19970275 Ver 1_COMPLETE FILE_19970401

State of North Carolina
Department of Environment,
Health and Natural Resources
Division of Water Quality
James B. Hunt, Jr., Governor
Jonathan B. Howes, Secretary
A. Preston Howard, Jr., P.E., Director
C) EHNF = I
April 18, 1997
Durham County
DWQ Project # 970275
APPROVAL of 401 Water Quality Certification and ADDITIONAL CONDITIONS
Ms. Nancy Newell
City of Durham
101 City Hall Plaza
Durham, NC 27701
Dear Ms. Newell:
You have our approval, in accordance with the attached conditions and those listed below, to place fill
material in 0.68 acres of wetlands or waters for the purpose of developing a municipal landfill at Ellerbee
Creek site, as you described in your application dated 1 April 1997. After reviewing your application, we
have decided that this fill is covered by General Water Quality Certification Number 3108. This certification
allows you to use Nationwide Permit Number 26 when it is issued by the Corps of Engineers.
This approval is only valid for the purpose and design that you described in your application except as
modified below. If you change your project, you must notify us and you may be required to send us a new
application. If total wetland fills for this project (now or in the future) exceed one acre, compensatory
mitigation may be required as described in 15A NCAC 2H.0506 (h) (6) and (7). For this approval to be
valid, you must follow the conditions listed in the attached certification and any additional conditions listed
below. A deed restriction or conservation easement shall be placed on all remaining wetlands and streams on
the site to prevent future fill. In addition, you should get any other federal, state or local permits before you
go ahead with your project including (but not limited to) Sediment and Erosion Control, Coastal Stormwater,
Non-Discharge and Water Supply Watershed regulations. This approval will expire when the accompanying
404 or CAMA permit expires unless otherwise specified in the General Certification.
If you do not accept any of the conditions of this certification, you may ask for an adjudicatory hearing.
You must act within 60 days of the date that you receive this letter. To ask for a hearing, send a written
petition which conforms to Chapter 150B of the North Carolina General Statutes to the Office of
Administrative Hearings, P.O. Box 27447, Raleigh, N.C. 27611-7447. This certification and its conditions
are final and binding unless you ask for a hearing.
This letter completes the review of the Division of Water Quality under Section 401 of the Clean Water
Act. If you have any questions, please telephone John Dorney at 919-733-1786.
Sincerely,
P.sto-hHoward, Jr. P.
Attachment
cc: Wilmington District Corps of Engineers
Corps of Engineers Raleigh Field Office
Raleigh DWQ Regional Office
Mr. John Dorney
Central Files
Kathryn Sweeney; Malcolm Pimie, Inc.
970275.1tr
Division of Water Quality - Environmental Sciences Branch
Environmental Sciences Branch, 4401 Reedy Creek Rd., Raleigh, NC 27607 Telephone [phone] FAX # [phone]
An Equal Opportunity Affirmative Action Employer • 50% recycled/10% post consumer paper
..ti
-1EMORANDUM PRINT NAMES: J
Reviewer: RECEIVED
TO: JOHN DORNEY WQ SUPV.: An
2 4 1991
ENVIRONMENTAL SCIENCES BRANCH DATE: AFR ENVIRONMENTAL XeNCm
SUBJECT: WETLAND STAFF REPORT AND RECOMMENDATIONS
***EACH ITEM MUST BE ANSWERED (USE N/A FOR NOT APPLICABLE)
PERMIT YR: 97 PERMIT NO: 0000275 COUNTY: DURHAM
APPLICANT NAME: CITY OF DURHAM-LANDFILL
PROJECT TYPE: LANDFILL EXPANSION PERMIT-TYPE: NW 26
COE_#: DOT #:
RCD_FROM _CDA: APP DATE_FRM_CDA: 04/07/97
REG OFFICE: RRO
RIVER-AND-SUB-BASIN-#: 030401 STR INDEX N0: 27-5-(2)
STREAM CLASS: WSIV
WL IMPACT?: Y/N WL TYPE:
WL REQUESTED: etl;$ WL_ACR EST?:d/N
WL SCORE(#): WATER IMPACTED BY FILL?: Y/N
MITIGATION?: YZ MITIGATION TYPE:
MITIGATION-SIZE: DID YOU REQUEST MORE INFO?: Y/C_%
IS WETLAND RATING SHEET ATTACHED?:l N
HAVE PROJECT CHANGES/CONDITIONS BEEN DISCUSSED WITH APPLICANT?: Y/
RECOMMENDATION (Circle One): SS ISSUE/COND DENY
COMMENTS : J

76 le -7 ? aLej1?,-_'o,
p? ?f c v5 ?C¢ rd
X0:5 X,
_711W 1Vr`101'a 0
SRegio c // L: -z " -,
CC: nal
Central File! CS /?'t c/-T
C
evaluator - ?- --, ? tLi
weight
/ Water storage x 4.00

- Wetland Score ;
- - Bank/Shoreline stabilization x 4.00 =
Pollutant removal -5-5?) x 5.00 =
/ ?' ?%; :.
/?
? • .
/ : i
/ +. 1.^:•::.: is %
Wildlife habitat x 2.00 ;;:>/?
Aquatic life value x 4.00
Recreation/Education (l x 1.00
,:.. >:.

F Add i point if in sensitive watershed and > 10% non point disturbance within 1 /2 mile upstream, upslope, or radius

APR i±, 1 1997
V
L'W'RONMENTAI SCE
MALCOW
"'^u
PIRNI LETTER OF TRANSMITTAL
?: North Carolina Department of Environment, Health, Date: March 7, 1997
and Natural Resources Re: Pre-Construction Notification
Division of Environmental Management, Water Quality Section Application for the City of Durham
4401 Reedy Creek Road Option 5 Landfill Project
Raleigh, North Carolina 27607
ttention: Mr. Steve. Kroeger 970275
Te are sending you ? Enclosed ? Under separate-cover via ? Mail ? Messenger, the following items:
? shop drawings ? prints ? data sheets ?
? specifications ? sketches ? brochures ?
Our action relative to items submitted for approval has been noted on the drawings.
COPIES PREPARED BY REFERENCE NO. DESCRIPTION
7 Malcolm Pirnie Copies of the Pre-Construction Notification Application for the City of
Durham Option 5 Landfill Project
I I
THESE ARE TRANSMITTED AS CHECKED BELOW:
? As requested ? Approved ? Resubmit copies for approval
? For your use ? Approved as Corrected ? Submit copies for distribution
? For review & comment ? Revise and Resubmit ? Return corrected Prints
? For your information ? Not Approved ?
Remarks: Enclosed, please find seven copies of the Pre-Construction Notification Application for the City of Durham Option 5
Landfill Project. Jean Manuele with the U.S. Army Corps of Engineers has been contacted regarding federal permit requirements for the
proposed project. Please do not hesitate to call me at [phone] or Richard Stahr at [phone] if you have any questions or
require additional information.
Copies to: Nancy Newell, City of Durham
Richard Stahr, Malcolm Pirnie
Joe Levine, Malcolm Pimie
Kate Sweeney, Malcolm Pimie
11832 Rock Landing Drive Suite 400 Newport News, VA 23606
Very truly yours,
MALCOLM PIRNIE, IN C.
Kathryn B. Sweeney j,/
Environmental Scientist
(804) 873 - 8700
(804) 873 - 8723 FAX
MEMO;.ANDUM PRINT NAMES : J
Reviewer.
TO: JOHN DORNEY WQ SUPV.:
ENVIRONMENTAL SC CES BRANCH DATE:
SUBJECT: WETLAND `STAFF REPORT AND RECOMMENDATIONS
***EACH-?ITEM MUST BE ANSWERED (USE N/A FOR NOT APPLICABLE) '^*
PERMIT YR: 97 PERMIT NO: 0000275 COUNTY:, DURHAM
APPLICANT NAME: CITY OF DURHAM-LANDFILL
PROJECT TYPE: LANDFILL EXPANSION PERMIT TYPE: NW 26
COE ` # : DOT J:
RCD FROM CDA: APP DATE_FRM_CDA: 04/07/97
REG OFFICE: RRO
RIVER-AND-SUB-BASIN-#: 030401 STR_INDEX N0: 27-5-(2)
STREAM CLASS: WSIV
WL IMPACT?: Y/N WL_TYPE:
WL REQUESTED: WL_ACR EST? &N
WL_SCORE M : WATER IMPACTED BY FILL?: Y/N
MITIGATION?: Y/? MITIGATION TYPE:/??
MITIGATION-SIZE: DID YOU REQUEST MORE INFO.: Y16)
IS WETLAND RATING SHEET ATTACHED?:d N
HAVE PROJECT CHANGES/CONDITIONS BEEN DISCUSSED WITH APPLICANT?: Y/?
n/ RECOMMENDATION (Circle One): SS ISSUE/COND DENY
COMMENTS : if! 0/7 11,L,

Q 11W_ rb ` 1,1 -mil ` 1 fit/ !-C1'1/

:c: "'-Kegional"ott
Central File
//?
c9 L? sn L?
V.6

Project ne?e C;-/y/ a Nearest road CC/Uh
County, ?v etla area acres Wetland avid` x,.51
Name of evaluator _,?''?? Date
eet
Wetland type (select one)
. Z?
? Bottomland hardwood forest C3 Pine savanna p. Bog forest
Headwater forest ? Freshwater marsh = ? Boa/fen
Swamp forest ? Estuarine frin forest
9 ?
l
l7 Wet flat El
Ephemera( wetland -
p Other
? Pocosin ? Carolina Bay
*The rating system can_ot be applied to salt or brackish marshes or stream channels
weight
Water storaoe x 4.00

--- Bank/Shoreline stabilization x 4.00 = Wetland Score
..s ;
Pollutant removals x 5.00

Wildlife habitat
- x 2.00 -
-:
62

Aquatic life value x 4.00
J
Recreation/Education r2 x 0
Add i point it in sensitive watershedf and > 10% nonpoint disturbance within 1 /Z mile upstream, upslope, or radius
JJ•••JJJJJJJ.JJJJJJJ!//////////////////////////////JJ!!!//.IJJ!!J//!J./!/!!!/?!!!/!/!/!!??/!!?!!?!!!//!J!//!??//?//lIJJJJ/!?!/JJ/!//!!J//J!!J/
DEM ID: CORPS ACTION ID:
NATIONWIDE PERMIT REQUESTED (PROVIDE NATIONWIDE PERMIT #) :
PRE-CONSTRUCTION NOTIFICATION APPLICATION
FOR NATIONWIDE PERMITS THAT REQUIRE:
1) NOTIFICATION TO TSE CORPS OF ENGINEERS
2) APPLICATION FOR SECTION 401 CERTIFICATION
3) COORDINATION WITS TEE NC DIVISION OF COASTAL xu;AGEMENT
SEND TEE ORIGINAL AND (1) COPY OF THIS COLLETED FORM TO THE APPROPRIATE
FIELD OFFICE OF THE CORPS OF ENGINEERS (SEE AGENCY ADDRESSES SHEET). SEVEN
(7) COPIES SHOULD BE SENT TO THE N.C. DIVISION OF ENVIRONMENTAL MANAGEMENT
(SEE AGENCY ADDRESSES SHEET). PLEASE PRINT.
1. OWNERS NAME: City of Durham, NC (Contact: Nancy Newell)
2. MAILING ADDRESS: City of Durham, 101 City Hall Plaza
SUBDIVISION NAME:
CITY: Durham STATE: mnrt-h Czralisa ZIP CODE: 97701
PROJECT LOCATION ADDRESS, INCLUDING SUBDIVISION NAME (IF DIFFERENT FROM
MAILING ADDRESS ABOVE): Proiect located adiacent to existing landfill
located on East Club Blvd. Durham, NC
3. TELEPHONE NUMBER (HOME) :
N/A
(WORK) : (919)
4. IF APPLICABLE: AGENT'S NAME OR RESPONSIBLE CORPORATE OFFICIAL, ADDRESS,
PHONE NUMBER:
Malcolm Pirnie, Inc. 8401 University Executive Park Drive, Suite 124
Charlotte, NC 28262-3386 [phone]
5: LOCATION OF WORK (PROVIDE A MAP, PREFERABLY A COPY OF USGS TOPOGRAPHIC
MAP OR AERIAL PHOTOGRAPHY WITH SCALE) :
COUNTY: Durham County NEAREST TOWN OR CITY: City of Durham
See attached copy of Durham North USGS topographic map
560-4185
1
SPEC=:=C LOCATION (INCL=F- ROAD
The eneral location of the sed landfill facility
NUMBERS, LANDMARKS. 2'TC.) :
is vithin the city limits of Durham. The facility will be located Northwest of the
6. IMPACTED OR NEAREST STREAM/RIVER: Nearest stream' Ellerbee Creek Tributary
RIVER BASIN: Menge g1ver
7a. IS PROJECT LOCATED NEAR WATER CL.ASSIFI= AS TROUT, TIDAL SALTWATER
(SA), HIGH QUALITY WATERS (HQW), OUTSTANDING RESOURCE WATERS (ORW)
SUPPLY (WS-7- OR WS-i=)? YES [ J NO [zI IF YES, EXPLAIN:
7b. IS THE PROJECT LOCATED WITHIN A NORTH CAROLINA DIVISION OF COASTAL
MANAGrZKENT AREA OF ENVIRONMENTAL CONCERN (AEC) ? YES [ J NO [ X3
.7C. IF THE PROJECT IS LOCATED WITHIN A COASTAL COUNTY (SEE PAGE 7 FOR
LIST OF COASTAL COUNTI S), WHAT IS THE LAND USE PLAN (LUP) DESIGNATI097
X /A
Sa. HAVE ANY SECTION 404 PERMITS BEEN PREVIOUSLY REQUESTED FOR USE ON OF
THIS PROPERTY? YES [ ) NO ?J I£ YES, PROVIDE ACTION I.D. N
PREVIOUS PERMIT AND ANY ADDITIONAL INFORMATION (INCLUDE PHOTOCOPY OF 401
CERTI=-TCATION):
8b. ARE ADDITIONAL PERMIT REQUESTS EXPECTED FOR THIS PROPERTY IN THE
FUTURE? YES [K NO [ J IF YES, DESCRIBE ANTICIPATED WORK:
has been prepared for the North Carolina DE8N8 in accordance with
North Carolina Solid waste Management Rule •1618 to obtain a construction
rmit.
9a. ESTnMTED TOTAL NUMBER OF ACRES IN TRACT OF LAM: 1 5
9b. ESTIMATED TOTAL NUMBER OF ACRES OF WETLANDS LOCATED ON PROJECT SITE'
wetland acerage within project site and 2W' buffer-are& ' :z3.2
2
10a. NUMBER OF ACRES OF WETLANDS IMPACTED BY THE PROPOSED PROJECT BY:
FILLING: 0'68 EXCAVATION:
FLOODING:
DRAINAGE:
OTHER:
TOTAL ACRES TO BE IMPACTED : 0.68
10b. (1) STREAM CHANNEL TO BE _I`MPACTED BY THE PROPOSED PROJECT (IF
RELOCATED, 2ROVIDE DISTANCE BOTH BEFORE AND AFTER RELOCATION
LENGTH BEFORE: N/A LT AFTER: FT
WIDTH BEFORE (based on normal high crater contours): FT
WIDTH AFTER: FT
AVERAGE DEPTH BEFORE: FT AFTER: rT
(2) STREAM CHANNEL IMPACTS WILL RESULT FROM: (CHECK ALL THAT APPLY)
OPEN CHANNEL RELOCATION: N/A PLAC---'-IENT OF PIPE IN CHANNEL:
CHANNEL EXCAVATION: CONSTRUCT=ON OF A DAM/FLOODING:
OTHER:
11. IF CONSTRUCTION OF A POND IS PROPOSED, WHAT IS THE SIZE OF THE
WATERSHED DRAINING TO THE POND? N/A
WHAT IS THE EXPECTED POND SURFACE AREA?
12. DESCRI=TION OF PROPOSED WORK INCLUDING DISCUSSION OF TYPE OF
MECHANICAL EQUIPMENT, TO BE USED (ATTACH PLANS: 8 1/2" X 11" DRAWINGS
ONLY) : -n Ctruction of cnlid_waatp landfill nn dict„rl,nd nrr,,,erty ?A44 rA
existing landfill. The facility plan per NC Rule .1619 includes the solid waste
management facilities, waste steam, and leachate mana?ment_ (see Facility E]An_
map
13. PURPOSE OF PROPOSED WORK: The landfill expansion will provide an estimated
capacity of 3,400,000 cubic yards of vast,- for aBnreximatelvX 70 yaads of
operation.
3
14. STATE REASONS WHY IT IS BELIEVED THAT THIS ACTIVITY MUST BE CARRIED
OUT IN WETLANDS. (INCLUDE ANY MEASURES TAKEN TO MIN. IMIZE WETLAND
4n4 tbi r» 01fidPl ineQ _
IMPACTS) : as reAyir n turner the [`lean Vat-or Art Cep-ti.+
steps were taken to achieve nn net lnac b* avnielingAmpg?tg., then minimi7ing
Umavoldable imoactg The Citzallied avnidan and Tninimi7-arjnn h3E colattinv
a disturbed area as the project site The-grojerr - _ was nlgn revised to
avoid a perennial stream and associated wetlands
15. YOU ARE REQUIRED TO CONTACT THE U.S. FISH AND WILDLIFE SERVICE
(USFWS) AND/OR NAT=ONAL 1ARINE FISHERIES SERVICE (NMFS) (SEE AGENCY'
ADDRESSES SHEET) REG';ZD-1NG THE PRESENCE OF ANY FEDERALLY LISTED OR
PROPOSED FOR LISTI:+G ENDANGERED OR THREATENED SPECIES OR CRITICAL HABITAT
IN THE PERMIT AREA THAT MAY BE AFFECTED BY THE PROPOSED PROJECT. DATE
CONTACTED: See attached le a (ATTACH RESPONSES
FROM THESE AGENCIES.)
16. YOU ARE REQUIRED TO CONTACT THE STATE HISTORIC PRESERVATION OFFICER
(SHPO) (SEE AGENCY ADDRESSES SHEET) REGARDING THE PRESENCE OF HISTORIC
PROPERTIES IN THE PERMIT AREA WHICH MAY BE AFFECTED BY THE PROPOSED
PROJECT. DATE CONTACTED: See attached Phase 1 Cultural Resources Stnaion-
17. DOES THE PRO..aCT INVOLVE AN EXPENDITURE OF PUBLIC FUNDS OR THE USE OF
PUBLIC (STATE) LAND?
YES tC] NO El (I£ NO, GO TO 1.8)
a. IF YES, DOES THE PROJECT REQUIRE PREPAR LION OF AN ENVIRONMENTAL
DOCUMENT PURSUANT TO T.%M REQUIREMENTS OF THE NOR7H CAROLINA ENVIRONMENTAL
POLICY ACT? .
YES [ ] NO N
b. IF YES, HAS THE DOCUMENT BEEN REVIEWED THROUGH THE NORTH CAROLINA
DEPARTMENT OF ADM-I ISTRATION STATE CLEARINGHOUSE?
YES NO [
IF ANSWER TO 17b IS YES, THEN SUBMIT APPROPRIATE DOCUMENTATION FROM THE
STATE CLEARINGHOUSE TO DIVISION OF ENVIRONMENTAL MANAGEMENT REGARDING
COMPLIANCE WITH THE NORTH CAROLINA ENVIRONMENTAL POLICY ACT.
QUESTIONS REGARDING THE STATE CLEARINGHOUSE RE7-;.= PROCESS SHOULD BE
DIRECTED TO MS. C:?RYS BAGGETT, DIRECTOR STATE CLEARINGHOUSE, NORTH
CAROLINA DEPARTME.*7T OF ADMINISTRATION, 116 WEST 70NES STREET, RALEIGH,
NORTH CAROLINA ::7603-9003, TELEPHONE [phone].
4
18. THE FOLLOWING ITEMS SHOULD BE INCLUDED WITH THIS APPLICATION IF
PROPOSED ACTIVITY INVOLVES THE DISCHARGE OF EXCAVATED OR FILL MATERIAL
INTO WETLANDS:
a. WETLAND DELINEATION MAP SHOWING ALL WETLANDS, STREAMS, LAKES
AND PONDS ON THE PROPERTY (FOR NATIONWIDE PERMIT NUMBERS 14, 18, 21, 26,
29, AND 38). ALL STREAMS (INTERMITTENT AND PERMANENT) ON THE PROPERTY
MUST BE SHOWN ON THE MAP. MAP SCALES SHOULD BE 1 INCH EQUALS 50 FEET OR 1
INCH EQUALS 100-FEET OR THEIR EQUIVALENT.
b. IF AVAILABLE, REPRESENTATIVE] PHOTOGRAPH OF WETLANDS TO BE
IMPACTED BY PROJECT.
c. IF DELINEATION WAS PERFORMED BY A CONSULTANT, INCLUDE ALL DATA
SHEETS RELEVANT TO THE PLACEMENT OF THE DELINEATION LINE.
:d. ATTACH A COPY OF THE STORMWATER MANAGEMENT PLAN IF REQUIRED.
e. WHAT IS LAND USE OF SURROUNDING PROPERTY?
The proiect area is bordered to the south by an existing landfill, to the
east and northeast by residential communities, and to northwest and west by
Ellerbee Creek and associated flood plain.
f. IF APPLICABLE, WHAT IS PROPOSED METHOD OF SEWAGE DISPOSAL?
ThP landfill will hP lined and leachate will be piped to a publicly owned
treatment facility.
g. SIGNED AND DATED AGENT AUTHORIZATION LETTER, IF APPLICABLE.
NOTE: WETLANDS OR WATERS OF THE U.S. MAY NOT BE IMPACTED PRIOR TO:
1) ISSUANCE OF A SECTION 404 CORPS OF ENGINEERS PERMIT,
2) EITHER THE ISSUANCE OR WAIVER OF A 401 DIVISION OF
ENVIRONMENTAL MANAGEMENT (WATER QUALITY) CERTIFICATION, AND
3) ( ZN THE T=71v COASTAL COUNTIES ONLY) , A LETTER FROM THE
NORTH CAROLINA DIVISION OF COASTAL MANAGEMENT STATING THE PROPOSED
ACTIVITY IS CONSISTENT WITH THE NORTH CAROLINA COASTAL MANAGEMENT
PROGRAM.
OWNER'S GENT'S SIGNATURE
2
46zg 7
ATE
(AGENT'S SIGNATURE VALID ONLY
IF AUTHORIZATION LETTER FROM
THE OWNER IS. PROVIDED (189.) )
5

