19910667 Ver 1_COMPLETE FILE_19910202

r a
M SrArt
State of North Carolina
Department of Environment, Health, and Natural Resources
Division of Environmental Management
512 North Salisbury Street • Raleigh, North Carolina 27604
James G. Martin, Governor George T. Everett, Ph.D.
William W. Cobey, Jr., Secretary Director
January 13, 1992
Regional Offices Mr. Charles Fullwood
Asheville c/o Mr. Don Tobaben
704/251-6208 North Carolina Wildlife Resources Commission
Fayetteville 512 North Salisbury Street
919/486-1541 Raleigh, North Carolina 27604
Mooresville Dear Mr. Fullwood :
704/663-1699
Raleigh Subject: Certification Pursuant to Section 401 of the Federal
919/733-2314
Clean Water Act,
Washington Boat ramp at Baum Bridge, Hwys. 64/264
919/946-6481 Project # 91667
Wilmington Dare County
919/395-3900
Attached hereto is a copy of. Certification No. 2659 issued
919/89966--7007 7007
Win to Wildlife Resources Commission dated January 13, 1992.
If we can be of further assistance, do not hesitate to
contact us.
Sincerely,
rge T. Ever t
Attachments
cc: Wilmington District Corps of Engineers
Corps of Engineers Washington Regional Office
Washington DEM Regional Office
Mr, John. Dorney
Mr. John Parker
Central Files
P.O. Box 29535, Raleigh, North Carolina 27626-0535 Telephone [phone] / Pollution Prevention Pays
An Equal OpNrtunity Affirmative Action limployer
. %
4
NORTH CAROLINA
Dare County
CERTIFICATION
THIS CERTIFICATION is issued in conformity with the
requirements of Section 401 Public Laws 92-500 and 95-217 of the
United States and subject to the North Carolina Division of
Environmental Management Regulations in 15 NCAC 2H, Section .0500
to Wildlife Resources pursuant to an application filed on the 27
day of September, 1991 to construct a boat ramp and associated
facilities at Baum Bridge.
The Application provides adequate assurance that the
discharge of fill material into the waters of Roanoke Sound in
conjunction with the proposed boat ramp and associated facilities
in Dare County will not result in a violation of applicable Water
Quality Standards and discharge guidelines. Therefore, the State
of North Carolina certifies that this activity will not violate
Sections 301, 302, 303, 306, 307 of PL 92-500 and PL 95-217 if
conducted in accordance with the application and conditions
hereinafter set forth.
Condition(s) of Certification:
1. That the activity be conducted.in such a manner as to
prevent significant increase in turbidity outside the area
of construction or construction related discharge (increases
such that the turbidity in the Stream is 25 NTU's or less
are not considered significant).
2. Surface area of the boat ramp shall be less than or equal to
1000 square feet below MHW.
3. Wetland and water fill shall be as proposed in the CAMA
application from WRC dated September 12, 1991.
Violations of any condition herein set forth shall result in
revocation of this Certification.
This Certification shall become null and void unless the above
conditions are made conditions of the Federal Permit.
This the 13 day of January, 1992.
WQC# 2659
DIVISION OF ENVIRONMENTAL MANAGEMENT
or e T. Everett, Dir ctor
Pt.4*'
STA7r
State of North Carolina
Department of Environment, Health, and Natural Resources
Division of Environmental Management
P.O. Box 29535
Raleigh, NC 27626-0535
TELECOPY TO:
WATER QUALITY SECTION
FAX # [phone]
- 1,
FAX NUMBER:
FRONT: ( Y
. PHONE: ? ? 56g-3
NO. OF PAGES, INCLUDING COVER SHEET:
COMMENTS:
t, 6-L? /

ape,
STATE.
State of North Carolina
Department of Environment, Health, and Natural Resources
Division of Environmental Management
512 North Salisbury Street • Raleigh, North Carolina 27604
James G. Martin, Governor George T. Everett, Ph.D.
William W. Cobey, Jr., Secretary Director
December 27, 1991
Regional Offices
Asheville Mr. Charles Fullwood
704/251-6208 c/o Mr. Don Tobaben
Fayetteville N. C. Wildlife Resources Commission
919/486-1541 512 N. Salisbury Street
Mooresville Raleigh, N.C. 27604
704/663-1699
Dear Mr. Fullwood:
Raleigh
919/733-2314 Subject: Proposed Fill in Headwaters or Isolated Wetlands
Washington Boat ramp at Baum Bridge Hwys. 64/264
919/946-6481 Dare County
Wilmington Project # 91667
919/395-3900
Winston-Salem Upon review of your request for Water Quality Certification
919/896-7007 to place fill material in water and wetlands for boat ramp con-
struction at Baum Bridge in Dare County, we have.determined that
the proposed fill can be covered by General. Water Quality Certi-
fication No. 1431 issued October 16, 1980. A copy of the General
Certification is attached.
If you have any questions, please contact John Dorney
at 919/733-5083.
Sincerely,
Ge rge T. Everett
GTE:JD
WRCBAUM.1tr/d-8
Attachment
cc: Wilmington District Corps of Engineers
Corps of Engineers Washington Regional Office
Washington DEM Regional Office
Mr. John Dorney
Central Files
Division of Coastal Management, Raleigh
Bissell Associates, Inc. - Kitty Hawk
P.O. Box 29535, Raleigh, North Carolina 27626{1535 Telephone [phone] / Pollution Prevention Pay,
An Gqual Opportunity Alfinnativc Action Fmplover
..? . 1_%.
GENERAL CERTIFICATION
THIS CERTIFICATION is issued in conformity with the requirements of
Section 401, Public Laws 92-500 and 95-217 of the United States and subject
to the North Carolina Division of Environmental Management Regulations in
15 NCAC 2H, Section .0500 for the category of activity as specified below
in the waters or adjacent wetlands.
This General Certification is valid for the category of activity
concerning the construction of boat ramps, both private and government
projects, pursuant to Section 10 of the River and Harbor Act of 1899
and Section 404 of the Clean Water Act. This category of work will
be certified only in the following counties: Brunswick, New Hanover,
Pender, Onslow, Carteret, Craven, Pamlico, Beaufort, Hyde, Dare, Tyrrell,
Washington, Bertie, Hertford, Gates, Chowan, Perquimans, Pasquotank, Camden,
and Currituck, North Carolina. The State of North Carolina certifies that
this activity will not violate Sections 301, 302, 303, 306, 307 of PL
92-500 and PL 95-217 if conducted in accordance with the application and
conditions hereinafter set forth.-
Conditions of Certification:
1. That the activity be conducted in such a manner as to
prevent significant increases in turbidity outside
the area of construction or construction-related
discharge (increases of 25 NTU's or less are not
considered significant).
2. That the surface area of the boat ramp be equal to
or less than 300 square feet below the high water mark.
3. That the Director of the North Carolina Division of Environ-
mental Management may require submission of a formal application
for certification for any project of this type, if it is deemed
necessary to assure the protection of water quality standards.
Public hearings may be held for specific applications prior to
certification if deemed in the public's best interest by the
Director.
4. The applicant shall accept liability and hold the State harm-
less for any damages which may occur as a result of the activity
or if the intents of the activity are not fulfilled under this
certification.
5. That when concrete is to be placed below the mean high water (MHW)
mark, the applicant will take all reasonable measures to minimize
adverse impacts on the water quality.
Non-compliance with or violations of the terms and conditions herewith
set forth shall result in revocation of this Certification.
This the 16th day of October, 1980.
DIVISION OF ENVIRONMENTAL MANAGEMENT
Neil S. kigg, Director
WQC#1431
•y. .awli:, f..wn.n+r..srir ,...' .. g_x J.. J. wf, w.. ,
t ?? a.• ST?F q ..
RECEIVED
WASHINGTON OFFICE
+SEP 1 F mi
MILK
State of North Carolina
Department of Environment, Health and Natural Resources
Division of Coastal Management
Highway 17 South • Elizabeth City, North Carolina 27909
James G. Martin, Governor Roger N. Schecter
William W. Cobey, Jr., Secretary Director
MEMORANDUM
too
a
TO: Deborah Sawyer
FROM : M. Edward Harrell
ti
JECT: A lication for CAMA Major Permit
SUB Pp
DATE : September 12, 1991
. Attached is an application by NC Wildlife Resources Commission
which was received by me on August 27, 1991 I am considering
this application complete, have acknowledged receipt, and have
begun processing.
If you have any questions, do not hesitate to contact me.
Enclosures
Route 6 Box 203, Elizabeth City, North Carolina 27909 -Telephone [phone]
An Equal Opportunity Affirmative Action Employer

LOCATION OF PROJECT SITE West end and south side Washington Baum_
Bridge Site, adjacent Roanoke Sound. Dare County.
1. APPLICANT'S NAME North Carolina Wildlife Resources Commission
2.
3.
4.
PHOTO INDX: 1989:151-8. K-15/16; L-15/16; M-16/17; N-16/17
1984:140-503. G-15/16; H-15/16; 1-117; J-16/17
STATE PLANE COORDINATES: X: 2995800 Y: 797200
INVESTIGATION TYPE: DREDGE & FILL X CAMA X
INVESTIGATIVE PROCEDURE:
(A) DATES OF SITE VISIT 08107/91
(B) WAS APPLICANT PRESENT No
OFFICE OF COASTAL MANAGEMENT
FIELD INVESTIGATION REPORT
5. PROCESSING
6.
APPLICATION RECEIVED Aucgust 27, 1991
OFFICE Elizabeth City
SITE DESCRIPTION:
(A) LOCAL LAND USE PLAN Dare County
LAND CLASSIFICATION FROM LUP Conservation
DEVELOPMENT CONSTRAINTS IDENTIFIED IN LUP Proposed development
shall not destroy or irretrievablv alter wetlands/estuarine
waters.
(B) AEC(S) INVOLVED: OCEAN HAZARD ESTUARINE SHORELINE X
COASTAL WETLANDS X PUBLIC TRUST WATERS X
ESTUARINE WATERS X OTHER
(C) WATER DEPENDENT: YES X NO
(D) INTENDED USE: PUBLIC X PRIVATE
(E) TYPE OF WASTE WATER TREATMENT: EXISTING None
PLANNED None
(F) TYPE OF STRUCTURES: EXISTING Bridge, old bulkhead
PLANNED Bulkhead, finder viers, ramps, parkina spaces
(G) ESTIMATED ANNUAL RATE OF EROSION 31 SOURCE Applicant
7. HABITAT DESCRIPTION:
AREA
(A) VEGETATED WETLANDS DREDGED FILLED OTHER
Coastal Wetlands & 404 62127sq.ft.
(B) NON-VEGETATED WETLANDS:
Shallow water habitat
(C) OTHER:
(D) TOTAL AREA DISTURBED:
8. PROJECT SUMMARY:
COMMERCIAL
19560sq.ft.
81,687 sq. ft. (1.88 acres)
9620 s ware feet basin.

