20191369 Ver 1_Individual_20191007

U.S. Army Corps of Engineers (USACE)
Form Approved -
APPLICATION FOR DEPARTMENT OF THE ARMY PERMIT
OMB No. 0710-0003
33 CFR 325. The proponent agency is CECW-CO-R.
Expires: 01-08-2018
The public reporting burden for this collection of information, OMB Control Number 0710-0003, is estimated to average 11 hours per response, including the time
for reviewing instructions, searching existing data sources, gathering and maintaining the data needed, and completing and reviewing the collection of
information. Send comments regarding the burden estimate or burden reduction suggestions to the Department of Defense, Washington Headquarters Services,
at [e-mail]. Respondents should be aware that notwithstanding any other provision of law, no person shall
be subject to any penalty for failing to comply with a collection of information if it does not display a currently valid OMB control number. PLEASE DO NOT
RETURN YOUR APPLICATION TO THE ABOVE EMAIL.
PRIVACY ACT STATEMENT
Authorities: Rivers and Harbors Act, Section 10, 33 USC 403; Clean Water Act, Section 404, 33 USC 1344; Marine Protection, Research, and Sanctuaries Act,
Section 103, 33 USC 1413; Regulatory Programs of the Corps of Engineers; Final Rule 33 CFR 320-332. Principal Purpose: Information provided on this form will
be used in evaluating the application for a permit. Routine Uses: This information may be shared with the Department of Justice and other federal, state, and local
government agencies, and the public and may be made available as part of a public notice as required by Federal law. Submission of requested information is
voluntary, however, if information is not provided the permit application cannot be evaluated nor can a permit be issued. One set of original drawings or good
reproducible copies which show the location and character of the proposed activity must be attached to this application (see sample drawings and/or instructions)
and be submitted to the District Engineer having jurisdiction over the location of the proposed activity. An application that is not completed in full will be returned.
System of Record Notice (SORN). The information received is entered into our permit tracking database and a SORN has been completed (SORN #A1 145b) and
may be accessed at the following website: htto://docld.defense.gov/Privacy/SORNslndex/DOD-wide-SORN-Article-View/Article/570115/al l45b-ce.asox
(ITEMS 1 THRU 4 TO BE FILLED BY THE CORPS)
1. APPLICATION NO.
2. FIELD OFFICE CODE
3. DATE RECEIVED
4. DATE APPLICATION COMPLETE
(ITEMS BELOW TO BE FILLED BY APPLICANT)
5. APPLICANT'S NAME
8. AUTHORIZED AGENT'S NAME AND TITLE (agent is not required)
First - Ray Middle - Last - Maxwell
First - Kelly Middle -M. Last - Thames
Company - Gaston County Department of Public Works
Company - HDR
E-mail Address —ray. maxwell(?.gastongov.com
E-mail [e-mail]
6. APPLICANT'S ADDRESS:
9. AGENT'S ADDRESS:
Address- PO Box 1578
Address- 440 S. Church Street, 9th Floor
City - Gastonia State - NC Zip - 28053 Country - USA
City - Charlotte State - NC Zip - 28202 Country -USA
7. APPLICANT'S PHONE NOs. WAREA CODE
10. AGENTS PHONE NOs. WAREA CODE
a. Residence b. Business c. Fax
a. Residence b. Business c. Fax
704-862-7504
704-338-6710
STATEMENT OF AUTHORIZATION
11. 1 hereby authorize, Kelly Thames to act in my behalf as my agent in the processing of this application and to furnish, upon request,
supplemental information in support of this permit application.
Ray Maxwell 10/02/2019
SIGNATURE OF APPLICANT DATE
NAME, LOCATION, AND DESCRIPTION OF PROJECT OR ACTIVITY
12. PROJECT NAME OR TITLE (see instructions)
Gaston County Landfill Expansion
13. NAME OF WATERBODY, IF KNOWN (if applicable)
14. PROJECT STREET ADDRESS (if applicable)
South Fork Catawba River (HUC 03050102)
Address 3155 Philadelphia Church Road
15. LOCATION OF PROJECT
Latitude: -N 35.3863840 Longitude: -W -81.174992°
City - Dallas State- NC Zip- 28034
16. OTHER LOCATION DESCRIPTIONS, IF KNOWN (see instructions)
State Tax Parcel ID Figure 3, Appendix A & Appendix B Municipality unincorporated Gaston County
Section - Township - Range -
ENG FORM 4345, MAY 2018 PREVIOUS EDITIONS ARE OBSOLETE. Page 3 of 1

17. DIRECTIONS TO THE SITE
The Gaston County Landfill is located at 3155 Philadelphia Church Road, in Dallas, North Carolina (Figures 1 and 2, Appendix A). From
Charlotte, take I-85 S to Exit 17 for US -321 N. Take a left on US -321 N and go 6.8 miles to take Exit 17 for Hardin Road. Take a right on
Hardin Road and continue for 1.3 miles, then take a right on Fancy Hill Road. Continue on Fancy Hill Road for 0.9 miles, then take a right
onto Philadelphia Church Road. Continue on Philadelphia Church Road for 0.5 miles and the Gaston County Landfill will be on the right.
On-site waters include Hoyle Creek and those tributaries that drain to it and tributaries that drain to the South Fork Catawba River. Hoyle
Creek drains to the South Fork Catawba River, which ultimately drains to the Catawba River.
18. Nature of Activity (Description of project, include all features)
This application is for proposed activities (that have not occurred) to expand an existing landfill that require a permit and for unauthorized
activities (that occurred between 2006 and 2008) that require an After -the -Fact Permit.
The proposed activities requiring a permit would involve the expansion of the existing Gaston County Landfill into the municipal solid waste
(MSW) Unit III cell, located between MSW Units I and II in the central portion of the landfill (Figure 4, Appendix A). Subsequently,
onstruction of Unit III would then allow for the construction of Unit I, Phase 2, which would connect all of Units I, II, and III for final
proposed limits of the MSW cell. The activity would result in the loss of 280 linear feet of low quality perennial stream channel and 865 linear
feet of low quality intermittent stream channel for a total of 1,145 linear feet of stream channel and 0.40 acres of Pond 1 (Figure 5, Appendix
). No wetlands will be impacted by the proposed activity.
19. Project Purpose (Describe the reason or purpose of the project, see instructions)
There is an imminent need for waste disposal capacity in Gaston County in the next 2.5 years. And, with the current population growth of
Gaston County, the remaining landfill capacity may be consumed at a greater rate, thus shortening the estimated lifespan remaining to less than
2.5 years. To construct a landfill on a new site would take a greater amount of time to do than the 2.5 years of remaining lifespan at the existing
landfill and would include a siting study, potential land acquisition, potential rezoning for appropriate landfill land uses, new engineering,
landfill infrastructure design, permitting, and the construction of the landfill itself prior to accepting waste from citizens. Moreover, the nearest
MSW landfill is the Charlotte Motor Speedway Landfill (Speedway Landfill) in Cabarrus County, NC. It would be cost prohibitive for Gaston
County to haul MSW waste to the Speedway Landfill and would also be an unnecessary inconvenience as landfill infrastructure is existing and
available in Gaston County itself. Additionally, Gaston County generates a revenue source from selling the natural gas produced by landfill
processes to Duke Energy for eventual commercial consumption.
The need is to maintain an operational landfill in Gaston County with adequate capacity for the foreseeable future. Therefore, the purpose of
he project is to utilize the existing landfill and construct Unit I, Phase 2 and Unit III to combine them with the existing Unit I, Phase 1 and
Unit II disposal units to final build out of the landfill, which would provide an estimated capacity of 20 years or more. (see supplemental
document)
USE BLOCKS 20-23 IF DREDGED AND/OR FILL MATERIAL IS TO BE DISCHARGED
20. Reason(s) for Discharge
There are multiple disposal sites (impacts) located throughout the project site. Impacts 1-4 are associated with the expansion of the landfill
nit. The unauthorized activities are those associated with culvert installation and the impoundment of Stream 1. Refer to Block 20 for
additional details. Approximately 6,153.56 cubic yards of fill is proposed in jurisdictional waters for the project and approximately 218.25
cubic yards of fill were previously placed jurisdictional waters without authorization, resulting in a total of 6,371.81 cubic yards of fill in
'urisdictional waters. (see supplemental document for additional information).
21. Type(s) of Material Being Discharged and the Amount of Each Type in Cubic Yards:
Type Type Type
Amount in Cubic Yards Amount in Cubic Yards Amount in Cubic Yards
see supplemental document
22. Surface Area in Acres of Wetlands or Other Waters Filled (see instructions)
Acres 0 acre of wetland, 0.40 acre of ponds, and 0.16 acre of stream channel (see supplemental information)
or
Linear Feet 1,881.5 linear feet of stream channel (0.16 acre)
23. Description of Avoidance, Minimization, and Compensation (see instructions)
The applicant conducted an off-site and on-site alternatives analysis to determine the least environmentally damaging practicable alternative
that also still met the project's purpose and need. An in-depth discussion of the alternatives analysis is available in the Environmental
Assessment (Appendix Q. (see supplemental information)
ENG FORM 4345, MAY 2018 Page 3 of 2

24. Is Any Portion of the Work Already Complete? -X Yes ❑ No IF YES, DESCRIBE THE COMPLETED WORK
Sometime between 2006 and 2008, a reinforced concrete pipe (RCP) was placed directly in 303.25 linear feet of Stream 1. Additionally,
433.25 linear feet of Stream 1 was impounded during the same timeframe. These impacts that occurred to Stream 1 were unauthorized and this
application will be an After -the -Fact Permit to authorize these prior impacts. The discharge consisted of suitable fill material and did not
include any trash, debris, car bodies, asphalt, etc. The fill material was also free of toxic pollutants in toxic amounts.
25. Addresses of Adjoining Property Owners, Lessees, Etc., Whose Property Adjoins the Waterbody (if more than can be entered here, please attach a supplemental list).
a. Address- see Figure 9 (Appendix A) and Appendix D for a list of property owners adjoining the project boundary.
City - State - Zip -
b. Address -
City - State - Zip -
c. Address -
City - State - Zip -
d. Address -
City - State - Zip -
e. Address -
City - State - Zip -
26. List of Other Certificates or Approvals/Denials received from other Federal, State, or Local Agencies for Work Described in This Application.
AGENCY TYPE APPROVAL` IDENTIFICATION DATE APPLIED DATE APPROVED DATE DENIED
NUMBER
NCDENR-NCDWR 401 Water Quality IP WQC
see attached for additional required permit approvals
. Would include but is not restricted to zoning, building, and flood plain permits
27. Application is hereby made for permit or permits to authorize the work described in this application. I certify that this information in this application is
complete and accurate. I further certify that I possess the authority to undertake the work described herein or am acting as the duly authorized agent of the
applicant.
Ray Maxwell 10/02/2019 , f ✓( (�gAi, 9/30/19
SIGNATURE OF APPLICANT DATE St, NATURE OF AGENT DATE
The Application must be signed by the person who desires to undertake the proposed activity (applicant) or it may be signed by a duly
authorized agent if the statement in block 11 has been filled out and signed.
18 U.S.C. Section 1001 provides that: Whoever, in any manner within the jurisdiction of any department or agency of the United States
knowingly and willfully falsifies, conceals, or covers up any trick, scheme, or disguises a material fact or makes any false, fictitious or fraudulent
statements or representations or makes or uses any false writing or document knowing same to contain any false, fictitious or fraudulent
statements or entry, shall be fined not more than $10,000 or imprisoned not more than five years or both.
ENG FORM 4345, MAY 2018 Page 3 of 3

ENG Form 4345 Supplemental Document
Gaston County Landfill Expansion
SAW -2018-00053
Gaston County Landfill Expansion
Gaston County, North Carolina
ACOE File No. SAW -2018-00053
Application for §404 Standard Individual Permit
Supplemental Information
Block 16. Other Location Descriptions
There are six parcels associated with the proposed project. See the Tax Parcel ID Map (Figure 3,
Appendix A) and the list of property ownership in Appendix B.
Block 18. Nature of Activitv
The proposed activities requiring a permit would involve the expansion of the existing Gaston County
Landfill into the municipal solid waste (MSW) Unit III cell, located between MSW Units I and II in the
central portion of the landfill (Figure 4, Appendix A). Subsequently, construction of Unit III would then
allow for the construction of Unit I, Phase 2, which would connect all of Units I, II, and III for final proposed
limits of the MSW cell. The activity would result in the loss of 280 linear feet of low quality perennial
stream channel and 865 linear feet of low quality intermittent stream channel for a total of 1,145 linear
feet of stream channel and 0.40 acres of Pond 1 (Figures 5 and 6, Appendix A). No wetlands would be
impacted by the proposed activity.
The landfill site layout was previously approved by the formerly named North Carolina Department of
Environmental, Health and Natural Resources (NC DEHNR) Division of Waste Management in 1997. The
proposed impacts associated with the expansion are to construct Unit III as a municipal solid waste
(MSW) cell for the final build out of the landfill as approved. The construction of Unit III would
subsequently allow for the construction of Unit I, Phase 2 and would finally connect MSW Units I and II for
the total MSW expansion area. The expansion of the MSW units are necessary to meet the project's
purpose and need.
This application is for proposed activities (that have not occurred) to expand an existing landfill that
require a permit (Figure 6, Appendix A). This application is also for unauthorized activities (that occurred
between 2006 and 2008) that require an After -the -Fact Permit (Figure 7, Appendix A).
The construction sequence would first require the establishment of sediment and erosion control
measures around the perimeter of the construction areas to control stormwater flows. Additional NPDES
BMPs would be installed in appropriate areas to treat stormwater runoff of the site in general as needed.
Clearing and construction of Unit III would occur before Unit 1, Phase 2. As it is an existing facility,
Gaston County Landfill has been, and is currently, covered under the National Pollutant Discharge
Elimination System (NPDES) General Permit Number NCG120000 for Landfills (Certificate of Coverage
No. NCG120012 effective 11/1/2018, expires 10/31/2021) as issued by the North Carolina Department of
Environmental Quality (NCDEQ) Division of Energy, Mineral, and Land Resources (NCDEMLR). This
coverage includes a Stormwater Pollution Prevention Plan (SWPP) and periodic water quality monitoring
to monitor site discharge and runoff as required by the general permit.
There are multiple disposal sites (impacts) located within the proposed Unit III disposal unit. Impacts 1-3
are impacts associated with streams and Impact 4 is associated with a pond. All channel impacts will be
impacted by the installation of a 6 -inch perforated pipe and gravel fill (#57 stone) material to the top of
bank, which would then be overlain by a clay layer and finally a liner will be laid to provide the foundation
of the Unit III cell (Figure 8, Appendix A). The pond impact will also be constructed in the same way as
Page 11

ENG Form 4345 Supplemental Document
Gaston County Landfill Expansion
SAW -2018-00053
the stream impacts, but first requires a dam breach and dewatering utilizing best management practices
and sediment and erosion controls. The perforated pipe and gravel layer placed in the channels and pond
will be continuous and the clay layer will be placed on top of the gravel layer and an impermeable
geosynthetic underliner will be placed on top of the clay layer for Unit III. Once the geosynthetic
underliners are in place, a leachate collection system will be installed per 40 CFR Part 258 requirements.
All impacts would be the result of discharge (fill) material consisting of clean, gravel fill material. The
impact sites would contain no flow or be dewatered prior to construction which would eliminate the stream
velocities and prevent and control turbidity, stratification, and other factors typically associated with mixing
soil with water. Figures 6 and 7 (Appendix A) depicts the impact site locations, which are described in
detail in Blocks 20-21.
Unauthorized activities requiring an After -the -Fact permit include the impoundment of Stream 1 to create
an in-line detention basin (Pond 1) (Figure 7, Appendix A). The impoundment occurred sometime
between 2006 and 2008 and resulted in approximately 433.25 linear feet of stream impact for the
impoundment and 303.25 linear feet of stream impact due to culvert installation. Since, Pond 1 has been
utilized and maintained as a sediment basin and would now become part of the Unit 1, Phase 2 and Unit
III expansion.
Block 19. Project Purpose
The Solid Waste Management Act of 19891, North Carolina General Statute §130A -309.09A2 requires
Gaston County to manage waste disposal services for its citizens. Gaston County began siting studies to
open a landfill for its citizens as early as the 1980s in anticipation of the pending Act and required need
for waste disposal management services in the county. In 1986 the North Carolina Department of
Environmental, Health and Natural Resources (NCDEHNR) Division of Waste Management issued Solid
Waste Permit 36-06 authorizing the construction of the Gaston County Landfill. Currently, it is the only
municipal solid waste (MSW) landfill in Gaston County and consists of three landfill areas, which include a
closed construction and demolition (C&D) landfill (Permit 3606-CDLF-1995), a closed unlined MSW unit
with an active C&D landfill on top (Permit 3606-MSWLF-1986), and an active lined MSW landfill (Permit
3606-MSWLF-1997) (Figure 4, Appendix A).
The closed C&D landfill and the closed unlined MSW landfill (beneath the active C&D landfill) were
permitted to operate prior to the implementation of 40 CFR Part 258 (referred to as Subtitle D), which
required the installation of impermeable geosynthetic underliners for all new and lateral landfill
expansions after October 1993. The promulgation of 40 CFR Part 258 promoted the design of Units I, II,
and III in accordance with Subtitle D regulations; thus, increasing capacity and lifespan of the landfill by
approximately 30 years at the time. Unit I, Phase 1 and Unit II were opened in 1998 and 2009,
respectively. Unit I, Phase I reached capacity in 11 years and Unit II began accepting waste. Unit II
currently has remaining capacity for approximately 2.5 more years of waste disposal.
The original C&D landfill is now closed and is built out to final contour design. The C&D landfill on top of
the closed MSW landfill has approximately 4 months until reaching its permitted volume and final contour
design. The Unit I, Phase 1 landfill is at capacity and is no longer accepting waste. As such, the only
active landfill area accepting waste beyond a few months is Unit II, which only has a lifespan of
approximately 2.5 years remaining. The opening of Unit III would allow for the opening of Unit I, Phase 2,
https://www.ncleg.net/En acted Leg islation/SessionLaws/HTML/1989-1990/SL1989-784.htm1
2 https://www.ncleg.net/enactedlegisIation/statutes/htmI/bvchapter/chapter 130a.html
Page 12

ENG Form 4345 Supplemental Document
Gaston County Landfill Expansion
SAW -2018-00053
and combined would increase the landfill capacity by 20 years or more to the planned final build out of the
site, which is also enough time for Gaston County to site and study a new landfill location. Table 1 (below)
summarizes the remaining capacity and lifespan of the Gaston County Landfill.
Table 1. Landfill capacit
* The original MSW landfill underneath the CDLF began operation in 1986 and ceased accepting MSW waste with the promulgation
of 40 CFR Part 258; however, the regulations allowed for a construction & demolition landfill to operate on top of the MSW landfill to
build out to the originally permitted volume to final contours.
According to the 2010 United States Census Bureau (USCB) census3, approximately 206,086 people
were living in Gaston County in fiscal year 2010/2011 and the per capita waste generation rate was
estimated to be 1.2 tons per year (NC Solid Waste and Materials Management Annual Report).4 The
USCB population estimate for 20175 estimates the Gaston County population at 220,182 citizens with a
per capita waste generation rate for fiscal year 2016/2017 at 1.34 tons per year. The USCB and NC Solid
Waste Annual Report statistics suggest a continued trend of population growth in Gaston County and
potentially increasing per capita waste generation rates.
There is an imminent need for waste disposal capacity in Gaston County in the next 2.5 years as
summarized in Error! Reference source not found.. And, with the current population growth of Gaston
County, the remaining landfill capacity may be consumed at a greater rate, thus shortening the estimated
lifespan remaining to less than 2.5 years. To construct a landfill on a new site would take a greater
amount of time to do than the 2.5 years of remaining lifespan at the existing landfill and would include a
siting study, potential land acquisition, potential rezoning for appropriate landfill land uses, new
engineering, landfill infrastructure design, permitting, and the construction of the landfill itself prior to
accepting waste from citizens. Moreover, the nearest MSW landfill is the Charlotte Motor Speedway
Landfill (Speedway Landfill) in Cabarrus County, NC. It would be cost prohibitive for Gaston County to
haul MSW waste to the Speedway Landfill and would also be an unnecessary inconvenience as landfill
infrastructure is existing and available in Gaston County itself. Additionally, Gaston County generates a
revenue source from selling the natural gas produced by landfill processes to Duke Energy for eventual
3 United States Census Bureau (USCB). 2010. 2010 Population Finder. Accessed on January 21, 2019 at
https://www.census.gov/popfi nder/?fl=37071.
4 North Carolina Department of Environmental Quality (NCDEQ) Division of Waste Management. 2012. FFY11-12 NC Solid Waste
and Materials Management Annual Report. Accessed January 21, 2019 at https://deg.nc.gov/about/divisions/waste-
management/waste-management-rules-data/solid-waste-management-annual-reports/fv11-12.
5 United States Census Bureau (USCB) American Fact Finder. 2017. 2017 Population Estimate (as of July 1, 2017). Accessed on
January 21, 2019 at https://factfinder.census..qov/faces/nav/isf/pages/community facts.xhtml.
Page 13
Total
Remaining
Landfill Areas
Permit #
Operations
Status
Permitted
Volume
Remaining
Area
Volume
(CY)
Life Span
(ac.)
(CY)
3606-
01/1996—
CDLF
CDLF-
12/1999
Closed
--
--
0
5.5
1995
CDLF Over
3606-
01/2000—
Closed MSW*
MSWLF-
Present
Active
1,482,196
89,100
4 months
37
1986
Unit I, Phase 1
01/1998—
Active, but
1,973,000
0
0 yrs
29
3606-
MSWLF-
09/2009
At Capacity
Unit I, Phase 2
Proposed
Constructed
568,872
568,872
2 yrs
10
07/2009 —
07/2009-
Unit II
1997
Present
Active
3,060,0000
718,900
2.5 yrs
37
Unit III
Proposed
4,870,000
4,807,000
18 yrs
11.5
Constroucted
* The original MSW landfill underneath the CDLF began operation in 1986 and ceased accepting MSW waste with the promulgation
of 40 CFR Part 258; however, the regulations allowed for a construction & demolition landfill to operate on top of the MSW landfill to
build out to the originally permitted volume to final contours.
According to the 2010 United States Census Bureau (USCB) census3, approximately 206,086 people
were living in Gaston County in fiscal year 2010/2011 and the per capita waste generation rate was
estimated to be 1.2 tons per year (NC Solid Waste and Materials Management Annual Report).4 The
USCB population estimate for 20175 estimates the Gaston County population at 220,182 citizens with a
per capita waste generation rate for fiscal year 2016/2017 at 1.34 tons per year. The USCB and NC Solid
Waste Annual Report statistics suggest a continued trend of population growth in Gaston County and
potentially increasing per capita waste generation rates.
There is an imminent need for waste disposal capacity in Gaston County in the next 2.5 years as
summarized in Error! Reference source not found.. And, with the current population growth of Gaston
County, the remaining landfill capacity may be consumed at a greater rate, thus shortening the estimated
lifespan remaining to less than 2.5 years. To construct a landfill on a new site would take a greater
amount of time to do than the 2.5 years of remaining lifespan at the existing landfill and would include a
siting study, potential land acquisition, potential rezoning for appropriate landfill land uses, new
engineering, landfill infrastructure design, permitting, and the construction of the landfill itself prior to
accepting waste from citizens. Moreover, the nearest MSW landfill is the Charlotte Motor Speedway
Landfill (Speedway Landfill) in Cabarrus County, NC. It would be cost prohibitive for Gaston County to
haul MSW waste to the Speedway Landfill and would also be an unnecessary inconvenience as landfill
infrastructure is existing and available in Gaston County itself. Additionally, Gaston County generates a
revenue source from selling the natural gas produced by landfill processes to Duke Energy for eventual
3 United States Census Bureau (USCB). 2010. 2010 Population Finder. Accessed on January 21, 2019 at
https://www.census.gov/popfi nder/?fl=37071.
4 North Carolina Department of Environmental Quality (NCDEQ) Division of Waste Management. 2012. FFY11-12 NC Solid Waste
and Materials Management Annual Report. Accessed January 21, 2019 at https://deg.nc.gov/about/divisions/waste-
management/waste-management-rules-data/solid-waste-management-annual-reports/fv11-12.
5 United States Census Bureau (USCB) American Fact Finder. 2017. 2017 Population Estimate (as of July 1, 2017). Accessed on
January 21, 2019 at https://factfinder.census..qov/faces/nav/isf/pages/community facts.xhtml.
Page 13

ENG Form 4345 Supplemental Document
Gaston County Landfill Expansion
SAW -2018-00053
commercial consumption.
The need is to maintain an operational landfill in Gaston County with adequate capacity for the
foreseeable future. Therefore, the purpose of the project is to utilize the existing landfill and construct Unit
I, Phase 2 and Unit III to combine them with the existing Unit I, Phase 1 and Unit II disposal units to final
build out of the landfill, which would provide an estimated capacity of 20 years or more.
Block 20. Reason(s) for Discharge
Impacts 1 and 3: Unit 111 Expansion — Seasonal RPWs
A 6 -inch, perforated PVC pipe would be placed directly in 865 linear feet of jurisdictional Seasonal Stream
(848 If for Stream 1 and 17 If for Stream 2) (Figures 7 and 8, Appendix A). That placed in Stream 2 would
connect to Stream 1. Then #57 gravel stone would be placed in and around the PVC pipe up to the top of
bank. The existing stream substrate in these areas would be buried. The discharge would consist of
suitable fill material and would not include any trash, debris, car bodies, asphalt, etc. The fill material
would also be free of toxic pollutants in toxic amounts. The perforated pipe and surrounding gravel fill
material would allow for the continued conveyance of groundwater that percolates through the material.
Proper sediment and erosion control measures would be installed prior to and during construction to
ensure that the substrate of remaining downstream waters of the United States would not change or be
affected.
Impact 2: Unit III Expansion — Perennial RPW
A 6 -inch, perforated PVC pipe would be placed directly in 280 linear feet of jurisdictional Perennial
Stream 1. The impacts associated with Impacts 1 and 3 (discussed above) would tie in to Impact 2
(Figures 7 and 8, Appendix A). Then #57 gravel stone would be placed in and around the PVC pipe up to
the top of bank. The existing stream substrate in these areas would be buried. The discharge would
consist of suitable fill material and would not include any trash, debris, car bodies, asphalt, etc. The fill
material would also be free of toxic pollutants in toxic amounts. The perforated pipe and surrounding
gravel fill material would allow for the continued conveyance of groundwater that percolates through the
material. Proper sediment and erosion control measures would be installed prior to and during
construction to ensure that the substrate of remaining downstream waters of the United States would not
change or be affected.
Impact 4: Unit Ill Expansion — Pond
Once the pond is dewatered and the berm breached, a 6 -inch, perforated PVC pipe would be placed
directly through the bed of Pond 1, connecting Stream 1 and Pond 1 in the underlayment of the disposal.
The impacts associated with Impact 4 consists of 0.4 acre of pond. Then #57 gravel stone would be
placed in and around the PVC pipe up to the top of bank. The existing substrate in these areas would be
buried. The discharge would consist of suitable fill material and would not include any trash, debris, car
bodies, asphalt, etc. The fill material would also be free of toxic pollutants in toxic amounts. The
perforated pipe and surrounding gravel fill material would allow for the continued conveyance of
groundwater that percolates through the material. Proper sediment and erosion control measures would
be installed prior to and during construction to ensure that the substrate of remaining downstream waters
of the United States would not change or be affected.
Unauthorized Activities — Culverts and Impoundment
Sometime between 2006 and 2008, a reinforced concrete pipe (RCP) was placed directly in 303.25 linear
feet of Stream 1. Additionally, 433.25 linear feet of Stream 1 was impounded during the same timeframe.
These impacts that occurred to Stream 1 were unauthorized and this application will be an After -the -Fact
Page 14

ENG Form 4345 Supplemental Document
Gaston County Landfill Expansion
SAW -2018-00053
Permit to authorize these prior impacts. The discharge consisted of suitable fill material and did not
include any trash, debris, car bodies, asphalt, etc. The fill material was also free of toxic pollutants in toxic
amounts.
Table 2 (below) summarized the impact amounts for the proposed project and the unauthorized activities
that have already occurred.
Table 2. Summary of impacts per activity type
Page 15
Proposed Activity
Unauthorized Activity
Total
Expansion of the
Landfill
Impoundment/Culvert
of Stream 1
Seasonal RPW (If)
865
0
865
Perennial RPW (If)
280
736.5
1,016.5
Wetland (ac.)
0
0
0
Pond (ac.)
0.40
0
0.40
Total Stream Impacts (If)
1,881.5 If
Total Wetland Impacts (ac.)
0
Total Pond Impacts (ac.)
0.40
Page 15

ENG Form 4345 Supplemental Document
Gaston County Landfill Expansion
SAW -2018-00053
Block 21. Type(s) of Material Being Discharged
There are multiple disposal sites (impacts) located throughout the project site. Impacts 1-4 are associated
with the expansion of the landfill unit. The unauthorized activities are those associated with culvert
installation and the impoundment of Stream 1. Refer to Block 20 for additional details. Table 3 (below)
summarizes each impact by impact activity and impact materials. Approximately 6,153.56 cubic yards of
fill is proposed in jurisdictional waters for the project and approximately 218.25 cubic yards of fill were
previously placed jurisdictional waters without authorization, resulting in a total of 6,371.81 cubic yards of
fill in jurisdictional waters.
Table 3. Summary of type of discharge material per impact.
Block 22. Surface Area in Acres of Wetlands or Other Waters Filled
Refer to Blocks 18, 20, and 21 for impact descriptions and locations for each impact. All discharge
impacts would be conducted by backhoes. Typical construction equipment such as bobcats, dump trucks,
and excavators would also provide construction support. Proper sediment and erosion control measures
would be installed prior to and during construction to ensure that remaining waters of the United States
would not change or be affected.
Block 23. Description of Avoidance, Minimization, and Compensation
According to the applicant, the applicant's preferred alternative would avoid impacts to 11,052 linear feet
of stream channel, 5.27 acres of wetlands, and 1.25 acres of ponds. Approximately 80% of the avoided
streams (8,992.5 If), 87% of wetlands (4.6 ac.), and 17.5% of ponds (0.22 ac) are located within, and are
protected by, the buffer and setback regulatory controls that limit the locality of landfill disposal units
Page 16
e of
Avg.
Avg.
Impact
Cubic
Impact #
Feature
Activity
Mater al
Width
Depth
Amount
Acres
Yards
(ft)
ft
d3
Seasonal
MSW Unit III
Perforated PVC
1
Stream 1
Expansion
pipe & #57
3
0.5
848 If
0.06
47.11
ravel stone
Perennial
MSW Unit III
Perforated PVC
2
Stream 1
Expansion
pipe & #57
4
1
280 If
0.03
41.5
ravel stone
Seasonal
MSW Unit III
perforated PVC
3
Stream 3
Expansion
pipe & #57
2
0.5
17 If
0.0007
0.63
ravel stone
perforated PVC
pipe & #57
4
2
0.03 ac.
0.03
95.0
4
Pond
MSW Unit III
ravel stone
Expansion
Native rock/soil
mixture
varies
10
0.37 ac.
0.37
5,969.32
Previously
Perennial
Impoundment
Water (Flooded)
4
2
433.25 If
0.04
128.40
Conducted
Stream 1
Unauthorized
Perennial
Stream
Concrete
Activities
Stream 1
Crossing
(Culvert)
4
2
303.25 If
0.03
89.85
Stream Totals
1,881.5 If
0.16 ac.
307.49
Wetland Totals
0
0
0
Pond Totals
0.40 ac.
0.40ac.
6,064.32
Cubic Yards Total:
6,371.81
Block 22. Surface Area in Acres of Wetlands or Other Waters Filled
Refer to Blocks 18, 20, and 21 for impact descriptions and locations for each impact. All discharge
impacts would be conducted by backhoes. Typical construction equipment such as bobcats, dump trucks,
and excavators would also provide construction support. Proper sediment and erosion control measures
would be installed prior to and during construction to ensure that remaining waters of the United States
would not change or be affected.
Block 23. Description of Avoidance, Minimization, and Compensation
According to the applicant, the applicant's preferred alternative would avoid impacts to 11,052 linear feet
of stream channel, 5.27 acres of wetlands, and 1.25 acres of ponds. Approximately 80% of the avoided
streams (8,992.5 If), 87% of wetlands (4.6 ac.), and 17.5% of ponds (0.22 ac) are located within, and are
protected by, the buffer and setback regulatory controls that limit the locality of landfill disposal units
Page 16

ENG Form 4345 Supplemental Document
Gaston County Landfill Expansion
SAW -2018-00053
within a landfill boundary. Discussed in the criteria for evaluating alternatives, local zoning or land use
ordinances, state, or federal rules and/or laws set forth these buffers and setbacks.
NC General Statute § 130A-295.66 prohibits waste disposal units within FEMA floodplains. North Carolina
Administrative Code 15A NCAC 13B .16007 requires a minimum 300 -foot buffer between a disposal unit
and all property lines and roads, and a minimum 500 -foot buffer between a disposal unit and all
residences and drinking wells. These regulations are more restrictive or equal to those listed for landfills
in Gaston County's Unified Development Ordinance$. Table 4 summarize the regulatory buffers and
setbacks required in determining placement of a disposal unit within a landfill. The 100 -foot buffer around
the existing on-site cemetery was a voluntary setback put in place by the landfill during original
development to preserve the feature.
Table 4. Regulatory constraints
Constraint
Width (ft)
Property Boundary Setback
300 ft
Permitted Landfill Boundary
Setback
300 ft
Residential Structures Buffer
500 ft
Road Buffer
300 ft
Cemetery Buffer
100 ft
FEMA Features
Avoid
Additional minimization measures include sediment and erosion controls that would be used to protect
downstream waters. The Gaston County Landfill has been, and is currently, covered under the National
Pollutant Discharge Elimination System (NPDES) General Permit Number NCG120000 for Landfills
(Certificate of Coverage No. NCG120012 effective 11/1/2018, expires 10/31/2021) as issued by the North
Carolina Department of Environmental Quality (NCDEQ) Division of Energy, Mineral, and Land
Resources (NCDEMLR). This coverage includes a Stormwater Pollution Prevention Plan (SWPP) and
periodic water quality monitoring to monitor site discharge and runoff as required by the general permit. A
Section 401 Individual Water Quality Permit is being submitted concurrently with this IP application.
The applicant has considered alternatives including a no -build option, constructing a new landfill
elsewhere, and a new on-site cell location in order to avoid impacts to jurisdictional stream channels
located within Unit III (see Section 5.0 of Appendix C). Construction equipment and heavy machinery that
would be utilized to build Unit III already have a dedicated space located in uplands for their storage and
maintenance.
There are no active private mitigation banks within HUC 03050102; therefore, the applicant proposes
compensatory mitigation for all permanent impacts through the purchase of stream and wetland mitigation
credits from the North Carolina Division of Mitigation Services (DMS). The applicant provided supporting
documentation from DMS in a letter dated August 19, 2019 (attached to the EA in Appendix C), indicating
that they are willing to accept compensatory mitigation payment for 1,881.5 linear feet of stream impacts
6 https://www.nclea.net/enactedleaisIation/statutes/htmI/bvchaDter/chapter 130a.html
North Carolina Administrative Code.
http://reports.oah.state.nc.us/ncac/title%2015a%20%20environmental%20guality/chapter%2013%20-
%20solid%20waste%20manapement/subchapter%20b/subchapter%20b%20rules.pdf
s Gaston County Board of Commission. April 2008. Gaston County Unified Development Ordinance.
https://library.municode.com/nc/gaston county/codes/unified development ordinance
Page 17

ENG Form 4345 Supplemental Document
Gaston County Landfill Expansion
SAW -2018-00053
and 0.40 acres of pond impacts (wetland credits) within the South Fork Catawba Sub -Basin within the
Catawba River Basin (03050102). Compensatory mitigation for 736.5 linear feet of stream impacts (out of
1,881.5 If) are for unauthorized activities.
Block 25. Addresses of Adioining Property Owners
Figure 9 (Appendix A) depicts those parcels adjoining to the project boundary. Appendix D provides the
list of adjoining property owners and associated addresses.
Block 26. List of Other Certifications
Work would not commence until all approvals are obtained. Those approvals would be forwarded on, as
applicable, once received.
Additional certifications are included in Table 5 (below).
Table 5. Additional certifications required for work described in this application.
Agency
Type Approval
Identification
Date Applied
Date Approved
Date Denied
Number
NCDENR —
General Permit
DEMLR
(Construction
NCG120012
10/29/2018
Stormwater
NCDENR —
MSW and C&D
3606-MSWLF-
January 2,
Division of Solid
Landfill Permit to
1997,3606-
2002, August
Latest approval
Waste
Operate
CDLF-1995
27, 1986
— May 3, 2017
Management
NCDENR —
October 23,
Division of Air
Title V
09884T04
2015
April 20, 2016
Quality
Page 18

Appendix A
ENG Form 4345 Figures

Gaston County, NC
Figur t Project Loc tion
\
LEGEND
/
5�
«
Gaston County Landfill
ƒ
Property (42
ac.)
2
/
IKb.
Il
±
�
�
.
L? \o!N
a
I
~
GASf0N
High
Shoals
^`
•
A� �
h sh� �
Ra
06
.
ƒ
Y'd
/
All
&
a
�
5 -
Crook
}
�
/
�
.•.
k '
\ :
\
/
N
%
r
47-
+C,
-k
�
#�
#
q
_
� �
-arm
-*Park
2
�°
_
J k
/
£
A
,
/
«
\
<°
��-
Gaston County, NC
Figur t Project Loc tion

-"k
LEGEND
Gaston County Landfill (424 ac.)
F -I USGS Quadrangles
SOURCE: USGS 7. 5 minute q Uad, L inco I ntori EaSL NC (1993)
I inch = 4,000 feet
17,
0 Feet 4,000
A-4
Fancy Hill Philadelphia
Road Church Road
Gaston County,
North Carolina
Figure 2. USGS Quadrangles

Figure 3. Gaston County Landfill Property Ownership

LEGEND
Permitted Landfifl
Boundary [321 ac.}
Gaston County Landfill
Property (424 aa)
- Facility Structures
Residentlal $tructums
All 641feB I $etaacks
Constraints
- - - Seasonal RPW
Perennial RPW
Pond
- Wallands
a Culvert
FEMA Roo dway
FEMA 100 -Yr Floodplain
F E MA 59D -Y r Flood plain
I incl = 1.000 incl
��
0 Feet 1.000
xh x %. X,
�. x Sr.
' x Xi x.. y x rc xx
x x x x x x
x x x x x x Y x
•t�lrtr�� x x x .: � x -i r
. n� t Ittrtrrr %e
it t Itrvl x X x
x x x. �/ftl,It♦ t,1� x x x x
'taitltl �,t�titl x
xxxx x aJ�r�t�
.xx x x
x x x
x x Y. x
xx x x x n%■ . >cx
x x x x x
x x x x x x x
xxxx xxxx x x x � x H x x v
P
Figure 4. Gaston County Landfill Site Layout
a
c
Figure 5. Preferred Alternative Site Layout — Impacts Overview
Lo
LANDFILLAREAS
®Clcsed
LEGEND
Penned Landfill
,.
Boundary {321 ac }
k Gaston Counly Landfill
Property (424 ac.)
Facillty Structures...
-
Residentlal Structures
Proposed Final Munlapal
1�TT
-All Bullers r Sotbacks f
• -
Constraints
�J
Stream Impacts
0 Pond Impacts
k
- - - Seasonal RPW
;
t,
— Perennial RPW
- Wetlands
n Pond
:r Culvert
FEMA Floodway
— FEMA 109 -Yr Floodplain
FEMA 500 -Yr Floodplain
I no = %.QW let
��
D Feet 1.000
a
c
Figure 5. Preferred Alternative Site Layout — Impacts Overview
Lo
LANDFILLAREAS
®Clcsed
- Construction &
Demollttan Waste Limits
Closed - Municipal Solid
Wasto Limits
Active Construction &
-
Demolitlon Wasle Limits
Proposed Final Munlapal
1�TT
Solid Wasle Limits
• -
Active Municipal Solid
�J
Waste Limits
At Capacity Municipal
Solid Waste limits
A.Prrriwwinrm
�Mv.. ryq A p d
mm. i.n.
U.—P "W IO B85 Q
w...wirawpn � v
YnJ.nu, i.c.i 0 0
Pond 1.c.] 0.. 0
ra.i ttr 0
Tp.l W.i4M 0 0
Vmgwrn HGV
rent raOC . .w 0
. .� LANDFILL AREAS
Pre feued Alt -Proposed
Final Municipal Solid
Waste Limits
e, q Closed - Construction &
52S2i?3 Oemolltion Waste Limits
Closed • Municipal Solid
f II Juste Llmlls
•y:l Active Construcilon &
yyc DomoRtton Waste Limits
AdF�q ,i� Active Morilcipal Saud
.. Waste Llmlts
how0Inactive Municipal Solid
Yu4ste Llmlls

�J LEGENDd
►�
�I t�II*IIj�I'fII Ij�Illjry11
�Iilltyjl�Ir IIy
._ +oris:lPmr m.
as F..�K.
All Buffers I Setbacks
*Iy� ;rII
hn JOA JDA..
�
.
P. Constraints
<.r r� t•ry e.i 4,"W'y
sem".i w nq. M6 a
Stream ImpactsI/j�,I
j�tRl�,Iy��IIf
v.nnnl.lrrowmi x9a o
'Awe, �. o
• wevema
Pond Impactseasona
III��II ��Iytrll*y1jJ
I.c.l
ao,rt(ey oa a
� Sl RPW
►�
,Il�jj`If�It lffj,Il
�iyl Iiyl tt+ �If'
N Tour SS1,.—turo
4 n
Perennial RPW
ime.=ti{iq
a o
—
a -II
PondI�f
. . bo ..a e
- Yiktlands
�I�tNy
'�
a Culvert
�+ Impact 2 Seasonalf_
P
i."�=zoo ret
,. Perennial RPW 1 nnta - Impact 1
286 It of impact (fill) Break III,Sea5onal RPW 1
u FeB`
r�
?Irl 848 If of impact {fill]
A'fil� Iry s
Iy+ IIy IY
Iy� yIIIIIIIIIIyyIIIte
. ►
Impact 3 '"
' Ir i.ANDFILLAREAS
1
seasonal RPW 2 I+0
17 if impact Irj Pr®[erred Alt - Proposed
of (fill) �y
A' + 1�TT Final Municipal Soi�d
n>�rrrt
Waste Limits
Qated - Construntlon &
Demolltwk Waste ✓ units
_
If�rr+/j -•e� j'JI> FIy�'I�0.
%
- ee 00# a*eo' *e* f+Ij��+ijII1 Active COnstructfon &
+oe�fii0", 4 Demolition V�psle Limits
.
Iyl�IyyyRIIyIIIIt�;IIIpeIyr�Ify� t Closed-MuniGpalSalid
Waste Llm![s
Impact 4 **,P,.
IIy IIIy III �yy jy'��r� Active Municipal Solid
Pond 1 y+ri�I+III ►��I�rt I rl Waste Llmh
0.40 aC. (fill) I+I+yIIyIy� +I ttl�
'
!+ IyI yE�;Iy�;tyl�Ily�I It{r Inactive Municipal Solid
III IIII t
- "'0.,IIyII � Waste Llmils
�]I
y J . J • j A r , ..
_-&A.I ../�'�III���IIJ�ir!Iyw! ���/ I Not Yet Constructed
Figure 6. Proposed Impacts
I.
LEGEND
�yI%Illy
IMPACTS
All Buffers I Setbacks 1 ®
�,yl
Constraints Proposed Stream Impac--
l+iii
r
SITE RESOURCES LProposed Pond Impac'�,
- - - Seasonal RPW Unauthorized Impacts `
Culvert Installation'1-016s
pe • r
----- Perennial RPW
Unauthorized Imparts for:
Pond
Impoundment
_
Wetlands= 3O""n
��o
Irllii*�Ij�Ii!II,
r . Impact #2
{
Perennial RPW 1
280 If of impact {fill]
2:1 ratio {stream credits),.
Una uthorized Impact
Perennial RPW 1
433.25 LF of impact
{unauthorized impoundment:I 1.
2:1 ratio (stream credits) t--
Impact #4
` Pond 1 f
0.4ff ac. of impact (f ll)
ratio (Wetland c,edlts r
,w C a.
x•at x x x kaa
'. % x
X x x x
x ,\' x x •� k Poem uel P. " I
'•� 'fir i '` 1� x x x x`ii ii
lit.} x x x x x
x x x mune iec, o
x x x xk
�Y x x :c x imrm.n
xxxxx�
it K K TmnPore nnwdeiec.l u. YG
ty r •`
x r x X x x x x x
— Impact #1 x x x x G
— -- Seasonal RPW 1 gtcxXxxxxx
848 If ❑f Impact (fill) x x x x
2:1 ratio stream credits i x r x x x al:
Impact #3 1967 LANDFILL PERMIT
�I�IIy Seasonal RPW 2 APPROVAL
Fi�IyFi�t 17 If of impact (fill) Closed - Construction &
�yI 0e I+/. 2'1 ratio Stream credit-) Demolition Waste Limits
-i jos Closed - Municipal Solid
�ee'. 11=Waste urnits
1997 LANDFILL PERMIT
I
Unauthorized Impart r EXPANSION APPROVAL
r Perennial RPW 1 Active Construction &
ry
303,25 LF of impact Demolition WaFile Limits
F (unauthorized culvert installation) Proposed Final Municipal
2.1 ratio (stream credits) I Solid Waste Limits
"Woo,000, eeo"'Oet j�+I I r I+ Active Municipal So tid
Waste Limits
m I Inactive Municipal Solid
•`i Waste Limds
. '��- �rtltyr f�rlrillll/�)%a l� X x
Figure 7. Proposed Impacts and Unauthorized Impacts that Previously Occurred

GEOCOMPOSITE
GEOMEMDRANE
#57 STONE —j
PERFORATED 6"--" I 2'
SCH 80 PVC PIPE I ^i
CSD 1% MIN. SLOPE
VARIES (SEE NOTE
NOTE:
WIDTH TO BE AS WIDE AS WET AREA
PIPE` nFTAII
NTS
Figure 8. Cross Section of Fill

Figure 9. Adjoining Property Ownership

Appendix B
Block 16. Property
Ownership within the
Project Boundary

Gaston County Landfill Expansion
Block 16 — Property Ownership
Individual Permit (SAW -2018-00053)
Parcel Ownership
Parcel #
Property Index
Deed
Deed
on
Number (PIN)
Book
Page
Current Owners
Owner Mailing Address
Property Address
Figure 3
1
3650146655
2458
0991
PO Box 1578
3155 Philadelphia Church Road
2
3650245523
4631
0463
3
3650347681
4460
2133
Gaston County
Gastonia, North Carolina
Dallas, North Carolina
4
3640918145
3735
0896
28053
28034
5
3650245887
4631
0460
6
3650127484
1810
0938
Appendix B — Block 16 — Page 11

Appendix C
Environmental
Assessment

CE SAW -RG -C (File Number, SAW 2018-00053)
MEMORANDUM FOR RECORD
SUBJECT: Department of the Army Environmental Assessment and Statement of
Findings for the Above -Referenced Standard Individual Permit Application
This document constitutes the Environmental Assessment, 404(b)(1) Guidelines
Evaluation, as applicable, Public Interest Review, and Statement of Findings for the
subject application.
1.0 Introduction and Overview: Information about the proposal subject to one or
more of the Corps' regulatory authorities is provided in Section 1, detailed
evaluation of the activity is found in Sections 2 through 11 and findings are
documented in Section 12 of this memorandum. Further, summary information
about the activity including administrative history of actions taken during project
evaluation is attached (ORM2 Summary) and incorporated in this memorandum.
1.1 Applicant: Gaston County Department of Public Works
Attn: Mr. Ray Maxwell
PO Box 1578
Gastonia, North Carolina 28053
Phone: [phone]
Email: [e-mail]
1.2 Activity location: The Gaston County Landfill is located at 3155 Philadelphia
Church Road, in Dallas, North Carolina (Figure 1). From Charlotte, take 1-85 S to
Exit 17 for US -321 N. Take a left on US -321 N and go 6.8 miles to take Exit 17
for Hardin Road. Take a right on Hardin Road and continue for 1.3 miles, then
take a right on Fancy Hill Road. Continue on Fancy Hill Road for 0.9 miles, then
take a right onto Philadelphia Church Road. Continue on Philadelphia Church
Road for 0.5 miles and the Gaston County Landfill will be on the right. On-site
waters include Hoyle Creek and those tributaries that drain to it and tributaries
that drain to the South Fork Catawba River. Hoyle Creek drains to the South Fork
Catawba River, which ultimately drains to the Catawba River.

