The URL can be used to link to this page

Home My WebLink About20130648 Ver 1_Email_20130628Wainwright, David From: King, Art C Sent: Friday, June 28, 2013 10:57 AM To: Wainwright, David Cc: Smith, Ronnie D SAW (Ronnie.D.Smith @usace.army.mil) Subject: RE: SR 1465 Cedar Lane Improvements Application, Richmond County Attachments: DSCN0004.JPG; DSCN0005.JPG; DSCN0014.JPG; SR -1465 Richmond PCN- Form -vl_3 _Dec_2008 -_WORD _ versionl.doc; — OTLM2AI001F.tif David, Site 1: You are correct, site 1 sheet 2 is a drawing error. I will forward the modified drawing as soon as the District Office completes it. The wetland line at this location roughly matches the toe of slope along the existing roadway. We can adjust the new alignment, and possibly shorten the pipe at this location to allow more room for placement of the sheet pile for dewatering. The piling can be driven in with a track machine from the existing road bed. The piling itself can be placed along the toe of slope, which is an area that is already disturbed (reference attached picture 014). Because the new alignment will shift away from this side of the road it should leave enough room to set the piling outside of the wetland area. The silt bag can be placed on the existing roadbed or on the upland side of the road without much of an issue. It is still our intent to avoid all wetland impacts even if it requires adjustments in the field during construction. If the impacts cannot be avoided we will contact the agencies prior to doing any work on the site. We will submit a revised drawing for this site. The sites: 2, 3, 4, impact table corrections you are requesting are all revisions that I had previously discussed and modified with the District Engineer. However, in some cases I pulled the wrong number off of the plan sheet, and in others I failed insert the revised number. All the data on the drawings is correct. I have attached the revised impact table on PCN sheet 5 to reflect the corrections. The Site 4 Drawing is showing an existing headwall and open masonry box leading from a private pipe upstream of the existing roadway pipe(reference attached pictures 04 and 05). We are intending to remove the existing "box" (except for the headwall) , and slope back and stabilize the remaining side slopes with rip rap above the plane of ordinary high water. We plan to leave the head wall in place as to not damage the existing pipe. What you are seeing in the plan drawing is actually the existing headwall being left in place, not new rip rap. Please let me know if you need additional information. Thanks, Art From: Wainwright, David Sent: Thursday, June 27, 2013 10:41 AM To: King, Art C Cc: Smith, Ronnie D SAW (Ron nie.D.Smith (&usace.army.mil) Subject: SR 1465 Cedar Lane Improvements Application, Richmond County Art, I have been looking over the application for SR 1465 in Richmond County. I have a few questions regarding the culvert replacement details. Site 1 Sheet 2 shows the pump around being pumped from behind the temporary dam (I'm sure just a drawing error) Sheet 2 shows a wetland boundary shown in the area of the pipe outlet. The text indicates that the road was realigned to avoid the wetland. However, the line is not clear on the drawing as to where the actual wetland boundary is; it shows an incomplete boundary. It also appears that components associated with the temporary dewatering, such as the silt bag, may be located within the wetland, and access to construct the dam may impact the wetland as well. Please clarify where the wetland boundary is actually located, and if any temporary impacts will result to the wetland as a result of dewatering and culvert installation. Site 2: • The net impact shown on Sheet 3 shows 27' of net impact (56'- 29' =27'); the stream impact table on Page 5 shows 29' of impact. Please clarify. Site 3: • The stream impact table on page 5 of the application shows 40' of temporary impact, but the drawings only indicate 20' (10' on either side of the culvert). Please clarify. Site 4: The stream impact table on page 5 of the application shows 36' of temporary impact, but the Sheet 2 drawing only indicates 32' (20' on one side; 12' on the other). Please clarify. The drawing on Sheet 3 shows riprap placed in the channel at the most upstream area. If this is the case, it must not impede flow and it should be accounted for in the impacts summary. Thanks David Wainwright NCDENR, Division of Water Quality Transportation Permitting Unit 1650 Mail