20150596 Ver 1_Individual_20150617

C� arWaLer
Clearwater Environmental Consultants, Inc
June 16, 2015 www.cwenv.com
Mr. William Elliott
US Army Corps of Engineers
Asheville Regulatory Field Office
151 Patton Avenue, Room 208
Asheville, North Carolina 28801 -2638
Ms. Karen Higgins
NC DWR, 401 & Buffer Permitting Unit
512 N. Salisbury Street, 9th Floor
Raleigh, North Carolina 27604
RE: Cleveland County
Cleveland County Landfill Expansion
Cleveland County, North Carolina
Mr. Elliott and Ms. Higgins,
The attached Individual Permit application is being submitted on behalf of Cleveland
County represented by Mr. Sam Lockridge. Cleveland County is seeking permit
authorization for impacts associated with expansion of their existing landfill on Fielding
Road approximately 6 miles northeast of Shelby, North Carolina.
Should you have any questions regarding the attached permit application and
supplemental information please do not hesitate to contact me at 828 - 698 -9800. A copy
of this package has been sent to Mr. Bryan Tompkins of the US Fish and Wildlife Service
for review. A copy of this application has also been submitted to the NC Division of
Water Resources, Mooresville Regional Office.
Respectfully,
Rebekah L. Newton
Project Biologist
r
R. Clement Riddle, "PW.S
Principal
Copy Furnished:
NC Division of Water Resources; Asheville Regional Office — Alan Johnson
US Fish and Wildlife Service — Bryan Tompkins
224 South Grove Street, Suite F
Hendersonville, NC 28792
828 - 698 -9800 Tel
828 - 698 -9003 Fax

Individual Permit Application for U.S. Army Corps of
Engineers Section 404 Permit
and
North Carolina 401 Water Quality Certification
June 2015
Applicant:
Cleveland County
Cleveland County
Attn: Mr. Sam Lockridge
250 Fielding Road
Cherryville, NC 28021
Prepared by:
C1earWater Environmental Consultants, Inc.
32 Clayton Street
Asheville, North Carolina 28801
828 - 698 -9800

U.S. ARMY CORPS OF ENGINEERS
APPLICATION FOR DEPARTMENT OF THE ARMY PERMIT OMB APPROVAL NO 0710-0003
33 CFR 325. The EXPIRES: 28 FEBRUARY 2013
proponent agency is CECW -CO-R.
Public reporting for this collection of information is estimated to average 11 hours per response, Including the time for reviewing instructions, searching
ehdsting data sources, gathering and maintaining the data needed, and completing and reviewing the collection of information. Send comments regarding
this burden estimate or any other aspect of the collection of information, including suggestions for reducing this burden, to Department of Defense,
Washington Headquarters, Exeardve Services and Communications Directorate, Information Management Division and to the Office of Management and
Budget, Paperwork Reduction Project (0710-0003). 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 form to either of those addresses. Completed applications must be submitted to the District Engineer having jurisdiction over the location of
the proposed activity.
PRIVACY ACT STATEMENT
Authorities. Rivers and Harbors Act, Section 10, 33 USC 403; Clean Water Act, Section 404.33 USC 1344; Marine Pmtecbon, Research, and Sanctuaries
Act, Section 103, 33 USC 1413; Regulatory Programs of the Corps of Engineers; Final Rule 33 CFR 320332. 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.
1. APPLICATION NO.
5 APPLICANTS NAME
First - Sam Middle -
Company - Cleveland County
(ITEMS 1 THRU 4 TO BE FILLED BY THE CORPS)
2 FIELD OFFICE CODE 3. DATE RECEIVED 4. DATE APPLICATION COMPLETE
HEMS BELOW TO BE 9LLED BYAPPUCANT)
6. AUTHORIZED AGENT'S NAME AND TITLE (agent is not required)
Last - Lockridge Fast - R Middle - Clement Last - Riddle
Company - ClearWater Environmental Consultants, Inc.
E-mail Address - sam [e-mail] E-mail Address - [e-mail]
6. APPLICANT'S ADDRESS: 9. AGENTS ADDRESS:
Address- 250 Fielding Road Address- 32 Clayton Street
CdY - Cherryville State - NC Zip - 28021 Country -USA City - Asheville State - NC
7. APPLICANTS PHONE NOs. W /AREA CODE
a. Residence b. Business a Fax
704447 -8200
10. AGENTS PHONE NOS W /AREA CODE
a Residence
STATEMENT OF AUTHORIZATION
ZIP- 28801 Courd Y - USA
b. Business a Fax
828 -698 -9800
11 1 hereby aulhonze, R. Clement Riddle to act In my behA as my agent in the processing of this application and to furnish, upon request,
supplemental information In support of this peon phoation.
SIGNATURE OF APPLICANT DATE
NAME, LOCATION, AND DESCRIPTION OF PROJECT OR ACWTY
12. PROJECT NAME OR TITLE (see Instructions)
Cleveland County Landfill Expansion
13. NAME OF WATERBODY, IF KNOWN (if applicable) 14. PROJECT STREET ADDRESS (f applicable)
Suck Creek, Buffalo Creek, and UTs Address 250 Fielding Road
15. LOCATION OF PROJECT
Latitude: dV 35340676 Longitude: •W - 81.470133 City - Cherryville State- NC
16. OTHER LOCATION DESCRIPTIONS, IF KNOWN (see instructions)
State Tax Paroel ID 16732 Municipality
Section -
Township -
Range -
ZIP- 28021
ENG FORM 4345, OCT 2012 PREVIOUS EDITIONS ARE OBSOLETE. Page 1 of 3

17. DIRECTIONS TO THE SITE
See application (Section 1.1).
18 Nature of Activity (Description of project, Include all features)
See application (Section 5.0).
19. Project Purpose (Describe the reason or purpose of the project, see instructions)
See application (Section 4.0).
USE BLOCKS 20 -231F DREDGED ANDIOR FILL MATERIAL IS TO BE DISCHARGED
20. Reason(s) for Discharge
See application (Section 5.0).
21. Type(s) of Material Being Discharged and the Amount of Each Type in Cubic Yards:
Type Type Type
Amount in CubicYards Amount In Cubic Yards Amount in Cubic Yards
Approx. 1.9 million CY (Phase 3 capacity)
22. Surface Area In Acres of Wetlands or Other Waters Filled (see instructions)
Acres 0.32AC of wetlands
or
Linear Feet 532 LF of stream
23. Description of Avoidance, Minimization, and Compensation (see instructions)
See application (Section 6.0).
ENG FORM 4845, OCT 2012 Page 2 of 3

24. Is Any Portion of the Work Already Complete? Yes 0I4o IF YES, DESCRIBE THE COMPLETED WORK
25. Addresses of Adjoining Property Owners, Lessees, Etc , Whose Property Adjoins the Waterbody krr mme a,m, can be erteree here, p1mm each a agftnw m mteq
a Address See attached list.
Cfiy - State - Zip -
b. Address-
Cmty - State - zip -
a Address-
City - State - Zip -
d. Address-
City - State - Zip -
e Address-
City - State - Zip -
26. Ust of Other Certificates or Approvals/Denials received from other Federal, State, or Local Agencies for Work Described in This Application.
AGENCY TYPE APPROVAL' IDENTIFICATION
NUMBER
DWM Permit to Operate
• Would include but is not restricted to zoning, building, and flood plain permits
DATE APPLIED DATE APPROVED DATE DENIED
May 2009
27. Application Is hereby made for permit or pemuts to authorize the work described in this application I certify that this information in this application is
complete W accurate. 1 kalm ce that I possess the authority to undertake the work described herein or am acting as the duly authorized agent of the
applica
I NATUR OF APPLiBANT DATE SIGNATURE 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 fad or makes any false, fictibous or
fraudulent statements or representations or makes or uses any false wnting 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, OCT 2012 Page 3 of 3

Adjoining Property Owners
Harold and Diane Dellinger Cleveland County
2034 New Prospect Church Road Post Office Box 1210
Shelby, NC 28150 Shelby, NC 28151
Roger and Melinda Stroup Betty Hoyle
Post Office Box 250 320 Old Stubbs Road
Waco, NC 28169 Cherryville, NC 28021
Lowarn Carson
Sheila Pierce
1751 Carson Road
1426 Foust Road
Shelby, NC 28150
Shelby, NC 28150
Colin and Joan Carson Pamela Devine
Post Office Box 2517 107 Dyer Drive
Shelby, NC 28150 Shelby, NC 28152
Broadus and Katie Bell Cedar Lake Farm, LLC
1465 Foust Road Post Office Box 6929
Shelby, NC 28150 Statesville, NC 28867
Johnny and Ruby Eurey Coleman Wilson
1461 Foust Road 1485 Cherryville Road
Shelby, NC 28150 Cherryville, NC 28021
Lois McBrayer
Michael Dellinger
706 Maynard Street
136 Fielding Road
Shelby, NC 28152
Shelby, NC 28150
Bobby and Ellie Beason Dwight Samole
1449 Foust Road 1439 Foust Road
Shelby, NC 28150 Shelby, NC 28150
James Johnson
Tommy Murray
1447 Foust Road
1443 Foust Road
Shelby, NC 28150
Shelby, NC 28150

2 0 1 5 0 5 9 6
Individual Permit Application for U.S. Army Corps of
Engineers Section 404 Permit
and
North Carolina 401 Water Quality Certification
June 2015
Applicant:
Cleveland County
Cleveland County
Attn: Mr. Sam Lockridge
250 Fielding Road
Cherryville, NC 28021
Prepared by:
C1earWater Environmental Consultants, Inc.
32 Clayton Street
Asheville, North Carolina 28801
828 - 698 -9800
1R@R0Y[R rD
JUN 1 7 2015
DENR -WATE
401 & BUFFER PERMITTING

Corps Submittal Cover Sheet
Please provide the following info:
1. Project Name: Cleveland County Landfill Expansion
2. Name of Property Owner /Applicant: Cleveland County; Mr. Sam Lockridge
3. Name of Consultant/Agent: C1earWater Environmental Consultants, Inc.
*Agent authorization needs to be attached.
4. Related /previous Action ID numbers(s): 2013 -00478
5. Site Address: Fielding Road
6. Subdivision Name: n/a
7. City: Shelby
8. County: Cleveland
9. Lat: 35.340676N Long: - 81.470133W (Decimal Degrees Please)
10. Quadrangle Name: Waco
11. Waterway: Suck Creek and UTs to Suck Creek, Buffalo Creek and UTs to Buffalo
12. Watershed: Broad 03050105
13. Requested Action:
X Individual Permit
_ General Permit #
_ Jurisdictional Determination Request
Pre - Application Request
The following information will be completed by the Corps office:
AID:
Prepare File Folder Assign number in ORM Begin Date
Authorization: Section 10 Section 404
Project Description/Nature of Activity /Project Purpose:
Site/Waters Name:
Keywords:

&ea rW Le r
Department of the Army
Wilmington District, Corps of Engineers
Attn: Scott McLendon, Chief Regulatory Division
PO Box 1890
Wilmington, NC 28402 -1890
-and-
NC Division of Water Quality
Attn: Karen Higgins
1650 Mail Service Center
Raleigh, NC 27699 -1650
I, the current landowner /managing partner of the property identified below, hereby
authorize C1earWater Environmental Consultants, Inc. (CEC) to act on my behalf as my
agent during the processing of permits to impact Wetlands and Water of the US that are
regulated by the Clean Water Act and the Rivers and Harbors Act.
CEC is authorized to provide supplemental information needed for permit processing at
the request of the USACE or DWQ.
Property Owner of Record: COUNTY OF CLEVELAND
Property Owner Address: P.O. Box 1210
Shelby, NC 28150
Phone Number. 704- 447 -8201
Property Location: 250 Fielding Road, Cherryville, NC 28021
Owner/Managing partner Signature: Sam M. Lockridge III
Date: March 12, 2013
224 South Grove Street, Suite F
Hendersonville, NC 28792
Phone: [phone] Fax: [phone]
www.cwenv.com

TABLE OF CONTENTS
LIST OF FIGURES ........... .......... .. ...... .... .. .. .11
LIST OF ATTACHMENTS ...... . .. .. ....... ii
1.0 INTRODUCTION TO PROJECT ..................................................... ..............................1
1.1 Project Location .................... .................... ................ . ........... ........... ...... 1
1.2 Jurisdictional Waters ........... ... ........ ............. .......... . . ......... 1
2.0 BACKGROUND AND PRIOR PROJECT HISTORY .................... ..............................3
3.0
EXISTING SITE CONDITIONS ....................................................... ..............................4
3 1
Natural Communities . ............... ...........
.....4
3.2
Soils ..... ...... ..... .. . ..........
33
Fish and Wildlife Use of the Project Site ................. ....... ... ... ...........
.......6
3.4
Threatened and Endangered Species ......... .............. .. ........ .. ....... ..........
.. 6
3.5
Cultural Resources ..... ............ ..... ......... . ........... .........
.. 7
4.0
PROJECT PURPOSE ......................................................................... ..............................8
5.0
PROPOSED PROJECT DEVELOPMENT ...................................... ..............................9
5.1
Stream and Wetland Impacts .. ........ .... ............. ..... ....... .......
........ 11
6.0
DISCUSSION OF ALTERNATIVES ............................................... .............................12
61
Project Alternatives ............................ ........... ...... .......
... 13
6.2
Avoidance and Minimization .......... .......... .............. ...................
.. 14
63
Alternatives Conclusion .............................. ... ............ ................... . ......................
15
7.0
CONCEPTUAL MITIGATION PLAN ............................................ .............................16
7.1
NC Division of Mitigation Services ( DMS) .... ............................... ............................
.. 16
8.0
US ENVIRONMENTAL PROTECTION AGENCY 404(b)(1) GUIDELINES
........ 17
8 1
Factual Determination .......... .. .. ... ...............
....... ..... .....
17
82
Potential Impacts on Physical and Chemical Characteristics of the Aquatic Ecosystem ............
...... 17
83
Potential Impacts to Biological Characteristics of the Ecosystem ........... . . ....................
18
8.4
Potential Impacts on Special Aquatic Sites ........... ... ............... ...
20
85
Potential Effects on Human Use Characteristics. ...... .............
21
8.6
Summary .. ........ ..................... ............. .
.. ............. ............ .... .
22
9.0
PUBLIC INTEREST CONSIDERATIONS ..................................... .............................23
9.1
Conservation .................. .......... ........... .. ............. ........
9.2
Economics .... .......... .. ........... ............. ............ . . ..
......... 23
9.3
Aesthetics .. . ........................ . ........ ................
9.4
General Environmental Concerns..... . ........ . ....
.........24
9.5
Wetlands .......... .............. .. ............................... . ....................... ....................24
9.6
Historic Properties ............................... . ................. ................. ..........................
24
9.7
Fish and Wildlife Values. .... ........ ... ...... .. ... ..........
.. 25
98
Flood Hazards ................. ............... .... .. ...... ....... ..............
25
9.9
Floodplam Values .... ...................... ............................
26
9.10
Land Use.. ... ..... ............................... .
9.11
Navigation ............ ... ............................... ............... . ............. ..... ............
26
912
Shore Erosion and Accretion...... . ............ ................. .............................
26
9.13
Recreation............. ... ........ .......... ........... ............
26
9.14
Water Supply and Conservation......................... ... .... .... ..........
26
9.15
Water Quality (Stormwater Management) ........................... ......................
....................... .
26
9.16
Energy Needs ........................ ............................... ............... .............................. 27
9.17
Safety .......... . ....................... ................ ........... . ............................... ...........27
9 18
Food and Fiber Production ....................... ............... ............................... ................... 27
9.19
Mineral Needs .............. ............................... .................. .............. ...............................
27
9.20
Considerations of Property Ownership .....................
27
9.21
Needs and Welfare of the Public .................... .......................... ...............................
27
10.0 SECONDARY AND CUMULATIVE EFFECTS ............................ .............................28
11.0 SUMMARY ......................................................................................... .............................29

LIST OF FIGURES
1. Site Overview Map
2. Site Vicinity Map
3. USGS Topographic Map
4. USDA Soils Map
5. Site Plan and Impact Map
6. 100 -YR Floodplain Map
LIST OF ATTACHMENTS
Attachment A MSWLF Facility Study
Attachment B Jurisdictional Determination Information
Attachment C Threatened and Endangered Species Reports
Attachment D Cultural Resources Report
Attachment E Solid Waste Management Plan
Attachment F DMS Acceptance Letter
11

1.0 INTRODUCTION TO PROJECT
Currently, the Cleveland County Landfill is the only disposal facility within Cleveland
County that disposes of the County's waste. The Cleveland County Health Department
operates the landfill which consists of a lined municipal solid waste landfill, known as the
Self- McNeilly Subtitle D Municipal Solid Waste Landfill (MSW landfill), and a
construction and demolition landfill. The MSW landfill site is comprised of
approximately 82 acres and has approximately 6 phases. The total capacity of the MSW
landfill should exceed 60 years. Phase 1 of the landfill was issued a "Permit to Operate"
in May of 2009 and Phase 2 is a vertical expansion on the existing Phase 1 footprint. The
proposed project includes the development of Phase 3 of the MSW landfill which will
provide an additional 9.1 years of waste storage capacity.
Phase 3 of the MSW landfill is a component of the landfill master plan for Cleveland
County. A Municipal Solid Waste Landfill (MSWLF) Facility Site Study completed in
2004 (Attachment A) includes the Phase 3 area (identified as Phase 2 in the study).
Cleveland County is the applicant for this project.
1.1 Proiect Location
Cleveland County owns approximately 895 acres of land west of Cherryville
Road approximately 6 miles northeast of Shelby, North Carolina. The MSW
landfill is comprised of approximately 82 acres within the County -owned
property. Phase 3 of landfill development is approximately 15 acres and is
located in the northwest corner of the MSW landfill. A figure showing Phase 3 of
the MSW Landfill, a stockpile area, and a borrow pit, all within the County -
owned property, is included for review (Figure 1).
The MSW landfill is located off Fielding Road. A site vicinity map is included
for review (Figure 2). To access the site from Asheville, take I -26 East to Exit
108 (US Highway 74 East). Travel on US Highway 74 East for approximately 39
miles. Take a slight left onto West Marion Street and travel approximately 3.3
miles to Cherryville Road. Turn right onto Cherryville Road and travel
approximately 4.4 miles to Pinedale Road. Turn left onto Pinedale Road and
continue onto Fielding Road to the Cleveland County Landfill entrance. In
general, the project boundary is bordered to the north by Sperlings Road, the east
by Cherryville Road, the south by Buffalo Creek, and to the west by New
Prospect Church Road. A USGS topographic map is included for review (Figure
3).
1.2 Jurisdictional Waters
The project boundary was delineated in February and March of 2015 by
C1earWater Environmental Consultants, Inc. (CEC) and a Jurisdictional
Determination (JD) site visit was conducted on March 25, 2015. A "Notification
of Jurisdictional Determination" is pending with the US Army Corps of Engineers
(Corps) under Action ID SAW- 2015- 00107. A stream and wetland map showing

the delineation is included in Attachment B. Jurisdictional streams within the
project boundary include: Suck Creek and unnamed tributaries to Suck Creek;
and Buffalo Creek and unnamed tributaries to Buffalo Creek. All tributaries
within the project boundary are tributaries to Buffalo Creek. Buffalo Creek is a
tributary to the Broad River which is navigable -in -fact water in South Carolina.
Suck Creek and the upstream reaches of Buffalo Creek are classified by the NC
Division of Water Resources (DWR) as class "WS -III" waters. There are also
jurisdictional wetlands within the project boundary.
The project boundary contains the following amounts of jurisdictional waters:
Feature
Amount Unit
Stream
25,334 linear feet
Wetlands
2.11 acres
Open Water
0 acres
Non jurisdictional stormwater basins associated with landfill operations have also
been identified on the stream and wetland map in Attachment B.
Approximately 72 acres of the County -owned property was delineated by CEC in
February of 2013. A site visit was conducted with the Corps in March of 2013
and the JD was issued April 26, 2013 under Action ID 2013 - 00478. JD
information pertaining to the 72 -acre tract is included in Attachment B.
An "Existing Site Conditions" section (Section 3.0) has been included in this
application for review and further describes the jurisdictional waters on site.
2

2.0 BACKGROUND AND PRIOR PROJECT HISTORY
In 2004, Municipal Engineering Services Company prepared the MSWLF Facility and
Site Study report for Cleveland County (Attachment A). The purpose of the study was to
demonstrate that the proposed landfill site was suitable for expansion of the MSW
landfill according to the NCAC 15A 1313.1600 (Requirements for MSWLF Facilities).
Cleveland County approved the Subtitle D Landfill in November of 2003. Phase 1 of the
landfill was issued a "Permit to Operate" in May of 2009 and Phase 2 is a vertical
expansion on the existing Phase 1 footprint. Phase 1 and 2 of landfill development did
not include impacts to jurisdictional waters. This application includes Phase 3 (identified
as Phase 2 in the study) of the landfill.
3

3.0 EXISTING SITE CONDITIONS
The County -owned property is mostly wooded except where past and current landfill
operations are taking place. There is a power line right -of -way and old agricultural fields
also present within the project boundary. Tree - clearing has occurred on the 72 -acre tract.
3.1 Natural Communities
Five community types were identified within the project boundary. Each
community type is discussed below.
3.1.1 Streams and Rivarian Forest
These freshwater habitats include the streambeds and banks and immediate riparian
areas of Buffalo Creek, Suck Creek, and unnamed tributaries. Stream channels on
site have been effected by past land use with some channels deeply incised. Species
observed in the riparian areas include red maple (Acer rubrum), yellow poplar
(Liriodendron tulipifera), and sweetgum (Liquidambar styraciflua). Hickory
(Carya spp.), black walnut (Juglans nigra), willow oak (Quercus phellos), and
black locust (Robinia pseudoacacia) were also observed in smaller numbers.
Understory species include smaller individuals of flowering dogwood (Corpus
Florida), American holly (Ilex opaca), eastern red cedar (Juniperus virginiana),
Chinese privet (Ligustrum sinense), yellow poplar, willow oak, and multiflora
rose (Rosa multiflora). Herbaceous species observed include spotted wintergreen
(Chimaphila maculata) and Christmas fern (Polystichum acrostichoides).
Some riparian areas have been highly disturbed and are dominated by kudzu
(Pueraria lobata).
3.1.2 Wetland
The majority of wetlands on the County -owned property are floodplain wetlands
adjacent to Suck Creek. The wetland within the Phase 3 landfill footprint is a
headwater wetland located in an old stormwater pond and is of poor quality.
Species observed in the shrub /scrub wetlands include red maple, river birch
(Betula nigra), sycamore (Platanus occidentalis), black willow, silky dogwood
(Corpus amomum), privet, elderberry (Sambucus canadensis), sedges (Carex
spp.), jewelweed (Impatiens capensis), rushes (Juncus spp ), woolgrass (Scirpus
cyperinus), and cattail (Typha latifolia).
3.1.3 Ruderal Corridors
The ruderal habitat consists of road edges and power line rights -of way. It is
considered a disturbed and/or transitional community type. There is an existing
power line right -of -way (ROW) that runs east -west across the property. Edge
species observed include red maple, redbud (Cercis canadensis), eastern red
cedar, white pine (Pinus strobus), willow oak. These species and saplings of
black locust, yellow poplar, Virginia pine (Pinus virginiana), tree of heaven
(Ailanthus altissima), eastern red cedar, and black cherry (Prunus serotina) were
observed in the maintained ROW. Herbaceous species observed include
4

pokeweed (Phytolacca americana), Japanese honeysuckle (Lonicera japonica),
ragweed (Ambrosia sp.), lambs quarters (Chenopodium album), greenbrier
(Smilax sp.), blackberry (Rubus sp.), broomsedge (Andropogon viginicus),
goldenrod (Solidago sp.), Virginia creeper (Parthenocissus quinquefolia), poison
ivy (Toxicodendron radicans), lespedeza (Lespedeza sp.), wingstem (Verbesina
alternifolia).
3.1.4 Early Successional Field
This habitat includes old abandoned fields dominated by Joe -pye -weed
(Eupatoriadelphus sp.), pokeweed, ragweed, goldenrod, Russian olive (Elaeagnus
angustifolia), hog peanut (Amphicarpaea bracteata), white clover (Trifolium
repens), red clover (Trifolium pretense), vetch (Vicia sp.), microstegium
(Microstegium vimineum), curled dock (Rhumex crispus), bed straw (Galium
aparine), fescue (Festuca sp.), dogfennel (Eupatorium capillofolium), Venus'
looking glass (Triodanis perfoliata), dandelion (Taraxacum officinale), and wild
geranium (Geranium maculatum).
3.1.5 Unland Hardwood Forest
This forested habitat type is slightly drier than the riparian area and makes up the
majority of the habitat on -site. Species observed in the overstory include white
oak (Quercus alba), sourwood (Oxydendrum arboretum), yellow poplar, hickory,
red maple, sweetgum, black walnut, shortleaf pine (Pinus echinata), tree -of-
heaven, and Virginia pine. Species observed in the sapling -shrub layer include
the over story species and American holly, eastern red cedar, mulberry (Morus
sp.), box elder (Acer negundo), sassafras (Sassafras albidum), blackgum (Nyssa
sylvatica), privet, and Japanese barberry (Berberis thunbergii). Species observed
in the herbaceous layer include microstegium, Christmas fern, Virginia creeper,
yellow wood sorrel (Oxalis stricta.), ebony spleenwort (Asplenium platyneuron),
kudzu, muscadine (Vitis rotundifolia), Spindle (Euonymus sp.), bedstraw (Galium
spp.), greenbrier, Japanese honeysuckle, cranefly orchid (Tipularia discolor),
grapefern (Botrychium spp), poison ivy, hog peanut, chickweed (Stellaria media),
spotted wintergreen, violet (Viola sp.), yellow root (Xanthorhiza simplicissima),
southern lady fern (Athyrium filix femina), Indian strawberry (Potentilla indica),
netted chain fern (Woodwardia aereolata), periwinkle (Vinca major), partridge
berry (Mitchella repens), false Solomon's seal (Maianthemum racemosum),
trumpet creeper (Campsis radicans), and running cedar (Lycopodium digitatum).
3.2 Soils
The County -owned property is located within the Piedmont physiographic region
of North Carolina and more specifically the Southern Outer Piedmont Ecoregion.
Three soil associations are present on the property: the Cecil - Pacolet association,
Pacolet- Bethlehem association, and the Pacolet -Saw association. The Cecil -
Pacolet association is classified as gently sloping and strongly sloping, very deep,
well drained soils that have a loamy surface layer and clayey subsoil. The
Pacolet- Bethlehem association is classified as gently sloping to moderately steep,
moderately deep to very deep, well drained soils that have a loamy surface layer
5

and a clayey subsoil. The Pacolet -Saw association is gently sloping to moderately
steep, moderately deep to very deep, well drained soils that have a loamy surface
layer and a clayey subsoil. These associations are found on uplands. Soil series
present on site include: Cecil, Chewacla, Dorian, Pacolet, Pacolet- Bethlehem
complex, Pacolet -Saw complex, and Toccoa (Figure 4).
3.3 Fish and Wildlife Use of the Proiect Site
Wildlife species inhabiting the property include those typically found in rural
settings. Although site - specific studies and inventories documenting species
utilization of the project boundary have not been conducted by CEC, general
observations of wildlife use were recorded during the stream and wetland
delineation; and habitat evaluations.
3.4 Threatened and Endangered Saecies
CEC has conducted a file review of records maintained by the US Fish and
Wildlife Service (FWS) and the North Carolina Natural Heritage Program (NHP).
The desktop literature review involved a review of the FWS list of protected
species in Cleveland County; and the NHP Element Occurrence Data on which
NHP identifies current and historic occurrences of listed species for a specific
locale. The FWS lists 2 species as occurring in Cleveland County that are subject
to Section 7 consultation. The NHP database identifies 34 element occurrences
(EO) within a 5 -mile radius of the project site; 21 EOs, comprised of 1 species,
hold Federal status and are subject to Section 7 consultation. The Federally listed
species identified by the FWS and NHP are listed below.
Common Name Scientific Name I Federal Status
Northern Long -Eared Bat Myotis septentrionahs I T
Dwarf Flowered Heart- Leaf** Hexastylis nantflora T
"Species with a Federal status subject to Section 7 Consultation and within 5 rules of the project
site
A protected species survey for the 72 -acre tract was conducted in May of 2012.
And, a protected species field survey for Phase 3 of the landfill was conducted in
January of 2015. Potential fauna were identified to the taxonomic unit level
necessary to determine if the observed specimen was a protected species. Flora were
identified to the lowest taxonomic level readily discernible in the field during the
time of survey. The proposed project sites are within and adjacent to existing
operational landfill. Regular maintenance and manipulation of the areas has
eliminated suitable habitat for any Federally listed species. No Federally
threatened or endangered species were observed on site during the site visits. A
"Threatened and Endangered Species Review and Habitat Assessment" was
completed for 72 -acre tract in May of 2012 (Attachment Q. Although a field
survey for Phase 3 of the landfill was completed in January of 2015, an associated
report was not completed.
6

Environmental Services, Inc. completed a habitat assessment to determine the
presence or absence of potentially suitable habitat for the Federally threatened
dwarf flowered heart-leaf (Hexastylis naniflora). By letter dated March 8, 2004,
ESI determined that potential suitable habitat for this species was not present
within the project study area (Attachment Q.
It is the opinion of CEC that Federally protected species are not likely to be present
within the landfill boundaries. As such, the proposed project is not likely to cause
an adverse impact to any Federally threatened or endangered species or their critical
habitat.
The FWS will be notified via Public Notice about the project and will be given the
opportunity to comment on the project and its potential effects on threatened and
endangered species.
3.5 Cultural Resources
A desk review of the National Register of Historic Places records maintained by the
NC State Historic Preservation Office (SHPO) indicates 2 historic properties
adjacent to the project site: the Joshua Beam House (Reference #CL0004) and the
Joshua Beam House Boundary Expansion (Reference #CL0996). Multiple listed
properties and historic districts are located in downtown Shelby which is
approximately 6 miles from the project site.
An archaeological survey was conducted by Environmental Services, Inc. (ESI) for
portions of the project site, including the existing landfill boundary, in March of
2003 and a "Cultural Resource Assessment Survey" Report was completed in July
of 2003 (Attachment D). The archaeological survey identified a total of 14
archaeological sites within the survey area; however, 13 of the sites are
recommended not eligible for the National Register. ESI recommended no
additional archaeological investigations at the sites within the designated review
area. ESI identified one site (31 CL76) that is eligible for listing in the National
Register. It is recommended that the site be avoided by construction activities. If
the site can be preserved in place, it is recommended that the proposed project be
allowed to proceed without concern for impacts to significant sites. If the site
cannot be avoided, data recovery is recommended to mitigate the impacts of
proposed development.
In a letter dated November 21, 2003, the SHPO concurred with all
recommendations in the "Cultural Resource Assessment Survey" Report. The
SHPO letter has been included for review in Attachment D.
It is the opinion of CEC, that the proposed activities are not likely to threaten the
integrity of archeologically or culturally significant sites within the project
boundary. The SHPO will be notified via Public Notice about the project and will
be given the opportunity to comment on the project and its potential effects on
cultural resources.
7

4.0 PROJECT PURPOSE
The basic project purpose of the proposed project is continued development of the
existing landfill. More specifically, the overall project purpose of the proposed project is
to expand the existing landfill to increase waste storage capacity in Cleveland County.
8

5.0 PROPOSED PROJECT DEVELOPMENT
Cleveland County is proposing to continue landfill development by expanding into the
Phase 3 area of the existing landfill. Phase 3 of the MSW landfill will provide an
additional 9.1 years and 1.8 million cubic yards of waste storage capacity.
MSW is the type of solid waste that is most familiar to citizens, as this type of waste is
generated in residences and businesses. Because it contains food wastes and other
putrescible solid wastes, it must be collected regularly and disposed of properly.
The North Carolina Solid Waste Management Act of 1989 (the Act) is the principal law
that governs solid waste management in the State of North Carolina. The Act regulates
the management of solid waste in North Carolina and requires local governments to look
into the future and become proactive, rather than reactive, solid waste planners.
MSW is the waste stream that was targeted by the US EPA when it promulgated the
"Subtitle D" disposal regulations in 1991. In the United States, MSW is required to be
disposed in "lined" landfills that are designed to collect and manage the by- products of
waste disposal in landfills (i.e., landfill gas, stormwater, and leachate).
Subtitle D landfill regulations established national standards and minimum requirements
for a number of pollution control systems that are required to be constructed in
conjunction with MSW landfills. These systems include:
• Landfill Liner System
• Leachate Collection and Removal System
• Landfill Gas (LFG) Collection and Control System
• Landfill Final Cover System
A brief overview of each of these systems is provided below.
Landfill Liner Svstem
The landfill liner system provides an impermeable barrier between solid waste
and the land on which the landfill has been constructed. The primary purpose of
the liner system is to minimize the migration of contaminants out of the landfill.
The liner system also enables the collection of leachate and LFG for treatment.
Federal Subtitle D regulations require that the liner system be constructed as a
"composite" liner. A composite liner is an effective hydraulic barrier because it
combines the complementary properties of two materials - soils and a synthetic
geo- membrane.
The landfill liner system will be designed, constructed, and maintained in
accordance with 15A NCAC 13B .1624 (Construction Requirements for MSWLF
Facilities). Additional information regarding the landfill liner system can be
found in the attached Solid Waste Management Plan (Attachment E).
9

Leachate Collection and Removal Svstem
A leachate collection system is constructed directly above the base liner and is
designed to effectively collect and remove leachate from the MSW landfill. The
secondary function of the leachate collection system is to establish a zone of
protection between the base liner and the waste.
The leachate collection and removal system will generally include a pipe network
that allows leachate to drain by gravity to a sump within the landfill cell. From
the sump, the leachate is removed from the landfill through a gravity drainage
pipe or through a sump pump. Once removed, the leachate is treated in either on-
site or off -site treatment systems.
The leachate collection system will be designed, constructed, and maintained in
accordance with 15A NCAC 13B .1624 (Construction Requirements for MSWLF
Facilities). Additional information regarding the leachate collection system can
be found in the attached Solid Waste Management Plan (Attachment E).
LFG Collection and Control Svstem
Federal Subtitle D regulations do not require every Subtitle D landfill to install a
LFG collection and control system. Rather, the regulations require that the
concentration of methane gas generated by the facility does not exceed 25 percent
of the lower explosive limit (LEL) for methane in facility structures nor exceed
100 percent of the LEL at the facility property boundary.
LFG emissions are, however, regulated by the US EPA under the Clean Air Act
(CAA). In March 1996, the US EPA promulgated CAA regulations for MSW
landfills. These regulations require that large MSW landfills (i.e., those with a
design capacity of 2.76 million tons or more of waste) must collect and control
LFG if their estimated emissions of "non- methane organic compounds" (NMOCs)
are 50 megagrams (55 tons) per year or more. In January 2003, the US EPA
promulgated additional Clean Air Act regulations that promulgated national
emission standards for hazardous air pollutants from MSW landfills. The
regulations also required bioreactor landfills that are subject to existing Clean Air
Act regulations (i.e., large bioreactor landfills) to collect and control LFG
emissions within 180 days after the landfill has reached moisture content of 40
percent by weight.
Landfill Final Cover Svstem
The final cover system is designed to minimize infiltration and erosion once the
landfill (or landfill cell) is closed. Subtitle D regulations require that the final
cover must be placed over the landfill within one year after the landfill reaches its
final permitted height; and the cover system must provide the same maximum
level of hydraulic conductivity as the bottom liner system.
10

Stockpile and Borrow Pit
The borrow pit and stockpile area are used to obtain and store cover material.
This cover material is used for short and long term operation. Stockpiled soil is
used as interim cover on a daily basis and during construction and/or close -out of
the landfill as a part of the composite liner and final cover systems.
5.1 Stream and Wetland Impacts
Impacts associated with landfill expansion include the discharge of fill material
into two streams and two wetlands (Figure 5). The proposed project includes the
following stream and wetland impacts at the landfill:
Stream
Impact# Length (LF)
1 470
4 62
Total 532
11
Wetland
Impact#
Area (AC)
2
0.29
3
0.03
Total
0.32

6.0 DISCUSSION OF ALTERNATIVES
This discussion of alternatives is submitted by the applicant to assist the Wilmington
District, Corps in evaluating the application for authorization to discharge dredged or fill
material into waters of the United States, including wetlands, under Section 404 of the
Clean Water Act, 33 U.S.C. § 1344 at the proposed project site.
An analysis of the Section 404(b)(1) Guidelines (Guidelines) requirements for
consideration of alternatives as required by 40 C.F.R. 230.10(a) is set forth below.
The Guidelines' alternatives requirements provide that "no discharge of dredged or fill
material shall be permitted if there is a practicable alternative to the proposed discharge
which would have less adverse impact on the aquatic ecosystem, so long as the
alternative does not have other significant adverse environmental consequences." [See
40 C.F.R. 230.10(a) (emphasis added).] The record must contain "sufficient information
to demonstrate that the proposed discharge complies with the requirements of Section
230.10(a) of the Guidelines. The amount of information needed to make such a
determination and the level of scrutiny required by the Guidelines is commensurate with
the severity of the environmental impact (as determined by the functions of the aquatic
resource and the nature of the proposed activity) and the scope /cost of the project." [See
Corps /EPA Memorandum to the Field "Appropriate Level of Analysis Required for
Evaluating Compliance with Section 404(b)(1) Guidelines Alternatives Requirements," p.
2, dated August 23, 1994, hereinafter the "Memorandum. "] As noted in the
Memorandum on pages 3 -4, the 404(b)(1) Guidelines "only prohibits discharges when a
practicable alternative exists which would have less adverse impact on the aquatic
ecosystem." [See Memorandum.] "If an alleged alternative is unreasonably expensive to
the applicant, the alternative is not practicable." [See Guidelines Preamble, "Economic
Factors," 45 Federal Reizister 85343 (December 24, 1980).]
Practicable alternatives for the project are those alternatives that are "available and capable
of being done after taking into consideration costs, existing technology, and logistics in
light of overall project purposes." [See 40 C.F.R. 230.10(a)(2).] Clarification is provided
in the Preamble to the Guidelines on how cost is to be considered in the determination of
practicability. An alternative site is considered "available" if it is presently owned by the
applicant or "could reasonably be obtained, utilized, expanded or managed in order to
fulfill the basic purpose of the proposed activity." 40 C.F.R. § 230.10(a)(2).
The intent is to consider those alternatives, which are reasonable in terms of the overall
scope and cost of the proposed proiect. The term economic [for which the term "costs"
was substituted in the final rule] might be construed to include consideration of the
applicant's financial standing, or investment, or market share, a cumbersome inquiry
which is not necessarily material to the objectives of the Guidelines.
12

The EPA 404(b)(1) Guidelines state that, "we have chosen instead to impose an explicit,
but rebuttable presumption that alternatives to discharges in special aquatic sites are less
damaging to the aquatic ecosystem, and are environmentally preferable." Of course, the
general requirements that impacts to the aquatic system not be acceptable also applies.
This presumption "...contains sufficient flexibility to reflect circumstances of unusual
cases" (249 Fed. Reg., 85339, December 24, 1980). It is clear from these stipulations
that a preferable alternative may allow filling in certain wetland areas and subsequent
mitigation and/or management of other areas.
6.1 Proiect Alternatives
6.1.1 Reduction of the Size of Phase 3
To avoid stream and wetland impacts associated with Phase 3 of landfill
development, Phase 3 would need to be reduced in size by approximately 50 %.
The limiting factor to landfill development is air space. The amount of air space
in a landfill is directly related to the capacity and usable life of the landfill. If air
space is increased, the usable life of the land fill is increased. The inverse is also
true; if air space is reduced so is usable life. To efficiently use air space, trash is
compacted with heavy equipment into small cells that contain one day's volume
of trash. Once the cell is full, it is covered with approximately 6 inches of soil
and compacted further. Cells are arranged in rows and layers of adjoining cells
called lifts. The size of a landfill is determined by the size of population served
(waste stream), the desired life span of the facility, and the final height (number of
lifts) of the buried waste. Reducing the size of a landfill phase reduces the
number of daily cells and lifts that can be contained in the phase, reduces overall
air space available at the landfill, and ultimately reduces the life span of the
landfill. Reducing the size of Phase 3 of the landfill would reduce the life span of
the landfill by approximately 5 years. Any reduction in landfill life is a detriment
to Cleveland County and its residents.
6.1.2 Move Phase 3 to a Different Location on the Pronertv
Landfill cells, lifts, and phases are constructed so that these features are adjoining.
Doing so allows efficient use of landfill infrastructure (roadways, fencing, liner
systems, stormwater systems, leachate collection systems, etc.). The MSW
landfill site is comprised of approximately 82 acres and is bordered by two
streams, a railroad, and a road. These site constraints make it impractical to move
Phase 3 to another location which adjoins the 82 -acre site without impacts to the
streams, railroad, or road. Relocating Phase 3 to a non - adjoining piece of land is
also impractical. Doing so would require the construction of entirely new
infrastructure for the phase. Additional costs would include engineering services
to design a new phase, mobilization cost to start construction, excavation of the
site, installation of water monitoring and control systems (leachate management,
stormwater, groundwater monitoring, and gas management), fencing of the entire
site, etc. Utilization of existing infrastructure and land is the most rational and
feasible option to increase landfill capacity because Cleveland County already
disposes of trash within the 82 -acre landfill site. The ability to utilize existing
13

infrastructure will keep the overall cost of trash disposal low. The savings can
then be passed on to citizens in Cleveland County.
6.1.3 No Action Alternative
Landfill expansion, which meets the applicant's stated project purpose and need,
is not feasible at the proposed site without regulated impacts. Reducing the
footprint of Phase 3 of the landfill to avoid stream and wetland impacts would
reduce the overall capacity and useful life of the landfill. Without large,
contiguous landfill cells with large capacity, multiple smaller landfill cells would
be required. It is not logistically feasible to place MSW in multiple, low - capacity
cells due to the infrastructure required at each cell. Doing so would increase land
requirements, increase cost of disposal, and increase the time it would take to
dispose of MSW.
If the Corps opted not to issue the permit for the project as proposed, Phase 3
would not be constructed. Eliminating Phase 3 of the landfill would decrease the
life of the landfill by approximately 9.1 years. Any reduction in landfill life is a
detriment to Cleveland County and its residents. In this case, the project purpose
and need would not be met.
6.1.4 Proiect As Proposed
In order to meet the stated project purpose, the landfill expansion must be
constructed adjacent to the existing facility. This prevents duplication of
infrastructure already existing at the site. The offices, scales, main entrance,
utilities, water monitoring and control systems, roads, etc. are already present at
the site. Utilization of existing infrastructure and land is the most rational and
feasible option to increase landfill capacity because Cleveland County already
disposes of trash within the 82 -acre landfill site. The ability to utilize existing
infrastructure will keep the overall cost of trash disposal low. The savings can
then be passed on to citizens in Cleveland County.
Due to the location of the existing landfill and site constraints (two streams, a
railroad, and a road), the only feasible on -site location for an expansion is at the
proposed location. The size of a landfill is determined by the size of population
served (waste stream), the desired life span of the facility, and the final height
(number of lifts) of the buried waste. The landfill is the minimum size necessary
to dispose of the waste within the waste stream (over 40,000 tons in Fiscal Year
2010/2011). The landfill would add approximately 9.1 years of volume by
developing Phase 3.
6.2 Avoidance and Minimization
The proposed project is designed in a way to avoid streams and wetlands where
practicable while still meeting the project purpose. The tables below summarize
avoidance at the site:
14

On -Site
Proposed
Streams
Impacts
25,334
I 532
Amount
Percent
Avoided
Avoided
24,813
I 97
On -Site Proposed Amount Percent
Wetlands Impacts Avoided Avoided
2.11 0.32 I 1.79 I 85
Original plans included the borrow pit with a slightly different configuration that
would have impacted approximately 100 linear feet of stream. Cleveland County
agreed to reconfigure the borrow pit to avoid these impacts.
6.3 Alternatives Conclusion
This discussion of alternatives, together with the documents submitted by the
applicant in support of the 404 Permit, shows that the project complies with the
Guidelines. As this analysis clearly demonstrates the project is designed to avoid
and minimize impacts to the site to the maximum extent practicable while
maintaining a rational project design.
15

7.0 CONCEPTUAL MITIGATION PLAN
Upon completion and implementation of practical avoidance and minimization efforts,
532 linear feet of stream channel and 0.32 acres of wetland associated with the proposed
project are unavoidable. The following mitigation plan is provided in support of this
permit application.
7.1 NC Division of Mitigation Services (DMS)
Cleveland County proposes to mitigate for unavoidable impacts (532 linear feet of
stream and 0.32 acres of wetland) at a 1:1 ratio through payment into the DMS in-
lieu fee program. By letter dated May 28, 2015, DMS has indicated they are
willing to accept payment for impacts associated with development at the site.
The acceptance letter is enclosed for review (Attachment F).
16

8.0 US ENVIRONMENTAL PROTECTION AGENCY 404(b)(1) GUIDELINES
The EPA interim regulations providing guidance for specification of deposit on sites for
dredge and fill material were published on September 17, 1993, in 40 C.F.R. 230 per
Section 404(b)l. Sub -Parts A through I pertain to dredge and fill permits, and apply to
project sites similar to this project.
Sub -Part D presents a summary of compliance criteria for the 404(b)(1) guidelines. This
section references and defines practicable alternatives and indicates that a dredge and fill
permit shall not be issued if practicable alternatives exist. Alternatives reviewed, detailed
in Section 6.0, were assessed for compliance with 404(b)(1) guidelines.
Additional EPA guidance is presented related to general regulatory criteria, wildlife
value, and human health guidelines. The discharge of dredge and fill material is
considered permittable under these guidelines if the discharge activity: does not
contribute to violation of state water quality standards; does not violate toxic effluent
standards; does not jeopardize the continued existence of species listed as threatened and
endangered pursuant to the federal Endangered Species Act of 1973 and subsequent
amendments; does not cause degradation to any marine sanctuaries; does not contribute
to significant degradation of "waters of the United States;" does not adversely affect
human health as it pertains to water supply; does not adversely impact wildlife, the food
chain, and special aquatic sites; does not contribute to the discharge of pollutants that
may affect the food web; does not have negative effects on the productivity of the aquatic
ecosystem, or their physical values; and does not have adverse impacts on recreation,
aesthetic, or economic values. Additionally, the applicant is required to minimize
potential adverse impacts on the aquatic ecosystem.
8.1 Factual Determination
The Corps is required to determine both potential short-term and long -term effects
of a proposed discharge of dredge and fill material on the physical, chemical, and
biological components of an aquatic environment.
8.2 Potential Impacts on Phvsical and Chemical Characteristics of the Aquatic
Ecosystem
Sub -Part C of the 40 C.F.R. 230 guidelines lists six physical and chemical
characteristics that must be assessed during the permit review, and the effects of
which must be determined to be minimal on the aquatic ecosystem.
8.2.1 Substrate
Fill material will be placed in jurisdictional streams and wetlands. Any discharge
will consist of suitable fill material and will not include any trash, debris, car
bodies, asphalt, etc. The fill material will also be free of toxic pollutants in toxic
amounts. Proper sediment and erosion control devices will be installed prior to
and during construction to ensure that the bottom elevation of remaining streams
and wetlands on the property will not change.
17

The landfill will be designed, constructed, and maintained in accordance with
15A NCAC 13B.1624 (Construction Requirements for MSWLF Facilities). Only
clean fill material will be used to fill streams and wetlands; MSW will not be used
in jurisdictional areas.
8.2.2 Suspended Particulate /Turbidity (Erosion and Sediment Control)
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 is anticipated to be minimal and temporary due to the
installation and maintenance of proper sediment and erosion control measures
during construction and shortly thereafter.
8.2.3 Water Oualitv
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 shall be minimized or reduced. All discharges of dredge and fill
material will be controlled with erosion and sediment control measures.
There is an existing water quality monitoring plan at the site. The plan will be
modified to include Phase 3.
The applicant will be concurrently applying for a DWR 401 Water Quality
Certification.
8.2.4 Current Patterns in Water Circulation
The discharged fill material will modify current water circulation patterns by
obstructing flow, changing direction or velocity of water, and changing velocity
or flow of circulation in the channels proposed for impact; however, water
circulation and patterns will be re- established in the stream channels provided as
mitigation.
8.2.5 Normal Water Fluctuations
The discharge of fill material associated with this project is not anticipated to
have any significant effect on the downstream hydrologic regimes.
8.2.6 Salinitv
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.
8.3 Potential Imvacts to Biological Characteristics of the Ecosystem
Sub -Part D of the 40 C.F.R. 230 guidelines specifies three areas of concern in
which disposal of dredge and fill material can affect the biological components of
the ecosystem. These components are threaten and endangered species, fish,
crustaceans, mollusks, other aquatic organisms in the food web, and wildlife.
18

8.3.1 Threatened or Endangered Species
CEC has conducted a file review of records maintained by the FWS and the NHP.
The desktop literature review involved a review of the FWS list of protected
species in Cleveland County; and the NHP Element Occurrence Data on which
NHP identifies current and historic occurrences of listed species for a specific
locale. The FWS lists 2 species as occurring in Cleveland County that are subject
to Section 7 consultation. The NHP database identifies 34 EOs within a 5 -mile
radius of the project site; 21 EOs, comprised of 1 species, hold Federal status and
are subject to Section 7 consultation. The Federally listed species identified by
the FWS and NHP are listed below.
Common Name Scientific Name Federal Status
Northern Long -Eared Bat Myotis septentrionalcs T
Dwarf Flowered Heart - Leaf" Hexastylis nancflora T
"Species with a Federal status subject to Section 7 Consultation and widun 5 miles of the project
site
A protected species survey for the 72 -acre tract was conducted in May of 2012.
And, a protected species field survey for Phase 3 of the landfill was conducted in
January of 2015. Potential fauna were identified to the taxonomic unit level
necessary to determine if the observed specimen was a protected species. Flora were
identified to the lowest taxonomic level readily discernible in the field during the
time of survey. The proposed project sites are within and adjacent to existing
operational landfill. Regular maintenance and manipulation of the areas has
eliminated suitable habitat for any Federally listed species. No Federally
threatened or endangered species were observed on site during the site visits. A
"Threatened and Endangered Species Review and Habitat Assessment" was
completed for 72 -acre tract in May of 2012 (Attachment Q. Although a field
survey for Phase 3 of the landfill was completed in January of 2015, an associated
report was not completed.
Environmental Services, Inc. completed a habitat assessment to determine the
presence or absence of potentially suitable habitat for the Federally threatened
dwarf flowered heart-leaf (Hexastylis naniflora). By letter dated March 8, 2004,
ESI determined that potential suitable habitat for this species was not present
within the project study area (Attachment Q.
It is the opinion of CEC that Federally protected species are not likely to be present
within the landfill boundaries. As such, the proposed project is not likely to cause
an adverse impact to any Federally threatened or endangered species or their critical
habitat.
The FWS will be notified via Public Notice about the project and will be given the
opportunity to comment on the project and its potential effects on threatened and
endangered species.
19

8.3.2 Fishes. Crustaceans, Mollusks, and other Aquatic Organisms in the Food
Web
Discharges of dredge and fill material can alter the food web 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. Such releases may also potentially increase the
levels of exotic species.
Impacts to primary food chain production within the waters of the US and
wetlands will occur on the project site; however, food chain production will be re-
establish over time in the streams and wetlands provided as mitigation. Net
impacts to primary food chain production are expected to be minimal.
8.3.3 Other Wildlife
The discharge of dredge and 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.
Although some evidence of wildlife usage was apparent on site, because the
project areas are within and in close proximity to an active landfill, wildlife
habitat is minimal. Noise pollution, denuded vegetation, and anthropogenic
activity make this area less desirable for resident and migrant wildlife. While a
loss of wildlife habitat for stream and wetland species may result from
construction of the project, the proposed mitigation will compensate for any
minor loss of habitat.
8.4 Potential Impacts on Special Aquatic Sites
Sub -Part E of the 40 C.F.R. 230 guidelines addresses considerations for potential
impacts on special aquatic sites, which include: sanctuaries and refuges,
wetlands, mud flats, vegetated shallows, coral reefs, and riffle -pool complexes.
8.4.1 Sanctuaries and Refuges
The discharge of dredge and fill material has the potential to negatively affect
adjacent sanctuaries and wildlife refuges by impacting water quality, decreasing
wildlife habitat, increasing human access, and creating the need for frequent
maintenance activity, resulting in the establishment of undesirable plant and
animal species, which can change the balance of habitat type. There are no
sanctuaries or refuges in the project vicinity; therefore, impacts to sanctuaries or
refuges will not occur as a result of the proposed project.
8.4.2 Wetlands
The discharge of dredge and fill material has the potential to adversely affect
wetlands including wetland substrate, hydrology, and vegetation. Discharges can
lead to a loss of wetland values, such as wildlife habitat, flood storage, and
groundwater recharge. The discharge of fill material will impact 0.32 acre of
wetlands on site. Approximately 1.79 acres of wetlands have been avoided;
20

totaling approximately 85 percent of total wetlands at the sites. The applicant will
make payment into the DMS in -lieu fee program to offset impacts to wetlands.
8.4.3 Mud Flats
Discharges of dredge and fill material has the potential to negatively affect mud
flats that exist along inland lakes, ponds, and riverine systems. There are no mud
flat communities within the project boundaries; therefore, loss of these
ecosystems will not occur as a result of development of the proposed project.
8.4.4 Vegetated Shallows
Vegetated shallows are permanently inundated areas that contain rooted aquatic
vegetation. This type of habitat generally exists within estuarine and marine
environments; and some freshwater lakes and rivers. No vegetated shallow
habitats exist within the project boundaries; therefore, no impacts to this
ecosystem will occur as a result of development of the proposed project.
8.4.5 Coral Reefs
Coral reefs typically exist within marine ecosystems. Coral reefs do not exist
within the project boundaries; therefore, no impacts to this ecosystem will occur
as a result of development of the proposed project.
8.4.6 Riffle -Pool Complexes
Discharge of dredge and fill material into or upstream of riffle -pool complexes
has the potential to negatively affect water quality and wildlife value. Fill has the
potential to be placed into riffle -pool complexes. Any permanent impact to riffle -
pool complexes will be mitigated for through the proposed mitigation plan.
8.5 Potential Effects on Human Use Characteristics,
Sub -Part F of the 40 C.F.R. 230 guidelines address potential effects on human use
of wetlands and waterways. Factors including water supply, recreational and
commercial fisheries, water- related recreation, aesthetics, and parks and similar
preserves are considered within this portion of the guidelines. No effects on
human use characteristics are anticipated as a result of the proposed project.
8.5.1 Municipal and Private Water Supply
The public water supply will not increase or decrease as a result of the proposed
project.
8.5.2 Recreational and Commercial Fisheries
Discharges of dredge and fill material has the potential to negatively affect
recreational and commercial fisheries. Opportunity for recreational and
commercial fisheries is not present on the sites. The amount and quality of
recreational and commercial fisheries will not increase or decrease as a result of
the proposed project.
21

8.5.3 Water- Related Recreation
Proposed activities will not increase or decrease waterborne recreation within the
project vicinity.
8.5.4 Aesthetics
Aesthetically, the proposed projects will be similar to other landfill projects in the
vicinity. The projects will be designed in a manner that is consistent with
adjacent land use. The project is not expected to diminish the aesthetic value of
the area or cause disharmony from an aerial or neighboring view.
8.5.5 Parks, National and Historical Monuments, National Beach Shores,
Wilderness Areas, Research Sites, and Similar Preserves
No areas as described above will be affected by the proposed activities.
8.6 Summary
Based on the EPA guidelines identified within 40 C.F.R. 230, and enumerated
herein, a number of potential environmental impacts have been presented and
subsequently addressed. The proposed permanent impact to 532 linear feet of
streams, and 0.32 acre of wetland will not cause any off site adverse impacts.
Mitigation offered through payment in to the DMS will compensate for any on-
site impacts.
22

9.0 PUBLIC INTEREST CONSIDERATIONS
When reviewing this application, the Corps is required to consider the project in terms of
the public interest. In considering the public interest, the Corps must evaluate the
probable impacts of the project and evaluate the "benefits which reasonably may be
expected to occur from the proposal against reasonably foreseeable detriments." In
balancing these interests, the Corps must consider the public and private need for the
proposed project, the practicability of using reasonable alternative locations, and the
extent and permanence of the beneficial and/or detrimental impacts of the project. The
Corps also considers the following public interest factors:
conservation, economics, aesthetics, general environmental concerns,
wetlands, historic and cultural resources, fish and wildlife values, flood
hazards, floodplain values, land use, navigation, shore erosion and
accretion, recreation, water supply and water quality, energy needs, safety,
food and fiber production, mineral needs, and considerations of the
property ownership.
Pursuant to 33 C.F.R. 323.6, a determination that the project is not contrary to the public
interest must be achieved before permit issuance. Public interest considerations are listed
in 33 C.F.R. 320.4 (a)(1) and are discussed below.
Furthermore, the Corps regulations state that a permit will be granted unless the district
engineer determines that it would be contrary to the public interest.
The applicant has extensively evaluated these factors through the planning process and
believes that the proposed project is clearly in the public interest.
9.1 Conservation
The applicant is not proposing preservation as a component of the project;
however, those projects completed by the DMS in association with this
project will be preserved in perpetuity.
9.2 Economics
The projects will provide an overall benefit to the local economy of
Cleveland County. During and upon completion of construction, the site
will provide job opportunities associated with the development and
maintenance of the proposed site. The appropriate economic evaluations
have been completed and the project as proposed is economically viable.
9.3 Aesthetics
Aesthetically, the proposed projects will be similar to other landfill
projects in the vicinity. The projects will be designed in a manner that is
consistent with adjacent land use. The project is not expected to diminish
the aesthetic value of the area or cause disharmony from an aerial or
neighboring view.
23

9.4 General Environmental Concerns,
Other than stream and wetland impacts, proposed development activities
will have no significant identifiable impacts upon other environmental
components.
9.5 Wetlands
The discharge of dredge and fill material has the potential to adversely
affect wetlands including wetland substrate, hydrology, and vegetation.
Discharges can lead to a loss of wetland values, such as wildlife habitat,
flood storage, and groundwater recharge. The discharge of fill material
will impact 0.32 acres of wetlands on the sites. Approximately 1.79 acres
of wetlands have been avoided; totaling approximately 85 percent of total
wetlands on the sites. The applicant will make payment into the DMS in-
lieu fee program to offset impacts to wetlands.
9.6 Historic Properties
A desk review of the National Register of Historic Places records
maintained by the NC State Historic Preservation Office (SHPO) indicates 2
historic properties adjacent to the County -owned property: the Joshua
Beam House (Reference #CL0004) and the Joshua Beam House Boundary
Expansion (Reference #CL0996). Multiple listed properties and historic
districts are located in downtown Shelby which is approximately 5 miles
from the project site.
An archaeological survey was conducted by Environmental Services, Inc.
(ESI) for the project site in March of 2003 and a "Cultural Resource
Assessment Survey" Report was completed in July of 2003 (Attachment
D). The archaeological survey identified a total of 14 archaeological sites
within the survey area; however, 13 of the sites are recommended not
eligible for the National Register. ESI recommended no additional
archaeological investigations at the site. ESI identified one site (31 CL76)
that is eligible for listing in the National Register. It is recommended that
the site be avoided by construction activities. If the site can be preserved
in place, it is recommended that the proposed project be allowed to
proceed without concern for impacts to significant sites. If the site cannot
be avoided, data recovery is recommended to mitigate the impacts of
proposed development.
In a letter dated November 21, 2003, the SHPO concurred with all
recommendations in the "Cultural Resource Assessment Survey" Report.
The SHPO letter has been included for review in Attachment D.
It is the opinion of CEC, that the proposed activities are not likely to
threaten the integrity of archeologically or culturally significant sites within
the project boundary. The SHPO will be notified via Public Notice about
24

the project and will be given the opportunity to comment on the project and
its potential effects on cultural resources.
9.7 Fish and Wildlife Values
Riparian and wetland areas provide habitat for many types of wildlife
because of their diverse and productive plant communities, complex
structure, and close proximity to surface water. Wildlife may be
permanent residents of riparian and wetland areas or occasional visitors
that use the areas for food, water, or temporary shelter.
Food availability varies with the type of vegetation in riparian and wetland
areas, but includes fruit, seed, foliage, twigs, buds, insects, and other
invertebrates. Trees and shrub produce a variety of foods that are eaten by
many animals and may be especially important sources of nutrition during
the winter months. Grasses and herbaceous vegetation provide seeds and
forage both within riparian and wetland areas and along the forest border.
The stream environment provides moving water for many animals to
drink, feed, swim, and reproduce. Water is also available on the moist
vegetation and in wetlands that are often associated with riparian areas.
These areas, both permanent and temporary, are especially important for
amphibians and macro - invertebrates.
Riparian and wetland areas provide a sheltered environment for many
species of animals to feed, rest, and reproduce. Animals use these areas to
seek shelter from extreme weather and to escape predators and human
activity. Riparian and wetland areas may also provide important travel
corridors for some species, and are frequently used as stop -over points for
migratory birds.
Although some evidence of wildlife usage was apparent on site, because
the project areas are within close proximity to an active landfill, wildlife
habitat is minimal. Noise pollution, denuded vegetation, and
anthropogenic activity make these areas less desirable for resident and
migrant wildlife. While a loss of wildlife habitat for stream and wetland -
dependent species may result from construction of the project, the
proposed mitigation should compensate for any lost functions and values.
9.8 Flood Hazards
It is likely that some tributaries on the County -owned property will flood
occasionally due to natural fluctuations in weather patterns that increase
precipitation. The proposed activities are not expected to significantly
increase or decrease the natural rate of flooding at the site or downstream.
25

9.9 Floodulain Values
Based on data from the North Carolina Floodplain Mapping Program,
100 -year floodplains associated with Buffalo Creek and Suck Creek are
located within the project boundary (Figure 6) (FEMA Panels
3710256800J, 3710256900J, and 3710255800J, all effective February 20,
2008). The designated 100 -year floodplain is not within the landfill
boundary; therefore, floodplains will not be impacted by this project.
9.10 Land Use
The proposed project will be in compliance with local zoning regulations
and ordinances. The project is consistent with surrounding land use and
development.
9.11 Navigation
Jurisdictional streams within the project boundary include: Suck Creek
and unnamed tributaries to Suck Creek; and Buffalo Creek and unnamed
tributaries to Buffalo Creek. All tributaries within the project boundary
are tributaries to Buffalo Creek. Buffalo Creek is a tributary to the Broad
River which is navigable -in -fact water in South Carolina.
The project will not have direct effects on the Broad River; therefore,
proposed activities are not likely to affect navigation.
9.12 Shore Erosion and Accretion
The project should have minimal effects on erosion and runoff. An erosion
control plan will be implemented as part of the construction plan for the
project. During the construction process, BMPs will be followed. These
BMPs may include the construction of swales, erosion and sediment control
structures, turbidity barriers, and other measures that will prevent sediment
transport off the project site and into other waters. Use of devices such as
silt screens, staked hay bales, temporary grassing, wind rowing of
vegetation, and other mechanisms to prevent turbidity may be employed.
9.13 Recreation
Proposed activities will not increase or decrease waterborne recreation on
site or in the project vicinity.
9.14 Water Suvvly and Conservation
The public water supply will not increase or decrease as a result of the
proposed activities.
9.15 Water Oualitv (Stormwater Mana2ement)
The proposed project 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
26

contamination shall be minimized or reduced. The landfill is required to
have a sediment and erosion control permit for operation.
A stormwater management plan has been implemented at the existing
landfill. The plan will be modified to include Phase 3.
The applicant will be concurrently applying for a DWR 401 Water Quality
Certification.
9.16 Energv Needs
Activities associated with the proposed project, during construction and at
full operation, are not expected to significantly increase energy demands
beyond the capacity of the local facility. Energy will not be produced as a
result of the proposed activities.
9.17 Safetv
The proposed project will be designed with the maximum possible
considerations for public safety. The proposed activities at the site will not
increase or decrease public safety. Access to the landfill site by the general
public is prohibited, eliminating any threat to public safety.
9.18 Food and Fiber Production
The proposed projects will not increase or decrease food and fiber
production.
9.19 Mineral Needs
The project fulfills no current mineral needs. No mining activities are
proposed as part of the proposed activities at the development site.
9.20 Considerations of Propertv Ownership
The applicant owns the properties proposed for development and has the
inherent right to develop the land in a reasonable and responsible manner,
which includes adhering to all Federal, State, and local regulations.
Property Owner of Record:
Cleveland County
PO Box 1210
Shelby, NC 28150
9.21 Needs and Welfare of the Public
The project will positively address the needs and welfare of the public by
continuing to support safe and efficient disposal of MSW. Additional jobs
will be created during construction and operations of the landfill in
Cleveland County, North Carolina.
27

10.0 SECONDARY AND CUMULATIVE EFFECTS
The proposed project site is located within the Broad River Subbasin 03- 08 -05.
Approximately 49 percent of this subbasin is forested and the total land mass includes
approximately 180 square miles (115,200 acres). The County -owned property is
comprised of approximately 444 acres (0.69 square miles). All of the land mass included
within the property accounts for less than 0.3 percent of the land mass of the basin. These
percentages alone, limit significant cumulative effects on the watershed. Past activities
within the subbasin include logging; agricultural, commercial and residential development;
and road building. Agricultural and residential development, and road building in the
vicinity remains active; continued and future development of the watershed is independent
of activities proposed at the project site. Impacts within the project boundary include the
expansion of an existing landfill. Stream and wetland impacts are necessary for
construction at the site. Activities associated with the proposed project should not result in
a significant impairment of the water resources on site or interfere with the productivity and
water quality of the existing aquatic ecosystem.
28

11.0 SUMMARY
The proposed projects include expansion of the existing landfill. Alternatives have been
evaluated and the projects "As Proposed" is the least damaging practical alternative
which meets the project purpose. Potential impacts to the physical and chemical
characteristics of the ecosystem, biological characteristics of the ecosystem, impacts on
special aquatic sites, and potential effects on human use characteristics will be minimal.
The project is not contrary to the public interest and will aid in the continued growth of
Cleveland County.
29

Cleveland County Landfill Expansion ( +/ -444 AC)
Cleveland County, CLEarWater Site Overview
North Carolina Figure l
224 South Grove Street, Suite F
Hendersonville, North Carolina 28792

Cleveland County Landfill Expansion ( +/ -444 AC)
Rd
CI to Q
1fi Q
;O 04,
S.
a
Project Boundary
R d o D e er
) Church �� Brook Golf '
�Qt Club Ra
r 180
/000
a
9� 't
A
0
d
a '
n
Ra'-
Grove Rd
P
IQLa
' io
�r
150
Troy Rd
JY.
'+ Marion S!
Sh
an St I Flireber� P�:
City of Shelby 74•
Sperlings�
� .0 15 n
e
Q�
ik d Kings
'y Mountain
Reservoir
e
226
° Legend
0 0.25 0.5 1
Miles 4 ► 8 f� � Project Boundary
0
Dr by: RLN 05.27.15; CEC Project# 684
Cleveland County, ULCU Y Y"`ef Site Vicinity
North Carolina Figure 2
224 South Grove Street, Suite F
North Carolina 28792
N
0