CE SAW -RG -C (File Number, SAW 2018-00053)
Figure 1. Project location
LEGEND
Gaston County Landfill (424 ac")
USGS Quadrangles j
d
SOURCE: USGS 7.5 minute quad, LincaInton East, NC 1993) ,
.
1 inch = 4.000 feet
-
"
J. ,
J.-
0 Feet 4.000
r...
�!R Fancy Hill
Philadelphia
-J
-L- �r.`
Road
Church Road
1
...�
,`'
,�.
-
T,--•
f' LJ5 321
._
�
rt•.}.
4.
[ =
0 4
— - —
..
4•w sf,
Gaston County,
North Carolina
?
'
{.ri
wr. *� �
`,
Figure 1. Project location

CE SAW -RG -C (File Number, SAW 2018-00053)
1.3 Description of activity requiring permit: This application is for proposed
activities (that have not occurred) to expand an existing landfill that require a
permit and for unauthorized activities (that occurred between 2006 and 2008)
that require an After -the -Fact Permit.
The proposed activities requiring a permit would involve the expansion of the
existing Gaston County Landfill into the municipal solid waste (MSW) Unit III cell,
located between MSW Units I and II in the central portion of the landfill (Figure
2). Subsequently, construction of Unit III would then allow for the construction of
Unit I, Phase 2, which would connect all of Units I, II, and III for final proposed
limits of the MSW cell. The activity would result in the loss of 280 linear feet of
low quality perennial tributary and 865 linear feet of low quality intermittent
tributary for a total of 1,145 linear feet of stream channel and 0.40 acres of
impounded waters (Figure 3). No wetlands would be impacted by the proposed
activity.
LEGE N1)
- x x x >•
• a, J,
•• ,�R�
Permitted Landfill
x x x x x"...,�_
Somdwyf320ac.i
_ "x' z x x x x x x
•a• -
x x x x x x x x w x x x
•—.".w� ma o
® Gaston Cm my Landfillq
- x x x x x= x x x x?
'
r..mo-•• t e
Property {424 aCj
® Facility Structures
x x x x x $ x x x X.
�.x x x x x x x x x x-
x x x x x x x .x
�• 0 0
R.sidentiel5tructures _
M x x x x x x
-
x x j� •} x x x x x x x x x x x �x
'm'o-"
All Buff—1 Settrk9f -x
4
x x x :_X
j+,�jjjj�j4
C—strsints x x x
x x x
IMPACTS x x
X
jfi1;I1�� x x x
j��iljji d x x x x
e e
Proposed Stream x
Il�jljl e x x
rjrjjjl�Ij+
Impact _x x
X
(j x x x x x
x x x x
Unauthorized
z
�rjjj�lltj;,I�
/IIIj�11111�11 x x x x ...Q
x x x x x
Proposed Pond
��.Ij��►II���1 x x
Impacts -x x x
x x x x xjjl��1
x
, /j�j� x x x x
SITE RESOURCES
01 x x x x
1E E7 LAN ILL PER M IT
--- Seesnnal RPW x x x
x x
APPROVAL
x x x x
— Perennial RPV
x x x
-
Closed - Construction 8
®
K x x x x
p x _
6emoliticn Waste Limb
x x x x xy
Pond
x x x x x
.�i�r x x x x,
CJ `� x x x
Municipal Solid
® - -t.
- Wetlands x x x x x X
! X X X
Li
'•'�a�tE LI RYt5
x x x x x
x x a
18ST LAN DFL.L PERMIT
a Culvert : x x x x x
x x
EKPANSION APPROVAL
x x x x x x
® FEMA Fbod—y x x x
x x x x -
x x x x
"Y Acti%reD— Construction 8
-
L7emnlitiort Was to Limits
x.x x x
I- FEMA 100 -Yr Food plain
x x x x x x x x x x
x X x
x x x x x X x x x x x X x x x x x x x X.
Proposed Final Municipal
I� FEMAZ00-Yr Fbodpbin x x x
x
I�Ti S.Iid Wast. Limits
Aotrre Munidpal Solid
fjI Waste Limits
iL ��
Feet 1,11011
_ bipal Solid
_
ante L m't,
k.
1
Figure 2. Preferred site layout

CE SAW -RG -C (File Number, SAW 2018-00053)
lI►#I�tli�li'tllj�Ij��;1I11�11+11�t11:11�«I�«IIIII�«` f x xxx xAx x x xAx x; n7Rtuxi r[aat x
L
EGEND �I«�Itt1«�#t�#t��Ij�11jIt11 x xxxxx x y� y ry
t # I t t oFea1—Ie pe A ora.;a•rs
AII9uff— Seth=.; FIItItIj+.Ij tj, *+� xxxxxxxxxxxx JOA— JO AresFX
x
Constraint `tt±Ij�j1�`It,Ij.11�`I;.r x x x x x ai-11Ftvwtu�. ,855 o x
SOII RCES ,:t.:1� x x x x SP8NWWAflI 2W o
SeasanalRPW :II�II:ItjIj�Ij�Ijj1 xxxxxxxX { } a o x
Ij Ij Ijj 11 t« Ij tj «
PerennialRF1v:+ «1111«II«tttjjll�tx x x POI144 } w o x
�tj:11�:11;tj�Ij..I�+tj+t x x x 1.145 n ePanel ,�I:�;jl�t.+I:+t«+jttlf x x 'pactrl1 x
t t t 1 I t jj I x xTtfal NAtaatl 0 B
dvetI.ntrs «it«ijt111«jt«I#III Ir eapscs{ac.l
0 Itt11#Itj It Ilttj«II x r vona
x
VA e
a Culvert �tj1«j1«II#t�1111tj1 et x-NMI,lars.
11«Ij tM. �t.�t x x x x x x x x x x x x
Perennial RP'V; l i'na , x x x x x x x x x x x
Ijt1
IMPACTS 280 If of impact (fill} x x x x x x x x x x x x
Streem Impacts t1 « x x x x x x x x x x x
►� •�I I x xxxxx x xxx x
Pond Impels x x x x x x x x x x
x x x x x x x x x x x
1�°!—,oaeel'•�$ ;Seasonal KP'_,.; I x x x..x X X x x x
300 y h tPer 4 848 If of impact (fill} x
t 19G7 LANDFILL PERMIT
f+ APPROVAL
dtlt SeasonalRPW2 +y closed-consvudpna
s 17 If of impact (fill)
t �! aemvlitior. iNas to Limit
Po- ;6.
1Ij•�t1«Ij t - lossd-Municipal Solid
Wwte Limits
r� *`tI It• # .I 1897 LAN nFILL PERMIT
J r +r 'r « « Ott ltjr t EXPANSION APPROVAL :x
'.. — Pond 1 Itj'lltj + Active Canstru dim $
tj «I
0.40aCI / « .. :, Demolition Waste Limit x
t. t 11«I�+t
—._- �t II lit
{ - - of impact (fiII)♦ +� � 11«It #tjti►� Proposed Final Municipal
;+ I « «I II«I fit+*IIt� tjyt�yryytj Solid Waste Limit
x
r IItptP�� Ij««Ili/IrPrl# Ad re Munidpal Sold
�4rt�t%�+�1.;II�t Via to Li mit
Inectua Municipal Solid
•. i, _ '� *j # f1 �Ij�jlj1 #t1�#� 1%l3sis Limits
Figure 3. Preferred site layout impacts
The landfill site layout was previously approved by the formerly named North
Carolina Department of Environmental, Health and Natural Resources (NC
DEHNR) Division of Waste Management in 1997. The proposed impacts
associated with the expansion are to construct Unit III as a municipal solid waste
(MSW) cell for the final build out of the landfill as approved. The construction of
Unit III would subsequently allow for the construction of Unit I, Phase 2 and
would finally connect MSW Units I and II for the total MSW expansion area.
All of the channel impacts would be impacted by gravel fill material to the top of
bank, which would then be overlain by a clay layer and finally a liner would be
laid to provide the foundation of the Unit III cell (Figure 4). Pond 1 would also be
impacted by the proposed project to construct Unit III. First, the pond would be
dewatered utilizing best management practices and sediment and erosion
controls and a pump around would be set up so that work can occur in the dry.
Once the pump around is installed, the pond would also be filled with gravel fill
material and would be continuous with the gravel layer placed in the channels. A
clay layer is placed on top of the gravel layer and an impermeable geosynthetic
underliner would be placed on top of the clay layer for Unit III. Once the
geosynthetic underliners are in place, a leachate collection system would be
installed per 40 CFR Part 258 requirements.

CE SAW -RG -C (File Number, SAW 2018-00053)
GEOCOMPOSITE
GEOMEMDRANE
N \
24" OPERATIONAL COVER
COMPACTED SOIL LINER
STRUCTURAL FILL
N
\\ \
w
;z
#57 STONE J
PERFORATED 6" 2' 10 OZ/Sy
SCH 80 PVC PIPE GEOTEXTILE
CSD ] % MIN. SLOPE
VARIES (SEE NOTE 1)
NQTE
I. WIDTH TO BE AS WIDE AS WET AREA
�v
Figure 4. Cross section of fill
Unauthorized activities requiring an After -the -Fact permit include the
impoundment of Stream 1 to create an in-line detention basin (Pond 1) (Figure
5). The impoundment occurred sometime between 2006 and 2008 and resulted
in approximately 433.25 linear feet of stream impacts for the impoundment and
303.25 linear feet of stream impacts due to culvert installation. Since, Pond 1 has
been utilized and maintained as a sediment basin.

CE SAW -RG -C (File Number, SAW 2018-00053)
AX X X X XAX X�^X XAX X C ` r X
EGENn 111j1#II�ItII#t1#t##t 11 tIt#r1#11� x x x x x x x\ 4ra:rcr •rCti:ts
#I It�tj�11#Itt`tttljll�tlj+tj�lljti X x x x X X .OFd 1 r3TjF9 oP4us: Praorrr� x
All Buffos ! Sett oris �Ij111�11�#Ij/1111#�#t�Itllt#I#tt x x x x x x
constraints '11+##t`Ir�11�11��11�11.11��I;fir x x x x x y;;.x�e rsir; r; - - x
SITE RESL}II RCES x x x x xPeR— tri I.
--- SeasanalRPW �Ij#I�II+IIIIII:II;II:t11:11� x xxx _trtexak:: x
PsrennialRF:"1 jltt#tIj11�11jItj1ljlljt#I x x x x
x x x Pcj j
1 111 1 r.Y jai x
tIt t # t # t
Pond I�11 �Itf� xxxxx r f. x s r = x
X11 1111111 1111111 x x.'I xasteaz
Wetland +IIIIt11111t11#t11 IF �w a Rc
I © AM •yy.' xx rr�z-..e P _ x
a culvert�.II:t11t11:11:t1�r x x x x x x x x x x x
rIt11# '� xa x x x x x
UNAUTHORIZED IMPACTS x x x x x x
# I�:via �i e,
IIt11 nnial RPW l a k x x x x x x x xxxx x
30325 LF tax Culvert ,1�+11^r^ t. x x x x x x x x x x x
Installation . x x x x x x 'x x x x x"
_°� x x x x x x x x x x
-03325 LF for undfor x x x x x x x x x x x
Imp-'_ a4 •� x x xxx X X x x x
rxn-mower htPer RF'v'J 1 x
--
�� B—'k p 11 1987 LAN OFILL PERMIT
dee: 300 _ ' 4 -.. .. r.p'"# ri',: APPROVAL
rd1+1"a. •* VSeasonal RPW 2 ® Closed-Construdion8
aemolitior•. Waste Limit
'y.�j1i�IrYr'��'1 10 1#! I Clvse� - Municipal Solid
Vk Id'. e4d ® Waste Limit
Perennial RPW 1 4 QIP j�'
.5.
43325 LF Oflm1897 LAN nFILL PERMITpact ��` _ �� EXPANSION APPROVAL
(unauthorized impoundment, t
A Pe re n n I a l RP'N 1 Active Canstr u dicn $
30325 LF of impact 1 6emnliton Waste Limit x
Pond 1 a `�N (unauthorized culvert#1 ##II+
_1"1�t1 t Proposed Final Municipal
In sta Nation) r *I Solid W—t. Limit -x.
r _ .— a # It1111 # �t1 '�P*# '• t Adive Munidpal Solid
UlesteLimit
VIII#;��Iltt# 1111 In.actiaeMunicipal Solid
•. i., � _ `P� ty�1 t#IIIy #11�1� :^taste Limit
s'111 X X
Figure 5. Preferred site layout impacts
The proposed impacts associated with the landfill expansion and those
unauthorized impacts that occurred prior to this application are summarized in
Table 1. Cumulative impacts will be discussed in Section 9.0.
Table 1. Summary of oronosed and unauthorized impacts.
JD Feature Type
Approved JD Area
Preliminary JD Area
Proposed Activity
Seasonal RPW (If)
865
0
Perennial RPW (If)
280
0
Wetland (ac.)
0
0
Pond (ac.)
0.40
0
Unauthorized Activity
Seasonal RPW (If)
0
0
Perennial RPW (if)
736.5
0
Wetland (ac.)
0
0
Pond (ac.)
0
0
Total Stream Impacts (If)
1,881.5 If
0
Total Wetland Impacts (ac.)
0
0
Total Pond Impacts (ac.)
0.40
0

CE SAW -RG -C (File Number, SAW 2018-00053)
1.3.1 Proposed avoidance and minimization measures: According to the applicant,
the applicant's preferred alternative would avoid impacts to 11,052 linear feet of
stream channel, 5.27 acres of wetlands, and 1.25 acres of ponds. Approximately
80% of the avoided streams (8,992.5 If), 87% of wetlands (4.6 ac.), and 17.5% of
ponds (0.22 ac) are located within, and are protected by, the buffer and setback
regulatory controls that limit the locality of landfill disposal units within a landfill
boundary. Discussed in the criteria for evaluating alternatives, local zoning or
land use ordinances, state, or federal rules and/or laws set forth these buffers
and setbacks.
NC General Statute § 130A-295.61 prohibits waste disposal units within FEMA
floodplains. North Carolina Administrative Code 15A NCAC 13B .16002 requires
a minimum 300 -foot buffer between a disposal unit and all property lines and
roads, and a minimum 500 -foot buffer between a disposal unit and all residences
and drinking wells. These regulations are more restrictive or equal to those listed
for landfills in Gaston County's Unified Development Ordinance3. Figure 6 and
Error! Reference source not found. summarize the regulatory buffers and
setbacks required in determining placement of a disposal unit within a landfill.
The 100 -foot buffer around the existing on-site cemetery was a voluntary setback
put in place by the landfill during original development to preserve the feature.
https://www.ncleg.net/enactedlegislation/statutes/html/bvchapter/chapter 130a.html
z North Carolina Administrative Code.
http://reports.oah.state. nc. us/ncac/title%2015a%20%20environmental%20guality/chapter%2013%20-
%20sol id %20waste%20m anagement/subchapter%20b/su bchapter%20b%20ru I es. pdf
3 Gaston County Board of Commission. April 2008. Gaston County Unified Development Ordinance.
https://Iibrary.municode.com/nc/gaston county/codes/unified development ordinance

CE SAW -RG -C (File Number, SAW 2018-00053)
LEGEND
OPermitted Land ff
Boundary [320 ac.}
Gaston County Landfill
Property (424 ac-)
Unusable Space due to yy�
Constraints
- Facitity Structures
Residential StructuressH-qL4e,,
- - - Seasonal RPW
Perennial RPW
Pond
_ Nktlands
a Culver!
FEMA Floodway
_ FEMA 100 -Yr Floodplain
FF MA 50b -Y r FlDndplaln
1 inch = 1.000 %at
0 Feet 1.000
Figure 6. Regulatory controls as site buffers and setbacks
Table 2. Reaulatory constraints
Constraint
Width (ft)
Property Boundary Setback
300 ft
Permitted Landfill Boundary
Setback
300 ft
Residential Structures Buffer
500 ft
Road Buffer
300 ft
Cemetery Buffer
100 ft
FEMA Features
Avoid
K >.- -
9[W iYS.duitly a nd Ca[ibaivn
a00
19
930
13 5
YN
10
•�.Rw��Tw.wm 105
t
riJ1�iJ ^''
ry
eus.[.11d S.meck loe.9•:
LST.5
Owd.pnrn.g.:
VI
loci Cwetr.i[rt Acr.ag.:
219.5
A06.
Additional minimization measures include sediment and erosion controls that
would be used to protect downstream waters. The Gaston County Landfill has
been, and is currently, covered under the National Pollutant Discharge
Elimination System (NPDES) General Permit Number NCG120000 for Landfills
(Certificate of Coverage No. NCG120012 effective 11/1/2018, expires
10/31/2021, Appendix A) as issued by the North Carolina Department of
Environmental Quality (NCDEQ) Division of Energy, Mineral, and Land
Resources (NCDEMLR). This coverage includes a Stormwater Pollution
Prevention Plan (SWPP) and periodic water quality monitoring to monitor site

CE SAW -RG -C (File Number, SAW 2018-00053)
discharge and runoff as required by the general permit. A Section 401 Individual
Water Quality Permit is being submitted concurrently with this IP application.
The applicant has considered alternatives including a no -build option,
constructing a new landfill elsewhere, and a new on-site cell location in order to
avoid impacts to jurisdictional stream channels located within Unit III (see Section
5.0). Construction equipment and heavy machinery that would be utilized to build
Unit III already have a dedicated space located in uplands for their storage and
maintenance.
1.3.2 Proposed compensatory mitigation: There are no active private mitigation
banks within HUC 03050102; therefore, the applicant proposes compensatory
mitigation for all permanent impacts through the purchase of stream and wetland
mitigation credits from the North Carolina Division of Mitigation Services (DMS).
The applicant provided supporting documentation from DMS in a letter dated
August 19, 2019 (Appendix B), indicating that they are willing to accept
compensatory mitigation payment for 1,881.5 linear feet of stream impacts and
0.40 acres of pond impacts (wetland credits) within the South Fork Catawba Sub -
Basin within the Catawba River Basin (03050102). Compensatory mitigation for
736.5 linear feet of stream impacts (out of 1,881.5 If) are for unauthorized
activities.
1.4 Existing conditions and any applicable project history: The project is located
in the piedmont physiographic region of North Carolina and encompasses 424
acres of land in Gaston County. The project area is approximately 47% landfill,
35% forested land, consisting of mixed medium aged hardwoods, 7.5% is
developed for a commercial business park, 5% consists of corn crop fields, 4.5%
as a yard waste facility, and 1 % is maintained as residential use. Within the 424 -
acre project area, 321 acres is the area permitted for landfill uses, of which
60.4% is landfill, 29% is forested, 5.6% is the yard waste facility, and 4% is the
commercial business park. The remaining 1 % is Philadelphia Church Road,
which bisects the permitted landfill boundary. Surrounding land use is rural
residential and agricultural, with a patchy landscape of discontinuous forested
areas. The South Fork Catawba River flows in a southeast direction along the
southwestern project boundary. Hoyle Creek flows south along the northeastern
project boundary. Jurisdictional aquatic resources within the project area include
9 unnamed tributaries, 6 wetlands, and 4 ponds draining to the South Fork
Catawba River and 5 unnamed tributaries and 4 wetlands draining to Hoyle
Creek.
Prior to this application, the applicant's consultant submitted an Approved JD
application to the USACE in January 2018 for an 11.5 acre area within the landfill
boundary. In February 2018, the USACE requested that the entire landfill plus
any adjacent parcels under Gaston County ownership be delineated and

CE SAW -RG -C (File Number, SAW 2018-00053)
submitted for verification in advance of this application. On November 1, 2018,
the applicant's consultant submitted a Preliminary JD application consisting of an
additional 412.5 acres. The USACE conducted a field verification meeting on
December 13, 2018 and written verification was issued on February 21, 2019,
including an Approved JD (AJD) for the 11.5 acre area and a Preliminary JD
(PJD) for the remaining 412.5 acres, encompassing 424 acres owned by Gaston
County (Figure 7). However, during a pre -application meeting on March 11,
2019, it was noted that a non -jurisdictional pond in the AJD area needed a
revision to indicate its status as a jurisdictional pond. The revised information
was submitted by the applicant's consultant to the USACE on March 18, 2019 via
email and a response has yet to be received.
LEGEND
Permitted Landfill Boundary 1320 ac.j .. ..
Approved JO Area (11.5 ac,) '
Preliminary J❑ Area (612.5 ac 1
Seasonal RPV
Perennial RPW +
M hands
Ponds -
Culvert
F E MA Floodway
FEMA 100-YrFloo dplain
F E MA 500 -Yr F Ivo data in
0 Feet 1.000
Figure 7. Preliminary and approved jurisdictional determination areas
The Gaston County Landfill (Permit No. 36-06) has been in operation since
approximately 1986 and currently contains four landfill areas, which include a
closed construction and demolition (C&D) landfill, a closed unlined MSW landfill
with an active C&D landfill on top, an active MSW lined landfill (Unit I, Phase 1),
and another active MSW lined landfill (Unit II, Phases 1 & 2) (Figure 8). The four
landfill areas are within the landfill boundary as approved by the Division of
Waste Management and encompasses 321 acres.

CE SAW -RG -C (File Number, SAW 2018-00053)
LEGEND
C�Casson County Landfill Pre -Subtitle d
Properly (424 ac y �Y.
development
Permiiled Landfill
Boundary [321 ac-)
- Facility Structures ME
SITE RESOURCES
- - - Seasonal RPW - .. - - _j`I�♦I� -
f� fIf♦Ifs
Perennial RPW
. r-�f♦f♦f�ffi
Pond /♦�I�I fi Ii
- Watlandsi4r tllj♦♦if♦♦0,*.
�
Tr Culver) iI41111,
Af1I♦�� j�j�%a
All Buffers i Setbacks 1 �f�fff♦ff♦f♦ ♦ ♦f♦f
Gonstraints j i I fff♦ifffff♦♦fI
_ rI♦♦Ifff f f♦fI
✓. s FEMA Floodwa ! •♦ ♦f/�♦fff f� �f�
Y 'i.1 fJ I,LIGn
- FEMA 1 00 -Yr Floo dpla in j
FEMA500-Yr Floodplain ---r
1.0oo
❑ Feet I., go MM
� f
Figure 8. Existing site layout
1987 LANDFILL PERMIT
APPROVAL
®Closed - construction 8
DemollUon Waste Limits
Closed - Municipal Solid
Waste Limits
1997 LANDFILL PERMIT
EXPANSION APPROVAL
Proposed Final Municipal
Solid Waste Limits
Active Co nsl ruclion S
Demolition Waste Limits
'♦ Aclive Municipal Solid
Waste Limits
Inactive Municipal Solid
Waste Limits
The closed C&D landfill and closed unlined MSW landfill were the landfill areas
Permitted to Operate (PTO) in August 1986 by the formerly named North
Carolina Department of Environmental, Health and Natural Resources (NC
DEHNR) Division of Waste Management (DWM). The Permit to Construct (PTC)
was approved, which commenced operations in 1987. They were closed in
December 1997 due to the implementation of 40 CFR Part 258 (referred to as
Subtitle D), which required the installation of impermeable geosynthetic
underliners for all new and lateral landfill expansions after October 1993. Lateral
landfill expansion means any expansion beyond a landfill footprint already
existing prior to the implementation of Subtitle D. Prior to Subtitle D, these areas
were permitted to construct and operate as unlined landfills. The currently active
C&D landfill on top of the closed unlined MSW landfill was approved in October
1995 and only has 4 months of capacity remaining, or less, at the time of this
submittal. From 1995 to 1996, Gaston County initiated planning for a 30 year
master plan to final build out of the landfill, including reclamation. Per SAW -1997-
02222, correspondence between the USACE and the landfill's consultant at the
time took place, related to a specific area of the landfill planned for a sediment
basin expansion. This correspondence also noted that the remaining landfill area
was not reviewed. In compliance with Subtitle D, the landfill master plan was

CE SAW -RG -C (File Number, SAW 2018-00053)
approved by NCDEHNR DWM in 1997 and implemented with phased
construction of Units I, II, and III.
Unit I, Phase I was permitted to operate and began construction in December
1997 and is now at capacity. Unit II was permitted to operate and began
construction in July 2009 and will be at capacity in 2.5 years or less at the time of
this submittal. Sometime during 2006-2008, presumably prior to the construction
of Unit II, Pond 1 was created by the impoundment of Stream 1, which occurred
without a Section 404 permit and is considered an unauthorized activity. This
application will also be a Section 404 After -the -Fact permit for these
unauthorized stream impacts. The landfill permit approval by NCDEHNR was
misconstrued by landfill management at the time to be the overall approval that
permitted landfill construction.
Lastly, in 2010, a small stream restoration occurred (SAW -2010-01741) on
Stream 4 to stabilize eroded stream banks and channel bottom to limit stream
bank loss, channel down -cutting, and downstream sedimentation triggered by a
sediment violation. Temporary impacts consisted of 90 linear feet and did not
result in any loss of waters.
Table 3 is a summary of the Corps actions associated with the Gaston County
landfill:
Table 3. Previous oroiect history
File Number
Subject
Correspondence between USACE and applicant's consultant
SAW -1997-02222
confirming the absence of JD waters in a specific area of the
landfill planned for a sediment basin expansion.
SAW -2010-01741
NWP 27 for stream restoration activities of 90 LF of stream
channel; no loss of waters occurred.
SAW -2018-00053
Jurisdictional determination on 424 acres owned by Gaston
County; of which 321 acres is the permitted landfill boundary.
Under Subtitle D, all units are lined, and would be lined, with an impermeable
geosynthetic underliner and a leachate collection system per 40 CFR Part 258
requirements. Any impacts to Waters of the US made prior to this application will
be discussed in the Cumulative Impacts section (Section 9.0).
1.5 Permit Authority: Section 404 of the Clean Water Act (33 USC 1344).

CE SAW -RG -C (File Number, SAW 2018-00053)
2.0 Scope of review for National Environmental Policy Act (i.e. scope of
analysis), Section 7 of the Endangered Species Act (i.e. action area), and
Section 106 of the National Historic Preservation Act (i.e. permit area)
2.1 Determination of scope of analysis for National Environmental Policy Act
(NEPA):
The scope of analysis includes the specific activity requiring a Department of the
Army permit. Other portions of the entire project: Select appropriate choice
included because the Corps Select appropriate choice have sufficient control and
responsibility to warrant federal review.
Final description of scope of analysis: Describe here
2.2 Determination of the "action area" for Section 7 of the Endangered Species
Act (ESA):
Description of ESA scope with rationale here.
2.3 Determination of permit area for Section 106 of the National Historic
Preservation Act (NHPA):
The permit area includes Select first option if the permit area includes uplands in
addition to waters, and the second option if the permit area includes only waters
those areas comprising waters of the United States that will be directly affected
by the proposed work or structures Select first option if the permit area includes
uplands, and the second option if the permit area includes only waters
Final description of the permit area: Final description of permit area with rationale
here. Include in the rationale the specific upland areas that are determined to be
included or excluded from the permit area.
3.0 Purpose and Need
3.1 Purpose and need for the project as provided by the applicant and reviewed by
the Corps:
The Solid Waste Management Act of 19894, North Carolina General Statute
§130A -309.09A5 requires Gaston County to manage waste disposal services for
its citizens. Gaston County began siting studies to open a landfill for its citizens
4 https://www.ncleg.net/EnactedLegislation/SessionLaws/HTML/I 989-1990/SL1 989-784.htm I
5 https://www.ncleq.net/enactedlegisIation/statutes/htmI/bvchapter/chapter 130a.html

CE SAW -RG -C (File Number, SAW 2018-00053)
as early as the 1980s in anticipation of the pending Act and required need for
waste disposal management services in the county. In 1986 the North Carolina
Department of Environmental, Health and Natural Resources (NCDEHNR)
Division of Waste Management issued Solid Waste Permit 36-06 authorizing the
construction of the Gaston County Landfill. Currently, it is the only municipal solid
waste (MSW) landfill in Gaston County and consists of three landfill areas, which
include a closed construction and demolition (C&D) landfill (Permit 3606-CDLF-
1995), a closed unlined MSW unit with an active C&D landfill on top (Permit
3606-MSWLF-1986), and an active lined MSW landfill (Permit 3606-MSWLF-
1997) (Figure 9).
LEGEND
Permitted t.and511
Boundary [32t ac.}
Gaston County Landfill
Property (424 ac-)
- FacElily Structures
Residential Structures
All Buffers I Set4acks I
Constraints
- - - Seasonal RPW
Perennial RPW
Pond
-Wetlands
a Culvert
FEMA Floodway
I- FEMA 100 -Yr Floodplain
F E MA Safi -Y r Flo Dd plain
[ inch = 1.000 foci
Ar — — — — — — — --
0 Feet 5,000
0
x'7,x r
x"xx
x x x x
rK
x x x. x •'
x x x x x x x
x x x x x x
yrs x x x x x x x v xx
x .. F x x
x xxx :Rx .�'0,41,,I+
x xxrxX� •J�/,i II♦
x x x x
XX
x x x x
X x x x x
r x x x x AM
JJJ
Figure 9. Gaston County Landfill
LAN D FI L L A REAS
®Closed- Construction &
Demolltlon Waste Limits
®Closed - Municipal Solid
Waste Limits
4 Active Construction &
Demolition Wasle Limlts
Proposed Final Munldpal
1�TT Sold Waste Limits
Active Municipal Solid
Waste Limits
lip At Capacity Municipal
Solid Waste Limits
The closed C&D landfill and the closed unlined MSW landfill (beneath the active
C&D landfill) were permitted to operate prior to the implementation of 40 CFR
Part 258 (referred to as Subtitle D), which required the installation of
impermeable geosynthetic underliners for all new and lateral landfill expansions
after October 1993. The promulgation of 40 CFR Part 258 promoted the design
of Units I, II, and III in accordance with Subtitle D regulations; thus, increasing
capacity and lifespan of the landfill by approximately 30 years at the time. Unit I,
Phase 1 and Unit II were opened in 1998 and 2009, respectively. Unit I, Phase I
reached capacity in 11 years and Unit II began accepting waste. Unit II currently
has remaining capacity for approximately 2.5 more years of waste disposal.

CE SAW -RG -C (File Number, SAW 2018-00053)
The original C&D landfill is now closed and is built out to final contour design.
The C&D landfill on top of the closed MSW landfill has approximately 4 months
until reaching its permitted volume and final contour design. The Unit I, Phase 1
landfill is at capacity and is no longer accepting waste. As such, the only active
landfill area accepting waste beyond a few months is Unit II, which only has a
lifespan of approximately 2.5 years remaining. The opening of Unit III would allow
for the opening of Unit I, Phase 2, and combined would increase the landfill
capacity by 20 years or more to the planned final build out of the site, which is
also enough time for Gaston County to site and study a new landfill location.
Table 4 summarizes the remaining capacity and lifespan of the Gaston County
Landfill.
Table 4. Landfill capacity
The original MSW landfill underneath the CDLF began operation in 1986 and ceased accepting MSW waste with the
promulgation of 40 CFR Part 258; however, the regulations allowed for a construction & demolition landfill to operate on
top of the MSW landfill to build out to the originally permitted volume to final contours.
According to the 2010 United States Census Bureau (USCB) census6,
approximately 206,086 people were living in Gaston County in fiscal year
2010/2011 and the per capita waste generation rate was estimated to be 1.2 tons
per year (NC Solid Waste and Materials Management Annual Report).7 The
USCB population estimate for 20178 estimates the Gaston County population at
220,182 citizens with a per capita waste generation rate for fiscal year 2016/2017
at 1.34 tons per year. The USCB and NC Solid Waste Annual Report statistics
suggest a continued trend of population growth in Gaston County and potentially
6 United States Census Bureau (USCB). 2010. 2010 Population Finder. Accessed on January 21, 2019 at
https://www.census.gov/popfinder/?fl=37071.
7 North Carolina Department of Environmental Quality (NCDEQ) Division of Waste Management. 2012. FFY11-12 NC Solid Waste
and Materials Management Annual Report. Accessed January 21, 2019 at https://deg.nc.gov/about/divisions/waste-
management/waste-management-rules-data/solid-waste-management-annual-reports/fy11-12.
8 United States Census Bureau (USCB) American Fact Finder. 2017. 2017 Population Estimate (as of July 1, 2017). Accessed on
January 21, 2019 at https://factfinder.census.gov/faces/nav/msf/pages/community facts.xhtml.
Total
Remaining
Landfill Areas
Permit #
Operations
Status
Permitted
Volume
Remaining
Area
Volume
(Cy)
Life Span
(ac.)
CY
3606-
01/1996 —
CDLF
CDLF-
12/1999
Closed
--
--
0
5.5
1995
CDLF Over
3606-
01/2000—
Closed MSW*
MSWLF-
Present
Active
1,482,196
89,100
4 months
37
1986
Unit I, Phase 1
01/1998—
Active, but
1,973,000
0
0 yrs
29
3606-
MSWLF-
09/2009
At Capacity
Unit I, Phase 2
Proposed
Constroucted
568,872
568,872
2 yrs
10
07/2009—
Unit II
1997
Present
Active
3,060,0000
718,900
2.5 yrs
37
Unit III
Proposed
4,870,000
4,807,000
18 yrs
11.5
Constroucted
The original MSW landfill underneath the CDLF began operation in 1986 and ceased accepting MSW waste with the
promulgation of 40 CFR Part 258; however, the regulations allowed for a construction & demolition landfill to operate on
top of the MSW landfill to build out to the originally permitted volume to final contours.
According to the 2010 United States Census Bureau (USCB) census6,
approximately 206,086 people were living in Gaston County in fiscal year
2010/2011 and the per capita waste generation rate was estimated to be 1.2 tons
per year (NC Solid Waste and Materials Management Annual Report).7 The
USCB population estimate for 20178 estimates the Gaston County population at
220,182 citizens with a per capita waste generation rate for fiscal year 2016/2017
at 1.34 tons per year. The USCB and NC Solid Waste Annual Report statistics
suggest a continued trend of population growth in Gaston County and potentially
6 United States Census Bureau (USCB). 2010. 2010 Population Finder. Accessed on January 21, 2019 at
https://www.census.gov/popfinder/?fl=37071.
7 North Carolina Department of Environmental Quality (NCDEQ) Division of Waste Management. 2012. FFY11-12 NC Solid Waste
and Materials Management Annual Report. Accessed January 21, 2019 at https://deg.nc.gov/about/divisions/waste-
management/waste-management-rules-data/solid-waste-management-annual-reports/fy11-12.
8 United States Census Bureau (USCB) American Fact Finder. 2017. 2017 Population Estimate (as of July 1, 2017). Accessed on
January 21, 2019 at https://factfinder.census.gov/faces/nav/msf/pages/community facts.xhtml.

CE SAW -RG -C (File Number, SAW 2018-00053)
increasing per capita waste generation rates.
There is an imminent need for waste disposal capacity in Gaston County in the
next 2.5 years as summarized in Table 4. And, with the current population growth
of Gaston County, the remaining landfill capacity may be consumed at a greater
rate, thus shortening the estimated lifespan remaining to less than 2.5 years. To
construct a landfill on a new site would take a greater amount of time to do than
the 2.5 years of remaining lifespan at the existing landfill and would include a
siting study, potential land acquisition, potential rezoning for appropriate landfill
land uses, new engineering, landfill infrastructure design, permitting, and the
construction of the landfill itself prior to accepting waste from citizens. Moreover,
the nearest MSW landfill is the Charlotte Motor Speedway Landfill (Speedway
Landfill) in Cabarrus County, NC. It would be cost prohibitive for Gaston County
to haul MSW waste to the Speedway Landfill and would also be an unnecessary
inconvenience as landfill infrastructure is existing and available in Gaston County
itself. Additionally, Gaston County generates a revenue source from selling the
natural gas produced by landfill processes to Duke Energy for eventual
commercial consumption.
The need is to maintain an operational landfill in Gaston County with adequate
capacity for the foreseeable future. Therefore, the purpose of the project is to
utilize the existing landfill and construct Unit I, Phase 2 and Unit III to combine
them with the existing Unit I, Phase 1 and Unit II disposal units to final build out
of the landfill, which would provide an estimated capacity of 20 years or more.
3.2 Basic project purpose, as determined by the Corps: Select N/A or basic
purpose here.
3.3 Water dependency determination: Select correct choice. If choice is either, not
water dependent or water dependent please explain in further detail.
3.4 Overall project purpose, as determined by the Corps: Describe here.
4.0 Coordination
4.1 The results of coordinating the proposal on Public Notice (PN) are identified
below, including a summary of issues raised, any applicant response and the
Corps' evaluation of concerns.
Were comments received in response to the PN? Select Yes or No
Were comments forwarded to the applicant for response? Select Yes, No or
N/A

CE SAW -RG -C (File Number, SAW 2018-00053)
Was a public meeting and/or hearing requested and, if so, was one conducted?
Select appropriate response Provide additional description/rationale here as
needed.
Comments received in response to public notice:
Comment 1:
Agency/Person providing comment Summarize comment here.
Applicant's Response: Select N/A or provide applicant's response as appropriate.
Corps Evaluation: Summarize Corps evaluation here.
Comment 2: Agency/Person providing comment Summarize comment here.
Applicant's Response: Select N/A or provide applicant's response as appropriate.
Corps Evaluation: Summarize Corps evaluation here.
Additional discussion of submitted comments, applicant response and/or Corps'
evaluation: Select N/A or provide discussion as appropriate.
4.2 Were additional issues raised by the Corps including any as a result of
coordination with other Corps offices? Select Yes or No
If yes, provide discussion including coordination of concerns with the applicant,
applicant's response and Corps' evaluation of the response: Select N/A or
provide discussion as appropriate.
4.3 Were comments raised that do not require further discussion because they
address activities and/or effects outside of the Corps' purview? Select Yes
or No
If yes, provide discussion: Select N/A or provide discussion as appropriate.
5.0 Alternatives Analysis (33 CFR Part 325 Appendix B(7), 40 CFR 230.5(c) and
40 CFR 1502.14). An evaluation of alternatives is required under NEPA for all
jurisdictional activities. An evaluation of alternatives is required under the
Section 404(b) (1) Guidelines for projects that include the discharge of dredged
or fill material. NEPA requires discussion of a reasonable range of alternatives,
including the no action alternative, and the effects of those alternatives; under the
Guidelines, practicability of alternatives is taken into consideration and no
alternative may be permitted if there is a less environmentally damaging
practicable alternative.

CE SAW -RG -C (File Number, SAW 2018-00053)
5.1 Site selection/screening criteria: In order to be practicable, an alternative must
be available, achieve the overall project purpose (as defined by the Corps), and
be feasible when considering cost, logistics and existing technology.
Criteria for evaluating alternatives as evaluated and determined by the
Corps:
A. Disposal Unit Locality Adhering to Regulatory Constraints (logistics):
The alternative would only be considered practicable and achieve the overall
project purpose if the disposal unit needed to expand the landfill adheres to
regulatory constraints. Local zoning or land use ordinances, state, or federal
rules and/or laws set forth buffers and setbacks, which are regulatory controls
that limit the locality of landfill disposal units within a landfill boundary.
NC General Statute § 130A-295.69 prohibits a waste disposal unit within
FEMA floodplains. North Carolina Administrative Code 15A NCAC 13B
.160010 requires a minimum 300 -foot buffer between a disposal unit and all
property lines and roads, and a minimum 500 -foot buffer between a disposal
unit and all residences and drinking wells. These regulations are more
restrictive or equal to those listed for landfills in Gaston County's Unified
Development Ordinance11. Table 5 (below), summarizes the regulatory
buffers and setbacks required in determining placement of a disposal unit
within a landfill. The 100 -foot buffer around the existing on-site cemetery was
a voluntary setback put in place by the landfill during original development to
preserve the feature.
Table 5. Reciulatory constraints
Constraint
Width (ft)
Property Boundary Setback
300 ft
Permitted Landfill Boundary Setback
300 ft
Residential Structures Buffer
500 ft
Road Buffer
300 ft
Cemetery Buffer
100 ft
FEMA Features
Avoid
s httDs://www.nclea.net/enactedleaislation/statutes/html/bvchaDter/chapter 130a.html
10 North Carolina Administrative Code.
http://reports.oah.state. nc. us/ncac/title%2015a%20%20environmental%20guality/chapter%2013%20-
%20sol id %20waste%20m anagement/subchapter%20b/su bchapter%20b%20ru I es. pdf
" Gaston County Board of Commission. April 2008. Gaston County Unified Development Ordinance.
https://Iibrary.municode.com/nc/gaston county/codes/unified development ordinance

CE SAW -RG -C (File Number, SAW 2018-00053)
B. Must Allow Landfill to Continue Operation for the Foreseeable Future:
The alternative would only be considered practicable and achieve the project
purpose if it allows the existing landfill to continue operation for the
foreseeable future of approximately 20 years. Approximately 6 to 10 years
minimum are needed in order to perform siting studies, potential property
acquisition, potential rezoning, engineering design, appropriate permitting,
and construction of a new landfill site. The additional 20 years of capacity due
to the expansion of the existing landfill would grant the time needed to
develop a new landfill site for operation.
C. Minimization of Environmental Impacts: The alternative would only be
considered practicable and achieve the overall project purpose if only a
minimum of environmental impacts are required. The delineated and verified
streams and wetlands located on the landfill would be used to approximate
impact amounts to determine the minimum amount of impacts needed while
still achieving the project purpose and need.
5.2 Description of alternatives
5.2.1 No action alternative: Under the no action alternative, the existing landfill
would be at capacity in approximately 2.5 years (year 2020 or 2021) and would
have to cease accepting waste. There would be no other available landfill for
waste disposal services in Gaston County. And, per North Carolina General
Statute §130A -309.09A, waste disposal services are required to be managed by
the local jurisdiction to meet local needs and protect human health and
environment. Therefore, the no action alternative is not considered a practicable
alternative.
This alternative would not satisfy the following screening criteria:
B. Must Allow Landfill to Continue Operation for the Foreseeable Future:
The no action alternative would result in the landfill being at capacity in 2.5
years and would not allow the existing landfill to continue operation for the
foreseeable future of 20 years or more.
C. Minimization of Environmental Impacts: While the no action alternative
would not impact streams and wetlands existing on the landfill, it can be
assumed that under the no action alternative, there would be environmental
impacts associated with unregulated waste disposal as citizens would still
need to dispose of waste, although the amount and type of impacts is
unknown.
This alternative would satisfy the following screening criteria:
A. Disposal Unit Locality Adhering to Regulatory Constraints (logistics):
The no action alternative would preclude the need to locate additional

CE SAW -RG -C (File Number, SAW 2018-00053)
disposal units on the landfill; thus adhering to regulatory constraints is
unnecessary.
5.2.2 Off-site alternatives
Given the heterogeneity and topography of the landscape in the region, any off-
site alternative would most likely be similar to that of the existing landfill and
potential impacts would be the same or greater than the preferred alternative.
Any alternative site would also have to adhere to the same regulatory constraints.
The proposed project is an expansion of an existing landfill within the permitted
landfill boundary with in-situ landfill infrastructure. Given the remaining 2.5 years
of capacity at the landfill, the development of an off-site alternative could not be
achieved within the available timeframe nor would it be practicable to develop a
new landfill when an expansion is feasible. Therefore, offsite alternatives were
not considered for this project.
Off -Site Alternative 1:
Off -Site Alternative 2:
5.2.3 On-site alternatives
Three on-site alternatives were examined to determine which on-site layout can
be practicably achieved within the project's scope, while also balancing the
mandate of avoidance and minimization to the highest degree. These include the
Applicant's Preferred Site Layout (On -Site Alternative 1), a More Impact Site
Layout (On -Site Alternative 2), and a No Impact Site Layout (On -Site Alternative
3).
For all on-site alternatives, existing infrastructure within the landfill includes
internal access roads, facility structures such as the scale house, citizen parking,
stormwater controls, machinery storage and maintenance areas, groundwater
monitoring wells, and a leachate collection system. This infrastructure would not
necessitate any impacts for any of the on-site alternatives as they are existing
features of the landfill. No development in the FEMA floodplain would occur.
On -Site Alternative 1 (applicant's preferred alternative): The applicant's
preferred site layout is designed based on the history of the landfill dating back to
the 1980s. The proposed final municipal solid waste limits depicted on Figure 10
were originally approved in 1986 and encompass approximately 88 acres. Unit 1,
Phase I consists of 29 acres and is at capacity and Unit II consists of 37 acres
and would be at capacity in 2.5 years. Unit 1, Phase 2 and Unit III consist of a
combined 21.5 acres and would provide an additional 20 years of combined
capacity if constructed concurrently.