AN ARCHAEOLOGICAL SURVEY OF THE
DURHAM LANDFILL EXPANSION,
DURHAM COUNTY, NORTH CAROLINA
by
Paul D. Jackson
Performed for:
Malcolm Pirnie, Inc.
11832 Rock Landing Drive Suite 400
Newport News, VA 23606
Prepared by:
Panamerican Consultants, Inc.
924 26th Avenue East
Tuscaloosa, Alabama 35404
July 1, 1996
Durham Landfill Expansion 2
. ague V 1, rLUJCUL area hilts, u6U6 /.5' 1973 (photorevised 1987) Northeast Durham
topographic quadrangle.
F
r__ mot.. -KT- .«i, rarnlina Piedmont
Table 1. Composite Cuitural t.=Onuiugy 11- --
Subperiod Phase Diagnostics
Yeass period '
B.P. _ Sawn UaaamadChe?us??p'd'Ngular
Mstoria 'F' c?`a" sad Srmpls Stamped
Hisai.e-

6.000
I 7AM
111.000
aeis.+s..wr
+smws'"" s'cns +?+
-Weir
nsa¦..
Pr.DrPa+utw+kP?Dr
No Doe c..r?r+awr•s s..a
Late 5- am,
.A,y,'.CDexxWWN.ww..•
YaVds
?
?Y?
Middle Yadkin c
?.a.
Badin Crods Trianglar: Badia FabriaMarked
Badin Cord.Marksd. NsaImpi*wd
Early Badiu Series Ceramics
Bwaaaanoa 6tsmmed:
Bwannanoa,
Gypsy St ==ed.
Gypsy
Gypsy
otarre SW==ed
otarre
Late
Savannah
Savannah River stemmed
River
Salifaz Sids-Notched
--
Guilford Isnceolate
Guilford
Woodland
Archaic It Middle
Morrow Mountain ?0i='0'" Monatain I and II Stemmed
Bihreate
Early Mrk
Palmer
Hardaway
Late SatdawayDaltoa
adiaa Middle Suwannee
Early Clovis
Meadowmatt7
1 36,000-i
ac Cable 199L
St. Albans. UCorY and Nasawha Bi I=sta
Mck gummed. Mrk Serrated
Palmer Comer-Notched
Hardaway Srds-Notched
g?.M,syD{?Itoa .
sardawai Blade
Clovis
-M=Woi- Knife
*Reproduced fz= Cantley 1992. Durham [,3rdfril Exransien 3
P.LEOINDMNPE"OD (CA.12,000-8000B.C.). The Paleoindian period is characterized by
Clovis projectile points in the eastern United States. These artifacts and their associated lithic tool
assemblages represent the earliest material remains found in North America. Radiocarbon dating
has shown that Clovis projectile points tend to date somewhere from 11,000 B.C. and 9500 B.C.
(Adovasio et al. 1977; Haynes 1988). The Paleoindian period has also been subdivided into early,
middle, and late phases based upon the sequence of Clovis, Cumberland-Simpson-Suwannee-Quad,
and Dalton projectile point forms (Anderson et al. 1990; Cantley 1993).
Paleoindian sites in North Carolina consist mainly of isolated surface finds of Clovislike
projectile points and their associated tool assemblages areas of Paleoindian artifact concentration along the eastern Atlantic slope is the hedwa ers of th t
Roanoke, Meherrin-Chowan, Tai.-Pamlico, and Neuse Rivers in northern North Carolina and
southern Virginia (Cantley 1993).
The projectile points, gravers, scrapers, and flake tools of all types found on Paleoindian sites
illustrate a rich and varied life based upon the utilization of Late Pleistocene large and small game,
fish, and wild plant resources (Taylor 1989, 1994).
ARCHAICPE"0D (CA. 8000-SOOB.C.). Archaic sites are very common in the North Carolina
Piedmont area. Artifacts on these sites are very similar to those found generally in the eastern
United States. Lithic tool assemblages, projectile point chronologies, and general subsistence
patterns are the focus of current research efforts.
The Archaic period in North Carolina is subdivided into Early, Middle and Late subperiods.
Throughout the entire Archaic period, the increased size, number, and distribution of sites indicate
an overall increase in population density (Gardener 1974). Each Archaic subphase is characterized
by changes to warmer climatic conditions; the resulting changes in natural resource exploitative
strategies are reflected in changes in projectile point and lithic tool kit types. In general, tool and
projectile point types change from side- to comer-notched to stemmed, with ground stone tools
becoming more prevalent through time (Cantley 1993; Taylor 1994).
Early Archaic (8000-6000 B.C.). Early Archaic band-level societies exploited an
environment rich in subsistence resources. The local floodplain and inter-riverine uplands supported
a diverse settlement pattern of larger base camps supplemented by hunting and gathering camps
(Taylor 1994). Seasonal utilization of the area's dietary resources, combined with the raw material
needs of Early Archaic groups, resulted in more intensive subsistence pattern utilization in the face
of changing climatic conditions (Chapman 1977).
Early Archaic tool assemblages include unifacial and bifacial flake tools, drills, denticulates,
chipped axes, ground celts, hammerstones, and pitted stones. Comer-notched and basally
Palmer and Kirk projectile points were present at the beginning of the Early Archaic (Coe 1964).
SL Alans-LeCroy and Kanawha bifurcate-based points were present in the latter part of the period
(Punington 1983).
Expmrsion 4

Middle Archaic (6000-2500 B. G). Early Middle Archaic settlement patterns changed from
ed Anderson and Hanson
drainage focused to interdrainage territories as the climate slowly changed (Anderson
period
ecozone-focused strategies established during the Early Archaic p tool kits, and larger
1988). The well -structured,
became more refined. The use of local stone and raw materials, Site fundiverse , sizes and locations
and heavier site densities characterized Middle Archaic culture.
and
ward a much broader environmental range for Middle Archaic life. A meo re Ford var 1974).t
point to The
a less specialized economy may have also resulted in a general population
combination of "adaptive flexibility" of Middle Archaic band-orged,o?ed with the _idea
location to location, exploiting local resources within a smaller r
land d reso rang, ource procurement sites. These
"riverine-interriverine" floodplain base camps with changing nature of the forest structure during
settlement pattern models both seem possible given the changing
the Middle Archaic period (Cantley 1993; Goodyear et al. 1979; House and Wogaman 1978).
period were the Stanly, Morrow Mountaui,
Common projectile points of the Middle Archaic per axes, ceps, and
Guilford, and Halifax types. Grinding stones, hammerstones, atlad weights, chipped
a broad range of chipped scrapers and flake tools are also present. While raw lithic material was
most often local quartz, numerous other lithic materials were also present.
is re broader
larger mmore ore
Late Archaic (2500-500 B.C.). Late Archaic subsistence modes
diversified, but continued Middle Archaic practices. In general, Late Archa sites are _ iods and have greater artifact densities than sites from earlier based societies to Woodland
numerous,
transition from hunter?gatherer
plant cultivation and ceramics signal a rami
life. Intensified exchange systems, limited low-level plant cultivation, and stone and cee' c
containers resulted in a higher level of sedentism and population growth within smaller
stems also expanded to include soapstone
ranges (Ford 1974; Steponaitis 1986). Exchange sY and Shea 1981).
vessels, ground stone tools, native copper, and nonlocal lithic materials (Chapman
Late Archaic tool assemblages included the introduction of stems to and 1 soapstone vessel
Coe baugh
wing atlatl weights, cruciform drills, net sinkers and stemmed scrapers (Oliver
gh
Savannah River, Otarre, and Gypsy ( .
1975). Common projectile point types were tools are also present. "
Hammerstones, abraders, flake tools, and grinding
WOODLAND PERIOD (500 B.C.-EUROPEAN CONTACT).
Ceramic typologies oriented in Carolina chronological formats basically define and divide the Woodland perk in North the Woodland period
subperiods -Early, Middle, and Late. Developmental trends characterizing
activities. The introduction of
resulted from the increasing rise of horticulture and/or agricultural
and arrow combined with ceramic manufacture focused Woodland technology toward
the bo earlier adaptive stmt g
utilizing these new resources while reinforcing
Ding the Early Woodland, Late Archaic
Early Woodland (500 B.C.-800 A.D.). aa for 1994). Early
subsistence modes continued, joined by ceramics
along ?hebforwst tnrdra?OOf sem menages. The
the
woodland sites are concentrated in river valleys g

Expansion 5
cultivation of bottle gourds and squash and dependence upon hunting and gathering in upland areas
was enhanced by Early Woodland culture's riverine based settlement patterns (Ford 1985).
Small-stemmed Swannanoa, Gypsy Stemmed, Badin, and Roanoke Triangular projectile
points are the major types found at Early Woodland sites within the project area. Badin Fabric-
Impressed, Cordmarked and Net-Impressed ceramics complete the ceramic assemblages for Earl . y
woodland in the North Carolina Piedmont (Coe 1964).
Middle Woodland (800-1200 A.D.). Intensification of hunting and gathering, exchange
systems, and horticulture resulted in an increase in size and ofmajor s and riers.dThese
Middle Woodland settlements were centered ? flexed burials, large trash pits (Abbott et al. 1991).
sites contain evidence of permanent
In some cases, a change in mortuary practices is attributed to the appearance of low earthen burl
mounds (Keel 1970; MacCord 1966; Wetmore 1978).
hunting and gathering with an increased
Technology continued to reflect a life combining
reliance on horticulture. Yadkin ceramics are associated with Middle Woodland with Masi Triangular
area. Cord-Marked, Fabric-Marked and Check-Stamped Yadkin ceramics projectile points are the main diagnostic types encountered (Coe 1964).
Late Woodland (1200 A.D.-European Contact). Late Woodland flif
loodplains alo g major
large villages interspersed with d Wa ed 1?9 1eWoocdal 1975 x1990). Major subsistence resources
waterways in this area (Davis an fishmn and
were provided by the cultivation of corn, beans ranawse_otic materials were also present (Cantley
gathering (Mikell 1987). Exchange systems fo ,
1993).
Uwhazrie Triangular projectile points and the Dan ceramic series mark the
and plain-surfaced, hard
of Late Woodland culture in the North Carolina Piedmont. Pre
compact paste, fine sand-tempered, and thin-walled ceramics are typical of the Dan River series (Coe
1964).
PRO1-OHISTOR1aHISTORICPF-RioD (1500-1700A.D.). By the late sixteenth century, Native exper American populations in the North Carolina Piedmont hadfi sdeath haien d affected paean dis the
(Axtell 1988; Jennings 1975). Displacement, assimilation,
Native American populations in the North Carolina Piedmont region by 1750:
Protohistoric sites tend to contain domestic structures, storage pits, and palisades (Petherick
1987). European trade goods are also a common feature (Dickens et al. 1987). The Eno,
Occaneechi, Shakori, Sissmpahaw and Saponi tribes occupied the general areas of eastern North
Carolina (Meyer 1928; Swanton 1987; Taylor 1994).
Durham Landfill Expansion 6
HiswmCpmw (I700A.D. PRESENT). John Lederer in 1669-1670, John Lawson in 1700-
1701, and William Byrd in 1728 were some of the first Europeans to visit the North Carolina
Piedmont. The "Trading Path" they encountered soon became a major migration path for European
settlers entering North Carolina (Simpson 1994).
White settlers began to establish subsistence-based homesteads in eastern North Carolina
during the early eighteenth century. These settlers raised a mixture of corn, cattle, wheat, oats,
tobacco and hogs. Also during this time period, several men, the best known being Henry
McCulloh, established ownership of very large tracts of land in the Piedmont area. By the 1770s,
these large holdings had been reduced somewhat by the cession of some tracts to the Crown or sale
to small farmers. Land prices ranged from 5 to 12 pounds per 100 acres until the mid-1770s (Sellers
1951).
Population increases helped spur the establishment of Wake County, with Raleigh as the
county seat in 1771 (Murray 1983). Development in.the form of roads, grist mills, stores, inns, and
trading posts soon spread over the entire area. Goods that had been transported to markets in
Virginia were now processed through local markets. By the beginning of the Antebellum period,
tobacco was the main cash crop (Cathey 1966). Cotton also began to influence the local economy
during this period.
During and after the Civil War, Raleigh's development included cotton and tobacco
marketing, foundries, paper mills, factories, and flour grist and sawmill operations. By the twentieth
century, corn, cotton, and tobacco still remained the major crops for the area's farmers.
Today, the Falls Lake area economy is based almost entirely on local industry, education,
and research institutions (Abbott et al. 1991). Small farming, local stores, and the development of
Falls Lake as a major recreation area also play important economic roles.
ENVIRONMENTAL SETTING
%
The survey tract is located in the Falls Lake area and is part of the Piedmont physiographic
province. Elevation changes within this area from 350 feet along the ridge tops to 280 feet along
the drainage bottoms. The Soil Survey of Durham County, North Carolina lists the soils with the
permit area as belonging to the White Store-Creedmoor association (Kirby 1976). Kirby describes
this complex as gently to moderate steep slopes with well drained soils. Most of the complex is
associated with forested areas. The rest is generally used for crop and pasture lands. The Durham
City limits and its surrounding suburbs are also located on this soil. The closest major waterway
is the Ellerbe Creek which runs to the west of the project area. Several smaller drainages run
throughout-out the property's expanse.
Durham Landfill Ezpansfon 7
FIELD TEmwQuEs
From June 17 through June 21, a two person archaeological team from PCI performed a
cultural resource survey of 46 acres for the Durham Landfill expansion. Visual surface inspection
and subsurface testing were used to-determine the presence of cultural materials. Visual inspection
was employed in areas of good to excellent ground visibility. Shovel testing was used in areas where
ground cover prohibited visual inspection. In high probability areas, shovel testing was initiated
every thirty meters (m) in each direction. In areas with slopes more than 15 percent, subsurface
testing was done on a judgmental basis. All soils removed during shovel testing were screened
through a 1/4 inch hardware mesh screen in order to recover any cultural materials that might be
present. The soils were then returned to fill in the recorded shovel test hole.
Additional shovel tests were used at 10 m intervals to help define a site's limits. Site
boundaries were determined by the presence and distribution of surface material, topographic
-considerations, and the occurrence of two negative--shovel tests along the site's outer edges. A
description of the survey area is included in the Survey Results section of the report.
LABORATORY TECHATQ UEs AND COLLEC?7ON CURATION
PCI has a policy whereby cultural materials recovered during archaeological survey are
transported to the PCI laboratory in Tuscaloosa, Alabama. The materials are cleaned, sorted, and
analyzed according to standard laboratory procedures. All artifacts, project records, and
documentation generated by this survey are curated at the North Carolina Department of Cultural
Resources.
SURVEYREsuLTs
The area of investigation consisted 46 acres of a 300 foot strip around an existing open area
used for soil borrowing (Figure 2). The open area has large portions with little or no vegetation and
exposed topsoil, subsoil, and bedrock Some regions of this tract are covered with thick patches of
grass and weeds. The area surveyed was covered with a mixture of pines and hardwoods. Most of
the area had evidence of previous land-use and pine planting activities. As a result, little of the
permit area had intact soil deposits. In order to better describe the permit area, this report has broken
the description into a northern, eastern, southern and western sections.
The northern section of the buffer zone was more impacted by previous land-use than other
sections. Only a small strip of foliage remains. This section had very little intact soil deposit and
a rugged slope which started near the northwestern side and continued up to the northeastern side.
Several small push piles and upturned trees were noted. The vegetation was consistent with most
of the other areas, with the exception that the undergrowth was much more dense. Shovel testing
revealed the severe disturbances to the soil and the lack of any cultural integrity. In several cases
Durham Landfill Expansion 8
X41.. ` ?
fff
• I : i ? ! t ?;?• ?/?'j Sig n `w..l-•? . ` • ` :! ? , . •? v t l ?, ? J.
r? ??? firms I? iajl?`• a.??a?i/ '. ?% ,'r
11?1 (/0
Site 2:
L ? i tU I 171 ? «?U/r\? ?1 '> > ? •?
LEGEND: 0 500
- Project area limits meters
0 - Site locations 0 2000
feet
Figure 2. Survey area and landfill expansion zone with site locations.
Durham Landfill Expansion 9
the subsoil and topsoil were intermixed throughout the test. No archaeological finds were located
within this section.
The eastern section of the landfill expansion had two areas with high possibilities for
archaeological recovery. The first locality was a high knoll overlooking the open expansion area.
The knoll was covered with a mixture of softwoods and hardwoods. Several rock piles were noted
along the knoll near the far eastern edge of the buffer zone. The knoll overlooks two small drainages
on the north and south sides. Several pushpiles and pine furrows were also recorded. The rock piles
were investigated and no evidence of historic or prehistoric habitation could be found which would
be associated these rock piles. They might be a result of previous land-clearing activities. Shovel
test transects were initiated across the top of this knoll until the slope was reached. As a result of
this testing, Site 1 was located (Figure 3).
In all, nine shovel tests were excavated at Site 1. Only one test was positive. The typical
shovel test showed 13 cm of a dark brown humus and root mat. This was followed by 17 cm of
brownish grey sandy topsoil. The final level recorded was a orangish brown clay subsoil. The
artifacts recovered from the positive test consisted of one possible Savannah River projectile point
fragment and two lithic flakes. The flakes and the broken point suggest that some type of
manufacturing, use, or retouching of lithic material was taking place along this knoll. The extent
to which this work was done cannot be known from the limited material collected and the disturbed
nature of the knoll. The Savannah River projectile point suggests that the site was occupied during
either the Late Archaic or Early Woodland period.
Site 1 has received substantial impacts from previous forestry action, and land-clearing. The
topsoil, although deep in nature in some regions, has evidence of historic disturbances and the
subsequent erosion. These actions have depleted the site's integrity. Therefore, PCI recommends
that this site is ineligible for listing in the NRHP. Although a minimal amount of prehistoric
artifacts has been recovered, the overall information potential is negligible. Further work at this site
will not provide meaningful new information to address research themes for the Late Archaic or
Early Woodland periods. We further recommend that the locality in which the site is located be
cleared for future use by the City of Durham.
The second locality was near the southern edge of the eastern buffer zone. Several transects
were performed along the subtle slopes in this area. These shovel tests demonstrated the poor nature
of the soil deposits. Several small, branching dirt roads were noted throughout this locale. A large
amount of large waste, such as cars, machinery parts, and smaller trash were noted. Along the
eastern edge of the buffer zone near the residential houses several piles of trash were also recorded.
No evidence of prehistoric occupation was noted.
The southern section of the buffer zone had two main landforms which were separated by
a drainage that topographically appeared to be high probability areas for prehistoric sites. The first
area investigated was a small finger knoll that extended from a larger landform to the east. The
small finger had a subtle slope that intersected the drainage on its west side. Large pine furrows
Durham Landfill Expansion 10
O
1
Legend
® - Positive datum
o - Negative shovel test
- site limits
Op - Rock pile
Durham Landfill
0 1 Plan View
meters
Site # 1
Figure 3. Site 1 plan view.
Durham Landfill Expansion 11
were noted across the extent of the landform. Large pines and moderate hardwoods were noted as
well as a moderate amount of underbrush. Site 2 was located within the confines of this knoll.
Site 2 was located during the shovel transecting across the slender finger (Figure 4). When
one positive test was located, further series of shovel tests were run in the cardinal directions until
two negative tests in a row were encountered. Only one other positive test was located. In all, nine
shovel tests were excavated in an attempt to define the site's limits. The average shovel test was 5
cm of dark brown humus followed by 20 to 25 cm of sandy brown topsoil. The final level was 5 to
10 cm of sterile clay subsoil.
Artifacts recovered included four small lithic reduction flakes. No diagnostic materials were
located. The small flakes suggest that some fora of lithic manufacture or reduction occurred at this
site. The limited amount of material suggests that the site was used ephemerally but the severe
disturbance from forestry work may have depleted the site's integrity.
As with Site 1, Site 2 is recommended to be ineligible for listing in the NRHP. The limited
amount of data collected has demonstrated the limited amount of information this site has to offer.
Additional work at this site will not produce substantial information contributing to the Late Archaic
and/or Early Woodland periods. We further suggest that Site 2 be released to the City of Durham
for any future uses.
The second landform investigated in the southern section was heavily impacted by land-use
activities. No intact cultural deposits were noted.
The final section of the buffer zone was the western portion. This portion had what appeared
to be very good potential for prehistoric occupation because of its subtle slopes and the close
proximity of the creek. Several long shovel test transects were run throughout this section. The
shovel tests revealed the severe disturbances to the soils.stratigraphy from the pine planting and other
land-uses. Many portions of this buffer zone showed evidence of previous flooding and some
portions were under. water at the time of investigation. No historic or prehistoric archaeological
finds were located. '
SURvEYINTERPRETATIONAND EVALUATION
A cultural resource survey was conducted within the buffer zone of the Durham Landfill
expansion area. This archaeological survey was performed to determine if these tracts of land were
significant to the archaeological record. The survey yielded two new sites for the archaeological
record. Both sites were prehistoric in nature and heavily disturbed from previous land-use. The
potential for the existence of further sites within this permit area is minimal. The region was
probably in use numerous times in the past by both prehistoric and historic peoples; however, the
extensive land altering within the buffer zone has depleted the archaeological resources.
Durham Landfill Expansion 12
?
?
o
Z
. `Z
0
0
01
f
Legend
®- Positive datum Durham Landfill
• - Negative shovel test 0 10
o - Negative shovel test Q did Plan view
s - No dig possible meters
site limits Site #2
Figure 4. Site 2 plan view.
Durham Landfill Expansion 13
SUMMARYAND RECOMMENDATIONS
The survey described within this report was conducted for Malcolm Pirnie, Inc., in
compliance with State and Federal regulations. The permit area is intended for use as an expansion
of the already active Durham Landfill. The archaeological investigation focused on the buffer zone
surrounding the expansion area. The two prehistoric sites located during the survey had experienced
severe damage to their integrity. The lack of potential for gaining further significant information
from both sites led PCI to conclude that Sites 1 and 2 are ineligible for listing in the NRHP and that
the property should be cleared for the City of Durham's use.
Paul .- on
Principal Investigator
f
B rwham Landfill Expansion 14
REFERENCES CMD
Abbott, Lawrence E., Jr.
1993 Archaeological and Historical Survey of Reeds Creep Falls Lake, Granville County, North
Carolina. U.S. Army Corps of Engineers, Wilmington District.
Abbott, L.E., Jr., C.S. Butler, A.A. Chapman, C.T. Espenshade, J.W. Gardener, M.D. Roberts, and
M.T. Wilderson
1991 Inspection, Evaluation, and Testing of Historic Sites Located At Falls Lake, Wake, Durham,
and Granville Counties, North Carolina. U.S. Army Corps of Engineers, Wilmington
District.
Adovasio, J.M., J.D. Gunn, J. Donahue, and R. Stuckenrath
1977 Meadowcroft Rockshelter: Retrospect 1976. Pennsylvania Archaeologist 47 (2-3).
Anderson, D.G., and G. T Hanson
1988 Early Archaic Settlement in the Southeastern United States: A Case Study From the
Savannah River Valley. American Antiquity 53(2):261-286.
Anderson, David G., R. Jerald Ledbetter, and Lisa O'Steen
1990 Paleoindian Period of Archaeology of Georgia. Georgia Archaeological Research Design
Paper No. 6. University of Georgia, Laboratory of Archaeology Series, Report No. 28.
Athens.
Axtell, James
1988 After Columbus, Essays in the Ethnohistory of Colonial North America. New York, Oxford
University Press.
Brockington, Paul E., Jr., and Lawrence E. Abbott
1993 Inspection Evaluation and Testing of Historic Sites Located at Falls Lake, Wakg, Durham
and Cronville Counties, North Carolina. U.S. Army Corps of Engineers, Wilmington
District.
Cable, J.S.
1991 Archeological and Historical Survey of Selected Shoreline Locations in the Impact Zone of
the Proposed Expansion of the Conservation Pool, Falls Lake North Carolina. New South
Associates Technical Report No. 46. Report submitted to U.S. Army Corps of Engineers,
Wilmington District.
Cantley, C.E.
1993 Cultural Resources Survey of Woodpecker Ridge, Wake County, North Carolina. New South
Associates. Submitted to U.S. Army Corps of Engineers, Wilmington District, North
Carolina.
Durham Lancori11 Expansion 15
Cathey, C.A.
1966 Agriculture of North Carolina Before the Civil War. State Department of Archives and
History, Raleigh.
Chapman, J.
1977 Archaic Period Research in the Lower Little Tennessee River Valley. Report of
Investigations No. 18. Department of Anthropology, University of Tennessee, Knoxville.
Chapman, J., and A.B. Shea
1981 The Archaeobotanical Record: Early Archaic Period to Contact in the Lower Tennessee
River Valley. Tennessee Archaeologist 6(1).
Coe, J.L.
1964 The Formative Cultures of the Carolina Piedmont. Transactions of the American
Philosophical Society, Vol. 54, Pt. 5.
Davis, R.P.S., and H.T. Ward
1991 The Evolution of Siouan Communities in Piedmont North Carolina. Southeastern
Archaeology 10(1): 40-53.
Dickens, R.S., H.T. Ward, and R.P.S. Davis (editors)
1987 The Siouan Project: Seasons I and II. Research Laboratories of Anthropology, University
of North Carolina, Monograph Series No. 1. Chapel Hill.
Ford, R.I.
1974 Northeastern Archaeology: Past and Future Directions. Annual Review of Anthropology
3:385-409.
1985 Patterns of Prehistoric Food Production in North America. In Prehistoric Food Production
in North America; edited by Richard I. Ford, pp. 341-364. Mpseum of Anthropology.
University of Michigan, Anthropological Papers No. 75. Ann Arbor.
Gardener, W.M.
1974 The Flint Run Complex: Pattern and Process During the -Paleo-Indian to Early Archaic. In
The Flint Run Paleo-Indian Complex. A Preliminary Report 1971-73, edited by William M.
Gardener. Occasional Publications, No. 1, Archaeology Laboratory Department of
Anthropology,'Catholic University, Washington, D.C.
Goodyear, Albert C., John H. House, and Neal W. Ackerly
1979 Laurens Anderson: An Archeological Study of the Inter-Riverine Piedmont. Anthropological
Studies 4, Occasional Papers of the Institute of Archaeology and Anthropology, the
University of South Carolina.
Durham Landfill Expansion 16
Haynes, C.
1987 Clovis Origin Update. The Kiva 52:83-93.
1988 The First Americans: Geofacts and Geofancy. Natural History 97(2):4-12.
House, J.H., and R. Wogaman
1978 Windy Ridge: A Prehistoric Site in the Inter-Riverine Piedmont in South Carolina.
Anthropological Studies Series 3, Institute of Archaeology and Anthropology, University of
South Carolina, Columbia.
Jennings, Francis
1975 The Invasion of America, Indians, Colonialism and the Century of Conquest. Oxford
University Press, New York.
Keel, Bennie C.
1970 Excavations at the Red Springs Mound (Rb4), Robeson County. Southern Indian Studies
22:17-22. University of North Carolina, Chapel Hill.
Kirby, Robert M.
1976 Soil Survey of Durham County, N. C. Soil Conservation Services, Atlanta.
MacCord, Howard A., Jr.
1966 The McLean Mound, Cumberland County, North Carolina. Southern Indian Studies 18:3-45.
University of North Carolina, Chapel Hill.
Meyer, W.E.
1928 Indian Trails of the Southeast. Forty-second Annual Report of the Smithsonian Institution.
Government Printing Office, Washington, D.C.
Mikell, G.A.
1987 The Donngha Site: Late Woodland Period Subsistence and'Ecology. M.A. thesis,
Department of Anthropology, Wake Forest University, Winston Salem, North Carolina.
Murray, Elizabeth Reid
1983 Wake: Capital County of North Carolina. Capital County Publishing Company, Raleigh.
Oliver, B.L. '
1983 Refinement of the North Carolina Chronological Sequences. In Piedmont Archaeology,
edited by J. Mark Wittkofski and Lyle Browning, pp. 125-147. Archaeological Society of
Virginia, Special Publication No. 10.
Durham Landfill Expansion 17
Perkinson, P.
1971 North Carolina Fluted Projectile Points: Survey Report Number One. Southern Indian
Studies, Vol. XXII. The Archaeological Society of North Carolina, Chapel Hill.
Petherick, G.L.
1987 Architecture and Features at the Fredricks, Wall, and Mitchum Sites. In The Siouan Project:
Seasons 1 and 11, edited by Roy S. Dickens, H. Trawick Ward, and R.P. Stephens Davis, Jr.,
pp. 29-80. Research Laboratories of Anthropology, University of North Carolina,
Monograph Series No. 1. Chapel Hill.
Purrington, B.L.
1983 Ancient Mountaineer. An Overview of Prehistoric Archaeology of North Carolina's Western
Mountain Region. In The Prehistory of North Carolina. An Archaeological Symposium,
edited by Mark A. Mathis and Jeffry J. Crow. North Carolina Division of Archives and
History, Raleigh.
Richie, W.A.
1956 Prehistoric Settlement Patterns in Northeastern North America. In Prehistoric Settlement
Patterns in the New World, edited by G.R. Willey, pp. 72-80, Viking Fund Publications in
Anthropology 23.
Sellers, Charles G., Jr.
1951 Private Profits and British Colonial Policy. The Speculations of Henry McCulloh. William
and Mary Quarterly (3rd Series).
Simpson, Kay
1992 Cultural Resource Survey, Parrish Tract, Falls Lake, Durham County, North Carolina. The
Cultural Resource Group, Louis Berger and Associates, Inc. Richmond, Virginia. -
Steponaitis, Vincs P.
1986 Prehistoric Archaeology in the Southeastern United States, 1970'1985. Annual Review of
Anthropology 15:363-404.
Swanton, J.R.
1987 The Indians of the Southeastern United States. Smithsonian Institution Press, Washington.
Taylor, M.V.
1989 Paleo-Indian Technology, The Williamson Site, a Functional View. Paper presented to
Spring Symposium of the Virginia Archaeological Society, Richmond, Va.
1994 Archaeological and Historical Survey. Knapp of Reeds Creep Beaverdam Creek and Forest
Ridge Peninsula. Submitted to U.S. Corps of Engineers, Wilmington District. Panamerican
Consultants, Inc., Tuscaloosa, Alabama.
Durham Landfill Expansion 18
Taylor, M.V., and Kelly Nolte
1994 Architectural and Photographic Recordation of the Rogers (Parrish) House, Falls Lake,
Durham County, North Carolina. Panamerican Consultants, Inc. Submitted to U.S. Army
Corps of Engineers, Wilmington District.
Turnbaugh, W.A.
1975 Toward an Explanation of the Broadpoint Dispersal in Eastern North America Prehistory.
Journal of Anthropological Research 31(1):51-68.
Wetmore, Ruth Y.
1978 Report on Excavations at the Buie Mound, Robeson County, North Carolina. South Carolina
Institute of Archaeology and Anthropology, University of South Carolina, The Notebook
10:30-71.
Woodall, J.N.
1975 Second Archeological Survey of the Great Bend Area, Yadkin River Valley, North Carolina.
Ms. on file, Division of Archives and History, Archeology Branch. Raleigh.
1990 Archeological Investigations in the Yadkin River Valley 1984-87. North Carolina
Archaeological Council Publication No. 25.
LjUrfUUnJ."nUiluA;"F4/u&U- a1

