20140770 Ver 1_Staff Comments_20150709

Strickland, Bev
From: Devane, Boyd
Sent: Friday, July 10, 2015 11:26 AM
To: Strickland, Bev
Subject: FW: Beaverdam Rd project 14 -0770
Please file this project. thanks
From: Devane, Boyd
Sent: Thursday, July 09, 2015 1:54 PM
To: Fox, Tim
Subject: RE: Beaverdam Rd project 14 -0770
ITUM
I have not heard from Adam King, the contact for Beaverclam, or Wanda Austin. We could email him and Wanda and
ask if they are planning on submitting anything. You probably know the more appropriate words to use but I'll be hap
to do that. I'd like to show that we are trying to help them get permitted, not just find reasons to return their plans.. I
I talked to Zan this morning about the Banner Elk project. I sent him a note to get his opinion. I apologize that I shou
have sent it to you also. Below is what I sent. I'd welcome your comments. I
Zan, please look at my proposed response to David Ramsey. Please offer any suggestions or opinions.
We are now reviewing your plan that we received on June 23, 2015 and have some comments and questions.
1. The front page of all three paper copies we received have identical 1.5" smudges on the lower right -hand
side. Your response to #1 has a smudge after "orifice" that makes the meaning of your statement unclear.
Please provide us with three front pages that are not smudged. To save you time, you can send them
electronically and I will print them here.
2. Your response to #1 indicates that "The barrel is 4" and the orifice 1/5" ... ". We assume that is a typo on the
1/5" and can only guess that the smudged area covers a "1 ". The orifice size has been a critical issue and we
would have expected that your quality control would have been better relating to that issue.
3. You stated in the top paragraph of the second page that "The equation in the manual for the volume of runoff to
be treated does not agree with the NCAC referenced code." Please indicate which equation in the Manual is
inconsistent with the code. The code reference you provided "Section 12ANCAC 02.41.1017(13)" is not a valid
code number and we could find nothing similar. We want to correct any inaccuracies and would appreciate you
helping us determine where it is located.
4. We find no reason why the 11 acre figure continues to be included under "Peak Flow Calculations" on the
second page under "Supporting Calculations ". As you have stated, it does not drain to the retention basin and
therefore, it has no relation to the "Peak Flow Calculations ". Since we have noted on at least three occasions
why including this total of 11 acres adds to our confusion in reviewing the sizing of the BMP, we don't
understand why it's inclusion and your support of that continues. Why not remove it?
From: Fox, Tim
Sent: Thursday, July 09, 2015 12:58 PM
To: Devane, Boyd
Cc: Moore, Andrew W; Price, Zan (George)
Subject: Beaverdam Rd project 14 -0770

Hope you had a good holiday.
Did you hear anything over the weekend regarding this project?
Should I prepare a return letter? I believe the deadline was July 2? What do you want to do?
Also, was wondering about Banner Elk? How's that one looking?
I will be in the office tomorrow if you have time to talk.
Thanks,
Tim
Tim Fox [e-mail]
North Carolina Dept. of Environment and Natural Resources
Asheville Regional Office
Division of Water Resources — Water Quality Programs
FAMIUMMILM
Tel: [phone]
F;zy: 828-299-7043
Notice: Email correspondence to and from this address may be subject to the NC Public Records Law and may be
disclosed to third parties.