CE SAW -RG -C (File Number, SAW 2018-00053)
LEGEND
Permitted Landfill
Boundary {321 ac }
Gaston County Landfill
Property (4 24 ac.)
- Facillty Structures
Residentlal Structures
-All Buffers r Setbacks f
Constraints
Stream Impacts
0 Pond Impacts
- - - Seasonal RPW
Perennial RPW
_ Wetlands
l� Pond
:r Culvert
FEMA Roodway
_ FEMA 100 -Yr Floodplain
n FEMA 500 -Yr Floodplain
i i� = i,000 feel
•- 0 Feet 1.000
:ltLy'fr:(i��w''1
•` 1 —Rvvmermem Imveys
NO
yy 1 �O feetu�e hve rowe ex. m'i ry
ip K �u.i.s.-1. 'L M*N . Ak.
R vw Pn �5 a
� veed t•c.i oa a
ia.l Stream
le.e.a.rn145
Figure 10. Preferred Alternative (On -Site Alternative 1) layout
LANDFILL AREAS
Preferred Alt - Proposed
Final Munlapal Solid
Waste Limits
®Closed - Construction &
Demolliion Waste Limits
� :,o sed • Municipal Solid
t/Ie .-;le Llmlls
Active Ccnstructlon &
. c DemollWn Wasle Orrilts
N
Active MUnlclpal SOtId
• 1 Lhbste Llmlts
Ina cil a Municipal Solid
F-1
_ ♦ ,nit�
The connection of Unit 1 to Unit II would result in impacts to jurisdictional
features located in Unit III. The construction of Unit III would permanently impact
jurisdictional waters that include approximately 280 linear feet of low quality
perennial stream channel and 865 linear feet of low quality intermittent stream
channel for a total of 1,145 linear feet of permanent impacts (Table 6, Figure 10
and Figure 11). No wetlands would be impacted by the proposed activity.
Construction of Unit I, Phase 2 would be constructed entirely in uplands and
would not result in any impacts to waters of the US.
A jurisdictional pond would also be impacted. See Section 8.0 for additional
information about compensatory mitigation associated with this project.

CE SAW -RG -C (File Number, SAW 2018-00053)
Table 6. Proposed impacts associated with On -Site Alternative 1
�iiSCli: CFt: rrY!tt:
LEGEND
-All Buffers Setbacks
Constraints
I". Stream Impacts
J
I�
Pond impacts
Seasonal RPW
I
— Perenn.al RPW
Pond
4
_ Milands
a Culvert
Figure 11. Preferred on-site alternative impacts
All of the proposed channel impacts would consist of gravel fill (#57 stone)
material to the top of bank, which would then be overlain by a 4 -foot clay layer
that would extend to the limits of the disposal unit. Finally, a geosynthetic liner
would be laid on top of the clay layer. The gravel fill material would allow
infiltration of groundwater flows to continue downstream underneath the disposal
unit. The clay and geosynthetic underliner are required per Subtitle D of 40 CFR
Part 258 to provide a barrier between the leachate collection system and direct
Impacts
JD Feature Type
Approved
Preliminary
JD Area
JD Area
Seasonal RPW (If)
865
0
Perennial RPW (If)
280
0
Wetlands (ac.)
0
0
Pond (ac.)
0.40
0
Total Stream
1,145 If
0
Impacts (If):
Total Wetland
0
0
Impacts (ac.):
Total Pond
0.40
0
Impacts (ac.):
�iiSCli: CFt: rrY!tt:
LEGEND
-All Buffers Setbacks
Constraints
I". Stream Impacts
J
I�
Pond impacts
Seasonal RPW
I
— Perenn.al RPW
Pond
4
_ Milands
a Culvert
Figure 11. Preferred on-site alternative impacts
All of the proposed channel impacts would consist of gravel fill (#57 stone)
material to the top of bank, which would then be overlain by a 4 -foot clay layer
that would extend to the limits of the disposal unit. Finally, a geosynthetic liner
would be laid on top of the clay layer. The gravel fill material would allow
infiltration of groundwater flows to continue downstream underneath the disposal
unit. The clay and geosynthetic underliner are required per Subtitle D of 40 CFR
Part 258 to provide a barrier between the leachate collection system and direct

CE SAW -RG -C (File Number, SAW 2018-00053)
connection to ground and surface waters. This would provide the foundation for
the disposal unit. According to the applicant, utilizing Unit III to connect Units I
and 11 to build out the final limits of the disposal area would provide disposal
capacity for 20 or more years versus 2.5 years of remaining capacity if not
utilized. This on-site alternative would allow the existing landfill to operate into the
foreseeable future.
At the end of this section, Table 9 summarizes impacts and Table 10
summarizes the siting criteria associated with the on-site alternatives analysis.
This alternative would satisfy the following screening criteria:
A. Disposal Unit Locality Adhering to Regulatory Constraints (logistics):
The locations of Unit I, Phase 2 and Unit III adhere to the regulatory
constraints of the landfill.
B. Must Allow Landfill to Continue Operation for the Foreseeable Future:
The preferred alternative would allow for additional capacity for landfill to
continue operation for the foreseeable future of 20 or more years.
This alternative not would satisfy the following screening criteria:
C. Minimization of Environmental Impacts: This preferred alternative has the
second amount of impacts to aquatic features, but also meets the project's
purpose and need.
At the end of this section, Table 9 summarizes impacts and Table 10
summarizes the siting criteria associated with the on-site alternatives analysis.
On -Site Alternative 2 — More Impact Site Layout: This alternative consists of
an additional landfill area other than those proposed in On -Site Alternative 1.
This is the only other available area within the constrained permitted landfill
boundary for a landfill disposal unit. The alternative is depicted on Figure 12.

CE SAW -RG -C (File Number, SAW 2018-00053)
Figure 12. On -Site Alternative 2
This alternative consists of final landfill areas that include Unit I and Unit II, which
would be at capacity in 2.5 years, and of a newly proposed landfill area that
would utilize the topographic valleys for capacity on the northeast part of the
landfill. It is important to note that the northeastern landfill area cannot overlap
the adjacent closed landfill areas as they are already built out to their final
contours. The construction of On -Site Alternative 2 would impact approximately
1,490 linear feet of perennial stream channel, 1,205.5 linear feet of seasonal
stream channel for a total of 2,695.5 linear feet of permanent impacts, and 0.5
acres of permanent wetland impacts. (Table 7, Figure 12, and Figure 13).

CE SAW -RG -C (File Number, SAW 2018-00053)
Table 7. Proaosed impacts associated with On -Site Alternative 2
LEGEND
Impacts
JD Feature Type
Approved JD
Preliminary JD
SVeam 7
Seasorall �rA4'
Area
Area
Seasonal RPW (If)
0
1,205.5
Perennial RPW (If)
0
1,490
Wetlands (ac.)
0
0.5
Total Stream
0
2,695.5 If
Impacts (If):
I'~e!I;ar..
Perennial RPWIrrrrl�rijj�rij
Total Wetland
0
0.5 ac.
Impacts (ac.):
If r�rlrsrr..Ii�.�lra
Ij+I I.ANDFILLAREAS
a Culvert
LEGEND
-
{seasvnall ri.
Landfill
0
294 If of impact [fill} �rI�IrI'" w 1 RFw J.P..Permitted
r�rir �
�
Boundary {327 ac.}
SVeam 7
Seasorall �rA4'
rr- Preferred Alernative eam a
r. (seasonal)Break
[erennlalj T-am
oS
Perennial 4 zeassn
o0
i
{424 ac.}
795-51fct Impact (fill)
Facility Structures
T.w" i'"'"i
♦. � .J..1
�~ ►�1�IArI►V� II,
Residential Structures+
�� Nktlard ori
-Ail Suffers I Setbacks Ir�irii+.iY
05 ac of impart ifll]��
rim,►+•s SKI fro
rlu,Ert.� �Ir�0
Constraints ... - ..
N,ti?tlar.d 5
>>� ���;IrI-.08 ac ai i•nuact Ifill1l{r�"rr�
Stream Impacts*�
���� rrr �7ij ►r� •r��~,�j�
WB(land Impacts
- Seasonal RPW7"=
I'~e!I;ar..
Perennial RPWIrrrrl�rijj�rij
Pond A
Irr+rl/��rlr�rlrl%s �I*R II{'tl�J+rr*r I
�ri.�fr� ASI
- Wetlands
If r�rlrsrr..Ii�.�lra
Ij+I I.ANDFILLAREAS
a Culvert
On -Site Alt 2 - Proposed
J*e r jtlr��rljj 1,--■_—�T Final MuntcipaI Solid Vkbste
FEMA Floodway
AI���swrr� ' Limits
- FEMA 100 -Yr Flood Iain
p
;
rl�rf�y�I�3��I•r:��f��±✓ Closed - Construction &
2:z
FEMA 500 -Yr Floodplain �S'
*r�r Stream 7 Oemolidon Waste Limits
rljr�/I, (perennia) CmSolid
sed Limits clpal
�rrl#6 4 4901foflrnpaof MIt) IZV1
♦IIs U4bste Limits
I inch=2501ee1
— — — -- — — --
Active Conslructlon 8
r
D Feet 260
- *�rI/rrl�r�rljrrljr�rljR� �R —I 0emolilion Waste Limits
f��ri*��`;��
'�fActive Municipal Solid
lYr'��rrr�A�� 4�l�I�t�i/��rla<� Vii. Waste Limits
Nktland 7
y .i rj� Ij�rrlj�r��jr�1*00I err* 0'*, Inactive MurtldpelSolid
p 32 ac pf impa.et [T�1}
c
■ ■ •
/ jr�Iljrrlj�rrljr�rlj�rrj �Irjr� Waste Llmtts
I�*rl���rl�r�Ir,�rrj�rrlr'�rlrrrr�frr�
r. ��Ir.�rr�.Elr: �*r �+r�.!Ir.��I�:�rli. � Ndt Yet Con stsuctsd
Figure 13. On -Site Alternative 2 impacts
On -Site Alternative 2 proposed to use the topographic valleys for disposal
capacity into the foreseeable future. The topographic depth paired with the
vertical capacity is still not adequate capacity to expand the landfill into the
foreseeable future of 20 years or more. This option satisfies all the siting criteria
except that it is the most environmentally damaging on-site alternative, including
proposing impacts to wetlands (Table 9). Additionally, the alternative encroaches
upon a known location of an on-site cemetery and would necessitate the clearing
of large forested areas. While the cemetery and forested areas are not included

CE SAW -RG -C (File Number, SAW 2018-00053)
in the siting criteria used for determining disposal area locations within the
landfill, they are resources that are taken into account when considering the
landfill expansion. It may be viewed as inappropriate to expand the landfill into an
area in close proximity to the cemetery and to clear a large amount of trees when
other options are available that do neither.
This alternative would satisfy the following screening criteria:
A. Disposal Unit Locality Adhering to Regulatory Constraints (logistics):
The locations of Unit I, Phase 2 and On -Site Alternative 2 adhere to the
regulatory constraints of the landfill.
This alternative not would satisfy the following screening criteria:
B. Must Allow Landfill to Continue Operation for the Foreseeable Future:
The alternative would allow for additional capacity for landfill to continue
operation as a stop -gap measure, but would not be adequate capacity for the
foreseeable future of 20 or more years.
C. Minimization of Environmental Impacts: The alternative has the most
amount of impacts to aquatic features (Table 9).
At the end of this section, Table 9 summarizes impacts and Table 10
summarizes the siting criteria associated with the on-site alternatives analysis.
On -Site Alternative 3 — No Impact Site Layout: This alternative consists of
constructing only Unit I, Phase 2 (Figure 14). There are no impacts associated
with this alternative; however, constructing only this disposal unit would merely
increase capacity by 2.5 years, which is not an adequate timeframe to site a new
landfill location, nor would it allow continued operation of the landfill in the
foreseeable future.

CE SAW -RG -C (File Number, SAW 2018-00053)
LEGEND
Permitted La nd 511
Boundary (321 ac.}
Gaston County Landfl!
Property (424 ac-)
- Facility Structures
Residentlal Structures
-All L3ultara r Setuacxs
Constraints
- - - Seasonal RPW
- Perennial RPW
- watlanda _
I� Pond
a Culvert
Non -JD Pond
FEMAAoodway
I- FEMA IN -Yr Floodplain
FE MA 500-Y r Floodplain
- 0 Feet 1000
P
y � � � •t � i~eaawror Raw i� o
P ,y } 6 7 PerenrNN RPW (►, a
w wernnd,i�.� o
�� r..rnrsr,eem o
imP«r, iin
w.ru.,d o
Mpee� (ec j
I
e
I %
Figure 14. On -Site Alternative 3 layout
Table 8. Proposed impacts associated with On -Site Alternative 3
L.AN DF ILL AREAS
V ^-- A
A5 3 - Proposed Final
MunicLimits pal Sold Whsle
Preliminary JD
Limns
Area
®Closed - Construction &
Demollfion Waste Limits
I.; 5e •Municipal Solid
'.tile LRIIlS
Seasonal RPW (If)
Active Construction &
0
Demolition Wasle Limits
0
Active Munlcipal Solid
Waste Llmlts
t
Ina olke Municipal Solid
Waste Limits
I %
Figure 14. On -Site Alternative 3 layout
Table 8. Proposed impacts associated with On -Site Alternative 3
This alternative would satisfy the following screening criteria:
A. Disposal Unit Locality Adhering to Regulatory Constraints (logistics):
The location of Unit I, Phase 2 adheres to the regulatory constraints of the
landfill.
C. Minimization of Environmental Impacts: This alternative has no impacts to
aquatic features and is therefore the least environmentally damaging.
Impacts
JD Feature Type
Approved JD
Preliminary JD
Area
Area
Seasonal RPW (If)
0
0
Perennial RPW (If)
0
0
Wetlands (ac.)
0
0
Total Stream
0
0
Impacts (if):
Total Wetland
0
0
Impacts (ac.):
This alternative would satisfy the following screening criteria:
A. Disposal Unit Locality Adhering to Regulatory Constraints (logistics):
The location of Unit I, Phase 2 adheres to the regulatory constraints of the
landfill.
C. Minimization of Environmental Impacts: This alternative has no impacts to
aquatic features and is therefore the least environmentally damaging.

CE SAW -RG -C (File Number, SAW 2018-00053)
This alternative not would satisfy the following screening criteria:
B. Must Allow Landfill to Continue Operation for the Foreseeable Future:
The alternative would only provide additional capacity for 2.5 years and would
not allow the landfill to continue operation for the foreseeable future of 20 or
more years. Furthermore, the 2.5 years of capacity associated with this
alternative does not provide sufficient time to site and construct a new
operational landfill.
Table 9 summarizes impacts and Table 10 summarizes the siting criteria
associated with the on-site alternatives analysis.
Table 9. Summary of impacts associated with the on-site alternatives
Table 10. Summary of alternatives analysis siting criteria.
Proposed Impacts
JD Feature Type
On -Site Alternative 1
On -Site Alternative 2
On -Site Alternative 3
(Preferred Alternative)
(More Impact Layout)
(No Impact Layout)
Seasonal RPW (If)
865
1,205.5
0
Perennial RPW (If)
280
1,490
0
Wetlands (ac.)
0
0.5
0
Total Stream
1,145 If
2,695.5 If
0
Impacts (If):
(1St/most)
Total Wetland
0
0.5 ac.
0
Impacts (ac.):
(3rd/least)
Table 10. Summary of alternatives analysis siting criteria.
Lastly, this application is also for an After -the -Fact permit for unauthorized
impacts that occurred prior to this application. Those impacts include installing
culverts and impounding Stream 1 to create a pond sometime in 2006-2008. A
summary of total impacts associated with this application are summarized in
Table 12. Cumulative impacts will be discussed in Section 9.0.
Table 11. Summary of proposed and unauthorized impacts.
JD Feature Type Approved JD Area Preliminary JD Area
Proposed Activity
Siting Criteria
Adhering to
Landfill
Environmental
Alternatives
Regulatory
Future
Impacts
Constraints
On -Site Alt 1
✓
✓
X
(Preferred Alt)
(2nd)
On -Site Alt 2
✓
✓
X
(More Impact Layout)
(1St/most)
On -Site Alt 31/
X
(No Impact Layout)
(3rd/least)
Lastly, this application is also for an After -the -Fact permit for unauthorized
impacts that occurred prior to this application. Those impacts include installing
culverts and impounding Stream 1 to create a pond sometime in 2006-2008. A
summary of total impacts associated with this application are summarized in
Table 12. Cumulative impacts will be discussed in Section 9.0.
Table 11. Summary of proposed and unauthorized impacts.
JD Feature Type Approved JD Area Preliminary JD Area
Proposed Activity

CE SAW -RG -C (File Number, SAW 2018-00053)
JD Feature Type
Approved JD Area
Preliminary JD Area
Seasonal RPW (If)
865
0
Perennial RPW (If)
280
0
Wetland (ac.)
0
0
Pond (ac.)
0.40
0
Unauthorized Activity
Seasonal RPW (If)
0
0
Perennial RPW (If)
736.5
0
Wetland (ac.)
0
0
Pond (ac.)
0
0
Total Stream Impacts (If)
1,881.5 If
0
Total Wetland Impacts (ac.)
0
0
Total Pond Impacts (ac.)
0.40
0
5.3 Evaluate alternatives and whether or not each is practicable under the
Guidelines or reasonable under NEPA
Section 5.1 details which alternatives are not feasible and/or practicable and
why.
5.4 Least environmentally damaging practicable alternative under the 404(b)(1)
Guidelines (if applicable) and the environmentally preferable alternative
under NEPA:
The Applicant's preferred alternative is the least environmentally damaging
practicable alternative while also meeting the purpose and need of the project.
6.0 Evaluation for Compliance with the Section 404(b)(1) Guidelines. The
following sequence of evaluation is consistent with 40 CFR 230.5
6.1 Practicable alternatives to the proposed discharge consistent with 40 CFR
230.5(c) are evaluated in Section 5. The statements below summarize the
analysis of alternatives.
In summary, based on the analysis in Section 5.0 above, the no -action
alternative, which would not involve discharge into waters, is not practicable.
For those projects that would discharge into a special aquatic site and are not
water dependent, the applicant has demonstrated there are no practicable
alternatives that do not involve special aquatic sites.
It has been determined that there are no alternatives to the proposed discharge
that would be less environmentally damaging. (Subpart B, 40 CFR 230.10(a)).
The proposed discharge in this evaluation is the practicable alternative with the

CE SAW -RG -C (File Number, SAW 2018-00053)
least adverse impact on the aquatic ecosystem, and it does not have other
significant environmental consequences.
6.2 Candidate disposal site delineation (Subpart B, 40 CFR 230.11(f)). Each
disposal site shall be specified through the application of these Guidelines:
There are multiple disposal sites (impacts) located within the proposed Unit III
disposal unit. Impacts 1-3 are impacts associated with streams and Impact 4 is
associated with a pond. All channel impacts would be impacted by the installation
of a 6 -inch perforated pipe and gravel fill (#57 stone) material to the top of bank,
which would then be overlain by a clay layer and finally a liner would be laid to
provide the foundation of the Unit III cell (Figure 4). The pond impact would also
be constructed in the same way as the stream impacts, but first requires
dewatering and a dam breach and dewatering utilizing best management
practices and sediment and erosion controls. The pipe and gravel layer placed in
the channels and pond would be continuous and the clay layer would be placed
on top of the gravel layer and an impermeable geosynthetic underliner would be
placed on top of the clay layer for Unit III. Once the geosynthetic underliners are
in place, a leachate collection system would be installed per 40 CFR Part 258
requirements. Figure 10 below depicts the impact sites.
'I�:SCIi.:♦Ii�!liY.Cli.!+♦i •+!; r+i -!.� -!:o
04,12!/I!
Buffers ISethacks:
+/!!!I*4♦I
jj�;♦ .0
_All
Constraints
*f
A Stream Impacts
%ll2� 0*
j� Pond Impacts
I
10
its - Seasonal RPW
��I♦/j!//y�♦!Ij!
Perennial RPW
f�1!/!I�!!♦I �!I
',IIT.+/!',i/���
Pond
I/I!♦1//�Il�
` I!!!!I/♦!+
! I ♦ WastActive LlmftMunis pal Solid
erste Llmlts
cipal5ogd
�-
a Culvert
Impact L
Perennial RPW 3
11n1A=sop teat
d Feel s;a
280 It of impact (fill)
f
Figure 15. Overview of impacts
r♦� Ami I.�.r Is P•.s
Ja F..i_ M APPr^••d Peas in.rr
y. TT JOA. JCA..
1
{{{1 'Ferrnnl.l RPW iln i80 G
�x • w,iv...�alec.l a a
Pond f—p a.4 P
i •fT-1511e.s .Rn Im P. �nllq 1.I41511 a
T..I W.8.M 0 6
Tani Poral,
Seasonal _ i
Impact 1 R
P rr• Seasonal PW 1 fj
848 If of impact (fill] 3
r! - r�/♦! Impact ♦
+ I Seasonal RPW 2
-
LAHOFILLAREAS
+I% /♦tx` �� 17 If of impact (fill] /j�'
/♦/Ir*� I// ///
//I
Pre tarred Alt- Praposed
Final Municipal Solid
I♦ ♦I /
w
Wfste Limits
//♦
'/I ♦// �i
r,� ;♦+�I'�{ ♦+ / ♦ / /
Closed - Construction S
Demolltion Wasle Limits
/ +♦I/±//IIr/I ,
Ij///Ij++,
Ij�/♦Irfllf�y'FI �♦♦/It
DetmolYpn ftsls Limits
/+�J/�tf/�
II + !I ♦
ori
/ Closed-Mur�dpal5alW
© Waste Llmlts
Impact 4 Iloilov�p ♦t
Pond 1 I fi

CE SAW -RG -C (File Number, SAW 2018-00053)
Discussion:
With the exception of one impact (Impact 4), all impacts are located on shallow,
first order streams that originate on site. The impact sites would contain no flow
or be dewatered prior to construction which would eliminate flow velocities and
prevent and control turbidity, stratification, and other factors typically associated
with mixing soil with water. The fill material consists of a 6 -inch perforated pipe
and clean gravel fill to allow continued percolation and conveyance of
groundwater.
6.3 Potential impacts on physical and chemical characteristics of the aquatic
ecosystem (Subpart C 40 CFR 230.20). See Table 12:
Impacts 1 and 3:
Impacts 1 and 3 are both impacts to first order Seasonal RPW Streams and
would therefore be treated together in this discussion.
Table 12. Potential Impacts on Physical and Chemical Characteristics for Impact 1
Discussion:
Substrate: A 6 -inch, perforated PVC pipe would be placed directly in 865 linear
feet of jurisdictional Seasonal Stream (848 If for Stream 1 and 17 If for Stream 2).
That placed in Stream 2 would connect to Stream 1. Then #57 gravel stone
would be placed in and around the PVC pipe up to the top of bank. The existing
stream substrate in these areas would be buried. The discharge would consist of
suitable fill material and would not include any trash, debris, car bodies, asphalt,
etc. The fill material would also be free of toxic pollutants in toxic amounts. The
perforated pipe and surrounding gravel fill material would allow for the continued
conveyance of groundwater that percolates through the material. Proper
sediment and erosion control measures would be installed prior to and during
Minor
Minor
Physical and Chemical
No
Negligible
Effect
Effect
Characteristics
NSA
Effect
Effect
(Short
(Long
Major Effect
Term)
Term)
Substrate
x
Suspended particulates/
turbidity
X
Water
x
Current patterns and
water circulation
X
Normal water fluctuations
x
Salinity gradients
x
Discussion:
Substrate: A 6 -inch, perforated PVC pipe would be placed directly in 865 linear
feet of jurisdictional Seasonal Stream (848 If for Stream 1 and 17 If for Stream 2).
That placed in Stream 2 would connect to Stream 1. Then #57 gravel stone
would be placed in and around the PVC pipe up to the top of bank. The existing
stream substrate in these areas would be buried. The discharge would consist of
suitable fill material and would not include any trash, debris, car bodies, asphalt,
etc. The fill material would also be free of toxic pollutants in toxic amounts. The
perforated pipe and surrounding gravel fill material would allow for the continued
conveyance of groundwater that percolates through the material. Proper
sediment and erosion control measures would be installed prior to and during

CE SAW -RG -C (File Number, SAW 2018-00053)
construction to ensure that the substrate of remaining downstream waters of the
United States would not change or be affected.
Suspended particulates/turbidity: During construction, there may be a minimal
increase in suspended particulates that may lead to increased turbidity
downstream. However, the increase would be minimal and temporary due to the
installation and maintenance of proper sediment and erosion control measures
during construction and shortly thereafter.
Water Quality: The proposed discharge of dredge and fill material should not
cause increased chemical contamination levels within the downstream aquatic
ecosystem. Specifically, changes in clarity, color, odor, and taste of water in
addition to possible chemical contamination would be minimized by the
applicant's storm water management and sediment and erosion control plan.
Gaston County Landfill is covered under a current NPDES General Permit
Number NCG120000 for Landfills (Certificate of Coverage No. NCG120012,
Appendix A) which requires monitoring of water quality. Additionally, the leachate
collection system designed to capture landfill waste leachate would be physically
separated from water via the impermeable geosynthetic underliner.
Current patterns in water circulation: The proposed discharged dredge and fill
material is not expected to significantly modify current downstream water
circulation patterns by obstructing flow, changing direction or velocity of water, or
changing velocity or flow of circulation; however, a level of modification of these
physical characteristics is expected since the surface water recharge from rainfall
events would not be captured by the existing drainage. Additionally, the
perforated pipe and gravel fill material is designed to allow percolation of
groundwater and its conveyance downstream of the proposed waste disposal
unit, which could act as flow constriction.
Normal water fluctuations: For these impacts, the affected watersheds are
completely contained within the project area and are relatively small, headwater
catchments. The discharge of fill material associated with this project is not
anticipated to have more than a minimal effect on the downstream hydrologic
regimes.
Impact 2:
Impact 2 is an impact to a first order Perennial RPW Stream.

CE SAW -RG -C (File Number, SAW 2018-00053)
Table 13. Potential Impacts on Phvsical and Chemical Characteristics for Impact 2
Discussion:
Substrate: A 6 -inch, perforated PVC pipe would be placed directly in 280 linear
feet of jurisdictional Perennial Stream 1. The impacts associated with Impacts 1
and 3 would tie in to Impact 2. Then #57 gravel stone would be placed in and
around the PVC pipe up to the top of bank. The existing stream substrate in
these areas would be buried. The discharge would consist of suitable fill material
and would not include any trash, debris, car bodies, asphalt, etc. The fill material
would also be free of toxic pollutants in toxic amounts. The perforated pipe and
surrounding gravel fill material would allow for the continued conveyance of
groundwater that percolates through the material. Proper sediment and erosion
control measures would be installed prior to and during construction to ensure
that the substrate of remaining downstream waters of the United States would
not change or be affected.
Suspended particulates/turbidity: During construction, there may be a minimal
increase in suspended particulates that may lead to increased turbidity
downstream. However, the increase would be minimal and temporary due to the
installation and maintenance of proper sediment and erosion control measures
during construction and shortly thereafter.
Water Quality: The proposed discharge of dredge and fill material should not
cause increased chemical contamination levels within the downstream aquatic
ecosystem. Specifically, changes in clarity, color, odor, and taste of water in
addition to possible chemical contamination would be minimized by the
applicant's storm water management and sediment and erosion control plan.
Gaston County Landfill is covered under a current NPDES General Permit
Number NCG120000 for Landfills (Certificate of Coverage No. NCG120012,
Appendix A) which requires monitoring of water quality. Additionally, the leachate
Minor
Minor
Physical and Chemical
NSA
No
Negligible
Effect
Effect
Major Effect
Characteristics
Effect
Effect
(Short
(Long
Term)
Term)
Substrate
x
Suspended particulates/
turbidity
X
Water
x
Current patterns and
water circulation
X
Normal water fluctuations
x
Salinity gradients
x
Discussion:
Substrate: A 6 -inch, perforated PVC pipe would be placed directly in 280 linear
feet of jurisdictional Perennial Stream 1. The impacts associated with Impacts 1
and 3 would tie in to Impact 2. Then #57 gravel stone would be placed in and
around the PVC pipe up to the top of bank. The existing stream substrate in
these areas would be buried. The discharge would consist of suitable fill material
and would not include any trash, debris, car bodies, asphalt, etc. The fill material
would also be free of toxic pollutants in toxic amounts. The perforated pipe and
surrounding gravel fill material would allow for the continued conveyance of
groundwater that percolates through the material. Proper sediment and erosion
control measures would be installed prior to and during construction to ensure
that the substrate of remaining downstream waters of the United States would
not change or be affected.
Suspended particulates/turbidity: During construction, there may be a minimal
increase in suspended particulates that may lead to increased turbidity
downstream. However, the increase would be minimal and temporary due to the
installation and maintenance of proper sediment and erosion control measures
during construction and shortly thereafter.
Water Quality: The proposed discharge of dredge and fill material should not
cause increased chemical contamination levels within the downstream aquatic
ecosystem. Specifically, changes in clarity, color, odor, and taste of water in
addition to possible chemical contamination would be minimized by the
applicant's storm water management and sediment and erosion control plan.
Gaston County Landfill is covered under a current NPDES General Permit
Number NCG120000 for Landfills (Certificate of Coverage No. NCG120012,
Appendix A) which requires monitoring of water quality. Additionally, the leachate

CE SAW -RG -C (File Number, SAW 2018-00053)
collection system designed to capture landfill waste leachate would be physically
separated from water via the impermeable geosynthetic underliner.
Current patterns in water circulation: The proposed discharged dredge and fill
material is not expected to significantly modify current downstream water
circulation patterns by obstructing flow, changing direction or velocity of water, or
changing velocity or flow of circulation; however, a level of modification of these
physical characteristics is expected since the surface water recharge from rainfall
events would not be captured by the existing drainage. Additionally, the
perforated pipe and gravel fill material is designed to allow percolation of
groundwater and its conveyance downstream of the proposed waste disposal
unit, which could act as flow constriction.
Normal water fluctuations: For Impact 2, the affected watershed is completely
contained within the project area and is a relatively small, headwater catchment.
The discharge of fill material associated with this project is not anticipated to
have more than a minimal effect on the downstream hydrologic regimes.
Impact 4:
Impact 4 would be an impact to a pond.
Table 14. Potential Impacts on Phvsical and Chemical Characteristics for Impact 4
Discussion:
Substrate: Once the pond is dewatered and the berm breached, a 6 -inch,
perforated PVC pipe would be placed directly through the bed of Pond 1,
connecting Stream 1 and Pond 1 in the underlayment of the disposal. The
impacts associated with Impact 4 consists of 0.4 acre of pond. Then #57 gravel
stone would be placed in and around the PVC pipe up to the top of bank. The
existing substrate in these areas would be buried. The discharge would consist of
Minor
Minor
Physical and Chemical
No
Negligible
Effect
Effect
NSA
Major Effect
Characteristics
Effect
Effect
(Short
(Long
Term)
Term)
Substrate
x
Suspended particulates/
turbidity
X
Water
x
Current patterns and
water circulation
X
Normal water fluctuations
x
Salinity gradients
x
Discussion:
Substrate: Once the pond is dewatered and the berm breached, a 6 -inch,
perforated PVC pipe would be placed directly through the bed of Pond 1,
connecting Stream 1 and Pond 1 in the underlayment of the disposal. The
impacts associated with Impact 4 consists of 0.4 acre of pond. Then #57 gravel
stone would be placed in and around the PVC pipe up to the top of bank. The
existing substrate in these areas would be buried. The discharge would consist of

CE SAW -RG -C (File Number, SAW 2018-00053)
suitable fill material and would not include any trash, debris, car bodies, asphalt,
etc. The fill material would also be free of toxic pollutants in toxic amounts. The
perforated pipe and surrounding gravel fill material would allow for the continued
conveyance of groundwater that percolates through the material. Proper
sediment and erosion control measures would be installed prior to and during
construction to ensure that the substrate of remaining downstream waters of the
United States would not change or be affected.
Suspended particulates/turbidity: During construction, there may be a minimal
increase in suspended particulates that may lead to increased turbidity
downstream. However, the increase would be minimal and temporary due to the
installation and maintenance of proper sediment and erosion control measures
during construction and shortly thereafter.
Water Quality: The proposed discharge of dredge and fill material should not
cause increased chemical contamination levels within the downstream aquatic
ecosystem. Specifically, changes in clarity, color, odor, and taste of water in
addition to possible chemical contamination would be minimized by the
applicant's storm water management and sediment and erosion control plan.
Gaston County Landfill is covered under a current NPDES General Permit
Number NCG120000 for Landfills (Certificate of Coverage No. NCG120012,
Appendix A) which requires monitoring of water quality. Additionally, the leachate
collection system designed to capture landfill waste leachate would be physically
separated from water via the impermeable geosynthetic underliner.
Current patterns in water circulation: The proposed discharged dredge and fill
material is not expected to significantly modify current downstream water
circulation patterns by obstructing flow, changing direction or velocity of water, or
changing velocity or flow of circulation; however, a level of modification of these
physical characteristics is expected since the surface water recharge from rainfall
events would not be captured by the existing drainage. Additionally, the
perforated pipe and gravel fill material is designed to allow percolation of
groundwater and its conveyance downstream of the proposed waste disposal
unit, which could act as flow constriction.
Normal water fluctuations: For Impact 2, the affected watershed is completely
contained within the project area and is a relatively small, headwater catchment.
The discharge of fill material associated with this project is not anticipated to
have more than a minimal effect on the downstream hydrologic regimes.
6.4 Potential impacts on the living communities or human uses (Subparts D, E
and F):

CE SAW -RG -C (File Number, SAW 2018-00053)
6.4.1 Potential impacts on the biological characteristics of the aquatic
ecosystem (Subpart D 40 CFR 230.30). See Table 15:
Table 15. Potential Impacts on Bioloaical Characteristics for all Impacts
Discussion:
Threatened and endangered species: See Section 10.1.
Fish, crustaceans, mollusks, and other aquatic organisms: Discharges of
dredge and/or fill material in the stream channels and pond on the site would
alter the food web in these locations by impacting animals, such as invertebrates,
that make up the basis of a food chain. The release of contaminants or an
increase in turbidity has the potential to negatively affect certain aspects of the
food web in/downstream/surrounding these areas. Such releases may also
potentially increase the opportunities for exotic species to colonize disturbed
areas which can cause shifts in the makeup of the food web. However, sediment
and erosion control measures would also be implemented to ensure that
indirect/secondary effects to nearby aquatic organisms would also not be
impacted. Impacts to primary food chain production within the waters of the US
on the project site is expected to be minimal and temporary. The project site is
similar to surrounding landscapes and does not represent a rare landscape or
contain any unique landscape elements in general. As such, the activities in on-
site waters are not expected to have more than a minimal/temporary effect on
aquatic wildlife as there is available and similar habitat surrounding the project
area for species to migrate and maintain primary food chain production.
Other wildlife: The discharge of dredge and/or fill material has the potential to
negatively affect breeding and nesting areas, escape cover, travel corridors, and
preferred food sources for resident and migrant wildlife species in the immediate
vicinity of the impact areas. There is very minimal vegetation remaining in the
vicinity of the impacts, only a narrow riparian corridor. Vegetation and trees
would be removed which would eliminate existing and future habitat for terrestrial
and avian species in the area. The avoidance of the FEMA floodplain and those
Minor
Minor
No
Negligible
Effect
EffectMajor
Biological characteristics
N/A
Effect
Effect
(Short
(Long
Effect
Term)
Term)
Threatened and
endangered species
x
Fish, crustaceans, mollusk,
and other aquatic
X
organisms
Other wildlife
X
Discussion:
Threatened and endangered species: See Section 10.1.
Fish, crustaceans, mollusks, and other aquatic organisms: Discharges of
dredge and/or fill material in the stream channels and pond on the site would
alter the food web in these locations by impacting animals, such as invertebrates,
that make up the basis of a food chain. The release of contaminants or an
increase in turbidity has the potential to negatively affect certain aspects of the
food web in/downstream/surrounding these areas. Such releases may also
potentially increase the opportunities for exotic species to colonize disturbed
areas which can cause shifts in the makeup of the food web. However, sediment
and erosion control measures would also be implemented to ensure that
indirect/secondary effects to nearby aquatic organisms would also not be
impacted. Impacts to primary food chain production within the waters of the US
on the project site is expected to be minimal and temporary. The project site is
similar to surrounding landscapes and does not represent a rare landscape or
contain any unique landscape elements in general. As such, the activities in on-
site waters are not expected to have more than a minimal/temporary effect on
aquatic wildlife as there is available and similar habitat surrounding the project
area for species to migrate and maintain primary food chain production.
Other wildlife: The discharge of dredge and/or fill material has the potential to
negatively affect breeding and nesting areas, escape cover, travel corridors, and
preferred food sources for resident and migrant wildlife species in the immediate
vicinity of the impact areas. There is very minimal vegetation remaining in the
vicinity of the impacts, only a narrow riparian corridor. Vegetation and trees
would be removed which would eliminate existing and future habitat for terrestrial
and avian species in the area. The avoidance of the FEMA floodplain and those

CE SAW -RG -C (File Number, SAW 2018-00053)
areas protected by regulatory constraints preserves forested and vegetated
habitat around the site. As such, the activity is not expected to have more than a
minimal/temporary effect on wildlife as there is available and similar habitat
surrounding the project area for species to migrate.
6.4.2 Potential impacts on special aquatic sites (Subpart E 40 CFR 230.40). See
Table 16:
The project proposes no impacts to wetlands.
Table 16. Potential Imaacts to saecial aauatic sites
Discussion:
Wetlands: The project proposes no impacts to wetlands.
6.4.3 Potential impacts on human use characteristics (Subpart F 40 CFR 230.50).
See Table 17:
Table 17. Potential Imaacts on Human Use Characteristics
Minor
Minor
Minor
No
Negligible
Effect
Effect
Effect
Special Aquatic Sites N/A
Effect
Effect
(Short
(Long
Major Effect
Major Effect
Term)
Term)
Effect
Sanctuaries and refuges x
(Short
(Long
Wetlands X
Term)
Term)
Municipal and private
Mud flats X
Vegetated shallows X
X
Coral reefs x
Recreational and
Discussion:
Wetlands: The project proposes no impacts to wetlands.
6.4.3 Potential impacts on human use characteristics (Subpart F 40 CFR 230.50).
See Table 17:
Table 17. Potential Imaacts on Human Use Characteristics
Minor
Minor
Human Use
No
Negligible
Effect
Effect
N/A
Major Effect
Characteristics
Effect
Effect
(Short
(Long
Term)
Term)
Municipal and private
water supplies
X
Recreational and
commercial fisheries
X
Water -related recreation
x
Aesthetics
x
Parks, national and
historical monuments,
national seashores,
X
wilderness areas,

CE SAW -RG -C (File Number, SAW 2018-00053)
Discussion:
Municipal and private water supplies: Municipal water serves the project site
and the surrounding area, which is the primary source of drinking water and other
water needs in the area. No effects to municipal water supplies are anticipated.
Recreational and commercial fisheries: The on-site stream channels are not
part of or in close proximity to any recreation or commercial fishery. Therefore,
the project would not affect these resources/uses.
Water -related recreation: Activities taking place at the proposed project site
would not increase or decrease waterborne recreation on, or in, the vicinity of the
project. The stream channels or pond that would be impacted by the project are
not used for water related recreation. Therefore, the project would not affect
these resources/uses.
Aesthetics: The project area is in a rural residential and rural agricultural area.
However, the existing land use in the vicinity of the proposed impacts are for
landfill uses. Moreover, the landfill is required to have a 300 -foot setback buffer
from the property boundary, thus increasing the visual distance from the impact
areas to the landfill boundary. Therefore, the aesthetics of the area would not be
affected.
6.5 Pre -testing evaluation (Subpart G, 40 CFR 230.60):
The following has been considered in evaluating the biological availability of
possible contaminants in dredged or fill material. See Table 18:
Table 18. Possible Contaminants in Dredged/Fill Material
Physical characteristics
Hydrography in relation to known or anticipated sources of contaminants
Minor
Minor
Known, significant sources of persistent pesticides from land runoff or percolation
Human Use
Spill records for petroleum products or designated (Section 331 of CWA) hazardous
substances
No
Negligible
Effect
Effect
N/A
Major Effect
Characteristics
Effect
Effect
(Short
(Long
Term)
Term)
research sites, and
similar preserves
Discussion:
Municipal and private water supplies: Municipal water serves the project site
and the surrounding area, which is the primary source of drinking water and other
water needs in the area. No effects to municipal water supplies are anticipated.
Recreational and commercial fisheries: The on-site stream channels are not
part of or in close proximity to any recreation or commercial fishery. Therefore,
the project would not affect these resources/uses.
Water -related recreation: Activities taking place at the proposed project site
would not increase or decrease waterborne recreation on, or in, the vicinity of the
project. The stream channels or pond that would be impacted by the project are
not used for water related recreation. Therefore, the project would not affect
these resources/uses.
Aesthetics: The project area is in a rural residential and rural agricultural area.
However, the existing land use in the vicinity of the proposed impacts are for
landfill uses. Moreover, the landfill is required to have a 300 -foot setback buffer
from the property boundary, thus increasing the visual distance from the impact
areas to the landfill boundary. Therefore, the aesthetics of the area would not be
affected.
6.5 Pre -testing evaluation (Subpart G, 40 CFR 230.60):
The following has been considered in evaluating the biological availability of
possible contaminants in dredged or fill material. See Table 18:
Table 18. Possible Contaminants in Dredged/Fill Material
Physical characteristics
Hydrography in relation to known or anticipated sources of contaminants
Results from previous testing of the material or similar material in the vicinity of the
project
Known, significant sources of persistent pesticides from land runoff or percolation
Spill records for petroleum products or designated (Section 331 of CWA) hazardous
substances

CE SAW -RG -C (File Number, SAW 2018-00053)
Other public records or significant introduction of contaminants from industries,
x
municipalities, or other sources
x
Known existence of substantial material deposits of substances which could be released
x
in harmful quantities to the aquatic environment by man -induced discharge activities
x
Discussion:
It has been determined that testing is not required because the proposed
material is not likely to be a carrier of contaminants because it is comprised of
sand, gravel or other naturally occurring inert material.
6.6 Evaluation and testing (Subpart G, 40 CFR 230-61):
Discussion: N/A
6.7 Actions to minimize adverse impacts (Subpart H). The following actions, as
appropriate, have been taken through application of 40 CFR 230.70-230.77 to
ensure minimal adverse effects of the proposed discharge. See Table 19:
Table 19. Actions to Ensure Adverse Effects are Minimized
Actions concerning the location of the discharge
x
Actions concerning the material to be discharged
x
Actions controlling the material after discharge
x
Actions affecting the method of dispersion
x
Actions affecting plant and animal populations
x
Actions affecting human use
x
Discussion:
Actions concerning the location of the discharges: The discharge of fill
material has been designed to minimize or prevent the creation of standing
bodies of water and provide for normal flow of water, the extent of any plume,
and the disruption of periodic water inundation patterns. The material to be
discharged is a perforated PVC pipe and gravel #57 stone material.
Actions concerning the material to be discharged: The fill material would
consist of perforated PVC pipe and gravel #57 stone material. The fill material
would be free of toxic pollutants in toxic amounts. The pipe and gravel material
would act like a French drain for any water flow and/or drainage of groundwater
of that under the impermeable geosynthetic underliner.
Actions controlling the material after discharge: The fill material would be
stabilized after discharge to prevent erosion and downstream migration but the
multiple layers needed to build the base of the waste disposal unit.

