WQ0001086_Permit Renewal_20060126

AQUIFER PROTECTION SECTION REGIONAL STAFF REPORT
Date: 01/26/16 County: Cumberland
To: Aquifer Protection Section Central Office Permittee: Spring Lake, Town of
Central Office Reviewer: T. Doby Project Name: Spring Lake WWTP Land,Ap.
Regional Login No: ??
L GENERAL INFORMATION
1. This application is (check all that apply): E New ❑ Renewal
® Minor Modification ❑ Major Modification
Application No.: WQ0001086
❑ Surface Irrigation ❑ Reuse ❑ Recycle ❑ High Rate Infiltration ❑ Evaporation/Infiltration Lagoon
® Land Application of Residuals - ❑ Attachment B included ® 503 regulated ❑ 503 exempt
❑ Distribution of Residuals ❑ Surface Disposal
❑ Closed -loop Groundwater Remediation ❑ Other Injection Wells (including in situ remediation)
Was a site visit conducted in order to prepare this report? ® Yes or ❑ No.
a. Date of site visit: 10/30/15 and 12/29/15
b. Person contacted and contact information: Richard Mendez (ORC Spring Lake) & Rob Wilcox
c.. Site visit conducted by: Jim Barber and Tony Honeycutt
d. Inspection Report Attached: ❑ Yes or ® No.
2. Is the following information entered into the BIMS record for this application correct?
® Yes or ❑ No. If no, please complete the following or indicate that it is correct on the current application.
For Treatment Facilities:
a. Location: WWTP: Harps Steet, Spring Lake NC.
b. Driving Directions: From the intersection of Hwy 87 and Manchester Road, proceed north on Manchester
Road approx. 1 mile and turn right onto Harps _ Street. Follow Harps St. until it terminates at the Spring
Lake WWTP. The land application field is adjacent to the plant.
c. USGS Quadrangle Map name and number: Manchester NC (G-23-NW)
d. Latitude: 35.196048 N Longitude: 78.965489 W
e. Regulated Activities / Type of Wastes (e.g., subdivision, food processing , municipal wastewater):
Municipal wastewater plant residuals
For Disposal and Injection Sites:
(If multiple sites either indicate which sites the information applies to, copy and paste a new section into the
document for each site, or attach additional pages for each site)
a. Location(s): Harnett County NC. -
b. Driving Directions: From the WWTP take Manchester road north to Hwy 210. Turn left onto Hwy 210 and
right onto Shady Grove. Rd. Turn left onto Elliot Bridge Rd and drive approx. 3 miles and the farm is on the
left.
c. USGS Quadrangle Map name and number: Anderson Creek, NC (F-23-SW) and Bunnlevel NC (F-23-SE)
d. Latitude: Field 3-4: 35.285278N Longitude:-78.873889W
e. Latitude: Field 3-5: 35.271389N Longitude:-78.872222W
f. Latitude: Field 3-6: 35.279722N Longitude:-78.872222W
g. Latitude: Field 3-7: 35.283333N Longitude:-78.869722W
FORM: APSARR spring lake sludge LAWQ0001086 Feb 2016 modification.doc 1

4� 9
AQUIFER PROTECTION SECTION REGIONAL STAFF REPORT
h.
II. NEW AND MAJOR MODIFICATION APPLICATIONS, (this section not needed for renewals or minor
modifications, skip to next section)
Description Of Waste(S) And Facilities
1. Please attach completed rating sheet. Facility Classification:
2. Are the new treatment facilities adequate for the type of waste and disposal system?
❑ Yes ❑ No ❑ N/A. If no, please explain:
3. Are the new site: conditions (soils, topography, depth to -water table, etc) consistent with whatwas reported by
the soil scientist and/or Professional Engineer? n Yes ❑ No ❑ N/A. If no, please explain:
4. Does the application (maps, plans, etc.) representithe actual site (property lines, wells, surface drainage)? ❑
Yes ❑ No ❑ N/A. If no, please explain:
5. Is the proposed residuals management plan adequate and/or acceptable to the Division. ❑ Yes ❑ No ❑
N/A. If no, please explain:
6. ' Are the proposed application rates for new sites (hydraulic or nutrient) acceptable?
❑ Yes ❑ No ❑ N/A. If no, please explain:
7. Are the new treatment facilities or any new disposal sites located in a 100-year floodplain?
❑ Yes ❑ No ❑ N/A. If yes, please attach a map showing areas of 100-year floodplain and please explain
and recommend any mitigative measures/special conditions in Part IV:
8. Are there any buffer conflicts (new treatment, facilities or new disposal sites)? ❑ Yes or ❑ No. If yes, please
attach a map showing conflict areas or attach any new maps you have received from the applicant to be
incorporated into the permit:
9. Is proposed and/or existing groundwater monitoring program (number of wells, frequency of monitoring,
monitoring parameters, etc.) adequate? ❑ Yes ❑ No ❑ N/A. Attach map of existing monitoring well
network if applicable. Indicate the review and compliance boundaries. 'If No, explain and recommend any
changes to the groundwater monitoring program:
10. For residuals, will seasonal or other restrictions be required? ❑ Yes ❑ No ❑ N/A, If yes; attach list of sites
with restrictions (Certification B?)
IIL RENEWAL AND MODIFICATION APPLICATIONS (use previous section for new or major modification
systems)
Description Of Waste(S) And Facilities
1. Are there appropriately certified ORCs for the facilities? ® Yes or n No.
FORM: APSARR spring lake sludge LAWQ0001086 Feb 2016 modification.doc

b
AQUIFER PROTECTION SECTION REGIONAL STAFF REPORT
Operator in. Charge: Richard Mendez Certificate #:LA/989275
Backup- Operator in Charge: Michael Chriscoe Certificate #:LA/15683
2. Is the design, maintenance and operation (e.g. adequate aeration, sludge wasting, sludge storage, effluent
storage, etc) of the treatment facilities adequate for the type of waste and disposal system? ® Yes or ❑ No.
If no, please explain:
3. Are the site conditions (soils, topography, depth to water table, etc) maintained appropriately and adequately
assimilating the waste?.® Yes or ❑ No. If no, please explain:
4. Has the site changed in any way that may affect permit (drainage added, new wells inside the compliance
boundary, new development, etc.)? If yes, please explain: Brinkley Fields 3-1, 3-2 and Paye Field 4-2 are
being removed from the permit due to the properties being sold and the current construction of a Wal-Mart
shopping center on the properties. The sites were land applied to very sparingly over the years and the
occasions the sites were used: the annual reports indicate low application rates on the bermuda hay being grown
on the sites.
5. Is the residuals management plan for the facility adequate and/or acceptable to the Division?
® Yes or ❑ No. If no, please explain: Contingencies are still be in place (i.e. using McGill Environmental)
in the event that Tom Brooks farm, Brinkley farm or the David Chatiller farm (under the Veridian Residuals
permit W00035881) are unable to receive residuals. With the addition of the new Brinkley farm fields, Spring
Lake will have more than enough acreage to manage their residuals based on the variety of crops being
managed.
6. Are the existing application rates (hydraulic or nutrient) still acceptable? ® Yes or ® No. If no, please
explain:
7. Is the existing groundwater monitoring program (number of wells, frequencyof monitoring, monitoring
parameters, etc.) adequate? ❑ Yes ❑ No Z N/A. Attach map of existing monitoring well network if
applicable. Indicate the review and compliance boundaries. If No, explain and recommend any changes to the
groundwater monitoring program:
8. Will seasonal or other restrictions be required for added sites? ❑ Yes ® No El -N/A If yes, attach list of sites
with restrictions (Certification B?)
9. Are there any buffer conflicts (treatment facilities or disposal sites)? ❑ Yes or ® No. If yes, please attach a
map showing conflict areas or attach any new maps you have received from the applicant to be incorporated
into the permit:
10. Is the description of the facilities, type and/or volume of waste(s) as written in the existing permit correct?
Yes or ❑ No. If no, please explain:
11. Were monitoring wells properly constructed and located? ❑ Yes or ❑ No ® N/A. If no, please explain:
12. Has a review of all self -monitoring data been conducted (GW, NDMR, and NDAR as applicable)? ❑ Yes or
❑ No ® N/A. Please summarize any findings resulting from this review:
FORM: APSARR spring lake sludge LAWQ0001086 Feb 2016 modification.doc
3