Cleveland County Landfill Expansion ( +/ -444 AC)
� .
u.
� 14t5
���, • .
Project Boundary
�.. r
Al
MAW-
N ~ •o � `-W
Ch
t
Legend
0 1,000 2,000 4,000
Feet \ Project Boundary '
a . t "�
Drawn by; RLN 05.29.1 �C Project# 884 !'
Cleveland County, CLearWater USGS Topographic Map
North Carolina
Waco Quad
224 South Grove Street, Suite F Figure 3
Hendersonville, North Carolina 28792

Cleveland County Landfill Expansion ( +/ -444 AC)
f.
0 00 1,000 2,000
Cleveland County,
North Carolina
PbC2
CLear\/Aer
224 South Grove Street, Suite F
Hendersonville, North Carolina 28792
Project Boundary
Legend
Project Boundary
Soils
CaB2 Cecil
ChA Chewacla
- DoB Dorian
PaC2; PaD2 Pacolet
L PbB2; PbC2 Pacolet- Bethlehem
PsC2; PtD Pacolet -Saw
ToA Toccoa
W Water
USDA Soils Map
Figure 4

PROJECT DATA
TOTAL PROJECT AREA
JURISDICTIONAL WATE
Streams
Wetlands
Open Water
JURISDICTIONAL IMPA(
Streams
Wetlands
AVOIDANCE/MINIMIZA
Streams
Wetlands
MITIGATION
C.•wn s.
Streams
DMS
Wetlands
DMS
Legend
Cleveland County Lanfill Expansion ( +/- 444 AC)
Culvert ® Landfill - Proposed Phase 3
st'..— L-110 Boundadas
Linear Wetland = Project Boundary
VMland
Cleveland County,
North Carolina
0 250 500 1,000
Feet
CLearWater
224 South Grove Street, Suite F
Hendersonville, North Carolina 28792
Drawn by: RLN 05.27.15; CEC Project# 684
Source Data: Cleveland County
Site Plan and Impact Map
Figure 5

� K
V,.
r�
rt
W IF
.S Landfill
r'
82 AC
Landfill
Proposed Borrow
13 AC
fat
5
f
_O 500 1,000 2,000

MSWLF FACILITY
SITE STUDY
CLEVELAND COUNTY
SHELBY, NORTH CAROLINA
PROJECT NO. G02102
July 2004 Municipal Engineering Services Company, P.A.
Garner, NC • Boone, NC • Morehead City, NC

TABLE OF CONTENTS
1.0 INTRODUCTION
1 1 Purpose
12 Background ... .
1 3 General
2.0 CHARACTERIZATION STUDIES..
2 1 Regional Characterization Study
2 1 1 Landfill Facility Location
2 1 2 Public Water Supply Wells, Surface Water Intakes and Service Areas
2 1 3 Residential Subdivisions . ......
2.14 Waste Transportation Routes . .
2.1 5 Public Use Airports and Runways
2 2 Local Characterization Study
22 1 Disposal Site Property and On -Site Easements
2 2 2 Existing Land Use and Zoning
2 2 3 Private Residences and Schools ...
224 Potential Sources of Contamination
225 Potable Wells
226 Historic Sites
227 Surface Water Drainage Patterns, Watersheds and Floodplains
2.28 Available Well Records
3.0 SITE HYDROGEOLOGIC SUMMARY
3 1 Site Description
3 2 Regional Geology ...
3 3 Field Investigation
3 4 Subsurface Sod Conditions .
3 5 Hydrogeology
3 6 Conclusion .
4.0 LOCATION RESTRICTIONS
4 1 Airport Safety
4 2 Floodplains
4 3 Protected Species and Wetland Delineation
4.4 Fault Areas .
4 5 Seismic Impact Zones.
4 6 Unstable Areas . ... ...........
4 7 Cultural Resources .... .. ........ .... .
4 8 State Nature and Historic Preserve
4.9 Water Supply Watersheds.
4
4
4
4
6
6
6
6
6
6
6
7
7
7
7
7
7
7
7
8
13
13
13
13
13
14
14
16
16
16
16
16
16
16
16
16
17
P \SOLID WASTE \G02102 - CLEVELAND NEW SITE \DOC \G02102 -SS 7/30/2004 Page u

5.0 FACILITY REPORT
5 1 Geologic and Hydrogeologic Summary
5 2 Waste Stream
20
20
20
5 2 1 Waste Types 20
5 2 2 Disposal Rates 21
5 2 3 Service Area 21
5 2 4 Waste Segregation 21
5 2 5 Equipment Requirements 21
5 3 Landfill Capacity . 21
5 4 Containment and Environmental Control Systems 26
5 5 Special Engineering Features.. 26
APPENDICES
A Local Government Approvals
B Facility Drawings
C Cultural Resources Report
P \SOLID WASTE \G02102 - CLEVELAND NEW SITE \DOC \G02102 -SS 7/30/2004 Page m

SECTION 1.0
INTRODUCTION
1 1 Purpose
The purpose of this MSWLF Site Study is to demonstrate that the area proposed for development
by Cleveland County is suitable for expansion of the Municipal Solid Waste Landfill Facility
(MSWLF) and Construction and Demolition Landfill (CDLF) according to The North Carolina
Administrative Code, Title 15A, Department of Environment and Natural Resources, Chapter 13,
Solid Waste Management, Subchapter 136, Solid Waste Management Section 1600, Rule 1618
12 Background
Cleveland County, North Carolina currently owns two (2) Municipal Solid Waste Landfills (Permit
No 23 -01) There is one closed landfill and one existing Subtitle D Landfill The existing
MSWLF Facility is currently being operated by the County The new Subtitle D Landfill will be
located on a tract of land Northeast of, and adjacent to, the existing MSWLF Facility (see Figure
1 -1, Location Map) Waste currently being disposed in the existing MSWLF will be disposed of in
the new Subtitle D Facility
13 General
In accordance with Rule 1618 (c)(5), local government approval of the proposed Subtitle D
Landfill Facility has been obtained and is presented in Appendix A The site of the proposed
landfill is on a tract of land owned by the County adjacent to the existing MSWLF Facility The
proposed site will have six (6) new Phases of Municipal Solid Waste (MSW) The Facility will only
accept Municipal Solid Waste which includes but is not limited to Household, Industrial,
Construction /Demolition, and Animal Waste The Facility will not accept any Hazardous or PCB
wastes
P \SOLID WASTE \G02102 - CLEVELAND NEW SITE\DOC \G02102 -SS 7/30/2004 Page 4

INSERT FIGURE 1 -1
P \SOLID WASTE \G02102 - CLEVELAND NEW SITE \DOC \G02102 -SS 7/3012004 Page 5

L
22,
ENLARGED MUNICIPAL AND SUBURBAN AREAS
CLEVELAND COUNTY
NORTH CAROLINA
lEEPUEC BY THE
NORTH CAROLINA DEPARTMENT OF TRANSPORTATION
DIVISION Of HIGHWAYS - PLANNING AND RESEARCH BRANCH
M COOT UTM" MIN THE
U S DEPARTMENT OF TRANSPORTATION
FEDERAL HIGHWAY ADMINISTRATION
SCALE
FIGURE 1 -1

SECTION 2.0
CHARACTERIZATION STUDIES
The proposed facility will be located adjacent to the existing sanitary landfill facility, which is
located approximately 4 miles northeast of Shelby There will be a total of six Phases Phase 1
will be approximately 24 acres in size Phase 2 will be approximately 15 acres in size, Phase 3
will be approximately 12 acres in size, Phase 4 will be approximately 20 acres in size, Phase 5 will
be approximately 11 acres in size and Phase 6 will be approximately 24 acres in size The
remaining permittable acres will be used for the borrow area, Construction and Demolition Landfill
and buffer
The land use around the proposed facility is mostly wooded with some rural subdivisions located
within two (2) miles of the facility The landfill will not have an additional adverse impact on the
residents of Cleveland County since most of the proposed landfill is located adjacent to the
existing facility boundary
2.1 Regional Characterization Studv
The Regional Characterization Study describes the area within two (2) miles of the proposed
Landfill Facility There are two (2) public water supply wells, eleven (11) residential areas, three
(3) mobile home parks, two (2) roads that consist of waste transportation routes, and no airports
located within the two (2) mile perimeter The amount of waste being disposed of at the Facility
will remain at virtually the same rates since the landfill will be accepting wastes from the same
area
2 1 1 Landfill Facilitv Location
Access to the Proposed Landfill Facility is located off SR 1918 in Cleveland County, North
Carolina, adjacent to the existing landfill facility
2 1 2 Public Water SUDoly Wells, Surface Water Intakes and Service Areas
There are two (2) Public Water Supply Wells located within the 2 -mile perimeter All Public
Water Supply Wells are listed below and are on the Regional Characterization Map
1 Dalton MHP, Well, Population 45
2 Friendship Chapel Baptist Church, Well, Population 25
2 1 3 Residential Subdivisions
There are three (3) Mobile Home Parks, eleven (11) Residential areas, and three (3)
churches All areas are indicated on the Regional Characterization Map
2 14 Waste Transportation Routes
There are two (2) Waste Transportation Routes All Waste Transportation Routes are listed
below and are highlighted on the Regional Characterization Map
1 SR 1918
2 NC HWY 150
2 15 Public Use Airports and Runways
There are no Public Use Airports within the two (2) mile perimeter of the Facility boundary
P \SOLID WASTEM2102- CLEVELAND NEW SITE\DOC \G02102 -SS 7/30/2004 Page 6

2 2 Local Characterization Studv
The Local Characterization Study describes the area within 2000 feet of the proposed Landfill
Facility The property consists of 446 92 acres, of which 306 98 acres will be considered the
permuted boundary Within the permuted boundary 107 27 acres shall be used for MSW landfill
and 59 65 acres shall be used for Construction and Demolition Landfill, the remaining 140 06
acres of the permitted Boundary will be used for buffers The permitted boundary map is located
in this section The existing land use of the property is woodland This property is located in three
(3) different zoning areas, Rural Agricultural, Heavy Industrial and Residential The surrounding
property is mostly woodlands, with some residential There are no schools located within the
study area. There are 60 residences, 1 Business(vacant), and 2 Churches located within the
2000 perimeter.
2 2 1 Disposal Site PrODerty and On -Site Easements
The property lines are indicated on the aerial photograph and local area map located in this
section The entire property consists of 446 92 acres of land There is a 200' power line
easement that runs between the proposed MSWLF units and the proposed C &D units
2.2.2 Existing Land Use and Zoninq
The proposed property was previously used for woodland This property has three (3) zoning
labels, Rural Agricultural, Heavy Industrial and Residential A zoning map provided by Cleveland
County Web GIS service is located in this section A zoning letter is located Appendix A with the
local government approvals
2.2.3 Private Residences and Schools
There is no schools located within 2000' of the proposed Landfill Facility There are 60
residences, 1 Business(vacant), and 2 Churches located within the 2000 perimeter
2.2.4 Potential Sources of Contamination
The existing and closed MSW Landfills are all potential sources of contamination. All are
indicated on the Local Characterization Maps
2.2.5 Potable Wells
Public water lines are indicated on Regional and Local Characterization Maps These water lines
were provided by Cleveland County Web GIS service. There are four (4) potential groundwater
users as indicated on the Local Characterization Maps
2.2.6 Historic Sites
The Cultural Resource survey located fourteen (14) historic archaeological sites. Thirteen of the
sites do not appear to be potentially eligible for the National Register of Historic Places (National
Register). Site 31CL76 is recommended eligible for listing in the National Register. Since the site
lies in the buffer zone, it will not be disturbed. The Cultural Resources Report was forwarded to
the North Carolina Department of Cultural Resources. All correspondence is located in Appendix
C. The one potentially eligible site is shown on the Facility Plan drawing number F2
2.2 7 Surface Water Drainaoe Patterns. Watersheds and FloodDlains
Surface Water Drainage Patterns. All water flowing on site will eventually either reach
groundwater or flow into Suck Creek and Buffalo Creek Buffalo Creek bounds the site to the west
P \SOLID WASTE \G02102 - CLEVELAND NEW SITE\ G02102 -SS DOC 7/30/04 REV 12/17/04 Page 7

and Suck Creek crosses the northwest corner of the property Suck Creek flows Into Buffalo
Creek and Buffalo Creek flows into the Kings Mountain Reservoir
Watersheds, Most of Buffalo Creek is classified as C TR I and Suck Creek, from source to Buffalo
Creek, is classified as WS -III (see map provided by Cleveland County WebGIS and the Broad
River Water Basin study by NCDENR -Div. Of Water Quality, In this section), there is a small
portion of Buffalo Creek beginning from a point 0.3 miles upstream from Long Creek to the dam at
Kings Mountain Reservoir that Is classified WS -III CA There are no surface water intakes within
the two (2) mile perimeter. WS -III is classified as waters protected as water supplies which are
generally in low to moderately developed watersheds, point source discharges of treated
wastewater are permitted, and CA indicates Critical Area. Critical Area is Yz mile and draining to
water supplies as measured from the normal pool elevations of the reservoir (description acquired
from NCDENR Chart titled "Guide to Surface Freshwater Classifications in North Carolina ") While
a portion of the property is in the Critical Area, the MSWLF units are approximately 1550 feet
away from this area, as shown on a map included in this section The landfill units are located in
WSIII, which allows non - discharging landfills The proposed landfill is a non - discharging landfill
All water classifications are listed on the last page of the NCDENR Broad River Water Basin
Study included in this section
Floodplains. There Is no 100 -year FEMA flood hazard. The MSWLF units are not located within a
FEMA studied 100 -year floodplain
2.28 Available Well Records
There are no well records available
P \SOLID WASTUG02102- CLEVELAND NEW SITE\ G02102 -SS DOC 7/30/04 REV 12/17/04 Page 8

INSERT REGIONAL MAP
(2 -MILE PERIMETER MAP)
P \SOLID WASTE \G02102 - CLEVELAND NEW SITE\DOC \G02102 -SS 7/30/2004 Page 9

I
r-
I
wxz
i CCNERAL IOpocR AhD FEA NReZ A
CDMPRISED Dl Ep�RI�� U I" APryIC MAP
2 CD SHELBY CHERRYNLIF A ARE DR t'AS MAP Wn1Cn IS
S +HE RROPOSCp IANDFKC ca CA At S !HE MAPS USED ARE
THERE ARE lHREEIJ PU Cl�lty LpCA tIQy IS SnOWN iH15 MAP
WELLS
At TED 4DI MILE PC WAITERCRtE' AND p MERE ARE rWpIT�
WELL lMA ARIL l A
WAS' BY NCpEN RSHW CHAPEI BAPIIS! CHURCH VA iEO LwEil
R"' 'At SU PUDLIC WATER 1WS INFCRMATIgyJ
6 5 ERE AFRAN$DPOR to ONN 50M�E SHDW wPARI RARE SHD
SARAN C HICHWgy
RE NO P tM15 MAP MD ARC inf5 yyp
Mid U9UC USE AIRPORTS E
y , DR
..All LOCATED
Y NI iHI ,MITE PER,.CrER
t ArK`
ltti5^✓'
RROPOSEO DPERIY
LANOFI. PR LEGEND
R.O,N IIAL AREAS E%IS,NC WATER LWFS
PRUPFR fY LixC
1
MOBILE HCMC paRxS 1 -MILC PE
RIME TER UNE
r
N
I rasna TW
MCQ REftmL C01/M7Y. L
.4ft ft
;'MLLEPEWM Mt�STWY
0

INSERT AERONAUTICAL MAP
P \SOLID WASTE \G02102 - CLEVELAND NEW SITE\DOC \G02102 -SS 7130/2004 Page 10

IINSERT LOCAL MAPS
(2000' PERIMETER AERIAL MAP)
(2000' PERIMETER QUAD MAP)
(ZONING MAP)
P \SOLID WASTE \G02102 - CLEVELAND NEW SITE\DOC \G02102 -SS 7/11/04 REV 12/17/2004 Page 11

Wl
ldmbl
NORTH
71
WE gnmy
UUWWu S" WMM LANWLL FACLM
CLffVELMD COUMY MOM CAMMA
LOCAL cmmc7EP",nm swDy
"W PERIMETER W

`\fz
U GS AERIAL PHOTOGRAPHY PROVIDED k �." _.c
ME
TERRASERVEFLCOM
r �7� �� � t y:. l. ,}�. i'� �'w�V �it.;,�r� � �1 zt ��1: � 7 ''�`t /- .I. h �t •'�zi n
n i L
V Inv,
ks s Y
�
OR
y
b u t �" r f(E1v�aOSPECTCane a
.. �a- s. ry r � � ICI ��g, •!a �- y ,�,,.� �.f <�
y�7+'s' _t,�.. • ./j � 1�II }, 75 : �� h tat. sl . r� r^a - - r.... �`!\ -� .
- z �. ` by `h k.y`` '` � s '•_� r
ft,7, ♦ �
S
zl
V
i Y 1 ,f y �. 1� Si' .y7,.��✓ �.. � P
y �• _
-CLOSE
' SF T$- ANDFCIEL
. � � T - .,h ! � l� t � S J t ,•Q '� ei � � . ti � it 1 ri t,
/r wry- Y- .";��� � � r �•ck �.�/ •- f. ,�y� ": Y �, ! <� � :1_.
pL lK �r t
, So t* Y s n�o cNUtSt*.•! 0 t �•
FORMU URXN((vvN1µ J l/ Ih r I Y r
�- `URRCN 11'
ci
'� .k I � • ti .fit �'�(aay- \ ` .. _. ,��. a `,.

t7
l
4
AKE

INSERT "NCDENR Broad River Water Basin Study"
P \SOLID WASTE \G02102 - CLEVELAND NEW SITE\DOC \G02102 -SS 7/30/2004 Page 12

— '
AM, LC
,005 4B 10
rmt-1,
New Site\dwl
p \�o"=~—' \
IK
EI
. 2,
:2
ma
1 KY

Cleveland Co., NC -- Printable Map
f
N
Page 1 of 1
Cleveland Co., NC
DISCLAIMER: The information contained on this site is furnished by government and private industry sources and is
believed to be accurate but accuracy is not guaranteed. Mapping information is a representation of various data sources
and is not a subsitute for information that would result from an accurate land survey The information contained hereon
does not replace information that may be obtained by consulting the information's official source In no event shall
Cleveland County, NC or the consultants of Cleveland County, NC be liable for any damages, direct or consequential,
from the use of the information contained on this site
http) /www webgts net Anderson & Associates, Inc http / /www andassoc corn
http: / /arc ims2.webgis. net /nc /cleveland /printable.asp ?process = undefined &x2 = undefined &y2 = undefined &.. 2/17/2004

NC DENR - DIVISON OF WATER QUALITY
0306 BROAD RIMER BASIN
I
Name of Stream
BROAD RIVER
Miller Cove Branch
Tom Creek
Glade Creek
Grace Branch (Grace
Creek)
Duck Branch
Clear Branch
Laurel Creek
Rock Creek
Sand Branch
Rush Branch (Rush
Creek)
Flat Creek
Grassy Creek (Lake
Charles)
Hickory Creek
Middle Fork Hickory
Creek
Middle Fork Hickory
Creek
Toms Fork
Reedypatch Creek
Turnbreeches Creek
Slickrock Branch
Hominy Mill Branch
Little Creek
Sugarloaf Creek
Fall Creek
BROAD RIVER (Lake Lure
below elevation 991)
Pool Creek
Wolf Creek
Rock Creek
Description Class
From source to Pool Creek, C Tr
including backwaters of Lake
Lure below elevation 991
From source to Broad River C Tr
From source to Broad River C Tr
From source to Broad River C Tr
From source to Broad River C Tr
From source to Broad River C Tr
From source to Broad River C Tr
From source to Broad River C Tr
From source to Broad River C Tr
From source to Broad River C Tr
From source to Broad River C Tr
From source to Broad River C Tr
From source to Broad River C Tr
From source to Broad River C Tr
From source to Dam at B Tr
Lower Lake at Camp
Mishemowka
From Dam at Lower Lake at C Tr
Camp Mishemowka to Hickory
Creek
From source to Middle Fork C Tr
Hickory Creek
From source to Broad River C Tr
From source to Reedypatch C Tr
Creek
From source to Reedypatch C Tr
Creek
From source to Reedypatch C Tr
Creek
From source to Reedypatch C Tr
Creek
From source to Little Creek C Tr
From source to Broad River C Tr
From Pool Creek to B Tr
Carolina Mountain Power
Company Dam
From source to Lake Lure, C Tr
Broad River
From source to Pool Creek C Tr
From source to Lake Lure, C Tr
Broad River
1
Classification
Date Index No
03/01/63 9 -(1)
03/01/63 9 -2
03/01/63 9 -3
03/01/63 9 -4
03/01/63 9 -5
03/01/63 9 -6
03/01/63 9 -7
03/01/63 9 -8
03/01/63 9 -9
03/01/63 9 -10
03/01/63 9 -11
03/01/63 9 -12
03/01/63 9 -13
03/01/63 9 -14
03/01/63 9- 14 -1 -(1)
03/01/63 9- 14 -1 -(2)
03/01/63 9- 14 -1 -3
03/01/63 9-15
03/01/63 9 -15 -1
03/01/63 9 -15 -2
03/01/63 9 -15 -3
03/01/63 9 -15 -4
03/01/63 9- 15 -4 -1
03/01/63 9 -16
03/01/63 9 -(17)
03/01/63 9 -18
03/01/63 9 -18 -1
08/03/92 9 -19
2B 0300

NC DENR - DIVISON OF WATER QUALITY
0306 BROAD RIVER BASIN
Classification
Name of Stream Description Class Date Index No
Buffalo Creek
From
source
to Lake Lure,
C
Tr
03/01/63
9 -20
Broad
River
Cane Creek
From
source
to Dam at Camp
B
Tr
03/01/63
9- 21 -(1)
Occoneechee
Bathing Laxe
Cane Creek
From
Dam at
Camp Occoneechee
C
Tr
03/01/63
9- 21 -(21
Bathing
Lake to Lake Lure,
Broad
River
BROAD RIVER
From
Carolina Mountain Power
C
08/01/98
9 -(22)
Company Rutherford County SR
1167
Island Creek
From
source
to Broad River
C
03/01/63
9 -22 5
Cove Creek
From
source
to Greasy Creek
C
Tr
03/01/63
9- 23 -(1)
West Fork Cove Creek
From
source
to Cove Creek
C
Tr
03101163
9 -23 -2
Wood Branch
From
source
to West Fork
C
Tr
03/01/63
9- 23 -2 -1
Cove
Creek
Bright Branch
From
source
to West Fork
C
Tr
03/01/63
9- 23 -2 -2
Cove
Creek
Morgan Creek
From
source
to Cove Creek
C
Tr
03/01/63
9 -23 -3
Morgan Creek
From
source
to Cove Creek
C
Tr
03/01/63
9 -23 -4
Marks Creek
From
source
to Morgan Creek
C
Tr
03/01/63
9- 23 -4 -1
Elliot Creek
From
source
to Cove Creek
C
Tr
03/01/63
9 -23 -5
Bridge Branch
From
source
to Elliot Creek
C
Tr
03/01/63
9- 23 -5 -1
Mill Creek (Breeds
From
source
to Cove Creek
C
Tr
03/91/63
9 -23 -6
Creek)
Olo Boney Creek
From
source
to Cove Creek
C
Tr
03/01/63
9 -23 -7
harris Creek ;Nick
From
source
to Cove Creek
C
Tr
03/01/63
9 -23 -8
Creek)
Cove Creek
From
Greasy
Creek to Broad
C
07/01/73
9- 23 -(9)
River
Greasy Creek
From
source
to Cove Creek
C
Tr
03/01/63
9 -23 -10
Frasheur Creek (Harris
From
source
to Greasy Creek
C
Tr
03/01/63
9- 23 -10 -1
Creek)
Stone Creek
From
source
to Cove Creek
C
Tr
03/01/63
9 -23 -11
Gringer Branch
From
source
to Stone Creek
C
Tr
03/01/63
9- 23 -11 -1
Chalk Creek
From
source
to Cove Creek
C
Tr
03/01/63
9 -23 -12
Otter Creek
From
source
to Cove Creek
C
Tr
03/01/63
9 -23 -13
Cedar Creek
From
source
to Cove Creek
C
Tr
03/01/63
9 -23 -14
Cane Branch
From
source
to Cedar CreeK
C
Tr
03/01/63
9-23 -14 -1
Sally Branch
From
source
to Cedar Creek
C
Tr
03/01/63
9-23 -14 -2
Long Branch
From
source
to Sally Branch
C
Tr
03/01/63
9- 23 -14 -2 1
Taylor Creek
From
source
to Cedar Creek
C
Tr
03/01/63
9- 23 -14 -3
Rosy Branch
From
source
to Taylor Creek
C
Tr
03/01/63
9- 23- 14 -3 -1
Noah Branch
From
source
to Dam at Camp
B
Tr
03/01/63
9- 23- 14- 3 -2 -(1)
Elliott Bathing Lake
Noah Branch
From
Dam at
Camp Elliott
C
Tr
03/01/63
9- 23- 14- 3 -2 -(2)
Bathing Lake to Taylor Creek
011
2B 0300

NC DENR - DIVISON OF WATER QUALITY
0306 BROAD RIVER BASIN
Name of Stream
Description
Class
Bailey Creek
From
source to Taylor Creek
C
Tr
Wash Branch
From
source to Cedar Creek
C
Tr
Coon Branch
From
source to Cedar Creek
C
Tr
Youngs Creek
From
source to Cedar Creek
C
Tr
Piney Creek
From
source to Cedar Creek
C
Tr
Bills Creek
From
source to Cove Creek
C
Knob Creek
From
source to Broad River
C
64 &74 to a point 0 4 mile
BROAD RIVER
From
Rutherford County SR
WS -IV
C
1167
to a point 0 4 mile
Rutherford County SR 1178
From a point 0.6 mile
upstream of mouth of
downstream of Rutherford
County SR 1178 to Mountain
Mountain Creek
Creek
BROAD RIVER
Mountain Creek
Lake Brooks
East Branch Mountain
Creek
West Branch Mountain
Creek
Piney Kroh Creek
Mountain Creek
Maple Creek
Maple Creek
Mountain. Creek
Classification
Date Index No
03/01/63 9- 23- 14 -3 -4
03/01/63 9- 23 -14 -4
03/01/63 9- 23 -14 -5
03/01/63 9- 23 -14 -6
03/01/63 9- 23 -14 -7
03/01/63 9 -23 -15
08/01/98 9 -24
08/01/98 9 -(24 3)
From a point 0 4 mile WS -IV CA 08/03/92 9 -(24 5)
upstream of mouth of
Mountain. Creek to a point
0 2 mile downstream of
Rutherford County SR 1145
(Town of Rutherfordton water
supply intake)
From source to a point 0 5
C
mile downstream of U S
Hwys 64 &74
Entire lake and connecting
C
stream to Mountain Creek
From source to Mountain
C
Creek
From source to Mountain
C
Creek
From source to Mountain
C
Creek
From a point 0 5 mile
WS -IV
downstream of U S Hwys
64 &74 to a point 0 4 mile
upstream of mouth
From source to a point 0 6
C
mile downstream of
Rutherford County SR 1178
From a point 0.6 mile
WS -IV
downstream of Rutherford
County SR 1178 to Mountain
Creek
From a point 0 4 mile
WS -IV CA
upstream of mouth to Broad
River
9
08/01/98 9 -25 -(0 5)
08/01/98 9 -25 -1
08/01/98 9 -25 -2
08/01/98 9 -25 -3
08/01/98 9- 25 -3 -1
08/01/98 9 -25 -(3 5)
08/01/98 9- 25 -4 -(1)
08/01/98 9- 25 -4 -(2)
08/03/92 9- 25 -(5)
2B 0300

NC DENR - DIVISON OF WATER QUALITY
2B 0300
.0306 BROAD RIVER
BASIN
Classification
Name of Stream
Description
Class
Date
Index No
BROAD RIVER
From a point 0 2 mile
C
08/03/92
9 -(25 5)
downstream of Rutherford
County SR 1145 to North
Carolina -South Carolina
State Line
Cleghorn Creek
From source to Broad River
C
03/01/77
9 -26
Stonecutter Creek
From source to Cleghorn
C
03/01/77
9 -26 -1
Creek
Charles Creek
From source to Cleghorn
C
03/01/77
9 -26 -2
Creek
Grays Creek
From source to Broad River
C
03/01/63
9 -27
Green River
From source to the
B
Tr
HOW
04/01/01
9- 29 -(1)
downstream side of the
mouth of Rock Creek
Soutn Prong Green
From source to Green River
B
Tr
HOW
04/01/03
9 -29 -2
River
Long Rock Branch
From source to Green River
B
Tr
HOW
04/01/01
9 -29 -3
Shoal Branch
From source to Green River
B
Tr
HOW
04/01/01
9 -29 -4
Big Laurel Creek
From source to Green River
B
Tr
HOW
04/01/01
9 -29 -5
Uncles Creek
From source to Green River
B
Tr
HOW
04/01/01
9 -29 -6
Bear Wallow CreeK
From source to Green River
B
Tr
HOW
04/01/01
9 -29 -7
Aaron Creek
From source to Green River
B
Tr
HOW
04/01/01
9 -29 -8
Falls Creek
From source to Green River
B
Tr
HOW
04/01/01
9 -29 -9
Meetinghouse Creek
From source to Green River
B
Tr
HOW
04/01/01
9 -29 -10
Phillips Creek (Bobs
From source to Green River
B
Tr
HOW
04/01/01
9 -29 -11
Creek)
Rock Creek
From source to Green River
B
Tr
HOW
04/01/01
9 -29 -12
North Prong Rock
From source to Rock Creek
B
Tr
HOW
04/01/01
9- 29 -12 -1
Creek
Hampy Creek
From source to North Prong
B
Tr
HOW
04/01/01
9- 29- 12 -1 -1
Rock Creek
Long Branch
From source to North Prong
B
Tr
HOW
04/01/01
9- 29- 12 -1 -2
Rock Creek
Green Raver
From the downstream side
B
Tr
08 /01 /00
9- 29 -(12 5)
of the mouth of Rock Creek
to a line projected across
Lake Summit from the
upstream side of mouth of
Jones Creek to a point of
land on north shore
Falling Creek
From source to Green River
B
Tr
08 /01 /00
9 -29 -13
Joe Creek
From source to Camp
B
Tr
08/01/00
9 -29 -14
Arrowhead Bathing Lake Dam
Bell Creek
From source to Joe Creek
B
Tr
08/01/00
9- 29 -14 -2
Cabin Creek
From source to Joe Creek
B
Tr
08 /01 /00
9- 29 -14 -4
Bobs Creek
From source to Green River
B
Tr
08/01/00
9 -29 -15
Terry Creek
From source to Bobs Creek
B
Tr
08/01/00
9- 29 -15 -1
4

NC DENR - DIVISON OF WATER QUALITY
2B 0300
0306 BROAD RIVER
BASIN
Classification
Name of Stream
Description
Class
Date
Index No
Unnamed Tri butary at
From source to Terry Creek
B
03/01/63
9- 29- 15 -1 -1
N C Elks Camp
Cold Branch
From source to Bobs Creek
B Tr
OB /01 /00
9- 29 -15 -2
Vernon Creek
From source to Green River
B Tr
08/01/00
9 -29 -16
Freeman Creek
From source to Lake
C Tr
03/01/63
9 -29 -18
Summit, Green R
Davis Creek
From source to Lake
B Tr
03/01/63
9 -29 -19
Summit, Green R
Unnamed Tributary # 1
From source to J P
C Tr HQW
08/03/92
9- 29- 20 -(1)
at Tuxedo
Stevens and Company Water
Supply Dam
Unnamed Tributary # 1
From J P Stevens and
C
09/01/79
9- 29- 20 -(2)
at Tuxedo
Company Water Supply Dam
to Lake Summit, Green River
Unnamed Tributary # 2
From source to Camp M.ondamin
C Tr HQW
06/03/92
9- 29- 21 -(1)
at Tuxedo
Water Supply Reservoir Dam
Unnamed Tr_butary # 2
From Camp Mondamin Water
C Tr
03/01/63
9- 29- 21 -(2)
at Tuxedo
Supply Reservoir Dam to Lake
Summit, Green River
Green River (Lake
From a line projected across
C Tr
08/03/92
9- 29 -(22)
Summit below elevation.
Lake Summit from upstream
2011)
side of mouth of Jones Creek
to point of land on north
shore to Cove Creek
Jones Creek
From source to Lake
C Tr
08/03/92
9 -29 -23
Summit, Green R
Unnamed Tributary # 3
From source to Dam at
B Tr
03/01/63
9- 29- 25 -(1)
at Kings Mountain
Kings Mountain Presbytery
Camp
Camp Bathing Lake
Unnamed Tributary 0 3
From Dam at Kings Mountain
C Tr
03/01/63
9- 29- 25 -(2)
at Kings Mountain
Presbytery Camp Bathing Lake
Camp
to Green River
Laurel Creek
From source to Green River
C Tr
03/01/63
9 -29 -26
Laurel Branch
From source to Laurel Creek
C Tr
03/01/63
9- 29 -26 -1
Beck Creek
From source to Green River
C Tr
03/01/63
9 -29 -27
Hill Branch
From source to Green River
C Tr
03/01/63
9 -29 -28
Mill Creek
From source to Green River
C Tr
03/01/63
9 -29 -29
Jones Branch
From source to Mill Creek
C Tr
03/01/63
9- 29 -29 -1
Hungry River
From source to Green River
C Tr
03/01/63
9 -29 -30
Little Hungry River
From source to Hungry River
C Tr
03/01/63
9- 29 -30 -1
Tumblebug Creek
From source to Hungry River
C Tr
03/01/63
9- 29 -30 -2
Saconon Creek
From source to Tumblebug
C Tr
03/01/63
9- 29- 30 -2 -1
Creek
Pulliam Creek (Fulloms
From source to Green River
C Tr
03/01/63
9 -29 -31
Cr)
Camp Creek
From source to Green River
C Tr
07/01/73
9 -29 -32
9

NC DENR - DIVISON OF WATER QUALITY
2B 0300
0306 BROAD RIVER BASIN
Classification
Name of Stream
Description
Class
Date
Index No
Unnamed Tributary # 1
From source to Camp Creek
C
09/01/74
9- 29 -32 -1
at Saluda
Green River, :ncluding
From Cove Creek to Broad
C
03/01/63
9 -29 -(33)
Lake Aager below
River
elevation 913)
Cove Creek
From source to Green River
C
Tr
09/01/74
9 -29 -34
Unnamed Tributary # 2
From source to Cove Creek
C
09/01/74
9- 29 -34 -1
at Saluda
R= xhaven Creek (Warrior
From source to Cove Creek
C
Tr
03/01/63
9- 29 -34 -2
Mountain Lake)
Casey Branch (Palmetto
From source to Dam at
B
Tr
03/01/63
9- 29- 34 -3 -(1)
Lake)
Palmetto Area Boy Scout Camp
Bathing Lake
Casey Branch
From Dam at Palmetto Area
C
Tr
03/01/63
9- 29- 34 -3 -(2)
Boy Scout Camp Bathing
Lake to Cove Creek
Gadd Creek
From source to Green River
C
Tr
03/01/63
9 -29 -35
Little Cove Creek
From source to Green River
C
Tr
03/01/63
9 -29 -36
Laurel Brarch
From source to Green River
C
Tr
03/01/63
9 -29 -37
Rash Creek
From source to Lake Adger,
C
Tr
03/01/63
9 -29 -38
Green R
Brights Creek
From source to Rash Creek
C
Tr
03/01/63
9- 29 -38 -1
Harm Creek
From source to Brlghts Creek
C
Tr
03/01/63
9- 29- 38 -1 -1
Panther Creek
From source to Lake Adger,
C
Tr
03/01/63
9 -29 -39
Green R
Rotten Creek
From source to Lake Adger,
C
Tr
03/01/63
9 -29 -40
Green R
Ostin Creek (Grease
From source to Lake Adger,
C
Tr
03/01/63
9 -29 -41
Creek)
Green R.
Silver Creek
From source to Lake Adger,
C
Tr
03/01/63
9 -29 -42
Green R
Britten Creek
From source to Green River
C
03/01/63
9 -29 -43
Walnut Creek
From source to Green River
C
03/01/63
9 -29 -44
Wheat Creek
From source to Green River
C
03/01/63
9 -29 -45
Unnamed Tributary at
From source to Dam at
B
03/01/63
9- 29- 45 -1 -(1)
Bethlehem Center Summer
Bethlehem Center Summer Camp
Camp
Bathing Lake
Unnamed Tributary at
From Dam at Bethlehem Center
C
03/01/63
9- 29- 45 -1 -(2)
Bethlehem Center Summer
Summer Camp Bathing Lake
Camp
to Wheat Creek
Whiteoak Creek
From source to Green River
C
09/01/74
9 -29 -46
Little Whiteoak
From source to Whiteoak
C
09/01/74
9- 29 -46 -1
Creek
Creek
Canal Creek
From source to Little
C
09/01/74
9- 29- 46 -1 -1
Whiteoak Creek
C

NC DENR - DIVISON OF WATER QUALITY
2B 0300
0306 BROAD RIVER
BASIN
Classification
Name of Stream
Description
Class
Date
Index No
South Branch
From source to Little
C
09/01/74
9- 29- 46 -1 -2
Whiteoak Creek
Machine Creek
From source to Whiteoak
C
09/01/74
9- 29 -46 -2
Creek
Mill Creek
From source to Whiteoak
C
09/01/74
9- 29 -46 -3
Creek
Green Creek
From source to Whiteoak
C
09/01/74
9- 29 -46 -4
Creek
Lyles Lake
Entire lake and connecting
C
03/01/63
9 -30
stream to Broad River
Jarretts Creek (Hester
From source to Broad River
C
03/01/63
9 -31
Creek)
Hensons Creek
From source to Broad River
C
03/01/63
9 -32
Dills Creek
From source to Broad River
C
03/01/63
9 -33
Hayes Lake
Entire lake and connecting
C
03/01/63
9 -34
stream to Broad River
Richardson Creek
From source to Broad River
C
03/01/63
9 -35
McKinney Creek (McKenny
From source to Broad River
C
03/01/63
9 -36
Creek)
Arrowood Branch
From North Carolina -South
C
03/01/63
9 -36 -1
Carolina State Line to
McKinney Creek
Floyds Creek
From source to Broad River
C
03/01/63
9 -37
Long Branch
From source to Floyds Creek
C
03/01/63
9 -37 -1
Bracketts Creek
From source to Floyds Creek
C
09/01/74
9 -37 -2
Big Horse Creek
From North Carolina -South
C
08/03/92
9 -38
Carolina State Line to Broad
River
Goodes Creek
From source to Broad River
C
08/03/92
9 -39
Cane Creek
From source to Broad River
C
08/03/92
9 -40
Second Broad River
From source to a point 0 4
WS -V
08/01/98
9 -41 -(0 5)
mile downstream of
Rutherford County SR 1504
Wilson Branch
From source to Second
WS -V
08/03/92
9 -41 -1
Broad River
Hicks Branch
From source to Second
WS -V
08/03/92
9 -41 -2
Broad River
Rock Creek
From source to Second
WS -V
08/03/92
9 -41 -3
Broad River
Beaverdam Branch
From source to Second
WS -V
08/03/92
9 -41 -4
Broad River
Camp Branch
From source to Second
WS -V
08/03/92
9 -41 -5
Broad River
Scrub Grass Branch
From source to Second
WS -V
08/03/92
9 -41 -6
Broad River
7

NC DENR - DIVISON OF WATER QUALITY
2B 0300
0306 BROAD RIVER BASIN
Classification
Name of Stream
Description
Class
Date
Index No
Bakers Creek
From source to Second
WS -V
08/03/92
9 -41 -7
Broad River
Wolfpen Branch
From source to Bakers Creek
WS -V
08/03/92
9 -41 -7 1
Gray Branch
From source to Bakers Creek
WS -V
08/03/92
9- 41 -7 -2
Rockhouse Creek
From source to Second
WS -V
08/03/92
9 -41 -8
Broad River
Wheeler Branch
From source to Rockhouse
WS -V
08/03/92
9- 41 -8 -1
Creek
Stoney Creek
From source to Second
WS -V
06/03/92
9 -41 -9
Broad Raver
California Branch
From source to Stoney Creek
WS -V
08/03/92
9- 41 -9 -1
Box Creek
From source to Second
WS -V
08/03/92
9 -41 -10
Broad River
Second Broad River
From a point 0.4 mile
WS -IV
08/01/96
9- 41 -(10 5)
downstream of Rutherford
County SR 1504 to a point
0 8 mile upstream of mouth
of Catheys Creek
Big Camp Creek (Camp
From source to a point C 5
WS -V
08/01/98
9- 41 -11 -(0 3)
Creek)
mile upstream of mouth of
Crawley Branch
Gap Branch
From source to Big Camp
WS -V
08/01/98
9- 41 -11 -1
Creek
Shoal Branch
From source to Gap Branch
WS -V
08/01/98
9- 41- 11 -1 -1
Buncomb Branch
From source to Big Camp
WS -V
08/01/98
9- 41 -11 -2
Creek
Big Camp Creek (Camp
From a point 0 5 mile
WS -IV
08/01/98
9- 41 -11 -(2 5)
Creek)
upstream of mouth of Crawley
Branch to Second Broad River
Crawley Branch (Crawley
From source to a point 0 4
WS -V
08/01/96
9- 41- 11 -3 -(1)
Creek)
mile upstream of mouth
Crawley Branch (Crawley
From a point 0 4 mile
WS -IV
08/01/98
9- 41- 11 -3 -(2)
Creek)
upstream of mouth to Big
Camp Creek
Frog Creek
From source to Big Camp
WS -IV
09/01/94
9- 41 -11 -4
Creek
Little Camp Creek
From source to a point 1 5
WS -V
08/01/98
9- 41- 11 -5 -(1)
mile upstream of
Rutherford County SR 1513
Little Camp Creek
From a point 1 5 mile
WS -IV
08/01/98
9- 41- 11 -5 -(2)
upstream of Rutherford
County SR 1513 to Big Camp
Creek
Cane Creek
From source to mouth of Fork
WS -V
08 /01/98
9- 41 -12 -(0 3)
Creek
8

NC DENR - DIVISON OF WATER QUALITY
2B 0300
0306 BROAD RIVER
BASIN
Classification
Name of Stream
Description
Class
Date
Index No
Shoal Creek
From source to Cane Creek
WS -V
08103192
9- 41 -12 -1
Weaver Branch
From source to Shoal Creek
WS -V
C8/03/92
9- 41- 12 -1 -1
Kelly Branch
From source to Cane Creek
WS -V
08/03/92
9- 41 -12 -2
Green Brancn
From source to Cane Creek
WS -V
08/03/92
9- 41 -12 -3
Walker Branch
From source to Cane Creek
WS -V
08/01/98
9- 41 -12 -4
Fork Creek
From source to Cane Creek
WS -V
08/01/98
9- 41 -12 -5
Queen Branch
From source to Fork Creek
WS -V
08/01/98
9- 41- 12 -5-1
Cane Creek
From mouth of Fork Creek
WS -IV
08/01/98
9- 41 -12 -(5 5)
to Second Broad River
Mountain Creek
From source to a point 1 2
WS -V
06/01/98
9- 41- 12 -6 -(1)
miles upstream of mouth
Mountain Creek
From a point 1 2 miles
WS -IV
08/01/98
9- 41- 12 -6 -(2)
upstream of mouth to Cane
Creek
Second Broad River
From a point 0 8 mile
WS -IV CA
09/01/94
9- 41 -(12 3)
upstream of mouth of Catheys
Creek to a point 0 3 mile
upstream of Catheys Creek
(Town of Forest City water
supply intake)
Second Broad River
From a point 0 3 mile
WS -V
08/01/98
9- 41 -(12 7)
upstream of Catheys Creek to
a point 0.6 mile upstream of
Webbs Creek
Catheys Creek
From source to dam at old
WS -V
08/03/92
9- 41 -13 -(0 5)
Duke Power Co 's Raw Water
Supply Intake
Lewis Creek
From source to Catheys Creek
WS -V
08/03/92
9- 41 -13 -1
Harris Creek
From source to Catheys Creek
WS -V
08/03/92
9 -41 -13-2
Cobb Branch
From source to Harris Creek
WS -V
08/03/92
9- 41- 13 -2 -1
Mill Creek
From source to Catheys Creek
WS -V
08/03/92
9- 41 -13 -3
Cherry Creek
From source to Catheys Creek
WS -V
08/03/92
9- 41 -13 -5
Catheys Creek
From dam at old Duke Power
C
09/01/74
9- 41- 13 -(6)
Co Raw Water Supply
Reservoir to S Broad R
Hollands Creek
From source to Duke Power
WS -V
08/03/92
9- 41- 13 -7 -(l)
Co old Auxiliary Raw
Water Supply Intake
Reynolds Creek
From source to Hollands
C
03/01/77
9- 41- 13 -7 -2
Creek
Hollands Creek
From Duke Power Cc old
C
09/01/74
9- 41- 13 -7 -(3)
Auxiliary Raw Water Supply
Intake to Catheys Creek
Case Branch (Cox
From source to Hollands
C
03/01/77
9- 41- 13 -7 -4
Branch)
Creek
E

NC DENR - DIVISON OF WATER QUALITY
2B 0300
0306 BROAD RIVER
BASIN
Classification
Name of Stream
Description
Class
Date
index No
Roberson Creek
From source to Second
WS -V
08/03/92
9 -41 -14
(Robinson Creek)
Broad River
Heaveners Creek
From source to Roberson
WS -V
08/03/92
9- 41 -14 -1
Creek
Hunting Creek
From source to Roberson
WS -V
08/03/92
9- 41 -14 -2
Creek
Forest Lake
Entire lake and connecting
WS -V
08/03/92
9 -41 -15
stream to Second Broad River
Buck Branch
From source to Second
WS -V
08/01/98
9 -41 -16
Broad River
Big Sprang Branch
From source to Second
WS -V
08/01/98
9 -41 -17
Broad River
McMurray Branch
From source to Big Spring
WS -V
08/01/98
9- 41 -17 -1
Branch
Webbs Branch
From source to Second
WS -V
08/01/98
9 -41 -18
Broad River
Puzzle Creek
From source to Second
WS -V
08/01/98
9 -41 -19
Broad River
Morrow Creek
From source to Second
WS -V
08/01/98
9 -41-20
Broad River
Copper Mine Branch
From source to Morrow Creek
WS -V
08/01/98
9- 41 -20 -1
Holland Creek
From source to Second
WS -V
08/01/98
9 -41 -21
Broad River
Second Broad River
From a point 0 6 mile
WS -IV
08/01/98
9- 41 -(21 5)
upstream of Webbs Creek to a
point 0 5 mile upstream of
Cone Mills Water Supply
Intake
Webbs Creek
From source to a point 0 3
WS -V
08/01/98
9- 41- 22 -(1)
mile upstream of mouth
Webbs Creek
From a point 0.3 mile
WS -IV
08/01/98
9- 41- 22 -(2)
upstream of mouth to
Second Broad River
Hog Pen Branch
From source to Second
WS -IV
08/03/92
9 -41 -23
Broad River
Hills Creek
From source to Rutherford
WS -V
08/01/98
9- 41- 24 -(1)
County SR 1982
Hills Creek
From Rutherford County SR
WS -Iv
08/01/98
9- 41- 24 -(2)
1982 to Second Broad River
Second Broad River
From a point 0 5 mile
WS -IV CA
08/03/92
9-41 -(24 3)
upstream of Cone Mills Water
Supply Intake to Cone
Mills Water Supply Intake
10

NC DENR - DIVISON OF WATER QUALITY
0306 BROAD RIVER BASIN
2B 0300
11
Classification
Name of Stream
Description
Class
Date
Index No
Second Broad River
From Cone Mills Water Supply
C
08/03/92
9- 41 -(24 7)
Intake to Broad River
Riddles Creek
From source to Second
C
08/03/92
9 -41 -25
Broad River
Suck Creek
From North Carolina -South
C
08/03/92
9 -42
Carolina State Line to Broad
River
Lake Houser
Entire lake and connecting
C
03/01/63
9 -43
stream to Broad River
Ashworth Creek
From North Carolina -South
C
08/03/92
9 -44
Carolina State Line to Broad
River
Jones Branch
From source to Broad River
C
08/03/92
9 -45
Sandy Run Creek
From source to Broad River
C
09/01/74
9 -46
Boween Branch
From source to Sandy Run
C
09/01/74
9 -46 -1
Creek
West Fork Sandy Run
From source to Sandy Run
C
09/01/74
9 -46 -2
Creek
Creek
Buck Branch
From source to West Fork
C
09/01/74
9- 46 -2 -1
Sandy Run Creek
Mayne Creek (East Fork
From source to Sandy Run
C
09/01/74
9 -46 -3
Sandy Run Creek)
Creek
Churcn Branch
From source to Sandy Run
C
09/01/74
9 -46 -4
Creek
Grog Creek
From source to Sandy Run
C
03/01/63
9 -46 -5
Creek
Camp Creek
From source to Broad River
C
08/03/92
9 -47
Jolly Branch
From source to Broad River
C
08/03/92
9 -48
Willis Branch
From source to Broad River
C
08/03/92
9 -49
First Broad River
From source to Cleveland
WS -V Tr
08/01/98
9- 50 -(1)
County SR 1530
Little First Broad
From source to First Broad
C
Tr
03/01/63
9-50 -2
River
River
Sudlow Branch
From source to Little
C
Tr
03/01/63
9- 50 -2 -1
First Broad R
Smalley Creek
From source to Little
C
Tr
03/01/63
9- 50 -2 -2
First Broad R
Molly Fork
From scarce to Smalley Creek
C
Tr
03/01/63
9- 50 -2 -2 -1
Harrison Branch
From source to Molly Fork
C
Tr
03/01/63
9- 50- 2 -2 -1 -1
Somey Creek (McCall
From source to Little
C
Tr
03/01/63
9- 50 -2 -3
Lake)
First Broad River
HardDargin Branch
From source to Somey Creek
C
Tr
03/01/63
9- 50 -2 -3 -1
Three Springs
From source to Somey Creek
C
Tr
03/01/63
9- 50 -2 -3 -2
Branch
11

NC DENR - DIVISON OF WATER QUALITY
2B 0300
0306 BROAD RIVER
BASIN
Classification
Name of Stream
Description
Class
Date
Index No
Grayson Creek
From source
to First Broad
C Tr
03/01/63
9 -50 -3
River
Devils Fork
From source
to Grayson Creek
C Tr
03/01/63
9- 50 -3 -1
North Fork First Broad
From source
to First Broad
C Tr
03/01/63
9 -50 -4
River
River
Roper Creek
From source
to North Fork
C Tr
03/01/63
9- 50 -4 -1
First Broad
River
Johanna Branch
From source
to Roper Creek
C Tr
03/01/63
9- 50 -4 -1 -1
Negro Creek
From source
to North Fork
C Tr
03/01/63
9- 50 -4 -2
First Broad
River
Sally Queen Creek
From source
to North Fork
C Tr
03/01/63
9- 50 -4 -3
First Broad
River
Collins Creek
From source
to North Fork
C Tr
03/01/63
9- 50 -4 -4
First Broad
River
South Creek (South
From source
to First Broad
C Tr
03/01/63
9 -50 -5
Fork)
River
Allen Branch
From source
to South Creek
C Tr
03/01/63
9- 50 -5 -1
Smart Branch
From source
to South Creek
C Tr
03/01/63
9- 50 -5 -2
Buck Hollow Branch
From source
to South Creek
C Tr
03/01/63
9- 50 -5 -3
Big Branch
From source
to First Broad
C Tr
07/01/73
9 -50 -6
River
Beaverdam Creek
From source
to First Broad
C Tr
07/01/73
9 -50 -7
River
Brier Creek
From source
to First Broad
C Tr
08/01/98
9 -50 -8
River
Pot Branch
From source
to Brier Creek
C Tr
03/01/63
9- 50 -8 -1
Pheasant Creek
From source
to Brier Creek
C Tr
08/01/98
9- 50 -8 -2
Mountain Creek
From source
to First Broad
C
08/01/98
9 -50 -9
River
Parker Branch
From source
to First Broad
C
08/01/98
9 -50.10
River
First Broad River
From Cleveland County SR
WS -V
08/0:/98
9- 50 -(11)
1530 to mouth
of Hinton
Creek
No Business Creek
From source
to First Broad
C
08/01/98
9 -50 -11 5
River
Wards Creek
From source
to First Broad
C
08/01/98
9 -50 -12
River
Tims Creek
From source
to Wards Creek
C
08/01/98
9- 50 -12 -1
Cove Creek
From source
to Wards Creek
C Tr
08/01/98
9- 50 -12 -2
Cox Creek
From source
to Wards Creek
C
08/01/98
9- 50 -12 -3
Duncans Creek
From source
to First Broad
C
08101198
9 -50 -13
River
Isham Fork
From source
to Duncans Creek
C
09/01/74
9- 50 -13 -1
Cub Creek
From source
to Duncans Creek
C
08/01/98
9- 50 -13 -2
12

NC DENR - DIVISON OF WATER QUALITY
0306 BROAD RIVER BASIN
2B 0300
13
Classification
Name of Stream
Description
Class
Date
Index No
Thompson Branch
From source to Duncans Creek
C
08/01/98
9- 50 -13 -3
Long Branch
From source to Duncans Creek
C
08/01/98
9- 50 -13 -4
Big Branch
From source to First Broad
C
08/01/98
9 -50 -14
River
Hinton Creek
From source to First Broad
C
08/01/98
9 -50 -15
River
Green Branch
From source to Hinton. Creek
C
09/01/74
9- 50 -15 -1
Taylor Branch
From source to Hinton Creek
C
08/01/98
9- 50 -15 -2
Sig Springs Branch
From source to Hinton Creek
C
08/01/98
9- 50 -15 -3
Dark Hollow Branca
From source to Hinton Creek
C
08/01/98
9- 50 -15 -4
Flint Hill Creek
From source to Hinton Creek
C
08/01/98
9- 50 -15 -5
First Broad River
From mouth of Hinton Creek
WS -IV
08/01/98
9- 50 -(15 5)
to a point 1 1 mile
downstream of Crooked Run
Creek
Stoney Run Creek
From source to a point 0 2
C
08/01/98
9- 50- 16 -(1)
mile downstream of N.0 Hwy
10
Stoney Run Creek
From a point 0 2 mile
WS -TV
08/01/98
9- 50- 16 -(2)
downstream of N C Hwy 10
to First Broad River
Grassy Branch
From source to First Broad
WS -IV
08/03/92
9 -50 -17
River
Crooked Run Creek
From source to a point 0 3
C
06/01/98
9- 50- 18 -(1)
mile downstream of Cleveland
County SR 1518
Crooked Run Creek
From a point 0 3 mile
WS -IV
08/01/98
9- 50- 18 -(2)
downstream of Cleveland
County SR 1518 to First
Broad River
First Broad River
From a point 1 1 mile
WS -IV CA
08/01/98
9- 50 -(18 5)
downstream of Crooked Run
Creek to Cleveland County
Sanitary District Raw
Water Supply Intake (lust
below Knob Creek)
Knob Creek (Big Knob
From source to a point 0 3
C
08/01/98
9- 50 -19 -(0 5)
Creek)
mile downstream of Adams
Creek
Poundingmill Creek
From source to Knob Creek
C
09/01/74
9- 50 -19 -1
Adams Branch
From source to Knob Creek
C
C9/01/74
9 -50 -19 2
Knob Creek (Big Knob
From a point 0 3 mile
WS -IV
08/01/98
9- 50 -19 -(2 5)
Creek)
downstream of Adams Creek to
a point 0 6 mile upstream of
mouth
13

NC DENR - DIVISON OF WATER QUALITY
0306 BROAD RIVER BASIN
Name of Stream
Little Knob Creek
Bald Knob Creek
Little Knob Creek
Knob Creek (Big Knob
Creek)
First Broad River
Maple Creek
Bracketts Creek
Magness Creek
Shoal Rock Creek
Big Harris Creek
Little Harris Creek
Williams Creek
First Broad River
Unnamed Tributary
between Shelby Raw
Water Intakes (North
Club Lake)
Unnamed Tributary
between Shelby Raw
Water Intakes
First Broad River
Description Class
From source to Cleveland C
County SR 1634
From source to Little Knob C
Creek
From Cleveland County SR WS -IV
1634 to Knob Creek
From a point 0 6 mile WS -IV CA
upstream of mouth to First
Broad River
From Cleveland County WS -IV
Sanitary District Raw
Water Supply Intake (just
below Knob Creek) to a point
1 0 mile upstream of
Shelby downstream Raw
Water Intake
From source to First Broad WS -IV
River
From source to First Broad WS -IV
River
From source to First Broad wS -IV
River
From source to First Broad WS -IV
River
From source to First Broad WS -IV
River
From source to Big Harris WS -Iv
Creek
From source to First Broad WS -IV
River
From a point 1 0 mile WS -IV CA
upstream of Shelby
downstream Raw Water
Intake to Shelby
downstream Raw Water Intake
From source to a point 0 5 WS -IV
mile upstream of mouth
Classification
Date Index Nc
08/01/98 9- 50- 19 -3 -�0 S)
09/01/74 9- 50- 19 -3 -1
08/01/98 9- 50- 19 -3 -(2)
08/01/98 9- 50- 19 -(4)
08/03/92 9-50 -(19 5)
08/03/92 9 -50 -20
08/03/92 9 -50 -21
08/03/92 9 -50 -23
08/03/92 9 -50 -24
08/03/92 9 -50 -25
08/03/92 9- 50 -25 -1
08/03/92 9-50 -26
08/03/92 9-50 -(26 5)
08/03/92 9- 50- 27 -(1)
From a point 0 5 mile WS -IV CA 08/03/92 9- 50- 27 -(2)
upstream of mouth to First
Broad River
From Shelby Downstream Raw C
water Intake to Broad River
14
03/01/63 9- 50 -(28)
2B 0300

NC DENR - DIVISON OF WATER QUALITY
2B 0300
0306 BROAD RIVER
BASIN
Classification
Name of Stream
Description
Class
Date
Index No.
Brushy Creek
From source to First Broad
C
09/01/74
9 -50 -29
River
East Fork Brushy
From source to Brushy Creek
C
C9/01/74
9- 50 -29 -1
Creek
West Fork Brushy
From source to Brushy Creek
C
09/01/74
9- 50 -29 -2
Creek
Flag Branch
From source to Brushy Creek
C
09/01/74
9- 50 -29 -3
Little Creek
From source to Brushy Creek
C
09/01/74
9- 50 -29 -4
Hickory Creek
From source to First Broad
C
07/01/73
9 -50 -30
River
Beams lake
Entire lake and connecting
C
07/01/73
9 50 -30 -1
stream to Hickory Creek
Little Hickory
From source to Hickory Creek
C
07/01/73
9- 50 -30-2
Creek
Sulphur Springs Branch
From source to Hickory Creek
C
09/01/74
9- 50 -30 -3
(Little Hickory
Creek)
Logan Branch
From source to Sulphur
C
09/01/74
9- 50- 30 -3 -1
Springs Branch
Shoal Creek
From source to First Broad
C
09/01/74
9 -50 -31
River
Bear Creek
From source to Shoal Creek
C
09/01/74
9-50 -31 -1
Beaverdam Creek
From source Lo First Broad
C
09/01/74
9 -50 32
River
Overflow Branch
From source to Beaverdam
C
09/01/74
9- 50 -32 -1
Creek
Swainsville Creek
From source to Beaverdam
C
09/01/74
9- 50 -32 -2
Creek
Sugar Branch
From source to Beaverdam
C
09(02/74
9- 50 -32 -3
Creek
Poplai Branch
From source to Beaverdam
C
09/01/74
9- 50 -32 -4
Creek
Hawkins Branch
From source to Beaverdam
C
09/01/74
9- 50 -32 -5
Creek
Yancey Branch
From source to Broad River
C
02/01/86
9 -50 -33
Diller Branch
From source to Broad River
C
08/03/92
9 -51
Boween River
From source to North
C
03/01/63
9 -52
Carolina -South Carolina
State Line
Wylies Creek
From source to North
C
08/03/92
9 -52 -1
Carolina -South Carolina
State Line
%BUffalolCYees
From source to a point 0 3
WS -III
08/03/92
9- 53 -11)
�'�,`
mile upstream of Long Creek
15

NC DENR - DIVISON OF WATER QUALITY
0306 BROAD RIVER BASIN
2B 0300
16
Classification
Name of Stream
Description
Class
Date
Index No
Little Creek
From source to Buffalo Creek
WS -III
08/03/92
9 -53 -1 3
Glenn Creek
From source to Little Creek
WS -III
08/03/92
9 -53 -1 3 -1
Little Buffalo Creek
From source to Buffalo Creek
WS -III
08/03/92
9.53 -2
Long Branch
From source to Buffalo Creek
WS -III
08/03/92
9 -53 -2 3
FSuck Creekllp�'Q
From source to Buffalo Creek
WS -III
08/03/92
9 -53 -2 7
Buffalo Creek (Kings
From a point 0 3 mile
WS -III CA
08/C3/92
9 -53 -(2 9)
Mountain Reservoir)
upstream of Long Creek to
dam at Icings Mountain
Reservoir, Buffalo Creek
r Long,%Creek$
From source to a point 0 3
WS -III
08/03/92
9- 53 -3 -(1)
mile upstream of mouth
Oonng Creek
From a point 0 3 mile
WS -III CA
08/03/92
9- 53 -3 -(2)
upstream of mouth to
Buffalo Creek
Wh -teoak Creek
From source to a point 0 7
WS -III
08/03/92
9- 53 -4 -(1)
mile upstream of mouth
Whiteoak Creek
From a point 0 7 mile
WS -III CA
DB /D3/92
9- 53 -4 -(2)
upstream of mouth to Kings
Mountain Reservoir,
Buffalo Creek
Buffalo Creek
From dam at Kings Mountain
C
08/03/92
9- 53 -(5)
Reservoir to North
Carolina -South Carolina
State Line
Muddy Fork
From source to Buffalo Creek
C
09/01/74
9 -53 -6
Gilliam Creek
From source to Muddy Fork
C
03/01/77
9- 53 -6 -1
Persimmon Creek
From source to Muddy Fork
C
09/01/74
9- 53 -6 -2
Little Persimmon
From source to Persimmon
C
09/01/74
9- 53 -6 -2 -1
Creek
Creek
Potts CreeK (Pilot
From source to Muddy Fork
C
09/01/74
9- 53 -6 -3
Branch)
Roberts Branch (Does
From source to Dam at Joes
B
03/01/63
9- 53 -7 -(1)
Lake)
Lake
Roberts Branch
From Dam at Joes Lake to
C
03/01/63
9- 53 -7 -(2)
Buffalo Creek
Beason CreeK
From source to Buffalo Creek
C
09/01/74
9 -53 -8
Long Branch
From source to Beason Creek
C
09/01/74
9-53 -8 -1
Wolf Branch
From source to Long Branch
C
09/01/74
9- 53 -8 -1 -1
Jakes Branch
From source to Buffalo Creek
C
03/01/63
9 -53 -9
Lick Branch
From source to Buffalo Creek
C
09/01/74
9 -53 -11
)Sings Creen
From source to North
C
09/01/74
9 -54
Carolina -South Carolina
State Line
Sipe Creek (City
From source to Kings Creek
C
08/03/92
9 -54 -1
Lake)
16

NC DENR - DIVISON OF WATER QUALITY
2B 0300
0306 BROAD RIVER
BASIN
Classification
Name of Stream
Description
Class
Date
Index No
Unnamed Tributary at
From source to Dam at Lake
B HOW
O8 /01 /00
9- 54 -1 -(1)
Lake Montonia (Lake
Montonia
Montonia)
Unnamed Tributary at
From Dam at Lake Montonia to
C
09/01/74
9- 54 -1 -(2)
Lake Montonia
City Lake, Sipe Creek
Davidson Creek
From source to Kings Creek
C
08/03/92
9 -54 -2
(Davidson Lake)
Dixon Branch
From source to North
C
09/01/74
9 -54 -3
Carolina -South Carolina
State Line
Clark Fork
From source to North
C
08/03/92
9 -54 -4
Carolina -South Carolina
State Line
North Pacolet River
From source to North
C Tr
08/03/92
9- 55 -1 -(1)
Carolina Highway # 108
Bridge at Lynn
Shop Creek
From source to North Pacolet
C Tr
08/03/92
9- 55 -1 -2
River
Kelly Creek (Lake
From source to North Pacolet
C Tr
08/03/92
9- 55 -1 -3
Kelly)
River
Joels Creek
From source to North Pacolet
C
08/03/92
9- 55 -1 -4
River
Colt Creek
From source to a point 0 6
WS -II Tr HOW
08/03/92
9-55- 1 -5 -(1)
mile upstream of Tryon Raw
Water Supply Intake
Colt Creek
From a point 0 6 mile
WS -II Tr
08/03/92
9- 55- 1 -5 -(2)
upstream of Tryon Raw
HOW CA
Water Supply Intake to Tryon
Raw Water Supply Intake
Colt Creek
From Tryon Raw Water
C Tr
08/03/92
9- 55- 1 -5 -(3)
Supply Intake to North
Pacolet River
Fork Creek
From source to a point 0 6
WS -II Tr HOW
08/03/92
9- 55- 1 -6 -(1)
mile upstream of Tryon Raw
Water Supply Intake
Fork Creek
From a point 0 6 mile
WS-II Tr
08/03/92
9- 55- 1 -6 -(2)
upstream of Tryon Raw
HOW CA
Water Supply Intake to Tryon
Raw Water Supply Intake
Fork Creek
From Tryon Raw Water
C Tr
08/03/92
9- 55- 1 -6 -(3)
Supply Intake to North
Pacolet River
Bear Creek
From source to North Pacolet
C Tr
08/03/92
9- 55 -1 -7
River
17

