20060385 Ver 1_Emails_20060825

Green Valley South review status report
Subject: Green Valley South review status report
From: Ken Pickle <[e-mail]>
Date: Fri, 25 Aug 2006 13:07:08 -0400
To: Cyndi Karoly <[e-mail]>.
CC: Boyd Devane <[e-mail]>, Bradley Bennett <[e-mail]>,
Amanda Boone <[e-mail]>
Cyndi,
I've passed verbal comments on to Amanda Boone at Duane K. Stewart & Assoc this
morning. So far, our review comments as of this afternoon are as follows. Our
review is progressing, but is not yet complete.
MINOR CORRECTIONS - easily and quickly remedied by Amanda
- Sheet 1: add one missing leg of piping, left off inadvertently; label CB466A;
General Note 5. to be expanded to highlight the potential for an interference at
CB44, 464, and #65 with other piping.
- Sheet 5: re-label the detail called "Plunge Pool" to clarify that it is intended to
be the level spreader detail.
- Check the calcs on the drain down time for both wet ponds to be sure that the
volume from the 1" rain is drained within 2 - 5 days. This probably will require a
new assumption on the head over the orifice and a new orifice size. A new orifice
size would require minor changes at several places on the drawings.
CORRECTIONS WITH POTENTIAL IMPACT ON THE DESIGN, and consequently our approval of the
proposed stormwater control system.
- As previously communicated, we are concerned about the runoff from the properties
adjacent to the connector road. Both before development of that property and after
development of that property. Amanda is aware that we have a problem with that part
of the site.
- Similarly, the control of run-on from other parcels surrounding the project is not
well documented on the submittal documents, and we Are concerned about how that
control will be accomplished to prevent run-on.
- The actual runoff volume for the design storm is not shown in the calcs. We need
that in order to continue to evaluate the sufficiency of the wet pond designs.
our review is being guided by the design provisions of 15A NCAC 2H .1000, some of
which are:
a) .1008(e) - 1" rain, 2-5day drawdown, forebay, vegetative shelf, sediment storage
provisions.
b) .1008(c) - sized for the ultimate build-out potential, 3:1 vegetated slopes, 30'
vegetative filter.
c) .1008(f) -vegetative filter with non-erosive velocity for the 10-yr flow, 5%
slope.
Ken
1 of 1 8/28/2006 9:44 AM
Questions on Spangler project
Subject: Questions on Spangler project
From: Boyd Devane <[e-mail]>
Date: Fri, 25 Aug 2006 12:16:19 -0400
To: Cyndi Karoly <[e-mail]>
CC: Ken Pickle <[e-mail]>
Ken just asked me about the regulatory requirements
stormwater treatment for the Green Valley project..
the draaft 401 requirements so I don't know for sur
meet the WS-IV stormwater requirements of 1" storm
have been implementing those requirements.) Have I
and just not known it? Did someone say this was a
an
upon which we are
I told him that
e but that I knew
and 5-2 drawdown.
seen the draft 401
impaired stream?
requiring
I had not seen
that they must
(The city should
requirements
1 of 1 8/28/2006 9:44 AM
FW: Gr_en Valley South
Subject: FW: Green Valley South
From: "Amanda Boone" <[e-mail]>
Date: Fri, 25 Aug 2006 10:58:58 -0400
To: "'Ken Pickle"' <[e-mail]>
CC: "'Boyd Devane"' <[e-mail]>, "'Duane K. Stewart"' <[e-mail]>,
<[e-mail]>
Ken,
Below is the response I received from Spangler Environmental regarding your concerns voiced yesterday. It
seems to me that another meeting may be in order. As far as the comments you gave me today I will have those
addressed and revisions turned into you by Monday afternoon at the latest. Thanks.
Amanda C. Boone, CPESC, PE
Duane K. Stewart and Associates, Inc.
3715 University Drive
Durham, NC 27707
[phone] main
[phone] direct
[phone] fax
[e-mail]
www.dksa-tsi.com
Amanda, thanks for the info in your e-mail below. Here's my take on it:
Other than what may someday come from Brookshire and Cornerstone (I say someday, because those projects
actually may not ever connect to the Green Valley Stormwater system--in fact, they may connect to the City's or be
completely independent--who knows?--it'll depend on what those projects' developers decide to do, I guess.),
there is no site run-on through or from any structures. All other adjacent property is developed. The developer
extended the City's storm sewer through the property so that no off-site run-on from City conveyances would
occur. Where are the locations of concern?
Perhaps another meeting with them can clear these things up. As for Brookshire and Cornerstone, they are
owned by different parties, and are not part of the project for which the 401 certification is being sought, and they
have no requirement to tie into Green Valley, so there is no regulatory basis for the reviewer's concern. The note
you have on your plans was, as I understand it, there in case those projects(s) ever had to use Green Valley's
infrastructure. Again, there is no regulatory requirement for wither of those projects to tie into Green Valley.
Please explain this to the reviewer.
I am copying Cyndi Karoly so she is in the loop. This delay caused by projects and issues not part of the 401
certification property are getting out of hand.
