20050185 Ver 1_Complete File_20050131

rD OF WAMichael F. Easley, Governor
G William G. Ross Jr., Secretary
North Carolina Department of Environment and Natural Resources
> W,r~
ti , =I
Alan W. Klimek, P.E. Director
.. Division of Water Quality
zz?
April 20, 2005
Mr. James Coble
City of Albemarle
P.O. Box 190
Albemarle, NC, 28002
Re: City of Albemarle: Landfill Expansion
Stanly County
DWQ #05-0185; USACE Action ID. No. 200430314
APPROVAL of 401 Water Quality Certification
Dear Mr. Coble:
Attached hereto is a copy of Certification No. 3508 issued to Mr. James Coble of the City of Albemarle,
dated April 20, 2005. In addition, you should get any other federal, state or local permits before you go
ahead with your project including (but not limited to) Solid Waste, Sediment and Erosion Control,
Stormwater, Dam Safety, Non-discharge and Water Supply Watershed regulations.
If we can be of further assistance, do not hesitate to contact us.
Sincerely,
Alan W. Klimek, P.E.
AWK/cbk
Attachments: Certificate of Completion
cc: U.S. Army Corps of Engineers, Asheville Regulatory Field Office
Wilmington District, USACOE
Alan Johnson, DWQ, Mooresville Regional Office
DLR Mooresville Regional Office
File Copy
Central Files
Jan Gay, ESI, 932 Hendersonville Road, Suite 106, Asheville, NC, 28803
Filename: 050185AIbemarle(Stanly)401.
401 Wetlands Certification Unit
1650 Mail Service Center, Raleigh, North Carolina 27699-1650
2321 Crabtree Boulevard, Suite 250, Raleigh, North Carolina 27604
Phone: [phone] / FAX [phone] / Internet: http://h2o.enr.state.nc.us/ncwetlands
o Carolina
N `
Nfrrrally
An Equal Opportunity/Affirmative Action Employer- 50% Recycled/10% Post Consumer Paper
City of Albemarle
Page 2 of 4
April 20, 2005
NORTH CAROLINA 401 WATER QUALITY CERTIFICATION
THIS CERTIFICATION is issued in conformity with the requirements of Section 401 Public Laws 92-
500 and 95-217 of the United States and subject to the North Carolina Division of Water Quality (DWQ)
Regulations in 15 NCAC 2H, Section .0500 to Mr. James Coble of the City of Albemarle, to place fill in
2.46 acres of open water ponds and 0.36 acres of wetlands draining to an unnamed tributary to Jacob's
Creek in the Yadkin Pee-Dee River Basin in order to expand the existing City of Albemarle landfill facility
in Stanly County, pursuant to an application filed on the 7th day of March of 2005. '
The application and supporting documentation provides adequate assurance that the proposed work will
not result in a violation of applicable Water Quality Standards and discharge guidelines. Therefore, the
State of North Carolina certifies that this activity will not violate the applicable portions of Sections 301,
302, 303, 306, 307 of PL 92-500 and PL 95-217 if conducted in accordance with the application, the
supporting documentation, and conditions hereinafter set forth.
This approval is only valid for the purpose and design submitted in the application materials and as
described in the Public Notice. If the project is changed, prior to notification a new application for a new
Certification is required. If the property is sold, the new owner must be given a copy of the Certification
and approval letter and is thereby responsible for complying with all conditions of this Certification. Any
new owner must notify the Division and request the Certification be issued in their name. Should wetland
or stream fill be requested in the future, additional compensatory mitigation may be required as described
in 15A NCAC 2H.0506 (h) (6) and (7). If any plan revisions from the approved site plan result in a
change in stream or wetland impact or an increase in impervious. surfaces, the DWQ shall be notified in
writing and a new application for 401 Certification may be required. For this approval to be valid,
compliance with the conditions listed below is required.
Conditions of Certification:
1. Impacts Approved
The following impacts are hereby approved as long as all of the other specific and general
conditions of this Certification (or Isolated Wetland Permit) are met. No other impacts are
approved including incidental impacts:
Amount Approved
Units Plan Location or Reference
Open Water 2.46 acres Public Notice
404 Wetlands 0.36 (acres) Public Notice
Sediment and Erosion Control:
2. Erosion and sediment control practices must be in full compliance with all specifications governing
the proper design, installation and operation and maintenance of such Best Management Practices in
order to protect surface waters standards:
a. The erosion and sediment control measures for the project must be designed,
installed, operated, and maintained in accordance with the most recent version of the
North Carolina Sediment and Erosion Control Planning and Design Manual.
b. The design, installation, operation, and maintenance of the sediment and erosion
control measures must be such that they equal, or exceed, the requirements specified
in the most recent version of the North Carolina Sediment and Erosion: Control
Manual. The devices shall be maintained on all construction sites, borrow sites, and
City of Albemarle
Page 3 of 4
April 20, 2005
waste pile (spoil) projects, including contractor-owned or leased borrow pits
associated with the project.
c. For borrow pit sites, the erosion and sediment control measures must be designed,
installed, operated, and maintained in accordance with the most recent version of the
North Carolina Surface Mining Manual.
d. The reclamation measures and implementation must comply with the reclamation in
accordance with the requirements of the Sedimentation Pollution Control Act.
