4104_CityHoghpointMSWLF_Area3_EA_Draft_FID1442266_20200806

Environmental Assessment

Kersey Valley Landfill Area 3 Expansion

City of High Point
Guilford County NC

August 2020

Lead Agency Contact:

Ms. Sherri Stanley
NC DEQ Division of Waste Management
217 West Jones Street
Raleigh, NC 27603

Municipal Contact:

Robby Stone, P.E.
City of High Point
211 S. Hamilton Street
High Point, NC 27260

Consultant:

Phil May
Carolina Ecosystems, Inc.
3040 NC 42 West
Clayton, NC 27520

Project Engineer:

Pieter Scheer, P.E.
Smith Gardner Inc.
14 North Boylan Avenue
Raleigh, NC 27603
1
Chao, Ming-tai
From:Pieter Scheer <[e-mail]>
Sent:Monday, August 10, 2020 4:57 PM
To:Chao, Ming-tai; Ritter, Christine
Cc:Stanley, Sherri; Stone, Robby; Spencer, Mike; Smyth, Joan; Phil May; Scheer, Pieter
Subject:[External] City of High Point - Kersey Valley MSW Landfill - Area 3 Site Study - Response to
Comments
Attachments:M Chao C Ritter 2020-08-10 (HP Kersey Valley MSWLF - Area 3 Site Study Response to
Comments).pdf
Follow Up Flag:Follow up
Flag Status:Flagged
CAUTION: External email. Do not click links or open attachments unless you verify. Send all suspicious email as an attachment to 
[e-mail] 

Ming/Christine:

Please find attached a letter with our response to your prior comments on the Area 3 Site Study for the Kersey Valley 
MSW Landfill.  Included in the links below are the referenced enclosures (Revised Site Study Report and Appendices and 
draft Environmental Assessment Report (prepared by Carolina Ecosystems)).  Just let me know if you have any 
difficulties accessing/downloading the files and/or if you need anything further at this time.

Thanks.

Pieter   

Pieter K. Scheer, P.E.
Vice President, Senior Engineer

SMITH + GARDNER

14 N. Boylan Avenue
Raleigh, NC 27603

P [phone]
F [phone]
C [phone]
www.smithgardnerinc.com

From: Pieter Scheer [mailto:[e-mail]]
Sent: Monday, August 10, 2020 4:50 PM
To: [e-mail]
Subject: Pieter Scheer has shared files with you

To help protect your privacy, Microsoft Office prevented automatic download of this picture from the Internet.Smith Gardner Inc. File Server

2
I've shared files with you
To help prprivacy, Mprevented download from the In

01 HP Site Study Report R1 2020-07.pdf
To help protect your privacy, Microsoft Office prevented automatic download of this picture from the Internet.

02 HP Site Study Report R1 2020-07 (Appendices).pdf
To help protect your privacy, Microsoft Office prevented automatic download of this picture from the Internet.

CoHP_KVArea3_EA_Compiled_Draft080620 (2).pdf

Your access expires on 09/10/2020

© 2020 Egnyte, Inc.

Kersey Valley Landfill Expansion August 2020
Environmental Assessment

Table of Contents

Section Title Page
A Proposed Project Description 1
B Purpose & Need for Proposed Project 1
C Alternatives Analysis 2
D Existing Environmental Characteristics of Project 4
E Predicted Environmental Effects of Project 11
F References 17

Table Title Page
Table 1 Soil Types 5
Table 2 Surface Waters 7
Table 3 Federally Threatened & Endangered Species 10
Table 4 Soil Series by Project Component 12
Table 5 Summary of Direct Environmental Effects & Mitigation 16

Figures
Figure 1 Vicinity
Figure 2 USGS Map
Figure 3 Aerial Photograph
Figure 4 NRCS & Prime Farmland
Figure 5 Zoning
Figure 6 NC Historic Preservation Office Data
Figure 7 Terrestrial Communities

Appendices
Figure A2 Critical Watersheds & Airport Buffer
NC Natural Heritage Program Report
USFWS Information for Planning and Conservation (IPaC) Report
Kersey Valley Landfill Expansion August 2020
Environmental Assessment
1

The City of High Point (City) is proposing a lateral expansion, Area 3, of their existing
Kersey Valley Municipal Solid Waste (MSW) landfill. The future footprint of the landfill
Area 3 is approximately 19.2 acres. The use of the City-owned public land for future
landfill construction and operation outside of the current approved Facility Boundary has
been deemed to be above the threshold requiring an Environmental Assessment (EA) under
State Statute NCGS 130A-295.6. The following EA was prepared to address the Kersey
Valley Landfill expansion for the City.

Section A: Proposed Project Description

The City currently owns and operates the existing Kersey Valley Landfill facility located
on Kivett Drive, which has been in operation since 1993, and provides its citizens with
waste collection and disposal services. Development of Area 3 will require the addition of
approximately 11.7 acres of property to the facility. This additional property includes
properties already owned by the City and the right-of-way (ROW) of the portion of Kersey
Valley Road to be closed. The proposed Area 3 landfill unit will occupy approximately
19.2 acres (lined area) and will connect the existing Area 1 unit on the west and Area 2
unit on the east. Kersey Valley Road is proposed to be routed on new alignment west to
tie into Jackson Lake Road, and the existing road abandoned from north of the stream
crossing below the landfill to Kivett Drive, north of the landfill. While the realignment is
being performed as a separate project it is included in this evaluation of environmental
effects as a related action.

The proposed landfill expansion will be constructed in accordance with State solid waste
regulations (15A NCAC 13B.1600 et. seq) which are enforced by the NCDEQ and which
include strict requirements for landfill permitting and construction. Requirements include
construction of a composite liner system and a leachate collection system which greatly
minimizes the potential for leakage of leachate outside of the containment area.

On-going monitoring programs at the site include water quality (ground and surface water)
monitoring, landfill gas monitoring, and storm water (National Pollution Discharge
Elimination System (NPDES)) monitoring. These programs are intended to minimize the
potential for an undetected release to the environment and will be modified as required for
the proposed landfill expansion to meet NCDEQ requirements.

Also as part of the landfill expansion, additions and modifications to existing stormwater
measures will be made as required for the proposed landfill expansion to meet NCDEQ
requirements.

Section B: Purpose and Need for Proposed Project

The City plans to expand the Kersey Valley Landfill to meet the growing waste
management needs of the area. This expansion will allow the City to continue to provide
waste collection and disposal services for its residents without incurring the additional
costs of outsourcing collection or transferring waste to another permitted facility. The
current landfill is projected to reach capacity in 2024. The proposed expansion is projected
Kersey Valley Landfill Expansion August 2020
Environmental Assessment
2

to provide the City an additional 20 years of capacity based on an average disposal rate of
120,000 tons per year.

The realignment of Kersey Valley Road from its current route west to join Jackson Lake
Road would increase safety by separating current residential and other traffic from
operational vehicles around the landfill. It will also allow the expansion of the landfill by
joining Areas 1 and 2 (Figure 1).

