The URL can be used to link to this page

Home My WebLink About20150041 Ver 1_IP Text and Narrative_20150224Enndividual Permit Application for U.S. Army Corps of Engineers Section 4 04 Permit and North Carolina 401 Water Quality Certification and Isolated Wetlands Permit February 2015 Applicant: Green Meadows, LLC Attn: Mr. Charles Price 12601 Plantside Drive Louisville, KY 40299 Prepared by: ClearWater Environmental Consultants, Inc. 224 South Grove Street, Suite F Hendersonville, North Carolina 28792 828- 698 -9800 Corps Submittal Cover Sheet Please provide the following info: 1. Project Name: Sanford and Brickhaven Mines 2. Name of Property Owner /Applicant: Green Meadows, LLC; Mr. Charles Price 3. Name of Consultant/Agent: ClearWater Environmental Consultants, Inc. *Agent authorization needs to be attached. 4. Related/previous Action ID numbers(s): SAW- 2014 -02254 and SAW- 2015 -00107 5. Site Address: Moncure - Flatwood Road and Brickyard Road 6. Subdivision Name: N/A 7. City: Moncure and Sanford 8. County: Chatham and Lee 9. Lat: 35.598140N Long: 79.021925W (Decimal Degrees Please) 35.536879N 79.144720W 10. Quadrangle Name: Moncure and Colon 11. Waterway: UTs Shaddox Creek, Roberts Creek, UTs Robert Creek 12. Watershed: Cape Fear 03030004 and 03030002 13. Requested Action: _ Nationwide Permit # X Individual Permit General Permit # Jurisdictional Determination Request Pre- Application Request ....................................................................................................................... ............................... The following information will be completed by the Corps office: LU Prepare File Folder Assign number in ORM Begin Date Authorization: Section 10 Section 404 Project Description/Nature of Activity /Project Purpose: Site/Waters Name: Keywords: U.S. ARMY CORPS OF ENGINEERS APPLICATION FOR DEPARTMENT OF THE ARMY PER OMB APPROVAL NO. 0710-0003 33 CFR 325. The proponent agency Is CECW -CO -R. EXPIRES: 28 FEBRUARY 2013 Public reporting for this collection of Information Is estimated to average 11 hours per response, including the time for reviewing instructions, searching existing data sources, gathering and maintaining the data needed, and completing and reviewing the collec(on of information. Send comments regarding this burden estimate or any other aspect of the collection of information, Including suggestions for reducing this burden, to Department of Defense, Washington Headquarters, Executive Services and Communications Directorate, Information Management Division and to the Office of Management and Budget, Paperwork Reduction Project (0710 - 0003). Respondents should be aware that notwithstanding any other provision of law, no person shall be subject to any penalty for failing to comply with a collection of Information If it does not display a currently valid OMB control number. Please DO NOT RETURN your form to either of those addresses. Completed applications must be submitted to the District Engineer having jurisdiction over the location of the proposed activity. PRIVACY ACT STATEMENT Authorities: Rivers and Harbors Act, Section 10, 33 USC 403; Clean Water Act, Section 4D4, 33 USC 1344; Marine Protection, Research, and Sanctuaries Act, Section 103, 33 USC 1413; Regulatory Programs of the Corps of Engineers; Rnal Rule 33 CFR 320 -332. Principal Purpose: Information provided on this form will be used in evaluating the application for a permit. Routine Uses: This information may be shared with the Department of Justice and other federal, state, and local government agencies, and the public and may be made available as part of a public notice as required by Federal law. Submission of requested Information Is voluntary, however, If information is not provided the permit application cannot be evaluated nor can a permit be Issued. One set of original drawings or good reproducible copies which show the location and character of the proposed activity must be attached to this application (ace sample drawings and/or instructions) and be submitted to the District Engineer having jurisdiction over the location of the proposed activity. An application that is not completed In full will be returned. (ITEMS 1 THRU 4 TO BE FILLED BY THE CORPS) 1. APPLICATION NO. 2. FIELD OFFICE CODE 3. DATE RECEIVED 4. DATE APPLICATION COMPLETE (ITEMS BELOW TO BE FILLED BYAPPLICAN7) 5. APPLICANTS NAME 6. AUTHORIZED AGENTS NAME AND TITLE (agent is not required) First - Charles Middle- Last - Price First - R. Middle- Clement Last - Riddle Company- Green Meadows, LLC Company- ClearWater Environmental Consultants, Inc. E -mail Address - E -mail Address - clement@cwenv.com 6. APPLICANT'S ADDRESS: B. AGENTS ADDRESS: Address- 12601 Plantside Drive Address- 224 South Grove Street, Suite F city - Louisville State- KY Zip -40299 Country-USA City - Hendersonville State- NC Zip-28792 Country-USA 7. APPLICANTS PHONE NOs. WARFA CODE 10. AGENTS PHONE NOs. WAREA CODE a. Residence b. Business c. Fax a. Residence b. Business c. Fax 502- 245 -1959 828 -698 -9800 STATEMENT OF AUTHORIZATION 11. 1 hereby authorize, R. Clement Riddle to act in my behalf as my agent in the processing of this application and to furnish, upon request, supplemental information in support of this permit app' lion. !n� ' r a -13 -/s SIGNATURE OF APPLICANT DATE NAME, LOCATION, AND DESCRIPTION OF PROJECT OR ACTIVITY 12. PROJECT NAME OR TITLE (see Instructions) Brickhaven and Sanford Mines. 13. NAME OF WATERBODY. IF KNOWN Of applicable) 14. PROJECT STREET ADDRESS (if applicable) Please see attached supplemental page for 13 -16. Address 15. LOCATION OF PROJECT Latitude: •N Longitude: •W City - State- Zip - 16. OTHER LOCATION DESCRIPTIONS, IF KNOWN (see Instructions) State Tax Parcel ID Municipality Section - Township - Range - ENG FORM 4345, OUT 2012 PREVIOUS EDITIONS ARE OBSOLETE. Page I of 3 17. DIRECTIONS TO THE SITE See application (Section 1.0). 18. Nature of Activity (Description of project, include all features) See application (Section 5.0). 19. Project Purpose (Describe the reason or purpose of the project, see Instructions) See application (Section 4.0). USE BLOCKS 20 -23 IF DREDGED AND /OR FILL MATERIAL IS TO BE DISCHARGED 20. Reason(s) for Discharge See application (Section 5.0). 21. Type(s) of Matedal Being Discharged and the Amount of Each Type in Cubic Yards: Type Type Type Amount in Cubic Yards Amount in Cubic Yards Amount in Cubic Yards Coal ash at Sanford - 7.25 million CY Coal ash at Brickhaven - 9.2 million CY 22. Surface Area in Acres of Wetlands or Other Waters Filled (see instructions) Acres 1.14 acres of non - isolated wetlands and 0.50 acre of isolated wetlands or Linear Feet 4,166 linear feet of stream. 23. Description of Avoidance, Minimization, and Compensation (see instructions) See application (Sections 6.0 and 7.0). ENG FORM 4345, OCT 2012 Page 2 of 3 24. Is Any Portion of the Work Already Complete? Yes XJNo IF YES, DESCRIBE THE COMPLETED WORK 25. Addresses of Adjoining Property Owners, Lessees, Etc,, Whose Property Adjoins the Waterbody (ifmme men can w emewhm, pease anam a supmmentatim) a. Address- Please see list in application. City - State - ZIP _ b. Address - City - State - ZiP - c. Address - City - State - ZIP - d. Address - City - State - Zip - e. Address - City - State - zip - 26. List of Other Certificates or Approvals/Denials received from other Federal. State, or Loral Agencies for Work Described in This Application. AGENCY TYPE APPROVAL' IDENTIFICATION DATE APPLIED DATE APPROVED DATE DENIED NUMBER NC -DEMLR Mine Permit 53 -05 - Colon 2014 -11 -21 2015 -01 -23 NC -DEMLR Mine Permit 19 -25 - Brickhaven 2014 -11 -21 2015 -01 -23 Would include but is not restricted to zoning, building, and flood plain permits 27. Application is hereby made for permit or permits to authorize the work described in this application. I certify that this information In this application is complete and accurate. I further certify that I possess the authority to undertake the work Described herein or am acting as the duly authorized agent of the applicant -13 -/5 SIGNATURE OF APPLIC ti:(\ DATE SIGNATURE OF AGENT DATE The Application must be signed by the person who desires to undertake the proposed activity (applicant) or it may be signed by a duly authorized agent if the statement in block 11 has been filled out and signed. 18 U.S.C. Section 1001 provides that: Whoever, in any manner within the jurisdiction of any department or agency of the United States knowingly and willfully falsifies, conceals, or covers up any trick, scheme, or disguises a material fact or makes any false, fictitious or fraudulent statements or representations or makes or uses any false writing or document knowing same to contain any false, fictitious or fraudulent statements or entry, shall be fined not more than $10,000 or imprisoned not more than five years or both. fNG FORM 4345, OCT 2012 Page 3 of 3 Box 13 —Name of Waterbody Sanford — Roberts Creek and UTs to Roberts Creek Brickhaven — UTs to Shaddox Creek Box 14 — Project Street Address Sanford — Brickyard Road, Sanford, NC 27330 Brickhaven — Moncure- Flatwood Road, Moncure, NC 27559 Box 15 — Location of Project Sanford — 35.536879, - 79.144720 Brickhaven — 35.598140, - 79.021925 Box 16 — Other Location Descriptors (State Parcel ID) Sanford - Pin #s 9655 -81- 9374 -00, 9655 -62- 2672 -00, 9654 -58- 2312 -00, 9654 -38- 3247 -00, and 9654 -68- 2373 -00. Brickhaven - Pin #s 9697 -43- 584.000, 9697 -30- 6864.000, and 9697 -21 -8247. Q- r Department of the Army NCDENR Wilmington District, Corps of Engineers NC DWR, Webscape Unit Attn: Scott McLendon, Chief Regulatory Division Attn: Karen Higgins PO Box 1890 512 North Salisbury Street Wilmington, NC 28402 -1890 Raleigh, North Carolina 27604 I, the current landowner /managing partner of the property identified below, hereby authorize C1earWater Environmental Consultants, Inc. (CEC) to act on my behalf as my agent during the processing of jurisdictional determination requests and permits to impact Wetlands and Water of the US subject to Federal jurisdiction under Section 404 of the Clean Water Act and /or Section 10 of the Rivers and Harbors Act of 1899. CEC is authorized to provide supplemental information as needed at the request of the USACE or DWR. Additionally, I authorize representatives of the Wilmington District, US Army Corps of Engineers to enter upon the property herein described for the purposes of conducting on- site investigations and issuing a determination associated with Wetlands and Waters of the US subject to Federal jurisdiction under Section 404 of the Clean Water Act and/or Section 10 of the Rivers and Harbors Act of 1899. Property Owner of Record: Green Meadow, LLC Property Owner of Address: 12601 Plantside Drive Louisville, KY 40299 Phone Number: (502) 245 -1353 Property Location: Lee County, NC (Colon (Sanford) Mine) Owner/Managing Partner Printed Name: Charles E. Price Owner/Managing Partner Signature: Date: 224 South Grove Street, Suite F Hendersonville, NC 28792 Phone: 828-698-9800 www.cwenv.com Department of the Army NCDENR Wilmington District, Corps of Engineers NC DWR, Webscape Unit Atm: Scott McLendon, Chief Regulatory Division Attn: Karen Higgins PO Box 1890 512 North Salisbury Street Wilmington, NC 28402 -1890 Raleigh, North Carolina 27604 I, the current landowner /managing partner of the property identified below, hereby authorize C1earWater Environmental Consultants, Inc. (CEC) to act on my behalf as my agent during the processing of jurisdictional determination requests and permits to impact Wetlands and Water of the US subject to Federal jurisdiction under Section 404 of the Clean Water Act and/or Section 10 of the Rivers and Harbors Act of 1899. CEC is authorized to provide supplemental information as needed at the request of the USACE or DWR. Additionally, I authorize representatives of the Wilmington District, US Army Corps of Engineers to enter upon the property herein described for the purposes of conducting on- site investigations and issuing a determination associated with Wetlands and Waters of the US subject to Federal jurisdiction under Section 404 of the Clean Water Act and/or Section 10 of the Rivets and Harbors Act of 1899. Property Owner of Record: Green Meadow, LLC Property Owner of Address: 12601 Plantside Drive Louisville, KY 40299 Phone Number: (502) 245 -1353 Property Location: Chatham County, NC (Brickhaven 2 - Tract A Mine) Owner/Managing Partner Printed Name: Charles E. Price Owner/Managing Partner Signature: L/�— V Date: (/ — 17—/ L/ 224 South Grove Street, Suite F Hendersonville, NC 28792 Phone: 828-698-9800 www.cwenv.com Adjoining Property Owners Sanford Mine John & Elizabeth Riggs William H. Kottcamp 419 Hillcrest Road 2006 Colon Road Apex, NC 27502 Sanford, NC 27330 Kathy Holland Kenneth L. Moore 1071 Farrel Road 54 Birchard Road Sanford, NC 27330 Sanford, NC 27330 Bullard Trailer Sales No. 2, Inc. Thurleen J. Kottcamp 5106 Murchison Road 2224 Colon Road Fayettville, NC 28311 Sanford, NC 27330 Phat Hgoc Trinh Alvin Mark Reaves 4512 Kilcullen Drive 237 Birchard Road Raleigh, NC 27604 Sanford, NC 27330 Cherokee Land Company, LLC Michael Monroe Reaves 111 Harnett Street 301 Birchard Road Raleigh, NC 27601 Sanford, NC 27330 Benson Timber Service, Inc. Emma Cameron Reaves PO Box 279 343 Birchard Road Benson, NC 27504 Sanford, NC 27330 Michael David Tarpey Daisy Rascoe 159 Memory Lane 259 Birchard Road Sanford, NC 27330 Sanford, NC 27330 Timothy and Sharon Rosser William Thomas Reaves 123 Memory Lane 5606 Delaware Drive Sanford, NC 27330 Oxon Hill, MD 20745 General Shale Brick, Inc. Elnora Petty PO Box 3547 5015 Valley View Drive Johnson City, NC 37602 Sanford, NC 27330 Lee Iron and Metal Company Marilyn Berryman PO Box 778 981 Old US 1 Sanford, NC 27331 Moncure, NC 27559 Richard C. Wicker Christopher Ross Cherico 2021 Colon Road 113 Le Blanc Ct Sanford, NC 27330 Cary, NC 27513 Thomas Lee 2846 Colon Road Sanford, NC 27330 Dawn Crawley 2930 Colon Road Sanford, NC 27330 Charles Elliot Seymour 180 Osgood Road Sanford, NC 27330 Mardena Dobson 4433 Dakota Ave North Washington, DC 20017 Mary McKinnon 276 Osgood Road Sanford, NC 27330 Rishawn L. Seymore PO Box 2295 Sanford, NC 27331 Zula Mae Gunter 537 Lennox Drive Fayetteville, NC 28303 Kenneth Alexander 374 Osgood Road Sanford, NC 27330 Adjoining Property Owners Brickhaven Mine Moncure Holdings, LLC 2717 New Hill Olive Chapel Road New Hill, NC 27562 Performance Fibers, Inc. 13620 Reese Blvd., Ste 400 Huntersville, NC 28078 General Shale Brick, Inc. PO Box 3547 Johnson City, TN 37602 Phyllis Tilley Buchanan 6812 Lipscomb Drive Durham, NC 27712 Frank Kent Dickens 250 Dickens Farm Road Moncure, NC 27559 Douglas E. Utley 1912 Hunting Ridge Road Raleigh, NC 27615 Shawn J. Ray 849 Moncure Flatwood Road Moncure, NC 27559 Ellis M. Mansfield 1149 Moncure Flatwood Road Moncure, NC 27559 Carolina Power and Light PO BOX 1551 -PEB3A Raleigh, NC 27602 Individaual Permit Application for U.S. Army Corps of Engineers Section 404 Permit and North Carolina 401 Water Quality Certification and Isolated Wetlands Permit February 2015 Applicant: Green Meadows, LLC Attn: Mr. Charles Price 12601 Plantside Drive Louisville, KY 40299 Prepared by: ClearWater Environmental Consultants, Inc. 224 South Grove Street, Suite F Hendersonville, North Carolina 28792 828 - 698 -9800 TABLE OF CONTENTS LIST OF ATTACHMENTS ........................................................................................................ ............................... .. n 1.0 INTRODUCTION TO PROJECT ................................................................................ ..............................1 1.1 Project Location ......................................................................................................... ............................... 2 1.2 Jurisdictional Waters ................................................................................................... ..............................3 2.0 BACKGROUND AND PRIOR PROJECT HISTORY ............................................... ..............................5 3.0 EXISTING SITE CONDITIONS .................................................................................. ..............................8 3.1 Sanford Mine .............................................................................................................. ............................... 8 3.2 Brickhaven Mine ......................................................................................................... ..............................9 3.3 Soils ............................................................................................................................ .............................11 3.4 Fish and Wildlife Use of the Project Site ................................................................. ............................... 