3. No waste, spoil, solids, or fill of any kind shall occur in wetlands, waters, or riparian areas beyond the
footprint of the impacts depicted in the 404/40 1 Permit Application. All construction activities,
including the design, installation, operation, and maintenance of sediment and erosion control Best
Management Practices, shall be performed so that no violations of state water quality standards,
statutes, or rules occur;
4. Sediment and erosion control measures shall not be placed in wetlands or waters to the maximum extent
practicable. If placement of sediment and erosion control devices in wetlands and waters is
unavoidable, they shall be removed and the natural grade restored within six months of the date that the
Division of Land Resources has released the project;
Continuing Compliance:
Mr. James Coble and the City of Albemarle, shall conduct construction activities in a manner
consistent with State water quality standards (including any requirements resulting from compliance
with section 303(d) of the Clean Water Act) and any other appropriate requirements of State law and
federal law. If the Division determines that such standards or laws are not being met (including the
failure to sustain a designated or achieved use) or that State or federal law is being violated, or that
further conditions are necessary to assure compliance, the Division may reevaluate and modify this
Certification to include conditions appropriate to assure compliance with such standards and
requirements in accordance with 15A NCAC 2H.0507(d). Before modifying the Certification, the
Division shall notify Mr. James Coble and the City of Albemarle, and the US Army Corps of
Engineers, provide public notice in accordance with 15A NCAC 2H.0503 and provide opportunity for
public hearing in accordance with 15A NCAC 2H.0504. Any new or revised conditions shall be
provided to Mr. James Coble and the City of Albemarle, in writing, shall be provided to the United
States Army Corps of Engineers for reference in any Permit issued pursuant to Section 404 of the
Clean Water Act, and shall also become conditions of the 404 Permit for the project;
Written Stormwater Management Plan (Final Plan Needed)
A final, written stormwater management plan (including a signed and notarized Operation and
Maintenance. Agreement) shall be submitted to the 401 Oversight and Express Permitting Unit
(2321 Crabtree Blvd., Suite 250, Raleigh, NC, 27604) within 60 days of the issuance of the 401
Water Quality Certification. The stormwater management plans shall be approved in writing by
this Office before the impacts specified in this Certification occur. You have the option of using
the Express Review Program for expedited approval of these plans. If you propose to use the
Express Review Program, remember to include the appropriate fee with the plan. The stormwater
management plan must include plans, specifications, and worksheets for stormwater management
facilities that are appropriate for the surface water classification and designed to remove at least
85% TSS according to the most recent version of the NC DENR Stormwater Best Management
Practices Manual. These facilities must be designed to treat the runoff from the entire project,
unless otherwise explicitly approved by the Division of Water Quality. Also, before any
permanent building is occupied at the subject site, the facilities (as approved by this Office) shall
City of Albemarle
Page 4 of 4
April 20, 2005
be constructed and operational, and the stormwater management plan (as approved by this Office)
shall be implemented. The structural stormwater practices as approved by this Office as well as
drainage patterns must be maintained in perpetuity. No changes to the structural stormwater
practices shall be made without written authorization from the Division of Water Quality.
Other Conditions:
7. Certificate of Completion
Upon completion of all work approved within the 401 Water Quality Certification or applicable
Buffer Rules, and any subsequent modifications, the applicant is required to return the attached
certificate of completion to the 401/Wetlands Unit, North Carolina Division of Water Quality, 1650
Mail Service Center, Raleigh, NC, 27699-1650.
8. No Sediment and Erosion Control Measures in Wetlands
Sediment and erosion control measures shall not be placed in wetlands or waters to the maximum
extent practicable. If placement of sediment and erosion control devices in wetlands and waters is
unavoidable, they shall be removed and the natural grade restored within six months of the date that
the Division of Land Resources or locally delegated program has released the project.
Also, this approval to proceed with your proposed impacts or to conduct impacts to waters as
depicted in your application shall expire upon expiration of the 404 Permit.
If this Certification is unacceptable to you, you have the right to an adjudicatory hearing upon written
request within sixty (60) days following receipt of this Certification. This request must be in the form of a
written petition conforming to Chapter 150B of the North Carolina General Statutes and filed with the
Office of Administrative Hearings, 6714 Mail Service Center, Raleigh, N.C. 27699-6714. If
modifications are made to an original Certification, you have the right to an adjudicatory hearing on the
modifications upon written request within sixty (60) days following receipt of the Certification. Unless
such demands are made, this Certification shall be final and binding.
This the 20th day of April 2005
DIVISION OF WATER QUALITY
Alan W. Klimek, P.E.
3508
AWK/cbk

US Army Corps
Of Engineers
Wilmington District
OS - a 1 ?s
PUBLIC NOTICE
Issue Date: March 4, 2005
Comment Deadline: April 1, 2005
Corps Action ID #: 200430314
All interested parties are herby advised that the Wilmington District, Corps of Engineers (Corps)
has received an application for work within jurisdictional waters of the United States. Specific
plans and location information are described below and shown on the attached plans. This
Public Notice and all attached plans are also available on the Wilmington District Web Site at
www.saw.usace.army.mil/wetlands
Applicant:
AGENT (if applicable):
Authority
Mr. James Coble
City of Albemarle
P.O. Box 190
Albemarle, NC 28002
Mr. Jan Gay
Environmental Services, Inc.
932 Hendersonville Road, Suite 106
Asheville, NC 28803
220C.3, [9 ON [9
MAR 0 7 2005
V.-CM MSAND TOR RATER GRANCN
The Corps will evaluate this application and a decide whether to issue, conditionally issue, or
deny the proposed work pursuant to applicable procedures under Section 404 of the Clean Water
Act (33 USC 1344).
Location
The proposed project is located at the existing City of Albemarle Landfill located on Valley
Drive, east of the intersection of NC Hwy 52 and SR 1720, southeast of Albemarle, Stanly
County, North Carolina (35.3018405°N -80.1461603°W). The site contains unnamed tributaries
to Jacobs Creek, which flows into the Pee Dee River. The Pee Dee River reaches the Atlantic
Ocean through Winyah Bay in South Carolina.
