20150784 Ver 1_FINAL 404 IP_20150731

MEMO
TO: Karen Higgins
FROM: Ray Hoffman, P.E.
Area Environmental Manager
DATE: July 31, 2015
SUBJECT: Foothills Regional Landfill
Borrow Area Development and Stormwater Pond
401 Water Quality Certification
Enclosed is a check for the application fee amount of $570.00 made out to the N.C. Division of
Water Resources. This fee coincides with the Foothills Regional Landfill Borrow Area
Development and Stormwater Pond submittal, dated July 30, 2015.

Michelle M. Brown
Environmental Consultant
1910 Halifax Court
High Point, NC 27265
916/834 -6532
30 July 2015
NCDENR Division of Water Resources
401 Buffer and Permitting Unit
1617 Mail Service Center
Raleigh, NC 27699 -1617
Attn: Karen Higgins
Re: Foothills Environmental Landfill Borrow Area Development and Stormwater Pond
Dear Ms. Higgins:
In response to your Request For More Information dated 9 June 2015, we are submitting this
request for an Individual 401 Water Quality Certification on behalf of our client, Republic
Services of North Carolina, LLC.
In support of the proposed project, the following information and documents are included as
attachments to this request.
• Four complete sets of the Section 404 U.S. Army Corps of Engineers Individual Permit
Application and associated maps dated 21 April 2015;
• Four sets of the Response to Comments sent to the U.S. Army Corps of Engineers dated
24 July 2015;
• One data CD with the application package and supplemental response document for the
proposed project;
• Eng Form 4345 (within the application); and,
• Agent Authorization Form (within the application).
Please not, the application fee of $570 will be sent under separate cover directly from the
applicant. If you need additional information, please feel free to contact me by phone at
(916)834 -6532 or by email at MichelleMBrownkaol.com.
Sincerely,
l t C. . )� I
Michelle M. Brown
Environmental Consultant
CC: Drew Isenhour, Republic Services
Ray Hoffman, Republic Services
Roger Watts, Republic Services
Stan Kiser, Caldwell County
Bill Hodges, HHNT

U.S. ARMY CORPS OF ENGINEERS
APPLICATION FOR DEPARTMENT OF THE ARMY PERMIT OMB APPROVAL
EXPIRES: 28 FEBRUARY 20 2013 3
33 CFR 325. The proponent agency is CECW -CO -R.
Public reporting for this collection of information is estimated to average 11 hours per response, including the time for reviewing instructions, searching
existing data sources, gathering and maintaining the data needed, and completing and reviewing the collection of information. Send comments regarding
this burden estimate or any other aspect of the collection of information, including suggestions for reducing this burden, to Department of Defense,
Washington Headquarters, Executive Services and Communications Directorate, Information Management Division and to the Office of Management and
Budget, Paperwork Reduction Project (0710- 0003). Respondents should be aware that notwithstanding any other provision of law, no person shall be
subject to any penalty for failing to comply with a collection of information if it does not display a currently valid OMB control number. Please DO NOT
RETURN your form to either of those addresses. Completed applications must be submitted to the District Engineer having jurisdiction over the location of
the proposed activity.
PRIVACY ACT STATEMENT
Authorities: Rivers and Harbors Act, Section 10, 33 USC 403; Clean Water Act, Section 404, 33 USC 1344; Marine Protection, Research, and Sanctuaries
Act, Section 103, 33 USC 1413; Regulatory Programs of the Corps of Engineers; Final Rule 33 CFR 320 -332. Principal Purpose: Information provided on
this form will be used in evaluating the application for a permit. Routine Uses: This information may be shared with the Department of Justice and other
federal, state, and local government agencies, and the public and may be made available as part of a public notice as required by Federal law. Submission
of requested information is voluntary, however, if information is not provided the permit application cannot be evaluated nor can a permit be issued. One set
of original drawings or good reproducible copies which show the location and character of the proposed activity must be attached to this application (see
sample drawings and /or instructions) and be submitted to the District Engineer having jurisdiction over the location of the proposed activity. An application
that is not completed in full will be returned.
(ITEMS 1 THRU 4 TO BE FILLED BY THE CORPS)
1. APPLICATION NO. 2. FIELD OFFICE CODE 3. DATE RECEIVED 4. DATE APPLICATION COMPLETE
(ITEMS BELOW TO BE FILLED BYAPPLICANT)
5. APPLICANT'S NAME 8. AUTHORIZED AGENT'S NAME AND TITLE (agent is not required)
First - Drew Middle - Last - Isenhour First - Michelle Middle -M. Last - Brown
Company - Republic Services of North Carolina, LLC Company - Environmental Consultant
E -mail Address - [e-mail] E -mail Address - [e-mail]
6. APPLICANT'S ADDRESS: 9. AGENT'S ADDRESS:
Address- 1220 Commerce Street SW, Box 1 Address- 1910 Halifax Court
City - Conover State - NC Zip-28613 Country-USA City - High Point State - NC Zip - 27265 Country - USA
7. APPLICANT'S PHONE NOs. WAREA CODE 10. AGENTS PHONE NOs. WAREA CODE
a. Residence b. Business c. Fax a. Residence b. Business c. Fax
(828) 464 -2414 (916) 834 -6532
STATEMENT OF AUTHORIZATION
11. 1 hereby authorize, Michelle M. Brown to act i my behalf as my agent in the processing of this application and to furnish, upon request,
supplemental information in support of this permit a licatio
IGNATURE OF APPLICANT DATE
NAME, LOCATION, AND DESCRIPTION OF PROJECT OR ACTIVITY
12. PROJECT NAME OR TITLE (see instructions)
Republic Services of North Carolina, LLC Foothills Environmental Regional Landfill
13. NAME OF WATERBODY, IF KNOWN (if applicable) 14. PROJECT STREET ADDRESS (if applicable)
UT of Abingdon Creek Address 2800 Cheraw Road
15. LOCATION OF PROJECT
Latitude: -N 35 °54'57 "N Longitude: -W 81 °35'34 "W City- Lenoir
16. OTHER LOCATION DESCRIPTIONS, IF KNOWN (see instructions)
State Tax Parcel ID 06- 27 -1 -2 and 06- 25 -2 -13 Municipality Abindon
Section - Township - Lenoir Township Range -
State- NC Zip- 28645
ENG FORM 4345, OCT 2012 PREVIOUS EDITIONS ARE OBSOLETE. Page 1 of 3

17. DIRECTIONS TO THE SITE
The proposed project areas are located adjacent to the existing landfill facility, which is located north of the intersection of SR 1310 and SR
1301, near the Community of Abingdon, west of the City of Lenoir, North Carolina.
18. Nature of Activity (Description of project, include all features)
The applicant is proposing to construct access roads to two new borrow pits and improve the stormwater management system to account
for hydrologic flow alterations that have occurred as the landfill has grown. The applicant is in need of a 30 year supply (over 2 million
cubic yards) of borrow material. Two proposed borrow pits of 23 and 15 -acres respectively will be required. Normal construction
equipment including but not limited to excavators, bulldozers, motor graders, backhoes, and dump trucks will be utilized.
19. Project Purpose (Describe the reason or purpose of the project, see instructions)
The overall purpose and need for impacts to Waters of the U.S. for the proposed project is to better control stormwater runoff from the
Foothills Landfill facility and to establish a source of suitable borrow material that can be used for daily waste cover purposes at the
landfill to ensure a seamless operation for at least the next 30 years. The need for this project is rooted in the existing capacity of borrow
material currently available to the landfill facility; at current borrow material is being excavated from areas that will ultimately be needed
for structural fill purposes. Therefore, when areas currently being used for borrow need to be transitioned to their future intended use
(waste cell, etc.), no borrow area capacity will remain within the property. Additionally, as landfill cells have been constructed and the
physical footprint of the facility has morphed over time, altering the stormwater control structures to account for the changes in runoff
pathways and volumes results in the need to construct Wet Detention Basin #5. Phase 1 is expected to start June 1, 2015, and be completed
in October 2015. Phase 2 is expected to take place in 2019, start and finish dates are yet to be determined.
USE BLOCKS 20 -23 IF DREDGED AND /OR FILL MATERIAL IS TO BE DISCHARGED
20. Reason(s) for Discharge
N/A
21. Type(s) of Material Being Discharged and the Amount of Each Type in Cubic Yards:
Type
Amount in Cubic Yards
N/A
Type
Amount in Cubic Yards
N/A
22. Surface Area in Acres of Wetlands or Other Waters Filled (see instructions)
Acres 0.075
or
Linear Feet 661
23. Description of Avoidance, Minimization, and Compensation (see instructions)
Please see Part 7 of the attached Section 404 Individual Permit Application document.
Type
Amount in Cubic Yards
N/A
ENG FORM 4345, OCT 2012 Page 2 of 3

Answer to Question 25. Addresses of Adioininq Property Owners, Lessees, Etc., Whose
Propertv Adioins the Waterbodv
OWNER'S NAME
MCMILLAN
HERBERTJR
WATERS JOHN
WATERS JOHN C
WILSON STEVE
WATERS JOHN C
AGUILAR
VICTOR
MANUEL -LOPEZ
SMITH EARL
KEATHLY
MILLER TRACY
REPUBLIC
SERVICES OF
NORTH
SHATLEY MARK
COLUMBUS HRS
JONES LIBBY
PERKINS
WILLIAMS MARY
E
WILLIAMS MARY
P
CALDWELL
COUNTY
REPUBLIC
SERVICES OF
NORTH
REPUBLIC
SERVICES OF
NORTH
CALDWELL
COUNTY
CALDWELL
COUNTY
SUDDRETH
RICHARD D &
AN N ETTE
SITE ADDRESS
1515 PENNY LN LENOIR NC 28645
940 ABINGTON RD LENOIR NC
28645
960 ABINGTON RD LENOIR NC
28645
ABINGTON RD LENOIR NC 28645
ABINGTON RD LENOIR NC 28645
984 ABINGTON RD LENOIR NC
28645
978 ABINGTON RD LENOIR NC
28645
884 ABINGTON RD LENOIR NC
28645
2734 CHERAW RD LENOIR NC 28645
2700 CHERAW RD LENOIR NC 28645
888 ABINGTON RD LENOIR NC
28645
3141 VERDELIA PL LENOIR NC 28645
VERDELIA PL LENOIR NC 28645
2756 CHERAW RD LENOIR NC 28645
0 LENOIR NC 28645
MAILING ADDRESS
1515 PENNY LN LENOIR NC 28645
956 ABINGTON RD LENOIR NC 28645
956 ABINGTON RD LENOIR NC 28645
223 DRY CREEK RD JONESBOROUGH TN
37659
956 ABINGTON RD LENOIR NC 28645
2007 VALWAY RD LENOIR NC 28645
1641 LINVILLE PT MORGANTON NC 28655
884 ABINGTON RD LENOIR NC 28645
REPUBLIC SERVICES PROPERTY TAX PO BOX
29246 PHOENIX AZ 85038
C/O JERRY SHATLEY 2705 CHERAW RD
LENOIR NC 28645
2106 OLLIS PLACE LENOIR NC 28645
LENOIR NC 28645
LENOIR NC 28645
905 WEST AVE NW LENOIR NC 28645
REPUBLIC SERVICES PROPERTY TAX PO BOX
29246 PHOENIX AZ 85038
REPUBLIC SERVICES PROPERTY TAX PO BOX
2716 CHERAW RD LENOIR NC 28645 29246 PHOENIX AZ 85038
2800 CHERAW RD LENOIR NC 28645
OFF RD 1301 LENOIR NC 28645
2759 CRISP PL LENOIR NC 28645
905 WEST AVE NW LENOIR NC 28645
905 WEST AVE NW LENOIR NC 28645
LENOIR NC 28645
Republic Services of North Carolina
Foothills Regional Environmental Landfill
Adjoining Property Owners Address List
April 2015

A _. II: T _', U, i ;'-1 - P, f i_ `ri 1 10 i V
ROiP�.. . LFGA uRiD41Oi .
?lc-act- p.rini:
Property Owner: Cuidwe1! Counter
The uild?rsigneC regiEtereb property cw -,,?er v` iE12 P—bove ; cle pFOL?74 25 i ^ereot° 2 la? 0 ";r
i2Drlbhc Services of NOT--h Caroli ,a. LLC
(L =ase !snider/ , Rent"
to aCfi on my be;ialf a..7d takes aii aCtiOns n2Y?ss2ry fiw die pTQCeSsin,, issuance and thi
U -S_ Arrriv Corps of Enginee s jurisdicti nai Cetermination and vietiands andiOr si'eor i iYTlp?CT
p2rmittirig or cerLiilCcCion and an,,., mid all spa d'13rCd and, specia CQnditIcns a. aEhed assjciaFed with the
agOVe desci ided prbp?iti °5.
properly Owners Address (if CII 2 "e l Vian proper y above,1:
905 West Ave NV,,! Lennir. IBC 78645
Telephone: 18 2, 8) 57 -IBG
! her, -t Cer -t;Fy :he above infor iia -icn Submitted in -,h ;s appiiCatior; is true and t0 ti:2 bes, Df
my knowiedae.
Authorized SiRnatur Lta
Ivar-,i� /'isle:
Stan Kiser. County Manazer

AGENT AUTHORIZATION FORM
PROPERTY LEGAL DESCRIPTION:
Parcel ID: 06- 27 -1 -2 and 06- 25 -2 -13
STREET ADDRESS: 2800 Cheraw Road Lenoir, NC 28645
Please print:
Property Lease Holder: Republic Services of North Carolina, LLC.
The undersigned, lessee of the above noted property, does hereby authorize
Michelle M. Brown, Environmental Consultant
(Consultant / Agent)
to act on my behalf and take all actions necessary for the processing, issuance and acceptance of the
U.S. Army Corps of Engineers Jurisdictional Determination and wetlands and /or stream impact
permitting or certification and any and all standard and special conditions attached associated with the
above described properties.
Lessee's Address :
1220 Commerce Street, SW, Box 1 Conover. NC 28613
Telephone: [phone]
I hereby certify the above information submitted in this application is true and accurate to the best of
my knowledge.
Aut rized Si ,ature: Date:
Name/ Title:
Drew Isenhour, Area President

SECTION 404 INDIVIDUAL PERMIT APPLICATION
REPUBLIC SERVICES OF NORTH CAROLINA, LLC
FOOTHILLS REGIONAL LANDFILL
LENOIR, CALDWELL COUNTY, NORTH CAROLINA
FOR
REPU LIC
SERVICES
0 Republic Services, Inc. (2015)
APRIL 2015
01
�N F. -, �4
HODGEs, HARBIN,-
NEWBERRY & TRIBBLE, INC.
Consulting Engineers
N.C. Corp. License No. C -0813
3920 krkwright Road, Suite 101 Macon, Georgia I Phone: {4 "8) - 43 -71 -5 C Fax: (4" (S) "43 1'03

TABLE OF CONTENTS
LIST OF APPENDICES ................................................................................. ............................... 2
FIGURES.................................................................................................... ............................... 2
ACRONYMSLIST ....................................................................................... ............................... 3
1. PROJECT DESCRIPTION .................................................................. ............................... 4
1.1 Environmental Setting ................................................................................ ..............................5
1.2 Proposed Project Limits of Investigation ................................................... ............................... 5
1.3 Proposed Project Selection ......................................................................... ..............................5
1.4 Previous Section 404 Permitting ................................................................. ..............................6
2. PURPOSE AND NEED ..................................................................... ............................... 7
3. PHYSICAL RESOURCES ................................................................... ............................... 8
3.1 Physiography, Topography, Geology, and Land Use ................................... ..............................8
3.2 Soils ............................................................................................................ ...............................
8
3.3 Water Resources ......................................................................................... ..............................8
4. BIOLOGICAL RESOURCES ............................................................. ...............................
10
4.1 Stream Channels and Jurisdictional Wetlands ........................................... .............................10
4.2 Agency Review ........................................................................................... .............................17
5. PROTECTED SPECIES .................................................................... ...............................
18
5.1 Federally Protected Species ....................................................................... .............................18
6. CULTURAL RESOURCES ................................................................ ...............................
20
7. ALTERNATIVES ANALYSIS ............................................................ ...............................
21
7.1 Avoidance and Minimization ..................................................................... .............................21
7.2 Alternatives Analysis Criteria ................................................................... ...............................
21
7.3 Offsite Alternatives .................................................................................. ...............................
23
7.4 Onsite Alternatives ..................................................................................... .............................30
7.5 No Build ...................................................................................................... .............................33
8. PROPOSED IMPACTS ................................................................... ...............................
34
9. PROPOSED MITIGATION .............................................................. ............................... 35
10. SUMMARY .................................................................................. ............................... 37
11. REFERENCES .................................................................................. .............................38
Republic Services of North Carolina
Foothills Regional Landfill
Section 404 Individual Permit Application
April 2015
Page 1

LIST OF APPENDICES
Appendix 1 Stream and Wetland Investigation Report by Dieffenbauch & Hritz
Appendix 2 Letter from Golder Associates, Limited Systematic Survey for Hexastylis naniflora
Appendix 3 Letter from D &H Regarding Potential Northern long -eared bat Habitat
Appendix 4 Alternatives Analysis Figures
Appendix 5 2004 Section 404 USACE Foothills Individual Permit Authorization
Appendix 6 2001 Letter from the SHPO
Appendix 7 13 March 2015 Approved JD for Foothills Regional Landfill
FIGURES
Figure 1
Proposed Project Site Plan
Figure 2
Stream Crossing No. 1
Figure 3
Stream Crossing No. 2
Figure 4
Basin No. 5 Impacts
Figure 5
Topographical Map
Figure 6
Combined Map of Potential Dwarf - flowered heartleaf ( Hexastylis naniflora)
Republic Services of North Carolina
Foothills Regional Landfill
Section 404 Individual Permit Application
April 2015
Page 2

ACRONYMS LIST
AMSL
Above Mean Sea Level
D &H
Dieffenbauch & Hritz
DENR
North Carolina Department of Environment and Natural Resources
EEP
North Carolina Ecosystem Enhancement Program
HQW
High Quality Waters
IP
Section 404 Individual Permit
JD
Jurisdictional Determination
LEDPA
Least Environmentally Damaging Practicable Alternative
LOI
Limits of Investigation
NCNHP
North Carolina Natural Heritage Program
NLEB
Northern long -eared bat
NRCS
Natural Resources Conservation Service
NRHP
National Register of Historic Places
OHWM
Ordinary High Water Mark
ORW
Outstanding Resource Waters
PTRPS
Peaked Top Rare Plant Site
RPW
Relatively Permanent Water
SHPO
N.C. State Historic Preservation Office
SIN
Stream Index Number
TMDL
Total Maximum Daily Load
TNW
Traditional Navigable Water
USACE
United States Army Corps of Engineers
USDA
United States Department of Agriculture
USEPA
United States Environmental Protection Agency
USFWS
United States Fish and Wildlife Service
USGS
United States Geological Survey
UT
Unnamed Tributary
WOUS
Waters of the U.S.
Republic Services of North Carolina
Foothills Regional Landfill
Section 404 Individual Permit Application
April 2015
Page 3

1. PROJECT DESCRIPTION
Republic Services of North Carolina, LLC (Republic), in cooperation with Caldwell County, is proposing to
develop soil borrow areas and perform improvements to the stormwater management system at the
existing Foothills Environmental Landfill (Foothills), located near the City of Lenoir, in Caldwell County,
North Carolina. Republic is submitting this Section 404 Individual Permit Application and Eng Form 4345
to the U.S. Army Corps of Engineers ( USACE) to apply for permission to implement unavoidable impacts
to Waters of the U.S. within the Foothills property.
Project planners approximate that for the foreseeable future of landfill operations (contractually the
next 30 years), the landfill will consume about 70,000 cubic yards of borrow (soil) material a year. In
order to manage the operations of the facility in consideration of its projected life span, project planners
need to identify the next 30 years' of borrow material supply. Historically, approximately 71,000 cubic
yards of suitable material is mined per acre of borrow area footprint within this portion of North
Carolina. Therefore, a location of adequate size to generate at least 2.13 million cubic yards is required,
which translates into a parcel that will accommodate at least a 30 -acre physical area footprint.
In order to help plan the project, the applicant hired environmental scientists from Dieffenbauch & Hritz
(D &H) to observe and document any stream and /or wetland areas located within the potential onsite
project alternative areas at the Foothills Landfill. D &H conducted their investigation in August 2013.
While onsite, D &H also conducted a potentially suitable habitat evaluation for Carolina northern flying
squirrel (Glaucomys sabrinus), spruce -fir moss spider (Microhexura montivaga), Virginia big -eared bat
(Corynorhinus townsendii virginianus), and Heller's blazing star (Liatris helleri). Potentially suitable
habitat for Carolina northern flying squirrel, spruce -fir moss spider, Virginia bat and Heller's blazing star
was not observed. D &H also conducted a potentially suitable habitat survey for dwarf - flowered heart
leaf (Hexastylis naniflora), and identified areas of most suitable habitat. The full investigation report was
submitted to the USACE in November 2014, and is included as Appendix 1.
In April 2014, Golder Associates performed a limited systematic survey to visually survey these areas for
the occurrence of dwarf - flowered heart leaf during its associated growing season (Appendix 2). The
results of this survey were guided by the aforementioned D &H potential habitat map (Appendix 1).
The applicant was informed by the U.S. Fish and Wildlife Service (USFWS) during a project coordination
meeting that the Northern long -eared bat (Myotis septentrionalis) is being proposed for federal listing
and that its listed range will encompass the entire project vicinity. D &H did not observe potential winter
habitat for the Northern long -eared bat during the site visits. Winter habitat utilized by this species for
hibernation, known as hibernacula, includes caves and mines. D &H did not observe cave openings or
mine shaft portals within the project site limits. Hence, evidence of Northern long -eared bat hibernacula
was not observed. (Appendix 3)
Republic Services of North Carolina
Foothills Regional Landfill
Section 404 Individual Permit Application
April 2015
Page 4

1.1 Environmental Setting
The proposed borrow areas are located adjacent to the existing landfill facility, which is located
approximately 2.3 miles northwest of the intersection of U.S. Highway 64 and N.C. Highway 18,
in the City of Lenoir, North Carolina. More precisely, the existing facility is located north of the
intersection of SR 1310 and SR 1301, near the Community of Abingdon, which is west of the City
of Lenoir (Figure 5).
1.2 Proposed Project Limits of Investigation
The limits of investigation (LOI) included three separate areas that are located adjacent to the
existing landfill operations, henceforth referred to as: Area A, Area B, and Area C. (Figure 1)
1.2.1 Area A (Proposed Borrow Area 2)
This area is a 105 -acre tract located north of the existing landfill and is
predominately mature forest with an unimproved dirt road traversing the central
portion of the tract. The general topography of the tract consists of ridgelines with
steep slopes down to valleys. Surface water on this tract generally flows southwest
to an unnamed tributary (UT) of Abingdon Creek. (Figure 1)
1.2.2 Area B (Proposed Borrow Area 1)
This area is a 30 -acre tract located northeast of the existing landfill. It includes areas
of mature forest, areas of regenerating forest, and a cleared, sparsely vegetated
area in the central portion of the tract. An unimproved dirt road transects the tract
generally from west to east. The general topography consists of ridgelines with
steep slopes down to valleys. Several erosion gullies are located in the central and
southern portions of the tract and surface water generally flows to the northeast
and southwest to UTs of Greasy Creek. (Figure 1)
1.2.3 Area C (Wet Detention Basin No. 5)
This area is located southeast of the existing landfill, near the entrance to the
facility. It is a 4 -acre tract that includes mature forested areas, areas of
regenerating forest, and a maintained power line easement. The entrance road to
the existing landfill transects the southern portion of the tract. The general site
topography consists of moderately steep to steep slopes down to valley and surface
water generally flows southwest to an UT of Abingdon Creek. (Figure 1)
1.3 Proposed Project Selection
Prior to final selection of the proposed project, the applicant conducted an Alternatives Analysis
to ensure the least damaging and feasible alternative was to be proposed. In order to meet the
project requirements, several alternatives were evaluated, including five offsite alternatives,
four onsite alternatives, and the no build alternative. Each alternative presented in this
document was evaluated for its ability to satisfy the stated purpose and need. The analysis
Republic Services of North Carolina
Foothills Regional Landfill
Section 404 Individual Permit Application
April 2015
Page 5

included evaluation of stated project goals and objectives, as well as the environmental
consequences associated with each alternative. This evaluation process helped identify the least
environmentally damaging practicable alternative (LEDPA) that meets the project needs and
objectives while resulting in minimal negative environmental impacts.
A full description of the alternatives and an evaluation of the impacts of each alternative is
provided in Part 7 of this document.
Following a complete analysis of each alternative, the herein proposed Preferred Alternative
(Onsite Alternative 4) was determined to be the LEDPA. The proposed project is completely
within the existing County owned property boundary and will result in the least amount of
stream impact of all the evaluated alternatives and also results in no destruction of known
dwarf - flowered heartleaf habitat and /or specimens. Additionally, it does not require use of any
public roadways.
The proposed project does include impacts to wetland and streams that are located within the
previously described LOI. The facility is submitting this permit authorization request to the
USACE to authorize impacts totaling 0.075 acres of jurisdictional wetlands and 649 linear feet of
jurisdictional stream channel pursuant to Section 404 of the Clean Water Act. Drawings showing
the wetland and stream impacts and proposed grading plans are included in Figures 1 -4.
1.4 Previous Section 404 Permitting
In November 2002, the applicant submitted an Individual Permit application that included a
Modified Environmental Assessment and was granted Permit Number 200231111 to discharge
fill material into 0.32 acres of wetlands and 2,180 linear feet of stream channel. At the time of
the permit request, the applicant was not aware of the need for the current project and
therefore did not request the associated impacts. A copy of the 2002 permit is included in
Appendix 5.
Republic Services of North Carolina
Foothills Regional Landfill
Section 404 Individual Permit Application
April 2015
Page 6

2. PURPOSE AND NEED
The purpose of the proposed project is to better control stormwater runoff from the Foothills Landfill
facility and to establish a source of suitable borrow material that can be used for daily waste cover
purposes at the landfill to ensure a seamless operation for at least the next 30 years. The need for this
project is rooted in the existing capacity of soil borrow material currently available to the landfill facility;
currently soil borrow material is being excavated from areas that will ultimately be needed for structural
fill purposes. Therefore, when areas currently being used for soil borrow are transitioned to their future
intended use (waste cell, etc.), no soil borrow area capacity will remain within the property. Also, as the
physical footprint and impermeable surface of the landfill facility has transformed over time due to the
construction of new waste cells and closure /capping of old ones, altering the stormwater plan to
account for the corresponding runoff differences (pathways and volumes) results in the need to
construct Wet Detention Basin No. 5.
Republic Services of North Carolina
Foothills Regional Landfill
Section 404 Individual Permit Application
April 2015
Page 7

3. PHYSICAL RESOURCES
3.1 Physiography, Topography, Geology, and Land Use
The Foothills facility is depicted on the U.S. Geological Survey (USGS) Lenoir, NC, 7.5- minute
topographic quadrangle map. More specifically, the existing facility and proposed project areas
are located between the Community of Abingdon to the south, the Flat Top topographic feature
to the east, and the Grassy Knob topographic feature to the north (Figure 5).
Topographically, Caldwell County has the widest range of elevation change of any county in the
State of North Carolina, with a topographic low of approximately 920 feet above mean sea level
(AMSL) near the Catawba River as it flows out of Caldwell County, to a topographic high of
approximately 5,920 feet AMSL near Grandfather Mountain.
Elevations within the proposed project areas range from a low of approximately 1,380 feet
AMSL to a high of approximately 1,602 feet AMSL in Area A, a low of approximately 1,180 feet
to a high of approximately 1,342 feet AMSL in Area B, and a low of approximately 1,182 feet to a
high of approximately 1,308 feet AMSL in Area C.
3.2 Soils
Based on the results of the delineation that was completed in August 2013, the principal
mapped soil types within the three areas include: Chestnut- Buladean complex (ChF), Evard-
Cowee complex (EvE), Hayesville loam (HeD), Tate - French, occasionally flooded complex (TfC),
and Udorthents, sanitary landfill (UdE). Review of the soil survey indicates that the Tate - French
complex, which is located in the central western portion of Area A, is listed as partially hydric.
The soil survey map and detailed soil unit information is included in Appendix 1.
3.3 Water Resources
The proposed project areas are located within sub -basin 03 -08 -31 of the Catawba River Basin
(DENR 2010), and are part of USGS hydrologic unit 03050101. The streams that are present
within the proposed project areas are unnamed tributaries to both Abingdon Creek and Greasy
Creek. None of the streams present onsite have been assigned a Stream Index Number (SIN).
Abingdon Creek is approximately 5 -miles downstream from the proposed project area and has
been assigned SIN 11 -39 -6. Greasy Creek is approximately 0.5 -miles downstream from the
proposed project area and has been assigned SIN 11 -39 -4 (DENR 2010).
Republic Services of North Carolina
Foothills Regional Landfill
Section 404 Individual Permit Application
April 2015
Page 8

A Best Usage Classification is assigned to Waters of the State of North Carolina based on the
existing or contemplated best usage of various streams or segments of streams within the
drainage basin. The stream channels present within the proposed project area have not been
assigned a separate Best Usage Classification, and therefore share the Classification of their
receiving waters, which are both classified as "C" waters. The classification "C" indicates
freshwaters that support aquatic life propagation and survival, fishing, wildlife, secondary
recreation and agriculture. Secondary recreation is any activity involving human body contact
with water on an incidental or infrequent basis (DENR 2013).
No High Quality Waters (HQW), Outstanding Resource Waters (ORW), WS -I, or WS -II waters
occur within 3.0 miles upstream or downstream of the proposed project (DENR 2013). None of
the channels have been designated as a North Carolina Natural and Scenic River, a National Wild
and Scenic River, nor have they been listed on the 303(d) list (DENR 2014).
Republic Services of North Carolina
Foothills Regional Landfill
Section 404 Individual Permit Application
April 2015
Page 9

4. BIOLOGICAL RESOURCES
A stream and wetland investigation was conducted by environmental scientists from Dieffenbauch &
Hritz (D &H) within the proposed project areas in August 2013. Vegetation observed during the
investigation included the following species American elm (Ulmus americana), cinnamon fern (Osmunda
cinnamomea), Christmas fern (Polystichum acrostichoides), giant cane (Arundinaria gigantea), American
sycamore (Platanus occidentalis), red maple (Acer rubrum), tulip poplar (Liriodendron tulipifera),
microstegium (Microstegium vimineum), spotted touch -me -not (Impatiens capensis), green ash
(Fraxinus pennsylvanica), silky dogwood (Cornus amomum), stinging nettle (Urtica dioica), false - nettle
(eoehmeria cylindrical), and soft rush (Juncus effusus) (Appendix 1).
4.1 Stream Channels and Jurisdictional Wetlands
The U.S. Army Corps of Engineers' Wetland Delineation Manual, Technical Report Y -87 -1 (1987)
defines a wetland as an area characterized by hydrophytic vegetation, wetland hydrology, and
hydric soils. Evidence of each of these three parameters must be present to identify an area as a
wetland.
A stream and wetland investigation was conducted by environmental scientists from
Dieffenbauch & Hritz (D &H) within the proposed project areas in August 2013. The investigation
effort revealed the presence of thirteen (13) stream channel segments and eleven (11) wetland
areas within the three proposed project areas (Area A: seven stream channel segments and four
wetlands; Area B: two stream channel segments and three wetlands; Area C: four stream
channel segments and four wetlands). The delineated features identified within the LOI are
considered jurisdictional Waters of the U.S. (WOUS). Delineated streams and wetlands are
briefly discussed below. Photographs, maps, and a more detailed description of each feature
are included Appendix 1.
4.1.1 Area A Streams
Stream 1 is a relatively permanent water (RPW) with intermittent and perennial
flow located in the southern central portion of the tract. Hydrology is sustained by
precipitation, runoff from the surrounding uplands, and groundwater discharge. The
stream ranges from two to eight feet wide, has a four to six inch ordinary high water
mark (OHWM), with sand /gravel /cobble and bedrock substrates. Approximately
three to six inches of water was observed in the stream. Stream 1 flows west exiting
the southeast limit of the LOI. The stream exhibits a significant nexus with an UT to
Abingdon Creek, which has a significant nexus to the Johns River /Lake Rhodiss, a
traditional navigable water (TNW).
Stream 2 is a RPW with intermittent and perennial flow located in the central
portion of the tract. Hydrology is sustained by precipitation, runoff from the
Republic Services of North Carolina
Foothills Regional Landfill
Section 404 Individual Permit Application
April 2015
Page 10

surrounding uplands, and groundwater discharge. The stream ranges from two to
six feet wide, has a four to six inch OHWM, with sand /gravel /cobble and bedrock
substrates. Approximately two to four inches of water was observed in the stream.
Stream 2 flows southwest to its confluence with Stream 1 within the limits of the
LOL The stream exhibits a significant nexus with a UT to Abingdon Creek, which has
a significant nexus to the Johns River /Lake Rhodiss, a TNW.
Stream 3 is a RPW with intermittent and perennial flow located in the western
central portion of the tract. Hydrology is sustained by precipitation, runoff from the
surrounding uplands, and groundwater discharge. The stream ranges from two to
six feet wide, has a four to six inch OHWM, with sand /gravel /cobble and bedrock
substrates. Approximately two to four inches of water was observed in the stream.
Stream 3 flows generally south to its confluence with Stream 1 within the limits of
the LOL The stream exhibits a significant nexus with an UT to Abingdon Creek, which
has a significant nexus to the Johns River /Lake Rhodiss, a TNW.
Stream 4 is a RPW with intermittent flow located in the western central portion of
the tract. Hydrology is sustained by precipitation, runoff from the surrounding
uplands, and groundwater discharge. The stream ranges from two to four feet wide,
has a three to five inch OHWM, with gravel /cobble and bedrock substrates.
Approximately one to two inches of water was observed in the stream. Stream 4
flows generally south to its confluence with Stream 5 within the limits of the LOI.
The stream exhibits a significant nexus with an UT to Abingdon Creek, which has a
significant nexus to the Johns River /Lake Rhodiss, a TNW.
Stream 5 is a RPW with intermittent flow located in the western central portion of
the tract. Hydrology is sustained by precipitation, runoff from the surrounding
uplands, and groundwater discharge. The stream ranges from two to four feet wide,
has a three to five inch OHWM, with gravel /cobble and bedrock substrates.
Approximately one to two inches of water was observed in the stream. Stream 5
flows generally southwest to its confluence with Stream 3 within the limits of the
LOL The stream exhibits a significant nexus with an UT to Abingdon Creek, which
has a significant nexus to the Johns River /Lake Rhodiss, a TNW.
Stream 6 is a RPW with intermittent and perennial flow located in the southern
central portion of the tract. Hydrology is sustained by precipitation, runoff from the
surrounding uplands, and groundwater discharge. The stream ranges from two to
eight feet wide, has a four to six inch OHWM, with sand /gravel /cobble and bedrock
substrates. Approximately two to four inches of water was observed in the stream.
Stream 6 flows generally west exiting the southeast limit of the LOL The stream
exhibits a significant nexus with an UT to Abingdon Creek, which has a significant
nexus to the Johns River /Lake Rhodiss, a TNW.
Stream 7 is a RPW with intermittent flow located in the central portion of the tract.
Hydrology is sustained by precipitation, runoff from the surrounding uplands, and
seasonal groundwater discharge. The stream ranges from two to four feet wide, has
a one to two inch OHWM, with gravel /cobble and bedrock substrates.
Republic Services of North Carolina
Foothills Regional Landfill
Section 404 Individual Permit Application
April 2015
Page 11

Approximately less than one inch of water was observed in some of the pools in the
stream. Stream 7 flows generally southwest towards Stream 2. The stream exhibits
a significant nexus with an UT to Abingdon Creek through overland flow to Stream 2,
which has a significant nexus to the Johns River /Lake Rhodiss, a TNW.
4.1.2 Area A Wetlands
Wetland 1 is a palustrine forested (PFO) wetland abutting the south side of Stream 1
in the western central portion of the tract. The vegetation in the wetland is
dominated by American elm (Ulmus americana), cinnamon fern (Osmunda
cinnamomea), Christmas fern (Polystichum acrostichoides), and giant cane
(Arundinaria gigantea). The composition of hydrophytic plant species in this
wetland is 100 percent, thereby meeting the USACE criterion for wetland
vegetation. The soil in Wetland 1 exhibits a low chroma matrix with prominent
redoximorphic concentrations starting within four inches of the soil surface. Also,
portions of this wetland are located in an area listed as having partially hydric soil
(TfC). These characteristics are evidence that the soil in the wetland is saturated
and /or inundated for a duration sufficient to promote anaerobic conditions, thereby
meeting the depleted matrix hydric soil criterion. Wetland hydrology is sustained by
flow from Stream 1, a seasonally shallow ground water table, overland flow from
the adjacent upland, and precipitation. At the time of the investigation, the wetland
was saturated to the soil surface. Documented secondary indicators include enough
dominant plants with either an obligate (OBL) or facultative -wet (FACW) indicator
status to meet the criterion for the FAC- neutral test, and visible crayfish borrows.
These findings demonstrate that this site has sufficient saturation and /or inundation
during the growing season to satisfy the wetland hydrology criterion. Wetland 1
abuts Stream 1 and exhibits a significant nexus with the stream.
Wetland 2 is a PFO wetland abutting Stream 3 in the western central portion of the
tract. The vegetation in the wetland is dominated by American elm, cinnamon fern,
Christmas fern, and giant cane. The composition of hydrophytic plant species in this
wetland is 100 percent, thereby meeting the USACE criterion for wetland
vegetation. The soil in Wetland 2 exhibits a low chroma matrix with prominent
redoximorphic concentrations starting within four inches of the soil surface. Also,
portions of this wetland are located in an area listed as having partially hydric soil
(TfC). These characteristics are evidence that the soil in the wetland is saturated
and /or inundated for a duration sufficient to promote anaerobic conditions, thereby
meeting the depleted matrix hydric soil criterion. Wetland hydrology is sustained by
flow from Stream 3, a seasonally shallow ground water table, overland flow from
the adjacent upland, and precipitation. At the time of the investigation, the wetland
was saturated to the soil surface with approximately one inch of water at the
surface within portions of the wetland. A spring /seep was observed within the
delineated area. Documented secondary indicators include enough dominant plants
with either an OBL or FACW indicator status to meet the criterion for the FAC-
neutral test, and visible crayfish borrows. These findings demonstrate that this site
has sufficient saturation and /or inundation during the growing season to satisfy the
Republic Services of North Carolina
Foothills Regional Landfill
Section 404 Individual Permit Application
April 2015
Page 12

wetland hydrology criterion. Wetland 2 abuts Stream 3 and exhibits a significant
nexus with the stream.
Wetland 3 is a PFO wetland abutting Stream 3 in the western central portion of the
tract. The vegetation in the wetland is dominated by American sycamore (Platanus
occidentalis), red maple (Acer rubrum), tulip poplar (Liriodendron tulipifera),
microstegium (Microstegium vimineum), spotted touch -me -not (Impatiens
capensis), giant cane, and Christmas fern. The composition of hydrophytic plant
species in this wetland is 100 percent, thereby meeting the USACE criterion for
wetland vegetation. The soil in Wetland 3 exhibits a low chroma matrix with
prominent redoximorphic concentrations starting within four inches of the soil
surface. Also, portions of this wetland are located in an area listed as having
partially hydric soil (TfC). These characteristics are evidence that the soil in the
wetland is saturated and /or inundated for a duration sufficient to promote
anaerobic conditions, thereby meeting the depleted matrix hydric soil criterion.
Wetland hydrology is sustained by flow from Stream 3, a seasonally shallow ground
water table, overland flow from the adjacent upland, and precipitation. At the time
of the investigation, the wetland was saturated to the soil surface with
approximately one inch of water at the surface within portions of the wetland. A
spring /seep was observed within the delineated area. Documented secondary
indicators include enough dominant plants with either an OBL or FACW indicator
status to meet the criterion for the FAC- neutral test, and visible crayfish borrows.
These findings demonstrate that this site has sufficient saturation and /or inundation
during the growing season to satisfy the wetland hydrology criterion. Wetland 3
abuts Stream 3 and exhibits a significant nexus with the stream.
Wetland 4 is a PFO wetland abutting Stream 6 in southern portion of the tract. The
vegetation in the wetland is dominated by American sycamore, red maple, tulip
poplar, microstegium, spotted touch -me -not, and giant cane. The composition of
hydrophytic plant species in this wetland is 100 percent, thereby meeting the USACE
criterion for wetland vegetation. The soil in Wetland 4 exhibits a low chroma matrix
with prominent redoximorphic concentrations starting within four inches of the soil
surface. These characteristics are evidence that the soil in the wetland is saturated
and /or inundated for a duration sufficient to promote anaerobic conditions, thereby
meeting the depleted matrix hydric soil criterion. Wetland hydrology is sustained by
flow from Stream 6, a seasonally shallow ground water table, overland flow from
the adjacent upland, and precipitation. At the time of the investigation, the wetland
was saturated to the soil surface with approximately one inch of water at the
surface within portions of the wetland. Documented secondary indicators include
enough dominant plants with either an OBL or FACW indicator status to meet the
criterion for the FAC - neutral test, and visible crayfish borrows. These findings
demonstrate that this site has sufficient saturation and /or inundation during the
growing season to satisfy the wetland hydrology criterion. Wetland 4 abuts Stream
6 and exhibits a significant nexus with the stream.
Republic Services of North Carolina
Foothills Regional Landfill
Section 404 Individual Permit Application
April 2015
Page 13

4.1.3 Area B Streams
Stream 8 is a RPW with perennial flow located in the southwestern corner of the
tract. Hydrology is sustained by precipitation, runoff from the surrounding uplands,
and groundwater discharge. The stream ranges from two to eight feet wide, has a
four to six inch OHWM, with sand /gravel /cobble and bedrock substrates.
Approximately three to six inches of water was observed in the stream. Stream 8
flows south exiting the southwestern limit of the LOI. The stream exhibits a
significant nexus with an UT to Greasy Creek, which has a significant nexus to the
Johns River /Lake Rhodiss, a TNW.
Stream 9 is a RPW with intermittent and perennial flow located in the northeastern
portion of the tract. Hydrology is sustained by precipitation, runoff from the
surrounding uplands, and groundwater discharge. The stream ranges from two to
six feet wide, has a four to six inch OHWM, with sand /gravel /cobble and bedrock
substrates. Approximately two to four inches of water was observed in the stream.
Stream 9 flows east exiting the eastern limit of the L.OI. The stream exhibits a
significant nexus with a UT to Greasy Creek, which has a significant nexus to the
Johns River /Lake Rhodiss, a TNW.
4.1.4 Area B Wetlands
Wetland 5 is a palustrine scrub -shrub (PSS) wetland abutting Stream 8 in the
southwestern corner of the tract. The vegetation in the wetland is dominated by
green ash (Fraxinus pennsylvanica), silky dogwood (Cornus amomum),
microstegium, and giant cane. The composition of hydrophytic plant species in this
wetland is 100 percent, thereby meeting the USACE criterion for wetland
vegetation. The soil in Wetland 5 exhibits a low chroma matrix with prominent
redoximorphic concentrations starting within one inch of the soil surface. These
characteristics are evidence that the soil in the wetland is saturated and /or
inundated for a duration sufficient to promote anaerobic conditions, thereby
meeting the depleted matrix hydric soil criterion. Wetland hydrology is sustained by
flow from Stream 8, a seasonally shallow ground water table, overland flow from
the adjacent upland, and precipitation. At the time of the investigation, the wetland
was saturated to the soil surface. Documented secondary indicators include enough
dominant plants with either an OBL or FACW indicator status to meet the criterion
for the FAC neutral test, and visible crayfish borrows. These findings demonstrate
that this site has sufficient saturation and /or inundation during the growing season
to satisfy the wetland hydrology criterion. Wetland 5 abuts Stream 8 and exhibits a
significant nexus with the stream.
Wetlands 6 & 7 are palustrine emergent (PEM) wetlands abutting Stream 9 in the
northeastern portion of the tract. The vegetation in these wetlands is dominated by
microstegium, stinging nettle (Urtica dioica), and false - nettle (Boehmeria
cylindrical). The composition of hydrophytic plant species in this wetland is 100
percent, thereby meeting the USACE criterion for wetland vegetation. The soils in
Wetlands 6 and 7 exhibit a low chroma matrix with prominent redoximorphic
concentrations starting within three inches of the soil surface. These characteristics
Republic Services of North Carolina
Foothills Regional Landfill
Section 404 Individual Permit Application
April 2015
Page 14

are evidence that the soils in the wetlands are saturated and /or inundated for a
duration sufficient to promote anaerobic conditions, thereby meeting the depleted
matrix hydric soil criterion. Wetland hydrology is sustained by flow from Stream 9, a
seasonally shallow ground water table, overland flow from the adjacent upland, and
precipitation. At the time of the investigation, the wetlands were saturated to the
soil surface. Documented secondary indicators include enough dominant plants with
either an OBL or FACW indicator status to meet the criterion for the FAC- neutral
test, and visible crayfish borrows. These findings demonstrate that these sites have
sufficient saturation and /or inundation during the growing season to satisfy the
wetland hydrology criterion. Wetlands 6 and 7 abut Stream 9.
4.1.5 Area C Streams
Stream 10 is a RPW with intermittent and perennial flow located in the northern
portion of the tract. Hydrology is sustained by precipitation, runoff from the
surrounding uplands, and groundwater discharge. The stream ranges from two to
six feet wide, has a four to six inch OHWM, with sand /gravel /cobble and bedrock
substrates. Approximately four to six inches of water was observed in the stream.
Stream 10 flows south to a culvert that is piped underneath the entrance road to
the existing landfill. The stream exhibits a significant nexus with an UT to Abingdon
Creek, which has a significant nexus to the Johns River /Lake Rhodiss, a TNW.
Stream 11 is a RPW with intermittent flow located in the northern portion of the
tract. Hydrology is sustained by precipitation, runoff from the surrounding uplands,
and groundwater discharge. The stream ranges from two to three feet wide, has a
one to two inch OHWM, with sand and gravel substrates. Approximately one to two
inches of water was observed in the stream. Stream 11 flows south to its confluence
with Stream 10. The stream exhibits a significant nexus with an UT to Abingdon
Creek, which has a significant nexus to the Johns River /Lake Rhodiss, a TNW.
Stream 12 is a RPW with intermittent and perennial flow located in the central
portion of the tract. Hydrology is sustained by precipitation, runoff from the
surrounding uplands, discharge from Wetland 11, and groundwater discharge. The
stream ranges from two to six feet wide, has a four to six inch OHWM, with
sand /gravel /cobble and bedrock substrates. Approximately four to six inches of
water was observed in the stream. Stream 12 flows east to its confluence with
Stream 10 and a culvert that is piped underneath the entrance road to the existing
landfill. The stream exhibits a significant nexus with an UT to Abingdon Creek, which
has a significant nexus to the Johns River /Lake Rhodiss, a TNW.
Stream 13 is a RPW with perennial flow located in the southern portion of the tract.
Hydrology is sustained by precipitation, runoff from the surrounding uplands, and
groundwater discharge. The stream ranges from four to ten feet wide, has an eight
to ten inch OHWM, with sand /gravel /cobble substrates. Approximately twelve
inches of water was observed in the stream. Stream 13 begins at the discharge of a
culvert that is piped underneath the entrance road to the existing landfill Stream 13
flows southwest exiting the southwest limit of the LOI. The stream exhibits a
Republic Services of North Carolina
Foothills Regional Landfill
Section 404 Individual Permit Application
April 2015
Page 15

significant nexus with an UT to Abingdon Creek, which has a significant nexus to the
Johns River /Lake Rhodiss, a TNW.
4.1.6 Area C Wetlands
Wetlands 8 & 9 are PFO wetlands abutting Stream 10 in the northern portion of the
tract. The vegetation in the wetland is dominated by American sycamore, red
maple, microstegium, and spotted touch -me -not. The composition of hydrophytic
plant species in these wetlands is 100 percent, thereby meeting the USACE criterion
for wetland vegetation. The soils in Wetlands 8 and 9 exhibit a low chroma matrix
with prominent redoximorphic concentrations starting within four inches of the soil
surface. These characteristics are evidence that the soils in the wetlands are
saturated and /or inundated for a duration sufficient to promote anaerobic
conditions, thereby meeting the depleted matrix hydric soil criterion. Wetland
hydrology is sustained by flow from Stream 10, a seasonally shallow ground water
table, overland flow from the adjacent upland, and precipitation. At the time of the
investigation, the wetlands were saturated to the soil surface. Documented
secondary indicators include enough dominant plants with either an OBL or FACW
indicator status to meet the criterion for the FAC- neutral test, and visible crayfish
borrows. These findings demonstrate that this site has sufficient saturation and /or
inundation during the growing season to satisfy the wetland hydrology criterion.
Wetlands 8 and 9 abut Stream 10 and exhibit a significant nexus with the stream.
Wetland 10 is a PSS wetland abutting Stream 12 in the central portion of the tract.
The vegetation in the wetland is dominated by green ash, silky dogwood,
microstegium, and giant cane. The composition of hydrophytic plant species in this
wetland is 100 percent, thereby meeting the USACE criterion for wetland
vegetation. The soil in Wetland 10 exhibits a low chroma matrix with prominent
redoximorphic concentrations starting within one inch of the soil surface. These
characteristics are evidence that the soil in the wetland is saturated and /or
inundated for a duration sufficient to promote anaerobic conditions, thereby
meeting the depleted matrix hydric soil criterion. Wetland hydrology is sustained by
flow from Stream 12, a seasonally shallow ground water table, overland flow from
the adjacent upland, and precipitation. At the time of the investigation, the wetland
was saturated to the soil surface. Documented secondary indicators include enough
dominant plants with either an OBL or FACW indicator status to meet the criterion
for the FAC - neutral test, and visible crayfish borrows. These findings demonstrate
that this site has sufficient saturation and /or inundation during the growing season
to satisfy the wetland hydrology criterion. Wetland 10 abuts Stream 12 and exhibits
a significant nexus with the stream.
Wetland 11 is a PEM wetland located in the headwater of Stream 12 in the western
portion of the tract. The vegetation in this wetland is dominated by microstegium,
soft rush (Juncus effusus), and false - nettle. The composition of hydrophytic plant
species in this wetland is 100 percent, thereby meeting the USACE criterion for
wetland vegetation. The soils in Wetland 11 exhibit a low chroma matrix with
Republic Services of North Carolina
Foothills Regional Landfill
Section 404 Individual Permit Application
April 2015
Page 16

prominent redoximorphic concentrations starting within three inches of the soil
surface. These characteristics are evidence that the soils in the wetlands are
saturated and /or inundated for a duration sufficient to promote anaerobic
conditions, thereby meeting the depleted matrix hydric soil criterion. Wetland
hydrology is sustained by flow from groundwater discharge, a seasonally shallow
ground water table, overland flow from the adjacent upland, and precipitation. At
the time of the investigation, the wetland was saturated to the soil surface.
Documented secondary indicators include enough dominant plants with either an
OBL or FACW indicator status to meet the criterion for the FAC- neutral test, and
visible crayfish borrows. These findings demonstrate that this site has sufficient
saturation and /or inundation during the growing season to satisfy the wetland
hydrology criterion. Wetland 11 abuts Stream 12 and exhibits a significant nexus
with the stream.
4.2 Agency Review
4.2.1 USACE
The effort was field reviewed by Representative Tasha Alexander on 9 December
2014, and the Jurisdictional Determination (JD) was issued on 13 March 2015
(Appendix 7). A specific description of the stream channel segments and wetland
systems, as well as photographs can be found in the D &H report (Appendix 1).
4.2.2 USFWS
A meeting was held onsite on 3 February 2015 with USFWS representative Bryan
Tompkins. During this meeting, federal listing status of the Northern long -eared bat
(NLEB) was discussed. Mr. Tompkins stated that the NLEB had been proposed for
listing as a threatened species. Specifically, it was discussed that the USFWS had
published a 4D rule related to the proposed listing of the NLEB, and it would apply
to the proposed project. One stipulation of this was the restriction of deforesting
activities to certain times of the year, specifically outside of the NLEB maternity
season. The proposed federal listing would not restrict deforesting activities
proposed within 100' of an existing corridor. Basin 5 of the proposed project will be
constructed within 100' of an existing corridor, and would be exempt from the
restriction under the proposed 4D Rule. The NLEB was officially listed as a
threatened species in the Federal Register on 2 April 2015. Although no hibernacula
was observed onsite, Republic agreed to be proactive in conservation of the NLEB. It
was agreed that deforesting activities for the project will not be performed between
mid -May and mid - August, during the maternity season for the bat.
The dwarf - flowered heartleaf habitat in the proposed project area and the
population of the heartleaf within the Conservation Area was also discussed.
Specifically, it was discussed that the proposed project has been designed so that no
dwarf - flowered heartleaf plants or habitat will be impacted. In addition, because
the population of heartleaf is thriving, Republic submitted a letter to the USFWS on
18 February 2015, requesting discontinuation of the monitoring for the dwarf -
flowered heartleaf within the Conservation Area.
Republic Services of North Carolina
Foothills Regional Landfill
Section 404 Individual Permit Application
April 2015
Page 17

5. PROTECTED SPECIES
5.1 Federally Protected Species
The US Fish and Wildlife Service (USFWS) lists five federally protected species with ranges
known to extend into Caldwell County, NC. As previously mentioned, these species include:
Carolina northern flying squirrel, Virginia big -eared bat, spruce -fir moss spider, dwarf - flowered
heartleaf, and Heller's blazing star.
D &H reviewed available records from the N.C. Natural Heritage Program ( NCNHP) regarding the
potential presence of federally listed threatened and endangered species. The NCNHP database
indicated the presence of the federally threated dwarf - flowered heartleaf and one federal
species of concern, mountain heartleaf (Hexastylis contracta) within two miles of the site. The
NCNHP database identifies the 105 -acre tract as being part of the larger 377 -acre Peaked Top
Rare Plant Site ( PTRPS). Portions of the PTRPS adjacent to the 105 -acre tract are conservation
area for populations of dwarf - flowered heartleaf.
D &H conducted a potentially suitable habitat evaluation for the above listed species. Potentially
suitable habitat for Carolina northern flying squirrel, spruce -fir moss spider, Virginia big -eared
bat, and Heller's blazing star was not observed.
The Northern long -eared bat was federally listed as a threatened species on 2 April 2015 for
federal listing and it has a range that includes the project site. D &H did not observe potential
winter habitat for the Northern long -eared bat during their extensive site reconnaissance
efforts. Winter habitat utilized by this species for hibernation, known as hibernacula, includes
caves and mines. D &H did not observe cave openings or mine shaft portals within the project
site limits. Hence, evidence of Northern long -eared bat hibernacula was not observed (Appendix
3).
Potential areas of suitable habitat for dwarf - flowered heartleaf were observed in the LOI. These
areas generally included slopes of hillsides (predominantly north facing) and ravines, slopes
along streams, and moist areas along streams. Species- specific surveys for dwarf - flowered
heartleaf were not conducted as part of this evaluation (Appendix 1).
In April 2014, Golder Associates performed a limited systematic survey of LOI to visually survey
these areas for the occurrence of dwarf - flowered heartleaf during the optimal survey window
for this plant, which is March through May. The results of this survey were compiled in a report
prepared by Golder (Appendix 2) in which surveyed areas, revised potential habitat areas, and
cursory specimen population approximates are provided (Figure 6).
Republic Services of North Carolina
Foothills Regional Landfill
Section 404 Individual Permit Application
April 2015
Page 18

The proposed project will result in no activity within areas documented as containing specimens
or areas considered to be potential habitat for dwarf - flowered heartleaf. Although there was a
lack of observed bat hibernacula, the applicant is proposing that tree removal activities within
the proposed project area will not occur from mid -May through mid - August as a proactive
measure of conservation for the Northern long -eared bat. Therefore, the Proposed Project is
Not Likely to Adversely Affect Protected Species or Proposed Protected Species.
Republic Services of North Carolina
Foothills Regional Landfill
Section 404 Individual Permit Application
April 2015
Page 19

6. CULTURAL RESOURCES
Cultural resources refer to prehistoric or historic archaeological sites, structures, or artifact deposits
over 50 years old. Significant cultural resources are those sites that are eligible or potentially eligible for
inclusion on the National Register of Historic Places (NRHP). Evaluations for cultural resources are
required as part of the Section 404 permit process. Evaluations of site significance are made with
reference to the eligibility criteria of the National Register (33CFR60) and in consultation with the N.C.
State Historic Preservation Office (SHPO).
The proposed project area was subjected to an intensive archaeological survey in 1995. At that time,
two archaeological sites were recorded. During the applicant's 2002 Section 404 Individual Permit (IP)
Request, a letter was sent to the SHPO for comment. In a letter dated 15 June 2001, the SHPO agreed
that no further work was required. A copy of the 15 June 2001 SHPO concurrence letter is included in
Appendix 6. A letter is being sent to the SHPO concurrently with this application to confirm the
determination stands with the addition of the current project. The reply will be forwarded upon receipt.
Republic Services of North Carolina
Foothills Regional Landfill
Section 404 Individual Permit Application
April 2015
Page 20

7. ALTERNATIVES ANALYSIS
7.1 Avoidance and Minimization
As discussed in the following section, the applicant has performed an extensive alternative
analysis that included a proactive evaluation of stream and wetland impacts at each offsite
alternative and for numerous configurations of feasible onsite design plans. Given the
commonality of streams and associated wetlands within western North Carolina and the steep
hill and valley landscape of the project area, particularly streams, it was quickly determined that
avoiding stream and wetland impacts for an expansion of borrow material mining of this
magnitude was not feasible. Therefore, the applicant dedicated themselves to minimizing
stream and wetland impacts, as described in the following alternative analysis section of this
application. As outlined herein, the project team believes that they have complied with the
conditions of Section 404(b)(1) of the Clean Water Act.
7.2 Alternatives Analysis Criteria
As part of the project siting process for a new soil borrow material mine, the applicant
completed a thorough alternative analysis. In review of Section 404(b)(1) guidelines that: "(a)
Except as provided under Section 404(b)(2), no discharge of dredged or fill material shall be
permitted if there is a practicable alternative to the proposed discharge which would have less
adverse impact on the aquatic ecosystem, so long as the alternative does not have other
significant adverse environmental consequences." Practicable alternatives are defined as
"available and capable of being done after taking into consideration cost, existing technology,
and logistics in light of overall project purpose."
The 404(b)(1) guidelines further offer the following in regards to practicable alternatives: "(1)
For the purpose of this requirement, practicable alternatives include, but are not limited to: (i)
Activities which do not involve a discharge of dredged or fill material into the waters of the
United States or ocean waters; (2) An alternate is practicable if it is available and capable of
being done after taking into consideration cost, existing technology, and logistics in light of
overall project purposes. If it is otherwise a practicable alternative, an area not presently owned
by the applicant which could reasonably be obtained, utilized, expanded or managed in order to
fulfill the basic purpose of the proposed activity may be considered."
The purpose of the proposed project is to better control stormwater runoff from the Foothills
Landfill facility and to establish a source of suitable borrow material that can be used for daily
waste cover purposes at the landfill to ensure a seamless operation for at least the next 30
years. The need for this project is rooted in the existing capacity of soil borrow material
Republic Services of North Carolina
Foothills Regional Landfill
Section 404 Individual Permit Application
April 2015
Page 21

currently available to the landfill facility; currently soil borrow material is being excavated from
areas that will ultimately be needed for structural fill purposes. Therefore, when areas currently
being used for soil borrow are transitioned to their future intended use (waste cell, etc.), no soil
borrow area capacity will remain within the property. As the physical footprint and
impermeable surface of the landfill facility has transformed over time due to the construction of
new waste cells and closure /capping of old ones, altering the stormwater plan to account for
the corresponding runoff differences results in the need to construct Wet Detention Basin No. 5.
The applicant evaluated both onsite and offsite alternatives that could meet the stated project
purpose and need. The following is a list and description of the off -site alternative criteria each
property was evaluated against:
1. Size: Project planners approximate that for the foreseeable future of landfill operations,
which for this exercise is minimally 30 years, the landfill will consume about 70,000 cubic
yards of soil borrow material a year. Project planners are looking to identify at least the
next 30 years' worth of borrow material supply. Historically, approximately 71,000 cubic
yards of suitable soil material is mined per acre of borrow area footprint within this portion
of North Carolina. Therefore, a location of adequate size to generate at least 2.13 million
cubic yards is required, which translates into a parcel that will accommodate at least a 30-
acre physical area footprint.
2. Geographic Location: Given the nature of the landfill operation being owned by Caldwell
County, proximity to the existing facility and within Caldwell County is of paramount
importance. The majority of the soil borrow material is used for daily cover of waste that
has been deposited into the landfill; therefore the ability to quickly cover the waste with a
source material that was economically obtained is an operational crux to financial stability
for waste handlers. Costs rise significantly when soil borrow material has to be trucked from
offsite to the landfill facility. Typically governmental regulators and the general public frown
upon plans that require use of public roads due to nuisance to the citizenry, road wear and
tear, and public safety concerns.
3. Access: In order for an offsite alternative to be feasible, it must have direct access into the
landfill property, or minimally to public roads that could be used to transport the material to
the facility.
4. Availability: A comprehensive list of sites that were known to be available for purchase was
consulted by the applicant. This list only provided two properties that could also feasibly
satisfy most of the search criteria herein. Therefore, other properties that may be available
for purchase and clearly could satisfy the most limiting of the search criteria (Size, Location,
and Geologic Suitability) were also evaluated. In these instances, lack of availability was not
used as a single eliminating reason for a property's ability to meet project purpose.
Republic Services of North Carolina
Foothills Regional Landfill
Section 404 Individual Permit Application
April 2015
Page 22