NC Wildlife Resources Commission
Bio Report
Page Two
Site Description:
The applicant has been authorized by the N.C. Department of
Transportation to develop a public boating access facility on
approximately 4 acres of DOT property at the west end and south
side of the Washington Baum Bridge site adjacent the Roanoke
Sound in Dare County. Features of this recently abandoned DOT
bridge construction site include the following:
* An 800' long by 20' wide unpaved service road runs
along the southern side of the site.
* A canal 30' - 40' wide and 4' - 6' deep is located
south of and parallels the above road. This canal is
fringed with a narrow band of vegetation consisting of
Marsh Elder (Iva frutescens), Groundsel Tree (Baccharis
halimifolia), Salt Grass (Distichlis spicata), and
Black Needlerush (Juncus roemerianus).
* About 400' of old dilapidated wooden bulkhead comprised
of round creosote pilings erected side by side exists
along the north bank of the canal.
* A portion of a sheet metal bulkhead erected at the
eastern end of the site during bridge construction has
been allowed to remain in anticipation of the site
being improved as a WRC boating access facility.
* Eleven sets of concrete pilings and rip-rap exist which
support and stabilize the western end of the 60' wide
Washington Baum Bridge.
* A natural slough about 500' long and 5' - 60' in width
extends inland off Roanoke Sound parallel to the new
bridge. This slough is surrounded by a vegetated
wetland fringe consisting of intermingled Juncus
roemerianus, Spartina patens, Scirpus spp., and
Distichlis spicata.
* A 20' wide by 25' long concrete boat ramp exists near
the mouth of the natural slough.
* The waters of the Roanoke Sound around this site are
classified SA by the Division of Environmental
Management, however these waters and adjacent waters
(from Ballast Point to a location approximately 300
yards south of the west end of the bridge) are closed
to shellfishing. Cultch material was planted under the
Washington Baum Bridge during mid-summer of 1990 and
1991.
NC Wildlife Resources Commission
Bio Report
Page Three
History of Site
The construction of the four lane, high level, fixed span
bridge authorized by LAMA Permit #79-87 was completed in March of
1991. As a result of this construction, 2.5 acres of wetlands
were filled and permanently lost. In accordance with CAMA Permit
#79-87 mitigation was to occur on a one-for-one basis with .86
acre of wetlands to be created by removal of the old roadway at
the west approach and 1.64 acres of wetlands to be created during
the next phase of highway construction, (i.e. the widening of the
3/4 mile long section of U.S. 64/264 which extends from the
western bridge approach to the Manteo/Wanchese intersection). A
memorandum of understanding between NC DOT and NC WRC setting out
the responsibility each agency would bear for completion of the
required wetlands mitigation has been submitted. In accordance
with the memorandum of understanding which was submitted as part
of NC WRC's CAMA Major Permit application, the NC DOT is to
include mitigation associated with the development.of the boating
access area as part of their comprehensive mitigation plan for
the bridge replacement and Highway 64/264 expansion.
Specific on-site work following completion of the Washington
Baum Bridge which has been held in abeyance due to the NC WRC's
intent to develop a boating access facility is as follows:
1) The cleaning up of the banks of the natural slough.
2) The reduction of the area around the slough and at the
end of the western bridge abutment to its natural
(wetlands) elevation.
3) The complete removal of the sheet metal bulkhead at the
eastern end of the property.
4) The, creation of the .86 acre of wetlands by removing
the old roadway.
Proposed Improvements
The applicant proposes the following improvements:
* Constructing approximately 1200 linear feet of
bulkhead.
* Excavating an 100' by 70' basin.
* Constructing three 14' by 40' boat ramps and two 4' by
55' finger piers.
NC Wildlife Resources Commission
Bio Report
Page Four
* Filling the natural slough, and
* Using the filled natural slough and other areas to
create paved drive aisles, 62 asphalt parking spaces,
and a paved access road.
1463 cubic yards of material would be excavated to create a
basin with a depth of -4' to -61. Existing water depths at the
end of the proposed ramp range from -6' to -10' with an average
of -8' NWL. The slough would be filled to create enough area for
the paved access road, drive aisles, and parking spaces. As
proposed the coverage by impervious surfaces is 12% of the entire
Estuarine Shoreline AEC. Approximately 3.5 acres of land would
be disturbed during construction.
There are existing public boat ramps in the Town of Manteo
and Kitty Hawk. This facility would provide an intermediate
location.
Anticipated Impacts
The permanent loss of wetlands as a result of construction
of the bridge was 2.5 acres. 1.88 additional acres of wetlands
will be permanently lost as a result of the improvements placed
for the public boating access facility. The total permanent loss
of wetlands on this site is 4.38 acres which is to be mitigated
on an one-for-one basis in accordance with the memorandum of
understanding between NC DOT and NC WRC. The plan for mitigating
the 4.38 acres of wetlands will be submitted and reviewed with
the CAMA permit application for the DOT Highway 64/264 widening
project.
CAMA Review
The Dare County land use plan expresses strong support for
access projects such as the one proposed. The County has
identified Roanoke Island as an area that is particularly lacking
in shoreline public access. The County's specific access policy
supports the "creation of public access opportunities to
estuarine waters, including opportunities for parking, boating
and pedestrian access". In addition, the proposed uses are among
those uses contemplated by Dare County to occur in estuarine
waters.
However, the proposal does anticipate significant impacts to
coastal wetlands and shallow water habitat. The County supports
the applicable LAMA use standards for both coastal wetland and
estuarine water AEC's. According to the Dare land use plan,
comments received at meetings on the plan update indicated strong
support for continued protection of the water quality of the
NC Wildlife Resources Commission
Bio Report
Page Five
County's estuarine waters. The County's policy is to "discourage
developments that have a high probability of seriously impacting
the water quality or environmental values of the estuarine
resource".
For coastal wetlands, the County feels that the first
priority of uses should be conservation of the resource, and
second is uses requiring water access such as utility easements,
piers, docks and agricultural drainage. The County's policy is
to "support reasonable efforts by federal, state and local
agencies to protect and preserve coastal wetlands". Further,
both coastal wetlands and estuarine waters are placed by Dare
County in the Conservation land classification of its land use
plan which requires that "development shall not destroy or
irretrievably alter wetlands or estuarine waters".
overall, Dare County's land use plan cautions that
development must be done in a manner that is careful of the
County's sensitive natural environment. Impacts to estuarine
waters from construction and use of the boat ramps, finger piers,
basin and parking lot must be compared by reviewing agencies
against the standard represented by the County's policies on
estuarine waters noted above. In addition, the proposed wetland
fill and specifics of mitigation, in light of alternatives
available and the project's public benefit, must be evaluated as
to whether as a whole they constitute "reasonable efforts to
protect and preserve coastal wetlands".
Submitted by: M. Edward Harrell
Date: September 10, 1991
i? N.6?
CO Oct-
ergs °?
e teA?`
ve?SJ1
c°
-699
'sr ? rg Pc
Oa°Ixee
G°as?a` S•?,?P
? tease Sa ?3'Lti9 ?`t`cav°r ,S``a??°rl
Z1 CG Q?a1``3 ??5 ? °? Pa?'o J,a`eal
?a?GG S •?a t°?,l` l?eQ `ac`,ceste4?
r? ?ti • r4
R ^?'IVED
JUL 2 0 '91
DCM
R;%beth Chy i
e A6- a?
?? GG S ? ? a`ets<cec? P`, ?,U,o?,cs Olt %0099
a? is
?a???G 5 ?6 Ao F??? 0 4ICO,$ab%e a aY'aioo
? C'' ce° • rya • e vets renal
?
?` e?
,No-,o v a\
04 Co c??oE ??????
?r C ?e,4 s a?a
oG
oosNN °t`?` Se¢' ?llw
60? 100
Sedo 9?ea?ot`?e o`?a
crac??a?ets e?ea eCO
CIO ct
Please type or print. Carefully describe all anticipated
development activities, including construction, excava-
tion, filling, paving, land clearing, and stormwater con-
trol. If the requested information is not relevant to your
project, write N/A (not applicable). Items 1-4 and 8-9
must be completed for all projects.
1 APPLICANT
a. Name Bissell Associates, Inc.
Address P. 0. Drawer 1068
City Kitty Hawk State NC
Zip 27949 Day phone [phone]
Landowner or Authorized agent
b. Project name (if any) WRC Roanoke Island
Boat Launch Facility
c. If the applicant is not the landowner, also give the
owner's name and address.
NC Wildlife Resources Commission
Attn: Don Tobaben
512 N. Salisbury St.
Raleigh, NC 27611
2 LOCATION OF PROPOSED
PROJECT
a. Street address or secondary road number
U.S. 64 - 264
b. City, town, community, or landmark
Roanoke Island
c. County
Dare
d. Is proposed work within city limits or planning
jurisdiction? Yes
e. Name of body of water nearest project
Roanoke Sound
3 DESCRIPTION AND PLANNED USE
OF PROPOSED PROJECT
If you plan to build a marina, also complete and
attach Form DCM-MP-2.
b. Is the proposed activity maintenance of an
existing project, new work, or both?
New work
c. Will the project be for community, private, or
commercial use?
Public use
d. Describe the planned use of the project.
Public recreational boating access
4 LAND AND WATER
CHARACTERISTICS
a. Size of entire tract -Approximately 4 acres
b. Size of individual lot(s) N/A
c. Elevation of tract above mean sea level or
National Geodetic Vertical Datum!
+ 3,
d. Sol type(s) and texture(s) of tract
FfIl
e. Vegetation on tract None
f. Man-made features now on tract Delapidated
bulkhead, service road, bridge pi ings
g. What is the CAMA Land Use Plan Classification of
the site? (Consult the local land use plan.)
X Conservation Transitional
_ Developed Community
_ Rural Other
h. How is the tract zoned by local government?
S-1
i. How are adjacent waters classified?
SA
a. Describe all development activities you propose (for j, Has a professional archaeological survey been
example, building a home, motel, marina, bulkhead, carried out for the tract? No If so, by whom7
or pier).
Bulkhead, boat ramp, parking, basin
5 UPLAND DEVELOPMENT
Complete this section if tare project includes any land
development.
a. 'Type and number of buildings, facilities, or
structures proposed None
1r. Number of lots or parcels N/A
c. Density (Give the number of residential units and the
units per acre.) N/A
d. Size of area to be graded or disturbed
± 3.5 acres
e. If the proposed project will disturb more than one
acre of land, the Division of Land Resources must
receive an erosion and sedimentation control plan at
least 30 days before land disturbing activity begins.
If applicable, has a sedimentation and erosion
control plan been submitted to the Division of Land
Resources? Yes
f. Give the percentage of the tract within 75 feet of
mean high water to be covered by impermeable
surfaces, such as pavement, buildings, rooftops.
12%
g. List the materials, such as marl, paver stone, asphalt,
or concrete, to be used for paved surfaces.
Asphalt- and Concrete
It. If applicable, has a stonnwater management plan
been submitted to the Division of Environmental
Management? Yes
i. Describe proposed sewage disposal and/or waste
water treatment facilities.
None
j. Ilave these facilities received state or local approval?
N/A
k. Describe existing treatment facilities.
None
1. Describe location and type of discharges to waters of
the state (for example, surface runoff, sanitary
wastewater, industrial/com?nercial effluent, "wash
down"). Surface runoff' per storm water
-fflanaeemsnt nian
in. Water supply source None
n. If the project is oceanfront development, describe
the steps that will be taken to maintain established
public beach accessways or provide new access.
N/A
o. If the project is on the oceanfront, what will be the
elevation above mean sea level of the first habitable
floor? N/A
6 EXCAVATION AND FILL
INFORMATION
a. Describe below the purpose of proposed excavation
or fill activities'(excluding bulkheads, which are
covered in Section 7).
Length Width Depth
Access channel (MLW) or (NWL)
Boat basin
Other (break-
water, pier,
boat rarrp,
rock jetty)
Fill placed in
wetland or below
MIIW
Upland fill
areas