Existing Site Conditions
The proposed landfill expansion would be located entirely within the property boundaries of the
existing City of Albemarle landfill facility. The City of Albemarle facility is depicted on the U.S.
Geologic Survey (USGS) 7.5-minute topographic quadrangle (Albemarle, NC) (Figure 1).
Elevations within the proposed expansion area range from a low of approximately 380 feet above
mean sea level (MSL) to a high of approximately 450 feet above MSL. The lowest portion of
the site is located at Jacobs Creek, west of the landfill expansion area.
Existing soils mapping provided by the Natural Resource Conservation Service (MRCS)
indicates the proposed expansion area contains four soil series (Figure 2): Goldston, Enon,
Badin, and Oakboro. The Oakboro mapping unit is a frequently flooded soil with hydric
inclusions, generally found on long, narrow flood plains adjacent to upland sideslopes (USDA,
1989).
The proposed expansion area is located within a sub-basin of the Yadkin-Pee Dee River Basin.
There are two streams located within the proposed expansion area, both of which are unnamed
tributaries to Jacobs Creek. Their receiving water, Jacobs Creek, is approximately 0.5
downstream from the proposed expansion area. No High Quality Waters (HQW) or Outstanding
Resource Waters (ORW) occurs within 3.0 miles upstream or downstream of the proposed
landfill expansion area.
The majority of the proposed expansion area is composed of fallow pastureland. The only
natural plant communities present within the proposed expansion area are dry oak-hickory forest
and dry mesic oak-hickory forest (Schafale and Weakley, 1990). The dry oak-hickory forest is
located along the northwest boundary of the proposed expansion area. Canopy composition is
varied; in this. community, consisting of white oak (Quercus alba), northern red oak (Quercus
rubra), mockernut hickory (Carya tomentosa), pignut hickory (Carya glabra), and loblolly pine
(Pious taeda), with scattered areas of winged elm (Ubnus alata). Understory species include
flowering dogwood (Corpus florida), red maple (Ater rubrum), and sweetgum (Liquidambar
styraciflua). Common shrubs, vines, and herbaceous vegetation include eastern red cedar
(Juniperus virginiana), Chinese privet (Ligustrum sinense), muscadine grape (Vitis rotundifolia),
poison ivy (Toxicodendron radicans), Japanese honeysuckle (Lonicera japonica), and Virginia
creeper (Parthenocissus quinquefolia).
The dry mesic oak-hickory forest is located along the southeast boundary of the proposed
expansion area. Canopy composition of this community consists of white oak, northern red oak,
and mockernut hickory, and loblolly pine, with scattered areas of shagbark hickory (Carya
ovata), shortleaf pine (Pinus echinata), and tulip poplar (Tulipifera liriodendron). Understory
species include flowering dogwood, sweetgum, and willow oak (Quercus phellos). Common
shrubs, vines, and herbaceous vegetation include eastern red cedar, Chinese privet, groundsel-
tree (Baccharis halimifolia), muscadine grape, poison ivy, Japanese honeysuckle, common
greenbrier (Smilax rotundifolia), blackberry (Rubus spp.), dog fennel (Eupatorium spp.), and
Virginia creeper.
Fallow pastureland occupies the majority of the proposed expansion area, with various
herbaceous grasses and ornamental trees. Trees present within the fallow pastureland include
tree-of-heaven (Ailanthus altissima), black locust (Robiliia pseudoacacia), and common
persimmon (Diospyros virginiana). Common vines and herbaceous vegetation include Japanese
2
honeysuckle, blackberry, Virginia creeper, buttercup (Ranunculus bulbosus), panic grass
(Panicom spp.), and goldenrod (Solidago spp.). Two excavated ponds are present within the
fallow pastureland.
Applicant's Stated Purpose
The purpose of the proposed work is to create additional landfill cells so the existing facility can
continue to operate. The 60-acre expansion site is located to the east of the existing cells and is
within the area originally permitted for landfill operations by Stanly County.
Project Description
The applicant has provided the following description of the proposed work. The proposed project
site consists of approximately 60 acres adjacent to the existing 369-acre landfill. Plans submitted
with the application show the proposed placement of fill into 2.46 acres of open water ponds and
0.36 acre of wetlands due to the landfill expansion.
Proposed impacts associated with the landfill expansion include the placement of fill into two
open water ponds totaling 2.46 acres (Figure 4). Both ponds are man-made features located on
an unnamed tributary to Jacobs Creek in the Yadkin Pee-Dee River Basin. The smallest pond
(P2) is approximately 0.08 acre in size, approximately 5 feet deep, and is located upstream of the
largest pond and wetland. The largest pond (P1) is 2.38 acre in size and is approximately 12 feet
deep. The applicant conducted fish sampling during the summer of 2004 in P1 during low flow
conditions. The sampling did not reveal any fish species in the pond.
Proposed impacts associated with the landfill expansion include the placement of fill into three
jurisdictional wetland areas (Figure 4). Wetland 2 (W2) is the largest wetland area located
between the two open water ponds. W2 is approximately 0.35 acres in size and consists of black
willow (Salix nigra), cattail (Typha latifolia) and soft rush (Juncus effusus). The current or
previous owners excavated this area during construction of the ponds, which have subsequently
filled in with sediment over time. Wetland 1 (W1) is a very small wetland area (0.008 acre)
located upstream of W2. WI is a linear feature and contains the vegetation listed above in
addition to broomsedge (Andropogon virginicus), beggars-tick (Bidens spp.) and various sedges
(Carex spp.). Wetland 3 (W3) is a riparian wetland located adjacent to the stream channel
located downstream of the largest pond. Vegetation is this wetland consists of sweetgum
(Liquidambar styracifua), red maple (Ater rubrum), Chinese privet (Ligustrum sinese),
blackberry (Rubus spp.), and soft rush (Juncos eff usus). A shallow groundwater table and
precipitation appear to be the main source of hydrology for all three wetland areas.
