DOCSLIB.ORG

Stormwater Runoff from Bridges Final Report to Joint Legislation Transportation Oversight Committee in Fulfillment of Session Law 2008‐107

Total Page：16

File Type：pdf, Size：1020Kb

Download full-text PDF Read full-text
Stormwater Runoff from Bridges Final Report to Joint Legislation Transportation Oversight Committee in Fulfillment of Session Law 2008‐107 Stormwater Runoff from Bridges Final Report to Joint Legislation Transportation Oversight Committee In Fulfillment of Session Law 2008‐107 Prepared by: URS Corporation – North Carolina 1600 Perimeter Park Drive Suite 400 Morrisville, NC 27560 Prepared for: NC Department of Transportation Hydraulics Unit 1590 Mail Service Center Raleigh, NC 27699‐1590 919.707.6700 July 2010 (May 2012) Cover Photos: C. dubia photo provided by Jack Kelly Clark, courtesy of University of California Statewide Integrated Pest Management Program. All other photos by authors. This page intentionally left blank Stormwater Runoff from Bridges Final Report Revision History Date Description May 9, 2012 Errors in the calculation of unit event loads, annual loading rates, and runoff volumes were corrected. The following updates associated with the corrections were incorporated: Pages 4‐9 through 4‐16 in section 4 were updated, including all text and tables: o Table 4.2‐2 on pages 4‐10 through 4‐13 was updated with corrected median unit event loads and average unit annual loading rates. o Table 4.2‐3 on page 4‐14 was updated with corrected annual loading rate values. o Table 4.2‐4 on page 4‐16 was updated with corrected annual loading rate values. All tables in Appendix 3‐G (Tables 3‐G.1 to 3‐G.15) were updated with corrected runoff volume values. This page intentionally left blank Stormwater Runoff from Bridges Final Report Table of Contents Executive Summary ..............................................................................................................................ES-1 1.0 Introduction.................................................................................................................................1-1 1.1 Project Objectives ..........................................................................................................1-2 1.2 Final Report Layout ......................................................................................................1-2 2.0 Background and Project Approach...........................................................................................2-1 2.1 Transportation-Related Runoff: Quality and Quantity .............................................2-1 2.1.1 Bridge Runoff Characterization Studies from Other States................................2-3 2.1.2 Bridge Runoff Characterization Studies from North Carolina ...........................2-7 2.2 Stormwater Control Measures .....................................................................................2-8 2.2.1 SCM Implementation Studies from Other States..............................................2-14 2.2.2 SCM Implementation Studies from North Carolina .........................................2-21 2.3 NCDOT’s Current Stormwater Management Practices for Bridge Deck Runoff............................................................................................................................2-24 2.4 Foundation of BSP Project..........................................................................................2-26 3.0 BSP Monitoring Program ..........................................................................................................3-1 3.1 Monitoring Program Overview ....................................................................................3-1 3.1.1 Site Selection ......................................................................................................3-1 3.1.2 Program Regimes................................................................................................3-3 3.2 Water Quality and Quantity Monitoring.....................................................................3-6 3.2.1 Bridge Deck Runoff Monitoring.........................................................................3-6 3.2.2 Instream Monitoring .........................................................................................3-14 3.3 Sediment/Solids Chemistry Monitoring.....................................................................3-17 3.3.1 Streambed Sediment Chemistry Monitoring.....................................................3-18 3.3.2 Bridge Deck Sweeping .....................................................................................3-24 3.4 Biological Monitoring ..................................................................................................3-27 3.4.1 Bioassay Monitoring.........................................................................................3-28 3.4.2 Biological Survey Monitoring ..........................................................................3-38 3.5 Traffic Surveys.............................................................................................................3-47 3.5.1 Survey Instrumentation, Methods, and Techniques..........................................3-47 3.5.2 Results...............................................................................................................3-48 4.0 Effect of Stormwater Runoff from Bridges ..............................................................................4-1 4.1 The Weight-of-Evidence Concept.................................................................................4-1 4.1.1 Historical Use of WOE to Determine Environmental Impact ............................4-2 4.2 Bridge Deck Runoff – Water Chemistry......................................................................4-3 