HomeMy WebLinkAbout20151031 Ver 2_Brad Shaver comments_20160824PLAN VIEW OF WETLAND IMPACTS
-----------
-------
—
Inum earnwr
C/L
EOR
PROPOSED PIPES TWO (i) BI' k 59' CMPA
40'LONG WITH HEADWALLS AND ti.l
AN OVERALL STRUCTURE �1
WINGCrH
_,_,m
k }"
GFS4FO
T.
�
ON A 96' STREW
AQUA BARRIER PLAGtO WYTHI S FT.UPSTREAM
�
�Pua;a ;Tr+Ee lu cf_.
r,E'v T RII IF
DATA COLLECTED:
12f09f2015 s � K
FROM PIPE
INLET
wa
1
-� �
'ERMIT DRAWINGI
4 OF 5
PERMANENT' �ETLAM17 IMPACT ;�'73
I,
Tc�vPL,Pd R• '&ETL r I�+a o,Tk:
HAN. E4Nl-8"
SCALE
I'=I5'
(FLOW
EXISTING PIPE: ONE M:II 66'X 51' (:MPA
tl e'�P+'�+vrTWETL+.N� IMaacrs;
71 RLL
AT � 37 FT. V
�
2T' HEADWALL WITH 45' WING S
`
71-
ON EACH SIDE WITH S'SKEW
K—
`
LIMITS OF HANG CLEARING
IN WETLANDS E
I�
AQUA BARRIER PLACED WI'HIN 75 FT,
1
DOWNSTREAM
iEMP(7RAWY 5TREkMPA[i i V
i
�
FROM PIPE OUTLET
�c
D
fti K
—�-- --
—_
BA
PERMANENT 9TREAAI 112'A
—I
31.5' HEADWALL WITH 4.5' HEAD -WALLS
i
�-TEMPORARY'
ON EACH SIDE WITH 15' SKEW
+�
` STREAM IMPACT 4$41
PERMANL Ni
STREAM IMPACT 153}
I1 j�
Il
1
�I
1 1
W ~
of EkWmmmms.
PROFILE OF STREAM IMPACT 30
C,, L
M1aTE-. ELEWATIDN% ARE ;iELh7IWE TO THE
,1..TLET WE EDGE DF 'L'+EWEWI WHICH 1-1115
A -N ASSUM ELEYA7104 CF 100.0.71-111
DATA COLLECTED. 12/09/2015 .' TLPT SIIE ELEYATKN IS KFV AS THERE
EXISTNIG PIPE - IN A SibOAFLANT AFFERENcP h I%LET
100 N U5�A' CkO4- v nUTLET EWE OF P&vEWENT ELEVA710%
PERMIT DRAWINGi I OF 5 AOTE)? FT L(WC ❑DW -ql) '.Er4EE ME%
SCALE
99 1:=%�ERTICAL curFT-
M,�HE411% L. .61 N"j. LLS F'P C`41Z� 61-1-
=2 HORZONTAL !7ru'E LE�7H OF ",5 Fr,
97 TWPOAARr STRUM
TEVPbRe-IY STRE.AW I PWI'AI;T LPAFrs-.
IAPACT Ukl173i T5 FT DOWNSTREAM OF PIPE CUTLET
9G I5 FT UPSTREAM OF FIPE ourl-ET
JURISDICTIONAL SURFACE WATER -
95 ELEVATION
93,0 1
94 93.3593.59
EMSTM OUTLET
9306
NF -R
93 6..' 93.72 IT MA 43.15
Exl2i7W, sTAEAWED
(OL-PROMATED $!•WAEAOINW IEM714(; I�L
92 INVERT 92ET ryG
/V93 55
P;
91 FLOW FROPIDSED INLET 4ROP05ED QJTLET
INVERT 92.75 1 VERT - 92-75
93.53
E%ISTMG STREkWBED
F�
89 OTEi STREW BED DATA COLLECTED WITH A. 1.4 PR;) XIMATED 8,,Vi RFAD14GS;
,IJRI,R- LEVEL ArM AtD-SHM IN THE
FEL:: ARE FK.HII'WTAL 01�TANCES
FRDW THE I%LET EM AND (NJ-rLE:-T E14D OF alk3f,
87 PIPES. (SEE ATTAMED SURVEY TABLE 11
20 100 80 60 4 0 20 0 20 40 60 80 100 120
WArMCOMS
of Rwimmmms.