There are two stream segments within the proposed expansion area but will not be impacted as a
result of the landfill expansion. Stream segment 1 (S1) is a perennial stream along the southern
boundary of the expansion area and ultimately flows into Jacobs Creek. S1 has a width of 12-18
feet and bankfull depth of 12-16 inches with a cobble/bedrock substrate. Stream segment 2 (S2)
is an intermittent channel that begins at the base of the largest pond dam until its confluence with
Stream segment 1. S2 has a channel width of 3-4 feet, bankfull depth of 3-6 inches with a
sand/gravel/cobble substrate. Fish species collected within the stream channels included bluegill
3
(Lepomis macrochirus), pumpkinseed (Lepomis gibbosus), golden shriner (Notemigonus
crysoleucas), creek chub (Semotilus atromaculatus), redear sunfish (Lepomis microlophus),
largemouth bass (Micropterus sabnoides), and margined madtom (Noturus insignis). The
applicant is proposing no fill in these stream channels.
Other Required Authorizations
This notice and all applicable application materials are being forwarded to the appropriate State
agencies for review. The Corps will generally not make a final permit decision until the North
Carolina Division of Water Quality (NCDWQ) issues, denies, or waives State certification
required by Section 401 of the Clean Water Act (PL 92-500). The receipt of the application and
this public notice in the NCDWQ Central Office in Raleigh serves as application to the NCDWQ
for certification. A waiver will be deemed to occur if the NCDWQ fails to act on this request for
certification within sixty days of the date of the receipt of this notice in the NCDWQ Central
Office. All persons desiring to make comments regarding the application for certification under
Section 401 of the Clean Water Act should do so in writing delivered to the North Carolina
Division of Water Quality (NCDWQ), 1650 Mail Service Center, Raleigh, North Carolina
27699-1650 Attention: Ms. Cyndi Karoly by Monday, May 2, 2005.
Essential Fish Habitat
This notice initiates the Essential Fish Habitat (EFH) consultation requirements of the
Magnuson-Stevens Fishery Conservation and Management Act. The Corps' initial determination
is that the proposed project will not adversely impact EFH or associated fisheries managed by
the South Atlantic or Mid Atlantic Fishery Management Councils or the National Marine
Fisheries Service.
Cultural Resources
The Corps has consulted the latest published version of the National Register of Historic Places
and is not aware that any registered properties, or properties listed as being eligible for inclusion
therein are located within the project area or will be affected by the proposed work. Presently,
unknown archeological, scientific, prehistoric, or historical data may be located within the
project area and/or could be affected by the proposed work.
Endangered Species
The Corps has reviewed the project area and examined all information provided by the applicant
and consulted the latest North Carolina Natural Heritage Database. Based on available
information, the Corps is not aware of the presence of species listed as threatened or endangered
or their critical habitat formally designated pursuant to the Endangered Species Act of 1973
(ESA) within the project area. A final determination on the effects of the proposed project will
be made upon additional review of the project and completion of any necessary biological
assessment and/or consultation with the U.S. Fish and Wildlife Service and/or National Marine
Fisheries Service.
4
Evaluation
The decision whether to issue a permit will be based on an evaluation of the probable impacts,
including cumulative impacts, of the proposed activity on the public interest. That decision will
reflect the national concern for both protection and utilization of important resources. The
benefit, which reasonably may be expected to accrue from the proposal, must be balanced
against its reasonably foreseeable detriments. All factors which may be relevant to the proposal
will be considered including the cumulative effects thereof; among those are conservation,
economics, aesthetics, general environmental concerns, wetlands, historic properties, fish and
wildlife values, flood hazards, flood plain values (in accordance with Executive Order 11988),
land use, navigation, shoreline erosion and accretion, recreation, water supply and conservation,
water quality, energy needs, safety, food and fiber production, mineral needs, considerations of
property ownership, and, in general, the needs and welfare of the people. For activities involving
the discharge of dredged or fill materials in waters of the United States, the evaluation of the
impact of the activity on the public interest will include application of the Environmental
Protection Agency's 404(b)(1) guidelines.
Commenting Information
The Corps is soliciting comments from the public; Federal, State and local agencies and officials;
Indian Tribes and other interested parties in order to consider and evaluate the impacts of this
proposed activity. Any comments received will be considered by the Corps to determine
whether to issue, modify, condition or deny a permit for this proposal. To make this decision,
comments are used to assess impacts on endangered species, historic properties, water quality,
general environmental effects and the other public interest factors listed above. Comments are
used in the preparation of an Environmental Assessment (EA) and/or an Environmental Impact
Statement (EIS) pursuant to the National Environmental Policy Act (NEPA). Comments are also
used to determine the need for a public hearing and to determine the overall public interest of the
proposed activity.
Any person may request, in writing, within the comment period specified in this notice, that a
public hearing be held to consider the application. Requests for public hearings shall state, with
particularity, the reasons for holding a public hearing. Requests for a public hearing shall be
granted, unless the District Engineer determines that the issues raised are insubstantial or there is
otherwise no valid interest to be served by a hearing.
