20110894 Ver 1_Major Variance_20111004

2 0 1 1 08 9 4
Neuse River Buffer
Major Variance Request
Material Recovery LLC C&D Landfill
WCA Waste Corporation
Wake County, North Carolina
SEPTEMBER 2011
Prepared For:
WCA Waste Corporation
Mr. Nick Marotta
421 Raleigh View Road
Raleigh, NC 27610
?D
OCT ' 4 ?011
44QD&W - WATER o ; + )-,
AND STOFt
?H1tG INCH
Prepared By:
David Garrett & Associates
Engineering and Geology
David Garrett & Associates
David Garrett, P.G. P.E.
5105 Harbour Towne Drive
Raleigh, NC 27604
CAROLINA
ECOSYSTEMS
Carolina Ecosystems, Inc.
Phil May
3040 NC 42 West
Clayton, NC 27520
Neuse River Buffer
Major Variance Request
Material Recovery LLC C&D Landfill
WCA Waste Corporation
Wake County, North Carolina
SEPTEMBER 2011
Prepared For:
LWCA?
WCA Waste Corporation
Mr. Nick Marotta
421 Raleigh View Road
Raleigh, NC 27610
Prepared By:
David Garrett & Associates
Engineering and Geology
David Garrett & Associates
David Garrett, P.G. P.E.
5105 Harbour Towne Drive
Raleigh, NC 27604
CAROLINA
ECOSYSTEMS
Carolina Ecosystems, Inc.
Phil May
3040 NC 42 West
Clayton, NC 27520
WCA WASTE CORPORATION
MATERIAL RECOVERY LLC
BROWNFIELD ROAD C&D LANDFILL EXPANSION
NEUSE RIVER BUFFER MAJOR VARIANCE REQUEST
SEPTEMBER 2011
Attachment List
Attachment
1 Major Variance Request Form
2 Figures (see below)
3 Deed Information
4 Alternative Site Study
5 Stormwater Calculations
6 Conceptual Mitigation Plan
7 Delineation Information
8 Regulatory Correspondence
9 Engineering Drawings (see below)
Figures (Attachment 2)
1
2
3
4
Site Location
USGS Map
Site Overview
Delineation Overview
Drawings (Attachment 9)
1 Pre-development Watershed
2 Option 1 - Post Development
3 Option 1 - Temporary Measures
4 Option 1 - Permanent Measures & Impacts
5 Option 2 - Permanent Measures & Impacts
6 Option 3 - Permanent Measures & Impacts
7 Option 4 - Permanent Measures & Impacts
8 Sediment & Erosion Control Details - 1 of 3
9 Sediment & Erosion Control Details - 2 of 3
10 Sediment & Erosion Control Details - 3 of 3
CAROLINA
ECOSYSTEMS, INC.
3040 NC 42 West; Clayton, NC 27520
P:919-606-1065 - F:919-585-5570
October 3, 2011
Ms. Amy Chapman
401 Wetlands Unit
NC Division of Water Quality
1650 Mail Service Center
Raleigh, NC 27699-1650
RE: Request for Major Variance
Neuse River Basin: Nutrient Sensitive Waters Management Strategy: Protection
and Maintenance of Existing Riparian Buffers Rule
Material Recovery LLC Construction & Demolition Landfill Expansion
WCA Waste Corporation
Wake County, North Carolina
Dear Ms. Chapman,
The purpose of this letter and application is to request a major variance from the Neuse River
Basin: Nutrient Sensitive Waters Management Strategy: Protection and Maintenance of Existing
Riparian Buffers Rule (15A NCAC 02B .0233) (Rule) for the above referenced project. This is
requested on behalf of WCA Waste Corporation and in conjunction with David Garrett &
Associates.
This letter provides additional information referenced in the Variance Request Form. Also
enclosed are supporting documentation for the request including site maps, supporting studies,
engineering plans, and stormwater analysis and calculations. We respectfully request your
consideration of this information during your evaluation of this project.
Part 2: Item 1: Description of proposed activity.
The Material Recovery LLC Construction and Demolition (C&D) Landfill (Site) is located on
Brownfield Road in eastern Wake County (Figure 1). The Site is in the Neuse River Basin
(Subbasin 03-04-02). WCA Waste Corporation and Material Recovery LLC have owned the
property since 2001 (Attachment 3). The current landfill was permitted by the NC Division of
Waste Management (NCDWM) in 2002 and has been in operation since 2003.
The Site currently consists of the operational C&D landfill, borrow area, unused pasture land,
and previously disturbed and timbered forested areas. Multiple wetlands and stream channels
exist on the property as presented in Figures 3 and 4. The buffer area proposed to be impacted,
therefore requiring this variance request, is located in the middle of the Site and labeled "SA-
SB". This feature begins as an intermittent stream but quickly transitions to a stream with
Ms. Amy Chapman
October 3, 2011
Page 2 of 11
perennial biology based on current NCDWQ methodology. Riparian wetlands are present along
the channel but concentrated in the lower reaches. The entire watershed for this stream is
contained on the Site.
Project Purpose and Need
The purpose of the Brownfield Road C&D Landfill Expansion is to increase the current
8.3 million cubic yard capacity of the landfill facility by over 9.6 million cubic yards.
This would more than double the current landfill capacity, and provide C&D debris
capacity for the growth and development currently occurring and expected for Wake and
Johnston Counties. WCA collects C&D waste from a five county area, primarily
concentrated in Wake and Johnston Counties. In fact, over 75 percent of the waste
material on the Site was generated from these two counties.
There is a continuous demand for C&D disposal in Wake and Johnston County as well as
the surrounding counties. While the current disposal rate is reduced due to the current
economic circumstances, the long term need for disposal capacity is still present.
Currently, there are four active C&D landfills, including the Site, in Wake County. Of
these, only two are located in the eastern portion of the County. In Johnston County,
only the County Landfill near Smithfield currently accepts C&D waste. WCA, a publicly
traded company, has analyzed the future C&D market in the region and would not be
evaluating additional C&D capacity if the need was not present in the marketplace as the
design and construction of a landfill cell is a significant investment.
Proposed Activity
The Site has an active C&D landfill, the North Disposal Area, and a proposed future
C&D cell, the South Disposal Area. The subject stream and riparian buffer are situated
between these two areas in the center of the Site (Figures 3 & 4). The North and South
Disposal Areas, without any additional expansion, provide approximately 8.3 million
cubic yards of capacity. In order to maximize capacity at the site, the proposed project
involves filling and installing an underdrain through most of the drainage feature. The
area of impact has been minimized, as described in Part 2 Item 3 below, to a practical
point where hydrology of the system can be retained and long term secondary impacts are
accounted for as well as the short term construction impacts.
The North Disposal Area cells would be expanded laterally through the "SA-SB"
drainage and into the South Disposal Area. This lateral expansion is the most feasible,
easiest and most cost effective to construct. This is the preferred method of expansion by
the NC Division of Waste Management, assuming all permits and approvals are in place,
due to the more efficient phasing and construction of the overall landfill. The drainage
would be cleared and grubbed with appropriate sediment and erosion control measures in
place, and an underdrain consisting of aggregate drainage media and filter fabric would
be installed, likely including perforated pipe to convey base flow, contingent upon future
groundwater studies. Once the underdrain or pipe is installed and stable, the area would
Ms. Amy Chapman
October 3, 2011
Page 3 of 11
be brought up to the proposed subgrade and C&D would be disposed in the cells. Upon
reaching the proposed final grades, the landfill would be capped and seeded.
Part 2: Item 3: State reasons why this plan for the proposed activity cannot be practically
accomplished, reduced or reconfigured to better minimize or eliminate disturbance to the
riparian buffers.
The proposed activity is the most practical approach to expansion of the Brownfield Road
landfill when considering multiple factors including:
? Direct and secondary effects of the Site on streams, wetlands, and riparian buffers.
? Constructability of the landfill cells.
? Changes to the long term drainage patterns and sub-watersheds on the site
? Long term effects of the avoidance alternative and other alternative landfill expansions.
? Potential off-site disposal capacity and alternative sites.
The evaluation of options for avoiding or reducing impacts was considered through evaluation of
off-site and on-site alternatives.
Off-Site Alternatives
Off-site alternatives evaluation involved an intensive GIS analysis of potential landfill
sites in Wake and Johnston County, the primary service area for the Site. A full report of
this analysis is included in Attachment 4. A parcel by parcel screening of both counties
was performed using criteria established either by existing conditions (minimum parcel
size), regulatory requirements (i.e. offsets from certain resources and parcel lines), and
industry requirements (i.e. distances to primary roads, schools) related to the feasibility of
establishing a new site.
The primary criteria for off-site alternative screening were the conditions put in place
through the 2007 Solid Waste Act. These newly established restrictions include site
location restrictions and stream buffer requirements that place a severe limitation on the
amount of new sites available for landfill development. Only existing and expansion of
existing landfills are exempt from this rule. The restrictions are listed in Table 1.
Table 1: Solid Waste Siting Restrictions
Resource Landfill Restriction
Wildlife Refuges None within 5-miles
State Parks None within 2-miles
Gamelands None within 1-mile
Water Supply Watersheds None in WSI or Critical Areas of WSII-IV
Public Water Supply None within 500 feet
Floodplains None within 100-year floodplain
Wetlands 200-foot buffer from wetlands
Streams 200-foot buffer from perennial streams
50-foot buffer from intermittent streams
Ms. Amy Chapman
October 3, 2011
Page 4 of 11
Only 26 parcels met the initial screening requirements (Attachment 4: Table 2). Of
those only 13 parcels, combined to yield 11 alternative sites, could practically house a
landfill when the configuration of the site was taken into consideration. Other
constraints, such as current site usage, potential streams and wetlands, shape of the
parcels, and environmental justice considerations, practically eliminated the remaining
sites. Based on initial feedback from the NCDWQ, a more thorough evaluation of the top
sites was undertaken. Five parcels, combined into four sites, were identified as potential
candidates. These sites were chosen due to the presence of only one constraint based
primarily on mapping (i.e. soil survey streams) or environmental justice issues that could
be addressed. Other parcels had more significant constraints that eliminated them from
consideration including the shape of the site not allowing a landfill or non-contiguous
acreage available for development. Attempts were made to gain access to each of the
four selected sites, and a more detailed evaluation of the site using current GIS data was
performed.
Site A (Parcels 1 & 3)
Site A was further evaluated through landowner contact and GIS analysis. No response
was received from the landowner contact. Study of aerial and color infrared photography
shows some indications of potential wetlands. A cemetery is mapped on the Johnston
County soil survey within the boundaries of the site. In addition, the adjacent block to
the southwest has over 50% minority population, which could be an environmental
justice issue for a new landfill site. Furthermore, the site is located in the extreme
southern portion of Johnston County at the periphery of the practical service area for
WCA. This would drastically increase hauling costs if a facility was sited in this area.
Based on the potential environmental constraints, possible environmental justice issue,
higher hauling costs, and the lack of interest or response from the landowner, this site
was not deemed suitable as a viable alternative landfill site.
Site B
Site B was further evaluated through landowner contact and GIS analysis. No response
was received from the landowner contact. This site could require State Route 2534 be
closed to provide the equivalent air space to the current WCA site. Multiple areas of
wetland soils and two potential stream channels of equivalent size to the proposed impact
are mapped on the site. The site is located on the eastern edge of Johnston County, which
would increase hauling costs from the practical service area significantly. Two nearby
Census blocks are listed as having over 50% minority populations.
Based on the potential environmental constraints and environmental justice issue, higher
hauling costs, possible need to close a state maintained road, and the lack of interest or
response from the landowner, this site was not deemed suitable as a viable alternative
landfill site.
Ms. Amy Chapman
October 3, 2011
Page 5 of 11
Site G
Site G was further evaluated through landowner contact and GIS analysis. No response
was received from the landowner contact. This site is relatively small and would likely
require a road closure of State Route 1723 to create adequate disposal capacity. In
addition, two drainages within the potential disposal area may contain wetlands. A
residence is also present in the center of the site off SR 1723. The Census block south of
the site is listed as having over 50% minority population.
Based on the potential environmental constraints and environmental justice issue,
possible need to close a state maintained road, and the lack of interest or response from
the landowner, this site was not deemed suitable as a viable alternative landfill site.
Site I
Site I was further evaluated through landowner contact and GIS analysis. Access was
denied by the landowner for this study. Therefore, the site was deemed not available as a
future landfill facility.
On-Site Alternatives
On-site landfill expansion is not feasible in any direction except between the North and
South Disposal Areas. Expansion to the north would involve stream and wetland impacts
of similar or greater magnitude, and encroach onto an additional property. Expansion to
the west is not feasible due to the presence of larger and more significant stream channels
and a residential neighborhood. Expansion to the south would involve impacts to a larger
stream and wetland system. The area east of the current property is owned by the City of
Raleigh and used for spray irrigation, therefore not available for landfill development.
On-site alternatives were examined using several designs for the landfill expansion, as
presented in the attached conceptual plans (Drawings W4 to W7). The three alternatives
examined are summarized in Table 3.
Table 3
Landfill Expansion Alternatives
Added Added Impacts
Alternative Capacity
(%) Capacity
(mcy) Wetlands
(ac) Streams
(lf) Buffers
(s ft)
1: Proposed Project 100% 9.6 0.45 1893 153,767
2: Minimized: Variance 47% 4.5 0.05 935 54,014
3: Minimized: No variance 25% 2.4 0.04 265 6,795
4: No Impacts 26% 2.5 0 0 0
ac = acres; mcy= million cubic yards; if = linear feet; sq ft = square feet
Ms. Amy Chapman
October 3, 2011
Page 6 of 11
Alternative 1: Proposed Project
The proposed project (Drawing W4) minimizes impacts to streams, wetlands, and
riparian buffers while considering the long-term effects of the proposed development.
The proposed configuration retains the majority of the existing drainage patterns on site,
and provides adequate room for stormwater treatment through BMPs described in
Attachment 5. As shown in Drawings WI and W2, the watersheds to the unimpacted
streams on the site have been retained to the greatest extent practical as compared to
existing conditions.
While significant impacts to streams, wetlands, and buffers would result from this option,
the other configurations would have potentially similar amounts of long term effects on
jurisdictional resources due to the factors described below. This proposed option
accounts for those future effects, and provides compensatory mitigation for all impacts
anticipated for the life of the facility. Other alternatives reduce impacts, but may have
similar long-term effects without the compensatory mitigation and associated
environmental improvements.
Alternative 2: Minimized Impacts - Variance Required
Alternative 2, Drawing W5, reduces the additional landfill capacity to 47% of the
proposed full scale project and avoids the stronger perennial section of the stream and the
majority of the riparian wetlands associated with it. This option has similar long-term
effects as compared to the proposed project. Stormwater from the site would be collected
at the low point on the west side of the landfill and could not be routed upstream.
Therefore, the wetland and stream system would experience a drastic change in
hydrologic input upon build out of the landfill, as its watershed would be reduced by over
90%. This reduction in hydrology could potentially remove jurisdiction from all or part
of these resources.
Alternate configurations of this option were also evaluated including further reduction in
capacity to allow for a stormwater basin adjacent, and discharging, to the wetland and
stream segment. This was not considered a practical design alternative as the landfill
capacity would have to be reduced to the extent that it would be similar to Alternative 3.
Alternative 3: Minimized Impacts - No Variance Required
This alternative, shown in Drawing W6, would include some impacts to wetlands,
streams, and buffers, but would not require a Major Variance as no Zone 1 impacts would
occur. A loss of almost 75% of the additional landfill disposal capacity would result.
Buffer impacts would be limited to grading and revegetating within Zone 2. This may
require a minor variance if the grading is considered landfill (although the waste margin
would be outside the buffer) and therefore not allowable in the buffer. Further avoidance
of the buffer would be evaluated as the design is developed. This option yields similar
long-term results as Alternative 2. Without reducing capacity on the South Disposal area
enough to allow a stormwater BMP adjacent to the stream, the long term hydrologic
Ms. Amy Chapman
October 3, 2011
Page 7 of 11
change would reduce flow and potentially eliminate jurisdiction of the subject stream and
wetland, as the watershed would be reduced by over 75%. Reducing the landfill area to
allow for a stormwater basin higher in the subject watershed would yield similar capacity
to Alternative 4.
Alternative 4: No Jurisdictional Impacts
Avoidance of all impacts would include reconfiguring the landfill as shown in Drawing
W7 to avoid all wetlands, streams, and buffers on the site. This would make the landfill
capacity so small as to be almost infeasible for expansion. The resulting loss of almost
76% of additional disposal capacity would result in the need for a new facility in the
future. As discussed above, a new facility would be difficult at best to site, permit, and
design without similar impacts to those proposed. Multiple smaller facilities are not cost
effective due to new financial requirements, and would result in higher disposal fees
being passed on to the construction industry, which is already suffering under the current
economy.
Part 2: Item 5: Please provide an explanation of the following:
(1) The practical difficulties or hardships that would result from the strict application of this Rule.
There are several practical difficulties that result from the strict application of the Rule. Much of
this information is presented above in the description of purpose, need, and alternatives for the
project. The hardships are evaluated below as described in the Rule (15A NCAC 0213.0233
(9)(a)(i)):
A. If the applicant complies with the provisions of this Rule, he/she can secure no
reasonable return from, nor make reasonable use of, his/her property. Merely proving
that the variance would permit a greater profit from the property shall not be considered
adequate justification for a variance. Moreover, the Division or delegated local
authority shall consider whether the variance is the minimum possible deviation from the
terms of this Rule that shall make reasonable use of the property possible.
The current plan for the property is disposal in two locations, the North and South
Disposal Areas (Figure 3). This limits landfill capacity to 8.2 MCY. The proposed
expansion would result in a reasonable and efficient use of both the disposal areas in one
landfill, increasing capacity by 9.6 MCY. A detailed explanation of the economic
hardship is provided in Item (3) below. While the proposed project does increase
capacity and profit from the Site, the additional space is critical to fill the need for future
C&D capacity as it is almost infeasible to rely on a new "green site".
As mentioned in the discussion of alternatives, the landfill could expand without
requiring the variance, but this was deemed impractical due to the potential secondary
effects of this configuration and the sizeable loss of over 47% of the total landfill
capacity. There would be an additional need to locate and permit new facilities, which
are difficult at best to develop.
Ms. Amy Chapman
October 3, 2011
Page 8 of 11
B. The hardship results from application of this Rule to the property rather than from other
factors such as deed restrictions or other hardship.
There is no other restriction on the proposed landfill that would restrict the expansion,
besides the Rule and Clean Water Act permitting. The project is housed entirely within
the current facility boundary for the site. No other deed restrictions apply to the property.
C. The hardship is due to the physical nature of the applicant's property, such as its size,
shape, or topography, which is different from that of neighboring property.
The key difference between the Site and neighboring properties is that it already contains
a permitted and constructed C&D landfill. This differs in two regards from other
properties. First, it addresses the constraints placed on new sites as discussed earlier by
being exempt from new siting requirements. Also, the existing landfill allows for a
piggy-back approach where three dimensional volumes can be increased by the existence
of the current cell to build higher and gain more volume.
D. The applicant did not cause the hardship by knowingly or unknowingly violating this
Rule.
WCA has not knowingly or unknowingly violated the Rule. At the current time, WCA is
proceeding through the application process and will not be constructing any landfill cells
without prior approval from NCDENR.
E. The applicant did not purchase the property after the effective date of the Rule and then
request an appeal.
The property was purchased in 2001 as shown in the deed in Attachment 3. While this
does not comply with this point, there are extenuating circumstances that WCA would
like to be considered during the evaluation of this request. Since the time of that
purchase, the regulatory landscape of the solid waste industry has undergone a dramatic
change. First, in 2005 a moratorium was placed on all new landfill sites. Following this
period in 2007, a new set of regulations was enacted that severely restrict potential
landfill sites. As shown by the application of these restrictions in the Alternative Site
Study (Attachment 4), there appear to be no other available sites in Wake or Johnston
Counties that suit the development of a similar sized facility. WCA took over this site
from Materials Recovery LLC. In doing so at the time, there was no plan to fill between
the North and South Disposal Areas. This is documented by several submittals to
NCDENR Division of Solid Waste showing the two separate landfill areas. As
regulations have tightened, WCA has had to re-evaluate the Site to attempt to maximize
capacity due to the lack of practical alternatives.
F. The hardship is unique to the applicant's property, rather than the result of conditions
that are widespread. If other properties are equally subject to the hardship created in the
restriction, then granting a variance would be a special privilege denied to others, and
would not promote equal justice.
Ms. Amy Chapman Page 9 of 11
October 3, 2011
The property is unique in that it contains an existing C&D landfill that is constrained only
by these rules. There are only four active C&D landfills in Wake County, and only two
in the eastern portion of the County.
(2) How these difficulties or hardships result from conditions that are unique to the property involved.
See Item (2) F above.
(3) If economic hardship is the major consideration, then include a specific explanation of the
economic hardships and the proportion of the hardship to the entire value of the project.
The economic hardships related to this facility must be viewed in context to the solid waste
industry and particularly the C&D landfill industry in the region and must consider the long term
rather than immediate gain from an individual property. While there is still reasonable use of the
property as a landfill, based on the fact that there are existing permitted facilities on the site, the
long term need for C&D capacity will eventually fill the landfill. In recent years, public
perception and regulatory changes have made siting a new landfill, whether municipal solid
waste or C&D waste, extremely difficult. This is evident in the fact that no new C&D facilities
have been permitted in Wake County since the early 2000's (this facility is the most recent new
C&D landfill, permitted in 2003). The difficulty in acquiring an appropriate site was increased
dramatically with the implementation of the 2007 Solid Waste Act. As can be seen in the
Alternative Site Study (Attachment 4), suitable sites are extremely difficult to find, and if
suitable, may not be available for development as a C&D landfill.
This long term lack of available sites alters the economics of individual existing landfill
facilities. Existing sites are exempt from the new siting requirements, and in general expansions
of existing sites are viewed differently by the public and potential neighbors than a new site. The
local approval process, and public opinion, greatly affects the chance of a site being developed as
several (1-3) local quasi-judicial approvals are required early in the site development process.
There are numerous examples of sites being stopped in the local approval process both recently
in the news and in the previous decade. WCA has limited potential to find viable alternative
sites in the service area of the Site. Therefore, the economic hardship associated with the loss in
capacity is multiplied by the fact that without an eventual new cell, they would have to either
shut down their operations (including hauling) in the area or transport waste to a much further
removed site. This would increase hauling costs, which would be passed on to the public and
specifically the construction industry. This economic hardship is therefore not limited to WCA
but could affect the regional construction industry as a whole.
Two other key points are provided below as they relate to justifications required by the Rule
(15A NCAC 0213.0233 (9) (a)(ii-iii))
(ii) The variance is in harmony with the general purpose and intent of the State's riparian
buffer protection requirements and preserves its spirit.
The general purpose and intent of the Rule would be preserved in the granting of this
variance for several reasons. The Rule was implemented to protect riparian buffers and
Ms. Amy Chapman
October 3, 2011
Page 10 of 11
ensure that control and treatment of stormwater generated from new impervious surfaces.
The proposed facility will have low impervious surface percentage, which based on initial
calculations would not require stormwater BMPs. These measures are being provided even
though they are not required. The remaining 399,657 square feet of buffers on the Site have
been avoided and will be preserved. Impervious surfaces on the Site are well below any
regulatory thresholds, and also below NCDENR recommended limitations for the protection
of the aquatic environment. Nutrient loading calculations (Attachment 5) for the proposed
facility are below allowable thresholds. Rigorous maintenance and monitoring requirements
will be implemented to protect water quality as described in the next section.
Avoidance of the subject riparian buffers would not preserve the spirit of the Rule. The long
term effect of construction of Option 4 would likely change the hydrology of the stream and
buffer system, and could entirely remove jurisdiction in the long term. Rather than waiting
for the effects of such actions, WCA is proposing to provide compensatory mitigation for
these secondary impacts and also gain critical disposal volume. Therefore rather than just a
loss of jurisdiction in the long term, there would be an associated improvement of other
riparian buffers both on the site and in the watershed as described in the conceptual
mitigation plan (Attachment 6).
(iii) In granting the variance, the public safety and welfare have been assured water
quality has been protected, and substantial justice has been done.
The proposed facility includes numerous measures to protect water quality. It should be
noted that this facility is a C&D landfill, not a municipal solid waste landfill, which itself
reduces potential water quality issues. The Environmental Protection Agency and NCDWM
have recognized that these facilities do not warrant the same contamination potential through
reduced monitoring requirements at C&D facilities. The facility will be monitored and
maintained for 30 years after closure. Given the 46-year remaining lifespan of the facility
(14 years as permitted and 32 years with the proposed full expansion), the Site will be
regulated and maintained for approximately 76 years, including 30 years of post-closure care
required by the Solid Waste regulations. As stated above, since the closed landfill will be
maintained in a stand of vegetation, the amount of impervious surface on the Site is
extremely low.
BMPs such as detention basins, grass swales, and level spreaders will be implemented as
shown on the attached plans and described in the conceptual stormwater plan. A more
detailed plan will be developed during the final design of the facility and submitted to
NCDWQ to review during the 404/401 permitting process. Post-construction nutrient
loading rates for the Site are well below pre-construction rates and current regulatory
thresholds (Attachment 5). Additionally, NCDWM regulations require more conservative
design standards in comparison to the Rule. For instance, their minimum required design
storm is the 25 year-24 hour event.
Mitigation for the proposed wetland, stream, and buffer impacts will be provided as agreed
upon during the development of the 404/401 permit application. The conceptual mitigation
plan proposed in Attachment 6 maximizes on site water quality improvements through
Ms. Amy Chapman
October 3, 2011
Page 11 of 11
stream and buffer restoration and enhancement. Additional preservation of 4,260 linear feet
of stream and 399,657 square feet of buffer will further protect water quality.
The proposed facility design and operation, as well as the good compliance history of the
existing facility, provide ample evidence that public safety and welfare have been considered
and ensured for the future. The facility is subject to frequent inspections by NCDENR, and
must be maintained and monitored for 30 years after closure. Financial assurance
instruments (required by law) are in place to guarantee that this occurs.
The need for the landfill to provide disposal options for new construction in the Triangle area
has been discussed earlier. In addition, the facility would be able to provide disaster disposal
capacity in the event of hurricanes, tornados, or other unfortunate events. The proximity of
the landfill to ongoing and future development in Wake and Johnston County will not only
reduce hauling costs, but also reduce the amount of truck traffic that would otherwise have to
travel to alternative sites along public roads. This reduction in truck traffic increases public
safety. The reduced hauling and disposal costs would be passed along to a construction
industry attempting to recover from a significant financial crisis. In addition, the lower
hauling distances would reduce carbon emissions in Wake County, which is in non-
attainment for ozone and is a maintenance area for carbon monoxide.
The welfare of the local populace has also been considered, not just the general population of
the service area. The proposed facility will only operate during normal working hours
(typically 7 am to 4 pm Monday through Friday), limiting noise disturbance to daytime when
less local residents are present. The operations plan includes measures to reduce noise to
minimal levels. Required buffers from the property line of 300 feet will be maintained.
Visual screening will be planted around the landfill if required to limit aesthetic disturbance
to the local community. The City of Raleigh owns most of the land in the surround area,
while a residential neighborhood is present to the west. No known complaints about the
existing operation have been made by the residents.
We would appreciate your consideration of this information during the review of this variance
request, and look forward to your favorable review of this project. Please contact me at your
convenience if you have any questions or require further information.
Sincerely,
Carolina Ecosystems, Inc.
Philip May
Senior Environmental Scientist
Cc: Nick Marotta, Regional Engineer, WCA Waste Corporation
Dennis Gehle, Site Manager, Material Recovery LLC
David Garrett, P.G. P.E.
ATTACHMENT 1
Major Variance Request Form
A NCDENR
North Carolina Department of Environment and Natural Resources
Division of Water Quality
Beverly Eaves Perdue Coleen H. Sullins Dee Freeman
Governor Director Secretary
Variance Request Form
(For Minor and Major Variances)
Protection and Maintenance of Riparian Areas Rules
NOTE: This form may be photocopied for use as an original.
Check the appropriate box below:
X Major Variance
Minor Variance
Please identify which Riparian Area Protection Rule applies (Note-this must be one of
North Carolina's four buffered river basins. The River Bain map is available at
http://h2o.enr.state.nc.us/admin/maps/.)
a Neuse River Basin: Nutrient Sensitive Waters Management Strategy
Protection and Maintenance of Riparian Areas Rule (15A NCAC 02B.0233)
? Tar-Pamlico River Basin: Nutrient Sensitive Waters Management Strategy
Protection and Maintenance of Riparian Areas Rule (15A NCAC 02B.0259)
Part 1: General Information
(Please include attachments if the room provided is insufficient.)
1. Applicant's name (the corporation, individual, etc. who owns the property):. WCA Waste
2. Print owner/Signing official (person legally responsible for the property and its compliance)
Name: Nick Ma-t ? a
Title: Regional Engineer
Street address: 421 Raleigh View Road
City, State, Zip: Raleigh, NC 27610
Telephone: [phone]
Fax: )
3. Contact person who can answer questions about the proposed project:
Version 6: July 2009
Name: Phil May
Telephone: [phone]
Fax: [phone]
Email: [e-mail]
4. Project name (Subdivision, facility, or establishment name - consistent with project name on
plans, specifications, letters, operation and maintenance agreements, etc.):
Material Recovery C&D Landfill Expansion
5. Project location:
Street address: 2600 Brownfield Road
City, State, Zip: [Ueigh, NC 27610
County: Wake
Latitude/longitude: 35.707366 N -78.504706 W
6. Date property was purchased: 2/12/2001
7. Directions to site from nearest major intersection (Attach an 8'/z x 11 copy of the USGS
topographic map indicating the location of the site). Fnon) Auburn-Knigludale Road and Battle
Bridge Road intersection go east on Battle Bridge approximately 1 mile. Turn left on Brownfield
Road at the City of Raleigh Wastewater Treatment Plant. The site entrance is on the right.
Stream to be impacted by the proposed activity:
Stream name (for unnamed streams label as "UT" to the nearest named stream):
UT to Neuse River
9. Which of the following permits/approvals will be required or have been received already for this
project?
Required: Received: Date received:
X
X
X
Permit Type:
CAMA Major
CAMA Minor
401 Certification/404 Permit
On-site Wastewater Permit
NPDES Permit (including stormwater)
Non-discharge Permit
Water Supply Watershed Variance
Erosion/Sedimentation Control
Others (specify) 1' -1 C/1' i C"
Part 2: Proposed Activity
(Please include attachments if the room provided is insufficient.)
1. Description of proposed activity [Also, please attach a map of sufficient detail (such as a plat map
or site plan in Adobe (pdf) format) to accurately delineate the boundaries of the land to be utilized
in carrying out the activity, the location and dimension of any disturbance in the riparian buffers
associated with the activity, and the extent of riparian buffers on the land. Include the area of
Variance Request Form, page 2
Version 6 July 2009
buffer impact in ft2.: See cover letter.
2. Fill in the table below to identify the square footage of impact to Zones 1 & 2 in the protected
riparian buffers and the required mitigation (Fill in the impacts portion of the table, even if
mitigation is not required):
Buffer Impact
Zone of Impact in Number Purpose for Multiplier Required
Impact Square Feet (Indicate on the Impact Mitigation
Plan Sheet)
Zone 1 92,260 W4 Landfill cell 3 276,780
Zone 2 61,507 W4 Landfill cell 1.5 92,261
Total 153,767 369,041
*Zone 1 extends out 30 feet perpendicular from the most landward limit of the top of bank or the rooted herbaceous
vegetation; Zone 2 extends an additional 20 feet from the edge of Zone 1.
3. State reasons why this plan for the proposed activity cannot be practically accomplished, reduced
or reconfigured to better minimize or eliminate disturbance to the riparian buffers:
See cover letter.
4. Description of any best management practices to be used to control impacts associated with the
proposed activity (i.e., control of runoff from impervious surfaces to provide diffuse flow, re-
planting vegetation or enhancement of existing vegetation, etc.):
wee (;Over icacs
5. Please provide an explanation of the following:
(1) The practical difficulties or hardships that would result from the strict application of this Rule.
See cover letter.
(2) How these difficulties or hardships result from conditions that are unique to the property
involved. See cover letter.
Variance Request Form, page 3
Version 6 July 2009
(3) If economic hardship is the major consideration, then include a specific explanation of the
economic hardships and the proportion of the hardship to the entire value of the project.
See cover letter,
Part 3: Stormwater
Provide a description of all best management practices (BMPs) that will be used to control nutrients
and sedimentation impacts associated with the proposed activity. Please ensure to include all
applicable operation & maintenance agreements and worksheets for the proposed BMPs. Also,
include the BMPs on your plan sheets.. :Il oLn2orary measures include grass lined swales, silt fence,
stotte uat iN, anci seuitttettt basifis pet Vv ake County requirements. Permanent measures include grass-
lined swales with check dams as needed, one or more wet detention basins with top discharge, a
sediment foreba , an aquatic shelf, capability to contain first 1.5 inches of runoff with a 5-7 day
release, capability to hold a 25-year 24-hour storm without overtopping the emergency spillway,
routing by Chainsaw method (reference Malcom); discharges will be across rip-rap (temporary)
level spreaders (permanent). Additional information is presented in Attachment 5. Note that the
proposed project's nitrogen loading is below 3.6 lbs/ac/yr due to the extremely low impervious area
associated with the development.
1. Attach a description of how diffuse flow will be maintained through the protected riparian
buffers. Please ensure to include all applicable operation & maintenance agreements and
worksheets for the proposed diffuse flow measure(s). Also, include the diffuse flow measure(s)
on your plan sheets.
2. What will be the annual nitrogen load contributed by this site after development in pounds per
acre per year without structural BMPs (stormwater pond, wetland, infiltration basin, etc)? Attach
a detailed plan for all proposed structural stormwater BMPs.
Drainage
Basin Size of
drainage
basin
(ac) Post-development
nitrogen 6 loading
rate without BMPs4
(lbs/ac/yr) BMP nitrogen6
removal
efficiency5
(%) Final
nitrogen6
loading rate
(lbs/ac/yr) Final
nitrogen6
loading
from
drainage
basin (lbs)
1 36.2 2.08 NA NA 75.4
2 85.4 1.48 NA NA 126.2
3 64.2 1.11 NA NA 71.4
4 226 1.86 NA NA 419.8
5 12.1 2.6 NA NA 31.5
6 142.2 2.19 NA NA 311.1
Totals ------ ------ ------ 1035.4
4 Attach calculations and references.
5 Attach calculations and references.
6 Include Phosphorus in the Tar-Pamlico Basin
Variance Request Form, page 4
Version 6 July 2009
4. Attach all applicable supplement form(s) and Inspection and Maintenance (I&M) Form(s) to this
completed application. The applicable supplemental form(s) and I&M form(s) for the proposed
BMPs noted in your application can be downloaded from the following website:
ht!p://h2o.enr.state.nc.us/su/bMp-forms.htm
Part 4: Proposed Impacts and Mitigation
Provide a description of how mitigation will be achieved at your site pursuant to 15A NCAC 213.0242
for the Neuse Basin and 15A NCAC 213.060 for the Tar-Pamlico Basin.
If buffer restoration is the method you are requesting, be sure to include a detailed planting plan to
include plant type, date of plantings, the date of the one-time fertilization in the protected riparian
buffers and a plan sheet showing the proposed location of the plantings. A guide to buffer restoration
can be downloaded at the following website: htti)://www.neeen.net/news/renorts/buffers.ndf
If payment into a buffer restoration fund is how you plan to achieve your mitigation requirement, then
include an acceptance letter from the mitigation bank you propose to use stating they have the
mitigation credits available for the mitigation requested.
Part 5: Deed Restrictions
By your signature in Part 6 of this application, you certify that all structural stormwater BMPs
required by this variance shall be located in recorded stormwater easements, that the easements will
run with the land, that the easements cannot be changed or deleted without concurrence from the
State, and that the easements will be recorded prior to the sale of any lot.
Part 6: Applicant's Certification
I, (print or type name of person listed in
Part I, Item 2), certify that the information included on this permit application form is correct, that the
project will be constructed in conformance with the approved plans and that the deed restrictions in
accordance with Part 5 of this form will be recorded with all required permit conditions.
Signature:
Date:
Title:
Part 7: Plan Sheets
Be sure to include a copy of all of your completed application form, plan sheets and maps in Adobe
(pdf) format on a CD or floppy disk.
Variance Request Form, page 5
Version 6 July 2009
Part 8: Checklist
A complete application submittal consists of the following components. Incomplete submittals will
be returned to the applicant. The complete variance request submittal must be received 90 days prior
to the EMC meeting at which you wish the request to be heard. Initial below to indicate that the
necessary information has been provided.
Applicant's Item
Initials
• Original and two copies of the Variance Request Form and the attachments
listed below.
• A vicinity map of the project (see Part 1, Item 5)
• Narrative demonstration of the need for a variance (see Part 2)
• A detailed narrative description of stormwater treatment/management (see Part
4)
• Calculations supporting nitrogen (phosphorus in the Tar-Pamlico Basin)
loading estimates (see Part 4)
• Calculations and references supporting nitrogen (phosphorus in the Tar-
Pamlico Basin) removal from proposed BMPs (see Part 4)
• Location and details for all proposed structural stormwater BMPs (see Part 4)
• Three copies of the applicable Supplement Form(s) and I&M Form(s) for each
BMP and/or narrative for each innovative BMP (see Part 4)
• Three copies of plans and specifications, including:
0 Development/Project name
0 Engineer and firm
0 Legend and north arrow
0 Scale (1" = 50' is preferred)
0 Revision number & date
0 Mean high water line (if applicable)
0 Dimensioned property/project boundary
0 Location map with named streets or NC State Road numbers
0 Original contours, proposed contours, spot elevations, finished floor
elevations
0 Details of roads, parking, cul-de-sacs, sidewalks, and curb and gutter
0 Footprint of any proposed buildings or other structures
0 Wetlands delineated, or a note on plans that none exist
0 Existing drainage (including off-site), drainage easements, pipe sizes,
runoff calculations
0 Drainage basins delineated
0 Perennial and intermittent streams, ponds, lakes, rivers and estuaries
0 Location of forest vegetation along the streams, ponds, lakes, rivers and
estuaries
Variance Request Form, page 6
Version 6 July 2009
ATTACHMENT 2
Figures
0 60 Miles
I
I

e
O
Ba
9
SITE
0
0
a

a
O
on

i ?
9
- N
o (D A
0.5 0 0.5 Miles o
.c
EME"MMMMOMI I Z?? ?
Data Sources: Figure: 1 Site Location
CAROLINA NCDOT Primary Roads
EGOSYSTEms - Wake & Johnston Co. Major Variance Request
Municipal Boundaries - 2008 Material Recovery C&D Landfill Expansion
Date: 09/16/2011 USGS 1:24,000 Hydrography WCA Waste Corporation
- HUC 03020201 Wake County, NC
?JI ? s

,r
I
V-f J 41!
1I ?sllI,
? 1 i 1' f
?_-??'? it ly: ?` ? ? 1 •Z__ _ __
s _ ti? P.; 7 f 1 f ' '!
I In-I
j :$ Z'r? fhh. ?¦ ti"h.fr rl z r' ' f} •`?. ` il??\ Jj
??
?' ???,i ?1??? f'f., ? `? -P? '??} ?I Jir ?Y.1 rr ';? - Jslll •.r?
r 1 a 1? 7j=r ? + III , i +
! i ? 1??. a'? : J I ? i ? r"-. j•-va? _ . i ? I `-_ 14 ? ? 1 :` C. I ..1 ?;* /? h 111 r'-"7 y- I•:
N va

.
? N1?'
???i - ' i

?!?

