20030222 Ver 2_More Info Received_20170327 (2)

3040 NC Hwy 42 West; Clayton, NC 27520
P:919-359-1102 – F:919-585-5570

March 16, 2017

Ms. Jennifer Burdette
NC DWR, 401 & Buffer Permitting Unit
1650 Mail Service Center
Raleigh, NC 27669-1650

RE: Major Buffer Variance Request
Johnston County Landfill Expansion
Smithfield, NC

Dear: Ms. Burdette,

On behalf of Johnston County, Carolina Ecosystems, Inc. and Smith Gardner Inc. have prepared
an application for a Major Variance from the Neuse River Basin Protection and Maintenance of
Riparian Areas Rule (15A NCAC 02B.0233) for the above referenced project. The County plans
to expand the existing Municipal Solid Waste (MSW) Landfill within its existing permitted
facility boundary. This expansion would involve impact to a discontinuous segment of riparian
buffer subject to the above rule. As landfills are not an allowable use under the rules, a variance
is requested. The items below are numbered to correspond to items on the attached Variance
Application Form, and additional supplemental information is attached to this letter.

A.10 – List any permits/approvals that have been requested or obtained for this project in the
past (including all prior phases).

NWP 14 – Action ID 199403772 – 0.43 acre wetland, Issued 02/27/1995
NWP 26 – Action ID 199920268 – 1.75 acres wetland, 490 feet stream, Issued 03/24/2000
NWP 33 – Action ID 200320507 – 0.22 acre wetland, Issued 03/06/2003
NC Solid Waste Permit No. 51-03, Issued 05/27/2015
NC Title V Air Quality Permit No. 08844T06, Issued 03/11/2015
NPDES General Permit (for landfills) No. 120087

B. 1a - PROJECT DESCRIPTION

The Johnston County MSW Landfill (Site) is located at 680 County Home Road, Smithfield NC,
in Johnston County (Figure 1). It lies within the NC Neuse River Basin (USGS HUC:
03020201).

The Site includes four parcels in Johnston County (Parcel IDs 15I08028, 15I09033, 15I08028C,
15I09001) and comprises 1,153 acres (1,140 based on County GIS) between Middle Creek and
NC Highway 210. The subject buffer impact related to the landfill expansion is located in Parcel
Ms. Jennifer Burdette Page 2 of 9
March 16, 2017

Page 2

ID 15I08028. In the center of the Site, the North Carolina Department of Transportation owns a
borrow site (Parcel ID 15I08028B). This 47.4 acre tract is not part of the landfill property or
solid waste permit. Existing development on the Site includes a scale house and office, a
recycling center, 1.6 Mw gas-to-electricity facility, maintenance building and parking/storage
area, the existing landfill, and the future landfill cell areas that are currently borrow area,
irrigation fields, scrub, and forest. Of the 1,153 acres, 529.4 acres are within the approved Solid
Waste Facility Boundary, and therefore available for use as a landfill (Figure 4).

The proposed project would expand the existing MSW landfill west from the existing Phase 5
cell. Work would include grading to establish base elevations (including a 4 foot separation
from ground water and bedrock) and construction of a base liner system which will include soil
and geomembrane liners (Engineering Figure 1). The cells would be expanded laterally from
Cell 5, in the following order: Cell 9, 6, 7, 8, and 10. This sequence is most practical from an
engineering and construction perspective, and preferred by the NC Division of Waste
Management (NCDWM) if other approvals are acquired, including this Variance and Clean
Water Act permits. Each cell would be filled to capacity and capped with a final cover system
including a geomembrane and vegetative soil cover as shown in Engineering Figure 1.

Waste accepted at this facility is restricted to MSW and does not include hazardous materials as
shown in Attachment 3. Significant environmental protections are already in place, including a
detailed Water Quality Monitoring Plan, which includes ground and surface water. The current
monitoring point locations are shown in Engineering Figure 2. Additional monitoring would be
provided in appropriate locations surrounding the proposed expansion cells, subject to NCDWM
approval. This plan would be implemented, as it is currently for the existing facility, and would
continue for a minimum of 30 years post-closure. The monitoring plan would include at least 15
inorganic constituents and 47 organics (see Attachment 4), which would be monitored on a semi-
annual basis. If any significant difference o ccurs from background concentrations, a step-wise
increase in protection would be initiated including increasing the number of constituents
monitored, providing an assessment of corrective measures, and if required a corrective action
plan. The landfill cap, slopes, and Best Management Practices (BMPs) would be monitored and
also maintained for at least 30 years post-closure. This would ensure proper function of the
drainage system and stormwater measures. Post-closure monitoring and maintenance is required
by North Carolina State law, and proof of financial assurance for these activities must be
provided.

Proposed Impacts

The proposed expansion would involve impacts to the upper reaches of the site’s western-most
drainage. Stream and wetland resources on the site (Figures 5 and 6) are unnamed tributaries of
Middle Creek (27-43-15-(4)), which carries a NC Division of Water Resources (NCDWR)
classification of C;NSW. In 2012, field verification by the US Army Corps of Engineers and NC
Division of Water Resources determined that the stream in question has a short segment of
perennial channel that drained to an ephemeral feature. No official documentation of that visit
was produced by the USACE, but NCDWR did provide documentation of their riparian buffer
determinations based on stream calls made during that visit (NBRRO# 12-206; July 10, 2013,
Ms. Jennifer Burdette Page 3 of 9
March 16, 2017

Page 3

Attachment 1). The perennial reach of stream is therefore under the jurisdiction of the Neuse
Buffer Rules per this determination.

The stream in question has been altered several times since the 1970s. As can be seen in Figure
7, USGS 7.5 minute topographic quadrangle maps from 1976, 1982, 1999, and 2013 show
multiple changes in the hydrology of this drainage. These maps reflect the history of the site,
although due to incremental updates by USGS, the dates are not accurate. The pond was drained
in the mid-1990’s.

The 2013 USGS map (Figure 7) contours also reflect adjacent land use changes. To the east of
this area and extending to the 250-foot contour is the MSW Phase 5 lined landfill cell. Extending
around the base of this cell are stormwater collection facilities (ditches and basins) that discharge
to several locations along the subject drainage. To the west of the proposed impact area, the
surface contours reflect prior borrow activity to support construction and daily operations of the
facility.

These activities have resulted in a stream with a unique hydrologic regime which does not
exhibit the geomorphologic, hydrologic, or biologic indicators expected of a stream in this
ecoregion and landscape position (Attachment 6). Today, the stream begins as a short perennial
segment and then transitions to an intermittent and then ephemeral channel before disappearing
entirely within the old pond bed. The intermittent reach exhibits minimal biology and
experiences extensive periods with no flow. It is our opinion that the flow regime of the upper
segment is sustained by upslope land irrigation by Johnston County. This irrigation is reclaimed
water from the County Wastewater Treatment Facility (Permit No. WQ0019632) and has been
regularly discharged on the land forming the upper watershed of the subject channel since the
mid-1990s. Downstream of the proposed impact area, north of an existing culverted road
crossing, the channel reforms as a perennial stream before a confluence with another stream
entering the Middle Creek flood plain.

D. 1 – Provide a description of how diffuse flow will be maintained through the protected
riparian buffers.

The amount of impervious area associated with this project is minimal (less than 5%). This is
below regulatory thresholds for stormwater BMPs and also below NC Department of
Environmental Quality (NCDEQ) recommended limitations for the protection of sensitive
aquatic environments. The landfill final cover system will include a vegetated cover that allows
infiltration of precipitation before it is collected and drained to a BMP. The final cover system
(see Engineering Figure 1) would provide detention and some treatment of stormwater prior to
entering the BMP. During the typical two year event, there would be minimal discharge from
the BMPs. Diffuse flow would be achieved via small level spreaders or energy dissipators.
Regular maintenance and monitoring requirements would protect water quality as described
below.

D. 2 – Provide a description of all BMPs that will be used to minimize disturbance and control
the discharge of nutrients and sediments from stormwater.
Ms. Jennifer Burdette Page 4 of 9
March 16, 2017

Page 4

BMPs including extended dry detention basins in the approximate locations shown on the
attached Engineering Drawings, along with grassed swales and other measures appropriate for
control of discharges. State solid waste regulations require more conservative design standards
than the Rule including controlling peak runoff from a 25 year-24 hour storm event. A detailed
plan will be developed during the final design of the facility and submitted to NCDWR to review
during the 404/401 permitting process. Due to the extensive solid waste regulatory buffers
required from property lines and other features, there is more than sufficient room to implement
adequately sized BMPs in the proposed locations.

E.1 - Explain how complying with the provisions of the applicable rule would prevent you
from securing a reasonable return from or make reasonable use of your property. Merely
proving that the variance would permit a greater profit from the property shall not be
considered adequate justification for a variance. The Division will consider whether the
variance is the minimum possible deviation from the terms of the applicable Buffer Rule that
shall make reasonable use of the property possible.

Compliance with the rule would impact solid waste services in the County and surrounding area
in the future. The County purchased this property in order to provide this service to the public
for the foreseeable future, and has operated on this site since the early 1970s. Prohibiting the
proposed landfill expansion in this area alters the use of this property as it was intended more
than 40 years ago, and results in hardships to Johnston County through significant reduction in
solid waste disposal capacity which could result in higher costs being passed along to the public,
and possible negative impacts on future growth in the County.

Due to the rapid growth in Johnston County and surrounding areas, there is a continuous demand
for both municipal and construction/demolition waste disposal. As can be seen in Figure 8, there
are a limited number of MSW facilities in the area. Within Johnston, Wake, Franklin, Nash,
Wilson, Wayne, Sampson, and Harnett counties, only three other active MSW landfills exist.
Therefore there is a significant need for MSW disposal capacity in the area.

Compliance with the Rule would reduce landfill capacity by approximately 67% as landfill
expansion would be limited to Option 1, described below. The Johnston County Landfill
property was purchased in 1991 with the intent to provide a long-term solid waste disposal
solution for the County residents and adjacent areas. There are 7 streams (33,527 linear feet)
subject to the Rule on the property, and 5 subject streams (20,029 linear feet) within the
permitted facility boundary. The proposed project would impact only 328 linear feet of stream
subject to the Rule, while preserving 16,744 linear feet. This is an impact to less than 2% of the
subject streams on the property. The remaining streams on the site would not be impacted,
except for two minor “Allowable” road crossings to access borrow areas on the eastern side of
the Site, and are contiguous stream channels with higher function and flow than the stream
within the proposed impact area.

No other practical on-site expansion alternatives exist within the permitted facility boundary.
The County has maximized use of the upland areas within the site and facility boundary and any
Ms. Jennifer Burdette Page 5 of 9
March 16, 2017

Page 5

additional landfill area besides the proposed project would involve either increased stream and
wetland impacts, or an expansion of the facility boundary to allow landfill in the eastern section
of the property. The expansion of the facility boundary, or location of a new landfill site, would
involve significant effort including public review and subject to extremely tight regulatory
restrictions. This process has been proven to be very difficult to successfully negotiate, as
evidenced by the fact that only one new MSW landfill has been permitted in the State in the last
10 years.

Alternative site designs within the existing facility boundary were evaluated that encompassed
complete avoidance of all resources as well as minimization alternatives. Each of these is
presented in Table 1, along with the attached engineering exhibits, and evaluated below.
Intermediate alternatives between these options were considered, but not included as they did not
provide significant or practical differences from the options below.

TABLE 1: Johnston County Landfill Expansion Alternatives
Alternative
(see attached plans)
Waste
Area
(ac)
Capacity
(mcy)
Impacts
Wetland
(ac)
Stream*
(lf)
Buffers (sq.ft.)*
Zone 1 / Zone 2
Option 1 -No Impact 66.1 5.0 0 ac 0 0 / 0
Option 2 – Proposed
Project
106.1 14.8 2.1 1,516 22,046 / 17,654
Option 3 – Full Build Out 118.0 18.2 2.1 2,314 71,829 / 52391
ac = acres; mcy= million cubic yards; lf = linear feet; sq. ft. = square feet
*Include permanent and temporary impacts as depicted in attached figures

Option 1 - No Impact (Engineering Figure 3)

The avoidance of all jurisdictional features (buffers, streams, and wetlands) was
evaluated but deemed not practical as it results in a much smaller landfill footprint that
would yield approximately 5 MCY of capacity, which is a 67% loss compared to the
proposed project (Option 2). The hydrology of the subject stream would likely be
affected in the long term due the reduction of area draining to the channel, including
diversion of upslope drainage, discharge of stormwater from the landfill downstream of
the subject buffers, and cessation of spray irrigation that may be sustaining the current
flow regime. While this option would be permitted under current rules, and the County
could choose to re-evaluate the stream channel status at a later date after building this
option, they are choosing to propose Option 2 instead and provide reasonable mitigation
to offset impacts for constructability reasons detailed below.

Option 2 – Proposed Project (Engineering Figure 4)

The proposed project provides a constructible lateral expansion of the existing lined
landfill, impacting the subject stream channel described above while avoiding the lower
reach below the old pond bed that is directly connected to the flood plain of Middle
Ms. Jennifer Burdette Page 6 of 9
March 16, 2017

Page 6

Creek (see Engineering Figure 4). As mentioned above, avoidance of the channel
would likely result in a reduction of jurisdictional channel within the proposed impact
area of this option. Rather than construct Option 1, the County proposes to laterally
expand through the subject drainage so that construction is more practical and easier to
accomplish than returning to “fill in” the drainage at a later date. Due to the uncertainty
of the exact location where the stream characteristics would be retained, and the difficulty
of constructing and maintaining landfill cells around the stream, it was determined to be
more practical to accept the proposed impact and provide compensatory mitigation to
offset this loss.

This option provides 14.8 MCY of capacity and a waste disposal lifespan of
approximately 60 years assuming an average airspace utilization factor of 0.7 tons per
cubic yard and an average disposal rate of 175,000 tons per year. This 3-fold increase in
capacity over Option 1 would provide the County with a reliable waste disposal
alternative for the foreseeable future to support continued growth in the County. The
phased construction approach would be the most practical and preferred expansion
pattern according to the NC Division of Waste Management, assuming permits are
acquired for stream, wetland, and buffer impacts.

The proposed Option 2 would avoid impacts to the stream segment that is contiguous
with Middle Creek below the old pond. Stormwater routing for this option can be
designed to discharge base flow to the remaining channel below the road crossing,
therefore ensuring future hydrology of the stream is not removed.

Option 3 – Full Development (Engineering Figure 5)

Another expansion option (see Engineering Figure 5) was considered that included
some impact downstream of the old pond bed, and a segment of the stream channel
directly connected to the Middle Creek flood plain. This option results in a landfill
capacity of 18.2 MCY and represents a 22% increase in capacity as compared to the
proposed project. However, this option would result in increased impacts to a buffered
stream channel that is directly connected to the Middle Creek flood plain, and also
require relocation of existing site infrastructure including a leachate gravity line. For
these reasons, it was deemed impractical due to the limited increase in capacity/lifespan
to offset these issues.

The proposed project (Option 2) was chosen as the most practical expansion alternative for the
landfill that minimized impacts to jurisdictional resources and improves long-range planning for
the County, while also addressing potential future changes in hydrologic patterns on the site.
The change between pre and post-construction drainage of Option 1 would likely result in
significant loss of drainage contributing to the subject stream’s upper reaches. This would have
a long term effect on the hydrology of the subject stream to such an extent that it might no longer
be jurisdictional in the future. Similar situations on other solid waste sites have shown this to be
a valid concern, due to the reconfiguration of on-site drainage associated with these facilities.
Ms. Jennifer Burdette Page 7 of 9
March 16, 2017

Page 7

This, in addition to the large loss of landfill capacity, resulted in Option 2 being chosen as the
Proposed Project.