NC DENR - DIVISON OF WATER QUALITY
2B 0300
0306 BROAD RIVER
BASIN
Classification
Name of Stream
Description
Class
Date
Index No
Big Falls Creek (Town
From source to a point 0 6
WS -II Tr HOW
08/03/92
9- 55- 1 -8 -(1)
Lake)
mile upstream of Tryon Raw
Water Supply Intake
Big Falls Creek
From a point 0 6 mile
WS -II Tr
08/03/92
9- 55- 1 -8 -(2)
upstream of Tryon Raw
HOW CA
Water Supply Intake to Tryon
Raw Water Supply Intake
Big Falls Creek
From Tryon Raw Water
C Tr
08/03/92
9- 55- 1 -8 -(3)
Supply Intake to North
Pacolet River
Little Fall Creek
From source to North Pacolet
C Ty
OB/03/92
9- 55 -1 -9
River
North Pacolet River
From North Carolina Highway
C
03/01/63
9- 55- 1 -(10)
# 108 at Lynn to North
Carolina -South Carolina
State Line
Skyuka Creek
From source to Dam at Camp
B
03/01/63
9- 55- 1- 11 -(:)
Skyuka Bathing Lake
Skyuka Creek
From Dam at Camp Skyuka
C
03/01/63
9- 55- 1- 11 -(2)
Bathing Lake to North
Pacolet River
Little Creek
From source to North Pacolet
C
03/01/63
9- 55 -1 -11 5
River
Vaughn Creek (North
From North Carolina -South
C
09/01/74
9- 55 -1 -12
Carolina Portion)
Carolina State Line to North
Pacolet River
Little Creek (North
From source to Vaughn Creek
C
09/01/74
9- 55- 1 -12 -1
Carolina Portion)
Horse Creek
From source to a point 0 6
WS -III
08/03/92
9- 55- 1- 13 -(1)
mile upstream of Columbus
Water Supply Intake
Horse Creek
From a point 0 6 mile
WS -III CA
OB/03/92
9- 55- 1 -13 -(1 5)
upstream of Columbus Raw
Water Supply Intake to
Columbus Raw Water Supply
Intake
Horse Creek
From Columbus Raw Water
C
07/01/73
9- 55- 1- 13 -(2)
Supply Intake to North
Pacolet River
Wolfe Creek
From North Carolina -South
C
07/01/73
9- 55 -1 -14
Carolina State Line to North
Pacolet River
Hooper Creek
From source to North
C
09/01/74
9- 55 -1 -15
Carolina -South Carolina
State Line
18

NC DENR - DIVISON OF WATER QUALITY
0306 BROAD RIVER
BASIN
Classification
Name of Stream
Description
Class
Date
Index No
Collinsville Creex
From source to
North
C
09/01/74
9- 55 -1 -16
(Hughes Creek) (Lake
Carolina -South
Carolina
Sandy Plains)
State Line
Marys Branch
From source to
C
09/01/74
Collinsville Creek
Bear Creek
From source to
North
C
09/01/74
9- 55 -1 -17
Carolina -South
Carolina
State Line
Buck Creek
From source to
North
C
09/01/74
9- 55 -2 -1
Carolina -South
Carolina
State Line
Unnamed Tributary to
From source to
North
C
09/01/74
9- 55 -2 -1 -1
Buck Creek
Carolina -South
Carolina
State Line
Note "CA" means critical area
19
2B 0300

NC DENR - DIVISON OF WATER QUALITY
STREAM CLASSIFICATION DESCRIPTIONS
Class Description
B
Primary Recreation, Fresh Water
C
Aquatic Life, Secondary Recreation, Fres
CA
Critical Area
FWS
Future Water Supply Waters
HQW
High Quality Waters
N/A
Not Applicable /Out of State
NSW
Nutrient Sensitive Waters
CRW
Outstanding Resource Waters
SA
Market Shellfishing, Salt Water
SB
Primary Recreation, Salt Water
Sc
Aquatic Life, Secondary Recreation, Salt
Sw
Swamp Waters
Tr
Trout Waters
WS -I
Water Supply 1 -- Natural
WS -II
Water Supply II -- Undeveloped
WS -III
Water Supply III Moderately Developed
WS -IV
Water Supply IV -- Highly Developed
WS -V
Water Supply V -- Upstream
2B 0300

SECTION 3 0
SITE HYDROGEOLOGIC SUMMARY
3.1 Site Description
The proposed Cleveland County Landfill site is located 4 miles northeast of Shelby along US
Highway 150 near the community of Stubbs The site Iles within the Piedmont physlographic
province largely characterized by low, generally rounded hills with gentle to moderately steep
slopes The site sits on the eastern bank of Buffalo Creek —a permanent creek that drains the
mayor portion of the groundwater in this locale —and Is bound on the east by the railroad track
Identified in the USGS quadrangle as the Seaboard Coast Line which runs parallel to Highway 150
through Shelby Access to the site is achieved through State Route (SR) 1918 —an unpaved road
that runs across from Highway 150 to SR 1908 In the northern portion of the property
3.2 Regional Geology
Cleveland County is entirely within the Piedmont geologic province Rocks occurring in the county
represent two distinct geologic belts, the Inner Piedmont Belt and Kings Mountain Belt, although
the occurrence of the Kings Mountain Belt is limited to the southeastern comer of the county Most
of the upland areas are a peneplain that have been heavily dissected by streams Monadnocks
are found in the northwestern and southeastern portions of the county Kings Mountains in the
southeastern corner of the county consist of monadnocks composed of beds of quartzite and
quartz conglomerate
Mica schist in Cleveland County forms the most extensive country rock and is subordinate in
extent only to the granite that intrude it Granite, including the infected bodies in the mica schist
and that in the biotite gneiss and the pegmatites, comprises the greater part of Cleveland County
The mica schist combined with gneiss is the most widespread of all the rocks that occurs in the
county, and probably underlies as much as 75 percent of the total land area These rocks consist
of a series of mica schist, mica gneiss, and granitoid layers, locally porphyntic The mica schist
usually predominates, but the more gneissic rocks may predominate locally The mica schist is
essentially composed of biotite, muscovite, sillimanite, quartz, and a little feldspar Also occurring
in many places are thin, interbedded layers of hornblende gneiss and schist, which include bodies
of quartz monzonite, gabbro, and dikes and lenses of pegmatite.
The mica schist and gneiss complex is deeply weathered as most areas and is covered by a thick
layer of residual clay containing fragments and layers of the parent material The soil cover
overlying the thick residual clay and weathered rock is usually light and thin
The entire area of Cleveland County lies within a seismic impact zone, defined as an area having
a greater- than -10- percent probability that the maximum expected horizontal acceleration
expressed as a percentage of the earth's gravitational pull g will exceed 0 10g in 250 years
No recently active faults lie within two hundred feet of the site, based on a review of the available
geologic maps The closest fault lies 5 miles northeast of the study area and is estimated to
extend roughly from Cherryville to Lincolnton, however, the geologic period in which this fault was
last active is unknown
3.3 Field Investiqation
In this study, total of 33 borings (approximately one boring per 3.3 acres) were utilized across the
study area in order to Investigate and characterize subsurface conditions at the proposed landfill
site Soils from select borings were taken in Shelby tube for laboratory testing to determine soil
properties such as grain size distribution, permeability and soil classification All borings were
logged In the field by MESCO field personnel according to the Unified Soil Classification System
(USCS) Soil samples were collected from each boring and were sealed in containers for visual
inspection Colors of the soil samples were defined by using Munsell color chips to maintain
consistency
P \SOLID WASTE \G02102 - CLEVELAND NEW SITE\DOC \G02102 -SS 7/30/2004 Page 13

3.4 Subsurface Soil Conditions
Soils encountered during the subsurface Investigation were primarily of sand -silt mixture at depth,
but sods of sand /silt mixed with clay and organic debris were dominant within a few feet, and
occasionally 7 -8 feet below land surface The overburden saprolite in the study area retains the
textures of the parent rock from which it was derived It typically exhibited colors of reddish to
yellowish brown which darkened toward saturated to semi- saturated zone, though it also exhibited
granitic texture in some localized places
The area surrounding the proposed landfill site typically has surface sods of Cecil /Pecolet sandy
clay loam as the dominant sod type throughout the uplands of the landfill area Soils of
Toccoa/Chewalca loam are also present near the creeks
Standard penetration tests (SPT) were conducted on all borings Blow counts, as measured per
foot, usually fluctuated between 10 and 40 in those borings on uplands, while borings in the
immediate vicinity of the streams frequently exhibited counts of less than 10 Blow counts
occasionally exceeded 50 in isolated areas where dense materials were encountered
3.5 Hvdrocieoloav
Buffalo Creek, as it originates in Lincoln County and is fed by several of its tributaries, enters
Cleveland County in the northeastern comer Upon entering the county, the creek flows alongside
the eastern county border approximately 10 miles southward before it empties into Kings
Mountain Reservoir, a reservoir that was formed in 1963 by damming Buffalo Creek in order to
supply reservoir for the City of Kings Mountain Buffalo Creek maintains an average width of 30-
40 feet once it enters the landfill property, but it starts to widen to over 100 feet downstream from
the property
Two tributaries —Suck Creek and Long Creek —feed Buffalo Creek while it is in contact with the
proposed landfill site Suck Creek flows southward through the western portion of the site into
Buffalo Creek, while its unnamed tributary flows southwestward through the northern portion of
the site then west into Suck Creek. Suck Creek generally maintains a width of 25 -30 feet, and is
visible from the bridge along the northern access road Long Creek converges with Buffalo Creek
near the south end of the property. Long Creek travels southeastward through the central portion
of the existing landfill property located across Buffalo Creek from the proposed landfill site
Baffalo Creek and its tributaries drain the major part of the proposed landfill area Suck Creek
drains the northern two thirds of the area while Baffalo Creek together with one of its tributaries
drains the remainder of the area on the south side. Suck Creek has several tributaries of its own
that contributes to the site groundwater flow dynamics. Two of its tributaries, one formed
alongside the northwestern boundary of the proposed C &D landfill area, and one alongside its
southern boundary, drain much of that C &D area Most recharge occurs in two highland areas
found north of the proposed C &D and east of the MSW areas downgradient from their respective
watershed divides
Seasonal high water table surface, calculated statistically in combination with two regional
observation wells maintained by USGS, is higher in elevation than our highest observed levels by
less than one foot to over 8 feet, depending upon locations The difference between the statistical
seasonal high and the observed high is directly proportional to the level of water table fluctuation
at a given location, which is usually higher in hilltops than in areas adjacent to the discharging
creeks
3.6 Conclusion
Geological and hydrological data, information, and conclusions indicate no hindrance to the
development and monitoring of the proposed landfill area Available data indicates that the site
does not lie near any recently - active faults No unstable areas or areas subject to mass
movement are found on -site based on field investigations The potentiometric surface indicates no
P \SOLID WASTE\G02102- CLEVELAND NEW SITETOC 1G02102 -SS 7/30/2004 Page 14

complex groundwater conditions that are unfavorable for monitoring of the site for a potential off-
site migration of landfill leachate
P \SOLID WASTE \G02102 - CLEVELAND NEW SITE\DOC \G02102 -SS 7/30/2004 Page 15

SECTION 4 0
LOCATION RESTRICTIONS
4 1 Airport Safetv
There are no Public Use Airports within six (6) miles of the Landfill Facility An Aeronautical map is
provided in Section 2
4.2 Floodplains
There are some Special Flood Hazard areas Zone A located within the property boundary Zone A
indicates that there is no base flood elevations determined in those areas The flood insurance
rate map Panel 200 of 325, dated July 2, 1991 shows the location of the floodplain in relation to
the property line and MSWLF units The flood map is located in this section
4 3 Protected Species and Wetland Delineation
There are no threatened or endangered species or habitats located in the area of the Proposed
site See letter located in this section Wetland areas have been delineated on the Facility
Drawings
4 4 Fault Areas
The proposed Lined Landfill Facility is not located within 200' of a fault that has had displacement
since Holocene time
4 5 Seismic Impact Zones
The site is located in a seismic impact zone The site location is indicated on a reproduced
porbon of the U S Geological Survey Map MF2120 (Map C) from "Probabilistic Earthquake
Acceleration and Velocity Maps for the United States and Puerto Rico" by Algermissen et al, 1990
See Seismic Impact Zone Map provided in this section
4 6 Unstable Areas
Based on a visual reconnaissance and the subsurface exploration, no unstable areas, such as
poor foundation soils and areas susceptible to mass movement, are present at the site
4 7 Cultural Resources
The Cultural Resource survey located fourteen (14) historic archaeological sites Thirteen of the
sites do not appear to be potentially eligible for the National Register of Histonc Places (National
Register) Site 31CL76 is recommended eligible for listing in the National Register Since the site
lies In the buffer zone, it will not be disturbed
The facility drawings show the location of the one eligible historic site The Facility Drawings are
located in Appendix B The report and the North Carolina Department of Cultural Resources
Letter is located in Appendix C.
4 8 State Nature and Histonc Preserve
There will be no adverse impact to a State Nature and Historic Preserve since there are no State
Nature and Historic Preserves within the Proposed Landfill Facility
P \SOLID WASTE \G02102 - CLEVELAND NEW SITE \DOC \G02102 -SS 7/30/2004 Page 16

4 9 Water Supply Watersheds
Most of Buffalo Creek is classified as C TR I and Suck Creek, from source to Buffalo Creek, is
classified as WS -III (see map provided by Cleveland County WebGIS and the Broad River Water
Basin study by NCDENR -Div Of Water Quality, in this section), there is a small portion of Buffalo
Creek beginning from a point 0 3 miles upstream from Long Creek to dam at Kings Mountain
Reservoir that is classified WS -111 CA There are no surface water intakes within the two (2) mile
perimeter WS -III is classified as waters protected as water supplies which are generally in low to
moderately developed watersheds, point source discharges of treated wastewater are permitted,
and CA indicates Critical Area All water classifications are listed on the last page of the NCDENR
Broad River Water Basin Study included in Section 2
P \SOLID WASTEkG02102- CLEVELAND NEW SITE\DOC \G02102 -SS 7/30/2004 Page 17

INSERT FLOOD MAP
P \SOLID WASTE\G02102- CLEVELAND NEW SITE\DOC \G02102 -SS 7/3012004 Page 18

v
a
I a
P,
I a
I 4
C
a
1
a
A
,y
ME
\ ME,
DIM—
I DID
r
� FAQ
I�
f i
0 9
e
_ ■ .. C _. D
CLEVELAND COUNTY
MUNICIPAL SOLID WASTE LANDFILL
SITE STUDY
KOIECI DC cC-2
SCALE AS SNDwH
DIM 03/31/03
THIS AREA IS SHOWN ON MAP PANEL 370302 0190 ® AQQ
ElE1ogM1Y9BQaa.,s....—
9i
i
I&
it
`L.
f
` SOMEA
SOME x
FIRM
ROOD IIR■MQ WE 0w
CLEVELAND
coumff
NORTH CAROLINA
RRRExbRE'aRA'Em AREAS)
cmm umaum 02w02c
n0202 0200 e
menrc WL
w2. m
�xEre.o Y.MA�A/s>
_LEGEND
p`4\+,
®o
/ FRME x
DID ME
V
�•
\
smx
IDMEx
/
ME.
SOME.
7M \
-
SOME.
1 `
a\
v
L i ®'
EA I rl
—x
\
EONE A J
id OEM ROOD I®EW RIOtlW `
` SOMEA
SOME x
FIRM
ROOD IIR■MQ WE 0w
CLEVELAND
coumff
NORTH CAROLINA
RRRExbRE'aRA'Em AREAS)
cmm umaum 02w02c
n0202 0200 e
menrc WL
w2. m
�xEre.o Y.MA�A/s>

INSERT SEISMIC IMPACT ZONE MAP
P \SOLID WASTE \G02102 - CLEVELAND NEW SITE \DOC \G02102 -SS 7/30/2004 Page 19

It 9-111
I 'V r \ ( C -
..�,
4
,1,4 rr
3
2.5
i
R
HORIZONTAL ACCELERATION (90 PERCENT PROBABILITY OF NOT BEING EXCEEDED IN 250 YEARS) Municipal (� �� L_ _ Engineering
@e(1�i9
Seances f• Company, P.A
EXPLANATION �+ W" �'_
5 Contour - Horizontal acceleration expressed as a
percent of gravity Some areas show acceleration SITE STUDY
values without contours CLEVELAND COUNTY MSW LANDFILL FACILITY
SOURCE Algermissen, S T at al, Probablisbc Earthquake Acceleration for the Untied LOCATION RESTRICTIONS
States and Puerto Rico- U S Geologic Surveyy Map MF2120 (Map C), 1990 SEISMIC IMPACT ZONES

SECTION 5 0
FACILITY REPORT
5.1 Hvdrooeoloav
Buffalo Creek, as It originates in Lincoln County and is fed by several of Its tributaries, enters
Cleveland County in the northeastern corner Upon entering the county, the creek flows alongside
the eastern county border approximately 10 miles southward before it empties into Kings
Mountain Reservoir, a reservoir that was formed in 1963 by damming Buffalo Creek in order to
supply reservoir for the City of Kings Mountain Buffalo Creek maintains an average width of 30-
40 feet once it enters the landfill property, but it starts to widen to over 100 feet downstream from
the property
Two tributaries —Suck Creek and Long Creek —feed Buffalo Creek while it is in contact with the
proposed landfill site Suck Creek flows southward through the western portion of the site into
Buffalo Creek, while its unnamed tributary flows southwestward through the northern portion of
the site then west into Suck Creek Suck Creek generally maintains a width of 25 -30 feet, and is
visible from the bridge along the northern access road Long Creek converges with Buffalo Creek
near the south end of the property. Long Creek travels southeastward through the central portion
of the existing landfill property located across Buffalo Creek from the proposed landfill site
Baffalo Creek and its tributaries drain the major part of the proposed landfill area Suck Creek
drains the northern two thirds of the area while Baffalo Creek together with one of its tributaries
drains the remainder of the area on the south side Suck Creek has several tributaries of its own
that contributes to the site groundwater flow dynamics Two of its tributaries, one formed
alongside the northwestern boundary of the proposed C &D landfill area, and one alongside its
southern boundary, drain much of that C &D area Most recharge occurs in two highland areas
found north of the proposed C &D and east of the MSW areas downgradient from their respective
watershed divides
Seasonal high water table surface, calculated statistically in combination with two regional
observation wells maintained by USGS, is higher in elevation than our highest observed levels by
less than one foot to over 8 feet, depending upon locations The difference between the statistical
seasonal high and the observed high is directly proportional to the level of water table fluctuation
at a given location, which is usually higher in hilltops than in areas adjacent to the discharging
creeks
5 2 Waste Stream
5 2 1 Waste TVDes
The Facility will accept Municipal Solid Waste, any solid waste resulting from the operation
of residential, commercial, industrial, governmental, or institutional establishments that
would normally be collected, processed, and disposed of through a public or private solid
waste management service is considered Municipal Solid Waste
Construction /Demolition and Land Clearing and Inert Debris will be accepted at this facility
and will be disposed of in the Construction /Demolition Landfill
Spoiled foods, animal carcasses, abattoir waste, hatchery waste, and other animal waste
will be accepted and will be covered immediately upon dumping
Asbestos waste shall be accepted and managed in accordance with 40 CFR 61 The waste
shall be covered Immediately with soil In a manner that will not cause airborne conditions
and must be disposed of separate and apart from other solid wastes
P \SOLID WASTEXG02102- CLEVELAND NEW SITEXDOC IG02102 -SS 713012004 Page 20

At the bottom of the working face or,
it In an area not contiguous with other disposal areas Separate areas shall be
clearly designated so that asbestos Is not exposed by future land disturbing
activities
Wastewater treatment sludges may be accepted and co- disposed In the lined area
Hazardous waste as defined within 15A NCAC 13A, to also include hazardous waste from
conditional exempt small quantity generators, Polychlonnated biphenyls (PCB) waste as
defined in 40 CFR 761 are prohibited.
5 2 2 Disposal Rates
The Proposed Facility will be open for 5 5 days per week The tonnage per day from the
existing landfill from July 1, 2002 to June 30, 2003 was approximately 303 tons per day The
average monthly disposal rates will be approximately 7,226 tons per month However, this
will change with the next fiscal year due to the waste that was being disposed at the
Cleveland Container Industrial Landfill Is now being disposed In the Cleveland County
Landfill The winter months see a decrease of the average monthly tonnage rates The life
of the Facility will depend on Disposal Rates and Compaction, which can vary throughout
the life of the Facility This variance can either Increase or decrease the life of the Facility
All calculations are based on current data, but over the life of the facility, the variables will
change
5 2 3 Service Area
The landfill will accept all waste from Cleveland County
5 2 4 Waste Segregation
The Cleveland County Lined Landfill Facility will segregate Municipal Solid Waste, Yard
Waste, Construction and Demolition debris, Recyclables, White Goods, and Tires The
Facility will use the current access route from the existing Sanitary Landfill Facility, and the
attendant at the existing scale house will direct Incoming wastes to their appropriate areas
Waste Segregation will continue to occur at the existing facility, with MSW wastes being the
only types of waste being disposed in the new MSWLF units All other wastes segregated
will go to their respective landfills and /or storage facilities
5 2 5 Equipment Requirements
Cleveland County Lined Landfill Facility will use the following equipment
1. 2 -355 Rex Compactors and 1- Caterpillar 826 Compactor
2 1 -Case 1455 Loader
3 2- Caterpillar 615 Pans
4 1- Caterpillar D6 Dozer
5 1 -Ford 655 -D Backhoe
6 1- Gallon 2500 Motorgrader
7 1- Massey- Ferguson 1180 Tractor
5 3 Landfill Capaciht
The Life Expectancy calculations were calculated for Phases 1 -6 of development with a vertical
expansion being included when a Phase Is constructed adjacent to the previous Phase The
P \SOLID WASTE \G02102 - CLEVELAND NEW SITE\DOC \G02102 -SS 7/30/2004 Page 21

development of each phase and vertical expansion with 4 1 side slopes The Operation Plan of
the Engineering Report will delineate this more clearly Each individual Phase and associated
vertical expansion's volume Is estimated
LIFE EXPECTANCY CALCULATIONS PHASES 1 -6
CLEVELAND COUNTY SOLID WASTE LINED LANDFILL
Given
History of Scale Record
Compaction Rate
Waste to Daily Cover Ratio.
*Landfill Volume Available
Total Site Volume
Waste Generated/Year
Total Volume/Year
(Waste & Daily Cover)
Life Expectancy
*Determined by AutoCadd computer program
= 173,434,000 #'s per year
= 1000# /cubic yards
= 5.1 (Fabrasod)
= 13,655,327 cubic yards
= 173,434,000 # /1000 # /c y
= 173,434 c y per year
= 173,434 c.y (1 20)
= 208,121 c y
= 13,655,327 c y — 208,121 c y
= 65 6 years
P \SOLID WASTE \G02102 - CLEVELAND NEW SITE\DOC \G02102 -SS 7/30/2004 Page 22

LIFE EXPECTANCY CALCULATIONS PHASE 1
CLEVELAND COUNTY SOLID WASTE LINED LANDFILL
Given
History of Scale Record = 173,434,000 #'s per year
Compaction Rate = 1000 # /cubic yards
Waste to Daily Cover Ratio = 5 1 (Fabrasod)
*Landfill Volume Available = 3,069,842 cubic yards
Total Site Volume
Waste Generated/Year
Total Volume/Year
(Waste & Daily Cover)
= 173,434,000 # /1000# /c y
= 173,434 c y per year
= 173,434 c y (1 20)
= 208,121 c y
Life Expectancy = 3,069,842 c y - 208,121 c y
= 14 8 years
LIFE EXPECTANCY CALCULATIONS PHASE 2
CLEVELAND COUNTY SOLID WASTE LINED LANDFILL
Given
History of Scale Record = 173,434,000 #'s per year
Compaction Rate = 1000# /cubic yards
Waste to Daily Cover Ratio = 5 1 (Fabrasod)
*Landfill Volume Available = 1,889,177 cubic yards
Total Site Volume
Waste Generated/Year
Total Volume/Year
(Waste & Daily Cover)
Life Expectancy
'Determined by AutoCadd computer program
= 173,434,000#/1000 # /c y
= 173,434 c y per year
= 173,434 c y (1 20)
= 208,121 c y
= 1, 889,177 c y X208,121 c y
= 9.1 years
P \SOLID WASTE\G02102- CLEVELAND NEW SITE \DOC \G02102 -SS 7/30/2004 Page 23

LIFE EXPECTANCY CALCULATIONS PHASE 3
CLEVELAND COUNTY SOLID WASTE LINED LANDFILL
Given
History of Scale Record = 173,434,000 #'s per year
Compaction Rate = 1000# /cubic yards
Waste to Dally Cover Ratio = 5 1 (Fabrasoil)
*Landfill Volume Available. = 1,575,615 cubic yards
Total Site Volume
Waste Generated/Year
Total Volume/Year
(Waste & Daily Cover)
= 173,434,000#/1000#/c y
= 173,434 c y per year
= 173,434 c y (1 20)
= 208,121 c y
Life Expectancy = 1,575,615 c y _ 208,121 c y
= 7 6 years
LIFE EXPECTANCY CALCULATIONS PHASE 4
CLEVELAND COUNTY SOLID WASTE LINED LANDFILL
Given
History of Scale Record
= 173,434,000 #'s per year
Compaction Rate
= 1000# /cubic yards
Waste to Daily Cover Ratio
= 5 1 (Fabrasoil)
*Landfill Volume Available
= 2,594,232 cubic yards
Total Site Volume
Waste Generated/Year
= 173,434,000#/1000#/c y
= 173,434 c y per year
Total Volume/Year
= 173,434 c y (1 20)
(Waste & Daily Cover)
= 208,121 c y
Life Expectancy
= 2,594,232 c y - 208,121 c y
= 12 5 years
*Determined by AutoCadd computer program
P \SOLID WASTE \G02102 - CLEVELAND NEW SITE \DOC \G02102 -SS 7/3012004 Page 24

LIFE EXPECTANCY CALCULATIONS PHASE 5
CLEVELAND COUNTY SOLID WASTE LINED LANDFILL
Given,
History of Scale Record
Compaction Rate
Waste to Daily Cover Ratio
'Landfill Volume Available
Total Site Volume
Waste Generated/Year
Total Volume/Year
(Waste & Daily Cover)
= 173,434,000 #'s per year
= 1000 # /cubic yards
= 5"1 (Fabrasoil)
= 1,415,383 cubic yards
= 173,434,000 # /1000 # /c y
= 173,434 c y per year
= 173,434 c y (1 20)
= 208,121 c y
Life Expectancy = 1,415,383 c y — 208,121 c y
= 6 8 years
LIFE EXPECTANCY CALCULATIONS PHASE 6
CLEVELAND COUNTY SOLID WASTE LINED LANDFILL
Given
History of Scale Record
Compaction Rate
Waste to Daily Cover Ratio,
'Landfill Volume Available
Total Site Volume
Waste Generated/Year
Total Volume/Year
(Waste & Daily Cover)
Life Expectancy
= 173,434,000 #'s per year
= 1000# /cubic yards
= 5 1 (Fabrasoil)
= 3,113,079 cubic yards
= 173,434,000 # /1000# /c y
= 173,434 c y, per year
= 173,434 c y (1 20)
= 208,121 c.y
= 3,113, 079 c y — 208,121 c y
= 15 0 years
SOIL CALCULATIONS PHASES1 -6
CLEVELAND COUNTY SOLID WASTE LINED LANDFILL
Soil Available on Site
= 7,598,512 c y
Sod Needed for Construction
= 866,199 c y
Soil Needed for Daily Cover
= 2,275,888 c y.
Sod Needed for Closure
= 692,959 c y
Total Soil Needed = 3,835,046 c y
Note There is an excess of 3,763,466 c y of sod to be stockpiled and
at the MSW Landfill site
"Determined by AutoCadd computer program
P \SOLID WASTE \G02102 - CLEVELAND NEW SITE\DOC \G02102 -SS 7/30/2004 Page 25

5 4 Containment and Environmental Control Svstems
Cleveland County Lined Landfill Facility will be constructed with a Base Liner System consisting of
a cohesive sod liner with a permeability no greater than 1 0 x 10-7 cm /sec, sixty (60) mil High
Density Polyethylene (HDPE) liner, 3' of protective cover, and leachate collection system
consisting of leachate trenches and pipes to collect the leachate The leachate will pumped into a
leachate lagoon The waste will be covered daily with either a synthetic cover and /or on -site sods
to control disease vectors The cap system will consist of twelve inches (12 ") of bridging matenal
(temporary cover), eighteen inches (18 ") of soil liner with a permeability no greater than 10 x 10-5
cm /sec, forty (40) mil Linear Low Density Polyethylene (LLDPE) flexible membrane liner, drainage
layer, and twenty four inches (24 ") of protective /erosive layer The cap will contain a gas venting
system consisting of a series of washed stone trenches below the soil liner that will be vented
through pipes that penetrate the cap The cap system will also include the proper seeding and
mulching of the erosive layer and other erosion control devices
5 5 Special Enpineenna Features
Cleveland County Lined Landfill Facility will have storm water diversion berms within each phase
,of development The Facility Phases have been laid out to utilize the existing drainage features to
minimize the amount of surface water draining toward the landfill phases The Facility will consist
of six (6) Phases of development The Facility will be located on approximately 446 92 acres of
land with 107 38 acres being used for Municipal Solid Waste Landfill Phase 1 will be built first
and will consist of approximately 24 14 acres Phase 2 will be constructed approximately five (5)
years later and will consist of about 14 84 acres Phase 3 will be constructed about 5 years after
Phase 2 and will contain approximately 12 39 acres Phase 4 will be constructed about five (5)
years after Phase 3 and will consists of approximately 20 40 acres Phase 5 will be constructed
approximately five (5) years after Phase 4 and will contain approximately 11 13 acres Finally,
Phase 6 will be constructed and will contain approximately 24 48 acres The remaining acreage
shall be used for the borrow area, Construction and Demolition Landfill and buffer Storm water
coming into contact with solid waste is leachate and will be sent to the leachate tanks The
leachate will be recirculated and /or treated at the Town of Shelby Waste Water Treatment Facility
P \SOLID WASTE\G02102- CLEVELAND NEW SITE \DOC \G02102 -SS 7/30/2004 Page 26

APPENDIX A
P \SOLID WASTE \G02102 - CLEVELAND NEW SITE\DOC \G02102 -SS 7/30/2004 Page 27

Oct 6. 2004 1:104
OVA
PLANNING DEPARTMENT
Cleveland County Landfill
Sam Lockeridge
Cleveland County Landfill
1607 Airport Road
Shelby, NC 28150
Dear Sam:
No.579A P. 7
P.O. BOX 1210 SHELBY, NORTH CAROLINA 28151 -1210
704 - 484 -4979 or 704- 484 -4975
www.develandcounty.com
October 16, 2003
RE: Notice of Local Zoning and
Subdivision Consistency
Determination
Parcel #16732
This is notification that the above referenced property located on
Fielding Road, is located within a Heavy Industrial (141) zoning
district. Expansion of the County Landfill to include this
property is a permitted use within the HI district and would not
create a non - conforming use:
If you have any questions, please call (704) 484 -4979.
Sincerely,
Bill McCarter
PLANNING /LAND RECORDS DIRECTOR
rbs

Qcjt 6jC"20040.1 i1 OPM_ prC1 eve I an dLLCounty Landf i I I
}
N
Cleveland Co., NC
No • 579 4 D
ic"V '., "of2
Parcel No.: 16732
Parcel Address: 150 FIELDING RD
Parcel Owner:
CLEVELAND COUNTY
ATTN: DAVID DEAR
PO BOX 1210
SHELBY NO 28151 -1210
Zoning:
Class- Heavy Industnal
Flood Zones:
Zone: ZONE X
Code: 0
Panel Number. 370302 0200 B
Jurisdictional Limits:
Name: CLEVELAND COUNTY
Voting Precincts:
Preanet Waco
Parcels
Map: 3162 Block: 1 Lot:5
Deed Reference: Bk. 1080 Pg. 720
Land Area: 378.310 acres
Tax Values for evaluation year 2004:
Building Value: $0
Land Value: $665,749
Total Value. $665,749
Other Attributes
at point 1263317, 586843
Fire Districts:
District WACO
2005 Land Use:
Use:
2000 Census Tracts:
Census Tract: 950300
Watersheds:
Zone: WS111
--- /printable. asp ?process= id &x2= 1263316. 69344994 &y2 = 586943.220970754&10 /17/2003

Oct, 6, 2004 1:09PM Cleveland County Landfill
Oct 6 2004 12'19PM / COUNTY MANAGERS OFFICE
" XIMPlanb tQv=q
-.u= 46restat' /
k9A to `
6
A
op'n
rig",
Xte0niutiun
N o . 5 7 9 4 P,
No 4845 P 4
NUMBER 292003
T-Q 9BANT PRIOR APP OVAL
EQR THE ISSUANCE F
MUNICIPAL SOLD WAST—ETEURW
WHEREAS, said landfill is to be developed in accordance with the
proposed facility plan, on approximately 107 acres of municipal solid waste
landfill, and 43-acres of a construction and demolition landfill, located within
Cleveland County, North Carolina, which acreage does not lie within any
incorporated city or town, nor within the extraterritorial Zoning jurisdiction of any
city or town;
WHEREAS, as identified In the proposed faciliV plan, the municipal solid
waste landfill will accept municipal, commercial and industrial solid waste
generated within Cleveland Count, North Carolina and will] have a total disposal
capacity of approftately 13,700, 00 cubic yards that will be developed in
eighteen five -year phases;
WHEZE4S, the expected operafion He of the municipal solid waste: landfill
is approximately ninety -two (92) years. Waste will be disposed at a rate of 5,790
tons per month, with an expected variance of 20%.
THEREFORE BE IT RESOLVED, THAT THE CLEVELAND COUNTY
BOARD OF COMMISSIONER$ hereby grants prior approval for the issuance of
a municipal solid waste landfill permit by the Division of Waste Management to
Cleveland County.
DAY OF OCTOBER 2003_
9 dl
Willie S. Nfdntosh, Chairman
Cleveland County Board of Commissioners
County Clerk

t,.I
a
V
R
Oct - 6- 2004 1 :09PM
Oct. 6 2004 12-19PM
Cleveland County Landfill
COUNTY MANAGERS OFFICE
RESOLUTION
TO GRANT PRIOR APPROVAL
FOR THE ISSUANCE
OF A
NHMCPAL SOLID WASTT PERMIT
No 5794 P E
No .4845 P 5
THEREFORE BE IT RESOLVED THAT TM CLEVELAND COUNTY BOARD OF
COMMISSIONERS hereby grants prior approval for the issuance of a rni icipal solid
waste landfill permit by the Division of Waste Management to Cleveland County, said
landfill to be developed in accordance with the proposed facility plan on approximately
107 acres of Municipal Solid Waste Landfill and 43 acres of a construction and
demolition landfill, located within Cleveland County, which acreage does not lie withim
any incorporated city or town, nor within the extra- teaitonal zoning jurisdiction of any
City or town. As identified in the proposed facility plain, the municipal solid waste
landfill will accept municipal, eonunerdal, and industrial solid wastes generated within
Cleveland County, and will have a total disposal capacity of approximately 13,700,000
cubic yards that will be developed in 18 five-year phases. The expected operation life of
the municipal solid waste landfill is approximately 92 years. Waste will be disposed at a
rate of 5,790 tons per month with an expected variance of 20%
AT)OPTED '1'IiIS TBE 211" DAY OF OCTOBER, 2003
LErift AD
:PUBUC'tifEnRlNi $ r
' , , Ctgveland - County
eoard. V. CCI Mrdseaonera
SAI coroW I pub0o'hear-
In9 7abardln9 the proposed
andH ,wnipvg0ony tp,, the
,eliati ad I& pubk
ber�*9
be obnduoW
on (es*, Octobbr 21,,
200 at 67DD pm.,'in the
COr .60n Chamber of
the Cleveaan4 County Ad-
mintatnative Buading s71
Fact 1�aeriotr 5peei; �s+�Y
Nodl,r�inaan$:`�t wlYClt
'16ng tie' 0, ioa pHbfie !
have , an `oppotjun?ay tp
make oomrncrKs regard
V" proposed landfill bq-
9ron; .
8err� 6o be',�Iler:us9ed r�
bey.
1. ' SociD- eCOn�IT11C
of me cepeus ,SrFots euourcd
the 19nd1114 ,
2 Endanyer Speci}M.�_ r
a Wdods
S. AMoort3' : :
t Floodpiams. --
i• Welst suppty water4wd.'
Wands Crokw, OMC
devatand County Clerk
comber 10, 20031iC

Oct. F,• 2004 1.08PM Cleveland County Landfill
Oct 6 2004 12'18PM COUNTY MANAGERS OFFICE
■
t�
I
h
October 21, 20173
2003. November 1, 2003 as 'Minority Enterpnse Development Week" fn Cleveland County in rpcognilion of
Ole above oruan¢ations efforts to enhanco the success of minority owned butiriesses and professionals
Adopted this the 21 day of October 2003_
(Crigrnal was ./fined by all Commissioners)
M-PUSMHEARING: HEAL7'HD.FPABTJdF.d7. t MOB rr EXPANSION
Denose 9I211ingsr Health Director, accompanied by Sam Lodridge Health Department, and
Wayne Sullivan Municipal Engmeering %aid 'We are here to get governmental approval for a resolution to
proceed with the construction of the Cleveland County landfill There are several steps that we have to go
through before bulfding another landfill cell, One is to determine If Ihtr /ells Is sWeble, then design phase
and then constructlon phase, then we'll have to apply for the permit to operate the landfill'
She said that Municipal Engineering has completed the site sultabimy study and before they
submit their fndings to the state, it is mandated that a public hearing be held an the discoveries on the
property and local government approval leered.
Mrs Stallings requested the following informatioll be,lneluded in the official Minutes of this
meeting:
(1) 5oc10- oconomlc status of ft census trails around Use landfill,
' According to the 2000 Census, Cleveland County had a minority population of 23.24/. and
according to Census Blocks 1062, 054,1050,1068,1059, 1061 and 2007 of Census
Tract 9503, the minority populatton in these Blocks surrounding the proposed landfill site
Is 18.995, which is lower than the County average
(2) Endangored species:
• There was no endangered species or habitats found on Vie site,
(3) Wetlands:
There are a small amount of wetlands near an existing pond Mat Is behind the dvvelfirlgs
on the.site; however, this area of wetlands will not have an Effect on fie landfill for many
years to come If at al
(4) Historical alto:
A historical site was identified near the creek along the gravel road This site will not be
disturbed- however if A has to be disturbed, further study of the site may be required
(5) Airports:
The tandfin is located more than sit mites from the nearest airport; consequently the FFA
does not need to be notfTmd
(6) Floodptains•
' The site has several creeks surrounding it which will be a floodplain There Is no landfill
development that will occur in the floodplains of those creeks
(7) Water supply watershed,
' The landfill will be outside the critical area of the Kings Mountain Reservoir
Wayno Sullivan Municipal Engineering stated, "The consfructlonldemolllion landfill will
probably opon about the same Unto ilia other tandfill does, but you srul have plenty of life left In your existing
constructioWdemolition landfill . The landfill itself will be built in six different phases of actual
corionctlon the first phase will Involve about 20 acres. Wiled will happen After we build the first phase is
you will go five years and get another permit to raise it higher That Is protty much the Way the whole landfill
No•5794 P- 2
4 No.4845 P 1

-Oct 6 2004 1'08PM Cleveland County Landfill
4 4 0 Oct 6 2004 12'19PM COUNTY MANAGERS OFFICE
October 21, 8003
will be developed, once you get to a certain elevation in phase ono, you build phase two and build it up to a
certain height, and then movo Into phase throe In War years, you will just be building up until you get it all
filled up rind get to the approxi nele tl2 years There will be a lot of life left, once you actualiyapend money
for liner and that type of capital expense basmily it will just be velticaAy expanding the landfill! Leachale
from this sila will be pumped over to the old landfill _ access to this will be along an eXisling road and
an interchange at Highway 150 will be changed to make Ita wafer Intersection' He projected the site will be
put into use in approximately five to SIX years
Chatrtnen Mdntosh opened the publle hearing at 6.40 p ni (Public notice of this hearing Wag
accomplishod bylcgal advontlserrlattt published in the Stet on October 10, 2002 The logo/ ad read as
flown Tho Cleveland County Board of Commissioners wrli conduct a public hearing regarding the
proposed landfill expansion to (he exlatlng landfill. This publlc hoaning will be condurJed an Tuesday,
October 21, 2003 at 6:00 pm., in the Commission Chamber of the Cleveland CourOAdmmrstrabW
6urtdrng, 311 f=ast Marlon Steno! Shelby, North Carorine, at which time the genernrl public will have an
opportunity to make comments regarding the proposed landW expansion hems to be discussed *771 be: (1)
Sodo- 90n0mlo status of the census tracts around the landAQ (2) Endanger species, (3) Wetrands: (4)
Hlstcxical sites; (5)Affparts; (0) Floodplains; (7) Water supply watershed
.john Mc8rayercommended Ms. Stallings and her staff for their'dillgent work to help protedthe
welfare of Cleveland County cMzc ns and children.'
Commissioner HaWldns commended Sam t.ocimdge for his presentation regarding the landfill
expansion to the Soard of Health
pm
Hearing no further comments, Chairman Molntosh declared the public hearing closed at 6A1
a CM N- Ronnie Hawkins made the motion, seconded by Mary Accor and unanimously
adopted by Vie Board to accept the taeommondat)on from the Health Dapadment and adopt the
folloWing resolution.
Nt1ll(BSR 29,=3
ELUTION
Mr.RANTmoRAPPRQYMALWE THEISSLIANt'F A
MUNICIPAL SOLID- 30M..E' oEBMIT
K"EAEASr seed IandM is to be developed In accordance with the proposed facility plan, on
approximately 107 acres of municipal solid waste landfill, and 43;oc es of a construction and demolition
Iantifiq, located within Cleveland County, North Carolina, which acreage does not He within Pny incorporated
city or town nor within the extraterritorial zoning Jurledlotion of any city or town;
WMEREAS, as identified in the proposed facility plan, the muntolpal solid waste landfill will accept
municipal, corninereiel, and industrial solid waste generated within Cleveland County, Noah Carolina and
wall have a total disposal capacity of approximately 13,700.000 cubic yards that will be developed in
eighteen five•ycarphases:
No•5794 P - 3
No 4845 P 2

,Oct. 6. 2004 1'09PM Cleveland County Landfill
Oct 6 2004 12'19PM COUNTY MANAGERS OFFICE
Octobar2f, 2003
WHEREAS, the expelled operation rde of the municipal solid wasto landrdl Is approximately ninety-
two (82) years Waste will be disposed at a rate of 5,790 tons per month. with an expected variance of
20%
T141- BEFORE BE R RESOLVED, THAT THE CLEYELANU COUNTY BOARD OF
COMMISSIONERS hereby grants prior approval for tare issuance of a municipal solid waste fat All permit
by the Division of Waste Management to Creveland County
ADOP1 ED THIS THE 27 DAY OF OCTOBER 2003.
/S/ VW/k B, McIntosh, Chairman
HEALTH DEPARTMENT* HOUSEHR r ELVIN DAY
Mrs Stallings distributed a written report regarding the success of the Household Hazardous
Waste Collection Day hold September 27 2003. She advised the day was even more suw4"ful that
a,wcipatrad with 136 participants. and the expense of spoamnng the event was tears than originally
budgeted Commissioners and Mrs. Stallings reported they have heard pnsTpve feedback from citizens
regording the program
ASS- e.,Ad—EUELWBEA141 .77MH WARMERr.6 rAOf 23E =NS(ON
Sue Breckenrldge, VP Public Affairs. Time Wamor Cable, reviewed [hot Time Wanner Cable
has provided cable television service to Cleveland County for the last seven years She stated she "believe
they have been responsive to rneellng the eahie television related needs and hilemsts of Cleveland County
utsens "
Ms, Breckenridge said, 'We have in our agreement that the franchise agreement has a 10-year
lean and by federal law (47 U S C 648) wttllln 3e-morft of that axpiration date, we are to notify the county
that we'd like to renew this agreement. Also contained in that agreemant, is the clause that allows us to ask
for a 5 -year extension on dset 10 -year con(fatt, and we are to do that, ags+in by taw within that 36.montn
window- I sent Mr Alexander a letter of intent to nehew the franchise and to exercise (hat 5 -year extension
the original effective date of the franchise was May 21,1996 It expires May 21 2006, that's the 10-year
form wild the 5-year extension the now expiration date would be May 21 2011 and by federal law we
would go through the renewal process again 36 -moni is from that expiration date should you agree to it, we
would notify you again of our intent to renew the franchise,"
Chairman McIntosh operied the public hearing at 6,47 p.m (Pabrrc notice of tills h*46119 Wpb
accomplished by legal adverfisemenf published In the S c on Ocrotier 10, 2003 and October 1 T, 21703.)
Hearing no comments Chairman McIntosh declared fits public hwring closed at 0:49 p.m,
Commissioner Self noted this Is a non-exclusive franchise, Vice -Chair Accor tt+anked Ms,
Breckenridge for the contributions of Time Warner to our community, particularly their support of eduoalion.
ACiiON: Ronnie I- lawkku made the motion seconded by Jerry sett and unanimously adopted
by the Board to approve the regrrost as submflted (A second readsng of this fr rkWas agraBmen f end
No -5194 P.
4 No.4845 P 3

Oct. 6. 2004 1:10PM Cleveland County Landfill
CLEVELAND COUNTY
HEALTH D EPARTMF,NT
RESOLUTION
TO GRANT PRIOR APPROVAL
FOR THE ISSUANCE
OF A
MUNICIPAL SOLID WASTE PERMIT
No,5194 P 9
THEREFORE BE IT RESOLVED THAT THF, CLEVELAND COUNTY BOARD OF
HEALTH requests consideration by the Cleveland County Board of Commissioners to
grant prior approval for the issuance of a municipal solid waste landfill permit by the
Division of Waste Management to Cleveland County, said landfill to be developed in
accordance with the proposed facility plan on approximately 107 acres of Municipal
Solid Waste Landfill and 43 acres of a construction and demolition landfill, located
within Cleveland County, which acreage does not lie within any incorporated city or
town, nor within the extra - territorial zoning jurisdiction of any city or town. As
identified in the proposed facility plan, the municipal solid waste landfill will accept
municipal, commercial, and industrial solid wastes generated within Cleveland County,
and will have a total disposal capacity of approximately 13,700,000 cubic yards that will
be developed in 18 five -year phases. The expected operation life of the municipal solid
waste landfill is approximately 92 years. Waste will be disposed at a rate of 5,790 tons
per month with an expected variance of 20 %.
ADOPTED THIS THE 1417' DAY OF OCTOBER 2003
Joel F. Sp gins, M.D., Chai
Cleveland County Board of Health
OE S.
OOTA t �'
=C.);
i`� �VBL1G �ci
'p,.
O COV
10 - fill
917
Charlene S. Parker, Notary
1lr'�i3it`0`-5 Q2f!l8
315 E. Grover St., Shelby, NC 28150-3999-,,•_',[phone] • FAX[phone]

k t. o. 2004 1:10PM Cleveland County Landfill No 5194 � 10
CLEVELAND COUNTY
H EAT,TH DEPARTMENT
RESOLUTION
TO GRANT PRIOR APPROVAL
FOR THE ISSUANCE
OF A
Nn NICIPAL SOLED WASTE PERMIT
THEREFORE BE IT RESOLVED THAT THE CLEVELAND COUNTY SOLID
WASTE ADVISORY BOARD requests consideration by the Cleveland County Board
of Health to grant prior approval for the issuance of a municipal solid waste landfill
permit by the Division of Waste Management to Cleveland County, said landfill to be
developed in accordance with the proposed facility plan on approximately 107 acres of
Municipal Solid Waste Landfill and 43 acres of a construction and demolition landfill,
located within Cleveland County, which acreage does not lie within any incorporated city
or town, nor within the extra - territorial zoning jurisdiction of any city or town. As
identified in the proposed facility plan, the municipal solid waste landfill will accept
municipal, commercial, and industrial solid wastes generated within Cleveland County,
and will have a total disposal capacity of approximately 13,700,000 cubic yards that will
be developed in 18 five -year phases. The expected operation life of the municipal solid
waste landfill is approximately 92 years. Waste will be disposed at a rate of 5,790 tons
per month with an expected variance of 20%.
ADOPTED THIS THE 1411 DAY OF OCTOBER, 2003
Bill Ross, Chairman
Cleveland County Solid Waste Advisory Board
315 E. Grover St., Shelby, NC 28150 -3998 (704) 484 -5100
• Fax [phone]

v�
FILED In CLEVELAND County. N
on Jun 01 2003 of 03:1818 Ph
by BONNIE E REECE
REGISTER OF Q�
BOOK 1375 PAGE 31
RECORDING FEE $ �M CAA--
Number 13 -2003
Final Resolution
To Abandon Public Right of Way
Pbrtion of Fielding Drive
WHEREAS, the Board of County Commissioners of Cleveland County, North Carolina,
have received a petition from property owners adjoining a portion of Fielding Drive,
requesting that the public right -of -way (approximately 0 7 miles) be abandoned, and,
WHEREAS, the mandates of North Carolina General Statute 153A -241 have been met
regarding the proposed abandonment of the public right -of -way; and,
WHEREAS, the Cleveland County Board of Commissioners held a public hearing on
June 3, 2003.
NOW THEREFORE, BE PI' RESOLVED THAT, m accordance with North Carolina
General Statute 153A -241, the Cleveland County Board of Commissioners do hereby
order the abandonment of a portion of Fielding Drive, and that a copy of this order be
filed in the Office of the Register of Deeds
ADOPTED THIS 3rd DAY OF .NNE 2003.
t; If
Board of Commissioners
q� r i,LEtMN
.,
Wanda A.'Crotts, CMC, Clerk
Cleveland County Board of Commissioners

W
�ya�, Q��s�llS1bY NC
u.a To �M9At iR lta9- �arSn:lr 6 2Sr artn3Y a
TI... ..,f,umrns was prrpa,rd b• JrjP,es W. -organ e0GK 10 taw
-
uANRANTY DEED -Form r`n 60_+ premed and fnr ark b. amn M'Jlumaa Co. Inc N�kmvsar N C :7055
STATE OF AORTH CAROLINA, CLEVELAND County.
THIS DEED, Nade this l 2th --. day of —JanUaOL— -- - lq- op by and between —_
ROBERT F. MORGAN and wife. RUTd M. MORGAN
of C_eveland county
and %1•le of N.,th C,­11-, I eretmftn called GRANTOR, and — GLEVFLANQr0NTY • NORMLjC6H0LW -
A Municipal Corporation of the State of North Carolina
100 Justice Shelby, North Caroiina 28150
,Place.
f Cleveland County and State of North Carolina, Imrmfter aacd GRANTEE
W ITNESSETH slut thr f,ramor (or and to consideration of the sum of TEN AND NO/ 100 ($10-DO) -------- Dollars
and tuber good and valuable tonsu4uttons to Mm m band raid b) the Grann., the receipt whereof is hereby schnowledged, has peen, granted barpmed, sold
and .onmved and by the. p otonn does pre, p.nt, bargain, .11, can- ey and confirm unto she Grantee, his hens and /or suecr.aors and assq,n warms in
4UMBER FIVE (No. 51 — Townsh,n CLEVELAND County, t , 4, Carolina, de.nbed a. (;Ilan
—
Th
To
Fein a
Being located on the West side of S.A.L. Railroad, bound on the
roe.Abr.
South by Charlie Whisnant Elliott, on the Northwest and North
Wh
property of Cleveland County and on the East by said railroad
IN
and being described by metes ,,nd bounds as follows:
'-7
BEGINNING at a R.R. spike in the centerline of S.A.L. Railroad,
said spike also being located approximately 1762 feet Southwest
of the intersection of said railroad with S.R. 1918, and cunning
thence with the centerline of said railroad S 41 -08 -27 W 2295.75
feet to an iron pin set in the centerline; thence continuing with
'the - center -l-ine S 41 -49 -35 W 336.19 feet to an iron pin sett --- - --
STAn
*hence leaving the railroad and running with the North line of
I,-
Charlie whisnant Elliott N 78 -24 -37 W 1067.29 feet to an unmarked
point in the centerline ^f Buffalo Creek passing through r large
Birch with pointers at 1023 feet; thence with the creek,
-N 30 -24 -28 E 183.16 feet to an unmarked points thence leaving the
o
creek and with the line of Cleveland County property S 40 -49 -16
$ 146.04 feet to an existing iron crossing an existing iron at
At
161.04 feet; thence N 49 -10 -44 E 2210.30 feet to an existing iron;
my cot
thence N 68 -45-13 E 339.90 feet to an existing icon; thence
ST ,n
S 39 -46 -31 E 141.90 feet to an existing iron; thence N 12 -13 -29
E 280.50 feet to an existing iron; thence S 88 -01 -58 E 452.61
feet to the BEGINNING, continning 36.86 acres, more or less,
o nto
according to a survey prepa.ed by F. R. Ledford. dated January 4,
1990.
vin
My Ca
is
Title Reference: Book 1080, Page 1394, Cleveland County Registry.
STATE
Erse
The property described above is subject to those rights retained
�ly�
by the Grantor including, but not limited to, timber rights
a
described in a Land Option between the Grantor and Grantee, dated
ebrtlte
December 21, 1989 and recorded in Book 1080, Page 1360 of the
Cleveland County Registry.
Property is subject to Right -of -Way of S.A.L. Railroad.
" STATE OF
n a Q rN RA31 FSI.7(4
3 N p.0;.1NA ( !� `A (f "e I �x
.i .. v tw►rgg '� �1. J J J U,
.. -
Ae A
ti
t0
.1C �Q
"*e Z O j0
T
N
f t
1�tinwtl tot aanru NIa) a _
' -- _ a •i _ _ t , . „ 1w °S,� a�,tY w� �,y, z+; � ...1'r' ..'i . 'M :U��.�il'S�e �'�3d124ifi..lta���.�%��• r�F,y 'S

i
1(.untmu.d I vn given. Sdo
06GR 10800 0592
The above land was conveyed to Crania by See Pool Na . page__
TO HAVE AND TO HOLD Tht above described p•emues, wit' all the appurtenances thereunto belonging, or in any wire sppenammp, unto the Grantee, his
heoa ano)ot sueeessma and assigns forever
Amt the Grantor covenants that he is seized of sid premucs in fir, and has the right to convey the same in fee nvple, that said premises arc free from en
cumbrance (with t eacepuons above stared, if any), a,d that he will wa r r a n t and defend the said title to the same Against the lawful claims of all person
svha -, --er
When MSOVY,�11taracchlasWereunto d to the Grantor or Cramer, the singular shall include the plural and the masculine shin include the femimme or the neuter.
IN W sir has Fated and ua), the d year fuss ab written SEAL) f�_ - fSEALI n ut i M. Mor an __ :SEAL)
SEAL) ___(SEAL;
_(SEALi ._ 'SEALI
(SEAL) 1tCAL1
STATE OF NORTH ,ICAROLWAI_�._. CLEVELAND ��5 T(>tlj '
a N, 1. a 'a f sad County, do hereby cerafy Slut
ilobem F. Morgan d, if 'th i '7y Ran
Gramm, penorusBy appeared before me this day and scbn ..N. Am,e for 'big feed
Witness my hand and notarul real,S/hb 0f of J antral .1920—
My Cormahmon Eaprts a//7%/9� v4d d, W O�.N P ISEALI
STATE OF NORTH CAROLINA !!! 4`17UNTY.
1, , a Notay Public of mid County do hereby certify that
Gra t, , persondiy appeared before me this day and acknowledged the uecutson of she foregoing decd
Witness my hand and eotanal led. this sb✓ day of . 19..
My Comm ssion Expires , at. P ISEAL I
7 "s9
STATE OF NORTH CAROLINA, - r'OUNTY
The fargotot certsatate�of d �lr. /--_. -p
cers+ciied to be come Thn instrument was presented fee npntruwn th•s of §V91"14111
as _ 4 �r1 fM., P. M., and duly recorded m the office of the Aepster of Deeds of t ounty,
1lordi Carol in Book age
'Ihi _ _day of , by 44 ` v
Register of Deeds 'Yrnrtr Deputy Regica of Deeds
O ;
t�s 3 ey C .a
:Ali
' ' A w r ' 3 y iii
1" pip
' °' Stu d• :�'
M
v � s, � r �.t'• , ta. ♦. .,� ,� i�•, �.'. CC :' � p1 v'Jx,"i ItR �..... T' ,
G

- - b bb
NMXkVQ
C1.EVEL0,Na CMTY 12 -19 -99
167
STATE OF $60.00
►1pa�UMA Hea! Eitato
Excise Tax
8xcut Tax 5T
Tax Lot No
Verified by
by
Mail after a rdin to
OKI 17 11G1210
w w, � 1ra Ion
,scat • 1 day of�,.. a n
ror degeft. M. aid rsaltim•d .n Ina
A rce of • he of I:AR" eiet9iand o"y, MC
y
necordlns 1Tme, Hook and Pspe
Parcel Identifier No
County on the day of 19
r co r -
This instrument was prepared by "Julian $x Wraya Att9meye Sbelbys NC 25151-1908
Brief description for the Indet I I
NORTH CAROLINA GENERAL WARRANTY DEED
THIS DEED made this 18 day of December _ , Is 95 , by and between
GRANTOR GRANTEE
Charlie Whisnant Elliott and wife,
Ada G. Elliott
Cleveland County, North Carolina
P.O. Box 1210
Shelby, NC 28151 -1210
Enter in appmprlato Meek lap eaeb parU. eama. s"ma, an4 IT appreppiata, eneneter of eality, *4 coepontes or partn nhIp.
The designation Grantor and Grantee as used herein shall Include said parties, their heirs. successors, and assigns, and
abali fnclude singular, plural, Trumuhne, feminine or neuter as required by context. -
MTNESSETA, that the Grantor, for a valuable consideration paid by the Grantee, the receipt of which is hereby
Acknowiejged, bra and by these presents does grant, bargain, sell and convey unto the Grantee in fee aimp:e. all that
cartaie lot or parcel of land sift ated in the City of , Nunlb4rr Five Township,
Cleveland County. North Carohra and more particularly described as follows -
Located, lying and being in Number Five Township, Cleveland County,
North Carolina, bounded new or formerly on the North by David
Ledbetter, on the East by the Seaboard Airline Railroad and Dover
Mill Company, on the South and Best by the City of Shelby and
Buffalo Creek, and more particularly described &&cording to a
survey and plat of R.B. Wellmon, Registered Surveyor, dated July
16, 1973 an follows:
BEGINNING at the point of intersection of the center of Buffalo
Creek with the center of the Seaboard Airline Railroad track on a
railroad trestle across said creek, Southernmost corner of David
Ledbetter, and runs thence with c ; ��� the
following calla and distances: Q - to a
pointt. said creed to a point in aai
e t ap�a ns
'b- o a pain n said creek; and p
Ric a point in Paid creek in line with a gum tree or e
Ens Was an of said creek, a new corner with David LedDe+tA,tssr
thence a new line with David Ledb
otter
,�o
(routinued)
\ . Br Aww Itrm bJ 1 \ • la'7 - ,.., e....aa w r..„ ,..�. a C /aM
mil 111141111111 NIN1 6191.11

6'.41111PGIzII
feet to an iron pin in the center of the Seaboard Airline Railroad
t -act at an old crossing, a t.ew corner with David Ledbetter; thence
with the cet�tEfr fgit a Al tt iq# thq following calls and
as, ' .,rrn; ,cu lvree -yto an iron pin; and
Soot .,=t�'t �f�r r o'he_ Eli IIiG, containiaq 23.13
acf'ie, be eame b�e�n btil "`o£"�.ect No. 1 and a pardon of Tract No.
2 of the lands described to that certain warranty deed duly
recorded in Book 12 -A at Page 430 in the Public Registry of
Cleveland County, North Carolina.
This property is subject to those water rights granted to Buffalo
Manufacturing Company (Dover Textiles) by dead reservinq said
rights of record in Book YY at Page 48 of the Cleveland County
Registry. Also subject to rights of ways of Seaboard Airline
Railway.
This is the identical property as conveyed by deed dated November
12, 1973 from David Ledbetter (unmarried) to Lee L. Costner at ux,
Rachel D. Costner, and being of record in Book 14 -U at Page 118 of
the Cleveland County Registry.
Title Reference: Book 17 -0 at Page 324 of the Cleveland County
Registry.
The property hcreinabove doatribed Was acquired by Grantor ky instrument recorded In
A map showing the above described property is recorded in Plat Book page
TO HAVE AND TO HOLD the aforesaid lot or parcel of Lund and all privileges and appurtenances thereto belonging to
the Grantee in its simple.
And the Grantor cosensnta With the Grantee, that Grantor is seized of the promises In fee simple, has the right to convey
the "me in fee simple, that title is marketable and free and clear of all encumbrances, and that Grantor mil Warrant
and defend the title against the lawful cialms of all peraons whomsoever except for the excepCons hereinafter stated
Title to the property hereina0ove described to subject to the following exceptions•
m 0 C2
N r° R s+—
CA
fill
ca C �.��
IM W)TNSIS Wgaaaor. i►r a,.~ M. brneets on lu a'od bbd 11.3. W It <srpp W. W'r r'eNd ralo MireMat W Se si nod la n'
<O,pnnlr awl by lu defy oasaeruq etluns sad no NSI to ►o b."as" Stable by a.ttliornr of Its Srd of DYOruri. lab d'y sad rrer ani
'Wove *11.63.
. ............................... .............................. < (r1Ay
"T,iCiisriariE'LITi:otC " " "'
Ay............... . .... .... . ......... . .
'E11ioCt:.............. ........ ............ UAL)
............................. Vre'Idaa(
Y
ATTEST.
"
..... ' ..... .................... .......................tDLA L1
a
._.. °....._._.... __.___.__,rrrtary (cMpe'u sun 09
i LOW idVLdwllhb :i.1110ll6i '.I&.111iiiiulA di6isdifWIIdAwlib ,Iilili:E'+.IWIN"i
....................... .................................... _(saAL)
-- ......................... V --- °--- --•-•------•- ------ - - -••-
(car .raze riuq
�
Z
srt - ------ --------- -------- -- ---- . ..... ....................
0
Y-
------------------ ..................... Sawa)
ATT,aT•
V
_•_...._... ____.._._.. ,......tfaAW
. .._.......__•______ _._•___..._
....... .......................................................
...sr<er.'ry lGryer'u,.rq
m
2
----------------------------------------- ------------------- SSA)..
i LOW idVLdwllhb :i.1110ll6i '.I&.111iiiiulA di6isdifWIIdAwlib ,Iilili:E'+.IWIN"i

�'usL�G t,• �
dRAL •tTAHP
ii�Y�V liiiidlV `i it ti�::llrliL4ioi�V'rllil`l pp.�rfli``.r�rji ANW LuBi 110„ lil1JL �rl�.la1Z
-
. NORT /I CAROLINA. .. Y�ave19t1d; .. _wawa.. ..Ce10aq - .
1, a Notary rublle of the cruely and scald atom -16 trrtify that Fhazli._e Witien&nt
._._ wawa
Elliott and wife a Ada Ce Elliott
••. •• -• .......I ... I ........... ............... . wa wa.. _.......... .. Closing.
pertenanY aPrOstra better Me tht. day bad -11.awtNted ch. 41ea- -1011- of the rote sting tastra n"s. brtiara my
18 December
hand bad elfk lal bump of etaL tNb.T...+r. .. dal at wawa.. _ __n_`..._ wawa._.. 10-9.5 •�-� _�•� _�'�
My roMMhsl.'. e.piNS� ea-. �.r, l ���tt��:dlpi7fA.0 /_.._._NMerY Pablta
NORTH CAROLINA.. .. .. . .... .................. county
pL a Notary Punch of the Ceue1Y .std [tau .tor maid, Yflit) 11.1 ............ ...............................
m
_... _......_....... ._ _.. ... Om t.
ele
-- - - - - -- - - - - -- ----- -------------------- - ---- - •-- _- -...._._..
pef.rnstl7 appealed before me this day and aehtmwladged the ebetblmt of the foregoing Instrument Wit— nay
Rand bpd 91141µ stamp or teal, late ...... day aI ............................ Is - - - --
M) .otnmwoeft entire . ....... ....................... .......................... I ............ MeYt7 P.M.
SEAL -STAMP NORTH CAROLINA.... ...... .........................Ceenlf
Or 1, a Notary P.blk N the C-atY and Sul. afetwaad, efilly that
a_wawa ... ... ..............................
.� ..... ...... ... ... •- -----•-----••-••------- - ---'
.. ........................ ..... .... °--_ -__- Grantor.
..... .
tC perv-111, appeared berate we this 4.7 and aetaewN /Nd the eas aiwo of the foregoing lostromtot wit " - MY
Y
Rand and otlktal sump or arJ, this ...... day W ............................. . 19 .....
HYeemMt{rlen .Ott.. . ............................ . .. ... ... ... .. . .. ............... Notary r10but
$CAL. STAatP NOhTN CAROLINA .---------- _________ ___ _____ _ __ __ _County
L a Vo.arr Pablle - the Counter and Stale aforelald, cattily trot _.._. .
e _. wawa .... ..... . . ... ..wawa
a ..... Grantor,
permaatiy appeared before no this day and acknowledged the rawation of the fo.rsetas Imeramra•. witaru MY
hand and afO.k• stamp or seal, Lou ...... day of ------ ---------------------- IS.....
MyrannJNio10..PINS ............................... ......... ....... ...... ....... Notary Panne
SCAL -STAMP NORTH CAROLINA ........ ..........................County
1 a Notary ruoht at the County A" sula aforesold, cattily War ... ..... ...............................
tr pe -111, tame before me this day and aeblonledted Wt -- ------- ieareehrr ot
� wawa N b ._wawa. _.- _.. -_.
a
__wawa. _...__.______.____. ____ `t ____ a art{ Caeellna ew da
p —lion. bad tape by authority l?
as the act W the taporaeled. the fore otat last.. neat Wr listed m He name by w _
e [Ivry anJ .. _wawa.. -._
D Pe-Went. .sled writ Its orperate web
and attested b .. ..... . at Its .. .... .. .... ... ... tesreur /.
W'/tae- my head and aflklal sump or 1 ..al, thin - -_ .. dal el ... .. . .. ...... .—It ......
altoteamabston *% Pbee .............................. .......... ..... .. ..............._.Pout► rebels
SEAL -STAWr NORTH CAROLINA.. ..... .......................... County
L a Notary Pt)lu of the Coun ty and Stalt aforesaid. coellry t bat . ............................... .......
n personally tsar before me this day bat atk"Wlydged Wat .... he 1s ....... ............... Ser stair of
... ........... ....... ................ ... ............ a .emit Carolina — Pay..Wn, and Iha1 by .a -nrN7 duty
so given and as the we of the oNp-atioo. the toesgemg m{Leemeal tray signed la Ns ..ms by NO .
twawa.. _wawa._
provident. —led with O. rerpers" war and atto"" by ........... . sit s ..... ............. ..... 9 ... story.
Wlmeu my toed and official stamp N star, lira wawa.. day W .......................... 11......
mye//mn�ow�lls -1m; .CIA . ............................... ............... .... ...............�_MWgPa ►1st
Th. I. -S.Ing Cttbdrota ot .- .�1L/l.Cf.A.....�
a Notary Public as aforesaid _ _
--- • .... ................. ....... ....----- -...... ........ ............ - -- --
tyF µIdea to 1010 tms *a t .TL............. . N•- . _.. e./ M N/ H. . . ... p. --- --- --• - - ----- --- -- --- .-- . --- -- --- - - -• -
the Lq► bad Pate shesra q W
seat Paso Vessel
Bonnie Et Reece Cleveland tODlrM
wawa... .__ ./, _ /./, ... RRUISTFR Or Dittos Fos .................. ..........
iy .. lei/ "_ .4(/tL.C,fewt..i� ........... ... Dapny'A�•Rrant.r of Deed.
♦ t IIa ♦we f....n \. . � . 19ry _ .,.-. w..+a.. ,� a...N •�.... e < .row
ld�l�ulm6 �u1�hl�idllaaJu�luus�ir •i.l!I�Jd:Ve.J�°Va