"n 7rJ?
I
S.N )? 4
1.1.?•, r?J•
l ?1 1 w

x .. I
.

"-` i
' ? _. J_ -
•? ; ?,t
is=
?
^ f ? +
f? ff r
,I LJ
. a • ?
71 1 ? '????! (J?4?y
, +i
?.
r.? r. l
.

??f' §_??'?? i , _-,?-?•w__ :mil ?i I Nr_._•-??
- - ?: =••; _ _ ,r=te ' J' ° ` ? l ?
7ri? 1rf
r ?' 1 lt_ •? ?
--??ti 'a; / R'' r,?`E /J? :? ??r1?4" [. I/??Ig•r?'?'(T } ?'lrf. , ` `? _. ?'., ;y ` ?i y r„ ? , f f FFrrI?+I ',?
•\ 7 `f fr .!`?`? µ a `, fr. ?° ` + ??`- • r / If l+ ' !}5j ' y ti? f\` l?I'1 1 f 1 1f 4
? 1 E- t? S r,?,r,? I_'' .? tr ?,'„ s, 11 ? I; ? ?"?? , -'l ' '¦ u a R J ' ,r
?' y r, w?' Y { f a
`-?? ` ?! I .s i ?,?? 1 , `>??? " It' ?' J 't` 's~?Z 1s 1' ht1 .., .I . I ??Ir ? I - I'. •(?_ w ? , , ?1 ¦ x I I
?? l'?„ ? ? 1_?y «?.Y,? ??'? -U?`?,,.?'! ,i , t??r;?]' ? ?/;!d ?4:' ?.7% 1, ? •,' ?.`?;,?.;L I`'??=; ;?', , ' ?! ????r` m, I-i. 1t ir,r ? `?, -
?7fe. ? r„I ? ?..',. ',• ??? , ? 1?f ?. r ?, ?. ti.. jl. i'?1s'; /'I ? ?rfff'fl ?I, f'??
( rJ r t • i 1 a r?=? • 1 r _?f 171 .-, v? rrr-
r ? ¦' ? L ??i 1.??t1 ?? ? x? •?f ??='r_.?;??-_,? `t f?.?I?.?' I.,,J ? n; a.r }, ?- ,j: ;?'`?JI''Ej"`
s' ?Yrr ? ? '`??? ? e-f? ? 7r, ? ?.-1? ?i,• ,r??,: ill -
1000 0 1000 Feet N Figure: 2 USGS Map
CAROLINA
ECOSYSTEMS Major Variance Request
Data Sources: Material Recovery C&D Landfill Expansion
Date: 09/16/11 USGS 1:24,000 Quads: A WCA Waste Corporation
- Clayton & Garner NC Wake County, NC
r
L `
JI?• rat
??-.ff 14L?
0
SH

SD

O
O
I ql,,?
CAROLINA 200 0 200 400 Feet N
ECOSYSTEMS
Date: 09/16/11 Data Sources:
- 2010 Delineation (submeter GPS)
0
Wetland
Freshwater Marsh
Headwater Forest
- Seep
Surface Waters
- Pond .. -"' Stream
Buffers
Zone 1 Zone 2
Figure 3: Delineation Overview
Major Variance Request
Material Recovery C&D Landfill Expansion
WCA Waste Corporation
Wake County, NC
Buffer-Zone 1 Buffer - Zone 2 Ponds Streams Wetlands
SyV 3
d_ p r ? dlS 1 _ 4 ?.
te_
r K..1Y
u a]
A -5
a
{ ? A r I.f
A. I
r
r
off
y??'!C LYE `? •i. _ _ .....__ _ ? ??S° 2!. ? .:,.?j ' 1
i '" r a a
Jip
1
North Disposal Area
c1 k rt
-r ,F??• ? 6 '? r x K_ wam
P. W w04,
4 411, ?Sx}? "tae, X11??
r.+,?d
k Y M ??y{? q?p
?Ey wi, South Disposal Area
3
?s 4, Rte? 'Y ? / yc -
V
y?. +aL ? xis \5 • 'Z ? .? / _
?-1dC 1 4c ? •ntI ? 4 3 ,y 'R f?? ,fir -y. ? ?,? k {
?r '&°r
'l
°a ?i ss s m' 3 ..r .•
?
5
?.
200 0 200 Feet N Figure: 4 Site Overview
CAROLINA
ECOSYSTEMS Major Variance Request
A Material Recovery C&D Landfill Expansion
Date: 09/16/11 Data Sources: WCA Waste Corporation
2005 Wake Co. Aerial Photography Wake County, NC
ATTACHMENT 3
Deed Information
North Carolina Secretary of State
North Carolina
Scanf,ed by ?a_?----Pa e 1 of 1
r Wi (fin t 1271 00 38Z?#
Elaine F. Marshall ? EPARTM ENT OF THE
Secretary SECRETARY OF STATE
PO Box 29622 Raleigh, NC 27626-0622 [phone]
CORPORATIONS
Click here to:
Date: 12117/2007
Corporations Home
Search By Corporate Name
Search For New Corporation
Search By Registered Agent
Important Notice
Corporations FAQ
Homeowners' Association FAQ
Tobacco Manufacturers
Dissolution Reports
Non-Profit Reports
Verify Certification
Online Annual Reports
LINKS & LEGISLATION
KBBE B2B Annual Reports
SOSID Number Correction
2001 Bill Summaries
1999 Senate Bills
Annual Reports 1997
Corporations 1997
Register for E-Procurement
Dept. of Revenue
ONLINE ORDERS
Start An Order
New Payment Procedures
CONTACT US
Corporations Division
Secretary of State's web site
TOOLS
Secretary of State Home
Secretary of State Site Map
Printable Page
View Document Filings 1
7) Print apre-populated Annual Report Form I Annual Report Count I File an
Annual Report I
Corporation Names
Name Name Type
NC Material Recovery, LLC Legal
Limited Liability Company Information
SOSID:
Status:
Date Formed:
Citizenship:
State of Inc.:
Duration:
Registered Agent
0564770
Current-Active
9/21/2000
Domestic
NC
perpetual
Agent Name:
Registered Office Address:
Registered Mailing Address:
Principal Office Address:
Principal Mailing Address
Capitol Corporate Services, Inc.
120 Penmarc Drive, Suite 118
Raleigh NC 27603
120 Penmarc Drive, Suite 118
Raleigh NC 27603
One Riverway, Suite 1400
Houston TX 77056
One Riverway, Suite 1400
Houston TX 77056
For questions or comments about the Secretary of State's web site, please send e-mail to Webmaster.
http://www.secretary.state.nc.us/corporations/Corp.aspx?PitemId=5286138 12/17/2007
9EF RTx.... T
'W a
' LIMITED LIABILITY COMPANY
G. ANNUAL REPORT
?Rn
NAME OF LIMITED LIABILITY COMPANY: Material Recovery, LLC
SECRETARY OF STATE R.L.L.P, ID NUMBER: 0564770
NATURE OF BUSINESS: Waste Recovery
E-Filed Annual Report
-1-0-5286138
For year 2007
Do not data enter manually.
STATE OF INCORPORATION: NC
REGISTERED AGENT: Capitol Corporate Services, Inc.
REGISTERED OFFICE MAILING ADDRESS: 110 Penmarc Drive, Suite 118
Raleigh, NC 27603
REGISTERED OFFICE STREET ADDRESS: 120 Penmarc Drive, Suite 118
Raleigh, NC 27603 Wake County
PRINCIPAL OFFICE TELEPHONE NUMBER: 919--866-1211
PRINCIPAL OFFICE MAILING ADDRESS: One Riverway, Suite 1400
Houston, TX 77056
PRINCIPAL OFFICE STREET ADDRESS: One Riverway, Suite 1400
Houston, TX 77056
MANAGERS/MEMBERS/ORGANIZERS:
Name: Wca Waste Systems, Inc. Name: Tom J. Fa yo Jr.
Title: Manager Title: Manager
Address: Address:
One Riverway, Suite 1400 One Riverway, Suite 1400
Houston, TX 77056 Houston, TX 77056
Name: Jerome M Kruszka
Title: Manager
Address:
One Riverway, Suite 1400
Houston, TX 77056
Name: Tom J. Fatjo III
Title: Manager
Address:
One Riverway, Suite 1400
Houston, TX 77056
CERTIFICATION OF ANNUAL REPORT MUST BE COMPLETED BY ALL LIMITED LIABILITY COMPANIES
Wca Waste Systems, Inc.
FORM MUST BE SIGNED BY A MANAGERIMEMBER
Wca Waste Systems, Inc.
04/03/2007
DATE
Manager
TYPE OR PRINT NAME TYPE OR PRINT TITLE
ANNUAL REPORT FEE: $200 MAIL TO: Secretary of State • Corporations Division • Post Office Box 29525 • Raleigh, NC 27626-0525
(Page 2 of 4)
Wake County,Wc 444
Laura M Ricidlck, Reaioter Of deeds
Presented 3 Recorded 02/12/2681 13;55.10
Stele Of HO Reel Estate Exeins Tax ; 03923
Book ' 686006 Page r 00645 - 00846
0
fj,rn.Qy x°11'3 excise Tax
Tax Lnt No.
'.'eri6ed by
by
I Recording Time, Book and Page
-„ sot a IL ,N to % ++
Hares! Identifier No.ryD„q 0900 41st
County na the day of 19
Mail after recording to L. James Blackwood, II, 108 Commerce PI., Greensboro, NC 27401
This instrument wax prepared by L. James Blackwood, II, 108 Commerce Pl., Greensboro, NC 27401
Brief description for the Index
NORTH CAROLINA GENERAL WARRANTY DEED
THIS DEED made this 1Z day of February, 2001 by and between
GRANTOR I GRANTEE
William A. Turner and wife,
Debra C. Turner
Material Recovery, LLC
421 Raleighview Road
Raleigh, NC 27610
r,Mter in apprunriate black for each party; name, address, aru, ii appropriate, ,haracier of entity, e.q, corporation or partnership
The aesignatioc Grantor and Grantee as used herein shall include saia parties, their heirs, successors, and assigns, and
%hall include singular, plural, masculine, feminine or neuter aS required by context.
WITNESSETH, that the Grantor, fcr a valuable consideration paid by the -Urantee, the receipt of which is herelly
acknowledged, has and by these presents does grant, bargain, sell and convey unto the Grantee in fee simple, all that
certain lot or parcel of land situated in the City of Township,
Wake County, North Carollna and more p;rrtkL lar)y described as follows:
See Exhibit A attached hereto and incorporated herein by
reference as if fully set forth.
The property described in Exhibit A consisting of 2 Tracts was
heretofore conveyed to Grantor by Deed recorded in Book 6555,
Page 646, Wake County Public Registry and Grantor by this Deed
intends to convey to Grantee all of the property therein
described
N.t;. Bar ASSoe Farm No. 7 C 1916, Hrv„ed Mr.
ked-nI Onrce Svoooe,e Inc . O.eenroo,o. N C 11101 X74.1561
(Page 2 of 4)
13KO08806PGO0846
The property hereinabove described was acquired by Grantor by Instrument recorded in ..... „ ,.
A map Showing the above described property is recorded in Plat Hook , . ,. page ... ............•
TO HAVE AND To HOLD the aforesaid lot or parcel of land and all privileges and appurtenances thereto belonging to
the Grantee in fee simple.
And the Grantor covenants with the Grantee, that Grantor is seized of the premises in fee simple, has the right to convey
the same in fee simple, that title is marketable and free and clear of all encumbrances, and that Grantor will warrant and
defend the title against the lawful claims of all persona whomsoever except for the exceptions hereinafter stated.
Title to the property hereinabove described is subject to the following exceptions:
This conveyance is made subject to rights-of-way, restrictions and
easements of record, if any, and ad valorem taxes for the year 2001.
rN WITNESS WHEREOF, tha Grantor has hereunto sit his hand and seal. or it erpdrat., has red this instrument to be synod in Its
.orparole name by it. duly aucherlyed officers and Its seal to be hereunto affixed by authority of ua boa of Directors, the day an year first
abova written.
......................... _--------------------------- .,__.•.. ..(SEAL)
(Corporate Name) .; Wi alll A• 'Earner
O
______________-------------- Prealdeat S Debra C. Turner
ATTEST:
_______________________________------------------------------- MAL)
------------------------------------------ ....... ------------ 2:
w
_____________________ secretary (Corporate final)
.............................................. (SKA W
SE1RNtI? •. NORTII CAROLINA. ......... r RkE___________________ County.
. /y ,•S7 ?%+? ?, I, a Rotary Public of the County and State afnr-raid, certify that ------------------------------ ......
.• O? ':? = y ------ Wi11iam•A,-_flirner- -and-wife, -Debra-C. Turner- --------- --------------- Grantor,
A E • : a - ----- ------ -------- --- --------
:f1
t .x ' q m P-oonally appeared before me this day and acknowledged the execution of the forKaM[ instrument. Wittiest my
•,•• l •'y\X ; p hand and official stamp or fast, this l day of MrU?I]CY-t._?OQl AV--
&C •r.
111, tllaa MY commission expires:. z j 14 re3 ................. ed 9!?tL _e--?J_ .. Notary Public
SEAL-STAMP NORTH CAROLINA, --------------------- ............ County.
1, a Notary Public of the County and State rfonraid, certify that ____ ______________________________
y personally came before me this day and acknowledged that •___ he Is ------- ,__,•_,.....,....... secretEry of
9
y ••--•---•-•----•• .................. ................... ¦ North Carolina eerPor?WOn, and that by
authority duty
alven and tie the act of the corporation, the fdt.aalha Instrument was aIraed In Its name by its ---------------
OD
President, sealed with Its corporate seal and attested by ........... as fct ---------------- Secretary.
O
With-as my hand and official stamp or teal, thl. ....... day of ___________________________ t6•___-___.
aIy cotnmltalo•. exPlrea:------------------ _------------ ---------------------------------------- Notary Public
The foraroina Certifleue(s) of -------------------------------------------------------------- ......... _.......
____
---------------------------------------- _____----------------------------------------------------------------- ._._____________________-__--.__
------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------ ........_-.-..__._...._.._________
is/are eettifI ad to be correct This Instrument and this certificate see duly reS.atered at the date and time and in the Book and Page shown on t?e
first Pare hereof.
---------------------------------------------------- _____...... _------- REGISTER OF DEEDS FOR -------------------------------- COVNTT
4y ---------------------------------------------------------- _....... _ Depu WAsslstant- Register of Deeds
N.C. R., Asset Form No. 3 4 1976, Revlaed 1677.
(Page 3 of 6)

EXHINITA
to
DEED FROM WILLL4MA. TURNER and wife, DEBRA C. TURNER
to
MATERIAL RECOVERY, LLC
TRACT 1
BEGINNING at a point 70.65 feet North of the intersection of NCSR 2542 and NCSR
2553, having aline from NCSR 2542 to the point of Beginning of South 03° 54,58" 70.65 feet,
thence from said point North 89° 34' 18" West 578.19 feet to an existing iron pipe, thence from
the existing iron pipe South 00° 15'03" West 449.24 feet to an existing iron pipe, thence from
the existing iron pipe South 00° 15'03" West 36.92 feet to the center of NCSR 2542, thence
from the center of NCSR 2542 South 53° 15'50" West 172.61 feet along NCSR 2542, thence
from this center point of NCSR 2542 North 000 59' 07" West 36.56 feet to an existing iron pipe,
thence from the existing iron pipe North 000 59'0711 West 552.64 feet to an existing iron pipe,
thence from the existing iron pipe South 89° 54'28" West 888.40 feet to an existing iron pipe,
thence from the existing iron pipe North 01° 28'05" East 959.90 feet to an existing iron pipe,
thence from the existing iron pipe North 01 ° 28' 17" East 314.90 feet to an existing iron pipe,
thence from the existing iron-pipe North 000 46'02" East 959.50 feet to an existing iron pipe,
thence from the existing iron pipe South 87° 55' 55" East 2879.54 feet to a new iron pipe, thence
from the new iron pipe South 87" 55'55" East 35.68 feet to the center of NCSR 2553, thence
from the center of NCSR 2553, traversing along the same road at the following coordinates:
North 34° 51' 54" East 62.67 feet, North 35° 35' 00" East 601.74 feet, North 35° 25'33" East
122.54, North 34° 46' 39" East 103.54 feet, North 34° 25' 54" 115.25 feet, North 33° 42' 51" East
122.91 feet, North 33° 34' 14" East 109.37 feet, North 320 51131 " East 104.44 feet, North 31° 20'
44" East 105.20 feet, North 30° 38'28" East 914.06 feet, North 28° 24'19" East 53.84 feet,
North 21° 50'36" East 51.26 feet and North 10° 10'37" East 58.49 feet, which includes the 60
feet right-of-way reserved by DOT on NCSR 2553, to the point and place of BEGINNING,
containing 113.55 gross acres, according to the plat of same prepared by William-Pearce &
Associates, P.A., Registered Land Surveyors, dated March 21, 1995 and recorded in Book of
Maps 1995, Page 456, of the Wake County Registry (and re-recorded in Book of Maps 1995,
Page 1025, Wake County Registry).
TRA T
BEGINNING at the same point as did Tract I above and traversing along NCSR 2553
with those same coordinates as set forth above in Tract 1, those being as follows: North 10° 10'
37" East 58.49 feet, North 21° 50'36" East 51.26 feet, North 280 2411911 East 53.84 feet, North
30° 38'28" East 914.06 feet, North 31 ° 20' 44" East 105.20 feet, North 32° 51' 31" East 104.44
feet, North 33° 34' 14" East 109.37 feet, North 33° 42'51" 122.91 feet; North 34125' 54" East
115.25 feet, North 34° 4639" East 103,54 feet, North 35° 25'33" East 122.54 feet, North 35° 35'
00" East 601.74 feet, North 34° 51'54" East 62.67 feet, North 33° 47' 21 " East 92.11 feet, North
280 21'05" East 55.62 feet, North 240 14' 24" East 56.47 feet, North 19° 07' 50" East 70.27 feet,
North 14° 27'54" East 55.00 feet, North 10° 22'09" East 52.22 feet, North 060 52'39" East
76.00 feet, North 05° 41' 37" East 113.61 feet and North 04° 39'47" 102.92 feet to a new PK nail
in the center of NCSR 2553, thence from said new PK nail North 890 23' 26" East 30.13 feet to a
new iron pipe, thence from a new iron pipe 89° 23' 26" East 229.08 feet to an existing iron pipe,
thence from said existing iron pipe South 52° 46'34" East 600.84 feet to an existing iron pipe,
thence from said existing iron pipe South 00" 02'37" 311.54 feet to an existing iron pipe, thence
from said existing iron pipe South 00° 12'23" West 580.92 feet to an existing iron pipe, thence
from said existing iron pipe South 89° 25'55" West 731.89 feet to an existing iron pipe, thence
from said existing iron pipe South 28° 23131 " West 1687.75 feet to an existing iron pipe, thence
from said existing iron pipe South 28° 23' 31 " West 33.90 feet to the center of NCSR 2542,
thence from this center point North 89° 34' 18" West 703.21 feet, which includes the 60 feet
right-of-way reserved by DOT on NCSR 2542, to the point and place of BEGINNING,
containing 49.88 gross acres, according to the plat of same prepared by William-Pearce and
Associates, P.A., Registered Land Surveyor, dated March 21, 1995 and recorded in Book of
Maps 1995, Page 456, of the Wake County Registry (and re-recorded in Book of Maps 1995,
Page 1025, Wake County Registry, to correct right-of-way acreage in the aabbo`ve Tra
'aAo
(Page 4 of 4)
Laura r Riooick
Register of Deeds
'Jake County. NG
Book : 088896 Page : 69845 - M49
Yellow probate sheet is a vital part of your recorded document.
Please retain with original document and submit for rerecordin .
Wake County Register of Deeds
E Laura A Riddick
WAK
COUNTY Register of Deeds
MOM CARM[NA
North Carolina - Wake County
The foregoing certificate of P? Lt I 'A . C L l 1 tit t? _ _
Notary(ies) Public is (are) certified to be correct. This instrument
and this certificate are duly registered at the date and time and in the book and
page shown on the first page hereof.
Laura M. Riddick, Register of Deeds
By: 3
Assistant/lletegister of Deeds
This Customer Group This Document
2% # of Time Stamps Needed New Time Stamp
# or Pages
(Page 1 of 4)
B
Wake County.HC 445
Laura M It iddick. Register Or Deeds
PnseM ad a Recorded 02/12!2001 laes5=10
state Of HE Reel EeistBBExc1seBTam f238E
Book : We" Page
41 2 vay Excise Tax
Recording Vine, Book and Page
Parcel Identifier No CC) -Z S0 R_-3
Tax Lot No.
Verified by
by
County on the day of
, 19
Mail after recording to L. James Blackwood, II, 108 Commerce Pl. , Greensboro, NC 27401
'This insLr,.:ment was prepared by L. James Blackwood, II, 108 Commerce Pl. , Greensboro, NC 27401
Brief description P:: the Index
NORTH CAROLINA GENERAL WARRANTY DEED
THIS DEED made this VZ day of February, 2001 by and between
GRANTOR I GRANTEE
Ashley Turner Enterprises, Inc.
Material Recovery, LLC
421 Raleighview Road
Raleigh, MC 27510
Enter In approptfate block for eaeb party: name, addrrss, and, it appropriale, character of entity, e.q. corporation or partne-ship.
'"he designe.tion Grantor and grantee as used herein steal; include said parties, their heirs, successors, and assigns, and
shall Include singular, plural, masculine, feminine or neuter ,is required by context.
WITNESSE:TH, that the Grantor, for a valuable cunsideration paid by the Grantee, the receipt of which is hereby
acxnowledged, has and by these presents doer grant, bargain, sell and convey unto the Grantee in fee simple, all that
certain lot or parcel of land Situated in the City of . 5+. M Township,
Wake Cotinty, North Carolina and mnrc pinticularly described its follows:
See Exhibit A attached hereto and incorporated herein by
reference as if fully set forth.
au A4snc 6n11 No S C 1916. tt-' !d 1911
r !S•51 n, Odre^ u5'a6M,! :rK 01.4-b- N C 19'1)i 77-461
(Page 2 of 4)
Sx008806PG00&5-0---
The property hereinabove described was acquired by Grantor by instrument recorded in ..... .. ............... ...............
A map showing the above described property in recorded in Plat Book . . page ... .......... .
TO HAVE AND TO HOLD the aforesaid lot or parcel of land and all privileges and appurtenances thereto belonging to
the Grantee in fee simple.
And the Grantor covenants with the Grantee, that Grantor is seized of the premises in fee simple, has the right to convey
the same in fee simple, that title is marketable and free and clear of all encumbrances, and that Grantor will warrant and
defend the title against the lawful claims of all persona whomsoever except for the exceptions hereinafter stated.
Title to the property hereinabove described is subject to the following exceptions:
This conveyance is made subject to rights-of-way, restrictions and
easements of record, if any, and ad valorem taxes for the year 2001.
iN WITNESS WHEREOF, the Grantor has hereunto set his hand and teal, or if corporate, hen caused this in,truatent to be t!/nad IN let
corporate name by its duly authorized officers end its seal to be hereunto affixed by authority or Its Hoard of Directors, the day ahd year first
?beve written.
____Ash1e-Y-Turner nerprises,--Inc----------- -------------------------------------------------------------- (SEAL)
// ( o orau Name)
sy: 4 ief?Y ' E ------------ tomw
8 .......... ................... ...fSBAL1
A7T{i'E? f/J? ?`"'?,•? _ _ .............................
r ,
;A I
' m •
----------------------------
Secretary( ?or?e 't Ld ....................... .....----------------------------- -ASEAL)
SEAL-STAMP most It atA .?? L'Zake....... --------- County.
y r, a Notary"r#Ac.,01 an4 County and State aforesaid, certify that ...............................--------
------------------- ---------- ........ .....-......-.------------------- .----------------------------- anneal,
personally appeared before me this day and acknowledgsd the execution or the foregoing Instrument. Wither my
r hand and official stamp or seal, this day of ..., if-..---
My eommilsion expires: ._--------------------------- _.............. .---------- .....----------- Notary Public
sEltL.a?Aj)IP
? NORTH CAROLINA, __________________ - WWSP.......... County. n
VO
pirit,p ?y ---------------
1, a Notary Public of the County and State aforesaid. certify that --
,A. ?? .,
g rr Personally, came before me this day and acknowledged that __-_ he It ........................... aeoraliry of
l
a to =
? : n _ Ashl 'Turner Enter-rises, Inca
V ----------- e _x___________________ -------------------- a North Carolina corporation, and flint by authority duly
77Cr ,
1r1, a :Y A
r
i
1
...............
a given ¦nd as the act of the corporation, the foregoing Instrument was signed in Its name by Its
etar
s
(
,
S
O
/ y.
ib'• ..... .......... ............
ecr
President, sealed with its eerPOrate trtl and attested by -•--------- as
y p'
L
G-••
` , ?
S Wit.- my hand and official stamp Or seal, thls 1Z--- day of _-__-_Y.__4 4.5 A.
`
ta,
?'b0? ?N
t
blt
Z
,??,•,'??„ti•tt e
a
ary Pn
My commisaEOn raDirn:
JL/-F
The lorefeing Certificate(s) of
------------------- ----------------------------------------------- ,-------------------------------- . _..._-.__._.---------------
--- ._._
__________________________________________________________________._________--_---_-.-_-..._,...-..__._._.._.__.......
le/are certified to be correct This instrument and this certificate are duly realatcred at the data and time and in the Eenk and Page shown an the
Hn9 page hereof
------------------ ------ ----------------------- _----------------- REGISTER OF DEEDS FOR -------------------------- --------- COUX"
ay --------------------- _____ _----------------------------- _---------- D e PuW/AStfstaat- Register of Deeds
N.C. Saw APea. term NO. 3 0 1979, Ittyl-cl 1277.
(Page 3 of 4)
EXHIBIT A
to
DEED FROM ASHLEY TURNER ENTERPRISES, INC.
to
MATERIAL RECOVERY, INC.
BEGINNING at an existing PK nail located in the centerline of SR 2553 (a 60' public
right-of-way), said nail being distant North 31 ° 27'48" East 2580.75 feet from the centerline
intersection of SR 2542, said nail marking the northeast corner of the property owned now or
formerly by William Ashley Turner as described in Deed Book 6555, Page 646, Wake County
Registry; runs thence along and with the northern line of the Turner property (now or formerly)
North 87" 55' 15" West 35.68 feet to an existing iron pipe located in the western right-of-way
line of said SR 2553 and North 87° 55' 15" West 2879,54 feet to an existing iron pipe in the
eastern line of the property owned now or formerly by Horace Benton Heirs; runs thence along
and with said eastern line of the Benton Heirs property (now or formerly) North 00 48' 14" East
1534.73 feet to an existing concrete monument, said concrete monument marking the southwest
corner of the property owned'nowv or f6imerly by t}ie City' of Raleigh as described in Deed Book
2064, Page 433, Wake County Registry; runs thence along and with the southern line of the
property of the City of Raleigh (now or formerly) South 82° 50'24" East 3107.70 feet to an
existing concrete monument located in the western right-of-way line of said SR 2553 and South
82° 50'2411 East 32.03 feet to a point in the centerline of said SR 2553; runs thence along and
with said centerline of SR 2553 the following ten courses and distances: (1) South 04° 28'32"
West 611.79 feet to an existing PK nail; (2) South 04° 39'47" West 102.91 feet to point; (3)
South 05° 41'37" West 113.61 feet to point; (4) South 06° 52'39" West 76.00 feet to point;
(5) South 10° 22'09" West 52.22 feet to point; (6) South 14° 27'54" West 55.00 feet to point;
(7) South 19° 07' 50" West 70.27 feet to point; (8) South 241 14'24" West 56.47 feet to point;
(9) South 28121' 05" West 55.62 feet to point; and (10) South 330 47' 21" West 92.11 feet to the
POINT AND PLACE OF BEGINNING, containing 98.41 gross acres, including 0.89 acres
within the right-of-way of said SR 2553, all according to plat of survey dated April 27, 1999 and
revised May 5, 1999 entitled "Property Survey for Ashely Turner Enterprises" prepared by Clyde
T. Pearce, Professional Land Surveyor, of Williams-Pierce & Assoc., P.A_
The above described tract being the property conveyed to Harvey D. Ginn and wife, Cylester P.
Ginn by deed recorded in Book 1726, Page 588, Wake County Registry. See also Estate File of
Harvey D, Ginn found in 96 E 209 Wake County Clerk of Superior Court.
The above described property is all that property heretofore conveyed to Grantor by Deed
recorded in Book 8310, Page 1316, the description of which is incorporated herein by reference
and Grantor does hereby intend to convey all of said property to Grantee
sw_
(Page 4 of 4)
$KO 0 B B 0 6 PG-0 0- 52_._
Laura . Riddick
Register Df Deeds
slake County, NC
Book : 088886 Page 1 0000+9 - 90652
Yellow probate sheet is a vital part of your recorded document.
Please retain with original document and submit for rerecordin .
Wake County Register of Deeds
E Laura M. Riddick
WAK
COUNTY Register of Deeds
NO- CAAOLZNA
North Carolina - Wake County
The foregoing certificate- of (2 C G) na?I
Notary(ies) Public is (are) certified to be correct. This instrument
and this certificate are duty registered at the date and time and in the book and
page shown on the first page hereof
Laura A Riddick, Register of Deeds
,,'? _
By:
Assistant/DPpdX Register of Deeds
This Customer Group This Document
# of Time Stamps Needed New Time Stamp
# of Pages
(Page 1 of 1)
BKBR2002P000791
S1TE
Y I Y
i
?rw Y
Ticini Nap A°la
Ns Na IYll.rd w ladt
Current zoning 1-30
wrrt. ,mr.
1. rrl.n
AM
d,rr, e.+aa FY,:
Yakrtal Feeorery, 11L
Let. 6 A: It.
BN 1085, P 2157,
tot 711
BM 1989, P 3U
,
Curmnt Zoning R-30
..._,,.., •"..x04, ,,,»., Pp: 1741A4-52-4166
Polly S. Quinn
DB 2050, K 567
Lraev Current Zoning 1-30
PIN: 1711-3-41-6455
.R wT
Xy;1 ,
r•r•y,?. iYr.w,
Nota:
1. No NCC9 Monument Within 20DO'
Z. TWO SUrvey 13 lR A CDURIJ That Ir
Rerulsted As To The Division of Land.
9. This Survey Creates A Recombination Of land
Out Of Two Rxisking Parcels.
TRC Triangle
==Q
City Of U-10 r,,.. -=- - nw -- ? ?.a„ ' --'
00 8001, PC 19419
Current Zoning R-90
"
?
II
Tract 1-B I
98.41 Ac. Incl. R/1f
97.52 Ac, Excl. R/11 y I?
PIN: 1741.N-73-2024 I I
tWreht Scat B-9D
OB BBDB, PC 940
Total Acres, Tr. L-A & Tr. 1-B
211.96 Ac, Incl. R/w
209.19 Ac. Excl. R/w
Tract 1-A
113.55 Ac. Incl. R/N
111.87 Ac. Excl. R/It
Current Zoning R-38
PIN: 1741.04-52-7&90
OB am, PC 645, Tract 1
_

limp For Record
Recombination Of Tracts IA & 1B
Material Recovery, LLC
St Marys Tarp. wake Co., N.C.
?..?.?,,... rYrrat wi r?+t??. Oar . uc
saldq. st Aril
YM(c CnIMIY, KORN CmDLI"
?..N,ry ».? 1 .,. rw .nl n» owwr fx emu. a•m.•M a., ..r rs.,Y.+ M?
___________________
[rat Rl[ars eP S?,.x - 4c c- Y
1. w,t.r K bnwib I11. -j Irv y,., Y. , el.,
-? ??
P wr o! _tiLY_
Jahn Bavean '
?
or
OR 82M. PC 177 a
PB1: 17112-70-3588
Current Toning 1-90
vawe C., v Cert,r-t-
x o
y
oaanx aeon ,• • ue,.9,r.. va e?.e ,i .. wN ..o .~,nrnmt? fer?rm[are?.y a Cxn s 14L0
V
. d,.
r?
pace ?
A-], z?z ? S a 50 - O a
(Page 1 of 1)
BKBM2003PG0150S
..a. wow
w.w w..r..wwr r r
WMrr+'..y ti rwr, e. r
a. ,a car w.w.r r tw..t«.?
a b t ?irrOR?wb v
s 4?eR r wan H
w.Res we 4wy
m-Te M
r,., ?e rn,s-..a
1t ?
1
? Y
IIrR1e4111R, t. f MrJRI, M
PN NR 1741.43 44 0022
Current Toning R-30
CO. 9643, PC. 2551
BK 1971• PG. 309
t?yl Jl G
FC mtlr
9n1 11.04.
40
Prk 1741.04-53-4091
40gt
Cv
ir 'o4.
wG ,6a3
el ?
harL Resd
PIN: 1741.04-52-4454
ZOned R-30
D& 9670. PG. 95
BM. 2002. PG. '642
LOT 2
I CRY Or RdNdl
i OB 2064, PG 4J] .ow. Cw,.ur rr,x,mlew, nniwmu. w RpWm,4w? er Rwrlrl,r a o..e.
-- - -