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 (Areas 1 and 2) to
reach capacity without expanding the landfill. Once capacity is reached, projected for
2024, the City would be required to contract out waste disposal to private waste companies
(see alternative C.2). This would increase the cost of waste disposal to City residents.

C.2 City Contracted Waste Services

If the Kersey Valley Landfill were allowed to reach capacity in Areas 1 and 2 without
expanding into Area 3, the City could opt to outsource waste disposal to private or other
local government permitted landfills within the region. Waste collection would remain as
a City responsibility since the City owns and operates all the equipment and has the
personnel needed for this service; thus, outsourcing of collection would not be
practicable. In order to transport City-collected waste to a landfill, the City would need to
direct haul waste to the landfill or utilize a transfer station. Given that the nearest regional
landfill (Waste Management Great Oak Landfill in Randleman) is located approximately
25 miles away from downtown High Point, use of a transfer station (either constructed by
the City or use of one or more existing transfer stations in the area) would likely be more
efficient. The nearest existing transfer stations are located in Greensboro (2 – City of
Greensboro and Republic Services Bishop Road Transfer Station) and Winston-Salem
(Republic Services Overdale Road Transfer Station). Any of these options would involve
major cost increases that would be passed on to the residents and taxpayers within the City.

C.3 New City-Owned Landfill Sites

Alternative sites that could potentially house a new City-owned and operated landfill,
providing similar disposal capacity as the proposed Area 3 expansion, were evaluated
using:
• Land Use Plan Map for the High Point Planning Area;
• Anticipated Population Growth by Census Tract, High Point Planning Area, 2010-
2020;
Kersey Valley Landfill Expansion August 2020
Environmental Assessment
3

• USGS Topographic Maps (High Point East and High Point West, Kernersville, and
Guilford Quadrangles); and
• Aerial photography.

Each site must provide a minimum of 10 to 20 years of landfill capacity (approximate 50
acres) and be accessible from NC primary roads. Criteria used to evaluate potential
alternative sites included the following avoidance and minimization factors:

Avoidance Criteria
• Critical watershed areas (Randleman Reservoir, City Lake, or Oak Hollow Lake).
• 5,000 foot buffer from any airport runway used only by piston-powered aircraft
• 10,000 foot buffer from any airport runway used only by turbine-powered aircraft.
• 5-mile buffer from the Piedmont-Triad International Airport, as the FAA
recommends against locating MSW landfills within five miles of an airport if the
landfill may cause hazardous wildlife to move into or through the airport’s
approach or departure airspace (Advisory Circular 150/5200-33B).
• Major power/utility rights-of-way.
• Existing State/local parks or walkways.
• Areas subject to natural disasters (100-year flood plain (500-year recommended),
active faults, or unstable terrain).
• Known occurrences of federally listed threatened/endangered species.
• Known National Register Historic Sites.

Minimization Criteria
• Impacts to existing residences.
• Impact to sensitive receptors (schools, daycare facilities, hospitals, elderly housing,
convalescent facilities, etc.).
• Minimize impacts to wetlands and streams.
• Have geology that ensures adequate monitoring of groundwater.
• Have adequate vertical buffer between the bottom of the landfill liner system and
site groundwater and bedrock.

Figure A2 (Appendix A) shows the City of High Point with critical watershed and airport
restrictions superimposed. This map also shows the current plan for the use of all lands
within the City’s planning area.

Critical watersheds exist to the north and east of the City, limiting the potential for
alternative sites in those areas. In addition, the northern extent of the City’s planning area
is within 5 miles of the Piedmont Triad International Airport.

A review of properties 25 acres or larger within the City (to minimize the number of
property owners that would require negotiations to reach a 50-acre site) which would have
favorable zoning requirements, indicates a very limited number of potential alternate sites
(shown on Figure A2 as non-colored or non-shaded areas). Using aerial photography to
Kersey Valley Landfill Expansion August 2020
Environmental Assessment
4

review these sites, the majority are already fully developed, and are in relatively close
proximity to the existing Kersey Valley Landfill.

Any alternative site would require purchase or condemnation of new land, have to undergo
rigorous public hearings and reviews, and likely be opposed by adjacent property owners.
The cost of relocating the landfill infrastructure would also be incurred by the City and
passed on to the residents via increased taxes or service fees.

C.4 On-Site Expansion

Due to the impracticalities of the above alternatives, on-site expansion of the existing
Kersey Valley Landfill is proposed as the preferred alternative. The proposed project
described in Section A meets the purpose and need by maintaining control of the waste
collection and disposal within the City, minimizing increased costs to City residents, and
minimizing impacts to adjacent properties. Alternative on-site expansion areas are not
present as prior development of Areas 1 and 2 have maximized developable area in each
location. Expansion to the north is prevented by residential development, east by an
existing private construction/demolition landfill, south by a large tributary of Richland
Creek, and west by Jackson Lake Road which could not be realigned due to the presence
of Business 85.

The realignment of Kersey Valley Road to the west was deemed most practical based on
local traffic patterns and minimizes both impacts to residences and streams/wetlands.

Section D: Existing Environmental Characteristics of Project Area

Existing environmental characteristics are described below within the project or project
area, which are defined for the purposes of this analysis as the entire landfill facility (not
just the Area 3 expansion footprint) and the proposed Kersey Valley Road realignment
corridor (Figure 3). Where applicable, the resources are further described by individual
project component, the landfill expansion and the road realignment. Project vicinity refers
to areas in proximity to, but outside, the project area.

D.1 Topography

The project lies within the Piedmont Physiographic Province, which can be characterized
by rolling hills dissected by large and small valleys with streams (Figure 3). Slopes are
variable but tend to be moderate (Table 3). Elevations range from approximately 740 feet
to 940 feet above mean sea level. Most of the area is underlain by metamorphosed granitic
rock of the Carolina Slate Belt (Rhodes, 1985). [Smith River Allocthon]

No floodplains are present within the proposed landfill expansion area. The proposed
Kersey Valley Road realignment would cross a mapped 100-year floodplain shown in
Figure 3 (NCFMP 2012). This seems to be relict mapping in an area where a previous
quarry existed and has since been filled in and graded, therefore no longer functioning as
a floodplain.
Kersey Valley Landfill Expansion August 2020
Environmental Assessment
5

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. Table 6
in Section E.2 presents the soils mapped within the proposed project area by project
component. 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 Types
Symbol Soil Map Unit Name Slope
(%)
Size
(Acres)
Prime
Farmland
Hydric
Soil
Ch Chewacla loam, frequently flooded 0 to 2 8.2 No1 No2
EnB Enon fine sandy loam 2 to 6 88.5 Yes No2
EnC Enon fine sandy loam 6 to 10 34.0 No No
EnD Enon fine sandy loam 10 to 15 2.2 No No
EoB2 Enon clay loam, moderately eroded 2 to 6 2.4 No No
MhB2 Mecklenburg sandy clay loam, moderately
eroded 2 to 6 4.8 Yes No
Pt Pits quarry NA 6.4 No No
WhA Wehadkee loam, frequently flooded 0 to 2 1.3 No Yes
WkD Wilkes-Poindexter-Wynott complex 10 to 15 40.1 No No
WkE Wilkes-Poindexter-Wynott complex 15 to 45 4.4 No No
1 = Prime farmland only if drained and protected from flooding
2 = Soil may contain hydric inclusions

D.3 Land Use

Land use within the vicinity of the proposed project is generally a mix of commercial and
industrial businesses, woodland, with some residential areas (Figure 5). Approximately 4
acres of woodland, cropland, open space or unassigned land use is present within the
project area based on available zoning data. The project and surrounding area is primarily
zoned as industrial (Figure 5).