08/12/2004 10:25 FAX [phone] CLEV CO LANDFILL 01004
,.Ia, 1.1 S. 1.1 Y....a L, i . _
........ 6e.6I4r.
w..- ear
..... "ea.ee p..11.
...................
.......... ar.MM,
,le.r. \t WUWA PLO
.......Nwy "MM
Errs "qw.w v
wry 14wM t
! W ..... hreetMr,1 'r i
'4
...Note" W%" ,.
'j
:. ►► .w►..y dttl►
I t•
".ee.e.a.
L.. »,rwnderet
hie e00-" Y eo ,
�� • .,aWn#T s'.
s=
Dry " - -1,
• seoo•+� Ins s� .�s°..'L�'°'- �y�� M tw,.- r.Y.+.■. «�.r..�s•.' „i; 1V. rorcia�}]/� FAMCES. M3KiA- S GILBEAT. P.A. i
.a>= �.� .-ae., i+61W►�VIS1�7 �- s.....- ,= �.r:- v1e•�...,w..._.,,.�.:r -.
•A41tAM77 IMI{P far.,1 rPa.n• r11M1i.r.l rr u5-., ..we.a.11..,.. � C., 1.. , t'a.l,_► -.Jbr v t' :1,�
, ..r.. _,.c -, -.�,r„ ,.. -. ri 1v.x.r�,,,..... - . -- , la..s• _-. ar,. •mow-- _�++. _ti .+.. - -�.. - a._,.� .
SLATE OF NORTH CAROLINA, Gantt►•
THIS DEEP, .t.,ne 1lb- _,A0_-_ A., .r ,1. 1tv AJ 1r.w..
ROBERT R. M?RGAN end wL[!, AUK •�( , fl(iiY __ _,•
Id C6fYEWD
.ad 3waq oM-rb Cae.t.Y, b.teb..lvr.dYd t. "AnrTlA. a.d el yF�l BM mrtM. M" Cfir^I_o -
A MRICIPAL CORPORATION OF THE STATE OF NORTH CAROLINA
____ -1 CL EVEUINf' C.abtf ..d il.te a Kw A Carvlur. brew -tlw raped 611AMT99.
wrmcSSYTN 71..nea rs.rw3w &ad in wo.deralwn of Wt tumor TEN AND NOS 100 (x 10.001.. « + - +..« Dood"
.ad .IAa fMK4 .ad tmkQ to .u..d.aMMA t. b,- rn M°d p.Ai by 1be Cwalet, IAe reetlpr +At/e.f r Iwwby ..An..bcdpd, Aar pn.lt. ptwtrd. troy ued.uld
..d aY "wyed. end M ohm 1.e -"1. der Ow. /al,l, b prom. wp. tmwt wA domes, until IM Gra ire. No Mat tnd;nr waaamwt a1W ~s, p,tnldf m
NumBER5 FIVE and 31% Two"Mr CLEVELAND rw.rr. Mdmh cotobn.. d.rnb.d - l.poenl
LoCated in Township Number Pive (S) and Six (6) Nest of N.C.
ff I Highway 150 and in the New Prospect Church area of Cleveland
�yOT County and being described by motes and bounds as follows#
tiler '1
't,yl rn
Yro -
Vl',,ti I ,
n,
F1
.rot
BROXIMINO at an existing icon on the West'edg• of the right of
way of N.C. Fin 150, said iron also being located 8 07 -23-14 W ?
835.73 feet from NMff Monument "Pinsdale and running thence, 8
16 -AO -29 W 394.00 feet to an icon sets thence 8 46 -18 -29 N 178.20
feet to an iron set; thence N 52 -41 -31 W 468.60 rest to an iron
sets thence N 39 -26 -31 W 132.00 feet to an iron set# thence N
77 -31 -33 W 272.10 test CO an existing RR spikes thence N 88 -01 -S8 "' -1
W.'452.61 feet to an iron sett thence 9 12 -13 -29 N 260.50,feet to '
an iron sets thence N 39 -46 -31 W 141.90 feet to'an iron sett
thence 9 68 -45 -13 W 339.90 feet-to an existing iroa.f_tba ea_B_, .
49 -10 -44 W 2210.30 feet to an kaisting iron and pointere, thence
N 40 -49 -16 W 146.04, feet to an unmarked point in Buffalo Creeks
thence with said creek the following calls and distances)
N 30 -24 -28 N 13300 feats N 26 -47 -42 Z 403.54 feats :1n
N D3 -57 -08 8'481.61 feats N 31 -27 -27 W 124.38 tests: "-� "'f,
H 42 -09 -02 N,282.15.feet#•N 48 -49 -21 W 438.56 feet#
N 29 -44 -35 W 160.11 .tests N.62 -3o -14 N 239.18 feats
N 33 -20 -44 8 360.06 fasts N 19 -19 -11 E 96.73 feet*.
N 01 -32 -38 a 244.84 feats N 09 -WOW, c 220.97 feats ='
19 09 -19 -23 N 42700 feet# N 42 -56 -SG W 329.84 feet#
N 58 -44-24 W 87.43 Teets N 46 -02 -49 W 100.00 feet,
N 67 -07 -42 W 107.07 tests N 1149 -09 W 19S.90 feats , .:1
N 23 -23 -39 W.132.52 feat, N 13 -23 -56 W 145.65 feats
N 00 -36 -07 E 20501 feats N•16 -39 -04 2 137.02 fasts ., "•�';�i'
N 07 -41 -57 8 115.54 lasts N 19- 30- 07,N•242.44 feet#''
N 37 -13 -11 W 250.97 felt; N 23-41-41-N 170.05 feet;, , :.•
N 55 -00 -46 W 163.11••festt N 09 -20 -44 3 207.38 feet to -Lan „_
unmarked point in Batlelo'Cseeko said point also being located
2 85 -00-43 E 1482.50 feet'from an oxistingFstono and axles
a new line 8 85 -00 -43 S 906.17 test to an•,iron sett thence",
a 10 -25-54 S 347.56 feet to a stons'and pipe at, fence corners.,:
thence S 79 -38 -06 S 418.67 feet to.a 2 inch pipet thence x-
84-34-09
B 173.86 feet to a 2 inch pipe at edge of creek; #ounce
with said creek and being a portion of the Ralph W. Gardner
Forms/cardner -Mebb College '(16- 8/347) the ,following 3 calla #
N 18 -08 -28 W 175.26 !eats N 12-32-00-N 80.75 feet#
N 13 -08 -23 W 313.48 feet to an umparked point in er•ek1,� :-.;;': *u;��
thence leaving the creek and continuing -with said College pro peityt±� ^; .,
0 62-24 -26 Z 816.75 teat to an iron sets .thence fA ..83 -25 -41 Z:-,,
552.88 teat to a maple tree on'South side -at branch, , thence Ni
61 -55-33 8 723.59 lest to a a inch pipe•SOorth o! branch# the"t"as
o7 -55-46 N 767.35 feet to an iron set In the 8omth line-ot Jaaoa';ti"'•,1
8. et111 •r. ii6- A /400)r %h•noa with aaAld 7lne p 65 -145! „:��•di'a`
1815.00 rest to . Ips and pointsrsr them• 4 04 -16-19 M 66�.37',`
feet to a robe c an� point.ras thane• 8 39 -24-12 M 1731.40 !foot to;;an`s
an Iron pets thence N 82 -38 -30 N 1304.42 feet to an Iron at
stones thence 8 70-14-31 M $33.70 teat to a 2 Inch pipe= the noo:i,k't,��
leaving said -treat and continoi as a portion of othot pfo rty►,;W1�
nnoo
of said calinngg• s 1610 -29 N 108.80 teat -to an errletln4 st�+a•r;,:��.:, +��; ±�°
%berme N 04 -21.40 8 a6MU Root to an iron an %# thongs 4
�b4.00 -03 N 3=545 Conti t •Noe a 03 -08-06 W 1004too root to aN ;;, -'i,'•
roar net at large Oak with polrltases thanes 4 86-35 -42 8 416.00
test to the NNIONINr3.
r'ea' Attoch&4 Pais, toe.contindatloo of donorlpttosl.
,..•a.�:. ,.•;� iaa~!i1 tt% �: ifY' an�fi�l�. pt:', �t. WIl�LL2i1tiiWI X. fJrI L.. �E, IS°YYIiiABiQri'`vd.�.sjllRlLki� :iJ6a�tc.'ie�l

08/12/2004 10 :27 FAX [phone] CO LANDFILL
ti. ;56e.00
i
I
a.
ft .Str
--•-- -_• natir•
.I ....^.� Piro a� w
j,.. ". 'A ., UAGN 1080f1cl0721
s
LRSS AND EXcEpTIhG an 8.12 acre tract consisting of 2 paroele
located on the South aide of rieldin Road (9R 1919), the outside
of
boundary of the 2 tracts being described as loilowas
i W
)t SSe
BEGINNING at an unmarked point in the centerline of Yielding
Icon
Road and running thence with said centerline a 09 -11-10 E es.e2
feety thence 8 19 -SS -37 E 76.23 feets thence a 44 -4e -47 a 78.15
IN
-5
•01 -58
feats thence 8 66 -50-08 E 102.31 Pests thence S 77 -22 -11 a 67.59
feet to a point at the new corner of George W. Goforth Life
it to
Estate (see W.B. 62 E 133); thence with said North line S
72 -44 -02 E 230.47 feet to an unmarked points thence S 41 -22 -44 W
IS
17.70 feet to an existing iron, said iron also being located N
72 -15-27 V 2242,56 feet from NCGS monument 'Pinedale'7 thence S
1ek ;e
19 -12 -24 V 626.50 fact to an iron sets thence N 70 -47 -36 W 533.72
feet to an iron sets thence N 17 -48 -15 E 806.14 feet to the
BEGINNING, the same according to a survey for Gardner -Webb
College prepared by Ledford Bankhead 6 Associates, dated June 14,
1989.
i
'
The above property less the Exception contains a fatal of 378.31
acres according to daps 1 4 2 of a survey prepared by Ledford
Bankhead 4 Associates, November, 1989.
The 376.31 acre tract is subject to those rights and obligations
retained by the Grantor and Grantee as described in a contract of
Sale between the parties dated December 5, 1989 and recorded in
Book 1079 at Page S80 of the Cleveland County Registry.
an
ied
;hence
Once
n MteYti �
:t
•operty
r
N
Inc* N
lsmes
1.37
'et to

'
The b... tend w•1 nm,erfd W l.tanto. ill ., - .� ,,, .. . P.. .1 ! . _- ..-... 1'.., ,, ,.•„ .
TA NAL•r AM, 7,1 1Ay1 1) 71. Ab,w de•vikd r on —,-I. dl it.. •V1 Ydr,,.ear. th—t— —ht-" yr m A-` «,v arr•ftmmRa onn, Uu i 1-- 4b
h. •. end , ,NM.,q. ••d a•,vm lote•rl
Ald 111r 6 IAn1ar —I ti il, IhAI he 1. MY rd .d ..d ptflety. to ftf And Au rhf rrhl to nro.t. tht am• In Ir• •lmp.r, 1k•1 UA rltmMrt A'v
la
lutldlee
aambpm -b ,%id, the r„rprwna ab•,er 4ard d .n• .ad dl.I he will a n r. n 1 And I,frnd 14 lad nde 1" Ihr -.t .e,m,I the 11.1,11 lean, 1 .1' rrl+,n.
.A„mta.er
1\ hM 1 me n m.df IN the l:lAhl.q M f 11, nIM, the Vn�N,q1{df dyl{ m 1Y.1e Ihf P {WJ a.rf the 1nA.e Ylme d,aU .n.ludt the Irminlr.t •t .Ar M.tlf I
IN r.11rzoryaw Uf tilmpr M, ha / yMnla r•1 n Atd •,d -al. Ihf day .1) ear wN Aba1f •t111rn.
L ,br.AL -_ _ _ kutll M._S•1urflaR _ _ _ IARALt
t1L'AL1
1. 62
IIEAki
DIAl
__r _
67.51
Y c :b:1 a. .m a_ �_ -__ _:. _ _r f -av �eii�!bi•�f
S7Are ter 9.,kTH c ANt.uNA Clevejand -- _ --. _ .. awNry ,,.••• •.,, ' - ;
�• Ydr�•.f
Patty A. Scum (Botts) ......,N11tAr, rubht Yf"IdC..MY, J•1%C"by rNkd)+ON._,t]7,..,.
•
-�a w
d N
-- �- Robert F_NOrc�an and wi Egr_RIIQn. t%ZiDL$r70. _ `fit; -�-i
•.r;•.6 i .�= '�li.:~
1533.72
_
'
Gram,I. Peru."Ally drprattd ltffore me Ihtl day 11,4 aA►llev{edPd the ealeattoe t•1 the tare►`OM deed.
a,i "fj` �4
1•,I..d I,. 20th day Decelpber �' t
d 1
Y,WY.. my Aad nn.Anri WAI. th.. ••1 .r.� ..�-
My C.11nml.wn Rapae. .��... q.l 3�^er.,l- - -_ _ — • .f GA,.e.. •� e, T�h.q,AA f
a,�sr,+nr =
jaTAT[t11
s.te,•awwn.« ..r= �n��_v»:. = ::.c::�.�,� ..•�,.xv,.+rat•w... ..v�.�c .i�q: tws�!-- - ^.�— -
N051L7N CARI+LINA..__
176,31
t _- -... -, .,.�•- _ „ +N..CayNIlN.,f"tJCaYnty do hereby tlnuryaw _
Ird
6tanl.f, r,r-Wit •Pp•atd Orfolt mt d,u JAY and ubn,rwlydard the NAWIN.n at file fwgalnt deed
iona
Wghf.. mf hand AW 11warW ..vl, tlob dat a(. iv-
MIL'.1n1m1.,n1N4\rm - - -- N P.iSLALI
- __w•-_ w•
-"'”
act OL
Id in
x•e. �., .•a,.ry "Ae•�AYr1e6W.da a_s1F - -' •:V. Wb�wSL,ia✓Lw,.L.- rl „+>..�P..-
STAY[ UF Nt1N'(ll CAWLINA. CM - — -
-�.-L=
The laafj„tnl, . t"Irh Arell) of- '!4� -�1
�. •'�F
a 1 "ndirftt.rLMLl IY bt rP /reel. Thu .,,lu 1ent rat fa) 19"frawn tht, pJK^ day Off— 1011+ L.
plflMlledd — -_- �D - -. r
at Ag T� C. P. M'./6 d duty r��7t�Ndrd M thy Ylilff dr 1Af Ilf►YNH Yf lke,{a of •l�l.�� CYJn11.
Nwrh t.al„ hnA. M1 Nm\
�Q
Th. the -90 -.der ofZ A D_ .1
'•,- ^ _ --
- !tep6m or Ixedt An..lan,rl�Rep.tsa at fetid.
»
a� jull ;:
•H•1 , tv

08/12/2004 10:25 FAX [phone] CLEV CO LANDFILL Z002
alc ws-c
Prepared Uv• George a
ys+y
ibomasson. AttorneV, Kings Mountain. NC
toa+� 1085 ►� x809 ' �. 4�-4 y
NORTH CAROLINA
P062 MAINTENANCE AGREEMENT
CLEVELAND COUNTY
THIS AGREEMENT, made and entered into this 17th day of
April, 1990, by and among SAMMY LSE LEIGH and wife,. LINDA LEIGH.
parties of the first part, and R069RT A. HULLHNDER and wife.
OUYANNE H. HULLENDER, and BUFFY LYNN HUTCHINS. Single, parties
of the second part;
WI TN9S8ETH ;.
WHEREAS, the parties of the first part are developers of
a subdivision on the North side of Phifer Road near Kin ;a
Mountain, North Carolina, as surveyed by Trammell Surveying and
Mapping, Inc. on Deoember S, 1989, said plat to be recorded in
Cleveland County in Book at Palls of the
Cleveland County Registryj and parties of the second part are
the owners of lots in said Subdivision, and
WHEREAS, it is the desire of the parties of the first part
to make certain commitments to the parties of the second part
for the maintenance of the road which is shown as Camelot Court
in the aforesaid Subdivision.
Now, THEREFORE, for and in consideration of the sum of Ten
Dollars ($10.00) in hand paid, the parties of the first part
agree with the parties of the second part that they shall
Maintain in a condition of reasonable repair the road shown as
Camelot Court in the aforesaid Subdivisoon until such time as
the Board of Transportation of North Carolina or other body
politic accepts the responsibility for the maintenance of said
road. it is further certified to the parties of the second
part herein and any other property owners in said Subdivision
.9

08/12/2004 10:25 FA_1 704 669 2111 CLEF CO LANDFILL Z003
ICON 11111 0810
that tre road%ay known as Camelot Court has teen dedlcated to
public use by the property owners and has been constructed
according to specifications required by the Cleveland County
,
Planning and Zoning Board,
This agreement shall inure to the benefit of the parties
of the second part, their successors, heirs and assiCns.
IN WITNESS WHEREOF, the parties of the first part have
hereunto net their hands and seals, the day and year first
above written.
- - - - -- (SEAL)
S:aimy Lae Ish ________
_(SEAL)
Linda Leigh
NORTH CAROLINA
CLEVELAND COUNTY
1, ,,,,���! a Notary Public, do
hereby certify that Sammy Lee Leigh and wife, Linda Leigh,
personally appeared before me this day and acknowledged the
due executiod of the foregoing instrument.
pal; iiV hand and notarial seal, this -�� day of
n4lr #A 11 P& i'';5
Notary Public
J ray' *elon Expires: ----------
'. � • ';,. "'�.ic�ae o,�.n�, a� +�i•veulear. ee ��'� �,.., -. .. _
m
d. g
Man
any, -AsY l AD : .
11{ed (°r 'ao block and rpl�t.t In I va
19�a*� •7i. Clavdand Cw+n►Y. N�
d))w d Rsolta� al AwaO9' v�
of Papa

aecoaDD:c rET s .
Prepared Lv George 8 Thomassoti. Attornev. Kings Mountain, NC
„�vt� �t�c fiJ
YS43 BOOK 1085PA910809 ��' 4 6 9.2 B
7z� x""A., ,
NORTH CAROLINA
ROAD MAINTENANCE. AGREEMENT
CLEVELAND COUNTY
THIS ACREEt1ENT, made and entered into this 17th day of
April, 1990, by and among SAMMY LEE LEIGH and wife, LINDA LEIGH,
parties of the first part, and ROBERT A. HULLENDER and wife,
GUYANNE H. HULLENDER, and BUFFY LYNN HUTCHINS, Single, parties
of the second part;
W I T N E S S E T H:
WHEREAS, the parties of the first part are developers of
a subdivision on the North side of Phifer Road near Kings
Mountain, North Carolina, as surveyed by Trammell Surveying and
Mapping, Inc. on December 5, 1989, said plat to be recorded in
Cleveland County in Book _______ at Page _______ of the
Cleveland County Registry, and parties of the second part are
the owners of lots in said Subdivision, and
WHEREAS, it is the desire of the parties of the first part
to make certain commitments to the parties of the second part
for the maintenance of the road which is shown as Camelot Court
in the aforesaid Subdivision.
NOW, THEREFORE, for and in consideration of the sum of Ten
Dollars ($10.00) in hand paid, the parties of the first part
agree with the parties of the second part that they shall
maintain in a condition of reasonable repair the road shown as
Camelot Court in the aforesaid Subdivisoin until such time as
the Board of Transportation of North Carolina or other body
politic accepts the responsibility for the maintenance of said
road. It is further certified to the parties of the second
part herein and any other property owners in said Subdivision

30OX 1085PICE 0810 '
that the roadway known as Camelot Court has been dedicated to
public use by the property owners and has been constructed
according to specifications required by the Cleveland County
Planning and Zoning Board.
This agreement Mall inure to the benefit of the parties
of the second part, their successors, heirs and assigns.
IN WITNESS WHEREOF, the parties of the first part have
hereunto set their hands and seals, the day and year first
above written
Sammy Lee i h
-� -- ---(SEAL)
_`
- - -- - -- -- ------- - - ----- -(SEAL)
Linda Leigh
NORTH CAROLINA
CLEVELAND COUNTY
I,t/
......... a Notary Public, do
hereby certify that Sammy Lee Leigh and wife, Linda Leigh,
personally appeared before me this day and acknowledged the
duP execuxion of the foregoing instrument.
►►iif ies's my hand and notarial seal, this o?3 day of
,�t'•.,,•..•f��,,:. Notary Public
:li+'►mmi ssion Expires:
An
Co A NN o..vyv
V �S
It
,y, vex G) 1 o
G) 10 r A
1 doy •'%J�j� p D
Filed la reyl�tretlen en =— - �r�
19�ot1�•�Do'deck IA. end rpl•tered In tM
ile910er Of D�eaddc Cleveland county, NC
in B D � Jr►aoe by 9_ ,
ile0lder d Deedr
#id"
NN �t
t-j M A
0
vb os
CAy C2
O

APPENDIX B
P \SOLID WASTE \G02102 - CLEVELAND NEW SITE\DOC \G02102 -SS 7/3012004 Page 28

t �
I I I
NN,
- _-�
.�t�
Y
e
F � 81a15o ;��
e
T
i ►lt l
ff ULOecrAL saLm WASTE
UML FACLRY Municipal � �
Engineeringh
!I
V E 1 I FACILITY PLAN CLEVE" COUYTY a a e m f.n o�'^P�ny, PA
. exrsnNC Ca UTIONS AIOATH OAAOLIVA

q� e 4 3 � I FApL17Y PLAN
a+OPOSED SUUWAoc
AU"AL SOLO W'QTE
uNOFu F �I Muniapal �eenng!l
C LEMAN 3srvkss Comenr P.A *WY,NORT s..p� .�.«.

I
�`Y:�'1�� £l5!' +�T }[/ � `�l� �� - - ��r`— _ • -� /� � "/,C\�` p '; �ia5�•..M'f�
e��" �k:�i� �,, L� �. f� VY�� �� � � �,; i i�,�,'Pr„ l� rr," Ti., .k'''4+. —". - v /`,,`,f,•I'_ _
� ''i ��J` � '••v. I, .���'� ' �, � �` k :Tan ='
t
e
Aff"AL SOLD WASTE
- _ -• = I --^ LAAOF L FAam f I Municipal 111 Eng neermgl�
R e d
FACILF� CLEVELAAD CO(WY L rp 8—k.0 �•/' C...,. I A
icAcNA c a ccr av srsmn SHUY, HCRfH CAROLIVA

rZoo
�d' IO'tunW
u U 3
'ZV
�ulieBUlo �JV
E�
i
Nrd 1.1 is

ULU&
�X0 ava��w
EMT
NAP RErCRE °CE
$URXTY WAl BY F LLUIGRU k ASSOEUlC6 PA
THIS IS NOT A BOUNDARY 61JREfT
C ?lrlxlG FROPERTT AREA _ 1. 9] ACRES
PERM TIED BOUNDARY AREA - 10698 ACRES
LANon AREA _ 07 27 ACRES
PERNIT
UNC
s tti 1 `1 I j
Eu51 PRIYEii IT I 1 —
MY PREfERTY
E1RST PROPERLY
FROFEATY
arRO.s I X'P 5X0'"° MUNICIPAL ENGINEERING SERVICES CO PA
PERMIT AREA MINDARY CONSIATING ENGINEERS
i � _____ as I . �� N w �o, a� NE
TC°xrN -'- -- I awry avE<wa To�eryl I rmATm ar — � rry Bcv
w sm c Te xolT« cwar scut I m m x

APPENDIX C
P \SOLID WASTE \G02102 - CLEVELAND NEW SITE\DOC \G02102 -SS 7/30/2004 Page 29

ENVIRONMENTAL SERVICES, INC
524 S NEW HOPE ROAD (CMAR IpAl
RALEIGH NORTH CAROLINA 27610
919 -212 -1760 - FAX 919 - 212 -1707 10 2004
www eslnc.cc L
8 March 2004
Mr Wayne Sullivan
Municipal Engineering Services Company, PA
PO Box 97
Garner NC 27529
Re: Cleveland County Landfill, Dwarf- flowered Heartleaf
Dear Wayne*
Environmental Services, Inc., (ESI) appreciates the opportunity to offer you our services.
At your request, ESI conducted a jurisdictional delineation on a tract of land adjacent to
the Cleveland County Landfill in North Carolina. During the delineation effort, a review
was also conducted to determine the presence or absence of potentially suitable habitat
for the federally Threatened dwarf- flowered heartleaf (Hexastylis naniflora)
Dwarf- flowered heartleaf is a low- growing
(Aristolochiaceae). Leaves of this species
are supported by long, thin petioles which
rhizome section grows one leaf per year.
herbaceous plant in the birthwort family
are heart- shaped, dark green in color, and
extend from a subsurface rhizome. Each
Dwarf- flowered heartleaf was officially listed as Threatened on 14 April 1989, due to
imminent threats and long -term vulnerability. Radford et al., (1968) indicates this
species was found in four counties Cleveland and Lincoln Counties, North Carolina, and
Cherokee and Greenville Counties, South Carolina At the time of listing, 24 populations
with a minimum of 5,800 plants were known to exist in eight counties, indicating an
expansion of the known extent of this species. A status review by the USFWS published
in 1997 indicated that the known extent of the species had been expanded to 68
populations with a minimum of 17,000 plants Since the time of listing, the known range
of this species has again been expanded to include seven counties in North Carolina
and five counties in South Carolina.
Populations of this species typically grow in acidic, non - saturated soils along north -
facing bluffs and their adjacent slopes, occasionally in boggy areas adjacent to streams
and creek heads, and along the slopes of nearby hillsides and ravines Dwarf- flowered
heartleaf often occurs in stands of mixed hardwoods with an understory of mountain
laurel (Kalmia latifoha) or rhododendron (Rhododendron spp.) and other acidiophiles.
This species appears to be self - maintaining where shrubs are rare and light gaps are
present.
Potentially suitable habitat for this species is not present within the project study area.
The majority of the project study area consists of generally west facing slopes which
have been subjected to recent clearing, and contains a dense understory of blackberry
JACKSONVILLE - ST AUGUSTINE - COCOA 0 JUPITER - DESTIN - SAVANNAH - ATLANTA - RALEIGH 0 CHARLOTTE

ENVIRONMENTAL SERVICES, INC
Mr Sullivan
8 March 2004
Page 2 of 2
(Rubus sp.) and other low growing, early successional plants. The open areas
containing mature trees within the project study area include planted pine adjacent to the
creek channel Species known to associate with dwarf- flowered heartleaf, including
mountain laurel and rhododendron, are not present within the project study area. No
individuals of any species of Hexastylis were noted during the field effort.
If you have any questions or comments, or need any additional information, please feel
free to contact me at (919) 212 -1760.
Sincerely,
ENVIR,ON SERVICES, INC.
,�-7
An
l`l` Senior Scientist

U.S. ARMY CORPS OF ENGINEERS
WILMINGTON DISTRICT
Action I D 2013 -00478 County Cleveland U.S.G.S. Quad Waco
NOTIFICATION OF JURISDICTIONAL DETERMINATION
Property Owner /Agent. County of Cleveland / Attn.: Mr. Sam M. Lockridge, III
Address P.O. Box 1210 Shelby, North Carolina 28150'
Telephone No. 704 -447 -8201
i..�,t €• t�t�::�avcr4t r{..�Zq/ J 3
Property description
Size (acres) 72 Nearest Town- Waco
Nearest Waterway: UTs to Suck Creek River Basin: Upper Broad River
Coordinates 35 343170 N, 81.464009 W. Hydrologic Unit Code: 03050105
Location Description The site is a 72 acre tract of land located off Fielding Road, near Waco, Cleveland County, North
Carolina.
Indicate Which of the Followine Annly:
A. Preliminary Determination
_ Based on preliminary information, there may be waters on the above described property. We strongly suggest you have
this property inspected to determine the extent of Department of the Army (DA) jurisdiction To be considered final, a
jurisdictional determination must be verified by the Corps. This preliminary determination is not an appealable action
under the Regulatory Program Administrative Appeal Process ( Reference 33 CFR Part 33 1) ). 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
B. Approved Determination
_ There are Navigable Waters of the United States within the above described property subject to the permit requirements of
Section 10 of the Rivers and Harbors Act and Section 404 of the Clean Water Act. 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
X There are waters on the above described property subject to the permit requirements of Section 404 of the Clean Water Act
(CWA)(33 USC y 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 strongly suggest you have the waters on your property delineated. Due to the size of your property and/or our
present workload, the Corps may not be able to accomplish this wetland delineation in a timely manner For a more timely
delineation, you may wish to obtain a consultant. To be considered final, any delineation must be verified by the Corps.
X The waters on your property have been delineated and the delineation has been verified by the Corps. 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 have been delineated and surveyed and are accurately depicted on the plat signed by the Corps Regulatory
Official identified below on . 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 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

Action id 2013 -00478
Placement of dredged or [ill material within waters of the US and/or wetlands without a Department of the Army permit may
constitute a violation of Section 301 of the Clean Water Act (33 USC § 131 1) If you have any questions regarding this
determination and/or the Corps regulatory program, please contact David Brown at 828 -271 -7980
4 t.ISIti '' Ja
C. Basis For Determination
The stream channelstiiri tNe,�p- roperty are unnamed tributaries (UTs) to Suck Creek. The UTs to Suck Creek are relatively
permanent waters (RPW) which flow into Suck Creek (a RPW), and then flows into Buffalo Creek (a RPW). Buffalo Creek
flows into the Broad River, a Section 10 Navigable in South Carolina The Broad River joins the Conagree and Santee Rivers
before entering the Atlantic Ocean The stream channels located on the property exhibit indicators of ordinary high water
marks and have perennial flow.
D. Remarks:
The waters of the U.S , at this site, were verified on -site by the Corps on March 19, 2013 and are as approximately depicted on
the attached Stream and Wetland Delineation Map, submitted by ClearWater Environmental Consultants, dated February 5,
2013.
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 del ineation/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)
Attached to this verification is an approved Jurisdictional determination. If you are not in agreement with that approved
Jurisdictional determination, you can make an administrative appeal under 33 CFR 331. Enclosed you will find a 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 June 29, 2013.
* *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 David Brown/
issue Date: April 26, 2013 Expiration Date: April 26, 2018
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 our website at httD: / /Der2.nwD usace armv.mil /survev.html
to complete the survey online.
CF: ClearWater Environmental Consultants, Inc., Ms. Rebekah Newton, 224 South Grove Street, Suite F,
Hendersonville, NC 28792
2

Fielding Road Tract ( +/- 72 AC)
Approx. Location
of SF #1
Approx. Location
ofSF #2
N
Legend
Stream
0 150 300 600 900
Delineation Boundary Feel
Jurisdictional wetlands and waters identified on this map have been located within sub -meter accuracy utilizing a Trimble mapping grade Global
Positioning System (GPS) and the subsequent differential correction of that data. GPS points may demonstrate uncorrectable errors due to
topography, vegetative cover, and/or multipath signal error.
Note: The illustrated wetland and stream locations are approximate. These areas have been flagged in the field; however, they have not been
surveyed. Although Clearwater Environmental Consultants, Inc. (CEC) is confident in our assessment, the US Army Corps of Engineers (Corps) is
the only agency that can make final decisions regarding jurisdictional wetland and waters of the US delineations. Therefore, all preliminary
determinations are subject to change until written verification is obtained. CEC strongly recommends that written verification be obtained from the
Corps prior to closing on the property, beginning any site work, or making any legal reliance on this determination.
This map was prepared by CEC using the best information available to CEC at the time of production. This map is for informational purposes only
and should not be used to determine precise boundaries, roadways, property boundary lines, nor legal descriptions. This map shall not be
construed to be an official survey of any data depicted,
Source Data: MESCO and field collected data.
Cleveland County, C,earWater Stream and Wetland
North Carolina Delineation
224 South Grove Street, Suite F Delineated: Feb. 5, 2013
Hendersonville, North Carolina 28792

Cleveland County ( +/- 444 AC)
Jurisdictional wetlands and waters identified on this map have been located within sub -meter accuracy utilizing
a Trimble mapping grade Global Positioning System (GPS) and the subsequent differential correction of that
data. GIPS points may demonstrate uncorrectable errors due to topography, vegetative cover, and /or multipath
signal error
Note The illustrated wetland and stream locations are approximate. These areas have been flagged in the
field, however, they have not been surveyed. Although ClearWater Environmental Consultants, Inc (CEC) is
confident in our assessment, the US Army Corps of Engineers (Corps) is the only agency that can make final
decisions regarding jurisdictional wetland and waters of the US delineations Therefore, all preliminary
.. - are subject to change until written verification is obtained. CEC strongly recommends that
written verification be obtained from the Corps prior to closing on the property. beginning any site work, or
making any legal reliance on this determination.
This map was prepared by CEC using the best information available to CEC at the time of production. This
map is for informational purposes only and should not be used to determine precise boundaries. roadways,
property boundary lines, nor legal descriptions This map shall not be construed to be an official survey of any
data depicted
Source Data Cleveland County and Field Collected Data
Streams that form the property line were
delineated, however they were not flagged or
recorded with the GPS.
JD Form #1
.r Suck Creek
M�
4:`,
Drawn by: RKM 3.19.15; Project# 684
Cleveland County,
North Carolina
r
KC
Yi
ws
Will
:7�
RA
KA
� AVj
ti
JD Form #2
Buffalo Creek
r ,
Area Previously Verified by the USACE
USACE Action ID 2013 -00478
O�p =�;p
r
�_, .
► � Jr �.
.4-
/
t r i
Legend
i
CLear"WaLer
' err Wetland Data Form
Culvert
Streams Delineated (Not Flagged or GPSed)
Streams
Linear Wetland
Wetland
® Stormwater Basin - Non - Jurisdictional
Previous JD Boundary
1 Delineation Boundary
r
Contours = 2 ft Interval
f
0 500 1,000 2,000
Feet
224 South Grove Street, Suite F
Hendersonville, North Carolina 28792
Stream & Wetland Delineation_
Delineated February/
March 2015
Figure 5
Jurisdictional Water
Netland (AC)
Streams (LF)
W1
0.02
S1
3,979
W2
0 -01
S2
1,194
W3
0.75
S3
709
W4
0.16
S4
2,991
W5
0.84
S5
5,236
W6
0 -02
S6
562
W7
0.29
S7
4,514
W8
0.02
S8
1,176
Tota 1
2.11
Tota 1
20,361
Drawn by: RKM 3.19.15; Project# 684
Cleveland County,
North Carolina
r
KC
Yi
ws
Will
:7�
RA
KA
� AVj
ti
JD Form #2
Buffalo Creek
r ,
Area Previously Verified by the USACE
USACE Action ID 2013 -00478
O�p =�;p
r
�_, .
► � Jr �.
.4-
/
t r i
Legend
i
CLear"WaLer
' err Wetland Data Form
Culvert
Streams Delineated (Not Flagged or GPSed)
Streams
Linear Wetland
Wetland
® Stormwater Basin - Non - Jurisdictional
Previous JD Boundary
1 Delineation Boundary
r
Contours = 2 ft Interval
f
0 500 1,000 2,000
Feet
224 South Grove Street, Suite F
Hendersonville, North Carolina 28792
Stream & Wetland Delineation_
Delineated February/
March 2015
Figure 5

ENVIRONMENTAL SERVICES, INC.
524 S NEW HOPE ROAD
RALEIGH, NORTH CAROLINA 27610
919 -212 -1760 • FAX 919 - 212 -1707
www.esinc.cc
8 March 2004
Mr. Wayne Sullivan
Municipal Engineering Services Company, PA
PO Box 97
Garner NC 27529
Re: Cleveland County Landfill, Dwarf- flowered Heartleaf
Dear Wayne:
cv,", r�ii
0 2004 J
ES CQMQ --
Environmental Services, Inc., (ESI) appreciates the opportunity to offer you our services.
At your request, ESI conducted a jurisdictional delineation on a tract of land adjacent to
the Cleveland County Landfill in North Carolina. During the delineation effort, a review
was also conducted to determine the presence or absence of potentially suitable habitat
for the federally Threatened dwarf- flowered heartleaf (Hexastylis naniflora).
Dwarf- flowered heartleaf is a low- growing herbaceous plant in the birthwort family
(Aristolochiaceae). Leaves of this species are heart- shaped, dark green in color, and
are supported by long, thin petioles which extend from a subsurface rhizome. Each
rhizome section grows one leaf per year.
Dwarf- flowered heartleaf was officially listed as Threatened on 14 April 1989, due to
imminent threats and long -term vulnerability. Radford et al., (1968) indicates this
species was found in four counties: Cleveland and Lincoln Counties, North Carolina, and
Cherokee and Greenville Counties, South Carolina. At the time of listing, 24 populations
with a minimum of 5,800 plants were known to exist in eight counties, indicating an
expansion of the known extent of this species. A status review by the USFWS published
in 1997 indicated that the known extent of the species had been expanded to 68
populations with a minimum of 17,000 plants. Since the time of listing, the known range
of this species has again been expanded to include seven counties in North Carolina
and five counties in South Carolina.
Populations of this species typically grow in acidic, non - saturated soils along north -
facing bluffs and their adjacent slopes, occasionally in boggy areas adjacent to streams
and creek heads, and along the slopes of nearby hillsides and ravines. Dwarf- flowered
heartleaf often occurs in stands of mixed hardwoods with an understory of mountain
laurel (Kalmia latifolia) or rhododendron (Rhododendron spp.) and other acidiophiles.
This species appears to be self- maintaining where shrubs are rare and light gaps are
present.
Potentially suitable habitat for this species is not present within the project study area.
The majority of the ,project study area consists of generally west facing slopes which
have been subjected to recent clearing, and contains a dense understory of blackberry
JACKSONVILLE • ST. AUGUSTINE • COCOA • JUPITER • DESTIN • SAVANNAH • ATLANTA • RALEIGH • CHARLOTTE

ENVIRONMENTAL SERVICES, INC.
Mr. Sullivan
8 March 2004
Page 2 of 2
(Rubus sp.) and other low growing, early successional plants. The open areas
containing mature trees within the project study area include planted pine adjacent to the
creek channel. Species known to associate with dwarf- flowered heartleaf, including
mountain laurel and rhododendron, are not present within the project study area. No
individuals of any species of Hexastylis were noted during the field effort.
If you have any questions or comments, or need any additional information, please feel
free to contact me at (919) 212 -1760.
Sincerely,
ENVIR,JN SERVICES, INC.
L � Jan Ga �
Senior Scientist

Threatened and Endangered Species
Assessment for Cleveland County
Borrow Site
Cleveland County, North Carolina
May 21, 2012
Prepared for:
Mr. Wayne Sullivan
Municipal Engineering Services Co., Inc.
P.O. Box 97
Garner, NC 27529
Prepared By:
Clearwater Environmental Consultants, Inc.
224 South Grove Street, Suite F
Hendersonville, North Carolina 28792
(828) 698 -9800

1.0 INTRODUCTION
The following report includes methods used and results for a threatened and endangered
species survey and habitat assessment for the proposed 88 -acre project site in Cleveland
County. The site is adjacent to the Cleveland County landfill and will be used as a borrow
area. The threatened and endangered species survey was conducted to determine the
occurrence of or the potential for existence of federally listed threatened and endangered
animal and plant species on the proposed site. Completion of this survey was directed by
and complies with three current state and federal regulations: the Federal Endangered
Species Act of 1973 (16 USC 1531- 1543), the North Carolina Endangered Species Act
(N.C.G.S. Sect. 113 article 25), and the North Carolina Plant Protection and Conservation
Act of 1979 (N.C.G.S. Sect. 19b 106: 202.12 -22).
The project site is located southwest of Waco, NC near the intersection of NC Highway
150 and Fielding Road in Cleveland County, North Carolina (Figure 1 -3). The site is
bordered by a railroad on the eastern edge and a transmission line right -of -way to the
north. Latitude and longitude for the site are 35.34293N and 81.46346W. Site
elevations range from 800 feet to 900 feet above mean sea level (MSL).
2.0 METHODOLOGY
C1earWater Environmental Consultants, Inc. (CEC) conducted a file review of records
maintained by the FWS and North Carolina Natural Heritage Program (NHP). The
desktop literature survey involved a review of the U.S. Fish and Wildlife Service (FWS)
list of protected species in Cleveland County and the NHP list of protected species on the
Shelby USGS Topo Quad. The NHP data from May 9, 2012 indicated that there are five
current and/or historic records of occurrences of the federally threatened dwarf - flowered
heart leaf (Hexastylis naniflora) within a 2 -mile radius of the project site and within the
Waco Quad.
Scientific Name Common Name Federal Status
Hexastylis naniflora Dwarf - flowered heartleaf threatened
Hexastylis naniflora is the only threatened or endangered species listed in Cleveland
County by the FWS and it is also the only threatened or endangered species within the
Waco Quad. Database search results are included for review (Attachment A).
A protected species survey was conducted on -site on May 11, 2012 by CEC to determine
the occurrence of or the potential for existence of federally listed threatened and endangered
animal and plant species, specifically Hexastylis naniflora, on the proposed site. During the
site survey, CEC searched all wooded areas and stream sides for any Hexastylis species
present. Any Hexastylis naniflora plants of any species identified were to be flagged and
GPS located.
I'a

3.0 HABITAT CLASSIFICATION
The protected species audit consisted of a pedestrian survey. During field surveys, five
general habitats were identified and compared with recognized habitats for species
potentially occurring on the site. Potential flora and fauna were identified to the taxonomic
unit level necessary to determine if the observed specimen was a protected species. Plants
were identified to the lowest taxonomic level readily discernible in the field during the time
of survey.
The following is a description of each of the five habitat types identified on the referenced
site. A soils description is also provided.
3.1 Agricultural Field and Wind Rows
The project site is approximately 20% agricultural fields. Observations within the
agricultural fields included remnants of a row crops, corn, cotton, wheat. These
fields are highly maintained and obviously harvested each year. There are some
wind rows present along the field edges. These, narrow strips of vegetated land
included Russian olive (Elaeagnus angustifolia), Japanese honeysuckle (Lonicera
japonica), multiflora rose (Rosa multiflora), and greenbrier (Smilax rotundifolia).
3.2 Disturbed Upland Hardwood
This forested habitat type is slightly drier than the riparian area and makes up the
majority of the habitat on -site. Species observed in the overstory include white
oak (Quercus alba), sourwood (Oxydendrum arboretum), yellow poplar
(Liriodendron tulipifera), hickory (Carya sp.), red maple (Acer rubrum),
sweetgum (Liquidambar styraciflua), black walnut (Juglans nigra), shortleaf pine
(Pinus echinata ), tree -of- heaven (Ailanthus altissima), and Virginia pine (Pinus
virginiana). Species observed in the sapling -shrub layer include the over story
species and American holly (Ilex opaca), eastern red cedar (Juniperus virginiana),
mulberry (Morus sp.), box elder (Acer negundo), sassafras (Sassafras albidum),
blackgum (Nyssa sylvatica), Chinese privet (Ligustrum sinense), and Japanese
barberry (Berberis thunbergii). Species observed in the herbaceous layer include
microstegium (Eulalia viminea), Christmas fern (Polystichum acrostichoides),
Virginia creeper (Parthenocissus quinquefolia), yellow wood sorrel (Oxalis
stricta.), ebony spleenwort (Asplenium platyneuron), kudzu (Pueraria lobata),
muscadine (Vitis rotundifolia), Spindle (Euonymus sp.), bedstraw (Galium spp.),
greenbrier (Smilax rotundifolia), Japanese honeysuckle, cranefly orchid
(Tipularia discolor), grapefern (Botrychium spp), poison ivy (Toxicodendron
radicans), hog peanut (Amphicarpaea bracteata), chickweed (Stellaria media),
spotted wintergreen (Chimaphila maculate), violet (Viola sp.), yellow root
(Xanthorhiza simplicissima), southern lady fern (Athyrium filix femina), Indian
strawberry (Potentilla indica), netted chain fern (Woodwardia aereolata),
periwinkle (Vinca major), partridge berry (Mitchella repens), false Solomon's
3

seal (Maianthemum racemosum), trumpet creeper (Campsis radicans), and
running cedar (Lycopodium digitatum).
Stream banks are highly eroded and 10 -20 feet high in many locations with
limited vegetation on the banks. In some locations, the riparian areas are very
narrow due to sever erosion and close proximity drier upland woods. Species
present in the riparian areas include very dense layers of, Japanese honeysuckle,
periwinkle, muscadine grape, kudzu, privet, and blackberry. This layer provides
70 -100% dense ground cover at the site. The overstory includes yellow poplar,
red maple, tree -of- heaven and sweetgum.
3.3 Stream
There is one unnamed tributary to Suck Creek that flows across the site. This
stream is highly impacted by significant erosion of banks. Permanently rooted
aquatic plants are practically non - existent in this stream The stream banks are
generally unstable and do not provide habitat for Hexastylis naniflora.
3.4 Power line Right -of -way
There is an existing power line right -of -way (ROW) that runs east -west across the
northern boundary of the site. Edge species observed include redbud, eastern red
cedar, willow oak, white oak, red maple. These species and saplings of black
locust, yellow poplar, Virginia pine, tree of heaven, eastern red cedar, and black
cherry were observed in the maintained ROW. Herbaceous species observed
include pokeweed, Japanese honeysuckle, ragweed, lambs quarters, greenbrier,
blackberry, broomsedge (Andropogon viginicus), goldenrod (Solidago sp.),
Virginia creeper, poison ivy, lespedeza (Lespedeza sp.), wingstem (Verbesina
alternifolia).
3.5 Oldfield
Joe -pye -weed (Eupatoriadelphus sp.), pokeweed (Phytolacca americana),
ragweed (Ambrosia sp.), goldenrod, Russian olive, hog peanut, white clover
(Trifolium repens) , red clover (Trifolium pretense), vetch (Vicia sp), mint ,
microstegium, curled dock (Rhumex crispus), stickywilly (Galium aparine),
fescue (Festuca sp.), dogfennel (Eupatorium capillofolium), Venus looking glass
(Triodanis perfoliata), dandelion ( Taraxacum officinale), and wild geranium
(Geranium maculatum).
3.6 Soils
The Cleveland County Industrial Site is located within the Piedmont
physiographic region of North Carolina and more specifically the Southern Outer
Piedmont Ecoregion. One soil association is present on site; the Cecil - Pacolet
association. The Cecil - Pacolet association is classified as gently sloping and
4

strongly sloping, very deep, well drained soils that have a loamy surface layer and
clayey subsoil. This association is found on uplands. Soil series present on site
include: Pacolet sandy clay loam (PaC2 and PaD2), Cecil sandy clay loam
(Ca132), and Pacolet -Saw complex (PtD) (FigureA).
4.0 LISTED SPECIES AND ACKNOWLEDGED HABITATS
The following is a brief description of each listed species included in the survey, its
recognized habitat, and comments regarding survey results for that species:
4.1 Dwarf - flowered Heartleaf
Dwarf - flowered heartleaf is federally
listed as threatened in North
Carolina. Dwarf - flowered heartleaf
habitat includes acidic sandy loam
soils along bluffs and nearby slopes,
hillsides and ravines, in boggy areas
adjacent to creekheads and streams.
Soil type is the most important
habitat requirement (Pacolet,
Madison, or Musella types). The
plant needs sunlight in early spring
for maximum flowering and seed
production. Flowering and fruiting
occurs from mid -March to early
June.
The dwarf - flowered heartleaf has the smallest flowers of any North American
Hexastylis; most are less that 0.4 inch long with narrow sepal tubes (never more
than .28 inch wide). The jug- shaped flowers range from beige to dark brown,
sometimes greenish or purplish. The evergreen leaves are leathery, dark green,
and heart- shaped.
Stream side and wooded areas with Pacolet soils are present on the site.
However, the wooded and stream side areas are highly disturbed, dense
vegetation, and stream banks have significant erosion. All habitats, wooded and
stream side areas, were surveyed on May 11, 2012 and no Hexastylis of any
species were observed at the site. This project is not likely to have any effect on
the Hexastyilis naniflora.
5.0 CONCLUSION
During completion of threatened and endangered species assessments for the project site,
potential habitats and preferred soil types for dwarf - flowered heartleaf were observed.
The pedestrian survey for these species did not identify any individuals of hexastyilis. It is
5

the opinion of CEC that this project is not likely to have any effect on the Hexastydis
naniflora.
Although no federally listed threatened and endangered species were identified during
these surveys, because of the transitory nature of some of the listed threatened and
endangered species and the particular flower /fruiting periods of some plants, it is possible
that endangered species populations and locations may change over time. Therefore, any
potential findings at a later date should be fully investigated and coordinated with
appropriate agencies to prevent potential adverse impacts.
6.0 References
US Department of Agriculture PLANTS Database.
htti):// Dlants.usda.2ov /iava/nameSearch
United States Fish and Wildlife Service Division of Endangered Species. Species
accounts at htty: / /www.fws.gov /nc -es /es /countvfr.html
NC Natural Heritage Program, Virtual Workroom.
htti)://www.ncnhi).org/Paees/heritaeedata.html
3

Attachment A
FWS and NHP Occurrence Data

5/23/12 Cleveland County Endangered Species, Threatened Species,Federal Species of Concern, and Candida
U.S. Fish &Wildlife Service
Endangered Species, Threatened Species,Federal Species of
Concern, and Candidate Species,
Cleveland County, North Carolina
Updated: 09 -22 -2010
Common Name
Vertebrate:
Invertebrate:
Vascular Plant:
Dwarf-flowered heartleaf
Gray's saxifrage
Sweet pinesap
Torrey's Mountain -mint
Nonvascular Plant:
Lichen:
Scientific name
Hexastylis naniora
Saxifraga caroliniana
Monotropsis odorata
Pycnanthemum torrei
Definitions of Federal Status Codes:
Federal Record Status
Status
T
Current
FSC
Current
FSC
Current
FSC
Historic
E = endangered. A taxon "in danger of extinction throughout all or a significant portion of its range."
T = threatened. A taxon "likely to become endangered within the foreseeable future throughout all or a significant
portion of its range."
C = candidate. A taxon under consideration for official listing for which there is sufficient information to support
listing. (Formerly "C 1 " candidate species.)
BGPA =Bald and Golden Eagle Protection Act. See below.
FSC = federal species of concern A species under consideration for listing, for which there is insufficient
information to support listing at this time. These species may or may not be listed in the future, and many of these
species were formerly recognized as "C2" candidate species.
T(S /A) = threatened due to similarity of appearance. A taxon that is threatened due to similarity of appearance
with another listed species and is listed for its protection Taxa listed as T(S /A) are not biologically endangered
or threatened and are not subject to Section 7 consultation. See below.
www fws gov /nc- es /es /cntylist/cleveland html
112

5/23/12 Cleveland County Endangered Species, Threatened Species,Federal Species of Concern, and Candida
EXP = experimental population. A taxon listed as experimental (either essential or nonessential). Experimental,
nonessential populations of endangered species (e.g., red wolf) are treated as threatened species on public land,
for consultation purposes, and as species proposed for listing on private land.
P = proposed. Taxa proposed for official listing as endangered or threatened will be noted as 'PE" or 'PT ",
respectively.
Bald and Golden Eagle Protection Act (BGPA):
In the July 9, 2007 Federal Register( 7237346- 37372), the bald eagle was declared recovered, and removed
(de- listed) from the Federal List of Threatened and Endangered wildlife. This delisting took effect August
8,2007. After defisting, the Bald and Golden Eagle Protection Act (Eagle Act) (16 U.S.C. 668 -668d) becomes
the primary law protecting bald eagles. The Eagle Act prohibits take of bald and golden eagles and provides a
statutory definition of "take" that includes "disturb ". The USFWS has developed National Bald Eagle
Management Guidelines to provide guidance to land managers, landowners, and others as to how to avoid
disturbing bald eagles. For mor information, visit httnJ/ www. fws .Qov /miizratorvbirds/baldeap-le.htm
Threatened due to similarity of appearance(T(SW):
In the November 4, 1997 Federal Register (55822 - 55825), the northern population of the bog turtle (from New
York south to Maryland) was listed as T (threatened), and the southern population (from Virginia south to
Georgia) was listed as T(S /A) (threatened due to similarity of appearance). The T(S /A) designation bans the
collection and interstate and international commercial trade of bog turtles from the southern population. The
T(S /A) designation has no effect on land management activities by private landowners in North Carolina, part of
the southern population of the species. In addition to its official status as T(S /A), the U.S. Fish and Wildlife
Service considers the southern population of the bog turtle as a Federal species of concern due to habitat loss.
Definitions of Record Status:
Current - the species has been observed in the county within the last 50 years.
Historic - the species was last observed in the county more than 50 years ago.
Obscure - the date and /or location of observation is uncertain.
Incidental/migrant - the species was observed outside of its normal range or habitat.
Probable /potential - the species is considered likely to occur in this county based on the proximity of known
records (in adjacent counties), the presence of potentially suitable habitat, or both
www fws gov /nc- es /es /cntylist/cleveland html 2/2

Cleveland County Landfill ( +/- 60 AC)
7
SR 190 9� SR 1835
q 44 R 182F t
SR ,8 �8 8R , SS]
o Oto SR ?8
SR 1820 lJ
r
1832 ;, Ir
N ° Sri .' 8R 1830 p 1� Project Boundary
SR
1� d SR1� e
1e4 _ l8 ; ; (5 193 1. , a i►9 1' /`
A.
86 p
ter'
�I�I �✓'` ?f t11l.i r.� � F/! i � i�� •._ .���. .. It
'WR no
fir;
'#sy
�GSr
' J OFF ';� '�'{ F q s o � s � �� .ny. , !� ��✓ .� P�"��
:� (�� £
P IN .F 1 F.
Legend A _ 74
0 0.5 1 2 3 d
} ,
Project Boundary I Miles
Dianvrl '0
Cleveland County, C�earWaLer Site Vicinity
North Carolina Figure I
224 South Grove Street, Suite F
Hendersonville. North Carolina 28792

Cleveland County Landfill ( +/- 60 AC)
r
3
•� I ' '�'
♦ sr 7 f' �y� ! l` �' 1 �
Project Boundary
4 by 9 l%.. � • _ „!y s f i.�i.
Legend
w. 0 1,000 2,000 4,000 6,000"
Project Boundary Feet {
Cleveland County, CLearWater USGS Topographic Map
North Carolina Waco Quad
224 South Grove Street, Suite F Figure 2
Hendersonville. North Carolina 28792

14,
V.`.-AY
04
Z�A
-Z
V••
q.
Ai,
Y.
40
r4i
1 1 iso 311 600 •00

J�
Ni
r
b• ,
T
`6
F
b ~
n � Y
I
cr. _ J rs'
�A
4�
lap
h
4 ;.
*dLegend
Project
Boundary
Soils
1�
CaB2
Cecil
f
PaC2;PaD2
Pacolet
compleT �i�
`6
F
b ~
n � Y
I
cr. _ J rs'
�A

CULTURAL RESOURCE ASSESSMENT SURVEY:
THE CLEVELAND COUNTY LANDFILL EXPANSION
CLEVELAND COUNTY, NORTH CAROLINA
f
Scott Seibel, RPA,
Giampaolo Di Gregorio,
and
Greg C. Smith, Ph.D., RPA
For:
Municipal Engineering Services Company, PA
ESI Report of Investigations No. 388
July 2003
Environmental Services, Inc.
524 New Hope Road
Raleigh, NC 27610
A f AUG 1 1 2003

MANAGEMENT SUMMARY
This report presents the findings of an intensive archaeological survey for the proposed
expansion of the Cleveland County Landfill facility in Cleveland County, North Carolina. The
survey was conducted by Environmental Services, Inc., (ESI) of Raleigh, North Carolina for
Municipal Engineering Services Company, PA, (MSEC) to comply with Section 106 of the
National Historic Preservation Act (NHPA 1966, as amended).
The Cleveland County Landfill Expansion project area covers approximately 250 acres in two
separate parcels. The two parcels are irregular in shape and are located on either side of SR
1918, approximately 1.2 kilometers north of the community of Stubbs, North Carolina. The
existing Cleveland County Landfill lies south of the project area and was not part of the current
investigation.
Background research for the project was conducted at the North Carolina Office of State
Archaeology (OSA) and the North Carolina State Library and Archives (SLA). Data recovery
strategies used during the survey included a pedestrian inspection and shovel testing at 30 and 15
meter intervals; wetland areas were not shovel tested. Areas of clear visibility, including roads
and tree falls, were inspected for artifacts and other signs of cultural activity. All shovel tests
(n =358) were approximately 30 centimeters in diameter and dug to sterile clay in upland
locations and to depths up to 150 centimeters in combination with a 4 -inch bucket auger in
floodplain locations. Field investigations took place during March 2003 and were conducted by
Scott Seibel, who served as Project Archaeologist, Giampaolo Di Gregorio, Sharon Penton, and
Aaron Brummitt. The Principal Investigator was Greg C. Smith.
Field investigations resulted in the recording of 14 archaeological sites (31CL74 -87). Ten of the
sites contain prehistoric components, three of the sites contain historic components, and one of
the sites contains evidence of both prehistoric and historic occupation. Based on the results of
field investigations, 13 of the sites (31 CL74, 31 CL75, and 31 CL77 -87) are recommended not
eligible for listing in the National Register of Historic Places (National Register). Site
31CL76 ** is recommended eligible for listing in the National Register. It is recommended that
the site be avoided by construction activities. If the site' can be preserved in place, it is
recommended that the proposed project be allowed to proceed without concern for impacts to
significant sites. However, if 31CL76 ** cannot be avoided, data recovery is recommended to
mitigate the impacts of proposed construction.
Table A: Summary of Survey Data
Site
Cultural
Site Type
Artifacts
Size
Depth of Deposits
Significance
31CL
Affiliation
(meters)
(centimeters
Evaluation
bgs *)
74
Lithic Prehist.
Limited Activity
4
60x30
Surface
Not Eligible
75
Lithic Prehist.
Limited Activity
3
15x]5
10 -20
Not Eligible
76 **
19`h -20' cen.
Domestic /Agri.
78
90x90
Surface -35
Eligible
77
Lithic Prehist.
Limited Activity
1
Isolate
10 -15
Not Eligible
78 **
20 'hcen.
Domestic /Agri.
18
60x60
Surface -10
Not Eligible
79
Lithic Prehist.
Limited Activity
3
20x20
Surface
Not Eligible

Site
Cultural
Site Type
Artifacts
Size
Depth of Deposits
Significance
3l CL
Affiliation
(meters)
(centimeters
Evaluation
bgs *)
80
Lithic Prehist.
Limited Activity
7
45x90
Surface -5
Not Eligible
81/
Lithic Prehist./
Limited
2
45x75
5 -20
Not Eligible
81 **
20'' cen.
Activity/
Domestic
82
Lithic Prehist.
Limited Activity
2
Isolate
0 -15
Not Eligible
83
Lithic Prehist.
Limited Activity
3
15x15
Surface
Not Eligible
84
Lithic Prehist.
Limited Activity
5
30x 120
Surface
Not Eligible
85
Lithic Prehist.
Limited Activity
1
Isolate
Surface
Not Eligible
86
Lithic Prehist.
Limited Activity
3
30x60
Surface
Not Eligible
87 **
20'h cen.
Agricultural
5
30x45
Surface
Not Eligible
*bgs =below
ground surface

TABLE OF CONTENTS
IV
Page
MANAGEMENT SUMMARY
ii
TABLE OF CONTENTS
iv
LIST OF FIGURES
A
LIST OF TABLES
vii
1. INTRODUCTION
1
11. ENVIRONMENTAL. SETTING
3
Physiography and Topography
3
Hydrology
3
Project Soils
3
Geomorphology
5
Vegetative Communities
6
Wildlife
7
Land Use
g
III. CULTURE HISTORY
9
Pre - Clovis
9
Clovis
9
Archaic
10
Early Archaic
10
Middle Archaic
11
Late Archaic
12
Woodland
12
Early Woodland
13
Middle Woodland
14
Late Woodland
14
South Appalachian Mississippian Tradition
15
Historic Background
17
Project Specific History
19
IV. PREVIOUS RESEARCH
21
Recorded Sites in Project Vicinity
22
IV

Page
V. RESEARCH DESIGN AND METHODOLOGY 24
Background Research 24
Field Methodology 24
Laboratory Methodology 24
Site Descriptions 25
Site Definitions and Evaluations 26
National Register Eligibility Criteria 26
Nomenclature 27
VI. RESULTS OF INVESTIGATIONS
29
Archaeological Sites
29
31 CL74
29
31 CL75
29
31CL76 **
31
31CL78 **
39
31 CL79
40
31 CL80
44
31 CL81 /81 **
45
31 CL83
48
31 CL84
48
31 CL86
49
31 CL87 **
50
Isolated Finds
50
31 CL77
50
3 l CL82
52
31 CL85
53
Floodplain Investigation
53
VII. SUMMARY AND RECOMMENDATIONS
55
Summary
55
Recommendations
56
REFERENCES CITED
57

LIST OF FIGURES
V1
Page
Figure 1.1
Project Location Map
2
Figure 2.1
Soils Map
4
Figure 4.1
Previous Works in Project Vicinity
23
Figure 6.1
Site Location Map
30
Figure 6.2
Plan Map — 31 CL76 **
32
Figure 6.3
Photos — 31 CL76 **
33
Figure 6.4
Photos — 31 CL76 **
34
Figure 6.5
Photos — 31 CL76 **
35
Figure 6.6
1886 Cleveland County Map
37
Figure 6.7
1938 Cleveland County Highway Map
38
Figure 6.8
Plan Map — 31 CL78 **
41
Figure 6.9
Photo — 31 CL78* *
42
Figure 6.10
Photos — 31 CL78 **
43
Figure 6.11
Plan Map — 31 CL81/81 **
46
Figure 6.12
Photos — 31 CL81 /81 **
47
Figure 6.13
Photo — 31 CL87 **
51
V1

LIST OF TABLES
Page
Table A Summary of Survey Data
Table 2.1 Project Area Soils 3
Table 7.1 Summary of Survey Data 55
Table 7.2 Relationship of Topographic Landform to Cultural Context 55
V11

1. INTRODUCTION
This report presents the findings of an intensive archaeological survey for the proposed
expansion of the Cleveland County Landfill facility in Cleveland County, North Carolina. The
survey was conducted by Environmental Services, Inc., (ESI) of Raleigh, North Carolina for
Municipal Engineering Services Company, PA, (MSEC) to comply with Section 106 of the
National Historic Preservation Act (NHPA 1966, as amended).
The goal of the survey was to identify and assess the significance of cultural resources that might
occur within the project area. The term "cultural resources" as used herein is meant to refer to
sites or objects that are archaeological, historical, and /or architectural in nature. "Significant'
cultural resources are those meeting the criteria of eligibility for listing in the National Register
of Historic Places (National Register), as defined in 36 CFR 60.4 and in consultation with the
SHPO. Section 106 of NHPA requires that cultural resource assessments be conducted on all
projects involving federal funding and /or permitting. The guidelines for fulfilling the provisions
of Section 106 are contained in the implementing regulations 36 CFR 800. The following report
was prepared in accordance with federal and state guidelines.
The Cleveland County Landfill Expansion project area covers approximately 250 acres in two
separate parcels (Figure 1.1). The two parcels are irregular in shape and are located on either
side of SR 1918, approximately 1.2 kilometers north of the community of Stubbs, North
Carolina. The existing Cleveland County Landfill lies south of the project area and was not part
of the current investigation.
Background research for the project was conducted at the North Carolina Office of State
Archaeology (OSA), the North Carolina State Library and Archives (SLA), and the North
Carolina Collection (NCC) at the University of North Carolina at Chapel Hill. Data recovery
strategies used during the survey included a pedestrian inspection and shovel testing at 30 and 15
meter intervals; wetland areas were not shovel tested. Areas of clear visibility, including roads
and tree falls, were inspected for artifacts and other signs of cultural activity. All shovel tests
(n =358) were approximately 30 centimeters in diameter and dug to sterile clay in upland
locations and to depths up to 150 centimeters in combination with a 4 -inch bucket auger in
floodplain locations. Field investigations took place during March 2003 and were conducted by
Scott Seibel, who served as Project Archaeologist, Giampaolo Di Gregorio, Sharon Penton, and
Aaron Brummitt. The Principal Investigator was Greg C. Smith.
Field investigations resulted in the recording of 14 archaeological sites (31 CL74 -87). Ten of the
sites contain prehistoric components, three of the sites contain historic components, and one of
the sites contains evidence of both prehistoric and historic occupation. Based on the results of
field investigations, 13 of the sites (31 CL74, 31 CL75, and 31 CL77 -87) are recommended not
eligible for listing in the National Register. Site 31CL76 ** is recommended eligible for listing
in the National Register. It is recommended that the site be avoided by construction activities. If
the site can be preserved in place, it is recommended that the proposed project be allowed to
proceed without concern for impacts to significant sites. However, if 31CL76 ** cannot be
avoided, data recovery is recommended to mitigate the impacts of proposed construction.

