20100063 Ver 2_More Info Received_20130521

Strickland Bev
From: Stephanie Norris [[e-mail]]
Sent Tuesday, May 21.2O133:2OPK4
To: Lucas, Annette; 'Debbie Edwards'
Cc: 'Scott Honnmerbooher'; Strickland, Bev
Subject: RE: 10-0083 Franklin County HUB-Level Spreader Issue
Attachments: DWQ - Diffuse Flow Plan Modif–S&N 2013-05-20.pdf
ETITIT—WI
Good afternoon. Per our email correspondence below, attached isa formal request Uetteh for the Diffuse Flow Plan
Modification related to Level Spreader 1O. Unless you decide that you need ahardcopy, the attached PDF will bemy
only submission of this request. Please let me know if you need anything further to complete your letter. Thank you
again for your assistance.
Stephanie L Norris, PE-
R a C / 1, 0 C")D7
AC���edN/on7an-��n�dBu�n�oo
From: Stephanie Norris [mai|to:stephanie@spau|dingnonis.conn]
Sent: Monday, May Z0,Z0139:46AM
To: 'Lucas, Annette'; 'Debbie Edwards'
Cc: 'Scott Hammerbacher'' ''3tricWand Bev'
Subject: RE: 10-0063 Franklin County HUB-Level Spreader Issue
'
EMS=
Good morning. Thank you so much for your email last week. Glad | was able to provide sufficient analysis for you to
make an informed decision. I am working on the letter and submittal this morning and will get it to you asap.
Stephanie L Norris, PE-
R a C / 1, 0 C")D7
AC���edN/on7an-��n�dBu�n�oo
From: Lucas, Annette
Sent: Thursday, May 16,Z0131:3ZPM

To: Stephanie Norris; 'Debbie Edwards'
Cc: 'Scott Hammerbacher'' 3tricWand ' Bev
Subject: RE: 10'0063 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
Sent: Thursday, May 16, 2013 12:07 PM
To: Lucas, Annette; 'Debbie Edwards'
Cm: 'ScottHammerbacher'
Subject: RE: Franklin County HUB-Level Spreader Issue
ETITIT—W1
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.
The impervious area draining into the roadway ditch would be limited to Sta 23+50 to 24+70 (120 LF) and half of the
on this section -f nny-minnt is downstream off the oo osead location of BvDass Structure 10.

#f the permit and can be eliminated. Once we have your feedback on • • n, I will work with Debbie •
provide any additional information that may be needed for the permit modification. Thank you for your consideration
,#if this information. - know if you
Stephanie Iv. Norris, P, ---
I
a e1; 1 t U
;.
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 [ mailto :annette.lucas @ncdenr.gov]
Sent: Wednesday, May 15, 2013 10:54 AM
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
M, mm'snue we ri
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
�727�n�y�oed
Re C / 1, 0 C") D7
AC���edN/on7an-��n�dBu�n�oo

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,
q w
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 [mailto:stephanie spauldinanorris.com]
Sent: Monday, May 06, 2013 2:02 PM
To: Lucas, Annette; 'Debbie Edwards'
Subject: RE: Franklin County HUB -Level Spreader Issue

Stephanie Iv. Norris, P, ---
IC 0
From: Lucas, Annette [ mailto :annette.lucas @ncdenr.gov]
Sent: Monday, May 06, 2013 1:32 PM
To: Debbie Edwards
Cc: Stephanie Norris (stephanie @spauldingnorris.com)
Subject: RE: Franklin County HUB -Level Spreader Issue
Next week— Monday, Wed and Thurs are all good for me. Why don't you pick something and we'll put it on the
calendar.
From: Debbie Edwards [mailto:dedwardsCa)sandec.com]
Sent: Monday, May 06, 2013 1:28 PM
To: Lucas, Annette
Cc: Stephanie Norris (stephanie spauldinanorris.com)
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
7AM -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 loth we could be
R.T. IN FIGI
Please provide a date and time and we will make it work.
Thanks for working with us on this issue!
Debbie
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