11 3.5 Threatened and Endangered Species ........................................................................ ............................... 11 3.6 Cultural Resources ................................................................................................... ............................... 12 4.0 PROJECT PURPOSE ................................................................................................... .............................15 5.0 PROPOSED PROJECT DEVELOPMENT ................................................................ .............................16 5.1 Stream and Wetland Impacts .................................................................................... ............................... 22 6.0 DISCUSSION OF ALTERNATIVES .......................................................................... .............................24 6.1 Project Alternatives .................................................................................................... .............................25 6.2 Avoidance and Minimization ................................................................................... ............................... 30 6.3 Alternatives Concl usion ............................................................................................. .............................32 7.0 CONCEPTUAL MITIGATION PLAN ..................................................................... ............................... 33 7.1 NC Ecosystem Enhancement Program ( EEP) .......................................................... ............................... 33 8.0 US ENVIRONMENTAL PROTECTION AGENCY 404(b)(1) GUIDELINES ....... .............................34 8.1 Factual Determination ................................................................................................ .............................34 8.2 Potential Impacts on Physical and Chemical Characteristics of the Aquatic Ecosystem ........................ 34 8.3 Potential Impacts to Biological Characteristics of the Ecosystem ............................ ............................... 36 8.4 Potential Impacts on Special Aquatic Sites .............................................................. ............................... 38 8.5 Potential Effects on Human Use Characteristics ...................................................... ............................... 39 8.6 Summary .................................................................................................................. ............................... 40 9.0 PUBLIC INTEREST CONSIDERATIONS ................................................................ .............................41 9.1 Conservation ............................................................................................................... .............................41 9.2 Economics .................................................................................................................. .............................41 9.3 Aest hetics ................................................................................................................... .............................41 9.4 General Environmental Concerns ............................................................................. ............................... 42 9.5 Wetl ands ..................................................................................................................... .............................42 9.6 Historic Properties .................................................................................................... ............................... 42 9.7 Fish and Wildlife Values ............................................................................................ .............................43 9.8 Flood Hazards .......................................................................................................... ............................... 43 9.9 Floodplain Values ....................................................................................................... .............................43 9.10 Land Use .................................................................................................................. ............................... 44 9.11 Navigation .................................................................................................................. .............................44 9.12 Shore Erosion and Accret ion .................................................................................... ............................... 44 9.13 Recreation ................................................................................................................... .............................45 9.14 Water Supply and Conservation ............................................................................... ............................... 45 9.15 Water Quality (Stormwater Management) ............................................................... ............................... 45 9.16 Energy Needs ........................................................................................................... ............................... 45 9.17 Safety .......................................................................................................................... .............................45 9.18 Food and Fiber Product ion ......................................................................................... .............................46 9.19 Mineral Needs .......................................................................................................... ............................... 46 9.20 Considerations of Property Ownership ..................................................................... ............................... 46 9.21 Needs and Welfare of the Public .............................................................................. ............................... 46 10.0 SECONDARY AND CUMULATIVE EFFECTS ....................................................... .............................47 11.0 SUMMARY .................................................................................................................... .............................48 LIST OF FIGURES 1 a. Site Vicinity Map — Plants and Mines lb. Site Vicinity Map - Mines 2a. USGS Topographic Map — Sanford 2b. USGS Topographic Map — Brickhaven 3a. Soils Map — Sanford 3b. Soils Map - Brickhaven 4a. Site Plan and Impact Map — Sanford 4b. Site Plan and Impact Map — Brickhaven 5a. 100 -Year Floodplain Map — Sanford 5b. 100 -Year Floodplain Map - Brickhaven LIST OF ATTACHMENTS Attachment A Lynn Good Letter (March 12, 2014) Attachment B Internet Links Attachment C Coal Ash Excavation Plans Attachment D Jurisdictional Determination Information Attachment E Public Meeting and Information Sessions Attachment F Threatened and Endangered Species Reports Attachment G Cultural Resources Reports Attachment H Structural Fill Information Attachment I Duke Plant Sites Map Attachment J City of Charlotte Coal Ash Due Diligence Study Attachment K Mitigation Letters ii 1.0 INTRODUCTION TO PROJECT Duke Energy (Duke) is in the process of modernizing their coal -fired power plants to transition to cleaner, more efficient energy sources. As part of this plan, Duke places a high priority on closing ash basins at the power plants once they are no longer needed. Duke is implementing comprehensive coal ash management and basin closure plans as a result of a broken stormwater pipe and subsequent release of coal ash into the Dan River from the ash basin at the retired Dan River Steam Station (Dan River). After the event at Dan River, Ms. Lynn J. Good, President and CEO of Duke Energy, issued a letter dated March 12, 2014 (Attachment A) outlining Duke's plan and initiative to improve coal ash management and prevent future failures of Duke coal ash facilities. Although the Dan River Steam Station was the primary topic of the letter, Duke outlines implementation of a comprehensive plan that applies to all of the coal -fired power plants in the state. The comprehensive plan will first address all retired sites (21 ponds /7 sites) and pond management at active sites (12 ponds /7 sites). On August 20, 2014, the NC General Assembly passed the Coal Ash Management Act of 2014 (CAMA14). An internet link to CAMA14 is provided in Attachment B. Duke Energy is committed to permanently and safely closing ash basins at its coal plants. Duke has accelerated its work in response to North Carolina's CAMA14, which requires basins to be closed at four plants (Asheville Steam Station, Dan River, Sutton Electric Plant, and Riverbend Stream Station) by August of 2019. Duke Energy submitted coal ash excavation plans to state regulators in November of 2014 for the first four plants, including Sutton Electric Plant (Sutton) and Riverbend Steam Station ( Riverbend) (Attachment C). On December 19, 2014, the Environmental Protection Agency (EPA) signed the Disposal of Coal Combustion Residuals from Electric Utilities final rule and submitted it to the Federal Register for publication. The regulations provide a comprehensive set of requirements for the safe disposal of coal ash from coal -fired power plants. The rule establishes technical requirements for landfills and surface impoundments under Subtitle D of the Resource Conservation and Recovery Act, the nation's primary law for regulating solid waste. These regulations address the risks from coal ash disposal such as leaking of contaminants into ground water, blowing of contaminants into the air as dust, and the catastrophic failure of coal ash surface impoundments. Additionally, the rule establishes recordkeeping and reporting requirements, as well as, the requirement for each facility to establish and post specific information to a publicly - accessible website. This final rule also supports the responsible recycling of coal ash by distinguishing safe, "beneficial use" from disposal. Currently, State regulations included in CAMA14 are more stringent than Federal regulations included in the EPA rule. Charah, Inc. ( Charah), a company specializing in short-term solutions as well as long- term management of coal combustion by- products, has been contracted by Duke to remove coal ash from Riverbend in Mount Holly, North Carolina and Sutton in Wilmington, North Carolina (Figure la) as outlined in Ms. Good's letter and CAMA14. Recommendations and proposed activities specifically related to Riverbend and Sutton include the following: • Accelerate planning and closure of the Sutton ash ponds to include evaluation of possible lined structural fill solutions and other options; • Move all ash from Riverbend away from the river to a lined structural fill solution or lined landfill; and • Close the Riverbend and Sutton basins by 2019. Green Meadows, LLC (Green Meadows), a subsidiary of Charah, currently owns the Brickhaven Mine located in Moncure, North Carolina and the Sanford Mine located in Sanford, North Carolina. Both sites are recently active, open -pit clay mines. Green Meadows has filed for mining permit modifications to use ash from Riverbend and Sutton as the primary material for reclamation of the mined areas. This permit application applies to activities associated with closing ash basins at Riverbend and Sutton; and transporting coal ash to the Brickhaven and Sanford Mines for "beneficial use ". Green Meadows is the applicant for this project. 1.1 Proiect Location The Sanford Mine is located off Brickyard Road approximately 1 mile northeast of the Town of Sanford in Lee County, North Carolina. A site vicinity map is included for review (Figures lb). To access the site from Raleigh, take I -40 West to Exit 293 (US Highway 1). Take US Highway I to Exit 74 (Colon Road). Turn left onto Colon Road and travel approximately 2.4 miles. Turn left onto Brickyard Road and travel approximately 0.3 miles to a gated, gravel drive on the left. In general, the Sanford Mine is bordered to the north by an unnamed tributary to Roberts Creek, the south and east by an existing CSX and Norfolk Southern rail lines, and to the west by Colon Road. A USGS topographic map is included for review (Figure 2a). The Brickhaven Mine is located off Moncure - Flatwood Road approximately 2 miles east of the Town of Moncure in Chatham County, North Carolina. A site vicinity map is included for review (Figure lb). To access the site from Raleigh, take I -40 West to Exit 293 (US Highway 1). Take US Highway 1 to Exit 84 (Old US Highway 1). Turn left onto Christian Chapel Road and travel approximately 1.7 miles. Turn right onto Moncure- Flatwood Road and travel approximately 1.8 miles to a gravel drive on the right. In general, the Brickhaven Mine is bordered to the north by an unnamed dirt road, the south and east by Moncure - Flatwood Road, and to the west by Corinth Road. A USGS topographic map is included for review (Figure 2b). rJ 1.2 Jurisdictional Waters The Sanford Mine was delineated July 21 -31, 2014 by C1earWater Environmental Consultants, Inc. (CEC) and a Jurisdictional Determination (JD) site visit was conducted on January 15, 2015. A "Notification of Jurisdictional Determination" is pending with the US Army Corps of Engineers (Corps) under Action ID SAW - 2015- 00107. A stream and wetland map showing the delineation is included in Attachment D. Jurisdictional streams at the Sanford Mine are Roberts Creek and unnamed tributaries to Roberts Creek. Roberts Creek is a tributary to Hughes Creek which is a tributary to Lick Creek. Lick Creek is a tributary to the Cape Fear River which is navigable -in -fact water in Fayetteville, North Carolina. Roberts Creek and the unnamed tributaries are classified by the NC Division of Water Resources (DWR) as class "WS -IV" waters. There are also jurisdictional wetlands and open waters throughout the site. The Sanford Mine contains the following amounts of jurisdictional waters: Feature Amount Unit Stream 11,540 linear feet Wetlands 18.70 acres Open Water 7.78 acres Non jurisdictional stormwater basins associated with Mining Permit 53 -05 have also been identified on the stream and wetland map in Attachment D. The Brickhaven Mine was delineated August 18 -22, 2014 by CEC and a JD site visit was conducted on December 8, 2014. A "Notification of Jurisdictional Determination" is pending with the Corps under Action ID SAW- 2014 - 02254. A stream and wetland map showing the delineation is included in Attachment D. Jurisdictional streams at the Brickhaven Mine are unnamed tributaries to Shaddox Creek. Shaddox Creek is a tributary to the Haw River which is a tributary to the Deep River. The Deep River is a tributary to the Cape Fear River which is navigable -in -fact water in Fayetteville, North Carolina. Unnamed tributaries to Shaddox Creek are classified by the DWR as class "WS -IV" waters. There are also jurisdictional wetlands associated with unnamed tributaries Gulf Creek throughout the site (the unnamed tributaries are not located on site). The Brickhaven Mine contains the following amounts of jurisdictional waters: Feature Amount Unit Stream 4,834 linear feet Wetlands (non - isolated) 3.98 acres Wetlands isolated 0.50 acres Open Water 0 acres Non jurisdictional stormwater basins associated with Mining Permit 19 -04 have also been identified on the stream and wetland map in Attachment D. The Brickhaven Mine site also includes a railroad access corridor through property owned by Moncure Holdings, LLC. The property was delineated by Withers & Ravenel in 2013. The site was verified by the Corps on October 10, 2014 under Action ID SAW- 2014 - 00610. A copy of the JD letter and signed map are included for review (Attachment D). An "Existing Site Conditions" section (Section 3.0) has been included in this application for review and finther describes the jurisdictional waters on site. 4 2.0 BACKGROUND AND PRIOR PROJECT HISTORY Riverbend Steam Station Backaround — Riverbend is located off Horse Shoe Beach Road near the Town of Mount Holly in Gaston County, North Carolina, on the south bank of the Catawba River. The 7 -unit station began commercial operation in 1929 with 2 units and then expanded to 7 by 1954. As of April 1, 2013, all of the coal -fired units were retired. The ash from Riverbend's coal combustion operations was historically processed in the ash basin system located on the northeast of the property adjacent to the Catawba River. Currently, Riverbend is being decommissioned, and no active ash placement or sluicing is occurring within the ash basin system. The ash basin system is located approximately 2,400 feet to the northeast of the power plant, adjacent to the Catawba River, and consists of a Primary ash basin (west side) and a Secondary ash basin (north side), which are separated by an intermediate dam. A figure showing the basin locations is included in the Riverbend Steam Station Coal Ash Excavation Plan ( Riverbend Excavation Plan) (Attachment Q. Originally, the ash basin at Riverbend consisted of a single -cell basin commissioned in 1957. It was expanded in 1979 to its current configuration. In 1979, the original single basin was divided by constructing a divider dam to form the two separate cells (Primary ash basin and Secondary ash basin). This modification improved the original pond's overall ability for suspended solids removal. At present, the Primary ash basin and the Secondary ash basin are estimated to contain approximately 2.1 million and 700 thousand tons of ash, respectively. An ash fill deposit, known as the Ash Stack, was constructed from ash removed from the Primary and Secondary ash basins during past basin clean-out projects. The Ash Stack was utilized for the ash basin clean-outs periodically to prolong the life of the ash basins. The Ash Stack is a 29 -acre area located south of the Primary ash basin and is estimated to contain 1.5 million tons of coal ash. A figure showing the Ash Stack location is included in the Riverbend Excavation Plan (Attachment Q. Prior to construction of the original ash basin in 1957, ash was deposited in a primarily dry condition in an area known as the Cinder Pit. The Cinder Pit is approximately 13 acres and is located in a triangular area northeast of the coal pile and northwest of the rail spur. This area was utilized for storage of ash material at the station prior to the installation of precipitators and a wet sluicing system. The Cinder Pit is estimated to contain approximately 300 thousand tons of coal ash. A figure showing the Cinder Pit location is included in the Riverbend Excavation Plan (Attachment Q. Additional information regarding coal ash excavation and removal at the Riverbend Steam Station is included for review (Attachment C). 