�, - _ 1• t ``� �,_., , +Jr/ r, _. • -� ��'•. --1 `, \ 4,2(),0
9i+
- n ,�_± - -� �-`� ". ,.' - fit' � F� "� -;1''' -' 1s�� { � � � }_, � _• �� -, �J
1 11 �� ! � ^.. r�{, n� �"q}� .rte/ f� � •� _. - ' l�.'� �_ ...`. \. , . ,0 �_.. ..., ', .i
+ ,'
it
' '.'�f / r 35(1!,`} ` � _ ���, , - v�' � t` y✓
025 2s coo - '. �' \on M 6A date•
o tce kysc�s%e Gt vol ga ty fan o,►na
G e oe
d CO y Nosh Ca`
G\eve�ar

2. ENVIRONMENTAL SETTING
Physiography and Topography
Cleveland County is situated in the western Piedmont physiographic province. The project area
is in the Inner Piedmont Belt, which includes soils underlain by metamorphosed granite, biotite
gneiss and schist, and mica schist (DNRCD 1985). The landscape is characterized as gently
sloping with prominent ridges and small mountain ranges. Elevations within the project area
range from a high of ,925 feet above mean sea level (ams]) in the northeastern portion to a low of
760 feet ams] near the southern end of the property at the confluence of Buffalo Creek and an
unnamed tributary.
Hydrology
The project area is located in the Broad River Basin along the east bank of Buffalo Creek, which
flows into the Broad River. Buffalo Creek is a third order, perennial stream that is
approximately 30 -50 feet wide. It is deeply entrenched more than 20 feet below the level of the
floodplain. Direct drainage of the uplands of the project area is through Suck Creek, as well as
an unnamed perennial tributary of Suck Creek, an unnamed perennial tributary of Buffalo Creek,
and small ephemeral drainages.
Project Soils
Soil development is dependent upon biotic and abiotic factors that include past geologic
activities, nature of parent material, environmental and human influences, plant and animal
activity, age of sediments, climate, and topographic position (USDA 1999). A general soil
association contains one or more mapping units occupying a unique natural landscape position.
Map units (soil series) are named for the major soil or soils within the unit, but may have minor
inclusions of other soils.
Patterns of human settlement are often dictated, in part, by soil conditions such as slope and
drainage. The majority of prehistoric settlement, for instance, tended to occur on well and
moderately well drained soils. During the historic period, there appears to be a link between site
function and soil conditions, as evidenced by site types found across a wider range of soils.
Soil mapping by the Soil Conservation Service of Cleveland County has not been completed.
Preliminary soil mapping shows I 1 soils on the project tract (USDA n.d.; Table 2.1 and Figure
2.1). Except for small, isolated pockets, the upland soils within the project area have been
heavily eroded down to subsoil. A general discussion of soil erosion within the Piedmont and its
effects on site integrity is given below.
Table 2.1 — Project Area Soils
Name
Code
Slope
Drainage
Location
Appling sandy loam
36C
1 -6%
Well
Uplands
Bethlehem- Pacolet complex, eroded
98B2
2 -8%
Well
Uplands

N +�; •,
OiR,
� t+ .����7� •~ Via: _ - k.. .�,C, `Y'��� .k•',�:.:�,
31" rx D
�' 3l8Z c
B2
3igZ3ZCZ
57" se 3rp1 ` Z
3162 37c2
,' e"s.''xai;�fZ , '�ZC 3, -•i N '7�°pR r
g 7
aldZ 3�2 11
:. 3102 ,mac
3ZC-
�o 3,BZ y �,
3�',...t •Y •''�R„ 4 l!
Q Project Area (approximate) 31 g2
M1 0 025 0 50 Mi
0 O 25 D 60 Km
3 j
Source USDA Sal Survey of � . =�e
Cleveland County, NC 8
Soil MaD Units
36C Appling sandy loam, 1.6% slopes
9882 Bethlehem- Pacolet complex, eroded, 2 -8% slopes
9BC2 Bethlehem- Pacolet complex. eroded, B -15% slopes
31 B2 Cecil sandy loam, eroded, 2 -8% slopes
2508 Masada loam, 2S% slopes
3202 Pecolet sandy clay loam, eroded, B -15% slopes
32D2 Pacolet sandy clay loam, eroded, 15-25% slopes
8882 Pacolet -Saw complex, eroded, 2-8% slopes
8802 PacoletSaw complex, eroded, 8-15% slopes
69D Saw -Wake complex, very rocky, 415% slopes
1A Tocca loam
v
Environmental
Services, Inc.
0
a
w
• -jx�i' ' 1�id ��Ir4y.''/ 3'S!` ♦n , •_ ' , ^y • 11 .
. 68r
y�-
�� 988 r •� 47.1
y882 $r;dj
o�
nos \ta: � a ,6i - •': h;* ,�
ggpv- 482
F -�,-y �, 'fir �.. •Fu: �. r f a .
Rn..��4��5''•4:. � ��.,-.�"rL�`'... -rte :.�t'�k3:u":�n�`- `'�:S�c.n��`�,
C IR Fd�Y 518 69n
Soils Map
Cleveland County Landfill
Cleveland County, North Carolina
Figure: 2.1
Project: ER03004
Date. May 2003

Name
Code
Slope
Drainage
Location
Bethlehem - Pacolet complex, eroded
98C2
8 -15%
Well
Uplands
Cecil sandy loam, eroded
31132
- 2 -8%
Well
Uplands
Masada loam
250B
2 -8%
Well
Terraces
Pacolet sandy clay loam, eroded
32C2
8 -15%
Well
Uplands
Pacolet sandy clay loam, eroded
32132
15 -25%
Well
Uplands
Pacolet -Saw complex, eroded
68132
2 -8%
Well
Uplands
Pacolet -Saw complex, eroded
68C2
8 -15%
Well
Uplands
Saw -Wake complex, very rocky
69D
4 -15%
Well
Uplands
Tocca loam
IA
0 -2%
Well
Floodplains
Geomorphology
To quote Trimble (1974:1), "the Southern Piedmont is one of the most eroded agricultural areas
in the United States." During the period from ca. 1750 to 1967, the Southern Piedmont lost an
average of between 5.5 inches to 9.5 inches of soil, with more localized areas losing in excess of
12.3 inches, mainly as a result of farming practices and a lack of soil management (Trimble
1974:1,3). Trimble states that the depth of soil erosion to 1967 that occurred in Cleveland
County averaged between 4.5 and 9.6 inches.
Although some areas of the Southern Piedmont were experiencing erosive land use during the
late eighteenth and early nineteenth centuries, by 1860 all areas of the Piedmont were
experiencing high to very high levels of erosive land use (Trimble 1974:5,69). Beginning around
1920, however, a number of factors came together that resulted in a vast decrease of erosive land
use practices across the entire Piedmont, such that by 1967, the average annual amount of soil
loss across the Piedmont as a whole was down to 1700 levels (Trimble 1974:5,16,97).
The following paragraph is summarized from Trimble (1974:passim). The effect of erosion on
landforms has been tremendous. Upland areas and slopes have experienced sheet erosion and
gullying, the results of which have been the loss of not only valuable topsoil (A horizon), but
often loss of the B horizon and incision into the C horizon as well. In some instances, gullying
has exposed the underlying saprolite, basically a thick layer of weathered bedrock. Stream
bottoms and terraces are often buried underneath sediments eroded from the upland areas,
sometimes to depths that can be measured in meters. Additionally, as stream channels filled,
bottomlands that were once dry became swampy as the water table rose and became perched in
poorly drained soils. Lowland areas are still feeling the effects of past upland erosion as unstable
alluvial sediments migrate and are redeposited in downstream contexts as stream channels
reincise due to the decreased sediment load.
This soil loss has had a tremendous effect on archaeological sites in terms of integrity and
preservation as well as context. Upland sites are often eroded and deflated. Artifacts are often
horizontally displaced and temporally discrete artifacts, once stratigraphically separated, are now
co- mingled. In lowland areas, sites are generally preserved beneath modern sediments, but are
often unreachable due to the depth of overlying sediments and /or their location beneath recently
formed wetlands. When viewing Piedmont sites in terms of site location and settlement

patterning, it must be realized that the present landscape is altered from that which existed even
in protohistoric times. For example, areas containing wetlands and ponds today may have been
both dry and lower in elevation relative to the adjacent slopes and uplands.
Erosion is not the only cause of site disturbance and loss of integrity. Plowing and related deep
disturbance from agriculture and silviculture activities can be tremendously destructive,
especially in areas with little or no sedimentation. Agricultural plow zones typically disturb the
upper 20 -30 centimeters of soil. Silviculture can be more destructive, with subsurface impacts
often extending deeper than agricultural plowing.
Vegetative Communities
Six plant communities were identified within the project area. The plant community names have
been adopted and modified from the NHP classification system (Schafale and Weakley 1990). A
description of each community follows.
Hardwood Forest (H99
Hardwood forests in the study area are characterized by a canopy dominated by a mixture of
hardwoods with occasional pines. Species composition varies from nearly pure hardwoods to
areas where pine up to 30 percent of the canopy. Dominant species consist of American beech
(Fagus grandifolia), tulip tree (Liriodendron tulipifera), post oak (Quercus stellata), northern red
oak (Q. rubra), white oak (Q. alba), shortleaf pine (Pinus echinata), loblolly pine (P. taeda),
Virginia pine (P. virginiana), sourwood (Oxydendrum arboreum), and various hickories (Carya
spp.). The subcanopy includes black gum (Nyssa sylvatica), American holly (Ilex opaca), and
flowering dogwood (Corpus florida). Shrubs vary according to the site, and herbs tend to be
sparse due to dense canopy development.
Mesic Forest (MF)
Mesic forests are found on lower slopes, in shaded ravines, and along water courses. As with the
upland hardwoods, this community varies in species composition depending on local conditions.
Sweet gum (Liquidambar styraciflua), red maple (Acer rubrum), tulip tree, river birch (Betula
nigra), green ash (Fraxinus pennsylvanica), and American sycamore (Platanus occidentalis) are
the most common trees. Willow (Salix spp.) is found along some streams. The understory is
composed of canopy species mixed with ironwood (Carpinus caroliniana). Chinese privet
(Ligustrum sinense), tag alder (Alnus serrulata), and deciduous holly (Ilex decidua), and several
species of vines are found in the shrub layer. Common herbs include jointhead arthraxon
( Arthraxon hispidus), Nepal microstegium (Microstegium vimineum), beggar -ticks (Bidens spp.),
beggar's lice (Desmodium spp.), and spotted touch -me -nots (Impatiens capensis).
Pine /Hardwood Forest (PH99
Pine -mixed hardwood forest is a scral stage in woodland development is characterized by canopy
where pines share dominance with developing hardwood species. Species composition also
varies with landscape position, slope, and drainage. The dominant tree species consist of

loblolly pine, shortleaf pine, Virginia pine, white oak, scarlet oak, northern red oak, blackjack
oak, post oak, sourwood, and hickories, . The subcanopy usually includes black gum, American
holly, flowering dogwood, and seedlings of canopy species. Shrubs vary according to the site
and may include redbud (Cercis canadensis), strawberry bush (Euonymus americanus),
arrowwood (Viburnum rafinesquianum), and blueberry (Vaccinium spp.). Herbs include
heartleaf (Hexastylis spp.), spotted wintergreen (Chimaphila maculata), Christmas fern
(Polystichum acrostichoides), greenbriers (Smilax spp.), poison ivy (Toxicodendron radicans),
and other vines.
Pine Woodland
Areas designated as pine woodland are characterized by a predominance (greater than 80 percent
cover) of pines in the canopy. Within the project study area, pine woodland represents a
combination of natural communities and successional stages. Typically these areas consist
primarily of loblolly pine. The younger stands (5 -10 years old) support a diverse understory with
black cherry (Prunus serotina), eastern red cedar, wax myrtle (Myrica cerifera) and mimosa
(Albizia julibrissin) in the midstory and sapling sized loblolly pine and wild onion (Allium
canadense) in the herbaceous layer. Middle- to older -aged stands (15+ years old) support a
developing hardwood sub -canopy that includes sweetgum and northern red oak (Quercus rubra)
with little to no herbaceous layer.
Successional Land (SU)
This designation includes lands dominated by early successional vegetation resulting from
various disturbances to the plant communities. These early successional lands include recently
timbered areas and fallow agricultural fields in the process of regeneration. Recently timbered
areas generally support shrubs and saplings of previous canopy species, as well as invasive herbs
and vines such as blackberries, dog fennel (Eupatorium capillifolium), golden rods (Solidago
spp.), Japanese honeysuckle, and green briers. Regenerating fields typically support similar
invasive herbs and vines along with saplings and shrubs of pioneering species.
Urban /Disturbed Areas (U /D)
Urban/Disturbed areas include farm buildings, maintained rights -of -way, and pond and roadside
margins. Some areas become overrun with invasive or weedy species when left untended.
Common species include broom sedge and other grasses, multiflora rose (Rosa multiflora),
blackberries (Rubus sop.), kudzu (Pueraria lobata), and Japanese honeysuckle (Lonicera
japonica).
Wildlife
Mammals expected within the project study area include gray squirrel (Sciurus carolinensis),
Virginia opossum (Didelphis virginiana), eastern cottontail (Sylvilagus floridanus), raccoon
(Procyon lotor), striped skunk (Mephitis mephitis), eastern mole (Scalopus aquaticus),
southeastern shrew (Sorex longirostris), eastern chipmunk (Tamias striatus), red fox ( Vulpes
vulpes), gray fox (Urocyon cineareoargenteus), white - tailed deer (Odocoileus virginianus), and
7

white - footed mouse (Peromyscus leucopus). Muskrat (Ondatra zibethicus) and mink (Mustela
vison) maybe found associated with ponds and streams in the study area.
Common species that may occur in the project area include northern flicker (Colaptes avratus),
American robin (Turdus migratorius), rufus -sided towhee (Pipilo erythrophthalmus), northern
cardinal (Cardinalis cardinalis), red- bellied woodpecker (Melanerpes carolinus), blue jay
(Cyanocitta cristata), northern mockingbird (Mimus polyglottos), Carolina wren (Thryothorus
ludovicianus), Carolina chickadee (Parus carolinensis), tufted titmouse (Parus bicolor), wood
thrush (Hylocichla mustelina), common crow (Corvus brachyrhynchos), red - tailed hawk (Buteo
jamaicensis), and various warblers, vireos, and sparrows (Potter et al. 1980).
Reptiles and amphibians known to occur in the region include eastern box turtle (Terrapene
carolina), which inhabits forest lands. The eastern fence lizard (Sceloporus undulatus),
southeastern five -lined skink (Eumeces inexpectatus), and six -lined racerunner (Cnemidophorus
sexlineatus) are found in open and disturbed areas. Pine/hardwood forest within the study area
serves as habitat for the corn snake (E. guttata) and scarlet kingsnake (Lampropeltis triangulum).
Mesic and hardwood forest are habitat for the timber rattlesnake (Crotalus horridus), American
toad (Bufo americana), pickerel frog (Rana palustris), northern cricket frog (Acris crepitans),
and two -lined salamander (Eurycea bislineata) (Palmer and Braswell 1995, Martof et al. 1980).
Redfin pickerel (Esox americanus), largemouth bass (Micropterus salmoides), bluegill (Lepomis
macrochirus), redbreast sunfish (L. auritus), and white catfish (Ictalurus catus) are common
gamefish typically found in Piedmont rivers and large streams. Other nongame species expected
to occur in study area streams include golden shiner (Notemigonus erysoleucas), bluehead chub
(Nocomis leptocephalus), satinfin shiner (Notropis analostanus), spottail shiner (N. hudsonius),
creek chub (Semotilus atromaculatus), and speckled killifish (Fundulus rathbuni) (Menhinick
1991).
Streams in the project study area also provide suitable riparian and benthic habitat for a variety
of amphibians and aquatic reptiles such as the eastern newt (Notophthalmus viridescens),
northern dusky salamander (Desmognanthus fuscus), snapping turtle (Chelydra serpentina),
painted turtle (Chrysemys pieta), and northern water snake (Nerodia fasciata).
Land Use
Both parcels of the project area are currently abandoned and used only for timbering of pines.
8

3. CULTURE HISTORY
The project area is located within the Western Foothills archaeological region, which is grouped
with the Appalachian Summit as containing related cultural groups (Ward and Davis 1999:22).
While technically part of the Piedmont physiographic region, the Western Foothills was
influenced more by the Appalachian Summit cultural traditions than the Piedmont traditions.
Pre - Clovis Period ( ? ?? — 10,000 BC)
Claims of pre - 11,500 BP (C -14) human occupations in the New World have been met with
considerable skepticism in the past. However, there is slowly increasing evidence of human
populations in the Americas prior to the Clovis peoples. A number of sites in both North and
South America apparently contain pre- Clovis evidence. The Meadowcroft Rock Shelter in
Pennsylvania contains a reportedly pre - Clovis occupation (Adovasio et al. 1990), as does the
Cactus Hill site in Virginia, where quartzite tools were recovered stratigraphically below a
Clovis level (McAvoy 1997). Monte Verde is perhaps the most famous of the possible pre -
Clovis sites in South America, with an average reported C -14 date of 12,500 BP (Dillehay 1997).
It has been hypothesized that pre- Clovis populations in the Americas were relatively small and
therefore their sites have low archaeological visibility. Additionally, a large problem with
documenting pre - Clovis occupation of the Americas is that large areas once open to occupation
are now under many meters of ocean. It is believed that these peoples were quickly overrun or
absorbed by Clovis people (Fiedel 1999; Morrow and Morrow 1999:225).
Paleoindian Period (10,000 - 8000 BC)
The most widely accepted model for peopling of the New World argues that Asian populations
of the Clovis cultural tradition migrated to North America via the Bering land bridge that
formerly linked Siberia and Alaska. A generally accepted time period for the arrival of Clovis
peoples in the Southeast ranges from ca. 9,000 - 10,000 BC (Ward and Davis 1999). Recently,
Anderson and colleagues (1990) have divided the Paleoindian tradition into three subperiods
based on diagnostic stone point types, since fluted and other lanceolate projectile points and
thumbnail endscrapers tend to be the only indisputable indicators of Paleoindian activity. The
Early Paleoindian (ca. 10,000 — 9,000 BC) is characterized by Clovis points; the Middle
Paleoindian (ca. 9,000 — 8,500 BC) is characterized by points such as Cumberland, Suwannee,
Simpson, and Clovis -like variants; and the Late Paleoindian (ca. 8,500 — 8,000 BC) is
characterized by points such as Dalton and Hardaway points. Archaeological evidence from
Florida suggests that bone pins, stone knives, lithic scrapers, and atlatls were also used by
Paleoindian hunters.
Paleoindian artifacts have been found at sites located in a variety of inland ecological and
topographic settings throughout the Southeast, suggesting that these early groups maintained a
generalized hunting and gathering technology that enabled them to adapt to a diverse range of
microenvironments (Carbone 1983; Anderson et al. 1990). Presently, few data are available for
this early period, but it is suspected that settlements were small and occupied briefly to exploit
specific resources. Some researchers have suggested that high quality stone quarries were a
0

primary factor influencing Paleoindian settlement, whereby bands ranged over a wide
geographical area during annual rounds but were still "loosely tethered" to a primary stone
source (Dunbar and Waller 1983; Goodyear et al. 1989; Anderson et al. 1990). To date, no
archaeological sites with intact Paleoindian deposits have been recorded in North Carolina.
Archaic Period (8000 -1000 BC)
The environment of the Archaic period was characterized by warmer climatic conditions and
higher sea levels that resulted in the emergence of mixed hardwood forest communities,
particularly mesic oak - hickory forests (Smith 1986). The widespread extinction of Pleistocene
megafauna species accompanied the environmental changes that marked the onset of the
Holocene. At the same time, Archaic period Indians focused their subsistence strategies on the
procurement of smaller game, fish, wild plant foods, and in some areas, shellfish. There seems
to have been a significant increase in population during the Archaic, and groups began to
develop regional habitat - specific adaptations and material assemblages (Smith 1986:10;
Steponaitis 1986:370 -371). Over time, populations became increasingly sedentary, and a variety
of site types evolved, including base camps or villages, short -term bivouacs, procurement camps,
and cemeteries.
The mountains of North Carolina have seen little research focusing on the Archaic period. The
main excavations in the mountains of North Carolina yielding data on the Archaic period have
occurred at Warren Wilson in Buncombe County (Keel 1976), Slipoff Branch in Swain County
(Purrington 1981), and Mitchell Branch in Yancey County (Purrington 1980). Archaeological
work in Tennessee, however, particularly for the Tellico Reservoir along the Little Tennessee
River (Chapman 1977, 1985), has been extensive and contributed volumes to our knowledge of
the Archaic period in the southeast. Even so, many archaeologists working in the mountains of
North Carolina often rely on Coe's (1964) work at the Hardaway, Doerschuk, and Lowder's
Ferry sites in the Carolina Piedmont. On the basis of distinct artifact (mostly lithic) assemblages,
archaeologists have divided the Archaic period into three sub - periods, Early, Middle, and Late.
Early Archaic (8000 - 6000 BC)
There seems to be strong continuity between Early Archaic and previous Paleoindian settlement
and subsistence practices. Early Holocene populations are generally viewed as composed of
small, nomadic bands who followed seasonal rounds on the basis of resource abundance, thereby
occupying disparate geographic areas of resource extraction throughout the year (Smith 1986:16-
18). Although evidence is not abundant, Early Archaic hunter - gatherers probably utilized a
broad "species -rich" subsistence strategy to exploit the early Holocene forested woodlands
(Meltzer and Smith 1986). With the emergence of more numerous and diversified ecological
settings during the Early Archaic, regional specialization increased and led to greater
interregional variation, particularly in terms of projectile point typology. Familiarity with a
specific region probably resulted in seasonal reuse of the same resource locale. Settlement
during the Early Archaic is often held to be primarily logistical, with the use of winter base
camps (Anderson and Hanson 1988; Cable 1992).
lul

Early Archaic lithic technologies are characterized by a high degree of curation (Amick and Carr
1996:43). The production of formal tools is seen as a response or adaptation to high rates of
residential mobility (Anderson 1990). A proliferation of different projectile points during the
Early Archaic is seen as evidence of increased regional specialization. Early Archaic
components are almost exclusively recognized by the presence of side and comer notched and/or
bifurcate based projectile points. Common points include Palmer and Kirk Corner - notched
points and Kirk Stemmed points, with St. Albans, Le Croy, and Kanawah bifurcate based points
occurring in lesser amounts. Based on the degree of observable tool wear, it seems that Early
Archaic bifacial tools underwent extensive modification and reuse. After projectile points had
outlived their utility as viable spear points, they were frequently reworked into smaller tools such
as drills, end scrapers, burins, and spokeshaves (Smith 1986:10). Early Archaic technologies
also included several unifacial tool types represented by a variety of end and side scrapers.
Some Appalachian Summit sites (interpreted as base camps) contain manos, grinding stones, and
other food processing implements, as well as prepared clay hearths, indicating more permanent
residences (Ward and Davis 1999:70), though ground stone artifacts from Early Archaic contexts
in the Piedmont are rare in North Carolina (Anderson and Schuldenrein 1983; Goodyear et al.
1979:103 -104; Daniel 1998).
Middle Archaic (6000 - 3000 BC)
Middle Archaic cultures continued to exploit upland terrestrial resources, but gradually added the
procurement of interior riverine resources to their subsistence schedule. The shift to the use of
aquatic resources (both riverine and coastal) is generally attributed to climatic change and sea
level rise associated with the warmer temperatures of the Middle Holocene Hypsithermal episode
(Smith 1986:22). There may also have been a concomitant decline in upland resource yields due
to the lack of rain (Smith 1986:22). Archaeologists have frequently cited the Middle Archaic as
"a time of major technological innovations having significant socioeconomic impact" (Smith
1986:18). At that time, there was an increase in the kinds and numbers of ground stone tools in
use, e.g., atlatl weights and net sinkers (Chapman 1985; Davis 1990). Settlement patterns
changed during the Middle Archaic across North Carolina (Bass 1977; Chapman 1985). This
time period is typified by dispersed settlements in upland areas and in valleys and coves; large
sites are not typical of this period.
The primary indicator of Middle Archaic activities in the Western Foothills is a series of square
and contracting stemmed points, including Stanly Stemmed, Morrow Mountain Stemmed, and
Guilford Lanceolate (Ward and Davis 1999:70). Each of these point types is associated with a
regional Middle Archaic phase. Besides morphological changes in projectile point types over
time, additions to and changes in the artifact inventory of the Middle Archaic period are also
evident. For instance, the finely crafted unifacial tools that were part of Early Archaic
assemblages were supplanted by informal flake tools (Coe 1964). Simplification is seen as the
major trend in lithic technology during this time, with tools being produced on more of an ad hoc
basis, with a concomitant decrease in quality (Blanton and Sassaman 1989). This form of lithic
technology is thought to reflect a subsistence regime based upon foraging and high residential
mobility. Most Middle Archaic sites in North Carolina appear to represent temporary

encampments and occur without any apparent preference for particular environmental or
topographic locales (Ward and Davis 1999:63).
Late Archaic (3000 - 1000 BC)
Several substantial innovations occurred during the Late Archaic that promoted vast changes in
the daily life of southeastern Indians. Archaeologically, these changes are manifest as four
noticeable trends: the appearance of several cultivated plant species; stone and fired clay
containers; extensive, thick midden deposits; and increased evidence for long - distance trade
(Steponaitis 1986:373). Of the characteristics, the Appalachian Summit lacked only ceramic
containers, while only the presence of stone (steatite or soapstone) vessels has been recorded for
Late Archaic deposits in the North Carolina Piedmont (Ward 1983). A generalized hunting -
gathering and fishing subsistence strategy was employed, although a few plants such as gourd,
squash, sunflower, and chenopodium were cultivated in some areas of the Southeast (Steponaitis
1986:373). Within the larger Southeast region, Late Archaic adaptations included increased
sedentism and a focus on riverine and coastal resources. Work by Purrington (1983), Bass
(1977), and Chapman (1985) has shown that Late Archaic sites in the mountains are typically
found in the floodplains of large rivers in close proximity to quartzite outcrops. Relative to the
Middle Archaic, few Late Archaic sites are found in the uplands. An exception to this is the
upper Watauga valley, where settlement patterning continued to follow a Middle Archaic pattern
(Bass 1977).
Projectile points representing the Late Archaic in the Western Foothills are the earlier Savannah
River Stemmed and the later and smaller Otarre Stemmed (Ward and Davis 1999). Artifacts
common during this period included ground stone axes, celts, adzes, pestles, atlatl weights, and
beads; cruciform drills, scrapers, and knives; and grinding slabs and fire cracked rock (Coe
1964:119). Small containers or bowls carved from soapstone (steatite) were widely distributed
throughout much of the interior Southeast during this time (Sassaman 1993). In addition,
artifacts made of exotic materials such as copper or whelk/conch shell are found in sites at great
distances from their source(s) of origin, implying widespread exchange networks.
Woodland Period (1000 BC - AD 1100)
With trends toward increased population and greater settlement stability established during the
Late Archaic, the emergence of small river valley "villages" has been noted throughout the
Southeast during the Woodland period (Smith 1986; Steponaitis 1986). Also occurring at this
time was a stronger commitment toward horticulture, although hunting, fishing, and gathering
remained the primary means of subsistence. Maize may have been first cultivated in areas of the
Southeast sometime between AD 200 and 400 (Coe 1964:51; Ward 1983:73; Scarry 1993).
Earthen and stone mounds containing human burials and other material evidence suggestive of
mortuary/ceremonial behavior were constructed over much of the landscape during the
Woodland period, but none is known for the project vicinity.
As opposed to the Piedmont of North Carolina, which was characterized by cultural continuity
during the Woodland period, the Woodland period Appalachian Summit witnessed increasing
cultural diversity stimulated by the influx of ideas from outside of the region (Ward and Davis
12

1999:139). Knowledge of the Woodland period in the Appalachian Summit has been
predominantly derived from research conducted in eastern Tennessee by the University of
Tennessee at Knoxville and the University of North Carolina at Chapel Hill Research Laboratory
of Archaeology (UNC -RLA) Cherokee project (Coe 1965). Excavations at the Doerschuk site
established the chronology of the Early and Middle Woodland periods in the Piedmont (Coe
1964).
Early Woodland (1000 — 300 BC)
Lifeways during the Early Woodland reflect a continuation of those established during the Late
Archaic (Chapman and Shea 1981). Settlement patterning during this period includes larger
floodplain sites that served as base camps and small, temporary camps for hunting and collecting
activities on ridges and in upland valleys (Ward and Davis 1999:145). Floodplain sites were
preferred locations for the collecting of arboreal nut crops and seed crops and the practice of
incipient horticulture. Chapman (1985:61) has documented the use of gourds, squash, sunflower,
maygrass, knotweed, chenopodium, and marsh elder in eastern Tennessee. Deer, elk, and turkey
were probably the main animals hunted during the Early Woodland, with smaller mammals such
as raccoon, squirrel, and beaver of lesser importance (Ward and Davis 1999:145).
Evidence of both Appalachian Summit and Piedmont cultural traditions are evident within the
Western Foothills. Small, stemmed projectile points, Swannanoa Stemmed, Plott Stemmed, and
Gypsy Stemmed (Keel 1976:194 -197; Oliver 1985:206) characterize the Swannanoa phase from
the Appalachian Summit. These stemmed points mark the end of the stemmed point tradition
begun during the Early Archaic (Ward and Davis 1999:143). A large triangular point, the
Transylvania Triangular, has been found stratigraphically associated with Swannanoa Stemmed
points, evidence of the introduction of the bow and arrow during this phase (Keel 1976:211).
Swannanoa pottery contains either crushed quartz or coarse sand temper and are often very thick
(7mm -22 mm) (Keel 1976). Surface treatments include cord - marking and fabric- impressing,
with check - stamped, simple - stamped, and plain wares occurring in the late Swannanoa phase.
The Doerschuk site located in the Yadkin River drainage provides much of the framework for
understanding Early to Middle Woodland chronology in the Piedmont (Ward and Davis 1999).
Excavations at the Doerschuk site revealed two ceramic traditions, Badin and Yadkin (Coe
1964). Although originally thought to be sequential (Badin first, then Yadkin), more recent
research indicates that there is not a clear -cut developmental relationship between the two types
(Webb and Leigh 1995:29). It is possible that the two types developed somewhat simultaneously
in different regions across the Piedmont (Ward and Davis 1999:86).
Badin ceramics are generally well made, sand tempered, and either plain, cord, or fabric marked
(Coe 1964:27). The associated Badin Crude Triangular point, is large and crudely made. While
it is generally thought that the Badin type predates the Yadkin type (Coe 1964:45), it has recently
been suggested that Badin may simply be a preform for Yadkin (Sassaman et al. 1990:164). The
Yadkin ceramic series includes plain, cord, and fabric marked as well as check - stamped pottery
that was tempered with crushed quartz (Coe 1964:30). The Yadkin Large Triangular is a finely
made, thin point with a concave base; "Eared" varieties of the Yadkin have also been described
(Coe 1964:45, 47).
13

Middle Woodland (300 BC — AD 800)
Two separate phases are recognized by archaeologists for the Middle Woodland in the Western
Foothills, the Pigeon phase (300 BC — AD 200) and the Connestee phase (AD 200 — 800). The
work of Holden (1966) and others (Chapman 1973; Keel 1976) has found connections between
the Pigeon phase and the Deptford phase of Georgia and between the Connestee phase and
cultures in eastern Tennessee. Apart from this, the Pigeon phase is much less well known than
the Connestce phase, mainly due to the lack of a purely Pigeon phase component being isolated
at an archaeological site (Ward and Davis 1999:146). Evidence of the Yadkin tradition from the
Piedmont has also been found in the Western Foothills (see above).
Like the preceding Early Woodland, Pigeon phase sites are found on floodplains, ridges, and in
upland valleys and coves (Ward and Davis 1999:147, 150). Purrington (1983:136) feels that
Pigeon settlement patterns shift toward an increased use of floodplains, possibly a consequence
of greater reliance on horticulture for subsistence.
Pigeon pottery has fairly distinctive attributes including abundant crushed quartz temper; the use
of check stamping as the predominant surface treatment; large tetrapodal supports on the base of
vessels, and an "iridescent sheen' on the interior surface of vessels (Keel 1976:49). Other
artifacts of the Pigeon phase include small side - notched and triangular projectile points,
expanded- center bar gorgets, grooved axes, celts, flake scrapers, ceramic pipes, and a variety of
hammerstones (Ward and Davis 1999:147; Keel 1976:229).
Connestce sites are generally larger and reflect greater occupational intensity than earlier
Woodland sites in the Appalachian Summit (Ward and Davis 1999:154). Major sites are still
found on floodplains and usually contain numerous features and evidence of structures. Small
camps are found in a variety of environmental locations. Horticulture continued to increase in
importance, though hunting, gathering, and fishing still provided the majority of the diet.
Despite the presence of a mound at the Middle Woodland Garden Creek site, Connestee sites in
western North Carolina do not typically contain mounds, although Middle Woodland mounds
have been found across the southeast (Ward and Davis 1999:153).
Pottery of the Connestee phase typically consists of thin - walled vessels tempered with fine sand
and an occasional piece of crushed quartz (Keel 1976:247 -255). Flat- bottomed jars often have
tetrapodal supports, though vessels without supports are common. Typical surface treatments
include brushing, simple- stamping, and plain, with minor amounts of check stamping,
complicated stamping, cordmarking, and fabric marking. Connestee phase sites, the Garden
Creek Mound No. 2 in particular, have yielded artifacts indicating connections with groups
living in eastern Tennessee and Ohio, including clay figurines, copper sheets, beads, and pins,
and prismatic stone blades of chert and calcedony (Keel 1976:117 -149).
Late Woodland (AD 800 — 1100)
The transition from the Middle Woodland to the Mississippian period is poorly understood. It is
believed that further refining of the Connestee phase will increase knowledge of this intervening
14

period. The Cane Creek site in Mitchell County is though to have been occupied during the Late
Woodland (Keel and Egloff 1984). Less than one percent of the ceramics recovered from the
site were classified into a single pottery type named Cane Creek. Although similar in many
respects to Connestee phase ceramics in terms of surface treatment and temper, Cane Creek
ceramics lacked tetrapodal supports of any kind and the sample contained a much higher
proportion of plain sherds. A large number of preserved bone tools including awls, pins, and
fishhook blanks were also recovered. These artifacts first make their appearance in the North
Carolina Piedmont during the Late Woodland Uwharrie phase (Ward and Davis 1999:158). Two
burials recovered from the site also fit within a pattern found throughout the southeast from AD
800 — AD 1200 (Steponaitis 1986:384).
South Appalachian Mississippian Tradition — Contact (AD 1000 — 1838)
McDowell Phase (AD 1000 — 1450)
It is believed that people living in the southern part of the Western Foothills along the Catawba
River and smaller tributaries such as the Broad River are culturally related to the prehistoric
Cherokee and Catawba people (Moore 1987; Keeler 1971). Excavations at the McDowell site
(31 MC41) in McDowell County have revealed striking similarities with the Pisgah phase of the
Appalachian Summit to the west (Eastman 1994:34; Moore 1987). Similarly, work at the Berry
site (31 BK22) in Burke County produced ceramics with Lamar and Qualla -like attributes (Moore
1987). Both of these sites yielded radiocarbon dates placing the occupations in the fifteenth
century AD. This suggests that cultural influences from both the Pisgah to the west and the
Lamar to the south spread into the southern part of the Western Foothills. The Pisgah Phase
precedes the Qualla Phase /Lamar Culture and will be discussed here as context for the
McDowell Phase.
The Pisgah phase of the South Appalachian Mississippian Tradition has been called the most
intensively studied archaeological culture of the Appalachian Summit, and is of particular
interest because of both its differences from and continuities with preceding cultures in the
summit region. Continuities between Pisgah culture and the succeeding Qualla phase has
prompted Purrington (1983:144) to characterize Pisgah as "proto- Cherokee." The Pisgah Phase
is dated AD 1000 — 1450.
The Warren Wilson site, occupied during the Pisgah phase, is the most extensively excavated site
in western North Carolina, as well as the most reported site of the UNC -RLA Cherokee project.
Additional Pisgah data have come from the multicomponent Garden Creek site, which includes
one mound from the Pisgah phase and an associated village midden (Dickens 1976; Keel 1976).
Dickens' work at these sites provided detailed descriptions of Pisgah ceramics, houses, features,
burials, subsistence, and ceremony, and these remain the definitive reconstructions of the Pisgah
phase (Ward and Davis 1999:160).
Pisgah settlements range from small farmsteads to village sites with platform mounds. Smaller
sites cluster around the larger villages, and all of these site types have been found in floodplain
environments. The fertile soils of the floodplains were used to plant corn, beans, squash, and
sumpweed (Dickens 1976). Hunting and gathering were still a major subsistence component,
15

however (Yarnell 1976:217). It has been observed that only small sites reflecting temporary
hunting or collecting camps are characteristic of non - riverine settlings (Dickens 1978:131;
Purrington 1983:145), although an exception has been noted at the Brunk site in Buncombe
County, which consists of a relatively extensive open site at the head of a mountain cove
containing several postholes and a dense concentration of artifacts (Moore 1980).
The Warren Wilson excavations indicate that Pisgah phase houses were roughly rectangular and
measured approximately 20 feet per side, with walls constructed by setting posts in holes
(Dickens 1976:33 -34). Many structures utilized bent saplings set in parallel trenches to create a
tunnel -like entrance. Most houses had central hearths for cooking, with food storage apparently
accomplished through the use of above ground cribs and granaries, although two subterranean
storage facilities have been interpreted at Warren Wilson (Ward 1985:86).
Diagnostic artifacts form the Pisgah phase include Pisgah series ceramics; small, isoceles
triangular arrow points; a variety of lithic microtools, gravers, perforators, drills, and flake
scarapers; ground stone celts, pipes, discoidals, and small discs. The triangular points represent a
new technological development contrasting with the Piedmont Tradition (Oliver 1985:209).
Shell artifacts consist of gorgets, ear pins, beads, and dippers (Dickens 1976; Keel 1976;
Punington 1983). Some elaborate grave goods that have been recovered include panther claws,
cut mica, columella bead bracelets, turtle shell rattles, and red ocher (Dickens 1976:128). Pisgah
ceramics typically have a micaceous paste tempered with fine to coarse sand. Ceramics
recovered from the McDowell site were typically tempered with crushed steatite, though crushed
quartz and sand were also used (Ward and Davis 1999:191). Surface treatments were the same
as those used on Pisgah ceramics. The surface treatment of Pisgah vessels in the southwest
mountains of North Carolina almost entirely consists of rectilinear complicated stamping
(Dickens 1976:174), while surface treatments in the northwest include fabric - impression, cord -
marking, or smoothed ( Purrington 1983:143).
In ceremonial life, the Pisgah did not continue per se the earlier Connestee tradition of platform
mound construction, instead initially building earth lodges in which they conducted rituals and
civic duties. After these lodges collapsed or were purposefully destroyed, the remains were
covered by elevated platform mounds of earth, with temples or priestly residences built on top.
These lodges and mounds reflect political and ritual changes associated with the South
Appalachian Mississippian tradition and do not derive from earlier Middle Woodland mound
building (Ward and Davis 1999:175).
Burke Phase (AD 1450 - ? ? ? ?)
The Burke Phase is the expression of the Lamar culture in the Western Foothills. More
intensively studied Phases of this culture in North Carolina include the Pee Dee Phase along the
Pee Dee River to the east and the Qualla Phase in the Appalachian Mountains to the west. As
stated above, the Berry site in Burke County, dated to the fifteenth century, contained ceramics
with Qualla/Lamar -like attributes (Moore 1987), indicative of an expansion of Lamar Culture
into the Western Foothills. Given the similarities of artifacts recovered from the Berry site to the
Qualla Phase and the proximity of Cleveland County to the southern Appalachian Summit, the
Qualla Phase will be discussed as context for the Burke Phase.
16

Most archaeologists working in the Southeast consider the Qualla phase to be a manifestation of
the Lamar culture, which covered a wide geographical area and long time period (ca. AD 1350 —
1800; Hally 1994:147), though more evidence is calling this assumption into question (Ward and
Davis 1999). Dickens (1979:12) initially subdivided Qualla into Early (AD 1450 — 1650) and
Late (AD 1650 — 1838) phases. The Early Qualla was seen as the period following the Pisgah
phase and preceding sustained European contact, while the Late Qualla was seen as beginning
with European and Cherokee interaction and ending when many Cherokees were forced from
their homeland. There is some continuity between Pisgah and Qualla culture in artifact styles
and production techniques, as well as house and mound forms, but there are also significant
differences in diagnostic artifacts, community structure, and regional settlement patterns
(Purrington 1983:149).
With respect to settlement patterns, Dickens (1978) recognized discontinuity in the distribution
of Pisgah and Qualla sites in the Appalachian Summit area. Most Pisgah sites are located in the
eastern and central mountains, while Qualla sites are concentrated in the western and southern
mountains. Qualla culture appears to have experienced considerable decentralization both within
and between communities, as seen in a marked shift of the Qualla population to the southwest
that was accompanied by changes in community structure and simplification of the socio-
political system (Purrington 1983:150). Dickens (1978:136) suggested that differences between
Pisgah and Qualla may reflect European - induced disruption of the precontact cultural -
environmental system. The relationship between the two phases remains unresolved, but Ward
and Davis (1999:192) have postulated "an as- yet - unidentified Early Qualla phase temporally
coeval with at least the last half of the Pisgah phase."
Qualla structures were rectangular throughout the phase, with circular types added during the
later part of the phase; circular hearths were centrally located within each (Keel 1976; Dickens
1978:123). Platform mounds were built in stages, with successive additions being thin, as
opposed to the Pisgah mounds (Dickens 1978:124 -125). Burials were usually placed in pits in a
flexed position with few grave goods, although shaft and chamber graves are also known (Keel
1976:216).
Generic triangular arrow points characterize the projectile points of the Qualla phase (Ward and
Davis 1999). Other chipped stone artifacts associated with Qualla sites include flake scrapers,
side - scrapers, small drills, and later, gunflints. Groundstone artifacts include Celts, pipes, chunky
stones, discs, and pins (Keel 1976:215). Qualla series pottery is characterized by moderate to
abundant quantities of grit, partial burnishing of vessel interiors, folded finger- impressed rim
fillets, large sloppy curvilinear complicated stamping, and bold incising (Egloff 1967:34 -35;
Purrington 1983:148). Other surface treatments found are burnishing, plain, check stamped, cord
marked, cob impressed, and brushed. Vessel forms include bowls, carinated bowls, jars with
short necks, and jars with constricted necks (Keel 1976:45).
Historic Background
During the sixteenth century Spanish explorers traveled through much of what is now western
North Carolina. Hernando De Soto led an expedition through the Carolinas during the 1540s
17

(Swanton 1979:110). Two decades later, Juan Pardo traveled through the Western Piedmont and
Foothills. The Spanish explorations were the first European incursions into the project area.
Throughout most of the seventeenth century, few Europeans ventured into the Western
Piedmont. One exception was John Lederer, a German surveyor hired by the English who
explored the Virginia and Carolina frontiers in 1670. Thirty years later, John Lawson explored
the area on behalf of the Lords Proprietors of Carolina (Powell 1989).
By the time of Lawson's exploration, European traders were traversing the area to conduct
business with the Cherokee and Catawba (Merrens 1964:23). Within five decades, European
colonists began settling in the Western Piedmont. Many of these early settlers were of German
or Scotch -hish descent, and most had come from Pennsylvania (Sharpe 1961:1161-1162).
Continued population growth during the 1750s and 1760s in the Western Piedmont led to the
creation of Tryon County in 1768 (Merrens 1964:26 -29). Eleven years later, Tryon County
disappeared when it was divided into Lincoln and Rutherford Counties. The area in which the
present project is located was once a part of Lincoln County.
In 1780, at the height of the Revolutionary War, British and American forces confronted each
other at King's Mountain, on the border of Lincoln County, North Carolina, and York County,
South Carolina. Throughout much of 1780, the British had many military successes in the South,
including the capture of Charleston and victory at the Battle of Camden (Powell 1989:199 -200).
After his success at Camden, Lord Cornwallis, the British commander, sent Colonel Patrick
Ferguson into Western North Carolina to contain the "Over- Mountain men," a Patriot force
composed of men from the mountains of Carolina and Virginia (Powell 1989:199). Though
contemptuous of the Americans he faced, Ferguson took up a defensive position on the southern
slope of King's Mountain as the Over - Mountain men approached his forces. When the
Americans arrived at the mountain, they divided their forces into three columns and began
attacking the British from different sides. During the ensuing battle, Ferguson was killed, and
the rest of the British force surrendered (Powell 1989:200). The American victory at King's
Mountain was one of the turning points of the war in the south and caused Cornwallis to abandon
his plans to conquer North Carolina.
Following independence, the growing number of Euro- American inhabitants in the area came
into conflict with the native Catawba and Cherokee. By the second decade of the nineteenth
century, efforts were being made to remove the area's Native American populations (Weathers
1980:18).
During the Antebellum period, agriculture remained the dominant economic activity in the
Western Piedmont. By 1815, cotton had become the principal crop, but large plantations never
developed because the geological and environmental conditions in the region were more suited
to the development of small farms (Powell 1989:4). Other activities supplemented agriculture in
the local economy. Iron mining and production were important industries in the nineteenth
century. On the eve of the Civil War there were five iron works in the county (Powell
1989:314). In 1834, gold was discovered on land owned by Ben Briggs in the eastern part of
what is now Cleveland County, and a minor gold rush began (Cleveland County Heritage
18

1982:2). By the 1840s, textile mills were being built along the creeks and streams of the area.
The mills prospered until the Civil War (Weathers 1980).
Cleveland County was formed in 1841 from parts of Rutherford and Lincoln Counties. The
county was named after Benjamin Cleveland, one of the leaders of the American forces at the
Battle of King's Mountain. Two years after the county was formed, Shelby was established as
the county seat. Like the county, the town was named after a hero of King's Mountain, Colonel
Isaac Shelby.
During the Civil War Cleveland County was spared the physical tolls of battle. Like much of the
rest of North Carolina, the county was divided by the war, and men from Cleveland fought for
both the Union and Confederate forces (Powell 1989).
For several years following the war, the county suffered from economic stagnation. The textile
mills had been idle during the war and were now in a state of decay (Weathers 1980). The small
farms that were the economic lifeblood of the county also suffered. Though the plantation
system did not develop to a great extent in Cleveland County, Emancipation caused competition
for land between the freed slaves and the white inhabitants. The end result was a decrease in the
size of farms and an increase in the number of tenant farmers (Powell 1989:416).
In 1870, construction began on the Charlotte and Atlanta Airline Railroad, which ran through
Kings Mountain in Cleveland County (Weathers 1980). As the railroad cut across the county,
towns began to spring up around the stations and depots, and the towns were followed by
industry. By 1871, the Double Shoals Mill and the Cleveland Mill were operating on the Broad
River. Two years later, Henry Schenck built the Schenck - Ramsaur Mill on Knob Creek. In
1887, the Belmont Cotton Mill, in Shelby, and the Kings Mountain Manufacturing Company
were established (Cleveland County Heritage 1982:3).
Throughout the early twentieth century, cotton and textile production remained the basis of the
local economy. The Cleveland Cotton Mill, which was run by O. Max Gardner, became one of
the more prominent mills in the area (Hall et al. 1987:328,332). During the 1920s and 1930s,
many of the mills were affected by union strikes and violence (Tindall 1967). One strike, at the
Cleveland Cotton Mill in 1934, was broken when the National Guard was called in to patrol the
mill and mill town.
By the 1950s, cotton production began to decline, due in part to federal legislation and to the
appearance of the boll weevil (Cleveland County Heritage 1982:4). Once the labor problems
were behind them, the mills again began to flourish, so that by the 1960s, Cleveland County was
known as a center of textile production (Weathers 1980). Other production industries moved
into the county during the last decades of the twentieth century.
Proiect Svecific History
Studies of nineteenth century maps of Cleveland County showed th
within and surrounding the project area was once owned by various
family, a prominent family in Cleveland County in the nineteenth
19
at much of the property
members of the Beam
century (Beaman et al.

1996:25 -27). The earliest members of the Beam family to settle in the area, John Teeter and
Rebecca Beam and their two sons John and David, emigrated from Germany to Charleston,
South Carolina, in 1767. They indentured themselves for seven years in Lincoln County, North
Carolina, and eventually settled along Buffalo Creek in 1794. J.T. and Rebecca Beam ended up
with a total of ten sons and five daughters, and it is estimated that by 1898 the Beam family had
grown through six generations and totaled over 15,000 individuals, living or dead (A. Beam
1898:3). Two histories of the Beam family have been published (A. Beam 1898; L. Beam 1967)
that can be consulted for a more detailed genealogy.
20

4. PREVIOUS RESEARCH
The North Carolina Department of Transportation has sponsored or conducted several surveys in
Cleveland County. Many of those surveys have been for bridge replacement projects (Baroody
1982; Padgett 1986; Beaman and Robinson 1996; Beaman et al. 1996; Cassedy and Brown
2000a, 2000b). As a result of the bridge replacement surveys, seven historic archaeological sites
have been identified, and three of those were considered eligible for listing in the National
Register (Beaman et al. 1996). A 1992 survey of the proposed South DeKalb Street extension in
Shelby identified three archaeological sites, none of which was deemed eligible for listing in the
National Register (Padgett 1992). During the survey of the Dixon School Road extension in
Kings Mountain three historic archaeological sites were recorded (Joy 1993). The survey for the
widening of NC 180 from SR 2200 to SR 2052 yielded no archaeological sites (Robinson 1994).
Six reports dealing with archaeological surveys for sewer or water treatment facilities in
Cleveland County are on file at the Office of State Archaeology in Raleigh. The 1976 survey for
the Southeastern Cleveland County wastewater system identified one Early to Middle Woodland
site (Fischer 1976). A survey for the proposed 201 facilities interceptor routes in Grover yielded
ijo significant cultural remains (Cooper and Joyce 1977). In 1982, 19 acres were surveyed at the
site of the proposed Upper Cleveland County water plant, and one historic archaeological site
was recorded (Hammond and Hargrove 1982). A survey of the Boiling Springs water treatment
plant site revealed one archaeological site, an Archaic lithic scatter (May 1991 a). A survey of
the project area for the construction of a water intake was conducted near Shelby, which did not
identify any archaeological sites (Vacca and Sanborn 1992). In 1998, a survey was conducted at
the site of a proposed pumping station. No cultural materials were recovered during the survey
(McMakin 1998).
Five surveys have been undertaken at proposed or existing recreational areas in Cleveland
County, though these have not resulted in the documentation of many archaeological sites.
During a survey of two parcels at John H. Moss Lake Park, no sites were recorded (Fischer
1977a, 1977b). A survey at the Grover Recreational Park identified two archaeological sites: a
late eighteenth century homestead and a small Native American site (Fischer 1984). A 1991
survey of a proposed park in Kings Mountain yielded no cultural remains (May 1991b). The
survey of the proposed Broad River Greenway parking area near Shelby identified one site that
was deemed ineligible for listing in the National Register (May 1997).
Several other archaeological investigations have been conducted in Cleveland County. In 1992,
the survey of 33 acres for a proposed community development at Boiling Springs revealed three
Archaic lithic scatter sites (May 1992). The reconnaissance survey of a borrow pit location near
Lawndale, NC, yielded no archaeological remains (May 1995). An archaeological survey of
potential runway expansion areas at the Shelby Municipal Airport was conducted in 1995, and
no cultural resources were identified (Skokan and Nash 1995). No sites were identified during
the survey of a 10 -acre tract for the construction of the Cleveland County Senior Center (Hall
2000). A survey of 368 acres on the northwest edge of Shelby recorded ten previously unknown
archaeological sites and revisited one previously recorded site. All eleven sites were
recommended as ineligible for listing in the National Register (Gresham 2001).
21

Environmental Services, Inc., conducted an intensive survey for the proposed expansion of the
Cleveland Container Industrial Landfill facility in June and July 2001 (Seibel et al. 2001). This
facility is located south of Shelby near Patterson Springs. Four archaeological sites (31 CL68 -71)
were recorded as a result of this survey. Site 31 CL69 was recommended as potentially eligible
for listing in the National Register.
Recorded Sites in the Project Vicinity
Nine archaeological sites are recorded in a onemile radius of the project area. Most are historic
period sites dating from the late eighteenth to early twentieth centuries. The two sites with
evidence of prehistoric occupation did not yield any diagnostic artifacts.
A cluster of archaeological sites is located three- quarters of a mile east of the current project area
(Figure 4.1). Sites 31CL29 -33 ** are all associated with the Joshua Beam farmstead. Site
31 CL29 * *, the Joshua Beam home site, is listed in the National Register. Sites 31 CI-31 ** and
31CL32 * *, the John Teeter Beam home site and the Beam Mill/Buffalo Shoals Bloomery Forge,
are both eligible for listing in the National Register. The New Prospect Baptist Church and
Cemetery (31CL34 * *), located at the intersection of Buffalo Creek and SR 1908, is also eligible
for listing in the National Register.
The existing Cleveland County Landfill, to the south of the project area, was surveyed in 1996
(Hall 1996). Three archaeological sites were recorded (31CV25 -27; Figure 4.1), none of which
was considered eligible for the National Register. Site 31 CV25/25 ** consisted of the remains of
a farmstead and a scatter of prehistoric lithic debitage, 31CV26 ** was a historic isolate, and
31CV27 was a prehistoric lithic scatter.
22

' �: 1) it-"\ >✓ "'` \\ _- �� 11) "IV jt,`:,
.� I ' 't� f/, y, �. - ::r- =a4F�°i�y,, r4r•;+1;1_�r:_, - v _ - ;
:.'� _ �; •� - e�'' F?a,�_� ,ate.,, � <r, , _ •t' / �' '
I^ •'"- 3"`�M1"'` =--•r^ = q.'-"` `�,� ti /,�:.• ^�, c. }.� `• `t !: ;�'' r."�'^_ -.y-: rf? �N6
{ k � \ # l _ 'J,n W / - x t „�1_- �7ix-w.',7\,_` , \ y H f �c ^_. _ .93 A • I \'
�T: -.;.. Jrn3 `�. 1� ' •r.' :t , Y ,4*.''�”!
., `� i�� - , ;, � {'` ,'�•�' -^si ,' )���1, r - ,�{ � I Ct",,a.(_.,_ , . {ws i i �' =M, y j �- : %�I i•-
~ % . F,� 't- ' %i i/; r rr . i s�,M +,r '('.I • t.H',_r ice. "���T' ` �'"N c� A
F +�. 1, #��, \� a'k�•r c`- \,E `, /,. 1 �� +./. r �µ''�'�� i ��.� r" '. I _W a
�yy �-' ( - ` 7^ ' j _ 4 r �� ? ism "` ( (y1• yS _
1915
-�-' � \. �;'t %� 't`'� " � "'��'�.t \��'� ' ,_/ '' �) 1_•� l '1 'r' ` `�4i�=,`3P % -_ I` l`'
L '•� V/ i °t- G _, ,a;., ,1 ��, -! ;# ^i "sa , kt r ` �•;:I��j`y•4'ya: _ J I,t.
} sus
1+�w3•.ct •�..r,
31CV29 * *� / *+ h M31CV31 * *O1 3N' f +'` "
1 % 31cv30
V34 *
�� �` ! - \' - /, - �r.,r°��, fit}. ��±', , _ j" 1' %F, t�•'+�_, �'� •�• �,\'�,; - 'l! {;�t`,1 �
-,1' •Ii.(�.r -n. �"' .� ,.c�4YS1zi ,,4s�, ?'•� _ I ��) � l!( (` ���'* -F_ ( /7J/ '�' `�'�'?i•�„_I 1'� }.i �v \A
.,, i �, t� : I; -d =i':� i • \..% d �Y �:3c'• ,1 r�s�:J'
v j - `-= ''3=�.�\�.- �-� - � r , ••!y, - � ."�r• =r f M 9l 879 N,n .
-;+-
i
_-
31CV32 t
_ _.i �-) •r :-a, - i ' t �� z;•"n ==T ~ :� . p r / i r.�1�`��- - i . U ' ;'� \
31CV33 ** _`x-';� l�'�` ` ° -F.f ; +j „I ",�',,',,y'"._`. I.: .,.. -,', -' �' {• i :'\ ° ==
,� \� \- a +o /•�{'i�a3~ `4:£i'' -�Y. -`-, Js��� �. / , l:fr-t i;/ J 'Ci ���! 1�.��' � �\_i Jt) � A,S:1
' M >. '+i -- 1'�: _�y1ii:- 7;� 4 ,,�,` ", L, ` -• '" 11 / S ,>L?'a,,t qea'.
�3� ii � � `�J ; _Y �.A'" �' Cc a �.,�� 1' ' �.3-y C. �\ � J% �{ a i , ,: `',r- � � �x� , , . •. 4=
_' �`} '�:'�':_; � ` ,1 . \w •'��: � _ ,r i.r` ._ ���'r' 1 r� x_ % � '`tom F+.K,
ER96 -8186
-- "`z 40-. '
}', -';e,l
~atk '� "�' .: y\z ✓ �1 yT y`= _ .`' 31 CV25/25 ** kT %;r•`�% -� u;� �' ,
��.��t� f.• � ,\ �� � z q�_� 'j� +, "�'`��y °�, "G , \.-� n t � & \t„ ¢ Y -'.'� �.I a l�jM1T `J _ !l' � ny,` ' " YA;. � • 70
L _ `,l -a(� � - _,,<•��. _ _ � 5frc`kr .^ / ,'�` J •' /' .� _I ' 4,5`;L�
1 \' ".% /- J• "`�?Tz' -�y 'Y, / .>t `:4i'•'q.�, _�,.1�` ?,y.,.y �_ -c''`. _ i` \: y - _ t_ ear ;�i5�\ /J
4) 1• ".a• ��� �� /�`- r,5.�7,f;',�- _J.,_ - Pz 31 CV26 * *�•+,���` -' �—"; �"�:,.'�. f--';' ,1•-f -'_'f` -+ �'s ^:;_. /(�
�, I ! :' _ ... - \. LF32i 9J � � Y � _ .. . _ ,.c' alr � ' � �, t �;¢- ¢, �n� ✓�
• I � _ ' o �`� -`,•.1 o R' -,�'` � ' r� , � � / \. 3 ,_,%`` �.y�^ i � � /• c �_ ='4,� . 1 �`� �= {��� jl���a, � I: F
! .-• �\ � `� �" J/r ,•!' •,��• -', .�,�' 1�r r %,' -i_i -, - - � /�Y.1 f � � r.. .�y,•, v ; �r r�•`r' .+.'�.
o
,r c.., <KI
k t rP ( �s•^ •1� 111 s •��
7 ef't`� r.J titl I = `•c, -' r. I -.a• 1�.'' ,•.., s
�, /'- 'dS= ""'._�•, "iii ( ^rf__ '� T+� \ v:,,k. �h i : :"; d-j;ts -� -/ t - -yl �r'> '.�. -i �y
C3 Current Project Study Area
E]
i Y Are Previous Stud a • �' p r" 'L?.1, "' ~"`� - - -
..�JI � 1 / t � �. � �82i t\ • ���5 _. -, i ' ; i y
-_ Site Boundary
i..- Y ^6 ..i .: iii;._.- '- `V •'=
0 1000 2000 Feet
I ��`-,� ''�� -lam'„ ;•Ir ��II(• -�J-/ , �) ` %,'-!
0 0.25 0.50 KmS:F' _ _ -_ ✓ F� ' /'(=i'� fir'•
mot-!
Source usGS 124,000
Waco Quadrangle. 1973 I!-
, :x' t ��= ��%,c�,r= f_'��L` 1-% '!�� .,a } > I I . � I ; } 't;=� -,.- ���•,:�,•_k'PI`�'"' ; ,.'fir`,' _ � : Z-, `,
Figure: 4.1
Previous Work in Project Vicinity g
G ( Environmental
Services, Inc. Cleveland County Landfill Project: ER03 -004
a Cleveland County, North Carolina
9 Date: May 2003
0
W

5. RESEARCH DESIGN AND METIIODOLOGY
The goal of the investigation was to locate all cultural resources within the project area and to
assess their potential eligibility for listing in the National Register. Work towards this goal took
place in two stages, background research and field investigations. Background research took
place at the OSA, the SLA, and included a search of the North Carolina Archaeological Site
Files, the study of old maps of Cleveland County, and a search for National Register- listed
properties within or in close proximity to the project area. Field investigations took the form of
pedestrian survey and intensive shovel testing following the procedures outlined below. All sites
were assessed for significance and potential eligibility for listing in the National Register.
Background Research
Background research took place at the OSA, the SLA, and the NCC, and included a search of the
North Carolina Archaeological Site Files, North Carolina Cemetery Survey Files, the study of
old maps of Cleveland County, and a search for National Register - listed properties within or in
close proximity to the project area.
Field Methodology
Field methods employed by ESI during the investigation included a pedestrian survey and shovel
testing of the project area. Pedestrian inspection focused on areas of clear surface visibility,
including roads and tree fall, within and adjacent to the boundaries of the two sites. Intensive
shovel testing at 30 -meter intervals was conducted in undisturbed areas within the project area.
When artifacts were recovered, supplemental shovel tests were dug at 15 -meter intervals to
delineate site boundaries and determine the nature of subsurface deposits. All shovel tests were
dug to the depth of sterile clay in upland areas unless prevented by large tree roots or rocks, and
to depths up to 150 centimeters in combination with a 4 -inch bucket auger in floodplain
locations. Shovel tests were not excavated in wetland areas.
All shovel tests excavated during the intensive survey measured 30 cm in diameter and were dug
to water, subsoil, and/or sterile soil. All excavated sediments were screened through 6.35 mm
(1/4") steel mesh mounted upon portable shaker stands. Recovered artifacts were placed in bags
and marked with test location, depth of recovery, artifact types, excavator's initials, and a field
specimen (FS) number. Pertinent field data, including test locations, stratigraphy, environmental
setting, topography, etc. were recorded in field notebooks carried by each shovel test crew.
Crews backfilled each shovel test and excavation unit and marked the location with pink
surveyor's flagging tape. Each test location was marked on a topographic field map of the
project area.
Laboratory Methodology
All field notes, forms, maps, and recovered artifacts were transported to the ESI laboratory in
Raleigh, North Carolina. During fieldwork, a catalogue system was employed to ensure that
provenience data were recorded for each recovered artifact. In the laboratory, all artifacts were
washed with a soft bristle brush and allowed to air dry. No artifact required stabilization or
24

conservation. Cultural materials were quantified, analyzed, and rebagged according to
provenience. Prehistoric artifacts included aboriginal lithic tools and debitage. Historic artifacts
include ceramics, glass, iron, and architectural items.
During the analysis, all lithic artifacts were counted, identified as to material type, and examined
under magnification (10 -60x) as needed. To determine their relative position on the reduction
continuum, flakes were measured along their long axis and were further categorized on the basis
of observable surface cortex. Flake size categories used were 0 -10 mm, 10 -20 mm, 20 -30 mm,
30 -40 mm, etc. Primary flakes (PF) exhibit cortex over 100% of their outer surface, while
secondary flakes (SF) possess cortex over less than 100% of their outer surface. Flakes that
lacked cortex on the outer surface were classified as tertiary flakes (TF). Shatter are defined as
angular fragments of stone that have been clearly modified, but lack a clear bulb of percussion.
A detailed morphological analysis was undertaken of each tool or tool fragment, during which
the mode of modification (bifacial, unifacial) was determined and recorded. Bifacial tools and
points were analyzed according to a modified four part staging scheme based on morphological
characteristics that identifies different stages within a single or multiple lithic reduction strategy
(Black et al. 1997). In this scheme, Stages I and I1 are beginning and intermediary
manufacturing stages that can be identified according to characteristics such as edge sinuosity,
degree of shaping, and presence /absence of cortex. A Stage I biface represents a modified core,
while a Stage II biface can be considered a preform. Stage III is the final manufacturing stage
evidenced by final shaping and thinning of the biface. Stage IV represents resharpening and/or
remodification. Metric information such as maximum length (ML), maximum width (MW), and
maximum thickness (MT) was also recorded and is given in that order (ML x MW x MT). All
metric information was measured with a SkillTech caliper (maximum instrumental error = 0.5
mm).
Historic artifacts were analyzed according to material type and function, when possible. Vessel
morphology (i.e. bowl, plate, etc...) as well as the type of fragment (basal /footing, neck, rim/lip,
body, etc...) were noted whenever possible for glass and ceramics. If necessary, specific
references for bottle glass, nails, and other miscellaneous items were consulted (cf. Ellis 1997;
Tremont Nail Company n.d.; Israel 1993).
The results of laboratory analysis are discussed and tabulated in the site descriptions. All field
documents including notes, forms, and maps as well as the artifacts recovered during the survey
were labeled and packed for permanent curation according to the North Carolina OSA
Archaeological Curation Standards and Guidelines. Presently, project materials are being
temporarily housed at the ESI laboratory in Raleigh, North Carolina. Following project
completion, all artifacts will be transported to the OSA curatorial facility for permanent storage.
Site Descriptions
Site descriptions contain a variety of information generally based on fields included on North
Carolina Archaeological Site Forms, much of it presented in a succinct bullet format. Categories
include: site size; topography; elevation; environmental setting; soil type; nearest water; surface
visibility; field procedures; cultural affiliation; site function; and site integrity. Each site
25

description includes a detailed discussion of the work conducted at the site and the types of
material, etc. encountered. Also given is a listing of the artifacts recovered from the site by
component and context, as well as recommendations for the site (no further work, avoidance,
evaluative testing, etc.).
When reporting the number of shovel tests excavated at a site under the field procedures heading,
all shovel tests used to both determine the integrity of subsurface deposits and to delineate the
boundaries of a site are included. For example, if a shovel test contained cultural material, but
two tests on either side of the positive test did not contain cultural material, are three are included
in the shovel test count used to delineate the boundary of the site.
Site Definitions and Evaluations
Archaeological sites are defined as discrete and potentially interpretable loci of cultural material
(Plog et a]. 1978). For the present study, an archaeological site is defined as a concentration of
three or more artifacts (older than 50 years) within 30 meters of each other that appear to
represent either short or long -term activity. Isolated finds are defined as one to two artifacts
recovered with no additional cultural material recovered from either the ground surface or from
other shovel tests within 30 meters or less. With the exception of diagnostic projectile points or
ceramic sherds, isolated finds yield less than the minimum data sufficient to forward statements
concerning prehistoric land use and /or temporal affiliation.
National Register Eligibility Criteria
In order for a site, building, etc. to be considered a significant historic property, it must meet one
or more of four specific criteria established in 36 CFR Part 60, National Register of Historic
Places (National Register), and 36 CFR Part 800, Protection of Historic Properties. The
evaluation of a prehistoric or historic archaeological site for inclusion on the National Register
rests largely on its research potential, that is, its ability to contribute important information
through preservation and/or additional study (Criterion D).
The National Register criteria for evaluation are stated as follows:
The quality of significance in American history, architecture, archaeology,
engineering, and culture is present in districts, sites, buildings, structures, and
objects that possess integrity of location, design, setting, materials, workmanship,
feeling, and association, and;
Criterion A: Properties that are associated with events that have made a
significant contribution to broad patterns of our history;
Criterion B: Properties that are associated with the lives ofpersons significant in
our past;
Criterion C• Properties that embody the distinctive characteristics of a type,
period, or method of construction, or that represent the work of a master, or that
26

possess high artistic values, or that represent a significant and distinguishable
entity whose components may lack individual distinction; and
Criterion D: Properties that have yielded, or may be likely to yield, important
information in prehistory or history.
While many archaeological sites are recommended as eligible to the NRHP under Criterion D,
this is somewhat ill- defined. In order to clarify the issue of site importance, the following
attribute evaluations add a measure of specificity that can be used in assessing site significance
and NRHP eligibility:
a. Site Integrity — Does the site contain intact cultural deposits or is it disturbed ?;
b. Preservation — Does the site contain material suited to in -depth analysis and /or absolute
dating such as preserved features, botanical and /or faunal remains, or human skeletal
remains ?;
C. Uniqueness — Is the information contained in the site redundant in comparison to that
available from similar sites, or do the remains provide a unique or insightful perspective
on research concerns of regional importance?
d. Relevance to Current and Future Research — Would additional work at this site contribute
to our knowledge of the past? Would preservation of the site protect valuable
information for future studies? While this category is partly a summary of the above
considerations, it also recognizes that a site may provide valuable information regardless
of its integrity, preservation, or uniqueness.
Nomenclature
Archaeological sites in North Carolina are most often discussed and recorded using the
standardized nomenclature provided by the OSA. In order to maintain consistency, the
following functional site designations utilized by the OSA are used in the site descriptions,
below:
Prehistoric: Limited Activity
Lithic Workshop
Lithic Quarry
Isolated Artifact Find
Short Term Habitation
She]] Midden
Prehistoric Cemetery/Ossuary
Historic: Domestic
Agricultural
Commercial
Transportation
Military
27
Long Term Habitation
Mound/Habitation Site
Mound (Isolated)
Human Skeletal Remains
Fish Weir
Other
Cemetery
Dump (Waste Disposal)
Entertainment
Industrial
Unmarked Cemetery

