9809_WilsonCDLF_finalEA_20220503

Environmental Assessment for:
Westside C&D Landfill — Area 2
Wilson County
Wilson County NC
October 2021
Lead Agency Contact:
Ms. Sherri Stanley
NC DEQ Division of Waste Management
217 West Jones Street
Raleigh, NC 27603
Municipal Contact:
Andy Davis
Wilson County
2400 NC 42 East
Wilson, NC 27893
Consultant:
0 CAROLINA
ECOSYSTEMS
Phil May
Carolina Ecosystems, Inc.
3040 NC 42 West
Clayton, NC 27520
Project Engineer:
SMITH - GARDNER
W. Michael Brinchek, P.E.
Smith Gardner Inc.
14 North Boylan Avenue
Raleigh, NC 27603

Westside C&D Landfill —Area 2
Environmental Assessment
Table of Contents
Section Title
A Proposed Project Description 1
B Purpose & Need for Proposed Project 1
C Alternatives Analysis 1
D Existing Environmental Characteristics of Project 3
E Predicted Environmental Effects of Project 9
F References 13
Table Title
Table 1
Soil Types 3
Table 2
Federally Threatened & Endangered Species 7
Table 3
Summary of Direct Environmental Effects & Mitigation 12
Figures
Figure 1
Vicinity Map
Figure 2
USGS Map
Figure 3
Aerial Map
Figure 4
NRCS & Prime Farmland Map
Figure 5
Zoning Map
Figure 6
County -wide Map
Figure 7
Wetland Map
Figure 8
Proposed Water Quality Monitoring Network
Figure 9
Archeological Site 31WL02
Figure 10 Archeological Site 31WL178
Appendices
October 2021
A — Alternatives Analysis
B - NC Natural Heritage Program Report
C - USFWS Consultation Letter
D - Phase II Testing of Archaeological Site 31WL178: Interim Progress Report And National Register of
Historic Places Eligibility Recommendation
E - Phase II Testing Management Summary and National Register of Historic Places Statement of
Eligibility For Archaeological Sites 31WL02 and 31WL178

Westside C&D Landfill — Area 2 October 2021
Environmental Assessment
Section A: Proposed Project Description
The Westside C&D Landfill facility is located near Wilson, North Carolina and is owned
and operated by Wilson County (County) under NC Solid Waste Permit No. 9809-CDLF.
The landfill facility includes an active construction and demolition debris (C&D) landfill,
scales and scale house facilities, administrative offices, a maintenance building, a white
goods, scrap metal, and tire handling area, a citizen's convenience center, and a recycling
building. The facility also has one closed MSW landfill unit (NC Solid Waste Permit No.
9801-MSWLF-1990) which is maintained by the County. Wilson County currently
operates Area 1 which is expected to be depleted of permitted volume in late 2021. Once
Area 1 has reached capacity, the County will need to expand laterally into the proposed
17.1 acre Area 2 landfill unit.
Section B: Purpose and Need for Proposed Project
The proposed project, construction of the Area 2 C&D landfill, is intended to serve
Wilson County by providing local C&D disposal capacity through approximately 2064.
This will allow the County to continue to provide this service to their residents and
businesses without incurring the additional costs of outsourcing waste management or
transferring waste to another facility. The proposed expansion will provide C&D
capacity for approximately 42 years, based on current and projected disposal rates.
Section C: Alternatives Analysis
Alternatives analysis for the proposed project includes a no action alternative as well as
on -site and off -site options.
C.1 No Action Alternative
The No Action Alternative would involve allowing the existing landfill Area 1 to reach
capacity without expanding the landfill. Once capacity is reached, projected for 2021, the
County would have to cease providing C&D disposal services. This would significantly
increase the cost of waste disposal to County residents and businesses as described in
C.2, as no other permitted C&D landfills are located in the County.
C.2 Private C&D Disposal
If the County opted not to expand their existing C&D landfill, residents and businesses
would be limited to two existing private transfer stations, as no other permitted C&D
landfills are located in Wilson County. The cost of transferring C&D waste to out -of -
county facilities would be significantly higher than local disposal, resulting in a negative
impact on the County's economy. The closest public C&D landfill is in Johnston
County, which would increase drive time and cost for a large majority of the County
residents and businesses.
1

Westside C&D Landfill — Area 2
Environmental Assessment
C.3 New County -owned Landfill Facility
October 2021
A new C&D landfill facility on a different property is not considered a practical
alternative while available capacity is present on the existing site. Foremost, the cost of
acquiring, permitting, and creating new site infrastructure is significantly higher than
using existing County land and infrastructure in place, and typically would result in more
significant impacts. With the exception of the archaeological impacts, which will either
be placed in conservation or further investigated and mitigated, the proposed facility
footprint has limited impact to other natural resources.
CA On -Site Expansion (Preferred Alternative)
An extensive on -site alternatives analysis was performed, and evaluated four different
expansion alternatives for the existing County facility. This is detailed in Appendix A.
In summary, the proposed project was determined to be the least costly alternative while
also avoiding impacts to wetlands and streams and other natural resources. It was
therefore chosen as the preferred alternative.

Westside C&D Landfill — Area 2
Environmental Assessment
Section D: Existing Environmental Characteristics of Project Area
October 2021
Existing environmental characteristics are described below within the project area, which
is defined for the purposes of this analysis as the footprint of the proposed Area 2 and
where specified, the entire landfill facility. Project vicinity refers to areas in proximity
to, but outside, the facility boundary.
D.1 Topography
The project lies within the Coastal Plain Physiographic Province, which can be
characterized as an eastward thickening wedge of sedimentary layers that alternate
between sandy aquifers and aquitards. (Figure 3). Slopes are variable but tend to be
gentle (Table 1). Elevations range in the proposed expansion area from approximately 98
feet to 114 feet above mean sea level. Most of the area is underlain by "fossiliferous clay
with varying amounts of fine-grained sand, silty sand, sandy silt, silty clay, and blueish
gray shell material". (Rhodes, 1985).
No floodplains are present within the proposed project footprint. The project area drains
either south to Toisnot Swamp or east to Buck Branch, which then drains to Toisnot
Swamp.
D.2 Soils
Table 1 and Figure 4 present the soil types mapped within the project area, along with the
acreage of each and information on their status as prime farmland or hydric soil. Soils
listed as hydric, or potentially containing hydric inclusions, may pose constraints in
constructing the proposed projects and to future development. Steep slopes also may
prevent development and/or increase costs of construction.
Table 1: Soil TVDes
Symbol
Soil Map Unit Name
Slope
( /o)
Size
(Acres)
Prime
Farmland
Hydric
Soil
GtB2
Gritney sandy loam
2 to 5
0.1
Yes
No
NoB
Norfolk loamy sand
2 to 6
1.2
Yes
No
WaB
Wa ram loamy sand
0 to 6
15.8
No
No
D.3 Land Use
Land use within the vicinity of the proposed project is generally a mix of suburban
development, woodland, and agricultural fields (Figure 5), primarily zoned as
agriculture/residential. The project area is primarily old borrow areas and fields with
some minor woodland areas. The landfill property is zoned mostly as
agricultural/residential, with the exception of the closed MSW landfill area, zoned as
heavy industrial.
3

Westside C&D Landfill — Area 2
Environmental Assessment
DA Wetlands
October 2021
There are no wetlands within the project footprint. Multiple wetlands, totaling 46.0 acres,
are located adjacent to the project area (Figure 3), with larger wetlands along Toisnot
Swamp to the south. Wetlands adjacent to the project area were confirmed by the
USACE on February 28, 2020.
D.5 Prime or Unique Farmlands
There are approximately 1.3 acres of soils mapped as prime farmland (MRCS 2012)
within the project area (Figure 4, Table 1). All 1.3 acres are currently zoned as
agricultural land (Figure 5). There are 15.8 acres of soils of statewide importance for
farming mapped within the project area. None of these areas are currently being farmed
and the majority have been used for borrow or other purposes for the existing landfill
construction and operations.
D.6 Public Lands and Scenic, Recreational, and State Natural Areas
No public lands or scenic, recreational, and state natural areas are present within or
adjacent to the project area. The nearest publicly managed natural areas are located
approximately 1.3 miles northwest of the project area and consist of Conservation
Reserve Enhancement Program Easement.
D.7 Areas of Archaeological or Historical Value
Two previously identified archaeological sites (31WL178/178** and 31WL2/2**) are
present on or adjacent to the project area. These sites were re-evaluated in 2017
including additional sampling and delineation of potentially archaeologically significant
area boundaries. This detailed survey (Appendices D and E) resulted in the boundaries
shown in Figures 9 and 10, which have been submitted to and approved by the State
Historic Preservation Office. Both archaeological areas are outside the proposed
footprint of the Area 2 landfill.
D.8 Air Quality
Wilson County is in attainment for 8-hour ozone, carbon monoxide, and sulfur dioxide,
and in attainment/maintenance for PM2.5 particulate matter based on 2020 data (NCDAQ
2020). The landfill is below the threshold requiring Title V air quality permitting. The
City conducts routine monitoring of perimeter probes and facility structures for
subsurface methane migration. There have been no exceedances of methane detected.
D.9 Noise Levels
The project vicinity contains a mix of residential and woodland areas with commercial
and industrial activities primarily along the major transportation routes (Figure 5). The
commercial and industrial areas exhibit higher ambient noise levels due to traffic and
2

Westside C&D Landfill — Area 2 October 2021
Environmental Assessment
operation of facilities than the residential areas. Woodland areas have low ambient noise
levels except where adjacent to these other activities or roads.
No noise level measurements were recorded for this study; however, a general
assessment of the area was performed during field activities. Ambient noise levels within
the landfill facility varied from relatively low levels in old borrow areas to typical traffic
noise adjacent to NC Highway 42 and access roads, and operational equipment at the
existing landfill.
D.10 Water Resources (Surface Water and Groundwater)
The project area lies within the NCDWR Sub -basin 03-04-07 and USGS Hydrologic Unit
Code 03020203. The proposed expansion area is not located in a water supply watershed
as classified by 15A NCAC.02B.0200.
No surface waters exist within the project footprint. The area drains to Toisnot Swamp
and Buck Branch, which then drain to Contentnea Creek in the Neuse River Basin. Two
unnamed tributaries have been identified to the west of the proposed Area 2, draining to
Toisnot Swamp. Several old basins created for erosion control during borrow activities
are present in and adjacent to the proposed project, as well as an old hog farm lagoon.
The site geology and hydrogeology is consistent with the Coastal Plain of North Carolina.
The hydrogeology encountered in on -site borings, located inside and outside the proposed
footprint, are very consistent. The surficial (uppermost) aquifer is comprised of sands,
clayey sands and sandy clays. In general, soils alternated between sandy material and
clayey material. This is consistent with the depositional environment of transgressive and
regressive seas, and is also consistent with a fluvial depositional environment which is
likely due to the location of the Westside Area 2 between Buck Branch and Toisnot
Swamp. Groundwater was typically encountered in the upper 10 feet below grade at the
site in sandy material.
A Water Quality Monitoring Plan (WQMP) has been developed to adequately monitor
surface and ground water quality in the proposed Westside Area 2 Landfill. As seen in
Figure 8 (Proposed Water Quality Monitoring Network Figure), the monitoring network
will include up to eight monitoring wells over the life of the proposed landfill to monitor
the landfill phases as they are constructed. Ongoing water quality monitoring for the Area
1 landfill has resulted in low level exceedance of 1,2 dichloropropane in one monitoring
well which is likely related to historical farming practices on the site/in the area. Cobalt
has has exceeded the groundwater standards in several wells, however, due to low natural
site pH, this is likely due to mobilization of naturally occuring cobalt in the soils.
As identified in the wetland delineation map (Figure 7), there was an old hog farm in the
Area 2 landfill footprint. There are no remaining structures on the site, however an old
lagoon is still present. This feature was deemed to be non jurisdictional under the Clean
Water Act as it is constructed in uplands and disconnected from downstream resources.
5

Westside C&D Landfill — Area 2
Environmental Assessment
D.11 Forest Resources
October 2021
The project area is comprised of primarily maintained/disturbed fields, totaling
approximately 14.8 of the 17.1 acre project area. These areas are comprised of primarily
dogfennel, spotted ladysthumb, and Japanese clover without forest vegetation. The
western edge of the project has areas of scrub/shrub vegetation comprised primarily of
loblolly pine and sweetgum. The scrub/shrub community comprises approximately 2.3 of
the 17.1 acre project area. These acreages are based upon tree line surveys, aerial
imagery, and ground truthing.
D.12 Shellfish or Fish and Their Habitats
No shellfish beds or fish spawning areas are present as there are no surface waters in the
project area. Toisnot Swamp and Buck Branch are downslope of the project area and
likely contain aquatic habitat.
D.13 Wildlife and Natural Vegetation
Wildlife habitat is present within the project vicinity, primarily within the wooded areas
along the southern portion of the project area. Mammal species that commonly exploit
forested habitats and stream corridors found adjacent to the project area may include the
black bear, eastern cottontail, gray squirrel, North American river otter, raccoon, Virginia
opossum, and white-tailed deer. Birds that commonly use forest and forest edge habitats
include the American crow*, blue jay, pileated woodpecker, red -bellied woodpecker,
tufted titmouse, and vireo. Reptile and amphibian species that may use terrestrial
communities located in the project area include the black rat snake, brown snake,
Carolina anole, eastern box turtle, eastern fence lizard, five -lined skink, spring peeper,
water moccasin, and yellow -bellied slider.
Table 2 presents species proposed or under the protection of the Endangered Species Act,
and listed by the US Fish and Wildlife Service (USFWS) as potentially occurring in
Wilson County based on their Information for Planning and Consultation (IPaC)
database. There are no NC Natural Heritage Program (NCNHP) Element Occurrences
within the project area. NCNHP reports a record for the state listed oak toad (Anaxyrus
quercicus) within a one -mile radius of the project area (NCNHP 2020). Species listed by
the USFWS Service as under the protection of the Endangered Species Act are discussed
below along with the NCNHP species within the project vicinity.
Con

Westside C&D Landfill — Area 2
Environmental Assessment
October 2021
Table 2: Federally Threatened & Endaneered Species Listed in Wilson Countv
Scientific Name
Common Name
Federal
Status*
Haliaeetus leucocephalus
Bald Eagle
BGPA
Noturus furiosus
Carolina madtom
E
Necturus lewisi
Neuse River waterdog
T
Picoides borealis
Red -cockaded woodpecker
E
Fusconaia masoni
Atlantic pigtoe
PT
Alasmidonta heterodon
Dwarf wedgemussel
E
Parvaspina steinstansana
Tar River spinymussel
E
Elliptio lanceolate
Yellow lance
T
* BGPA = Bald and Golden Eagle Protection Act; T = Threatened; E = Endangered; ARS = At Risk
Species
The bald eagle was delisted from the ESA in 2007; however, it is still protected under the
Bald and Golden Eagle Protection Act. Habitat for the bald eagle primarily consists of
mature forest in proximity to large bodies of open water for foraging. Large, dominant
trees are used for nesting sites, typically within 1.0 mile of open water. Toisnot Swamp
and the impoundments along Buck Branch, adjacent to the project area, could provide
forage habitat for the bald eagle.
Carolina madtom occurs in riffles, runs, and pools in medium to large streams and rivers.
Ideally, it inhabits fresh waters with continuous, year-round flow and moderate gradient
in both the Piedmont and Coastal Plain physiographic regions. Optimal substrate for the
Carolina madtom is predominantly silt -free, stable, gravel and cobble bottom habitat, and
it must have cover for nest sites, including under rocks, bark, relic mussel shells, and
even cans and bottles. No habitat for this species is present within the project area.
The Neuse River waterdog specific habitat characteristics include low to moderate
gradient streams and low current velocity. It is a fully aquatic salamander, never leaving
the water. It lacks lungs, getting oxygen from the water via external gills and needs clean,
flowing water with high dissolved oxygen concentrations. The species dwells in streams
wider than 15 meters but has been found in smaller creeks. No habitat for this species is
present within the project area.
Red -cockaded woodpecker habitat includes pine forests with trees old enough for
roosting, generally at least 60-120 years old, depending on species of pine. For nesting
and roosting habitat, red -cockaded woodpeckers need open stands of pine containing
trees 60 years old and older. RCWs need live, large older pines in which to excavate their
cavities. Foraging habitat is provided in pine and pine hardwood stands 30 years old or
older with foraging preference for pine trees 10 inches or larger in diameter. This species
is listed as historical in Wilson County by USFWS, and no habitat is present within the
project area.
7

Westside C&D Landfill — Area 2 October 2021
Environmental Assessment
The Atlantic Pigtoe is proposed for listing under the ESA, and is a native Southeast
Atlantic Slope freshwater mussel species. This species normally requires clean sand and
pea gravel substrates and circumneutral pH water. The highest densities recorded for this
species existed in silt free, unconsolidated coarse sand and pea gravel within "run" stream
reaches. No habitat for this species is present within the project area.
The dwarf wedgemussel appears to be a generalist in terms of its preference for stream
size, substrate and flow conditions — it inhabits small streams less than five meters wide
to large rivers more than 100 meters wide; it is found in a variety of substrate types
including clay, sand, gravel and pebble, and sometimes in silt depositional areas near
banks; and it usually inhabits hydrologically stable areas, including very shallow water
along streambanks and under root mats, but it has also been found at depths of 25 feet in
the Connecticut River. No habitat for this species is present within the project area.
The Tar River spinymussel lives in relatively silt -free unconsolidated beds of coarse sand
and gravel in relatively in fast -flowing, well oxygenated stream reaches. It is found in
association with other mussels, but it is never very numerous. No habitat for this species
is present within the project area.
The yellow lance is a sand -loving species often found buried deep in clean, coarse to
medium sand, although it can sometimes be found in gravel substrates. Yellow lances
often are moved with shifting sand and eventually settle in sand at the downstream end of
stable sand and gravel bars. This species depends on clean, moderate flowing water with
high dissolved oxygen. This species is found in medium-sized rivers to smaller streams.
No habitat for this species is present within the project area.
The oak toad inhabits sandy pine flatwoods and oak scrub, open pine and pine -oak
woods, pine or oak savannas with sandy soils, and maritime forests. It occurs on some
barrier islands in South Carolina. The oak toad seems to favor open -canopied pine
flatwoods with grassy ground cover. When inactive, it burrows underground or hides
under surface objects. Eggs and larvae develop in rain pools, ditches, cypress and
flatwoods ponds, and other flooded areas. (NatureServe 2020). No habitat for this
species is present within the project area.

Westside C&D Landfill — Area 2 October 2021
Environmental Assessment
Section E: Predicted Environmental Effects of Project
This section addresses the direct effects of the project. Secondary and cumulative
impacts are addressed in Section E.15. Direct effects for the proposed Area 2 when
analyzed quantitatively, would result in the creation of a new landfill cell and would
disturb an approximate 17.1 acres of land on the property, including perimeter
berms/roads, and other grading/infrastructure.
E.1 Topography
The proposed Area 2 landfill expansion would be constructed mostly on previously
disturbed land. While topography in the expansion area would change as the landfill is
constructed and filled, general drainage patterns would be retained toward the Toisnot
Swamp and Buck Branch. The Area 2 expansion would not occur in or near any 100-year
floodplains.
E.2 Soils
Table 1 (above) presents the soil series potentially impacted by the project. Soils within
the project footprint have been mostly previously disturbed. Poor soils, for construction
purposes, would be excavated, and clean fill used for construction. Erosion control
measures such as silt fence, diversion berms, and sediment traps or basins would be
designed and implemented to prevent soil loss during construction and operation of the
landfill. Erosion control inspection and maintenance would occur for the life of the
landfill operations, plus a 30-year post closure period.
E.3 Land Use
As a result of the Area 2 expansion, approximately 17.1 acres of existing landfill property
would be converted from unused borrow area and open field to a new landfill cell. Local
zoning and land use plans would not be altered by the project.
EA Wetlands
No wetlands would be impacted by the Area 2 landfill expansion. The wetlands adjacent
to the proposed landfill (Figure 3) would be retained in a natural state.
E.5 Prime or Unique Farmlands
Approximately 1.3 acres of soils mapped as prime farmland lie within the proposed Area
2. In addition, the project would impact approximately 15.8 acres of soils mapped as
statewide importance for farming. However, this land is previously disturbed and not
being used for farming. Therefore no loss of active prime farmland or farmland of
statewide importance would result.
9

Westside C&D Landfill — Area 2 October 2021
Environmental Assessment
E.6 Public Lands and Scenic, Recreational, and State Natural Areas
The project would not affect public lands, or scenic, recreational and state natural areas as
none are present within the project vicinity.
E.7 Areas of Archaeological or Historical Value
No buildings are present within the proposed project footprints; therefore, the projects
will not directly affect historic structures.
Both identified potentially significant archaeological sites (31)VL178/178** and
31WL2/2**) would not be affected by the project construction or operation. The
proposed footprint of the landfill has been revised to avoid both sites (Figure 10).
E.8 Air Quality
Construction of the project would result in only minimal localized effects on air quality.
Temporary increases in emissions would occur due to the use of construction equipment.
Contractors would be required to maintain adequate wetting, reseeding and covering of
disturbed areas during construction to reduce dust emissions. Landfill operation would
continue similar to current operations, and therefore should not change local air quality.
E.9 Noise Levels
Noise levels would temporarily increase during construction of the proposed project.
Construction would be limited to daylight hours and Monday through Saturday, unless
exceptional circumstances required otherwise. Mufflers would be required on all
construction equipment. Operation of the Area 2 landfill would be unlikely to increase
noise levels above current ambient levels at the Area 1 landfill, as similar operations
would be conducted.
E.10 Water Resources (Surface Water and Groundwater)
Streams within the landfill property are outside the proposed limits of disturbance and
would not be impacted by the project.
The proposed project is not likely to affect ground water resources. A compacted
subgrade underlying the proposed landfill, and the relatively inert nature of C&D waste
materials would limit the potential for contaminant migration from the landfill and
degradation of ground water quality. Continued monitoring of surface and groundwater
would be performed, and expanded to include the Area 2 landfill (Figure 8). This would
continue for the projected life of the landfill and a 30-year post -closure period. Ground
and surface water monitoring reports would be submitted on an annual basis to the
NCDEQ, and any exceedances of ground or surface water standards would be addressed
and remediated as necessary.
10

Westside C&D Landfill — Area 2
Environmental Assessment
E.11 Forest Resources
October 2021
Based on aerial photo analysis and ground-truthing of the project area, there would be no
loss of mature forested areas associated with the project. The Area 2 landfill would
require clearing of approximately 2.3 acres of scrub/shrub communities with trees and
mixed woody vegetation.
E.12 Shellfish or Fish and Their Habitats
The project would be unlikely to affect shellfish, fish, or aquatic habitats. The Area 2
landfill would not result in any surface water impacts such as fill or culverting, and
erosion control measures (Section E.2) would control turbidity and sediment on the site.
E.13 Wildlife and Natural Vegetation
The lack of forest impacts discussed in Section E.11 would correlate with a minimal loss
of wildlife habitat. The 17.1 acres of maintained/disturbed and scrub/shrub areas within
the Area 2 landfill footprint are unlikely to contain abundant wildlife due to the ongoing
use of the surrounding areas for waste disposal and construction. Wildlife habitat on the
landfill property is mostly along the forested corridor of Toisnot Swamp, which would be
retained in forest.
No federally threatened or endangered species are likely to be affected by the projects as
habitat is not present or limited within the project areas. No streams are onsite and
therefore, no surface waters or aquatic species would be affected. In addition, all aquatic
species occurrences are located outside of the project's watershed. Habitat for Michaux's
sumac is present onsite, however, per USFWS correspondence, it was determined the
project may affect, but is not likely to adversely affect Michaux's sumac which was
recorded as historic in the County and no longer listed as a potential species in the
County by USFWS (Appendix Q.
Bald eagles could use Toisnot Swamp and the impoundments along Buck Branch for
foraging and nesting if they had suitable open water areas, but these resources will not be
affected by any tree clearing associated with the project. No eagles or nests were noted
during field reconnaissance within the project areas.
An occurrence of oak toad is located within a mile of the project. However, there is no
suitable forest habitat for this species within the Area 2 project limits.
E.14 Introduction of Toxic Substances
Construction of the project would be unlikely to introduce toxic substances to the
environment. Clean fill would be required for construction of the landfill. The design of
the Area 2 landfill unit would include a compacted soil subgrade to limit migration of
contaminants. Monitoring of ground and surface water around the landfill would be
implemented as described in Section E.10.
11

Westside C&D Landfill — Area 2
Environmental Assessment
E.15 Secondary & Cumulative Impacts
October 2021
The proposed Area 2 expansion would not increase accessibility to C&D services for
residential or commercial development. The purpose of the project is to provide
continued waste disposal services at similar levels without increasing costs to the public.
Therefore, impacts from future development are not anticipated to result.
E.16 Environmental Justice
A separate Environmental Justice report is being prepared for this project and will be
submitted under separate cover.
Table 3: Summary of Direct Environmental Effects & Mitigation
Resource
Environment Effects
Mitigative Measures
Topography
No floodplain in project area.
None proposed
Erosion control measures &
Soils
17.1 acres of soil disturbance
permitting as required
Land Use
Landfill within existing facility
None proposed
Wetlands
No wetlands in project area
None proposed
Prime/Unique
1.3 acres in project area and no
Farmland
active farming
None proposed
None in or adjacent to project
Public Areas
area
None proposed
Archaeological/
Two potentially significant
Avoidance of both areas through
Historical Resources
archaeological areas
revised design
Temporary minor increase in
Vehicle maintenance/inspections as
Air quality
emissions during construction.
required
Construction in daylight hours and
Temporary increase during
weekdays only, unless unusual
Noise Levels
construction.
circumstances occur.
Water Resources
No impact to surface.
None proposed
Mostly maintained/disturbed
Forests
and scrub -shrub
None proposed
No fish/shellfish populations or
Shellfish/Fish
protected aquatic species
None proposed
Limited/marginal species
Forests along landfill boundary will
Wild life/Ve etation
habitat in project areas.
be retained
Ground and surface water
Limited potential due to landfill
monitoring for operational life and
Toxic Substances
subgrade construction.
30- r post closure.
12

Westside C&D Landfill — Area 2 October 2021
Environmental Assessment
F. References
2016. Surface Water Classification GIS Shapefile. Retrieved from
http://portal.ncdenr.org/web/wq//ps/csu/classifications
City of Wilson. 2020. City of Wilson Community Maps. Zoning Shapefile.
https:Hgis.wilsonnc.org/communilymgps
Heath, Ralph C. 1994. North Carolina Groundwater Recharge Rates. Retrieved from
http://so wg eb.sog.unc.edu/Water/images/7/77/NC-Rechar eg rates.gif
Natural Resources Conservation Service (MRCS). 2012. Web Soil Survey. Retrieved
from http://websoilsurvey.nres.usda.gov/app/
NatureServe Explorer. Anaxyrus quercicus - Oak Toad. Accessed 10/14/20.
https:Hexplorer.natureserve.org/Taxon/ELEMENT GLOBAL.2.102537/Anaxyrus_guerc
icus
NC Department of Natural and Cultural Resources. 2020. NC Natural Heritage Program
(NCNHP). North Carolina Heritage Data Explorer. Retrieved from
https://ncnhde.natureserve.org/
NC Department of Transportation. Project Development & Environmental Policy. "T &
E Animal Habitat Descriptions 03-6-2015".
https:Hconnect.ncdot. gov/resources/Environmental/Compliance%20Guides%20and%20P
rocedures/TE%20Animal%20Habitat%20Descriptions%20Mar 6 2015.pdf
NC Department of Transportation. Project Development & Environmental Policy. "T &
E Plant Habitat Descriptions 06-29-2011".
https:Hconnect.ncdot. gov/resources/Environmental/Compliance%20Guides%20and%20P
rocedures/TE%20Plant%20Habitat%20Descriptions%2006-29-2011.pdf
NC Division of Water Resources (NCDWR). 2012. North Carolina Aquifers. Retrieved
from hops://www.ncwater.org/?page=525
NC Flood Mapping Program (NCFMP). 2020. ArcGIS NCFMP_Status viewer. Retrieved
from https://ncem-gis.mgps.arcgis.com/home/Webmgp/viewer
NC State Historic Preservation Office (NCSHPO). 2020. The NC State Historic
Preservation Office GIS Web Service. Retrieved from
http://ais.ncdcr.gov/hpoweb
Rhodes, Thomas S., and Conrad, Stephen G. 1985. Geologic Map of North Carolina.
Department of Natural Resources and Community Development, Division of Land
Resources, and the NC Geological Survey.
13

Westside C&D Landfill — Area 2
Environmental Assessment
October 2021
Wilson County Planning Department. 2020. GIS Mapping. Tax Parcel Shapefile.
https:Hgis.wilson-co.com/maps/
US Fish and Wildlife Service (USFWS). 2021. Information for Planning and Consulting.
Retrieved from https:Hecos.fws.gov/i/ipac/
U.S. Fish and Wildlife Service (USFWS). 2020. Atlantic Pigtoe.
hLtps://www.fws.gov/southeast/wildlife/mussels/atlantic-pigtoe/
U.S. Fish and Wildlife Service (USFWS). 2020. Carolina Madtom.
https://www.fws.gov/southeast/wildlife/fishes/carolina-madtom/
U.S. Fish and Wildlife Service (USFWS). 2020. Neuse River Waterdog.
https://www. fws. gov/southeast/wildlife/amphibians/neuse-river-
waterdog/#:—:text=The%20Neuse%20River%20waterdo - %g20(Necturus,large%20blue%
20or%20black%20spots.
U.S. Fish and Wildlife Service (USFWS). 2020. Yellow Lance.
https://www.fws.gov/southeast/wildlife/mussels/yellow-lance/
14

Westside C&D Landfill —Area 2
Environmental Assessment
FIGURES
November 2020

Latitude: 35.720372 / Longitude:-77.863289
Wilson County, NC
N
CAR LCNA
ECO YSTEMS
0
October 2021
i
Project Area
� 0.5 1 Miles Facility Boundary
�i USGS Named Stream
i
Gati%
l
Westside C&D Landfill
Area 2
Wilson County, NC
Figure 1: Vicinity Map

pKWV he :)PES-,DKF PKWY NE
Ro
9
�1
i A
WIl.SON
` 1 i
Cat [
)r
1 ,
Y ,snot
F r.
r
100 -,
-
r
-Gl�nwoo�'`j
zswaa
u �\
173,
vhq..
- sE -reek,k FP
Woaafiela I
rcs
r
ST
as pool-
1
D: r �J
/7 L Ir
N Project Area Westside C&D Landfill f
� ICD CARLINA Are
a 2
ECo srEMs Miles Facility Boundary Wilson County, NC
0 0.25 0.5
Elm City (2013), Saratoga (2013), Wilson (2013),
October 2021 and Winstead Crossroads (2013) US Geological Figure 2: USGS Map
Survey 1:24000 Quadrangle Maps

1
J; J
ky ��
1,
S
y. r
�� i r� :• 1 -..
' i
s
E�y T X '•
y
at ti
yf 4
zli
Ty
ks qy�.
E r x
� i C

0
Agricultural Residential District
Low Density Residential District
- Heavy Industrial
Mobile Home Residential
I
- Heavy Industrial District
Open Space
- Institutional Campus Development
Rural Agricultural
j
Light Industrial
Suburban Residential Low Density
Low Density Manufactured Home District
Suburban Residential Medium Density
N
�
ProjectArea
Map Date: October 2021
Westside C&D Landfill
Area 2
CAOOLINA
Feet
Q Facility Boundary
Revised:
Wilson County, NC
ECOSYSTEMS
0 475
950
Parcel Boundaries
Revised:
Figure 5:
Revised:
Zoning Map
NC statewide 2017 Aerial imagery

/
Y
1
4
11
11
11
l
1
i
,1
l
IN
S
/-r N Q Facility Boundary 100-Yr Floodplain Water Supply Watersheds Map Date: October 2021 Westside C&D Landfill -Area 2
�1 `i RQLI NA � Miles Q Project Area State or Federally Owned Land HQW and ORW Revised: Wilson County, NC
1�iECOSYSTEMS 0 1 Z Revised:
USGS Mapped Perennial Stream Figure 6• County -wide Map
Revised:

oefiaeee Deane.lJen erw.6era er me os
Legend
New Evaluation Limits
AJD Areas -
j
�`.•�- Potentially Jurisdictional Intermittent Stream
i m Confirmed by Sam Dailey of the
JW
Potentially Jurisdictional Ditch i USACE on 0212812020. /
Potentially Jurisdictional Pond
Potentially Jurisdictional Wetland
\� 2' Wilson County Contours
NOTE:
Wetlantls W1, W2, antl W3 are flagged _
Y�
with pink S&EC logo Flagging.
Wetlantls , Wg, WT, WS 8 W9 are flagged
with orangeS &EC EC logo flagging.
V - - -
�
188 TT 107 & 185 168 TT 185 & 189, 169 TT 173
93 & 176 TT GH /nvs �+
0
a�
Ph-12
i
Old sediment basin �
Borrow pit excavated in uplands 177 TT PL
ePp
^I t�
W5 ../� W9
Evaluaoen eernerflaggea w;m 01 & 15 TT CH
blue antl wfiiR s.,,ed flagging —' - - !•
�— 77 TT 36 /I
218 & 243 TT Culvert
Photo 11
i Photos M j
• � C (Feature C) I � � _
" 23 Old sediment
23 TT Evaluation Limits uProP •* �.207 & 20
vn8 TT Ditch
14 TT CH
(Feature ai I . / 217 TT PL
61
Borrow it excavated in uplands
Abandoned hog waste
-�� Pnoros 13 t lagoons in uplands
W1 its' �reemre ni W3 _
Ph0t01° . ?• �h .S. �,.
50 ���— .F. _ • I• .
WLeP 1 }
f� I t 15 •' ig1 r 1 ® � Jj� � -�
i
��-- B
Evaluation boundary flagged with 125
!� white and blue striped Flagging / rr �I
T \�
Wetland Sketch Map WilsonCountyLandfill 0 200 400 800
P-5 Ne. scale: 5oi! & lEnvlrorxmentnl Cvnsulcan[Rr PA
1J166.W6 1 =200' ... ... .. ..
Protect Mgr.: 02I21I2020 -pared by: "•-~,•—— •�, -. Fee`
- H l

DocuSign Envelope ID: 7029E2F6-E64B-491C-B11D-D70BCD6BB5D4
a
N
0
N
O
N
co
I \
TOW 112.52
\\ I I II ^ 07 GW-107.4 It N
W —�F
E
\\ o
\\ \ I cos.^ 7
Imo''
_j
P,
B-13\\ �l / I , PZ-1
(� 1. _ TOC-114.97\
DTW-9.44
O B-14 ( GW-105_53
L o \ c J, L� \ �— �
DDTW 3524 �\ \ I��0�1 �� OW153.66`�1
GW-92.\ 1 j I( — DTW-11.65
23
I I B-11" _ � GW-102.01
B-10
mith Gardner, Inc.
LEGEND
950
+GP-1
+GMW-1
• P-108
Proposed Monitoring * MW-1A
Locations O B-10
Phase i-
MW-1
MVV-4
MW-5
Phase 2:
Add MW-2
Phase 3:
Remove MW-5
Add PZ-3
Add PZ-2
Phase 4:
No change
Phase 5:
EXIS77NG 10' CONTOUR
(SEE REFERENCE 2)
EXIS11NC 2' CONTOUR
(SEE REFERENCE 2)
APPROXIMATE PROPERTY LINE
(SEE REFERENCES 1)
APPROXIMATE CELL BOUNDARY
(SEE REFERENCE 5)
APPROXIMATE STREAM CENTER LINE
(SEE REFERENCE 2)
EXIS77NG LANDFILL GAS
MONITORING PROBE
EXIS77NG C&D LANDFILL AREA 1
GROUNDWATER MONITORING WELL
EXIS77NG PIEZOMETER
EXIS77NG WELL
EXIS11NC BORING
/ I Remove PZ-3
-8-12 �i Mw-4 / \\ Add MW-7
TOC-95.94 \ \ Add Phase :
6
DTW-6.76 ` \ \ se OW-89.18 `\
;FUTURE AREA 2
\\ i J / ', �- / / \ \ Remove MW-2
C&D Phases 7 and 8:
/I I� LANDFILL PZ-2II \ TOC-98.72
PZ-3— J //B-6_ /`DTW-5.94 4P, /// \\ No change
/ // ♦ \ I TOC-101.98— 'J j GW-92.78
/ ♦ ♦ I DTW-7.44
/ \ ♦ ♦ / 95 GW-94.54 J REFERENCES
1. PARCEL BOUNDARIES, WETLAND AND STREAM LOCATIONS PROVIDED BY BARTLETT
I\ ♦�♦ ( 2 \\ C MW-3 / 2ENGINEERING & SURVEYING, PC; BASED ON MAY 27, 2020 FIELD SURVEY.
1 \\ MW-6D / \ _ Z \ \\ g_jl ! .'TOC-92.1` . TOPOGRAPHY IN ACTIVE AREAS PROVIDED BY BARTLETT ENGINEERING & SURVEYING,
\\ TOC-96.38 % ♦N ((�� f) \ `s 1// DTW- 2.1 PC; BASED ON MAY 27, 2020 FIELD SURVEY. SUPPLEMENTAL TOPOGRAPHY FOR
� \DTW-7.4 MW_b ♦��, GW-88 25 / AREAS OUTSIDE OF ACTIVE AREAS PROVIDED BY WILSON GIS.
/, GVV-88,98 -- ` / 7 3. FLOOD HAZARD INFORMATION FROM NORTH CAROLINA FLOODPLAIN MAPPING PROGRAM,
TOC-95.84 \J I — J FEMA FIRM MAP NO. 3720373100J, 3772037200J, AND 3720374100J.
I DTW-6.89 _ _ GL / — — ' — 4. WASTE LIMIT BOUNDARIES, INCLUDING CAP LIMITS FROM MAP TITLED "LANDFILL SITE
I ` \ GW-88 95 ter— PZ 4 �� PLAN", DRAWING NO. 1, DATED 8/1/00, PREPARED BY GARY W. AHLBERG, P.E.
II J ~ TOC-94.5 °� / AREA 1 DI 5. DEBRIS AND C&D LANDFILL AREA DATED OCT. 2015 MAP TITLED "WILSON COUNTY
I DTW-6.25 / ( �I �� / i LANDFILL OVERALL SITE (11 X17)" PREPARED BY BARTLET ENGINEERING & SURVEYING,
OW-88.25 / PC.
6. ARCHAEOLOGICAL STUDY DATED MAY 2020 FROM ARCHAEOLOGICAL CONSULTANTS OF
/ +GMW"4// -/ \ THE CAROLINAS, INC.
0 300' 600'
1..1 J
C
Q
CM
U
U
s
- U
23
23
Cn
00
0
m
Z
w O
cn
Q J
z
w
o
0
LC1 N
I o
cD
� M
N
z o
U J
o
N
0
N
C� CV
O Z W —_
-5Z ER
Q C= C/3 G
Cb
W
Q
0
W
C/7
C�
CL
0
CL

201 ./
� . 202 /6 7/ r ,
31 WLW02 g
293
4 h•
4"
Legend
APE
QArchaeological Site
® Further Work
® Sediment Pond
© Test Unit
Scraped Area
— 2-ft Contour
N
WE
s
0 20 40 60
Meters
Figure 4. Map showing the portion of 31 WL02 considered to retain significant deposits.

- , I
\
Jf
E
f
f 204 202 ■
a 201_
I
31WLW02
Legend
APE Scraped area
Archaeological Site ■ Test Unit
Further Work 2-ft Contour
Figure 6. Map showing the significant portion of site 31WL178.
W-�m
N
WL
S
0 10 20 30 40 50
Meters

Westside C&D Landfill —Area 2
Environmental Assessment
APPENDICES
November 2020

Alternatives Analysis of Solid Waste Disposal Services
Wilson County Solid Waste Services
Wilson County Solid Waste Services
Wilson County, North Carolina
Wilson
County
North Carolina
Prepared for:
Bartlett Engineering Hurveying, PC
Wilson, North Carolina
October 2019
Prepared by:
BARTLETT
ENGINEERING a SURVIVING. PE
SMITH4 GARDNER
14 N. Boylan Avenue, Raleigh NC 27603 1 919.828.0577
4 PRINTED ON 100% RECYCLED PAPER
© 2019 Smith Gardner, Inc.
This document is intended for the sole use of the client for which it was prepared and
for the purpose agreed upon by the client and Smith Gardner, Inc.

