19980339 Ver 1_COMPLETE FILE_19980418

EcoScience Corporation
612 Wade Avenue, Suite 200
Raleigh, North Carolina 27605
919-828-3433 or 919-828-3518 (Fax)
MEMORANDUM
TO: Mickey Sugg, U.S. Army Corps of Engineers
Kevin Moody, U.S. Fish and Wildlife Service
Ron Sechler, National Marine Fisheries Service
Ken Averitte, N.C. Division of Water Quality
Bennett Wynne, N.C. Wildlife Resources Commission
John Bove, Hazen and Sawyer
John Barnard, BFI
FROM: Sandy Smith/Wes Newell
DATE: 11 November 1998
RE: Sampson County Landfill Mitigation Plan
On behalf of Browning Ferris Industries (BFI), we are pleased to provide you with the mitigation
proposal for the Sampson County landfill expansion. This plan is designed to provide full functional
replacement for unavoidable wetland losses, including a margin of safety. The plan is intended to
facilitate issuance of a Section 401 Water Quality Certification and Section 404 Wetland Permit for
this project.
A meeting has been scheduled for 24 November at the Sampson County landfill to review the
mitigation plan relative to proposed wetland impacts. We will rendezvous at the BFI office at 9:00
am. We hope that you have time to review the plan prior to this meeting so we can receive
comments and move forward with construction planning and implementation. If you have any
questions or require clarification on any of the issues outlined in the plan, please do not hesitate to
call Sandy Smith or Wes Newell in our Raleigh office.
awn
98-034/memcon
Page 1 of 1
i
CONCEPTUAL WETLAND MITIGATION PLAN
BFI NORTHERN EXPANSION
SAMPSON COUNTY LANDFILL
SAMPSON COUNTY, NORTH CAROLINA
Prepared for:
Hazen and Sawyer
Environmental Engineers and Scientists
4011 WestChase Boulevard
Raleigh, North Carolina 27607
Prepared by:
k44ft
EcoScience
EcoScience Corporation
612 Wade Avenue, Suite 200
Raleigh, North Carolina 27605
[phone]
November 1998

TABLE OF CONTENTS
Paae
LIST OF FIGURES .................................................ii
LIST OF TABLES .................................................ii
1.0 INTRODUCTION ............................................ 1
2.0 IMPACTED WETLAND RESOURCES ............................... 5
3.0 MITIGATION ALTERNATIVES ANALYSIS ........................... 7
4.0 MITIGATION SITE EXISTING CONDITIONS .......................... 9
4.1 General ................. ............................ 9
4.2 Soils ................... ............................ 9
4.3 Groundwater Hydrogeology ... ............................ 11
4.4 Surface Water Hydrology ..... ............................ 13
4.5 Plant Communities ......... ............................ 14
4.6 Jurisdictional Waters/Wetlands . ............................ 16
5.0 MITIGATION PLAN .............. ............................ 18
5.1 Wetland Design Physiography .. ............................ 18
5.2 Wetland Soils ............. ............................ 18
5.3 Wetland Hydrology ......... ............................ 21
5.4 Wetland Communities ....... ............................ 22
6.0 MON ITORING PLAN ............. ............................ 28
6.1 Hydrology Monitoring ....... ............................ 28
6.2 Hydrology Success Criteria .... ............................ 28
6.3 Vegetation Monitoring ....... ............................ 29
6.4 Vegetation Success Criteria ... ............................ 29
6.5 Soil Monitoring ............ ............................ 30
6.6 Soil Success Criteria ........ ............................ 30
7.0 LONG TERM MANAGEMENT OF PROPERTY ......................... 31
8.0 WETLAND FUNCTIONAL REPLACEMENT ........................... 32
9.0 REFERENCES ..............................................33
8661 21380100 :9100 .009 - "I :9103S
4£0-86:108(oJd NMf :,(8 Pam0a40
Z :a?n613 NV4 :Ae UMDJ()
VNIIOdVO HidON 'AmnOO NOSdWVS
311S NOIiV'JIi1W llldaNVI AiNnOO NOSdWVS
Si3VdWI aNV113M a3SOdOdd
aNV 'S11OS'AHdVdOOISAHd
i ??vA? I ?A ,k?I ,
/ ? ? 1 \ \\n'?\? stn 1 ?\\\\lv?l?l??`i?
?s f
,t
v> °i
d
uoi;'iodioC)
ooavtosooll
3
W W
? c
F-
N ]
Ix -
W C
2.0 IMPACTED WETLAND RESOURCES
' An assessment of minimization, avoidance, and unavoidable wetland impacts was submitted
with the Section 404 permit application; this material can be referred to for a detailed
' discussion concerning impacted wetland resources. The following represents a summary of
attributes and functional replacement needs associated with the 14 ac wetland area impacted
by landfill expansion.
' The site is located within the upper Coastal Plain physiographic province of the state. The
terrain supports marine sediments distributed within three primary physiographic landscape
' units: 1) interstream divides; 2) intermediate slopes; and 3) riverine floodplains (Figure 2).
Interstream divides represent broad, poorly drained flats situated in upper reaches of the
' landscape. These flats typically support negligible slope and broad expanses of hydric soils
(ex: Rains, Torhunta series). The interior portions of interstream divides are typically
' dominated by nonriverine wetland flats. Wetland hydrology is driven primarily by precipitation
with vertical and episodic zones of radial to semi-radial groundwater flow prevailing. The
outer portions of these flats and the broad intermediate slopes generally support extensive
' drainage networks with former wetlands converted for agricultural, silvicultural, pork, and
dairy production.
' Riverine floodplains are defined as low-lying, relatively flat corridors which surround a stream
channel and support, or historically supported frequent overbank flooding, fluvial sediment
deposition, and floodplain wetland communities. Hydrology is driven by main stem, overbank
' flooding events and the discharge of surface or groundwater from adjacent, intermediate
slopes. This physiographic unit generally serves as a regional travel corridor (genetic or
' migratory) for wildlife. A wide array of wetland dependent species survive in these
bottomlands and the area serves as a nursery and reservoir for surrounding nonriverine
habitats. Therefore, the proposed landfill expansion has been oriented to avoid all impacts
' within riverine systems associated with Bearskin Swamp.
Bearskin Swamp and feeder tributaries have been dredged and straightened throughout the
' region surrounding the MSWLF. Drainage districts and associated projects were established
to accelerate drainage from the adjacent slopes and interstream divides; thereby facilitating
agricultural production. Dredging in Bearskin Swamp has induced significant organic soil
' subsidence and artificial drainage within surrounding riverine wetlands and associated
degradation of nonriverine wetlands on the intermediate slopes.
I Broad intermediate slopes comprise transitions between the interstream divide and low-lying
floodplains in the region. The Sampson County MSWLF is located along the intermediate
' slope adjacent to Bearskin Swamp. All proposed wetland impacts associated with the
proposed MSWLF expansion occur within this physiographic area. These intermediate areas
typically support intermittent headwater seeps and the origins of small streams that have not
' developed a distinct floodplain. These seeps represent slope wetlands that are driven by the
5