Religious Other
Governmental
The following abbreviations are used in the text discussing recovered artifacts, some of which
are used to maintain consistency with nomenclature utilized on the OSA archaeological site
forms:
R = Rhyolite
PF = Primary Flake
SF = Secondary Flake
TF = Tertiary Flake
FCR = Fire Cracked Rock
UID = Unidentified
28

6. RESULTS OF FIELD INVESTIGATIONS
A total of 358 shovel tests was excavated during this investigation. The locations of the 14 sites
identified (31 CL74 -87) arc shown on Figure 6.1.
Archaeological Sites
31 CL74
Site Size: 60 meters x 30 meters
Topography: Saddle
Elevation: 855 feet amsl
Environmental Setting: Secondary growth
Soil Type: 31B2 — Cecil sandy loam, eroded (2 -8% slopes)
Nearest Water: Unnamed tributary of Buffalo Creek — 150 meters southeast
Surface Visibility: 1001/6 in road, none in vegetated areas
Field Procedures: Pedestrian inspection and shovel testing (n =6)
Cultural Affiliation: Prehistoric Lithic
Site Type: Limited Activity
Site Integrity: None
Site Description: Pedestrian inspection of the intersection of two dirt roads eroded down to red
clay subsoil identified four Lithic artifacts over an area measuring approximately 60 meters by 30
meters (Figure 6.1). Shovel testing at 30 and 15 -meter intervals did not yield any additional
cultural materials. Soil consisted of red clay.
Materials Recovered:
Prehistoric Surface (n=4)
Quartz TF l @ 10 -20mm
2 @ 20 -30mm
I @ 30 -40mm
Recommendation: This small, prehistoric Lithic site does not have the potential to yield
significant new information pertaining to prehistory. It is recommended not eligible for listing in
the National Register. No further work is recommended at this location.
31 CL75
Site Size: 15 meters x 15 meters
Topography: Upland slope
Elevation: 883 feet ams]
Environmental Setting: Secondary growth
Soil Type: 31 B2 — Cecil sandy loam, eroded (2 -8% slopes)
Nearest Water: Unnamed tributary of Buffalo Creek — 150 meters southeast
Surface Visibility: None
29

Field Procedures: Shovel testing (n =3)
Cultural Affiliation: Prehistoric lithic
Site Tvpe: Limited Activity
Site Integrity: None
Site Description: Shovel testing at 30 -meter intervals on an upland slope amongst secondary
growth yielded three prehistoric lithic artifacts from 10 -20 centimeters below ground surface
(bgs; Figure 6.1). Additional shovel testing at 15 -meter intervals around the positive test did not
encounter any additional cultural material. The area to the north and east of the positive test had
been disturbed by earth moving activities as evidenced by push piles. Soil consisted of 10
centimeters of gray brown sandy loam over 10 centimeters of yellow brown sandy clay loam
over red brown clay.
Materials Recovered:
Prehistoric Subsurface (n =4)
Quartz Stage II Biface fragment 1 @ 22mm x 30mm x 12mm
SF 1 @ 20 -30mm
TF 1 @ 10 -20mm
Recommendation: This small, prehistoric lithic site does not have the potential to yield
significant new information pertaining to prehistory. It is recommended not eligible for listing in
the National Register. No further work is recommended at this location.
31CL76 **
Site Size: 90 meters x 90 meters
Topo2ravhv: Ridge toe
Elevation: 800 feet amsl
Environmental Settine: Forested
Soil Tvpe: 68C2 — Pacolet -Saw complex, eroded (8 -15% slopes)
Nearest Water: Suck Creek — 60 meters west
Surface Visibilitv: 10%
Field Procedures: Pedestrian inspection and shovel testing (n =16)
Cultural Affiliation: Nineteenth - twentieth century
Site Tvpe: Domestic /Agriculture
Site Integrity: Good
Site Description: Site 31CV76 ** is a domestic /agricultural complex dating from the nineteenth
century and likely occupied up to the mid - twentieth century (Figures 6.1 and 6.2). Note that the
following numbers in brackets [X] match the building numbers on Figure 6.2. It contains the
stone and brick foundation remains of an `L' plan house (Figure 6.3, top; [11), two standing
barns (one of which is located outside of the project area; Figures 6.3, bottom, and 6.4, top; [2]
and [3]), an outhouse (Figure 6.4, bottom; [4]), a partially collapsed stone wall, a collapsed shed
[5], a stone well and trough [6], and three stone and mortar structures (Figure 6.5; [7] -[9]). The
31

s`
a ���'}�jl',� �'!r3- .�,'�`� - ` ;�{�" `'�'�•..,54`t,f /..fir, ^- '`t(�` �- /`{Y��, �lCt" L ``{ 1
f "� l.xlt !T,`•wY''+C - < -'' S:,'•/",- •• 2'L"` ,rrj.
�` — .'t�'�Y r' =,ey�� ` 1ddd ,.�'.'h���'y.,�,..t- .�C'��' � ': c` ',—••� \�,��f, �s -�f "- '� Hit '; � ��`�., , %�"
NJ ��^,r...1�_e���%p`�� ���''� #�, -c`.- .. '��, ✓;�� (.\� �i� _r/ r,:s, i"�. i. ' {'' 19i5 +a' ".cU
_ � •. ,/ 5y�ti�+..: � j ` tt{` � •, fir•; I ,mac° m r i'S..''�"�;s � . i_ i t ` j >r s,u ,,. � ` ",✓ y ..
n" . i` • °' t''`.k ^"
1 � "" � r• h ,�,r J �. r us, ��t. �": � S> , a y�.
y, _�/ ear- J"' �' r _ i-J 1. j�1 J l r . �,�a�,- "*'._�; i -._i '"�F��r - i:�,..`.i •:s i�.��. r'
1 � : ��'- i . .r. ..,.�' '�� °,�`�: t : �) � �, ����� �oG 31G�5 .•.rs =,.. � J t` i�' -��`, `}�',^,
-„"\^. + ; '`� \� s '-' ` '•' :'k" S a �� e Q ' /thy`/ 1 �i'�4�.'�• ' -' �• '`'r1
� ��� , `�• � ��'�: ,rFt -` � � 4l`' , / ' -_ � t � ��F��Y , -'t j'•{ �.; fi?: z. lv l i - C =; a M9
`-..' � � �R�1,i I }�. (��„/;'�,„w r ` J ¢. e�s`�* la`h .vnnA,.....*_ ", (.�w .. "� � r /ft ; � „3.r �� •vi' �-r:` - �t
f r 1I'v $6 i
° N.:
�� � #<+•v -, P` "vr '__ �k�� �� " -rc- � t �- ts_:s- /j x5 °;t;,,� ./. ,;rr > "'1•,
r �` • � ,'�.� +( ��"/y�'' -".„ �1''..';. ;,F ` 1916 a F.-�•h� =r�� � f. r �' ' 1 \ ' �a� ` f • . �`
IM - • - �•'`�' r _`.'- _, ` ' � .- i �" ` ? a .. .:.
gil-
;.• t/� -� _ 3 G�6 #f `�� "`a, ,,M' I"' r r ` 1 ..., .rii y> t•:: =,
r ,- a_�-; ➢.3s.sF,x. c.•s'v b `� 1 r 31C� ! ; �' /
^ mil' �., r•� �-,tti L. �'� "zz-<,,�"; f,tis ( �7� }� �� �'z' _��� ��" ` "�`.1 {��i �.�,
- `rte y � � -,w , ' �'- `-, _, 3�C`lt8' '�`.� •, _ '. ;,�5,
15
'��r�� ✓.' � .�,N,.. . 2rnE,.� ��'�a. <`^��, „" �• �� =t_ al!' .3�V�' �- ..rs�v,��__�.. 'a - r Mir
a.Er �r � '...� 'fi:'.•�-- .'C- r`.�1� t) � '. � �' ', �'�'' ..�gSq. '� -�•/Y 97 t �.r i" �_j ~ �,� ` kr �� ` S __
} r 7ti -J
M, it - �� �`�Y', z.' fi't'x "� -t``i `i :i`, f� `"'. �- S=�'`s`'t.' �'' y'• -� !" ` �. "
� r � :€e s''a;��,:ri~'a ��;�. • _`.- `J GV80 �O "'1 ,�s. •„ -,.. ti /i. � x
`J _ `i �,r�t, d'�- e�'",,c. `°'��r -, .SrL'�` �•l� -r 3i 8•�i �_ �- .3� w.,., �' • � 1�.-r •` +•�Y- .r --'', _ & - � t
�' -"� � -- • -1,, ' `��'' ^' - sir' = �;:'(' ' �--� ' ; i • �� _ . °� a `•C .: ,k, /��" -��s-
��y. x„3Y r ac''.". }_�,K�� .e0 �{ ;• , _"?-„4 'ia
'`'`i ;lnr. �� �F`-' Evil ;� �, •�"'�,'� - cr` �` M I l; :tic, '
Via'
'e - �''1ti��,•v' �- "'! -j��3t
r i'( n `.0 `+_ - �r.'�'/ y S- t �'y�: �•s f�.:v'� l F;� "� .i�"' i i ` ��A t °
- ir: L •tl` •�e -� �'t.- :''F.3U 1- �1. r__ �� 'i � hMA°'..c.l�J� Y 1 � �,rt';,a,'"`,. �-,,, -'•f /. a
' n�. •(7'i�r Di1�;rs�l � ac r , � i :�- '�...� ,••�� „� r +. �. ',._� Y ` �t.., :, Z ,.
� i r �_ - -�(> Vii. i '',..�, j � �� .-� '-r '•- � � ��' �`L' t1.i �' 2` � i• `
. iJ" J '�'f/''J� �l �l ai ! ;4• r • `" ^f�S - °'�' ! � } J ' �tia ' a ", � ra '.
y � ;s C ; - __ ��r r > * ' �� �. C t, i ,'�xm�`_+,;.¢i�1:.. -,' '1 � ✓r' Ji ,_ :�. :�} • �" � /� .L� ,i r
!._t Ir • b,\,.:` \_ i �•,� '1' 1f l- `� "'._ Y ,^' _' ^`�- I / ! `i, i(r,��c�"" ,J .J..' �.. `�. w.S� '= ll'y��
%� >'`-;, � -' �/f � .%3" ��` e • Jr •! O -'�-,' \ 'x1'" !i' r �p�, j f 5 yer "s�'.7' � ' "., �' \JS �',
•- ^•:gY....''•,� -.�•- L ^"'�,_ ! ', . _ _ � � y.. —y `^ J /,. r �. 1ti ._ j �'p � ' i,� „r} its
ct Study , >, }' _ j
Q proje ?Feet? ; , > r
1000
A�
° o 51)11- _QQ4
025 ,r �
o sow �GS ,an9i000 MaP pT63eC.V
WOOD Site tocat ►on �andiill May 2QQ
!J ^� Cou Mort
Cleveland h Carolina Date:
enta� Cleveland CpuntY�
1Ir►S Ser``'ge luc.

E
N
i
Project Boundary \
\ `
� 3
O \ ` ` \ 1978
2 • _ �.
O 9 :•
• t ;; O
Depression4 ;i I
• Positive Shovel Test
Q Negative Shovel Test
"-► Steep Slope
® Surface Artifct Scatter
® Disturbance
010�20
Meters
N�eV
� Environmental
IServices, Inc.
Zr
I (
w
Plan Map -31 CV76 **
Cleveland County Landfill
Cleveland County, North Carolina
I- House Foundation
2- Barn
3- Barn
4- Outhouse
5- Collapsed Shed
6-Well and Stone Trough
7 -Stone and Mortar Structure
8-Stone and Mortar Structure
9 -Stone and Mortar Structure
Figure: 6.2
Project: ER03 -004
Date: May 2003

si' Jh ✓1 'K�: i� � ,. 't�.11 y gyu
` �!�
.� ,, 7 u ,� ..� �. ,��as d �r try •��} a� js �4+.. � �'�' �� i
�
�' gg s L ��� 1C � '11l ••" _ Y
if {r 1f: ? ;4 .1.13• J. ry'�a �L•rti
va
� 4 0`
r � ` : � J• � fir:• �. �< < � 2
,,fit ;; •� .. , � __ - �° I � �`,'{,y'� }=
NN -
° ' •i9'S ;yam l ; t F � t / 5 -, w

-,PIN
Q� ��' ` ; ,,,E r � ��'' � ` � �4
7,
41
AX
W
,
. . vi
. . . . . . . .
Z.
AR;
vaif
lwk:

21
f st

majority of the site is located on a ridge toe overlooking the floodplain of Suck Creek, while the
collapsed shed is on an upland slope to the south of the main complex.
The two barns ([2] and [3]) are constructed of cut lumber with both cut and wire nails and
painted in a green paint that has faded considerably. There is a depression under the `L' between
the house foundation ([ 1 ]) and one of the stone and mortar structures ([7]) that likely represents
the remains of a root cellar. While the stone and mortar structure at the end of the `L' is likely a
chimney foundation (though no signs of a chimney were observed), the function of the other two
stone and mortar structures ([8] and [9]) is unknown. They are set apart from the house
foundation and did not appear to be associated with additional foundation remains. However, it
is possible that they are both chimney foundations and that the foundation remains of the
associated structures were removed or are buried.
Dense ground cover including grass and fallen leaves impeded surface inspection of the site.
Only a small number of historic artifacts were observed on the ground surface on the slope
leading from the main complex down to the collapsed shed ([5]). These artifacts included two
pearlware sherds and an electrical insulator.
Shovel testing within the project area was conducted at 15 -meter intervals on the ridge toe
containing the main complex, with one judgemental test placed adjacent to the collapsed shed.
Of the 16 shovel tests excavated, 12 contained historic material to a maximum depth of 35
centimeters bgs. Seventy -two artifacts were recovered from the shovel tests, including glass
shards, ceramic sherds (whitcware, ironstone, stoneware), cut and wire nails, a battery post, and
an iron hoe blade. Artifact densities in the shovel tests ranged from 1 artifact to 19, with an
average of 6 artifacts per shovel test. Soil consisted of 20 to 30 centimeters of dark gray/brown
silt over 20 -30 centimeters of dark yellow clayey sand over pale orange clay. Although this
location is mapped as Pacolet -Saw complex, eroded (USDA n.d.), the soil encountered does not
match the USDA soil description.
This property is shown on the 1886 Map of Cleveland County as being the residence of D.M.
Beam (Figure 6.6). A mill is also shown on this map along Suck Creek to the north of the
project area. A reconnaissance of this location, however, did not observe any remains. A
structure is also shown at the location of 31 CL76 ** on the 1938 Highway Map of Cleveland
County (Figure 6.7).
D.M. Beam was a member of the same family as Joshua and John Teeter Beam, whose home
sites are located only 0.5 mile to the west along SR 1918 and are discussed in Chapters 3 and 4.
However, there are two D.M. Beams in the Beam family (Beam 1898:2 -7; Beam 1967:17 -18.
The first is referred to as D.M. Beam and was the son of Peter Beam (1), a son of the original
John Teeter Beam. The second is named David Marion Beam and was born to Peter Beam (2), a
grandson of John Teeter Beam. Neither the birth nor the death dates for D.M. Beam are known,
but David Marion Beam (b. 26 November 1865) would have been about 21 years of age when
the 1886 map was published. D.M. Beam was the fifth child in his family and was probably
born between 1815 and 1825, making him 60 -70 years of age in 1886. Either could have been
the resident of this property in 1886.
36

r;
vio-
me
r � �
31CL76 **
lb
Ills - rit +er
oil
A.L.. •
, , y Io
Ad
0 1000 2000 Feet
0 0.25 O 50
Source 1888 Cleveland County Map `
■
*
s 1886 Cleveland County Map Figure: 6.6
a Environmental Cleveland Count Landfill
aServices, Inc. Cleveland County, North Carolina Project: ER03 -004
4 Date: May 2003
0
w
W

N
J
'W"
31UL76--
V
4
31CL78*
AIELM.
4 -P 1 K
t%d
'Y
MW
A
—,J
0 1000 2000 Feet
0 0.25 0.50 Krn :f
Source 1938 Cleveland County
Highway Map x,
r
1938 Cleveland County Highway Map Figure: 6.7
2- Environmental
.D 'Services,- Cleveland County Landfill Project: ER03-004
Inc.
Cleveland County, North Carolina
Date: May 2003
cc
U.)

Materials Recovered:
Historic Surface (n =6)
Ceramics Whiteware
Pearlware
1 Plain teapot base sherd
1 Plain body sherd
Ceramics
Whiteware
1 Plain body sherd
Ironstone
1 Polychrome body sherd
Stoneware
1 Dark olive alkaline glazed body sherd
2 Olive -gray salt glazed body sherds
Glass
Clear
l Medicine bottle
37 Body shards
Aqua
3 Body shards
Brown
1 Body shard
White Milk Glass
1 Canning lid shard
Blue Milk Glass
1 Body shard
Metal
Iron
1 Hoe blade
6 Wire fragments
Architectural
Nails
7 Cut
3 Wire
Tacks
1 Wire
Brick
2 Fragments
Mortar
2 Fragments
Other
1 Battery post
Recommendation: This nineteenth century home site retains archaeological integrity and
contains numerous structural remains. The location has not been subjected to plowing or
silviculture and has a high potential to contain buried, subsurface features. Additionally, it is
associated with D.M. Beam, a member of the locally significant Beam family. This site has the
potential to yield significant information pertaining to the history of the region and is therefore
recommended eligible for listing in the National Register. It is additionally recommended that
this site be avoided by construction activities. if the site cannot be avoided, additional work may
be required to mitigate against adverse effects.
31CL78 **
Site Size: 60 meters x 60 meters
TonoQranhv: Upland slope
Elevation: 880 feet ams]
Environmental Setting:
Soil Tvne: 31B2 — Cecil sandy loam, eroded (2 -8% slopes)
39

Nearest Water: Unnamed tributary of Buffalo Creek — 50 meters south
Surface Visibility: 10%
Field Procedures: Pedestrian inspection and shovel testing (n =21)
Cultural Affiliation: Twentieth century
Site Type: Domestic /Agri culture
Site Integrity: Poor
Site Description: Pedestrian inspection of a vegetated upland slope resulted in the discovery of
three collapsed buildings, including a house and outbuildings, and a very small surface scatter of
historic artifacts (Figures 6.1 and 6.8- 6.10). The buildings appear to have been constructed of
cut lumber with wire nails and tin roofs. The surface scatter consisted of only a small number of
glass bottle shards and a shard from a milk glass canning lid.
Shovel testing at 30 and 15 -meter intervals, including tests placed immediately adjacent to the
structures, resulted in only four positive shovel tests, which yielded 14 artifacts from 0 -10
centimeters bgs. The artifacts included ceramic sherds, glass shards, and brick and mortar
fragments. Soil consisted of 10 centimeters of gray brown gravelly clay loam over red brown
gravelly clay.
No residence is shown at this location on the 1886 Map of Cleveland County (Figure 6.6).
However, a structure is shown at this location on the 1938 Highway Map of Cleveland County
(Figure 6.7).
Materials Recovered:
Historic Surface (n=4)
Glass Clear
3 Body shards
White Milk Glass
I Canning lid shard
Historic Subsurface (n =14)
Ceramics Whiteware
1 Plain body sherd
Ironstone
1 Plain body sherd
Stoneware
1 Olive -gray alkaline glazed body sherd
Glass Clear
7 Body shards
Architectural Brick
1 Fragment
Mortar
3 Painted fragments
Recommendation: This twentieth century site does not exhibit archaeological integrity or the
potential to yield significant new information pertaining to history. It is recommended not
eligible for listing in the National Register. No further work is recommended at this location.
31 CL79
Site Size: 20 meters x 20 meters
Topoeraphv: Ridge
Elevation: 840 feet ams]
40

N
i
All"
0
M
� 0 % % y
y
1- House Foundation
2- Collapsed Barn
3- Collapsed Shed
• Positive Shovel Test
p Negative Shovel Test
Steep Slope
® Surface Scatter
0 5 10
meters
Environmental
aJO Services, Inc.
T
cr
w
1
r�t�i �>•r j: t��
Plan Map -31 CV78 ** Figure: 6.8
Cleveland County Landfill Project: ER03 -004
Cleveland County, North Carolina
Date: May 2003

8
0
0
L
n
v
9
n
0
w
taenerai viCw —_
Photo -31 CV78 **
Environmental Cleveland County Landfill
Services, Inc. Cleveland County, North Carolina
Figure* 6.9
Project: ER03 -004
Date: May 2003

r
J T T l .Cl •1�
'� 6 d •'.
�'t r ctrl• .� y'°v'�:ft, °� t_'Y � �'H.S%'�?ei�F t � � ,emu.' �,y,r:
w
Jz
kv.
IN, .12, fifes y a ..
JJf
r ly #f ,� {��_ vX� r j .'�t�''j ~ � ro�r5'+R, - A� -. •�• �•±
�,�, —_ - at�'"� r•d f t ��� �iR-T j� r �. 911 � I , r c.t ti i��j-.r'e
l
IN
R.,, w tit ��•3,'�.w 1 � (f''"E- is { `V '� i t� • � '�•• G i 1 s: i � ry Y
cif :�.. �� f'1 it t �,;,L�T+ �i , J '\4 , •: 7 t! �� ,s lr r,
' � rte' - �, �`` 1 +y ij. � tv rr� Ns •.' . � .h.. R �
ih �t ,..�+.s.�- �\���" YR`.; �".`•�z��f,
[y yY A'7Ch`i�ttv�A /.y �iF i ?..,{ {�k �AyR, r•.G '1 ��v0- t ^',�'��, ♦�,�, /n
�5v T
`� !` r

Environmental Setting: Pine plantation
Soil Type: 3l B2 — Cecil sandy loam, eroded (2 -8% slopes)
Nearest Water: Unnamed tributary of Buffalo Creek — 200 meters south
Surface Visibility: 50%
Field Procedures: Pedestrian inspection and shovel testing (n =4)
Cultural Affiliation: Prehistoric lithic
Site Type: Limited activity
Site Integrity: None
Site Description: Pedestrian inspection of a dirt road eroded down to red clay subsoil identified a
small surface scatter of prehistoric lithic artifacts (Figure 6.1). Shovel testing at 15 -meter
intervals did not yield any additional cultural materials. Soil consisted of red clay.
Materials Recovered:
Prehistoric Subsurface (n =3)
Quartz Stage II Biface fragment l @ 54mm x 24mm x 12mm
PF l @ 30 -40mm
TF I @ 10 -20mm
Recommendation: This small, prehistoric lithic site does not have the potential to yield
significant new information pertaining to prehistory. It is recommended not eligible for listing in
the National Register. No further work is recommended at this location.
31 CL80
Site Size: 45 meters x 90 meters
Topography: Ridge and saddle
Elevation: 840 feet amsl
Environmental Setting: Pine plantation
Soil Type: 31 B2 — Cecil sandy loam, eroded (2 -8% slopes)
Nearest Water: Unnamed tributary of Buffalo Creek — 150 meters south
Surface Visibility: 100% in road, none in vegetated areas
Field Procedures: Pedestrian inspection and shovel testing (n =12)
Cultural Affiliation: Prehistoric lithic
Site Type: Limited activity
Site Integrity: None
Site Description: Pedestrian inspection of a dirt road eroded down to red brown clay subsoil
identified a sparse surface scatters of prehistoric lithic artifacts (Figure 6.1). Shovel testing at 30
and 15 -meter intervals resulted in one positive shovel test that yielded one prehistoric lithic
artifact from 0 -5 centimeters bgs. Soil consisted of 0 -5 centimeters of red gray brown gravelly
clay loam over red brown gravelly clay.
44

Materials Recovered:
Prehistoric Surface (n =6)
Aphryie R. TF
Quartz Stage II biface, broken
PF
TF
Prehistoric Subsurface (n =1)
Quartz TF
1 @ 10 -20mm
1 @ 41mm x 38mm x 18mm)
1 @ 10 -20mm
I @ 0- l 0mm
6 @ 10 -20mm
I @ 10 -20mm
Recommendation: This small, prehistoric lithic site does not have the potential to yield
significant new information pertaining to prehistory. It is recommended not eligible for listing in
the National Register. No further work is recommended at this location.
31CL81/81 **
Site Size: 45 meters x 75 meters
Topography: Ridge toe
Elevation: 840 feet amsl
Environmental Settine: Forest and pine plantation
Soil Type: 32C2 — Pacolet sandy clay loam, eroded (8 -15% slopes)
Nearest Water: Suck Creek — 300 meters northwest
Surface Visibility: 10%
Field Procedures: Pedestrian inspection and shovel testing (n =16)
Cultural Affiliation: Prehistoric lithic; Twentieth century
Site Type: Isolate; Domestic
Site Integrity: None
Site Description: Pedestrian inspection of a forested ridge toe resulted in the discovery of a
collapsed shed and two cinderblock foundations, likely for single -wide trailers (Figures 6.1 and
6.11- 6.12). Shovel testing at 30 and 15 -meter intervals, including tests placed immediately
adjacent to the structure and foundations, resulted in only two positive shovel tests. One shovel
test yielded a single piece of prehistoric lithic debitage from 5 -20 centimeters bgs, while the
other yielded one piece of clear glass at 0 -25 centimeters bgs. Soil consisted of 7 -20 centimeters
of yellow brown silty loam over red clay.
Materials Recovered:
Prehistoric Subsurface (n =1)
Quartz TF 1 @20 -30mm
Historic Subsurface (n =l)
Glass Clear 1 Body shard
45

r
s
O Positive Shovel Test
40 Negative Shovel Test
�. Steep Slope
0 1�0 20
Meters
U `\
Environmental
Services, Inc.
�VIAV T
0
W
o
c
O
O
� O � doped R
oad
O O
I�
II O
Plan Map -31 CV81 /81 **
Cleveland County Landfill
Cleveland County, North Carolina
N
i
1- Trailer Pad
2- Trailer Pad
3- Collapsed Shed
Figure:
6.11
Project:
ER03004
s
O Positive Shovel Test
40 Negative Shovel Test
�. Steep Slope
0 1�0 20
Meters
U `\
Environmental
Services, Inc.
�VIAV T
0
W
o
c
O
O
� O � doped R
oad
O O
I�
II O
Plan Map -31 CV81 /81 **
Cleveland County Landfill
Cleveland County, North Carolina
N
i
1- Trailer Pad
2- Trailer Pad
3- Collapsed Shed
Figure:
6.11
Project:
ER03004
Date:
May 2003

Nt
bar { �,�y ��. 4 ,,. t" .f � i. - ♦ r
�iytry�f^ T . :ti
ew
kv
,
I M 1
y No \
r'�` i
1 `�� „C � � y l... .}�f(.l`.(n J � Y 1 f , ,+1 ' 4 � t f �.,•1
1?.yua�t • il1��`A��+f��'X���, #.��L'3�."'�i� -fy �+. ," n �:

Recommendation: This site does not have the potential to yield significant new information
pertaining to history or prehistory. It is recommended not eligible for listing in the National
Register. No further work is recommended at this location.
31 CL83
Site Size: 15 meters x 15 meters
Topography: Bench
Elevation: 785 feet amsl
Environmental Setting: Pine plantation
Soil Type: 32C2 - Pacolet sandy clay loam, eroded (8 -15% slopes)
Nearest Water: Unnamed tributary of Buffalo Creek - 50 meters southeast
Surface Visibility: 100% in road, none in vegetated areas
Field Procedures: Pedestrian inspection and shovel testing (n =3)
Cultural Affiliation: Prehistoric lithic
Site Type: Limited activity
Site Integrity: None
Site Description: Pedestrian inspection of a dirt road eroded down to red brown clay subsoil
identified a surface scatter of three prehistoric artifacts within a 15 -meter by 15 -meter area
(Figure 6.1). Shovel testing at 15 -meter intervals did not yield any additional cultural materials.
Soil consisted of red brown gravelly clay.
Materials Recovered:
Prehistoric Surface (n =3)
Cheri TF l @ 10 -20mm
Quartz TF 1 @ 10 -20mm
I @ 20 -30mm
Recommendation: This small, prehistoric lithic site does not have the potential to yield
significant new information pertaining to prehistory. It is recommended not eligible for listing in
the National Register. No further work is recommended at this location.
31 CL84
Site Size: 30 meters x 120 meters
Topography: Hill top and saddle
Elevation: 825 -845 feet amsl
Environmental Setting: Pasture and secondary growth
Soil Type: 98132/98C2 - Bethlehem- Pacolet complex, eroded (2 -15% slopes)
Nearest Water: Unnamed tributary of Suck Creek - 100 meters north
Surface Visibility: 100 percent in road, none in vegetated areas
Field Procedures: Pedestrian inspection and shovel testing (n =8)
Cultural Affiliation: Prehistoric lithic
Site Type: Limited activity
48

Site Integrity: None
Site Description: Pedestrian inspection of dirt roads eroded down to red brown clay subsoil
identified a surface scatter of five prehistoric artifacts (Figure 6.1). Shovel testing (n =8) at 30
meter intervals throughout the location did not yield any additional cultural materials. Soil
consisted of 0 -20 centimeters of gray brown gravelly clay loam over red brown gravelly clay.
Materials Recovered:
Prehistoric Subsurface (n =5)
Quartz PF 1 @ 20 -30mm
SF 2 @ 30 -40mm
TF 1 @ 10 -20mm
1 @ 20 -30mm
Recommendation: This small, prehistoric lithic site does not have the potential to yield
significant new information pertaining to prehistory. It is recommended not eligible for listing in
the National Register. No further work is recommended at this location.
31 CL86
Site Size: 30 meters x 60 meters
Topography: Saddle
Elevation: 845 feet amsl
Environmental Setting: Secondary growth
Soil Type: 98B2/98C2 — Bethlehem- Pacolet complex, eroded (2 -15% slopes)
Nearest Water: Unnamed tributary of Suck Creek — 200 meters southeast
Surface Visibility: 100% in road, none in vegetated areas
Field Procedures: Pedestrian inspection and shovel testing (n =4)
Cultural Affiliation: Prehistoric lithic
Site Tvve: Limited activity
Site Integrity: None
Site Description: Pedestrian inspection of a dirt road eroded down to red brown clay subsoil
identified a surface scatter of three prehistoric artifacts (Figure 6.1). Shovel testing at 15 -meter
intervals did not yield any additional cultural materials. Soil in vegetated areas adjacent to the
scatter consisted of 5 -15 centimeters of gray brown gravelly loam over 10 centimeters of red
gray brown gravelly clay loam over red gravelly clay.
Materials Recovered:
Prehistoric Subsurface (n =3)
Quartz Drill, broken 1 @ 25mm x 13mm x 5mm
Stage III biface, broken l @ 49mm x 32mm x 17mm
SF l @ 10 -20mm
49

Recommendation: This small, prehistoric lithic site does not have the potential to yield
significant new information pertaining to prehistory. It is recommended not eligible for listing in
the National Register. No further work is recommended at this location.
31 CL87
Site Size: 30 meters x 45 meters
Topography: Ridge
Elevation: 860 feet amsl
Environmental Setting: Secondary growth
Soil Type: 98132 — Bethlehem- Pacolet complex, eroded (2 -8% slopes)
Nearest Water: Unnamed tributary of Suck Creek — 150 meters east
Surface Visibility: 100% in road, none in vegetated areas
Field Procedures: Pedestrian inspection and shovel testing (n =7)
Cultural Affiliation: Twentieth century
Site Type: Agricultural
Site Integrity: None
Site Description: Pedestrian inspection along a dirt road eroded to red clay resulted in the
discovery of a collapsed shed and a very small surface scatter of twentieth century artifacts
(Figures 6.1 and 6.13). Shovel testing at 30 and 15 -meter intervals, including tests placed
immediately adjacent to the structure, did not encounter any additional artifacts. Soil consisted
of 10 -25 centimeters of brown silt over red clay.
Materials Recovered:
Historic Surface (n =5)
Glass Clear 1 Body shard
Aqua 1 Body shard
Cobalt Blue 2 Body shards
Brown 1 Body shard
Recommendation: This small, twentieth century site has no integrity and does not have the
potential to yield significant new information pertaining to history. It is recommended not
eligible for listing in the National Register. No further work is recommended at this location.
Isolated Finds
31 CL77
Topography: Ridge
Elevation: 902 feet amsl
Environmental Setting: Secondary growth
Soil Type: 31 B2 - Cecil sandy loam, eroded (2 -8% slopes)
Nearest Water: Unnamed tributary of Buffalo Creek — 225 meters south
Surface Visibility: None
50

. Y'TY•St�''� y f � 'a n� r 3
t
fit_ g • f
,mac <�? - � �_.: Tr'•""A�' '�.}r ', �' �`. 1 't'• °: ;rI'" ` f ,
r r T.
.'Y►' i�

Field Procedures: Shovel testing (n =5)
Cultural Affiliation: Prehistoric Lithic
Site "Type: Isolate
Site Integrity: None
Site Description: Shovel testing at 30 -meter intervals on a ridge resulted in one positive shovel
test that yielded a single piece of prehistoric lithic debitage from 10 -15 centimeters bgs (Figure
6.1). Additional shovel testing at 15 -meter intervals around the positive test did not encounter
any additional cultural materials. Soil consisted of 11 centimeters of brown loam over 14
centimeters of orange brown clay loam over dark orange brown clay.
Materials Recovered:
Prehistoric Subsurface (n =1)
Quartzite SF 1 @ 20 -30mm
Recommendation: This isolated find does not have the potential to yield significant new
information pertaining to prehistory. It is recommended not eligible for listing in the National
Register. No further work is recommended at this location.
31 CL82
Topography: Ridge
Elevation: 860 feet amsl
Environmental Setting: Pine plantation
Soil Type: 31 B2 - Cecil sandy loam, eroded (2 -8% slopes)
Nearest Water: Unnamed tributary of Buffalo Creek — 300 meters south
Surface Visibility: None
Field Procedures: Shovel testing (n =4)
Cultural Affiliation: Prehistoric Lithic
Site Type: Isolate
Site Integrity: None
Site Description: Shovel testing at 30 -meter intervals on a ridge resulted in one positive shovel
test that yielded a two pieces of prehistoric lithic debitage from 0 -15 centimeters bgs (Figure
6.1). Additional shovel testing at 15 -meter intervals around the positive test did not encounter
any additional cultural materials. Soil consisted of 15 centimeters of red brown gravelly loam
over red brown clay.
Materials Recovered:
Prehistoric Subsurface (n =2)
Quartz TF 2 @ 10 -20mm
52

Recommendation: This isolated find does not have the potential to yield significant new
information pertaining to prehistory. It is recommended not eligible for listing in the National
Register. No further work is recommended at this location.
31 CL85
Topography: Upland slope
Elevation: 820 feet amsl
Environmental Setting: Secondary growth
Soil Type: 98C2 — Bethlehem- Pacolet complex, eroded (8 -15% slopes)
Nearest Water: Unnamed tributary of Suck Creek — 200 meters south
Surface Visibilitv: 100% in road, none in vegetated areas
Field Procedures: Pedestrian inspection and shovel testing (n =2)
Cultural Affiliation: Prehistoric Lithic
Site Tvne: Isolate
Site Integrity: None
Site Description: Pedestrian inspection of a dirt road eroded down to red brown clay subsoil
identified a single prehistoric flake on the surface (Figure 6.1). Shovel testing at 15 -meter
intervals around the isolated find did not yield any additional cultural materials. Soil in the
vegetated areas consisted of 10 centimeters of gray brown clay loam over red brown clay.
Materials Recovered:
IPrehistoric Surface (n =1)
Quartz SF 1 @ 10 -20mm
Recommendation: This isolated find does not have the potential to yield significant new
information pertaining to prehistory. It is recommended not eligible for listing in the National
Register. No further work is recommended at this location.
Floodplain Investigation
Inspection of the cut banks of Buffalo and Suck creeks revealed that the floodplains of these two
creeks contain deep deposits of unconsolidated sediment that likely date to the nineteenth and
early twentieth centuries. These deposits were over 10 feet deep along Suck Creek and over 20
feet deep along Buffalo Creek. The sediment is probably derived from erosion of the uplands
along the creeks during the historic period, as described in Trimble (1974; see Chapter 2, above).
The heavily eroded uplands of the project area are an example of this. No signs of buried
cultural deposits such as pits or postholes were observed in the cut banks.
Pedestrian inspection of the floodplain of Buffalo Creek observed furrows on the ground surface,
suggesting portions of it had been agricultural fields at one time. Shovel testing and deep
augering in the floodplain revealed a complicated stratigraphy of unconsolidated sand, silt, and
clay. No signs of a developing `A' horizon were observed, suggesting a young age for the
sediments. Additionally, no artifacts were recovered during shovel testing and augering of the
53

Buffalo Creek floodplain. The floodplain of Suck Creek was not investigated due to the
presence of jurisdictional wetlands_
Based on the results of field investigations, the floodplains of Buffalo and Suck creeks are
considered to have a low potential for buried cultural deposits. No cultural deposits were
observed in the cut banks of either creek, nor were any artifacts recovered during shovel testing
within the Buffalo Creek floodplain. It is unlikely that additional investigation in the floodplains
would reveal cultural deposits. No further work in the floodplains is recommended.
54

7. SUMMARY AND RECOMMENDATIONS
This report presents the findings of an intensive archaeological survey for the proposed
expansion of the Cleveland County Landfill facility in Cleveland County, North Carolina. The
survey was conducted by Environmental Services, Inc., (ESI) of Raleigh, North Carolina for
Municipal Engineering Services Company, PA, (MSEC) to comply with Section 106 of the
National Historic Preservation Act (NHPA 1966, as amended).
Summary of Survey Data
A total of 358 shovel tests were dug during the intensive archaeological investigation. The
following table (Table 7.1) presents a summary of the 14 archaeological sites identified during
the survey. All of the prehistoric sites were small limited activity sites with no diagnostic
artifacts. It is likely that some of these sites were once more extensive, but have been severely
degraded from soil erosion and soil disturbing activities (agriculture and silviculture).
Archaeological sites were found entirely in upland contexts (Table 7.2). All four sites with
historic components were located on uplands (ridge, ridge toe, or upland slope). Prehistoric sites
were found on a wide variety of upland landforms, including hilltop, ridge, ridge toe, saddle,
upland slope, and bench. Additionally, all of the prehistoric sites had been degraded due to
heavy soil erosion. All 14 sites were found on well- drained soils.
Table 7.1: Summary of Site Data
Site No.
Size
Soil Tvne
Soil
Cultural
Sienificance
31CL
(meters)
Drainage
Affiliation
Evaluation_
74
60x30
Cecil sandy loam
Well
Lithic Prehistoric
Not Eligible
75
15x15
Cecil sandy loam
Well
Lithic Prehistoric
Not Eligible
76 **
90x90
Cecil sandy loam
Well
190i -20'h century
Eligible
77
Isolate
Cecil sandy loam
Well
Lithic Prehistoric
Not Eligible
78 **
60x60
Cecil sandy loam
Well
20`h century
Not Eligible
79
20x20
Cecil sandy loam
Well
Lithic Prehistoric
Not Eligible
80
45x90
Cecil sandy loam
Well
Lithic Prehistoric
Not Eligible
81/81 **
4505
Pacolet sandy clay loam
Well
Lithic Prehistoric/
Not Eligible
20'h century
82
Isolate
Cecil sandy loam
Well
Lithic Prehistoric
Not Eligible
83
15x 15
Pacolet sandy clay loam
Well
Lithic Prehistoric
Not Eligible
84
30x 120
Bethlehem - Pacolet complex
Well
Lithic Prehistoric
Not Eligible
85
Isolate
Bethlehem - Pacolet complex
Well
Lithic Prehistoric
Not Eligible
86
30x60
Bethlehem - Pacolet complex
Well
Lithic Prehistoric
Not Eligible
87 **
30x45
Bethlehem - Pacolet complex
Well
201h century
Not Eligible
Table 7.2:
Relationship of Topographic
Landform to Cultural Context*
Topographic
Location Historic
Prehistoric
Hilltop
- --
1
Ridge
1
4
Ridge Toe
2
1
55

Topographic Location Historic Prehistoric
Saddle - -- 4
Upland slope 1 2
Bench - -- I
*Note: One site contains two contexts and two sites are located on multiple landforms.
Recommendations
Based on the results of field investigations, sites 31 CL74, 31 CL75, and 31 CL77 -87 are
recommended not eligible for listing in the National Register. Site 31CL76 ** is a complex of
structures and remains associated with the Beam family that is recommended eligible for listing
in the National Register. It is recommended that the site be avoided by construction activities. If
this guideline is followed, it is recommended that the proposed project be allowed to proceed
without concern for impacts to significant sites.
However, if 31CL76 ** cannot be avoided, data recovery is recommended to mitigate the adverse
effects of proposed construction. If data recovery is necessary, a research design should be
developed in consultation with the North Carolina State Historic Preservation Office (SHPO).
The research design would include background and documentary research conducted by a
historian and the formulation of an excavation plan. Possible research directions include the
history of the Beam family and nineteenth century yeoman farmers.
56

REFERENCES CITED
Adovasio, J.M., J. Donahue, and R. Stuckenrath
1990 The Meadowcroft Rockshelter Radiocarbon Chronology 1975 -1990. American
Antiquity 55(2):348 -354.
Amick, D.S., and P.J. Carr
1996 Changing Strategies of Lithic Technological Organization. In Kenneth E.
Sassaman and David G. Anderson (eds) Archaeology of the Mid - Holocene
Southeast. University Press of Florida, Gainesville. pp. 41 -56.
Anderson, D.G., and G. Hanson
1988 Early Archaic Settlement in the Southeast: A Case Study for the Savannah River
Valley. American Antiquity 53:262 -286.
Anderson, D.G., R.J. Ledbetter, and L. O'Steen
1990 Paleoindian Period Archaeology of Georgia. Georgia Archaeological Research
Design Paper No. 6.
Anderson, D.G. and J. Schuldenrein
1983 Early Archaic Settlement on the Southeastern Atlantic Slope; A View from
Rucker's Bottom Site, Elbert County, Georgia. North American Archaeologist
(3):177 -210.
Baroody, Chris
1982 Archaeological Survey of Land to be Affected by the Replacement of Bridge No.
125, SR 1164 over Sandy Run Creek, Cleveland County. North Carolina
Department of Transportation, Raleigh.
Bass, Q.R.
1977 Prehistoric Settlement and Subsistence Patterns in the Great Smoky Mountains.
Unpublished Masters Thesis. On file, Department of Anthropology, University of
Tennessee at Knoxville.
Beam, Aaron R.
1898 Sketches of the Life of J.T. Beam and his Fifteen Children up to the Third
Generation from 1742 to 1897. Ms. on file, North Carolina Geneaology
Collection, North Carolina Archives, Raleigh.
Beam, L. Carl
1967 A History of John Teeter Beam's Generations. Ms. on file, North Carolina
Geneaology Collection, North Carolina Archives, Raleigh.
57

Beaman, Thomas, Jr., John Mintz, and Kenneth Robinson
1996 Archaeological Study of the Beam Family Properties Associated with the
Replacement of Bridge 230 on SR 1908 (New Prospect Church Road) over
Buffalo Creek, Cleveland County, North Carolina. North Carolina Department of
Transportation, Raleigh.
Beaman, Thomas, Jr., and Kenneth Robinson
1996 Archaeological Survey Report, Replacement of Bridge 13 on NC 198 over Buffalo
Creek, Cleveland County, North Carolina. North Carolina Department of
Transportation, Raleigh.
Black, S.L., L.W. Ellis, D.G. Creel, and G.T. Goode
1997 Hot Rocks Cooking on the Greater Edwards Plateau: Four Burned Rock Midden
Sites in West Central Texas, Volume 1. Studies in Archaeology 22. Texas
Archaeological Research Laboratory.
Blanton, D., and K.E. Sassaman
1989 Pattern and Process in the Middle Archaic Period in South Carolina. In Glen T.
Hanson and Albert C. Goodyear III (eds) The Archaeology of South Carolina:
Papers in Honor of Dr. Robert L. Stephenson. South Carolina Institute of
Archeology and Anthropology, Anthropological Studies, No. 7. University of
South Carolina Press, Columbia. pp. 53 -72.
Cable, J.S.
1992 Organizational Variability in Piedmont Hunter - Gatherer Lithic Assemblages. In
Stephen R. Claggett and John S. Cable (assemblers) The Haw River Sites:
Archaeological Investigations at Two Stratified Sites in the North Carolina
Piedmont. Report 2386. Commonwealth Associates, Jackson, Mississippi. pp.
637 -88.
Carbone, V.A.
1983 Late Quaternary Environments in Florida and the Southeast. Florida
Anthropologist 36 (1 -2): 3 -17.
Cassedy, Daniel, and Marvin Brown
2000a Archaeological Survey for Replacement of Bridge No. 42 on NC 150 Over Beaver
Dam Creek, TIP B -3139, Cleveland County, North Carolina. North Carolina
Department of Transportation, Raleigh.
2000b Archaeological Survey for Replacement of Bridge No. 10 on NC 10 Over First
Broad River, TIP B -3138, Cleveland County, North Carolina. North Carolina
Department of "Transportation, Raleigh.
Chapman, J.
1985 Tellico Archaeology. Report of Investigations No. 43. Department of
Anthropology, University of Tennessee at Knoxville.
58

Chapman, J. (cont.)
1977 Archaic Period Research in the Lower Little Tennessee River Valley, 1975:
Icehouse Bottom, Thirty Acre Island, Calloway Island. University of Tennessee,
Department of Anthropology, Report of Investigations 18.
1973 The Icehouse Bottom Site — 40MR23. Report of Investigations No. 13.
Department of Anthropology, University of Tennessee at Knoxville.
Chapman, J., and A.B. Shea
1981 The Archaeobotanical Record: Early Archaic Period to Contact in the Lower
Little Tennessee River Valley. Tennessee Anthropologist 6:61 -84.
Cleveland County Heritage
1982 The Heritage of Cleveland County, Volume 1. The Cleveland County Historical
Association, Cleveland County, North Carolina.
Coe, J.L.
1965 The Ecological and Cultural Base of the Cherokee Nation. Proposal submitted by
the Research Laboratories of Anthropology to the National Science Foundation.
On file, Research Laboratories of Archaeology, University of North Carolina,
Chapel Hill.
1964 The Formative Cultures of the Carolina Piedmont. Transactions of American
Philosophical Society, 54. Philadelphia.
Cooper, Peter P., III, and Jane S. Joyce
1977 An Historic and Prehistoric Archaeological Resources Survey of Proposed 201
Facilities Imterceptor Routes for the Town of Grover, Cleveland County, North
Carolina. Museum of Anthropology, Catawba College, Salisbury, North
Carolina.
Daniel, Jr., R.I.
1998 Hardaway Revisited: Early Archaic Settlement in the Southeast. University of
Alabama Press, Tuscaloosa.
Davis, R.P.S., Jr.
1990 Aboriginal Settlement Patterns in the Little Tennessee River Valley. Report of
Investigations No. 50. University of Tennessee Department of Anthropology,
Knoxville.
Dickens, R.S., Jr.
1979 The Origins and Development of Cherokee Culture. In D.H. King (ed) The
Cherokee Indian Nation. University of Tennessee Press, Knoxville. Pp. 3 -32.
1978 Mississippian Settlement Patterns in the Appalachian Summit Area. In B.D.
Smith (ed) Mississippian Settlement Patterns. Academic Press, New York. Pp.
115 -139.
1976 Cherokee Prehistory: The Pisgah Phase in the Appalachian Summit Region. The
University of Tennessee Press, Knoxville, Tennessee.
59

Dillehay, T.D.
1997 Monte Verde, A Late Pleistocene Settlement in Chile, Volume 2, The
Archaeological Context and Interpretation. Smithsonian Institution Press,
Washington D.C.
Division of Natural Resources and Community Development (DNRCD)
1985 Geologic Map of North Carolina. North Carolina Geologic Society, Raleigh.
Dunbar, J.S. and B.I. Waller
1983 A Distribution Analysis of the Clovis /Suwannee Paleo- Indian Sites in Florida: A
Geographic Approach. Florida Anthropologist 36(1- 2):18 -30.
Eastman, J.M.
1994 The North Carolina Radiocarbon Date Study (Part 2). Southern Indian Studies
43.
Egloff, B.J.
1967 An Analysis of Ceramics from historic Cherokee Towns. Unpublished Masters
Thesis. On file, Department of Anthropology, University of North Carolina at
Chapel Hill.
Ellis, G.D.
1997 A Laboratory Reference Guide for American Bottle Glass of the 19''' and 20`''
Centuries. GARI Research Series Number 3.
Fiedel, S.J.
1999 Older than we Though: Implications of Corrected Dates for Paleoindians.
American Antiquity 64(1):95 -115.
Fischer, Fred W.
1984 Cultural Resources Reconnaissance, Grover Recreation Park, Cleveland County,
North Carolina. Town of Grover, North Carolina.
1977a Archeological and Historical Impact Assessment, John H. Moss Lake Park,
Parcel I, Cleveland County, North Carolina. Umverstiy of North Carolina at
Charlotte, Charlotte.
1977b Archeological and Historical Impact Assessment, John H Moss Lake Park,
Parcel 2, Cleveland County, North Carolina. Universtiy of North Carolina at
Charlotte, Charlotte.
1976 Archeological Impact Assessment, Southeastern Cleveland County Wastewater
System. Universtiy of North Carolina at Charlotte, Charlotte.
Goodyear, A.C., J.H. House, and N.W. Ackerly
1979 Laurens - Anderson: An Archaeological Study of the Inter- Riverine Piedmont.
Anthropological Studies 4. South Carolina Institute of Archaeology and
Anthropology.
60

Goodyear, A.C., J. Michie, and T. Charles
1989 The Earliest South Carolinians. A. Goodyear and G. Hanson (eds) Studies in
South Carolina Archaeology. Anthropological Studies 9, South Carolina Institute
of Archaeology and Anthropology, Columbia. pp. 19 -52.
Gresham, Thomas H.
2001 Archaeological Survey of the Shelby Loan Tract, Cleveland County, North
Carolina. Ms. on file, Office of State Archaeology, Raleigh.
Hall, J.D., J. Leloudis, R. Korstad, M. Murphy, L.A. Jones, and C.B. Day
1987 Like a Family: The Making of a Southern Cotton Mill World. University of
North Carolina Press, Chapel Hill.
Hall, Linda G.
2000 Archaeological Survey of the Cleveland County Senior Center, Shelby, North
Carolina. High Country Archaeological Services, Weaverville, North Carolina.
1996 Archaeological Survey, Cleveland County Landfill Expansion. High Country
Archaeological Services, Weaverville, North Carolina.
Hally, D.J.
1994 An Overview of Lamar Culture. In D.J. Hally (ed) Ocmulgee Archaeology —
1936 -1986. University of Georgia Press, Athens. Pp. 144 -174.
Hammond, Michael, and Thomas Hargrove
1982 An Archaeolgical Survey of the Plant Site for the New Water System for Upper
Cleveland County. Archaeological Research Consultant, Inc., Chapel Hill, North
Carolina.
Holden, P.P.
1966 An Archaeological Survey of Transylvania County, North Carolina. MSc Thesis.
On file, University of North Carolina Department of Anthropology, Chapel Hill.
Israel, F.L. (ed.)
1993 1897 Sears Roebuck Catalogue. Chelsea House Publishers, New York.
Joy, Deborah
1993 Archaeological Survey Report, Dixon School Road Extension (SR 2283) from
North of Interstate 85 to US 74 Business West of Kings Mountain, Cleveland
County, North Carolina. North Carolina Department of Transportation, Raleigh.
Keel, B.C.
1976 Cherokee Archaeology. A Study of the Appalachian Summit. The University of
Tennessee Press, Knoxville.
61

Keel, B.C., and B.J. Egloff
1984 The Cane Creek Site, Mitchell County, North Carolina. Southern Indian Studies
33:3 -44.
Keeler, R.W.
1971 An Archaeological Survey of the Upper Catawba River Valley. Honors Thesis,
Department of Anthropology, University of North Carolina, Chapel Hill.
Martof, B.S., W.M. Palmer, J.R. Bailey, and J.R. Harrison I11.
1980 Amphibians and Reptiles of the Carolinas and Virginia. University of North
Carolina Press, Chapel Hill, NC. 264 pp.
May, J. Alan
1997 An Archaeological Reconnaissance of the Proposed Broad River Greenway
Parking Lot, Boiling Springs, Cleveland County, North Carolina. Schiele
Museum of Natural History, Gastonia, North Carolina.
1995 An Archaeological Reconnaissance of a Proposed Borrow Pit Site, Lawndale,
Cleveland County, North Carolina. Schiele Museum of Natural History,
Gastonia, North Carolina.
1992 An Archaeological Reconnaissance of a Proposed Community Development,
Boiling Springs, Cleveland County, North Carolina. Schiele Museum of Natural
History, Gastonia, North Carolina.
1991 a An Archaeological Reconnaissance of a Propsed Water Treatment Plant Site,
Boiling Springs, Cleveland County, North Carolina. Schiele Museum of Natural
History, Gastonia, North Carolina.
1991b An Archaeological Reconnaissance of a Proposed Neighborhood Park, Kings
Mountain, Cleveland County, North Carolina. Schiele Museum of Natural
History, Gastonia, North Carolina.
McAvoy, J.M.
1997 Archaeological Investigations of Cactus Hill, Sussex County, Virginia. Virginia
Department of Historic Resources, Research Report Series No. 8.
McMakin, Todd
1998 Archaeological Survey of a Proposed Pumping Station and Associated
Improvements, Cleveland County, North Carolina. Brockinton and Associates,
Atlanta.
Menhinick, E.F.
1991 The Freshwater Fishes of North Carolina. The Delmar Company, Charlotte, NC
for North Carolina Wildlife Resources Commission, Raleigh, NC. 227 pp.
62

Meltzer, D.H., and B.D. Smith
1986 Paleo - Indian Early Archaic Subsistence Strategies in Eastern North America. In
S. Neusius (ed.), Foraging, Collecting, and Harvesting: Archaic Period
Subsistence and Settlement in the Eastern Woodlands, pp. 1 -30. Center for
Archaeological Investigations, Southern Illinois University at Carbondale.
Merrens, H. Roy
1964 Colonial North Carolina in the Eighteenth Century: A Study in Historical
Geography. University of North Carolina Press, Chapel Hill.
Moore, D.G.
1987 Archaeological Investigations in the Upper Catawba River Valley, North
Carolina. Paper presented at the 44`h annual meeting of the Southeastern
Archaeological Conference, Charleston, South Carolina.
1980 The Brunk Site — An Upland Pisgah Site. Southeastern Archaeological
Conference Bulletin 23:9 -10.
Morrow, J.E., and T.A. Morrow
1999 Geographic Variation in Fluted Projectile Points: A Hemispheric Perspective.
American Antiquity 64(2):215 -231.
NHPA (National Historic Preservation Act)
1966 National Historic Preservation Act. Code of Federal Regulations, Title 36, Part
800. United States of America, Washington, D.C.
Oliver, B. L.
1985 Tradition and Typology: Basic Elements of the Carolina Projectile Point
Sequence. In R.S. Dickens Jr. and H.T. Ward (eds) Structure and Process in
Southeastern Archaeology. University of Alabama Press, Tuscaloosa. Pp. 195-
211.
Padgett, Thomas J.
1992 Archaeological Study, South DeKalb Street Extension, Shelby, Cleveland County.
North Carolina Department of Transportation, Raleigh.
1986 Archaeological Survey Report, Bridge No. 85, SR 1106 Over Hickory Creek,
Cleveland County. North Carolina Department of Transportation, Raleigh.
Palmer, W.M. and A.L. Braswell.
1995. Reptiles of North Carolina. The University of North Carolina Press, Chapel Hill.
412 pp.
Plog, S., F. Plog, and W. Wait
1978 Decision Making in Modern Surveys. In Michael Schiffer (ed) Advances in
Archaeological Method and Theory. Academic Press, New York.
63

Potter, E.F., J.F. Parnell, and R.P. Teulings.
1980. Birds of the Carolinas. The University of North Carolina Press, Chapel Hill, NC.
408 pp.
Powell, William S.
1989 North Carolina Through Four Centuries. The University of North Carolina
Press. Chapel Hill, North Carolina.
Purrington, B.L.
1983 Ancient Mountaineers: An Overview of Prehistoric Archaeology of North
Carolina's Western Mountain Region. In M.A. Mathis and J.J. Crow (eds) The
Prehistory of North Carolina. Division of Archives and History, North Carolina
Department of Cultural Resources, Raleigh. Pp. 83 -160.
1981 Archaeological Investigations at the Slipoff Branch Site, a Morrow Mountain
Culture Campsite in Swain County, North Carolina. Publication 15. North
Carolina Archaeological Council, Raleigh.
1980 Archaeology of Western North Carolina's Mountain Region: Overview and
Prospectus. Paper presented at The Prehistory of North Carolina: An
Archaeological Symposium, Raleigh.
Robinson, Kenneth W.
1994 Archaeological Study, Widening of NC 180 from SR 2200 to SR 2052, Section B
of the Shelby Bypass, Cleveland County, North Carolina. North Carolina
Department of Transportation, Raleigh.
Sassaman, K.E.
1993 Early Pottery in the Southeast: Tradition and Innovation in Cooking Technology.
University of Alabama Press, Tuscaloosa.
Sassaman, K.E., M.J. Brooks, G.T. Hanson, and D.G. Anderson
1990 Native American Prehistoryof the Middle Savannah River Valley: A Synthesis of
Archaeological Investigations on the Savannah River Site, Aiken and Barnwell
Counties, South Carolina. Savannah River Archaeological Research Paper 1.
South Carolina Institute of Archaeology and Anthropology.
Scarry, C.M. (editor)
1993 Foraging and Farming in the Eastern Woodlands. University Press of Florida,
Gainesville.
Schafale, M.P., and A.S. Weakley
1990 Classifrcaiton of the Natural Communities of North Carolina: Third
Approximation. North Carolina natural Heritage Program, Division of Parks and
Recreation, North Carolina Department of Environment, Health, and Natural
Resources, Raleigh.
64

Seibel, S., Giampaolo Di Gregorio, and G. Smith
2001 An Intensive Cultural Resource Assessment Survey of the Cleveland Container
Industrial Landfill Expansion, Cleveland County, North Carolina. Environmental
Services, Inc., Raleigh, North Carolina.
Skokan, Elizabeth A., and Michael A, Nash
1995 Results of a Cultural Resources Survey of Potential Runway Extension and ILS
Areas at the Shelby Municipal Airport, Cleveland County, North Carolina.
Espey, Huston & Associates, Inc., Charlotte, North Carolina.
Smith, B.D.
1986 The Archaeology of the Southeastern United States: From Dalton to deSoto
(10,500 B.P. - 500 B.P.). In Fred Wendorf and Angela E. Close (eds) Advances in
World Archaeology, volume 5. Academic Press, New York. pp. 1 -92.
Steponaitis, V.P.
1986 Prehistoric Archaeology in the Southeastern United States. Annual Review of
Anthropology (15):363 -404.
Swanton, John R.
1979 The Indians of the Southeastern
Washington D.C.
United States. Smithsonian Institution Press,
Tremont Nail Company
N.d. The History of Cut Nails in America. Wareham, Massachusetts.
Tindall, G.B.
1967 The Emergence of the New South. Louisiana State University Press, Baton
Rouge.
Trimble, S.W.
1974 Man - Induced Soil Erosion on the Southern Piedmont, 1700 -1970. Department of
Geography, University of Wisconsin - Milwaukee.
USDA (United States Department of Agriculture)
n.d. Unpublished Soil Survey of Cleveland County, North Carolina. Department of
the Interior, Washington, D.C.
1999 Soil Survey of Richmond County, North Carolina. United States Department of
Agriculture, Department of the Interior, Washington, D.C.
Vacca, Michele N., and Erica E. Sanborn
1992 An Archaeological and Historical Survey and Testing of the Raw Water Intake
System, Water Treatment Plant Expansion, Shelby, North Carolina. McGill
Associates, Asheville, North Carolina.
65

Ward, H.T.
1985 Social Implications of Storage and Disposal Patterns. In R.S. Dickens, Jr., and
H.T. Ward (eds) Structure and Process in Southeastern Archaeology. University
of Alabama Press, Tuscaloosa.
1983 A Review of Archaeology in the North Carolina Piedmont: A Study of Change. In
M. A. Mathis and J. A. Crow (eds) Prehistory of North Carolina: An
Archaeological Symposium. North Carolina Division of Archives and History,
Department of Cultural Resources. pp.53 -81.
Ward, H.T. and R.P.S. Davis Jr.
1999 Time Before History: The Archaeology of North Carolina. University of North
Carolina Press, Chapel Hill.
Weathers, Lee B.
1980 The Living Past of Cleveland County: A History. Reprint Company, Spartanburg,
South Carolina.
Webb, P.A., and D.S. Leigh
1995 Geomoiphological and Archaeological Investigations of a Buried Site on the
Yadkin River Floodplain. Southern Indian Studies 44:1 -36.
Yarnell, R.A.
1976 Plant Remains from the Warren Wilson Site. In R.S. Dickens Jr. (ed) Cherokee
Prehistory: The Pisgah Phase in the Appalachian Summit Region. University of
Tennessee Press, Knoxville. Pp. 217 -224.
66

ENVIRONMENTAL SERVICES, INC.
www.esmc.cc
Jacksonville, FL • St. Augustine, FL • Merritt Island, FL • Jupiter, FL • Destin, FL
Savannah, GA • Atlanta, GA • Raleigh, NC • Charlotte, NC

12%09/2003 11:15 9192121707 PAGE 02
North Carolina Department of Cultural Resources
State Historic Preservation Office
David l.. S, Brook, Administrator
Michael F. Easley, Governor Division of Historical Resour=
Usbeth C. Evans, Secretary David J. Olson, Director
Jeffrey J. Craw, Deputy Secretary
November 21, 2003
Mr. Scott Seibel
Environmental Services, Inc.
524 New Hope Road
Raleigh, NC 27610
Re: Expansion of Cleveland County Landfill, Cleveland County, ER 96 -8186
Dear Mr. Seibel:
Thank you for your letter of August 8, 2003 forwarding the archaeological survey report for the
above project. We apologize for the delay in our response.
During the course of the survey, fourteen sites were located within the project area. The report
authors have recoIntnended that no further archaeological investigation be conducted at 31CL74,
31CL75, and 31CL77 -87. It is further recommeaded that if 31CL76 ** cannot be avoided during
construction activities, additional archaeological work must be undertaken. We concur with these
recommendations. Please contact our office for assistance in developing a Scope of Work for the
additional work if 31CL76 ** cannot be avoided.
The above cotnments are made pursuant to Section 106 of the National Historic Preservation Act
and the Advisory Council on Historic Preservation's Regulations for Compliance with Section 106
codified at 36 CFR Part 800.
Thank you for your cooperation and consideration. If you have questions concerning the above
comment, please contact Renee Gledhill- Earley, environrnental review coordinator, at 919/733-
4763. In all futuate communication concerning this project, please cite the above - referenced tracking
number.
Sincerely,
avid Iitook
www.ilpv.dcr.state.nc.us
Location Mailing Addrena Telephonc/Faa
ADM NISTRAnON 507 N. Blount St,.,Ralcigh NC 4617 Mail Service Center, Raleigh NC 27699 -4617 (919) 733 -4763 •733.8653
RESTORATION 515 N. Blount St., Rakish NC 4613 Mail Service Center, Ralcigh NC 27699 - 4613 (919) 733 -6547 •715.4801
SURVEY & PLANNING 515 N. Blount St, Raleigh NC 4618 Mail Service Center, Raleigh NC 27699.4618 (919) 733 -654S a 715 -4841

i�. � r � _ � � ,.— �-t_,..� =t r►. 'ice >x - 4'.,,
- . } '+.� •�..4r- ...rye. 4-.
�y �ty�y?3 it Y �C1 v
1 i•9.
F
� l� j+.�t'E" C.�Y ^� ir, ` v� '"•�2 "Ws C �fi � .sev.'Pi� S �..w*j ` ` � �� j
,I` Y 5. ,.J. ' •� a -a>� .f 9 C -�'�
r v
�`�q r1 `•�- t• �` -4 :�• xt
�^ v r �•
Ji

SECTION
PAGE
1.0
INTRODUCTION
3.2
Residential Solid Waste ..................................................................... ...............................
............................................................................. ..............................1
1.1
Overview ............................................................................................... ..............................1
1.2
Plan Purpose and Objectives ............................................................. ..............................1
3.3
1.3
Planning Process ..................................................................:.............. ..............................2
1.4
Legislative Authority .......................................................................... ............................... 3
3.3.1 Waste Stream Quantities, Sources, and Projections ........................................... .............................12
1.4.1 State Laws and Regulations ................................................. ............................... ..............111..1........... 3
3.3.2 Commercial Solid Waste Composition ................................................................ .............................13
3.4
1.4.2 Existing Local Ordinances .................................................................................... ..............................4
1.4.3 Proposed Future Ordinances .............................................................................. ............................... 4
2.0
GENERAL COUNTY INFORMATION ............................................ ............................... 5
3.4.1 Waste Stream Quantities, Sources, and Projections ........................................... .............................13
2.1
Introduction ......................................................................................... ............................... 5
3.4.2 Industrial Solid Waste Composition ..................................................................... .............................14
2.2
Geography
Construction and Demolition Waste ................................................. .............................14
........................................................................................... ............................... 5
3.5.1 Waste Stream Quantities, Sources, and Projections ........................................... .............................14
2.3
Economy
3.5.2 Construction and Demolition Waste Composition ............................................... .............................15
............................................................................................... ..............................6
Fiberglass Waste ................................................................................. .............................15
2.4
Demographics ..................................................................................... ............................... 6
3.0
WASTE STREAM CHARACTERIZATION
4.0 THE
CLEVELAND COUNTY SOLID WASTE MANAGEMENT SYSTEM ...................16
..................................... ............................... 7
3.1
Introduction ......................................................................................... ............................... 7
3.2
Residential Solid Waste ..................................................................... ...............................
8
3.2.1 Waste Stream Quantities, Sources, and Projections ........................................... ...............................
8
3.2.2 Residential Solid Waste Composition .................................................................. .............................10
3.3
Commercial Solid Waste
.................................................................... .............................12
3.3.1 Waste Stream Quantities, Sources, and Projections ........................................... .............................12
3.3.2 Commercial Solid Waste Composition ................................................................ .............................13
3.4
Industrial Solid Waste
........................................................................ .............................13
3.4.1 Waste Stream Quantities, Sources, and Projections ........................................... .............................13
3.4.2 Industrial Solid Waste Composition ..................................................................... .............................14
3.5
Construction and Demolition Waste ................................................. .............................14
3.5.1 Waste Stream Quantities, Sources, and Projections ........................................... .............................14
3.5.2 Construction and Demolition Waste Composition ............................................... .............................15
3.6
Fiberglass Waste ................................................................................. .............................15
3.6.1 Introduction .......................................................................................................... .............................15
4.0 THE
CLEVELAND COUNTY SOLID WASTE MANAGEMENT SYSTEM ...................16
4.1
Introduction
......................................................................................... .............................16
4.2 Municipal Solid Waste Services and Facilities ................................ .............................16
4.2.1 Introduction .......................................................................................................... .............................16
4.2.2 Municipal Solid Waste Collection Services .......................................................... .............................17
4.2.3 Municipal Solid Waste Processing Facilities ...................................................... ............................... 20
4.2.4 Municipal Solid Waste Disposal Facilities ........................................................ ............................... 233
4.3 Construction and Demolition Wastes ............................................. ............................... 28
4.3.1 Introduction ........................................................................................................ ............................... 28
4.3.2 C &D Collection Services ................................................................................... ............................... 29
4.3.3 C &D Transfer Facilities ...................................................................................... ............................... 29
Cleveland County, North Carolina i June 2012