Alternatives Analysis of Solid Waste Disposal Services
Wilson County Solid Waste Services
Wilson County, North Carolina
Prepared for:
Wilson County Solid Waste Services
Wilson County, North Carolina
` Wilson
County
North Carolina
October 2019
Bartlett Engineering B Surveying, PC
Wilson, North Carolina
BARTLETT
ENGINEERING a SURVEYING . PC
SMITH GARDNER
14 N. Boylan Avenue, Raleigh NC 27603 1 919.828.0577
(Ly PRINTED ON 100% RECYCLED PAPER
© 2019 Smith Gardner, Inc.
This document is intended for the sole use of the client for which it was prepared and
for the purpose agreed upon by the client and Smith Gardner, Inc.
Wilson County Solid Waste Services Alternatives Analysis of Solid Waste Disposal
October 2019 Executive Summary Page i

DocuSign Envelope ID: 744CBD9A-53DC-42DE-B6CA-4C62B103C9BA
Alternatives Analysis of Solid Waste Disposal Services
Wilson County Solid Waste Services
Prepared For:
Wilson County Solid Waste Services
Wilson County, North Carolina
Bartlett Engineering 6 Surveying, PC
Wilson, North Carolina
S+G Project No. WILSON 19-1
DocuSigned by:
l cAo4w G. Tfl&
D3274CE29FDE45C...
Nicholas Toole
+�;%y;tiiirsrr�rq##+i
Staff Scientist
DocuSigned by:,/f+rr�r�
4
358C21 E640Q9440._
SEAL
w
028426
W. Michael Brinchek, P.E. /201-'Cyr��.`'
Senior Project Manager'�rrarrruar*##
October 2019
SMITH4 GARDNER
14 N. Boylan Avenue, Raleigh NC 27603 1 919.828.0577
Wilson County Solid Waste Services Alternatives Analysis of Solid Waste Disposal
October 2019 Executive Summary Page iii

Wilson County Solid Waste Services
Wilson County, North Carolina
Alternatives Analysis of Solid Waste Disposal
Table of Contents
Paqe
1.0 PROJECT OVERVIEW.................................................................................................. 1
1.1 Current Solid Waste Management Program.......................................................... 2
1.2 Solid Waste Management Program Projections..................................................... 2
2.0 EVALUATION..............................................................................................................2
2.1 Overview.................................................................................................................. 2
2.2 Assumptions........................................................................................................... 3
2.3 Evaluation Input...................................................................................................... 3
2.4 Conclusions.............................................................................................................6
FIGURES
Figure 1 C&D Landfill Options Drawing
Figure 2 MSW Landfill Options Drawing
Figure 3 Average Annual Cost ($/ton) Chart
Figure 4 Total Expenses Chart
TABLES
Table 1A
Option 1 CDLF 2018 Tons
Table 1 B
Option 1 CDLF 3-Year Average
Table 2A
Option 2 CDLF 2018 Tons
Table 2B
Option 2 CDLF 3-Year Average
Table 3A
Option 3 CD+MSW 70,000 TPY
Table 3B
Option 3 CD+MSW 50,000 TPY
Table 4A
Option 4 CD+MSW Regional 150,000 TPY
Table 4B
Option 4 CD+MSW Regional 100,000 TPY
Wilson County Solid Waste Services Alternatives Analysis of Solid Waste Disposal
October 2019 Table of Contents Page v

1.0 PROJECT OVERVIEW
At the request of Bartlett Engineering & Survey and Wilson County, Smith Gardner, Inc. (S+G)
has prepared this report summarizing the results of our financial evaluation of County solid
waste disposal options. The evaluation compares options for constructing and operating a
construction and demolition debris (C&D) or municipal solid waste (MSW) landfill at the Wilson
County Landfill.
To evaluate the County's options S+G completed a full -cost accounting analysis for the following
four (4) solid waste disposal options:
• Option 1 — Development of a new C&D Landfill within the existing borrow area;
• Option 2 — Development of a new C&D Landfill within the area encompassing the
archaeological site;
• Option 3 — Development of a C&D/MSW piggyback landfill over the previously closed
municipal solid waste (MSW) Landfill Units (Area 1 and 2); and
• Option 4 — Development of a new C&D/MSW landfill that expands Options 1 &2 through
property acquisition to the northeast, including the Tucker Court Mobile Home Park and
the William R. Williamson Parcel.
Each option is delineated on the attached Figure 1 and Figure 2. A summary of each option is
provided in the Table below:
Option Summary
Options
Footprint
(AC)
Disposal
Volume
(CY)
C&D
Disposal
Capacity'
(Tons
MSW/C&D
Disposal
Capacity2
(Tons)
Life
County
Only C&D
Years
Life
County Only
C&D/MSW
(Years)
Life
Regional
C&D/MSW
Years
Option 1A
38
2,400,000
1,200,000
---
303
---
---
Option 1 B
38
1,950,000
975,000
---
304
---
---
Option 2A
28
1,500,000
750,000
---
253
---
---
Option 2B
28
1,150,000
575,000
---
304
---
---
Option 3A
36
3,400,000
---
2,210,000
---
305
---
O tion 3B
36
2,300,000
---
1,500,000
---
306
---
Option 4A
61
6,250,000
---
4,062,500
---
---
267
Option 4B
61
4,700,000
---
3,050,000
---
---
308
Notes:
1. Assumed density of C&D is 0.5 tons/cubic yard
2. Assumed density of C&D/MSW is 0.65 tons/cubic yard
3. Assumed annual C&D disposal is 30,000 tons, which represents the County's maximum disposal over the last 5 years.
4. Assumed annual C&D disposal is 19,000 tons, which represents the County's 3-year average tonnage.
5. Assumed annual C&D/MSW disposal is estimated at 70,000 tons per year.
6. Assumed annual C&D/MSW disposal is estimated at 50,000 tons per year.
7. Assumed annual Regional C&D/MSW disposal is estimated at 150,000 tons per year.
8. Assumed annual Regional C&D/MSW disposal is estimated at 100,000 tons per year.
Wilson County Solid Waste Services Alternatives Analysis of Solid Waste Disposal
October 2019 Page 1

1.1 Current Solid Waste Management Program
Wilson County currently manages C&D by disposing of it within their C&D Landfill. All
other MSW is collected at one of two privately owned transfer stations within the County
and transported out of county for disposal. In Fiscal Year 2017-2018 the County disposed
of approximately 30,000 tons of C&D. However; the average yearly disposal rate over the
most current reported three (3) year period is approximately 19,000 tons. Countywide
waste disposal (MSW and C&D) during that same period was approximately 145,000 tons
in 2017-2018 and 120,000 over the most current three (3) year period.
1.2 Solid Waste Management Program Projections
According to the North Carolina Office of State Budget and Management, Wilson County
is not expected to see any significant population increase within the 30-year evaluation
period (approximately 0.1%). Additionally, a review of recent disposal records shows no
apparent disposal trend for either C&D or MSW. As a result S+G analyzed a high
reasonable (Option A) and low reasonable (Option B) waste disposal rate for each option
to show the relationship between waste disposal rates and facility costs. For the C&D
Landfill options (Options 1 and 2), the high reasonable option (Option A) is based on 2017-
2018 disposal records, whereas the low reasonable option (Option B) is based on a
three-year average.
Unlike C&D debris, county -wide MSW is controlled by private haulers, making it difficult
to predict the MSW disposal rates, should the County build an MSW landfill. As a result,
Option 3 was analyzed for 70,000 tons assuming all City of Wilson waste (50,000
residents (d 1.4 ton per year (TPY) including C&D) and 40,000 tons assuming all C&D and
fifty percent of the City of Wilson waste 11 TPY with C&D removed).
Option 4 was analyzed for 150,000 tons, which represents a regional landfill scenario
that includes 2017-2018 C&D waste disposal rate, all City of Wilson MSW and
neighboring county MSW. For comparison disposal tonnage was reduced to 100,000
tons.
2.0 EVALUATION
2.1 Overview
S+G developed a financial evaluation for Wilson County to review the above four (4)
options starting in FY 2020-2021. S+G utilized a spreadsheet model to tabulate the
expenses over a 30-year period (FY 2020-2021 through FY 2049-2050), or the life of the
proposed landfill, whichever is shorter. The attached Tables 1-4 provide a complete
review of the analysis.
Wilson County Solid Waste Services Alternatives Analysis of Solid Waste Disposal
October 2019 Page 2

2.2 Assumptions
Based on our experience with similar evaluations, S+G has made the following
assumptions:
• 2% annual inflation on all future capital and direct expenses.
• 2% cost of living adjustment on all direct salaries.
• Equipment depreciation is not included.
• Closure costs are encumbered at the end of the useful life of the landfill.
• Post -closure costs are assumed to be banked at the end of the useful life of the
Landfill for the entire post -closure period.
• All capital costs and direct costs are paid using cash reserves without financing.
• Indirect costs are excluded (i.e. administrative and other non -direct personnel
costs)
• 0.1 % population growth and waste disposal rate, assuming waste disposal is
proportional to population growth.
• Equipment life for the C&DLF and MSWLF are 20 and 15 years respectively.
• Archaeological study ($50,000) is required prior to moving forward with
permitting the archaeological site.
• Land acquisition is assumed to be required for Option 1 and Option 3 for soils
and Option 4 for soils and waste limits.
2.3 Evaluation Input
As part of the evaluation, S+G reviewed and identified major capital and direct costs
associated with developing a full -cost accounting evaluation for C&D disposal only and
co -disposal of C&D debris and MSW. Indirect costs, including administration and
maintenance personnel were not included since these costs are generally consistent
over all options and would not result in a change between options. The major
assumptions and evaluation inputs for each cost category are summarized below.
Capital Costs
The capital costs for this evaluation include (1) landfill development costs, which include
initial development and periodic phase development assumed to occur every five (5)
years; (2) closure and post -closure costs, which occur at the end of the landfill's useful
Life; and (3) equipment costs including initial and/or replacement costs.
Capital Costs — Landfill Construction
S+G estimates that the per acre construction costs in 2019 dollars are as follows for
each option:
• Option 1 — $120,000/acre
• Option 2 — $90,000/acre
• Option 3 — $450,000/acre; and
• Option 4 — $300,000/acre
Wilson County Solid Waste Services Alternatives Analysis of Solid Waste Disposal
October 2019 Page 3

These per acre construction costs are based on S+G's experience and have been varied
for each option based on facility location, soil requirements, liner system requirements
and Leachate collection and treatment. Major assumptions for each option include:
Option 1
• Facility development will be considered a lateral expansion to the existing
C&DLF. As a result, a geosynthetic liner system and associated Leachate
treatment will not be required.
• The archaeological site cannot be developed and additional property is required
for construction and operational soils.
• Areas previously borrowed from will need additional soils for groundwater
separation and landfill access road construction.
Option 2
• Facility development will be considered a lateral expansion to the existing
C&DLF. As a result, a geosynthetic liner system and associated Leachate
treatment will not be required.
• The archaeological site will not limit development following further
investigation.
• Construction and operational soils will continue to be borrowed from the
existing borrow area.
• Construction will be less than Option 1 due to the additional soils already in
place above groundwater.
Option 3
• A permit for a new MSWLF will be required.
• A double composite liner system will be required to expand above the closed
unlined MSWLF.
• Leachate collection and treatment will be required. At this time, due to the on-
going discussion on emerging contaminants, on -site Leachate treatment is
assumed.
• Active gas collection below and within the waste mass will be required.
• Construction and operational soils will continue to be borrowed from the
existing borrow area; however additional property will be required for
additional operational soils due to the increase in daily cover soil requirements.
Option 4
• A permit for a new MSWLF will be required.
• A single composite liner system will be required.
• Leachate collection and treatment will be required. At this time, due to the on-
going discussion on emerging contaminants, on -site Leachate treatment is
assumed.
• Active gas collection will be required.
• Additional property is required for landfill development and operational soils.
Wilson County Solid Waste Services Alternatives Analysis of Solid Waste Disposal
October 2019 Page 4

Capital Costs - Landfill Closure
At the cessation of landfill operations, the landfill will need to be closed in accordance
with NCDEQ requirements. Based on the requirements within the current facility permit,
and previous closure experience within the region, S+G estimates that C&D landfill
closure will cost approximately $75,000 per acre and MSW landfill closure will cost
approximately $175,000 per acre.
Capital Costs - Landfill Equipment
S+G has assumed that the County would replace all landfill equipment once during the
evaluation period for both the C&D landfill and MSW landfill. Additionally, for Option 4,
new equipment is added to account for the increased disposal rates.
The County's equipment needs and estimated replacement costs for landfill operations
in 2019 dollars are:
• CAT 826 Equivalent - $1,100,000
• CAT 336 Equivalent - $350,000
• CAT D6 Equivalent - $400,000
• Volvo A25C Equivalent - $ 350,000
nirPrt (^nsts
Direct costs include costs related to operations and maintenance staff salaries directly
involved in day-to-day landfill operations. County administrative staff and personnel not
required for the daily landfill operations are excluded from these costs, since these
costs are the same across all options and are required by the County whether or not a
Landfill is developed.
Direct Costs -Equipment Maintenance and Fuel
Equipment maintenance costs are based on the County's 2018-2019 maintenance
records for essential landfill equipment including, a landfill compactor, dozer, dump
truck and excavator. An additional ten (10) percent increase was added for potential
unforeseen maintenance. Fuel costs were based on anticipated operating hours (2
hours/day for the C&DLF, 4 hours/day for County MSWLF and 8 hours/day for Regional
MSWLF), 7.5 gallons per hour fuel economy and $3 per gallon fuel costs.
Direct Costs -Post-Closure
At the cessation of C&D landfill operations, the County will be required to close within 90
days of last receipt of waste and will enter into a 30-year post -closure period. S+G
estimates that the County's post -closure costs will be approximately $40,000 annually
for Options 1 and 2, approximately $200,000 annually for Option 3 and approximately
$400,000 annually for Option 4.
Indirect Costs
Wilson County Solid Waste Services Alternatives Analysis of Solid Waste Disposal
October 2019 Page 5

Indirect costs include personnel functions that support the solid waste management
including management and administration. S+G did not include indirect costs within the
model.
3.0 CONCLUSIONS
Based on the cost per ton disposed as shown in Figure 3 and the total facility expenses
as shown in Figure 4, Option 2 is the County's least cost option. As a result, S+G
recommends the County move forward with conducting Phase 2 of the archaeological
investigation with the expectation of permitting and developing Option 2.
Based on S+G's review of the previous reports, the disturbance of the area from prior
farming, and our discussions with the North Carolina Department of Environmental
Quality (NCDEQ) and Archaeological Consultants of the Carolinas (ACC), there is high
potential that the archaeological area will not preclude the County from developing a
C&DLF. Provided that this is the case, the County would be able to develop a new C&DLF
Lateral expansion in an optimal area of the existing property, adjacent to the existing
borrow area without the need to purchase additional land for construction/operational
soils or facility development. This option is also the County's least cost option when
compared to the other options.
In general, the C&DLF options are more favorable for the County due to limited up -front
development costs as a result of the County's ability to permit a lateral expansion
without a composite liner system. The C&DLF options are also lower risk due to the
Lower overall development and operational costs, which allows the County to operate
with lower annual disposal rates and remain economically valuable.
Wilson County Solid Waste Services Alternatives Analysis of Solid Waste Disposal
October 2019 Page 6

Figures
Alternatives Analysis of Solid Waste Disposal Services
Wilson County Solid Waste Services
Wilson County, North Carolina

;4
F` CONVE IENCE CENTER
r �
f R
Y D WASTE, COMPOST, AND
U LCH PROCESSING AREA
BOLLARD P D
PARCEL NO. 3732- 40- 5855.000
p
IR
a
CITY OF WILSON
L N Q 37.31- 38- 8680.000
SPEIGHT ELIZABETH W
PARCEL N O. 3732- 64- 5287.000
Pin
♦♦�
♦♦
`♦♦aw
RECYCLE T
a
NC Hwy4Z
R STATION
Abs- w.
ti►'
WILLIAMSON WILLIAM R
OPT I ON 1' PARCEL NO. 3732— 80— 3370.000
WILSON COUNTY
PARCEL NO. 3732- 52- 9078.000
ARD FARM NO 1842
PARC N O. 3731- 73- 3207.000
■44
ql
PEABODY NAN CYJOHNSTON (HEIRS)
PARCEL NO. 3731- 99- 4342.000
POTENTI
APPROXIMATE
ARCHAEOLOGICAL
SURVEYSITE
APPROXIMATE LANDFILL
FACILITY BOUNDARY
w
All�
4 �=NEI
A
PRI DGEN MARI ON LAFAYETTE J R
PARCEL NO. 3742- 21- 2003.000
■
11
PRI DGEN MARI ON LAFAYETTE J R
PARCEL NO. 3742- 30- 2601.000
�h
N
-Ao -Nik
GLOVER S A& SONS I N C
PARCEL NO. 3741- 39- 2178.000 LEGEND
LANDFILL AREA OPTIONS
L J 500-FT RESIDENTIAL BUFFER
EXPANSION AREAS
LIMITS OF WASTE/ CLAY CAP (SEE REFERENCE 5)
1 LIMITS OF GCL (SEE REFERENCE 5)
■
ol 0
■ APPROXIMATE FACILITY BOUNDARY
���`P�,� �V�'
(SEEREFERENCE2)
'
ADJACENT PARCEL BOUNDARY
Gov �
ARCHAEOLOGICAL SURVEYSITE (SEEREFERENCE6)
1
DISTURBED BUFFER AREAS
UNDISTURBED BUFFER AREAS
POTENTIAL PROPERTYAQUISITION
FLOOD HAZARD ZON E (0.2 PCT AN N UAL CHAN CE)
FLOOD HAZARD ZONE AE
FLOODWAY
WILSON FARM PROPERTIES LLC
PARCEL NO. 3741-47-0282.000---
NRCS MAPPED STREAMS (SEEREFERENCE4)
— USGS MAPPED STREAMS (SEEREFERENCE4)
NC -CREWS WETLAND MAPPING (SEEREFERENCE4)
REFERENCES
1. EXI STI N G TOPOGRAPHY DATED 2004 FROM N ORTH CAROLI NA
FLOODPLAIN MAPPING PROGRAM LIDAR DATA.
2. PARCEL BOUNDARIES AND OWNER INFORMATION FROM
GI S PARCEL DATA PROM DED BY N C ON EMAP.
3. FLOOD HAZARD INFORMATION FROM NORTH CAROLINA
FLOODPLAIN MAPPING PROGRAM, FEMA FIRM MAP NO.
3720373100J, 3720373200J, AND 3720374100J.
�
4. ESTIMATED JURISDICTIONAL AREAS FROM CAROLINA ECOSYSTEMS.
+ 5. WASTE LIMIT BOUNDARIES, INCLUDING CAP LIMITS FROM DRAWING
"LANDFILL SITE PLAN", DRAWING NO. 1, DATED 8/1/00, PREPARED
BYGARYW. AHLBERG, P.E.
6. ARCHAEOLOGICAL SURVEYSITE LIMITS FROM DRAWING
"ARCHAEOLOGICAL SURVEYOF WILSON COUNTYSOLID WASTE
EXPANSION TRACT' DATED OCTOBER 2017, PREPARED BY
ARCHAEOLOGICAL CONSULTANTS OF THE CAROLINAS, INC. (ACC).
0 400 800 1,200
Feet
Smith Gardner, Inc.

CONVE IENCE CENTER
i y o0
CITYOF WILSON •t '
L N Q 37.31- 38- 8680.000
SPEIGHT ELIZABETH W
PARCEL NO. 3732- 64- 5287.000
RECYCLE T
a
NC ywy4Z
n'
� h� V
co
WILSON COUNTY
j PARCEL NO. 3732- 52- 9078.000o
V
. - MAI N
R STATION
NG
i MOORE CRAI GE RAMSAY
PARCEL NO. 3732- 81- 3564. C
` MOORE CRAIGE R
PARCEL NO. 3732-82-3737.000
��yCy RD
OPTION 4
WILLIAMSON WILLIAM R
6�250�000 C.Y. / PARCEL NO.3732-80-3370.000
TUR COURT MOBILE HOME PARK
ARCEL NO. 3732-70-8541.000
HEATHER CT
L. -&* .
.i
r
(bt,
ARD FARM NO 1842
PARC N O. 3731- 73- 3207.000
I
40%
PRI DGEN MARI ON LAFAYETTE J R
PARCEL NO. 3742- 21- 2003.000
PROPOSED L4NDFILL
- i
FACILITY BOIJNDARY
PEABODY PROPERTYACUISITION
(AREA=104. ACRES)
k
PEABODY NAN CYJOHNSTON (HEIRS) "POTENTIAL BORROWAREA
PARCEL NO. 3731- 99- 4342.000
im
APPROXIMATE
ARCHAEOLOGICAL
SURVEYSITE
WILSON FARM PROPERTIES LLC
PARCEL NO. 3741- 47- 0282.000
PRI DGEN MARI ON LAFAYS17E J R
PARCEL NO. 3742- 30- 2601.000
�h
LEGEND
OPTION 4
EXPANSION AREA
i
ARCHAEOLOGICAL SURVEYSITE (SEEREFERENCE6)
000
,�
�, ��0 ���
I LIMITS OF WASTE/ CLAY CAP (SEE REFERENCE 5)
'
I 1 LIMITS OF GCL (SEE REFERENCE 5)
PROPOSED FACILITY BOUNDARY
1
PARCEL BOUNDARY
UNDISTURBED BUFFER AREAS
POTENTIAL PROPERTYAQUISITION
FLOOD HAZARD ZON E (0.2 PCT AN N UAL CHAN CE)
FLOOD HAZARD ZONE AE
FLOODWAY
WILSON FARM PROPERTIES LLC
PARCEL NO. 3741-47-0282.000---
NRCS MAPPED STREAMS (SEEREFERENCE4)
- USGS MAPPED STREAMS (SEEREFERENCE4)
NC -CREWS WETLAND MAPPING (SEEREFERENCE4)
REFERENCES
1. EXI STI N G TOPOGRAPHY DATED 2004 FROM N ORTH CAROLI NA
FLOODPLAIN MAPPING PROGRAM LIDAR DATA.
2. PARCEL BOUNDARIES AND OWNER INFORMATION FROM
GI S PARCEL DATA PROM DED BY N C ON EMAP.
3. FLOOD HAZARD INFORMATION FROM NORTH CAROLINA
FLOODPLAIN MAPPING PROGRAM, FEMA FIRM MAP NO.
3720373100J, 3720373200J, AND 3720374100J.
�
4. ESTIMATED JURISDICTIONAL AREAS FROM CAROLINA ECOSYSTEMS.
5. WASTE LIMIT BOUNDARIES, INCLUDING CAP LIMITS FROM DRAWING
"LANDFILL SITE PLAN", DRAWING Nall, DATED 8/1/00, PREPARED
BYGARYW. AHLBERG, P.E.
6. ARCHAEOLOGICAL SURVEYSITE LIMITS FROM DRAWING
"ARCHAEOLOGICAL SURVEYOF WILSON COUNTYSOLID WASTE
EXPANSION TRACT' DATED OCTOBER 2017, PREPARED BY
ARCHAEOLOGICAL CONSULTANTS OF THE CAROLINAS, INC. (ACC).
0 400 800 1,200
Feet
Source: Esri, DigitalGlobe, GeoEye, Eartl
smith Gardner, Inc.

$70.00
$60.00
Option 1A- C&D Landfill
Maximum Tonnage
Option 1B - C&D Landfill 3-Year
Average Tonnage
Option 2A- C&D Landfill
Maximum Tonnage
Option 2B - C&D Landfill 3-Year
Average Tonnage
Option 3A- C&D & MSW
Landfill (70,000 TPY)
Option 3B - C&D & MSW
Landfill (50,000 TPY)
Option 4A- C&D & MSW
Regional Landfill (150,000 TPY)
Option 4B - C&D & MSW
Regional Landfill (100,000 TPY)

$140,000,000
$120,000,000
$100,000,000
$80,000,000
$60,000,000
$40,000,000
$20,000,000 ,
$0
C#icn'A CoticnB Cbticn2A Coticn2B
Crr. • - ig�•"; • ,TG1 :err. • F,!G�•�; • �!:�
■ Direct Expenses
Equipment
■ Closure & Post Closure
■ Facility Development

Tables
Alternatives Analysis of Solid Waste Disposal Services
Wilson County Solid Waste Services
Wilson County, North Carolina

Wilson County- Evaluation of Long -Term Disposal Services
Tablelk Option 1 - C&DLF Constructed W/N Borrow Area
Maximum Tonnage
Year
0
1
2
3
4
5
6
7
8
9
10
Fiscal Year
2019-2020
2020-2021
2021-2022
2022-2023
2023-2024
2024-2025
2025-2026
2026-2027
2027-2028
2028-2029
2029-2030
Waste Collection and Tonnages
Projected Population (11
81,818
81,900
81,982
82,064
82,146
82,228
82,310
82,392
82,475
82,557
82,640
C&D (Tons/Year) Annual Disposal Max(1)
31,974
32,006
32,038
32,070
32,102
32,134
32,166
32,198
32,231
32,263
32,295
Cumulative C&D Disposal (Max)
32,006
64,044
96,114
128,215
160,350
192,516
224,714
256,945
289,207
321,502
Expenses - Capital Costs - Facility Development 2)(3
Engineering and Permitting
$
250,000.00
$
$
$
$
$
11,040.81
$
$
$
$
$
12,189.94
Land Acquisition for Construction and Operational Soils (4)
$
250,000.00
$
$
$
$
$
-
$
$
$
$
$
-
Landfill Construction (5)
$
-
$
762,000.00
$
$
$
$
-
$
841,309.57
$
$
$
$
-
Annual Capital Costs
$
500,000.00
$
762,000.00
$
$
$
$
11,040.81
$
841,309.57
$
$
$
$
12,189.94
Annual Capital Costs Normalized
$
216, 937.45
$
216, 937.45
$
216, 937.45
$
216, 937.45
$
216, 937.45
$
216, 937.45
$
216, 937.45
$
216, 937.45
$
216, 937.45
$
216, 937.45
Expenses - Capital Costs - Closure and Post -Closure Costs 2 3
Landfill Closure (6)
$
-
$
-
$
-
$
-
$
-
$
-
$
$
-
$
-
$
-
$
Annual Post -Closure Costs (7)
$
$
$
$
$
$
$
$
$
$
$
Annual Closure + Post -Closure Costs
$
$
$
$
$
$
$
$
$
$
$
Annual Closure + Post -Closure CostslNormalizedl:
$
272,016.86
$
272,016.86
$
272,016.86
$
272,016.86
$
272,016.86
$
272,016.86
$
272,016.86
$
272,016.86
$
272,016.86
$
272,016.86
Expenses - Capital Costs - Equipment 2 (3
Compactor (20151 Replacement
$
$
-
$
-
$
-
$
-
$
-
$
-
$
-
$
-
$
-
$
-
Dozer (20171 Replacement
$
$
$
$
$
$
$
$
-
$
$
$
Articulating Dump (20061 Replacement
$
$
$
$
$
$
$
$
402,039.98
$
$
$
Excavator (20041 Replacement
$
$
$
$
$
$
386,428.28
$
$
-
$
$
$
Annual Equipment Replacement Costs
$
$
$
$
$
$
386,428.26
$
$
402,039.96
$
$
$
Annual Equipment Replacement CostslNormalized)
$
90,711.66
$
90,711.66
$
510,711.66
$
90,711.66
$
90,711.66
$
90,711.66
$
90,711.66
$
90,711.66
$
90,711.66
$
90,711.6b
Expenses - Direct Expenses 12T 3
Personnel & Operations (8)
$
$
157,080.00
$
160,221.60
$
163,426.03
$
166,694.55
$
170,028.44
$
173,429.01
$
176,897.59
$
180,435.54
$
184,044.26
$
187,725.14
Compliance Monitoring Through Closure (8)
$
$
35,700.00
$
36,414.00
$
37,142.28
$
37,885.13
$
38,642.83
$
39,415.68
$
40,204.00
$
41,008.08
$
41,828.24
$
42,664.80
Equipment Maintenance Cost (8)
$
$
40,800.00
$
41,616.00
$
42,448.32
$
43,297.29
$
44,163.23
$
45,046.50
$
45,947.43
$
46,866.38
$
47,803.70
$
48,759.78
Equipment Fuel Cost (9)
$
$
51,000.00
$
52,020.00
$
53,060.40
$
54,121.61
$
55,204.04
$
56,308.12
$
57,434.28
$
58,582.97
$
59,754.63
$
60,949.72
Landfill - Disposal Tax ($2/Ton)
$
$
64,011.65
$
64,075.66
$
64,139.74
$
64,203.88
$
64,268.08
$
64,332.35
$
64,396.68
$
64,461.08
$
64,525.54
$
64,590.07
Annual Expenses
$
$
348,591.65
$
354,347.26
$
360,216.77
$
366,202.45
$
372,306.63
$
378,531.67
$
384,879.98
$
391,354.05
$
397,956.37
$
404,689.51
Annual Expenses [Normalized)
$
-
$
449,777.34
$
449,777.34
$
449,777.34
$
449,777.34
$
449,777.34
$
449,777.34
$
449,777.34
$
449,777.34
$
449,777.34
$
449,777.34
Summary:
Total Annual Expenses.
500,000
1,110,592
$
354,347
$
360,217
$
366,202
769,776
1,219,841
786,920
391,354
397,956
416,879
Cumulative Expenses.
000,000
$
1,610,592
1,964,939
2,325,156
2,691,358
3,461,134
4,680,975
5,467,895
5,859,249
6,257,205
7iF
6,674,085
Total Annual ExpenseslNormalizedl.
$
1,029,443
$
1,029,443
$
1,029,443
$
1,029,443
$
1,029,443
$
1,029,443
$
1,029,443
$
1,029,443
$
1,029,443
$
1,029,443
Cumulative ExpenseslNormalizedl:
1
$
1,029,443
1 $
2,058,887
1 $
3,088,330
$
4,117,773
$
5,147,217
$
6,176,660
$
7,206,103
$
8,235,547
$
9,264,990
$
10,294,433
Average Annual Cost Disposall$/tonl
$
31.76
$
31.76
$
31.7G
1 $
31.76
$
31.76
$
31.76
$
31.76
$
31.76
$
31.76
$
31.76
Notes:
(1) Reference NCDEQ Solid Waste Annual Reports for Wilson County (2017-2018).
(2) All costs were developed using 2019 dollars and escalated annually at 2% to the year applied.
(3) All capital costs use cash reserves and do not require financing.
(4) Assume archaelological site is not feasible and additional property is needed for borrow.
(5) Assume construction occurs every five years.
(6) Closure costs escalated annually and applied at the end of life and not periodically.
(7) Post -Closure costs escalated annually and are placed in reserve for use following closure.
(8) Data provide by Wilson County.
(9) Fuel costs assumes consumption at 7.5 gallons per hour and fuel prices are $3/gallon (2019).
Table 1A Opt 1 CDLF 2018 Tons
SMITH GARNER, INC. Page 1 of 3 Wilson County Solid Waste Financial Evaluation (09-20191

Wilson County- Evaluation of Long -Term Disposal Services
Tablelk Option 1 - C&DLF Constructed W/N Borrow Area
Maximum Tonnage
Year
11
12
13
14
15
16
17
18
19
20
Fiscal Year
2030-2031
2031-2032
2032-2033
2033-2034
2034-2035
2035-2036
2036-2037
2037-2038
2038-2039
2039-2040
Waste Collection and Tonnages
Projected Population (11
82,722
82,805
82,888
82,971
83,054
83,137
83,220
83,303
83,386
83,470
C&D (Tons/Year) Annual Disposal Max(1)
32,327
32,360
32,392
32,424
32,457
32,489
32,522
32,554
32,587
32,619
Cumulative C&D Disposal (Max)
353,830
386,189
418,581
451,006
483,463
515,952
548,474
581,028
613,615
646,234
Expenses - Capital Costs - Facility Development 2)(3
Engineering and Permitting
$
$
$
$
$
13,458.68
$
$
$
$
$
14,859.47
Land Acquisition for Construction and Operational Soils (4)
$
$
$
$
$
-
$
$
$
$
$
-
Landfill Construction (5)
$
928,873.75
$
$
$
$
-
$
1,025,551.67
$
$
$
$
-
Annual Capital Costs
$
928,873.75
$
$
$
$
13,458.68
$
1,025,551.67
$
$
$
$
14,859.47
Annual Capital Costs Normalized
$
216, R37.45
$
216, 937.45
$
216, 937.45
$
216, 937.45
$
216, R37.45
$
216, 937.45
$
216, 937.45
$
216, 937.45
$
216, 937.45
$
216, 937.45
Expenses - Capital Costs - Closure and Post -Closure Costs 2 3
Landfill Closure (6)
$
$
-
$
-
$
-
$
$
-
$
-
$
-
$
-
$
-
Annual Post -Closure Costs (7)
$
$
$
$
$
$
$
$
$
$
Annual Closure + Post -Closure Costs
$
$
$
$
$
$
$
$
$
$
Annual Closure + Post -Closure CostslNormalizedl:
$
272,016.86
$
272,016.86
$
272,016.86
$
272,016.86
$
272,016.86
$
272,016.86
$
272,016.86
$
272,016.86
$
272,016.86
$
272,016.86
Expenses - Capital Costs - Equipment 2 (3
Compactor (20151 Replacement
$
-
$
-
$
-
$
-
$
-
$
1,372,785.7
$
-
$
-
$
-
$
-
Dozer (20171 Replacement
$
$
$
$
$
$
$
$
560,096.57
$
$
Articulating Dump (20061 Replacement
$
$
$
$
$
$
$
$
-
$
$
Excavator (20041 Replacement
$
$
$
$
$
$
$
$
-
$
$
Annual Equipment Replacement Costs
$
$
$
$
$
$
1,372,785.71
$
$
560,096.52
$
$
-
Annual Equipment Replacement Costs lNormalized)
$
90, 711.66
$
RO, 711.66
$
90, 711.66
$
90, 711.66
$
90, 711.66
$
90, 711.66
$
90, 711.66
$
90, 711.66
$
90, 711.66
$
90, 711.66
Expenses - Direct Expenses 12T 3
Personnel & Operations (8)
$
191,479.64
$
195,309.24
$
199,215.42
$
203,199.73
$
207,263.72
$
211,409.00
$
215,637.18
$
219,949.92
$
224,348.92
$
228,835.90
Compliance Monitoring Through Closure (8)
$
43,518.10
$
44,388.46
$
45,276.23
$
46,181.76
$
47,105.39
$
48,047.50
$
49,008.45
$
49,988.62
$
50,988.39
$
52,008.16
Equipment Maintenance Cost (8)
$
49,734.97
$
50,729.67
$
51,744.27
$
52,779.15
$
53,834.73
$
54,911.43
$
56,009.66
$
57,129.85
$
58,272.45
$
59,437.90
Equipment Fuel Cost (9)
$
62,168.72
$
63,412.09
$
64,680.33
$
65,973.94
$
67,293.42
$
68,639.29
$
70,012.07
$
71,412.31
$
72,840.56
$
74,297.37
Landfill - Disposal Tax ($2/Ton)
$
64,654.66
$
64,719.31
$
64,784.03
$
64,848.81
$
64,913.66
$
64,978.58
$
65,043.56
$
65,108.60
$
65,173.71
$
65,238.88
Annual Expenses
$
411,556.09
$
418,558.77
$
425,700.28
$
432,983.39
$
440,410.93
$
447,985.79
$
455,710.91
$
463,589.30
$
471,624.02
$
479,818.20
Annual Expenses [Normalized)
$
449,777.34
$
449,777.34
$
449,777.34
$
449,777.34
$
449,777.34
$
449,777.34
$
449,777.34
$
449,777.34
$
449,777.34
$
449,777.34
Summary:
Total Annual Expenses.
1,340,430
$
418,559
$
425,700
$
432,983
$
453,870
$
2,846,323
455,711
1,023,686
471,624
$
494,678
Cumulative Expenses:
8,0 44,515
8,433,074
8,858,774
9,291,757
9,745,627
12,591,950
13,047,661
14,071,347
14,542,971
$
15,037,648
Total Annual ExpenseslNormalizedlr
$
1,029,443
1 $
1,029,443
$
1,029,443
$
1,029,443
$
1,029,443
$
1,029,443
$
1,029,443
$
1,029,443
$
1,029,443
$
1,029,443
Cumulative ExpenseslNormalizedl:
1 $
11,323,877
1 $
12,353,320
1 $
13,382,763
$
14,412,207
1 $
15,441,650
$
16,471,093
1 $
17,500,537
$
18,529,980
1 $
19,559,423
$
20,588,867
Average Annual Cost Disposall$/tonl
1 $
31.76
$
31.76
$
31.76
$
31.76
$
31.76
$
31.76
$
31.76
$
31.76
$
31.76
$
31.76
Notes:
(1) Reference NCDEQ Solid Waste Annual Reports for Wilson County (2017-2018).
(2) All costs were developed using 2019 dollars and escalated annually at 2% to the year applied.
(3) All capital costs use cash reserves and do not require financing.
(4) Assume archaelological site is not feasible and additional property is needed for borrow.
(5) Assume construction occurs every five years.
(6) Closure costs escalated annually and applied at the end of life and not periodically.
(7) Post -Closure costs escalated annually and are placed in reserve for use following closure.
(8) Data provide by Wilson County.
(9) Fuel costs assumes consumption at 7.5 gallons per hour and fuel prices are $3/gallon (2019).
Table 1A Opt 1 CDLF 2018 Tons
SMITH GARNER, INC. Page 2 of 3 Wilson County Solid Waste Financial Evaluation (09-20191

Wilson County- Evaluation of Long -Term Disposal Services
Tablelk Option 1 - C&DLF Constructed W/N Borrow Area
Maximum Tonnage
Year
21
22
23
24
25
26
27
28
29
30
Fiscal Year
2040-2041
2041-2042
2042-2043
2043-2044
2044-2045
2045-2046
2046-2047
2047-2048
2048-2049
2049-2050
Waste Collection and Tonnages
Projected Population (11
83,553
83,637
83,721
83,804
83,888
83,972
84,056
84,140
84,224
84,308
C&D (Tons/Year) Annual Disposal Max(1)
32 652
32,685
32,717
32,750
32,783
32,816
32,848
32,881
32,914
32,947
Cumulative C&D Disposal (Max)
678,886
711,571
744,288
777,039
809,821
842,637
875,486
908,367
941,281
974,228
Expenses - Capital Costs - Facility Development 2)(3
Engineering and Permitting
$
$
$
$
$
16,406.06
$
$
$
$
$
Land Acquisition for Construction and Operational Soils (4)
$
$
$
$
$
-
$
$
$
$
$
Landfill Construction (5)
$
1,132,291.92
$
$
$
$
-
$
1,250,141.77
$
$
$
$
Annual Capital Costs
$
1,132,291.92
$
$
$
$
16,406.06
$
1,250,141.77
$
$
$
$
Annual Capital Costs Normalized
$
216, R37.45
$
216, 937.45
$
216, 937.45
$
216, 937.45
$
216, R37.45
$
216, 937.45
$
216, 937.45
$
216, 937.45
$
216, 937.45
$
216, 937.45
Expenses - Capital Costs - Closure and Post -Closure Costs 2 3
Landfill Closure (6)
$
$
-
$
-
$
-
$
$
-
$
-
$
-
$
-
$
5,162,380.5
Annual Post -Closure Costs (7)
$
$
$
$
$
$
$
$
$
$
2,998,125.2
Annual Closure + Post -Closure Costs
$
$
$
$
$
$
$
$
$
$ 8,160,505.69
Annual Closure + Post -Closure CostslNormalizedl:
$
272,016.86
$
272,016.86
$
272,016.86
$
272,016.86
$
272,016.86
$
272,016.86
$
272,016.86
$
272,016.86
$
272,016.86
$
272,016.86
Expenses - Capital Costs - Equipment 2 (3
Compactor (20151 Replacement
$
-
$
-
$
-
$
-
$
-
$
-
$
-
$
-
$
-
$
-
Dozer (20171 Replacement
$
$
$
$
$
$
$
$
$
$
Articulating Dump (20061 Replacement
$
$
$
$
$
$
$
$
$
$
Excavator (20041 Replacement
$
$
$
$
$
$
$
$
$
$
Annual Equipment Replacement Costs
$
$
$
$
$
$
$
$
$
$
-
Annual Equipment Replacement Costs /Normalized)
$
90,711.66
$
RO,711.66
$
90,711.66
$
510,711.66
$
90,711.66
$
90,711.66
$
90,711.66
$
90,711.66
$
90,711.66
$
90,711.66
Expenses - Direct Expenses 12T 3
Personnel & Operations (8)
$
233,412.62
$
238,080.87
$
242,842.49
$
247,699.34
$
252,653.32
$
257,706.39
$
262,860.52
$
268,117.73
$
273,480.08
$
278,949.68
Compliance Monitoring Through Closure (8)
$
53,048.32
$
54,109.29
$
55,191.47
$
56,295.30
$
57,421.21
$
58,569.63
$
59,741.03
$
60,935.85
$
62,154.56
$
63,397.66
Equipment Maintenance Cost (8)
$
60,626.65
$
61,839.19
$
63,075.97
$
64,337.49
$
65,624.24
$
66,936.72
$
68,275.46
$
69,640.97
$
71,033.79
$
72,454.46
Equipment Fuel Cost (9)
$
75,783.32
$
77,298.98
$
78,844.96
$
80,421.86
$
82,030.30
$
83,670.91
$
85,344.32
$
87,051.21
$
88,792.23
$
90,568.08
Landfill - Disposal Tax ($2/Ton)
$
65,304.12
$
65,369.42
$
65,434.79
$
65,500.23
$
65,565.73
$
65,631.29
$
65,696.93
$
65,762.62
$
65,828.39
$
65,894.21
Annual Expenses
$
488,175.03
$
496,697.75
$
505,389.69
$
514,254.22
$
523,294.80
$
532,514.95
$
541,918.25
$
551,508.38
$
561,289.05
$
571,264.10
Annual Expenses [Normalized)
$
449,777.34
$
449,777.34
$
449,777.34
$
449,777.34
$
449,777.34
$
449,777.34
$
449,777.34
$
449,777.34
$
449,777.34
$
449,777.34
Summary:
Total Annual Expenses.
1,620,467
$
496,698
$
505,390
$
514,254
$
539,701
1,782,657
541,918
$
551,508
561,289
8,731,770
Cumulative Expenses:
16,658,115
17,154,813
17,660,203
18,174,457
18,714,158
20,496,815
21,038,733
21,590,241
22,151,530
30,883,300
Total Annual ExpenseslNormalizedl:
$
1,029,443
1 $
1,029,443
$
1,029,443
$
1,029,443
$
1,029,443
$
1,029,443
$
1,029,443
$
1,029,443
$
1,029,443
$
1,029,443
Cumulative Expenses lNormalizedl:
1 $
21,618,310
1 $
22,647,753
1 $
23,677,197
$
24,706,640
1 $
25,736,083
$
26,765,527
1 $
27,794,970
$
28,824,413
1 $
29,853,857
$
30,883,300
Average Annual Cost Disposall$/tonl
1 $
31.76
$
31.76
$
31.76
$
31.76
$
31.76
$
31.76
$
31.76
$
31.76
$
31.76
$
31.76
Notes:
(1) Reference NCDEQ Solid Waste Annual Reports for Wilson County (2017-2018).
(2) All costs were developed using 2019 dollars and escalated annually at 2% to the year applied.
(3) All capital costs use cash reserves and do not require financing.
(4) Assume archaelological site is not feasible and additional property is needed for borrow.
(5) Assume construction occurs every five years.
(6) Closure costs escalated annually and applied at the end of life and not periodically.
(7) Post -Closure costs escalated annually and are placed in reserve for use following closure.
(8) Data provide by Wilson County.
(9) Fuel costs assumes consumption at 7.5 gallons per hour and fuel prices are $3/gallon (2019).
Table 1A Opt 1 CDLF 2018 Tons
SMITH GARNER, INC. Page 3 of 3 Wilson County Solid Waste Financial Evaluation (09-20191