AQUIFER PROTECTION SECTION REGIONAL STAFF REPORT
13. Check all that apply: ® No compliance issues; ❑ Notice(s) of violation within the lastpermit cycle; ❑.
Current enforcement action(s) ❑ Currently under SOC; ❑ Currently under JOC; ❑ Currently, under
moratorium. If any items' checked, please explain and attach any documents that may help clarify
answer/comments (such as NOV, NOD etc):
14. Have all compliance dates/conditions, in the existing permit, (SOC, JOC, etc.) been complied with? 0 Yes
❑ No ❑ Not Determined El N/A.. If no, please explain:
15. Are there any issues related to compliance/enforcement that should be resolved before .issuing this permit? ❑
Yes or No ❑ N/A. If yes, please explain: I
FORM: APSARR spring lake sludge LAWQ0001086 Feb 2016 modification.doc 4

s
AQUIFER PROTECTION SECTION REGIONAL STAFF REPORT
IV. INJECTION WELL PERMIT APPLICATIONS (Complete these two sections for all systems that use injection
wells, including closed -loop groundwater remediation effluent injection wells, in situ remediation injection wells, and heat
-pump injection wells.)
Description Of VWell(S) And Facilities = New, Renewal, And Modification
1. Type of injection system:
❑ Heating/cooling water return flow (5A7)
❑ Closed -loop heat pump system (5QM/5QW)
❑ In situ remediation (5I)
❑ Closed -loop groundwater remediation effluent injection (5Lf"Non-Discharge")
❑ Other (Specify: )
2. Does system use same well for water source and injection? ❑ Yes ❑ No
3. Are there any potential pollution sources that may affect injection? ❑ Yes ❑ No
What is/are the pollution source(s)? . What is the distance of the injection well(s) from the pollution
source(s)? ft.
4. What is the minimum distance of proposed injection wells from the property boundary? ft.
5. Quality of drainage at site: ❑ Good ❑ Adequate ❑ Poor
6. Flooding potential of site: ❑ Low ❑ Moderate n High
7. For groundwater remediation systems, is the proposed and/or existing groundwater monitoring program
(number of wells, frequency of monitoring, monitoring parameters, etc.) adequate? ❑ Yes ❑ No. Attach
map of existing monitoring well network if applicable. If No, explain and recommend any changes to the
groundwater monitoring program:
8. Does the map presented represent the actual site (property lines, wells, surface drainage)? ❑ Yes or n No. If
no or no map, please attach a sketch of the site. Show property boundaries, buildings, wells, potential pollution
sources, roads, approximate scale, and north arrow.
Injection Well Permit Renewal And Modification Only:
1. For heat pump systems, are there any abnormalities in heat pump or injection well operation (e.g. turbid water,
failure to assimilate injected fluid, poor heating/cooling)?
❑ Yes ❑ No. If yes, explain:
2. For closed -loop heat pump systems, has system lost pressure or required make-up fluid since permit issuance
or last inspection? ❑ Yes ❑ No. If yes, explain:
3. For renewal or modification of groundwater remediation permits (of any type), will
continued/additional/modified injections have an adverse impact on migration of the plume or management of
the contamination incident? ❑ Yes ❑ No. If yes, explain:
4. Drilling contractor: Name:
FORM: APSARR spring lake sludge LAWQ0001086 Feb 2016 modification.doc 5

AQUIFER PROTECTION SECTION REGIONAL STAFF REPORT
Address:
Certification number:
5. Complete and attach Well Construction Data Sheet.
FORM: APSARR spring lake sludge LAWQ0001086 Feb 2016 modification.doc 6

AQUIFER PROTECTION SECTION REGIONAL STAFF REPORT
V. EVAL UATIONAND RECOMMENDATIONS
1. Provide any additional narrative regarding your review of the application.:
2. Attach Well Construction Data Sheet - if needed information is available
3. Do you foresee any problems with issuance/renewal of this permit? ❑ Yes ® No. If yes, please explain
briefly.
4. List any items that you would like APS Central Office to obtain through an additional information request.
Make sure that you provide a reason for each item:
Item
Reason
. List specific Permit conditions that you recommend to be removed from the permit when issued. Make sure
that you provide a reason for each condition:
Condition
Reason
6. List specific special conditions or compliance schedules that you recommend to be included in the permit when
issued. Make sure that you provide a reason for each special condition:
Condition
• Reason
7. Recommendation: ❑ Hold, pending receipt and review of additional information by regional office; ❑ Hold,
pending review of draft permit by regional office; ❑ Issue upon receipt of needed additional information; El
Issue; ❑ Deny. If deny, please state reasons:
8. Signature ofreport preparer(s):
62Ros
Signature of MN regional supervisor: L,JO 2' Se t/.0 ti ljSOL
Date: / 8 I /4:,
FORM: APSARR spring lake sludge LAWQ0001086 Feb 2016 modification.doc 7

AQUIFER PROTECTION SECTION REGIONAL, STAFF REPORT
ADDITIONAL REGIONAL STAFF REVIEW ITEMS
The Fayetteville regional office has visited the proposed Brinkley farm twice related to this permit modification
request. The proposed soil types identified are accurate and buffer maps are consistent with site features and
accurate with respect to current cropping practices.
In reviewing. the last couple of annual reports, it was noted that Field 1-1 at the WWTP has high copper and
zinc values as reported in the annual soil samples. Spring Lake and their soils consultant (Wilcox & Mabe) are
reviewing sampling procedures and will re -sample Field 1-1 in 2015 and 2016 to :try and isolate any anomolies
in their sampling procedure to insure that the copper and zinc levels are reflective of soil conditions. If the 2015
and 2016 soil sampling results indicate that copper and zinc are still elevated (at or above the 3000 index); then
Spring Lake will stop using Field 1-1 and may submit a permit modification to remove Field 1-1 in the future.
The farm currently is being leased by Bain farms (based on lease agreements in place with the previous
landowner) and the four fields being added are cropped with wheat, cotton and tobacco. During one of the site
visits; Curtis Bain and Reggie Bain were at the farm and discussions were had concerning the planting of
tobacco on fields that potentially could receive residuals. It was pointed out the there is a harvest restriction of
any crop grown for human consumption that has contact with residuals. The Bains are aware of this issue and
will work with the Town of Spring Lake to avoid conflicts concerning cropping cycles and residuals
application.
It is the intent of the landowner (Willie Brinkley) to establish bermuda grass (for both hay and pasture grazing)
in the near future to eliminate potential conflicts with cropping cycles and non -compatible crops with respect to
residuals application.
Attached are three GIS panels for the property being added to the Town of Spring Lake residual land
application program. According to the Harnett GIS, there are three tracts of proeprty (with corresponding
property identification numbers - P.I.N.). According to Spring Lake, Mr. Brinkley was having the properties
recombined into one deed. During the second visitin December 2015, survey flagging was noted.
The Brinkley farm fields were previously in the Town of Apex land application program (W00001060) under
the former owners name (Verna Webb). Attached with the staff report is the Field Summary form from the last
annual report indicating application rates and cummulative metals loading that will be needed going forward
under the Spring Lake program. In reviewing BIMS, it appears that the fields have been removed from the
Apex program.
FORM: APSARR spring lake sludge LAWQ0001086 Feb 2016 modification.doc 8