4.2.1 Comparison to Existing Stormwater Runoff Data ..............................................4-4 4.2.2 Linking Bridge Deck Runoff to Receiving Streams .........................................4-17 4.2.3 Site-Specific Water Chemistry Evaluation .......................................................4-21 4.2.4 Bridge Characteristic Statistical Analysis.........................................................4-34 4.3 Solids and Instream Sediment ....................................................................................4-39 4.3.1 Streambed Sediment Quality ............................................................................4-39 4.3.2 Bridge Deck Sweeping Solids Results..............................................................4-44 ii July 2010 Stormwater Runoff from Bridges Final Report Table of Contents (continued) 4.4 Comparison of Bridge Deck Runoff Quantity and Pollutant Loads to Watershed Contributions............................................................................................4-54 4.4.1 Bridge Deck Runoff Quantity...........................................................................4-55 4.4.2 Bridge Deck Runoff Pollutant Loading vs. Watershed Loading ......................4-63 4.5 Biological Assessments.................................................................................................4-71 4.5.1 Biological Assay Results ..................................................................................4-71 4.5.2 Biological Survey Results.................................................................................4-73 4.6 Conclusions of Effect and Sources of Impairment....................................................4-74 4.6.1 Habitat Degradation..........................................................................................4-75 4.6.2 Hydromodification............................................................................................4-75 4.6.3 Toxicity Due to Bridge Deck Runoff................................................................4-75 4.6.4 Organic and Nutrient Enrichment.....................................................................4-76 4.6.5 Conclusions of Effect and Sources of Impairment ...........................................4-76 5.0 Bridge SCM Pilot Study .............................................................................................................5-1 5.1 Bridge SCM Type Evaluation.......................................................................................5-1 5.1.1 SCM Categories..................................................................................................5-1 5.1.2 SCM Summaries .................................................................................................5-2 5.1.3 Pilot Study Sites and Documentation..................................................................5-3 6.0 Effective Bridge SCMs for Statewide Application...................................................................6-1 6.1 Defining SCM Effectiveness..........................................................................................6-1 6.2 Applicability of SCMs....................................................................................................6-2 6.2.1 Level I Treatment SCMs.....................................................................................6-3 6.2.2 Level II Treatment SCMs .................................................................................6-17 6.2.3 Maintenance SCMs...........................................................................................6-17 6.2.4 Design-Related SCMs.......................................................................................6-18 6.2.5 Long Coastal Bridges........................................................................................6-19 6.3 NCDOT’s Current Practices and Applicable Requirements ...................................6-19 6.3.1 State Stormwater Programs...............................................................................6-20 6.3.2 NCDOT Best Management Practice Toolbox ..................................................6-20
Load more

Recommended publications
  • Fen Causeway
    Fen Causeway An important vehicular route which crosses the attractive rural spaces of Coe Fen and Sheep’s Green with views back towards the city. Fen Causeway was built in as one of the main routes the 1920s to link Newnham around Cambridge, but the village with Trumpington negative effect of this traffic Road and to provide access is mitigated by the pastural to the south of the city. Its setting and the views of the construction was the subject River Cam with the historic of fierce local opposition city centre beyond. at the time. The road was built on the line of Coe Fen Lane, which joined the footpaths that crossed Coe Fen and Sheep’s Green. Today the road is very busy Fen Causeway SIGNIFICANCE - SIGNIFICANT General Overview At its eastern end Fen Causeway passes between the large properties of the Leys School to the south and the Royal Cambridge Hotel and University Department of Engineering to the north. Although the hotel is built up against the pavement, the car parks to the rear provide a large open space, whilst the school and engineering department stand back from the road behind high walls. The setback makes the street a light space, although the high buildings to either side channel views along the street in both directions. The grounds on either side provide greenery that softens the streetscene. The Royal Cambridge Hotel North House of the Leys School provides architectural interest as part of the late Victorian Methodist School complex, built in red brick with exuberant stone and brick detailing which provides a strong vertical emphasis.