I

u

u

lateral to radial flow and discharge of groundwater from adjacent interstream divides. A
majority of the intermediate slopes support productive soils (ex: Goldsboro, Lynchburg series)
and agricultural land. As a consequence, former headwater seeps and stream origins have
frequently been converted for drainage use. Water quality in the region may be influenced
primarily by the function and condition of these headwater seeps and slope wetlands as
buffers between existing land uses and the riverine corridor (Brinson et al. 1981, Rheinhardt
et al. 1998).
Impacted slope wetlands include the origins of two headwater seeps located on the south and
north boundaries of the proposed landfill expansion (Figure 2). Soils are mapped as consisting
primarily of the poorly drained, Leon series (Aeric Haplaquods) (USDA 1985). Vegetation is
characteristic of stream head pocosin which consists of a low canopy and dense shrub and
herbaceous layers. The canopy supports a mix of pond pine (Pious serotina), swamp tupelo
(Nyssa biflora), red maple (Acer rubrum), bald cypress (Taxodium distichum), sweet bay
(Magnolia virginiana), sweetgum (Liquidambarstyraciflua), water oak (Quercusnigra), yellow
poplar (Liriodendron tulipifera), and swamp chestnut oak (Quercus michauxii). Understory and
shrub species include black willow (Salix nigra), swamp tupelo, red maple, red bay (Persea
palustris), dog-hobble (Lyonia lucida), titi (Cyril/a racemiflora), and sweet pepperbush (C/ethra
alnifolia). Groundcover comprises a mix of cinnamon fern (Osmunda cinnamomea), giant cane
(Arundinaria gigantea), netted chain-fern (Woodwardia areolata), soft rush (Juncus effusus),
false nettle (Boehmeria cylindrica), and laurel-leaf greenbrier (Smilax /aurifolia).
The two potentially impacted seeps comprise topographically-depressed fingers that sustain
groundwater discharge from the adjacent sandy, interstream flat. The surficial expression of
groundwater provides areas of seasonal to semi-permanent soil saturation/inundation and
intermittent channel flow during peak storms. These slope wetland systems extend for
approximately 2000 linear feet (ft) below the impact area prior to confluence with the riverine
floodplains of Bearskin Swamp.
' Primary functions associated with these wetland systems include hydrodynamic functions
such as long term surface water storage, moderation of groundwater flow, and discharge
from adjacent interstream flats into the riverine corridor (Brinson et al. 1994). As receptors
of adjacent groundwater, these systems are important for water quality functions such as
nutrient cycling, removal of imported elements/compounds, and retention of particulates.
Maintenance and connectivity of characteristic plant and wildlife communities also represent
important biological functions associated with these slope wetland systems.

6

L
G

3.0 MITIGATION ALTERNATIVES ANALYSIS
A mitigation alternatives analysis was performed to select mitigation sites and conceptual
designs that provide the greatest functional benefit to the region. The analysis included
extensive field review within potential on-site and off-site areas, an agency site visit to
evaluate options, and the potential for success/failure associated with each option.
Because impacted wetland systems represent intermediate buffers situated between Bearskin
Swamp and the proposed landfill, wetland functional replacement should be performed in-kind
and on-site, if feasible. The wetland mitigation sites should be located within the same slope
physiographic area and within lower reaches of the same wetland complex to facilitate no net
loss of function. Off-site mitigation alternatives should be evaluated only after all on-site
alternatives have been exhausted.
Slope wetlands should be created or restored in a manner which treats runoff from the landfill
facility or other land uses in the region. If the landfill facility cannot be targeted for
development of treatment wetlands, other potential land uses that may benefit from the
establishment of slope wetland buffers include hog farms, mining operations, heavily farmed
interstream divides, residential /commercial communities, or road corridors.
Based on the stated objectives of mitigation, the region encompassing the MSWLF was
reviewed for potential mitigation use. Three sites were selected for further study: 1)
downslope areas within the landfill facility; and 2) a borrow operation located approximately
3 miles southwest of the landfill facility; and 3) the Barra Farms Cape Fear regional mitigation
' bank located approximately 10 miles west of the proposed landfill. An agency site visit was
held on 19 May 1998 to review the preferred mitigation options.
' Further review indicates the borrow site may be in active operation for 5 years or more.
During this period, pumping of water will occur within pits located immediately adjacent to
the mitigation area. Pumping may influence the hydrology of a constructed wetland. In
addition, development of an open water lake immediately adjacent to the evaluated site may
influence hydrology in the area after pumping has ceased. Although slope wetlands will
' provide for significant treatment of groundwater while the borrow site is active, long term
wetland values would be expected to diminish after the operation has ceased and the site has
stabilized. Due to potential complications and diminishing benefits, the borrow site has
' currently been dropped from consideration for mitigation use.
' The areas downslope from impacted wetlands provide the opportunity for the construction
of treatment wetlands for the landfill. These areas are also situated proximal to confluence
with the Bearskin Swamp floodplain (Figure 2). Therefore, the constructed, slope wetland
' systems will serve as reservoirs for wildlife with direct connectK4ty -to- r+verine-wetland
systems. This option entails excavation of the hill-slope to(create approximately-20 -acres of")
wetlands and to provide a broader expanse of wetlands between the landfill and Bearskin
' Swamp.

7

' The Barra Farms Cape Fear regional mitigation bank is expected -to provide in-kind wetland
mitigation credit to the region encompassing the MSWLF. The bank supports headwater
' slope wetlands that are similar to proposed wetland impacts at the landfill. If on-site
mitigation alternatives described above become non-viable or time constraints occur, wetland
restoration activities at Barra Farms provide a mechanism to off-set proposed wetland losses.
Consultation with bank sponsors will be performed by BFI, if needed, after mitigation
strategies have been reviewed by wetland resource agencies.