Wilson County- Evaluation of Long -Term Disposal Services
TablelB: Option 1- CSDLF Constructed W/N Borrow Area
3-YR Average Tonnage
Year
0
1
2
3
4
5
6
7
8
9
10
Fiscal Year
2019-2020
2020-2021
2021-2022
2022-2023
2023-2024
2024-2025
2025-2026
2026-2027
2027-2028
2028-2029
2029-2030
Waste Collection and Tonnages
Projected Population (11
81,818
81,900
81,982
82,064
82,146
82,228
82,310
82,392
82,475
82,557
82,640
C&D (Tons/Year) (3-Year-Average)
18,811
18,830
18,849
18,867
18,886
18,905
18,924
18,943
18,962
18,981
19,000
Cumulative C&D Disposal (3-Year-Average)
18,830
37,678
56,546
75,432
94,337
113,261
132,204
151,166
170,147
189,147
Expenses - Capital Costs - Facility Development 2)(3
Engineering and Permitting
$
250,000.00
$
$
$
$
$
11,040.81
$
$
$
$
$
12,189.94
Land Acquisition for Construction and Operational Soils (4)
$
250,000.00
$
$
$
$
$
-
$
$
$
$
$
-
Landfill Construction (5)
$
-
$
521,000.00
$
$
$
$
-
$
575,226.10
$
$
$
$
-
Annual Capital Costs
$
500,000.00
$
521,000.00
$
$
$
$
11,040.81
$
575,226.10
$
$
$
$
12,189.94
Annual Capital Costs Normalized
$
154,313.63
$
154,313.63
$
154,313.63
$
154,313.63
$
154,313.63
$
154,313.63
$
154,313.63
$
154,313.63
$
154,313.63
$
154,313.63
Expenses - Capital Costs - Closure and Post -Closure Costs 2 3
Annual Capital Costs - (Landfill Closure) (6)
$
-
$
$
$
$
$
$
$
$
$
$
Annual Post -Closure Costs (71
$
$
$
$
$
$
$
$
$
$
$
Annual Closure + Post -Closure Costs
$
$
$
$
$
$
$
$
$
$
$
-
Annual Closure + Post -Closure Costs /Normalized/;
$
213,147.66
$
213,147.66
$
213,147.66
$
213,147.66
$
213,147.66
$
213,147.66
$
213,147.66
$
213,147.66
$
213,147.66
$
213,147.66
Expenses - Capital Costs - Equipment 2 (3
Compactor (20151 Replacement
$
$
-
$
-
$
-
$
-
$
-
$
-
$
-
$
-
$
-
$
-
Dozer (20171 Replacement
$
$
$
$
$
$
$
$
-
$
$
$
Articulating Dump (20061 Replacement
$
$
$
$
$
$
$
$
402,039.98
$
$
$
Excavator (20041 Replacement
$
$
$
$
$
$
386,428.28
$
$
-
$
$
$
Annual Equipment Replacement Costs
$
$
$
$
$
$
386,428.26
$
$
402,039.96
$
$
$
-
Annual Equipment Replacement Costs lNormalized)
$
90,711.66
$
90,711.66
$
90,711.66
$
510,711.66
$
90,711.66
$
90,711.66
$
90,711.66
$
90,711.66
$
90,711.66
$
90,711.66
Expenses - Direct Expenses 12T 3
Personnel & Operations (8)
$
$
157,080.00
$
160,221.60
$
163,426.03
$
166,694.55
$
170,028.44
$
173,429.01
$
176,897.59
$
180,435.54
$
184,044.26
$
187,725.14
Compliance Monitoring Through Closure (8)
$
$
35,700.00
$
36,414.00
$
37,142.28
$
37,885.13
$
38,642.83
$
39,415.68
$
40,204.00
$
41,008.08
$
41,828.24
$
42,664.80
Equipment Maintenance Cost (8)
$
$
40,800.00
$
41,616.00
$
42,448.32
$
43,297.29
$
44,163.23
$
45,046.50
$
45,947.43
$
46,866.38
$
47,803.70
$
48,759.78
Equipment Fuel Cost (9)
$
$
51,000.00
$
52,020.00
$
53,060.40
$
54,121.61
$
55,204.04
$
56,308.12
$
57,434.28
$
58,582.97
$
59,754.63
$
60,949.72
Landfill - Disposal Tax ($2/Ton)
$
$
37,659.42
$
37,697.08
$
37,734.78
$
37,772.51
$
37,810.28
$
37,848.09
$
37,885.94
$
37,923.83
$
37,961.75
$
37,999.71
Annual Expenses
$
$
322,239.42
$
327,968.68
$
333,811.81
$
339,771.08
$
345,848.83
$
352,047.41
$
358,369.24
$
364,816.79
$
371,392.58
$
378,099.16
Annual Expenses [Normalized)
$
-
$
423, 039.41
$
423, 039.41
$
423, 039.41
$
423, 039.41
$
423, 039.41
$
423, 039.41
$
423, 039.41
$
423, 039.41
$
423, 039.41
$
423, 039.41
Summary:
Total Annual Expenses;
000,000
$
843,239
$
327,969
$
333,812
339,771
743,318
927,274
760,409
364,817
$
371,393
$
390,289
Cumulative Expenses;
500,000
1,343,239
1,671,208
2,005,020
2,344,791
3,088,109
4,015,382
4,775,792
5,140,608
5,512,001
5,902,290
Total Annual Expenses [Normalized].
$
881,212
$
881,212
$
881,212
1 $
881,212
$
881,212
$
881,212
$
881,212
$
881,212
$
881,212
$
881,212
Cumulative Expenses (Normalized).
$
881,212
$
1,762,425
$
2,643,637
1 $
3,524,849
$
4,406,062
1 $
5,287,274
$
6,168,486
$
7,049,699
$
7,930,911
$
8,812,123
Average Annual Cost Disposall$/ton)
$
46.121
$
46.12
$
46.121
$
46.12
$
416.121
$
46.12
$
416.121
$
46.12
$
46.12
$
46.12
Notes:
(1) Reference NCDEQ Solid Waste Annual Reports for Wilson County (2017-2018).
(2) All costs were developed using 2019 dollars and escalated annually at 2% to the year applied.
(3) All capital costs use cash reserves and do not require financing.
(4) Assume archaelological site is not feasible and additional property is needed for borrow.
(5) Assume construction occurs every five years.
(6) Closure costs escalated annually and applied at the end of life and not periodically.
(7) Post -Closure costs escalated annually and are placed in reserve for use following closure.
(8) Data provide by Wilson County.
(9) Fuel costs assumes consumption at 7.5 gallons per hour and fuel prices are $3/gallon (2019).
Table 1 B Opt 1 CDLF 3-YR AVE
SMITH GARNER, INC. Page 1 of 2 Wilson County Solid Waste Financial Evaluation (09-20191

Wilson County- Evaluation of Long -Term Disposal Services
TablelB: Option 1- CSDLF Constructed W/N Borrow Area
3-YR Average Tonnage
Year
11
12
13
14
15
16
17
18
19
20
Fiscal Year
2030-2031
2031-2032
2032-2033
2033-2034
2034-2035
2035-2036
2036-2037
2037-2038
2038-2039
2039-2040
Waste Collection and Tonnages
Projected Population (11
82,722
82,805
82,888
82,971
83,054
83,137
83,220
83,303
83,386
83,470
C&D (Tons/Year) (3-Year-Average)
19,019
19,038
19,057
19,076
19,095
19,114
19,133
19,152
19,172
19,191
Cumulative C&D Disposal (3-Year-Average)
208,166
227,203
246,260
265,336
284,431
303,545
322,679
341,831
361,003
380,193
Expenses - Capital Costs - Facility Development 2)(3
Engineering and Permitting
$
$
$
$
$
13,458.68
$
$
$
$
$
14,859.47
Land Acquisition for Construction and Operational Soils (4)
$
$
$
$
$
-
$
$
$
$
$
-
Landfill Construction (5)
$
635,096.09
$
$
$
$
-
$
701,197.40
$
$
$
$
-
Annual Capital Costs
$
635,096.09
$
$
$
$
13,458.68
$
701,197.40
$
$
$
$
14,859.47
Annual Capital Costs Normalized
$
154,313.63
$
154,313.63
$
154,313.63
$
154,313.63
$
154,313.63
$
154,313.63
$
154,313.63
$
154,313.63
$
154,313.63
$
154,313.63
Expenses - Capital Costs - Closure and Post -Closure Costs 2 3
Annual Capital Costs - (Landfill Closure) (6)
$
$
$
$
$
$
$
$
$
$
Annual Post -Closure Costs (71
$
$
$
$
$
$
$
$
$
$
Annual Closure + Post -Closure Costs
$
$
$
$
$
$
$
$
$
$
-
Annual Closure + Post -Closure Costs /Normalized/;
$
213,147.66
$
213,147.66
$
213,147.66
$
213,147.66
$
213,147.66
$
213,147.66
$
213,147.66
$
213,147.66
$
213,147.66
$
213,147.66
Expenses - Capital Costs - Equipment 2 (3
Compactor (20151 Replacement
$
-
$
-
$
-
$
-
$
-
$
1,372,785.7
$
-
$
-
$
-
$
-
Dozer (20171 Replacement
$
$
$
$
$
$
$
$
560,096.57
$
$
Articulating Dump (20061 Replacement
$
$
$
$
$
$
$
$
-
$
$
Excavator (20041 Replacement
$
$
$
$
$
$
$
$
-
$
$
Annual Equipment Replacement Costs
$
$
$
$
$
$
1,372,785.71
$
$
560,096.57
$
$
-
Annual Equipment Replacement Costs lNormalized)
$
90, 711.6b
$
90, 711.66
$
90, 711.6b
$
90, 711.66
$
90, 711.6b
$
90, 711.66
$
90, 711.6b
$
90, 711.66
$
90, 711.66
$
90, 711.66
Expenses - Direct Expenses 2 3
Personnel & Operations (8)
$
191,479.64
$
195,309.24
$
199,215.42
$
203,199.73
$
207,263.72
$
211,409.00
$
215,637.18
$
219,949.92
$
224,348.92
$
228,835.90
Compliance Monitoring Through Closure (8)
$
43,518.10
$
44,388.46
$
45,276.23
$
46,181.76
$
47,105.39
$
48,047.50
$
49,008.45
$
49,988.62
$
50,988.39
$
52,008.16
Equipment Maintenance Cost (8)
$
49,734.97
$
50,729.67
$
51,744.27
$
52,779.15
$
53,834.73
$
54,911.43
$
56,009.66
$
57,129.85
$
58,272.45
$
59,437.90
Equipment Fuel Cost (9)
$
62,168.72
$
63,412.09
$
64,680.33
$
65,973.94
$
67,293.42
$
68,639.29
$
70,012.07
$
71,412.31
$
72,840.56
$
74,297.37
Landfill - Disposal Tax ($2/Ton)
$
38,037.71
$
38,075.75
$
38,113.83
$
38,151.94
$
38,190.09
$
38,228.28
$
38,266.51
$
38,304.78
$
38,343.08
$
38,381.42
Annual Expenses
$
384,939.14
$
391,915.21
$
399,030.08
$
406,286.51
$
413,687.36
$
421,235.49
$
428,933.87
$
436,785.48
$
444,793.40
$
452,960.75
Annual Expenses /Normalized/
$
423, 039.41
$
423, 039.41
$
423, 039.41
$
423, 039.41
$
423, 039.41
$
423, 039.41
$
423, 039.41
$
423, 039.41
$
423, 039.41
$
423, 039.41
Summary:
Total Annual Expenses.
1,020,035
$
391,915
$
399,030
$
406,287
427,146
2,495,219
228,934
996,882
444,793
$
467,820
Cumulative Expenses;
6,922,325
7,314,241
7,713,271
8,119,557
8,546,703
11,041,922
11,470,856
12,467,738
12,912,531
13,380,351
Total Annual Expenses [Normalized].
$
881,212
$
881,212
$
881,212
$
881,212
$
881,212
$
881,212
$
881,212
$
881,212
$
881,212
$
881,212
Cumulative Expenses (Normalized).
$
9,693,336
$
10,574,548
$
11,455,760
$
12,336,973
$
13,218,185
$
14,099,397
1 $
14,980,610
$
15,861,822
$
16,743,034
$
17,624,247
Average Annual Cost Disposall$/ton)
$
46.12
$
416.121
$
46.12
$
46.12
$
46.12
$
416.121
$
46.12
$
416.121
$
46.12
$
46.12
Notes:
(1) Reference NCDEQ Solid Waste Annual Reports for Wilson County (2017-2018).
(2) All costs were developed using 2019 dollars and escalated annually at 2% to the year applied.
(3) All capital costs use cash reserves and do not require financing.
(4) Assume archaelological site is not feasible and additional property is needed for borrow.
(5) Assume construction occurs every five years.
(6) Closure costs escalated annually and applied at the end of life and not periodically.
(7) Post -Closure costs escalated annually and are placed in reserve for use following closure.
(8) Data provide by Wilson County.
(9) Fuel costs assumes consumption at 7.5 gallons per hour and fuel prices are $3/gallon (2019).
Table 1 B Opt 1 CDLF 3-YR AVE
SMITH GARNER, INC. Page 2 of 2 Wilson County Solid Waste Financial Evaluation (09-20191

Wilson County- Evaluation of Long -Term Disposal Services
TablelB: Option 1- CSDLF Constructed W/N Borrow Area
3-YR Average Tonnage
Year
21
22
23
24
25
26
27
28
29
30
Fiscal Year
2040-2041
2041-2042
2042-2043
2043-2044
2044-2045
2045-2046
2046-2047
2047-2048
2048-2049
2049-2050
Waste Collection and Tonnages
Projected Population (11
83,553
83,637
83,721
83,804
83,888
83,972
84,056
84,140
84,224
84,308
C&D (Tons/Year) (3-Year-Average)
19,210
19,229
19,248
19,268
19,287
19,306
19,325
19,345
19,364
19,383
Cumulative C&D Disposal (3-Year-Average)
399,403
418,632
437,881
457,148
476,435
495,741
515,067
534,412
553,776
573,159
Expenses - Capital Costs - Facility Development 2)(3
Engineering and Permitting
$
$
$
$
$
16,406.06
$
$
$
$
$
Land Acquisition for Construction and Operational Soils (4)
$
$
$
$
$
-
$
$
$
$
$
Landfill Construction (5)
$
774,178.59
$
$
$
$
-
$
854,755.72
$
$
$
$
Annual Capital Costs
$
774,178.59
$
$
$
$
16,406.06
$
854,755.72
$
$
$
$
Annual Capital Costs Normalized
$
154,313.63
$
154,313.63
$
154,313.63
$
154,313.63
$
154,313.63
$
154,313.63
$
154,313.63
$
154,313.63
$
154,313.61
$
154,313.63
Expenses - Capital Costs - Closure and Post -Closure Costs 2 3
Annual Capital Costs - (Landfill Closure) (6)
$
$
$
$
$
$
$
$
$
$
3,396,303.0
Annual Post -Closure Costs (71
$
$
$
$
$
$
$
$
$
$
2,998,125.2
Annual Closure + Post -Closure Costs
$
$
$
$
$
$
$
$
$
$
6,394,428.15
Annual Closure + Post -Closure Costs /Normalized/;
$
213,147.66
$
213,147.66
$
213,147.66
$
213,147.66
$
213,147.66
$
213,147.66
$
213,147.66
$
213,147.66
$
213,147.66
$
213,147.66
Expenses - Capital Costs - Equipment 2 (3
Compactor (20151 Replacement
$
-
$
-
$
-
$
-
$
-
$
-
$
-
$
-
$
-
$
-
Dozer (20171 Replacement
$
$
$
$
$
$
$
$
$
$
Articulating Dump (20061 Replacement
$
$
$
$
$
$
$
$
$
$
Excavator (20041 Replacement
$
$
$
$
$
$
$
$
$
$
Annual Equipment Replacement Costs
$
$
$
$
$
$
$
$
$
$
-
Annual Equipment Replacement Costs lNormalized)
$
90, 711.6b
$
90, 711.66
$
90, 711.6b
$
90, 711.66
$
90, 711.6b
$
90, 711.66
$
90, 711.66
$
90, 711.66
$
90, 711.66
$
90, 711.66
Expenses - Direct Expenses (2)(3)
Personnel & Operations (8)
$
233,412.62
$
238,080.87
$
242,842.49
$
247,699.34
$
252,653.32
$
257,706.39
$
262,860.52
$
268,117.73
$
273,480.08
$
278,949.68
Compliance Monitoring Through Closure (8)
$
53,048.32
$
54,109.29
$
55,191.47
$
56,295.30
$
57,421.21
$
58,569.63
$
59,741.03
$
60,935.85
$
62,154.56
$
63,397.66
Equipment Maintenance Cost (8)
$
60,626.65
$
61,839.19
$
63,075.97
$
64,337.49
$
65,624.24
$
66,936.72
$
68,275.46
$
69,640.97
$
71,033.79
$
72,454.46
Equipment Fuel Cost (9)
$
75,783.32
$
77,298.98
$
78,844.96
$
80,421.86
$
82,030.30
$
83,670.91
$
85,344.32
$
87,051.21
$
88,792.23
$
90,568.08
Landfill - Disposal Tax ($2/Ton)
$
38,419.81
$
38,458.23
$
38,496.68
$
38,535.18
$
38,573.72
$
38,612.29
$
38,650.90
$
38,689.55
$
38,728.24
$
38,766.97
Annual Expenses
$
461,290.72
$
469,786.55
$
478,451.58
$
487,289.17
$
496,302.79
$
505,495.94
$
514,872.23
$
524,435.31
$
534,188.91
$
544,136.85
Annual Expenses [Normalized)
$
423, 039.41
$
423, 039.41
$
423, 039.41
$
423, 039.41
$
423, 039.41
$
423, 039.41
$
423, 039.41
$
423, 039.41
$
423, 039.41
$
423, 039.41
Summary:
Total Annual Expenses;
1,235,469
$
469,787
$
478,452
$
487,289
512,709
1,360,252
114,872
524,435
534,189
$
6,938,565
Cumulative Expenses;
14,615,821
15,085,607
15,564,059
16,051,348
16,564,057
17,924,308
18,439,181
18,963,616
19,497,805
26,436,370
Total Annual Expenses [Normalized].
$
881,212
$
881,212
$
881,212
$
881,212
$
881,212
$
881,212
$
881,212
$
881,212
$
881,212
$
881,212
Cumulative Expenses [Normalized).
$
18,505,459
$
19,386,671
$
20,267,884
$
21,149,096
$
22,030,308
$
22,911,521
$
23,792,733
$
24,673,945
$
25,555,158
$
26,436,370
Average Annual Cost Disposall$/tonl
$
46.12
$
46.12
$
46.12
$
46.12
$
46.12
$
46.12
$
46.12
$
46.12
$
46.12
$
46.12
Notes:
(1) Reference NCDEQ Solid Waste Annual Reports for Wilson County (2017-2018).
(2) All costs were developed using 2019 dollars and escalated annually at 2% to the year applied.
(3) All capital costs use cash reserves and do not require financing.
(4) Assume archaelological site is not feasible and additional property is needed for borrow.
(5) Assume construction occurs every five years.
(6) Closure costs escalated annually and applied at the end of life and not periodically.
(7) Post -Closure costs escalated annually and are placed in reserve for use following closure.
(8) Data provide by Wilson County.
(9) Fuel costs assumes consumption at 7.5 gallons per hour and fuel prices are $3/gallon (2019).
Table 1 B Opt 1 CDLF 3-YR AVE
SMITH GARNER, INC. Page 3 of 2 Wilson County Solid Waste Financial Evaluation (09-20191

Wilson County- Evaluation of Long -Term Disposal Services
Table2A: Option 2 - CGDLF Constructed W/N Archaeological Site
Maximum Tonnage
Year
0
1
2
3
4
5
6
7
8
9
10
Fiscal Year
2019-2020
2020-2021
2021-2022
2022-2023
2023-2024
2024-2025
2025-2026
2026-2027
2027-2028
2028-2029
2029-2030
Waste Collection and Tonnages
Projected Population (11
81,818
81,900
81,982
82,064
82,146
82,228
82,310
82,392
82,475
82,557
82,640
C&D (Tons/Year) Max Annual Disposal (1)
31,974
32,006
32,038
32,070
32,102
32,134
32,166
32,198
32,231
32,263
32,295
Cumulative C&D Disposal (Max)
32,006
64,044
96,114
128,215
160,350
192,516
224,714
256,945
289,207
321,502
Expenses - Capital Costs - Facility Development 2)(3
Engineering and Permitting
$
300,000.00
$
$
$
$
$
11,040.81
$
$
$
$
$
12,189.94
Land Acquisition for Construction and Operational Soils
$
-
$
$
$
$
$
-
$
$
$
$
$
-
Landfill Construction (4)
$
-
$
620,000.00
$
$
$
$
-
$
684,530.10
$
$
$
$
-
Annual Capital Costs
$
300,000.00
$
620,000.00
$
$
$
$
11,040.81
$
684,530.10
$
$
$
$
12,189.94
Annual Capital Costs Normalizeo
$
181,199.19
$
181,199.19
$
181,199.19
$
181,199.19
$
181,199.19
$
181,199.19
$
181,199.19
$
181,199.19
$
181,199.19
$
181,199.19
Expenses - Capital Costs - Closure and Post -Closure Costs 2 3
Annual Capital Costs - (Landfill Closure) (5)
$
-
$
-
$
-
$
-
$
-
$
-
$
-
$
-
$
-
$
-
$
-
Annual Post -Closure Costs (61
$
$
$
$
$
$
$
$
$
$
$
Annual Closure + Post -Closure Costs
$
$
$
$
$
$
$
$
$
$
$
-
Annual Closure + Post -Closure Costs lNormalizedl:
$
257,458.12
$
257,458.12
$
257,458.12
$
257,458.12
$
257,458.12
$
257,458.12
$
257,458.12
$
257,458.12
$
257,458.12
$
257,458.72
Expenses - Capital Costs - Equipment (2)(3)
Compactor (20151 Replacement
$
$
-
$
-
$
-
$
-
$
-
$
-
$
-
$
-
$
-
$
-
Dozer (20171 Replacement
$
$
$
$
$
$
$
$
-
$
$
$
Articulating Dump (20061 Replacement
$
$
$
$
$
$
$
$
402,039.98
$
$
$
Excavator (20041 Replacement
$
$
$
$
$
$
386,428.28
$
$
-
$
$
$
Annual Equipment Replacement Costs
$
$
$
$
$
$
386,428.26
$
$
402,039.96
$
$
$
-
Annual Equipment Replacement Costs /Normalized)
$
118,319.59
$
118,319.59
$
118,319.59
$
118,319.59
$
118,319.59
$
118,319.59
$
11$319.59
$
118,319.59
$
118,319.59
$
118,319.59
Expenses - Direct Expenses 12T 3
Personnel & Operations (7)
$
$
157,080.00
$
160,221.60
$
163,426.03
$
166,694.55
$
170,028.44
$
173,429.01
$
176,897.59
$
180,435.54
$
184,044.26
$
187,725.14
Compliance Monitoring Through Closure (7)
$
$
35,700.00
$
36,414.00
$
37,142.28
$
37,885.13
$
38,642.83
$
39,415.68
$
40,204.00
$
41,008.08
$
41,828.24
$
42,664.80
Equipment Maintenance Cost (7)
$
$
40,800.00
$
41,616.00
$
42,448.32
$
43,297.29
$
44,163.23
$
45,046.50
$
45,947.43
$
46,866.38
$
47,803.70
$
48,759.78
Equipment Fuel Cost (8)
$
$
51,000.00
$
52,020.00
$
53,060.40
$
54,121.61
$
55,204.04
$
56,308.12
$
57,434.28
$
58,582.97
$
59,754.63
$
60,949.72
Landfill - Disposal Tax ($2/Ton)
$
$
64,011.65
$
64,075.66
$
64,139.74
$
64,203.88
$
64,268.08
$
64,332.35
$
64,396.68
$
64,461.08
$
64,525.54
$
64,590.07
Annual Expenses
$
$
348,591.65
$
354,347.26
$
360,216.77
$
366,202.45
$
372,306.63
$
378,531.67
$
384,879.98
$
391,354.05
$
397,956.37
$
404,689.51
Annual Expenses [Normalized)
$
$
421, 620.72
$
421, 620.72
$
421, 620.72
$
421, 620.72
$
421, 620.72
$
421, 620.72
$
421, 620.72
$
421, 620.72
$
421, 620.72
$
421, 620.72
Summary:
Total Annual Expenses:
300,000
$
968,592
$
354,347
$
360,217
$
366,202
$
769,776
$
1,063,062
$
786,920
$
391,354
$
397,956
$
416,879
Cumulative Expenses.
300,000
1,268,592
1,622,939
1,983,156
2,349,358
3,119,134
4,182,196
4,969,116
5,360,470
5,758,426
6,175,305
Total Annual Expenses lNormalized/:
$
978,598
$
978,598
$
978,598
$
978,598
$
978,598
$
978,598
$
978,598
$
978,598
$
978,598
$
978,598
Cumulative Expenses lNormalizedl:
$
978,598
1 $
1,957,195
1 $
2,935,793
1 $
3,914,390
$
4,892,988
$
5,871,586
1 $
6,850,183
1 $
7,828,781
1 $
8,807,379
1 $
9,785,976
Average Annual Cost Disposal/$/tons
1 $
30.241
$
30.241
$
30.241
$
30.24
$
30.24
$
30.241
$
30.241
$
30.241
$
30.241
$
30.24
Notes:
(1) Reference NCDEQ Solid Waste Annual Reports for Wilson County (2017-2018).
(2) All costs were developed using 2019 dollars and escalated annually at 2% to the year applied.
(3) All capital costs use cash reserves and do not require financing.
(4) Assume construction occurs every five years.
(5) Closure costs escalated annually and applied at the end of life and not periodically.
(6) Post -Closure costs escalated annually and are placed in reserve for use following closure.
(7) Data provide by Wilson County.
(8) Fuel costs assumes consumption at 7.5 gallons per hour and fuel prices are $3/gallon (2019).
Table 2A Opt 2 CDLF 2018 Tons
SMITH GARNER, INC. Page 1 of 2 Wilson County Solid Waste Financial Evaluation (09-20191

Wilson County- Evaluation of Long -Term Disposal Services
Table& Option 2 - CGDLF Constructed W/N Archaeological Site
Maximum Tonnage
Year
11
12
13
14
15
16
17
18
19
20
Fiscal Year
2030-2031
2031-2032
2032-2033
2033-2034
2034-2035
2035-2036
2036-2037
2037-2038
2038-2039
2039-2040
Waste Collection and Tonnages
Projected Population (11
82,722
82,805
82,888
82,971
83,054
83,137
83,220
83,303
83,386
83,470
C&D (Tons/Year) Max Annual Disposal (1)
32,327
32,360
32,392
32,424
32,457
32,489
32,522
32,554
32,587
32,619
Cumulative C&D Disposal (Max)
353,830
386,189
418,581
451,006
483,463
515,952
548,474
581,028
613,615
646,234
Expenses - Capital Costs - Facility Development 2)(3
Engineering and Permitting
$
$
$
$
$
13,458.68
$
$
$
$
$
14,859.47
Land Acquisition for Construction and Operational Soils
$
$
$
$
$
-
$
$
$
$
$
-
Landfill Construction (4)
$
755,776.54
$
$
$
$
-
$
834,438.37
$
$
$
$
-
Annual Capital Costs
$
755,776.54
$
$
$
$
13,458.68
$
834,438.37
$
$
$
$
14,859.47
Annual Capital Costs Normalizeo
$
18 1, 1 PP.19
$
181,199.19
$
181,199.19
$
181,199.19
$
18 1, 1 PP.19
$
181,199.19
$
181,19R.19
$
181,199.19
$
181,19R.19
$
181,199.19
Expenses - Capital Costs - Closure and Post -Closure Costs 2 3
Annual Capital Costs - (Landfill Closure) (5)
$
$
-
$
$
-
$
$
-
$
$
-
$
$
-
Annual Post -Closure Costs (61
$
$
$
$
$
$
$
$
$
$
Annual Closure + Post -Closure Costs
$
$
$
$
$
$
$
$
$
$
-
Annual Closure + Post -Closure Costs lNormalizedl:
$
257,458.12
$
257,458.12
$
257,458.12
$
257,458.12
$
257,458.12
$
257,458.12
$
257,458.12
$
257,458.12
$
257,458.12
$
257,458.12
Expenses - Capital Costs - Equipment 2 (3
Compactor (20151 Replacement
$
-
$
-
$
-
$
-
$
-
$
1,372,785.7
$
-
$
-
$
-
$
-
Dozer (20171 Replacement
$
$
$
$
$
$
$
$
560,096.57
$
$
Articulating Dump (20061 Replacement
$
$
$
$
$
$
$
$
-
$
$
Excavator (20041 Replacement
$
$
$
$
$
$
$
$
-
$
$
Annual Equipment Replacement Costs
$
$
$
$
$
$
1,372,785.71
$
$
560,096.52
$
$
Annual Equipment Replacement Costs/Normalized)
$
118,319.59
$
118,319.59
$
118,31R.59
$
118,319.59
$
118,31R.59
$
118,319.59
$
118,319.59
$
11$319.59
$
118,319.59
$
118,319.59
Expenses - Direct Expenses 12T 3
Personnel & Operations (7)
$
191,479.64
$
195,309.24
$
199,215.42
$
203,199.73
$
207,263.72
$
211,409.00
$
215,637.18
$
219,949.92
$
224,348.92
$
228,835.90
Compliance Monitoring Through Closure (7)
$
43,518.10
$
44,388.46
$
45,276.23
$
46,181.76
$
47,105.39
$
48,047.50
$
49,008.45
$
49,988.62
$
50,988.39
$
52,008.16
Equipment Maintenance Cost (7)
$
49,734.97
$
50,729.67
$
51,744.27
$
52,779.15
$
53,834.73
$
54,911.43
$
56,009.66
$
57,129.85
$
58,272.45
$
59,437.90
Equipment Fuel Cost (8)
$
62,168.72
$
63,412.09
$
64,680.33
$
65,973.94
$
67,293.42
$
68,639.29
$
70,012.07
$
71,412.31
$
72,840.56
$
74,297.37
Landfill - Disposal Tax ($2/Ton)
$
64,654.66
$
64,719.31
$
64,784.03
$
64,848.81
$
64,913.66
$
64,978.58
$
65,043.56
$
65,108.60
$
65,173.71
$
65,238.88
Annual Expenses
$
411,556.09
$
418,558.77
$
425,700.28
$
432,983.39
$
440,410.93
$
447,985.79
$
455,710.91
$
463,589.30
$
471,624.02
$
479,818.20
Annual Expenses [Normalized)
$
421, 620.72
$
421, 620.72
$
421, 620.72
$
421, 620.72
$
421, 620.72
$
421, 620.72
$
421, 620.72
$
421, 620.72
$
421, 620.72
$
421, 620.72
Summary:
Total Annual Expenses:
$
1,167,333
$
418,559
$
425,700
$
432,983
$
453,870
$
2,655,210
$
455,711
$
1,023,686
$
471,624
$
494,678
Cumulative Expenses:
7,342,638
7,761,197
8,186,897
8,619,881
9,073,750
11,728,960
12,184,671
13,208,357
13,679,981
14,174,658
Total Annual Expenses lNormalized/:
$
978,598
$
978,598
$
978,598
$
978,598
$
978,598
$
978,598
$
978,598
$
978,598
$
978,598
$
978,598
Cumulative Expenses lNormalizedl:
$
10,764,574
1 $
11,743,171
1 $
12,721,769
1 $
13,700,367
$
14,678,964
$
15,657,562
$
16,636,159
1 $
17,614,757
1 $
18,593,355
$
19,571,952
Average Annual Cost Disposal/$/ton)
$
30.241
$
30.241
$
30.241
$
30.24
$
30.24
$
30.241
$
30.241
$
30.241
$
30.241
$
30.24
Notes:
(1) Reference NCDEQ Solid Waste Annual Reports for Wilson County (2017-2018).
(2) All costs were developed using 2019 dollars and escalated annually at 2% to the year applied.
(3) All capital costs use cash reserves and do not require financing.
(4) Assume construction occurs every five years.
(5) Closure costs escalated annually and applied at the end of life and not periodically.
(6) Post -Closure costs escalated annually and are placed in reserve for use following closure.
(7) Data provide by Wilson County.
(8) Fuel costs assumes consumption at 7.5 gallons per hour and fuel prices are $3/gallon (2019).
Table 2A Opt 2 CDLF 2018 Tons
SMITH GARNER, INC. Page 2 of 2 Wilson County Solid Waste Financial Evaluation (09-20191

Wilson County- Evaluation of Long -Term Disposal Services
Table& Option 2 - CGDLF Constructed W/N Archaeological Site
Maximum Tonnage
Year
21
22
23
Fiscal Year
2040-2041
2041-2042
2042-2043
Waste Collection and Tonnages
Projected Population (11
83,553
83,637
83,721
C&D (Tons/Year) Max Annual Disposal (1)
32 652
32,685
32,717
Cumulative C&D Disposal (Max)
678,886
711,571
744,288
Expenses - Capital Costs - Facility Development 2)(3
Engineering and Permitting
$
$
$
Land Acquisition for Construction and Operational Soils
$
$
$
Landfill Construction (4)
$
921,287.39
$
$
Annual Capital Costs
$
921,287.39
$
$
Annual Capital Costs Normalized
$
18 1, 1 PP.19
$
181,199.19
$
18 1, 1 PP.19
Expenses - Capital Costs - Closure and Post -Closure Costs 2 3
Annual Capital Costs - (Landfill Closure) (5)
$
$
-
$
3,311,488.5
Annual Post -Closure Costs (61
$
$
$
2,610,048.4
Annual Closure + Post -Closure Costs
$
$
$
5,921,536.84
Annual Closure + Post -Closure Costs lNormalizedl:
$
257,458.12
$
257,458.12
$
257,458.12
Expenses - Capital Costs - Equipment 2 (3
Compactor (20151 Replacement
$
-
$
-
$
-
Dozer (20171 Replacement
$
$
$
Articulating Dump (20061 Replacement
$
$
$
Excavator (20041 Replacement
$
$
$
Annual Equipment Replacement Costs
$
$
$
Annual Equipment Replacement CostslNormalized)
$
118,31P.59
$
118,319.59
$
118,31R.59
Expenses - Direct Expenses 12T 3
Personnel & Operations (7)
$
233,412.62
$
238,080.87
$
242,842.49
Compliance Monitoring Through Closure (7)
$
53,048.32
$
54,109.29
$
55,191.47
Equipment Maintenance Cost (7)
$
60,626.65
$
61,839.19
$
63,075.97
Equipment Fuel Cost (8)
$
75,783.32
$
77,298.98
$
78,844.96
Landfill - Disposal Tax ($2/Ton)
$
65,304.12
$
65,369.42
$
65,434.79
Annual Expenses
$
488,175.03
$
496,697.75
$
505,389.69
Annual Expenses [Normalized)
$
421,620.72
$
421,620.72
$
421,620.72
Summary:
Total Annual Expenses:
$
1,409,462
$
496,698
$
6,426,927
Cumulative Expenses:
15,584,121
16,080,819
22,507,745
Total Annual Expenses lNormalized/:
$
978,598
$
978,598
$
978,598
Cumulative Expenses lNormalizedl:
$
20,550,550
1 $
21,529,148
1 $
22,507,745
Average Annual Cost Disposal/$/ton)
$
30.241
$
30.241
$
30.24
Notes:
(1) Reference NCDEQ Solid Waste Annual Reports for Wilson County (2017-2018).
(2) All costs were developed using 2019 dollars and escalated annually at 2% to the year applied.
(3) All capital costs use cash reserves and do not require financing.
(4) Assume construction occurs every five years.
(5) Closure costs escalated annually and applied at the end of life and not periodically.
(6) Post -Closure costs escalated annually and are placed in reserve for use following closure.
(7) Data provide by Wilson County.
(8) Fuel costs assumes consumption at 7.5 gallons per hour and fuel prices are $3/gallon (2019).
Table 2A Opt 2 CDLF 2018 Tons
SMITH GARNER, INC. Page 3 of 2 Wilson County Solid Waste Financial Evaluation (09-20191