    [Show full text]
  • Evaluation of Green Colored Bicycle Lanes in Florida
    Florida Department of Transportation Evaluation of Green Colored Bicycle Lanes in Florida FDOT Office State Materials Office Report Number FL/DOT/SMO 17-581 Authors Edward Offei Guangming Wang Charles Holzschuher Date of Publication April 2017 Table of Contents Table of Contents ............................................................................................................................. i List of Figures ................................................................................................................................. ii List of Tables .................................................................................................................................. ii EXECUTIVE SUMMARY ........................................................................................................... iii INTRODUCTION .......................................................................................................................... 1 Background ..................................................................................................................................... 1 OBJECTIVE ................................................................................................................................... 3 TEST EQUIPMENT ....................................................................................................................... 4 DYNAMIC FRICTION TESTER (DFT) ................................................................................... 4 CIRCULAR TRACK METER (CTM) ......................................................................................
    [Show full text]
  • Emergency Operations Plan Office of Homeland Security and Emergency Preparedness January 2019 Review and Updated January 2019
    St. Tammany Parish Emergency Operations Plan Office of Homeland Security and Emergency Preparedness January 2019 Review and Updated January 2019 ST. TAMMANY PARISH TABLE OF CONTENTS EMERGENCY OPERATIONS PLAN Table of Contents Promulgation Statement ....................................................................................................... viii Concurrence ............................................................................................................................ x Foreword ............................................................................................................................... xix Record of Changes ................................................................................................................. xxi Record of Distribution .......................................................................................................... xxiii Basic Plan ................................................................................................................................ 1 I. PURPOSE AND SCOPE .......................................................................................................... 1 II. SITUATION AND ASSUMPTIONS ........................................................................................... 2 III. CONCEPT OF OPERATIONS ................................................................................................... 4 IV. ORGANIZATION AND ASSIGNMENT OF RESPONSIBILITIES .................................................... 5 V. DIRECTION AND CONTROL
    [Show full text]
  • Upgrading the Avon River Causeway During Highway 101 Twinning
    Upgrading the Avon River Causeway During Highway 101 Twinning Dr. Bob Pett, NSTIR Environmental Services Alexander Wilson, CBCL Limited Transportation and Infrastructure Renewal Partner with NS Agriculture 9.5 km 6 lanes PEI Moncton NB Northumberland Strait Petitcodiac River NS Chignecto Bay Minas Basin Bay of Fundy Avon River Windsor Fundy Tides Salty- Silty Lake Pesaquid 1970 Fresh water Impacts on the Windsor Salt Marsh (Ramsar Wetland & IBA of Canada) Unlike the Petitcodiac – keeping an aboiteau EA completed in 2017 – currently working on design Project in planning for almost 20 years – including various environmental studies of the Avon River Estuary Contracted Acadia University, St. Mary’s University and CBWES Inc., between 2002 and 2018 to better understand the estuary and inform our design team to minimize impacts on salt marsh and mudflats. Baseline CRA Fisheries Study (Commercial, Recreational and Aboriginal) Contracted 3 partners for work between April 2017 and March 2019 ➢ Darren Porter, commercial fisher, ➢ Acadia University (Dr. Trevor Avery) ➢ Mi’kmaq Conservation Group Key study goal to better inform the detailed design team to improve fish passage through the aboiteau (sluice) Just before Christmas 2017, we engaged a team led by CBCL Limited to design an upgraded causeway and aboiteau system. Design Objectives Public Safety • Maintain corridor over Avon River for Highway 101 Twinning and continuity of rail, trail and utility services. • Continued protection of communities and agricultural land from the effects of flooding and sea level rise / climate change. Regulatory Requirements • Improve fish passage (EA Condition & Fisheries Act ). • Minimize environmental impacts (i.e., impact to salt marsh). • Consideration of potential negative impacts to asserted or established Mi’kmaq aboriginal or treaty rights.