'
SUIZVEY OF
AEOLOGICAL
AN AR
?: - :.
..
CH
-
:
_ -
:0P''ION FIVE OF T'HE:
.
.DURHAM LANDFILL'EXPANSION, ,' -
DURHAM COUNTY, NORTH CAROLINA

Daniel R. Pratt . .

? p

ti,-
F ?`
~
Performed for
?
t
'• '
?'.?
_
•?? F.Yra r? Z? " ?,_
.
...

77
::, :,•:::; .:: ' . `_ "i _• ;
-_ 11832 Rock.Landing Drive Suite 400
_ Newport News, VA 23606

iv4
Prepared by
x.•-' :'• Inc
_
nsultants
C
i
m
P
. "' .
,
o
can
er
ana
924 26th Avenue East

Alabama 35404
Tuscaloosa
,

August 20,1996

AN ARCHAEOLOGICAL SURVEY OF
OPTION FIVE OF THE
DURHAM LANDFILL EXPANSION,
DURHAM COUNTY, NORTH CAROLINA
INTRODUCTION
From August 14 to August 15, 1996, an archaeological team from Panamencan
Consultants, Inc. (PCI), conducted an archaeological survey of the 12.54 hectare (31
acre) Option Five footprint of the Durham Landfill Expansion and buffer zone (Field
Supervisor: Daniel R. Pratt; Archaeological Assistant: Steven R. Hack). The survey was
conducted under contract with Malcolm Pin-de, Inc. of Newport News, Virginia, to
determine if there were any significant archaeological remains present which might be
impacted by the expansion of the landfill.
The survey area is located near the City of Durham limits, off East Club
Boulevard. The Option Five landfill expansion footprint embraces approximately 1254
hectares (31 acres). The 300'-wide landfill expansion extends around the northern
perimeter. of the existing landfill. The survey area is located on the USGS 7.5' 1973
__(photorevised 1987, photoinsRected 1990) Northeast Durham topogra c quadrann
(Figure 1).
Prior. to the field work, a background literature and records search was
performed by reviewing all pertinent publications, manuscripts, as well as
archaeological and historic site files relating to the project area. Soil and vegetation
maps were also consulted to document previous structures and note previous
environmental conditions. Additionally, the Office of State Archaeology and the
Historic Sites Survey of the Department of Archives and History wdre consulted.
PHysIcAL ENVIRONMENT
The 12.54 hectare (31 acre) survey tract is located in the Falls Lake area of
Durham County, North Carolina, and is part of the Piedmont physiographic province.
Elevation within the tract ranges between 360 feet (1181 meters) AMSL on ridge tops to
275 feet (902 meters) AMSL on drainage bottomland. The Soil Survey of Durham County,
North Carolina assigns most of the soils within the permit area to the White Store-
Creedmoor association (Kirby 1976)- gently to moderate steep slopes with well drained
soils. Most of the complex is associated with forested areas, with the remainder
generally used for crop and pasture lands.
Lhwham Landfill Option Five Expansion 1
Durham Landfill Option Five Expansion 2
Figure 1. Location of Project Area: Option Five Extension of Durham County Landfill.
Approximately 900 of the project area land is in mixed loblolly pine/deciduous
hardwood forest under 30 years old. The remaining 10% is primarily sewer drain field
and residential.
The closest major waterway is Ellerbe Creek, which runs to the west of the
project area. On the basis of topographic data, it is apparent that Ellerbe Creek has been
straightened and an attempt made to contain it within levees. The original drainage
path of the creek is unknown- however, it is likely that the entire lowland floodplain
has been seasonally affected by high and low energy fluvial erosion and deposition for
many centuries. The lensed and mottled nature of the soils in the Ellerbe Creek
drainage (Chewacla and Wehadkee Series, Roanoke Series) support this assumption of
a seasonally flooded, fluvial soil environment. Several smaller drainages also run
throughout the property.
ARCHAEOLOGICAL ANDHISTORICAL BACKGROUND (from Taylor 1994)
The following overview briefly summarizes the prehistoric and historic time
periods of the Falls Lake area. These sequences are the result of the refinement of
general regional trends by a host of researchers (Abbott 1993; Brockington and Abbott
1993; Cable 1991; Coe 1964; Dickens et al. 1987; Gardener 1974; Haynes 1987; Keel 1970;
Oliver 1983; Richie 1956; Taylor 1994; Woodall 1990). The Falls Lake area is divided
into three general prehistoric stages: Paleoindian, Archaic, and Woodland (Table 1).
Each of these stages are subdivided into early, middle and late periods. These
periods are based upon survey and excavation data that has provided information
relating to projectile point chronologies, ceramic chronologies, and implied economic
adaptations. The historic overviews have been based on land-use strategies, economics,
ethnic demographics, migration patterns, material culture, and architectural styles
(Brockington and Abbott 1993; Taylor and Nolte'1994).
PALEOIl Lw STAGE (cA. 12,000-8000 B.C+). The Paleoindian stage is
characterized by Clovis projectile points in the eastern United States. These artifacts
and their associated lithic tool assemblages represent the earliest material remains
found in North America. Radiocarbon dating has shown that Clovis projectile points
tend to date somewhere from 11,000 B.C. and 9500 B.C. (Adovasio et al. 1977; Haynes
1988). The Paleoindian stage has been divided into Early, Middle, and Late periods
based upon the sequence of Clovis, Cumberland-Simpson-Suwannee-Quad, and Dalton
projectile point forms (Anderson et al. 1990; Cantley 1993).
Paleoindian sites in North Carolina consist mainly of isolated surface finds of
Clovis-like projectile points and their associated tool assemblages (Perkinson 1971).
One of the more prominent areas of Paleoindian artifact concentration along the eastern
Durham Landfill Option Five Expansion 3
Atlantic slope is the headwaters of the Roanoke, Meherrin-Chowan, Tar-Pamlico, and
Neuse Rivers in northern North Carolina and southern Virginia (Cantley 1993).
The projectile points, gravers, scrapers, and flake tools of all types found on
Paleoindian sites illustrate a rich and varied life based upon the utilization of Late
Pleistocene large and small game, fish, and wild plant resources (Taylor 1989, 1994).
ARCHAIC STAGE (cA. 8000-500 B.C.). Archaic sites are very common in the North
Carolina Piedmont area. Artifacts on these sites are very similar to those found
generally in the eastern United States. Lithic tool assemblages, projectile point
chronologies, and general subsistence patterns are the focus of current research efforts.
The Archaic stage in North Carolina is divided into Early, Middle and Late
periods. Throughout the entire Archaic stage, the increased size, number, and
distribution of sites indicate an overall increase in population density (Gardener 1974).
As the climate became warmer and drier during Middle Archaic times, and again
during the Late Archaic period, changes occurred in natural resource exploitative
strategies and artifact forms and styles. In general, tool and projectile point types
change from side- to corner-notched to stemmed, with ground stone tools becoming
more prevalent through time (Cantley 1993; Taylor 1994).
Early Archaic (8000-6000 B.C ). Early Archaic band-level societies exploited an
environment rich in subsistence resources. The local floodplain and inter-riverine
uplands supported a diverse settlement pattern of laigei base camps supp- i enfed by
hunting and gathering camps (Taylor 1994).
Early Archaic tool assemblages include unifacial and bifacial flake tools, drills,
denticulates, chipped axes, ground celts, hammerstones, and pitted stones. Corner-
notched and basally ground Palmer and Kirk projectile points were present at the
beginning of the Early Archaic (Coe 1964). St. Alans-LeCroy and Kanawha bifurcate-
based points were present in the latter part of the period (Purrington 1983).
Middle Archaic (6000-2500 B.C). Early Middle Archaic settlement patterns
changed from drainage focused to inter-drainage territories as the climate slowly
changed (Anderson and Hanson 1988). The well-structured, ecozone-focused strategies
established during the Early Archaic period became more refined. The use of local
stone and raw materials, more diverse tool kits, and larger and heavier site densities
characterized Middle Archaic culture. Site functions, sizes, and locations point toward
a much broader environmental range for Middle Archaic life. A more varied diet and a
less specialized economy may have also resulted in a general population increase
(Ford1974). The combination of "adaptive flexibility" of Middle Archaic band-organized
Durham Landfill Option Five Expansion 4

Table 1. Composite Cultural Chronology for the North Caroline Piedmont (from Cantley 1992).
Yaara Period 3nbperiod Fhase Diagnose=
B.P.

trammed Small TAansolar.
t
i
Bi Fmdrieb' NetdmFteased
VoaamadChe ?
or
a
e ?
0

protohiatoria
'War a.u? i..su.a

600

?-

Pee Dee
l?.D..?MW?e'•t
sum
up"
4?e Lis ZTwharrie tIMMMrt?aifwrXwiaw?r?i
I kav
?
CM
BaddL Yadkin .
r?
j .?t?r?d.L1r
WeodLad Badia Csnda'hlaa6lar: BadiaFaluio-Masbd
X00
E
i Bea
Card4&rkad.Nwlmpeawd
r
ar
ewannanOa. $wannaa0a slammed- Badin Scrim Cwamics
3000 Gypsy Gym Stemmed.
L Ctanw Otam .Slammed
ate
savannah Savannah River Stemmed
River
arfl?
d
gvirs Nallfai Side-Notche
8X0 CA"ard Guilford Lanceolate
Archaic bdiddle
__ -- ---- - - -- u
in
- I&W°" Mountain I and a Stemase3 - -
T.000. nta
Mersaw Mo
Manly
epo0 .
BiMreue SLAUmns. JaCw and Esnawha Bra=va
Mrh lack mammed- Mrk Serrated
i#rooo Early Primer Plalmar CoraerNocehed
Hardaway Hardaway SUG.Notchod,
Lan HardawspDaltoa Hardaway-Da on _