E.2 - Explain how the hardship results from application of the Buffer Rule to the property
rather from other factors such as deed restrictions or other hardships (e.g. zoning setbacks,
floodplains, etc).

There are no other restrictions on the proposed MSW landfill that would restrict its expansion,
beside the Buffer Rule and Clean Water Act (CWA) permitting. The proposed expansion is
included in the approved facility plan for the site, and Johnston County would only need to
modify its NCDEQ Solid Waste Permit (Permit No. 51-03). The CWA Individual Permit will be
submitted after this variance application, and coordination with the USACE and NCDWR is in
progress. All required solid waste buffers have been applied to the site, and do not result in the
hardship being addressed in this application. The flood plain of Middle Creek has been avoided
(Figure 5).

E.3 - Explain how the hardship results from physical nature of the property, such as its size,
shape, or topography, which is different from that of neighboring property.

The physical nature of this site is the key constraint limiting landfill expansion alternatives and
preventing reasonable use of the property. Expansion in other directions besides west of the
existing lined landfill is not practical for the following reasons:
- North is Middle Creek and its extensive flood plain with bottomland hardwood wetlands.
- East are larger wetland drainages with contiguous and fully functional stream channels,
as well as the NCDOT parcel that divides the County property. Much of this area is also
outside the current permitted facility boundary.
- South is constrained by site infrastructure including gas to energy plant, office, scale
house, maintenance facility, and public convenience center.
The drainage area of the subject stream is almost entirely contained on the Johnston County
Landfill property (Figure 9). Landfill configurations that avoid the stream and buffer, described
above, drastically alter the drainage on site and would likely reduce or eliminate flow in the
upper reach of stream over the long term, possibly eliminating its jurisdiction under the CWA
and Rule.

The site is unique in the fact that it is an existing MSW landfill with an approved facility
boundary and solid waste permit. This provides for additional landfill capacity due to the ability
to build off the existing landfill cell (Phase 5), and also does not require a difficult and costly
siting and permitting of a new landfill site. This process is extremely difficult to successfully
negotiate, as shown by the fact that only one new MSW site has been permitted in the last 10
years in NC. Attachment 5 provides the siting requirements for a new facility.

Ms. Jennifer Burdette Page 8 of 9
March 16, 2017

Page 8

Finally, as discussed above, the hydrology of the subject stream buffer along the perennial
segment is possibly sustained by the irrigation input to the watershed. This irrigation will be
ceased upon construction of the other landfill cells in all options and therefore could change
hydrology and remove jurisdiction on this segment of stream channel.

E.4 - Explain whether the hardship was caused by the applicant knowingly or unknowingly
violating the applicable Buffer Rule.

The Site is currently in compliance with the Rule. The County purchased the property and began
developing it as a solid waste site in the 1970’s, well before the Buffer Rule was implemented.
All prior landfill construction, borrow activities, and other site infrastructure have avoided
riparian buffers on the site, with the exception of a road crossing east of the current cell 4A,
which was classified as an allowable activity to access borrow areas to the east. The subject
stream was shown as part of the proposed landfill footprint and is included in the approved
facility plan for the site.

E.5 - For Neuse, Tar-Pamlico, Jordan Lake and Goose Creek only: Did the applicant
purchase the property after the effective date of the applicable Buffer Rule and then request a
variance?

No. The County purchased the portion of the property containing the subject stream in 1991, 6
years prior to the effective date of the Buffer Rule (July 22, 1997).

E.6 - Explain how the hardship is rare or unique to the applicant’s property, rather than the
result of conditions that are widespread.

The property contains an existing MSW landfill, which is in itself relatively rare. As seen in
Figure 8, only 3 active MSW disposal sites are currently present within the adjacent counties.

Due to the need for stable side slopes and the three dimensional aspect of landfills, avoidance of
the stream and buffer is magnified to a much greater extent than avoidance for a typical “two
dimensional” projects, which can develop up to the edge of the buffer without being impeded
through the use of retaining walls and other engineering features. This is not practical for a solid
waste landfill.

The continued use of the County facility would provide a unique function in the area, including
reuse, recycling, and disposal of waste streams from residential, commercial, and industrial uses.
The comprehensive waste management system is more efficient co-located on one site, so waste
streams can be separated and materials reused. Additionally, electricity is generated at the site
using methane created from the decomposition of the disposed solid waste.

The information above and attached Variance Application Form are provided for your review of
this Major Variance Request. In addition, we have included Figures, Engineering Drawings, and
Attachments to supplement the information referenced in the application. We respectfully
Ms. Jennifer Burdette Page 9 of 9
March 16, 2017

Page 9

request your review of this information with the intention of receiving an Environmental
Management Commission Review in May 2017. Please let us know if you have any questions or
require additional information.

Sincerely,
Carolina Ecosystems, Inc.

Philip May
Senior Environmental Scientist

Cc: Rick Proctor, Johnston County
Pieter Scheer, P.E., Smith Gardner Inc.
CAROLINA 3040 NC Hwy 42 West; Clayton, NC 27520
ECOSYSTEMS, INC. P:919-359-1102 — F:919-585-5570
PROPERTY ACCESS AND AGENT AUTHORIZATION FORM
Property Information
Property Address
and/or Description
Parcel Identification
Number(s) (PIN)
City: Smithfield
Johnston County Landfill, 680 County Home Rd., Smithfield, NC 27577
166400-93-4679, 167400-42-1564, 167300-09-6934, 166400-80-4571
State: NC County: Johnston Property Size (Acres): 1,140.06
Property Owner Information
Owner: ❑ Authorized Agent*: ❑
Name: Rick J. Hester
Title: County Manager
Street Address: 207 E. Johnston Street
City: Smithfield
State: NC
*Written proof of authorization from owner required.
Authorization
Zip Code: 27577
I, the undersigned, a duly authorized owner of record of the property/properties identified herein, do authorize
representatives of the Wilmington District, U.S. Army Corps of Engineers (Corps) to enter upon the property herein
described for the purpose of conducting on-site investigations and issuing a determination associated with Waters of the
U.S. subject to Federal jurisdiction under Section 404 of the Clean Water Act and/or Section 10 of the Rivers and Harbors
Act of 1899.
Additionally, I hereby grant Smith Gardner, Inc. (S+G) and Carolina Ecosystems, Inc. (CEI) staff, their designated
contractors and representatives, as well as other Federal, State or local authorities access to the above referenced property
when necessary for the purposes of conducting on-site environmental consulting services. I also grant S+G and CEI the
authority to act as authorized agent on behalf of the owner of the above listed property for the communication,
submission, and/or application to relevant government entities, including local, state, and federal authorities, for the
review, acceptance, concurrence, and/or approval of environmental information, documents, and/or permit requests
concerning the above listed property. These services may include regulatory determinations of environmental features on
my property such as issuing a determination associated with streams and wetlands. I certify that I am the legal owner or
authorized agent of the legal owner of the above property and have authority to grant such access. I have made CEI aware
of, and supplied all available records related to, previous environmental investigations on the subject property of which I
have knowledge.
Owner/Agent (signature) 1 Date / / -3 — / 7

State of North Carolina
Department of Environment and Natural Resources
Division of Water Resources

15A NCAC 02B .0233 (8)(b), .0243 (8)(b), .0250 (11)(b), .0259 (8)(b), .0267 (11)(c), .0607 (e)(2)
Protection and Maintenance of Riparian Areas Rules - Variance Application
FORM: VAR 10-2013

FORM: VAR 10-2013

PLEASE IDENTIFY WHICH RIPARIAN AREA PROTECTION RULE APPLIES:

 Neuse River Basin (15A NCAC 02B.0233)
X Major Variance □ Minor Variance

 Catawba River Basin (15A NCAC 02B.0243)

 Randleman Lake Water Supply Watershed (15A NCAC 02B.0250)
□ Major Variance □ Minor Variance

 Tar-Pamlico River Basin (15A NCAC 02B.0259)
□ Major Variance □ Minor Variance

 Jordan Lake Water Supply Nutrient Strategy (15A NCAC 02B.0267)
□ Major Variance □ Minor Variance

 Goose Creek Watershed (15A NCAC 02B.0606 & 15A NCAC 02B.0607)

A. General Information

1. Applicant’s Information(if other than the current property owner):

Name:

Title:

Street Address:

City, State & Zip:

Telephone:

Email:

2. Property Owner/Signing Official (person legally responsible for the property and its compliance ):

Name: County of Johnston – Rick Hester

Title: County Manager

Street Address: PO Box 1049

City, State & Zip: Smithfield, NC 27577

Telephone: [phone]

Email: [e-mail]

FORM: VAR 10-2013 Page 2 of 5

3. Agent Information:

3a. Name: Phil May

Company Affiliation: Carolina Ecosystems, Inc.

Street Address: 3040 NC 42 West

City, State & Zip: Clayton, NC 27520

Telephone: (919) 606 - 1065

E-mail: [e-mail]

3b. Attach a signed and dated copy of the Agent Authorization letter if the Agent has signatory authority for the owner.

4. Project Name (Subdivision, facility, or establishment name):

Johnston County Landfill

5. Project Location:

5a. Street Address: 680 County Home Rd

City, State & Zip: Smithfield, NC 27577

5b. County: Johnston County

5c. Site Coordinates (in decimal degrees): 35.5133 Latitude -78.4244 Longitude

5d. Attach an 8 ½ x 11 excerpt from the most recent version of the USGS topographic map indicating the location of the site.

5e. Attach an 8 ½ x 11 excerpt from the most recent version of the published County NRCS Soil Survey Map depicting the
project site.

6. Property Information:

6a. Property identification number (parcel ID): 15I08028

6b. Date property was purchased: 6c. July 22 1991/6d. Nov 1, 1991

6c. Deed book 1215 and page number 747

6d. Map book 1228 and page number 652

6e. Attach a copy of the recorded map that indicates when the lot was last platted.

7. Is your project in one of the 20 Coastal Counties covered under the Coastal Area Management Act (CAMA)?
□ YES X NO

7a. If you answered yes above, in which AEC do you fall (30 ft or 75 ft)? N/A

7b. If you answered yes above, what is the total percent of impervious cover that you have proposed within the AEC? N/A

FORM: VAR 10-2013 Page 3 of 5

8. Directions to site from nearest major intersection:

Take Exit 319 from I-40. Turn onto NC-210 E. Go 8 miles and turn left onto County Home Rd. Go 0.5 mile to reach the landfill.

9. Stream associated with riparian buffer to be impacted by the proposed activity:

Name Water Quality Classification

UT to Middle Creek

C;NSW

9a. For Goose Creek only: Is the buffer in the 100-year floodplain? □ YES □ NO

10. List any permits/approvals that have been requested or obtained for this project in the past (including all prior phases).

Date Applied: Date Received: Permit Type:

See attached list

B. Proposed Activity

1. Project Description
1a. Provide a detailed description of the proposed activity including its purpose:

**See attached Variance application cover letter

1b. Attach a site plan showing the following items as applicable to the project:
 Development/Project name
 Revision number & date
 North arrow
 Scale (1” = 50’ is preferred)
 Property/project boundary with dimensions
 Adjacent streets and roads labeled with names and/or NC State Road numbers
 Original contours and proposed contours
 Perennial and intermittent streams, ponds, lakes, rivers and estuaries
 Mean high water line (if applicable)
 Wetlands delineated, or a note on plans that none exist
 Location of forest vegetation along the streams, ponds, lakes, rivers and estuaries
 Extent of riparian buffers on the land including Zone 1 and Zone where applicable

FORM: VAR 10-2013 Page 4 of 5
 Location and dimension of the proposed buffer impact (label the area of buffer impact in ft2 on the plan)
 Details of roads, parking areas, cul-de-sacs, sidewalks, and curb and gutter systems
 Footprint of any proposed buildings or other structures
 Discharge points of gutters on existing structures and proposed buildings
 Existing drainage (including off-site), drainage easements, and pipe dimensions
 Drainage areas delineated

C. Proposed Impacts and Mitigation

1. Individually list the square footage of each proposed impact to the protected riparian buffers :

Buffer Impact
Number1 –
Permanent (P) or
Temporary (T)

Reason for Impact

Buffer
Mitigation
Required

Zone 1 Impact
(square feet)

Zone 2 Impact
(square feet)
B1 - P T Landfill expansion X Yes □ No 22,046 17,654
B2 - P T □ Yes □ No
B3 - P T □ Yes □ No
Total Buffer Impacts 39,700
1Label on site plan

2. Identify the square feet of impact to each zone of the riparian buffer that requires mitigation from the table above. Calculate
the amount of mitigation required.

Zone

Total Impact
(square feet)

Multiplier
Required
Mitigation
(square feet)
Zone 11 18,129 3
(2 for Catawba only)
54,387
Zone 2 14,380 1.5 21570
Total Buffer Mitigation Required: 75,957
1For projects in the Goose Creek Watershed, list all riparian buffer impacts as Zone 1
and use Zone 1 multiplier.

3. Provide a description of how mitigation will be achieved at your site pursuant to the mitigation requirements of the applicable
river basin/watershed.
Buffer mitigation will be provided by the NC Division of Mitigation Services

3a. Is buffer restoration or enhancement proposed? □ Yes X No

If yes, attach a detailed planting plan to include plant type, date of plantings, the date of the one-time fertilization in the
protected riparian buffers, and a plan sheet showing the proposed location of the plantings.

3b. Is payment into a buffer restoration fund proposed? X Yes □ No

If yes, attach an acceptance letter from the mitigation bank you propose to use or the NC Ecosystem Enhancement
Program stating they have the mitigation credits available for the mitigation requested.

FORM: VAR 10-2013 Page 5 of 5

D. Stormwater

1. Provide a description of how diffuse flow will be maintained through the protected riparian buffers (e.g., re-planting vegetation
or enhancement of existing vegetation, gutter splash pads, level spreader to control of runoff from impervious surfaces, etc.).

**See attached Variance cover letter

1a. Show the location of diffuse flow measure(s) on your site plan.

1b. Attach a completed Level Spreader Supplement Form or BMP Supplement Form with all required items for each proposed
measure.

1c. Attach an Operation and Maintenance (O&M) Form for each proposed level spreader or BMP.

2. For Major, Catawba, and Goose Creek variance requests, provide a description of all best management practices (BMPs) that
will be used to minimize disturbance and control the discharge of nutrients and sediments from stormwater.

**See attached Variance cover letter

2a. Show the location of BMPs on your site plan.

2b. Attach a Supplement Form for each structural BMP proposed.

2c. Attach an Operation and Maintenance (O&M) Form for each structural BMP proposed.

E. Demonstration of Need for a Variance

The variance provision of the riparian buffer rules allows the Division or the Environmental Management Commission to grant a
variance when there are practical difficulties or unnecessary hardships that prevent compliance with the strict letter of riparian
buffer protection.

