The URL can be used to link to this page

Home My WebLink About20200445 Ver 1_RE_ Bridge to Culvert Replacement TIP BR-0035_ WBS 67035_1_1_20200417Carpenter, Kristi From: Dilday, Jason L Sent: Thursday, April 16, 2020 10:34 AM To: Norton, April R Cc: Rivenbark, Chris; james.c.lastinger@usace.army.mil; Carpenter,Kristi Subject: RE: Bridge to Culvert Replacement TIP BR-0035, WBS 67035.1.1 Follow Up Flag: Follow up Flag Status: Flagged April, I received the following justification for a culvert being used as a replacement for Bridge 24: -Existing bridge is significantly undersized and with minimal cover -Existing bridge has concrete vertical abutments and basically functions as a culvert -Existing bridge is 19ft with a bridge opening of 103 sgft. -Road regularly overtops and is a traffic safety issue. -With the culvert the road grade will be raised 3.5 ft above existing. If replaced with bridge, grade would need to be raised and additional 3 feet. This would increase the roadway footprint and increase wetland impacts. -Additional roadway height would impact driveway accesses. Let me know if you need anything else. Jason From: Norton, April R <april.norton@ncdenr.gov> Sent: Wednesday, April 15, 2020 8:39 AM To: Dilday, Jason L <jldilday@ncdot.gov> Cc: Rivenbark, Chris <crivenbark@ncdot.gov>; james.c.lastinger@usace.army.mil; Carpenter, Kristi <kristilynn.carpenter@ncdenr.gov> Subject: RE: Bridge to Culvert Replacement TIP BR-0035, WBS 67035.1.1 Hi Jason. The Stormwater Management Plan classified Nicks Creek as WS-III and listed the supplemental classification as HQW. However, I checked DWR's internal classification system and it does not seem to appear as HQW. Thank you for requesting an explanation from Hydraulics. I'll wait for their response. Thanks, April From: Dilday, Jason L <Ildilday@ncdot.gov> Sent: Wednesday, April 15, 2020 7:37 AM To: Norton, April R <april.norton@ncdenr.gov> Cc: Rivenbark, Chris <crivenbark@ncdot.gov>; iames.c.lastinger@usace.army.mil; Carpenter, Kristi <kristilynn.carpenter@ncdenr.gov> Subject: RE: Bridge to Culvert Replacement TIP BR-0035, WBS 67035.1.1 April, I am waiting on a response from Hydraulics to this. I know there was some discussion as to what type of structure and I know some of the thinking, but I want to make sure I speak completely and correctly on the subject. I checked back on the stream classification and saw that it is WS-III, but I see no indication that it is HQW. Jason From: Norton, April R <april.norton@ncdenr.gov> Sent: Monday, April 13, 2020 12:13 PM To: Dilday, Jason L <]Idilday@ncdot.gov> Cc: Rivenbark, Chris <crivenbark@ncdot.gov>; iames.c.lastinger@usace.army.mil; Carpenter, Kristi <kristilynn.carpenter@ncdenr.gov> Subject: Bridge to Culvert Replacement TIP BR-0035, WBS 67035.1.1 Hi Jason. I have reviewed the subject project. The project application states that the proposed bridge to culvert replacement is located in WS-III, HQW. Could you please provide an explanation detailing why the current bridge will be replaced with a triple barrel culvert? Thanks, April April R. Norton Transportation Permitting Branch NC Department of Environmental Quality Division of Water Resources 919-707-9111 office 919-710-6516 mobile april.norton@ncdenr.gov 512 North Salisbury Street, 12th Floor (physical) 1617 Mail Service Center (mailing) Raleigh, NC 27699-1617 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.