Facility Name:
Owner:
Site #:
ANNUAL LAND APPLICATION FIELD SUMMARY FORM
PLEASE MAKE A COPY OF THIS BLANK FORM TO BE COMPLETED AND SUBMITTED FOR EACH APPLICATION FIELD.
PLACE A "N/A" IN A BLANK OR BOX WHEN NOT APPLICABLE.
Town of Apex Permit #: WQ0001060 Annual Dry Tons Applied:
Verna Webb
HAO8
Field #:
Operator:
1
Curtis Bain
Acres Utilized:
101.9
70.45
Cation Exchange Capacity (non 503):
Acres Permitted:
101.9
Date or
Month
Specify
Totals
Per
Acre
%
Solid
s
Dry Tons Per
Acre
Residual
Sources
(Summarize)
Site
Cond.
Dry,
Wet,
Moist
Inches
Precip.
Past 24
Hrs.
Appli-
cation
Meth-
od*
Vola-
tili-
zation
Rate**
Miner-
_ ali-
zation
Rate
TIC
Ammo-
nia-,
Ni-
trogen
Ni-
trate
and
Nitrite
PAN 1
PAN 2
Must Select
Crop1 or Crop
2
*
*
Gal.
Ci Cu.Yd.
Report
-_ Totals
in Gal.
Crop 1
Crop 2
2/10
214500
2105
3.61
0.3169
Apex WWTP
Dry
<.5"
S
0.5
0.3
65700
7200
2
13.4053
#######
SG
1
2/11
78000
765.46
3.61
0.1152
Apex WWTP
Dry
<.5"
S
0.5
0.3
65700
7200
2 -
4.87467
#######
SG
2
2/12
175500
1722.3
3.61
0.2593
Apex WWTP
Dry
<.5"
S
0.5
0.3
• 65700
7200
2
10.968
#######
SG
3
0
0.0000 -
0
0
4
0
0.0000
0
0
5
0
0.0000
0
0
6
0
0.0000
0
0
7
0
0.0000
0
0
8
0
0.0000
0
0
9
0
0.0000
0
0
10
0
0.0000
0
0
11
0
0.0000
0
0
12
TOTALS:
4593
•
As
Cd
Cr '
Cu
Pb
Hg
Mo
Ni
Se
Zn
P
PAN 1
-PAN 2
Lime Mplied
Annuallbs/acre
0.0041
0.0028
0.0277.
0.2309
0.0069
0.0006
0.0069
0.0124
0.0069
0.5379
38.1653
29.248
0
Date
lbs/ac
Current Cumulative lbs/ac
0.0476
0.0340
0.2933
4.4788
0.3348
0.0235
0.1395
0.5128
0.0866
9.6529
Prior Years Cumulative lbs/ac
0.0435
0.0312
0.2656
4.2479
0.3279
0.0229
0.1326
0.5004
0.0797
9.1150 •
Permitted C. P. L. R.***
36
34
1338
267
15
374
89
2498
Permit PAN Limit lstl2nd Crop
100
50
"I certify, under penalty:of law, that this document was prepared under my direction or supervision in accordance with a system
designed to assure that qualified personnel properly gathered and evaluated the information submitted. I am aware that there are
significant penalties for submitting false information, including the possibility of fines and imprisonment for knowing violations."
Signature of Land Applier
1/6/2014 *Application Method: S - Surface, IN - Injection, INC - Incorporation
Date **Volatilization Rate: Surface - 0.5, Iniection/Incorporation -1.0
***C.P.L.R.: Cumulative Pollutant Loading Rate
**** The RSSF Data and the Dry Tons Per Acre are to be entered on the MFLSF Form. The FSF and MFLSF are mathematically linked so this information needs to be entered into the
same numbered column on the MFLSF as is entered on the identically numbered FSF row to properly complete the metals equations. ie. FSF row # 1 to MFLSF column # 1.
DENR FORM FSF (5/2003)

P,ge 1 of l
-'arcelViewer Powered By Freeance 54.1.6370 TDC Group Inc.
i .i e e a 4 , O✓'�.s! . Y k�. �r.,.� Y.. y'GC` , ° h :'�lvu4 N' 47 t : '^4F r.� , .
Map. Tool Options .
The -current cursor mode is set to'Select/Identify', Click on a map feature to select it. Clicking on a map feature that has already been
selected will unselect. Dragging on the map will create a window that selects multiple features. Use the drag select for better
accuracy when selecting points. The -selectable theme can be set to the right:..
Map, Layer
Mapping
Search ..
Show All Selections
Selection Options Clea
Zoom to selected map feature
Selected Parcels Feature •
Parcel Identification
elk,: i
05354.77, 7608 0009
[ParcelNuinber]
010534 0151
[REID] .
0015822
Owner Information •
[AccountNumber] ,.
1500015811:.
[Namel] '
BRINKLEY WILLIE C
[Name2] '
fAddressl]
85 BRINKLEYLN'
[Address2] ' '
' ' '
[Address3]`
[City]
CAMERON '
[State]
NC
[ZipCode]
28326
Assessment Data
[ParcelBuildingValue]
jParcelObxfValuel;
200.
[ParcelLandValue]
733210
[TotalAssessedValue];
105870
Properly Information
jStreetDirectionl'
[UnitNumber]
[HouseNumber]
[StreetName] .
ELLIOTT BRIDGE
[StreetType] .
RD
[StreetSuffix] . •
-- Legal Desciption
[LegalDescription] ,
TR#1 BESSIE H YOUNC
EST PC#F/400-B
�[L gaILarj dUmts]L.I
2744J .
I[LegalLandTyp ]
AC'
jGIS Calc `Acres;:} f
273V
[PlatBook] .
-
[PlatPage] ,
• . Structure Data
[ActiiatYearBuiltj'
[rotalAcutalAreaHeated]
-
Sales Information
[D;eedBookJe7)
03308_1
peed Page].,1 ' . k
0331;
[D`eedDate]•_
12015-05-20 2000 00:j
[SileYear]
2015.. ,
[SatePrice]
1895000
. .- - .Parcel Links
Zoning Overlay
010534 0151
Soils Overlay . "•
010534 0151 .
PRC ..
010534 0151
Site Information
Parcels
Active -Tool: Select Feature
tttp://gistoolbox.harnett.org/Freeance/Client/PublicAccess 1/index.html?appcon .fig=102
if.

Map Tool Options
The current cursor mode is set to 'Select/IdentifY'. Click on a map feature to select it Clicking on a map feature that has already been
selected will unselect Dragging on the map will create a window that selects multiple features. Use the drag select for better
accuracy when selecting points. The selectable theme can be set to the right
ittp ://gistoolbox.harnett. org/Frepance/Client/POlicAccess 1 /index.htiril?appconfig=1 02
MapLayer
Mode:
Rage 1 of
Mapping Search'
Show All Selections
Selection Options Clez
Zoom to selected map feature
Selected Parcels Feature
Parcel Identification
PINj
.9_405.:85,-,9.823000y
[ParcelNumber]
010534 0151 01
IREID1
0042600
Owner Infommtion
[AccountNumber]
1500015811-
[Name1] • :
BRINKLEY WILLIE C
rilame2]
. .
lAddress11
85 BRINKLEY LN.
[Address2] • 1
,
[Address3]
[CIV] - • .
CAMERON
IStatel ,
NC
RipCode]
28326
: • " Assessment Data
(ParcelBuildingValue]_
jParcelObxfValuel
•
[ParcelLandValue]
318520
[TotalAssessedValue]
50180_
. Prop Information
IStreetDirection] .
[UnitNumber] '
HouseNumbed
•
1StreetName]
ELLIOTT BRIDGE
[StreetType]
RD
[StreetSuffix] •
•
Legal Desciption
LlegaiDescription]
TR#2 BESSIE H YOUN(
EST PC#F/400-B•
[LegalLandUndsr
[L'EgaiLandType
12311.5v •
AC
,GIS!Cd18 Acre's. ,' ,
12t942446851
[PlatBook]
,
[PlatPage]
Structure Data
lActualYearBuilt] . .
[TotalAcutalAreaHeated]
Sales Information.
IDoedeooicy .
03308?-1
pasidP4gel . - •
033V
LtleedDateli j ' .$015,:05`.i:2:_t20:00:001
[SaleYear] .
2015
1SalePrice]
1895000
Parcel Links .
zoning Overlay •
010534 0151 01
Soils Overlay '
010534 0151 01.
PRC ' --
010534 0151 01
t's.',14wL7P:tiLQ.IfLCLg‘&aI':,'.ii;',21:1-4,4 .',.
Site Information
Parcels v
Point/Box
Active Tool: Select Feature
10/22/201f

