HomeMy WebLinkAbout20120285 Ver 1_Email_20120430FW Gaston Turnpike
FW Gaston Turnpike
Lespinasse, Polly
Sent Tuesday May 08 2012 3 38 PM
To Carrillo Sonia
From Lespinasse, Polly
Sent Monday, April 30, 2012 2 57 PM
To Hair, Sarah E SAW
Subject Gaston Turnpike
Liz
Page 1 of 1
I have finished reviewing the application and have a question for you Page 15 of 17 in Attachment 8 states that
the NCTA and FHWA will work with the environmental resource and regulatory agencies during the permitting
phase to further refine the mitigation plan for the project How does that statement impact (if it does in fact
impact) the permit for this project? We usually know the mitigation plan when we issue the permit but this is
different
Thanks
Polly Lespinasse Polly Lespinasse @ncdenr gov
Environmental Senior Specialist
North Carolina Dept of Environment & Natural Resources
Div of Water Quality
610 E Center Ave Suite 301
Mooresville NC 28115
Ph 704 235 2190 Fax 704 663 6040
E mail correspondence to and from this address may be 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
https / /mail nc gov /owa/ ?ae= Item &t =IPM Note &1d= RgAAAADMSzLcd9W2TJH14 %2bm 5/21/2012
RE Gaston Turnpike
RE Gaston Turnpike
Ferrell, Ronald E [Ronald Ferrel l @atklnsglobal com]
Sent Tuesday May 01 2012 9 12 AM
To Lespinasse Polly
Cc Hair Sarah E SAW [Sarah E Hair @usace army mil] Wainwright David Carrillo Sonia
Thanks Polly we will be prepared to discuss your comments on May 9
Ron Ferrell
Senior Scientist Mid Atlantic Sciences
F-IN P&I
Page I of I
1616 East Millbrook Road Suite 310 Raleigh NC 27609 4968 1 Tel +1 (919) 431 52621 Fax +1 (919) 876 6848 1 Cell +1 (919) 210 32601
Email ronald ferrell @ atkmsglobal com I Web www atkmsglobal com /northamenca www atkmsglobal com
From Lespinasse, Polly [mailto polly lespinasse @ncdenr gov]
Sent Monday, April 30, 2012 4 12 PM
To Ferrell, Ronald E
Cc Hair Sarah E SAW, Wainwright David, Carrillo, Sonia
Subject Gaston Turnpike
Ron
I have reviewed the application for this project In advance of our meeting on May 9 1 wanted to send you
these comments /concerns Most of them are minor and similar for many of the sites If they can be
satisfactorily addressed before /on May 9 1 can move forward with writing the permit Let me know if you have
any questions
Thanksl
Polly Lespinasse Polly Lespinasse @ncdenr gov
Environmental Senior Specialist
North Carolina Dept of Environment & Natural Resources
Div of Water Quality
610E Center Ave Suite 301
Mooresville NC 28115
Ph 704 235 2190 Fax 704 663 6040
E mail correspondence to and from this address may be 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
This message has been checked for threats by Atkins Group IS
This electronic mail communication may contain privileged confidential and /or proprietary information which is the property of The Atkins North
America Corporation WS Atkins plc or one of its affiliates If you are not the intended recipient or an authorized agent of the intended recipient please
delete this communication and notify the sender that you have received it in error A list of wholly owned Atkins Group companies can be found at
http / /www atklnsglobal com /site services /group company registration details
Consider the environment Please don t print this email unless you really need to
https //mail nc gov /owa/ ?ae= Item &t =IPM Note &id= RgAAAADMSzLcd9W2TJHI4 %2bm 5/21/2012
• Construction Plan Sheet 25 Provide Detail F on the sheet Also clarify the wetland impact
type — is it mechanized clearing or fill /excavation? Plan sheet shows clearing profile (Sheet 29)
shows fill
• Construction Plan Sheet 34 Depicts the pipe on a slope of 4 03% and buried 1 foot Is the
stream elevation this steep (upstream)? Maybe this pipe should be placed on grade to prevent
headcutting? What is the stream substrate?