1-30' 70' -)1' to
_61
55'
110' 4'
14' ;wo pier
hree ra
380'
- 501
-
L- -
lips
b. Amount of material to be excavated from below
water level in cubic yards _ 1.1125
c. Type of material Sand
d. Does the area to be excavated include marshland,
swamps, or other wetlands?
No
e. high ground excavation, in cubic yards
1,033 C.Y.
L Dimensions of spoil disposal area
115' X 45'
g. Location of spoil disposal area _ Adjacent to
area to be excavated
h. Do you claim title to the disposal area? Yes
If not, attach a letter granting permission from the
owner.
Will a disposal area be available for future
maintenance? Yes
Ifso,where? Open space on plat. (Labeled
"Green Area")
Does the disposal area include any marshland,
swamps, or water areas?
No
k. Will the fill material be placed below mean high
water? Yes
1. Amount of fill in cubic yards 1,753 C.Y.
in. Type of fill material
Sand
n. Source of fill material From site
Will fill material be placed on marsh or other
wetlands? Yes
p. Dimensions of the wetland to be filled
380' X 50'
q. flow will excavated or fill material be kept on site
and erosion controlled?
Fill material will be placed behind
bulkhead, silt fence will be employed
as needed around spoil disposal area
r. What type of construction equipment will be used
(for example, dragline, backhoe, or hydraulic
dredge)? Drag line, bulldozer, front
end loader, paving machine
s. Will wetlands be crossed in transporting equipment
to project site? No If yes, explain steps that will
be taken to lessen environmental impacts.
7 SHORELINE STABILIZATION
a. Length of bulkhead or riprap 1,085'
c. Shoreline erosion during preceding 12 months, in
feet 2 - 4'
d. Type of bulkhead material Wood
e. Amount of fill, in cubic yards, to be placed below
mean high water 844 C.Y.
f. Type of fill material
Sand
8 ADDITIONAL INFORMATION
In addition to the completed application form, the follow-
ing items must be submitted:
A copy of the deed (with state application only) or other
instrument under which the applicant claims title to the
affected property. If the applicant is not claiming to be
the owner of said property, then forward a copy of the
decd or other instrument under which the owner claims
title, plus written permission from the owner to carry out
the project.
An accurate work plat (including plan view and cross
sectional drawings) drawn to scale in black ink on an 8
1/2 x I 1 white paper. (Refer to Coastal Resources
Commission Rule 7J.0203 for a detailed description.)
Please note that original drawings are preferred and
only high quality copies will be accepted. Blue-line
prints or other larger plats are acceptable only if 16 high
quality copies are provided by applicant. (Contact the
U.S. Army Corps of Engineers regarding that agency's
use of larger drawings.) A site or location map is a part
of plat requirements and it must be sufficiently detailed
to guide agency personnel unfamiliar with the area to the
site. Include county road (SR) numbers, landmarks, and
the like.
A storinwaler management plan, if applicable, that
may have been developed in consultation with the
Division of Environmental Management.
A list of the names and complete addresses of the ad-
jacent waterfront (riparian) landowners. These in-
dividuals have 30 days in which to submit comments on
the proposed project to the Division of Coastal Manage-
ment and should be advised by the applicant of that op-
portunity.
b. Average distance waterward of mean high water or
nonnal water level 7'
Nairre -Mr- 'Pommy Peacock, N.C.U.O.T.
Address P. 0. Box z5?0
l---- - -- --
Raleigh, NC 27611
Name
Address
Name
Address
9 CERTIFICATION AND PERMISSION
TO ENTER ON LAND
_Mr. Ker mi.t Skinner. Man_Leo Town Mgr.Any pennit issued in response to (his application will
_P. O. 13ox 2r1_6 _ allow only the development described in the application.
Manteo, _NC 27954 - 'llrc project will be subject to conditions and restrictions
contained in the pennit.
A list of previous slate or federal permits issued for
«•ork on the project tract. Include permit numbers,
pcrn?ittee, and issuing dates.
None
A check for $100 made payable to the 1)cpartnrcnt of
Natural Resources and ('ommunily 1)evclopnrcnl to
cover the costs of processing the application.
A signed AEC hazard nalice for projects in oceanfront
and inlet areas.
A slalenrent on file use of public funds. If the project
involves the expenditure of public Funds, attach a state-
ment documenting compliance with the North Carolina
1-nviroruncnlal Policy Act (N.C.(i.S. 113A-I to 10).
I certify that to the best of my knowledge, the proposed
activity complies with the Stale of North Carolina's ap-
proved ('oastal Management Program and will be con-
ducted in a mamrcr consistent with such program.
1 further certify 111,11 1 am authorized to grant, and do it,
fact, grant permission to representatives of state and
federal review agencies to enter on the aforernenlioned
lands in connection Willi evaluating information related
to INS permit application and follow-up monitoring of
project.
This is f? ',ysdayof_d-- , 19??.
X?_t 2?c A 'fit Q?L?tJcZ
Landowner or Authorized agent
Revised 7-17-91.
It;em, 3(a) and 6(i.), per letter dated
7-15-91 from Mr. Edward Ilarrell of
1)i-vision of Coastal Management.
If- /; .
Ro ert Stewart, Authorized lent -?
} O 4
RECEIVED
WASHINGTON OFFICE
SEP
A E
State of North Carolina
Department of Environment, Health and Natural Resources
Division of Coastal Management
Highway 17 South • Elizabeth City, North Carolina 27909
James G. Martin, Governor
William W. Cobey, Jr., Secretary
September 12, 1991
Coastland Times
Legal Advertisement Section
P. O. Box 428
Manteo, NC 27954
Roger N. Schecter
Director
Re: NC WILDLIFE RESOURCES COMMISSION PROJECT
Dear Sir:
Please publish the attached Notice in the Thursday,
September 19, 1991, issue of the Coastland Times.
The State Office of Budget and Management requires an
original Affidavit of Publication prior to payment for newspaper
advertising. Please send the affidavit, an original copy of the
published notice, and an original invoice to Dedra Blackwell,
Division of Coastal Management, P. O. Box 27687, Raleigh, North
Carolina 27611.
Thank you for your assistance in this matter. If you should
have any questions, please contact me at our Elizabeth City
office.
,S-incerely,
David R. Griffin
District Manager
DRG/kw
Enclosure
cc: John Parker
Dedra Blackwell
File
Route 6 Box 203, Iaizaheth City, North Carolina 27909 Telephone [phone]
An Fqual Opportunity Affirmative Action Fmployer
ti Y
NOTICE OF FILING OF
APPLICATION FOR CAMA MAJOR DEVELOPMENT
PERMIT AND WATER QUALITY CERTIFICATION
The Department of Environment, Health and Natural Resources
hereby gives public notice as required by NCGS 113A-119(b) and
143-215 3(a)(1)(c) that NC WILDLIFE RESOURCES COMMISSION of Dare
county, filed an application on August 27, 1991, for a permit
from the Division of Coastal Management to develop in an Area of
Environmental Concern and for certification from the Division of
Environmental Management that a discharge of fill material in
project wetlands will not violate applicable water quality
standards.
According to said application NC WILDLIFE RESOURCES
COMMISSION proposes to construct three boat ramps, two finger
piers, parking lot with 62 parking spaces, and excavate 9620
square feet basin. The property is located at the west end and
south side Washington Baum Bridge Site, adjacent Roanoke Sound,
Dare County.
A copy of the entire application and additional information
may be examined (or copies furnished upon request and payment of
reproduction costs) during normal business hours at the office of
M. Edward Harrell, Division of Coastal Management, located at the
Division of Coastal Management, 1367 US 17 South, Elizabeth City,
N.C., 919/264-3901, and/or the office of Deborah Sawyer, Division
of Environmental Management, NRCD Regional Field Office,
Washington, N.C., [phone].
The Division of Environmental Management proposes to take
final action on this water quality certification on or before
October 14, 1991. The issuance of the CAMA Major Development
permit and the Section 401 Certification may deviate from this
projected date .depending upon the nature of the comments
submitted and subsequent hearings that may result.
All persons desiring to make comments should do so in
writing to Roger Schecter, Director, Division of Coastal
Management, P.O. Box 27687, Raleigh, N.C., 27611, prior to
October 9, 1991 for consideration in the LAMA permit decision,
and to Mr. Bill Mills, Division of Environmental Management, P.O.
Box 27687, Raleigh, N.C., 27611, prior to October 4, 1991 for
consideration in the water quality certification decision. Later
comments on the CAMA application will be accepted and considered
up to the time of permit decision. Project modifications may
occur based on review and comment by the public and state and
federal agencies. Notice of the permit decision in this matter
will be provided upon request.
PUBLISHED ON: THURSDAY, SEPTEMBER 19, 1991
a.s STA7£°?
State of North Carolina
Department of Environment, Health, and Natural Resources
Division of Environmental Management
P.O. Box 29535
Raleigh, NC 27626-0535
WATER QUALITY SECTION
FAX # [phone]
TELECOPY TO:

FAX NUMBER:
(1 ° ?iq-,q&l- 1?60
FROM: -7-b 4 pt
NO. OF PAGES, INCLUDING COVEY SHEET:
COMMENTS: OL /VP
So a
PHONE: 733
3
DEPARTMENT OF THE ARMY
WILMINGTON DISTRICT, CORPS OF ENGINEERS
P.O. BOX 1890
WILMINGTON, NORTH CAROLINA 28402-1890
September 24, 1991
IN HEF'LY HthtH IU
Regulatory Branch
Action ID. 199103312
Mr. John Dorney
Water Quality Section
Division of Environmental Management
North Carolina Department of Environment,
Health and Natural Resources
Post Office Box 27687
Raleigh, North Carolina 27611-7687
Dear Mr. Dorney:
S: November 2
99A
a7??/mil
Enclosed is the application of the North Carolina Wildlife Resources
Commission for Department of the Army authorization and a State Water Quality
Certification to excavate a basin, construct and backfill a bulkhead,
construct three boatramps and two finger piers and place fill material in in
wetlands on and adjacent to Roanoke Sound associated with construction of a
public recreational boating access area, Roanoke Island, Dare County, North
Carolina. Your receipt of this letter verifies your acceptance of a valid
request for certification in accordance with Section 325.2(b)(ii) of our
administrative regulations.
We are considering authorizing the proposed activity pursuant to Section
404 of the Clean Water Act, and we have determined that a water quality
certification may be required under the provisions of Section 401 of the same
law. A Department of the Army permit will not be granted until the
certification has been obtained or waived.
In accordance with our administrative regulations, 60 days after receipt
of a request for certification is a reasonable time for State action.
Therefore, if you have not acted on the request by November 25, 1991, the
District Engineer will deem that waiver has occurred.
Questions or comments may be addressed to Mr. Raleigh Bland, telephone
[phone].
Sincerely,
ne Wri t
1?hief, Regulatory Branch
Enclosure
r
Copies Furnished (without enclosure):
Mr. John Parker
Division of Coastal Management
North Carolina Department of
Environment, Health and
Natural Resources
Post Office Box 27687
Raleigh, North Carolina 27611-7687
Mr. David Griffin
Elizabeth City Regional Office
North Carolina Division of
Coastal Management
Route 6, Box 203
Elizabeth City, North Carolina 27909
-2-

AlDiv
ig9/o33i2
RE. CF. IIIE- O
JUL 2 0 '91
DM II
Rzabath Cfty
1
cog's
?° US`ea
s
"SO
?
e teQJ`<em
?eNiS?
c°
?Sa4Q??ca`,°r t?cot,
Nita P>>OO
C°as`a` S •?,?
G. N1
Nita?t Sa %3 Lti`? t?`C`cau°n ,Stta-Ni°rl
? G G Qva???`I ??5 °? PaR`?O va`eal
? atGG S ??30?,`? <DeQt' Niactcesie?
S`ce?a?p4
StOr" ,N(O- ?9
C G • ? attNi ?, Ni??n?' NiS pct°???
? • bye a? ??P ? ate ° fi
? C G • ' ?C c?°r ?.?a?.? ttsa° tt?a1
e?e?t
EC,oas??oE?a?.L9 - lot
a\?aa `??at
CID\
Gc pk V
? o
CorSt-" of I 4¢ 4A a
Secu° e?Niea?ot`?e ar`?a
crae??ate?s eC?t etNis
;S
'r td\ll C°?$ Nit
5 Picn`l r9?str

Please type or print. Carefully describe all anticipated
development activities, including construction, excava-
tion, filling, paving, land clearing, and stormwater con-
trol. If the requested information is not relevant to your
project, write N/A (not applicable). Items 1-4 and 8-9
must be completed for all projects.
1 APPLICANT
a. Name Bissell Associates, Inc.
Address
P. 0. Drawer 1068
City Kitty hawk State
NC
Zip 27949 Day phone [phone]
Landowner or Authorized agent
b. Project name (if any) WRC Roanoke Island
Boat Launch Facility
c. If the applicant is not the landowner, also give the
owner's name and address.
NC Wildlife Resources Commission
Attn: Don Tobaben
512 N. Salisbury St.
Raleigh, NC 27611
2 LOCATION OF PROPOSED
PROJECT
a. Street address or secondary road number
U.S. 64 - 264
b. City, town, community, or landmark
Roanoke Island
c. County
Dare
d. Is proposed work within city limits or planning
jurisdiction? Yes
e. Name of body of water nearest project
Roanoke Sound
3 DESCRIPTION AND PLANNED USE
OF PROPOSED PROJECT
a. Describe all development activities you propose (for
example, building a home, motel, marina, bulkhead,
or pier).
Bulkhead, boat ramp, parking, basin
If you plan to build a marina, also complete and
attach Form DCM-MP-2.
b. Is the proposed activity maintenance of an
existing project, new work, or both?
New work
c. Will the project be for community, private, or
commercial use?
Public use
d. Describe the planned use of the project.
Public recreational boating access
4 LAND AND WATER
CHARACTERISTICS
a. Size of entire tract Approximately 4 acres
b. Size of individual lot(s) N/A
c. Elevation of tract above mean sea level or
National Geodetic Vertical Datum.
+ 3,
d. Soil type(s) and texture(s) of tract
Fill
e. Vegetation on tract None
f. Man-made features now on tract Delapidated
bulkhead, service road, bridge pi ings
g. What is the CAMA Land Use Plan Classification of
the site? (Consult the local land use plan.)
X Conservation Transitional
_ Developed Community
Rural Other
h. How is the tract zoned by local government?
S-1
1. How are adjacent waters classified?
SA
j. Has a professional archaeological survey been
carried out for the tract? No If so, by whom?
5 UPLAND DEVELOPMENT
Complete this section if the project includes any land
development.
a. Type and number of buildings, facilities, or
structuresproposed None
b. Number of lots or parcels _ N/A
c. Density (Give the number of residential units and the
units per acre.) N/A
d. Size of area to be graded or disttrrbe(I
± 3.5 acres
e. If the proposed project will disturb more than one
acre of land, the Division of Land Resources must
receive an erosion and sedimentation control plan at
least 30 days before land disturbing activity begins.
If applicable, has a sedimentation and erosion
control plan been submitted to the Division of Land
Resources? Yes
f. Give the percentage of the tract within 75 feet of
mean high water to be covered by impermeable
surfaces, such as pavement, buildings, rooftops.
12%
g. List the materials, such as marl, paver stone, asphalt,
or concrete, to be used for paved surfaces.
Asphalt and Concrete
h. If applicable, has a stonnwater management plan
been submitted to the Division of Environmental
Management? Yes
i. Describe proposed sewage disposal and/or waste
water treatment facilities.
None
j. have these facilities received state or local approval?
N/A
k. Describe existing treatment facilities.
None
1. Describe location and type of discharges to waters of
the state (for example, surface runoff, sanitary
wastewater, industtial/comtnercial effluent, "wash
down"). Surface runoff per stot-m water
-marmeemeal`Dlan
m. Water supply source None
n. If the project is oceanfront development, describe
the steps that will be taken to maintain established
public beach accessways or provide new access.
N/A
o. If the project is on the oceanfront, what will be the
elevation above mean sea level of the first habitable
floor? N/A
6 EXCAVATION AND FILL
INFORMATION
a. Describe below the purpose of proposed excavation
or fill activities (excluding bulkheads, which are
covered in Section 7).
Length Width Depth
Access channel
(MLW) or (NWL)
Boat basin
Other (break-
water, pier,
boat ramp,
rock jetty)
Fill placed in
wetland or below
MIiW
upland fill
areas

