: Shaver, Brad E SAW (Brad. E.Shaver(dusace.armv.mil); Herndon, Mason; Lane, Stephen Cc: Mathis, Stonewall D Subject: R-3601 Hey Guys, We are working on the structure excavation that we met about on Feb. 11, 2015. One thing which is of an immediate need which appears that it would not impact wetlands as they are shown on the permit drawing (although they do appear as possibly wetland in the field) is the needed cut around interior bent 1 of Structure 107 (the southern bridge at Alligator Creek). Please see the attached screen shot of Permit Drawing 29 of 44 with the area circled in blue which would need to have an area excavated of approximately 10 feet wide by one foot deep by approximately 50 feet long on the current phase (northern part of Structure 107). This excavation is needed for cutting off the two cans and placing the preformed cap. A similar area/volume would need to be excavated on the next phase after the existing bridge is torn out for that other half of the bridge. Please. note that I went ahead and encircled the entire proposed bent on the drawing; please know that the phase 1 is the northern half of the bent. The first phase which is the northern half is at a point in the next few days of needing this excavation. The proposed excavation is below the high tide line. The cut would be graded toward the little slough that we saw last week in order to drain the hole during the timeframe of the cutting of the cans and placement of the cap. The excavated material would be placed on high ground above the high tide line for temporary storage. After cutting of the cans and placement of the cap, the previously excavated material would be placed and packed back around the cap to fill in the excess excavation of the hole to preconstruction contours as much as possible and any remaining excess material would be removed and properly disposed. The actual work would be done when the area is not inundated with water. Can we move forward with this work without a permit modification, permit reissuance, letter of refinement, and/or the like since this is not in a wetland per the permit drawing? Does the fact that this is below the high tide line affect this call? Please advise as to whether we can move forward with the above described under our current permit situation. Thank you, Stoney 60 EMP. WORK BRIDGE 1.�* —1r r e' d fl =mob or ---------�-�-- •-s♦ I RATER ELEV11.))' 4/22/09 9455 AM HGH WATER ELEV. I.T9• & A r) A / - \kr_fi,*4 z % % %b -. `rw / - if I I OTEMPORAR) 4N - WETU _ HAND CLEARR FILL IIr'O(ETLAND HOULDER BERM ND OF BRIDGE T III ` IN WETL w Lane, Stephen From: Shaver, Brad E SAW <Brad.E.Shaver@usace.army.mil> Sent: Tuesday, December 30, 2014 8:50 AM To: Herndon, Mason; Rivenbark, Chris; Hawk, Eric; Lane, Stephen Cc: Sollod, Steve; James, Amy E; Mathis, Stonewall D; Westphal, Anneliese; Wilson, Travis W. Subject: RE: Brunswick River, NC R-3601 Bent 1 in -water work request (UNCLASSIFIED) Classification: UNCLASSIFIED Caveats: NONE Chris, The Corps concurs with the request for additional work along the banks of the Brunswick River as described in your 12/19/2014 email request. Considering the coordination with both State and Federal Resource agencies, with no objections, the project remains consistent with specific condition 6 of the verified nationwide 23. The work is limited to the scope and timeframes reported in your original request. Thanks, Brad -----Original Message ----- From: Herndon, Mason[mailto:mason.herndon@ncdenr.gov] Sent: Monday, December 22, 2014 8:10 AM To: Rivenbark, Chris; Hawk, Eric; Lane, Stephen Cc: Shaver, Brad E SAW; Sollod, Steve; James, Amy E; Mathis, Stonewall D; Westphal, Anneliese; Wilson, Travis W. Subject: [EXTERNAL] RE: Brunswick River, NC R-3601 Bent 1 in -water work request Chris, Based on the NMFS comments below, consultation with Travis Wilson (NCWRC) via phone on Friday and our field observations of the issues and site conditions on Thursday 12/18/14, DWR has no objection to the contractors proposal to install two permanent casings for the R-3601 project at Bent 1 near the shoreline of the Brunswick River during the in - water work moratorium period. However, the casings must be installed in accordance with the proposal and methodology described below in this e-mail thread and completed by early February 2015. Thanks! MH Mason Herndon NCDENR, Division of Water Resources Transportation Permitting Unit Fayetteville/Wilmington Region mason.herndon@ncdenr.gov Phone: (910) 308-4021 E-mail correspondence to and from this address may be subject to the North Carolina Public Records Law and may be disclosed to third parties. From: Rivenbark, Chris Sent: Friday, December 19, 2014 2:13 PM To: Eric Hawk- NOAA Federal; Lane, Stephen Cc: Herndon, Mason; Shaver, Brad E SAW (Brad.E.Shaver@usace.army.mil); Sollod, Steve; James, Amy E; Mathis, Stonewall D; Westphal, Anneliese Subject: RE: Brunswick River, NC R-3601 Bent 1 in -water work request Eric, Thank you for the timely response. We appreciate your assistance. Chris Rivenbark NCDOT-Natural Environment Section (919)707-6152 From: Eric Hawk - NOAA Federal [mailto:eric.hawk@noaa.gov] Sent: Friday, December 19, 2014 2:11 PM To: Lane, Stephen Cc: Rivenbark, Chris; Herndon, Mason; Shaver, Brad E SAW (Brad.E.Shaver@usace.army.mi1); Sollod, Steve; James, Amy E; Mathis, Stonewall D; Westphal, Anneliese Subject: Re: Brunswick River, NC R-3601 Bent 1 in -water work request Hi all, I will go on record as saying that NMFS has no concerns either; no need to reinitiate ESA consultation on this; the proposed minor work, as described, would not change the basis of our previous NLAA (not likely to adveresely affect) conclusion. Thanks for the opportunity to comment. Eric Hawk On Fri, Dec 19, 2014 at 12:06 PM, Lane, Stephen <stephen.lane@ncdenr.gov> wrote: Hi Chris, After careful consideration of the issues on this project and internal discussion amongst NCDCM staff, NCDCM does not object to the proposal and methodology, as described in the attached email thread below, to install two permanent casings for the R-3601 project within the Brunswick River during the in -water work moratorium period. Please let me know if I may be of any additional assistance with this project. Sincerely, Stephen Lane Coastal Management Representative From: Herndon, Mason Sent: Friday, December 19, 2014 8:47 AM To: Rivenbark, Chris; Eric Hawk - NOAA Federal (eric.hawk@noaa.gov) Cc: Shaver, Brad E SAW (Brad.E.Shaver@usace.army.mil); Lane, Stephen; Sollod, Steve; James, Amy E; Mathis, Stonewall D; Westphal, Anneliese Subject: RE: Brunswick River, NC R-3601 Bent 1 in -water work request Chris and Eric, Actually when we looked at this site yesterday there was mud flat between the casing and the water's edge at low tide. The water in the picture is where the contractor attempted to install the casing and it created a sinkhole that holds water. We realize that the window of opportunity to vibrate the casing in during low tide is short so the contractor has agreed to push in a larger casing around the permanent casing to serve as a barrier when