    [Show full text]
  • Improving Value of Travel Time Savings Estimation for More Effective Transportation Project Evaluation
    Improving Value of Travel Time Savings Estimation for More Effective Transportation Project Evaluation BDK85 977-21 Final Report December 2011 i Improving Value of Travel Time Savings Estimation for More Effective Transportation Project Evaluation BDK85 977-21 Final Report Prepared for: Florida Department of Transportation Research Center 605 Suwannee Street, MS 30 Tallahassee, FL 32399-0450 Project Manager: Amy Datz Prepared by: Victoria A. Perk Joseph S. DeSalvo, Ph.D. Tara A. Rodrigues Nina M. Verzosa Steven C. Bovino Center for Urban Transportation Research University of South Florida 4202 E. Fowler Avenue, CUT-100 Tampa, FL 33620-5375 December 2011 i DRAFT October 2011 ii DISCLAIMER The opinions, findings, and conclusions expressed in this publication are those of the authors and not necessarily those of the State of Florida Department of Transportation. iii iv Technical Report Documentation Page 1. Report No. 2. Government Accession No. 3. Recipient's Catalog No. 4. Title and Subtitle 5. Report Date Improving Value of Travel Time Savings Estimation for More December 2011 Effective Transportation Project Evaluation 6. Performing Organization Code 7. Author(s) 8. Performing Organization Report No. Victoria A. Perk, Joseph S. DeSalvo, Tara A. Rodrigues, Nina M. Verzosa, Steven C. Bovino 9. Performing Organization Name and Address 10. Work Unit No. (TRAIS) Center for Urban Transportation Research University of South Florida 4202 E. Fowler Avenue, CUT-100 11. Contract or Grant No. Tampa, FL 33620 BDK85 977-21 12. Sponsoring Agency Name and Address 13. Type of Report and Period Covered Florida Department of Transportation Final Report Research Center March 2010 – December 2011 605 Suwannee Street, MS 30 14.
    [Show full text]
  • Traffic Rules and Orders
    TRAFFIC RULES AND ORDERS TOWN OF HUDSON The Board of Selectmen of the Town of Hudson, acting under the authority conferred by Section 22 of Chapter 40 of the General Laws and by virtue of any and every other enabling power to do hereby make, adopt and establish the following rules and orders for the regulation of carriages and vehicles used in said Town and hereinafter referred to collectively as “rules”. 1 ARTICLE I - DEFINITIONS ............................................................................................ 4 ARTICLE II - AUTHORIZATIONS AND DUTIES ............................................................ 6 SECTION 1: ENFORCEMENT OF RULES ........................................................................... 6 SECTION 2: AUTHORIZATION TO CLOSE STREETS ........................................................... 6 SECTION 3: AUTHORIZATION TO PROHIBIT PARKING TEMPORARILY .................................. 6 SECTION 4: RULES APPLY TO ALL VEHICLES .................................................................. 6 SECTION 5: ROAD CONSTRUCTION WORKERS EXEMPT ................................................... 6 ARTICLE III - TRAFFIC SIGNS, SIGNALS, MARKINGS AND ZONES ......................... 7 SECTION 1: TRAFFIC SIGNS AND SIGNALS ...................................................................... 7 SECTION 2: UNLAWFUL TO POST UNOFFICIAL SIGNS ....................................................... 7 SECTION 3: UNLAWFUL TO DISOBEY SIGNS AND SIGNALS................................................ 7 SECTION 4: PENALTY
    [Show full text]
  • LAKE PONTCHARTRAIN CAUSEWAY HAER LA-21 and SOUTHERN TOLL PLAZA Causeway Boulevard Metairie Jefferson Parish Louisiana
