The Facts

Kokosing has been engaged since at least 2022 in widening an approximately 1.7-mile section of Jefferson Road, also known as West Virginia Route 601, in South Charleston. The project runs from U.S. Route 119 north to MacCorkle Avenue.

Stormwater from the construction site discharges into Davis Creek, which connects to the Kanawha River. Kokosing obtained coverage under West Virginia’s construction stormwater general permit, initially effective December 3, 2020 and reissued effective June 26, 2024. The permit is scheduled to expire April 5, 2029.

The West Virginia Department of Environmental Protection, or WVDEP, administers the water-discharge permitting program in the state. EPA retains authority to enforce permit requirements under the federal Clean Water Act.

How the Stormwater Controls Were Supposed to Work

Construction stormwater permits regulate runoff from disturbed ground. At this site, Kokosing was required to maintain a Stormwater Pollution Prevention Plan, commonly called a SWPPP. The plan’s map was supposed to identify access roads and stormwater structures so the controls on the ground could be inspected and maintained against an accurate plan.

The permit also required “best management practices,” or BMPs. Here, that term covers physical and operational controls such as silt fencing, sediment traps, stabilized ditches, inlet protection, seeding, mulching and designated concrete-washout areas. Their practical purpose is to reduce erosion and keep sediment or other construction material from moving through the site’s drainage system.

What Inspectors Documented

EPA organized its case into five counts. Each remains a factual allegation under the settlement’s terms, not an admission by Kokosing.

The Inspection Trail

WVDEP inspected the site on eight dates listed in the agreement. It issued three notices of violation. EPA’s May 2024 inspection added the federal enforcement record that eventually became the basis of the proposed penalty.

What Was at Stake Downstream

The permit identifies Davis Creek as the immediate receiving water and connects it to the Kanawha River. That relationship explains why damaged inlet protection, exposed soil and a missing streamside buffer fall under the Clean Water Act permitting system.

The supplied agreement does not quantify sediment discharged into Davis Creek, report water-quality measurements, identify downstream cleanup costs or establish harm to residents or wildlife. It documents alleged failures to maintain the controls required to reduce that risk. The distinction matters: the enforcement case concerns permit compliance, not a quantified finding of downstream environmental damage.

Kokosing’s Response

The record describes a series of corrective actions. Kokosing updated the site map on June 17, 2024. It told EPA on July 30 that inlets and outlets had been addressed. A photograph showed a straw mat installed July 25 on the area directly beside Davis Creek, followed by additional seeding.

After the March 2025 state inspection, Kokosing reported that drop inlets on the north end had been cleaned, new controls installed and perimeter controls repaired. The company said it attempted reseeding several times, including hydroseeding steeper slopes, and that BMPs remained in place during that period.

Kokosing also certified, based on personal investigation and to the best of its knowledge and belief, that it was currently in compliance regarding the alleged violations. The agreement does not include an independent inspection after the final July 2025 reseeding date.

What the Agreement Would Resolve

Kokosing consented to a $98,000 civil penalty to settle EPA’s claims for the five alleged permit violations. Once effective, the agreement requires payment within 30 days. Kokosing waived its right to contest the allegations for this proceeding and its right to appeal the accompanying Final Order.

The settlement is narrow. It resolves only EPA’s civil-penalty claims for the specific violations listed in the agreement. It doesn’t modify Kokosing’s continuing obligation to follow federal, state and local law, and EPA reserves its authority to pursue other enforcement where legally available.

The supplied document also sets out steps that must occur before the deal takes effect. EPA must provide a 40-day public notice and comment period. The agreement and Final Order become effective 30 days after the appropriate EPA officials sign and the package is filed with the Regional Hearing Clerk.

Those procedural steps are not visible as completed in the supplied copy. The EPA enforcement director’s signature line, the Regional Judicial Officer’s Final Order signature line and the certificate-of-service signature line are blank. The document therefore supports describing the $98,000 resolution as proposed or pending, not as a demonstrated final and paid penalty.

What Remains Unresolved

The record leaves two different questions open. The first is environmental: it establishes the site’s drainage connection and describes alleged control failures, but it doesn’t measure what, if anything, reached Davis Creek or quantify an ecological effect.

The second is procedural. Kokosing signed the agreement, but the supplied copy doesn’t show whether public comments were received, whether EPA officials later signed and filed the Final Order, or whether the penalty became due and was paid.

What a Legitimate Fix Looks Like

The alleged failures identify the remedy without requiring a new compliance theory. The project map must match the structures and access routes on the ground. Inlets, silt fencing, ditch checks and perimeter controls must remain functional rather than merely installed. Disturbed slopes and basins need stable cover, and the required buffer beside Davis Creek must become established rather than depend on repeated attempts that fail to germinate.

The key test is sustained performance. A repair reported after one inspection doesn’t establish that controls remained effective through the rest of the project. Later inspections are what can verify the compliance Kokosing certified.