20120010 Ver 1_Erosion Control Klumac- U-3459_20160524

Wanucha, Dave
From:Euliss, Amy
Sent:Tuesday, May 24, 2016 4:09 PM
To:Wanucha, Dave
Cc:Chapman, Amy; Raulston, Keith E
Subject:RE: Erosion Control Klumac- U-3459
Dave,

We have always and will always be up front with you. If the extra 2 working days are really a big deal for such a minor
loss, I will gladly forward them along. Just know that the reports will be incomplete. I stand firm with my professional
judgement for not reporting the loss as a wetland violation until I could confirm that it was a wetland. Our schedules did
not allow for us to visit the site Friday or Monday.

That being said, I really don't appreciate you questioning our work ethic. The insinuation that we would intentionally
hide anything from you is unfounded. Division 9 staff works very hard to stay in compliance with our permits. If we or
our contractor are in the wrong, I can guarantee you that I will be the first one to report it.

If DWR has a problem with the way we are handling our DWR permits, I can sit down with you and Amy to discuss.

Amy

-----Original Message-----
From: Haff, Richard
Sent: Tuesday, May 24, 2016 1:01 PM
To: Wanucha, Dave; Euliss, Amy
Cc: Suggs, Phillip H; Keen, Kiera T
Subject: RE: Erosion Control Klumac- U-3459

Once the area dries up and the Contractor can remove the sediment I will let everyone know.
Thanks for all for everyone's help
rich

-----Original Message-----
From: Wanucha, Dave
Sent: Tuesday, May 24, 2016 12:50 PM
To: Euliss, Amy
Cc: Haff, Richard; Suggs, Phillip H; Keen, Kiera T
Subject: RE: Erosion Control Klumac- U-3459

I would suggest that in the future, if your project manager reports to you that sediment was lost off site and you are not
sure about jurisdictional features, report it anyway. It's not that hard to send an email. You all have been pretty good
about doing that in the past. When you are not upfront about incidents such as this, however small or unclear, it
concerns me. Let me know when the wetland is cleaned.

Dave Wanucha
Division of Water Resources
1

Transportation Permitting Unit
NC Department of Environmental Quality

336-776-9703 office
336-403-5655 mobile
[e-mail]

NC DEQ Winston Salem Regional Office
450 West Hanes Mill Road, Suite 300
Winston Salem, NC 27105

Email correspondence to and from this address is subject to the North Carolina Public Records Law and may be disclosed
to third parties.

-----Original Message-----
From: Euliss, Amy
Sent: Tuesday, May 24, 2016 12:29 PM
To: Wanucha, Dave <[e-mail]>
Cc: Haff, Richard <[e-mail]>
Subject: RE: Erosion Control Klumac- U-3459

The off-site sediment loss was reported internally on Thursday. Since the sediment left the study area for the project
(i.e. the area that was reviewed for wetlands), we didn't know it was a wetland until I visited the site today. We didn't
know it was unauthorized fill in a wetland until today, and we reported it today.

-----Original Message-----
From: Wanucha, Dave
Sent: Tuesday, May 24, 2016 12:14 PM
To: Euliss, Amy
Subject: RE: Erosion Control Klumac- U-3459

I'm ok with waiting to clean the sediment, but it appears that Richard discovered the loss last Thurs and we (DWR) are
just learning of it today? Sounds like a permit violation related to not reporting within 24 hours of discovery.

Dave Wanucha
Division of Water Resources
Transportation Permitting Unit
NC Department of Environmental Quality

336-776-9703 office
336-403-5655 mobile
[e-mail]

NC DEQ Winston Salem Regional Office
2

450 West Hanes Mill Road, Suite 300
Winston Salem, NC 27105

Email correspondence to and from this address is subject to the North Carolina Public Records Law and may be disclosed
to third parties.