D.4 Wetlands

There are seven wetlands in the project area totaling 0.28 acre. Six wetlands are located on
the southern and western edges of the landfill property (Figure 3). The wetlands in the
landfill property lie outside of any projected development/future cells. One 0.002 acre
wetland is present within the proposed Kersey Valley Rd realignment corridor. All of these
resources are headwater wetlands based on the NC Wetland Assessment Method.
Headwater wetlands are important for water quality due to their location in the transition
area between uplands, where stormwater is generated, and downstream resources.

Kersey Valley Landfill Expansion August 2020
Environmental Assessment
6

D.5 Prime or Unique Farmlands

There are approximately 93.3 acres of soils mapped as prime farmland (NRCS 2012)
within the project area (Figure 4). Of this area, approximately 1.24 are currently zoned as
agricultural land (Figure 5). None of these areas are currently being farmed and the
majority are already in use as the existing solid waste facility.

There are 47 acres of soils of statewide importance for farming mapped within the project
area. This includes 46 acres in the landfill facility and 0.07 acre in the proposed Kersey
Valley Road realignment. None of the areas are currently being farmed and the majority
are already in use as the existing solid waste facility.

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 components. The nearest publicly managed natural areas are located
approximately 0.26 mile southeast of the proposed Kersey Valley Road alignment that
consist of Guilford County open space areas along the lower reaches of Richland Creek.

D.7 Areas of Archaeological or Historical Value

No National Register listed historic sites are present within the project area, and one listed
site, the McCulloch’s Gold Mine, within 0.5 miles of the project, north of the landfill
(Figure 6). The gold mine was listed on the National Register in 1979. Several sites
classified as Surveyed Only are in the project vicinity but separated from the project areas
by other development and industries.

D.8 Air Quality

Guilford 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 City has a Title V air quality permit for the landfill facility. As such, the City
is required to meet applicable requirements including submittal of various routine air
quality reports to the NC DEQ’s Division of Air Quality and the US EPA. Additionally,
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
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.
Kersey Valley Landfill Expansion August 2020
Environmental Assessment
7

Ambient noise levels within the landfill facility are higher than the surrounding area due
to ongoing disposal activities. The proposed realignment is predominately undeveloped
and consists largely of woodland areas. Noise levels along this corridor are lower, with
increased noise levels at the termini where existing roadways and traffic are present.

D.10 Water Resources (Surface Water and Groundwater)

Surface waters within the project area drain to Richland Creek, which then flows into
Randleman Lake within the Cape Fear River Basin. The project area lies within NCDWR
Sub-basin 03-06-08 and USGS Hydrologic Unit Code 03030003. There are six streams
within the project area measuring approximately 4,857 linear feet (Figure 3).

Table 2: Surface Waters
Stream Name Class DWQ
Index No.
303d
List
Use
Support
Rating*
UT 1 to Richland Creek WS-IV, CA:* 17-7-(4) No FS
UT 2 to Richland Creek WS-IV, CA:* 17-7-(4) No FS
UT 3 to Richland Creek WS-IV, CA:* 17-7-(4) No FS
UT 4 to Richland Creek WS-IV, CA:* 17-7-(4) No FS
UT 5 to Richland Creek WS-IV, CA:* 17-7-(4) No FS
UT 6 to Richland Creek WS-IV, CA:* 17-7-(4) No FS
FS = Fully Supporting

Richland Creek, the receiving water of all streams in the project area, fully supports its
usage classification (NCDWR 2018). Water supply watersheds classified as WS-IV are
source waters where WS-I, II, or III are not feasible, generally in moderately to highly
developed watersheds. The critical area of the Randleman Lake water supply watershed
encroaches on the southern end of the proposed Kersey Valley Road realignment. While
no streams within the project area lie within the critical area they do flow to receiving
waters within the critical area just off site.

Two aquifers are present in the Piedmont. The surficial aquifer is present at varying depths,
within the soil and unconsolidated material above bedrock. Below this is an unconfined to
semi-confined aquifer in fractures within the bedrock. These aquifers interact as the
surficial feeds the bedrock (NCDWR 2012). Ground water in the piedmont varies
depending on geology, terrain, weather, and surface hydrology, but can be generally
described as a subdued reflection of surface topography. Both aquifers can be used for
drinking water supply. Recharge in the Carolina Slate Belt is moderate, estimated around
300,000 gallons per square mile per day (Heath, 1994).

The water quality monitoring network at the existing landfill facility consists of 14 shallow
and 4 deep monitoring wells, and 8 surface water monitoring locations to evaluate
groundwater and surface water quality. In 2019, the constituent 1,4 dioxane was detected
in one deep well at the site above groundwater standards (15A NCAC 2L.0100 et.
Kersey Valley Landfill Expansion August 2020
Environmental Assessment
8

seq.). Surface water quality sampling also indicated 1,4 dioxane in surface water samples
in this area. Assessment monitoring was initiated, which consisted of sampling each
monitoring well for a more comprehensive list of analytes. None of the additional analytes
were detected in groundwater samples. Two additional wells were installed across the
southern tributary of the site (a shallow well and a deep well nested together). Sampling
of these wells indicated higher concentrations of 1,4 dioxane than was detected at the
landfill facility. Further inspection of the property across the creek revealed waste
materials at the surface and historical sedimentation structures. A review of historical
aerial photos and topographic maps indicate the property across the creek was formerly a
quarry, and other documents indicate this property was used as a landfill after quarry
operations ceased. The presence and location of this pre-regulatory landfill was
documented by a Greensboro newspaper article from 1994. Based on this information, the
concentrations of 1,4 dioxane seen at the landfill are believed to be due to the pre-regulatory
landfill, not the lined landfill unit. The NCDEQ Inactive Hazardous Sites Branch Pre-
Regulatory Landfill Unit has been contacted to further investigate this situation.

D.11 Forest Resources

Woodlands within the project area are comprised primarily of mixed hardwood forest.
Some scattered pine stands of varying ages are present, but these are limited. Hardwood
forests have mostly been affected by historical timber activity throughout the region.
Larger trees are present in areas previously not timbered such as steep slopes and wetter
areas within flood plains. Based on land use data, aerial photo interpretation and site
reconnaissance, approximately 47.8 acres or 24% of the land within the project area is
classified as woodland with an additional 32.4 acres or 16% of land cover being
scrub/shrub areas (Figure 7).