1

H

s

I I
' 4.0 MITIGATION SITE EXISTING CONDITIONS
' 4.1 GENERAL
The MSWLF mitigation site (Site) is located within the Atlantic Coastal Plain Physiographic
' Province within the Inner Coastal Plain region of the Cape Fear River Basin. The Site
encompasses approximately 115 ac along riparian slopes and interior portions of the Bearskin
Swamp floodplain (Stream Index: 18-68-1-17-10 [DWQ 1998]). Figure 3 depicts the Site on
current (1997) aerial photography.
The Site is situated immediately east and down slope of the proposed landfill expansion,
interposed between stormwater basins associated with the landfill and the Bearskin Swamp
stream channel (Figure 2). Surface and groundwater hydrologic interactions are expected to
be complex at the confluence of the slope and riverine wetland systems. Groundwater
' discharge represents the primary hydrologic input available for wetland creation use.
However, significant overbank flood events from Bearskin Swamp also represent a
1 hydrological input that will influence wetland development and functional attributes overtime.
4.2 SOILS
' The primary soil-landform association consists of the Blanton-Leon-Johnston complex
associated with sand ridges, hill-slopes, headwater seeps, and primary floodplains of Bearskin
Swamp (USDA 1985). Figure 2 depicts modified Natural Resource Conservation Service
' (NRCS) soil map units within the Site.
Soil texture ranges from loam to sand of moderate to rapid permeability. In undrained
' condition, the seasonal high water table varies along the topographic gradient from surface
flooding to more than 2 m (6 ft) below the soil surface.
' Hydric soils are defined as "soils that are saturated, flooded, or ponded long enough during
the growing season to develop anaerobic conditions in the upper part (USDA 1991). NRCS
' mapping (Figure 2) identifies hydric soils within the floodplains of Bearskin Swamp and along
headwater seeps and stream origins extending into the bottomland (Bibb and Johnston
Series). Dredging of Bearskin Swamp appears to have altered characteristics of the Bibb and
' Johnston soil area to the extent that organic material in the surface soil layers has been
effectively lost to decomposition. Alterations to hydric soil characteristics resulting from
dredging and decreased hydroperiods should be considered in selection of target wetland
' communities for floodplain restoration.
' Upland areas in the mitigation site support well drained, non-hydric soils. Upland systems
include relatively steep toe slopes along the eastern Site boundaries supporting the Marvyn
series and adjacent sandy ridges supporting the Blanton series. These upland soils do not
' appear to be susceptible to extensive erosion as logging trails, abandoned road beds, and
cleared areas appear to have stabilized rapidly after disturbance and revegetation.

9

8661 'd38OIDO :QV3U
b£0-86 4340id
£ :am?i3
VNI'10-dVD H,LWON `1Ul MOD NOSdWHS
H.LIS NOIIVDI.LIW 'I'IIAUNV'I A LNf O3 NOSdWVS
HdVIlDO.LOHd 'IVIHaV L66I
1
\.J iJt?
re wE '1•
4 ,. . P
16
f ?Zr
Yr;Y `y f_ 1
kw i V C13
I
a Id ??t:
t'
fir
i (( 1 t
4 ' ?• 14-, by ='L•
?a.lt'• 'v 1 ,'.?.gym w ,ti 4

?.
alow
1
lift
`Y

n.F`.

i91 id$a/?'.
II

s a e ?
U
3 ! {
A
?
_
Y ! t
?
4lT ?_ t?Le,

i

'?y ?^;4'?T 1 777 q?ty'
tr

t
• r

y
f +
d I ?
+l,Ir 1
V.}
i
r
4

m e m
7

C

n
r
r

I I
L
4.3 GROUNDWATER HYDROGEOLOGY
The Site is underlain by sediments of the Black Creek Formation, which consists of thick beds
of cross-bedded sand, thin laminae of micaceous sand, and lenses of glauconitic, fossiliferous
clay (Brown 1985). The estimated thickness of the surficial (cross-bedded sand) sediments
ranges from 3 ft within the riverine floodplain to 30 ft along the intermediate slopes. Figure
4 provides a geologic profile across the adjacent landfill which is considered representative
of intermediate slopes in the area. In Figure 4, Well OWB-100 and OWB-6 are located in
proximity to headwater seeps upstream of confluence with the riverine floodplain. Central
sections of the profile (OWB 101 to 127) represent an elevated sand ridge located between
the seepage slopes.
Relatively thin, clay and micaceous sand lenses appear to occur intermittently (OWB-
1 19/127). However, a thick, contiguous bed of clay occurs immediately below the surficial
sediment. These lenses and clay beds are expected to influence the rate and direction of
groundwater flow through the intermediate slope and riverine floodplain. The clay and
micaceous sand beds represent layers of low vertical permeability relative to overlying, cross-
bedded sands.
The Site resides at the toe of the hill-slope at confluence with the Bearskin Swamp floodplain.
In general, groundwater flows west to east towards the swamp. The floodplain resides up
to 30 ft lower in elevation than the surrounding hill-slopes. Long term erosion and valley
formation along Bearskin Swamp is expected to have exposed or removed intermittent clay
and micaceous sand lenses of the Black Creek formation. Based on cursory soil sampling, the
Bearskin Swamp valley floor may rest in proximity to the contiguous clay bed as described
above. This stratigraphy may encourage radial to lateral groundwater flow, surficial expression
of groundwater, and stream discharge on the floodplain fringe. Consequently, groundwater
movement across these lenses will provide a basis for establishing target elevations and
surface features across a constructed wetland surface. A detailed analysis of geologic
stratigraphy and groundwater interaction will be performed as part of detailed construction
planning. The laminae and lenses present on adjacent hill-slopes will be used, in part, to
control the rate of vertical groundwater movement and the rate of radial to lateral
groundwater discharge into and across created wetland surfaces.
Upon confluence with the floodplain, the toe of existing hill-slopes is convoluted, inducing
differential rates of groundwater discharge and retention across various portions of the slope
wetland and outer floodplain fringe. This variability in hydroperiod and groundwater discharge
rates provides localized diversity in the types of wetland communities established in this
transitional zone between slope and riverine wetlands. The boundary between post-
construction hill-slopes and the created wetland should exhibit similar convolution to promote
hydraulic variability at the upland-wetland interface.
11

9661 21380100 :a}oa ,009 • „l :91DOS
4£'0-26 :3C)afoJd NMf :48 P013e40
q :ajn61 j 3yW :,(8 UMOaO
VNnouv3 HlHON'JLLNnOO NO$dWVS
3115 NOLLVOLUW 'nIdCNVI A1NnO3 NOSdWVS
NOLL338-'SSOd3 31001030 1Vnid30NOO
ao[3aiodioa
ooaoiosooll

I
3 :... -

ir

O J Q n
N

0 IE M M F? Ho

W II

N m
1
Ar
Cal) .
II II
Z m • , r

LLI
m?; ?Il llli :'

00 00

jilillu
4

??? • ???? ?;?:? (
?? - -
? III I I ? ., . - ?.:..? •.
-
'
Iillll
:': :
I I I I I I •• .•. ? g p
O
N
N