CE SAW -RG -C (File Number, SAW 2018-00053)
Actions affecting the method of dispersion: Compaction of the layers needed
to build the waste disposal base would aid in minimizing the potential of the fill
material to disperse. Sediment fencing and dewatering structures would aid in
minimizing the potential of the fill material to disperse during construction.
Actions affecting plant and animal populations: Fill material would be placed
in disposal sites that would contain no flow or be dewatered prior to the
placement of fill and aquatic life movement would be negligible. The activities in
waters of the U.S. are not expected to create habitat conducive to the
development of undesirable predators or species which have a competitive edge
ecologically over indigenous plants or animals. The landscape of the proposed
activities are similar to the surrounding landscapes and does not represent a rare
landscape or contain any unique landscape elements in general; thus, the
surrounding area is representative of similar plant and animal populations on the
project site and the activities in waters of the U.S. would have minimal effects to
plant and animal populations relative to their presence in the surrounding area.
Actions affecting human use: The proposed project site is located outside of
public and private water intakes. Procedures for discharging fill material would
minimize the disturbance of aesthetic features of the aquatic resources onsite.
The activities in waters of the U.S. are internal to the project site and are
generally not visible, accessible, or considered aesthetically pleasing to humans.
6.8 Factual Determinations (Subpart B, 40 CFR 230.11). The following
determinations are made based on the applicable information above, including
actions to minimize effects and consideration for contaminants. See Table 20:
Table 20. Factual Determinations of Potential Impacts
Minor
Minor
No
Negligible
Effect
Effect
Site
N/A
Effect
Effect
(Short
(Long
Major Effect
Term)
Term)
Physical substrate
x
Water circulation,
fluctuation and salinity
x
Suspended
particulates/turbidity
x
Contaminants
x
Aquatic ecosystem and
organisms
X
Proposed disposal site
x
Cumulative effects on the
aquatic ecosystem
x

CE SAW -RG -C (File Number, SAW 2018-00053)
Discussion:
Physical substrate: A French drain -like feature, the perforated PVC pipe and
gravel fill material, will be discharge to waters of the US for all impacts
associated with the proposed activities. The substrate in this area would be
buried and aquatic functions eliminated. All work would be conducted in the dry.
The substrate in these areas would be buried and aquatic functions eliminated.
The discharge would consist of perforated PVC pipe and gravel #57 stone
material. The fill material would also be free of toxic pollutants in toxic amounts.
Proper sediment and erosion control measures would be installed prior to and
during construction to ensure that the substrate of all remaining waters on the
property would not be change or affected.
Water circulation, fluctuation, and salinity: The proposed discharged dredge
and fill material is not expected to modify current downstream water circulation
patterns by obstructing flow, changing direction or velocity of water, or changing
velocity or flow and circulation. This project is not anticipated to have more than a
minimal effect on the downstream hydrologic regimes associated with naturally
occurring hydro -period fluctuations. On-site storm water management facilities
would ensure that downstream hydro periods are not altered beyond minimal
levels. Because this project is located inland and away from tidally influenced
waters and wetlands, no modification to the salinity of on-site or adjacent waters
is expected.
Suspended particulates/turbidity: During construction activities on the site,
there may be a minimal increase in suspended particulates that may lead to
increased turbidity downstream. However, the increase would be minimal and
temporary due to the installation and maintenance of proper sediment and
erosion control measures before and during landfill operation.
Contaminants: The proposed discharge of dredge and fill material should not
cause increased chemical contamination levels within the aquatic ecosystem.
Specifically, changes in clarity, color, odor, and taste of water in addition to
possible chemical contamination would be minimal. All discharges of dredge and
fill material would be controlled with a sediment and erosion control plan. An
existing monitoring is in place per the coverage of the NPDES General Permit
Number NCG120000 for Landfills.
Minor
Minor
Site
N/A
No
Negligible
Effect
Effect
Major Effect
Effect
Effect
(Short
(Long
Term)
Term)
Secondary effects on the
aquatic ecosystem
X
Discussion:
Physical substrate: A French drain -like feature, the perforated PVC pipe and
gravel fill material, will be discharge to waters of the US for all impacts
associated with the proposed activities. The substrate in this area would be
buried and aquatic functions eliminated. All work would be conducted in the dry.
The substrate in these areas would be buried and aquatic functions eliminated.
The discharge would consist of perforated PVC pipe and gravel #57 stone
material. The fill material would also be free of toxic pollutants in toxic amounts.
Proper sediment and erosion control measures would be installed prior to and
during construction to ensure that the substrate of all remaining waters on the
property would not be change or affected.
Water circulation, fluctuation, and salinity: The proposed discharged dredge
and fill material is not expected to modify current downstream water circulation
patterns by obstructing flow, changing direction or velocity of water, or changing
velocity or flow and circulation. This project is not anticipated to have more than a
minimal effect on the downstream hydrologic regimes associated with naturally
occurring hydro -period fluctuations. On-site storm water management facilities
would ensure that downstream hydro periods are not altered beyond minimal
levels. Because this project is located inland and away from tidally influenced
waters and wetlands, no modification to the salinity of on-site or adjacent waters
is expected.
Suspended particulates/turbidity: During construction activities on the site,
there may be a minimal increase in suspended particulates that may lead to
increased turbidity downstream. However, the increase would be minimal and
temporary due to the installation and maintenance of proper sediment and
erosion control measures before and during landfill operation.
Contaminants: The proposed discharge of dredge and fill material should not
cause increased chemical contamination levels within the aquatic ecosystem.
Specifically, changes in clarity, color, odor, and taste of water in addition to
possible chemical contamination would be minimal. All discharges of dredge and
fill material would be controlled with a sediment and erosion control plan. An
existing monitoring is in place per the coverage of the NPDES General Permit
Number NCG120000 for Landfills.

CE SAW -RG -C (File Number, SAW 2018-00053)
Proposed disposal sites: The discharges for the impacts associated with the
construction of Unit III would be controlled and confined to fill areas and
constructed in the dry to the maximum extent possible. All fill placed would be
contained using sediment and erosion control measures. Some minor and short
term suspended sediment plumes and related turbidity in adjacent waters may
occur due to sediment movement as a result of the construction during heavy
rainfall events.
Cumulative effects on the aquatic ecosystem: See Section 9.0.
Secondary effects on the aquatic ecosystem: See Section 9.0.
6.9 Findings of compliance or non-compliance with the restrictions on
discharges (40 CFR 230.10(a -d) and 230.12). Based on the information above,
including the factual determinations, the proposed discharge has been evaluated
to determine whether any of the restrictions on discharge would occur. See
Table 21:
Table 21. Compliance with Restrictions on Discharge
Subject
Yes
No
1. Is there a practicable alternative to the proposed discharge that would be less
x
damaging to the environment (any alternative with less aquatic resource effects,
or an alternative with more aquatic resource effects that avoids other significant
adverse environmental consequences?)
2. Will the discharge cause or contribute to violations of any applicable water
quality standards?
x
3. Will the discharge violate any toxic effluent standards (under Section 307 of the
Act)?
x
4. Will the discharge jeopardize the continued existence of endangered or
threatened species or their critical habitat?
x
5. Will the discharge violate standards set by the Department of Commerce to
protect marine sanctuaries?
x
6. Will the discharge cause or contribute to significant degradation of waters of the
U.S.?
x
7. Have all appropriate and practicable steps (Subpart H, 40 CFR 230.70) been
taken to minimize the potential adverse impacts of the discharge on the aquatic
x
ecosystem?
Discussion:
1) See Section 5.
2) A 401 Water Quality Certification will be submitted concurrently with this
application; moreover, the landfill is currently covered under NPDES General
Permit Number NCG120000 for Landfills (Certificate of Coverage No.
NCG120012 effective 11/1/2018, expires 10/31/2021, Appendix A).

CE SAW -RG -C (File Number, SAW 2018-00053)
3) A 401 Water Quality Certification will be submitted concurrently with this
application; moreover, the landfill is currently covered under NPDES General
Permit Number NCG120000 for Landfills (Certificate of Coverage No.
NCG120012 effective 11/1/2018, expires 10/31/2021, Appendix A).
4) See Section 10.1.
5) The project area is not within a marine sanctuary.
6) See Sections 6 and 8.
7) Section 1.3.1.
7.0 General Public Interest Review (33 CFR 320.4 and RGL 84-09)
The decision whether to issue a permit will be based on an evaluation of the
probable impacts, including cumulative impacts, of the proposed activity and its
intended use on the public interest as stated at 33 CFR 320.4(a). To the extent
appropriate, the public interest review below also includes consideration of
additional policies as described in 33 CFR 320.4(b) through (r). The benefits
which reasonably may be expected to accrue from the proposal are balanced
against its reasonably foreseeable detriments.
7.1 All public interest factors have been reviewed and those that are relevant to
the proposal are considered and discussed in additional detail. See Table
22 and any discussion that follows.
Table 22. Public Interest Factors
Effects
m
Factors
y
c
U
Ta (D
.0
o
z
E
`
Q
a
z
m
z
m
m
Q
C
z
1. Conservation: See below for discussion.
X
2. Economics: See below for discussion.
X
3. Aesthetics: See below for discussion.
X
4. General Environmental Concerns: See below for discussion.
X
5. Wetlands: See below for discussion.
X
6. Historic Properties: See Section 10.3
X
7. Fish and Wildlife Values: See below for discussion.
X
8. Flood Hazards: See below for discussion.
X
9. Floodplain Values: See below for discussion.
X

CE SAW -RG -C (File Number, SAW 2018-00053)
Additional discussion of effects on factors above:
Conservation: The proposed project would avoid disturbance in the FEMA 100 -
year floodplains per the restriction
Economics: The project would provide an overall benefit to the local community
by providing a local waste disposal area for Gaston County. According to the
applicant, the revenue source of selling natural gas to Duke Energy for eventual
commercial consumption is also an economic benefit made possible by the
existing infrastructure on the landfill.
Aesthetics: The project area is in a rural residential and rural agricultural area.
However, the existing land use in the vicinity of the proposed impacts are for
landfill uses. Moreover, the landfill is required to have a 300 -foot setback buffer
Effects
a�
Factors
(D
M
_
d
o
z
wm
m IM
=
IM
c
Q
a
Q
Z
as
z
as
m
o
c
z
10. Land Use: See below for discussion.
x
11. Navigation: The project area does not contain navigable
waters and the proposed project is not expected to indirectly or
directly affect navigation.
x
12. Shoreline Erosion and Accretion: The project area does not
contain shoreline.
x
13. Recreation: The project area is not recreation in nature and is
not expected to affect current recreational activities as the project
x
area is privately held land.
14. Water Supply and Conservation: See below for discussion.
x
15. Water Quality: See below for discussion.
x
16. Energy Needs: See below for discussion.
x
17. Safety: See below for discussion.
x
18. Food and Fiber Production: See below for discussion.
x
19. Mineral Needs: See below for discussion.
x
20. Consideration of Property Ownership: See below for
discussion.
x
21. Needs and Welfare of the People: See below for discussion.
x
Additional discussion of effects on factors above:
Conservation: The proposed project would avoid disturbance in the FEMA 100 -
year floodplains per the restriction
Economics: The project would provide an overall benefit to the local community
by providing a local waste disposal area for Gaston County. According to the
applicant, the revenue source of selling natural gas to Duke Energy for eventual
commercial consumption is also an economic benefit made possible by the
existing infrastructure on the landfill.
Aesthetics: The project area is in a rural residential and rural agricultural area.
However, the existing land use in the vicinity of the proposed impacts are for
landfill uses. Moreover, the landfill is required to have a 300 -foot setback buffer

CE SAW -RG -C (File Number, SAW 2018-00053)
from the property boundary, thus increasing the visual distance from the impact
areas to the landfill boundary. Therefore, the aesthetics of the area would not be
affected due to existing landfill uses.
General Environmental Concerns: All applicable federal, state, and local laws
and regulations would be observed, and construction would not commence
before applicable permit approvals. The proposed project would occur within the
realm of those constraints, which are put in place to make sure minimal effects
occur. Additionally, mitigation for stream impacts ensures a no net loss of aquatic
resources. A Stormwater Pollution Prevention Plan under the General Permit
NCG120000 for Landfills (Certificate of Coverage No. NCG120012 effective
11/1/2018, expires 10/31/2021) would also ensure that the proposed project
would not negatively affect remaining on-site and downstream streams and
wetlands.
Wetlands: The wetlands found on the project site are typical for the
physiographic region. Sediment and erosion control measures would be
implemented to ensure that the proposed activities do not negatively inundate
on-site, downstream, wetlands per the NPDES General Permit NCG120000 for
Landfills. There are no impacts to wetlands proposed.
Fish and Wildlife Values: The terrestrial and aquatic species found on the
project site are typical for the physiographic region. In order to construct the
proposed facility, the existing vegetation in this area is minimal and would be
removed with typical mechanized land clearing equipment. This vegetation in the
form of a narrow wooded buffer along Stream 1 that provides minor habitat for
small mammals, reptiles, birds, insects, etc. A majority of these species can and
would probably relocate to surrounding/adjacent habitats once construction
activities begin on the site.
Flood Hazards: Due to the relatively small size of the watershed of the Unit III
impact areas (i.e. all headwater catchment areas), the proposed activities within
the project boundary are not expected to increase or decrease the natural rate of
flooding at the site or downstream. Therefore, no effects are anticipated.
Floodplain Values: There is a mapped floodplain and floodway on the South
Fork Catawba River flowing along the southwest property border and along
Hoyle Creek flowing along the northeast property border. However, all site
development would take place outside of the designated 100 -year floodplain and
floodway. Therefore, no effects are anticipated.

CE SAW -RG -C (File Number, SAW 2018-00053)
Land Use: The proposed project would be in compliance with local zoning
regulations and ordinances as it is an existing land use. No change to land use
is necessary. Therefore, no effect is anticipated.
Water Supply and Conservation: Municipal water is available to the landfill and
the surrounding area. While the proposed activities may need to utilize existing
water sources, it is not expected to affect the availability of water in this area. If
private water supply wells are located in the surrounding area, the project is not
expected to increase or decrease due to activities at the proposed project site.
Water Quality: The proposed discharge of dredge and fill material should not
cause increased chemical contamination levels within the aquatic ecosystem.
Specifically, changes in clarity, color, odor, and taste of water in addition to
possible chemical contamination would be minimized by the applicant's storm
water management and sediment and erosion control plan. The proposed fill
material would consist of clean fill material as perforated PVC pipe and #57 stone
gravel material.
Energy Needs: There is existing electric infrastructure providing energy needs to
the landfill and additional needs are not necessary. Therefore, no impacts to
energy needs in the area are anticipated.
Safety: The proposed project would be designed and operated in accordance
with federal, state, local laws and regulations that address issues of public safety.
Therefore, the proposed activity is not expected to affect public safety.
Food and Fiber Production: The project site is currently a mix of forested and
landfill uses. Development of the proposed activities would result in the
conversion of Unit III from minimally forested land to landfill uses. There are
extensive agricultural lands available in Gaston County. Therefore, the Corps
believe the project would have a negligible on food and fiber production.
Mineral Needs: There are no mineral needs associated with this project.
Consideration of property ownership: The properties within the project
boundary are 100% owned by the applicant at the time of this submission. No
effects to property ownership are anticipated.
Needs and Welfare of the Public: The proposed project would positively
address the needs and welfare of the public by providing a waste management
disposal service local to Gaston County.

CE SAW -RG -C (File Number, SAW 2018-00053)
7.1.1 Climate Change. The proposed activities within the Corps federal control and
responsibility likely will result in a negligible release of greenhouse gases into the
atmosphere when compared to global greenhouse gas emissions. Greenhouse
gas emissions have been shown to contribute to climate change. Aquatic
resources can be sources and/or sinks of greenhouse gases. For instance,
some aquatic resources sequester carbon dioxide whereas others release
methane; therefore, authorized impacts to aquatic resources can result in either
an increase or decrease in atmospheric greenhouse gas. These impacts are
considered de minimis (lf Compensatory Mitigation is Required ADD "and are
negated through compensatory mitigation" otherwise delete]. Greenhouse gas
emissions associated with the Corps' federal action may also occur from the
combustion of fossil fuels associated with the operation of construction
equipment, increases in traffic, etc. The Corps has no authority to regulate
emissions that result from the combustion of fossil fuels. These are subject to
federal regulations under the Clean Air Act and/or the Corporate Average Fuel
Economy (CAFE) Program. Greenhouse gas emissions from the Corps action
have been weighed against national goals of energy independence, national
security, and economic development and determined not contrary to the public
interest. (ADD, if determined appropriate, otherwise delete: The applicant
voluntarily provided the Corps with an analysis of greenhouse gas emissions that
they produced for other local, state, and/or federal requirements, entitled
[INSERT NAME], dated [Insert DATE]. The portions of that document pertaining
to the actions within the Corps federal control and responsibility are incorporated
by reference.
7.2 The relative extent of the public and private need for the proposed
structure or work:
The proposed project serves the need of the applicant to provide Gaston County
local waste disposal services.
7.3 If there are unresolved conflicts as to resource use, explain how the
practicability of using reasonable alternative locations and methods to
accomplish the objective of the proposed structure or work was
considered.
Discussion: There are no unresolved conflicts identified as to resource use.
7.4 The extent and permanence of the beneficial and/or detrimental effects that
the proposed work is likely to have on the public and private use to which
the area is suited:
Detrimental effects are expected to be minimal and temporary.

CE SAW -RG -C (File Number, SAW 2018-00053)
Beneficial effects are expected to be minimal and temporary.
Based on the analysis above there would be minimal/negligible detrimental
effects to aquatic/other biological/terrestrial resources on the site when compared
to the beneficial effects on the human uses/characteristics and public interest.
8.0 Mitigation(33 CFR 320.4(r), 33 CFR Part 332, 40 CFR 230.70-77, 40 CFR
1508.20 and 40 CFR 1502.14)
8.1 Avoidance and Minimization: When evaluating a proposal including regulated
activities in waters of the United States, consideration must be given to avoiding
and minimizing effects to those waters. Avoidance and minimization measures
are described above in Sections 1 and 3.
Were any other mitigative actions including project modifications discussed with
the applicant implemented to minimize adverse project impacts? (see 33 CFR
320.4(r)(1)(i)) Yes
The applicant engaged its environmental consultants to provide the expertise of
determining if consultation for threatened and endangered species surveys
pursuant to Section 7(a)(2) of the Endangered Species Act and consultation for
cultural resources survey pursuant to Section 6 of the National Historic
Preservation Act were necessary. Additionally, during this process it was noted
that potential unauthorized activities were made to create Pond 1 by the
impoundment of Stream 1.
8.2 Is compensatory mitigation required to offset environmental losses
resulting from proposed unavoidable impacts to waters of the United
States? Yes
Provide rationale: As there is over 300 linear feet of stream channel proposed for
impacts, compensatory mitigation is required to offset the unavoidable impacts to
waters of the U.S. Additionally, this application is an After -the -Fact application
for unauthorized impacts associated with the impoundment of Stream 1 to create
Pond 1. The impacts associated with the After -the -Fact permit will also be
mitigated through this application.
8.3 Type and location of compensatory mitigation
8.3.1 Is the impact in the service area of an approved mitigation bank? No
If yes, does the mitigation bank have appropriate number and resource type of
credits available? N/A

CE SAW -RG -C (File Number, SAW 2018-00053)
8.3.2 Is the impact in the service area of an approved in -lieu fee program? Yes
If yes, does the in -lieu fee program have the appropriate number and resource
type of credits available? Yes
8.3.3 Selected compensatory mitigation type/location(s). See Table 23:
ame zs. mitigation i ype ana Location
Mitigation bank credits
In -lieu fee program credits x
Permittee -responsible mitigation under a watershed approach
Permittee -responsible mitigation, on-site and in-kind
Permittee -responsible mitigation, off-site and/or out of kind
8.3.4 Does the selected compensatory mitigation option deviate from the order of the
options presented in §332.3(b)(2)-(6)? No
If yes, provide rationale for the deviation, including the likelihood for ecological
success and sustainability, location of the compensation site relative to the
impact site and their significance within the watershed, and/or the costs of the
compensatory mitigation project (see 33 CFR §332.3(a)(1)): N/A
8.4 Amount of compensatory mitigation:
Compensatory mitigation discussed below would cover the impacts proposed in
this application to construct Unit III, but also cover the unauthorized impacts for
the After -the -Fact component of this application. The North Carolina Stream
Assessment Methodology (NCSAM) was utilized to determine functional scores
for features that would be impacted. These functional scores were then assigned
ratios that would determine amount of mitigation required. A mitigation
memorandum detailing the NCSAM methods and rationale is provided in
Appendix C.
The following mitigation ratios are proposed:
• 0.5:1 for Open Water (Wetland Credits)
• 2:1 for High Quality Wetlands (Wetland Credits)
• 1.75:1 for Medium Quality Wetlands (Wetland Credits)
• 1.5:1 for Low Quality Wetlands (Wetland Credits)
• 2:1 for High Quality Tributaries (Stream Credits)
• 1.75:1 for Medium Quality Tributaries (Stream Credits)
• 1.5:1 for Low Quality Tributaries (Stream Credits)
0 2:1 for all unauthorized impacts

CE SAW -RG -C (File Number, SAW 2018-00053)
Rationale for required compensatory mitigation amount: The current project
impacts are beyond any threshold that would be considered individually minimal.
See Figure 16 and Table 24 for a summary of the proposed mitigation.
x .x x x x x xn �r<Tra •ovn++�. x
Feature
f+ LEGEND
Ratio
Amount of
I� IMPACTS
�I All Butters + Setbacks 1
//j f�
K x y x x% %{bN NCI
Constraints Proposed Stream Impacts
� rid
N
SITE RESOURCES 0 Proposed Pond Impacts
e
X Y N x x rr nnin.anv oil
- - - Seasonal RPW Unauthorized Impacts for
P
�xxxx xxx..o^T«.iaP.am
848 If
- Perennial RPW Culvert Installation
r
x x x'
x x }'°� �n��•�i
Unauthorized Impacts for
Pone Impoundment
1
1
"�x�3oo�
-
Impact #1
Seasonal RPW 1848
Nktlands'
If of impact (fill}
f
1.5:1 ratio (stream credits)x
�ILIDkS3Ci
Stream 1
Impact 3
Seasonal RPW
Perennial RPW i
280 If of impact (fill)
- 1.5:1 ratio (stream credits).
1.5:1
i'r
:�
x .x x x x x xn �r<Tra •ovn++�. x
Feature
NCSAM
Ratio
Amount of
x wni ne.leo
o
K x y x x% %{bN NCI
PI
x x x x x x
N
x\ x x X} Crnronni avr�i�
e
X Y N x x rr nnin.anv oil
rx5 K
P
�xxxx xxx..o^T«.iaP.am
848 If
r x x g imrmm
x x x'
x x }'°� �n��•�i
o x
xx x x
Impact #1
Seasonal RPW 1848
L
If of impact (fill}
x
1.5:1 ratio (stream credits)x
Impact #3
* Seasonal RPW 2
17 If of impact (fill)
1.5:1 ratio [stream credits]
., �;+,I,'• i' Unauthorized Impact
Perennial RPW 1
dim`?' 303.25 LF of impact
(unauthorized culvert
2.1 ratio (stream creel
PC' I T /
Figure 16. Proposed impacts and unauthorized impacts
Table 24. Proposed mitiqation ratios.
1987 LANDFILL PERMIT
APPROVAL
®Closed - Cmstructlon &
Demolition Waste Limits
®Closed - Municipal Solid
Waste limits
1997 LANDFILL PERMIT
EXPANSION APPROVAL
Active Construction &
Demolition Mste Limits
Proposed Final Municipal
Solid Waste Limits
r r Ad ive Municipal Svtid
Waste Limits
Inactive Municipal Solid
Waste Limits
Impact #
Feature
NCSAM
Ratio
Amount of
Credits
Score
Impact
Proposed
Impact 1
Seasonal RPW
Low
1.5:1
848 If
1,272
Stream 1
Impact 2
Perennial RPW
Low
1.5:1
280 If
420
Stream 1
Impact 3
Seasonal RPW
Low
1.5:1
17 If
25.5
Stream 2
Impact 4
Pond 1
n/a
0.5:1
0.40 ac.
0.25
Unauthorized
Perennial RPW
n/a
2:1
736.5
1,473
Impacts
Stream 1
Proposed Stream Impacts/Stream Credits:
1,145 If
1,717.5
Proposed Pond Impacts/ Wetland Credits:
0.40 ac
0.25
Unauthorized Stream Impacts/Stream Credits:
736.5 If
1,473
Credit Totals:
3,190.5 stream credits
0.25 ac wetland credits

CE SAW -RG -C (File Number, SAW 2018-00053)
8.5 For permittee responsible mitigation identified in 9.3.3 above, the final mitigation
plan must include the items described in 33 CFR 332.4(c)(2) through (c)(14) at a
level of detail commensurate with the scale and scope of the impacts. As an
alternative, the district engineer may determine that it would be more appropriate
to address any of the items described in (c)(2) through (c)(14) as permit
conditions, instead of components of a compensatory mitigation plan. Presence
of sufficient information related to each of these requirements in the applicant's
mitigation plan is indicated by "Yes" in Table 11. "No" indicates absence or
insufficient information in the plan, in which case, additional rationale must be
provided below on how these requirements will be addressed through special
conditions or why a special condition is not required:
Table 25. Perm itee-Responsible Mitigation Plan Requirements
Requirement Yes No
Objectives
Site selection
Site protection instrument
Baseline information
Determination of credits
Mitigation work plan
Maintenance plan
Performance standards
Monitoring requirements
Long-term management plan
Adaptive management plan
Financial assurances
Other
For any "No", provide rationale on how the subject component(s) of the
compentatory mitigation plan will be addressed as special conditions or why no
special conditions are required: Provide discussion here
9.0 Consideration of Cumulative Impacts
(40 CFR 230.11(g) and 40 CFR 1508.7, RGL 84-9) Cumulative impact is the
impact on the environment which results from the incremental impact of the
action when added to other past, present, and reasonably foreseeable future
actions regardless of what agency (Federal or non -Federal) or person
undertakes such other actions. Cumulative impacts can result from individually
minor direct and indirect but collectively significant actions taking place over a
period of time. A cumulative effects assessment should consider how the direct
and indirect environmental effects caused by the proposed activity requiring DA
authorization (i.e., the incremental impact of the action) contribute to cumulative
effects, and whether that incremental contribution is significant or not. .

CE SAW -RG -C (File Number, SAW 2018-00053)
9.1 Identify/describe the direct and indirect effects caused by the proposed
activity:
The direct effects of the proposed activity in waters would include the loss of
jurisdictional waters (as specified in Section 1.3) and their associated aquatic
resource functions. The proposed activities also have the potential to result in
indirect effects to waters including excess sedimentation in downstream waters,
disruption and/or killing of aquatic life in the direct vicinity of the project area, and
a potential increase in downstream flows. These indirect effects are expected to
be minimal due to the applicant's proposed avoidance, minimization, and
mitigation measures. Additionally, indirect effects would be further reduced
through the implementation of best management practices required by state,
local, and federal ordinances and regulations.
9.2 The geographic scope for the cumulative effects assessment is:
The geographic area for this assessment is the South Fork Catawba sub -basin
which is part of the Santee (Catawba) River Basin (Figure 17). This watershed
contains the proposed project activities and the areas that would potentially be
affected by the proposed project. The general South Fork Catawba sub -basin
watershed characteristics and land uses are summarized in Table 26.

CE SAW -RG -C (File Number, SAW 2018-00053)
I . r
EGerro
- Gaston County Landfill
8 -Digit Hydrologic Unit
u Coda (03050102)
0 Miles a
1—h = 8 mans
as
r
.a
04
R
ftulherlordlon
5gnd4e
Fared Clry
3�
v
0
A
Morganlan
r
v
.a
Shdby
•, Er If ifNJs
Ma nra In
-� &.ktsNlle
i
t
�J
f
Lake Varmar, � �
Ona I
-`f!r,6r,rq
I corndru:
Hurirr[
ey
A# Hally
1 '-
r1dRl�ni'.
tll ia.s �'rvw '
P, ari
04 1 NA
A -OL. r•IA — - - — — -
KmQa
,�✓,••r ,.6 vnt en
•.Ki^• ,ice P."
Figure 17. HUC-8 Sub -Basin Level Watershed - South Fork Catawba River (03050102)
Table 26. HUC-8 (03020102) USGS Streamstats Watershed Characteristics
Parameter Description
Value
Unit
General Characteristics
Mean Basin Elevation
1010
feet
Elevation of the stream outlet in thousands of feet above NAVD88.
564
feet
Mean Annual Precipitation
49
inches
Area that drains to a point on a stream
660
miles2
Minimum basin elevation
481
feet
Maximum basin elevation
2990
feet
Maximum 24-hour precipitation that occurs on average once in 50 years
7.15
inches
Percent of area of protected Federal and State owned land
0.0324
percent
National Land Cover Dataset (NLCD) 1992
Percentage of forest from NLCD 1992 classes 41-43
58.193
percent
Percent of area covered by barren rock using 1992 NLCD
0.302
percent
Percent of area covered by all densities of developed land using 1992 NLCD
11.082
percent
Percent of area in cultivation using 1992 NLCD
29.39
percent
Percent of area covered by water using 1992 NLCD
0.569
percent

CE SAW -RG -C (File Number, SAW 2018-00053)
Parameter Description
Value
Unit
Percent of area covered by wetland using 1992 NLCD
0.455
percent
NLCD 2001
Percentage of forest from NLCD 2001 classes 41-43
47.379
percent
Percentage of area barren land, NLCD 2001 category 31
0.057
percent
Percentage of land -use from NLCD 2001 classes 21-24
18.311
percent
Percent imperviousness of basin area 2001 NLCD
4.53
percent
Percentage of cultivated crops and hay, classes 81 and 82, from NLCD 2001
28.29
percent
Percentage of herbaceous upland from NLCD 2001 class 71
3.6
percent
Percent of area covered by shrubland using 2001 NLCD
1.436
percent
Percentage of open water, class 11, from NLCD 2001
0.42
percent
Percentage of wetlands, classes 90 and 95, from NLCD 2001
0.507
percent
NLCD 2006
Percentage of forest from NLCD 2006 classes 41-43
47.382
percent
Percent of area covered by barren rock using 2006 NLCD
0.127
percent
Percentage of land -use from NLCD 2006 classes 21-24
18.74
percent
Percentage of impervious area determined from NLCD 2006 impervious
dataset
4.71
percent
Percent of area in cultivation using 2006 NLCD
27.013
percent
Percent of area covered by grassland/herbaceous using 2006 NLCD
4.031
percent
Percent of area covered by shrubland using 2006 NLCD
1.365
percent
Percent of open water, class 11, from NLCD 2006
0.801
percent
Percent of area covered by wetland using 2006 NLCD
0.542
percent
NLCD 2011
Percentage of forest from NLCD 2011 classes 41-43
45.935
percent
Percentage of barren from NLCD 2011 class 31
0.088
percent
Percentage of developed (urban) land from NLCD 2011 classes 21-24
19
percent
Average percentage of impervious area determined from NLCD 2011
impervious dataset
4.85
percent
Percentage of cultivated crops and hay, classes 81 and 82, from NLCD 2011
26.748
percent
Percent of area covered by grassland/herbaceous using 2011 NLCD
4.376
percent
Percent of area covered by shrubland using 2011 NLCD
2.485
percent
Percent of open water, class 11, from NLCD 2011
0.796
percent
Percentage of wetlands, classes 90 and 95, from NLCD 2011
0.545
percent
Soils
Percent of area of protected Federal and State owned land
0.0324
percent
Percentage of area of Hydrologic Soil Type A from SSURGO
0.78
percent

CE SAW -RG -C (File Number, SAW 2018-00053)
Parameter Description
Value
Unit
Percentage of area of Hydrologic Soil Type B from SSURGO
89.2
percent
Percentage of area of Hydrologic Soil Type C from SSURGO
7.54
percent
Percentage of area of Hydrologic Soil Type D from SSURGO
0.74
percent
9.3 The temporal scope of this assessment covers:
The temporal scope for this assessment is May 11, 2006 to 2030. The date May
11, 2006 was chosen because no data is available in the Corps ORM2 database
for cumulative impacts prior to that date due to database migration issues.
Information for expected future growth and development in the geographic area
was gathered from an urban growth study that was conducted by The University
of North Carolina at Charlotte for the Charlotte metropolitan area.
9.4 Describe the affected environment:
The U.S. Geological Survey (USGS) National Hydrography Dataset (NHD)
provides digital geospatial datasets to the public that map a network of surface
waters and catchments of the U.S., which provides crude estimates of the type
and quantity of various types of aquatic resources within the watershed (Table
27 and Table 28). The U.S. Fish and Wildlife Service also provide estimates of
the quantity and types of aquatic resources as part of their publically available
National Wetland Inventory (NWI) dataset (Table 29). These estimates are
usually made using remote sensing methods which are known to be inaccurate
and not representative of what would be considered jurisdictional under the
Corps regulatory program (normally underestimated). According to a Ph.D.
Dissertation completed by Thomas P. Colson of North Carolina State University
in 2005, the NHD 1:24,000 dataset only identified 65% of streams mapped in the
field using the North Carolina Division of Water Quality stream identification
methods. 12
12 Colson, T.P. 2006. Steam network delineation from high-resolution digital elevation models. NC State University. Raleigh, NC.
httl)s://repositorV.Iib.ncsu.edu/handle/1840.16/4432

CE SAW -RG -C (File Number, SAW 2018-00053)
Table 27 . USGS NHD Stream Features for South Fork Catawba Sub -Basin
USGS Stream Features
Miles
Blueline Stream
1,540
Perennial
597
Intermittent
744
Ephemeral
0
Other
199
Canals/Ditches
0
Connectors/Artificial Paths
180
Impounded Streams
0
Total
1,720
Table 28 . USGS NHD Water Features for South Fork Catawba Sub -Basin
USGS Features
Acres
Lakes/Ponds
11,777
Reservoirs
118
Swamps/Marshes
14.3
Canals/Ditches
0
Streams/Rivers
0
Table 29. USFWS NWI for South Fork Catawba Sub -Basin
NWI Wetlands
Total (ac.)
Estuarine/Marine Wetland
0
FW -Emergent Wetland
52
FW-Forested/Shrub Wetland
2,500
FW -Pond
1,167
Lacustrine
11,052
Other
0
Riverine
4,356
Total
19,127
Approximately 1,720 miles of streams have been mapped by the U.S. Geological
Survey as part of the National Hydrologic Database (1:24,000 high resolution)
within the South Fork Catawba sub -basin. According to the ORM2 database,
171,930 linear feet (Table 30) were impacted in some manner from May 11,
2006 to July 27, 2017. The authorized linear foot measurements in the ORM2
database accounts for stream impacts both temporary and permanent in nature.
This accounts for a rate of 83 linear foot of impact per day in the South Fork
Catawba sub -basin. The total stream impacts during this time period represents
0.76% of the total streams currently mapped by the USGS within the South Fork
Catawba sub -basin. It is expected that many more linear feet of stream subject to
the Corps regulatory authority are present in the South Fork Catawba sub -basin
due to the inaccuracies in the NHD dataset.
Approximately 19,127 acres of wetlands have been identified as part of the U.S.
Fish and Wildlife National Wetland Inventory within the South Fork Catawba sub -
basin. According to the ORM2 database, 48 acres (Table 30) were impacted in
some manner from May 11, 2006 to July 27, 2017. The authorized fill
measurement in the ORM2 database accounts for the area of filled for wetland

CE SAW -RG -C (File Number, SAW 2018-00053)
and stream, both temporary and permanent in nature. Assuming these were all
wetland impacts, this accounts for a rate of 0.01 acre of wetland impact per day
in the South Fork Catawba sub -basin. The total potential wetland impacts during
this time period represents 0.2% of the total wetlands currently mapped by the
U.S. Fish and Wildlife Service within the South Fork Catawba sub -basin. It is
expected that many more acres of wetlands subject to the Corps regulatory
authority are present in the South Fork Catawba sub -basin due to the
inaccuracies in the NWI dataset.
Table 30. HUC-8 (03050102) Cumulative Corns Permit Impacts 5/11/2007 to X/XX/XXXX
There is not a publicly available detailed analysis of the development of Gaston
County. However, the landfill is located in the north -central part of Gaston
County, which is adjacent to Mecklenburg County. Therefore, the development of
Mecklenburg County and surrounding area is an appropriate surrogate when
looking at the likely development trends in this part of Gaston County. Figure 20
to Figure 22 show the relative rate of development that has occurred in this area
since 1985. Mecklenburg County's population increased 117 percent between
1976 and 2006 according to an analysis on urban growth conducted in 2008 by
the Urban Institute at the University of North Carolina at Charlotte. Mecklenburg
County began to rapidly develop in the mid-1980s and has steadily increased to
present day (Figure 18 to Figure 20). This growth slowed for a period during an
economic recession that generally began in 2007 and ended in 2011. The rate of
growth in Mecklenburg County between 2015 and 2016 was 1.9% according to a
U.S. Census Bureau report released on May 25, 2017. This rapid development of
Mecklenburg has spilled over into adjacent communities such as Gaston County
and is forecasted to continue into the foreseeable future (Figure 21 and Figure
22).
Acres
Action
Total #
Auth Fill
Mit Rqd
Mit Rqd
Perm
Auth LF
Type
Issued
Acres
Acres
LF
Loss
NWP
RGP
SP
There is not a publicly available detailed analysis of the development of Gaston
County. However, the landfill is located in the north -central part of Gaston
County, which is adjacent to Mecklenburg County. Therefore, the development of
Mecklenburg County and surrounding area is an appropriate surrogate when
looking at the likely development trends in this part of Gaston County. Figure 20
to Figure 22 show the relative rate of development that has occurred in this area
since 1985. Mecklenburg County's population increased 117 percent between
1976 and 2006 according to an analysis on urban growth conducted in 2008 by
the Urban Institute at the University of North Carolina at Charlotte. Mecklenburg
County began to rapidly develop in the mid-1980s and has steadily increased to
present day (Figure 18 to Figure 20). This growth slowed for a period during an
economic recession that generally began in 2007 and ended in 2011. The rate of
growth in Mecklenburg County between 2015 and 2016 was 1.9% according to a
U.S. Census Bureau report released on May 25, 2017. This rapid development of
Mecklenburg has spilled over into adjacent communities such as Gaston County
and is forecasted to continue into the foreseeable future (Figure 21 and Figure
22).

CE SAW -RG -C (File Number, SAW 2018-00053)
Figure 18. Mecklenburg County Developed Area 1985 - UNCC Landsat Study
Figure 19. Mecklenburg County Developed Area 1996 - UNCC Landsat Study

CE SAW -RG -C (File Number, SAW 2018-00053)
r-igure,du. ivieMenourg Lounty ueveiopea Area zuuo - urvLA, Lanosat ztuay
2030
3%
9l%
a ► `r Developed
■ Natural/Rural
■ Water
Conversion Rate: 9 acres per day
Footprint: 0.22 acres per person
Figure 21. Mecklenburg County Projected Developed Area 1985 — UNCC Urban Growth
Model

CE SAW -RG -C (File Number, SAW 2018-00053)
Figure 22. Project Growth Area - UNCC Urban Growth Model
9.5 Determine the environmental consequences:
Natural resource issues of particular concern (from Corps and non -Corps
activities) in the South Fork Catawba sub basin include decreases in water
quality in streams, decreases in wildlife habitat and fragmentation, and increases
in the amount and duration of storm water flows from urban developments
associated with residential, commercial, and industrial uses. Besides Corps
authorized projects, other activities include residential, commercial, institutional
and recreational development on uplands, as well as numerous infrastructure
and facility maintenance projects that do not require Corps authorization or
notification. Resulting natural resource changes and stresses include loss of
wildlife habitat, increases in storm water flows, and decreases in overall water
quality. Aquatic resources are also being affected by the increase in impervious
surfaces, and the application of numerous herbicides, pesticides, and fertilizers
associated with residential, commercial, and institutional developments and
roadway construction/expansion. Additional issues of concern in this watershed
are the decrease in floodwater retention capabilities, increase in storm water
flows and decreased water quality, specifically nitrogen and phosphorus inputs
from point sources, especially municipal wastewater, and non -point sources such
as urban storm water runoff and rural agricultural runoff.
9.6 Discuss any mitigation to avoid, minimize or compensate for cumulative effects:

CE SAW -RG -C (File Number, SAW 2018-00053)
During the period between May 11, 2006 and July 27, 2017, the Corps required
approximately 11 acres and 24,503 linear feet of compensatory wetland and
stream mitigation, respectively, in the form of restoration, preservation, and/or
enhancement (Table 30).
9.7 Conclusions regarding cumulative impacts:
When considering the overall impacts that will result from the proposed activity,
in relation to the overall impacts from past, present, and reasonably foreseeable
future activities, the incremental contribution of the proposed activity to
cumulative impacts in the area described in section 9.2, are not considered to be
significant . Compensatory mitigation will be required to help offset the impacts
to eliminate or minimize the proposed activity's incremental contribution to
cumulative effects within the geographic area described in Section 9.2.
Mitigation required for the proposed activity is discussed in Section 8.0.
10.0 Compliance with Other Laws, Policies, and Requirements
10.1 Section 7(a)(2) of the Endangered Species Act (ESA): Refer to Section 2.2 for
description of the Corps action area for Section 7.
10.1.1 Are there listed species or designated critical habitat present or in the vicinity of
the Corps' action area? Select appropriate option.
Effect determination(s), including no effect, for all known species/habitat, and
basis for determination(s):
The applicant's consultant reviewed a list of federally protected species for
Gaston County from the U.S. Fish and Wildlife Service's (USFWS) website
(https://www.fws.gov/raleigh/species/cntVIist/gaston.html) and also reviewed the
USFWS Information for Planning and Consultation (IPaC) database for a list of
federally protected species with potential to occur within and in proximity to the
project site (Appendix D). Table 31 lists the five federally protected species
identified by the USFWS for Gaston County.
The applicant's consultant also queried the North Carolina Natural Heritage
Program (NCNHP) Data Explorer database for protected species Element
Occurrence distribution and proximity to the Project Site (Project Report
[NCNHDE-7873], Appendix D). The query revealed that no known occurrences of
federally protected species or critical habitat have been documented within a
one -mile radius of the landfill.

CE SAW -RG -C (File Number, SAW 2018-00053)
Table 31. USFWS federally protected species list for Gaston Countv
Common Name
Scientific Name
Federal
Status
Habitat Present
Y/N
Bald eagle
Haliaeetus leucocephalus
BGPA
No
Bog turtle
Glyptemys muh/enbergii
T (S/A)
No
Northern long-eared bat
Myotis septentrionalis
T
No-hibernacula;
Yes -roosting
Dwarf -flowered heartleaf
Hexastylis naniflora
T
Yes
Schweinitz's sunflower
Helianthus schweinitzii
E
No
In May 2017, August 2018, and September 2018, the applicant's environmental
consultant, conducted pedestrian surveys of the site to verify the presence or
absence of potential habitat for federally threatened and endangered species that
may occur on the site. No suitable habitat for the bald eagle, bog turtle, or
Schweinitz's sunflower were identified and none of these species were observed
during the field surveys.
Only one area of suitable habitat for the dwarf -flowered heartleaf was identified
on Pacolet soils on a north facing slope (Figure 23). Although other species of
Hexastylis were observed, no individuals of dwarf -flowered heartleaf were
identified. Areas identified as not being suitable for this species were due to a
number of factors such as the presence of landfill uses, pine forests, or a highly
modified understory.