5 Sutton Electric Plant Backeround — Sutton is located between the Cape Fear River to the west and the Northeast Cape Fear River to the east in New Hanover County near Wilmington, North Carolina. Sutton was a 3 -unit coal -fired power plant that operated from 1954 until retirement of the coal -feed units in November of 2013. Upon retirement of the coal -fired units, a new gas -fired unit began operations. There are two ash basins (the 1971 basin and 1984 basin) and a large cooling basin at the plant. The cooling basin is accessible to the general public and is used for recreational purposes. Two other areas that contain ash material are the Lay of Land Area (LOLA) and the 1971 borrow area. The LOLA consists mostly of bottom ash and soil, while the 1971 borrow area consists of fly and bottom ash. The 1971 basin is an unlined basin that was operated from 1971 to 1985. It was opened again in 2011 for temporary use during repair work and previous ash removal activities. An area underneath the footprint of the 1971 basin contains additional ash material and is referred to as the 1971 borrow area. The 1971 basin and borrow area contain approximately 3.5 million tons of ash material. A figure showing the basin and borrow area locations is included in the Sutton Electric Plant Coal Ash Excavation Plan (Sutton Excavation Plan) (Attachment Q. The 1984 basin was operated from 1984 to 2013. Both the 1984 and 1971 basins contain fly ash, bottom ash, boiler slag, stormwater, ash sluice water, coal pile runoff, and low volume wastewater. The 1984 basin was constructed with a 12 -inch thick clay liner at the basin bottom which extended along the side slopes where it is protected by a 2 -foot thick sand layer. Currently, the 1984 basin contains approximately 2.8 million tons of ash material. A figure showing the basin location is included in the Sutton Excavation Plan (Attachment Q. The LOLA is located between the discharge canal and the coal pile. It is believed that the presence of ash in this area may have been due to the plant operations between approximately 1954 and 1972. A significant portion of this area toward the discharge canal is heavily vegetated while the portion adjacent to the coal pile storage was used to house fuel oil storage tanks. The LOLA is on the North Carolina Inactive Hazardous Waste Sites Priority List. This area contains approximately 840 thousand tons of ash and soil mixture at depths of 2 to 15 feet. A figure showing the LOLA location is included in the Sutton Excavation Plan (Attachment Q. Additional information regarding coal ash excavation and removal at Sutton is included for review (Attachment Q. Public Meetings and Information Sessions Approximately seven Public Meetings or Information Sessions have been held between November of 2014 and January of 2015. These meetings were held by local government entities or Duke Energy. Local citizens where invited to 5 of the 7 meetings; and one -on- one interaction with the public or public comments were accepted at 5 of the 7 meetings. 0 The table below summarizes the date, type of event, host organization, and format of the meetings. An expanded table with additional information is included in Attachment E. Date Event Host Format Organization Commission -led meeting, Charah 11/17/2014 Lee County Board of Lee County Board and Duke presented and Commissioners meeting of Commissioners answered questions, included public comment period Lee County Chamber Lee County Lunch briefing from Charah; 12/1/2014 Board — Lunch Chamber of open questions from Chamber Commerce members Public forum with speakers each Lee County Lee County Board getting 3 minutes. Neither Duke 12/8/2014 Commissioners Public of Commissioners nor Charah invited to Hearing speak/present. Information booth setup for one- Duke Energy's Lee on -one interface for public to 12/10/2014 County Public Duke Energy speak with industry experts from information meeting Duke and Charah. Duke Energy's Chatham Information booth setup for one- 12/11/2014 County Public Duke Energy on -one interface for public to information meeting speak with industry experts from Duke and Charah. Chatham County Board Chatham County Commission -led meeting, Charah 1/20/2015 of Commissioners work Board of and Duke Energy presented and session Commissioners answered questions, included ublic comment eriod Board -led meeting, Charah and City of Sanford Sanford Duke Energy presented and 1/20/2015 Environmental Affairs Environmental answered questions, no public Board meeting Affairs Board comment 3.0 EXISTING SITE CONDITIONS The project sites are recently active clay mines which include: wooded areas, dirt roads, mine pits, sediment and erosion control basins, etc. The sites are relatively flat with an average elevation of approximately 250 -300 feet above mean sea level (MSL). 3.1 Sanford Mine 3.1.1 Streams and Riparian Forest These freshwater habitats include the streambeds and banks and immediate riparian areas of Roberts Creek and unnamed tributaries to Roberts Creek. Nearly all of Roberts Creek has been affected (ditched, rerouted, impounded, etc.) by historic mining operations. Permanently rooted aquatic plants are practically non - existent in on -site streams. The unnamed tributaries are narrow systems varying from 2 -6 feet wide. Dominant overstory species include red maple (Acer rubrum), sweetgum (Liquidambar styraciflua), water oak (Quercus nigra), willow oak (Quercus phellos), black gum (Nyssa sylvatica), and loblolly pine (Pinus taeda). Tag alder (Alnus serrulata), black willow (Salix nigra), and sourwood (Oxydendrum arboretum) dominate the understory. Herbaceous species include bracken fern (Pteridium aquilinum), sensitive fern (Onoclea sensibilis), netted chain fern (Woodwardia areolata), cinnamon fern (Osmundastrum cinnamomeum), possum haw (Viburnum nudum), Virginia creeper (Parthenocissus quinquefolia), and poison ivy (Toxicodendron radicans). Less dominant species include tulip poplar (Liriodendron tulipifera), American holly (Ilex opaca), northern red oak (Quercus rubra), royal fern (Osmunda regalis), running cedar (Lycopodium), and sassafras (Sassafras albidum). 3.1.2 Wetland Wetlands on the northern end of the project are seepage and stream -flow driven systems adjacent to or at the head of perennial and intermittent streams. Dominant overstory species include black willow, red maple, sweetgum, black gum, willow oak, loblolly pine, and water oak. In addition to saplings of the above trees, species observed in the shrub layer include elderberry (Sambucus canadensis), tag alder, and possumhaw. The herbaceous layer consists of cinnamon fern, sensitive fern, royal fern, sedges (Carex spp.), and rushes (Juncus spp.). Beaver activity and mining operations have also influenced wetland development along Roberts Creek on the southern end of the project. These open marsh wetland habitats are dominated by herbaceous plants and shrubs. Dominant species include black willow, tag alder, woolgrass (Scirpus cyperinus), lizard's tail (Saururus cernuus), cattail (Typha latifolia), and tearthumb (Polygonum sagittatum). Other species observed include elderberry, pickerelweed (Pontederia cordata), black gum, wax myrtle (Morelia cerifera), button bush (Cephalathus occidentalis), red maple, and sweetgum. 8 3.1.3 Ruderal Corridors The ruderal habitat consists of road edges and power line rights -of way. It is considered a disturbed and/or transitional community type. These areas are dominated by early successional saplings, shrubs, and herbaceous plants. Species observed include baccharis ( Baccharis sp.), wax myrtle, lespedeza (Lespedeza sp.), blackberry (Rubus sp.), dog fennel (Eupatorium capillifolium), goldenrod (Solidago sp.), broomsedge (Andropogon virginicus), and switchgrass (Panicum virgatum). Other species observed include southern red oak (Quercus falcata), blackjack oak (Quercus marilandica), persimmon (Diospyros virginiana), and poison ivy. 3.1.4 Early Successional Field This habitat includes old abandoned fields dominated by baccharis, lespedeza, blackberry, and goldenrod. Other early successional saplings and shrubs include loblolly pine, sweetgum, and winged sumac (Rhus copallinum). 3.1.5 Mixed Pine/Hardwood Forest The mixed pine/hardwood forest is dominated by 15 -20 -year old loblolly pine, sweetgum, sourwood, and black cherry (Prunus serotina). The dense understory is comprised of saplings and blackberry. 3.1.6 Oak Hickory Forest This habitat consists of predominately oak and hickory species. Species include white oak (Quercus alba), southern red oak, northern red oak, mockernut hickory (Carya tomentosa), tulip poplar, sweetgum, sourwood, red maple, and a few scattered loblolly pines. The understory consists of sassafras, blueberry (Vaccinium sp.), dogwood (Cornus florida), winterbeny (Ilex verticillata), grapevine (Vitis sp.), and heart leaf (Hexastylis spp.). 3.1.7 Loblolly Pine Forest This community is dominated by 10 -25 -year old loblolly pine stands. The understory is dense and other species observed include tulip poplar, sweetgum, sourwood, red maple, and water oak. The herbaceous layer consists of Japanese honeysuckle (Lonicera japonica), greenbrier (Smilax rotundifolia), bracken fern, blackberry, and poison ivy. 3.2 Brickhaven Mine 3.2.1 Stream Bank and Riparian Forest These freshwater habitats include the streambeds and banks and immediate riparian areas of unnamed tributaries to Shaddox Creek. These tributaries are intermittent in character and lack base flow throughout. Streams on site are dominated by sand and silt substrate. Permanently rooted aquatic plants are practically non - existent in on- site streams. The unnamed tributaries are narrow systems varying from 2 -6 feet wide. Dominant overstory species include red maple, sweetgum, water oak, willow oak, and black gum. Herbaceous species include bracken fern, cinnamon fern, Virginia creeper, poison ivy, and greenbrier. Other species noted include tulip E poplar, American holly, northern red oak, and American beautyberry (Callicarpa americana). 3.2.2 Wetland The majority of wetlands within the project boundary are seepage and stream - flow driven systems adjacent to or at the head of intermittent streams. Dominant overstory species include red maple, sweetgum, and black gum. The herbaceous layer consists of woolgrass, common rush (Juncus effusus), cinnamon fern, Virginia chain fern (Woodwardia virginica), false nettle (Boehmeria cylindrica), and sedges. Mining operations have influenced wetland development along the eastern portion of the project. Abandoned sediment basins have been reclaimed with wetland vegetation. Dominant overstory species include black willow, red maple, and sweetgum. In addition to saplings of the above trees, species observed in the shrub layer were limited to buttonbush and American beautyberry. Dominant species in the herbaceous layer include lizard's tail, cattail, and woolgrass. Other species observed include loblolly pine, pickerelweed, ironweed (Vernonia sp.), false nettle, and common rush. 3.2.3 Ruderal Corridors The ruderal habitat consists of road edges and power line rights -of way. It is considered a disturbed and/or transitional community type. These areas are dominated by early successional saplings, shrubs, and herbaceous plants. Species observed include baccharis, lespedeza, blackberry, dog fennel, goldenrod, and switchgrass. Other species observed include loblolly pine, persimmon, sweetgum, Johnson grass (Sorghum halepense), and bracken fern. 3.2.4 Mixed Pine/Hardwood Forest The mixed pine/hardwood forest is dominated by 30 -50 -year old loblolly pine, white oak, mockernut hickory, red maple, sweetgum, and black gum. The understory is comprised of highbush blueberry (Vaccinium corymbosum), muscadine (Vitis rotundifolia), bracken fern, and greenbrier. Other species observed include American holly, sourwood, post oak (Quercus stellata), and black oak (Quercus velutina). 3.2.5 Oak Hickory Forest This habitat consists of predominately oak and hickory species. Species include white oak, northern red oak, mockernut hickory, pignut hickory (Carya glabra) tulip poplar, sweetgum, sourwood, red maple, and a few scattered loblolly pines. The understory consists of blueberry, dogwood, black cherry, sourwood, Christmas fern (Polystichum acrostichoides), grapevine, and heart leaf. Other species noted include willow oak, American beech (Fagus grandifolia), ironwood (Carpinus caroliniana), and bracken fern. 10 3.2.6 Loblolly Pine Forest This habitat is dominated by planted loblolly pines approximately 5 -10 years old. Other species observed include sweetgum, big bluestem (Andropogon gerardii), blackberry, baccharis, persimmon, winged sumac, white oak, water oak, post oak, mockernut hickory, and princess tree (Paulownia tomentosa). 3.3 Soils The project sites are located within the Piedmont physiographic region of North Carolina and more specifically the Triassic Ecoregion. Soils in this ecoregion are dominated by clay with a low permeability and high shrink -swell potential. Soil series present at the Sanford Mine include: Chewacla, Creedmoor, Pinkston, and Udorthents. Soil series present at the Brickhaven Mine include: Chewacla, Creedmoor -Green Level complex, Merry Oaks - Moncure complex, Peawick, Udorthents, and White Store - Polkton. A soils map and legend for each site have been attached for review (Figures 3a and 3b). 3.4 Fish and Wildlife Use of the Proiect Site Wildlife species inhabiting the site include those typically found in rural settings. Although site - specific studies and inventories documenting species utilization of the project boundaries have not been conducted by CEC, general observations of wildlife use were recorded during the stream and wetland delineation; and habitat evaluations. 