20140847 Ver 1_DOT Hold response_20140926

Ward, Garcy
From:Willis, Thomas C
Sent:Friday, September 26, 2014 4:17 PM
To:Ward, Garcy
Subject:FW: Dare #16 - BR270016 Drainage
Attachments:BR270016 Rock Placement Markup.PDF

Garcy,
I received your hold letter today. Following up with this email, I wanted to make sure this addressed your concern,

which created the hold situation.

Thanks,

Clay

From: Willis, Thomas C
Sent: Wednesday, September 24, 2014 11:06 AM
To: Ward, Garcy

Subject: FW: Dare #16 - BR270016 Drainage

Garcy,
Bridge # 16 is getting shifted over to the east and that is putting us up against the ROW line and the USFWS property.
This is the constraining factor in putting the storm water outfall on the east side. The ground elevations would require us
to extend the pipe beyond the ROW in order to get positive drainage. You can see the explanation below from the

design firm. They also clarified that there will be a little more buffer than what is illustrated
on the drawing. The symbol display in the software is a little larger than the actual rip-rap pad. We should actually have
about 10 ft. between the outlet and the canal. I’m not sure if you are aware of this, but this canal has a flood control
structure located downstream. It is 3 pipes with flood gates, preventing sound water and aquatic life from moving up

this canal.

Let me know if you have any more questions.

Thanks,

Clay
From: Boyer, Jason \[mailto:[e-mail]\]
Sent: Wednesday, September 24, 2014 10:42 AM
To: Willis, Thomas C

Subject: Re: Dare #16 - BR270016 Drainage

Clay,

The outlet to the east side would end up being about 4-5 ft outside the right-of-way line. The Class B rip rap at
the outlet would be another 5ft. In total we would be about 9 to 10 ft outside of the right-of-way.

I did notice on our plan that the rock on the western side is shown at about 12 ft long. Based on the dimensions
for the rock placement in 876.02 the length should only be 5ft. I did find out that a standard Microstation
drawing cell for the rock was used and the cell is larger than what is required in 876.02. That would pull the
rock back about 7 ft from the canal versus what is currently depicted on the plan sheet. I have attached a redline
markup on the roadway drawing showing the actual size of the rock placement. I think this makes the current
situation look better since the rock would not be all the way to the edge of the canal. There would be
approximately 10 ft from the end of the rock to the canal.

If you have any questions or would like to discuss please give me a call.
1

Jason A. Boyer, P.E. | Structural Engineer

Gannett Fleming, Inc.

c 814.558.1227 | [e-mail]
Excellence Delivered As Promised

Gannett Fleming is ISO 9001:2008 Certified.

www.gannettfleming.com | Stay connected: Twitter | Facebook | LinkedIn | YouTube
PRINTING SUSTAINABILITY STATEMENT: Gannett Fleming is committed to conserving natural resources and minimizing adverse environmental impacts
in projects. Accordingly, project documentation will be provided in electronic format only unless clients specifically request hard copies. Visit

our website to read more about our sustainability commitment.

CONFIDENTIALITY NOTICE: This email and any attachments may contain confidential information for the use of the named addressee. If you are not the
intended recipient, you are hereby notified that you have received this communication in error and that any review, disclosure, dissemination, distribution

or copying of it or its contents is prohibited.

Email correspondence to and from this sender is subject to the N.C. Public Records Law and may be disclosed to third parties.
2