7.3
5. Geologic Suitability: Clearly a requirement for this project would be to have suitable and
large quantities of borrow material to underlie any alternative being evaluated. Using
existing geologic maps for the area in addition to Natural Resource Conservation Service
soils maps for this portion of Caldwell County, NC, all evaluated properties upon initial
evaluation have suitable geology. Upon finalization of most desired alternative,
geotechnical drilling for site specific adequacy of borrow material is conducted. All offsite
alternatives passed this initial assessment in order to warrant the further assessment
summarized herein.
6. Environmental Constraints: Identifying the least damaging practical alternative was of
paramount importance to the applicant and in addressing 40 CFR 230.7(b)(1). The applicant
evaluated potential environmental impacts that would result from construction of the
proposed project, these environmental factors included:
a. Stream Impacts — The estimated linear footage of potential stream impact was
evaluated for each offsite alternative.
b. Wetland Impacts —The estimated acreage of potential wetland impact was
evaluated for each offsite alternative.
c. Threatened & Endangered Species — A preliminary assessment of each practicable
alternative was conducted to determine the potential occurrence of suitable habitat
for animal and plant species currently listed as threatened or endangered by the
U.S. Fish & Wildlife Service ( USFWS). The following species are listed by USFWS as
having ranges that are known to or could reach into Caldwell County, NC:
Animals:
Bog turtle (Clemmys muhlenbergii) — Threatened (Similarity of
Appearance).
Carolina northern flying squirrel (Glaucomys sabrinus coloratus) —
Endangered.
Northern long -eared bat (Myotis septentrionalis) — Threatended.
Virginia big -eared bat (Corynorhinus townsendii virginianus) —
Endangered.
Spruce -fir moss spider (Microhexura montivaga) — Endangered.
Plants:
Dwarf - flowered heartleaf (Hexastylis naniflora) — Threatened.
Heller's blazing star (Liatris helleri) — Threatened.
Offsite Alternatives
The following is a summary of the results for each alternative in consideration of the previously
referenced search criteria. Please reference Appendix 4 for a graphical depiction of each offsite
alternative with the approximated wetland and stream impacts necessary to accomplish project
purpose.
Republic Services of North Carolina
Foothills Regional Landfill
Section 404 Individual Permit Application
April 2015
Page 23

7.3.1 Offsite Alternative 1: This alternative is located approximately 3,500 feet north of the
Foothills Landfill property (Figures 1A -11D and Figure 1, Appendix 4).
a. Size: Offsite Alternative 1 is 90 -acres and according to project planners would
consume approximately 45 -acres for borrow area. In comparison to the preferred
alternative which yields 34.5 -acres of borrow area, Offsite Alternative 1 satisfies the
size search criterion.
b. Geographic Location: The Offsite Alternative 1 property adjoins additional Caldwell
County. While this adjacency is ideal for project planners, this portion of the
property is within a conservation easement for the perpetual protection of dwarf -
flowered heartleaf. The use of this area for haul road construction is legally
precluded. Therefore it will be necessary to procure 800 -feet of access easement
from the adjoining property owner to the southeast and then construct a road
capable of handling project loads. From there public roads could be used for the
2.5 -mile commute; however half of this distance is a dirt road through a residential
area. The landfill consumes approximately 275 -cubic yards of borrow material per
day. Since use of public roads will be required, 10 cubic yard haul trucks will be
necessary. If haul trucks don't require use of public roads like an onsite borrow area
(preferred alternative) would qualify for, 20 cubic yard trucks (off -road trucks) can
be utilized. This translates to about 28 truck trips per day from Offsite Alternative 1
to the Foothills Landfill. The landfill is open 289 days per year, resulting in 8,092
truck trips per year on public roads. Due to the number of truck hauls per day given
the residential adjoining land use on the first mile of the commute, Offsite
Alternative 1 fails the geographic location search criterion.
c. Access: As mentioned above, Offsite Alternative 1 would require approximately 800 -
feet of new road construction, and over a mile of public dirt road use that is a
residential access road. An additional 1.5 miles on paved public road would be
necessary thereafter. Given that 800 feet of road construction necessary to reach
public roads would not be cost prohibitive to the project, Offsite Alternative 1
satisfies the access search criterion.
d. Availability: As of the date of this application, Offsite Alternative 1 was not formally
available for sale. Therefore, Offsite Alternative 1 fails the availability search
criterion.
e. Geologic Suitability: As previously stated, using existing geologic maps for the area
in addition to Natural Resource Conservation Service soils maps for this portion of
Caldwell County, NC, all evaluated properties upon initial evaluation have suitable
geology. Offsite Alternative 1 satisfies the geologic suitability search criterion.
f. Environmental Constraints: Offsite Alternative 1 would require approximately 2,250
linear feet of stream impact versus a 661 feet of stream impact at the preferred
alternative. This represents 3.4 times the proposed impact of the preferred
Republic Services of North Carolina
Foothills Regional Landfill
Section 404 Individual Permit Application
April 2015
Page 24

alternative. The project team does not anticipate that any wetland impacts would
be necessary at Offsite Alternative 1, versus 0.075 -acre at the preferred alternative.
The topography of Offsite Alternative 1 does not include north facing hillsides,
which is the preferred habitat for the dwarf - flowered heartleaf that is known to
have dense populations in the immediate vicinity. In review of the habitat
descriptions of the other USFWS listed species for Caldwell County, no unique
habitat opportunities are offered by Offsite Alternative 1. No ground surveys were
conducted, only review of publicly available information. In consideration of the
significantly higher need for stream impact at Offsite Alternative 1, the project team
considers it a fail for the environmental constraints search criterion.
7.3.2 Offsite Alternative 2: This alternative is located approximately 1.55 miles east of the
Foothills Landfill property (Figures 2A -2D and Figure 1, Appendix 4).
a. Size: Offsite Alternative 2 is 72 -acres and according to project planners would
consume approximately 35 -acres for borrow area. In comparison to the preferred
alternative which yields 34.5 -acres of borrow area, Offsite Alternative 2 satisfies the
size search criterion.
b. Geographic Location: Offsite Alternative 2 does not adjoin the landfill property and
would therefore require use of public roads. An access easement from this property
to the closest public road is already part of the property; however it would still
necessitate the construction of 1,800 feet of haul road. From there public roads
could be used for the 4.9 -mile commute; with over 2 miles of this distance being in a
residential area. Using the same numbers outlined in Offsite Alternative 1 for
borrow consumption and truck capacity, Offsite Alternative 2 would also require
8,092 truck trips per year on public roads, albeit at over double the distance in
comparison to Offsite Alternative 1. Due to the number of truck hauls per day given
the residential adjoining land use on two miles of the commute, Offsite Alternative
2 fails the geographic location search criterion.
c. Access: As mentioned above, Offsite Alternative 2 would require approximately
1,800 -feet of new road construction, and two miles of public road use that is closely
adjoined by residential homes, with the total commute being over 5 miles when the
new road is taken into account. Given that 1,800 feet of road construction
necessary to reach public roads would not be cost prohibitive to the project, Offsite
Alternative 2 satisfies the access search criterion.
d. Availability: As of the date of this application, Offsite Alternative 2 was formally
available for sale. Therefore, Offsite Alternative 2 satisfies the availability search
criterion.
e. Geologic Suitability: As previously stated, using existing geologic maps for the area
in addition to Natural Resource Conservation Service soils maps for this portion of
Caldwell County, NC, all evaluated properties upon initial evaluation have suitable
geology. Offsite Alternative 2 satisfies the geologic suitability search criterion.
Republic Services of North Carolina
Foothills Regional Landfill
Section 404 Individual Permit Application
April 2015
Page 25

f. Environmental Constraints: Offsite Alternative 2 would require approximately 1,520
linear feet of stream impact versus 661 feet of stream impact at the preferred
alternative. This represents 2.3 times the proposed impact of the preferred
alternative. The project team does not anticipate that any wetland impacts would
be necessary at Offsite Alternative 2, versus 0.075 -acre at the preferred alternative.
The topography of Offsite Alternative 2 does include a northwest facing hillside,
which could be potential habitat for the dwarf - flowered heartleaf that is known to
have dense populations in the immediate vicinity. In review of the habitat
descriptions of the other USFWS listed species for Caldwell County, no unique
habitat opportunities are offered by Offsite Alternative 2. No ground surveys were
conducted, only review of publicly available information. In consideration of the
significantly higher need for stream impact at Offsite Alternative 2, the project team
considers it a fail for the environmental constraints search criterion.
7.3.3 Offsite Alternative 3: This alternative is located approximately 500 feet west of the
Foothills Landfill property (Figures 3A -3D and Figure 1, Appendix 4).
a. Size: Offsite Alternative 3 is 83 -acres and according to project planners would
consume approximately 33.5 -acres for borrow area. In order to get a property with
a feasible ability to encompass an adequately sized borrow area, two properties
would have to be purchased from two separate owners. This is not ideal and
doubles the chances for acquisition failure. However, in comparison to the
preferred alternative which yields 34.5 -acres of borrow area; Offsite Alternative 3
satisfies the size search criterion.
b. Geographic Location: Offsite Alternative 3 does not adjoin the landfill property and
would therefore require use of public roads albeit in a fairly limited capacity in
comparison to Offsite Alternatives 1, 2, and 5. The property directly adjoins
Abington Road, which runs down in close proximity to the existing landfill's western
property boundary, and would only require about 3,000 feet of public road use. At
this point the applicant would construct a new haul road through their property to
intersect with existing access roads, and then internal roadways could be utilized.
This new haul road within the landfill property would still necessitate the
construction of approximately 500 feet of new haul road, which would require an
additional stream crossing of the unnamed tributary that runs north -south
immediately west of the existing landfill footprint. Using the same numbers
outlined in Offsite Alternative 1 for borrow consumption and truck capacity, Offsite
Alternative 3 would also require 8,092 truck trips per year on public roads, albeit
significantly shorter commutes than Offsite Alternatives 1, 2, and 5. Due to the
somewhat limited amount of public road use and less intrusion on adjoining
residential properties due to the type of road and number of houses along Abington
Road, Offsite Alternative 3 satisfies the geographic location search criterion in the
applicant's opinion.
c. Access: As mentioned above, Offsite Alternative 3 adjoins a public road that is not a
subdivision public road and would require only about 3,000 feet of use before newly
Republic Services of North Carolina
Foothills Regional Landfill
Section 404 Individual Permit Application
April 2015
Page 26

constructed and existing internal landfill roads could be utilized. Given the direct
access to public roads and then the limited use of them that would be required,
Offsite Alternative 3 satisfies the access search criterion.
d. Availability: As of the date of this application, Offsite Alternative 3 was not formally
available for sale. Therefore, Offsite Alternative 3 fails the availability search
criterion.
e. Geologic Suitability: As previously stated, using existing geologic maps for the area
in addition to Natural Resource Conservation Service soils maps for this portion of
Caldwell County, NC, all evaluated properties upon initial evaluation have suitable
geology. Offsite Alternative 3 satisfies the geologic suitability search criterion.
f. Environmental Constraints: Offsite Alternative 3 would require approximately 3,135
linear feet of stream impact versus 661 feet of stream impact at the preferred
alternative. This represents 4.7 times the proposed impact of the preferred
alternative. The project team does not anticipate that any wetland impacts would
be necessary at Offsite Alternative 3, versus 0.075 -acre at the preferred alternative.
The topography of Offsite Alternative 3 does include a limited amount of north
facing hillsides, which could be potential habitat for the dwarf - flowered heartleaf
that is known to have dense populations in the immediate vicinity. In review of the
habitat descriptions of the other USFWS listed species for Caldwell County, no
unique habitat opportunities are offered by Offsite Alternative 3. No ground
surveys were conducted, only review of publicly available information. In
consideration of the significantly higher need for stream impact at Offsite
Alternative 3, the project team considers it a fail for the environmental constraints
search criterion.
7.3.4 Offsite Alternative 4: This alternative is located approximately 1,000 feet west of the
Foothills Landfill property (Figures 4A -41D and Figure 1, Appendix 4).
a. Size: Offsite Alternative 4 is 104 -acres and according to project planners would
consume approximately 43 -acres for borrow area. In order to get a property with a
feasible ability to encompass an adequately sized borrow area, two properties
would have to be purchased from two separate owners. This is not ideal and
doubles the chances for acquisition failure. However, in comparison to the
preferred alternative which yields 34.5 -acres of borrow area; Offsite Alternative 4
satisfies the size search criterion.
b. Geographic Location: Offsite Alternative 4 does not adjoin the landfill property and
would therefore require use of public roads albeit in a fairly limited capacity in
comparison to Offsite Alternatives 1, 2, and 5. The property directly adjoins
Abington Road, which runs down in close proximity to the existing landfill's western
property boundary, and would only require about 4,500 feet of public road use. At
this point the applicant would construct a new haul road through their property to
intersect with existing access roads, and then internal roadways could be utilized.
Republic Services of North Carolina
Foothills Regional Landfill
Section 404 Individual Permit Application
April 2015
Page 27

This new haul road within the landfill property would still necessitate the
construction of approximately 500 feet of new haul road, which would require an
additional stream crossing of the unnamed tributary that runs north -south
immediately west of the existing landfill footprint. Using the same numbers
outlined in Offsite Alternative 1 for borrow consumption and truck capacity, Offsite
Alternative 4 would also require 8,092 truck trips per year on public roads, albeit
significantly shorter commutes than Offsite Alternatives 1, 2, and 5. Due to the
somewhat limited amount of public road use and less intrusion on adjoining
residential properties due to the type of road and number of houses along Abington
Road, Offsite Alternative 4 satisfies the geographic location search criterion in the
applicant's opinion.
c. Access: As mentioned above, Offsite Alternative 4 adjoins a public road that is not a
subdivision public road and would require less than a mile of use before newly
constructed and existing internal landfill roads could be utilized. Given the direct
access to public roads and then the limited use of them that would be required,
Offsite Alternative 4 satisfies the access search criterion.
d. Availability: As of the date of this application, Offsite Alternative 4 was not formally
available for sale. Therefore, Offsite Alternative 4 fails the availability search
criterion.
e. Geologic Suitability: As previously stated, using existing geologic maps for the area
in addition to Natural Resource Conservation Service soils maps for this portion of
Caldwell County, NC, all evaluated properties upon initial evaluation have suitable
geology. Offsite Alternative 4 satisfies the geologic suitability search criterion.
f. Environmental Constraints: Offsite Alternative 4 would require approximately 1,030
linear feet of stream impact versus 661 linear feet at the preferred alternative. This
represents 36% more than that of the proposed impact of the preferred alternative.
The project team does not anticipate that any wetland impacts would be necessary
at Offsite Alternative 4, versus 0.075 -acre at the preferred alternative. The
topography of Offsite Alternative 4 does include a significant amount of north facing
hillsides, which could be potential habitat for the dwarf - flowered heartleaf that is
known to have dense populations in the immediate vicinity. In review of the habitat
descriptions of the other USFWS listed species for Caldwell County, no unique
habitat opportunities are offered by Offsite Alternative 4. No ground surveys were
conducted, only review of publicly available information. In consideration of the
somewhat larger stream impact at Offsite Alternative 4, the project team believes it
fails the environmental constraints search criterion.
Republic Services of North Carolina
Foothills Regional Landfill
Section 404 Individual Permit Application
April 2015
Page 28

7.3.5 Offsite Alternative 5: This alternative is located approximately 4.5 miles northeast of the
Foothills Landfill property (Figures 5A -5D and Figure 1, Appendix 4).
a. Size: Offsite Alternative 5 is 71 -acres and according to project planners would
consume approximately 28 -acres for borrow area. In comparison to the preferred
alternative which yields 34.5 -acres of borrow area, Offsite Alternative 5 fails the size
search criterion as it does not yield enough soil borrow material to satisfy the 2.13
cubic yard objective.
b. Geographic Location: Offsite Alternative 5 does not adjoin the landfill property and
would therefore require use of public roads. The property does directly adjoin a
public road and would not require either an access easement or construction of any
new roads. From this adjoining public road and then utilizing at least six different
roads ranging from heavily traveled to subdivision road, a commute of 6.5 miles is
required. Over 2 miles of this distance being in a residential area and 2.5 miles is
within the commercial district of Lenoir. Using the same numbers outlined in Offsite
Alternative 1 for borrow consumption and truck capacity, Offsite Alternative 5
would also require 8,092 truck trips per year on public roads, and with the longest
commute of any of the offsite alternatives summarized herein. Due to the number
of truck hauls per day given the residential adjoining land use on two miles of the
commute and traversing the entire commercial district of Lenoir, Offsite Alternative
5 fails the geographic location search criterion.
c. Access: As mentioned above, Offsite Alternative 5 would not require any new
construction to access public roadways. In consideration of this, Offsite Alternative
5 satisfies the access search criterion.
d. Availability: As of the date of this application, Offsite Alternative 5 was formally
available for sale. Therefore, Offsite Alternative 5 satisfies the availability search
criterion.
e. Geologic Suitability: As previously stated, using existing geologic maps for the area
in addition to Natural Resource Conservation Service soils maps for this portion of
Caldwell County, NC, all evaluated properties upon initial evaluation have suitable
geology. Offsite Alternative 5 satisfies the geologic suitability search criterion.
f. Environmental Constraints: Offsite Alternative 5 would require approximately 2,650
linear feet of stream impact versus 661 feet of stream impact at the preferred
alternative. This represents 4.0 times the proposed impact of the preferred
alternative. The project team does not anticipate that any wetland impacts would
be necessary at Offsite Alternative 5, versus 0.075 -acre at the preferred alternative.
The topography of Offsite Alternative 5 does not include any north facing hillsides,
which is considered the best potential habitat for the dwarf - flowered heartleaf that
is known to have dense populations in the immediate vicinity. In review of the
habitat descriptions of the other USFWS listed species for Caldwell County, no
unique habitat opportunities are offered by Offsite Alternative 5. No ground
Republic Services of North Carolina
Foothills Regional Landfill
Section 404 Individual Permit Application
April 2015
Page 29

surveys were conducted, only review of publicly available information. In
consideration of the significantly higher need for stream impact at Offsite
Alternative 5, the project team considers it a fail for the environmental constraints
search criterion.
The following Table summarizes how each offsite alternative was judged against the site selection
criteria required for a project of this type, as outlined in Section 7.2 herein.
Site Selection Criteria
Size
Geographic Location
Access
Availability
Geologic Suitability
Environmental Constraints
❑ = Satisfies; X= Fails
7.4 Onsite Alternatives
Mite
Mite
Mite
Mite
Offsite
Alt. #1
Alt. #2
Alt. #3
Alt. #4
Alt. #5
❑
❑
❑
❑
X
X
X
❑
❑
X
❑
❑
❑
❑
❑
X
❑
X
X
❑
❑
❑
❑
❑
❑
X
X
X
X
X
In addition to considering offsite alternatives, the applicant has considered three different
onsite design alternatives in an effort to identify an alternative that necessitates less
environmental impacts while still accomplishing the stated project purpose and need.
Specifically four different design alternatives were generated and evaluated against one
another. Exhibits depicting the approximated wetland and stream impacts for the four design
alternatives, which does include the proposed project alternative, are located in Appendix 4,
Figures 6 -9.
7.4.1 Onsite Alternative 1: This alternative is essentially an expansion of the preferred
alternative Proposed Borrow Area 1 to extend northerly and make one large pit of
adequate size ( >_ 30- acres) to satisfy the herein stated project purpose and need (Figure
6, Appendix 4). This alternative maximizes the use of the borrow material in one
location in close direct proximity to the landfill waste cells and existing road network. In
laying out this alternative, it was apparent that stream impacts and takes of dwarf -
flowered heartleaf would be necessary. As illustrated on Figure 6, Appendix 4,
approximately 570 linear feet of stream impact would be necessary for this onsite
design alternative. It should be noted that the impacts for Wet Detention Basin No. 5
would also still be required to accomplish the project purpose and need. Therefore,
when accounting for this 473 feet of stream impact and 0.075 -acre of wetland impact,
Onsite Alternative 1 necessitates 1,043 feet of stream impact. This represents 44%
more impacts than that of the proposed project alternative. Additionally, Onsite
Alternative 1 requires impact to 1.3 -acres of habitat that has been surveyed and known
to encompass live specimen of dwarf - flowered heartleaf. This is in comparison to no
Republic Services of North Carolina
Foothills Regional Landfill
Section 404 Individual Permit Application
April 2015
Page 30

direct impacts to these areas for the preferred alternative. In consideration of the
environmental ramifications of Onsite Alternative 1, the project team eliminated it from
consideration.
7.4.2 Onsite Alternative 2: This alternative involves opening up a completely new area in the
far northern reaches of the landfill property that is not encumbered by a conservation
easement. The existing topography within this portion of the property contains
extremely steep inclines throughout its entirety. Given this topographic limitation,
nearly double the amount of land will be required to result in a similarly sized area that
is necessary for the project purpose and need. Additionally, a large investment in road
construction would be necessary to access this area via a road that can safely transport
the loads and types of vehicles required for borrow transportation to the landfill.
Offsite Alternative 2 accesses this area via a road that enters the borrow area from the
extreme southern terminus. An existing road does exist that traverses the only feasible
road path through this portion of the property given the topography of the surrounding
area. A new roadway construction would be required for a little over 500 feet at the
very northern end. The topography of the area pushes the required road fill slopes for
this type of loaded roadway out a considerable distance, resulting in larger road crossing
impact footprints than typical.
In laying out this alternative, it was apparent that significant stream impacts and takes
of dwarf - flowered heartleaf would be necessary. As illustrated on Figure 7 of Appendix
4, approximately 1,160 linear feet of stream impact would be necessary for this onsite
design alternative. It should be noted that the impacts for Wet Detention Basin No. 5
would also still be required to accomplish the project purpose and need. Therefore
when accounting for this 473 feet of stream impact and 0.075 -acre of wetland impact,
Onsite Alternative 2 necessitates approximately 1,633 feet of stream impact. This
represents 2.4 times the stream impacts than that of the proposed project alternative.
Additionally, Onsite Alternative 2 requires impact to 2.4 -acres of habitat that has been
surveyed and known to encompass live specimen of dwarf - flowered heartleaf. This is in
comparison to no direct impacts to these areas for the preferred alternative. In
consideration of the environmental ramifications of Onsite Alternative 2, the project
team eliminated it from consideration.
7.4.3 Onsite Alternative 3: This alternative utilizes the same actual borrow area footprint as
the previously summarized Onsite Alternative 2; however it accesses it via a different
road corridor. This was studied due to the bulk of the environmental impacts for Onsite
Alternative 2 resulting from the access road that would be necessary given the borrow
area location. Offsite Alternative 3 accesses this area via a road that enters the borrow
area from the extreme western side. An existing road does exist that traverses the
entire route, however topography of the route would still be tough to negotiate from an
engineering and road improvement perspective. No completely new roadway
construction would be required for this alternative; however it would also traverse hill
side slopes like the Onsite Alternative 2 road corridor requires; thereby road crossing
footprints are similarly pushed out laterally more than typical. It is also worth noting
that the Onsite Alternative 3 road corridor does have extreme grade changes from the
Republic Services of North Carolina
Foothills Regional Landfill
Section 404 Individual Permit Application
April 2015
Page 31

area to the bottom of hill. Depending on weather and direction the truck is travelling,
this grade could be a limiting factor for truck use.
In laying out this alternative, it was apparent that significant stream impacts and takes
of dwarf - flowered heartleaf would be necessary. As illustrated on Figure 8 of Appendix
4, approximately 1,300 linear feet of stream impact would be necessary for this onsite
design alternative. It should be noted that the impacts for Wet Detention Basin No. 5
would also still be required to accomplish the project purpose and need. Therefore
when accounting for this 473 feet of stream impact and 0.075 -acre of wetland impact,
Onsite Alternative 3 necessitates approximately 1,773 feet of stream impact. This
represents 2.6 times the stream impacts than that of the preferred alternative.
Additionally, Onsite Alternative 3 requires impact to only 0.18 -acres of habitat that has
been surveyed and known to encompass live specimen of dwarf - flowered heartleaf.
This is in comparison to no direct impacts to these areas for the proposed project
alternative. In consideration of the higher environmental ramifications of Onsite
Alternative 3 and the potential for operational issues given the grades to be traversed
by off -road dump trucks, the project team eliminated it from consideration.
7.4.4 Onsite Alternative 4: Onsite Alternative 4 is the proposed project alternative and it is
completely within the existing County owned property boundary. The borrow portion
of the project need is located immediately adjacent to the existing landfill cell
operations which maximizes workplace efficiency. Additionally the ability to utilize the
existing drainage pathway for the southern portion of the property in order to more
adequately address stormwater treatment at the Wet Detention Basin No. 5 location
allows for long term water quality improvements for the project vicinity. The proposed
project alternative has many inherent advantages over the offsite alternatives and the
onsite design alternatives, including the least amount of wetland and stream impact, no
destruction of known dwarf - flowered heartleaf habitat and /or specimens, and the
complete lack of needing to utilize any public roadways (Appendix 4, Figure 9). Given
that the proposed project alternative requires the least environmental impact and is
also preferred by surrounding residents due to the lack of road use it necessitates (best
public safety option), the proposed project alternative as outlined herein was chosen by
project planners as the LEDPA and is presented as the proposed project plan.
Republic Services of North Carolina
Foothills Regional Landfill
Section 404 Individual Permit Application
April 2015
Page 32

Alternative Analysis Summary Table — Environmental Constraints
Impact type
Stream (ft.)
Wetland (ac.)
Heartleaf Populated
Areas (ac.)
7.5 No Build
Offsite
Offsite
Offsite
Offsite
Offsite
Onsite
Onsite
Onsite
Preferred
Alt.1
Alt.2
Alt.3
Alt.4
Alt.5
Alt.1
Alt.2
Alt.3
Alt.
2,250
1,520
3,135
1,030
2,650
1,043
1,633
1,773
661
0
0
0
0
0
0.075
0.075
0.075
0.075
Unk.
Unk.
Unk.
Unk.
Unk.
1.3
2.4
0.18
0
As required by Section 4O4(b)(1), a no -build option must also be studied by the applicant. In
consideration of the aforementioned purpose and need for this project, the no- project option
would not allow for continued operation of the existing landfill facility, nor allow for necessary
stormwater controls for the landfill that require alteration due to the changing operational
footprint. The no- project option would ultimately result in the outright closure of the landfill
facility; likely in less than two years, and a completely new landfill facility would have to be
constructed to serve the waste needs of the area. In consideration of the hill and valley
environment of the project area, this would almost certainly require more environmental
impacts as proposed herein. Furthermore, from a local geography perspective it would result in
more dedicated land space for landfill operations and would actually increase the number of
active and /or closed landfills present within the general vicinity. Given the direct and secondary
effects outlined above that the no- project option would prompt, the no -build alternative is not
considered by the project team as viable, as it does not accomplish any portion of the purpose
and need of the proposed project.
Republic Services of North Carolina
Foothills Regional Landfill
Section 404 Individual Permit Application
April 2015
Page 33

8. PROPOSED IMPACTS
The proposed borrow areas at the Foothills facility will have unavoidable impacts to jurisdictional
wetlands and streams. The proposed project will result in the impact of 661 linear feet of jurisdictional
stream and 0.075 acres of jurisdictional wetlands. The wetland and stream channels subject to impact
are shown on Figures 1, 2, 3, and 4.
Specifically, wetlands 4, 8, 9, 10, and 11 are proposed for impact. Stream channel segments 6, 10, 11,
and 12 are proposed for impact. For detailed descriptions of these features, please refer to Part 4.1
herein.
Republic Services of North Carolina
Foothills Regional Landfill
Section 404 Individual Permit Application
April 2015
Page 34

9. PROPOSED MITIGATION
The applicant proposes the use of an approved mitigation bank to compensate for unavoidable impacts
to Waters of the U.S. by paying an in lieu fee to the North Carolina Ecosystem Enhancement Program
(EEP). The applicant will complete the EEP application package and submit the required paperwork to
the USACE.
In order to present a full and complete proposed project, the applicant has outlined all foreseeable
unavoidable impacts to WOUS over the term of their lease. Phase 1 of the Proposed Project impacts will
occur in Area C and would include impacts to 0.053 acres of wetlands and 473 linear feet of stream.
Phase 1 is expected to take place from approximately early June through mid - October, 2015. Phase 2
will occur in Area A and would include the remaining impacts of 0.022 acres of wetlands and 188 linear
feet of stream, and are expected to happen in 2019.
During the field investigation, it was observed that the wetlands to be impacted during Phase 1 of this
project are located in an area of very low quality resources. The condition and function of these
wetlands are permanently impaired as they were previously disturbed during the construction of the
existing electric distribution line. Wetland vegetation within the power line easement is regularly
maintained thus affecting the overall wetland habitat. These wetlands function as a drainage area for
stormwater runoff from the landfill prior to entering the streams which eventually carry this water
through a culvert under the landfill entrance road. It is expected that the mitigation for these impacts
will have a greater value in a given watershed than that of the impacted wetland. Therefore, the
applicant proposes 1:1 out -of -kind compensatory re- establishment mitigation to restore the
hydrological function of the impacted 0.053 acres of wetlands.
The stream impacts that will occur during Phase 1 of this project were also observed to be located in
very steeply graded, low quality areas. Impacts to Streams in Phase 1 are located in Area C and include:
Stream 10, 273 linear feet; Stream 11, 12 linear feet; and, Stream 12, 188 linear feet; for a total of 473
linear feet. Streams 10, 11, and 12 are referred to on the USACE Stream Quality Assessment Forms
(Appendix 1) as Streams SWA, SWB, and SWC, respectively. The condition and function of these streams
are also permanently impaired due to the existing electrical distribution line and regular maintenance of
the power line easement. These three streams received a score of 27 out of a possible 100 on the
USACE Steam Quality Assessment Forms (Appendix 1). These streams primarily capture stormwater
runoff from the landfill and carry it through a culvert under the landfill entrance road. It is expected
that the mitigation for these stream impacts will have a greater value in a given watershed than that of
the impacted streams. Therefore, the applicant proposes 1:1 out -of -kind compensatory re-
establishment mitigation to restore the hydrological function of the 473 linear feet of impacted streams.
Republic Services of North Carolina
Foothills Regional Landfill
Section 404 Individual Permit Application
April 2015
Page 35

As stated herein, Phase 2 construction for the Proposed Project will include unavoidable impacts to
0.022 acres of wetland and 188 linear feet of stream, both in Area A (Figure 1). The Applicant proposes
2:1 in -kind compensatory mitigation for these impacts for creation and establishment of wetlands and
streams to replace the wetland and stream functions in the onsite aquatic environment.
The Applicant also requests authorization to pay the in lieu fees to the EEP in stages. As stated above, in
order to present a full and complete proposed project, the applicant has outlined all foreseeable
unavoidable impacts to WOUS over the 30 -year term of their lease. Phase 1 impacts to occur include
impacts of 0.053 acres of wetlands and 473 linear feet of stream, and are expected to occur between
June and October 2015. Phase 2 impacts of 0.022 acres of wetlands and 188 feet of stream and are
expected to happen in 2019. Therefore, the applicant requests permission to structure the payments to
be paid in two stages. Specifically, the first payment to compensate for the Phase 1 wetland and stream
impacts would be completed prior to start of construction activities. The applicant also requests to
include payment for the Phase 2 wetland impacts of 0.022 acres in the first payment (since wetlands are
purchased in quarter acre increments, the Applicant proposes to pay for both phases of wetland impacts
at one time). The second payment, to compensate for unavoidable impacts to 188 linear feet of
streams, would be completed prior to the second construction phase, which is expected to take place in
2019. In the event the Phase 2 construction takes place sooner than expected, the applicant would pay
the fees prior to start of that phase of construction.
Republic Services of North Carolina
Foothills Regional Landfill
Section 404 Individual Permit Application
April 2015
Page 36

10. SUMMARY
Republic Services of North Carolina, LLC, wishes to develop additional borrow areas and improve the
stormwater facilities of the Foothills landfill facility that is located in Caldwell County, North Carolina.
Proposed project activities will impact 661 linear feet of first order stream channel and 0.075 acres of
riparian wetlands. The applicant is seeking a USACE Section 404 Individual Permit authorizing these
impacts. Payment to an approved mitigation bank is proposed to provide compensatory mitigation to
offset these impacts.
The proposed project is avoiding impacts to the federally Threatened species dwarf - flowered heartleaf.
In order to be proactive in conserving the habitat of the Northern long -eared bat, tree removal in the
proposed areas will not take place during the maternity season, from mid -May through mid - August.
Republic Services of North Carolina
Foothills Regional Landfill
Section 404 Individual Permit Application
April 2015
Page 37

11. REFERENCES
North Carolina Department of Environment and Natural Resources, 2010 Catawba River Basinwide
Water Quality Plan- Chapter 11 Basinwide Maps, NCDENR, 14 pp
North Carolina Department of Environment and Natural Resources, 2013, River Basin Schedules of
Assigned Classifications for Surface Waters — Catawba River Basin, NCDENR Division of Water Quality, 40
PP
North Carolina Department of Environment and Natural Resources, 2014, 2014 NC Water Quality
Assessment for305(b), NCDENR, 1069 pp
United States Army Corps of Engineers, 1987. Corps of Engineers Wetland Delineation Manual,
Technical Report, Technical Report Y -87 -1, USACE Wetlands Regulatory Assistance Program. Washington,
DC. 143 pp
Republic Services of North Carolina
Foothills Regional Landfill
Section 404 Individual Permit Application
April 2015
Page 38

FIGURES

FIGURE 1: PROPOSED PROJECT SITE PLAN

NOTES ILL, y+ - -
1. TOPOGRAPHIC INFORMATION WITHIN THE POTENTIAL FUTURE BORROW AREA � � � + + + ++
PROPERTY Y HAS BEEN PROVIDED BY BEI AERIAL MAPPING, DATE OF PHOTOGRAPHY, LEGEND C` + + + ++ ` ♦ AREA B
APRIL 5
+ + + + �ISAPPROXIM NE SHOWN
2. TOPOGRAPHIC INFORMATION WITHIN THE PROPERTY LINE OF THE LANDFILL HAS + + + ++ ` IS APPROXIMATE)
BEEN PROVIDED BY COOPER AERIAL SURVEYS CO., DATE OF PHOTOGRAPHY, EXISTING 2' CONTOUR ++ N /F: CALDWELL COUNTY `
JANUARY 20, 2014. EXISTING 10' CONTOUR ' ' +- DEED BOOK NO. 1194
PROPOSED 10' CONTOUR + PAGE NO. 1548 + ` 100 OFFSET FROM
3. CONTOURS INSIDE VEGETATED AREAS MAY NOT MEET MAPPING STANDARDS AND I + +++ + + + PROPERTY LINE (TYP.)'
SHOULD BE FIELD CHECKED FOR RELIABILITY. PROPERTY LINE + + + +
4. ALL SURVEY CONTROL POINT DATA PROVIDED BY WRIGHT AND FIELDS LAND 100' PROPERTY LINE OFFSET ` + ++ + + ++ ` ♦ , ,,�
SURVEYING VIA LETTER DATED JUNE 24, 2011. JURISDICTIONAL STREAMS - • • • - • • • - ♦ ` + + + + ++ + �- ♦ J
5. JURISDICTIONAL STREAMS AND WETLANDS INFORMATION WITHIN THE LANDFILL PREVIOUSLY DELINEATED STREAMS - * ` + + + ++ `
PROPERTY HAS BEEN PROVIDED BY DONALDSON GARRETT AND ASSOCIATES, INC., LANDFILL FOOTPRINT ` + +
SURVEY DATED SEPTEMBER 18, 2002.
JURISDICTIONAL WETLANDS
6. CONSERVATION EASEMENT LIMITS PROVIDED BY WRIGHT& FIELDS LAND ♦ ` ` ♦ - J
SURVEYING IN A SURVEY TITLED'CONSERVATION EASEMENT SURVEY FOR: PREVIOUSLY DELINEATED WETLANDS ♦
REPUBLIC SERVICES OF NORTH CAROLINA LLC DELINEATED DWARF- FLOWERED HEARTLEAF ♦ LAST REVISED ON JULY 31, 2006. © -
/�'
7. THE JURISDICTIONAL DETERMINATION FOR THE STREAMS AND WETLANDS WAS PROPOSED
ISSUED BY THE ARMY CORPS OF ENGINEERS ON DECEMBER 23, 2004 FOR PREVIOUS SEDIMENT BASIN /
IMPACTS. �
8. STREAMS WETLANDS AND DWARF FLOWERED HEARTLEAF COLONIES WERE �II IV ♦ ��w j�y
DELINEATED BY DIEFFENBAUCH & HRITZ, PLLC IN AUGUST 2013 THEIR FINDINGS N /F: RICHARD & ANNETTE SUDDRETH
WERE PRESENTED IN A REPORT THE POTENTIAL BORROW AREAS FOOTHILLS REGIONAL LANDFILL DATED NOVEMBER DE PAGE NO. 69321 � .;: - `� �� ��
2013. SURVEYS OF THE DELINEATED STREAMS AND WETLANDS WERE PERFORMED
BY WRIGHT AND FIELDS LAND SURVEYING IN OCTOBER 2013. THE JURISDICTIONAL
DETERMINATION FOR THESE STREAMS AND WETLANDS WAS ISSUED BY THE ARMY
CORPS OF ENGINEERS ON MARCH 13, 2015.
AREA A
9. AREAS OF HEXASTYLIS NANIFLORA WERE STUDIED BY GOLDER ASSOCIATES APRIL (PROPERTY LINE SHOWN
19 -21, 2014 IN ORDER TO DETERMINE ACTUAL COLONIES OF HEXASTYLIS NANIFLORA IS APPROXIMATE)
THE AREAS SHOWN AS DELINEATED HEXASTYLIS NANIFLORA REPRESENT THE
FINDINGS OF THE OBSERVATIONS PERFORMED BY GOLDER.
10. BOUNDARY SURVEY COMPILED BY TOMMY FIELDS, PLS 2906 - LAST REVISED AND ^ `X
UPDATED AUGUST 14, 2007. y ^
IMPACT TABLE
r I
AREA WETLANDS STREAMS
AREA A - 105 AC TRACT 0.0 AC 188 LF ' - ...0- 000
AREA B - 30 AC TRACT 0.0 AC 0 LF + +
��s_�x,
Y DELINEATED DWWETLANDS
C\
®' PREVIOUSLY DELINEATED STREAMS
REAM
1
REAM
RE
NSIN
4
- FUTURE WASTE
FOOTPRINT (PERMITTED)
COUNTY CONVENIENCE
CENTER
PROPOSED AREA FOR
WET DETENTION
r / 1 BASIN NO, 5
AREA C - PROPOSED BASIN NO. 5 \
WETLAND AND STREAM IMPACTS ~
f� \
�I
\\\
SEDIMENT ♦�♦
BASIN NO 2
rEXISTING CONSTRUCTED
WASTE FOOTPRINT
IN /F: CALDWELL COUNTY �� ✓ ��. �1 �.._� -�T I �i� 111111 MN,
PAAGE GE N O. . 1 144
N71
NI
\\$
0 400 800
GRAPHIC SCALE IN FEET
(° ENE N PROPOSED PROJECT SITE PLAN
\.� FOOTHILLS REGIONAL LANDFILL
FOR
��- REPUBLIC SERVICES OF NORTH CAROLINA, LLC
(OPERATOR)
CALDWELL COUNTY BOARD OF COMMISSIONERS
(OWNER)
C Aevvblic Services.lvc. (2015)
HODGES, HARBIN,
�i REPUBLIC NEWBERRY &TRs INC.
3920 ARKWRIGHT RD.
(478) 743 -7175 Consulting Engin eer -s SUITE 101
478 743.1703 AX N.C.Cv,p. Iece 4 C-08 13 MACON, GEORGIA 31210
SERVICES )
PROJ. NO. 6703 - 547 -01 (DWG. FH -BA IMPACT DWG( EDIT 4 -7 -15
SCALE 1 -400' FIGURE 1
DATE APRIL 2015
BM NO.
NORTHING
EASTING
ELEV.
DESCRIPTION
BM01
799643.44
1231999.02
1424.37
CONCRETE
PANEL
,\
BM02
798138.26
1231577.82
1240.37
CONCRETE
MONUMENT
\\
9003
797925.22
1231613.26
1237.16
CONCRETE
PANEL
\��
J
9004
799607.34
1229887.76
1173.47
CONCRETE
PANEL
NEW
800201.51
1231963.00
1450.44
CONCRETE
PANEL
COUNTY CONVENIENCE
CENTER
PROPOSED AREA FOR
WET DETENTION
r / 1 BASIN NO, 5
AREA C - PROPOSED BASIN NO. 5 \
WETLAND AND STREAM IMPACTS ~
f� \
�I
\\\
SEDIMENT ♦�♦
BASIN NO 2
rEXISTING CONSTRUCTED
WASTE FOOTPRINT
IN /F: CALDWELL COUNTY �� ✓ ��. �1 �.._� -�T I �i� 111111 MN,
PAAGE GE N O. . 1 144
N71
NI
\\$
0 400 800
GRAPHIC SCALE IN FEET
(° ENE N PROPOSED PROJECT SITE PLAN
\.� FOOTHILLS REGIONAL LANDFILL
FOR
��- REPUBLIC SERVICES OF NORTH CAROLINA, LLC
(OPERATOR)
CALDWELL COUNTY BOARD OF COMMISSIONERS
(OWNER)
C Aevvblic Services.lvc. (2015)
HODGES, HARBIN,
�i REPUBLIC NEWBERRY &TRs INC.
3920 ARKWRIGHT RD.
(478) 743 -7175 Consulting Engin eer -s SUITE 101
478 743.1703 AX N.C.Cv,p. Iece 4 C-08 13 MACON, GEORGIA 31210
SERVICES )
PROJ. NO. 6703 - 547 -01 (DWG. FH -BA IMPACT DWG( EDIT 4 -7 -15
SCALE 1 -400' FIGURE 1
DATE APRIL 2015

FIGURE 2: STREAM CROSSING NO. 1

REFERENCE NOTES:
1. TOPOGRAPHIC INFORMATION PROVIDED BY BEI AERIAL MAPPING, DATE
OF PHOTOGRAPHY, APRIL 5, 2004.
2. SURVEYS OF THE DELINEATED STREAMS AND WETLANDS WERE -��
PERFORMED AND PROVIDED BY WRIGHT AND FIELDS LAND SURVEYING IN\ \\
OCTOBER 2013.
3. THE AREAS SHOWN AS OBSERVED DWARF- FLOWERED HEARTLEAF
REPRESENT THE FINDINGS OF THE OBSERVATIONS PERFORMED BY \
GOLDER.
380
1370 PROPOSED RETAINING \, PROPOSED CONCRETE \\ \
WALL OR 1 H:1 V ARMORED
� -- -- � DROP INLET �
SLOPE (TYP.)_
1360 PROPOSED 20' WIDE
ACCESS ROAD \
1350 \\ tOo
1310 \ by
1340 / >
—� — X1300
� PROPOSED 24" DIA. 1290 • \\ �\ � \\
REINFORCED CONCRETE PIPE STREAM\IMPACT - 145 LF
/o
\ 121 LF @ 24.8 SLOPE - \
LIMITS OF EISTURBANCE
\PROPOSED CONCRETE + + + + + + + + + + + \ \ \\ wp \ \
_HEADWALL ELEV. 1276.00 + ... + + +
+ + + + + + LOCATION OF OBSERVED
JURISDICTIONAL + + + + + + + DWARF- FLOWERED
STREAM 6 + + + + + + + + + + HEARTLEAF (TYP.)
_ + + + + + + +
STREAM CROSSING NO. 1 - PLAN VIEW
FOOTHILLS LANDFILL 50 25 0 50
DATE: 3 -31 -15 GRAPHIC SCALE IN FEET

REFERENCE NOTES:
1. TOPOGRAPHIC INFORMATION PROVIDED BY BEI AERIAL MAPPING, DATE
OF PHOTOGRAPHY, APRIL 5, 2004.
2. SURVEYS OF THE DELINEATED STREAMS AND WETLANDS WERE
PERFORMED AND PROVIDED BY WRIGHT AND FIELDS LAND SURVEYING IN
OCTOBER 2013. i
3. THE AREAS SHOWN AS OBSERVED DWARF- FLOWERED HEARTLEAF
REPRESENT THE FINDINGS OF THE OBSERVATIONS PERFORMED BY \ • \
GOLDER.
137
136
0
_ 1350
\\ - • \\ \ \ I \ U
STREAM\IMPAICT = 145 LF \
+ + + + LIMITS OF DISTURBANCE
-- + + + + + + LOCATION OF OBSERVED
JURISDICTIONAL + + + + + + + DWARF- FLOWERED
STREAM 6 + + + ... + + + + + + HEARTLEAF (TYP.)
STREAM CROSSING NO. 1 - PLAN VIEW
FOOTHILLS LANDFILL 50 25 0 50
DATE: 3 -31 -15 GRAPHIC SCALE IN FEET

NOTE: CROSSING NO. 1 WIILL IMPACT 145 LF OF STREAM
PROPOSED CONCRETE
DROP INLET
STRUCTURAL FILL
PROPOSED 24" DIA. -_
REINFORCED CONCRETE PIPE
EXISTING GRADE
PROPOSED CONCRETE
HEADWALL ELEV. 1276.00
STREAM CROSSING NO. 1 - CROSS SECTION
FOOTHILLS LANDFILL 20 10 0 20
DATE: 3 -31 -15 GRAPHIC SCALE IN FEET

FIGURE 3: STREAM CROSSING NO.2

REFERENCE NOTES:
1. TOPOGRAPHIC INFORMATION PROVIDED BY COOPER AERIAL SURVEYS,
CO., DATE OF PHOTOGRAPHY, JANUARY 20, 2014. SUPPLEMENTED WITH
TOPOGRAPHIC INFORMATION PROVIDED BY BEI AERIAL MAPPING, DATE
OF PHOTOGRAPHY, APRIL 5, 2004.
2. SURVEYS OF THE JURISDICTIONAL STREAMS AND WETLANDS WERE
PERFORMED AND PROVIDED BY WRIGHT AND FIELDS LAND SURVEYING IN
OCTOBER 2013.
0
JURISDICTIONAL
STREAM 6
� Wr
PROPOSED CONCRETE
HEADWALL ELEV. 1200.00
WETLAND IMPACT = 0.022 AC
STREAM IMPACT = 43 LF
� III
X
I
PROPOSED 20' WIDE
ACCESS ROAD
LIMITS OF DISTURBANCE I
PREVIOUSLY
DELINEATED STREAM
(NO IMPACT PROPOSED)
PROPOSED 48" DIA.
11\
\ REINFORCED CONCRETE PIPE \ \ N
89 LF @ 6.74% SLOPE o
\\ PROPOSED CONCRETE
HEADWALL ELEV. 1194.00 `, A
\\
i
0 o
I
STREAM CROSSING NO. 2 - PLAN VIEW
FOOTHILLS LANDFILL
DATE: 4 -3 -15
50 25 0 50
GRAPHIC SCALE IN FEET

REFERENCE NOTES:
1. TOPOGRAPHIC INFORMATION PROVIDED BY COOPER AERIAL SURVEYS,
CO., DATE OF PHOTOGRAPHY, JANUARY 20, 2014. SUPPLEMENTED WITH
TOPOGRAPHIC INFORMATION PROVIDED BY BEI AERIAL MAPPING, DATE
OF PHOTOGRAPHY, APRIL 5, 2004.
2. SURVEYS OF THE JURISDICTIONAL STREAMS AND WETLANDS WERE
PERFORMED AND PROVIDED BY WRIGHT AND FIELDS LAND SURVEYING IN C
OCTOBER 2013.
\ �\� JURISDICTIONAL
STREAM 6
�A A
i
LIMITS OF DISTURBANCE
\\ `\ PREVIOUSLY
` \ \ DELINEATED STREAM
(NO IMPACT PROPOSED)
WETLAND IMPACT = 0.022 AC �\ /
STREAM IMPACT - 43 LF
CID
o
STREAM CROSSING NO. 2 - PLAN VIEW
FOOTHILLS LANDFILL
50 25 0 50
DATE: 4 -3 -15 GRAPHIC SCALE IN FEET

NOTE: CROSSING NO. 2 WILL IMPACT 43 LF OF STREAM
I I \VI % --- ✓ I�VI N\ll XL I L
HEADWALL ELEV. 1200.00
_0
PROPOSED 20' WIDE
ACCESS ROAD
PROPOSED 48" DIA /
REINFORCED CONCRETE PIPE
PROPOSED CONCRETE
HEADWALL ELEV. 1194.00
STREAM CROSSING NO. 2 - CROSS SECTION
FOOTHILLS LANDFILL
DATE: 3 -31 -15
)RAL FILL
10 5 0 10
GRAPHIC SCALE IN FEET

AGURE4,- BASIN NO.5 IMPACTS

REFERENCE NOTES:
1. TOPOGRAPHIC INFORMATION PROVIDED BY COOPER AERIAL SURVEYS,
CO., DATE OF PHOTOGRAPHY, JANUARY 20, 2014.
2. SURVEYS OF THE JURISDICTIONAL STREAMS AND WETLANDS WERE
PERFORMED AND PROVIDED BY WRIGHT AND FIELDS LAND SURVEYING IN
OCTOBER 2013.
DATE: 4 -3 -15
' 1
7
PACT = 0.053 AC \
STREAM IMPACT 473\ F�
PROPOSED BASIN
OVERFLOW STRUCTURE
0� STORMWATER PIPE
O � W
\ \1210
\ 122p EXISTING LANDFILL 12
ENTRANCE ROAD
� r F
BASIN NO. 5 IMPACTS - PLAN VIEW
FOOTHILLS LANDFILL
60 30 0 60
GRAPHIC SCALE IN FEET

FIGURE 5: TOPOGRAPHICAL MAP

/ter - - \•� -- i . _. i" �;':�'./ - l "i ,> . - [ l !• •.. MfOZI i7 i-Q)ii. •; -
r i
l
rl^ - -� r --�\ . �\ _ f � i a � � +' j�' - is `� - r i_ _ .\•. _ %f . -'•i'r i - -- `•I' -
7,
� POTENTIAL BORROW AREA
assy,l PROPERTY BOUNDARY `4
^A- ' - Iii � _ � - •i' /,
r4o0 FIR - - -_ - �; "`.• 'i `,
HjRf RD .1
� I' � •TOO' (,! f I z
/ Imo, r. .. I _ -- - — - %• +C'`- -_
LANDFILL a�agf` o�
Ahfi�gdon PROPERTY BOUNDARY,
•
•���.;� - � , q- `, [ " -, `•, �_ '�` ;tip (_ 2 p�s�Q `
4b r.
- .iCO -�_ 'i _•MWiETZFR
T Rti 'Rq A51NG TO
QN-
- - � � `-�; � i Q� � -- 1200 ,- _ -- `` _. '� -' p•� i'
f I 7' r �, \+ �" r /r • V '2�', �T"- -� I 171 R D R
LY, - ! Lenoir Quadrangle 2013
r
Figure 5 Potential Borrow Area
Foothills Regional Landfill
2,000 1,000 0 2,000 - HODGES, HARBIN,
Caldwell County, North Carolina NEWBERRY & TRIBBLE, INC.
GRAPHIC SCALE IN FEET Date: 4/6/2015 Consulting Engrnee"

FIGURE 6: COMBINED MAP OF POTENTIAL DWARF- FLOWERED HEARTLEAF
(HEXASTYLIS NANIFLORA)

Laodfill\Pmductloo \Hexnao Monitoona Points And Pmoosed Bon-
C) o A
S
N
0
m
m
m w
°o
Overeil Plan I Modified: rsmallev 0611312014 12:27 PM I Plotted: ramallev 06/13/2014
P
7.
` 100 -j
Ilk- 4
°ym
�DOcmm
O
0
N m m
m
z22 x
D
-0 m - :; c
O<m>,
m
D m
-lrz
m�mm�D
z
O
z
z> m
M
0
�..�
Z� O D
r
D m
X21
>
>zO
D
0
-n
mp
m�_c2DD
m
< m D c_n O`
g
(1)
o
n 5 m
z
m0
�Ocn
Ohm
D_
W-n
Ozm
W
WI
0 CD
cmc
C
�v
-< >O
N ° N
� C
O`z
zDz
OOH
a
T
C
G�
m
�D�
5 0
c D m
m z
m
�
Q)
T
N�
cimr
DD
j em_
Do
N
n
G)
=D- -
T
N
�m
mz° m
p
z
D
0
X
O
z
Z=
D
C) o A
S
N
0
m
m
m w
°o
Overeil Plan I Modified: rsmallev 0611312014 12:27 PM I Plotted: ramallev 06/13/2014
P
7.
` 100 -j
Ilk- 4
°ym
�DOcmm
O
D - z
m� O
N m m
m
z22 x
D
-0 m - :; c
O<m>,
N C
r <U)
, <
D m
-lrz
m�mm�D
N_<
O
z
z> m
p 0= z m
m=�u D O 0
7
N m
Z
p
Z� O D
a 0
C 2
0
O m m z
A
D
m
x0�cn
>v y�z1W
m
p
mp
m�_c2DD
m
D
�D
D -cn(D zcn
CO Gy
o
�G)
mt DO
p
Ohm
D_
pmF'U)O m
<
p
OD
Gov m W
A
D
C
m m o c�n�
M
> _<
C/)
D
�u
-00OC)
cn
O
m
�D
D D
Z O Or m O
�
Q)
�Dm W CO
m
D
z-i;u
� m p =
n
G)
=D- -
T
O
<
mz° m
p
z
- V :�
w
�.1
v
r
G)
m
z
Z1
N
m
(
0
N
°
O
Z
p
X
[n
O oo
°o
°
<
(n
z
o
z
p
O
o
�'m
o z
p
p
<
<
p
D
m
OW
C
G
p
D
Z
C
pC
c
D D
D
v W
r_
T
m
rD
z
D
Z
X
O
D rD
D
m z
z
U)
COO
C/)
CO
i

APPENDIX 1: STREAM AND WETLAND INVESTIGATION REPORT
BY DIEFFENBAUCH & HRITZ

DIEFFENBAUCH & HRITZ
November 22, 2013
Mr. Bill Hodges, P.E.
Professional Engineer
Hodges, Harbin, Newberry & Tribble, Inc.
3920 Arkwright Road, Suite 101
Macon, 31210
RE: Stream and Wetland Investigation
Potential Borrow Areas
Foothills Regional Landfill
Caldwell County, North Carolina
Dear Mr. Hodges:
DIEFFENBAUCH & HRITZ, PLLC
543 Keisler Drive, Suite 104
Cary, NC 27518
Office: 919-615 -1758
Fax: [phone]
Per your request, Dieffenbauch & Hritz (D &H) performed a Stream and Wetland Delineation for the
Proposed Borrow Areas for the Foothills Regional Landfill in order to determine the location and extent
of jurisdictional waters of the United States (WOUS) and jurisdictional waters of the state (WOS) of
North Carolina (NC), within the confines of the limits of investigation (LOI). D &H also completed a
protected species habitat evaluation within the LOI. Field work was completed on August 23 and
August 28 -30, 2013.
The LOI, also referred to as the site, is located north of Cheraw Road (SR 1301) in Caldwell County,
NC. The LOI includes three tracts of land adjacent to the existing landfill facility. The approximately
105 acre tract is north of the existing landfill, the approximate 30 acre tract is northeast of the existing
landfill, and the approximate 4 acre tract is southeast of the existing landfill.
The stream and wetland delineation concluded that 11 wetlands and 13 streams are located within the
LOI. The delineated features identified within the LOI are considered jurisdictional WOUS.
Potential areas of suitable habitat for dwarf- flowered heartleaf was observed on the three parcels of
the site. These areas generally included slopes of hillsides (predominantly north facing) and ravines,
slopes along streams, and moist areas along streams.