3.5 Threatened and Endangered Species CEC has conducted a file review of up -to -date records maintained by the US Fish and Wildlife Service (FWS) and the North Carolina Natural Heritage Program (NHP). The desktop literature review involved a review of the FWS list of protected species in Chatham and Lee Counties; and the NHP Element Occurrence Data on which NHP identifies current and historic occurrences of listed species for a specific locale. The FWS lists 4 species as occurring in Chatham and Lee Counties that are subject to Section 7 consultation. The NHP database identifies 76 element occurrences (EO) within a 5 -mile radius of the project site; 6 EOs, comprised of 3 species, hold Federal status and are subject to Section 7 consultation. The Federally listed species identified by the FWS and NHP are listed below. Common Name Scientific Name Federal Status Northern Long -Eared Bat Myotis septentrionalis P Cape Fear Shiner ** Notropis mekistocholas E Red Cockaded Woodpecker ** Picoides borealis E Harperella ** Ptilimnium nodosum E Bald Eagle I Haliaeetus leucocephalus BGPA "Species with a Federal status subject to Section 7 Consultation and within 5 miles of the project site. 11 A protected species survey was conducted in July of 2014 and August of 2014 at the Sanford and Bickhaven Mines, respectively. Potential fauna were identified to the taxonomic unit level necessary to determine if the observed specimen was a protected species. Flora were identified to the lowest taxonomic level readily discernible in the field during the time of survey. The proposed project sites are within recently active mine sites. Regular maintenance and manipulation of the areas has eliminated suitable habitat for any Federally listed species. No Federally threatened or endangered species were observed on site during the site visits. A "Threatened and Endangered Species Review and Habitat Assessment' was completed for each site and the reports are included for review (Attachment F). It is the opinion of CEC that Federally protected species are not likely to be present within the Sanford or Brickhaven Mines. As such, the proposed project is not likely to cause an adverse impact to any Federally threatened or endangered species or their critical habitat. Withers & Ravenel conducted a protected species study in September of 2012 on a tract neighboring the Brickhaven Mine and owned by Moncure Holdings, LLC (Green Meadows would have rail access through the Moncure Holdings site). Withers & Ravenel discussed 4 species in their report: bald eagle, red - cockaded woodpecker, Cape Fear shiner, and harperella. None of the Federal species known to occur in Chatham County or their habitats were observed within the Moncure Holdings site. It is the opinion of Withers & Ravenel that development activities on the Moncure Holdings site would have no effect on Federally listed species. A "Threatened and Endangered Species Report" was completed for the Moncure Holdings site and the report is included for review (Attachment F). The FWS will be notified via Public Notice about the project and will be given the opportunity to comment on the project and its potential effects on threatened and endangered species. 3.6 Cultural Resources Sanford Mine - A desk review of the National Register of Historic Places records maintained by the NC State Historic Preservation Office (SHPO) indicates 2 historic properties and 4 historic districts within approximately 5 miles of the Sanford Mine: the Endor Iron Furnace (Reference #LE0001) located approximately 4.5 miles from the Sanford Mine; the John D. McIver House and Farm (Reference #LE0648) located approximately 4.7 miles from the Sanford Mine; and Rosemont - McIver Park (Reference #LE0795), Downtown Sanford (Reference #LE0005), East Sanford (Reference #LE0792), and Hawkins Avenue (Reference #LE0493) Historic Districts are all located approximately 4.2 miles from the Sanford Mine. 12 An archaeological survey was conducted by TRC for the Sanford Mine in July and August of 2014. The archaeological survey identified a total of 12 archaeological sites within the project area; however, all 12 of the sites are recommended not eligible for the National Register. TRC recommended no additional archaeological investigations at the site. TRC identified one cemetery, presumed to be the Zion Hill Cemetery. TRC recommends that no ground - disturbing activities be allowed within the cemetery boundary or within 50 feet of the cemetery. The proposed project does not include ground - disturbance or site work within 100 feet the cemetery. An addendum to the Sanford Mine survey was conducted in January of 2015. The addendum includes approximately 18 acres that was not included in the previous survey. No archaeological resources were identified and no additional investigations were recommended. The Management Summary and Addendum for the Sanford Mine are included for review (Attachment G). The draft Final Report is available upon request. Brickhaven Mine - A desk review of the National Register of Historic Places records maintained by SHPO indicates 2 historic properties within approximately 5 miles of the Brickhaven Mine: the Obediah Farrar House (Reference #LE0687) located approximately 3 miles from the Brickhaven Mine and the Lockville Dam, Canal, and Powerhouse (Reference #CH0018) located approximately 4.4 miles from the Brickhaven Mine. It is the opinion of CEC that activities taking place within the project boundaries will not affect the integrity of the historic sites. An archaeological survey was conducted by TRC for the Brickhaven Mine in August of 2014. The archaeological survey identified a total of 6 archaeological sites within the project area. Five of the sites are recommended not eligible for the National Register and no further investigation is recommended. One site identified (FS2) is considered potentially eligible for the National Register. TRC recommends avoidance or further investigation at this site. A separation of approximately 50 feet would be maintained between FS2 and site development. The boundary will marked in the field and the site will be surrounded by silt fencing. An addendum to the Brickhaven Mine survey was conducted in February of 2015. The addendum includes approximately 146 acres that was not included in the previous survey. One archaeological resource was identified; however, the site is recommended not eligible for the National Register. TRC recommended no additional archaeological investigations at the site. The Management Summary and Addendum for the Brickhaven Mine are included for review (Attachment G). The draft Final Report is available upon request. It is the opinion of CEC, that the proposed activities are not likely to threaten the integrity of archeologically or culturally significant sites at the Sanford or Brickhaven Mines. The SHPO will be notified via Public Notice about the project 13 and will be given the opportunity to comment on the project and its potential effects on cultural resources. 14 4.0 PROJECT PURPOSE The purpose of the proposed project is to close ash basins at the Riverbend Steam Station and the Sutton Electric Plant by August of 2019 as required by CAMA14. Closing ash basins requires moving and disposing of ash in a manner that is consistent with all Federal and State regulations. 15 5.0 PROPOSED PROJECT DEVELOPMENT Coal ash from Riverbend and Sutton would be primarily transported to the Brickhaven and/or Sanford Mines. Coal ash would also be transported to the Anson County Landfill and the Roanoke Cement Company. Details regarding each plant site and the proposed project are discussed below. Riverbend Steam Station - Duke's Riverbend Steam Station is estimated to contain the following amounts of coal ash on plant property: Location Amount million tons Primary Ash Basin 2.1 Secondary Ash Basin 0.7 Ash Stack 1.5 Cinder Pit 0.3 Total 4.6 million tons Coal ash from the Ash Stack will be removed first (Phase 1). During that time, the Primary and Secondary ash basins will be dewatered and coal ash prepared for removal. The primary options for disposal of coal ash from the Ash Stack include the Roanoke Cement Company in Troutville, Virginia, the Anson County Landfill in Polkton, North Carolina, and the Brickhaven and/or Sanford Mines. For Phase 1 of ash removal, approximately 115,000 tons (10,000 tons per month) of coal ash will be transported to Roanoke Cement Company for production of fly ash modified concrete; and approximately 885,000 tons of coal ash will be transported to the Brickhaven and Sanford Mines for use in mine reclamation (a total of 1 million tons of coal ash). Ash will be transported from the plant to the Brickhaven Mine or Roanoke Cement Company by railroad and/or highway trucks. For the first 3 -4 months, approximately 10,000 tons per month of coal ash will be excavated and hauled by truck to the Roanoke Cement Company facility. This equates to approximately 15 -22 truckloads per day. After the initial start-up period, an additional 50,000 - 55,000 tons per month of coal ash will be excavated and hauled by truck to the Brickhaven Mine. The total amount of 60,000- 65,000 tons per month of coal ash equates to approximately 120 -142 truckloads per day. Truck routes are included in the Riverbend Excavation Plans (Attachment C). A rail loading/unloading system would be developed at each mine to transport coal ash from Riverbend to the Brickhaven and/or Sanford Mines. Once the rail system is complete, a combination of rail and truck, or all rail, could be utilized to transport coal ash to the Brickhaven and/or Sanford Mines. By utilizing a combination of truck and rail, or all rail, the volume of transported coal ash increases to 160,000 to 165,000 tons. Duke and Charah have committed to transporting all coal ash to the Sanford Mine by rail. Existing dirt roads on site would be upgraded to gravel roads for use for hauling within site boundaries. 16 The Anson County Landfill, a permitted solid waste landfill, will also accept ash for disposal. The Anson County Landfill is located in Polkton, North Carolina and material would be transported by rail. The landfill can accept a total of 500,000 tons of ash with the possibility of accepting additional tonnage in 2 -3 years. In accordance with NCGS 130A- 309.216(a)(2), coal ash must be collected and transported in a manner that will prevent nuisances and hazards to public health and safety. Coal ash would be moisture conditioned and transported in covered trucks or rail cars to prevent dusting. To prevent air -borne loss of coal ash during rail transit, ash is kept at 20% moisture and ash contained in rail cars is sprayed with a sealant. Sutton Electric Plant - Duke's Sutton Electric Plant is estimated to contain the following amounts of coal ash on plant property: Location Amount million tons 1971 Ash Basin and Borrow Area 3.5 1984 Ash Basin 2.8 Lay of the Land Area (LOLA ) 0.84 Total 7.2 million tons The 1971 ash basin would be dewatered first. Initially, approximately 2 million tons of coal ash would be removed from Sutton (Phase 1). The primary option for disposal of coal ash from Sutton is the Brickhaven and/or Sanford Mine; and the Anson County Landfill. For Phase 1 of ash removal, approximately 2 million tons of coal ash will be transported to the Brickhaven and/or Sanford Mine for use in mine reclamation. Ash will be transported from the plant to the Brickhaven and/or Sanford Mines by railroad. Trains will consist of 110 gondola cars carrying 100 tons per car. One train will leave Sutton every other day or 3 -3.5 trains per week. In the event of rail transportation disruption, truck transportation remains a contingency option for transporting coal ash from Sutton to the Brickhaven and/or Sanford Mines. Truck routes are included in the Sutton Excavation Plans (Attachment Q. Existing dirt roads on site would be upgraded to gravel roads for use for hauling within site boundaries. The Anson County Landfill, a permitted solid waste landfill, will also accept ash for disposal. The Anson County Landfill is located in Polkton, North Carolina and material would be transported by rail. The landfill can accept a total of 500,000 tons of ash with the possibility of accepting additional tonnage in 2 -3 years. In accordance with NCGS 130A- 309.216(a)(2), coal ash must be collected and transported in a manner that will prevent nuisances and hazards to public health and safety. Coal ash would be moisture conditioned and transported in covered trucks or rail cars to prevent dusting. 17 At the Sanford Mine, Charah has committed to bring all ash to the site by rail. Although the Solid Waste permit application submitted to NC Department of Environmental and Natural Resources (NCDENR) designated that trucks and rail would transport coal ash to the Sanford Mine, this plan was revised to include rail only. To prevent air -bome loss of coal ash during rail transit, ash is kept at 20% moisture and ash contained in rail cars is sprayed with a sealant. The proposed project will provide a capacity of approximately 20 million tons (11.5 million tons at the Brickhaven Mine and 9 million tons at Sanford Mine). Both mines will be receiving ash from Riverbend and Sutton concurrently in order to meet mandated time frames in CAMA14. Beneficial Use — The Brickhaven and Sanford Mines will be reclaimed with coal ash structural fill. Coal ash is a coal combustion by- product (CCB) that includes both the fly ash that is recovered by pollution control equipment installed in a coal -fired power plant stack and the bottom ash that is removed from the base of the coal furnace after combustion. CCBs that may be reused under North Carolina regulations include fly ash, bottom ash, boiler slag, and flue gas desulfurization residue produced by coal -fired generation units. The use of coal ash as a structural fill material is considered a permissible reuse of CCBs. The proposed project includes the "beneficial use" of coal ash as structural fill at the Brickhaven and Sanford Mines. `Beneficial use" is defined by theEPA as reuse of CCBs, such as coal ash, in a product to replace virgin raw materials that would otherwise be obtained through extraction, thus conserving natural resources. The EPA encourages the "beneficial use" of CCBs in an appropriate and protective manner because this practice can produce positive environmental, economic, and performance benefits, including: • Environmental benefits such as reduced greenhouse gas emissions, reduced need for disposing in landfills, and reduced use of virgin resources; • Economic benefits such as reduced costs associated with CCBs disposal, increased revenue from the sale of ash, and savings from using ash in place of other, most costly materials; and • Performance benefits such as improved strength, durability, and workability of materials. The NCDENR, Division of Waste Management, Solid Waste Section regulates the use of CCBs in North Carolina. CCB generators are required to submit annual reports that include volume of CCBs produced, disposed, and reused in structural fill, as well as reuse in other application. The CCBs used as structural fill for the proposed project would be used in accordance with CAMA14. This includes the following regulatory requirements: • Coal ash is not permitted within 50 feet of any property boundary; • Coal ash is not permitted within 300 horizontal feet of a private dwelling or well; • Coal ash is not permitted within 50 horizontal feet of the top of bank of a perennial stream or other surface water body; • Coal ash is not permitted within 4 feet of the seasonal high water table; 18 • Coal ash is not permitted within a 100 -year floodplain except as authorized under GS 143- 215.54A(b); and • Coal ash is not permitted within 50 horizontal feet of a wetland, unless the Corps issues a permit for the fill. Engineered Structural Fill Cell — At the Brickhaven Mine, the structural fill and associated infrastructure will encompass approximately 166 acres, of which, approximately 145 acres will we covered with a composite base liner system and filled with coal ash. Five individual cells make up the total 145 -acre fill area. Generally, each cell is lined, filled to grade, and capped with an interim soil cover before moving to the next cell; however, more than one cell can be operational at a time and individual cells can be divided into sub - cells. The anticipated filling rate at the Brickhaven Mine is approximately 6,000 -8,000 tons per day. At that filling rate, the Brickhaven Mine would be operational for 6.8 - 7.4 years. The filling process is summarized below; however, more detailed information can be found in the Brickhaven Mine Structural Fill Permit Application. A link to the application is included in Attachment B. At the Sanford Mine, the structural fill and associated infrastructure will encompass approximately 137 acres, of which, approximately 118 acres will be covered with a composite base liner system and filled with coal ash. Five individual cells make up the total 118 -acre fill area. Generally, each cell is lined, filled to grade, and capped with an interim soil cover before moving to the next cell; however, more than one cell can be operational at a time and individual cells can be divided into sub - cells. The anticipated filling rate is approximately 