PIN; 1755.01-15-3969
?2
?r
-.Q??
9tryaYaZ S,P).)p qy.A? a carer
\ \
? ?r17T't 1
.
. Tree! 1_C r r
,
? ??, „ .M. R/,II
P4reM ] W" -dWelM 3,43m
/awe N,4 1./111
?
Pv 2 - 5
/SOC /W
T-1 1 ARr noonpr,ellvl ]I61r,e ra R/f?
Tmet ,-C Z=d r r?wllw?
Total Acres, Tr. 1
210.19ac
1Y10T 1
D• dl6F. rw N5, 1rv•1 ?
1.6"N.RMY
rr ]ooP. Pa m
rre na,P
ft-W
42.
rw,.4
w
74r
SJS]SSPY ,]J,}r
tlrYa9• , w 1qR[ CGwTy, gOg1M GIAOIS•A
aevaw n,271 err 4.1 , .e 1? ..1 r .w,. IU r
asi+rdr. ,a,n• r ?.+. w,Rrdw r.•?w,y d,..., rr rw.wr r..r.
P? M YI. hw,b ?' ww• wM M , Ir} r?
s,sJrt•ti ,P,sr +w rr, .In /.,'WI??? awwe
7rN ,OAM 14+dn- K (yypsL? ,N ?, u -N3
vA' R[
J rr-ne
T TALTp1 DAM
r4,?Y4h' 106fY
WAIN.e 414x1411. - ....
4rrlr. N_ 1 1r
r / '?ixcate w s,n.r cal 4m.my
MAW-mb 611 W1410

'
PONY
s
y
5
? +v
"„?•wWr?1w4•fTi 4
? ?
Owl
""'mWN ow, am ... a 2050. Y?r 3 / wv
w i.,? M
Mlw?: u,y,R 1 w,l
'
l
Pre 174,,03-,i-4•y4 , 1; >! M ?^?r w ?u
jj
raa r?s $, +,r
I.
r
44.r
?r+,
?`.
- - - - - - ,?.rtaw n].'- °l y,?U r
s,m4•srw taw l ,r7?, mrl'Ps.,?
i ?"'","'w,?6 7w,...
_
__
?
?
s r"Z? ave• r mr4rerR a `ti
rw1. Ip?AC?Aq t
' M•p 4og'•fs'r ,ia.. 11a For R-wd
_".-....-_ - ?„?"'•
'ae?r'+}r
- y
• IAII o @W U
R '•
wAG1"'??` StaCtliriebn k Recombination
IJor
up F
fit
AIO e?nllrmi, ? roiu?vlsx,.t ? /• t R

Oq.IED w v4w,•+M[T tvlp, ti

Ir,
?T TA Material R
ecovery, LLC

rRC rdang I DE,74, eM4. n 177

? W
o I A, Ire.. 4e I *, PC „

M

,rRe, Rc
r,,. CW.anI Zeni,4 1._30 r? • ? PVt ,J,1.o4_ro-ee6e
Zw x+-30
4wn1e sua 4 aas AC r1eo argaret Talton
St. Mor Tw
Y6 SP• Wake Co
N
C
,
Y?b

rl w Irx4rrl
r,. w, ?. w.r.

r
. •Q p "[,
O? 1
_n!rFC 422 .,
,
.
0+r 1 Ovisr, Mm rlm R.y, LLC
421 Radp, VI,. Rood
4
Rd.
,• RC 27r1o
"
, .,.., ? _. 6d ??.. aro3 ry
a
J°pd'•19 Trarrnl`?Rd,
?C 55o`b 7g,
Add- T
22
-
26 6-e R0. Rddy,, t]C 27610-g214
ATTACHMENT 4
Alternative Site Study
Alternative Site Analysis
WCA Construction & Demolition Landfill
Brownfield Road
Wake County, North Carolina
February 2010
Prepared for:
David Garrett & Associates, Inc.
5105 Harbour Towne Drive
Raleigh, North Carolina 27605
Prepared by:
Owner:
Waste Corporation of America
421 Raleigh View Road
Raleigh, NC 27610
CAROLINA
ECOSYSTEMS, INC.
8208 Brian Court
Garner, North Carolina 27529
WCA Landfill Wake County, NC
TABLE OF CONTENTS
1.0 INTRODUCTION ............................................................................................................ 1
2.0 GIS ALTERNATIVES ANALYSIS .............................................................................. .. 1
2.1 Parcel Size .................................................................................................................... .. 2
2.2 Schools .......................................................................................................................... ..3
2.3 Primary Roads .............................................................................................................. .. 3
2.4 State Parks .................................................................................................................... .. 3
2.5 Wildlife Resource Commission Gamelands (Regulatory, Exclusion) ....................... .. 3
2.6 National Wildlife Refuge ............................................................................................. .. 3
2.7 State Owned Land ........................................................................................................ .. 4
2.8 Federally Owned Land ................................................................................................. .. 4
2.9 Water Supply Watersheds ............................................................................................ .. 4
2.10 High Quality Waters/Outstanding Resource Waters .................................................. .. 4
2.11 Conservation & Open Space ........................................................................................ .. 4
2.12 Protected Species .......................................................................................................... .. 4
2.13 Public Water System Source ........................................................................................ .. 5
2.14 Urban Areas ................................................................................................................. .. 5
2.15 Residential Subdivisions .............................................................................................. .. 5
2.16 Hydric Soils .................................................................................................................. .. 5
2.17 Floodplains ................................................................................................................... ..6
2.18 Wetlands ....................................................................................................................... .. 6
2.19 Perennial Streams & Lakes ......................................................................................... .. 6
2.20 Intermittent Streams .................................................................................................... .. 6
3.0 FINAL SITE SCREENING ........................................................................................... .. 7
3.1 Available Contiguous Acreage .................................................................................... .. 7
3.2 Parcel Shape ................................................................................................................. .. 7
3.3 Current Site Use ........................................................................................................... .. 7
3.4 Available Acreage Containing Wetlands .................................................................... .. 7
3.5 Potential Stream Channels .......................................................................................... .. 8
3.6 Available Acreage Shape ............................................................................................. .. 8
3.7 Environmental Justice ................................................................................................. .. 8
3.8 Other Constraints ......................................................................................................... .. 8
4.0 RESULTS ........................................................................................................................ .. 8
4.1 Site A (Figure 3A) ........................................................................................................ .. 9
4.2 Site B (Figure 3B) ........................................................................................................ .. 9
4.3 Site C (Figure 3C) ........................................................................................................ 10
4.4 Site D (Figure 3D) ........................................................................................................ 10
4.5 Site E (Figure 3E) ........................................................................................................ 10
4.6 Site F (Figure 3F) ........................................................................................................ 10
4.7 Site G (Figure 3G) ........................................................................................................ 10
4.8 Site H (Figure 3H) ....................................................................................................... 11
4.9 Site I (Figure 31) .......................................................................................................... 11
4.10 Site J (Figure 3J) ......................................................................................................... 11
4.11 Site K (Figure 3K) ........................................................................................................ 11
5.0 CONCLUSIONS ............................................................................................................. 11
Alternative Site Study i February 2010
WCA Landfill Wake County, NC
FIGURES & TABLES
Figure 1: Alternative Sites
Figure 2: Constraint Example
Figure 3a-3k: Alternative Sites 3a-3k
Table 1: GIS Analysis Steps & Criteria
Table 2: Site Screening Summary
Alternative Site Study ii February 2010
WCA Landfill Wake County, NC
1.0 INTRODUCTION
The purpose of this study is to identify alternative sites for landfill disposal for the WCA
Brownfield Road C&D Landfill. A potential expansion of this landfill between the North and
South Disposal Areas would involve impacts to streams, wetlands, and riparian buffers under the
jurisdiction of both federal and state regulations. Based on the potential impacts, a Major
Variance from the Neuse River Riparian Buffer Rules and a Clean Water Act Individual Permit
would be required for this expansion. Both of these major permitting efforts involve detailed
review of the project by various agencies and require a strong justification for the proposed
impacts. It was determined that this alternatives analysis would be a key component in justifying
and obtaining the necessary permits/approvals for the impacts that will be needed for the
expansion of the landfill. Justification of potential impacts would require, at minimum, a
detailed evaluation of alternative designs on the site, and evidence that there is a lack of practical
alternative sites with less or no impacts. This report is provided to document the extensive
analysis of alternative sites, and is intended for use as an attachment to future regulatory
submittals if the project is carried forward through the permitting process.
An analysis of alternative landfill site locations was used to determine if viable alternative sites
are potentially available within the local area of the proposed landfill expansion. A two-stage
analysis of alternative sites was performed including a GIS analysis followed by detailed site
screening. The alternative site analysis was developed using a step wise process involving the
following:
1. Determination of geographic scope of analysis.
2. Determination of site screening criteria using:
a. Existing solid waste regulations.
b. Industry criteria developed in conjunction with the engineer and owner.
3. Analysis of available GIS data layers and application to the criteria.
4. Final determination of screening criteria and adjustment based on step 2.
5. GIS "Exclusion" analysis using certain criteria to eliminate parcels.
6. GIS "Available Area" analysis using certain criteria that reduce potential usable area
within the remaining parcels.
7. Final site screening using non-GIS data and site-by-site analysis of environmental,
engineering and other practical issues.
The geographic scope of this analysis was chosen as Wake and Johnston County (Figure 1). The
basis for this decision is both the location of the landfill, central to both counties, and the
location of the transfer stations and other waste generating sites currently transporting waste to
the landfill. These sites are all located in Wake County, in and around the City of Raleigh.
Therefore, Wake County is the primary service area of the landfill, and Johnston County was
included in the analysis due to its proximity to the site.
2.0 GIS ALTERNATIVES ANALYSIS
The goal of the GIS model was to identify contiguous area within a parcel absent of all constraint
criteria. A 20 step constraint model was developed for this purpose. The general criteria were
Alternative Site Study 1 February 2010
WCA Landfill Wake County, NC
determined using standard regulatory requirements for landfills (15A NCAC 13B .0531- .0547)
and the relatively recent restrictions of the Solid Waste Act of 2007 (SWA). Additional criteria
were developed to address potential permitting and cost/feasibility issues such as transportation
routes, location of schools and subdivisions, parcel size, and other factors. These `industry'
criteria assist in determining the overall initial viability of a site, as they help eliminate sites that
may get more opposition during the permitting process or significantly increase costs associated
with the landfill to a point where development of the site would be impractical.
The use of industry based criteria rather than only regulatory criteria does create subjectivity in
the results and leave them open to debate. Ignoring industry criteria would eliminate this
subjectivity, but the resulting analysis would not be practical or realistic. Subjective criteria such
as parcel size and available acreage were developed based on the existing site, as the purpose of
this study is to look for alternatives to that site. Distance from primary roads and schools were
determined using reasonable assumptions based on past experience with landfill operations and
public input. This practical approach was chosen as more realistic, along with a transparent
process that allows reviewers to see the steps as well as the results.
All base data used for the analysis was collected from publicly available data sources (see Table
1 for details) in the summer and fall of 2009. To obtain the primary layers for the model, the base
data files were modified using several different GIS tools to create the layers for each of the 20
steps. These tools included attribute selection for data refinement, join, buffer, clip, intersection,
and union. Table 1 presents all the criteria used in this analysis along with a description of each
data set and the method of use. The model was broken into two different portions. In the first 15
steps of the model, entire parcels were removed from consideration if the constraint layer
intersected or contained a parcel (Exclusion). In steps 16 through 20, parcel area of the remaining
parcels was reduced by the presence of the constraint layer (Acreage Reduction). Each criteria is
described below beginning with its use (Exclusion or Acreage Reduction) and basis (Regulatory,
Industry, or both) and followed by the justification for its use.
2.1 Parcel Size
Exclusion - Industry: A minimum parcel size was set as 200 acres for several reasons. First,
since the analysis is a comparison to the current landfill site, which is over 200 acres, it was
deemed reasonable to screen for properties of equal or greater size. Also, given the fact that
most sites would have stream channels (and associated regulatory buffers) and all solid waste
sites would require property buffers of 200 feet, a 200 acre site is a reasonable parcel size to
yield sufficient available (developable) landfill capacity.
Adjacent parcels that would combine to be greater than 200 acres were not analyzed in this
process. The scope of this analysis was a screening of alternatives using existing data and to
obtain a realistic view of alternative sites. An analysis could be undertaken ignoring all
parcel lines to just find the best available land. However, this ignores a very important fact
that land is split into parcels and each has an owner with his or her own concerns and desires.
This analysis sought to find practical alternative sites to the proposed landfill site. It was
determined that finding a single parcel owner that may sell their property in order for a
Alternative Site Study 2 February 2010
WCA Landfill Wake County, NC
landfill to be created was realistic. Negotiations with multiple landowners and potential
future combination of parcels were not deemed practical alternatives for this analysis.
2.2 Schools
Exclusion - Regulatory/Industry: The locations of schools within a 2000-foot radius of a site
are required to be shown on solid waste applications. While the presence of a school within
this radius does not preclude a landfill from being permitted, it does raise several concerns.
The increase in traffic flow along public roads from waste hauling vehicles, potential safety
issues, and potential public concern make this an undesirable location from an industry
perspective. A 2-mile radius was used to account for these factors, and any parcels within
this radius were excluded from the analysis. Since private schools can be large and also
oppose a landfill operation, non-public schools were also buffered. However, some non-
public schools are very small, so only non-public schools greater than 100 students were
included in the buffer analysis for schools.
2.3 Primary Roads
Exclusion - Industry: Minimizing the amount of waste transportation on secondary roads is
desirable to reduce potential traffic and safety conflicts and to allow for the most efficient
and cost-effective transportation routes possible. It also limits the effect of increased traffic
and noise on residential areas that may be located along the secondary roads. Therefore,
parcels were eliminated if they fell more than 2-miles from a NC Department of
Transportation primary road (interstate highway, NC highway, or US highway). A 2-mile
radius was chosen as the current landfill is that distance or less from US-70.
2.4 State Parks
Exclusion - Regulatory: The Solid Waste Act of 2007 does not allow the establishment of a
solid waste landfill within 2-miles of a State Park. Therefore, any parcels within this limit
were excluded from further analysis.
2.5 Wildlife Resource Commission Gamelands (Regulatory, Exclusion)
Exclusion - Regulatory: The Solid Waste Act of 2007 does not allow the establishment of a
solid waste landfill within 1-mile of a WRC Gameland. Therefore, any parcels within this
limit were excluded from further analysis.
2.6 National Wildlife Refuge
Exclusion - Regulatory: The Solid Waste Act of 2007 does not allow the establishment of a
solid waste landfill within 5-miles of a National Wildlife Refuge. Therefore, any parcels
within this limit were excluded from further analysis.
Alternative Site Study 3 February 2010
WCA Landfill Wake County, NC
2.7 State Owned Land
Exclusion - Industry: Any parcels currently owned by the State of North Carolina were
considered unavailable for development as a landfill site. These parcels were excluded from
further analysis.
2.8 Federally Owned Land
Exclusion - Industry: Any parcels currently owned by the federal government were
considered unavailable for development as a landfill site. These parcels were excluded from
further analysis.
2.9 Water Supply Watersheds
Exclusion - Regulatory/Industry: New landfills are not allowed within watersheds designated
as Water Supply Watershed (WSW) Class I or the Critical Areas of Class 11, 111, and IV. In
addition, no discharging landfills are permitted within the remaining watershed areas of
WSW-II and III. Due to water quality concerns and the high-profile and intensive public and
regulatory review of landfill sites, it was determined that excluding all parcels within any
water supply watershed areas would be most practical, as alternative sites outside these areas
would be much more acceptable to commenting agencies and the public. Therefore, parcels
within these watersheds were excluded from further analysis.
2.10 High Quality Waters/Outstanding Resource Waters
Exclusion - Regulatory/Industry: Discharging landfills are not permitted within Outstanding
Resource Watersheds. In addition, landfills are also potentially restricted in High Quality
Waters. Therefore, parcels within these designated watersheds were eliminated from further
consideration as alternative sites.
2.11 Conservation & Open Space
Exclusion - Industry: Conservation easements and designated open space are protected from
development in perpetuity. Therefore, these areas are not available for development of a
landfill. These parcels were eliminated from further consideration.
2.12 Protected Species
Exclusion - Regulatory/Industry: Solid waste regulations require compliance with the
Endangered Species Act, which protects federally listed threatened and endangered species.
Therefore, any parcel containing a North Carolina Natural Heritage Program Natural
Heritage Element Occurrence (NHEO) of a federally listed species was eliminated from
further consideration. State listed species do not have the same level of protection, but are
often considered during review of a project either under the State Environmental Policy Act
or through other permit reviews. Therefore, occurrences of these species also eliminated
Alternative Site Study 4 February 2010
WCA Landfill Wake County, NC
parcels from consideration, as alternative sites without NHEO occurrences would be more
practical.
2.13 Public Water System Source
Exclusion - Regulatory: Solid waste regulations do not allow a landfill within 500 feet of a
water supply well in order to prevent contamination of water supplies in the event of a leak
from the landfill. While this does not necessarily apply to surface water intakes, these
locations were also included as alternative parcels more than 500 feet from any public water
source would be more practical and protective of public health. Any parcel within 500 feet
of these resources was eliminated from further consideration.
2.14 Urban Areas
Exclusion - Industry: High density developed areas are not suitable for landfill development
for several reasons. Regulatory buffers of 500 feet from residences are required, and higher
concentrations of residences and businesses would result in an increase of population likely
to be affected by, and therefore comment on or protest, a new landfill site. Therefore, all
parcels within designated urban areas were eliminated from further consideration.
2.15 Residential Subdivisions
Exclusion - Regulatory/Industry: Landfills must be located at least 500 feet from a residence.
While individual residences were not considered due to a lack of available GIS data,
subdivision polygons in Wake County were buffered by 500 feet to account for this
regulatory offset. In the Johnston County GIS data, subdivisions are represented by points
rather than polygons, and therefore buffers from these locations may not account for the
entire subdivision and not accurately reflect regulatory buffers. Therefore, these points were
buffered by 1000 feet to account for the difference in data sets. While this 50011000 foot
offset is for subdivisions not actual residences, and therefore goes beyond the regulatory
requirement, it was determined to be practical as it would decrease the number of residences
affected by a new landfill. Alternative sites located further from subdivisions would be much
more practical. All parcels within these buffers were eliminated from further consideration.
2.16 Hydric Soils
Acreage Reduction - Industry: The NRCS defines two classifications of hydric soils. Class
A soils are predominantly hydric, while Class B soils contain hydric inclusions or wet areas.
While a mapped hydric soil in no way guarantees that an area is wetland, it does suggest
seasonal high groundwater. Areas on a site with high water tables would require extensive
fill even if they are not wetlands, as there is a regulatory requirement for at least 4-feet of
separation from ground water to waste. Due to the need for fill and the potential for these
areas to contain wetlands, Hydric Class A soils were used to reduce remaining parcel
acreage. Hydric Class B soils are addressed in the site screening.
Alternative Site Study 5 February 2010
WCA Landfill Wake County, NC
2.17 Floodplains
Acreage Reduction - Regulatory: Landfills are not permitted to alter the flood level in the
100-year Federal Emergency Management Act floodplain. These areas were therefore used
to reduce available acreage of remaining parcels.
2.18 Wetlands
Acreage Reduction - Regulatory: Wetlands are under the protection of the Clean Water Act
administered by the USACE. While unavoidable impacts to wetlands can be permitted
through this regulatory process, the SWA prohibits new landfills from having any impact to
these resources. In addition, a 200-foot buffer from the jurisdictional wetland boundary is
required for new landfills. National Wetland Inventory mapping was used to determine the
location of potential wetlands in Wake and Johnston County. Since this mapping is highly
inaccurate, the 200-foot buffer was eliminated to help offset that inaccuracy. Johnston
County has been included in the NC Division of Coastal Management wetland mapping data,
and therefore this dataset was also used. Again, it is still a large-scale approach to wetland
identification and tends to overestimate the amount of wetlands. Therefore the 200-foot
buffer was not used for any of the wetland mapping to offset this issue. A run of the GIS
model was completed with the 200-foot buffer and actually no contiguous area large enough
to be utilized for a landfill would have remained so that no parcel would have remained for
site level screenings.
2.19 Perennial Streams & Lakes
Acreage Reduction - Regulatory: The SWA prohibits new landfill sites from impacting
stream channels, and the landfill must be at least 200-feet from all perennial waters. The
USGS Hydrologic mapping was used to determine the location of perennial streams, lakes,
and ponds in the study area. This mapping tends to underestimate the number of streams and
the length of perennial stream. Therefore, the 200-foot regulatory buffer was used for this
acreage reduction step and would be a conservative estimate of this acreage reduction.
2.20 Intermittent Streams
Acreage Reduction - Regulatory: Solid waste regulations require a 50-foot buffer from all
streams and wetlands, independent of the SWA perennial waters buffer. In addition, the
SWA prohibits impacts to streams for a new landfill site. Therefore, a 50-foot buffer on all
intermittent USGS stream channels was used to reduce available acreage in the remaining
parcels. Additional intermittent streams beyond what is shown on the USGS map are usually
present on a site. NCDWQ has conducted research which shows that the USGS generally
underestimates streams. Therefore, the Neuse buffer rules also included streams shown on
the County soil survey to gain a more accurate depiction of streams. The Soil Survey stream
are not available in a GIS format and can only be manually reviewed; therefore, the potential
for additional streams on a site were addressed in the site screening.
Alternative Site Study 6 February 2010
WCA Landfill Wake County, NC
3.0 FINAL SITE SCREENING
While the use of GIS database screening is an important and extremely useful tool in the
evaluation of potential alternative sites for a landfill, it has inherent inaccuracies and flaws. The
data cannot show actual conditions on the ground for each site, generally do not show current
land use, and also do not contain all available data that can be used in site screening. Therefore,
once the GIS analysis was completed, a final site-by-site screening of the remaining parcels was
performed by a team of experienced environmental scientists, geologists, and engineers.
The final site screening was undertaken using a two step process including the elimination of
parcels with insufficient available acreage or parcel shape. Any remaining parcels were termed
"sites" and evaluated for other environmental and social factors that could affect development of
a landfill. The following describe each of these criteria that are also listed by site in Table 2.
3.1 Available Contiguous Acreage
Each remaining parcel from the GIS analysis was reviewed for available acreage. This area
was determined by subtracting the "acreage reduction" criteria areas described in Section
2.1.16 to 2.1.20 from the original parcel size. If the remaining available acreage was less
than 100 contiguous acres, the parcel was eliminated from further consideration. Parcels that
had over 100 available acres but were split by roads were also eliminated. The 100 acre
threshold was developed as a comparison to the existing site. One of the main purposes of
this study is to determine if available alternative sites of equal size or capacity are present
with less or no impacts to streams or wetlands. The acreage of the North and South disposal
areas combined is over 100 acres without the stream impact option. Therefore, this 100 acre
threshold was deemed a conservative approach that would allow more sites for consideration.
3.2 Parcel Shape
The final list of remaining parcels was also examined to determine if the configuration of the
parcel prevented use as a landfill. Parcels that were odd-shaped, such as containing long,
thin arms of land where property buffers would overlap and not allow any landfill cells, were
eliminated from further consideration.
3.3 Current Site Use
The existing use of a site was analyzed via recent (2005) aerial photography. Any parcel that
has an obvious pre-existing commercial use (i.e. quarry, large structures) was eliminated
from further consideration. Agricultural and residential uses were ignored for this criteria, as
this comprised most of the sites.
3.4 Available Acreage Containing Wetlands
If the available acreage on a site contained pockets of likely wetlands, within the contiguous
area being assessed, then the site was eliminated from further consideration. This is due to
Alternative Site Study 7 February 2010
WCA Landfill Wake County, NC
the SWA prohibiting impacts to wetlands and the 200 ft regulatory buffer, making landfill
development impractical.
3.5 Potential Stream Channels
Some stream mapping is not available in GIS format, and the USGS hydrology used in the
GIS analysis is well known to underestimate the amount of streams on a site. Therefore,
each remaining site was examined for streams occurring on the soil survey for the
appropriate county. If a stream was shown on this map along a significant topographic
drainage, that would impact landfill development, the site was eliminated from the study as
the SWA prohibits impacts to these features.
3.6 Available Acreage Shape
The final available, contiguous acreage of each remaining site was examined to determine if
the configuration was suitable for landfill development. As in the parcel shape analysis, if
the area was odd-shaped and would not provide room for a landfill cell, the site was
eliminated.
3.7 Environmental Justice
One final analysis using available GIS data was run after all other analyses were complete.
This was a brief study of potential environmental justice issues throughout both counties.
The 2000 Census data was used to analyze for census blocks that contained at least 50% non-
caucasian populations. In addition, the 2000 census block groups were analyzed for areas
where the average household income was below 1999 poverty level. These two
socioeconomic issues, commonly referred to as environmental justice, help to identify areas
where potential disproportionate impacts may occur related to siting a facility close to a
minority or low-income population. Further studies would be required to determine if a site
causes disproportionate impacts, and therefore this screening criteria was implemented last as
it is preliminary and results are undefined. If a remaining site was either within or directly
adjacent to one of these areas, the parcel was eliminated.
3.8 Other Constraints
Other constraints that were not broad enough to be classified as a group were considered
during the final screening. This included the presence within the available acreage of
individual "land-locked" parcels with a house or a cemetery. While these issues were not
used alone to eliminate a parcel, they were considered along with the overall analysis.
4.0 RESULTS
The alternatives analysis described above was run on all parcels within Wake and Johnston
County, NC. The end result of all the steps was a lack of any alternative sites in the study area.
A total of 26 parcels resulted from the initial exclusion analysis, but only 13 of these contained
available contiguous area of sufficient size and configuration to be a practical landfill alternative.
Alternative Site Study 8 February 2010
WCA Landfill Wake County, NC
These final 11 sites (two sites contained more than one of the 26 parcels) were run through the
final screening steps and none were cleared of all constraints. Table 2 summarizes the final
screening and results, which are discussed in more detail below.
The "exclusion" portion of the GIS model yielded a total of 26 remaining parcels after
completion of the steps described in Sections 2.1.1 to 2.1.15 and shown on Table 1. These
remaining parcels were primarily located in Johnston County, although four were located in
southwestern Wake County. It should be noted that the existing landfill site did not make it
through this screening. However, several of the criteria do not apply to this site, as it is not a
new landfill and therefore exempt from regulations associated with the SWA.
The "acreage reduction" criteria were applied to the remaining 26 parcels. An example of the
diversity of data used in the reduction of available acreage is presented for Site A in Figure 2.
This step resulted in the elimination of thirteen of these parcels due to the remaining area being
under 100 acres. Parcel 3 was below 100 acres but also directly adjacent to Parcel 1, and
therefore was kept in the analysis. Due to the combination of these parcels, and another two
parcels being adjacent (numbers 8 and 14), the final site screening was performed on eleven
sites, A through K, as shown in Table 2 and Figure 1.
The final eleven sites were thoroughly reviewed using the screening criteria described in Section
3. Each of these sites is described below, presented in Table 2, and each is shown in Figures 3a
through 3k.
4.1 Site A (Figure 3A)
Site A is located in southern Johnston County, and is a combination of Parcels 1 and 3.
Parcel 2 is nearby but not contiguous, and therefore not considered part of this site. This site
had sufficient available acreage and no additional constraints with the exception of two
stream channels that extended beyond the GIS-based buffers on the Johnston County Soil
Survey. While this would reduce the potential available acreage, the extension of these
channels would not eliminate the site from consideration. However, the site is adjacent to a
census block containing predominantly minority population. Due to this potential
environmental justice issue and the fact that the site is a large distance from the primary
waste generating sites for WCA, it was determined that this site is not a viable alternative to
the current landfill.
4.2 Site B (Figure 3B)
Site B is a large parcel located northwest of Smithfield near the Wayne County line. While
slightly closer to the waste generating area than some of the other alternatives, it is still a
longer hauling distance than the current site. In addition, the Johnston County Soil Survey
shows both wet areas and additional potential stream channels that would make the site
impractical for landfill development. Since this site would involve similar stream impacts
that would not be allowed under the SWA, it is not a viable alternative to the current site.
Alternative Site Study 9 February 2010
WCA Landfill Wake County, NC
4.3 Site C (Figure 3C)
Site C is also located in southern Johnston County, making haul distances an issue. In
addition, the property contains a soil survey stream channel, as well as a mapped channel that
likely extends beyond the pond at its upper limit. These channels bisect the available
acreage. The parcel is also irregularly shaped, eliminating a significant portion of the
available acreage due to property buffers. This site would not be a practical alternative to the
current site, as it would involve similar potential stream impacts to develop.
4.4 Site D (Figure 3D)
Site D is located just west of Site A and consists of two parcels (8 and 14). Hauling distance
would be an issue due to this location. The available acreage of each of the parcels is not
contiguous and therefore was analyzed separately. Parcel 8 contains a soil survey stream and
wet areas, along with a separate parcel containing a residence. Parcel 14 contains both soil
survey wet areas, hydric class B soils, and a soil survey stream channel. Developing a
landfill in either of these parcels would potentially impact streams and wetlands, not
currently permitted under the SWA. Due to these constraints, this site is not considered a
viable alternative to the current site.
4.5 Site E (Figure 3E)
Site E is also located in southern Johnston County, causing similar hauling issues described
above. It contains not only soil survey streams, but also Hydric Class B soils, and a potential
cemetery. In addition, the available acreage is disjointed and has a configuration that would
not allow development of a landfill site. Therefore, this site is not a practical alternative to
the current landfill.
4.6 Site F (Figure 3F)
Site F is located in the extreme southern portion of Johnston County near the Sampson
County line. The available acreage contains isolated wetlands (also shown on the USGS and
Soil Survey maps), Hydric Class A and B soils, and a soil survey stream channel. In
addition, the configuration of the parcel would not allow for a landfill to be developed due to
property buffers. Due to this long list of constraints, this site was not considered a viable
landfill alternative. Note that topography is not shown in Figure 3F as the data in this area
has an error and is not correct.
4.7 Site G (Figure 3G)
Site G is located in Johnston County, near both the Nash and Wake County lines. This site
has a large drainage that contains a mapped soil survey stream that bisects the property. The
available acreage is also bisected by a road. Due to these major constraints, this site was not
considered a practical alternative.
Alternative Site Study 10 February 2010
WCA Landfill Wake County, NC
4.8 Site H (Figure 3H)
Site H is located in Johnston County west of Smithfield. The available acreage is bisected by
a road as well as a mapped stream channel. Several other channels or topographic
crenulations encroach into the parcel, reducing potential acreage. The parcel shape also
deters the development of a landfill, and therefore this site is not a viable alternative.
4.9 Site I (Figure 31)
Site I is located in Johnston County just east of Wake County, near the current site. This site
is transected by three USGS mapped streams and another soil survey mapped stream. The
USGS streams originate up-gradient of the property and would likely be larger than the
proposed current site impact. Therefore, the site is not a viable alternative, as similar or
greater impacts to the current site would result.
4.10 Site J (Figure 3J)
Site J is located in southwest Wake County near the Harnett County line. This site has
multiple soil survey stream channels mapped through it, and also is in current use as a quarry.
This commercial usage eliminates its potential for a landfill site at the current time, and
future use would be problematic as the required separation from bedrock and groundwater
for a landfill would require a significant amount of fill.
4.11 Site K (Figure 3K)
Site K is located east of Clayton in Johnston County. This site lacked an adequate
configuration to allow construction of a landfill. In addition, it contains pockets of Hydric
Class A soils within the available acreage. Therefore, Site K is not a practical alternative.
5.0 CONCLUSIONS
The result of the combined GIS analysis and site screening show that no alternative landfill sites
are available based on the criteria used in this study. While this may seem to suggest that the
analysis is too restrictive, there are several factors described below that must be considered while
evaluating these results. The criteria used in this analysis were a combination of standard solid
waste regulations, relatively new Solid Waste Act regulations, and practical industry knowledge.
The analysis methods are fully detailed above and this transparency allows for the results to be
put in context. The resulting criteria set may be debatable, but the analysis definitely shows a
general lack of alternative sites.
Overall, the analysis reveals several key conclusions:
1. While final site screening eliminated all parcels, initial screening showed that only 11
sites had enough available acreage for a landfill.
a. The majority of these sites are located east of I-95 and may contain significantly
more wetlands than shown due to location in the coastal plain. These areas
typically have larger wetlands that often extend up slopes and along seeps.
Alternative Site Study 11 February 2010
WCA Landfill Wake County, NC
b. The hauling distance from the collection sites to these alternatives is significantly
higher than the current route. This would increase traffic congestion, safety, and
cost of hauling.
2. The general result shows that landfill sites are extremely difficult to find and, if available,
have several other constraints not discussed in this analysis including:
a. Available sites may not be for sale and therefore could not be developed.
b. Additional streams and wetland buffers may be applicable to the sites, such as:
i. The 200-foot regulatory buffer from wetlands was not applied to this
screening.
ii. Stream mapping underestimates the amount of perennial and intermittent
stream channels, and therefore additional 200-foot and 50-foot buffers
would apply.
c. Public opinion, which can seriously impact the development of a new site, cannot
be fully accounted for with siting criteria alone.
These results show the overall difficulty of siting a new landfill when considering the multitude
of environmental constraints. This difficulty is exhibited by the fact that very few, if any, new
sites have been permitted in North Carolina in recent years. The expansion of an existing landfill
site is most practical as it eliminates new siting criteria, public comment from new landfill
neighbors, and costs/difficulties of actually locating and acquiring a sufficient site. The recent
regulatory requirements, and political attitude toward new sites resulting in the SWA, have
supported the continued expansion of existing over new landfill sites.
Alternative Site Study 12 February 2010
Table 1
GIS Analvsis Steps & Criteria
Alternative Site Analysis
WCA Landfill
Regulatory vs
Step # Criteria Dataset Specific Codes Used Buffer Size Process Criteria Industry Criteria Regulatory Industry
1 Parcel Size Wake County and Johnston County GIS - Calculated Acres none exclude all parcels less than 200 acres Industry na Equal or greater size to
Parcels current site

2
S
h
l Wake County and Johnston County GIS - All for public; Non-Public
S
h
l
t
th
2
il exclude all parcels that intersect a 2 mile
R
l
t
/ I
d
t Schools on siting 2-mile buffer for traffic/
c
oo
s Schools; NC One Map - Non Public Schools c
oo
s - grea
er
an
100
t
d
t m
es buffer of a school egu
a
ory
n
us
ry maps (no buffers) safety/public concerns
s
u
en
s
Reduced haul to major

3
Primary Roads
NCDOT LRS arcs Interstates, NC 2 miles exclude all parcels that do not intersect Ind
Industry
na routes/decrease in
Highways, US Highways within a 2 mile buffer of primary roads traffic impact to smaller
roads
4 State Parks State Property Office - DENR state owned State Parks 2 miles exclude all parcels that intersect a 2 mile Regulatory SWA 2007 na
property buffer of a state ark
5 WRC Gameland State Property Office - DENR state owned Gamelands 1 mile exclude all parcels that intersect a 1 mile Regulatory SWA 2007 na
property buffer of a WRC ameland
6 National Wildlife NC One Map - Federal Land Ownership (flo) FWS Refuge 5 miles exclude all parcels that intersect a 5 mile Regulatory SWA 2007 na
Refuge buffer of a national wildlife refu e
7 State Owned Land State Property Office - All state owned land All none exclude all parcels that are state owned Industry na Not available for
development
8 Federally Owned NC One Map - Federal Land Ownership (flo) All none exclude all parcels that are federally Industry na Not available for
Land owned development

9
Water Supply
NC O
M
W
t
S
l
W
t
h
d

All
exclude all parcels that intersect a water
R
l
t
/ I
d
t None in WSW-I,
IVCA
N
Exclude from remaining
Watershed ne
ap -
a
er
upp
y
a
ers
e none supply watershed egu
a
ory
n
us
ry ;
o WSW areas
discharging WS-II, III

