The URL can be used to link to this page

Home My WebLink About20110905 Ver 1_Emails_20130117Steenhuis, Joanne From: Ted Sampson, Sr [TedSr @sampsoncontracting.com] Sent: Thursday, January 17, 2013 5:08 PM To: Steenhuis, Joanne Subject: RE: Ft Macon Dredging project DWQ # 11 -0905 Joanne, Many thanks for that clarification Best regards, Ted Have a great long weekend. - - - -- Original Message---- - From: Steenhuis, Joanne [mailto :joanne.steenhuis @ncdenr.gov] Sent: Thursday, January 17, 2013 4:58 PM To: Ted Sampson, Sr Subject: RE: Ft Macon Dredging project DWQ # 11 -0905 No, I don't think so especially since the disposal site should already be permitted, (and those sites are in the Washington Region), but I just wanted you to know, if anything came up in Carteret County to let us know. Once a decision has been made just let us know via e -mail so that I can just print it to the file. Good Luck! Joanne From: Ted Sampson, Sr [mailto :TedSr @sampsoncontracting.com] Sent: Thursday, January 17, 2013 4:53 PM To: Steenhuis, Joanne Subject: RE: Ft Macon Dredging project DWQ # 11 -0905 JoAnne, I had not really thought that the disposal site selection would trigger a DWQ, CAMA or Corps permit issue that would require a modification. Since the original Permit dealt with one MSWLF in Bertie Co., and another in Craven Co., and since each holder of a permit for these MSWLFs, and similar for DENR Permitted Soil Remediation Sites have a designated NCDWM field rep to satisfy before taking waste, it seemed that there should be no problem. If you thing a permit mod will be needed for this change of landfill disposal site, please let me know so I can alert the CG to this. Best regards, Ted - - - -- Original Message---- - From: Steenhuis, Joanne [ mailto :joanne.steenhuisCa)ncdenr.Qov] Sent: Thursday, January 17, 2013 4:41 PM To: Ted Sampson, Sr Subject: RE: Ft Macon Dredging project DWQ # 11 -0905 Ted, Thanks for the response. I do hope that your consultant knows that your project is in the Wilmington Regional Office district for NCDENR and not the Washington office. So if you have any permitting issues you might want to contact Ginny or myself (although I will be out of the Office tomorrow). Joanne From: Ted Sampson, Sr [ mailto: TedSrCa)sampsoncontractina.com] Sent: Thursday, January 17, 2013 4:25 PM To: Steenhuis, Joanne Subject: RE: Ft Macon Dredging project DWQ # 11 -0905 Joanne, We are currently in a temporary hiatus. The Coast Guard contract documents specified two MSWLFs at which the dredge spoil had to be disposed of. One of those landfills, the one closest to Morehead City, at the last minute declined to take the material because of concern with its gumbo muck consistency and the possibility that it could plug up its leach /drain system. The only remaining disposal site listed by the CG contract more than doubles the trucking costs due to distance, and the tipping cost as well would go up. Since such a sizeable portion of the costs of this contract are associated with the trucking and tipping, we are under discussions with the CG concerning a change order, and at the CG's request we are exploring whether there many be some lower cost alternatives for ultimate disposal of the material; i.e. lower tipping costs, shorter distance to haul. We have hired an environmental consultant with the soils /land - disposal background to explore this for us, and that report will probably go to the CG today. That consultant has indicated that a lower cost alternative may be to utilize a DENR Permitted Soil Remediation Site, and we have some of those sites checking with DENR to see if they will be allowed to take the material under their Permits. If we cannot find a lower cost alternative for the CG for disposal, then the dredging is essentially complete (there is one area where they want us to cut it down a little further —about 100 CY), and only trucking /disposal remain, as the CG will be descoping the project to save money. If we can find a suitable lower cost disposal alternative, it is possible the CG may ask us to go back in and remove more of the permitted cut, up to about another 4000 CY, but I rather doubt this will happen. I may know more tomorrow, but it is more likely that it will be early next week before I really know how this will go forward. I will give you an update when I have one. Let me know if I can provide any additional information. Best regards, Ted Sampson - - - -- Original Message---- - From: Steenhuis, Joanne [ mailto :joanne.steenhuisCa)ncdenr.QOV] Sent: Thursday, January 17, 2013 4:03 PM To: Ted Sampson, Sr; Henderson, Ginny; Willis, Linda Cc: jeremy sampsoncontractina.com; 'Office Manager' Subject: RE: Ft Macon Dredging project DWQ # 11 -0905 Ted, What is the status of this project? Has it been completed? I appreciate your attention to this matter. Joanne Steenhuis Sr. Environmental Specialist From: Ted Sampson, Sr [ mailto: TedSrCa)sampsoncontractina.com] Sent: Friday, August 31, 2012 4:58 PM To: Steenhuis, Joanne; Henderson, Ginny; Willis, Linda Cc: jeremy sampsoncontractina.com; 'Office Manager' Subject: RE: Ft Macon Dredging project DWQ # 11 -0905 JoAnne, Linda, Ginny, JoAnne, again thank you so much for your efforts to get this matter addressed prior to the onset of the Labor Day long weekend. We appreciate being able to move forward with our planning without having to wait until next Tuesday. For moving forward I want to ensure that I understood correctly what you conveyed to me on the telephone just now. It was my understanding that you indicated that what was being provided in the attachment to your email were recommendations, and not requirements, and that the recommendations were to provide some guidance that should be sufficient to alleviate any concerns that the Mining Commission may have relative to leachate or stormwater runoff. In the Dredging Plan that we put forward to the Coast Guard, we had already planned to address these issues in the same manner as the suggestions put forward, and intend to ensure that our operations will not be able to result in the spoil mixing with onsite soils, or the leachate or stormwater moving through the spoil and into onsite soils, and aquifers. About the only area in which our plans differed from the recommendations is in the mil of the plastic that we intended to use. We had proposed to use 4 mil plastic, and believe that this should be adequate in that we do not plan to operate equipment on top of the spoil, and the lower mil will allow us to more easily handle this material over the extent of the spoil pile. Linda, and /or Ginny, given the above, does the 4 mil plastic sound ok to you? As for the turbidity boom /turbidity curtain, there already exists a permit requirement for a turbidity barrier to be in place around the dredging operations, and we intend to fully comply with this requirement. I noticed in the email attachment that a concern was raised for whether the sand mine was within the counties for which your Wilmington Regional Office has responsibilities. The sand mine is in Carteret County, which is one of your counties. Thank you again, for the assistance that all of you have provided on this matter. With best regards, Ted Sampson Sampson Contracting, Inc. - - - -- Original Message---- - From: Steenhuis, Joanne [ mailto :joanne.steenhuisCa)ncdenr.Qov] Sent: Friday, August 31, 2012 4:05 PM To: tedSrCa)Sampsoncontractina.com Cc: Gregson, Jim; Wicker, Christine W SAW Subject: Ft Macon Dredging project DWQ # 11 -0905 Ted, I am attaching all the comments I have gotten concerning the dredge sediments and how to handle them during the drying process as to ensure that they will not cause additional issues with the leachate and potential stormwater runoff. The DWQ also would like to request that you keep a boom /turbidity curtain in place to keep down the turbidity as much as possible as well as the sediment contaminants from migrating elsewhere. Please do not hesitate to call me, Linda Willis or Ginny if you have any other issues. 910.796.7215 is the general number you can reach any of us. Sincerely, Joanne Steenhuis Senior Environmental Specialist