vibrating in the permanent casing. Per the contractor, it should only take a hour to vibrate the permanent casing in and there should be little resistance since they are going to pre -auger through whatever obstruction it is that they are hitting. Of course, there is or will be a turbidity curtain in deeper water running parallel to the shoreline when the work is being done. Best case scenario they get the casing completely installed while there is no water in the work area. Worst case scenario there would be — 4 inches of water over the mudflat and around the temporary casing before the installation is complete. There are two casing along this shoreline that will need to be installed in this manner. I'll be in the field today so if either of you have any questions please feel free to give me a call. I will be back in the office on Monday. Thanks! Mason Mason Herndon NCDENR, Division of Water Resources Transportation Permitting Unit Fayetteville/Wilmington Region mason.herndon@ncdenr.gov Phone: (910) 308-4021 <tel:%28910%29%20308-4021> E-mail correspondence to and from this address may be subject to the North Carolina Public Records Law and may be disclosed to third parties. From: Rivenbark, Chris Sent: Friday, December 19, 2014 8:32 AM To: Eric Hawk- NOAA Federal (eric.hawk@noaa.gov) Cc: Shaver, Brad E SAW (Brad.E.Shaver@usace.army.mil); Herndon, Mason; Lane, Stephen; Sollod, Steve; James, Amy E; Mathis, Stonewall D Subject: Brunswick River, NC R-3601 Bent 1 in -water work request Eric, It was good speaking with you this morning. To follow up on our conversation, due to casing installs taking longer than expected, the contractor has asked for a variance to allow limited in -water work to install (via drill rig) one to two casings during the moratorium. As I understand, the area is 6-8 inches deep at low tide. They feel that the work can be performed with two, two hours durations and at this point they would complete this before Feb.15. I'm cc'ing our regulatory agencies as they are aware of this request and ask them to add anything that I may have left out. Thank you for considering this request and please let me know if you need any additional information. Chris Rivenbark I Eastern Regional Manager I Environmental Coordination & Permitting Group Natural Environment Section I PDEA I N.C. Department of Transportation (919) 707-6152 <tel:%28919%29%20707-6152> office 1 (919) 212-5785 <tel:%28919%29%20212-5785> fax crivenbark@ncdot.gov Email correspondence to and from this sender is subject to the N.C. Public Records Law and may be disclosed to third parties. Eric G. Hawk NMFS Southeast Region ESA Regional Section 7 Coordinator/PCTS Regional Manager Ofc (727) 551-5773 Fax (727) 824-5309 "How inappropriate to call this planet'Earth' when it is quite clearly'Ocean'." Arthur C. Clarke Classification: UNCLASSIFIED Caveats: NONE Lane, Stephen From: .-... Herndon, Mason -- --- - Sent: Friday, August 29, 2014 3:01 PM To: James, Amy E Cc: Rivenbark, Chris; brad.e.shaver@usace.army.mil; Lane, Stephen; Sollod, Steve Subject: RE: R-3601 roadway plan sheet changes Amy, I met with the Hydraulic Engineer with Stantec yesterday during our site visit and we went over the redline drawings and I'm good with the revised plans that eliminate the drop boxes at Bridge 108. 