    LAKE PONTCHARTRAIN CAUSEWAY HAER LA-21 AND SOUTHERN TOLL PLAZA Causeway Boulevard Metairie Jefferson Parish Louisiana PHOTOGRAPHS COPIES OF COLOR TRANSPARENCIES WRITTEN HISTORICAL AND DESCRIPTIVE DATA HISTORIC AMERICAN ENGINEERING RECORD National Park Service U.S. Department of the Interior 100 Alabama Street, SW Atlanta, Georgia 30303 HISTORIC AMERICAN ENGINEERING RECORD LAKE PONTCHARTRAIN CAUSEWAY AND SOUTHERN TOLL PLAZA HAER LA-21 Page 1 Location: The Lake Pontchartrain Causeway spans Lake Pontchartrain from Causeway Boulevard in Metairie, Jefferson Parish to Highway 190, Mandeville, St. Tammany Parish, Louisiana. The southern Toll Plaza was located at the Jefferson Parish terminus of the Lake Pontchartrain Causeway. The Northern Terminus of the Lake Pontchartrain Causeway is located at 30.365 and -90.094167. The Southern Terminus is located at 30.02 and - 90.153889. This information was acquired using Google Earth imagery. There are no restrictions on the release of this information to the public. USGS Quadrangle maps (7.5 minute series): (north to south) Mandeville, Spanish Fort NE, West of Spanish Fort NE, Indian Beach There are no restrictions on this information. Owner: Greater New Orleans Expressway Commission Present Use: Vehicle Bridge Significance: When completed in 1956, the Lake Pontchartrain Causeway was the world’s longest bridge. This record was broken by completion of the parallel span in 1969. At 23.87 miles long, the Causeway is the world’s longest continuous span over water. The prestressed, pre-cast concrete structural system displays mid-twentieth century technology that typifies modern bridge construction techniques. In addition, the Causeway is significant in the development of the Jefferson and St.
    [Show full text]
  • Minnesota Statutes 2020, Chapter
    1​ MINNESOTA STATUTES 2020​ CHAPTER 160​ ROADS, GENERAL PROVISIONS​ 160.01​ SCOPE OF CHAPTERS 160 TO 165.​ 160.264​ REPLACING BIKEWAYS AND PEDESTRIAN WAYS.​ ROADS​ 160.266​ STATE BICYCLE ROUTES.​ 160.02​ DEFINITIONS.​ RIGHT-OF-WAY USE RESTRICTIONS​ 160.03​ COMPENSATION FOR PUBLIC PROPERTY.​ 160.27​ PARTICULAR USES OF RIGHT-OF-WAY;​ 160.04​ WIDTH OF ROADS.​ MISDEMEANORS.​ 160.05​ DEDICATION OF ROADS.​ 160.2715​ RIGHT-OF-WAY USE; MISDEMEANORS.​ 160.06​ TRAIL OR PORTAGE DEDICATION.​ REST AREAS AND TRAVEL CENTERS​ 160.07​ IMPROVEMENTS WITHIN OR WITHOUT​ 160.272​ SAFETY REST AREA AND TRAVEL INFORMATION​ BOUNDARIES.​ CENTER LEASES.​ 160.08​ CONTROLLED ACCESS.​ 160.2721​ COMMERCIAL VEHICLE DRIVERS AT REST​ AREAS.​ 160.085​ RECORDING PROPOSED ACQUISITION FOR ROAD.​ 160.2725​ SALES AT SAFETY REST AREAS.​ 160.09​ CHANGE OR VACATION OF LOCAL ROAD.​ 160.273​ VENDING MACHINES.​ 160.095​ DESIGNATION OF MINIMUM-MAINTENANCE​ ROADS.​ 160.2735​ SPONSORSHIP OF SAFETY REST AREAS.​ 160.10​ ROADS ON MINERAL LANDS.​ 160.274​ SALE OF SURPLUS REST AREA PROPERTY.​ 160.11​ MATERIALS FOR BUILDING ROADS.​ 160.2745​ SAFETY REST AREA ACCOUNT.​ 160.12​ TEMPORARY ROADS AROUND CONSTRUCTION.​ 160.2755​ PROHIBITED ACTIVITIES AT REST AREAS.​ 160.13​ LIGHTING AND MARKING HIGHWAYS.​ TRAVEL INFORMATION FACILITIES​ 160.14​ MARKING BOUNDARIES OF HIGHWAYS.​ 160.276​ TRAVEL INFORMATION ADVERTISING​ PROGRAM.​ 160.15​ PRESERVING SECTION OR QUARTER-SECTION​ CORNERS.​ 160.28​ PLANS FOR PUBLIC TRAVEL FACILITIES.​ 160.16​ WARNING SIGNS AND DETOUR SIGNS.​ 160.281​ TOURIST INFORMATION CENTER
    [Show full text]
  • Delivering a Fast and Reliable Regional Bus Network on Existing Freeway Lanes