I1A00 Paleo•Iadiaa MWdle Suwannee Hardaway Blade

Sariy Clovis Clovis
]Z000 -
13000
Maadowavil?
-M=gai Knife
1-4000
]amo
swaew QUe laaL
Durham Landfill Option Five Expansion 5
societies moving from location to location, exploiting local resources within a smaller
range, joined with the idea of "riverine-interriverine" floodplain base camps with
upland resource procurement sites. These settlement pattern models both seem
possible given the changing nature of the forest structure during the Middle Archaic
period (Cantley 1993; Goodyear et al. 1979; House and Wogaman 1978).
Common projectile points of the Middle Archaic period were the Stanly, Morrow
Mountain, Guilford, and Halifax types. Grinding stones, hammerstones, atlatl weights,
chipped axes, celts, and a broad range of chipped scrapers and flake tools are also
present. While raw lithic material was most often local quartz, numerous other lithic
materials were also present.
Late Archaic (2500-500 B. C). Late Archaic subsistence modes were broader and
more diversified, but continued Middle Archaic practices. In general, Late Archaic sites
are larger, more numerous, and have greater artifact densities than sites from earlier
Archaic subperiods. Limited plant cultivation and ceramics signal a transition from
hunter/ gatherer-based societies characteristic of the Archaic stage to the more
sedentary life of the Woodland stage. Intensified exchange systems, limited low-level
plant cultivation, and stone and ceramic containers resulted in a higher level of
sedentism and population growth within smaller territorial ranges (Ford 1974;
Steponaitis 1986). Exchange systems also expanded to include soapstone vessels,
- - -- ground-stone tools, native-copper,. and-non-local- lithic-material.-(Khapman -andShea - --
1981).
Late Archaic tool assemblages included the introduction of steatite and
soapstone vessels, wing atlatl weights, cruciform drills, net sinkers and stemmed
scrapers (Oliver 1983; Turnbaugh 1975). Common projectile point types were Savannah
River, Otarre, and Gypsy (Coe 1964). Hammerstones, abraders, flake tools, and
grinding tools are also present. .
WOODLAND STAGE (500 B. C -EuRoPEAN CONTACT). Ceramic typologies oriented
in chronological formats basically define and divide the Woodland period in North
Carolina into three periods - Early, Middle, and Late. Developmental trends
characterizing the Woodland period resulted from the increasing rise of horticulture
and/or agricultural activities. The introduction of the bow and arrow combined with
ceramic manufacture focused Woodland technology toward utilizing these new
resources while reinforcing earlier adaptive strategies.
Early Woodland (500 B.C.-800 A.D.). During the Early Woodland, Late Archaic
subsistence modes continued, joined by ceramics and the bow and arrow (Taylor 1994).
Early Woodland sites are concentrated in river valleys or along the first terrace of
Durham Landfill Option Five Expansion 6
stream drainages. The cultivation of bottle gourds and squash and dependence upon
hunting and gathering in upland areas was enhanced by Early Woodland culture's
riverine based settlement patterns (Ford 1985).
Small-stemmed Swannanoa, Gypsy Stemmed, Badin, and Roanoke Triangular
projectile points are the major types found at Early Woodland sites within the project
area. Badin Fabric-Impressed, Cordmarked and Net-Impressed ceramics complete the
ceramic assemblages for Early Woodland in the North Carolina Piedmont (Coe 1964).
Middle Woodland (800-1200 A.D.). Intensification of hunting and gathering,
exchange systems, and horticulture resulted in an increase in size and distribution of
Middle Woodland sites. Middle Woodland settlements were centered along the
floodplain of major streams and rivers. These sites contain evidence of permanent
houses, flexed burials, and large trash pits (Abbott et al. 1991). In some cases, a change
in mortuary practices is attributed to the appearance of low earthen burial mounds
(Keel 1970; MacCord 1966; Wetmore 1978).
Technology continued to reflect a life combining hunting and gathering with an
increased reliance on horticulture. Yadkin ceramics are associated with Middle
Woodland sites in the study area. Cord-Marked, Fabric-Marked and Check-Stamped
Yadkin ceramics with Yadkin Triangular projectile points are the main diagnostic types
encountered (Coe 1964).
Late Woodland (1200 A.D.-European Contact). Late Woodland life was centered
around large villages interspersed with smaller hamlets located on broad, fertile
floodplains along major waterways in this area (Davis and Ward 1991; Woodall 1975,
1990). Major subsistence resources were provided by the cultivation of corn, beans and
squash combined with hunting, fishing, and gathering (Mikell 1987). Exchange systems
for raw exotic materials were also present (Cantley 1993).
Uwharrie Triangular projectile points and the Dan River ceramic series mark the
presence of Late Woodland culture in the North Carolina Piedmont. Net Impressed
and plain-surfaced, hard compact paste, fine sand-tempered, and thin-walled ceramics
are typical of the Dan River series (Coe 1964).
PROTowsTORIC1H1sTORIC PERIOD (1500-1700 A.D.). By the late sixteenth century,
Native American populations in the North Carolina Piedmont had first experienced
European diseases (Axtell 1988; Jennings 1975). Displacement, assimilation, and death
had affected almost all the Native American populations in the North Carolina
Piedmont region by 1750.
Durham Landfill Option Five Expansion 7
Protohistoric sites tend to contain domestic structures, storage pits, and palisades
(Petherick 1987). European trade goods are also a common feature (Dickens et al. 1987).
The Eno, Occaneechi, Shakori, Sissipahaw and Saponi tribes occupied the general areas
of eastern North Carolina (Meyer 1928; Swanton 1987; Taylor 1994).
HMSTORIC pauoD (1700 A.D.-PREsENT). John Lederer in 1669-1670, John Lawson
in 1700-1701, and William Byrd in 1728 were some of the first Europeans to visit the
North Carolina Piedmont. The "Trading Path" they encountered soon became a major
migration path for European settlers entering North Carolina (Simpson 1994).
White settlers began to establish subsistence-based homesteads in eastern North
Carolina during the early eighteenth century. These settlers raised a mixture of corn,
cattle, wheat, oats, tobacco and hogs. Also during this time period, several men, the
best known being Henry McCulloh, established ownership of very large tracts of land
in- the Piedmont area. By the 1770s, these large. holdings had been reduced somewhat
by the cession of some tracts to the British government or sale to small farmers. Land
prices ranged from 5 to 12 pounds per 100 acres until the mid-1770s (Sellers 1951).
Population increases helped spur the establishment of Wake County, with
Raleigh as the county seat in 1771 (Murray 1983). Development in the form of roads,
grist mills, stores, inns, and trading posts soon spread over the entire area. Goods that
had been transported to markets in Virginia were now processed through local markets.
By the beginning of the Antebellum period, tobacco was the main cash crop (Cathey
1966). Cotton also began to influence the local economy during this period.
During and after the Civil War, Raleigh's development included cotton and
tobacco marketing, foundries, paper mills, factories, and flour grist and sawmill
operations. By the twentieth century, corn, cotton, and tobacco stillremained the major
crops for the area's farmers.
Today, the Falls Lake area economy is based almost entirely on local industry,
education, and research institutions (Abbott et al. 1991). Small farming, local stores,
and the development of Falls Lake as a major recreation area also play important
economic roles.
Af=ODS AND TEcmwQllES
From August 13 through August 14, a two-person archaeological team from PC,
performed a cultural resource survey of 12.54 hectares (31 acres) for the Option Five
footprint of the Durham Landfill expansion. Visual surface inspection of the entire area
and subsurface testing of selected areas were used to determine the presence or absence
Durham Landfill Option Five Expansion 8
of archaeological materials. Visual inspection was employed in areas of good to
excellent surface visibility. Shovel testing was used in areas where leaf litter or- other
ground cover prohibited visual inspection.
In high probability areas, shovel tests were excavated at 15 meter (49 foot)
intervals. In low probability areas, shovel testing was performed at 30- to 50-meter (98-
to 164-foot) intervals. In areas with slopes of more than 15 percent, subsurface testing
was done on a judgmental basis. All soils removed during shovel testing were screened
through 1/a" hardware mesh screen in order to recover any archaeological materials that
might be present. Soil was then returned to fill in the recorded shovel test hole.
A description of the survey area is included in the Results of Survey section of
the report.
LABORATORY TEcBmQuES AND COLLECTION CURATION
PCI has a policy whereby cultural materials recovered during archaeological
survey are transported to the PCI laboratory in Tuscaloosa, Alabama. The materials are
cleaned, sorted, and analyzed according to standard laboratory procedures. All
artifacts, project records, and documentation generated by this survey are curated at the
North Carolina Department of Cultural Resources.
-RESULTS OF SuRvEY
The area of investigation consisted of 1254 hectares (31 acres) of the Option Five
footprint that surrounds an open area currently used for soil borrowing (Figure 2). The
open area has been stripped of vegetation, and subsoil and bedrock are exposed. Most
portions of the Option Five footprint are covered with a mixture of young pines and
hardwoods (<30 years old). The majority of the Option Five footprint showed evidence
of previous land-use, and pine planting and harvesting. As a result, little of the tract
had intact soil deposits. In order to better describe the Option Five-footprint, this report
describes separately the northern, eastern and western sections (Figure 2).
Western Section
Visual inspection and shovel testing of the western section of the Option Five
footprint revealed the severe disturbances to soil stratigraphy from pine planting,
seasonal inundation, the installation of sewer main, the creation of an erosion barrier
and the excavation of water testing probes (Figure 3). Many portions of the western
area showed evidence of recent flooding and some areas were inundated at the time of
investigation. No archaeological materials were recovered during pedestrian survey or
archaeological shovel testing of this section.
Durham Landfill Option Five Expansion 9
01 -tn- 7 -_q -ado 11609-7 +M1-0

b
i
7
f
7
i
J
?0
i I ugznmdx_V aA& uoud0 II!fPuv7 umymp
•uopW? OJIS DAWD uuajo 'V 'W PUP`EaXV AaainS;o saop?as uialsaM pug tuatpsoj? •£ amSt3
Northern Section
The northern section of the Option Five footprint consisted of a low, narrow,
primary "finger" ridge aligned approximately northwest, with a secondary ridge
aligned north-northwest (Figure 3). Visual inspection of the ground surface indicated
disturbances associated with recent (-15-20 years previous) logging activities (road-cuts
and clearing) and pine planting (plow furrows). Sewer main had been installed along
the northern toeslope of the ridge. A visual inspection of the entire northern section
was performed, followed by the excavation of thirty shovel tests along the top of the
primary and secondary ridges.
While the Soil Survey of Durham County, North Carolina describes the soils of the
northern section as Iredell and White Store series, the thirty shovel tests (15 meter
intervals) excavated on the primary and secondary ridges showed remarkable variation
in soil profiles. (The Iredell Series typically consists of up to 2 inches of very dark
grayish-brown (10YR3/2) loam, over 5 inches of grayish-brown (2.5Y5/2) loam, with a
twenty-nine inch thick light olive-brown (2.5Y5/4) B2t clay horizon. The parent
material for the series is a green, strong-brown, black and gray saprolite that lies deeper
than thirty-six inches. The White Store Series is characterized by up to 6 inches of
brown (10YR5/3) sandy loam A horizon over 4 inches of strong-brown (7.5YR 5/6) clay
loam Blt horizon. The clay content typically increases to a depth of thirty-five inches,
with yellowish-red (5YR4/ 6 - 5YR5/ 6), reddish-brown (5YR4/4) mottles. Underlying
-- - - the Bat horizon-is a-dark reddish-brown(2.. YR3,/AyMghly-weathered -micaceous---- -
sandstone Cl horizon.) The majority of shovel tests showed evidence of the variable
depletion and/or in situ disturbance of Iredell and White Store series soils, while others
yielded mixtures of soil suggesting heavy machinery impact (bulldozing or treaded
vehicles), tree harvesting/planting and/or plowing.
No archaeological materials were located during the pedestrian survey or
archaeological shovel testing of this section
M. A. Glenn Gravesite
A single marked grave is located on a high knoll, approximately 10 meters (30
feet) east of the edge of the existing landfill excavation (Figure 3). The granite marker
bears the inscription:
M. A. Glenn
Wife of
W. A. J. Rochell
Born
Nov. 10, 1833
Died
Mar. 10, 1904
Durham Landfill Option Five Expansion 12
The Durham County Library Local History & Genealogy Section was unable to
locate a direct reference to M. A. Glenn or W. A. J. Rochell, although there are many
genealogical entries in the library's catalogs under both surnames. Rochell was the
name of an early photographer of the city of Durham, and the Rochell family was also
related to Durham's Duke family.
A visual inspection was made of the entire knoll upon which the grave is located.
No other marked graves or surface depressions were found. Because of the possible
presence of other unmarked graves, subsurface testing was not performed in this area.
Southern Section
The southern section of the Option Five footprint had one area with a high
potential for archaeological deposits: a high knoll overlooking the current landfill area
(Figure 4). Following comparison with the archaeological investigations performed by
Jackson (1996), however, it was determined that the high potential area of the Option
Five footprint had been previously surveyed during Jackson's delimitation of Site #1
(1996:9-10). Nevertheless, the entire area was visually surveyed, including inspection of
the "rock piles" and an area that had been recently cleared during the installation of
water test borings. No further archaeological materials were recovered during the
pedestrian survey/visual inspection of this area.
SIGNmLANCE EVAL uATIONS
A cultural resource survey was conducted within the Option Five footprint of the
Durham Landfill expansion area. This archaeological survey was performed to
determine if these properties contained significant archaeological resources. The survey
yielded no archaeological materials or previously unknown archaeological sites and the
potential for the existence of undiscovered archaeological sites within the Option Five
footprint is extremely low. The region was probably in use numerous times in the past
by both prehistoric and historic peoples; however, extensive disturbance to the
landscape appears to have destroyed the archaeological resources.
The granite grave marker of M. A. Glenn (wife of W. A. J. Rochell) was located
during this survey. Although there were other individuals with identical surnames
important to the historical development of the Durham, North Carolina area, there
were no references to these specific individuals at the Durham County Library's Local
History and Genealogy Division.
Dwham Landfill Option Five Expansion 13
Figure 4. Southern Section of Survey Area, showing location of Jackson's (1996) Site #1.
Durham Landfill Option Five Ezpamion 14
RECOMMENDATIONS
The survey described within this report was conducted for Malcolm Pirnie, Inc.,
in compliance with State and Federal regulations. The permit area, the Option Five
footprint, is intended for use as an expansion of the already active Durham Landfill.
Subsurface archaeological testing focused on the 1254 hectare (31 acre) Option
Five footprint surrounding the existing landfill area. No cultural materials were
recovered from the northern, western or southern sections of the footprint. PCI
recommends that no further archaeological investigations be required within the
Option Five footprint, and that the property be cleared for the City of Durham's use.
Although no other graves were located during this survey, the potential for other
unmarked burials in the immediate area of the M. A. Glenn grave should be considered
very high. PCI recommends, at a minimum, that a 16 meter (50 foot) buffer zone be
maintained around the granite marker. PCI also recommends that the edge of the
existing landfill excavation, which lies 10 meters (30 feet) west of the grave, be
stabilized to prevent erosion to the gravesite. If the ground surface within the 16 meter
(50 foot) buffer zone of the grave is to be disturbed in the future, PCI recommends that
an intensive archaeological survey be conducted to delineate possible unmarked graves
in the area.
Tim S. Mistovich
Principal Investigator
'eI Pratt
Field Supervisor

Durham Landfill Option Five Expansion I S
BIBLIOGRAPHY
Abbott, Lawrence E., Jr.
1993 Archaeological and Historical Survey of Reeds Creek, Falls Lake, Granville County,
North Carolina. U.S. Army Corps of Engineers, Wilmington District.
Abbott, L. E., Jr., C. S. Butler, A. A. Chapman, C. T. Espenshade, J. W. Gardener, M. D.
Roberts, and M. T. Wilderson
1991 Inspection, Evaluation, and Testing of Historic Sites Located At Falls Lake, Wake,
Durham, and Granville Counties, North Carolina. U.S. Army Corps of Engineers,
Wilmington District.
Adovasio, J. M., J. D. Gunn, J. Donahue, and R. Stuckenrath
1977 Meadowcroft Rockshelter: Retrospect 1976. Pennsylvania Archaeologist 47 (2-3).
Anderson, D. G., and G. T Hanson
1988 Early Archaic Settlement in the Southeastern United States: A Case Study From
the Savannah River Valley. American Antiquity 53(2):261-286.
Anderson, David G., R. Jerald Ledbetter, and Lisa O'Steen
1990 Paleoindian Period of Archaeology of Georgia. Georgia Archaeological Research
--Design- PagezNd. 6,_University of Georgia, Laboratory_ of Archaeology Series,
Report No. 28. Athens.
Axtell, James
1988 After Columbus, Essays in the Ethnohistory of Colonial North America. New York,
Oxford University Press.
Brockington, Paul E., Jr., and Lawrence E. Abbott
1993 Inspection, Evaluation and Testing of Historic Sites Located. at Falls Lake, Wake,
Durham and Cranville Counties, North Carolina. U.S. Army Corps of Engineers,
Wilmington District.
Cable, J. S.
1991 Archeological and Historical Survey of Selected Shoreline Locations in the Impact Zone
of the Proposed Expansion of the Conservation Pool, Falls Lake North Carolina. New
South Associates Technical Report No. 46. Report submitted to U.S. Army Corps
of Engineers, Wilmington District.
Durham Landfill Option Five Expansion 16
Cantley, C.E.
1993 Cultural Resources Survey of Woodpecker Ridge, Wake County, North Carolina. New
South Associates. Submitted to U.S. Army Corps of Engineers, Wilmington
District, North Carolina.
Cathey, C.A.
1966 Agriculture of North Carolina Before the Civil War. State Department of Archives
and History, Raleigh.
Chapman, J.
1977 Archaic Period Research in the Lorver Little Tennessee River Valley. Report of
Investigations No. 18. Department of Anthropology, University of Tennessee,
Knoxville.
Chapman, J., and A. B. Shea
1981 The Archaeobotanical Record: Early Archaic Period to Contact in the Lower
Tennessee River Valley. Tennessee Archaeologist 6(1).
Coe, J. L.
1964 The Formative Cultures of the Carolina Piedmont. Transactions of the American
Philosophical Society, Vol. 54, Pt. 5.
- - -Davis-, R:-i': S.,and I?: =i'.?N$rd- ----- - - ---- --- - . _ - -- - --- --- -- - - - - -
1991 The Evolution of Siouan Communities in Piedmont North Carolina. Southeastern
Archaeology 10(1): 40-53.
Dickens, R. S., H. T. Ward, and R. P. S. Davis (editors)
1987 The Siouan Project. Seasons I and II. Research Laboratories of Anthropology,
University of North Carolina, Monograph Series No. 1. Chapel Hill.
Ford, R. I.
1974 Northeastern Archaeology: Past and Future Directions. Annual Review of
Anthropology 3:385-409.
1985 Patterns of Prehistoric Food Production in North America. In Prehistoric Food
Production in North America, edited by Richard I. Ford, pp. 341-364. Museum of
Anthropology., University of Michigan, Anthropological Papers No. 75. Ann
Arbor.
Durham Landfill Option Five Expansion 17
Gardener, W. M.
1974 The Flint Run Complex: Pattern and Process During the Paleo-Indian to Early
Archaic. In The Flint Run Paleo-Indian Complex. A Preliminary Report 1971-73,
edited by William M. Gardener. Occasional Publications, No. 1, Archaeology
Laboratory Department of Anthropology, Catholic University, Washington, D.C.
Goodyear, Albert C., John H. House, and Neal W. Ackerly
1979 Laurens Anderson: An Archeological Study of the Inter-Riverine Piedmont.
Anthropological Studies 4, Occasional Papers of the Institute of Archaeology and
Anthropology, the University of South Carolina.
Haynes, C. Vance
1987 Clovis Origin Update. The Kiva 52:83-93.
1988 The First Americans: Geofacts and Geofancy. Natural History 97(2):4-12.
House, J. H., and R. Wogaman
1978 Windy Ridge: A Prehistoric Site in the Inter-Riverine Piedmont in South Carolina.
Anthropological Studies Series 3, Institute of Archaeology and Anthropology,
University of South Carolina, Columbia.
Jackson, Paul D.
- - -4996- An--Arehaeological-Sur-vey Gf-tie-Durk.LandfilLExpansion, D.tirham County.
North Carolina. Submitted to Malcolm Pirnie, Inc., Newport News, Virginia by
Panamerican Consultants, Inc., Tuscaloosa, Alabama.
Jennings, Francis
1975 The Invasion of America, Indians, Colonialism and the Century of Conquest. Oxford
University Press, New York.
Keel, Bennie C.
1970 Excavations at the Red Springs Mound (Rb4), Robeson County. Southern Indian
Studies 22:17-22. University of North Carolina, Chapel Hill.
Kirby, Robert M.
1976 Soil Survey of Durham County, N.C. Soil Conservation Services, Atlanta.
MacCord, Howard A., Jr.
1966 The McLean Mound, Cumberland County, North Carolina. Southern Indian
Studies 18:3-45. University of North Carolina, Chapel Hill.
Durham Landfill Option Five Expansion 18

Meyer, W. E.
1928 Indian Trails of the Southeast. Forty-second Annual Report of the Smithsonian
Institution. Government Printing Office, Washington, D.C.
Mikell, G. A.
1987 The Donnaha Site: Late Woodland Period Subsistence and Ecology. M.A. thesis,
Department of Anthropology, Wake Forest University, Winston Salem, North
Carolina.
Murray, Elizabeth Reid
1983 Wake: Capital County of North Carolina. Capital County Publishing Company,
Raleigh.
Oliver, B. L.
1983 Refinement of the North Carolina Chronological Sequences. In Piedmont
Archaeology, edited by J. Mark Wittkofski and Lyle Browning, pp. 125-147.
Archaeological Society of Virginia, Special Publication No. 10.
Perkinson, P.
1971 North Carolina Fluted Projectile Points: Survey Report Number One. Southern
Indian Studies, Vol. XXII. The Archaeological Society of North Carolina, Chapel
Petherick, G. L.
1987 Architecture and Features at the Fredricks, Wall, and Mitchum Sites. In The
Siouan Project: Seasons I and II, edited by Roy S. Dickens, H. Trawick Ward, and
R. P. Stephens Davis, Jr., pp. 29-80. Research Laboratories of Anthropology,
University of North Carolina, Monograph Series No. 1. Chapel Hill.
Purrington, B. L.
1983 Ancient Mountaineer: An Overview of Prehistoric Archaeology of North
Carolina's Western Mountain Region. In The Prehistory of North Carolina: An
Archaeological Symposium, edited by Mark A. Mathis and Jeffry J. Crow. North
Carolina Division of Archives and History, Raleigh.
Richie, W. A.
1956 Prehistoric Settlement Patterns in Northeastern North America. In Prehistoric
Settlement Patterns in the New World, edited by G. R. Willey, pp. 72-80, Viking
Fund Publications in Anthropology 23.
Durham Landfill Option Five Expansion 19
Sellers, Charles G., Jr.
1951 Private Profits and British Colonial Policy: The Speculations of Henry A&Culloh.
William and Mary Quarterly (3rd Series).
Simpson, Kay
1992 Cultural Resource Survey, Parrish Tract, Falls Lake, Durham County, North Carolina.
The Cultural Resource Group, Louis Berger and Associates, Inc. Richmond,
Virginia.
Steponaitis, Vincs P.
1986 Prehistoric Archaeology in the Southeastern United States, 1970-1985. Annual
Review of Anthropology 15:363-404.
Swanton, J. R.
1987 The Indians of the Southeastern United States. Smithsonian Institution Press,
Washington.
Taylor, M. V.
1989 Paleo-Indian Technology, The Williamson Site, a Functional View. Paper
presented to Spring Symposium of the Virginia Archaeological Society,
Richmond, Va.
1994 Archaeological and Historical Survey. Knapp of Reeds Creek, Beaverdam Creek and
Forest Ridge Peninsula. Submitted to U.S. Corps of Engineers, Wilmington
District. Panamerican Consultants, Inc., Tuscaloosa, Alabama.
Taylor, M. V., and Kelly Nolte
1994 Architectural and Photographic Recordation of the Rogers (Parrish) House, Falls Lake,
Durham County, North Carolina. Panamerican Consultants, Inc. Submitted to U.S.
Army Corps of Engineers, Wilmington District. . -
Turnbaugh, W. A.
1975 Toward an Explanation of the Broadpoint Dispersal in Eastern North America
Prehistory. Journal of Anthropological Research 31(1):51-68.
Wetmore, Ruth Y.
1978 Report on Excdvations at the Buie Mound, Robeson County, North Carolina.
South Carolina Institute of Archaeology and Anthropology, University of South
Carolina, Tyre Notebook 10:30-71.
Durham Landfill Option Five Expansion 20
Woodall, J. N.
1975 Second Archeological Survey of the Great Bend Area, Yadkin River Valley, North
Carolina. Ms. on file, Division of Archives and History, Archeology Branch.
Raleigh.
1990 Archeological Investigations in the Yadkin River Valley 1984-87. North Carolina
Archaeological Council Publication No. 25.
Durham Landfill Option Five Expansion 21
Nancy Newell 6 March, 1997
City of Durham
101 City Hall Plaza
Durham, North Carolina 27701
RE: Archaeological Assessment
Durham Landfill Northern Active Borrow Area
Dear Ms. Newell:
As per Malcolm-Pin-de Inc.'s request, Panamerican Consultants, Inc. (PCI) 'is
providing this brief assessment of the archaeological potential of Durham
Landfill's active northern borrow area as inspected on August 14 and August 15;
1996 (Archaeological Survey of Option Five of the Durham Landfill Expansion, Durham
County, North Carolina (Pratt 1996)).
PCI was contracted by Malcolm-Pirnie in August, 1996, to perform an
archaeological field investigation of the proposed Option Five of Durham
Landfill (Pratt 1996)..In the course of this. investigation, which was conducted
between August 14 and August 15, the Durham Landfill's active northern
borrow area (Figure 1) was traversed several times, during which time no intact
cultural resources were observed. While this northern active borrow area was
not technically part of PCI's archaeological survey, PCI is able to 'state:that it is
unlikely intact archaeological resources remain within the northern active
borrow area as a result of heavy.equipment operation, erosion and the general
removal of all soils above archaeologically sterile "soil parent materials (i.e.,
removal of 15-20 fleet of soil).
PCI cannot state definitively, however, that intact cultural deposits did not exist.
prior to the commencement of borrow operations in this area.
Please feel free to contact me if there are any questions concerning this matter.
Sinc
Daniel R. Pratt
Archaeologist
Panamerican Consultants, Inc.
924 26th Ave. E., Tuscaloosa, AL 35404 • P.O. Box 40930 Tuscaloosa, AL 35404 • [phone] • FAX [phone]
Durham Landfill Option Five Expansion 2
Figure 1. Location of Project Area: Option Five Extension of Durham Landfiff.