CE SAW -RG -C (File Number, SAW 2018-00053)
� PaO2-.:., v{ §sl .—iD2 CeD2 CeB2 CeD2_
I ,E'GEND
Gaston County Landfill =- b a
Property (424 ac.) A
® Penndle-d Landfill PaE CeD2 f
P boundary (320 ac.)
Potential Habitat for 1 CeD2
Gwarf-flowarad Heartlea' •�`���
Soil Map Units
All Butlers 1 setbacks J
Constraints
SITE RESOURCES
- - - Seasonal RPW
Perennial RPW
Pond
- Wetlands
Culvert •�
FEMA Floodway
® FEMA 160 -Yr Floodplain Ac
- Z-
Pa
'. I40
� Paf72 /
A B
HeB
• `'PaE ♦
y. , t ■ HeB a1
PaE c�o
P.a[]2 Paa2 Ma624
�o CeB2
�.� Ce02
.+ HeB
�. LdD2:
j!' I PaE.....
1 CoA
i Ma62
�"— J We
ChA CeB2
m FEMA SIN] -Yr Floodplain �dl�. ►� j
p VYaste Limits
00o w Pa62 y 1897 LAN1)FILL PER
04
❑ Feet 4,000 yr,.� EXPANSION APPROVAL
CDA ,- � t�!+eve
PaE Active Construction &
r••!yx. 1 _ Pal D8M0Iitton Waste Limits
/ r< + * Proposed Final Municipal
F!SE PaE Solid Vr�sle Lfmlts
Ce82 J C� o� °e. © Active Municipal Saud
1 CeO2' , � •. • 4�6 ♦o p V'bste Limits
a / Pa62 01 CeB2 F---] Ina cliveMunicipa3Solid
PaE - ^.rite L6mRs
' ChA Ce02 PaIJ2 PaE \ APs
Figure 23. Federally and threatened and endangered species remaining review area.
The project was also reviewed in accordance with the northern long-eared bat
(NLEB) Standard Local Operating Procedures for Endangered Species
(SLOPES) between the USACE, Wilmington District, and the Asheville and
Raleigh U.S. Fish and Wildlife Service (Service) Offices, and determined that the
project is located outside of the highlighted areas/red 12 -digit HUCs and activities
in the project limits do not require prohibited incidental take; as such, this project
meets the criteria for the 4(d) rule and any associated take is
exempted/excepted. As established in the NLEB SLOPES, this project does not
require prohibited intentional take of the NLEB and it meets the criteria for the
4(d) rule.
Based on the desktop review of the IPaC and NCNHP Project Report, GIS files,
and field reviews, the project would have no effect on the bald eagle, bog turtle,
or Schweinitz's sunflower. The project may affect, but is not likely to adversely
affect the northern long-eared bat.
Moreover, the area of impact to aquatic resources is constrained to the Unit III
disposal unit in which there is no habitat present for any of the federally listed
species. The small area of potentially suitable habitat for the dwarf -flowered
heartleaf is located in an area within 300 feet of the property boundary and 300
feet of Philadelphia Church Road — areas where disposal units cannot be located
i
CeB2 ,
r•J/
1987 LANDFILL PERMIT
"APPROVAL
.
CeD2
r
Closed - Construction &
PaEy
•
Demolitior, Mste Limits
✓'►'�'"
.:;,f�•,::;r• Closed - Munlupal Solid
m FEMA SIN] -Yr Floodplain �dl�. ►� j
p VYaste Limits
00o w Pa62 y 1897 LAN1)FILL PER
04
❑ Feet 4,000 yr,.� EXPANSION APPROVAL
CDA ,- � t�!+eve
PaE Active Construction &
r••!yx. 1 _ Pal D8M0Iitton Waste Limits
/ r< + * Proposed Final Municipal
F!SE PaE Solid Vr�sle Lfmlts
Ce82 J C� o� °e. © Active Municipal Saud
1 CeO2' , � •. • 4�6 ♦o p V'bste Limits
a / Pa62 01 CeB2 F---] Ina cliveMunicipa3Solid
PaE - ^.rite L6mRs
' ChA Ce02 PaIJ2 PaE \ APs
Figure 23. Federally and threatened and endangered species remaining review area.
The project was also reviewed in accordance with the northern long-eared bat
(NLEB) Standard Local Operating Procedures for Endangered Species
(SLOPES) between the USACE, Wilmington District, and the Asheville and
Raleigh U.S. Fish and Wildlife Service (Service) Offices, and determined that the
project is located outside of the highlighted areas/red 12 -digit HUCs and activities
in the project limits do not require prohibited incidental take; as such, this project
meets the criteria for the 4(d) rule and any associated take is
exempted/excepted. As established in the NLEB SLOPES, this project does not
require prohibited intentional take of the NLEB and it meets the criteria for the
4(d) rule.
Based on the desktop review of the IPaC and NCNHP Project Report, GIS files,
and field reviews, the project would have no effect on the bald eagle, bog turtle,
or Schweinitz's sunflower. The project may affect, but is not likely to adversely
affect the northern long-eared bat.
Moreover, the area of impact to aquatic resources is constrained to the Unit III
disposal unit in which there is no habitat present for any of the federally listed
species. The small area of potentially suitable habitat for the dwarf -flowered
heartleaf is located in an area within 300 feet of the property boundary and 300
feet of Philadelphia Church Road — areas where disposal units cannot be located

CE SAW -RG -C (File Number, SAW 2018-00053)
(Figure 23); therefore, the proposed activities would have no effect on the dwarf -
flowered heartleaf.
10.1.2 Has another federal agency been identified as the lead agency for complying
with Section 7 of the ESA with the Corps designated as a cooperating agency
and has that consultation been completed? Select Yes or No.
If yes, identify that agency, the actions taken to document compliance with
Section 7 and whether those actions are sufficient to ensure the activity(s)
requiring DA authorization is in compliance with Section 7 of the ESA:
If yes, identify agency and provide description here. Select appropriate
conclusion.
10.1.3 Consultation with either the National Marine Fisheries Service and/or the U.S.
Fish and Wildlife Service was initiated and completed as required, for any
determinations other than "no effect" (see the attached ORM2 Summary sheet
for begin date, end date and closure method of the consultation). Provide
additional discussion here as needed to describe consultation(s) with the
Service(s) Based on a review of the above information, the Corps has
determined that it has fulfilled its responsibilities under Section 7(a)(2) of the
ESA. The documentation of the consultation is incorporated by reference.
10.2 Magnuson -Stevens Fishery Conservation and Management Act (Magnuson -
Stevens Act), Essential Fish Habitat (EFH). Select N/A if appropriate
10.2.1 Did the proposed project require review under the Magnuson -Stevens Act? No
10.2.2 If yes, EFH species or complexes considered: N/A
Effect(s) determination and basis for that determination(s): N/A
10.2.3 Has another federal agency been identified as the lead agency for complying
with the EFH provisions of the Magnuson -Stevens Act with the Corps designated
as a cooperating agency and has that consultation been completed? Select Yes
If yes, identify the agency, the actions taken to document compliance with the
Magnuson Stevens Act and whether those actions are sufficient to ensure the
activity(s) requiring DA authorization is in compliance the EFH provisions.
Identify agency and provide description here Select appropriate conclusion.
10.2.4 Consultation with the National Marine Fisheries Service was initiated and
completed as required (see the attached ORM2 Summary sheet for consultation

CE SAW -RG -C (File Number, SAW 2018-00053)
type, begin date, end date and closure method of the consultation). Enter
additional discussion here as needed. Based on a review of the above
information, the Corps has determined that it has fulfilled its responsibilities under
EFH provisions of the Magnuson -Stevens Act.
10.3 Section 106 of the National Historic Preservation Act (Section 106): Refer to
Section 2.3 for permit area determination.
10.3.1 Known historic properties present? Enter Yes or No and provide discussion as
appropriateSelect appropriate conclusion.
Effect determination and basis for that determination: Provide determination and
rationale here.
10.3.2 Has another federal agency been identified as the lead federal agency for
complying with Section 106 of the National Historic Preservation Act with the
Corps designated as a cooperating agency and has that consultation been
completed? Select Yes or No.
If yes, identify that agency, and whether the undertaking they consulted on
included the Corps undertaking(s). Briefly summarize actions taken by the lead
federal agency.
Identify agency and provide description here . Select appropriate conclusion.
10.3.3 Consultation was initiated and completed with the appropriate agencies, tribes
and/or other parties for any determinations other than "no potential to cause
effects" (see the attached ORM2 Summary sheet for consultation type, begin
date, end date and closure method of the consultation). Provide additional
discussion here as needed or delete if not needed. Based on a review of the
information above, the Corps has determined that it has fulfilled its
responsibilities under Section 106 of the NHPA. Compliance documentation
incorporated by reference.
10.4 Tribal Trust Responsibilities
10.4.1 Was government -to -government consultation conducted with Federally -
recognized Tribe(s)?Select Yes or No
Provide a description of any consultation (s) conducted including results and how
concerns were addressed. Provide additional discussion here as needed or
delete if not needed The Corps has determined that it has fulfilled its tribal trust
responsibilities.
10.4.2 Other Tribal including any discussion of Tribal Treaty rights? Select N/A or
provide discussion.

CE SAW -RG -C (File Number, SAW 2018-00053)
10.5 Section 401 of the Clean Water Act — Water Quality Certification (WQC)
10.5.1 Is a Section 401 WQC required, and if so, has the certification been issued,
waived or presumed? Select appropriate option
10.6 Coastal Zone Management Act (CZMA)
10.6.1 Is a CZMA consistency concurrence required, and if so, has the concurrence
been issued, waived or presumed? Select appropriate option
10.7 Wild and Scenic Rivers Act
10.7.1 Is the project located in a component of the National Wild and Scenic River
System, or in a river officially designated by Congress as a "study river" for
possible inclusion in the system? No
If yes, summarize coordination and the determination on whether activity will
adversely affect the Wild and Scenic River designation or study status. Enter
additional discussion here as needed. The Corps has determined that it has
fulfilled its responsibilities under the Wild and Scenic Rivers Act.
10.8 Effects on Corps Civil Works Projects (33 USC 408)
10.8.1 Does the applicant also require permission under Section 14 of the Rivers and
Harbors Act (33 USC 408) because the activity, in whole or in part, would alter,
occupy or use a Corps Civil Works project? Select appropriate option
If yes, provide date that decision was made and whether permission was granted
or denied : Enter date received or delete this box if no 408 is required.
Provide additional discussion here as needed or delete.
10.9 Corps Wetland Policy (33 CFR 320.4(b))
10.9.1 Does the project propose to impact wetlands? No
10.9.2 Based on the public interest review herein, the beneficial effects of the project
outweigh the detrimental impacts of the project.
10.10 Other (as needed): Provide discussion here as needed.
11.0 Special Conditions

CE SAW -RG -C (File Number, SAW 2018-00053)
11.1 Are special conditions required to protect the public interest, ensure effects are
not significant and/or ensure compliance of the activity with any of the laws
above? Select Yes or No
If no, provide rationale: Describe rationale
11.2 Required special condition(s)
Special condition(s): Enter specific condition(s)
Rationale: Enter rationale here
12.0 Findings and Determinations
12.1 Section 176(c) of the Clean Air Act General Conformity Rule Review: The
proposed permit action has been analyzed for conformity applicability pursuant to
regulations implementing Section 176(c) of the Clean Air Act. It has been
determined that the activities proposed under this permit will not exceed
deminimis levels of direct or indirect emissions of a criteria pollutant or its
precursors and are exempted by 40 CFR Part 93.153. Any later indirect
emissions are generally not within the Corps' continuing program responsibility
and generally cannot be practicably controlled by the Corps. For these reasons
a conformity determination is not required for this permit action.
12.2 Presidential Executive Orders (EO):
12.2.1 EO 13175, Consultation with Indian Tribes, Alaska Natives, and Native
Hawaiians: Select response or provide discussion here
12.2.2 EO 11988, Floodplain Management: Select response or provide discussion here
12.2.3 EO 12898, Environmental Justice: Select response or provide discussion here
12.2.4 EO 13112, Invasive Species: Select response or provide discussion here
12.2.5 EO 13212 and EO 13302, Energy Supply and Availability: Select response or
provide discussion here
12.3 Findings of No Significant Impact: Having reviewed the information provided by
the applicant and all interested parties and an assessment of the environmental
impacts, I find that this permit action will not have a significant impact on the
quality of the human environment. Therefore, an environmental impact
statement will not be required.
12.4 Compliance with the Section 404(b)(1) Guidelines: Having completed the
evaluation above, I have determined that Choose one of the following

CE SAW -RG -C (File Number, SAW 2018-00053)
12.5 Public interest determination: Having reviewed and considered the information
above, I find that the proposed project is not contrary to the public interest.
PREPARED BY:
Date:
Project Manager
REVIEWED BY:
Date:
Enter name of appropriate level reviewer
APPROVED BY:
Date:
Enter name of appropriate level approver

CE SAW -RG -C (File Number, SAW 2018-00053)
Appendix A
NPDES Certificate of Coverage

Certificate of Coverage
STATE OF NORTH CAROLINA
DEPARTMENT OF ENVIRONMENTAL QUALITY
DIVISION OF ENERGY, MINERAL, AND LAND RESOURCES
GENERAL PERMIT NO. NCG120000
Certificate of Coverage No. NCG120012
STORMWATER DISCHARGES
NATIONAL POLLUTANT DISCHARGE ELIMINATION SYSTEM
In compliance with the provision of North Carolina General Statute 143-215.1, other lawful standards and
regulations promulgated and adopted by the North Carolina Environmental Management Commission, and the
Federal Water Pollution Control Act, as amended,
Gaston County
is hereby authorized to discharge stormwater from a site located at:
Gaston Co Landfill
3155 Philadelphia Church Rd
Dallas
Gaston County
to receiving waters designated as South Fork Catawba River, class WS -V waters in the Catawba River Basin,
in accordance with the effluent limitations, monitoring requirements, and other conditions set forth in N.C.
General Permit No. NCG120000, issued on 10/29/2018.
This Certificate of Coverage shall become effective on 11/1/2018.
This Certificate of Coverage shall remain in effect for the duration of the General Permit.
for William E. (Toby) Vinson, Jr., P.E., CPM
Interim Director, Division of Energy, Mineral, and Land Resources
By the Authority of the Environmental Management Commission

CE SAW -RG -C (File Number, SAW 2018-00053)
Appendix B
DMS Credit Acceptance Letter

ROY COOPER
Governor
MICHAEL. S. REGAN
secretary
TIM BAUMGARTNER
Director
Marcie Smith
Gaston County Public Works
P.O. Box 1578
Gastonia, NC 28053
Project: Gaston County Landfill Extension
n
I � .
NORTH CAROLINA
Environmental Quality
August 19, 2019
Expiration of Acceptance: 2/19/2020
County: Gaston
The purpose of this letter is to notify you that the NCDEQ Division of Mitigation Services (DMS) is willing to
accept payment for compensatory mitigation for impacts associated with the above referenced project as
indicated in the table below. Please note that this decision does not assure that participation in the DMS in -
lieu fee mitigation program will be approved by the permit issuing agencies as mitigation for project impacts.
It is the responsibility of the applicant to contact permitting agencies to determine if payment to the DMS will
be approved. You must also comply with all other state, federal or local government permits, regulations or
authorizations associated with the proposed activity including G.S. § 143-214.11.
This acceptance is valid for six months from the date of this letter and is not transferable. If we have not
received a copy of the issued 404 Permit/401 Certification within this time frame, this acceptance will
expire. It is the applicant's responsibility to send copies of the permits to DMS. Once DMS receives a copy
of the permit(s) an invoice will be issued based on the required mitigation in that permit and payment must
be made prior to conducting the authorized work. The amount of the in -lieu fee to be paid by an applicant is
calculated based upon the Fee Schedule and policies listed on the DMS website.
Based on the information supplied by you in your request to use the DMS, the impacts for which you are
requesting compensatory mitigation credit are summarized in the following table. The amount of mitigation
required and assigned to DMS for this impact is determined by permitting agencies and may exceed the
impact amounts shown below.
River Basin i Impact Location Impact Type Impact Quantity
I
Catawba 1 03050102 1 Warm Stream 1 1,181.5
Catawba 03050102 Non -Riparian Wetland*
I
0.40
*DMS does not have non -riparian wetland credit available in this service area. In accordance with the
directive from the February 8, 2011 IRT meeting, non -riparian wetland impacts located in the mountains and
piedmont areas of North Carolina can be accepted as requested, but mitigated utilizing riparian wetland
mitigation credits. Upon receipt of payment, DMS will take responsibility for providing the compensatory
mitigation. The mitigation will be performed in accordance with the In -Lieu Fee Program instrument dated
July 28, 2010 and 15A NCAC 02B .0295 as applicable. Thank you for your interest in the DMS in -lieu fee
mitigation program. If you have any questions or need additional information, please contact Kelly Williams
at [phone].
cc: Kelly Thames, agent
Sincerely,
James. B Stanfill
Ass anagement Supervisor
North Carolina Department of Environmental Quality I Division of Mitigation Services
717 W Jones Street 11652 Mail Service Center I Raleigh, North Carolina 27699-1652
919.7078976

CE SAW -RG -C (File Number, SAW 2018-00053)
Appendix C
NCSAM Mitigation Memorandum

Memo
Date: Tuesday, September 17, 2019
Project: Gaston County Landfill (SAW -2018-00053)
To: Mr. David Shaeffer, USACE
From: Gaston County Department of Public Works (GCDPW)
Subject: Mitigation Assessment for Unauthorized and Proposed Impacts
Introduction
Gaston County Landfill is located at 3155 Philadelphia Church Road in Dallas, North Carolina (Figure 1,
Appendix A). Gaston County Department of Public Works (GCDPW) proposes to expand the existing
municipal solid waste (MSW) Unit III cell, located between MSW Units I and II in the central portion of the
landfill. Unit III of the proposed expansion will connect Unit I and Unit II, were where constructed in 1997
and 2008, respectively (Figure 2, Appendix A). All units of the expansion were approved by the formerly
named North Carolina Department of Environment, Health and Natural Resources (NC DEHNR) Division
of Waste Management in September 1996.
Impacts associated with the landfill expansion consist of 1,145 linear feet of jurisdictional stream channel,
comprising 865 linear feet of Seasonal Relatively Permanent Waters (RPWs) and 280 linear feet of
Perennial RPWs (Figure 3, Appendix A). A 0.40 acre jurisdictional pond will also be impacted. None of
these impacts have occurred.
Additionally, mitigation will be necessary for unauthorized impacts that occurred sometime between 2006
and 2008. The unauthorized impacts occurred due to culvert installation and the impoundment of
Perennial RPW Stream 1 to create Pond 1 (Figure 3, Appendix A), resulting in 736.5 linear feet of stream
impacts.
A Jurisdictional Determination Verification is attached for the entirety of Gaston County Landfill Property
(Appendix B). Jurisdictional features located outside the MSW Unit III cell will not be impacted by the
landfill's expansion and are therefore not included in this mitigation memorandum discussion.
Methods
On May 12, 2017 HDR environmental scientists, Thomas Blackwell, Professional Wetland Scientist
(PWS) and Kelly Thames, PWS reviewed Unit III's limits for waters of the U.S. under Section 404/401 of
the Clean Water Act (CWA). The North Carolina Stream Assessment Methodology (NC SAM) was also
utilized to assess stream quality and function of the features proposed for impacts. Streams were divided
into different reaches based on stream characteristics. Only one form was used to depict reaches of
similar geomorphic, quality, and function characteristics (Appendix C). Representative photographs of
each NCSAM reach are also provided (Appendix D).
The NCSAM method was not utilized for impacts that have already occurred.
hdrinc.com 440 S Church Street, Suite 1000, Charlotte, NC 28202-2075
[phone]

Results
The results of NCSAM were used to formulate mitigation ratios for the proposed impacts. Four NCSAM
reaches were identified that include two reaches of Seasonal RPW Stream 1, one reach for Seasonal
RPW Stream 2, and one reach for Perennial RPW Stream 1 (Figure 3, Appendix A). A summary of the
proposed impact amounts and NCSAM ratings for each reach identified is included in Table 1 (below).
Conclusion
In conclusion, GCDPW would like to offer a 2:1 compensatory mitigation ratio for the unauthorized
impacts (736.5 linear feet) that occurred prior to this memorandum. For those streams yet to be
impacted, all were assessed by NCSAM and received scores of Low; therefore, GCDPW would like to
offer a 1.5:1 compensatory mitigation ratio for Low quality streams. Finally, for the loss of impounded
waters (Pond 1), wetland credits are offered at a 0.5:1 ratio.
Appendices: Appendix A; Figures
Appendix B: Jurisdictional Determination Verification
Appendix C: NCDWR and NCSAM Forms
Appendix D: Photographs
hdrinc.com 440 S Church Street, Suite 1000, Charlotte, NC 28202-2075
[phone]
2
1 35.385041, Low 1.51
553 If
829.5
Seasonal
-81.173047
RPW 1
35.384848
2 -81.17372 Low 1.51
2951f
442.5
Seasonal
3 35.384828 Low 1.5:1
17 If
25.5
RPW 2
-81.173547
Perennial
4 35.384318° Low 1.5:1
280 If
420
RPW 1
-81.17436°
Pond 1
n/a 35.38328° n/a 0.5:1
0.4 ac
0.25
-81.174876°
Unauthorized Impacts
Perennial
n/a n/a n/a 2:1
736.5 If
1,473
RPW 1
Total Proposed Stream Impacts/Stream Credits:
1,145 If
1,717.5
Total Proposed Pond Impacts/Wetland Credits:
0.4 ac
0.25
Total Unauthorized Stream Impacts/Credits:
736.5 If
1,473
Credit Totals:
3,190.5 stream credits
0.25 ac wetland
credits
Conclusion
In conclusion, GCDPW would like to offer a 2:1 compensatory mitigation ratio for the unauthorized
impacts (736.5 linear feet) that occurred prior to this memorandum. For those streams yet to be
impacted, all were assessed by NCSAM and received scores of Low; therefore, GCDPW would like to
offer a 1.5:1 compensatory mitigation ratio for Low quality streams. Finally, for the loss of impounded
waters (Pond 1), wetland credits are offered at a 0.5:1 ratio.
Appendices: Appendix A; Figures
Appendix B: Jurisdictional Determination Verification
Appendix C: NCDWR and NCSAM Forms
Appendix D: Photographs
hdrinc.com 440 S Church Street, Suite 1000, Charlotte, NC 28202-2075
[phone]
2

Appendix A
Figures

v :W.; i 1,", %. .rh
LEGEND Cha 111101 lip
Gaston County Iron Station
Landfill (424 ac.) Randleman
u
0 Miles 1 f aha
1 inch = 1 miles Qa
�O n
P y�
�• m. � � � ,f069R .
�b ro ❑
[;ASTpNT
� c
High Shoals 2
Alek f
Sf"Oais Farr p� 1lar�yrn¢D b �m �9t S'hcrgls Rd Al exit
t� 41
h.p�r O Creek z'
x �.
b �
�° a a'0
ZC t
-
06.
O
h p� c4ry�
rdc� Ga`b. "%k
� R
*Park Ra � 4p
21'
Q.+
Y �
ti
' 1
G0
aston County,
North Carolina ❑ alias
GASTON COUNTY LANDFILL
PROJECT LOCATION
r
- FIGURE 1
INDIVIDUAL PERMIT - MITIGATION DETERMINATION

LEGEND
Permitted Landfill Boundary
®Gaston County Landfill
Property
0 Facility Structures
0 Residential Structures
x x All Buffers / Setbacks /
Constraints
All Buffers / Setbacks /
Constraints
IMPACTS
Unauthorized Stream
Impacts
Proposed Stream Impacts
0 Proposed Pond Impacts
Fn 0
AMM
� SITE RESOURCES
- - Seasonal RPW Culvert
Perennial RPW ® FEMA Floodway
Pond FEMA 100 -Yr Floodplain
Wetlands C FEMA 500 -Yr Floodplain
- ,- x x x x'
x x x x
�
x x x ie, x ' x x x
x a x x
'x x x x
i XXXXX x x x
f. x: x x
X � xkxxx�
X.
zc :f x.
x a x x ..
4 . +I�����I`�� ��I• Q "mss 1c '
#Two' -,
x
�` x
x
nx Closed -
® Construction
x & Demolition
x>,xxxxxx Waste Limits
x x x x x
Closed - MSW
Limits
Active Construction & © Active Municipal Solid
Demolition Waste Limits Waste Limits
�y Proposed Final Municipal Inactive Municipal Solid
�J Solid Waste Limits Waste Limits
1 inch = 800 feet
17-
0 Feet 800m
GASTON COUNTY LANDFILL
SITE LAYOUT
FIGURE 2
- MITIGATION D

LEGEND
Unit III Impact Area-�
Photographs
Unauthorized
Stream Impacts
Reach 1: 553 If
Perennial RPW Seasonal RPW Stream 1
Pond NCSAM: Low
Culvert Proposed Mitigation Ratio: 1.5:1
(829.5 stream credits)
NCSAM Reaches
if Reach 1 •
Reach 2
Reach 3
PA9
Reach 4
0 Feet 200
1 inch = 200 feet '
Reach 4: 280 If
Perennial RPW Stream 1
NCSAM: Low
Proposed Mitigation Ratio: 1.5:1
(420 stream credits)
Perennial RPW Stream 1
736.5 If of unauthorized impacts
NCSAM: n/a
Proposed Mitigation Ratio: 2:1
(1,473 stream credits)
Fn
e�
FP 1 Reach 2: 295 If
z Seasonal RPW Stream 1
NCSAM: Low
imp/
Proposed Mitigation Ratio: 1.5:1
lk
r (442.5 stream credits)
Reach 3: 17 If
Seasonal RPW Stream 2
w; NCSAM: Low
t Proposed Mitigation Ratio: 1.5:1
(25.5 stream credits)
l
I
"Pond 1
0.40 acre
Proposed Mitigation Ratio: 0.5:1
(0.25 wetland credits)
GASTON COUNTY LANDFILL
NC STREAM ASSESSMENT METHODOLOGY REACHES
FIGURE 3
INDIVIDUAL PERMIT - MITIGATION DETERMINATION

Appendix B
Jurisdictional
Determination Verification

U.S. ARMY CORPS OF ENGINEERS
WILMINGTON DISTRICT
Action Id. SAW -2018-00053 County: Gaston U.S.G.S. Quad: NC- Lincolnton East
NOTIFICATION OF JURISDICTIONAL DETERMINATION
Requestor:
Gaston County Department of Public Works
Ray Maxwell
Address:
PO Box 1578
Gastonia, NC 28053
Telephone Number:
704-862-7504
E-mail:
ray.maxwellAzastonuov.com
Size (acres) 424 Nearest Town Dallas
Nearest Waterway South Fork Catawba River River Basin Santee
USGS HUC 03050102 Coordinates Latitude: 35.384229
Longitude: -81.174062
Location description: The review area is located 0.573 miles South of the intersection of Philadelphia Church Road and Fancy
Hill Road in Gaston County. PIN(s): 164924, 164933, 164929, 217956, 203006, 165474.
Indicate Which of the Following Apply:
A. Preliminary Determination
❑ There appear to be waters, including wetlands on the above described project area/property, that may be subject to Section 404
of the Clean Water Act (CWA)(33 USC § 1344) and/or Section 10 of the Rivers and Harbors Act (RHA) (33 USC § 403). The
waters, including wetlands have been delineated, and the delineation has been verified by the Corps to be sufficiently accurate
and reliable. The approximate boundaries of these waters are shown on the enclosed delineation map dated DATE. Therefore
this preliminary jurisdiction determination may be used in the permit evaluation process, including determining compensatory
mitigation. For purposes of computation of impacts, compensatory mitigation requirements, and other resource protection
measures, a permit decision made on the basis of a preliminary JD will treat all waters and wetlands that would be affected in any
way by the permitted activity on the site as if they are jurisdictional waters of the U.S. This preliminary determination is not an
appealable action under the Regulatory Program Administrative Appeal Process (Reference 33 CFR Part 331). However, you may
request an approved JD, which is an appealable action, by contacting the Corps district for further instruction.
❑ There appear to be waters, including wetlands on the above described project area/property, that may be subject to Section 404
of the Clean Water Act (CWA)(33 USC § 1344) and/or Section 10 of the Rivers and Harbors Act (RHA) (33 USC § 403).
However, since the waters, including wetlands have not been properly delineated, this preliminary jurisdiction determination
may not be used in the permit evaluation process. Without a verified wetland delineation, this preliminary determination is
merely an effective presumption of CWA/RHA jurisdiction over all of the waters, including wetlands at the project area, which
is not sufficiently accurate and reliable to support an enforceable permit decision. We recommend that you have the waters,
including wetlands on your project area/property delineated. As the Corps may not be able to accomplish this wetland
delineation in a timely manner, you may wish to obtain a consultant to conduct a delineation that can be verified by the Corps.
B. Approved Determination
❑ There are Navigable Waters of the United States within the above described project area/property subject to the permit
requirements of Section 10 of the Rivers and Harbors Act (RHA) (33 USC § 403) and Section 404 of the Clean Water Act
(CWA)(33 USC § 1344). Unless there is a change in law or our published regulations, this determination may be relied upon for
a period not to exceed five years from the date of this notification.
® There are waters, including wetlands on the above described project area/property subject to the permit requirements of Section
404 of the Clean Water Act (CWA) (33 USC § 1344). Unless there is a change in the law or our published regulations, this
determination may be relied upon for a period not to exceed five years from the date of this notification.
❑ We recommend you have the waters, including wetlands on your project area/property delineated. As the Corps may not be
able to accomplish this wetland delineation in a timely manner, you may wish to obtain a consultant to conduct a delineation that
can be verified by the Corps.

SAW -2018-00053
® The waters, including wetlands on your project area/property have been delineated and the delineation has been verified by
the Corps. The approximate boundaries of these waters are shown on the enclosed delineation map dated 3/18/2019. We strongly
suggest you have this delineation surveyed. Upon completion, this survey should be reviewed and verified by the Corps. Once
verified, this survey will provide an accurate depiction of all areas subject to CWA jurisdiction on your property which, provided
there is no change in the law or our published regulations, may be relied upon for a period not to exceed five years.
❑ The waters, including wetlands have been delineated and surveyed and are accurately depicted on the plat signed by the
Corps Regulatory Official identified below on DATE. Unless there is a change in the law or our published regulations, this
determination may be relied upon for a period not to exceed five years from the date of this notification.
❑ There are no waters of the U.S., to include wetlands, present on the above described project area/property which are subject to the
permit requirements of Section 404 of the Clean Water Act (33 USC 1344). Unless there is a change in the law or our published
regulations, this determination may be relied upon for a period not to exceed five years from the date of this notification.
❑ The property is located in one of the 20 Coastal Counties subject to regulation under the Coastal Area Management Act (LAMA).
You should contact the Division of Coastal Management in Morehead City, NC, at [phone] to determine their
requirements.
Placement of dredged or fill material within waters of the US, including wetlands, without a Department of the Army permit may
constitute a violation of Section 301 of the Clean Water Act (33 USC § 1311). Placement of dredged or fill material, construction or
placement of structures, or work within navigable waters of the United States without a Department of the Army permit may
constitute a violation of Sections 9 and/or 10 of the Rivers and Harbors Act (33 USC § 401 and/or 403). If you have any questions
regarding this determination and/or the Corps regulatory program, please contact Catherine M. Janiczak at 704-510-1438 or
Catherine.M.Janiczak(a,usace.armv.mil.
C. Basis For Determination: Basis For Determination: See the approved iurisdictional determination
form dated 09/05/2019.
D. Remarks: None.
E. Attention USDA Program Participants
This delineation/determination has been conducted to identify the limits of Corps' Clean Water Act jurisdiction for the particular site
identified in this request. The delineation/determination may not be valid for the wetland conservation provisions of the Food Security
Act of 1985. If you or your tenant are USDA Program participants, or anticipate participation in USDA programs, you should request
a certified wetland determination from the local office of the Natural Resources Conservation Service, prior to starting work.
F. Appeals Information (This information applies only to approved jurisdictional determinations as indicated in B.
above)
This correspondence constitutes an approved jurisdictional determination for the above described site. If you object to this
determination, you may request an administrative appeal under Corps regulations at 33 CFR Part 331. Enclosed you will find a
Notification of Appeal Process (NAP) fact sheet and request for appeal (RFA) form. If you request to appeal this determination you
must submit a completed RFA form to the following address:
US Army Corps of Engineers
South Atlantic Division
Attn: Jason Steele, Review Officer
60 Forsyth Street SW, Room 1OM15
Atlanta, Georgia 30303-8801
In order for an RFA to be accepted by the Corps, the Corps must determine that it is complete, that it meets the criteria for appeal
under 33 CFR part 331.5, and that it has been received by the Division Office within 60 days of the date of the NAP. Should you
decide to submit an RFA form, it must be received at the above address by 11/04/2019.
**It is not necessary to submit an RFA form to the Division Office if you do not object to the determination in this correspondence.
Corps Regulatory Official:
Date of JD: 09/05/2019 Expiration Date of JD: 09 03/2024

SAW -2018-00053
The Wilmington District is committed to providing the highest level of support to the public. To help us ensure we
continue to do so, please complete the Customer Satisfaction Survey located at
http://corpsmapu.usace.army.mil/cm apex/f?p=136:4: 0
Copy furnished:
Agent: PWS
Thomas Blackwell
Address: 440 S Church Street, Suite 1000
Charlotte, NC 28202
Telephone Number: 704-338-6720
E-mail: Thomas.BlackwellAhdrinc.com

NOTIFICATION OF ADMINISTRATIVE APPEAL OPTIONS AND PROCESS AND
W7- REQUEST FOR APPEAL
Applicant: Gaston County Department of Public Works,
File Number: SAW -2018-00053
Date: 09/05/2019
Ray Maxwell
Attached is: See Section below
PROFFERED PERMIT Standard Permit or Letter of ermission A
RED PERMIT Standard Permit or Letter of ermission B
DENIAL C
LAPPROVED
JURISDICTIONAL DETERMINATION D
INARY JURISDICTIONAL DETERMINATION E
SECTION I - The following identifies your rights and options regarding an administrative appeal of the above decision.
Additional information may be found at or http://www.usace.army.mil/Missions/CivilWorks/Re ug latoryProi4ramandPermits.aspx
or the Corps regulations at 33 CFR Part 331.
A: INITIAL PROFFERED PERMIT: You may accept or object to the permit.
• ACCEPT: If you received a Standard Permit, you may sign the permit document and return it to the district engineer for final
authorization. If you received a Letter of Permission (LOP), you may accept the LOP and your work is authorized. Your
signature on the Standard Permit or acceptance of the LOP means that you accept the permit in its entirety, and waive all
rights to appeal the permit, including its terms and conditions, and approved jurisdictional determinations associated with the
permit.
• OBJECT: If you object to the permit (Standard or LOP) because of certain terms and conditions therein, you may request
that the permit be modified accordingly. You must complete Section II of this form and return the form to the district
engineer. Your objections must be received by the district engineer within 60 days of the date of this notice, or you will
forfeit your right to appeal the permit in the future. Upon receipt of your letter, the district engineer will evaluate your
objections and may: (a) modify the permit to address all of your concerns, (b) modify the permit to address some of your
objections, or (c) not modify the permit having determined that the permit should be issued as previously written. After
evaluating your objections, the district engineer will send you a proffered permit for your reconsideration, as indicated in
Section B below.
B: PROFFERED PERMIT: You may accept or appeal the permit
• ACCEPT: If you received a Standard Permit, you may sign the permit document and return it to the district engineer for final
authorization. If you received a Letter of Permission (LOP), you may accept the LOP and your work is authorized. Your
signature on the Standard Permit or acceptance of the LOP means that you accept the permit in its entirety, and waive all
rights to appeal the permit, including its terms and conditions, and approved jurisdictional determinations associated with the
permit.
• APPEAL: If you choose to decline the proffered permit (Standard or LOP) because of certain terms and conditions therein,
you may appeal the declined permit under the Corps of Engineers Administrative Appeal Process by completing Section II of
this form and sending the form to the division engineer. This form must be received by the division engineer within 60 days
of the date of this notice.
C: PERMIT DENIAL: You may appeal the denial of a permit under the Corps of Engineers Administrative Appeal Process by
completing Section II of this form and sending the form to the division engineer. This form must be received by the division
engineer within 60 days of the date of this notice.
D: APPROVED JURISDICTIONAL DETERMINATION: You may accept or appeal the approved JD or provide new
information.
• ACCEPT: You do not need to notify the Corps to accept an approved JD. Failure to notify the Corps within 60 days of the
date of this notice, means that you accept the approved JD in its entirety, and waive all rights to appeal the approved JD.
• APPEAL: If you disagree with the approved JD, you may appeal the approved JD under the Corps of Engineers
Administrative Appeal Process by completing Section II of this form and sending the form to the district engineer. This form
must be received by the division engineer within 60 days of the date of this notice.

E: PRELIMINARY JURISDICTIONAL DETERMINATION: You do not need to respond to the Corps regarding the
preliminary JD. The Preliminary JD is not appealable. If you wish, you may request an approved JD (which may be appealed),
by contacting the Corps district for further instruction. Also you may provide new information for further consideration by the
Corps to reevaluate the JD.
SECTION I1 - REQUEST FOR APPEAL or OBJECTIONS TO AN INITIAL PROFFERED PERMIT
REASONS FOR APPEAL OR OBJECTIONS: (Describe your reasons for appealing the decision or your objections to an initial
proffered permit in clear concise statements. You may attach additional information to this form to clarify where your reasons or
objections are addressed in the administrative record.)
ADDITIONAL INFORMATION: The appeal is limited to a review of the administrative record, the Corps memorandum for the
record of the appeal conference or meeting, and any supplemental information that the review officer has determined is needed to
clarify the administrative record. Neither the appellant nor the Corps may add new information or analyses to the record.
However, you may provide additional information to clarify the location of information that is already in the administrative
record.
POINT OF CONTACT FOR QUESTIONS OR INFORMATION:
If you have questions regarding this decision and/or the
If you only have questions regarding the appeal process you may
appeal process you may contact:
also contact:
District Engineer, Wilmington Regulatory Division
Mr. Jason Steele, Administrative Appeal Review Officer
Attn: Catherine M. Janiczak
CESAD-PDO
Charlotte Regulatory Office
U.S. Army Corps of Engineers, South Atlantic Division
U.S Army Corps of Engineers
60 Forsyth Street, Room 1OM15
8430 University Executive Park Drive, Suite 615
Atlanta, Georgia 30303-8801
Charlotte, North Carolina 28262
Phone: [phone]
RIGHT OF ENTRY: Your signature below grants the right of entry to Corps of Engineers personnel, and any government
consultants, to conduct investigations of the project site during the course of the appeal process. You will be provided a 15 day
notice of any site investigation, and will have the opportuni to participate in all site investigations.
Date:
Telephone number:
Signature of appellant oragent.
For appeals on Initial Proffered Permits send this form to:
District Engineer, Wilmington Regulatory Division, Attn: Catherine M. Janiczak, 69 Darlington Avenue, Wilmington, North
Carolina 28403
For Permit denials, Proffered Permits and Approved Jurisdictional Determinations send this form to:
Division Engineer, Commander, U.S. Army Engineer Division, South Atlantic, Attn: Mr. Jason Steele, Administrative Appeal
Officer, CESAD-PDO, 60 Forsyth Street, Room 1OM15, Atlanta, Georgia 30303-8801
Phone: [phone]

APPROVED JURISDICTIONAL DETERMINATION FORM
U.S. Army Corps of Engineers
This form should be completed by following the instructions provided in Section W of the JD Form Instructional Guidebook.
SECTION I: BACKGROUND INFORMATION
A. REPORT COMPLETION DATE FOR APPROVED JURISDICTIONAL DETERMINATION (JD):09/05/2019
B. DISTRICT OFFICE, FILE NAME, AND NUMBER: Wilmington District, Gaston County Landfill JD, SAW -2018-00053
C. PROJECT LOCATION AND BACKGROUND INFORMATION: The review area is located 0.573 miles South of the intersection
of Philadelphia Church Road and Fancy Hill Road in Gaston County. PIN(s): 164924, 164933, 164929, 217956, 203006, 165474.
State: NC County/parish/borough: Gaston City: Dallas
Center coordinates of site (lat/long in degree decimal format): Lat. 35.384229 , Long. -81.174062
Universal Transverse Mercator:
Name of nearest waterbody: South Fork Catawba River
Name of nearest Traditional Navigable Water (TNW) into which the aquatic resource flows:
Name of watershed or Hydrologic Unit Code (HUC): 03050102
® Check if map/diagram of review area and/or potential jurisdictional areas is/are available upon request.
❑Check if other sites (e.g., offsite mitigation sites, disposal sites, etc...) are associated with this action and are recorded on a different
JD form:
D. REVIEW PERFORMED FOR SITE EVALUATION (CHECK ALL THAT APPLY):
❑Office (Desk) Determination. Date:
®Field Determination. Date(s): 12/13/2018
SECTION II: SUMMARY OF FINDINGS
A. RHA SECTION 10 DETERMINATION OF JURISDICTION.
There are no "navigable waters of the U.S." within Rivers and Harbors Act (RHA) jurisdiction (as defined by 33 CFR part 329) in the review
area. [Required]
❑Waters subject to the ebb and flow of the tide.
❑Waters are presently used, or have been used in the past, or may be susceptible for use to transport interstate or foreign commerce.
Explain:
B. CWA SECTION 404 DETERMINATION OF JURISDICTION.
There are and are not "waters of the U.S." within Clean Water Act (CWA) jurisdiction (as defined by 33 CFR part 328) in the review area. [Required]
1. Waters of the U.S.
a. Indicate presence of waters of U.S. in review area (check all that apply):1
❑TNWs, including territorial seas
❑Wetlands adjacent to TNWs
®Relatively permanent waters' (RPWs) that flow directly or indirectly into TNWs
❑Non-RPWs that flow directly or indirectly into TNWs
❑Wetlands directly abutting RPWs that flow directly or indirectly into TNWs
❑Wetlands adjacent to but not directly abutting RPWs that flow directly or indirectly into TNWs
❑Wetlands adjacent to non-RPWs that flow directly or indirectly into TNWs
®Impoundments of jurisdictional waters
❑Isolated (interstate or intrastate) waters, including isolated wetlands
b. Identify (estimate) size of waters of the U.S. in the review area:
Non -wetland waters: 280 linear feet, 4 wide, and/or 0.03 acres.
Wetlands: 0 acres.
c. Limits (boundaries) of jurisdiction based on: 1987 Delineation Manual
Elevation of established OHWM (if known):
2. Non-regulated waters/wetlands (check if applicable):3
❑ Potentially jurisdictional waters and/or wetlands were assessed within the review area and determined to be not jurisdictional.
Explain:
SECTION III: CWA ANALYSIS
E TNWs AND WETLANDS ADJACENT TO TNWs
Boxes checked below shall be supported by completing the appropriate sections in Section III below.
z For purposes of this form, an RPW is defined as a tributary that is not a TNW and that typically flows year-round or has continuous flow at least "seasonally"
(e.g., typically 3 months).
s Supporting documentation is presented in Section III.F.

The agencies will assert jurisdiction over TNWs and wetlands adjacent to TNWs. If the aquatic resource is a TNW, complete
Section III.A.1 and Section III.D.1. only; if the aquatic resource is a wetland adjacent to a TNW, complete Sections III.A.1 and 2
and Section III.D.1.; otherwise, see Section III.B below.
1. TNW
Identify TNW:
Summarize rationale supporting determination:
Wetlandadjacent to TNW
Summarize rationale supporting conclusion that wetland is "adjacent':
M CHARACTERISTICS OF TRIBUTARY (THAT IS NOT A TNW) AND ITS ADJACENT WETLANDS (IF ANY):
This section summarizes information regarding characteristics of the tributary and its adjacent wetlands, if any, and it helps
determine whether or not the standards for jurisdiction established under Rapanos have been met.
The agencies will assert jurisdiction over non -navigable tributaries of TNWs where the tributaries are "relatively permanent
waters" (RPWs), i.e. tributaries that typically flow year-round or have continuous flow at least seasonally (e.g., typically 3
months). A wetland that directly abuts an RPW is also jurisdictional. If the aquatic resource is not a TNW, but has year-round
(perennial) flow, skip to Section III.D.2. If the aquatic resource is a wetland directly abutting a tributary with perennial flow,
skip to Section III.D.4.
A wetland that is adjacent to but that does not directly abut an RPW requires a significant nexus evaluation. Corps districts and
EPA regions will include in the record any available information that documents the existence of a significant nexus between a
relatively permanent tributary that is not perennial (and its adjacent wetlands if any) and a traditional navigable water, even
though a significant nexus finding is not required as a matter of law.
If the waterbody° is not an RPW, or a wetland directly abutting an RPW, a JD will require additional data to determine if the
waterbody has a significant nexus with a TNW. If the tributary has adjacent wetlands, the significant nexus evaluation must
consider the tributary in combination with all of its adjacent wetlands. This significant nexus evaluation that combines, for
analytical purposes, the tributary and all of its adjacent wetlands is used whether the review area identified in the JD request is
the tributary, or its adjacent wetlands, or both. If the JD covers a tributary with adjacent wetlands, complete Section III.B.1 for
the tributary, Section III.B.2 for any onsite wetlands, and Section III.B.3 for all wetlands adjacent to that tributary, both onsite
and offsite. The determination whether a significant nexus exists is determined in Section III.0 below.
1. Characteristics of non-TNWs that flow directly or indirectly into TNW
(i) General Area Conditions:
Watershed size:Pick List
Drainage area:Pick List
Average annual rainfall: inches
Average annual snowfall: inches
(ii) Physical Characteristics:
(a) Relationship with TNW:
❑ Tributary flows directly into TNW.
❑ Tributary flows through Pick Listtributaries before entering TNW.
Project waters are Pick Listriver miles from TNW.
Project waters are Pick Listriver miles from RPW.
Project waters are Pick List aerial (straight) miles from TNW.
Project waters are Pick List aerial (straight) miles from RPW.
Project waters cross or serve as state boundaries. Explain:
Identify flow route to TNW5:
Tributary stream order, if known:
(b) General Tributary Characteristics (check all that apply):
Tributary is: ❑ Natural
❑ Artificial (man-made). Explain:
❑ Manipulated (man -altered). Explain:
°Note that the Instructional Guidebook contains additional information regarding swales, ditches, washes, and erosional features generally and in the and West.
'Flow route can be described by identifying, e.g., tributary a, which flows through the review area, to flow into tributary b, which then flows into TNW.

Tributary properties with respect to top of bank (estimate):
Average width: feet
Average depth: feet
Average side slopes: Pick List.
Primary tributary substrate composition (check all that apply):
❑ Silts ❑ Sands ❑ Concrete
❑ Cobbles ❑ Gravel ❑ Muck
❑ Bedrock ❑ Vegetation. Type/% cover:
❑ Other. Explain:
Tributarycondition/stability [e.g., highly eroding, sloughing banks]. Explain:
Presence of run/riffle/pool complexes. Explain:
Tributary geometry: Pick List
Tributary gradient (approximate average slope): %
(c) Flow:
Tributary provides for:Pick List
Estimate average number of flow events in review area/year: Pick List
Describe flow regime:
Other information on duration and volume:
Surface flow is: Pick List.Characteristics:
Subsurface flow: Pick List. Explain findings:
❑ Dye (or other) test performed:
Tributary has (check all that apply):
❑ Bed and banks
❑OHWM6(check all indicators that apply):
❑clear, natural line impressed on the bank
❑ the presence of litter and debris
❑changes in the character of soil
❑ destruction of terrestrial vegetation
❑shelving
❑ the presence of wrack line
❑vegetation matted down, bent, or absent
❑ sediment sorting
❑leaf litter disturbed or washed away
❑ scour
❑sediment deposition
❑ multiple observed or predicted flow events
❑water staining
❑ abrupt change in plant community
❑other (list):
❑ Discontinuous OHWM.1 Explain:
If factors other than the OHWM were used to determine lateral extent of CWA jurisdiction (check all that apply):
❑ High Tide Line indicated by: ❑Mean High Water Mark indicated by:
❑oil or scum line along shore objects ❑ survey to available datum;
❑fine shell or debris deposits (foreshore) ❑ physical markings;
❑physical markings/characteristics ❑ vegetation lines/changes in vegetation types.
❑tidal gauges
❑other (list):
(iii) Chemical Characteristics:
Characterize tributary (e.g., water color is clear, discolored, oily film; water quality; general watershed characteristics, etc.).
Explain:
Identify specific pollutants, if known:
(iv) Biological Characteristics. Channel supports (check all that apply):
❑ Riparian corridor. Characteristics (type, average width):
❑Wetland fringe. Characteristics:
❑Habitat for:
❑ Federally Listed species. Explain findings:
❑ Fish/spawn areas. Explain findings:
❑ Other environmentally -sensitive species. Explain findings:
❑ Aquatic/wildlife diversity. Explain findings:
'A natural or man-made discontinuity in the OHWM does not necessarily sever jurisdiction (e.g., where the stream temporarily flows underground, or where
the OHWM has been removed by development or agricultural practices). Where there is a break in the OHWM that is unrelated to the waterbody's flow
regime (e.g., flow over a rock outcrop or through a culvert), the agencies will look for indicators of flow above and below the break.
'Ibid.