130' 70' -11, to
-6'
55'
rIU' rl'
lr1' :wo pier,
-hree ra
380' 50'

lips
b. Amount of material to be excavated from below
water level in cubic yards _1,426 (,,-y.
c. Type of material Sand
d. Does the area to be excavated include marshland
swamps, or other wetlands?
No
e. High ground excavation, in cubic yards
1,033 C.Y.
L Dimensions of spoil disposal area
115' X 45'
g. Location of spoil disposal area Adjacent to
area to be excavated
h. Do you claim title to the disposal area? Yes
if not, attach a letter granting permission from the
owner.
i. Will a disposal area be available for future
maintenance? Yes
If so, where? Open space on plat. (Labeled
"Green Area")
j. Does the disposal area include any marshland,
swamps, or water areas?
No
k. Will the fill material be placed below mean high
water? Yes
1. Amount of rill in cubic yards 1,753 C.Y.
m. Type of fill material Sand
n. Source of fill material From site
o. Will fill material be placed on marsh or other
wetlands? Yes
p. Dimensions of the wetland to be filled
380' X 50'
q. I low will excavated or fill material be kept on site
and erosion controlled?
Fill material will be placed behind
bulkhead, silt fence will be employed
as needed around spoil disposal area
r. What type of construction equipment will be used
(for example, dragline, backhoe, or hydraulic
clrr(l ,c)? Drag line, bulldozer, front
end loader, paving machine
s. Will wetlands be crossed in transporting equipment
to project site? No If yes, explain steps that will
be taken to lessen environmental impacts.
7 SHORELINE STABILIZATION
a. Length of bulkhead or riprap 1,085'
c. Shoreline erosion during preceding 12 months, in
feet 2 - tt'
d. Type of bulkhead material Wood
e. Amount of fill, in cubic yards, to be placed below
mean high water 844 C.Y.
f. Type of fill material
Sand
8 ADDITIONAL INFORMATION
In addition to the completed application form, the follow-
ing items must be submitted:
A copy of the deed (with state application only) or other
instrument under which the applicant claims title to the
affected property. If the applicant is not claiming to be
the owner of said property, then forward a copy of the
deed or other instrument under which the owner claims
title, plus written permission from the owner to cant' out
the project.
An accurate work plat (including plan view and cross
sectional drawings) drawn to scale in black ink on an 8
1/2 x 11 white paper. (Refer to Coastal Resources
Commission Rule 7J.0203 for a detailed description.)
Please note that original drawings are preferred and
only high quality copies will be accepted. Blue-line
prints or other larger plats are acceptable only if 16 high
quality copies are provided by applicant. (Contact the
U.S. Army Corps of Engineers regarding that agency's
use of larger drawings.) A site or location map is a part
of plat requirements and it must be sufficiently detailed
to guide agency personnel unfamiliar with the area to the
site. Include county road (SR) numbers, landmarks, and
the like.
A stornimiter management plan, if applicable, that
may have been developed in consultation with the
Division of Environmental Management.
A list of the names and complete addresses of the ad-
jacent waterfront (riparian) landowners. These in-
dividuals have 30 days in which to submit comments on
the proposed project to the Division of Coastal Manage-
merit and should be advised by the applicant of that op-
portunity.
h. Average distance wateru,ard of mean high water or
normal watcrlevel 7'

Nall,c _Mr. 'tummy, Pencock, N?t:.U _0_P.
Address
_I;aleigtn, N(:__ 2'lGll
9 CERTIFICATION AND PERMISSI
TO ENTER ON LAND
~ Manic Mt-._Ker•m i t; Skinner-, Mant,co Town Mrr.Any pcnnit issued in tcsponsc to this aill)lication wi
Address `1' • 0. Box Zrlfi_ _ - allow only the development described in the applict
Mantco, NC 279511 'Illc project will be subject to conditions and restric
contained in the pcnnit.
Nanlc Address A list of previous state or federal permits issued for
work on the project tract. include pcnnit numbers,
pernlittee, and issuing dates.
None
A check for $100 nnade payable to the 1)epartrnent of
Natural Resources and Community UevelopIllent to
cover the costs of processing tine application.
A signed AF.C inlzard notice for projects in occanfmnt
and inlet areas.
A statcmlent oil the use of public funds. If the project
involves the expenditure of public Illilds, attach a state-
ment docunncnting compliance with lite Notth Carolina
Pnvironnlcntal Policy Act (N.C.(t.S. i I W I to 10).
i certify that to the hest of Illy knowledge, tile PTOP
activity complies will, the state of North Carolina'.
proved Coastal Managetnent Program and will be c
ducted in a manner consistent with such program.
i further certify that I am authorized to grant, and
fact, grant pernnission to representatives of state ar
federal review agencies to enter on the aforementii
lands in connection with evaluating information rc
to this permit application and follow-up t„onitorin
project.
This is fl-11C f day of _ Ulm . 19..!
Landowner or Authorized agent
Itrv i r,ed 7-17-91
ll;emn 3(a) and 60.), per letter daL(
7-15-91 from Mr. Edwnrd Harrel.). of
W.vision of Coastal. Management.
Ito f Stewart, Authorized ,en t;
NOTICE OF FILING OF
APPLICATION FOR LAMA MAJOR DEVELOPMENT
PERMIT AND WATER QUALITY CERTIFICATION
The Department of Environment, Health and Natural Resources
hereby gives public notice as required by NCGS 113A-119(b) and
143-215 3(a)(1)(c) that NC WILDLIFE RESOURCES COMMISSION of Dare
County, filed an application on August 27, 1991, for a permit
from the Division of Coas '%'ap ement to develop in an Area of
Environmental Concern a or ?e , ication from the Division of
Environmental Manageme that a harge of fill material in
project wetlands wil not$E qg" at , applicable water quality
standards. N
Q J ti
WATER
According to s pla ? AWXt' NC WILDLIFE RESOURCES
COMMISSION proposes t onst?rutff? - ree boat ramps, two finger
piers, parking lot wit pa g spaces, and excavate 962,0
square feet basin. The p is located at the west end and
south side Washington Baum Bridge Site, adjacent Roanoke Sound,
Dare County.
A copy of the entire application and additional information
may be examined (or copies furnished upon request and payment of
reproduction costs) during normal business hours at the office of
M. Edward Harrell, Division of Coastal Management, located at the
Division of Coastal Management, 1367 US 17 South, Elizabeth City,
N.C., 919/264-3901, and/or the office of Deborah Sawyer, Division
of Environmental Management, NRCD Regional Field Office,
Washington, N.C., [phone].
The Division of Environmental Management proposes to take
final action on this water quality certification on or before
October 14, 1991. The issuance of the CAMA Major Development
permit and the Section 401 Certification may deviate from this
projected date depending upon the nature of the comments
submitted and subsequent hearings that may result.
All persons desiring to make comments should do so in
writing to Roger Schecter, Director, Division of Coastal
Management, P.O. Box 27687, Raleigh, N.C., 27611, prior to
October 9, 1991 for consideration in the CAMA permit decision,
and to Mr. Bill Mills, Division of Environmental Management, P.O.
Box 27687, Raleigh, N.C., 27611, prior to October 4, 1991 for
consideration in the water quality certification decision. Later
comments on the LAMA application will be accepted and considered
up to the time of permit decision. Project modifications may
occur based on review and comment by the public and state and
federal agencies. Notice of the permit decision in this matter
will be provided upon request.
PUBLISHED ON: THURSDAY, SEPTEMBER 19, 1991
State of North Carolina
Department of Environment,
Health and Natural Resources
Division of Environmental Management -
James B. Hunt, Jr., Governor
Jonathan B. Howes, Secretary
A. Preston Howard, Jr., P.E., Director
March 25, 1994
AT:.WYVA
MOM
[D F= F1
Mr. Micheal Ortosky
Soil and Environmental Consultants
244 W. Millbrook Rd.
Raleigh, N.C. 27609
Dear Mr. Ortosky:
Subject: Proposed fill in Wetlands or Waters
Central Carolina tire monofill construction
Harnett County
DEM Project #91651
We have reviewed your request for 401 Water Quality Certification to
place fill material in 1.7 acres of wetlands or waters which are tributary to
Buffaloe Creek for tire monofill construction located at SR 1105 in Harnett
County as described in your initial submittal dated 10 September 1991 and
final information sent on 28 February 1994. Based on this review, we have
determined that the proposed fill is covered by General Water Quality
Certification No. 2671. A copy of the General Certification is attached.
This Certification is necessary for coverage under Corps of Engineers'
Nationwide Permit No. 26. This action completes DEM's review under Section
401 of the Clean Water Act.
If this Certification is unacceptable to you, you have the right to an
adjudicatory hearing upon written request within thirty (30) days following
receipt of this Certification. This request must be in the form of a written
petition conforming to Chapter 150B of the North Carolina General Statutes and
filed with the office of Administrative Hearings, P.O. Box 27447, Raleigh,
N.C. 27611-7447. Unless such demands are made, this Certification shall be
final and binding.
If you have any questions, please contact John Dorney at 919-733-1786.
Sincerely,
i
re ton ward, J
91651.1tr
Attachment
cc: Wilmington District Corps of Engineers
Corps of Engineers Wilmington Field Office
Fayetteville DEM Regional Office
Mr. John Dorney
Central Files
Richard Rust
Stephen Mackmull; Fort Bragg
P. E.
P.O. Box 29535, Raleigh, North Carolina 27626-0535 Telephone [phone] FAX [phone]
An Equal Opportunity Affirmative Action Employer 50% recycled/ 10% post-consumer paper
. 4!
March 21., 1994
MEMORANDUM
To: John Dorney
Water Quality Planning
Through: Kerr T. Steven egional Supervisor
Fayetteville Re tonal ffice
From: Ken Averitte?
SUBJECT: Central Carolina Tire Monofill
DEM Project #91651
Near Johnsonville, Harnett County
MAR 2 31994
4
In response to recent correspondence, a second visit to the subject
site was conducted on March 18, 1994. Assuming that the finished grades
remain the same as proposed in the original submittal, the
recommendation of this office remains unchanged. Evaluation of the site
using the current rating method resulted in a score of 29.5.
Any certification provided for this project should require that the
wetlands be clearly identified for the landfill operators, particularly
the limit of the fill area.
If additional information or clarification is required, please
advise.
KAf
1 •1F

•
.
•
? Hydrologically Isolated
•
Wetland type (select one) Other :! ? ? e_-, C?
O Swamp forest ? Shoreline •
? Bottomland hardwood forest ? Brackish marsh
O Carolina bay ? Freshwater marsh
? Pocosin ? Bog/Fen •
O Pine savannah ? Ephemeral wetland
? Wet flat •
The rating system cannot be applied to salt marshes.
.. .
Water storage sum
?:::::::
:
:
:
:

•
>:<
:
:
::»:::
>:
Bank/Shoreline stabilization x 4.00 -
Pollutant removal
Sensitive watershed z x 1.50 =
Travel corridor
Special ecological attributes -42_ »>>;
Wildlife habitat x 1.50 =
Aquatic Irfe value
Recreation/Education p f::< >
_<<>
Economic value x 0.25 =
Moe
49
Project
mpn a -?
711W
6? //1'2L 11?? Nearest road 1-k 11?2_
County Wetland area acres Wetland width ?? - '? /s-O feet
t
Name of evaluator Date -,? -,/7 - ?7-
® ? hydrologically connected
Richard R. Rust, PE, PhD
Environmental Consultant
405 Merwin Road
Raleigh, NC 27606.2638
[phone]
28 February 1994
Mr. John Dorney
Division of Environmental Management
NC Department of Environment, Health, and Natural Resources
512 North Salisbury Street
Raleigh, NC 27604
SUBJECT: Central Carolina Tire Monofill, Harnett County, DEM# 91651, 401 Certification
Dear John:
As per our recent conversations, I am responding to the questions posed by Col. Crissman,
DEH, Ft. Bragg, in his letter to you dated 19 February 1992, so that you may make an informed
decision concerning 401 certification. Central Carolina Tire Disposal, owner of Central Carolina Tire
Monofill, desires to obtain 401 and 404 certification for the remainder of the tire monofill site as
described in the permit application to Solid Waste Management Division, which resulted in part of the
site being permitted for tire monofill operations on 16 March 1992 under Solid Waste Management
Division permit No. 43-04.
BACKGROUND
In 1991 Central Carolina Tire Disposal submitted a tire monofill permit application to NC
DEHNR, Solid Waste Management Division. With buffer and other considerations 40.7 acres of the
311.0 acre property were specified and submitted for tire monofilling operations. 1.7 acres of wetlands
were delineated on the 40.7 acre site. In order to expedite permit review and approval, Central
Carolina Tire Disposal then opted to seek construction and operations permitting for the site in phases
(spec geographic areas within the site). Of the 40.7 acres, 10.5 acres excluded wetlands and were
permitted for tire monofill construction and operations under Permit No. 43-04 as Phase I. Central
Carolina Tire Disposal now desires to permit the remainder of the 40.7 acre site (30.2 acres known as
Phase 11) described in the original permit application. Phase II contains 1.70 acres of jurisdictional
wetlands above headwaters. This modification to the existing permit is contingent upon 401 and 404
certification.
During the original tire monofill 401 certification process , public notice was posted in October
1991 through the Daily Record newspaper, Dunn, NC. Ft. Bragg responded to the public notice by
letter to you, dated 29 October 1991. You and Mike Ortosky, SEC (wetlands consultant for this site),
addressed Ft. Bragg's concerns in letters from you office dated 2 December 1991 and from SEC dated
14 November 1991. Ft. Bragg subsequently conducted a technical review of the Soil and Groundwater
Report (part of the original permit application) authored by Aquaterra Environmental Consultants,
dated May 17, 1991. Ft. Bragg expressed their concerns over impact on water quality in the letter to
you from Col. Crissman, DEH, Ft. Bragg, dated 19 February 1992. In order for 401 and 404
certification to proceed, Col. Crissman's.concerns, as stated in his 19 February 1992 letter, must be
addressed.
I was retained by Central Carolina Tire Disposal in December 1993 to seek modification to NC
DEHNR, Solid Waste Management Division, permit No. 43-04 which will allow tire monofill operations
on the remainder of the 40.7 acre site (Phase II) described in the original permit application. I have
met with Mike Ortosky, SEC, and Dave Duncklee, Aquaterra, in preparation of this letter.
IMPACT OF MONOFILLED TIRES ON WATER QUALITY
Tires are considered inert by Federal and State regulatory agencies, in that tires are not
known to decompose in the presence of water or soil. Therefore, tires are not known to leach
contaminants, with the exception of iron which is present in steel beads and the belts of steel belted
tires. As a result of Federal testing, scrap tires are considered a suitable material for creating fish
habitat in fresh water.
DESIGN REQUIREMENTS
Monofilled tires are not considered to be a significant threat to groundwater by Federal or
State regulatory agencies. Consequently, tire monofills (unlike sanitary landfills) are permitted in NC
without liners or leachate collection/ treatment systems. However, semi-annual ground and surface
water monitoring, sediment and erosion control, and semi-weekly soil cover of exposed tire materials
are required.
GROUND AND SURFACE WATER SAMPLING
The monofill has been in continuous operations since April 1992. Samples were taken in 1992
and 1993. Copies of the results are sent to NC DEHNR, Solid Waste Management Division for review
and appropriate action as per NC regulations. This data will be used for baseline comparison with
future samples. Sampling frequency is semi-annual for all landfills in NC.
GEOLOGIC AND AQUIFER TESTING
The methods and level of data resolution requested by Ft. Bragg for aquifer testing and
hydrogeologic description are not required for permitting a tire monofill in NC. Piezometer locations,
boring locations, and test methods were approved by NC DEHNR, Solid Waste Management Division,
prior to conducting the subsurface investigation. No field data in the Aquaterra report, nor any
observations during construction and operations of Phase I, contradict conditions expected in the
Mittendorf Formation.
Piezometer water levels were taken in February 1991, which would put these measurements at
approximately midway between seasonal high and low levels by Ft. Bragg's suggestion. Bottom of the
monofill cut is 4 feet above measured groundwater elevations and interpolated groundwater elevations
(between measured elevations), which exceeds 3' seasonal fluctuation indicated by Ft. Bragg in the
Black Creek aquifer. Since 2 piezometers were dry in December 1993, the groundwater elevation is
lower than indicated by the subsurface investigation conducted in February 1991. With respect to lack
of piezometers on the eastern portion of the site, PZ-2 is located on the eastern most limit of the site.
Monitor well No. 2 is installed on the southeast corner of Phase I.
r r
GRAPHICAL DEPICTION OF BOUNDARIES.
The monofill boundary is depicted by the closed inner dashed line on Sheet 1 of 10 and
represents 40.7 acres. The outer dashed line represents property boundary between Billy S. Thomas
et. ux. and Diane T. Womble. The 40.7 acre tire monofill site is contained within 311.0 acres owned by
Diane T. Womble. The outer dashed line is the boundary of Diane T. Womble's 311.0 acres and does
not represent the monofill boundary.
1.70 acres of jurisdictional wetlands above headwaters were delineated in the Phase H area of
the 40.7 acre site. The location of these wetlands is best depicted on Sheet 1 of 10 where the solid line
encroaches inside the monofill site defined by the closed dashed line.
If I may be of further service, please call.
Sincerely,

Richard R. Rust, PE, PhD
State of North Carolina
Department of Environment, Health and Natural Resources
Division of Environmental Management
P.O. Box 29535
Raleigh, North Carolina 27626-0535
Training and Certification Unit
Wetlands and Technical Review Group
FAX # [phone]
TELECOPY TO:
F
1
FAX
FROM:
NUMBER OF PAGES, INCLUDING THE
PHONE: 33
SHEET:
MEMO
TO:
CI,? Ali
amf
From:
?? SfAlp o
6
i
DAT
SUBJECT:
(p.??Q CA T,- tl`???II

-?P7? e?f7
North Carolina Department of
Health, and Natural Resources
Environment,
@9 Printed on Recycled Paper
W
W Environmental
T Consultants
November 10, 1993
Mr. John R. Dorney
State of North Carolina
Division of Environmental Management
P.O. Box 29535
Raleigh, N.C. 27626
DEM Project # 91651
Harnett County
Dear Mr. Dorney:
On behalf of Central Carolina Tire Disposal, we hereby request
that the referenced 401 Water Quality Certification application
remain open.
We are currently working with Soil and Environmental Consultants
to respond to your concerns.
If you have any questions, please do hesitate to call.
Sincerely,
Richard W. Wood, P.E.
5308 Memory Lane • Durham, North Carolina 27712 • [phone]
State of North Carolina
Department of Environment,
Health and Natural Resources
Division of Environmental Management
James B. Hunt, Jr., Governor
Jonathan B. Howes, Secretary
A. Preston Howard, Jr., P.E., Director
October 8, 1993
Mr. Mike Ortosky
Soil and Environmental Consultants
Dear Mr. Ortosky:
DEM Project # 91651
Harnett County
ID FE F1
On 10 September 1993, you requested a 401 Water Quality
Certification from the Division of Environmental Management for
your project (Central Carolina tire monofill) located at SR 1105
in Harnett County. We wrote to you on 4 March 1992 discussing
concerns that we have regarding the design of the project and
placing it on hold until those concerns are addressed. As of
today, we have not received a response to our earlier letter.
Unless we receive a written response from you by 29 October 1993,
we will consider that you have withdrawn this application and are
not interested in pursuing the project at this time.
Please call me at 919-733-1786 if you have any questions or
would like to discuss this matter.
Sincerely,
Joh R. Dorney
Wetlands and Te h ical Review Group
91651.wtd
cc: Fayetteville DEM Regional Office
Wilmington District Corps of Engineers
Central Files

P.O. Box 29535, Raleigh, North Carolina 27626-0535 Telephone [phone] FAX [phone]
An Equal Opportunity Affirmative Action Employer 50% recycled/ 10% post-consumer paper
e
State of North Carolina
Department of Environment, Health, and Natural Resources
Division of Environmental Management
512 North Salisbury Street • Raleigh, North Carolina 27604
James G. Martin, Governor
William W. Cobey, Jr., Secretary
March 4, 1.992
Mr. Mike Ortosky
Soil and Environmental Consultants
1125 Cedarhurst Drive
Raieigh, North Carolina 27609
Dear Mr. Ortosky:
Re: Central Carolina Tire Monofill
Harnett County
DEM# 91651
George T. Everett, Ph.D.
Director
Attached are comments from Colonel Crissman at Fort Bragg
concerning possible water quality impacts of the above mentioned
project. I will need answers to these questions before I can
make a decision concerning the 401 Certification.
Please call me at 733-1786 if you have any questions..
JRD/kls
MikeO.1tr/wpvol.2
Sincerely,
qJ hn R. DornPy
cc: Central Files
Ken Averitte, FRO
Stephen J. Mackmul.l, Ft. Bragg
REGIONAL. OFFICES
Asheville Fayetteville Mooresville Italci:;h Wa"hington Wilmington Wiinton-Sales,
704251-6208 919/4811-1541 704/663-1699 919/571-47(X) 919/94114481 919/395-39(X) 919/89(1-7(X)7
Pollution Prevention Pays
P.O. Box 29535, Raleigh, North Carolina 276260535 Iclcphone 919-733-7015
An [qual ( )pportunit-Affirmative Action hnplover
DEPARTMENT OF THE ARMY
HEADQUARTERS, XVIII AIRBORNE CORPS AND FORT BRAGG
FORT BRAGG, NORTH CAROLINA 28307-5000
REPLY TO February 19, 1992
ATTENTION OF:
Directorate of Engineering
and Housing
Mr. John R. Dorney
Department of Environment,
Health, and Natural Resources
Division of Environmental Management
512 North Salisbury Street
Raleigh, North Carolina 27604
Dear Mr. Dorney:

Enclosed is a technical review of the proposal to establish a
tire landfilling operation in Harnett County. The focus of the
review on the Harnett County Tire Landfill was on the hydrologic
and geologic portions of this proposal. Review comments have
been divided into two sections with general review comments
presented first. Specific comments follow the general comments.
I feel very strongly that there are problems with the design
and location of the proposed landfill. Fort Bragg is definitely
concerned about having this landfill in our watershed. Request
further investigation of the site and design changes to resolve
issues raised by the enclosed comments.
Should you have any questions or comments, please contact
Mr. Stephen J. Mackmull at telephone [phone].
Sincerely,
K. W. Crissman
Colonel, U.S. Army
Director of Engineering
and Housing
Enclosure
General Comments
There are a number of questions regarding the technical
approach presented in this proposal.
a. Aquifer Tests -
The approach used to generate estimates of hydraulic
conductivity in the study area involved conducting aquifer slug
(rising head) tests in 2-inch PVC cased wells. Because of the
smaller diameter of this casing, it is difficult to develop wells
with reliable submersible pumps. If well screens are clogged,
centrifical pumps often cannot be used effectively to develop
these wells. Consequently, 2-inch diameter wells are usually
developed with a bailer and are often more difficult to develop
sufficiently by this method to perform reliable slug tests. If
2-inch wells (or any other larger-diameter well) have not been
developed properly, the aquifer test results may not be accurate.
Conducting slug tests in 4-inch PVC wells, which are generally
easier to develop than 2-inch PVC wells, should correct this
problem. Aquifer slug tests should be referenced to a well on
site where more detailed aquifer tests have been conducted. This
will more reliable estimates of aquifer properties. Even under
the best of conditions, slug tests can be off by several
magnitudes. The hydraulic conductivity estimates obtained from
the slug tests will be more reliable if they are referenced to
detailed aquifer tests.
b. Defining the Hydrogeology -
The use of split-spoon sediment samples was the principal
approach to collect sediment samples for descriptive purposes.
Split-spoon sediment samples generally create data gaps because
full recovery is not achieved in most cases. How is the
subsurface lithology to be determined between data gaps? Auger
cuttings are difficult to obtain once the water table has been
reached. Consequently, the use of geophysical well-logging tools
is very helpful for collecting continuous data in a given
borehole or cased well and in correlating the hydrogeology
between monitor wells. For example, natural gamma logs may be
collected through casing or in open boreholes, while electric
logs are collected from open boreholes. Correlations made with
geophysical well logs and lithologic well data generally result
in a much better defined local and/or regional hydrogeologic
framework. Another point is that geophysical well-log collection
is timely and economical. Such an approach should be used to
collect geophysical well logs to fill in gaps in the
hydrogeologic framework.
C. Water-Level Data -
When was the water-level data collected at the proposed
sites? The dates when water levels were collected should be
entered on contoured ground-water level maps. In North Carolina,
the highest ground-water levels generally occur between April and
June of a given year. No reference to long-term ground-water-
level records in North Carolina are found within this proposal.
Unpublished USGS ground-water-level data from sites west of Fort
Bragg show that Black Creek water levels may fluctuate by up to
three feet in a given year. If the water-level data used in this
proposal were not collected during the high-level season,
problems may exist with the proposed landfill design and
location.
Another area of concern is the water-level contours shown
on the wetland delineation (sheet 1) and in figure 8 in the text.
All the boreholes and piezometer sites are located either on the
western or northern half of the study area. No well sites appear
to be located on the southern portion of the study area (near the
hog farm operations area) or on the eastern half of the study.
In spite of this fact, detailed ground-water contours have been
drawn on both sheet 1 and figure 8, with contours being dashed on
sheet 1, but not dashed near the hog farm (where no wells are
located) on figure 8. These maps are confusing, because the data
to support the ground-water contours drawn on the two maps are
not available.
d. Landfill Boundary -
Mark the proposed landfill boundaries on sheet 1. Both
the land and wetland boundaries have the same map designations
shown as straight lines. Does the outer dashed line on this
plate represent the proposed land boundary?
e. A reference section is needed to define the publications
being cited. A fair amount of the information in the discussion
of the two sections, 1.4 General Site Geology and 1.5 General
Site and Regional Hydrology, was taken directly from USGS Open
File Report 87-690 by Winner and Coble (1987), but this
information has not been referenced.
The USGS has not conducted aquifer tests in the Pinehurst
area. The data were obtained from other references within Winner
and Coble (1987). The sentence in the last paragraph on page 4
implying that the USGS conducted aquifer tests in this area,
should be deleted.
Specific Comments
a. Map-Sheet 1, Wetland Delineation -
Where is the proposed landfill boundary and wetland
boundary? The contour line numbers are placed in at least two
different directions (towards the top on the left side and
towards the bottom on the right side of this map) making the
contour lines more difficult to read. These contour line numbers
should line up with other information presented on this map
(scale, information, etc.). What do the numbers (125, 126, etc.)
indicate on the wetland boundary line?
b. Page 3 of 15, Section 1.4, General Site Geology -
Who are the authors of USGS Open File Report 87-690?
C. Sections 1.5, General Site and Regional Hydrology -
What is the source of the USGS aquifer test data in the
Pinehurst area?
d. Page 5 of 15, Section 2.3, Piezometer Construction -
Were any piezometers placed on the south or lower eastern
portion of the study area? Without these piezometers,
groundwater measurements cannot be correlated and water-level
contours cannot be drawn across the proposed monofill area?
e. Page 5 of 15, Section 2.4, Shelby Tube Sampling -
Recommend using 4-inch PVC wells instead of 2-inch PVC
wells. 4-inch diameter wells are generally easier to develop and
to conduct aquifer tests in than those in 2-inch PVC wells.
What was the diameter of shelby tubing? Were the
collected shelby tube samples severely disturbed (in regard to
on-site sediment structure)?
f. Page 6 of 15, Bulk Soil Sampling -
Bulk soil samples were collected from borings 109 and 110,
however, B110 is not shown in cross-section. This should be
done.
g. Page 6 of 15, Site Geology -
Well data represents point-source data and not continuous
data. Well data (split-spoon sediment samples, lithologic data)
have been correlated from well to well. The data presented in
this report indicate that near-surface clay beds are found in the
upland areas but not in the lowland areas. Data from a
downgradient well is needed (at least from near the hog farm
area) to confirm this absence of near-surface clay. It would
have also been useful to have geophysical well-log data (at least
natural gamma ray logs) to verify the correlations presented in
the three sections (A-A', B-B', C-C'). The absence of shallow
clay layers in the lower segments of the proposed monofill may
present a problem. Cross-section discussions focus more on
engineering classifications than on the hydrology. Why not use
these sections to illustrate the local hydrogeology?
Figures 5, 6, and 7: Indicate where the well screens are for
each well or boring used to develop these sections. The
hydraulic conductivities presented in section 4.3, on page 10 of
15, might be easier to relate to the particular hydrogeologic
zone being tested.
h. Page 8 of 15, Section 3.4, Summary of Geology -
Why is the contractor proposing to use a sand cover
instead of clay cover for this landfill? Wouldn't a sand cover
allow more leachate to escape? If water can pass though the
cover of landfill with ease, might water levels beneath the
monofill be affected by this ability of the landfill to receive
rainwater and create leachate. What is the method of collection
and treatment of the leachate?
i. Page 9 of 15, Section 4.2, Water Table Conditions -
Recommend placement of water-level recorders on at least
one upgradient and one downgradient well and collect continuous
water-level data for a year or two. How often will ground-water
levels be checked in a year?
No piezometers were placed at the southeastern or eastern
portion of the proposed monofill site. Those data points (wells,
piezometers), if they exist, are not present on the wetland
delineation map (sheet 1) or on figure 8, which would support
some of the ground-water contours shown on these illustrations.
The assumption that water levels in the surficial aquifer
generally follow topographic highs is,generally valid, but
specific water-level data should be collected to verify this.
The movement of ground water is governed by a combination of
location of recharge and discharge areas and hydraulic
conductivities of the various aquifers.
j. Page 10 of 15, Section 4.3, Hydraulic Conductivity
Testing -
Are the values of hydraulic conductivity "K" referenced
to any site-specific background well data? Are they any
indication of the order of magnitude that the estimated values of
"K" may be off from what would be expected at this site?
It is unclear, from the data in Appendix F where the
supporting slug test results have been placed, how quickly
8-bailer volumes were evacuated from each individual well. For
example, were 8-bailer volumes of water evaluated at once for
each slug test?
k. Page 13 of 15, Section 5.2, Bulk Sample Results -
Why isn't a clay layer or some other impermeable liner
(i.e., plastic sheets) not used to line this monofill on the
surface and bottom?

• Can the sand proposed for the liner be sufficiently
'r ompacted to meet the requirements for an impermeable liner?
What happens if the water table rises another foot or two
above what is currently considered to be the high-ground water
level? How will this affect the proposed monofill liner? With
the production and flow of leachate, the surface water and
groundwater could be impacted. Recommend the location and design
be further investigated.
1. Page 14-15 of 15, Conclusions and Recommendations -
A number of statement pages regarding the hydraulic
conductivity of the near surface sands at the proposed monofill
site require clarification. One statement indicates that the
sediments in the upper 10 feet have relatively high hydraulic
conductivities. Another statement indicates that these sediments
can be compacted offsite to reduce hydraulic conductivities by
two orders of magnitude to meet requirements for a liner. Is it
realistic to expect this to occur?
* S
7 12/18/91 16:00 DEH BUDGET DIV. FT. BRAGG, N.C. 001
S
FUR'C '1f1tACG, tit;
lt1?l
ill:
,n t
a,?1

t s
12/18/91 16:91 DEH BUDGET DIV. FT. BRAGG, N.C. 002
DEPARTMENT OF THE ARMY
HEADQUARTERS, XVIII AIRBORNE CORPS AND FORT 13RAQGi
FORT BRAGG, NORTH CAROLINA 28307-SM
December 18, 1991
f{l?4Y TO
ATTENTION OR
Directorate of sngineering
and Housing
Mr. John, R. Dorney
Department of Snvi.ronment,
Health, and Natural Resources
Division Of Environmental management
512 North Salisbury Street
Raleigh, North Caroline, 27604
Dear Mr. Dorney:
The focus of the review was on the hydrology and geology
portions of this proposal. Review comments have been divided
into two sections with general review comments presented first.
specific comments follow the general comments.
General Cam_rnpm=
There are a number of questions regarding the technical
approach presented in this proposal.
a. ,Aquifer Tests—
The approach used to generate estimates of hydraulic
conductivity in this study area involved conducting aquifer slug
(rising head) tests in two-inch PVC cased wells. I have mixed
feeling about using two-inch PVC wells to conduct aquifer slug
tests for a number of reasons. Because of the smaller diameters
of this casing, it is often difficult to develop these wells with
reliable submersible pumps. if well screens are clogged,
centrifical pumps often cannot be used effectively to develop
these wells. Consequently, two-inch diameter wells are usually
developed with a bailer and are often more difficult to develop
sufficiently by this method to perform reliable slug tests. If
two-inch wells (or any other larger-diameter well) have not been
developed properly, the aquifer tent results are dubious at best.
To avoid this problem, conduct slug tests in four-inch PVC wells,
which are generally easier to develop than two-inch PVC wells.
it is also important to reference these aquifer slug tests to a
well on site where more detailed aquifer tests have been
conducted to obtain more reliable estimates of aquifer
properties. Ewen under the best of conditions, slug tests can be
off by several magnitudes. i am inclined to wonder how
--- meaningful the hydraulic conductivity estimates obtained from
these slug tests are it they are not referenced to more detailed
aquifer tests.
12/18/91 16:02 DEH BUDGET DIV. FT. BRAGG, N.C. 003
2
b. Defining the HydrogeologY
The use of split-spoon sediment samples appears to have.
been the principal approach to collect sediment samples for
descriptive purposes, Split-spoon sediment samples generally
create data gaps because full renovery is not achieved in most
cases. How is the subsurface lithology determined between data
gaps? Auger cuttings are difficult to obtain once the water
table has been reached. Consequently, the use of geophysical
well-logging tools are very helpful for (1) collecting continuous
data in a given borehole or in a cased well and (2) correlating
the hydrogeology between monitor wells. For example, natural
gamma logs maybe collected through casing or in open boreholes,
while electric logs are collected from open boreholes.
Correlations made with geophysical well logs and lit:hol.ogic well
data generally result in a much better defined local and (or)
regional hydrogeologic framework. Another point is that
geophysical well-log collection is timely and economical. I saw
no such approach presented in this proposal to collect
geophysical well logs to fill in gaps in the hydrogeologic
framework.
c. Water-Level Data
I am not sure when the water-level data were collected
at the proposed sites. The dates when water levels wore
collected should at least be on contoured ground-water level
maps. in North Carolina the highest water levels generally occur
between April and June of a, given year. However, l have found no
reference to long-term water-level records in North Carolina
within this proposal. Unpublished USGS water-level data from
sites west of Fort Brag show that Black Creek water levels may
fluctuate by up to three feet in a given year. it the water-
level data used in this proposal were not collected during the
high-level season, problems may exist with the proposed landfill
design and location.
Another area of concern is the water-level contours shown on the
wetland delineation (sheet 1) and in figure 8 in the text. All
the boreholes and piezometer sites are located either on the
western or northern half of the study area. No well sites appear
to be located on the southern portion of the study area (near the
hog farm operations area) or on the eastern half of the study.
In opite of this fact, detailed ground-water contours have been
drawn on bath sheet l and figure 8, with contours being dashed on
sheet 1, but not dashed near the hog farm (where no wells are
located) on figure $. 1 have found these maps to be confusing,
12/18/91 16:02 DEH BUDGET DIV. FT. BRAGGY N.C. 004
3
because I do not see the data to support the ground-water
contours drawn on the two maps.
d. Landfill Boundary.
It jo not clear where the proposed landfill boundaries
are located on sheet 1. Both the land boundaries and the wetland
boundaries have the same map designations ao straight lities.
Does the outer dashed line on this plate represent the proposed
land boundary?
a. Is there no reference section? This makes it difficult
to determine the publications being cited A fair amount of the
information in the discussion of the two sections: 1.4 General
"' ?..,.? r%etsr xvmA 1 . S (General Site and Regional Hydrology, was
Oi4G %a %.- v..v'J -. ,- _.
auu
directly taken , but o this USGS Open File
information haso not 8 been Q referenced.
Coble (1987)
The USGS has never conducted aquifer tests in the Piuehurst area.
The data were obtained from other references within Wanner and
Coble (1987). A sentence in the last paragraph on page 4 implies
that the.ITSGS conducted aquifer tests in this area, and this in
not the case.
specifio n
1, map-Sheet 1, Wetland Delineation.
It is not clear were the proposed landfill boundary and wetland
boundary is. Why are the contour line numbers placed in at least
two different directions (towards the top on the left side and
towards the bottom on the right side of this map) making the
contour lines more di£ticult,to read? These contour line numbers
should line up with other information presented on this map
126, andisoO orth)nindand so icate on the wetlandobothe numbers undary line?135r
r
2. Page 3 of X5, Section 1.4, General Site GeQ109Y
Who are the authors of USGS Open File Report 87-690?
3. Sections 1.5, General Site and Regional Hydrology
What is the source of the USGS aquifer test data in the
pinehurst area?
4, Page 5 of 15, St,r - ion 2.3, PiOZOMSter COnst r'vatiOn
12/18/91 16:03 DEH BUDGET DIV. FT. BRAGGs N.C. 005
4
wily weren't there any piezometers plaoed on the south oar
lower eastern portion of the study area,? Without these
piezometers, how can groundwater measurements be correlated and
water-level contours be drawn across the proposed monofill area?
5. Page 5 of 15, Section 2.41 Shelby Tube Sampling
Why not use four-inch PVC wells instead of two-inch PVC
wells? Four-inch diameter wells are generally easier to develop
and to conduct aquifer tesCs in than those in two-inch PVC wells.
What was the diameter of shel.by tubing (1-inch?, 2 inrh?,
etc.)? Were the collected Shelby tube samples severely disturbed
(in regard to in-site sediment structure)?
6. Page 6 of 15, Bulk Soil Samp7. ing
Bulk soil samples were collected from borings 109 and 110,
but E110 is not shown in any cross-section. Why not?
7. Page 6 of 15, Sita Geology
Well data represents point-source data and not continuous
data. Well data (split-spoon sediment samples, lithologic data)
have been correlated from well to well. The data presented in
this report indicate that near-surface clay beds are found in the
upland areas but not in the lowland areas. I would like to have
seen data from a downgradient well (at least from near the hog
farm area) to confirm this absence of near-surface clay. Xt
would have also been useful to have geophysical well-log data (at
least natural gamma ray logs) to verify the correlations
presented in the three sections (A-A', B-B', C-C'). The absence
of shallow clay layers in the lower segments of the proposed
monofill may present a problem. Cross-section discussions focus
more on engineering classifications than on the hydrology. Why
not use these sections to illustrate the local hydrogeology?
Figures 5, 6, and 7: l adic:ate where the well screens are for
each well or boring used to develop these sections. This way the
hydraulic conductivities presented in section 4.3 on page 10 of
15 might be easier to relate to the particularly hydrogeologic
zone being tested.
S. Page 8 of 15, Section 3.4, Suxmmry of Geology
why is the contractor proposing to use a sand cover instead
of clay cover for this landfill? Wouldn't a sand cover allow
12/18/91 16:03 DEH BUDGET DIV. FT. BRAGG, N.C. 006
5
more leachate to escape? If water can pass though the cover of
landfill with ease, might water levels beneath the monofill be
rainwater
affected ability What is o the h method of landfill collection receive and treatment
Create leachate
of the leachate?
5. Page 9 of 15, Section 4.2, water Table Conditions
Why not place water-level recorders on at least one
upgradient and one downgradient well and collect continuous
water-level data for a year or two. This hag not been proposed.
How often will ground-water levels be checked in a year--monthly?
quarterly?
No piezometers were placed at the southeastern or eastern portion
of the proposed monofill site. Those data points (wells,
piezometers), if they exist, are not present on the wetland
delineation map (sheet 1) or on figure 8, which would support
some of the ground-water contours shown on these illustrations.
The assumption that water levels in the surficial aquifer
generally follow topographic highs is generally valid, but
specific water-level data should be collected to verify this.
The movement of ground water is governed by a combination of
location of recharge and discharge areas and hydraulic
conductivities of the various aquifers.
10. Page 10 of 15, Section 4.3, Hydraulic Conductivity Tooting
Are the values of hydraulic conductivity (K) referenced to
any site specific background well data? Are they any indications
of the order of magnitude that the estimated values of K may be
off from what would be expected at this site?
It is unclear, from the data in Appendix F where the supporting
slug test results have been placed, how quickly eight bailer
volumes were evacuated from each individual well. For example,
were eight bailer volumes of water evaluated at once for each
slug test?
11. page 13 of 15, Section 5.2, Bulls Sample ResultO
Why isn't a clay layer or some other impermeable liner (i.e.
plastic sheets) not used to line this monofill. Are the
assumptions valid that the sand proposed for the liner can be
sufficiently compacted to meet the requirements for an
impermeable liner?
12/18/91 16:04 DEH BUDGET DIV. FT. BRAGG, N.C. 007
6
what happens it the water table rises another foot or two above
what is currently considered to be the high ground water level?
How will this affect the proposed monofill liner? With the
production and flow of leachate, the surface water and
grouftdwa.ter will be impacted. This cannot be tolerated..
Recommend the location be further investigated and the design be
revised.
n. Page 14-15 Of 15, CanClUgjons and Recommendations
I am concerned about a number of statements on these two
pages regarding the hydraulic conductivity of the near surface
sands at the proposed monofill site. One statement indicates
that the sediments in the upper 10 feet have relatively high
hydraulic conductivities. Another statement indicates that these
sediments can be compacted offsite to reduce hydraulic
conductivities by two orders of magnitude to meet requirements
for a liner. Is it realistic to expect this to occur?
it is very evident tl'ia.t this study and design was
accomplished to accommodate the monofill landfill in this
location. I feel very strongly that there are severe problems
with the design and location. Fort Bragg will not feel
comfortable by having this landfill in our watershed. Request
further investigation and design changes to satisfy our comments.
It you have any questions or comments, please
Stephen J. Mackmull at [phone]/3372.
Sincerely,
K. W. CrisBman
Colonel, U.S. Army
Director of Engineering
and Housing
IMPORTANT
. 1-1
To D I- w
_
Date Time
WHILE ?tYOU WERE OUT
M ?rtckvl-t c-r c-
of G? i?G?ti? tc? G (ew y
Phone
AREA CODE NUMBER EXTENSION'S /z
TELEPHONED PLEASE CALL
CALLED TO SEE YOU WILL CALL AGAIN
WANTS TO SEE YOU URGENT
RETURNED YOUR CALL
Message 0 ? Namj??-L-
Signed
N.C. Dept. of Environment, Health, and Natural Resources
am - . - -
F
MEMO
TO:
(,j?blq
rte
re-'?04
DATE:
SUBJECT:
e& ?Rm
ova