The Area 3 landfill expansion is mostly maintained/disturbed land and vegetation is
primarily scrub/shrub with some trees. Wooded areas primarily exist along the eastern
portion of the Kersey Valley Road realignment. The mixed hardwood forests encountered
in the project area have a species composition typical of the Piedmont region. Dominant
species observed in the canopy and sub-canopy include American beech, boxelder, green
ash, loblolly pine, red cedar, red maple, silver maple, sweetgum, sycamore, tulip poplar,
and white oak.

D.12 Shellfish or Fish and Their Habitats

No shellfish beds or major fish spawning areas are present in the project area. Richland
Creek and Randleman Lake, built in 2001, are downstream of the project area. They likely
contain a variety of fish including largemouth bass, white bass, catfish, carp, perch, brim
and crappie.

With the exception of the UT to Richland Creek along the southern boundary of the landfill,
the streams within the landfill facility are too small to support freshwater mussels or large
fish populations. The UT to Richland Creek carries stormwater collected from nearby
urbanized areas and is unlikely to provide quality habitat for aquatic species.)
Kersey Valley Landfill Expansion August 2020
Environmental Assessment
9

A NCDEQ Fish Community Sample conducted in Richland Creek in 2018 reported fish
species including satinfin shiner, bluehead chub, green sunfish, redbreast sunfish,
swallowtail shiner, flat bullhead, speckled killifish, and sandbar shiner. The report
described fish populations in Richland Creek as relatively stable over the last three cycles
(2003-2018).

No fish were observed in the on-site streams during field activities; however, no sampling
was performed.

D.13 Wildlife and Natural Vegetation

Wildlife habitat is present within the project area, primarily within the wooded areas along
the proposed road realignment and the southern portion of the landfill facility. Scattered
habitat is present in forested upland areas, fields, and residential areas for species adapted
to these environments. Mammal species that commonly exploit forested habitats and
stream corridors found within the project area may include the eastern cottontail, gray
squirrel, gray fox, raccoon, Virginia opossum, white-footed mouse, and white-tailed deer.
Birds that commonly use forest and forest edge habitats include the American crow,
American woodcock, blue jay, cardinal, Carolina chickadee, mourning dove, tufted
titmouse, vireos, wild turkey, woodpeckers, wood thrush and yellow-rumped warbler.
Reptile and amphibian species that may use terrestrial communities located in the project
area include the eastern box turtle, eastern fence lizard, eastern garter snake, and southern
leopard frog.

Table 3 presents species under the protection of the Endangered Species Act, and listed by
the US Fish and Wildlife Service (USFWS) as potentially occurring in Guilford County
based on their County Listing and Information for Planning and Consultation (IPaC)
database. There are no NC Natural Heritage Program Element Occurrences within the
project area. NCNHP reports a historical record for the state listed stoneroot (Collinsonia
tuberosa) within a one-mile radius of the project area, as well as one waterbird colony.
(NCNHP 2020).

Kersey Valley Landfill Expansion August 2020
Environmental Assessment
10

Table 3: Federally Threatened & Endangered Species Listed in Guilford County
Scientific Name Common Name Federal
Status*
Record
Status
Fusconaia masoni Atlantic Pigtoe PT Current
Haliaeetus leucocephalus Bald Eagle BGPA Current
Helianthus schweinitzii Schweinitz’s Sunflower E Current
Isotria medeoloides Small Whorled Pogonia T Current
Notropis mekistocholas Cape Fear Shiner E Current
Percina rex Roanoke Logperch E Current
* BGPA = Bald and Golden Eagle Protection Act; T = Threatened; E = Endangered; PT = Proposed
Threatened

The Atlantic Pigtoe, a federal At-Risk Species proposed for listing under the ESA, 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. The best populations have been documented from North
Carolina Division of Water Resources Outstanding Resource Waters (ORW) stream
reaches or within streams potentially suitable for such designations.

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. The Deep River,
approximately 0.9 mile east of the project area, could provide forage habitat for the bald
eagle.

Schweinitz's sunflower is endemic to the Piedmont of North and South Carolina. The few
sites where this rhizomatous perennial herb occurs in relatively natural vegetation are
found in Xeric Hardpan Forests. The species is also found along roadside rights-of-way,
maintained power lines and other utility rights-of-way, edges of thickets and old pastures,
clearings and edges of upland oak-pine-hickory woods and Piedmont longleaf pine forests,
and other sunny or semi-sunny habitats where disturbances (e.g., mowing, clearing,
grazing, blow downs, storms, frequent fire) help create open or partially open areas for
sunlight.

Small whorled pogonia occurs in young as well as maturing (second to third successional
growth) mixed-deciduous or mixed-deciduous/coniferous forests. It does not appear to
exhibit strong affinities for a particular aspect, soil type, or underlying geologic substrate.
In North Carolina, the perennial orchid is typically found in open, dry deciduous woods
and is often associated with white pine and rhododendron. The species may also be found
on dry, rocky, wooded slopes; moist slopes; ravines lacking stream channels; or slope bases
near braided channels of vernal streams.

Kersey Valley Landfill Expansion August 2020
Environmental Assessment
11

The Cape Fear shiner is known only from the Cape Fear River watershed. In general,
habitat occurs in streams with clean gravel, cobble, or boulder substrates. It is most often
observed inhabiting slow pools, riffles, and slow runs associated with water willow
(Justicia americana) beds, which it uses for cover. Juveniles can be found inhabiting
slackwater, among large rock outcrops and in flooded side channels and pools.

In North Carolina, the logperch is known from the upper Roanoke River basin. The fish
typically inhabits warm, usually clear, small to medium sized rivers. These waterways have
a moderate to low gradient, and the fish usually inhabit riffles and runs, with silt-free sandy
to boulder-strewn bottoms. This species is not known in the Cape Fear River basin, where
the project is located.

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. The project components, proposed Area 3 MSW Expansion
and the Kersey Valley Road realignment, are assessed individually while also providing a
total assessment of direct impacts for the projects where applicable. The project
components are presented separately as they would be contracted and constructed
separately, and the breakdown would allow for easier re-evaluation of this EA if any
substantive changes are required in the final design of any project component.
Direct effects for the Area 3 Expansion and the and Kersey Valley Road realignment, when
analyzed quantitatively, would result in the creation of a new landfill cell between the
existing cells and would disturb an additional approximate 23 acres of land on the property
(including the Area 3 landfill unit (19.2 acres), perimeter berms/roads, and other
grading/infrastructure. The Kersey Valley Road realignment could result in the clearing
and disturbance of a maximum 22.9 acres of land.
E.1 Topography
The proposed Area 3 MSW 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 toward the UT to Richland Creek would
be retained. The Area 3 expansion would not occur in or near any 100-year floodplains.