0$

(lSW *
JA) NOUVA 13
0 o=
o
0

cp o

tQ g o ° ° $

M N rn Goo
0

L

C

P
I I

I I

1
I
Groundwater Seeps
Three primary groundwater seeps extend through the Site along northern, central, and
southern sections (Figure 2). These seeps exhibit seasonal to semi-permanent expression of
surface flows. The three seeps service drainage areas totaling approximately 1.6 square miles
(1000 ac), including the entire area of the proposed landfill.
The northern and central seeps have been diverted into constructed drainage channels which
extend through the floodplain and discharge into Bearskin Swamp. These linear ditches have
concentrated and accelerated drainage rates, effectively bypassing floodplain and wetland
surfaces. Near confluence with Bearskin Swamp, channelized surface flows descend below
ground surface into voids created by soil subsidence below the root mat. Elimination or
obstruction of these constructed ditches would serve to increase wetland extent, sheet flow,
infiltration, and resultant water quality benefits.
Surface water flow located away from channelized primary seeps exhibits reference
characteristics that will be utilized to orient wetland creation design. Specifically, surface
water migrates in the downslope direction primarily as braided flow or sheet flow. The
primary influence upon flow characteristics appears to comprise the density and distribution
of live vegetation, coarse woody debris, surface litter accumulation, and related
microtopography. Microtopographic complexity promotes energy dissipation, surface water
storage, and infiltration within these secondary seepage areas.
4.5 PLANT COMMUNITIES
Distribution and composition of plant communities reflect landscape-level variations in
topography, soils, hydrology, and past or present land use practices. Communities identified
on the site include long-leaf pine/scrub oak forest, cut-over stream head swamp forest, and
riverine swamp forest (Figure 5).
Regeneration of longleaf pine/scrub oak forest occurs within upland portions of the site
(Figure 5). These sand ridge forests have been clear-cut in the last decade. These areas are
currently dominated by saplings and small trees including long-leaf pine (Pinus palustris),
sweetgum (Liquidambar styraciflua), red maple (Acer rubrum), turkey oak (Quercus /aevis),
post oak (Q. stellata), and water oak (Q. nigra). Common shrubs include flowering dogwood
(Corpus florida), wax myrtle (Myrica cerifera), American holly (Ilex opaca), sassafras
(Sassafras albidum), and pokeweed (Phytolacca americana). Groundcover is dominated by
creeping blueberry (Vaccinium crassifolium), poison ivy (Rhus radicans), Virginia creeper
(Parthenocissus quinquefolia), bracken fern (Pteridum aquilinum), dog-fennel (Eupatorium
capillifolium), and greenbriers (Smilax spp.).
Cut-over portions of the outer floodplain fringe support regeneration indicative of a transitional
zone between stream head pocosin and stream head swamp forest. This area comprises a
dense thicket of pioneer species such as switch cane (Arundinaria gigantea), green briers (S.
rotundifolia, S. glauca), blueberries (Vaccinium spp.), blackberries (Rubus spp.), wild grapes
(Vitis spp.), bitter gallberry (Ilex g/abra), sweet pepperbush (Clethra alnifolia), bamboo brier
(Smilax
14
0
8661 21380100 :0100 1009 • .11 :9100S
tiC0-86:109foJd NMf :A8 Pai0a40
g :aan613 d'dYV :A8 uMOJQ
VNnouvo Hl!!OWAiNnOO NOSdWVS
3MS NOUVOIMW 'nWaNV1 AjLNnOO NOSdWVS
S3WNnwwo3 1NVld
noi3viodioc)
00II010soog
j J ^ II II/I 1, f `b /f yl( (I(\lr/I ' 1 i - J ?j \ \ -
I l I0'sCl )tCo
v ? ( l ? \ VA? 111 c ? 1 , /
Got
r >_ / 1 (111(' ? l C
1 / ? ?? ) I )r\ / p r1 I
J ? / vvz•9oi l) ?v???z?v h?/ /)tlsl v 1/ vv?rv? o os1
J ?I l \ )( /f /51??\/ rrte?,,,, ?; \ ''k`> \ \ \? 9r 9S?'661;
VIOI
it / / /(? / ( (/ \\\.Ar11 r(Lr // \
I t\ I /J / I 1 do z\l I \ / o , ` \ 4 / S'o91r
I I J
/ / \ \ ( \ J ( r ?? \ \ /? / ( L ? ? 9'6sl ? N'NI //
90
15'66 \ , I` fjp ( ` \ \, \ / ? \ \ \ / , }7 \ \ \ _ `t 1.1 ? L•o9l`
I 1 \ Lt j, / / i \ /\ ( ?i, _ l? i L 1 I CA i1 v -91 G.9s, E-6
?\ \? / f (\I I ? r? ( i t /G( ? I /?'?/' 1 aLr \ i J
bz \ \ / 1/ ' ` \\ /ir/ .III - 's` s
a•66 / I f A(i,t,.,? Lf9cl( 1 \ J/( / ( t ?1•ssl' / /?
L•oo 1„ l \ ( / / / -? ? ?d+ J JV s(Ln \ \ \ •9s11
\ ( f I / ( \ Gam,/ J // J \ t / °s
o•sat C I?t\l I /6 /'9z z \ 1 //??i v%i? / \ \ 1 / <e•1si \ t / 1•esl"
I I f/l/ N r sal / 1 / o/i /i )
No-
I? 111 ( ( ( c,.. \ 11\\ l'? %? r'9s1„ / \ ( \
'z..?.\\ ' /
.? -?uwnly '+*
?J,AJ? ?V (,?I '?-• Ate- ll?/? \?\\\ ,rt?? ?_/ / / ,' \ V 1 ?( i /I /?? \ / s•ss1" s
\?
?J^I\ \\ 9•a1\M 1111 1 \~??t! _? / \'% r r1f_J ?`\`? I'I -?,'LS1„ \\ c'es1"
r'CO
( 6•zo 1" L•Lsl" \
r / s" _ / L•LS."
I.o9 Q, a•Lsl S'9sl \
e'zo1" •1oi s•io1 l _ \ \ l ( C I c' 0 s ( - - " \
/ J / r? \ 9•" (? \ I `s.zs, s•sr 'eeL „ 9•vs, ` y l 1•ssl \ \ - / 1
r ?' 1
r•cs1„ c•cs1 " ? / 1
/L'901 II I1 - f 1 1sl r 1 / _ \
///o`??\t \\ ? \ (/ / / l? \\ i I1 I\I -- ? \ I ,(1s1 t?? \ -.( „ 9•al, ' -_ ? - \ ?s'csi Jr \ ,
i, \ l1 \ 1 `?\ / s-zu" ?!f- rs1 ---- 'L•zs1 / \-/?,/??. \ \r•ssl" /
\I I (I\\?) ?` \ ) \ \\\ \\? \\ // / f J r. °u• v?zs1„
\1'501" L \\\\\\ I\\ (tJ () ?S 1 \\y, / _? \ of
\- 1 \ \ \ 1 1 I. .? )\ s .IS1" ` cos L'osi
yL 17 \ ( J ? l/% )ll\\ \ ? ?ss1 Zf'ti ? ? \IL•rrl - ?' / ! ?, I I /
?( I l O \l ; \\ \ \ .I/ ?1 I1?? \? ?\ `I t,/ 1? a•er1" • r?...1•os1 / \ v•zr1" 'I I•
\/ \ \ \I, , ( \ / 'fir )o ? ?
J O ^\ 1 Ii( 11 f` y 6•erl I L. , •? l ( (? \ /
a 60,
I It(
\\s.6 \ 1?/oti?/Il'i%?// l\lt\
"A 00 N "A ' so I" / LA.
Q I \\o'LO1" \ H s'9o I" ( IJJJ_i///1J i \??
lit
E );?
m F- t 1 l / r z J
l' r
w N w 1 \9rI
LLJ
w \ r y /i/
LU Uzi LO.
.j 0-
U) I
? > JO] \\\11 l\ \\ /?/
\\\ \\ \? I I / /
Z) Q.
fn U J
V ceo l„ ? / ? A?
m m
' laurifolia), and dog hobble (Leucothoe axillaris). Intermittent standing trees and exposed
saplings include yellow poplar (Liriodendron tulipifera), red maple, sweet bay (Magnolia
' virginiana), and loblolly pine (Pinus taeda).

