19920556 Ver 1_COMPLETE FILE_19920101 (2)

DEPARTMENT OF THE ARMY
WILMINGTON DISTRICT, CORPS OF ENGINEERS
69 DARLINGTON AVENUE
WILMINGTON, NORTH CAROLINA 28403-1343
REPLY TO
ATTENTION OF:
Regulatory Division
Action ID No. 200001460
Waste Industries, Inc.
Attn: Mr. Jerry Johnson
3301 Benson Drive, Suite 601
Raleigh, North Carolina 27609
Dear Mr. Johnson:
August 24, 2010
?, - o.s s LP
AUG 2 ?"0 2p?p
?
??WA 7-61
.
ftA%
e?
This letter serves to address our on-going evaluation of Waste Industries mitigation
requirements pursuant to the November 20, 2002, issued Department of the Army (DA)
authorization to impact 11.0 acre of wetlands for the expansion of the existing Sampson County
Landfill, on NC Highway 24, adjacent to Bearskin Swamp, east of Roseboro, Sampson County,
North Carolina. Please reference my June 23, 2010 onsite meeting with your consultants,
Messrs. David Cooper, David Gainey, and Mike Ortosky of S&EC, concerning Waste Industries
created mitigation sites and the fourth year monitoring report dated March 16, 2010. Also, please
reference our March 17, 2009 letter concerning the 2009 third year report and the subsequent
June 11, 2009 Proposed Modification and Maintenance Plan submitted by S&EC.
During the June 23rd onsite investigation, it was noted that no provisions of the
June 11, 2009 plan had been implemented, specifically bank stabilization, improvements to
Outlet #4 and #5, and tree replanting. This plan was submitted as an effort to address the
concerns outlined in our March 17, 2009 letter. On August 9, 2010, an e-mail was submitted to
Mr. Bryan Wuester of your office with the directive to implement the plan immediately,
particularly with the outlet adjustments and bank stabilization effort. In recent discussions with
Mr. Gainey, it is our understanding that some of the work has been initiated. For the
improvements to the on-going problem areas in the north and south portion of the upper cell, or
Cell A, which totals approximately 0.88 acres, our office places the decision whether to
undertake that effort with Waste Industries. These two areas continue to be unvegetated, ponded
areas that have failed to transition into the targeted wetland communities set forth in the
mitigation plan. If Waste Industries decides to abandon these areas, please be reminded that you
will be responsible for compensating elsewhere to cover any shortfalls in the required mitigation
amounts. Construction improvements within these two areas, as described in the plan, must be
implemented immediately if Waste Industries chooses to move forward with this option. Upon
completion of all grading and outlet improvements, an as-built survey must be provided to our
office within 30 days to verify the baseline elevations.
-2-
In reviewing the March 16t` monitoring report, our office agrees that all hydrology wells,
with the exception of Gauge #6, met the success criteria during periods of normal rainfall
averages. Gauge #6 is located along the slope of the middle cell, or Cell B, and has consistently
fallen short of the performance standards. During our onsite meeting, it was determined to
discontinue monitoring at this location. All remaining wells will continue to be monitored to
ensure hydrologic success. Previous problem wells, Gauges #4 and #9, showed increases in
water levels from the additional improvements made in late 2008. However, even with the 2009
results for Gauge #4, there were some onsite field observations made that raised hydrology
concerns within the surrounding area near Gauge #4. This area, size not determined, appear to
indicate much drier conditions upon evaluating the soils and type of vegetation growth. Further
evaluation of this area will be conducted upon review of the 2010 monitoring report and
subsequent inspection. As expressed in the March 17, 2009 letter, our office was concerned that
the entire mitigation site was holding too much water, as reflected in the monitoring report. In
the fourth year report, the summary table on page 4 reveals that (7) of the (13) wells were
continually inundated for the entire growing season, and in most cases year round. When
comparing the results with my onsite observations, it appears that the reason may simply be the
location placement of the wells. The recent data shows water levels in those (7) wells ranging
from the surface to a maximum of 13 inches above the surface. However, the onsite inspection
revealed that most of these areas are vegetated and not open water. As directed by our office,
S&EC provided an updated delineation by e-mail, dated August 13, 2010, which also separated
and calculated the amount of open water areas. The total amount of open water/ponded areas,
where conditions are void of vegetation with the exception of scattered cypress trees, is
approximately 2.265 acres and is a reduction of the previous 7.845 acres calculated in 2006. At
this time, no action or recommendations concerning this issue is required; however, close
examination of ponded conditions will continue.
Regarding the vegetation results, our office is unable to concur whether the success criteria
have been met due to the absence of the baseline total of planted trees. Without this number, an
accurate calculation of the survival rate cannot be made verified. The report also has a more
general description of the volunteer species growing within the entire mitigation site. The data
for the volunteer component is important for two aspects: 1) it helps to determine how the site is
responding and the site's overall condition and 2) it can be used as a substitute if the number of
planted species falls short of the success criteria. In my August 19, 2010 telephone conversation
with Mr. Gainey, he informed me that this information has been collected and will be forwarded
to our office. Any necessary corrections or remedial actions will be determined upon review of
this data.
Please be reminded that all disturbed areas must be immediately stabilized and on-going
monitoring must be implemented to ensure permanency in slope stabilization. If any sediment
erodes into the created areas, the material must be immediately removed and placed on high
ground.
-3-
Our office appreciates your on-going commitment in fulfilling your mitigation compliance
requirements; and your effort in ensuring the success of the created area. However, please be
reminded that Waste Industries will be responsible for any mitigation deficit that may occur. It is
strongly recommended that you remain in constant contact with our office to monitor the
progress of the recent modifications, as well as monitoring our aforementioned concerns.
If you have any questions or comments, please do not hesitate to contact me at telephone
[phone], Wilmington Regulatory Field Office.
Sincerely,
Mickey Sugg, Project Manager
Wilmington Regulatory Field Office
Copies Furnished:
Mr. Pete Benjamin
U.S. Fish and Wildlife Service
Raleigh Field Office
Post Office Box 33726
Raleigh, North Carolina 27636-3726
s. Cyndi Karoly
ivision of Water Quality
N.C. Department of Environment
and Natural Resources
2321 Crabtree Boulevard, Suite 250
Raleigh, North Carolina 27604
Mr. Mason Herndon
Division of Water Quality
N.C. Department of Environment
and Natural Resources
225 Green Street, Suite 714
Fayetteville, North Carolina 28301
Ms. Wendy Dunaway
Division of Land Quality
N.C. Department of Environment
and Natural Resources
225 Green Street, Suite 714
Fayetteville, North Carolina 28301
Mr. Mike Ortosky
Soil and Environmental Consultants
11010 Raven Ridge Road
Raleigh, North Carolina 27614
Mr. David Gainey
Soil and Environmental Consultants
11010 Raven Ridge Road
Raleigh, North Carolina 27614
-4-
Mr. Shawn Carroll
Waste Industries, Inc.
Landfill Division Environmental Operative
Waste Industries, Inc.
7434 Roseboro Highway
Roseboro, North Carolina 28328
Mr. Bryan Wuester, Landfill Manager
Sampson County Municipal Landfill
Waste Industries, Inc.
7434 Roseboro Highway
Roseboro, North Carolina 28328
Ms. Jennifer Derby, Chief
Wetlands Protection Section
Water Management Division
U.S. Environmental Protection Agency - Region IV
61 Forsyth Street
Atlanta, Georgia 30303