Service Center, Raleigh, North Carolina 27699 -1650 Phone: (919)807-6405 Fax: (919) 807-6488 David.Wainwright@ncdenr.gov Email correspondence to and from this address is 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.' `'� Please consider the environment before printing this email. Email correspondence to and from this sender is subject to the N.0 Public Records Law and may be disclosed to third parties 1M S LE N SHEET NO. 8C.077055 3 OF 3 SR 1465 j 30" RCP STREAM BED 0.5' ELEVATION CROSS SECTION STREAM IMPACTS PIPE LENGTH =52' LENGTH OF EXISTING PIPE =40' m Q NET IMPACT v 52'-40'= 12' rt NN 0 cn N I& C? RIP RAP PROPOSED R/W - - - --- - - - - - -- ---- - - - -�- -------------- RIP RAP -------- — PROPOSED R/W — T� r NOT TO SCALE Primed By Ire DIVISION of xrcrnYAYS Rocxrxcrrau DrsrRrcT oEErcE GENERAL DRAWING PLANS DATE; 30" REINFORCED CONCRETE PIPE REPLACEMENT 5- 20-2013 RIGHT OF WAY PLANS DATE; , K. R. HEDR SITE NU.1 SURVEYED BY: RICHMOND COUNTY - SR 146$ ROCKINGHAM DISTRICT OFFICE CONSTRUCTION PLANS DATE: rE POTSta. 21 +$0 DRAINAGE DESIGN DRAWN BY: , C.G. BROWN R'ggre� � Ile DIVISION OF HIGHWAYS ROCKINGHAM DISTRICT OFFICE GENERAL DRAWING 30" REINFORCED CONCRETE PIPE REPLACEMENT SITE NO. I RICHMOND COUNTY - SR 1465 IM MUM WrTMAT70V K. R. HEDRICK pi DISTRICT ENGINEER PLANS DATE: __ 5- 20-2013 RIGHT OF NAY PLANS DATE: SURVEYED BY: ROCKINGHAM DISTRICT OFFICE CONSTRUCTION PLANS DATE: DRANN BY.: re POTSta. 21 +50 DRAINAGE DESIGN C.G. BROWN NIBS L N SHEET BC.OTTO55 1 OF 3 Q RICHMOND COUNTY - SR 1465 ROCKINGHAM DISTRICT OFFICE CONSTRUCTION PLANS DATE; re POTSta, 21 +50 DRALVAGE DESIGN Lo C.G. BROWN O N No PROPOSED 52'OF 30'RCP PROPOSED R/W _ - - - - - - - - - - - --- - - - - -� 4- - - _,LB- _- - - - - -- PROPOSED R/W - Tcq 2 PROPOSED PLAN Q . v �t NN O PROPOSED R/W 8'RCP ---------------- _ A - - - - -- - - - - - -- --- - - --- / lor PROPOSED R/W EXISTING PLAN I"= 60' A'P-0ored � Ife DIVISION OF HIGHWAYS ROCKINGNAM DISTRICT OFFICE GENERAL DRAWING 30" REINFORCED CONCRETE PIPE REPLACEMENT 10% MUM WrWATIM PLANS DAZE: 5-20 -2013 RIGHT OF WAY PLANS DATE: K. R. HEDRICK SITE N0.1 ENGINEER SURVEYED BY: RICHMOND COUNTY - SR 1465 ROCKINGHAM DISTRICT OFFICE CONSTRUCTION PLANS DATE; re POTSta, 21 +50 DRALVAGE DESIGN DRAA7V BY; C.G. BROWN SS ELEWNT SHEET NO. 8C.077055 1 2 OF 3 � Q J tn C.G. BROWN �N !$ ' CONCRETE BARRIER OR O STEEL SHEET PILING N PROPOSED 52' OF 30° RCP � o PROPOSED R/W P _ - - - - -- - - - -- - - - - - - -- S- X0'58'24' ------------- - - - - -- _- LT BA PROPOSED R/W - ONCRETE BARRIER OR STEEL SHEET PILING PLAN NOTES: 1.) INSTALL TEMPORARY BERMS, DIVERT STREAM FLOW BY PUMPING WATER AROUND WORK AREA. 2.) PUMP CONTAINED AREA TO SILT BAG AND REMOVE EXISTING PIPE. 3.) INSTALL PIPE AND BACKFILL. 4.) REMOVE TEMPORARY DIVERSION DEVICES NOT TO SCALE Prgnred of Ile DIVISION OF HIGHWAYS ROCKINGfi9M DISTRICT OFFICE GENERAL DRAWING 30" REINFORCED CONCRETE PIPE REPLACEMENT PLANS DATE; 5-20 -2013 RIGHT OF {{'AY PLANS DATE; K. R. HEDRICK SITE N0.1 ENGINEER SURVEYED BY. RICHMOND COUNTY - SR 1465 ROCKINGHAM DISTRICT OFFICE CONSTRUCTION PLANS DATE; 'E POTSta. 21 +50 DRAINAGE DRAWN BY. DESIGN C.G. BROWN Wainwright, David From: King, Art C Sent: Monday, July 01, 2013 3:39 PM To: Smith, Ronnie D SAW; Wainwright, David Subject: FW: SR 1465 Richmond County Site 1 & 4 Attachments: 1465- 2150- 3.pdf; 1465- 2150 - vic.pdf; 1465- 2150- 1.pdf; 1465- 2150 -2.pdf Gentlemen, Attached are the plan revisions for site 1, SR -1465 Richmond County. Please revise the pipe impact length on your copy of the PCN for site 1. Also included below is a brief narrative for the revision to the site 4 plans. Please review and let me know if you require additional information. Thanks, Art From: Brown, Chad G Sent: Monday, July 01, 2013 11:16 AM To: King, Art C Cc: Hedrick, Kevin R Subject: SR 1465 Richmond County Site 1 & 4 Site 1 I reduced the pipe length from 64' to 52'. We will not disturb any wetland area at this site. Site 4 I met John Epps at site 4 his recommendation was to remove the existing center block head wall, and 8' of existing 30" RCP, so he would have enough area to remove and replace the existing pipe. We are going to Rip Rap around the 30" RCP end and the 73" X 55" CMP end. We are also going to Rip Rap the side slopes between the 30" RCP and the 73" X 55" CMP Pipe. There will be no Rip Rap placed in the stream bead. Thanks, Chad Brown Site 4 junction box (DSCN0004.J PG) Site 4 junction box (DSCN0005.JPG) Site 1 disturbed area (DSCN0014.JPG)