J

r

1

I I

r
?I
Degraded swamp forests persist along the primary floodplains of Bearskin Swamp. Dredging
of Bearskin Swamp appears to have induced organic soil subsidence. Tree fall and mortality
are extensive throughout the floodplain as root collars extend well above the existing ground
surface. Remaining canopy species consist primarily of sweet gum, red maple, yellow poplar,
and loblolly pine. American holly (flex opaca) represents a dominant component within
portions of the canopy and within subcanopy layers. In the vicinity of remaining surface
water seeps, characteristic wetland species such as Atlantic white cedar (Chamaecyparis
thyoides), bald cypress (Taxodium distichum), and swamp tupelo (Nyssa biflora) persist as
isolated community elements in the landscape.
4.6 JURISDICTIONAL WATERS/WETLANDS
Jurisdictional areas were evaluated and mapped relative to the criteria set forth in the COE
Wetlands Delineation Manual (DOA 1987). Jurisdictional wetlands, which occupy
approximately 74 ac of the 115 ac Site, are depicted in Figure 6. Jurisdictional wetlands
occur throughout the Bearskin Swamp floodplain as ground water tables appear to be
elevated during the winter and early spring. Based on subsidence characteristics, dredging
of the main-stem channel has altered wetland hydrodynamics and reduced hydroperiods.
However, jurisdictional wetland hydrology and soils persist in a relatively degraded condition.
16

8661 8380100 :0100 009 - ..1 :aIDDS
VNnO!!V3 Hl!!ON 'AlNnO0 NOSdWV3 ttot3'iodio?
ti£0-86:P8f0Jd NMf :A8 Paioa40 RUS NOUVOWW'lldaNV'l Am= NOSdWVS ^^ RR
V

.3 :WW :AS UMoJO saNvilm imoualaslanr
g :am61
J I I, / / ? III / I I °` ( 'tl! II!(1r/?? i _ . % ? - \
e A A \AVA A lo•cn V 1 s? / i ? ? i
/r
1 z-goi 1 \(\ - - ? I
/
'/ J ? I//I }??65 ?'y? L ? \x\9'1e1I \ {L IJ,j?1
I/ ( \ 2'901 ( (L?(?? \ \ /) IS I ( \ / OSI
-/ \ \ / l / 5 I \ / \ \ \ \ \ 9 S?' 6 6 l /
\ ( / II I / \ / \ / \ Jf9r / ^ bH\ \
I ^ I / / / //o zi J 1 1/?o I \ 1 ?\ \ s•o91x
0101
9-69, Oil
s cs A 1 )? / ? ( l V 1 / ? A / /1 ? A 'T' _ Ii ? L•o91x
\ (SY/ ,Ipc 1CA \ . ?0" K ) / / I 1 \ J } ?? 1 l/M 9' 19 4 ?---•
f \ 1 / (f I t?'?,Y . ? r ?, I / G r ? ? ? - `/ z" \ Vl1/111a
%
?sc /} I l ?/ AA ? I Av Lf9[Il I ? v ? ? 1) // ??l ` / I ? / ? \ V - `i ssix ?l / [ c x
rom= l\\ V A a< r /rr / / N //OO°L? ll/ (sluff ?) \ " '9si
\? Irl( ?/ ?• \ \ ti !? /i////feosi ?-1/ ,-/ `% \ -'\ / _ Ls _?- --_/-?\ / •es1
Isl \ / l'BL Ix
B
0-16 A 1??AII I 1 f / / N. ' 9z? 1 I ?A ? / 5?? \I ?\ l v? ?A rl
'3\\\\ 951` / x )
\_J/?/i I\ 1 1? (Illlll1l ??? \\\-'/'ll?? \?\' ?i? =? / / I \\\\ (I !1 (?/?J/ /(' /,?\ ?`si lJ? s•ss1"
COL, ( z•[mx \` .i ' /F '. /' / /i / / I ( / ^? ^` \ \ \\ ` xs•ryI •zs, ?1 9'!51 / ??
t 6. i 1 _ / W
s)ioi I? ? \ / \ - ? // ? ? j ////- -? ? // J /// z is \/ r[ C_Ix) ? ( / !? / r?rLVx L•LSi' ??
/ /?/ \ I /?z ?.???\ (/ 1 I Is.sr?C eri 1J9'rr \l s 4l? _?1•ssi \\ _ -/-"'?\I
/ s
/ //-' \ \ \ L of \? / It II - / ) i r> e•[si" \ r / _ . - / \ ' \
/ i / Y- ? r551"
\ ) / \ 1\\ \\ \?// / ?II?YII ?--_ ( P-- z•zsI I?' -?'--`• - fs? \_ 1\ \ /
,5 x ? AvVll I\ 11 ? l 1 1 /
` 6 01 \\\\ \ \\ \ \ o s 1Y _ \ -
L
Ub `L eri
?? I " \ \\\ \ //? 1141 ?? < 9
( l O y, ( \ \ / 1 , ?' \\ `I I rio e•eri` • r •a i" f ( z 1 / I' "
`\ \ V^^ \ \ \ I \ ['er1 by r< /
I

Lai

p J r•eolx / \ L "
0 3 ~ 1 )

Z LLJ
of I
\
??
F- o om I
\
_-
0 p ? ? VA VA I / 11
(
l\
\?\
\
J Q ?? \ \
\
I
1
11
~ I \ \\
m J
1 \
(
1 J? I
1

Il 1
\
i
/ s•IO

11 I }
IIlI (
JI )`
1 `"19'Y[l
/
r„
.\9.I
\
/ i
i /
_. m r

Long Leaf Pine/Scrub Oak Forest
Primary So il Map Units: Blanton (Grossarenic Pa/eudults) and Marvyn (Typic Haplaudults)
1 . Long Leaf Pine (Pinus palustris)
2. Southern Red Oak (Quercus falcata)
' 3. Water Oak (Quercus nigra)
4. Willow Oak (Quercus phellos)
5. Post Oak (Quercus marilandica)
' 6. Mockernut Hickory (Carya tomentosa)
Stream Head Swamp Forest: Diagnostic Community Elements
' Primary Soil Map Units: Created Wetland Surfaces (Target= Cumulic Humaquepts)
1 . Bald Cypress (Taxodium distichum)
' 2. Water Tupelo (Nyssa aquatica)
3. Swamp Tupelo (Nyssa biflora)
4. Atlantic White Cedar (Chamaecyparis thyoides)
' 5. Overcup Oak (Quercus lyrata)
6. Pond Pine (Pinus serotina)
' Stream Head Swamp Forest: Surface Stabilization and Cover
Primary Soil Map Units: Created Wetland Surfaces (Target= Humaqueptic F/uvaquents)