C?f 1,?5 CrS
'A?k ?J" (w?)
From:
.sue' a
..m.: North Carolina Department of Environment
Health, and Natural Resources
? ?. ? ?? Printed on Recycled Paper
P '",w Stgt2'..
\.,o
State of North Carolina
Department of Environment, Health, and Natural Resources
Division of Environmental Management
512 North Salisbury Street S Raleigh, North Carolina 27604
James G. Martin, Governor George T. Everett, Ph.D.
William W. Cobey, Jr., Secretary Director
December 2, 1991
Regional Offices Mr. Stephen M.a.ckmull
Asheville Directorate of Engineering and Housing
704/251-6208 Department of the Army
Fayetteville Fort Bragg, North Carolina 28307-5000
919/486-1541
Dear Mr. Mackmul.l:
Mooresville
704/663-1699
Project # 91651
Raleigh Harnett County
919/733-2314
Washington Enclosed is the consultant's response to your 29 October 1991
919/946-6481 letter. Please review the enclosed material in relation to your
Wilmington concerns about your water supply. I would appreciate a response
919/395-3900 by December. 16, 1991 as to whether your concerns have been
Winston-Salem adequately addressed.
919/896-7007
Your letter also asked for an EIS and a copy of the 404
permit for the project. With respect to the 404 permit, that
permit cannot be issued by the Corps of Engineers until (or
unless) a 401 Certification is issued by the Division of
Environmental Management which is what this review process is
about. An EIS would not be required under the State
Environmental Policy Act since there is no expenditure of public
money whether an EIS is required under NEPA is unclear. I
suggest that you contact the Corps of Engineers if you need an
answer to that question.
Thank you for your concern and if I can be of further help
please call me at 919-733-5083.
Sincerely,
d1?
J n R. Dorney
JD/kls
Mackmull.ltr/D-2
cc: Fayetteville DEM. Regional office
Mike Ortosky, Soil and Environmental Consultants
Central Files
Wilmington Regional office COE
P.O. Box 29535, Raleigh, North Carolina 276264)535 Telephone [phone] / Pollution Prevc,imm Pav,
An h(Iual Oprx)nunity AHirmstive Actiom limplnvcr
DEPARTMENT OF THE ARMY
HEADQUARTERS, XVIII AIRBORNE CORPS AND FORT BRAGG
FORT BRAGG, NORTH CAROLINA 28307-5000
October 29, 1991
REPLY TO
ATTENTION OF:
Directorate of Engineering
and Housing
64E5 OONSTITUT,OH
2
t
Z
P
?
?
O NENT Of 111111
4.
Al
Mr. John Dorneyf,,
North Carolina Division of ,y hl?'ttry
Environmental Management ?Inch
Water Quality Planning
P.O. Box 29535 6t
Raleigh, North Carolina 27.626-0535
Dear Mr. Dorneyc
The area which contains the.wetlands and tributary channels
for a proposed tre monofill on an unnamed tributary of Buffalo
Creek in Harnett County is part of the watershed for Fort Bragg's
drinking water supply which is supplied,by the water treatment
plant on the Lower Little River:; FortBrggg supplies quality:
drinking water to.approximately 100000 people and-must take every
precaution to protect its quality and ensure that the health and
welfare of the consumers. are not at risk.,
Many serious questions must be-addressed before Fort Bragg
will feel comfortable about this proposed construction of a mono
fill tire-landfillWe request the following information to be
provided to Fort Bragg Environmental Branch prior to approval due
to the significant impact which may occur:
a. An environmental assessment.or an environmental impact
statement in accordance' with the National Environmental Policy
Act of 1969 (42 U.S. Code 4321 et seq., as amended) prior to
any activity in the area.
b. A copy of the Section 404 permit from the U.S. Army Corps
of.Eng.ineers with the accompanying 401 water certification from
the state of North Carolina.
c. A copy of the 100 percent design for the landfill and
approval from the state of North Carolina solid waste, water
quality., .and land quality sections.
d.', Any information pertaining to the geologic and hydro-
geologc investigation reports.
Lf you have any questions, please contact Mr. Stephen Mackmull
at (9-19) 396-3341/3372.
Sincerely,
K. W. Crissman
Olonel, U.S. Army
Director of Engineering
and Housing
IMPORTANT
Date Time <
WHILE YO WERE OUT
M
of
Phone
AREA CODE NUMBER EXTENSION
TELEPHONED PLEASE CALL
CALLED TO SEE YOU WILL CALL AGAIN
WANTS TO SEE YOU URGENT
RETURNED YOUR CALL

N.C. Dept. of Environment, Health, and Natural Resources
e Printed on Recycled Paper

r
State of North Carolina
Department of Environment, Health, and Natural Resources
Division of Environmental Management
512 North Salisbury Street • Raleigh, North Carolina 27604
James G. Martin, Governor
William W. Cobey, Jr., Secretary October 31, 1991
Regional Offices Mr. Mike Ortosky
Asheville Soil and Environmental Consultants
704/251-6208 1.125 Cedarhurst Drive
Fayetteville Raleigh, North Carolina 27609
919/486-1541
Dear Mr, Ortosky:
Mooresville
704/663-1699
Re:
Central Carolina Tire Monofill
Raleigh Harnett County
919/733-2314 DEM3# 91651
George T Everett, Ph.D.
Director
Washington
919/946-6481 Attached for your review and response is a letter from Fort
Wilmington Bragg concerning impacts of the proposed landfill. Until these
919/395-39W questions have been adequately answered, I cannot issue a 401
Water Quality Certification. I believe that it may be helpful
Winston-Salem for you to discuss
919/896-7007 Y your plans with Mr. Stephen. Mackmull (919/
396-3341 or 3372) at Fort Bragg.
Please call me at 733-5083 if you have any questions.
Sincerely,
4jbwol
John R. Dorney
JRD/kls
Ortosky2.ltr/D-2
cc: Central Files
Kerr Averit.te, FRO
Stephen Mackmull, Ft. Bragg
P.O. Box 29535, Raleigh, North Carolina 2762 6-05 3 5 Telephone [phone] / Pollution Prevention Pays
An Equal Oppemunity Affirmative Action Iimployer
TRANSMITTED FROM 10.29.91 13:35 P.02
? DEPARTMENT OF THE ARMY
HEADQUARTERS, XVIII AIRBORNE CORPS AND FORT BRAGG s
Ye
FORT BRAGG, NORTH CAROLINA 28307.5000 _
' gr
REPLY TO October 29, 1991
ATTENTION OF.
Directorate of Engineering
and Housing Mr. John Dorsey
z-, P
North Carolina Division of
Environmental Management ??? c
Water Quality Planning
P.O. Box 29535 <
Raleigh, North Carolina 27626-0535 6
Dear Mr. Dorsey: 9 CjV?
The area which contains the wetlands and tributary channels
for a proposed tire monofill on an unnamed tributary=of Buffalo
Creek in Harnett County is part of the watershed for Fort Bragg's
drinking water supply which is supplied by the water treatment
plant on the Lower Little River. Fort Bragg supplies quality
drinking water to approximately 100,000 people and must take every
precaution to protect its quality and ensure that the health and
welfare of the consumers are not at risk.
Many serious questions must be addressed before Fort Bragg
will feel comfortable about this proposed construction of a mono-
fill tire landfill. We request the following information to be
provided to Fort Bragg Environmental Branch prior to approval due
to the significant impact which may occur:
a. An environmental assessment or an environmental impact
statement in accordance with the National Environmental Policy
Act of 1969 (42 U.S. Code 4321 et seq., as amended) prior to
any activity in the area.
b. A copy of the Section 404 permit from the U.S. Army Corps
of Engineers with the accompanying 401 water certification from
the state of North Carolina.
C. A copy of the 100 percent design for the landfill and
approval from the state of North Carolina solid waste, water
quality,.and land quality sections.
d. Any information pertaining to the geologic and hydro-
geologic investigation reports.
If you have any questions, please contact Mr. Stephen Mackmull
at (919) 396-•3341/3372.
Sincerely,
K. W. Crxssman
olonel, U.S. Army
Director of Engineering
and Housing
001 TRANSMITTED FROM
COMSIw NQ
WrfI Abn Corps
Ft Bragg, NC
,U04,+ s? C nv, 4044h '`'
J M. R4s a u..+?
Dlv 6f tt\,J. cf?dm-t
C* 1-41VICATIO64 MO. Cs-
• Header +
UNCLAS Page(;
FORM 4 -
1 wus ?a '
10.29.91 13:35 P.01
IlAM6
• OM11 MT Syll • TiLAPM9149
MUM>•CR AUVMORi%CD SUCLAASCA'j
SIGNATURt
S. MACt MULL AUTOVON 236-',
T - -E (919
) 396 33"3•
3l1. h ^ DQrA'uf 9
p
D "'s-71"40 YO N YzA^
C e r S, l? Aq 1330 0c:r 9 I
rNtCYAEwCt RE1MA14 KSt