    SPUR REPORT TRANSPORTATION Freeways of the Future Delivering a fast and reliable regional bus network on existing freeway lanes JANUARY 2021 This report is a component of the SPUR Regional Strategy, a vision for the future of the San Francisco Bay Area spur.org/regionalstrategy This report was adopted by the SPUR Executive Board on July 14, 2020. Acknowledgements Authors: SPUR is grateful to the following Thank you to the funders of the Jonathon Kass and Arielle Fleisher individuals who reviewed report SPUR Regional Strategy: findings and/or provided feedback, Chan Zuckerberg Initiative This work was informed by many insights or research: Nicholas Clarence E. Heller Charitable reviewers and task force participants. Abbott, Ratna Amin, Lacy Bell, Foundation However, the report has not been Tony Bruzzone, Lauren Bennett, Curtis Infrastructure Initiative endorsed by task force members or Lauren Cencic, Dahlia Chazan, Dignity Health reviewers and does not necessarily Conan Cheung, Betty Deakin, Facebook reflect their views. All errors are the Jean Fraser, Tim Haile, Jason Junge, Genentech authors’ alone. Lisa Klein, Timothy Lew, Gwen George Miller Litvak, Jim Macrae, Colin Peppard, Hellman Foundation SPUR Task Force: Rick Ramacier, Darwin Moosavi, John S. and James L. Knight Charles Anderson, Helena Culic-Caro April Petonak, Joe Rouse, Georgia Foundation Robert Del Rosario, Austin Denmeier, Sheridan, Chris Schmidt, Ray Trainor, Marin Community Foundation Lauren Dong, Ron Downing, Joshua Schank, and Anup Tapase, Sage Foundation Michelle Go, Ian Griffiths, Chris Lepe, and Philbert Wong. Silicon Valley Community Foundation Linda Morris, Sean Nozzari, Aaron Stanford University Quigley, Toshi Tosh Shephard-Ohta, Thank you to SPUR staff and former Dave Vautin staff who reviewed and provided Additional funding provided by feedback, including Katie Ettman, AECOM, Fund for the Environment Benjamin Grant, Nick Josefowitz, and Urban Life, Microsoft, Seed Fund, Karen Steen, Laura Tolkoff and Stripe, Uber Technologies and Kristy Wang.
    [Show full text]
  • Analysis of the Interstate 10 Twin Bridge's Collapse During
    Analysis of the Interstate 10 Twin Bridge’s Collapse During Hurricane Katrina By Genda Chen, Emitt C. Witt III, David Hoffman, Ronaldo Luna, and Adam Sevi The Interstate 10 Twin Span Bridge over Lake Pontchartrain north of New Orleans, La., was rendered completely unusable by Hurricane Katrina. The cause of the collapse of the bridges generated great interest among hydrologists and structural engineers as well as among the general public. What made this case study even more important was the fact that two nearby the failure bridges sustained the effects of the same of the Interstate 10 (I-10) storm surge and suffered only light Twin Span Bridge over Lake damage. Lessons learned from this Pontchartrain. Figure 1 shows investigation are invaluable to the I-10 twin bridges and the maintaining the safety of many relationship of the approach’s of the Nation’s coastal and low causeways on both sides river-crossing bridges. of the navigation channel’s high main span. It was determined that air Introduction trapped beneath the deck of the I-10 On October bridges was a major 7, 2005, the contributing factor U.S. Geological to the bridges’ Survey’s (USGS) collapse. This Mid-Continent finding was well Geographic Science supported by Center partnered evidence observed with the University in nearby bridges of Missouri-Rolla that suffered little or (UMR) Natural Hazards no damage. Mitigation Institute to send A similar issue was a reconnaissance team to the noted by engineers during areas around New Orleans, La., the 1993 flooding of the that were damaged by Hurricane Mississippi River.