Written comments pertinent to the proposed work, as outlined above, will be received
by the Corps of Engineers, Wilmington District, until 5pm on Friday, April 1, 2005. Comments
should be submitted to Ms. Amanda Jones, 151 Patton Avenue, Room 208, Asheville, NC
28801-5006.
5
ER04066/bcation.dwa
A--P ?l aoo"-f 30 3H,
ER04066/soils.dwg

ER04066/site.dwg
N t, t` . ? rMyA r 8 y ,
, td
irk.
`c *" Y
A.
rr4a„
n 0 r yr
0.078 acre r ,? s+ ?t < r? a*a srt i
0.008 acre#S ?.?
"I V
1.
. P1
+?,k 2.377 acres
9 y
7 ? ; 1
I
t.
(i t
m
x.
?r
4 .? s
I
t
•J
? ,{ W3 y???-f?'r
Existing Road t awrn"",r
0741
ay L
t
D Site Boundary
S2 ,
Y,.
C 7 Expansion Area
O Impact Area
Wetland < ?. <
O Stream Channel
Pond X t s 1-0 ,? •??14 a?
IfX
100 0 100 200 r *t ?, I?P^.aY?.. . y ;? _
I°?Lv
,d m '6 ri 4 t..
Feet
+RrK w c
Source: USGS 1998 Color infrared images.
Albermarle Quadrangle 0.1 Expansion Area Impacts Figure: 3
Environmental City of Albemarle Landfill Project: ER04066
Services, Inc. Stanly County, North Carolina
Date:
Jan 2005
Pc-rD ai-m14 3 0 3( 1?
ER040661keymap.dwg

ER04066/keymap.dwg
?- ? aocy-l 3 C) 3 iy
ER040661keymap.dwg
A'--D aooc? 3o--:3 (y-
MEMORANDUM
TO: John Dorney
Non-Discharge Branch
Regional Contact: Alan Johnson
WQ Supervisor: Rex Gleason
Date:
SUBJECT: WETLAND STAFF REPORT AND RECOMMENDATIONS
Facility Name City of Albemarle: Landfill Expansion
Project Number 05 0185
Recvd From APP
Received Date 1/31/05
Project Type Landfill Expansion
Recvd By Region

Stream
CI
County Stanly
County2
Region Mooresville
Permit Wetland Wetland Wetland Stream ass Acres Feet
Type Type Impact Score Index Prim. Supp. Basin Req. Req.
IP OTH FT _0N ? 13-9-(0.5) WSIV F- 30,708. 0.36 F
Mitigation Wetland
MitigationType Type Acres Feet
Is Wetland Rating Sheet Attached? O Y O N Did you request more info? Q Y O N
Have Project Changes/Conditions Been Discussed With Applicant? O Y O N
Is Mitigation required? O Y 4N Recommendation: ©O Issue O Issue/Coed O Deny
Provided by Region: Latitude (ddmmss)
Longitude (ddmmss)
Comments: 0_7
Staff visited the site on April 2R, 2005. The impose of the application is for landfill expansion. The
applicant is applying for a NW 26 (expired). It is assumed that the application should be for a NW
cc: Regional Office
Central Office Page Number 1
MEMORANDUM
TO: John Dorney Regional Contact:
Non-Discharge Branch WQ Supervisor:
Date:
SUBJECT: WETLAND STAFF REPORT AND RECOMMENDATIONS
Facility Name City of Albemarle: Landfill Expansion
Project Number 05 0185
Recvd From APP
Alan Johnson
Rex Glensnn
County Stanly
County2
Region Nlooresville
Received Date 1/31/05 Recvd By Region
Project Type Landfill Expansion
Certificates Stream
Permit Wetland Wetland Wetland Stream Class Acres Feet
Type Type Impact Score Index Prim. Supp. Basin Req. Req.
F IP OTH FT-0 N F__13-9-(0.5) Nvsty 30,708. 0.36 F
F_ F- P Y70 -NF-- [__ F_ F__ F_ F__
Mitigation Wetland
MitigationType Type Acres Feet
I F__ F F_
Is Wetland Rating Sheet Attached? O Y O N Did you request more info? Q Y O N
Have Project Changes/Conditions Been Discussed With Applicant? O Y ©O N
Is Mitigation required? O Y @N Recommendation: @ Issue O Issue/Cond O Deny
Provided by Region: Latitude (ddmmss) Longitude (ddmmss)
Comments: A/ C,
Staff visited the site on 1r 27, 2005. The purpose of the application is for landfill expansion. The
appl6cant is applying for a NW 26 (expired). It is assumed that the application should be for a NW
39 C~E,??f
There are two man mane ponds on site= Above the ponds is approximately 1 /3 acre of wetland. The
area draining to the ponds and wetland is pasture, This area and the pond and wetland are to be
converted for use as landfill. No streams are to be directly impacted by the expansion.
Jacobs Creek (WS IV) flows within the site boundary. Thus stormwater management is required.
This is an IP_ Issue from Raleigh.
cc: Regional Office
Central Office Page Number
Of
ENVIRONMENTAL SERVICES, INC.
524 S. NEW HOPE ROAD
RALEIGH, NORTH CAROLINA 27610
919-212-1760 • FAX [phone]-a ?',? i • -•` ; rx
www.esinc.cc
28 February 2005
MAR 2005
.Tf .`:,...,,.:D STC,'..''7li+,TtZ Eii/<< H
Mr. D. Rex Gleason, PE
North Carolina Division of Water Quality
610 East Center Avenue, Suite 301
Mooresville, NC 28115
Re: DWQ Project Number 05-0185
City of Albemarle Landfill Expansion
ESI Project Number ER04-066
Dear Mr. Gleason:
I
,l t
.?? 4-C
Environmental Services, Inc., (ESI) has been contracted to pursue an Individual Permit for
unavoidable impacts associated with the expansion of the City of Albemarle Landfill located in
Stanly County, North Carolina. We have received and reviewed your comments dated 9
February 2005.