6,000 -8,000 tons per day. At that filling rate, the Sanford Mine would be operational for 5.4 - 5.8 years. The filling process is summarized below; however, more detailed information can be found in the Sanford Mine Structural Fill Permit Application. A link to the application is included in Attachment B. The coal ash used at the Brickhaven and Sanford Mines would be placed in operational lifts 3 -5 feet high and tested for moisture content and compaction. The coal ash lifts would be contained within an engineered fill cell that utilizes a High Density Polyethylene (HDPE) liner that is seamed and welded to ensure the liner is leak- proof. The liner encompasses all sides of the fill and forms a continuous chemical- resistant barrier to prevent potential soil and groundwater contamination. The base of the fill cell would be comprised of a geosynthetic clay liner (GCL), overlain by the HDPE liner, and then by a fabric drainage liner. Coal ash has moisture added prior to transport to prevent dust; the fabric drainage liner would allow for water to filter down through the uppermost layer of the liner, into a collection pipe, and out of the fill cell to a collection basin that is emptied by a vacuum truck for appropriate off -site disposal (i.e. existing waste water treatment facility). The top and sides of the fill cell would also be comprised of the impervious HDPE liner. The fill cell would be "capped" with a compacted soil layer that would be a minimum of 6 feet in depth along the surface and a minimum of 2 feet deep along the side slopes. An information page which further describes "structural fill at clay mines" is included for review (Attachment H). ie, The proposed HDPE liner is designed to industry standards and is the same liner required for all permitted Subtitle D landfills. The liner has an expected life of 500+ years. The liner and final cap system will be constructed in accordance with NCGS 130A- 309.216. Dust Control - NCGS 130A- 309.216(a)(9) requires sufficient dust control measures to minimize airborne emissions and prevent dust from becoming a nuisance or safety hazard. Dust on site and in active cells would be controlled through a variety of methods. Dust control methods for the facility include: watering, establishing vegetative cover, mulching, wind breaks, temporary coverings (i.e. tarps), spray applied dust suppressants, calcium chloride, soil stabilizers, interim and operational soil cover, and modification of the active working area and operations during dry and windy conditions. If fugitive dust emissions are observed and observations indicate dust control measures are not achieving their intended purpose, then appropriate corrective actions will be taken. More detailed information regarding dust control can be found in the Brickhaven and Sanford Mine Structural Fill Permit Applications. A link to the applications is included in Attachment B. Erosion and Sediment Control — Proposed erosion and sediment control structures are designed and maintained to manage the run -off generated by the 25 -year storm event. Sediment basins are designed to pass the 10 -year, 24 -hour design storm without employing use of emergency spillways. Vegetation would be established to protect the final cover system from erosion and to enhance the aesthetics of the closed structural fill. More detailed information regarding erosion and sediment control can be found in the Brickhaven and Sanford Mine Structural Fill Permit Applications. A link to the applications is included in Attachment B. Stormwater Management - The stormwater management system includes slope drains, culverts, perimeter channels, etc., that convey stormwater to the sediment basins. Stormwater that does not come in contact with structural fill will be treated as non- contact water. To improve operations, stormwater should be diverted from the active area. To divert stormwater runoff away from the working face, temporary diversion berms may be installed as dictated by the direction of grade. In addition, interim soil cover may be placed over structural fill that has reached final grade. This cover will be uniformly graded and compacted to prevent the formation of erosion channels. hi the event that channels do form, the cover should be promptly repaired. Typically, all stormwater runoff that has not contacted structural fill will be drained from the active fill areas and routed to the peripheral drainage channels that surround each working area. The stormwater channels, culverts, and sedimentation ponds are designed to convey, and discharge all stormwater runoff from a 25 -year, 24- hour - duration storm event. Within the active portion of the site, all working areas are to be maintained and graded to allow stormwater to flow away from the active face and toward the peripheral drainage channels. Interceptor berms to control the flow of runoff from the surface are to be constructed so that runoff will not be allowed to cascade down the side slopes. More detailed information regarding stormwater management can be found in the Brickhaven 20 and Sanford Mine Structural Fill Permit Applications. A link to the applications is included in Attachment B. Leachate Management — The general leachate management system includes the collection, storage, treatment, and disposal of leachate. The collection of leachate will be facilitated within the structural fill by the geocomposite drainage layer located directly on top of the base liner system and the use of perforated HDPE pipe laterals and header designed to hydraulically convey leachate to sump areas, which will contain submersible pumps. From there, leachate will be pumped through a solid wall HDPE force main to a leachate storage tank that will be located at the site. A leachate collection system would also be installed beneath the loading/unloading area at the end of the rail spur. Leachate storage is provided in a 250,000 gallon storage tank with a secondary containment. Leachate storage may be managed in the structural fill as needed. Charah will dispose of the leachate properly at an existing wastewater treatment plant and will obtain a discharge permit for the leachate. More detailed information regarding leachate management can be found in the Brickhaven and Sanford Mine Structural Fill Permit Applications. A link to the applications is included in Attachment B. Groundwater Monitoring - A groundwater monitoring plan will be developed, implemented, and funded by Charah. Development and implementation of this groundwater monitoring plan would be coordinated with the NCDENR, Division of Water Resources (DWR) to ensure that the use of ash as a structural fill material for the proposed project does not adversely impact water quality. Groundwater monitoring wells would be installed up gradient of the structural fill area to establish the baseline groundwater constituents, down gradient to monitor the structural fill cells, and at various locations around the perimeter of the structural fill area. Ground water sampling would be conducted on a semi - annual basis and the results would be submitted to the NCDENR, DWR. More detailed information regarding groundwater monitoring can be found in the Brickhaven and Sanford Mine Structural Fill Permit Applications. A link to the applications is included in Attachment B. Post - Closure Monitoring and Maintenance — A general site inspection would occur quarterly. The inspection includes a cap system inspection, a stormwater management system inspection, utilities inspection, a leachate collection system inspection, and other inspections as deemed necessary. In addition to inspections, general maintenance would also be conducted. General maintenance includes maintaining on -site vegetation, removing woody debris, and mowing at least twice per year or as needed. The groundwater monitoring systems would also continue to be monitored after closure of the sites. Post - closure monitoring and maintenance will continue at the site for 30 years after closure. More detailed information regarding post - closure monitoring and maintenance can be found in the Brickhaven and Sanford Mine Structural Fill Permit Applications. A link to the applications is included in Attachment B. 21 5.1 Stream and Wetland Impacts The proposed project includes the following stream and wetland impacts at the Sanford and Brickhaven Mines (Figures 4a and 4b): Impacts per site: Sanford - Streams Sanford - Wetlands (non- isolated) Impact # Linear Feet Type of Impact 3 405 Fill Cell and SEC Structure 6 201 Fill Cell and SEC Structure 10 660 Fill Cell and SEC Structure 11 217 Fill Cell and SEC Structure 13 96 Fill Cell 15 23 Fill Cell 21 2 Road Crossing 22 100 Railroad 23 2 Road Crossing 24 10 Road Crossing Total 1,716 Railroad Impact # Acres Type of Impact 1 0.005 SEC Structure 2 0.11 SEC Structure 4 0.03 Fill Cell 5 0.14 Fill Cell 7 0.19 SEC Structure 8 0.09 SEC Structure 9 0.07 SEC Structure 12 0.02 Fill Cell 14 0.04 Fill Cell 16 0.10 Fill Cell 17 0.24 Railroad 18 0.03 Railroad 19 0.02 Railroad 20 0.004 Railroad Total 1.09 Brickhaven - Streams Brickhaven - Wetlands (non - isolated) Impact # Linear Feet Type of Impact 1 320 SEC Structure 10 0.01 Stockpile Yard and SEC 3 906 Structure 9 0.10 Stockpile Yard and SEC 4 913 Structure 5 311 SEC Structure Total 2,450 1'J? Impact # Acres Type of Impact 2 0.04 SEC Structure 10 0.01 SEC Structure Total 0.05 Fill Cell Brickhaven - Wetlands (isolated) Impact # Acres Type of Impact 6 0.08 Fill Cell 7 0.01 Fill Cell 8 0.29 Fill Cell 9 0.10 Fill Cell 11 0.02 SEC Structure Total 0.50 Total impacts (for Sanford Mine and Brickhaven Mine): Streams Sanford 1,716 Brickhaven 2,450 Total Streams 4 166 Wetlands (non- isolated) Sanford 1.09 Brickhaven 0.05 Total Wetlands non - isolated 1.14 Wetlands (isolated) Sanford 0 Brickhaven 0.50 Total Wetlands isolated) 0.50 23 6.0 DISCUSSION OF ALTERNATIVES This discussion of alternatives is submitted by the applicant to assist the Wilmington District, Corps in evaluating the application for authorization to discharge dredged or fill material into waters of the United States, including wetlands, under Section 404 of the Clean Water Act, 33 U.S.C. § 1344 at the proposed project site. An analysis of the Section 404(b)(1) Guidelines (Guidelines) requirements for consideration of alternatives as required by 40 C.F.R. 230.10(a) is set forth below. The Guidelines' alternatives requirements provide that "no discharge of dredged or fill material shall be permitted if there is a practicable alternative to the proposed discharge which would have less adverse impact on the aquatic ecosystem, so long as the alternative does not have other significant adverse environmental consequences." [See 40 C.F.R. 230.10(a) (emphasis added).] The record must contain "sufficient information to demonstrate that the proposed discharge complies with the requirements of Section 230.10(a) of the Guidelines. The amount of information needed to make such a determination and the level of scrutiny required by the Guidelines is commensurate with the severity of the environmental impact (as determined by the functions of the aquatic resource and the nature of the proposed activity) and the scope /cost of the project." [See Corps/EPA Memorandum to the Field "Appropriate Level of Analysis Required for Evaluating Compliance with Section 404(b)(1) Guidelines Alternatives Requirements," p. 2, dated August 23, 1994, hereinafter the "Memorandum. "] As noted in the Memorandum on pages 3 -4, the 404(b)(1) Guidelines "only prohibits discharges when a practicable alternative exists which would have less adverse impact on the aquatic ecosystem." [See Memorandum.] "If an alleged alternative is unreasonably expensive to the applicant, the alternative is not practicable." [See Guidelines Preamble, "Economic Factors," 45 Federal Re ig ster 85343 (December 24, 1980).] Practicable alternatives for the project are those alternatives that are "available and capable of being done after taking into consideration costs, existing technology, and logistics in light of overall project purposes." [See 40 C.F.R. 230.10(a)(2).] Clarification is provided in the Preamble to the Guidelines on how cost is to be considered in the determination of practicability. An alternative site is considered "available" if it is presently owned by the applicant or "could reasonably be obtained, utilized, expanded or managed in order to fulfill the basic purpose of the proposed activity." 40 C.F.R. § 230.10(a)(2). The intent is to consider those alternatives, which are reasonable in terms of the overall scope and cost of the proposed project. The term economic [for which the term "costs" was substituted in the final rule] might be construed to include consideration of the applicant's financial standing, or investment, or market share, a cumbersome inquiry which is not necessarily material to the objectives of the Guidelines. 24 The EPA 404(b)(1) Guidelines state that, "we have chosen instead to impose an explicit, but rebuttable presumption that alternatives to discharges in special aquatic sites are less damaging to the aquatic ecosystem, and are environmentally preferable." Of course, the general requirements that impacts to the aquatic system not be acceptable also applies. This presumption "...contains sufficient flexibility to reflect circumstances of unusual cases" (249 Fed. Reg., 85339, December 24, 1980). It is clear from these stipulations that a preferable alternative may allow filling in certain wetland areas and subsequent mitigation and/or management of other areas. 6.1 Proiect Alternatives The project as proposed, along with a total of 163 alternatives, were considered when determining the most practical alternative. The following table is a summary alternatives considered; each alternative is discussed in further detail below. Alternatives Nnmher of Sites /Ontions Cnnsidered Industrial Solid Waste Landfills 8 Municipal Solid Waste Landfills 10 Close-In-Place/Cap-In-Place 1 Materials/Product Use 1 Other `Beneficial Use " /Structural Fill Projects 2 Project As-Proposed/Mine Reclamation 140 No Action 1 Total 163 6.1.1 Industrial Solid Waste Landfills Industrial solid waste is solid waste generated by manufacturing or industrial processes that is not hazardous waste, such as coal ash. Industrial solid waste does not include office materials, restaurant and food preparation waste, discarded machinery, demolition debris, municipal solid waste, municipal solid waste combustor ash, or household refuse. Duke owns and operates the 8 following industrial solid waste landfills in North Carolina at power generation plants: Allen, Belews Creek (two landfills), Cliffside, Mayo, Marshall (two landfills), and Roxboro. A map of Duke coal plant sites is included for review (Attachment I). An industrial solid waste landfill is not currently present at Riverbend or Sutton. Allen in Belmont, North Carolina is located approximately 5 -10 miles south of Riverbend and is the closest industrial solid waste landfill. Mayo located in Roxboro, North Carolina is located approximately 186 miles north of Sutton and is the closest industrial solid waste landfill. Railroad infrastructure does exists at Riverbend and Sutton that allows for transportation of ash to an industrial solid waste landfill owned and operated by Duke; however, all of those landfills are at power generation plants that are currently operational and generating power (and ash) on a daily basis. Industrial solid waste landfills at plant sites are generally reserved for ash generated at the 25 plant were the landfill is located. Placing ash from another location at these landfills shortens the lifespan of the landfill and only delays the onset of finding permanent and safe locations to dispose of ash. Duke is considering an on -site industrial solid waste landfill at Sutton; however, a new landfill would require a minimum of 3 -5 years of permitting prior to placement of ash. In order to comply with a mandatory closure date of August 1, 2019, the Sutton Excavation Plan includes initial removal of ash from Sutton to an off -site location. Development and permitting of the Sutton industrial solid waste landfill plan will take place concurrently with the proposed project. Development of an industrial solid waste landfill is an element of the comprehensive ash basin closure /excavation strategy and management plan; however, development of the landfill would not be complete in a time frame which would allow for mandatory basin closure by August 1, 2019. 