' 1 .
2. Yellow Poplar (Liriodendron tulipifera)
Swamp Cottonwood (Populus heterophylla)
3. Black Willow (Salix nigra)
4. River Birch (Betula nigra)
5. Tag Alder (Alnus serrulata)
6. Button Bush (Cephalanthus occidenta/is)
'
Riverine Swamp Forest
Primary Soil Map Units: Johnston (Cumulic Humaquepts) and Bibb (Typic F/uvaquents)
' 1 . Bald Cypress (Taxodium distichum)
2. Cherrybark Oak (Quercus pagoda)

' 3.
4. Swamp Tupelo (Nyssa biflora)
Atlantic White Cedar (Chamaecyparis thyoides)
5. Overcup Oak (Quercus lyrata)
6. Laurel Oak (Quercus phellos)
' 7. Green Ash (Fraxinus pennsylvanicum)
8. American Elm (Ulmus americana)
' Stream head swamp forests will dominate the wetland creation area and include species
preferred for diagnostic community development and for soil stabilization and cover. Species
' preferred for rapid growth and soil stabilization will be planted within areas of active surface
water movement such as primary/secondary seeps or within stilling basins and debris dams.

24

' Riverine swamp forest elements would serve as supplemental plantings to enhance wetland
' systems within the interior floodplain of Bearskin Swamp.
Planting Plan
' The planting plan is proposed to re-establish wetland community patterns across the
landscape. The plan consists of: 1) acquisition of available wetland species; 2) inspection of
surface topography and top soil improvements; and 3) planting of selected species on-site.
' The USACE bottomland hardwood forest mitigation guidelines (DOA 1993) were utilized in
developing this plan.
' Table 1 depicts the reforestation and supplemental planting acreages within each targeted
community. In addition, the number of seedlings to be planted by species for each planting
area are totaled. Bare-root seedlings of tree species will be planted at a density of 435 stems
' per ac (10-ft centers) within the long leaf pine and stream head swamp (wetland creation)
areas. Within the Bearskin Swamp floodplain, supplemental planting of riverine swamp forest
' elements will be performed, utilizing approximately 70 stems per ac. Supplemental plantings
will occur in canopy tree fall gaps, degraded fringe areas, clearings, and within snag creation
plots as needed. In summary, approximately 15,350 trees and shrubs will be planted within
' the 115 ac complex.
Species selected for planting will be dependent upon availability of local seedling sources at
' the time of planting and the results of ecological analyses. Advance notification to nurseries
(1 year) will facilitate availability of various non-commercial elements.
r

u

L

Planted species will be alternated within adjacent centers at the relative densities stated in
Table 1. Planting will be performed between December 1 and March 15 to allow plants to
stabilize during the dormant period and set root during the spring season.
Evidence indicates that a major cause of mortality in planted seedlings is over-browsing by
deer and/or beaver. Methods to control browsing, such as species management or tree
shelters, will be considered. The presence of dense successional thickets around planted
seedlings may also limit browsing. However, in some instances, the substantial decrease in
growth rates and the potential for over-topping by weedy species may reduce the benefits
of this option. Regular shrub and herb maintenance coupled with selective use of tree
shelters may be used in some areas to encourage higher survival rates and more rapid growth.
Opportunistic species, which typically dominate disturbed swamp forests, have been excluded
from initial wetland community restoration efforts. Opportunistic species such as loblolly bay,
sweet bay, sweet gum, and red maple may become established within the Site. Efforts to
inhibit early site domination by opportunistic species may be required during the first several
years of tree growth to encourage diversity. However, these species should also be
considered important components of steady-state swamp forest communities where species
diversity has not been jeopardized.
25

r

r

lI'I

n
n

u

I
fringe and interior floodplain physiographic areas of the Site.. The hydrology reference
hydrology data will be utilized to refine target hydroperiods relative to the regulatory minimum
described above.
The reference hydrology success criteria is projected to include saturation (free water) within
one foot of the soil surface for between 60% and 140% of the hydroperiod exhibited by the
reference wetland. Local variations in hydroperiod along the convoluted valley wall and
groundwater seeps will also be compared between the mitigation and reference wetland sites.
6.3 VEGETATION MONITORING
Restoration monitoring procedures for vegetation are designed in accordance with EPA
guidelines enumerated in Mitigation Site Type (MiST) documentation (EPA 1990) and COE
Compensatory Hardwood Mitigation Guidelines (DOA 1993). A general discussion of the
restoration monitoring program is provided.
After planting has been completed in winter or early spring, an initial evaluation will be
performed to verify planting methods and to determine initial species composition and
density. Supplemental planting and additional site modifications will be implemented, if
necessary.
During the first year, vegetation will receive cursory, visual evaluation on a periodic basis to
ascertain the degree of overtopping of planted elements by nuisance species. Subsequently,
quantitative sampling of vegetation will be performed between September 15 and October
31 after each growing season until the vegetation success criteria is achieved.
During quantitative vegetation sampling in early fall of the first year, sample plots will be
randomly placed within each restored ecosystem type. Sample plot distributions will be
correlated with hydrological monitoring locations to provide point-related data on hydrological
and vegetation parameters. In each sample plot, vegetation parameters to be monitored
include average tree height, species composition, density, and basal area. Visual observations
of the percent cover of shrub and herbaceous species will also be recorded.
6.4 VEGETATION SUCCESS CRITERIA
Success criteria have been established to verify that the wetland vegetation component
supports community elements necessary for a jurisdictional determination. Additional success
criteria are dependent upon the density and . growth of characteristic forest species.
Specifically, a minimum mean density of 320 characteristic tree species/ac must be surviving
for at least 5 years after initial planting. At least five character tree species must be present,
and no species can comprise more than 20% of the 320 stem/ac total. Supplemental
plantings will be performed as needed to achieve the vegetation success criteria.
No quantitative sampling requirements are proposed for herb and shrub assemblages as part
of the vegetation success criteria. Development of a swamp forest canopy over several
29

decades and wetland hydrology will dictate the success in migration and establishment of
desired wetland understory and groundcover populations. Visual estimates of the percent
cover of shrub and herbaceous species and photographic evidence will be reported for
information purposes.
' 6.5 SOIL MONITORING
An initial evaluation of soil characteristics will be performed upon completion of construction
' activities. During the first year, soils will be monitored frequently to discern movement or
erosion within the surficial soil layer. Modifications designed to reduce surface water
hydraulics will be installed as needed to stabilize top soils. Subsequently, quantitative
' sampling of soils will be performed in the fall of each year to verify hydric soil establishment.
' Soil samples will be collected at each vegetation sample plot. A profile description will be
prepared that includes soil horizonation, texture, color, organic matter content, and
presence/absence of hydric soil indicators. Selected samples will be forwarded to a laboratory
' for nutrient analyses. Visual observations of changes in soil or surface litter properties will
also be recorded.
' 6.6 SOIL SUCCESS CRITERIA
Success criteria have been established to verify that soils support characteristics necessary
for a jurisdictional determination. Hydric soil indicators and secondary indicators of wetland
' hydrology (DOA 1987) must be present throughout the five-year monitoring period.
Indicators are expected to include soil matrix chroma, mottling characteristics, rhizosphere
oxidations, surf icial organic matter accumulation, staining, drift lines, fluvial deposits, or other
' diagnostic features.

