The URL can be used to link to this page

Home My WebLink About20120285 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)