The URL can be used to link to this page

Home My WebLink About20171250 Ver 1_P-5704 Stouts Siding ACOE responses_20171219I've reviewed the PCN for the Stouts Siding project and I apologize for the delay. I do have would like some additional information, particularly more detailed plans that will allow me to review each individual site to ensure they are designed in compliance with permit conditions. I'm a little confused by the current plan. I see where impacts end for wetlands and stream crossings but I'm having trouble identifying the proposed track and the fill slopes. Th� �xisting track ancN prr�pr�s�cN track ar� shr��nrn r�n th� plan sh��ts, �nrith lab�ls, as �nr�ll as th� slr�p� stak�s. V\/�`v� �upcNat�cN th� plans tr� alsr� incl�ucN� lab�ls r�n th� slr�p� stak�s cN�picting th� ar�as r�� c�ut ancN �ill. Not sure if the plan should be updated to be more detailed or if I'm just missing something. Also, it looks like the stream locations have not been included in the plan considering several streams do not line up with the proposed crossing extensions. 5tr�am Ir�catir�ns hav� b��n cc�rr�ct�cN r�n th� r�vis�cN plans. �/� initially �us�cN a lin� �rr�m th� �P5 pr�ints that wasn`t cNrawn cc�rr�ctly. Th� attach�cN cNrawings �us� th� �inal s�urv�y Ir�catir�ns �r�r th� str�ams. Anticipat�cN str�am impact n�umb�rs hav� b��n r�calc�ulat�cN �using th� cc�rr�ct, �inal s�urv�y str�am Ir�catir�ns ancN th� mitigatir�n r�cg�u�st I�tt�r ancN p�rmit applicatir�n hav� alsr� b��n �upcNat�cN accc�rcNingly. Also, an overall plan showing where the proposed track begins and ends would be helpful. �r�u�r pag� r�� p�rmit cNra�nrings has b��n r�uis�cN tr� shr��nr �nrh�r� prr�j�ct b�gins ancN �ncNs. Additional detail will also help me ensure benches are constructed where necessary to prevent over-widening of the streams. More specific comments, including specific comments about each site follow: 1) although overall the impacts are less than the regional condition threshold for stream mitigation, DOT typically provides mitigation for stream impacts less than 150 If due to the nature and quantity throughout the state of impacts to waters of the US that result from work DOT conducts. Please provide a mitigation plan to off-set permanent stream impacts. 5tr�am mitigatir�n has b��n r�cg�u�st�cN �rr�m �M5 ancN an �upcNat�cN apprr�v�cN mitigatir�n r�cg�u�st I�tt�r �rr�m �M5 is attach�cN tr� th� r�vis�cN p�rmit applicatir�n. �JOT�; lin�ar ��t r�� str�am impact has b��n r�vis�cN tr� 148`. 2) There are 4 Impact Sites included in the package. However, based on review of the approved JD and figures for the "recommended improvements," there are additional waters on site with a triple culvert extension proposed. Please clarify if impacts will occur here (th�r� ar� nr� impacts tr� th� tripl� c�ulv�rt sit�} and include overall plan of the project showing the beginning and ending of the project and how the project ties back into existing tracks. �r�v�r pag� r�� p�rmit cNra�nrings has b��n r�vis�cN tr� shr��nr wh�r� prr�j�ct b�gins ancN �ncNs. 3) Site 2: This sit� has b��n brr�k�n intr� t�nrr� sit�s (5it� 2 ancN 5it� 3} r�n th� attach�cN s�ubmittal. SC: • The stream doesn't align with the double 60 and 66' pipe extensions and so I'm wondering how the stream ties into the culvert and if a stream relocation will be necessary. 