HomeMy WebLinkAbout20100063 Ver 1_Staff Comments_20130516Strickland Bev
From: Lucas, Annette
Sent Thunsdoy, May 16.2O13 1:32 PM
To: Stephanie Norris; 'Debbie Edwards'
Cc: 'Scott Honnmerbooher'; Strickland, Bev
Subject: RE: 10-0083 Franklin County HUB-Level Spreader Issue
I will accept Stephanie's proposal and supporting information as meeting the diffuse flow requirements of the Neuse
Buffer Rule. Please submit one copy of a transmittal letter formally requesting a modification to the approved diffuse
flow plan. You may submit one hard copy here if you wish or otherwise I will accept an emailed pdf file. The plan
sheets attached to your previous submittal provide the technical justification that is needed.
I will write a formal approval letter for your revised diffuse flow plan.
Please let me know if you have any questions.
From: Stephanie Norris [maiKo:steohanie@soauldingnorhscon]
Sent: Thursday, May 16, 2013 12:07 PM
To: Lucas, Annette; 'Debbie Edwards'
Cm: 'ScottHammerbacher'
Subject: RE: Franklin County HUB-Level Spreader Issue
ETITIT—WI
My resources to prove the current conditions and create an alternative solution to Level Spreader 10 are limited. In
addition, I do not want to assume responsibility for the Hobbs Upchurch design for liability reasons. My contract with
Franklin County is limited to contract management and construction inspection and testing, which does not include
engineering design. This said, | am attempting to provide as much data as possible with field verification to reach a
resolution tothe issue at hand. | hope that you find the information | am providing sufficiently meets your
expectations. I am also happy to meet you on-site, if that will help.
Since | do not have access to survey data for the road or the adjacent lot that reflects the current site conditions, | have
sketched the existing conditions on a PDF of the area prepared by Franklin County using the Hobbs Upchurch
construction drawings, 2013 aerial imagery, and my site inspection of the area. The attached PDF illustrates direction of
flow for both the roadway ditches and roadway cross-sections (arrows in red). Cross-Section Sheets X-2 through X-5
(attached) confirm the road is designed to be in super-elevation to the left side from Culvert 1 to approximately Culvert
2, which is how the site is graded.
Although the topo in the attached PDF illustrates that the drainage area to the right side roadway ditch includes a
substantial area of the field between the USGD building and the roadway project, the May 14, 2013, photos (provided
previously) illustrates this may not be the case. It is my opinion that the topo in the PDF reflects existing conditions prior
to the construction of the USGD building. The field was likely graded during the building and parking area construction
and now sheet flows more toward the stream buffer than to the roadway project. However to be conservative (and
without the benefit offield survey), | assumed that approximately 2 acres drains tothe right side roadway ditch at
Culvert 2. Since the road is in super-elevation away from the right side roadway ditch, the majority of the flow through
the ditch is from grassed or natural areas, not impervious areas.
#f the permit and can be eliminated. Once we have your feedback on • • n, I will work with Debbie •
provide additional information be needed for the permit modification. you • your • •- •
,#if this information. - know if you
Stephanie Iv. Norris, P, ---
r 1; 1 t t a ,
From: Lucas, Annette [ mailto :annette.lucas @ncdenr.gov]
Sent: Wednesday, May 15, 2013 1:52 PM
To: Stephanie Norris; 'Debbie Edwards'
Cc: 'Scott Hammerbacher'
Subject: RE: Franklin County HUB -Level Spreader Issue
Stephanie — whatever is changing as a result of your latest field reconnaissance would be ideal.
Annette
From: Stephanie Norris [mailto:stephanie spauldinanorris.com]
Sent: Wednesday, May 15, 2013 11:01 AM
To: Lucas, Annette; 'Debbie Edwards'
Cc: 'Scott Hammerbacher'
Subject: RE: Franklin County HUB -Level Spreader Issue
1.1G
Thanks for the speedy response. Just so I am clear... Do you mean updated topo and map of the drainage area for the
right side roadway ditch only?
Stephanie Iv. Norris, P, ---
tC 0
:.
From: Lucas, Annette
Sent: Wednesday, May 1S,Z01310:S4AM
To: Stephanie Norris; 'Debbie Edwards'
Cc: Scott Hammerbacher
Subject: RE: Franklin County HUB-Level Spreader Issue
Stephanie —
VVhatyouareproposingsoundsreasonab|etome. But in order to approve | will need to have some updated plan sheets
showing the actual topo. Would that bepossible?
Annette
From: Stephanie Norris
Sent: Tuesday, May 14, 2O1]6:O7IPM
To: 'Debbie Edwards'; Lucas, Annette
Cm: ScottHammerbacher
Subject: RE: Franklin County HUB-Level Spreader Issue
Good evening. I met on-site this morning with the Contractor (Fred Smith Company) and Scott Hammerbacher(Frank|in
County) to evaluate the roadway ditch and slope from Station 16+50 to 24+00 (right side), which leads to the upstream
end of Culvert 2. Attached for your reference is Sheet DF-03 from the TNF Construction Drawings that illustrates a
portion of the subject roadway ditch, Level Spreader 1O, and Culvert 2. After reviewing the site conditions and
construction drawings today, there are a few things | wanted to communicate to you while itisstill fresh on my mind.
