HomeMy WebLinkAboutWPO200900027 Review Comments Erosion Control Plan 2009-06-19Page 1 of 2
Philip Custer
From: Amelia McCulley
Sent: Friday, June 19, 2009 3:41 PM
To: Philip Custer; Ron Higgins
Subject: RE: Engineering Review of the ESC Plan for the Martha Jefferson Waste Area (WPO- 2009 - 00027)
Phil,
agree that the revision is acceptable in terms of tree protection. I've put the
revised plan back into your box. I think you're saying they're working on the revised
aerial. With that, I'm satisfied. Thanks. Was Rebecca okay with it?
From: Philip Custer
Sent: Friday, June 19, 2009 2:21 PM
To: Amelia McCulley; Ron Higgins
Subject: RE: Engineering Review of the ESC Plan for the Martha Jefferson Waste Area (WPO- 2009 - 00027)
The resubmittal sets came in yesterday and I put one in Amelia's mailbox (though I'll need this one back when the
plan is approved). Other than the reprinting of the aerial sheet showing the area of construction, the plan is okay
with me. Regarding the tree protection fencing, the engineer added a new line called out as TP and also a note
saying that the fencing was to be placed at the dripline (which is clearer than the state details).
Let me know if anything comes up with the review of the resubmittal. When I hear from you, I'll contact the
engineer to get reprints of the aerial sheet and then hand it off to Andy.
Thanks,
Phil
From: Amelia McCulley
Sent: Wednesday, June 17, 2009 5:06 PM
To: Philip Custer; Rebecca Ragsdale
Subject: RE: Engineering Review of the ESC Plan for the Martha Jefferson Waste Area (WPO- 2009 - 00027)
You may not believe this, but - while you were writing this email, Ron & I were
reviewing the plan!
Here are my comments:
1. I'm okay with this in concept. The area of trees is larger than I'd thought. At
least they're not associated with a protected resource such as critical slopes or
stream valley. They're in an area that will be developed.
2. The sheet with the aerial should be revised to show the project area. Most of
the project area is off the page. It's also difficult to find since it's not delineated.
3. The plan shows "tree protection" but provides no details, specification or
information as to what that means. It can not be simply using a silt fence. I'd
like to see the plan revised to show the tree protection methods. In addition,
anywhere the tree trunks are so close to an area of disturbance that the trees
will not survive the fill, they should pull the waste area limits away from the
6/23/2009
Page 2 of 2
tree.
I'd like to see a revised plan.
From: Philip Custer
Sent: Wednesday, June 17, 2009 4:42 PM
To: Amelia McCulley; Rebecca Ragsdale
Subject: FW: Engineering Review of the ESC Plan for the Martha Jefferson Waste Area (WPO- 2009 - 00027)
The technical requirements of the Waste Area Plan can be approved by the end of the week. Could you both
take a look at the plan and give me the okay in the next couple of days?
From: Knapp, Dan [mailto:dan.knapp @graef - usa.com]
Sent: Wednesday, June 17, 2009 4:38 PM
To: Philip Custer; Cottrell, Ronald
Cc: Andrew Lowe
Subject: RE: Engineering Review of the ESC Plan for the Martha Jefferson Waste Area (WPO- 2009 - 00027)
Thanks Phil.
I have already responded to the comments and you should receive the revise Waste Area ESC Plan submittal
some time tomorrow.
Thanks,
Dan
From: Philip Custer [mailto:pcuster @albemarle.org]
Sent: Wednesday, June 17, 2009 8:46 AM
To: Knapp, Dan; Cottrell, Ronald
Cc: Andrew Lowe
Subject: Engineering Review of the ESC Plan for the Martha Jefferson Waste Area (WPO- 2009 - 00027)
Good morning,
Attached is the engineering review comment letter for the ESC plan for the Martha Jefferson Hospital Waste Area
Plan. The plan can be approved after a few minor changes and note additions. I will compute a bond at the time
of plan approval, but, if you need to begin an internal procedure to authorize the bond approval, I estimate that it
will be somewhere between $30,000 and $50,000. Please let me know if you have any questions.
Thanks,
Phil
6/23/2009