20140022 Ver 2_Corps of Engineer Correspondence_20150810

Herndon, Mason
From: Shaver, Brad E SAW <[e-mail]>
Sent: Monday, August 10, 2015 12:00 PM
To: Mathis, Stonewall D
Cc: Herndon, Mason; Lane, Stephen; Blalock, Mark E; Currie, Wayne; Kimes, D. Chad; Harper,
Aaron A; Warren Walker ([e-mail]); [e-mail]
Subject: RE: Brunswick 16 and 20 (UNCLASSIFIED)
Classification: UNCLASSIFIED
Caveats: NONE
Stoney,
I appreciate the detailed summary from our visit last week. I do want to reemphasize that the Department had
not fulfilled Condition 2 or Condition 4 of the permit issued by the Corps last December. Condition 2 spoke to
the preconstruction meeting which is the venue where we discuss items such as fencing locations which may
have addressed your 3rd item on the compliance list. Also as you pointed out, we have a responsibility to look
at secondary impacts from NCDOTjobs hence why we ask for the Department to disclose borrow and waste
sites.
Fortunately for the Department, the project has only crossed the authorized fill line in one location with a set
of waddles around (station 36). As stated, the clearing limits and fill slope limits need to be double checked to
make sure other breaches have not occurred. As far as borrow and waste we received word on-site the
borrow and waste was coming and going to a commercial pit along NC 211, again this is fortunate for the
Department.
At this point I am taking the discretion to document the non-compliance with this response. It is worth
pointing out that any other non-compliance with the agreed upon permit conditions will result in a notice of
non-compliance with an option of administrative penalty.
The Corps looks forward to working with the Department in the future to maintain compliance of the this
project.
Brad Shaver
USACE, Div 3 coordinator
-----Original Message-----
From: Mathis, Stonewall D [mailto:[e-mail]]
Sent: Friday, August 07, 2015 9:16 AM
To: Shaver, Brad E SAW; Herndon, Mason; Lane, Stephen; Blalock, Mark E; Currie, Wayne;
[e-mail]; Kimes, D. Chad; Warren Walker ([e-mail]); Harper, Aaron A
Cc: Mathis, Stonewall D
Subject: [EXTERNAL] 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
Email correspondence to and from this sender is subject to the N.C. Public Records Law and may be disclosed
to third parties.
Classification: UNCLASSIFIED
Caveats: NONE