2. Characteristics of wetlands adjacent to non-TNW that flow directly or indirectly into TNW
(i) Physical Characteristics:
(a) General Wetland Characteristics:
Properties:
Wetland size: acres
Wetland type. Explain:
Wetland quality. Explain:
Project wetlands cross or serve as state boundaries. Explain:
(b) General Flow Relationship with Non-TNW:
Flow is:Pick List. Explain:
Surface flow is: Pick List
Characteristics:
Subsurface flow: Pick List. Explain findings:
❑ Dye (or other) test performed:
(c) Wetland Adjacency Determination with Non-TNW:
❑ Directly abutting
❑ Not directly abutting
❑ Discrete wetland hydrologic connection. Explain:
❑ Ecological connection. Explain:
❑ Separated by berm/barrier. Explain:
(d) Proximity (Relationship) to TNW
Project wetlands are Pick Listriver miles from TNW.
Project waters are Pick List aerial (straight) miles from TNW.
Flow is from: Pick List.
Estimate approximate location of wetland as within the Pick List floodplain.
(ii) Chemical Characteristics:
Characterize wetland system (e.g., water color is clear, brown, oil film on surface; water quality; general watershed
characteristics; etc.). Explain:
Identify specific pollutants, if known:
(iii) Biological Characteristics. Wetland supports (check all that apply):
❑ Riparian buffer. Characteristics (type, average width):
❑Vegetation type/percent cover. Explain:
❑Habitat for:
❑ Federally Listed species. Explain findings:
❑ Fish/spawn areas. Explain findings:
❑ Other environmentally -sensitive species. Explain findings:
❑ Aquatic/wildlife diversity. Explain findings:
3. Characteristics of all wetlands adjacent to the tributary (if any)
All wetland(s) being considered in the cumulative analysis: Pick List
Approximately acres in total are being considered in the cumulative analysis.
For each wetland, specify the following:
Directly abuts? (Y/N) Size (in acres) Directly abuts? (Y/N) Size (in acres)
Summarize overall biological, chemical and physical functions being performed:
C. SIGNIFICANT NEXUS DETERMINATION
A significant nexus analysis will assess the flow characteristics and functions of the tributary itself and the functions performed
by any wetlands adjacent to the tributary to determine if they significantly affect the chemical, physical, and biological integrity
of a TNW. For each of the following situations, a significant nexus exists if the tributary, in combination with all of its adjacent
wetlands, has more than a speculative or insubstantial effect on the chemical, physical and/or biological integrity of a TNW.

Considerations when evaluating significant nexus include, but are not limited to the volume, duration, and frequency of the flow
of water in the tributary and its proximity to a TNW, and the functions performed by the tributary and all its adjacent
wetlands. It is not appropriate to determine significant nexus based solely on any specific threshold of distance (e.g. between a
tributary and its adjacent wetland or between a tributary and the TNW). Similarly, the fact an adjacent wetland lies within or
outside of a floodplain is not solely determinative of significant nexus.
Draw connections between the features documented and the effects on the TNW, as identified in the Rapanos Guidance and
discussed in the Instructional Guidebook. Factors to consider include, for example:
• Does the tributary, in combination with its adjacent wetlands (if any), have the capacity to carry pollutants or flood waters to
TNWs, or to reduce the amount of pollutants or flood waters reaching a TNW?
• Does the tributary, in combination with its adjacent wetlands (if any), provide habitat and lifecycle support functions for fish and
other species, such as feeding, nesting, spawning, or rearing young for species that are present in the TNW?
• Does the tributary, in combination with its adjacent wetlands (if any), have the capacity to transfer nutrients and organic carbon that
support downstream food webs?
• Does the tributary, in combination with its adjacent wetlands (if any), have other relationships to the physical, chemical, or
biological integrity of the TNW?
Note: the above list of considerations is not inclusive and other functions observed or known to occur should be documented
below:
1. Significant nexus findings for non-RPW that has no adjacent wetlands and flows directly or indirectly into TNWs. Explain
findings of presence or absence of significant nexus below, based on the tributary itself, then go to Section III.D:
Significant nexus findings for non-RPW and its adjacent wetlands, where the non-RPW flows directly or indirectly into
TNWs. Explain findings of presence or absence of significant nexus below, based on the tributary in combination with all of its
adjacent wetlands, then go to Section III.D:
Significant nexus findings for wetlands adjacent to an RPW but that do not directly abut the RPW. Explain findings of
presence or absence of significant nexus below, based on the tributary in combination with all of its adjacent wetlands, then go to
Section IIID:
D. DETERMINATIONS OF JURISDICTIONAL FINDINGS. THE SUBJECT WATERSIWETLANDS ARE (CHECK ALL
THAT APPLY):
TNWs and Adjacent Wetlands. Check all that apply and provide size estimates in review area:
❑TNWs: linear feet, wide, Or acres.
❑Wetlands adjacent to TNWs: acres.
RPWs that flow directly or indirectly into TNWs.
® Tributaries of TNWs where tributaries typically flow year-round are jurisdictional. Provide data and rationale indicating that
tributary is perennial: Perennial RPW Stream 1 exhibits strong continuity of channel bed and bank, strong sinuosity along
thalweg, moderate baseflow, weak -in channel structure, strong grade control, strong valley, weak evidence of particle size of
stream substrate, and a weak presence of macrobenthos and fish. Ordinary High Water Mark (OHWM) indicators observed
during the assessment include a clear, natural line impressed on the bank; shelving; vegetation matted down, bent, or absent;
leaf little disturbed or washed away; sediment deposition; the presence of wrack lines; sediment sorting; and scour.
❑ Tributaries of TNW where tributaries have continuous flow "seasonally" (e.g., typically three months each year)are
jurisdictional. Data supporting this conclusion is provided at Section III.B. Provide rationale indicating that tributary flows
seasonally:
Provide estimates for jurisdictional waters in the review area (check all that apply):
® Tributary waters: 280 linear —4 feet wide.
®Other non -wetland waters: 0.39 acres.
Identify type(s) of waters: An in-line impoundment of Perennial RPW Stream 1 was observed within the project area. It
was created in between 2006 and 2008 and is a regularly maintained sediment basin (Sediment dredged and riser maintained).
Non-RPWss that flow directly or indirectly into TNWs.
❑Waterbody that is not a TNW or an RPW, but flows directly or indirectly into a TNW, and it has a significant nexus with a TNW
is jurisdictional. Data supporting this conclusion is provided at Section III.C.
Provide estimates for jurisdictional waters within the review area (check all that apply):
❑ Tributary waters: linear feet, wide.
❑Other non -wetland waters: acres.
Identify type(s) of waters:
'See Footnote 9 3.

Wetlands directly abutting an RPW that flow directly or indirectly into TNWs.
❑ Wetlands directly abut RPW and thus are jurisdictional as adjacent wetlands.
❑ Wetlands directly abutting an RPW where tributaries typically flow year-round. Provide data and rationale indicating that
tributary is perennial in Section III.D.2, above. Provide rationale indicating that wetland is directly abutting an RPW:
❑Wetlands directly abutting an RPW where tributaries typically flow "seasonally." Provide data indicating that tributary is
seasonal in Section III.B and rationale in Section III.D.2, above. Provide rationale indicating that wetland is directly
abutting an RPW:
Provide acreage estimates for jurisdictional wetlands in the review area: acres.
5. Wetlands adjacent to but not directly abutting an RPW that flow directly or indirectly into TNWs.
❑ Wetlands that do not directly abut an RPW, but when considered in combination with the tributary to which they are adjacent
and with similarly situated adjacent wetlands, have a significant nexus with a TNW are jurisidictional. Data supporting this
conclusion is provided at Section III.C.
Provide acreage estimates for jurisdictional wetlands in the review area: acres.
Wetlands adjacent to non-RPWs that flow directly or indirectly into TNWs.
❑Wetlands adjacent to such waters, and have when considered in combination with the tributary to which they are adjacent and
with similarly situated adjacent wetlands, have a significant nexus with a TNW are jurisdictional. Data supporting this
conclusion is provided at Section III.C.
Provide estimates for jurisdictional wetlands in the review area: acres.
Impoundments of jurisdictional waters.9
As a general rule, the impoundment of a jurisdictional tributary remains jurisdictional.
❑ Demonstrate that impoundment was created from "waters of the U.S.," or
❑ Demonstrate that water meets the criteria for one of the categories presented above (1-6), or
❑ Demonstrate that water is isolated with a nexus to commerce (see E below).
E. ISOLATED [INTERSTATE OR INTRA -STATE] WATERS, INCLUDING ISOLATED WETLANDS, THE USE,
DEGRADATION OR DESTRUCTION OF WHICH COULD AFFECT INTERSTATE COMMERCE, INCLUDING ANY
SUCH WATERS (CHECK ALL THAT APPLY):`
❑which are or could be used by interstate or foreign travelers for recreational or other purposes.
❑from which fish or shellfish are or could be taken and sold in interstate or foreign commerce.
❑which are or could be used for industrial purposes by industries in interstate commerce.
❑ Interstate isolated waters. Explain:
❑ Other factors. Explain:
Identify water body and summarize rationale supporting determination:
Provide estimates for jurisdictional waters in the review area (check all that apply):
❑ Tributary waters: linear feet, wide.
❑Other non -wetland waters: acres.
Identify type(s) of waters:
❑Wetlands: acres.
F. NON -JURISDICTIONAL WATERS, INCLUDING WETLANDS (CHECK ALL THAT APPLY):
❑ If potential wetlands were assessed within the review area, these areas did not meet the criteria in the 1987 Corps of Engineers
Wetland Delineation Manual and/or appropriate Regional Supplements.
❑Review area included isolated waters with no substantial nexus to interstate (or foreign) commerce.
❑ Prior to the Jan 2001 Supreme Court decision in "SWANCC," the review area would have been regulated based solely on the
"Migratory Bird Rule" (MBR).
❑ Waters do not meet the "Significant Nexus" standard, where such a finding is required for jurisdiction. Explain:
❑Other: (explain, if not covered above):
'To complete the analysis refer to the key in Section III.D.6 of the Instructional Guidebook.
]"Prior to asserting or declining CWA jurisdiction based solely on this category, Corps Districts will elevate the action to Corps and EPA HQ for
review consistent with the process described in the Corps/EPA Memorandum Regarding CWA Act Jurisdiction Following Rapanos.

Provide acreage estimates for non jurisdictional waters in the review area, where the sole potential basis of jurisdiction is the MBR
factors (i.e., presence of migratory birds, presence of endangered species, use of water for irrigated agriculture), using best professional
judgment (check all that apply):
❑Non -wetland waters (i.e., rivers, streams):linear feet, wide.
❑Lakes/ponds: acres.
F1 Other non -wetland waters: acres. List type of aquatic resource:
❑Wetlands: acres.
Provide acreage estimates for non jurisdictional waters in the review area that do not meet the "Significant Nexus" standard, where such
a finding is required for jurisdiction (check all that apply):
❑Non -wetland waters (i.e., rivers, streams):linear feet, wide.
❑Lakes/ponds: acres.
F-1 Other non -wetland waters: acres. List type of aquatic resource:
❑Wetlands: acres.
SECTION IV: DATA SOURCES.
A. SUPPORTING DATA. Data reviewed for JD (check all that apply - checked items shall be included in case file and, where checked
and requested, appropriately reference sources below):
® Maps, plans, plots or plat submitted by or on behalf of the applicant/consultant: Figure 6 (Dated 03/18/2019)
® Data sheets prepared/submitted by or on behalf of the applicant/consultant.
® Office concurs with data sheets/delineation report.
❑ Office does not concur with data sheets/delineation report.
❑ Data sheets prepared by the Corps:
❑ Corps navigable waters' study:
❑ U.S. Geological Survey Hydrologic Atlas:
® USGS NHD data.
❑ USGS 8 and 12 digit HUC maps.
® U.S. Geological Survey map(s). Cite scale & quad name: 1":24,000' Lincolnton East, NC
® USDA Natural Resources Conservation Service Soil Survey. Citation: 1":24,000' Lincolnton East, NC
® National wetlands inventory map(s). Cite name: USFWS NWI (2017)
❑ State/Local wetland inventory map(s):
❑ FEMA/FIRM maps:
❑ 100 -year Floodplain Elevation is: (National Geodectic Vertical Daturas of 1929)
® Photographs: ®Aerial (Name & Date): Figure 3 (Dated 10/20/2017)
Or ®Other (Name & Date): Site Photographs (Dated August 21, 22, and September 6, 2018)
❑ Previous determination(s). File no. and date of response letter:
❑ Applicable/supporting case law:
❑ Applicable/supporting scientific literature:
❑ Other information (please specify):
B. ADDITIONAL COMMENTS TO SUPPORT JD:

ow— -*OW � . —.a
LEGEND
Project Area
..... Unauthorized Impacts
due to Culvert
Unauthorized Impacts
due to Impoundment
Photographs
® Upland Data Point
Culvert
Seasonal RPW
Perennial RPW
Pond
1 in=50ft
0 Feet 50
Waters of the U.S.
Seasonal RPW: f
17 linear feet
DATA SOURCE: Esri, OpenStreetMap
contributors, and the GIS User Community -- J - -
GPS points were collected using Trimble
Geo7X and post -processed
LFeet200 0
1 inch
Waters of the U.S.
Perennial RPW 1
433 linear feet of
(unauthorized impoundment)
Waters of the US
Impoundment 1
0.39 ac.
i
,8 0. . .
r'N
1)'
V
Waters of the U.S.
Seasonal RPW 1
848 linear feet
Waters of the U.S.
Perennial RPW 1
280 linear feet
NA
Waters of the U.S.
Perennial RPW 1
303 linear feet of
�Il, unauthorized discharge
(culvert installment)
' w4+klp% . �..
Name: Gaston County Landfill
Applicant: Gaston County Dept. of Public Works
Location: 3155 Philadelphia Church Road,
Dallas Township, Gaston County, NC
Gaston County PIN #: portion of 165474
Date: 3/18/2019
Project Area: 11.5 acres
Center Coordinates: -81.174062°, 35.384229°
SAW #: 2018-00053
y" Approximate Total Jurisdictional RPW Tributary: 1,145 linear feet
Approximate Total Jurisdictional Wetlands: 0 acres
Features not shown outside Approximate Total Jurisdictional Ponds: 0.39 acres
of the AJD area are covered Approximate Total Uplands: 11.02 acres
under the PJD area Approximate Total Site Acreage: 11.5 acres
GASTON COUNTY LANDFILL
01 Op
DELINEATED WATERS OF THE U.S. REVISED 03/13/2019
FIGURE 6
PATH: \1CLTSMAINIGIS_DATA\GIS\PROJECTS13025_GASTONCOM021693_WETLANDSM2_ WORK _IN_PROGRESSIMAP_DOCSIMXDIJD_AJDREV_20190313%06_ GASTONCOLANDFILL_JD.MXD - JURISDICTIONAL DETERMINATION REPORT
USER: KTHAMES - DATE: 311812019

Appendix C
NCDWR and NCSAM Forms

N C 0 f+r SIOR Of Wate F Quality-Methodlology F -or Wentification of Intp rm itte nt and
Q
U
Pere n n Ia I Streams and Their Drig ins v_ 4.11
l
2
3
LNC I•+ + • St ea m I diMILlif]LJtIon FVrin Nemo■, 4.11 •
-Le. 3 Lim- f IL L.. I1 ,�.Prkp
Ua#e. `
.0-5
1
2 18"
15. Sediment on lame or debr�?
IL erleleO- `
0
0.5
EuBtupLin r_'S Ih yr. 7 ]e fir a # C. tib -,a, r ,
C4YUnj' ; �_. c,M, {r
t7, Soiklwid owiderim crf high waim Lebte?
2
TQUI Points:
Y4OMa .S of A"Of uMerr,i�Tda,•�f
Slraam Dete�rmYl ng L9Clrcle one)
EphcmVFR;
❑I him L 1 ��,:.t wr ,
0.5
2 19 Lir emrirunf if t
I' ntl�rmine Perannlal
_
�� g +��*,d PRIb�
D.5
A. Geamorphology GeomorphologySublotjM = Abl Zak Ma der$tetrog
u
1.5
2. Sinuosity of channel abrig irwKue
i• j
2
-3
3. In -channel slruclure: ex. fllfloLpM. slep�pmA, �
ri om
le} l sequence
1
1,5
30. Wetland pleMe m atreamW
4. Paardule size rxf sir"m suti. {alts
Q T-)
4
:5. AMekellet floodplain 1 2
S. DeosllImel hers Dr herKtw% U 1
3
7. R ecenl alluvial depo$ft ry1 2
3
S. HeWcut%
0
9
5. Graft wribrol 0 1
1 5
11 Natural Walley 0 0.5 y
1.5
11- $ecprur or weatm orderdiannel
No r Q
Yes = 3
erbWW ditches we rid Wad; see drsrijssinna. in m9eitigl
8- H udraln mp fRuhmtal a 1I s
12. Presence of A$S4Row
Q
U
1
1
l
2
3
13, Imm vxidiziN ibacbmis
14. Leaf Ilklk-i
_
7
.0-5
1
D
1.5
15. Sediment on lame or debr�?
$G. 01enic dehM 11wL or pilca
0
0.5
21- ftialir. Mollvsks
1.5
t7, Soiklwid owiderim crf high waim Lebte?
2
Na =.0
yea
L* _]1i]L11-111!VMr%7I `IIMVI
1 a. Fibrous roots in slreamhed
3
r2.
1
G
19. Root -cd inland plemr. in stresmW
2
1
D
20_ Maombenthog {nplo di+e-.+kv and abuAdenoe
1
2
3
21- ftialir. Mollvsks
0;•
1
2
;d
Fish
0.5
1
1.5
23. Cra ryh
D.5
1
1.5
_
24. Amphihians
1.5
25. Alger
0.5
1
1,5
30. Wetland pleMe m atreamW
I+AGVV = 0.75; O1M = 1.5 QihF.r = 0
'perennial Mains mjyr aha he *mifagd Uning Weir rnelhofs. See p. 3$ cf Fnan Fgl.
Sketch:
T2,m In 1G 1�4Slk-t;
Z !9 -
AA f l -d
AA
s-Ct4jVt C 4 L 4-
41

NC SAM FIELD ASSESSMENT FORM
Accompanies User Manual Version 2.1
USACE AID #: NCDWR #:
INSTRUCTIONS: Attach a sketch of the assessment area and photographs. Attach a copy of the USGS 7.5 -minute topographic quadrangle,
and circle the location of the stream reach under evaluation. If multiple stream reaches will be evaluated on the same property, identify and
number all reaches on the attached map, and include a separate form for each reach. See the NC SAM User Manual for detailed descriptions
and explanations of requested information. Record in the "Notes/Sketch" section if supplementary measurements were performed. See the
NC SAM User Manual for examples of additional measurements that may be relevant.
NOTE EVIDENCE OF STRESSORS AFFECTING THE ASSESSMENT AREA (do not need to be within the assessment area).
PROJECT/SITE INFORMATION:
1. Project name (if any): Gaston County
3. Applicant/owner name: Gaston County
5. County: Gaston County
7. River basin: Catawba
Landfill
Public Works
Date of evaluation: August 14, 2018
Assessor name/organization: Kelly Thames/HDR
Nearest named water body South Fork Catawba (HUC
on USGS 7.5 -minute quad: 03050102)
8. Site coordinates (decimal degrees, at lower end of assessment reach): 35.385041, -81.173047
STREAM INFORMATION: (depth and width can be approximations)
9. Site number (show on attached map): Reach 1 10. Length of assessment reach evaluated (feet): 553
11. Channel depth from bed (in riffle, if present) to top of bank (feet): 2-5 ft ❑Unable to assess channel depth.
12. Channel width at top of bank (feet): 1-4 ft 13. Is assessment reach a swamp steam? ❑Yes ❑No
14. Feature type: ❑Perennial flow ®Intermittent flow ❑Tidal Marsh Stream
STREAM CATEGORY INFORMATION:
15. NC SAM Zone: ❑ Mountains (M) ® Piedmont (P) ❑ Inner Coastal Plain (1) ❑ Outer Coastal Plain (0)
16. Estimated geomorphic ❑A ®B
valley shape (skip for
Tidal Marsh Stream): (more sinuous stream, flatter valley slope) (less sinuous stream, steeper valley slope)
17. Watershed size: (skip ®Size 1 (< 0.1 miz) ❑Size 2 (0.1 to < 0.5 miz) ❑Size 3 (0.5 to < 5 mit) ❑Size 4 (>_ 5 mit)
for Tidal Marsh Stream)
ADDITIONAL INFORMATION:
18. Were regulatory considerations evaluated? ®Yes ❑No If Yes, check all that apply to the assessment area.
❑Section 10 water ❑Classified Trout Waters ®Water Supply Watershed (❑I ❑II ❑III ®IV ❑V)
❑Essential Fish Habitat ❑Primary Nursery Area ❑ High Quality Waters/Outstanding Resource Waters
❑Publicly owned property ❑NCDWR Riparian buffer rule in effect ❑Nutrient Sensitive Waters
❑Anadromous fish ❑303(d) List ❑CAMA Area of Environmental Concern (AEC)
❑Documented presence of a federal and/or state listed protected species within the assessment area.
List species:
❑Designated Critical Habitat (list species)
19. Are additional stream information/supplementary measurements included in "Notes/Sketch" section or attached? ®Yes ❑No
1. Channel Water — assessment reach metric (skip for Size 1 streams and Tidal Marsh Streams)
❑A Water throughout assessment reach.
❑B No flow, water in pools only.
❑C No water in assessment reach.
2. Evidence of Flow Restriction — assessment reach metric
®A At least 10% of assessment reach in -stream habitat or riffle -pool sequence is severely affected by a flow restriction or fill to the
point of obstructing flow or a channel choked with aquatic macrophytes or ponded water or impoundment on flood or ebb within
the assessment reach (examples: undersized or perched culverts, causeways that constrict the channel, tidal gates, debris jams,
beaver dams).
❑B Not
3. Feature Pattern — assessment reach metric
®A A majority of the assessment reach has altered pattern (examples: straightening, modification above or below culvert).
❑B Not
4. Feature Longitudinal Profile — assessment reach metric
®A Majority of assessment reach has a substantially altered stream profile (examples: channel down -cutting, existing damming, over
widening, active aggradation, dredging, and excavation where appropriate channel profile has not reformed from any of these
disturbances).
❑B Not
5. Signs of Active Instability — assessment reach metric
Consider only current instability, not past events from which the stream has currently recovered. Examples of instability include
active bank failure, active channel down -cutting (head -cut), active widening, and artificial hardening (such as concrete, gabion, rip -rap).
❑A < 10% of channel unstable
❑B 10 to 25% of channel unstable
®C > 25% of channel unstable

6. Streamside Area Interaction — streamside area metric
Consider for the Left Bank (LB) and the Right Bank (RB).
LB RB
a N
❑A ❑A
Little or no evidence of conditions that adversely affect reference interaction
®B ❑B
Moderate evidence of conditions (examples: berms, levees, down -cutting, aggradation, dredging) that adversely affect
� E
reference interaction (examples: limited streamside area access, disruption of flood flows through streamside area, leaky
Submerged aquatic vegetation
or intermittent bulkheads, causeways with floodplain constriction, minor ditching [including mosquito ditching])
El ®C
Extensive evidence of conditions that adversely affect reference interaction (little to no floodplain/intertidal zone access
❑H
[examples: causeways with floodplain and channel constriction, bulkheads, retaining walls, fill, stream incision, disruption
of flood flows through streamside area] or too much floodplain/intertidal zone access [examples: impoundments, intensive
mosquito ditching]) or floodplain/intertidal zone unnaturally absent or assessment reach is a man-made feature on an
Sand bottom
interstream divide
Water Quality Stressors — assessment reach/intertidal zone metric
Check all that apply.
❑A Discolored water in stream or intertidal zone (milky white, blue, unnatural water discoloration, oil sheen, stream foam)
®B Excessive sedimentation (burying of stream features or intertidal zone)
❑C Noticeable evidence of pollutant discharges entering the assessment reach and causing a water quality problem
❑D Odor (not including natural sulfide odors)
❑E Current published or collected data indicating degraded water quality in the assessment reach. Cite source in "Notes/Sketch"
section.
❑F Livestock with access to stream or intertidal zone
❑G Excessive algae in stream or intertidal zone
❑H Degraded marsh vegetation in the intertidal zone (removal, burning, regular mowing, destruction, etc)
®I Other: (explain in "Notes/Sketch" section)
❑J Little to no stressors
8. Recent Weather — watershed metric (skip for Tidal Marsh Streams)
For Size 1 or 2 streams, D1 drought or higher is considered a drought; for Size 3 or 4 streams, D2 drought or higher is considered a drought.
❑A Drought conditions and no rainfall or rainfall not exceeding 1 inch within the last 48 hours
❑B Drought conditions and rainfall exceeding 1 inch within the last 48 hours
®C No drought conditions
9. Large or Dangerous Stream — assessment reach metric
❑Yes ®No Is stream is too large or dangerous to assess? If Yes, skip to Metric 13 (Streamside Area Ground Surface Condition).
10. Natural In -stream Habitat Types — assessment reach metric
10a. ®Yes ❑No Degraded in -stream habitat over majority of the assessment reach (examples of stressors include excessive
sedimentation, mining, excavation, in -stream hardening [for example, rip -rap], recent dredging, and snagging)
(evaluate for Size 4 Coastal Plain streams only, then skip to Metric 12)
10b. Check all that occur (occurs if > 5% coverage of assessment reach) (skip for Size 4 Coastal Plain streams)
❑A
Multiple aquatic macrophytes and aquatic mosses
a N
❑F
5% oysters or other natural hard bottoms
(include liverworts, lichens, and algal mats)
� E
❑G
Submerged aquatic vegetation
®B
Multiple sticks and/or leaf packs and/or emergent
g U)C
❑H
Low -tide refugia (pools)
vegetation
❑I
Sand bottom
❑C
Multiple snags and logs (including lap trees)
L M
❑J
5% vertical bank along the marsh
❑D
5% undercut banks and/or root mats and/or roots
0 2
❑K
Little or no habitat
in banks extend to the normal wetted perimeter
❑E
Little or no habitat
*********************************REMAINING QUESTIONS ARE NOT APPLICABLE FOR TIDAL MARSH STREAMS****************************
11. Bedform and Substrate —assessment reach metric (skip for Size 4 Coastal Plain streams and Tidal Marsh Streams)
11a. ❑Yes ®No Is assessment reach in a natural sand -bed stream? (skip for Coastal Plain streams)
11 b. Bedform evaluated. Check the appropriate box(es).
®A Riffle -run section (evaluate 11c)
❑B Pool -glide section (evaluate 11d)
El Natural bedform absent (skip to Metric 12, Aquatic Life)
11 c. In riffle sections, check all that occur below the normal wetted perimeter of the assessment reach — whether or not submerged. Check
at least one box in each row (skip for Size 4 Coastal Plain streams and Tidal Marsh Streams). Not Present (NP) = absent, Rare
(R) = present but < 10%, Common (C) _ > 10-40%, Abundant (A) _ > 40-70%, Predominant (P) _ > 70%. Cumulative percentages
should not exceed 100% for each assessment reach.
NP R C A P
® ❑ ❑ ❑ ❑ Bedrock/saprolite
® ❑ ❑ ❑ ❑ Boulder (256 — 4096 mm)
® ❑ ❑ ❑ ❑ Cobble (64 — 256 mm)
® ❑ ❑ ❑ ❑ Gravel (2 — 64 mm)
❑ ❑ ❑ ❑ ® Sand (.062 — 2 mm)
❑ ❑ ❑ ❑ ® Silt/clay (< 0.062 mm)
❑ ® ❑ ❑ ❑ Detritus
❑ ❑ ® ❑ ❑ Artificial (rip -rap, concrete, etc.)
11d. ❑Yes ❑No Are pools filled with sediment? (skip for Size 4 Coastal Plain streams and Tidal Marsh Streams)

12
Aquatic Life — assessment reach metric (skip for Tidal Marsh Streams)
12a. ®Yes ❑No Was an in -stream aquatic life assessment performed as described in the User Manual?
If No, select one of the following reasons and skip to Metric 13. ❑No Water ❑Other:
12b. ❑Yes ®No Are aquatic organisms present in the assessment reach (look in riffles, pools, then snags)? If Yes, check all that
apply. If No, skip to Metric 13.
1 >1 Numbers over columns refer to "individuals" for Size 1 and 2 streams and "taxa" for Size 3 and 4 streams.
❑ ❑Adult frogs
❑ ❑Aquatic reptiles
❑ []Aquatic macrophytes and aquatic mosses (include liverworts, lichens, and algal mats)
❑ ❑Beetles
❑ ❑Caddisfly larvae (T)
❑ ❑Asian clam (Corbicula)
❑ ❑Crustacean (isopod/amphipod/crayfish/shrimp)
❑ ❑Damselfly and dragonfly larvae
❑ ❑Dipterans
❑ ❑Mayfly larvae (E)
❑ ❑Megaloptera (alderfly, fishfly, dobsonfly larvae)
❑ ❑Midges/mosquito larvae
❑ ❑Mosquito fish (Gambusia) or mud minnows (Umbra pygmaea)
❑ ❑Mussels/Clams (not Corbicula)
❑ ❑Other fish
❑ ❑Salamanders/tad poles
❑ ❑Snails
❑ ❑Stonefly larvae (P)
❑ ❑Tipulid larvae
❑ ❑Worms/leeches
13. Streamside Area Ground Surface Condition — streamside area metric (skip for Tidal Marsh Streams and B valley types)
Consider for the Left Bank (LB) and the Right Bank (RB). Consider storage capacity with regard to both overbank flow and upland runoff.
LB RB
❑A ❑A Little or no alteration to water storage capacity over a majority of the streamside area
❑B ❑B Moderate alteration to water storage capacity over a majority of the streamside area
❑C El Severe alteration to water storage capacity over a majority of the streamside area (examples: ditches, fill, soil compaction,
livestock disturbance, buildings, man-made levees, drainage pipes)
14. Streamside Area Water Storage — streamside area metric (skip for Size 1 streams, Tidal Marsh Streams, and B valley types)
Consider for the Left Bank (LB) and the Right Bank (RB) of the streamside area.
LB RB
❑A ❑A Majority of streamside area with depressions able to pond water >_ 6 inches deep
❑B ❑B Majority of streamside area with depressions able to pond water 3 to 6 inches deep
❑C El Majority of streamside area with depressions able to pond water < 3 inches deep
15. Wetland Presence — streamside area metric (skip for Tidal Marsh Streams)
Consider for the Left Bank (LB) and the Right Bank (RB). Do not consider wetlands outside of the streamside area or within the normal
wetted perimeter of assessment reach.
LB RB
❑Y ❑Y Are wetlands present in the streamside area?
CAN ®N
16. Baseflow Contributors — assessment reach metric (skip for Size 4 streams and Tidal Marsh Streams)
Check all contributors within the assessment reach or within view of and draining to the assessment reach.
❑A Streams and/or springs (jurisdictional discharges)
❑B Ponds (include wet detention basins; do not include sediment basins or dry detention basins)
❑C Obstruction passing flow during low -flow periods within the assessment area (beaver dam, leaky dam, bottom -release dam, weir)
❑D Evidence of bank seepage or sweating (iron in water indicates seepage)
®E Stream bed or bank soil reduced (dig through deposited sediment if present)
❑F None of the above
17. Baseflow Detractors — assessment area metric (skip for Tidal Marsh Streams)
Check all that apply.
❑A Evidence of substantial water withdrawals from the assessment reach (includes areas excavated for pump installation)
®B Obstruction not passing flow during low -flow periods affecting the assessment reach (ex: watertight dam, sediment deposit)
❑C Urban stream (>_ 24% impervious surface for watershed)
®D Evidence that the streamside area has been modified resulting in accelerated drainage into the assessment reach
❑E Assessment reach relocated to valley edge
❑F None of the above
18. Shading — assessment reach metric (skip for Tidal Marsh Streams)
Consider aspect. Consider "leaf -on" condition.
❑A Stream shading is appropriate for stream category (may include gaps associated with natural processes)
®B Degraded (example: scattered trees)
❑C Stream shading is gone or largely absent

19. Buffer Width — streamside area metric (skip for Tidal Marsh Streams)
Consider "vegetated buffer" and "wooded buffer" separately for left bank (LB) and right bank (RB) starting at the top of bank out
to the first break.
Vegetated Wooded
LB RB LB RB
❑A ❑A ❑A ❑A >_ 100 feet wide or extends to the edge of the watershed
®B ❑B ®B n From 50 to < 100 feet wide
❑C ❑C ❑C ❑C From 30 to < 50 feet wide
❑D ❑D ❑D ❑D From 10 to < 30 feet wide
❑E ®E ❑E ®E < 10 feet wide or no trees
20. Buffer Structure — streamside area metric (skip for Tidal Marsh Streams)
Consider for left bank (LB) and right bank (RB) for Metric 19 ("Vegetated" Buffer Width).
LB RB
❑A ❑A Mature forest
®B ❑B Non -mature woody vegetation or modified vegetation structure
❑C ❑C Herbaceous vegetation with or without a strip of trees < 10 feet wide
❑D ❑D Maintained shrubs
❑E ®E Little or no vegetation
21. Buffer Stressors — streamside area metric (skip for Tidal Marsh Streams)
Check all appropriate boxes for left bank (LB) and right bank (RB). Indicate if listed stressor abuts stream (Abuts), does not abut but is
within 30 feet of stream (< 30 feet), or is between 30 to 50 feet of stream (30-50 feet).
If none of the following stressors occurs on either bank, check here and skip to Metric 22:
Abuts < 30 feet 30-50 feet
LB RB LB RB LB RB
❑A ❑A ❑A ❑A ❑A ❑A Row crops
❑B ❑B ❑B ❑B ❑B ❑B Maintained turf
❑C ❑C ❑C ❑C ❑C ❑C Pasture (no livestock)/commercial horticulture
❑D ❑D ❑D ❑D ❑D ❑D Pasture (active livestock use)
22. Stem Density — streamside area metric (skip for Tidal Marsh Streams)
Consider for left bank (LB) and right bank (RB) for Metric 19 ("Wooded" Buffer Width).
LB RB
❑A ❑A Medium to high stem density
®B ❑B Low stem density
❑C ®C No wooded riparian buffer or predominantly herbaceous species or bare ground
23. Continuity of Vegetated Buffer — streamside area metric (skip for Tidal Marsh Streams)
Consider whether vegetated buffer is continuous along stream (parallel). Breaks are areas lacking vegetation > 10 feet wide.
LB RB
®A ❑A The total length of buffer breaks is < 25 percent.
❑B ❑B The total length of buffer breaks is between 25 and 50 percent.
❑C ®C The total length of buffer breaks is > 50 percent.
24. Vegetative Composition — streamside area metric (skip for Tidal Marsh Streams)
Evaluate the dominant vegetation within 100 feet of each bank or to the edge of the watershed (whichever comes first) as it contributes to
assessment reach habitat.
LB RB
❑A ❑A Vegetation is close to undisturbed in species present and their proportions. Lower strata composed of native species,
with non-native invasive species absent or sparse.
®B ❑B Vegetation indicates disturbance in terms of species diversity or proportions, but is still largely composed of native
species. This may include communities of weedy native species that develop after clear -cutting or clearing or
communities with non-native invasive species present, but not dominant, over a large portion of the expected strata or
communities missing understory but retaining canopy trees.
El ®C Vegetation is severely disturbed in terms of species diversity or proportions. Mature canopy is absent or communities
with non-native invasive species dominant over a large portion of expected strata or communities composed of planted
stands of non -characteristic species or communities inappropriately composed of a single species or no vegetation.
25. Conductivity — assessment reach metric (skip for all Coastal Plain streams)
25a. ❑Yes ®No Was conductivity measurement recorded?
If No, select one of the following reasons. ❑No Water ❑Other:
25b. Check the box corresponding to the conductivity measurement (units of microsiemens per centimeter).
❑A < 46 ❑B 46 to < 67 ❑C 67 to < 79 ❑D 79 to < 230 ❑E >_ 230
Notes/Sketch:
Stream is located in the middle of an existing landfille with garbage cells on either side of the stream. This reach has no buffer non the right bank
and about an 80 foot vegetated buffer on the left bank. This reach was severly inundated with sediment.

Draft NC SAM Stream Rating Sheet
Accompanies User Manual Version 2.1
Stream Site Name Gaston County Landfill Date of Assessment
August 14, 2018
Stream Category Pb1 Assessor Name/Organization Kelly Thames/HDR
Notes of Field Assessment Form (Y/N)
YES
Presence of regulatory considerations (Y/N)
YES
Additional stream information/supplementary measurements included (Y/N)
YES
NC SAM feature type (perennial, intermittent, Tidal Marsh Stream)
Intermittent
USACE/
NCDWR
Function Class Rating Summary
All Streams
Intermittent
(1) Hydrology
LOW
LOW
(2) Baseflow
MEDIUM
MEDIUM
(2) Flood Flow
LOW
LOW
(3) Streamside Area Attenuation
LOW
LOW
(4) Floodplain Access
LOW
LOW
(4) Wooded Riparian Buffer
LOW
LOW
(4) Microtopography
NA
NA
(3) Stream Stability
LOW
LOW
(4) Channel Stability
LOW
LOW
(4) Sediment Transport
LOW
LOW
(4) Stream Geomorphology
LOW
LOW
(2) Stream/Intertidal Zone Interaction
NA
NA
(2) Longitudinal Tidal Flow
NA
NA
(2) Tidal Marsh Stream Stability
NA
NA
(3) Tidal Marsh Channel Stability
NA
NA
(3) Tidal Marsh Stream Geomorphology
NA
NA
(1) Water Quality
LOW
LOW
(2) Baseflow
MEDIUM
MEDIUM
(2) Streamside Area Vegetation
LOW
LOW
(3) Upland Pollutant Filtration
LOW
LOW
(3) Thermoregulation
MEDIUM
MEDIUM
(2) Indicators of Stressors
YES
YES
(2) Aquatic Life Tolerance
LOW
NA
(2) Intertidal Zone Filtration
NA
NA
(1) Habitat
LOW
LOW
(2) In -stream Habitat
LOW
LOW
(3) Baseflow
MEDIUM
MEDIUM
(3) Substrate
LOW
LOW
(3) Stream Stability
LOW
LOW
(3) In -stream Habitat
LOW
MEDIUM
(2) Stream -side Habitat
LOW
LOW
(3) Stream -side Habitat
LOW
LOW
(3) Thermoregulation
MEDIUM
MEDIUM
(2) Tidal Marsh In -stream Habitat
NA
NA
(3) Flow Restriction
NA
NA
(3) Tidal Marsh Stream Stability
NA
NA
(4) Tidal Marsh Channel Stability
NA
NA
(4) Tidal Marsh Stream Geomorphology
NA
NA
(3) Tidal Marsh In -stream Habitat
NA
NA
(2) Intertidal Zone
NA
NA
Overall
LOW
LOW

NC SAM FIELD ASSESSMENT FORM
Accompanies User Manual Version 2.1
USACE AID #: NCDWR #:
INSTRUCTIONS: Attach a sketch of the assessment area and photographs. Attach a copy of the USGS 7.5 -minute topographic quadrangle,
and circle the location of the stream reach under evaluation. If multiple stream reaches will be evaluated on the same property, identify and
number all reaches on the attached map, and include a separate form for each reach. See the NC SAM User Manual for detailed descriptions
and explanations of requested information. Record in the "Notes/Sketch" section if supplementary measurements were performed. See the
NC SAM User Manual for examples of additional measurements that may be relevant.
NOTE EVIDENCE OF STRESSORS AFFECTING THE ASSESSMENT AREA (do not need to be within the assessment area).
PROJECT/SITE INFORMATION:
1. Project name (if any): Gaston County
3. Applicant/owner name: Gaston County
5. County: Gaston County
7. River basin: Catawba
Landfill
Public Works
Date of evaluation: August 14, 2018
Assessor name/organization: Kelly Thames/HDR
Nearest named water body South Fork Catawba (HUC
on USGS 7.5 -minute quad: 03050102)
8. Site coordinates (decimal degrees, at lower end of assessment reach): 35.384848, -81.17372
STREAM INFORMATION: (depth and width can be approximations)
9. Site number (show on attached map): Reach 2 10. Length of assessment reach evaluated (feet): 295
11. Channel depth from bed (in riffle, if present) to top of bank (feet): 2-5 ft ❑Unable to assess channel depth.
12. Channel width at top of bank (feet): 1-4 ft 13. Is assessment reach a swamp steam? ❑Yes ❑No
14. Feature type: ❑Perennial flow ®Intermittent flow ❑Tidal Marsh Stream
STREAM CATEGORY INFORMATION:
15. NC SAM Zone: ❑ Mountains (M) ® Piedmont (P) ❑ Inner Coastal Plain (1) ❑ Outer Coastal Plain (0)
16. Estimated geomorphic ®A El
valley shape (skip for
Tidal Marsh Stream): (more sinuous stream, flatter valley slope) (less sinuous stream, steeper valley slope)
17. Watershed size: (skip ®Size 1 (< 0.1 mil) ❑Size 2 (0.1 to < 0.5 miz) ❑Size 3 (0.5 to < 5 mit) ❑Size 4 (>_ 5 mit)
for Tidal Marsh Stream)
ADDITIONAL INFORMATION:
18. Were regulatory considerations evaluated? ®Yes ❑No If Yes, check all that apply to the assessment area.
❑Section 10 water ❑Classified Trout Waters ®Water Supply Watershed (❑I ❑II ❑III ®IV ❑V)
❑Essential Fish Habitat ❑Primary Nursery Area ❑ High Quality Waters/Outstanding Resource Waters
❑Publicly owned property ❑NCDWR Riparian buffer rule in effect ❑Nutrient Sensitive Waters
❑Anadromous fish ❑303(d) List ❑CAMA Area of Environmental Concern (AEC)
❑Documented presence of a federal and/or state listed protected species within the assessment area.
List species:
❑Designated Critical Habitat (list species)
19. Are additional stream information/supplementary measurements included in "Notes/Sketch" section or attached? ®Yes []No
1. Channel Water — assessment reach metric (skip for Size 1 streams and Tidal Marsh Streams)
❑A Water throughout assessment reach.
❑B No flow, water in pools only.
❑C No water in assessment reach.
2. Evidence of Flow Restriction — assessment reach metric
®A At least 10% of assessment reach in -stream habitat or riffle -pool sequence is severely affected by a flow restriction or fill to the
point of obstructing flow or a channel choked with aquatic macrophytes or ponded water or impoundment on flood or ebb within
the assessment reach (examples: undersized or perched culverts, causeways that constrict the channel, tidal gates, debris jams,
beaver dams).
❑B Not
3. Feature Pattern — assessment reach metric
❑A A majority of the assessment reach has altered pattern (examples: straightening, modification above or below culvert).
®B Not A
4. Feature Longitudinal Profile — assessment reach metric
®A Majority of assessment reach has a substantially altered stream profile (examples: channel down -cutting, existing damming, over
widening, active aggradation, dredging, and excavation where appropriate channel profile has not reformed from any of these
disturbances).
❑B Not
5. Signs of Active Instability — assessment reach metric
Consider only current instability, not past events from which the stream has currently recovered. Examples of instability include
active bank failure, active channel down -cutting (head -cut), active widening, and artificial hardening (such as concrete, gabion, rip -rap).
❑A < 10% of channel unstable
®B 10 to 25% of channel unstable
❑C > 25% of channel unstable

6. Streamside Area Interaction — streamside area metric
Consider for the Left Bank (LB) and the Right Bank (RB).
LB RB
a N
❑A ❑A
Little or no evidence of conditions that adversely affect reference interaction
®B ®B
Moderate evidence of conditions (examples: berms, levees, down -cutting, aggradation, dredging) that adversely affect
� E
reference interaction (examples: limited streamside area access, disruption of flood flows through streamside area, leaky
Submerged aquatic vegetation
or intermittent bulkheads, causeways with floodplain constriction, minor ditching [including mosquito ditching])
El El
Extensive evidence of conditions that adversely affect reference interaction (little to no floodplain/intertidal zone access
❑H
[examples: causeways with floodplain and channel constriction, bulkheads, retaining walls, fill, stream incision, disruption
of flood flows through streamside area] or too much floodplain/intertidal zone access [examples: impoundments, intensive
mosquito ditching]) or floodplain/intertidal zone unnaturally absent or assessment reach is a man-made feature on an
Sand bottom
interstream divide
Water Quality Stressors — assessment reach/intertidal zone metric
Check all that apply.
❑A Discolored water in stream or intertidal zone (milky white, blue, unnatural water discoloration, oil sheen, stream foam)
®B Excessive sedimentation (burying of stream features or intertidal zone)
❑C Noticeable evidence of pollutant discharges entering the assessment reach and causing a water quality problem
❑D Odor (not including natural sulfide odors)
❑E Current published or collected data indicating degraded water quality in the assessment reach. Cite source in "Notes/Sketch"
section.
❑F Livestock with access to stream or intertidal zone
❑G Excessive algae in stream or intertidal zone
❑H Degraded marsh vegetation in the intertidal zone (removal, burning, regular mowing, destruction, etc)
®I Other: (explain in "Notes/Sketch" section)
❑J Little to no stressors
8. Recent Weather — watershed metric (skip for Tidal Marsh Streams)
For Size 1 or 2 streams, D1 drought or higher is considered a drought; for Size 3 or 4 streams, D2 drought or higher is considered a drought.
❑A Drought conditions and no rainfall or rainfall not exceeding 1 inch within the last 48 hours
❑B Drought conditions and rainfall exceeding 1 inch within the last 48 hours
®C No drought conditions
9. Large or Dangerous Stream — assessment reach metric
❑Yes ®No Is stream is too large or dangerous to assess? If Yes, skip to Metric 13 (Streamside Area Ground Surface Condition).
10. Natural In -stream Habitat Types — assessment reach metric
10a. ®Yes ❑No Degraded in -stream habitat over majority of the assessment reach (examples of stressors include excessive
sedimentation, mining, excavation, in -stream hardening [for example, rip -rap], recent dredging, and snagging)
(evaluate for Size 4 Coastal Plain streams only, then skip to Metric 12)
10b. Check all that occur (occurs if > 5% coverage of assessment reach) (skip for Size 4 Coastal Plain streams)
❑A
Multiple aquatic macrophytes and aquatic mosses
a N
❑F
5% oysters or other natural hard bottoms
(include liverworts, lichens, and algal mats)
� E
❑G
Submerged aquatic vegetation
®B
Multiple sticks and/or leaf packs and/or emergent
g U)C
❑H
Low -tide refugia (pools)
vegetation
❑I
Sand bottom
❑C
Multiple snags and logs (including lap trees)
L M
❑J
5% vertical bank along the marsh
❑D
5% undercut banks and/or root mats and/or roots
0 2
❑K
Little or no habitat
in banks extend to the normal wetted perimeter
❑E
Little or no habitat
*********************************REMAINING QUESTIONS ARE NOT APPLICABLE FOR TIDAL MARSH STREAMS****************************
11. Bedform and Substrate —assessment reach metric (skip for Size 4 Coastal Plain streams and Tidal Marsh Streams)
11a. ❑Yes ®No Is assessment reach in a natural sand -bed stream? (skip for Coastal Plain streams)
11 b. Bedform evaluated. Check the appropriate box(es).
®A Riffle -run section (evaluate 11c)
❑B Pool -glide section (evaluate 11d)
El Natural bedform absent (skip to Metric 12, Aquatic Life)
11 c. In riffle sections, check all that occur below the normal wetted perimeter of the assessment reach — whether or not submerged. Check
at least one box in each row (skip for Size 4 Coastal Plain streams and Tidal Marsh Streams). Not Present (NP) = absent, Rare
(R) = present but < 10%, Common (C) _ > 10-40%, Abundant (A) _ > 40-70%, Predominant (P) _ > 70%. Cumulative percentages
should not exceed 100% for each assessment reach.
NP R C A P
® ❑ ❑ ❑ ❑ Bedrock/saprolite
® ❑ ❑ ❑ ❑ Boulder (256 — 4096 mm)
® ❑ ❑ ❑ ❑ Cobble (64 — 256 mm)
® ❑ ❑ ❑ ❑ Gravel (2 — 64 mm)
❑ ❑ ❑ ❑ ® Sand (.062 — 2 mm)
❑ ❑ ❑ ❑ ® Silt/clay (< 0.062 mm)
❑ ❑ ® ❑ ❑ Detritus
❑ ® ❑ ❑ ❑ Artificial (rip -rap, concrete, etc.)
11d. ❑Yes ❑No Are pools filled with sediment? (skip for Size 4 Coastal Plain streams and Tidal Marsh Streams)

