U-3101 C10

U-3101C/D Construction issue
Subject U ?,,._ onstruction issue
From: Chris Murray <cmurray @dot. state.nc.us>
Date: Fri, 24 Jun 2005 10:25:31 -0400
To: Christina Breen <[e-mail]>
CC: "Alsmeyer, Eric C SAW" <[e-mail]>, Donald Pearson
<DRPearson @dot. state.nc.us>, Steve Mallory <smallory @dot. state.nc.us>, Bob Shultes
<bshultes @dot. state.nc.us>, "Robert C. Capehart" <[e-mail]>, "William A. Barrett"
<wabarrett @ dot.state.nc.us>
Christina,
The Department is currently widening US 1/64 in Cary
(U-3101C/D). We wanted to inform you of several construction
issues that have recently become apparent in the last week or
so. I have summarized the issues below (drawings depicting these
issues are attached to this email):
Issue 1
Plan Sheet 4 (10+38-L-)
The department proposes to add an additional 2GI at 10+38-L- to
replace the previously located structure at 10+25-L-. This
drainage system is not connected to any stream, buffer, or
wetland. Additionally, there is no permit drawing for this site
(it is located in an upland portion of the project). No permit
modification would be required for this revision.
Issue 2
Plan Sheet 16 (60+50-SBL-)
The Department proposes to add an additional 2GI to provide an
outlet for shoulder drains. The system eventually outfalls into
a rip rap pad. No new additional runoff is entering this
system. This section of the project where the 2GI is proposed to
be added is not depicted on any permit drawing. No permit
modification would be required for this construction revision.
Issue 3
Permit Drawing 18 of 21 (dated 6/11/04)
Station 12+10-RPBWS-
The Department proposes to shorten a 375 mm structure by 9.7 m
and construct a headwall at the outlet of the structure. A
portion of this pipe would have been exposed, resulting in
increased probability of washout. This revision will prevent
scour at the end of the pipe and eliminate any long-term
maintenance issues. The revision proposed here does not result
in any impacts to streams, buffers or wetlands. Additionally, no
new additional runoff will be entering the drainage system. No
permit modification would be required for this revision.
The Division wanted to inform you of these proposed changes to
construction on this project. It does not appear that a permit
modification is required for any of the issues outlined in this
email. Please let me know if you concur with my assessment of
the permit issues outlined in this email.
Thank you in advance for your assistance.
Chris Murray
1 of 3 6/27/2005 9:24 AM
U-3101C/D Construction issue

S!?
r ? - -
a
E
{rte
1 y i
`?

y

F
t Jr
/' ><

0
-CDT Dlvlqtolj OF HIGHWAYS
WAKE COUNTY
pkbSF?`7?.=,.ttt+Si61 YS,?-3Il?sti
"t;5 1164 V)kOM UN 1/ bl l SR IOW -
?} 77yy?,? j}j t'TRY0,1; RDJ INT£RCHA",a : 'E'C1
S.U-TEI OF 1-40 IN r.iRY
?c flt.
liti
>'ri
2 of 3 6/27/2005 9:24 AM
U-3101C/D Construction issue

BES_ i4 nr? -; ? a€??at
- f
zf- -1 da
=?:?, ? - -ter
r

3 of 3 61271200S 9.124 AIUII
mailbox:///C l/Documents%2Oand%2OSettings/Rob_Ridings/Applicat...
Subject: Re: U-3? ,,10/D (Buffer Permit Drawing 9 of 19)
From: Rob Ridings <[e-mail]>
Date: Tue, 10 Oct 2006 10:11:06 -0400
To: Chris Murray <[e-mail]>
Chris,
This seems fine with me. Not a major deal. Just show that in as-builds, of course, and I'll add this note to the file. If there's time Thursday, maybe we'll take a look at it after
everything else.
Thanks,
-rob
Chris Murray wrote
Rob,
The Department is continuing to construct the widening of US 1/64 in Cary. One drainage issue has come up that needs prompt attention. This drainage issue is
associated with the hydraulic design at Buffer Site 2 (Buffer Permit Drawing 9 of 19).
Issue:
Water is standing in the roadway at Station 28+58 Lt due to planned profile grade line being flatter than the super elevation at that location. The Department proposes to
add a drainage structure at this location in order to drain the roadway.
Permit Analysis:
All runoff in this area was originally proposed to enter the drainage structure near Station 28+25 Lt. We are only proposing to add the additional drainage structure to
drain the roadway near 28+58 Lt. There is no increase in the volume of water entering the rock-lined ditch that has been permitted and constructed. The only change now
under this proposal, is that some of the water would would enter the ditch at 28+58 Lt.
This revision will not result in additional impacts to wetlands, streams or riparian buffers. It also does not affect the required treatment of stormwater runoff at the project.
We are only proposing to add an additional drainage structure to allow the roadway to adequately drain.
Please let me know if you agree with my assessment of the issue addressed in this email.
Chris Murray
I NCDOT Division 5 Environmental Supervisor

- J iQ_
t YRI MQ
IIMpMA DOW
BMNR /
Glrp
'G s %'* ?wq,nS 2C-_L
c - n?^o
J•9b6 ? wq / ?SN.itAa?t.. ?I?V GtU?C
.
M r.
?
' ?r /?r
N? RP IfrtrEJt /
we p
w t. PI ! C
evd?e? rNU r?d4
"w'y'
5a
EO OY
i
? 31 . /O
Mrr> Ae
w,
'S
, .
s I1y) ? q ? i1lY
y
la?A'1 `?
iSOIC7Y Set Otl01?'r' k
? '
?
TORN of
IMO AYrW MtE
;c,
\

Xu csr n :' .tt J ?'y1°
rotor SU/tl :, Sy.Y ?.
Sta wores ! .' y
o
pia rr.
ill
J
` }
f 600
Iola ? L . r tS?

_--------------
C
---------------
r•
a.
3.
_.______________...

i

ny
~
- -

?
21
- - --- - - - - - - --
?
AS O 1r?MS Mac V-71

Ho C K
'}
LV
f
?.. Eat &W VA y t r.
? w
d s emaw as u? ..s ..
r?wf-
??,, ?? ` t4r..yl4 P dtlo mr•,u.mr.. ,f 20 I
tSQi.rlla;,b- .•? - - - a ?,z-. ,..s4...A'??ias'?a..o.3d?31?i-?"? . ?:P...Aa,? r_... ... _ .. .._
1 of 1 10/1012On<-dr