We thank you for the opportunity to provide environmental services for this project. Should you have
any questions or concerns regarding the results of this investigation, please do not hesitate to contact
me atjwitherspoon @dandhengineers.com.
Very truly yours,
DIEFFENBAUCH & HRITZ, PLLC
Josh Witherspoon
Environmental Scientist
Dieffenbauch & Hritz 2

STREAM AND WETLAND INVESTIGATION
for the
POTENTIAL BORROW AREAS
FOOTHILLS REGIONAL LANDFILL
Caldwell County, North Carolina
Prepared for:
f
H 0DGES. HARBIN,
NEW-BERRY & Tmimf.. INC.
Hodges, Harbin, Newberry & Tribble, Inc.
3920 Arkwright Road, Suite 101
Macon, Georgia 31210
Prepared by:
DIEFFENBAUCH & HRITZ
543 Keisler Drive, Suite 104
Cary, North Carolina 27518
November 2013

TABLE OF CONTENTS
Introduction............................................................................................ ..............................1
Scopeof Services ..................................................................................
..............................1
Methodology..........................................................................................
..............................1
LimitingConditions .................................................................................
..............................3
SiteLocation ..........................................................................................
..............................3
Review of Background Information .........................................................
..............................3
SiteDescription ......................................................................................
..............................4
DelineationResults ................................................................................
..............................5
Protected Species Habitat Evaluation ...................................................
.............................15
Conclusions..........................................................................................
.............................16
LiteratureCited .....................................................................................
.............................17
ATTACHMENTS
Wetland Determination Data Forms ..................................................... ............................... A
SiteLocation Map ................................................................................ ............................... B
USGSTopographic Map ...................................................................... ............................... C
AerialPhotograph ................................................................................ ............................... D
NWIMap ............................................................................................. ............................... E
FEMAFIRM ........................................................................................... ..............................F
NRCSSoils Data ................................................................................. ............................... G
SitePhotographs ................................................................................. ............................... H
Limits of Delineation Plan ........................................................................ ..............................I
Protected Species Habitat Areas ........................................................... ............................... J

LIST OF ABBREVIATIONS AND ACRONYMS
AOI
Area of Interest
D &H
Dieffenbauch & Hritz
FAC
Facultative
FACU
Facultative Upland
FACW
Facultative Wetland
FEMA
Federal Emergency Management Administration
FIRM
Flood Insurance Rate Map
LOI
Limits of Investigation
NCDENR
N.C. Department of Environment and Natural Resources
NCNHP
N.C. Natural Heritage Program
NRCS
Natural Resources Conservation Service
NWI
National Wetland Inventory
OBL
Obligate
OHWM
Ordinary High Water Mark
PEM
Palustrine Emergent
PFO
Palustrine Forested
PSS
Palustrine Scrub -Shrub
RPW
Relatively Permanent Water
TNW
Traditional Navigable Water
UPL
Upland
USACE
US Army Corps of Engineers
USFWS
US Fish and Wildlife Service
USGS
US Geologic Survey
UT
Unnamed Tributary
WOS
Waters of the State
WOUS
Waters of the United States

DIEFFENBAUCH & HRITZ
DIEFFENBAUCH & HRITZ, PLLC
543 Keisler Drive, Suite 104
Cary, NC 27518
Office: 919 - 615 -1758
Fax: 919 - 615 -2627
Introduction
Environmental Scientists from Dieffenbauch & Hritz (D &H) visited the proposed Potential Borrow Areas
at the Foothills Regional Landfill on August 23 and August 28 — 30, in order to observe and document
any stream and /or wetland areas located within the limits of investigation (LOI) (Attachment A). The
LOI, also referred to as the site, includes three tracts of land adjacent to the existing landfill facility. The
approximately 105 acre tract is north of the existing landfill, the approximate 30 acre tract is northeast
of the existing landfill, and the approximate 4 acre tract is southeast of the existing landfill.
SCODe of Services
The purpose of this investigation was to determine the presence of jurisdictional waters of the United
States (WOUS) and jurisdictional waters of the state (WOS) of North Carolina (NC) within the confines
of the site. This report is intended to be utilized as a tool in the planning and design of the project in
order to avoid and minimize impacts to these resources.
Methodology
The Wetland Delineation is performed according to the routine method as described in the U.S. Army
Corps of Engineers' Wetland Delineation Manual, Technical Report Y -87- 1(1987) and the 2012 Interim
Regional Supplement: Eastern Mountains and Piedmont Region (Version 2.0). Soil survey
information, aerial photographs, floodplain maps, National Wetland Inventory (NWI) maps, topographic
maps, and site plans were reviewed prior to the field investigation in order to gain an understanding of
potential stream and wetland locations.
The field investigation consists of a site walkover and collection of data at sample plots within the LOI.
Generally speaking, samples are obtained any time the site ecology changes significantly, or if an area
exhibits wetland characteristics. A representative wetland and associated upland data point are
collected in order to document soil, vegetation, and hydrologic changes that occur throughout the site.
In addition, data is collected within representative areas of interest (AOI) in order to document general
ecology found within these areas. Soil descriptions as well as documentation of vegetation and
hydrology are collected at each sample plot location. Data collected at each sample plot is utilized to
complete the Wetland Determination Data Forms which are included in Attachment A.
Dieffenbauch & Hritz
I

Vegetation is analyzed in the following manner: At sample plots, dominant plant species are visually
selected, categorized, and recorded in the order of decreasing dominance. Vegetation within the tree,
sapling /shrub, woody vine, and herbaceous stratums is documented. After the dominant plants are
listed and categorized, the indicator status of the dominant species is assigned. Plant indicator
statuses are obtained from the Eastern Mountains and Piedmont 2012 Final Regional Wetland Plant
List. By using this method, it is determined if the vegetation is hydrophytic or upland. To determine
that hydrophytic vegetation is present, greater than 50 percent of the plant species, in a given
community, must be facultative (FAC), facultative wetland (FACW), and /or obligate wetland (OBL), as
opposed to being facultative upland (FACU) or upland (UPL), and /or other indicators must be present.
A determination is not based on the presence of scattered individuals that do not contribute a controlling
influence on the overall plant community.
Each sample plot is analyzed for indicators of wetland hydrology. Indicators of wetland hydrology may
include: drainage patterns, drift lines, sediment deposition, water - marks, stream gauge data and flood
predictions, historic records, visual observation of saturated soils, and visual observations of
inundation. Any of these indicators may be evidence of wetland hydrologic characteristics. Recorded
data are usually only available for areas adjacent to well -known streams; therefore, the use of recorded
data is generally limited. For this reason, D &H normally relies on field observations to determine if
indicators of wetland hydrology are present. When relying on visual observations, one primary indicator
or two secondary indicators of wetland hydrology must be present.
Soils are assessed to determine if hydric soils are present. Indicators of hydric soils may include:
organic soils, histic epipedons, sulfidic material, aquic or peraquic moisture regime, reducing soil
conditions, soil colors, soil appearing on hydric soils list, or iron and manganese concretions. Under
normal circumstances, D &H relies on field observations to determine if hydric soils are present by
performing shallow soil probes (18" or refusal) and visually inspecting soil profiles with the aid of a
Munsell Soil Color Book. D &H specifically looks for the presence of gleyed soils, soils with bright
mottles and /or low matrix chroma, or iron and manganese concretions in the horizon immediately
below the A- horizon or 10 inches (whichever is shallower), since these characteristics are generally
the most common indicators of hydric soils.
Wetlands, when observed, are demarcated in the field using orange and pink roll flagging. Streams
are demarcated using pink and blue roll flagging. The delineated features will be surveyed by others.
Dieffenbauch & Hritz

The figures included in this report depict the approximate extents and locations of the delineated
features.
Limiting Conditions
Our scope of services did not include an investigation to determine the presence of historic structures
or archeological sites, hydro - geologic services, or a floodplain study. It is important to note that
environmental evaluations are inherently limited in that conclusions are drawn and recommendations
are developed from information obtained from limited research and site evaluation. This study is based
upon an examination of the habitat conditions of the site at the time of the walkover. It should be
understood that habitat conditions are constantly changing and that future investigations could reveal
altered conditions. This report describes the results of wetland and stream identifications within the
limits of the project as presented to us. Should any changes occur in the limits of the project, proximity
to delineated resources should be re- evaluated.
Site Location
The site is located north of Cheraw Road (SR 1301) northeast of the intersection of Cheraw Road and
Abington Road (SR 1310) in the community of Abingdon northwest of Lenoir in Caldwell County, NC,
as shown on the Site Location Map included in Attachment B.
Review of Backqround Information
Available sources of relevant background information were reviewed prior to conducting the field
survey. These sources included aerial photographs, U.S. Geological Survey (USGS) topographic
maps, NWI maps, Federal Emergency Management Administration (FEMA) Flood Insurance Rate
Maps (FIRM), and local soil survey maps.
A topographic map is a large scale detail and representation of relief of a landscape. A topographic
map shows both natural and manmade features. D &H utilizes the original USGS topographic map
series (1945- 1994), as recent digital topographic maps omit important features. The USGS 7.5 minute
series topographic map (Lenoir, NC) shows the LOI as located on undeveloped forested ridgelines
with steep slopes down to valleys. A trail is shown as transecting the southern central portion of the
105 -acre tract and a trail transecting the southern portion of the 4 -acre tract. No structures are shown
within or adjacent to the site. A copy of the map is provided as Attachment C.
Dieffenbauch & Hritz

Aerial imagery is low altitude photography of the landscape provided by both government and private
sources. Aerial photographs can be utilized to determine existing land use and ground cover. A 2012
aerial photograph shows the site as predominately vegetated by a mixed hardwood forest and mixed
hardwood /pine forest. The aerial photograph is included as Attachment D.
NWI maps are prepared by stereoscopic analysis of high - altitude aerial photographs. Wetlands are
identified based on vegetation, visible hydrology, and topography. NWI maps provide a useful source
of background information on potential wetland locations, but should not be relied upon as the only
source to determine the presence or absence of wetlands on a site. Wetland areas are not depicted
on the NWI mapping. A copy of the NWI map excerpt covering the site is provided as Attachment E.
Flood zones are geographic areas defined according to varying levels of flood risk by FEMA. Based
on the FIRM depicting the site (Map 370272007101869 and Map 370272007101856), the LOI is not
located within a flood hazard area. A FIRM depicting the LOI is enclosed as Attachment F.
Soil maps are the result of a soil survey inventory and typically show only general distribution of soils,
accompanied by the soil survey report. A review of the online soil maps provided by the Natural
Resources Conservation Service (NRCS) was performed. The principal mapped soil types within the
LOI include: Chestnut- Buladean complex (ChF), Evard -Cowee complex (EvE), Hayesville loam (HeD),
Tate - French, occasionally flooded complex (TfC), and Udorthents, sanitary landfill (UdE). Review of
the soil survey indicates that the Tate - French complex, which is located in the central western portion
of the 105 -acre tract, is listed as partially hydric. The soil survey map and detailed soil unit information
is included as Attachment G.
Site Description
The site is located near the Abingdon community northwest of Lenoir in central Caldwell County, NC.
The 105 -acre tract is predominately mature forest. An unimproved dirt road transects the central
portion of the tract. The general topography of the tract consists of ridgelines with steep slopes down
to valleys. Surface water on this tract generally flows southwest to an unnamed tributary (UT) of
Abingdon Creek.
The 30 -acre tract includes areas of mature forest, areas of regenerating forest, and a cleared, sparsley
vegetated area in the central portion of the tract. An unimproved dirt road transects the tract generally
west to east. The general topography consists of ridgelines with steep slopes down to valleys. Several
Dieffenbauch & Hritz

erosion gullies are located in the central and southern portions of the tract. Surface water on this tract
flows to the northeast and southwest to UTs of Greasy Creek
The 4 -acre tract includes mature forested areas, areas of regenerating forest, and maintained
powerline easement. The entrance road to the existing landfill transects the southern portion of the
tract. The general site topography consists of moderately steep to steep slopes down to valleys.
Surface water on this tract generally flows southwest to an UT of Abingdon Creek. No structures were
observed within the LOI. Photographs of the site are included as Attachment H.
Delineation Results
The U.S. Army Corps of Engineers' Wetland Delineation Manual, Technical Report Y -87 -1 (1987)
defines a wetland as an area characterized by hydrophytic vegetation, wetland hydrology, and hydric
soils. Evidence of each of these three parameters must be present to identify an area as a wetland.
On this basis, eleven (11) wetlands were identified within the LOI. Thirteen (13) streams were also
identified within the LOI. The delineated features identified within the LOI are considered jurisdictional
WOUS. Delineated streams and wetlands are individually discussed below. Mapping of these features
are included as Attachment I (Limits of Delineation Plan). Tables 1 through 3 below summarize the
delineation flagging sequences for each parcel.
105 -Acre Tract
Stream 1 (Photograph 1) is a relatively permanent water (RPW) with intermittent and perennial flow
located in the southern central portion of the tract. Stream 1 was delineated with two flagging
sequences, SWA and SDA. The two flagging sequences were used because two delineators each
flagged portions of the channel. Hydrology is sustained by precipitation, runoff from the surrounding
uplands, and groundwater discharge. The stream ranges from two to eight feet wide, has a four to six
inch ordinary high water mark (OHWM), with sand /gravel /cobble and bedrock substrates.
Approximately three to six inches of water was observed in the stream. Stream 1 flows west exiting
the southeast limit of the LOI. The stream exhibits a significant nexus with an UT to Abingdon Creek,
which has a significant nexus to the Johns River /Lake Rhodiss, a traditional navigable water (TNW),
and is therefore considered a jurisdictional WOUS.
Stream 2 (Photograph 2) is a RPW with intermittent and perennial flow located in the central portion of
the tract. Stream 2 was delineated with two flagging sequences, SWB and SWG. The two flagging
sequences were used because additional flags were added from the upstream portion of the channel.
Dieffenbauch & Hritz

Hydrology is sustained by precipitation, runoff from the surrounding uplands, and groundwater
discharge. The stream ranges from two to six feet wide, has a four to six inch OHWM, with
sand /gravel /cobble and bedrock substrates. Approximately two to four inches of water was observed
in the stream. Stream 2 flows southwest to its confluence with Stream 1 within the limits of the LOI.
The stream exhibits a significant nexus with a UT to Abingdon Creek, which has a significant nexus to
the Johns River /Lake Rhodiss, a TNW, and is therefore considered a jurisdictional WOUS.
Stream 3 (Photograph 3) is a RPW with intermittent and perennial flow located in the western central
portion of the tract. Stream 3 was delineated with flagging sequence SWC. Hydrology is sustained by
precipitation, runoff from the surrounding uplands, and groundwater discharge. The stream ranges
from two to six feet wide, has a four to six inch OHWM, with sand /gravel /cobble and bedrock substrates.
Approximately two to four inches of water was observed in the stream. Stream 3 flows generally south
to its confluence with Stream 1 within the limits of the LOI. The stream exhibits a significant nexus with
an UT to Abingdon Creek, which has a significant nexus to the Johns River /Lake Rhodiss, a TNW, and
is therefore considered a jurisdictional WOUS.
Stream 4 (Photograph 4) is a RPW with intermittent flow located in the western central portion of the
tract. Stream 4 was delineated with flagging sequence SWD. Hydrology is sustained by precipitation,
runoff from the surrounding uplands, and groundwater discharge. The stream ranges from two to four
feet wide, has a three to five inch OHWM, with gravel /cobble and bedrock substrates. Approximately
one to two inches of water was observed in the stream. Stream 4 flows generally south to its
confluence with Stream 5 within the limits of the LOI. The stream exhibits a significant nexus with an
UT to Abingdon Creek, which has a significant nexus to the Johns River /Lake Rhodiss, a TNW, and is
therefore considered a jurisdictional WOUS.
Stream 5 (Photograph 5) is a RPW with intermittent flow located in the western central portion of the
tract. Stream 5 was delineated with flagging sequence SWE. Hydrology is sustained by precipitation,
runoff from the surrounding uplands, and groundwater discharge. The stream ranges from two to four
feet wide, has a three to five inch OHWM, with gravel /cobble and bedrock substrates. Approximately
one to two inches of water was observed in the stream. Stream 5 flows generally southwest to its
confluence with Stream 3 within the limits of the LOI. The stream exhibits a significant nexus with an
UT to Abingdon Creek, which has a significant nexus to the Johns River /Lake Rhodiss, a TNW, and is
therefore considered a jurisdictional WOUS.
Dieffenbauch & Hritz

Stream 6 (Photograph 6) is a RPW with intermittent and perennial flow located in the southern central
portion of the tract. Stream 6 was delineated with flagging sequence SWF. Hydrology is sustained by
precipitation, runoff from the surrounding uplands, and groundwater discharge. The stream ranges
from two to eight feet wide, has a four to six inch OHWM, with sand /gravel /cobble and bedrock
substrates. Approximately two to four inches of water was observed in the stream. Stream 6 flows
generally west exiting the southeast limit of the LOI. The stream exhibits a significant nexus with an
UT to Abingdon Creek, which has a significant nexus to the Johns River /Lake Rhodiss, a TNW, and is
therefore considered a jurisdictional WOUS.
Stream 7 (Photograph 7) is a RPW with intermittent flow located in the central portion of the tract.
Stream 7 was delineated with flagging sequence SWH. Hydrology is sustained by precipitation, runoff
from the surrounding uplands, and seasonal groundwater discharge. The stream ranges from two to
four feet wide, has a one to two inch OHWM, with gravel /cobble and bedrock substrates.
Approximately less than one inch of water was observed in some of the pools in the stream. Stream
7 flows generally southwest towards Stream 2. The stream exhibits a significant nexus with an UT to
Abingdon Creek through overland flow to Stream 2, which has a significant nexus to the Johns
River /Lake Rhodiss, a TNW, and is therefore considered a jurisdictional WOUS.
Wetland 1 (Photograph 8) is a palustrine forested (PFO) wetland abutting the south side of Stream 1
in the western central portion of the tract. Wetland 1 was delineated with flagging sequence WA. The
vegetation in the wetland is dominated by American elm (Ulmus americans), cinnamon fern (Osmunda
cinnamomea), Christmas fern (Polystichum acrostichoides), and giant cane (Arundinaria gigantea).
The composition of hydrophytic plant species in this wetland is 100 percent, thereby meeting the
USACE criterion for wetland vegetation. The soil in Wetland 1 exhibits a low chroma matrix with
prominent redoximorphic concentrations starting within four inches of the soil surface. Also, portions of
this wetland are located in an area listed as having partially hydric soil (TfC). These characteristics are
evidence that the soil in the wetland is saturated and /or inundated for a duration sufficient to promote
anaerobic conditions, thereby meeting the depleted matrix hydric soil criterion. Wetland hydrology is
sustained by flow from Stream 1, a seasonally shallow ground water table, overland flow from the
adjacent upland, and precipitation. At the time of the investigation, the wetland was saturated to the
soil surface. Documented secondary indicators include enough dominant plants with either an obligate
(OBL) or facultative -wet (FACW) indicator status to meet the criterion for the FAC- neutral test, and
visible crayfish borrows. These findings demonstrate that this site has sufficient saturation and /or
inundation during the growing season to satisfy the wetland hydrology criterion. Wetland 1 abuts
Dieffenbauch & Hritz

Stream 1 and exhibits a significant nexus with the stream and is therefore considered a jurisdictional
WOUS.
Wetland 2 (Photograph 9) is a PFO wetland abutting Stream 3 in the western central portion of the
tract. Wetland 2 was delineated with flagging sequence WB. The vegetation in the wetland is
dominated by American elm, cinnamon fern, Christmas fern, and giant cane. The composition of
hydrophytic plant species in this wetland is 100 percent, thereby meeting the USACE criterion for
wetland vegetation. The soil in Wetland 2 exhibits a low chroma matrix with prominent redoximorphic
concentrations starting within four inches of the soil surface. Also, portions of this wetland are located
in an area listed as having partially hydric soil (TfC). These characteristics are evidence that the soil in
the wetland is saturated and /or inundated for a duration sufficient to promote anaerobic conditions,
thereby meeting the depleted matrix hydric soil criterion. Wetland hydrology is sustained by flow from
Stream 3, a seasonally shallow ground water table, overland flow from the adjacent upland, and
precipitation. At the time of the investigation, the wetland was saturated to the soil surface with
approximately one inch of water at the surface within portions of the wetland. A spring /seep was
observed within the delineated area. Documented secondary indicators include enough dominant
plants with either an OBL or FACW indicator status to meet the criterion for the FAC- neutral test, and
visible crayfish borrows. These findings demonstrate that this site has sufficient saturation and /or
inundation during the growing season to satisfy the wetland hydrology criterion. Wetland 2 abuts
Stream 3 and exhibits a significant nexus with the stream and is therefore considered a jurisdictional
WOUS.
Wetland 3 (Photographs 10) is a PFO wetland abutting Stream 3 in the western central portion of the
tract. Wetland 3 was delineated with flagging sequence WC. The vegetation in the wetland is
dominated by American sycamore (Platanus occidentalis), red maple (Acer rubrum), tulip poplar
(Lidodendron tulipifera), microstegium (Microstegium vimineum), spotted touch -me -not (Impatiens
capensis), giant cane, and Christmas fern. The composition of hydrophytic plant species in this wetland
is 100 percent, thereby meeting the USACE criterion for wetland vegetation. The soil in Wetland 3
exhibits a low chroma matrix with prominent redoximorphic concentrations starting within four inches
of the soil surface. Also, portions of this wetland are located in an area listed as having partially hydric
soil (TfC). These characteristics are evidence that the soil in the wetland is saturated and /or inundated
for a duration sufficient to promote anaerobic conditions, thereby meeting the depleted matrix hydric
soil criterion. Wetland hydrology is sustained by flow from Stream 3, a seasonally shallow ground
water table, overland flow from the adjacent upland, and precipitation. At the time of the investigation,
Dieffenbauch & Hritz

the wetland was saturated to the soil surface with approximately one inch of water at the surface within
portions of the wetland. A spring /seep was observed within the delineated area. Documented
secondary indicators include enough dominant plants with either an OBL or FACW indicator status to
meet the criterion for the FAC- neutral test, and visible crayfish borrows. These findings demonstrate
that this site has sufficient saturation and /or inundation during the growing season to satisfy the wetland
hydrology criterion. Wetland 3 abuts Stream 3 and exhibits a significant nexus with the stream and is
therefore considered a jurisdictional WOUS.
Wetland 4 (Photograph 11) is a PFO wetland abutting Stream 6 in southern portion of the tract.
Wetland 4 was delineated with flagging sequence WD. The vegetation in the wetland is dominated by
American sycamore, red maple, tulip poplar, microstegium, spotted touch -me -not, and giant cane. The
composition of hydrophytic plant species in this wetland is 100 percent, thereby meeting the USACE
criterion for wetland vegetation. The soil in Wetland 4 exhibits a low chroma matrix with prominent
redoximorphic concentrations starting within four inches of the soil surface. These characteristics are
evidence that the soil in the wetland is saturated and /or inundated for a duration sufficient to promote
anaerobic conditions, thereby meeting the depleted matrix hydric soil criterion. Wetland hydrology is
sustained by flow from Stream 6, a seasonally shallow ground water table, overland flow from the
adjacent upland, and precipitation. At the time of the investigation, the wetland was saturated to the
soil surface with approximately one inch of water at the surface within portions of the wetland.
Documented secondary indicators include enough dominant plants with either an OBL or FACW
indicator status to meet the criterion for the FAC - neutral test, and visible crayfish borrows. These
findings demonstrate that this site has sufficient saturation and /or inundation during the growing season
to satisfy the wetland hydrology criterion. Wetland 4 abuts Stream 6 and exhibits a significant nexus
with the stream and is therefore considered a jurisdictional WOUS.
Dieffenbauch & Hritz

Table 1. Jurisdictional Delineation Flagging Sequence for the 105 -Acre Parcel.
Delineated Streams
Stream ID
Flag Numbers
I Notes
1
SWA 1 — 77 &
SWA -66 = SWB -1; SWA -77 = SDA -14
— 5
SDA 1 -14
2
2
SWB 1 — 50 &
SWB -50 = SWG -28
3
SWG 1 -28
— 10
3
SWC 1 -55
SWC -1 = SDA -10; SWC -9 = WB -1 & SWC -7.5 = WB -4; SWC -28 =
—6
Wetland 4 is at the end of Stream 6 at the study area boundary
WC -1 & SWC -30 = WC -4; SWC -47 = SWD -1; SWC -54 = SWE -1
4
SWD 1 -6
SWD -1 = SWC -47
5
SWE 1 -5
SWE -1 = SWC -54
6
SWF 1 - —50
Wetland 4 is at the end of Stream 6 near study area boundary
7
SWH 1 — 10
SWH -10 connects to Stream 2 via overland flow
Delineated Wetlands
Wetland ID
I Flag
Numbers
I Notes
1
WA 1
— 5
WA -1 on south side of Stream 1 between SWA -63 and SWA -64
2
WB 1
— 4
WB -1 = SWC -9 & WB -4 = SWC -7.5
3
WC 1
— 10
WC -10 on stream bank across from SWC -26
4
WD 1
—6
Wetland 4 is at the end of Stream 6 at the study area boundary
30 -Acre Tract
Stream 8 (Photograph 12) is a RPW with perennial flow located in the southwestern corner of the tract.
Stream 8 was delineated with two flagging sequences, SWI and SDB. The stream channel has two
flagging sequences because two delineators each flagged portions of the channel. Hydrology is
sustained by precipitation, runoff from the surrounding uplands, and groundwater discharge. The
stream ranges from two to eight feet wide, has a four to six inch OHWM, with sand /gravel /cobble and
bedrock substrates. Approximately three to six inches of water was observed in the stream. Stream
8 flows south exiting the southwestern limit of the LOI. The stream exhibits a significant nexus with an
UT to Greasy Creek, which has a significant nexus to the Johns River /Lake Rhodiss, a TNW, and is
therefore considered a jurisdictional WOUS.
Stream 9 (Photograph 13) is a RPW with intermittent and perennial flow located in the northeastern
portion of the tract. Stream 9 was delineated with flagging sequence SWJ. Hydrology is sustained by
precipitation, runoff from the surrounding uplands, and groundwater discharge. The stream ranges
from two to six feet wide, has a four to six inch OHWM, with sand /gravel /cobble and bedrock substrates.
Approximately two to four inches of water was observed in the stream. Stream 9 flows east exiting the
eastern limit of the LOI. The stream exhibits a significant nexus with a UT to Greasy Creek, which has
a significant nexus to the Johns River /Lake Rhodiss, a TNW, and is therefore considered a jurisdictional
WOUS.
Dieffenbauch & Hritz

Wetland 5 (Photograph 14) is a palustrine scrub -shrub (PSS) wetland abutting Stream 8 in the
southwestern corner of the tract. Wetland 5 was delineated with flagging sequence WE. The
vegetation in the wetland is dominated by green ash (Fraxinus pennsylvanica), silky dogwood (Cornus
amomum), microstegium, and giant cane. The composition of hydrophytic plant species in this wetland
is 100 percent, thereby meeting the USACE criterion for wetland vegetation. The soil in Wetland 5
exhibits a low chroma matrix with prominent redoximorphic concentrations starting within one inch of
the soil surface. These characteristics are evidence that the soil in the wetland is saturated and /or
inundated for a duration sufficient to promote anaerobic conditions, thereby meeting the depleted
matrix hydric soil criterion. Wetland hydrology is sustained by flow from Stream 8, a seasonally shallow
ground water table, overland flow from the adjacent upland, and precipitation. At the time of the
investigation, the wetland was saturated to the soil surface. Documented secondary indicators include
enough dominant plants with either an OBL or FACW indicator status to meet the criterion for the FAC-
neutral test, and visible crayfish borrows. These findings demonstrate that this site has sufficient
saturation and /or inundation during the growing season to satisfy the wetland hydrology criterion.
Wetland 5 abuts Stream 8 and exhibits a significant nexus with the stream and is therefore considered
a jurisdictional WOUS.
Wetlands 6 & 7 (Photograph 15) are palustrine emergent (PEM) wetlands abutting Stream 9 in the
northeastern portion of the tract. Wetland 6 was delineated with flagging sequence WF and Wetland
7 with flagging sequence WG. The vegetation in these wetlands is dominated by microstegium,
stinging nettle (Urtica dioica), and false - nettle (Boehmeria cylindrical). The composition of hydrophytic
plant species in this wetland is 100 percent, thereby meeting the USACE criterion for wetland
vegetation. The soils in Wetlands 6 and 7 exhibit a low chroma matrix with prominent redoximorphic
concentrations starting within three inches of the soil surface. These characteristics are evidence that
the soils in the wetlands are saturated and /or inundated for a duration sufficient to promote anaerobic
conditions, thereby meeting the depleted matrix hydric soil criterion. Wetland hydrology is sustained
by flow from Stream 9, a seasonally shallow ground water table, overland flow from the adjacent
upland, and precipitation. At the time of the investigation, the wetlands were saturated to the soil
surface. Documented secondary indicators include enough dominant plants with either an OBL or
FACW indicator status to meet the criterion for the FAC- neutral test, and visible crayfish borrows.
These findings demonstrate that these sites have sufficient saturation and /or inundation during the
growing season to satisfy the wetland hydrology criterion. Wetlands 6 and 7 abut Stream 9 and exhibit
a significant nexus with the stream and are therefore considered a jurisdictional WOUS.
Dieffenbauch & Hritz

Table 2. Jurisdictional Delineation Flagging Sequence for the 30 -Acre Parcel.
Delineated Streams
Stream ID I Flag Numbers Notes
8 SWI 1-7& SWI -1 across from WE -6; SDB -8 = WE -6;
SDB 1 - 8
9 SWJ 1 — 31
Wetland ID Flag Numbers
5 WE1 -13
6 WF1 -8
7 WG1 -9
SWJ -1 near the study area boundary
Delineated Wetlands
Notes
WE -1 ties to WE -13; WE -1 /SDB -8
WF -1 ties to WF -8, Stream 9 flows through Wetland 6
WG -1 ties to WG -9; WG -9 = SWJ -27; Stream 9 flows through
Wetland 7
4 -Acre Tract
Stream 10 (Photograph 16) is a RPW with intermittent and perennial flow located in the northern portion
of the tract. Stream 10 was delineated with flagging sequence SWA. Hydrology is sustained by
precipitation, runoff from the surrounding uplands, and groundwater discharge. The stream ranges
from two to six feet wide, has a four to six inch OHWM, with sand /gravel /cobble and bedrock substrates.
Approximately four to six inches of water was observed in the stream. Stream 10 flows south to a
culvert that is piped underneath the entrance road to the existing landfill. The stream exhibits a
significant nexus with an UT to Abingdon Creek, which has a significant nexus to the Johns River /Lake
Rhodiss, a TNW, and is therefore considered a jurisdictional WOUS.
Stream 11 (Photograph 17) is a RPW with intermittent flow located in the northern portion of the tract.
Stream 11 was delineated with flagging sequence SWB. Hydrology is sustained by precipitation, runoff
from the surrounding uplands, and groundwater discharge. The stream ranges from two to three feet
wide, has a one to two inch OHWM, with sand and gravel substrates. Approximately one to two inches
of water was observed in the stream. Stream 11 flows south to its confluence with Stream 10. The
stream exhibits a significant nexus with an UT to Abingdon Creek, which has a significant nexus to the
Johns River /Lake Rhodiss, a TNW, and is therefore considered a jurisdictional WOUS.
Stream 12 (Photograph 18) is a RPW with intermittent and perennial flow located in the central portion
of the tract. Stream 12 was delineated with flagging sequence SWC. Hydrology is sustained by
precipitation, runoff from the surrounding uplands, discharge from Wetland 11, and groundwater
discharge. The stream ranges from two to six feet wide, has a four to six inch OHWM, with
sand /gravel /cobble and bedrock substrates. Approximately four to six inches of water was observed
in the stream. Stream 12 flows east to its confluence with Stream 10 and a culvert that is piped
underneath the entrance road to the existing landfill. The stream exhibits a significant nexus with an
Dieffenbauch & Hritz

UT to Abingdon Creek, which has a significant nexus to the Johns River /Lake Rhodiss, a TNW, and is
therefore considered a jurisdictional WOUS
Stream 13 (Photograph 19) is a RPW with perennial flow located in the southern portion of the tract.
Stream 13 was delineated with flagging sequence SWD. Hydrology is sustained by precipitation, runoff
from the surrounding uplands, and groundwater discharge. The stream ranges from four to ten feet
wide, has an eight to ten inch OHWM, with sand /gravel /cobble substrates. Approximately twelve
inches of water was observed in the stream. Stream 13 begins at the discharge of a culvert that is
piped underneath the entrance road to the existing landfill Stream 13 flows southwest exiting the
southwest limit of the LOI. The stream exhibits a significant nexus with an UT to Abingdon Creek,
which has a significant nexus to the Johns River /Lake Rhodiss, a TNW, and is therefore considered a
jurisdictional WOUS.
Wetlands 8 & 9 (Photograph 20) are PFO wetlands abutting Stream 10 in the northern portion of the
tract. Wetland 8 was delineated with flagging sequence WA and Wetland 9 with flagging sequence
WB. The vegetation in the wetland is dominated by American sycamore, red maple, microstegium,
and spotted touch -me -not. The composition of hydrophytic plant species in these wetlands is 100
percent, thereby meeting the USACE criterion for wetland vegetation. The soils in Wetlands 8 and 9
exhibit a low chroma matrix with prominent redoximorphic concentrations starting within four inches of
the soil surface. These characteristics are evidence that the soils in the wetlands are saturated and /or
inundated for a duration sufficient to promote anaerobic conditions, thereby meeting the depleted
matrix hydric soil criterion. Wetland hydrology is sustained by flow from Stream 10, a seasonally
shallow ground water table, overland flow from the adjacent upland, and precipitation. At the time of
the investigation, the wetlands were saturated to the soil surface. Documented secondary indicators
include enough dominant plants with either an OBL or FACW indicator status to meet the criterion for
the FAC- neutral test, and visible crayfish borrows. These findings demonstrate that this site has
sufficient saturation and /or inundation during the growing season to satisfy the wetland hydrology
criterion. Wetlands 8 and 9 abut Stream 10 and exhibit a significant nexus with the stream and are
therefore considered a jurisdictional WOUS.
Wetland 10 (Photograph 21) is a PSS wetland abutting Stream 12 in the central portion of the tract.
Wetland 10 was delineated with flagging sequence WC. The vegetation in the wetland is dominated
by green ash, silky dogwood, microstegium, and giant cane. The composition of hydrophytic plant
species in this wetland is 100 percent, thereby meeting the USACE criterion for wetland vegetation.
Dieffenbauch & Hritz

The soil in Wetland 10 exhibits a low chroma matrix with prominent redoximorphic concentrations
starting within one inch of the soil surface. These characteristics are evidence that the soil in the
wetland is saturated and /or inundated for a duration sufficient to promote anaerobic conditions, thereby
meeting the depleted matrix hydric soil criterion. Wetland hydrology is sustained by flow from Stream
12, a seasonally shallow ground water table, overland flow from the adjacent upland, and precipitation.
At the time of the investigation, the wetland was saturated to the soil surface. Documented secondary
indicators include enough dominant plants with either an OBL or FACW indicator status to meet the
criterion for the FAC- neutral test, and visible crayfish borrows. These findings demonstrate that this
site has sufficient saturation and /or inundation during the growing season to satisfy the wetland
hydrology criterion. Wetland 10 abuts Stream 12 and exhibits a significant nexus with the stream and
is therefore considered a jurisdictional WOUS.
Wetland 11 (Photograph 22) is a PEM wetland located in the headwater of Stream 12 in the western
portion of the tract. Wetland 11 was delineated with flagging sequence WD. The vegetation in this
wetland is dominated by microstegium, soft rush (Juncus effusus), and false - nettle. The composition
of hydrophytic plant species in this wetland is 100 percent, thereby meeting the USACE criterion for
wetland vegetation. The soils in Wetland 11 exhibit a low chroma matrix with prominent redoximorphic
concentrations starting within three inches of the soil surface. These characteristics are evidence that
the soils in the wetlands are saturated and /or inundated for a duration sufficient to promote anaerobic
conditions, thereby meeting the depleted matrix hydric soil criterion. Wetland hydrology is sustained
by flow from groundwater discharge, a seasonally shallow ground water table, overland flow from the
adjacent upland, and precipitation. At the time of the investigation, the wetland was saturated to the
soil surface. Documented secondary indicators include enough dominant plants with either an OBL or
FACW indicator status to meet the criterion for the FAC - neutral test, and visible crayfish borrows.
These findings demonstrate that this site has sufficient saturation and /or inundation during the growing
season to satisfy the wetland hydrology criterion. Wetland 11 abuts Stream 12 and exhibits a
significant nexus with the stream and is therefore considered a jurisdictional WOUS.
Dieffenbauch & Hritz

Table 3. Jurisdictional Delineation Flagging Sequence for the 5 -Acre Parcel.
Delineated Streams
Stream ID
I Flag Numbers
Notes
10
SWA 1
— 15
SWA -1 at culvert; SWA -10 = WB -1 & SWA -7 = WB -10; SWA -9 =
WA -3
11
SWB 1
—2
SWB -1 = SWA -11
12
SWC 1
—9
SWC -1 = SWA -1 at culvert; SWC -9 = WD -1 & SWC -8.5 = WD -5
13
SWD 1
— 10
SWD -1 at culvert
Delineated Wetlands
Wetland ID
Flag Numbers
Notes
8
WA 1 —
3
WA -3 = SWA -9; WA -1 ties to stream bank
9
WB 1 —
10
WB -1 = SWA -10 & WB -10 /SWA -7
10
WC 1 —7
SWC -1 & 7 = SWC -3
11
WD 1 —5
WD -1 = SWC -9 & WD -5 = SWC -8.5
Protected Species Habitat Evaluation Results
The US Fish and Wildlife Service (USFWS) lists five federally protected species with ranges known to
extend into Caldwell County, NC. These species include: Carolina northern flying squirrel (Glaucomys
sabrinus coloratus), Virginia big -eared bay (Corynorhinus townsendii virginianus), spruce -fir moss
spider (Microhexura montivaga), dwarf- flowered heartleaf (Hexastylis naniflora), and Heller's blazing
star (Liatris hellen).
D &H reviewed available records from the N.C. Natural Heritage Program ( NCNHP) regarding the
potential presence of federally listed threatened and endangered species. The NCNHP database
indicated the presence of the federally threated dwarf- flowered heartleaf and one federal species of
concern, mountain heartleaf (Hexastylis contracts) within two miles of the site. The NCNHP database
identifies the 105 -acre tract as being part of the larger 377 -acre Peaked Top Rare Plant Site ( PTRPS).
Portions of the PTRPS adjacent to the 105 -acre tract are conservation area for populations of dwarf -
flowered heartleaf.
D &H conducted a potentially suitable habitat evaluation for the above listed species. Potentially
suitable habitat for Carolina northern flying squirrel, spruce -fir moss spider, and Heller's blazing star
was not observed.
Potential areas of suitable habitat for dwarf- flowered heartleaf was observed on the three parcels of
the site. These areas generally included slopes of hillsides (predominantly north facing) and ravines,
slopes along streams, and moist areas along streams. Species- specific surveys for dwarf- flowered
Dieffenbauch & Hritz

heartleaf were not conducted as part of this evaluation. Potential areas of suitable habitat are included
as Attachment J (Protected Species Habitat).
Conclusions
The stream and wetland delineation concluded that 11 wetlands and 13 stream features are located
within the LOI. The delineated features identified within the LOI are considered jurisdictional WOUS.
Only the USACE can make final determinations regarding Section 404 jurisdiction and permitting
requirements. Although a jurisdictional determination is not required, D &H recommends written
concurrence be obtained from the USACE Wilmington District regarding the results and conclusions
of this delineation. If wetlands are determined by the USACE to be isolated, and therefore outside of
USACE jurisdiction, verification of this information must be provided to the N.C. Department of
Environment and Natural Resources ( NCDENR). The NCDENR has the authority to assert jurisdiction
over isolated wetland features and permit impacts to these resources accordingly.
Potential areas of suitable habitat for dwarf- flowered heartleaf was observed on the three parcels of
the site. These areas generally included slopes of hillsides (predominantly north facing) and ravines,
slopes along streams, and moist areas along streams. Species- specific surveys for dwarf- flowered
heartleaf will likely be required prior to development of the site as borrow areas. The survey window
for this species is during the flowering period which occurs from mid -March to early June.
Dieffenbauch & Hritz

Literature Cited
Brown, Lauren. Grasses: An Identification Guide. Houghton Mifflin Company. New York, NY.
1979.
Cobb, Boughton. A Field Guide to Ferns. Houghton Mifflin Company. Boston, NY. 1984.
Hallowell, Anne C, and Barbara G. Hallowell. Fern Finder. Nature Study Guild Publishers.
Rochester, NY. 1981.
Knobel, Edward. Field Guide to the Grasses, Sedges, and Rushes of the United States. Dover
Publications. 1977
Lichvar, R.W. The National Wetland Plant List. ERDC /CRREL TR- 12 -11. Hanover, NH: U.S. Army
Corps of Engineers, Cold Regions Research and Engineering Laboratory. 2012.
Miller, Dorcas S. Winter Weed Finder. Nature Study Guild Publishers. Rochester, NY 1970.
Munsell Soil -Color Charts. Grand Rapids, MI. 2009.
Newcomb, Lawrence. Newcomb's Wildflower Guide. Little, Brown and Company. Boston, MA.
1977.
Peterson, Roger A, and Margaret McKenny. A Field Guide to Wildflowers — Northeast/North-
Central North America. Houghton Mifflin Company. Boston, NY. 1996.
Petrides, George A. A Field Guide to Eastern Trees. Houghton Mifflin Company, New York, NY.
1998.
U.S. Army Corps of Engineers, 2012. Interim Regional Supplement to the Corps of Engineers
Wetland Delineation Manual: Eastern Mountains and Piedmont Region (Version 2.0), ed. J.S.
Wakeley, R.W. Lichvar, C.V. Noble, and J.F. Berkowitz. ERDC /EL TR -12 -9. Vicksburg, MS: U.S.
Army Engineer Research and Development Center.
U.S. Army Corps of Engineers Wetland Delineation Manual, Technical Report Y -87 -1 (1987).
U.S. Army Corps of Engineers, October 1995. An Approach for Assessing Wetland Functions
Using Hydrogeomorphic Classification, Reference Wetlands, and Functional Indices. R. Daniel
Smith, Alan Ammann, Candy Bartoldus, Mark M. Brinson. Technical Report WRP -DE -9.
Vicksburg, MS: U.S. Army Engineer Research and Development Center.
Dieffenbauch & Hritz

ATTACHMENT A
WETLAND DETERMINATION DATA FORMS

WETLAND DETERMINATION DATA FORM - Eastern Mountains and Piedmont Region
Project/Site: Potential Borrow Areas - FRL City/County: Caldwell County Sampling Date: 8128/2013
Applicant/Owner: Hodges, Hardin, Newberry 8 Tribble, Inc. State: NC Sampling Point: WA-4 Up
Investigator(s): J Witherspoon, J. Daft Section, Township, Range:
Landform (hillslope, terrace, etc.): Floodplain Local relief (concave, convex, none): Concave Slope ( %): 0 -2%
Subregion (LRR or MRLA): LRR N Lat: °1 11 Long: ° � ° Datum.
Soil Map Unit Name: Tate- French, occasionally flooded complex NWI Classification: UPL
Are climatic /hydrologic conditions of the site typical for this time of year? Yes x No (If no, explain in Remarks)
Are vegetation No Soil No or Hydrology No significantly disturbed? Are "Normal Circumstances" present?
Are vegetation No Soil No or Hydrology No naturally problematic? Yes x No
SUMMARY OF FINDINGS - Attach site map showing sampling point locations, transects, important features, etc.
Hydrophytic Vegetation Present? Yes No Q Is the Sampled Area within
Hydric Soil Present? Yes No= a Wetland? Yes No
Wetland Hydrology Present? Yes No 0
Remarks: Explain alternative procedures here or in a separate report.)
HYDROLOGY
Wetland Hydrology Indicators:
Primary Indicators (minimum of one is required: Check all that apply)
Surface Water (Al)
True Aquatic Plants (1314)
High Water Table (A2)
Hydrogen Sulfide Odor (C1)
Saturation (A3)
Oxidized Rhizospheres on Living Roots (C3)
Water Marks (131)
Presence of Reduced Iron (C4)
Sediment Deposits (132)
Recent Iron Reduction Tiled Soils (C6)
Drift Deposits (133)
Thin Muck Surface (C7)
Algal Mat or Crust (134)
Other (Explain in Remarks)
Iron Deposits (B5)
Inundation Visible on Aerial Imagery (B7)
Water- Stained Leaves (139)
Aquatic Fauna (1313)
Field Observations:
Surface Water Present? Yes
No Depth (inches):
Water Table Present? Yes
No v/ Depth (inches):
Saturation Present? Yes
No Depth (inches):
(includes capillary fringe)
Describe Recorded Data (stream gauge, monitoring
well, aerial photos, previous inspections), if available:
Remarks
Secondary Indicators (minimum of two rcq +.aired)
Surface Soil Cracks (136)
Sparsely Vegetated Concave Surface (B8)
Drainage Patterns (1310)
Moss Trim Lines (B18)
Dry- Season Water Table (C2)
Crayfish Burrows (C8)
Saturation Visible on Aerial Imagery (C9)
Stunted or Stressed Plants (D1)
Geomorphic Position (D2)
Shallow Aquitard (D3)
Microtopographic Relief (D4)
FAC- Neutral Test (D5)
Wetland Hydrology Present?
Yes No I/
US Army Corps of Engineers Eastern Mountains and Piedmont - Version 2.0

VEGETATION - Use scientific names of plants
Sampling Point: WA-4 Up
Absolute Dominant Indicator
re- e_Stratum (Plot Size: 30 ft. radius )
% Cover Species? Status
Dominance Test worksheet:
1. Fagus grandifolia
30 Yes FACU
Number of Dominant Species That Are
2. Quercus alba
15 Yes FACU
OBL, FACW, or FAC: 2 (A)
1
Total Number of Dominant Species
4.
Across All Strata: a (B)
5.
Percent of Dominant Species That Are
6.
OBL, FACW, or FAC: 50 (A/B)
7.
8.
Prevalence Index worksheet:
45 = Total Cover
Total % Cover of Multiply by:
Sacllno /Shrub Stratum (Plot Size: 15 -ft. radius
)
OBL species x 1 =
1. Rhododendron periclymenoides
80 Yes FAC
FACW species x2=
2-
FAC species 2 x3= 6
3-
FACU species 2 x4= 6
4.
UPL species x 5 =
5•
Column Totals: a (A) 14 (B)
6.
7.
Prevalence Index = B/A = 3.5
8.
9.
10.
Hydrophytic Vegetation Indicators:
1 - Rapid Test for Hydrophytic Vegetation
80 = Total Cover
2- Dominance Test is >50%
Herb Stratum (Plot Size: 5 ft radius )
x 3- Prevalence Index is 15 3.0'
1- Rhododendron maximum
20 Yes FAC
4- Morphological Adaptations' (Provide supporting
2. Polystichum acrostichoides
20 Yes FAC
data in Remarks or on a separate sheet)
3.
5- Problematic Hydrophytic Vegetation'
4.
5.
'Indicators of hydric soil and wetland hydrology must be
6.
present, unless disturbed or problematic.
7.
8.
Definitions of Vegetation Strata:
9.
Tree - Woody plants 3 in. (7.6 cm) or more in diameter at
10.
breast height (DBH), regardless of height
11.
12.
Saplingishrub - Woody plants less than 3 in. DBH and
greater than or equal to 3.28 ft. tall.
=
ao Total Cover
Woody Vine Stratum (Plot Size: 30 -ft. radius )
Herb - All herbaceous (non - woody) plants, regardless of
1.
size, and woody plants less than 3.28 ft. tall.
2.
3.
Woody vines - All woody vines greater than 3.26 ft. in height
4.
5.
Hydrophytic Vegetation Present?
6.
17
= Total Cover
Yes No
Remarks: (Include photo numbers here or on a separate sheet.)
US Army Corps of Engineers Sheet2 Eastern Mountains and Piedmont - Version 2.0

SOIL Sampling Point:
Profile Description: (Describe to the depth needed to document the indicator or confirm the absence of indicators.)
Depth Matrix Redox Features
(inches) Color (moist) % Color (moist) % I ype, Loc• Texture Remarks
0 -13 10YR 5/6 100 Loam
13 -18+ 10YR 4/6 100 Loam
'Type: C= Concentration, D= Depletion, RM= Reduced Matrix, MS= Masked Sand Grains
Hydric Soil Indicators:
Histosol (Al)
n Dark Surface (S7)
Histic Epipedon (A2)
TLTl Polyvalue Below Surface (S8) (MLRA
Black Histic (A3)
147, 148)
i Hydrogen Sulfide (A4)
II Thin Dark Surface (S9) (MLRA 147,
i Stratified Layers (A5)
148)
2 cm Muck (A10) (LRR N)
Loamy Gleyed Matrix (F2)
Depleted Below Dark Surface (A11)
Depleted Matrix (F3)
Thick Dark Surface (Al2)
.�.
Redox Dark Surface (F6)
Sandy Mucky Mineral (S1) (LRR N,
Depleted Dark Surface (F17)
MLRA 147, 148)
Redox Depressions (F8)
F] Sandy Gleyed Matrix (S4)
t Iron - Manganese Masses (F12) (LRR N,
Sandy Redox (S5)
MLRA 136)
Stripped Matrix (S6)
n Umbric Surface (F13) (MLRA 136,122)
Piedmont Floodplain Soils (F19) (MLRA 148)
Red Parent Material (F21) (MLRA 127,147)
Restrictive Layer (if observed):
Type:
Depth (inches)-
Hydric Soil Present?
Remarks:
Data form is representative of WA and WB upland point.
WA-4 Up
2Location: PL =Pore Lining, M= Matrix
Indicators for Problematic Hydric Soils'
2 cm Muck (A10) (LRR N)
Coast Prairie Redox (A16) (MLRA 147, 148)
Piedmont Floodplain Soils (F19) (MLRA 147, 148)
Very Shallow Dark Surface (TF12)
Other (Explain in Remarks)
'Indicators of hydrophytic vegetation and wetland
hydrology must be present, unless disturbed or
prQbleniatic.
Yes No 91
US Army Corps of Engineers Sheet3 Eastern Mountains and Piedmont - Version 2 0

WETLAND DETERMINATION DATA FORM - Eastern Mountains and Piedmont Region
Project/Site: Potential Borrow Areas - FRL City /County: Caldwell County Sampling Date: 8/28/2013
Applicant/Owner: Hodges, Hardin, Newberry & Tribble, Inc. State: NC Sampling Point: WA-4 Wet
Investigator(s): J Witherspoon, J. Daft Section, Township, Range:
Landform (hillslope, terrace, etc.): Floodplain Local relief (concave, convex, none): Concave Slope ( %): 0 -2%
Subregion (LRR or MRLA): LRR N Lat. - " Long. , ° Datum:
Soil Map Unit Name: Tate - French, occasionally flooded complex NWI Classification: PFO
Are climatic /hydrologic conditions of the site typical for this time of year? Yes x No (If no, explain in Remarks)
Are vegetation No Soil No or Hydrology No _ significantly disturbed? Are "Normal Circumstances" present?
Are vegetation No Soil No or Hydrology No naturally problematic? Yes x No
SUMMARY OF FINDINGS - Attach site map showing sampling point locations, transects, important features, etc.
Hydrophytic Vegetation Present? Yes Z No Q
Is the Sampled Area within
Hydric Soil Present? Yes =� No= a Wetland? Yes No
'Wetland Hydrology Present? Yes ' - l No -El
Remarks: Explain alternative procedures here or in a separate report.)
HYDROLOGY
Wetland Hydrology Indicators:
Primary Indicators (minimum of one is required: Check all that apply)
Surface Water (Al) True Aquatic Plants (B14)
High Water Table (A2) Hydrogen Sulfide Odor (Cl)
Saturation (A3) Oxidized Rhizospheres on Living Roots (C3)
Water Marks (B1) Presence of Reduced Iron (C4)
Sediment Deposits (B2) Recent Iron Reduction Tiled Soils (C6)
Drift Deposits (B3) Thin Muck Surface (C7)
_ Algal Mat or Crust (B4) Other (Explain in Remarks)
_ Iron Deposits (B5)
_ Inundation Visible on Aerial Imagery (B7)
Water- Stained Leaves (B9)
Aquatic Fauna (B13)
Field Observations:
Surface Water Present? Yes No v/ Depth (inches):
Water Table Present? Yes ,/ No Depth (inches): 4
Saturation Present? Yes No Depth (inches): o
(includes capillary fringe)
Describe Recorded Data (stream gauge, monitoring well, aerial photos, previous inspections), if available
Remarks:
Secondary Indicators (minimum of two required)
Surface Soil Cracks (B6)
Sparsely Vegetated Concave Surface (138)
Drainage Patterns (B10)
Moss Trim Lines (618)
Dry- Season Water Table (C2)
Crayfish Burrows (C8)
Saturation Visible on Aerial Imagery (C9)
Stunted or Stressed Plants (D1)
Geomorphic Position (D2)
Shallow Aquitard (D3)
Microtopographic Relief (D4)
FAC- Neutral Test (D5)
Wetland Hydrology Present?
Yes / No
US Army Corps of Engineers Eastern Mountains and Piedmont - Version 2.0

VEGETATION - Use scientific names of plants
Sampling Point: WA-4 Wet
Absolute Dominant Indicator
Dominance Test worksheet:
Tree Stratum (Plot Size:
30 ft radius )
% Cover Species? Status
1. Ulmus americana
10 Yes FACW
Number of Dominant Species That Are
2,
OBL, FACW, or FAC: 4 (A)
1
Total Number of Dominant Species
4.
Across All Strata: 4 (B)
S.
Percent of Dominant Species That Are
B.
OBL, FACW, or FAC: 100 (A/B)
7.
8.
_.
Prevalence Index worksheet:
10 = Total Cover
Total % Cover of Multiply by:
SanfinvlShrub Straturn
(Plot Size: 15 -ft. radius )
OBL species x 1 =
1.
FACW species x2=
2.
FAC species x3=
3.
FACU species x4=
4.
UPL species X5=
5.
Column Totals: (A) (B)
6.
7.
Prevalence Index = B/A =
8_
9.
.
Hydrophytic Vegetation Indicators:
10.
1 - Rapid Test for Hydrophytic Vegetation
= Total Cover
_
x 2- Dominance Test is >50%
Herb Stratum (Plot Size:
5 ft. radius }
3- Prevalence Index is <_ 3.0'
1. Osmunde cinnamomea
25 Yes FACW
_ 4- Morphological Adaptations' (Provide supporting
2. Polystichum acrostichoides
15 Yes FAC
data in Remarks or on a separate sheet)
3. Arundinaria gigantea
15 Yes FACW
5- Problematic Hydrophytic Vegetation'
4.
5.
'Indicators of hydric soil and wetland hydrology must be
6,
present, unless disturbed or problematic.
7.
Definitions of Vegetation Strata:
8.
9•
Tree - Woody plants 3 in. (7.6 cm) or more in diameter at
10
breast height (DBH), regardless of height.
11.
12.
Sapling /shrub - Woody plants less than 3 in. DBH and
greater than or equal to 3.28 ft. tall.
55 =Total Cover
Woody Vine Stratum
(Plot Size: 30 -ft. radius )
Herb - All herbaceous (non - woody) plants, regardless of
1,
size, and woody plants less than 3.28 ft. tall.
2.
3.
Woody vines - All woody vines greater than 3.26 ft. in height
4.
5.
Hydrophytic Vegetation Present?
6.
= Total Cover
Yes 7 No O
Remarks: (Include photo numbers here or on a separate sheet.)
US Army Corps of Engineers Sheet2 Eastern Mountains and Piedmont - Version 2.0

SOIL Sampling Point: WA-4 Wet
Profile Description: (Describe to the depth needed to document the indicator or confirm the absence of indicators.)
Depth Matrix Redox Features
(inches) Color (moist) % Color (moist) % Iype` Loc= Texture Remarks
0 -4 10YR 3/2 100 Sandy loam
4 -14 10YR 4/2 65 5YR 4/6 15 C M Sandy loam
'Type C= Concentration, D= Depletion, RM= Reduced Matrix, MS= Masked Sand Grains.
Hydric Soil Indicators:
Histosol (Al)
Dark Surface (S7)
R
Histic Epipedon (A2)
Polyvalue Below Surface (S8) (MLRA
Black Histic (A3)
147, 148)
i
i Hydrogen Sulfide (A4)
II Thin Dark Surface (S9) (MLRA 147,
Stratified Layers (A5)
2 cm Muck (A10) (LRR N)
148)
Loamy Gleyed Matrix (F2)
Depleted Below Dark Surface (A11)
v
Depleted Matrix (F3)
Thick Dark Surface (Al2)
Redox Dark Surface (F6)
Sandy Mucky Mineral (S1) (LRR N,
Depleted Dark Surface (F17)
MLRA 147, 148)
Redox Depressions (F8)
❑ Sandy Gleyed Matrix (S4)
Iron - Manganese Masses (F12) (LRR N,
Redox (S5)
MLRA 136)
IIESandy
Stripped Matrix (S6)
[1 Umbric Surface (F13) (11136,122)
iL.Tl Piedmont Floodplain Soils (F19) (MLRA 148)
Red Parent Material (F21) (MLRA 127,147)
Restrictive Layer (if observed):
Type: Bedrock
Depth (inches): 14
Hydric Soil Present?
Remarks:
Auger refusal at 14 inches on bedrock.
Data form is representative of WA and WB wetlands
2Location: PL =Pore Lining, M= Matrix
Indicators for Problematic Hydric Soils'
2 cm Muck (A10) (LRR N)
Coast Prairie Redox (A16) (MLRA 147, 148)
—.Piedmont Floodplain Soils (F19) (MLRA 147, 148)
Very Shallow Dark Surface (TF12)
Other (Explain in Remarks)
'Indicators of hydrophytic vegetation and wetland
hydrology must be present, unless disturbed or
problematic.
Yes No IJ
US Army Corps of Engineers $heet3 Eastern Mountains and Piedmont - Version 2.0

WETLAND DETERMINATION DATA FORM - Eastern Mountains and Piedmont Region
Project/Site: Potential Borrow Areas - FRL City /County: Caldwell County Sampling Date: 8/2812013
Applicant/Owner: Hodges, Hardin, Newberry & Tribble, Inc State: NC Sampling Point: WC -9 Up
Investigator(s): J Witherspoon, J. Daft Section, Township, Range:
Landform (hillslope, terrace, etc.): Toe slope Local relief (concave, convex, none): Concave Slope ( %): 5 -10%
Subregion (LRR or MRLA): LRR N Lat: ° "' Long: ° — Datum:
Soil Map Unit Name: Tate - French, occasionally flooded complex NWI Classification: UPL
Are climatic /hydrologic conditions of the site typical for this time of year? Yes x No (If no, explain in Remarks)
Are vegetation No Soil No or Hydrology No —significantly disturbed? Are "Normal Circumstances" present?
Are vegetation No Soil No or Hydrology No naturally problematic? Yes x No
SUMMARY OF FINDINGS - Attach site map showing sampling point locations, transects, important features, etc.
Hydrophytic Vegetation Present? Yes No
Is the Sampled Area within
Hydric Soil Present? Yes No= a Wetland? Yes No V/
'Wetland Hydrology Present? Yes _ No M7 -
Remarks: Explain alternative procedures here or in a separate report.)
HYDROLOGY
Wetland Hydrology Indicators:
Primary Indicators (minimum of one is required: Check all that apply)
Surface Water (A1)
True Aquatic Plants (814)
High Water Table (A2)
Hydrogen Sulfide Odor (Cl)
Saturation (A3)
Oxidized Rhizospheres on Living Roots (C3)
Water Marks (131)
Presence of Reduced Iron (C4)
Sediment Deposits (132)
Recent Iron Reduction Tiled Soils (C6)
Drift Deposits (1313)
Thin Muck Surface (C7)
Algal Mat or Crust (B4)
Other (Explain in Remarks)
Iron Deposits (B5)
Inundation Visible on Aerial Imagery (B7)
Water- Stained Leaves (139)
Aquatic Fauna (B13)
Field Observations:
Surface Water Present? Yes
No Depth (inches):
Water Table Present? Yes
No Depth (inches):
Saturation Present? Yes
No ✓ Depth (inches):
(includes capillary fringe)
Describe Recorded Data (stream gauge, monitoring well, aerial photos, previous inspections), if available:
Remarks:
Secondary Indicators (minimum of two required)
Surface Soil Cracks (136)
Sparsely Vegetated Concave Surface (B8)
Drainage Patterns (B10)
Moss Trim Lines (618)
Dry- Season Water Table (C2)
Crayfish Burrows (C8)
Saturation Visible on Aerial Imagery (C9)
Stunted or Stressed Plants (D1)
Geomorphic Position (D2)
Shallow Aquitard (D3)
Microtopographic Relief (D4)
FAC- Neutral Test (D5)
Wetland Hydrology Present?
Yes No Vf
US Army Corps of Engineers Eastern Mountains and Piedmont - Version 2.0

VEGETATION - Use scientific names of plants
Tree Stratum (Plot Size: 30 ft. radius )
1. Fagus grandifolia
1 Juglans nigra
3_ Pinus strobus
4.
5.
6.
7.
8.
'SaollnolShrub Stratum (Plot Size: 15 -ft. radius )
1.
2.
3. _
4.
5.
6.
7.
8.
9,
10.
Herb Stratum (Plot Size: 5 ft. radius )
1. Microstegium vimineum
2. Polystichum acrostichoides
3.
4.
5.
6.
7.
8.
9.
10.
11.
12
Woody Vine Stratum
1. Smilax rotundifolia
2. Vitis rotundifolia
3.
4.
5.
6.
sr
35
30
Prevalence Index worksheet:
= Total Cover
Sampling Point: WC-9 up
Total % Cover of
Absolute
Dominant
Indicator
FACW species
x2=
% Cover
Species?
Status
Dominance Test worksheet:
UPL species
30
Yes
FACU
Number of Dominant Species That Are
15
Yes
FACU
OBL, FACW, or FAC: 4
(A)
15
Yes
FACU
Total Number of Dominant Species
Across All Strata: 7
(B)
Percent of Dominant Species That Are
OBL, FACW, or FAC: tle
(A/B)
sr
35
30
Prevalence Index worksheet:
= Total Cover
Total % Cover of
Multiply by:
OBL species
x 1 =
FACW species
x2=
FAC species
x3=
FACU species
x4=
UPL species
x5=
Column Totals:
(A) (B)
Prevalence Index = B/A =
= Total Cover
Yes FAC
Yes FAC
65 = Total Cover
(Plot Size: 30 -ft. radius )
15
15
30
Remarks: (Include photo numbers here or on a separate sheet.)
Yes FAC
Yes FAC
Hydrophytic Vegetation Indicators:
_ 1 - Rapid Test for Hydrophytic Vegetation
x 2- Dominance Test is >50%
3- Prevalence Index is <_ 3.0'
4- Morphological Adaptations' (Provide supporting
data in Remarks or on a separate sheet)
5- Problematic Hydrophytic Vegetation'
'Indicators of hydric soil and wetland hydrology must be
present, unless disturbed or problematic.
Definitions of Vegetation Strata:
Tree - Woody plants 3 in. (7.6 cm) or more in diameter at
breast height (DBH), regardless of height.
Sapling /shrub - Woody plants less than 3 in. DBH and
greater than or equal to 3.28 ft. tall.
Herb - All herbaceous (non- woody) plants, regardless of
size, and woody plants less than 3.28 ft. tall.
Woody vines - All woody vines greater than 3.26 ft. in height
Hydrophytic Vegetation Present?
= Total Cover Yes No
US Army Corps of Engineers $heet2 Eastern Mountains and Piedmont - Version 2.0