1. Explain how complying with the provisions of the applicable rule would prevent you from securing a reasonable return from or
make reasonable use of your property. Merely proving that the variance would permit a greater profit from the property shall
not be considered adequate justification for a variance. The Division will consider whether the variance is the minimum possible
deviation from the terms of the applicable Buffer Rule that shall make reasonable use of the property possible.
**See attached Variance cover letter

the hardship results from application of the Buffer Rule to the property rather from other factors such as deed
ions or other hardships (e.g. zoning setbacks, floodplains, etc).
3. Explain how the hardship results from physical nature of the property, such as its size, shape, or topography, which is different
from that of neighboring property.
**See attached Variance cover letter
4. Explain whether the hardship was caused by the applicant knowingly or unknowingly violating the applicable Buffer Rule.
**See attached Variance cover letter
5. For Neuse, Tar -Pamlico, Jordan Lake and Goose Creek only: Did the applicant purchase the property after the effective date of
the applicable Buffer Rule and then request a variance?
6. Explain how the hardship is rare or unique to the applicant's property, rather than the result of conditions that are widespread.
See attached Variance cover letter
F. Deed Restrictions
By your signature in Section G of this application, you cF-rtify that all structural stormwater BMPs required by this variance shall
be located in recorded drainage easements, that the easements will run with the land, that the easements cannot be changed
or deleted without concurrence from the State, and that "lie easements will be recorded prior to the sale of any lot.
G. Applicant's Certification
A-ee�
1' � G � ���" (print or type name of person listed in Section A, Item 2), certify that
the information included on this permit application form is correct, that the project will be constructed in conformance with the
approved plans and that the deed restrictions in accordance with Section F of this form will be recorded with all required permit
conditions.
Signature:
Date:
FORM: VAR 10-2013 Page 6 of 6

Smithfield
N e u s e R i v e r
Black Creek
M i d d l e C r e e k
Neuse
R
i
v
e
r
S w i f t C r e e k
B l a c k C reek
SassarixaSwamp
ArtersBranch
P
o
p
l
a
r
C
r
e
ek
SteepHill Branch
B u f f a l o Creek
G u m Swamp G u m S w a m p
Black Cre e k
§¨¦95
¬«210
£¤70
£¤301
Figure 1: Project Vicinity
March 2017
Johnston County LandfillPhases 6-10Johnston County, NC³0 0.5 1Miles Property Boundary
USGS Named Streams
Project Location:Johnston County, NC
Lat 35.5119° / Long -78.4235 °
Powhatan (2013) USGS 1:24,000 Quadrangle Map³Property Boundary
Property Not Studied
NCDOT Borrow Pit
Map Date:
Revised:
Revised:
Revised:
March 2017
0 1,000 2,000Feet
Figure 2: USGS Map
Johnston C ounty LandfillPhases 6-10Johnston C ounty, NC
Johnston County NRCS Soil Survey Map 6³Property Boundary
Property Not Studied
NCDOT Borrow Pit
Map Date:
Revised:
Revised:
Revised:
March 2017
0 1,000 2,000Feet Figure 3: NRCS Map
Johnston C ounty LandfillPhases 6-10Johnston C ounty, NC
Middle Cree k
NC OneMap, NC Center for Geographic Information and Analysis, NC 911 Board
Figure 4: Site Overview
0 500 1,000Feet³Johnston County LandfillPhases 6-10Johnston County, NC
Map Date:
Revised:
Revised:
Revised: 2013 NC Statewide Aerial Photography
March 2017
MSWPhase 5
MSWPhase 3 - 4
FutureBorrowArea
Current BorrowArea
NCDOTParcel
MSWPhase 1 - 2
C&D
** SEE ENGINEERING DRAWING FIG. 2 FOR DETAILS ON SITE INFRASTRUCTURE
Irrigation Field
YardWaste Processing
Irrigation Field
MiddleCreek
N C 210
C o u n t y
H o m e
R d
N C 2 1 0
Property Boundary
Deed Breakouts
Facility Boundary
Streams
NCDOT Parcel
Property Not Studied
Middle Creek
MiddleCreek
NC210
NC OneMap, NC Center for Geographic Information and Analysis, NC 911 Board
Figure 5: Jurisdictional Areas
0 500 1,000Feet³Johnston County LandfillPhases 6-10Johnston County, NC
Map Date:
Revised:
Revised:
Revised: 2013 NC Statewide Aerial Photography
March 2017Property Boundary
Facility Boundary
Deed Breakouts
NCDOT Parcel
Property Not Studied
Wetlands
FEMA 100 Year Floodplain
Zone 1 (30' Buffer)
Zone 2 (20' Buffer)
Intermittent
Perennial
Jurisdictional Areas Totals
UT's of Middle Creek:17,516 ftZone 2 Buffers:23.4 acres
Wetlands:163.8 acresFEMA Floodplain:167 acresZone 1 Buffers:34.2 acres
Flag W9
SC1
Pipe Outlet
SC1B
Pipe Outlet
SK
WN
WAN
WQ
WP
WO
WAM
NC OneMap, NC Center for Geographic Information and Analysis, NC 911 Board
Johnston County LandfillPhases 6-10Johnston County, NC0100200Feet
³Figure 6: Proposed Impact Area
2013 NC Statewide Aerial Photography
Map Date:
Revised:
Revised:
Revised:
March 2017Zone 1 (30' Buffer)
Zone 2 (20' Buffer)
Intermittent
Perennial
Wetlands
0 500 1,000Feet³Figure 7 : USGS HistoryPowhatan (1976, 1982, 1999, 2013) USGS 1:24,000 Quagrangle Map
1982
1999
1976
2013
Johnston County LandfillPhases 6-10Johnston County, NC
Map Date:
Revised:
Revised:
Revised:
March 2017
^_
!(
!(
!(
Sources: Esri, HERE, DeLorme, USGS, Intermap, increment P Corp.,NRCAN, Esri Japan, METI, Esri China (Hong Kong), Esri (Thailand),MapmyIndia, © OpenStreetMap contributors, and the GIS User Community
March 2017
Figure 8: Active Permitted MSW Landfills
Johnston County LandfillPhases 6-10Johnston Cou nty, NC³0 10Miles
^_Johnston County Landfill
!(Surrounding MSW Landfills
G:
\
C
A
D
\
J
o
h
n
s
t
o
n
\
J
o
h
n

1
5
-
5
\
s
h
e
e
t
s
\
J
O
H
N
-
B
0
7
2
9
.
d
w
g
-

3/
1
6
/
2
0
1
7

1
1
:
5
2

A
M
DR
A
W
N
:
AP
P
R
O
V
E
D
:
PR
O
J
E
C
T

N
O
:
SC
A
L
E
:
FI
L
E
N
A
M
E
:
DA
T
E
:
FI
G
U
R
E

N
O
.
PR
E
P
A
R
E
D

B
Y
:
DR
A
W
I
N
G

T
I
T
L
E
:
SM
I
T
H
14

N
.

B
o
y
l
a
n

A
v
e
n
u
e
,

R
a
l
e
i
g
h

N
C

2
7
6
0
3
NC

L
I
C
.

N
O
.

F
-
1
3
7
0

(
E
N
G
I
N
E
E
R
I
N
G
)
91
9
.
8
2
8
.
0
5
7
7
GA
R
D
N
E
R
+
© 2017 Smith Gardner, Inc.
JO
H
N
S
T
O
N

C
O
U
N
T
Y

L
A
N
D
F
I
L
L
PH
A
S
E
S

6
-
1
0
DE
T
A
I
L
S
C.
T
.
J
.
P.
K
.
S
.
NO
T

T
O

S
C
A
L
E
1
Ma
r

2
0
1
7
JO
H
N

1
5
-
5
JO
H
N
-
B
0
7
2
9
PRELIMINARY
NOT FOR CONSTRUCTION
6
4
3
2
1
8
5
5
1
0
7
9
P
R
O
J
E
C
T

T
I
T
L
E
:
D
R
A
W
I
N
G

T
I
T
L
E
:
R
E
V
.
D
A
T
E
D
E
S
C
R
I
P
T
I
O
N
D
E
S
I
G
N
E
D
:
D
R
A
W
N
:
A
P
P
R
O
V
E
D
:
P
R
O
J
E
C
T

N
O
:
S
C
A
L
E
:
F
I
L
E
N
A
M
E
:
P
R
E
P
A
R
E
D

B
Y
:
P
R
E
P
A
R
E
D

F
O
R
:
S
H
E
E
T

N
U
M
B
E
R
:
D
R
A
W
I
N
G

N
U
M
B
E
R
:
D
A
T
E
:
G:\CAD\Johnston\John 15-5\sheets\JOHN-D0728.dwg - 3/16/2017 12:07 PM
S
E
A
L
S
E
A
L
S
M
I
T
H
G
A
R
D
N
E
R
E
N
G
I
N
E
E
R
S
+
1
4

N
.

B
o
y
l
a
n

A
v
e
n
u
e
,

R
a
l
e
i
g
h

N
C

2
7
6
0
3
N
C

L
I
C
.

N
O
.

F
-
1
3
7
0

(
E
N
G
I
N
E
E
R
I
N
G
)
9
1
9
.
8
2
8
.
0
5
7
7
E
l
e
c
t
r
o
n
i
c

f
i
l
e
s

a
r
e

i
n
s
t
r
u
m
e
n
t
s

o
f

s
e
r
v
i
c
e

p
r
o
v
i
d
e
d

b
y

S
m
i
t
h
G
a
r
d
n
e
r
,

I
n
c
.

f
o
r

t
h
e

c
o
n
v
e
n
i
e
n
c
e

o
f

t
h
e

i
n
t
e
n
d
e
d

r
e
c
i
p
i
e
n
t
(
s
)
,

a
n
d
n
o

w
a
r
r
a
n
t
y

i
s

e
i
t
h
e
r

e
x
p
r
e
s
s
e
d

o
r

i
m
p
l
i
e
d
.

A
n
y

r
e
u
s
e

o
r
r
e
d
i
s
t
r
i
b
u
t
i
o
n

o
f

t
h
i
s

d
o
c
u
m
e
n
t

i
n

w
h
o
l
e

o
r

p
a
r
t

w
i
t
h
o
u
t

t
h
e
w
r
i
t
t
e
n

a
u
t
h
o
r
i
z
a
t
i
o
n

o
f

S
m
i
t
h

G
a
r
d
n
e
r
,

I
n
c
.
,

w
i
l
l

b
e

a
t

t
h
e

s
o
l
e
r
i
s
k

o
f

t
h
e

r
e
c
i
p
i
e
n
t
.

I
f

t
h
e
r
e

i
s

a

d
i
s
c
r
e
p
a
n
c
y

b
e
t
w
e
e
n

t
h
e
e
l
e
c
t
r
o
n
i
c

f
i
l
e
s

a
n
d

t
h
e

s
i
g
n
e
d

a
n
d

s
e
a
l
e
d

h
a
r
d

c
o
p
i
e
s
,

t
h
e

h
a
r
d
c
o
p
i
e
s

s
h
a
l
l

g
o
v
e
r
n
.

U
s
e

o
f

a
n
y

e
l
e
c
t
r
o
n
i
c

f
i
l
e
s

g
e
n
e
r
a
t
e
d

o
r
p
r
o
v
i
d
e
d

b
y

S
m
i
t
h

G
a
r
d
n
e
r
,

I
n
c
.
,

c
o
n
s
t
i
t
u
t
e
s

a
n

a
c
c
e
p
t
a
n
c
e

o
f
t
h
e
s
e

t
e
r
m
s

a
n
d

c
o
n
d
i
t
i
o
n
s
.
© 2017 Smith Gardner, Inc.
J
O
H
N
S
T
O
N

C
O
U
N
T
Y
N
O
R
T
H

C
A
R
O
L
I
N
A
D
E
P
A
R
T
M
E
N
T

O
F
S
O
L
I
D

W
A
S
T
E

S
E
R
V
I
C
E
S
J
O
H
N
S
T
O
N

C
O
U
N
T
Y
L
A
N
D
F
I
L
L
P
H
A
S
E
S

6
-
1
0
E
X
I
S
T
I
N
G

C
O
N
D
I
T
I
O
N
S
P
.
K
.
S
.
C
.
T
.
J
.
J
O
H
N

1
5
-
5
A
S

S
H
O
W
N
M
A
R
.

2
0
1
7
J
O
H
N
-
D
0
7
2
8
F
I
G
.
2
P
R
E
L
I
M
I
N
A
R
Y
N
O
T

F
O
R

C
O
N
S
T
R
U
C
T
I
O
N
PROJECT TITLE:
DRAWING TITLE:
REV.DATE DESCRIPTION
DESIGNED:
DRAWN:
APPROVED:
PROJECT NO:
SCALE:
FILENAME:
PREPARED BY:
PREPARED FOR:
SHEET NUMBER:DRAWING NUMBER:
DATE:
G:
\
C
A
D
\
J
o
h
n
s
t
o
n
\
J
o
h
n

1
5
-
5
\
s
h
e
e
t
s
\
J
O
H
N
-
D
0
7
2
7
.
d
w
g
-

3/
1
7
/
2
0
1
7

1
0
:
3
2

A
M
SEAL
SEAL
SMITH
GARDNER
ENGINEERS
+
14 N. Boylan Avenue, Raleigh NC 27603
NC LIC. NO. F-1370 (ENGINEERING)
919.828.0577
Electronic files are instruments of service provided by Smith
Gardner, Inc. for the convenience of the intended recipient(s), and
no warranty is either expressed or implied.  Any reuse or
redistribution of this document in whole or part without the
written authorization of Smith Gardner, Inc., will be at the sole
risk of the recipient.  If there is a discrepancy between the
electronic files and the signed and sealed hard copies, the hard
copies shall govern.  Use of  any electronic files generated or
provided by Smith Gardner, Inc., constitutes an acceptance of
these terms and conditions.
© 2017 Smith Gardner, Inc.
JOHNSTON COUNTY,
NORTH CAROLINA
DEPARTMENT OF
SOLID WASTE SERVICES
JOHNSTON COUNTY
LANDFILL
PHASES 6-10
OPTION 1
NO IMPACT
P.K.S.
C.T.J.
JOHN 15-5
AS SHOWN
Mar 2017
JOHN-D0727
FIG.3
PRELIMINARY
NOT FOR CONSTRUCTION
PROJECT TITLE:
DRAWING TITLE:
REV.DATE DESCRIPTION
DESIGNED:
DRAWN:
APPROVED:
PROJECT NO:
SCALE:
FILENAME:
PREPARED BY:
PREPARED FOR:
SHEET NUMBER:DRAWING NUMBER:
DATE:
G:
\
C
A
D
\
J
o
h
n
s
t
o
n
\
J
o
h
n

1
5
-
5
\
s
h
e
e
t
s
\
J
O
H
N
-
D
0
7
2
7
.
d
w
g
-

3/
1
7
/
2
0
1
7

1
0
:
3
2

A
M
SEAL
SEAL
SMITH
GARDNER
ENGINEERS
+
14 N. Boylan Avenue, Raleigh NC 27603
NC LIC. NO. F-1370 (ENGINEERING)
919.828.0577
Electronic files are instruments of service provided by Smith
Gardner, Inc. for the convenience of the intended recipient(s), and
no warranty is either expressed or implied.  Any reuse or
redistribution of this document in whole or part without the
written authorization of Smith Gardner, Inc., will be at the sole
risk of the recipient.  If there is a discrepancy between the
electronic files and the signed and sealed hard copies, the hard
copies shall govern.  Use of  any electronic files generated or
provided by Smith Gardner, Inc., constitutes an acceptance of
these terms and conditions.
© 2017 Smith Gardner, Inc.
JOHNSTON COUNTY,
NORTH CAROLINA
DEPARTMENT OF
SOLID WASTE SERVICES
JOHNSTON COUNTY
LANDFILL
PHASES 6-10
OPTION 2
PROPOSED PROJECT
P.K.S.
C.T.J.
JOHN 15-5
AS SHOWN
Mar 2017
JOHN-D0727
FIG.4
PRELIMINARY
NOT FOR CONSTRUCTION
PROJECT TITLE:
DRAWING TITLE:
REV.DATE DESCRIPTION
DESIGNED:
DRAWN:
APPROVED:
PROJECT NO:
SCALE:
FILENAME:
PREPARED BY:
PREPARED FOR:
SHEET NUMBER:DRAWING NUMBER:
DATE:
G:
\
C
A
D
\
J
o
h
n
s
t
o
n
\
J
o
h
n

