20030130 Ver 3_More Info Received_20171102

Strickland, Bev
From: Craig R. Wyant <[e-mail]>
Sent: Thursday, November 02, 2017 2:54 PM
To: Shaeffer, David Leigh (Dave) CIV USARMY CESAW (US); Johnson Jr, Tony
Cc: Jones, M Scott (Scott) CIV USARMY CESAW (US); Homewood, Sue; Johnson, Alan
Subject: [External] RESOLVED SAW -2016-01348 RE: Vulcan Material Company Andrews Site,
Cabarrus County
CAUTION: External email. Do not click links or open attachments unless verified. Send all suspicious email as an
attachment to [e-mail].
Everyone on the list here:
Tony Johnson from Vulcan Materials Company and I had a meeting with David Shaeffer of the USACE at his office today
regarding the concern over a possible violation. Between Vulcan archive files, Corps files, and my record files, we have
found all of the necessary USACE and NCDWR (DWQ) permits that have been issued, all certifications, proof of
mitigation payments, and evidence of the timing of all activities, and that the project is in compliance. Apparently there
was a gap in copies of all files being sent to everyone so there appeared to be missing authorizations and information.
The Corps now has everything that is needed to show that there is not a violation on the project and the Corps can
continue with their review.
Please correct me if I have made any errors here, David or Tony.
Thank you very much.
Craig
Craig R. Wyant RLA/SWS
A Fine Line Design
Post Office Box 163
High Shoals, NC 28077
704-240-0793
craig.wyant@charter. net
On 11/1/17 9:33 AM, "Shaeffer, David Leigh (Dave) CIV USARMY CESAW (US)"
<[e-mail]> wrote:
> Craig,
> I am working my way through the environmental assessment on this
> project and have come to the issue with the unauthorized impacts. I
> see no other way of dealing with this then reviewing these impacts as

> part of the current individual permit application.
> Your client will need to self-report this violation and include the
> unauthorized impacts in a revised individual permit application. I
> have attached a signed tolling agreement which your client needs to
> sign before we can accept an after -the -fact application. If you are
> available, it would be helpful if you stopped by my office today or
> tomorrow so we can discuss this in more detail. We will need to put
> this back out on Public Notice (15 -days) since the unauthorized
> portion is relatively large (0.827 acre of wetlands and
> 244 linear feet of stream). You will also need to submit the revised
> application to DWR and receive a new 401 water quality certification.
> I apologize for the time it has taken to reach this decision. We have
> had a lot of individual permits this summer among other things.
> Sincerely,
> David L. Shaeffer
> Project Manager/Geographer
> U.S. Army Corps of Engineers
> Charlotte Regulatory Office
> Desk: 704-510-1437
> The Wilmington District is committed to providing the highest level of
> support to the public. To help us ensure we continue to do so, please
> complete the Customer Satisfaction Survey located at
> http://corpsmapu.usace.army.mil/cm_apex/f?p=136:4:0
> -----Original Message-----
> From: Craig R. Wyant [mailto:craig.wyant@charter. net]
> Sent: Thursday, May 18, 2017 3:08 PM
> To: Shaeffer, David Leigh (Dave) CIV USARMY CESAW (US)
> <[e-mail]. miI>; Johnson Jr, Tony
> <[e-mail]>
> Subject: [Non-DoD Source] Re: SAW -2016-01348 RE: Vulcan Material
> Company Andrews Site, Cabarrus County
> David
> Please find attached the historic aerial photographs for the area in
> the southeast corner of the Vulcan Materials Company existing quarry
> dating from
> 1993 to 2016. This appears to be the area of concern. Based on the
> aerials, the entire wetland area of 0.497 acres and 224 If of
> intermittent stream were impacted sometime between 2006 and 2008 as
> referenced in the Individual Permit Application submitted in 2007.
> Additionally, the remainder of the original .827 acre wetland (survey
> attached) was filled at about the same time. This activity was
> previously authorized, but the NWP 26 for 0.31 acre of fill was not

> used when issued and subsequently expired. When the areas are added
> together, there is a difference of 0.02 acre for some reason. I do not
> know if the areas were just cleared and re -graded or if there was
> actually some fill over the entire area. Since the natural low point
> is still there at the elevation of the existing culvert under the road
> and the area is re -growing on its own into successional vegetation, I suspect that it was not actually filled except for
the upper end of the wetland areas.
> The stream channel appears on the aerial photographs to be in the same
> approximate location that it was. It was a very small channel to begin
> with, only about three feet wide and a foot deep.
> I have not been back to the site to inspect the area yet but plan to do so.
> It is my feeling that this was a miscommunication regarding permitting
> and quarry construction and that any activity that is out of
> compliance was not intentional. Once the permit was obtained in
> 2007-2008 for impacts to this area, it is most likely that someone
> thought that it was permission to impact the entire area when combined
> with the older original permit that they probably still had in the
> file cabinet under "wetland permits". I was not contacted regarding
> the issuance of the 2007 IP permit by the Corps or DWR and was not
> notified of the construction activity based on that permit while I was
> employed at Carolina Wetland Services. Vulcan Materials Company
> handled signing and submitting the application internally after it was prepared by CWS.
> I will continue to be of whatever assistance to you that I can.
> Craig
3