•
ParcelViewer: Powered. By Freeance 5.4.1.6370 -.TDC Group Inc.
freeanc
Map Tool Options
The current cursor mode is set to 'Select/Identify'. Click on a mapfeature to select it. Clicking on a map feature that has already been
selected will unsplect. Dragging on the map will create a window that selects multiple features Use the drag select for better
accuracy when selecting points The selectable theme can be set to the right
Map Layer.
Mode:
Page 1 of
Mapping Search
Show All Selections
Selection Options
Zoom to selected map feature
Selected Parcels Feature
CIe
Parcel. Identificaffon
PiN ,l• . .
p545Li 71921.000 ?
010545 0033 --
jParcetNumber]
IRE111 -
0036088 •
Owner Information
[AccountNumber]
1500015811
[Namell
BRINKLEY WILLIE C.
[Name2]
lAddress11
85 BRINKLEY LN
[Aildress2]
[Address3]
,
[CityL -
CAMERON
[State]
NC
gipCode]
28326
• Assessment
Data
[ParcelBuildingValue]
jParcelObxfValuel
[ParcelLandValue].
199000
[TotalAssessedValue]
27180
• , - Property Information
•
IStreetDirectionl -
L'UnitNumber]
.
[HouseNumbed
[StreetNamel
ELLIOTT BRIDGE.
[StreetType]
RD
[StreetSuffix]
Legal Destiption
galDescription 86.3 ACRES MCARTAI•
re-g-alggitd Digital) 86.31
[LegalLahcqypel
pisICAreAciis,4377 86:88422092j
[PlatBook]
[PlatPage]
Structure Data
fActualYearBuilti
[TotalAcutalAreaHeated]
Sales Information
peedadok],/
IDerecIPageli 033W
MeedDate], • 2015052O2O0009.1
[SaleYear] 2015
[SalePrice] - 1895000
Parcel Links.
Zoning Overlay • 010545 0033
Soils Overlay 010545 0033 .
PRC 010545 0033
Parcels
033083
Site Information
Active Tool: Select Feature
Point/Box V
WWI
littp://gistoolbox.harnett.org/Freeance/Client/PublicAccessl/index.html?appconfig=102
10/22/201!

Z
Field Boundary
SCALE:
1" = 0.5 miles
DATE:
10-19-15
DRAWN BY: MEM
PROJECT NO:
15-16 Ph: 1
SOIL SOLUTIONS
REFERENCE: '
GIS DATA LAYERS WERE OBTAINED FROM ESRI, INC. PLEASE NOTE THIS MAP IS FOR INFORMATIONAL
PURPOSES ONLY. IT IS NOT MEANT FOR DESIGN, LEGAL, OR ANY OTHER USES. THEREARE NO
GUARANTEES ABOUT ITS ACCURACY. WMSS, PLLCASSUMES NO RESPONSIBILITY FORANY DECISION
MADE OR ANY ACTIONS TAKEN BY THE USER BASED UPON THIS INFORMATION.
VICINITY MAP
WILLIE BRINKLEY TRACT
TOWN OF SPRING LAKE
LAND APPLICATION PROGRAM
HARNETT'COUNTY, NORTH CAROLINA
FIGURE NO.
1

Field Boundary
SCALE:
1 "=2,000'
PROJECT NO:
15-16 Ph: 1
mot,
\Mltcox&m
SOIL SO.LtJTIONS
J ;N
REFERENCE:
GIS DATA LAYERS WERE OBTAINED FROM ESRI, INC. PLEASE NOTE THIS MAP IS FOR INFORMATIONAL
PURPOSES ONLY. IT IS NOT MEANT FOR DESIGN, LEGAL, OR ANY OTHER USES. THERE ARE NO
GUARANTEES ABOUT ITS ACCURACY. WMSS, PLLCASSUMES NO RESPONSIBILITY FOR ANY DECISION
MADE OR ANY ACTIONS TAKEN BY THE USER BASED UPON THIS INFORMATION.
USGS TOPOGRAPHIC MAP
WILLIE BRINKLEY TRACT
TOWN OF SPRING LAKE
LAND APPLICATION PROGRAM
HARNETT COUNTY, NORTH CAROLINA
FIGURE NO.
2
J
C:\arcgis\2015\15-16 Town of Spring Lake\Maps \USDA.mxd

:Legend'
;Field Boundary
NRCS-Soils Boundary
SCALE
1 =500."
DATE
10-i9-15
DRAWN BY:
MEM
Soil Legend
BnB - Blaney loamy sand, 0.8%'slope . -
BnD - Blaney loamysand, 8,15% slope
CaB = Candor sand, 0-8%slope
DoB - Dothan loamy sand,2-6% slope'
FaB - Fuquay loamy sand, 0.6 % slope
•GaB - Gilead loamy sand, 2.8% slope.
LnB - Lillington very gravelly sady loam, 2-8% slope
REFERENCE. I -
GISDATA LAYERS WERE OBTAINED FROM HARNETT'COUNTY OISWEBSITE. PLEASE NOTE THIS MAP IS FOR INFORMATIONAL
PURPOSES'ONLY. R IS NOT MEANT FOR DESIGN. LEGAL, OR ANY OTHER USES. THEREARE NO GUARANTEES ABOUT ITS
ACCURACY. WMSS, PLLC ASSUMES NO RESPONSIBILITY FOR ANY DECISION MADE ORANYACTIONS TAKEN BY THE USER BASED
UPON THIS INFORMATION. . . . - _ -
. NRCS SOILS•MAP
WILLIE BRINKLEY TRACT
TOWN OF.SPRING LAKE •
LAND APPLICATION PROGRAM .
HARNE1TCOUNTY, NORTH.CAROLINA ..

•
Legend`
e Well
Dwelling
• Structure
Pond
_ = 9 Access. Road
V/G
1.1
Buffer
Field Boundary
'Qa GOooQ
4 8O03 Property Boundary
SCALE:
1 500'
DATE •
10-19-15
DRAWN BY:
MENI
a
B'
REVIEW BOUNDARY shall be established around each land application site
midway between theCompliance'Boundary and the perimeter of the '
residuals land application area. . - •
•
COMPLIANCE BOUNDARY: The Compliance Boundaryfor each land application site
is established at either 250 feet from the residuals land application area'or 50 feet
-within the property boundary, whichever isclosest totheresidual land application area..
TOTAL ACRES I BUFFERED ACRES I. NET ACRES
37.7 1 4.2 - !. 33.5
3-5_ i 23.7II, 0.0 i 23.7-
3-6.`Iu 33.9 T 0.0 _i 33.9
3-7. � --17.5 2.3 I 15.2
i TOTAL ' T 106.3
REFERENCE.
GIS DATA LAYERS WERE OBTAINED FROM HARNETT COUNTY G ISWEBSITE PLEASE NOTE THIS MAP IS FOR INFORMATIONAL
PURPOSES ONLY. rrIS NOT MEANT FOR DESIGN. LEGAL. OR ANY OTHER USES. THEREARE NO GUARANTEES ABOUT ITS -
ACCURACY. WMSS, PLLC ASSUMES NO RESPONSIBILITY FORANY DECISION MADE ORANYAC IONS TAKEN BY THE USER BASED -
UPON THIS INFORMATION. . . -
•
BUFFER MAP '
WILLIE BRINKLEYTRACT
TOWN OF SPRING LAKE
LAND APPLICATION PROGRAM
HARNETT COUNTY, NORTH CAROLINA
FIGURE NO.
Y
85
3
in