1
5
-
5
\
s
h
e
e
t
s
\
J
O
H
N
-
D
0
7
2
7
.
d
w
g
-

3/
1
7
/
2
0
1
7

1
0
:
3
2

A
M
SEAL
SEAL
SMITH
GARDNER
ENGINEERS
+
14 N. Boylan Avenue, Raleigh NC 27603
NC LIC. NO. F-1370 (ENGINEERING)
919.828.0577
Electronic files are instruments of service provided by Smith
Gardner, Inc. for the convenience of the intended recipient(s), and
no warranty is either expressed or implied.  Any reuse or
redistribution of this document in whole or part without the
written authorization of Smith Gardner, Inc., will be at the sole
risk of the recipient.  If there is a discrepancy between the
electronic files and the signed and sealed hard copies, the hard
copies shall govern.  Use of  any electronic files generated or
provided by Smith Gardner, Inc., constitutes an acceptance of
these terms and conditions.
© 2017 Smith Gardner, Inc.
JOHNSTON COUNTY,
NORTH CAROLINA
DEPARTMENT OF
SOLID WASTE SERVICES
JOHNSTON COUNTY
LANDFILL
PHASES 6-10
OPTION 3
FULL DEVELOPMENT
P.K.S.
C.T.J.
JOHN 15-5
AS SHOWN
Mar 2017
JOHN-D0727
FIG.5
PRELIMINARY
NOT FOR CONSTRUCTION

ATTACHMENT 1

BUFFER DETERMINATION

NCDENR
North Carolina Department of Environment and Natural Resources
Division of Water Quality
Pat McCroy Thomas A. Reeder John E. Skvarla, III
Governor Acting Director Secretary
July 10, 2013
Phil May
Carolina Ecosystems
3040 NC 42 West
Clayton, NC 27520
Subject: Surface Water Determination Letter
NBRRO# 12-206
Johnston County
Determination Type:
Buffer Call
Isolated or EIP Call
® Neuse (15A NCAC 2B .0233)
Stop@ Soil
Survey
USGS
To o
E]Ephemeral/Intermittent/Perennial Determination
E] Tar -Pamlico (15A NCAC 2B .0259)
X
Pipe Outlet
❑ Isolated Wetland Determination
❑ Jordan (15A NCAC 2B .0267)
SC1B
Project Name:
Location/Directions
Subject Stream:
Johnston Countv Landfill
Subject property is current use landfill on Hwy 210 in Johnston County.
UT to and Middle Creek
Determination Date: Aug 16, 2012 Staff- Martin Richmond
Feature
E/I/P*
Not Subject Subject
Start@
Stop@ Soil
Survey
USGS
To o
SCI
P
X
Pipe Outlet
Flag W9 X
X
SC1B
I
X
Road Crossing
X
X
SC2
I
X
Flag Start Ch 2
X
X
SC3
P
X
Flag Start Ch 3
X
X
SC4
I
X
Flag Start Ch4
X
SC5
P
X
Flag Start Ch5
X
X
SC6
X
X
X
SC7
X
X
SC8
(offsite)
I
X
Flag Start Ch8
X
*E/I/P = EphemeraUlntermittent/Perennia[ NorthCarolina
X,7tUY/711l/
North Carolina Division of Water Quality Raleigh Regional Office Surface Water Protection Phone [phone] Customer Service
Internet: www.ncwaterquality.org 1628 Mail Service Center Raleigh, NC 27699-1628 FAX [phone]
An Equal Opportunity/Affirmative Action Employer — 50% Recycled/10% Post Consumer Paper

Johnstoh .County Landfill
Johnston County
July 10, 2013
Page 2 of 2
Explanation: The feature(s) listed above has or have been located on the Soil Survey of Johnston County, North
Carolina or the most recent copy of the USGS Topographic map at a 1:24,000 scale. Each feature that is checked
"Not Subject" has been determined not to be a stream or is not present on the property. Features that are checked
"Subject" have been located on the property and possess characteristics that qualify it to be a stream. There may be
other streams located on your property that do not show up on the maps referenced above but, still may be
considered jurisdictional according to the US Army Corps of Engineers and/or to the Division of Water Quality.
This on-site determination shall expire five (5) years from the date of this letter. Landowners or affected parties that
dispute a determination made by the DWQ or Delegated Local Authority may request a determination by the
Director. An appeal request must be made within sixty (60) days of date of this letter or from the date the affected
party (including downstream and/or adjacent owners) is notified of this letter. A request for a determination by the
Director shall be referred to the Director in writing c/o Karen Higgins, DWQ WeBSCaPe Unit, 1650 Mail Service
Center, Raleigh, NC 27699.
This determination is final and binding unless, as detailed above, you ask for a hearing or appeal within sixty (60)
days.
The owner/future owners should notify the Division of Water Quality (including any other Local, State, and Federal
Agencies) of this decision concerning any future correspondences regarding the subject property (stated above). This
project may require a Section 404/401 Permit for the proposed activity. Any inquiries should be directed to the
Division of Water Quality (Central Office) at (919)-807-6300, and the US Army Corp of Engineers (Raleigh
Regulatory Field Office) at (919)-554-4884.
If you have questions regarding this determination, please feel free to contact Martin Richmond at [phone]
Respect lly,
Danny Smith
Regional Su rvisor
cc: RRO/SWP File Copy

ATTACHMENT 2

DMS MITIGATION ACCEPTANCE

r r
E
Rick Hester
Johnston County manager
PO Box 1049
Smithfield, NC 27577
Project: Johnston County Landfill
ROY COOPER
MICHAEL S. REGAN
S- r fo,vi
March 16, 2017
Expiration of Acceptance: September 16, 2017
County: Johnston
The purpose of this letter is to notify you that the NCDEQ Division of Mitigation Services (DMS) is willing to accept
payment for compensatory mitigation for impacts associated with the above referenced project as indicated in the
table below. Please note that this decision does not assure that participation in the DMS in -lieu fee mitigation
program will be approved by the permit issuing agencies as mitigation for project impacts. It is the responsibility
of the applicant to contact permitting agencies to determine if payment to the DMS will be approved. You must
also comply with all other state, federal or local government permits, regulations or authorizations associated with
the proposed activity including G.S. § 143-214.11.
This acceptance is valid for six months from the date of this letter and is not transferable. If we have not
received a copy of the issued 404 Permit/401 Certification/CAMA permit within this time frame, this
acceptance will expire. It is the applicant's responsibility to send copies of the permits to DMS. Once DMS
receives a copy of the permit(s) an invoice will be issued based on the required mitigation in that permit and
payment must be made prior to conducting the authorized work. The amount of the in -lieu fee to be paid by an
applicant is calculated based upon the Fee Schedule and policies listed on the DMS website.
Based on the information supplied by you in your request to use the DMS, the impacts for which you are
requesting compensatory mitigation credit are summarized in the following table. The amount of mitigation
required and assigned to DMS for this impact is determined by permitting agencies and may exceed the impact
amounts shown below.
River
Basin
CU Location
(8 -digit HUC)
Stream (feet)
Wetlands (acres)
Buffer I Buffer II
(Sq. Ft.) (Sq. Ft.)
Cold Cool WarmRi
arian
Non-Ri arian Coastal Marsh
Impact Neuse
03020201
0 0 0
0
0 0
18,129 14,380
Upon receipt of payment, DMS will take responsibility for providing the compensatory mitigation. The mitigation
will be performed in accordance with the In -Lieu Fee Program instrument dated July 28, 2010 and 15A NCAC
02B .0295 as applicable. Thank you for your interest in the DMS in -lieu fee mitigation program. If you have any
questions or need additional information, please contact Kelly Williams at [phone].
cc: Phil May, agent
Sincerely,
Ja e . B Stanfill
Asset Management Supervisor
State of North Carolina ' Environmental Quality Mitigation Services
1652 Mail Service Center I Raleigh, NC 27699-1652 217 W. Jones Street, Suite 3000
919 707 8976 T

ATTACHMENT 3

ACCEPTED WASTES
(EXCERPT FROM OPERATIONS MANUAL)

Operations Manual

Johnston County Landfill Facility
Smithfield, North Carolina

Prepared for:

Johnston County Department of Solid Waste Services
Smithfield, North Carolina

December 2013
Revised: May 2015

© 2015 Smith Gardner, Inc.
This document is intended for the sole use of the client for which it was prepared and
for the purpose agreed upon by the client and Smith Gardner, Inc.

Johnston County Landfill Facility Operations Manual
December 2013 (Revised: May 2015) Table of Contents Page i
Johnston County Landfill Facility
Smithfield, North Carolina

Operations Manual

Table of Contents
Page

1.0 GENERAL FACILITY OPERATIONS ............................................................................. 1 
1.1 Contact Information .................................................................................................. 1 
1.1.1 Johnston County (County) ............................................................................. 1 
1.1.2 North Carolina Department of Environment and Natural Resources ........ 2 
1.2 Facility Operating Hours ........................................................................................... 2 
1.3 Site Access ................................................................................................................. 2 
1.3.1 Physical Restraints ....................................................................................... 3 
1.3.2 Security .......................................................................................................... 3 
1.4 Signage ...................................................................................................................... 3 
1.4.1 Waste Limit Markers ..................................................................................... 3 
1.5 Communications........................................................................................................ 4 
1.6 Fire Control ................................................................................................................ 4 
1.6.1 Open Burning ................................................................................................ 4 
1.6.2 Fire Tetrahedron ........................................................................................... 4 
1.6.3 Equipment ..................................................................................................... 5 
1.6.4 General Fire Management Strategies .......................................................... 5 
1.6.5 Fires Within Disposal Areas.......................................................................... 5 
1.6.6 Notification .................................................................................................... 6 
1.6.7 Coordination With Local Fire Department ................................................... 6 
1.7 Severe Weather Conditions ....................................................................................... 6 
1.7.1 Ice Storms ..................................................................................................... 6 
1.7.2 Heavy Rains ................................................................................................... 6 
1.7.3 Electrical Storms .......................................................................................... 7 
1.7.4 Windy Conditions ........................................................................................... 7 
1.7.5 Violent Storms ............................................................................................... 7 
1.8 Equipment Requirements ......................................................................................... 7 
1.9 Personnel Requirements .......................................................................................... 8 
1.10 Health and Safety ...................................................................................................... 8 
1.10.1 Personal Hygiene ......................................................................................... 8 
1.10.2 Personal Protective Equipment .................................................................. 8 
1.10.3 Mechanical Equipment Hazard Prevention ................................................ 9 
1.10.4 Employee Health and Safety........................................................................ 9 
1.10.5 Physical Exposure ........................................................................................ 9 
1.10.6 Safety Data Sheets ..................................................................................... 10 
1.11 Utilities ..................................................................................................................... 10 
1.12 Record Keeping Program........................................................................................ 10 

Johnston County Landfill Facility Operations Manual
December 2013 (Revised: May 2015) Table of Contents Page ii
2.0 WASTE HANDLING OPERATIONS ............................................................................ 13 
2.1 Acceptable Wastes .................................................................................................. 13 
2.1.1 MSW Landfill Unit ........................................................................................ 13 
2.1.2 C&D Landfill Unit ........................................................................................ 13 
2.2 Prohibited Wastes ................................................................................................... 14 
2.2.1 MSW Landfill Unit ........................................................................................ 14 
2.2.2 C&D Landfill Unit ........................................................................................ 14 
2.3 Waste Screening Programs .................................................................................... 16 
2.3.1 Waste Receiving and Inspection ................................................................. 16 
2.3.2 Hazardous Waste Contingency Plan ........................................................... 17 
2.4 Waste Disposal ........................................................................................................ 18 
2.4.1 Access .......................................................................................................... 18 
2.4.2 General Procedures .................................................................................... 18 
2.4.3 Lined Landfill Units ..................................................................................... 19 
2.4.3.1 Cell Operations and Phasing ........................................................ 19 
2.4.3.2 Cell Activation ............................................................................... 20 
2.4.3.3 Placement of Initial Lift ................................................................ 20 
2.4.3.4 Equipment Operations Within the Landfill .................................. 21 
2.4.3.5 Tipper Operations (If Applicable) ................................................. 21 
2.4.4 Special Waste Management ....................................................................... 22 
2.4.4.1 Asbestos Management (MSW or C&D Landfill Units) ................. 22 
2.4.4.2 Sewage Sludge Management (MSW Landfill Unit) ...................... 22 
2.4.4.3 Spoiled Food and Animal Waste (MSW Landfill Unit) .................. 23 
2.4.5 Daily or Periodic Cover ............................................................................... 23 
2.4.5.1 MSW Landfill Unit ......................................................................... 23 
2.4.5.2 C&D Landfill Unit .......................................................................... 23 
2.4.6 Alternate Daily Cover .................................................................................. 24 
2.4.6.1 Tarps (Tarpomatic) ....................................................................... 24 
2.4.6.2 Auto Shredder Residue (ASR) ...................................................... 25 
2.4.6.3 Other Materials/Methods ............................................................. 25 
2.4.7 Intermediate Cover ..................................................................................... 26 
2.4.8 Height Monitoring ....................................................................................... 26 
2.5 Yard Waste Processing Area Operations ................................................................ 26 
2.6 Convenience Center Operations ............................................................................. 27 
3.0 ENVIRONMENTAL MANAGEMENT ........................................................................... 29 
3.1 Surface Water Control............................................................................................. 29 
3.1.1 Surface Water Run-On Control ................................................................... 29 
3.1.2 Active Face Run-Off Control ....................................................................... 29 
3.1.3 Separation of Stormwater/Leachate - Lined Landfill Units ...................... 30 
3.1.4 Erosion Control ........................................................................................... 30 
3.1.5 Sedimentation Control ................................................................................ 30 
3.1.6 NPDES Requirements ................................................................................. 31 
3.2 Leachate Management - Lined Landfill Units ........................................................ 31 
3.2.1 Leachate Collection System (LCS) ............................................................. 31 
3.2.1.1 Drainage Aggregate Maintenance ............................................... 32 
3.2.1.2 Collection Pipe Cleanout .............................................................. 32 

Johnston County Landfill Facility Operations Manual
December 2013 (Revised: May 2015) Table of Contents Page iii
3.2.1.3 Leachate Removal ........................................................................ 32 
3.2.1.4 O&M of Leachate Pumps and Storage Lagoon............................ 33 
3.2.2 Leak Detection System - Phase 4A MSW Landfill Unit .............................. 33 
3.2.3 Leachate Quality Sampling ......................................................................... 33 
3.2.4 Record Keeping ........................................................................................... 34 
3.2.5 Leachate Contingency Plan ........................................................................ 34 
3.2.6 Operation of Leachate Lagoon/Wastewater Equalization Basin ............... 34 
3.3 Water Quality Monitoring ........................................................................................ 35 
3.4 Landfill Gas (LFG) Management ............................................................................. 35 
3.4.1 MSW Landfill Units ...................................................................................... 35 
3.4.2 C&D Landfill Unit ........................................................................................ 36 
3.5 Landfill Gas (LFG) Monitoring Plan......................................................................... 36 
3.5.1 Record Keeping ........................................................................................... 36 
3.6 Vector Control .......................................................................................................... 36 
3.6.1 MSW Landfill Units ...................................................................................... 36 
3.6.2 C&D Landfill Unit ........................................................................................ 36 
3.7 Litter Control ........................................................................................................... 37 
3.8 Odor Control ............................................................................................................ 37 
3.8.1 MSW Landfill Units ...................................................................................... 37 
3.8.2 C&D Landfill Unit ........................................................................................ 37 
3.9 Dust Control............................................................................................................. 37 
3.10 Air Quality ................................................................................................................ 37 
3.11 Leachate Seeps ....................................................................................................... 37 
3.12 Irrigation of Reclaimed Wastewater ....................................................................... 38 

TABLES
Table 1 Equipment Requirements ............................................................................. 7 

FIGURES
Figure 1 Existing and Proposed Landfill Units and Solid Waste Management
Activities
Figure 2 Convenience Center Site Plan
Figure 3A Leachate Collection Pipe Cleanout Locations - MSW Phase 4A
Figure 3B Leachate Collection Pipe Cleanout Locations - MSW Phase 5
Figure 3C Leachate Collection Pipe Cleanout Locations - C&D Area 2

APPENDICES
Appendix A Fire Occurrence Notification Form
Appendix B Paint Filter Liquids Test
Appendix C Waste Screening Form
Appendix D Cell Activation Forms
Appendix E Reclaimed Wastewater Training Information

Johnston County Landfill Facility Operations Manual
December 2013 (Revised: October 2014) 2.0 Waste Handling Operations Page 13
2.0 WASTE HANDLING OPERATIONS
This section describes the required waste handling operations for the Johnston County Landfill
facility. In addition to the MSW and C&D waste disposed of at this facility, the County also
processes wood/yard waste, recyclables, scrap tires, and white goods. These materials are
stored at the landfill facility until there are sufficient quantities for pick up by various recycling
contractors.