` a w-hne? Telefax # AUTOVON - or
COMMERCIAL (919 ) 3.U- 4-yi 9
foruMaivl.a101m-"*AA ZO'5.37
Th+ PiaoenwM p.r.ry ]A OOCSQP&

G M SrAi[ o
s i = ?E
v •? W.w
State of North Carolina
Department of Environment, Health, and Natural Resources
Division of Environmental Management
512 North Salisbury Street • Raleigh, North Carolina 27604
James G. Martin, Governor George T. Everett, Ph.D.
William W. Cobey, Jr., Secretary Director
October 25, 1991
Regional Offices Mike Ortosky
Asheville Soil and Environmental Consultants
704/251-6208 1125 Cedarhurst Drive
Fayetteville Raleigh, North Carolina 27609
919/486-1541
Mooresville Dear Mr. Ortosky:
704/663-1699
Enclosed is a copy of the bill for $ 33.08 for the
Raleigh Public Notice for your project entitled Central Carolina Tire
919/733-2314 Monof ill In Harnett County. As y. you are. probably aware, payment
Washington is required by 15 NCAC 2H .0502(f). The check should be sent to
919/946-6481 me and made out to the Department of Environment, Health and
Wilmington Natural Resources.
919/395-3900
Winston-Salem Please call me at 919/733-5083 if you have any questions.
919/896-7007
Sincerely,
Jo n R. Dorney
JRD/kls
PNot-Inv.ltr/D-7
Enclosure
cc: Central Files
P.O. Box 29535, Raleigh, North Carolina 27626-0535 Telephone [phone] / Pollution Prevention Pave
An Equal OMmunity Affirmative Action Employer
m
3
n
m T
c

?X„

o
Z
I
o 3
0
o
70 0
m c D DI
w o c m
m z

o s
I i
Z
Z
0 .p
z W p
y D a m
m
a m
c
o ?

(? + o o i

?
! a
p z
c
a z
m
m

co
? m
0

?0

n ?

N
i 9
o

H o
W D

CD I f m
II ?

z

O
-n
c m
?o z
N m <
m M
p
CL O
N

a 0
p
m
? Z
N

9 W cn m
Z
c CL 2 z
c
M to
0 o n
a y c?7o
o to
Wmi
0
Z
> =
CL c m 7
p 0
m E m m
3 5 W C D
m
CD m
m m
-?
3 ?J1 ?o m
z =
M p r
z
y ? D
0 g
co m p m n z
O ? M D Q
-
i D O
z z m m z

2 cn -
0 o =
C
T
o p D m D

-
m r
r z m

cf)
W
m p
C

I 33
z
o C)
m
U)
m z
Z
a
9 c n
gm
W

SID o
c CO M
mm

Z MZ

m
O 4

p
"Wqq
lab"
STATE,QF_NORTH CAROLINA
COUNTY OF HARNETT
In the Matter of:
PUBT.TC NOTTCF
vs ? `
? I, Jeanette Faircloth
being duly sworn, says: That he is
Assistant to the Publisher, of THE DAILY RECORD, a newspaper published at
Dunn, Harnett County, North Carolina, and that the attached clipping is a copy of the Notice published in said
newspaper for 1 t i ma successive weeks, commencing with 1 4 h
day of October____ 91 '
y as required by law, i!ythe above entitled suit.
fl- -11)
Subscribed and sworn to before me, this
j-dayof- October • 19 91
My Commission Expires
tant to the
Notary Public
The Daily Record.

IMPORTANT
To
Time L ? If I-
W LE YOU W RE UT
M of
Phone 774v
70 - p
t 7
AREA CODE NUMBER EXTENSION
TELEPHONED PLEASE CALL
CALLED TO SEE YOU WILL CALL AGAIN
WANTS TO SEE YOU URGENT
RETURNED YOUR CALL
Signed
N.C. Dept. of Environment, Health, and Natural Resources
ODI
DIVISION OF ENVIRONMENTAL
September 30, 1
M E M O R A N D U M
TO: John Dorney
Water Quality Planning
FROM: M. J. Noland, Regional Supervisoj?
Fayetteville Regional Office
SUBJECT: 401 Certification No. 91651 `
Central Carolina Tire Monofill
Near Johnsonville, Harnett County

Xv
y The ubject project involves the placement of fill material in
a el 1.7 acres of wetlands in the watershed of a UT to Buffaloe
a? Creek, III waters in the Cape Fear River Basin. The applicant intends to
shred an di pose of tires on the site. The monofill, as proposed, will
include p3acement of fill in two separate wetland areas, with a combined area
\ of 1.7 acres. This fill will also maximize usage of the site while permitting
an acceptable finished grade.
A site visit has been conducted, and no outstanding wetland values
observed. This site is permitted for tire disposal only.
With these considerations in mind, it is the recommendation of this
office that the appropriate certification be granted.
If additional information or clarification is required, please advise.
MJN/KA/tf
DIVISION OF ENVIRONMENTAL MANAGEMENT
September 30, 1991
H E M O R A N D U N
TO: John Dorney
Water Quality Planning M
P !f1 t?f,: ?pA 41
?"' yFROM: M. J. Noland, Regional or
Fayetteville Regional ice4v
SUBJECT: 401 Certification No. 9,1,,6;51
Central Carolina Tire Mon6fill
Near Johnsonville, Harngtt County
The subject project involves the placement of fill material in
approximately 1.7 acres of wetlands in the watershed of a UT to Buffaloe
Creek, WS III waters in the Cape Fear River Basin. The applicant intends to
shred and dispose of tires on the site. The monofill, as proposed, will
include placement of fill in two separate wetland areas, with a combined area
of 1.7 acres. This fill will also maximize usage of the site while permitting
an acceptable finished grade.
A site visit has been conducted, and no outstanding wetland values
observed. This site is permitted for tire disposal only.
With these considerations in mind, it is the recommendation of this
office that the appropriate certification be granted.
If additional information or clarification is required, please advise.
MJN/KA/tf

State of North Carolina
Department of Environment, Health, and Natural Resources
Division of Environmental Management
512 North Salisbury Street • Raleigh, North Carolina 27604
James G. Martin, Governor
William W. Cobey, Jr., Secretary
nct.ober 8, 1991
George T Everett, Ph.D.
Director
Regional Offices Daily Record
Asheville P.O. BOX 1448
704/251-6208 Dunn, N. C. 27546
Fayetteville
919/486-1541 ATTN: Legal Ad Department
Mooresville
704/663-1699 Dear Sir:
Raleigh SUBJECT: Public Notice
919/733-2314
Washington Please publish the attached Public Notice one time in the
919/946-6481 section set aside for Legal Advertisements in your newspaper.
Wilmington The publication should run on or before October 14, 1991. Please
919/395-39W send the invoice for publication and three copies of the
affidavit of publication to the address given below. Payment
919/89966-7007 -7007
Win cannot be processed without the affidavit of publication.
N.C. Division of Environmental Management
Water Quality Section
Post office 29535
Raleigh, North Carolina 27626-0535
Attn: John Dorney
If you have any questions concerning this matter, please call
me at 919/733-5083.
Sincerely,
1 Dorney
('J4001 Certifications
JRD/kls
PubNot.ltr/D-7
Cc: John Dorney
Ken Averitte, FRO
Mike Ortosky, Soil and Environmental Consultants
Steve Griffin, Fort Bragg Water Treatment Plant
P.O. Box 29535, Raleigh, North Carolina 27626-0535 Telephone [phone] / Pollution Prevention Pays
An Equal Oppxtunity Affirmative Action Employer
NORTH CAROLINA DIVISION OF ENVIRONMENTAL
MANAGEMENT
PUBLIC NOTICE is hereby given that Central Carolina Tire
near Johnsonville, North Carolina, has applied to the North
Carolina Division of Environmental Management for a Water Quality
Certification pursuant to Section 401 of the Federal Clean Water
Act and Environmental Management Commission rules in 15A NCAC 2H
.0500 and 15A NCAC 2B .0109. The activity for which the
certification is sought is to fill 1.7 acres of wetlands and
tributary channels for a tire monofill on an unnamed tributary of
Buffaloe Creek in Harnett County.
The public is invited to comment on the above mentioned
application to theDivision of Environmental Management.
Comments shall be in writing and shall be received by the
Division,no later than October 30, 1991. Comments'-'should be.sent
to N C. pivision.or -tnvironmezital'Management'Water Quality
PlannPost; Office Bow ; 29535,' I2hiegh, orth -Cain] na
27626-0535, 4&t ent on: John Dorney.- A 'copy of the 'application
is on file at the Division-office at;Wachovia Building Suite 714,
Fayetteville,.North'Carolina 283011. (Fayetteville: Regional Office.
[phone])'during normal business hours''and-may-be-inspected
by the public.
e ge T. Everett, irector
North Carolina"Division of
Environmental Management.
DATE: October 9, 1991.
JF1
•
Soil & En ' itc Consultants, Inc.
1125 Cedarhurst Drive ¦ h, T*h C,4r 27? ¦ [phone] ¦ Fax [phone]
JP ?`
s?,? , Q\a , ??Q,L? September 10, 1991
NRCD - DEM
Attn: Mr. John Dorney
P.O. Box 27687
Raleigh, NC 27611
Dear Mr. Dorney:
The purpose of this letter is to request a Section 401 Water Quality
Certification for the project to be known as Central Carolina Tire
Monofill. The project is located southwest of Johnsonville in
Harnett County, NC at the south end of S.R. 1105 as shown on the
enclosed maps.
The Corps approved detailed wetland delineation is shown on the
attached map. These delineations have been,approved by Mr. Mike
Taylor of the US Army Corps of Engineers. Upon receiving our Water
Quality Certification, we will then procedd with obtaining the
necessary Corps permits.
Fill in a portion of the wetlands will be required to utilize the
property for a tire monofill (see attached map). The original layout
of the monofill would have required significantly greater impact on
wetlands. After surveying wetland boundaries the limits of the fill
were reduced. As you can see, available uplands have been utilized
as much as possible so that wetland fills have been minimized.
It will be necessary to fill 1.70 acres (see map) of jurisdictional
wetlands above headwaters for placement of the proposed facility.
The wetland areas to be impacted are headslope seeps in the
Sandhills, primarily the result of lateral movement of subsurface
water to a point where it rises into the surface layer. These
particular headslope drains are relatively narrow and do not appear
to constitute high quality wetlands.
Please call if you have questions or require further information.
If you plan to visit the site, please call and we will be glad to
accompany you.
Soil/Site Evaluation ¦ Mapping and Physical Analysis ¦ Wetlands Mapping and Mitigation ¦ Environmental Audits
On-Site Waste Treatment Systems, Evaluation and Design
AA
sincerely,
J V
.M. Ortosk , `Jr
Encs.
CC: Mr. Ken Averette (D18M)

m,
Dear Mr. I DS) NO ?ze 61 Subject: Proposed Fill i eadwaters or Isolated Wetlands
Upon review of your request for Water Quality Certificatio
p a e it material in acres of wetlands for
t??? t ?irxr i2xo? --------- located t- s0 in
?e County, we have determined that the proposed fill can be
covered by General Water Quality Certification No. 2176 issued
November 4, 1987. A copy of the General Certification is
attached. This Certification may be used in qualifying for
coverage under Corps of Engineers' Nationwide Permit No. 26.
If you have any questions, please contact John Dorney
at 919/733-5083.
Sincerely,
George T. Everett
GTE: JD
Attachment
cc: Wilmington District Corps oqf Engineers
Corps of Engineers UJ\uu Ko,IY^ Regional office
T;UAWW(?f- Regional Off ice
Mr. John Dorney
Cen Gal Files
? ke I C l- - L-1-
J III ? ., I?
i
II ? i
I ' I'.t !! I? I ? a is
atp /,q papadsui aq Aetu .:,
ssoulsnq lew'ou Bu±e,np' 175
e0!90 Ieuo+Ba?.ep+nau0 V I I:
-PII4 e+noyoeM 1a 00146U01?1'
elg Ube, uollpo9dde 8y3 )0 /doa V ,
iyo( yonuaud '9650-9Z9`
"la7 YCA, 4 p,