10
HQW/ORW NC One Map - High Quality Water
O
t
t
di
R
W
t
M
t
All exclude all parcels that intersect a HOW
R
l
t
/ I
d
t No discharging LFs
i
ORW
ibl
All ORW/HQW
u
s
an
ng
esource
a
er
anagemen none or ORW egu
a
ory
n
us
ry n
, poss
e
Zones HOW
NC One Map - Lands Managed for

11 Conservation and Conservation & Open Space; Land Trust All
none exclude all parcels that are permanently Ind
Industry
na Not available for
Open Space Conservation Properties; Conservation Tax conserved development
Credit Properties
Endangered Natural Heritage Program -natural heritage federal and state exclude all parcels that contain an Federally protected State Protected
12 Species element occurrences threatened and none occurrence of a listed species Regulatory/ Industry species Species
endangered species only
Public Water NC One Map - Public Water Supply Water

13 System Source
Sources; Surface Water Intakes; Water
All
500 feet exclude all parcels that intersect a 500 ft
Regulatory
Solid Waste Regs
na
(e.g. intakes and Distribution System Wells buffer of a public water system source
wells
14 Urban Areas NC One Map - Urban areas All none exclude all parcels within urban areas Industry na High density area not
practical for landfill
500 foot buffer from 500 feet from

15 Residential Wake County - Subdivision Polygons;
All
1000 feet exclude all residential subdivision
Regulatory/ Industry
residences subdivision boundary
Subdivisions Johnston County- Subdivision Points parcels
(structures) (1000 feet from point in
Johnston
16 Hydric Soils Wake County and Johnston County Soils Hydric A none reduce the useable acreage of any Industry na likelihood of wetlands
remaining parcels
17 100 year floodplain NC Floodplain Mapping Program - 100 year A; AE; AEFW none reduce the useable acreage of any Regulatory Solid Waste Regs na
flood lain remaining parcels
NC One Map - National Wetlands Inventory; reduce the useable acreage of any
18 Wetlands NC One Map - DCM Wetlands Johnston All none remaining parcels Regulatory SWA 2007 na
Only

19 Perennial Streams USGS 1:24
,000 DLG Hydrography 101, 102, 108, 400, 401;
200 feet reduce the useable acreage of any
Regulatory
SWA 2007
na
and Lakes 412, 414, 421, 605, 606 remaining parcels

20 Intermittent
USGS 1:24,000 DLG Hydrography
610
50 feet reduce the useable acreage of any
Regulatory
SWA 2007
na
Streams remaining parcels
Table 2
Site Screening Summary
Alternative Site Analysis
WCA Landfill
General Information Screening Alternative Notes

arcel

ite

Total
Acres

Available
Acres

Avail. acres
contiguous?
Parcel shape
allows for
landfill?
Site use
conflicts
with landfill?
Avail. acres
contain
wetlands?
Potential
streams in
avail. acres?
Avail. acres
shape allows Env. Justice
landfill? Issue?
Other
constraint?
(See notes) Site?
1 A 259.4 126.1 Yes Yes No No No' Yes Yes No No 'SS streams extend into area
2 na 199.5 89.5 No No No
3 A 330.3 85.6 Yes Yes No No No Yes Yes No No Combined with Parcel 1
4 na 228.5 97.3 No Yes No
5 B 651.4 438.2 Yes Yes No No' Yes Yes No No No 'SS shows wet areas
6 na 216.7 84.4 No No No
7 C 205.9 157.6 Yes Yes No No Yes No No No No
8 D 464.0 256.7 Yes Yes No No' Yes Yes Yes Yes No 'SS shows wet areas/House parcel in site
9 na 414.1 3.6 No Yes No
10 E 203.6 187.4 Yes Yes No No' Yes No No Yes No 'H dric B soils/Cemetery on SS
11 na 211.0 0.0 No Yes No
12 na 214.5 14.0 No Yes No
13 na 224.3 129.7 No Yes No
14 D 200.0 110.5 Yes Yes No No' Yes Yes Yes No No 'SS wet areas/H dric B soils
15 F 209.7 149.6 Yes Yes No Yes Yes No No No No H dric A & B soils/ USGS & SS wet areas
16 na 220.9 61.9 No Yes No
17 K 277.0 133.7 Yes Yes No No' No No No No No 'H dric A soils
18 G 242.5 218.6 Yes Yes No No Yes Yes Yes No No SS stream bisects areas
19 H 216.5 179.8 Yes Yes No No No No No No No
20 na 555.7 117.5 No No No
21 na 238.5 95.1 No Yes No
22 1 307.7 242.7 Yes Yes No No Yes Yes No No No
23 na 1444.5 267.0 No No No
24 J 331.8 273.2 Yes Yes Yes No Yes Yes No No No Active quarry
25 na
1 236.7 189.4 No No No
26 na 661.7 81.8 No No No
na = Not applicable - initial screening phase eliminated parcel from site list
Shading = constraint eliminating parcel
SS = Soil Survey
= Parcels not excluded WCA Collection Sites WCA Landfill
DURHAM /t1A 57 J_ Z3, r-V% FRANKLIN
WILSON I
Site K
Site J
HARNETT
WAYNE
N
A
3 0 3 Miles
Note: Parcels without site identification did not
have the minimum contiguous available acreage SAMPSON Site F
(see Table 2 of Alternative Site Study report).
CAROLINA Date: 12/6/09 Figure: 1 Alternative Sites
ECOSVSTENISv' c- Data Sources: (NC OneMap)
8208 Brian Court Alternative Site Study
Garner, NC 27529 - NCDOT Primary Roads WCA Landfill
o: [phone] - NCDOT Seconds Roads
F: [phone] Wake County, NC
www.carolinaeco.com -County Boundaries
Available Acreage r-I Available Parcels Streams - USGS

r ?r.Fe
Topography - 5'

Available Acreage ® Available Parcels Streams - USGS Topography - 5' ?S
r•;yr .443
Y
w::, ?? Ya$Fxua fq 43
No-
t' t'•??a+r' 3?x s. ?'sk S.? ? I r s?; y ? .ra??? ,+ti?..,.y`?,?. ,??? ? ? p-.
a? v. m T-
i 3j
Parcel 5
.n4S
Total Acres: 651.4
Avail. Acres: 438.2
.i Y
W "R
-44
ll
'??` r ea ?.v 9
i
144
F w K?arr?x.@@?st arx,-_ r terry x. -1 ;7 r .1
yyaa r+ r y,d ^s1 A,Y.`[aiCRIC'.t.*AP 1 w;
V -N
I-R d,
bA \? _ ? ? - F 1 ? ? ¢ -x F
?3n"00.'t YcC ? 4RS`.? .I - ,% ?R '?Rr? ? - \ ? i1A7Rk?4. • xA
Data Sources: (from NC OneMap or NCDOT) Date: 12/4/09 Figure: 313 Alternative Site B
EC'- e- ,A% [NC^ - NCDOT 5' Topography Alternative Site Stud
8208 Brian Court, Garner, NC 27529 - USGS 1:24,000 Hydrography Study
O: [phone]; F: [phone] - Johnston County Tax Parcels 600 0 600 1200 Feet WCA Landfill
www.carolinaeco.com - Johnston Count 2005 Aerial Photography Wake County, NC
e•
Available Acreage Available Parcels Streams - USGS
e
R F' <s

--A i 3F
14
,
1 Parcel 7
Total Acres: 205.9
Avail. Acres: 157.6 Y
AWN
CAROLINA Data Sources: (from NC OneMap or NCDOT) Date: 12/4/09 Figure: 3C Alternative Site C
ECOsYs F-ms, lNc. - NCDOT 5' Topography
8208 Brian Court, Garner, NC 27529 - USGS 1:24,000 Hydrography Alternative Site Study
O: [phone]; F: [phone] - Johnston County Tax Parcels 600 0 600 1200 Feet WCA Landfill
www.carolinaeco.com - Johnston County 2005 Aerial Photographs Wake Count NC
RE
M
R
i.i.�
4:'J -//\ 1 /I. 1 1 111' I Q
'11 / I 1 1 /111 % �.L A
.\�� - .. 1 1 11111 % — \l-'(6 Prcel •
_`I 1 111111/ _/ 1V/h'®'�
F� ,
Total A
Avail. Ai
-
III r 111
�� L \ -
` / �- l \vim\'•� -..1'C l� ' � \\�///E •,.A ~�_Y /� —
L
`✓''�1 � 1 . e 1 r
_
�t���
W �
i 11
af,
f p `
.,/
�//� ii ham•:.'. �r
'knot 4 id��•
N
M
x
E

Topography - 5'
?n .
r
Yea
pia x
x
k Alt.,
Data Sources: (from NC OneMap or NCDOT) Date: 12/24/09 Figure: 3E Alternative Site E
ECOsYs ws, INC. - NCDOT 5' Topography
8208 Brian Court, Garner, NC 27529 - USGS 1:24,000 Hydrography Alternative Site Study
O: [phone]; F: [phone] - Johnston County Tax Parcels 600 0 600 1200 Fee WCA Landfill
www.carolinaeco.com - Johnston County Aerial Photographs Wake Count NC
g

Y? l+
iG
a 6-_ S Yv t?'3,_ Z s
FIX
Parcel 15
3 Total Acres: 209.7
Avail. Acres: 149.6 x .
R
IRE
*? \/E
74
$ g } Me
• L ti ?
• -"S'" "x X Y ? h 1
a
j
Data Sources: (from NC OneMap or NCDOT) Date: 12/24/09 Figure: 3F Alternative Site F
L . r r EMS, I C. - NCDOT 5' Topography
8208 Brian Court, Garner, NC 27529 - USGS 1:24,000 Hydrography Alternative Site Study
O: [phone]; F: [phone] - Johnston County Tax Parcels 600 0 600 1200 Fee WCA Landfill
www.carolinaeco.com - Johnston County 2005 Aerial Photographs Wake Count NC
vilabie MMLj pr -'[t
Topography - 5'
WAKE
COUNTY
waiii�i���■ri�®��u�►�Illll��ii�r���s��w����nws»»�r�airiia���w11111F NXIM =
CAROLINA Data Sources: (from NC OneMap or NCDOT) Date: 12/24/0 Figure: 3G Alternative Site G
EcosYs"rws, INC. - NCDOT 5' Topography
8208 Brian Court, Garner, NC 27529 - USGS 1:24,000 Hydrography Alternative Site Study
O: [phone]; F: [phone] - Johnston County Tax Parcels 600 0 600 1200 Feet WCA Landfill
www.carolinaeco.com - Johnston County 2005 Aerial Photographs I Wake County NC

Available Acreage r_1 Available Parcels Streams - USGS
Topography - 5' 9?
Parcel 19
Total Acres: 216.5
Avail. Acres: 179.8
I -
I
I

M fill
`?
w
Via' 'ae ? *a:?? r.`? ,s 'n'"•?:: I ?
7
fi
Z, A
CAROLINA Data Sources: (from NC OneMap or NCDOT) Date: 12/24/09 Figure: 3H Alternative Site H
ECOSYSTEM, INC. - NCDOT 5' Topography
8208 Brian Court, Garner, NC 27529 - USGS 1:24,000 Hydrography Alternative Site Study
O: [phone]; F: [phone] - Johnston County Tax Parcels 600 0 600 1200 Fee WCA Landfill
www.carolinaeco.com - Johnston County 2005 Aerial Photographs Wake County NC
Available Acreage Available Parcels Streams - USGS
ANTIM4
i 4i r I?? x 1 ID.
Topography - 5'

4i
I
k?
Parcel 22
Total Acres: 307.7
Avail. Acres: 242.7
?/r%`T..

CAROLINA, Data Sources: (from NC OneMap or NCDOT) Date: 12/24/09
ECOSYSTEM, INC. - NCDOT 5' Topography Fi ure: 31 Alternative Site I
8208 Brian Court, Garner, NC 27529 - USGS 1:24,000 Hydrography Alternative Site Study
O: [phone]; F: [phone] - Johnston County Tax Parcels 600 0 600 1200 Feet WCA Landfill
www.carolinaeco.com - Johnston County 2005 Aerial Photographs Wake Count NC

CAROLINA Data Sources: (from NC OneMap or NCDOT) Date: 12/24/09 Figure: 3J Alternative Site J
ECOsYs ws, INC. - NCDOT 5' Topography
8208 Brian Court, Garner, NC 27529 - USGS 1:24,000 Hydrography Alternative Site Study
O: [phone]; F: [phone] - Wake County Tax Parcels 600 0 600 1200 Feet WCA Landfill
www.carolinaeco.com - Wake County 2005 Aerial Photography Wake Count NC
td 1 g? Y e 0M, T 4 i '1 a ?t 53 .7
v 1 `;s ?, pe .. wwi3tt. i!? •? -:¢;T ?s; ,. ;? z "? } 'fix
Q 'A
k''?' itR rye. --
?r.s
?w MI
kzy
FZ4I` t. . ? T Qk. F"9 \.` .7& ? }? 5iy ? .? { ,!.n p+?'?^? '? .?? ? :} i ? } b fl` ?.
ti 3?q x.3 ?.r
,/ had +, gs 'YY.P+s -tr ;'?..K C Y-4
'2fi,:. Al
:?@ 'i ', "r .r G ewe
t ?P= E P ` • r ¢ °?' .' . xs . ,,Y a ?,. ... f r a b 'Y•
ia;
k:r { " tai z'" s
Data Sources: (from NC OneMap or NCDOT) Date: 12/24/09 Figure: 3K Alternative Site K
- NCDOT 5' Topography
8208 Brian Court, Garner, NC 27529 - USGS 1:24,000 Hydrography Alternative Site Study
O: [phone]; F: [phone] - Johnston County Tax Parcels 600 0 600 1200 Feet WCA Landfill
www.carolinaeco.com - Johnston County 2005 Aerial Photographs Wake Count NC
5ziC A-1
CAROLINA
3040 NC 42 West, Clayton NC 27520
ECOSYSTEMS, . 0: 919-606-1065/F: 919-585-5570
July 15, 2011
BRITT, WILLA DEAN W LIFE EST
PARKER, IDA FRANCES B RMNDR
324 WESTBROOK CHURCH RD
MT OLIVE NC 28365-0000
RE: Property NCPIN 159700-68-6433
Johnston County, NC
Dear Landowner:
Carolina Ecosystems, Inc. is providing environmental consulting services for an industrial client
in southeastern Wake County. As part of the submittal and regulatory review process, we have
been asked to study alternative sites in surrounding areas and compare them to our site. Your
property has been identified as one that has similar characteristics and size to our facility.
We would greatly appreciate your permission to review your property strictly for comparison
purposes to our client's property. We are not attempting to acquire your land or build a facility
on your property. The environmental regulatory review process requires a rigorous review of
alternatives to the project prior to permit approval.
Your participation in this study is purely voluntary. While you may see no benefit to granting
access to your property, our staff will provide you with a map of your property identifying key
regulatory features (wetlands, streams, etc) after completion of their work. They would visit
your property in August 2011.
We would appreciate it if you could return the attached form in the stamped, self-addressed
envelope to let us know if you grant access to our staff. A lack of response would also signify
that you do not grant access, but we would appreciate a return of the form stating this.
If you have any questions please contact me at 919-606-1065 or [e-mail].
Thank you for your time.
Sincerely,
Carolina Ecosystems, Inc.

Phil May
Senior Environmental Scientist
Property Owner:
BRITT, WILLA DEAN W LIFE EST
PARKER, IDA FRANCES B RMNDR
Address:
324 WESTBROOK CHURCH RD
MT OLIVE NC 28365-0000
Property PIN:
159700-68-6433
Please check one of the boxes below.
I hereby grant Carolina Ecosystems, Inc. access to my property for the purpose of a
cursory review of environmental features.
? I do not grant Carolina Ecosystems, Inc. access to my property.
Please sign, print your name and date below.
Authorizing Signature:
Authorizing Name (Print):
Date:
& TE X3
CAROLINA 3040 NC 42 West, Clayton NC 27520
ECOSYSTEMS, INC. 0: 919-606-1065/F: 919-585-5570
July 15, 2011
E & F PROPERTIES INC
MARKET STREET #235 LMT PART
P O BOX 1352
SMITHFIELD NC 27577-0000
RE: Property NCPIN 159700-36-5232
Johnston County, NC
Dear Landowner:
Carolina Ecosystems, Inc. is providing environmental consulting services for an industrial client
in southeastern Wake County. As part of the submittal and regulatory review process, we have
been asked to study alternative sites in surrounding areas and compare them to our site. Your
property has been identified as one that has similar characteristics and size to our facility.
We would greatly appreciate your permission to review your property strictly for comparison
purposes to our client's property. We are not attempting to acquire your land or build a facility
on your property. The environmental regulatory review process requires a rigorous review of
alternatives to the project prior to permit approval.
Your participation in this study is purely voluntary. While you may see no benefit to granting
access to your property, our staff will provide you with a map of your property identifying key
regulatory features (wetlands, streams, etc) after completion of their work. They would visit
your property in August 2011.
We would appreciate it if you could return the attached form in the stamped, self-addressed
envelope to let us know if you grant access to our staff. A lack of response would also signify
that you do not grant access, but we would appreciate a return of the form stating this.
If you have any questions please contact me at 919-606-1065 or [e-mail].
Thank you for your time.
Sincerely,
Carolina Ecosystems, Inc.
Phil May
Senior Environmental Scientist
Property Owner:
E & F PROPERTIES INC
MARKET STREET #235 LMT PART
Address:
P O BOX 1352
SMITHFIELD NC 27577-0000
Property PIN:
159700-36-5232
Please check one of the boxes below.
C I hereby grant Carolina Ecosystems, Inc. access to my property for the purpose of a
cursory review of environmental features.
I do not grant Carolina Ecosystems, Inc. access to my property.
Please sign, print your name and date below.
Authorizing Signature:
Authorizing Name (Print):
Date:
S TTG 6
CAROLINA
ECOSYSTEMS, INC.
3040 NC 42 West, Clayton NC 27520
0: 919-606-1065 /F: 919-585-5570
July 15, 2011
TWIN STATES FARMING INC
P O BOX 1352
SMITHFIELD NC 27577-1377
RE: Property NCPIN 266500-39-7641
2757 HICKORY CROSSROADS RD
Kenly, NC
Dear Landowner:
Carolina Ecosystems, Inc. is providing environmental consulting services for an industrial client
in southeastern Wake County. As part of the submittal and regulatory review process, we have
been asked to study alternative sites in surrounding areas and compare them to our site. Your
property has been identified as one that has similar characteristics and size to our facility.
We would greatly appreciate your permission to review your property strictly for comparison
purposes to our client's property. We are not attempting to acquire your land or build a facility
on your property. The environmental regulatory review process requires a rigorous review of
alternatives to the project prior to permit approval.
Your participation in this study is purely voluntary. While you may see no benefit to granting
access to your property, our staff will provide you with a map of your property identifying key
regulatory features (wetlands, streams, etc) after completion of their work. They would visit
your property in August 2011.
We would appreciate it if you could return the attached form in the stamped, self-addressed
envelope to let us know if you grant access to our staff. A lack of response would also signify
that you do not grant access, but we would appreciate a return of the form stating this.
If you have any questions please contact me at 919-606-1065 or [e-mail].
Thank you for your time.
Sincerely,
Carolina Ecosystems, Inc.

Phil May
Senior Environmental Scientist
Property Owner:
TWIN STATES FARMING INC
Address:
P O BOX 1352
SMITHFIELD NC 27577-1377
Property PIN:
266500-39-7641
Please check one of the boxes below.
I I hereby grant Carolina Ecosystems, Inc. access to my property for the purpose of a
cursory review of environmental features.
I do not grant Carolina Ecosystems, Inc. access to my property.
Please sign, print your name and date below.
Authorizing Signature:
Authorizing Name (Print):
Date:
ST-re CAROLINA 3040 NC 42 West, Clayton NC 27520
ECOSYSTEMS, INC. 0: 919-606-1065/F: 919-585-5570
July 15, 2011
POWELL, NAOMI R &
GUSTAFSON, SHIRLEY P &
GUSTAFSON, JULIA LAUREN &
6532 MEDINAH LN
ALEXANDRIA VA 22312-0000
RE: Property NCPIN 272300-18-4329
Johnston County, NC
Dear Landowner:
Carolina Ecosystems, Inc. is providing environmental consulting services for an industrial client
in southeastern Wake County. As part of the submittal and regulatory review process, we have
been asked to study alternative sites in surrounding areas and compare them to our site. Your
property has been identified as one that has similar characteristics and size to our facility.
We would greatly appreciate your permission to review your property strictly for comparison
purposes to our client's property. We are not attempting to acquire your land or build a facility
on your property. The environmental regulatory review process requires a rigorous review of
alternatives to the project prior to permit approval.
Your participation in this study is purely voluntary. While you may see no benefit to granting
access to your property, our staff will provide you with a map of your property identifying key
regulatory features (wetlands, streams, etc) after completion of their work. They would visit
your property in August 2011.
We would appreciate it if you could return the attached form in the stamped, self-addressed
envelope to let us know if you grant access to our staff. A lack of response would also signify
that you do not grant access, but we would appreciate a return of the form stating this.
If you have any questions please contact me at 919-606-1065 or [e-mail].
Thank you for your time.
Sincerely,
Carolina Ecosystems, Inc.

Phil May
Senior Environmental Scientist
Property Owner:
POWELL, NAOMI R &
GUSTAFSON, SHIRLEY P &
GUSTAFSON, JULIA LAUREN &
Address:
6532 MEDINAH LN
ALEXANDRIA VA 22312-0000
Property PIN:
272300-18-4329
Please check one of the boxes below.
I hereby grant Carolina Ecosystems, Inc. access to my property for the purpose of a
cursory review of environmental features.
? I do not grant Carolina Ecosystems, Inc. access to my property.
Please sign, print your name and date below.
Authorizing Signature:
Authorizing Name (Print):
Date:
si l't i
Property Owner:
SMITH, MARILYN FAYE MARTIN
LLOYD, CAROLE BLANCHE MARTIN
Address:
P O BOX 1932
WENDELL NC 27591-0000
Property PIN:
178200-64-2453
Please check one of the boxes below.
? I hereby grant Carolina Ecosystems, Inc. access to my property for the purpose of a
cursory review of environmental features.
I do not grant Carolina Ecosystems, Inc. access to my property.
Please sign, print your name and date below.

Authorizing
Authorizing Name (Print):
Date:
S:rT6 :t
CAROLINA 3040 NC 42 West, Clayton NC 27520
ECOSYSTEMS, . 0: 919-606-1065/F: 919-585-5570
July 15, 2011
SMITH, MARILYN FAYE MARTIN
LLOYD, CAROLE BLANCHE MARTIN
P O BOX 1932
WENDELL NC 27591-0000
RE: Property NCPIN 178200-64-2453
1162 MAGGIE WAY
Wendell, NC
Dear Landowner:
Carolina Ecosystems, Inc. is providing environmental consulting services for an industrial client
in southeastern Wake County. As part of the submittal and regulatory review process, we have
been asked to study alternative sites in surrounding areas and compare them to our site. Your
property has been identified as one that has similar characteristics and size to our facility.
We would greatly appreciate your permission to review your property strictly for comparison
purposes to our client's property. We are not attempting to acquire your land or build a facility
on your property. The environmental regulatory review process requires a rigorous review of
alternatives to the project prior to permit approval.
Your participation in this study is purely voluntary. While you may see no benefit to granting
access to your property, our staff will provide you with a map of your property identifying key
regulatory features (wetlands, streams, etc) after completion of their work. They would visit
your property in August 2011.
We would appreciate it if you could return the attached form in the stamped, self-addressed
envelope to let us know if you grant access to our staff. A lack of response would also signify
that you do not grant access, but we would appreciate a return of the form stating this.
If you have any questions please contact me at 919-606-1065 or [e-mail].
Thank you for your time.
Sincerely,
Carolina Ecosystems, Inc.

Phil May
Senior Environmental Scientist
Property Owner:
SMITH, MARILYN FAYE MARTIN
LLOYD, CAROLE BLANCHE MARTIN
Address:
P O BOX 1932
WENDELL NC 27591-0000
Property PIN:
178200-64-2453
Please check one of the boxes below.
I hereby grant Carolina Ecosystems, Inc. access to my property for the purpose of a
cursory review of environmental features.
F1 I do not grant Carolina Ecosystems, Inc. access to my property.
Please sign, print your name and date below.
Authorizing Signature:
Authorizing Name (Print):
Date:
II
a
U
Postage $
A
Certified Fee

:3 Return Receipt Fee
er
:3 (Endorsement Required) g
?
:3 Restricted Delivery Fee
;tip ?:;,
..
•
(Endorsement Required) 4

a Total Postage & Fees s
sentio ®?yy,? - y5
a ... ? ----------- ?-
Street, Apt. ;
or PO BOX No. 3 t? fA[LZ?CI??If??S? u c J?c? ------
City, State, ZfP+4 1 OU. J 01,,,.e- M c 99365
M I, - r I .
M
-o
m
CO
ul Postage $
a
Certified Fee
O
C-3 Return Receipt Fee
0 (Endorsement Required)
r-3 Restricted Delivery Fee
(Endorsement Required)
O
r_3 Total Postage & Fees
0
Sent To
Street, Apt. No.;
C3 or PO Box No.
(') z
--------------
Postage
Certified Fee
Return Receipt Fee
(Endorsement Required)
Restricted Delivery Fee
(Endorsement Required)

Total Postage & Fees
Q' r-
-n
m
ni
Postage $
? c.
Certified Fee
C3 Return Receipt Fee u
C3 (Endorsement Required)
O Restricted Delivery Fee
(Endorsement Required)
r-q I BULLDOG
Total Postage & Fees E R E S
o fti r
r-9
rq
O
P-
r
L0
For delivery Information visit our website
.o
}
R.l
CO
U') Postage $
Certified Fee
O
M Return Receipt Fee
C3 (Endorsement Required)
O Restricted Delivery Fee
(Endorsement Required)
?ULL®O 1 r._, Total Postage & Fees
------------------------------ r-9
"do
Sent T"
?t
7 i

