Project Complete
Vegetation Re-established via sod/paving

no activity at time of inspection

No Activity at time of inspection

Contractor is currently laying down Sod for veg-reastablishment on the East Section of the project. West portion still under construction, in that the County and the City are conducting a joint pipe replacement for stormwater within the next few days according to the RP. So far, so good

called Jeff to advise permit is ready

1. After reviewing the construction schedule, please include project phasing as an additional administrative control. More specifically, the eastern portion of the project adjacent to the river should be completed first during the dry season when the risk of rain events is less.
2. The buffer must be measured from the ordinary high water mark OR the edge of the stream bank, bluff or cliff; whichever is further landward. I walked most of the site yesterday and there is not an existing 50’ buffer in some of the locations as indicated on the plan.
3. Section 2.3 states that the natural buffer, contour and berms act as a BMP control feature. Note that the berms along the river are not continuous and it is the proposed contours that will direct stormwater away from the river post-construction.
4. Section 4.1.4 states that the disturbance limits are identified on the map, but they are not . What is the width of the right of way that construction will occur in? Please allow in your calculation enough room for access by the concrete trucks. What will the visual marker be for identifying the limits of disturbance? Does this change the total area disturbed? Note that any additional disturbance required other than the footprint of the path should be on the north side of the greenbelt where working within the buffer zone, unless infeasible.
5. The ECP template is a generic template. Because this site is working within such an environmentally sensitive corridor adjacent to waters impaired for sediment, stabilization (temporary and permanent) is required to be achieved in 7 days rather than 14 days. Self-inspections shall be conducted weekly instead of monthly.

Citizen complaint received that construction has started. Permits have not been issued yet. Please post a SWO on site. Called Wendy Larimore at P&R and Jeff Arant at Diamond Contractors to notify. Construction supplies and equipment staged. Silt fence and straw wattle onsite but no active construction or earth disturbance has occurred. Remove double fee and SWO

1. Section 2.1 Topography – It appears that stormwater will be designed to sheet flow off of the Greenbelt. Does it sheet flow to the north or south? Toward the river or away?
2. Section 2.3 Stormwater Discharge Points – Where does the water go when it rains? Are the contours around the disturbance limits concave? Are the infiltration rates high enough that no runoff occurs? Given that this is adjacent to the river and you are removing and installing impervious surfaces, it does not seem likely that there will be no stormwater discharge points.
3. Section 2.3 Surface Waters and Receiving Waters – This portion of the Greenbelt runs adjacent to a segment of the Boise River that is 303D listed. It is listed impaired for sediment among other pollutants. Reference the IDEQ Integrated Report for more information. Additional BMPs may be necessary due to this impairment.
4. Section 2.7 Unique Features – Any project within 50 feet of surface is considered environmentally sensitive. A water body listed as impaired for sediment is especially critical. This should be identified in the plan.
5. Section 3.0 – You must identify anticipated potential pollutants. To help compile a list, think about each step of construction and any potential pollutant generating activity. At the most basic level, you will have the demolition, earth disturbance, and new concrete. This equates to dust, saw cutting slurry (potentially), sediment, concrete, concrete washout, equipment leaks. It is up to you to identify each potential pollutant. This is how you identify the necessary BMPs.
6. Section 4.2.4 - A straw wattle is a sediment control, not an erosion control .
7. Section 4.3.2 – This section states that there are no perimeters where stormwater will runoff. This brings me back to the question about topography and stormwater discharge points. Secondly, your map shows perimeter control along the north side of the disturbance limits. Why would a straw wattle be installed in this location unless there is a potential for runoff? The straw wattle, or equivalent, should be installed along all disturbance limits that have the potential to receive runoff. The plan map does not indicate any perimeter control to be installed between the project and the Boise River. Do the elevations and buffer make this irrelevant? Not enough information is provided for me to make this determination. If the River could receive runoff, the existing vegetative buffer should remain intact and shown on the plan as a BMP. The buffer width should be identified on the map.
8. Section 4.5.4 – Please identify what measures will be in place to control trash. Will crews be required to haul it out every day? Will a dumpster be provided?
9. Section 4.3.4 – Identifying the proper location for a portable restroom is a good housekeeping control, not a sediment control.
10. The map should show property lines, drainage patterns, and location of existing vegetative cover to be preserved.
11. Please provide installation specification for the BMPs. This includes the straw wattle and concrete washout. You can download typicals from the ITD BMP handbook or the IDEQ BMP handbook.