The proposed Kersey Valley Road realignment crosses approximately 1.2 acres of land
mapped as 100-year floodplain. However, this area was mapped as floodplain due to its
previous use a quarry and has since being filled and no longer functions as a floodplain.
Coordination with the local floodplain administrator would be performed, and if necessary
this area would be remapped.

E.2 Soils

Table 4 presents the soil series potentially impacted by each project. Soils would be
disturbed within the Area 3 expansion and the proposed Kersey Valley Road realignment.
Kersey Valley Landfill Expansion August 2020
Environmental Assessment
12

Poor soils, for construction purposes would be excavated, and clean fill used for
construction within each project footprint.

Table 4: Soil Series by Project Component
Symbol Soil Map Unit Name Slope
(%)
Area 3
Expansion
(acres)
Kersey
Valley
ROW
(acres)
EnB Enon fine sandy loam 2 to 6 11.48 6.51
EnC Enon fine sandy loam 6 to 10 4.69 0
EnD Enon fine sandy loam 10 to 15 0 0.07
MhB2 Mecklenburg sandy clay loam, moderately
eroded 2 to 6 0 0.06
Pt Pits quarry NA 0 6.35
WkD Wilkes-Poindexter-Wynott complex 10 to 15 2.96 0.08
WkE Wilkes-Poindexter-Wynott complex 15 to 45 0 4.36
TOTALS 19.13 17.43

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 3 expansion, approximately 1,350 linear feet of existing roadway
would be converted to a new landfill cell approximately 19.2 acres in size. The Kersey
Valley Road realignment would convert an approximate 3,300 linear feet/22.9 acre corridor
from woodland and scrub-shrub to roadway. Local zoning and land use plans would not
be altered by the project.

E.4 Wetlands

No wetlands would be impacted by the Area 3 landfill expansion. The remaining wetlands
within the landfill facility would be retained within buffer areas in a natural state. There is
one 0.002 acre wetland within the proposed Kersey Valley Road alignment that would be
impacted by the proposed project. The project would require a Pre-Construction
Notification (PCN) to the US Army Corps of Engineers (USACE) and NC Division of
Water Resources (NCDWR). These agencies would ensure that only minimal adverse
effects would result from the project construction. If required through the permitting
process, compensatory mitigation would be provided, likely through payment to a private
mitigation bank or in-lieu fee program, for unavoidable impacts to wetlands although
compensatory mitigation is not anticipated at this time.

It should also be noted that recent changes in the definition of Waters of the US, as a result
of the June 22, 2020 Navigable Waters Protection Rule, could result in this wetland no
longer being under CWA jurisdiction.

Kersey Valley Landfill Expansion August 2020
Environmental Assessment
13

E.5 Prime or Unique Farmlands

Approximately 14.7 acres of soils mapped as prime farmland lie within the proposed Area
3 MSW Expansion. However, none of this land is currently being used for farming, and
therefore no loss of active prime farmland would result. The proposed Kersey Valley Road
would cross approximately 8.0 acres of mapped prime farmland; however, much of this
land is currently roadside ROW and previously disturbed land and no loss of functioning
farmland is anticipated.

The projects would impact approximately 4.7 acres of soils mapped as statewide
importance for farming (4.69 in Area 3 and 0.07 in the roadway). None of these areas are
being farmed currently.

E.6 Public Lands and Scenic, Recreational, and State Natural Areas

None of the project components would directly affect public lands, or scenic, recreational
and state natural areas.

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.

McCulloch’s Gold Mine, north of the existing landfill across Kivett Drive, is unlikely to
be affected by the project. The existing Area 2 landfill is already closer to this site than
the proposed Area 3 landfill cell. Traffic patterns including waste collection vehicles,
would still use Kivett Drive to access the existing scales. Traffic should not be changed in
front of the gold mine entrance due to the realignment of Kersey Valley Road, which would
reduce the potential congestion at intersection of Kersey Valley Road and Kivett Drive.

Archaeological sites are unlikely to be encountered in the project area due to prior
disturbance of most of the area. SHPO has determined that no archaeological investigations
are required for the project. If archaeological remains are encountered during construction,
work in that area would be ceased and coordination with the SHPO would be initiated.

E.8 Air Quality

Construction of the project components would result in only minimal localized effects on
air quality. Temporary increases in emissions would occur due to the use of construction
equipment for each project. 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. Traffic along Kersey Valley Road would be likely to continue at
similar levels, and therefore not increase or decrease local air quality in the vicinity of the
project.
Kersey Valley Landfill Expansion August 2020
Environmental Assessment
14

E.9 Noise Levels

Noise levels would temporarily increase during construction of the proposed projects.
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 3 landfill would be unlikely to increase noise levels above current
ambient levels at the Area 1 and 2 landfills, as similar operations would be conducted. An
increase in traffic noise would result along the Kersey Valley Road realignment, with a
likely offsetting reduction along the portion of road between there and the landfill.

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 three unnamed tributaries along the proposed
Kersey Valley Road realignment would potentially be impacted by the project. Impacts to
these streams would total approximately 158 linear feet, based on the project corridor, and
are likely to be less once the design is finalized.

The proposed projects are not likely to affect ground water resources. Continued
monitoring of surface and groundwater would be performed, and expanded to include the
Area 3 landfill. 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
a semi-annual basis to the NCDEQ, and any exceedances of ground or surface water
standards would be addressed and remediated as necessary.

E.11 Forest Resources

Based on aerial photo analysis and ground-truthing of the project areas, there would be
limited loss of forested areas associated with the project. The Area 3 Expansion would
require clearing of approximately 14.9 acres of scrub/shrub communities with trees and
mixed woody vegetation. The Kersey Valley Road realignment would require clearing of
up to 8.9 acres of forest, as well as 6.6 acres of scrub/shrub communities with some trees
and mixed woody vegetation.

E.12 Shellfish or Fish and Their Habitats

The projects are unlikely to affect shellfish, fish, or aquatic habitats. The Area 3 landfill
expansion will not result in any surface water impacts such as fill or culverting. The Kersey
Valley Road realignment would only impact small tributaries with limited aquatic
resources.

Kersey Valley Landfill Expansion August 2020
Environmental Assessment
15

E.13 Wildlife and Natural Vegetation

Forest impacts discussed in Section E.11 would correlate with a loss of wildlife habitat.
The 14.6 acres of disturbed areas (scrub/shrub area) within the Area 3 expansion 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 southern tributary and eastern and western facility boundaries, which all would be
retained in a forested buffer. The Kersey Valley Road realignment would result in the loss
of approximately 9 acres of wooded wildlife habitat, primarily on the eastern end of the
alignment.

No federally threatened or endangered species are likely to be affected by the projects as
habitat is limited within the project areas. The streams in the project area are too small and
urbanized to support Atlantic pigtoe or Cape Fear shiner. Marginal and limited habitat for
Schweinitz’s sunflower exists in roadside areas, along woodland boundaries in the landfill
area, and in disturbed fields in the project area. However, the closest record of this species
is approximately 4 miles to the south. Limited habitat for small whorled pogonia exists in
the woodland areas along the eastern portion of the proposed road realignment. However,
since there is only one documented occurrence of this species within Guilford County and
the next viable population is over 120 miles away, the potential for this species to occur is
extremely low. Bald eagles could use the Deep River and Randleman Lake for foraging
and nesting, but these resources are almost a mile away from the projects. No eagles or
their nests were noted during field reconnaissance within the project areas.