Wilson County- Evaluation of Long -Term Disposal Services
Table2B: Option 2 - C&DLF Constructed W/N Archaeological Site
3-YR Average Tonnage
Year
0
1
2
3
4
5
6
7
8
9
10
Fiscal Year
2019-2020
2020-2021
2021-2022
2022-2023
2023-2024
2024-2025
2025-2026
2026-2027
2027-2028
2028-2029
2029-2030
Waste Collection and Tonnages
Projected Population (11
81,818
81,900
81,982
82,064
82,146
82,228
82,310
82,392
82,475
82,557
82,640
C&D (Tons/Year) Ave Annual Disposal (2)
18,811
18,830
18,849
18,867
18,886
18,905
18,924
18,943
18,962
18,981
19,000
Cumulative C&D Disposal (Ave)
18,830
37,678
56,546
75,432
94,337
113,261
132,204
151,166
170,147
189,147
Expenses - Capital Costs - Facility Development 2)(3
Engineering and Permitting
$
300,000.00
$
$
$
$
$
11,040.81
$
$
$
$
$
12,189.94
Land Acquisition for Construction and Operational Soils
$
-
$
$
$
$
$
-
$
$
$
$
$
-
Landfill Construction (4)
$
-
$
383,000.00
$
$
$
$
-
$
422,862.95
$
$
$
$
-
Annual Capital Costs
$
300,000.00
$
383,000.00
$
$
$
$
11,040.81
$
422,862.95
$
$
$
$
12,189.94
Annual Capital Costs Normalizeo
$
111,787.66
$
111,787.66
$
111,787.66
$
111,787.66
$
111,787.66
$
111,787.66
$
111,787.66
$
111,787.66
$
111,787.66
$
111,787.66
Expenses - Capital Costs - Closure and Post -Closure Costs 2 3
Annual Capital Costs - (Landfill Closure) (5)
$
-
$
-
$
-
$
-
$
-
$
-
$
-
$
-
$
-
$
-
$
-
Annual Post -Closure Costs (61
$
$
$
$
$
$
$
$
$
$
$
Annual Closure + Post -Closure Costs
$
$
$
$
$
$
$
$
$
$
$
Annual Closure + Post -Closure Costs lNormalizedl:
$
204,090.86
$
204,090.86
$
204,090.86
$
204,090.86
$
204,090.86
$
204,090.86
$
204,090.86
$
204,090.86
$
204,090.86
$
204,090.80
Expenses - Capital Costs - Equipment 2 (3
Compactor (20151 Replacement
$
$
-
$
-
$
-
$
-
$
-
$
-
$
-
$
-
$
-
$
Dozer (20171 Replacement
$
$
$
$
$
$
$
$
-
$
$
$
Articulating Dump (20061 Replacement
$
$
$
$
$
$
$
$
402,039.98
$
$
$
Excavator (20041 Replacement
$
$
$
$
$
$
386,428.28
$
$
-
$
$
$
Annual Equipment Replacement Costs
$
$
$
$
$
$
386,428.26
$
$
402,039.96
$
$
$
Annual Equipment Replacement CostslNormalized)
$
90,711.66
$
90,711.66
$
90,711.66
$
90,711.66
$
90,711.66
$
90,711.66
$
90,711.66
$
90,711.66
$
90,711.66
$
90,711.6b
Expenses - Direct Expenses 12T 3
Personnel & Operations (7)
$
$
157,080.00
$
160,221.60
$
163,426.03
$
166,694.55
$
170,028.44
$
173,429.01
$
176,897.59
$
180,435.54
$
184,044.26
$
187,725.14
Compliance Monitoring Through Closure (7)
$
$
35,700.00
$
36,414.00
$
37,142.28
$
37,885.13
$
38,642.83
$
39,415.68
$
40,204.00
$
41,008.08
$
41,828.24
$
42,664.80
Equipment Maintenance Cost (7)
$
$
40,800.00
$
41,616.00
$
42,448.32
$
43,297.29
$
44,163.23
$
45,046.50
$
45,947.43
$
46,866.38
$
47,803.70
$
48,759.78
Equipment Fuel Cost (8)
$
$
51,000.00
$
52,020.00
$
53,060.40
$
54,121.61
$
55,204.04
$
56,308.12
$
57,434.28
$
58,582.97
$
59,754.63
$
60,949.72
Landfill - Disposal Tax ($2/Ton)
$
$
37,659.42
$
37,697.08
$
37,734.78
$
37,772.51
$
37,810.28
$
37,848.09
$
37,885.94
$
37,923.83
$
37,961.75
$
37,999.71
Annual Expenses
$
$
322,239.42
$
327,968.68
$
333,811.81
$
339,771.08
$
345,848.83
$
352,047.41
$
358,369.24
$
364,816.79
$
371,392.58
$
378,099.16
Annual Expenses [Normalized)
$
-
$
423, 039.41
$
423, 039.41
$
423, 039.41
$
423, 039.41
$
423, 039.41
$
423, 039.41
$
423, 039.41
$
423, 039.41
$
423, 039.41
$
423, 039.41
Summary:
Total Annual Expenses.
300,000
705,239
$
327,969
$
333,812
$
339,771
743,318
$
774,910
760,409
$
364,817
371,393
390,289
Cumulative Expenses:
300,000
$
1,005,239
$
1,333,208
$
1,667,020
7iF
2,006,791
2,750,109
iF
3,525,019
4,285,428
4,650,245
5,021,638
7iV
5,411,927
Total Annual Expenses lNormalizedl.
$
829,630
$
829,630
$
829,630
$
829,630
$
829,630
$
829,630
$
829,630
$
829,630
$
829,630
$
829,630
Cumulative Expenses lNormalizedl:
1
$
829,630
1 $
1,659,259
1 $
2,488,889
1 $
3,318,518
1 $
4,148,148
$
4,977,777
$
5,807,407
1 $
6,637,037
1 $
7,466,666
$
8,296,296
Average Annual Cost Disposal/$/tons
1
$
43.42
1 $
.13.421
$
43.42
1 $
.13.421
$
43.42
1 $
.13.421
$
43.42
1 $
.13.421
$
43.42
1 $
43.42
Notes:
(1) Reference NCDEQ Solid Waste Annual Reports for Wilson County (2017-2018).
(2) All costs were developed using 2019 dollars and escalated annually at 2% to the year applied.
(3) All capital costs use cash reserves and do not require financing.
(4) Assume construction occurs every five years.
(5) Closure costs escalated annually and applied at the end of life and not periodically.
(6) Post -Closure costs escalated annually and are placed in reserve for use following closure.
(7) Data provide by Wilson County.
(8) Fuel costs assumes consumption at 7.5 gallons per hour and fuel prices are $3/gallon (2019).
Table 2B Opt 2 CDLF 3-YR-AVE
SMITH GARNER, INC. Page 1 of 2 Wilson County Solid Waste Financial Evaluation (09-20191

Wilson County- Evaluation of Long -Term Disposal Services
Table2B: Option 2 - C&DLF Constructed W/N Archaeological Site
3-YR Average Tonnage
Year
11
12
13
14
15
16
17
18
19
20
Fiscal Year
2030-2031
2031-2032
2032-2033
2033-2034
2034-2035
2035-2036
2036-2037
2037-2038
2038-2039
2039-2040
Waste Collection and Tonnages
Projected Population (11
82,722
82,805
82,888
82,971
83,054
83,137
83,220
83,303
83,386
83,470
C&D (Tons/Year) Ave Annual Disposal (2)
19,019
19,038
19,057
19,076
19,095
19,114
19,133
19,152
19,172
19,191
Cumulative C&D Disposal (Ave)
208,166
227,203
246,260
265,336
284,431
303,545
322,679
341,831
361,003
380,193
Expenses - Capital Costs - Facility Development 2)(3
Engineering and Permitting
$
-
$
$
$
$
13,458.68
$
-
$
$
$
$
14,859.47
Land Acquisition for Construction and Operational Soils
Landfill Construction (4)
$
466,874.86
$
$
$
$
-
$
515,467.57
$
$
$
$
-
Annual Capital Costs
$
466,874.86
$
$
$
$
13,458.68
$
515,467.57
$
$
$
$
14,859.47
Annual Capital Costs Normalized
$
111, 787. 66
$
111, 787.66
$
111, 787. 66
$
111, 787.66
$
111, 787. 66
$
111, 787.66
$
111, 787. 66
$
111, 787.66
$
111, 787. 66
$
111, 787.66
Expenses - Capital Costs - Closure and Post -Closure Costs 2 3
Annual Capital Costs - (Landfill Closure) (5)
$
-
$
-
$
-
$
-
$
-
$
-
$
-
$
-
$
-
$
-
Annual Post -Closure Costs (61
$
$
$
$
$
$
$
$
$
$
Annual Closure + Post -Closure Costs
$
$
$
$
$
$
$
$
$
$
Annual Closure + Post -Closure Costs lNormalizedl:
$
204,090.86
$
204,090.86
$
204,090.86
$
204,090.86
$
204,090.86
$
204,090.86
$
204,090.86
$
204,090.86
$
204,090.86
$
204,090.8
Expenses - Capital Costs - Equipment 2 (3
Compactor (20151 Replacement
$
-
$
-
$
-
$
-
$
-
$
1,372,785.7
$
-
$
-
$
-
$
Dozer (20171 Replacement
$
$
$
$
$
$
$
$
560,096.57
$
$
Articulating Dump (20061 Replacement
$
$
$
$
$
$
$
$
-
$
$
Excavator (20041 Replacement
$
$
$
$
$
$
$
$
-
$
$
Annual Equipment Replacement Costs
$
$
$
$
$
$
1,372,785.71
$
$
560,096.52
$
$
-
Annual Equipment Replacement Costs lNormalized)
$
90,711.66
$
90,711.66
$
90,711.66
$
510,711.66
$
90,711.66
$
90,711.66
$
90,711.66
$
90,711.66
$
90,711.66
$
90,711.66
Expenses - Direct Expenses 12T 3
Personnel & Operations (7)
$
191,479.64
$
195,309.24
$
199,215.42
$
203,199.73
$
207,263.72
$
211,409.00
$
215,637.18
$
219,949.92
$
224,348.92
$
228,835.90
Compliance Monitoring Through Closure (7)
$
43,518.10
$
44,388.46
$
45,276.23
$
46,181.76
$
47,105.39
$
48,047.50
$
49,008.45
$
49,988.62
$
50,988.39
$
52,008.16
Equipment Maintenance Cost (7)
$
49,734.97
$
50,729.67
$
51,744.27
$
52,779.15
$
53,834.73
$
54,911.43
$
56,009.66
$
57,129.85
$
58,272.45
$
59,437.90
Equipment Fuel Cost (8)
$
62,168.72
$
63,412.09
$
64,680.33
$
65,973.94
$
67,293.42
$
68,639.29
$
70,012.07
$
71,412.31
$
72,840.56
$
74,297.37
Landfill - Disposal Tax ($2/Ton)
$
38,037.71
$
38,075.75
$
38,113.83
$
38,151.94
$
38,190.09
$
38,228.28
$
38,266.51
$
38,304.78
$
38,343.08
$
38,381.42
Annual Expenses
$
384,939.14
$
391,915.21
$
399,030.08
$
406,286.51
$
413,687.36
$
421,235.49
$
428,933.87
$
436,785.48
$
444,793.40
$
452,960.75
Annual Expenses [Normalized)
$
423, 039.41
$
423, 039.41
$
423, 039.41
$
423, 039.41
$
423, 039.41
$
423, 039.41
$
423, 039.41
$
423, 039.41
$
423, 039.41
$
423, 039.41
Summary:
Total Annual Expenses.
851,814
$
391,915
$
399,030
$
406,287
$
427,146
$
2,309,489
$
428,934
996,882
$
444,793
$
467,820
Cumulative Expenses:
6,2 33,741
6,655,656
7,054,686
7,460,973
7,888,119
10,197,608
10,626,541
11,623,423
12,068,217
$
12,536,037
Total Annual Expenses lNormalizedl.
$
829,630
1 $
829,630
$
829,630
$
829,630
$
829,630
$
829,630
$
829,630
$
829,630
$
829,630
$
829,630
Cumulative Expenses lNormalizedl:
1 $
9,125,925
1 $
9,955,555
1 $
10,785,184
1 $
11,614,814
1 $
12,444,444
$
13,274,073
$
14,103,703
$
14,933,332
$
15,762,962
$
16,592,591
Average Annual Cost Disposall$/tonl
1 $
43.42
1 $
43.42
1 $
43.42
1 $
43.42
1 $
43.42
$
43.42
$
43.42
$
43.42
$
43.42
$
43.42
Notes:
(1) Reference NCDEQ Solid Waste Annual Reports for Wilson County (2017-2018).
(2) All costs were developed using 2019 dollars and escalated annually at 2% to the year applied.
(3) All capital costs use cash reserves and do not require financing.
(4) Assume construction occurs every five years.
(5) Closure costs escalated annually and applied at the end of life and not periodically.
(6) Post -Closure costs escalated annually and are placed in reserve for use following closure.
(7) Data provide by Wilson County.
(8) Fuel costs assumes consumption at 7.5 gallons per hour and fuel prices are $3/gallon (2019).
Table 2B Opt 2 CDLF 3-YR-AVE
SMITH GARNER, INC. Page 2 of 2 Wilson County Solid Waste Financial Evaluation (09-20191

Wilson County- Evaluation of Long -Term Disposal Services
Table2B: Option 2 - C&DLF Constructed W/N Archaeological Site
3-YR Average Tonnage
Year
21
22
23
24
25
26
27
28
29
30
Fiscal Year
2040-2041
2041-2042
2042-2043
2043-2044
2044-2045
2045-2046
2046-2047
2047-2048
2048-2049
2049-2050
Waste Collection and Tonnages
Projected Population (11
83,553
83,637
83,721
83,804
83,888
83,972
84,056
84,140
84,224
84,308
C&D (Tons/Year) Ave Annual Disposal (2)
19,210
19,229
19,248
19,268
19,287
19,306
19,325
19,345
19,364
19,383
Cumulative C&D Disposal (Ave)
399,403
418,632
437,881
457,148
476,435
495,741
515,067
534,412
553,776
573,159
Expenses - Capital Costs - Facility Development 2)(3
Engineering and Permitting
$
-
$
$
$
$
16,406.06
$
-
$
$
$
$
Land Acquisition for Construction and Operational Soils
Landfill Construction (4)
$
569,117.85
$
$
$
$
-
$
628,352.10
$
$
$
$
-
Annual Capital Costs
$
569,117.85
$
$
$
$
16,406.06
$
628,352.10
$
$
$
$
Annual Capital Costs Normalized
$
111, 787. 66
$
111, 787.66
$
111, 787. 66
$
111, 787.66
$
111, 787. 66
$
111, 787.66
$
111, 787. 66
$
111, 787.66
$
111, 787. 66
$
111, 787.66
Expenses - Capital Costs - Closure and Post -Closure Costs 2 3
Annual Capital Costs - (Landfill Closure) (5)
$
-
$
-
$
-
$
-
$
-
$
-
$
-
$
-
$
-
$
3,124,598.7
Annual Post -Closure Costs (61
$
$
$
$
$
$
$
$
$
$
2,998,125.2
Annual Closure + Post -Closure Costs
$
$
$
$
$
$
$
$
$
$ 6,122,723.91
Annual Closure + Post -Closure Costs lNormalizedl:
$
204,090.86
$
204,090.86
$
204,090.86
$
204,090.86
$
204,090.86
$
204,090.86
$
204,090.86
$
204,090.86
$
204,090.86
$
204,090.86
Expenses - Capital Costs - Equipment 2 (3
Compactor (20151 Replacement
$
-
$
-
$
-
$
-
$
-
$
-
$
-
$
-
$
-
$
-
Dozer (20171 Replacement
$
$
$
$
$
$
$
$
$
$
Articulating Dump (20061 Replacement
$
$
$
$
$
$
$
$
$
$
Excavator (20041 Replacement
$
$
$
$
$
$
$
$
$
$
Annual Equipment Replacement Costs
$
$
$
$
$
$
$
$
$
$
-
Annual Equipment Replacement Costs lNormalized)
$
90,711.66
$
90,711.66
$
90,711.66
$
510,711.66
$
90,711.66
$
90,711.66
$
90,711.66
$
90,711.66
$
90,711.66
$
90,711.66
Expenses - Direct Expenses 12T 3
Personnel & Operations (7)
$
233,412.62
$
238,080.87
$
242,842.49
$
247,699.34
$
252,653.32
$
257,706.39
$
262,860.52
$
268,117.73
$
273,480.08
$
278,949.68
Compliance Monitoring Through Closure (7)
$
53,048.32
$
54,109.29
$
55,191.47
$
56,295.30
$
57,421.21
$
58,569.63
$
59,741.03
$
60,935.85
$
62,154.56
$
63,397.66
Equipment Maintenance Cost (7)
$
60,626.65
$
61,839.19
$
63,075.97
$
64,337.49
$
65,624.24
$
66,936.72
$
68,275.46
$
69,640.97
$
71,033.79
$
72,454.46
Equipment Fuel Cost (8)
$
75,783.32
$
77,298.98
$
78,844.96
$
80,421.86
$
82,030.30
$
83,670.91
$
85,344.32
$
87,051.21
$
88,792.23
$
90,568.08
Landfill - Disposal Tax ($2/Ton)
$
38,419.81
$
38,458.23
$
38,496.68
$
38,535.18
$
38,573.72
$
38,612.29
$
38,650.90
$
38,689.55
$
38,728.24
$
38,766.97
Annual Expenses
$
461,290.72
$
469,786.55
$
478,451.58
$
487,289.17
$
496,302.79
$
505,495.94
$
514,872.23
$
524,435.31
$
534,188.91
$
544,136.85
Annual Expenses [Normalized)
$
423, 039.41
$
423, 039.41
$
423, 039.41
$
423, 039.41
$
423, 039.41
$
423, 039.41
$
423, 039.41
$
423, 039.41
$
423, 039.41
$
423, 039.41
Summary:
Total Annual Expenses.
1,030,409
$
469,787
$
478,452
$
487,289
$
512,709
1,133,848
$
514,872
524,435
$
534,189
6,666,861
Cumulative Expenses:
13,566,446
14,036,232
14,514,684
15,001,973
15,514,682
16,648,530
17,163,402
17,687,837
18,222,026
24,888,887
Total Annual Expenses lNormalizedl.
$
829,630
1 $
829,630
$
829,630
1 $
829,630
$
829,630
$
829,630
$
829,630
$
829,630
$
829,630
$
829,630
Cumulative Expenses lNormalizedl:
1 $
17,422,221
1 $
18,251,851
1 $
19,081,480
1 $
19,911,110
1 $
20,740,739
$
21,570,369
1 $
22,399,998
$
23,229,628
1 $
24,059,258
$
24,888,887
Average Annual Cost Disposall$/tonl
1 $
43.42
1 $
43.42
1 $
.13.421
$
43.42
1 $
43.42
1 $
43.42
1 $
43.42
1 $
43.42
1 $
43.42
1 $
43.42
Notes:
(1) Reference NCDEQ Solid Waste Annual Reports for Wilson County (2017-2018).
(2) All costs were developed using 2019 dollars and escalated annually at 2% to the year applied.
(3) All capital costs use cash reserves and do not require financing.
(4) Assume construction occurs every five years.
(5) Closure costs escalated annually and applied at the end of life and not periodically.
(6) Post -Closure costs escalated annually and are placed in reserve for use following closure.
(7) Data provide by Wilson County.
(8) Fuel costs assumes consumption at 7.5 gallons per hour and fuel prices are $3/gallon (2019).
Table 2B Opt 2 CDLF 3-YR-AVE
SMITH GARNER, INC. Page 3 of 2 Wilson County Solid Waste Financial Evaluation (09-20191

Wilson County- Evaluation of Long -Term Disposal Services
Table3A: Option 3A - C&OLF+ MSW Constructed Over Pre -Sub O Landfill
(70,000 TPY @ Start)
Year
0
1
2
3
4
5
6
7
8
9
10
Fiscal Year
2019-2020
2020-2021
2021-2022
2022-2023
2023-2024
2024-2025
2025-2026
2026-2027
2027-2028
2028-2029
2029-2030
Waste Collection and Tonnages
Projected Population (1)
81 928
82,010
82,092
82,174
82,256
82,338
82,420
82,503
82,585
82,668
82,751
C&D (Tons/Year) Annual Disposal Max (1)
31,974
32,006
32,038
32,070
32,102
32,134
32,166
32,198
32,231
32,263
32,295
Per Capita Disposal (1)
1.77
1.77
1.77
1.77
1.77
1.77
1.77
1.77
1.77
1.77
1.77
City of Wilson Population (11
49,448.75
49,498.20
49,547.70
49,597.24
49,646.84
49,696.49
49,746.18
49,795.93
49,845.73
49,895.57
49,945.47
City of Wilson MSW + County C&D
70,000.00
70,070.00
70,140.07
70,210.21
70,280.42
70,350.70
70,421.05
70,491.47
70,561.96
70,632.53
70,703.16
Cumulative MSW+C&D Disposal
70,070.00
140,210.07
210,420.28
280,700.70
351,051.40
421,472.45
491,963.92
562,525.89
633,158.41
703,861.57
Expenses - Capital Costs - Facility Development (2)(3)
Engineering and Permitting
$
250,000.00
$
$
-
$
-
$
-
$
22,081.62
$
-
$
-
$
-
$
-
$
24,379.89
Land Acquisition for Construction and Operational Soils (4)
$
250,000.00
$
$
-
$
$
$
-
$
-
$
$
-
$
$
-
Landfill Construction (5)
$
-
$
3,000,000.00
$
-
$
$
-
$
-
$
3,312,242.41
$
$
-
$
$
-
Annual Capital Costs
$
500,000.00
$
3,000,000.00
$
-
$
$
-
$
22,081.62
$
3,312,242.41
$
$
-
$
$
24,379.89
Annual Capital Costs Normalized
$
800,746.69
$
800,746.69
$
800,746.69
$
800,746.69
$
800,746.69
$
800,746.69
$
800,746.69
$
800,746.69
$
800,746.69
$
800,746.69
Expenses - Capital Costs - Closure and Post -Closure Costs (2)(3)
Annual Capital Costs - (Landfill Closure) (6)
$
-
$
-
$
-
$
-
$
-
$
-
$
-
$
-
$
-
$
-
$
-
Annual Post -Closure Costs (7)
$
-
$
$
-
$
$
-
$
$
-
$
$
-
$
$
-
Annual Closure + Post -Closure Costs
$
-
$
$
-
$
$
-
$
$
-
$
$
-
$
$
-
Annual Closure + Post -Closure Costs [Normalized]:
$
880, 073.46
$
880, 073.46
$
880, 073.46
$
880, 073.46
$
880, 073.46
$
880, 073.46
$
880, 073.46
$
880, 073.46
$
880, 073.46
$
880, 073.46
Expenses - Capital Costs - Equipment 2 (3)
Compactor (20151 Replacement
$
-
$
-
$
-
$
-
$
-
$
-
$
-
$
-
$
-
$
-
$
-
Dozer (2017) Replacement
$
-
$
$
-
$
$
-
$
$
$
$
-
$
$
-
Articulating Dump (20061 Replacement
$
-
$
$
364,140.00
$
$
-
$
$
$
$
$
$
Excavator (2004) Replacement
$
-
$
357,000.00
$
-
$
$
$
$
$
$
$
$
Annual Equipment Replacement Costs
$
$
357,000.06
$
364,140.06
$
$
$
$
$
$
$
$
Annual Equipment Replacement CostslNormalized)
$
114,745.66
$
114,745.66
$
114,745.66
$
114,745.66
$
114,745.66
$
114,745.66
$
114,745.6b
$
114,745.66
$
114,745.6b
$
114,745.6b
Expenses - Direct Expenses (2)(3)
Personnel & Operations (8)
$
$
157,080.00
$
160,221.60
$
163,426.03
$
166,694.55
$
170,028.44
$
173,429.01
$
176,897.59
$
180,435.54
$
184,044.26
$
187,725.14
Compliance Monitoring Through Closure (8)
$
-
$
35,700.00
$
36,414.00
$
37,142.28
$
37,885.13
$
38,642.83
$
39,415.68
$
40,204.00
$
41,008.08
$
41,828.24
$
42,664.80
Equipment Maintenance Cost (8)
$
-
$
40,800.00
$
41,616.00
$
42,448.32
$
43,297.29
$
44,163.23
$
45,046.50
$
45,947.43
$
46,866.38
$
47,803.70
$
48,759.78
Equipment Fuel Costs (9)
$
-
$
102,000.00
$
104,040.00
$
106,120.80
$
108,243.22
$
110,408.08
$
112,616.24
$
114,868.57
$
117,165.94
$
119,509.26
$
121,899.44
Leachate Treatment Costs
$
-
$
107,222.40
$
109,366.85
$
111,554.18
$
113,785.27
$
116,060.97
$
236,764.39
$
241,499.67
$
246,329.67
$
251,256.26
$
256,281.39
Landfill - Disposal Tax ($2/Ton)
$
-
$
140,140.00
$
140,280.14
$
140,420.42
$
140,560.84
$
140,701.40
$
140,842.10
$
140,982.94
$
141,123.93
$
141,265.05
$
141,406.32
Annual Expenses
$
-
$
582,942.40
$
591,938.59
$
601,112.04
$
610,466.29
$
620,004.96
$
748,113.93
$
760,400.20
$
772,929.53
$
785,706.77
$
798,736.87
Annual Expenses /Normalized/
$
$
1,145, 084.53
$
1,145, 084.53
$
1,145, 084.53
$
1,145, 084.53
$
1,145, 084.53
$
1,145, 084.53
$
1,145, 084.53
$
1,145, 084.53
$
1,145, 084.53
$
1,145, 084.53
Summary:
Total Annual Expenses:
$
500,000
$
3,939,942
$
956,079
$
601,112
$
610,466
$
642,087
$
4,060,356
$
760,400
$
772,930
$
785,707
$
823,117
Cumulative Expenses:
500,000
4,439,942
$
5,396,021
5,997,133
6,607,599
7,249,686
$
11,310,042
12,070,442
12,843,372
13,629,079
14,452,195
Total Annual Expenses /Normalized/:
$
2,940,650
$
2,940,650
$
2,940,650
$
2,940,650
$
2,940,650
$
2,940,650
$
2,940,650
$
2,940,650
$
2,940,650
$
2,940,650
Cumulative Expenses/Normalized].
$
2,940,650
$
5,881,301
$
8,821,951
$
11,762,601
$
14,703,252
$
17,643,902
$
20,584,553
$
23,525,203
$
26,465,853
$
29,406,504
Average Annual Cost Disposal/$/ton)
$
41.36
$
41.36
$
41.36
$
41.36
$
41.36
$
41.36
$
41.36
$
41.36
$
41.36
$
41.36
Notes:
(1) Reference NCDEO Solid Waste Annual Reports for Wilson County (2017-2018).
(2) All costs were developed using 2019 dollars and escalated annually at 2% to the year applied.
(3) All capital costs use cash reserves and do not require financing.
(4) Assume purchase of Peabody parcel is required for sufficient borrow.
(5) Assume construction occurs every five years.
(6) Closure costs escalated annually and applied at the end of life and not periodically.
(7) Post -Closure costs escalated annually and are placed in reserve for use following closure.
(8) Data provide by Wilson County.
(9) Fuel costs assumes consumption at 7.5 gallons per hour and fuel prices are $3/gallon (2019).
Table 3A Opt 3 CD+MSW 70 TPY
SMITH GARDNER, INC. Page 1 of 3 Wilson County Solid Waste Financial Evaluation (09-20191

Wilson County- Evaluation of Long -Term Disposal Services
Table3A: Option 3A - C&OLF+ MSW Constructed Over Pre -Sub O Landfill
(70,000 TPY @ Start)
Year
11
12
13
14
15
16
17
18
19
20
Fiscal Year
2030-2031
2031-2032
2032-2033
2033-2034
2034-2035
2035-2036
2036-2037
2037-2038
2038-2039
2039-2040
Waste Collection and Tonnages
Projected Population (1)
82 833
82,916
82,999
83,082
83,165
83,248
83,332
83,415
83,498
83,582
C&D (Tons/Year) Annual Disposal Max (1)
32,327
32,360
32,392
32,424
32,457
32,489
32,522
32,554
32,587
32,619
Per Capita Disposal (1)
1.77
1.77
1.77
1.77
1.77
1.77
1.77
1.77
1.77
1.77
City of Wilson Population (11
49,995.41
50,045.41
50,095.45
50,145.55
50,195.70
50,245.89
50,296.14
50,346.43
50,396.78
50,447.18
City of Wilson MSW + County C&D
70,773.86
70,844.64
70,915.48
70,986.40
71,057.38
71,128.44
71,199.57
71,270.77
71,342.04
71,413.38
Cumulative MSW+C&D Disposal
774,635.43
845,480.07
916,395.55
987,381.95
1,058,439.33
1,129,567.77
1,200,767.33
1,272,038.10
1,343,380.14
1,414,793.52
Expenses - Capital Costs - Facility Development (2)(3)
Engineering and Permitting
$
-
$
-
$
-
$
-
$
26,917.37
$
$
$
$
-
$
29,718.95
Land Acquisition for Construction and Operational Soils (4)
$
-
$
$
$
$
-
$
$
$
$
-
$
-
Landfill Construction (5)
$
3,656,983.26
$
$
-
$
$
-
$
4,037,605.01
$
-
$
$
-
$
-
Annual Capital Costs
$
3,656,983.26
$
$
-
$
$
26,917.37
$
4,037,605.01
$
-
$
$
-
$
29,718.95
Annual Capital Costs Normalized
$
800,746.69
$
800,746.69
$
800,746.69
$
800,746.69
$
800,746.69
$
800,746.69
$
800,746.69
$
800,746.69
$
800,746.69
$
800,746.69
Expenses - Capital Costs - Closure and Post -Closure Costs (2)(3)
Annual Capital Costs - (Landfill Closure) (6)
$
-
$
-
$
-
$
-
$
-
$
-
$
-
$
-
$
-
$
-
Annual Post -Closure Costs (7)
$
-
$
$
-
$
$
-
$
$
-
$
$
-
$
Annual Closure + Post -Closure Costs
$
-
$
$
-
$
$
-
$
$
-
$
$
-
$
-
Annual Closure + Post -Closure Casts [Normalized]:
$
880, 073.46
$
880, 073.46
$
880, 073.46
$
880, 073.46
$
880, 073.46
$
880, 073.46
$
880, 073.46
$
880, 073.46
$
880, 073.46
$
880, 073.46
Expenses - Capital Costs - Equipment 2 (3)
Compactor (20151 Replacement
$
1,243,374.3
$
-
$
-
$
-
$
-
$
-
$
-
$
-
$
-
$
-
Dozer (2017) Replacement
$
-
$
$
507,296.72
$
$
-
$
$
-
$
$
-
$
Articulating Dump (20061 Replacement
$
-
$
$
-
$
$
-
$
$
490,084.50
$
$
$
Excavator (2004) Replacement
$
-
$
$
-
$
$
-
$
480,475.00
$
-
$
$
$
Annual Equipment Replacement Costs
$
1,243,374.31
$
$
507,296.72
$
$
-
$
480,475.06
$
490,084.56
$
$
$
Annual Equipment Replacement CostslNormalized)
$
114,745.66
$
114,745.66
$
114,745.66
$
114,745.66
$
114,745.66
$
114,745.66
$
114,745.66
$
114,745.6b
$
114,745.66
$
114,745.66
Expenses - Direct Expenses (2)(3)
Personnel & Operations (8)
$
191,479.64
$
195,309.24
$
199,215.42
$
203,199.73
$
207,263.72
$
211,409.00
$
215,637.18
$
219,949.92
$
224,348.92
$
228,835.90
Compliance Monitoring Through Closure (8)
$
43,518.10
$
44,388.46
$
45,276.23
$
46,181.76
$
47,105.39
$
48,047.50
$
49,008.45
$
49,988.62
$
50,988.39
$
52,008.16
Equipment Maintenance Cost (8)
$
49,734.97
$
50,729.67
$
51,744.27
$
52,779.15
$
53,834.73
$
54,911.43
$
56,009.66
$
57,129.85
$
58,272.45
$
59,437.90
Equipment Fuel Costs (9)
$
124,337.43
$
126,824.18
$
129,360.66
$
131,947.88
$
134,586.83
$
137,278.57
$
140,024.14
$
142,824.62
$
145,681.12
$
148,594.74
Leachate Treatment Costs
$
392,110.52
$
399,952.73
$
407,951.79
$
416,110.82
$
424,433.04
$
577,228.93
$
588,773.51
$
600,548.98
$
612,559.96
$
624,811.16
Landfill - Disposal Tax ($2/Ton)
$
141,547.72
$
141,689.27
$
141,830.96
$
141,972.79
$
142,114.76
$
142,256.88
$
142,399.14
$
142,541.53
$
142,684.08
$
142,826.76
Annual Expenses
$
942,728.39
$
958,893.55
$
975,379.33
$
992,192.13
$
1,009,338.49
$
1,171,132.31
$
1,191,852.07
$
1,212,983.53
$
1,234,534.91
$
1,256,514.61
Annual Expenses /Normalized/
$
1,145, 084.53
$
1,145, 084. 53
$
1,145, 084.53
$
1,145, 084. 53
$
1,145, 084.53
$
1,145, 084. 53
$
1,145, 084.53
$
1,145, 084.53
$
1,145, 084.53
$
1,145, 084.53
Summary:
Total Annual Expenses:
$
5,843,086
$
958,894
$
1,482,676
$
992,192
$
1,036,256
$
5,689,212
$
1,681,937
$
1,212,984
$
1,234,535
$
1,286,234
Cumulative Expenses:
20,295,281
21,254,175
$
22,736,851
23,729,043
24,7 55,299
30,454,511
$
32,136,448
33,349,431
34,583,966
35,870,200
Total Annual Expenses (Normalized].
$
2,940,650
$
2,940,650
$
2,940,650
$
2,940,650
$
2,940,650
$
2,940,650
$
2,940,650
$
2,940,650
$
2,940,650
$
2,940,650
Cumulative ExpensesWormalizedl:
$
32,347,154
$
35,287,804
$
38,228,455
$
41,169,105
$
44,109,756
$
47,050,406
$
49,991,056
$
52,931,707
$
55,872,357
$
58,813,007
Average Annual Cost Disposalt$/tonl
$
41.36
$
41.36
$
41.36
$
41.36
$
41.36
$
41.36
$
41.36
$
41.36
$
41.36
$
41.36
Notes:
(1) Reference NCDEO Solid Waste Annual Reports for Wilson County (2017-2018).
(2) All costs were developed using 2019 dollars and escalated annually at 2% to the year applied.
(3) All capital costs use cash reserves and do not require financing.
(4) Assume purchase of Peabody parcel is required for sufficient borrow.
(5) Assume construction occurs every five years.
(6) Closure costs escalated annually and applied at the end of life and not periodically.
(7) Post -Closure costs escalated annually and are placed in reserve for use following closure.
(8) Data provide by Wilson County.
(9) Fuel costs assumes consumption at 7.5 gallons per hour and fuel prices are $3/gallon (2019).
Table 3A Opt 3 CD+MSW 70 TPY
SMITH GARDNER, INC. Page 2 of 3 Wilson County Solid Waste Financial Evaluation (09-20191

Wilson County- Evaluation of Long -Term Disposal Services
Table3A: Option 3A - C&OLF+ MSW Constructed Over Pre -Sub O Landfill
(70,000 TPY @ Start)
Year
21
22
23
24
25
26
27
28
29
30
Fiscal Year
2040-2041
2041-2042
2042-2043
2043-2044
2044-2045
2045-2046
2046-2047
2047-2048
2048-2049
2049-2050
Waste Collection and Tonnages
Projected Population (1)
83 665
83,749
83,833
83,917
84,001
84,085
84,169
84,253
84,337
84,421
C&D (Tons/Year) Annual Disposal Max (1)
32,652
32,685
32,717
32,750
32,783
32,816
32,848
32,881
32,914
32,947
Per Capita Disposal (1)
1.77
1.77
1.77
1.77
1.77
1.77
1.77
1.77
1.77
1.77
City of Wilson Population (11
50,497.62
50,548.12
50,598.67
50,649.27
50,699.92
50,750.62
50,801.37
50,852.17
50,903.02
50,953.92
City of Wilson MSW + County C&D
71,484.79
71,556.28
71,627.83
71,699.46
71,771.16
71,842.93
71,914.78
71,986.69
72,058.68
72,130.74
Cumulative MSW+C&D Disposal
1,486,278.31
1,557,834.59
1,629,462.43
1,701,161.89
1,772,933.05
1,844,775.98
1,916,690.76
1,988,677.45
2,060,736.13
2,132,866.86
Expenses - Capital Costs - Facility Development (2)(3)
Engineering and Permitting
$
$
$
$
$
32,812.12
$
$
$
$
$
Land Acquisition for Construction and Operational Soils (4)
$
$
$
$
$
-
$
$
$
$
$
Landfill Construction (5)
$
4,457,842.19
$
$
-
$
$
-
$
4,921,817.98
$
-
$
$
-
$
Annual Capital Costs
$
4,457,842.19
$
$
-
$
$
32,812.12
$
4,921,817.98
$
-
$
$
-
$
-
Annual Capital Costs Normalized
$
800,746.69
$
800,746.69
$
800,746.69
$
800,746.69
$
800,746.69
$
800,746.69
$
800,746.69
$
800,746.69
$
800,746.69
$
800,746.69
Expenses - Capital Costs - Closure and Post -Closure Costs (2)(3)
Annual Capital Costs - (Landfill Closure) (6)
$
-
$
-
$
-
$
-
$
-
$
-
$
-
$
-
$
-
$
11,411,578.0
Annual Post -Closure Costs (7)
$
-
$
$
-
$
$
-
$
$
-
$
$
-
$
14,990,625.9
Annual Closure + Post -Closure Costs
$
-
$
$
-
$
$
-
$
$
-
$
$
-
$ 26,402,203.86
Annual Closure + Post -Closure Casts (Normalized/:
$
880, 073.46
$
880, 073.46
$
880, 073.46
$
880, 073.46
$
880, 073.46
$
880, 073.46
$
880, 073.46
$
880, 073.46
$
880, 073.46
$
880, 073.46
Expenses - Capital Costs - Equipment 2 (3)
Compactor (20151 Replacement
$
-
$
-
$
-
$
-
$
-
$
-
$
-
$
-
$
-
$
-
Dozer (2017) Replacement
$
-
$
$
-
$
$
-
$
$
$
$
-
$
Articulating Dump (20061 Replacement
$
$
$
-
$
$
-
$
$
$
$
$
Excavator (2004) Replacement
$
$
$
-
$
$
-
$
$
$
$
$
Annual Equipment Replacement Costs
$
$
$
-
$
$
-
$
$
$
$
$
Annual Equipment Replacement CostslNormalized)
$
114,745.66
$
114,745.66
$
114,745.66
$
114,745.66
$
114,745.66
$
114,745.66
$
114,745.66
$
114,745.6b
$
114,745.66
$
114,745.66
Expenses - Direct Expenses (2)(3)
Personnel & Operations (8)
$
233,412.62
$
238,080.87
$
242,842.49
$
247,699.34
$
252,653.32
$
257,706.39
$
262,860.52
$
268,117.73
$
273,480.08
$
278,949.68
Compliance Monitoring Through Closure (8)
$
53,048.32
$
54,109.29
$
55,191.47
$
56,295.30
$
57,421.21
$
58,569.63
$
59,741.03
$
60,935.85
$
62,154.56
$
63,397.66
Equipment Maintenance Cost (8)
$
60,626.65
$
61,839.19
$
63,075.97
$
64,337.49
$
65,624.24
$
66,936.72
$
68,275.46
$
69,640.97
$
71,033.79
$
72,454.46
Equipment Fuel Costs (9)
$
151,566.63
$
154,597.97
$
157,689.93
$
160,843.72
$
164,060.60
$
167,341.81
$
170,688.65
$
174,102.42
$
177,584.47
$
181,136.16
Leachate Treatment Costs
$
796,634.23
$
812,566.91
$
828,818.25
$
845,394.62
$
862,302.51
$
1,055,458.27
$
1,076,567.44
$
1,098,098.79
$
1,120,060.76
$
1,142,461.98
Landfill - Disposal Tax ($2/Ton)
$
142,969.59
$
143,112.56
$
143,255.67
$
143,398.92
$
143,542.32
$
143,685.87
$
143,829.55
$
143,973.38
$
144,117.35
$
144,261.47
Annual Expenses
$
1,438,258.04
$
1,464,306.78
$
1,490,873.78
$
1,517,969.40
$
1,545,604.21
$
1,749,698.70
$
1,781,962.64
$
1,814,869.13
$
1,848,431.02
$
1,882,661.41
Annual Expenses /Normalized/
$
1,145, 084.53
$
1,145, 084. 53
$
1,145, 084.53
$
1,145, 084. 53
$
1,145, 084.53
$
1,145, 084. 53
$
1,145, 084.53
$
1,145, 084. 53
$
1,145, 084.53
$
1,145, 084. 53
Summary:
Total Annual Expenses:
$
5,896,100
$
1,464,307
$
1,490,874
$
1,517,969
$
1,578,416
$
6,671,517
$
1,781,963
$
1,814,869
$
1,848,431
$
28,284,865
Cumulative Expenses:
41,766,300
43,2 00,607
44,721,481
46,239,450
47,817,866
54,489,383
56,271,346
58,086,215
59,934,646
88,219,511
Total Annual Expenses (Normalized].
$
2,940,650
$
2,940,650
$
2,940,650
$
2,940,650
$
2,940,650
$
2,940,650
$
2,940,650
$
2,940,650
$
2,940,650
$
2,940,650
Cumulative Expenses /Normalized]:
$
61,753,658
$
64,694,308
$
67,634,959
$
70,575,609
$
73,516,259
$
76,456,910
$
79,397,560
$
82,338,210
$
85,278,861
$
88,219,511
Average Annual Cost Disposalt$/tonl
$
41.36
$
41.36
$
41.36
$
41.36
$
41.36
$
41.36
$
41.36
$
41.36
$
41.36
$
41.36
Notes:
(1) Reference NCDEO Solid Waste Annual Reports for Wilson County (2017-2018).
(2) All costs were developed using 2019 dollars and escalated annually at 2% to the year applied.
(3) All capital costs use cash reserves and do not require financing.
(4) Assume purchase of Peabody parcel is required for sufficient borrow.
(5) Assume construction occurs every five years.
(6) Closure costs escalated annually and applied at the end of life and not periodically.
(7) Post -Closure costs escalated annually and are placed in reserve for use following closure.
(8) Data provide by Wilson County.
(9) Fuel costs assumes consumption at 7.5 gallons per hour and fuel prices are $3/gallon (2019).
Table 3A Opt 3 CD+MSW 70 TPY
SMITH GARDNER, INC. Page 3 of 3 Wilson County Solid Waste Financial Evaluation (09-20191