sgscr_
IV
May 20, 2013
SPAULDING
&
NORRIS,
PA
Planning • Civil Engineering
• Surveying
Ms. Annette Lucas Submitted via Email
NCDENR — Division of Water Quality
RE: FRANKLIN COUNTY HUB SITE (DWQ Project # 10 -0063 v.2 Revised)
Diffuse Flow Plan Modification — Level Spreader 10 Alternative
Dear Ms. Lucas:
Per our meeting on May 13, 2013, to discuss proposed Level Spreader 10 as part of the above
referenced roadway project and DWQ permit, Spaulding & Norris, PA is submitting the analysis
described below for your file. Attached to this submission are a topographic map prepared by the
Franklin GIS Department and an aerial photograph from Google imagery. These attachments illustrate
additional information not otherwise found in the approved, permitted construction drawings prepared
by Hobbs, Upchurch & Associates, PA (the project design engineers).
S &N's 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. S &N's contract with Franklin County is limited to contract management and
construction inspection and testing, which does not include engineering design. This said, we are
attempting to provide as much data as possible with field verification to reach a resolution to the issue
at hand. We hope that you find the information we are providing sufficiently meets your expectations.
We are also happy to meet you on -site, if that will help.
Since we do not have access to survey data for the road or the adjacent lot that reflects the current site
conditions, we have sketched the existing conditions in the vicinity of proposed Level Spreader 10 on a
PDF of the above referenced topographic map using the Hobbs Upchurch construction drawings, 2013
aerial imagery from Google, and our 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, also 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 via email) illustrates this may not be the case. It is our 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 of
field survey), we assumed that approximately 2 acres drains to the 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.
Phone: [phone] • Fax: [phone] • 972 Trinity Road • Raleigh, North Carolina 27607
a Certified Woman -Owned Business

Ms. Annette Lucas — DWQ
Franklin County HUB Road
May 20, 2013
The impervious area draining into the right side roadway ditch would be limited to Sta 23 +50 to 24 +70
(120 LF) and half of the pavement (14 LF). In addition, this section of pavement is downstream of the
proposed location of Bypass Structure 10. Therefore, runoff from the pavement would not be direct
flow into Level Spreader 10 anyway.
Based on our analysis and the information attached, it appears that Level Spreader 10 is not needed to
meet the intent of the DWQ permit and can be eliminated. Thank you for your consideration of this
information. Please let me know if you have any questions.
Sincerely,
Stephanie L. Norris, PE
Spaulding & Norris, PA
cc: Scott Hammerbacher— Franklin County
Debbie Edwards — S &EC
Enclosures

1 16.96,
TR I it I I (a t 0"
Future utilities lima A
if cul-de-sac
constructed
2*�O — — -
20
Lot 3
6.5 A c. VA
IJ�
v M
N
IK'
01
too,
Lort 2
17 i"S
U 5 G Lill,
K.
V.
Lot 7
Ba 2
p
6.4 A
0,
NY 2
M.
2-V
f
V.I,
40,
lit
j
wk.
Lot 8
Lot I
8.5 A c. 2T
8.8 Ac.
vg
/I zyee
X
v
A,
vaL
Lot 11 Lot 9
1.5 Ac. ks. 9.8 Ac.