SECTION PAGE
4.3.4 C &D Processing Facilities ................................................................................. ............................... 29
4.3.5 C &D Disposal Facilities ..................................................................................... ............................... 29
4.4 Industrial Process Wastes ................................................................. .............................29
4.4.1 Introduction ........................................................................................................ ............................... 29
4.4.2 Industrial Process Solid Waste Collection Services .......................................... ............................... 30
4.4.3 Industrial Process Solid Waste Processing Facilities ........................................ ............................... 30
4.4.4 Industrial Process Solid Waste Disposal ........................................................... ............................... 30
4.5
Conclusions ......................................................................................... .............................30
7.2.2
5.0 WASTE REDUCTION GOALS ..................................................... ...............................
31
5.1
Introduction ....................................................................................... ...............................
31
5.2
Local Waste Reduction Goal ............................................................. .............................31
.................................................................................. ............................... 36
6.0 MEETING THE WASTE REDUCTION GOALS ............................ ...............................
34
6.1
Introduction ....................................................................................... ...............................
34
6.2
Meeting the Residential Waste Reduction Goals ............................ .............................34
7.3.3
6.3
Meeting the Residential Waste Reduction Goals ............................ .............................35
7.3.4
7.0 SOLID WASTE MANAGEMENT METHODS ............................... ...............................
36
7.1
Introduction ....................................................................................... ...............................
36
7.2
Source Reduction ............................................................................. ...............................
36
7.2.1
Current Program ................................................................................................ ............................... 36
7.2.2
Intended Actions ................................................................................................
............................... 36
7.2.3
3 -Year Update ...................................................................................................
............................... 36
7.2.4
Revised Intended Actions
.................................................................................. ............................... 36
7.3 Collection of Solid Waste ................................................................. ............................... 37
7.3.1
Current Program ................................................................................................
............................... 37
7.3.2
Intended Actions ................................................................................................
............................... 37
7.3.3
3 -Year Update ...................................................................................................
............................... 37
7.3.4
Revised Intended Actions
.................................................................................. ............................... 37
7.4 Recycling and Reuse ...................................................................... ............................... 379
7.4.1
Current Program ..............................................................................................
............................... 379
7.4.2
Intended Actions ................................................................................................
............................... 38
7.4.3
3 -Year Update ...................................................................................................
............................... 38
7.4.4
Revised Intended Actions
.................................................................................. ............................... 38
7.5 Yard -Waste Composting .................................................................. ............................... 39
7.5.1
Current Program ................................................................................................ ...............................
39
7.5.2
Intended Actions ................................................................................................ ...............................
39
7.5.3
3 -Year Update ................................................................................................... ...............................
39
7.5.4
Revised Intended Actions .................................................................................. ...............................
39
7.6 Incineration with Energy Recovery ................................................. ............................... 40
7.6.1
Current Program ................................................................................................ ...............................
39
7.6.2
Intended Action .................................................................................................. ...............................
39
7.6.3
3 -Year Update ................................................................................................... ...............................
39
7.6.4
Revised Intended Actions .................................................................................. ...............................
39
7.7 Incineration without Energy Recovery ........................................... ............................... 40
Cleveland County, North Carolina ii June 2012

SECTION
PAGE
7.7.1
Current Program ................................................................................................ ...............................
40
7.7.2
Intended Action., ...............................................................................................................................
40
7.7.3
3 -Year Update ................................................................................................... ...............................
40
7.7.4
Revised Intended Actions .................................................................................. ...............................
40
7.8 Transfer of Solid Waste Outside the County ................................. ...............................
40
7.8.1
Current Program .................................................................................................. .............................40
7.10
7.8.2
Intended Action ....................... : ..............................................................................................
.... ..... .. 40
7.8.3
3 -Year Update ................................................................................................... ...............................
40
7.8.4
Revised Intended Action .................................................................................... ...............................
40
7.9 Disposal of Solid Waste ..................................................................... .............................40
7.13.1 Current Program ................................................................................................ ............................... 43
7.13.2 Intended Actions ................................................................................................ ............................... 43
7.13.3 3 -Year Update ..................................................................................................... .............................43
7.13.4 Revised Intended Actions .................................................................................. ............................... 43
7.14 Lead Acid Batteries .......................................................................... ............................... 44
7.14.1 Current Program .................................................................................................. .............................44
7.14.2 Intended Actions ................................................................................................ ............................... 44
7.14.3 3 -Year Update ................................................................................................... ............................... 44
7.14.4 Revised Intended Actions .................................................................................. ............................... 44
7.15 Used Motor Oil, Filters and Anti - Freeze ......................................... ............................... 44
7.15.1 Current Program ................................................................................................ ............................... 44
7.15.2 Intended Actions ................................................................................................ ............................... 44
7.15.3 3 -Year Update ................................................................................................... ............................... 44
7.15.4 Revised Intended Actions .................................................................................. ............................... 44
7.16 Other Banned Items (Wooden Pallets and Rigid Plastics) ........... ............................... 44
Cleveland County, North Carolina iii June 2012
7.9.1
Current Program ................................................................................................ ...............................
40
7.9.2
Intended Action .................................................................................................. ...............................
41
7.9.3
3 -Year Update ................................................................................................... ...............................
41
7.9.4
Revised Intended Actions .................................................................................. ...............................
41
7.10
Education of the Community and Through the Schools .............. ...............................
41
7.10.1
Current Program ................................................................................................ ...............................
41
7.10.2
Intended Actions ................................................................................................ ...............................
42
7.10.3
3 -Year Update ................................................................................................... ...............................
42
7.10.4
Revised Intended Actions .................................................................................. ...............................
42
7.11
Management of Special Wastes ...................................................... ...............................
42
7.11.1
Current Program ................................................................................................ ...............................
42
7.11.2
Intended Actions ................................................................................................ ...............................
42
7.11.3
3 -Year Update ................................................................................................... ...............................
42
7.11.4
Revised Intended Actions .................................................................................. ...............................
42
7.12
Tires ......................................................................................................
.............................43
7.12.1
Current Program ................................................................................................ ...............................
43
7.12.2
Intended Actions ................................................................................................ ...............................
43
7.12.3
3 -Year Update ................................................................................................... ...............................
43
7.12.4
Revised Intended Actions .................................................................................. ...............................
43
7.13
White
Goods ........................................................................................ .............................43
7.13.1 Current Program ................................................................................................ ............................... 43
7.13.2 Intended Actions ................................................................................................ ............................... 43
7.13.3 3 -Year Update ..................................................................................................... .............................43
7.13.4 Revised Intended Actions .................................................................................. ............................... 43
7.14 Lead Acid Batteries .......................................................................... ............................... 44
7.14.1 Current Program .................................................................................................. .............................44
7.14.2 Intended Actions ................................................................................................ ............................... 44
7.14.3 3 -Year Update ................................................................................................... ............................... 44
7.14.4 Revised Intended Actions .................................................................................. ............................... 44
7.15 Used Motor Oil, Filters and Anti - Freeze ......................................... ............................... 44
7.15.1 Current Program ................................................................................................ ............................... 44
7.15.2 Intended Actions ................................................................................................ ............................... 44
7.15.3 3 -Year Update ................................................................................................... ............................... 44
7.15.4 Revised Intended Actions .................................................................................. ............................... 44
7.16 Other Banned Items (Wooden Pallets and Rigid Plastics) ........... ............................... 44
Cleveland County, North Carolina iii June 2012

SECTION
8.0
1'47
PAGE
7.16.1 Current Program ................................................................................................ ............................... 45
7.16.2 Intended Actions ................................................................................................ ............................... 45
7.16.3 3 -Year Update ................................................................................................... ............................... 45
7.16.4 Revised Intended Actions .................................................................................. ............................... 45
7.17 Household Hazardous Waste .......................................................... ............................... 45
7.17.1 Current Program ................................................................................................ ............................... 45
7.17.2 Intended Actions ................................................................................................ ............................... 47
7.17.3 3 -Year Update ................................................................................................... ............................... 47
7.17.4 Revised Intended Actions .................................................................................. ............................... 47
OTHER SOLID WASTE MANAGEMENT ISSUES ....................... ............................... 48
8.1 Illegal Disposal .................................................................................... .............................48
8.1.1 Current Program .............................................................................................. ............................... 489
8.1.2 Intended Actions .............................................................................................. ............................... 499
8.1.3 3 -Year Update ..................................................................... ............................... ............................ 499
8.2 Litter Management and Promiscuous Dumping ............................ ............................... 49
SUMMARY OF INTENDED ACTIONS ....................................... ............................... 598
9.1 Solid Waste Cost and Financing ....................................................... .............................59
9.2 Facilities and Resources Available Through Private Enterprise . ............................... 59
Cleveland County, North Carolina iv June 2012
8.2.1
Current Program ................................................................................................ ............................... 49
8.2.2
Intended Actions ................................................................................................ ...............................
50
8.2.3
3 -Year Update ................................................................................................... ............................... 50
8.3
Purchase of Recycled Materials and Products ........................... ...............................
511
8.3.1
Current Program .............................................................................................. ...............................
511
8.3.2
Intended Actions ................................................................................................ ...............................
51
8.3.3
3 -Year Update ................................................................................................... ...............................
51
8.3.4
Revised Intended Actions .................................................................................. ...............................
51
8.4
DISASTER RESPONSE ....................................................................... .............................51
8.4.1
Current Program ................................................................................................ ...............................
51
8.4.2
Intended Actions .............................................................................................. ...............................
533
8.4.3
3 -Year Update ................................................................................................... ...............................
53
8.4.4
Revised Intended Actions .................................................................................. ...............................
53
8.5
Collection of Discarded Computer Equipment and Televisions . ............................... 53
8.5.1
Current Program ................................................................................................ ...............................
53
8.5.2
Intended Actions .............................................................................................. ...............................
555
8.5.3
3 -Year Update ................................................................................................. ...............................
555
8.5.4
Revised Intended Actions ................................................................................ ...............................
555
8.6
Management of Abandoned Manufactured Homes ..................... ...............................
535
8.6.1
Current Program .............................................................................................. ...............................
535
8.6.2
Intended Actions .............................................................................................. ...............................
558
8.6.3
3 -Year Update ................................................................................................... ...............................
58
8.6.4
Revised Intended Actions .................................................................................. ...............................
58
SUMMARY OF INTENDED ACTIONS ....................................... ............................... 598
9.1 Solid Waste Cost and Financing ....................................................... .............................59
9.2 Facilities and Resources Available Through Private Enterprise . ............................... 59
Cleveland County, North Carolina iv June 2012

SECTION
APPENDICES
A — Resolutions
B — Copy of Ad
PAGE
Cleveland County, North Carolina v June 2012

LIST OF TABLES
TABLE
TITLE
PAGE
1 -1
Cleveland County Solid Waste Advisory Board Members ......................................................... ...............................
2
2 -1
Estimated Population Distribution .............................................................................................. ...............................
6
2 -2
Project Population Growth — FY 2010 through FY 2019 ........................................................... ...............................
7
3 -1
Classification of Cleveland County Solid Waste Based on Annual Activity Report for FY 2007 -08 .........................
8
3 -2
Solid Waste Streams ................................................................................................................. ...............................
9
3 -3
Residential Solid Waste Sources .............................................................................................. ...............................
9
34
Waste Stream Projections ......................................................................................................... ...............................
11
3 -5
Characterization of Residential Waste ...................................................................................... ...............................
12
3-6
Characterization of Commercial Waste ..................................................................................... ...............................
13
3 -7
Characterization of C &D Waste ................................................................................................. ...............................
15
4 -1
MSW Collection Services in Cleveland County ......................................................................... ...............................
18
4 -2
MSW Processing Facilities in Cleveland County ....................................................................... ...............................
21
4 -3
Current Solid Waste Disposal System ....................................................................................... ...............................
30
5 -1
Estimated Recycling Tonnages through the Institution of Curbside Recycling Services in the Major Incorporated
32
Areas in Cleveland County, North Carolina
5 -2
Targeted Waste Reduction — FY 2015 -16 and FY 2018 -19 ...................................................... ...............................
33
6 -1
Waste Reduction Goal by Waste Type ...................................................................................... ...............................
34
7 -1
Residential Recycling in Tons for FY 2007 -08 .......................................................................... ...............................
38
9 -1
Intended Actions Implementation Schedule .............................................................................. ...............................
59
9 -2
Cleveland County Planning Area Solid Waste Collection and Disposal Costs, FY 2010- 11 ..... ...............................
59
LIST OF FIGURES
FIGURE TITLE PAGE
1 Map of Cleveland County, NC 5
2 MSW Landfill Pollution Control Systems 24
Cleveland County, North Carolina vi June 2012

1.1 OVERVIEW
This Cleveland Countv. North Carolina, Solid Waste Management Plan — 2012 Update (Plan) has been
prepared in accordance with North Carolina General Statute 130A- 309.09A(b) for the purpose of
meeting local solid waste goals and protecting public health and the environment within the Cleveland
County planning area.
The planning area consists of Cleveland County, which includes the municipalities of Belwood, Boiling
Springs, Casar, Earl, Fallston, Grover, Kings Mountain, Kingstown, Lattimore, Lawndale, Mooresboro,
Patterson Springs, Polkville, Shelby, and Waco.
Through implementation of this comprehensive solid waste management plan, and the subsequent plan
revisions at three -year intervals, Cleveland County will continue to provide for the efficient and
environmentally -sound management of solid waste, including solid waste disposal and waste reduction,
for the next ten years.
1.2 PLAN PURPOSE AND OBJECTIVES
The long -range vision of the Cleveland County Planning Advisory Committee is for a consolidated solid
waste management program that provides solid waste collection services, collection of recyclables, solid
waste disposal, and waste reduction programs to all members of the planning area at an equitable price.
The vision includes the elimination of improper disposal of solid waste and the expansion of waste
reduction and recycling opportunities that are convenient for residents. The vision is for a community
that understands the environmental benefits of waste reduction and proper waste disposal. The
community foresees some financial expenditure but intends to keep them at a reasonable level. This
vision is translated into the following five long -range planning goals:
■ Provide each citizen, business, institution, and industry in the planning area with waste
collection service, convenient collection of recyclables, solid waste disposal, and waste
reduction opportunities.
■ Increase the efficiency and cost - effectiveness of the solid waste program.
■ Meet the established waste reduction goals.
■ Decrease improper waste disposal.
■ Protect public health and the environment.
Cleveland County has a Solid Waste Advisory Board (SWAB) with members appointed by the County
Board of Health. Board membership must include a County Commissioner and the professional
engineer serving on the County Board of Health. The other members are appointed from the general
public. The SWAB receives its direction from the County Board of Health. This Plan was prepared
with the guidance of the SWAB, whose members are listed in Table 1 -1.
Cleveland County, North Carolina 1 June 2012

The Cleveland County Solid Waste Planning Advisory Committee developed the original version of this
plan. The committee membership is listed in Appendix A.
Mr'bi'y,Daist - - �
Citji•af'Stielby-,
-x - - r,
-...
�MreZack.Trogdon
_
'• , �,s��:.��= ...,�. -.._.a - - ..` ,
CTown,O!"A ling`S0-
„LL =
Mr': Jaft Barnette
°d
:Putilic Vllo s ,;Citjr of Kings Mountain `
rli�Direcfior
''�y`
Mr: Jotiriny,Hutchins, "
� ; Commi �io� -�r� � '� "� • ' °'�`� _• ' � 4
ss ne �Cleyeland County_.
Mr. Wille Mclnfiosh
Commissioner ClevelandCouniy
V
_
INr. Stevg Racldey
, :�t'S+°
Boab;of Hea E�gin' f W
Ilf% n eel , Cleveland
..
' %"�f•`^i`.-
r.Mr �R ctia 16un
" .fc �i%.�Y�r r- .�f ,.,�2H »,� x+4'4 Yv.sf�SPy_ »ua � =:g 'Yf^��;, ¢,9M,�'
"PPG
''��
�,ruk 'y—,- ._ •
Ms.'Sandra Murplirey
Y " ••
- - .l',}' ,s,' -"7,�" xR�ax„4r,"„•`>~n ,2{�3�✓,.r.495'"i. a,�
'
Crt¢enoflGrigsrMourttdur''" 4,;,:�,•r
•'M�: °B�l Ro "ssx.:
�;.�.�.�,�`
Chair man. ;,Clevelarid'Couriiy'
;INr: Tm Alleii
s•.. Waste'Industrie_s -'k ; F
n.r ��
- wRepublic
..:n: vL" _
�'r
t''P�! c•l Y -b. ,b
Mr. GregMTrayw1ck
- a __ _ - y„F. Y � ti}a �� ,•�, ,,�qn i�•r _ .
- Clevelarid-Couniy'Agnculturel Ext:,,Office'
1.3 PLANNING PROCESS
The Cleveland County Solid Waste Advisory Board and municipalities met on January 18, 2012 to
provide guidance on the update of the Ten -Year Solid Waste Plan. The Advisory Board discussed the
purpose of the Plan with an outline of the intended programs and waste reduction goals. On May 1
2012, the public meeting was held in conjunction with the regularly scheduled Cleveland County Board
of Commissioners meeting and the Board of County Commissioners approved the Plan by Resolution.
The meeting was announced in the Shelby Star. It was submitted to the elected boards of each
participating local government for approval. Copies of the approval Resolutions are included in
Appendix B.
Cleveland County, North Carolina 2 June 2012

1.4 LEGISLATIVE AUTHORITY
1.4.1 State Laws and Regulations
1.4.1.1 North Carolina Solid Waste Management Act of 1989
The North Carolina Solid Waste Management Act of 1989 (the Act), which is codified as
General Statute (G.S) 130A, is the principal law that governs solid waste management in the
State of North Carolina.'
The Act regulates the management of solid waste in North Carolina and requires local
governments to look into the future and become proactive, rather than reactive, solid waste
planners.
The Act states that long -range planning is essential for achieving a cost - effective solid waste
management system. The solid waste management plans that are required under the Act to be
developed by local governments must be publicly endorsed working documents that keep
control of solid waste issues in local government hands and provide a framework for budget
preparation by anticipating future needs.
The Act requires that local governments make a good faith effort toward achieving the statewide
goal of reducing the per- capita amount of solid waste disposed by 40 percent, as measured
against the baseline year of FY 1991 -92, or an alternate year if approved by the State. The State
recognizes, however, that circumstances arise over the course of time, which affect the per -
capita waste generation rate and which directly affect the extent to which businesses,
institutions, and residents make progress in implementing waste reduction programs. Examples
include increases in waste generation waste due to hurricanes and other natural phenomena,
growth in construction starts, establishment of new manufacturing facilities, and/or an overall
increase in the health of the economy.
The Act establishes the following solid waste management hierarchy for the management of the
solid waste:
• Waste Reduction at the Source
• Recycling and Reuse
• Composting
• Incineration with Energy Production
• Incineration for Volume Reduction
• Disposal in Landfills.
The Solid Waste Management Act of 1989 was revised by the North Carolina House Bill 859, which was passed in the short session of the
1996 General Assembly. One of the major revisions was to require local governments to develop ten -year comprehensive solid waste
management plans.
Cleveland County, North Carolina 3 June 2012

It should be noted that the State's definition of solid waste includes municipal solid waste
(MSW) as well as construction and demolition (C &D) waste. MSW is defined as non - hazardous
solid waste that is generated by the residential, commercial, and industrial sectors of a
community. C &D waste is defined as wastes resulting solely from construction, remodeling,
repair, or demolition operations on pavement, buildings, or other structures.2
1.4.2 Existina Local Ordinances
Cleveland County Code regulates solid waste management through the County's Solid Waste
Ordinance. The purpose of this ordinance is to regulate the storage, collection, and disposal of
all forms of solid waste in the County.
Among other things, the ordinance gives the County's Board of Commissioners the right to
grant exclusive or non - exclusive rights to collect, transport, recycle, or dispose of solid waste for
compensation either within the County or within specific areas of the County.
The ordinance requires all solid waste collection service providers that serve the unincorporated
areas of the County to be licensed by the County. The County requires all licensed haulers to
transport collected wastes and/or recyclables to a County -owned disposal site or facility, or to a
licensed recycling center.
The ordinance states that County residents or non - resident property owners may use the County
sanitary landfill for the disposal of solid waste. The ordinance specifically addresses illegal
disposal. It is enforced by the County's Solid Waste Enforcement Officer who is tasked with
enforcing Solid Waste Ordinances within the planning area.
1.4.3 Proposed Future Ordinances
The present ordinances for Cleveland County are considered to be effective. Changes in any
requirement to enhance improved solid waste management will require an addition or change to
the present ordinances to make them more effective.
2 Land clearing and inert debris, or LCID, is defined as "any waste materials produced in the clearing off of property such as stumps, roots,
rocks, dirt, gravel, asphalt, bricks, and concrete." The management of LCID waste is not addressed in this Plan.
Cleveland County, North Carolina 4 June 2012

2.0 GENERAL COUNTY INFORMATION 4
2.1 INTRODUCTION
Cleveland County is nestled in the rolling piedmont of the southwestern portion of North Carolina
situated in the foothills of the beautiful Blue Ridge Mountains. The County serves as the gateway
between Asheville and Charlotte and is also centered between two of the largest metropolitan areas of
the Carolinas -- Charlotte and Greenville /Spartanburg.
Incorporated cities in the County include Belwood, Boiling Springs, Casar, Earl, Fallston, Grover, Kings
Mountain, Kingstown, Lattimore, Lawndale, Mooresboro, Patterson Springs, Polkville, Shelby, and
Waco. A map of the County is presented in Figure 2 -1.
�f
Figure 2 -1— Map of Cleveland County, North Carolina
2.2 GEOGRAPHY
Geography is one of Cleveland County's biggest advantages. Easy access to Interstate Highways 85, 40,
26, and 77 assures that goods and services flow freely to their destination from one of 250 trucking
firms located throughout the area. More than half of the nation can be reached within 24 hours.
Cleveland Counry, North Carolina 5 June 2012

2.3 ECONOMY
Ranked one of the top ten best small markets by Southern Business and Development magazine,
Cleveland County is easily accessed by four major interstates (I -85, 1 -77, 1 -26, and I -40) and the
Charlotte Douglas International Airport (just 40 minutes away).
The local economy is also diverse with no dependence on any one industry. Products manufactured
locally include fiberglass products, truck cabs, compact discs, transmissions, aircraft parts, ceramic
capacitor material, electric motors, emergency products, and various specialized textiles. Industries
range from operations that employ just a handful of people to large manufacturing plants with well over
1,000 employees. Cleveland County is home to numerous ISO 9000 certified companies, has no union
activity, boasts 35 percent of the workforce involved in manufacturing, and is classified as an attainment
county.
The labor force is drawn from a wide area, which includes the surrounding counties of Lincoln, Gaston,
Rutherford, and Burke. Within a 35 -mile radius, it numbers in excess of 600,000. Within a 25 -mile
radius of Shelby, there are frequently 12,000
active job applications on file with the North
Carolina Employment Security office, which
also maintains a statewide data bank and
provides screening and testing of applicants
for local industry.
2.4 DEMOGRAPHICS
The projected 2012 population of the County,
as reported by the State's Bureau of Demo-
graphics is 99,230. The increase in population
from 2012 to 2022 is 3 percent, compared to a
15 percent population increase estimated for
the State from 2012 to 2022.
Table 2 -1 presents the distribution of the
County's population by incorporated and un-
incorporated areas for the year 2012. Table
2 -2 presents the projected population for the
County for each year of the planning period –
namely, FY 2012 -13 through the year FY
2022 -23.
w«. �- �•�>L,;� =� � _ - ��•,r� fir= : t;. - ;;— ,��'__ $ -�4 ;�,�x,.,.;:'.�` _
`Fallston,,,�.ik'� ;;�� ;., �,�;,'_:r,�6'14� _��:: °��,�x�,0.6 %�:v•
N ;x =0., r'
�'�` �`u+ a:
748, 7
A*SIM u lain`:_.__ ;.,9;625
,Kingstown.,'
"`'c`.F, K.NF=- �`.�`, Toi" v', s �•. �. h;.$"rt'�., fir':: � °' _ �L �+.cxcevs.i„'- ;=-- ,.� -e„ "�+,:7"`ti: *,eey��� y�.�; � a ' , .• =.ay � :rc�Fa ,µ ''�45; -=..s �g.•.�n -arc _: -....
y`d 0:6 %t`::x
5�`��- ^; -,:�N
PattersoriySpririgs d 629 -
tPollmlle�' "��
"µ 21 �e n
,�'� _ �;; p�,�<< u ter_ - =�� ,n ' �4 -. -�.. :x.%»•,° .-
„a'wu "�+'- -i� °.„i�e�'�-v`n
Waco - ; r. =: ; x .• :r ; F_P:3°Y'K
tTotal,lhbb'F5i",y4�,M1t .• e<`_K -. %., 1.;x4�''r -'f.^F :t' -, +-
r —b e'd `.M i<: = -' 41; 628.+ .- :` s' :;a,';. as. 41 %;,:s
K. �:�='z. �^,'A;� ,r, Sri 2`1� c #X.a "
Population. �G z -_ _ ' -k "�; l
Unincorporated Population - - ;57;602 h'58 2• %' °;_ ,'
+)T,.r h� Win, --, ..- �•.�. ,. 'j-
Totsl Cou'nty°�Pgprilyti . �. " •���~ - , '� ". "�:�� �^
,a on� `99,230' 100:0%
Cleveland County, North Carolina 6 June 2012

z - &xlr;, b; ,+.w s„y�;r -'K; ., -.yr „iG1 ^f w: -sp.mr ^�;F �7uim_ ,y r.., �s -' -'; •.k: P, ^,_, pn.:>r,;,�° - <� Pr°Y �'- `�...� YA ,,, 5n`.i.#�, ".s "" -'�•y' "
2 Source `.'http: %lwww.os'bin.state:nc" usln "i�s6mJfacis and figures, index :shtm'Population,estimates'for 2012= 2022'are proj r_ .
` rc 3t. v z a; ;^�, :srr •v'r.� z4,. f,.,;#:.�y -A`_ t.i-= W�.ra�'�ika;t'n� ,v.,i �rFy, y�.:`:a;:r;- k�r'�m . "�Y -., ^�;.�r�• TB, = -v..-
p0pulatigns
3.1 INTRODUCTION
This section provides information on the quantities of solid waste that are currently generated in
Cleveland County. The North Carolina Solid Waste Management Act of 1989 requires that county solid
waste plan document the amounts and types of solid wastes that are generated within the County.
As indicated in Table 3 -1, there are three major solid waste streams generated within Cleveland County
that are covered by the Act. The purpose of this section is to provide information on the quantities of
each solid waste stream. A per capita disposal rate (i.e., the equivalent amount of solid waste generated
per person in the County) for each waste stream is calculated and is used to develop tonnage projections
over the ten -year planning period.
Cleveland County annually reports the quantities of solid wastes that are recycled and disposed in the
County in its Solid Waste/Recvclin2 Annual Activity Report, which is submitted to the State. The infor-
mation presented in this section was derived from the County's most recent Annual Activity Report that
covers the period of July 2010 through June 2011. Data from this report used to determine the
quantities of the different solid waste streams being disposed at the County Landfill are presented in
Table 3 -1.
Cleveland County, North Carolina 7 June 2012
2014 - . -
�. , , � = 100,054 . --
_ - ; , _ , ��. _ ,� - 394 = .
2016"
",.100,749
A32,
:. 03 %.','
-2017
= .101,057
= 308..
:_�,'0.30%0'
2018
101;337,
-2019`
101;594.
2020'
�-
_ ... �.
L "Fh
� m:'-
•..
er.O ycy...� ., .. .w -
2_021
- .r Nt N'��
aY -.. n, . ... "liv+ -hY-'1 awl e- �vr-..
b _ �''_Y.�-.'__ _ -
'K`.btc+ax. .
9
_. Ft,
�.P yan `i�i� --
Gx�
�'•_ -.. -_
,� �✓�j�tey`
�:. ^.,._. ..a_ rte• «_= arc �a ice. _
-t
.. „_ _ �,u; ".;r.
_ _ }•'� "J+_'2']r. sq k+,va a' _
g�'= %an��;�;.c�
.:°;^a �e� :.✓�:.�:��.99�.`�..`��:� , �'���.�a�x'>`�;�0:19
_aNS .. a. S'. ! •.,,..,.q- .s�•».,.�.At .. 'v,r,a.w, Ri. "�LZ1�, -'[Ctt" 4 ?^_4Ylt ^'�Y w�+xp.+..'Y.. L.II'NP}':T.'FYw'^. CY�,�.: 2i"�9 rc- J>'ia.-Fti'__Ci:
�IVotes'� � 14 Source:`http� //wwuv �timstate nc us /ncrosbmfFacis�arid�fi�" ures/index "shtm`Po ula6ons�are rte for Jul '1
z - &xlr;, b; ,+.w s„y�;r -'K; ., -.yr „iG1 ^f w: -sp.mr ^�;F �7uim_ ,y r.., �s -' -'; •.k: P, ^,_, pn.:>r,;,�° - <� Pr°Y �'- `�...� YA ,,, 5n`.i.#�, ".s "" -'�•y' "
2 Source `.'http: %lwww.os'bin.state:nc" usln "i�s6mJfacis and figures, index :shtm'Population,estimates'for 2012= 2022'are proj r_ .
` rc 3t. v z a; ;^�, :srr •v'r.� z4,. f,.,;#:.�y -A`_ t.i-= W�.ra�'�ika;t'n� ,v.,i �rFy, y�.:`:a;:r;- k�r'�m . "�Y -., ^�;.�r�• TB, = -v..-
p0pulatigns
3.1 INTRODUCTION
This section provides information on the quantities of solid waste that are currently generated in
Cleveland County. The North Carolina Solid Waste Management Act of 1989 requires that county solid
waste plan document the amounts and types of solid wastes that are generated within the County.
As indicated in Table 3 -1, there are three major solid waste streams generated within Cleveland County
that are covered by the Act. The purpose of this section is to provide information on the quantities of
each solid waste stream. A per capita disposal rate (i.e., the equivalent amount of solid waste generated
per person in the County) for each waste stream is calculated and is used to develop tonnage projections
over the ten -year planning period.
Cleveland County annually reports the quantities of solid wastes that are recycled and disposed in the
County in its Solid Waste/Recvclin2 Annual Activity Report, which is submitted to the State. The infor-
mation presented in this section was derived from the County's most recent Annual Activity Report that
covers the period of July 2010 through June 2011. Data from this report used to determine the
quantities of the different solid waste streams being disposed at the County Landfill are presented in
Table 3 -1.
Cleveland County, North Carolina 7 June 2012

%� 3'9 yT4x°.x^,pQ.. -2 PPG ;`­X642.02 8 828w86 E ,w 6,
_ ,14;755.02 t `,14;755,02 R;- 61,9,55900 :;. i'= = "34;314:02
INanned Sites e= .21637.86" ;21 "637:86 :r
Sli'eltiy ; _ 7,844.69 t -7,644.69 ; • ' ,•f, `x7;644.69 , -, - , 'i " x,:7;644.69
AlGngs nMountairi
4140-6, 8,909.76 r 8;9U9z76 ._ 8;909:76
WastewMgmt 8,197F85 6;197,.85 " ;-6;197.&5 6197:85"
BoilWrin ;1;425.31;: y1;425.31 =: t m 1;42531 >o x 1425:3ti
PSW 3
Patterson Spnngs , -; =178:09;; 178.08 "`'
TOTALS 1141,647,00 40,170:43 " s:?5,601A9 j„ 1 9,569.88 85,355.80 , <,166.05 �- '21;811:99 , 34,81116 141;647.00
'Sourr e 6 Data; Solid INasfelRecycling'Annual Acfn y Repoit =July 2010 = =trine 2011: PSW serve's the mrinicipelfties of Kingston'end Earl -;
The data presented in Table 3 -1 were utilized to determine the percentage breakdowns and per capita
generation rates for the major solid waste streams being disposed at the Cleveland County Landfill as
presented in Table 3 -2.
3.2 RESIDENTIAL SOLID WASTE
3.2.1 Waste Stream Quantities, Sources, and Proiections
Residential solid waste is that portion of the non - hazardous solid waste stream that is generated
by residential single - family and multi- family households in the community. As indicated in
Table 3 -2, a total of 40,171 tons of residential solid waste were disposed at the County Landfill
in FY 2010 -11. This equates to a "per capita" residential waste disposal rate of 2.22 pounds per
person per day (lbs /person/day). This rate is comparable to the national residential waste
disposal rate estimated by the United States Environmental Protection Agency (US EPA) of 2.48
to 2.93 lbs /person/day, which is estimated by the US EPA to be 55 to 65 percent of the total
MSW per capita generation rate of 4.5 lbs /person/day.
Cleveland County, North Carolina 8 June 2012

Cortimedl Wase
',,,20 043
24.64 _ %`` ,1420/i•
<-
_= Indusiilal Waste
25.96Q/o" ° 14s9°% o
CBD,Wastes
x 25,328
1.40'
Fitieiglass'Wa "ste
34,813 a
r
1.92'
_
- � ..- ....Px J YEA FA r„h`� "f`..'i,. y- ' — >•'' n � %_Y"^
Note:= Per capita generafidn rates -were celculef ,66sed on tha County's p►ojecfed 2012 population of.99,2'30.-
Residential waste is collected from residences in both the incorporated and unincorporated parts
of the County as indicated in Table 3 -3. Major residential waste haulers include the County
(21,638 tons) — through its staffed convenience centers — the towns of Shelby (7,645 tons) and
Kings Mountain (8,910 tons), Boiling Springs (1,425 tons), Patterson Springs (178 tons) and
PSW (375 tons), which serves the municipalities of Kingston and Earl.
The quantities of residential waste that
are projected to require disposal over the
ten -year planning period are presented
in Table 3 -4. These projections were
calculated by multiplying the projected
County population for each year (as
presented in Table 2 -2) by the per capita
residential waste generation rate of 2.22
lbs /person/day. For the purpose of this
Plan, the County has assumed that the
per capita residential waste disposal rate
will remain constant over the planning
period.
__- = �PSW_(fCmgston,arid�Ea�}t•'` � ";,,�_,,_: �n� °��:� >�= `�'m375,�E`�'��_
County_Stafied Cornenience,Centers _ � - -- �;��- >21;638
" cTotsl
As indicated in Table 3 -4, the quantities of residential solid waste that will need to be disposed
will grow from 43,850 tons in 2013 to 44,987 tons in FY 2022.
As discussed in Section 5, the County has committed to the promotion of curbside recycling
programs for the County's incorporated areas. Accordingly, Table 3 -4 provides estimates of the
quantities of residential solid waste that are projected to be diverted over each year of the
Cleveland County, North Carolina 9 June 2012

planning period, as a result of this initiative. The table also indicates the net tonnages of
residential waste that will still require disposal during this timeframe.
The County has committed to a 3 percent waste disposal reduction goal for this waste sub stream
over the planning period.
3.2.2 Residential Solid Waste Composition
Like most communities, Cleveland County has not conducted its own waste stream characteri-
zation study to determine the composition of its MSW stream. To estimate the material
composition of the residential waste stream, the State estimate of residential waste composition
was applied to the tonnage of residential waste disposed in FY 2010 -11 with the results pre-
sented in Table 3 -5. As indicated, the most prevalent materials in the residential waste stream
are paper (31 %), plastics (10 %), and organics (19 %).
Cleveland County, North Carolina 10 June 2012

9 6 6 0
TV- 31
VjCJF E --,
[47,j
2014
100,654`
'ARM
6 0,
2016.
-100
7 i,X612-
20
101,057
IM
4
2018
tC�
'6
-
ROTI
11
E26,-_' e1 5'
—10115-94- A- t
-10,630' j �_41 a
_ _ - - —
C2;
,V Wo; R;7"',
2015 ��It,Ijm 5E. �Y' F-- jj�-f 6* F,
- 2 2,Lz LI
�5
R66-W4.1i,�7-`TZ' N-1- .1, MCI
F'NEIND
14`VAT 4O 3
t
-ItA L
y 101;9_4- m g A-
,
0,
61
2QK-
102;2q
Cleveland County, North Carolina 1 1 June 2012

Cardboard 6%
�`(artl VVasfe • -� ` . , • k ° �� - �. � 5��x` � , - , • - ;�;;_ 2�0� x , , . ,
Organics.° ` 19°Yo' *'• j . 7,632 -
Glassy -' - . , , - - -= ,8 %�•'~ ti - - , ;, > � ��3214 �, �� fµ
02-
- •.r Y, wp' -�,q�;s'= 4s•;"T"c` •i; "'., -._"c; -_ -- -- ,- ,:es;-n. --,.� -^max-
Ferrous Mefial _ r ' -8
=' •:; = ` - J';� , -: r;,.m ,' _ _}:. �: ` yr- ,
OtherNotaFerrous Metal y, -;1gy
Miscellaneous' : ;. - _ ;;'
, .t.Total i` __ - = �� <;90Q %� °• ..�`,' '� - -` '� :� -;i; - ; -�`�4U 171F:`�' z ,
- t e "su.. -.' ,. { „` !ate_ «• �`•� _,
,'Based on�State�of Noifh Carolina vestimafe'of ►esidentiel sol►tl waste "compostion. :�; . � � <5 �,;w. �:z'x�,= �; ���� � - .,
3.3 COMMERCIAL SOLID WASTE
3.3.1 Waste Stream Quantities, Sources, and Projections
Commercial solid waste is that portion of the non - hazardous solid waste stream that is generated
by the businesses in the local community.
As indicated in Table 3 -2, a total of 20,043 tons of commercial solid waste were disposed of at
the County Landfill in FY 2010 -11. This equates to a per capita commercial waste disposal rate
of 1.11 Ibs / person/day. Commercial waste is generally collected by private haulers that are
licensed by the County or its municipalities. Major commercial waste haulers in Cleveland
County include Waste Management, Inc and GDS.
The quantities of commercial waste that are projected to require disposal over the ten -year
planning period are presented in Table 3 -4. These projections were calculated by multiplying
the projected County population for each year (as presented in Table 2 -2) by the per capita
commercial waste generation rate of 1.11 Ibs /person/day. For the purpose of this Plan, the
County has assumed that the per capita commercial waste disposal rate will remain constant
over the planning period.
As indicated in Table 3 -4, the quantities of commercial solid waste that will need to be disposed
will grow from 20,188 tons in 2013 to 20,712 tons in 2022.
Cleveland County, North Carolina 12 June 2012

As discussed in Section 5, the County has committed to a 3 percent waste disposal reduction
goal for this waste sub stream over the planning period.
3.3.2 Commercial Solid Waste Composition
Like most communities, Cleveland County has not conducted its own waste stream
characterization study to determine the composition of its MSW stream. The County has,
however, developed its own estimates of the material composition of the commercial waste
stream, which are presented in Table 3 -6. As indicated, the most prevalent materials in the
commercial waste stream are paper and cardboard (35 %), plastics (10 %), and organics /food
waste (25 %).
'Plastiis ==� - -`'� - _s °.�a_ ��_�;� � __�._;r•;�¢_�:;<<.r1096: _ • }<'•;,�2;OQ4��`��_._- ;��` =` _�
a • % S. - _'.' 4LS rte"' _ _
t- i`« i£._ - }.'. �S_ - �. -�N 3.j x'•%14 �% ��-.�a: «•'. 4r.r+A ^:AJ,F: '� *.�Od 1tr is _
Organcs/FoodWaste,,; - = �. k� -�_;- .�,,.,�5 % „�;:.;•:, _ _ � -
�.,
Metals ` =. `.,: �.:rt: a.'' ,��r:x, nary•,' :�:ti ��5 %= :,�z f ;� y�,��1'002'� ;-
`'•r:., x• '$S :'�'?k,�,,,,a,T.e `xi” c. '<a�..2cca.G� FJ...»- �- �'.l•'s�; rS. w °nt
Misce�aneous' -fi -° F'. - :17%
< ; :" , Total ..'- .;,.`j ;10096' ; . ,:. y -:. • 20043:$
«�B 6_Cduniy.aSfi1/19�BSe_R "' {,yj Y_ '$n;s °':t•::i = r SiA• ,G "��i ''. =: „s "r',
3.4 INDUSTRIAL SOLID WASTE
3.4.1 Waste Stream Quantities, Sources, and Projections
Industrial solid waste is that portion of the non - hazardous solid waste stream that is generated by
local industries. Industrial solid waste is often classified as either "industrial process waste” or
"industrial office waste," which is similar to business office waste. The industrial waste stream
described in this section appears to have the characteristics of industrial office waste.
As indicated in Table 3 -2, a total of 21,128 tons of industrial solid waste were disposed at the
County Landfill in FY 2010 -11. This equates to a per capita industrial waste disposal rate of
1.16 lbs /person/day
The quantities of industrial waste that are projected to require disposal over the ten -year
planning period are presented in Table 3 -4. These projections were calculated by multiplying
the projected County population for each year (as presented in Table 2 -2) by the per capita
industrial waste generation rate of 1.16 lbs /person/day. For the purpose of this Plan, the County
has assumed that the per capita industrial waste disposal rate will remain constant over the
Cleveland County, North Carolina 13 June 2012

planning period. As indicated in Table 3 -4, the quantities of industrial solid waste that will need
to be disposed will grow from 21,098 tons in 2013 to 21,645 tons in 2022.
As discussed in Section 5, the County has committed to a 0 percent waste disposal reduction
goal for the industrial waste stream over the planning period.
3.4.2 Industrial Solid Waste Composition
Like most communities, Cleveland County has not conducted its own waste stream characteri-
zation study to determine the composition of its MSW stream. Therefore, no estimates are
available regarding the material composition of the industrial waste stream. It is likely,
however, that the industrial waste stream is similar in composition to commercial waste.
3.5 CONSTRUCTION AND DEMOLITION WASTE
3.5.1 Waste Stream Quantities, Sources, and Projections
C &D waste consists of discarded solid wastes resulting from construction, remodeling, repair
and demolition of structures, road building, land clearing and mobile homes. This waste stream
includes, but is not limited to, bricks, concrete and other masonry materials; soil; rock; lumber;
road spoils; paving material; and tree and brush stumps. C &D waste generally does not include
solid waste from agricultural or silvicultural operations. Under current regulations, C &D waste
does not have to be disposed in lined landfills.
As indicated in Table 3 -2, a total of 25,326 tons of C &D waste were disposed at the County
Landfill in FY 2010 -113. This equates to a per capita C &D waste disposal rate of 1.40
lbs /person/day. C &D waste is generally hauled by private C &D contractors that are licensed by
the County or its municipalities.
The quantities of C &D waste that are projected to require disposal over the ten -year planning
period are presented in Table 3 -4. These projections were calculated by multiplying the
projected County population for each year (as presented in Table 2 -2) by the per capita C &D
waste generation rate of 1.40 lbs /person/day. For the purpose of this Plan, the County has
assumed that the per capita C &D waste disposal rate will remain constant over the planning
period. In this regard, it should be noted that C &D waste generation rates can vary greatly based
on local construction and/or demolition activity. Therefore, caution should be exercised when
utilizing the C &D waste stream projections presented in Table 3 -4.
As indicated in Table 3 -4, the quantities of C &D waste that will need to be disposed will grow
from 25,463 tons in 2013 to 26,123 tons in 2022.
3 For the purpose of waste stream accounting and waste stream projections, Cleveland County includes dead animal disposal
tonnages in the Construction and Demolition Waste category.
Cleveland County, North Carolina 14 June 2012

As discussed in Section 5, the County has committed to a 0 percent waste disposal reduction
goal for the C &D waste stream over the planning period.
3.5.2 Construction and Demolition Waste Composition
Like most communities, Cleveland County has not conducted its own waste stream characteri-
zation study to determine the composition of its C &D waste stream. To estimate the material
composition of the C &D waste stream, the State estimates of C &D waste composition were
applied to the tonnage of C &D waste disposed in 2010 -11, with the results presented in Table 3-
7.
As indicated, the most prevalent materials in the C &D waste stream are wood (30 %), asphalt
shingles (23 %), and sheet rock/drywall (18 %).
- Rock/Drywall-
,s, -- - _ 2A-,� -
3.6 FIBERGLASS WASTE
3.6.1 Introduction
In FY 2010 -11, Cleveland County disposed of almost 35,000 tons of fiberglass waste from PPG
Industries. A fee of $19.00 per ton was charged for the disposal of this waste, which was buried
in the County's Construction and Demolition landfill (on top of the closed MSW landfill).
For the purposes of this plan, it is assumed that the County will continue to dispose of this
quantity of fiberglass waste from PPG Industries throughout the ten -year planning period. The
County is aware, however, that, due to the uncertainties associated with predicting future
industrial production activities, it may have to address the revenue and operational impacts of
the loss of this waste stream, which currently represents approximately 25 percent of the waste
disposed at the County's landfill.
Cleveland County, North Carolina 15 June 2012

4.O THE CLEVELAND .COUNTY SOLID WASTE MANAGEMENT SYSTEM
4.1 INTRODUCTION
As indicated in Section 3.0, approximately 141,647 tons of solid waste was managed in fiscal year
2010 -2011 within Cleveland County. The purpose of this section is to present information regarding the
services and facilities that are utilized to collect and manage these wastes. Both the public and private
sectors with the latter mainly responsible for providing collection provide these services and disposal
services to commercial and industrial customers.
The three major waste streams generated within the County present the existing solid waste management
services and facilities: namely, MSW, C &D waste, and industrial process waste.
4.2 MUNICIPAL SOLID WASTE SERVICES AND FACILITIES
4.2.1 Introduction
While the North Carolina Solid Waste Management Act of 1989 covers a number of different
types of solid waste, its major focus is on the proper management of MSW. MSW is defined in
the Act to include household wastes, commercial wastes, non - hazardous sludges, and industrial
packaging and administrative wastes.
MSW is the type of solid waste that is most familiar to citizens, as they generate it in their
residences and businesses. Because it contains food wastes and other putrescible solid wastes, it
must be collected regularly and disposed of properly.
MSW is the waste stream that was targeted by the US EPA when it promulgated the
"Subtitle D" disposal regulations in 1991. In the United States, MSW is required to be disposed
in "lined" landfills that are designed to collect and manage the by- products of waste disposal in
landfills (i.e., landfill gas, stormwater, and leachate).
The Act effectively implemented Subtitle D Regulations in the State of North Carolina. In
addition, it banned a number of products and materials (i.e., yard waste, whole tires, lead -acid
batteries, white goods, aluminum cans, antifreeze, and used oil) from disposal in Subtitle D
landfills. Finally, it established a statewide waste reduction and recycling goal of 40 percent for
MSW. Currently, the State goal is to "substantially increase the amount of waste recycled and
composted."
To meet these goals and to provide for the effective management of MSW, communities require
a network of collection, processing, and disposal services and facilities. The purpose of this
section is to present summary descriptions of these MSW services and facilities.
Cleveland County, North Carolina 16 June 2012

4.2.2 Municipal Solid Waste Collection Services
4.2.2.1 Introduction
MSW collection services are provided in Cleveland County by both governmental as well as
private entities. The major providers of residential solid waste collection services include the
Towns of Shelby, Kings Mountain, and Boiling Springs, and Cleveland County. For the most
part, commercial and industrial non - process solid waste is collected by private waste collection
companies or is hauled by the industries themselves.
A summary of the MSW collection services provided by the units of local government and
private haulers in Cleveland County is presented in Table 4 -1.
M�.:ri'�'k$.4.�EY'_TTr
!��.�;• - c; -�gg2_° `.-„'- SAr'�, city / prnate collection:._, w- :�Pnv�
X489; , µy ' i vcity /prNafie�cotlection ,, r a Privy
r,
�µprlvaEe/rrmanned�sites=r,�. A;�Pmr
312 lx,' :tip - -.t = w",-9,
T'N
-
F
primrafie/manned sifies: Pmr
: 23` ` = ciiy /prorate collection ' _k Prnr
_f-
pnatE(manni d s'�tes
iyy �3„ -_ - _y ,�..J...moul�eci wvwebu.r- .i«` k .��w
Prnr
�anne
.�"'4"h.:r "'r'v_�=A`„ "g:i
ated'Areas.. 57;2 4' _ nvate/md sites �� Pnva
p
.Total
s . 8, 49
4.2.2.2 Cleveland Countv
As in most counties, Cleveland County is responsible for ensuring that effective and efficient
residential solid waste services are provided to County residents living in the unincorporated
parts of the County. Cleveland County's collection method involves the use of eight
"convenience centers" that are strategically located throughout the County so as to allow County
citizens to conveniently drop off their wastes and recyclables. The County also operates a
Cleveland County, North Carolina 17 June 2012

W,
M M
t7
'All
)ag . ement. Plan — 2012
r.
pN

The staffed convenience centers are open six days per week from 8:00 a.m. to 7:00 p.m. and
Sunday from 1:00 p.m. to 6:00 p.m. Citizens may drop off the following materials and
products at these centers for recycling or disposal:
■ Residential Solid Waste — Including household garbage and trash.
Recyclables — Including:
Glass (clean, clear, brown, food jars, drink containers)
Plastic Bottles (Numbers 1 through 7: two -liter and 16 oz. bottles); milk jugs
(half- or one - gallon); and brown, green, or clear plastics
Paper (newspaper, corrugated)
Computer Paper and Ledger Paper is collected at all sites
Metal (clean metal, steel beverage and food containers, used metal)
Cardboard
Yard Waste
Materials Banned from Landfill Disposal — Including:
Aluminum cans (beverage cans only)
Yard Waste (leaves, brush, grass clippings, small limbs)
Tires (passenger tires, truck tires)
Batteries (lead -acid batteries, cadmium/lead batteries (any size), no household
batteries)
Motor Oil and filters (motor oil, hydraulic oil, transmission fluid)
White Goods and Appliances (washers, driers, refrigerators, stoves, ranges,
microwaves, furnace blowers, fans, dishwashers, air conditioners, water
heaters).
Wood Pallets Recyclable Rigid Plastics
Discarded computer equipment
The staff person at each center provides information, oversight, security, and, when needed,
assistance to the residential customers using the centers. The staff person is also responsible
for the operation of the waste compactor. Customers are primarily responsible for putting
their wastes and recyclables in the correct containers in the required form.
The use of either the staffed convenience centers or the staffed recycling drop -off center is
limited to County residents and businesses (which can only use the centers for the drop -off
of recyclables). Residential customers in the unincorporated areas of the County are charged
an annual fee of $50 per household ($35 for solid waste and $15 for recycling) for all solid
waste services provided by the County and are, therefore, not charged directly for the use of
the centers.
The staffed recycling drop -off center is open six days per week from 8:00 a.m. to 7:00 p.m.
and Sunday from 1:00 p.m. to 6:00 p.m. Only the recyclable materials listed above are
accepted at this center.
Cleveland County, North Carolina 19 June 2012

4.2.2.3 City of Shelbv
The City of Shelby provides solid waste collection services to the residences, businesses, and
schools within its jurisdiction.
The Sanitation Division provides the following waste pickup services: curbside household
garbage pickup and recycling one time per week; multiple pickups for businesses and schools;
and curbside limb/brush and leaf /grass clipping pickups on a seven- to ten -day cycle.
The City recently converted from back -yard collection to curbside collection of residential waste
using 96- gallon rollout containers and automated collection vehicles staffed by one - person
crews.
4.2.2.4 City of ftas Mountain
The City of Kings Mountain provides weekly curbside garbage and recycling collection services
to its residents and businesses using municipal collection equipment and crews.
4.2.2.5 Town of Boilina Sprinas
The Town of Boiling Springs provides three weekly curbside solid waste collection services to
its residents:
• Weekly curbside collection of residential solid waste;
• Weekly curbside collection of residential bulky waste;
• Weekly curbside collection of residential leaves and yard debris.
In addition, the Town provides the following solid waste collection services to its businesses:
■ Regular (daily to weekly) curbside collection of commercial solid waste.
4.2.3 Municipal Solid Waste Processing Facilities
4.2.3.1 Introduction
MSW processing facilities are facilities that are utilized to process one or more materials from
the MSW stream in order to affect their recycling or recovery. These facilities are listed and
described in Table 4 -2.
Cleveland County, North Carolina 20 June 2012

Tire Storage,and Pracesling_
Elecfiorik; Recycling
4.2.3.2 Cleveland Countv
4.2.3.2.1 Introduction
Uiewlana uounry„ ," �oun[y.}.anann , r arv�wasoe wmposvng�, ,, -, :_ _ -
.� =
Cleveland CoAr County,Landfill Storage of appliances,for recycfing,_
Cleyelanii County Countjt Landfill ; Siorage of tires for r ecycliiig a
Cleveland County ' County Landfill Storage!andlmg_of'elech*1cs frre�+clirig_
Cleveland County provides a number of processing services for the recovery and recycling
of MSW. These include the following:
• Yard waste processing
• Metals recycling
• Tire recycling
• Cardboard/plastics storage and transfer
• Electronic Recycling
Descriptions of these services are presented below.
4.2.3.2.2 Yard Waste Processina Service
The County operates a yard waste processing facility located on the site of the County
Landfill. Each year, about 6,600 tons of yard waste are received and stored at this site. The
major contributors of yard waste to the site are the County's eight convenience centers and
the County's recyclables drop -off center.
The leaves and grass clippings are composted and periodically, a contractor brings a "tub
grinder" to the site and grinds up the wood waste. The contractor is required to grind the
material according to County specifications and place the material in prism- shaped
"windrows ".
The resulting material is sold to County residents and businesses at a nominal price. The
County pays the contractor a service fee for processing the yard waste.
4.2.3.2.3 Metals Storaqe and Processinq Service
The County provides metals storage and processing service at the County Landfill.
Discarded appliances and other large metallic items are accepted free of charge at a
designated site at the County Landfill for temporary storage and processing. Periodically, a
contractor, under contract with the County, processes the refrigerators and air conditioners
Cleveland County, North Carolina 21 June 2012

by removing and capturing the refrigerants. The contractor then hauls off the metallic items
to a recycling facility. Oversight of the metals storage and processing site is the responsi-
bility of the landfill spotters.
In the FY 2010 -11 Solid Waste/Recvclin2 Annual Activitv Report, the County reported a
total of 824.45 tons of scrap metal were recycled.
4.2.3.2.4 Tire RecMina Service
The County operates a tire receiving and storage site at the County Landfill. U.S. Tire
Recycling provides the County with tractor - trailers for storage of the tires at the County site
and then U.S. Tire transports the tires to Concord, North Carolina for storage and processing.
The County pays U.S. Tire Recycling $66 per ton of recycled tires. At approximately 21
pounds per car tire, this equates to a fee of $0.69 per tire, which does not include a
transportation cost. Currently, the transportation cost is on the average' about $167 per load.
This equates to $1.24 per tire.
There is no charge to County residents to drop off up to five tires at a time at the County
Landfill.
In the FY 2010 -11 Solid Waste/Recvclin2 Annual Activitv Report, the County reported that
1,419.32 tons of tires were recovered in FY 2010 -11.
4.13.2.5 Electronics Recyclinq
Cleveland County will use ten enclosed utility trailers. Nine trailers will be located at
convenience centers across the county; available for the public to use in recycling old
radios, stereos, televisions, VCR's, personal electronic devices as well as all models of
computer equipment. By having the utility trailers available at convenient locations
across the county, for consumer use, the potential to dump these electronic
materials will be reduced or eliminated. The tenth trailer will be used to swap out with
filled trailers at the convenience center locations.
Filled trailer(s) will be transported to a special processing location, located at the current
Cleveland County Landfill. The trailer(s) will be conveyed to the target site where
employees will sort and separate electronic waste and package it for processing.
Packaged electronic waste will be stored at the county landfill until an adequate volume
is reached for pickup by an approved vendor. The county landfill will contact
eCycleSecure LLC, 1500 N Graham Street, Charlotte, NC 28206 (telephone: 704 -376-
1116, fax: [phone]) to remove the recyclables and transport them to their facility
for final processing. eCycleSecure LLC is an improved vendor by the State of North
Carolina.
Cleveland County, North Carolina 22 June 2012

s �
C
l 1
f t"
.}e 1
T 1
z #v L
e 1�
c k,
a xi f
r 9,j
c -t
t CF� •i. -�yy,c s
tT
+
h �
tT t
�e ri 1
i r
Management Plan — 2012
y �.� �4 �r !fi Yti dT � i ry r '^�D' .� � �� '*>•. ..h � ��j.r {,T \rR� -ey� v�
Yr
t
a, f �, •1`kisLp yb � iX b.*e.`_. sy .�'. r
fir �.r r r.4 •1} 3 _ ! 1 y �.. ,.
� °: i to t} >, r� •'�^+ 1 � f� .
\� e ar �f .• r

The Self - McNeilly Subtitle D MSW landfill site has a total capacity that should exceed 60 years.
The first Phase was issued a Permit to Operate May 15, 2009. Phase 2 of the Self - McNeilly
landfill is a vertical expansion on the existing footprint. Phase 2 will require a Permit
Modification in approximately 2 years. There is no actual construction required until Phase 3 is
needed which is in about 7 years which will require a Permit Amendment.
The MSW disposal facility includes a landfill, which meets Subtitle D landfill regulations,
which were promulgated by the US EPA in 1991 and were required to be met by MSW landfills
in North Carolina by January 1, 1998.
4.24.3 Subtitle D Landfill Regulations
Subtitle D landfill regulations established national standards and minimum requirements for a
number of pollution control systems that are required to be constructed in conjunction with
MSW landfills. These systems include:
• Landfill Liner System
• Leachate Collection and Removal System
• Landfill Gas (LFG) Collection and Control System
• Landfill Final Cover System
A brief overview of each of these systems, which are illustrated in Figure 2, is provided below.
Lan"ing ' Final cover
>51 Typical waste cell Gas collectionO
trench
a .
aor or
Liner
Leachate
collection
Figure 2 - MSW Landfill Pollution Control Systems
4.2.4.3.1 Landfill Liner Svstem
MSW landfills can be defined as land -based waste management cells that contain MSW .4
To protect the environment, MSW landfills are now constructed with waste containment
EPA. Assessment and Recommendations for Imorovino the Performance of Waste Containment Svstems. (EPAI6001R- 021099).
Cincinnati, OH: EPA National Risk Management Research Laboratory, December 2002.
Cleveland County, North Carolina 24 June 2012

systems, which consist of a liner system that underlies the waste, and a final cover system
constructed over the waste.
Leachate is wastewater that is formed as water percolates through the landfilled waste and
collects contaminants that are present in the waste and/or are produced during the waste
decomposition process. Leachate generated in landfills flows downward by gravity and, if
not for the liner system, would eventually flow through the soil underneath the landfill and
could potentially pollute the groundwater below.
The landfill liner system provides a relatively impermeable barrier between the landfilled
waste and the land on which the landfill has been constructed. The primary purpose of the
liner system is to minimize the migration of waste constituents out of the landfill. Another
purpose of the liner system is to enable the landfill leachate and LFG to be collected and
treated.
Federal Subtitle D regulations require that the liner system be constructed as a "composite"
liner. A composite liner is an effective hydraulic barrier because it combines the comple-
mentary properties of two different materials (namely compacted soil and a synthetic
geomembrane) into one system.
Geomembranes are thin, factory- manufactured plastic materials that are widely used as
hydraulic barriers due to their non - porous structure, flexibility, and ease of installation.
However, geomembranes may contain defects, including tears, improperly bonded seams,
and pinholes. In the absence of an underlying, low permeability soil liner, the flow of
leachate through a defect in the geomembrane is essentially unrestrained. Therefore, federal
Subtitle D regulations require that the geomembrane be underlain with a low- permeability
soil liner to limit the flow rate of leachate through any defects that may exist or develop in
the geomembrane liner.
Subtitle D regulations stipulate that the two components of the composite liner meet the
following requirements:
■ Soil Component — The lower component of the composite liner, as illustrated in
Figure 2, must consist of at least a two -foot layer of compacted soil. This layer
must have a hydraulic conductivity of no more than I x 10-7 cm/sec.
■ Flexible Membrane Component — The upper component must consist of a
synthetic flexible membrane liner (FML) of at least 30 -mil (0.03 inch) thickness. If
the FML is high- density polyethylene (HDPE), then it must be at least 60 -mil (0.06
inch) thick.5
5 Note "60 -mil" refers to 60 thousandths of an inch and is equivalent to 0.06 inches or 1.5 millimeters.
Cleveland County, North Carolina 25 June 2012

4.2.4.3.2 Leachate Collection and Removal Svstem
Subtitle D regulations also require that MSW landfills be equipped with a leachate collection
and removal system (LCRS) that limits the depth of leachate retained over the liner systems
to 12 inches (30 centimeters).
As shown in Figure 2, the LCRS will generally include a pipe network that allows leachate
to drain by gravity to a sump at the low elevation of the landfill cell. From the sump, the
leachate is removed from the landfill either through a gravity drainage pipe or through a
sump pump. Once removed, the leachate is treated in either on -site or off -site treatment
systems.
4.2.4.3.3 LFG Collection and Control Svstem
Federal Subtitle D regulations do not require every Subtitle D landfill to install a LFG
collection and control system. Rather, the regulations require that the concentration of
methane gas generated by the facility does not exceed 25 percent of the lower explosive limit
(LEL) for methane in facility structures nor exceed 100 percent of the LEL at the facility
property boundary.
LFG emissions are, however, regulated by the US EPA under the Clean Air Act (CAA). In
March 1996, the US EPA promulgated CAA regulations for MSW landfills. These
regulations require that large MSW landfills (i.e., those with a design capacity of 2.76
million tons or more of waste) must collect and control LFG if their estimated emissions of
"non- methane organic compounds" (NMOCs) are 50 megagrams (55 tons) per year or
more.6
In January 2003, the US EPA promulgated additional Clean Air Act regulations that
promulgated national emission standards for hazardous air pollutants from MSW landfills.
The regulations also required bioreactor landfills that are subject to existing Clean Air Act
regulations (i.e., large bioreactor landfills) to collect and control LFG emissions within 180
days after the landfill has reached moisture content of 40 percent by weight.
4.2.4.3.4 Final Cover Svstem
Final cover systems represent another important pollution control element of MSW landfills.
The final cover system effectively prevents the infiltration of water or air into the landfill
once the landfill (or landfill cell) is closed.
6 Thomloe, Susan A. "U.S. EPA's Field Test Program to Update LFG Emissions Data." (Draft paper submitted for presentation at the Sardinia Landfill
Conference, Sardinia, Italy). May 2003.
Cleveland County, North Carolina 26 June 2012

' 200 "U6-41li+_A6AAhJ'._' 'I* 5�11:1�t.�_�..'r_r.�Mai - r.WMEwia &MAN
Subtitle D regulations require that the final cover must be placed over the landfill within one
year after the landfill reaches its final permitted height. The following minimum design
criteria are required for final cover systems for MSW landfills:
• A 24 -inch layer of earthen material above the geomembrane liner
• A 60 mil (0.06 inch) thick HDPE geomembrane
• An 18 -inch thick compacted soil liner having a maximum hydraulic conductivity
Of 1 x 10-5cm/s.
The final cover system must provide the same maximum level of hydraulic conductivity as
the bottom liner system. With respect to the long -term control of pollution from the landfill,
final cover systems are as important as, and in some ways more important than, the liner
system.7
4.2.4.4 Other Facilities at the Landfill
Cleveland County also re- permitted 15 acres of old landfill space on the site, which was
originally closed in 1985, for use as a C &D waste landfill. This C &D landfill has a projected
life of 20 years.
Other facilities and services that are also located at the landfill include:
• Landfill Scale House
• Scrap Metal Storage Area
• Cardboard/Plastic Storage Area
• Yard Waste Mulching Facility
■ County Administrative Offices
■ Equipment Maintenance Building
■ City Firing Range
■ County Firing Range
■ Animal Shelter
■ Staffed Convenience Center.
713onaparte, R., 'Long -Term Performance of Landfills," Proceedings of the ASCE Specialty Conference Geoenvironment 2000 (ASCE Geotechmcal Special
Publication No. 46, Vol. 1), pp. 415- 553.1995
Cleveland County, North Carolina 27 June 2012

y4�
E4' t
�E
IqXr 5 - , r -.
s, n
+"+ai u� a= �1+'t ytT'ffy
Fyd."r � � a+.r�''� 7,zkk *'�' � l i 1w
RZI -F
jF
-7` r r
d ".r.jiY1� i i %
a✓ us � s� 1 '-�- e " i L't t �'pJ
�� So-
01
`r'P9
TOR

The County reported that approximately 25,000 tons of C &D wastes were disposed in Cleveland
County in FY 2010 -11.
4.3.2 C &D Collection Services
C &D wastes are generally hauled by the construction, remodeling, or demolition companies that
generate them, either directly or under contract with private hauling companies.
4.3.3 C &D Transfer Facilities
There are no C &D transfer facilities in Cleveland County.
4.3.4 C &D Processinq Facilities
There are no known C &D processing facilities in Cleveland County.
4.3.5 C &D Dismal Facilities
4.3.5.1 Introduction
C &D wastes are disposed at the County C &D Landfill.
4.3.5.2 Cleveland County C &D Landfill
The County's C &D landfill is located on the site of the County Landfill, which consists of 15
acres of old landfill space that was closed in 1985 and recently re- permitted for C &D disposal.
This permitted airspace has a projected life of 20 years.
In FY 2010 -11, the County reported that approximately 25,000 tons of C &D waste was disposed
at this facility. The County currently charges $16 per ton for C &D waste disposal, however,
County residents who can prove residency are not charged for C &D disposal. (Note: County
residents who haul C &D wastes in commercial or other vehicles to the landfill are charged for
disposal.)
4.4 INDUSTRIAL PROCESS WASTES
4.4.1 Introduction
Industrial process wastes are wastes that are generated in the process of manufacturing or other
production activities. As indicated in Section 3.0, this waste is defined as:
"solid waste that results from industrial processes including, but not limited to,
factories and treatment plants."
As indicated in Table 3 -1, it is estimated that 21,000 tons of industrial process waste were
generated in Cleveland County in FY 2010 -11.
Cleveland County, North Carolina 29 June 2012