(??. . -°__?.......-°--.------.
Street, Apt. o.;
-------------------------- or PO Box--
No-
- G_J_J9--MM C__k?.04 1
BULL®QG
ATTACHMENT 5
Stormwater Calculations
Drainage Basin
1
2
3
4**
5**
6**
Pre-Development
Drainage Basin
acres
37.3
84.4
64.6
227.2
12.5
140.1
Pre-Development
Built Upon Area*
acres
0.0
4.3
2.3
11.0
1.1
10.1
Pre-Development
Built Upon Percent
0.0
5.1
3.6
4.8
8.8
7.2
*Considered impervious per NC Stormwater BMP Manual
**No change to impervious area considered outside facility boundary
***Required to be less than 3.6 Ib/ac/yr
All drainage areas consider roadways and structures on-site and outside the facility
Post-Development
Drainage Basin
acres
36.2
85.4
64.2
226.0
12.1
142.2
Post-Development Post-Development
Built Upon Area* Built Upon Percent
acres %
1.6 4.4
2.0 2.3
0.4 0.6
11.0 4.9
1.1 9.0
8.6 6.1
Post-Development
Drainage Basin Built Upon Area*
acres
1 1.6
2 2.0
3 0.4
4** 11.0
5** 1.1
6** 8.6
Permanent Forest Permanent Grass Total N Export Rate Total N Export Rate Total N Export Rate Post-Dev TN loading
Open Space Open Space Impervious Area Forest Open Space Grass Open Space rate before BMP***
acres acres @ 21.2 Ib/ac/yr, Ibs @ 0.6 Ib/ac/yr, Ibs @ 1.2 Ib/ac/yr, Ibs Ib/acre/yr
0.0 34.6 33.9 0.0 41.5 2.08
27.2 56.2 42.4 16.3 67.4 1.48
22.7 41.1 8.5 13.6 49.3 1.11
119.0 96.0 233.2 71.4 115.2 1.86
8.4 2.6 23.3 5.0 3.1 2.60
52.6 81.0 182.3 31.6 97.2 2.19
*Considered impervious per NC Stormwater BMP Manual
**No change to impervious area considered outside facility boundary
***Required to be less than 3.6 Ib/ac/yr
All drainage areas consider roadways and structures on-site and outside the facility
STORM WATER FACILITIES INSPECTION
AND MAINTENANCE MANUAL
Project: MATERIAL RECOVERY, LLC
C&D DEBRIS LANDFILL
Location: WAKE COUNTY, NORTH CAROLINA
Owners: MATERIAL RECOVERY, LLC
421 Raleigh View Road
Raleigh, North Carolina 27610
Prepared By: David Garrett, P.G., P.E.
Date: SEPTEMBER 29, 2011 (DRAFT)
Receiving Stream: Unnamed Tributary to Neuse River
Class C Watershed
Contractors: (List below)
General Contractor:
Grading Contractor:
Impoundment & Dam Spillway:
Material Supplies (List Below):
Riser Structure
Floating Skimmer
Gate Valve
To be determined
CAP Outlet Pipe and
Bottom Drain
Trash Rack
STORMWATER BMP INSPECTION & MAINTENANCE MANUAL
Material Recovery, LLC
C&D Debris Landfill
This manual established procedures for maintenance and operation of the Wet Detention
Basin and other BMP's in accordance with NC DENR guidelines as set forth in "Storm
Water Best Management Practices" (current version), pursuant to T15A NCAC 02H
.1000. Incorporated into this plan are Stormwater Inspection and Maintenance
Guidelines' - provided as good reference material - presented as Attachment 1. The
responsible party for facility construction and maintenance shall become familiar with
these requirements, which provide guidance for maintenance of the storm water facilities
associated with the project.
This project differs from most large-scale projects in that the construction is staged over a
period of years, rather than a short-term build out. Inasmuch, both temporary and
permanent measures may in place within various portions of the site at a given time,
depending on the stage of activities. This project also differs from typical urban
construction in that the amount of impervious surface is very low, and the regulations
require significant buffers that provide a high percentage of vegetated or forested open-
space. The stormwater measures integrate seamlessly into the site-wide Sedimentation
and Erosion Control Plan. Installation of the measures (or BMPs) shall be in accordance
with a future plan that will be prepared by a registered professional engineer and
approved by Wake County and/or NC DENR. The stormwater measures are subject to
inspection by NCDENR Division of Water Quality and Wake County Environmental
Services. An Inspection and Maintenance checklist is provided as Attachment 2.
The following briefly describes the temporary and permanent stormwater facilities,
termed BMP's or "best management practices" in the regulatory literature:
1. Wet Detention Pond - an impoundment contained behind an earthen
embankment, designed to capture and treat (primarily via settling) runoff from the
operations area. The pond features a permanent pool (i.e., the water quality
volume), a minimum 10-foot wide aquatic shelf, and sufficient storage capacity to
contain the first inch of runoff from a typical storm event. A forebay contained
behind a stone rip-rap embankment near the pond inlet is designed to capture a
majority of the sediment load with ready access for maintenance. The pond inlets
(or pipe and channel outlets) consist of stone rip-rap aprons that dissipate flow
energy and prevent scouring below the discharge. The pond outlet is a complex
riser-barrel structure, constructed of long-lasting aluminum pipe or masonry, with
a floating skimmer or other low-flow orifices that limit discharge during low
intensity storms (2-year to 10-year) to pre-development levels.
' Section 3.6 of the City of Greensboro "Stormwater Management Manual" - future updates to this manual
will include similar literature from Wake County
Material Recovery, LLC - C&D Landfill September 2011
Stormwater Inspection & Maintenance Manual - Rev. 0 Page 2
The top-discharging riser activates during high intensity storms (25-year and
greater); an emergency overflow (stone-lined channel) will safely pass the 100-
year storm event. A trash rack that extends below the normal pool surrounds the
discharge orifices, except for the skimmer, which has its own trash rack. These
facilities need to be kept clear of debris and accumulated sediment. Erosion needs
to be repaired regularly, and vegetation needs to be maintained. Supplemental
basins may be required to balance the flow in the undisturbed natural channels.
2. Level Spreader - a stone-lined channel that stills the discharge from the primary
overflow of the pond and spreads it over a large, level area that establishes sheet
flow prior to entering Zone 2 of the riparian buffer area. This structure needs to
be kept clear of debris and the discharge lip keep level; downstream erosion needs
to be repaired as needed and vegetation maintained to prevent channelized flow.
3. Drainage Pipe - smooth-wall solid pipe consisting of PVC or HDPE that conveys
flow collected in the catch basins to the stormwater basin; the pipes are intended
to be low-maintenance, but sediment removal is required as needed.
4. Grated Catch Basins - masonry or pre-fabricated drop boxes that capture surface
runoff and direct flow to the drain pipes. The drop boxes may be susceptible to
sediment buildup and need to be inspected frequently. Grates need to be kept
clear of debris that would prevent efficient flow.
5. Vegetated Swales - the entire surface of the landfill and perimeter channels along
access roads will be vegetated to provide stormwater filtering; erosion control
berms will be installed at regular intervals during the closure of side slopes.
6. Channel Liner - some portions of the channels may require synthetic erosion
control matting to prevent scour, while retaining the ability to support vegetation.
7. Check Dams and Rip-Rap Protection - all channels will fitted with rip-rap check
dams for sediment control; rip-rap aprons will be provided at pipe inlets and exits.
8. Side Slope Erosion Protection - vegetation will be established and maintained on
finished surface throughout the operation and post-closure care period; this may
require slope protection such as rolled erosion control matting or natural mulch.
9. Embankment Construction Measures - temporary sediment traps and silt fence
will be used during typical ground disturbing activities; during the operations
stage, and to the degree possible during construction, all stormwater from active
areas will be captured and routed through the storm water pond.
10. Vegetation and Riparian Buffers - all surfaces will be stabilized with appropriate
ground cover as soon as practical; vegetation will be maintained throughout the
life of the facility; undisturbed regulatory buffers along streams will be observed.
Material Recovery, LLC - C&D Landfill September 2011
Stormwater Inspection & Maintenance Manual - Rev. 0 Page 3
The following sections are dedicated to specific routine activities to assure the proper
performance of the BMP's. The reader is encouraged to review the Stormwater
Inspection and Maintenance Guidelines (Attachment 1). In cases where these guidelines
might conflict, the more stringent of the two should be observed.
1. Maintenance of Embankments
A. Vegetation
The embankment has a ground cover of fescue, which if properly maintained
will prevent erosion of the embankment and provide an easy surface for
inspection. The grass will be most difficult to obtain in the area subject to
water level fluctuation below the top of the riser. Grass should be fertilized
every October and April.
Re-Seeding - periodically re-seeding may be required to establish grass on
areas where seek did not take or has been destroyed. Before seeding, fertilizer
(12-12-12) should be applied at a minimum rate of 12 to 15 pounds per 1,000
SF. The seed should be evenly sewn at a rate of three pounds per 1,000 SF.
The seed should be covered with soil to the depth of approximately 1/4".
Immediately following the planting, the area should be mulched with straw.
Trees & Shrubs - trees, shrubs, and other landscape vegetation should be
permitted only as shown on the approved planting plan.
Mowing - grass mowing, brush cutting and removal of weed vegetation will
be necessary for the proper maintenance of the embankment. All
embankment slopes and vegetation of spillways should be mowed when the
grass exceeds 8" in height. Acceptable methods include the use of weed
whips or power brush cutters and mowers.
B. Erosion
Erosion occurs when the water concentrates causing failure of the vegetation
or when vegetation dies and sets up the environment for rill erosion and
eventually gullies from the stormwater runoff. The dam should be inspected
for these areas. Proper care of vegetative areas that develop erosion is required
to prevent more serious damage to the embankment. Rills and gullies should
be filled with suitable soil compacted and then seeded. Methods described in
Section I-A, on vegetation, should be used to properly establish the grass
surface. Where eroded areas are detected, the cause of the erosion should be
addressed to prevent a continued maintenance problem. Frequently problems
result from the concentration of runoff to one point of the embankment crest
instead of a uniform distribution of runoff. This can be corrected by reshaping
Material Recovery, LLC - C&D Landfill September 2011
Stormwater Inspection & Maintenance Manual - Rev. 0 Page 4
the crest to more evenly distribute the runoff to areas, which are not
experiencing erosion problems. The top of the dam should not be allowed to
be used for regular vehicle, pedestrian or bicycle traffic.
Abutment Areas - the abutment is the line formed where the embankment
fill comes into contact with the existing slope. Runoff from rainfall
concentrates in these gutter areas and can reach erosive velocities because
of the steep slopes. If a normal stand of grass cannot be maintained on the
abutments, additional measures may be needed such as jute matting to
provide for the establishment of a good ground cover.
Upstream Embankment Slope - Erosion problems can develop on the
upstream face of the dam due to the fluctuation of water level in the pond.
This is a result of a combination of wave actions and ground saturation,
which occurs from the elevated water levels. The erosion generally occurs
as the water level falls and the saturated ground becomes subjected to the
wave action. If erosion becomes a problem, it may necessitate the
installation of a stone armoring along the zone subject to fluctuating water
level. This would consist of 18" of NCDOT Class B stone for erosion
control, underlain with Mirifi 140 (or equivalent) geotextile. It should be
centered at the point of the erosion problem and covering an area 2' above
and below the approximate center of the eroded area.
C. Seepage
Detection - due to the fact that the "permanent" impoundment level is
only 6' deep, and the road embankment is immediately downstream and
continuous with the dam embankment, seepage should not be expected on
the downstream slope of the embankment. However, a cursory inspection
of the road embankment should be made for completeness of the
inspection. Seepage may vary in appearance from a soft wet area to a
flowing spring. It may show up first as only an area where the vegetation
is more lush and darker green. Cattails, reeds, mosses and other marsh
vegetation often become established in a seepage area. The downstream
abutment areas where the embankment fill and natural ground interface
are very common locations for seepage. Also the contact between the
embankment and the spillway conduit is a very common location, which is
generally attributed to poor compaction around the conduit. Due to the
way in which conduits are put in, this is generally most evident on the
underside of the conduit.
Slides may result from excessively saturated embankment slopes. The
natural foundation area immediately downstream of the dam abutment
should also be inspected to ensure that "piping" is not occurring
underneath the embankment. "Piping" may appear as a "boil" evident as
Material Recovery, LLC - C&D Landfill September 2011
Stormwater Inspection & Maintenance Manual - Rev. 0 Page 5
spring carries soil. The soil usually deposits around the boil area and is
evident by the sedimentary deposits accompanying it. Seepage can also
occur into the spillway conduit through cracks in the pipe or improperly
sealed joints. These can be seen by observing the conduit when the water
level is high. The movement of the water itself is not dangerous, but if soil
particles are being carried with it, then it can create a shortcut for the
piping of soil. This might show up on the upstream face of the
embankment roughly along the line of the conduit itself.
D. Cracks, Slides, Sloughing, and Settlement
Cracks - the entire embankment should be inspected for cracks. Short,
isolated cracks are usually not significant, but larger cracks (wider than
1/4"), well-defined cracks indicate a serious problem. There are two types
of cracks: transverse and longitudinal. Traverse cracks appear crossing the
embankment and indicated difference of settlement within the
embankment. Cracks provide avenues for excess seepage, which could
lead to piping (internal soil loss). Longitudinal cracks run parallel to the
embankment and may signal the early stages of a slide. In recently built
structures, these cracks may be indicative of poor compaction or poor
foundation preparation resulting in consolidation after construction.
Slides - Slides and slumps are potentially serious threats to the integrity of
an embankment. Slides can be detected easily unless obscured by
vegetation. Arch shaped cracks are indications that slides are slipping, or
beginning to slip. These cracks soon develop into large scarps in the slope
at the top of the slide.
Settlement - settlement occurs both during construction and after the
embankment has been completed and places in service. To a certain
degree this is normal and should be experienced. It is usually the most
pronounced at the location of maximum foundation depth or embankment
height. Excessive settlement will reduce the free board (difference in
elevation between the water surface and the top of the dam). Any area of
excessive settlement should be restored to original elevation and condition
to reduce the risk of overtopping. A relatively large settlement (more than
6 inches) within a small area could indicate serious problems in the
foundation or perhaps the lower part of the embankment. Settlement
accompanied by cracking often precedes failure.
What to do if seepage, cracks, slides or settlement are detected: If any of
the above items are detected there may be signs of significant problems,
which could lead, to the failure of the structure. A geotechnical or civil
engineer should be consulted regarding the origin of these problems and
for the assessment of the appropriate solutions for correcting them. If the
Material Recovery, LLC - C&D Landfill September 2011
Stormwater Inspection & Maintenance Manual - Rev. 0 Page 6
professional is not immediately able to inspect the dam, then the bottom
drain should be opened and the water level lowered to remove the risk of
failure until a professional can observe these problems.
E. Rodent Control
Generally in this urban environment, rodents are not a problem. Rodents such
as ground hogs, muskrats, and beavers are attracted to dams and reservoirs
and can be quite dangerous to structural integrity and proper performance of
the embankment and spillway. Groundhog and muskrats thrive on burrowing
in the manmade earth embankments, which become pathways for seepage. If
burrows are detected on the dam, the rodents should be removed.
II. MAINTENANCE OF SPILLWAYS & CONTROL STRUCTURES
A. Inspection of Spillway Conduits
Conduits should be inspected thoroughly once a year. Conduits should be
visually inspected by actually entering the conduit a sufficient distance
between the riser structure and the outlet to check all the joints. Because the
outlet works tie into the street storm sewer system, catch basins and pipes.
Conduit should be inspected for proper alignment (sagging), elongation and
displacement at joints, cracks, leaks, surface water, surface wear, loss of
protective coating, corrosion and blocking. Problems with conduits most often
occur at joints and special attention should be given to them during inspection.
Joints should be checked for gaps caused by elongation or settlement and loss
of joint filler material. Open joints can permit erosion of the embankment
material and possibly the piping of soil material through the joints. A
depression in the soil surface over the pipe may indicate that soil is being
removed from around the pipe.
What to do if problems are detected with the spillway: Retain the
assistance of a civil engineer or geotechnical engineer qualified in the
design of embankments to perform an inspection of the dam. If in doubt,
lower the water surface elevation of the pond until such time as a qualified
professional can perform an inspection.
B. Trash Racks on Pipe Spillways
The intake structure has been fitted with a trash rack to prevent debris from
entering the spillway structure. Most of the runoff entering the pond comes in
through grated inlets, which have essentially provided filtration of the runoff
and should limit the size of the debris that enters the basin to floating debris,
which will most likely pass through the trash rack. The opening between the
Material Recovery, LLC - C&D Landfill September 2011
Stormwater Inspection & Maintenance Manual - Rev. 0 Page 7
trash rack and riser is smaller than the opening of the outlet pipe, thus the pipe
outlet will easily pass any debris that passes through the trash rack.
Maintenance should include periodically checking the rack for rusted or
broken sections and repairing as needed. The trash rack should be checked
frequently during and after storm events to ensure that it is properly
functioning and to remove accumulated debris.
III. OPERATION
A. Pond Drains
Pond drains should always be operable so that the pool level can be drawn
down in case of an emergency or for repairs or maintenance. Pond drain
valves or gates that have not been operated for a long time present a special
problem. Generally, when draining the pond, it should be drained slowly.
Open the drain until a good flow of water is present but not a torrent, so that
the water level can be drained over a period of 48 hours or more. Rapidly
lowering the water level in the pond can cause permanent damage to the
embankment, or downstream erosion, and must be avoided. The gate valve
controlling the pond drain should be operated from fully closed to fully
opened position at least twice a year.
B. Record Keeping
Operation of a dam should include recording of the following:
Annual Inspection Reports - a collection of written inspection reports should
be kept on record with this manual.
Periodic Inspection - routine observation should be performed at least weekly
and following any rainfall event of one-half, or more. Documentation of
routine observation should be kept on record with this manual. Where
periodic inspections are performed following significant rainfall events, these
inspections should be logged into the Periodic Inspection, Operation &
Maintenance Form found in the back of this manual (see Attachment 2).
Maintenance - written records of maintenance and/or repairs should be
recorded on the Periodic Inspection, Inspection & Maintenance Form in the
back of this manual (see Attachment 2).
Other Operation Procedures - the owner should maintain a complete and up-
to-date set of plans (as-built drawings) and all changes made to the dam over
time should be recorded on the as-built drawings.
C. Sedimentation & Dredging
Sedimentation from establishing areas tributary to the pond will eventually
result in the reduction of the retention pool and eventually will have to be
Material Recovery, LLC - C&D Landfill September 2011
Stormwater Inspection & Maintenance Manual - Rev. 0 Page 8
removed. The frequency of this sediment removal can be reduced by ensuring
that the site areas around the building be stabilized with a vegetative ground
cover such that it restrains erosion. This would include a periodic application
of fertilizer and other treatments necessary to promote a stable groundcover
and minimize sedimentation to the pond. Sediment in the forebay should be
removed when the sediment level reaches a maximum El. 881, as determined
by a permanent gauge stick installed in the forebay. Any sediment buildup in
the main basin should be removed when the level reaches a maximum El. 881,
but if sediment buildup in the main basin is observed, the forebay should be
cleaned more frequently. Sediment removal should begin with the removal of
as much water as possible; then the deposited sediment can be excavated with
conventional equipment. The removed material should be drained and hauled
offsite or mounded somewhere on site and stabilized with a groundcover
sufficient to restrain erosion.
IV. INSPECTION, OPERATION & MAINTENANCE CHECKLISTS
See forms in Attachment 2.
V. SPECIAL CONSIDERATIONS
Observe periodic storm water sampling and analytical requirements.
Material Recovery, LLC - C&D Landfill September 2011
Stormwater Inspection & Maintenance Manual - Rev. 0 Page 9
Attachment No. I
City of Greensboro
Stormwater Management Manual
(Excerpt)
The following excerpts were recreated verbatim from the referenced publication:
3.6 Structural BMP Maintenance and Inspection Guidelines
3.6.1 Introduction
The purpose of this section is to provide owners of structural BMP's with guidelines to
help maintain the BMP's. It is often the case that owners do not fully understand what
the BMP on their property is designed to do, much less how to properly maintain it. With
different and more complex stormwater BMP's being introduced, it is even more crucial
that owners know about the maintenance required for a particular BMP before they
decide on one to implement. For owners to appreciate the need for maintenance, it is
important that owners are aware that BMP's provide value to the quality of our surface
waters and in many cases can be an amenity to their property.
Periodic inspections and maintenance are key factors in preserving the functionality of
structural stormwater BMP's. Stormwater BMP's are not self-maintaining systems, and
over time the efficiency of structural BMP's to remove pollutants will diminish. Trapped
sediments and other pollutants can potentially reduce the volume capacity of the BMP's,
decrease filtration rates for filtering BMP's, and damage plantings used for treatment.
The following guidelines are provided for the benefit of owners of structural BMP's to
help ensure that the BMP will continue to meet the objectives they were designed for.
Besides inspecting and maintaining components in which a BMP's water quality
functionality is to be sustained, attention must also be paid to the structural components
to sustain its hydraulic functionality as well. Minimizing the risk of hydraulic
malfunction (potentially leading to structural failure) is essential, especially for larger
impoundment structures such as wet detention ponds, since the majority of the
stormwater BMP's in Greensboro are located in urbanized settings, where structural
failure may jeopardize downstream life and property.
Maintenance is also important to prevent the decline in the appearance of the BMP.
Unhealthy conditions (such as noxious vegetation, stagnant water, etc.) may occur within
and around the BMP, which may affect the aesthetics and economic value of the
surrounding property.
3.6.2 BMP Maintenance Requirements
The City's water-supply watershed (Ch 30) ordinance and the 1999 stormwater
management (Ch 27) ordinance require that BMP's which are constructed to meet these
requirements must be maintained by the property owner or owners' association. The
BMP's must be maintained to continue to function to meet the regulations it was
designed for. The City has the authority to inspect these BMP's periodically and require
the BMP owner to perform maintenance activities, when necessary.
City of Greensboro Page 97
Stormwater Management Manual (Excerpt) February 2000
The City, as required by the State, will conduct periodic inspections of structural BMP's
implemented for water-supply watershed protection. The City will advise the owner of
recommended and required maintenance actions needed to maintain BMP functionality.
The design engineer and developer should be responsible for providing BMP owners with
inspection and maintenance guidelines and educating them on it.
3.6.3 General Maintenance Guidelines
Dam Safety (This section is applicable to all above ground BMP's that utilize a dam to
permanently or temporarily retain or detain water).
Preserving the structural integrity of the dam of a pond BMP is important in protecting
downstream life and property. There are at least four aspects of the dam that require
specific attention: (1) assessment of hazard potential due to changes in downstream
development; (2) seepage; (3) dam material problems; and (4) vegetation growth on the
dam embankments.
Assessment of Hazard Potential
Before any dam is constructed, the design engineer is responsible for notifying the
NC State Dam Safety Office of the proposed dam. If the dam falls under State
Dam Safety jurisdiction, the dam must be constructed, maintained and operated
according to their design and construction guidelines. Even if the dam does not
fall under the NC Dam Safety Office's jurisdiction, the dam should be designed
and constructed in accordance with current good engineering practice. The City
has requirements concerning the maintenance of dams associated with required
BMP's.
As new development occurs downstream of the BMP, the chance of significant
property damage or danger to human life may increase if catastrophic failure of
the dam occurs. Although the dam may be initially exempt from regulation by the
State, the owner is responsible for reporting to the State Dam Safety Office
downstream development that may affect the hazard classification of the dam.
Seepage
The downstream side of the dam should be inspected regularly for evidence of significant
seepage. Seepage can emerge anywhere below the normal pool elevation, including the
downstream slope of earth dams, areas beyond the toe of the dam, and around the
spillway or pond outlet conduit. Indications of significant seepage include areas where
the soil is saturated or where there is a flowing "spring" or leak. If "sinkholes" in the
dam embankment are noticed, or if constant flowing water is noticed on the downstream
side of the dam, then seepage has become excessive and professional engineering advice
should be sought immediately to avert a major structural problem or a catastrophic failure
of the dam.
City of Greensboro Page 98
Stormwater Management Manual (Excerpt) February 2000
Dam Material Problems
For earth dams, pronounced cracks on the embankment surface indicate the first stages of
potential dam failure. Transverse cracks (running perpendicular to the embankment face)
generally indicating differential settlement of the dam, can provide pathways for
excessive seepage. Longitudinal cracks (running parallel to the embankment face) may
be due to inadequate compaction of the dam during construction or shrinkage of the clay
(desiccation) in the top of the embankment during prolonged dry conditions. These
cracks may eventually lead to slope failure such as sliding or sloughing.
For reinforced concrete dams, the concrete should be checked for pronounced cracking,
leakage from the joints, and displacement (noticeable leaning or bulging). Also,
excessive seepage, leakage, or springs just downstream of the concrete dam could be
indicative of potential seepage-related "piping" problems under the dam.
If such problems or other structural problems are observed, professional engineering
advice should be sought.
Vegetative Growth
Trees and other woody vegetation are not permitted on the top slopes or dam
embankments. Large root systems from woody vegetation can weaken the dam structure
and provide seepage pathways. Thick vegetative cover can also provide a haven for
burrowing animals such as the groundhog. These animals can create a network of
burrows in the dam embankments that can significantly weaken the dam, by creating
seepage paths, which may eventually lead to dam failure. Mowing of the dam
embankments should occur, at a minimum, once every 6 months to prevent woody
vegetation growth and cover for burrowing animals.
Reduction of Pollutants Entering BMP's
Stormwater BMP's are not 100% efficient in removing pollutants; therefore, when the
amount of pollutants into the BMP is higher, the amount of pollutants discharged from
the BMP will be higher. Also, increased amounts of pollutants to the BMP will increase
the maintenance required to keep the BMP functioning properly. Maintenance to BMP's
can be very expensive.
Pollution prevention activities
To assist the stormwater pond in stormwater quality enhancement, every effort
should be made to reduce the pollutant load entering the pond system. Pollution
prevention BMP's described in Section 3 of this manual should be implemented
along with the following efforts:
Outside trash dumpsters should be kept covered, and the area around the
dumpster should be kept neat and clean.
Chemicals, petroleum products and other pollution sources (such as
machinery) should be stored in a covered area away from possible stormwater
contact. Spent chemicals are to be properly disposed or recycled.
Fertilizers and pesticides should be used conservatively on the property
City of Greensboro Page 99
Stormwater Management Manual (Excerpt) February 2000
grounds. Excessive amounts of these chemicals can be washed away with
stormwater runoff increasing the nutrient load to the pond.
Chemicals such as copper sulfate used to inhibit algae growth in the water
quality pond degrade water quality. Since the pond's main function is to
enhance water quality, these chemicals should not be used. Rather, reducing
the amount of fertilizer application and ensuring that the pond outlets are
properly functioning so the pool is flushed periodically will help to deter algae
growth.
Trash and vegetative floatables (grass clippings, leaves, limbs, etc.) should be
cleaned from the pond surface and surroundings periodically to promote a
healthy, aesthetically pleasing environment, and to prevent blockage of the
pond outlets. Studies have shown that people are less likely to litter ponds that
are aesthetically pleasing and support wildlife.
Stabilization of BMP drainage area
The area draining to the BMP pond should remain stabilized to prevent excessive
sediment from entering the BMP facility. When the bare soil is directly exposed to
precipitation the sediment concentration in runoff is much higher than for soil that is
stabilized. A stabilized area is covered by impervious surfaces (pavement, buildings),
grass cover, landscaped cover (mulch, pine straw), etc.
For filtration practices such as sand filtration facilities and bioretention, maintaining a
stabilized drainage area is especially important. Eroded sediment can quickly "seal" the
filtration bed, drastically decreasing its filtration capacity.
3.6.4 Grass Swales, Filter Strips
Grass Cover
After initial seeding, the grass should be watered, as needed.
The grass should be mowed periodically (usually when mowing the rest of the property).
To maintain the filtering capability of the grass, it should not be mowed to close to the
ground (three to four inches minimum).
The ground should be inspected to make sure there is dense growth on all portions of the
control device. Bare spots or areas where there is sparse grass cover should be reseeded.
It may be necessary to use a temporary erosion resistant matting or to use sod to repair
these areas.
As always for grassed areas, fertilizers and pesticides should not be over-applied. Refer
to product directions for correct application quantity.
City of Greensboro Page 100
Stormwater Management Manual (Excerpt) February 2000
The grass used should be erosion resistant and can tolerate frequent inundation (standing
water). Tall fescue is an appropriate choice.
Erosion Problems
The inlet and outlet areas, side slopes (swales), and the rest of the conveyance area
should be inspected for erosion problems.
Where water discharges from a pipe and where the stormwater runs off impervious area
onto pervious area, there may be erosion problems. The BMP should have riprap
protection at the end of pipes and a gravel trench at the edge of impervious areas to help
prevent erosion. These devices should be inspected to ensure they are functioning
properly. If erosion is noticed in within the rip rap pad or along the edges of the pad,
more rock may be needed or it may have been improperly placed (no geotextile liner or
improper placement of liner, rip rap not well graded, etc.) If the rock or gravel is
displaced downstream, a larger size rock or gravel should be used.
Rill erosion (small channels or gulleys in the ground) is a common problem found in
these control devices where the water runoff is naturally trying to channelize. Rill
erosion can be repaired by filling in the rills with suitable (clayey) soils and reseeding. It
may be necessary to use a temporary erosion resistant matting or to use sod to repair
these areas.
Sediment Build-up
Because these BMPs are designed to slow stormwater flows down, sedimentation of
coarse particles will occur. Over time the sediment level within the bottom of the swale
or filter strip will increase, especially at the upstream area. Sediment will need to be
removed periodically (once build-up exceeds one to two inches) from the BMP.
City of Greensboro Page 101
Stormwater Management Manual (Excerpt) February 2000
3.6.5 Dry Detention Basins, Wet Detention Ponds, Stormwater Wetlands
The following items should be inspected/maintained on a quarterly basis. These items
are in addition to any NC Dam Safety requirements for dams regulated by that agency.
Buffer Vegetation
Strong rooted grasses that have a high tolerance for erosion should be planted on
embankments around the pond. Good grass cover should be maintained around the pond
perimeter to prevent excessive sediment from entering the pond. The following should be
used as guidelines for maintaining buffer vegetation.
To sustain the structural integrity of the dam, no trees or
woody vegetation should be allowed on the dam
embankments or top of dam. These areas should be
mowed on a quarterly basis.
To preserve the hydraulic capacity of the pond system
and to prevent runoff from backing up, inlet and outlet
areas should be kept clear of heavy vegetation.
To provide easy access to the pond, the maintenance
access around the pond should be free of trees and
mowed on a periodic basis.
Trees and brush, if desired, are acceptable on pond
embankments other than the dam.
Erosion Problems
Unsuitable fill material, inadequate compaction, and/or poor stabilization of earth
structures can result in accelerated erosion where high runoff velocities exist. High
velocities usually occur on steep pond embankments, at pond inlet and outlet discharge
areas, and where the water is constricted to channel flow. The entire pond area should be
inspected quarterly for signs of erosion, paying special attention to the following areas:
Embankments
If pond embankments are not kept well vegetated with grasses, rill erosion (small
channels formed in the embankment due to poor grass cover) may occur. Rill erosion can
be repaired by filling the small channels with suitable soil, compacting, and seeding. It
may be necessary to install temporary erosion control (such as hay bales) along heavily
eroded areas to allow the repaired areas to stabilize. It is especially important to inspect
for and immediately repair any erosion on the dam embankments.
City of Greensboro Page 102
Stormwater Management Manual (Excerpt) February 2000
Pipe Inlet and Outlet areas
Where erosion causes the undercutting of the downstream end of pipe, the undercut
should be stabilized immediately to prevent the end pipe section from "breaking" off.
Eroded areas should be filled with good compactable soil and covered with geotextile and
riprap.
Open Channel Flow
Eroded areas should be seeded/sodded and protected with temporary velocity dissipation
(such as excelsior matting, straw bales, etc.) If erosion continues, a more robust lining
should be used.
Blockage of Outlets
Wet extended detention ponds are designed for the water to exit the pond through the low
flow orifice(s), the principal spillway, and the emergency spillway. It is important to
check all three outlets for blockage that would impair the pond's water quality and
hydraulic functionality.
Low Flow Orifice(s)
Unless an inverted orifice is used, some type of trash guard is to be maintained over the
low flow orifice(s) to prevent clogging. When the orifice becomes clogged the water
level rises to the principal spillway elevation and the benefits associated with temporary
storage and its gradual release are lost. To preserve "extended detention" the low flow
orifice should be inspected for blockage twice a month and after large storms.
Principal and Emergency Spillway
Principal and emergency spillways are designed to safely convey larger than one inch
storms that produce runoff which exceed the water quality volume of the BMP. If these
spillways are blocked so they do not operate at full capacity, the risk of dam overtopping
or other uncontrolled releases may result. To ensure the hydraulic capacity of the
spillways, the spillways should be inspected for blockage twice a month and after large
storms.
If a riser/barrel is used for the principal spillway, a trash rack is to be maintained on the
riser. Vegetative growth in the riser should be removed promptly so that the design
capacity of the spillway is maintained. Also, the outlet area where the barrel projects
from the fill should be clear of tree limbs, sediment accumulation, etc.
Sediment Accumulation
To preserve the BMP's pollutant removal capability, sediment must be removed in areas
where the capacity of the design sediment storage volume has been exceeded.
Section on dry detention removed.
City of Greensboro Page 103
Stormwater Management Manual (Excerpt) February 2000
Wet Detention Pond
The forebay helps to improve the removal efficiency of the pond system by trapping
the majority of coarser suspended solids behind the baffle. When sediment
deposition in the forebay exceeds the designed sediment storage capacity for the
forebay, the forebay must be dredged. An indication of when the forebay sediment
capacity is exceeded is when sediment bars are visible near the inlet discharge or
when the sediment level at the inlet to the pond is less than one foot below the
normal pool surface (the elevation of the pool is at the bottom of the low flow
orifice). Typically, forebays will need to be dredged every 5 to 10 years.
Depth measurements relative to the normal surface elevation (bottom of water
quality orifice) should be taken at several locations around the pond. The sediment
is to be removed when the measured depth is less than the design permanent pool
depth. If a forebay is used at the inlet area of the pond and is regularly dredged, the
frequency of dredging the entire pond could be greatly reduced.
Section on wetland removed.
Sediment from most sources is usually not hazardous or contaminated, however, it is very
"soupy" and is difficult to manage. It is good idea to provide a storage area near the
BMP to place sediment once it is dredged to allow it to dry. If desired, sediment may be
land applied and seeded. If land applied on-site, it should be within the drainage area to
the BMP so sediment that runs off can be recaptured.
City of Greensboro Page 104
Stormwater Management Manual (Excerpt) February 2000
Attachment No. 2
Stormwater Pond Inspection Checklist
POND INSPECTION CHECKLIST
Date:
Time:
SPILLWAYS - DRAINS - OUTLETS
Check/Circle
Condition Noted Observations Action -
Repair Action -
Monitor Action
Investigative
Principal
Spillway Type:
Trash racks/Debris
Cracks/Deterioration
Joint Deterioration
Improper Alignment
Cracks/Deterioration
Joint Deterioration
Seepage/Piping
Undercutting
Erosion
Debris
Pond
Drain/Other
Outlets Type:
GatesNalves
Operability

General Comments, Sketches & Field Measurements
POND INSPECTION CHECKLIST
Date:
Time:
EMBANKMENT -- POOL
Check/Circle Condition
Noted Observations Action -
Repair Action -
Monitor Action
Investigative
U/S Slope Type:
Vegetation/Riprap
Beaching/slides/cracks
Undermining/erosion
Rodent burrows
Crest Type:
Ruts/erosion
Cracks/settlement
Poor alignment
D/S Slope Type:
Vegetation/erosion
Rodent burrows
Sloughs/slides/cracks
Seepage/wetness
Pool Type:
Erosion/ground cover
Sedimentation
Water quality
Abutment Type:
Vegetation/erosion
Slough/slides/cracks
Seepage/wetness
General Comments, Sketches & Field Measurements
PERODIC INSPECTION, OPERATION & MAINTENANCE RECORDS
Date Time Rain " Pool Level Weather General Observations or Recorded By
Conditions Comments
Date Maintenance Performed Comments Recorded
By
Date Equipment Operated Comments Recorded
By
SD L 1
Overflow
Channel
SG
-SI
Existing Conditions
(\J Existing Streams
. Existing Wetlands
Existing Ponds

CAROLINA
ECOSYSTEMS, INC.
Date: September 2011 Version: VI
O
ENk

Proposed On-Site Mitigation
f Stream Restoration
0 Buffer Enhancement Area
0 Buffer Restoration Area
Mitigation Type Quantities

Zone 1 Buffer Restoration 85,694 sqft
Zone 2 Buffer Restoration 52,570 sqft
Zone 1 Buffer Enhancement 49,825 sqft
Zone 2 Buffer Enhancement 33,388 sqft
Stream SE Restoration 879 linear £t
Stream SJ-SI Restoration 1,169 linear £t
Figure 1. On-Site Conceptual
200 0 200 400 Feet Mitigation Plan
WCA Landfill
Wake Countv. North Carolina
r'
C?~
O
?? r
ATTACHMENT 6
Conceptual Mitigation Plan
WCA Waste Corporation
Material Recovery C&D Landfill Expansion
Conceptual Mitigation Plan
September 28, 2011
General Scope and Purpose
The proposed plan for expansion of the landfill will result in unavoidable impacts to
streams, wetlands, and riparian buffers as detailed in the Major Variance request. To
account for these impacts, compensatory mitigation will be required through the Clean
Water Act 404 permitting process and the Neuse River Riparian Buffer Major Variance
process. This plan addresses these mitigation needs in a conceptual nature. Following
initial review in the 404 pre-application and Major Variance application processes, and
an agency site review, the plan will be revised and further developed in detail including
stream cross sectional and longitudinal surveys, hydrologic investigations, soil mapping
and detailed community surveys.
Conceptual Plan
The plan has two main components consisting of on-site mitigation and mitigation
payments. Payment will be made to either a private mitigation bank or to the North
Carolina Ecosystem Enhancement Program (NCEEP) for all required compensatory
mitigation that cannot be accounted for by on-site mitigation.
An on-site investigation was conducted to assess the status of the streams, wetlands and
buffers that would not be impacted by the proposed project. Two areas were found to
have opportunity for potential on-site mitigation components: Stream "SE" above the
confluence with stream "SD", and Stream "SJ-SP' (Figure 1).
Wetland Restoration/Enhancement
Existing Conditions
Approximately 1.5 acres of wetlands are present along most of the primary drainages on
the site, with the larger stream channels and those draining from ponds having the highest
acreage. Three general wetland types were encountered on site. Using the North
Carolina Wetland Assessment Method classification, the wetlands encountered on site
include headwater forests, non-tidal freshwater marshes, and seeps. The headwater
forests comprise the majority of the wetlands (0.98 acres) on site and are present along
the intermittent and perennial tributaries. Non-tidal freshwater marshes are present in the
backwater areas of the ponds along the site and also along stream SJ-SI where it is
heavily impounded by beaver activity. Several small seeps are present along stream
channels.
Potential Mitigation Opportunities
No on-site wetland mitigation is deemed feasible on the site. A minor amount of riparian
wetland benches may be integrated into the stream channel restoration described below,
but the acreage will be minimal and no credits will be requested.
Stream and Riparian Buffer Restoration/Enhancement
Existing Conditions
Approximately 9,366 linear feet of perennial and 636 linear feet of intermittent stream are
present on the site. These features generally start as intermittent at the top of the
drainage, but quickly transition into perennial systems based on NCDWQ stream
identification methodology.
The northern pond, on stream "SE", has significantly altered the hydrology of the stream.
Stream "SE" is not fed by a direct outlet from the pond, but rather seepage from the dam.
This seepage is relatively slow and continues to feed the drainage enough to keep it wet,
but only carries a small percentage of the flow that it would have carried historically.
The seepage is not enough flow to provide stream hydrology, and over time this has
resulted in a complete loss of stream habitat. Flow from the pond currently enters a very
large overflow channel that was cut through upland and then flows into another tributary
(stream "SD") before reconnecting with the main channel. The current channel is
approximately 15 feet deep cutting through the upland. Severe incising has occurred over
the years and deepened the channel due to storm flows. The banks are near vertical and
devoid of vegetation. This channel continues to be a source of sediment to the stream
system. This condition has been present since at least 2000. WCA continues to address
this issue via stabilization of the channel with large rocks and fill, however without
diversion of the overflow back to the primary channel (stream "SE") these measures have
had limited success. It should be noted that the overflow channel was called non-
jurisdictional in our delineation and confirmed by the NC DWQ Raleigh Regional Office.
Stream "SJ-SP" is mostly impounded by a series of six (6) beaver impoundments. The
area around the stream has lost most of the trees due to beaver activity, and the stream is
largely unshaded. Due to these conditions and previous clearing activities, the area is
growing back with invasive shrubs, primarily autumn olive. The stream bed above this
area is in excellent condition with a near pristine cobble bed, but the banks are covered in
autumn olive.
Potential Mitigation Opportunities
Stream "SE" would be restored using natural channel design techniques through the
removal of the dam and closure of the overflow channel. A stream channel would be
restored within the existing pond bed, and hydrology would be returned to the stream
below the pond. Some riparian wetland benches would be included in the design if
practical, but no significant acreage of wetland is likely to be associated with the stream
restoration.
Stream "SJ-SP" would be restored using natural channel design techniques through the
removal of the six (6) beaver dams and a complete restoration of the buffer along this
stream section. The buffers along tributaries "SF and "SP" will be enhanced by removing
invasive plants and increasing tree and native shrub densities along the stream.
In addition to the stream and buffer restoration/enhancement opportunities on the site,
there are some remaining streams and buffers that are in good condition. These areas will
be preserved in perpetuity to ensure that all remaining stream and buffer resources will be
permanently protected. The following table documents the overall projected on-site
mitigation for the project.
Table 1: Proposed On-Site Mitigation
Location Mitigation Type Quantities
Stream SJ and SI Zone 1 Buffer Restoration 85,694 square ft
Stream SJ and SI Zone 2 Buffer Restoration 52,570 square ft
Stream SJ and SI Zone 1 Buffer Enhancement 49,825 square ft
Stream SJ and SI Zone 2 Buffer Enhancement 33,388 square ft
Stream SF, SG, SD, SD-SE Zone 1 Buffer Preservation 246,503 square ft
Stream SF, SG, SD, SD-SE Zone 2 Buffer Preservation 153,154 square ft
Stream SE Stream 1 Restoration 879 linear ft
Stream SJ-SI Stream 2 Restoration 1,169 linear ft
Stream SF, SG, SD, SD-SE Stream Preservation 4,260 linear ft
The on-site mitigation plan will improve the portions of the remaining stream and buffer
resources on the site so that all remaining streams and wetlands will be providing
effective stream and buffer functions while being permanently protected.
The site will be monitored for stream and buffer success. A monitoring program will be
developed during the detailed mitigation design phase of the project. In general, the
monitoring plan will follow the appropriate monitoring program applied to private
mitigation banks at the time this mitigation plan is approved.
Based on the conceptual mitigation plan described above, and the proposed on-site
mitigation calculations provided in Table 1, the following mitigation totals are proposed
and correlated to the anticipated impacts in Table 2.
The remaining mitigation shown in Table 2 would be compensated via payment to a
private mitigation bank, or if one is not available to the NCEEP in lieu fee payment
process. As current law requires WCA, a private entity, to go through a mitigation bank
if available, mitigation credit has not currently been secured. To secure credits, a down
payment is usually required. This will be done once the proposed impacts and conceptual
mitigation plan have undergone initial review by NCDWQ and the USACE.
Following approval of the conceptual plan, detailed data collection and design will
commence. This will include detailed stream surveys, soil mapping, soil testing, and a
detailed vegetative community analysis. This data will then be used to produce final
construction plans and final mitigation numbers. This plan will be submitted to NCDWQ
and the USACE for review during the Clean Water Act 404 permitting process. Once the
variance has been approved and permits have been obtained, construction and planting
activities will commence. Following construction completion, the approved monitoring
program will be implemented to document success of the mitigation activities.
Table 2: Proposed Mitigaiton Ratios and Calculations
Resource Proposed Impact Potential Mitigation Proposed Mitigation Mitigation Total Remaining
Impact Ratio* Mitigation Type Quantity Ratio* Units Mitigation Mitigation**
Stream 1,893 1:1 1,893 Restoration 2048 2:1 1,024 1,450 443
Preservation 4260 10:1 426
Wetland 0.45 2:1 0.90 NA 0 NA NA 0 0.90
Buffer
- Zone 1 92,260 3:1 276,780 Restoration 85,694 1:1 85,694 102,302 174,478
Enhancement 49,825 3:1 16,608
- Zone 2 61,507 1.5:1 92,261 Restoration 52,570 1:1 52,570 63,699 28,561
Enhancement 33,388 3:1 11,129
* Impact and mitigation ratios based on field assessment and prior permitting experience for streams and wetlands.
** Remaining mitigation to be provided via payment to a private mitigation bank or the NC Ecosystem Enhancement Program
ATTACHMENT 7
Delineation Information
CAROLINA
ECOSYSTIE,MS INC. 8208 Brian Ct; Garner, NC 27529
P:919-606-1065 - F:919-341-4474
December 16, 2010
Mr. James Shern
Raleigh Regulatory Field Office
U.S. Army Corps of Engineers
3331 Heritage Trade Drive, Suite 105
Wake Forest, North Carolina 27587
RE: Jurisdictional Determination Request
WCA Brownfield Road Construction & Demolition Landfill
Wake County, North Carolina
Dear Mr. Shem;
Carolina Ecosystems, Inc. (CEI) has completed a wetland delineation on the above referenced
project for WCA Waste Corporation (WCA). WCA is planning to expand their landfill in the
future and this delineation is being provided to enable assessment of impacts and
avoidance/minimization measures for various expansion alternatives. The attached information
is submitted for your review, site verification if required, and determination of jurisdiction under
the Clean Water Act. Enclosed please find a vicinity map, USGS map, soil survey map, and
approximate delineation map. In addition, wetland and stream data forms from representative
areas on the site are provided, along with a jurisdicitional determination form for the project and
jurisdictional area summary chart.
Project Description
As shown in Figure 1, the WCA landfill is located in the southeast portion of Wake County,
within the Neuse River Basin (USGS Hydrologic Unit 03020201) in the NC Division of Water
Quality Sub-basin 03-04-02. The site is located off Brownfield Road adjacent to the City of
Raleigh Wastewater Treatment Plant (WTP) and irrigation fields. Land use in the area is
primarily agricultural irrigation from the WTP, forested, and residential. This section of the
Neuse River (NCDWQ Index 27-(22.5)) and its tributaries are classified as Class C Nutrient
Sensitive Waters (C-NSW) and are under the jurisdiction of state riparian buffer rules.
The site lies within the Piedmont Physiographic Region of North Carolina. This area is
characterized by gently sloping rolling hills with drainages bordered by moderately steep slopes
(Figure 2). Elevations on the site range from 174 feet above mean sea level (msl) in the
northwestern corner of the site to 292 feet msl at a peak in the northern central portion of the site.
The upper elevation is subject to change due to the ongoing operations at the facility. The
facility lies within the Raleigh Belt, an area of north-northeast/south-southwest oriented
metamorphic rock. The site is within the Cecil-Appling soil association, which consists of gently
sloping to steep, deep, well drained soils that have a subsoil of firm clay loam to clay. More
specifically, Table 1 and Figure 3 show the soil series that are mapped within the site boundaries.
Mr. James Shern
December 16, 2010
Table 1: Soil Series
Page 2 of 5
Name Slope DSL Code* Acres Percent Hydric
Appling sandy loam 2-6% ApB 8.4 4.1%
Appling sandy loam 2-6% eroded ApB2 34.6 16.8%
Appling sandy loam 6-10% ApC 14.8 7.2%
Appling sandy loam 6-10% eroded ApC2 4.9 2.4%
Appling sandy loam 10-15% ApD 11.6 5.6%
Chewacla soils Cm 8.2 4.0% B
Durham loamy sand 2-6% DuB 5.9 2.9%
Durham loamy sand 6-10% DuC 7.8 3.8%
Louisburg loamy sand 2-6% LoB 4.3 2.1%
Louisburg loamy sand 6-10% LoC 5.5 2.7%
Louisburg loamy sand 10-15% LoD 5.4 2.6%
Mantachie soils Me 1.0 0.5% B
Vance sandy loam 2-6% eroded VaB2 1.8 0.9%
Vance sandy loam 6-10% eroded VaC2 14.0 6.8%
Water W 4.8 2.3%
Wedowee sandy loam 2-6% eroded WmB2 3.2 1.6%
Wedowee sandy loam 6-10% eroded WmC2 30.5 14.8%
Wedowee sandy loam 10-15% eroded WmD2 18.2 8.8%
Wedowee sandy loam 15-25% eroded WmE 21.0 10.2%
Total 205.9
*DSL Codes shown on Figure 3
Two of the listed soils, Chewacla and Mantachie, are listed as hydric soils by the Natural
Resource Conservation Service. These soils are hydric class B, which could contain wet spots or
hydric soil inclusions. The Chewacla soils occur along the larger perennial stream running
parallel to the western property boundary. A small area of Mantachie soils are mapped on the
eastern portion of the site in a previously disturbed area.
The site comprises approximately 206 acres. The northern portion of the site is currently in use
as a construction and demolition (C&D) landfill and borrow area (North Disposal Area). The
southern portion of the site is primarily cutover forest, clearings, or forested land proposed as the
South Disposal Area (Figure 4). A small rental property is located adjacent to a large pond on
the south side of the property. Another pond is located west of the entrance road past the scale
house. Three main drainages (SA/SB, SD/SE, SI/SJ) begin on site and drain to a larger stream
(SF) along the western border of the property. Several other smaller channels enter this stream
from off the property to the west.
Most of the forested land on site is relatively young and consists of species typical of disturbed
areas such as loblolly pine, red maple, sweetgum, and tulip poplar. More mature stands of forest
are located along the larger streams on the west and north side of the property. The
southernmost stream (SF) is heavily impacted by beaver activity from the confluence with
stream SI to the western property line. Below this point the stream is channelized and ditched
for several hundred feet.
Mr. James Shern
December 16, 2010
Jurisdictional Delineation
Page 3 of 5
A jurisdictional delineation of wetlands was performed on the site in compliance with
methodology set forth in the USACE Wetland Delineation Manual (USACE 1987) and
subsequent guidance. The field work was completed prior to October 2010, and therefore no
regional supplement information was used in the on-site documentation. We have reviewed the
regional supplement and have determined that the delineation would not change as a result of
application of this methodology. Streams were assessed for jurisdiction under the CWA using
field indications of ordinary high water mark and the NCDWQ Stream Identification procedure
Version 3.1 respectively.
Wetlands were delineated using survey flagging at regular locations along the wetland-upland
boundary. All boundaries either form complete polygons, tie to surface water features such as
streams or ponds, or tie to property boundaries. Wetland flagging was located using sub-meter
GPS technology, and after verification a professional grade survey will be completed. Streams
were flagged at representative points depicting changes in width of the channels. Centerline
points were located with GPS along with stream origination and transition points. USACE
wetland data forms were completed for each type of wetland community encountered and
NCDWQ stream forms were completed for each channel east of the main perennial stream (SF)
running along the western side of the property.
NCDWQ has visited the site on two occasions and confirmed all stream calls for jurisdiction
under the Neuse Buffer Rules. Written documentation from NCDWQ is pending at this time but
expected in early 2011.
Figure 4 presents the approximate results of the delineation, including state riparian buffers,
streams, and wetlands. Three primary drainages occur on the site, each with multiple smaller
tributaries or ponds in their upper reaches. All these streams drain to a larger perennial stream
along the western property line (SF). Two ponds are also present on site. One of these is located
just southwest of the scale house and feeds a stream channel running off site. The other is larger
and feeds to the main channel on the site. Wetlands are associated with most of the stream
channels, including a large beaver impounded system on the southern portion of the site (SJ).
Streams
Streams generally start as intermittent features but tend to quickly transition to perennial streams.
Some of the streams begin as perennial features due to groundwater seepage or permanent
inundation by ponds. Streams were determined to be intermittent or perennial primarily based
on NCDWQ methodology - both by score and biological indicators. Lower in the drainages,
increased ground water connectivity and hydrology result in stronger geomorphologic patterns
and increased aquatic habitat. Twelve streams under jurisdiction of the CWA are present on site,
and nine of these are also subject to the Neuse Buffer rules. Table 2 presents the classification
and length of each stream. NCDWQ stream data forms depicting the jurisdictional indicators of
each stream are attached. Note that stream SF and its western tributaries were not rated as they
are beyond any potential expansion area for the landfill and obviously perennial in nature.
Mr. James Shern
December 16, 2010
Table 2: Jurisdictional Streams
Page 4 of 5