N
O
c�
t1.
w
1MW-W
Y
N
O
U
_U
b!J
O
O
tp
vi
a
cCS

W (D�d) :poi - Y�GS-Z6i (0�6) wWe
'-'d s
OVOa 8f1H
n HitlON'.LLNf100 NIIMVbbi
Z 3SVHd-i8OdHIV
'
�atea aroiDo vvev 'tee u �
'v
SN01103S SS080
lVdIOINnV4 .11NnOO NIIJiNV2dd
t
N
.v ld Guo7 f --(—IS 6u3 6uq(nsu 0
��
X
"
Yd '9019113099V 19 Y— YOdn'sggOH �
.IVMOV02d
Ol LOb Sn-OVOa N0003NNOO
4VOa snH AINnoo NIlHNV2dd
e
-
a4
I
I
I
'A'A
I I
N
Ln
I I
I
ffi O
_� Bd l2t L
° III
O
a�
I
I
�9rlt�
I
O p
° +
yy$$ q'c:r
u
n
,ill
III
I I
I i
I
I
I
I
I
I
I
I
I I
I
!
I
I
I
i
I
I
I
I
I
I
I
I
I
1� I
I I
I
I
ry
I
n I
I
I
I
I
I
0
0
o
o
0
0
�azzr
GtZf
sevLr ° v
I
a�cc °
I
.r.�
LO
I
I
I
I
I
I
I
I I
I I
I I
I j
I I
I
I
I
I
I
I
4 f
I
I
I
I
I
3 3
I
I I
I I
I
I
I
I
I

.urrnoranHrei
rc[ —ZSe (Os7 w sa foes; +ewe
"Iz,1 o� v °spa �a Ot/Oa 8f1H Z 3SbHd laOdalb
—1-ld N-� s var ns � q'6u3 bulg —og SN01103S SS0210 lVdIOINf1W 11Nf100 NII1INV2id
rd'sawlao -v v yamyadn'sggoH rell AVMOVOa Ol lOV sn-OVOH NOIlOANN00
(3VOa onH kiNnO:D NII)INV8J
R # # 4 R I #
I � 1
I i I
I I I
I I I
I I I
I I I
I i �
I I i
1 I I
O
O 1 L¢.so` LO I p I
o r °
t I �, t 1' ru�c ° 1. Cozc
ON I m 1 1
I I I
I I I
I 1 1
1 I I
I I I
1 I I
I I I
1 I I
I 1 I
1' I
1 I i I
I I I
I I I
i I I
I I I
I I I I
I I I
Ln p p
oo
69,1Lf ° I '6t[ ^ ^ gl I o0'0tC °
I
I I I i
I I I
I I I
1 f I
1 I I
II I I
1 s 1 s II g II
1
I 1 I
1 I 1 I
1 1 I I
X
R °
x r,
a
�J {x
9� b �

tlrvllOUVO H1UON AINOOJ NilMNtltlU
L69 (016) :mj — sl6S —L (Ols) 'tiWd
r aLLZryO wW °= re .s OVO?! anH Z 3SVHd 12iOd211V
M, urea vq vwv M d �W�s SNO1103S SSO?JO W&OINf1W 11Nf100 NI�JINVad e X
auun/d Gun? .va( —S 's<ew&3 bwyn —o 4 e n
x' dd'samoossyir yajnyodn'sggoH .IVMOV02i oiwi,sn-OVOaNOU33NNOO @
OVOa enH AiNnOO NIINNVa3 ( g
a
I
1 i 1
£ I 1 1
I 1 4
1 I I
I I 1
l I 1
I I I
I "sj I I
°o o
+
N $ N N
1 N I I
I I 1
I I I
1 I $ I n
I I
1 I
I 1
I
1 1
� I
I I
I
I I I i
I
I I I
I
I I I
I I 1 a I
I I n I I
I I
I I i I
o o o 0
o u7
+ �- i srooc o + I eszo _
N N N N
I
I I I I
I I 1 I
I I I I
I I I i
1 1 I i I
I I
I 1 I I
I I
I I I 1
I I I I
I I I I

25 +00
M 24 +70 :a
24 +50
— 24 +00
�R
23 +50
27 +00 iT 6
26 +50
26 +00
25 +50
a
E y3
a H
Z
QOQ
3VO
a.
00�
�O=
D!
0'
Ora
K�U
N N
Q
~ 0 =
a
0 z 0 F
00
zFz�
z z z Q
Z
It0�
LL 0 LL
X-5