5tr�am Ir�catir�ns hav� b��n cc�rr�ct�cN r�n th� r�vis�cN plans. V\/� initially �us�cN a lin� �rr�m th� �P5 pr�ints that wasn`t cNrawn cc�rr�ctly. Th� attach�cN cNrawings �us� th� �inal s�urv�y Ir�catir�ns �r�r th� str�ams. • Do both existing pipes receive low flow and if not which one does? Th� �ast�rn mr�st pip� (1801} is at th� Ir��nr�st inv�rt ancN r�c�iv�s Ir��nr �Ir��nr • Are the existing pipes buried and will the extensions be buried? �xisting pip�s ar� nr�t b�uri�cN ancN th� �xt�nsir�ns alsr� �nrill nr�t b� b�uri�cN. • Per my above request, a more detailed plan showing benches, the stream relocation and profile (showing that rip rap will be imbedded) and burial will help me evaluate this site to determine if it meets permit conditions. �J� hav� attach�cN th� prr��il� cNrawings �r�r yr��ur r�vi�w which w� b�li�v� prr�vicN�s th� in�r�rmatir�n yr��u r�cg�uir�. South Fork Crooked Creek: � how wide is this creek (neither my jd notes or the PCN package identify a width). 4-7 ��t �nricN�. This is mr�r� cl�arly nr�t�cN nr��nr r�n Pag� 5 r�� th� P��J • Is the current pipe buried and will the extension be buried? Th� r��utl�t �ncN r�� th� �xisting pip� is nr�t b�uri�cN. Th�r��r�r�, th� prr�pr�s�cN �xt�nsir�n �nrill alsr� nr�t b� b�uri�cN. � Will the new 34" pipe only receive high flows? Y�s. It is act�ually a 36°` V\/5P �nrh�r� th� inl�t inv�rt is s�t apprr�ximat�ly 1` abr�v� th� inv�rt r�� th� �xisting rr�ck arch c�ulv�rt. • Will the confluence of South Fork Crooked Creek and the incoming trib be impacted? Y�s. It �nrill b� n�c�ssary tr� t�mpr�rarily impact th� str�am banks tr� install th� 36°` V\/5P high �Ir��nr pip�. A b�nch �nrill b� cc�nstr�uct�cN as part r�� this cc�nstr�uctir�n (nr�t�cN in b�ull�t b�lr��nr}. • Will there be a bench on the outlet end to prevent stream over widening since it appears as though the pipe extension and the new 34" pipe will be set at the same elevation? At th� r��utl�t �ncN, wh�r� th� lat�ral cNitch, th� n�w 36°` r�v�r�lr�w pip�, ancN 5r��uth Fr�rk �rr�r�k�cN �r��k all cc�nv�rg�, th� ar�a �nrill b� riprapp�cN tr� cNissipat� th� �Ir��nr ancN cc�nstr�uct�cN tr� g�n�rally maintain th� Ir��nr �Ir��nr chann�l. V\/� hav� attach�cN a cc�py r�� th� �5R cNr�n� �r�r this crr�ssing. • Again, more detailed plans will help answer most of these questions. �J� hav� attach�cN th� prr��il� cNrawings �r�r yr��ur r�vi�w which w� b�li�v� prr�vicN�s th� in�r�rmatir�n yr��u r�cg�uir�. 4) Stream SE doesn't align with culvert. The plans say the pipe will be 2.5'x2.5' and 2.5'x4'. Which is it? Th� �xisting str�uct�ur� is 2.5` x 4.0`. �'r��nr�v�r, th� s�urv�yr�rs icN�nti�i�cN it as a 2.5` x 2.5` b�ca�us� th�y cNicN nr�t cNig cNr�vvn tr� th� br�ttr�m. Th� hycNra�ulic cN�sign�rs Ir�cat�cN th� br�ttr�m ancN m�as�ur�cN it as 4.0`. It is b�uri�cN 1.5`, sr� th� ��ctiv� °'cl�ar°` r�p�ning is 2.5` x 2.5`. will the width be 2.5'? the plan indicates this pipe will be buried to 1.5' below stream bed. The JD package indicates that this stream is barely perennial. In the past we've seen a lot of head cutting issues with streams that don't receive perennial flow and that are buried. I'm wondering if it might be wise to consider putting this pipe closer to the stream bed elevation if constraints will allow it, and if not including some sort of grade control near the outlet to prevent head cutting? Th� prr�pr�s�cN �xt�nsir�n is cN�sign�cN tr� maintain th� sam� b�uri�cN cN�pth as th� �xisting str�uct�ur�. If you have any questions regarding this email please don't hesitate to contact me.