CROSS SECTION DRAWING FOR STREAM CROSSING
rATA C+XIECTEfw 1e PSE
PTFI ul.,zoe,16
1'10wwR LIHAVI VA s IF S
4rti IF1 _ �6 wL �{
9531- 43 FT U'STREAW RP -'M IST
STRE NEEE ELE!OA-n%N
Lp3ki& scn 15m - 40 R;Wr
vq PS +w 4F M—TMG K ET
C FT
7 F
o PHffLd� J FT
IFT f'. �
�+- 4-i Fr
SLL ow
"m P lfL
NUT Ta SCALE
N_T TCI 'SEALE
a4 Fr
U FL E6 t+L
NYMEj
9Z.T6 - dC FT JCWRSTREhM1 •'' S PA&I
STRE PEES ELE'dA-noN
STPE M MOM 44"TP M - 4G FUT
DD*gsTpmw GF �w ?-RLC
I# FT ::
12 F IA O1rti�
IM FT
Lib A r tb Carps
of censers.
32
PROFILE SHOWING TEMPORARY COFFER DAMS
Q
rep
GM
�t
TCS= 0=
'ETYLEKE 10 NIC TM i "; If1 .YN
4F G+w t8 MIS TM1GK1
PREIFCJSEA PYP
IfdTALL11rRN
_.I DbifAl �3y 1
�I I II
DF I LE MEW
NUT TO SCALE
TEVII19ARY STOW [HECK
Dis CTiG STCI. ! ml) ' CL'
STD. ONG. F@R LRENS7
CONSTRuC T ION SEQUENCE
INSTALL PUMP AND LINE TO PURR FLOW FROM V TREAM {IF TEMPORARY DAM
TO AkEA I70KNETREAM OF WORK ,AREA_ BEGIN P44PING AND CGnTINUE
PUMPING WHILZ WORKINU WITHIN THE STCEAM.
INSTALL TH'v UPSTREAM DAM KITH THE POLYETHYLENE FABRIC ON THE UPSTREAM FACE
TO TRAP TR LOW FLOW.
INSTALL THE DOWNSTREAM TEMPORARY STONE CHECK DAM. CDG STD. 0433.
INSTALLA OEWATERLNG SILT SAC; CSN THE SIREAM BANK. DEHATER TKE WORK .AS
NECESSARY BY P-uKpINO THE WATER THROUGH THE SILT BAG,
UPON COMPLETTUN OF IhZ PIPE I4STALLATION AND .ALL DTsTUARE0 AREAS ARE STABILIZED,
REMOVE THE TE4gPORARY DAMS AND THE POLYETHYLENE FAEALC. REMOVE THE DAM ANO RESTO
THE STREAM BANKS AND BOTTOM.
REMDVE THE OEWATERING SILT BAG.
1
t
Strickland, Bev
From: Shaver, Brad E SAW <Brad.E.Shaver@usace.army.mil>
Sent: Wednesday, August 24, 2016 10:33 AM
To: Jeff Soble
Cc: Steenhuis, Joanne; 'Andrew Moriarty'; 'Kim Williams'; 'Tyler Morris'; Dooley, Brennan J
SAW
Subject: RE: [EXTERNAL] FW: Brad Shaver comments
Attachments: stream details.pdf
Good Morning all,
Comments from a review of responses dated August 19, 2016:
-(2) the Corps has pretty specific conditions for pipe placement in streams in an effort to assure that the placement does
not widen the stream dimension, increase the slope, and/or change the profile. Unfortunately from the scale of the
current drawings I cannot make a determination that these dimensions are maintained. We have a consultant workshop
next week and I have included some of the example drawings from that presentation to assist in you preparation of
plans. I noted that Kim has already provided you the Nationwide Regional Conditions which are in fact the standards
resource agencies are expecting for pipe placement. If you are going to propose two pipes in this relatively narrow
stream you will need to have one barrel serve as the low flow barrel and one as the flood flow. This can be accomplished
by either setting the pipes at different elevations (which I understand to be a constructability issue with a pre cast
headwall) or propose sills in one barrel to push the water to the low flow barrel. With pipe placement please don't
forget to include temporary impacts necessary for construction and any dewatering plan that you may utilize to meet
DWR standards.
-(3) based on the response for the storm water pond and its potential effect on the adjacent wetlands, the storm water
pond would be conditioned to be no deeper than two feet based on the evidence of seasonal high water table. I hate to
include a condition that would be in jeopardy of being violated so I ask if there is any current topo mapping of the site
that could be used to compare the wetland elevation in the bottom of the drains relative to the depth of the pond. In
other words, if the wetland elevation is lower than the final elevation of the pond outlet that would be the only thing
that would need to be demonstrated and this may be accomplished through topo mapping, that I suspect you already
have.
-(5) 1 appreciate the time and effort put into the current parking analysis but there are a few errors in the data. Zone two
project data indicates that the total parking required is 269 when in fact it appears to be 268. Zone three required
parking is reported as 302 when it should be 301, also the calculation for the anchor parking is incorrect and should be
258 not 255. All of these calculations should be corrected which in turn will change the overall parking summary both on
the parking zone exhibit as well as the narrative.