Jim
James A. Spangler, CEI
President
Spangler Environmental, Inc.
www.SpanglerEnvironmental.com
919-546-0754 Raleigh Office
910-343-9375 Wilmington Office
"Delay always breeds danger; and to protract a great design is often to ruin it."--Miguel de Cervantes
1 of 2 8/28/2006 9:43 AM
FW: Gr,-.n Valley South
This e-mail transmission (and any attachments thereto) is confidential and privileged. It is intended only for viewing by the entity to which it is addressed.
This document and attachments may contain information subject to attorney work-product doctrines or attorney-client privilege. If you are not the
addressee, your disclosure, copying, distribution or use of the contents of this message for any purpose is prohibited. If you have received this message
in error, please notify the sender by return e-mail.
-----Original Message-----
Jim,
We have a very real potential problem with Green Valley South. DWQ has informed me that the note
placed on the latest plans that reads as follows is not sufficient: "Development adjacent to roadway being
treated by Green Valley South will be designed in such a way so that no runoff from the adjacent
development enters the roadway."
This note was placed on the plans based on their concerns with water entering the roadway from
development on the Brookshire and Cornerstone tracts and discussions with the developer on how this
water would be handled.
DWQ is uncomfortable with this note and requires further explanation as to how this will be accomplished.
They are also concerned with the Brookshire and Cornerstone properties in their undeveloped state and
what is going to be done with the water prior to construction to keep it from entering the Green Valley South
basins.
Lastly, the reviewer on this project is uncomfortable with the lack of information regarding the off-site
diversions. Without further information, the plans for the most part indicate additional off-site run on. If you
will recall this is something that initially worried me, but I was informed by you that not off-site water was a
concern because it was being conveyed at several points to continuing running into the wetlands but not
across the property.
Based on the outcome and explanations of the above concerns I will need to make some adjustments to
the drainage areas.
Please let me know how you wish to handle these concerns that DWQ has regarding off-site run on.
Thanks.
Amanda C. Boone, CPESC, PE
Duane K. Stewart and Associates, Inc.
3715 University Drive
Durham, NC 27707
[phone] main
[phone] direct
[phone] fax
[e-mail]
www.dksa-tsi.com
2 of 2 8/28/2006 9:43 AM
Green Valley South
Subject: Green Valley South
From: Ken Pickle <[e-mail]>
Date: Thu, 24 Aug 2006 15:24:26 -0400
To: Cyndi Karoly <[e-mail]>
CC: Boyd Devane <[e-mail]>, Bradley Bennett <[e-mail]>
Cyndi,
Well, our 30 days since our meeting on Green Valley is just about up. I've conveyed
some additional concerns today to Amanda Boone, and she has referred them to her
clients. My review is continuing, and I should have a written response to Amanda by
Tuesday, next week. It seems to me that the north wet pond must be sized to
accomodate run-on from adjacent properties. The existing topo of the undeveloped
adjacent properties indicates that the properties certainly would drain into the
Green Valley South collection system. Amanda reports that the wet ponds are sized to
accomodate the runoff from within the project boundaries, but not the run-on from
adjacent properties.
The applicant included a note on the submittal drawing that states, "Development
adjacent to roadway being treated by Green Valley South will be designed in such a
way so that no runoff from the adjacent development enters the roadway." In
imprecise, non-legal language, my view is that with this note the applicant is
promising that a third party will control their runoff. The third party has no
official relationship with us, and the third party has no contractual relationship
with Green Valley South, as far as I know. I cannot accept the applicant's assertion
about what some other party may do. He has no ability to deliver on his promise, as
far as I know. And we have no ability to enforce on the third party. I have, advised
Amanda of this problem. She will seek instructions from her clients.
So, here's the short summary: The existing topo (pre-development) of the adjacent
property indicates that it will drain into the Green Valley South system. The
applicant asserts that after development of the neighboring property, it will not
drain into his system. In the first case (before development) the system must be
sized to handle the additional off-site flow. In the second case (after development)
there is no mechanism in place to insure that the third party will keep his
stormwater out of the Green Valley South system.
I'm unclear on whether we promised a review in 30 days, or a certification in 30
days. We certainly can deliver the review. I'm not sure whether we'll make the
certification, since that depends on their response to our comments, and any further
findings in my review. Do you recall exactly what we promised in that meeting?
Ken
1 of 1 8/28/2006 9:44 AM
Green Valley South supplemental review status report
Subject: Green Valley South supplemental review status report
From: Ken Pickle <[e-mail]>
Date: Sun,, 27 Aug 2006 15:07:36 -0400
To: Cyndi Karoly <[e-mail]>, Boyd Devane <[e-mail]>, Bradley
Bennett <[e-mail]>
CC: Amanda Boone <[e-mail]>
Cyndi,
We're in contact with the design engineer for Green Valley South, and our review is
progressing within the time frame that we promised. At this point, it seems to me
that our delivery of the Certification depends on the applicant's response to the
comments.
See the attached summary of our review findings to date.
Ken
.........
Content-Type: application/msword
Supplemental Review sequence.doc
Content-Encoding: base64
1 of 1 8/28/2006 9:44 AM