Name Status
Int Per Jurisdiction
CWA NRBR Length on site
Int Per DWQ
Score
SA UT-Neuse R X X 85 20.5
SB UT-Neuse R X X X 46 22.5
SA-SB UT-Neuse R X X X 1895 32.5
SC UT-Neuse R X X 318 20.25
SD UT-Neuse R X X X 666 24
SE UT-Neuse R X X X 466 23.5
SD-SE UT-Neuse R X X X 821 NA
SF UT-Neuse R X X X 2504 NA
SG UT-Neuse R X X X 277 NA
SH UT-Neuse R X X 197 NA
SI UT-Neuse R X X X X 530 24.5
SJ UT-Neuse R) I X X X X 2207 29.5
NA - not rated due to strong perennial characteristics or location at edge of property
Wetlands
Approximately 1.5 acres of wetlands are present along most of the primary drainages on the site,
with the larger stream channels and those draining from ponds having the highest acreage. Three
general wetland types were encountered on site. Using the North Carolina Wetland Assessment
Method classification, the wetlands encountered on site include headwater forests, non-tidal
freshwater marshes, and seeps. The headwater forests comprise the majority of the wetlands
(0.98 acres) on site and are present along the intermittent and perennial tributaries. Non-tidal
freshwater marshes are present in the backwater areas of the ponds along the site and also along
stream SJ where it is heavily impounded by beaver activity. Several small seeps are present
along stream channels. Wetland data forms depicting the jurisdictional characteristics of each
type of wetland are attached.
Table 3: Jurisdictional Wetlands
Name Description Forested? Acres Form
WA Headwater - see Yes 0.02 WF
WB Headwater - riparian forest Yes 0.11 WC
WC Headwater - riparian forest Yes 0.24 WC
WD Headwater - and backwater No 0.02 WP
WE Headwater- and backwater No 0.14 WP
W F Headwater - see Yes 0.01 W F
WG Headwater - riparian bench Yes 0.01 WC
WH Headwater - see Yes 0.02 WF
WI Headwater - riparian forest Yes 0.02 WC
WJ Headwater - riparian forest Yes 0.38 WC
WK Headwater - see Yes 0.03 WF
WM Headwater - and backwater No 0.11 WP
WN Headwater - see Yes 0.11 WF
WO Headwater - riparian forest Yes 0.06 WC
WP Headwater - beaver impoundment No 0.24 WP
Total 1.52
Mr. James Shern
December 16, 2010
Page 5 of 5
We request your review of the attached documentation and mapping. If needed, we would be
happy to meet you on site and review the delineation. In addition, we would like to request and
schedule a meeting in your office to discuss the various expansion alternatives for the site and
associated impacts.
If you have any questions, need additional information, or would like to schedule a site visit,
please call me at your earliest convenience at [phone].
Sincerely,
Carolina Ecosystems, Inc.

Philip May
Senior Environmental Scientist
Attachments:
- Figures 1-4
- Delineation Summary Table
- Preliminary JD Form
- Stream Data Forms
- Wetland Data Forms
Cc: Nick Marrotta, WCA
Dennis Gehle, WCA
David Garrett, P.G. P.E.
0 60 Miles
I
Mi
.:jr,

$ WCA Landfill
e
O
9
Ba
0
0
a

on
Garner Rd
O
9
0.5 0 0.5 Miles [ \?
o
.c
MMdMwwwOOM1 17---? 3?11? ?
CAROLINA Data Sources: Date: 11/1/2009 Figure: 1 Vicinity Map
ECOSYSTEMS. INC. NCDOT Primary Roads
8208 Brian Court - Wake & Johnston Co. Site Assessment & Delineation
Garner, NC 27529 Municipal Boundaries - 2008
0: [phone] WCA Landfill
F: [phone] USGS 1:24,000 Hydrography Wake County, NC
www.carolinaeco.com - HUC 03020201
?JI ? s

,r
I
V-f j 41!
1I ?s+I,
? 1 i 1' f
?_-??'? it ly; ?` ? } 1 •Z__ _ __
ll ll }11
V
- In-1
' :$ Z'r? fork. ?¦ ?'h.fr rl z r' ' f} •`?. ` il?
j
A. ?' ???,i ?1??? J'I., ? `? -P? '??} ?i Jir?Y-1 ,, ?;? - Jslll •.r?
r 1 y 1? 7j.=r ? + III , i +
?1rf?r? 1??{( Prrr?{?? ?¦ f; n1 i1 ?i ?1? .: :?;r
! i r 1??. a'? : J i ? i ? r"-. ?•tia? _ . i ? I `-_ 14 ill :` C, i ..1 ? ? /? k 111 r'-`r ?- I•:
\ Fa

.
? N1?'
???i - ' i

? ?

"n 7rJ? S.N )? 4

1.1.?•,

l'\?E ? 1

r?J,

w

x .. I
.

/W r

12f' r i , ,?- ?•w__ :mil ? i Nr_._•-??
r ?' 1 lt_ •? ?
--??` ?; / ?.' ?^=•?`k??` :? '^??r1r14v ?r I/???,¢.Y?S'? "'(I f. Ir` `? r _, l'., ;y `` ?i , r„ V i + FFr rl?+i ',?
•? ??.?. Lr ?'?yLr t,. aT fr. ?° ` + !ti`-• r } fi + .! j „1y ti? f\` 1 f 1 1?k4
?-'? '\ ? lJ/?'? `•??\?r r r ¦--r 1? i P? 1?? ' '?? ? ? Ik?'4 ! rr•1 ` , ¦ ,Y?J ?y`t,rF ;lEi ?t?,
`,? , t? (rJ i it? ?ti 1 i, '? a l?r` ` ?r ?' L.¢{ ?! 'S l11 + ti ?I? 1 1, % I "v - a •,S
`. v'l? ?k ?.? f r ?? ?'y? ?1' ???'J ?7` ??Z ???I??r?? ? ?1? ? 1{•?aS?( ?.4-!'1 f?. ???••1?¦i'?
?rr? ?- t siF] f? /!? 4• rr I il` ar ?1 !•?
1000 0 1000 Feet
r ?!¢+:/,;j:.
CAROLINA Date: 11/10/2009 N Figure: 2 USGS Map
ECOSYSTEMS, INC. 8208 Brian Court Data Sources:
Garner, NC 27529 USGS 1:24,000 Quads: Site Assessment & Delineation
o: [phone] - Clayton & Garner NC A WCA Landfill
F: [phone]
www.ca .carolinae linaew
o.com Wake County, NC
r
L `
??-.ff 14L?
WAKE COUNTY, NORTH CAROLINA - SHEET NUMBER 80
J-, rs chef? 71 r^fnL LvFi
LoU mR24?
N a Cr+rly? LaG? 4di P 6 R C2 A? pd
LwR2 dY `y I +Wn n P r:_
APC2 - .? M? ac w .$4srl a, ` ..- B41 ?`
Ce APk11;??
h P,] ;"? A;1? ¦,{l1II{??, `' - y} _ ..v/l11 fr ?f t 4
-J FPL! WTSZ I _
v ADR wo r rf? 7 {rjes?' ,r._ [`,ti ^ ,., 11 ' Lot)
y 1.+r 3 1?'?.
:M1p6 -_L S.
lp 7; ".PS ARC:' V,':mG€ RpC, _ I.r_ + Los AIR APJ RPC. ?.
NR r Las
r' -
wnr92
5. ? ._... s r`n l{ rlrR, s.. Wnr R?! Walw2 `? iVra + JLr 'rYaB yr f }(? D•-
kARl3--?'?
yy Y 1 ,?,.? C m
?4 e? 4. ?: ?? hm(` y" ? '.+ ? ? ??? +y? ?2 ? NnF3 ??' "•vnC t -
'B.?r9 W r: EI t :? ? i r" M62 ! I f Wag ? , '?
C'i
? •. ? >? ? +.?-. ...-. '' £ ? 4 R... ^?•3?.,? ?L r ., .? ? I [.rn .d...L;; is e _
VhnC2 w c2 k l
,' . ^pe I ! I' we„? . d?Gu[ l •.... a e.1/? ' arerr
?' Wmg y a A.,PB Af•U ? - _? ?1-! ?r 1h'kE ? t .L/° lRlYerls 1 l,}f? .
1, el'
i ? JJ
A _ Wae, if {X
wnr?'. ` "P '' nl•r. R! ???p?rvr; ,? w + ]eW ! ;
n A 2 5r¢ U ryc WmRF -J AfA
y ARV I.`rsR2 N!n rC ? + .,:, ? =.f `? 4] 1 Fak! +
_?'I? '? J+,R: ? h! ? ?, 5.J ? c AuR2 WmIY 1?, f ? f
Cm ?n .
-VU 4T
y 1
Y'J5?• 1 ' , v"'t r/ J Mc J. - ApR2 If ^
Cn WIrG"
/ 1Li1
I. y
f
I -?T' ..,?F wmC2 µ4 Acrd ?"? nay. ML ,?v@3 %w ,? - 1 ?yy „ yra,C i -+ +rr7
1 1' r '[im;l2 ( Nv-( '_ ?-'d• UP aRF52 [P IRt rA ?' .. ? M
C 114' rir
P T.S?v'..
?? .r, ed•' ,i„?4! y?,me? Jf. J me ? ? I apa ppR2 . ' ?} Y,?r?f7 ^ ?•
Approximate Site Boundary I 'f
APR2 ? ?. fY ?" ? L-C a ? x NnuY ?^ck. hrn? ?..: Hp92 A'RB I Y!m ..-i
Agu
^+ ?t;?`` ?? s. ` MP•r,i. { i ? ?la1e? J ? '+c Cl`•ri `4_. WaB ? No PI _
-- I w r 3 PC wr a n?c l LrJ ffi ?a J ??.
}I V - 4. f 1 's ? 1 I V ?Ap[a Alps 1UI3
W 'I I.PR2 _ Wr"EI'r nG, V _ ?'r ?.r? Flt=C+ 1 ?p3 Al?y? T? YrYPfi2ti.. 0.g C%
APO AsCI 1 - r YdkC.?y Nr,A ?
Ui Ll .eC3 AR6 9 ••C' - AM r?,,7 rl A1,C y7F?t 'Y^ WaE I..
A?qC,
Cent Afs
V1. P
c 1•' LR !'?5 Ark 4gmL CWF
??
A C - r 'CCC"' \ `\ tY r>.r' 7 ty J 45'xnf 1NYE APg
I APB..
xf C `Q,9 W'm]2 5'`w ?4iI, Aptl,: Aid
. wm?2 M1wkF
CI u4e2 C7
9rm.2
Wm `s '' A xr ?_. i `r
AIA 4:?Wv r ` s 1 -Y'
a IYhO Ps ?{' V'rn fE 'y?y Wmn2 ? I { ? WmC g=• f /`
w v ?tt' O ( L? pn •I- V r ,1 WmRI
W t,[: r? + , '.anrP2 f/?J(f Y WIIICI' t
- ? I 7 AnLI }? + ! ,( 4vmGt 1 - _ ? yL.pC _ r_
1 nr. Rf; J)I i LOn .I 111 RPR2 mom,- , Y
APR' • ??
wnrnz ?yf ?! e fSm W C2 may, j '
3 qpg Wm[V s
-s ?r m r? MC. .' fig. L; A
'? 1. '_ ° ' ? .: WmC2 i s I ? ? i ? ? ? • y. f --. -
:x o k+f Wmis2 i p' f3 t'" WmC$
y.
APB 1 WYSE t. f
CAROLINA `F- N Date: October 25, 2008 Data Sources: Soil Survey
8208 Brian Court, Garner, NC 27529 Wake County Soil Survey WCA Landfill
O: [phone]; F: [phone] Sheet 80 Wake County, NC
www.carolinaeco.com David Garrett & Associates, Inc.
SH
?O

WM
Wetland
Freshwater Marsh
Headwater Forest
Seep
?w Surface Waters
Pond Stream
Buffers
500 0 500 Feet zone 1 zone 2
CAROLINA Data Sources: Figure 4
l ccosYSTE E,, INC
3040 NC 42 west - 2010 Delineation (submeter GPS) Approximate Jurisdictional Areas
Clayton, NC 27520 W CA Landfill
O: [phone]
F: [phone] Wake County, NC
www.carolinaeco.com Date: December 10, 2010
WCA Landfill Jurisdictional Determination Information
Wake County NC
NCWAM Wetland Wetland Data
Wetlands Type Description Form Latitude Longitude Size (Acres)
WA Headwater forest/seep Forested W F 35.711277 -78.500683 0.02
WB Headwater forest Forested WC 35.710715 -78.501788 0.11
WC Headwater forest Forested WC 35.711234 -78.502582 0.24
WD Headwater forest Forested WC 35.708598 -78.499916 0.02
WE Non-tidal freshwater marsh Herbaceous WP 35.709091 -78.500404 0.14
W F Headwater forest/seep Forested W F 35.707392 -78.504019 0.01
WG Headwater forest Forested WC 35.707466 -78.504089 0.01
WH Headwater forest/seep Forested WF 35.707083 -78.50425 0.02
W1 Headwater forest Forested WC 35.707366 -78.504706 0.02
WJ Headwater forest Forested WC 35.707636 -78.505479 0.38
WK Headwater forest Forested WC 35.706704 -78.504835 0.03
WM Non-tidal freshwater marsh Emergent WP 35.704282 -78.504154 0.11
WN Headwater forest Forested WC 35.704225 -78.506391 0.11
WO Headwater forest Forested WC 35.703916 -78.506948 0.06
WP* Non-tidal freshwater marsh Emergent WP 35.706024 -78.50807 0.24
1.52
Potentiall y subject to change due to ongoing beaver activity.
NCDWO Origin/Upstream Bound Length (feet)
Streams Type Neuse Buffers Stream Score* Latitude Longitude Int. Per.
SA Intermittent No 20.5 35.707592 -78.503252 86
SB Intermittent Yes 22.5 35.707366 -78.503628 46
SA-SB Perennial Yes 32.5 see SA & SB see SA & SB 1895
Sc Intermittent No 20.25 35.706643 -78.504846 318
SD Perennial Yes 24 35.711417 -78.50035 666
SE Perennial Yes 23.5 35.708934 -78.500264 467
SD-SE Perennial Yes NA see SD & SE see SD & SE 821
SF Perennial Yes NA 35.707553 -78.509132 2504
SG Perennial Yes NA 35.709653 -78.509234 277
SH Intermittent No NA 35.711748 -78.509137 197
SI Intermittent Yes 24.5 35.704534 -78.506546 66
SI Perennial Yes 30 35.7046959 -78.506551 464
Si Intermittent Yes 29.5 35.703789 -78.506568 103
Si Perennial Yes 30 35.703964 -78.506562 2104
619 9395
* NA - Not available: stream score not developed as it was obviously perennial (biology) Total: 10014
ATTACHMENT
PRELIMINARY JURISDICTIONAL DETERMINATION FORM
BACKGROUND INFORMATION
A. REPORT COMPLETION DATE FOR PRELIMINARY JURISDICTIONAL
DETERMINATION (JD):
B. NAME AND ADDRESS OF PERSON REQUESTING PRELIMINARY JD:
Philip May
Carolina Ecosystems, Inc.
3040 NC 42 West
Clayton NC 27520
C. DISTRICT OFFICE, FILE NAME, AND NUMBER:
D. PROJECT LOCATION(S) AND BACKGROUND INFORMATION: WCA
Brownfield Road Landfill - Wake County NC
(USE THE ATTACHED TABLE TO DOCUMENT MULTIPLE WATERBODIES
AT DIFFERENT SITES)
State:NC County/parish/borough: Wake City: N/A
Center coordinates of site (lat/long in degree decimal format): Lat.
35.708050° N, Long. -78.504760° W.
Universal Transverse Mercator:
Name of nearest waterbody: UT to Neuse River
Identify (estimate) amount of waters in the review area:
Non-wetland waters: 10,000 linear feet: 4 width (ft) and/or 0.91 acres.
Cowardin Class: Riverine
Stream Flow: Perennial
Wetlands: 1.52 acres.
Cowardin Class: Forested
Name of any water bodies on the site that have been identified as Section 10
waters:
Tidal: n/a
Non-Tidal: n/a
E. REVIEW PERFORMED FOR SITE EVALUATION (CHECK ALL THAT
APPLY):
? Office (Desk) Determination. Date:
? Field Determination. Date(s):
1
SUPPORTING DATA. Data reviewed for preliminary JD (check all that apply
- checked items should be included in case file and, where checked and
requested, appropriately reference sources below):
® Maps, plans, plots or plat submitted by or on behalf of the
applicant/consultant:USGS, Soil Survey, Aerial Photography.
® Data sheets prepared/submitted by or on behalf of the
applicant/consultant.
? Office concurs with data sheets/delineation report.
? Office does not concur with data sheets/delineation report.
? Data sheets prepared by the Corps:
? Corps navigable waters' study:
® U.S. Geological Survey Hydrologic Atlas:
? USGS NHD data.
® USGS 8 and 12 digit HUC maps.
® U.S. Geological Survey map(s). Cite scale & quad name:1:24,000 Garner
& Clayton NC Quads.
® USDA Natural Resources Conservation Service Soil Survey.
Citation:Wake County Soil Survey.
® National wetlands inventory map(s). Cite name:Garner NC.
? State/Local wetland inventory map(s):
? FEMA/FIRM maps:
? 100-year Floodplain Elevation is: (National Geodectic Vertical Datum
of 1929)
® Photographs: ® Aerial (Name & Date):Wake County, 2005.
or ? Other (Name & Date):
? Previous determination (s). File no. and date of response letter:
? Other information (please specify):
IMPORTANT NOTE: The information recorded on this form has not
necessarily been verified by the Corps and should not be relied upon for
later jurisdictional determinations.
Signature and date of
Regulatory Project Manager
(REQUIRED)
Signature and date of
person requesting preliminary JD
(REQUIRED, unless obtaining
the signature is impracticable)
3
North Carolina Division of Water Quality - Stream Identification Form; Version 3.1
Date: Project: Latitude:
Evaluator: Site: Longitude:
Total Points: Other
Stream is at least intermittent County:
if>_ 19 or perennial if>_ 30 e. g. Quad Name:
A. Geomorphology (Subtotal = ) Absent Weak Moderate Strong
1a. Continuous bed and bank 0 1 2" 3
2. Sinuosity 0 1 2 3
3. In-channel structure: riffle-pool sequence 0 1 2 3
•: 4. Soil texture or stream substrate sorting 0 1 2 3 j
5 Active/relic floodplain 0 1 2 3
j 6. Depositional bars or benches 0 1 2 3
7. Braided channel 0 1 2 3
8. Recent alluvial deposits 0 1 2 3
9 a Natural levees 0 1 ! 2 3
10 Headcuts 0 1 2 3
11. Grade controls 0 _ 0.5 1 1.5
12. Natural valley or drainageway 0 0.5 1 1.5
13. Second or greater order channel on existing
USGS or NRCS map or other documented
evidence.
No = 0 ?I
Yes = 3
Man-made ditches are not rated; see discussions in manual
B- Hvdroloav (Subtotal = }
14. Groundwater flow/discharge 0 1 I 2 3
15. Water in channel and > 48 hrs since rain, or
Water in channel -- dry or growing season 0 1 j 2 -
--- 3
16. Leaflitter 1.5 1 0.5 0
17. Sediment on plants or debris 0 0.5 1 1.5
18. Organic debris lines or piles (Wrack lines) 0 0.5 1 1.5
19. Hydric soils (redoximorphic features) present? No = 0 Yes = 1.5
C. Bioloav (Subtotal = ") • )
20b. Fibrous roots in channel 3 1 0
21b. Rooted plants in channel 3 2 1 0
22. Crayfish 0 0.5 1 1.5
23. Bivalves 0 1 2 3
24. Fish 0 0.5 1 1.5
25. Amphibians 0 0.5 1 1.5
26. Macrobenthos (note diversity and abundance) 0 0.5 1 1.5
27. Filamentous algae; periphyton 0 1 2 3
28. Iron oxidizing bacteria/fungus. 0' 0.5 1 1.5
29 b. Wetland plants in streambed FAC = 0.5; FACW = 0.75; OBL = 1.5 SAV = 20; Other = 0
Items 20 and 21 focus on the presence of upland plants, Item 29 focuses on the presence of aquatic or wetland plants.
Sketch:
Notes: (use back side of this form for additional notes.)
4
North Carolina Division of Water Quality - Stream Identification Form; Version 3.1
Date: Project: Latitude:
Evaluator: Site: Longitude:
Total Points: Other
Stream is at least intermittent County:
if>_ 19 or perennial if>_ 30 e.g. Quad Name:
A. Geomorphology (Subtotal = ) Absent Weak Moderate Strong
1a. Continuous bed and bank 0 1 2 3
2. Sinuosity 0 1 2 3
3. In-channel structure: riffle-pool sequence 0 _
1 2 3
4. Soil texture or stream substrate sorting 0 1 2 3
5. Activelrelic floodplain
j 0 1 -
2 3
_
6. Depositional bars or benches _ 0 1 2 j 3
7. Braided channel !
8. Recent alluvial deposits 0
0 1
1 _ 2 3
2 3
9 a Natural levees 0 1 2 3
10. Headcuts 0 1 2 3
11. Grade controls 0 0.5 1 1.5
12. Natural valley or drainageway 1
13. Second or greater order channel on existing
USGS or NRCS map or other documented j
evidence. 0 0.5

No = 0 1 1.5

Yes = 3
- Man-made ditches are not rated; see discussions in manual
B. Hydrology (Subtotal =
14. Groundwater flowldischarge 0 1 2 3
15. Water in channel and > 48 hrs since rain, or
Water in channel -- d or growing season 0 1 2 3
16. Leaflitter 1.5 1 0.5 0
17. Sediment on plants or debris 0 0.5 1 1.5
18. Organic debris lines or piles (Wrack lines) 0 0.5 1 1.5
19. Hydric soils (redoximorphic features) present? No = 0 Yes = 1.5
C. Biologv (Subtotal =
200. Fibrous roots in channel 3 2 1 0
210. Rooted plants in channel 3 2 1 0
22. Crayfish 0 0.5 1 1.5
23. Bivalves 0 1 2 3
24. Fish 0 0.5 1 1.5
25. Amphibians 0 0.5 1 1.5
26. Macrobenthos (note diversity and abundance) 0 0.5 1 1.5
27. Filamentous algae; periphyton 0 1 2 3
28. Iron oxidizing bacteria/fungus. 0 0.5 1 1.5
29 0. Wetland plants in streambed FAC = 0.5; FACW = 0.75; OBL = 1.5 SAV = 2.0; Other = 0
Items 20 and 21 focus on the presence of upland plants, Item 29 focuses on the presence of aquatic or wetland plants.
Notes: (use back side of this form for additional notes.)
Sketch:
4' Y f
? S 1

North Carolina Division of Water Quality - Stream Identification Form; Version 3.1
Date: Project: Latitude:
Evaluator: Site: Longitude:
Total Points: Other
Stream is at least intermittent - County:
?- e.g. Quad Name:
if? 19 or perennial if > 30 T
A. Geomorphology (Subtotal = ) Absent Weak Moderate Strong
1a. Continuous bed and bank 0 1 2
2. Sinuosity j 0 1 2 3
3. In-channel structure: riffle-pool sequence 0 1 2 3
4. Soil texture or stream substrate sorting j 0 1 2 3
5. Active/relic floodplain " 0 1 2 3
6. Depositional bars or benches 0 1 2 3
7. Braided channel 0 1 2 3
8. Recent alluvial deposits 0 1 2 3
9a Natural levees 0 1 2 3
10. Headcuts 0 1 2 3
11. Grade controls 0 0.5 _ 1 1.5
12. Natural valley or drainageway 0 0.5 1 1.5
13. Second or greater order channel on existing
USGS or NRCS map or other documented
evidence.
No = 0
!
Yes = 3
Man-made ditches are not rated; see discussions in manual
B Hvdroloav (Subtotal = }
14. Groundwater flow/discharge 0 1 %? 3
15. Water in channel and > 48 hrs since rain, or
Water in channel -- d or growing season 0 1 2 3?, )
16. Leaflitter 1.5 1 0
17. Sediment on plants or debris 0 1 1.5
18. Organic debris lines or piles (Wrack lines) 0 0.5 1' ; 1.5
19. Hydric soils (redoximorphic features) present? No = 0 Yes = 1.5
C. Bioloav (Subtotal = }
20b. Fibrous roots in channel 3 2 1 0
2lb. Rooted plants in channel 3 2 1 0
22. Crayfish 0 0.5 1 1.5
23. Bivalves 0 1 2 3
24. Fish 0 0.5 1 1.5
25. Amphibians 0 0.5 1 1.5
26. Macrobenthos (note diversity and abundance) 0 0.5 1 .' 1.5 j
27. Filamentous algae; periphyton 0 1 2 3
28. Iron oxidizing bacteria/fungus. 0 0.5 1 1.5
29 b. Wetland plants in streambed __ ?FACC = 0.5; FACW = 0.75; OBL = 1.5 SAV = 2.0; Other = 0
" Items 20 and 21 focus on the presence of upland plants, Item 29 focuses on the presence of aquatic or wetland plants.
Notes: (use back side of this form for additional notes.)