SOIL Sampling Point:
Profile Description: (Describe to 1
Depth Matrix
(inches) Color (moist)
0 -5 10YR 3/2
5 -14 10YR 4/4
14 -18+ 10YR 4/4
he depth needed to document the indicator or confirm the absence of indicators )
Redox Features
% Color (moist) % type° Loc` Texture Remarks
100 Loam
100 Clay loam
90 7 5YR 5/8 10 C M Clay loam
'Type: C= Concentration, D= Deplelion, RM= Reduced Matrix, MS= Masked Sand Grains
Hydric Soil Indicators:
Histosol (Al)
n Dark Surface (S7)
Histic Epipedon (A2)
i Polyvalue Below Surface (S8) (MLRA
Black Histic (A3)
147, 148)
Hydrogen Sulfide (A4)
II Thin Dark Surface (S9) (MLRA 147,
�. Stratified Layers (A5)
148)
�2 cm Muck (A10) (LRR N)
Loamy Gleyed Matrix (F2)
Depleted Below Dark Surface (At 1)
Depleted Matrix (F3)
Thick Dark Surface (Al2)
_
_ Redox Dark Surface (F6)
Sandy Mucky Mineral (S1) (LRR N,
Depleted Dark Surface (F17)
`Redox
MLRA 147, 148)
Depressions (F8)
Sandy Gleyed Matrix (S4)
Iron - Manganese Masses (F12) (LRR N,
j� Sandy Redox (S5)
MLRA 136)
tL�?L Stripped Matrix (S6)
n Umbric Surface (F13) (MLRA 136,122)
lL'LF Piedmont Floodplain Soils (F19) (MLRA 148)
Red Parent Material (F21) (MLRA 127,147)
Restrictive Layer (if observed):
Type:
Depth (inches):
Hydric Soil Present?
Remarks:
Data form is representative of
WC and WD upland point.
WC -9 Up
'Location: PL =Pore Lining, M= Matrix
Indicators for Problematic Hydric Soils'
2 cm Muck (A10) (LRR N)
Coast Prairie Redox (A16) (MLRA 147, 148)
Piedmont Floodplain Soils (F19) (MLRA 147, 148)
Very Shallow Dark Surface (TF12)
7f Other (Explain in Remarks)
'Indicators of hydrophytic vegetation and wetland
hydrology must be present, unless disturbed or
problematic.
Yes
No W
US Army Corps of Engineers Sheet3 Eastern Mountains and Piedmont - Version 2.0

WETLAND DETERMINATION DATA FORM - Eastern Mountains and Piedmont Region
Project/Site: Potential Borrow Areas - FRL City /County: Caldwell County Sampling Date: 8128/2013
Applicant/Owner: Hodges, Hardin, Newberry & Tribble, Inc. State: NC Sampling Point: WC -9 Wet
Investigator(s): J Witherspoon, J. Daft Section, Township, Range:
Landform (hilislope, terrace, etc.): Floodplain Local relief (concave, convex, none): Concave Slope ( %): 0-2%
Subregion (LRR or MRLA): LRR N Lat ,' Long: - - Datum:
Soil Map Unit Name: Tate - French, occasionally flooded complex NWI Classification: PFO
Are climatic /hydrologic conditions of the site typical for this time of year? Yes X No (If no, explain in Remarks)
Are vegetation No Soil No or Hydrology No significantly disturbed? Are "Normal Circumstances" present?
Are vegetation No Soil No or Hydrology No naturally problematic? Yes x No
SUMMARY OF FINDINGS - Attach site map showing sampling point locations. transects, important features, etc.
Hydrophytic Vegetation Present? Yes No E] Is the Sampled Area tivitr in
Hydric Soil Present? Yes No= a Welland? Yes No
Wetland Hydrology Present? Yes I r l Nn
Remarks: Explain alternative procedures here or in a separate report.)
HYDROLOGY
Wetland Hydrology Indicators:
Primary Indicators (minimum of one is required: Check all that apply)
_Surface Water (Al)
True Aquatic Plants (B14)
High Water Table (A2)
Hydrogen Sulfide Odor (C1)
Saturation (A3)
Oxidized Rhizospheres on Living Roots (C3)
Water Marks (131)
Presence of Reduced Iron (C4)
Sediment Deposits (B2)
Recent Iron Reduction Tiled Soils (C6)
Drift Deposits (B3)
Thin Muck Surface (C7)
Algal Mat or Crust (B4)
Other (Explain in Remarks)
Iron Deposits (B5)
Inundation Visible on Aerial Imagery (B7)
J Water- Stained Leaves (B9)
Aquatic Fauna (1313)
Field Observations:
Surface Water Present? Yes
No ✓ Depth (inches):
Water Table Present? Yes
No Depth (inches): o
Saturation Present? Yes
No Depth (inches): o
(includes capillary fringe)
Describe Recorded Data (stream gauge, monitoring well, aerial photos, previous inspections), if available:
Remarks:
Secondary Indicators (minimum of two required)
Surface Soil Cracks (B6)
Sparsely Vegetated Concave Surface (B8)
Drainage Patterns (810)
Moss Trim Lines (1318)
Dry- Season Water Table (C2)
Crayfish Burrows (C8)
Saturation Visible on Aerial Imagery (C9)
Stunted or Stressed Plants (D1)
Geomorphic Position (D2)
Shallow Aquitard (D3)
Microtopographic Relief (D4)
FAC- Neutral Test (D5)
Wetland Hydrology Present?
Yes v-' No
US Army Corps of Engineers Eastern Mountains and Piedmont - Version 2.0

VEGETATION - Use scientific names of plants
Tree Stratum (Plot Size: 30 ft. radius )
1. Platanus occidentalis
2. Acer rubrum
3.
4.
5.
6.
7.
8.
50 = Total Cover
SaDlina /Shrub Stratum (Plot Size: 15 -ft. radius )
1. Morus rubra 10
2. Lidodendron tulipifera 10
3.
4.
5.
6.
7.
8.
9.
10.
Herb Stratum (Plot Size: 5 ft. radius )
1. Microsegium vimineum
2. Arundinaria gigantea
3. Impatiens capensis
4. Polystichum acrostichoides
5.
6.
7.
8.
9.
10.
11
12.
Yes FAC
Yes FAG
20 = Total Cover
60 Yes
FAC
Sampling Point: we -9 wet
FACW
Absolute Dominant
Indicator
Dominance Test worksheet:
FAC
% Cover Species?
Status
30 Yes
FACW
Number of Dominant Species That Are
20 Yes
FAG
OBL, FACW, or FAC: 9
(A)
Total Number of Dominant Species
Across All Strata: 9
(B)
Percent of Dominant Species That Are
OBL, FACW, or FAC: 100
(A/B)
50 = Total Cover
SaDlina /Shrub Stratum (Plot Size: 15 -ft. radius )
1. Morus rubra 10
2. Lidodendron tulipifera 10
3.
4.
5.
6.
7.
8.
9.
10.
Herb Stratum (Plot Size: 5 ft. radius )
1. Microsegium vimineum
2. Arundinaria gigantea
3. Impatiens capensis
4. Polystichum acrostichoides
5.
6.
7.
8.
9.
10.
11
12.
Yes FAC
Yes FAG
20 = Total Cover
60 Yes
FAC
30 Yes
FACW
30 Yes
FACW
20 No
FAC
120 = Total Cover
Woody Vine Stratum (Plot Size: 30 -ft. radius )
1. Lonicera japonica 30 Yes FAC
2.
3.
4.
5.
8.
30 = Total Cover
Remarks. (Include photo numbers here or on a separate sheet.)
Prevalence Index worksheet:
Total % Cover of Multiply by
OBL species
FACW species
FAC species
FACU species
UPL species
Column Totals:
Prev;
x1=
x2=
x3=
x4=
x5=
(A) (B)
alence Index = B/A =
Hydrophytic Vegetation Indicators:
1 - Rapid Test for Hydrophytic Vegetation
X 2- Dominance Test is >50%
3- Prevalence Index is < 3.0'
4- Morphological Adaptations' (Provide supporting
data in Remarks or on a separate sheet)
5- Problematic Hydrophytic Vegetation'
'Indicators of hydric soil and wetland hydrology must be
present, unless disturbed or problematic
Definitions of Vegetation Strata:
Tree - Woody plants 3 in. (7.6 cm) or more in diameter at
breast height (DBH), regardless of height.
Sapling /shrub - Woody plants less than 3 in. DBH and
greater than or equal to 3.28 ft. tall.
Herb - All herbaceous (non- woody) plants, regardless of
size, and woody plants less than 3.28 ft. tall.
Woody vines - All woody vines greater than 3.26 ft. in height
Hydrophytic Vegetation Present?
Yes No
US Army Corps of Engineers Sheet2 Eastern Mountains and Piedmont - Version 2.0

SOIL Sampling Point: WC-9 wet
Profile Description: (Describe to the depth needed to document the indicator or confirm the absence of indicators.)
Depth Matrix Redox Features
(inches) Color (moist) % Color (moist) % Type' Loc` Texture Remarks
0 -12 10YR 4/1 85 10YR 5/6 15 C M Loam
12 -18+ 10YR 4/1 Clay loam
'Type: C= Concentration, D= Depletion, RM= Reduced Matrix, MS= Masked Sand Grains
Hydric Soil Indicators:
2Location: PL =Pore Lining, M= Matrix
Indicators for Problematic Hydric Soils'
2 cm Muck (A10) (LRR N)
_ Coast Prairie Redox (A16) (MLRA 147, 148)
_ Piedmont Floodplain Soils (F19) (MLRA 147, 148)
Very Shallow Dark Surface (TF12)
Other (Explain in Remarks)
'Indicators of hydrophytic vegetation and wetland
hydrology must be present, unless disturbed or
problematic.
Yes No I
US Army Corps of Engineers Sheet3 Eastern Mountains and Piedmont - Version 2.0
Histosol 'Al'
n Dark Surface (S7)
Histic Epipedon (A2)
Polyvalue Below Surface (S8) (MLRA
Black Histic (A3)
147, 148)
Hydrogen Sulfide (A4)
IIThin Dark Surface (S9) (MLRA 147,
Stratified Layers (A5)
148)
2 cm Muck (A10) (LRR N)
Loamy Gleyed Matrix (F2)
Depleted Below Dark Surface (At 1)
J
Depleted Matrix (F3)
Thick Dark Surface (Al2)
Redox Dark Surface (176)
Sandy Mucky Mineral (S1) (LRR N,
Depleted Dark Surface (F17)
MLRA 147, 148)
Redox Depressions (F8)
❑ Sandy Gleyed Matrix (S4)
Iron- Manganese Masses (F12) (LRR N,
Sandy Redox (S5)
MLRA 136)
E Stripped Matrix (S6)
❑ Umbric Surface (F13) (MLRA 136,122)
Jl�1 Piedmont Floodplain Soils (F19) (MLRA 148)
Red Parent Material (F21) (MLRA 127,147)
Restrictive Layer (if observed):
Type:
Depth (inches):
Hydric Soil Present?
Remarks:
Data form is representative of
WC and WD wetlands
2Location: PL =Pore Lining, M= Matrix
Indicators for Problematic Hydric Soils'
2 cm Muck (A10) (LRR N)
_ Coast Prairie Redox (A16) (MLRA 147, 148)
_ Piedmont Floodplain Soils (F19) (MLRA 147, 148)
Very Shallow Dark Surface (TF12)
Other (Explain in Remarks)
'Indicators of hydrophytic vegetation and wetland
hydrology must be present, unless disturbed or
problematic.
Yes No I
US Army Corps of Engineers Sheet3 Eastern Mountains and Piedmont - Version 2.0

WETLAND DETERMINATION DATA FORM - Eastern Mountains and Piedmont Region
Project/Site: Potential Borrow Areas - FRL
Applicant/Owner: Hodges, Hardin, Newberry & Tribble, Inc
Investigator(s): J Witherspoon, J. Daft
Landform (hillslope, terrace, etc.): Toe slope
Subregion (LRR or MRLA): LRR N Lat: °
Soil Map Unit Name: Evard -Cowee complex
City /County: Caldwell County Sampling Date:
State: INC Sampling Point:
Section, Township, Range:
Local relief (concave, convex, none): Concave
Long: °'
NWI Classification: UPL
Datum:
Are climatic /hydrologic conditions of the site typical for this time of year? Yes x No (If no, explain in Remarks)
Are vegetation No Soil No or Hydrology No —significantly disturbed? Are "Normal Circumstances" present?
Are vegetation No Soil No or Hydrology No naturally problematic? Yes x No
8/30/2013
WE -10 Up
Slope ( %): 5 -10%
SUMMARY OF FINDINGS - Attach site map showing sampling point locations, transects, important features, etc.
Hydrophytic Vegetation Present? Yes No ® Is the Sampled Area within
Hydric Soil Present? Yes 3 No F,/ a Wetland? Yes No
'Wetland Hydrology Present? Yes _= No 21
Remarks: Explain alternative procedures here or in a separate report.)
HYDROLOGY
Wetland Hydrology Indicators:
Primary Indicators (minimum of one is required: Check all that apply)
Surface Water (Al)
True Aquatic Plants (B14)
High Water Table (A2)
Hydrogen Sulfide Odor (C1)
Saturation (A3)
Oxidized Rhizospheres on Living Roots (C3)
Water Marks (131)
Presence of Reduced Iron (C4)
Sediment Deposits (B2)
Recent Iron Reduction Tiled Soils (C6)
_ Drift Deposits (B3)
Thin Muck Surface (C7)
Algal Mat or Crust (134)
Other (Explain in Remarks)
Iron Deposits (65)
_ Inundation Visible on Aerial Imagery (B7)
Water- Stained Leaves (139)
Aquatic Fauna (1313)
Field Observations:
Surface Water Present? Yes
No Depth (inches):
Water Table Present? Yes
No Depth (inches):
Saturation Present? Yes
No Depth (inches):
(includes capillary fringe)
Describe Recorded Data (stream gauge, monitoring
well, aerial photos, previous inspections), if available:
Remarks:
Secondary Indicators (minimum of two required)
Surface Soil Cracks (136)
Sparsely Vegetated Concave Surface (138)
Drainage Patterns (B10)
Moss Trim Lines (818)
Dry- Season Water Table (C2)
Crayfish Burrows (C8)
Saturation Visible on Aerial Imagery (C9)
Stunted or Stressed Plants (D1)
Geomorphic Position (D2)
Shallow Aquitard (D3)
Microtopographic Relief (D4)
FAC- Neutral Test (D5)
Wetland Hydrology Present?
Yes No
US Army Corps of Engineers Eastern Mountains and Piedmont - Version 2.0

VEGETATION - Use scientific names of plants
Tree Stratum (Plot Size: 30 ft. radius )
1. Quercus rubra
2. Carya glabra
1
4.
5.
6_
7
8.
30
Saoftna /Shrub Stratum (Plot Size: 15 -ft. radius )
1. Quercus rubra 20
2. Oxydendrum arboreum 15
3. Carya glabra 10
4.
5,
6.
7.
8.
9.
10.
45
Herb Stratum (Plot Size: 5 ft. radius )
1. Microstegium vimineum 35
2. Polystichum acrostichoides 15
3 Arundinada giganatea 5
4.
5.
6.
7.
B.
9.
10.
11.
12.
99
Woody Vine Stratum (Plot Size: 30 -ft. radius )
1.
2.
3.
4.
5.
6.
Prevalence Index worksheet:
Sampling Point: WE -10 Up
Absolute Dominant
Indicator
Dominance Test worksheet:
x 1 =
% Cover Species?
Status
Yes NI FAC species
x 3 =
20 Yes
FACU
Number of Dominant Species That Are
X5=
10 Yes
FACU
OBL, FACW, or FAC: 3
(A)
Total Number of Dominant Species
Across All Strata: 7
(B)
Percent of Dominant Species That Are
OBL, FACW, or FAC: 43
(A/B)
30
Saoftna /Shrub Stratum (Plot Size: 15 -ft. radius )
1. Quercus rubra 20
2. Oxydendrum arboreum 15
3. Carya glabra 10
4.
5,
6.
7.
8.
9.
10.
45
Herb Stratum (Plot Size: 5 ft. radius )
1. Microstegium vimineum 35
2. Polystichum acrostichoides 15
3 Arundinada giganatea 5
4.
5.
6.
7.
B.
9.
10.
11.
12.
99
Woody Vine Stratum (Plot Size: 30 -ft. radius )
1.
2.
3.
4.
5.
6.
Prevalence Index worksheet:
= Total Cover
Total % Cover of
Multiply by:
OBL species
x 1 =
Yes FACU FACW species
x 2 =
Yes NI FAC species
x 3 =
Yes FACU FACU species
x4=
UPL species
X5=
Column Totals:
(A) (B)
Prevalence Index = B/A =
= Total Cover
Yes FAC
Yes FAC
No FACW
= Total Cover
= Total Cover
Remarks: (Include photo numbers here or on a separate sheet.)
Hydrophytic Vegetation Indicators:
_ 1 - Rapid Test for Hydrophytic Vegetation
x 2- Dominance Test is >50%
3- Prevalence Index is <_ 3.0'
4- Morphological Adaptations' (Provide supporting
data in Remarks or on a separate sheet)
5- Problematic Hydrophytic Vegetation'
'Indicators of hydric soil and wetland hydrology must be
present, unless disturbed or problematic.
Definitions of Vegetation Strata:
Tree - Woody plants 3 in. (7.6 cm) or more in diameter at
breast height (DBH), regardless of height.
Sapling /shrub - Woody plants less than 3 in. DBH and
greater than or equal to 3.28 ft. tall.
Herb - All herbaceous (non - woody) plants, regardless of
size, and woody plants less than 3.28 ft. tall.
Woody vines - All woody vines greater than 3.26 ft. in height
Hydrophytic Vegetation Present?
Yes No W1
US Army Corps of Engineers Sheet2 Eastern Mountains and Piedmont - Version 2.0

SOIL Sampling Point:
Profile Description: (Describe to t
Depth Matrix
(inches) Color (moist)
0 -3 10YR 3/1
3 -8 10YR 4/4
8 -16 10YR 5/6
he depth needed to document the indicator or confirm the absence of indicators.)
Redox Features
% Color (moist) % I ype' Loc` Texture Remarks
100 Fine sandy loam
100 Sandy loam
100 Loam
'Type: C= Concentration, D= Depletion, RM= Reduced Matrix, MS= Masked Sand Grains
Hydric Soil Indicators:
Histosol (A1)
n Dark Surface (S7)
Histic Epipedon (A2)
iL"lr Polyvalue Below Surface (S8) (MLRA
Black Histic (A3)
147, 148)
f
_ Hydrogen Sulfide (A4)
IIThin Dark Surface (S9) (MLRA 147,
Stratified Layers (A5)
i
148)
2 cm Muck (A10) (LRR N)
Loamy Gleyed Matrix (F2)
Depleted Below Dark Surface (A11)
Depleted Matrix (F3)
.Thick Dark Surface (At 2)
Redox Dark Surface (F6)
—Sandy Mucky Mineral (Si) (LRR N,
Depleted Dark Surface (1717)
MLRA 147, 148)
Sandy Gleyed Matrix (S4)
Redox Depressions (F8)
Iron- Manganese Masses (F12) (LRR N,
Sandy Redox (S5)
MLRA 136)
Stripped Matrix (S6)
n Umbric Surface (F13) (MLRA 136,122)
Ji_TL Piedmont Floodplain Soils (1719) (MLRA 148)
Red Parent Material (F21) (MLRA 127,147)
Restrictive Layer (if observed):
Type:
Depth (inches) Hydric Soil Present?
Remarks:
Auger refusal at 16 inches on bedrock.
WE -10 Up
'Location: PL =Pore Lining. M= Matrix
Indicators for Problematic Hydric Soils3
2 cm Muck (A10) (LRR N)
Coast Prairie Redox (A16) (MLRA 147, 148)
Piedmont Floodplain Soils (F19) (MLRA 147, 148)
Very Shallow Dark Surface (TF12)
Other (Explain in Remarks)
3Indicators of hydrophytic vegetation and wetland
hydrology must be present, unless disturbed or
problematic.
Yes F] No
US Army Corps of Engineers Sheet3 Eastern Mountains and Piedmont - Version 2.0

WETLAND DETERMINATION DATA FORM - Eastern Mountains and Piedmont Region
Project/Site: Potential Borrow Areas - FRL
Applicant/Owner: Hodges, Hardin, Newberry & Tribble, Inc.
Investigator(s): J Witherspoon, J Daft
Landform (hillslope, terrace, etc.): Floodplain
Subregion (LRR or MRLA): LRR N Lat.
Soil Map Unit Name: Evard -Cowee complex
City /County: Caldwell County
State: NC
Section, Township, Range:
Local relief (concave, convex, none):
Long.
Are climatic /hydrologic conditions of the site typical for this time of year? Yes x
Are vegetation No Soil No or Hydrology No —significantly disturbed?
Are vegetation No Soil No or Hydrology No naturally problematic?
Sampling Date:
Sampling Point:
Concave
Datum:
NWI Classification: PSS
No (If no, explain in Remarks)
Are "Normal Circumstances" present?
Yes x No
6/30/2013
WE -10 Wet
Slope ( %): 0 -2%
SUMMARY OF FINDINGS - Attach site map showing sampling point locations, transects, important features, etc.
Hydrophytic Vegetation Present? Yes No 0 Is the Sampled Area within
Hydric Soil Present? Yes No= a Wetland? Yes No
'Wetland Hydrology Present? Yes No EJ
Remarks: Explain alternative procedures here or in a separate report.)
HYDROLOGY
Wetland Hydrology Indicators:
Primary Indicators (minimum of one is required: Check all that apply)
Surface Water (Al)
True Aquatic Plants (B14)
High Water Table (A2)
Hydrogen Sulfide Odor (C1)
Saturation (A3)
Oxidized Rhizospheres on Living Roots (C3)
Water Marks (131)
Presence of Reduced Iron (C4)
Sediment Deposits (62)
Recent Iron Reduction Tiled Soils (C6)
Drift Deposits (133)
Thin Muck Surface (C7)
Algal Mat or Crust (134)
Other (Explain in Remarks)
Iron Deposits (65)
Inundation Visible on Aerial Imagery (B7)
Water- Stained Leaves (139)
Aquatic Fauna (1313)
Field Observations:
Surface Water Present? Yes No v/ Depth (inches)-
Water Table Present? Yes No Depth (inches). o
Saturation Present? Yes V/ No Depth (inches) o
(includes capillary fringe)
Describe Recorded Data (stream gauge, monitoring well, aerial photos, previous inspections), if available:
Remarks:
Secondary Indicators (minimum of two required)
Surface Soil Cracks (86)
Sparsely Vegetated Concave Surface (B8)
V/ Drainage Patterns (610)
Moss Trim Lines (B18)
Dry- Season Water Table (C2)
v/ Crayfish Burrows (C8)
Saturation Visible on Aerial Imagery (C9)
Stunted or Stressed Plants (D1)
Geomorphic Position (D2)
Shallow Aquitard (D3)
Microtopographic Relief (D4)
FAC- Neutral Test (D5)
Wetland Hydrology Present?
Yes / No
US Army Corps of Engineers Eastern Mountains and Piedmont - Version 2.0

VEGETATION - Use scientific names of plants
Tree Stratum (Plot Size: 30 ft. radius )
1.
2.
3.
4.
5.
6.
7.
8.
Sampling Point: WE -10 Wet
Absolute Dominant Indicator Dominance Test worksheet:
% Cover Species? Status
Number of Dominant Species That Are
OBL, FACW, or FAC: 4 (A)
Total Number of Dominant Species
Across All Strata: 4 (B)
Percent of Dominant Species That Are
OBL, FACW, or FAC: 100 (A/B)
Saolino /Shrub Stratum (Plot Size: 15 -ft. radius )
1. Fraxinus pennsylvanica 25
2. Cornus amomum 15
3. Arundinaria gigantea 25
4.
5.
6.
7.
B.
9.
10.
Herb Stratum (Plot Size: 5 ft radius
1. Microsegium vimineum
2. Arundinaria gigantea
3.
4.
5.
6.
7.
8.
9.
10.
11.
12.
Woody Vine Stratum
1.
2.
3.
4.
5.
6.
(Plot Size: 30 -ft. radius )
65 = Total Cover
70 Yes FAC
15 Yes FACW
85 = Total Cover
Remarks: (Include photo numbers here or on a separate sheet.)
Hydrophytic Vegetation Indicators:
_ 1 - Rapid Test for Hydrophytic Vegetation
x 2- Dominance Test is >50%
3- Prevalence Index is s 3.0'
4- Morphological Adaptations' (Provide supporting
data in Remarks or on a separate sheet)
5- Problematic Hydrophytic Vegetation'
'Indicators of hydric soil and wetland hydrology must be
present, unless disturbed or problematic.
Definitions of Vegetation Strata:
Tree - Woody plants 3 in. (7.6 cm) or more in diameter at
breast height (DBH), regardless of height.
Sapling /shrub - Woody plants less than 3 in. DBH and
greater than or equal to 3.28 ft. tall.
Herb - All herbaceous (non- woody) plants, regardless of
size, and woody plants less than 3.28 ft. tall.
Woody vines - All woody vines greater than 3.26 ft. in height
Hydrophytic Vegetation Present?
= Total Cover Yes No
US Army Corps of Engineers Sheet2 Eastern Mountains and Piedmont - Version 2.0
Prevalence Index worksheet:
= Total Cover
Total % Cover of
Multiply by:
OBL species
x 1 =
Yes FACW
FACW species
x2=
Yes FACW
FAC species
x 3 =
Yes FACW
FACU species
x4=
UPL species
x5=
Column Totals:
(A) (B)
Prevalence Index = B/A =
65 = Total Cover
70 Yes FAC
15 Yes FACW
85 = Total Cover
Remarks: (Include photo numbers here or on a separate sheet.)
Hydrophytic Vegetation Indicators:
_ 1 - Rapid Test for Hydrophytic Vegetation
x 2- Dominance Test is >50%
3- Prevalence Index is s 3.0'
4- Morphological Adaptations' (Provide supporting
data in Remarks or on a separate sheet)
5- Problematic Hydrophytic Vegetation'
'Indicators of hydric soil and wetland hydrology must be
present, unless disturbed or problematic.
Definitions of Vegetation Strata:
Tree - Woody plants 3 in. (7.6 cm) or more in diameter at
breast height (DBH), regardless of height.
Sapling /shrub - Woody plants less than 3 in. DBH and
greater than or equal to 3.28 ft. tall.
Herb - All herbaceous (non- woody) plants, regardless of
size, and woody plants less than 3.28 ft. tall.
Woody vines - All woody vines greater than 3.26 ft. in height
Hydrophytic Vegetation Present?
= Total Cover Yes No
US Army Corps of Engineers Sheet2 Eastern Mountains and Piedmont - Version 2.0

SOIL Sampling Point: WE-10 wet
Profile Description. (Describe to the depth needed to document the indicator or confirm the absence of indicators )
Depth Matrix Redox Features
(inches) Color (moist) % Color (moist) % I ype- Loc° Texture Remarks
0 -10 10YR 3/1 70 7 5YR 3/4 30 C M Sandy Loam
10 -18+ 10YR 4/1 80 10YR 2/1 20 C M Sandy loam
'Type: C= Concentration, D= Depletion, RM= Reduced Matrix, MS= Masked Sand Grains
Hydric Soil Indicators:
zi Histosol (Al)
Dark Surface (S7)
Histic Epipedon (A2)
Polyvalue Below Surface (S8) (MLRA
maw
Black Histic (A3)
147, 148)
Hydrogen Sulfide (A4)
IIThin Dark Surface (S9) (MLRA 147,
Stratified Layers (A5)
148)
2 cm Muck (A10) (LRR N)
Loamy Gleyed Matrix (F2)
Depleted Below Dark Surface (A11)
J Depleted Matrix (F3)
Thick Dark Surface (Al2)
Redox Dark Surface (F6)
Sandy Mucky Mineral (S1) (LRR N,
`Depleted Dark Surface (F17)
MLRA 147, 148)
Redox Depressions (F8)
❑ Sandy Gleyed Matrix (S4)
Iron - Manganese Masses (F12) (LRR N,
I�Sandy Redox (35)
MLRA 136)
11{ Stripped Matrix (S6)
Umbric Surface (F13) (MLRA 136,122)
Piedmont Floodplain Soils (F19) (MLRA 148)
Red Parent Material (F21) (MLRA 127,147)
Restrictive Layer (if observed):
Type:
Depth (inches) Hydric Soil Present?
Remarks:
2Location: PL =Pore Lining, M= Matrix
Indicators for Problematic Hydric Soils'
2 cm Muck (A10) (LRR N)
—Coast Prairie Redox (A16) (MLRA 147, 148)
_Piedmont Floodplain Soils (F19) (MLRA 147, 148)
`Very Shallow Dark Surface (TF12)
Other (Explain in Remarks)
3Indicators of hydrophytic vegetation and wetland
hydrology must be present, unless disturbed or
problematic.
Yes No
US Army Corps of Engineers Sheet3 Eastern Mountains and Piedmont - Version 2.0

WETLAND DETERMINATION DATA FORM - Eastern Mountains and Piedmont Region
Project/Site: Potential Borrow Areas - FRL
Applicant/Owner: Hodges, Hardin, Newberry & Tribble, Inc.
Investigator(s): J Witherspoon, J. Daft
Landform (hillslope, terrace, etc.): Toe slope
Subregion (LRR or MRLA): LRR N Lat: °
Soil Map Unit Name: Evard -Cowee complex
City/County: Caldwell County Sampling Date:
State: NC Sampling Point:
Section, Township, Range:
Local relief (concave, convex, none) Concave
Long: °'^
NWI Classification: UPL
Datum:
Are climatic /hydrologic conditions of the site typical for this time of year? Yes X No (If no, explain in Remarks)
Are vegetation No Soil No or Hydrology No _ significantly disturbed? Are "Normal Circumstances" present?
Are vegetation No Soil No or Hydrology No naturally problematic? Yes X No
8/30/2013
WF -2 Up
Slope ( %): 5 -10%
SUMMARY OF FINDINGS - Attach site map showing sampling point locations, transects, important features, etc.
Hydrophytic Vegetation Present? Yes ✓ No 0 Is the Sampled Area within
Hydric Soil Present? Yes No= a Welland? Yes No
Wetland Hydrology Present? Yes No
Remarks: Explain alternative procedures here or in a separate report.)
HYDROLOGY
Wetland Hydrology Indicators:
Primary Indicators (minimum of one is required Check all that apply)
Surface Water (A1)
True Aquatic Plants (614)
High Water Table (A2)
Hydrogen Sulfide Odor (C1)
Saturation (A3)
Oxidized Rhizospheres on Living Roots (C3)
Water Marks (131)
Presence of Reduced Iron (C4)
Sediment Deposits (132)
Recent Iron Reduction Tiled Soils (C6)
Drift Deposits (133)
Thin Muck Surface (C7)
Algal Mat or Crust (1214)
Other (Explain in Remarks)
_ Iron Deposits (B5)
Inundation Visible on Aerial Imagery (137)
Water- Stained Leaves (139)
Aquatic Fauna (B13)
Field Observations:
Surface Water Present? Yes
No v/ Depth (inches):
Water Table Present? Yes
No ✓ Depth (inches):
Saturation Present? Yes
No v/ Depth (inches):
(includes capillary fringe)
Describe Recorded Data (stream gauge, monitoring well, aerial photos, previous inspections), if available
Remarks:
Secondary Indicators (minimum of two required)
Surface Soil Cracks (136)
Sparsely Vegetated Concave Surface (138)
Drainage Patterns (1310)
Moss Trim Lines (1318)
Dry- Season Water Table (C2)
Crayfish Burrows (C8)
Saturation Visible on Aerial Imagery (C9)
Stunted or Stressed Plants (D1)
Geomorphic Position (D2)
Shallow Aquitard (D3)
Microtopographic Relief (D4)
FAC- Neutral Test (D5)
Wetland Hydrology Present?
Yes No V/
US Army Corps of Engineers Eastern Mountains and Piedmont - Version 2.0

VEGETATION - Use scientific names of plants
Sampling Point: WF -2 Up
Tree Stratult (Plot Size:
Absolute
30 ft. radius ) % Cover
Dominant
Species?
Indicator
Status
Dominance Test worksheet:
1. Lidodendron tulipifera
30
Yes
FAC
Number of Dominant Species That Are
2. Carya glabra
25
Yes
FACU
OBL, FACW, or FAC: 4 (A)
3.
Total Number of Dominant Species
4
Across All Strata: 6 (B)
5.
Percent of Dominant Species That Are
6-
OBL, FACW, or FAC: 67 (A/B)
7
8
Prevalence Index worksheet:
55
= Total Cover
Total % Cover of Multiply by:
Saolifia /Shrub Stratum
(Plot Size: 15 -ft. radius j
OBL species x 1 =
1. Liriodendron tulipifera
20
Yes
FAC
FACW species x 2 =
2. Carya glabra
20
Yes
FACU
FAC species x 3 =
3.
FACU species x4=
4•
UPL species x5=
5
Column Totals: (A) (B)
6.
7.
Prevalence Index = B/A =
8.
9.
10.
Hydrophytic Vegetation Indicators:
1 - Rapid Test for Hydrophytic Vegetation
40
= Total Cover
_
x 2- Dominance Test is >50%
Herb Stratum (Plot Size:
5 ft. radius )
3- Prevalence Index is <_ 3.0'
1. Polystichum acrostichoides
20
Yes
FAC
4- Morphological Adaptations' (Provide supporting
2. Arundinaria giganatea
15
Yes
FACW
data in Remarks or on a separate sheet)
3
5- Problematic Hydrophytic Vegetation'
4.
5.
'Indicators of hydric soil and wetland hydrology must be
6.
present, unless disturbed or problematic.
7.
8
Definitions of Vegetation Strata:
9•
Tree - Woody plants 3 in. (7.6 cm) or more in diameter at
10.
breast height (DBH), regardless of height.
11.
12.
Sapling /shrub - Woody plants less than 3 in. DBH and
greater than or equal to 3.28 ft. tall.
35
= Total Cover
Woody Vine Stratum
(Plot Size: 30 -ft. radius )
Herb - All herbaceous (non - woody) plants, regardless of
1.
size, and woody plants less than 3.28 ft. tall.
2.
3.
Woody vines - All woody vines greater than 3.26 ft. in height
4.
5.
Hydrophytic Vegetation Present?
6
= Total Cover
Yes No
Remarks: (Include photo numbers here or on a separate sheet.)
US Army Corps of Engineers Sheet2 Eastern Mountains and Piedmont - Version 2.0

SOIL Sampling Point: wF -2 Up
Profile Description: (Describe to the depth needed to document the indicator or confirm the absence of indicators.)
Depth Matrix Redox Features
(inches) Color (moist) % Color (moist) % I ype, LOC° Texture Remarks
0 -4 10YR 3/2 100 Sandy loam
4 -15 10YR 4/4 100 Loam
'-type: C= Concentration, D= Depletion, RM= Reduced Matrix, MS= Masked Sand Grains
Hydric Soil Indicators:
Histosol (A1)
Dark Surface (S7)
Histic Epipedon (A2)
Polyvalue Below Surface (S8) (MLRA
Black Histic (A3)
147, 148)
Hydrogen Sulfide (A4)
IIThin Dark Surface (S9) (MLRA 147,
Stratified Layers (A5)
148)
2 cm Muck (A10) (LRR N)
Loamy Gleyed Matrix (F2)
Depleted Below Dark Surface (All 1)
-NOW
i Depleted Matrix (F3)
Thick Dark Surface (Al2)
Redox Dark Surface (F6)
`Depleted
Sandy Mucky Mineral (S1) (LRR N,
i Dark Surface (F17)
MLRA 147, 148)
Redox Depressions (F8)
Sandy Gleyed Matrix (S4)
Iron - Manganese Masses (F12) (LRR N,
Sandy Redox (S5)
MLRA 136)
Stripped Matrix (S6)
Umbric Surface (F13) (MLRA 136,122)
II Piedmont Floodplain Soils (F19) (MLRA 148)
Red Parent Material (F21) (MLRA 127,147)
Restrictive Layer (if observed):
Type:
Depth (inches): Hydric Soil Present?
Remarks:
Auger refusal at 16 inches on bedrock.
Data form is representative of WF and WG upland point.
'Location: PL =Pore Lining, M= Matrix
Indicators for Problematic Hydric Soils'
2 cm Muck (A10) (LRR N)
Coast Prairie Redox (A16) (MLRA 147, 148)
Piedmont Floodplain Soils (F19) (MLRA 147, 148)
Very Shallow Dark Surface (TF12)
Other (Explain in Remarks)
'Indicators of hydrophytic vegetation and wetland
hydrology must be present, unless disturbed or
problematic.
Yes _L_ No W
US Army Corps of Engineers Sheet3 Eastern Mountains and Piedmont - Version 2.0

WETLAND DETERMINATION DATA FORM - Eastern Mountains and Piedmont Region
Project/Site: Potential Borrow Areas - FRL
Applicant/Owner: Hodges, Hardin, Newberry 8 Tribble, Inc.
Investigator(s): J Witherspoon, J. Daft
Landform (hillslope, terrace, etc.): Floodplain
Subregion (LRR or MRLA): LRR N Lat.
Soil Map Unit Name: Evard -Cowee complex
City /County: Caldwell County Sampling Date:
State: NC Sampling Point:
Section, Township, Range:
Local relief (concave, convex, none): Concave
Long
NWI Classification: PEM
Datum:
Are climatic /hydrologic conditions of the site typical for this time of year? Yes x No (If no, explain in Remarks)
Are vegetation No Soil No or Hydrology No —significantly disturbed? Are "Normal Circumstances" present?
Are vegetation No Soil No or Hydrology No naturally problematic? Yes x No
8/30/2013
WF -2 Wet
Slope ( %): 0 -2%
SUMMARY OF FINDINGS - Attach site map showing sampling point locations, transects, important features, etc.
Hydrophytic Vegetation Present? Yes 171 No
Is the Sampled Area within
Hydric Soil Present? Yes No_� a Wetland? Yes � No
Wetland Hydrology Present? Yes = ND
Remarks: Explain alternative procedures here or in a separate report.)
HYDROLOGY
Wetland Hydrology Indicators:
Primary Indicators (minimum of one is required: Check all that apply)
_ Surface Water (Al)
True Aquatic Plants (1314)
High Water Table (A2)
Hydrogen Sulfide Odor (Cl)
Saturation (A3)
Oxidized Rhizospheres on Living Roots (C3)
Water Marks (B1)
Presence of Reduced Iron (C4)
Sediment Deposits (B2)
Recent Iron Reduction Tiled Soils (C6)
Drift Deposits (B3)
Thin Muck Surface (C7)
Algal Mat or Crust (134)
Other (Explain in Remarks)
Iron Deposits (135)
_ Inundation Visible on Aerial Imagery (B7)
Water- Stained Leaves (139)
Aquatic Fauna (613)
Field Observations:
Surface Water Present? Yes No v/ Depth (inches):
Water Table Present? Yes No Depth (inches): 0
Saturation Present? Yes No Depth (inches): 0
(includes capillary fringe)
Describe Recorded Data (stream gauge, monitoring well, aerial photos, previous inspections), if available:
Remarks
Secondary Indicators (minimum of two required)
Surface Soil Cracks (66)
Sparsely Vegetated Concave Surface (68)
Drainage Patterns (B10)
Moss Trim Lines (1318)
Dry- Season Water Table (C2)
Crayfish Burrows (C8)
Saturation Visible on Aerial Imagery (C9)
Stunted or Stressed Plants (D1)
Geomorphic Position (D2)
Shallow Aquitard (D3)
Microtopographic Relief (D4)
FAC- Neutral Test (D5)
Wetland Hydrology Present?
Yes / No
US Army Corps of Engineers Eastern Mountains and Piedmont - Version 2.0

VEGETATION - Use scientific names of plants
Sampling Point: WF -2 wet
Absolute Dominant Indicator
Dominance Test worksheet:
Tree Stratum (Plot Size:
30 ft. radius ) % Cover Species? Status
1
Number of Dominant Species That Are
2,
OBL, FACW, or FAC: 3 (A)
3.
Total Number of Dominant Species
4.
Across All Strata: 3 (B)
5.
Percent of Dominant Species That Are
6.
OBL, FACW, or FAC: 100 (A/B)
7.
8.
Prevalence Index worksheet:
= Total Cover
Total % Cover of Multiply by:
SaOno /Shrub Stratum
(Plot Size: 15 -ft. radius )
OBL species x 1 =
1.
FACW species x 2 =
2.
FAC species x 3 =
3.
FACU species x4=
4.
UPL species x5=
5.
Column Totals: (A) (B)
6.
7.
Prevalence Index = B/A =
8.
9.
Hydrophytic Vegetation Indicators:
10.
_ 1 - Rapid Test for Hydrophytic Vegetation
= Total Cover
x 2- Dominance Test is >50%
Herb Stratum (Plot Size:
5 ft. radius )
i 3- Prevalence Index is 15 3.0'
1. Microsegium vimineum
80 Yes FAC
4- Morphological Adaptations' (Provide supporting
2. Boehmeda cylinddca
40 Yes FACW
data in Remarks or on a separate sheet)
3. Urtica dioica
40 Yes FAC
5- Problematic Hydrophytic Vegetation'
4.
_
5.
'Indicators of hydric soil and wetland hydrology must be
6.
present, unless disturbed or problematic.
7.
Definitions of Vegetation Strata:
8.
9.
Tree - Woody plants 3 in. (7.6 cm) or more in diameter at
10.
breast height (DBH), regardless of height.
11.
12.
Sapling /shrub - Woody plants less than 3 in. DBH and
greater than or equal to 3.28 ft. tall.
=
Aso Total Cover
Woody Vine Stratum
(Plot Size: 30 -ft. radius )
Herb - All herbaceous (non - woody) plants, regardless of
1.
size, and woody plants less than 3.28 ft. tall.
2.
3.
Woody vines - All woody vines greater than 3.26 ft. in height
4.
5.
Hydrophytic Vegetation Present?
6.
= Total Cover
Yes n No
Remarks: (Include photo numbers here or on a separate sheet.)
US Army Corps of Engineers Sheet2 Eastern Mountains and Piedmont - Version 2.0

SOIL Sampling Point: wF -2 wet
Profile Description (Describe to the depth needed to document the indicator or confirm the absence of indicators )
Depth Matrix Redox Features
(inches) Color (moist) % Color (moist) % i ype' Loc` Texture Remarks
0 -3 10YR 3/2 100 Sand
3 -18+ 10YR 411 60 5YR 416 40 C M Loam
'Type: C= Concentration, 1D= Depletion, RM= Reduced Matrix, MS= Masked Sand Grains
Hydric Soil Indicators:
Histosol (A1)
n Dark Surface (S7)
Histic Epipedon (A2)
LT1T Polyvalue Below Surface (S8) (MLRA
Black Histic (A3)
147, 148)
�.. Hydrogen Sulfide (A4)
II Thin Dark Surface (S9) (MLRA 147,
Stratified Layers (A5)
148)
2 cm Muck (A10) (LRR N)
Loamy Gleyed Matrix (F2)
Depleted Below Dark Surface (All 1)
,I Depleted Matrix (F3)
.Thick Dark Surface (Al2)
Redox Dark Surface (176)
Sandy Mucky Mineral (S1) (LRR N,
,Depleted Dark Surface (F17)
MLRA 147, 148)
Redox Depressions (F8)
❑ Sandy Gleyed Matrix (S4)
Iron- Manganese Masses (F12) (LRR N,
Redox (S5)
MLRA 136)
ESandy
Stripped Matrix (S6)
Umbric Surface (F13) (MLRA 136,122)
Piedmont Floodplain Soils (F19) (MLRA 148)
Red Parent Material (F21) (MLRA 127,147)
Restrictive Layer (if observed):
Type:
Depth (inches): Hydric Soil Present?
Remarks:
Data form is representative of WF and WG wetlands.
2Location: PL =Pore Lining, M= Matrix
Indicators for Problematic Hydric Soils'
2 cm Muck (A10) (LRR N)
..►Coast Prairie Redox (A16) (MLRA 147, 148)
_Piedmont Floodplain Soils (F19) (MLRA 147, 148)
Very Shallow Dark Surface (TF12)
Other (Explain in Remarks)
'Indicators of hydrophytic vegetation and wetland
hydrology must be present, unless disturbed or
problematic
Yes No
US Army Corps of Engineers Sheet3 Eastern Mountains and Piedmont - Version 2.0

ATTACHMENT B
SITE LOCATION MAP

?a 321
N
C
C
�4 90
a
4¢
�y
Otivette `a
a '90
0
a
�7h
�a
Creek Rd
`easy
(3
c
ti
41
1
Q
/
A
7 � �
461.
'��41
1 1
�
I
V
.o
I
I �
'SG
Broo4�.re Rd
Abingdon
z
e A f
o�
11&�9
*11 4Ey6�
t
Rd
Gbin910,
n
v
7
y2
SITE LOCATION MAP
made for
HODGES, HARBIN, NEWBERRY, &
s
TRIBBLE, INC.
o
POTENTIAL BORROW AREAS -
a
FOOTHILLS REGIONAL LANDFILL
—
Caldwell County, North Carolina
Reference: ESRI Bing Maps Road Basemap
N
prepared by
Limits of Investigation
I
DIEFFENBAUCH & HRITZ, PLLC.
0 1,000
2,000
Feet
543 Keisler Drive, Suite 104 Cary, NC 27518
Phone: [phone] Fax: [phone]

ATTACHMENT C
USGS TOPOGRAPHIC MAP

1200•
.�
L
1 !rte �+ -� *i'f I r ' - �• � 1 .." � `
•M1y ��.�� �// f�Jf- I .'I!I M (71
FGrl \ \` Hood .l ,
if
fif ! ,gyp V I 'R
*'�=`� \i prr -��r .. ld� 1.. �j ,f�• .111
I op
1( �
�
1315 9
r _
t
4
•� I I �
USGS TOPOGRAPHIC MAP
..� �r 1` made for
HODGES, HARBIN, NEWBERRY, &
TRIBBLE, INC.
POTENTIAL BORROW AREAS -
/ FOOTHILLS REGIONAL LANDFILL
Caldwell County, North Carolina
Reference: USGS 7.5 Minute Senes Lenoir Quad, NC 1994 N
prepared by
0 1,000 2,000 t_ _ Limits of Investigation DIEFFENBAUCH & HRITZ, PLLC.
Feet 543 Keisler Drive, Suite 104 Cary, NC 27518
Phone: [phone] Fax: [phone]

ATTACHMENT D
AERIAL PHOTOGRAPH

� x
�� Fi�Tc , ../yam ►, F `. �` - o
. y ��, r � � ♦ b ` r� �r , 1. �
..
op
CUP
Approved
♦ i • , �•. 1 -456'
t \ ♦ 8.1.
" 4kI,
C • ti` �/ t r{ y ?t ; ♦ ♦ \ 9/132013
D to
\ \ 130108
spy _✓ Project No.
'' - wy ♦ �.
r y +p n' -
♦ ♦ 46 Fes. ' Z J uj
YY 1 r• ,. ` :y� TM fir`..• w >S
I y � O_ W
ED
uj
Z
of
Ir
Y I y�ac i J_
,\ t �- i ? y v i e m LU
\\�
LU
0-0
\ < \ INS _
� 1
—'T
owl
11
I �
Legend ,\
Limits of Investigation LU
Q
0 225 450
. Feet
• t NOTE: AERIAL IMAGERY OBTAINED FROM 1
Fl NC ONEMAP GEOSPATIAL PORTAL
�� (DATUM NAD 83) Drawing NO.

ATTACHMENT E
NWI MAP

1 ♦
I
1 `
I
1
1
I ♦
I
Y 1
1
I 1
I \
I
f 1
1 1
♦ 1
♦ 1
— — — — — — — — —
i
Wetland Type
_
Freshwater Emergent Wetland
_
Freshwater Forested /Shrub Wetland
-
Freshwater Pond
I
Lake
0
Riverine
Other
Reference: LSFWS National Wetlands Inventory 2012
Imagery from National Agriculture Imagery Program 2012
500 1,000
Feet
II
� 1
♦ 1
♦ � 1
i
I 1
\ 1
\ 1
\ 1
\ 1
4�
I
1 1
1 `
1 ,
I ,
N
Limits of Investigation
NWI MAP
made for
HODGES, HARBIN, NEWBERRY, &
TRIBBLE, INC.
POTENTIAL BORROW AREAS -
FOOTHILLS REGIONAL LANDFILL
Caldwell County, North Carolina
prepared by
DIEFFENBAUCH & HRITZ, PLLC.
543 Keisler Drive, Suite 104 Cary, NC 27518
Phone: [phone] Fax: [phone]

ATTACHMENT F
FEMA FIRM

I .
I
I `
I
♦
1
1 \
� r
I
1 1
1
1
r �
1 1
` 1
i 1
1, — — — — — — — — — J
1
Flood Insurance Rate Map
Map Number: 370272007101856
Effective Date: July 7, 2009
Map Number: 370272007101869
Effective Date: July 7, 2009
® Approx. 100 -year flood hazard area
Reference: FEMA National Flood Hazard Layer 2012
Imagery from National Agriculture Imagery Program 2012
500 1,000
Feet
.1
I 1
I 1
_ I 1
\ I 1
♦ 1
\ 1
\ 1
\ I
\ I
I
I
\ I
I
\ I
V I
I
I 1
1 `
1 ,
I ,
♦ I
N
Limits of Investigation
FEMA MAP
made for
HODGES, HARBIN, NEWBERRY, &
TRIBBLE, INC.
POTENTIAL BORROW AREAS -
FOOTHILLS REGIONAL LANDFILL
Caldwell County, North Carolina
prepared by
DIEFFENBAUCH & HRITZ, PLLC.
543 Keisler Drive, Suite 104 Cary, INC 27518
Phone: [phone] Fax: [phone]

ATTACHMENT G
NRCS SOILS DATA

EvE
ChF
HeD EvE
EvE
EvD
ChF
HeD
ChF
TaD
BbA
EvE
EvE
ChF
HeD HeD
EvE TaD
HeD
HeD
ChF
It
1 ♦
HeD
ChF
1
� ChF
1 EvE
TaD
TaD
%
1 % HeD
BbA
ChF
♦
I
I
I
♦
HeD
ChF
ChF �
�`
EvE II
EvE
HeD
1
1 HeD
1
1
TfC /
EvE %
HeD BbA
I
HeC
I
/
1
HeD HeD
EvE /
ChF
I
1
/
1
HeD
HeC
t
1
TaD
II
1
ChF
1 _
I I 1
HeD
EvE 1 ♦
1
I
'
TaD 1
EvE
HeD
1
TfCI
1
1
TaD
,
HeD 1
HeC
EvE
�
I EvE
I
HeD
EvE �
I
EvE
EvE
♦ HeD
HeD
ly
HeD
HeC HeD
CnA
HeD
EvE
BbA
HeD
HeD
HeD
HeD
BbA
DaC2 RhE
EvE
UdE
RhE
EvE
I�
1 EyE
Fa D2
1
I
I
FaD2
EvE
I
% I
♦ I
♦I
DaC2
DoA
HeD
RhE
FaC2
EvE
RhE
HeC
EvE
FaC2
SOILS MAP
HeD
made for
DaC2
FaD2
HODGES, HARBIN, NEWBERRY, &
RhE
TRIBBLE, INC.
HeD Dace
POTENTIAL BORROW AREAS -
FOOTHILLS REGIONAL LANDFILL
cnA
Caldwell County, North Carolina
Reference: USDA, NRCS Soil
Survey Data 2012
_
N
I_ t Limits of Investigation
prepared by
Imagery from National Agriculture
Imagery Program 2012
_
DIEFFENBAUCH & HRITZ, PLLC.
0 500
1,000
SOI BOUndary
543 Keisler Drive, Suite 104 Cary, NC 27518
Feet
Phone: [phone] Fax: [phone]

Official Series Description - CHESTNUT Series
LOCATION CHESTNUT NC +GA TN VA
Established Series
MLS, MSH, BPS/ Rev. MDJ
05/2013
CHESTNUT SERIES
TAXONOMIC CLASS: Coarse - loamy, mixed, active, mesic Typic Dystrudepts
TYPICAL PEDON: Chestnut gravelly loam -- forested. (Colors are for moist soil unless otherwise indicated).
Oe - -O to 5 cm (0 to 2 inch); moderately decomposed leaves, twigs, and root mat; abrupt smooth boundary
A­5 to 20 cm (2 to 8 inches); dark yellowish brown (IOYR 4/4) gravelly loam; weak medium granular structure; very
friable; many fine and medium roots; few fine flakes of mica; 20 percent granite gneiss gravel by volume; very strongly
acid; clear wavy boundary. (3 to 25 cm, 1 to 10 inches thick)
Bw - -20 to 81 cm (8 to 32) inches; yellowish brown (IOYR 5/6) gravelly loam; weak medium subangular blocky
structure; very friable; common fine roots; few fine flakes of mica; 20 percent granite gneiss gravel by volume; very
strongly acid; clear wavy boundary. (25 to 76 cm, 10 to 30 inches thick)
Cr - -81 to 188 cm (32 to 74 inches); weathered, multicolored granite gneiss; rock structure; partly consolidated in place;
excavation difficulty is high with hand tools; few fine roots in cracks; cracks are more than 10 cm (4 inches) apart; few
fine flakes of mica; very strongly acid; abrupt wavy boundary. (25 to127 cm, 10 to 50 inches thick)
R--188 cm (74 inches); unweathered, hard granite gneiss.
TYPE LOCATION:
County: Caldwell
State: North Carolina
USGS Quadrangle: Globe
Latitude: 36.09938783 N (NAD 27)
Longitude: 81.6912058 W (NAD 27) Directions to the pedon: 2.5 miles south of Blowing Rock on Globe Road (State
Road 1367); 0.6 mile north of Tolbert Cemetery; 500 feet northwest of USFS trail; on north side of trail.
RANGE IN CHARACTERISTICS:
Solum Thickness: 38 to 99 cm (15 to 39 inches)
Depth to Bedrock: 51 to 102 cm (20 to 40 inches) to weathered bedrock (paralithic); greater than 152 cm (60 inches) to
unweathered bedrock (lithic).
Depth Class: Moderately Deep
Rock Fragment content: 0 to 35 percent, by volume, but typically less than 20 percent throughout the profile.
Soil Reaction: Extremely acid to moderately acid, except where limed
Content of Mica: 0 to 20 percent, by volume mica flakes throughout
Range of Individual Horizons:
A or Ap horizon (if it occurs):
Color- -hue of 7.5YR to 2.5Y, value of 2 to 6, and chroma of 1 to 6.
horizons are less than 7 inches thick.
Texture (fine -earth fraction) - -fine sandy loam, sandy loam, or loam.
https:H soilseries. sc. egov. usda .gov /OSD_Docs /C /CBESTNUT.htmIL9 /23/2013 9:35:49 AM]
Where value and chroma is 3 or less, surface

Official Series Description - CHESTNUT Series
AB or BA horizon (if they occur):
Color- -hue of 7.5YR to 2.5Y, value of 3 to 6, and chroma of 3 or 4.
Texture (fine -earth fraction) - -fine sandy loam, sandy loam, or loam.
Bw horizon; BC horizon (if it occurs):
Color- -hue of 5YR to 2.5Y, value of 4 to 6, and chroma of 2 or 8.
Texture (fine -earth fraction) - -fine sandy loam, sandy loam, or loam. Some pedons have thin subhorizons of sandy clay
loam.
C horizon (if it occurs):
Color- -hue of 5YR to 2.5Y, value of 4 to 7, and chroma of 2 or 8; or is multicolored in shades of yellow, brown, red or
gray.
Texture (fine -earth fraction) - -fine sandy loam, sandy loam, loam, loamy fine sand, or loamy sand saprolite.
Non - redoximorphic mottles (if they occur) -- shades of shades red, brown, yellow, or gray mottles of relic rock material
are in some pedons.
Cr horizon:
Bedrock kind -- felsic or mafic igneous or high -grade metamorphic rocks such as granite gneiss, granodiorite, biotite
gneiss, and high -grade metagraywacke.
Bedrock hardness -- moderately cemented
Fracture interval -- greater than 10 cm (4 inches)
Excavation difficulty -- moderate or high
R horizon:
Bedrock kind -- felsic or mafic igneous or high -grade metamorphic rocks such as granite gneiss, granodiorite, biotite
gneiss, and high -grade metagraywacke.
Bedrock hardness - -Very strongly cemented to indurated
Fracture interval -- greater than 10 cm (4 inches)
Excavation difficulty- -Very high or extremely high
COMPETING SERIES:
Ashe soils - -have lithic contact.
Buladean soils - -have paralithic contact, depths of 102 to 152 cm (40 to 60 inches).
Ditnev soils - -have lithic contact; formed in materials weathered from low -grade metasedimentary rocks.
Edneyville soils - -very deep, more than 152 cm (60 inches).
Soco soils -- formed in materials weathered from low -grade metasedimentary rocks.
Stecoah soils - -have paralithic contact, depths of 102 to 152 cm (40 to 60 inches); formed in materials weathered from
low -grade metasedimentary rocks.
GEOGRAPHIC SETTING:
MLRA(s) using this series: Southern Blue Ridge - -130B
Landscape: Low and intermediate mountains and occasionally intermountain hills
Landform: Mountain slope, hillslopes, and ridges
Geomorphic Component: Mountain top, mountain flank, side slope, and interfluves
Hillslope Profile Position: Summit, shoulder, and backslope
Parent Material Origin: Felsic or mafic igneous or high -grade metamorphic rocks such as granite gneiss, granodiorite,
biotite gneiss, and high -grade metagraywacke.
Parent Material Kind: Residuum that is affected by soil creep in the upper solum.
Slope: Typically 15 to 95 percent, but range from 2 to 95 percent.
Elevation: 427 to 1524 meters; (1,400 to 5,000 feet)
Frost -free period: 130 to 210 days
Mean Annual Air Temperature: 8 to 14 degrees C (46 to 57 degrees F)
Mean Annual Precipitation: 1143 to 2286 millimeters (45 to 90 inches)
https:H soilseries. sc. egov. usda .gov /OSD_Docs /C /CBESTNUT.htmIL9 /23/2013 9:35:49 AM]

Official Series Description - CHESTNUT Series
GEOGRAPHICALLY ASSOCIATED SOILS:
In addition to the competing Ashe, Buladean.. and F,dneyville series, these are:
Cowee, Ednevtown. Evar , and Pigeonroost soils - -with an argillic horizon, on related landscapes.
Brownwood. Cashiers. Chandler, Fanni , Micaville, and Watauga soils - -are in a micaceous family on related
landscapes. In addition Cashiers soils have thicker darker surface layers, on ridges and side slopes of cool north to east
aspects.
Cleveland and Saluda soils - -have bedrock within a depth of 51 cm (20 inches) on related landscapes.
Brevard, Cullasaja. Greenlee, Haywood, Saunook, Tate, Thunder, Tuckaseaee. and Tusquitee soils - -are on colluvial
benches, toe slopes, and fans. In addition Cullasaja, Haywood, Saunook, Thunder, Tuckasegee, and Tusquitee soils
have thicker, darker surface layers.
Huntdale. Plott, Porters, Trimont, and Unaka soils - -with thicker darker surface layers, on ridges and side slopes of cool
north to east aspects.
DRAINAGE AND SATURATED HYDRAULIC CONDUCTIVITY:
Drainage Class: Well drained
Internal Free Water Occurrence: Very deep
Index Surface Runoff: Very low or low runoff where forest litter has not been disturbed or only partially removed; low
to medium runoff where litter has been removed.
Saturated Hydraulic Conductivity Class: High
Permeability Class (obsolete): Moderate rapid
Shrink -swell Class: Low
Flooding Frequency and Duration: None
Ponding Frequency and Duration: None
USE AND VEGETATION:
Major Uses: Woodland, less often pasture, hayland, and rarely cultivated crops.
Dominant Vegetation: Where wooded -- scarlet oak, chestnut oak, white oak, black oak, hickory, eastern white pine, and
Virginia pine. Yellow poplar and northern red oak occur in the north central mountains of MLRA 130 -B. Understory
species are dominantly mountain laurel, flowering dogwood, sourwood, chestnut sprouts, and buffalo nut. Where
cleared - -used for pasture and hay.
DISTRIBUTION AND EXTENT:
Distribution: Southern Blue Ridge (MLRA 130 -B) of North Carolina, South Carolina, Georgia, Tennessee, and
Virginia.
Extent: Large - -more than 100,000 acres.
MLRA SOIL SURVEY REGIONAL OFFICE (MO) RESPONSIBLE: Morgantown, West Virginia
SERIES ESTABLISHED: Caldwell County, North Carolina, 1983.
I k"i 010 F.11 RIMI
Chestnut soils were previously mapped with the Ashe series. Field studies indicate that Chestnut soils have significantly
higher forest productivity than Ashe soils.
The 12/97 revision changes the family placement to coarse - loamy, mixed, active, mesic Typic Dystrochrepts per the 7th
Edition of Keys to Soil Taxonomy (1996). The CEC activity class placement is based on three pedons; S88- NC -121-
005; S91 -NC- 111 -002; and S77 -TN- 171 -004. All three pedons have control section clay contents over 18 %. Two of the
three are in the active family while one is in the semiactive family. Since these soils may best fit Pigeonroost, additional
future lab data may place Chestnut soils in a semiactive family. Horizon depths and runoff class were also revised at
this time. The 2/99 revision updates classification to 8th Edition of Keys to Soil Taxonomy.
Diagnostic horizons and features recognized in this pedon are:
a. Ochric epipedon - -the zone from 0 to 20 cm, 0 to 8 inches (Oe and A horizons)
b. Cambic horizon - -the zone from 20 to 81 cm, 8 to 32 inches (Bw horizons)
https:H soilseries. sc. egov. usda .gov /OSD_Docs /C /CHESTNUT.html[9 /23/2013 9:35:49 AM]

