20200485 Ver 1_REVISED PLAN -culvert_20200519

Strickland, Bev
From: Megan Shelton <[e-mail]>
Sent: Tuesday, May 19, 2020 8:59 AM
To: Johnson, Alan
Cc: David. L.Shaeffer ([e-mail])
Subject: Re: [External] Re: Milton Road DWR 20-0485 SAW ID 19-02005
Attachments: Revised Culvert (5.18.20).pdf
• External email. Do not click links or open attachments unless you verify. Send all suspicious email as an attachment to
[e-mail]
Hi Alan,
The reason that the original plans showed only a road crossing is because that was prior to the city's review.
They are now requiring the client to add additional parking, which is why the lot is now there. To address your
headwall concerns, they have raised the headwall heights for both the upstream and downstream sides, which
allowed them to shorten the box culvert. Shortening the culvert has now taken their impact to this stream from
250 1f down to approximately 167 If. I have attached the revised plans showing the new culvert.
Thanks,
Megan Bollero
On Mon, May 11, 2020 at 11:34 AM Johnson, Alan <alanJohnsonkncdenr.gov> wrote:
They had a design (it appeared) where the stream only went under the road. Why was/is that
design not feasible? Building a larger building isn't necessarily an appropriate answer.
What about increasing the headwall height and steeper side slopes. The upstream side is 7 ft.
and the downstream side isn't much higher. Headwalls aren't unusual to be 10 ft for many
road crossing. Pretty typical to avoid and minimize stream impacts. Thanks Alan
1

PROP Er*4EX-EPEDE.
-��
From: Megan Shelton [mai|to
Sent: Monday, May 11,ZUZU1U:16AM
To: Johnson, Alan
Cc: David. LShaeffer
Subject: [External] Re: Milton Road DWR 20-0485 SAW ID 19-02005
External email. Do not click links or open attachments unless you verify. Send all suspicious email as an attachment to
U. lhave attached the otnrnnvoterplans below
N

2). I have attached the revised overview plan so that it matches the S 1 and S2 impacts. To address your
question about the stream relocation, there is an existing sewer line where you have drawn in the relocated
stream and headwall, so that would not be a viable option for them since they cannot impact it.
Let me know if you have any other questions.
Thanks,
Megan Bollero
On Mon, May 4, 2020 at 12:24 PM Johnson, Alan <alan.johnson o,ncdenr.gov> wrote:
1) Where is the stormwater diagram. Outfalls, BMPS.
2) The overall site plan doesn't match with the impact for SI/S2. The above is more
appropriate with proper headwalls to minimize the impact. The second illustration is the
impact sheet and it shows the parking lot on top of the stream. If that is the proposed impact,
why can't the stream be relocated (as drawn in). I would go with the first illustration! I think
this approximates the JD. Orange is intermittent. Thanks, Alan

DWR
DFvIAllon of WAter Resourcen.
Alan D Johnson — Senior Environmental Specialist
NC Dept. of Environment & Natural Resources (NCDENR)

Division of Water Resources - Water Quality Regional Operations
610 East Center Ave., Suite 301, Mooresville, NC 28115
Phone: [phone] Fax: [phone]
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 unless the content is exempt by statute or other regulation.
Megan Bollero, WPIT
Project Scientist
Carolina Wetland Services Inc. [google.coml
550 E Westinghouse Boulevard [google.coml
Charlotte, NC 28273 [google.com]
Cell: (757)-576-6433
www.cws.net [cwsnet]
Megan Bollero, WPIT
Project Scientist
Carolina Wetland Services Inc. [google.coml
550 E Westinghouse Boulevard [google.coml
Charlotte, NC 28273 [google.coml
Cell: (757)-576-6433
www.cws.net [cwsnet]

F"P" Vnw 1.
See aF80 b,
pwpoeedmpetla -
(51 entl S2j -
� i

:�
ar i � /��.
€;; �� \�
i �F �
��� � c=m �

DWR
DM on of Wmer Resources

uimp Z —J CO
o
r - S = Z i o m E as a
_O
g _ _ _ _
�V ���.FP`..`" h ��i Nlllll\ Q O 1 a
maa MH
I �
I �
I �
I
' � I
I
I i
I �
I �
I i
\
F
11
\
\
—/--<///®--
\ —J
a
sr� �
i
A i