20090183 Ver 2_Triage Comments_20091021

DWQ#
Triaged By:
Reviewer 1
Reviewer 2
Reviewer 3
Use this form instead of writing inside the folder
Triage Comment Sheet
'ZOO go al i-)--
izt
Mr? Vif
Date:
Date:
Date:
Issue Project (Reviewer 1) ? Issue Project (Reviewer 2)
Issue with conditions (Reviewer 1)
Issue with conditions (Reviewer 2)
_1N i I
? More Informatiop (Reviewer 1)
? Return Application (Reviewer 1)
? Send to Regions (Reviewer 1)
? Send to Regions (Reviewer 2)
? More Information (Reviewer 2)
? Return Application (Reviewer 2)
SATriage Forms\Triage Issue Sheet.doc
PLEASE PRINT CLEARLY
09-0183v2 The Landings Lots 135 and 136
AML Comments
October 21, 2009
Deficiencies in the Overall Concept: The application does not adequately
explain why a bioretention area between the two existing structures is infeasible.
The DWQ is willing to consider this possibility but appropriate supporting
information must be provided. Given the proximity of the stream and the
proposal for a bypass structure in the ULS design, the assertion that above-ground
discharges must be avoided is inadequate.
2. Deficiencies in the Level Spreader Design: Level spreaders (either
conventional or underground) may not be placed upslope of filter strips with
grades steeper than six percent (wooded vegetation) or eight percent (grass or
thick ground cover). In addition, level spreaders may not be placed upslope of a
draw. The proposed site for the level spreader is inappropriate on both counts.
Deficiencies in the Level Spreader Submittal: In order for the DWQ to
consider permitting a level spreader, a complete Level Spreader Supplement form
with all required items included must be provided. The DWQ is not able to
conduct a detailed engineering review of the design based on the submittal
received on September 14, 2009.