Sketch:

/r
"s
North Carolina Division of Water Quality - Stream Identification Form Version 3.1
Date: Project: f, ICA Latitude:
r
Evaluator, Site: Longitude:
Total Points: Other
Stream is at least intermittent p t?_ County: t
if >_ 19 or perennial if ? 30 f e. g. Quad Name:
A. Geomorphology (Subtotal = ) Absent Weak Moderate Strong
1a. Continuous bed and bank 0 1 2 3
2. Sinuosity 0 1-1-) 2 3
3. In-channel structure: riffle-pool sequence 0 ..' 1 2 3
4. Soil texture or stream substrate sorting 0 1 '_= 2 3
5. Active/relic floodplain 0 : 1 2 3
6. Depositional bars or benches o 1 2 3
7. Braided channel 0 - 1 2 3
8. Recent alluvial deposits 0 1 2 3
9 a Natural levees "0 ' 1 2 3
10. Headcuts 0 ! 1 2 3
11. Grade controls 0 -' 0.5 1 1.5
12. Natural valley or drainageway 0 0.5 1 1.5
13. Second or greater order channel on existing _
USGS or NRCS map or other documented ? No = 0
evidence.
Yes = 3
° Man-made ditches are not rated; see discussions in manual
R Hvdrnlnnv (Suhtotal = '7- 1
14. Groundwater flow/discharge 0 1 2 -' 3
15. Water in channel and > 48 hrs since rain, or
Water in channel -- dry or growing season 0 1 2 3
16. Leaflitter 1.5 1 0.5 0
17. Sediment on plants or debris 0 0.5 - 1 1.5
18. Organic debris lines or piles (Wrack lines) 0 0.5'- 1 1.5
19. Hydric soils (redoximorphic features) present? No = 0 Yes
C. Biologv (Subtotal = ?' =1
20b. Fibrous roots in channel 3 "?2 1 0
21 b. Rooted plants in channel 3 1 0
22. Crayfish 0 0.5 1,) 1.5
23. Bivalves 0 1 2 3
24. Fish 0 y:= 0.5 1 1.5
25. Amphibians 0 0.5 .. 1 1.5
26. Macrobenthos (note diversity and abundance) 0 0.5 1 1.5
27. Filamentous algae; periphyton 0 1 2 3
28. Iron oxidizing bacteria/fungus. 0 0. 1 1.5
29b . Wetland plants in streambed FAC = 0.5;. FACW = 0 75;? OBL = 1.5 SAV = 2.0; Other = 0
Items 20 and 21 focus on the presence of upland plants, Item 29 focuses on-the presence of aquatic or wetland plants.
Sketch:
Notes: (use back side of this form for additional notes.)
i
North Carolina Division of Water Quality - Stream Identification Form Version 3.1
Date: Project'. P Latitude:
1
Evaluator: ` Site: Longitude:
Total Points: Other
Stream is at least intermittent F County: 1,z e. g. Quad Name:
if >_ 19 or perennial if >_ 30 i
A. Geomorphology (Subtotal = ) Absent Weak Moderate Strong
1a. Continuous bed and bank 0 '1 2 3
2. Sinuosity 0 2 3
3. In-channel structure: riffle-pool sequence 0 1 3
4. Soil texture or stream substrate sorting I 0 1 2 3
5. Active/relic floodplain 0-- 1 2 3
6. Depositional bars or benches 0` 1 2 3
7. Braided channel 0 1 2 3
8. Recent alluvial deposits 0 1 2 3
9 a Natural levees 0 1 2 3
10. Headcuts 0 1 2' ` 3
11. Grade controls 0 0.5 1 _ 1.5
12. Natural valley or drainageway 0 0.5 1 1.5
13. Second or greater order channel on existing
USGS or NRCS map or other documented
evidence.
No = 0 Yes = 3
Man-made ditches are not rated; see discussions in manual
R Hvrirninnv (Siihtntal = 1
14. Groundwater flow/discharge 0 1 2 3
15. Water in channel and > 48 hrs since rain, or
Water in channel -- dry or growing season 0 1 2 3
16. Leaflitter 1.5 1 0.5 0
17. Sediment on plants or debris 0 0.5 1 1.5
18. Organic debris lines or piles (Wrack lines) 0 0.5 ' 1 1.5
19. Hydric soils (redoximorphic features) present? No = 0 Yes = 1.5
C. Bioloav (Subtotal = _ 1
20b. Fibrous roots in channel 3 2 1 0
21b. Rooted plants in channel 3 2 1 0
22. Crayfish 0 0.5 1.5
23. Bivalves 01 1 2 3
24. Fish 0 0.5 1 1.5
25. Amphibians 0 0.5 1 1.5
26. Macrobenthos (note diversity and abundance) 0 0.5 1 1.5
27. Filamentous algae; periphyton 0 1
2
3
28. Iron oxidizing bacteria/fungus. 0,. 0.5 1 1.5
L29 b. Wetland plants in streambed FAC = 0.5; FACW = 0.75; OBL = 1.5 SAV = 2.0; Other"= 0
Items 2U and 21 tocus on the presence of upland plants, Item 29 tocuses on the presence of aquatic or wetland plants.
Skatrh
Notes: (use back side of this form for additional notes.)
fk

F
'.1 j
r
North Carolina Division of Water Quality - Stream Identification Form Version 3.1
Date: ,, Project: Latitude:
f
Evaluator t: , z Site: Longitude:
Total Points: Other
Stream is at least intermittent County:
if ? 19 or perennial if >_ 30 a3° e. g. Quad Name:
A. Geomorphology (Subtotal = ) Absent Weak Moderate Strong
1a. Continuous bed and bank 0 1 2 3
2. Sinuosity 0 3
3. In-channel structure: riffle-pool sequence 0 1 2 3
4. Soil texture or stream substrate sorting 0 1 2 3
5. Active/relic floodplain 0 1 2 3
6. Depositional bars or benches 0 1 2 3
7. Braided channel 0 1 2 3
8. Recent alluvial deposits 0 1 2 3
9' Natural levees 0 1 2 3
10. Headcuts 0 1 2 3
11. Grade controls 0 0.5 1 1.5
12. Natural valley or drainageway 0 0.5 1 ' 1.5
13. Second or greater order channel on existing
USGS or NRCS map or other documented
evidence.
No = 0 Yes = 3
- Man-made ditches are not rated; see discussions in manual
B. Hvdroloav (Subtotal = 1
14. Groundwater flow/discharge 0 1 ' 2 3
15. Water in channel and > 48 hrs since rain, or
Water in channel -- dry or growing season 0 1 2
16. Leaflitter 1.5 1 0.5 0
17. Sediment on plants or debris 0 0.5 1 1.5
18. Organic debris lines or piles (Wrack lines) 0 0.5 ' 1 1.5
19. Hydric soils (redoximorphic features) present? No = 0 Yes = 1.5
C. Biolociv (Subtotal = )
20b. Fibrous roots in channel 3 2 1 0
21 b. Rooted plants in channel 3 2 1 0
22. Crayfish 0 0.5 1 1.5
23. Bivalves 0` 1 2 3
24. Fish 0 0.5 1 1.5
25. Amphibians 0 0.5 1 1.5
26. Macrobenthos (note diversity and abundance) "0 0.5
- 1
- 1.5

27. Filamentous algae-, penphYton
0
1 I
2 - -
3
28. Iron oxidizing bacteria/fungus. 0 0.5 1 1.5
29 b. Wetland plants in streambed FAC = 0.5; FACW = 0.75, OBL = 1.5 SAV = 2.0, Other = 0
Items 20 and 21 tocus on the presence of upland plants. Item 29 tocuses on the presence of aquatic or wetland plants.
Sketch:
Notes: (use back side of this form for additional notes.)
r i
e
i
North Carolina Division of Water Quality - Stream Identification Form Version 3.1
Date: -; Project: Latitude:
Evaluator: Site: - Longitude:
Total Points: Other
Stream is at least intermittent County:
if? 19 or perennial if z 30 ° e. g. Quad Name:
A. Geomorphology (Subtotal = ) Absent Weak Moderate Strong
1a. Continuous bed and bank 0 1 2 3
2. Sinuosity 0 1 2 3
3. In-channel structure: riffle-pool sequence 0 1 2 3
4. Soil texture or stream substrate sorting 0 1. 2 3
5. Active/relic floodplain 0 1 2 3
6. Depositional bars or benches 0 1 2 3
7. Braided channel "0 1 2 3
8. Recent alluvial deposits 0 1 2 3
9a Natural levees 0 1 2 3
10. Headcuts 0 1 2 3
11. Grade controls 0 0.5 1 1.5
12. Natural valley or drainageway 0 0.5 1 1.5
13. Second or greater order channel on existing
USGS or NRCS map or other documented
evidence.
No = 0
Yes = 3
Man-made ditches are not rated; see discussions in manual
B. Hvdroloav (Subtotal = )
F14. Groundwater flow/discharge 0 1 2 3
15. Water in channel and > 48 hrs since rain, or
0
1
2
3
Water in channel -- dry or growing season _
16. Leaflitter 1.5 1 0.5 0
17. Sediment on plants or debris 0 0.5 1 1.5
18. Organic debris lines or piles (Wrack lines) 0 0.5 1 1.5
19. Hydric soils (redoximorphic features) present? No = 0 Yes = 1 5"
C. Bioloqv (Subtotal = )
20b. Fibrous roots in channel 3 2 ? 1 0
21b. Rooted plants in channel 3 2 1 0
22. Crayfish ' 0'` - 0.5 1 1.5
23. Bivalves 0 1 2 3
24. Fish 0 0.5 1 1.5
25. Amphibians 0 0.5 1,, . 1.5

and abundance)
26.
Macrobenthos (note diversity
0
0
5
1
5
algae, peiphyton
2
7. Filamentous 0 1 2 3
28. Iron oxidizing bacteria/fungus. 0 0.5 1 1.5
29 b. Wetland plants in streambed FAC = 0.5; FACW = 0.75; OBL = 1.5 SAV = 2.0; Other = 0
Items 20 and 21 focus on the presence of upland plants, Item 29 focuses on the presence of aquatic or wetland plants.
Sketch: c
Notes: (use back side of this form for additional notes.)
t?
North Carolina Division of Water Quality - Stream Identification Form Version 3.1
Date: Project: Latitude:
Evaluator: Site: i Longitude:

Total Points: Other
Stream is at least intermittent -

> County:
l ?Ew

e.g. Quad Name:
_ 30
if>_ 19 or perennial if
A. Geomorpholo (Subtotal= ) Absent Weak Moderate Strong
1a. Continuous bed and bank 0 1 2
2. Sinuosity 0 2 3
3. In-channel structure: riffle-pool sequence 0 CT7) 2 3
4. Soil texture or stream substrate sorting 0 2 3
5. Active/relic floodplain 0? 1 2 3
6. Depositional bars or benches 0 2 3
7. Braided channel 1 2 3
8. Recent alluvial deposits 0 1 2 3
9 a Natural levees
- - 0+ 1
-- 2 3

10. Headcuts
0
1
2 -
3
11. Grade controls 0 0 5"
............... 1 1.5
12. Natural valley or drainageway 0 0.5 1 1.5
13. Second or greater order channel on existing
USGS or NRCS map or other documented No = 0 'Yes 3
evidence.
a Man-made ditches are not rated; see discussions in manual
B. Hvdroloov (Subtotal - 1
14. Groundwater flow/discharge 0 1 2 _: 3
15. Water in channel and > 48 hrs since rain, or 0
Water in channel -- dry or growing season 1 2 3
16. Leaflitter 1.5 1 0.5 0
17. Sediment on plants or debris 0 0 5 1 1.5
18. Organic debris lines or piles (Wrack lines) 0 0.6 1:. 1.5
19. Hydric soils (redoximorphic features) present? No = 0 Yes = 1.5 '°
C. Biology (Subtotal = l O , )
20b. Fibrous roots in channel 3 2 1 0
210. Rooted plants in channel 3 2 1 0
22. Crayfish 0 0.5 1 1.5 ?I
23. Bivalves 0_ 1 2 3
24. Fish 0 0.5 1 1.5
25. Amphibians 0 0.5 1 1.5
26. Macrobenthos (note diversity and abundance) 0 0.5 1 1.5
27. Filamentous algae, periphyton 0 1 2 3
28. Iron oxidizing bacteria/fungus. 0 0.5 1
29 b. Wetland plants in streambed FAC = 0.5, FACW = 0.75; OBL = 1.5 SAV = 2.0; Other = 0°41
Items 20 and 21 focus on the presence of upland plants, Item 29 focuses on the presence of aquatic or wetland plants.
Sketch:
Notes: (use back side of this form for additional notes.)
North Carolina Division of Water Quality - Stream Identification Form Version 3.1
Date: ?I Project: 1` ; ( Latitude:
Evaluator: f pit Site: Longitude:
Total Points: / Other
Stream is at least intermittent County: I k, . ty e. g. Quad Name:
if? 19 or perennial if >_ 30 -1 1 A. Geomorphology (Subtotal = ) Absent Weak Moderate Strong

1a. Continuous bed and bank 0 1 3
2. Sinuosity 0 1 2 3 "
3. In-channel structure: riffle-pool sequence 0 1 3-
4. Soil texture or stream substrate sorting 0 1 2 . 3
5. Active/relic floodplain 0 1 2 3
6. Depositional bars or benches 0 1 2 3
7. Braided channel .` 1 2 3
8. Recent alluvial deposits 0 1 2 3
9 a Natural levees 0 1 2 3
10. Headcuts 0 1 2 % 3
11. Grade controls 0 0 .- 1 1.5
12. Natural valley or drainageway 0 0.5 1 1 5
13. Second or greater order channel on existing
USGS or NRCS map or other documented
evidence.
No= 0
Yes = 3
Man-made ditches are not rated; see discussions in manual
B. Hvdroloov (Subtotal = 1
14. Groundwater flow/discharge 0 1 3
15. Water in channel and > 48 hrs since rain, or 0
Water in channel -- dry or growing season 1 2 'A 3
16. Leaflitter 1.5 1 0.5 0
17. Sediment on plants or debris 0 0.5 1 1.5
18. Organic debris lines or piles (Wrack lines) 0 ` 0.5 1 1.5
19. Hydric soils (redoximorphic features) present? No = 0 Yes 1.5
C. Bioloav (Subtotal = )
20b. Fibrous roots in channel 3 2 1 0
21b Rooted plants in channel 3 2 1 0
22. Crayfish 0 0.5 1 1.5
23. Bivalves 0? .'` 1 2 3
24. Fish » b7' ' 0.5 1 1.5
25. Amphibians 0 0.5 1 ? 1.5
6 Macrobenthos (note diversity and abundance) 0 0.5 1 1.5
27. Filamentous algae; periphyton 0 1 2 3
28. Iron oxidizing bacteria/fungus. 0 0.5 1 1.5 -
29 b. Wetland plants in streambed FAC = 0.5; FACW = 0.75, OBL = 1.5 SAV = 2.0; Other= 0
Items 20 and 21 focus on the presence of upland plants, Item 29 focuses on the presence of aquatic or wetland plants.
Sketch:
Notes: (use back side of this form for additional notes.)
4
North Carolina Division of Water Quality - Stream Identification Form Version 3.1
Date: Project: Latitude:
F6
Evaluator: =i Site: Longitude:
Total Points: Other
Stream is at least intermittent County:
f? 19 or perennial if>_ 30 e.g. Quad Name:
A. Geomorphology (Subtotal = ) Absent Weak Moderate Strong
1a. Continuous bed and bank 0 1 '"2 3
2. Sinuosity 0 1 2 3.'
3. In-channel structure: riffle-pool sequence 0 1 2} t 3
4. Soil texture or stream substrate sorting 0 1 3
5. Active/relic floodplain 1 2 3
6. Depositional bars or benches F` 1 2 3
7. Braided channel rs 1 2 3
8. Recent alluvial deposits Or 1 2 3
9 a Natural levees 0 1 2 3
10. Headcuts 0 1 ! 3 ?I
11. Grade controls 0 1 1.5
12. Natural valley or drainageway 0 0.5 1 '15°;
13. Second or greater order channel on existing
USGS or NRCS map or other documented
evidence.
No = 0
Yes = 3
- Man-made ditches are not rated; see discussions in manual
B. Hvdroloov (Subtotal =- 1
14. Groundwater flow/discharge 0 1 2 yy, 3
15. Water in channel and > 48 hrs since rain, or
Water in channel -- dry or growing season 0 1 2 _s 3
16. Leaflitter 1.5 1 0.5 0
17. Sediment on plants or debris 0 0.5:' 1 1.5
18. Organic debris lines or piles (Wrack lines) 0 0.5" '- 1 1.5
19. Hydric soils (redoximorphic features) present? No = 0 Yes = T 5""
C. Bioloav (Subtotal = 1
20b. Fibrous roots in channel 3 2 1 0
21b. Rooted plants in channel '3 2 1 0
22. Crayfish 0 0.5 1 1.5
23. Bivalves ' 0. ` 1 2 3
24. Fish 0 0.5 1 1.5
25. Amphibians 0 0.5 1 1.5
26. Macrobenthos (note diversity and abundance) 0 0.5 1 5 4`%
27. Filamentous algae-, periphyton 0 > 1 2 3
28. Iron oxidizing bacteria/fungus. 0 0.5 1 1.61
29 b. Wetland plants in streambed FAC = 0.5; FACW = 0.75, OBL = 1.5 SAV = 2.0, Other ='t}
Items 20 and 21 focus on the presence of upland plants, Item 29 focuses on the presence of aquatic or wetland plants. `
Sketch:
Notes: (use back side of this form for additional notes.) b -;
r
•
o ? e-
r., a
DATA FORM
ROUTINE WETLAND DETERMINATION
(1987 COE Wetlands Determination Manual)
Project / Site: WCA Landfill Date: 01/28/10
Applicant / Owner: WCA County: Wake
Investigator: Phil May - Carolina Ecosystems, Inc. State: NC
Do normal circumstances exist on the site? Yes N No II Community ID: UU2
Is the site significantly disturbed (Atypical situation)? Yes II No Transect ID: WC
Is the area a potential problem area? Yes II No Plot ID: 202
(explain on reverse if needed)
VEGETATION
Dominant Plant Species Stratum Indicator Dominant Plant Species Stratum Indicator
1.Acer rubrum T FAC 9.
2. Liriodendron tulivifera T FAC 10.
3. Acer rubrum S FAC 11.
4. Polystichum acrostichoides H FAC 12.
5. Lonicera iavonica H FAC- 13.
6. Polygonum sp. H 14.
7. Microstegium viminea H FAC+ 15.
8. Campsis radicans V FAC 16.
Percent of Dominant Species that are OBL, FACW, or FAC excluding FAC-). 75%
Remarks:
All facultative plants occuring j ust upslope of wetland WC along a side slope of the flood plain of stream
SD/SE.
HYDROLOGY
II Recorded Data (Describe In Remarks): Wetland Hydrology Indicators
II Stream, Lake, or Tide Gauge
II Aerial Photographs Primary Indicators:
II Other II Inundated
II Saturated in Upper 12"
No Recorded Data Available II Water Marks
II Drift Lines
Field Observations: II Sediment Deposits
II Drainage Patterns in Wetlands
Depth of Surface Water: - (in.) Secondary Indicators:
II Oxidized Roots Channels in Upper 12"
Depth to Free Water in Pit: Win.) II Water-Stained Leaves
II Local Soil Survey Data
Depth to Saturated Soil: - (in.) II FAC-Neutral Test
II Other (Explain in Remarks)
Remarks:
No hydrology indicators.
SOILS
Map Unit Name
(Series and Phase): Wedowee sandy loam, 10-15% slopes Drainage Class: Well drained
Taxonomy (Subgroup): Typic hapludults Confirm Mapped Type? Yes II No II
Profile Description:
Depth Matrix Colors Mottle Colors Mottle Texture, Concretions,
(inches) Horizon (Munsell Moist) (Munsell Moist) Abundance/Contrast Structure, etc.
0 A 10YR 4/3 None None Sandy loam
3 B1 2.5Y 5/6 2.5Y 8/4 Common, med, dist. Loamy sand
8 B2 2.5Y 514 None None Loam
Hydric Soil Indicators:
II Histosol II Concretions
II Histic Epipedon 0 High Organic Content in Surface Layer in Sandy Soils
II Sulfidic Odor 0 Organic Streaking in Sandy Soils
II Aquic Moisture Regime II Listed On Local Hydric Soils List
II Reducing Conditions II Listed on National Hydric Soils List
II Gleyed or Low-Chroma Colors II Other (Explain in Remarks)
Remarks:
No hydric soil indicators.
WETLAND DETERMINATION
Hydrophytic Vegetation Present? Yes N No II Is the Sampling Point
Wetland Hydrology Present? Yes II No Within a Wetland? Yes II No M
Hydric Soils Present? Yes II No M
Remarks:
Side slope along flood plain of stream SD/SE, adjacent to wetland WC.
DATA FORM
ROUTINE WETLAND DETERMINATION
(1987 COE Wetlands Determination Manual)
Project / Site: WCA Landfill Date: 01/28/10
Applicant / Owner: WCA County: Wake
Investigator: Phil May - Carolina Ecosystems, Inc. State: NC
Do normal circumstances exist on the site? Yes N No II Community ID: Wet
Is the site significantly disturbed (Atypical situation)? Yes II No Transect ID: WC
Is the area a potential problem area? Yes II No Plot ID: 202
(explain on reverse if needed)
VEGETATION
Dominant Plant Species Stratum Indicator Dominant Plant Species Stratum Indicator
1.Acer rubrum T FAC 9. Campsis radicans V FAC
2. Liriodendron tulivifera T FAC 10. Lonicera iaponica V FAC-
3. Acer rubrum S FAC 11.
4. Woodwardia areolata H OBL 12.
5. Boehmeria cylindrica H FACW+ 13.
6. Polygonum sp. H 14.
7. Microstegium viminea H FAC+ 15.
8. Smilax rotundifolia V FAC 16.
Percent of Dominant Species that are OBL, FACW, or FAC excluding FAC-). 805c
Remarks:
Primarily facultative and wetland plants. Trees limited to near wetland boundary along edge of riparian
wetland bench.
HYDROLOGY
II Recorded Data (Describe In Remarks): Wetland Hydrology Indicators
II Stream, Lake, or Tide Gauge
II Aerial Photographs Primary Indicators:
II Other II Inundated
Saturated in Upper 12"
No Recorded Data Available II Water Marks
Drift Lines
Field Observations: Sediment Deposits
II Drainage Patterns in Wetlands
Depth of Surface Water: - (in.) Secondary Indicators:
II Oxidized Roots Channels in Upper 12"
Depth to Free Water in Pit: Win.) II Water-Stained Leaves
II Local Soil Survey Data
Depth to Saturated Soil: 6 (in.) FAC-Neutral Test
II Other (Explain in Remarks)
Remarks:
Limited evidence of overbank flow from stream SD/SE, but water table relatively high.
SOILS
Map Unit Name
(Series and Phase): Wedowee sandy loam, 10-15% slopes Drainage Class: Well drained
Taxonomy (Subgroup): Typic hapludults Confirm Mapped Type? Yes II No II
Profile Description:
Depth Matrix Colors Mottle Colors Mottle Texture, Concretions,
(inches) Horizon (Munsell Moist) (Munsell Moist) Abundance/Contrast Structure, etc.
0 A 2.5Y 313 None None Clay loam
2 B1 2.5Y 6/6 2.5Y 4/2 Few, lg., prominent Loamy sand
6 B2 2.5Y 2/2 2.5Y 5/6 Few, med., prominent Sandy loam, wet
Hydric Soil Indicators:
II Histosol II Concretions
II Histic Epipedon 0 High Organic Content in Surface Layer in Sandy Soils
II Sulfidic Odor 0 Organic Streaking in Sandy Soils
II Aquic Moisture Regime II Listed On Local Hydric Soils List
II Reducing Conditions II Listed on National Hydric Soils List
IR Gleyed or Low-Chroma Colors II Other (Explain in Remarks)
Remarks:
Saturated loam with high amount of sand primarily from long term deposition on bench along small stream
channel. Hydric soil indicator: F3 Depleted Matrix
WETLAND DETERMINATION
Hydrophytic Vegetation Present? Yes M No II Is the Sampling Point
Wetland Hydrology Present? Yes M No II Within a Wetland? Yes M No II
Hydric Soils Present? Yes M No II
Remarks:
Headwater forest wetland along small (1St order) perennial stream channel. Typical wetland for
most small riparian wetlands on site.
DATA FORM
ROUTINE WETLAND DETERMINATION
(1987 COE Wetlands Determination Manual)
Project / Site: WCA Landfill Date: 2/16/10
Applicant / Owner: WCA County: Wake
Investigator: Phil May - Carolina Ecosystems, Inc. State: NC
Do normal circumstances exist on the site? Yes N No II Community ID: UP
Is the site significantly disturbed (Atypical situation)? Yes II No Transect ID: WF
Is the area a potential problem area? Yes II No Plot ID: 102
(explain on reverse if needed)
VEGETATION
Dominant Plant Species Stratum Indicator Dominant Plant Species Stratum Indicator
1.Acer rubrum T FAC 9. Lonicera iaponica H FAC-
2. Liriodendron tulivifera T FAC 10. Lonicera iaponica V FAC-
3. Fagus grandifolia T FACU 11.
4. Ligustrum sinense S FAC 12.
5. Acer rubrum S FAC 13.
6. Fagus grandifolia S FACU 14.
7. Cornus florida S FACU 15.
8. Polystichum acrostichoides H FAC 16.
Percent of Dominant Species that are OBL, FACW, or FAC excluding FAC-). 505c
Remarks:
Slope just up from seep WF along small perennial stream.
HYDROLOGY
II Recorded Data (Describe In Remarks): Wetland Hydrology Indicators
II Stream, Lake, or Tide Gauge
II Aerial Photographs Primary Indicators:
II Other II Inundated
0 Saturated in Upper 12"
No Recorded Data Available 0 Water Marks
F1 Drift Lines
Field Observations: 0 Sediment Deposits
0 Drainage Patterns in Wetlands
Depth of Surface Water: - (in.) Secondary Indicators:
II Oxidized Roots Channels in Upper 12"
Depth to Free Water in Pit: Win.) II Water-Stained Leaves
0 Local Soil Survey Data
Depth to Saturated Soil: - (in.) II FAC-Neutral Test
II Other (Explain in Remarks)
Remarks:
No hydrology indicators.
SOILS
Map Unit Name
(Series and Phase): Wedowee sandy loam, 15-25% slopes Drainage Class: Well drained
Taxonomy (Subgroup): Topic hapludults Confirm Mapped Type? Yes II No II
Profile Description:
Depth Matrix Colors Mottle Colors Mottle Texture, Concretions,
(inches) Horizon (Munsell Moist) (Munsell Moist) Abundance/Contrast Structure, etc.
0 Al 2.5Y 514 2.5Y 6/8 Few. med. promin. Loamy sand
3 A2 2.5Y 513 2.5Y 6/8 Few. med. promin. Loamy sand
7 B 7.5Y 7/4 7.5Y 6/8 Few. med., promin. Loamy sand
Hydric Soil Indicators:
II Histosol II Concretions
II Histic Epipedon 0 High Organic Content in Surface Layer in Sandy Soils
II Sulfidic Odor 0 Organic Streaking in Sandy Soils
II Aquic Moisture Regime II Listed On Local Hydric Soils List
II Reducing Conditions II Listed on National Hydric Soils List
II Gleyed or Low-Chroma Colors II Other (Explain in Remarks)
Remarks:
No hydric soil indicators. Eroded slope above stream channel.
WETLAND DETERMINATION
Hydrophytic Vegetation Present? Yes II No M
Wetland Hydrology Present? Yes II No M
Hydric Soils Present? Yes II No M
Is the Sampling Point
Within a Wetland? Yes II No
Remarks:
DATA FORM
ROUTINE WETLAND DETERMINATION
(1987 COE Wetlands Determination Manual)
Project / Site: WCA Landfill Date: 2/16/10
Applicant / Owner: WCA County: Wake
Investigator: Phil May - Carolina Ecosystems, Inc. State: NC
Do normal circumstances exist on the site? Yes N No II Community ID: Wet
Is the site significantly disturbed (Atypical situation)? Yes II No Transect ID: WF
Is the area a potential problem area? Yes II No Plot ID: 102
(explain on reverse if needed)
VEGETATION
Dominant Plant Species Stratum Indicator Dominant Plant Species Stratum Indicator
1.Acer rubrum S FAC 9.
2. Ligustrum sinense S FAC 10.
3. Acer rubrum H FAC 11.
4. Ligustrum sinense H FAC 12.
5. Woodwardia areolata H OBL 13.
6. Polystichum acrostichoides H FAC 14.
7. 15.
8. 16.
Percent of Dominant Species that are OBL, FACW, or FAC excluding FAC-). 100%
Remarks:
Small side slope seep along perennial stream SA/SB. No trees within wetland boundary - some seedlings and
saplings.
HYDROLOGY
II Recorded Data (Describe In Remarks): Wetland Hydrology Indicators
II Stream, Lake, or Tide Gauge
II Aerial Photographs Primary Indicators:
II Other II Inundated
Saturated in Upper 12"
No Recorded Data Available II Water Marks
II Drift Lines
Field Observations: II Sediment Deposits
JK Drainage Patterns in Wetlands
Depth of Surface Water: - (in.) Secondary Indicators:
Oxidized Roots Channels in Upper 12"
Depth to Free Water in Pit: 6 in.) II Water-Stained Leaves
II Local Soil Survey Data
Depth to Saturated Soil: 2 (in.) FAC-Neutral Test
II Other (Explain in Remarks)
Remarks:
Hydrology supplied by groundwater seeping from slope.
SOILS
Map Unit Name
(Series and Phase): Wedowee sandy loam, 15-25% slopes Drainage Class: Well drained
Taxonomy (Subgroup): Typic hapludults Confirm Mapped Type? Yes II No II
Profile Description:
Depth Matrix Colors Mottle Colors Mottle Texture, Concretions,
(inches) Horizon (Munsell Moist) (Munsell Moist) Abundance/Contrast Structure, etc.
0 Al 2.5Y 4/2 2/5Y 6/4 Abund, small, distinct Coarse sand
4 A2 2.5Y 4/1 2.5Y 7/4 Common, med dist Coarse loamy sand
8 B1 2.5Y 7/6 7.5YR 6/8 Common, med, dist. Sandy clay
10 B2 10YR 511 2.5Y 7/6 Common, med, prom Sandy clay
7.5YR 6/8 Common, med, prom
Hydric Soil Indicators:
II Histosol II Concretions
II Histic Epipedon 0 High Organic Content in Surface Layer in Sandy Soils
II Sulfidic Odor 0 Organic Streaking in Sandy Soils
II Aquic Moisture Regime II Listed On Local Hydric Soils List
II Reducing Conditions II Listed on National Hydric Soils List
IR Gleyed or Low-Chroma Colors II Other (Explain in Remarks)
Remarks:
Hydric soil indicator S5: Sandy Redox.
WETLAND DETERMINATION
Hydrophytic Vegetation Present? Yes N No II Is the Sampling Point
Wetland Hydrology Present? Yes N No II Within a Wetland? Yes N No II
Hydric Soils Present? Yes N No II
Remarks:
Side slope seep along small stream channel. Primary hydrology is from groundwater discharge.
Very small acreage - could be considered part of larger headwater forest wetland system, but
assessed separately due to differing soils & hydrology.
DATA FORM
ROUTINE WETLAND DETERMINATION
(1987 COE Wetlands Determination Manual)
Project / Site: WCA Landfill Date: 2/16/10
Applicant / Owner: WCA County: Wake
Investigator: Phil May - Carolina Ecosystems, Inc. State: NC
Do normal circumstances exist on the site? Yes N No II Community ID: UP
Is the site significantly disturbed (Atypical situation)? Yes II No Transect ID: WP
Is the area a potential problem area? Yes II No Plot ID: 502
(explain on reverse if needed)
VEGETATION
Dominant Plant Species Stratum Indicator Dominant Plant Species Stratum Indicator
1.Liguidambar stvraciflua T FAC+ 9. Juniperus virginiana S FACU-
2. Pinus taeda T FAC 10. Polygonum sp. H
3. Juniperus virginiana T FACU- 11.
4. Baccharis halimifolia S FAC 12.
5. Liquidambar stvraciflua S FAC+ 13.
6. Acer rubrum S FAC 14.
7. Elaeagnus angustifolia S FAC 15.
8. Pinus taeda S FAC 16.
Percent of Dominant Species that are OBL, FACW, or FAC excluding FAC-). 70%
Remarks:
Adjacent area just upslope of beaver impounded wetlan d WP. Mostly small trees and saplings - no larger
trees due to beaver activity.
HYDROLOGY
II Recorded Data (Describe In Remarks): Wetland Hydrology Indicators
II Stream, Lake, or Tide Gauge
II Aerial Photographs Primary Indicators:
II Other II Inundated
II Saturated in Upper 12"
No Recorded Data Available II Water Marks
II Drift Lines
Field Observations: II Sediment Deposits
II Drainage Patterns in Wetlands
Depth of Surface Water: - (in.) Secondary Indicators:
II Oxidized Roots Channels in Upper 12"
Depth to Free Water in Pit: Win.) II Water-Stained Leaves
II Local Soil Survey Data
Depth to Saturated Soil: - (in.) II FAC-Neutral Test
II Other (Explain in Remarks)
Remarks:
No hydrology indicators
SOILS
Map Unit Name
(Series and Phase): Wedowee sandy loam, 15-25% slopes Drainage Class: Well drained
Taxonomy (Subgroup): Typic hapludults Confirm Mapped Type? Yes II No II
Profile Description:
Depth Matrix Colors Mottle Colors Mottle Texture, Concretions,
(inches) Horizon (Munsell Moist) (Munsell Moist) Abundance/Contrast Structure, etc.
0 A 10YR 313 Loam
4 B1 2.5Y 513 Sandy loam
10 B2 2.5Y 514 2.5Y 313 Few, med. faint Loamy sand
Hydric Soil Indicators:
II Histosol II Concretions
II Histic Epipedon 0 High Organic Content in Surface Layer in Sandy Soils
II Sulfidic Odor 0 Organic Streaking in Sandy Soils
II Aquic Moisture Regime II Listed On Local Hydric Soils List
II Reducing Conditions II Listed on National Hydric Soils List
II Gleyed or Low-Chroma Colors II Other (Explain in Remarks)
Remarks:
No hydric soil indicators.
WETLAND DETERMINATION
Hydrophytic Vegetation Present? Yes N No II
Wetland Hydrology Present? Yes II No
Hydric Soils Present? Yes II No M
Is the Sampling Point
Within a Wetland? Yes II No
Remarks:
DATA FORM
ROUTINE WETLAND DETERMINATION
(1987 COE Wetlands Determination Manual)
Project / Site: WCA Landfill Date: 2/16/10
Applicant / Owner: WCA County: Wake
Investigator: Phil May - Carolina Ecosystems, Inc. State: NC
Do normal circumstances exist on the site? Yes N No II Community ID: WET
Is the site significantly disturbed (Atypical situation)? Yes II No Transect ID: WP
Is the area a potential problem area? Yes II No Plot ID: 502
(explain on reverse if needed)
VEGETATION
Dominant Plant Species Stratum Indicator Dominant Plant Species Stratum Indicator
1.Baccharis halimifolia S FAC 9.
2. Boehmeria cylindrica H FACW+ 10.
3. Scirtms sp. H OBL 11.
4. Carex sp. H 12.
5. Polygonum sp. H 13.
6. 14.
7. 15.
8. 16.
Percent of Dominant Species that are OBL, FACW, or FAC excluding FAC-). 100%
Remarks:
Ponded backwater along bea ver impoundment - limited diversity of vegetation due to ponding and no trees
due to beaver activity.
HYDROLOGY
II Recorded Data (Describe In Remarks): Wetland Hydrology Indicators
II Stream, Lake, or Tide Gauge
II Aerial Photographs Primary Indicators:
II Other JK Inundated
Saturated in Upper 12"
No Recorded Data Available II Water Marks
II Drift Lines
Field Observations: II Sediment Deposits
JK Drainage Patterns in Wetlands
Depth of Surface Water: - (in.) Secondary Indicators:
II Oxidized Roots Channels in Upper 12"
Depth to Free Water in Pit: loin.) II Water-Stained Leaves
II Local Soil Survey Data
Depth to Saturated Soil: 1 (in.) FAC-Neutral Test
II Other (Explain in Remarks)
Remarks:
Strong hydrology due to beaver activity.
SOILS
Map Unit Name
(Series and Phase): Wedowee sandy loam, 15-25% slopes Drainage Class: Well drained
Taxonomy (Subgroup): Typic hapludults Confirm Mapped Type? Yes II No II
Profile Description:
Depth Matrix Colors Mottle Colors Mottle Texture, Concretions,
(inches) Horizon (Munsell Moist) (Munsell Moist) Abundance/Contrast Structure, etc.
0 A 10YR 4/1 Clay loam, wet
4 B 2.5Y 311 2.5Y 313 Com, med, distinct Clay loam, wet
Hydric Soil Indicators:
II Histosol II Concretions
II Histic Epipedon 0 High Organic Content in Surface Layer in Sandy Soils
II Sulfidic Odor 0 Organic Streaking in Sandy Soils
II Aquic Moisture Regime II Listed On Local Hydric Soils List
II Reducing Conditions II Listed on National Hydric Soils List
IR Gleyed or Low-Chroma Colors II Other (Explain in Remarks)
Remarks:
Hydric soil indicator F3: Depleted Matrix
WETLAND DETERMINATION
Hydrophytic Vegetation Present? Yes N No II Is the Sampling Point
Wetland Hydrology Present? Yes N No II Within a Wetland? Yes N No II
Hydric Soils Present? Yes N No II
Remarks:
Beaver impounded wetland also similar to backwater ponded areas on the rest of the site.
ATTACHMENT 8
Regulatory Correspondence
ANCDENR
North Carolina Department of Environment and Natural Resources
Division of Water Quality
Beverly Eaves Perdue Coleen H. Sullins Dee Freeman
Governor Director Secretary
September 7, 2011
Mr. Phil May
Carolina Ecosystems, Inc.
8208 Brian Court
Garner, NC 27529
Subject: Surface Water Determination Letter
IP/NBRRO# 11-159
Wake County
Dear Mr. May:
The Raleigh Regional Office of the NC Division of Water Quality/Surface Water Protection Section conducted a
site visit at the subject property and is providing the below-listed determination pursuant to your request for a formal
surface water determination:
BASIN:
® Neuse (15A NCAC 2B .0233) ? Tar-Pamlico (15A NCAC 2B .0259)
® Ephemeral/Intermittent/Perennial Determination ? Isolated Wetland Determination
Project Name:
Location/Directions:
Subject Stream:
CWA Landfill
Subject property is currently undeveloped portion of landfill located west
of Brownfield Road, south of Battle Bridge Road and north of Old
Baucom Road in Wake County;
UT to the Neuse River
Date of Determination: Sept 7, 2011
Feature E/1/P* Not
Subject Subject Start@ Stop@ Stream
Form Pts. Soil
Surve USGS
To o
SA I X Flag SA-Int SB' 20.5
SB I X Flag SB-Int SB' 22.5 X
SB' P X Confluence:
SA+S13 32.5 X
Sc I X Flag SC-Int SB' 20.25
SD P X Flag SDI 00 SE Perennial
Indicators X
SE P X Culvert Perennial
Indicators X X
SF P X Throughout x X
SG P X Throughout X
SH
l
p X Throughout
SI i X Flag SI-Int SI' 24.5 X
North Carolina Division of Water Quality Raleigh Regional Office Surface Water Protection
Internet: www.ncwaterquality.org 1628 Mail Service Center Raleigh, NC 27699-1628
NorthCarolina
,Naturally
Phone [phone] Customer Service
FAX [phone]
An Equal Opportunity/Affirmative Action Employer- 50% Recycled/10% Post Consumer Paper
CWA Landfill
Wake County
September 7, 2011
Page 2 of 2
Feature E/I/P* Not
Subject Subject Start@ Stop* Stream
Form Pts. Soil
Survey USGS
To o
Si I X Flag SJ-P SI' X
SI' P X Flag SI-P 30.5 X X
SX X X
Pond 1 X X X
Pond 2 X X X
Pond 3 X X X
*EIIIP = Ephemeral/Intermittent/Perennial
Explanation: The feature(s) listed above has or have been located on the Soil Survey of Wake County, North
Carolina or the most recent copy of the USGS Topographic map at a 1:24,000 scale. Each feature that is checked
"Not Subject" has been determined not to be a stream or is not present on the property. Features that are checked
"Subject" have been located on the property and possess characteristics that qualify it to be a stream. There may be
other streams located on your property that do not show up on the maps referenced above but, still may be
considered jurisdictional according to the US Army Corps of Engineers and/or to the Division of Water Quality.
This on-site determination shall expire five (5) years from the date of this letter. Landowners or affected parties that
dispute a determination made by the DWQ or Delegated Local Authority may request a determination by the
Director. An appeal request must be made within sixty (60) days of date of this letter or from the date the affected
party (including downstream and/or adjacent owners) is notified of this letter. A request for a determination by the
Director shall be referred to the Director in writing c/o Ian McMillan, DWQ Wetlands/401 Unit, 1650 Mail Service
Center, Raleigh NC 27699-1650.
If you dispute the Director's determination you may file a petition for an administrative hearing. You must file the
petition with the Office of Administrative Hearings within sixty (60) days of the receipt of this notice of decision. A
petition is considered filed when it is received in the Office of Administrative Hearings during normal office hours.
The Office of Administrative Hearings accepts filings Monday through Friday between the hours of 8:00 am and 5:00
pm, except for official state holidays. To request a hearing, send the original and one (1) copy of the petition to the
Office of Administrative Hearings, 6714 Mail Service Center, Raleigh, NC 27699-6714. The petition may also be
faxed to the attention of the Office of Administrative Hearings at [phone], provided the original and one (1)
copy of the document is received by the Office of Administrative Hearings within five (5) days following the date of
the fax transmission. A copy of the petition must also be served to the Department of Natural Resources, c/o Mary
Penny Thompson, General Counsel, 1601 Mail Service Center, Raleigh, NC 27699-1601.
This determination is final and binding unless, as detailed above, you ask for a hearing or appeal within sixty (60)
days.
The owner/future owners should notify the Division of Water Quality (including any other Local, State, and Federal
Agencies) of this decision concerning any future correspondences regarding the subject property (stated above). This
project may require a Section 404/401 Permit for the proposed activity. Any inquiries should be directed to the
Division of Water Quality (Central Office) at (919)-807-6301, and the US Army Corp of Engineers (Raleigh
Regulatory Field Office) at (919)-544-4884.
Respectfully,
Martin Rich and
Environmental Specialist
cc: Wetlands/ Stormwater Branch, 1650 Mail Service Center, Raleigh NC 27699-1650
RRO/SWP File Copy
WAKE COUNTY, NC
s sheet 71) WmE LoB
WmB2
ApC2 LoD - w ApB °; Me
�� / EnC2 Cm I. C���Q,Q� v. LoC WmE � `(Jy DuB �,,%' "Lw62
`x i\
v �. BORROW AREA
-_ - --
7Y
�G m APC WmB
LoC
p WmB2
G
W m B
°� APB WmC LoB
l
WmC2 WmC2 I VOG Wy
ApC / LoB LoB
APDl ti
j �Fq ApB2 \ I Wm B2 �a�
WmB2 I WmC2
nip , G2
ApC2 ocy WmC2 DuB
sF �o�, I ,
A
_ v LoD ApC\ 3�� I PpGkF,
9� Lo B
APC WmE DuC /
1 LoC LoB
APB LOCU \ ApC App` op
APD ApB2 \ <o,"\ ApB2 ApC y��tv �.
/ APC2
WmCv
Du B �� �i� vac i GZ
ApC
a Al
`aC2 v vv VaB2 CeB2
�Me �� v v �t� Cn ApB2
CIE3 <-'—
!y'ApB jA B2 Me CIB3 Wo
JVmD2 WmC%) p
� q ApB2
U Cn ��� DuB I DuB DuB2
Me �l 9oc \ Cn
wmc
WmC /Me
vVmB2 o m atiI e2
Me LoC Q
3 NoB2 AgC W
LwB LoD - F� m AB
mC2
% Wm g
WmC ( B2 ApC
WmC� \ LwC i
WmB 31 �001 . C A B A 2 PC APB
I g
ApB kE: Lo(
aB . �C �� \ AfA AfA APC
Me
C� Wo Wo Q)
Afq I� WmE
WmC o WmE CeF
\ PQ Wm62
.. nuR7 -- Wmf17 c\,