    [Show full text]
  • The Causeway Bridge Construction, Past & Present
    THE CAUSEWAY BRIDGE CONSTRUCTION, PAST & PRESENT Hossein Ghara, PE, MBA, Volkert Inc., (225)288-1163, [email protected] The Lake Pontchartrain Causeway is a toll bridge which spans over Lake Pontchartrain from Causeway Boulevard in Metairie, Louisiana to Highway 190 at Mandeville, Louisiana. This toll facility is managed by the Greater New Orleans Expressway Commission (GNOEC) and has been listed since 1969 by the Guinness Book of Worlds Records as the World’s longest bridge over water at 23.83 miles long. The Causeway Bridge consists of two parallel bridges designed and constructed in different periods of time. The original bridge is on the West, it opened in 1956 and carries traffic from North to South. The second bridge on the East, opened in 1969 and carries traffic in the opposite direction. Palmer and Baker, Inc., designed the first bridge to exclusively consist of identical panels, caps and pilings. The 56’ long and 33’ wide spans were cast monolithically to allow for all pieces of the bridge to be fabricated offsite, minimizing cost and time required to construct such a large structure. Despite the fact many engineers consider “Accelerated Bridge Construction” (ABC) as a new and innovative bridge engineering phenomenon, the design and construction technologies which was incorporated for this bridge in the 1950’s is a testament to the fact ABC was being implemented in Louisiana long before it received its formal recognition and title. The Louisiana Bridge Company (LBC), a joint venture between Brown and Root, Inc. of Houston, Texas and T.L. James Company of Ruston, Louisiana, implemented Palmer & Baker’s design.
    [Show full text]
  • Drainage Strategy
    DRAINAGE STRATEGY for Mr R ROBINSON PROPOSED AGRICULTURAL BUILDING at STANDRIDGE FARM SLAIDBURN AUGUST 2018 REFORD Consulting Engineers Limited 7 Hall Road, Fulwood, Preston, PR2 9QD Mobile: 07970 265334 Email: [email protected] Company number: 09620365 VAT Reg. 215 5638 12 CONTENTS SECTION TITLE PAGE 1 INTRODUCTION 3 2 BASE INFORMATION 4 3 DRAINAGE STRATEGY 7 4 SUMMARY AND CONCLUSIONS 9 APPENDICES A Location plan B Surface water drainage design 18.479 Page 2 1. INTRODUCTION 1.1 This drainage strategy has been produced on behalf of Mr R Robinson in support of a planning permission for the erection of an agricultural building for free range egg production together with associated feed bins, a hardstanding area and access track at Standridge, Wigglesworth Road, Slaidburn, BB7 4TR. 1.2 The Lead Local Flood Authority has been consulted on the earlier application and required the following: A desk top study of the existing drainage and flood risk of the area. An indicative site drainage strategy to include drawings, calculations and exceedance routes. Details of ground conditions. 1.3 There is no foul water drainage to be discharged from the site. 1.4 There is dirty wash down water from within the building to be collected. 1.5 This drainage strategy will address the issues previously raised by the LLFA. 1.6 The application site comprises an existing agricultural enterprise that operates from Standridge Farm, Tosside Road, Slaidburn that extends to approximately 70 hectares of owner occupied land. The enterprise is situated about 2.5km to the east of the settlement of Slaidburn, on the B6478 road that connects Slaidburn to Tosside further to the east.
    [Show full text]