OATA FORM
ROUTINE WETLAND DETERMINATION
(1987 COE Wtdands Oeiineavon Manuail
ProiOCUSite: )(' 11 A w1 1 a-? 2Z>G 1l C ncz n ?? ? n,? . I`?r? w Oats: 1 r?
AacdcaniJdwner. n.? ?.)(Yui t..?_ COUnEW -D,
invesnpatow; , State: (J('.
Oo Nonmal Ctreye?=taneas exist on Me oft? I Yes - No CamnKx V 10:
Is the site sipnif almly dixuwbed (At ":m Siituamni? Yes No Tnnseet-f0:
Is the area s poundal probN1.Aresl. Yes No Plot 10:
(If needeel.• esotain on revwxeb -1-1 _ -ld f?? ... ra . 47 7777-t
VEGETATION
oow.w.wr mom sees.. sfteu? lnommw Oomm wr Mow so.ei.. - sc
I
154-c- ?.
9. ;5610( IQ i4,V71
2.f_iG?il??t?n??YS 1(n n.QiYr _ lo.L0AL,,2,lalcl da?P?lilio?l0.?
nln e j h ? C .• t t . ? ?? , a ?• ? pc.?r 1?1t US ? ?L`.
4..St?NC?i?? e iiSf?r
0?rxy r- s- }
-c>f?L IL rAyl1K)l 5
13. ('n)CuAL
1a. rlyZK ny"t t.,.
7. ?(L?II ?Y 6C['Ir(a,APt ,?< c .' - 1s.-?'I)?(ti

'G?Omm of Qftwomw Soommedm end QM ?FACW w PAC
hdusine fAC-1.
Rewr?us ..
HYDROLOGY
Ows I?wM?id -- e?wMreie Weir Il?eipr ied owelm
n- 4""- hMr?r MriM"M?t?
A .11, InMrdN??
OOMr- eMeMliw %ftm 12 ummo.-
Room*"
OMe Aveirle.
WN?wAAeAtd•?'
F cli t 1.Inmw.
.

wrwee
?n wedr .
seeew k wrNmiee?M?-t2 «an.fr.w:.NS-
w"m w.:..s f 1 . rtwr
--
.
m - o?.fion chw"m ?w uown 2 u+ow«-
wea"Mm" uewee-
-Om
e
ne wow m tf!. (hu -
? Loom S" irerev Ow
FA "euva ron
060M es sedmwed Geis -affu _
Othw lffxol w wl ROMMMM
Rowwwu= -Doxloa z. tat " oc 1 erss%% '
3-3
I
SOILS
t A
N460 um Home
(Son** sns Phasoei Otaeu?po Cass:
Reid Obewvsoons
T?:eeisniv (Subaeaisls Canfinw Msoooe-Torsi rK No
' P?e/ib Osseneasw:
Coots me am cam* Me me Cokes Macao Ts:aseo. Canassnis.
inns M (Miinasr AAa.fii ?Mitnsw Moon Abuneo mmCatieesas Stnte=. gto.
Q. Sty
_ . 5-
Hvene sal In iissaesi
mhmkm - -CanOfeNns
-? wow tsisw.eo- _ W" 0 so a Cantever in suetoos Laver on saw sole-
lWMtadw- Cepsise i m &-iiis in S may soil.
Agwshlm a Ilo*i - =U86, •on L6ss6 Mvo" S.W, Liss
RsMstotCanoiwws- -Lb" e" -idsuw
Q wAd w Low•Clwo Co1MS - ONor Iboels in RaewoelW
Re?eiwics: afto?- hct5 o-cc.u0u-,Q -zd, j C eC6 Js
j aCe,& ac k\)Al S.
5 S ct.m ' ?:? c c raa Q. . bktVA ,
E.
WETLAND DO MN^TMN
ai1110 hro..•vol.ftwaft wsl Ms (CitaN1- "
woared ttvdmio ?sswN 19" N?
Mvdtts sal. hasswtl me to niis s'einc vVllbiw . Woaotid? No
Reniseaoi
ov

DATA FORM
ROUTINE WETLAND DETERMINATION
(1987 COE Wetlands Deiineanon ManwU
' ProtecvSia: 1DGl,Q,?/Afs'I Z-"DFILL zeYPA) JMAl Oat's: = D - !o
A+oolicanvOWnec: CauntY: AV A, 1SWE-Z7A fX-V, iwesopamt;
'op -777T
Z;7y, , State: 11 G
Do Normal Cfscunanances-exist on the site? Yes - No Conmunicv 10: 2
Is the site sitini kmmtly dixuxbed (Atypical Siituaocni? Yes No Transeet 10:
Is the aces s potsntsal-probimn-Areal- Yes No Plot IO:
(if needed.. exoinin on reverse. f 4
VEGETATION
06mm ne Nawe se.e...-
-- - -- Swetum- Indkmer-
Oarmw.nc Nerve 3eeedlv:- Sty

.
3 ?

.sue . L
i t . Care,)(
a, lam//ryas i^rahr- __...71
s. /'? ro?:? rim ca/'?/?i?? c•?r,L t a.. u S s t

t •? s Oahe /,/q

s.
t e.

pereert of Ommmnt 8000800M Oft OIL. fACW er PAC
(essrwY» PA"
Ranrrtsr .
HYDROLOGY
_ Reeaded OEM IOwodee in itenrera?lt Weeard Mrdleyea? M wefat
Sumer LatS6.er Two Gmm".. hl?mry Meiwres-
Ae" Ilnespopere. ? Usmrowed..
Otl1er- :z Se M 4jaw 12 Uenw-
_ Me R wM Ow I?vaimmim.- _W w
odk Unes-•
.. :zs .. on
Reid OOser?ewwst ..J/ Comm"is 4p in Wedowee-
//
f S
O
t
W
> seemmem minglem-41 W ff"m reemwedlt--
12 u
eodr o
ur
mm
eaes
? (Iw.l mmee-
C?dditer•Aeet chows ft in UGw•
:ZWetewftrsned i sevee-
Oeotn to free Wesse on fit, _loeu fei survw Cara
RA"euvei rest I
Oeern to Some "d fails ?? Qtlwr rbmifsrr M, Asemr?csi
I
Renwes: w? ter
/n ho/e. 7' belex) s url?anf,
3-3
I
SOILS
Mao Nrst mama
(Sane* am P%ems Ora.noos Cass:
Fail Cdserv oom
Ta:wienwr /Subgrauels GOntitm MapOa b-Two? You Na
P'v?iie' Oa.erteaewr
O??n Macl w caw Mseoo Caws met" Tessera. Conaresens.
l' t Mont" t11ArrN 06 Mesys 1PAU"o d Mesp •surdowootecontrast S . ate.
z,S z ,? s1?9ht
Nvone sad iraiaaenst
MNp..al Conom. - .r
w.« go's...w- w4ft Oraaw Cont w in 44whwe Lavw a+ sansl? s.ii.•
!W/diwCdw -Creams Swoomins in Sams to Udw-.
Ao=Ai@kA wo Aeprtta -us"* M Le" Mvww. sddo ittat
RaM?llf COrdw.n.- ? WOK M NarwnlNV?MisSds?.iR..
Glover or t ow-ch ema Cawo Cthw tEvoiiw in RMwarIW
Rerrwwn Dpdlze rh Zv5,pheres

WElLANO Des MNAMON
1+verwNw?-vesvw.w?r...r,r?. PN /CLsIN- ?`.
w.rrtr MvM?Nr P?o.wr1 iw
tfvrns soli. Prs..wt1- .. N. t. aw samoirp Paine wfehi ? . Waa.no? ? Na

DATA FORM
ROUTINE WETLAND DETERMINATION
(1987 COE Watiancis Oelineatlon Manual!
Prcie=Site: Date:
AccdcantiOwner: Counter.
Invesaaamr. _V S&Y /Yrp? State: _ _ P
Oa Nontlat Ckctuets UM exist an the Simi ? No Co?nunity 10:
Is the site sgniRcanthr disturbed IArmicai Situation!? Yes ® Transom t0: ?
Is the arcs a ootenoal•Proble a Areal 0?i3 No Plot 10:
(If needed,. eudsin on rivwse.!
?YOROI.OCiY .
Reawo" cam w= tie in
Rwwnwelt
Waeeftr MlNtalpr N?deeortes
S" ws- u" .ee u" fie-
A,W" MWft
.
e
w fie -
W
e
e
/ ?"
= NS goes"" Oeet Mamma- _ be uft"o-
satutwte-iw Ils~-121ro?
W.
?
OfNt thw?
6t
K" OOeaf?eeeww aAfwatft0aeaeiae-
in Wtd=W* -

000M of sutfeee Wens- ?? s?eeneefrMrsiee?ete /t K wwm few`"
O?eidlser:AOat Clfewlwe in Wow.I2 kwwo.
WetewftettM? L",", ?
NnJ 7flOtl1 to fne Warr on O1t: -Loan S" sufvw Gate
_ fAC-?!weal Tess
040M to swtewee wilt ?ldn-A QUW i4xWon on Run mm
R
?
1'?T.I
J
? ?
YVa.l&r-OJ^J//u-pC IeAa-ei5

3-3
VEQErATION ilear-wel,
F
SOILS
Moo uttte Name
(Senes am P%esen Creme a Cass:
Reid Obsoeveoons
Tazeneety ISubgrwm t Canfitta AAaooeo TY90 You me
P*ef"o Oesetteaem
Oeotn Means Cater Meta* Coiets Mac" Tezture. Cattarealelta6
inet+ee M?Onte (Mlns«I MOten •buneettee/CartrMIT StntCm. @to.
mewl i
j Nvana S" ittaisstst
-"Wee asimedew- _NO" O.ato-
?I?iQdM'- ? rOMM COlleaftt in Swig aoo Laver in Sanall,saafM-
aoree sa••rino me sander Soda-
_
Rwi•?»- ?wa1«. LO" bfv w soil. Liss
/RoMS?t -um" Oft "Osseo lf?rd?is•Saio Lbs-
2 G6ved Of Lata{>umme Coiars Outer /Esolsim in Ren?sNCS?
Rettmnm Inob'Ie S I12 sGL'i'?? se'
t.
WETLAND OETEPWAMrMN
ttvdraoMrw v " (Ctni1N- ?•
w.tl«ts NlydtaM?r?P?a..N rv.
Mvdoo So" noses a .: me is am Sm"0 " Maine %Mfi n a WedsnOi Yap me
Renwzs: mar -4, a 1 -
Z/2 c fu ton s
ov

DATA FORM
ROUTINE WETLAND OEMMINATION
(1987 COE Wetlands Oeiinesnon Manuad
Proie=site:
Acg:*mnt/OWner:
Gate:
County:
stste:
Oo Normal Cireumxtwu ss• exist an the suet Ye N ?, Comm n kv t0: er-oi)Ar
is the site WQndieandy disturbed tAWgieai situauanll Yes Q0 Trans= t0:
Is the aces s poanoal. ProbMeR I?nat t? No Plot to:
(if needed. e:colain on reverxej c. -?
VEGETATION
Oomment Rent seem..- stravim India~
Pr+ (^i: ._iL\)< ['L>??1 ?iQA 1 carom nt Nenc 3oeeies • se? Lnemff-

!, in?utti., f'
1
G
+
P4C- _
p
4. cc;- 14-
o
3.7659"00&40417-10 errrli nS - ?rAc 1T. 2
4- V
tAe
13.
c, 14.
7.
G is.
..
s, ?? A .?Z? , I y?,i; ?r?. T r-Ac
1 s.

P ` fCanwtrt ihswtl+rt M ?. FACW w FAC V },O
o
Reenar?tat
HYDROLOGY
ft"ee
mg" Cam IOaeefte in R
7
7
sd.tttt. Lake..ar Tide 4MA" - s+tett.ty MobsMtes-
Ae" i h*wWmW e. tni.?eda?e•.
other-
- -leatewe iw uo>tar t 2 Uwhee-
aNe ROG
MO e Oste Aveierle•- ? WstsnMatlte?
Odit u nae-

F
eld Cbeetvlesaeat - N% l£Iw Y1G t? 6-i- 14'
We ^
saditwatt 0aoeaits^
= kiaisswes
ee 42 or Awo teomeau-
Oeoer of swtaee Wean rtn.! 03MI ae.Rees Chmmos in VaoM 12 Man"-
WatewitsNd leaves
Oaoa to Fme wear m tit: boat sea sutvw Oats
PAC-i mMM Teas
Oeete to Seam Sent ?fnnJ Oder tEsaime in Aenunal
Reinanca; ?
I
3-3
SOILS
Mae unte Nl.nc.
(Sena mm P%ams: t3rsnsQe Cass.
Rtaid Obsorvoaons
Tazsnanv ?S?+baeeuels Confirm Mooooa TvwN YOU No
P•eFiio OeseneaecK
Oootn Moms Cdw Mseos Colors Mecue Ts:asro. Conenaar.
inenes M_en" ta^n"mr Mel"t _ Munso1 Mast ?OunosnasrCoey?i[ Stntatud. •ca.
16 Y12 gI
Nvons Sal 4caiosasss
_ Nkomo _ Gonot?tions
_ t$M aswooen _W" Cta«w Conant In surtsoo avM m Sans / Mis-•
_ Suls/e adw _ Oraw" strss?ci I u+ sonde soils
AmmaMsiw w Roaine us"* Me Leos!, "Vow soils lust
ROWAMM cwww Mr - -uma aw *mono ova" sacs List
aov" K Low-Ciuenm Cowm amw IEaWiw in Ronwlcsl
Raeasncss ? ?/LQ(Ti?T lti SCUAJ?? SJ??g r
WETLAND OETERINI "TION
MvOieoAliM Vosstwew Ireeace) -ire me (CUQW
woos" mvdIMsNINs"m N.
MvonO so" Ireema t+le is tme SactoMp taint wlttsn • ylrs>asn07 YN Na
? Ren+seccs: .SDI\S ?'NiL;i,Y'?IiI.X?.? • ???,?, '?(?/?GL..` trJCIV?C?'. ?Y?GL.??'?.

DATA FORM
ROUTINE WETLAND DETERMINATION
(1987 COE wetianos Oeumanan Manuaa
' Proiecusla: r ` Oate: 5 %
Aaa tCanVOwner V County:
i IctvesnpaMt:
ZbJ, 5-- _c_ /LL Stag:
Oo Nonmal Clrctumstancss east an trio sita? ?CeYes ? Cofnt111nity 10:-? 2 24
Is t"e site sqt Ca dished (AWgipl Siituation)? Transact 10:
is trio area a g n im I1W. PrOtMem Areal Yes . No Plot 10:
(if needed.. estotaifl on rever=o
VEGETATION
00""anr rtanr se.s..- ??y Qee?rMwt AN?t le?ei?? sK?

t.-„J `t'r??'r??
? ? .
? Cw
!. ?((a,??vLS /?!'l•? tl,?-R..??S T ?1
_
2.t:MJ1( was &# g4i w r eeG
?
c_ _
t0. ?.l6i:S?'YU?1rL 5?;2 Mar,
_
_

13.
14.
7. t 'O-a" Itcf-t Mc is.
e. lit (: 5 ' 1z 44 eu- t e.

relent! of OaMwMt GOOMMMho ate 086 fACW w PAC
(aMreYre FAC4. I to`-/a
RMrarress
4YURCLOGY
Reeerded cam duand w in Aorws?slt WNMe MrdrMprr Insioersws

- per. Sammanfis No~ 12 MrMr•
_ No Roommo Cam Avsioris.- -
jQw ,
CdftUnne-

Foid Obeerresorrot ,
in weraonM.
Saeorroorv w+si..r.. i2 or i my vemwe.1t-
oeven of Surtoee Wotort ?? LO O?ddtaas fleet cif«+?M..n uosM t t te+a+..-
4wesrsrrn.e ?osvee
Oeotlr to F+.e Watw r rk: (irr.l
leer Sea Sur mw oars
I
FAC.abuvr rest
vj(
Owrn eo latrrowr salt Qtenr, i talo m ur Aernomma
Renter=
3-3
SOILS
M.s Nnlt Nam.
(Son" aeo P%emi: Cranave Cass:
Reid obsorves+ons
Tasonomm i$ubgnppl= confirm "Sam" rvq*0 Yes Me
Prep!. aesaneaew.
Coem ma"m Color Meese Cogan Maras . rozw e. Conoeesens,•.
ieKwp M_e?ra (Munew Me?stf [aw,sw /Masq •bunee?eerCeratreeS snuey tre. ate.
l7a 10 k, I i& -S (-tJ
{
givens sal inai..oMt
i+laeen - Coiwres m r
. = man ft*ooen hNOh Oraewe Cencenc Mt sore... Lava. «. s.M1r s.i.•
!Wide ceder _ Craws strsewA" in sanw Bois
AgmLMei M Itog ms- us" on Mss/ Mvw+. so" List
_Keww f C4nW s - - Waa on Holder 64YOWSOis Ltsc.
Gloved or LArwCUleme Cettere COW /Etmisiw in RMtwlts!
iRemse?cei
WETLAND Dris WMATiON
Mvdtewrrw VsisrMw
Walk" MtlelMsarrASIS?reeP 4<mf ??C lie lO?a1M • ??`
me Y? Ne
Nvene so" pfemem? Yos me is ass ian+oiMp reins W1tl?ii* e v?wens? t?
R«nencs•.
ov
3-»
DATA FORM
ROUTINE WETLAND DETERMINATION
(1987 COE Wetlands Oelineacan Manuall
Proie=site: ,DGI L Dam .19-1,?--9111 ApOlicanvQwnen Countw '
Invesapator: o S 0 State: O,
00 Nomad Cinaterstas7Is - cost on the site? ! No Conwmxlity 10: h,
7554
.
Is the site sipniramnev dished (Atypical Situabon)T Yes ?o Transeet 10: IlAr
Is the am s pvandel-problenrArea) _ Yes V Plot to:
(If needs esolsein an reverse.!
VEGETATION
Qer.anane /lane les..- ?" » Oommem /lent Seeeies • se 1

41'<; 77a " t.

it.
+ t L
13.

7. :F 4C, is.

Pstaeet st Osttwlsta edssissp?.? Oq. lzACW K TAG
(asaNrOitte 01AC4.
Rsnneest .
HYDROLOGY
- Rssenssd Oae, IOee=de w Rewtstttslt Wti r Insisssast.
-srea : peke er Two wee- 'tUtrr IttdfseWtes-
Assisi •
??
N
R
m
1JsoK 12 lttottse•-
e
sm
ft* Ow Avs kMe-
_
.
tltt' {Las?
Rate Ob
R setassaot
'r in Wedmum-

Oasts et lutfeae Wststs o-1?(n,t ftmw l-4 Keats /eedledw-
O?ddi? Jlons chaw"le in uwsr I a Ito ms-
Watansfsutw ?asree •- ?
Oasnt is fee Wow as Pitt finj ? umm sea Sur~ Oats
PAC-Meucm Test

Oast- to samwe sot ftj I
_ Othw iffxoia an Asmemst
Raesetcst
3-3
SOILS
Mae tlfre Narns
(Sena am N%asea Ofaineae Cass:
Fieid Oboorwoue s
Ta:enwnviSubwwjmt Candwn Maooeo.Tvoo) `gas NO
Pperifo Oeaefeaaans
Carat men= cakw memo Cadets Mesas Ta:aua. Ca-mm- es.
inenweMonte" lMuweo1 Mom) [PAAM"O 1 IMON" ?bunoaneerContrest S ece,
i
i
Mvane Sod M?sieaeMet
,C
mleeleM" _ Canafesene-
`- FYeee.Eeieeww_. = Mlan CfVaee Contem in Suftaes Laver r+t Sanow "IS
lWW Cder -Cfaeise Sft -,iwg in Soes1l SG"'
0 aMeie?e Roante- lLa*ew Lees/ "V*W-Sado U"
CatslaaNo- tiee aon lflrMle?llMMfe fOii<fst-
Lour-c hfalm Caisfe amw t6wimie in RommkM
men"wKst

WETLAND Cal WMATIGN
mvdnmovlwvaoeewewlreeawN Ne (CL-00 OWN*
wouses "Vdfa"W Plseesei+ me
Nivdws Sods Fmww0- w me bate Saenaii Q wine "a* a WatNena7 oy" Ne
Mommmser.