6.1.2 Municipal Solid Waste Landfills Municipal solid waste is a type of solid waste generated from community, commercial, and agricultural operations. This includes wastes from households, offices, stores, and other non - manufacturing activities. Municipal solid waste landfills can accept municipal solid waste, as well as, all other solid waste and exempt wastes, such as non -toxic coal ash. Municipal solid waste landfills cannot accept hazardous waste, regulated PCB wastes, bulk liquids or wastes containing free liquids, untreated infectious waste from a large generator, scrap tires, or yard waste. Charah considered ash disposal at municipal solid waste landfills; and Federal and State regulations do allow for the disposal of ash with municipal solid waste. However, due to liability concerns with mixing waste products, Duke requires a monofill landfill operation (industrial solid waste landfills at plant sites are monofill). A monofill landfill or cell is designated for only one specific type of waste. This type of waste disposal is widely considered one of the most conscientious and responsible ways to dispose of waste. Additionally, the monofill process provides the ability for future innovation and technology to be used on the specific waste material. Since there is only one specific waste within the site, as technology is developed, landfill operators may be able to dispose of the waste more efficiently or recycle the waste completely at a later date. Charah contracted 9 municipal solid waste landfill providers regarding disposal of ash: Anson County, City of Greensboro, City of Winston - Salem, Davidson County, Gaston County, Mecklenburg County, New Hanover County, Rockingham County, and Wake County -South Wake. Although all of the municipal solid waste landfill providers contacted had land available for an expansion, they all (with exception of Anson County) were unwilling to expand their respective facilities for disposal of ash. Additionally, all of the municipal solid waste landfill providers contacted (with exception of Anson County) have 26 insufficient capacity at their existing landfills and insufficient daily acceptance rates. Tipping fees were also cost prohibitive in most locations. In general, municipal solid waste landfills are permitted to accept 400 -1,500 tons of waste per day. Coal ash disposal alone would require 5,000 -7,000 tons of waste disposal per day. In order to accept increased volumes of material, the landfills would need to be expanded and modification to daily acceptance rates would need to occur. Landfill expansion could take 2 -5 years and modifying daily acceptance rates could take 1 -1.5 years. Mandates in CAMA14 require all ash from Riverbend and Sutton to be removed by August 1, 2019. The CAMA14 timeline does not provide enough time to complete landfill expansions. Additionally, the Counties' and Cities' priority is providing citizens a place to dispose of municipal solid waste. Placing ash from Riverbend and Sutton at municipal solid waste landfills shortens the lifespan of the landfill which ultimately effect citizens in the County or City. The Anson County Landfill, a permitted solid waste landfill, will accept ash for disposal. The Anson County Landfill is located in Polkton, North Carolina and material would be transported by rail. The landfill can accept a total of 500,000 tons of ash with the possibility of accepting additional tonnage in 2 -3 years. Use of a municipal solid waste landfill is an element of the comprehensive ash basin closure /excavation strategy and management plan; however, Anson County cannot accept all ash that needs disposal. 6.1.4 Close -In -Place /Cap -In -Place Closing or capping ash in place would require dewatering the ash basin, consolidating ash into a smaller area, and installing an engineered, synthetic capping system. CAMA14 (link in Attachment B) does not allow for cap -in -place at Riverbend or Sutton. Part II, Section 3(b)(2) and (4) mandates that ash basins at Riverbend and Sutton be deemed high priority and closed as soon as practicable but no later than August 1, 2019. Part II, Section 3(c)(2) mandates that all ash must be removed from the impoundments and transferred for disposal in a coal combustion residuals landfill, industrial landfill, or municipal solid waste landfill; or use in a structural fill or other "beneficial use" as allowed by law. 6.1.5 Materials/Product Use Coal ash is used as a component in Portland cement and asphalt concrete. Its use in cement reduces the energy demands of manufacturing other concrete ingredients. This reduces energy consumption, costs, greenhouse emissions, and slows the depletion of natural resources. More than 12 million tons of coal ash is used in American concrete products each year. Duke is already sending approximately 25,000 tons of coal ash per month to the Roanoke Cement Company for their use in cement manufacturing and plans to send approximately 27 115,000 tons (10,000 tons per month) of coal ash as a part of ash removal from the Ash Stacks at Riverbend. The amount of coal ash they can use is directly related to demand for their product (cement). At this time, the Roanoke Cement Company cannot accept additional ash from Duke. Transporting ash to the Roanoke Cement Company is an element of the comprehensive ash basin closure /excavation strategy and management plan; however, the Roanoke Cement Company cannot accept all ash that needs disposal. 6.1.6 Other "Beneficial Use " /Structural Fill Projects In a presentation to the City of Charlotte (owners of the Charlotte - Douglas International Airport (CDIA)), City Council on March 24, 2014, Duke Energy proposed using coal ash from Riverbend as structural fill at CDIA under a future fourth runway. It was estimated that encapsulating the coal ash and creating a structural fill at CDIA would save approximately $30 million in construction costs and would employee approximately 100 people over 5 years. At the direction of City Council and the City Manager, City of Charlotte staff conducted a Coal Ash Due Diligence Study (Attachment J) to determine if placing coal ash from Riverbend at CDIA would be "unambiguously good for the environment" and "unambiguously good for CDIA ". Staff was then to make a recommendation to the City Council regarding the future of the project. Staff concluded in the study that removing coal ash from Riverbend would be beneficial for the long -term environmental integrity of Mountain Island Lake (currently, ash ponds are adjacent to the lake). Riverbend has two coal ash ponds that are held by an earthen dam that are not lined or covered. Several municipalities have drinking water intakes in Mountain Island Lake (providing 80% of drinking water to the region), including the City of Charlotte which has its water intake 3 miles downstream of the coal ash ponds. Removing coal ash from Riverbend removes threats to the water supply, recreational use at the lake, and water quality in the lake. After reviewing the proposed encapsulation design, staff also determined that structural fill in the form of coal ash posed a low environmental risk based on available science and technical knowledge. While the possibility of saving $30 million in developing a fourth runway is an attractive proposition to CDIA, after further consideration, staff determined that the risks of placing coal ash under a runway were unacceptably high. In addition, staff also determined that the risks of using coal ash under any area that the airport may use for future airfield development, not just a runway, were unacceptably high. CDIA is currently the sixth busiest airport and eighth largest airport in the US. Airport staff have indicated that even a remote chance that the encapsulation system could fail and/or require maintenance is not acceptable. It is the opinion of CDIA staff that loss of use of a runway due to issues with the encapsulation system would impact: operation efficiency and capacity, revenues, airline partner's revenue, the national air traffic system, international air traffic, 28 regional (and potentially global) economic systems, approximately 20,000 daily jobs, and the ability of CDIA to maintain its role as a primary hub to a major airline. It became apparent to CDIA that any realized construction cost savings would be minimal when compared to the opportunity cost lost should failure or maintenance of the encapsulation system occur. City of Charlotte staff opposed the project (structural fill for airfield development); the Charlotte City Council, Environmental Committee recommended to the City Council that the project not move forward; and the Interim Airport Director, Brent Cagle, has rejected the project. Without approval from the City of Charlotte and CDIA, coal ash cannot be placed at the airport. Although the City of Charlotte has opposed the use of coal ash for airfield development, the City Council understands the value and benefit of moving coal ash away for Mountain Island Lake. The City of Charlotte offered Duke a "land swap" option. Duke owns approximately 42 acres generally located between Old Dowd Road, Little Rock Road, Wilkinson Boulevard, and Marshall Drive. Currently, this property houses Duke's Operations Center and other infrastructure. The property is adjacent to existing airport facilities (Long Term Parking Lot 1). CDIA has a standing offer to buy the parcel from Duke and has been trying to purchase the property for several years. CDIA would use the Operations Center for airport offices and develop other parts of the property into more airport parking. The City of Charlotte (CDIA) owns property west of the Operations Center generally located between Sears Road, Wilkinson Boulevard, I -485, and Old Dowd Road. The property is currently wooded. The City of Charlotte proposed to swap approximately 100 -140 acres of City -owned land for the 42- acre Duke Operation Center. The proposal suggests that Duke would use the land to dispose of coal ash from Riverbend. Agreeing to the swap would require Duke to relocate the Operations Center and up to 250 employees. At this time, Duke cannot relocate the Operations Center and employees. Additionally, Duke is concerned with how the land swap would affect utility operations, customers, and the overall ash basin closure /excavation strategy and plan. 6.1.7 Proiect As-Proposed— Mine Reclamation CAMA14 specifically includes mine reclamation projects in the list of approved structural fill uses for coal ash. Mine reclamation is the process of restoring land that has been mined to a natural or economically usable state. Although the process of mine reclamation occurs once mining is completed; generally, the preparation and planning of mine reclamation activities occur prior to a mine being permitted or started. Mine reclamation creates useful landscapes that meet a variety of goals ranging from the restoration of productive ecosystems to the creation of industrial and municipal resources. Charah evaluated mine reclamation for disposal of ash from Riverbend and Sutton. Charah first compiled a list of more than 140 active mine sites across North Carolina. Charah evaluated each mine for site conditions such as mine 29 status (active vs. inactive), road access, rail access, proximity to Duke plant sites, and availability for redevelopment. The mines that were not eliminated due to site constraints were contacted regarding potential purchase of the mines. After contacting the mine operators, only General Shale was willing to sell mine sites to Green Meadows. General Shale was the operator of the Sanford and Brickhaven Clay Mines. 6.1.8 No Action Alternative Ash disposal, which meets the applicant's stated project purpose and need, is not feasible on the proposed properties without regulated impacts. Reducing cell sizes to avoid stream and wetland impacts would reduce the overall capacity of the sites. Without large sites with large capacity, multiple smaller sites would be required. It is not logistically feasible to place ash in multiple, low- capacity sites. Doing so would increase transportation traffic (truck and rail), increase cost of disposal, increase the number of adjacent land owners, and increase the time it would take to dispose of ash. It has also been demonstrated above that landfills (industrial or municipal) and materials use alone cannot accommodate the tonnage of ash that needs disposal. The project purpose is to close ash basins at Riverbend and Sutton by August of 2019 as required by CAMA14. Without the proposed regulated impacts, complying with mandates in CAMA14 are not likely. If the Corps opted not to issue the permit for the project as proposed, ash would not be used as structural fill at the sites and basins would not be closed by 2019. In this case, the project purpose and need would not be met. 6.2 Avoidance and Minimization The proposed project is designed in a way to avoid streams and wetlands where practicable while still meeting the project purpose. The tables below summarize avoidance at the sites: Streams On -Site Proposed Amount Percent Streams Impacts Avoided Avoided Sanford 11,540 1,716 9,824 85 Brickhaven 4,834 2,450 2,384 49 Total Streams 16,374 4,166 12,208 75 Wetlands (non - isolated) On -Site Proposed Amount Percent Wetlands Impacts Avoided Avoided Sanford 18.70 1.09 17.61 94 Brickhaven 3.98 0.05 3.93 99 Total Wetlands (non - isolated) 22.68 1.14 21.54 95 Ull Wetlands (isolated) On -Site Proposed Amount Percent Wetlands Imnacts Avoided Avoided Sanford 0 n/a n/a n/a Brickhaven 0.50 0.50 0 0 Total Wetlands (isolated) 0.50 0.50 0 0 The proposed rail line at the Sanford Mine has been redesigned to avoid the largest wetland on site; and streams and wetlands in the location of Impact #21 (Figure 4a). Original designs included a rail line that traveled southwest along the eastern property boundary and into the large wetland, the rail then turned to the northwest (while still in the wetland), then exited the wetland and traveled northwest towards the streams and wetlands in the location of Impact #21. Although the designs for the original rail configuration were never finished, it is estimated that by changing the alignment, approximately 4 acres of wetland impacts and 430 linear feet of stream impacts were avoided. At the Sanford Mine, the previously proposed stockpile and laydown yard in the location of Impact #22 (Figure 4a) has been eliminated. Impacts have been reduced to a 100 - linear foot rail line crossing. Eliminating the stockpile and laydown yard reduces impacts by 837 linear feet of stream and 0.33 acre of wetlands. At the Brickhaven Mine, the rail line has been realigned (moved upslope) to avoid stream channels at the Brickhaven Mine and on the Moncure Holdings site. Original plans included a rail line access corridor with the edge of rail within 40 feet of the stream channel. Grading along the originally proposed alignment would have included additional stream impacts on site. The realignment avoids approximately 2,000 linear feet of potential stream impacts associated with the rail line at the Brickhaven Mine and on the Moncure Holdings site. Additionally, 4 of the 6 proposed basins at the Brickhaven Mine have avoided stream impacts and the three largest non - isolated wetlands at the Brickhaven Mine have been avoided. This accounts for 99% of non - isolated wetlands on the site. Impacts have been minimized at both sites by utilizing existing road crossings. Additionally, jurisdictional railroad crossings on the Moncure Holdings site will utilize arched culverts. Proposed basins on site are in locations that accommodate the smallest basin size necessary to meet sediment and erosion control; and stormwater management requirements. Existing non jurisdictional stormwater basins associated with the existing mining permits must remain in place and as constructed to comply with mining permit requirements. 31 6.3 Alternatives Conclusion This discussion of alternatives, together with the documents submitted by the applicant in support of the 404 Permit, shows that the project complies with the Guidelines. As this analysis clearly demonstrates the project is designed to avoid and minimize impacts to the site to the maximum extent practicable while maintaining a rational project design. 32 7.0 CONCEPTUAL MITIGATION PLAN Upon completion and implementation of practical avoidance and minimization efforts, 4,166 linear feet of stream channel and 1.64 acres of wetland (isolated and non - isolated) associated with the Sanford and Brickhaven Mine projects are unavoidable. The following mitigation plan is provided in support of this permit application; the mitigation measures are described below. 