12
Aquatic Life — assessment reach metric (skip for Tidal Marsh Streams)
12a. ®Yes ❑No Was an in -stream aquatic life assessment performed as described in the User Manual?
If No, select one of the following reasons and skip to Metric 13. ❑No Water ❑Other:
12b. ❑Yes ®No Are aquatic organisms present in the assessment reach (look in riffles, pools, then snags)? If Yes, check all that
apply. If No, skip to Metric 13.
1 >1 Numbers over columns refer to "individuals" for Size 1 and 2 streams and "taxa" for Size 3 and 4 streams.
❑ ❑Adult frogs
❑ ❑Aquatic reptiles
❑ []Aquatic macrophytes and aquatic mosses (include liverworts, lichens, and algal mats)
❑ ❑Beetles
❑ ❑Caddisfly larvae (T)
❑ ❑Asian clam (Corbicula)
❑ ❑Crustacean (isopod/amphipod/crayfish/shrimp)
❑ ❑Damselfly and dragonfly larvae
❑ ❑Dipterans
❑ ❑Mayfly larvae (E)
❑ ❑Megaloptera (alderfly, fishfly, dobsonfly larvae)
❑ ❑Midges/mosquito larvae
❑ ❑Mosquito fish (Gambusia) or mud minnows (Umbra pygmaea)
❑ ❑Mussels/Clams (not Corbicula)
❑ ❑Other fish
❑ ❑Salamanders/tad poles
❑ ❑Snails
❑ ❑Stonefly larvae (P)
❑ ❑Tipulid larvae
❑ ❑Worms/leeches
13. Streamside Area Ground Surface Condition — streamside area metric (skip for Tidal Marsh Streams and B valley types)
Consider for the Left Bank (LB) and the Right Bank (RB). Consider storage capacity with regard to both overbank flow and upland runoff.
LB RB
❑A ❑A Little or no alteration to water storage capacity over a majority of the streamside area
❑B ❑B Moderate alteration to water storage capacity over a majority of the streamside area
®C ®C Severe alteration to water storage capacity over a majority of the streamside area (examples: ditches, fill, soil compaction,
livestock disturbance, buildings, man-made levees, drainage pipes)
14. Streamside Area Water Storage — streamside area metric (skip for Size 1 streams, Tidal Marsh Streams, and B valley types)
Consider for the Left Bank (LB) and the Right Bank (RB) of the streamside area.
LB RB
❑A ❑A Majority of streamside area with depressions able to pond water >_ 6 inches deep
❑B ❑B Majority of streamside area with depressions able to pond water 3 to 6 inches deep
❑C El Majority of streamside area with depressions able to pond water < 3 inches deep
15. Wetland Presence — streamside area metric (skip for Tidal Marsh Streams)
Consider for the Left Bank (LB) and the Right Bank (RB). Do not consider wetlands outside of the streamside area or within the normal
wetted perimeter of assessment reach.
LB RB
❑Y ❑Y Are wetlands present in the streamside area?
CAN ®N
16. Baseflow Contributors — assessment reach metric (skip for Size 4 streams and Tidal Marsh Streams)
Check all contributors within the assessment reach or within view of and draining to the assessment reach.
❑A Streams and/or springs (jurisdictional discharges)
❑B Ponds (include wet detention basins; do not include sediment basins or dry detention basins)
❑C Obstruction passing flow during low -flow periods within the assessment area (beaver dam, leaky dam, bottom -release dam, weir)
❑D Evidence of bank seepage or sweating (iron in water indicates seepage)
®E Stream bed or bank soil reduced (dig through deposited sediment if present)
❑F None of the above
17. Baseflow Detractors — assessment area metric (skip for Tidal Marsh Streams)
Check all that apply.
❑A Evidence of substantial water withdrawals from the assessment reach (includes areas excavated for pump installation)
®B Obstruction not passing flow during low -flow periods affecting the assessment reach (ex: watertight dam, sediment deposit)
❑C Urban stream (>_ 24% impervious surface for watershed)
®D Evidence that the streamside area has been modified resulting in accelerated drainage into the assessment reach
❑E Assessment reach relocated to valley edge
❑F None of the above
18. Shading — assessment reach metric (skip for Tidal Marsh Streams)
Consider aspect. Consider "leaf -on" condition.
®A Stream shading is appropriate for stream category (may include gaps associated with natural processes)
❑B Degraded (example: scattered trees)
❑C Stream shading is gone or largely absent

19. Buffer Width — streamside area metric (skip for Tidal Marsh Streams)
Consider "vegetated buffer" and "wooded buffer" separately for left bank (LB) and right bank (RB) starting at the top of bank out
to the first break.
Vegetated Wooded
LB RB LB RB
®A ❑A ❑A ❑A >_ 100 feet wide or extends to the edge of the watershed
❑B ❑B ❑B n From 50 to < 100 feet wide
❑C ®C ®C ®C From 30 to < 50 feet wide
❑D ❑D ❑D ❑D From 10 to < 30 feet wide
❑E ❑E ❑E ❑E < 10 feet wide or no trees
20. Buffer Structure — streamside area metric (skip for Tidal Marsh Streams)
Consider for left bank (LB) and right bank (RB) for Metric 19 ("Vegetated" Buffer Width).
LB RB
❑A ❑A Mature forest
®B ®B Non -mature woody vegetation or modified vegetation structure
❑C ❑C Herbaceous vegetation with or without a strip of trees < 10 feet wide
❑D ❑D Maintained shrubs
❑E ❑E Little or no vegetation
21. Buffer Stressors — streamside area metric (skip for Tidal Marsh Streams)
Check all appropriate boxes for left bank (LB) and right bank (RB). Indicate if listed stressor abuts stream (Abuts), does not abut but is
within 30 feet of stream (< 30 feet), or is between 30 to 50 feet of stream (30-50 feet).
If none of the following stressors occurs on either bank, check here and skip to Metric 22:
Abuts < 30 feet 30-50 feet
LB RB LB RB LB RB
❑A ❑A ❑A ❑A ❑A ❑A Row crops
❑B ❑B ❑B ❑B ❑B ❑B Maintained turf
❑C ❑C ❑C ❑C ❑C ❑C Pasture (no livestock)/commercial horticulture
❑D ❑D ❑D ❑D ❑D ❑D Pasture (active livestock use)
22. Stem Density — streamside area metric (skip for Tidal Marsh Streams)
Consider for left bank (LB) and right bank (RB) for Metric 19 ("Wooded" Buffer Width).
LB RB
❑A ❑A Medium to high stem density
®B ®B Low stem density
❑C ❑C No wooded riparian buffer or predominantly herbaceous species or bare ground
23. Continuity of Vegetated Buffer — streamside area metric (skip for Tidal Marsh Streams)
Consider whether vegetated buffer is continuous along stream (parallel). Breaks are areas lacking vegetation > 10 feet wide.
LB RB
®A ®A The total length of buffer breaks is < 25 percent.
❑B ❑B The total length of buffer breaks is between 25 and 50 percent.
❑C ❑C The total length of buffer breaks is > 50 percent.
24. Vegetative Composition — streamside area metric (skip for Tidal Marsh Streams)
Evaluate the dominant vegetation within 100 feet of each bank or to the edge of the watershed (whichever comes first) as it contributes to
assessment reach habitat.
LB RB
❑A ❑A Vegetation is close to undisturbed in species present and their proportions. Lower strata composed of native species,
with non-native invasive species absent or sparse.
®B ®B Vegetation indicates disturbance in terms of species diversity or proportions, but is still largely composed of native
species. This may include communities of weedy native species that develop after clear -cutting or clearing or
communities with non-native invasive species present, but not dominant, over a large portion of the expected strata or
communities missing understory but retaining canopy trees.
El n Vegetation is severely disturbed in terms of species diversity or proportions. Mature canopy is absent or communities
with non-native invasive species dominant over a large portion of expected strata or communities composed of planted
stands of non -characteristic species or communities inappropriately composed of a single species or no vegetation.
25. Conductivity — assessment reach metric (skip for all Coastal Plain streams)
25a. ❑Yes ®No Was conductivity measurement recorded?
If No, select one of the following reasons. ❑No Water ❑Other:
25b. Check the box corresponding to the conductivity measurement (units of microsiemens per centimeter).
❑A < 46 ❑B 46 to < 67 ❑C 67 to < 79 ❑D 79 to < 230 ❑E >_ 230
Notes/Sketch:
Stream is located in the middle of an existing landfill with garbage cells on either side of the stream. This reach was severly inundated with
sediment, which was restricting its baseflow.

Draft NC SAM Stream Rating Sheet
Accompanies User Manual Version 2.1
Stream Site Name Gaston County Landfill Date of Assessment
August 14, 2018
Stream Category Pal Assessor Name/Organization Kelly Thames/HDR
Notes of Field Assessment Form (Y/N)
YES
Presence of regulatory considerations (Y/N)
YES
Additional stream information/supplementary measurements included (Y/N)
YES
NC SAM feature type (perennial, intermittent, Tidal Marsh Stream)
Intermittent
USACE/
NCDWR
Function Class Rating Summary
All Streams
Intermittent
(1) Hydrology
LOW
LOW
(2) Baseflow
MEDIUM
MEDIUM
(2) Flood Flow
LOW
LOW
(3) Streamside Area Attenuation
MEDIUM
MEDIUM
(4) Floodplain Access
MEDIUM
MEDIUM
(4) Wooded Riparian Buffer
MEDIUM
MEDIUM
(4) Microtopography
LOW
LOW
(3) Stream Stability
LOW
LOW
(4) Channel Stability
MEDIUM
MEDIUM
(4) Sediment Transport
LOW
LOW
(4) Stream Geomorphology
MEDIUM
MEDIUM
(2) Stream/Intertidal Zone Interaction
NA
NA
(2) Longitudinal Tidal Flow
NA
NA
(2) Tidal Marsh Stream Stability
NA
NA
(3) Tidal Marsh Channel Stability
NA
NA
(3) Tidal Marsh Stream Geomorphology
NA
NA
(1) Water Quality
LOW
LOW
(2) Baseflow
MEDIUM
MEDIUM
(2) Streamside Area Vegetation
HIGH
HIGH
(3) Upland Pollutant Filtration
HIGH
HIGH
(3) Thermoregulation
HIGH
HIGH
(2) Indicators of Stressors
YES
YES
(2) Aquatic Life Tolerance
LOW
NA
(2) Intertidal Zone Filtration
NA
NA
(1) Habitat
LOW
LOW
(2) In -stream Habitat
LOW
LOW
(3) Baseflow
MEDIUM
MEDIUM
(3) Substrate
LOW
LOW
(3) Stream Stability
MEDIUM
MEDIUM
(3) In -stream Habitat
LOW
MEDIUM
(2) Stream -side Habitat
HIGH
HIGH
(3) Stream -side Habitat
MEDIUM
MEDIUM
(3) Thermoregulation
HIGH
HIGH
(2) Tidal Marsh In -stream Habitat
NA
NA
(3) Flow Restriction
NA
NA
(3) Tidal Marsh Stream Stability
NA
NA
(4) Tidal Marsh Channel Stability
NA
NA
(4) Tidal Marsh Stream Geomorphology
NA
NA
(3) Tidal Marsh In -stream Habitat
NA
NA
(2) Intertidal Zone
NA
NA
Overall
LOW
LOW

NC DivR!sion of Water QuaiIly -Methodology for Identification of Intermittent and
-- PE re n n i a! Streams and Th Pi r Origins v. 4.11
NC DWQ Streanm tdeii Hiles I imi Form leers ie 11 4.11 � �,� � ,�� S�r,1 �PWIOrrwI2_
bale: D i projecusllt; ` L.Edhwde, tUE_
Evaluator: i ��y �� A Mfg C43unty, o. LangKude: Sf, f � '
Total Poi t11CS; Slraem Detarmineli rcl* onop I OIher L I l V1iVhn ET; �_
if ami 9 r.v O rees� ie ru Z�A . Ephemeral J]jlefr@16rW Perentli*l e.g. Oruro urea:
A. Geomorahodony tgk,htrrtai = tra ti I JLhir.nr lhraalr M nrl.%rmta F
au u--.wdi uivaium arm nLA r nou: aoP 4t5CU6elDns fl irmnuw
B. Hydrolqg (subtot-ar = r f , r
12. Presemnop -or K.&s,s aaw
13. Iron -oxidizing bsclarin
14. Lx , -Il JiLler
1.5. Sediment an pierrls or Aebns
$6. Or:gsnK ff4fl3 lim" or pirea
17. Soiklvs6d 13videnoe cf high water k$ble'?
C. Rin!OOV f..'rlhtrSl.R1 = . 5
0 1 m 1 2 1 3
7
0.5
0
Q. 5
T
_.-$
2. Si-numily of channel along ihj�fNy;
Q
2
0
20. Maumbenmos (nP16 Epywaily altd afsuedwCa) 1
3
3. I n -channel suucUe: eN rifllaHpoal. slap-paal,
ri le- a ence
21. Ar1u;D1iC hbllsks 1
2
2
22. Fish 0.5
3
4- Psrlkle size of simu ri substrabe D
3
�. 1tiCIrClid floodplain
1.!5
1.5
24. Amphibians (1.5
2
25. AIWu u 0.5
3
6. Dommilional bars -or benches
0
1
2
'perelwilel etrdeiins n -yr liw i�c idendr+ed uelr�g �eilet niel}iods. Sic p. $ of rraanual.
3
7. Recent alluvial devosiLs 1
t5. NeB�Ls
1
2
3
9. Cxade canirol
0.5
1
1
Sketch:
-
10. Natural valley 0 0.S
11. SeWild er jprigmer order channel
Yes ■ 3
au u--.wdi uivaium arm nLA r nou: aoP 4t5CU6elDns fl irmnuw
B. Hydrolqg (subtot-ar = r f , r
12. Presemnop -or K.&s,s aaw
13. Iron -oxidizing bsclarin
14. Lx , -Il JiLler
1.5. Sediment an pierrls or Aebns
$6. Or:gsnK ff4fl3 lim" or pirea
17. Soiklvs6d 13videnoe cf high water k$ble'?
C. Rin!OOV f..'rlhtrSl.R1 = . 5
0 1 m 1 2 1 3
7
0.5
0
Q. 5
T
1.5
19. RooWd u lan-2 plank In St'4�9rr bod �
2
1 U. Fif mu& mots in streembe+d
2
1
.0
19. RooWd u lan-2 plank In St'4�9rr bod �
2
1
2
_ 2 "
1
0
20. Maumbenmos (nP16 Epywaily altd afsuedwCa) 1
3
21. Ar1u;D1iC hbllsks 1
3
1.5
22. Fish 0.5
23. CragE�h rte}
15.5
1
1.!5
1.5
24. Amphibians (1.5
1
1
25. AIWu u 0.5
1-5
26.Werlandpdanis m strembed
FA -CW = 0.75; ML ;3 1-5 04her = 0
'perelwilel etrdeiins n -yr liw i�c idendr+ed uelr�g �eilet niel}iods. Sic p. $ of rraanual.
Sketch:
yL� [At 1'(M
��� r11•' �L�CK� . �' � 1
41

NC SAM FIELD ASSESSMENT FORM
Accompanies User Manual Version 2.1
USACE AID #: NCDWR #:
INSTRUCTIONS: Attach a sketch of the assessment area and photographs. Attach a copy of the USGS 7.5 -minute topographic quadrangle,
and circle the location of the stream reach under evaluation. If multiple stream reaches will be evaluated on the same property, identify and
number all reaches on the attached map, and include a separate form for each reach. See the NC SAM User Manual for detailed descriptions
and explanations of requested information. Record in the "Notes/Sketch" section if supplementary measurements were performed. See the
NC SAM User Manual for examples of additional measurements that may be relevant.
NOTE EVIDENCE OF STRESSORS AFFECTING THE ASSESSMENT AREA (do not need to be within the assessment area).
PROJECT/SITE INFORMATION:
1. Project name (if any): Gaston County
3. Applicant/owner name: Gaston County
5. County: Gaston County
7. River basin: Catawba
Landfill
Public Works
Date of evaluation: August 14, 2018
Assessor name/organization: Kelly Thames/HDR
Nearest named water body South Fork Catawba (HUC
on USGS 7.5 -minute quad: 03050102)
8. Site coordinates (decimal degrees, at lower end of assessment reach): 35.384828, -81.173547
STREAM INFORMATION: (depth and width can be approximations)
9. Site number (show on attached map): Reach 3 10. Length of assessment reach evaluated (feet): 17
11. Channel depth from bed (in riffle, if present) to top of bank (feet): 1 ft ❑Unable to assess channel depth.
12. Channel width at top of bank (feet): 2 ft 13. Is assessment reach a swamp steam? ❑Yes ❑No
14. Feature type: ❑Perennial flow ®Intermittent flow ❑Tidal Marsh Stream
STREAM CATEGORY INFORMATION:
15. NC SAM Zone: ❑ Mountains (M) ® Piedmont (P) ❑ Inner Coastal Plain (1) ❑ Outer Coastal Plain (0)
16. Estimated geomorphic ®A El
valley shape (skip for
Tidal Marsh Stream): (more sinuous stream, flatter valley slope) (less sinuous stream, steeper valley slope)
17. Watershed size: (skip ®Size 1 (< 0.1 miz) ❑Size 2 (0.1 to < 0.5 miz) ❑Size 3 (0.5 to < 5 mit) ❑Size 4 (>_ 5 mit)
for Tidal Marsh Stream)
ADDITIONAL INFORMATION:
18. Were regulatory considerations evaluated? ®Yes ❑No If Yes, check all that apply to the assessment area.
❑Section 10 water ❑Classified Trout Waters ®Water Supply Watershed (❑I ❑II ❑III ®IV ❑V)
❑Essential Fish Habitat ❑Primary Nursery Area ❑ High Quality Waters/Outstanding Resource Waters
❑Publicly owned property ❑NCDWR Riparian buffer rule in effect ❑Nutrient Sensitive Waters
❑Anadromous fish ❑303(d) List ❑CAMA Area of Environmental Concern (AEC)
❑Documented presence of a federal and/or state listed protected species within the assessment area.
List species:
❑Designated Critical Habitat (list species)
19. Are additional stream information/supplementary measurements included in "Notes/Sketch" section or attached? ®Yes []No
1. Channel Water — assessment reach metric (skip for Size 1 streams and Tidal Marsh Streams)
❑A Water throughout assessment reach.
❑B No flow, water in pools only.
❑C No water in assessment reach.
2. Evidence of Flow Restriction — assessment reach metric
®A At least 10% of assessment reach in -stream habitat or riffle -pool sequence is severely affected by a flow restriction or fill to the
point of obstructing flow or a channel choked with aquatic macrophytes or ponded water or impoundment on flood or ebb within
the assessment reach (examples: undersized or perched culverts, causeways that constrict the channel, tidal gates, debris jams,
beaver dams).
❑B Not
3. Feature Pattern — assessment reach metric
❑A A majority of the assessment reach has altered pattern (examples: straightening, modification above or below culvert).
®B Not A
4. Feature Longitudinal Profile — assessment reach metric
❑A Majority of assessment reach has a substantially altered stream profile (examples: channel down -cutting, existing damming, over
widening, active aggradation, dredging, and excavation where appropriate channel profile has not reformed from any of these
disturbances).
®B Not A
5. Signs of Active Instability — assessment reach metric
Consider only current instability, not past events from which the stream has currently recovered. Examples of instability include
active bank failure, active channel down -cutting (head -cut), active widening, and artificial hardening (such as concrete, gabion, rip -rap).
®A < 10% of channel unstable
❑B 10 to 25% of channel unstable
❑C > 25% of channel unstable

6. Streamside Area Interaction — streamside area metric
Consider for the Left Bank (LB) and the Right Bank (RB).
LB RB
a N
❑A ❑A
Little or no evidence of conditions that adversely affect reference interaction
®B ®B
Moderate evidence of conditions (examples: berms, levees, down -cutting, aggradation, dredging) that adversely affect
� E
reference interaction (examples: limited streamside area access, disruption of flood flows through streamside area, leaky
Submerged aquatic vegetation
or intermittent bulkheads, causeways with floodplain constriction, minor ditching [including mosquito ditching])
El El
Extensive evidence of conditions that adversely affect reference interaction (little to no floodplain/intertidal zone access
❑H
[examples: causeways with floodplain and channel constriction, bulkheads, retaining walls, fill, stream incision, disruption
of flood flows through streamside area] or too much floodplain/intertidal zone access [examples: impoundments, intensive
mosquito ditching]) or floodplain/intertidal zone unnaturally absent or assessment reach is a man-made feature on an
Sand bottom
interstream divide
Water Quality Stressors — assessment reach/intertidal zone metric
Check all that apply.
❑A Discolored water in stream or intertidal zone (milky white, blue, unnatural water discoloration, oil sheen, stream foam)
®B Excessive sedimentation (burying of stream features or intertidal zone)
❑C Noticeable evidence of pollutant discharges entering the assessment reach and causing a water quality problem
❑D Odor (not including natural sulfide odors)
❑E Current published or collected data indicating degraded water quality in the assessment reach. Cite source in "Notes/Sketch"
section.
❑F Livestock with access to stream or intertidal zone
❑G Excessive algae in stream or intertidal zone
❑H Degraded marsh vegetation in the intertidal zone (removal, burning, regular mowing, destruction, etc)
®I Other: (explain in "Notes/Sketch" section)
❑J Little to no stressors
8. Recent Weather — watershed metric (skip for Tidal Marsh Streams)
For Size 1 or 2 streams, D1 drought or higher is considered a drought; for Size 3 or 4 streams, D2 drought or higher is considered a drought.
❑A Drought conditions and no rainfall or rainfall not exceeding 1 inch within the last 48 hours
❑B Drought conditions and rainfall exceeding 1 inch within the last 48 hours
®C No drought conditions
9. Large or Dangerous Stream — assessment reach metric
❑Yes ®No Is stream is too large or dangerous to assess? If Yes, skip to Metric 13 (Streamside Area Ground Surface Condition).
10. Natural In -stream Habitat Types — assessment reach metric
10a. ❑Yes ®No Degraded in -stream habitat over majority of the assessment reach (examples of stressors include excessive
sedimentation, mining, excavation, in -stream hardening [for example, rip -rap], recent dredging, and snagging)
(evaluate for Size 4 Coastal Plain streams only, then skip to Metric 12)
10b. Check all that occur (occurs if > 5% coverage of assessment reach) (skip for Size 4 Coastal Plain streams)
❑A
Multiple aquatic macrophytes and aquatic mosses
a N
❑F
5% oysters or other natural hard bottoms
(include liverworts, lichens, and algal mats)
� E
❑G
Submerged aquatic vegetation
❑B
Multiple sticks and/or leaf packs and/or emergent
g U)C
❑H
Low -tide refugia (pools)
vegetation
❑I
Sand bottom
❑C
Multiple snags and logs (including lap trees)
L M
❑J
5% vertical bank along the marsh
❑D
5% undercut banks and/or root mats and/or roots
0 2
❑K
Little or no habitat
in banks extend to the normal wetted perimeter
®E
Little or no habitat
*********************************REMAINING QUESTIONS ARE NOT APPLICABLE FOR TIDAL MARSH STREAMS****************************
11. Bedform and Substrate —assessment reach metric (skip for Size 4 Coastal Plain streams and Tidal Marsh Streams)
11a. ❑Yes ®No Is assessment reach in a natural sand -bed stream? (skip for Coastal Plain streams)
11 b. Bedform evaluated. Check the appropriate box(es).
®A Riffle -run section (evaluate 11c)
❑B Pool -glide section (evaluate 11d)
El Natural bedform absent (skip to Metric 12, Aquatic Life)
11 c. In riffle sections, check all that occur below the normal wetted perimeter of the assessment reach — whether or not submerged. Check
at least one box in each row (skip for Size 4 Coastal Plain streams and Tidal Marsh Streams). Not Present (NP) = absent, Rare
(R) = present but < 10%, Common (C) _ > 10-40%, Abundant (A) _ > 40-70%, Predominant (P) _ > 70%. Cumulative percentages
should not exceed 100% for each assessment reach.
NP R C A P
❑ ❑ ❑ ❑ ® Bedrock/saprolite
® ❑ ❑ ❑ ❑ Boulder (256 — 4096 mm)
® ❑ ❑ ❑ ❑ Cobble (64 — 256 mm)
® ❑ ❑ ❑ ❑ Gravel (2 — 64 mm)
❑ ❑ ❑ ❑ ® Sand (.062 — 2 mm)
❑ ® ❑ ❑ ❑ Silt/clay (< 0.062 mm)
® ❑ ❑ ❑ ❑ Detritus
® ❑ ❑ ❑ ❑ Artificial (rip -rap, concrete, etc.)
11d. ❑Yes ❑No Are pools filled with sediment? (skip for Size 4 Coastal Plain streams and Tidal Marsh Streams)

12
Aquatic Life — assessment reach metric (skip for Tidal Marsh Streams)
12a. ❑Yes ®No Was an in -stream aquatic life assessment performed as described in the User Manual?
If No, select one of the following reasons and skip to Metric 13. ®No Water ❑Other:
12b. ❑Yes ❑No Are aquatic organisms present in the assessment reach (look in riffles, pools, then snags)? If Yes, check all that
apply. If No, skip to Metric 13.
1 >1 Numbers over columns refer to "individuals" for Size 1 and 2 streams and "taxa" for Size 3 and 4 streams.
❑ ❑Adult frogs
❑ ❑Aquatic reptiles
❑ ❑Aquatic macrophytes and aquatic mosses (include liverworts, lichens, and algal mats)
❑ ❑Beetles
❑ ❑Caddisfly larvae (T)
❑ ❑Asian clam (Corbicula)
❑ ❑Crustacean (isopod/amphipod/crayfish/shrimp)
❑ ❑Damselfly and dragonfly larvae
❑ ❑Dipterans
❑ ❑Mayfly larvae (E)
❑ ❑Megaloptera (alderfly, fishfly, dobsonfly larvae)
❑ ❑Midges/mosquito larvae
❑ ❑Mosquito fish (Gambusia) or mud minnows (Umbra pygmaea)
❑ ❑Mussels/Clams (not Corbicula)
❑ ❑Other fish
❑ ❑Salamanders/tad poles
❑ ❑Snails
❑ ❑Stonefly larvae (P)
❑ ❑Tipulid larvae
❑ ❑Worms/leeches
13. Streamside Area Ground Surface Condition — streamside area metric (skip for Tidal Marsh Streams and B valley types)
Consider for the Left Bank (LB) and the Right Bank (RB). Consider storage capacity with regard to both overbank flow and upland runoff.
LB RB
❑A ❑A Little or no alteration to water storage capacity over a majority of the streamside area
❑B ❑B Moderate alteration to water storage capacity over a majority of the streamside area
®C ®C Severe alteration to water storage capacity over a majority of the streamside area (examples: ditches, fill, soil compaction,
livestock disturbance, buildings, man-made levees, drainage pipes)
14. Streamside Area Water Storage — streamside area metric (skip for Size 1 streams, Tidal Marsh Streams, and B valley types)
Consider for the Left Bank (LB) and the Right Bank (RB) of the streamside area.
LB RB
❑A ❑A Majority of streamside area with depressions able to pond water >_ 6 inches deep
❑B ❑B Majority of streamside area with depressions able to pond water 3 to 6 inches deep
❑C El Majority of streamside area with depressions able to pond water < 3 inches deep
15. Wetland Presence — streamside area metric (skip for Tidal Marsh Streams)
Consider for the Left Bank (LB) and the Right Bank (RB). Do not consider wetlands outside of the streamside area or within the normal
wetted perimeter of assessment reach.
LB RB
❑Y ❑Y Are wetlands present in the streamside area?
CAN ®N
16. Baseflow Contributors — assessment reach metric (skip for Size 4 streams and Tidal Marsh Streams)
Check all contributors within the assessment reach or within view of and draining to the assessment reach.
❑A Streams and/or springs (jurisdictional discharges)
❑B Ponds (include wet detention basins; do not include sediment basins or dry detention basins)
❑C Obstruction passing flow during low -flow periods within the assessment area (beaver dam, leaky dam, bottom -release dam, weir)
❑D Evidence of bank seepage or sweating (iron in water indicates seepage)
®E Stream bed or bank soil reduced (dig through deposited sediment if present)
❑F None of the above
17. Baseflow Detractors — assessment area metric (skip for Tidal Marsh Streams)
Check all that apply.
❑A Evidence of substantial water withdrawals from the assessment reach (includes areas excavated for pump installation)
❑B Obstruction not passing flow during low -flow periods affecting the assessment reach (ex: watertight dam, sediment deposit)
❑C Urban stream (>_ 24% impervious surface for watershed)
®D Evidence that the streamside area has been modified resulting in accelerated drainage into the assessment reach
❑E Assessment reach relocated to valley edge
❑F None of the above
18. Shading — assessment reach metric (skip for Tidal Marsh Streams)
Consider aspect. Consider "leaf -on" condition.
®A Stream shading is appropriate for stream category (may include gaps associated with natural processes)
❑B Degraded (example: scattered trees)
❑C Stream shading is gone or largely absent

19. Buffer Width — streamside area metric (skip for Tidal Marsh Streams)
Consider "vegetated buffer" and "wooded buffer" separately for left bank (LB) and right bank (RB) starting at the top of bank out
to the first break.
Vegetated Wooded
LB RB LB RB
❑A ❑A ❑A ❑A >_ 100 feet wide or extends to the edge of the watershed
®B ®B ®B ®B From 50 to < 100 feet wide
❑C ❑C ❑C ❑C From 30 to < 50 feet wide
❑D ❑D ❑D ❑D From 10 to < 30 feet wide
❑E ❑E ❑E ❑E < 10 feet wide or no trees
20. Buffer Structure — streamside area metric (skip for Tidal Marsh Streams)
Consider for left bank (LB) and right bank (RB) for Metric 19 ("Vegetated" Buffer Width).
LB RB
❑A ❑A Mature forest
®B ®B Non -mature woody vegetation or modified vegetation structure
❑C ❑C Herbaceous vegetation with or without a strip of trees < 10 feet wide
❑D ❑D Maintained shrubs
❑E ❑E Little or no vegetation
21. Buffer Stressors — streamside area metric (skip for Tidal Marsh Streams)
Check all appropriate boxes for left bank (LB) and right bank (RB). Indicate if listed stressor abuts stream (Abuts), does not abut but is
within 30 feet of stream (< 30 feet), or is between 30 to 50 feet of stream (30-50 feet).
If none of the following stressors occurs on either bank, check here and skip to Metric 22:
Abuts < 30 feet 30-50 feet
LB RB LB RB LB RB
❑A ❑A ❑A ❑A ❑A ❑A Row crops
❑B ❑B ❑B ❑B ❑B ❑B Maintained turf
❑C ❑C ❑C ❑C ❑C ❑C Pasture (no livestock)/commercial horticulture
❑D ❑D ❑D ❑D ❑D ❑D Pasture (active livestock use)
22. Stem Density — streamside area metric (skip for Tidal Marsh Streams)
Consider for left bank (LB) and right bank (RB) for Metric 19 ("Wooded" Buffer Width).
LB RB
❑A ❑A Medium to high stem density
®B ®B Low stem density
❑C ❑C No wooded riparian buffer or predominantly herbaceous species or bare ground
23. Continuity of Vegetated Buffer — streamside area metric (skip for Tidal Marsh Streams)
Consider whether vegetated buffer is continuous along stream (parallel). Breaks are areas lacking vegetation > 10 feet wide.
LB RB
®A ®A The total length of buffer breaks is < 25 percent.
❑B ❑B The total length of buffer breaks is between 25 and 50 percent.
❑C ❑C The total length of buffer breaks is > 50 percent.
24. Vegetative Composition — streamside area metric (skip for Tidal Marsh Streams)
Evaluate the dominant vegetation within 100 feet of each bank or to the edge of the watershed (whichever comes first) as it contributes to
assessment reach habitat.
LB RB
❑A ❑A Vegetation is close to undisturbed in species present and their proportions. Lower strata composed of native species,
with non-native invasive species absent or sparse.
®B ®B Vegetation indicates disturbance in terms of species diversity or proportions, but is still largely composed of native
species. This may include communities of weedy native species that develop after clear -cutting or clearing or
communities with non-native invasive species present, but not dominant, over a large portion of the expected strata or
communities missing understory but retaining canopy trees.
El n Vegetation is severely disturbed in terms of species diversity or proportions. Mature canopy is absent or communities
with non-native invasive species dominant over a large portion of expected strata or communities composed of planted
stands of non -characteristic species or communities inappropriately composed of a single species or no vegetation.
25. Conductivity — assessment reach metric (skip for all Coastal Plain streams)
25a. ❑Yes ®No Was conductivity measurement recorded?
If No, select one of the following reasons. ❑No Water ❑Other:
25b. Check the box corresponding to the conductivity measurement (units of microsiemens per centimeter).
❑A < 46 ❑B 46 to < 67 ❑C 67 to < 79 ❑D 79 to < 230 ❑E >_ 230
Notes/Sketch:
Stream is located in the middle of an existing landfill with a garbage cell immediately upstream of the stream origin. This reach was severly
inundated with sediment.

Draft NC SAM Stream Rating Sheet
Accompanies User Manual Version 2.1
Stream Site Name Gaston County Landfill Date of Assessment
August 14, 2018
Stream Category Pal Assessor Name/Organization Kelly Thames/HDR
Notes of Field Assessment Form (Y/N)
YES
Presence of regulatory considerations (Y/N)
YES
Additional stream information/supplementary measurements included (Y/N)
YES
NC SAM feature type (perennial, intermittent, Tidal Marsh Stream)
Intermittent
USACE/
NCDWR
Function Class Rating Summary
All Streams
Intermittent
(1) Hydrology
HIGH
HIGH
(2) Baseflow
MEDIUM
MEDIUM
(2) Flood Flow
HIGH
HIGH
(3) Streamside Area Attenuation
MEDIUM
MEDIUM
(4) Floodplain Access
MEDIUM
MEDIUM
(4) Wooded Riparian Buffer
MEDIUM
MEDIUM
(4) Microtopography
LOW
LOW
(3) Stream Stability
HIGH
HIGH
(4) Channel Stability
HIGH
HIGH
(4) Sediment Transport
LOW
LOW
(4) Stream Geomorphology
HIGH
HIGH
(2) Stream/Intertidal Zone Interaction
NA
NA
(2) Longitudinal Tidal Flow
NA
NA
(2) Tidal Marsh Stream Stability
NA
NA
(3) Tidal Marsh Channel Stability
NA
NA
(3) Tidal Marsh Stream Geomorphology
NA
NA
(1) Water Quality
LOW
LOW
(2) Baseflow
MEDIUM
MEDIUM
(2) Streamside Area Vegetation
HIGH
HIGH
(3) Upland Pollutant Filtration
HIGH
HIGH
(3) Thermoregulation
HIGH
HIGH
(2) Indicators of Stressors
YES
YES
(2) Aquatic Life Tolerance
LOW
NA
(2) Intertidal Zone Filtration
NA
NA
(1) Habitat
LOW
LOW
(2) In -stream Habitat
LOW
LOW
(3) Baseflow
MEDIUM
MEDIUM
(3) Substrate
LOW
LOW
(3) Stream Stability
HIGH
HIGH
(3) In -stream Habitat
LOW
LOW
(2) Stream -side Habitat
HIGH
HIGH
(3) Stream -side Habitat
HIGH
HIGH
(3) Thermoregulation
HIGH
HIGH
(2) Tidal Marsh In -stream Habitat
NA
NA
(3) Flow Restriction
NA
NA
(3) Tidal Marsh Stream Stability
NA
NA
(4) Tidal Marsh Channel Stability
NA
NA
(4) Tidal Marsh Stream Geomorphology
NA
NA
(3) Tidal Marsh In -stream Habitat
NA
NA
(2) Intertidal Zone
NA
NA
Overall
LOW
LOW

NC Dims f0rn of Vater Qua lith+ —Math odology for I d entification of I ntarmittent and
Perennial StrO;P rn!g and Their Origins v- 4.11
NC DW9. St rew in I deli of cad an Form Venium 4,11 _ e'e
Cate: I . n ti ' Projeu 5kta` 1 Cr.L
Le;'�.ItA
Ewaluslvr: I ,; 1 � 4 tip{ Vl'(J"
Total Points- Stmom Cetenmination {clyda
xlrmoi is nr 8oasr mf hmjfftnr i f phe:meral IrtitcrmitCerrt Fp
if r. 19 D"p&erwiar if a 2y 1
_ rw {vnl
L IiC��dQ; �'?g LIZ .
LdnyFCl1ds;�Il� t
ones Omer L'Jr ktiv 4!Or_
nn a.g. QNrad mems; 'Q LA9V
A (�eorna holo Sunloka1 = 1
A4wen4
W.&ak
M od rsrale
Str g
19. F 0164 Uplarrd plarAs in atreamk?ad
3
2
1
2
20. Ma r, ro be n th as jnole dh g vnd abundance
2. $Inuosoy-or Channel a )ng trrslwa �_ 1
3. Imcharincl slructum: ex. rlfil�_-.pooL, S1Cp-Rod,
4. ParLide size Df siresrn suWtrpLe
V
21. A uaiic MollLJskg
2
3
5. AcUvelrellcL f gWpl*iuy
0
22- Fi$h
2
,6
i�. DeposHlonal bars or benches
7. FZeaent alluwiel depasltg
0
0
t
1
2
1
3
9- Hesdcuts
1
2
3
9. Oraoe eoiLeol _
0
0 5
1
1,
10. Nalw al valIV
0.5
1
7.5
11. Second or grealev Wor Channel
No , 6'.
Yes = 3
+pml­a� vw1wa-Opt, nui ■mmu, tpum imiLussi s in mRnliat
B. F-lydrGlogy f50bso_ta1 = 7
12. Presence of Bawf low 0 3
13. Iron -oxldlzl 1aaCLwia f
14- Leaf letter 0,6 �
1 S - $ed"enC on plenLs or debar _ U 0.5 _ 1
16. 0rganio debris Ilrk--s qr pA$!� 0 0.5 1-5
IT a.ail-barred eulaeiim or high vraier leb1e2 No = 0 Yea = 3
G. sioloriv rSkihlnrnl e I- i
18. F ibroua ropk3 fn SLrcambed
,3
2
1
0
19. F 0164 Uplarrd plarAs in atreamk?ad
3
2
1
0
20. Ma r, ro be n th as jnole dh g vnd abundance
12
3
21. A uaiic MollLJskg
1
g
3
22- Fi$h
0
,6
1
1,5
23. Graylish
D,5
1
1.5
24. Amphibians
0L5
1
1-5
25. Argae
0
LI.S
_
1-5
26. WeUand planes in aarsambed
FACW = 0.75; GBL
_1
= $.5 Other n 0
`IyCmmiQl Merna msw Bko be id4mGftrd tiring o1heir FmthodS. S8l? P. 95 ttr nranusl.
Sketch:
O v1
,J
p,
41

NC SAM FIELD ASSESSMENT FORM
Accompanies User Manual Version 2.1
USACE AID #: NCDWR #:
INSTRUCTIONS: Attach a sketch of the assessment area and photographs. Attach a copy of the USGS 7.5 -minute topographic quadrangle,
and circle the location of the stream reach under evaluation. If multiple stream reaches will be evaluated on the same property, identify and
number all reaches on the attached map, and include a separate form for each reach. See the NC SAM User Manual for detailed descriptions
and explanations of requested information. Record in the "Notes/Sketch" section if supplementary measurements were performed. See the
NC SAM User Manual for examples of additional measurements that may be relevant.
NOTE EVIDENCE OF STRESSORS AFFECTING THE ASSESSMENT AREA (do not need to be within the assessment area).
PROJECT/SITE INFORMATION:
1. Project name (if any): Gaston County
3. Applicant/owner name: Gaston County
5. County: Gaston County
7. River basin: Catawba
Landfill
Public Works
Date of evaluation: August 14, 2018
Assessor name/organization: Kelly Thames/HDR
Nearest named water body South Fork Catawba (HUC
on USGS 7.5 -minute quad: 03050102)
8. Site coordinates (decimal degrees, at lower end of assessment reach): 35.384318, -81.17436
STREAM INFORMATION: (depth and width can be approximations)
9. Site number (show on attached map): Reach 4 10. Length of assessment reach evaluated (feet): 286
11. Channel depth from bed (in riffle, if present) to top of bank (feet): 1-4 ft ❑Unable to assess channel depth.
12. Channel width at top of bank (feet): 3-10 ft 13. Is assessment reach a swamp steam? ❑Yes ❑No
14. Feature type: ®Perennial flow ❑Intermittent flow ❑Tidal Marsh Stream
STREAM CATEGORY INFORMATION:
15. NC SAM Zone: ❑ Mountains (M) ® Piedmont (P) ❑ Inner Coastal Plain (1) ❑ Outer Coastal Plain (0)
16. Estimated geomorphic ❑A ®B
valley shape (skip for
Tidal Marsh Stream): (more sinuous stream, flatter valley slope) (less sinuous stream, steeper valley slope)
17. Watershed size: (skip ®Size 1 (< 0.1 mil) ❑Size 2 (0.1 to < 0.5 miz) ❑Size 3 (0.5 to < 5 mit) ❑Size 4 (>_ 5 mit)
for Tidal Marsh Stream)
ADDITIONAL INFORMATION:
18. Were regulatory considerations evaluated? ®Yes ❑No If Yes, check all that apply to the assessment area.
❑Section 10 water ❑Classified Trout Waters ®Water Supply Watershed (❑I ❑II ❑III ®IV ❑V)
❑Essential Fish Habitat ❑Primary Nursery Area ❑ High Quality Waters/Outstanding Resource Waters
❑Publicly owned property ❑NCDWR Riparian buffer rule in effect ❑Nutrient Sensitive Waters
❑Anadromous fish ❑303(d) List ❑CAMA Area of Environmental Concern (AEC)
❑Documented presence of a federal and/or state listed protected species within the assessment area.
List species:
❑Designated Critical Habitat (list species)
19. Are additional stream information/supplementary measurements included in "Notes/Sketch" section or attached? ®Yes ❑No
1. Channel Water — assessment reach metric (skip for Size 1 streams and Tidal Marsh Streams)
❑A Water throughout assessment reach.
❑B No flow, water in pools only.
❑C No water in assessment reach.
2. Evidence of Flow Restriction — assessment reach metric
®A At least 10% of assessment reach in -stream habitat or riffle -pool sequence is severely affected by a flow restriction or fill to the
point of obstructing flow or a channel choked with aquatic macrophytes or ponded water or impoundment on flood or ebb within
the assessment reach (examples: undersized or perched culverts, causeways that constrict the channel, tidal gates, debris jams,
beaver dams).
❑B Not
3. Feature Pattern — assessment reach metric
®A A majority of the assessment reach has altered pattern (examples: straightening, modification above or below culvert).
❑B Not
4. Feature Longitudinal Profile — assessment reach metric
®A Majority of assessment reach has a substantially altered stream profile (examples: channel down -cutting, existing damming, over
widening, active aggradation, dredging, and excavation where appropriate channel profile has not reformed from any of these
disturbances).
❑B Not
5. Signs of Active Instability — assessment reach metric
Consider only current instability, not past events from which the stream has currently recovered. Examples of instability include
active bank failure, active channel down -cutting (head -cut), active widening, and artificial hardening (such as concrete, gabion, rip -rap).
❑A < 10% of channel unstable
❑B 10 to 25% of channel unstable
®C > 25% of channel unstable