Web Soil. Survey
USDA n J0...4547:?-rTarA'''! ia
ism ftl2tIIMPE:te.Mrces.#vr•Fservais0n ,evioe.igiAiraa
Contact Us I Subscribe
Archived Soli, Surveys • I. Soil Survey Status . } Glossary I Preferences I Link I Logout I Heip
Area of Interest (AOI
Soil Map
Soil Data Explorer
Download Soils Data
Shopping Cart (Free)
P,rage 1 of :
',Printable Version,' FAdd to;Shopping,CartI Q
V
Search
a
Soil Map
®
I rat
tiI 1 \ I Im i bj j 1 � S,caie` (not toseale) �F OUD� u Q
Map unit Legend
- - -
(�
-lf tij t jr Ta c r i , •Sti t.r� , ' F1 ) liy", �m f;
`j•Gl �. 7
c t t 1k� �x:. is { t' n h` s,if F t t 1fy f�fq F `!
I "'l �i 4 /' t i 4�t k d J - .b"
*TL SS°°ry ',.ry,
Harnett County, North Carolina (NC085)
Y -'.y j M.I �,1fY 4 S Y' '' .r`_it5c �. 4PJ�i4 F •...
s �
`• { ' %� 3 J1 4 J'' '� }+
• - - -' ---- --
Ma Ma Unit Name ; Acres, Percent
p p
Unit ' in of AOI
c�'�.''"
s G.w -e .fi• , s 4Ji+i �., .." !rt .r�, t i L r t, +ErB [' °,.>"tt f c(f,Iri
t xl k 3?fitfL r di }F
' ..r-4 • is (' -v,3 t a r G- B FSJ rt -[5 fi t �t
w 7.7 pj ;i rt 3 l kBr o'� fa- mot- 11 r;� lFr+
s
' t Vy ,37�y'14:•_ '''yn w `
f.. '�1
Symbol : AOI
< s r .
�: / L , : , s J4 ,p,((siY
+F_.f "-aAMf. W
•-
BnB Blaneyloam sand 2 to 8 47.5 40.8%
Y
5. ��F l�, Y ;Y f +.-.,..+'. A
i ' r '' ! ' '` a -� — a "' i
L
, "f 'f
*a rf,, ,5 a
tiyl �
'
percent slopes
f t. rs F S�
F=`Ct7 Y+tnn .-.. '+4 j: "I �y 1
� Et�f �1:. .. C � l�'-ti''r Ti .Y.; a'%^^,� �fJ.;i !
F ., �.3V
r C rt Y r 1 `,+{' i!V r
i,�.'Jf�V ; yr :f � S :'M � .Y.,}
�'�
BnD • Blaney loamy sand, 8 to 15 5.(i 4.8%'
' percent slopes
CaB Candor sand, 0 to 8 percent 5.4 4.6%
slopes
DoB ! Dothan loamysand 2 to 6 4.4 3.8%
percent slopes
i .... - °
FaB Fuquay loamy sand, 0 to 6; 34.2 29.4 /o
percent slopes
GaB , Gilead loamy sand, 2 to 8 15.1 13.0% .
percent slopes
GaD Gilead loamy sand, 8 to 15 0.6: 0.5%
percent slopes _ ' ..
LnB Lillington very gravelly sandy 3.5 3 0%
loam, 2 to 8 percent slopes •
... _. _ - �.
Totals for Area of Interest 116.3 100,0%'
-. - _ . _.. ,
,j 1 i T c
r ;' • . • t Soh , t
<, , r ,Y u*, r , #, z ask, GAD '' An
/ys P , z
$fir' ,. ta^` e� ,d
s r r °�y w`? ` ';{�4
At i1,x t i iM .. •k J .M•l ItifD �,�/,�711
,` i ' f iy , .
t ° L r! y f 1' �
r f � - .,,
` 4r u,J r 4
fl•, 47 �+ J ,ri •h,v 1 a ,P;
r : t
t ., ter ,- ' t �'; k
f T _ r s r
' `4'
" , , ., z"+ '
• il' M�J at .�' if ' 4f'"!� tT
.' t e,. 4 u�', .�'
r ,k ' it
1 ' y a 7 i l �f
' it 3 ^ u f t� V•,i , r�i
iT•- I
;, L ,� }} ( �lttsf t'
` ,1 `g A.'� ., rat
�tk 5. ,.s e i . Z r.1'."
, rY •fF,' ° s R �Ii'M
t `r. r} t - ' t i r r 3 $: 4 M ,, n r
�
�JilLh;4
i�It f
+rFk
"F friif
i
#�f
�°
,rp4 ry`,$
G
Mk
Tu i
, ,��
}
��; ;
4
xaie
q"s`,J
�LflB.
'�t
,t
/
1,t <
j!
r ' H
ctr Ci 9
rr ?t.:
..-..
}1{
sb
GE;
i _
,
1 t•
^
Y�
i t
"
k y
, '.. �'4'A'
•
\ rit:, � , ;* r ��
lft 1 , , y., , rf
t is �r j�
4 ti�`u•
St �f 1. r `Mi i-'h
`4�ryr r ;; ',
.03
; � ;, x F
y �y'• �2� ?i
•
`i'`t �Jy•�. 1' �,1,r d , '`t 4:.• : }j+�
rr `c q e d l
, ,
,
- -Ill i i p
r " ' { \} 'r 4
kii .
�,
!, �f.+e
�` ,•;f � ' %
r
��ff
';� n .
* '� "4' "'
t't �✓i .}, l•'� �yk
4.s,
'� f'�+, 1 i
.
r 4 mmesseormi®an 1 ODO fi j. � : r''.t \ +
�t, j.. i^_.
_ .. i __, , tL — ,., y r .s. .z., , ,:ka �. ,.
'
1Warning: Soil Map may not be valid at this scale. iX
You have zoomed in beyond the scale at which the soil map for this area is intended to be used. Mapping of soils is done at a
particular scale. The soil surveys that comprise your AOI were mapped at 1:24,000. The design of map units and the level of
detail shown in the resultingsoil map aredependent on that map scale.
Enlargement of maps beyond the scale of mapping can cause misunderstanding of the detail of mapping and accuracy of soil.
line placement. The maps do not show the small areas.of"contrasting soils that could have been shown at a more detailed
scale. ,
FOIA .1 Accessibility Statement Privacy -Policy I Non -Discrimination. Statement I Information Quality I '.USA.gov IWhite House.
ittp://websoilsurvey.nres.usda.gov/app/WebSoilSurvey.aspx
10/30/201;

Map Unit Description: Fuquay loamy sand, 0 to 6 percent slopes --Harnett County, North Carolina
Harnett County, North Carolina
FaB—Fuquay loamy sand, 0 to 6 percent slopes
Map Unit Setting
National map, unit symbol: 3spd
Elevation: 160 to 660 feet
Mean annual precipitation: 38 to 52 inches.
Mean annual air temperature: 61 to 70 degrees F
Frost -free period: 210 to 245 days
Farmland classification: Farmland of statewide importance
Map Unit Composition
Fuquay and similar soils: 85 percent
Estimates are based on observations, descriptions, and transects of the
mapunit.
Description of Fuquay'
Setting
Landform: Low hills
Landform position (two-dimensional): Summit
Landform position (three-dimensional): Crest
Down -slope shape: Convex
Across -slope shape: Convex
Parent material: Loamy marine deposits
Typical profile
Ap - 0 to 8 inches: loamy sand
E - 8 to 34 inches: loamy sand -
Bt1 - 34 to 45 inches: sandy loam
Bt2 - 45 to 50 inches: sandy clay loam
Btv - 50 to 96 inches: sandy clay loam
C - 96 to 109 inches: loamy sand
Properties and qualities
Slope:' 0 to 6 percent
Depth to restrictive feature: 35 to 60 inches to plinthite
Natural drainage class: Well drained
Runoff class: Low
Capacity of the most limiting layer to transmit water (Ksat):
Moderately low to moderately high (0.06 to 0.20 in/hr)
Depth to water table: About 48 to 72 inches
Frequency of flooding: None
Frequency of ponding: None
Available water storage in profile: Low (about 3.9 inches)
Interpretive groups
Land capability classification (irrigated): None specified
Land capability classification (nonirrigated): 2s
USDA Natural Resources Web Soil Survey
1,10 Conservation Service National Cooperative Soil Survey
10/30/2015
Page 1 of 2