1 was confusing percent slope with ratios, so stormwater will runoff the shoulder prior to reaching the bridge. Therefore -the deck drains will only discharge rainfall that directly falls onto the bridge which was the original commitment. Sorry for all the work I put you through. Have a great Labor Day weekend! ItLAI:I Mason Herndon NCDENR, Division of Water Resources Transportation Permitting Unit Fayetteville/Wilmington Region mason. herndon@ncdenr.eov Phone: (910) 308-4021 E-mail correspondence to and from this address may be subject to the North Carolina Public Records Law and may be disclosed to third parties. From: James, Amy E Sent: Thursday, August 28, 2014 8:38 AM To: Herndon, Mason Cc: Rivenbark, Chris; brad.e.shaver@usace.army.mil; Lane, Stephen; Sollod, Steve Subject: RE: R-3601 roadway plan sheet changes See attached drawings —hopefully these will give you more insight. From: Herndon, Mason Sent: Wednesday, August 27, 2014 1:00 PM To: James, Amy E Cc: Rivenbark, Chris; brad.e.shaver@usace.army.mil; Lane, Stephen; Sollod, Steve Subject: RE: R-3601 roadway plan sheet changes Amy, Redline drawings would be helpful. Thanks! MH Mason Herndon NCDENR, Division of Water Resources _- Transportation Permitting Unit Fayetteville/Wilmington Region mason.herndon@ncdenr.gov Phone: (910) 308-4021 E-mail correspondence to and from this address maybe subject to the North Carolina Public Records Law and may be disclosed to third parties. From: James, Amy E Sent: Wednesday, August 27, 2014 12:08 PM To: Herndon, Mason Cc: Rivenbark, Chris; brad.e.shaver(cbusace.army.mil; Lane, Stephen; Sollod, Steve Subject: RE: R-3601 roadway plan sheet changes Mason, Here is what I got from the design -build team —basically, the numbers you reference on the cross sections have to be converted to a percentage, so the raw numbers are misleading: See permit drawing 30 and 31 of 44 for the roadway profile -LLT- and notes below: • There is additional vertical PI (grade break) at sta 108+05 with 0.0%slope. This means zero slope toward the bridge beginning at sto 108+05. Therefore drainage will flow perpendicular to the centerline toward the grass shoulder due to the 2.5 % cross slope. The cross slope is 2.5 % not 0.25%. The .025 is ff/ft. • There is additional vertical PI ( grade break) at sta 111+25, bridge is sloping away from river at 0.037 %, with a low point at sta 112+00. Other direction slopes 0.9091 % to the low point. Therefore drainage will flow off of bridge to the sag. The cross slope is 2.5 % not 0.25%. The .025 is ff/ff. Therefore the crown slope is greater than the roadway slope and drainage will flow toward grass shoulder. If this is still confusing, their design folks can redline the drawings for more clarification, just let me know if you would prefer that. Thanks, From: Herndon, Mason Sent: Tuesday, August 26, 2014 1:51 PM To: James, Amy E Cc: Rivenbark, Chris; brad.e.shaver(cbusace.army.mil; Lane, Stephen; Sollod, Steve Subject: RE: R-3601 roadway plan sheet changes Amy, The cross sections on Permit Drawings 32 of 34 show the crown of the roadway at 0.025% and the profile view on permit drawing 31 of 34 show a grade break at -LLT-114+25 sloping down to the bridge at a 0.9091% slope to the end of the bridge at -LLT- 111+83.31. Since the slope is greater on the roadway approach to the bridge in comparison to the roadway crown and shoulders, wouldn't additional runoff go to the bridge rather than off the shoulder? The scenario is similar on the other side of the bridge between Sta. 106+35 to 108+96.43. Would inlets intercept some of this flow before reaching the deck drains? I'm just trying to make sure that runoff to the deck drains is minimized as much as possible. Now that I've looked at the profile at this crossing more closely, I have a