7.1 NC Ecosystem Enhancement Program (EEP) Green Meadows proposes to mitigate for unavoidable impacts (4,166 linear feet of stream and 1.64 acres of wetland) at a 1:1 ratio through payment into the EEP in -lieu fee program. By letter dated February 10, 2015, EEP has indicated they are willing to accept payment for impacts associated with development at the site. The acceptance letters are enclosed for review (Attachment K). 33 8.0 US ENVIRONMENTAL PROTECTION AGENCY 404(b)(1) GUIDELINES The EPA interim regulations providing guidance for specification of deposit on sites for dredge and fill material were published on September 17, 1993, in 40 C.F.R. 230 per Section 404(b)1. Sub -Parts A through I pertain to dredge and fill permits, and apply to project sites similar to this project. Sub -Part D presents a summary of compliance criteria for the 404(b)(1) guidelines. This section references and defines practicable alternatives and indicates that a dredge and fill permit shall not be issued if practicable alternatives exist. Alternatives reviewed, detailed in Section 6.0, were assessed for compliance with 404(b)(1) guidelines. Additional EPA guidance is presented related to general regulatory criteria, wildlife value, and human health guidelines. The discharge of dredge and fill material is considered permittable under these guidelines if the discharge activity: does not contribute to violation of state water quality standards; does not violate toxic effluent standards; does not jeopardize the continued existence of species listed as threatened and endangered pursuant to the federal Endangered Species Act of 1973 and subsequent amendments; does not cause degradation to any marine sanctuaries; does not contribute to significant degradation of "waters of the United States;" does not adversely affect human health as it pertains to water supply; does not adversely impact wildlife, the food chain, and special aquatic sites; does not contribute to the discharge of pollutants that may affect the food web; does not have negative effects on the productivity of the aquatic ecosystem, or their physical values; and does not have adverse impacts on recreation, aesthetic, or economic values. Additionally, the applicant is required to minimize potential adverse impacts on the aquatic ecosystem. 8.1 Factual Determination The Corps is required to determine both potential short-term and long -term effects of a proposed discharge of dredge and fill material on the physical, chemical, and biological components of an aquatic environment. 8.2 Potential Imaacts on Phvsical and Chemical Characteristics of the Aquatic Ecosystem Sub -Part C of the 40 C.F.R. 230 guidelines lists six physical and chemical characteristics that must be assessed during the permit review, and the effects of which must be determined to be minimal on the aquatic ecosystem. 8.2.1 Substrate Fill material will be placed in jurisdictional streams and wetlands. Any discharge will consist of suitable fill material and will not include any trash, debris, car bodies, asphalt, etc. The fill material will also be free of toxic pollutants in toxic amounts. Proper sediment and erosion control devices will be installed prior to and during construction to ensure that the bottom elevation of remaining streams and wetlands on the property will not change. 34 Upland fill areas for the project will include coal ash from Duke's Riverbend and Sutton plants. All coal ash fill material will be handled, utilized, and placed in accordance with rules and regulations outlined in 15A NCAC 13B and CAMA14 administered by the State of North Carolina. Only clean fill material will be used to fill streams and wetlands; coal ash will not be used in jurisdictional areas. 8.2.2 Suspended Particulate /Turbidity (Erosion and Sediment Control) During construction activities on the site, there may be a minimal increase in suspended particulates that may lead to increased turbidity downstream. However, the increase is anticipated to be minimal and temporary due to the installation and maintenance of proper sediment and erosion control measures during construction and shortly thereafter. The proposed Erosion and Sediment Control Plans are discussed in Section 5.0 (Proposed Project Development) of this application. Additional information regarding the Erosion and Sediment Control Plans can be found in the Brickhaven and Sanford Mine Structural Fill Permit Applications. Additionally, the Erosion and Sediment Control Plans have been submitted for review and approval as a part of the Structural Fill Permit Applications. A link to the applications is included in Attachment B. 8.2.3 Water Quality The proposed discharge of dredge and fill material should not cause increased chemical contamination levels within the aquatic ecosystem. Specifically, changes in clarity, color, odor, and taste of water in addition to possible chemical contamination shall be minimized or reduced. All discharges of dredge and fill material will be controlled with erosion and sediment control measures. The proposed Erosion and Sediment Control Plans are discussed in Section 5.0 (Proposed Project Development) of this application. Stormwater management will also be implemented on site and is discussed in Section 5.0 (Proposed Project Development) of this application. Additional information regarding the Erosion and Sediment Control Plans; and stormwater management can be found in the Brickhaven and Sanford Mine Structural Fill Permit Applications. A link to the applications is included in Attachment B. The Erosion and Sediment Control Plans; and stormwater management plans (as required as a part of the Post - Closure Plans) have been submitted for review and approval as a part of the Structural Fill Permit Applications. Groundwater Monitoring Plans are discussed in Section 5.0 (Proposed Project Development) of this application. Groundwater wells will be installed and monitored semi - annually to ensure that use of ash as structural fill material for the proposed project does not adversely impact water quality. Additional information regarding the Groundwater Monitoring Plans can be found in the Brickhaven and Sanford Mine Structural Fill Permit Applications. A link to the applications is included in Attachment B. 35 Fill for the project will include coal ash from the Riverbend and Sutton plants. CAMA14 prohibits coal ash placement within 50 feet of any unimpacted stream or wetland. All coal ash fill material will be handled, utilized, and placed in accordance with applicable rules and regulations. Only clean fill material will be used to fill streams and wetlands; coal ash will not be used in these areas. The applicant will be concurrently applying for a DWR 401 Water Quality Certification. 8.2.4 Current Patterns in Water Circulation The discharged fill material will modify current water circulation patterns by obstructing flow, changing direction or velocity of water, and changing velocity or flow of circulation in the channels proposed for impact; however, water circulation and patterns will be re- established in the stream channels provided as mitigation. 8.2.5 Normal Water Fluctuations The discharge of fill material associated with this project is not anticipated to have any significant effect on the downstream hydrologic regimes. 8.2.6 Salinity Because this project is located inland and away from tidally influenced waters and wetlands, no modification to the salinity of on -site or adjacent waters is expected. 8.3 Potential Impacts to Bioloeical Characteristics of the Ecosystem Sub -Part D of the 40 C.F.R. 230 guidelines specifies three areas of concern in which disposal of dredge and fill material can affect the biological components of the ecosystem. These components are threaten and endangered species, fish, crustaceans, mollusks, other aquatic organisms in the food web, and wildlife. 8.3.1 Threatened or Endangered Species CEC has conducted a file review of up -to -date records maintained by the FWS and the NHP. The desktop literature review involved a review of the FWS list of protected species in Chatham and Lee Counties; and the NHP Element Occurrence Data on which NHP identifies current and historic occurrences of listed species for a specific locale. The FWS lists 4 species as occurring in Chatham and Lee Counties that are subject to Section 7 consultation. The NHP database identifies 76 element occurrences (EO) within a 5 -mile radius of the project site; 6 EOs, comprised of 3 species, hold Federal status and are subject to Section 7 consultation. The Federally listed species identified by the FWS and NHP are listed below. 36 Common Name Scientific Name Federal Status Northern Long -Eared Bat Myotis septentrionalis P Cape Fear Shiner ** Notropis mekistocholas E Red Cockaded Woodpecker ** Picoides borealis E Harperella** Ptilimnium nodosum E Bald Eagle Haliaeetus leucocephalus BGPA * *Species with a Federal status subject to Section 7 Consultation and within 5 miles of the project site. A protected species survey was conducted in July of 2014 and August of 2014 at the Sanford and Bickhaven Mines, respectively. Potential fauna were identified to the taxonomic unit level necessary to determine if the observed specimen was a protected species. Flora were identified to the lowest taxonomic level readily discernible in the field during the time of survey. The proposed project sites are within recently active mine sites. Regular maintenance and manipulation of this area has eliminated suitable habitat for any Federally listed species. No Federally threatened or endangered species were observed on site during the site visits. A "Threatened and Endangered Species Review and Habitat Assessments" was completed for each site and the reports are included for review (Attachment F). Withers & Ravenel conducted a protected species study in September of 2012 on the neighboring tract owned by Moncure Holdings, LLC (Green Meadows would have rail access through the Moncure Holdings site). Withers & Ravenel discussed four species in their report: bald eagle, red - cockaded woodpecker, Cape Fear shiner, and harperella. None of the federal species known to occur in Chatham County or their habitat were observed within the Moncure Holdings site. It is the opinion of Withers & Ravenel that development activities on the Moncure Holdings site would have no effect on Federally listed species. A "Threatened and Endangered Species Report" was completed for the Moncure Holding site and the report is included for review (Attachment F). It is the opinion of CEC that federally protected species are not likely to be present within the project boundaries. As such, the proposed project is not likely to cause an adverse impact to any federally threatened or endangered species or their critical habitat. The FWS will be notified via Public Notice about the project and will be given the opportunity to comment on the project and its potential effects on threatened and endangered species. 8.3.2 Fishes. Crustaceans, Mollusks, and other Aquatic Organisms in the Food Web Discharges of dredge and fill material can alter the food web by impacting animals such as invertebrates that make up the basis of a food chain. The release of contaminants or an increase in turbidity has the potential to negatively affect 37 certain aspects of the food web. Such releases may also potentially increase the levels of exotic species. Impacts to primary food chain production within the waters of the US and wetlands will occur on the project site; however, food chain production will be re- establish over time in the streams and wetlands provided as mitigation. Net impacts to primary food chain production are expected to be minimal. 8.3.3 Other Wildlife The discharge of dredge and fill material has the potential to negatively affect breeding and nesting areas, escape cover, travel corridors, and preferred food sources for resident and migrant wildlife species. Although some evidence of wildlife usage was apparent on site, because the project areas are within and in close proximity to recently active mines, wildlife habitat is minimal. Noise pollution, denuded vegetation, and anthropogenic activity make this area less desirable for resident and migrant wildlife. While a loss of wildlife habitat for stream and wetland species may result from construction of the project, the proposed mitigation will compensate for any minor loss of habitat. 8.4 Potential Impacts on Special Aquatic Sites Sub -Part E of the 40 C.F.R. 230 guidelines addresses considerations for potential impacts on special aquatic sites, which include: sanctuaries and refuges, wetlands, mud flats, vegetated shallows, coral reefs, and riffle -pool complexes. 8.4.1 Sanctuaries and Refuges The discharge of dredge and fill material has the potential to negatively affect adjacent sanctuaries and wildlife refuges by impacting water quality, decreasing wildlife habitat, increasing human access, and creating the need for frequent maintenance activity, resulting in the establishment of undesirable plant and animal species, which can change the balance of habitat type. There are no sanctuaries or refuges in the project vicinity; therefore, impacts to sanctuaries or refuges will not occur as a result of the proposed project. 8.4.2 Wetlands The discharge of dredge and fill material has the potential to adversely affect wetlands including wetland substrate, hydrology, and vegetation. Discharges can lead to a loss of wetland values, such as wildlife habitat, flood storage, and groundwater recharge. The discharge of fill material will impact 1.14 acres of non - isolated wetlands and 0.50 acre of isolated wetlands on site. Approximately 21.54 acres of non - isolated wetlands have been avoided; totaling approximately 95 percent of total wetlands at the sites. The applicant will make payment into the EEP in -lieu fee program to offset impacts to wetlands. 38 8.4.3 Mud Flats Discharges of dredge and fill material has the potential to negatively affect mud flats that exist along inland lakes, ponds, and riverine systems. There are no mud flat communities within the project boundaries; therefore, loss of these ecosystems will not occur as a result of development of the proposed projects. 8.4.4 Vegetated Shallows Vegetated shallows are permanently inundated areas that contain rooted aquatic vegetation. This type of habitat generally exists within estuarine and marine environments; and some freshwater lakes and rivers. No vegetated shallow habitats exist within the project boundaries; therefore, no impacts to this ecosystem will occur as a result of development of the proposed projects. 8.4.5 Coral Reefs Coral reefs typically exist within marine ecosystems. Coral reefs do not exist within the project boundaries; therefore, no impacts to this ecosystem will occur as a result of development of the proposed projects. 8.4.6 Riffle -Pool Complexes Discharge of dredge and fill material into or upstream of riffle -pool complexes has the potential to negatively affect water quality and wildlife value. Fill has the potential to be placed into riffle -pool complexes. Any permanent impact to riffle - pool complexes will be mitigated for through the proposed mitigation plan. 8.5 Potential Effects on Human Use Characteristics Sub -Part F of the 40 C.F.R. 230 guidelines address potential effects on human use of wetlands and waterways. Factors including water supply, recreational and commercial fisheries, water - related recreation, aesthetics, and parks and similar preserves are considered within this portion of the guidelines. No effects on human use characteristics are anticipated as a result of the proposed project. 8.5.1 Municipal and Private Water SMI The public water supply will not increase or decrease as a result of the proposed activities. Part II, Section 130A- 309.216(c)(2) of CAMA14 prohibits coal ash within 300 horizontal feet of a private dwelling or well. Additionally, removing coal ash from Riverbend will eliminate any threat to Mountain Island Lake associated with the presence of the existing coal ash ponds at Riverbend. Mountain Island Lake provides 80% of the drinking water in the metro Charlotte region. 8.5.2 Recreational and Commercial Fisheries Discharges of dredge and fill material has the potential to negatively affect recreational and commercial fisheries. Opportunity for recreational and commercial fisheries is not present on the sites. The amount and quality of recreational and commercial fisheries will not increase or decrease as a result of the proposed projects. 39 8.5.3 Water- Related Recreation Proposed activities will not increase or decrease waterborne recreation within the project vicinity. However, removing coal ash from Riverbend will eliminate any threat to Mountain Island Lake associated with the presence of the existing coal ash ponds at Riverbend (which are adjacent to Mountain Island Lake). Mountain Island Lake is used recreationally by residents in the metro Charlotte region. 