Map Unit Description: Fuquay loamy sand, 0 to 6 percent slopes --Harnett County, North Carolina
Hydrologic Soil Group: B
DataSource Information
Soil Survey Area: Harnett Cbunty, North Carolina
Survey Area Data: Version 12, Sep 29, 2015
1
USDA Natural Resources
Conservation Service
Web Soil Survey
National Cooperative Soil Survey
10/30/2015
Page 2 of 2

Nutrient Management in North Carolina Page 1 of 2
Realistic Yield Expectations for North Carolina Soils,
The North Carolina Realistic Yield Database is the product of an extensive data gathering and review process conducted by NC State
University, the Natural Resource Conservation Service, the North Carolina Department of Agriculture and Consumer Services, and
the North Carolina Division of Soil and Water Conservation. In 1999, county -based representatives of each of the above -named
organizations were asked to collect yield data and make a reasoned judgement of the yields for various crops on each of the soils
occurring in their county. These data were collected from 87 responses, representing 93 counties. The data were then compared
with available research data and intensively reviewed by a panel of field agronomists, soil scientists and researchers familiar with the
soils, crops and climatic conditions in each region. In reviewing the data, the following assumptions were made:
1. Realistic Yield Expectations should be based on the average of the best 3 years in a 5 year period which could be achieved with
a high level of management (top 20% of growers)
2. For soils that may be mapped in multiple regions or in slightly different landscapes (for example, flood plains or stream
terraces), the Realistic Yields are based on the most common prevailing conditions for that soil rather than the most ideal site
for agricultural production.
3. For soils that are Somewhat. Poorly, Poorly, or Very Poorly Drained, effectiveartificial drainage MUST be in place to achieve the
yields shown in the RYE tables.
4. For tobacco production in the Piedmont physiographic, irrigation was assumed to be available, whereas no irrigation was
assumed in the Coastal Plain physiographic region. This is in accordance with numerous surveys which show less than 15%
-20% of tobacco in the Coastal Plain is irrigated, while 70 to 80% of tobacco in the Piedmont receives some irrigation
Citation: North Carolina Interagency Nutrient Management Committee. 2014. Realistic yields and nitrogen application factors for
North Carolina crops. http://yields,soil.ncsu.edu North Carolina State University, North Carolina Department of Agriculture and
Consumer Services, North Carolina Department of Environment and Natural Resources, Natural Resources Conservation Service.
Raleigh NC.
To access the database:
• Select a county from the drop down menu below. Wait for list of soils.
• Select your soil
• Correct for slope by using the slope reportedin the soil survey database or by entering the slope you measured in the field
A report will be generated showing a summary of currently available data for the county and soil you selected.
Need help determing the soil to select? You can use our map version of the RYE database, located at: httD://oo.ncsu.edu/yields
Additional Guidance for speciality crops can be found at: htto://nutrients.soil.ncsu.edu/crops/
Select Your County
Select Your Soil
Correct for Slope
Harnett
v
FuB: Fuquay gravelly loamy sand, 0 to 6 percent slopes
GaA: Gilead loamy sand, 0 to 2 percent slopes
GaB: Gilead loamy sand, 2 to 8 percent slopes
n
O Use Representative Slope Typical of the Soil Mapunit
O Use my slope
Submit
0
Reset
http://yields.soil.ncsu.edu/index.php 10/30/2015

Nutrient Management in North Carolina Page 2 of 2
Realistic Yields for FaB: Fuquay loamy sand, 0 to 6 percent slopes in Harnett
County
Crop
Barley (Grain)
Corn (Grain)
Realistic Estimated Phosphorus
Nitrogen Nitrogen Removal
Yield Factor Rate (Ibs/acre) (Ibs P205/acre)
54 Bushels 1.58 85 21
102 Bushels 1.02 104 45
Corn (Silage) 0 Tons
11.8 0
Cotton 675 Pounds 0.112 76 20
Sorghum (Silage)
Oats (Grain)
0 Tons 8.3 , 0 0
68 Bushels 1.27 ' 86 17
Peanuts 2900 Pounds 0 0 16
Rye (Grain)
40 Bushels 2.32 93 13
Small Grain (Silage)
6.5 Tons 12,2 79 35
Sorghum (Grain)
40 CWT 1.94 78 30 .
Soybeans (Double Cropped)
25 Bushels 0 0 20
Soybeans (Full Season)
' 30 Bushels 0 0 24
Soybeans (Double Cropped - Manured) 25 Bushels 3.98 100 20.
Soybeans (Full Season - Manured) 30 Bushels - 3.98 119 24
Tobacco (Burley)
0 Pounds 0.06 0 0
Tobacco (Flue Cured) .2600 Pounds 0.038 99 13
Triticale (Grain)
56 Bushels 1.6 90 19
Tropical Corn (Silage)
0 Tons .7.1 0 0
Wheat (Grain) - 40 Bushels 2.32 93 • 20
Bahiagrass (Hay)
4 Tons 49 196 46
Caucasion/Old World Bluestem (Hay)
4.5 Tons 49 221 54
Common Bermudagrass (Hay)
4 Tons 49. 196 48
Dallisgrass (Hay)
4 Tons 49 196 52
Fescue (Hay)
1.5 Tons 49 74 24
,Hybrid Bermudagrass (Hay)
5.5 Tons 49 270 68
Hybrid Bermudagrass overseeded with Rescuegrass 5.5 Tons 49 270 75
(Hay)
Mixed Cool Season Grass (Hay)
1 Tons 49 49 14
Orchardgrass (Hay) ,
1 Tons - 49 . 49 15 .
Pearl Millet (Hay)
5 Tons 54 270 67
Rescuegrass (Hay)
2 Tons 49 98 23
Sorghum Sudan (Hay)
4;5 Tons 54. 243 63
Timothy Grass (Hay)
0 Tons _ 49 0 Q
Dr. David Crouse is responsible for the development and maintenance of the Realistic Yield reporting tool.
http://yields.soil.ncsu.edu/index.php 10/30/2015

, , .
0 — Is \frizs . ape 66trE,
56-1/ Di,- 0 ir74
Mr -
z 1 F-0-1 Lcri.p.) C-- / 0 6/4 c 0 D 1
_A-
- 6 / a .13/4/ ) A LILL_FigLa_S ')
Cu a,n
Pf&-r°
hill?\'' .....-

`
---•
•-•
„
' '
_1 '
•,
•-., ,
.
''',.\
.-
\
-. !•
- - :•
', \ —
\ ..
•
:4'
•• ...
.; '... • ''-‘.,
.
:
_
.
- -
.
... -_,.
-..
/
'
_ .-..... _ .
.
.
.
4
.
.
• ,k- 7;.
:-..'. :
' -.;4- • .-17•).-'•-:-
.
1-
„ - • --'
- -1,:. I-, i•--7 .1A'.:•, ,
.
-- 1
-:"••
,.....\;\C--'•
1
•...
— •;,;;;•,-
:,i: -,.
_
.....
-
. .
.. - -- ---------•-• ---
...
.
.
. _.
•
.
.
. , -.
. _
( ' ' , • ,,
'. _,F,-.5....•,- ?—i V...LL.
.^.
_
_
. .
- --.
..---
-
i
,....
- ' ..-.-
,....
_....‘
.
;
•
. ..•
7-1
r---- --•„._
.1.
.. -.. ... - '-'-i.i
• i., .
.
,
_.._.,
, .. .•
.. :
.t. i,'...-,.; , .,
.
.
, .
.. . _
•
..-
,.
.
i .4:.
...
:i'...
f
.
1
_
.
_
e......—...--......
a
d .
_ . .
.
.
_ .
.