ATTACHMENT 9
Engineering Drawings
7
-1
S
n
Z
N ?
D
3 `
0 m
0
z

a o (Q
o v ?.
a c ? ?•
?
o \ IJ (_1L

ZE CD
= _•

to fD V1
C

cn_
w rn

? CD ` V
I
n
Z
O
/V? l7
CY
(?
S
C7 O

cD ? O
cD
Q l
00 J O
CT
W o
J
Cr 2)

a
EI;M.u..,..;,.;
e a ? °
Y
GJ ? oa u? ? o .s
off' S> $
y
t+7
? OC./)
r :;;o NCn
N
zm mom m
?m
ml
?If,
n c? a c?
?
o
co o Z CD m z
= a Zo
m =-
00
W r? (
/)
;;o -,j
(n
NSn
c D FFj
=
-4 m oC
a? °:;o 7<
O
W C O -
[7
O
Z n
a
N
v
c3?
O
m
O (O [b ?I M CT ? W N
I Z
O
N
C7
a

m m m m I
O] CT ? W N I
C7 C7 C) ( C
2
? W N ? Z
O
N r

O
m

D

....Np,'., Cn (n Cn Cn O Co O O G7 - ? C7
?
0vv_0 ;U 00 C7

;;o z
O
,
`?, o,;,•?5E .
R°P
m m m m m n (n m
r'
n
m
m ;

a
C./)
• o 30. I
c')
c
') c
a a a a I o n
n
o m
%pp'•
`..° r = a a
z z z z (n frTl m
N
??
r
m m m???? m
aaa T+r''"??
N(
n Cn
(
n
? m z

.,. ...
' m
mmmmz?S
N
[n [
n
?
vo,
Z
zmmm Rvvo
0
o 2
20.
.
? Znne
?w NJ Z ZZZ R'
N .
=; .;s ?A,>: o; n00? zzzz rri -1 -1

Mn
r
r
mmmmc
a a a a -0
v
(n (n (n cn m
C- L/)
m m m ;;o
m m m
m
(n (n (n Cn
O C. C. O
0-0-0-0
=j =:j =j =j
O O O O
Z Z Z Z
? W N
Cf)
TFT I
FT Co
N
O

? O Z D D
* F- U?
FTI O 0
r-r-I z-U > n?
X ono ?
FTI
>
z z??
o o
z ??oD?z
???nz
z?? n
J
4-1
Fvi /
z ??j\\
JN ? °
?N g D ?\ $ % YN O
:;0 ° 1' YIN. D % v
m .Z] G)
N D O p fTl % i ?\
M
M \
FST7 r S• N D 2 m \ z ??
;;0
W
° :;0 I'? n W °z - m r z % z
zm N ND ° N %i m
^a a
Lnn JN Ln
52
a €i ?N
8 H=6'
P 6 \\\/\\ //\\ 4-1
s 1 a i\\\\
?u
??CN NI
X
T?m<xCm ;
yAmN SG Q N
y1 NNym s O
1 -0
??=g me
fTl w/ C7 mAm°°- tiz W O
0 D levy 40 O Y
_ r gg $-
c, CC
F- ° o. m
c^ D m N ?m ^,?
LIJ
GO NN,
(^ D D $? D 9 Qm?z° ;czi
O
?
Nry2 Hm
fTl ° ? ? W ooma m?
n m r^ y °u, ;O o
Iv a ?? c7 D m°Nm = c z 2 C7
$ w :;0 °?zo ?2 4 w D m a D ?
S ° ?mm =? 4 °z
Kz m N fTl 7+
C n amo i o n a
NO DO fJ
Mg c? I
?yN eOm
O
pig
gg 24 MAX
I-r-?Ip 91 Ea m AT CEN9]i
!5 I-IST 11
y 14,
?? -1i=1111 -
? ? ? =111=1T
Ti1T111?1111T11I
4 s 1111 L1l ,1;1
?K ? h Ii1-iii=lil
?° ? 1TIITIi1?IT1111
?? ?'aR ? ?? ? II1I=III=III ;
Q ? ? Q 1=I I I=-111=1 _
Zo iL 4 g 11 11
1
n 111 T °ms = €
-
C € 1=1T=I1T1111
?? ?ITIII11aI-1
i?Q? =IT1=111111 N m
cn 9,=LIT=ITI i Fi a
W ; -Li-111=1
D D ii T-Li=1Ti > a a >E
7.0
i ° s %IT1=111=1 i?.?
°
° m =III-I
= rn =III-III= _ ??
r CO
?@ m `I11ITI11111II ITI 111111 0 € -=
- m ° U) v
= c? W iN =11=11 = m
Rai
w° ° m n Z? 4 a ?? 1111111 q r Zo ,6• 5i
D aR O e ?? 111111 m °
1lN9? ITT a g w D m
F ? gT T T ; a °
115 1 s \s+p sRq? Q
Q 4 11 - n
11 A
A?? a ? ? ?0 IN
a
I ?
a
I gZ .9 ?? Isk i1 ?sx
e fail? All ni 16' 20• g2 _ _
?Z
?s I
€ a AMR
n"
e
AR
L-IING PRE: PROJECT TTLE REAL SEAL
WCA WASTE CORPORATION
CO SEDIMENTATION & EROSION =oFcs%` David Garrett & Associates
CONTROL DETAILS MATERIAL RECOVERY LLC
Engineering and Geology
.m 2
I CDLF AREA 2 EXPANSION 5105 1 Teme Drive, 9ekigh "°`" Carolina 27604
PC-? o SHEET 1 OF 3 gel: daYd-prrN,iagOmhd4degcom 919-231-1616 (Office and Fm) 919-416-4375 (mobile)
WAKE COUNTY, NORTH CAROLINA -2121-2 1
SIDE SLOPE SWA E BERM
1.5:1 1.5;1 `
3
x1 x1
Fit
p ?? n AM
?a --------?? - --? -- ------- p m #.
r :m g K 4 > a
w n m ? j
-L - --L o
mm m ------- -- ------- N z
n \
_ \ \ n n ES7 m 15
m v _
v \ \
W.Ig W.
s y
x, P4 PR x1® A 1
g?
F-
>h ?a ?
s 1.51 s
9
1.51
IA (SEE NO,E 3) l ,
;5 F1
I. ?'':;'?4 J w
?u \ ?U
ON ?
n
Z D r- I n n ^'
rT'1 (Z)
`'...?' C7 fT"I Q
z r ICU IZ)
m
Z
7- CE
C) n C7 m
O r ,? ITl = o m
Iv p ?z m
CD F!6
m a ?C7
v n I $ n ?
2! 52
m o F (Z/)
m a m n 7q
I--) (n .c?_.m rNmnzo
Si ' fV r-O 0 ys z m??
p CD
7`1 1
aN °z- c f ?+yzm
.Z7
rTl
o > v
C-) 2
N fTl o
m m
m Ln ? g ?7 P ? ? ? ? chi
fV p ? R e P m rn
m c
CJ On
np m
z ?=j
p Fit ?F
r i IS y
2 42
Ju 2 y
r o f
s n
5i s? ?4
+
^
p s?gQi
C/) °o
Cn ++++
++++++ p sow'
p n + + + + + + + r
? m a a a
:m C7 + + + + r n v$^? o
TI N n ?? z
Q r ++++ 9 m nm r -
N= p +++++++ + + + w > m?
++++ y DRAWMC TITLE PROJECT TTE SEAL SEAL
m m - WCA WASTE CORPORATION
`° m m ° SEDIMENTATION & EROSION s,oDavid Garrett & Associates
MATERIAL RECOVERY, LLC En eerin and Geo?o
N CONTROL DETAILS gin s sy
5105 Hmbmr Tome Me, RoII North Carolina 27604
CDLF AREA 2 EXPANSION h=
SHEET 2 OF 3 EmaE. ?-9?H-P9nH¢? 919-231-1818 (Office and Fm) 919-418-4375 (mobile)
N WAKE COUNTY, NORTH CAROLINA §-"28
., §-2an
o % a
z j g j
s ? ? \? II
rn I ` ? 4 I /`
I
F
// ` I 1
cn ?\ I /
a
/`
4 /!
?g m
'O 2 m o
r- °
r
N O ° n z jl
c?,aa vZ ??+ z ? Q I m jl ?
? " % j 2 z
Z \ w i I '` ?® `?
O
8 l V
.Z?7 ? ? ? I °z I
C7 I o \
N ? I \
? jl m I
?/ j I
a I %/
s I ?/
? ? s
? u
ce
rn D>
z D>
o ?
?m =
O r
r
a
0
w? a >
ITl D> ®?
C D
Z
2
? D N sa
v
B-15-2010 1 l1PDATEP EXISTING ME OE WAS1E GRADES IN PHASE 1 AN1 AREA TOPOGRAPHY
PATE NO. REVISION
LRAAINC TITLE: PROJECT TITLE: SEAL SEAL
m m - WCA WASTE CORPORATION
o o m m ° SEDIMENTATION & EROSION ='o?? s; David Garrett & Associates
MATERIAL RECOVERY, LLC Engineering and Geology
CONTROL DETAILS
> ?.. ,f ti 5185 rhbour Tome Mm Rd*A North Gnbo 27&14
n w o N o = < SHEET 3 OF 3 CDLF AREA 2 EXPANSION :y m ... :: ??; ?, durld4orrott-pomhdgringm 919-231-1818 (Ofke and Fox) 919-418-05 (moble)
o • q?lD G PR4, ••••
WAKE COUNTY, NORTH CAROLINA X28-2011

°
N ?

5 4 " w?a qpA gap 8 m 3A m 'w? `? $ wESE ESE ? ww ?wW e
e x
8 ? Ww??? ww "ww> wo>, w.omw> "a " m_ s
a„a a
8 8 ag g. g f s ,F,rr
?'$pis a add _A e L r . J A? ao
c 3 3 S6 8. c W? 3 gD (tea ii ?. r ' __ ;: ° m
E $ $? 9 g? x ass ?ww?? ?g?" 3 s
c a ?.? f ...... ... .. ...... Boa
?? ? ? ? ? ? ?? ? ?? $ ,? ,?? : a ``• = a xxxxx xxxxxxxx xxxxxxxx € x € Y?xxOxxxxxx ,_ 8 C
E, a
w n 44 15 6 3
C ?G ?i' ?y Sd 6Y n a n 5,'i y. "'' 4 ?oaoo 5 g X
e mQ ?s N o $ Fe "" w " ?w WweWweeeeewweeW WwwWwWm p
g w? a aN z
a m 3 Rm '?
w m 3 a«S t s Wwwwwwww uu?umw.iuw w???w.oo?w-wN -"
R a £ wm
0 3 hy,pP rv s=. g e ~x a ?_?mw"gym. m„?_v..,-w.N?? $'??a
,a ¢a
%
s ... ...
c. x x ., L
`€ t Y i R----------wwwwwwwwuuu N........vN vvvtivtiv g
41
- - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - -
P, 2,
?3 rt .......... glnuuln (n w w w w w w w w w.. w w w w w w w w w w w w w.
Y _ ?o
Tz C P 4 o" J P. N S•'
i ? R? ? ..,. ,.. .. w:m.e:ewm"ama$mmmame.re 3eeie.eiw.?mm.m???w2w?
i
_ '? ? 6??q Q a c ? ? ? fgi£igiEf g??88?aax $m5ggafisiii Eii Fins
5C 9 nmmmggiggggm??? •w"ami?::?ssss?'ss
aIs r z AWRRRRRRR---?tR.M RRRRRRiaRm?33 "m"33`wim
'?? rr a S 3 $ o = g , me3m,.-.Faoe3ge3e?
R g ° _ - u _ ,? rr: rrrrrr. r..... r.rrrrrrrrr:rrrornrro rn.
• ' g m ve a
tiiq zr? 88 m $3 R d' z :? L g?gz:
-rt
V.
t;a C- 59 g •. m a Ra R
31
?
w s
4 fq z 9 "" ?; fr ?QQg nr ago v o a m U)
D
B 4 a 33?a?y`-Aga $" g U)
$$ 4 pi -4-9 6 off. off'=Q o
z, ir
ms s w w
O
€ P ag =Egg P- v Qa_Q oS ?-r-1
2 S, v i I G $ a '? a
F
° - - -o °
F! E? CE 2 j; FIE ° - m m-- - -
CS P-R
-?-
EP n
2s 5-
a m ° - -
oA ° m - - yn m - o -
--2 p m - - -
° - - o _ _ ion PA ? - -
o = -
R4 2 -? ° _ - ° - m m P E;? E, FR
- m - ° ° mAno - - oN - -
=n - ° ° _ m = ohm o - - _ = m =
-82
° - oA ° _ - - m - -- - -
EE EIER
- _ °
E? FR
- - - - - - °
EE
FR tq
° - ° _
-°
Eq 9 PRE pm ° nnm m o ° - o - N-d
PR 5
° - ° m - - A
ill 1A 11
N _ - - m - -° o- _-- - - °
° - °°- mA- - - -m - - A`
o - - - - - ° m - - °
-99 50MA FR T En
FEE 9 ---2
QA
mom m A? -
° m °° o?2 ° ° - -
B-15-2010 LIPOITED EXISTING TOP OE WASTE GRADES IN PHASE 1 AND AREA TOPOGRAPHY
DATE REVISION
s R, N DRAWING TITLE: PROJECT TTLE. SEAL . . SEAL
= SEDIMENTATION & EROSION WCA WASTE CORPORATION, INC. s >' O .. David Garrett & Associates
o : .
° m BROWNFIELD RD. C&D LANDFILL '
oN CONTROL SCHEDULES & e Engineering and Geology
PH2 PERMIT MODIFICATIONS 5105 fhfimc lame Drive, Rdeigh NrcM Cadhe 276M
£= n °
m
n > A o N = m NARRATIVE TEXT #92-31) mod: dmdLgmkid,p:9.m 919-231-1918 (Office and Fm) 919 418 1375 (mdxk)
WAKE COUNTY NORTH CAROLINA ;D GPR,.
9' 29 2011
O
a
ODE

N gal, I
a TIP
9m I
Id
? g

/
cz
/n rnv v? vy v c FT/1 l 1 vAv
?-
/1
/ //IIVlll /
AA!
//i - - _ - `Y, I
M\?
Tip 7Y-

Fri
II V\ v/-
?
\Vv`? ? vv? vv vvv?AV?-- ?// / / A11111 v_Av _ i111 )1' ??/ __ %--?? Vvvv ?? ?vl Q•` /? -
- - --?-? % 1111 VA v A A ??? _???,= s y?e
???!!!\??III11 \ / \\ ?? rte, 7,/// ? \ \ \\ \II\111 ?/? /Ill
? ?1 1 / ? 1 ?/? 1111 ?>,1 /411 rIl ?< 19
\ ??1 \ 11/1 Sul I1// /lf \\?1 ??II
tom- ?V Av l l IR (? /1 //\l?? 111 1 1
V A _
0

? 'V I f??_! V %- vv? A 111 /i-? l l / IAI
v'-"vA - I l f /I(I //((fll? V - ` V? ?1111f/i- e/ / I X /,1 n
? v / / /C 11Il \\ ?v? 111111] ?? ?/
% I A O
rn - ? W? ?---
z
1 -
D m ",1 rc',p___1 ----`? - -
vv
2c) FTI
9? cn y c-)
II Di ?1n? c7
f) C"
2/') rn - -?,
? n I ° 0 0 ?
° o
0 o C D
? .Z7
o
p 6-15-2010 1 UPDATED EXISTING TOP OF WASTE GRADES IN PHASE 1 AND AREA TOPOGRAPHY
DATE NO. REUSION
?n m T > v' i Em DRAWING TTLE PROJECT TTLE. SEAL SEAL
- WCA WASTE CORPORATION "N°?ARO •.•
PRE-DEVELOPMENT s>o David Garrett & Associates
m BROWNFIELD ROAD CDLF Engineering and Geology
A WATERSHED MAP %
n 5105 Hed,au Tome WA Rdegh North afdlno 27804
y m AREA 2 STREAM MODIFICATION Emal: dadd4wretLpgom1I 919-231-1818 (Office and Fox) 919-418-4375(mowle)
WAKE COUNTY, NORTH CAROLINA ° g°a •2011

a
a
I 1^
`- ?-- _= ?? 1A• \ o????/v ?A?? ?? 1111 ? ? ll.?\V? -
'Al
/?-- , lr ?
c/) o 1v v v vv ??? v ???__
r' t\ ?
(/)
\\ /I 11 X11/ SE
:E -0
D o D ?
p m m m o< ---sue 1 __ - - I
0
O
? Z p A A \
oq m _
CL F71
D> C-3
11 C/) 11 C/) cf)
CL Z _0 N/'r„ rn Nm
m N lllY' f C m -
00
I p ? O I O ? ? ? ?
° O O cn
CIp C ?
.Z7
p ?_\ 6-15-2010 1 UPDATED EXISTING TOP OF WASTE GRADES IN PHASE 1 AND AREA TOPOGRAPHY
m D p 1\I r.\\?? \
DATE No. REVISION
n m T n '^ i °,,, DRAWING TILE: PROJECT TITLE. SEAL SEAL
WCA WASTE CORPORATION ^RO' .•,
m m ° POST-DEVELOPMENT gROWNFIELD ROAD CDLF SR . SDavid Garrett & Associates
A K K WATERSHED MAP Engineering and Geology
° - 5105 Harbour Tome Drive, RaII NoHh Carolina 27604
n 2 OPTION 1 AREA 2 STREAM MODIFICATION 'fr I Finai: Cola 619-231-1618 016ce and Fac 919-418-4375 n
WAKE COUNTY, NORTH CAROLINA '° gzon
_? \ \ \ - \ \ \? \ \ ------
1111`-_
n _ \\ `\ \\\ \\\\\ ` \? \ \ \\ \`I ` \\`
?_-- \ \ 1 __? \1\/ A £ / 4i/ice _-
l
???r 1 1 \ 1 II / i io%// ^ z ///?%--- _ ' \ 1 1 1 \ 1 I \ \ \\ \\ III f // A-
/ii 1un\OI
- - - - osz _--- _x\\ 1\ \\ fit\\ \\\ \ 1 j i?l \ll 1///j% r
/
' r aa \ I / ? / /' - - - - - "Zi
I porn
260
f uol
- ----_?
lip
/ / ?/ V A A v v A I AVIIIX_ ?1/ /?
o / r // 1/ // ? %? \? \\ \\ \\ ?? \\\ I \I \\ \ \\ \??\ ?Ij11?1 Y j/ ll?l ll ?
/ // /i ?? ?\ \V A\ `\ ?v A\ II 11 1 4rT A V ) ) . l/I /1/?/ 1 /l ?1
) I l Y
l / l I ?/ ?/ /?-/ AI l A\ \I vV 1 I 1 / I A 1A /? / / / ??? 11
1
IIII
iiil ilw / fill il
o
\:;om xe i i 1 I 1 1 II A % //// // / j I ?\ \I I ?1?1 IIIIIII
I 1 .? I / / / / / I 1 \ V 1 1 I \ VA1 / / 11
z / / / I I \ I I / / / I 1 \\ \ \ \\ \ \ I\I 1 1\I\/ / 1 I
Z ?`\ / / / ? ? II I` \? /' /r//// ? ? I \\ \\ `\ \\ ? ? / I ? I II ICI jl ? I 1 /I I II
ms
/ Dez ? 1 `\ \ `?? -? ? Q W \ 1\ \\ \/lj / ? ? frl
\+? \\ ` \ \ \ o m
/ +\ \\ \\ \\\ \ r'I ??? \ \\/ I m
CV)
1
71
Ip / I A ? A l / Z j / j / aab
----'? ----- D
g \ ` i? \ ;;0
O
4.
V I X
u `? ??? vv / AV I 1 n V ? ? 1AA(
0 /? v V A I A / ?_?/ 6-15-2010 1 UPDATED EXISTING TOP OF WASTE GRADES IN PHASE 1 AND AREA TOPOGRAPHY
DATE NO. REUSION
n m T > v' i °„ DRAWING FILE: PRDJECT TTLE. SEAL SEAL
c,, o _ - WCA WASTE CORPORATION
A m m ° GRADING STAGE "N°?AsR° O •.,
David Garrett &Associate
TEMPORARY MEASURES gROWNFIELD ROAD CDLF s
FE 2 Engineering and Geology
o AREA 2 STREAM MODIFICATION h' 5105 Harbour Tome Mm Rdetk Barth Oerdne 27604
> 9' m OPTION 1 J/j
? 1 •' ?y4?,.= Emai: dmid4meltygm
`^' ndWb. n 919-231-1818 (Office and Fm) 919-418-4375 (moMk)
, q
° WAKE COUNTY, NORTH CAROLINA '° g X2011
\ /?--\\ 1 \ \ \\ \?\ \\ \? ?\ \\?+.? o \\\\? ? ?? ?/ \C?\?`\ ?\ \`?\ ?\ \\ ? ?\ ? oca / ? I I i ? ? ? IIII
m ---- / / I I / Ill
Nil u
??m EK y _? \ \ \ ??\ zao ? \ \ +\ ? ?\/? / I f \ \ A\ I I I i /\
I-!?? ???o ?eo \\ `? \ - --- ?` zzo /'? I III 1\I\
®=$ ? ? `\ ? ?\ \ \ - \ ``\? \ \ ?-? Try` ? ? \\\\ ?I \ \ ? l/?---- - ? \?\??\ / III 1 \\ ?-
H ?? \\ \ ?\ r?\ \ \ ` 2? ` \ \ / / /// \? 1 opt \? ?\ / / 1 I 1 1
RI
IN GR
arrf
mn-
240--\
//'
_
JV " / ?• // / / / iii/,/??d
I I I r /
I I 111 I / Il / / / / /
O AV A ?_a- r11 I / / /
o / / / \\ ? ? /11 Ij / l/IIII
?IIIII I
7 / II IIIt
\D m-0 / / / / \\ (IIII III/ 1111 IIII ?? /
Z O ??? I 111 /// /Ill II ?jI
IS ri A A I I It
IIII/I // /? I I I ?\
`-? V 1 1 III V AA11 / / / IIII
/ \ 1 / I
rri
N
`Op\
I? 1
\ 1 /
C --- - `? -
- - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - -
FT-1 M
t? d \ \\? \ ---- \vl \ m
v / A vv ?? O
U)v+\ --- a
CD C \ Q\ ? O \\ \+ \\ `\
?7 ??1 ?J ?v vO l vv A v+v z-0 -
FTr-
F7l
F7-1 ???\ \\ Dom--_ -? /--JC?7'_ r/// 1 r?l ---
L I
00 F-1
O
K: m
° -0 r?
?? /li
U1 F)-) I> CD
l J A\ 0 m
I ?/ ?a\\ \??
ro \ ??Z I 260
o A r?? I 11 I I I , A? ???
I
C7 ?? ? a z 1 fV 1 lv
(n \ V A\ \V 6-15-tom 1 UPDATED EYIISTING TOP OF WASTE GRADES IN PHASE 1 AND AREA TOPOGRAPHY
DATE N0. REVISION
DRAWING TITLE: PROJECT TITLE: SEAL SEAL
m ° m '- WCA WASTE CORPORATION
m m ° OPERATIONS STAGE : s; .1 David Garrett & Associates
MATERIAL RECOVERY, LLC ' =`q° '
K PERMANENT MEASURES AND Engineering and Geology
y a IMPACTS FOR OPTION 1 CDLF AREA 2 EXPANSION SEmt" *d,gm Nwth 91'¢ ?181B(pryke and Fmk 9191 (amble)
WAKE COUNTY, NORTH CAROLINA "5°2a 2011
°
\ //--\\ 1 \ \ \\ \?\ \\ \? ?\ \\?+.? o \\\\? ? ?? ?/ \C?\?`\ ?\ \`?\ ?\ \\ ?\ ? oca / ? I 1 i ? ? ? 1111
m ---- / ' I I / Ill
Nil u
o __ ` \ \ \ ?\ \ \ ?? \__ X11 1 \ ?? \ ?l 1 I I ?' 1 \ \
zao ? \ \ +\ ? ?\J? / I f ? \ A\ 1 I I i /\
?-
H ?? \\ \ \\ r?\ \ \ ` 2? ` \ \ 1 / / /// ?? 1 opt \? ?? / / 1 I 1
RI
IN GR
c ' I WJ I / 3,
arrf
r J)
?O \I / / /iri r / m C
[nom
Pt I
/ i
/Ar
Ij,/
a
O
z
p
;q c.
?! Ln
cmn ? ? ` \
m m
1
Ro?FFIp
?o
C
IT 1
D
CID
?1
FT-1
I I I ? tr?lll / r lr/ri/, -/
\ \ l I I III
I
\\\ \\ \111 ilp° I Ilil III ?
\ \ \ 11 I I 111 '/ ;l I \
\ \ \ \ ) \, \ I 111111 \? I /l, / /nl I
V \ \ V / /// l 11 / l 1/ I I /
\ DSO ? / 1 / /
\ ? I1_ II
\ ly ? , I I
\
gIC-) -0 \ \ \ \

m o
;:0
i- O
Z7
O
N
m
S p
C73 Z

'71 --d C; 5 6
ZJ -<F 1 ? I v +V A c» / / /
?I ? V I A V? +\ z sad ,, ? I /?
FTr- L)
c7 s ? ? ? , I / I r / I I ( ? T
:;0
N C/ I? / - ?` / 2 v , vv
zo
\ \ \ \
> CO
00
D
zm-
26a \I i/' ??a \\?? \\ \ \ M 2f
- n \ ?m I / I 1 I /
? ? ??z I I l I
g \ V A\ \V 6-15-2010 1 UPDATED E%ISTING TOP OF WASTE GRADES IN PHASE 1 AND AREA TOPOGRAPHY
DATE NO. REVISION
DRAWING TITLE: PROJECT PRE: SEAL SEAL
WCA WASTE CORPORATION ••,,.,.,.',
•.••?N CAR0?"•.,%
ci' m m ° OPERATIONS STAGE =n. S/.1 David Garrett & Associates
MATERIAL RECOVERY, LLC ' q° '
K PERMANENT MEASURES AND Engineering and Geology
y a R ° 11 IMPACTS FOR OPTION 2 CDLF AREA 2 EXPANSION 3 1 11 : ?' SEmt"? ,?? 91'¢ M181B(pryke ad Fmk 919l (amble)
"' ° 9 WAKE COUNTY, NORTH CAROLINA °°5°2a 2011
\ /?--\\ 1 \ \ \\ \\\ \\ \? ?\ \\?+.\ o \\\\\ ? `? ?/ \C?\??\ ?\ \\\\ ?\ \\ ? \\ ? ocz / ? I 1 i ? ? ? 1111
s•' $„' ?r m ' \ \ \ \ \ \\ \\ \\\ \\+ //?/ ?\ \ ?_ ?\\ \ ?? \? r \?/- - ---- / / I I / Ill
- - - - - - - - - - - -
Nil u o _- \ \ \ \ \ ?\ _ \ \ \ \ ?\ \_- ill 1 \ ?\ \ ?l I I ?' 1 \ \
?m EK y _? \ \ \ `?\ zao \ \ +\ ?\/? / I f \ \ A\ 1 I I i /\
- - - - - - - - - - - - - -
H `? \\ \ \\ /?\ \ \ X90 \ \ \ I / / /,/ \\ 1 opt \? \ \\ / / 1 I 1
cu?
%
2,7
S?i
rcn-
,//
/ / zao=' -, I r // ? 7?
)jj
/ \ 1
a
O
z
0
z O P
17 Ln
a \
LI) z ?? \
` o rm m \
\ \
X00 \ I /\
\
1
r'
_ _ B,Qoy?FFl
\ o
--- v \ I p ?\ IllV'? ?i'?lriJ
FT? O ?wv??
T-1 0 \ +\ ?vv --- v c v r-
\
'l ICS V AV A + \ \ vv ---\ \I
\ rTr
\ + -) /
-c3-
F7-1 7p - -? -----
h1------ ?Z // o?? I I I v C :;0
OM m
7`1
m 1V O vvv? ?' V
Pri
°- l J / A C 1 I 'a \ ?? 1A / / / v? vvv? /
CT)
D _ ?fT1Z r \ x / \
o n A\ ?O? A_? I I zS v
>, rrj
f
\ ==j Z
n D v mn
v v
v v
w ? C7 v ? cn I vv vv v `? v
\ V AV A 6-15-2010 1 UPDATED E%ISTING TOP OF WASTE GRADES IN PHASE 1 AND AREA TDPOCRAPHY
? _ / 1 \ V Av DATE mo. eEVisiom
DRAWING TITLE: PROJECT TITLE SEAL SEAL
,.•`?H CARp?"•.,%
- WCA WASTE CORPORATION
OPERATIONS STAGE ='oZ? :... David Garrett & Associates
MATERIAL RECOVERY, LLC ' =`° '
K PERMANENT MEASURES AND Engineering and Geology
aw Fw) I (,e)
Ifice
y a IMPACTS FOR OPTION 3 CDLF AREA 2 EXPANSION Sit" ?'¢ "a(
°' ° WAKE COUNTY, NORTH CAROLINA °"5°2a 2011
\ //--\\ 1 \ \ \\ \?\ \\ \? \\ \\?+.? o \\\\? ? ?\ ?/ \C?\?`\ ?\ \\\\ ?\ \\ // \\ ? oca / ? I 1 i ? ? ? 1111
m ' \ \ \ \ \ \\ \\ \ \\ \\\ \\+ //?/ ?\ \ ?_ ?\\ \ \? \? r \ \?/- - ---- / / I I / Ill
Nil u
o __ \ \ \ \ \ ?\ _ \ \ \ \ ?\ \__ X11 1 \ \\ \ \l 1 I I ?' 1 \ \
zao ? \ \ +\ ? ?\J? / I f \ \ A\ 1 I I i /\
Ord ? ?? \\ \ \ \ ?`?x\ \\ \\ii `? ? \\r \/\ \ -_ \\ ?\ Im 11?? I I \
®=$ ? ? \\ \ \\ \ \ - \ ``\? \ \ ?-? Try` ? ? \\\\ ?I 1 \ \ l/?---- ? ? \?\?\\ / III 1 \\ ?-
H \? \\ \ \\ r?\ \ \ \ 2? \ \ \ 1 / / //r \\ 1 opt \? \ \\ / / 1 I 1
RI
IN GR
bi \ I \ \ \ N/
c ' I
Fill
'„
1// rr r
1,
NG")
\ \\\ IIi //\ //
Z
I l l /?G ?,/ ?,I,l
g_-0 -0 I ? V ?V A II I I P° I I11 I II _s
a? / / /\ 114 I /Illl
I
\ § / / I I I I ' 1111 Iii %!Ji 11
c-?zn / / \ ? I q // /, I
v m V A II II? X1111// //r I?
m jTl?nvv \V A l l II 11\\VAI?/ % 1 1
cn C-5 --- I vv III 1 I 11 I
vvv z o?vv v ? \ ? ? /l / ITI??I / ll?l ? l I I v
\ o? v vv lam/ / / ? I
3r? o
\
/
C
IT 1
CID
?1
FT-1
?OJu)C5v vD/
71 C vv Iz 0?`v\+\vA vvv ,'?
< \\A _ _-J- \t\\\ \ `\ fir///1/ j? o?
ch A
CD to :;0
„y
01 IF 1?? ?Q V.)- C v??v?v? v
0 0 RZ-1 z
0 C7 _ / / a o i y A o mo-' ' ?v m vv3 v v? p
n° ao q
° 0 D
vv /
D - / Iv ?m 2M r
o A m , I 1 I l l , v Avg
n ?? m \
\ V A\ \V 6-15-tom 1 UPDATED EYIISTING TOP OF WASTE GRADES IN PHASE 1 AND AREA TOPOGRAPHY
DATE NO. REVISION
° DRAWING TITLE: PROJECT TITLE SEAL SEAL
WCA WASTE CORPORATION
OPERATIONS STAGE -0. S/ ., David Garrett & Associates
MATERIAL RECOVERY, LLC ' =`q° '
K PERMANENT MEASURES AND Engineering and Geology
y a IMPACTS FOR OPTION 4 AREA 2 EXPANSION a : :' Sit" ?'¢ ' MB(Oflke ad Fm) m9-41"75 (moble)
J ° WAKE COUNTY, NORTH CAROLINA °°5°2a 2011