OATA FORM
ROUTINE WETLAND DETERMINATION
(1987 COE Wetlanas Oelkwmum Manual!
Proie=sitr
invesu aMr.
Date:
County:
State: A C?
00 Norma( Cia:unutaneew exist on the site? (i;;) NOL Conuntn ty 10: Y
Is the sate sipnilicaetdl/ dixawbed tAtyp? SituattOnl? Yes i4) S,17.-A 17
Transact i0:
is the area a potsnoal-Probleflt Area?- Yes plot !O:
(If needed.. exclWn on revwsa.l -:7)'1-, 4 1f.l -
VEGETATION
Oonrnenr mom soes.s- POEM- I?.y 04a.w.nt post se.eies Std Indkww

z. atl4d7a) 7-
3.
?. 12.
S. 13
.
14.
7. 1s.
>t.
}
is.

-P9 QUK Of MINIMUM SM=wae ew Oe1.. FACW W PAC
(41MM Yte PAC4.
Renwust
MMROLOGY
Reeele" aw IOe..Mtie in Ron low" We"" ""Mai"w v demmumm
s`e" U&MI.-Sr Two -
A*"IA
.
odum -
? 4vwr??
N Nooer 12 kwomeb-
Ne Reeese? 0ee• ArsirM.- yr??,? .
U,E

Obeorwaso et ...
Reld eeYw.wt0ee.id-
in Wedsw o-
r /
Oeoeh Of S
rh
W ui -?
iesMSS?? Y+siss?.rs 12 er
ff"m
r
se
e tsa o
w"
Reec Chow"" in Vsomroesr-12 L+enss-
WetewStaMw Meares--
Oeotn to Free Watar on tk_ fin.! _ door Sd swren Oats
PA"Sunsl Teel
Deem to swwswd Sens ?? Qtllsr (Erman n Aemenai
Reinenns i
3-3
SOILS
Mee tim.N.n,.
(Son** am Phnom Ota?neoe Cass'.
Fsid Obf>orvsoons
Ta:enee*r iSubafesN= Confnrlw Meooee • Tvaoi `des Ne
Prolife O?senese.r
Coatn Meem Color Memo Colefs Memo Ts:ast. Conassewe,
inenp Monte"
L1Mt1f?M fAasef t14f?mw Massa •euneenasiConcnn[ stmature. •ce,
i
F?w1fe sal Iffeieenlss
- f Aerer - - Conomee/N' F
mw a cefeeeeR- _ W" af0etwe Content in sadwas Lxvw In S&MM Sodom,
sd ldloOde. -OrWMw Sli iw@ wf Swwv soil.-
?M• •i•••• Aevme- _usew.R Ls" HWOu So" LJes
1ted11swacenowene- fisiweRNsesaiwo ve"SoleLisc..
w Lew-chronto CdNe' COW 430400 in Aatartcel
Rsnfefsst
WElLMO ClEs WUNATZON
alvdteoflnee-Wsv?lfeeeftN Me ICttdM- IOi?IM?
Weems !lMrfeN?Iwlsools • Y No
Nveffe So" •fessow ee, No Is ate son" im Pak t WfelsR a Wesendt YM me
Romsnssr.

DATA FORM
ROUTINE WETLAND DETERMINATION
11987 COE Wetlands Oelinesoon Manuail,
Prcie=si e: All Dam-, A acdcanVOwner: 71 m"7M Cafuny:
Invesugamr: V. ; Ski Y T7 4Stain: /c
Oo Ncrm* Ckcumume omn on alts site? f? No Coftsetlunkv ID:-i'U/
Is the sits sipe>i sndy disturbed (Atypical, Sinfnuani? Yes lV Transact-ID:
Is the ana a ON P 111al P1 OMM-Anat Yes Plot l,0:
(If needs. esolain on nrvw=w
VEGETATION
oeRrn.ne ? _

2- 1,. f
G D
_

gku? ",a 14.
T. is.
s. ? e.

PWOOM Of 0GMM= tfMrrer4t,M Oft. FACW •r PAC
les•kokw OAC4.
R•ncas "
HYDROLOGY
R•oon/•d Ogee IOMwi? w ll•err?lt Widwrt HVdrG6 er &mMwwW -
?
As" ??• ?
_
' swrwafw uoow• 12 knomp -
Ne momma" "ogee Ate., ?WioowtAMts?'
?odf't t?
posoews-
Wd 00•or??eneaft, °` lA WdMM¦-
/ = NrsiMw0-42 at amm rowiadw
O.sa? •r swMw w•o.r 2-q
_t(n?
?C?dslpd Ae.c C3+.• «? Nedw t2 snen..-
wouwseaiw f.•ar••
O.on+ to F..• w.a..n ON: ?tn.l looms S" swrwv cau
FAC-MewM Tots
0004 to s•erwer soil: ?!? Qef+er?Em?ww In A«n WKW I
Rest
3-3
SOILS
Mao Unit Name-
(zones one Phan": crone" Cass:
F+oid OOsorvooons
Ta:onanv ISubYrs?wlt Ganfw" Maeeao-Tvve) Yes me
Pb1i1o Cosaneaaw:
Doom Hams Cder Me=* Colors memo Te:awe. ConcresenI6.
inenes Haverm.? MWAKWor Mesa (MUnaad Mah n atmnneansorCanerosv Stmaiuro. gte.
f/ yk 6 0L1y
Nvene Sal lnsisassrss
?O
1
a-
. _
s
e.
?? MweM EiieaeM- _ Conaseeno-.
?MfOh ccge r Cancww in Sue! -a A avw on SaMr44ddld``
Salifsado?- -Qrge stein sMdr S4"-,
.? Ae¦&Afti m Realwe- -Lis oeft UMO 64vdrie fans U"
RewlmWC011djw?- -Lin"40 sew Va!-.
?QVrM M LerfCZfrelae .dare COW dxwisin in Ilorneeft"
Rarnsetst
WETLAND OEIEAIYI "TWN
Mvweelwree VNs?wswarreawsN Ne ICtra1N- ?' -
Waa? Nw•Mw h..«iN Ne
mvdee So" Press" me is else s&vmdm Oak it 1f "W" a Wasta+dl Y«
Rarnencsr.

DATA FORM
ROUTINE VVETLANO DETERMINATION
(1987 COE Wetlands Oeiineatn Manuau
ProiectfSits:
Invesagator.
Oats: r - -
County:
State.
Al(--
Do Nontgl ?4 exmt an me am? (tip No Cammunity i0:
Is the sits 11*11
ld. dWuxbed (Atypical Situation)? Yes Transset-io:
Is the area a Ootsn igLproblem-Areal- Yes o Plot 10:
(if needed,. exoisin on reversej El - ? b

VEGETATION

2. n fP X D 3C r7 sgo,

to. ,??
1
b
g
,
1.
in
o-
12.
13.
s
.
Z 2/?
7. A?r
s. is. `

-Pss O t of Ckumum ere OL. fM W or fAC
(eee?wM?e l?AGi.
Renr?et
YCROLOGY
- Reselaw cam IOee?e in Aewrft Weeowr ??r N+s?m
Ad" uftmh.w Two PI ?M-
-
7 r i?Yf=
"now -
adar-
Z
- ?
_?"? Ia usIm 12 ?-
Ne Ann
moo coo Avmkoio . .?
.? Oe0ews-
FefO Obeesrwewet Oeaiwe?olet we61 W? •
>ieeeneerr 42 M ..-- femore/It-
Oeom of swfeee Weems ?? Qft t -Aoec chww o in Uvow 12 Wafte-
?
? o - Weseweteew Leevee-
_/
O.om to fmo wow an ftt: doer sea sue w 04"
fAc mwm w Tees
Oeom to lwreme Sam r<nJ Other laxom w m Aunencal
Reams:
3-3
SOILS
'.Mae um News-
(Sense sns Pha"#= Qtrnpe Gass:
Feld obsetwoowe
Taxone"m ISYbprpgt Confinr hAeoow-TvON Yte me
Pverlie age-m-
Momm Gales Mesas Coleco Mewle Ts:aww- Conetivens,
(' Hgar" (Mutwoo Must! (Munmed Mersa stwn+eanesnConersst Sttvatuti. ate.
` Fgve..e Sw w.is.wrs:
. ??.. ? Conenssn. .?
•. (?fsae sw- _m4h Oranre Concenr in Sadwoe Laver in sansWSeils
Ctgwm sasrwp in sanM W ieile
_ uaa>t en: Lo" 6kdl" Seib Liss
^'.? C011?Ir- ?? usa? M NaaMSt~IlrMit fOis tbL-
741ol w or Lew•CAtenrs Coleus Qtl1sr jamo iw in AawrlW
Rsnwntst
WETLAND Cut WW4ATiON
Mva?r?•vswrww he..wd
wean" Mrwslssr Itesend
Mvdm sell. PFONGW - .
NO lC GW-
Me
me
Is aw saw *w pekoe v4hrd" a Weasnot
(Cha w --
Yss me
R..wssr.

DATA FORM
ROUTINE WETLAND DETERMINATION
(1 987 COE Wetlands osuneauan Manuau
ProieettSite: A?'/l Gai/h ll? Date: -
Acadcanvowner Countr:
tnvexagator S?IFl.1_ V /Kn LR Stale: A
Oa Nortlgl -ems an the slat Yes No Coal m*v 10: A'DI
Is the site s sndll dWmwbW IArMic* Siumbon)? Yes ® Trarumm 10:
Is the aces a pOanoal•Probimn-Areat, Yes O Plot 10:
tit need*C. expyin on revwxe l -ISAMW
VEGETATION
S,yJ,
4VDROtLOQY
Reeswrss aW IOsssWe in 1lewnweW WeMSt M1N1?Me?? Y?disssnsr
-Swung VIii.M flN 4amem- MRr1/ 1
_ As1 /Aanswu1r• gs woood^
l.e.eWin U0014r. 1 a Image-
:7
me PANNIOW Osss AMo koe- 7
wdowbklmum?'
?
.1C.oweunme-
.,..
Plaid cftoww i mnag ?ls?Ywswe0eessie?
b WetiW?d
li?wry Msi?1l/2 M rwM? n?i?N!"'
Oeoeh N sueteso-Weem- ???ryy L/ QOM ANt ChWW W in UOOWb tea -
-WaewitMww Lea"W.-
Death to fmo Wow en Mr. lln.1 ? uown S" S"rWr Oee
PAC44euval -rest
Oeeat to sAms1e aeiit _
Q~ tEXMnn In Raneisu
Rennncss
3-3
SOILS
Mae tuns: Naos
(Sena am rhasass Qtana0o Cass:
ROW oasatvaoans
'rszonenwr 43ubant mt Con&m Maooao Tvos0 YK Ma
P?etli? Oasanasawr
?aoa meow caw Msalo Colons Mes4a Ta:sun. Conannmos.
l? mover" CAA1nNar Mash CMUws i Masn aeunaaneseConatsc Stmatwm. *to.
I
j Hvdm S" Itwiaastst
r
w...w _ Conan s
?Ifsw Eeissatsss» H4ft Otaoms Conant in smdl Lavw in sa eV iodise
sal//eCMr OtQama streaking in sanav soils
w.mmAtwk w. A• * - umo o t u a1 &IV& a sods fist
-7RawaiwsConsitrstn- ,_UNNM aw Nasons?Jt?tisdeis ust-
M700pasl at Low C hmm Colats ? 00w AWm in Ranarnss
RatnanKss
WETLAND DETERININATMN
1+vetrss va?wwswla..nt? N? (calm"-'"
w.a.t.? thvrtw?rt?..wd n.
"Von So" ONSUM - w AM Is tlss sastssip Paint Wielsiw a Wadatsst Yee Ns
Rattsatss:
ov
3-» _
DATA FORM
ROUTINE WETLANO DETERMINATION
(1987 COE Wetlanas 0alineavon Manual!
Froie=sia: r 0-1
o < < Date: $r / I to
E41 pa
I AAObcant/Owner: County: VI'
Invesapatar. k 1 t l< mA 1i>'C State: C--Piz I A,
Cc Normal Ckeurttsta = exist on the sial Yea??,N Canwmr ity i0:
Is the site siano11detdy difttnbed (Arip" Situattanll (:Jj? No Tmnseet 10: Q
Is the aces a Daat> Problem-Areal Yes 449 Not 10:
(If needed. esolain on revw=o
VEGETATION
geer?nene rt.ne se.a....
swung" 1 ogff nt /tent Soeaiee Se
t . CiU -ftS?S fA kik 0-Y l (? S Epsc LA3 - S. . r 2 Y Sv . ?LL?.
2.13aA-QkC .. 1NIav?. 1? ? Ia. III trrcS?-Owuv1A_ vi rwu g6jt -- e -?
s.Cr?y?.)?)s cc? (iNc[? a_ i? S tt. ??p? ,
e.-GC Xt gvs oe ?t ?s1?:ve ail ec. 1 . ' -- 1 Z
13.'RLlr+4A i30C'ts ?Oihyd-oia
e. l/??yrn:Jryl ?.? . _? PWIC ta. i?
7. (AMU-, r-JOYv ? F -PC- is. s. QCe r ry (orj yy . T t e.
'ereent of Commum efeerrtltet es 411L. FACW K PAC
l.:ettwitte PA" bb
Renwttp
"UROLOGY
- Reesm" Gets IOeesstte in Ilentnssls Walewtt Mtlrtiber lnaiewews
_Sttens uftm.-er I "409"-
As"Fl m ?
7 PtNtery Ituiee?nss
t
- 111M1ee F
jQSaammme•ie Nooer I2 htepee-
Ne Otsego" cow AvsiNb. WMtwMntts-.-.
Collet Unima-
s.di
wtcG.
.
Fetd Cboov%mo a .? i
wmw
OteiwetteJetwwe+n Weeeneee-
Il Seeewree P onNeewe 42 OI ""We veeMreels-
Oeotn of Smasse Wows Q:W9=w J1ese Chen "N 000W 12 htenee-
_ Www"toned 4evee
30ent to Pne Wow an Pk gni Loon soi Samev coca
PAC Mewem rest
Oeote to lwraeer foil 4nr Z Other tEmton in AenwuM

. . ?t10?V
(yl
f
_
Rententst ?,?ltJ2?OtJ C?C??C.'E? -?•p??Otsw?? 1r?e[? fCU1v?-GL?, p(t?11??1-gam i
-'d
l
{
Y
v? co
vz?
-,
ern ace+ circa. d. c{c? kw?o w-z A
?
?tccw
rJ .?rcr s ?a.?d.. ?? +.?xt.?.r.
=
3-3
SO MS
Mao utrt Nom.
(Son** mm Pha ws: Otaneas Gass:
Fisid Obsaewoons
Toxenewm 1Subgnpjm Canfitm Matted Tw60 Yh Me
P?eliie Os:aneaawe
Csoot AAGWM calve Memo CAIOM Matat Tss . canonaews.
?newp ment" Mumoo Masis tMtnsod MOMtl •bunesnasfCantrssi Stnicam. eta.
r?.
Nvene Sal ineia..nst
rr..t ?oitww *NVh oeaso.. eantewc in Surtaet Lavw in SanwW soft
SWYt Cdw QeQas. sa...inq «s sawdr Seii.
Rpn? lases!aw Le" ~m Sea* ust
mt•?Cwwww ? - soft use
Rawwtss: 5.??\s r?1v eece..- ok - v,-O c?lve?'? ??#o
o-d?o-ee „?c c?xir?ctu?d o.??vs.?n P r' v cat Fr??J iJ veal s? tN .
m
WETLAND DE-1 MIl11ATMN
II Nvdne SaM ft"W" I me H%lwwww 11 Gomm
I R.w+ewn•.- L , ?2Ce?VeS clva? e kYD A eler?red o?re?. , S. Z S
? Int?1n.. Szd.?v??.? de ?• ?•s o??- was d?c-? i?,e•ia,rw?.ev'z.,;,?$ .
av
3-" -
OATA FORM
ROUTINE WETLAND OETERMINATiON
(1987 CCE Wetlands Oalkwumotl Manual!
' FroiaeuSits: ?. 5,..? Date: 8 13 /Y ij
A *cdcmnrj(3Wner. County: uyu
Investtpator: V. g ckj-kpk-op, a_ /I l l e State: C.
Oo Normal Circunesonesa e3dat on the site? Con nlunity t0: pm(A-?,
Is the sits s sndY dbm rbed 1Atypicai Situatiotll? Yes Transact 10:
Is the uea s poanoal-Prat ienrArea? Yes Plot t0: -?
(If needeC. exolain on revwse.!
METATION
go...wawe A.wr sg.w.... ?a ?i` oamn.ee A«K se«i?? ?St3?..
t . Cam- ,?1 _alnt
2. _ ka 0koora-- -JER -Ct,J to.
OP,L?`??,L??7 1&
e. Qyxcxy. Vv?`C?nn.OX?? 14.
1. 0" maic,", I Is*
s. Li ` loour S 1 e.
-Psraant st 0WMWt eeww strt erg MK. FACW W PAC
(*=*MAnq IPA"
Rsnwwu

RsaanhM One 10swebe in Rswewslt Wsaarer Mrdralpr Itedawrtrat
-srao tt Lmkd •er Tide ?. PrUeeary Itrdbaarss
- Aswr1 PlewrataMtw? M?wewat+s?•.
OIMr' ja Saawt+M•iw umw 12 Inanomr?-
Ne meows" oasw ArraMw. _WMN,MWW-r..
Odit tJew?
SsdYwswtOMares
Fiaid 0etssrraaurre Orsinaaw?starnain Wsaanr--
i t Seldom p 12 or acre temmadls-
Waters L
Oeorn of SrffMa _ Ou dissw Aest Chawnwwa in uww 12 q+anee-
Watwr?Stanw• ?earsa
Owen is frsa Wear on l1t: Ifni _Lsaat a" Swrww osa
fAC-Nwrtral Test
Deem is ssawaar Sails Other t9bCommom in Memento
R.n?.ncss 'y?\ cv?ca? rv c'_o eJ.?a. Cid"Ifur In2>7.v? r0.tuJ F-?.
3-3
SOILS
Mee 4ime Nenea
Mons* am Phase: Qrinepe Cass:
Fib Qbser"Com
T?sonerrrv eSubpee?K Ce.&M h4one a 'ryW Yes me
P?efite O?seneaarK
Germ Meta: Ce1er Meme Colors Meetia Ts:ears. Coeorsmn&
inenos MCM]"? (NOM r MO AAesrr tMunRed AAasn ?euewsnewConerss: Stryature: sea.
Nvelm sod lrwieaanet
Nkomo ? Corwnsona ?
`. Mne" toiMMw - _Hl"orair• Centem in sutfem, Laver on Saew sw•.
SuMhft oaer -Oepene setasrin5 an sendw sod@
AmwAsismin Reartre Usa*sal L"o &%WW 9,s" Uss
eM?i ?onsi•ene - =Ustas M "MOO ,64 M" seas use
Giaved st teve-Cinen s Cowen ? Other /Eaalaiw in Rew+ries/
i Ren+eres
I
WETLAND OETERIWW4ATWN
rlwr..i_00 V.S•t.e.wPlowwN
WaeYens "VdMMW PreeenN
Mlvdne soil.Ofewo t!
me 4czmw
me
Men sanaine Paine vvlasn a wellold, (9;) me
R.ments:
ov
3-;.
DATA FORM
ROUTINE WETLAND DETERMINATION
(1987 COE Wouanos Oelineanon Manuall
Proie=site:
Invesapawr:
Dam
Count;:
Stan:
Do Non, gl Ckeunnunoss- exist on the site? Yes Njp Conlnwnity 10: Pr-M
Is the sire sianiBeanaV disumbed tAtYpical Situanani? < No Transact 10: 1:3
Is the ares s potsnoal• Problem Area) Yes ® Plot to:
(if need. enolain on reverses
VEGETATION
90er.?.W /i.we se.m... ,? Oonun.ne Rent soeeiee • ?sa>aem. -
t •SriY31?C. so . ?? s. __ __
2. 5c"C< leaf
s. n - %g vv . s G 11.
S.sooj"y, aJt ?rc?_ oti3 t=,
e. - - 14. 7• is.
t. ts.
s ??-
Pereent et oeliftGle lM=wstit w Q4L. tACW or PAC b O J
iexoNNOM PACs.
Rdnwaet °
rnroaa?.oc?r
Reeewfer Ck" Icklon"e in Itenum" s vft"ld ""Weiew &"mueet
_ S11ee1R- L?IwM TiAe Odetr- fir Md?s•
Adel Ii?1aM1e•
R Mwww?..
?
sdeefewlb %moor 121noeer-
N? Reenee" OM4 Ar•IeM?? - Weelp*Am0W-c.
-Crf tthwo+ -
se?YwewcOeeeew?-
moid abeerreeewet v.. Mane r 04suersrin Wdwmft-
s.e.e..nr w+si?..... It or "we reee mft-
060m at surfee. W;mm C*disee Roes ChmWWWe in vaeer i 2
we"" to - Loewe
Oeont to free Water on fit? finJ ??eeel sdi suever Oats
RAC-Neacm root
Odou to sommo od sdiit ((A,? Other lazolon.n Aanertll
Ren?encat
3-3
SOILS
Mao unit Nsnm
(senes mm Phame: QfaeMOpe Cass:
Reid Cbsonmaa s
Taxons"m tsubgmmt Confirm "Sao" TWOO vN Ne
P?e?He O?saneaew:
Ooottn Msees Coiw memo Gores •. Macao TQxwm. Cononmene.
i»
en
M Henu .rte th^msor Mas » ?bunete?es?CowtTtst Stevtsttns. ego.
/
?
( tLqR-
tl?iCi_?k
J1,
Mva" Sod Inaiomum
whommM ?Conetooons
`. Hiram Isioosen _)Oqh Ofasrae C.44KM t in S Ad*e. Ls1141 to Sonar i?ib-•
sWw CAW Ofgo Sessrim an sense soil.
_ AMsAiskm a R?oieees Pasts* on Le" Mvwio seas Liss
?,? AsM? COnsfeMls - ?? ume an "soma fevow sou Lis! -
abYM w Lev*•Chnmw cakwu CMw dxsi s in RsnwlW
i Rsenseum
{
WETLAND Cal AINATION
m 1101a
rov.eio?. Peswwt? t:: (r. !Clfwesaw
mvdm pfleaw PM M• c
Mwe. soil. Ph Nue Ms Is a.. ianew v Point wmmn a WoOSnO?
Aen% uw.. k. ?rYVI? O IU t-V?? o? V'nQt0. 0.cc-c" v m-&
5&O kk nt is:?+?