6. Streamside Area Interaction — streamside area metric
Consider for the Left Bank (LB) and the Right Bank (RB).
LB RB
a N
❑A ❑A
Little or no evidence of conditions that adversely affect reference interaction
®B ®B
Moderate evidence of conditions (examples: berms, levees, down -cutting, aggradation, dredging) that adversely affect
� E
reference interaction (examples: limited streamside area access, disruption of flood flows through streamside area, leaky
Submerged aquatic vegetation
or intermittent bulkheads, causeways with floodplain constriction, minor ditching [including mosquito ditching])
El El
Extensive evidence of conditions that adversely affect reference interaction (little to no floodplain/intertidal zone access
❑H
[examples: causeways with floodplain and channel constriction, bulkheads, retaining walls, fill, stream incision, disruption
of flood flows through streamside area] or too much floodplain/intertidal zone access [examples: impoundments, intensive
mosquito ditching]) or floodplain/intertidal zone unnaturally absent or assessment reach is a man-made feature on an
Sand bottom
interstream divide
Water Quality Stressors — assessment reach/intertidal zone metric
Check all that apply.
❑A Discolored water in stream or intertidal zone (milky white, blue, unnatural water discoloration, oil sheen, stream foam)
®B Excessive sedimentation (burying of stream features or intertidal zone)
❑C Noticeable evidence of pollutant discharges entering the assessment reach and causing a water quality problem
❑D Odor (not including natural sulfide odors)
❑E Current published or collected data indicating degraded water quality in the assessment reach. Cite source in "Notes/Sketch"
section.
❑F Livestock with access to stream or intertidal zone
❑G Excessive algae in stream or intertidal zone
❑H Degraded marsh vegetation in the intertidal zone (removal, burning, regular mowing, destruction, etc)
®I Other: (explain in "Notes/Sketch" section)
❑J Little to no stressors
8. Recent Weather — watershed metric (skip for Tidal Marsh Streams)
For Size 1 or 2 streams, D1 drought or higher is considered a drought; for Size 3 or 4 streams, D2 drought or higher is considered a drought.
❑A Drought conditions and no rainfall or rainfall not exceeding 1 inch within the last 48 hours
❑B Drought conditions and rainfall exceeding 1 inch within the last 48 hours
®C No drought conditions
9. Large or Dangerous Stream — assessment reach metric
❑Yes ®No Is stream is too large or dangerous to assess? If Yes, skip to Metric 13 (Streamside Area Ground Surface Condition).
10. Natural In -stream Habitat Types — assessment reach metric
10a. ®Yes ❑No Degraded in -stream habitat over majority of the assessment reach (examples of stressors include excessive
sedimentation, mining, excavation, in -stream hardening [for example, rip -rap], recent dredging, and snagging)
(evaluate for Size 4 Coastal Plain streams only, then skip to Metric 12)
10b. Check all that occur (occurs if > 5% coverage of assessment reach) (skip for Size 4 Coastal Plain streams)
❑A
Multiple aquatic macrophytes and aquatic mosses
a N
❑F
5% oysters or other natural hard bottoms
(include liverworts, lichens, and algal mats)
� E
❑G
Submerged aquatic vegetation
❑B
Multiple sticks and/or leaf packs and/or emergent
g U)C
❑H
Low -tide refugia (pools)
vegetation
❑I
Sand bottom
❑C
Multiple snags and logs (including lap trees)
L M
❑J
5% vertical bank along the marsh
❑D
5% undercut banks and/or root mats and/or roots
0 2
❑K
Little or no habitat
in banks extend to the normal wetted perimeter
®E
Little or no habitat
*********************************REMAINING QUESTIONS ARE NOT APPLICABLE FOR TIDAL MARSH STREAMS****************************
11. Bedform and Substrate —assessment reach metric (skip for Size 4 Coastal Plain streams and Tidal Marsh Streams)
11a. ❑Yes ®No Is assessment reach in a natural sand -bed stream? (skip for Coastal Plain streams)
11 b. Bedform evaluated. Check the appropriate box(es).
❑A Riffle -run section (evaluate 11c)
❑B Pool -glide section (evaluate 11d)
®C Natural bedform absent (skip to Metric 12, Aquatic Life)
11 c. In riffle sections, check all that occur below the normal wetted perimeter of the assessment reach — whether or not submerged. Check
at least one box in each row (skip for Size 4 Coastal Plain streams and Tidal Marsh Streams). Not Present (NP) = absent, Rare
(R) = present but < 10%, Common (C) _ > 10-40%, Abundant (A) _ > 40-70%, Predominant (P) _ > 70%. Cumulative percentages
should not exceed 100% for each assessment reach.
NP R C A P
❑ ❑ ❑ ❑ ® Bedrock/saprolite
❑ ❑ ❑ ❑ ❑ Boulder (256 — 4096 mm)
❑ ❑ ❑ ❑ ❑ Cobble (64 — 256 mm)
❑ ❑ ❑ ❑ ❑ Gravel (2 — 64 mm)
❑ ❑ ❑ ❑ ❑ Sand (.062 — 2 mm)
❑ ❑ ❑ ❑ ❑ Silt/clay (< 0.062 mm)
❑ ❑ ❑ ❑ ❑ Detritus
❑ ❑ ❑ ❑ ❑ Artificial (rip -rap, concrete, etc.)
11d. ❑Yes ❑No Are pools filled with sediment? (skip for Size 4 Coastal Plain streams and Tidal Marsh Streams)

12
Aquatic Life — assessment reach metric (skip for Tidal Marsh Streams)
12a. ®Yes ❑No Was an in -stream aquatic life assessment performed as described in the User Manual?
If No, select one of the following reasons and skip to Metric 13. ❑No Water ❑Other:
12b. ®Yes ❑No Are aquatic organisms present in the assessment reach (look in riffles, pools, then snags)? If Yes, check all that
apply. If No, skip to Metric 13.
1 >1 Numbers over columns refer to "individuals" for Size 1 and 2 streams and "taxa" for Size 3 and 4 streams.
❑ ❑Adult frogs
❑ ❑Aquatic reptiles
❑ ❑Aquatic macrophytes and aquatic mosses (include liverworts, lichens, and algal mats)
❑ ❑Beetles
® ❑Caddisfly larvae (T)
❑ ❑Asian clam (Corbicula)
® ❑Crustacean (isopod/amphipod/crayfish/shrimp)
❑ ❑Damselfly and dragonfly larvae
❑ ❑Dipterans
❑ ❑Mayfly larvae (E)
❑ ❑Megaloptera (alderfly, fishfly, dobsonfly larvae)
❑ ❑Midges/mosquito larvae
❑ ❑Mosquito fish (Gambusia) or mud minnows (Umbra pygmaea)
❑ ❑Mussels/Clams (not Corbicula)
❑ ❑Other fish
❑ ❑Salamanders/tad poles
❑ ❑Snails
❑ ❑Stonefly larvae (P)
❑ ❑Tipulid larvae
❑ ❑Worms/leeches
13. Streamside Area Ground Surface Condition — streamside area metric (skip for Tidal Marsh Streams and B valley types)
Consider for the Left Bank (LB) and the Right Bank (RB). Consider storage capacity with regard to both overbank flow and upland runoff.
LB RB
❑A ❑A Little or no alteration to water storage capacity over a majority of the streamside area
❑B ❑B Moderate alteration to water storage capacity over a majority of the streamside area
®C ®C Severe alteration to water storage capacity over a majority of the streamside area (examples: ditches, fill, soil compaction,
livestock disturbance, buildings, man-made levees, drainage pipes)
14. Streamside Area Water Storage — streamside area metric (skip for Size 1 streams, Tidal Marsh Streams, and B valley types)
Consider for the Left Bank (LB) and the Right Bank (RB) of the streamside area.
LB RB
❑A ❑A Majority of streamside area with depressions able to pond water >_ 6 inches deep
❑B ❑B Majority of streamside area with depressions able to pond water 3 to 6 inches deep
❑C El Majority of streamside area with depressions able to pond water < 3 inches deep
15. Wetland Presence — streamside area metric (skip for Tidal Marsh Streams)
Consider for the Left Bank (LB) and the Right Bank (RB). Do not consider wetlands outside of the streamside area or within the normal
wetted perimeter of assessment reach.
LB RB
❑Y ❑Y Are wetlands present in the streamside area?
CAN ®N
16. Baseflow Contributors — assessment reach metric (skip for Size 4 streams and Tidal Marsh Streams)
Check all contributors within the assessment reach or within view of and draining to the assessment reach.
❑A Streams and/or springs (jurisdictional discharges)
❑B Ponds (include wet detention basins; do not include sediment basins or dry detention basins)
❑C Obstruction passing flow during low -flow periods within the assessment area (beaver dam, leaky dam, bottom -release dam, weir)
❑D Evidence of bank seepage or sweating (iron in water indicates seepage)
®E Stream bed or bank soil reduced (dig through deposited sediment if present)
❑F None of the above
17. Baseflow Detractors — assessment area metric (skip for Tidal Marsh Streams)
Check all that apply.
❑A Evidence of substantial water withdrawals from the assessment reach (includes areas excavated for pump installation)
®B Obstruction not passing flow during low -flow periods affecting the assessment reach (ex: watertight dam, sediment deposit)
❑C Urban stream (>_ 24% impervious surface for watershed)
®D Evidence that the streamside area has been modified resulting in accelerated drainage into the assessment reach
❑E Assessment reach relocated to valley edge
❑F None of the above
18. Shading — assessment reach metric (skip for Tidal Marsh Streams)
Consider aspect. Consider "leaf -on" condition.
®A Stream shading is appropriate for stream category (may include gaps associated with natural processes)
❑B Degraded (example: scattered trees)
❑C Stream shading is gone or largely absent

19. Buffer Width — streamside area metric (skip for Tidal Marsh Streams)
Consider "vegetated buffer" and "wooded buffer" separately for left bank (LB) and right bank (RB) starting at the top of bank out
to the first break.
Vegetated Wooded
LB RB LB RB
®A ❑A ®A ❑A >_ 100 feet wide or extends to the edge of the watershed
❑B ®B ❑B ®B From 50 to < 100 feet wide
❑C ❑C ❑C ❑C From 30 to < 50 feet wide
❑D ❑D ❑D ❑D From 10 to < 30 feet wide
❑E ❑E ❑E ❑E < 10 feet wide or no trees
20. Buffer Structure — streamside area metric (skip for Tidal Marsh Streams)
Consider for left bank (LB) and right bank (RB) for Metric 19 ("Vegetated" Buffer Width).
LB RB
❑A ❑A Mature forest
®B ®B Non -mature woody vegetation or modified vegetation structure
❑C ❑C Herbaceous vegetation with or without a strip of trees < 10 feet wide
❑D ❑D Maintained shrubs
❑E ❑E Little or no vegetation
21. Buffer Stressors — streamside area metric (skip for Tidal Marsh Streams)
Check all appropriate boxes for left bank (LB) and right bank (RB). Indicate if listed stressor abuts stream (Abuts), does not abut but is
within 30 feet of stream (< 30 feet), or is between 30 to 50 feet of stream (30-50 feet).
If none of the following stressors occurs on either bank, check here and skip to Metric 22:
Abuts < 30 feet 30-50 feet
LB RB LB RB LB RB
❑A ❑A ❑A ❑A ❑A ❑A Row crops
❑B ❑B ❑B ❑B ❑B ❑B Maintained turf
❑C ❑C ❑C ❑C ❑C ❑C Pasture (no livestock)/commercial horticulture
❑D ❑D ❑D ❑D ❑D ❑D Pasture (active livestock use)
22. Stem Density — streamside area metric (skip for Tidal Marsh Streams)
Consider for left bank (LB) and right bank (RB) for Metric 19 ("Wooded" Buffer Width).
LB RB
❑A ❑A Medium to high stem density
®B ®B Low stem density
❑C ❑C No wooded riparian buffer or predominantly herbaceous species or bare ground
23. Continuity of Vegetated Buffer — streamside area metric (skip for Tidal Marsh Streams)
Consider whether vegetated buffer is continuous along stream (parallel). Breaks are areas lacking vegetation > 10 feet wide.
LB RB
®A ®A The total length of buffer breaks is < 25 percent.
❑B ❑B The total length of buffer breaks is between 25 and 50 percent.
❑C ❑C The total length of buffer breaks is > 50 percent.
24. Vegetative Composition — streamside area metric (skip for Tidal Marsh Streams)
Evaluate the dominant vegetation within 100 feet of each bank or to the edge of the watershed (whichever comes first) as it contributes to
assessment reach habitat.
LB RB
❑A ❑A Vegetation is close to undisturbed in species present and their proportions. Lower strata composed of native species,
with non-native invasive species absent or sparse.
®B ®B Vegetation indicates disturbance in terms of species diversity or proportions, but is still largely composed of native
species. This may include communities of weedy native species that develop after clear -cutting or clearing or
communities with non-native invasive species present, but not dominant, over a large portion of the expected strata or
communities missing understory but retaining canopy trees.
El n Vegetation is severely disturbed in terms of species diversity or proportions. Mature canopy is absent or communities
with non-native invasive species dominant over a large portion of expected strata or communities composed of planted
stands of non -characteristic species or communities inappropriately composed of a single species or no vegetation.
25. Conductivity — assessment reach metric (skip for all Coastal Plain streams)
25a. ❑Yes ®No Was conductivity measurement recorded?
If No, select one of the following reasons. ❑No Water ❑Other:
25b. Check the box corresponding to the conductivity measurement (units of microsiemens per centimeter).
❑A < 46 ❑B 46 to < 67 ❑C 67 to < 79 ❑D 79 to < 230 ❑E >_ 230
Notes/Sketch:
Stream is located in the middle of an existing landfille with garbage cells on either side of the stream. This reach was severly inundated with
sediment. The sediment in the channel restricts flows in the channel and forces flows to sheet flow over the sediment.

Draft NC SAM Stream Rating Sheet
Accompanies User Manual Version 2.1
Stream Site Name Gaston County Landfill Date of Assessment
August 14, 2018
Stream Category Pb1 Assessor Name/Organization Kelly Thames/HDR
Notes of Field Assessment Form (Y/N)
YES
Presence of regulatory considerations (Y/N)
YES
Additional stream information/supplementary measurements included (Y/N)
YES
NC SAM feature type (perennial, intermittent, Tidal Marsh Stream)
Perennial
USACE/ NCDWR
Function Class Rating Summary
All Streams Intermittent
(1) Hydrology
LOW
(2) Baseflow
MEDIUM
(2) Flood Flow
LOW
(3) Streamside Area Attenuation
MEDIUM
(4) Floodplain Access
MEDIUM
(4) Wooded Riparian Buffer
MEDIUM
(4) Microtopography
NA
(3) Stream Stability
LOW
(4) Channel Stability
LOW
(4) Sediment Transport
LOW
(4) Stream Geomorphology
LOW
(2) Stream/Intertidal Zone Interaction
NA
(2) Longitudinal Tidal Flow
NA
(2) Tidal Marsh Stream Stability
NA
(3) Tidal Marsh Channel Stability
NA
(3) Tidal Marsh Stream Geomorphology
NA
(1) Water Quality
LOW
(2) Baseflow
MEDIUM
(2) Streamside Area Vegetation
HIGH
(3) Upland Pollutant Filtration
HIGH
(3) Thermoregulation
HIGH
(2) Indicators of Stressors
YES
(2) Aquatic Life Tolerance
MEDIUM
(2) Intertidal Zone Filtration
NA
(1) Habitat
MEDIUM
(2) In -stream Habitat
LOW
(3) Baseflow
MEDIUM
(3) Substrate
LOW
(3) Stream Stability
LOW
(3) In -stream Habitat
LOW
(2) Stream -side Habitat
HIGH
(3) Stream -side Habitat
HIGH
(3) Thermoregulation
HIGH
(2) Tidal Marsh In -stream Habitat
NA
(3) Flow Restriction
NA
(3) Tidal Marsh Stream Stability
NA
(4) Tidal Marsh Channel Stability
NA
(4) Tidal Marsh Stream Geomorphology
NA
(3) Tidal Marsh In -stream Habitat
NA
(2) Intertidal Zone
NA
Overall
LOW

Appendix D
Photographs

Gaston County Landfill
Mitigation Determination
Photograph 1 — View of Site, Facing Southeast (dated May 12, 2017).
41 MOE
4ip
-:_
Photograph 2 — View of Non -Jurisdictional Ephemeral Convyance (dated May 12, 2017).
Photopage 11

Gaston County Landfill
Mitigation Determination
Photograph 3 — Seasonal RPW 1, Facing Upstream (dated May 12, 2017).
Photograph 4 — Seasonal RPW 1, Facing Downstream (dated May 12, 2017).
Photopage 12

Gaston County Landfill
Mitigation Determination
Photograph 5 — Seasonal RPW 2, Facing Downstream (dated May 12, 2017).
r
Photograph 6 — Perennial RPW 1, Facing Downstream (dated May 12, 2017).
Photopage 13

IV -
fir.
:.'
'..
; '� . u J. -' � .'�.
gar A.i�
. _' . •�
" ''�'�
J
'� _
1 f =.. Y'�t.'-' - "i•Y�� '.�' �... - '-
"'fir ��
.
'1� ....
wt

Gaston County Landfill
Mitigation Determination
Photopage 15

CE SAW -RG -C (File Number, SAW 2018-00053)
Appendix D
USFWS IPaC Report
NCNHP Data Explorer Report

5/16/2019 IPaC: Explore Location
IPaC U.S. Fish & Wildlife Service
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 affected by activities in the project area. However, determining the likelihood
and extent of effects a project may have on trust resources typically requires gathering additional
site-specific (e.g., vegetation/species surveys) and project -specific (e.g., magnitude and timing of
proposed activities) information. d
Below is a summary of the project information you provided and contact information for the USFWS
office(s) with jurisdiction in the defined project area. Please read the introduction to each section
that follows (Endangered Species, Migratory Birds, USFWS Facilities, and NWI Wetlands) for
additional information applicable to the trust resources addressed in that section.
Locate UH
Gaston County, North Carolina Nw)%00'
0
Local office
"%M� G—
Asheville Ecological Services Field Office
t. [phone]
JJ3 [phone]
160 Zillicoa Street
Asheville, NC 28801-1082
http://www.fws.gov/nc-es/es/cou ntyfr. htm I
https://ecos.fws.gov/ipac/location/5UQKS3Q7SNECB12QP34EJC7NBA/resources 1/7

5/16/2019 IPaC: Explore Location
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 influence (AOI) for species are also considered. An AOI includes areas outside of
the species range if the species could be indirectly affected by activities in that area (e.g., placing a
dam upstream of a fish population, even if that fish does not occur at the dam site, may indirectly
impact the species by reducing or eliminating water flow 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 project area. To fully determine any potential effects to species, additional site-specificand
project -specific information is often required.
\A
Section 7 of the Endangered Species Act requires Federal agencies to "request of the Secretary
information whether any species which is listed or proposed to be listed may be present in the area
of such proposed action" for any project that is conducted, permitted, funded, or licensed by any
Federal agency. A letter from the local office and a species list which fulfills this requirement can
only be obtained by requesting an official species list from either the Regulatory Review section in
IPaC (see directions below) or from the local field office directly.
For project evaluations that require USFWS concurrence/review, please return to the IPaC website
and request an official species list by doing the following:
1. Draw the project location and click CONTINUE.
2. Click DEFINE PROJECT.
3. Log in (if directed to do so):V
4. Provide a name and description for your project.
5. Click REQUEST SPECIES LIST.
Listed species'- and their critical habitats are managed by the Ecological Services Program of the U.S.
Fish and Wildlife Service (USFWS) and the fisheries division of the National Oceanic and Atmospheric
Administration (NOAA Fisheries2).
Species and critical habitats under the sole responsibility of NOAA Fisheries are not shown on this
list. Please contact NOAA Fisheries for species under their jurisdiction.
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 office of the
National Oceanic and Atmospheric Administration within the Department of Commerce.
The following species are potentially affected by activities in this location:
Mammals
NAME STATUS
https://ecos.fws.gov/ipac/location/5UQKS3Q7SNECB12QP34EJC7NBA/resources 2/7

5/16/2019
IPaC: Explore Location
Northern Long-eared Bat Myotis septentrionalis Threatened
No critical habitat has been designated for this species.
https://ecos.fws.gov/ecp/species/9045
Flowering Plants
NAME STATUS
Dwarf -flowered Heartleaf Hexastylis naniflora Threatened
No critical habitat has been designated for this species.
https://ecos.fws.gov/ecp/species/2458
Schweinitz's Sunflower Helianthus schweinitzii Endangered
No critical habitat has been designated for this species.
httpL//ecos.fws.gov/ecpls peci es/3849111
0
Critical habitats t44
Potential effects to critical habitats in this location must be analyzed al�with the endangered
i] Y g g
species themselves.
THERE ARE ND CRITICAL HABITATS AT TH15 LaCATION.
Migratory birds,?,.,■
}f 8
Certain birds are protected under the Migratory Bird Treaty Act! and the Bald and Golden Eagle
Protection Acts.
Any person or organization who plans or conducts activities that may result in impacts to migratory
birds, eagles, and their habitats should follow appropriate regulations and consider implementing
appropriate conservation measures, as described below.
1. The Migratory Birds Treaty Act of 1918.
2. The Bald and Golden Eagle Protection Act of 1940.
Additional information can be found using the following links:
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
https://ecos.fws.gov/ipac/location/5UQKS3Q7SNECB12QP34EJC7NBA/resources 3/7

5/16/2019
IPaC: Explore Location
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.
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 specified 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
(AKN). The AKN data is based on a growing collection of survey, banding, and citizen science datasets and is
queried and filtered to return a list of those birds reported as occurring in the 1 Qkm grid ceII(s) which your project
intersects, and that have been identified as warranting special attention because they are a BCC species in that
area, an eagle (Eagie Act requirements may apply), or a species that has a particular vulnerability to offshore
activities or development.
Again, the Migratory Bird Resource list includes only a subset of birds that may occur in your project area. It is not
representative of all birds that may occur in your project area. To get a list of all birds potentially present in your
project area, please visit the AKN Phenology Tool. or _N"
%A0
What does IPaC use to generate the probability of presence graphs for the migratory birds potentially
occurring in my specified location?
The probability of presence graphs associated with your migratory bird list are based on data provided by the
Avian Knowledge Network (AKN). This data is derived from a growing collection of survey, b n ing, and citizen
science datasets .Ilk %6.,00
Probability of presence data is continuously being updated as new and better information becomes available. To
learn more about how the probability of presence graphs are produced and how to interpret them, go the
Probability of Presence Summary and then click on the "Tell me about these graphs" link.
How do I know if a bird is breeding, wintering, migrating or present year-round in my project area?
To see what part of a particular bird's range your project area falls within (i.e. breeding, wintering, migrating or
year-round), you may refer to the following resources: The Cornell Lab of Ornithology All About Birds Bird Guide, or
(if you are unsuccessful in locating the bird of interest there), the Cornell Lab of Ornithology Neotropical Birds
guide. If a bird on your migratory bird species list has a breeding season associated with it, if that bird does occur
in your project area, there may be nests present at some point within the timeframe specified. 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 Pacific 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
https://ecos.fws.gov/ipac/location/5UQKS3Q7SNECB12QP34EJC7NBA/resources 4/7

5/16/2019
IPaC: Explore Location
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 offshore areas from
certain types of development or activities (e.g. offshore energy development or longline fishing).
Although it is important to try to avoid and minimize impacts to all birds, efforts 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 affected by offshore projects
For additional details about the relative occurrence and abundance of both individual bird species and groups of
bird species within your project area off the Atlantic Coast, please visit the Northeast Ocean Data Portal. The Portal
also offers data and information about other taxa besides birds that may be helpful to you in your project review.
Alternately, you may download the bird model results files 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.
Bird tracking data can also provide additional details about occurrence and habitat use throughout the year,
including migration. Models relying on survey data may not include this information. For additional information on
marine bird tracking data, see the Diving Bird Study_ and the nanotag studies or contact Caleb Spiegel or Pam
Loring.
What if I have eagles on my list? I.. \'X000
If your project has the potential to disturb or kill eagles, you may need to obtain a permit to avoid violating the
Eagle Act should such impacts occur. .\"'r./t
Proper Interpretation and Use of Your Migratory Bird Report
The migratory bird list generated is not a list of all birds in your project area, only a subset of birds of priority
concern. To learn more about how your list is generated, and see options for identifying what other birds may be
in your project area, please see the FAQ "What does IPaC use to generate the migratory birds potentially occurring
in my specified location". Please be aware this report provides the "probability of presence" of birds within the 10
km grid cells) that overlap your project; not your exact project footprint. On the graphs provided, please also look
carefully at the survey effort (indicated by the black vertical bar) and for the existence of the "no data" indicator (a
red horizontal bar). A high survey effort is the key component. If the survey effort is high, then the probability of
presence score can be viewed as more dependable. In contrast, a low survey effort bar or no data bar means a lack
of data and, therefore, a lack of certainty about presence of the species. This list is not perfect; it is simply a starting
point for identifying what birds of concern have the potential to be in your project area, when they might be there,
and if they might be breeding (which means nests might be present). The list helps you know what to look for to
confirm presence, and helps guide you in knowing when to implement conservation measures to avoid or
minimize potential impacts from your project activities, should presence be confirmed. To learn more about
conservation measures, visit the FAQ "Tell me about conservation measures I can implement to avoid or minimize
impacts to migratory birds" at the bottom of your migratory bird trust resources page.
Facilities
National Wildlife Refuge lands
https://ecos.fws.gov/ipac/location/5UQKS3Q7SNECB12QP34EJC7NBA/resources 5/7

5/16/2019
IPaC: Explore Location
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
'1`�'
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.
For more information please contact the Regulatory Program of the local J.5. Army Corps of
Engineers District.
Please note that the NWI data being shown may be out of date. We are currently working to update
our NWI data set. We recommend you verify these results with a site visit to determine the actual
extent of wetlands on site.
This location overlaps the following wetlands:
FRESHWATER FORESTED/SHRUB WETLAND
PF01C �
RIVERINE
R2UBH
R4SBC
R5UBH
A full description for each wetland code can be found at the National Wetlands Inventory website
Data limitations
The Service's objective of mapping wetlands and deepwater habitats is to produce reconnaissance level
information on the location, type and size of these resources. The maps are prepared from the analysis of high
altitude imagery. Wetlands are identified based on vegetation, visible hydrology and geography. A margin of error
is inherent in the use of imagery; thus, detailed on -the -ground inspection of any particular site may result in
revision of the wetland boundaries or classification 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 verification work conducted.
Metadata should be consulted to determine the date of the source imagery used and any mapping problems.
https://ecos.fws.gov/ipac/location/5UQKS3Q7SNECB12QP34EJC7NBA/resources 6/7

5/16/2019
IPaC: Explore Location
Wetlands or other mapped features may have changed since the date of the imagery or field work. There may be
occasional differences in polygon boundaries or classifications 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 tuberficid 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 define and describe wetlands in a
different manner than that used in this inventory. There is no attempt, in either the design or products of this
inventory, to define the limits of proprieta ryjurisdiction 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 modifications within or adjacent to wetland areas should seek the advice of appropriate federal,
state, or local agencies concerning specified agency regulatory programs and proprietary jurisdictions that may
affect such activities.
G��cJv
FOS
https://ecos.fws.gov/ipac/location/5UQKS3Q7SNECB12QP34EJC7NBA/resources 7/7

F1:1,1111111�1P�'�l IlIl;"Illll lllIl Pill! 111'111 1 II II II II�I�III II IIIIP�'!1 1111111111P�' l 111111111?' Ill l'I P l 111111111111 Pel IIIIIIIID!'�11'111'lllllllll�l ll PI"11111�11111 P�71111117 111111
11. 1111 ,.�.► ♦ 11.111 ♦ �.► 1.1. 1111 .�.► 1111. 1111.. ♦ 111J.► 1111. 1111 ,.�.► ♦. 111J..5111 �.► 1111 1111.. �.► 1111 ..�.�.► ♦1 11111 ,.1 ♦ L1 ♦ �.► 1111 ,., 1111/.► 1111.
Il 111111 l 11 1!1 ►1 I1111:1►;II II II II Io;••1
1'.11'.11. II 1'.11'.111'„ ►;1;1111111
II 11 1:1 11 II 1:11:1;111 II 11
Il Illi111111 111111;, 1'.1111'.11'.11111111'.11'.11'.11',ll'.1111',111'.11'.11'.11'.1 111111;1111 ►;1,1111�1111�1111t1111;�111;11
. .....►...,..11.... 11111 P.5P/. /111►1111111111\'►11f1 /1 P4/ 1.51 .,... �. P11\Y11111111F.51111 /1♦......► P01.1111.5 1♦�/...�... 1►P///11'.5/1♦ .5111 111♦ .51111►1;�. OPIlk"k..
1111 111 ►► 111 ►1 11 11 1 11 11 a 11 1!1 1111111 1 11111 1 11 1111 �P►1 1 1 11 1+111 11 11 111 1!111 ►1 1 111 IItW o -►!1 111 1N IIIN111 11111 111 1 11 1111! u1 111 !+►111 HNII 11N1l1 11 11 11!111 1►o-1 !u 11 11 1+111 1
..1.1.1,..11..1,:11.1,..1 .11.1. 11.1. 11.1 ,..1,,.11.1 1.11.1.1:1 .11.1.. 111.1.1.1,..► 11,,1 1.11 1:.1 ♦ ,.:►.1,:.51.11 1,.:1,,.1 ♦ 1,►11.11.1.11.11.11,:►. 1.11.1..,:11..1..1..,:► ,•.,. 1,1 11.1,► 1.. ,,11.11.1..11..1.11,,,..,:► ,.11.11.1.1,111.. ,..,.:1.11 1.11.1.1.,.,:1 11..1.:11,,., 1.1.1. 1.1,...5.1.
I.1..►♦111111\.5111.111112111 .,111111\111. -►111.,00114/1F.5 111 1.111., 11 V/111.5111 ..5/ I/\.5 11F.5 1 I I 11116 q. 2 111\1 I I I., I I/..5 11 ., 1 100 -► 11111 11 �.► 1PP,
11F.5 111 F.5111
11 11 1 1111 1111111 11111111111 111 11 111 1111 111 I�bl 11.511 111 ►1 11 ! 1111 1!111 !1 ►11 1 +1 1111!1 u► 111 !1!11.51 11 1 111111 11 11 11!!1 ►1 111 11111+u 1 1+ 111 ►1 1111111 11 11 o!1!all 1 1 1! 1 11 111 +111 1
1111 11 1.1 1.11,..11..11.11...,..1...,:1.1.1..11.1.1.1 1,:11..1..1.11,,.1./.:.511..1,:11.1.1.11,,.1.1,:► ,,1.1,:11,:111.1,:1 1 . ,,.11.11.1..11..1.11,,,..,:,,►1.1.1.11,..11..,►1.1.11.1.11.11.,,:11,:► 1.11.11.11,...51..,:111.1.1,..11..1,11.11.1:1.1.1.1.1.,.,..,:,,:► 1.11.11,..11,:1 1.1,,11,.:1 .1..1,.:.5.1.11.
....,♦11\'►1117111'1111\'►111111♦ 1111\'I 1111\'►1f11111. 1111 I ♦1P7111.111111♦ P/11117111P/17 ...'►..'►.. 1111 11111\'111111`►.... /.►....... �►... 1111 .5111. P'/♦ . \1001"I1 ..r ./PLH
1 1 I.. i�. 1.. 1 1111 11 1 1111 1 1111 1.. 111 �� 1.. 1 1..��1 1 1111 I�r.. 1.. 11 1 1 lig 1
111111/1 N 111111111111111111II II II II 111111111111111111„� 11 II II I II IIII 1111111 11111111111..11 11111„11111111111 111111111 I I I II N 11111111111.,11111111111111111111111,. 1111111111111 N 11111 1111,1 ,.1 I„11111111N 11111111., 1111111111111„! 1111111 „1111,1111„111„ 11111111111111..11111
1111 1111.► 1111. �.► ....► ♦ 11.► 1111. �.►. 1111.... LL1.► 1111 L► 1111 �.► 11.► 1111. 1111 ,.�:► ♦ 11.1.1 ♦ L► 1111.... �.► 1111. /..5111. 1.1 ..► ♦ 11.► . L►1 1 111.1. 1. ♦ 1.1. 11:.5111.. /.1.11.1 /.1 �.►...... LL11.► 1111... 1111.► ♦ 1.1.1 . /.1 ♦/.1 1.1.11.1. ♦ L► ♦♦ 1.1
1;d` ,
....1.5....,..,.,..�/.,..�,�...,...,....,...��. r�111►...1►...117.117...,.... ►...►....�► 1111 11.51.... ..�►... ��..,.�,. /......�,..►.11►...1.5.11► ...►......►..
I to 1111 1111►! 11 11 11, 11 +1 1.111► iM,11, o+u o 111 ! 11! 111 P►1I I1 11 11! ► o + P 1 10010 1 1 11 + 11 1 1 1 0 ! o +111 1 I 1 ►! I ►o ! 1 !1 4• ul o! 11 11 ", o-► +1 1 1 0 1 11
♦'1L'1♦I.p,��lj.,►"�:1'll �u1':►1'llP.1♦♦1-1.11:1 �1�11j.1 �111��:'INI:I.I:11.►.1�L.�II I�/P.,11��.,�1'11:1►11111't�1,1.1��,�1�1111♦11:.11/���:��,�1�11�11��:�1 11:1.1♦':'P.111':1 ���,��..1:1"1♦1'IP.'111:►1111:.11111,'1111:.1 �,�111�111l1i11�
1:1111:1;1:1111:11:11:1
11 Il 1111 11111111ij1 1�11111111111�1!.1 11111111 111111.11 1111 11,1111111 Ill1111�'Il 1; 111'.11'.1111 11.11
111'.11'.1111')1'.11'.Il 111111111111.1111'11.1 11111.1111 III ►;11►;11111111111111111171'.1
1'.1 1'.11'.1111.11'.11'.11',11 1;;1'.11',11 111.1 11.1 1'.1 1'.1 11.11'.11'.1 1'.1 1'.1 1'.11'.1;111'.11'.11'.1
1'.111111,lI
11111:11'.1 IE 11:11. IFAI.111;111111111111 PI 1 1'.11'.11'.11'.1 1'.11:11.1 1:1 1:11'.1;1'.1 1'.111111,11:11:11'.11:11.11:11'.11:1;1:11:11'.11'.1 111'.1;111111;
llI
II 1:11:11111.1 I11�1 111111111 IIII1.11:111.1;11:1II 1'.1111.11;; 11.11:111 A II II I11�1��111 II I1 PI 1 II ll II I11N1111111:11:1 1:11:1;'11'.11:11
1:1 1:11;1111.1 1:1111;1:11:11:1 I; l 1'.1 1'.11'.11'.11'.1111'.11'.1 II LI 1; 11.11:11IIFAI 1'.11'.11'.111 1111.5;11 1:1 11111;1111 111111 PI 11!11;!1111.11:11II PI"ll 111111111111111 1'.11'.1;111'.11'.111
1:11;11111:1111A'011 1:1
1
111 111 101 u1i,u . 1 1.1 .5,l. 1►. u 1111111111.1 111.11,l. 11. u 11,.,1 1111111 � ,ri i -r ,1111� 111 1111I.r 1 11111.11. u . 11,i ,1 11 u.11,i ,11, i ,1 111.1 lo11l l11 . 11r 1.11 111 Irl ,1 11111.1 1111 ►1111111 111111111.1 .►1,.5i ,1 1 I11r 11111 11 r1►ere11.11.11.11r1.11♦111111u111.11.1 ��� i ,� .t 1 .111, ,i .� ,1.11 11111111 1.1 111.11.� ,ri .1 1, -r ,�� 11111111 u 11.1 i n� 1, 1 1. o,f.11.11.11,r.,.,r .� ,1 111.11,r i i 1 1111,111� 1 1 I.r 1 1111111� ,r -r,111►�i �r n, � � ino 11.1.5.lr1►♦ u 11,.� ,1 1111111 � ,ri i-r,1111�11 11 .
,11.11. .r 1 1.11, 1 ,1 1111►11u. 1 1 u.11,i ,1 111 u11 1 1.1 .5.1 1.
11r
11111
.....,;,�...„,.....,......,�...,,,...„...,,....,,,�,.,,.....,,,.,,:,1111.,,...„,.,;�,....,,...��,..,....,„.,,..,.,,,,..,:,..............,,.....,,,.,,..„1111„,1111.
1111 11 Il 111t;t1111111111r11u1 11 111 II IIN lul IIII Il lulnl 11 11 111 1111111111111 11 Illa,ll loll Il 11 11 lul l!111u>,tllol 11 11111 1111111111!.11 11 11 11 II IIIIn11�P�b11 II II III In111111111111111 k1�!I Il 11 ltll 11 Inn! IIII 111111111111111i�H 11 11 1u11!.1II Ii�H 111i111N 1!.1llllrl
1111..♦l.\1111 L11. 1.11\11.1.1.1 -\♦11J.111.1 u.,,1♦111..111.11111.1..111..11111.111♦1111 ♦:.L1 ♦1111.111111.1 ♦1I-\1111.x.,,\111.11.1111.V:\11.11111111111:1.♦11.1.1♦I:1. ♦1,1♦.1.111♦
IIII@I@IE0;11F,121:1; 12�

11111F,111111110111P,4, 1I 1111111,�11;11I;11111111111111101111I ►;�i11►;1h11►;11111111111'1l�11',11'.11'.Illlll',�1
11�►:1�►:Ipl�ll�►:1�11��1�1�1� 1�11�►:1►;�1►:1�11�►,111 11111.1111,11 1!,1,t1,I,1��� 111.1.11 Ittl��� 1111 ���1111��11�1���11111�� 1. 1l.1111��1 11.11
1'.1;111
..
r 1 � ! � 1 rl ru l u o u r u u u u u u r r 11 or
11 1111 11 111111 111111 1111 111111..111111 .,1111.111.11 11 1111.111111,.111111 ..111111 111111 1111111111 111111.1111 111111111 11 11 .1111..1111111111111111..1111 11 111111 1111..11 1111111111 1111 111111..11...1 111 11 111111 11 11111111 11 1111.1111.1111111111 ILII I II 1111„ 111111 1111, 1 11 11 11 111,,.1 111 1 111 111 I rl 11
...1.11.11.\♦11.\..II. L\.. 1.1♦11111111.1 ♦11.1 ♦111.1 ♦111..1\♦..111.. L\.1.1.11♦ 1.1.,--------------------------------------------1.11 ... 1.1 .... Il ..... ... L\.1.1......„l.l.\. ,. IJ.\. ....IJI ....1..\ .1.1 ..,.. ...
111llllllllllulllllllll Nllilllllllrl!IIPI1111 11111!IIIIF!N1111111111!1lPFI IIIINIiI!Illlllillllllillllllll!11!IIIIIIIIIIi1111P11u11l111N1!IIIHIi!11l.Ir!Illr!Illllllllilllll l+!IIPI1111 Il llr!11111!Ililllllllrtllllll!!111111111111111!Ilil!I II III II II II II IFI 1111!11111111111
.1:1..11.11.♦.. 1:11.\..11.1.11..♦ 111:1.1.11..1.111.11.\ 11.1.1.11I111I11.11.\1.111.11.\.1..11.\1.1.1..1.1:11.11:\11x11 I.\.I.\.♦ 11.11..♦ 111:\11.1.11.\ 1.11.1111..1 I.\111. I\1 I.1. ♦I.\ ♦ ♦ ♦ 1I.\11...1.
U:4111@III;i211F:1:13

NCNHDE-7873: Gaston County Landfill
_ at5
High Shoals
n
d
4
O
4
SIT.
a
}iarcirri Rry Creek pa
'Creek
�a
5
0
Ra
¢a �
v 1
.N
W+E
371
i
January 7, 2019
❑ Project Boundary
❑ Buffered Project Boundary
Managed Area (MAREA)
:15
1:31,502
0 0.25 0.5 1 rd
0 0.425 0.85 1.7 km
Sources: Esn, HERE, Garrrin,Intemnap, increment P Corp-- GFBC0. USGS,
FAO, NPS, NRCAN, Geo6ase, IGN. Kadaster NL, Ordnanca Survey, Esri Japan,
I'AETI, Een Owa (Hong Kongi, swisstopo, ® OpenStreetRW conuiautom, and
the GIS User Community

Appendix D
Block 25. Adjoining
Property Owners

Gaston County Landfill Expansion
Block 25 - Adjoining Property Owners
Individual Permit (SAW -2018-00053)
Adjoining Parcel Ownership
Parcel # on
Property Index
Deed
Deed
Current Owners
Mailing Address
Site Address
Figure 9
Number (PIN)
Book
Page
1
3650241809
2047
0749
LORA WILLIAMS MCGEE
3220 PHILADELPHIA CHURCH RD
3220 PHILADELPHIA CHURCH RD
DALLAS, NC 28034
DALLAS, NC
2
3650250006
4699
1276
GASTON COUNTY
PO BOX 1578
3228 PHILADELPHIA CHURCH RD
GASTONIA, NC 28053
DALLAS, NC
3
3650252448
4512
1579
WESLEY & ASLEY
3234 PHILADELPHIA CHURCH RD
3234 PHILADELPHIA CHURCH RD
CLONIGER
DALLAS, NC 28034
DALLAS, NC
4
3650259918
3980
0509
MICHAEL DAVID & MARY
3248 PHILADELPHIA CH RD
3248 PHILADELPHIA CHURCH RD
DEANNA MCSWAIN
DALLAS, NC 28034
DALLAS, NC
5
3650359943
4341
2025
MARK O SPEIGHT
2024 DRAYMORE LN
1371 ALEXIS HIGH SHOALS RD
MATTHEWS, NC 28105
DALLAS, NC
6
3650541492
016E
0520
GERALD FORD LUTZ
136 GRAHAM LUTZ RD
GRAHAM LUTZ RD
DALLAS, NC 28034
COUNTY, NC
7
3650421344
1034
0693
EDWARD E & CAROLY E
219 NARROW GAUGE RD
PHILADELPHIA CHURCH RD
FRIDAY
DALLAS, NC 28034
COUNTY, NC
8
3559394500
1146
0111
EDWARD E & CAROLY E
219 NARROW GAUGE RD
141 KEN GARRISON RD
FRIDAY
DALLAS, NC 28034
DALLAS, NC
9
3559292963
2568
0549
JAMES P & ANNETTE
166 KEN GARRISON RD
KEN GARRISON RD
CARRIGAN
DALLAS, NC 28034
COUNTY, NC
10
3559192936
4444
1127
IVA G HUFFSTICKLER
170 KEN GARRISON RD
KEN GARRISON RD
DALLAS, NC 28034
DALLAS, NC
11
3559092505
4906
1070
CARROLL & ANN PROPST
418 HARDIN RD
BOB FRIDAY RD
IRREV TR
DALLAS, NC 28034
COUNTY, NC
12
3549991378
4073
0011
JASON RUFUS
259 BOB FRIDAY RD
BOB FRIDAY RD
LINEBERGER
DALLAS, NC 28034
COUNTY, NC
13
3640808738
4073
0011
JASON RUFUS
259 BOB FRIDAY RD
BOB FRIDAY RD
LINEBERGER
DALLAS, NC 28034
COUNTY, NC
14
3640913104
4565
0161
GASTON COUNTY
PO BOX 1578
LAFAR CIR
GASTONIA, NC 28053
COUNTY, NC
15
3640826089
4742
0276
DIETER J & WOLFGANG E
11800 HENDERSON RD
HYDRO DR
LOHRMANN
CLIFTON, VA 20124
DALLAS, NC
16
3640923710
4553
1620
JERRY T & CAROLYN O
1127 HARDIN RD
410 FANCY HILL RD
HENSLEY
DALLAS, NC 28034
DALLAS, NC
17
3640932263
4392
2020
JERRY T & CAROLYN O
1127 HARDIN RD
FANCY HILL RD
HENSLEY
DALLAS, NC 28034
DALLAS, NC
Appendix D — Block 25 — Page 11

Gaston County Landfill Expansion
Block 25 - Adjoining Property Owners
Individual Permit (SAW -2018-00053)
Parcel # on
Property Index
Deed
Deed
Current Owners
Mailing Address
Site Address
Figure 9
Number (PIN)
Book
Page
18
3640936109
4801
0245
FANCY HILL LOTS LLC
PO BOX 1235
FANCY HILL RD
DALLAS, NC 28034
DALLAS, NC
19
3640935569
4801
0241
FANCY HILL LOTS LLC
PO BOX 1235
322 FANCY HILL RD
DALLAS, NC 28034
DALLAS, NC
20
3640936713
4801
0241
FANCY HILL LOTS LLC
PO BOX 1235
318 FANCY HILL RD
DALLAS, NC 28034
DALLAS, NC
21
3640937729
4801
0241
FANCY HILL LOTS LLC
PO BOX 123
314 FANCY HILL RD
DALLAS, NC 28034
DALLAS, NC
22
3640938859
4510
2080
DAVID B & IRENE B
310 FANCY HILL RD
310 FANCY HILL RD
WATTS JR
DALLAS, NC 28034
DALLAS, NC
23
3650030987
3238
0476
HARDEN PROPERTIES
PO BOX 708
300 FANCY HILL RD
DALLAS, NC 28034
DALLAS, NC
24
3650032998
2427
0288
DAVID LEE & ELIZABATH
232 FANCY HILL RD
FANCY HILL RD
ANN MARTIN
DALLAS, NC 28034
COUNTY, NC
25
3650043416
1908
0992
DAVID LEE & ELIZABATH
232 FANCY HILL RD
232 FANCY HILL RD
ANN MARTIN
DALLAS, NC 28034
DALLAS, NC
26
3650044360
3535
0665
TRACY DAWN
220 FANCY HILL RD
224 FANCY HILL RD
LINEBERGER
DALLAS, NC 28034
DALLAS, NC
27
3650044405
4294
2170
TRACY D LINEBERGER
220 FANCY HILL RD
220 FANCY HILL RD
DALLAS, NC 28034
DALLAS, NC
28
3650048345
4164
0163
HISABEL R HUFFSTETLER
217 FANCY HILL RD
217 FANCY HILL RD
LIFE TRUST
DALLAS, NC 28034
DALLAS, NC
29
3650141899
4587
2359
FANCY HILL BAPTIST
105 FANCY HILL RD
105 FANCY HILL RD
CHURCH
DALLAS, NC 28034
DALLAS, NC
3235 PHILADELPHIA
30
3650155218
4103
2266
DANIEL ISAAC MARSHALL
3235 PHILADELPHIA CHURCH RD
DALLAS, NC 28034
CHURCH RD DALLAS, NC
Appendix D — Block 25 — Page 12