Wilson County- Evaluation of Long -Term Disposal Services
Table3B: Option 30 - C&OLF+ MSW Constructed Over Pre -Sub O Landfill
(5o,ouo TPY @ Start)
Year
0
1
2
3
4
5
6
7
8
9
10
Fiscal Year
2019-2020
2020-2021
2021-2022
2022-2023
2023-2024
2024-2025
2025-2026
2026-2027
2027-2028
2028-2029
2029-2030
Waste Collection and Tonnages
Projected Population (1)
81 928
82,010
82,092
82,174
82,256
82,338
82,420
82,503
82,585
82,668
82,751
C&D (Tons/Year) Annual Disposal Max (1)
31,974
32,006
32,038
32,070
32,102
32,134
32,166
32,198
32,231
32,263
32,295
Per Capita Disposal (1)
1.77
1.77
1.77
1.77
1.77
1.77
1.77
1.77
1.77
1.77
1.77
City of Wilson Population (11
49,448.75
49,498.20
49,547.70
49,597.24
49,646.84
49,696.49
49,746.18
49,795.93
49,845.73
49,895.57
49,945.47
City of Wilson MSW + County C&D
50,000.00
50,050.00
50,100.05
50,150.15
50,200.30
50,250.50
50,300.75
50,351.05
50,401.40
50,451.80
50,502.26
Cumulative MSW+C&D Disposal
50,050.00
100,150.05
150,300.20
200,500.50
250,751.00
301,051.75
351,402.80
401,804.21
452,256.01
502,758.27
Expenses - Capital Costs - Facility Development (2)(3)
Engineering and Permitting
$
250,000.00
$
$
-
$
-
$
-
$
22,081.62
$
-
$
-
$
-
$
-
$
24,379.89
Land Acquisition for Construction and Operational Soils (4)
$
250,000.00
$
$
$
$
$
-
$
-
$
$
$
$
-
Landfill Construction (5)
$
-
$
2,017,000.00
$
-
$
$
-
$
-
$
2,226,930.98
$
$
-
$
$
-
Annual Capital Costs
$
500,000.00
$
2,017,000.00
$
-
$
$
-
$
22,081.62
$
2,226,930.98
$
$
-
$
$
24,379.89
Annual Capital Costs Normalized
$
545,314.24
$
545,314.24
$
545,314.24
$
545,314.24
$
545,314.24
$
545,314.24
$
545,314.24
$
545,314.24
$
545,314.24
$
545,314.24
Expenses - Capital Costs - Closure and Post -Closure Costs (2)(3)
Annual Capital Costs - (Landfill Closure) (6)
$
-
$
-
$
-
$
-
$
-
$
-
$
-
$
-
$
-
$
-
$
-
Annual Post -Closure Costs (7)
$
-
$
$
-
$
$
-
$
$
-
$
$
-
$
$
-
Annual Closure + Post -Closure Costs
$
-
$
$
-
$
$
-
$
$
-
$
$
-
$
$
-
Annual Closure + Post -Closure Costs /Normalized/:
$
721, 579.32
$
721, 579.32
$
721, 579.32
$
721, 579.32
$
721, 579.32
$
721, 579.32
$
721, 579.32
$
721, 579.32
$
721, 579.32
$
721, 579.32
Expenses - Capital Costs - Equipment 2 (3)
Compactor (20151 Replacement
$
-
$
$
-
$
-
$
-
$
-
$
-
$
-
$
-
$
-
$
-
Dozer (2017) Replacement
$
-
$
$
-
$
$
-
$
$
$
$
$
$
-
Articulating Dump (20061 Replacement
$
-
$
$
364,140.00
$
$
-
$
$
$
$
$
$
Excavator (2004) Replacement
$
-
$
357,000.00
$
-
$
$
$
$
$
$
$
$
Annual Equipment Replacement Costs
$
$
357,000.06
$
364,140.06
$
$
$
$
$
$
$
$
Annual Equipment Replacement CostslNormalized)
$
114,745.66
$
114,745.66
$
114,745.66
$
114,745.66
$
114,745.66
$
114,745.66
$
114,745.6b
$
114,745.66
$
114,745.6b
$
114,745.66
Expenses - Direct Expenses (2)(3)
Personnel & Operations (8)
$
$
157,080.00
$
160,221.60
$
163,426.03
$
166,694.55
$
170,028.44
$
173,429.01
$
176,897.59
$
180,435.54
$
184,044.26
$
187,725.14
Compliance Monitoring Through Closure (8)
$
$
35,700.00
$
36,414.00
$
37,142.28
$
37,885.13
$
38,642.83
$
39,415.68
$
40,204.00
$
41,008.08
$
41,828.24
$
42,664.80
Equipment Maintenance Cost (8)
$
-
$
40,800.00
$
41,616.00
$
42,448.32
$
43,297.29
$
44,163.23
$
45,046.50
$
45,947.43
$
46,866.38
$
47,803.70
$
48,759.78
Equipment Fuel Costs (9)
$
-
$
102,000.00
$
104,040.00
$
106,120.80
$
108,243.22
$
110,408.08
$
112,616.24
$
114,868.57
$
117,165.94
$
119,509.26
$
121,899.44
Leachate Treatment Costs
$
-
$
62,546.40
$
63,797.33
$
65,073.27
$
66,374.74
$
67,702.23
$
138,112.56
$
140,874.81
$
143,692.31
$
146,566.15
$
149,497.48
Landfill - Disposal Tax ($2/Ton)
$
-
$
100,100.00
$
100,200.10
$
100,300.30
$
100,400.60
$
100,501.00
$
100,601.50
$
100,702.10
$
100,802.81
$
100,903.61
$
101,004.51
Annual Expenses
$
-
$
498,226.40
$
506,289.03
$
514,511.01
$
522,895.52
$
531,445.82
$
609,221.50
$
619,494.50
$
629,971.05
$
640,655.22
$
651,551.15
Annual Expenses /Normalized/
$
$
875, 667.36
$
875, 667.36
$
875, 667.36
$
875, 667.36
$
875, 667.36
$
875, 667.36
$
875, 667.36
$
875, 667.36
$
875, 667.36
$
875, 667.36
Summary:
Total Annual Expenses:
$
500,000
$
2,872,226
$
870,429
$
514,511
$
522,896
$
553,527
$
2,836,152
$
619,494
$
629,971
$
640,655
$
675,931
Cumulative Expenses:
500,000
3,372,226
4,242,655
4,757,166
5,286,662
5,833,589
8,669,742
9,289,236
9,919,207
10,559,863
$
11,235,794
Total Annual Expenses tMormalized].
$
2,257,307
$
2,257,307
$
2,257,307
$
2,257,307
$
2,257,307
$
2,257,307
$
2,257,307
$
2,257,307
$
2,257,307
$
2,257,307
Cumulative Expenses/Normalized].
$
2,257,307
$
4,514,613
$
6,771,920
$
9,029,226
$
11,286,533
$
13,543,839
$
15,801,146
$
18,058,452
$
20,315,759
$
22,573,066
Average Annual Cost Disposal/$/ton)
$
44.45
$
44.45
$
44.45
$
44.45
$
44.45
$
44.45
$
44.45
$
44.45
$
44.45
$
44.45
Notes:
(1) Reference NCDEO Solid Waste Annual Reports for Wilson County (2017-2018).
(2) All costs were developed using 2019 dollars and escalated annually at 2% to the year applied.
(3) All capital costs use cash reserves and do not require financing.
(4) Assume purchase of Peabody parcel is required for sufficient borrow.
(5) Assume construction occurs every five years.
(6) Closure costs escalated annually and applied at the end of life and not periodically.
(7) Post -Closure costs escalated annually and are placed in reserve for use following closure.
(8) Data provide by Wilson County.
(9) Fuel costs assumes consumption at 7.5 gallons per hour and fuel prices are $3/gallon (2019).
Table 3B Opt 3 CD+MSW 50 TPY
SMITH GARDNER, INC. Page 1 of 3 Wilson County Solid Waste Financial Evaluation (09-20191

Wilson County- Evaluation of Long -Term Disposal Services
Table3B: Option 30 - C&OLF+ MSW Constructed Over Pre -Sub O Landfill
(5o,ouo TPY @ Start)
Year
11
12
13
14
15
16
17
18
19
20
Fiscal Year
2030-2031
2031-2032
2032-2033
2033-2034
2034-2035
2035-2036
2036-2037
2037-2038
2038-2039
2039-2040
Waste Collection and Tonnages
Projected Population (1)
82 833
82,916
82,999
83,082
83,165
83,248
83,332
83,415
83,498
83,582
C&D (Tons/Year) Annual Disposal Max (1)
32,327
32,360
32,392
32,424
32,457
32,489
32,522
32,554
32,587
32,619
Per Capita Disposal (1)
1.77
1.77
1.77
1.77
1.77
1.77
1.77
1.77
1.77
1.77
City of Wilson Population (11
49,995.41
50,045.41
50,095.45
50,145.55
50,195.70
50,245.89
50,296.14
50,346.43
50,396.78
50,447.18
City of Wilson MSW + County C&D
50,552.76
50 603.31
50,653.91
50,704.57
50,755.27
50,806.03
50,856.83
50,907.69
50,958.60
51,009.56
Cumulative MSW+C&D Disposal
553,311.02
603,914.34
654,568.25
705,272.82
756,028.09
806,834.12
857,690.95
908,598.64
959,557.24
1,010,566.80
Expenses - Capital Costs - Facility Development (2)(3)
Engineering and Permitting
$
-
$
-
$
-
$
-
$
26,917.37
$
-
$
-
$
-
$
-
$
29,718.95
Land Acquisition for Construction and Operational Soils (4)
$
-
$
$
$
$
-
$
-
$
$
$
$
-
Landfill Construction (5)
$
2,458,711.75
$
$
-
$
$
-
$
2,714,616.44
$
-
$
$
-
$
-
Annual Capital Costs
$
2,458,711.75
$
$
-
$
$
26,917.37
$
2,714,616.44
$
-
$
$
-
$
29,718.95
Annual Capital Costs Normalized
$
545,314.24
$
545,314.24
$
545,374.24
$
545,314.24
$
545,314.24
$
545,314.24
$
545,314.24
$
545,314.24
$
545,314.24
$
545,314.24
Expenses - Capital Costs - Closure and Post -Closure Costs (2)(3)
Annual Capital Costs - (Landfill Closure) (6)
$
-
$
-
$
-
$
-
$
-
$
-
$
-
$
-
$
-
$
-
Annual Post -Closure Costs (7)
$
-
$
$
-
$
$
-
$
$
-
$
$
-
$
Annual Closure + Post -Closure Costs
$
-
$
$
-
$
$
-
$
$
-
$
$
-
$
-
Annual Closure + Post -Closure Costs /Normalized/:
$
721, 579.32
$
721, 579.32
$
721, 579.32
$
721, 579.32
$
721, 579.32
$
721, 579.32
$
721, 579.32
$
721, 579.32
$
721, 579.32
$
721, 579.32
Expenses - Capital Costs - Equipment 2 (3)
Compactor (20151 Replacement
$
1,243,374.3
$
-
$
-
$
-
$
-
$
-
$
-
$
-
$
-
$
-
Dozer (2017) Replacement
$
-
$
$
507,296.72
$
$
-
$
$
-
$
$
$
Articulating Dump (20061 Replacement
$
-
$
$
-
$
$
-
$
$
490,084.50
$
$
$
Excavator (2004) Replacement
$
-
$
$
-
$
$
-
$
480,475.00
$
-
$
$
$
Annual Equipment Replacement Costs
$
1,243,374.31
$
$
507,296.72
$
$
-
$
480,475.06
$
490,084.56
$
$
$
Annual Equipment Replacement CostslNormalized)
$
114,745.66
$
994,745.66
$
114,745.66
$
994,745.66
$
114,745.66
$
114,745.66
$
114,745.66
$
114,745.6b
$
114,745.6b
$
114,745.6b
Expenses - Direct Expenses (2)(3)
Personnel & Operations (8)
$
191,479.64
$
195,309.24
$
199,215.42
$
203,199.73
$
207,263.72
$
211,409.00
$
215,637.18
$
219,949.92
$
224,348.92
$
228,835.90
Compliance Monitoring Through Closure (8)
$
43,518.10
$
44,388.46
$
45,276.23
$
46,181.76
$
47,105.39
$
48,047.50
$
49,008.45
$
49,988.62
$
50,988.39
$
52,008.16
Equipment Maintenance Cost (8)
$
49,734.97
$
50,729.67
$
51,744.27
$
52,779.15
$
53,834.73
$
54,911.43
$
56,009.66
$
57,129.85
$
58,272.45
$
59,437.90
Equipment Fuel Costs (9)
$
124,337.43
$
126,824.18
$
129,360.66
$
131,947.88
$
134,586.83
$
137,278.57
$
140,024.14
$
142,824.62
$
145,681.12
$
148,594.74
Leachate Treatment Costs
$
228,731.14
$
233,305.76
$
237,971.88
$
242,731.31
$
247,585.94
$
336,716.88
$
343,451.22
$
350,320.24
$
357,326.64
$
364,473.18
Landfill - Disposal Tax ($2/Ton)
$
101,105.52
$
101,206.62
$
101,307.83
$
101,409.14
$
101,510.55
$
101,612.06
$
101,713.67
$
101,815.38
$
101,917.20
$
102,019.11
Annual Expenses
$
738,906.80
$
751,763.93
$
764,876.29
$
778,248.96
$
791,887.17
$
889,975.43
$
905,844.31
$
922,028.64
$
938,534.72
$
955,368.99
Annual Expenses /Normalized/
$
875, 667.36
$
875, 667.36
$
875, 667.36
$
875, 667.36
$
875, 667.36
$
875, 667.36
$
875, 667.36
$
875, 667.36
$
875, 667.36
$
875, 667.36
Summary:
Total Annual Expenses:
$
4,440,993
$
751,764
$
1,272,173
$
778,249
$
818,805
$
4,085,067
$
1,395,929
$
922,029
$
938,535
$
985,088
Cumulative Expenses:
15,676,787
16,428,550
17,700,723
18,478,972
19,2 77,777
23,382,844
24,778,773
25,700,801
26,639,336
27,624,424
Total Annual ExpensesWormalized].
$
2,257,307
$
2,257,307
$
2,257,307
$
2,257,307
$
2,257,307
$
2,257,307
$
2,257,307
$
2,257,307
$
2,257,307
$
2,257,307
Cumulative ExpensesWormalizedl:
$
24,830,372
$
27,087,679
$
29,344,985
$
31,602,292
$
33,859,598
$
36,116,905
$
38,374,211
$
40,631,518
$
42,888,824
$
45,146,131
Average Annual Cost Disposal/$/ton)
$
44.45
$
44.45
$
44.45
$
44.45
$
44.45
$
44.45
$
44.45
$
44.45
$
44.45
$
44.45
Notes:
(1) Reference NCDEO Solid Waste Annual Reports for Wilson County (2017-2018).
(2) All costs were developed using 2019 dollars and escalated annually at 2% to the year applied.
(3) All capital costs use cash reserves and do not require financing.
(4) Assume purchase of Peabody parcel is required for sufficient borrow.
(5) Assume construction occurs every five years.
(6) Closure costs escalated annually and applied at the end of life and not periodically.
(7) Post -Closure costs escalated annually and are placed in reserve for use following closure.
(8) Data provide by Wilson County.
(9) Fuel costs assumes consumption at 7.5 gallons per hour and fuel prices are $3/gallon (2019).
Table 3B Opt 3 CD+MSW 50 TPY
SMITH GARDNER, INC. Page 2 of 3 Wilson County Solid Waste Financial Evaluation (09-20191

Wilson County- Evaluation of Long -Term Disposal Services
Table3B: Option 30 - C&OLF+ MSW Constructed Over Pre -Sub O Landfill
(5o,ouo TPY @ Start)
Year
21
22
23
24
25
26
27
28
29
30
Fiscal Year
2040-2041
2041-2042
2042-2043
2043-2044
2044-2045
2045-2046
2046-2047
2047-2048
2048-2049
2049-2050
Waste Collection and Tonnages
Projected Population (1)
83 665
83,749
83,833
83,917
84,001
84,085
84,169
84,253
84,337
84,421
C&D (Tons/Year) Annual Disposal Max (1)
32,652
32,685
32,717
32,750
32,783
32,816
32,848
32,881
32,914
32,947
Per Capita Disposal (1)
1.77
1.77
1.77
1.77
1.77
1.77
1.77
1.77
1.77
1.77
City of Wilson Population (11
50,497.62
50,548.12
50,598.67
50,649.27
50,699.92
50,750.62
50,801.37
50,852.17
50,903.02
50,953.92
City of Wilson MSW + County C&D
51,060.57
51,111.63
51,162.74
51,213.90
51,265.12
51,316.38
51,367.70
51,419.06
51,470.48
51,521.95
Cumulative MSW+C&D Disposal
1,061,627.37
1,112,738.99
1,163,901.73
1,215,115.64
1,266,380.75
1,317,697.13
1,369,064.83
1,420,483.89
1,471,954.38
1,523,476.33
Expenses - Capital Costs - Facility Development (2)(3)
Engineering and Permitting
$
$
$
$
$
32,812.12
$
$
$
$
$
Land Acquisition for Construction and Operational Soils (4)
$
$
$
$
$
-
$
$
$
$
$
Landfill Construction (5)
$
2,997,155.90
$
$
-
$
$
-
$
3,309,102.29
$
-
$
$
-
$
Annual Capital Costs
$
2,997,155.90
$
$
-
$
$
32,812.12
$
3,309,102.29
$
-
$
$
-
$
-
Annual Capital Costs Normalized
$
545,314.24
$
545,314.24
$
545,374.24
$
545,314.24
$
545,314.24
$
545,314.24
$
545,314.24
$
545,314.24
$
545,374.24
$
545,314.24
Expenses - Capital Costs - Closure and Post -Closure Costs (2)(3)
Annual Capital Costs - (Landfill Closure) (6)
$
-
$
-
$
-
$
-
$
-
$
-
$
-
$
-
$
-
$
6,656,753.8
Annual Post -Closure Costs (7)
$
-
$
$
-
$
$
-
$
$
-
$
$
-
$
14,990,625.9
Annual Closure+ Post -Closure Costs
$
-
$
$
-
$
$
-
$
$
-
$
$
-
$ 21,647,379.71
Annual Closure + Post -Closure Costs /Normalized/:
$
721, 579.32
$
721, 579.32
$
721, 579.32
$
721, 579.32
$
721, 579.32
$
721, 579.32
$
721, 579.32
$
721, 579.32
$
721, 579.32
$
721, 579.32
Expenses - Capital Costs - Equipment 2 (3)
Compactor (20151 Replacement
$
-
$
-
$
-
$
-
$
-
$
-
$
-
$
-
$
-
$
-
Dozer (2017) Replacement
$
-
$
$
-
$
$
-
$
$
$
$
-
$
Articulating Dump (20061 Replacement
$
$
$
-
$
$
-
$
$
$
$
$
Excavator (2004) Replacement
$
$
$
-
$
$
-
$
$
$
$
$
Annual Equipment Replacement Costs
$
$
$
-
$
$
-
$
$
$
$
$
Annual Equipment Replacement CostslNormalized)
$
114,745.66
$
114,745.66
$
114,745.66
$
114,745.66
$
114,745.66
$
114,745.66
$
114,745.66
$
994,745.66
$
114,745.66
$
114,745.66
Expenses - Direct Expenses (2)(3)
Personnel & Operations (8)
$
233,412.62
$
238,080.87
$
242,842.49
$
247,699.34
$
252,653.32
$
257,706.39
$
262,860.52
$
268,117.73
$
273,480.08
$
278,949.68
Compliance Monitoring Through Closure (8)
$
53,048.32
$
54,109.29
$
55,191.47
$
56,295.30
$
57,421.21
$
58,569.63
$
59,741.03
$
60,935.85
$
62,154.56
$
63,397.66
Equipment Maintenance Cost (8)
$
60,626.65
$
61,839.19
$
63,075.97
$
64,337.49
$
65,624.24
$
66,936.72
$
68,275.46
$
69,640.97
$
71,033.79
$
72,454.46
Equipment Fuel Costs (9)
$
151,566.63
$
154,597.97
$
157,689.93
$
160,843.72
$
164,060.60
$
167,341.81
$
170,688.65
$
174,102.42
$
177,584.47
$
181,136.16
Leachate Treatment Costs
$
464,703.30
$
473,997.37
$
483,477.31
$
493,146.86
$
503,009.80
$
615,683.99
$
627,997.67
$
640,557.63
$
653,368.78
$
666,436.15
Landfill - Disposal Tax ($2/Ton)
$
102,121.13
$
102,223.25
$
102,325.48
$
102,427.80
$
102,530.23
$
102,632.76
$
102,735.39
$
102,838.13
$
102,940.97
$
103,043.91
Annual Expenses
$
1,065,478.66
$
1,084,847.93
$
1,104,602.65
$
1,124,750.52
$
1,145,299.40
$
1,268,871.31
$
1,292,298.72
$
1,316,192.72
$
1,340,562.65
$
1,365,418.02
Annual Expenses /Normalized/
$
875, 667.36
$
875, 667.36
$
875, 667.36
$
875, 667.36
$
875, 667.36
$
875, 667.36
$
875, 667.36
$
875, 667.36
$
875, 667.36
$
875, 667.36
Summary:
Total Annual Expenses:
$
4,062,635
$
1,084,848
$
1,104,603
$
1,124,751
$
1,178,112
$
4,577,974
$
1,292,299
$
1,316,193
$
1,340,563
$
23,012,798
Cumulative Expenses:
31,687,058
32,7 11,906
33,876,509
35,001,260
36,179,371
40,757,345
42,049,643
43,365,836
44,706,399
67,719,197
Total Annual Expenses (Normalized].
$
2,257,307
$
2,257,307
$
2,257,307
$
2,257,307
$
2,257,307
$
2,257,307
$
2,257,307
$
2,257,307
$
2,257,307
$
2,257,307
Cumulative ExpensesWormalizedl:
$
47,403,438
$
49,660,744
$
51,918,051
$
54,175,357
$
56,432,664
$
58,689,970
$
60,947,277
$
63,204,583
$
65,461,890
$
67,719,197
Average Annual Cost Disposal/$/ton)
$
44.45
$
44.45
$
44.45
$
44.45
$
44.45
$
44.45
$
44.45
$
44.45
$
44.45
$
44.45
Notes:
(1) Reference NCDEO Solid Waste Annual Reports for Wilson County (2017-2018).
(2) All costs were developed using 2019 dollars and escalated annually at 2% to the year applied.
(3) All capital costs use cash reserves and do not require financing.
(4) Assume purchase of Peabody parcel is required for sufficient borrow.
(5) Assume construction occurs every five years.
(6) Closure costs escalated annually and applied at the end of life and not periodically.
(7) Post -Closure costs escalated annually and are placed in reserve for use following closure.
(8) Data provide by Wilson County.
(9) Fuel costs assumes consumption at 7.5 gallons per hour and fuel prices are $3/gallon (2019).
Table 3B Opt 3 CD+MSW 50 TPY
SMITH GARDNER, INC. Page 3 of 3 Wilson County Solid Waste Financial Evaluation (09-20191

Wilson County- Evaluation of Long -Term Disposal Services
Table 4A: Option 4A - New Regional BOLF+ MSW
15o,000 TPY @ Start
Year
0
1
2
3
4
5
6
7
8
9
10
Fiscal Year
2019-2020
2020-2021
2021-2022
2022-2023
2023-2024
2024-2025
2025-2026
2026-2027
2027-2028
2028-2029
2029-2030
Waste Collection and Tonnages
Projected Population (1)
81,928
82,010
82,092
82,174
82,256
82,338
82,420
82,503
82,585
82,668
82,751
C&D (Tons/Year) Annual Disposal Max (1)
31,974
32,006
32,038
32,070
32,102
32,134
32,166
32,198
32,231
32,263
32,295
Per Capita Disposal (1)
1.77
1.77
1.77
1.77
1.77
1.77
1.77
1.77
1.77
1.77
1.77
City of Wilson Population (11
49,448.75
49,498.20
49,547.70
49,597.24
49,646.84
49,696.49
49,746.18
49,795.93
49,845.73
49,895.57
49,945.47
City of Wilson MSW + County C&D
150,000.00
150,150.00
150,300.15
150,450.45
150,600.90
150,751.50
150,902.25
151,053.16
151,204.21
151,355.41
151,506.77
Cumulative MSW+C&D Dispoal
150,150.00
300,450.15
450,900.60
601,501.50
752,253.00
903,155.26
1,054,208.41
1,205,412.62
1,356,768.03
1,508,274.80
Expenses - Capital Costs - Facility Development (2)(3)
Engineering and Permitting
$
250,000.00
$
-
$
-
$
-
$
-
$
22,081.62
$
-
$
$
$
$
24,379.89
Land Acquisition for Construction and Operational Soils (4)
$
1,500,000.00
$
-
$
$
$
$
-
$
-
$
-
$
$
-
$
-
Landfill Construction (5)
$
-
$
4,200,000.00
$
$
-
$
$
-
$
4,637,139.37
$
-
$
$
-
$
-
Annual Capital Costs
$
1,750,000.00
$
4,200,000.00
$
$
-
$
$
22,081.62
$
4,637,139.37
$
-
$
$
-
$
24,379.89
Annual Capital Costs Normalized
$
1,065,524.61
$
1,065,524.61
$
1,065,524.61
$
1,065,524.61
$
1,065,524.61
$
1,065,524.61
$
1,065,524.61
$
1,065,524.61
$
1,065,524.61
$
1,065,524.61
Expenses - Capital Costs - Closure and Post -Closure Costs (2)(3)
Annual Capital Costs - (Landfill Closure) (6)
$
$
-
$
$
-
$
$
-
$
$
-
$
$
-
$
Annual Post -Closure Costs (7)
$
$
-
$
$
-
$
$
-
$
$
-
$
$
-
$
Annual Closure + Post -Closure Costs
$
$
-
$
$
-
$
$
-
$
$
-
$
$
-
$
Annual Closure + Post -Closure Costs/Normalized/:
$
1,571,257.84
$
1,571,257.84
$
1,571,257.84
$
1,571,257.84
$
1,571,257.84
$
1,571,257.84
$
1,571,257 84
$
1,571,257.84
$
1,571,257 84
$
1,571,257.84
Expenses - Capital Costs - Equipment 2 (3)
Compactor (20151 Replacement
$
$
-
$
$
-
$
$
-
$
$
-
$
-
$
-
$
Dozer (2017) Replacement
$
$
-
$
$
-
$
$
-
$
$
-
$
$
$
Second Dozer+Replacement
$
$
408,000.00
$
$
-
$
$
-
$
$
-
$
$
$
Articulating Dump (20061 Replacement
$
$
-
$
364,140.00
$
-
$
$
-
$
$
-
$
$
$
Second Dump + Replacement
$
$
357,000.00
$
-
$
-
$
$
-
$
$
-
$
$
$
Excavator (2004) Replacement
$
$
-
$
$
350,000.00
$
$
-
$
$
-
$
$
$
Second Excavator + Replacement
$
$
357,000.00
$
$
-
$
$
-
$
$
-
$
$
-
$
Annual Equipment Replacement Costs
$
$
765,000.06
$
364,140.06
$
350,000.06
$
-
$
$
-
$
-
$
-
$
$
-
Annual Equipment Replacement Costs /Normalized)
$
$
216,537.23
$
216,537.23
$
216,537.23
$
2145,537.23
$
216,537.23
$
2145,537.23
$
216,537.23
$
2145,537.23
$
216,537.23
$
2145,537.23
Expenses- Direct Expenses
Personnel & Operations (8)
$
$
157,080.00
$
160,221.60
$
163,426.03
$
166,694.55
$
170,028.44
$
173,429.01
$
176,897.59
$
180,435.54
$
184,044.26
$
187,725.14
Compliance Monitoring Through Closure (8)
$
$
35,700.00
$
36,414.00
$
37,142.28
$
37,885.13
$
38,642.83
$
39,415.68
$
40,204.00
$
41,008.08
$
41,828.24
$
42,664.80
Equipment Maintenance Cost (8)
$
$
40,800.00
$
41,616.00
$
42,448.32
$
43,297.29
$
44,163.23
$
45,046.50
$
45,947.43
$
46,866.38
$
47,803.70
$
48,759.78
Equipment Fuel Costs (9)
$
$
244,800.00
$
249,696.00
$
254,689.92
$
259,783.72
$
264,979.39
$
270,278.98
$
275,684.56
$
281,198.25
$
286,822.22
$
292,558.66
Leachate Treatment Costs
$
$
218,018.88
$
222,379.26
$
226,826.84
$
231,363.38
$
235,990.65
$
481,420.92
$
491,049.34
$
500,870.33
$
510,887.73
$
521,105.49
Landfill - Disposal Tax ($2/Ton)
$
$
300,300.00
$
300,600.30
$
300,900.90
$
301,201.80
$
301,503.00
$
301,804.51
$
302,106.31
$
302,408.42
$
302,710.83
$
303,013.54
Annual Expenses
$
$
996,698.88
$
1,010,927.16
$
1,025,434.30
$
1,040,225.86
$
1,055,307.55
$
1,311,395.60
$
1,331,889.23
$
1,352,786.99
$
1,374,096.97
$
1,395,827.41
Annual Expenses /Normalized/
$
$
1,851,105.16
$
1,851,105,1b
$
1,851,105.16
$
1,851,105,1b
$
1,851,105.16
$
1,851,105,1b
$
1,851,105.16
$
1,851,105,1b
$
1,851,105.16
$
1,851,105,1b
Summary:
Total Annual Expenses:
$
1,750,000
$
5,961,699
1,375,067
$
1,375,434
$
1,040,226
1,077,389
$
5,948,535
$
1,331,889
$
1,352,787
$
1,374,097
$
1,420,207
Cumulative Expenses:
$
1,750,000
$
7,711,699
$
9,086,766
$
10,462,200
$
11,502,426
$
12,579,815
$
18,528,350
$
19,860,240
$
21,213,027
$
22,587,124
$
24,007,331
Total Annual Expenses lNormalizedl.
$
4,704,425
$
4,704,425
$
4,704,425
$
4,704,425
$
4,704,425
$
4,704,425
$
4,704,425
$
4,704,425
$
4,704,425
$
4,704,425
Cumulative Expenses/Normalizedl:
$
4,704,425
$
9,408,850
$
14,113,275
$
18,817,699
$
23,522,124
$
28,226,549
$
32,930,974
$
37,635,399
$
42,339,824
$
47,044,249
Average Annual Cost Disposal/$/ton)
$
30. 94
$
30, P4
$
30. 94
$
30, P4
$
30. 94
$
30, P4
$
30. 94
$
30, P4
$
30. 94
$
30. 94
Notes:
(1) Reference NCDEQ Solid Waste Annual Reports for Wilson County (2017-2018).
(2) All costs were developed using 2019 dollars and escalated annually at 2% to the year applied.
(3) All capital costs use cash reserves and do not require financing.
(4) Assume purchase of mobile home park parcels and Peabody parcel for sufficient expansion and borrow.
(5) Assume construction occurs every five years.
(6) Closure costs escalated annually and applied at the end of life and not periodically.
(7) Post -Closure costs escalated annually and are placed in reserve for use following closure.
(8) Data provide by Wilson County.
(9) Fuel costs assumes consumption at 7.5 gallons per hour and fuel prices are $3/gallon (2019).
Table 4A Opt 4 CD+MSW Reg 150K
SMITH GARDNER, INC. Page 1 of 3 Wilson County Solid Waste Financial Evaluation (09-20191

Wilson County- Evaluation of Long -Term Disposal Services
Table 4A: Option 4A - New Regional BOLF+ MSW
15o,000 TPY @ Start
Year
11
12
13
14
15
16
17
18
19
20
Fiscal Year
2030-2031
2031-2032
2032-2033
2033-2034
2034-2035
2035-2036
2036-2037
2037-2038
2038-2039
2039-2040
Waste Collection and Tonnages
Projected Population (1)
82,833
82,916
82,999
83,082
83,165
83,248
83,332
83,415
83,498
83,582
C&D (Tons/Year) Annual Disposal Max (1)
32,327
32,360
32,392
32,424
32,457
32,489
32,522
32,554
32,587
32,619
Per Capita Disposal (1)
1.77
1.77
1.77
1.77
1.77
1.77
1.77
1.77
1.77
1.77
City of Wilson Population (11
49,995.41
50,045.41
50,095.45
50,145.55
50,195.70
50,245.89
50,296.14
50,346.43
50,396.78
50,447.18
City of Wilson MSW + County C&D
151,658.27
151,809.93
151,961.74
152,113.70
152,265.82
152,418.08
152,570.50
152,723.07
152,875.80
153 028.67
Cumulative MSW+C&D Dispoal
1,659,933.07
1,811,743.01
1,963,704.75
2,115,818.46
2,268,084.27
2,420,502.36
2,573,072.86
2,725,795.93
2,878,671.73
3,031,700.40
Expenses - Capital Costs - Facility Development (2)(3)
Engineering and Permitting
$
$
$
$
$
26,917.37
$
$
$
$
$
29,718.95
Land Acquisition for Construction and Operational Soils (4)
$
$
$
$
$
-
$
$
$
-
$
$
-
Landfill Construction (5)
$
5,119,776.56
$
-
$
$
-
$
-
$
5,652,647.02
$
$
-
$
$
-
Annual Capital Costs
$
5,119,776.56
$
-
$
$
-
$
26,917.37
$
5,652,647.02
$
$
-
$
$
29,718.95
Annual Capital Costs Normalized
$
1,065,524.61
$
1,065,524.61
$
1,065,524.61
$
1,065,524.61
$
1,065,524.61
$
1,065,524.61
$
1,065,524.61
$
1,065,524.61
$
1,065,524.61
$
1,065,524.61
Expenses - Capital Costs - Closure and Post -Closure Costs (2)(3)
Annual Capital Costs - (Landfill Closure) (6)
$
$
-
$
$
-
$
$
-
$
$
-
$
$
-
Annual Post -Closure Costs (7)
$
$
-
$
$
-
$
$
-
$
$
-
$
$
-
Annual Closure + Post -Closure Costs
$
$
-
$
$
-
$
$
-
$
$
-
$
$
-
Annual Closure +Post -Closure Costs [Normalized]:
$
1,571,257.84
$
1,571,257.84
$
1,571,257.84
$
1,571,257.84
$
1,571,257.84
$
1,571,257.84
$
1,571,257.84
$
1,571,257 84
$
1,571,257.84
$
1,571,257 84
Expenses - Capital Costs - Equipment 2 (3)
Compactor (20151 Replacement
$
1,243,374.3
$
-
$
-
$
-
$
$
-
$
-
$
-
$
-
$
-
Dozer (2017) Replacement
$
$
-
$
507,296.72
$
-
$
$
-
$
$
-
$
$
Second Dozer+Replacement
$
$
-
$
-
$
-
$
$
549,114.28
$
$
-
$
$
Articulating Dump (20061 Replacement
$
$
-
$
$
-
$
$
-
$
490,084.50
$
-
$
$
Second Dump + Replacement
$
$
-
$
$
-
$
$
480,475.00
$
-
$
-
$
$
Excavator (2004) Replacement
$
$
-
$
$
-
$
$
-
$
$
350,000.00
$
$
Second Excavator + Replacement
$
$
-
$
$
-
$
$
480,475.00
$
$
-
$
$
-
Annual Equipment Replacement Costs
$
1,243,374.31
$
-
$
507,296.72
$
$
-
$
1,029,589.26
$
490,084.50
$
350,000.06
$
-
$
Annual Equipment Replacement CostslNormalized)
$
296,537.23
$
216,537.23
$
216,537.23
$
216,537.23
$
216,537.23
$
216,537.23
$
216,537.23
$
216,537.23
$
296,537.23
$
216,537.23
Expenses- Direct Expenses
Personnel & Operations (8)
$
191,479.64
$
195,309.24
$
199,215.42
$
203,199.73
$
207,263.72
$
211,409.00
$
215,637.18
$
219,949.92
$
224,348.92
$
228,835.90
Compliance Monitoring Through Closure (8)
$
43,518.10
$
44,388.46
$
45,276.23
$
46,181.76
$
47,105.39
$
48,047.50
$
49,008.45
$
49,988.62
$
50,988.39
$
52,008.16
Equipment Maintenance Cost (8)
$
49,734.97
$
50,729.67
$
51,744.27
$
52,779.15
$
53,834.73
$
54,911.43
$
56,009.66
$
57,129.85
$
58,272.45
$
59,437.90
Equipment Fuel Costs (9)
$
298,409.83
$
304,378.03
$
310,465.59
$
316,674.90
$
323,008.40
$
329,468.57
$
336,057.94
$
342,779.10
$
349,634.68
$
356,627.38
Leachate Treatment Costs
$
797,291.39
$
813,237.22
$
829,501.97
$
846,092.01
$
863,013.85
$
1,173,698.83
$
1,197,172.81
$
1,221,116.26
$
1,245,538.59
$
1,270,449.36
Landfill - Disposal Tax ($2/Ton)
$
303,316.55
$
303,619.87
$
303,923.49
$
304,227.41
$
304,531.64
$
304,836.17
$
305,141.00
$
305,446.15
$
305,751.59
$
306,057.34
Annual Expenses
$
1,683,750.49
$
1,711,662.49
$
1,740,126.96
$
1,769,154.96
$
1,798,757.73
$
2,122,371.50
$
2,159,027.04
$
2,196,409.90
$
2,234,534.62
$
2,273,416.03
Annual Expenses /Normalized/
$
1,851,105.1b
$
1,851,105.16
$
1,851,105. 9b
$
1,851,105.16
$
1,851,105,1b
$
1,851,105.16
$
1,851,105,1b
$
1,851,105.16
$
1,851,105,1b
$
1,851,105.16
Summary:
Total Annual Expenses:
$
8,046,901
$
1,711,662
$
2,247,424
1,769,155
$
1,825,675
$
8,804,608
$
2,649,112
$
2,546,410
$
2,234,535
$
2,303,135
Cumulative Expenses:
$
32,054,232
$
33,765,895
$
36,013,318
$
37,782,473
$
39,608,148
$
48,412,756
$
51,061,868
$
53,608,278
$
55,842,812
$
58,145,947
Total Annual Expenses lNormalizedl.
$
4,704,425
$
4,704,425
$
4,704,425
$
4,704,425
$
4,704,425
$
4,704,425
$
4,704,425
1 $
4,704,425
$
4,704,425
1 $
4,704,425
Cumulative Expenses/Normalizedl:
$
51,748,674
$
56,453,098
$
61,157,523
$
65,861,948
$
70,566,373
$
75,270,798
$
79,975,223
1 $
84,679,648
$
89,384,072
1 $
94,088,497
Average Annual Cost Disposal/$/ton)
1 $
30,941
$
30. 94
1 $
30,941
$
30. 94
1 $
30,941
$
30. 94
1 $
30,941
$
30. 94
1 $
30,941
$
30 P4
Notes:
(1) Reference NCDEQ Solid Waste Annual Reports for Wilson County (2017-2018).
(2) All costs were developed using 2019 dollars and escalated annually at 2% to the year applied.
(3) All capital costs use cash reserves and do not require financing.
(4) Assume purchase of mobile home park parcels and Peabody parcel for sufficient expansion and borrow.
(5) Assume construction occurs every five years.
(6) Closure costs escalated annually and applied at the end of life and not periodically.
(7) Post -Closure costs escalated annually and are placed in reserve for use following closure.
(8) Data provide by Wilson County.
(9) Fuel costs assumes consumption at 7.5 gallons per hour and fuel prices are $3/gallon (2019).
Table 4A Opt 4 CD+MSW Reg 150K
SMITH GARDNER, INC. Page 2 of 3 Wilson County Solid Waste Financial Evaluation (09-20191