-----Original Message-----
From: Euliss, Amy
Sent: Tuesday, May 24, 2016 11:29 AM
To: Wanucha, Dave <[e-mail]>
Cc: Haff, Richard <[e-mail]>; Suggs, Phillip H <[e-mail]>
Subject: FW: Erosion Control Klumac- U-3459

We lost sediment offsite on the Klumac Road Rail project in Rowan County. The sediment deposit in a wet area that was
beyond the limits of the project study area, so it wasn't delineated in the jurisdictional review. I visited the site today to
confirm whether the area was a wetland. It is, so we're reporting the loss. The area is greater than a 5 gallon bucket.
Its @1200 square feet of sediment. There's a natural berm isolating the area from the adjacent creek. I've instructed
them to remove the material from the wetland that was greater than a skim on the surface, once the water clarity clears
up in the wetland. We know this is greater than 24 hours; however, if they tried to clean it up right now, it would make
a bigger mess. I've attached 3 pictures. Image 460 shows the wetland. Image 461 is standing in the same spot and
looking at the basin. Image 462 is looking from the inlet of the basin toward the recently paved road.

The area draining to the basin had been recently paved, and the volume of water with the rains displaced material in the
basin. I've attached an email with Phil's recommendations and a copy of the NPDES inspection records for the week of
the event. Let me know if you have any questions.

-----Original Message-----
From: Suggs, Phillip H
Sent: Friday, May 20, 2016 7:19 AM
To: Haff, Richard; Keen, Kiera T
Cc: Steve Saunders ([e-mail]) ([e-mail]); Euliss, Amy;
Seitz, Phillip K
Subject: RE: Erosion Control Klumac

We need to review that and make sure it's not in a wetland area. I would recommend Kiera and I look at it first. With all
this rain predicted, it should probably be cleaned up instead of just seeded over.
Review the EC plan and make sure any TSD's are open and if there is PAM application on wattles or silt checks iit needs
to be in place. Contractor needs to make sure all runoff is directed to the EC devices and not everything is sent to one -
meaning that one. If it’s the only one for that area and receives all that flow, they should stabilize the areas up from it
to help reduce the silt load. The last rains had basins over topping everywhere.
Today I have a meeting in Albemarle but may can get thru there afterwards. Ill call you. If not, we can look at it
Monday.
Thanks.

-----Original Message-----
From: Haff, Richard
Sent: Thursday, May 19, 2016 4:37 PM
3

To: Suggs, Phillip H; Keen, Kiera T
Cc: Steve Saunders ([e-mail]) ([e-mail]); Euliss, Amy;
Seitz, Phillip K
Subject: FW: Erosion Control Klumac

Phil and Kara,

While our inspector Steve was doing the project erosion report after today's rain he noticed that we are having some
material settling in a low area between the skimmer basin and Town Creek.
The skimmer basin is located at the beginning of the project on the left hand side facing Martin Luther King Blvd. The
distance from the skimmer outlet to Town Creek is about 200 feet.
This basin was built about half way in the ground and half way above the ground.
The material does not look like it is more than 1/2 inch thick.

We recommend to seed and straw the material and to make the skimmer basin longer away from the discharge point.

Do you have any other recommendations of would you like to come down and see the site?

Thanks
rich

-----Original Message-----
From: Steve Saunders \[mailto:[e-mail]\]
Sent: Thursday, May 19, 2016 1:33 PM
To: Haff, Richard
Subject: Erosion Control Klumac

Skimmer basin ID 01 and area below in woods.

Steve Saunders
Transportation Technician

Email: [e-mail]
Work: 704.932.2122
Cell: 704.533.2184

Campo & Associates, PLLC
(an affiliate of Kisinger Campo & Associates Corp.)
305 S. Main St., Kannapolis, NC 28081

CONFIDENTIALITY NOTE: This communication may be privileged and confidential. It should not be disseminated to
others. If received in error, please immediately reply that you have received this communication in error and then
delete it. Thank you.

________________________________

Email correspondence to and from this sender is subject to the N.C. Public Records Law and may be disclosed to third
parties.

4