The first comment:
According to your application, the water source (which is believed to be a spring) for
pond P1 is to be rerouted to stream S2. Please provide a cross sectional view and plan
view for the construction detail for this portion of the project.
This comment is being addressed. The construction detail is being created.
The second comment:
Given that wetland W3 is associated with stream S2, please provide an explanation
regarding the potential impact (or non-impact) to this wetland in regards to the above.
Wetland W3 is outside of the proposed expansion impact and will not be directly affected by
expansion activities. Hydrology in this wetland appears to be a combination of overland flow
from the surrounding areas and overbank flooding from channels S1 and, to a lesser extent, S2.
If the hydrology source for pond P1 is a spring, the flow will be routed to the existing channel
S2, resulting in a potential increase in flow by removing the dam impediment currently in place.
No reduction in hydrology to wetland W3 is expected. The landfill expansion may result in an
increase in hydrology and may lead to an increase in wetland area.
Additional comments were made in the 9 February 2005 letter.
Paragraph 3:
Be advised that when draining the pond at the site, care must be taken to prevent
violations of water quality turbidity standards. Special attention should be given to
potential sediment deposition in the stream channel below the pond.
JACKSONVILLE • ST. AUGUSTINE 0 COCOA 9 JUPITER • DESTIN 0 SAVANNAH • ATLANTA 9 RALEIGH • CHARLOTTE

ENVIRONMENTAL SERVICES, INC.
28 February 2005
ER04-066
Page 2 of 2
All pertinent sediment and erosion control measures will be taken during all phases of
construction for this project. Turbidity standards and sedimentation issues will be addressed in
accordance with the appropriate agency standards.
Paragraph 4:
Also, according to the Stanly County soil survey, a stream is the water source for
wetland W2 and pond P1. Once pond P1 has been drained, this should be verified, and
if true, mitigation may be required by DWQ for the resulting impacts.
During the delineation phase of this project, no jurisdictional stream channels were noted within
the proposed impact area. The U.S. Army Corps of Engineers accepted the delineation effort.
If a stream channel previously existed within pond P1, it was impacted during the construction of
the open water feature. The permit application concerns impacts for jurisdictional features
currently existing within the site, which includes 0.357 acre of non-riparian wetlands and 2.455
acres of open water. No stream channels are present within the impact area.
I appreciate your attention to this matter. If you have any questions or comments, or need any
additional information, please feel free to contact me at [phone].
Sincerely,
ENVIRO ENTAL SERVICES, INC.
Jan
Senior Scientist
Cc: Amanda Jones, COE Asheville
Cyndi Karoly, DWQ Raleigh
Wayne Sullivan, Municipal Engineering Services Company, PA
Raymond Allen, City of Albemarle
.-
March 9, 2005
0@@@Bwq@ NCDW MAR D
1650 Main Service Center 4 2005
Raleigh, NC 27699 - 1650 qti ?ENR _ WATER QUALITY
Attn: Ms. Cyndi Karoly ?JDS AIJD STOfZMyATER BR,gtjCH
Ms. Karoly:
When the City of Albemarle first bought (lot #I I of the Hudson Estate) to build a road across it
to the land that they purchased for a land fill. They found the land unfit for a landfill.
The company they hired to clear this land (Lot #11 of the Hudson Estate) left the brush burning at
night, as a result it began to spread. I called the fire department since this land joined mine. I
called the fire department for fires at the land fill many times even on weekends.
This shows that a lot of thought did not go into the process when the purchase took place. This
proved true, or they would not need the engineers to make it safe for a land fill extention now.
I had to breath dust prior to City paving this road. I even wrote authorities in Raleigh and
Winston Salem to get them to pave this road.
It creates dust today due to the fact dirt from the land fill is carried by trucks onto this road, and
the City does not run a brush tractor over it to clean it. I suggest the City be more responsible.
Area #3 on your map shows the area that dust from Alcoa-Badin was dumped which contains
arsenic. They now have to ship it to a hazard waste dump in Alabama brought about by E.P.A.
This shows that the City has disregard for anyone or anything except dumping trash.
I feel that everything should be considered before the engineers prepare this land for land fill use,
The environment, and the health of the people.
There should be some type of monitoring system on property adjoining the land fill. Wells
should be checked at least monthly.
Thank you,
211?t,61t4`j P, lG
f Junior D. Ri Iardson
25128 Starwood Drive
Albemarle, NC 28001
ER04066/location. dwg
?Q
/' t\ J '?\• ? / r•?/ ,? ??/,? ? ` ? ? .Ill ?}r, ?1, r rm ?'• i a
A ?
°?? ' ?i1 \ ??? - rte`: ?(r? ?'??<.?? %J'? , c+,. ?"? ? ? ? ?;
41.
f
J
cc ?,\ ?• Off' Q N ?? r (/, , i ') -UL .
Existing
t-
W l ` )1 C l , ( J
z C7 Site Boundary
C] Expansion Area ' / O. , ?; p'r ?S,?-? ?;? _?,// \??
O Impact Area '?» ;? ?!?i% `? ?- I ((?'?? (/?_.?. ?? ?;? ? i?
- 4i l O? ?? r I 0 S`
1000 0 1000 2000
Foot
r
Source: USGS Digital Raster Graphics,
Mermarle Quadrangle (1993 V?