4.4.2 Industrial Process Solid Waste Collection Services
Industrial process solid wastes are collected and transported by the industries that generate them,
either directly or under contract.
4.4.3 Industrial Process Solid Waste Processing Facilities
Currently, there are no processing facilities in Cleveland County that accept industrial process
waste.
4.4.4 Industrial Process Solid Waste Disposal
In FY 2010 -11, approximately 35,000 tons of fiberglass waste was disposed at the County
Landfill. The County charges $19.00 per ton for the disposal of this industrial waste.
4.5 CONCLUSIONS
Summary information regarding the County's current waste disposal system is provided in Table 4 -3.
The following conclusions are offered with respect to the County's current solid waste disposal system:
MSW Disposal — The Self - McNeilly Subtitle D MSW landfill site has a total capacity that
should exceed 60 years. The first Phase was issued a Permit to Operate May 15, 2009. Phase 2
of the Self - McNeilly Landfill is a vertical expansion on the existing footprint. Phase 2 will
require a Permit Modification in approximately 2 years. There is no actual construction
required until Phase 3 is needed which is in about 7 years and will require a Permit Amendment.
■ C &D Disposal — C &D disposal capacity currently exists at the County Landfill that should
serve the County's needs through the year 2025.
■ Industrial Waste Disposal — Disposal capacity for the industrial waste is included in the
MSW disposal facility life estimates.
Cleveland County, North Carolina 30 June 2012

niylMSW Landfill =F „��""" 81;342 `
tz
Fxistiiig�Penniffed Aiea; � i �;vr �� `t,= -
. s.. -- _ :+��.� `�'� __ .•��'� ;� -� � i- yy.�- ,�...,�.,
>'� ,��:,=
N&:ExDans16-n- P_ dg .
_
��
2t12J
j i`r�
nty- Indus6ial WasW Disposal,
5.1 INTRODUCTION
As indicated in Table 7 -1, the County successfully increased the amount of recyclables collected from
8,273 tons in FY 2001 -02 to 10,155 tons in FY 2010 -11 — an increase of 23 percent. This recycled
tonnage represents 7.2 percent of the solid waste generated in Cleveland County in FY 2010 -11.
Cleveland County policymakers, however, have chosen not to adopt the State's waste reduction goal of
40 percent. A key factor in this decision is the County's inability to track the amount of recycled
materials diverted from the industrial and commercial waste streams in the planning area. The County
feels that, if the tonnage of recyclable materials recovered from these waste streams could have been
determined and included with the FY 1990 -91 baseline waste disposal tonnage, the County could
possibly had reached the 40 percent goal.
5.2 LOCAL WASTE REDUCTION GOAL
While the State recommends a goal of a 40 percent reduction goal of the FY 1990 -91 per capita disposal
rate, the State allows local communities to establish their own waste disposal reduction goals in light of
local considerations and circumstances.
As indicated in Table 3 -1, a total of 141,647 tons of waste was disposed at the Cleveland County
Landfill in FY 2010 -11. In light of the County's estimated 2012 population of 99,230 persons, this
tonnage is equivalent to a disposal rate of 1.43 tons per person per year.
The State's waste reduction goal of 40 percent is based on each county's per capita disposal rate in FY
1990 -91 or FY 1991 -92. For Cleveland County, the per capita disposal rate in FY 1990 -91 was 0.86
tons per person per year. However, the waste from a private C &D landfill was not included in the base
Cleveland County, North Carolina 31 June 2012

line year when it should have been; consequently, the alternate base line is 1.66 tons per person per year.
The County's goal is to reduce the per capita tonnage from the base line by 0 %. In FY 2010 -2011, the
County's per capita tonnage was 1.43 tons per person per year, which is a reduction of 13.9% over the
base line.
After considering solid waste activities, resources, population, and economic growth, the Cleveland
County Solid Waste Advisory Board has decided to promote the institution of curbside recyclables
collection in the major incorporated areas of Cleveland County. Instituting curbside collection in the
County's major incorporated areas should enable the County to achieve a recycling (and hence waste
diversion) goal of 15 percent for the residential waste collected from these areas. Assuming a three -year
planning and implementation period, Table 5 -1 indicates that the three major municipalities in
Cleveland County — Shelby, King's Mountain, and Boiling Springs — should be able to divert an
estimated 2,154 tons of waste through curbside recycling by FY 2015.
As indicated in Table 5 -2, to meet the local goal of 15 percent per capita waste reduction in FY 2015 -16,
Cleveland County must reduce its per capita disposal rate to 1.41 lbs /person/day. Under present
Cleveland County, North Carolina 32 June 2012

economic conditions, Cleveland County has a per capita disposal rate of 1.43 tons. Consequently to
reach the 15% goal, Cleveland Co. has to reduce the FY 2010 -11 waste stream by 0.02 tons per capita
which equates to 2,008 tons in FY 2015 -16 and 2,027 tons in FY 2018 -19.
1 BaseUne, arper' capita d�spa a rate;(esta66ied1l1990 91) �' .r 168 :�'a 188; s
t �.:.n...K qy. _ • C.amnavY - t,S �a,. r�.Ji- ....•._..L..zs.� -wv. t� u � M.. A�. - LIw �. �x�'a,.da3�v _ --
- ,�:;;;s_ T:,- _ - ;-?^:� %: «�±;a'•�*i- , -zF- -- 4'°�"�i, - {.- ��= 7�,'?:'�z :-•:� 7'-^r,'�; �._ ;w;� _' ,....` -V;a,_ n..-F r•- ,.r«.w -.w�_ y,•r.m,�"a..;:�
;_2: ` 'P.ercenta e.1111asteftedu`ction °Goal t .w - /�ppjj..,"
us> s;.� -.,.. ..�,.r. - .rtx..=.._ r -w:. %r..r, �o, _ �'.. .m � '? :.� �- '..�.rcx� �. `,azt..• „c.
`- a^�,."i3"=- auw.'•�; ,_x''; f S •`;'ar`,
3 � :Taigeted pe capita disposalyrate 'ior:F`f;201r1B;and 2021'- 22;(Sutifiact fine 2 from 1J 0, ` . ;,x1:66, w' ' •_ .: 1.66 • t ;
yg:,i•e, ;., ;�^«;�a +,xr � '�W,fi srr.E }. '!-4'�;, ?.3�. -'}rc x-'... 4;��,u1'•s - "1 ,i.'° �" �°•,,:
theritnulhp�resuft{{,,'�,l'ine=1)
_ nT,..=..,.u,u.�,,;1,�a. .- _�:r.1: ., arc ....�..��s.i ±�if?r�z,:.��r•�i. 't::�n..� .�`?'_^ �'.�}s•_�s'i.:,
"'s- °,y1,'-^' , •_; F,h�; +,_}x•. , c''"�"°""Y.? ---1 =,.' =! N -f �. a,.^ro>•'��il�;
'4° Estimated Population For July�2e5,and.;luly 2018 : ` _< ; 100`417 .~ < 101337•'°
,'S°`°":it't" Rc'3:r•`:�._.. .^.,,u g,i"'. -2a ��iaP"� re iY1 "'a�-,?'�, ;'t9'.^r,"x.3,.�•{ •�� �h "r, aa'awa+�µ,�"".,?1 �r�(. j: 'c„f�rmmk•r.:e
5 ° Pinlec d,tnnriage ter disposal at baseline. des `p'osal;rateftulhply'liner4,tijl lineal');: $ ; 166;682 = ` ,;w168,218 7•''.
daSKrg,B°e - .iYw .i:Y'n7.� . .v��'.sn" -� :I%'�'•'°'d> fe,
8: _ Targeted'annual tonnage „for disposal;'at targeted,goal,ratei(muNiply hne_4 by, l@L3)
"iei,{c ",,�” _ •sue. s si 'i'.Syi��= u.'"'""- '"�'".'� '�'q"•G -_�':; i, ='. F:<;�; .�- "'.';"°"i 3% f ,r t-?i•.-�, #y' r.r� �',�: -�.t; t', • vh:�-" -xrr� '.
��7: ` T^ �ry�ted ;annualbnnage.b °r�uoe''a. '.� . F - -�•= �. ��^ -;; rr A. w �_ .;;z�,•. - _ e'• " ,`.x. �. _,: °;;� r .�.
_ _ �'p'. . '.i�` ,i�.r- ^_.:�, s.e3 :�.• ,.,+ ya.w!�i.....,i _ wi`_.: �tk.�" ti,. :�,, -�' � s-.. r-< �x_ � .�-.zi.;p'a.i..:sfi.t,_,.c.. -�'.
ze,+'r'�'_�'i` > "*'Y�:+�txS'c�7 . «,bS'°.ai+t.c °rr'4., -�z, •tom;:r ,,, .._ _ „-°., .7- •�;,,-�...gaa°c.- w „�,,,
r Basedon,Base'.Year Per:Capda 0�sposal Rafie =; t _,T ” "" r` °aa
r N , • u t s� =x °,. , r. f �s25104n,r,.s<..
_.�^..�...! �... Al
ns mT+r*^r*+N�..R - R°-[ fi' C- ffi;+ x�, grc„ G�Fvv- ess% ar- .rn-n�"" ".�.n�,clR._45>"nra'"b: x'� .. sWr..�..;,�q'<"`n,+F.wxvrt�.•�, Yce. Try'wta^a
f � ^_ � ,�"...Based`on;•1Yr2010= 1TP,,er Ca rta Dis osal;E2ate 1�431'onslPersanlYear � is °�3,- .T' -�E�'` r.s ��� °" �2008��a.��• (<" r� • 2
L, �'SF,�m� "- `�°'t[K✓"� � '�.T"�' w- �"•,'t�}+. f rS 'ul �,"C"i" +^s_•i't'„r. fr':"" r t? -,�, sfv- w,. -.n.•x '�-
�B�;Effectnre�County�Recycfng Re :��� �_',� 4•,• �,_ _ _ _; =�
3iv::t.._-r...wT�''�c.�,s �_� -,1' _.n�:��_...,.:�_!�.�= aac�•5. : i•S= •;.}� °'' "z ~-.xs..e
- .":'S- ',r'�•�''za �'� ,t•c.; -r"i-s :�.rw:;�`,rMy- ter.; -- �,�.;_, �aq :a •r, °:��+- .=+,,�,c ,-'��,g,��_r�-�ex�= r+s�.;�c`,' '�s�.nycs _^:,
Recyclahles Diverted Thi�u h Cu`ment P ` '. :11`063£'11}083 ::$
- yr- �,,:r•fi � ;;s ,'a � "�•— ;s,;�r �±t•.r�.?�: * = -�•��r.•�xY -�: <, - c.x,,.r - . ,.,_ate _ ..�r„ -.,+ f -,� ;;-�- °'�'- a>> "5e�:- -, i F'�,;'X "- .- .•- -...-
_ ' *',?i� I i':t. ••i�•7+ x'} X`. ,,t, x s., � _ „, } :, >>>T y,F'�," • •%s � t..• k {'� z+y� a: ?"� -^ ' �. .�,._ ,�• -n
,c .;z`:+„7 "^aw= kw� ^Xr;.-;!�''' ":�r�"G �L;� "` � '�;�5''Y: :gd,`"r fit- _r: _7'F '__t^,::L:'r�_ -.fie: :. '•:c::r -:x..; ,,._�_++Ss �.'K T�;�n�; ",s:c_
Effective�County Recyclurg;fiae, " " •'u 6:8 %" f i' W fi.8 %; <`
Cleveland County, North Carolina 33 June 2012

6.0 MEETING THE WASTE REDUCTION GOALS
6.1 INTRODUCTION
This Plan is designed to enable Cleveland County to further reduce the amount of waste disposed at the
Cleveland County Landfill by 2,008 tons in FY 2015 -16 and 2,027 tons in FY 2021 -22. To achieve
these goals, Cleveland County will target the residential and commercial solid waste stream as indicated
in Table 6 -1.
;Fitie lassVllasfie '. �� °'`: ` ' ° :V
GOAL,
of „„
6.2 MEETING THE RESIDENTIAL WASTE REDUCTION GOALS
This Plan targets 1,220 tons in FY 2015 -16 and 1,243 tons in FY 2021 -22 for reduction in residential
waste. To meet this goal, the County has implemented an innovative financial incentive program —
called the "2 for 1 Recycling Diversion Program" — to encourage the implementation of residential
curbside recycling services in the incorporated areas of the Countys.
Through this program, the County will issue a landfill disposal credit enabling municipalities to dispose
of 2 tons of solid waste free of charge at the Cleveland County Landfill for each ton of waste that they
can document as being diverted through their municipal curbside recycling programs in the first full
year after implementation. It will then be reduced to 1 for 1 in the second year and will not be available
in the third year or any time thereafter.
Recycling diversion and cost data for North Carolina municipalities were compiled by the School of
Government of the University of North Carolina at Chapel Hill .9 An analysis of this data for small -to-
medium sized municipalities indicates that curbside recycling programs in these municipalities divert an
8 The idea for this program was originated by Mr. Bill Ross of Cleveland County.
9 North Carolina Local Government Performance Measurement Project. Final Report on Citv Services For Fiscal Year 2003 -2004.
Chapel Hill, NC: UNC- Chapel Hill, February, 2005.
Cleveland County, North Carolina 34 June 2012

average of 16 percent of the residential solid waste stream and that the net program cost for these
programs is $174 per ton.
The County's 2 for 1 Recycling Diversion Program will indirectly subsidize $62 per ton for each ton of
recycled material diverted through municipal curbside collection programs for the first year and $31 for
the second and final year.
If the major municipalities in Cleveland County implement curbside recycling, the County hopes to
divert an additional 2,400 tons per year. In FY 2010 -11, there were 279 tons recycled through curb side
pickup in the participating municipalities utilizing this program.
6.3 MEETING THE COMMERCIAL WASTE REDUCTION GOALS
This Plan targets 610 tons in FY 2015 -16 and 621 tons in FY 2021 -22 for reduction in commercial
waste. To meet this goal, the County plans to implement an expanded education program targeted
toward commercial customers as well as to more accurately document the levels of commercial waste
recycling that are currently being achieved in the County.
The total annual amount of waste that is projected to be diverted through new and existing County
programs is approximately 14,000 tons per year in FY 2015 -16. This equates to a waste
recycling/diversion rate of approximately 7.6 percent for Cleveland County.
Cleveland County, North Carolina 35 June 2012

7.1 INTRODUCTION
Each solid waste management method specified in North Carolina G.S. 130A- 309.09A is discussed in
this section including an assessment of the current program and a summary of intended actions.
7.2 SOURCE REDUCTION
7.2.1 Current Proqram
Source reduction is a routine program for some local industries, exemplified by the use of
returnable containers for outgoing product to replace disposable corrugated cartons. However,
emphasis has not been placed on source reduction as part of the County solid waste management
program.
7.2.2 Intended Actions
Representatives of local industries will meet along with the SWAB to discuss the specific
programs at each industrial facility. This group will seek ways to apply source reduction to the
various industrial operations. An option that will be reviewed as this effort progresses is to
assign waste reduction goals to each industrial waste generator. Voluntary reduction programs
will be used in conjunction with public education and specific coordination programs with
commercial and industrial generators. If voluntary reduction fails to meet the goals, mandatory
programs will be considered. An example would be a maximum percentage of cardboard
allowed in commercial or industrial waste containers to be landfilled at the Cleveland County
Landfill or a private landfill. A cardboard ban is being considered to reduce the waste at the
source. The County may develop a plan to generate revenue to support a comprehensive
industrial and commercial recycling program.
7.2.3 3 -Year Update
No change.
7.2.4 Revised Intended Actions
Consider future cardboard ban and utilization of franchise fees to support a comprehensive
industrial and commercial recycling program.
Cleveland County, North Carolina 36 June 2012

►% 'a i U I
7.3 COLLECTION OF SOLID WASTE
7.3.1 Current Program
Waste is collected and transported in Cleveland County by the people who generate waste, by
municipalities, and by private waste companies.
Residential pickup is available to every resident of the County. Some municipalities provide
this service to their citizens; all other residents may contract with a private waste company that
is licensed by the County.
There are nine staffed solid waste /recycling convenience centers located throughout the County
that collect waste from residential sources. These sites provide a convenient collection point for
all areas of the County. County personnel man the convenience centers, and they are open
Monday through Saturday, 8:00 a.m. to 7:00 p.m. and Sunday from 1:00 p.m. to 6:00 p.m. The
convenience centers collect approximately 22,000 tons of solid waste annually.
7.3.2 Intended Actions
Cleveland County will continue to use manned solid waste /recycling convenience centers for the
collection of waste and recyclables throughout the County. The policy of licensing and
regulating the cost of private waste companies will also continue.
7.3.3 3 -Year Update
The County Solid Waste Department is working 'with the County's Building Permitting and
Inspection Office to obtain the addresses of any building activity requiring a permit. The
enforcement officer contacts the builder(s) to assure that they understand what can and cannot
be disposed in the construction and demolition landfill, that waste loads have to be covered to
prevent litter and that the waste has to be hauled by a County franchised hauler.
7.3.4 Revised Intended Actions
The Ten -Year Plan remains the same other than what has been described in the Three -Year
Update.
7.4 RECYCLING AND REUSE
7.4.1 Current Program
The recycle program in Cleveland County has been in place since May 1, 1990. There are solid
waste and/or recycling convenience centers throughout the County that collect recyclable
materials. The materials collected are newspaper, cardboard, aluminum, glass, all recyclable
rigid plastics, yard waste, metal, motor oil, oil filters, tires, lead -acid batteries, white goods and
Cleveland County, North Carolina 37 June 2012

electronics. Most of the "fast food" restaurants have a second container for cardboard, which is
collected by a private waste company and transported to a recycle dealer.
Kings Mountain and Shelby have developed a curb side recycling program and are participating
in the "2 for 1" program.
~..r.,,
'ryz��2+�.ry ^t;2:t�.�'..ar� "y' ay.• "; <�; %�2> :�-^ � -y ,,.. k' - �, �x �. .`;: -'; . s3,�_ :' ;�,..
;Newspaper. .'" f 4,1;
°kdx�'�,:�,�
7.4.2 Intended Actions
The County will continue to provide solid waste /recycling convenience centers for the recycling
of residential waste. Commercial business units will be encouraged or required to collect
cardboard separate from solid waste and to deliver it to a recycle dealer. The County will be
contracting service to the electronic market.
7.4.3 3 -Year Update
No Change
7.4.4 Revised Intended Actions
The Ten -Year Plan remains the same other than what has been described in the Three -Year
Update.
Cleveland County, North Carolina 38 June 2012

7.5 YARD -WASTE COMPOSTING
7.5.1 Current Proaram
Yard waste is collected at the nine staffed solid waste /recycling convenience centers, muni-
cipalities, and the County landfill. Residential yard waste is composted according to Solid
Waste Management Rules for a Small Type 1 Composting Facility. The compost will be used
on the landfill or sold to the public for a soil enhancement or additive.
The City of Shelby collects curbside yard waste and operates a grinder to create mulch that is
used with wastewater sludge to create compost. This operation reduces the need to landfill
sludge.
7.5.2 Intended Actions
There is no changed planned for the current programs.
7.5.3 3 -Year Update
No Change
7.5.4 Revised Intended Actions
The Ten -Year Plan remains the same other than what has been described in the Three -Year
Update.
7.6 INCINERATION WITH ENERGY RECOVERY
7.6.1 Current Proaram
Incineration is not part of Cleveland County's current Plan.
7.6.2 Intended Action
The County does not plan to use incineration as a means of solid waste management.
7.6.3 3 -Year Update
No Change.
7.6.4 Revised Intended Actions
The Ten -Year Plan remains the same other than what has been described in the Three -Year
Update.
Cleveland County, North Carolina 39 June 2012

7.7 INCINERATION WITHOUT ENERGY RECOVERY
7.7.1 Current Proaram
Incineration is not part of Cleveland County's current Plan.
7.7.2 Intended Action
The County does not plan to use incineration as a means of solid waste management.
7.7.3 3 -Year Update
No change.
7.7.4 Revised Intended Actions
The Ten -Year Plan remains the same other than what has been described in the Three -Year
Update.
7.8 TRANSFER OF SOLID WASTE OUTSIDE THE COUNTY
7.8.1 Current Proaram
The goal for Cleveland County's Plan does not include transferring solid waste outside the
County for disposal except for waste not allowed in the operating landfills by state and federal
regulations. Cleveland County plans to continue to transfer recyclables outside the County for
recycling.
7.8.2 Intended Action
Cleveland County plans to continue to use the current program.
7.8.3 3 -Year Update
No Change.
7.8.4 Revised Intended Action
The Ten -Year Plan remains the same other than what has been described in the Three -Year
Update.
7.9 DISPOSAL OF SOLID WASTE
7.9.1 Current Proaram
The County Health Department operates the sole landfill facility in Cleveland County, which
consists of a lined MSW landfill and a C &D landfill..
Cleveland County, North Carolina 40 June 2012

T
The unlined facility operated by Cleveland County was closed January 1, 1998, in compliance
with all closure and post - closure monitoring. Cleveland County also re- permitted 15 acres of
the old landfill space that was closed in 1985. This permitted space, which will be used for
C &D, has a projected life of 20 years. Cleveland County has purchased approximately 450
acres to be used for future expansion in the disposal of solid waste. This site is the Self -
McNeilly Landfill and the first Phase was permitted to operate in 2009. The first Phase has a
life expectancy of at least 10 years. The entire site has a life expectancy of at least 60 years.
7.9.2 Intended Action
Cleveland County plans to continue managing solid waste disposal under its current program.
The Cleveland County Landfill is the only facility intended to be used for solid waste disposal
by the planning area.
7.9.3 3 -Year Update
Cleveland County has disposal capacity for the ten -year planning period either at the present
landfills. Permits will be required for future disposal. Disposal includes MSW waste, C &D
waste, and land clearing inert debris.
The County Solid Waste Department is working with the County's Building Permitting and
Inspection Office to obtain the addresses of any building activity requiring a permit. The
enforcement officer contacts the builder(s) to assure that they understand what can and cannot
be disposed in the construction and demolition landfill, that waste loads have to be covered to
prevent litter and that the waste has to be hauled by a County franchised hauler`,
7.9.4 Revised Intended Actions
Cleveland County will obtain permits within a reasonable time prior to the need for additional
landfill space; otherwise, the Ten -Year Plan remains the same other than what has been
described in the Three -Year Update.
7.10 EDUCATION OF THE COMMUNITY AND THROUGH THE SCHOOLS
7.10.1 Current Program
Several educational pamphlets describing the location of collection centers, recyclable materials
accepted, and how to prepare materials for recycling have been produced and distributed by
Cleveland County. County staff hand out educational materials at the nine convenience centers.
Recycling information is also provided on monthly utility billing statements and on the
electronic billboards located at each of the nine centers.
Cleveland County, North Carolina 41 June 2012

06, imi
Educational presentations are given to civic groups throughout the County by the solid waste
staff, and the recycling program is promoted at community functions for the entire planning
area. The level of participation in residential, commercial, industrial, institutional, construction
and demolition, and recycling may be increased by more intense public education. The use of
local radio stations, newspapers, and other media organizations will be used in communicating
the goals in the planning area.
7.10.2 Intended Actions
Several additional educational programs will be developed for schools, businesses, and industry
and civic groups. Topics that will be discussed include recycling, source reduction, reuse, and
other means of waste reduction.
7.10.3 3 -Year Update
Solid waste management programs have been posted on the County's website.
7.10.4 Revised Intended Actions
The Ten -Year Plan remains the same other than what has been described in the Three -Year
Update.
7.11 MANAGEMENT OF SPECIAL WASTES
7.11.1 Current Program
The special waste management program provides citizens with the opportunity to divert special
wastes from landfill disposal through the acceptance of these waste materials and products at the
County's staffed convenience centers.
7.11.2 Intended Actions
Cleveland County plans to continue using the current program.
7.11.3 3 -Year Update
In FY 2010 -11, the special waste management program reduced the waste stream by 2,332 tons
(i.e., 824 tons of white goods and scrap metal, 1,419 tons of tires, 71 tons of used motor oil, and
18 tons of lead -acid batteries).
7.11.4 Revised Intended Actions
The Ten -Year Plan remains the same other than what has been described in the Three -Year
Update.
Cleveland County, North Carolina 42 June 2012

7.12 TIRES
7.12.1 Current Program
Tires are collected free of charge at the nine staffed solid waste /recycling collection centers and
the County Landfill for the convenience of residents and tire dealers. In addition, trailers are
located at five tire dealers. The collected tires are transported to the US Tire Disposal facility in
Cabarrus County where they are chopped and stored for future recycling. The tire program is
funded by the distribution of the statewide tire tax to the planning area.
712.2 Intended Actions
Tire collection and hauling is effective and will remain the same.
7.12.3 3 -Year Update
No change.
712.4 Revised Intended Actions
The Ten -Year Plan remains the same other than what has been described in the Three -Year
Update.
7.13 WHITE GOODS
7.13.1 Current Program
White goods are collected free of charge at the nine staffed solid waste /recycling convenience
centers and the County Landfill from residents, municipal collections, and businesses.
7.13.2 Intended Actions
White goods collection and recycling is effective and will remain the same.
7.13.3 3 -Year Update
No change.
713.4 Revised Intended Actions
The Ten -Year Plan remains the same other than what has been described in the Three -Year
Update.
0
Cleveland Counpy, North Carolina 43 June 2012

7.14 LEAD ACID BATTERIES
7.14.1 Current Program
Batteries are collected free of charge at the nine staffed solid waste /recycling convenience
centers and the County Landfill. The batteries are collected and recycled with a local battery
dealer in the planning area.
7.14.2 Intended Actions
Battery collection and reclamation is effective and will remain the same.
7.14.3 3 -Year Update
No change.
7.14.4 Revised Intended Actions
The Ten -Year Plan remains the same other than what has been described in the Three -Year
Update.
7.15 USED MOTOR OIL, FILTERS AND ANTI - FREEZE
7.15.1 Current Program
Used motor oil, filters and anti - freeze are collected free of charge at the eight staffed solid
waste /recycling convenience centers. The oil is collected from the sites by HAZ -MAT
(Charlotte) to be used in the process of refining or as a fuel.
7.15.2 Intended Actions
Used motor oil collection and reclamation is effective and will remain the same.
7.15.3 3 -Year Update
No Change
7.15.4 Revised Intended Actions
The Ten -Year Plan remains the same other than what has been described in the Three -Year
Update.
Cleveland County, North Carolina 44 June 2012

7.16 OTHER BANNED ITEMS (WOODEN PALLETS AND RIGID PLASTICS)
716.1 Current Program
The County has been disposing of pallets from construction sites in the C &D Landfill and
mulching the remaining. Thew County is recycling all plastics (1 thru 7).
7.16.2 Intended Actions
The County will continue to recycle all plastics and accept pallets in the C &D Landfill from
Construction sites and pallets received from sites other than constriction will be mulched.
7.16.3 3 -Year Update
No Change
7.16.4 Revised Intended Actions
The Ten -Year Plan remains the same other than what has been described in the Three -Year Update.
7.17 HOUSEHOLD HAZARDOUS WASTE
717.1 Current Program
Cleveland County conducts a household hazardous waste collection day every year. Household
hazardous waste along with electronics and expired prescription drugs are collected.
Cleveland County, North Carolina 45 June 2012

lent Ntan —
AM
AWAY!i wi s. a
OF
wo
u is ✓ H a rp w et 6".•«'• . .,,,_`- ,, .. "fit.
✓ Mi ) .i 5� t %( "^' � 7 t-- � 5 x 'T �' a'�'j : _xi£.iaJalY(r1ti�'�t� !
s
T
• ^; �.'+,� ?'yam ^ :�'r:'s`�3'.k ' � .
7 11 4
` „ {� f'vJf I.Y4a+r unm
IM
s'" - • '� T e GP.1r�' - t F ,IAU1t� �y g�
--
�, ,�, bite �� r+ x "'+-c t -✓ .. �. ¢ � \. _ _
EN
#s t f 1 .• >%+'
� $
� t � s Ftsrhz.. s !� � 't.¢`.�s,� y_r'� ,�•t�� r y,(. �.r Fa i39� s !
} 'T. t i i> i '� ♦5,p8 ct Asa �'r 3 a; ,,� it i ! �,.
CEO
r'lx }`'.rmiie r * Y,� t 1
.. 1Y......:. r

Cleveland County Household Hazardous Waste Collection Day— 2012
7.17.2 Intended Actions
Under review.
7.17.3 3 -Year Update
No Change
717.4 Revised Intended Actions
The Ten -Year Plan remains the same other than what has been described in the Three -Year Update,
Cleveland County, North Carolina 47 June 2012

aalil k.Z il`.id= .lall=
8.1 ILLEGAL DISPOSAL
8.1.1 Current Program
The Cleveland County Solid Waste Ordinance specifically addresses illegal disposal. It is
enforced by the existing solid waste staff supported by the North Carolina Solid Waste Section.
The current program consists of the following:
• An annual Big Sweep Program to clean roadways leading to bodies of waters, including
waterways.
• Primarily on Saturdays, participate in community service programs cleaning roadways in
Cleveland County. This program required the County to hire part-time personnel and
purchase a van. The County cleans all roadways leading to the County convenience
centers and the landfill. The County cleans all other reported roads in the County on a
rotating schedule. Coordinate roadway cleanup in Cleveland County using Cleveland,
Gaston, Lincoln, and Rutherford Departments of Correction.
• Television commercials, which are aired year -round on Channel 33 Headline News, are
to educate the public on litter management.
• Conduct landfill tours and presentations with schools, municipalities, civic groups, local
Chamber of Commerce, and other organizations on litter management issues.
• The two full -time Solid Waste Enforcement Officers will enforce local and state laws
regarding litter violations, strengthening the fines and penalties for unsecured waste and
issue additional acceptance fees for unsecured loads at the Cleveland County Landfill.
• Distribute pamphlets at the Cleveland County Landfill and Convenience Centers
educating the public on how to transport waste in a secure manner.
• Participate in the Adopt -A- Highway Program with the adoption of a portion of the
Airport Road.
• Work with all municipalities in the adoption of the Solid Waste Ordinance requiring
inter -local agreements giving the County legal enforcement authority.
Cleveland County, North Carolina 48 June 2012

8.1.2 Intended Actions
Several "old" illegal sites have been located in recent years, but new instances of illegal disposal
have been very few. This is attributed to the Cleveland County Solid Waste Ordinance and the
convenience of the manned sites throughout the County. The intended action is to continue the
program, being watchful for both old and new illegal disposal.
8.1.3 3-Year Update
No Change
8.1.4 Revised Intended Actions
The Ten -Year Plan remains the same other than what has been described in the Three -Year Update.
8.2 LITTER MANAGEMENT AND PROMISCUOUS DUMPING
8.2.1 Current Program
Cleveland County has no specific litter prevention program, although the County provides for
penalties. Several organizations in the County participate in the Adopt -A- Highway program and
remove litter in their designated areas.
The major problems are general litter along highways thrown from automobiles and residential
litter along the roadways near the manned convenience sites that falls from private vehicles as
they transport solid waste to the sites. The County pays for a crew of four persons to remove
litter from the access roads leading to the recycling centers on a quarterly basis.
Promiscuous dumping still occurs occasionally, but seldom. The major reason is believed to be
the convenience of the manned sites for residents throughout the County. Commercial users can
drop off only recyclables at the convenience centers. The landfill, which can accommodate
small customers, has about 740 commercial accounts.
The current program consists of the following:
• The full -time Solid Waste Enforcement Officers enforce the local and state laws regarding
litter violations, strengthening the fines and penalties for unsecured waste.
• Conduct an Annual Big Sweep Program to clean roadways leading to bodies of waters,
including waterways.
• Conduct a household hazardous waste collection day (for residents only).
Cleveland County, North Carolina 49 June 2012

• The electronic message boards at each of the three solid waste /recycling convenience
centers provide communication to the public.
• Print and distribute commercial truck anti - litter stickers.
• Civil citations are issued for litter violations with the fines deposited in the Landfill fund.
• Participate in community service programs cleaning roadways in Cleveland County. The
work is primarily conducted on Saturdays. This program required the County to hire part-
time personnel and purchase a van. The County cleans all roadways leading to the County
convenience centers and the landfill. The County cleans all other reported roads in the
County on a rotating schedule.
• Coordinate roadway cleanup in Cleveland County using Cleveland, Gaston, Lincoln, and
Rutherford Departments of Correction.
• Pay to have two commercials produced with Channel 33 Headline News. The purpose of
the commercials, which are aired year -round on Channel 33 Headline News, is to educate
the public on litter management.
• Conduct landfill tours and presentations with schools, municipalities, civic groups, local
Chamber of Commerce, and other organizations on litter management issues.
• Issue additional acceptance fees for unsecured loads at the Cleveland County Landfill.
• Distribute pamphlets at the Cleveland County Landfill and Convenience Centers
educating the public on how to transport waste in a secure manner.
• Participate in the Adopt -a- Highway Program with the adoption of a portion of the Airport
Road.
• Work with all municipalities in the adoption of the Solid Waste Ordinance requiring inter -
local agreements giving the County legal enforcement authority.
8.2.2 Intended Actions
The Solid Waste Enforcement Officers will continue to investigate litter and other dumpsites
and will be responsible for the organization of community service programs to specifically
address litter and promiscuous dumping.
8.2.3 3-Year Uadate
The County Solid Waste Department is working with the County's Building Permitting and
Inspection Office to obtain the addresses of any building activity requiring a permit. The
enforcement officer contacts the builder(s) to assure that they understand what can and cannot
Cleveland County, North Carolina 50 June 2012

be disposed in the construction and demolition landfill, that waste loads have to be covered to
prevent litter and that the waste has to be hauled by a County franchised hauler.
8.2.4 Revised Intended Actions
The Ten -Year Plan remains the same other than what has been described in the Three -Year Update.
8.3 PURCHASE OF RECYCLED MATERIALS AND PRODUCTS
8.31 Current Program
The Cleveland County plans to encourage all local governments to purchase recycle materials
and products.
8.3.2 Intended Actions
The present program is effective and will remain the same.
8.3.3 3 -Year Update
No Change.
8.3.4 Revised Intended Actions
The Ten -Year Plan remains the same other than what has been described in the Three -Year
Update.
8.4 DISASTER RESPONSE
8.4.1 Current Program
In the event of a natural disaster, Cleveland County, in cooperation with the Emergency Medical
Service, Communications, Emergency Management/Fire Marshall, Environmental Health,
Sheriff's Department, Planning and Zoning Department, and all local and state governments,
will evaluate and implement a response plan based on the need to protect the public's health and
safety without jeopardizing the environment.
The County has installed Electronic Message Boards at seven of the staffed convenience centers.
The message boards are to be used in the event of a natural disaster or homeland security
occurrence to provide directions and public health information.
The County has located three storm debris staging sites located in the County.
Cleveland County, North Carolina 51 June 2012

Handling of Dead Animals from a
Natural Disaster and/or Disease
The landfill should not accept any dead animals without knowing the cause of death. Those
killed by natural disaster could be accepted at the landfill but those that die because of any type
of disease cannot be accepted. It is strongly recommended by the United States and North
Carolina Department of Agricultures that all dead animals that result from either a disaster
and/or disease be disposed on the site where they are being raised. It is better not to transport
for the safety of public's health and the safety of landfill operations. The producers are required
by law to report any diseases to NCSDA &CS, Animal Health Programs at (919) 733 -7601, also
Veterinary Public Health Office at (919) 707 -5900. The West Nile Virus is also to be reported
to the Public Health Pest Management Section at (877) 790 -1747.
The following is a brief summary of poultry mortality disposal methods in North Carolina.
All disposals must occur within 24 hours. (This is a copy of the NC Department of
Agriculture and Consumer Services requirements from their website.)
1. Burial: Not closer than 300 feet to a flowing stream or public body of water. Should be at
least three (3) feet above water table and covered with three (3) feet of soil. Can be used
anywhere soil conditions allow, primarily for emergency situations. Not recommended for
disposal of normal daily mortality.
2. Incineration: Any commercial unit that will completely incinerate the birds. Should be
sure they meet local and state air quality requirements. Good procedure anywhere in the
state.
3. Rendering: Must be done by a licensed renderer or collector. Care must be taken not to
spread disease from farm to farm. Freezing mortality prior to rendering is allowed.
4. Disposal Pit: The bottom of the pit should be at least three (3) feet above the water table.
Not a satisfactory procedure in most of Eastern North Carolina and other locations with a
high water table.
5. Composter: Requires a permit from the North Carolina Department of Agriculture and
Consumer Services. Good procedure in any part of the state.
Cleveland County, North Carolina 52 June 2012

6. Digestion: Requires a permit from the North Carolina Department of Agriculture and
Consumer Services. Permits are limited to one (1) year but can be extended. Generally less
satisfactory than other methods of disposal. Can be used anywhere in the state.
Other disposal methods require a special permit from the State Veterinarian's office.
8.4.2 Intended Actions
Cleveland County plans to develop a list of emergency responders to call in response to a natural
disaster. Once the response team has been identified, schedule meetings to determine a course
of action based on a particular natural occurrence addressing capacity planning for disposal,
staging, and transportation of various, materials, debris diversion, and local coordination
including all cities and towns.
8.4.3 3 -Year Update
Meetings have been held with the municipalities to discuss disaster debris staging sites.
Otherwise, the County's Landfill can be used for disposal and staging of disaster debris.
Monitor dead animals that are received at the landfill to determine cause of death.
8.4.4 Revised Intended Actions
The Ten -Year Plan remains the same other than what has been described in the Three -Year
Update.'
8.5 COLLECTION OF DISCARDED COMPUTER EQUIPMENT AND TELEVISIONS
8.5.1 Current Program
General Information
Session Law 2010 -67 establishes an electronics recycling program for the State of North Carolina with
shared responsibility between manufacturers, retailers, local and state government, and consumers. The
law places specific requirements on different parties and includes a ban on the disposal of computer
equipment and televisions effective July 1, 2011. [from NCDENR Division of Waste Management]
Contacts
Sam Lockridge, Coordinator of Health Services
315 East Grover Street
Shelby, NC 28150
Telephone: [phone]
Fax: [phone]
Cleveland County, North Carolina 53 June 2012

E -mail: sam.lockridee @clevelandcountv.com
Proiect Details
Cleveland County has established an electronic waste recycling program that will benefit fifteen
municipalities as well as many local businesses. This program will ensure the county is compliant with
the state statute banning landfill disposal of electronic waste recycling effective July 1, 2011.
Program Information
Cleveland County will use ten enclosed utility trailers. Nine trailers will be located at convenience
centers across the county; available for the public to use in recycling old radios, stereos, televisions,
VCR's, personal electronic devices as well as all models of computer equipment. By having the utility
trailers available at convenient locations across the county, for consumer use, the potential to dump
these electronic materials will be reduced or eliminated. The tenth trailer will be used to swap out with
filled trailers at the convenience center locations.
Filled trailer(s) will be transported to a special processing location, located at the current Cleveland
County Landfill. The trailer(s) will be conveyed to the target site where employees will sort and
separate electronic waste and package it for processing. Packaged electronic waste will be stored at the
county landfill until an adequate volume is reached for pickup by an approved vendor. The county
landfill will contact eCycleSecure LLC, 1500 N Graham Street, Charlotte, NC 28206 (telephone: 704-
376 -1116, fax: [phone]) to remove the recyclables and transport them to their facility for final
processing. eCycleSecure LLC is an improved vendor by the State of North Carolina.
Program Data
Tonnage will be tracked at the county landfill. Trailers will be weighed before sorting, on their way into
the landfill. Additional weight measurements will be assessed of the sorted material sent to
eCycleSecure LLC for final processing. The county will require the vendor to provide data reports with
details about shipments received that specifically track computer equipment, televisions, and other
electronic devices.
Public Awareness
Cleveland County is taking this project one step further by incorporating several levels of public
education regarding the new electronics recycling program. The local print and television media will be
used to notify the public. Electronic message boards at each convenience center will carry messages
regarding the electronics recycling. The web site for the county government and the Cleveland County
Health Department will also post notices. The Cleveland County fair will also be a venue to inform the
public and provide educational materials to fairgoers. Educational material will also be available at the
convenience centers and municipal government offices.
Cleveland County, North Carolina 54 June 2012

Bud et
Cleveland County has established a separate local budget account to track income and expenditures that
support the electronics recycling program. Income may include disbursements from the state
Electronics Management Fund, grant funds, and county funding. The county can justify spending funds
on electronics recycling because this growing waste stream will free up space in the landfills.
Additionally, removing the electronic waste eliminates a possible contamination hazards from toxic
materials used in the electronics manufacturing process.
Cooperation with other local eovernments
Cleveland County will have no formal relationship with other local governments regarding this
electronics recycling program though citizens of all of the municipalities in Cleveland County will be
eligible to utilize the Cleveland County program to drop -off their electronics for recycling.
Vendors
Cleveland County will document that all of the a -waste that is managed by the program will be collected
by an electronics recycler /vendor that holds the required e- Stewards or R2 certification. Acceptable
documentation will include copies of their contracts or service agreements and a copy of their
certification issued by R2 Solutions, e- Stewards or an accredited 3`d party auditor.
8.5.2 Intended Actions
The present program is effective and will remain the same.
8.5.3 3 -Year Update
No Change.
8.5.4 Revised Intended Actions
The Ten -Year Plan remains the same other than what has been described in the Three -Year
Update.
8.6 MANAGEMENT OF ABANDONED MANUFACTURED HOMES
8.6.1 Current Program
County accepts constructed manufactured homes for disposal in the construction and demolition
landfill.
Cleveland County, North Carolina 55 June 2012

County will continue to accept constructed manufactured homes for disposal but as required by
GS 130A- 309.113(a). The County intends on participating in the reimbursement program. The
program will be according to the Cleveland County Minimum Housing Code. The constructed
mobile homes will be deconstructed on the landfill according to the permit and either recycled or
disposed in the construction and demolition landfill.
Management of Dilapidated Dwellings
Cleveland County adopted a Minimum Housing Code in 1997. This code will be used to evaluate the
condition of a dwelling, and determine if it should be demolished. These regulations can be found in
Article III, Chapter 3.5 of the Cleveland County Code.
Identification Planning
❑ Complaint submitted to Planning Department
❑ Subject dwelling must be located within the County Planning Jurisdiction
Preliminary Investigation Building Inspections
❑ County Building Inspector will investigate the complaint
❑ Inspector has right of entry at all reasonable times
❑ Administrative Warrant may be issued by a Magistrate (if needed)
❑ Estimate of cost to repair
❑ Dilapidated — if cost to repair exceeds 50% of value
Hearing Planning
❑ Set hearing date
❑ Notice of hearing at least 10 days prior to hearing
o Notice served on property owner (certified mail)
❑ Notice served on all "parties of interest" (certified mail)
❑ Legal Ad published in newspaper at least 10 days prior to hearing (optional)
Order Planning
Cleveland County, North Carolina 56 June 2012

❑ Inspector finds the dwelling to be dilapidated
❑ Identify specific violations to support determination
❑ Order served on property owner (certified mail)
❑ Order served on all "parties of interest" (certified mail)
❑ If owner cannot be located, then publish legal ad
❑ Service of Notice - staff signs affidavit
❑ Owner has 90 days to repair or demolish the dwelling
❑ Occupant may be required to vacate dwelling
Appeal Board of Adjustment
❑ File with Planning Department, no more than ten (10) days after the Order is served
❑ Fee paid $200
❑ Order is suspended until modified or reversed by the Board
❑ Hearing notice mailed to applicant at least 10 days prior to hearing
Ordinance Authorizing Demolition
❑ Ordinance
❑ Placard posted on main entrance of dwelling unit
❑ Record Ordinance with the Register of Deeds
Appeal
❑ Action by the Commissioners may be appealed to Superior Court
❑ File appeal with Clerk of Court, no more than 30 days after Ordinance is served
Demolition
❑ Fire Marshall inspects for asbestos
❑ Remove any appliances (white goods) for recycling
❑ Solicit bids for demolition from list of qualified contractors
❑ RFP posted on County web site (copy to Purchasing)
❑ Must have three quotes by phone, fax, or email
❑ No public bid opening required
❑ Bids become public record when received
❑ Bid bonds are not required
❑ Contractor must have required liability and workman's comp insurance
❑ All debris must be removed from site and disposed at the Landfill
❑ Site grubbed and re- seeded for erosion control
❑ Contractor must submit a copy of scale tickets with invoice
Commissioners
Superior Court
Solid Waste
Cleveland County, North Carolina 57 June 2012

❑ Site inspection
❑ Invoice approved and submitted to Finance for payment
Reimbursement Solid Waste
❑ File for reimbursement with NCDENR
• Copy of invoice and ordinance authorizing demolition
• Any excess costs are billed and collected in the same manner as taxes 160A- 443(6)(a)
Collection Tax Collection
❑ Tax Collector mails statement to land owner
❑ Balance due within 30 days
❑ Remaining balance after 30 days is charged 8% interest annually
❑ Account delinquent after 5 years
❑ Foreclosure proceedings must begin with 10 years
8.6.2 Intended Actions
The present program is effective and will remain the same.
8.6.3 3 -Year Update
No Change
8.6.4 Revised Intended Actions
The Ten -Year Plan remains the same other than what has been described in the Three -Year
Update.
Cleveland County, North Carolina 58 June 2012

The intended actions described on the previous pages are listed chronologically in Table 9 -1.
Lulo"LUIO •
�L �•LL3�`. i�r �'� tier
. � • 1-
2017-2019
202x2022y�
.a ii F •. e,.
9.1 SOLID WASTE COST AND FINANCING
iii f�'S 1`�m"r ;�'fij� ��'�;' •; §&� �'i'''t t,
Program.
..�•m -
Program. - u `t: '. _•+ M =
The solid waste costs in the Cleveland County planning area derive from many sources and are paid to
several providers. For example, the County operates two enterprise funds, there are 15 municipalities,
six private /municipal collectors/haulers, and the recycling program is administered by the County
Health Department, as is the County landfill that has more than 700 accounts. Many residents contract
directly for collection service with a private collector as do many businesses.
As a result of this complex structure, a separate breakout of each municipality is not included in this
Plan. Rather, the costs of collection and disposal have been compiled and are shown as totals for the
entire Cleveland County planning area in Table 9 -2.
9.2 FACILITIES AND RESOURCES AVAILABLE THROUGH PRIVATE ENTERPRISE
The Cleveland County planning area has a coordinated and cooperative program with numerous private
enterprise operations. All commercial waste and industrial waste is collected and transported by private
businesses. Several of the municipalities contract with private waste companies for collection as do
many residents in unincorporated areas.
Cleveland County, North Carolina 59 June 2012

1, i'ALIO1 s _° m6
All recyclable goods are collected by local government and sold to private companies who recycle or
reclaim them. Cleveland County uses a combination of publicly- and privately- operated programs.
Cleveland County, North Carolina 60 June 2012

APPENDIX A -- RESOLUTIONS

"(01rurlullb Talmlg
r—lt;rowo (Frrttter"
rYf/ ��Ci
.eAdu01 mg, IDt±
RCSOLUTION ACCEPTING AND ENDORSING THE SOLID WASTE
MANAGEMENT PLAN OF 2012 FOR CLEVELAND COUNTY
Number 06 -2012
WHEREAS, it is a priority of this community to protect human health and the environment through safe and
effective management of municipal solid waste;
WHEREAS, the reduction of die amount and toxicity or the local waste stream is a goal of this community;
WHEREAS, equitable and efficient delivery of solid waste management services is an essential characteristic of the
local solid waste management system;
NIIIEREAS, it is a goal of the community to maintain and improve its physical appearance and to reduce die
adverse effects of illegal disposal and littering;
WHEREAS, Cleveland County recognizes its mole in die encouragement of recycling markets by purchasing
recycled products;
WHEREAS, involvement and education of die citizenry is critical to die establishment of an effective local solid
waste program;
fin.
WHEREAS, the State of North Carolina has placed planning responsibility on local government for the
management of solid waste;
WHEREAS, NC General Statute 130A- 309.09A(b) requires each unit of local government, either individually or in
cooperation with other units or local government, to update the Ten Year Comprehensive Solid Waste Management
Plan at least every three years;
WHEREAS, the Cleveland Connty Solid Waste Management Department and Citizens Solid Waste Advisory Board
have undertaken and completed a long -range planning effort to evaluate the appropriate technologies and strategies
available to manage solid waste effectively;
NOW, THEREFORE, BE IT RESOLVED BY THE BOARD OF COMMISSIONERS OF CLEVELAND
COUNTY, dial Cleveland County's 2012 Ten -Year Comprehensive Solid Waste Management Plan
is accepted and endorsed and placed on file with Cleric to the Board on this 1" Day of May, 2012.
Jolrfmy Hutchins, Chairman
CLEVELAND COUNTY BOARD OF COMMISSIONERS
A T:
Ketri Melton, Clerk
Clevela d County Board of Commissioners
l C1>'r CltitV� c'

RESOLUTION ACCEPTING AND ENDORSING THE SOLID WASTE MAY 1' 2012
MANAGEMENT PLAN OF 2012 FOR CLEVELAND COUNTY HE LTH(SE j iT�ri�y�l ' '
WHEREAS, it is a priority of this community to protect human health and the
environment through safe and effective management of municipal solid waste;
WHEREAS, the reduction of the amount and toxicity of the local waste stream is a goal
of this community;
WHEREAS, equitable and efficient delivery of solid waste management services is an
essential characteristic of the local solid waste management system;
WHEREAS, it is a goal of the community to maintain and improve its physical
appearance and to reduce the adverse effects of illegal disposal and littering;
WHEREAS, Cleveland County recognizes its role in the encouragement of recycling
markets by purchasing recycled products;
WHEREAS, involvement and education of the citizenry is critical to the establishment of
an effective local solid waste program;
WHEREAS, the State of North Carolina has placed planning responsibility on local
government for the management of solid waste;
WHEREAS, NC General Statute 130A- 309.09A(b) requires each unit of local -
government, either individually or in cooperation with other units of local goveMrrient, to
update the Ten Year Comprehensive Solid Waste Management Plan at least every three
yam;
WHEREAS, the Cleveland County Solid Waste Management Department and Citizens
Solid Waste Advisory Board have undertaken and completed a long -range planning effort
to evaluate the appropriate technologies and strategies available to manage solid waste
effectively;
NOW, THEREFORE, BE IT RESOLVED BY THE TOWN COUNCIL OF THE TOWN
OF BELWOOD, NORTH CAROLINA:
That Cleveland County's 2012 Ten -Year Comprehensive Solid Waste Management Plan
is accepted and endorsed and placed on file with Clerk to the Board on this day, May,.1; ;'
2012.
ATTEST:
"' Debbie Hoyle, Mayor Ellen Poston, Town Clerk

' RESOLUTION ACCEPTING AND ENDORSING THE SOLID WASTE
MANAGEMENT PLAN OF 2012 FOR CLEVELAND COUNTY
WHEREAS, it is a priority of this community to protect human health and the
.w, N�'..46,..�',ent through safe and effective management of municipal solid waste;
WHEREAS, the reduction of the amount and toAcity of the local waste stream is a goal
ofthis community,
WHEREAS, equitable and efficient delivery of solid waste management services is an
essential characteristic of the local solid waste management system;
WHEREAS, it is a goal of the community to maintain and improve its physical
appearance and to reduce the adverse effects of illegal disposal and littering;
WHEREAS, Cleveland Cowrty recognizes its role in the encouragement of nzycling
markets by purchasing recycled products;
WHEREAS, involvement and dducation of the citizenry is critical to the establishment of
an effective local solid waste program;
WHEREAS, the State of North Carolina has placed planning responsibility on local
government for the management of solid waste; - -
WHEREAS, NC General Statute 130A- 309.09A(b) requites each unit of local
government, either individually or in cooperation with other units of local government, to
update the Ten Year Comprehensive Solid Waste Management Plan at least every three
yewg
WHEREAS, the Cleveland Cowlty Solid Waste Management Department and Citizens
Solid Waste Advisory Board have undertaken and completed a tong -range planning effort
to evaluate the appropriate technologies and strategies available to manage solid waste
effectively;
NOW, THEREFORE, BE IT RESOLVED BY THE TOWN COUNCIL OF THE TOWN
OF EARL, NORTH CAROLINA:
That Cleveland Counlys 2012 Ten -Year Comprehensive Solid Waste Management Plan
is accepted and endorsed and placed on file with Clerk to the Board on this day, April 23,
2012.
AT-MST: �n
Mhx%Jpp6r.-Mijor It er"n, To perk

RESOLUTION ACCEPTING AND ENDORSING TSE SOLID WASTE
MANAGEMENT PLAN OF 2012 FOR CLEVELAND COUNTY
WHEREAS, it is a priority of this community to protect human health and the
environment through safe and effective management of municipal solid waste;
WHEREAS, the reduction of the amount and toxicity of the local waste -stream is -a goal
of this community;
WHEREAS, equitable. and efficient delivery of solid waste management services is an
essential characteristic. of the local solid waste management system;
WHEREAS, it is a goal of the community to maintain and improve its physical
appearance and to reduce the adverse effects of illegal disposal and littering;
WHEREAS, Cleveland County recognizes its role in the encouragement of recycling
markets by purchasing recycled products;
WHEREAS, involvement and education of the citizenry is critical to the establishment of
an effective local solid waste program;
WHEREAS, the State of North Carolina has placed planning responsibility on local
government for the management of solid waste;
WHEM", NC General Statute I�OA 309.09A(b) requires each unit of local
government, either individually or in cooperation with other units of local government, to
update the Ten Year Comprehensive Solid Waste Management Plan at least every three
4e
WkMREAS, the Cleveland County Solid Waste Management Department and Citizens
Solid Waste Advisory Board have undertaken and completed a long-range planning effort
to evaluate the appropriate technologies and strategies available to manage solid waste
effectively,
NOW, THEREFORE, BE IT RESOLVED BY THE TOWN COUNCIL OP THE TOWA
OF FALLSTON, NORTH CAROLINA.
That Cleveland County's 2012.Ten -Year Cl. ­& • w/ ensive Solid'Waste Management•Pi6n :
is accepted and endorsed and placed on file with Clerk to the Board on this day,
2012.
ATTEST:

RESOLUTION 12-22 ACCEPTING AND ENDORSING THE SOLID WASTE
MANAGEMENT PLAN OF 2012 FOR CLEVELAND COUNTY
WHEREAS, it is a priority of this community to protect human health and the
environment through safe and effective management of municipal solid waste; and
WHEREAS, the reduction of the amount and toxicity of the local waste stream is a goal
of this community; and
WHEREAS, equitable and efficient delivery of solid waste management services is an
essential characteristic of the local solid waste management system; and
WHEREAS, it is a goal of the community to maintain and improve its physical
appearance and to reduce the adverse effects of illegal disposal and littering, and
WHEREAS, Cleveland County recognizes its role in the encouragement of recycling
markets by purchasing recycled products; and
WHEREAS, involvement and education of the citizenry is critical to the establishment
of an effective local solid waste program; and
WHEREAS, the State of North Carolina has placed planning responsibility on local
government for the management of solid waste; and
WHEREAS, NC General Statute 130A- 309.09A(b) requires each unit of local
government, either individually or in cooperation with other units of local goverment, to update
the Ten Year Comprehensive Solid Waste Management Plan at least every three years; and
WHEREAS, the Cleveland County Solid Waste Management Department and Citizens
Solid Waste Advisory Council have undertaken and completed a long -range planning effort to
evaluate the appropriate technologies and strategies available to manage solid waste effectively.
NOW THEREFORE, BE IT RESOLVED that I, Edgar O. Murphrey, Jr., Mayor and
the City Council of the City of Kings Mountain, North Carolina accept and endorse Cleveland
County's 2012 Ten Year Comxrehensive Solid Waste Management Plan and placed the plan on
file with the City Clerk this 29 day of May 2012.
CITY OF KINGS MOUNT TH CAROLINA
BY: C:Cff�c
gar O. Murph yoi
ATTEST:
Ann L. Sessom, MMC
City Clerk

RESOLUTION ACCEPTING AND ENDORSING THE SOLID WASTE
MANAGEMENT PLAN OF 2012 FOR THE TOWN OF KINGSTOWN
WHEREAS, it is a priority of this community to protect human health and the environment
through safe and effective management of municipal solid waste;
WHEREAS, the reduction of the amount and toxicity of the local waste stream is a goal of this
community;
WHEREAS, equitable and efficient delivery of solid waste management services is an essential
characteristic of the local solid waste management system;
WHEREAS, it is a goal of the community to maintain and improve its physical appearance and to
reduce the adverse effects of illegal disposal and littering;
WHEREAS, The Town of KinWs(own recognizes its role in the encouragement of recycling
markets by purchasing recycled products;
WHEREAS, involvement and education of the citizenry is critical to the establishment of an
effective local solid waste program;
WHEREAS, the State of North Carolina has placed planning responsibility on local government
for the management of solid waste;
WHEREAS, NC General Statute 130A- 309.09A(b) requires each unit of local government, either
individually or in cooperation with other units of local government, to update the Ten Year
Comprehensive Solid Waste Management Plan at least every three years;
WHEREAS, the The Tott .-n ofKihestown Solid Waste Management Department and Citizens
Solid Waste Advisory Board have undertaken and completed a long -range planning effort to
evaluate the appropriate technologies and strategies available to manage solid waste effectively;
NOW, THEREFORE, BE IT RESOLVED BY THE TOWN COUNCIL OF THE TOWN OF
KINGSTOWN, NORTH CAROLINA:
That die Town �f Kingstown 2012 Ten -Year Comprehensive Solid Waste Management Plan
is accepted and endorsed and placed on file with Clerk to the Board on this day
Aoril19.2012. E e r
ATTEST:
Ramona Gash, Deputy Clerk'.
le.n La L �'Ye '
(Corporate Seal)

1
RESOLUTION ACCEPTING AND ENDORSING THE SOLID W
MANAGEMENT PLAN OF 2012 FOR CLEVELAND COUNTY
WHEREAS, it is a priority of this community to protect human health and the
environment through safe and effective management of municipal solid waste;
WHEREAS, the reduction of the amount and toxicity of the local waste stream is a goal
of this community;
WHEREAS, equitable and efficient delivery of solid waste management services is an
essential characteristic of the local solid waste management system;
WHEREAS, it is a goal of the community to maintain and improve its physical
appearance and to reduce the adverse effects of illegal disposal and littering;
WHEREAS, Cleveland County recognizes its role in the encouragement of recycling
markets by purchasing recycled products;
WHEREAS, involvement and education of the citizenry is critical to the establishment of
an effective local solid waste program;
WHEREAS, the State of North Carolina has placed planning responsibility on local
government for the management of solid waste;
WHEREAS, NC General Statute 130A- 309.09A(b) requires each unit of local
government, either individually or in cooperation with other units of local government, to
update the Ten Year Comprehensive Solid Waste Management Plan at least every three
years;
WHEREAS, the Cleveland County Solid Waste Management Department and Citizens
Solid Waste Advisory Board have undertaken and completed a long -range planning effort
to evaluate the appropriate technologies and strategies available to manage solid waste
effectively;
NOW, THEREFORE, BE IT RESOLVED BY THE TOWN COUNCIL OF THE TOWN
OF MOORESBORO, NORTH CAROLINA:
That Cleveland County's 2012 Ten -Year Comprehensive Solid Waste Management Plan
is accepted endorsed and placed on file with Clerk to the Board on this day,
Y' Z3 2012.
ATTEST:
f

f
MAY 09 2012
RESOLUTION ACCEPTING AND ENDORSING THE SOLID WASTE" Fa�McN j
MANAGEMENT PLAN OF 2012 FOR CLEVELAND COUNTY
WHEREAS, it is a priority of this community to protect human health and the
environment through safe and effective management of municipal solid waste;
WHEREAS, the reduction of the amount and toxicity of the local waste stream is a goal
of this community,
WHEREAS, equitable and efficient delivery of solid waste management services is an
essential characteristic of the local solid waste management system;
WHEREAS, it is a goal of the community to maintain and improve its physical
appearance and to reduce the adverse effects of illegal disposal and littering;
WHEREAS, Cleveland County recognizes its role in the encouragement of recycling
markets by purchasing recycled products;
WHEREAS, involvement and education of the citizenry is critical to the establishment of
an effective local solid waste program;
WHEREAS, the State of North Carolina has placed planning responsibility on local
government for the management of solid waste;
WHEREAS, NC General Statute 130A- 309.09A(b) requires each unit of local
government, either individually or in cooperation with other units of local government, to
update the Ten Year Comprehensive Solid Waste Management Plan at least every three
yes;
WHEREAS, the Cleveland County Solid Waste Management Department and Citizens
Solid Waste Advisory Board have undertaken and completed a long -range planning effort
to evaluate the appropriate technologies and strategies available to manage solid waste
effectively;
NOW, THEREFORE, BE IT RESOLVED BY THE TOWN COUNCIL OF THE TOWN
OF PATTERSON SPRINGS, NORTH CAROLINA:
That Cleveland County's 2012 Ten -Year Comprehensive Solid Waste Management Plan
is aceepted and endorsed and placed on file with Clerk to the Board on this day,
2012.
ATTEST:
ME I M 01 N
MAyor
0,0 to0i � oissd *-.1-)5

Town of Polkville
May 3, 2012
RESOLUTION ACCEPTING AND ENDORSING THE SOLID WASTE
MANAGEMENT PLAN OF 2012 FOR CLEVELAND COUNTY
WHEREAS, it is a priority of this community to protect human health and the environment
through safe and effective management of municipal solid waste;
WHERE-AS, the reduction of the amount and toxicity of the local waste stream is a goal of this
community;
WHEREAS, equitable and efficient delivery of solid waste management services is an essential
characteristic of the local solid waste management system;
WHEREAS, it is a goal of the community to maintain and improve its physical appearance and
to reduce the adverse effects of illegal disposal and littering;
WHEREAS, Cleveland County recognizes its role in the encouragement of recycling markets by
purchasing recycled products;
WHEREAS, involvement and education of the citizenry is critical to the establishment of an
effective local solid waste program;
WHERE-AS, the State of North Carolina has placed planning responsibility on local government
for the management of solid waste;
WHEREAS, NC General Statute 130A- 309.09A(b) requires each unit of local government,
either individually or in cooperation with other units of local government, to update the Ten Year
Comprehensive Solid Waste Management Plan at least every three years;
WHEREAS, the Cleveland County Solid Waste Management Department and Citizens Solid
Waste Advisory Board have undertaken and completed a long -range planning effort to evaluate
the appropriate technologies and strategies available to manage solid waste effectively;
NOW, THEREFORE, BE IT RESOLVED BY THE TOWN COUNCIL OF THE TOWN OF
POLKVILLE, NORTH CAROLINA:
That Cleveland County's 2012 Ten -Year Comprehensive Solid Waste Management Plan is
accepted and endorsed and placed on file with Clerk to the Board on this day, May. 3.2012.
By:
�B
Jack B. Shytle
Mayor
Attest:
Victoria W. Blanton
Clerk

e n 2012 04:06p Public Works
RESOLUTION NO. 30 -2012
9,7044846856 p,1
A RESOLUTION ACCEPTING AND ENDORSING THE
SOLID WASTE MANAGEMENT PLAN OF 2012 FOR CLEVELAND COUNTY
WHEREAS, it is a priority of this community to protect human health and the
environment through safe and effective management of municipal solid waste;
WHEREAS, the reduction of the amount and toxicity of the local waste stream is
a goal of this community;
WHEREAS, equitable and efficient delivery of solid waste management services
is an essential characteristic of the local solid waste management system;
WHEREAS, it is a goal of the community to maintain and improve its physical
appearance and to reduce the adverse effects of illegal disposal and littering;
WHEREAS, the City of Shelby recognizes its role in the encouragement of
recycling markets by purchasing recycled products;
WHEREAS, Involvement and education of the citizenry is critical to the
establishment of an effective local solid waste program;
WHEREAS, the State of North Carolina has placed planning responsibility on
local government for the management of solid waste;
WHEREAS, North Carolina General Statute 130A- 309.09A(b) requires each unit
of local government, either individually or in cooperation with other units of local
government, to update the Ten Year Comprehensive Solid Waste Management Plan at
least every three years;
WHEREAS, the Cleveland County Solid Waste Management Department and
Solid Waste Advisory Board have undertaken and completed a long -range planning
effort to evaluate the appropriate technologies and strategies available to manage solid
waste effectively;
NOW, THEREFORE, BE IT RESOLVED BY THE CITY COUNCIL OF THE CITY
OF SHELBY, NORTH CAROLINA:
Section 1. The Cleveland County's 2012 Ten Year Comprehensive Solid Waste
Management Plan is accepted and endorsed and placed on file in the Office of the City
Clerk.
Section 2. The resolution shall become effective upon Its adoption and approval.

Jun 2012 04:07p Public Works
Resolution No. 30-2012
June 4, 2012
Page 2
9,7044846856 p,2
Adopted and approved this the 0 day of June
O. S nho ht ony I
Mayor
ATTEST:
- A2a
Bernadette A. Parduski, MMC
City Clerk

APPENDIX B -COPY OF
ADVERTISEMENT

AFFIDAVIT OF INSERTION OF ADVERTISMENT
The Star
LEGAL AD
NOTICE OF Shelby, N.C.
PUBLIC Cleveland County
HEARING
Trio Ciavaland, County
Board_ of ,Conunlaelones I
WE condos► ti puhno hear•
r" 'A I
RECEIVED
MAY 2 2012
ACCOUNTS PAYABLE
Ins to--eorlslder appnea•
The Star does certify that the advertisement for:
ON* and ,the award of
ftmhiso to solid waste;
haulers In Cleveland
HEARING- CONSIDER APPLICATIONS & AWARD OF FRANCHISE TO SOLID WASTE
County.
HAULERS
,The,t hesibrg.wil be
hold Jri'. the Commission
Chamber, located" M the
-Admidst d" 01-
sces;, =s11 -:Fast- Marion
Measuring 4.02 Inches appeared in The Star, a newspaper published in Cleveland
Street, _- 0* North' Caro
arte„on Tlresday, May t,
County, Shelby, N.C., in issue(s):
wtdch , Imp the,.general
public will Irene en opparto-,
nNy to make comments ie: -
..Ylww'N:s nnmenel_oei. I
Hd - biteard'on Meyr 15,
2o12,e1;8'0W p.m.
MRI Mellon, CIVIC,
Cssveland Camty Mork
Aprf 20, 2012.2tc.
04/20/2012
Name of Account: Cleveland County Finance
Order Number: 54510975
Ad Number: 54576356
Sworn to, and subscribed before me this 20 th day of April, 2012.
AI�NIcCOM S
NOTARY
PUBLIC
�wp COP
r` J\-1m 1!
Tina McCombs, Notary Public
My Commission Expires July 4, 2012

ATA
NC®ENR
North Carolina Department of Environment and Natural Resources
Pat McCrory
Governor
Sam Lockridge
Cleveland County Health Department
250 Fielding Road
Cherryville, NC 28021
Project: Cleveland County Landfill
Division of Mitigation Services Donald R. van der Vaart
Secretary
May 28, 2015
Expiration of Acceptance: November 28, 2015
County: Cleveland
The purpose of this letter is to notify you that the NCDENR 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/441 Certification /CAMA permit 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 to 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 at www.nceep.net.
Based on the information supplied by you in your request to use the DMS, the impacts that may require compensatory mitigation 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 CU Stream (feet)
Location
Cold I Cool
Impact Broad 1 03050105
Wetlands (acres)
Warm Riparian Non - Riparian Coastal Marsh
532 0.32 1 0 I 0
Buffer 1 Buffer II
(Ft') (Ft`)
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.
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 (919) 707 -8915.
?AsManagement ' ely,
B Stanfill
Supervisor
cc: William Elliott, USACE- Asheville
Rebekah Newton, agent
1652 Mall Service Center, Raleigh, North Carolina 27699 -1652
Phone: [phone] Internet, www nceep.net
An Equal Opportumry , Affirmative Acton Employer — Made in part from recycled paper