'arcelViewer: Powered By Freeance 5:4.1.6370 - TDC Group'Inc.
freeance
14.
Pk
r..
Map Tool Options.
The current cursor mode is set to 'Select/Identify'. Click on a map feature to select it. Clicking on a map feature that has already been
selected will unselect. Dragging on the map will create a window that selects multiple features. Use the drag select for better
accuracy when selecting points: The selectable theme can be set to the right.
Page 1-Of ]
Mapping
Search
Show All Selections
Selection Options Clea
Zoom to selected map feature
Selected Parcels Feature
_ Parcel. Identification
545-16=3 43:000
[ParcelNumber] 01054 0034
[REID] 0038740 ; -
Owner lnformation
[AccountNumber]
1500015811 . .
[Name1] ' .
BRINKLEY WILLIE C
[Name2]
[Addressl]
85 BRINKLEY LN:
[Address2]
[Address3]
[City]'
CAMERON
[State] . . -
NC -
[ZipCode]
28326
Assessment Data . .
[ParcelBu i ld i ngValuel
[ParcelObxfValuel . ' -
[ParcelLandValue] 178070 •
[TotalAssessedValue]: 41730 •
Property Information
[StreetDirection] .
[UnitNumber] -
[HouseNumber] .
[StreetName] . ELLIOTT BRIDGE
[StreetType] RD ..
[StreetSuffix] . "
• ' Legal Desclption
[LegalDescription].' TR#3 BESSIE H YOUNC
ST PC#F-400B
egalLandUni -1 0:86-ir • . .
9.7836,t4
Structure Data
[ActualYearBuilt] . •
[rota IAc u to (Area H eate d]
Sales Information
eedPag2.1 0331''
(DeedDate] 2015-05=20 200006:J
[SaleYear] 2015
[SalePrice] . 1895000
Parce Links
Zoning Overlay
Soils Overlay '
PRC
010545 0034
010545 0034 :
010545 0034
Site Information -
Active Tool: Select Feature•
[ttp://gistoolbox.harnett.org/Freeance/client/PublicAccess l %index.html?appconfig=102-
10/22/201 _`

arcelViewer: Powered. ByFreeance'5..4.1.6370 - TDC Groiip Inc. Page 1-of 1
freeance :Y
ceadarrrs ..
Map Tool Options. . . . . . ,
The current cursor mode is set to 'Select/Identify'. Click on a map feature to'select it. Clicking on a map feature that has already been
selected will unselect: Dragging on the map will create a window that'selects multiple features. Use the drag select for better
'accuracy whenselecting points. The selectable theme can be set to the right. . .
ittp://gistoolbox.harnett.orgiFreeance/Client/PublicAccessl/index.htrnl?appconf g=102
Map Layer:
Mode: :
4,
.. Mapping Search
Show All Selections
Selection Options . Cleai
Zoom to selected map feature
Selected Parcels Feature
Parcel Identification
PIN*;+
1/$35=79=8956 000
010545 0006
[ParcelNumber]
[REID]
0002130
Owner Information
[AccountNumber] .
[Name1] '
1500017208",
BRINKLEY WILLIE C
.
[Name2]
[Addressl]
85 BRINKLEY•LN:
[Addressl].
[Address3] .
[City] .
CAMERON
[State]
NC '
[ZipCode]
28326
. Assessment
Data
[ParcelBuildingValue]-
[ParcelObxfValue]
[ParcelLandValue]
158490
[TOtalAssessedValue]
21370 '
Property Information
[StreetDirection]
.
[UnitNumber] .
[HouseNumber]
[StreetName] . '
ELLIOTT BRIDGE
[StreetType]' -
RD
[StreetSuffix]
..
' Legal Desciption
[LegalDescription].' '
- '
74.07AC BEASLEY
PC#C-123C
LegaUUanilUnits])..
74.07a7
Le aL n T e ' '
IS Ca]c.Acres, ` •
Y4�rr
7 8' 44.7
[PlatBookl' '
-
[PlatPage] .. :. .
Structure Data -
[ActualYearBuilt]' . '•
[rotalAcuta lAreaH eated]
Sales Information
ee onk] .
033347.i
L ee _ g
r0739- •
r ei eiDa el
0 5:08=25,20 00s00
2015- .
SaleYearj,
[SalePrice] ;
268000.
Parcel
Links -
Zoning Overlay .
010545 0006
Soils Overlay . '
010545 0006
PRC
010545 0006
Site information
Active Tool: Select Feature
Parcels
Point/Box v
10/22/201 5

Map Unit Description: Blaney loamy sand, 2 to 8 percent slopes ---Harnett County, North Carolina
Harnett County, North Carolina
BnB—Blaney loamy sand, 2 to 8 percent slopes
'Map Unit Setting
National map unit symbol: 3snx
Elevation: 160 to 660 feet
Mean annual precipitation: 38 to 52 inches
Mean annual air temperature: 61 to 70 degrees F
Frost -free period: 210 to 245 days
Farmland classification: Farmland of statewide importance
Map Unit Composition
Blaney and similar soils: 90 percent
Estimates are based on observations, descriptions, and transects of the
mapunit.
Description of Blaney
Setting
Landform: Low hills
Landform position (two-dimensional): Summit
Landform position (three-dimensional): Crest
Down -slope shape: Convex
Across -slope shape: Convex
Parent material: Sandy and loamy marine deposits
Typical profile
A - 0 to 4 inches: loamy sand
E - 4 to 25 inches: loamy sand
Bt - 25 to 62 inches: sandy clay loam
C - 62 to 80 inches: loamy coarse sand
Properties and qualities
Slope: 2 to 8 percent
Depth to restrictive feature: More than 80 inches
Natural drainage class: Well drained
Runoff class: Medium
Capacity of the most limiting layer to transmit water (Ksat):
Moderately high (0.20 to 0.57 in/hr)
Depth to water table: More than 80 inches
Frequency of flooding: None
Frequency of ponding: None
Available water storage in profile: Low (about 4.0 inches)
Interpretive groups
Land capability classification (irrigated): None specified
Land capability classification (nonirrigated): 3s
Hydrologic Soil Group: C
USDA Natural Resources Web Soil Survey 10/30/2015
Conservation Service National Cooperative Soil Survey Page 1 of 2

Map Unit Description: Blaney loamy sand, 2 to 8 percent slopes --Harnett County, North Carolina
Ecological site: Loamy Summit Woodland - PROVISIONAL
(F137XY002GA)
Data Source Information
Soil Survey Area: Harnett County, North Carolina
Survey Area Data: Version 12, Sep 29, 2015
USDA Natural Resources Web Soil Survey
Conservation Service National Cooperative Soil Survey
10/30/2015
Page 2 of 2

Nutrient Management in North Carolina
e
Page 1 of 2
Realistic Yield Expectations for North Carolina Soil's
The North Carolina Realistic Yield Database is the product of an extensive data gathering and review process conducted by NC State
University, the Natural Resource Conservation Service, the North Carolina Department of Agriculture and Consumer Services, and
the North Carolina Division of Soil and Water Conservation. In 1999, county -based representatives of each of the above -named
organizations were asked to collect yield data and make a reasoned judgement of the yields for various crops on each of the soils
occurring in their county. These data were collected from 87 responses, representing 93 counties. The data were then compared
with available research data and intensively reviewed by a panel of field agronomists, soil scientists and researchers familiar with the
soils, crops and climatic conditions in each region. In reviewing the data, the following assumptions were made:
1. Realistic Yield Expectations should be based on the average of the best 3 years in a 5 year period which could be achieved with
a high level of management (top 20% of growers)
2. For soils that may be mapped in multiple regions or in slightly different landscapes (for example, flood plains or stream
terraces), the Realistic Yields are based on the most common prevailing conditions for that soil rather than the most ideal site
for agricultural production.
3. For soils that are Somewhat Poorly, Poorly, or Very Poorly Drained, effective artificial drainage MUST be in place to achieve the
yields shown in the RYE tables.
4. For tobacco production in the Piedmont physiographic, irrigation was assumed to be available, whereas no irrigation was
assumed in the Coastal Plain physiographic region. This is in accordance with numerous surveys which show less than 15%
- -20% of tobacco in the Coastal Plain is irrigated, while 70 to 80% of tobacco in the Piedmont receives some irrigation
Citation: North Carolina Interagency Nutrient Management Committee. 2014. Realistic yields and nitrogen application factors for
North Carolina crops. http://yields.soil.ncsu.edu North Carolina State University, North Carolina Department of Agriculture and
Consumer Services, North Carolina Department of Environment and Natural Resources, Natural Resources Conservation Service.
Raleigh NC.
To access the database:
• Select a county from the drop down menu below. Wait for list of soils.
• Select your soil
• Correct for slope by using the slope reported in the soil survey database or by entering the slope you measured in the field
A report will be generated showing a summary of currently available data for the county and soil you selected.
Need help determing the soil to select? You can use our map version of the RYE database, located at: http://cio.ncsu.edu/vields
Additional Guidance for speciality crops can be found at: http://nutrients.soil.ncsu.edu/crops/
Select Your County
Select Your Soil
Correct for Slope
l
Harnett
v
BnD: Blaney loamy sand, 8 to 15 percent slopes
CaB: Candor sand, 0 to 8 percent slopes
CaD: Candor sand, 8 to 15 percent slopes - .
O Use Representative Slope Typical of the Soil Mapunit
0 Use my slope
Submit
0
Reset
r
http://yields.soil.ncsu.edu/index.php 10/30/2015

