HomeMy WebLinkAbout20140764 Ver 1_Revised Plans Comments_20170227Wanucha, Dave
From:
Sent:
To:
Cc:
Subject:
Wanucha, Dave
Monday, February 27, 2017 9:36 AM
Thomson, Nicole J; David.E.Bailey2@usace.army.mil
Fine, Lowell C
RE: Bridge 229, Shatterly Rd (SR 3118) Guilford County
Nikki,
This is acceptable to DWR. Thanks for the update.
Dave W
Dave Wanucha
Division of Water Resources
Transportation Permitting Unit
NC Department of Environmental Quality
336-776-9703 office
336-403-5655 mobile
Dave.Wanucha@ncdenr.gov
NC DEQ Winston Salem Regional Office
450 West Hanes Mill Road, Suite 300
Winston Salem, NC 27105
a������ �������,��:s���������� �� ����� ������ ��`��,� ����:����,�,� �,� ,�������� �� ��`��
�V����� �°��������� ��.����� ��������,� ��W�r ����:� a���.� �� ���,����,���� �� �������� �s�����,�.
From: Thomson, Nicole J
Sent: Thursday, February 23, 2017 12:44 PM
To: Wanucha, Dave <dave.wanucha@ncdenr.gov>; David.E.Bailey2@usace.army.mil
Cc: Fine, Lowell C <Icfine@ncdot.gov>
Subject: Bridge 229, Shatterly Rd (SR 3118) Guilford County
Good afternoon!
I've attached a redline drawing for you both (it's in blue, but there was already too much red on the drawing). This is a bridge to
bridge replacement with no stream impacts, only buffer. The contractors have noted a few issues during construction related to
offsite stormwater, onsite stormwater and elevation. On the first page, you'll note that there is an existing pipe that the
property owner installed and then covered; DOT replaced the pipe and extended it. However, due to site elevations that are
working against them, they did not carry the pipe to the proposed junction box (which I've "x-ed" out). That junction box isn't
being installed because there is no way to tie the HDPE into it (again, elevation issues). The rip rap dissipator shown (outleting
from the other two 2G1 boxes) will still go in as planned. However, as with the HDPE pipe, none of that water will drain out into
the field as originally planned. The elevations in the field are higher; the fact that Duke power relocated their utility line out
here is working against us now too (about a 3 foot elevation increase). Since they are so far along in the construction, I have
devised (with the resident's input— cc-ed on this email) what I think is the best solution. It's not ideal, but it will address the
ponding stormwater issues. We propose to shorten the HDPE up and direct it to the toe protection along the fill slope. This will
then transition to the rip rap that wraps around the abutments for the bridge. If you look on page two, you will see where I
highlighted an area in pink — this is where the water was outletting under the old bridge (you can make out the valley
contours). We are proposing to utilize this pre-existing "outlet". This, I believe, satisfies the intent of the buffer rules (no new
man-made conveyances through the buffer), prevents stormwater from ponding along side the road, prevents it from cutting a
"new" outlet over time and still achieves diffuse flow (via the rip rap).
I don't like surprises and figure you don't either. On the offchance that you visit this one in the future, I wanted to be sure you
knew of the shift in design that occurred in the field.
Let me know if you have any questions.
Thanks!
Nik
Nicole J. Thomson
Division Environmental Supervisor Assistant
Division Environmental Office
919-754-7806 Mobile
Nithomson2(c�ncdot.qov
PO Box 14996
Greensboro, NC 27415-4996
a������ �������,��:s���������� �� ����� ������ ��`��,� ����:����,�,� �,� ,�������� �� ��`��
�V����� �°��������� ��.����� ��������,� ��W�r ����:� a���.� �� ���,����,���� �� �������� �s�����,�.
I!Irr�7ail �;urre,�l�ui�dc,i��:e, C�u ai�d ��ruir7 U•ii� �ci�dcr i� �ul����;�E� �C�u U•ic, I"J,�, I ul�li�; I'�Ee,�;ur;� I...aw ai�d rr�7ay I�c rll��:lu�crl �C�u �C�h•ih�rl I�artle,�,