Wilson County- Evaluation of Long -Term Disposal Services
Table 4A: Option 4A - New Regional BOLF+ MSW
15o,000 TPY @ Start
Year
21
22
23
24
25
26
Fiscal Year
2040-2041
2041-2042
2042-2043
2043-2044
2044-2045
2045-2046
Waste Collection and Tonnages
Projected Population (1)
83,665
83,749
83,833
83,917
84,001
84,085
C&D (Tons/Year) Annual Disposal Max (1)
32,652
32,685
32,717
32,750
32,783
32,816
Per Capita Disposal (1)
1.77
1.77
1.77
1.77
1.77
1.77
City of Wilson Population (11
50,497.62
50,548.12
50,598.67
50,649.27
50,699.92
50,750.62
City of Wilson MSW + County C&D
153,181.70
153,334.88
153,488.22
153,641.71
153,795.35
153,949.14
Cumulative MSW+ C&D Dispoal
3,184,882.10
3,338,216.98
3,491,705.20
3,645,346.91
3,799,142.25
3,953,091.39
Expenses - Capital Costs - Facility Development (2)(3)
Engineering and Permitting
$
$
$
$
$
$
Land Acquisition for Construction and Operational Soils (4)
$
$
$
$
$
$
Landfill Construction (5)
$
6,240,979.06
$
-
$
$
-
$
$
-
Annual Capital Costs
$
6,240,979.06
$
-
$
$
-
$
$
-
Annual Capital Costs Normalized
$
1,065,524.61
$
1,065,524.61
$
1,065,524.61
$
1,065,524.61
$
1,065,524.61
$
1,065,524.61
Expenses - Capital Costs - Closure and Post -Closure Costs (2)(3)
Annual Capital Costs - (Landfill Closure) (6)
$
$
-
$
$
-
$
$
17,863,738.4
Annual Post -Closure Costs (7)
$
$
-
$
$
-
$
$
22,988,965.5
Annual Closure + Post -Closure Costs
$
$
-
$
$
-
$
$ 40,852,703.82
Annual Closure + Post -Closure Costs [Normalized]:
$
1,571,257.84
$
1,571,257.84
$
1,571,257.84
$
1,571,257.84
$
1,571,257.84
$
1,571,257.84
Expenses - Capital Costs - Equipment 2 (3)
Compactor (20151 Replacement
$
$
-
$
$
-
$
-
$
-
Dozer (2017) Replacement
$
$
-
$
$
-
$
$
-
SecondDozer+Replacement
$
$
-
$
$
-
$
$
-
Articulating Dump (20061 Replacement
$
$
-
$
$
-
$
$
-
Second Dump + Replacement
$
530,483.22
$
-
$
$
-
$
$
Excavator (2004) Replacement
$
-
$
-
$
$
-
$
$
Second Excavator + Replacement
$
530,483.22
$
-
$
$
-
$
$
Annual Equipment Replacement Costs
$
530,483.22
$
$
-
$
$
-
$
-
Annual Equipment Replacement Costs /Normalized)
$
216,537.23
$
216,537.23
$
216,537.23
$
216,537.23
$
216,537.23
$
216,537.23
Expenses- Direct Expenses
Personnel & Operations (8)
$
233,412.62
$
238,080.87
$
242,842.49
$
247,699.34
$
252,653.32
$
257,706.39
Compliance Monitoring Through Closure (8)
$
53,048.32
$
54,109.29
$
55,191.47
$
56,295.30
$
57,421.21
$
58,569.63
Equipment Maintenance Cost (8)
$
60,626.65
$
61,839.19
$
63,075.97
$
64,337.49
$
65,624.24
$
66,936.72
Equipment Fuel Costs (9)
$
363,759.92
$
371,035.12
$
378,455.82
$
386,024.94
$
393,745.44
$
401,620.35
Leachate Treatment Costs
$
1,619,822.94
$
1,652,219.39
$
1,685,263.78
$
1,718,969.06
$
1,753,348.44
$
1,788,415.41
Landfill - Disposal Tax ($2/Ton)
$
306,363.40
$
306,669.76
$
306,976.43
$
307,283.41
$
307,590.69
$
307,898.28
Annual Expenses
$
2,637,033.85
$
2,683,953.62
$
2,731,805.97
$
2,780,609.54
$
2,830,383.34
$
2,881,146.79
Annual Expenses /Normalized/
$
1,851,105,1b
$
1,851,105.16
$
1,851,105,1b
$
1,851,105.16
$
1,851,105,1b
$
1,851,105.16
Summary:
Total Annual Expenses:
$
9,408,496
$
2,683,954
$
2,731,806
2,780,610
$
2,830,383
$
43,733,851
Cumulative Expenses:
$
67,554,443
$
70,238,397
$
72,970,203
$
75,750,813
$
78,581,196
$ 122,315,046
Total Annual Expenses lNormalizedl.
$
4,704,425
$
4,704,425
$
4,704,425
$
4,704,425
$
4,704,425
1 $
4,704,425
Cumulative Expenses/Normalizedl:
$
98,792,922
$ 103,497,347
$ 108,201,772
$ 112,906,197
$ 117,610,622
1 $ 122,315,046
Average Annual Cost Disposal/$/ton)
1 $
30,941
$
30.941
$
30,941
$
30.941
$
30,941
$
30.914
Notes:
(1) Reference NCDEQ Solid Waste Annual Reports for Wilson County (2017-2018).
(2) All costs were developed using 2019 dollars and escalated annually at 2% to the year applied.
(3) All capital costs use cash reserves and do not require financing.
(4) Assume purchase of mobile home park parcels and Peabody parcel for sufficient expansion and borrow.
(5) Assume construction occurs every five years.
(6) Closure costs escalated annually and applied at the end of life and not periodically.
(7) Post -Closure costs escalated annually and are placed in reserve for use following closure.
(8) Data provide by Wilson County.
(9) Fuel costs assumes consumption at 7.5 gallons per hour and fuel prices are $3/gallon (2019).
Table 4A Opt 4 CD+MSW Reg 150K
SMITH GARDNER, INC. Page 3 of 3 Wilson County Solid Waste Financial Evaluation (09-20191

Wilson County- Evaluation of Long -Term Disposal Services
Table 40: Option 4B - New Regional CSOLF+ MSW
loo,000 TPY @ Start
Year
0
1
2
3
4
5
6
7
8
9
10
Fiscal Year
2019-2020
2020-2021
2021-2022
2022-2023
2023-2024
2024-2025
2025-2026
2026-2027
2027-2028
2028-2029
2029-2030
Waste Collection and Tonnages
Projected Population (1)
81,928
82,010
82,092
82,174
82,256
82,338
82,420
82,503
82,585
82,668
82,751
C&D (Tons/Year) Annual Disposal Max (1)
31,974
32,006
32,038
32,070
32,102
32,134
32,166
32,198
32,231
32,263
32,295
Per Capita Disposal (1)
1.77
1.77
1.77
1.77
1.77
1.77
1.77
1.77
1.77
1.77
1.77
City of Wilson Population (11
49,448.75
49,498.20
49,547.70
49,597.24
49,646.84
49,696.49
49,746.18
49,795.93
49,845.73
49,895.57
49,945.47
City of Wilson MSW + County C&D
100,000.00
100,100.00
100,200.10
100,300.30
100,400.60
100,501.00
100,601.50
100,702.10
100,802.81
100 903.61
101,004.51
Cumulative MSW+C&D Dispoal
100,100.00
200,300.10
300,600.40
401,001.00
501,502.00
602,103.50
702,805.61
803,608.41
904,512.02
1,005,516.53
Expenses - Capital Costs - Facility Development (2)(3)
Engineering and Permitting
$
250,000.00
$
-
$
-
$
-
$
-
$
22,081.62
$
-
$
-
$
-
$
-
$
24,379.89
Land Acquisition for Construction and Operational Soils (4)
$
1,500,000.00
$
-
$
$
$
$
-
$
-
$
-
$
$
$
-
Landfill Construction (5)
$
-
$
3,017,000.00
$
$
-
$
$
-
$
3,331,011.78
$
-
$
$
-
$
-
Annual Capital Costs
$
1,750,000.00
$
3,017,000.00
$
$
-
$
$
22,081.62
$
3,331,011.78
$
-
$
$
-
$
24,379.89
Annual Capital Costs Normalized
$
846,830.81
$
846,830.81
$
846,830.81
$
846,830.81
$
846,830.81
$
846,830.81
$
846,830.81
$
846,830.81
$
846,830.81
$
846,830.81
Expenses - Capital Costs - Closure and Post -Closure Costs (2)(3)
Annual Capital Costs - (Landfill Closure) (6)
$
$
-
$
-
$
-
$
-
$
-
$
-
$
-
$
-
$
-
$
-
Annual Post -Closure Costs (7)
$
$
-
$
$
-
$
$
-
$
$
-
$
$
-
$
Annual Closure + Post -Closure Costs
$
$
-
$
$
-
$
$
-
$
$
-
$
$
-
$
Annual Closure + Post -Closure Casts (Normalized]:
$
1, 304, 948.93
$
1, 304, 948.93
$
1, 304, 948.93
$
1, 304, 948.93
$
1, 304, 948.93
$
1, 304, 948.93
$
1, 304, 948.93
$
1, 304, 948.93
$
1,304, 948.93
$
1, 304, 948.93
Expenses - Capital Costs - Equipment 2 (3)
Compactor (20151 Replacement
$
$
-
$
$
-
$
$
-
$
$
-
$
$
-
$
Dozer (2017) Replacement
$
$
-
$
$
-
$
$
-
$
$
-
$
$
$
Second Dozer+Replacement
$
$
408,000.00
$
$
-
$
$
-
$
$
-
$
$
$
Articulating Dump (20061 Replacement
$
$
-
$
364,140.00
$
-
$
$
-
$
$
-
$
$
$
Second Dump + Replacement
$
$
357,000.00
$
-
$
-
$
$
-
$
$
-
$
$
$
Excavator (2004) Replacement
$
$
-
$
$
350,000.00
$
$
-
$
$
-
$
$
-
$
Second Excavator + Replacement
$
$
357,000.00
$
$
-
$
$
-
$
$
-
$
$
-
$
Annual Equipment Replacement Costs
$
$
765,000.06
$
364,140.06
$
350,000.06
$
-
$
-
$
-
$
-
$
-
$
-
$
-
Annual Equipment Replacement Costs lNormalized)
$
$
187,665.66
$
187,665.66
$
187,665.66
$
187,665.66
$
187,665.66
$
187,665.66
$
187,665.66
$
187,665.66
$
187,665.66
$
187,665.66
Expenses- Direct Expenses
Personnel & Operations (8)
$
$
157,080.00
$
160,221.60
$
163,426.03
$
166,694.55
$
170,028.44
$
173,429.01
$
176,897.59
$
180,435.54
$
184,044.26
$
187,725.14
Compliance Monitoring Through Closure (8)
$
$
35,700.00
$
36,414.00
$
37,142.28
$
37,885.13
$
38,642.83
$
39,415.68
$
40,204.00
$
41,008.08
$
41,828.24
$
42,664.80
Equipment Maintenance Cost (8)
$
$
40,800.00
$
41,616.00
$
42,448.32
$
43,297.29
$
44,163.23
$
45,046.50
$
45,947.43
$
46,866.38
$
47,803.70
$
48,759.78
Equipment Fuel Costs (9)
$
$
244,800.00
$
249,696.00
$
254,689.92
$
259,783.72
$
264,979.39
$
270,278.98
$
275,684.56
$
281,198.25
$
286,822.22
$
292,558.66
Leachate Treatment Costs
$
$
134,028.00
$
136,708.56
$
139,442.73
$
142,231.59
$
145,076.22
$
295,955.48
$
301,874.59
$
307,912.09
$
314,070.33
$
320,351.73
Landfill - Disposal Tax ($2/Ton)
$
$
200,200.00
$
200,400.20
$
200,600.60
$
200,801.20
$
201,002.00
$
201,203.00
$
201,404.21
$
201,605.61
$
201,807.22
$
202,009.02
Annual Expenses
$
$
812,608.00
$
825,056.36
$
837,749.88
$
850,693.47
$
863,892.12
$
1,025,328.66
$
1,042,012.38
$
1,059,025.95
$
1,076,375.96
$
1,094,069.14
Annual Expenses /Normalized/
$
$
1,498,258.9b
$
1,498,258.9b
$
1,498,258.9b
$
1,498,258.9b
$
1,498,258.9b
$
1,498,258.9b
$
1,498,258.9b
$
1,498,258.9b
$
1,498,258 ?6
$
1,498,258.9b
Summary:
Total Annual Expenses:
$
1,750,000
$
4,594,608
1,189,196
1,187,750
$
850,693
885,974
$
4,356,340
$
1,042,012
$
1,059,026
$
1,076,376
$
1,118,449
Cumulative Expenses:
$
1,750,000
$
6,344,608
$
7,533,804
$
8,721,554
$
9,572,248
$
10,458,221
$
14,814,562
$
15,856,574
$
16,915,600
$
17,991,976
$
19,110,425
Total Annual Expenses lNormalizedl.
$
3,837,704
$
3,837,704
$
3,837,704
$
3,837,704
$
3,837,704
$
3,837,704
1 $
3,837,704
$
3,837,704
1 $
3,837,704
$
3,837,704
Cumulative Expenses/Normalizedl:
$
3,837,704
$
7,675,409
$
11,513,113
$
15,350,817
$
19,188,522
$
23,026,226
$
26,863,930
$
30,701,635
$
34,539,339
1 $
38,377,043
Average Annual Cost Disposal/$/ton)
$
37.79
1 $
37.79
$
37.79
1 $
37.79
$
37.79
1 $
37.79
$
37.79
1 $
37.79
$
37.79
1 $
37.79
Notes:
(1) Reference NCDEQ Solid Waste Annual Reports for Wilson County.
(2) All costs were developed using 2019 dollars and escalated annually at 2% to the year applied.
(3) All capital costs use cash reserves and do not require financing.
(4) Assume purchase of mobile home park parcels and Peabody parcel for sufficient expansion and borrow.
(5) Assume construction occurs every five years.
(6) Closure costs escalated annually and applied at the end of life and not periodically.
(7) Post -Closure costs escalated annually and are placed in reserve for use following closure.
(8) Data provide by Wilson County.
(9) Fuel costs assumes consumption at 7.5 gallons per hour and fuel prices are $3/gallon (2019).
Table 4B Opt 4 CD+MSW Reg 100
SMITH GARDNER, INC. Page 1 of 3 Wilson County Solid Waste Financial Evaluation (09-20191

Wilson County- Evaluation of Long -Term Disposal Services
Table 40: Option 4B - New Regional CSOLF+ MSW
loo,000 TPY @ Start
Year
11
12
13
14
15
16
17
18
19
20
Fiscal Year
2030-2031
2031-2032
2032-2033
2033-2034
2034-2035
2035-2036
2036-2037
2037-2038
2038-2039
2039-2040
Waste Collection and Tonnages
Projected Population (1)
82,833
82,916
82,999
83,082
83,165
83,248
83,332
83,415
83,498
83,582
C&D (Tons/Year) Annual Disposal Max (1)
32,327
32,360
32,392
32,424
32,457
32,489
32,522
32,554
32,587
32,619
Per Capita Disposal (1)
1.77
1.77
1.77
1.77
1.77
1.77
1.77
1.77
1.77
1.77
City of Wilson Population (11
49,995.41
50,045.41
50,095.45
50,145.55
50,195.70
50,245.89
50,296.14
50,346.43
50,396.78
50,447.18
City of Wilson MSW + County C&D
101,105.52
101,206.62
101,307.83
101,409.14
101,510.55
101,612.06
101,713.67
101,815.38
101,917.20
102,019.11
Cumulative MSW+C&D Dispoal
1,106,622.05
1,207,828.67
1,309,136.50
1,410,545.64
1,512,056.18
1,613,668.24
1,715,381.91
1,817,197.29
1,919,114.49
2,021,133.60
Expenses - Capital Costs - Facility Development (2)(3)
Engineering and Permitting
$
$
$
$
$
26,917.37
$
$
$
$
$
29,718.95
Land Acquisition for Construction and Operational Soils (4)
$
$
$
$
$
-
$
$
$
$
$
-
Landfill Construction (5)
$
3,677,706.17
$
-
$
$
-
$
-
$
4,060,484.78
$
$
-
$
$
-
Annual Capital Costs
$
3,677,706.17
$
-
$
$
-
$
26,917.37
$
4,060,484.78
$
$
-
$
$
29,718.95
Annual Capital Costs Normalized
$
846,830.81
$
846,830.81
$
846,830.81
$
846,830.81
$
846,830.81
$
846,830.81
$
846,830.81
$
846,830.81
$
846,830.81
$
846,830.81
Expenses - Capital Costs - Closure and Post -Closure Costs (2)(3)
Annual Capital Costs - (Landfill Closure) (6)
$
-
$
-
$
-
$
-
$
-
$
-
$
-
$
-
$
-
$
-
Annual Post -Closure Costs (7)
$
$
-
$
$
-
$
$
-
$
$
-
$
$
-
Annual Closure + Post -Closure Costs
$
$
-
$
$
-
$
$
-
$
$
-
$
$
-
Annual Closure + Post -Closure Casts (Normalized]:
$
1, 304, 948.93
$
1, 304, 948.93
$
1, 304, 948.93
$
1, 304, 948.93
$
1, 304, 948.93
$
1, 304, 948.93
$
1, 304, 948.93
$
1, 304, 948.93
$
1, 304, 948.93
$
1, 304, 948.93
Expenses - Capital Costs - Equipment 2 (3)
Compactor (20151 Replacement
$
1,243,374.3
$
-
$
-
$
-
$
-
$
-
$
-
$
-
$
-
$
-
Dozer (2017) Replacement
$
$
-
$
507,296.72
$
-
$
$
-
$
$
-
$
$
Second Dozer+Replacement
$
$
-
$
-
$
-
$
$
549,114.28
$
$
-
$
$
Articulating Dump (20061 Replacement
$
$
-
$
$
-
$
$
-
$
490,084.50
$
-
$
$
Second Dump + Replacement
$
$
-
$
$
-
$
$
480,475.00
$
-
$
-
$
$
Excavator (2004) Replacement
$
$
-
$
$
-
$
$
-
$
$
350,000.00
$
$
-
Second Excavator + Replacement
$
$
-
$
$
-
$
$
480,475.00
$
$
-
$
$
-
Annual Equipment Replacement Costs
$
1,243,374.31
$
-
$
507,296.72
$
-
$
-
$
1,029,589.26
$
490,084.50
$
350,000.06
$
-
$
-
Annual Equipment Replacement Costs lNormalized)
$
187,665.66
$
187,665.66
$
187,665.66
$
187,665.66
$
187,665.66
$
187,665.66
$
187,665.66
$
187,665.66
$
187,665.66
$
187,665.66
Expenses- Direct Expenses
Personnel & Operations (8)
$
191,479.64
$
195,309.24
$
199,215.42
$
203,199.73
$
207,263.72
$
211,409.00
$
215,637.18
$
219,949.92
$
224,348.92
$
228,835.90
Compliance Monitoring Through Closure (8)
$
43,518.10
$
44,388.46
$
45,276.23
$
46,181.76
$
47,105.39
$
48,047.50
$
49,008.45
$
49,988.62
$
50,988.39
$
52,008.16
Equipment Maintenance Cost (8)
$
49,734.97
$
50,729.67
$
51,744.27
$
52,779.15
$
53,834.73
$
54,911.43
$
56,009.66
$
57,129.85
$
58,272.45
$
59,437.90
Equipment Fuel Costs (9)
$
298,409.83
$
304,378.03
$
310,465.59
$
316,674.90
$
323,008.40
$
329,468.57
$
336,057.94
$
342,779.10
$
349,634.68
$
356,627.38
Leachate Treatment Costs
$
490,138.15
$
499,940.92
$
509,939.73
$
520,138.53
$
530,541.30
$
721,536.17
$
735,966.89
$
750,686.23
$
765,699.95
$
781,013.95
Landfill - Disposal Tax ($2/Ton)
$
202,211.03
$
202,413.24
$
202,615.66
$
202,818.27
$
203,021.09
$
203,224.11
$
203,427.34
$
203,630.76
$
203,834.39
$
204,038.23
Annual Expenses
$
1,275,491.74
$
1,297,159.56
$
1,319,256.90
$
1,341,792.34
$
1,364,774.64
$
1,568,596.77
$
1,596,107.45
$
1,624,164.48
$
1,652,778.79
$
1,681,961.51
Annual Expenses /Normalized/
$
1,498,258.9b
$
1,498,258.9b
$
1,498,258.9b
$
1,498,258.9b
$
1,498,258.9b
$
1,498,258.96
$
1,498,258.9b
$
1,498,258.9b
$
1,498,258.9b
$
1,498,258.96
Summary:
Total Annual Expenses:
$
6,196,572
$
1,297,160
$
1,826,554
1,341,792
$
1,391,692
6,658,671
$
2,086,192
$
1,974,164
$
1,652,779
$
1,711,680
Cumulative Expenses:
$
25,306,997
$
26,604,157
$
28,430,711
$
29,772,503
$
31,164,195
$
37,822,866
$
39,909,058
$
41,883,222
$
43,536,001
$
45,247,681
Total Annual Expenses lNormalizedl.
$
3,837,704
$
3,837,704
$
3,837,704
$
3,837,704
$
3,837,704
$
3,837,704
$
3,837,704
1 $
3,837,704
$
3,837,704
$
3,837,704
Cumulative Expenses/Normalizedl:
$
42,214,748
$
46,052,452
$
49,890,156
$
53,727,861
$
57,565,565
$
61,403,269
$
65,240,973
1 $
69,078,678
$
72,916,382
$
76,754,086
AverageAnnual Cost Disposal/$/ton)
1 $
37,79
$
37.79
1 $
37,79
$
37.79
1 $
37,79
$
37.79
1 $
37,79
$
37.79
1 $
37,79
$
37.79
Notes:
(1) Reference NCDEQ Solid Waste Annual Reports for Wilson County.
(2) All costs were developed using 2019 dollars and escalated annually at 2% to the year applied.
(3) All capital costs use cash reserves and do not require financing.
(4) Assume purchase of mobile home park parcels and Peabody parcel for sufficient expansion and borrow.
(5) Assume construction occurs every five years.
(6) Closure costs escalated annually and applied at the end of life and not periodically.
(7) Post -Closure costs escalated annually and are placed in reserve for use following closure.
(8) Data provide by Wilson County.
(9) Fuel costs assumes consumption at 7.5 gallons per hour and fuel prices are $3/gallon (2019).
Table 4B Opt 4 CD+MSW Reg 100
SMITH GARDNER, INC. Page 2 of 3 Wilson County Solid Waste Financial Evaluation (09-20191

Wilson County- Evaluation of Long -Term Disposal Services
Table 40: Option 4B - New Regional CSOLF+ MSW
loo,000 TPY @ Start
Year
21
22
23
24
25
26
27
28
29
30
Fiscal Year
2040-2041
2041-2042
2042-2043
2043-2044
2044-2045
2045-2046
2046-2047
2047-2048
2048-2049
2049-2050
Waste Collection and Tonnages
Projected Population (1)
83,665
83,749
83,833
83,917
84,001
84,085
84,169
84,253
84,337
84,421
C&D (Tons/Year) Annual Disposal Max (1)
32,652
32,685
32,717
32,750
32,783
32,816
32,848
32,881
32,914
32,947
Per Capita Disposal (1)
1.77
1.77
1.77
1.77
1.77
1.77
1.77
1.77
1.77
1.77
City of Wilson Population (11
50,497.62
50,548.12
50,598.67
50,649.27
50,699.92
50,750.62
50,801.37
50,852.17
50,903.02
50,953.92
City of Wilson MSW + County C&D
102,121.13
102,223.25
102,325.48
102,427.80
102,530.23
102,632.76
102,735.39
102,838.13
102,940.97
103,043.91
Cumulative MSW+ C&D Dispoal
2,123,254.73
2,225,477.99
2,327,803.47
2,430,231.27
2,532,761.50
2,635,394.26
2,738,129.66
2,840,967.79
2,943,908.75
3,046,952.66
Expenses - Capital Costs - Facility Development (2)(3)
Engineering and Permitting
$
$
$
$
$
32,812.12
$
$
$
$
$
Land Acquisition for Construction and Operational Soils (4)
$
$
$
$
$
-
$
$
$
-
$
$
-
Landfill Construction (5)
$
4,483,103.29
$
-
$
$
-
$
-
$
4,949,708.29
$
$
-
$
$
-
Annual Capital Costs
$
4,483,103.29
$
-
$
$
-
$
32,812.12
$
4,949,708.29
$
$
-
$
$
-
Annual Capital Costs Normalized
$
846,830.81
$
846,830.81
$
846,830.81
$
846,830.81
$
846,830.81
$
846,830.81
$
846,830.81
$
846,830.81
$
846,830.81
$
846,830.81
Expenses - Capital Costs - Closure and Post -Closure Costs (2)(3)
Annual Capital Costs - (Landfill Closure) (6)
$
-
$
-
$
-
$
-
$
-
$
-
$
-
$
-
$
-
$
14,264,472.5
Annual Post -Closure Costs (7)
$
$
-
$
$
-
$
$
-
$
$
-
$
$
24,883,995.5
Annual Closure + Post -Closure Costs
$
$
-
$
$
-
$
$
-
$
$
-
$
$ 39,148,468.00
Annual Closure + Post -Closure Casts (Normalized]:
$
1, 304, 948.93
$
1, 304, 948.93
$
1, 304, 948.93
$
1, 304, 948.93
$
1, 304, 948.93
$
1, 304, 948.93
$
1, 304, 948.93
$
1, 304, 948.93
$
1, 304, 948.93
$
1, 304, 948.93
Expenses - Capital Costs - Equipment 2 (3)
Compactor (20151 Replacement
$
$
-
$
$
-
$
$
-
$
$
-
$
$
-
Dozer (2017) Replacement
$
$
-
$
$
-
$
$
-
$
$
-
$
$
Second Dozer+Replacement
$
$
-
$
$
-
$
$
-
$
$
-
$
$
Articulating Dump (20061 Replacement
$
$
-
$
$
-
$
$
-
$
$
-
$
$
Second Dump + Replacement
$
530,483.22
$
-
$
$
-
$
$
-
$
$
-
$
$
Excavator (2004) Replacement
$
-
$
-
$
$
-
$
$
-
$
$
-
$
$
-
Second Excavator + Replacement
$
530,483.22
$
-
$
$
-
$
$
-
$
$
-
$
$
-
Annual Equipment Replacement Costs
$
530,483.22
$
-
$
-
$
-
$
-
$
-
$
-
$
-
$
-
$
-
Annual Equipment Replacement Costs lNormalized)
$
187,665.66
$
187,665.66
$
187,665.66
$
187,665.66
$
187,665.66
$
187,665.66
$
187,665.66
$
187,665.66
$
187,665.66
$
187,665.66
Expenses- Direct Expenses
Personnel & Operations (8)
$
233,412.62
$
238,080.87
$
242,842.49
$
247,699.34
$
252,653.32
$
257,706.39
$
262,860.52
$
268,117.73
$
273,480.08
$
278,949.68
Compliance Monitoring Through Closure (8)
$
53,048.32
$
54,109.29
$
55,191.47
$
56,295.30
$
57,421.21
$
58,569.63
$
59,741.03
$
60,935.85
$
62,154.56
$
63,397.66
Equipment Maintenance Cost (8)
$
60,626.65
$
61,839.19
$
63,075.97
$
64,337.49
$
65,624.24
$
66,936.72
$
68,275.46
$
69,640.97
$
71,033.79
$
72,454.46
Equipment Fuel Costs (9)
$
363,759.92
$
371,035.12
$
378,455.82
$
386,024.94
$
393,745.44
$
401,620.35
$
409,652.75
$
417,845.81
$
426,202.73
$
434,726.78
Leachate Treatment Costs
$
995,792.79
$
1,015,708.64
$
1,036,022.82
$
1,056,743.27
$
1,077,878.14
$
1,099,435.70
$
1,121,424.42
$
1,143,852.90
$
1,166,729.96
$
1,190,064.56
Landfill - Disposal Tax ($2/Ton)
$
204,242.27
$
204,446.51
$
204,650.96
$
204,855.61
$
205,060.46
$
205,265.52
$
205,470.79
$
205,676.26
$
205,881.94
$
206,087.82
Annual Expenses
$
1,910,882.57
$
1,945,219.62
$
1,980,239.53
$
2,015,955.95
$
2,052,382.81
$
2,089,534.32
$
2,127,424.96
$
2,166,069.52
$
2,205,483.06
$
2,245,680.96
Annual Expenses /Normalized/
$
1,498,258.9b
$
1,498,258.9b
$
1,498,258.9b
$
1,498,258.9b
$
1,498,258.9b
$
1,498,258.9b
$
1,498,258, 9b
$
1,498,258.9b
$
1,498,258.9b
$
1,498,258.9b
Summary:
Total Annual Expenses:
$
6,924,469
$
1,945,220
$
1,980,240
$
2,015,956
$
2,085,195
$
7,039,243
$
2,127,425
$
2,166,070
$
2,205,483
$
41,394,149
Cumulative Expenses:
$
52,172,151
$
54,117,370
$
56,097,610
$
58,113,566
$
60,198,761
$
67,238,003
$
69,365,428
$
71,531,498
$
73,736,981
$ 115,131,130
Total Annual Expenses lNormalizedl.
$
3,837,704
$
3,837,704
$
3,837,704
$
3,837,704
$
3,837,704
$
3,837,704
$
3,837,704
1 $
3,837,704
$
3,837,704
$
3,837,704
Cumulative Expenses/Normalizedl:
$
80,591,791
$
84,429,495
$
88,267,199
$
92,104,904
$
95,942,608
$
99,780,312
$ 103,618,017
1 $ 107,455,721
$ 111,293,425
$ 115,131,130
Average Annual Cost Disposal/$/ton)
$
37.79
$
37.79
$
37.79
$
37.79
$
37.79
$
37.79
$
37.79
$
37.79
$
37.79
$
37.79
Notes:
(1) Reference NCDEQ Solid Waste Annual Reports for Wilson County.
(2) All costs were developed using 2019 dollars and escalated annually at 2% to the year applied.
(3) All capital costs use cash reserves and do not require financing.
(4) Assume purchase of mobile home park parcels and Peabody parcel for sufficient expansion and borrow.
(5) Assume construction occurs every five years.
(6) Closure costs escalated annually and applied at the end of life and not periodically.
(7) Post -Closure costs escalated annually and are placed in reserve for use following closure.
(8) Data provide by Wilson County.
(9) Fuel costs assumes consumption at 7.5 gallons per hour and fuel prices are $3/gallon (2019).
Table 4B Opt 4 CD+MSW Reg 100
SMITH GARDNER, INC. Page 3 of 3 Wilson County Solid Waste Financial Evaluation (09-20191

a man Roy Cooper. Governor
■0, i NC DEPARTMENT OF Susi Hamilton, Secretary
■�xna NATURAL AND CULTURAL RESOURCES
a lee Walter Clark. Director, Land and Water Stewardship
NCNHDE-11370
February 13, 2020
Robert Zarzecki
Soil & Environmental Consultants, PA
8412 Falls of Neuse Road, Suite 104
Raleigh, INC 27615
RE: Wilson Landfill; 13165.W9
Dear Robert Zarzecki:
The North Carolina Natural Heritage Program (NCNHP) appreciates the opportunity to provide
information about natural heritage resources for the project referenced above.
Based on the project area mapped with your request, a query of the NCNHP database indicates that
there are no records for rare species, important natural communities, natural areas, and/or
conservation/managed areas within the proposed project boundary. Please note that although there
may be no documentation of natural heritage elements within the project boundary, it does not
imply or confirm their absence; the area may not have been surveyed. The results of this query
should not be substituted for field surveys where suitable habitat exists. In the event that rare
species are found within the project area, please contact the NCNHP so that we may update our
records.
The attached `Potential Occurrences' table summarizes rare species and natural communities that
have been documented within a one -mile radius of the property boundary. The proximity of these
records suggests that these natural heritage elements may potentially be present in the project area
if suitable habitat exists. Tables of natural areas and conservation/managed areas within a one -mile
radius of the project area, if any, are also included in this report.
If a Federally -listed species is found within the project area or is indicated within a one -mile radius of
the project area, the NCNHP recommends contacting the US Fish and Wildlife Service (USFWS) for
guidance. Contact information for USFWS offices in North Carolina is found here:
httos://www.fws.aov/offices/Directorv/ListOffices.cfm?statecode=37.
Please note that natural heritage element data are maintained for the purposes of conservation
planning, project review, and scientific research, and are not intended for use as the primary criteria
for regulatory decisions. Information provided by the NCNHP database may not be published
without prior written notification to the NCNHP, and the NCNHP must be credited as an information
source in these publications. Maps of NCNHP data may not be redistributed without permission.
The NC Natural Heritage Program may follow this letter with additional correspondence if a
Dedicated Nature Preserve, Registered Heritage Area, Clean Water Management Trust Fund
easement, or Federally -listed species are documented near the project area.
If you have questions regarding the information provided in this letter or need additional assistance,
please contact Rodney A. Butler at rodney.butlerCo)ncdcr.aov or 919-707-8603.
Sincerely,
INC Natural Heritage Program
DEPARTMENT OF NATURAL AND CULTURAL RESOURCES
Q 121 W JONES STREET. RnLDGi4. NC 27603 • 1651 MAIL SERVICE CENTER. RALEIGH. NC 17699
OFC 919.707.9120 • FAX [phone]i21

Natural Heritage Element Occurrences, Natural Areas, and Managed Areas Within a One -mile Radius of the Project Area
Wilson Landfill
Project No. 13165.W9
February 13, 2020
NCNHDE-11370
Element Occurrences Documented Within a One -mile Radius of the Project Area
Taxonomic EO ID Scientific Name Common Name t Element Accuracy Federal State Global State
Group Observation Occurrence Status Status Rank Rank
III Date Rank A
Amphibian 35990 Anaxyrus quercicus Oak Toad 1949-05-02 X 5-Very --- Significantly G5 S2
Low Rare
No Natural Areas are Documented Within a One -mile Radius of the Project Area
No Managed Areas are Documented Within a One -mile Radius of the Project Area
Definitions and an explanation of status designations and codes can be found at https://ncnhde.natureserve.org/content/help. Data query generated on February 13, 2020; source: NCNHP, Q1 Jan 2020.
Please resubmit your information request if more than one year elapses before project initiation as new information is continually added to the NCNHP database.
Page 2 of 3

NCNHDE-11370: Wilson Landfill
�o
5cc$ Nf' HlgnwaY 42 1�
'L
�P3r�
ashy SrE, {
a
Alamo °F m
Happy Valby 7y1 Ir y
ye��k Golf Caurse 'v
aV�v
anon Pa
'-ia .
If
{� o s'Idy Creeh
N s,
sfi
Wi:
S
February 13, 2020
❑ Project Boundary
❑ Buffered Project Boundary
Page 3 of 3
1:27,830
0 0.225 0.45 0.9 mi
0 0.375 0.75 1.5 km
Sources. Esn- HERE. Garrrin. Inter p. in ement P Corp.. GESCO, USGS,
FAO, NPS. MRCAN, G—a 3—, IG N. Kadastei Nt., Ordnance Survey. rsri Japan_
MLI �Yi Ghurs (Hvnp Korgj, (c) 9pen54reeUolap cantreutors, and the GIS
User C unlry

United States Department of the Interior
FISH AND WILDLIFE SERVICE
Raleigh Ecological Services Field Office
Pet '-' Post Office Box 33726
Raleigh, NC 27636-3726
Phone: [phone] Fax: [phone]
In Reply Refer To: February 13, 2020
Consultation Code: 04EN2000-2020-SLI-0646
Event Code: 04EN2000-2020-E-01448
Project Name: Wilson Landfill
Subject: List of threatened and endangered species that may occur in your proposed project
location, and/or may be affected by your proposed project
To Whom It May Concern:
The species list generated pursuant to the information you provided identifies threatened,
endangered, proposed and candidate species, as well as proposed and final designated critical
habitat, that may occur within the boundary of your proposed project and/or may be affected by
your proposed project. The species list fulfills the requirements of the U.S. Fish and Wildlife
Service (Service) under section 7(c) of the Endangered Species Act (Act) of 1973, as amended
(16 U.S.C. 1531 et seq.).
New information based on updated surveys, changes in the abundance and distribution of
species, changed habitat conditions, or other factors could change this list. Please feel free to
contact us if you need more current information or assistance regarding the potential impacts to
federally proposed, listed, and candidate species and federally designated and proposed critical
habitat. Please note that under 50 CFR 402.12(e) of the regulations implementing section 7 of the
Act, the accuracy of this species list should be verified after 90 days. This verification can be
completed formally or informally as desired. The Service recommends that verification be
completed by visiting the ECOS-IPaC website at regular intervals during project planning and
implementation for updates to species lists and information. An updated list may be requested
through the ECOS-IPaC system by completing the same process used to receive the enclosed list.
Section 7 of the Act requires that all federal agencies (or their designated non-federal
representative), in consultation with the Service, insure that any action federally authorized,
funded, or carried out by such agencies is not likely to jeopardize the continued existence of any
federally -listed endangered or threatened species. A biological assessment or evaluation may be
prepared to fulfill that requirement and in determining whether additional consultation with the
Service is necessary. In addition to the federally -protected species list, information on the
species' life histories and habitats and information on completing a biological assessment or

02/13/2020 Event Code: 04EN2000-2020-E-01448 2
evaluation and can be found on our web page at http://www.fws.gov/raleigh. Please check the
web site often for updated information or changes
If your project contains suitable habitat for any of the federally -listed species known to be
present within the county where your project occurs, the proposed action has the potential to
adversely affect those species. As such, we recommend that surveys be conducted to determine
the species' presence or absence within the project area. The use of North Carolina Natural
Heritage program data should not be substituted for actual field surveys.
If you determine that the proposed action may affect (i.e., likely to adversely affect or not likely
to adversely affect) a federally -protected species, you should notify this office with your
determination, the results of your surveys, survey methodologies, and an analysis of the effects
of the action on listed species, including consideration of direct, indirect, and cumulative effects,
before conducting any activities that might affect the species. If you determine that the proposed
action will have no effect (i.e., no beneficial or adverse, direct or indirect effect) on federally
listed species, then you are not required to contact our office for concurrence (unless an
Environmental Impact Statement is prepared). However, you should maintain a complete record
of the assessment, including steps leading to your determination of effect, the qualified personnel
conducting the assessment, habitat conditions, site photographs, and any other related articles.
Please be aware that bald and golden eagles are protected under the Bald and Golden Eagle
Protection Act (16 U.S.C. 668 et seq.), and projects affecting these species may require
development of an eagle conservation plan (http://www.fws.gov/windenergy/
eagle_guidance.html). Additionally, wind energy projects should follow the wind energy
guidelines (http://www.fws.gov/windenergy/) for minimizing impacts to migratory birds and
bats.
Guidance for minimizing impacts to migratory birds for projects including communications
towers (e.g., cellular, digital television, radio, and emergency broadcast) can be found at: http://
www.fws.gov/migratorybirds/CurrentBirdIssues/Hazards/towers/towers.htm; http://
www.towerkill.com; and http://www.fws.gov/migratorybirds/CurrentBirdlssues/Hazards/towers/
comtow.html.
Not all Threatened and Endangered Species that occur in North Carolina are subject to section 7
consultation with the U.S Fish and Wildlife Service. Atlantic and shortnose sturgeon, sea
turtles,when in the water, and certain marine mammals are under purview of the National Marine
Fisheries Service. If your project occurs in marine, estuarine, or coastal river systems you should
also contact the National Marine Fisheries Service, http://www.nmfs.noaa.gov/
We appreciate your concern for threatened and endangered species. The Service encourages
Federal agencies to include conservation of threatened and endangered species into their project
planning to further the purposes of the Act. Please include the Consultation Tracking Number in
the header of this letter with any request for consultation or correspondence about your project
that you submit to our office. If you have any questions or comments, please contact John Ellis
of this office at [e-mail].