2.1 Acceptable Wastes
2.1.1 MSW Landfill Unit
Non-hazardous solid waste as defined by NCGS 130A-290(a)(35) generated within
the approved service area may be disposed of in the MSW landfill unit. In
addition, the special wastes described in Section 2.4.4 may also be disposed of in
the MSW landfill unit.

2.1.2 C&D Landfill Unit
Only the following wastes generated within the approved service area may be
disposed of in the C&D landfill unit:

 Construction and Demolition (C&D) Solid Waste: as defined in 15A NCAC
13B.0532(8) means solid waste resulting solely from construction,
remodeling, repair, or demolition operations on pavement and buildings
or structures. C&D waste does not include municipal and industrial
wastes that may be generated by the on-going operations at buildings or
structures.
 Inert Debris: as defined in 15A NCAC 13B.0101(22) means concrete,
brick, concrete block, uncontaminated soil, gravel and rock, and
untreated and unpainted wood.
 Land Clearing Waste: as defined in 15A NCAC 13B.0101(23) means solid
waste which is generated solely from land-clearing activities, limited to
stumps, trees, limbs, brush, grass, and other naturally occurring
vegetative material.
 Asphalt: in accordance with NCGS 130A-294(m).
 Industrial solid waste that is generated by mobile or modular home
manufacturers and asphalt shingle manufacturers. The waste must be
separated at the manufacturing site to exclude municipal solid waste,
hazardous waste, and other waste prohibited from disposal in a
Construction and Demolition Landfill.
 Other Wastes as Approved by the Solid Waste Section of the Division of
Waste Management.

Johnston County Landfill Facility Operations Manual
December 2013 (Revised: October 2014) 2.0 Waste Handling Operations Page 14
In addition, the special wastes (asbestos only) described in Section 2.4.4 may
also be disposed of in the C&D landfill unit.

2.2 Prohibited Wastes
2.2.1 MSW Landfill Unit
The following wastes are prohibited from disposal within the MSW landfill unit:

 Used Oil and Motor Vehicle Oil Filters;
 Yard Waste;
 White Goods;
 Antifreeze (ethylene glycol);
 Aluminum Cans;
 Whole Scrap Tires;
 Lead Acid Batteries;
 Certain Recyclable Rigid Plastic Containers (per NCGS 130A-
309.10(f)(11));
 Wooden Pallets;
 Oyster Shells;
 Discarded Computer Equipment and Televisions;
 Construction and Demolition Debris (C&D) (Except when allowed by the
County).

In addition, operating criteria prohibit other materials from disposal within the
MSW landfill unit. These materials include:

 Hazardous waste as defined by NCGS 130A-290(a)(8), including hazardous
waste from conditionally exempt small quantity generators.
 Polychlorinated biphenyls (PCB) wastes as defined in 40 CFR 761 with the
exception of trace amounts found in materials such as consumer
electronics.
 Bulk or non-containerized liquid wastes unless the waste is household
waste other than septic waste and waste oil; or the waste is leachate or
gas condensate derived from the MSW landfill unit. A liquid
determination will be performed by the paint filter test (see Appendix B
for apparatus and procedure).
 Containers holding liquid wastes unless the waste is household waste.

2.2.2 C&D Landfill Unit
Only wastes as defined in Section 2.1.2 above may be accepted for disposal in
the C&D landfill unit. Prohibited wastes include waste exclusions listed in 15A
NCAC 13B 0.0542 as follows:

ATTACHMENT 4

MONITORING REQUIREMENTS

Constituents for Detection Monitoring
(40 CFR 258, Appendix I)
Common name CAS RN
Antimony (Total)
Arsenic (Total)
Barium (Total)
Beryllium (Total)
Cadmium (Total)
Chromium (Total)
Cobalt (Total)
Copper (Total)
Lead (Total)
Nickel (Total)
Selenium (Total)
Silver (Total)
Thallium (Total)
Vanadium (Total)
Zinc (Total)
Acetone 67-64-1
Acrylonitrile 107-13-1
Benzene 71-43-2
Bromochloromethane 74-97-5
Bromodichloromethane 75-27-4
Bromoform; Tribromomethane 75-25-2
Carbon disulfide 75-15-0
Carbon tetrachloride 56-23-5
Chlorobenzene 108-90-7
Chloroethane; Ethyl chloride 75-00-3
Chloroform; Trichloromethane 67-66-3
Dibromochloromethane; Chlorodibromomethane 124-48-1
1,2-Dibromo-3-chlorpropane; DBCP 96-12-8
1,2-Dibromoethane; Ethylene dibromide; EDB 106-93-4
o-Dichlorobenzene; 1,2-Dichlorobenzene 95-50-1
p-Dichlorobenzene; 1,4-Dichlorobenzene 106-46-7
trans-1,4-Dichloro-2-butene 110-57-6
1,1-Dichloroethane; Ethylidene chloride 75-34-3
1,2-Dichloroethane; Ethlyene dichloride 107-06-2
1,1-Dichloroethylene; 1-1-Dichloroethene; Vinylidene
chloride
75-35-4
cis-1,2-Dichloroethylene; cis-1,2-Dichloroethene 156-59-2
trans-1,2-Dichloroethylene; trans-1,2-Dichloroethene 156-60-5
1,2-Dichlorpropane; Propylene dichloride 78-87-5
cis-1,3-Dichlorpropene 10061-01-5
trans-1,3-Dichlorpropene 10061-02-6
Ethylbenzene 100-41-4
2-hexanone; Methyl butyl ketone 591-78-6
Methyl bromide; Bromomethane 74-83-9
Methyl chloride; Chloromethane 74-87-3
Methylene bromide Dibromomethane 74-95-3
Methylene chloride; Dichloromethane 75-09-2
Methyl ethyl ketone; MEK; 2-Butanone 78-93-3
Methyl iodide; Iodomethane 74-88-4
4-Methyl-2-pentanone; Methyl isobutyl isobutyl
ketone
108-10-1
Styrene 100-42-5
1,1,1,2-Tetrachloroethane 630-20-6
1,1,2,2-Tetrachloroethane 79-34-5
Tetrachloroethylene; Tetracholorethene;
Perchloroethylene
127-18-4
Toluene 108-88-3
1,1,1-Trochlorethane; Methylchloroform 71-55-6
1,1,2-Trichloroethane 79-00-5
Trichloroethylene; Trichlorethene 79-01-6
Trichlorofluoromethane; CFC-11 75-69-4
1,2,3-Trichloropropane 96-18-4
Vinyl acetate 108-05-4
Vinyl chloride 75-01-4
Xylenes 1330-20-7

ATTACHMENT 5

LOCATION RESTRICTIONS

15A NCAC 13B .1622 LOCATION RESTRICTIONS FOR MSWLF FACILITY SITING
MSWLF units shall comply with the siting criteria set forth in this Rule. In order to demonstrate compliance with specific c riteria,
documentation or approval by agencies other than the Division of Solid Waste Management may be required. The scope of demonstrations
including design and construction performance shall be discussed in a site study and completed in the permit application.
(1) Airport Safety.
(a) A new MSWLF unit shall be located no closer than 5,000 feet from any airport runway used only by piston-
powered aircraft and no closer than 10,000 feet from any runway used by turbine -powered aircraft.
(b) Owners or operators proposing to site a new MSWLF unit or lateral expansion within a five-mile radius of
any airport runway used by turbine-powered or piston-powered aircraft shall notify the affected airport and
the Federal Aviation Administration prior to submitting a permit application to the Division.
(c) The permittee of any existing MSWLF unit or a lateral expansion located within 5,000 feet from any airport
runway used by only piston-powered aircraft or within 10,000 feet from any runway used by turbine-
powered aircraft shall demonstrate that the existing MSWLF unit does not pose a bird hazard to aircraft.
The owner or operator shall place the demonstration in the operating record and notify the Division that it
has been placed in the operating record.
(d) For purposes of this Paragraph:
(i) Airport means a public-use airport open to the public without prior permission and without
restrictions within the physical capacities of the available facilities.
(ii) Bird hazard means an increase in the likelihood of bird/aircraft collisions that may cause damage
to the aircraft or injury to its occupants.
(2) Floodplains.
(a) New MSWLF units, existing MSWLF units, and lateral expansions shall not be located in 100 -year
floodplains unless the owners or operators demonstrate that the unit will not restrict the flow of the 100-year
flood, reduce the temporary water storage capacity of the floodplain, or result in washout of solid waste so
as to pose a hazard to human health and the environment.
(b) For purposes of this Paragraph:
(i) "Floodplain" means the lowland and relatively flat areas adjoining inland and coastal waters,
including flood-prone areas of offshore islands, that are inundated by the 100 -year flood.
(ii) "100-year flood" means a flood that has a 1-percent or greater chance of recurring in any given
year or a flood of a magnitude equalled or exceeded once in 100 years on the average over a
significantly long period.
(iii) "Washout" means the carrying away of solid waste by waters of the base flood.
(3) Wetlands.
(a) New MSWLF units and lateral expansions shall not be located in wetlands, unless the owner or operator can
make the following demonstrations to the Division:
(i) Where applicable under Section 404 of the Clean Water Act or applicable State wetlands laws, the
presumption that a practicable alternative to the proposed landfill facility is available which does
not involve wetlands is clearly rebutted.
(ii) The construction and operation of the MSWLF unit will not:
(A) Cause or contribute to violations of any applicable State water quality standard;
(B) Violate any applicable toxic effluent standard or prohibition under Section 307 of the
Clean Water Act;
(C) Jeopardize the continued existence of endangered or threatened species or result in the
destruction or adverse modification of a critical habitat, protected under the Federal
Endangered Species Act of 1973; and
(D) Violate any requirement under the Marine Protection, Research, and Sanctuaries Act of
1972 for the protection of a marine sanctuary.
(iii) The MSWLF unit will not cause or contribute to significant degradation of wetlands. The owner
or operator shall demonstrate the integrity of the MSWLF unit and its ability to protect ecological
resources by addressing the following factors:
(A) Erosion, stability, and migration potential of native wetland soils, muds and deposits
used to support the MSWLF unit;
(B) Erosion, stability, and migration potential of dredged and fill materials used to support
the MSWLF unit;
(C) The volume and chemical nature of the waste managed in the MSWLF unit;
(D) Impacts on fish, wildlife, and other aquatic resources and their habitat from release of
the solid waste;
(E) The potential effects of catastrophic release of waste to the wetland and the resulting
impacts on the environment; and
(F) Any additional factors, as necessary, to demonstrate that ecological resources in the
wetland are sufficiently protected.
(iv) To the extent required under Section 404 of the Clean Water Act or applicable State wetlands
laws, steps have been taken to attempt to achieve no net loss of wetlands (as defined by acreage
and function) by first avoiding impacts to wetlands to the maximum extent practicable as required
by Subitem (3)(a)(i) of this Rule, then minimizing unavoidable impacts to the maximum extent
practicable, and finally offsetting remaining unavoidable wetland impacts through all appropriate
and practicable compensatory mitigation actions (e.g., restoration of existing degraded wetlands
or creation of man-made wetlands); and
(v) Sufficient information is available to make a reasonable determination with respect to these
demonstrations.
(b) For purposes of this Item, wetlands means those areas that are defined in 40 CFR 232.2(r).
(4) Fault Areas.
(a) New MSWLF units and lateral expansions shall not be located within 200 feet (60 meters) of a fault that has
had displacement in Holocene time unless the owner or operator demonstrates to the Division that an
alternative setback distance of less than 200 feet (60 meters) will prevent damage to the structural integrity
of the MSWLF unit and will be protective of human health and the environment.
(b) For the purposes of this Item:
(i) "Fault" means a fracture or a zone of fractures in any material along which strata on one side have
been displaced with respect to that on the other side.
(ii) "Displacement" means the relative movement of any two sides of a fault measured in any
direction.
(iii) "Holocene" means the most recent epoch of the Quaternary period, extending from the end of the
Pleistocene Epoch to the present.
(5) Seismic Impact Zones.
(a) New MSWLF units and lateral expansions shall not be located in seismic impact zones, unless the owner or
operator demonstrates to the Division that all containment structures, including liners, leachate collection
systems, and surface water control systems, are designed to resist the maximum horizontal acceleration in
lithified earth material for the site.
(b) For the purposes of this Item:
(i) "Seismic impact zone" means an area with a ten percent or greater probability that the maximum
horizontal acceleration in lithified earth material, expressed as a percentage of the earth's
gravitational pull (g), will exceed 0.10g in 250 years.
(ii) "Maximum horizontal acceleration in lithified earth material" means the maximum expected
horizontal acceleration depicted on a seismic hazard map, with a 90 percent or greater probability
that the acceleration will not be exceeded in 250 years, or the maximum expected horizontal
acceleration based on a site-specific seismic risk assessment.
(iii) "Lithified earth material" means all rock, including all naturally occurring and naturally formed
aggregates or masses of minerals or small particles of older rock that formed by crystallization of
magma or by induration of loose sediments. This term does not include man-made materials, such
as fill, concrete, and asphalt, or unconsolidated earth materials, soil, or regolith lying at or near
the earth surface.
(6) Unstable Areas.
(a) Owners or operators of new MSWLF units, existing MSWLF units, and lateral expansions located in an
unstable area shall demonstrate that engineering measures have been incorporated into the MSWLF unit's
design to ensure that the integrity of the structural components of the MSWLF unit will not be disrupted.
The owner or operator shall consider the following factors, at a minimum, when determining whether an
area is unstable:
(i) On-site or local soil conditions that may result in significant differential settling;
(ii) On-site or local geologic or geomorphologic features; and
(iii) On-site or local human-made features or events (both surface and subsurface).
(b) For purposes of this Item:
(i) "Unstable area" means a location that is susceptible to natural or human-induced events or forces
capable of impairing the integrity of some or all of the landfill structural components responsible
for preventing releases from a landfill. Unstable areas can include poor foundation conditions,
areas susceptible to mass movements, and Karst terranes.
(ii) "Structural components" means liners, leachate collection systems, final covers, run-on or run-off
systems, and any other component used in the construction and operation of the MSWLF that is
necessary for protection of human health and the environment.
(iii) "Poor foundation conditions" means those areas where features exist which indicate that a natural
or man-induced event may result in inadequate foundation support for the structural components
of an MSWLF unit.
(iv) "Areas susceptible to mass movement" means those areas of influence (i.e., areas characterized as
having an active or substantial possibility of mass movement) where the movement of earth
material at, beneath, or adjacent to the MSWLF unit, because of natural or man-induced events,
results in the downslope transport of soil and rock material by means of gravitational influence.
Areas of mass movement include, but are not limited to, landslides, avalanches, debris slides and
flows, soil fluction, block sliding, and rock fall.
(v) "Karst terranes" means areas where karst topography, with its characteristic surface and
subterranean features, is developed as the result of dissolution of limestone, dolomite, or other
soluble rock. Characteristic physiographic features present in karst terranes include, but are not
limited to, sinkholes, sinking streams, caves, large springs, and blind valleys.
(7) Cultural Resources. A new MSWLF unit or lateral expansion shall not damage or destroy an archaeological or
historical property. The Department of Cultural Resources shall determine archeological or historical significance. To
aid in making a determination as to whether the property is of archeological or historical significance, the Department
of Cultural Resources may request the owner or operator to perform a site-specific survey which shall be included in
the Site Study.
(8) State Nature and Historic Preserve. A new MSWLF unit or lateral expansion shall not have an adverse impact on any
lands included in the State Nature and Historic Preserve.
(9) Water Supply Watersheds.
(a) A new MSWLF unit or lateral expansion shall not be located in the critical area of a water supply watershed
or in the watershed for a stream segment classified as WS-I, in accordance with the rules codified at 15A
NCAC 2B .0200 - "Classifications and Water Quality Standards Applicable To Surface Waters Of North
Carolina."
(b) Any new MSWLF unit or lateral expansion, which shall discharge leachate to surface waters at the landfill
facility and must obtain a National Pollution Discharge Elimination System (NPDES) Permit from the
Division of Environmental Management pursuant to Section 402 of the United States Clean Water Act, shall
not be located within watersheds classified as WS-II or WS-III, in accordance with the rules codified at 15A
NCAC 2B .0200 - "Classifications and Water Quality Standards Applicable To Surface Waters Of North
Carolina."
(10) Endangered and Threatened Species. A new MSWLF unit or lateral expansion shall not jeopardize the continued
existence of endangered or threatened species or result in the destruction or adverse modification of a critical habitat,
protected under the Federal Endangered Species Act of 1973.