Project Location Map Figure: 1
Env City of Albemarle Landfill
ironmental Project: ER04066
o_ . Services, Inc. Stanly County, North Carolina
Date: Jan 2005
?4? i 000 30 3114'
Triage Check List
Date:
To:
2/2/05 Project Name: City of Albemarle: Landfill Expansion
DWQ#: 05-0185
County: Stanly
Alan Johnson, Mooresville Regional Office
60-day Processing Time: This is an IP. The processing clock
won't start until we received the Public Notice.
From: Cyndi Karoly Telephone : [phone]
The file attached is being forwarded to your for your evaluation.
Please call if you need assistance.
? Minimization/avoidance issues
? Buffer Rules (Meuse, Tar-Pamlico, Catawba, Randleman)
? Pond fill
Mitigation Ratios
? Ditching
? Are the stream and or wetland mitigation sites available and viable?
? Check drawings for accuracy
Is the application consistent with pre-application meetings?
? Cumulative impact concern
? Stream length impacted
? Stream determination
Wetland determination and distance to blue-line surface waters on USFW topo maps
Comments: As per our discussion regarding revision of the triage and delegation processes,
please review the attached file. Note that you are the first reviewer, so this file will need to be
reviewed for administrative as well as technical details. If you elect to place this project on hold,
please ask the applicant to provide your requested information to both the Central Office in
Raleigh as well as the Asheville Regional Office. As we discussed, this is an experimental, interim
procedure as we slowly transition to electronic applications. Please apprise me of any
complications you encounter, whether related to workload, processing times, or lack of a "second
reviewer" as the triage process in Central had previously provided. Also, if you think of ways to
improve this process, especially so that we can plan for the electronic applications, let me know.
Thanks!
06011 85
ENVIRONMENTAL SERVICES, INC.
524 S. NEW HOPE ROAD
RALEIGH. NORTH CAROLINA 27610
919-212-1760 • FAX [phone]
www.eslnc.cc
31 January 2005
Mr. John Dorney PAYMENT
North Carolina Division of Water Quality RECEIVED
Wetlands Unit
2321 Crabtree Blvd , Suite 250
Raleigh NC 27604
Re: City of Albemarle Landfill Expansion Individual Permit Application
Dear Mr. Dorney:
v
r
.l?

ER04-066
Environmental Services, Inc., (ESI) has been asked to pursue an Individual Permit to offset
unavoidable impacts to wetland areas for expansion of the City of Albemarle Landfill Facility
located in Stanly County, North Carolina.
Included are seven bound copies of the Individual Permit Package. The package includes a
signed copy of the permit application and, a copy of the Modified Environmental Assessment
outlining site conditions.
If you have any questions or comments, please contact me at [phone].
Sincerely,
E R E L SERVICES, INC.
an ay
Senior Scientist
Attachments:
Individual Permit Application
Modified Environmental Assessment
Application Fee $475.00

JACKSONVILLE 0 ST. AUGUSTINE • COCOA 0 JUPITER • DESTIN 0 SAVANNAH • ATLANTA 9 RALEIGH • CHARLOTTE
r
APPLICATION FOR DEPARTMENT OF THE ARMY PERMIT OMB NO. 0710-0003
(33 CFR 3251 Expires ec 2004
The Public burden for this collection of information is sestimated to average 10 hours per response, although the majority of pplicac ould require
5 hours or less. This includes the time for reviewing instructions, searching existing data sources, gathering anti' aintainiri data and
completing and reviewing the collection of information. Send comments regarding this burden estimate or any of! ect o i? colle%lnl
information, including suggestions for reducing this burden, to Department of Defense, Washington Headquarters 4. Direct6latl Operations and Reports, 1215 Jefferson Davis Highway, Suite 1204, Arlington, VA 22202-4302; and to the Office afya meA? a d Bud
Paperwork Reduction Project (0710-0003), Washington, DC 20503. Respondents should be aware that notwithstandin? -oother r?+yion o
no person shall be subject to any penalty for failing to comply with a collection of information if it does not display a curve id O ontr
number. Please DO NOT RETURN your form to either of those addresses. Completed applications must be submitted to the Engineer h ng
jurisdiction over the location of the proposed activity. cep
PRIVACY ACT STATEMENT
Authorities: Rivers and Harbors Act, Section 10, 33 USC 403; Clean Water Act, Section 404, 33 USC 1344; Marine Protection , Res?kch and
Sanctuaries Act, 33 USC 1413, Section 103. Principal Purpose: Information provided on this form will be used in evaluating the application for a
permit. Routine Uses: This information may be shared with the Department of Justice and other federal, state, and local government agencies.
Submission of requested information is voluntary, however, if information is not provided the permit application cannot be evaluated nor can a permit
be issued.
One set of original drawings or good reproducible copies which show the location and character of the proposed activity must be attached to this
application (see sample drawings and instructions) and be submitted to the District Engineer having jurisdiction over the location of the proposed
activity. An application that is not completed in full will be returned.
1. APPLICATION NO. 12. FIELD OFFICE CODE 13. DATE RECEIVED 14. DATE APPLICATION COMPLETED
5. APPLICANT'S NAME 8. AUTHORIZED AGENT'S NAME AND TITLE (an agent is notmquired)
City of Albemarle
6. APPLICANT'S ADDRESS 9. AGENT'S ADDRESS
P.O. Box 190, Albemarle, NC 28002
7.. APPLICANT'S PHONE NOS. W/AREA CODE 10. AGENT'S PHONE NOS. W /AREA CODE

a. Residence a. Residence
b. Business 704-984-9667 b. Business
11 STATEMENT OF AUTHORIZATION
I hereby authorize, to act in my behalf as my agent in the processing of this application and to
furnish-i pon request, supplemental information in support of this permit application.