02/13/2020 Event Code: 04EN2000-2020-E-01448
Attachment(s):
■ Official Species List

02/13/2020 Event Code: 04EN2000-2020-E-01448
Official Species List
This list is provided pursuant to Section 7 of the Endangered Species Act, and fulfills the
requirement for Federal agencies to "request of the Secretary of the Interior information whether
any species which is listed or proposed to be listed may be present in the area of a proposed
action".
This species list is provided by:
Raleigh Ecological Services Field Office
Post Office Box 33726
Raleigh, NC 27636-3726
[phone]

02/13/2020 Event Code: 04EN2000-2020-E-01448 2
Project Summary
Consultation Code: 04EN2000-2020-SLI-0646
Event Code: 04EN2000-2020-E-01448
Project Name: Wilson Landfill
Project Type: Landfill
Project Description: LCID & C&D Landfill, Wilson, Wilson County, NC
Project Location:
Approximate location of the project can be viewed in Google Maps: https:
www.google.com/maps/place/35.72276402078487N77.86343186792863W
H q.F.S :aIw, ?9T 7
Counties: Wilson, NC

02/13/2020 Event Code: 04EN2000-2020-E-01448 3
Endangered Species Act Species
There is a total of 4 threatened, endangered, or candidate species on this species list.
Species on this list should be considered in an effects analysis for your project and could include
species that exist in another geographic area. For example, certain fish may appear on the species
list because a project could affect downstream species.
IPaC does not display listed species or critical habitats under the sole jurisdiction of NOAA
Fisheries1, as USFWS does not have the authority to speak on behalf of NOAA and the
Department of Commerce.
See the "Critical habitats" section below for those critical habitats that lie wholly or partially
within your project area under this office's jurisdiction. Please contact the designated FWS office
if you have questions.
NOAA Fisheries, also known as the National Marine Fisheries Service (NMFS), is an
office of the National Oceanic and Atmospheric Administration within the Department of
Commerce.
Birds
NAME
Red -cockaded Woodpecker Picoides borealis
No critical habitat has been designated for this species.
Species profile: https:Hecos.fws.gov/ecp/species/7614
Amphibians
NAME
STATUS
Endangered
STATUS
Neuse River Waterdog Necturus lewisi Proposed
There is proposed critical habitat for this species. Your location is outside the critical habitat. Threatened
Species profile: https:Hecos.fws.gov/ecp/species/6772
Fishes
NAME
STATUS
Carolina Madtom Noturus furiosus Proposed
There is proposed critical habitat for this species. Your location is outside the critical habitat. Endangered
Species profile: https:Hecos.fws.gov/ecp/species/528

02/13/2020 Event Code: 04EN2000-2020-E-01448 4
Flowering Plants
NAME
Michaux's Sumac Rhus michauxii
No critical habitat has been designated for this species.
Species profile: https:Hecos.fws.gov/ecp/species/5217
Critical habitats
STATUS
Endangered
THERE ARE NO CRITICAL HABITATS WITHIN YOUR PROJECT AREA UNDER THIS OFFICE'S
JURISDICTION.

Species Conclusions Table
Project Name: Wilson Landfill
Date: 03/23/2020
Species / Resource Name
Conclusion
ESA Section 7 / Eagle Act
Notes / Documentation
Determination
Red -cockaded Woodpecker
No suitable habitat present
No effect
Preliminary survey conducted by S&EC
(Picoides borealis)
staff on 2/25/2020
Neuse River Waterdog
No suitable habitat present
No effect
Preliminary survey conducted by S&EC
(Necturus lewisi)
staff on 2/25/2020
Carolina Madtom
No suitable habitat present
No effect
Preliminary survey conducted by S&EC
(Noturus furiosus)
staff on 2/25/2020
Michaux's Sumac
Suitable habitat present,
May affect, not likely to adversely affect
Preliminary survey conducted by S&EC
(Rhus michauxii)
species not present
staff on 2/25/2020
Bald Eagle
No suitable habitat present,
No Eagle Act Permit Required
Preliminary survey conducted by S&EC
(Haliaeetus leucocephalus)
species not present
staff on 2/25/2020
Northern Long-eared Bat
Suitable habitat present,
May affect, not likely to adversely affect
Preliminary survey conducted by S&EC
(Myotis septentrionalis)
species not present
staff on 2/25/2020
Critical Habitat
No critical habitat present
No effect
Acknowledgement: I agree that the above information about my proposed project is true. I used all of the provided resources to make an
informed decision about impacts in the immediate and surrounding areas.
Kevin Murphrey / Environmental Scientist, Wetlands Department at S&EC, PA 03/23/2020
Signature /Title Date

United States Department of the
Project Name
FISH AND WILDLIFE SERVICE
Raleigh Field Office
P.O. Box 33726
Raleigh, NC 27636-3726
Date: 3/23/2020
Self -Certification Letter
Wilson Landfill Property
Dear Applicant:
x�arevr�s
Interior
F
Thank you for using the U.S. Fish and Wildlife Service (Service) Raleigh Ecological
Services online project review process. By printing this letter in conjunction with your
project review package, you are certifying that you have completed the online project
review process for the project named above in accordance with all instructions
provided, using the best available information to reach your conclusions. This letter,
and the enclosed project review package, completes the review of your project in
accordance with the Endangered Species Act of 1973 (16 U.S.C. 1531-1544, 87 Stat.
884), as amended (ESA), and the Bald and Golden Eagle Protection Act (16 U.S.C.
668-668c, 54 Stat. 250), as amended (Eagle Act). This letter also provides
information for your project review under the National Environmental Policy Act of
1969 (P.L. 91-190, 42 U.S.C. 4321-4347, 83 Stat. 852), as amended. A copy of this
letter and the project review package must be submitted to this office for this
certification to be valid. This letter and the project review package will be maintained
in our records.
The species conclusions table in the enclosed project review package summarizes
your ESA and Eagle Act conclusions. Based on your analysis, mark all the
determinations that apply:
"no effect" determinations for proposed/listed species and/or
❑✓ proposed/designated critical habitat; and/or
"may affect, not likely to adversely affect" determinations for proposed/listed
species and/or proposed/designated critical habitat; and/or
❑ "may affect, likely to adversely affect" determination for the Northern long-
eared bat (Myotis septentrionalis) and relying on the findings of the January 5,
2016, Programmatic Biological Opinion for the Final 4(d) Rule on the
Northern long-eared bat;
❑� "no Eagle Act permit required" determinations for eagles.

Applicant Page 2
We certify that use of the online project review process in strict accordance with the
instructions provided as documented in the enclosed project review package results in
reaching the appropriate determinations. Therefore, we concur with the "no effect" or
"not likely to adversely affect" determinations for proposed and listed species and
proposed and designated critical habitat; the "may affect" determination for Northern
long-eared bat; and/or the "no Eagle Act permit required" determinations for eagles.
Additional coordination with this office is not needed. Candidate species are not
legally protected pursuant to the ESA. However, the Service encourages consideration
of these species by avoiding adverse impacts to them. Please contact this office for
additional coordination if your project action area contains candidate species.
Should project plans change or if additional information on the distribution of
proposed or listed species, proposed or designated critical habitat, or bald eagles
becomes available, this determination may be reconsidered. This certification letter is
valid for 1 year. Information about the online project review process including
instructions, species information, and other information regarding project reviews
within North Carolina is available at our website http://www.fws.gov/raleigh/pp.html.
If you have any questions, you can write to us at Raleigh(cr�,fws.gov or please contact
Leigh Mann of this office at 919-856-4520, ext. 10.
Sincerely,
/s/Pete Benjamin
Pete Benjamin
Field Supervisor
Raleigh Ecological Services
Enclosures - project review package

Phase II Testing of Archaeological Site 31WL178:
Interim Progress Report
and
National Register of Historic Places Eligibility Recommendation
Wilson County Solid Waste Tract
Wilson County, North Carolina
Dawn Reid and Bobby Southerlin
Archaeological Consultants of the Carolinas, Inc.
March 2020
Introduction
In October 2017, Archaeological Consultants of the Carolinas, Inc. (ACC) conducted an
archaeological survey of a proposed expansion tract at the Wilson County Solid Waste Site in Wilson
County, North Carolina. The survey area is located just east of the town of Wilson and encompassed
approximately 34 acres (Figure 1). The property is owned by Wilson County, and the project area
boundaries were comprised primarily of property lines, except the eastern boundary, which is bounded by
the floodplain of Buck Branch, a tributary of Toisnot Creek. The majority of the project tract was
characterized by fallow agricultural fields. This survey was undertaken on behalf of Bartlett Engineering
and Surveying. The goals of this investigation were to identify all archaeological resources located within
the project's Area of Potential Effect (APE), assess those resources for eligibility to the National Register
of Historic Places (NRHP), and make management recommendations, as appropriate.
NASH
Elm City Q
COUNTY
TJ� EDGECOMBE
`� J COUNTY
Sims
Wilson � � Prajecl Ucnily
�L \
WILSON
COUNTY
Saratoga
JOHNSTON
Lucama �✓
COUNTY'
l
i
Black
Creek
Stantonsburg
Kenly
r"•
Wilson Co. Solid Waste
Ccunty Boundary
GREENE
COUNTY
0 Municipal Boundary
WAYNE
COUNTY
0 1.5 3 4.5
u-F
6
Miles
JIL
Figure 1. Map showing approximate location of the project area.
Background research was conducted at the North Carolina Office of State Archaeology (OSA) in
Raleigh. Two previously recorded sites were identified within the project tract, 31WL02 and 31WL178.
Site 31 WL02 was recorded in 1968 by a local artifact collector who had collected Native American lithic
and ceramic artifacts at the site. No NRHP eligibility recommendation was advanced for this site. Site
31WL178 was recorded in 1990. The data was based on a surface collection survey. Native American

components identified included Middle Archaic, Late Archaic, and Woodland. An eighteenth -century
historic component was identified based on the recovery of temporally diagnostic glass and ceramics. Based
solely on the surface collection, site 31 WL 178 was recommended not eligible for the NRHP.
During the course of this survey, both previously recorded sites were located, and their boundaries
were formally defined (Figure 2). Site 31 WL02 was found to contain both historic and prehistoric
components. Artifact deposits were relatively deep, and the deepest deposits included artifacts dating to the
Early Archaic Period. Multiple ceramic period components spanning the Woodland Period were also
identified. The historic component is very disturbed and mainly consists of debris associated with a
nineteenth/twentieth century dairy farm complex. Historic and prehistoric components were also identified
at site 31 WL 178. The prehistoric occupation spans the Woodland Period, and it was noted that there remains
the potential for intact evidence of earlier occupations based on the presence of relatively deep deposits.
Previous work at this site had documented Middle and Late Archaic components. The historic component
consists of a middle eighteenth century occupation with a light scatter of more modern material.
Based on the results of this investigation, both sites appeared to have good research potential for
addressing both early historic and prehistoric lifeways. Site 31 WL02 may have the potential to add new
information about Archaic and Woodland settlement in the region. Site 31WL178 may also have the
potential to contribute significant data on Archaic and Woodland settlement, as well as contribute to our
understanding of early historic settlement in the project area during the eighteenth century. Additional
evaluation (i.e., Phase II testing) of both sites was recommended in order to definitively determine their
NRHP eligibility (Southerlin 2017). This document addresses the Phase II testing of site 31 WL 178.
Phase II Testing
Following consultations with State Historic Preservation Office (SHPO) archaeologists, a Phase II
testing plan was developed to more fully assess site 31WL178. This plan consisted of several tasks,
including:
• Excavation of five 1 by 2-meter test units
• Machine scraping away the plow zone at ten 3 by 5 meter scrapes
• Sampling of identified cultural features
• Metal detector survey, and
• Detailed archival research on the historic occupations
Field tasks were conducted between 3 February and 13 March 2020, and archival research is ongoing.
Site 31WL178
Five 1 by 2-meter test units were excavated at site 31WL178. These units were placed in areas
where survey shovel tests had encountered either deep deposits or temporally diagnostic artifacts (Figure
3). The plowzone was removed as a single level; subsequent levels were excavated in 10-centimeter
increments. When exposed, in situ diagnostic tools were collected without being touched. These tools will
be submitted for blood residue analysis. A brief summary of each test unit's characteristics is presented
below. Unit profile photographs are presented in Appendix A.
Test Unit 201 was excavated in three levels. The plowzone extended to a depth of 45 centimeters
below the ground surface (cmbs) and yielded Westerwald stoneware, creamware, pearlware, a variety of
glass, and prehistoric debitage and ceramics. Level 2 (45-55 cmbs) yielded dark olive green bottle glass,
2

Tom• -- '..' �
f
y .'t
31 W L178
Wilson Co. Solid Waste
Original APE
Revised APE
CDfootprint_50ftcorridor
potential_pond
- -
N
w e
Archaeological Site
s
0 50 100 150
200
Meters
Figure 2. Aerial map showing sites 31 WL02 and 31 WL 178 in relationship to the original APE
and the revised APE.
3

_ 8
5
202
10
20
'x 3 2
205
Legend
APE Scraped area
Archaeological Site Test Unit
Further Work 2-ft Contour
N
WE
s
0 10 20 30 40 50
Meters
Figure 3. Map showing location of test units and machine scrapes at 31 WL178.
4

prehistoric lithic debitage, a groundstone tool, and a Middle Archaic Morrow Mountain projectile point.
Level 3 (55-65 cmbs) yielded two flakes and a prehistoric pipe bowl fragment.
Test Unit 202 was excavated in seven levels, with Levels 6 and 7 only being excavated in the
eastern half of the unit. Level 1, the plowzone, extended to a depth of 19 to 23 cmbs and yielded creamware,
pearlware, salt glazed stoneware, brick fragments, a variety of glass and rusted metal, and prehistoric lithic
debitage. Level 2 (19-29 cmbs) yielded creamware, pearlware, glass, metal, and prehistoric lithic debitage.
Level 3 (29-39 cmbs) yielded a few pieces of creamware and pearlware, lithic debitage, residual sherds,
and an Archaic Period projectile point. Level 4 (39-49 cmbs) contained only six pieces of lithic debitage.
Level 5 (49-59 cmbs) yielded two flakes. Level 6 (59-69 cmbs) excavated in the east half of the unit only
yielded two flakes and Level 7 (69-79 cmbs), also excavated in the east half of the unit only, was sterile.
Test Unit 203 was excavated in five levels to a maximum depth of 82 cmbs. The upper three levels
of this unit were excavated to 68 cmbs and contained mottled soil that was determined to be fill. The original
plowzone is believed to be present between 40 and 68 cmbs in this unit. These levels yielded small brick
fragments, rocks, and a few flakes, as well as aluminum and plastic. One piece of brown salt glazed
stoneware was recovered from what was determined to the be the original plowzone. Subsequent levels
yielded only a single rock and a possible brick fragment.
Test Unit 204 was excavated in five levels to a maximum depth of 78 centimeters. The plowzone
extended to a depth of 38 cmbs and yielded slipware, creamware, British Brown stoneware, glass, a kaolin
pipe stem fragment, and a nail, as well as quartz and metavolcanic debitage and two Archaic tool fragments.
Level 2 (38-48 cmbs) yielded quartz and metavolcanics debitage, residual sherds, and one nail fragment.
Artifact density dramatically decreased in Level 3 (48-58 cmbs), with only five small flakes being
recovered. Levels 4 (58-68 cmbs) and 5 (68-78 cmbs) were only excavated in the western half of the unit.
These levels each yielded a single small flake.
Test Unit 205 was excavated in three levels to a depth of 52 cmbs. The plowzone extended to 32
cmbs and yielded a variety of bottle glass, small pieces of fired clay, plastic, quartz and metavolcanic
debitage, and several residual sherds. Level 2 (32-42 cmbs) yielded significantly fewer artifacts, consisting
of very small quartz and metavolcanic flakes. Level 3 (4-52 cmbs) yielded two flakes and a number of small
pebbles.
Machine Scrapes. Ten machine scrapes measuring 3 by 5-meters were exposed at 31WL178 (see
Figure 3). A backhoe with a smooth bladed bucket removed the plowzone, exposing E horizon soil. Each
machine scrape was then shovel shaved. The depth of the plowzone was variable across the site, although
it averaged between 35 and 40 cmbs. Scrapes 1 through 8 contained some tree stains but no cultural features.
Plan views of a selection of these scrapes is presented in Appendix B. Scrape 9 contained one possible post
stain and two tree burns. Scrape 10 contained a cluster of stains that were determined to be cultural in
nature.
A total of 13 circular or ovoid features of varying sizes were at least partially exposed in Scrape 10
(Table 1; Appendix C). Following the drawing and photo -documentation of each feature, one half was
removed, and the fill was sieved through 0.25 inch screen. The feature profile was then drawn and
photographed. A minimum of 5-gallon soil sample was collected from the remaining half of each feature
for fine screening, but these samples have not yet been processed. Small fragments of fired clay and possible
brick was recovered from most of these pits. Many others yielded creamware, pearlware, and other late
eighteenth/early nineteenth century ceramics. An intact hoe blade was recovered from Feature 607, one of
the largest of the pit features. At least eight of these features contained bone in varying degrees of
preservation. A preliminary examination of the bone identified cow, pig, and deer. Many of the features
also contained lenses of charcoal and/or fine sand and silt, suggesting both disposal of burned debris and
the leaving open of the pit for a period of time. Several of these features are extremely large, and one could
possibly be a house cellar, although this cannot be confirmed at this time.
5

Table 1. Summary of Cultural Features Identified in Scrape 10.
Feature #
Feature Type
Size
Bone/Charcoal
Diagnostic
Artifacts
601
Pit
120 x 130 cm; 35 cm deep
Yes
Yes
602
Pit
140 x 150 cm, 12 cm deep
Yes
603
Pit
50 x 70 cm, 22 cm deep
Yes
604
Pit
50 x 75 cm, 10 cm deep
-
Yes
605
Pit
50 x 45 cm, 8 cm deep
Yes
606
Pit
120 x 110 cm, 25 cm deep
-
Yes
607
Pit
200 x 190 cm, 50 cm deep
Yes
Yes, hoe
608
Post
20 x 35 cm, 15 cm deep-
-
609
Pit in progress)
200+ in diameter
Yes
Yes
613
Pit in progress)
Yes
614
Pit in progress)
Yes
615
Pit (in progress)
Recommendations
The initial archaeological survey (Southerlin 2017) also identified a prehistoric component at
31WL178. Ceramic and lithic artifacts were found to be lightly scattered across the site. No intact midden
deposits, cultural features, or intact buried cultural zones associated with the prehistoric occupation at
31 WL 178 were found. The Scrape 10 area had the highest frequency of prehistoric artifacts at the site. But
this area was extremely disturbed by historic activities. A number of diagnostic prehistoric tools were found
at Scrape 10, including several in historic feature pit fill. Due to the subsequent historic disturbance, the
prehistoric component at this site lacks stratigraphic integrity. It is unlikely to yield new or significant
information about the prehistoric occupation of the region. For this reason, the prehistoric component at
31 WL 178 is recommended not eligible for the NRHP.
Site 31WL178 retains intact cultural features associated with the late eighteenth/early nineteenth
century occupation. Temporally diagnostic ceramics, especially pearlwares and creamwares, were
recovered from most of these features. The function of these pits is currently unknown, although most
appear to have been used for debris and food processing/disposal. The recovered artifacts can be used as
status indicators and to reconstruct material cultural patterns. Preserved organic material (bone and
charcoal) is present and can shed light on the subsistence and/or animal husbandry practices of early
American residents of what would become Wilson County. Based on the Phase II tasks conducted to date,
artifact and feature distributions can be utilized to identify specific activity areas. Based on these factors,
site 31WL178 is recommended eligible for the NRHP under Criterion D. Presently, the potential occupants
of the site are unknown; however, additional archival research may be able to shed light on those people.
This Phase II has served to define the eastern portion of site 31 WL 178 as having retained the most
significant features and deposits. The western portion of the site has undergone varying degrees of
disturbance and no intact cultural features were identified in the test units or scrapes excavated there. Figure
4 illustrates the portion of the site that is recommended for either preservation or mitigation.
Preservation of this resource or mitigation of proposed adverse impacts should be considered. If
impacts to the site area will be avoided, permanent measures to insure its preservation into the future will
be necessary. These measures will be determined by the State Historic Preservation Office (SHPO) but
may minimally include development and execution of a Memorandum of Agreement, establishment of a
preservation or conservation easement, and the installation of permanent fencing around the site.
If preservation of the significant portion of site 31WLL178 not be possible, further data recovery
is recommended. It is recommended that this phase include:
0

y
31 W L178 203
9
Legend
APE Scraped area
Archaeological Site 7 Test Unit
Further Work 2-ft Contour
N
W+E
s
0 10 20 30 40 50
Meters
Figure 4. Map showing area recommended for preservation or further work.
7

1. Additional machine scraping in the immediate vicinity of Scrape 10 in an effort to determine if any
additional intact cultural features are present. We recommend a minimum of three additional
machine scrapes to further attempt to identify cultural features, particularly those that may be
associated with a house.
2. The expansion of Scrape 10 to fully expose all features.
3. The complete excavation of the larger features to assess whether or not they are associated with a
house or to determine what other function they may have served.
In our view, this additional work would suffice as data recovery, thus clearing the site area for development.
0

Appendix A. Test Unit Profiles at 31WL178

10

Appendix B. Plan Views of Select Machine Scrapes at 31WL178
11

Scrape_1f
Scra e 3
r,
k
a .-
Scrape 2
Scraps 5
Scrape 10

Appendix C. Scrape 10 Plan View and Selected Features
13

v
h1k.
15

16

Phase II Testing Management Summary and
National Register of Historic Places Statement of Eligibility
For Archaeological Sites 31WL02 and 31WL178,
Wilson County Solid Waste Site, Wilson County North Carolina
ER 17-1519
Prepared by
Bobby Southerlin
Archaeological Consultants of the Carolinas, Inc.
August 2020
Introduction
In October 2017, Archaeological Consultants of the Carolinas, Inc. (ACC) conducted an
archaeological survey of a proposed expansion tract at the Wilson County Solid Waste Site in Wilson
County, North Carolina. The survey area is located just east of the town of Wilson and encompassed
approximately 34 acres (Figure 1). The property is owned by Wilson County, and the project area
boundaries were comprised primarily of property lines, except the eastern boundary, which is bounded by
the floodplain of Buck Branch, a tributary of Toisnot Creek. The majority of the project tract was
characterized by fallow agricultural fields. This survey was undertaken on behalf of Bartlett Engineering
and Surveying. The goals of this investigation were to identify all archaeological resources located within
the project's Area of Potential Effect (APE), assess those resources for eligibility to the National Register
of Historic Places (NRHP), and make management recommendations, as appropriate.
Background research was conducted at the North Carolina Office of State Archaeology (OSA) in
Raleigh. Two previously recorded sites were identified within the project tract, 31WL02 and 31WL178.
Site 31 WL02 was recorded in 1968 by a local artifact collector who had collected Native American lithic
and ceramic artifacts at the site. No NRHP eligibility recommendation was advanced for this site. Site
31WL178 was recorded in 1990. The data was based on a surface collection survey. Native American
components identified included Middle Archaic, Late Archaic, and Woodland. An eighteenth -century
historic component was identified based on the recovery of temporally diagnostic glass and ceramics. Based
solely on the surface collection, site 31 WL 178 was recommended not eligible for the NRHP.
During the course of this survey, both previously recorded sites were located, and their boundaries
were formally defined (Figure 2). Site 31 WL02 was found to contain both historic and prehistoric
components. Artifact deposits were relatively deep, and the deepest deposits included artifacts dating to the
Early Archaic Period. Multiple ceramic period components spanning the Woodland Period were also
identified. The historic component is very disturbed and mainly consists of debris associated with a
nineteenth/twentieth century dairy farm complex. Historic and prehistoric components were also identified
at site 31 WL 178. The prehistoric occupation spans the Woodland Period, and it was noted that there remains
the potential for intact evidence of earlier occupations based on the presence of relatively deep deposits.
Previous work at this site had documented Middle and Late Archaic components. The historic component
consists of a middle eighteenth century occupation with a light scatter of more modern material.

�_77'-~
/ 'I
f/
/
NASH Elm City ri
COUNTY
1
i a J
EDGECOMBE
COUNTY
Sims
ti
Wilson 5 O
� (�, Prajecl Vicnity
WILSON
COUNTY
`
Saratoga
LN(Y)
Lucama
1 �a Black
Creek
Z
Stantonsburg
��
Wilson Co. Solid Waste
® County Boundary
GREENE
COUNTY
0 Municipal Boundary
WAYNE
0 1.5 3
COUNTY
4.5 6
Miles
Figure 1. Map showing approximate location of the project area.
Following consultations with State Historic Preservation Office (SHPO) archaeologists, a Phase II
testing plan was developed to more fully assess sites 31 WL02 and 31 WL 178. This plan consisted of several
tasks, including:
• Excavation of five 1 by 2-meter test units;
• Machine scraping away the plow zone at ten 3 by 5-meter scrapes;
• Sampling of identified cultural features and analyses of their contents;
• Geomorphological analysis of the project setting;
• Metal detector survey; and
• Detailed archival research on the historic occupations
Field tasks were conducted between 3 February and 7 April 2020. Archival research and laboratory analyses
are ongoing.
Based on the results of this investigation, both sites have demonstrated that they retain sealed
contexts which can contribute data on research themes about both historic and prehistoric lifeways. Site
31WL02 can add new information about Archaic and Woodland settlement in the region. Site 31WL178
can contribute to our understanding of early historic settlement in what is now Wilson County during the
late eighteenth through early nineteenth century. This document provides an update on the Phase II testing
of sites 31 WL02 and 31 WL178, including a definitive NRHP eligibility statement for each site.

31WL178
It
-
Y �
i
`- 31 WL02'`
Wilson Co. Solid Waste
Original APE
Revised APE
CDfootprint_50ftcorridor
potential_pond
- � Archaeological Site
ti
0 50 100 150 200
!' S
Meters
Figure 2. Aerial map showing sites 31 WL02 and 31 WL 178 in relationship to the original APE
and the revised APE.

Site 31WL02
Field Results
Metal Detection. Metal detection survey was conducted at 31 WL02 but with disappointing results.
A previously identified late nineteenth/early twentieth century component associated with a dairy farm had
been identified at the far northern part of the site, but this component was determined not eligible for the
NRHP and was not the focus of metal detection efforts. Metal detection efforts were instead focused on
identifying any items which could be linked to the Late Woodland (Protohistoric) component at the site. In
addition to general metal detection sweeps at 7.5-meter intervals across the site area, machine scrapes and
features were metal detected. Extensive metal debris was found in the northern part of the site, but no items
linked to the Late Woodland (or early historic) occupation were identified.
Test Units. Five test units measuring 1 by 2 meters were excavated at 31WL02 (Figure 3). These
units exposed disturbed plow zone contexts ranging in depths from 20 — 35 centimeters below surface.
Subsequent sub -plow zone levels were excavated in arbitrary 10-centimeter zones. Maximum depths of test
units ranged between 40 and 100 centimeters below the surface. Two cultural features (Features 601 and
602) were identified in test units; Feature 601 was identified in Test Unit 201 and Feature 602 was identified
in Test Unit 202. A variety of diagnostic lithic and ceramic artifacts were collected from test units. Table
1 summarizes details of the test units at 31 WL02. Unit profile photographs are presented in Appendix A.
Table 1. Description of Test Units Excavated at Site 31WL02.
Test Unit
Prehistoric Artifact Quantity
Historic
Components
Features
Number
Artifact
Identified
Quantity
Lithics
Ceramics
Organic
(Presence/
Absence
201
169
12
Bone
102
19th-20th cen.
601
Late Woodland
Early Woodland
Middle Archaic
202
240
34
Absent
6
Unknown historic
602
Late Woodland
Middle Woodland
Middle Archaic
203
184
50
Bone
3
L. 19' -E. 20" cen.
-
Late Woodland
Middle Woodland
Early Woodland
204
75
10
Charcoal
-
Late Woodland
-
Middle Woodland
205
136
12
Absent
-
Late Woodland
-

31 WL178 _
'2
8
' 9 `201
�Y `
I 202 7 +,
203
1
Y
�.�• � ' � yam.
Legend
APE
Archaeological Site
Sediment Pond
■ Test Unit
Scraped Area
2-ft Contour
N
E
�s
0 20 40 60
Meters
Figure 3. Map showing location of test units and machine scrapes at 31 WL02.

Machine Scrapes. A total of 10 3 by 5 meter machine scrapes were excavated at 31 WL02 (see
Figure 3). A backhoe with a smooth bladed bucket removed the plow zone, exposing E horizon soil. Each
machine scrape was then shovel shaved. Machine scrapes 2 and 10 were abandoned due to the high water
table, but two replacement scrapes were excavated in new locations. Fourteen features were identified in
these scrapes. In addition, a number of diagnostic artifacts were collected while troweling the scrapes. In
Scrapes 5, 8, and 12 a 10-centimeter level measuring 2 by 2 meters was excavated to sample artifact bearing
zones below the plow zone. Plan views of a selection of these scrapes is presented in Appendix A.
Features. A total of 17 soil anomalies were classified as Features (Table 2), and 13 were examined
in more detail. Most of these are pit features, but several are possibly plow dip disturbances. Diagnostic
Woodland and/or Archaic artifacts were collected from five features. Feature examination included the
excavation and retrieval of soil samples for fine and water screening. Faunal preservation was fair, and
faunal remains were collected from seven features. Charcoal fragments were common, and carbonized plant
remains were collected from 10 features. Plan and profile views of examples of these features are presented
in Appendix A.
Table 2. Description of Features at Site 31 WL02.
Feature
Prehistoric Artifact Quantity/Weight
Historic
Components
Location
Number
Artifact
Quantity/
Weight
Lithics
Ceramics
Charcoal/Bone
601
108
6
Bone-0.24g
0.2g
Unknown historic
Test Unit 201
Charcoal-5.3g
Middle Woodland
Early Woodland
EarlyArchaic
602
8
1
-
-
Unknown prehistoric
Test Unit 202
603
26
3
Bone-3.52g
-
Unknown prehistoric
Scrape 7
Charcoal-0.9
604
117
12
Bone -3.3g
0.4g
Unknown historic
Scrape 7
Charcoal-22.3g
Late Woodland
Early Woodland
Middle Archaic
605
196
78
Bone-60.75g
-
Late Woodland
Scrape 7
Charcoal-4.6g
Middle Woodland
606
153
26
Bone-4.7g
1
Unknown historic
Scrape 6
Charcoal-6.8g
Late Woodland
Early Woodland
Early Archaic
607
Not Excavated
608
Not Excavated
609
Not Excavated
610
21
-
Charcoal-37.3g
Unknown Prehistoric
Scrape 5
611
38
Charcoal-I.Og
Unknown Prehistoric
Scrape 5
612
52
Charcoal-1.34g
Unknown Prehistoric
Scrape 5
613
STERILE
614
STERILE
615
137
8
Bone-5.99g
5
Unidentified historic
Scrape 11
Charcoal-6.lg
Late Woodland
Middle Woodland
616
110
30
Bone-33.18g
Unidentified historic
Scrape 8
Charcoal- 11. 8g
Early Woodland
Middle Woodland
617
Not Excavated

Specialized Analyses
Geomorphological Analyses
Dr. Christopher Moore is conducting geomorphological studies at sites 31 WL02 and 31 WL 178.
He sampled three areas at the two sites and determined that they are situated on three separate terraces. The
upper terrace is associated with 31 WL 178 and the middle and lower terraces are associated with 31 WL02.
Dr. Moore has conducted geochemical and sedimentology analyses and has submitted three soil
samples for Optically -Stimulated Luminescence (OSL) dating. Most of his analyses are completed, but he
is waiting on a final OSL date to finish his geomorphological assessment.
Dr. Moore noted a platinum (Pt) anomaly at 42.5 to 45 centimeters below the surface at 31 WL 178
and a remnant of this anomaly at 31 WL02 at the same depth. The presence of this anomaly suggests the
Younger Dryas (YDB) onset zone (ca. 12,835 to 12,735 cal BP) is at this depth, indicating the shallow
nature of both sites. OSL dates should help confirm this. Based on his research, Dr. Moore has noted Early
Archaic points conflated with Paleo material at the same depth as a consistent pattern. The presence of
flakes deeper than this depth is likely the result of trickle down due to natural processes and bioturbation.
Preliminary OSL results for a sample taken at a depth of 70 centimeters below surface at 31 WL02 could be
as old as 100,000 years. This result in combination with the depth of the platinum anomaly confirms the
relatively shallow nature of both sites, with the human occupations being confined to the upper 45
centimeters of soil.
Faunal Analysis
Bone fragments were collected from seven pit features at 31WL02. A total of 115 bone fragments
weighing 111.71 grams was collected during Phase 2 investigations, mostly from feature contexts (Table
3). The total assemblage biomass or metal weight is 12.37323 g. Deer accounts for the highest percentage
of biomass in this assemblage followed by UID Mammal. The assemblage is in generally poor condition.
Much of the bone is burned or calcined. Deer and squirrel are the only species that could be identified
(Table 4).
The modifications identified in the bone assemblage indicate disposal of the bone in a fire or the
burning of debris in a disposal pit. Two features, 605 and 616, each yielded elements representing the entire
body of a deer and these animals account for 59 percent of the assemblage's total meat weight. However,
the lack of gnawing modifications indicates that all of the pit features yielding faunal material were sealed
from scavengers. The presence of squirrel could indicate the exploitation of small mammals as a food source
or simply the incidental presence of the animal at the site. None of the bones are suspected of being human.

Table 3. Summary of Bone Recovered from Feature Contexts at 31 WL02.
Feature
Number�Count/Weight:::1
Bone
Species Identified
Feature #
# / weight of
bone recovered
Species Identified
601
4+ / 0.56 g
UID Mammal
609
-
-
602
-
-
610
-
-
603
5+ /3.16 g
UID Mammal
611
-
-
604
- / 0.76 g
-
612
-
-
605
67 / 43.31 g
UID Mammal, Deer,
Squirrel
613
-
606
2+ / 4.7 g
UID L . Mammal
614
-
-
607
-
-
615
l l+ / 6.37 g
UID Mammal
608
-
-
616
24+ / 33.18 g
Deer
Table 4. Site 31 WL02 Vertebrate Faunal Assemblage Identifications.
F---iAXON
NISP
WEIGHT (g)
MNI
BIOMASS
%
UID Mammal
94
28.9
-
-
4.313284
34.8
UID L . Mammal
2
4.18
0.756935
6.1
Odocoileus vir imanus
18
51.81
2
75
7.294109
59.0
Sciurus s .
1
0.3
1
25
0.0089
0.07
UID Bone
-
26.52
-
-
-
-
TOTAL
115
111.71
3
100
12.37323
99.97
Ethnobotanical Analysis
Carbonized plant remains were not uncommon in features at 31 WL02. Samples from feature
contexts were submitted to Ms. Leslie E. Branch-Raymer, archaeobotanist with Paleobot of Decatur,
Georgia. The purpose of the ethnobotanical analysis is to assess the conditions, variety, and preservation of
plant remains and to determine likely avenues for further ethnobotanical and subsistence research at the
site. Ms. Raymer's analyses will also seek to determine if domesticated plant species are present in Native
American features, as well as determining what native plant species may have been used. This analysis is
ongoing.
Summary and NRHP Eligibility Statement
The initial archaeological survey identified historic and prehistoric components at 31 WL02
(Southerlin 2017). The historic component was associated with a late nineteenth through middle twentieth
century dairy farm complex. No structural remains were found during the survey, and push -piles within the
nearby tree line indicated structures were likely razed. The historic component at 31 WL02 was determined
to be unlikely to yield new or significant information about the historic occupation of the region. For this
reason, the historic component at 31 WL02 was recommended not eligible for the NRHP. During the Phase
II field investigations historic debris was found buried in shallow pits/machine scrapes, further confirming
the disturbed nature of the late nineteenth through twentieth century historic component and the
recommendation that the historic component at 31 WL02 is not eligible for the NRHP.
Site 31WL02 retains intact cultural features associated with the Native American occupations.
Intact pit features were identified in two test units and multiple machine scrapes in the northeastern part of
the site. A number of the pit features yielded diagnostic Woodland ceramics. However, Late Woodland
Cashie ceramics linked to post -contact Tuscaroroa Indian contexts were not identified, nor were any Late

Woodland ceramics found in association with Colonial Period artifacts. Thus, while Cashie pottery was
found at the site, it is believed to be associated with the pre -contact Tuscarora.
There is also evidence that intact sub -plow zone Archaic contexts are present. A number of
diagnostic Archaic points, as well as various amounts of lithic debris, were recovered while troweling the
machine scrapes, However, geomorphological evidence suggests that the Early through Late Archaic
components may be restricted to a very narrow zone between 30-40 centimeters below the ground surface.
The function of the pit features at 31WL02 is currently unknown, although most appear to have
been used for debris and food processing/disposal. The recovered artifacts can be used to reconstruct
material cultural patterns. Preserved organic material (bone and charcoal) is present and can shed light on
the subsistence and/or environmental reconstruction of what would become Wilson County. It is considered
likely that many additional cultural features are present in the northeastern part of the site. Similar types of
features identified at 31 WL02 have been found at other Native American sites in Wilson County, some of
which were found to be associated with human burials. Based on these factors, site 31 WL02 is
recommended eligible for the NRHP under Criterion D. This Phase 11 has served to define the eastern
portion of site 31 WL02 as having retained the most significant features and deposits. The western portion
of the site has undergone varying degrees of disturbance and no intact cultural features were identified in
the test units or scrapes excavated there. Figure 4 illustrates the portion of the site that is recommended for
either preservation or mitigation.
If impacts to the significant portion of site 31 WL02 are to be avoided, permanent measures to
ensure preservation into the future will be necessary. These measures will be determined by the SHPO but
may include development and execution of a Memorandum of Agreement, establishment of a preservation
or conservation easement, and the installation of permanent fencing around the site.
If preservation of the significant portion of site 31 WL02 is not possible, further data recovery is
recommended. It is recommended that this phase include:
1. Additional machine scraping in the vicinity of cultural features identified during the Phase 11
investigation.
2. Radiocarbon dating of multiple organic samples, especially in context with diagnostic ceramics or
stone tools.
3. The complete excavation of the larger features identified during Phase II to assess whether or not
they are associated with an individual household or a larger settlement type with multiple
households (e.g., hamlet or village).
4. Additional specialized analyses (ethnobotanical, zooarchaeological, etc.) addressing subsistence
and environmental reconstruction.
Site 31WL178
Field Results
Metal Detection
As at site 31 WL02, metal detection sweeps were conducted at 7.5-meter intervals across the site
area; machine scrapes and features were also metal detected. No early historic items linked to the late

201 ./
� . 202 /6 7/ r ,
31 WLW02 g
293
4 h•
4"
Legend
APE
QArchaeological Site
® Further Work
® Sediment Pond
© Test Unit
Scraped Area
— 2-ft Contour
N
WE
s
0 20 40 60
Meters
Figure 4. Map showing the portion of 31 WL02 considered to retain significant deposits.

eighteenth/early nineteenth century component at 31WL178 were identified. However, a dense scatter of
aluminum siding fragments from the hog farm was found in the southwest part of the site.
Test Units
Five 1 by 2-meter test units were excavated at site 31WL178. These units were placed in areas
where survey shovel tests had encountered either deep deposits or temporally diagnostic artifacts (Figure
5). The plowzone was removed as a single level; subsequent levels were excavated in 10-centimeter
increments. A brief summary of each test unit's characteristics is presented in Table 5. Unit profile
photographs are presented in Appendix B.
Table 5. Description of Test Units Excavated at Site 31 WL 178.
Test Unit
Historic Artifact Quantity/Weight
Prehistoric
Components
Features
Number
Artifact
Identified
Quantity
Ceramics
Glass
Metal
Other
201
13
10
8
5/45.lg
103
L. 181"- E. 19' cen.
-
Early 201 cen.
Late Woodland
Early Woodland
Middle Archaic
202
15
9
6
144.Og
115
L. 18' -E. 19t' cen.
-
Archaic
203
3
7
5
1/88.8g
15
17'to mid/L. 18' cen.
-
20' cen.
Late Woodland
204
6
7
4
1/9.6g
81
18' -E.19' cen.
-
k05j
-
10
:!:1:T99:1=iO
Mid/L. 20::1 "' cen.
-
Late Woodland
Machine Scrapes
Ten machine scrapes measuring 3 by 5-meters were exposed at 31 WL 178 (see Figure 4). A backhoe
with a smooth bladed bucket removed the plowzone, exposing E horizon soil. Each machine scrape was
then shovel shaved. The depth of the plowzone was variable across the site, although it averaged between
35 and 40 centimeters below surface. Scrapes 1 through 8 contained tree stains but no cultural features.
Scrape 9 contained one possible post stain and two tree burns. Scrape 10 contained a cluster of stains that
were determined to be cultural in nature.
Features
A total of 13 circular or ovoid features of varying sizes were at least partially exposed in Scrape 10
(Table 6). Plan and profile views of these features are presented in Appendix B. Three additional soil
anomalies were identified in another machine scrape, but these were determined to be tree root disturbances.
Diagnostic historic ceramics from features consist primarily of creamwares and pearlwares, and strongly
support a late eighteenth through early nineteenth century association. Bone and charcoal fragments were
collected from almost every feature. A number of prehistoric artifacts were found in these features, but
these are the result of the historic pits being dug through prehistoric contexts; no evidence of intact
prehistoric contexts were found at 31WL178

_ -fr y
:7 '
n
a
4
20°
Legend
APE - Test Unit
31 WL178 2-Foot Contour
Scraped area
9
S
0 10 20 30 40 50
Meters
1 inch = 30 meters
Figure 5. Map showing location of test units and machine scrapes at 31 WL 178.