1

30

7.0 LONG TERM MANAGEMENT OF PROPERTY
' The Sampson County MSWLF is required to maintain control of the landfill and a 300-ft buffer
surrounding the landfill for a 30-year period after closure. Therefore, an interim conservation
' easement will be prepared to protect the Site during this period. The interim conservation
easement will state that a perpetual conservation easement be prepared after the 30-year
period. The perpetual easement will include transfer of title to a conservation organization
' or appropriate land management group, if available.
BFI will solicit organizations for acquisition and/or long term management of the Site.
' However, until an acceptable agreement can be reached with an appropriate recipient of the
property, ownership and management of the Site will remain with BFI. BFI will also remain
responsible for meeting success criteria established in the mitigation plan. Stipulations will
' be incorporated into the interim conservation easement and into the deed upon land transfer
to insure that the property remains as conservation land in perpetuity.

31
n

1 8.0 WETLAND FUNCTIONAL REPLACEMENT
' This mitigation plan is designed to fulfill compensatory mitigation requirements associated
with the Section 404/401 permits for the MSWLF expansion. Wetland mitigation strategies
' have been designed to provide for full functional replacement of wetland losses, including a
margin of safety. The MSWLF expansion and past activities involve approximately 14 ac of
jurisdictional wetland impacts. The proposed mitigation offers approximately 20 ac of
' wetland creation, 74 ac of wetland enhancement, and 21 ac of upland buffer establishment
(Figure 8).
' Wetland creation and enhancement efforts are in-kind and on-site. The Site is situated within
the same slope physiographic area and within lower reaches of the same wetland complex
as the proposed impacts. Mitigation efforts are designed to establish a forested slope
' wetland and floodplain with a closed or nearly closed, diverse hardwood canopy. The
forested complex will be consolidated below the landfill facility to maximize treatment of
' surface water and groundwater runoff, prior to confluence with Bearskin Swamp. The
proximity of the slope wetland site to Bearskin Swamp will also promote wildlife expansion
through direct connectivity with the riverine wetland system.
' Wetland creation and enhancement entails excavation of the hill slope and establishment of
three primary groundwater seeps and four to six secondary seeps. All wetland soils, surface
' litter, and seed sources will be imported from the proposed wetland impact area and
distributed within the mitigation area. Woody debris and soil surface topography will be
established across the created wetland surface and characteristic wetland trees will be
planted throughout the system. Subsequently, the Site will be monitored for five years to
verify that no net loss of wetlands has resulted within the Sampson County MSWLF. Detailed
' plans will be prepared and the project implemented upon notification of approval from wetland
resource agencies.

J

32

9.0 REFERENCES
Brinson M.M., F.R. Hauer, L.C. Lee, R.P. Novitzki, W.L. Nutter, and D.F. Whingham. 1994.
Guidebook for Application of Hydrogeomorphic Assessments to Riverine Wetlands.
The National Wetlands Science Training Cooperative. Seattle, WA.
Brinson M., B. Swift, R. Plantico, J. Barclay. 1981. Riparian Ecosystems: Their ecology and
status. U.S. Fish and Wildlife Service FWS/OBS 81 /17
Brown, Philip M., et al. 1985. Geologic Map of North Carolina, North Carolina Department
of Natural Resources and Community Development, 1-.500,000 scale.
Department of the Army (DOA). 1993 (unpublished). Corps of Engineers Wilmington
District. Compensatory Hardwood Mitigation Guidelines (12/8/93).
Department of the Army (DOA). 1987. Corps of Engineers Wetland Delineation Manual.
Tech. Rpt. Y-87-1, Waterways Experiment Station, COE, Vicksburg, Mississippi.
Division of Water Quality (DWQ). 1998. Classifications and Water Quality Standards
Assigned to the Waters of the Cape Fear River Basin, N.C. Department of
Environment, Health, and Natural Resources, Raleigh, N.C.
EcoScience Corporation (ESC). 1998. Summary Report, Section 404 Jurisdictional Area
Assessment, BFI Northern Expansion, Sampson County Landfill. Raleigh, N.C.
Environmental Protection Agency (EPA). 1990. Mitigation Site Classification (MiST) A
Methodology to Classify Pre-Project Mitigation Sites and Develop Performance
Standards for Construction and Restoration of Forested Wetlands. USEPA Workshop,
August 13-15, 1989. USEPA Region IV and Hardwood Research Cooperative, North
Carolina State University, Raleigh, NC.
Rheinhardt R.D., M.C. Rheinhardt, M.M. Brinson, and K. Faser. 1998. Forested wetlands
' of low order streams in the inner coastal plain of North Carolina. Wetlands, Vol. 18,
No. 3. The Society of Wetland Scientists.
U.S. Department of Agriculture (USDA). 1985. Soil Survey of Sampson County, North
Carolina, USDA Natural Resource Conservation Service.
' U.S. Department of Agriculture (USDA). 1991. Hydric Soils of the United States. In
cooperation with the National Technical Committee for Hydric Soils, USDA Natural
t Resource Conservation Service.
J
33

°hF
>> North Carolina Wildlife Resources Commission]
512 N. Salisbury Street, Raleigh, North Carolina 27604-1188, 919-733-3391
Charles R. Fullwood, Executive Director
MEMORANDUM
TO: John Parker
Division of Coastal Management
John Dorney
Division of Water Quality
Mickey Sugg
Army Corps of Engineers
FROM: Bennett Wynne
Habitat Conservation Program
DATE: May 14, 1998

MAY 2 0 998
WEIUNUS UK O!'
Y!'n.TFR QIiALITY ?G ; ? '? .
hid?
9?3?'339
SUBJECT: 404 and 401 applications for Browning Ferris Industries (BFI) Of North America,
c/o Mr. John Barnard, discharge of fill material into 11.0 acres of Section 404
wetlands for the expansion of the existing Sampson County municipal solid waste
landfill facility, east of Roseboro, Sampson County, North Carolina. Action 1D
No. 199801058.
Staff biologists with the Wildlife Resources Commission have reviewed the project for
impacts on wildlife and fishery resources in the area. Our comments are provided in accordance
with provisions of the Fish and Wildlife Coordination Act (48 Stat. 401, as amended; 16 U.S.C.
661 et. seq.) and the Coastal Area Management Act (G. S. 113A-100 through 1 13A-128).
The applicant proposes to fill approximately 11.0 acres of jurisdictional wetlands
associated with tributaries of Bearskin Swamp. In addition to direct losses of wildlife habitat and
water quality protection finrctions, we are concerned that contamination of ground and surface
waters will eventually occur. No substantive alternatives analysis is provided and we do not
consider wetland avoidance efforts to be adequately demonstrated. No concrete mitigation plan
for wetland impacts has been submitted. Based on the environmental risks associated with the
project, we think an Environmental Impact Statement, or minimally an Environmental i>