Official Series Description - CHESTNUT Series
c. Paralithic contact - the contact with weathered rock at 81 cm, 32 inches (upper boundary of the Cr horizon).
d. Series control section - -the zone from 25 to 102 cm, 10 to 40 inches
ADDITIONAL DATA:
Soil Characterization Data is available from the Kellogg Soil Survey Laboratory (KSSL) website:
http://ncsslabdatamairt.sc.egov.usda.gov/querypage.aspx
SIR(s) (obsolete): NCO 166, NCO242 (Stony)
Revised: 10/92 -JMO, AG; 12/97 -DHK; 2/99, 6/00, 8 /01 -MKC; 5/13 -Semi tab format and minor changes to Range in
Characteristics, MLRA 130B.
National Cooperative Soil Survey
U.S.A.
https:H soilseries. sc. egov. usda .gov /OSD_Docs /C /CHESTNUT.html[9 /23/2013 9:35:49 AM]

Official Series Description - BULADEAN Series
LOCATION BULADEAN NC
Established Series
JBA:RHR:JAK; Rev. MKC
07/2001
BULADEAN SERIES
The Buladean series consists of deep, well drained soils with moderately rapidly permeability. They formed in residuum
affected by soil creep in the upper part, that is weathered from felsic or mafic, high -grade metamorphic or igneous rock
such as granite, hornblende gneiss, granodiorite, biotite gneiss, and high -grade metagraywacke.. These soils are on
ridges and side slopes in the Blue Ridge (MLRA 130). Slope ranges from 8 to 95 percent. Mean annual precipitation is
about 57 inches and mean annual air temperature is about 52 degrees F., near the type location.
TAXONOMIC CLASS: Coarse - loamy, mixed, active, mesic Typic Dystrudepts
TYPICAL PEDON: Buladean loam, on a 42 percent, south - facing intermediate mountain side slope, elevation 3,800
feet -- forested. (Colors are for moist soil unless otherwise stated.)
Oi - -O to 1 inch; slightly decomposed deciduous leaves and twigs. (0 to 3 inches thick)
Oe - -1 to 2 inches; moderately decomposed deciduous leaves and twigs and very dark gray (IOYR 3/1) decomposed
organic matter. (0 to 3 inches thick)
A--2 to 5 inches; very dark grayish brown (IOYR 3/2) loam, brown (IOYR 4/3) dry; weak fine granular structure; very
friable; many very fine or fine, common medium, and few coarse roots; many very fine to medium and common coarse
tubular pores; 2 percent by volume gravel; strongly acid; clear smooth boundary. (1 to 8 inches thick)
Bwl - -5 to 22 inches; brown (7.5YR 4/4) loam; weak medium subangular blocky structure; friable; common very fine to
medium and few coarse roots; common very fine to medium and few coarse tubular pores; few fine flakes of mica; 5
percent by volume gravel; strongly acid; clear wavy boundary.
Bw2--22 to 28 inches; brown (7.5YR 4/4) coarse sandy loam; weak fine subangular blocky structure; friable; common
very fine to coarse roots; common very fine to coarse tubular pores; few very fine flakes of mica; 5 percent by volume
gravel; strongly acid; gradual wavy boundary. (Combined thickness of the Bw horizon is 15 to 39 inches.)
C--28 to 52 inches; multicolored coarse sandy loam saprolite; massive; very friable; few very fine to medium and
common coarse roots; few very fine to coarse tubular pores; few very fine flakes of mica; 5 percent by volume gravel;
strongly acid; abrupt smooth boundary. (0 to 40 inches thick)
Cr - -52 to 88 inches; weathered, multicolored, partially consolidated biotite granitic gneiss that can be dug with
difficulty with hand tools ; few fine and medium roots in cracks that are spaced more than 4 inches apart.
TYPE LOCATION: Mitchell County, North Carolina; about 4.0 miles north of Buladean on North Carolina Highway
226 to the North Carolina - Tennessee state line at Iron Mountain Gap; 0.7 mile southwest on U.S. Forest Service Road
5882 to a fork in the road; 0.2 mile west on USFS Road (right fork) in a road cut; Iron Mountain Gap USGS
Quadrangle, lat., 36 degrees, 07 minutes, 04 seconds N., and long. 82 degrees, 14 minutes, 15 seconds W.
RANGE IN CHARACTERISTICS: Solum thickness commonly is 20 to 30 inches, but ranges from 20 to 40 inches.
Depth to paralithic contact at the upper boundary of the Cr horizon ranges from 40 to 60 inches below the surface.
Depth to lithic contact is greater than 60 inchesContent of flakes of mica is few or common throughout. Content of rock
fragments, which are dominantly gravel, is less than 35 percent by volume throughout. Reaction ranges from extremely
acid to moderately acid throughout, except where surface layers have been limed.
https:// soilseries.sc.egov.usda.gov /OSD Docs /B/BULADEAN.httnl[9 /23/2013 9:36:56 AM]

Official Series Description - BULADEAN Series
The A or Ap horizon has hue of 7.5YR to 2.5Y, value of 3 to 6 and chroma of 2 to 4. Where value is 3 or less , this
horizon is less than 7 inches thick. Texture of the fine -earth fraction is sandy loam, fine sandy loam, or loam.
The BA or BE horizon, where present, has hue of 7.5YR to 2.5Y, value of 4 to 6, chroma of 3 to 6. Texture of the fine
earth fraction is sandy loam, fine sandy loam, or loam.
The Bw horizon has hue of 7.5YR or l OYR, value of 4 to 6, chroma of 4 to 8. Texture of the fine -earth fraction is sandy
loam, fine sandy loam, coarse sandy loam, or loam.
The BC horizon, where present, has hue of 7.5YR to 2.5Y, value of 4 to 8, and chroma of 1 to 8, or it is mixed or
mottled in shades of these colors. Colors with chroma of 2 or less are inherited from the parent material and are not
caused by wetness. Texture of the fine -earth fraction is sandy loam, fine sandy loam, coarse sandy loam, or loam. Some
pedons have a B/C horizon that consists of a BC or Bw horizon with pockets of loamy sand or sandy loam saprolite (C
material).
The C horizon is multicolored saprolite or it has hue of 5YR to 2.5Y, value of 3 to 8, and chroma of 1 to 8 and may be
mixed or mottled in shades of these colors. Colors with chroma of 2 or less are inherited from the parent material and
are not caused by wetness. Texture of the fine -earth fraction is loamy sand, sandy loam, or coarse sandy loam.
The Cr horizon is weathered, multicolored felsic or mafic, high -grade metamorphic or igneous rock that is partially
consolidated but can be dug with difficulty with hand tools. The upper boundary is considered as a paralithic contact
where root spacing is greater than 4 inches.
COMPETING SERIES: These are the Ashe, Brookfield, Cardigan, Charlton. Chestnut, Delaware. Ditney, Dutchess,
Ednevville. Foresthills (T), Gallimore, Greenbelt (T), Lordstown, Newport, Piverhead, Soco, St. Albans, Stecoah.
Steinsburg, Wakeman, and Yalesville series. Ashe soils have lithic contact within depths of 20 to 40 inches. Brookfield
soils are very deep and formed in micaceous till. Cardigan, Lordstown, Steinsburg, and Yalesville soils have hard
sedimentary or metasedimentary bedrock at depths less than 40 inches and contain fragments of those rocks. Charlton
soils are very deep and formed in glacial till derived mainly from schist, gneiss, or granite. Chestnut soils have
paralithic contact within depths of 20 to 40 inches. Delaware soils are very deep and formed in postglacial alluvium,
mainly from areas of sandstone, shale, and siltstone and contain fragments of those rocks.. Dutchess and St. Albans
soils are very deep, contain coarse fragments of sedimentary rocks such as sandstone and shale, and contain fragments
of those rocks.. Edneyville soils are very deep. Foresthills (T) and Greenbelt (T) soils are very deep and have mantles
of humanly transported materials. Gallimore soils are very deep and formed in loamy over sandy outwash on outwash
plains. Newport soils have C horizons of dense glacial till. Riverhead have a lithologic discontinuity in the upper 40
inches. Ditney, Soco and Stecoah soils formed from materials weathered from low -grade metasedimentary rocks and
contain fragments of those rocks. Wakeman soils formed in residuum over sandstone bedrock on till plains and lake
plains and contain frgaments of sandstone.
GEOGRAPHIC SETTING: Buladean soils are on ridges and side slopes on low and intermediate mountains in the
Blue Ridge (MLRA130). Slopes are dominantly 30 to 70 percent, but range from 8 to 95 percent. Elevation ranges from
about 1,400 to 5,000 feet. Buladean soils formed in residuum that is affected by soil creep in the upper part and
weathered from felsic or mafic igneous or high -grade metamorphic rocks such as granite, hornblende gneiss,
granodiorite, biotite gneiss, and high -grade metagraywacke.. The mean annual air temperature ranges from about 46 to
57 degrees F., the frost free season ranges from about 110 to 160 days, and the average annual rainfall ranges from
about 48 to 64 inches.
GEOGRAPHICALLY ASSOCIATED SOILS: In addition to the competing Ashe, Chestnut, and Edneyville series,
these are the Brevard. Brownwood, Cashiers, Chandler, Cleveland, Cowee, Cullasaja, E ar , Fannin, Greenlee,
Havwood, Huntdale. Micaville. Plott, Porters, Saluda, Saunook, Tate, Thunder, Trimont, Tuckasegee, Tusquitee.
Unaka, and Watauga soils. Brevard, Cowee, Evard, Saluda, Saunook, Tate, Trimont, and Watauga soils have an argillic
horizon. Brownwood, Cashiers, Chandler, Fannin, Micaville,and Watauga soils are in a micaceous or paramicaceous
family. Cleveland and Saluda soils have bedrock within a depth of 20 inches. Cullasaja and Greenlee soils are in a
loamy - skeletal family. Haywood, Plott, Porters, Tuckasegee, and Unaka soils have umbric epipedons. Huntdale,
https:// soilseries.sc.egov.usda.gov /OSD Docs /B/BULADEAN.httnl[9 /23/2013 9:36:56 AM]

Official Series Description - BULADEAN Series
Thunder, and Tusquitee soils have thicker humus - enriched ochric epipedons with color value of 3 or less. All these
soils are on ridges and side slopes except for Brevard, Cullasaja, Greenlee, Haywood, Saunook, Tate, Thunder,
Tuckasegee, and Tusquitee soils which are on colluvial benches, toe slopes, and fans. Also, soils on cooler, more humid
north to east aspects on the ridges and side slopes are Cashiers, Huntdale, Plott, Porters, Trimont, and Unaka.
DRAINAGE AND PERMEABILITY: Well drained; slow runoff where forest litter has not been disturbed, and
medium to rapid runoff where litter is significantly disturbed or removed; moderately rapid permeability.
USE AND VEGETATION: Most areas of Buladean soils are forested. Common trees are chestnut oak, white oak,
black oak, hickory, red maple, black locust, scarlet oak, eastern white pine, Virginia pine, and pitch pine. Yellow poplar
and northern red oak are common in the northern portions of MLRA 130. The understory includesflowering dogwood,
mountain - laurel, rhododendron, and sourwood. Cleared areas are used for pasture, and occasionally orchard, and
ornamental crop production.
DISTRIBUTION AND EXTENT: North Carolina, and possibly Georgia, South Carolina, Tennessee, and Virginia.
The series is of moderate extent.
MLRA SOIL SURVEY REGIONAL OFFICE (MO) RESPONSIBLE: Morgantown, West Virginia
SERIES ESTABLISHED: Mitchell County, North Carolina; 1992.
REMARKS: Soils now included with the Buladean series were previously mapped with Edneyville soils. Edneyville
soils do not have weathered bedrock and paralithic contact within a depth of 60 inches. The particle size control section
of many pedons has a weighted average clay content marginal to fine- loamy. Similar soils in a fine -loamy family are
associated on some landscapes.
The 2/99 revision updates classification to the 8th Edition of Keys to Soil Taxonomy. This soil is placed in the active
CEC activity class based on comparison with similar associated soils such as Edneyville and Chestnut. Sampled pedon
S88NC- 121 -007 classifies as superactive, but the active class is consistent with similar series.
Diagnostic horizons and soil characteristics recognized in this pedon are:
Ochric epipedon - the zone from the soil surface to a depth of 5 inches (Oi, Oe, and A horizons)
Cambic horizon - the zone between from 5 to 28 inches (Bwl and Bw2 horizons)
Paralithic contact - weathered bedrock contact at 52 inches (upper boundary of the Cr horizon)
SIR = NCO243 MLRA = 130
ADDITIONAL DATA: Characterization data is available from the National Soil Survey Laboratory, Lincoln, NE;
pedon number S88NC -121 -007.
National Cooperative Soil Survey
U.S.A.
https:// soilseries.sc.egov.usda.gov /OSD DocsBBULADEAN.httnl[9 /23/2013 9:36:56 AM]

Official Series Description - EVARD Series
LOCATION EVARD SC +GA NC TN VA
Established Series
MLS, MSH, BPS/ Rev. MDJ
05/2013
EVARD SERIES
TAXONOMIC CLASS: Fine - loamy, parasesquic, mesic Typic Hapludults
TYPICAL PEDON: Evard sandy loam - forested. (Colors are for moist soil unless otherwise indicated.)
A--O to 5 cm (0 to 2 inches); very dark grayish brown (IOYR 3/2) sandy loam, weak fine granular structure; very
friable; nonsticky, nonplastic; many fine and few medium roots; strongly acid; abrupt smooth boundary. (5 to 18 cm
thick; 2 to 7 inches).
E--5 to 13 cm (2 to 5 inches); brown (IOYR 5/3) fine sandy loam; weak fine granular structure; very friable, nonsticky,
nonplastic; many fine and few medium roots; very strongly acid; abrupt smooth boundary. (0 to 15 cm thick; 0 to 6
inches)
Bt1 - -13 to 23 cm (5 to 9 inches); strong brown (7.5YR 5/8) fine sandy loam; weak fine subangular blocky structure;
friable, slightly sticky, slightly plastic; many fine and few medium roots; few distinct clay films on faces of some peds;
very strongly acid; clear wavy boundary.
Bt2 - -23 to 58 cm (9 to 29 inches); red (2.5YR 5/8) sandy clay loam; moderate medium subangular blocky structure;
friable, slightly sticky, slightly plastic; common fine and few medium roots; few distinct clay films on faces of peds;
strongly acid; gradual wavy boundary. (Combined thickness of the Bt horizon is 30 to 71 cm; 12 to 28 inches.)
BC - -58 to 94 cm (29 to 37 inches); red (2.5YR 5/8) very fine sandy loam; weak medium subangular blocky structure;
friable, slightly sticky, slightly plastic; few fine roots; few gravels of quartz at top of horizon; strongly acid; gradual
wavy boundary. (0 to 43 cm; 0 to 17 inches)
C1 -- 94 to 124 cm (37 to 49 inches); yellowish red (5YR 4/6) saprolite that has a texture of very fine sandy loam;
massive; very friable, few fine roots; common very fine flakes of mica; strongly acid; clear smooth boundary.
C2--124 to 180 cm (49 to 72 inches); reddish brown (5YR 5/4) saprolite that has a texture of loamy fine sand; common
coarse distinct yellowish red (5YR 5/8) and few medium prominent black (5YR 2.5/1) mottles; massive; very friable;
few fine roots; common very fine flakes of mica; very strongly acid.
TYPE LOCATION:
County: Oconee
State: South Carolina
USGS Topographic Quadrangle: Whetstone, SC
Latitude: 34.7705176 N (NAD 27)
Longitude: 83.1575274 W (NAD 27)
Directions to the pedon: 3.5 miles south of Stumphouse Ranger Station and 5.2 miles southeast of Whetstone; from
junction of Stumphouse Road (South Carolina Secondary Road 290) and Rich Mountain Road (USFS 744) go 3.0 miles
generally south on Rich Mountain Road, then at 320 degrees north from center of road go 425 feet, at an elevation of
1630 feet.
https:H soilseries. sc. egov. usda .gov /OSD_Docs /E /EVARD.html[9 /23/2013 9:37:41 AM]

Official Series Description - EVARD Series
RANGE IN CHARACTERISTICS:
Solum Thickness: 51 to 102 cm (20 to 40 inches)
Depth to Bedrock: Greater than 152 cm (60 inches) to weathered bedrock
Depth Class: Very Deep
Rock Fragment content: 0 to 35 percent, by volume, but typically is less than 20 percent throughout the profile
Soil Reaction: Extremely acid to moderately acid in the A and E horizons, except where limed; very strongly acid or
strongly acid in the B and C horizons.
Content of Mica: 0 to 20 percent, by volume mica flakes throughout
Range of Individual Horizons:
A or Ap horizon (if it occurs):
Color- -hue of 5YR to IOYR, value of 3 to 5, and chroma of 2 to 8. Where value and chroma are 3 or less, this horizon is
less than 18 cm (7 inches) thick.
Texture (fine -earth fraction) - -loam, fine sandy loam, or sandy loam.
Other features- -Some eroded pedons have a surface layer that is sandy clay loam or clay loam, and a hue of 2.5YR or
5YR.
E horizon (if it occurs):
Color- -hue of 5YR to IOYR, value of 4 to 6, chroma of 3 to 8.
Texture (fine -earth fraction) - -sandy loam, or fine sandy loam.
AB, BA or BE horizon (if they occur):
Color- -hue of 2.5YR to l OYR, value of 4 to 8, and chroma of 4 to 8
Texture (fine -earth fraction) - -loam, sandy loam, fine sandy loam, or sandy clay loam
Bt horizon:
Color- -hue of 2.5YR or 5YR, value of 4 to 6, and chroma of 4 to 8.
Texture (fine -earth fraction) - -sandy clay loam, loam, or clay loam.
BC horizon (if it occurs):
Color- -hue of 2.5YR to 7.5YR, value of 4 to 6, and chroma of 4 or 8.
Texture (fine -earth fraction) - -sandy loam, fine sandy loam, very fine sandy loam, loam, or sandy clay loam. Non -
redoximorphic mottles (if they occur) -- shades of red, brown, or yellow are in some pedons.
C horizon:
Color- -hue of 2.5YR to l OYR, value of 4 to 6, and chroma of 4 to 8
Texture (fine -earth fraction) - -sandy loam, fine sandy loam, very fine sandy loam, loam, loamy fine sand, or loamy sand
saprolite.
Non - redoximorphic mottles (if they occur) - -are in shades of red, brown, or yellow. Gray or black mottles of relic rock
material are in some pedons.
COMPETING SERIES:
Brevard soils -- formed on colluvial or old alluvial landforms positions
Cowee soils - -have a paralithic contact with weathered bedrock at 51 to 102 cm, (20 to 40 inches).
Stott Knob soils -- adjoining mesic areas of the Southern Piedmont (MLRA 136); have a paralithic contact with
weathered bedrock at 51 to 102 cm, (20 to 40 inches).
Walhalla soils - -have a thicker argillic horizon, 71 to 140 cm (28 to 55 inches).
GEOGRAPHIC SETTING:
MLRA(s) using this series: Southern Blue Ridge - -13OB
Landscape: Intermountain hills, low and intermediate mountains
Landform: Mountain slope, hillslopes, and ridges
Geomorphic Component: Mountain top, mountain flank, side slope, and interfluves
https:// soilseries.sc.egov.usda.gov /OSD Docs/E /EVARD.html[9 /23/2013 9:37:41 AM]

Official Series Description - EVARD Series
Hillslope Profile Position: Summit, shoulders, and backslopes
Parent Material Origin: Felsic to mafic, igneous and high -grade metamorphic rocks, such as mica gneiss, hornblende
gneiss, and amphibolite.
Parent Material Kind: Residuum that is affected by soil creep in the upper solum.
Slope: Typically 15 to 50 percent, but range from 2 to 95 percent.
Elevation: 427 to 1341 meters; (1,400 to 4,400 feet)
Frost -free period: 150 to 210 days
Mean Annual Air Temperature: 8 to 14 degrees C, (46 to 57 degrees F)
Mean Annual Precipitation: 1143 to 2286 millimeters, (45 to 90 inches)
GEOGRAPHICALLY ASSOCIATED SOILS:
In addition to the competing Brevard. Cowee and Walhalla series, these are:
Edneytown and Pigeonroost soils which are browner and on closely related landforms. In addition, Pigeonroost is
moderately deep to weathered bedrock.
Clifton and Rabun soils have a fine particle size class, on related landforms.
Ashe, Buladean, Chestnut, and Edneyville soils do not have an argillic horizon on related landforms.
Brownwood, Cashiers, Chandler. Fannin, Micaville, and Watauga soils - -are in a micaceous family on related landforms.
In addition Cashiers soils have thicker, darker surface layers, on ridges and side slopes of cool north to east aspects and
Brownwood, Cashiers, Chandler, and Micaville soils do not have an argillic horizon.
Cleveland and Saluda soils - -have bedrock within a depth of 20 inches on related landforms.
Cullasaja. Greenlee, Haywood, Saunook, Tate, Thunder. Tuckasegee, and Tusquitee soils - -are on colluvial benches, toe
slopes, and fans. In addition, Cullasaja, Haywood, Saunook, Thunder, Tuckasegee, and Tusquitee soils have thicker,
darker surface layers.
Huntdale. Plott, Porters, Trimont, and Unaka soils - -with thicker, darker surface layers, on ridges and side slopes of cool
north to east aspects. In addition, Plott, Porters, and Unaka do not have an argillic horizon.
DRAINAGE AND SATURATED HYDRAULIC CONDUCTIVITY:
Drainage Class: Well drained
Internal Free Water Occurrence: Very deep
Index Surface Runoff: Very low or low runoff where forest litter has not been disturbed or only partially removed;
medium to high runoff where litter has been removed.
Saturated Hydraulic Conductivity Class: High
Permeability Class (obsolete): Moderately rapid
Shrink -swell Class: Low
Flooding Frequency and Duration: None
Ponding Frequency and Duration: None
USE AND VEGETATION:
Major Uses: Woodland, less often pasture, hayland, and rarely cultivated crops.
Dominant Vegetation: Where wooded -- chestnut oak, white oak, scarlet oak, black oak, and hickory with some eastern
white pine, Virginia pine, and shortleaf pine. Understory includes flowering dogwood, American chestnut sprouts,
sourwood, mountain laurel, flame azalea, black locust, greenbrier, and buffalo nut.
DISTRIBUTION AND EXTENT:
Distribution: Southern Blue Ridge (MLRA 130B) of South Carolina, North Carolina, Tennessee, Georgia, and Virginia.
Extent: Large - -more than 100,000 acres.
MLRA SOIL SURVEY REGIONAL OFFICE (MO) RESPONSIBLE: Morgantown, West Virginia
SERIES ESTABLISHED: Greenville County, South Carolina, 1972
REMARKS: The 1/98 revision places Evard series in a parasesquic mineralogy family. Evard soils were formerly in an
oxidic mineralogy.
https:// soilseries.sc.egov.usda.gov /OSD Docs/E /EVARD.html[9 /23/2013 9:37:41 AM]

Official Series Description - EVARD Series
Diagnostic horizons and features recognized in this pedon are:
a. Ochric epipedon - -the zone from 0 to 13 cm, 0 to 5 inches (A and E horizons)
b. Argillic horizon - -the zone from 13 to 58 cm, 5 to 29 inches (Bt horizons)c. Parasesquic mineralogy class - total iron
oxide, by weight (DCB Fe multiplied by 1.43) plus percent, by weight, gibbsite of more than 10 in the fine -earth
fraction.
d. Series control section - -the zone from 10 to 64 cm, 5 to 25 inches.
ADDITIONAL DATA:
Soil Characterization Data is available from the Kellogg Soil Survey Laboratory (KSSL) website
http://ncsslabdatamart.sc.egov.usda.gov/querypage.aspx
Revised: 11 /1992 -ECH, DJD; 9/1996 -BPS, DHK; 1 /1998 -DHK; 2 /2002 -MKC; 5 /2013 -Semi tab format and minor
changes to Range in Characteristics - MLRA -130B.
National Cooperative Soil Survey
U.S.A.
https:// soilseries.sc.egov.usda.gov /OSD Docs/E /EVARD.html[9 /23/2013 9:37:41 AM]

Official Series Description - COWEE Series
LOCATION COWEE NC +GA VA
Established Series
MLS, MSH, BPS/ Rev. MDJ
05/2013
COWEE SERIES
TAXONOMIC CLASS: Fine - loamy, parasesquic, mesic Typic Hapludults
TYPICAL PEDON: Cowee gravelly sandy loam -- forested. (Colors are for moist soil unless otherwise indicated.)
Oi - -O to 5 cm (0 to 2 inch); slightly decomposed leaves, twigs, roots, and other organic matter.
A­5 to 18 cm (2 to 7 inches); reddish brown (5YR 4/4) gravelly sandy loam; weak fine granular structure; very friable;
many fine and medium roots; common fine and medium flakes of mica; 20 percent by volume gneiss gravel; strongly
acid; clear wavy boundary. (3 to 25 cm; 1 to 10 inches thick)
Bt1 - -18 to 38 cm (7 to 15 inches); red (2.5YR 4/8) gravelly sandy loam; weak medium subangular blocky structure;
friable, slightly sticky, slightly plastic; common fine roots; common faint clay films on faces of peds; common fine and
medium flakes of mica;20 percent by volume gneiss gravel; strongly acid; gradual wavy boundary.
Bt2--38 to 74 cm (15 to 29 inches); red (2.5YR 5/8) gravelly sandy clay loam; weak medium subangular blocky
structure; friable, slightly sticky, slightly plastic; few fine roots; common fine and medium flakes of mica; common
faint clay films on faces of peds; 30 percent by volume gneiss gravel; strongly acid; abrupt wavy boundary. (Combined
thickness of the Bt horizons is 25 to 71 cm; 10 to 28 inches.)
Cr - -74 to 157cm (29 to 62 inches); weathered, multicolored hornblende gneiss; that can be dug with difficulty with
hand tools; rock structure; partly consolidated in place; few fine roots in cracks; cracks are more than 10 cm (4 inches)
apart.
TYPE LOCATION:
County: Jackson
State: North Carolina
USGS Quadrangle: Sylva South
Latitude: 35.352906 N (NAD 27)
Longitude: 83.132938 W (NAD 27)
Directions to the pedon: Jackson County, North Carolina; 1.1 miles northeast of Cullowhee from the Tuckasegee River
on old N.C. Highway 107; 1.7 miles north of Black Mountain Baptist Church; 0.5 mile north on U.S. Forest Service
access road and 500 feet west on U.S. Forest Service Trail, 25 feet north of trail.
RANGE IN CHARACTERISTICS:
Solum Thickness: 51 to 102 cm (20 to 40 inches)
Depth to Bedrock: 51 to 102 cm to weathered bedrock, (20 to 40 inches)
Depth Class: Moderately Deep
Rock Fragment content: 0 to 35 percent, by volume, but typically less than 20 percent throughout the profile.
Soil Reaction: Extremely acid to moderately acid in the A horizons, except where limed; very strongly acid or strongly
acid in the B and C horizons.
Content of Mica: 0 to 20 percent, by volume mica flakes throughout
https:H soilseries. sc. egov. usda .gov /OSD_Docs /C /COWEE.html[9 /23/2013 9:38:14 AM]

Official Series Description - COWEE Series
Range of Individual Horizons:
A or Ap horizon (if it occurs):
Color- -hue of 5YR to IOYR, value of 3 to 5, and chroma of 2 to 8. Where value and chroma are 3 or less, horizon is less
than 18 cm (7 inches thick)
Texture (fine -earth fraction) - -loam, fine sandy loam, or sandy loam.
Other features- -Some eroded pedons have a surface layer that is sandy clay loam or clay loam, and a hue of 2.5YR to
5YR.
E horizon (if it occurs):
Color: Hue of 5YR to I OYR, value of 4 or 6, and chroma of 3 to 8.
Texture (fine -earth fraction): sandy loam, or fine sandy loam.
AB or BA horizon (if they occur):
Color- -hue of 2.5YR to 7.5YR, value of 4 to 8, and chroma of 4 to 8.
Texture (fine -earth fraction) - -loam, sandy loam, fine sandy loam, or sandy clay loam.
Bt horizon:
Color- -hue of 2.5YR to 5YR, value of 4 to 6, and chroma of 4 to 8. In addition, subhorizons of the Bt horizon, but not
the entire Bt horizon, may have hue of 7.5YR, value of 4 to 6, and chroma of 4 to 8.
Texture (fine -earth fraction) - -sandy clay loam, loam, or clay loam.
BC horizon (if it occurs):
Color- -hue of 2.5YR to 7.5YR, value of 4 to 6, and chroma of 4 to 8.
Texture (fine -earth fraction) - -sandy loam, fine sandy loam, very fine sandy loam, loam, or sandy clay loam.
Non- redoximorphic mottles (if they occur) -- shades of red, brown, or yellow are in some pedons.
C /Bt horizon (if it occurs):
Color- -hue of 2.5YR to l OYR, value of 4 to 6, and chroma of 4 to 8; or is multicolored in shades of yellow, brown, red
or gray.
Texture (fine -earth fraction) - -C is sandy loam, fine sandy loam, or loam saprolite; Bt is loam or sandy clay loam.
Non- redoximorphic mottles (if they occur) -- shades of red, brown, yellow, or gray mottles of relic rock material are in
some pedons.
C horizon (if it occurs):
Color- -hue of 2.5YR to l OYR, value of 4 to 6, and chroma of 4 to 8; or is multicolored in shades of yellow, brown, red
or gray.
Texture (fine -earth fraction)- -sandy loam, fine sandy loam, very fine sandy loam, loam, loamy fine sand, or loamy sand
saprolite.
Non- redoximorphic mottles (if they occur) -- shades of red, brown, or yellow. Gray or black mottles of relic rock material
are in some pedons.
Cr horizon:
Bedrock kind-- felsic to mafic, igneous and high -grade metamorphic rock such as amphibolite and hornblende gneiss.
Bedrock hardness -- moderately cemented
Fracture interval -- greater than 10 cm (4 inches)
Excavation difficulty -- moderate to high
COMPETING SERIES:
Brevard soils - -very deep (more than 152 cm, 60 inches); formed on colluvial or old alluvial landform positions.
Evar soils - -very deep (more than 152 cm, 60 inches)
Stott Knob soils -- adjoining Mesic areas of the Southern Piedmont (MLRA 136).
Walhalla soils - -very deep (more than 152 cm, 60 inches); have a thicker argillic horizon, 71 to 140 cm (28 to 55 inches).
https:H soilseries. sc. egov. usda .gov /OSD_Docs /C /COWEE.html[9 /23/2013 9:38:14 AM]

Official Series Description - COWEE Series
GEOGRAPHIC SETTING:
MLRA(s) using this series: Southern Blue Ridge - -130B
Landscape: Intermountain hills, low and intermediate mountains
Landform: Mountain slope, hillslopes, and ridges
Geomorphic Component: Mountain top, mountain flank, side slope, and interfluves
Hillslope Profile Position: Summit, shoulder, and backslope
Parent Material Origin: Felsic to mafic, igneous and high -grade metamorphic rocks, such as mica gneiss, hornblende
gneiss, and amphibolite.
Parent Material Kind: Residuum that is affected by soil creep in the upper solum.
Slope: Typically 15 to 50 percent, but range from 2 to 95 percent.
Elevation: 427 to 1341 meters; (1,400 to 4,400 feet)
Frost -free period: 150 to 210 days
Mean Annual Air Temperature: 8 to 14 degrees C., (46 to 57 degrees F)
Mean Annual Precipitation: 1143 to 2286 millimeters, (45 to 90 inches)
GEOGRAPHICALLY ASSOCIATED SOILS:
In addition to the competing Brevard and Evar series, these are:
Edneytown and Pigeonroost soils -- browner, on closely related landforms.
lift n and Rabun soils have a fine particle size class, on related landforms.
Ashe, Buladean, Chestnut, and Edneyville soils - -do not have an argillic horizon, on related landforms.
Brownwood, Cashiers.. Chandler.. Fannin, Micaville, and Watauga soils - -are in a micaceous family, on related
landforms. In addition, Brownwood, Cashiers, Chandler, and Micaville do not have an argillic horizon; Cashiers soils
have thicker, darker surface layers, on ridges and side slopes of cool north to east aspects.
Cleveland and Saluda soils - -have bedrock within a depth of 50 cm (20 inches), on related landforms.
Cullasaja, Greenlee. Haywood, Saunook, Tate, Thunder, Tuckasegee, and Tusquitee soils - -are on colluvial benches, toe
slopes, and fans. In addition, Cullasaja, Haywood, Saunook, Thunder, Tuckasegee, and Tusquitee soils have thicker,
darker surface layers.
Huntdale. Plott, Porters, Trimont, and Unaka soils - -with thicker, darker surface layers, on ridges and side slopes of cool
north to east aspects. In addition, Plott, Porters, and Unaka do not have an argillic horizon.
DRAINAGE AND SATURATED HYDRAULIC CONDUCTIVITY:
Drainage Class: Well drained
Internal Free Water Occurrence: Very deep
Index Surface Runoff. Very low or low runoff where forest litter has not been disturbed or only partially removed;
medium to high runoff where litter has been removed.
Saturated Hydraulic Conductivity Class: High
Permeability Class (obsolete): Moderately rapid
Shrink -swell Class: Low
Flooding Frequency and Duration: None
Ponding Frequency and Duration: None
USE AND VEGETATION:
Major Uses: Woodland, less often pasture, hayland, and rarely cultivated crops.
Dominant Vegetation: Where wooded -- chestnut oak, white oak, scarlet oak, black oak, hickory with some eastern white
pine, Virginia pine, and shortleaf pine. Understory includes flowering dogwood, American chestnut sprouts, sourwood,
mountain laurel, flame azalea, and buffalo nut.
DISTRIBUTION AND EXTENT:
Distribution: Southern Blue Ridge (MLRA 130 -B) of North Carolina, South Carolina, Georgia, Tennessee, and
Virginia.
Extent: Large - -more than 100,000 acres.
MLRA SOIL SURVEY REGIONAL OFFICE (MO) RESPONSIBLE: Morgantown, West Virginia
https:H soilseries. sc. egov. usda .gov /OSD_Docs /C /COWEE.html[9 /23/2013 9:38:14 AM]

Official Series Description - COWEE Series
SERIES ESTABLISHED: Alexander County, North Carolina, 1988.
REMARKS: Cowee soils were previously mapped with Saluda and Evard. The Cowee Series recognizes soils that are
moderately deep, 51 to 102 cm (20 to 40 inches), to weathered bedrock. Saluda soils are shallow and Evard soils are
very deep.
The 1/98 revision places the Cowee series in a fine- loamy, parasesquic, mesic Typic Hapludults family. The series was
formerly in a mixed mineralogy family. CEC activity class placement is based on sample pedon S85 -NC- 099 -003 and
on similar soils such as Brevard and Evard.
Diagnostic horizons and soil characteristics recognized in this pedon are:
a. Ochric epipedon - -the zone from 0 to 18 cm, 0 to 7 inches (Oi and A horizons)
b. Argillic horizon - -the zone from 18 to 74 cm, 7 to 29 inches (Bt horizons)
c. Paralithic contact - -the contact with weathered rock at 74 cm, 29 inches (upper boundary of the Cr horizon).
d. Parasesquic mineralogy class - total iron oxide, by weight (DCB Fe multiplied by 1.43) plus percent, by weight,
gibbsite of more than 25 cm, 10 in the fine -earth fraction.
e. Series control section - -the zone from 18 to 69cm, 7 to 27 inches
ADDITIONAL DATA:
Soil Characterization Data is available from the Kellogg Soil Survey Laboratory (KSSL) website for the following
pedon:
http://ncsslabdatamart.sc.egov.usda.gov/querypage.aspx
Pedon ID #: 85NC099003; Lab Pedon #: 85PO634
Revised: 10 /1992 -MLS, AG, CD; 1 /1998 -DHK; 2 /2002 -MKC; 5 /2013 -Semi tab format and minor changes to Range in
Characteristics, MLRA 130B.
National Cooperative Soil Survey
U.S.A.
https:// soilseries.sc.egov.usda.gov /OSD Docs /C /COWEE.html[9 /23/2013 9:38:14 AM]

Official Series Description - HAYESVILLE Series
LOCATION HAYESVILLE NC +GA SC TN VA
Established Series
Rev. RM- AG -DHK
04/2001
HAYESVILLE SERIES
The Hayesville series consists of very deep, well drained soils on gently sloping to very steep ridges and side slopes of
the Southern Appalachian Mountains. They most commonly formed in residuum weathered from igneous and high -
grade metamorphic rocks such as granite, granodiorite, mica gneiss and schist; but in some places formed from thickly.
bedded metagraywacke and metasandstone. On steeper slopes the upper part of some pedons may have some colluvial
influence. Mean annual air temperature is 55 degrees F., and average annual precipitation is about 56 inches near the
type location. Slopes range from 2 to 60 percent.
TAXONOMIC CLASS: Fine, kaolinitic, mesic Typic Kanhapludults
TYPICAL PEDON: Hayesville loam -- wooded. (Colors are for moist conditions unless otherwise stated.)
Al- 0 to 1 inch; brown (IOYR 4/3) loam; moderate fine and medium granular structure; very friable; many fine and
medium roots; moderately acid; abrupt smooth boundary. (1 to 5 inches thick)
A2--1 to 5 inches; brown (IOYR 5/3) loam; weak medium granular structure; very friable; many fine and medium roots;
moderately acid; abrupt smooth boundary. (0 to 7 inches thick)
BA - -5 to 9 inches; yellowish red (5YR 5/8) clay loam; weak medium subangular blocky structure; friable; common
medium and fine roots; few fine flakes of mica; strongly acid; clear smooth boundary. (0 to 6 inches thick)
Btl - -9 to 26 inches; red (2.5YR 4/6) clay; moderate medium and coarse subangular blocky structure; friable to firm;
common distinct clay films on faces of peds; few to common soft fragments of rock; few fine flakes of mica; strongly
acid; gradual smooth boundary.
Bt2 - -26 to 38 inches; red (2.5YR 5/6) clay loam; weak medium subangular blocky structure; friable; few faint clay films
on faces of peds; common coarse fragments of rock; soft and hard; few partially weathered feldspar and dark minerals;
few flakes of mica; strongly acid; gradual irregular boundary. (Combined thickness of the Bt horizon is 11 to 45 inches)
BC - -38 to 48 inches; yellowish red (5YR 5/6) and red (2.5YR 4/6) sandy clay loam; massive; friable; many grayish and
whitish streaks of soft gneiss; gray and white colors increase in abundance with depth; common flakes of mica; few
hard fragments of gneiss; strongly acid. (6 to 29 inches thick)
C -48 to 60 inches; strong brown (7.5YR 5/8) saprolite that is fine sandy loam; massive (rock structure); very friable;
common fine flakes of mica; strongly acid.
TYPE LOCATION: Clay County, North Carolina; 2.5 miles southeast of Hayesville, on Swain Road in road cut on
north side of road.
RANGE IN CHARACTERISTICS: Solum thickness is 30 to 60 inches. Depth to bedrock is greater than 60 inches
and ranges to more than 10 feet. Content of rock fragments ranges from 0 to 40 percent by volume in the A and E
horizons and 0 to 15 percent in the B and C horizons. Rock fragments are commonly pebbles, cobbles, or stones, but
may include channers or flagstones. Reaction is extremely acid to moderately acid unless limed. Limed soils are
typically slightly acid to neutral in the upper part. Flakes of mica range from none to common in the A and B horizons
above a depth of 40 inches, and from none to many in the B and C horizons below 40 inches.
https:H soilseries.sc.egov.usda.gov /OSD Docs/H/HAYESVILLE.html[9 /23/2013 9:38:37 AM]

Official Series Description - HAYESVILLE Series
The A or Ap horizon has hue of 5YR to 10YR, value of 3 to 6, and chroma of 2 to 6. Where the value is less than 3, it is
less than 7 inches thick. The A horizon is loam, fine sandy loam, sandy loam, or very fine sandy loam in the fine -earth
fraction, or eroded pedons are sandy clay loam or clay loam.
The E horizon, where present, has hue of 7.5YR or l OYR, value of 4 to 6, and chroma of 3 to 8. It is loam, fine sandy
loam, sandy loam, or very fine sandy loam in the fine -earth fraction.
The BA horizon, where present, has hue of 2.5YR to I OYR, value of 4 to 6, and chroma of 4 to 8. Texture is loam, clay
loam, or sandy clay loam.
The Bt horizon has hue of l OR to 5YR, value of 4 or 5, and chroma of 6 or 8. Mottles, if they occur, are in shades of
red, yellow, or brown. Texture is clay or clay loam.
The BC or CB horizon, where present, has hue of I OR to 7.5YR, value of 4 to 6, and chroma of 6 or 8. Mottles, if they
occur, are in shades of red, yellow, or brown. Texture is sandy clay loam, clay loam, or loam.
The C horizon is saprolite that is sandy clay loam, loam, sandy loam, or fine sandy loam. It is variable in color.
COMPETING SERIES: This is the only other known series in this family. Bradson, Brevard, Braddock. Clifton,
Evard, Fannin, and Nantahala (tentative) soils are in closely related families. Bradson and Braddock soils have water
worn coarse fragments. In addition, the Braddock soils have mixed mineralogy. Brevard, Evard, and Fannin soils have
less than 35 percent clay in the control section. Nantahala (tentative) and Clifton soils have mixed mineralogy.
Note: Competing series have not been updated since most of these will also require reclassification using the 7th Edition
of Keys to Soil Taxonomy (1996).
GEOGRAPHIC SETTING: The Hayesville soils are on gently sloping to very steep ridges and side slopes in the
intermountain plateaus, low rolling hills, and valleys of the southern Appalachian Mountains. Slopes range from 2 to 60
percent. Elevation ranges from 1400 to 4000 feet. The soils most commonly formed in residuum from igneous and
high -grade metamorphic rocks such as granite, granodiorite, mica gneiss and schist; but in some places formed from
thickly- bedded metagraywacke and metasandstone. There may be some colluvial influence on steep slopes. Mean
annual air temperature is ranges from 46 to 57 degrees F., and average annual precipitation ranges from about 40 to 60
inches.
GEOGRAPHICALLY ASSOCIATED SOILS: In addition to the similar Braddock, 1C ifton, Evard, and Fannin soils
these include the Brevard, Cullasaja, Saunook. Jak, Tuckasegee, and Tusquitee soils. All except Braddock and Clifton
soils have less than 35 percent clay in the control section. Braddock soils are on high terraces. Clifton, Evard, and
Fannin soils are on ridges and side slopes. Brevard, Cullasaja, Saunook, Tate, Tuckasegee, and Tusquitee soils are on
colluvial fans and toe slopes.
DRAINAGE AND PERMEABILITY: Well drained; moderate permeability in the subsoil and moderately rapid
permeability in the underlying material; medium internal drainage. Runoff class low on gentle slopes, medium on
strong and moderately steep slopes, and high on steeper slopes. Runoff is much lower where forest litter has little or no
disturbance.
USE AND VEGETATION: About one -half of the acres of this soil is in cultivation. Common trees in wooded areas
are yellow- poplar, eastern white pine, northern red oak, pitch pine, shortleaf pine and Virginia pine. The understory
includes flowering dogwood, rhododendron, mountain laurel and sourwood. Cleared areas are used for cultivated crops
such as corn, small grain, pasture, hayland, burley tobacco, vegetable crops and Christmas trees.
DISTRIBUTION AND EXTENT: Mountain areas of North Carolina, Virginia, South Carolina, Georgia, and
Tennessee. The series is of large extent.
MLRA SOIL SURVEY REGIONAL OFFICE (MO) RESPONSIBLE: Morgantown, West Virginia
https:// soilseries.sc.egov.usda.gov /OSD Docs/H/HAYESVILLE.html[9 /23/2013 9:38:37 AM]

Official Series Description - HAYESVILLE Series
SERIES ESTABLISHED: Clay County, North Carolina; 1935.
REMARKS: The classification of the Hayesville series was changed in April 1989 to clayey, kaolinitic, mesic Typic
Kanhapludults. This is change is based on lab data from South Carolina, North Carolina, and Virginia that indicates
presence of a kandic horizon. The May 1995 revision added thickly- bedded metagraywacke and metasandstone as
allowable parent materials for Hayesville soils. Laboratory data from North Carolina State University provided support
for Hayesville soils being formed from these materials in Cherokee County, NC.
The 12/97 revision changes the particle size class from clayey to fine per the 7th Edition of Keys to Soil Taxonomy
(1996).
Diagnostic horizons and features recognized in this pedon are:
Ochric epipedon: The zone from 0 to 5 inches (Al and A2 horizons).
Kandic horizon: The zone from 5 to 48 inches (BA, Bt, and BC horizons).
Argillic horizon: The zone from 5 to 48 inches (BA, Bt, and BC horizons).
MLRA: 130 SIR(s): NC0013, NCO] 51 (STONY)
ADDITIONAL DATA: A Southern Cooperative Series Bulletin No. 157, April 1971, "Soils of the Hayesville, Cecil,
and Pacolet series in the Southern Appalachian and Piedmont Regions of the United States." Characterization data is
available from the National Soil Survey Laboratory, Lincoln, NE; pedon numbers S60 -NC- 043 -001 and -002; S60 -NC-
089 -002; S78 -NC- 021 -001; S88 -NC- 115 -001; S91 -NC- 021 -001, -001A, and -012.
Revised: 9 /95- RM -AG; 1 /98 -DHK
National Cooperative Soil Survey
U.S.A.
https: / /soilseries.se.egov. usda. gov /OSD_Docs /H/HAYESVILLE.html[9 /23/2013 9:38:37 AM]

Official Series Description - TATE Series
LOCATION TATE NC +TN VA
Established Series
RM -AG; Rev. MKC
03/2004
TATE SERIES
The Tate series consists of very deep, well drained, moderately permeable soils on benches, fans, and toe slopes in
coves in the Blue Ridge (MLRA 130). They formed in colluvium weathered from felsic to mafic high -grade
metamorphic rocks. Mean annual temperature is 52 degrees F., and mean annual precipitation about 52 inches near the
type location. Slope ranges from 2 to 50 percent.
TAXONOMIC CLASS: Fine - loamy, mixed, semiactive, mesic Typic Hapludults
TYPICAL PEDON: Tate loam, in pasture. (Colors are for moist soil unless otherwise stated.)
Ap - -O to 7 inches; dark grayish brown (1 OYR 4/2) loam; moderate fine granular structure; very friable; many fine roots;
few fine pores; few root channels; contains some material from the BA horizon; moderately acid; abrupt smooth
boundary. (5 to 11 inches thick)
BA - -7 to 12 inches; brown (10YR 4/3) loam; weak medium subangular blocky structure; friable; common fine roots;
common fine pores; common root channels; moderately acid; clear smooth boundary. (0 to 14 inches thick)
Bt - -12 to 32 inches; yellowish brown (I OYR 5/6) clay loam; weak medium subangular blocky structure; friable; few
fine roots; few fine pores; few faint clay films on faces of peds and in pores; few fine flakes of mica; strongly acid;
clear smooth boundary. (15 to 40 inches thick)
BC - -32 to 46 inches; brownish yellow (I OYR 6/6) sandy clay loam; weak medium subangular blocky structure; friable;
few faint clay films on faces of peds; many pebbles; common fine flakes of mica; strongly acid; gradual wavy
boundary. (3 to 20 inches thick)
C -46 to 72 inches; brownish yellow (I OYR 6/8) and light yellowish brown (I OYR 6/4) fine sandy loam; massive;
friable; common quartz pebbles in upper part; strongly acid.
TYPE LOCATION: Allegheny County, North Carolina; 2 1/2 miles west of Roaring Gap, 1 mile west of Highway 18,
in pasture 50 yards west of field road.
RANGE IN CHARACTERISTICS: Thickness of the solum ranges from 24 to more than 60 inches. Depth to bedrock
is greater than 60 inches. Content of rock fragments is less than 35 percent by volume in the A and Bt horizons, and
less than 60 percent in the BC and C horizons. The soil is very strongly acid to slightly acid unless limed. Content of
mica flakes is few or common.
The A or Ap horizon has hue of l OYR, value of 3 to 6, and chroma of 2 through 4. After mixing to a depth of 7 inches,
value is 4 or more. The A horizon is loam, sandy loam, or fine sandy loam in the fine earth fraction.
The E horizon, where present, has hue of l OYR, value of 4 or 6, and chroma of 3 to 6. Texture is similar to the A
horizon.
The BA or BE horizon, where present, has hue of 7.5YR or l OYR, value of 4 or 5, and chroma of 3 to 6. It is loam,
sandy loam, fine sandy loam, sandy clay loam, or clay loam in the fine earth fraction.
The Bt horizon has hue of 7.5YR or l OYR, value of 4 to 6, and chroma of 4 to 8. It is clay loam, sandy clay loam, or
https:H soilseries. sc. egov. usda.gov /OSD_Docs /T /TATE.html[9 /23/2013 9:39:07 AM]

Official Series Description - TATE Series
loam in the fine earth fraction. The upper 20 inches of the argillic horizon contain less than 30 percent silt.
The BC horizon, where present, is similar in color to the Bt horizon and is fine sandy loam, loam, clay loam, sandy
loam, or sandy clay loam in the fine earth fraction. It commonly contains moderate amounts of weathered feldspar and
pebbles and cobbles of quartz and granite.
The C horizon, where present, is colluvial material that is loamy or sandy in the fine -earth fraction and is variable in
color. Sandy textures are restricted to depths below 40 inches.
COMPETING SERIES: Excluding CEC activity class, there are 54 competing series. Those found within MLRA 130
include the Brasstown, Cades, Edneytown, Junaluska, Lonon, Pigeonroost.. and Sauratown series. Brasstown and
Pigeonroost soils have paralithic contact at depths of 40 to 60 inches. Cades soils formed in alluvium weathered from
low grade metamorphic rocks and contain fragments of those rocks. Edneytown soils formed in residuum and have C
horizons of saprolite. Junaluska soils have paralithic contact at depths of 20 to 40 inches. Lonon soils formed in
colluvium weathered from low grade metamorphic rocks and contain fragments of those rocks. Sauratown soils have
lithic contact at depths of 40 to 60 inches.
GEOGRAPHIC SETTING: Tate soils are on colluvial fans, foot slopes, and benches in coves in the Blue Ridge
(MLRA 130). Slopes are commonly 5 to 15 percent but range from 2 to 50 percent. Elevation ranges from 1400 to 4000
feet. The soil formed in colluvium weathered from felsic to mafic high -grade metamorphic rocks such as granite, mica
gneiss, hornblende gneiss, and schist. Mean annual temperature is 52 degrees F., and mean annual precipitation about
52 inches near the type location.
GEOGRAPHICALLY ASSOCIATED SOILS: In addition to the competing Edneytown, Pigeonroost, and Sauratown
series, these are Ashe, Brevard, Chandler. Chestnut, Cowee, Ednevville. Evard, Fannin, Greenlee, Tusquitee. and
Watauga series. Ashe, Chandler, Chestnut, Cowee, Edneyville, Edneytown, Evard, Fannin, and Watauga soils are on
ridges and side slopes, formed in residuum, and have C horizons of saprolite. Brevard, Greenlee, and Tusquitee soils
formed in colluvial material on fans, benches, and foot slopes in coves. Brevard soils have redder Bt horizons. Greenlee
soils are in a loamy - skeletal particle -size class. Tusquitee soils have darker colored A horizons that have more organic
matter.. In addition, Greenlee and Tusquitee soils have a cambic horizon.
DRAINAGE AND PERMEABILITY: Well drained; saturated hydraulic conductivity is moderately high or high,
permeability is moderate in the subsoil and moderately rapid permeability in the underlying material. Index surface
runoff is negligible to medium. These soils receive surface and subsurface water from surrounding uplands, and seeps
and springs are possible.
USE AND VEGETATION: About half is cleared and used for growing corn, small grain, tobacco, truck crops, and
pasture. Common trees in forested areas are scarlet oak, white oak, yellow - poplar, eastern white pine, shortleaf pine,
Virginia pine, and northern red oak. Understory plants include mountain - laurel, rhododendron, blueberry, greenbrier,
flowering dogwood, black locust, honeysuckle, sourwood, and flame azalea.
DISTRIBUTION AND EXTENT: The Blue Ridge (MLRA 130) of North Carolina, Virginia, eastern Tennessee, and
possibly Georgia and South Carolina. The series has large extent.
MLRA SOIL SURVEY REGIONAL OFFICE (MO) RESPONSIBLE: Morgantown, West Virginia
SERIES ESTABLISHED: Transylvania County, North Carolina; 1940.
REMARKS: The 12/97 revision places this soil in a fine- loamy, mixed, semiactive, mesic Typic Hapludults family per
the 7th Edition of Keys to Soil Taxonomy. Family placement is based on similar soils such as Edneytown, Edneyville
and Greenlee. Sample pedon S91 -NC- 171 -004 classifies as fine- loamy, siliceous, subactive, mesic Typic Hapludults,
which influenced placement in the semiactive class. This pedon was nearly placed in a parasesquic mineralogy class
due to x -ray diffraction data, but since these methods are more qualitative rather than quantitative, mineralogy class
placement based on grain count data. Classification of this series may change when more mineralogy data are available.
https:H soilseries. sc. egov. usda.gov /OSD_Docs /T /TATE.html[9 /23/2013 9:39:07 AM]

Official Series Description - TATE Series
Diagnostic horizons and features recognized in this pedon are:
Ochric epipedon: 0 to 7 inches (Ap and BA horizons)
Argillic horizon: 7 to 46 inches (Bt, and BC horizons).
ADDITIONAL DATA:
MLRA: 130 SIR(s): NC0025, NCO258 (GRAVELLY)
Revised: 11 /90- RM,CD,AG; 1 /98 -DHK; 2 /04 -MKC
National Cooperative Soil Survey
U.S.A.
https:Hsoilseries.sc.egov. usda.gov /OSD_Docs /T /TATE.html[9 /23/2013 9:39:07 AM]

Official Series Description - FRENCH Series
LOCATION FRENCH NC +GA VA
Established Series
Rev. CD:RM:RAG
01/2002
FRENCH SERIES
The French series consists of very deep, moderately well to somewhat poorly drained, moderately over rapidly
permeable soils with contrasting textures on the flood plains of small streams in the southern Appalachian and Blue
Ridge Mountains. They formed in recent alluvial sediments. Slopes are 0 to 5 percent.
TAXONOMIC CLASS: Fine -loamy over sandy or sandy - skeletal, mixed, active, mesic Fluvaquentic Dystrudepts
TYPICAL PEDON: French loam -- cultivated field. (Colors are for moist soil unless otherwise stated.)
Ap - -O to 12 inches; dark brown (10YR 4/3) loam; weak medium granular structure; friable; common fine roots; few fine
flakes of mica; few fine pebbles, slightly acid; abrupt smooth boundary. (8 to 14 inches thick)
Bw1 - -12 to 20 inches; dark yellowish brown (IOYR 4/4) fine sandy loam; few medium faint dark grayish brown (10YR
4/2) and dark reddish brown (2.5YR 3/4) mottles; weak medium subangular blocky structure; friable; few fine roots;
common fine and medium pores; common fine flakes of mica; medium acid; clear smooth boundary. (4 to 8 inches
thick)
Bw2--20 to 30 inches; dark yellowish brown (IOYR 4/4) loam; many coarse distinct grayish brown (IOYR 5/2) mottles
and few fine distinct dark reddish brown (2.5YR 3/4) mottles; weak medium subangular blocky structure; friable; few
fine roots; few fine pores; common fine flakes of mica; medium acid; clear smooth boundary. (8 to 17 inches thick)
C--30 to 34 inches; yellowish brown (IOYR 5/6) very gravelly loamy sand, common medium distinct dark reddish
brown (2.5YR 3/4) mottles; single grained; very friable; common fine flakes of mica; slightly acid; abrupt broken
boundary.
Cg - -34 to 60 inches; grayish brown (IOYR 5/2) extremely gravelly sand; single grained; loose; few cobbles; few flakes
of mica; medium acid.
TYPE LOCATION: Madison County, North Carolina; 3 miles southwest of Mars Hill on SR 1559, 200 feet north of
SR 1559 and 100 feet east of Gabriel Creek. (766,850X; 944,535Y)
RANGE IN CHARACTERISTICS: Solum thickness and depth to horizons of stratified sand and gravel that contain
more than 35 percent by volume rock fragments ranges from 20 to 40 inches. Content of coarse rock in the A and B
horizons ranges from 0 to 15 percent. Some part of the C horizon within a depth of 40 inches contains more than 35
percent rock fragments. Depth to bedrock is greater than 60 inches. The soil ranges from slightly acid to very strongly
acid throughout except where surface layers have been limed. Flakes of mica ranges from few to common throughout
the solum.
The A or Ap horizons have hue of 7.5YR and IOYR, value of 3 to 5, and chrorna of I to 4. It is loam, sandy loam, or
fine sandy loam.
The BA horizon, where present, has hue of 7.5YR or IOYR, value of 3 to 6, and chroma of 4 to 8 with few to common
mottles in shades of gray and brown. It is fine sandy loam, sandy clay loam, or loam.
The Bw horizon has hue of 7.5YR and l OYR, value of 4 to 6, and chroma of 3 to 8 with few to many mottles in shades
of gray, red, and brown. It is loam, sandy loam, fine sandy loam, sandy clay loam, or clay loam.
https:H soilseries. sc. egov. usda .gov /OSD_Docs/F/FRENCH.html[9 /23/2013 9:39:32 AM]

Official Series Description - FRENCH Series
The C horizon is similar in color to the Bw horizon and contains common to many mottles and streaks in shades of gray,
brown, or red. It is loamy sand, sandy loam, or loam in the fine -earth fraction. The Cg horizon has hue of l OYR or
2.5Y, value of 4 to 6, and chroma of 2 or less. It is loamy sand, coarse sand, loamy coarse sand, or sand in the fine -earth
fraction. Thin horizons of finer texture are in some pedons. Depth to C or Cg horizons that contain more than 35
percent rock fragments of gravel and cobble size is 20 to 40 inches.
COMPETING SERIES: There are no other known series in this family. Those in closely related families are
Chewacla, Codorus, Colvard, Comus, Craigsville, Cullowhee. Reddies. and Rowland series. All of these soils, except
Cullowhee and Reddies, lack contrasting textures within 1 meter. In addition, Chewacla soils are thermic, Comus soils
have better drainage, and Craigsville soils are loamy - skeletal. Cullowhee and Reddies soils have an umbric epipedon.
GEOGRAPHIC SETTING: French soils are on flood plains of small streams of the southern Appalachian and Blue
Ridge Mountains. Slopes are 0 to 5 percent. They formed in recent loamy alluvial sediments washed largely from soils
weathered from gneiss, schist, phyllite, and other crystalline rocks. The mean annual temperature is 55 degrees F. and
the mean annual precipitation is 50 inches near the type location.
GEOGRAPHICALLY ASSOCIATED SOILS: These are the competing Codorus and Comus series, and the
Arkaqua,, Biltmore, Delanco, Hatboro, lotla, Nikwasi, and Suncook series. Except for Nikwasi soils, these soils lack
contrasting textures within 40 inches. and in addition, Delanco soils have argillic horizons. Biltmore and Suncook soils
are sandy. Iotla and Hatboro soils have poorer drainage.
DRAINAGE AND PERMEABILITY: Moderately to somewhat poorly drained; runoff is slow and permeability is
moderate in the solum and rapid in the stratified sand and gravel. A seasonal high water table fluctuates between 1 and
2 1/2 feet below the surface for about 5 months in most years. This soil is flooded for very brief duration mainly in late
winter and spring.
USE AND VEGETATION: About 80 percent of the acreage is cleared and used for pasture or cropland. The
remainder is in woods. Wooded areas are mainly mixed hardwoods that include yellow - poplar, northern red oak,
sycamore, black walnut, red maple, and hickories. Important crops grown are corn, tobacco, small grain, and vegetable
crops.
DISTRIBUTION AND EXTENT: Blue Ridge and Southern Appalachian Mountains of North Carolina, Georgia, and
Virginia. The series is of small extent.
MLRA SOIL SURVEY REGIONAL OFFICE (MO) RESPONSIBLE: Morgantown, West Virginia
SERIES ESTABLISHED: Madison County, North Carolina; 1980. Established by prior correlation.
REMARKS: Diagnostic horizons and features recognized in this pedon are:
Ochric epipedon - the zone from 0 to 12 inches (Ap horizon).
Cambic horizon - the zone from 12 to 30 inches (Bw horizon).
Strongly contrasting particle -size classes - the occurrence of the fine -loamy particle -size class over the sandy - skeletal
particle -size class at 30 inches.
National Cooperative Soil Survey
U.S.A.
https:Hsoilseries.sc.egov. usda .gov /OSD_Docs/F/FRENCH.htmIL9 /23/2013 9:39:32 AM]

ATTACHMENT H
SITE PHOTOGRAPHS

Photograph # 1
Photograph representative of Stream 1 (looking north)
Photograph # 2
Photograph representative of Stream 2 (looking southwest)
PROJECT NO: 130108 DATE: 8/23/13 and 8/28 - 8/30/13
Page 1 of 11
CLIENT: Hodges, Harbin, Newberry & Tribble, Inc.
- PROJECT:
DIEFFENBAUCH & HRITZ Potential Borrow Area — Foothills Regional Landfill
Caldwell County, North Carolina

d
rrl
z
c
n
x
x
v0X
r,
O
Z
m
m
CD
0
0
n o0
z
0
o
a
o
C
z D
=
o
O N
W
6
o
m
0 0
�
—:37
m
TO
vFIT'
CD
CD
�
Nm
o !?R
12
O
M.
s
�w
v
(D
w
r
�
m
a
o0
—
N
W
W
O
W
O
v
CD
CD
U)
CD
0
O O
CD
M
3
-P
O
O
ca
O
CD
cn
0
CD
CD
c�
=�
G O to
CD
O
Cl)
CD
M W
0-
v
n
O
3

Photograph # 5
Photograph representative of Stream 5 (looking west)
Photograph # 6
Photograph representative of Stream 6 (looking southwest)
PROJECT NO: 130108 DATE: 8/23/13 and 8/28 - 8/30/13
Page 3 of 11
CLIENT: Hodges, Harbin, Newberry & Tribble, Inc.
- PROJECT:
DTEFFENBAUCH & HRITZ Potential Borrow Area — Foothills Regional Landfill
Caldwell County, North Carolina

Photograph representative of Stream 7 (looking northeast)
Photograph # 8
Photograph representative of Wetland 1 (looking northeast)
f
DIEFFENBAUCH & HRITZ
PROJECT NO: 130108 DATE: 8/23/13 and 8/28 - 8/30/13
Page 4 of 11
CLIENT: Hodges, Harbin, Newberry & Tribble, Inc.
PROJECT:
Potential Borrow Area — Foothills Regional Landfill
Caldwell County, North Carolina

Photograph # 9
Photograph representative of Wetland 2 (looking west)
Photograph # 10
Photograph representative of Wetland 3 (looking north)
PROJECT NO: 130108 DATE: 8/23/13 and 8/28 - 8/30/13
Page 5 of 11
CLIENT: Hodges, Harbin, Newberry & Tribble, Inc.
- PROJECT:
DIEFFENBAUCH & HRITZ Potential Borrow Area — Foothills Regional Landfill
Caldwell County, North Carolina

Photograph # 11
Photograph representative of Wetland 4 (looking west)
Photograph # 12
Photograph representative Stream 8 (looking southwest)
DIEFFENBAUCH & HRITZ
PROJECT NO: 130108 DATE: 8/23/13 and 8/28 - 8/30/13
Page 6 of 11
CLIENT: Hodges, Harbin, Newberry & Tribble, Inc.
PROJECT:
Potential Borrow Area — Foothills Regional Landfill
Caldwell County, North Carolina

Photograph # 13
Photograph representative of Stream 9 (looking west)
Photograph # 14
Photograph representative of Wetland 5 (looking southwest)
PROJECT NO: 130108 DATE: 8/23/13 and 8/28 - 8/30/13
Page 7 of 11
CLIENT: Hodges, Harbin, Newberry & Tribble, Inc.
r
PROJECT:
DIEFFENBAUCH & HRITZ Potential Borrow Area — Foothills Regional Landfill
Caldwell County, North Carolina

w=+
C
Y
O
O
ti
..p
C
co
LO C/)
T
t
C a)
L
0
O >
t ._
a�
L
Q)
L
Q
co
0)
O
O
n
r
lw
i
M
O
M
00
c
N
_
—
35
'O
C
J
cC6 c
co
L
co -0
N.15 -:2
O
p
00 H
W y .6
N
0 0
O
Z
U- CU
C
co
IU
(6
O
o =
Q Z
T iv
�2 u
d
3 >
O C
O
i 7
Z
=
m O
U
�C p
U
U .L —
ai N
-3 z
n 3:
O
w J
W O f6
O co
a U
a0- U
t C:
CL a,
U)
a)
Q
aD
L
Q
A 1
L
O
p
LL
x
U
ZD
d
-
w
z
w
w
w

T.^
r.
Photograph # 17
Photograph representative of Stream 11 (looking north)
:k"M' �,.A'r+
0 —
Pi-
Photograph # 18
Photograph representative of Stream 12 (looking south)
DIEFFENBAUCH & HRITZ
PROJECT NO: 130108 DATE: 8/23/13 and 8/28 - 8/30/13
Page 9 of 11
CLIENT: Hodges, Harbin, Newberry & Tribble, Inc.
PROJECT:
Potential Borrow Area — Foothills Regional Landfill
Caldwell County, North Carolina

Photograph # 19
Photograph representative of Stream 13 (looking north)
Photograph # 20
Photograph representative of Wetlands 8 and 9 (looking south)
DIEFFENBAUCH & HRITZ
PROJECT NO: 130108 DATE: 8/23/13 and 8/28 - 8/30/13
Page 10 of 11
CLIENT: Hodges, Harbin, Newberry & Tribble, Inc.
PROJECT:
Potential Borrow Area — Foothills Regional Landfill
Caldwell County, North Carolina

Photograph # 21
Photograph representative of Wetland 10 (looking north)
Photograph # 22
Photograph representative of Wetland 11 (looking south)
PROJECT NO: 130108 DATE: 8/23/13 and 8/28 - 8/30/13
Page 11 of 11
CLIENT: Hodges, Harbin, Newberry & Tribble, Inc.
- -• PROJECT:
DTEFFENBAUCH & HRITZ Potential Borrow Area — Foothills Regional Landfill
Caldwell County, North Carolina

ATTACHMENT
LIMITS OF DELINEATION PLAN

%
♦% z
% ♦ ♦ BAB
♦
♦ Dawn
1 ♦ N
♦ Checketl
1 CAP
1 ♦
Approvetl
♦
1" =500'
4 ` Scale
` ♦,
1112712 13
LIMITS OF INVESTIGATION �♦ ♦% p130108
TOTAL 30.00 AC
4
♦, •' LIMITS OF INVESTIGATION
� � • � TOTAL 4.38 AC = U
! % _
WWI
LIMITS OF INVESTIGATION
TOTAL 104.68 AC ~ + - - -
i (
go ♦♦ �!
Er co
I 'KIN Q
� 'otf
z
1} 7
-
F
p.
Xa.. •�': ^'I ti ,�-.. .,t.,',: } /s -� . —{. ,i��N'I(w }��Ilt��� l ���t 1
Vi� , 11`t31� i 7 r O Lu
, 2 ED j(�If
1��:t�}.
W
l i
J
I r
,: .- � �� � _ ..�—, i, s / {�,IIIIr,r� �� i. \�rkt'•k�� ��i IV rli li +� 1 iI, ll � � f,.
<
♦_ t,_.. ',. vas e*. _ a1 dka� \ < <`g
W Z
• _ 1, r� . ,, _� o
q
♦ ! . � °... ,' -: t1 l @ V�,jAfir ,\�,;1,._ - —� -� - -E = ' / - -. -�1 V �. " ryy - - LU Ir
-. .'.- W
Ir
Ilk
_
LU
♦ . 5 �p , , , s , „ �V it -«, x -. _ _� ='--$ _ 1� / t
-
-..- LL
�„ ; .. , >- � .. ',: ♦VIII , ,: ,,n , II - - r � - ���� -' Y ty �: ::, �
A
, \
c
y
l
NOTE: LOCATIONS AND EXTENTS OF Q
tCl l ��,T'" J Z
::;�1. �..,v + -, <. ♦ i Irl��lk; :ir i ug� yr, f - WETLANDS AND STREAMS f-
,9J1 ��- - -� s ARE APPROXIMATE W O
'i ., �1 �„ �„ _- ,���I" 1 F.-, 'u "- ♦+ �- - � %,yam /��.s. -� � _
Legend � Q
Li LU
Delineated Stream Q _Z
on our Line
- k
S
M1
Delineated Wetland Q c
ILL
a.
Limits of Investigation
r
4
o zso soo F cn
:
=F
Feet
\ �. -"t't f '�,fl - ;✓� ,.,� I + ;. � � _ -:r � -� .. }: yr %.�f -- f� �.�.�P !,'� Y'l�.
NOTE: TOPOGRAPHIC DATA FROM HHNT, INC.
'� - -c. ^,} � ! ��,_�� -r y., 1 _ t °' �,� ''r , �, r J �?.� -_ .,� -;.,r x,�+ _ •�,�,�� 15 �: '�J, � _ AND AERIAL IMAGERY FROM NC ONEMAP
GEOSPAT IAL PORTAL (DATUM NAD 83) Drawing NO.