Table 6. Description of Features at Site 31 WL 178.
Feature
Historic Artifact Quantity/Weight
Prehistoric
Components
Location
Number
Artifact
Quantity
Ceramics
Glass
Metal
Other
Charcoal/
Bone
601
4
24
499.8g
Bone-
33
Mid/L. 181 cen. -E. 19th
Scrape 10
6.14g
cen.
Charcoal-
Unknown prehistoric
3.1
602
-
1
0.9g
Bone-
23
Unknown historic
Scrape 10
17.56g
Woodland Period
Charcoal-
20.4
603
-
-
2/3.7g
Bone-
45
Middle Woodland
Scrape 10
0.13g
Middle Archaic
Charcoal-
5.4
604
12
5
36
159.5g
Bone-
95
Mid/L. 181 cen. -E. 19th
Scrape 10
260.43g
cen.
Charcoal-
Early Woodland
27.3g
Late Archaic
605
-
-
1
-
Bone-
2
Unknown historic
Scrape 10
142.88g
Unknown prehistoric
606
4
2
2
371.6g
Bone-
80
L. 17th — E. 19th cen.
Scrape 10
15.36g
Woodland Period
Charcoal-
6. l l
607
30
13
25
2/747.
Bone-
67
Mid/L. 18th -E. 19th cen.
Scrape 10
07g
48.41g
Woodland Period
Charcoal-
69.85
608
5
-
828.lg
Bone-
12
Unknown historic
Scrape 10
0.47g
Unknown prehistoric
Charcoal-
20.7
609
7
4
8
212.1g
Bone-
Mid/L. 18th -19th cen.
Scrape 10
8.82g
Late Woodland
Charcoal-
Li
Middle Woodland
21.68
Middle Archaic
610
STERILE
611
STERILE
612
STERILE
613
5
1
5
949.98
Bone-
39
E.18m-E.19' cen.
Scrape 10
g
0.07g
Early Woodland
Charcoal-
1.95g
614
25
12
126
3/1681
Bone-
78
Mid/L. 18th -E. 19th cen.
Scrape 10,
.3g
160.25g
Late Woodland
TUs 4 and
Charcoal-
5
359.95
615
5
3
7
381.lg
Bone-
34
Mid/L. 181h -E. 19th cen.
Scrape 10,
36.54g
Woodland Period
TU 8
Charcoal-
13.1
616
1
-
1
93.9
Bone-
4
E. 19' cen.
Scrape 10,
3.94g
Unknown prehistoric
TU 9

Specialized Analyses
Geomorphological Analyses
See Site 31 WL02 Discussion
Faunal Analysis
The faunal assemblage contains 1,468 bones weighing 932.35 g, recovered from 13 features (Table
6). The total assemblage biomass or metal weight is 111.6358 g. Cow accounts for the highest percentage
of biomass in this assemblage followed by pig and deer. The assemblage is in generally poor condition.
Much of the bone is friable, and the vast majority could not be identified to a specific species. However,
deer, cow, pig, and turtle are represented (Table 7). Pig skull fragments, teeth, and tooth fragments were
recovered from Features 604, 607, and 609, suggesting the disposal of butchering debris. From Feature 614,
pig elements representing head (including whole teeth), forequarter, and hindquarter, and foot are present,
indicating the presence of the whole animal. Cow remains from Feature 604 represent head and forequarter
elements. Based on the prevalence of burning and calcining on the bones recovered from Features 602, 604,
and 607, it is apparent that debris deposited in these pits was burned. Turtle may be present on the site
incidentally, although they have been utilized as a meat source.
Table 6. Summary of Bone Recovered from Feature Context at 31WL178.
Feature #
# / weight of
bone recovered
Species Identified
Feature #
# / weight of
bone recovered
Species Identified
601
1 / 2.2 g
Pig
609
29+ / 8.83 g
UID Mammal, Pi
602
67+ / 17.56 g
UID Mammal, Pig
610
-
-
603
-/0.13 g
-
611
-
-
604
121+ / 259.39 g
UID Mammal, Pig,
Cow
612
-
-
605
110+ / 155.62 g
UID Mammal, Deer
613
-+ / 0.07 g-
606
87+ /17.11 g
UID Mammal, UID
Lg. Mammal
614
245+ / 158.67 g
UID Mammal, Pig,
Cow
607
152+ /48.41 g
UID Mammal, UID
Lg. Mammal, Pi
615
83+ /36.89 g
Pig
608
1+ / 0.47 g
Pig
616
1 / 3.94 g
Cow
Table 7. Site 31WL178 Vertebrate Faunal Assemblage Identifications.
TAXON
F-
NISP
WEIGHT (g)
MNI
BIOMASS
%
UID Mammal
998
125.01
-
-
16.11574
14.4
UID Lg. Mammal
2
11.65
-
-
1.904116
1.7
UID Lg. Mammal
cf. Bos turus
1
10.6
-
-
1.748941
1.6
Sus scrofa (pig)
251
210.22
3
42.8
25.72804
23
Bos Taurus (cow)
71
416.27
2
28.6
47.58144
42.6
Odocoileus A.rginianus (deer)
101
142.88
1
14.3
18.17499
16.3
Testudines
Unidentified turtle
17
4.13
1
14.3
0.382549
0.03
UID Bone
-
11.59
-
-
-
-
TOTAL
1,468
932.25
7
100.0
1 111.6358
99.63

Ethnobotanical Analysis
Carbonized plant remains were common in features at 31WL178. As with the ethnobotanical
material from 31 WL02, samples from feature contexts were submitted to Ms. Leslie E. Branch-Raymer.
Her analysis is ongoing.
Summary and NRHP Eligibility Statement
The initial archaeological survey also identified a prehistoric component at 31 WL 178 (Southerlin
2017). During Phase Il, ceramic and lithic artifacts were found to be lightly scattered across the site. No
intact midden deposits, cultural features, or intact buried cultural zones associated with the prehistoric
occupation at 31 WL 178 were found. The Scrape 10 area had the highest frequency of prehistoric artifacts
at the site. But this area was extremely disturbed by historic activities. A number of diagnostic prehistoric
tools were found at Scrape 10, including several in historic feature pit fill. Due to the subsequent historic
disturbance, the prehistoric component at this site lacks stratigraphic integrity. It is unlikely to yield new or
significant information about the prehistoric occupation of the region. For this reason, the prehistoric
component at 31WL178 is recommended not eligible for the NRHP.
Site 31WL178 retains intact cultural features associated with the late eighteenth/early nineteenth
century occupation. Temporally diagnostic ceramics, especially pearlwares and creamwares, were
recovered from most of these features. The function of these pits is currently unknown, although most
appear to have been used for debris and food processing/disposal. The recovered artifacts can be used as
status indicators and to reconstruct material cultural patterns. Preserved organic material (bone and
charcoal) is present and can shed light on the subsistence and/or animal husbandry practices of early
American residents of what would become Wilson County. Based on the Phase 11 tasks conducted to date,
artifact and feature distributions can be utilized to identify specific activity areas. Based on these factors,
site 31 WL 178 is recommended eligible for the NRHP under Criterion D. Presently, the potential occupants
of the site are unknown; however, additional archival research may be able to shed light on their identity.
This Phase II has served to define the eastern portion of site 31WL178 as having retained the most
significant features and deposits (Figure 6). The western portion of the site has undergone varying degrees
of disturbance, and no intact cultural features were identified in the test units or scrapes excavated there.
Preservation of the significant portion of site 31 WL 178 or mitigation of proposed adverse impacts
should be considered. If impacts to the significant site area will be avoided, permanent measures to ensure
its preservation into the future will be necessary. As noted for site 31 WL02, these measures will be
determined by the State Historic Preservation Office (SHPO) and may include development and execution
of a Memorandum of Agreement, establishment of a preservation or conservation easement, and the
installation of permanent fencing around the site.
If preservation of the significant portion of site 31 WL 178 is not possible, further data recovery is
recommended. It is recommended that this phase include:
1. Additional machine scraping in the immediate vicinity of Scrape 10 in an effort to determine
if any additional intact cultural features are present. We recommend a minimum of three
additional machine scrapes to further attempt to identify cultural features, particularly those
that may be associated with a house.
2. The expansion of Scrape 10 to fully expose all features.

- , I
\
Jf
E
f
f 204 202 ■
a 201_
I
31WLW02
Legend
APE Scraped area
Archaeological Site ■ Test Unit
Further Work 2-ft Contour
Figure 6. Map showing the significant portion of site 31WL178.
W-�m
N
WL
S
0 10 20 30 40 50
Meters

3. The complete excavation of the larger features identified during Phase II to assess whether or
not they are associated with a house or to determine if they represent one house, a small
community with multiple households (plantation?), or some commercial/production/industrial
activity.
4. Additional specialized analyses (ethnobotanical, zooarchaeological, etc.) addressing
subsistence and environmental reconstruction.
Conclusions and Recommendations
Archaeological investigations at 31 WL02 and 31 WL 178 have identified intact archaeological
contexts at both sites. Prehistoric Native American Archaic and Woodland components were identified at
31 WL02. Numerous undisturbed cultural features were identified which can help document past prehistoric
settlement and subsistence patterns, as well as details of general lifeways (i.e., lithic use patterns and
material preferences, ceramic technology, etc.). At 31WL178, intact contexts associated with a late
eighteenth/early nineteenth century historic occupation were identified. This historic component predates
the formation of Wilson County. These early settlers would have been residents of Edgecombe County at
that time. Both sites are recommended eligible for the NRHP. Preservation or mitigation of portions of
both sites is recommended.
This document summarizes the results of Phase II testing at both sites. We anticipate having data
from all specialized analyses by mid -September 2020, and a draft report ready for SHPO review by the end
of September 2020. As SHPO review typically takes about 30 days, comments/acceptance by the SHPO
would be expected by the end of October 2020.

Appendix A
31WL02: Images of Test Units, Scrapes, and Features

Test Units at 31WL02

Machine Scrapes at 31WL02 - Scrapes 1,3,4,5,6,7,8,9,11,12 (Scrapes 2 and 10 abandoned)

.� ...,. r

Features at 31WL02
Feature 601, plan

ICI
i
..y
Feature 613, profile .
Feature 615, plan ,

Appendix B
31NVL178: Images of Test Units, Scrapes, and Features

Test Units at 31WL178

Machine Scrapes at 31WL178 - Scrapes 1,3,5,8,10
5s
l Scrape 8

r
Y'
•j
Scrape 10 after cleanup
L

Features at 31WL178

�. - 1 �M7 � S Y'1
�, � +� �'ar S fir. - - _ - '��

ROY COOPER
Governor
ELIZABETH S. BISER
Secrerory
To: Donna Wilson
NORTH CAROLINA
Environmental Quality
Engineering Project Manager, Solid Waste Section
Division of Waste Management
From: Lyn Hardison
Division of Environmental Assistance and Customer Service
Washington Regional Office
RE: Environmental Assessment - Westside C&D Landfill —Area 2
DWM-SW permit 9809-CDLF-2004
DEO#1839
Wilson County
Date: March 3, 2022
The NC Department of Public Safety Emergency Management requested to participate in NC
Department Environmental Quality internal review process, and it was granted essentially to
help expedite the environmental document for the applicant.
Both departments have completed the review of the proposal referenced project. Based on the
information provided, several of our agencies have identified permits that may be required and
offered some guidance to help minimize impact to aquatic and terrestrial wildlife resources in
and around the site. The comments are attached for review.
Unfortunately, I did not receive any comments for the Department's Environmental Justice
program. Please contact Renee Kramer directly for comments.
If you agree with the comments, the Environmental Document can be sent to the State
Clearinghouse of the Department of Administration for further review.
We appreciate the opportunity to respond during the Department's internal review.
Thank you for the opportunity to respond.
Attachments
North Carolina Department of Environmental Quality
217 West Jones Street 11601 Mail Service Center I Raleigh. North Carolina 27699-1601

Project Number: DEQ # 1839
Department of Environmental
Quality Project Internal Review
County: Wilson
Due Date: 2-25-2022
Date Received: 2-3-2022
Project Description: Environmental Assessment - Westside C& D Landfill —Area 2 -Proposed
construction of the Area 2 C& D landfill, to provide C& D capacity for
approximately 42 years, based on current and projected disposal rates.
This Project is being reviewed as indicated below:
Regional Office
Asheville
Fayetteville
Mooresville
Raleigh
Washington
Wilmington
Winston-Salem
Manager Sign-Off/Region:
Regional Office Area
V
Air
V
DWR
DWR - Public Water
V
DEMLR (LQ & SW)
DWM WaRO
In -House Review
Air Quality
\/ Enviromental Justice
Waste Mgmt
Water Resources Mgmt
(Public Water, Planning & Water
Quality Program)
DWR-Transportation Unit
Coastal Management
Marine Fisheries
CC & PS Div. of Emergency Mgmt
DMF-Shellfish Sanitation
Wildlife Gabriela
Wildlife/DOT
Date: In -House Reviewer/Agency:
March 2, 2022 1 Jintao Wen, LE -Emergency Management
Response (check all applicable) The proposed project is in close vicinity of Special Flood Hazard Area (SFHA). Any encroachment, grading fill or
placement of equipment or materials in the SFHA will require a floodplain development permit issued by Wilson
County. Please coordinate with the County's Floodplain Administrator for permitting if needed.
No objection to project as proposed.
Insufficient information to complete review
No Comment
Other (specify or attach comments)
If you have any questions, please contact:
Lyn Hardison at lyn.hardison(&ncdenr.gov or [phone]
943 Washington Square Mall Washington NC 27889
Courier No. 16-04-01

ROY COOPER
Governor
ELIZABETH S. BISER
Secretary
MICHAEL SCOTT
Director
Date: February 22, 2022
To: Michael Scott, Director
Division of Waste Management
Through: Janet Macdonald
Inactive Hazardous Sites Branch
From: Bonnie S. Ware
Inactive Hazardous Sites Branch
NORTH CAROLINA
£nvironmentat Quality
Subject: DEQ Project # 1839, NCDENR Solid Waste, Wilson County, North Carolina
The Superfund Section has reviewed the proximity of sites under its jurisdiction to the NCDENR Solid
Waste project. Proposed project is for the construction of the Area 2 C& D landfill, to provide C& D capacity
for approximately 42 years, based on current and projected disposal rates.
One (1) Superfund Section site was identified within one mile of the project as shown on the attached
report. The Superfund Section recommends that site files be reviewed to ensure that appropriate
precautions are incorporated into any construction activities that encounter potentially contaminated soil
or groundwater. Superfund Section files can be viewed at: http://deg.nc.gov/waste-management-laserfiche.
Please contact Janet Macdonald at 919.707.8349 if you have any questions concerning the
Superfund Section review portion of this SEPA/NEPA inquiry.
�� NOTth Carolina Department of Environmental Quality I Division of Waste Management
t
-DE2l7 West Jones Street 1646 Artail Service Center I Raleigh, Forth Carolina 27699-1646
=o•^,� a .^�nua.+� �� 919.707.8200

FSP.. SUPERFUND SECTION SITES ONLY: SEPA/NEPA
Area of Interest (AOI) Information
Area : 2,965 acres
Feb 22 2022 14:51:47 Eastern Standard Time
NC Brownfields LGGation_View No Further Interest 0 DryCleaning Contaminated
Recorded * Pre Regulatory Landfill Sites L_ Parcels (Polygons) - Parcels
Active Eligible Inactive Hazardous Sites
1:36, 112
a 0.35 0.7 1.4 mi
a 0.5 2 krr
S—of—h Caro--T. � 11, HERE. G­GeaTechrabg-
rc II— MEfIINASA, EPA, UKA

2/22/22, 3:00 PM
Superfund Section Sites Only : DEQ 1839, Wilson County
Summary
Name
Count
Area(acres)
Length(mi)
Certified DSCA Sites
0
N/A
N/A
Federal Remediation Branch Sites
0
N/A
N/A
Inactive Hazardous Sites
1
N/A
N/A
Pre -Regulatory Landfill Sites
0
N/A
N/A
Brownfields Program Sites
0
N/A
N/A
Inactive Hazardous Sites
#
I EPAID
SITENAME
Count
1
NONCD0002740
W LSON TECH -FIRE TRAINING
1

State of North Carolina Department of Environmental Quality
INTERGOVERNMENTAL REVIEW PROJECT COMMENTS
Reviewing Regional Office: Raleigh
Project Number: DEQ-1839 Due Date: 3 25 2022
County: Wilson
After review of this project it has been determined that the DEQ permit(s) and/or approvals indicated may need to be obtained in order for this
project to comply with North Carolina Law. Questions regarding these permits should be addressed to the Regional Office indicated on the
reverse of the form. All applications, information and guidelines relative to these plans and permits are available from the same Regional Office.
Normal Process
PERMITS
SPECIAL APPLICATION PROCEDURES or REQUIREMENTS
Time
(statutory time
limit)
Permit to construct & operate wastewater
Application 90 days before begins construction or award of
❑
treatment facilities, non-standard sewer system
construction contracts. On -site inspection may be required. Post-
30 days
extensions &sewer systems that do not
application technical conference usual.
(90 days)
discharge into state surface waters.
Permit to construct & operate, sewer
extensions involving gravity sewers, pump
Fast -Track Permitting program consists of the submittal of an
30 days
❑
stations and force mains discharging into a
application and an engineer's certification that the project meets all
(N/A)
sewer collection
applicable State rules and Division Minimum Design Criteria.
system
NPDES - permit to discharge into surface water
Application 180 days before begins activity. On -site inspection. Pre -
and/or permit to operate and construct
application conference usual. Additionally, obtain permit to construct
90-120 days
wastewater facilities discharging into state
wastewater treatment facility -granted after NPDES. Reply time, 30 days
(N/A)
surface waters.
after receipt of plans or issue of NPDES permit -whichever is later.
❑
Water Use Permit
Pre -application technical conference usually necessary.
30 days
(N/A)
Complete application must be received and permit issued prior to the
❑
Well Construction Permit
installation of a groundwater monitoring well located on property not
7 days
owned by the applicant, and for a large capacity (>100,000 gallons per
(15 days)
)
day) water supply well.
Application copy must be served on each adjacent riparian property
❑
Dredge and Fill Permit
owner. On -site inspection. Pre -application conference usual. Filling may
55 days
require Easement to Fill from N.C. Department of Administration and
(90 days)
Federal Dredge and Fill Permit.
Permit to construct & operate Air Pollution
Application must be submitted and permit received prior to
®
Abatement facilities and/or Emission Sources as
construction and operation of the source. If a permit is required
90 days
per 15 A NCAC (2Q.0100 thru 2Q.0300)
in an area without local zoning, then there are additional
requirements and timelines (2Q.0113).
Any open burning associated with subject
60 days
®
proposal must be in compliance with 15 A NCAC
N/A
(90 days)
2D.1900
Demolition or renovations of structures
Please Note - The Health Hazards Control Unit (HHCU) of the N.C.
containing asbestos material must be in
Department of Health and Human Services, must be notified of plans to
®
compliance with 15 A NCAC 20.1110 (a) (1)
demolish a building, including residences for commercial or industrial
60 days
which requires notification and removal prior to
expansion, even if no asbestos is present in the building.
(90 days)
demolition. Contact Asbestos Control Group
919-707-5950
The Sedimentation Pollution Control Act of 1973 must be properly addressed for any land disturbing activity. An erosion &
sedimentation control plan will be required if one or more acres are to be disturbed. Plan must be filed with and approved
20 days
®
by applicable Regional Office (Land Quality Section) at least 30 days before beginning activity. A NPDES Construction
(30 days)
Stormwater permit (NCG010000) is also usually issued should design features meet minimum requirements. A fee of $65
for the first acre or any part of an acre. An express review option is available with additional fees.
Sedimentation and erosion control must be addressed in accordance with NCDOT's approved program. Particular
(30 days)
❑
attention should be given to design and installation of appropriate perimeter sediment trapping devices as well as stable
Stormwater conveyances and outlets.
Sedimentation and erosion control must be addressed in accordance with Local Government's approved program.
Based on Local
❑
Particular attention should be given to design and installation of appropriate perimeter sediment trapping devices as well
as stable Stormwater conveyances and outlets.
Program
❑
Compliance with 15A NCAC 2H .0126 - NPDES Stormwater Program which regulates three types of activities: Industrial,
30-60 days
Municipal Separate Storm Sewer System & Construction activities that disturb >_1 acre.
(90 days)
Compliance with 15A NCAC 2H 1000 -State Stormwater Permitting Programs regulate site development and post-
45 days
[Ell
construction stormwater runoff control. Areas subject to these permit programs include all 20 coastal counties, and
(90 days)
various other counties and watersheds throughout the state.
DEQ INTERGOVERNMENTAL REVIEW PROJECT Form Page 1 of 3
April 23, 2020/lbh

State of North Carolina Department of Environmental Quality
INTERGOVERNMENTAL REVIEW PROJECT COMMENTS
Reviewing Regional Office: Raleigh
Project Number: DEQ-1839 Due Date: 3 25 2022
County: Wilson
Normal Process
PERMITS
SPECIAL APPLICATION PROCEDURES or REQUIREMENTS
Time
(statutory time
limit)
On -site inspection usual. Surety bond filed with DEQ Bond amount
❑
Mining Permit
varies with type mine and number of acres of affected land. Affected
30 days
area greater than one acre must be permitted. The appropriate bond
(60 days)
must be received before the permit can be issued.
If permit required, application 60 days before begin construction.
Applicant must hire N.C. qualified engineer to: prepare plans, inspect
construction, and certify construction is according to DEQ approved
❑
Dam Safety Permit
plans. May also require a permit under mosquito control program. And
30 days
a 404 permit from Corps of Engineers. An inspection of site is necessary
(60 days)
to verify Hazard Classification. A minimum fee of $200.00 must
accompany the application. An additional processing fee based on a
percentage or the total project cost will be required upon completion.
❑
Oil Refining Facilities
N/A
90-120 days
(N/A)
File surety bond of $5,000 with DEQ running to State of NC conditional
10 days
❑
Permit to drill exploratory oil or gas well
that any well opened by drill operator shall, upon abandonment, be
N/A
plugged according to DEQ rules and regulations.
❑
Geophysical Exploration Permit
Application filed with DEQ at least 10 days prior to issue of permit.
10 days
Application by letter. No standard application form.
N/A
Application fee based on structure size is charged. Must include
15-20 days
❑
State Lakes Construction Permit
descriptions & drawings of structure & proof of ownership of riparian
N/A
property
Compliance with the T15A 02H .0500 Certifications are required
60 days
❑
401 Water Quality Certification
whenever construction or operation of facilities will result in a
(130 days)
discharge into navigable water as described in 33 CFR part 323.
Compliance with Catawba, Goose Creek, Jordan Lake, Randleman, Tar Pamlico or Neuse Riparian Buffer Rules is required.
❑
Buffer requirements: http://deg.nc.gov/about/divisions/water-resources/water-resources-permits/wastewater-
branch/401-wetlands-buffer-permits/401-riparian-buffer-protection-program
Nutrient Offset: Loading requirements for nitrogen and phosphorus in the Neuse and Tar -Pamlico River basins, and in the
Jordan and Falls Lake watersheds, as part of the nutrient -management strategies in these areas. DWR nutrient offset
❑
information:
http://deg.nc.goy/about/divisions/water-resources/planning/nonpoint-source-management/nutrient-offset-information
❑
CAMA Permit for MAJOR development
$250.00 - $475.00 fee must accompany application
75 days
(150 days)
❑
CAMA Permit for MINOR development
$100.00 fee must accompany application
22 days
(25 days)
❑
Abandonment of any wells, if required must be in accordance with Title 15A. Subchapter 2C.0100.
❑
Notification of the proper regional office is requested if "orphan" underground storage tanks (USTS) are discovered during
any excavation operation.
Plans and specifications for the construction, expansion, or alteration of a public water system must be approved by the
Division of Water Resources/Public Water Supply Section prior to the award of a contract or the initiation of construction
®
as per 15A NCAC 18C .0300 et. seq., Plans and specifications should be submitted to 1634 Mail Service Center, Raleigh,
30 days
North Carolina 27699-1634. All public water supply systems must comply with state and federal drinking water monitoring
requirements. For more information, contact the Public Water Supply Section, [phone].
If existing water lines will be relocated during the construction, plans for the water line relocation must be submitted to
®
the Division of Water Resources/Public Water Supply Section at 1634 Mail Service Center, Raleigh, North Carolina 27699-
30 days
1634. For more information, contact the Public Water Supply Section, [phone].
Plans and specifications for the construction, expansion, or alteration of the water system must be approved
❑
through the delegated plan approval authority. Please contact them at for further information.
DEQ INTERGOVERNMENTAL REVIEW PROJECT Form Page 2 of 3
April 23, 2020/lbh

State of North Carolina Department of Environmental Quality
INTERGOVERNMENTAL REVIEW PROJECT COMMENTS
Reviewing Regional Office: Raleigh
Project Number: DEQ-1839 Due Date: 3 25 2022
County: Wilson
Other Comments (attach additional pages as necessary, being certain to comment authority)
Division
Initials
No
comment
Comments
Date
Review
DAQ
MRFL
❑
The proposal says it will not exceed Title V permitting thresholds; however,
it should still be reviewed for non -Title V permitting. It does not currently
have an air quality permit.
2/4/2022
DWR-WQROS
(Aquifer & Surface)
JSB
&
®
&
2/21/2022
DWR-PWS
SG
❑
See checked boxes above.
2/21/2022
DEMLR (LQ & SW)
❑
See checked box above
DWM — UST
SNH
❑
See attached comments
2/21/2022
Other Comments
❑
REGIONAL OFFICES
Questions regarding these permits should be addressed to the Regional Office marked below
❑ Asheville Regional Office
❑ Fayetteville Regional Office
❑ Mooresville Regional Office
2090 U.S. 70 Highway
225 Green Street, Suite 714,
610 East Center Avenue, Suite 301,
Swannanoa, NC 28778-8211
Fayetteville, NC 28301-5043
Mooresville, NC 28115
Phone:[phone]
Phone:[phone]
Phone:[phone]
Fax:[phone]
Fax:[phone]
Fax:[phone]
® Raleigh Regional Office
® Washington Regional Office
❑ Wilmington Regional Office
3800 Barrett Drive,
943 Washington Square Mall,
127 Cardinal Drive Ext.,
Raleigh, NC 27609
Washington, NC 27889
Wilmington, NC 28405
Phone:[phone]
Phone:[phone]
Phone:[phone]
Fax: [phone]
Fax: [phone]
Fax: [phone]
❑ Winston-Salem Regional Office
450 Hanes Mill Road, Suite 300,
Winston-Salem, NC 27105
Phone: [phone]
Fax:[phone]
DEQ INTERGOVERNMENTAL REVIEW PROJECT Form Page 3 of 3
April 23, 2020/lbh

ROY COOPER
Governor
ELIZABETH S. BISER
Secretary
MICHAEL SCOTT
Director
TO:
FROM:
COPY:
DATE:
NORTH CAROUNA
Environmental Quality
Lyn Hardison, Environmental Coordinator
Sylvia Newsom-Hunneke, Regional UST Supervisor
Sharon Brinkley, Administrative Secretary
February 23, 2022
RE: Environmental Review — Project Number 1839- Environmental Assessment — Westside C
& D Landfill — Area 2 — Proposed construction of the Area 2 C& D landfill, to provide C
& D capacity for approximately 42 years, based on current and projected disposal rates.
Westside Landfill is located in Wilson County.
I searched the Petroleum Underground Storage Tank (UST) and Non -UST Databases and review of those
databases indicated one petroleum incident at 2400 NC Highway 42, Wilson (UST# 14310). The incident
was issued a No Further Action status on 7/27/2020 with a land use restriction for soil and groundwater.
To review the file contact Sylvia Hunneke at sylvia.hunnekenncdenr.gov. .
I reviewed the above proposal and determined that this project should not have any adverse impact upon
groundwater. The following comments are pertinent to my review:
1. The Washington Regional Office (WaRO) UST Section recommends removal of any abandoned or
out -of -use petroleum USTs or petroleum above ground storage tanks (ASTs) within the project area.
The UST Section should be contacted regarding use of any proposed or on -site petroleum USTs or
ASTs. We may be reached at [phone].
2. Any petroleum USTs or ASTs must be installed and maintained in accordance with applicable local,
state, and federal regulations. For additional information on petroleum ASTs, it is advisable that the
North Carolina Department of Insurance at [phone] ext. 239, USEPA [phone], local
fire department, and Local Building Inspectors be contacted.
3. Any petroleum spills must be contained, and the area of impact must be properly restored. Petroleum
spills of significant quantity must be reported to the North Carolina Department of Environmental
Quality — Division of Waste Management Underground Storage Tank Section in the Washington
Regional Office at [phone]
4. Any soils excavated during demolition or construction that show evidence of petroleum
contamination, such as stained soil, odors, or free product must be reported immediately to the local
Fire Marshall to determine whether explosive or inhalation hazards exist. Also, notify the UST
Section of the Washington Regional Office at [phone]. Petroleum contaminated soils must be
handled in accordance with all applicable regulations.
5. Any questions or concerns regarding spills from petroleum USTs, ASTs, or vehicles should be
directed to the UST Section at [phone].
D FMQ�
North Carolina Department of Environmental Quality I Division of Waste Management I UST Section
�rcnFuwna W
a�o..m.�t a cm`a�nwur urnt
Washington Regional Office 1943 Washington Square Mall I Washington, NC 27889 1 [phone]

Project Number: DEQ # 1839
Department of Environmental
Quality Project Internal Review
County: Wilson
Due Date: 2-25-2022
Date Received: 2-3-2022
Project Description: Environmental Assessment - Westside C& D Landfill —Area 2 -Proposed
construction of the Area 2 C& D landfill, to provide C& D capacity for
approximately 42 years, based on current and projected disposal rates.
This Project is being reviewed as indicated below:
Regional Office
Asheville
_ Fayetteville
_ Mooresville
Raleigh
Washington
Wilmington
Winston-Salem
Manager Sign-Off/Region:
Regional Office Area
V
Air
DWR
DWR - Public Water
DEMLR (LQ & SW)
V
DWM WaRO
Response (check all applicable)
In -House Review
Air Quality
Enviromental Justice
Waste Mgmt
Water Resources Mgmt
(Public Water, Planning & Water
Quality Program)
DWR-Transportation Unit
Date:
Coastal Management
Marine Fisheries
V CC & PS Div. of Emergency Mgmt
DMF-Shellfish Sanitation
Wildlife Gabriela
Wildlife/DOT
In -House Reviewer/Agency:
No objection to project as proposed. No Comment
Insufficient information to complete review Other (specify or attach comments)
If you have any questions, please contact:
Lyn Hardison at lyn.hardisonnncdenr.gov or [phone]
943 Washington Square Mall Washington NC 27889
Courier No. 16-04-01

Project Number: DEQ # 1839
Department of Environmental
Quality Project Internal Review
County: Wilson
Due Date: 2-25-2022
Date Received: 2-3-2022
Project Description: Environmental Assessment - Westside C& D Landfill —Area 2 -Proposed
construction of the Area 2 C& D landfill, to provide C& D capacity for
approximately 42 years, based on current and projected disposal rates.
This Project is being reviewed as indicated below:
Regional Office
Asheville
_ Fayetteville
_ Mooresville
Raleigh
Washington
Wilmington
Winston-Salem
Regional Office Area
V
Air
DWR
DWR - Public Water
DEMLR (LQ & SW)
V
DWM WaRO
In -House Review
Air Quality
Enviromental Justice
Waste Mgmt
Water Resources Mgmt
(Public Water, Planning & Water
Quality Program)
DWR-Transportation Unit
Coastal Management
Marine Fisheries
V CC & PS Div. of Emergency Mgmt
DMF-Shellfish Sanitation
Wildlife Gabriela
Wildlife/DOT
Manager Sign-Off/Region: Date: In -House Reviewer/Agency:
2/25/22 Melodi Deaver, Hazardous Waste Section
Response (check all applicable)
X
No objection to project as proposed. No Comment
Insufficient information to complete review Other (specify or attach comments)
If you have any questions, please contact:
Lyn Hardison at lyn.hardisonnncdenr.gov or [phone]
943 Washington Square Mall Washington NC 27889
Courier No. 16-04-01

Project Number: DEQ # 1839
Department of Environmental
Quality Project Internal Review
County: Wilson
Due Date: 2-25-2022
Date Received: 2-3-2022
Project Description: Environmental Assessment - Westside C& D Landfill —Area 2 -Proposed
construction of the Area 2 C& D landfill, to provide C& D capacity for
approximately 42 years, based on current and projected disposal rates.
This Project is being reviewed as indicated below:
Regional Office
Asheville
_ Fayetteville
_ Mooresville
Raleigh
Washington
Wilmington
Winston-Salem
Manager Sign-Off/Region:
Regional Office Area
V
Air
DWR
DWR - Public Water
DEMLR (LQ & SW)
V
DWM WaRO
In -House Review
Air Quality
Enviromental Justice
Waste Mgmt
Water Resources Mgmt
(Public Water, Planning & Water
Quality Program)
DWR-Transportation Unit
Coastal Management
Marine Fisheries
V CC & PS Div. of Emergency Mgmt
DMF-Shellfish Sanitation
Wildlife Gabriela
Wildlife/DOT
Date: IIn-House Reviewer/Agency:
1 1 2/21/2022 1 DWR/WRMS David Wainwright
Response (check all applicable)
No objection to project as proposed. X No Comment
Insufficient information to complete review Other (specify or attach comments)
If you have any questions, please contact:
Lyn Hardison at lyn.hardisonnncdenr.gov or [phone]
943 Washington Square Mall Washington NC 27889
Courier No. 16-04-01

Wilson County Landfill Expansion DEQ Project No. 1839
Environmental Assessment - Agency Comments & Responses
Inactive Hazardous Sites Branch - 2/22/2022
1. One(]) Superfund Section site was identified within one mile of the project as shown on the
attached report. The Superfund Section recommends that site files be reviewed to ensure that
appropriate precautions are incorporated into any construction activities that encounter
potentially contaminated soil or groundwater.
The proposed landfill expansion area has been thoroughly studied as part of the site suitability
analysis and permit to construct applications to NCDWM. If contaminated soil or groundwater
are encountered during construction of the landfill, the material will be transported to a permitted
facility and disposed of in compliance with all state and federal rules.
Underground Storage Tank Branch — 2/23/22
1. The Washington Regional Office (WaRO) UST Section recommends removal on any abandoned
or out -of -use petroleum USTs or petroleum above ground storage tanks (ASTs) within the project
area. The UST Section should be contacted regarding use of any proposed or on -site petroleum
USTs or ASTs.
Noted. No known USTs or ASTs are within the project area. The UST Section will be contacted
if any are found and/or intended to be used.
2. Any petroleum USTs or ASTs must be installed and maintained in accordance with applicable
local, state, and federal regulations.
Noted. No petroleum USTs or ASTs are proposed to be installed for the project.
3. Any petroleum spills must be contained, and the area of impact must be properly restored.
Petroleum spills of significant quantity must be reported to the North Carolina Department of
Environmental Quality — Division of Waste Management Underground Storage Tank Section in
the Washington Regional Office...
Noted. Spills will be contained and reported if they occur.
4. Any soils excavated during demolition or construction that show evidence of petroleum
contamination, such as stained soil, odors, or free product must be reported immediately to the
local Fire Marshall to determine whether explosive or inhalation hazards exist. Also, notify the
UST Section of the Washington Regional Office at [phone]. Petroleum contaminated soils
must be handled in accordance with all applicable regulations.
Noted. If contaminated soil or groundwater are encountered during construction, the material will
be transported to a permitted facility and disposed of in compliance with all applicable rules.
5. Any questions or concerns regarding spills from petroleum USTs, ASTs, or vehicles should be
directed to the UST Section...
Noted.

Emergency Management — 2/3/22
1. The proposed project is inclose vicinity of Special Flood Hazard Area (SFHA). Any
encroachment, grading, fill or placement of equipment or materials in the SFHA will require a
floodplain development permit issued by Wilson County. Please coordinate with the County's
Floodplain Administrator for permitting if needed.
The project will not encroach upon or affect the SFHA. Contractors will be notified of the
location of the SFHA and construction activities, including equipment and materials storage will
not occur in that area.
2

STATE OF NORTH CAROLINA
DEPARTMENT OF ADMINISTRATION
Roy Cooper
GOVERNOR
May 3, 2022
Sherri Stanley
NC Department of Environmental Quality
Division of Waste Management
1646 Mail Service Center
Raleigh, NC 27699-1646
Pamela B. Cashwell
Secretary
Re: SCH File # 22-E-4300-0198 Proposed project is for the Area 2 Expansion of the Wilson
County Westside Construction and Demolition Debris Landfill. The expansion would
Increase the C&D landfill disposal area from the current 10.5 acres to approximately 27.6
total acres by adding a new 17.1-acre Area 2 C&D disposal unit and In
Dear Sherri Stanley:
The above referenced environmental impact information has been reviewed through the State Clearinghouse
under the provisions of the North Carolina Environmental Policy Act.
No comments were made in the review of this document. Therefore, no further environmental review
action on your part is required for compliance with the Act.
Sincerely,
CRYSTAL BEST
State Environmental Review Clearinghouse
Attachments
Mailing Address: Telephone: [phone] Location:
NC DEPARTMENT OF ADMINISTRATION Fax: [phone] WEST JONES STREET
1301 MAIL SERVICE CENTER COURIER: #51-01-00 RALEIGH, NORTH CAROLINA
RALEIGH, NC 27699-1301 Email: [e-mail]
Website: www.ncadmin.nc.gov

Control No.: 22-E-4300-0198
County.: WILSON
JEANNE STONE
CLEARINGHOUSE COORDINATOR
DEPT OF TRANSPORTATION
Project Information
Date Received: 3/29/2022
Agency Response: 4/28/2022
Review Closed: 4/28/2022
Type: State Environmental Policy Act ironmental Assessment/Finding of No Significant
Impact
Applicant: NC Department of Environmental Quality
Project Desc.: Proposed project is for the Area 2 Expansion of the Wilson County Westside Construction and
Demolition Debris Landfill. The expansion would Increase the C&D landfill disposal area from
the current 10.5 acres to approximately 27.6 total acres by adding a new 17.1-acre Area 2
C&D disposal unit and Increase the gross capacity of the landfill from 472,660 cubic yards to
approximately 2,002,070 cubic yards.
As a result of this review the following is submitted:
❑� No Comment ❑Comments Below ❑Documents Attached
Reviewed By: JEANNE STONE Date: 4/7/2022

Control No.: 22-E-4300-0198
County.: WILSON
JINTAO WEN
CLEARINGHOUSE COORDINATOR
DPS - DIV OF EMERGENCY MANAGEMENT
Project Information
Date Received: 3/29/2022
Agency Response: 4/28/2022
Review Closed: 4/28/2022
Type: State Environmental Policy Act ironmental Assessment/Finding of No Significant
Impact
Applicant: NC Department of Environmental Quality
Project Desc.: Proposed project is for the Area 2 Expansion of the Wilson County Westside Construction and
Demolition Debris Landfill. The expansion would Increase the C&D landfill disposal area from
the current 10.5 acres to approximately 27.6 total acres by adding a new 17.1-acre Area 2
C&D disposal unit and Increase the gross capacity of the landfill from 472,660 cubic yards to
approximately 2,002,070 cubic yards.
As a result of this review the following is submitted:
❑� No Comment ❑Comments Below ❑Documents Attached
Reviewed By: JINTAO WEN Date: 4/18/2022

Control No.: 22-E-4300-0198
County.: WILSON
LYN HARDISON
CLEARINGHOUSE COORDINATOR
DEPT OF ENVIRONMENTAL QUALITY
Project Information
Date Received: 3/29/2022
Agency Response: 4/28/2022
Review Closed: 4/28/2022
Type: State Environmental Policy Act ironmental Assessment/Finding of No Significant
Impact
Applicant: NC Department of Environmental Quality
Project Desc.: Proposed project is for the Area 2 Expansion of the Wilson County Westside Construction and
Demolition Debris Landfill. The expansion would Increase the C&D landfill disposal area from
the current 10.5 acres to approximately 27.6 total acres by adding a new 17.1-acre Area 2
C&D disposal unit and Increase the gross capacity of the landfill from 472,660 cubic yards to
approximately 2,002,070 cubic yards.
As a result of this review the following is submitted:
❑� No Comment ❑Comments Below ❑Documents Attached
Reviewed By: LYN HARDISON Date: 4/26/2022