All of the previous information has given some insight into the degree of importance the Town of Christiansburg attributes to stormwater issues and erosion & sediment control. This section is based on the actual observations made by DCR professionally trained staff when the project sites were visited.
I feel this shows that NOT ALL SITES ARE TREATED EQUALLY! Pay close attention to the Aquatic Center where some of our own town staff are helping with the work. I hope that better care of that facility is taken in the future than it is during these phases. And, to be so very, very close to a creek that runs into Crab Creek where there are already problems with sedimentation….good grief. Guess my mom was right again: “Judge a peson by what he does, not by what he says he will do.”
Now…to the site visit reports:
- AEP Tech Drive Station
- Perfect score!
- Comments: Road cut to be seeded 10/23/08. Road has good CRS application
- Christiansburg Aquatic Center (A few NO’s here)
- Sec. 1: Have all denuded areas requiring temporary or permanent stabilization been stabilized?
- Sec. 1: Seeded?
- Sec. 1: Mulched?
- Sec. 6: Are sediment traps or basins installed where indicated on the plans?
- Sec. 7: Are finished cut and fill slopes adequately stabilized?
- Sec. 10: Do all operational storm sewer inlets have adequate inlet protection?
- Sec. 11: Are stormwater conveyance channels adequately stabilized with channel lining and/or outlet protection?
- Comments: Drainage channel lacking geotextile lining at arch culvert. Numerous slopes eroding due to inadequate vegetative stabilization. Silt fence & inlet protection failing in numerous areas. No sediment traps present.
- Harley Davidson Commercial Site Development NO’s:
- Sec 3: Does permanent vegetation provide adequate stabilization?
- Sec. 11: Are stormwater conveyance channels adequately stabilized with channel lining and/or outlet protection?
- Sec. 18: Have all temporary control structures that are no longer needed been removed?
- Comments: SWM Basin missing outlet protection to receiving channel. Outlet protection into basin not sized properly. Basin requires additional seeding for adequate vegetative cover. Old silt fence has not been removed.
- Kensington Phase I Residential Subdivision NO’s:
- Sec. 1: Have all denuded areas requiring temporary or permanent stabilization been stabilized?
- Sec. 1: Seeded?
- Sec. 1: Mulched?
- Sec. 7: Are finished cut and fill slopes adequately stabilized?
- Sec. 10: Do all operational storm sewer inlets have adequate inlet protection?
- Sec. 11: Are stormwater conveyance channels adequately stabilized with channel lining and/or outlet protection?
- Comment: Basin Outfall receiving channel not propertly shaped. Outlet protection of sediment basin undersized. Roadway requires CRS application. Inlet protection failing on some inlets.
- AGILOP Lot 108 Wind Mill Hills Subdivision NO’s:
- Sec. 4: Have sediment trapping facilities been constructed and made functional as a first step in land disturbing activity?
- Comment: Silt fence not entrenched.
- AGILOP Lot 2A Ashton Court Subdivision NO’s:
- Perfect score!
- Comments: No problems observed.
- AGILOP Lot 34 Falling Branch Subdivision No’s:
- Sec. 2: Are soil stockpiles and borrow areas adequately stabilized or protected with seeding and/or sediment trapping measures?
- Sec. 4: Have sediment trapping facilities been constructed and made functional as a first step in land disturbing activity?
- Comments: Silt fence not entrenched. Stakes on wrong side of silt fence. Stockpile silt fence not entrenched.
This series will conclude tomorrow with the Inspection/Enforcement discussion.