Stoneroot is a historic record, from over 50 years ago, and therefore is unlikely to be present
in the project areas. No evidence of this species was noted during field reconnaissance of
the project areas. The recorded waterbird colony, over 3 miles away on Randleman Lake,
would not be affected by the project as no aquatic resource impacts are anticipated.

E.14 Introduction of Toxic Substances

Construction of the projects would be unlikely to introduce toxic substances to the
environment. Clean fill would be required for construction of both the landfill and roadway.
Similar to the design of existing landfill units, the design of the Area 3 landfill unit would
include a composite liner and leachate collection system and a final cover system to limit
the potential for release of constituents into the environment. Leachate would be collected
and transported to the City of High Point’s Eastside Waste Water Treatment Facility.
Monitoring of ground and surface water around the landfill would be implemented as
described in Section E.10.

E.15 Secondary & Cumulative Impacts

Future development in the area as a result of this project is unlikely. The proposed Area 3
expansion would not increase accessibility to residential or commercial development. The
purpose of the project is to provide continued waste disposal services to the City’s existing
service area. The realignment of Kersey Valley Road has limited potential to promote
Kersey Valley Landfill Expansion August 2020
Environmental Assessment
16

development, as all parcels adjacent to the proposed road alignment already have access to
either the existing Kersey Valley Road or Jackson Lake Road (Figure 5). Therefore,
impacts from future development are not anticipated to result from this project.

Table 7: Summary of Direct Environmental Effects & Mitigation

Resource Environment Effects Mitigative Measures
Topography
No floodplain in Area 3 landfill.
Old mapped floodplain in
Kersey Valley Road alignment.
If required, remap floodplain on
Kersey Valley Road alignment
Soils
36 acres of soil disturbance (19
Area 3 & 17 roadway); most
already disturbed
Erosion control measures &
permitting as required
Land Use
Area 3 landfill retained as
public land. 22.9 acres of new
roadway alignment. None proposed
Wetlands
0.002 acre of wetland,
potentially no longer
jurisdictional. None proposed
Prime/Unique
Farmland
22.7 acres in project area;
mostly already disturbed. None proposed (no active farming).
Public Areas
None in project areas or
adjacent None proposed
Archaeological/
Historical Resources
McCulloch Gold Mine north of
landfill – unlikely to be affected None proposed
Air quality
Temporary minor increase in
emissions during construction.
Minor change in location of
traffic. None proposed
Noise Levels
Temporary increase during
construction. Minor change in
location of traffic.
Construction in daylight hours and
weekdays only, unless unusual
circumstances occur.
Water Resources
No impact to surface waters at
landfill. Less than 150 ft of
impact to streams on roadway.
Permit as required through US
Army Corps. Mitigation if required.
Forests
Area 3 mostly disturbed scrub-
shrub. Maximum 8.9 acres
forest loss along roadway.
Forests along west, south, and east
of landfill boundary preserved in
buffer.
Shellfish/Fish
No fish/shellfish populations or
protected aquatic species
present None proposed
Wildlife/Vegetation
Limited/marginal species
habitat in project areas. 8.9
acres of wildlife habitat loss
along roadway.
Forests along west, south, and east
of landfill boundary preserved in
buffer.
Toxic Substances
Limited potential due to landfill
liner construction.
Ground and surface water
monitoring for operational life and
30-yr post closure.
Kersey Valley Landfill Expansion August 2020
Environmental Assessment
17

F. References

2016. Surface Water Classification GIS Shapefile. Retrieved from
http://portal.ncdenr.org/web/wq/ps/csu/classifications

City of High Point Development Ordinance. 2016. Zoning Districts. Retrieved from
https://library.municode.com/nc/high_point/codes/development_ordinance?nodeId=CH3
ZODI_3.2GEZODIES

Heath, Ralph C. 1994. North Carolina Groundwater Recharge Rates. Retrieved from
http://sogweb.sog.unc.edu/Water/images/7/77/NC-Recharge-rates.gif

Natural Resources Conservation Service (NRCS). 2012. Web Soil Survey. Retrieved
from http://websoilsurvey.nrcs.usda.gov/app/

NC Department of Environmental Quality (NCDEQ). 2018. Richland Creek Fish
Community Sample. Retrieved from. https://deq.nc.gov/about/divisions/water-
resources/water-resources-data/water-sciences-home-page/biological-assessment-
branch/fish-community

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 Division of Water Resources (NCDWR). 2012. North Carolina Aquifers. Retrieved
from https://www.ncwater.org/?page=525

NC Flood Mapping Program (NCFMP). 2020. ArcGIS NCFMP_Status viewer. Retrieved
from https://ncem-gis.maps.arcgis.com/home/webmap/viewer

NC State Historic Preservation Office (NCSHPO). 2020. The NC State Historic
Preservation Office GIS Web Service. Retrieved from
http://gis.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.

US Fish and Wildlife Service (USFWS). 2020. Threatened and Endangered Species in
NC. Retrieved from https://www.fws.gov/raleigh/species/cntylist/guilford.html

US Fish and Wildlife Service (USFWS). 2020. Information for Planning and Consulting.
Retrieved from https://ecos.fws.gov/ipac/