On a more fundamental level, why was such effort given to meeting local zoning parking requirements on the northern
part of the tract but not on the southern half of the tract. Based on a quick assessment of parking on the southern half,
you have approximately 180 spaces provided over the zoning requirements for the described buildings. Removing a 180
spaces from the southern parking grid could potentially minimize wetland impacts. The potential would exist to leave
some the wetland drain in the outparcel that is currently described as SHOPS 8,000 sf if 180 spaces were not necessary.
Please address this inconsistent approach to the parking justification.
Since you reference Marlin Drive in the narrative please label accordingly on the plan sheets.
-(7) please explore further with the storm water approval agency whether or not the release of water will be allowable
in the NW corner of the property. The Corps feels strongly that this would be needed to maintain hydrology even above
the use of pervious pavement and is prepared to mandate this release in a permit condition but does not want to create
permit non-compliance from the start.
I am committed to continue working on the EA today with the new information but I will be in the filed tomorrow and
will be mostly pre occupied Friday preparing for the consultant workshop next week.
Finally so that you better understand the involvement of Brenna with this project, he is copied to have a better
understanding of the Standard Permit Process as he is navigating his own review for a similar development. He has not
been involved in the development of my comments so he will not be able to address any specifics relative to this action.
I didn't want you to have any expectations that could not be met.
Hope this helps,
Brad
-----Original Message -----
From: Jeff Soble [mailto:jsoble@geyermorris.com]
Sent: Tuesday, August 23, 2016 4:32 PM
To: Shaver, Brad E SAW <Brad.E.Shaver@usace.army.mil>
Cc: 'Steenhuis, Joanne' <joanne.steenhuis@ncdenr.gov>; 'Andrew Moriarty' <amoriarty@bohlereng.com>; 'Kim
Williams' <kwilliams@lmgroup.net>;'Tyler Morris' <tyler@geyermorris.com>
Subject: [EXTERNAL] FW: Brad Shaver comments
Importance: High
Brad,
Kim Williams forwarded your latest thoughts to me from your conversation this afternoon. As you know, we are under a
very hard deadline to get the permit released. Due to that constraint, I think it might be best for us to meet to address
any and all remaining comments and questions that you may have. Would that work for you? Are you available this
week?
Please let us know.
Thankyou
Jeff
From: Kim Williams [mailto:kwilliams@lmgroup.net]
Sent: Tuesday, August 23, 2016 3:44 PM
To: Jeff Soble <jsoble@geyermorris.com>; 'Andrew Moriarty' <amoriarty@bohlereng.com>
Cc: Tyler Morris <tyler@geyermorris.com>
Subject: Brad Shaver comments
Hi Jeff
I spoke briefly with Brad briefly this afternoon about our submission. He had to run to a meeting, but we went through a
few comments/questions that he had:
1. Profile CC in the cross section drawing, we show a double barrel culvert for the intermittent stream crossing.
Typically they like to see one culvert in the bottom of the stream and one raised a little higher for higher flows. But
headwalls may not work with that layout. Also, what are the sizes of the barrels? Will you need to bury one? The USACE
has some guidance on when burying a pipe in a stream is necessary (see Section 3.6 and 4.1.2 of attached).
2. Potential drainage issue from stormwater pond: Do we have an topographic data for this site? This may help
address potential drainage issues from the pond.
3. Parking: As we were talking, it became clear that I sent him an outdated parking exhibit (the one that stated a
reduction of 113 spaces). I am VERY sorry about that. I emailed both Brad and Joanne the current version, so they do
have that now. On the exhibit, he found a few minor errors when adding up required spaces in a couple of the zones. He
also noted that the required parking for the anchor store in Zone 3 should be 257 spaces, not 255. He also noted that
the parking for the outparcels appeared way above what is required. He wants us to discuss whether parking and
possibly overall outparcel size could be reduced in order to reduce wetland impacts. He understood that any wetland
savings would be isolated and likely wouldn't provide any real function. But we will need to address it anyway.
4. Stormwater: He wants something a little more firmed up than what is stated in our letter. Andrew- can you reach
out to someone in State Stormwater to find out if they would consider permitting sheet flow in the NW corner?
He plans to put all of his thoughts together in an email by tomorrow morning and will include additional detail.
Thanks,
Kim
Kim Williams I Environmental Scientist
Land Management Group, Inc I Environmental Consultants
Direct: 452-0001 x 1908 1 Cell: 910.471.5035 1 Fax: 910.452.0060
3805 Wrightsville Ave., Suite 15 1 Wilmington, NC 28403
Email: kwilliams@lmgroup.net <mailto:kwilliams@lmgroup.net> I Website: Blockedwww.Imgroup.net
<Blockedhttp://www.Imgroup.net/>
<BIockedhttps://www.avast.com/antivirus> This email has been checked for viruses by Avast antivirus software.
Blockedwww.avast.com <Blockedhttps://www.avast.com/antivirus>