I
I
I
I//
♦
♦ r 4 _ ' 7 �
I 1
III q qI
0'"�, lll�l�l
/
STREAM 1.
STREAM 7 p
/ / J ;�' STREAM 2
'` 1 flii I Iii I�II� C
I II illi� ��II�'i1il1!;
I _ &.cam . � ,.�' _ �,� �' _ I I�i VI 11:•
=s
-
— — — — —
STREAM 4
� � vl
- - ° �� ✓ WETLAND 3
66a
w`. f� _. ", _ y�� hl4/ r+ 3`f ♦ STREAM 3 -!-
• ».����
♦ M
�< <<
WETLAND 2
�� -`�G ✓ \� 1J''I�Ij I i � _. f r /.: I l � � _ _- � _ - - - - - STREAM 1
1
1
1
1
1
1
1
1
1
i
1
1
I
I
1
1
I
1
I
1
1
s II �i 1
Ir
1
1
� 1
1
LIMITS OF INV tt lqt TJIQN
TOTAL 104.68 ffjj
STREAM 6
f
ETLAND 1 �
� WETLAND 4
/ ♦ _
- - -
NOTE: LOCATIONS AND EXTENTS OF
_
WETLANDS AND STREAMS
-
ARE APPROXIMATE
Legend
Stream
Contour Line
Wetland
Limits of Investigation
100 200 300
NOTE: TOPOGRAPHIC DATA FROM HHNT, INC.
AND AERIAL IMAGERY FROM NC ONEMAP
-
GEOSPATIAL PORTAL (DATUM NAD 83)
0
z
BAB
Drewn
JN
Checked
CUP
Approved
1 " =300'
S.I.
11/25/2013
D-
130108
U
Z
Z LI
J
m m
Ib
t'n �
0
O W
= m
W
z
J
� J
LU D_ Z
ag
J
X
2
OW
mw
Q�
F-
W =
0
-
°o
D
Z
Q
Z
>W O
Q
W
Z Z
Q J
2E L-I
W O
d rn
2 of 4
Dewing No.

71
T
� , � ♦ _ � WETLAND 6 � 111] � ��`�� ��'� �V � �
% WETLAND 7J
STREAM 9 _ i�4�
i(
y
/ ,
i
}}
I
I,
IF
l
J 9 � �� ` y11'1111I I {�r � � iii IJh111 �P
1`
l r\ r I r f
d'-';!l - � _ — 1 r - '� � ;. � �1,,,,i� +.� 1 ',;�',�,�', 1,�i ill j � - f +,1'^`•�{l
.. —` - , r i + — � � � t, •1. III I � \..:
� . _ _, � _ ,,::: _:r.<. �.:v,....._ I � —_ _ _ ,..,r � /I'llullll•I(�11 �Illi�ir'is.�_ — _- f -_.� _ r..'�,11s,1DrY�,��:_ ,..r�:,:.i,�r,lr, ..
11IIIIII ,� ♦
♦ LIMITS OF INVESTIGATION
♦♦ TOTAL 30.00 AC
•111 yy1,,Ji 1 "I,
,
ll'if'r''r /,���y
t
♦♦
� � I �1'� I +I ,v ,,,, 1� ♦ -�J, fl�l'li 1
-` - - rl I 1] i '•t','i � 1 , � I I I� I l ,� tyh, •. � I�r =� ±�I��t
I �.
i ;y
I/ /1. I
/..
S1" ./:',
t t,
(+ I
I ,
1l�+��
A
111 �' � 11�11d1 } + ";,�' 1'-`~ ♦.
-
WETLANDS ♦
-
I
Il -
1 111 -
-
'•:�l
1
\.
,
1_:
ll I �
I I
1, f
I L I s
r --
<,I,
1 -
z
0
BAB— —
�w
Checked
CLP
Approved
—200
Stele
11/25/2013
El-
130106
P,eie,1 Ne_
-
f' G✓
a Z
�y`` t�' II ✓� - - -psi - - �i- !'ir,: ' W
1
J
m
,,,,,1,}1,•.__- _ _ % J -- 11111 �.�, +, � m
1.
r,
- - - ` otf
w
y �'1JI�IjIIIfIJ��llll{I�I. °m
tF
LU
K/ ail
cn E:
of
P ff
0�
Ir
yr�
r
Ir
� ✓ UJ 2
/ -
00
i I'�
�InNN1L! - Z
�- NOTE. LOCATIONS AND EXTENTS OF Q
WETLANDS AND STREAMS W 0
ARE APPROXIMATE
1, II Legend W
MI, 1 II1 I Stream Z Z
Contour Line < I j
111 1 /h'II.IjI�r( 11�I]( +rr��l,' 0 Wetland IQ c
Limits of Investigation
0 100 200 7
Feet
NOTE: TOPOGRAPHIC DATA FROM HHNT, INC. 3 Of 4
AND AERIAL IMAGERY FROM NC ONEMAP
GEOSPATIAL PORTAL (DATUM NAD 83) Drawing NO.

�r
1
I ♦
I ♦
I ♦
I ♦
♦
I
I ♦
I
I WETLAND 8 ♦
I WETLAND 9 ♦ ♦ LIMITS OF INVESTIGATION
I
� ♦ ♦ TOTAL 4.38 AC
♦ - - = -„''
I I STREAM 11 STREAM 10 '+,y � ♦
I t �
I
I
' WETLAND
I
I ♦
♦ ♦ ♦ STREAM 12—\
♦`♦ a, J
♦ STREAM 13
♦
♦
WETLAND 11 -- I
J.
l l ♦ �
�.-.// Jam -
_ t,
♦ I
z
0
BAB— —
D—
Check,d
CLP
Approv,d
1 100
Scale
11,2],2013
Date
130108
Project N.
' r
3
i
U
Z
Z W
J
IM m
m
Q
U °2S
LLJ >7
0
D �
OW
2 m
W
Z
LU
Z
ag
J
Z
Y°
°LU
mIr
Q J
F-
Z=
W�
~O
ado
LL
0
Z
J
NOTE: LOCATIONS AND EXTENTS OF
WETLANDS AND STREAMS
ARE APPROXIMATE
W O
� 0
Legend
W
Z
Stream
_Z
Contour Line
J
� W
0 Wetland
Q c
W
C_l Limits of Investigation
H
o so 100
Feet
d
NOTE: TOPOGRAPHIC DATA FROM HHNT, INC.
4 of 4
ANDAERIAL IMAGERY FROM NC ONEMAP
GEOSPATIAL PORTAL (DATUM NAD 83)
Drawing NO.

ATTACHMENT J
PROTECTED SPECIES HABITAT AREAS

WOOL-
i
. - _
— — — — — — — — — — — — — —
♦
%-
-
- `. � �_ __�", �„'uli� ,iii,�,i��dlv�,, <��yvv�� 1♦ ,_. .���..A��,,v/`a \_.,.,,/rol;ll'I� „')! -�
♦
♦♦�
LIMITS OF INVES
TOTAL 104.68 AC
J
U
a
J
t
m m
0Y m
06
_
��
v
J
U
a
J
V`
1/
m m
0Y m
06
_
��
v
\Ow
2 m
Z
Q
U
J
� J
W Z
It
00
0
00
J
O,
a_ cn
0 a
LU
— 0 0
a
Wa
5
W
ED
NOTE: LOCATIONS AND EXTENTS OF POTENTIALLY
SUITABLE HABITAT ARE APPROXIMATE.
W F
m
Legend
OW Q
2
Contour Line
U Q
® Dwarf- flowered Heartleaf
I-
Potential Habitat Area
O
Limits of Investigation
W
a O
0 100 200 300
F 0_
Feet
NOTE: TOPOGRAPHIC DATA FROM HHNT, INC.
1 Of 3
AND AERIAL IMAGERY FROM NC ONEMAP
GEOSPATIAL PORTAL (DATUM NAD 83)
Drawing No.

III I. r�.,.., /�.' /� % -� `♦
♦ LIMITS OF INVESTIGATION
♦ TOTAL 30.00 AC
♦
♦
♦
;%/ �' � 1 'I ♦ ♦
♦
♦ c
0 ♦ `% ♦ _ =-
♦� ♦`
♦
Z
• r�SYG
�i
0
aAa
w
Cheri d
CLP
Approved
i ^ =zoo'
spa
9/23/2013
D-
130108
Project No.
N
T
LLI
- mm
Q —
_�/ w 06
o W
Ow
=m
z
J
LU Z
fl cg
Q
% 0o
z�
' wo
°o
W LU
5
Lu
NOTE: LOCATIONS AND EXTENTS OF POTENTIALLY IL F
SUITABLE HABITAT ARE APPROXIMATE. m
Legend _
Contour Line U Q
LU —
Dwarf- flowered Hearfleaf F Z
Potential Habitat Area ofLU
Limits of Investigation a p
0 100 200 F d
Fee[
NOTE: TOPOGRAPHIC DATA FROM HHNT, INC. 2 of 3
AND AERIAL IMAGERY FROM NC ONEMAP
GEOSPATIAL PORTAL (DATUM NAD 83) Drawing No.

t
c>
J
W
4W fill
LIMITS OF INVESTIGATION
TOTAL 4.38 AC
h
Z
Do-
Jw
Checked
CLP
Approved
Srale
9/23/2013
D-
1 30108
Project No
z
a
F
/.
z LL
\Y
J
CO m
J
_
O z
I /
fn 06
O
mw
J
a�
0w
=m
}`
w
z
U
/.
Z
\Y
I
Q g
J
_
O z
I /
of
O
mw
J
a�
H
=
LU
H
F
0
—d0
LL
Q
WQ
O"
_
W
NOTE: LOCATIONS AND EXTENTS OF POTENTIALLY
F
SUITABLE HABITAT ARE APPROXIMATE.
m
Legend
OW Q
Contour Line
O J
Q
® Dwarf- flowered Hearfleaf
I-
Potential Habitat Area
O
Limits of Investigation
W
a ~O
0 50 100
F d
Feet
NOTE: TOPOGRAPHIC DATA FROM HHNT, INC.
3 Of 3
AND AERIAL IMAGERY FROM NC ONEMAP
GEOSPATIAL PORTAL (DATUM NAD 83)
Drawing No.

NC DWQ Stream Identification Form Version 4.11 �\ A 1 SD A "S 'M I
Date: I I ?� Project/Site: P P L Latitude:
3S,G�G,6a
Evaluator: 73` \J %A4DTS h County: Cam' � � 11 Longitude:`�f.
Total Points:
Stream is at least intermittent Stream Determination (circle e) Other L-e Nor �L
Q J
if 2t 19 or perennial if z 30" 1.r Ephemeral Intermittent e.g. Quad Name:
A. Geomorphology (Subtotal = -
Absent
Weak
Moderate
Strong
1a Continuity of channel bed and bank
0
1
2
[30
2. Sinuosity of channel along thalweg
0
1
W
3
3. In- channel structure: ex. riffle -pool, step -pool,
0
1
2
3
ripple -pool sequence
4. Particle size of stream substrate
0
1
2
(��?,
5. Active /relict floodplain
0
1
j
3
6. Depositional bars or benches
0
1
2' I
3
f 7. Recent alluvial deposits
0
1
3
8. Headcuts
0
1
2
3
9. Grade control
0
0.5
1
10. Natural valley
0
0.5
1
i 11. Second or greater order channel
No
Yes = 3
a artificial ditches are not rated; see discussions in manual
B. Hydrology (Subtotal = )
12. Presence of Baseflow
0
1
0 i
3
!I 13. Iron oxidizing bacteria
0
`]
2
3
14. Leaf litter
1.5}
0.5
0
15. Sediment on plants or debris
0
0.5
CIS
1.5
16. Organic debris lines or piles
0
0.5
1
1.5
17. Soil -based evidence of hig h water table?
No = 0
Yes
C. Biology (Subtotal =)
18. Fibrous roots in streambed
2
1
0
19. Rooted upland plants in streambed
3)
2
1
0
20. Macrobenthos (note diversity and abundance)
0
1
3
21. Aquatic Mollusks
1
2
3
22, Fish
0.5
1
1.5
23. Crayfish
O
0.5
1
1.5
24. Amphibians
0
(0.5
1
1.5
25. Algae
(�o
0.5
1
1.5
26. Wetland plants in streambed
,�
FACW = 0.75; OBL = 1.5 Other
"perennial streams may also be identified using other methods. See p. 35 of manual
Notes
Sketch:

NC D'WQ Stream Identification Form Version 4.11
Date: I C� 1 i 3 ProjecVSite: F V L Latitude: 3S.
Evaluator: `AX (�„ Q ^ County: I Longitude: - &L Sol �S 1
Total Points: ` Stream Determination (`circle Other Le'A -co p I
Stream is at least intermittent
if z 19 or perennial if z 30" a Ephemeral Intermltte ere e.g. Quad Name:
A. Geomorphology (Subtotal = }
Absent
Weak
Moderate
Strong
1 a Continuity of channel bed and bank
0
1
( )
2. Sinuosity of channel along thalweg
0
1
?2r
3
3. In- channel structure: ex. riffle -pool, step -pool,
0
1
2
3
ripple -pool sequence
j 4. Particle size of stream substrate
0
1
L
3
5. Active /relict floodplain
0
1
3
6. Depositional bars or benches
0
ip
2
3
7. Recent alluvial deposits
0
0
2
3
8. Headcuts
0
1
3
9. Grade control
0
0.5
1.5
10. Natural valley
0
0.5
1
11. Second or greater order channel
No �0
Yes = 3
a artificial ditches are not rated; see discussions in manual
B. Hydrology
(Subtotal = )
12. Presence of Baseflow
0
1
3
13. Iron oxidizing bacteria
01
2
3
14. Leaf litter
1.5
0.5
0
15. Sediment on plants or debris
0
i
1.5
16. Organic debris lines or piles
0
0.5
�1
i �� s
1.5
17. Soil -based evidence of high water table?
J
No = 0
' Yes 9(2.)
1
C. Biology (Subtotal = 4o S )
_
18. Fibrous roots in streambed
2
1
0
19. Rooted upland plants in streambed
�
2
1
0
20. Macrobenthos (note diversity and abundance)
0
(D
2
3
21. Aquatic Mollusks
1
2
3
22. Fish
0.5
1
1.5
23. Crayfish
loJ
0.5
1
1.5
24. Amphibians
,Q
r0_ 5)
1
1.5
25. Algae
r0 Ji
0.5
1
1.5
26. Wetland plants in streambed
FACW = 0.75; OBL = 1.5 Other
'perennial streams may also be identified using other methods. See p. 35 of manual
Notes:
Sketch:

NC DWQ Stream Identificatic
Date: 12 1 1 3
Evaluator: S, ; W►`E'�S� n
Total Points:
Stream is at least intermittent _ )
if z 19 or perennial if 2 30*
in Form Version 4.11
Project/Site: `F R Lj 1
County: ra1tl W4.�1
Stream Determination (circle one
Ephemeral Intermittent rennia
A. Geomorphology (Subtotal =* 2 ��s 7 Absent
18 Continuity of channel bed and bank
0
2. Sinuosity of channel along thalweg
0
3. In- channel structure: ex. rife -pool, step -pool,
0
ripple -pool sequence
2
4. Particle size of stream substrate
0
5. Active /relict floodplain
0
6. Depositional bars or benches
0
7. Recent alluvial deposits
0
B. Headcuts
0
9. Grade control
0
10. Natural valley
0
11. Second or greater order channel
No = 0
B artificial ditches are not rated; see discussions in manual
j
B. Hydrology (Subtotal =__ )
0.5
12. Presence of Baseflow
0
i 13. Iron oxidizing bacteria
0
14. Leaf litter
1.5
15. Sediment on plants or debris
0
16. Organic debris lines or piles
0
17. Soil -based evidence of high water table?
No = 0
C. Bioloqy (Subtotal = :�
18. Fibrous roots in streambed
Moderate
19. Rooted upland plants in streambed
1
20. Macrobenthos (note diversity and abundance)
0
21. Aquatic Mollusks
2
22. Fish
1
23. Crayfish
3
24. Amphibians
1
25. Algae
0
26. Wetland plants in streambed
3
*perennial streams may also be identified using other methods.
See p. 35 of manual.
Notes.
1
Sketch:
16
Latitude: s 9
Longitude: � al. COD31�0
Other rfi „eAa%�) IVG
e.g. Quad Name:
Weak
Moderate
Strong
1
23j
0
1
2
3
1
(a>
3
1
1
3
1
2
3
(0
2
3
1
a
3
1
j
3
0.5
1.5
0.5
1
Yes
1.51
CID
2
3
0
2
3
co
0.5
0
V
1
1.5
0.5
(f)
Yes �3
1.5
2
1
0
2
1
0
2
3
1
2
3
0.5
1
1.5
0.5
1
1.5
0.5
1
1.5
0.5
1
1.5
FACW = 0.75; OBL = 1.5 Other A0 }

NC D W Q Stream Identification Form Version 4.11
Date: + /fZc�l , ProjectfSite: F R L Latitude: 9 z 'S $R
Evaluator: �+ [� 7lnExh, County: ' 6�I A \,�e Longitude: 8 eSq G dl (o
Total Points:
Stream is at least intermittent Stream Determin n (circle one) Other ��A0 t r�
if z 19 or perennial if z 30" Ephemeral termitien Perennial e.g- Quad Name:
A. Geomorphology (Subtotal= I H + i
Absent
Weak
1$ Continuity of channel bed and bank
0
1
2. Sinuosity of channel along thalweg
0
1
J 3. In- channel structure: ex. riffle -pool, step -pool,
0
1
ripple -pool sequence
24. Amphibians
4. Particle size of stream substrate
0
5. Active /relict floodplain
0
J
6. Depositional bars or benches
0
7. Recent alluvial deposits
0
8. Headcuts
0
' 1
9. Grade control
0
0.5
10. Natural valley
0
0.5
11. Second or greater order channel
No
artificial ditches are not rated; see discus .4jos in manual
B. Hydrology (Subtotal
12. Presence of Baseflow
0
13. Iron oxidizing bacteria
6
1
14. Leaf litter
1.5
1
15. Sediment on plants or debris
0
16. Organic debris lines or piles
0
17. Soil -based evidence of high water table?
No
C. Biology (Subtotal = : )
18. Fibrous roots in streambed
3
19. Rooted upland plants in streambed
C3->
20. Maerobenthos (note diversity_ and abundance)
D
21. Aquatic Mollusks
0111
22. Fish0�
23. Crayfish
24. Amphibians
25. Algae
26. Wetland plants in streambed
"perennial streams may also be identified using other methods. See p. 35 of manual.
Notes:
Sketch:
Moderate
2
0
2
2
2
2�
1
Yes =3
Strong
3
3
3
3
3
3
3
3
1.5
(1- 5'�)
2 3
3
00. > 0
1 j 1.5
1 J 1.5
Yes = 3
(2� 1 0
2 1 0
1 2 3
1 2 3
0.5 1 1.5
0.5 1 1.5
0.5 1 1.5
0.5 1 1.5
FACW = 0.75; OBL = 1.5 Other

NC DWQ Stream Identification Form Version 4.11
Date: 1:2 q I) 3 Project/Site: F R L Latitude:ss.92523
Evaluator: �. W _Q r��Qn County: rG I il W -9 1 Longitude: _V1 .�9 y y
Total Points:
Stream is at least intermittent Stream Determination (clrcl Other �.,P�l ®) NC ,
�'� S Ephemeral Intermittent erenni e.g. Quad Name:
if z 79 or perennial if z 30" /
A. Geomorphology (Subtotal = 2.� .j }
Absent
1& Continuity of channel bed and bank
0
2. Sinuosity of channel along thalweg
0
3. In- channel structure: ex. riffle -pool, step -pool,
0
ripple -pool sequence
4. Particle size of stream substrate
0
5. Active /relict floodplain
0
6. Depositional bars or benches
0
7. Recent alluvial deposits
0
8. Headcuts
0
9. Grade control
0
10. Natural valley
0
11. Second or greater order channel No
d artificial ditches are not rated; see discussions in manual
B. Hydrology (Subtotal = }
12. Presence of Baseflow 0
13. Iron oxidizing bacteria 0
14. Leaf litter 1.5
15. Sediment on plants or debris 0
16. Organic debris lines or piles 0
17. Soil -based evidence of high water table? No = 0
C. Biology (Subtotal = ]
18. Fibrous roots in streambed
3
19. Rooted upland plants in streambed3
20. Macrobenthos (note diversity and abundance)
0
21. Aquatic Mollusks
22. Fish
0
23. Crayfish
0
24. Amphibians
0
25. Algae
CO
26. Wetland plants in streambed
"perennial streams may also be identified using other methods.
See p. 35 of manual.
j Notes:
f
Sketch:
Weak
1
1
1
1
1
1
1
1
0.5
0.5
1
0.5
0.5
Moderate
2
2
2
2
1�
1
Yes =3
C�
2
0.5
Yes
2 1
2 1
1 (-2,7
1 2
0.5 1
0.v 1
(0.5) 1
0.5 1
FACW = 0.75; OBL = 1.5 Other =0)
Strong
3
3
3
3
Q)
1.5
U
3
3
0
1.5
1.5
0
0
3
3
1.5
1.5
1.5
1.5

NC DWQ Stream Identificatio
Date: 'R It 113
Evaluator: ­S', \AA\ e�
Total Points: y
Stream is at least intermittent
if z 19 or perennial if z 30"
n Form Version 4.11
Project/Site: L
County: cr' ,I
Stream Determl circle one)
Ephemeral ermitter0 Perennial
Latitude: S Ck
Longitude: -- I t:391 Z
Other Levvoi,,)
a. g, Quad Name:
A. Geomorphology (Subtotal = (Gt ' x
Absent
Weak
Moderate
Strong
18 Continuity of channel bed and bank
0
1
Q)
3
2. Sinuosity of channel along thalweg
0
(�>
2
3
3. In- channel structure: ex. riffle -pool, step -pool,
0
1
(:J
3
ripple -pool sequence
4. Particle size of stream substrate
0
12
3
5. Active /relict floodplain
0
1
Cz>
3
6. Depositional bars or benches
0
0
2
3
7. Recent alluvial deposits
0
1
3
8. Headcuts
0
1
3 J
9. Grade control
0
0.5
1 Q
1.5
10. Natural valley
0
0.5
1
15
11. Second or greater order channel
No
Yes = 3
a artificial ditches are not rated; see discussions in manual
'v
B. Hydrology (Subtotal= }
12. Presence of Baseflow,
0
d
2
3
13. Iron oxidizing bacteria
r_0
1
2
3
14. Leaf litter
1.5
1
0
15. Sediment on plants or debris
0
0.
1
1.5
16. Organic debris lines or piles
0
�0.5
1
1.5
17. Soil -based evidence of high water table?
No - 0
Yes = 3
C. Biology (Subtotal = '::!, ]
18. Fibrous roots in streambed
3
0
1
0
19. Rooted upland plants in streambed
[$?
2
1
0
20. Macrobenthos (note diversity and abundance)
1
2
3
21. Aquatic Mollusks
1
2
3
22. Fish
0.5
1
1.5
23. Crayfish
f1}
0.5
1
1.5
24. Amphibians
t C)j
0.5
1
1.5
25. Algae
0�)
0.5
1
1.5
26. Wetland plants in streambed
FACW = 0.75;
OBL = 1.5 Other
"perennial streams may also be identified using other methods. See p. 35 of manual
Notes:
Sketch:

Sw-.r-ISA2, CS'�- 0
NC DWQ Stream Identification Form Version 4.11 sw °T
Date: I �G 3
Project/Site: r= R L
Latitude: 31:�, (;zZ G H
Evaluator: ^
County:
�Iw
Longitude: �� I ���
Total Points:
Stream is at least intermittent
Stream Determination (circl e)
Ephemeral Intermittent erennia
Other Lf_A0i^) JX
e.g. Quad Name:
if z 19 or perennial if z 30*
A. Geomorphology (Subtotal = 5Sl
Absent Weak
Moderate
Strong
I" Continuity of channel bed and bank
0
1
2
0
2. Sinuosity of channel along thalweg
0
1
�2�
3
3. In- channel structure: ex. riffle -pool, step -pool,
0
1
3
J ripple -pool sequence
4. Particle size of stream substrate
0
1
C
3
5. Active /relict floodplain
0
1
(D
3
6. Depositional bars or benches
0
C
2
3
7. Recent alluvial deposits
0
1
3
8. Headcuts
0
1
3
9. Grade control
0
0.5
1)
1-5.
10. Natural valley
0
_ 0.5
11. Second or greater order channel
NoD j
Yes = 3
a artificial ditches are not rated; see discussions in manual
B. Hydrology (Subtotal= e y
12. Presence of Baseflow
0
1
3
13. Iron oxidizing bacteria
0
`
2
3
14. Leaf litter
1.5
0.5
0
15. Sediment on plants or debris
0
5
1
1.5
16. Organic debris lines or piles
0
0.5
(7 )
1.5
17. Soil -based evidence of high water table?
No = 0
_
Yes 3
C. Biology (Subtotal = ' ]
18. Fibrous roots in streambed]
2
1
0
19. Rooted upland plants in streambed
r
2
1
0
20. Macrobenthos (note diversity and abundance)
0
1
(2')
3
21, Aquatic Mollusks
1
2
3
22. Fish
0
0.5
1
1.5
23. Crayfish
0
0.5
1
1.5
24. Amphibians
0.5
1
1.5
25. Algae
0
0.5
1
1.5
26. Wetland plants in streambed
FACW = 0.75; OBL
= 1.5 Other 0 )
'perennial streams may also be identified using other methods. See p. 35 of manual.
J Notes:
I
Sketch:

swh Cs' ►o)
NC DWQ Stream Identification Form Version 4.11
Date: _=7� l2 -3 3 Project/Site: f R L Latitude: '21"ss G 1 0G
Evaluator: Coun ty: Ca I � v1� Longitude:
SI, 99 2&:�
Total Points: Stream Determination lcir Other LkA G 11j �(✓
Stream is at least intermittent Ephemeral Intermitte Perennla e.g. Quad Name:
if z 19 or perennial if? 30* �"'
r
A. Geomorphology (Subtotal}
Absent
Weak
Moderate
Strong
18, Continuity of channel bed and bank
0
1
2
2. Sinuosity of channel along thalweg
0
1
2
3. In- channel structure: ex. rife -pool, step -pool,
0
1}
3
ripple -pool sequence
4. Particle size of stream substrate
0
1
Q
3
5. Active /relict floodplain
0
1
3
6. Depositional bars or benches
0
1
3
7. Recent alluvial deposits
0
1
3
8. Headcuts
0
1
3
9. Grade control
0
0.5
1
1
10. Natural valley
0
0.5
1
(1.5
11. Second or greater order channel
�
No F w
Yes = 3
artificial ditches are not rated; see disr�u lions in manual
B. Hydrology (Subtotal = )
12. Presence of Baseflow
0
1
3
13. Iron oxidizing bacteria
0
1
2
3
14. Leaf litter
1.5
0.5
0
15. Sediment on plants or debris
0
0.5
1
1.5
16. Organic debris lines or piles
0
0.5
1
1.5
P 17. Soil -based evidence of high water table?
No = 0
Yes
C. Biology (Subtotal = (-_ )
18. Fibrous roots in streambed
2
1
0
19. Rooted upland plants in streambed
2
1
0
20. Macrobenthos (note diversity and abundance)
1
2
3
21. Aquatic Mollusks
1
2
3
22. Fish
0.5
1
1.5
23. Crayfish
0
0.5 )
1
1.5
24. Amphibians
0
0.5
1
1.5
25. Algae
0.5
1
1.5
26. Wetland plants in streambed
FACW = 0.75; OBL = 1.5 Other
*perennial streams may also be identified using other methods. See p. 35 of manual.
Notes:
Sketch:

Sketch:
Vo L I a)
NC DWQ Stream Identification Form_ Version 4.11
Date: c� f� 3
7f
Project/Site: P I
Latitude:
3S• Ot I (d
1�
Evaluator: r A
County:
CGI WPM
Longitude:­
f QD2 (Q
Total Points:
Stream is at least intermittent
Stream Determination (clr nej� Other e,no I n) N�-
Ephemeral Intermittent erennial e.g. Quad Name:
if? 19 or perennial if z 30*
A. Geomorphology (Subtotal = V :T }
Absent
Weak
Moderate Strong
1a. Continuity of channel bed and bank
0
1
3
2. Sinuosity of channel along thalweg
0
(j)
2
3
3. In- channel structure: ex. riffle -pool, step -pool,
0
1
3
ripple -pool sequence
4. Particle size of stream substrate
0
1
03
3
5. Active /relict floodplain
0
1
2
3
6. Depositional bars or benches
0
1
2
3
7. Recent alluvial deposits
0
1
2
W
8. Headcuts
0)
2
3
9. Grade control
0
0.5
(
1.5
10. Natural valley
0
0.5
1
C)
11. Second or greater order channel
No
Yes = 3
a artificial ditches are not rated; see discussions in manual
B. Hydrology (Subtotal
12. Presence of Baseflow
0
1
3
13. Iron oxidizing bacteria
0
1
2
( 3)
14. Leaf litter
1.5
C
0.5
0
15. Sediment on plants or debris
0
0.5
1.5
16. Organic debris lines or piles
0
0.5
1.5
17. 'Soil -based evidence of high water table?
No = 0
Yes 93T,)
C. Biology (Subtotal =­ 14 j � )
18. Fibrous roots in streambed
3
1116
1
0
19. Rooted upland plants in streambed
3
1
0
20. Macrobenthos (note diversity and abundance)
1
2
3
21. Aquatic Mollusks
1
2
3
22. Fish
X07
0.5
1
1.5
23. Crayfish
9,5
1
1.5
24. Amphibians
0
0-r
1
1.5
25. Algae
26. Wetland plants in streambed
(0
0.5
FACW = 0.75;
1 1.5
OBL = 1.5 Other �0)
*perennial streams may also be identified using other methods.
See p. 35 of manual.
Notes:
Sketch:

I "perennial streams may also be identified using other methods. See p. 35 of manual.
Notes:
Sketch:
NC DWQ Stream Identification Form Version 4.11
Date: CRr rl j 3
Project/Site: t- RL
Latitude:
Evaluator: �e �, 1�.1 t�
W Wi�A
County:l
a wR}�
Longitude:
Total Points:
Stream is at least intermittent %�
Stream Determination (circi a Other GUM3i n�
Ephemeral Intermittent
Ak
? i?
if 19 or perennial if z 3' °' a
efennia
e.g. Quad Name:
A. Geomorphology (Subtotal= °� )
Absent Weak
Moderate Strong
1a. Continuity of channel bed and bank
0
1
2
W
2. Sinuosity of channel along thalweg
0
1
(
3
3. In- channel structure: ex. riffle -pool, step -pool,
0
1
3
ripple -pool sequence
4. Particle size of stream substrate
0
1
3
5. Active /relict floodplain
0
1
2
(D
6. Depositional bars or benches
0
1
C
3
f 7. Recent alluvial deposits
0
1
(2
3
6. Headcuts
0
0)
2
3
9. Grade control
0
0.5
t/fD
1.5
10. Natural valley
0
0.5
\
0
1.5
11. Second or greater order channel
No = 0
Yes
a artificial ditches are not rated; see discussions in manual
B. Hydrology (Subtotal = i
12. Presence of Baseflow
0
1
3
13. Iron oxidizing bacteria
0
0
2
3
14. Leaf litter
1.5
b
0.5
0
15. Sediment on plants or debris
0
0.5
%
1.5
f 16. Organic debris lines or piles
0
0.5
c
1.5
17. Soil -based evidence of high water table?
No = 0
Yes
C. Biology (Subtotal = ? )
18. Fibrous roots in streambed
o3
2
1
0
j 19. Rooted upland plants in streambed
63:)
1
0
20. Macrobenthos (note diversity and abundance)
0
,2
( i)
2
3
21. Aquatic Mollusks
[0-
1
2
3
22. Fish
(3
0.5
1
1.5
23. Crayfish
M-)
0.5
1
1.5
24. Amphibians
0
Cn
1
1.5
25. Algae
0.5
1 N_
1.5
26. Wetland plants in streambed
FACW = 0.75;
OBL = 1.5 Other
I "perennial streams may also be identified using other methods. See p. 35 of manual.
Notes:
Sketch:

APPROVED JURISDICTIONAL DETERMINATION FORM
U.S. Army Corps of Engineers
This form should be completed by following the instructions provided in Section IV of the JD Form Instructional Guidebook.
SECTION I: BACKGROUND INFORMATION
A. REPORT COMPLETION DATE FOR APPROVED JURISDICTIONAL DETERMINATION (JD):
B. DISTRICT OFFICE, FILE NAME, AND NUMBER: Wilmington District Asheville Field Office
C. PROJECT LOCATION AND BACKGROUND INFORMATION: The site is an approximately 105 -acre tract located adjacent to
the northern portion of the Foothills Regional Landfill northwest of Lenoir, NC. This jurisdictional determination form is for the following
Waters of the US (WOUS): Streams SWA/SDA, SWB /SWG, and SWH and and Wetland WA.
State: North Carolina County /parish/borough: Caldwell City: Lenoir
Center coordinates of site (lat/long in degree decimal format): Lat. 35.92597° M, Long. - 81.59929°
Universal Transverse Mercator:
Name of nearest waterbody: UT of Abingdon Creek
Name of nearest Traditional Navigable Water (TNW) into which the aquatic resource flows: Catawba River
Name of watershed or Hydrologic Unit Code (HUC): 03050101
® Check if map /diagram of review area and/or potential jurisdictional areas is /are available upon request.
Check if other sites (e.g., offsite mitigation sites, disposal sites, etc...) are associated with this action and are recorded on a
different JD form.
D. REVIEW PERFORMED FOR SITE EVALUATION (CHECK ALL THAT APPLY):
Office (Desk) Determination. Date:
Field Determination. Date(s): 9 December 2014
SECTION II: SUMMARY OF FINDINGS
A. RHA SECTION 10 DETERMINATION OF JURISDICTION.
There Are no "navigable waters of the U.S." within Rivers and Harbors Act (RHA) jurisdiction (as defined by 33 CFR part 329) in the
review area. [Required]
❑ Waters subject to the ebb and flow of the tide.
❑ Waters are presently used, or have been used in the past, or may be susceptible for use to transport interstate or foreign commerce.
Explain:
B. CWA SECTION 404 DETERMINATION OF JURISDICTION.
There ,waters of the U.S." within Clean Water Act (CWA) jurisdiction (as defined by 33 CFR part 328) in the review area. [Required]
1. Waters of the U.S.
a. Indicate presence of waters of U.S. in review area (check all that apply): 1
❑ TNWs, including territorial seas
❑ Wetlands adjacent to TNWs
® Relatively permanent waters' (RPWs) that flow directly or indirectly into TNWs
❑ Non -RPWs that flow directly or indirectly into TNWs
® Wetlands directly abutting RPWs that flow directly or indirectly into TNWs
❑ Wetlands adjacent to but not directly abutting RPWs that flow directly or indirectly into TNWs
❑ Wetlands adjacent to non -RPWs that flow directly or indirectly into TNWs
❑ Impoundments of jurisdictional waters
❑ Isolated (interstate or intrastate) waters, including isolated wetlands
b. Identify (estimate) size of waters of the U.S. in the review area:
Non - wetland waters: 4,586 linear feet: 4 width (ft) and/or acres.
Wetlands: 0.04 acres.
c. Limits (boundaries) of jurisdiction based on: 1987 Delineation Manual
Elevation of established OHWM (if known):
2. Non - regulated waters /wetlands (check if applicable):'
Potentially jurisdictional waters and /or wetlands were assessed within the review area and determined to be not jurisdictional.
Explain:
Boxes checked below shall be supported by completing the appropriate sections in Section III below.
z For purposes of this form, an RPW is defined as a tributary that is not a TNW and that typically flows year -round or has continuous flow at least "seasonally"
(e.g., typically 3 months).
s Supporting documentation is presented in Section III.F.

SECTION III: CWA ANALYSIS
A. TNWs AND WETLANDS ADJACENT TO TNWs
The agencies will assert jurisdiction over TNWs and wetlands adjacent to TNWs. If the aquatic resource is a TNW, complete
Section IILA.1 and Section IH.D.1. only; if the aquatic resource is a wetland adjacent to a TNW, complete Sections III.A.1 and 2
and Section III.D.1.; otherwise, see Section IILB below.
1. TNW
Identify TNW:
Summarize rationale supporting determination:
2. Wetland adjacent to TNW
Summarize rationale supporting conclusion that wetland is "adjacent':
B. CHARACTERISTICS OF TRIBUTARY (THAT IS NOT A TNW) AND ITS ADJACENT WETLANDS (IF ANY):
This section summarizes information regarding characteristics of the tributary and its adjacent wetlands, if any, and it helps
determine whether or not the standards for jurisdiction established under Rapanos have been met.
The agencies will assert jurisdiction over non - navigable tributaries of TNWs where the tributaries are "relatively permanent
waters" (RPWs), i.e. tributaries that typically flow year -round or have continuous flow at least seasonally (e.g., typically 3
months). A wetland that directly abuts an RPW is also jurisdictional. If the aquatic resource is not a TNW, but has year -round
(perennial) flow, skip to Section III.D.2. If the aquatic resource is a wetland directly abutting a tributary with perennial flow,
skip to Section III.D.4.
A wetland that is adjacent to but that does not directly abut an RPW requires a significant nexus evaluation. Corps districts and
EPA regions will include in the record any available information that documents the existence of a significant nexus between a
relatively permanent tributary that is not perennial (and its adjacent wetlands if any) and a traditional navigable water, even
though a significant nexus finding is not required as a matter of law.
If the waterbody4 is not an RPW, or a wetland directly abutting an RPW, a JD will require additional data to determine if the
waterbody has a significant nexus with a TNW. If the tributary has adjacent wetlands, the significant nexus evaluation must
consider the tributary in combination with all of its adjacent wetlands. This significant nexus evaluation that combines, for
analytical purposes, the tributary and all of its adjacent wetlands is used whether the review area identified in the JD request is
the tributary, or its adjacent wetlands, or both. If the JD covers a tributary with adjacent wetlands, complete Section III.B.1 for
the tributary, Section III.B.2 for any onsite wetlands, and Section III.B.3 for all wetlands adjacent to that tributary, both onsite
and offsite. The determination whether a significant nexus exists is determined in Section III.0 below.
1. Characteristics of non -TNWs that flow directly or indirectly into TNW
(i) General Area Conditions:
Watershed size: Pick List
Drainage area: Pick List
Average annual rainfall: inches
Average annual snowfall: inches
(ii) Physical Characteristics:
(a) Relationshin with TNW:
❑ Tributary flows directly into TNW.
❑ Tributary flows through Pick List tributaries before entering TNW.
Project waters are Pick List river miles from TNW.
Project waters are Pick List river miles from RPW.
Project waters are Pick List aerial (straight) miles from TNW.
Project waters are Pick List aerial (straight) miles from RPW.
Project waters cross or serve as state boundaries. Explain:
Identify flow route to TNW5:
Tributary stream order, if known:
' Note that the Instructional Guidebook contains additional information regarding swales, ditches, washes, and erosional features generally and in the and
West.
s Flow route can be described by identifying, e.g., tributary a, which flows through the review area, to flow into tributary b, which then flows into TNW.

(b) General Tributary Characteristics (check all that an_ Dlv):
Tributary is: ❑ Natural
❑ Artificial (man- made). Explain:
❑ Manipulated (man - altered). Explain:
Tributary properties with respect to top of bank (estimate):
Average width: feet
Average depth: feet
Average side slopes: Pick List.
Primary tributary substrate composition (check all that apply):
❑ Silts ❑ Sands ❑ Concrete
❑ Cobbles ❑ Gravel ❑ Muck
❑ Bedrock ❑ Vegetation. Type /% cover:
❑ Other. Explain:
Tributary condition/stability [e.g., highly eroding, sloughing banks]. Explain:
Presence of run/riffle /pool complexes. Explain:
Tributary geometry: Pick List
Tributary gradient (approximate average slope): %
(c) Flow:
Tributary provides for: Pick List
Estimate average number of flow events in review area/year:
Describe flow regime:
Other information on duration and volume:
Surface flow is: Pick List. Characteristics:
Subsurface flow: Pick List. Explain findings:
❑ Dye (or other) test performed:
Tributary has (check all that apply):
❑ Bed and banks
❑ OHWM' (check all indicators that apply):
❑ clear, natural line impressed on the bank
❑
❑ changes in the character of soil
❑
❑ shelving
❑
❑ vegetation matted down, bent, or absent
❑
❑ leaf litter disturbed or washed away
❑
❑ sediment deposition
❑
❑ water staining
❑
❑ other (list):
❑ Discontinuous OHWM.7 Explain:
If factors other than the OHWM were used to determ:
❑ High Tide Line indicated by:
❑ oil or scum line along shore objects
❑ fine shell or debris deposits (foreshore)
❑ physical markings /characteristics
❑ tidal gauges
❑ other (list):
the presence of litter and debris
destruction of terrestrial vegetation
the presence of wrack line
sediment sorting
scour
multiple observed or predicted flow events
abrupt change in plant community
ne lateral extent of CWA jurisdiction (check all that apply)
Mean High Water Mark indicated by:
❑ survey to available datum;
❑ physical markings;
❑ vegetation lines /changes in vegetation types.
(iii) Chemical Characteristics:
Characterize tributary (e.g., water color is clear, discolored, oily film; water quality; general watershed characteristics, etc.).
Explain:
Identify specific pollutants, if known:
6A natural or man -made discontinuity in the OHWM does not necessarily sever jurisdiction (e.g., where the stream temporarily flows underground, or where
the OHWM has been removed by development or agricultural practices). Where there is a break in the OHWM that is unrelated to the waterbody's flow
regime (e.g., flow over a rock outcrop or through a culvert), the agencies will look for indicators of flow above and below the break.
'Ibid.

(iv) Biological Characteristics. Channel supports (check all that apply):
❑ Riparian corridor. Characteristics (type, average width):
❑ Wetland fringe. Characteristics:
❑ Habitat for:
❑ Federally Listed species. Explain findings:
❑ Fish/spawn areas. Explain findings:
❑ Other environmentally - sensitive species. Explain findings:
❑ Aquatic /wildlife diversity. Explain findings:
2. Characteristics of wetlands adjacent to non -TNW that flow directly or indirectly into TNW
(i) Physical Characteristics:
(a) General Wetland Characteristics:
Properties:
Wetland size: acres
Wetland type. Explain:
Wetland quality. Explain:
Project wetlands cross or serve as state boundaries. Explain:
(b) General Flow Relationship with Non -TNW:
Flow is: Pick List. Explain:
Surface flow is: Pick List
Characteristics:
Subsurface flow: Pick List. Explain findings:
❑ Dye (or other) test performed:
(c) Wetland Adjacency Determination with Non -TNW:
❑ Directly abutting
❑ Not directly abutting
❑ Discrete wetland hydrologic connection. Explain:
❑ Ecological connection. Explain:
❑ Separated by berm/barrier. Explain:
(d) Proximity (Relationship) to TNW
Project wetlands are Pick List river miles from TNW.
Project waters are Pick List aerial (straight) miles from TNW.
Flow is from: Pick List.
Estimate approximate location of wetland as within the Pick JM floodplain.
(ii) Chemical Characteristics:
Characterize wetland system (e.g., water color is clear, brown, oil film on surface; water quality; general watershed
characteristics; etc.). Explain:
Identify specific pollutants, if known:
(iii) Biological Characteristics. Wetland supports (check all that apply):
❑ Riparian buffer. Characteristics (type, average width):
❑ Vegetation type /percent cover. Explain:
❑ Habitat for:
❑ Federally Listed species. Explain findings:
❑ Fish/spawn areas. Explain findings:
❑ Other environmentally - sensitive species. Explain findings:
❑ Aquatic /wildlife diversity. Explain findings:
3. Characteristics of all wetlands adjacent to the tributary (if any)
All wetland(s) being considered in the cumulative analysis: Pick List
Approximately ( ) acres in total are being considered in the cumulative analysis.

For each wetland, specify the following:
Directiv abuts? (Y/N) Size (in acres) Directiv abuts? (Y/N) Size (in acres)
Summarize overall biological, chemical and physical functions being performed:
C. SIGNIFICANT NEXUS DETERMINATION
A significant nexus analysis will assess the flow characteristics and functions of the tributary itself and the functions performed
by any wetlands adjacent to the tributary to determine if they significantly affect the chemical, physical, and biological integrity
of a TNW. For each of the following situations, a significant nexus exists if the tributary, in combination with all of its adjacent
wetlands, has more than a speculative or insubstantial effect on the chemical, physical and/or biological integrity of a TNW.
Considerations when evaluating significant nexus include, but are not limited to the volume, duration, and frequency of the flow
of water in the tributary and its proximity to a TNW, and the functions performed by the tributary and all its adjacent
wetlands. It is not appropriate to determine significant nexus based solely on any specific threshold of distance (e.g. between a
tributary and its adjacent wetland or between a tributary and the TNW). Similarly, the fact an adjacent wetland lies within or
outside of a floodplain is not solely determinative of significant nexus.
Draw connections between the features documented and the effects on the TNW, as identified in the Rapanos Guidance and
discussed in the Instructional Guidebook. Factors to consider include, for example:
• Does the tributary, in combination with its adjacent wetlands (if any), have the capacity to carry pollutants or flood waters to
TNWs, or to reduce the amount of pollutants or flood waters reaching a TNW?
• Does the tributary, in combination with its adjacent wetlands (if any), provide habitat and lifecycle support functions for fish and
other species, such as feeding, nesting, spawning, or rearing young for species that are present in the TNW?
• Does the tributary, in combination with its adjacent wetlands (if any), have the capacity to transfer nutrients and organic carbon that
support downstream foodwebs?
• Does the tributary, in combination with its adjacent wetlands (if any), have other relationships to the physical, chemical, or
biological integrity of the TNW?
Note: the above list of considerations is not inclusive and other functions observed or known to occur should be documented
below:
1. Significant nexus findings for non -RPW that has no adjacent wetlands and flows directly or indirectly into TNWs. Explain
findings of presence or absence of significant nexus below, based on the tributary itself, then go to Section III.D:
2. Significant nexus findings for non -RPW and its adjacent wetlands, where the non -RPW flows directly or indirectly into
TNWs. Explain findings of presence or absence of significant nexus below, based on the tributary in combination with all of its
adjacent wetlands, then go to Section III.D:
3. Significant nexus findings for wetlands adjacent to an RPW but that do not directly abut the RPW. Explain findings of
presence or absence of significant nexus below, based on the tributary in combination with all of its adjacent wetlands, then go to
Section IILD:
D. DETERMINATIONS OF JURISDICTIONAL FINDINGS. THE SUBJECT WATERS/WETLANDS ARE (CHECK ALL
THAT APPLY):
1. TNWs and Adjacent Wetlands. Check all that apply and provide size estimates in review area:
❑ TNWs: linear feet width (ft), Or, acres.
❑ Wetlands adjacent to TNWs: acres.
2. RPWs that flow directly or indirectly into TNWs.
Tributaries of TNWs where tributaries typically flow year -round are jurisdictional. Provide data and rationale indicating that
tributary is perennial: Field observations including flowing water, continous bed and bank, substrate sorting, macrobenthos,
OHWM, etc.
Tributaries of TNW where tributaries have continuous flow "seasonally" (e.g., typically three months each year) are
jurisdictional. Data supporting this conclusion is provided at Section III.B. Provide rationale indicating that tributary flows
seasonally:

Provide estimates for jurisdictional waters in the review area (check all that apply):
Tributary waters: 4,586 linear feet 4 width (ft).
Other non - wetland waters: acres.
Identify type(s) of waters:
3. Non -RPWss that flow directly or indirectly into TNWs.
Waterbody that is not a TNW or an RPW, but flows directly or indirectly into a TNW, and it has a significant nexus with a
TNW is jurisdictional. Data supporting this conclusion is provided at Section III.C.
Provide estimates for jurisdictional waters within the review area (check all that apply):
®Tributary waters: linear feet width (ft).
Other non - wetland waters: acres.
Identify type(s) of waters:
4. Wetlands directly abutting an RPW that flow directly or indirectly into TNWs.
Wetlands directly abut RPW and thus are jurisdictional as adjacent wetlands.
ffl Wetlands directly abutting an RPW where tributaries typically flow year- round. Provide data and rationale
indicating that tributary is perennial in Section III.D.2, above. Provide rationale indicating that wetland is
directly abutting an RPW: Wetland WA is contiguous with Stream SWA/SDA and SWB.
Wetlands directly abutting an RPW where tributaries typically flow "seasonally." Provide data indicating that tributary is
seasonal in Section III.B and rationale in Section IILD.2, above. Provide rationale indicating that wetland is directly
abutting an RPW:
Provide acreage estimates for jurisdictional wetlands in the review area: 0.04 acres.
5. Wetlands adjacent to but not directly abutting an RPW that flow directly or indirectly into TNWs.
Wetlands that do not directly abut an RPW, but when considered in combination with the tributary to which they are adjacent
and with similarly situated adjacent wetlands, have a significant nexus with a TNW are jurisidictional. Data supporting this
conclusion is provided at Section III.C.
Provide acreage estimates for jurisdictional wetlands in the review area: acres.
6. Wetlands adjacent to non -RPWs that flow directly or indirectly into TNWs.
® Wetlands adjacent to such waters, and have when considered in combination with the tributary to which they are adjacent and
with similarly situated adjacent wetlands, have a significant nexus with a TNW are jurisdictional. Data supporting this
conclusion is provided at Section III.C.
Provide estimates for jurisdictional wetlands in the review area: acres.
7. Impoundments of jurisdictional waters .9
As a general rule, the impoundment of a jurisdictional tributary remains jurisdictional.
❑ Demonstrate that impoundment was created from "waters of the U.S.," or
❑ Demonstrate that water meets the criteria for one of the categories presented above (1 -6), or
❑ Demonstrate that water is isolated with a nexus to commerce (see E below).
E. ISOLATED [INTERSTATE OR INTRA- STATE] WATERS, INCLUDING ISOLATED WETLANDS, THE USE,
DEGRADATION OR DESTRUCTION OF WHICH COULD AFFECT INTERSTATE COMMERCE, INCLUDING ANY
SUCH WATERS (CHECK ALL THAT APPLY):"`
❑ which are or could be used by interstate or foreign travelers for recreational or other purposes.
❑ 1rom which fish or shellfish are or could be taken and sold in interstate or foreign commerce.
❑ which are or could be used for industrial purposes by industries in interstate commerce.
❑ Interstate isolated waters. Explain:
❑ Other factors. Explain:
'See Footnote # 3.
v To complete the analysis refer to the key in Section III.D.6 of the Instructional Guidebook.
16 Prior to asserting or declining CWA jurisdiction based solely on this category, Corps Districts will elevate the action to Corps and EPA HQ for
review consistent with the process described in the Corps/EPA Memorandum Regarding CWA Act Jurisdiction Following Rapanos.