OATH FORM
ROUTINE WETLAND DETERMINATION
(1987 COE Wetlands Oennesaan Manusli
pro ie= site:
AacdcanVOwtter: County:
Invesapator: Stag: 11
Oa Normal Cireumstaaees e7Qit an the site? <g2i? No Coesm"Noity IO:
Is the site si tipndr dWUxb" (Atypical S&tuawnl? Yes Transact
t0:
Is the area a N"t dai-Problete Areal- Yes ? Plot t0:
(If needed.. esolain an reverse.(
WQVrATION
Oaw""Is P+awr se.s..- is r 00"Mme c Plow Seaeiaa • s •?u
w
&IV-)ta QS
,. ru - kck&c'X t%' i iSl lr?t; it HL
2. r rw? Ia.Nue ircos

' t I. Lpmcc-lk 0, 4 an
4. f-
11 a; -'d
M f--,P C, t2. (Doe-re aln
LUQa
s. (.Ws ?l- •.Iva,wr'!c T ;
13. W {tA r il:tur?
s. _UI 0A US rzbrt,? L 14,
7. c un n)c C•rNiJl) L- Is.
a. _VrkceivOLU,w coo WLhrl.,%A-

f0 A? t doe sewhes am 00. FACW or PAC
't:ae«t
(? ( v

awwnst
it
HYDROLOGY
RReemd" cam Wasudw in
1lewtataels
Weee?rf MNteMer Midiaa?atar
• Sessm, Lahe6-e« Two Go@"-
Ae" Ihaa PtUwnr btOewat?s-
-
aetaon.
' atuwayaa?..
b liooer 12 lneer-
Me Aeeisaee ow wv=irb-- ?we?wwM?ss

?sa?YwewtOaeeawe-
SOW abeerwassaw in w0dan/e-_
seeewaerv Mdewts /2 ad ntere "emwom t -
0401M of swtowe WON" ??fGW _ Qa?•Ileet ChwwwN in Naeav 12 tranee-
?Q Sw4tmvwd Laavee- 1
i
Oaoth to free Wmw on Pitt loam $ai surwv Oats
Tort I
0060 to sdawased soiit aver t
Qtba? Ex0mj ow 4n Aanancsl
I
Rornancst
3-3

SOILS
an ums Naeel?
(Sena am Phomen pt?nps Cass:
Reid CbseewaoM
Ta:eneenv. tSubdnsrs.IS ------ - - Can&m Maooaa Torso Yis 44_..
P'eFiie ossaneserr
Cestlt AA a Calw Memo COIN! Mefte r*xw m. Conaesssm,
inenes Mormon? tMUnsed AAastl AbuManae#CGf%fn t SteuQtvee. eta.
u4e
Nvana sal leaiwsese .
Msssstl - _ c4nseesem
? tft s t{Oi?srsN _m4ft afgww COneww in sYefses L.avw in SsMV 44"R`•
SaWdw-adW -anume g"a A ing in Swv*v Seii0
Itaoin»? LissNon Le" Mvd" seib uss
Redow"Candsalw- ?tlsiest?n NsMwwI llrMis fds List•
M Lew-Chtenm CaiNS cmhw tEsolsis in ROee+nelW
R
VVETLANO Call WMTiON
t+vw.aerw vs?s?w hM«?rt (w tCLMM'
WOtidM NvrwlsSi?PtrNilsit IVfa
mvde seiis PI eow Ne is mm Sano?iep taint within a wessn" !N
Rsmeess:
ov
3-Y
DATA FORM
ROUTINE WETLAND DETERMINATION
0 987 COE Wetlands OeanesIum Manuail
Prolea:lsks:
InvesnaaMr.
Oats:
CcuntY:
stag:
Oo Normal exist an the Simi No Community to:
Is the site g4jifftm dy distasrded tAtvvical Situanonl? Yes ® Transact t0:
Is the area s pppps'.Pro' - Anal Yes ® Plot f0:
(If needed, excoiain on reverse.!
VEGETATION
Qonsnan A tS re"" 1ndeM oon.w.? n«+K se.ei?s sc
t . 1 iLc)S f j ?L PqC !.
z. [ QrLz,(7?VAL = NZ to.
a. ?2?r'c t?S Al n t t . - -
a. al t rnbnsiv? _ -W t i _-
s. b ?u?7c?z t=.
7. T?
I.
t e, r
Posses et Commu t senawswm,• aL.IACW or PAC 2
(OZOMM" PAC4. 3?o
Raeenaet
HYDROLOGY
Resume" Owe 40sa w ow in Rem mein
-sUeewr Lefts er tilde fie-
- Amo ffmoson ws,•
-Dave-
Ne RoMAet OMs, Ave kdme., Widest MlNieleer Yeeti wmM
Ptrlssry Iw/bw r
lenseesed-
_Igsaumootiw1looer 12Inew -
-WesrNMnws-c.
Odle Unvw-
,?Seebwese•Ooeseis-
FNO Obtotvwewet ••• in Wellen/e -
seeeneerv 4feieerte?•12 er Isis, "wiinew-
0601tn of surtese w.sse: inr j cumda" Rees C„arMe in uoees-/s q+mw-
WeseaetemM Leaves
Ooom to Free Water on P{-. IinJ Leews sea Sur~ cots
11 _ RAC.Nersrm Tess
Ooem to Seamus" seas ?? Qtlrer lawwwo M Aommmot
Renwes: ?c?F.?c?.1?r SCG? A??1'tw- '
3-3

SOILS
Meo urns Nen?e
(Sena ar. Pt+sat Qran.p. Cass:
Fdal Observeooes
Tazerwnwr ISt?raiwlt C.,ofm #6600" TvDo) Yes me
P?eliie aesen..swt
Oeoen UAOe Cofer Meese Colas Memo 'ream m. COnae.ene.
Oneness M22M iUMrwe P6 Muss tMu"wed hAmon ?burwenesrContrsse Strveturs. *to.
y &A?
j l+vdne Sod k" iesum
????- Corars..n. ,r
wefa. Eoifa...w G}Nab order Cmmm on t, df Laver a smw sww --
Ddw Orsas. sae.riwv M+ s.edv sal.
AMMM o••• R•ae+•- t3sa? ew Lo" Mvww sale use
GIW4" w Lew•CArw Colere Oel?er td mis in RarwrW
Rarenm
1
WETLAND OE EPMfA[ ^TMN
mvdreMrlw Veswwwlres.wN !N ICirsIM "°
wesum Mvwa.w pfoo o tw
Mvdrr. sw. fnmm d • a Iw Is ta~. sarmrirrv Mine vViei7iw . v?r'edans7 Y.. N.

71

DATA FORM
ROUTINE WETLAND DETERMINATION
(1987 COE Wetlands Delineation Manuail
Proiect/Site:
Invesapamr.
Date: 1
Counor.
State:
Do Normal Circunnunees- exist an tie sitel y No ConummikV i0: p fA
Is the site sipnificaatlr disturbed JArMical Situation)? Yes o Transact 10:
Is the area s p m r Fier Problem Arnat Yes Plot 10:
(if needed, exolain on revw=U
VEGETATION
0. a mom ieb Oomm"m Nine se w I?ie?r .
AcW 1- s. :v 73C.
s. (aNnti 110. Dstnn uR; d a. Amo=ca, A-Cup
? r-
a.QUC2US Mic&i X, 1 7- - 12.
13.
e. LlbilSrt SING 5? S c 14.
7. l C oD?rc ts. ????
:. G??wa?rd i? a rQa 1 a?•r?. ?-- Of3 t s. r
mn of? Commmw ?ws am do. PACW w PAC
0
Ron?rKSt _
4YURCLOGY
tloeew/M Ova IOaewbe in Itowwmelt W?Mnt 1iNirrN Ntdieet>fm-
9t1eem Wfo.M Two 44mem-
A
" M
- AlmWW vvd@m9 ft`
e
m" mom
_ hwanammra-
X?ie WOW 12 bm"Web-
fe R loom Ome Avg.. WMtawMraMita•c"
_ Odt! Timm'` '
so?ws'Ooemtate'
FNO C1340f%mme a -- ?
low 0 in W**W4ft "
sowwrlNWWWWW 42MAmwcommedw
040m of $Wf " We"" ??tGW ?QWdlud Ae t ChmwWe in UaK 12 Wame-
?O Watrawetmnod 4?wo
Ovotn to fnf Wo[o? on Ilt: fln.l -loom aw SWVer Ow
PAC-Now" Tom
Ooe?t+ ce swrstw salt ?, S QnJ _
Othw lazaimw Wn Aw"delm
R?nesz C?DU'I.Uc?.<J,?-r .SCG? .
3-3

SOMS
Mats unit Nano
(Sena am PAasan O?inpe Cass:
Feid Obseeveoons
Taxoneawr isub<,1eaolt CpnMM MOOM" Tvod YK Ire
P'etiie Oeaeneaaw:
Oaotn Monet Coior Memo Colors Mateo - Ta:tugs. Cononsos..
inenes M {MtwrsM Must! {AA M"ed AAaaa abmfWwWwfCG"tMt StnJatu?a. eta.
Hvqum Sod'
Nkomo" carbalses"Is
`. Mistio fewsoen- ?m%n cwgwmCewcees in Satfsoe Laver in SensMfeii??
SWY. COW _aroop.o s'm g sD Se-IdW le8r
A"MaMsisrw Aopns,- _ l isar sl! Lrsss? MMMie s oie Liss
_ ResusiwtCr sksons- tisaa sw lfa r•ws?1lwio Leis list-
aMvW M LorrCllrnwe Calets Cow IEtml:n in Rainrato
I Mon a sm
WETLAND Dr-I Glum
Nvdtt?IMt# voswwrs'teeewtP Ns Ickow-
w.e.? ++vwwsl??•.•td tw
Nvens ieifs Nssmrl w me is vas sawo ing paint wltmn a Waertsi
Retwonw.
ov
3-»

United States Department of the Interior
FISH AND WILDLIFE SERVICE
Raleigh Field Office
Post Office Box 33726
Raleigh, North Carolina 27636.3726

TO: • ?? nn 6. ?tr.;??n r7 '
Lnc.
((&3.a teoq, LAIIA Vn- u aoC
Thank you for your41et &r requesting. information or recommendations from the__.
U.S. Fish and Wildlife Service. This form provides the Service's=resgocrse '
pursuant to Section 7 of the Endangered Species Act, as amended (16 U.S.C.
1531-1543), and the Fish and Wildlife Coordination Act, as amended (16
U.S.C. 661-667d).
Re : t C ii ,1l We e
Proj t Name/Location/County //
lc.r.rt I , 15 4 6 7?6
Date of Incoming Letter Log Number
The attached page(s) list(s) the Federally-listed species which
may occur within the project area.
Based on the information provided, it appears that your project site
does not contain suitable habitat for any Federally-listed
endangered or threatened. species known to occur in the area.We
believe that the requirements of Section 7 of the Act have been
satisfied. We remind you that obligations under Section 7
consultation must be reconsidered if: (1) new information reveals
impacts of this identified action that may affect listed species or
critical habitat in a manner not previously considered; (2) this
action is subsequently modified in a manner that wA not considered
in this review; (3) a new species is listed or critical habitat
determined that may be affected by the identified action.
If the proposed project will be removing pines 9" dbh or greater, or
30 years of age in pine or pine/hardwood habitat, surveys should be
conducted for active red-cockaded woodpecker cavity trees in
appropriate habitat within a 1/2 mile radius of project boundaries.
If red-cockaded woodpeckers are observed within the project area or
active cavity trees found, the project has the potential to affect
the red-cockaded woodpecker, and you should contact this office for
further information.
7 ?' ?iL GU.6? 7 ? /Q4
Biologist Date Endangered Species Coordinator Date
FEDERALLY-LISTED, CANDIDATE SPECIES
AND FEDERAL SPECIES OF CONCERN
(revised April 1, 1996)
DURHAM COUNTY
Common Name Scientific Name Status
Vertebrates
Bald eagle
Haliaeetus leucocephalus Threatened
Invertebrates
Atlantic pigtoe
Fusconaia masons FSC
Septima's clubtail dragonfly Gomphus septima FSC
Yellow lampmussel Lampsilis cariosa FSC
FSC
Green floater Lasmigona subviridus
Panhandle peeblesnail Somotogyrus virginicus FSC
Vascular Plants
Tall larkspur
Delphinium exaltatum FSC
Smooth coneflower Echinacea laeWgata Endangered
Butternut luglans cinerea FSC
FSC
Sweet pinesap Monorropsis odorata
FSC
Michaux's sumac Rhus michauxii
Nonvascular Plants
A liverwort Plagiochila columbiana FSC
Status
Endangered efinition
A taxon "in danger of extinction throughout all or a significant portion of its range."
Threatened A taxon "likely to become endangered within the foreseeable future throughout all or
a significant portion of its range."
Proposed A taxon proposed for official listing as endangered or threatened.
Candidate A taxon under consideration for official listing for which there is sufficient information to

FSC to support listing.
A Federal species of concern, species which may or may not be listed in the future (formerly
C2 candidate species, or species under consideration for listing for which there is insufficient

T(S/A) information to support listing.).
Threatened due to similarity of appearance (e.g., American alligator) - species which are
threatened due to similarity of appearance with other rare species and are listed to protect these
species. These species are not biologically endangered or threatened and are not subject to

EXP Section7 consultation.
A taxon that is listed as experimental (either essential or non-essential). Experimental, non-
essential endangered species (e.g., red wolf) are treated as threatened on public lands for
consultation purposes, and as species proposed for listing on private lands.
Species with 1,2,3, or 4 asterisks behind them indicate historic, obscure, or incidental records.
* Historic record, the species was last observed in the county over 20 years ago.
** Obscure record, the date and/or location of the species observation is uncertain.
*** Incidental/migrant record, the species was observed outside of its normal range or habitat.
' State of North Carolina Al
Department of Environment, - -
Health and Natural Resources / • •
Division of Parks & Recreation
James B. Hunt, Jr., Governor
Jonathan B. Howes, Secretary E H N F=1
Dr. Philip K. McKnelly, Director
July 2, 1996
Ms. Kathryn Sweeney
Malcolm Pirnie, Inc.
11832 Rock Landing Drive
Newport News, VA 23606-4206
SUBJECT: Rare Species, High Quality Natural Communities, and
Significant Natural Areas in the Proposed Durham County Landfill
Expansion Project Area, Durham County, North Carolina
Dear Ms. Sweeney:
The North Carolina Natural Heritage Program does not have records
of known rare species, high quality natural communities, or
significant natural areas occurring at or within a 1-mile radius of
the Durham County landfill expansion project area. To our
knowledge, this project area has not been systematically
inventoried and we cannot definitively state that rare species or
significant natural areas do not occur there.
Enclosed is a list of rare species that are
Durham County. If suitable habitat for any of t
in the project area, then those species may
project site. If it is necessary to be certain
not contain rare species, a field survey
conducted.
known to occur in
:hese species occurs
be present at the
that this site does
would need to be
Please contact me at the address below or call me 4t [phone]
if you have any questions or need further information.'
Sincerely,
r
00
Inge Smith Terrill
Information Specialist
Natural Heritage Program
/ist
Enclosures
P.O. Box 27687, Raleigh. North Carolina 27611-7687
An Equal Opportunity Affirmative Action Employer
V1_ - J o7s9a tl?
00? ,.
Chr(S
Telephone [phone] FAX [phone]
50X, recycled/ 10% post-consumer paper
SCIENTIFIC AND
COMMON NAME
Durham
Vertebrates
AMBLOPLITES CAVIFRONS
ROANOKE BASS
ETHEOSTOMA COLLIS
CAROLINA DARTER
HALIAEETUS LEUCOCEPHALUS
BALD EAGLE
HEMIDACTYLIUM SCUTATUM
FOUR-TOED SALAMANDER
NECTURUS . LEWISI
NEUSE RIVER WATERDOG
NOTURUS FURIOSUS POP 1
CAROLINA MADTOM - NEUSE RIVER POPULATION
Invertebrates
ALASMIDONTA UNDULATA
TRIANGLE FLOATER
FUSCONAIA MASONI
ATLANTIC PIGTOE
GOMPHUS SEPTIMA
SEPTIMA'S CLUBTAIL
LAMPSILIS CARIOSA
YELLOW LAMPMUSSEL
LAMPSILIS RADIATA
EASTERN LAMPMUSSEL
LASMIGONA SUBVIRIDLS
GREEN FLOATER
SOMATOGYRUS VIRGEWCUS
PANHANDLE PEBBLESNAIL
STROPHTTUS UNDULATUS
SQUAWFOOT
TACHOPTERYX THOREYI
GRAY PETALTAIL
VII.LOSA CONSTRICTA
NOTCHED RAINBOW
VILLOSA DELUMBIS
EASTERN CREEKSHELL
Vascular plants
AGALINIS DECEMLOBA
PIEDMONT GERARDIA
ASTER LAEVIS VAR CONCINNUS
NARROW-LEAVED ASTER
BAPTISIA MINOR
PRAIRIE BLUE WILD INDIGO
BERBERIS CANADENSIS
AMERICAN BARBERRY
CARDAMINE DOUGLASSII
DOUGLASS'S BTTTERCRESS
CARER BUSHII
BUSH'S SEDGE
--STATE FED. STATE- - -GLOBAL -
PROT. PROT. RANK RANK
SR - S3 G3
SC - S3 G3
E LT SIB,S2 G4
SC - S3 GS
SC - S3 G3
SC - S2 G3T2Q
T - S2 G4
T C2 S1 G2
SR C2 Si G2
T C2 S1S2 G4
SC - S1S2 GS
E C2 S1 G3
SR C2 SI? GIG3
T - S1S2 GS
SR - S3? G4
SR - S2S3 G4
SR - S3? G3G4
SR - S2? G4
C - S2 GST4
C/PT - S2 G4
SR - S2 G4
SR - S2 GS
SR - SH G4
NC NATURAL HERITAGE PROGRAM, NC DWWON OF PARKS AND RECREATION, DEHNR
Data compiled using BCD software developed by The Natmwe Coosenancy.
FEBRUARYIM
y
SCIENTIFIC AND
COMMON NAME - -
CAREX JAMESII
JAMES'S SEDGE
CAREX MEADII
MEAD'S SEDGE
CAREX VESTPTA
VELVET SEDGE
DELPHINIUM EXALTATUM
TALL LARKSPUR
DESMODIUM OCHROLEUCUM
CREAMY TICK-TREFOIL
ECHINACEA LAEVIGATAA
SMOOTH CONEFLOWER
ENEMION BITERNATUM
EASTERN ISOPYRUM
EUPATORIUM GODFREYANUM
GODFREY'S THOROUGHWORT
EUPATORIUM INCARNATUM
PINK THOROUGHWORT
HEXALECTRIS SPICATA
CRESTED CORALROOT
HEXASTYLIS LEWISII
LEWIS'S HEARTLEAF
JUGLANS CINEREA
BUTTERNUT
LIATRIS SQUARRULOSA
EARLE'S BLAZING STAR
LTTHOSPERMUM CANESCENS
HOARY PUCCOON
MATELEA DECIPIENS
GLADE MILIMNE
MONOTROPSIS ODORATA
SWEET PINESAP
NESTRONIA UMBELLULA
NESTRONIA
PANAX TRIFOLIUS
DWARF GINSENG
PAMCUM FLECIi -F
WIRY PANIC GRASS
PARTHENIUM AURICULATUM
GLADE WILD QUININE
PLATANTHERA PERAMOENA
PURPLE FRINGELESS ORCHID
PORTERANTHUS STIPULATUS
INDIAN PHYSIC
PRUNUS PUMIIA VAR SUSQUEHANAE
SUSQUEHANNA CHERRY
RHUS MICHAUXII
MICHAUX'S SUMAC
RUELLIA HUMIL.IS
LOW WILD-PETUNIA
RUELLIA PURSHIANA
. PURSH'S WILD-PETUNIA
SCIRPUS PENDULUS
RUFOUS BULRUSH
STATE FED.
PROT. PROT.
SR -
SR -
C -
E-SC C2
C -
E-SC LE
SR -
SR -
SR -
SR -
SR -
WL C2
SR -
SR -
SR -
C C2
SR 3C
SR -
SR - %
C -
C -
SR -
C -
E-SC LE
T -
SR -
SR -
NC NA'IVR" IIERTTAGE PROGRAM, NC DIMON OF PARES AND RECREATION, DE NR
Data compiled using BCD software developed by The Nature Conservancy.
SH
S1
Si?
Si
S2
Si
S2 .
S2
S3
S2S3?
S2
Si
S2
S2
S3
S2
Si
Si
Si
S2
SH
S2
Si
S2
Si
G5
G3
G2G3
G2G3
---G5
G4
G5
G4?
G4
G3
G4G5
G5
05
G3
G4
G5
G4G5
G3?Q
G5
G5
G5T4
G2
G5
G5
G5
FESRUARY19%
J
r ,
SCIENTIFIC AND
COMMON NAME
SCUTELLARIA LEONARDII
SHALE-BARREN SKULLCAP
SCUTELLARIA NERVOSA
VEINED SKULLCAP
SILPHIUM TEREBINTHINACEUM
PRAIRIE DOCK
SOLIDAGO RIGIDA SSP GLABRATA
SOUTHEASTERN BOLD GOLDENROD
THERMOPSIS MOLLIS SENSU STRICTO
APPALACHIAN GOLDEN-BANNER
Nonvascular plants
PLAGIOCHILA COLUMBIANA
A LIVERWORT
Natural communities
BASIC MESIC FOREST (PIEDMONT SUBTYPE)
BASIC OAK-HICKORY FOREST
DRY-MESIC OAK-HICKORY FOREST
FLOODPLAIN POOL
MESIC MIXED HARDWOOD FOREST (PIEDMONT SUBTYPE)
PIEDMONT MONADNOCK FOREST
PIEDMONT/COASTAL PLAIN HEATH BLUFF
PIEDMONT/LOW MOUNTAIN ALLUVIAL FOREST
PIEDMONT/MOUNTAIN BOTTOMLAND FOREST
PIEDMONT/MOUNTAIN LEVEE FOREST
PIEDMONT/MOUNTAIN SEMIPERMANENT IMPOUNDMENT
PIEDMONT/MOUNTAIN SWAMP FOREST
UPLAND DEPRESSION SWAMP FOREST
UPLAND POOL
XERIC HARDPAN FOREST
Geologic features
PRECAMBRIAN FOSSIL
SILL
STATE FED. STATE -GLOBAL - -
PROT. PROT. RANK RANK
C - S1 G4
SR - S1 G5
C - S2 G4G5
SR - S2 G5T3
SR - S2? G3G4
_ C
NC NATURAL IMRITAGE PROGRAM, NC DIVMON OF PARES AND RECREATION, DEffiVR
Data compiled using BCD software developed by Mat Nature Conservanicy.
C2 SH _ GI
- S2
- S3
- S5
- S2
- S4
- S4
- S3
- S5
- S3?
- S3?
S4.
- S1
- S2
- S1
- S3
G5T3
G4
GS
G3?
GSTS
GS
G4?
G5
GS
GS
GS
G2
G3
G1
G3G4
FEBRUARYM6
U.S. ARMY CORPS OF ENGINEERS
Wilmington District
Action ID: County:
Notification of Jurisdictional Determination
Property owner/Authorized Agent
Address
Telephone Number uc?\c?) 5k- Cl) - %-k 9S
Size and Location of Property(waterbody, Highway
% -i -, Ar - - -- - - `U-- \.! - ', - -Z Le
town, etc.)