• Construction Plan Sheet 42 Provide the discharge rate in feet per second for the two (2) riprap
basins Must be 2 feet per second or less
• Construction Plan Sheet 47 The pipes on the plan view sheet at wetland Site 58 show two
10x4 The profile drawing (Sheet 51) shows two 8 x4 Please correct Also why is the pipe
being buried? Typically equalizer pipes are placed on grade
• Construction Plan Sheet 47 DWQ recommends larger riprap at the end of the ditches which
discharge to the stream We also discussed providing a better ditch alignment where they tie
into the stream (rather than 90 degrees) Please advise why the alignment hasn t changed
• Construction Plan Sheet 54 Request that ditch alignment be revised (not 90 degrees)
• Construction Plan Sheet 54 Provide Detail B on the sheet
• Construction Plan Sheet 57 Request that ditch alignment be revised (not 90 degrees) at the
inlet end It appears that the ditch at the outlet end (on the left side if looking downstream) is
discharging upstream Please address DWQ recommends larger riprap at the end of the
ditches which discharge to the stream (13% and 17% slopes)
• Construction Plan Sheet 62 Request that ditch alignment be revised (not 90 degrees) DWQ
recommends larger riprap at the end of the ditches which discharge to the stream
• Construction Plan Sheet 68 Wetland W323 does not show any impacts Can this be done
considering the channelization of the stream dust upstream of the wetland?
• Construction Plan Sheet 77 DWQ recommends larger riprap at the end of the ditch which
discharges to the stream (7% slope)
• Construction Plan Sheet 80 DWQ recommends larger riprap at the end of the ditch which
discharges to the stream (9% slope)
• Construction Plan Sheet 85 DWQ recommends larger riprap at the end of the ditch which
discharges to the stream (ditch slope unknown) Additionally the Detail LL depicts a Class B rock
lined stream All riprap must be embedded below the stream bed elevation to allow for low flow
of water and aquatic passage
• Construction Plan Sheet 91 Request that ditch alignment be revised (not 90 degrees) DWQ
recommends larger riprap at the end of the ditches which discharge to the stream
• Construction Plan Sheet 95 Provide Detail E on the sheet Request that ditch alignment be
revised (looks like they are discharging upstream — flow direction not provided on drawings)
DWQ recommends larger riprap at the end of the ditches which discharge to the stream (9%
slope at outlet end ?) Provide a detail or clearly depict how the ditch at the outlet end ( ?) is tying
into the stream
• Are there drawings for the remaining portion of the project? For the Monroe project
drawings were provided for the other sections even though they were not very detailed
Gaston Turnpike Application Review — 4/30/12
• There are no bridge approach buffer impacts at Permit Sites 50 & 57 Is this because the bridge
approach begins at a great distance from the buffer?
• Page 16 of 17 Attachment 8 Catawba Creek Crossing It states that a small finger of the Lake
Wylie project boundary (0 29 acres) along unnamed intermittent stream S280 would be filled
Is this the actual lake or is it a stream? Are you getting a FERC permit for this project? Was this
included in the FERC application?
• Attachment 8 Table 13 Page 1 of 2 There are more perennial stream and wetland impacts in
the preliminary /final design than in the FEIS Why is that?
• Attachment 8 Table 14 Page 1 of 1
• Attachment 10 References Stormwater Permit NCS000250 in this section but Permit No
NCS00023 was included as an attachment
• Stormwater Management Plan sheets South Fork Catawba River is 303d listed for turbidity as
well as impaired for low pH Catawba Creek is listed for ecological /biological integrity (fish)
• The second sheet of the stormwater management plan is not complete (6 columns to the right
starting with K3 191 +28 207 +59 Why isn t this information provided?
• Figure 5 Riparian Buffer Impact Site 48 was provided in the application Why wasn t a drawing
for Permit Sites 50 and 57 included?
• Construction Plan Sheet 3 Depicts two (2) PSHs at Site 50 The Q10 for the 2 PSI-Is is 5 76 cfs
and 2 4 cfs Please provide the discharge from these measures in feet per second All
discharges to the protected riparian buffer must be 2 feet per second or less
• Construction Plan Sheet 3 The data in Attachment 8 doesn t match what is depicted on Plan
Sheet 3 for the Q10 (including station numbers) Please explain
• Construction Plan Sheet 3 Are temporary buffer /stream impacts accounted for (i a temporary
work bridge)?
• Has a detail for the temporary work bridge been provided?
• How will the temporary impact areas be restored? Provide details
• Construction Plan Sheet 9 (and other profile sheets) Plans indicate left and right ditches
What direction are you facing to determine which is left or right?
• Construction Plan Sheet 9 Site 50 profile drawing A triangle with a dot in the center is depicted
at 178 — is this the PSH?
• Please provide Detail Sheets 2D 2E and 2F
• Construction Plan Sheet 11 Provide Detail V on the sheet
• Construction Plan Sheet 11 It appears that the ditch at the inlet is discharging upstream as is
the ditch at the outlet Please revise or explain
• Construction Plan Sheet 15 DWQ would recommend the use of Class Hat the outlet ends of the
ditches due to the ditch slopes (9 11 %)
• Construction Plan Sheet 19 DWQ would recommend the use of Class I or larger at the outlet
end of the lateral ditch (5 6% slope)