20191408 Ver 1_More Info Received_20191209

Strickland, Bev
From: Paul Petitgout <[e-mail]>
Sent: Monday, December 9, 2019 7:38 AM
To: Johnson, Alan
Subject: [External] Re: Catawba Plantation
• External email. Do not click links or open attachments unless you verify. Send all suspicious email as an attachment to
[e-mail]
Alan:
The road crossing impact (permanent impact) cannot practicablly be avoided. If the engineer were to
move the road eastward to avoid the impact, the new location would eliminate approximately 8-12
units, which would make the project unviable. Additionally, the new road alignment may not be
approved by the City due to alignment/curvature issues. If the engineer were to cul-de-sac the
shorter road segment prior to making the crossing, the City would likely not approve the plan as the
City dislikes the use of Cul-de-sacs. During earlier stages of the plan approval process, the City
commented on the use of cul-de-sacs and that the two already present should be
eliminated. However, there was no practial way to eliminate these becasue both end at property lines
and there is no where to connect back to either within the development or to adjacent development
areas because of the Duke Power Right of way and the previous development layout. The use of an
additional cul-de-sac would also eliminate connectivity, which is requested by the City. Additionally,
although the stream is being filled, the fill activity will consist of a "french drain" so that any flow
present will be allowed to pass (as described in Section 4i of the PCN package). One change to the
"french drain" design that is being implemented in the final plans is that perforated pipe will be placed
in the fill and covered by rock and then soil. This perforated pipe will allow any flow present to pass
more efficiently from under the fill material. The stream impacted by the road crossing (permanent
impact) is also relatively low quality.
Initially, the development plans called for additional impacts to the other stream (temporary impact) located on
site (originally proposed a stormwater basin on top of the live stream). However, the engineer was able to re-
design the plan with a loss of a few units, and was able to reduce the impact to this stream to just what is
necessary for the sewer to get across (a 10 if temporary impact). This was a siginificant decrease in overall
impacts as the basin would have possibly impacted 60-80% of the length of the stream (depending on the final
basin configuration).
Please call or email with any questions. Thanks for your help on this!!!
Paul
ENVIRONMENTAL AND ECOLOGICAL SERVICES
S. Paul Petitgout
President/Managing Member

Lowrys Environmental & Ecological Services, LLC
1823 Quinn Road
Chester, South Carolina 297o6
Phone: [phone]
Email: nnetit og titCa)gmail.com
On Wed, Oct 30, 2019 at 4:30 PM Johnson, Alan <alanJohnsonkncdenr.gov> wrote:
SAW-2018-00637
Seems to me they should be able to avoid the headwater of the stream (the impact)
0
Alan D Johnson — Senior Environmental Specialist
NC Dept. of Environment & Natural Resources (NCDENR)
Division of Water Resources - Water Quality Regional Operations
610 East Center Ave., Suite 301, Mooresville, NC 28115
Phone: [phone] Fax: [phone]
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.