1. The roadway is in super-elevation toward the left side from Sta 16+50 to 23+50. All the runoff from the
roadway is draining into the left side roadway ditch and ultimately to Level Spreader 2/3. As a result, the only
flow from impervious area (the roadway) that enters the right side roadway ditch is from Sta 23+50 to Sta 24+70
at Culvert 2 (approximately 120 LF).
2. The runoff from the impervious around the existing building and parking area does not drain into the subject
roadway ditch. Attached are photos of the area between the existing building and our top of slope. |n fact, the
majority of the runoff from the field between the building and our top of slope sheet flows toward the stream at
Culvert 2. Therefore, the subject ditch is not receiving a large amount of off-site runoff. (REF. Photos 233 to 236)
3. Based on the conditions described in Items 1 and 2, the majority of the runoff being conveyed by the subject
roadway ditch is from the grass shoulder to the top of slope (700 LF x 40 LF = 28,000 SF = 0.65 AC; Q = CIA = 0.3 x
7.22 IN/HR xO.65A[= 1.41 [FS roughly).
4. The roadway ditch as graded has a trapezoidal shape with approximately a 2 LF bottom width, as opposed to a
V-ditch illustrated in the typical sections. The slope from the shoulder point tothe ditch is graded to a 5:1. The
slope from the ditch to the top of slope is graded to 2.5:1 to 3:1, as opposed to the 2:1 slope illustrated in the
typical sections. (REF. Photos 229to231)
5. The existing power poles along the top of slope, as shown in the photos, would prohibit the slope from being
regraded to achieve a3:1 (or flatter) slope. Not to mention, the slope itself isrock. This is the cut area where an
extensive amount of blasting occurred for the road construction. Flattening the slope through this area would
So the question is ... Since the amount of runoff through the subject ditch line is potentially less than the design and very
little of the runoff comes from impervious area (existing or proposed), is Level Spreader 10 and nutrient removal
warranted in this case? If you want to schedule a site visit or conference call to discuss this further, just let me know.
Stephanie L Norris, PE
.,`, .8.. 2�
From: Stephanie Norris [ mailto :stephanie @spauldingnorris.com]
Sent: Monday, May 06, 2013 2:29 PM
To: 'Debbie Edwards'; 'Lucas, Annette'
Subject: RE: Franklin County HUB -Level Spreader Issue
Perfect. I assume we are meeting at Annette's.
Stephanie Iv. Norris, P, ---
r ;C t a,
:.
From: Debbie Edwards [mailto:dedwards @sandec.com
Sent: Monday, May 06, 2013 2:09 PM
To: Lucas, Annette; Stephanie Norris
Subject: RE: Franklin County HUB -Level Spreader Issue
Day and time works for me.
Thanks,
Debbie
DEBORAH EDWARDS
Soil & Environmental Consultants, PA
919-846-59oo (office)
919-673-8793 (mobile)
THINK BEFORE YOU PRINT
From: Lucas, Annette [ mailto :annette.lucasCa)ncdenr.aov]
Sent: Monday, May 06, 2013 2:07 PM
To: Stephanie Norris; Debbie Edwards
Subject: RE: Franklin County HUB -Level Spreader Issue
Stephanie — How about if we say 1:30 because I have to head out at 2:45 and just want to make sure we have enough
time.
A
From: Stephanie Norris
Sent: Monday, May 06, 2013 2:02 PM
To: Lucas, Annette; 'Debbie Edwards'
Subject: RE: Franklin County HUB-Level Spreader Issue
M.- 1 row. *�
Stephanie L Norris, PE
�727�n�y�oed
Re��/ ?, 607
[Jf�c�e
AC���edN/on7an-��n�dBu�n�oo
NV
From: Lucas, Annette
Sent: Monday, May 06, 20131:32 PM
To: Debbie Edwards
Cc: Stephanie Norris ( )
Subject: RE: Franklin County HUB-Level Spreader Issue
Nextvveek— Monday,VVedandThursareaUgoodforme. Why don't you pick something and we'll put itonthe
calendar.
From: Debbie Edwards
Sent: Monday, May 06, 2013 1:28 PM
To: Lucas, Annette
Cm: Stephanie Norris
Subject: Franklin County HUB-Level Spreader Issue
Annette,
I spoke with Stephanie, unfortunately she has a scheduled meeting in Charlotte that day and will be gone from
74M-5PM that day. That said, Thursday will not work for us.
Next week anytime we can both be available. Or if anything opens up for you this Friday, the 1rt» we could be
available as well.
Please provide a date and time and vve will make itwork.
Thanks for working with uson this issue!
Debbie
DEBORAH EDWARDS
Environmental Specialist
SoiI& Environmental Consultants, PA
aaoao Raven Ridge Road
Raleigh, NC 27014
919-846-5goo(w8ficm)
919-673-8793 (mobile)
www.SandEC.com
This electronic communication, including all attachments, is intended only for the named addressee (s) and may contain confidential information. This electronic
communication may not have passed through our standard review /quality control process. Design data and recommendations included herein are provided as a matter of
convenience and should not be used for final design. Rely only on final, hardcopy materials bearing the consultant's original signature and seal. If you are not the named
addressee (s), any use, dissemination, distribution or copying of this communication is prohibited. If you have received this electronic communication in error, please notify
the sender by return e -mail and delete the original communication from your system. Thank you.
THINK BEFORE YOU PRINT