alp
1
1?14" ???
Assessment, is needed. Consequently, we recommend that the decision to issue a permit be
withheld until an appropriate environmental document is prepared, circulated, and reviewed.
Thank you for the opportunity to comment on this project. If you have any concerns
about our comments, please contact me at [phone].
2
DEPARTMENT OF THE ARMY
WILMINGTON DISTRICT, CORPS OF ENGINEERS
P.O. BOX 1890
WILMINGTON, NORTH CAROLINA 28402-1890
IN REPLY REFER TO September 15, 1998
Regulatory Division p
i '
Action ID No. 199801058 /?p??
L fS& 2 108
vv
1 WETLANDS GROUP
WATER QUALITY SECTION __.w.
Mr. John Barnard Sr
Browning Ferris Barnard: Industries of North America
we issued a public notice describing the proposal by Browning Ferris
Industries (BFI) to discharge fill material into 11.0 acres of wetlands regulated by the provisions
of Section 404 of the Clean Water Act for the expansion of the existing Sampson County
Municipal Solid Waste Landfill facility at the northeast corner of the intersection of NC Highway
24 and SR 130, adjacent to Bearskin Swamp, east of Roseboro, Sampson County, North
Carolina. Subsequently, an onsite meeting was held on May 19, 1998, with your agents, Messrs.
Jerry Mcrain and Sandy Smith of EcoScience Corporation to discuss several mitigation options
that were included in the application.
It is my understanding that EcoScience is currently designing a conceptional mitigation
plan and including an site additional landfill site for consideration. According to Mr. Smith, the
plan should be completed in approximately two months and will be forwarded to this office for
review. The plan should describe how BFI will provide for the functional replacement of
wetlands impacted by the project and include a construction plan for accomplishing the
replacement goals. As agreed with Mr. Smith, a subsequent interagency field meeting will be
held to review the additional site and to discuss the updated plan.
To comply with the 404(b)(1) guidelines, a final mitigation plan must be approved prior to
the issuance of a Department of the Army permit. Until a plan has been submitted to our office,
review of the proposal cannot continue. Therefore, we have suspended processing of the
application and temporarily retired this file. When we have received the information described
above, we will reopen this file and continue our permit review.
7434 On April Roseboro 9, Highway
Roseboro, North 1998, Carolina 28382
-2-
If you have any questions or comments, please do not hesitate to contact me in the
Wilmington Regulatory Field Office at telephone [phone].
Sincerely,
Mickey Sugg
Regulatory Specialist
Copies Furnished:
Mr. John Dorney
Division of Water Quality
North Carolina Department of
Environment and Natural Resources
4401 Reedy Creek Road
Raleigh, North Carolina 27611
Mr. John Hefner
U.S. Fish and Wildlife Service
Fish and Wildlife Enhancement
Post Office Box 33726
Raleigh, North Carolina 27636-3726
Mr. Bennett Wynne
North Carolina Wildlife Resource
Commission
804 West Island Avenue
Kinston, North Carolina 28501
Mr. Sandy Smith
EcoScience Corporation
612 Wade Avenue, Suite 200
Raleigh, North Carolina 27605
Ms. Kathy Matthews
Wetlands Section, Region IV
U.S. Environmental Protection Agency
Atlanta Federal Center
61 Forsyth Street, SW
Atlanta, Georgia 30303
Mr. Ken Averitte
North Carolina Division of Water Quality
225 Green Street
Suite 714, Wachovia Building
Fayetteville, North Carolina 28301
I .11.In- ] : -9R OR r 3DA EcoSc is?nr c? !"'.,r t,? itvit
&A-
E, 10 June 1998

lilt!?:d?l??,.?\.,?n,r;• ,`;1111,,!I!i) Ii,iL•...I Ci'j?Y', Ir?1??11Ii1?i1 1'tl'%+',?1.;'?
Mr. John R. Dorney
Wales Quality Cerlificatlon Pro°ram
Division of Water Quality
4401 Reedy Creek Road
Raleigh, North Carolina 27626-0535
P_ol.

Re: Environmental Permitting for tho S;luipsnn County l'.,andfill .Expansion, 98-005
DWQ Project # 980339
Dear Jahn:
Please accept this letter as a response. to your June 1, 191 9 letter to Mr_ Jahn Harnard of Browning
Ferris Industries of N.A. (BFI) in regard to tl.1c shave-trn?ntiined project (see attached copy). We
umle):stand that approval of 401 Certification for thin; project is contingctit upon development of a
tllitigivion plan that rc.hl;tc tes uses thal nrcy he rc-)nnvcd or degraded by the propo,,ed project, 1311
intends to purnuc this prujcct, attcl 13FI and Scc)Scicnce. Cor3)oration (ESC) are in the prc)Ce55 Of
developing, an appropriate nlitigatiun Ilan.
We intend to focus the mitigatioa c ffcnt ou an ;rl,lnu.`iuc11e1v 60-acre tract. nosh of the propose(I
expansion aria. Runoff from a portion of fllc pit 111uscd c,x 1r nc;iun ;trca currelill_y drains tluoligh this
tract and into Bearskin Swamp. It is imr inWiltion W cfc;ltc.:i foremcd wetland within this tract to act
as receptors of runoff from the proposed landfill ;uu.l ;idjc)?_crit landscape prier to releasing flow ti,
Bearskia Swamp. Thew wetlands will serve ;u; a v; stet stet r1Z;o cireu, energy dissipaters, a pollutant
rcnuwal mechanism, t1 nutrient production mecl)nni?An, and in source of wildlife food and cover
hahitnt. A porinietc.r upl;+nd buffo will he inc0Y1101-o-1tcd into the wetland creation plan for protection
ngaitist potential adjacent land um-- distorbanc(--s.
Additional mitigation credits that may bc. iivicec;s;riy I'M project npprov;rl will be covered through
creUtion of forested wetiands within a port. icm of a saIII11) orrilW ;ITO..a aphroxirnatcly 3 lnile14 from the
proposed expansion area. The sand borrow area jr, loc;ctrd can the west batik of the Little Cohnric.
River and is currently in active use. This borrow :uc t is expccted to result in an open-wetter pond
feat by groundwater seepage and precipitation, I hc: 1110 i;"fltion plan will involve the creation of a
forested wetland bufferlxoxeen open water within flee horrc,w area and the Little Cuharie floodplairi.
This created wetlancl would acs as a rcccptilr tit ovc•.rl low Irorn the borrow area and a conduit for
transfer of water to the Little Coharic. The C.rcalcd tivcthtad,. will :verve as water storage areas, a
lx)llutLint removal nleclianisIn, a ii utrient I)l OdUCh011 11lCellarliII, and a source of wi.jdlite rood and
cover habitat.