Kersey Valley Landfill Expansion August 2020
Environmental Assessment

FIGURES

Randolph County
Guilford County
High Point
Jamestown
Archdale
Greensboro
Trinity
§¨¦85
§¨¦85
§¨¦85
§¨¦74
§¨¦74
§¨¦74
¬«68
¬«68
¬«610
¬«62
¬«62
¬«62 Dee
p
R
i
verMu
d
d
y
C
reek
B u llRunR ic hland C r eek HickoryCreekRed
dicksCreekUwh
arrie
R
i
v
erWest
ForkDe
e
pR
iver
M il e Branc h
H iatt B r a n c h
B o u ld ingBranchT
a
yl
o
r
Br
a
nchJennyB ra n chEastForkDeepRiverC o ppe r B r a n c h
July 2020 Figure 1: Vicinity Map
Kersey Valley Landfill
Area 3 Expansion
City of High Point, NC
0 10.5
Miles³Project Area
County Boundary
USGS Named Stream
§¨¦85
§¨¦85
35.953385, -79.930718
Project Location:
Guilford County, NC
73
July 2020 Figure 2: USGS Map
Kersey Valley Landfill
Area 3 Expansion
City of High Point, NC
0 0.50.25
Miles³
High Point East, NC (2016) USGS 1:24000 Quadrangle Map
Project Area
Area 1 Proposed Area 3
Kivett Dr
Kersey Valley RdJackson Lake RdCashatt Rd
Bronze Rd
July 2020 Figure 3: Aerial Map
Kersey Valley Landfill
Area 3 Expansion
City of High Point, NC
0 600300
Feet³
2018 NC Statewide Aerial Photography
Project Area
Landfill Cells
Wetland
Stream
100-Year Floodplain
Proposed Kersey Valley Rd Realignment
Area 2
July 2020
Figure 4: NRCS and
Prime Farmland Map
Kersey Valley Landfill
Area 3 Expansion
City of High Point, NC
0 600300
Feet³
2018 Statewide Aerial Imagery
Project Area
Prime Farmland Soil
CcC
Ch
EnB
EnC
EnD
EoB2
MaB
MaC
MaD
MhB2
Pt
Wh
WkC
WkD
WkE
w
Kivett Dr
Kersey Valley RdJackson Lake RdCashatt Rd
Bronze Rd
Old Jackson Lake RdJuly 2020 Figure 5: Zoning Map
Kersey Valley Landfill
Area 3 Expansion
City of High Point, NC
0 600300
Feet³
2018 NC Statewide Aerial Photography
Project Area
Parcel Boundary
Agriculture/Rural
General Business
Heavy Industrial
Light Industrial
Residential Single Family
Figure 6: Kersey Valley Landfill Area NCHPO HPOWEB
Sources: Esri, HERE, Garmin, USGS, Intermap, INCREMENT P, NRCan, Esri
Japan, METI, Esri China (Hong Kong), Esri Korea, Esri (Thailand), NGCC, (c)
OpenStreetMap contributors, and the GIS User Community
Local districts & boundaries
Local individual resources & centerpoints
Local Landmark
Local Landmark, Gone
Local HD Center Point
Surveyed Only individual resources & centerpoints
Surveyed Only
Surveyed in NRHD
Surveyed Only, Gone
Surveyed in NRHD, Gone
Blockface- Multiple properties
Blockface in NRHD
7/15/2020, 4:07:52 PM 0 0.5 10.25 mi
0 0.8 1.60.4 km
1:36,112
North Carolina State Historic Preservation Office
State of North Carolina DOT, Esri, HERE, Garmin, INCREMENT P, NGA, USGS | Esri, HERE |
Kivett Dr
Kersey Valley RdJackson Lake RdCashatt Rd
Bronze Rd
Old Jackson Lake RdJuly 2020
Figure 6: Terrestrial
Communities Map
Kersey Valley Landfill
Guilford County, NC
0 600300
Feet³
2018 NC Statewide Aerial Photography
Project Area
Maintained/Disturbed
Mesic Mixed Hardwood Forest
Kersey Valley Landfill Expansion August 2020
Environmental Assessment