better understanding of the obstacles that have to be overcome in managing the stormwater. [just want to make sure that DOT is doing everything possible to minimize discharge through the deck drains. MH Mason Herndon NCDENR, Division of Water Resources Transportation Permitting Unit Fayetteville/WilmingtortRegion mason.herndon@ncdenr.Rov Phone: (910) 309-4021 E-mail correspondence to and from this address maybe subject to the North Carolina Public Records Law and may be disclosed to third parties. From: James, Amy E Sent: Tuesday, August 26, 2014 11:39 AM To: Herndon, Mason Cc: Rivenbark, Chris; brad.e.shaver(Ousace.army.mil; Lane, Stephen; Sollod, Steve Subject: RE: R-3601 roadway plan sheet changes Mason, I talked with the design -build team about your concerns and I was basically told that what they said on June 18 was in error —the inlets proposed on either side of the bridge were never designed to drain the road; the road run-off is being directed to the grassed shoulder: Inlets at the ends of the bridge were in the original design because the bridge deck had no drains and runoff concentrated at the ends of the bridge would cause erosion to the shoulder; therefore, inlets were required to intercept the flow. The bridge slopes away from the river with a low point about 50' past the bridge end. With deck drains on the bridge, there is no longer runoff at the end of the bridge, so no inlets are required. The roadway cross slope directs the runoff to the grass shoulder where it will drain as sheet flow and will never reach the bridge. If you need more explanation, please let me know. Amy From: Herndon, Mason Sent: Monday, August 25, 2014 9:40 AM To: James, Amy E; brad.e.shaver(ftsace.army.mil; Lane, Stephen; Sollod, Steve Cc: Rivenbark, Chris Subject: RE: R-3601 roadway plan sheet changes Importance: High Amy, this revision conflicts with Item 1 on your response to me on June 18, 2014 which reads as follows: 1) Are you capturing and discharging stormwater water from the roadway prior to it reaching the bridge and discharging through the deck drains?: Inlets are proposed on the roadway just off each end of the bridge to capture stormwater before it reaches the bridge. Only bridge deck water would be discharged through deck drains. o- X i i 7 �, Z}.9F' tziG43 SS6..dYr M AtltlP q 44+dEQ (,y-$(r'JS`X 2h'ii`=4#}IYE r"k eKilMi!°YM1%a�i G4�lU2E'nF%%#LT' #44 N5 Mu Fqu "" i#ae enrsn au. � ix.. i.15 »fir 34.YX. ie. tli RN, 1 C, ♦ry °fix.x.� ii\�r�aV This revision is not acceptable to DWR since it directly conflicts with a our discussion with NCDOT about the need to add deck drains on the south side of Bridge 108 and what measures would be implemented to reduce discharge from the bridge deck drains. If we need to discuss this further, please feel free to contact me. MH Mason Herndon NCDENR, Division of Water Resources Transportation Permitting Unit Fayetteville/Wilmington Region mason.herndon Cod ncdenr.eov Phone: (910) 308-4021 E-mail correspondence to and from this address may be subject to the North Carolina Public Records Law and may be disclosed to third parties. From: James, Amy E Sent: Friday, August 22, 2014 1:43 PM To: brad.e.shaver(cbusace.armv.mil; Herndon, Mason; Lane, Stephen; Sollod, Steve Cc: Rivenbark, Chris Subject: R-3601 roadway plan sheet changes Hello all, Please find attached revised roadway plan sheets 9 and 10 for R-3601. These sheets have been updated to reflect the removal of drainage structures at the approaches of bridge 108 over Alligator Creek, which are no longer necessary due to the addition of deck drains over the bridge. This design update does not result in a change of grading or impacts to waters of the U.S. I will also update the permit application where the roadway plans reside (May 21, 2014) on the DOT website @ https://connect.ncdot.gov/resources/Environmental/Pages/default aspx. Have a good weekend! Amy Amy James Biologist, Project Management NCDOT, Natural Environment Section Direct919.707-6129 ae!ames@ncdot.gov DETAIL 9A sPFOACUT WE DITCH I wetmy PROJECT REFERENCE NO. R-360! 