History Note: Authority G.S. 130A-294;
Eff. October 9, 1993.

ATTACHMENT 6

STREAM PHOTOS & NCSAM FORMS

^_^_^_^_^_^_
^_
^_^_
^_
^_^_^_
^_
^_
^_^_^_
^_^_
NCSAM Middle Reach
NCSAM Upper Reach
98
7
6
54321
201918171615
14
13121110
Johnston County LandfillJohnston County
0 75 150Feet
³
Figure : Photo Locations
Map Date:
Revised:
Revised:
Revised: 2013 NC Statewide Aerial Photography
December 2016^_Photo Locations
Streams
Johnston County Landfill August 31, 2016
Site Photographs

Page 1 of 10
Photo 1: Looking north inside old pond bed.

Photo 2: Looking south inside old pond bed.

Johnston County Landfill August 31, 2016
Site Photographs

Page 2 of 10
Photo 3: Looking south within old pond bed.

Photo 4: View of channel inside old pond bed.

Johnston County Landfill August 31, 2016
Site Photographs

Page 3 of 10
Photo 5: Looking south within old pond bed.

Photo 6: Looking south within old pond bed (~100’ south of photo 5)

Johnston County Landfill August 31, 2016
Site Photographs

Page 4 of 10
Photo 7: View of channel inside old pond bed.

Photo 8: Channel inside forest above old pond / NCSAM location “Middle Reach”.

Johnston County Landfill August 31, 2016
Site Photographs

Page 5 of 10
Photo 9: Looking south (upstream) inside forest.

Photo 10: Looking south (upstream) inside forest.

Johnston County Landfill August 31, 2016
Site Photographs

Page 6 of 10
Photo 11: Looking north (downstream) inside forest.

Photo 12: View of channel inside forest, near wet/dry transition.

Johnston County Landfill August 31, 2016
Site Photographs

Page 7 of 10
Photo 13: Looking south (upstream) inside forest. Intermittent reach.

Photo 14: Looking south (upstream) inside forest. Intermittent reach.

Johnston County Landfill August 31, 2016
Site Photographs

Page 8 of 10
Photo 15: View of channel oriented southeast (upstream) at subsurface break in flow.

Photo 16: View of channel oriented down/south in intermittent reach.

Johnston County Landfill August 31, 2016
Site Photographs

Page 9 of 10
Photo 17: View of channel looking downstream, inside intermittent reach.

Photo 18: View of channel oriented southeast (upstream) inside perennial reach.

Johnston County Landfill August 31, 2016
Site Photographs

Page 10 of 10
Photo 19: View of channel looking downstream inside perennial reach.

Photo 20: View of channel looking south (upstream)/ NCSAM site “Upper Reach”.

USACE AID #:NCDWR #:
PROJECT / SITE INFORMATION:
1. Project name (if any):2. Date of evaluation:
3. Applicant/owner name:
5. County:6. Nearest named water body
7. River Basin: on USGS 7.5-minute quad:
8. Site coordinates (decimal degrees, at lower end of assessment reach):
STREAM INFORMATION: (depth and width can be approximations)
9. Site number (show on attached map):10. Length of assessment reach evaluated (feet):
11. Channel depth from bed (in riffle, if present) to top of bank (feet):Unable to assess channel depth.
12. Channel width at top of bank (feet):13. Is assessment reach a swamp stream?Yes No
14. Feature type:Perennial flow Intermittent flow Tidal Marsh Stream
STREAM RATING INFORMATION:
15. NC SAM Zone:Mountains (M)Piedmont (P)Inner Coastal Plain (I)Outer Coastal Plain (O)
16. Estimated geomorphic
valley shape (skip for a b
Tidal Marsh Stream):(more sinuous stream, flatter valley slope)(less sinuous stream, steeper valley slope)
17. Watershed size: (skip Size 1 (< 0.1 mi2)Size 2 (0.1 to < 0.5 mi2)Size 3 (0.5 to < 5 mi2)Size 4 (≥ 5 mi2)
for Tidal Marsh Stream)
ADDITIONAL INFORMATION:
18. Were regulatory considerations evaluated?Yes No If Yes, check all that appy to the assessment area.
Section 10 water Classified Trout Waters Water Supply Watershed (I II III IV V)
Essential Fish Habitat Primary Nursery Area High Quality Waters/Outstanding Resource Waters
Publicly owned property NCDWR riparian buffer rule in effect Nutrient Sensitive Waters
Anadromous fish 303(d) List CAMA Area of Environmental Concern (AEC)
Documented presence of a federal and/or state listed protected species within the assessment area.
List species:
Designated Critical Habitat (list species):
19. Are additional stream information/supplementary measurements included in "Notes/Sketch" section or attached?Yes No
1.Channel Water – assessment reach metric (skip for Size 1 streams and Tidal Marsh Streams)
A Water throughout assessment reach.
B No flow, water in pools only.
C No water in assessment reach.
2.Evidence of Flow Restriction – assessment reach metric
A At least 10% of assessment reach in-stream habitat or riffle-pool sequence is adversely affected by a flow restriction or fill to the
point of obstructing flow or a channel choked with aquatic macrophytes or ponded water or impounded on flood or ebb within
the assessment reach (examples: undersized or perched culverts, causeways that constrict the channel, tidal gates).
B Not A
3.Feature Pattern – assessment reach metric
A A majority of the assessment reach has altered pattern (examples: straightening, modification above or below culvert).
B Not A.
4.Feature Longitudinal Profile – assessment reach metric
A Majority of assessment reach has a substantially altered stream profile (examples: channel down-cutting, existing damming,
over widening, active aggradation, dredging, and excavation where appropriate channel profile has not reformed from any of
these disturbances).
B Not A
5.Signs of Active Instability – assessment reach metric
Consider only current instability, not past events from which the stream has currently recovered. Examples of instability include
active bank failure, active channel down-cutting (head-cut), active widening, and artificial hardening (such as concrete, gabion, rip-rap).
A < 10% of channel unstable
B 10 to 25% of channel unstable
C > 25% of channel unstable
6.Streamside Area Interaction – streamside area metric
Consider for the Left Bank (LB) and the Right Bank (RB).
LB RB
A A Little or no evidence of conditions that adversely affect reference interaction
B B Moderate evidence of conditions (examples: berms, levees, down-cutting, aggradation, dredging) that adversely affect
reference interaction (examples: limited streamside area access, disruption of flood flows through streamside area,
leaky or intermittent bulkheads, causeways with floodplain constriction, minor ditching [including mosquito ditching])
C C Extensive evidence of conditions that adversely affect reference interaction (little to no floodplain/intertidal zone access
[examples: causeways with floodplain and channel constriction, bulkheads, retaining walls, fill, stream incision,
disruption of flood flows through streamside area] or too much floodplain/intertidal zone access [examples:
impoundments, intensive mosquito ditching]) or floodplain/intertidal zone unnaturally absent or assessment reach is a
man-made feature on an interstream divide
7.Water Quality Stressors – assessment reach/intertidal zone metric
Check all that apply.
A Discolored water in stream or intertidal zone (milky white, blue, unnatural water discoloration, oil sheen, stream foam)
B Excessive sedimentation (burying of stream features or intertidal zone)
0.5
4
NC SAM FIELD ASSESSMENT FORM
Accompanies User Manual Version 2.1
INSTRUCTIONS:Attach a sketch of the assessment area and photographs.Attach a copy of the USGS 7.5-minute topographic
quadrangle,and circle the location of the stream reach under evaluation.If multiple stream reaches will be evaluated on the same
property,identify and number all reaches on the attached map,and include a separate form for each reach.See the NC SAM User
Manual for detailed descriptions and explanations of requested information. Record in the "Notes/Sketch" section if any supplementary
NOTE EVIDENCE OF STRESSORS AFFECTING THE ASSESSMENT AREA (do not need to be within the assessment area).
measurements were performed. See the NC SAM User Manual for examples of additional measurements that may be relevant.
Johnston County Landfill July 22, 2016
Mid-Reach 200
Johnston County 4. Assessor name/organization:C. Hopper, P. May, G. Price
Johnston
Neuse Middle Creek
C Noticeable evidence of pollutant discharges entering the assessment reach and causing a water quality problem
D Odor (not including natural sulfide odors)
E Current published or collected data indicating degraded water quality in the assessment reach. Cite source in the "Notes/Sketch"
section.
F Livestock with access to stream or intertidal zone
G Excessive algae in stream or intertidal zone
H Degraded marsh vegetation in the intertidal zone (removal, burning, regular mowing, destruction, etc.)
I Other:(explain in "Notes/Sketch" section)
J Little to no stressors
8.Recent Weather – watershed metric
For Size 1 or 2 streams, D1 drought or higher is considered a drought; for Size 3 or 4 streams, D2 drought or higher is considered a
drought.
A Drought conditions and no rainfall or rainfall not exceeding 1 inch within the last 48 hours
B Drought conditions and rainfall exceeding 1 inch within the last 48 hours
C No drought conditions
9 Large or Dangerous Stream – assessment reach metric
Yes No Is stream is too large or dangerous to assess? If Yes, skip to Metric 13 (Streamside Area Ground Surface Condition).
10.Natural In-stream Habitat Types – assessment reach metric
10a.Yes No Degraded in-stream habitat over majority of the assessment reach (examples of stressors include excessive
sedimentation, mining, excavation, in-stream hardening [for example, rip-rap], recent dredging, and snagging)
(evaluate for size 4 Coastal Plain streams only, then skip to Metric 12)
10b.Check all that occur (occurs if > 5% coverage of assessment reach) (skip for Size 4 Coastal Plain streams)
A Multiple aquatic macrophytes and aquatic mosses F 5% oysters or other natural hard bottoms
(include liverworts, lichens, and algal mats)G Submerged aquatic vegetation
B Multiple sticks and/or leaf packs and/or emergent H Low-tide refugia (pools)
vegetation I Sand bottom
C Multiple snags and logs (including lap trees)J 5% vertical bank along the marsh
D 5% undercut banks and/or root mats and/or roots K Little or no habitat
in banks extend to the normal wetted perimeter
E Little or no habitat
11.Bedform and Substrate – assessment reach metric (skip for Size 4 Coastal Plain streams and Tidal Marsh Streams)
11a.Yes No Is assessment reach in a natural sand-bed stream? (skip for Coastal Plain streams)
11b.Bedform evaluated. Check the appropriate box(es).
A Riffle-run section (evaluate 11c)
B Pool-glide section (evaluate 11d)
C Natural bedform absent (skip to Metric 12, Aquatic Life)
11c.In riffles sections, check all that occur below the normal wetted perimeter of the assessment reach – whether or not submerged.
Check at least one box in each row (skip for Size 4 Coastal Plain Streams and Tidal Marsh Streams). Not Present (NP) =
absent, Rare (R) = present but ≤ 10%, Common (C) = > 10-40%, Abundant (A) = > 40-70%, Predominant (P) = > 70%. Cumulative
percentages should not exceed 100% for each assessment reach.
NP R C A P
Bedrock/saprolite
Boulder (256 – 4096 mm)
Cobble (64 – 256 mm)
Gravel (2 – 64 mm)
Sand (.062 – 2 mm)
Silt/clay (< 0.062 mm)
Detritus
Artificial (rip-rap, concrete, etc.)
11d.Yes No Are pools filled with sediment? (skip for Size 4 Coastal Plain streams and Tidal Marsh Streams)
12.Aquatic Life – assessment reach metric (skip for Size 4 Coastal Plain streams and Tidal Marsh Streams)
12a.Yes No Was an in-stream aquatic life assessment performed as described in the User Manual?
If No, select one of the following reasons and skip to Metric 13. No Water Other:
12b.Yes No Are aquatic organisms present in the assessment reach (look in riffles, pools, then snags)? If Yes, check
all that apply. If No, skip to Metric 13.
1 >1 Numbers over columns refer to “individuals” for size 1 and 2 streams and “taxa” for size 3 and 4 streams.
Adult frogs
Aquatic reptiles
Aquatic macrophytes and aquatic mosses (include liverworts, lichens, and algal mats)
Beetles (including water pennies)
Caddisfly larvae (Trichoptera [T])
Asian clam (Corbicula )
Crustacean (isopod/amphipod/crayfish/shrimp)
Damselfly and dragonfly larvae
Dipterans (true flies)
Mayfly larvae (Ephemeroptera [E])
Megaloptera (alderfly, fishfly, dobsonfly larvae)
Midges/mosquito larvae
Mosquito fish (Gambusia ) or mud minnows (Umbra pygmaea)
Mussels/Clams (not Corbicula )
Other fish
Salamanders/tadpoles
Snails
Stonefly larvae (Plecoptera [P])
Tipulid larvae
*********************************REMAINING QUESTIONS ARE NOT APPLICABLE FOR TIDAL MARSH STREAMS****************************
Ch
e
c
k