APPENDICES
Sources: Esri, DeLorme, NAVTEQ, USGS, NRCAN, METI, iPC, TomTomDRAWN: APPROVED: SCALE: FIGURE NO.:FILENAME:PROJECT NO.:DATE:DMM 21:84,000JULY 2018HPOINT 17-1HP_SOCIO_FIG30 3,500 7,000 10,500 14,000FeetCITY OF HIGH POINTSOCIO-ECONOMICAND ALTERNATIVE SITE STUDYLAND USE MAP1 inch = 7,000 feetFHIGH POINT CITY LIMITSPIEDMONT TRIAD INTERNATIONAL AIRPORT BUFFER (5-MILES)CRITICAL WATERSHEDSHIGH POINT PARCELS LESS THAN 25 ACRESHIGH POINT UTILITIES AND RIGHTS-OF-WAYSHIGH POINT LANDUSE INCLUDING THE BELOW:Medium-Density ResidentialHigh-Density ResidentialInstitutionalMixed Use DevelopmentModerate-Density ResidentialRecreation/Open SpaceWater!!!!!!!PKSAll evaluated GIS data sets were transmitted to Smith Gardner, Inc,by the City of High Point on November 29, 2017, and included thefollowing feature classes: Complete_Parcel_Data; High_Point_Airport; High_Point_Flood_Zones; High_Point_Land_Use; High_Point _Parcel; High_Point_Populations; High_Point_Subbasin; High_Point_Utilities_ROW; High_Point _Watershed; and High_Point_Zoning.Piedmont Triad International AirportPropertyKersey Valley Landfill PropertyDocuSign Envelope ID: CA37AA00-9FD7-44A5-9848-8E97E240E293
NCNHDE-12065
May 19, 2020
Brian Smith
Carolina Ecosystems
3040 NC 42 W
Clayton, NC 27520
RE: Kersey Valley Landfill
Dear Brian Smith:
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:
https://www.fws.gov/offices/Directory/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 [e-mail] or 919-707-8603.
Sincerely,
NC Natural Heritage Program
Natural Heritage Element Occurrences, Natural Areas, and Managed Areas Within a One-mile Radius of the Project Area
Kersey Valley Landfill
May 19, 2020
NCNHDE-12065
Element Occurrences Documented Within a One-mile Radius of the Project Area
Taxonomic
Group
EO ID Scientific Name Common Name Last
Observation
Date
Element
Occurrence
Rank
Accuracy Federal
Status
State
Status
Global
Rank
State
Rank
Animal
Assemblage
32262 Waterbird Colony ---2009-04-23 C 2-High ------GNR S3
Vascular Plant 17089 Collinsonia tuberosa Piedmont Horsebalm 1955-09-22 H 4-Low ---Special
Concern
Vulnerable
G3G4 S1S2
No Natural Areas are Documented Within a One-mile Radius of the Project Area
Managed Areas Documented Within a One-mile Radius of the Project Area
Managed Area Name Owner Owner Type
Guilford County Open Space Guilford County: multiple local government Local Government
Guilford County Open Space Guilford County: multiple local government Local Government
Guilford County Open Space Guilford County: multiple local government Local Government
Guilford County Open Space Guilford County: multiple local government Local Government
Guilford County Open Space Guilford County: multiple local government Local Government
Guilford County Open Space Guilford County: multiple local government Local Government
Guilford County Open Space Guilford County: multiple local government Local Government
Guilford County Open Space Guilford County: multiple local government Local Government
Guilford County Open Space Guilford County: multiple local government Local Government
NC Department of Transportation Mitigation Site NC Department of Transportation State
Guilford County Open Space Guilford County: multiple local government Local Government
Guilford County Open Space Guilford County: multiple local government Local Government
Guilford County Open Space Guilford County: multiple local government Local Government
Guilford County Open Space Guilford County: multiple local government Local Government
Definitions and an explanation of status designations and codes can be found at https://ncnhde.natureserve.org/help. Data query generated on May 19, 2020; source: NCNHP, Q2 Apr 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
Powered by TCPDF (www.tcpdf.org)
Page 3 of 3
IPaC resource list
This report is an automatically generated list of species and other resources such as critical habitat
(collectively referred to as trust resources) under the U.S. Fish and Wildlife Service's (USFWS)
jurisdiction that are known or expected to be on or near the project area referenced below. The list
may also include trust resources that occur outside of the project area, but that could potentially be
directly or indirectly a’ected by activities in the project area. However, determining the likelihood
Local o*ce
Raleigh Ecological Services Field O*ce
 [phone]
 [phone]
MAILING ADDRESS
Post O*ce Box 33726
Raleigh, NC 27636-3726
PHYSICAL ADDRESS
551 Pylon Drive, Suite F
U.S. Fish & Wildlife ServiceIPaCInformation for Planning and Consultation
Raleigh, NC 27606-1487
Endangered species
This resource list is for informational purposes only and does not constitute an analysis of project
level impacts.
The primary information used to generate this list is the known or expected range of each species.
Additional areas of in=uence (AOI) for species are also considered. An AOI includes areas outside of
the species range if the species could be indirectly a’ected by activities in that area (e.g., placing a
dam upstream of a >sh population, even if that >sh does not occur at the dam site, may indirectly
impact the species by reducing or eliminating water =ow downstream). Because species can move,
and site conditions can change, the species on this list are not guaranteed to be found on or near the
.
1. Species listed under the Endangered Species Act are threatened or endangered; IPaC also shows
species that are candidates, or proposed, for listing. See the listing status page for more
information.
2.NOAA Fisheries, also known as the National Marine Fisheries Service (NMFS), is an o*ce of the
National Oceanic and Atmospheric Administration within the Department of Commerce.
The following species are potentially a’ected by activities in this location:
Flowering Plants
THERE ARE NO MIGRATORY BIRDS OF CONSERVATION CONCERN EXPECTED TO OCCUR AT THIS LOCATION.
Tell me more about conservation measures I can implement to avoid or minimize impacts to migratory birds.
NAME STATUS
Schweinitz's Sun=ower Helianthus schweinitzii
No critical habitat has been designated for this species.
https://ecos.fws.gov/ecp/species/3849
Endangered
Small Whorled Pogonia Isotria medeoloides
No critical habitat has been designated for this species.
https://ecos.fws.gov/ecp/species/1890
Threatened
• Birds of Conservation Concern http://www.fws.gov/birds/management/managed-species/
birds-of-conservation-concern.php
• Measures for avoiding and minimizing impacts to birds
http://www.fws.gov/birds/management/project-assessment-tools-and-guidance/
conservation-measures.php
• Nationwide conservation measures for birds
http://www.fws.gov/migratorybirds/pdf/management/nationwidestandardconservationmeasures.pdf
Nationwide Conservation Measures describes measures that can help avoid and minimize impacts to all birds at any
location year round. Implementation of these measures is particularly important when birds are most likely to occur
in the project area. When birds may be breeding in the area, identifying the locations of any active nests and
avoiding their destruction is a very helpful impact minimization measure. To see when birds are most likely to occur
and be breeding in your project area, view the Probability of Presence Summary. Additional measures and/or
permits may be advisable depending on the type of activity you are conducting and the type of infrastructure or bird
species present on your project site.
What does IPaC use to generate the migratory birds potentially occurring in my specied location?
The Migratory Bird Resource List is comprised of USFWS Birds of Conservation Concern (BCC) and other species that
may warrant special attention in your project location.
The migratory bird list generated for your project is derived from data provided by the Avian Knowledge Network
project area, there may be nests present at some point within the timeframe speci>ed. If "Breeds elsewhere" is
indicated, then the bird likely does not breed in your project area.
What are the levels of concern for migratory birds?
Migratory birds delivered through IPaC fall into the following distinct categories of concern:
1. "BCC Rangewide" birds are Birds of Conservation Concern (BCC) that are of concern throughout their range
anywhere within the USA (including Hawaii, the Paci>c Islands, Puerto Rico, and the Virgin Islands);
2. "BCC - BCR" birds are BCCs that are of concern only in particular Bird Conservation Regions (BCRs) in the
continental USA; and
3. "Non-BCC - Vulnerable" birds are not BCC species in your project area, but appear on your list either because of
the Eagle Act requirements (for eagles) or (for non-eagles) potential susceptibilities in o’shore areas from
certain types of development or activities (e.g. o’shore energy development or longline >shing).
Although it is important to try to avoid and minimize impacts to all birds, eorts should be made, in particular, to
avoid and minimize impacts to the birds on this list, especially eagles and BCC species of rangewide concern. For
more information on conservation measures you can implement to help avoid and minimize migratory bird impacts
and requirements for eagles, please see the FAQs for these topics.
Details about birds that are potentially aected by oshore projects
For additional details about the relative occurrence and abundance of both individual bird species and groups of
bird species within your project area o the Atlant ic Coast, please visit the Northeast Ocean Data Portal. The Portal
also oers data and information about other taxa be sides birds that may be helpful to you in your project review.
Alternately, you may download the bird model results (les underlying the portal maps through the NOAA NCCOS
Integrative Statistical Modeling and Predictive Mapping of Marine Bird Distributions and Abundance on the Atlantic
Outer Continental Shelf project webpage.
Facilities
National Wildlife Refuge lands
Any activity proposed on lands managed by the National Wildlife Refuge system must undergo a
'Compatibility Determination' conducted by the Refuge. Please contact the individual Refuges to
discuss any questions or concerns.
THERE ARE NO REFUGE LANDS AT THIS LOCATION.
Fish hatcheries
THERE ARE NO FISH HATCHERIES AT THIS LOCATION.
Wetlands in the National Wetlands Inventory
Impacts to NWI wetlands and other aquatic habitats may be subject to regulation under Section 404
of the Clean Water Act, or other State/Federal statutes.
boundaries or classi(cation established through image analysis.
The accuracy of image interpretation depends on the quality of the imagery, the experience of the image analysts,
the amount and quality of the collateral data and the amount of ground truth veri(cation work conducted.
Metadata should be consulted to determine the date of the source imagery used and any mapping problems.
Wetlands or other mapped features may have changed since the date of the imagery or (eld work. There may be
occasional dierences in polygon boundaries or clas si(cations between the information depicted on the map and
the actual conditions on site.
Data exclusions
Certain wetland habitats are excluded from the National mapping program because of the limitations of aerial
imagery as the primary data source used to detect wetlands. These habitats include seagrasses or submerged
aquatic vegetation that are found in the intertidal and subtidal zones of estuaries and nearshore coastal waters.
Some deepwater reef communities (coral or tuber(cid worm reefs) have also been excluded from the inventory.
These habitats, because of their depth, go undetected by aerial imagery.
Data precautions
Federal, state, and local regulatory agencies with jurisdiction over wetlands may de(ne and describe wetlands in a
dierent manner than that used in this inventory. T here is no attempt, in either the design or products of this
inventory, to de(ne the limits of proprietary jurisdiction of any Federal, state, or local government or to establish the
geographical scope of the regulatory programs of government agencies. Persons intending to engage in activities
involving modi(cations within or adjacent to wetland areas should seek the advice of appropriate federal, state, or
local agencies concerning speci(ed agency regulatory programs and proprietary jurisdictions that may aect such
activities.