Identify water body and summarize rationale supporting determination:
Provide estimates for jurisdictional waters in the review area (check all that apply):
❑ Tributary waters: linear feet width (ft).
❑ Other non - wetland waters: acres.
Identify type(s) of waters:
❑ Wetlands
acres.
F. NON - JURISDICTIONAL WATERS, INCLUDING WETLANDS (CHECK ALL THAT APPLY):
If potential wetlands were assessed within the review area, these areas did not meet the criteria in the 1987 Corps of Engineers
Wetland Delineation Manual and/or appropriate Regional Supplements.
❑ Review area included isolated waters with no substantial nexus to interstate (or foreign) commerce.
❑ Prior to the Jan 2001 Supreme Court decision in "SWANCC," the review area would have been regulated based solely on the
"Migratory Bird Rule" (MBR).
�] Waters do not meet the "Significant Nexus" standard, where such a finding is required for jurisdiction. Explain:
❑ Other: (explain, if not covered above):
Provide acreage estimates for non jurisdictional waters in the review area, where the sole potential basis of jurisdiction is the MBR
factors (i.e., presence of migratory birds, presence of endangered species, use of water for irrigated agriculture), using best professional
judgment (check all that apply):
Non - wetland waters (i.e., rivers, streams): linear feet width (ft).
Lakes /ponds: acres.
Other non - wetland waters: acres. List type of aquatic resource:
Wetlands: acres.
Provide acreage estimates for non jurisdictional waters in the review area that do not meet the "Significant Nexus" standard, where such
a finding is required for jurisdiction (check all that apply):
Non- wetland waters (i.e., rivers, streams): linear feet, width (ft).
Lakes /ponds: acres.
Other non - wetland waters: acres. List type of aquatic resource:
Wetlands: acres.
SECTION IV: DATA SOURCES.
A. SUPPORTING DATA. Data reviewed for JD (check all that apply - checked items shall be included in case file and, where checked
and requested, appropriately reference sources below):
® Maps, plans, plots or plat submitted by or on behalf of the applicant /consultant: Republic Services.
® 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: Lenior, NC, 1 "= 2000'.
® USDA Natural Resources Conservation Service Soil Survey. Citation: Caldwell County Soil Survey, Sheet 6, 1989.
® National wetlands inventory map(s). Cite name: USFWS Online Wetland Mapper.
❑ State /Local wetland inventory map(s):
❑ FEMA/FIRM maps:
❑ 100 -year Floodplain Elevation is: (National Geodectic Vertical Datum of 1929)
❑ Photographs: ❑ Aerial (Name & Date):
or ❑ Other (Name & Date):
❑ Previous determination(s). File no. and date of response letter:
❑ Applicable /supporting case law:
❑ Applicable /supporting scientific literature:
® Other information (please specify): 9 December 2014 USACE Field Visit.
B. ADDITIONAL COMMENTS TO SUPPORT JD:

USACE AID# DWQ # Site # (indicate on attached map)
0 STREAM QUALITY ASSESSMENT WORKSHEET -AQP
Provide the following information for the stream reach under assessment: 1
1. Applicant's name; �+r (� u �� i C, rf 11 t f, j 2. Evaluator's name: 1Y �n ,v� e„ -L,p 00 A
3. Date of evaluation: ` I 3 r� i . 4. Time of evaluation: 1 � " - �0 f] Jh
5. Name of stream: UT 0 7 ON U�K 6. River basin: jLe,- X(X .l � 04
7. Approximate drainage area: —s— aGm s 8. Stream order: Lai 1 iSf
9. Length of reach evaluated: (4 (n Q-4,t J-- 10. County: ( Wk, ( L
11. Site coordinates (if known): (prefer in decimal degrees. 12. Subdivision name (if any): �7 A)
Latitude (ex. 34.872312): � J r '�
. "L i "� Longitude (ex —77.556611):
Method location determined (circle): GPS Topo Sheet Ortho (Aerial) Photo /GIS Other GIS Other S Uri Ve C CL
13. Location of reach under evaluation (note nearby roads and landmarks and attach map identifying stream(s) lolation):
No n,Un d�- Cl,� IZmo A- 4ro.0 ms sw A) s w ai ' - s wC_
14. Proposed channel work (if any): � i fV\'P Q8 I' n
p �
15. Recent weather conditions: I v\ M U k
16. Site conditions at time of visit: �; U NA
17. Identify any special waterway classifications known: Section 10 Tidal Waters Essential Fisheries Habitat
Trout Waters Outstanding Resource Waters _ Nutrient Sensitive Waters `Water Supply Watershed (I -IV)
18. Is there a pond or lake located upstream of the evaluation point? YES NO If yes, estimate the water surface area:
19. Does channel appear on USGS quad map? YES NO 20. Does channel appear on USDA Soil Survey? YES NO
21. Estimated watershed land use: % Residential _% Commercial _% Industrial % Agricultural
'4b% Forested % Cleared / Logged 10 % Other f L, vv I � 1 l t
22. Bankfull width: 23. Bank height (from bed to top of bank): I ?`
24. Channel slope down center of stream: _Flat (0 to 2 %) _Gentle (2 to 4 %) X Moderate (4 to 10 %) _Steep ( >10 %)
25. Channel sinuosity: Straight Occasional bends _Frequent meander _Very sinuous _Braided channel
Instructions for completion of worksheet (located on page 2): Begin by determining the most appropriate ecoregion based on
location, terrain, vegetation, stream classification, etc. Every characteristic must be scored using the same ecoregion. Assign points
to each characteristic within the range shown for the ecoregion. Page 3 provides a brief description of how to review the
characteristics identified in the worksheet. Scores should reflect an overall assessment of the stream reach under evaluation. If a
characteristic cannot be evaluated due to site or weather conditions, enter 0 in the scoring box and provide an explanation in the
comment section. Where there are obvious changes in the character of a stream under review (e.g., the stream flows from a pasture
into a forest), the stream may be divided into smaller reaches that display more continuity, and a separate form used to evaluate each
reach. The total score assigned to a stream reach must range between 0 and 100, with a score of 100 representing a stream of the
highest quality.
Total Score (from reverse): 77-_ Comments:
Evaluator's Signature �` Date ��
This channel ev;rluatio>rP°lrm is intended to be used only as a guide to assist landowners and environmental professionals in
gathering the data required by the United States Army Corps of Engineers to make a preliminary assessment of stream
quality. The total score resulting from the completion of this form is subject to USACE approval and does not imply a
particular mitigation ratio or requirement. Form subject to change — version 06/03. To Comment, please call 919 - 876 -8441 x 26.

STREAM QUALITY ASSESSMENT WORKSHEET
* These characteristics are not assessed in coastal streams.
#
ECOREGION POINT
RANGE
CHARACTERISTICS
SCORE
Coastal
Piedmont
Mountain
I
Presence of flow / persistent pools in stream
0-5
0-4
0-5
(no flow or saturation = 0; strong flow = maxpoints)
2
Evidence of past human alteration
0-6
0-5
0-5
(extensive_ alteration = 0, no alteration = maxpoints)
3
Riparian zone
0-6
0-4
0-5
(no buffer = 0; contiguous. wide buffer = maxpoints)
4
Evidence of nutrient or chemical discharges
0-5
0-4
0-4
ff
(extensive discharges = 0; no discharges = maxpoints)
I
Groundwater discharge
0-3
0 — 4
0-4
U5
(no discharge = 0; springs, see s, wetlands, etc. = max points)
6
Presence of adjacent floodplain
0— 4
0— 4
0— 2
y,
(no floodplain = 0; extensive floodplain = max points)
Entrenchment / floodplain access
0-5
0 — 4
0-2
(deeply Iv entrenched = 0; frequent flooding =max points)
8
Presence of adjacent wetlands
0-6
0-4
0-2
I
(no wetlands = 0: large adjacent wetlands = maxpoints)
9
Channel sinuosity
0-5
0-4
0-3
(extensive channelization = 0; natural meander = maxpoints)
10
Sediment input
0-5
0-4
0-4
(extensive deposition= 0; little or no sediment = maxpoints)
_
11
Size & diversity of channel bed substrate
NA*
0-4
0-5
fine, homogenous = 0: large, diverse sizes = maxpoints)
12
Evidence of channel incision or widening
0-5
0-4
0-5
I
>4
(dee2ly incised = 0, stable bed & banks = maxpoints)
13
Presence of major bank failures
0-5
0-5
0-5
a(severe
erosion = 0: no erosion, stable banks = maxpoints)
d
14
Root depth and density on banks
0-3
0 — 4
0-5
F
(no visible roots = 0; dense roots throughout =max points)
15
Impact by agriculture, livestock, or timber production
0-5
0-4
0-5
(substantial impact =0; no evidence = maxpoints)
16
Presence of riffle-pool/ripple-pool complexes
0-3
0-5
0-6
(no riffles/ri pies or pools = 0; well-developed = max points)
1
Habitat complexity
— 6
0-6
0-6
q
little or no habitat = 0, frequent, varied habitats = maxpoints)
I
_0
Canopy coverage over streambed
18
(no shading vegetation = 0; continuous canopy = maxpoints)
0-5
0-5
0-5
i
19
Substrate embeddedness
NA*
0-4
0-4
I
(deeply embedded = 0; loose structure = max)
20
Presence of stream invertebrates (see page 4)
0-4
0-5
no evidence = 0, common, numerous types = maxpoints)
21
Presence of amphibians
0-4
0-4
0-4
O
(no evidence = 0, common, numerous types = maxpoints)
O
22
Presence of fish
0-4
0-4
0-4
�-+
no evidence = 0; common, numerous ty es = max oints
23
Evidence of wildlife use
0-6
0-5
0-5
I
(no evidence = 0: abundant evidence = max oints
Total Points Possible
1007100
100
TOTAL SCORE (also enter on first page)
* These characteristics are not assessed in coastal streams.

USACE Al
DWQ#.
Site # (indicate on attached map) l
M STREAM QUALITY ASSESSMENT WORKSHEET —AQO
Provide the following information for the stream reach under assessment:
s
1. Applicant's name: ull i� 2. Evaluator's name:
s �]I/R�'S�iICrQf�
18. Is there a pond or lake located upstream of the evaluation
3. Date of evaluation: Cx I i 1 4. Time of evaluation:
! L,)
0 q AN -
-t
5. Name of stream: (A�� � i oAn Ciw�. 6. River basin: 6-4o.
vubo
_% Commercial _% Industrial _%
7. Approximate drainage area: _�%C)0,�CM-5 8. Stream order I
it--
_% Cleared / Logged _% Other (
9. Length of reach evaluated: q A 10. County: 6a�
TU'
We
23. Bank height (from bed to top of bank):
11. Site coordinates (if known): in decimal degrees. 12. Subdivision name (if
any):
_Gentle (2 to 4%) Moderate (4 to 10%)
�prefer
j
Latitude (ex 34.872312): ��! -1 1:5 3 3 Longitude (ex. -77 556611):
25. Channel sinuosity: Straight _Occasional bends
zX Frequent meander _Very sinuous _Braided
Method location determined (circle): GPS Topo Sheet Ortho (Aerial) Photo/GIS Other GIS Other
C_,,t t J`V+, VQ
13. Location reach under evaluation (note nearby roads and landmarks and attach map identifying
stream(s) locion):
NOi�'t \ Crt— C1 PtG.LA.% T-kOQA , '�4r p.n drt. 4:: 1W r
14. Proposed channel work (if
16. Site conditions at time of visit: [ A jib!
17. Identify any special waterway classifications known: _Section 10 _Tidal Waters Essential Fisheries Habitat
_Trout Waters _Outstanding Resource Waters _
Nutrient Sensitive Waters _Water Supply Watershed (I-IV)
18. Is there a pond or lake located upstream of the evaluation
point? YES NO 1f yes, estimate the water surface area:
19. Does channel appear on USGS quad map? YES N©
20. Does channel appear on USDA Soil Survey?
YES b1O
21. Estimated watershed land use: �% Residential
_% Commercial _% Industrial _%
Agricultural
+ Z> % Forested
_% Cleared / Logged _% Other (
)
22. Bankfull width: rl " /
23. Bank height (from bed to top of bank):
—
24. Channel slope down center of stream: _Flat (0 to 2%)
_Gentle (2 to 4%) Moderate (4 to 10%)
_Steep (>10%)
25. Channel sinuosity: Straight _Occasional bends
zX Frequent meander _Very sinuous _Braided
channel
Instructions for completion of worksheet (located on page 2): Begin by determining the most appropriate ecoregion based on
location, terrain, vegetation, stream classification, etc. Every characteristic must be scored using the same ecoregion. Assign points
to each characteristic within the range shown for the ecoregion. Page 3 provides a brief description of how to review the
characteristics identified in the worksheet. Scores should reflect an overall assessment of the stream reach under evaluation. If a
characteristic cannot be evaluated due to site or weather conditions, enter 0 in the scoring box and provide an explanation in the
comment section. Where there are obvious changes in the character of a stream under review (e.g., the stream flows from a pasture
into a forest), the stream may be divided into smaller reaches that display more continuity, and a separate form used to evaluate each
reach. The total score assigned to a stream reach must range between 0 and 100, with a score of 100 representing a stream of the
highest quality.
Total Score (from reverse): Comments:
Evaluator's Signature !:2— Date
This channel evaluati or is intended to be uscc only as a guide to assist landowners and environmental professionals in
gathering the data required by the United States Army Corps of Engineers to make a preliminary assessment of stream
quality. The total score resulting from the completion of this form is subject to USACE approval and does not imply a
particular mitigation ratio or requirement. Form subject to change — version 06/03. To Comment, please call 919-876-8441 x 26.
G WF -

STREAM QUALITY ASSESSMENT WORKSHEET
* These characteristics are not assessed in coastal streams.
#
ECOREGION POINT
RANGE
CHARACTERISTICS
SCORE
Coastal
Piedmont
Mountain
1
Presence of flow / persistent pools in stream
0-5
0-4
0-5
no flow or saturation = 0, strong flow = max oints)
2
Evidence of past human alteration
0-6
0 — 5
0-5
(extensive alteration = 0; no alteration = max points)
3
Riparian zone
0-6
0-4
0-5
(no buffer = 0. contiguous, wide buffer = maxpoints)
4
Evidence of nutrient or chemical discharges
0-5
0 — 4
0-4
(extensive discharges = 0; no discharges = max points)
5
Groundwater discharge
0-3
0-4
0-4
d
(no discharge = 0; springs. see s, wetlands. etc. = maxpoints)
6
Presence of adjacent floodplain
0-4
0-4
0-2
(no floodplain = 0; extensive floodplain =max points)
I
aEntrenchment
/ floodplain access
0— 5
0— 4
0— 2
(deeply entrenched = 0; frequent floodin = max points)
8
Presence of adjacent wetlands
0-6
0-4
0-2
r
no wetlands = 0, lar - e ad'acent wetlands = maxpoints)
I
9
Channel sinuosity
0-5
0-4
0-3
(extensive channelization = 0, natural meander = maxpoints)
10
Sediment input
0-5
0-4
0-4
(extensive deposition= 0; little or no sediment = maxpoints)
11
Size & diversity of channel bed substrate
NA*
0-4
0-5
(fine, homogenous = 0, lame, diverse sizes = maxpoints)
12
Evidence of channel incision or widening
0-5
0-4
0-5
dee 1 incised = 0; stable bed & banks = maxpoints)
d
13
Presence of major bank failures
0-5
0-5
0-5
y
(severe erosion = 0; no erosion, stable banks = maxpoints)
14
Root depth and density on banks
0-3
0-4
0-5
E.(no
visible roots = 0, dense roots throughout = maxpoints)
15
Impact by agriculture, livestock, or timber production
0-5
0-4
0-5
(substantial impact =0; no evidence = maxpoints)
16
Presence of riffle-poot/ripple-pool complexes
0-3
0-5
0-6
(no riffles/ripples or pools = 0; well-developed = maxpoints)
F
17
Habitat complexity
0-6
0-6
0-6
(little or no habitat = 0; frequent, varied habitats = maxpoints)
18
Canopy coverage over streambed
0-5
0-5
0-5
(no shading vegetation = 0; continuous canopy = maxpoints)
19
Substrate embeddedness
NA*
0-4
0-4
(deeply embedded = 0; loose structure = max)
20
Presence of stream invertebrates (see page 4)
0-4
0-5
0-5
no evidence = 0. common, numerous es = maxpoints)
21
Presence of amphibians
0-4
0-4
0-4
O
(no evidence = 0; common, numerous types = max points
O
22
Presence of fish
0-4
0-4
0-4
(no evidence = 0; common, numerous es = maxpoints)
23
Evidence of wildlife use
0-6
0-5
0-5
3
no evidence = 0; abundant evidence = maxpoints)
Total Points Possible
100
100
100
TOTAL SCORE (also enter on first page)
C,
* These characteristics are not assessed in coastal streams.

USACE AID#
DWQk
Site # (indicate on attached map)
STREAM QUALITY ASSESSMENT WORKSHEET
-AQP
Provide the following information for the stream reach under assessment:
1. Applicant's name: P p ,,-kI%�-(_ +N e 2. Evaluator's name:
3. Date of evaluation: ! 1.5 4. Time of evaluation: 9 ,
5. Name of stream: u -T � CMt IZ 6. River basin: CcJQ %---/
7. Approximate drainage area: ` d G L M -S y► 18. Stream order: ) S 1 � ,i,
9. Length of reach evaluated:_ aS�' �fi Q 0. County: Al Cini
11. Site coordinates (if known): prefer in decimal degrees. 12. Subdivision name (if any): NIA
c i
Latitude (ex 34 872312): -?3a• C) Longitude (ex. -77.556611): a �1
Method location determined (circle): GPS Topo Sheet Ortho (Aerial) Photo/GIS Other GIS Other, S, ty �/ 1
13. Location of reach under evaluation (note nearby roads and landmarks and attach map identifying stream(s) location):
14. Proposed channel work (if any
15. Recent weather conditions: IV Q ,�
16. Site conditions at time of visit -- —S tai q
17. Identify any special waterway classifications known: ^Section 10 _Tidal Waters Essential Fisheries Habitat
_Trout Waters _Outstanding Resource Waters _ Nutrient Sensitive Waters _ Water Supply Watershed (I-IV)
18. Is there a pond or lake located upstream of the evaluation point? YES D If yes, estimate the water surface area:
19. Does channel appear on USES quad map? YES (0)20. Does channel appear on USDA Soil Survey? YES t
21. Estimated watershed land use: `% Residential �% Commercial �% Industrial % Agricultural
f / t 97 % Forested _% Cleared / Logged _% Other (f
r
22. Bankfull width: )— (, 23. Bank height (from bed to top of bank):
24. Channel slope down center of stream: _Flat (0 to 2%) _Gentle (2 to 4%) Moderate (4 to 10%) _Steep (>10%)
25. Channel sinuosity: Straight _Occasional bends Frequent meander _Very sinuous _Braided channel
Instructions for completion of worksheet (located on page 2): Begin by determining the most appropriate ecoregion based on
location, terrain, vegetation, stream classification, etc. Every characteristic must be scored using the same ecoregion. Assign points
to each characteristic within the range shown for the ecoregion. Page 3 provides a brief description of how to review the
characteristics identified in the worksheet. Scores should reflect an overall assessment of the stream reach under evaluation. If a
characteristic cannot be evaluated due to site or weather conditions, enter 0 in the scoring box and provide an explanation in the
comment section. Where there are obvious changes in the character of a stream under review (e.g., the stream flows from a pasture
into a forest), the stream may be divided into smaller reaches that display more continuity, and a separate form used to evaluate each
reach. The total score assigned to a stream reach must range between 0 and 100, with a score of 100 representing a stream of the
highest quality.
Total Score (from reverse): .7-4Comments:
Evaluator's Signature Date �/ J LJ
This channel evaluation arm is intended to be used only as a guide to assist landowners and environmental professionals in
gathering the data required by the United States Army Corps of Engineers to make a preliminary assessment of stream
quality. The total score resulting from the completion of this form is subject to USACE approval and does not imply a
particular mitigation ratio or requirement. Form subject to change —version 06/03. To Comment, please call 919-876-8441 x 26.
i o,!5 - Aoz-#, Trc,&

STREAM QUALITY ASSESSMENT WORKSHEET
T 1 hese characteristics are not assessed in coastal streams.
5WA-1 sop
#
CHARACTERISTICS
ECOREGION POINT
RANGE
SCORE
Coastal
Piedmont
Mountain
l
Presence of flow / persistent pools in stream
(no flow or saturation = 0; strong flow = max points)
0 — 5
0
— 4
0 — 5
2
Evidence of past human alteration
0-6
0-5
0-5
(extensive alteration = 0; no alteration = maxpoints)
3
Riparian zone
0-6
0-4
0-5
no buffer = 0; contiguous, wide buffer = maxpoints)
4
Evidence of nutrient or chemical discharges
0-5
0-4
0-4
(extensive discharges = 0; no discharges = maxpoints)
,.a
5
Groundwater discharge
0-3
0-4
0-4
U(no
dischar e = 0; springs, see s, wetlands, etc. = maxpoints)
i --i
6
Presence of adjacent floodplain
0-4
0-4
0-2
no floodplain = 0; extensive floodplain = maxpoints)
Entrenchment / floodplain access
0-5
0-4
0-2
r
p"
(deeply entrenched = 0, frequent flooding = maxpoints)
I
8
Presence of adjacent wetlands
0-6
0-4
0-2
(no wetlands = 0; large adjacent wetlands = maxpoints)
9
Channel sinuosity
0-5
0-4
0-3
extensive channelization = 0; natural meander = max points
10
Sediment input
0-5
0-4
0-4
(extensive deposition= 0; little or no sediment = maxpoints),
11
Size & diversity of channel bed substrate
NA*
0-4
0-5
fine, homogenous = 0; lar e, diverse sizes = maxpoints)
12
Evidence of channel incision or widening
0-5
0-4
0-5
,+
(deeply incised = 0, stable bed & banks = maxpoints)
13
Presence of major bank failures
0-5
0 —
5
0-5
d
(severe erosion = 0; no erosion, stable banks = max points)
14
Root depth and density on banks
0-3
0-4
0-5
no visible roots = 0• dense roots throughout = maxpoints)
15
Impact by agriculture, livestock, or timber production
(substantial impact =0; no evidence = max oints)
0-5
0-4
0-5
16
Presence of riffle-pool/ripple-pool complexes
0-3
0-5
0-6
no riffles/ripples or pools = 0; well-developed = maxpoints)
17
Habitat complexity
0-6
0-6
0-6
(little or no habitat = 0, frequent. varied habitats = maxpoints)
18
Canopy coverage over streambed
0-5
0-5
0-5
no shading vegetation = 0; continuous canopy = maxpoints)
19
Substrate embeddedness
NA*
0-4
0-4
dee 1 embedded = 0; loose structure = max)
20
Presence of stream invertebrates (see page 4)
0-4
0-5
0-5
no evidence = 0; common, numerous types = maxpoints)
21
Presence of amphibians
0-4
0-4
0-4
I
O(no
evidence = 0; common, numerous types = maxpoints)
22
Presence of fish
0— 4
0—
4
0—
4
no evidence = 0; common, numerous types = max omts)
23
Evidence of wildlife use
0-6
0-5
0-5
(no evidence = 0; abundant evidence = maxpoints)
Total Points Possible
100
100
100
TOTAL SCORE (also enter on first page)
T 1 hese characteristics are not assessed in coastal streams.
5WA-1 sop

1 USACE AID#
DWQ#
Site # (indicate on attached map)
,�,; STREAM QUALITY ASSESSMENT WORKSHEET -AQP
Provide the following information for the stream reach under assessment:
t
1. Applicant's name: i 2. Evaluator's name: r \ni, t5Q00f\
f�
3. Date of evaluation: 4. Time of evaluation: [ 0c) a r'r]_
5. Name of stream: ]n�,5.N CND. 6. River basin: G VJ � 'n
7. Approximate drainage area:CxCg8. Stream order:
9. Length of reach evaluated: 10. County, CJ j
11. Site coordinates (if known): prefer in decimal degrees. 12. Subdivision name (if any): IVIA
Latitude (ex. 34.872312): _ -�-5e �'((1 ?--i- ,? I Longitude (ex. -77.556611): — -RIOCC S__ -I lJ
Method location determined (circle): GPS Topo Sheet Ortho (Aerial) Photo/GIS Other GIS Other SU PAyQ
13. Location of reach Ll der evaluation (note nearby roads and landmarks and attach map identifying stream(s) location):
cD r T C�emAo V, A
14. Proposed channel work (if any): NIOD
15. Recent weather conditions: s1,lvw-
16. Site conditions at time of visit:
17. Identify any special waterway classifications known: _Section 10 Tidal Waters Essential Fisheries Habitat
_Trout Waters _Outstanding Resource Waters _ Nutrient Sensitive Waters _Water Supply Watershed (I-IV)
18. Is there a pond or lake located upstream of the evaluation point? YES NO) If yes, estimate the water surface area:
19. Does channel appear on USGS quad map? YES (ZLOJ 20. Does channel appear on USDA Soil Survey? YES Nd
21. Estimated watershed land use: _% Residential __% Commercial _% Industrial _% Agricultural
10D % Forested % Cleared / Logged % Other (
22. Bankfull width: 1-9 23. Bank height (from bed to top of hank):
24. Channel slope down center of stream: _Flat (0 to 2%) _Gentle (2 to 4%) XModerate (4 to 10%) _Steep (>10%)
25. Channel sinuosity: Straight _Occasional bends ` frequent meander _Very sinuous _Braided channel
Instructions for completion of worksheet (located on page 2): Begin by determining the most appropriate ecoregion based on
location, terrain, vegetation, stream classification, etc. Every characteristic must be scored using the same ecoregion. Assign points
to each characteristic within the range shown for the ecoregion. Page 3 provides a brief description of how to review the
characteristics identified in the worksheet. Scores should reflect an overall assessment of the stream reach under evaluation. If a
characteristic cannot be evaluated due to site or weather conditions, enter 0 in the scoring box and provide an explanation in the
comment section. Where there are obvious changes in the character of a stream under review (e.g., the stream flows from a pasture
into a forest), the stream may be divided into smaller reaches that display more continuity, and a separate form used to evaluate each
reach. The total score assigned to a stream reach must range between 0 and 100, with a score of 100 representing a stream of the
highest quality.
Total Score (from reverse):
Evaluator's Signature hate �I� � I I
This channel evaluat'son is intended to be used only as a guide to assist landowners and environmental professionals in
gathering the data required by the United States Army Corps of Engineers to make a preliminary assessment of stream
quality. The total score resulting from the completion of this form is subject to USACE approval and does not imply a
particular mitigation ratio or requirement. Form subject to change — version 06/03. To Comment, please call 919-876-8441 x 26.
`�W6JsWG
105 A.T,� ��i—

STREAM QUALITY ASSESSMENT WORKSHEET
* These characteristics are not assessed in coastal streams.
#
CHARACTERISTICS
ECOREGION POINT
RANGE
SCORE
Coastal
Piedmont
Mountain
1
Presence of flow / persistent pools in stream
0-5
0-4
0-5
_(no
flow or saturation = 0; strong flow = maxpoints)
2
Evidence of past human alteration
0-6
0-5
0-5
(extensive alteration = 0; no alteration = maxpoints)
3
Riparian zone
0-6
0-4
0-5
(no buffer = 0; contiguous, wide buffer = maxpoints)
4
Evidence of nutrient or chemical discharges
0-5
0-4
0-4
(extensive discharges = 0; no discharges = maxpoints)
5
Groundwater discharge
0-3
0-4
0-4
3
U(no
discharge = 0, springs. see s, wetlands, etc. = maxpoints)
6
Presence of adjacent floodplain
0-4
0-4
0-2
I
(no floodplain = 0; extensive floodplain =max points)
Entrenchment / floodplain access
0-5
0-4
0-2
p'
(dee lv entrenched = 0; frequent flooding = maxpoints)
8
Presence of adjacent wetlands
0-6
0-4
0-2
,
(no wetlands = 0; large adjacent wetlands =maxpoints)
9
Channel sinuosity
0-5
0-4
0-3
(extensive channelization = 0; natural meander = maxpoints)
10
Sediment input
0— 5
0— 4
0— 4
(extensive de osition= 0; little or no sediment =max points)
11
_ Size & diversity of channel bed substrate
NA*
0-4
0-5
(fine_, homogenous = 0; large, diverse sizes = maxpoints)
12
Evidence of channel incision or widening
0-5
0-4
0-5
(deeply Iv incised = 0;stable bed &banks =max oints)
13
Presence of major bank failures
0-5
0-5
0-5
d
(severe erosion = 0; no erosion, stable banks = maxpoints)_
fid'
14
Root depth and density on banks
0-3
0 — 4
0-5
F,,(no
visible roots = 0; dense roots throughout = max points)
15
Impact by agriculture, livestock, or timber production
0-5
0-4
0-5
(substantial impact =0; no evidence = maxpoints)
16
Presence of riffle-pool/ripple-pool complexes
0-3
0-5
0-6
(no riffles/ripples or pools = 0; well-develo ed = maxpoints)
17
Habitat complexity
0-6
0-6
0-6
(little or no habitat = 0; frequent. varied habitats = maxpoints)
18
Canopy coverage over streambed
0-5
0-5
0-5
(no shading vegetation = 0; continuous canopy =maxpoints)
19
-
Substrate embeddedness
NA*
0-4
0-4
(deeply embedded = 0, loose structure = max)
20
Presence of stream invertebrates (see page 4)
0-4
0-5
0-5
(no evidence = 0; common, numerous types = maxpoints)
21
Presence of amphibians
0-4
0-4
0-4
l
O
(no evidence = 0; common, numerous types = maxpoints)
O
22
Presence of fish
0-4
0-4
0-4
no evidence = 0; common, numerous !ypes = maxpoints)
23
Evidence of wildlife use
0-6
0-5
0-5
(no evidence = 0; abundant evidence = maxpoints)
Total Points Possible
100
100
100
TOTAL SCORE (also enter on first page)
* These characteristics are not assessed in coastal streams.

USACE AID#
DWQ#
Site # (indicate on attached map)
p.;sn STREAM QUALITY ASSESSMENT WORKSHEET
Provide the following information for the stream reach under assessment: —AQP
1. Applicant's name: %)1 2. Evaluator's name:__
3. Date of evaluation: h ,r I 4. Time of evaluation: , {� � ' `3D ptyM
5. Name of stream: CT c7� +*}k1; Ar— A. Cmk 6. River basin: c�w 6C
7. Approximate drainage area: ac.M5 8. Stream order: 10
{
9. Length of reach evaluated: 0 � 10. County: 1d �
11. Site coordinates (if known): decimal
(
'� prefer in decimadegrees. 12. Subdivision name (if any): I Prl
Latitude (ex 34.872312): S. — ��' 1 1 Longitude (ex. —77.556611): I 5
Method location determined (circle): GPS Topo Sheet Ortho (Aerial) Photo/GIS Other GIS Other �u 11 -k"
13. Location of reach under evaluation (note nearby roads and landmarks and attach map identifying stream(s) location):
14. Proposed channel work (if any): �, ��]0
,n
15. Recent weather conditions: 1 o rMP—A
16. Site conditions at time of
17. Identify any special waterway classifications known. _Section 10 Tidal Waters _Essential Fisheries Habitat
_Trout Waters _Outstanding Resource Waters _Nutrient Sensitive Waters _ Water Supply Watershed (I-IV)
18. Is there a pond or lake located upstream of the evaluation point? YES Ifyes, estimate the water surface area:
19. Does channel appear on USGS quad map? YES Q 20. Does channel appear on USDA Soil Survey? YES Q
21. Estimated watershed land use: _% Residential _% Commercial % Industrial _% Agricultural
1t`� % Forested % Cleared / Logged _% Other
22. Bankfull width: — I 23. Bank height (from bed to top of hank)
24. Channel slope down center of stream: _Flat (0 to 2%) _Gentle (2 to 4%) ,' ` Moderate (4 to 10%) _Steep (>10%)
25. Channel sinuosity: Straight XOccasional bends _Frequent meander _Very sinuous _Braided channel
Instructions for completion of worksheet (located on page 2): Begin by determining the most appropriate ecoregion based on
location, terrain, vegetation, stream classification, etc. Every characteristic must be scored using the same ecoregion. Assign points
to each characteristic within the range shown for the ecoregion. Page 3 provides a brief description of how to review the
characteristics identified in the worksheet. Scores should reflect an overall assessment of the stream reach under evaluation. If a
characteristic cannot be evaluated due to site or weather conditions, enter 0 in the scoring box and provide an explanation in the
comment section. Where there are obvious changes in the character of a stream under review (e.g., the stream flows from a pasture
into a forest), the stream may be divided into smaller reaches that display more continuity, and a separate form used to evaluate each
reach. The total score assigned to a stream reach must range between 0 and 100, with a score of 100 representing a stream of the
highest quality.
Evaluator's Signature Date J31 �- f 1
This channel evaluation Yis intended to be used only as a guide to assist landowners and environmental professionals in
gathering the data required by the United States Army Corps of Engineers to make a preliminary assessment of stream
quality. The total score resulting from the completion of this form is subject to USACE approval and does not imply a
particular mitigation ratio or requirement. Form subject to change — version 06/03. To Comment, please call 919-876-8441 x 26.
S �J 14
105 - IA

STREAM QUALITY ASSESSMENT WORKSHEET
* These characteristics are not assessed in coastal streams.
�W4
�oS-��� T, ��
#
CHARACTERISTICS
ECOREGION POINT
RANGE
SCORE
Coastal
Piedmont
Mountain
1
Presence of flow / persistent pools in stream
0-5
0-4
0-5
(no flow or saturation = 0: strong flow = maxpoints)
2
Evidence of past human alteration
0-6
0-5
0-5
3
_
(extensive alteration = 0; no alteration = maxpoints)
3
Riparian zone
0-6
0-4
0-5
(no buffer = 0; contiguous, wide buffer = maxpoints)
4
Evidence of nutrient or chemical discharges
0-5
0-4
_
0-4
`
(extensive discharges = 0; no discharges = maxpoints)_
,.a
5
Groundwater discharge
0-3
0-4
0-4
U(no
discharge = 0; springs, see s, wetlands, etc. = maxpoints)
►�
6
Presence of adjacent floodplain
0-4
0-4
0-2
(no floodplain = 0; extensive floodplain =max paints)
7
Entrenchment / floodplain access
0-5
0-4
0-2
(deeply entrenched = 0, frequent flooding = ma_ xpoints)
_
8
Presence of adjacent wetlands
0-6
0-4
0-2
(no wetlands = 0; large adjacent wetlands = maxpoints)
9
Channel sinuosity
0-5
0-4
0-3
(extensive channelization = 0; natural meander = max oints)
10
Sediment input
0-5
0-4
0-4
extensive deposition— 0; little or no sediment = maxpoints)
11
Size & diversity of channel bed substrate
NA*
0-4
0-5
(fine, homogenous = 0; large, diverse_ sizes = maxpoints)
Evidence of channel incision or widening g
0-5
0-4
0-5
y.
(deeply incised = 0; stable bed & banks = maxpoints)
13
Presence of major bank failures
0-5
0-5
0-5
d
(severe erosion = 0, no erosion, stable banks = max oints)
14
Root depth and density on banks
0-3
0-4
0-5
a
(no visible roots = 0; dense roots throughout = max—points)
15
Impact by agriculture, livestock, or timber production
0-5
0-4
0-5
(substantial impact =0; no evidence = maxpoints)
16
Presence of riffle-pool/ripple-pool complexes
0-3
0-5
0-6
(no riffles/ri pies or pools = 0; well-developed = maxpoints)
d
17
Habitat complexity
0-6
0-6
0-6
little or no habitat = 0; fre uent, varied habitats =maxpoints)
18
Canopy coverage over streambed
0-5
0-5
0-5
r--
(no shading vegetation = 0, continuous canopy = maxpoints)
19
Substrate embeddedness
NA*
0-4
0-4
(deeply embedded = 0; loose structure = max)
20
Presence of stream invertebrates (see page 4)
0-4
0-5
0-5
(no evidence = 0; common, numerous lypes = max oints
21
Presence of amphibians
0-4
0-4
0-4
O
(no evidence = 0• common, numerous types = maxpoints)
O
22
Presence of fish
0-4
0-4
0-4
(no evidence = 0; common, numerous types = maxpoints)
23
Evidence of wildlife use
0-6
0-5
0-5
(no evidence = 0, abundant evidence = maxpoints)
Total Points Possible
100
100
100
TOTAL SCORE (also enter on first page)
* These characteristics are not assessed in coastal streams.
�W4
�oS-��� T, ��

USACE AIDi DWQ # Site # (indicate on attached map)
e ` STREAM QUALITY ASSESSMENT WORKSHEET —AQP
Provide the following information for the stream reach under assessment:
4 �
1. Applicant's name: �rt + C2 S 2. Evaluator's name: �4). � r P
3. Date of evaluation: �{ 4. Time of evaluation: 4+ X) (1. 1v1
5. Name of stream: LA"T 01-- 6. River basin: et ta w bc4
7. Approximate drainage area: D 0 ( J 8. Stream order: oi-
9. Length of reach evaluated: C� , T 10. County: W'1-
11. Site coordinates (if known): prefer in decimal degrees. 12. Subdivision name (if any):
Latitude (ex 34 872312): 7 S e p. Longitude (ex. -77.556611): -J .. ® C�a ,] &
Method location determined (circle): GPS Topo Sheet Ortho (Aerial) Photo/GIS Other GIS Other Su O'l' ,Y-C.A
13. Location of reach under evaluation (note nearby ro ds and landmarks and attach map identifying stream(s) location):
14. Proposed channel work (if any): i V�
15. Recent weather conditions: No
16. Site conditions at time of visit: SU AM
17. Identify any special waterway classifications known: _Section 10 _Tidal Waters Essential Fisheries Habitat
_Trout Waters _Outstanding Resource Waters _ Nutrient Sensitive Waters _Water Supply Watershed (I-IV)
18. Is there a pond or lake located upstream of the evaluation point? YES(NO If yes, estimate the water surface area:
19. Does channel appear on USES quad map? YES NO 20, Does channel appear on USDA Soil Survey? ES NO
21. Estimated watershed land use: �% Residential
100 % Forested
22. Bankfull width: t — 3
24. Channel slope down center of stream: _Flat (0 to 2%)
% Commercial _% Industrial % Agricultural
_% Cleared / Logged % Other (
23. Bank height (from bed to top of bank): f
Gentle (2 to 4%) XModerate (4 to 10%) _Steep (>10%)
25. Channel sinuosity: Straight _Occasional bends ,- Frequent meander _Very sinuous _Braided channel
Instructions for completion of worksheet (located on page 2): Begin by determining the most appropriate ecoregion based on
location, terrain, vegetation, stream classification, etc. Every characteristic must be scored using the same ecoregion. Assign points
to each characteristic within the range shown for the ecoregion. Page 3 provides a brief description of how to review the
characteristics identified in the worksheet. Scores should reflect an overall assessment of the stream reach under evaluation. If a
characteristic cannot be evaluated due to site or weather conditions, enter 0 in the scoring box and provide an explanation in the
comment section. Where there are obvious changes in the character of a stream under review (e.g., the stream flows from a pasture
into a forest), the stream may be divided into smaller reaches that display more continuity, and a separate form used to evaluate each
reach. The total score assigned to a stream reach must range between 0 and 100, with a score of 100 representing a stream of the
highest quality.
Total Score (from reverse): �99
Evaluator's Signature Date j --s
This channel evaluati m is intended to be used only as a guide to assist landowners and environmental professionals in
gathering the data required by the United States Army Corps of Engineers to make a preliminary assessment of stream
quality. The total score resulting from the completion of this form is subject to USACE approval and does not imply a
particular mitigation ratio or requirement. Form subject to change - version 06/03. To Comment, please call 919-876-8441 x 26.
C-)N,J
10 5 —1Q�c.t� ��C'

STREAM QUALITY ASSESSMENT WORKSHEET
* These characteristics are not assessed in coastal streams.
#
CHARACTERISTICS
ECOREGION POINT
RANGE
SCORE
Coastal
Piedmont
Mountain
1
Presence of flow / persistent pools in stream
0-5
0-4
0-5
no flow or saturation_ = 0• strong flow = maxpoints)
2
Evidence of past human alteration
0-6
0-5
0-5
(extensive alteration = 0; no alteration = max points)
3
Riparian zone
0-6
0-4
0-5
(no buffer = 0; contiguous, wide buffer = maxpoints)
4
Evidence of nutrient or chemical discharges
1 0-5
0-4
0-4
extensive discharges = 0: no discharges = maxpoints)
5
Groundwater discharge
0-3
0 — 4
0-4
U
(no discharge = 0; springs, see s, wetlands, etc. = max points)
r•a
6
Presence of adjacent floodplain
0-4
0-4
0-2
(no floodplain = 0; extensive floodplain = maxpoints)
aEntrenchment
/ floodplain access
0— 5
0— 4
0— 2
(deeply entrenched = 0: frequent flooding= max points)
8
Presence of adjacent wetlands
0-6
0-4
0-2
(no wetlands = 0; large adjacent wetlands = maxpoints)
9
Channel sinuosity
0-5
0-4
0-3
(extensive channelization = 0: natural meander = maxpoints)
10
Sediment input
0-5
0-4
0-4
(extensive de osition= 0; little or no sediment = maxpoints)
11
Size & diversity of channel bed substrate
NA*
0-4
0-5
(fine, homogenous = 0; lar e, diverse sizes = maxpoints)
12
Evidence of channel incision or widening
0-5
0-4
0-5
y+
(deeply incised = 0; stable bed & banks = maxpoints)
dPresence
13
of major bank failures
0-5
0-5
0-5
(severe erosion = 0, no erosion, stable banks = max points)
14
Root depth and density on banks
0-3
0-4
0-5
H
(no visible roots = 0: dense roots throu hout = max oints)
—_
!�
15
Impact by agriculture, livestock, or timber production
0-5
0-4
0-5
(_substantial impact =0; no evidence = maxpoints)
16
Presence of riffle-pool/ripple-pool complexes
0-3
0-5
0-6
(no riffles/ri les or ools = 0; well-developed = maxpoints)
1
Habitat complexity
0-6
0 — 6
0-6
0*
(little or no habitat = 0. frequent, varied habitats = max points)
18
Canopy coverage over streambed
(no shading vegetation = 0, continuous canopy = maxpoints)
0-5
0-5
0-5
Is
19
Substrate embeddedness
NA*
0-4
0-4
(deeply(qLeply embedded = 0; loose structure = max)
20
Presence of stream invertebrates (see page 4)
0-4
0-5
0-5
no evidence = 0: common, numerous types = maxpoints)
I
21
Presence of amphibians
0-4
0-4
0-4
(�
O
(no evidence = 0, common, numerous types = maxpoints)
O
22
Presence of fish
—
0-4
0-4
0-4
(no evidence = 0; common, numerous types = max oints)
23
Evidence of wildlife use
0-6
0-5
0-5
(no evidence = 0; abundant evidence = maxpoints)
Total Points Possible
100
100
100
TOTAL SCORE (also enter on first page)
* These characteristics are not assessed in coastal streams.

USACE AID# DWQ # Site # (indicate on attached map)
M„ STREAM QUALITY ASSESSMENT WORKSHEET
Provide the following information for the stream reach under assessment:
1. Applicant's name: u gkcs 2. Evaluator's name:
3. Date of evaluation: q # 3 4. Time of evaluation: 3, no
5. Name of stream: G tQaSsi 0"Qtk 6. River basin: W�O•
7. Approximate drainage area: -11) c7) 4 C+f'kS 8. Stream order:
q
9. Length of reach evaluated: \-10-ko 10. County:
11. Site coordinates (if known): prefer in decimal degrees. 12. Subdivision name (if any): 11
Latitude (ex. 34 872312): Sa��2 L Longitude (ex. —77.556611): 1
Method location determined (circle): GPS Topo Sheet Ortho (Aerial) Photo/GIS Other GIS Other to f V V
13. Location of reach under evaluation (note nearby roads and landmarks and attach map identifying stream(s) location)-
14.
oca i
14. Proposed channel work (if
15. Recent weather
16. Site conditions at time of visit:
17. Identify any special waterway classifications known: Section 10 Tidal Waters Essential Fisheries Habitat
^Trout Waters ^Outstanding Resource Waters _ Nutrient Sensitive Waters _Water Supply Watershed (I-IV)
18. Is there a pond or lake located upstream of the evaluation point? YES NQ)If yes, estimate the water surface area:
19. Does channel appear on USGS quad map? YES Q 20. Does channel appear on USDA Soil Survey? YES NO
21. Estimated watershed land use: % Residential % Commercial % Industrial _% VAgricultural
g0 %Forested _%Cleared /Logged � % Other
22. Bankfull width: 1 23. Bank heieht (from bed to tov of bank):
24. Channel slope down center of stream: _Flat (0 to 2%) _Gentle (2 to 4%) Moderate (4 to 10%) _Steep (>10%)
25. Channel sinuosity: Straight XOccasional bends _Frequent meander _Very sinuous _Braided channel
Instructions for completion of worksheet (located on page 2): Begin by determining the most appropriate ecoregion based on
location, terrain, vegetation, stream classification, etc. Every characteristic must be scored using the same ecoregion. Assign points
to each characteristic within the range shown for the ecoregion. Page 3 provides a brief description of how to review the
characteristics identified in the worksheet. Scores should reflect an overall assessment of the stream reach under evaluation. If a
characteristic cannot be evaluated due to site or weather conditions, enter 0 in the scoring box and provide an explanation in the
comment section. Where there are obvious changes in the character of a stream under review (e.g., the stream flows from a pasture
into a forest), the stream may be divided into smaller reaches that display more continuity, and a separate form used to evaluate each
reach. The total score assigned to a stream reach must range between 0 and 100, with a score of 100 representing a stream of the
highest quality.
Total Score (from reverse):
Comments:
Evaluator's Signature : = . Date 1 4n 11'-J
This channel evaluatio#93nlu is intended to be used only as a guide to assist landowners and environmental professionals in
gathering the data required by the United States Army Corps of Engineers to make a preliminary assessment of stream
quality. The total score resulting from the completion of this form is subject to USACE approval and does not imply a
particular mitigation ratio or requirement. Form subject to change - version 06/03. To Comment, please call 919-876-8441 x 26.
11©_���f�

STREAM QUALITY ASSESSMENT WORKSHEET
* These characteristics are not assessed in coastal streams.
ECOREGION POINT
RANGE
#
CHARACTERISTICS
SCORE
Coastal
Piedmont
Mountain
1
Presence of flow / persistent pools in stream
0-5
0-4
0-5
no flow or saturation = 0; strong flow = maxpoints)
2
Evidence of past human alteration
0-6
0-5
0-5
(extensive alteration = 0; no alteration = maxpoints)
3
Riparian zone
0-6
0-4
0-5
no buffer = 0; contiguous, wide buffer = max oints)
4
Evidence of nutrient or chemical discharges
0-5
0-4
0-4
extensive discharges = 0; no discharges = maxpoints)
5
Groundwater discharge
0-3
0-4
0-4
`3
Uno
discharge = 0; springs, see s, wetlands, etc. = maxpoints)
6
Presence of adjacent floodplain
0— 4
0— 4
0— 2
no floodplain = 0; extensive floodplain = max points)
I
7
Entrenchment / floodplain access
0— 5
0— 4
0— 2
,
(deeply entrenched = 0: frequent flooding= max oints)
8
Presence of adjacent wetlands
0-6
0-4
0-2
(no wetlands = 0; IE&e adjacent wetlands = maxpoints)
9
Channel sinuosity
0-5
0-4
0-3
(extensive channelization = 0; natural meander = maxpoints)
10
Sediment input
0-5
0-4
0-4
(extensive deposition= 0: little or no sediment = maxpoints)
11
Size & diversity of channel bed substrate
NA*
0-4
0-5
(fine, homogenous = 0; lar e, diverse sizes = maxpoints)
12
Evidence of channel incision or widening
0-5
0-4
0-5
1
>4
(deeply incised = 0; stable bed & banks = maxpoints)
13
Presence of major bank failures
0-5
0-5
0-5
d
(severe erosion = 0; no erosion, stable banks = max points)
4
14
Root depth and density on banks
0-3
0-4
0-5
F,(no
visible roots = 0; dense roots throughout = maxpoints)
]5
Impact by agriculture, livestock, or timber production
0-5
0-4
0-5
(substantial im act =0; no evidence = maxpoints)
16
Presence of riffle-pool/ripple-pool complexes
0-3
0 — 5
0-6
no riffles/ripples les or pools = 0, well-developed = max points)
17
Habitat complexity
0-6
0-6
0-6
little or no habitat =_0; frequent, varied habitats = maxpoints)
18
Canopy coverage over streambed
0-5
0-5
0-5
(no shading vegetation = 0: continuous canopy = maxpoints)
19
Substrate embeddedness
NA*
0-4
0-4
n
(deeply embedded = 0; loose structure = max)
Al
20
Presence of stream invertebrates (see page 4)
0-4
0-5
0-5
no evidence = 0; common, numerous types = max oints
G7
21
Presence of amphibians
0-4
0-4
0-4
O
no evidence = 0: common. numerous tv es = max oints
04
O
22
Presence of fish
0-4
0-4
0-4
P—e
(no evidence = 0; common, numerous es = max oints
lJ
23
Evidence of wildlife use
0-6
0-5
0-5
(no evidence = 0; abundant evidence = max pointsi
Total Points Possible
100
100
100
TOTAL SCORE (also enter on first page)
* These characteristics are not assessed in coastal streams.

APPENDIX 2: LETTER FROM GOLDER ASSOCIATES, LIMITED
SYSTEMATIC SURVEY FOR HEXASTYLIS NANIFLORA

P Golder
Associates
June 13, 2014
Mr. Ray Hoffman, P.E.
Area Engineer
Republic Services of N.C., LLC
1220 Commerce Street SW (Box 1)
Conover, NC 28613
1302954
RE: LIMITED SYSTEMATIC SURVEY FOR HEXASTYLIS NANIFLORA
PROPOSED BORROW AREAS, FOOTHILLS ENVIRONMENTAL LANDFILL, CALDWELL
COUNTY, NORTH CAROLINA
Dear Mr. Hoffman:
Golder Associates Inc. (Golder) is pleased to provide Republic Services of North Carolina, LLC (Republic)
this letter report with the results of a survey conducted for dwarf -flowered heartleaf (Hexastylis naniflora),
at three proposed borrow areas located adjacent to the active landfill site in Lenoir, Caldwell County,
North Carolina (Figure 1). H. naniflora is a plant listed by the United States Fish and Wildlife Service
(USFWS) as Threatened under the Endangered Species Act.
Republic provided Golder with maps of the three potential borrow areas prepared by Hodges, Harbin,
Newberry, & Tribble, Inc., dated September 23, 2013, and requested Golder perform a limited survey for
H. naniflora. The potential borrow areas are depicted on Figure 1. The most suitable habitat primarily
occurred within the nine areas defined as dwarf -flowered heartleaf potential habitat on the drawings.
On April 19th through 21St, 2014, Golder conducted a limited systematic survey for H. naniflora at the three
proposed borrow areas. Two Golder ecologists accessed the proposed borrow areas visually surveying
for occurrences of H. naniflora. The limited survey was focused in habitats most suitable for the species,
primarily the deciduous sloped woods with mostly closed overstory and/or midstory canopy. Due to
extreme slope, vegetation cover, leaf litter and the small size of the plant, Golder did not perform an
exhaustive survey mapping every individual plant within the proposed borrow areas.
H. naniflora is a low growing herbaceous plant of the Aristolochiaceae Family. Long, thin petioles grow
from subsurface rhizomes and support heart -shaped leaves 4 to 6 centimeters (cm) long and 1 to 2 cm
wide. The leaves are evergreen and leathery. H. naniflora produces the smallest flower of all plants in
North America in the genus Hexastylis. The flowers, found at the base of the petiole, are beige to dark
brown, cylindrical shaped, and less than 10 millimeters (mm) long. The sepal tubes of the flower are
rarely greater than 7 mm wide. In the United States, H. naniflora ranges from North Carolina to South
Carolina. There are at least 140 documented populations, divided between 8 N.C. counties and 3 S.C.
counties. H. naniflora habitat tends to occur on acidic, sandy loam soils along bluffs and slopes, boggy
areas adjacent to streams, and along hillsides and ravines. The amount of sunlight correlates directly to
flower proliferation. H. naniflora flowers from mid-March to early June; fruit production begins in late May,
continues with budding in July and achieves a developed fruit by October.
H. naniflora is sometimes misidentified as H. heterophylla, however specific flower morphology allows
correct identifion. Golder did not observe H. heterophylla during the systematic survey in the proposed
borrow areas.
Golder observed numerous H. arifolia, a related, unlisted species, in the proposed borrow areas. H.
arifolia has triangular leaves 16 to 20 cm long with basal lobes approximately 1/3rd the total length of the
leaf and flask-shaped flowers often described as "little brown jugs".
Golder Associateslnc.
3730 Chamblee Tucker Road �r1
Atlanta, Georgia 30341
Tel: [phone] Fax: [phone] www.goider.com
Golder Associates: Operations in Africa, Asia, Australasia, Europe, North America and South America

Mr. Ray Hoffman, P.E. June 13, 2014
Republic Services of N.C., LLC 2 1302954
LIMITED SYSTEMATIC SURVEY RESULTS
The results of Golder's survey are depicted on the attached maps of the three proposed borrow areas: the
northwest tract (104.68 acres), the east tract (30.00 acres) and the south tract (4.38 acres). Golder
ecologists focused the plant surveys in the most suitable habitat available in the proposed borrow areas.
The most suitable habitat evaluated is defined as polygons labeled A through I on Figure 2 and Figure 3.
Golder observed H. naniflora in all but one of the nine areas identified as most suitable habitats during the
field survey. In suitable habitat areas where we observed H. naniflora, Golder estimated the number of
individual plants occurring together in a cluster. Golder performed the estimates by walking parallel
transects, counting the density of observed plants in a square area, and projecting the plant density
estimate over the total area of the visible cluster of plants. Golder mapped the locations and estimated
density of H. naniflora at the three proposed borrow areas (Figure 2 and Figure 3).
TABLE 1: ESTIMATED DENSITY OF HEXASTYLIS NANIFLORA IN THREE
PROPOSED BORROW AREAS
Investigation Area
Suitable Habitat Polygon ID
Estimated Density of Hexastylis
(Reference Figures 2 and 3)
naniflora (Individual plants)
Northwest Tract (104.68
A
0.
acres)
Northwest Tract (104.68
B
0 in western and central portions; 26-50 in
acres)
eastern cluster.
Northwest Tract (104.68
C
1-25 in northern cluster; 101-200 in central
acres)
cluster; and 26-50 in southern cluster.
Northwest Tract (104.68
D
101-200 in western cluster; 201-500 in
acres)
west -central cluster; 101-200 in central
cluster; 51-100 in east central cluster; 0 in
southeastern portion; 0 in north -central
portion; 26-50 in northwestern cluster; and
26-50 in northeastern cluster.
Northwest Tract (104.68
E
0 in western portion; and 26-50 in eastern
acres)
cluster.
Northwest Tract (104.68
F
0 in the eastern and western portions; and
acres)
1-25 in the central cluster.
East Tract (30.00 acres)
G
0 in northwestern and eastern portions; 26-
50 in central and southwestern clusters.
East Tract (30.00 acres)
H
51-100 in western cluster; 26-50 in central
cluster; and 1-25 in the eastern cluster.
South Tract (4.38) acres
1
51-100 in cluster in southern portion of
borrow area.
Golder's field effort did not include achieving 100% survey coverage in the three proposed borrow areas,
but did include most areas within best suitable habitats, resulting in a reasonable estimate of the
occurrence of H. naniflora through identification of clusters of plants and estimating the numbers of plants
in the clusters. Therefore, H. naniflora could potentially occur elsewhere within the three proposed
borrow areas, however, the habitat was not considered best suitable and Golder would not expect H.
naniflora to be present in high numbers.
Golder
Associates

Mr. Ray Hoffman, P.E. June 13, 2014
Republic Services of N.C., LLC 3 1302954
CLOSING
If Republic expects to encroach upon H. naniflora during construction activities, Golder recommends
proactive consideration of the full scope of the planned construction activities and associated permitting to
identify approaches to mitigate regulatory impact on Republic's construction plans and schedule, as well
as to mitigate impact to the plant species. Golder would be happy to assist Republic in evaluating
approaches to minimize regulatory risk associated with development of the proposed borrow areas and
the potential impacts to H. naniflora. Should you have any questions or require clarification on the
information presented here, please do not hesitate to contact us.
Sincerely,
GOLDER ASSOCIATES INC.
r
Christopher Brookshire, PWS William M. Griffin
Senior Project Ecologist Senior Ecologist
Attachments: Figure 1: Proposed Borrow Areas
Figure 2: Proposed Borrow Areas (Sheet 1 of 2)
Figure 3: Proposed Borrow Areas (Sheet 2 of 2)
CCB/WMG/sdp
X:\Clients\Republic\1302954_Foothills Env Landfill\Reports\Draft\Proposed Borrow Area Letter\140530_ Republic_ Proposed Borrow Areas Limited Survey for Hexastylis
nan.docx
Golder
Associates

FIGURES

t r -
A
LEGEND
NOTES
ESTIMATED NUMBER OF
Hexastylis naniflora
0 INDIVIDUAL PLANTS
1-25 INDIVIDUAL PLANTS
26-50 INDIVIDUAL PLANTS
51-100 INDIVIDUAL PLANTS
101-200 INDIVIDUAL PLANTS
201-500 INDIVIDUAL PLANTS
PROPOSED BORROW AREA
1. SURVEY PERFORMED BY GOLDER ASSOCIATES INC.
APRIL 19-21, 2014.
2. ESTIMATED PLANTS BASED ON OBSERVATIONS WHILE
PERFORMING PEDESTRIAN TRANSECTS IN THE BEST
SUITABLE HABITAT FOR Hexastylis naniflora. GOLDER DID
NOT PERFORM AN EXHAUSTIVE SURVEY TO LOCATE AND
MAP EVERY Hexastylis naniflora INDIVIDUAL PLANT IN THE
PROPOSED BORROW AREAS.
REFERENCES
1. AERIAL IMAGE: HTTP://DATAGATEWAY. N RCS. USDA. GOV,
2012 NATIONAL AG. IMAGERY MOSAIC.
0 100 200 300
SCALE FEET
•{ PROJECT FOOTHILLS ENVIRONMENTAL
LANDFILL CONSERVATION AREA
LENOIR, CALDWELL COUNTY, NORTH CAROLINA
TITLE
ESTIMATES OF Hexastylis naniflora
IN PROPOSED BORROW AREAS
r
PROJECT No, 1302954 FILE No.
DESIGN - - SCALE AS SHOWN
Golder CADD CCP 2014/05/02 FIGURE
.. wS �}es CHECK CCB 2014/06/12 A
��,•j ` i7 REVIEW WMG 2014/06/12 1
Q �x±-4
yi
+�.���:.�•'�4��,�-�.
t r -
A
LEGEND
NOTES
ESTIMATED NUMBER OF
Hexastylis naniflora
0 INDIVIDUAL PLANTS
1-25 INDIVIDUAL PLANTS
26-50 INDIVIDUAL PLANTS
51-100 INDIVIDUAL PLANTS
101-200 INDIVIDUAL PLANTS
201-500 INDIVIDUAL PLANTS
PROPOSED BORROW AREA
1. SURVEY PERFORMED BY GOLDER ASSOCIATES INC.
APRIL 19-21, 2014.
2. ESTIMATED PLANTS BASED ON OBSERVATIONS WHILE
PERFORMING PEDESTRIAN TRANSECTS IN THE BEST
SUITABLE HABITAT FOR Hexastylis naniflora. GOLDER DID
NOT PERFORM AN EXHAUSTIVE SURVEY TO LOCATE AND
MAP EVERY Hexastylis naniflora INDIVIDUAL PLANT IN THE
PROPOSED BORROW AREAS.
REFERENCES
1. AERIAL IMAGE: HTTP://DATAGATEWAY. N RCS. USDA. GOV,
2012 NATIONAL AG. IMAGERY MOSAIC.
0 100 200 300
SCALE FEET
•{ PROJECT FOOTHILLS ENVIRONMENTAL
LANDFILL CONSERVATION AREA
LENOIR, CALDWELL COUNTY, NORTH CAROLINA
TITLE
ESTIMATES OF Hexastylis naniflora
IN PROPOSED BORROW AREAS
r
PROJECT No, 1302954 FILE No.
DESIGN - - SCALE AS SHOWN
Golder CADD CCP 2014/05/02 FIGURE
.. wS �}es CHECK CCB 2014/06/12 A
��,•j ` i7 REVIEW WMG 2014/06/12 1

�qlw,0.04
G G G
UGU / UUP -
`ij
UGC,
S
� t
41 41
r �)
VL
to
` ►. �,. '
r
1 10000 00 to
Ic
�►�
~' r
4'
AN
I OF-
,// II4// II II
Dt
'► f
lop
i

4
.��� Lei. � �.� •
LEGEND
ESTIMATED NUMBER OF
Hexastylis naniflora
0 INDIVIDUAL PLANTS
1-25 INDIVIDUAL PLANTS
26-50 INDIVIDUAL PLANTS
51-100 INDIVIDUAL PLANTS
101-200 INDIVIDUAL PLANTS
201-500 INDIVIDUAL PLANTS
PROPOSED BORROW AREA
NOTES
1. SURVEY PERFORMED BY GOLDER ASSOCIATES INC.
APRIL 19-21, 2014.
2. ESTIMATED PLANTS BASED ON OBSERVATIONS WHILE
PERFORMING PEDESTRIAN TRANSECTS IN THE BEST
SUITABLE HABITAT FOR Hexastylis naniflora. GOLDER DID
NOT PERFORM AN EXHAUSTIVE SURVEY TO LOCATE AND
MAP EVERY Hexastylis naniflora INDIVIDUAL PLANT IN THE
PROPOSED BORROW AREAS.
REFERENCES
1. AERIAL IMAGE: HTTP://DATAGATEWAY. N RCS. USDA. GOV,
2012 NATIONAL AG. IMAGERY MOSAIC.
0 100 200 300
SCALE FEET

APPENDIX 3: LETTER FROM DIEFFENBAUCH & HRITZ REGARDING
POTENTIAL NORTHERN LONG-EARED BAT HABITAT

YiF
DIEFFENBAUCH & HPJTZ
Engineering I Surveying I Environmental
February 19, 2015
Mr. William F. Hodges, P.E.
Hodges, Harbin, Newberry & Tribble, Inc.
3920 Arkwright Road, Suite 101
Macon, GA 31210
RE: Potential Borrow Areas
Foothills Regional Landfill
Caldwell County, North Carolina
PN 130108
Dear Mr. Hodges:
100 Regency Forest Drive
Suite 136
Cary, NC 27518
T 919.615.1758
F: 919.615.2627
dandlienrgineers.com
Dieffenbauch & Hritz, PLLC (D&H) completed a stream and wetland delineation as well
as a protected species habitat evaluation for the Proposed Borrow Areas for the Foothills
Regional Landfill project site located in Caldwell County, North Carolina. D&H
environmental scientists visited the project site between August 23 and August 30, 2014,
and again on December 9, 2014. The project site includes three separate areas of land
totaling approximately 140 acres adjacent to the existing landfill facility.
Background
D&H was contracted by Hodges, Harbin, Newberry & Tribble, Inc. (HHNT) to conduct a
stream and wetland delineation and protected species habitat evaluation. D&H scientists
conducted pedestrian surveys across the project site to delineate jurisdictional features
and identify potential protected species habitat.
D&H did not observe potential winter habitat for the Northern long-eared bat (Myotis
septentrionalis) during the site visits. Winter habitat utilized by this species for
hibernation, known as hibernacula, includes caves and mines. D&H did not observe cave
openings or mine shaft portals within the project site limits. Hence, evidence of Northern
long-eared bat hibernacula was not observed.
Closing
D&H did not observe Northern long-eared bat hibernacula within the project site at the
time of the site visits.
D&H appreciates the opportunity to provide our services to you on this project. If you
have any questions or comments on any aspects of this letter, please contact me at (919)-
219-9549 or email at [e-mail].