f
o
r

T
i
d
a
l
Ma
r
s
h

S
t
r
e
a
m
s
on
l
y
Worms/leeches
13.Streamside Area Ground Surface Condition – streamside area metric (skip for Tidal Marsh Streams and B valley types)
Consider for the Left Bank (LB) and the Right Bank (RB). Consider storage capacity with regard to both overbank flow and
upland runoff.
LB RB
A A Little or no alteration to water storage capacity over a majority of the streamside area
B B Moderate alteration to water storage capacity over a majority of the streamside area
C C Severe alteration to water storage capacity over a majority of the streamside area (examples include: ditches, fill,
soil, compaction, livestock disturbance, buildings, man-made levees, drainage pipes)
14.Streamside Area Water Storage – streamside area metric (skip for Size 1 streams, Tidal Marsh Streams, and B valley types)
Consider for the Left Bank (LB) and the Right Bank (RB) of the streamside area.
LB RB
A A Majority of streamside area with depressions able to pond water ≥ 6 inches deep
B B Majority of streamside area with depressions able to pond water 3 to 6 inches deep
C C Majority of streamside area with depressions able to pond water < 3 inches deep
15.Wetland Presence – streamside area metric (skip for Tidal Marsh Streams)
Consider for the Left Bank (LB) and the Right Bank (RB). Do not consider wetlands outside of the streamside area or within the
normal wetted perimeter of assessment reach.
LB RB
Y Y Are wetlands present in the streamside area?
N N
16.Baseflow Contributors – assessment reach metric (skip for size 4 streams and Tidal Marsh Streams)
Check all contributors within the assessment reach or within view of and draining to the assessment reach.
A Streams and/or springs (jurisdictional discharges)
B Ponds (include wet detention basins; do not include sediment basins or dry detention basins)
C Obstruction that passes some flow during low-flow periods within assessment area (beaver dam, bottom-release dam)
D Evidence of bank seepage or sweating (iron oxidizing bacteria in water indicates seepage)
E Stream bed or bank soil reduced (dig through deposited sediment if present)
F None of the above
17.Baseflow Detractors – assessment area metric (skip for Tidal Marsh Streams)
Check all that apply.
A Evidence of substantial water withdrawals from the assessment reach (includes areas excavated for pump installation)
B Obstruction not passing flow during low flow periods affecting the assessment reach (ex: watertight dam, sediment deposit)
C Urban stream (≥ 24% impervious surface for watershed)
D Evidence that the stream-side area has been modified resulting in accelerated drainage into the assessment reach
E Assessment reach relocated to valley edge
F None of the above
18.Shading – assessment reach metric (skip for Tidal Marsh Streams)
Consider aspect. Consider “leaf-on” condition.
A Stream shading is appropriate for stream category (may include gaps associated with natural processes)
B Degraded (example: scattered trees)
C Stream shading is gone or largely absent
19.Buffer Width – streamside area metric (skip for Tidal Marsh Streams)
Consider “vegetated buffer” and “wooded buffer” separately for left bank (LB) and right bank (RB) starting at the top
of bank out to the first break.
Vegetated Wooded
LB RB LB RB
A A A A ≥ 100-feet wide or extends to the edge of the watershed
B B B B From 50 to < 100-feet wide
C C C C From 30 to < 50-feet wide
D D D D From 10 to < 30-feet wide
E E E E < 10-feet wide or no trees
20.Buffer Structure – streamside area metric (skip for Tidal Marsh Streams)
Consider for left bank (LB) and right bank (RB) for Metric 19 ("Vegetated" Buffer Width).
LB RB
A A Mature forest
B B Non-mature woody vegetation or modified vegetation structure
C C Herbaceous vegetation with or without a strip of trees < 10 feet wide
D D Maintained shrubs
E E Little or no vegetation
21.Buffer Stressors – streamside area metric (skip for Tidal Marsh Streams)
Check all appropriate boxes for left bank (LB) and right bank (RB). Indicate if listed stressor abuts stream (Abuts), does not abut but
is within 30 feet of stream (< 30 feet), or is between 30 to 50 feet of stream (30-50 feet).
If none of the following stressors occurs on either bank, check here and skip to Metric 22:
Abuts < 30 feet 30-50 feet
LB RB LB RB LB RB
A A A A A A Row crops
B B B B B B Maintained turf
C C C C C C Pasture (no livestock)/commercial horticulture
D D D D D D Pasture (active livestock use)
22.Stem Density – streamside area metric (skip for Tidal Marsh Streams)
Consider for left bank (LB) and right bank (RB) for Metric 19 ("Wooded" Buffer Width).
LB RB
A A Medium to high stem density
B B Low stem density
C C No wooded riparian buffer or predominantly herbaceous species or bare ground
23.Continuity of Vegetated Buffer – streamside area metric (skip for Tidal Marsh Streams)
Consider whether vegetated buffer is continuous along stream (parallel). Breaks are areas lacking vegetation > 10-feet wide.
LB RB
A A The total length of buffer breaks is < 25 percent.
B B The total length of buffer breaks is between 25 and 50 percent.
C C The total length of buffer breaks is > 50 percent.
24.Vegetative Composition – First 100 feet of streamside area metric (skip for Tidal Marsh Streams)
Evaluate the dominant vegetation within 100 feet of each bank or to the edge of the watershed (whichever comes first) as it contributes
to assessment reach habitat.
LB RB
A A Vegetation is close to undisturbed in species present and their proportions. Lower strata composed of native
species, with non-native invasive species absent or sparse.
B B Vegetation indicates disturbance in terms of species diversity or proportions, but is still largely composed of native
species. This may include communities of weedy native species that develop after clear-cutting or clearing or
communities with non-native invasive species present, but not dominant, over a large portion of the expected strata or
communities missing understory but retaining canopy trees.
C C Vegetation is severely disturbed in terms of species diversity or proportions. Mature canopy is absent or communities
with non-native invasive species dominant over a large portion of expected strata or communities composed of planted
stands of non-characteristic species or communities inappropriately composed of a single species or no vegetation.
25.Conductivity – assessment reach metric (skip for all Coastal Plain streams)
25a.Yes No Was a conductivity measurement recorded?
If No, select one of the following reasons. No Water Other:
25b.Check the box corresponding to the conductivity measurement (units of microsiemens per centimeter).
A <46 B 46 to < 67 C 67 to < 79 D 79 to < 230 E ≥ 230
Notes/Sketch:
No conductivity meter
Notes of Field Assessment Form (Y/N)
Presence of regulatory considerations (Y/N)
Additional stream information/supplementary measurements included (Y/N)
NC SAM feature type (perennial, intermittent, Tidal Marsh Stream)
(4) Floodplain Access
(4) Wooded Riparian Buffer
(4) Microtopography
(3) Stream Stability
(4) Channel Stability
(4) Sediment Transport
(4) Stream Geomorphology
(2) Stream/Intertidal Zone Interaction
(2) Longitudinal Tidal Flow
(2) Tidal Marsh Stream Stability
(3) Tidal Marsh Stream Geomorphology
(1) Water Quality
(2) Baseflow
(2) Streamside Area Vegetation
(3) Upland Pollutant Filtration
(3) Thermoregulation
(2) Indicators of Stressors
(2) Aquatic Life Tolerance
(2) Intertidal Zone Filtration
(1) Habitat
(2) In-stream Habitat
(3) Baseflow
(3) Substrate
(3) Stream Stability
(3) In-stream Habitat
(2) Stream-side Habitat
(3) Stream-side Habitat
(3) Thermoregulation
(2) Tidal Marsh In-stream Habitat
(3) Flow Restriction
(3) Tidal Marsh Stream Stability
(4) Tidal Marsh Stream Geomorphology
(3) Tidal Marsh In-stream Habitat
(2) Intertidal Zone Habitat
Overall
NC SAM Stream Rating Sheet
Accompanies User Manual Version 2.1
LOW
HIGH
USACE/
All Streams
NCDWR
Intermittent
NA
NA
(2) Flood Flow
C. Hopper, P. May, G. Price
July 22, 2016
NO
YES
NO
Intermittent
LOW
HIGH
HIGH
LOW
(2) Baseflow
Stream Category Assessor Name/Organization
HIGH
Ia2
Stream Site Name
HIGH
NA
Johnston County Landfill Date of Evaluation
MEDIUM
(4) Tidal Marsh Channel Stability
NA
NA
LOW
LOW
HIGH
HIGH
MEDIUM
HIGH
NA
NA
LOW
NA
LOW
HIGH
(3) Tidal Marsh Channel Stability
(3) Streamside Area Attenuation
Function Class Rating Summary
(1) Hydrology
HIGH
HIGH
NA
NA
NA
NA
NA
LOW
LOW
LOW
HIGH
HIGH
HIGH
HIGH
NA
NO
NA
NA
HIGH
NA
NA
NA
NA
HIGH
NO
NA
NA
HIGH
LOW
NA
NA
NA
LOW
HIGH
HIGH
HIGH
HIGH
HIGH
HIGH
HIGH
HIGH
HIGH
HIGH
LOW
HIGH
MEDIUM
HIGH
MEDIUM
HIGH
NA
NA
HIGH
LOW
HIGH
HIGH
HIGH
USACE AID #:NCDWR #:
PROJECT / SITE INFORMATION:
1. Project name (if any):2. Date of evaluation:
3. Applicant/owner name:
5. County:6. Nearest named water body
7. River Basin: on USGS 7.5-minute quad:
8. Site coordinates (decimal degrees, at lower end of assessment reach):
STREAM INFORMATION: (depth and width can be approximations)
9. Site number (show on attached map):10. Length of assessment reach evaluated (feet):
11. Channel depth from bed (in riffle, if present) to top of bank (feet):Unable to assess channel depth.
12. Channel width at top of bank (feet):13. Is assessment reach a swamp stream?Yes No
14. Feature type:Perennial flow Intermittent flow Tidal Marsh Stream
STREAM RATING INFORMATION:
15. NC SAM Zone:Mountains (M)Piedmont (P)Inner Coastal Plain (I)Outer Coastal Plain (O)
16. Estimated geomorphic
valley shape (skip for a b
Tidal Marsh Stream):(more sinuous stream, flatter valley slope)(less sinuous stream, steeper valley slope)
17. Watershed size: (skip Size 1 (< 0.1 mi2)Size 2 (0.1 to < 0.5 mi2)Size 3 (0.5 to < 5 mi2)Size 4 (≥ 5 mi2)
for Tidal Marsh Stream)
ADDITIONAL INFORMATION:
18. Were regulatory considerations evaluated?Yes No If Yes, check all that appy to the assessment area.
Section 10 water Classified Trout Waters Water Supply Watershed (I II III IV V)
Essential Fish Habitat Primary Nursery Area High Quality Waters/Outstanding Resource Waters
Publicly owned property NCDWR riparian buffer rule in effect Nutrient Sensitive Waters
Anadromous fish 303(d) List CAMA Area of Environmental Concern (AEC)
Documented presence of a federal and/or state listed protected species within the assessment area.
List species:
Designated Critical Habitat (list species):
19. Are additional stream information/supplementary measurements included in "Notes/Sketch" section or attached?Yes No
1.Channel Water – assessment reach metric (skip for Size 1 streams and Tidal Marsh Streams)
A Water throughout assessment reach.
B No flow, water in pools only.
C No water in assessment reach.
2.Evidence of Flow Restriction – assessment reach metric
A At least 10% of assessment reach in-stream habitat or riffle-pool sequence is adversely affected by a flow restriction or fill to the
point of obstructing flow or a channel choked with aquatic macrophytes or ponded water or impounded on flood or ebb within
the assessment reach (examples: undersized or perched culverts, causeways that constrict the channel, tidal gates).
B Not A
3.Feature Pattern – assessment reach metric
A A majority of the assessment reach has altered pattern (examples: straightening, modification above or below culvert).
B Not A.
4.Feature Longitudinal Profile – assessment reach metric
A Majority of assessment reach has a substantially altered stream profile (examples: channel down-cutting, existing damming,
over widening, active aggradation, dredging, and excavation where appropriate channel profile has not reformed from any of
these disturbances).
B Not A
5.Signs of Active Instability – assessment reach metric
Consider only current instability, not past events from which the stream has currently recovered. Examples of instability include
active bank failure, active channel down-cutting (head-cut), active widening, and artificial hardening (such as concrete, gabion, rip-rap).
A < 10% of channel unstable
B 10 to 25% of channel unstable
C > 25% of channel unstable
6.Streamside Area Interaction – streamside area metric
Consider for the Left Bank (LB) and the Right Bank (RB).
LB RB
A A Little or no evidence of conditions that adversely affect reference interaction
B B Moderate evidence of conditions (examples: berms, levees, down-cutting, aggradation, dredging) that adversely affect
reference interaction (examples: limited streamside area access, disruption of flood flows through streamside area,
leaky or intermittent bulkheads, causeways with floodplain constriction, minor ditching [including mosquito ditching])
C C Extensive evidence of conditions that adversely affect reference interaction (little to no floodplain/intertidal zone access
[examples: causeways with floodplain and channel constriction, bulkheads, retaining walls, fill, stream incision,
disruption of flood flows through streamside area] or too much floodplain/intertidal zone access [examples:
impoundments, intensive mosquito ditching]) or floodplain/intertidal zone unnaturally absent or assessment reach is a
man-made feature on an interstream divide
7.Water Quality Stressors – assessment reach/intertidal zone metric
Check all that apply.
A Discolored water in stream or intertidal zone (milky white, blue, unnatural water discoloration, oil sheen, stream foam)
B Excessive sedimentation (burying of stream features or intertidal zone)
0.5
0.8
NC SAM FIELD ASSESSMENT FORM
Accompanies User Manual Version 2.1
INSTRUCTIONS:Attach a sketch of the assessment area and photographs.Attach a copy of the USGS 7.5-minute topographic
quadrangle,and circle the location of the stream reach under evaluation.If multiple stream reaches will be evaluated on the same
property,identify and number all reaches on the attached map,and include a separate form for each reach.See the NC SAM User
Manual for detailed descriptions and explanations of requested information. Record in the "Notes/Sketch" section if any supplementary
NOTE EVIDENCE OF STRESSORS AFFECTING THE ASSESSMENT AREA (do not need to be within the assessment area).
measurements were performed. See the NC SAM User Manual for examples of additional measurements that may be relevant.
Johnston County Landfill July 22, 2016
Upper Reach 200
Johnston County 4. Assessor name/organization:C. Hopper, P. May, G. Price
Johnston
Neuse Middle Creek
C Noticeable evidence of pollutant discharges entering the assessment reach and causing a water quality problem
D Odor (not including natural sulfide odors)
E Current published or collected data indicating degraded water quality in the assessment reach. Cite source in the "Notes/Sketch"
section.
F Livestock with access to stream or intertidal zone
G Excessive algae in stream or intertidal zone
H Degraded marsh vegetation in the intertidal zone (removal, burning, regular mowing, destruction, etc.)
I Other:(explain in "Notes/Sketch" section)
J Little to no stressors
8.Recent Weather – watershed metric
For Size 1 or 2 streams, D1 drought or higher is considered a drought; for Size 3 or 4 streams, D2 drought or higher is considered a
drought.
A Drought conditions and no rainfall or rainfall not exceeding 1 inch within the last 48 hours
B Drought conditions and rainfall exceeding 1 inch within the last 48 hours
C No drought conditions
9 Large or Dangerous Stream – assessment reach metric
Yes No Is stream is too large or dangerous to assess? If Yes, skip to Metric 13 (Streamside Area Ground Surface Condition).
10.Natural In-stream Habitat Types – assessment reach metric
10a.Yes No Degraded in-stream habitat over majority of the assessment reach (examples of stressors include excessive
sedimentation, mining, excavation, in-stream hardening [for example, rip-rap], recent dredging, and snagging)
(evaluate for size 4 Coastal Plain streams only, then skip to Metric 12)
10b.Check all that occur (occurs if > 5% coverage of assessment reach) (skip for Size 4 Coastal Plain streams)
A Multiple aquatic macrophytes and aquatic mosses F 5% oysters or other natural hard bottoms
(include liverworts, lichens, and algal mats)G Submerged aquatic vegetation
B Multiple sticks and/or leaf packs and/or emergent H Low-tide refugia (pools)
vegetation I Sand bottom
C Multiple snags and logs (including lap trees)J 5% vertical bank along the marsh
D 5% undercut banks and/or root mats and/or roots K Little or no habitat
in banks extend to the normal wetted perimeter
E Little or no habitat
11.Bedform and Substrate – assessment reach metric (skip for Size 4 Coastal Plain streams and Tidal Marsh Streams)
11a.Yes No Is assessment reach in a natural sand-bed stream? (skip for Coastal Plain streams)
11b.Bedform evaluated. Check the appropriate box(es).
A Riffle-run section (evaluate 11c)
B Pool-glide section (evaluate 11d)
C Natural bedform absent (skip to Metric 12, Aquatic Life)
11c.In riffles sections, check all that occur below the normal wetted perimeter of the assessment reach – whether or not submerged.
Check at least one box in each row (skip for Size 4 Coastal Plain Streams and Tidal Marsh Streams). Not Present (NP) =
absent, Rare (R) = present but ≤ 10%, Common (C) = > 10-40%, Abundant (A) = > 40-70%, Predominant (P) = > 70%. Cumulative
percentages should not exceed 100% for each assessment reach.
NP R C A P
Bedrock/saprolite
Boulder (256 – 4096 mm)
Cobble (64 – 256 mm)
Gravel (2 – 64 mm)
Sand (.062 – 2 mm)
Silt/clay (< 0.062 mm)
Detritus
Artificial (rip-rap, concrete, etc.)
11d.Yes No Are pools filled with sediment? (skip for Size 4 Coastal Plain streams and Tidal Marsh Streams)
12.Aquatic Life – assessment reach metric (skip for Size 4 Coastal Plain streams and Tidal Marsh Streams)
12a.Yes No Was an in-stream aquatic life assessment performed as described in the User Manual?
If No, select one of the following reasons and skip to Metric 13. No Water Other:
12b.Yes No Are aquatic organisms present in the assessment reach (look in riffles, pools, then snags)? If Yes, check
all that apply. If No, skip to Metric 13.
1 >1 Numbers over columns refer to “individuals” for size 1 and 2 streams and “taxa” for size 3 and 4 streams.
Adult frogs
Aquatic reptiles
Aquatic macrophytes and aquatic mosses (include liverworts, lichens, and algal mats)
Beetles (including water pennies)
Caddisfly larvae (Trichoptera [T])
Asian clam (Corbicula )
Crustacean (isopod/amphipod/crayfish/shrimp)
Damselfly and dragonfly larvae
Dipterans (true flies)
Mayfly larvae (Ephemeroptera [E])
Megaloptera (alderfly, fishfly, dobsonfly larvae)
Midges/mosquito larvae
Mosquito fish (Gambusia ) or mud minnows (Umbra pygmaea)
Mussels/Clams (not Corbicula )
Other fish
Salamanders/tadpoles
Snails
Stonefly larvae (Plecoptera [P])
Tipulid larvae
*********************************REMAINING QUESTIONS ARE NOT APPLICABLE FOR TIDAL MARSH STREAMS****************************
Ch
e
c
k