8.5.4 Aesthetics Aesthetically, the proposed projects will be similar to other mine reclamation projects in the vicinity. The projects will be designed in a manner that is consistent with adjacent land use. The project is not expected to diminish the aesthetic value of the area or cause disharmony from an aerial or neighboring view. 8.5.5 Parks National and Historical Monuments, National Beach Shores, Wilderness Areas, Research Sites, and Similar Preserves No areas as described above will be affected by the proposed activities. 8.6 Summary Based on the EPA guidelines identified within 40 C.F.R. 230, and enumerated herein, a number of potential environmental impacts have been presented and subsequently addressed. The proposed permanent impact to 4,166 linear feet of streams, 1.14 acres of non - isolated wetlands, and 0.50 acre of isolated wetland will not cause any off site adverse impacts. Mitigation offered through payment in to the EEP will compensate for any on -site impacts. U41 9.0 PUBLIC INTEREST CONSIDERATIONS When reviewing this application, the Corps is required to consider the project in terms of the public interest. In considering the public interest, the Corps must evaluate the probable impacts of the project and evaluate the "benefits which reasonably may be expected to occur from the proposal against reasonably foreseeable detriments." In balancing these interests, the Corps must consider the public and private need for the proposed project, the practicability of using reasonable alternative locations, and the extent and permanence of the beneficial and/or detrimental impacts of the project. The Corps also considers the following public interest factors: conservation, economics, aesthetics, general environmental concerns, wetlands, historic and cultural resources, fish and wildlife values, flood hazards, floodplain values, land use, navigation, shore erosion and accretion, recreation, water supply and water quality, energy needs, safety, food and fiber production, mineral needs, and considerations of the property ownership. Pursuant to 33 C.F.R. 323.6, a determination that the project is not contrary to the public interest must be achieved before permit issuance. Public interest considerations are listed in 33 C.F.R. 320.4 (a)(1) and are discussed below. Furthermore, the Corps regulations state that a permit will be granted unless the district engineer determines that it would be contrary to the public interest. The applicant has extensively evaluated these factors through the planning process and believes that the proposed project is clearly in the public interest. 9.1 Conservation The applicant is not proposing preservation as a component of the project; however, those projects completed by the EEP in association with this project will be preserved in perpetuity. 9.2 Economics The projects will provide an overall benefit to the local economy of Chatham and Lee Counties. During and upon completion of construction, the site will provide job opportunities associated with the development and maintenance of the proposed sites. It is estimated that approximately 60 jobs in Chatham County and 40 jobs in Lee County would be created associated with the proposed projects. The appropriate economic evaluations have been completed and the projects as proposed are economically viable. 9.3 Aesthetics Aesthetically, the proposed projects will be similar to other mine reclamation projects in the vicinity. The projects will be designed in a 41 manner that is consistent with adjacent land use. The project is not expected to diminish the aesthetic value of the area or cause disharmony from an aerial or neighboring view. 9.4 General Environmental Concerns Other than wetland impacts, proposed development activities will have no significant identifiable impacts upon other environmental components. The proposed projects also requires Mining Permits which have already been approved, NPDES permits which have already been approved as a part of the existing mining permits, and Solid Waste Structural Fill permits which have been applied for through the Division of Solid Waste. 9.5 Wetlands The discharge of dredge and fill material has the potential to adversely affect wetlands including wetland substrate, hydrology, and vegetation. Discharges can lead to a loss of wetland values, such as wildlife habitat, flood storage, and groundwater recharge. The discharge of fill material will impact 1.14 acres of non - isolated wetlands and 0.50 acre of isolated wetlands on the sites. Approximately 21.54 acres of non - isolated wetlands have been avoided; totaling approximately 95 percent of total wetlands on the sites. The applicant will make payment into the EEP in -lieu fee program to offset impacts to wetlands. 9.6 Historic Properties Sanford Mine - A desk review of the National Register of Historic Places records maintained by the SHPO indicates 2 historic properties and 4 historic districts within approximately 5 miles of the Sanford Mine: the Endor Iron Furnace (Reference #LE0001) located approximately 4.5 miles from the Sanford Mine; the John D. McIver House and Farm (Reference #LE0648) located approximately 4.7 miles from the Sanford Mine; and Rosemont - McIver Park (Reference #LE0795), Downtown Sanford (Reference #LE0005), East Sanford (Reference #LE0792), and Hawkins Avenue (Reference #LE0493) Historic Districts all located approximately 4.2 miles from the Sanford Mine. Brickhaven Mine - The SHPO indicates 2 historic properties within approximately 5 miles of the Brickhaven Mine: the Obediah Farrar House (Reference #LE0687) located approximately 3 miles from the Brickhaven Mine and the Lockville Dam, Canal, and Powerhouse (Reference #CH0018) located approximately 4.4 miles from the Brickhaven Mine. It is the opinion of CEC, that the proposed activities are not likely to threaten the integrity of historic properties. The SHPO will be notified via Public Notice about the project and will be given the opportunity to comment on the project and its potential effects on cultural resources. 42 9.7 Fish and Wildlife Values Riparian and wetland areas provide habitat for many types of wildlife because of their diverse and productive plant communities, complex structure, and close proximity to surface water. Wildlife may be permanent residents of riparian and wetland areas or occasional visitors that use the areas for food, water, or temporary shelter. Food availability varies with the type of vegetation in riparian and wetland areas, but includes fruit, seed, foliage, twigs, buds, insects, and other invertebrates. Trees and shrub produce a variety of foods that are eaten by many animals and may be especially important sources of nutrition during the winter months. Grasses and herbaceous vegetation provide seeds and forage both within riparian and wetland areas and along the forest border. The stream environment provides moving water for many animals to drink, feed, swim, and reproduce. Water is also available on the moist vegetation and in wetlands that are often associated with riparian areas. These areas, both permanent and temporary, are especially important for amphibians and macro- invertebrates. Riparian and wetland areas provide a sheltered environment for many species of animals to feed, rest, and reproduce. Animals use these areas to seek shelter from extreme weather and to escape predators and human activity. Riparian and wetland areas may also provide important travel corridors for some species, and are frequently used as stop -over points for migratory birds. Although some evidence of wildlife usage was apparent on site, because the project areas are within close proximity to recently active mines, wildlife habitat is minimal. Noise pollution, denuded vegetation, and anthropogenic activity make these areas less desirable for resident and migrant wildlife. While a loss of wildlife habitat for stream and wetland - dependent species may result from construction of the projects, the proposed mitigation should compensate for any lost functions and values. 9.8 Flood Hazards It is likely that some tributaries at the Sanford and Brickhaven Mines will flood occasionally due to natural fluctuations in weather patterns that increase precipitation. The proposed activities are not expected to significantly increase or decrease the natural rate of flooding at the site or downstream. 9.9 Floodplain Values Based on data from the North Carolina Floodplain Mapping Program, 100 -year floodplains associated with Roberts Creek are located within the Sanford Mine property (Figure 5a) (FEMA Panels 3710965500J, 43 3710966400J, and 3710965400J, all effective September 6, 2006). The 100 -year floodplains associated with Shaddox Creek and the Cape Fear River are located within the access corridors for the Brickhaven Mine (Figure 5b) (FEMA Panels 3710969600J, 37190968700K, 3710968600K, and 3710969700J, all effective February 2, 2007). The railroad access corridor at the Brickhaven Mine will include impacts to the 100 -year floodplain. Green Meadows will apply for a No -Rise Certification through Chatham County. 9.10 Land Use The proposed project will be in compliance with local zoning regulations and ordinances. The project is consistent with surrounding land use and development. 9.11 Navigation Jurisdictional streams at the Sanford Mine are Roberts Creek and unnamed tributaries to Roberts Creek. Roberts Creek is a tributary to Hughes Creek which is a tributary to Lick Creek. Lick Creek is a tributary to the Cape Fear River which is navigable -in -fact water in Fayetteville, North Carolina. Jurisdictional streams at the Brickhaven Mine are unnamed tributaries to Shaddox Creek. Shaddox Creek is a tributary to the Haw River which is a tributary to the Deep River. The Deep River is a tributary to the Cape Fear River which is navigable -in -fact water in Fayetteville, North Carolina. The project will not have direct effects on the Cape Fear River; therefore, proposed activities are not likely to affect navigation. 9.12 Shore Erosion and Accretion The project should have minimal effects on erosion and runoff. An erosion control plan will be implemented as part of the construction plan for the project. During the construction process, BMPs will be followed. These BMPs may include the construction of swales, erosion and sediment control structures, turbidity barriers, and other measures that will prevent sediment transport off the project site and into other waters. Use of devices such as silt screens, staked hay bales, temporary grassing, wind rowing of vegetation, and other mechanisms to prevent turbidity may be employed. Erosion and Sediment Control Plans; and stormwater management plans (as required as a part of the Post - Closure Plans) have been submitted for review and approval as a part of the Structural Fill Permit Applications. A link to the applications is included in Attachment B. 44 9.13 Recreation Proposed activities will not increase or decrease waterborne recreation on site or in the project vicinity. However, removing coal ash from Riverbend will eliminate any threat to Mountain Island Lake associated with the presence of the existing coal ash ponds at Riverbend (which are adjacent to Mountain Island Lake). Mountain Island Lake is used recreationally by residents in the metro Charlotte region. 9.14 Water Supply and Conservation The public water supply will not increase or decrease as a result of the proposed activities. Part II, Section 130A- 309.216(c)(2) of CAMA14 prohibits coal ash within 300 horizontal feet of a private dwelling or well. Additionally, removing coal ash from Riverbend will eliminate any threat to Mountain Island Lake associated with the presence of the existing coal ash ponds at Riverbend. Mountain Island Lake provides 80% of the drinking water in the metro Charlotte area. As required by CAMA14, the proposed projects include 50 -foot setbacks from unimpacted streams and wetlands. These setbacks also satisfied buffer requirements set forth by DWR for stream channels classified as WS -IV. 9.15 Water Ouality (Stormwater Management) Stormwater management plans (as required as a part of the Post - Closure Plans) have been submitted for review and approval as a part of the Structural Fill Permit Applications. Additional information regarding stormwater management can be found in the Brickhaven and Sanford Mine Structural Fill Permit Applications. A link to the applications is included in Attachment B. The applicant will be concurrently applying for a NC Division of Water Resources Water Quality Certification. 9.16 Energy Needs Activities associated with the proposed project, during construction and at full operation, are not expected to significantly increase energy demands beyond the capacity of the local facility. Energy will not be produced as a result of the proposed activities. 9.17 Safety The proposed projects will be designed with the maximum possible considerations for public safety. Operations at the Brickhaven and Sanford Mines were developed considering the health and safety of the facility's operating staff. The operating staff is provided with site - specific safety training prior to operations, and on -site activities are to be conducted according to the applicable sections of Charah's Health and Safety Plan which shall be written to comply with all applicable OSHA standards. 45 Charah will prepare an Emergency Action Plan to address potential emergency situations at the sites. The general public would not have access to the Brickhaven and Sanford Mines. Security for the site consists of perimeter fencing, gates, berms, and wooded buffers. Unauthorized vehicle access to the site is prevented around the property by woodlands, fencing, gates, and stormwater conveyance features. The proposed activities will not increase or decrease public safety. 9.18 Food and Fiber Production The proposed projects will not increase or decrease food and fiber production. 9.19 Mineral Needs Clay will continue to be mined at both sites. Clay will be used on site, as well as made available to the public and industry. The projects fulfill no other mineral needs. 9.20 Considerations of Property Ownership The applicant owns the properties proposed for development and has the inherent right to develop the land in a reasonable and responsible manner, which includes adhering to all Federal, State, and local regulations. Property Owner of Record: Green Meadows, LLC 12601 Plantside Drive Louisville, KY 40299 9.21 Needs and Welfare of the Public The project will positively address the needs and welfare of the public by closing existing ash basins at the Riverbend and Sutton plants; and disposing of the ash in a safe and beneficial way. 46 10.0 SECONDARY AND CUMULATIVE EFFECTS The proposed projects are located within the Cape Fear River Subbasin 03- 06 -07. Approximately 69 percent of this subbasin is forested and the total land mass includes approximately 403 square miles (258,000 acres). The project areas are comprised of approximately 757 acres (1.2 square miles). All of the land mass included within the project site accounts for less than 0.3 percent of the land mass of the basin. These percentages alone, limit significant cumulative effects on the watershed. Past and current activities within the subbasin include logging/silviculture; agricultural, commercial and residential development; and road building. Continued and future development of the watershed is independent of activities proposed at the Sanford and Brickhaven Mines. Impacts within the project boundaries include mine reclamation and "beneficial use" in the form of structural fill. Stream and wetland impacts are necessary for development at the sites. Activities associated with the proposed projects should not result in a significant impairment of remaining water resources on site or interfere with the productivity and water quality of the existing aquatic ecosystem. 47 11.0 SUMMARY The proposed projects involve mine reclamation and "beneficial use" in the form of structural fill. Alternatives have been evaluated and the project "As Proposed" is the least damaging practical alternative which meets the project purpose. Potential impacts to the physical and chemical characteristics of the ecosystem, biological characteristics of the ecosystem, impacts on special aquatic sites, and potential effects on human use characteristics will be minimal. The project is not contrary to the public interest and will aid in the continued growth of Chatham and Lee Counties. 48