Sincerely,
DIEFFENBAUCH & HRITZ, PLLC
9 -IV
Josh Witherspoon, PWS, LSS
Senior Scientist

APPENDIX 4: ALTERNATIVES ANALYSIS FIGURES

JAM
'61.
4
Pmgah
Nabonal
gob
Forest
War 0
M 0 U X-1.
27
680
►� 4 "�!1 /f �� /
m /
ar l r
r.
CONSERVATION EASEMENT PROPERTY,`
5
/ H� YY -a
r��yyfOtNrl��� � •�, / E
49,% f 1
r- it
ADDITIONAL CALDWELL COUNTY PROPERTY
i
joy �. .
fir ..
% ,I--, - • - .r
A /
y r
.V r
'COP 7 4 • JrJ�
7 �
over Dolt
(Course sh, frr�
Figure 1- Vicinity Road Map
Date: 4/10/2015
5,000 2,500 0 5,000
GRAPHIC SCALE IN FEET
44 ?
If 2L,7
FOOTHILLS LANDFILL
r
o�
- - o
r+
L
Lenoir
'
Offsite Alternative Options 1-5
Lenoir
Golf ICluta
noir `
mail r
y
G
m �a
STI
Foothills Landfill Borrow H©DGES HARBIN,
Area Expansion I NEWBERRY &TRiBBLE, INC.
Caldwell County, North Carolina
Consulting Engineers

m
W
f,1
2
0
141
CONSERVATIONS /
EASEMENT, PROPERTY
Figure 1A- USGS Topo Map
Date: 2/5/2015
1,000 500 0 1,000
GRAPHIC SCALE IN FEET
701
Q, OPTION 1 PROPERTY BOUNDARY
" 1 c"
a
Offsite Alternative Option 1
ADDITIONAL CALDWELL
COUNTY PROPERTY
�)
Lenoir Quadrangle 2013
Foothills Landfill Borrow H©DGES, HARBIN,
Area Expansion I NEWBERRY & TRI BBLE, INC.
Caldwell County, North Carolina
Consulting Engineers

'f ` Hyl � � �+ Ir � s} '�; � r^�.�-, f � ��� ` �� y��f � `�'�� I� c • t `r 1 ,� I
_ j j _ ; t r r t }ir �r,y frr� y''�-r'i t'T�'T, tS�r, Ay �: 7irr '.f if -. )'T •
3,-
•���a�e
1
A
-
i
tt t r t a {r • l,.f fy�± r f`+t� C%�. r i CA'i rr! /
,i a r j� 'f{r rt I rt• r s ,S. .
=' r OPTION 1 PROPERTY BOUNDARY r
(+/- 89.6 ACRES)
Legend
�•• Intermittent Stream
Perennial Stream
- Wetlands
Image: NAIP June 2014
Figure 113- Wetland Map
Date: 2/5/2015
1,000 500 0 1,000
GRAPHIC SCALE IN FEET
Offsite Alternative Option 1
Foothills Landfill Borrow
Area Expansion
Caldwell County, North Carolina
HODGES, HARBIN,
NEWBERRY &TRiBBLE, INC.
Consulting Engineers
77
J
_ j j _ ; t r r t }ir �r,y frr� y''�-r'i t'T�'T, tS�r, Ay �: 7irr '.f if -. )'T •
3,-
•���a�e
1
A
-
i
tt t r t a {r • l,.f fy�± r f`+t� C%�. r i CA'i rr! /
,i a r j� 'f{r rt I rt• r s ,S. .
=' r OPTION 1 PROPERTY BOUNDARY r
(+/- 89.6 ACRES)
Legend
�•• Intermittent Stream
Perennial Stream
- Wetlands
Image: NAIP June 2014
Figure 113- Wetland Map
Date: 2/5/2015
1,000 500 0 1,000
GRAPHIC SCALE IN FEET
Offsite Alternative Option 1
Foothills Landfill Borrow
Area Expansion
Caldwell County, North Carolina
HODGES, HARBIN,
NEWBERRY &TRiBBLE, INC.
Consulting Engineers

nsi
Soil Types
Chestnut-Buladean complex, 50 to 95 percent slopes, stony
Evard-Cowee complex, 15 to 30 percent slopes, stony
Evard-Cowee complex, 30 to 50 percent slopes, stony
Hayesville loam, 15 to 30 percent slopes
Tate fine sandy loam, 8 to 30 percent slopes
Tate -French, occasionally flooded complex, 2 to 10 percent slopes
Figure 1C- Soil Map
Date: 2/5/2015
500 250 0 500
GRAPHIC SCALE IN FEET
#, �, N
I ,`'.. �.. �3�,. kik-•_ .�a.�. dim �J,-s..
L
it
Offsite Alternative Option 1
Foothills Landfill Borrow
Area Expansion
Caldwell County, North Carolina
I -i
NF.
Image: NAIP June 2014
H©DGES, HARBIN,
NEWBERRY &TRiBBLE, INC.
Consulting Engineers

Legend
Impacted Stream (+/- 2,253.99 Feet)
Option 1 Access Road
Unimpacted Stream Channel (+/- 2,380.42 Feet)
Borrow Area (+/- 44.92 Acres)
Stormwater Pond (+/- 1.85 Acres)
QProperty Boundary
Figure 113- Aerial Map
Date: 2/5/2015
500 250 0 500
GRAPHIC SCALE IN FEET
J IF
�; it ► ' c� •. �" ' .y .n I. ,,l��•� t '�!�
OPTION I PROPERTY BOUNDARY
0
Offsite Alternative Option 1
Foothills Landfill Borrow
Area Expansion
Caldwell County, North Carolina
Image: NAIP June 2014
HODGES, HARBIN,
NEWBERRY &TRiBBLE, INC.
Consulting Engineers

D-
0
r
O_
- OPTION 2 PROPERTY BOUNDARY
72.3 ACRES)
OLD-0, D
i
c
IDGE p,
J
Lenoir Quadrangle 2013
Figure 2A- USGS Topo Map Offsite Alternative Option 2
Date: 2/5/2015 Foothills Landfill Borrow
1,000 500 0 1,000 Area Expansion
GRAPHIC SCALE IN FEET Caldwell County, North Carolina
Jai■amml
HODGE5, HARBIN,
NEWBERRY &TRIBBLE, INC.
Consulting Engineers

Figure 213- Wetland Map
Date: 2/5/2015
1,000 Soo 0 1,000
GRAPHIC SCALE IN FEET
Offsite Alternative Option 2
Foothills Landfill Borrow H©DGES, HARBIN,
Area Expansion I NEWBERRY & TRI BBLE, INC.
Caldwell County, North Carolina
Consulting Engineers

r
r
�fi
CHF
EVE
HED
Soil Types
Bandana sandy loam, 0 to 3 percent slopes, occasionally flooded
Chestnut-Buladean complex, 50 to 95 percent slopes, stony
Evard-Cowee complex, 30 to 50 percent slopes, stony
w Hayesville loam, 8 to 15 percent slopes
Hayesville loam, 15 to 30 percent slopes
Rhodhiss sandy loam, 25 to 45 percent slopes
Figure 2C- Soil Map
Date: 2/5/2015
500 250 0 500
GRAPHIC SCALE IN FEET
RHE
a
Offsite Alternative Option 2
Foothills Landfill Borrow
Area Expansion
Caldwell County, North Carolina
Image: NAIP June 2014
HODGES, HARBIN,
NEWBERRY &TRiBBLE, INC•
Consulting Engineers

� r .tltl
r 4a `
may./•. � < c u
til
--• �,' f
Legend
Impacted Stream (+/- 1,520.52 Feet)
— Option 2Access Road
Unimpacted Stream Channel (+/- 3,071.53 Feet)
Borrow Area (+/- 35.26 Acres)
Stormwater Pond (+/- 1.29 Acres)
QProperty Boundary
Figure 2D- Aerial Map
Date: 2/5/2015
500 250 0 500
GRAPHIC SCALE IN FEET
'jWf'')
OPTION 2 PROPERTY BOUNDARY
72.3 ACRES) -
a..
1 _M
Image: NAIP June 2014
Offsite Alternative Option 2
Foothills Landfill Borrow
Area Expansion
Caldwell County, North Carolina
HODGES, HARBIN,
NEWBERRY &TRiBBLE, INC.
Consulting Engineers

0
0
LVA
OPTION 3 PROPERTY BOUNDARY)
jp TRACT 1 (+/- 24.09 ACRES)
VO4
I
OPTION 3 PROPERTY BOUNDARY
TRACT -2 (+j-- 58.77. ACRES)
V
m
v
c --
7-
Z:) L:)
G
Ox
Figure 3A- US Topo Map
Date: 2/5/2015
1,000 500 0 1,000
GRAPHIC SCALE IN FEET
r"
fNNY LN
`'off
RE RD
FOOTHILLS LANDFILL PROPERTY
a,�
Lenoir Quadrangle 2013
Offsite Alternative Option 3
Foothills Landfill Borrow H©DGES, HARBIN,
Area Expansion I NEWBERRY & TRI BBLE, INC.
Caldwell County, North Carolina
Consulting Engineers

Figure 313- Wetland Map
Date: 2/5/2015
1,000 500 0 1,000
GRAPHIC SCALE IN FEET
Offsite Alternative Option 3
Foothills Landfill Borrow H©DGES HARBIN,
Area Expansion I NEWBERRY &TRiBBLE, INC.
Caldwell County, North Carolina
Consulting Engineers

4� '�,�• ,� ,'�, ��,F`. ,,, �.4or
`�
� � � � � , r �� ..� 4/ ItA,7 't " .,,,!i � 6 t •71 ,I •I LL
' `•� [,'�i� �' ���:���, c.� +. � t � �`..• 'r � �•''� ,,fir ,,�'� .4 1.
.�� t �• %r
IL BBA
Soil Types
Bandana sandy loam, 0 to 3 percent slopes, occasionally flooded
Evard-Cowee complex, 30 to 50 percent slopes, stony
Hayesville loam, 8 to 15 percent slopes
Hayesville loam, 15 to 30 percent slopes
Tate fine sandy loam, 8 to 30 percent slopes
Figure 3C- Soil Map
Date: 2/5/2015
500 250 0 500
GRAPHIC SCALE IN FEET
HED
M
EC
Offsite Alternative Option 3
i
&Irn'age-'NAIP"Ju'ne 2014 '.
Foothills Landfill Borrow H©DGEs, HARBIN,
Area Expansion I NEWBERRY &TRiBBLE, INC.
Caldwell County, North Carolina
Consulting Engineers

4',
OPTION 3 PROPERTY BOUNDARY
TRACT 1 (+/- 24.09 ACRES)
OPTION 3 PROPERTY BOUNDARY
TRACT2 (+/.z58.77jACRES)
Legend
Option 3 Access Road
Impacted Stream (+/- 3,136.09 Feet)
Unimpacted Stream Channel (+/- 2,322.91 Feet)
=Borrow Area (+/- 33.50 Acres)
Stormwater Pond (+/- 3.16 Acres)
=Property Boundary
Image: NAIP June 2014
Figure 313- Aerial Map
Date: 2/5/2015
500 250 0 500
GRAPHIC SCALE IN FEET
Access to Landfill
Offsite Alternative Option 3
Foothills Landfill Borrow
Area Expansion
Caldwell County, North Carolina
HODGES, HARBIN,
NEWBERRY &TRiBBLE, INC.
Consulting Engineers
'.
zt ,
OPTION 3 PROPERTY BOUNDARY
TRACT2 (+/.z58.77jACRES)
Legend
Option 3 Access Road
Impacted Stream (+/- 3,136.09 Feet)
Unimpacted Stream Channel (+/- 2,322.91 Feet)
=Borrow Area (+/- 33.50 Acres)
Stormwater Pond (+/- 3.16 Acres)
=Property Boundary
Image: NAIP June 2014
Figure 313- Aerial Map
Date: 2/5/2015
500 250 0 500
GRAPHIC SCALE IN FEET
Access to Landfill
Offsite Alternative Option 3
Foothills Landfill Borrow
Area Expansion
Caldwell County, North Carolina
HODGES, HARBIN,
NEWBERRY &TRiBBLE, INC.
Consulting Engineers

KY,R
FOOTHILLS LAN PROPERTY
H�
9dan Cr
CS
OPTION 4 PROPERTY BOUNDA
K?TR-ACT,-2(+/ X53 4 ACRES)
94©-�.
untaiNY Lx
OPTION 4 PROPERTY. BOUNDARY
TRACT 1 (+/-� 50.5 ACRES)
S
rn�
rm')
�IRE pE RD ca
C �-
Lenoir Quadrangle 2013
o�
Figure 4A- US Topo Map
Date: 2/5/2015
1,000 500 0 1,000
GRAPHIC SCALE IN FEET
Offsite Alternative Option 4
Foothills Landfill Borrow
Area Expansion
Caldwell County, North Carolina
%I
HODGES, HARBIN,
NEWBERRY & TRI BBLE, INC.
Consulting Engineers

I Win,
t � _
T,
OPTION 4 PROPERTY BOUNDARY
A
TRCTr2 (+/- 53.4 ACRES)
Legend
Intermittent Stream
Perennial Stream
Wetlands
iii
FOOTHILLS LANDFILL PROPERTY
OPTION 4 PROPERTY BOUNDARY
TRACT11"(+/_ 50.5_ ACRES)
Figure 413- Wetland Map Offsite Alternative Option 4
Date: 2/5/2015 Foothills Landfill Borrow
1,000 500 0 1,000 Area Expansion
GRAPHIC SCALE IN FEET Caldwell County, North Carolina
Image: NAIP June 2014
HODGES, HARBIN,
NEWBERRY & TRIBBLE, INC.
Consulting Engineers

7; -
M • ,
'•' .•fir �` ��, !:
HED
B Bks
t,ff�tr'•
"Ai' IV'
Soil Types
Bandana sandy loam, 0 to 3 percent slopes, occasionally flooded
Evard-Cowee complex, 30 to 50 percent slopes, stony
Ha esville loam, 8 to 15 percent slopes
� 11 •�
:ru Hayesville loam, 15 to 30 percent slopes ' %■
Tate fine sandy loam, 8 to 30 percent slopes
Water
Figure 4C- Soil Map
Date: 2/5/2015
500 250 0 500
GRAPHIC SCALE IN FEET
T.
r
r _
T i k ,
✓ 1 t<
1. jr �.
Offsite Alternative Option 4
Foothills Landfill Borrow
Area Expansion
Caldwell County, North Carolina
N N
y
4W
64���
Image: NAIP June 2014
ll�
H©DGES, HARBIN,
NEWBERRY &TRiBBLE, INC.
Consulting Engineers

DPTION 4 PROPERTY BOUNDARY
TRACT,2 (+/- 53.4 ACRES) r ,,
t r
� � b
Y 1,
i
r
OPTION 4 PROPERTY BOUNDARY
TRACT Y( 50.5 ACRES)
Legend
Impacted Stream (+/- 1,036.08 Feet) 9B
Option 4 Access Road f2c
'o
Unimpacted Stream Channel (+/- 6,840.63 Feet) 2
Z
Borrow Area (+/- 43.05 Acres) P�
Stormwater Pond (+/- 2.46 Acres) l
Property Boundary
Access to Landfill >..
Image: NAIP June 2014 -
-r
Figure 413- Aerial Map
Date: 2/5/2015
500 250 0 500
GRAPHIC SCALE IN FEET
Offsite Alternative Option 4
Foothills Landfill Borrow
Area Expansion
Caldwell County, North Carolina
HODGES, HARBIN,
NEWBERRY &TRiBBLE, INC.
Consulting Engineers

ml
co,
J
0
N
Jf A
a -
wr4��
OPTION 5 PROPERTY BOUNDARY
70.5 ACRES)
;.r
,=
40
r -
0-
aorl
2fLenoEirQua'drangle 2013
Figure 5A- US Topo Map Offsite Alternative Option 5
Date: 2/5/2015 Foothills Landfill Borrow
1,000 500 0 1,000 Area Expansion
GRAPHIC SCALE IN FEET Caldwell County, North Carolina
16055\■ l
HoDGES, HARBIN,
NEWBERRY &TRIBBLE, INC.
Consulting Engineers

' � N
1 .� ur,. 1 ,� � .y� 4 S. Y ,� ti..' y �xt, y � ,r ��"+,-�w',d �.��•.
u
'� f �� '��. rfti ) ,�.L � ��i},,s r o� ,� «`+n� ry �_ y I� �'f i�{ •Lr l' f'.
OPTION 5 PROPERTY BOUNDARY
• (+/- •70.5 ACRES)
4
.r
Legend rr
�•• Intermittent Stream
3 Perennial Stream
Wetlands
y
Image: NAIP June 2014
Figure 513- Wetland Map
Date: 2/5/2015
1,000 500 0 1,000
GRAPHIC SCALE IN FEET
Offsite Alternative Option 5
Foothills Landfill Borrow
Area Expansion
Caldwell County, North Carolina
HODGES, HARBIN,
NEWBERRY & TRI BBLE, INC.
Consulting Engineers

Figure 5C- Soil Map
Date: 2/5/2015
soo 250 o soo
GRAPHIC SCALE IN FEET
Offsite Alternative Option 5
Foothills Landfill Borrow H©DGES HARBIN,
Area Expansion I NEWBERRY &TRiBBLE, INC.
Caldwell County, North Carolina
Consulting Engineers

Figure 513- Aerial Map
Date: 2/5/2015
500 250 0 500
GRAPHIC SCALE IN FEET
Offsite Alternative Option 5
Foothills Landfill Borrow H©DGES, HARBIN,
Area Expansion I NEWBERRY & TRIBBLE, INC.
Caldwell County, North Carolina
Consulting Engineers

Txt7�.i.1 N4 r , , , c • f " i 'r ar riT , ji
Legend
Impacted Stream (+/-569.82 Feet)
Impacted Habitat (+/- 1.30 Acres)
Unimpacted Stream Channel (+/- 25,216.20 Feet)
Borrow Area #1 Expansion Alternative (+/- 12,99 Acres)
Proposed Borrow Area #1 (+/- 24.04 Acres)
-- Jursidictional Wetlands
Dwarf -Flowered Heartleaf Habitat
QProperty Boundary
-Landfill Property
Figure 6- Aerial Map
Date: 2/5/2015
500 250 0 500
GRAPHIC SCALE IN FEET
'or .;
Onsite Alternative Option 1
Foothills Landfill Borrow
Area Expansion
Caldwell County, North Carolina
o rl
0,00�-• .i
Image: NAIP June 2014
H©DGES, HARBIN,
NEWBERRY & TRIBBLE, INC.
Consulting Engineers

hit i
,a
(r. �,, .tr�, � �t^♦ti's �. f �� .'�-'1�, � r
S � ` f f y- f , `- �♦ �4 rte,
Legend 1.�1.[_it.• _ i
Impacted Stream (+1- 1,160.13 Feet)
Unimpacted Stream Channel (+/- 24,625.89 Feet)
Impacted Habitat (+1- 2.39 Acres)
New Road to be Constructed
3 Existing Road to be Improved
Borrow Area # 2 Alternative (+/- 25.88 Acres)
Jursidictional Wetlands
Dwarf -Flowered Heartleaf Habitat
Proposed Borrow Area #1 (+/- 24.04 Acres)
QProperty Boundary
Landfill Property
Figure 7- Aerial Map
Date: 2/5/2015
500 250 0 500
GRAPHIC SCALE IN FEET
Onsite Alternative Option 2
Foothills Landfill Borrow
Area Expansion
Caldwell County, North Carolina
NI
I �t
Image: NAIP June 2014
H©DGES, HARBIN,
NEWBERRY &TRiBBLE, INC,
Consulting Engineers

Legend
Impacted Stream (+/- 1,317.31 Feet)
= Option 3 Access Road
Unimpacted Stream Channel (+/- 24,468.71 Feet)
Impacted Habitat (+/- 0.18Acres)
Borrow Area #2 Alternative (+/- 25.88 Acres)
Jursidictional Wetlands
{ Proposed Borrow Area #1 (+/- 24.04 Acres)
Dwarf -Flowered Heartleaf Habitat
QProperty Boundary
Landfill Property
Figure 8- Aerial Map
Date: 2/5/2015
500 250 0 500
GRAPHIC SCALE IN FEET
Onsite Alternative Option 3
Foothills Landfill Borrow
Area Expansion
Caldwell County, North Carolina
,I . . "C..'i _ _1
Image: NAIP June 2014
H©DGES, HARBIN,
NEWBERRY &TRiBBLE, INC.
Consulting Engineers

Figure 9A- US Topo Map
Date: 2/5/2015
1,000 500 0 1,000
GRAPHIC SCALE IN FEET
Onsite Alternative Option 4
Foothills Landfill Borrow
Area Expansion
Caldwell County, North Carolina
ROUGES, F ARBiN,
NEWBERRY &TRiBBLE, INC.
Consulting Engineers

Figure 913- Wetland Map
Date: 2/5/2015
1,000 500 0 1,000
GRAPHIC SCALE IN FEET
Onsite Alternative Option 4
Foothills Landfill Borrow H©DGES HARBIN,
Area Expansion I NEWBERRY &TRiBBLE, INC.
Caldwell County, North Carolina
Consulting Engineers

Figure 9C- Soil Map
Date: 2/5/2015
1,000 500 0 1,000
GRAPHIC SCALE IN FEET
Onsite Alternative Option 4
Foothills Landfill Borrow H©DGEs, HARBIN,
Area Expansion I NEWBERRY &TRiBBLE, INC.
Caldwell County, North Carolina
Consulting Engineers

Figure 9D- Aerial Map
Date: 2/5/2015
1,000 500 0 1,000
GRAPHIC SCALE IN FEET
Onsite Alternative Option 4
Foothills Landfill Borrow HODGES, HARBIN,
Area Expansion I NEWBERRY & TRIBBLE, INC.
Caldwell County, North Carolina
Consulting Engineers

APPENDIX 5: 2004 SECTION 404 USACE FOOTHILLS INDIVIDUAL
PERMIT AUTHORIZATION

as .�(It Pert t-f3
DEPARTMENT OF THE ARMY � f/
` WILMINGTON [DISTRICT, CORPS OF ENGINEERS tI
Po Box 1890 ry{� � - � � lir
WILMINGTON NC 28402-1890 J iI7 `
1 `
December 23, 2004
Regulatory Division .
Action 1D. 200231111
gw
Caldwell County
C/o Republic Services of North Carolina, LLC
Mr. Drew Isenhauer
1220 Commerce Street SW
Conover, North Carolina 28613
Dear Mr. Isenhauer:
In accordance with your written request of November 15, 2002, and the ensuing
administrative record, enclosed is a Department of the Army (DA) permit to discharge fill
material into approximately 0.32 acres of wetlands and 2.,180 linear feet of stream channel,
associated with the expansion of the existing Foothills Solid Waste Landfill Facility, located on
the north side of Cheraw Road (SR 1301), northwest of Lenoir, Caldwell County, North
Carolina.
If any change in the authorized work is required because of unforeseen or altered conditions
or for any other reason, the plans revised to show the change must be sent promptly to this office.
Such action is necessary, as realised plans roust be reviewed and the permit modified.
Carefully read your permit. The general and special conditions are important. Your failure
to comply with these conditions could result in a violation of Federal law. Certain significant
general conditions require that:
a. You must complete construction before December 31, 2008,
b. You must notify this office in advance as to when you intend to commence and
complete work.
c. You must allow representatives from this office to make periodic visits to your
worksite as deemed necessary to assure compliance with permit plans and conditions,

0 0
-2 -
Should you have questions, please contact Amanda Jones, Asheville Regulatory Field Office
at [phone], extension 231.
Enclosures
Copy Furnished with enclosures:
Chief, Source Data Unit
NOAA/National Ocean Service
ATTN: Sharon Tear NACS261
1315 East -west Hwy., Rm 7316
Silver Spring, MD 24910-3282
Copies Furnished with special conditions
and plans:
Mr. Brian Cole
U.S. Fish and Wildlife Service
164 Zillicoa Street
Asheville, North Carolina 28801
Mr. Ron Sechler
National Marine Fisheries Service
Pivers Island
Beaufort, North Carolina 28516
Sincerely,
Charles R. Alexander, Jr.
Colonel, U.S. Army
District Engineer
Ms. Becky Fox
U.S. Environmental Protection Agency
1349 Firefly Road
Whittier, North Carolina 2.8789
Mr. Doug Huggett
Division of Coastal Management
North Carolina Department of
Environment and Natural Resources
151-B NC Hwy, Hestron Plaza 11
Morehead City, North Carolina 28557
Mr. David Rackley
National Marine Fisheries Service
219 Fort Johnson Road
Charleston, South Carolina 29412-9110

X
c:
DEPARTMENT OF THE ARNIY PERMIT
Permittee CALDWFLL COUNTY C/O REPUBLIC SERVICES OF NC, LLC
Permit No. 200231111
Issuing Office CESAW-RG-A
NOTE, The term "you" and its desivatives, as used in this permit, means the pemtittee or any future transferee. The term "this
office" refers to the appropriate district or division office of the Corps of Engineers having jurisdiction over the penxnisted
activity or the appropriate official of that offce acting ander the authority of the comrnanding officer.
You are authorized to perforin work in accordance with the teens and conditions specified below,
Project Description: to discharge fill material into 0.32 acres of wetlands and 2,180 linear feet of
stream channel, associated with the expansion of the existing Foothills Solid Waste Landfill Facility.
Project Location: Located ou the north side of Cheraw Road (SR 1301), northwest of Lenoir,
Caldwell County, North Caroliva.
Penmit Conditions:.
General Conditions:
L The time limit for completing the work authorized ends on December 31, 200$ If you find that you need more brise
to complete the authorized activity, submit your request for a time extension to this office for consideration at least one month
before the above date is reached.
2. You must maintain the activity authorized by this pemut in good condition and in conformance with the testes and
conditions of this permit. You are not relieved of this requirement if you abandon the permitted activity, although you may
snake a good faith transfer to a third party in compliance with General Condition 4 below. Should you wish to cease to maintain
the authorized activity or should you desire to abandon it without a good faith transfer, you roust obtain a modification of this
permit from flus office, which may require restoration of the area.
3. If you discover any previously unknown historic or archeological remains while accomplishing the activity authorised by
this permit, you must imrnediately tno6fy this office of what you have found. We will initiate the Federal and state coordination
required to determine if the remains warrant a recovery effort or if the site is eligible for listing in the National Register of
Historic Places.
ENG FORM 1721, Nov 86 EDITION OF SEP 82 IS OBSOLETE. (33 CFR 325 (AppenArA))

O 0
4. if you sell the property associated with this permit, you trust obtain the signature of the new owner to the space provided
and forward a copy of the permit to this office to validate the transfer of this authorization.
5. If a conditioned water quality certification has been issued for your project, you must comply with the conditions specified
in the certification as special conditions to this permit. For your convenience, a copy of the certification is attached if it
contains such conditions.
b. You must allow representatives from this otTice to inspect the authorized activity at any time deemed necessary to ensure
that it is being or has been accomplished in accordance with the terms and conditions of your pennit,
Special Conditions:
SEE ATTACHED SPECIAL CONDITIONS
Further Information:
1. Congressional Authorities: You have been authorized to undertake the activity describer) above pursuant to:
( ) Section 10 of the Rivcrs and Harbors Act of 1899 (33 U.S.C. 403).
(X) Section 404 of the Clean Water Acct (33 U.S.C. 1344).
( ) Section 103 of the Marine Protection, Research and Sanctuaries Act of 1972 (33 U.S.C. 1413).
Limits of this authorization.
a, This permit does not obviate the need to obtain other Federal, state, or local authorizations required by law -
b. This permit does not grant any property rights or exclusive privileges.
c. This permit does not authorize any injury to the property or rights of others.
d. This permit does not authorize interference mth any existing or proposed Federal project.
3. Limits of Federal Liability. In issuing this permit, the Federal +Goverttrrtent does not assume any liability for the following:
a. Damages to the permitted project or uses thereof as a result of other permitted or unperrrtitted activities or from natural
causes.
b. Damages to the permitted project or uses thereof as a result of current or future activities undertaken by or on behalf
of the Uruled States in the public interest.
c. Damages to persons. property, or to other permitted or unpermitted activities or structures use by the activity
authorized by this permit.
d. Design or construction deficiencies associated with the permitted work.

e. Damage claims associated with any future rrnodification, suspension, or revocation of this pertnit.
4, Reliance on Applicant's Data: The determination of this office that issuance of this pemtit is not contrary to the public
interest was made in reliance on the inforrnation you provided.
5. Reevaluation of Permit Decision. This office tray reevaluate its decision on this perrrut at any time the circumstances
warrant. Circumstances that could require a reevaluation miude, but are not limited to, the following:
a. You fail to comply with the terns and conditions, of this permit.
b_ The information provided by you in support of your permit application proves to have been false, incomplete, or
inaccurate (See d above).
c. Significant new ulforartation surfaces which this office did not consider in reaching the original public interest decision.
Such a reevaluation may result in a determination that it is appropriate to use the suspension, Triodificatiorr, and revocation
procedures contained in 33 CFR 325.7 or enforcement procedures such as those contained in 33 CFR 326A and 326.5. T'he
referenced enforcement procedures provide for the issuance of an administrative order requiring you to comply with the terms
and conditions of your pertnit and for the initiation of legal action where appropriate. You will be required to pay for any
corrective measures ordered by this office, and if you fail to comply with such directive, this office may in certain situations
(such as those specified in 33 CFR 209 170) accomplish the corrective measures by contract or otherwise and bill you for the
cost.
6. Extensions. General condition I establishes a time limit for the completion of the activity authorized by this hermit, Unless
there are circumstances requiring either a prompt completion of the authorized activity or a reevaluation of the public interest
decision, the Corps will normally give favorable consideration to a request for an extension of this time limit.
Your signature below, as permittee, indicates that you accept and agree to comply with the terms and conditions of this per -mit.
AJ,tJ 4"#-, 17, - 14 -04
(PERVIT7' E) CALDWELL COUNTY (DATE)
c/o REPUBLIC SERVICES OF NC, LLC
This pernut becotrtes efTective when the Federal official, designated to act for the Secretary of the Array, has signed below-
-40m (DISTRICTEVGINEER) CHARLES R. ALEXANDER, JR, COLONEL (D,4 TE)
When the structures or work authorized by this permit are still in existence at the time the property is transferred, the terns and
conditions of this permit will continue to be binding on the new owners) of the property. To validate the transfer of this permit
and the associated liabilities associated with compliance with its terms and conditions, have the transferee sign and date below.
(TRANSFEREE)
IDA TE)
'U S. C30VOtMNENT PUVTM OFFICE. 4996 .717425

.7
Work Limits
SPECIAL CONDITIONS
E
a) All work authorized by this permit must be performed in strict compliance with the
attached plans, which are a ,part of this permit. Any modification to these plans must
be approved by the US Army Corps of Engineers (USACE) prior to implementation.
h) Except as authorized by this permit or any USAGE approved modification to this
permit, no excavation, fill or mechanized land -clearing activities shall take place at
any time in the construction or maintenance of this project, within waters or wetlands.
This permit does not authorize temporary placement or double handling of excavated
or fill material within waters or wetlands outside the permitted area, This prohibition
applies to all borrow and fill activities connected with this project.
c) Except as specified in the plans attached to this permit, no excavation, fill or
mechanized land -clearing activities shall take place at any time in the construction or
maintenance of this project, in such a manner as to impair normal flows and
circulation patterns within waters or wetlands or to reduce the reacts of waters or
wetlands.
Related Laws
d) If the North Carolina Division of Water Quality has issued a conditioned Water
Quality Certification for your project, the conditions of that certification are hereby
incorporated as special conditions of this permit. For your convenience, a copy of the
certification is attached if it contains such conditions.
e) All mechanized equipment will be regularly inspected and maintained to prevent
contamination of waters and wetlands from fuels, lubricants, hydraulic fluids, or other
toxic materials. In the event of a spill of petroleum products or any other hazardous
waste, the permittee shall immediately report it to the N.C. Division of Water Quality
at [phone], Ext. 526 or (800) 662-795+6 and provisions of the North Carolina
Oil Pollution and Hazardous Substances Control Act will be followed..
Pro `ect Ma'ntenance
f) Unless otherwise authorized by this permit, all fill material placed in waters or
wetlands shall be generated from an upland source and will be clean and free of any
pollutants except in trace quantities. Metal products, organic materials (including
debris from land clearing activities), or unsightly debris will not be used.

1) Permittee shall mitigate for 0.32 acres of unavoidable impacts to wetlands associated
with this project by payment to the North Carolina Ecosystem Enhancement Program
(NCEEP) in the amount necessary to perform restoration to 0.5 acres of jurisdictional
riparian hardwood forest wetlands in the Catawba River Basin (Cataloging Unit
03050101). Constntction within jurisdictional areas on the property shall begin only
after the permittee has made full payment with certified check to the ;KEEP, and the
NCEEP has made written confirmation to the District Engineer, that it agrees to
accept responsibility for the mitigation work required, pursuant to Paragraph W.D. of
the Memorandum of Understanding between the North Carolina Department of
Environment and Natural Resources and the U.S. Army Corps of Engineers,
Wilmington District, dated November 4, 1998.
m) Within six months of the date of this permit, the permittee shall convey a
conservation easement over all mitigation properties to a conservation organization or
government entity approved by the Wilmington District Corps of Engineers. The form
of this easement must be approved by the Corps prior to recordation. Once the
conservation easement has been approved by the Corps, the permittee shall properly
record the document, and provide a copy of the recorded document to the Corps
within 60 days of its recordation_ Any conveyance of the property to be preserved
will specifically reference the conservation easement described in this permit
condition.
n) The permittee and subsequent property owners shall maintain the mitigation property
in its natural condition in perpetuity. Prohibited activities within the mitigation
property specifically include, but are not limited to: the construction or placement of
roads, walkways, buildings, signs, or structures of any kind (i.e., billboards, interior
fences, etc.); filling, grading, excavation, leveling, or any other earth moving activity
or activity that may alter the drainage patterns on the property; the cutting, mowing,
destruction, removal, damage or other alteration of any vegetation; disposal or storage
of any debris, trash, garbage, or other waste material; except as may be authorized by
subsequent modifications which are approved by the Corps of Engineers. In addition,
the permittee and subsequent property owners shall take no action, whether on or off
the mitigation property, which will adversely impact the stream habitat on the
preservation property.
o) Condition (n), above, nuns with the land. The permittee shall not self, lease, or
otherwise convey any interest in the mitigation property without subjecting the
property to legally enforceable restrictions on the use of the property, to ensure its
preservation in perpetuity, approved in writing by the Wilmington District Corps of
Engineers.
P) The permittee will maintain the authorized work in good condition and in
conformance with the terms and conditions of this permit. `The permittee is not
relieved of this requirement if he abandons the permitted activity without having it
transferred to a third party.
3

1
... _ j r'-" y +�7 . _ M`. � _. � tl � f'� r /� I E�'+ s+"'oir•�T r
y> i 7� . r y Ee i t r f yr+ r .1 `.. •r.
. ;�' r i � ; f ,. r• J r Ili~ ry=/r/{{l ! _� '' �,• ` ` � fi ,
,r `.''i Y, .� [,� I �' yl err 4� `( rrl ilk ,}�� r �� ��•� ^ .Irf
'`( F Lr•` -_ f . � i �T r i a � ' I �F it ra �y��� � y+) } r fir,•♦ '�. •• � u!� 7'1 }I i�r � �/f 1X.
�. � r �• ,i aF -•dl i. ``_` I � r.�_y���-.r !-!�i.��. r!�r by _•„ �.i 'J tR: ��Y ��� r .. a�
1 s E'`i` ^� r,til++ P }) f I 4 r� i t!, Y !]'•.+�1y s. s r,� �. +L +� s 4 +
\,l
Y
,�: i `T[ r4
�!L++-r r - v'�`7 . � �•r 'L''� { .w E as f �•r,j! 5�,� 1 � lyiY \•`•;•, '►,'J�i+ '� �,l` ii�k� L►Sry+ C`'. tl ��° �..�
�y,J%` / ' v ~�f � �, } r �- f, 1 (� •; 1 � �� �l � ♦ -,s �. s �. 7 i � ��
''• ,/'�..^4`� fir 1Y .•ti :/�} F �.± , Is fxY �' T► _t.+ f '�'!,�+/ 1 rL,- ,y�`,. 14s ••^)ir
1, 't I . f \;�1v J if• 17 �"ft^. 111 •� { � '1' Y]II f ��� ° issS�/!'/ /` � \�;�_
"+�, r+` Jj1• 4 1+ f `y r i/ f `r1�/jIyI:: i.T, 3 �r"jl:.
1'}�°:+t / w 1 f, �• y _ `..1 r` �. �/;`. ,04 �
i l ! ' t j j f �.•wY �'f ` `s r ' `:.l ' ' L y. % 1; 17
} l d S `� ` t fir' ' Y I ''1. � - 4u- `y` � r'�w `�,�,••f ) : i? , + .-. � t- � �, ?'I
�;.. = V r✓{Y r �' _ �'�"Pr f,` {7 e. Y ,, 4* •-+o � ;- � a �.- - . '1, r,�l ') \ � iy ���}•� / t r '�'.
?i 4Jj`s �-• !.1 � i }f�l .� ,,rr/yl� �•-. •� ' � ! � � .1'�'ti;;-,.\'�. ��1ti\�4� 1 ,` Y+ � _ �.-� �,�tf�l rr,.lt 4
/�''{ J7 y A r.. F - ti i e� ., +,�.� }�� .-.... r ! �.�'`F ,r r•, )} q j 'i`' =.
r 1 } •�.� i �•-r rf f f� 1 � i's¢ � ! l�P��, r !L ~'r' i-" � 1�f '~ ! "� � � rfr 4,. � \
_ � f i % f 1 t r Vis.-�': - 'r . ; i. %talo.,-• ' y � Lir' � . f •- e
�� `i t �} 4) f �l ;_ �;� !IJP �+ S Y. t �, • ,,;'v � � ,. +
�d 1r1�titi '\ %��'�.`s/f�'>,'" �•\. l f �! ,` ;,r' j 1 / ~,. � `r7�.,, `\+a I J� ,! 1 f� �� �(i � � 4` •,f_ - � Y r • � !"`rte
J ti! 1'�^' i?I =`l; :�y t.f ..! f � ��• � ir_�"`"""SSSS ��;�n �r + ►'' 1 �^. i
s �' T �' • � �. -: '� } , \ {�' '� �-. L -•fir.. S �] yam• } q,r � . � ; �, r � ` , � �>
r l a !, ;`^r'A , "` _+ � -•� � ' 4 _ 1 ...,, � 11 ' ti {� . l'l � *p, i .,'� /' !f `-�.t
r /+•-� ��1`+*.,tv \'r r�r �t k /� �• 5 Y'] .+ �-. \��.r• `�� �'�+ r � �' �.r �, �7� -` � � '`
V. sr Y,`r rti �4 s+ `+-•`� r .",rjr vti�:�yr Y -` \ ` -Ie
. r � Ifj{ \� �, �� ✓� �� L � F3* i L' �'r� � .� .. � • �._�j R. � / .� - rt; � y ✓, y �r7j,.��,. � •` ` .«
'�n�'l � 'Y-. i,�,. •''� f •..� i.�t..\ � Lr •. - C+I `�z _,t�` ,!i ' 4 it �S� t q«.
�"�,�. ~ tri � �{ , "� li � '`y l -1_1. �1 ^`Y •� ` _ {= f j �� rf >, P ',\`rrf� /`✓ � �1'{4' � _, _ �{ •.
�y;.
IL
IL���s .•;, JFK-- r. r. � �. ���, ti r.l �... '•�•''� �' }
1 J� .-�' � f � t'fr.. d,'..� i+ I � '�:'0,� r�f .'a. `r +i � . :s,r�! 'i �r ti" � +� • � ly' �I ^ .t' ^+sjP �' /'� � _
; `.' r r R�'1. +, r+ . �}' +� [ - r `r ! • ;R fy...
f alr+ry tY . /y►' = P� f ;l% �r ( 5
A�pfmumWe GJ ! r ,, `�,� s ��r� .r ^ � f fT
! 4 Eng rN
proposed EgmwwJw Area0017.
ftop ""'" d CW"mbUVMgQOm Area t Y{ {•• i` L i I. �!r j
1000 0
100 2000 r .
+r r
Lon* 4]YrKkwig* 1903
P. I V.9 IP_ �:il r.� 11'ti��>j+.r r, ffG-'" 1 sir rL91
tEskvimoncotatPP[] d Location Map Firm
C f
Servicm Inc. ToVY AM$ EffvirowerdW Lsmffill Expansion Pmjort ER02M
Catdwo l County, North Carolina
-OW Dmv Nov 2W2
ctlan --rI1 20613 1111
F%4u tl ti, t s q 141

14,
.J.. 01 {ti8+�,e'Fi?4 4.�s• 8tosd
M, a
1 � � � a • p 'rEr , •_.s r �� t #i { X�. r{ i �•N�ii k !¢:��r f � ;i#�s�>is�a�lE � ,
rtreAt
Mltls'�ssr�r>�r•
r f � ;✓ 1 � � f � f � � � f l� r� #s ' E �4 tr 4�r � {# Ir � }��'�i�i is k s �. tf �?� s�G���?'i i
dy, r
,(aJ� ! � ` 1 �E �. � r• '��'t ft�+ r,�1z{ - i#R p}�soi.t �r,��y�t• r d�'T x � x
w t� � � —�+ �� � � 1 1 1 � a tr � i#F��j t# r� • ¢�'�s�Ei � r M}
.-... � � y ./ f � � '1 � i� fi��� i4 lfM-iy� +t�•ir r� ° yk".�r#s k�tsErl i�j>k ��.3+
O s r E i t� i # r s a•at =s�A ,�,yf ed. �•
{;�
ti X111-._ ��✓ . kf.. i 1 i f A tw f
s#..r i s ri tri r I f.4
\ � � � � % �% `" iii !,i � ��`•rS T
Ld
'\ % � = Ski �u[ �- •+i
,q
UZ
i r' r earl J40
LLJ
♦ / l/� — LPA
it
IL f
J
Proposed Expansion Area n9ure: C—IA
nvironmental Foothills Environmental Landfill Expansion Project* ER02043
Services. Inc.
Caldwell County. North Carolina
_ Qat.: Nov 2002
cti an z ao1-511%I -
11ura.
A&( 14

:.
Line Shea! 2G
J6
Proposed Expansion Area noure: C --1C
Services.
Inc. Foothills Environmental Landtlll Expansion ProNet. ER02063
Services, Inc. Caldwell County, Horth Carolina
ifate: Max 2042
4 bI1 ii it

ilk
Line S
f 1 3 I Melctw Line
1A
,�
4f 41
-L-'
+ i
.i .r. t_
rProposed Expansion Area Fl
ourc C -2A
Services, bac. Foothills Environmental Landfill! Expansion Prat.cl
LIt0208a
Caldwell County, North Carolina
Dalc Nor 2002
i; RIA T..'� a•%$�k4 �

.-" f i77�5T. SEBA,£ W\
JO �� � aksm Mo. 2
Match line 5t+eel 3C
Match Une sheer i C
.
.1
7�■
R Y R
h V
V
IIIIIIIft�Lwtliarl,l�i<�
r�
Soo
Proposed Expansion Area Flgure- C -2C
Envirownentai Foothills Environmental Landfill Expansion Prolecr: ER02063
Services, Inc.
Caldwell County, North Carolina
parr. llov 1002
�s� :17K) t�2alt1t
r
� K'
IIIIIIIft�Lwtliarl,l�i<�
r�
Soo
Proposed Expansion Area Flgure- C -2C
Envirownentai Foothills Environmental Landfill Expansion Prolecr: ER02063
Services, Inc.
Caldwell County, North Carolina
parr. llov 1002
�s� :17K) t�2alt1t

_ OR,
-.m:,
----.m:,
Proposed Expansion Area figures C -3A
IFEavironmental Foothills Environmental Landfill Expansion Project: ER02063
Services. Inc.
Caldwell Counly. North Carolina
©aids Nov 2002
if -tic -OM 7 t r 11
Ir,1,q� ti`s

LWJ206s/ irgure2.dwg
Proposed Expansion Area Figure: C -3C
Ermironmental 'Foothills Environmental Landfill Expansion ProJevt; ER02083
Services. Inc.
Caldwell County, North Carolina
Date: Har 2002
t��Jarti 3. � �a.31t tl
Fti��r� ►� � ��
4f

APPENDIX 6: 2001 LETTER FROM THE SHPO

dw^w�
North Carolina Department of Cultural Resources
State Historic Preservation Ol`fiee
David L. S. Brook, Administrator
Michael F. Easley, Governor Invision of Archives and History
Lisbeth C. Evans, Secretary Jetfrey J. Crow, Director
June 15, 2001
Scott Seibel
Environmental Services, Inc.
524 New I lope Road
Raleigh, NC 27610
Re: Foothills MSW Landfill, Phase II, Caldwell County, ER 92-7434 and ER fill -8764
Dear Mr. Seibel_
Tbank you for your letter of February 13, 2001, forwarding a report of the revisitation to 31CW262
by Environmental Services, Inc. We apologize for tate delay in our response.
Based on additional information obtained at 31CW262, it is recommended as not eligible for
inclusion in the National Register of Historic Places. The authors recommend no further work in
connection with this project. We concur with these recommendations since the project will nor
affect significant archaeological resources.
Please send updated North Carolina State Archeological Site forms including the additional
information obtained during the rtevisitation of sites 31CW261** and 31CW2.62.
The above comments are trade pursuant to Section 106 of the National Historic Preservation Act
and the Advisory Council on Historic Preservation's Regulations for Compliance with Section 106
codified at 36 CFR Iaart €300.
Thank you for your cooperation and consideration. If you have questions concerning the above
comment, contact Renee Gledhill -Earley, Environmental Review Coordinator, at 919/733-4763.
Sincerely,
avid Brook
Deputy State Ilistoric Preservation Officer
DB:kgc
Location Mailing Address
Administration 507 N. Blount St. Raleigh. NC 4617 Mail Service Center. Raleigh 27691-4617
Restoration 515 N. Blount St, Raleigh , NC 4613 Mail Service Center, Raleigh 21699-4613
Survey & Planning 515 N. Blount St, Raleigh, NC 4618 Mail Service Center„ Raleigh 27699-4618
TelephoncfFax
(919) 7334763 -733-8653
[phone]r715-4801
(919) 7334763 •7154801

APPENDIX 7: 13 MARCH 2015 APPROVED JD FOR FOOTHILLS
LANDFILL

U.S. ARMY CORPS OF ENGINEERS
WTT,MINGTON DISTRICT
Action ID.- 24112-31111 County- Caldwell U.S.G.S. Quad: NC -Lenoir
NOTIFICATION OF JURISDICTIONAL DETERMINATION
Property Owner: Republic Services of North Carolina LLC 1 Drew Isenhour
Address: 1220 Commerce Street SW Box 1
Conover NC 28613
Telephone Number: 828-464-2414
Size (acres): +.139
Nearest Town: Lenoir
Nearest Waterway. UT's to GreasV Creek and UT's to Abingdon Creek
Coordinates. 35.91749- N -81.59929 oW
River Basin/ I-1UC: Catawba/03050101
Location description: The project is located within the.existing Foothills Relzional Landfill at 2800 Cheraw Road
Lenoir, Caldwell County. North Carolina
Indicate Which of the Following Annly:
A. Preliminary Determination
_ Based on preliminary information, there may be wetlands on the above described property. We strongly suggest you have
this property inspected to determine the extent of Department of the Army (DA) jurisdiction. To be considered final, a
jurisdictional determination must be verified by the Corps. This preliminary determination is not an appealable action
under the Regulatory Program Administrative Appeal Process (Reference 33 CFR Part 331). If you wish, you may request
an approved JD (which may be appealed), by contacting the Corps district for further instruction. Also, you may provide
new information for further consideration by the Corps to reevaluate the JD.
B. Approvers Determination
There are Navigable Waters of the United States within the above described property subject to the permit requirements of
Section 10 of the Divers and Harbors Act and Section 404 of the Clean Water Act. Unless there is a change in the law or
our published regulations, this determination may be relied upon for a period not to exceed five years from the date of this
notification.
X There are waters of the U.S. including wetlands on the above described project area subject to the permit requirements of
Section 404 of the Clean Water Act (CWA)(33 USC § 1344). Unless there is a change in the law or our published
regulations, this determination may be relied upon for a period not to exceed five years from the date of this notification.
_ We strongly suggest you have the wetlands on your property delineated. Due to the size of your property and/or our
present workload, the Corps may not be able to accomplish this wetland delineation in a timely manner. For a more timely
delineation, you may wish to obtain a consultant. To be considered final, any delineation must be verified by the Corps.
The waters of the U.S. including wetlands on your project area have been delineated and the delineation has been
verified by the Corps. We strongly suggest you have this delineation surveyed. Upon compietion, this survey should be
reviewed and verified by the Corps. Once verified, this survey will provide an accurate depiction of all areas subject to
CWA jurisdiction on your property which, provided there is no change in the law or our published regulations, may be
relied upon for a period not to exceed five years.
X The waters of the U.S. including wetlands have been delineated and surveyed and are accurately depicted on the plat
signed by the Corps Regulatory Official identified below on March 13, 2015. Unless there is a change in the law or our
published regulations, this determination may be relied upon for a period not to exceed five years from the date of this
notification.
There are no waters of the U.S., to include wetlands, present on the above described project area which are subject to the
permit requirements of Section 404 of the Clean Water Act (33 USC 1344). Unless there is a change in the law or our

published regulations, this determination may be relied upon for a period not to exceed five years from the date of this
notification.
T The property is located in one of the 20 Coastal Counties subject to regulation under the Coastal Area Management Act
(CAMA). You should contact the Division of Coastal Management to determine their requirements.
Placement of dredged or fill material within waters of the US andlor wetlands without a Department of the Army permit may
constitute a violation of Section 301 of the Clean Water Act (33 USC § 1311). ff you have any questions regarding, this
determination and/or the Carps regulatory program, please contact Tasha Alexander at 828-271-7980, ext. 226 or
tasha.l.alexander@a'�.usace.army.mil.
C. Basis for Determination:
The site contains wetlands as determined by the 1987 Corps of Engineers Wetland Delineation Manual and the Regional
Supplement to the Corps of Engineers Wetlands Delineation Manual: Eastern Mountain and Piedmont Region(version 2.0).
These wetlands are adjacent to stream channels located on the property that exhibit indicators of ordinary high water marks.
The stream channels on the property are unnamed tributaries to (UT)Greasy Creek and unnamed tributarites to Abingdon
Creek and their unnamed tributaries which flow into Lower Creek. Lower Creek flows into the Catawba / 03050101 River.
The Catawba River is located in the Santee watershed and eventually drains to the Atlantic Ocean. Specifically, the Catawba
River joins the Santee -Cooper River in South Carolina before entering the Atlantic Ocean. Is a Section 10 water at the
Mountain island Lake Dam on Lake Wylie in Mecklenburg County.
D. Remarks: A site visit was conducted on December 9,.2015 with Michelle gown and Josh Witherspoon.
E. Attention USDA Program Participants
This delineation/determination has been conducted to identify the limits of Corps' Clean Water Act jurisdiction for the
particular site identified in this request. The delineation/detennination may not be valid for the wetland conservation
provisions of the Food Security Act of 1985. If you or your tenant are USDA Program participants, or anticipate participation
in USDA programs, you should request a certified wetland determination from the local office of the Natural Resources
Conservation Service, prior to starting work.
F. Appeals Information ('This information applies only to approved jurisdictional determinations as indicated in
B. above)
This correspondence constitutes an approved jurisdictional determination For the above described site. If you object to Ellis
determination, you may request an administrative appeal under Corps regulations at 33 CFR Part 3331. Enclosed you will find a
Notification of Appeal Process (NAP) fact sheet and request for appeal (RFA) form. If you request to appeal this
determination you must submit a completed RFA form to the following address:
US Army Corps of Engineers
South Atlantic Division
Attn: Jason Steele, Review Officer
60 Forsyth Street SW, Room 101x115
Atlanta, Georgia 30303-8801
In order for an RFA to be accepted by the Corps, the Corps trust determine that it is complete, that it meets the criteria for
appeal under 33 CFR part 331.5, and that it has been received by the Division Off -ice within 60 days of the date of the NAP.
Should you decide to submit an RFA form, it must be received at the above address within 60 days of the issue date below.
**It is not necessary to su 't)an W form to 4te Division Office if you do not object to the determination in this
correspondence.**
Corps Regulatory Official:'"
Tasha Alexander
Issue Date of JI3: March 13, 2015 Expiration Date: Five years from Issue Date

The Wilmington District is committed to providing the highest level of support to the public. To help us ensure we
continue to do so, please complete our Customer Satisfaction Survey, located online at
bup://regul4tpry.usacesurvey.com/.
Copy furnished:
Stan miser
Caldwell County
905 West Ave NW
Lenoir, NC 28645
Michelle Brown
1910 Halifax Court
High Point, NC 27265

NOTIFICATION OF ADMINISTRATIVE APPEAL OPTIONS AND PROCESS AND
REQUEST FOR APPEAL
Applicant: Republic Services of North Carolina, LLC 1
Drew Isenhour
File Number: SAW -2002-31111
Date: March 13, 2015
Attached is: See Section below
❑ INITIAL PROFFERED PERMIT ('Standard Permit or Letter ofpermission)
A
PROFFERED PERMIT (Standard Permit or Letter ofpermission)
B
❑ PERMIT DENIAL
C
_
APPROVED JURISDICTIONAL DETERMINATION
D
PRELIMINARY JURISDICTIONAL DETERMINATION
E
SECTION I - The following identifies your rights and options regarding an administrative appeal of the above decision.
Additional information may be found at http://www.usace.array.miumissions/CivilWorks/Regulatory ProL-raniandPemlits.aspx or
Co s re lotions at 33 CFR Part 33I_ -
A: INITIAL PROFFERED PERMIT: You may accept or object to the permit.
• ACCEPT: If you received a Standard Permit, you may sign the permit document and return it to the district engineer for final
authorization. If you received a Letter of Permission (LOP), you may accept the LOP and your work is authorized. Your
signature on the Standard. Permit or acceptance of the LOP means that you accept the permit in its entirety, and waive all
rights to appeal the permit, including its terms and conditions, and approved jurisdictional determinations associated with the
permit.
• OBJECT: If you object to the permit (Standard or LOP) because of certain terms and conditions therein, you may request
that the permit be modified accordingly. You must complete Section It of this form and return the form to the district
engineer. Your objections must be received by the district engineer within 60 days of the date of this notice, or you will
forfeit your right to appeal the permit in the future. Upon receipt of your letter, the district engineer will evaluate your
objections and may: (a) modify the permit to address all of your concerns, (b) modify the permit to address some of your
objections, or (c) not modify the permit having determined that the permit should be issued as previously written. After
evaluating your objections, the district engineer will send you a proffered permit for your reconsideration, as indicated in
Section B below.
B: PROFFERED PERMIT: You may accept or appeal the permit
• ACCEPT: If you received a Standard Permit. you may sign the permit document and return it to the district engineer for final
authorization. If you received a Letter of Permission (LOP), you may accept the LOP and your work is authorized. Your
signature on the Standard Permit or acceptance of the LOP means that you accept the permit in its entirety, and waive all
rights to appeal the permit, including its terms and conditions, and approved jurisdictional determinations associated with the
permit.
• APPEAL: If you choose to decline the proffered permit (Standard or LOP) because of certain terms and conditions therein,
you may appeal the declined permit under the Corps of Engineers Administrative Appeal Process by completing Section II of
this form and sending the form to the division engineer. This form must be received by the division engineer within Gil days
of the date of this notice.
C: PERMIT DENIAL; You may appeal the denial of permit under the Corps of Engineers Administrative Appeal Process by
completing Section II of this form and sending the farm to the division engineer. This form must be received by the division
engineer within 60 days of the date of this notice.
D: APPROVED JURISDICTIONAL DETERMINATION: You may accept or appeal the approved JD or provide new
information.
• ACCEPT: You do not need to notify the Corps to accept an approved JD. Failure to notify the Corps within 60 days of the
date of this notice, means that you accept the approved JD in its entirety, and waive all rights to appeal the approved JD.
• APPEAL: If you disagree with the approved JD, you may appeal the approved JD under the Corps of Engineers
Administrative Appeal Process by completing Section II of this form and sending the form to the district engineer. This form
must be received by the division engineer within 60 days of the date of this notice.

E: PRELIMINARY JURISDICTIONAL DETERMINATION. You do not need to respond to the Corps regarding the
preliminary JD. The Preliminary JD is not appealable. If you wish, you may request an approved JD (which may be appealed),
by contacting the Corps district for further instruction. Also you niay provide new information for further consideration by the
Corps to reevaluate the JD,
SECTION 11- REQUEST FOR APPEAL or OBJECTIONS TO AN IN ITIAI., PROFFERED PERMIT
REASONS FOR APPEAL OR OBJECTIONS: (Describe your reasons for appealing the decision or your objections to an initial
proffered permit in clear concise statements. You may attach additional information to this form to clarify where your reasons or
objections are addressed in the administrative record.)
ADDITIONAL INFORMATION: The appeal is limited to a review of the administrative record, the Corps memorandum for the
record of the appeal conference or meeting, and any supplemental information that the review officer has determined is needed to
clarify the administrative record. Neither the appellant nor the Corps may add new information or analyses to the record.
However, you may provide additional information to clarify the location of information that is already in the administrative
record.
POINT OF CONTACT FOR QUESTIONS OR INFORMATION:
If you have questions regarding this decision and/or the If youonly have questions regarding the appeal process you may
appeal process you may contact; also contact:
District Engineer, Wilmington Regulatory Division, Mr. Jason Steele, Administrative Appeal Review Officer
Attn: Tashn Alexander CESAD-PDD
828-271-7980 U.S. Army Corps of Engineers, South Atlantic Division
60 Forsyth Street, Room IOMI 5
Atlanta, Georgia 30303-8801
Phone: (04} 562-5137
RIGHT OF ENTRY: Your signature below grants the right of entry to Corps of Engineers personnel, and any government
consultants, to conduct investigations of the project site during the course of the appeal process. You will be provided a 15 day
notice of any site investigation, and will have the opportunity to participate in all site investieations_
Date; Telephone number:
of appellant or
For appeals on Initial Proffered Permits send this form to:
District Engineer, Wilmington. Regulatory Division, Attn.: Tasha Alexander, 69 Darlington Avenue, Wilmington,
North Carolina 28403
For Permit denials, Proffered Permits and approved Jurisdictional Determinations send this form to:
Division Engineer, Commander, U.S. Army Engineer Division, South Atlantic, Attn: Mr. Jason Steele,
Administrative Appeal Officer, CESAD-PDO, 60 Forsyth Street, Room 10M15, Atlanta, Georgia 30303-8801
Phone: [phone]