• Nutrient Management in North Carolina
w
Page 2 of 2
Realistic Yields for BnB: Blaney loamy sand, 2 to 8 percent slopes in Harnett
County
Crop
Realistic Estimated Phosphorus
Nitrogen Nitrogen Removal
Yield Factor Rate (Ibs/acre) (Ibs P2O5/acre)
Barley (Grain) 45 Bushels 1.58 71 17
Corn (Grain) 74 Bushels 1.02 76 33
Corn (Silage)
0 Tons 11.8 0 0
Cotton 499 Pounds 0.112 56 14
Sorghum (Silage)
0 Tons 8.3 0 0
Oats (Grain) 57 Bushels 1.27 72 14
Peanuts 1995 Pounds 0 0 11
Rye (Grain)
33 Bushels 2.32 77 11
Small Grain (Silage)
5.7 Tons 12.2 70 31
Sorghum (Grain)
29 CWT 1.94 55 21
Soybeans (Double Cropped) 20 Bushels 0 0 16
Soybeans (Full Season)
' 24 Bushels 0 0 19
Soybeans (Double Cropped - Manured) 20 Bushels 3.98 79 16
Soybeans (Full Season - Manured) 24 Bushels 3.98 95 19
Tobacco (Burley)
0 Pounds 0.06 0 0
Tobacco (Flue Cured)
2090 Pounds 0.038 79 10
Triticale (Grain)
47 Bushels 1.6 74 15
Tropical Corn (Silage) 0 Tons
7.1 0
Wheat (Grain) 33 Bushels 2.32 77 17
Bahiagrass (Hay)
3:6 Tons 49 175 41
Caucasion/Old World Bluestem (Hay)
3.8 Tons 49 186 45
Common Bermudagrass (Hay)
3.6 Tons 49 175 43
Dallisgrass (Hay)
3.6 Tons 49 175 47
Fescue (Hay) 1.4 Tons 49 70 22
Hybrid Bermudagrass (Hay)
4.8 Tons 49 233 58
Hybrid Bermudagrass overseeded with Rescuegrass 5 Tons 49 244 68
(Hay)
Mixed Cool Season Grass (Hay)
1 Tons 49 47 13
Orchardgrass (Hay).
1 Tons 49 47 141
Pearl Millet (Hay)
4.3 Tons 54 231 57
Rescuegrass (Hay)
1.9 Tons 49 93 , 21
Sorghum Sudan (Hay)
3.8 Tons 54 205 53
Timothy Grass (Hay)
0 Tons 49 0 0
Dr. David Crouse is responsible for the development and maintenance of the Realistic Yield reporting tool.
http://yields.soil.ncsu.edu/index.php 10/30/2015

t
Barber, Jim
From: Barber, Jim
Sent: Wednesday, July 09, 2014 3:20 PM
To: 'Mendez, Richard'
Subject: RE: Tom Brooks: Field 2-7
Richard;
Thanks for the response. I will put -this email in my staff report and the Division will drop field 2-7. Hopefully this is the
only item that needs to be addressed during the review process. If additionalinformation is needed, central office
permitting will send a letter or email to MacConnell & Associates to address any deficiencies.
Jim Barber
From:. Mendez, Richard [mailto:[e-mail]]
Sent: Wednesday, July 09, 2014 6:30 AM
To: Barber, Jim
Subject: RE: Tom Brooks: Field 2-7
Jim it seems to me that option 1 would be the best choice.
I don't see much available land after the new buffers.
Original Message ,
From: Barber, Jim[mailto:jim.barberc2Zncdenr.gov]
Sent: Tue 7/8/2014 5:36 PM
To: Mendez, Richard I
Cc: [e-mail]; Honeycutt, Tony; Henson, Belinda; Goodrich, David
Subject: Tom Brooks: Field 2-7
Richard;
Attached is the S&ME buffer map for field 2-7 (McCormick Farms - Tom Brooks) along Hwy 210. With this map is a photo from
Google Earth that indicates what the buffers .need to be today with respect to the new apartments constructed to the north of field 2-7.
As you can see, a considerable acreage is lost due to the new apartments. Please review the information provided and determine which
course of action you wish to take concerning this field. The following are options for Spring Lake to consider:
1). Drop this field from the program;
2). Re -draw the buffer map for this field and submit to the Division for consideration;
Please respond as soon as possible with an email as to which option you wish to pursue so I can finalize my staff report and send your
decision to the permitting staff person working on your permit renewal.
With respect to the Willie Brinkley field (3-2) behind his home; since he is the owner of the land application field and the home, the
400' buffer is not required and rule .1'108 (2) is applicable. Tony and I spoke with Mr. Brinkley Monday When we visited his property
off of Hwy 87. Mr. Brinkley indicated that field 3-2 "is currently awaiting a zoning hearing to determine if the proposed buyer can
develop the property as they wish before finalizing the land purchase. If the property is purchased after the permit is renewed, please
be aware that a new landowner certification form will be needed for future land application (if allowed) and a 400' buffer will be
needed to Mr. Brinkley's home. If the land is sold and no land application is to take place, please contact the Division by letter
removing any and all fields impacted due to the sale of Mr. Brinkley's property.
Thanks
1

Jim Barber
•
Environmental Engineer
NCDENR-DWR-APS
Fayetteville Regional Office
910-433-3340 voice
910-486-0707 fax
j [e-mail]<mailto: j im. [e-mail]>
E-mail correspondence to and from this address may be subject to the North Carolina Public Records Law and maybe disclosed to
third parties.
P Go Green! Print this email only wlien necessary. Thank you for helping NCDENk be environmentally responsible.
*******************
}
2

Division of Water Resources
State of North Carolina
Department of Environmental Quality
Division of Water Resources
WATER QUALITY REGIONAL OPERATIONS SECTION
NON -DISCHARGE APPLICATION REVIEW REQUEST FORM
December 14, 2015
To: SRO WQROS:_Beliilda Ilens_i_% Trent Allen
From: Troy Doby, Water Quality Permitting Section - Non -Discharge Permitting Unit
Permit Number: WQ0001086
Applicant: Town of Spring Lake
Owner Type: Municipal
Facility Name: Town of Spring Lake RLAP
Fee Category: Non -Discharge Minor
Comments/Other Information:
RECEIVEDDENRIDINR
Water Qu. I iv Regional
DEC 1 6 Z015
Operations Section
Fayetteville Regional Office
Permit Type: Land Application of Residual Solids (503)
Project Type: Major Modification
Owner in BIMS? Yes
Facility in BIMS? Yes
Fee Amount: $245 - Major Modification
Attached, you will find all information submitted in support of the above -referenced application for your review,
comment, and/or action. Within 45 calendar days, please take the following actions:
® Return this form completed.
❑ Attach an Attachment B for Certification.
• Return a completed staff report.
❑ Issue an Attachment B Certification.
When you receive this request form, please write your name and dates in the spaces below, make a copy of this sheet, and
return it to the appropriate Central Office Water Quality Permitting Section contact person listed above. ,
RO-WQROS Reviewer:
Date: '2144
FORM: WQROSNDARR 09-15 Page of l