HomeMy WebLinkAbout20160095 Ver 1_More Info Requested_20160902Strickland, Bev
From: Larsen, Cory
Sent: Friday, September 02, 2016 5:23 PM
To: 'Robert Davis'
Subject: RE: Response to comments
Bob, below are the more minor revisions that I'd like you to include in the final drawings:
- confirm impervious percentages on drainage area maps to make sure they are correct or explain proposed vs
hypothetical to me from the analysis to clarify;
- please seal and date the final DA maps
- give me a legend on the veg and preservation maps for the shading, cross hatch, etc
- please put notes/specs on plans detailing the lot specific stormwater management either Type 3 disconnected
impervious, cistern, or BMP, as discussed.
Thanks for your creativity and efforts on this and I'll look forward to the finished product.
Cory Larsen, PE
Stormwater Engineer
401 & Buffer Permitting Branch
NCDEQ — Division of Water Resources
919.807.6379 office
cory.larsena-ncdenr.gov
1617 Mail Service Center
Raleigh, North Carolina 27699-1617
a Nothing Comp res
Email correspondence to and from this address is subject to the
North Carolina Public Records Law and may be disclosed to third parties.
From: Robert Davis [mailto:rdddavis@att.net]
Sent: Friday, August 19, 2016 1:26 PM
To: Larsen, Cory <cory.larsen@ncdenr.gov>
Cc: Johnson, Alan <alan.johnson@ncdenr.gov>; Devane, Boyd <boyd.devane@ncdenr.gov>
Subject: Response to comments
Cory
Please see dropbox link for the revised sheets and calculations. The notarized forms and a
numerated response to your comments is attached this email. I would note that our initial approach
was to only provide vegetated swales where discharge from curb and gutter outlets drained to a
jurisdictional stream. Upon review of comments and forms, we have revised this to include ALL C&G
outlets with treatment with exceptions only where there exists existing filtering vegetation. In those
area we slowed velocity and let the natural in place ecosystem do the job. The culvert crossings and
the analysis showing that the proposed project has less peak runoff than a traditional low density
ditch section project is unchanged from the previous submittal are un changed and are not included in
this response.
Plea let me know if you have any other concerns. Hard copies are sent for Monday delivery.
I:%77DOW
8-19-16 submittal