20191549 Ver 1_U-5788 additional wetland impacts beyond approved limits_20210702

From: Westphal, Anneliese
To: Shaver, Brad E CIV USARMY CESAW (USA); Patterson, Robert D
Cc: Herndon, T. Mason
Subject: U-5788 additional wetland impacts
Date: Friday, July 2, 2021 12:42:54 PM
Attachments: imaae001.onq
U-5788 Permit Drawings 20200102.pdf
U-5788 Clip of EC plans.pdf
U-5788 photo.jpq
U-5788 - Additional wetland impact.pdf
Importance: High
Brad and Robert,
Yesterday I heard from the assistant resident engineer that the contractor on the subject project had
cleared and grubbed past the mechanized clearing line in the wetland area on this project. Please
see attached the "additional wetland impacts" pdf which indicates that the additional wetlands
clearing and grubbing total 800 sq ft. I have also attached the permit drawings for your reference.
At this time, the orange safety fence and silt fence have been installed at the correct place (at the
limit of the mechanized clearing) and the contractor has attempted to replace the original soil that
was disturbed. In the attached photo, you can see that there is a strip of disturbance beyond the
orange safety fence. This varies in width, typically about 5 feet, but up to 10 feet.
My understanding of how this occurred is that on Wednesday (6/30), the contractor's surveyor had
staked the temporary silt fence (TSF) line for clearing. The inspector and the assistant resident
engineer noticed that it was slightly different than the mechanized clearing line that was staked for
the preconstruction meeting. You can see on the attached clip of the EC plans that the shape of the
TSF line doesn't exactly follow the fill line and therefore, would be slightly different than the
mechanized clearing limit as shown on the "additional wetland impact" pdf. The inspector spoke
with the superintendent about not clearing beyond the mechanized clearing limit that was staked.
The inspector confirms and the superintendent confirms he told the equipment operator not to go
beyond the mechanized clearing as staked. When the contractor left on Wednesday, everything was
in compliance. When the inspector arrived to the project on Thursday (7/1), he found that the site
had been cleared and grubbed past the mechanized clearing line (and past the TSF line in the EC
plans). When the inspector spoke with the operator on site, he was told that the operator arrived at
4 am and this is when this work occurred. When the superintendent arrived at approximately
9:00am the inspector asked him if he knew about this and he stated he did not. The superintendent
acknowledges that he knew and he told his operator/personnel not to go beyond the mechanized
clearing limit.
Brad, when we talked yesterday, I thought that the only additional impact was where they had
cleared to the TSF line, since that's how it was described. However, it appears that the operator was
not really following any staking or lines. The assistant resident acknowledges that the safety fence
was not installed when they cleared, however, the mechanized clearing area was staked.
When I talked to Mason yesterday, he did say that the EC plans are part of the construction plans,
but they don't show the mechanized clearing area so it is difficult to tell if silt fence is in the correct
place. He said that the permit drawings should always take precedence over the EC plans.

Please let me know if you have any questions.
Anneliese Westphal
Environmental Senior Specialist
Division 3
NCDOT- Division of Highways
910 341 2000 office
910 604 1330 mobile
910 675 0143 fax
[e-mail]
5501 Barbados Blvd
Castle Hayne, NC 28429-5647
Email correspondence to and from this sender is subject to the N.C. Public Records Law and may be disclosed to third parties.