20140022 Ver 2_Compliance Inspection Comments_20150810

Herndon, Mason
From: Herndon, Mason
Sent: Monday, August 10, 2015 5:46 PM
To: Mathis, Stonewall D; Shaver, Brad E SAW ([e-mail]); Lane,
Stephen; Blalock, Mark E; Currie, Wayne; [e-mail]; Kimes, D. Chad;
Warren Walker ([e-mail]); Harper, Aaron A
Cc: Collette, Karen E.
Subject: RE: Brunswick 16 and 20
Importance: High
Thank you for the detailed report of our field review. I would like to reiterate that Item 3 needs to be addressed in a
timely manner. The project is currently not in compliance with the 401 WQC that was issued to this project and it needs
to be brought into compliance immediately. The Department is very fortunate that the impacts at Sta. 36+00 were
determined to be minor. If the impacts had been more substantial, an enforcement action would have been warranted.
The issues noted during the field review and described in the report below as Items 4& 5 are violations of NCDOT's
NPDES Permit No. NCS000250 and the requirements of NCG010000. This is very disappointing given all the training and
efforts that has been put forth by the Division and DWR regarding these requirements.
As such, this response serves as a written documentation and warning that if these items are not corrected in a timely
manner and/or if there are any further violations of the conditions of the 401 Water Quality Certification, NPDES permit
or Water Quality Standards on this project a Notice of Violation will be issued.
If I can be of any assistance to the Department in this matter, please do not hesitate to contact me.
MH
, . •.
�CDE�R, Division of Water Resources
Transportation Permitting Unit
Fayetteville/Wilmington Region
mason.herndon@ncdenr.�ov
Phone: [phone]
E-mail correspondence to and from this address may be subject to the
North Carolina Public Records Law and may be disclosed to third parties.
From: Mathis, Stonewall D
Sent: Friday, August 07, 2015 9:16 AM
To: Shaver, Brad E SAW ([e-mail]) <[e-mail]>; Herndon, Mason
<[e-mail]>; Lane, Stephen <[e-mail]>; Blalock, Mark E<[e-mail]>;
Currie, Wayne <[e-mail]>; [e-mail]; Kimes, D. Chad <[e-mail]>; Warren Walker
([e-mail]) <[e-mail]>; Harper, Aaron A <[e-mail]>
Cc: Mathis, Stonewall D <[e-mail]>
Subject: Brunswick 16 and 20
Hey Folks,
An onsite review of the Brunswick 16 and 20 project occurred yesterday 8/6/15 with Brad Shaver, Mason
Herndon, Mark Blalock, Janet Russell, myself, and others in attendance.

The following observations resulted.
1) No roadway/bridge preconstruction meeting had occurred with the environmental
agencies. Environmental agencies were invited to a utility preconstruction meeting which occurred on January
6, 2015. However, there was no such invite for a roadway/bridge preconstruction meeting. A preconstruction
meeting with the environmental agencies in attendance is a requirement of the USACE permit for this
project. This lack of referenced preconstruction meeting was an oversight.
2) The borrow and waste site information for this project had not been submitted to the USACE as required by
the USACE permit. This was clarified that a commercial pit was being used in this regard.
3) It appeared that there is safety fence beyond and in some cases possibly silt fence and wattle beyond the
clearing limits of the project. The clearing limit stakes are to be confirmed and the safety fence and perimeter
measures reestablished within those limits accordingly. This is planned to be reviewed at a followup ride thru.
4) In reviewing the NPDES records, there were instances of no inspection within 24 hours of a 0.5 inch rainfall
event. Also, there were instances of no inspection within 7 days. Proper inspection timing was discussed with
the onsite inspectors.
5) Also, in reviewing the records, there was a written down recorded loss on July 14, 2015 at station 33 +65 of
two five gallon buckets. This had not been previously reported to the agencies. It was discussed with the
inspectors onsite that if we have turbidity and/or a sediment loss of five gallon bucket and greater into
jurisdictional areas beyond our perimeter measures, then word needs to be gotten to me so that I can report
to the agencies.
6) In a separate issue from item five above and in a different location although at the same station number,
there was approximately two five gallon buckets of sediment material beyond a wattle at Station 33+65 that
was observed during the onsite review. The inspectors said that the water had been high until yesterday
which is why this loss had not been observed. The material was to be removed by hand methods.
Stoney
�nr�i'. �;e t°r�,��ar,ci�r��;t� :a �r�ci 't°anr :4�,i;� ;��r�ci�r i;, ;,ubj��;: :a :4�,� �;.C`. ;�=ubii�; r�t�cat°c:7;� _�Ua �r�ci nr�, b� c:7�;��;�a;��G:7 :� :4�,it°c:7 ��r:i�s.