side ? cuk-. ApcS r4 SPuP ?c?<?dte? e1 ?? ?ac:PS ?O ???ee\esr Cee?`!t
Indicate Which of the following apply: ??-?`? ,Q ?Qn.?..:.o??ecs o? ?.\\ec\oe?. '?Qe.? .

determination on your property.
be dekaeased-an&
will make a final
• Because of the size of your property and our present workload, our identification and delineation of your
wetlands cannot be accomplished in a timely manner. You may wish to employ a consultant to obtain a
more timely delineation of the wetlands. Once your consultant has flagged a wetland line on the property,
Corps staff will review it, and, if it is accurate, we strongly recommend that you have the line surveyed for
final approval by the Corps. The Corps will not make a final jurisdictional determination on your property
without an approved survey.
\ * e wetlands on your lot have been delineated, and the limits of Corps jurisdiction have been explained
to you. Unless there is a change in the law or our published regulations, this determination may be relied
upon for a period not to exceed thee years from the date of this notification.
• There are no wetlands present on the above described property which are subject to the permit
requirements of Section 404 of the Clean Water Act (33 USC 1344). Unless there is a change in the law
or our published regulations, this determination may be relied upon for a period not to exceed threeyears
from the date of this notification.
• The project is located in one of the 20 Coastal Counties. You should contact the nearest State Office of
Coastal Management to determine their requirements.
Placement of dredged or fill material in wetlands on this property without a Department of the Army
permit is in most cases a violation of Section 301 of the Clean Water Act (33 USC 1311). A permit is
not required for work on the property restricted entirely to existing high ground. If you have any
questions regarding the Corps of Engineers regulatory program, please contact
al-A
Property owner/Authorized Agent Signature
Project Manager Signature
Date \ 0 S eCls q\o ? Expiration Date
SURVEY PLAT OR FIELD SKETCH OF DESCRIBED PROPERTY AND THE WETLAND
DELINEATION FORM MUST BE ATTACHED TO THE YELLOW (FILE) COPY OF THIS FORM.
CFSAW Form 566
1 OCT 92
p ° ~L ~ PLATE 3
• . • . • • • • . • • • • \ U j ~a • s . • • • • • r . 1yW„~i%
~ . s . . • ? . . . . s . • f5• . . •y x. s • . ? . a r . s a a • . • ~Y u,
4, . _ . . o + e e s m • w a . v . . . ` a ~ a a . • • s . . . tea` ~ ~ E z, oaz, o00
. . . . . . . . . . . _
~e~ ~ e / fl
~ B ~ ~ ~
. ~ - - 4 -
r . . d . l s ~
t ~ h ~ _
~ , , , , , , , , SITE ~ / PF01A ti ~ .r
a 3 ! . . ,i _....._...a ~ ~ .
~L~
1 6 ? k 4 1
W i ~ • .
\ ~ ~ ~ r .
SITE 15 / PFO~ y
~ W ti
~ ~
~ ~ . - . 14 / PF01C
i~ a + , - -
- , - - u...._.-,-:.:.:;:.«:"' ::::4:"""-"'""""'•"' - t, E2, 043,000
~ ~ -,-~-•1
f - i V i W ~ i - . ~ ~ ' ? m . C. `.i
r.:. _ s s 1 ~ L~,
~ ~ - - - - -~c~'•-•-- -
39~--. SITE 11 / FO
394-.°°'~--'- y a; i..
37 i ~i ;a ,r
_ ~ i; SITE 1
TSB---------- • 1 l ~ _
---~-_.~_._..._.__._.-----~7F~- „5 E 3 i DISPOSAL - - - - - - - - - - - - - i f,``_~ a---`_-
PSS/EM1C ~ , ~ ; ~ - ` BOUNDARY { - - - - ~ - - - - - - - - - - ' , : - - - - I ~
- ~ ~ S /f U"1 boy ~ ` x
. • IT ~ 01A ~ S
` .r ~ v ~ i / ~ ~ 3Q ~ 301--..~, ~ ~ t
~'`u'S. 1 i y
~ ~ ! ' "1 ( - i s
o rr , - / ~l p 4 ~ -
11 y
~ ~ `jv' r- y ~ j/
F,
o ° ` , ~ j o/ ®o ~ j`` f • ' .4
~ ~ 4 ,r~,f c
/ ~ ~ / ~ ~ - E 2,044,000 ~ - - - - - - -
o ~ K 32
at ~Q---~--~. o .
r.!° i ~ . ? ,C~a t
cr 4 c,~ i i~ ~ 3 ro ~ ~ ~ -,..~2 - 33 1 310
o fl I w • ~ N ti,..~~, ~ \ p
? a 0 4- ° \ ~ ~ 1 \ ' ~ Y. o I 'j ~ j ~ ILEGEND:
~ 4 ° \ f , APPROX. LANDFILL BOUNDARY
~ 14 ~ - -
0 4 l ~ 4w.+w? ~ ~ 1 s ~ ~a•-"- APPROX. 300' BUFFER BOUNDARY
4 ~ ~ ~ ~y . ANNE TE 9 /
° a, a~ p ~ 0 ~ . ~ ~ IDE 8 ' ADJACENT WETLANDS OUTSIDE
Q 4 . N ~ SITE 10 L~ \ ti j / ~ . PROJECT AREA
0 a.u.~ f r 4 ~ 0/EM1A ~ ~ a
0 ° 6 ~ '~`~f ` WETLANDS WITHIN PROJECT AREA
~v q ° o j ~ (5.8 ACRES)
~ ~ ~'ii~ii~ ~ii~il~ii n iii i~ii~ i i~ ii li 4 4 * ~ 1~,~ ~ \ 4.
° o 0 3~ ~ 1
F _ '4. 4 k - Z ~ IMPACTED WETLANDS
o ~ ~ fl f o p" g ° 4 O ~ ~ _ X0.7 ACRES)
~ ~ ~ ti
0 00 0 ~ r ~ - PL- EXISTING PROPERTY LINE
0 0~ ~ o / o ° o ' E 2,045,000
o , ° o m
oO l'' i ° ° ~ ' ° . 1~ ~ o 0
/ ° o ~ 4 ~32 pj NorES:
0 ° ° f o~ ° 0 ° 4 0 4 o ~ ~I 1. TOPOGRAPHIC AND PLANIMETRIC
Q o e ~ 4 ~ 04 s / 4 ~ J ~ ~O FEATURES ARE FROM AERIAL
a w ° SURVEY PERFORMED BY
0 I- 36 a G j ~ ~ 0 I s / dae SOUTHERN AERIAL MAPPING
~ SERVICE DATED MAY 1996.
° i ° Q 4 °
4 p ~ O I 0 h, ° 4 °
i1 4 t 3~ ° ° ~ o o ~ ' ~ ` 2. WETLANDS AREAS WITHIN THE
° ° ~ ° 0 4 u , = PROPOSED LANDFILL SITE BOUNDARY, b e -~.,r~~ e
BUFFER AREA, AND ADJACENT
~ y° 4®u o o 0 ~ 4 4p ~ ° 0 0 ~ ? D ~ ~ ~t ~ PROPERTY OUTSIDE LANDFILL LIMITS
J O 40 p 4 q ~ 4 i ~ 4 s, j~, WERE DELINEATED BY MALCOLM PIRNIE
0 ° ~ 4 ~ 4 ~ 4 ~ ~ ~ j b ~ INC., ENVIRONMENTAL ENGINNEERS AND
o ` i~(~-, SURVEYED BY RICHARD D. HODGES,
~ ~ 4 ~ ` o ~ ~ \ V o ° d" a Q t'Q FEBRUARY 27, 1997.
0 36 ~ ~ 34 2 + m
` ° o 4 ~ t..l
° ,,.4, 1 a ~ °
4 0 T ` ~ a
m o, ,aeo Q- { 3S Z a
4 4~ ~ 1 0 4 4 z ; tc+ o o" 1 O ~
~ ~ ~ ~ 0 4 0 Q `~-D ~ o £ 2 046 00o MARCH 1997
o~. ° o N X11 ° o i .4 ° - ° ~ ® 4 ° / 0 4 i ,,,rr
~e' ~ a._-- m ~'r~'"~ r+~TV n~ ni iQU e u unQru r+ n Qn~ iu w
/ © 1~ , a ~ ~ c c 0_ ~ U~ ` VI t t VI VVI 11 IAI~1~ 1\VI 1 1 1 1 VAI \Vf.11\A
0 e ~ ol DURHAM LANDFILL SITE STUDY
~ f 'J o`4. oo a
^a J ~ m ~ ~e m o o O O O O °
0 0 WETLAND MAP
IRN c 0, 1 SCALE: I" = 2W

~ ;
~ j r ; ~ ~ `,l
O v...ti .tfii9 x ~ f~ o I o , ~ PLATE 4
s ~ O w p p p e~ . 0 0 1 ~ ~ ~ ~ o~ / t j ~
'4 ~ ~ ~ I v ~
~ ~ ~ ~ t 4~ f f, w , L
~ t parr .vim ~,~'4 ~ ~ ~ ~ z ~
~ ~ ~ ~ ,
~ .
1. ~ ~Q ~`;yA ~
' /r` i „ ~ '1 I ~ r 1 ~.w.~
,,,~t r - xxti \ , nets 277x .w ~ ~ ~ ,
,r` 1 ~a ~,Y..,_...,.~ ~ ~ ~ ~
r' z~ d ~ ~ r ~ ~ti ~ r~ 8~ l~j, ~ X r j r~ ~ ,_,..,,,~ccr ~ ' f - ~ ~ 1
rrr s / t ~ , g f~ ,.r .f ~ ~ ~ 1 . ~~.5~~ sra: ~ ~
~ .7 ~ .rte • / ) / ~ 0 1 r., ~ , . , C.;
,~r / r° ~ LIMITS 0 F ,r~~ ~s r:~
~ f r~ „176. 1, {j ~ ! ..,,....,..f ~ 1~ J
r ~ ~ E f }a
' v' ~ LANDFILL kz~~~ ~ ~ ~
/ ~ ~ ~ 1 x i' ! r r I 1 f~yw P7;.6
„qt?. 1 f ' ~ L,a 28/.!1 `w,,. J } iSB 1 k. .•;L l f Ji.~f j F3 ~ ` ...r"~
% , r if ~ ~ ~ ~ ` r ~ ~ ~ V ! ~ t
E~O 1 ~ ~ .F ~ x~ ~ ~ ~ 1'
I y K ..z a P,~„~ ~ ~ , ,x r ` ~ EXISTING 3 5 ~ E1NN~ R ,
/ I sl~a \ l i~ ' x t ~ O 0 y ; 1 ~ 1 ~ 4 FORC MAIN ~
r' { r ~NB ~ ~ ~ ~ ~
SQf.B ~....-...;1 / I ~ ..r ~1I 1j ~ _ l r F 1~ 'y~ \ TREATMENT PL ~ . ti ~ ~ ~ /f
v, N x313+ / o x2as.~ Tara sr a~ ~ / s2a.3 0 _ razl sr ~ ~7zo ~ `~f1 ~ ~ 1
1 ~a ,ter. . ~ ~ ~ ~ ~.J
7 % r,..~,/' A ~1 i r, A f~ ~ r r ~ ( 1
xxs ~ ~ ,
I f \,t V4 1.Q.~ r I I1 I' 111 n. ~
f h~ ~ ~ _ -
i . .mss x.;.s , I, P E I M ETE R B E R „ ~
~ ~ ~ t LI ITS OF DIS OSAL
~ x E T I
u~n~i ~N EW w _
R E a E f fr ~ ~ ~ ~ ~ ~ ~ EXIS ~~:~NG ~ I ~ ~ 's
Tlui~ I ~ ~ 9 ~ ~ I / ~ '^i`,.~~~ ` ~ ` ~ L.N., FORC MAIN r
c;, ~ti~ ~ ~ J
by
~,ly _ ~ l f s ,r, ~ - 1 l ~ . r ~ ~ f ' r y ~ ~ r,/ w ~••,5 w,, O__~~___,.._ ~ ~ ~ ~ LEACHATE TRANSMISSION _
~ ~ . ~ ~ s AD E R ~ ~ ..~~•'r~
r ` e tiff
':c:.;;+; 1 8 1 ~ w,.~ ( ~ i I ~ 1 f ~ ~.,,,w"~.,~ ~.it§C+~ - rj fl t ~ 1 a P r i t ~ ~ r CAI IVti,. ~.v ~ ' `71.9 ~ ..y ~``\+w ~
tt r J ! f ~ ~+.v„~ y~y d X15 ,
r t ~ ~ ~ - E 2, 043, 000 ,r ( t„ , ~ , ' , ,
r' ~ ` ti l C) 7 ~ , ~ ~ ~ n ~ i E ~ _ 1 ~ ~ r ~ _ - -
~ ( ~ f m. ~ ! Cif , 'w.,,,,,s 1 Sa
4 i Aso 3 ~ 3 ! >r:.~ , a~ LEA CHA~t COLLECTION ,'~T' ~
~ ~ ~ l ~ ~ x , J 1 ~ ~ 4. r j ~ ] ~ - 1 r SUMP TY OF 4 1710 ~ ~ ~
f , ~ Nzn ~.I
,ice' f"~ „"J • ~t,'S.~.. ` `r %
~,~~s STORMWATER7~~
~ x 9 d ~ CONVEYANCE
( ( r
.%1 ~ CHANNEL `
~ ~ , 71,8
~;Swr'. _ J~ f j t
~ x JAb9 -...,^-^----..-...~::h'---~-"., it , i _ t k \ .l r
~ ~ ~ r;~;'.: ~ ~ I ~ ~ % 1 a x 500,000 GALLON
I , ~ ~ t~ ~ ~ I~ 1 .~o~----~ . ~ ~ 1 ~ ~ ~ ~ LEACHATE STORAGE „
~ } i ! ( ~ ~ i _ ~ ~ rte,
/ ~ . . . a . . . ~ , ~ ~ FLARE TANKS AND PULP ~
~ ~ / J , t STATION
x ~ STATION - / _ ; . is ~ ~ e .rct,.'a~ ,.~"j rh, ~ wai i~ , ~ i ~ 'f a ~ d
....,i ~ ! 1 ! t' 1,. •1 a ~ I.
-n rJ,~ ` M ~ „ , „?8R. • r. 2740 1 1 x
~ ' ~ 1 I ~ .,,~:.,r, -
t\ \ sn ~ ~ ~ {1^^ ~ . m,,...~ ~ 1 ,.--ww..v....y Jt r~ ~ ~ 'crass r ~ I ~ : ~ ~ ,
„ ~ ° ~ ~ „R f W . ~
J ~ "
E 2 044 000 ' ~ .r" ~ Y ~ , ; l r _ ~ r ~ ~ , , ? % r
- _r
( `i ~ ~ ~ a., ~ 1 / ~ 3 , ' .,M. ~ '
~ s.,y2~;,, / rag ~ `~.r'""», t _
J ~ ~ ~ e ~ I ~ r z,r~ ~
Chi , , it "`ti
N ~ 1 ~ v• rw~._~.
r ~ 1 1 ® ~ ~ ~ ~ ~ `ti IW~ ~ I' J d ti, f i
( < ~ ~"Q ~ 1 ~ , ~ ~ E ~ / ~ / ~ ,r`± / ~ ear; ~ ( / /d
e ( Q 1 T INS 1 t I `tlrr r. ~ { ~ ~
y ~ m ~ ~ xx1e.~,a w T.~ w w ~mwmmwl . taer~ ~ ~ a a ape i n ~ ) tt. ~
:?.CS; Cam:. '.'i. :2~. ~.:;C~~ ';;;~A:i 'fit'[;{ •~'L•, .'r."~ ems; hJ:l:,i:;.{.:.`•t.'S.i.~;t•. I i .4"~ :'.Y:i ~,r ;:tip.'.'. "'vv._`... }•f..'. h. ~ ~ ~ ~ ~ ~ 5+:: ' ~`C i j
° ~ f r 1 ~ %y ~ " p ~ ~g~ ~M
\ .,\V \ / r / J/
~S r ~ vl ~ ~ ~ ~ i ~ ~ f .,y-. a ~d- 1 ~ f ww;7
~ ~ , s ~ 1 ~ 1 f ~ `,ti if A ~ ~ ~ ,f ~ ~1
l j O ~ ~ ~ s i " ~ / t 1'l 1 ' ~ ' ~
• k 1i ,F 3 s3 ~ l~ 'f ~w` ~t 4 t ~ i r1.. ~ ~ ~ ~ ti ' PROP SED E~ ~'ED F ' _II~II ,...I 11 ~11 ~7r"TII~`II ,I..I I I q ~ . ; , \
[1 ~ ~ ~ ~ \ V ~ ~6~ } t `'`r , i t~^3,
i Se. ` ~ s ~ ~ w"`-.--., r ` ~ ~ x ~ `~....a'~ .
~ ~ ~ 1 i ~ ~ v ~ r ~ ( .1
. ~ ~ ~ 3E53x ~ r ~ 1 ~ ~ ~ ~ r I r ~ ~
~ 3 B, FFER..~ w B ~ , f! r ~ r- ~ p/Jy`/ y'/ ~ \ f ' 4 I I I I 11 I I I I I I 1 1 I f I i ~ I 1• 2 ' I .M , -,lam y' , r ~ / 2.r ~ i i v' r' ~ J' ~1 ~c~r
0 ~ ~ ~ ~0 E T~YP. = ~ ~ I ~ \ % ~ r ~ a ~~o ~ ~°1 ..n. / ~ r
E 2, 045, 000 ~ I. f ~ ; f ,'s~ j ~ 15 ,DWI ,AINTENANCE
r ~ 1 ~ f 5 / x,na^ r 1 / ~ w t~^. ~ J. ~o e , ~ 0 U FFE R ~,,r , , .w. ~ ~ ~ d r ~ '
I ~ _ ~ (s ~ ,,~3
r ON~~ TYP. ~ o , ~ ~ o _ o i r a o,
~ . ~ A ' ~ a;~s 1 ~ 0 1 i ~ ~ . , 1 ,.r a ~ ,I~~I _m.. : ,
r , y.~ ~ , w f 4 ~ -gee, ~ ~r,~ ~
~ ~,S RFA E ATER,.--~ ~ -o , ,i'~", ~ ~ r :R, ,
~ ~ 'fl~VER ION T 'fit ~ I ~ ,1- ~ d ry ~ a~~ ~ ~ C." 3n~ a U'I4 t j?
. \ ~ N ~ ~ $ Jr ~e ~ ~ ~ .n i '1 ~ ~ c~..._.,, ~ ~ ~
~ 'V ~ ~ ~ ~ Imo, n
~ J ~ ~ LI ~ , r
CITY OF DURHAM, NORTH CAROLINA
\ 4 V ED DURHAM LANDFILL SITE STUDY
TOPO APHY AND >PLANIMETRIC FEATURES I 1 i PROPOSED FACILITY PLAN
ARE FROM AERIAL SURVEY PERFORMED `,,BY IRN SCALE: 1 99 = 200'
J ~SOUTHERN AERIAL MAPPING DATED MAY'%1996 1 s \ I AND BASED ON NAD 83
LL. L6
1 1 7111",