6HEEf NO. 9 ��ryry��II RW SHEET Stantec RO mGwmDESIGN NO. ENND6 -LRT- P1 Sta 101+4822 PIS Sto 106+78.06 Mn O- 1FI B- 2 H. RTwwtn COrpmtion Bbnbc CwuultlnB servbn5lnc 6T J. Franlmn ft O THIS DOCUMENT THIS DOCUMENT = 657'S33'lLTJ Os= O'45'033' -uLr_6Tw lob+a>ro su nD+oo nn slw9 soo ORIGINutr OxI�INALLr D = 0.45'033• Ls = 200.W ON RR@IRD.NO27808 SIGNED AND SIGNED AND L = 927.49' LT = 13333' F .Eel9)851- Es SEATED BY F. LB1sl61.Tve4 sEAIElO ITr T = 46432' ST = 66E7' (+� �� D026Ns» RIEN BON R = 7.630,00' L ®I� x wBn iii 1276DOR SE = 0A25 NNE 27,2014 JUNE 27,2014 - OS = 60 MPH RI Q ti Q g� RELEASE FOR CONSTRUCTION Date: June 27,201 x AT APPROIDMVE 6 ME%IMIJM STAGING _•-'#_- \�`. O kr^ _ O TWP'�.e SEE EEOSE_mwINGs XCNMLOGTION3lkOM `n -•.: ____. y-_ --_ __ ._,JT y.y „�.--aR-..j"-,..f - .-_P �. :a '�+-... -_ __ 3„�_ NORTHWEST S _+t _fSR ----_t' f -- } *- TOWNCHEER TWP 09+20 TO IOW+5D Ri -1Li-1+68 TO 10+98 Ri, z 109 -0T-110+16 TO 110+46 Ri, } z -0-,1107" TO T10+94 IT, S s.,.x A TO 11+42 R,} 46LLTT--�11111++6120 O 00 BiEG, Ili N BRCGID� NO[ 08 r � 323AE`rRMSM-roN LTSTA/08+96.43W rC W` yw t _II L LU -F GEAl 350.. W W _ _ - a _..... ,--- :. - _._...-..- ....... - W N to r, 9s n s) us 74 w) us )s w 7 we ,v s vavAmE mr- — T— G �' EXIST. RF/OGE TO B£ WIDENED w .� W b i F F _ ______ __ F F F FFF3'SRCLLL r--- F 1 -OFF '- Zj l M B15E OITC� TO STA110+00 LT i"\ SEE OETNL 9A SHOULDER P . GURFA -LO-106+H LTro BWOGE. SEE NOTE 1. 56i \ -1 pY !NC CL IIRP RAP TO SHOULDER R. Z , CL 8 RIF PAP t Z.�9 ' 505' i+37 LBG t ". "ry E,&�OUIOER I LLT-, .IR+833I Q I� s ti NP w1. .... OUD_ET PROlECT10NN o--olEcn c N C UDET 9 �i - - J - F F ------ i3 ti Ti 090 ••f '.. N C'r E ,JA1.79 ` _L LE-1 a _ I J _ BO _ _ F F - _ .L _ F T G-�� __ F ___ 'C i D� u '. --.J \ FNDSHOUUXA OF BHDfiE TO END OF MI LT -gym I .._. SOUP.STRANsITMN ! GRAU 350 Tl'.i n b 09 F'T011E 0.n �. SEE NOIEF. 90 J Lu Z -- _ 1576 V / M /J3 5 i VA9/�E gii jV••: a r N _ _ .� ,- 1v-Sr .:.. A - �1 Lu ` �. _ Z : b to J - LII PWP D ] t C [� a ^7. F � . LG J.L.. --•Y- y."-�v'yti'n r'ay' -"-1ri f F t ,.� F- F 8as7 - z y ^ F y-GR�',�5f1 TWA _-TB 3GI W �--- �- i MEB-71% - - 3 FG TF- V p _'_- F ry ...,� F _ w•' _ J fr`v� r CL 4+JP�I F C _ wYl£ _ 0 RO'(1Nf TMER Cl/Ts/ 4 OE RGH Y ING `� j RN�j 1 4 4 i ( SHOULDER BEAM GUTTER ....: 1 ( R, 'END Of [JUDGE TO -INF 6 RT Ill+ [JUDGE[JUDGEPROACN y t=s•'j~"'-` �,; ...'`"'1t. 'i _ ,4 '� .� ,��../. � � �'" / v y M t T `�`..-.7 BEGIN BRIDGE NO.107 I.' `t END I4SLAB. w _ JA4E rRAxsYroW �,,-, .• x -LRT STA.709+68.50 \ I _"" 1 RT= STA:I/2+77.69 —LRT—S S/O. 106+1139 4_ / r APPRA"S D }NO.107}GIN } .. . LRT ST H2+53S0 7- 57 Sfo. _ ,.,t 'y � —� _-_-- 1 108+1/39 --- � `�"— •_ f .�'Y�I� ✓ - SUITER � ARl-1W+31 P TO BRIDGE 1 } k i / z v' Y� CietE F�RlS AUI±Ox iTl ,(� / O __ 20a FC 273 \F. } 7 SLABS OTE ON"� SIDEE OGO F . DUNNG PHASEE 0 CO n MON REFERENCE: SIWIM coMRETwE BAM OF CURB NAGE FROM ONSSTWCTION 107 TO D JU G FRULNGE TO LL FOR —LLT— & —LRT— PROFILE VIEW, SEE SHEETS /9-20 RA NG F" ER"' FOR —LLT— & —LRT— BRIDGE SKETCH SEE SHEET 2—H