f
o
r

T
i
d
a
l
Ma
r
s
h

S
t
r
e
a
m
s
on
l
y
Worms/leeches
13.Streamside Area Ground Surface Condition – streamside area metric (skip for Tidal Marsh Streams and B valley types)
Consider for the Left Bank (LB) and the Right Bank (RB). Consider storage capacity with regard to both overbank flow and
upland runoff.
LB RB
A A Little or no alteration to water storage capacity over a majority of the streamside area
B B Moderate alteration to water storage capacity over a majority of the streamside area
C C Severe alteration to water storage capacity over a majority of the streamside area (examples include: ditches, fill,
soil, compaction, livestock disturbance, buildings, man-made levees, drainage pipes)
14.Streamside Area Water Storage – streamside area metric (skip for Size 1 streams, Tidal Marsh Streams, and B valley types)
Consider for the Left Bank (LB) and the Right Bank (RB) of the streamside area.
LB RB
A A Majority of streamside area with depressions able to pond water ≥ 6 inches deep
B B Majority of streamside area with depressions able to pond water 3 to 6 inches deep
C C Majority of streamside area with depressions able to pond water < 3 inches deep
15.Wetland Presence – streamside area metric (skip for Tidal Marsh Streams)
Consider for the Left Bank (LB) and the Right Bank (RB). Do not consider wetlands outside of the streamside area or within the
normal wetted perimeter of assessment reach.
LB RB
Y Y Are wetlands present in the streamside area?
N N
16.Baseflow Contributors – assessment reach metric (skip for size 4 streams and Tidal Marsh Streams)
Check all contributors within the assessment reach or within view of and draining to the assessment reach.
A Streams and/or springs (jurisdictional discharges)
B Ponds (include wet detention basins; do not include sediment basins or dry detention basins)
C Obstruction that passes some flow during low-flow periods within assessment area (beaver dam, bottom-release dam)
D Evidence of bank seepage or sweating (iron oxidizing bacteria in water indicates seepage)
E Stream bed or bank soil reduced (dig through deposited sediment if present)
F None of the above
17.Baseflow Detractors – assessment area metric (skip for Tidal Marsh Streams)
Check all that apply.
A Evidence of substantial water withdrawals from the assessment reach (includes areas excavated for pump installation)
B Obstruction not passing flow during low flow periods affecting the assessment reach (ex: watertight dam, sediment deposit)
C Urban stream (≥ 24% impervious surface for watershed)
D Evidence that the stream-side area has been modified resulting in accelerated drainage into the assessment reach
E Assessment reach relocated to valley edge
F None of the above
18.Shading – assessment reach metric (skip for Tidal Marsh Streams)
Consider aspect. Consider “leaf-on” condition.
A Stream shading is appropriate for stream category (may include gaps associated with natural processes)
B Degraded (example: scattered trees)
C Stream shading is gone or largely absent
19.Buffer Width – streamside area metric (skip for Tidal Marsh Streams)
Consider “vegetated buffer” and “wooded buffer” separately for left bank (LB) and right bank (RB) starting at the top
of bank out to the first break.
Vegetated Wooded
LB RB LB RB
A A A A ≥ 100-feet wide or extends to the edge of the watershed
B B B B From 50 to < 100-feet wide
C C C C From 30 to < 50-feet wide
D D D D From 10 to < 30-feet wide
E E E E < 10-feet wide or no trees
20.Buffer Structure – streamside area metric (skip for Tidal Marsh Streams)
Consider for left bank (LB) and right bank (RB) for Metric 19 ("Vegetated" Buffer Width).
LB RB
A A Mature forest
B B Non-mature woody vegetation or modified vegetation structure
C C Herbaceous vegetation with or without a strip of trees < 10 feet wide
D D Maintained shrubs
E E Little or no vegetation
21.Buffer Stressors – streamside area metric (skip for Tidal Marsh Streams)
Check all appropriate boxes for left bank (LB) and right bank (RB). Indicate if listed stressor abuts stream (Abuts), does not abut but
is within 30 feet of stream (< 30 feet), or is between 30 to 50 feet of stream (30-50 feet).
If none of the following stressors occurs on either bank, check here and skip to Metric 22:
Abuts < 30 feet 30-50 feet
LB RB LB RB LB RB
A A A A A A Row crops
B B B B B B Maintained turf
C C C C C C Pasture (no livestock)/commercial horticulture
D D D D D D Pasture (active livestock use)
22.Stem Density – streamside area metric (skip for Tidal Marsh Streams)
Consider for left bank (LB) and right bank (RB) for Metric 19 ("Wooded" Buffer Width).
LB RB
A A Medium to high stem density
B B Low stem density
C C No wooded riparian buffer or predominantly herbaceous species or bare ground
23.Continuity of Vegetated Buffer – streamside area metric (skip for Tidal Marsh Streams)
Consider whether vegetated buffer is continuous along stream (parallel). Breaks are areas lacking vegetation > 10-feet wide.
LB RB
A A The total length of buffer breaks is < 25 percent.
B B The total length of buffer breaks is between 25 and 50 percent.
C C The total length of buffer breaks is > 50 percent.
24.Vegetative Composition – First 100 feet of streamside area metric (skip for Tidal Marsh Streams)
Evaluate the dominant vegetation within 100 feet of each bank or to the edge of the watershed (whichever comes first) as it contributes
to assessment reach habitat.
LB RB
A A Vegetation is close to undisturbed in species present and their proportions. Lower strata composed of native
species, with non-native invasive species absent or sparse.
B B Vegetation indicates disturbance in terms of species diversity or proportions, but is still largely composed of native
species. This may include communities of weedy native species that develop after clear-cutting or clearing or
communities with non-native invasive species present, but not dominant, over a large portion of the expected strata or
communities missing understory but retaining canopy trees.
C C Vegetation is severely disturbed in terms of species diversity or proportions. Mature canopy is absent or communities
with non-native invasive species dominant over a large portion of expected strata or communities composed of planted
stands of non-characteristic species or communities inappropriately composed of a single species or no vegetation.
25.Conductivity – assessment reach metric (skip for all Coastal Plain streams)
25a.Yes No Was a conductivity measurement recorded?
If No, select one of the following reasons. No Water Other:
25b.Check the box corresponding to the conductivity measurement (units of microsiemens per centimeter).
A <46 B 46 to < 67 C 67 to < 79 D 79 to < 230 E ≥ 230
Notes/Sketch:
No conductivity meter
Notes of Field Assessment Form (Y/N)
Presence of regulatory considerations (Y/N)
Additional stream information/supplementary measurements included (Y/N)
NC SAM feature type (perennial, intermittent, Tidal Marsh Stream)
(4) Floodplain Access
(4) Wooded Riparian Buffer
(4) Microtopography
(3) Stream Stability
(4) Channel Stability
(4) Sediment Transport
(4) Stream Geomorphology
(2) Stream/Intertidal Zone Interaction
(2) Longitudinal Tidal Flow
(2) Tidal Marsh Stream Stability
(3) Tidal Marsh Stream Geomorphology
(1) Water Quality
(2) Baseflow
(2) Streamside Area Vegetation
(3) Upland Pollutant Filtration
(3) Thermoregulation
(2) Indicators of Stressors
(2) Aquatic Life Tolerance
(2) Intertidal Zone Filtration
(1) Habitat
(2) In-stream Habitat
(3) Baseflow
(3) Substrate
(3) Stream Stability
(3) In-stream Habitat
(2) Stream-side Habitat
(3) Stream-side Habitat
(3) Thermoregulation
(2) Tidal Marsh In-stream Habitat
(3) Flow Restriction
(3) Tidal Marsh Stream Stability
(4) Tidal Marsh Stream Geomorphology
(3) Tidal Marsh In-stream Habitat
(2) Intertidal Zone Habitat
Overall HIGH
HIGH
HIGH
LOW
HIGH
HIGH
HIGH
NA
NA
HIGH
LOW
HIGH
HIGH
MEDIUM
NA
NA
NA
NA
HIGH
HIGH
(3) Tidal Marsh Channel Stability
(3) Streamside Area Attenuation
Function Class Rating Summary
(1) Hydrology
NA
HIGH
HIGH
HIGH
HIGH
NA
NO
MEDIUM
Stream Site Name Johnston County Landfill Date of Evaluation
HIGH
(4) Tidal Marsh Channel Stability
HIGH
MEDIUM
NA
NA
MEDIUM
NA
HIGH
NC SAM Stream Rating Sheet
Accompanies User Manual Version 2.1
LOW
HIGH
USACE/
All Streams
NCDWR
Intermittent
NA
NA
(2) Flood Flow
C. Hopper, P. May, G. Price
July 22, 2016
NO
YES
NO
Perennial
(2) Baseflow
Stream Category Assessor Name/Organization
MEDIUM
Ia2
Burdette, Jennifer a
From: Phil <[e-mail]>
Sent: Wednesday, April 12, 2017 5:17 PM
To: Burdette, Jennifer a
Cc: 'Chris Hopper'
Subject: FW: RE: Mitigation request
Attachments: Johnston County Landfill - Buffer Statement of Availability 04-12-17.pdf
Jennifer
Attached is the statement of availability for Johnston County mitigation. Please let us know if you need anything else.
Thanks
Phil
Phil May
,A. OUA. Eco Y T'E INC.
[phone]
From: Chris Hopper[mailto:[e-mail]]
Sent: Wednesday, April 12, 2017 5:13 PM
To: Phil May
Subject: Fwd: RE: Mitigation request
Please forward to Jennifer.
I don't have her address in my phone
-------- Original message --------
From: Ian Hazelhoff <ihazelhoffkwildlandseng com>
Date: 04/12/2017 5:03 PM (GMT -05:00)
To: Chris Hopper <[e-mail]>
Subject: RE: Mitigation request
Chris,
Nice speaking with you over the phone just now, the Statement of Availability is attached, let me know if there are
questions! We are happy to submit the official invoice as the process moves forward, just give me a shout. Have a good
one,
Ian M. Hazelhoff ( Land Acquisition
1

Statement of Buffer Mitigation Credit Availability
April 12, 2017
Rick Hester
Johnston County Manager
PO Box 1049
Smithfield, NC 27577
Re: Availability of Riparian Buffer credits for the Johnston County Landfill project
Bank Name: Old Savannah Nutrient Offset & Buffer Bank
Bank Sponsor: Wildlands Holdings II, LLC (wholly owned by Wildlands Engineering, Inc.)
DWR Project #: 2016-0611
Riparian Buffer Credits Available: 75,957 sq. ft.
Neuse 03020201 River Basin
Applicable Local Government/Municipality jurisdiction: NC Division of Water Resources
Dear Mr. Hester:
Wildlands Holdings II, LLC has the above mentioned Riparian Buffer Credits from the Old Savannah Nutrient
Offset & Buffer Bank (DWQ Project #: 2016-0611), to satisfy the Riparian Buffer mitigation requirements related
to the above mentioned project. The Project is located within the service area (HUC 03020201 - non -Falls) of
the Bank.
This letter is not a guarantee of availability or a reservation of the credits — it is simply a statement of availability
required to assist you in obtaining a permit for your planned impact. An invoice for this transaction will be sent
upon your request and we will reserve the credits for a period of 30 days from invoice. Final transfer of the
credits will be made upon receipt of a copy of the 401 Water Quality Certification Authorization Certificate from
the NC Department of Environmental Quality approving the Riparian Buffer mitigation purchase from the Bank
and upon receipt of your payment to Wildlands Holding II, LLC. We will then issue a credit transfer certificate
verifying your credit purchase to the North Carolina Division of Water Resources and to you for your records.
We appreciate the opportunity to assist you with your mitigation requirements. Please contact me at (205) 807-
0800 or [e-mail] if you have any questions or need any additional information.
Sincerely,
-
Ihazelhoff
Wildlands Engineering, Inc.
[e-mail]
0: [phone] ex. 120 M: [phone]
Wildlands Holding II, LLC • Wildlands Engineering, Inc • 1430 South Mint Street, Charlotte, NC 28203