I1'71oS-
S SIGNATURE F DA
NAME. LOCATION AND DESCRIPTION OF PROJECT OR ACTIVITY
12. PROJECT NAME OR TITLE (sc instructionsi
City of Albemarle Landfill Expansion
13. NAME OF WATERBODY, IF KNOWN atapplic bm 114. PROJECT STREET ADDRESS Illapp# ble)
N/A
15. LOCATION OF PROJECT
f Mr
COUN Y STATE
16. OTHER LOCATION DESCRIPTIONS, IF KNOWN, (seeinstrucrions)
40592-B Stony Gap Road
Albemarle, NC 28001
17. DIRECTIONS TO THE SITE
From Albemarle, NC 24/27/73 east. Turn right on Valley Drive.
Turn left into landfill.
NG FORM 4345, Jul 97 EDITION OF FES 94 IS OBSOLETE. (Proponent: CECW-OR)
18. Nature of Activity (Description of pro/ecr, include ell:nstures)
f
® Expansion of current landfill facility. Approximtely 2.455 acres of
open water and 0.357 acres of non-riparian wetland area will be
unavoidably impacted.
19. Project Purpose fOescribe the reason or purpose of the prayed, see instructions)
The project purpose is to meet the city's need for landfill capacity
through 2066.
USE BLOCKS 20-22 IF DREDGED ANDlOR FILL MATERIAL IS TO BE DISCHARGED
20. Reason(s) for Discharge
Expedient, efficient creation and operation of landfill requires a
layout which creates the above referenced impact.
21. Type(s) of Material Being Discharged and the Amount of Each Type in Cubic Yards
N/A
22. Surface Area in Acres of Wetlands or Other Waters Filled (seeinstructions)
0.357 acres of wetland; 2.455 acres of open water (ponds)
23. Is Any Portion of the Work Already Complete? Yes No IF YES, DESCRIBE THE COMPLETED WORK
24. Addresses of Adjoining Property Owners, Lessees, Etc., Whose Property Adjoins the Waterbody (If more than can be entered here,
please attach a supplemental list).
All impacted areas are completely contained within the landfill property
25. List of Other Certifications or Approvals/Denials Received from other Federal, State or Local Agencies for Work Described in This Application.
AGENCY TYPE APPROVAL' IDENTIFICATION NUMBER DATE APPLIED DATE APPROVED DATE DENIED
COE NWP 26 1996 04056 18 May 17 June
1996 1996
*Would include but is not restricted to zoning, building and flood plain permits
26. Application is hereby made for a permit or permits to authorize the work described in this application. I certify that the information in this
app"cation is complete and accurate. I further certify that I possess the authority to undertake the work described herein or am acting as the
d ly thorized agent of th applicant.
S N TURE OF APPLICANT AT SIGNATURE OF AGENT DATE
The application must be signed by the person who desires to undertake the proposed activity (applicant) or it may be signed by a duly
authorized agent if the statement in block 11 has been filled out and signed.
18 U.S.C. Section 1001 provides that: Whoever, in any manner within the jurisdiction of any department or agency of the United States
knowingly and willfully falsifies, conceals, or covers up any trick, scheme, or disguises a material fact or makes any false, fictitious or
fraudulent statements or representations or makes or uses any false writing or document knowing same to contain any false, fictitious or
fraudulent statements or entry, shall be fined not more than $10,000 or Imprisoned not more than five years or both.
MODIFIED ENVIRONMENTAL ASSESSMENT
FOR
CITY OF ALBEMARLE LANDFILL EXPANSION
Stanly County, North Carolina
In Support of Section 404 of the Clean Water Act
Individual Permit
ESI Project No. ER04-066
Prepared for:
The City of Albemarle
Stanly County, North Carolina
and
Municipal Engineering Services Company, PA
Garner, NC
Prepared by:
l
ENVIRONMENTAL SERVICES, INC.
524 South New Hope Road
Raleigh, NC 27610
Tel [phone] Fax [phone]
January 2005
TABLE OF CONTENTS
Pa
1.0 PROJECT DESCRIPTION ............................. .................................................................... 1
2.0 PURPOSE AND NEED .................................. .................................................................... 3
3.0 ENVIRONMENTAL SETTING .................... .................................................................... 4
3.1 Physical Resources ...................................... .................................................................... 4
3.1.1 Physiography, Topography, Geology, and Land Use ............................................. 4
3.1.2 Soils ..................................................... ....................................................................4
3.1.3 Water Resources ................................. .................................................................... 4
3.2 Biological Resources .................................. .................................................................... 6
3.3 Wildlife ....................................................... .................................................................... 7
3.3.1 Terrestrial Wildlife .............................. .................................................................... 7
3.3.2 Aquatic Wildlife ...................................................................................................... 8
4.0 SPECIAL TOPICS .............................................................................................................. 9
4.1 Jurisdictional Delineation ..................................................................................................... 9
4.1.1 Jurisdictional Wetlands ....................... .................................................................... 9
4.1.2 Surface Waters .................................... .................................................................... 9
4.1.3 Stream Channels ................................. .................................................................. 11
4.2 Federal Protected Species ........................... .................................................................. 11
4.3 Cultural Resources ...................................... .................................................................. 12
5.0 ALTERNATIVES ANALYSIS ........................................................................................ 13
6.0 PROPOSED IMPACTS .................................................................................................... 15
7.0 AGENCY REVIEW ......................................................................................................... 16
8.0 MITIGATION OPTIONS ................................................................................................. 17
9.0 SUMMARY ......................................................................................................................18
10.0 LITERATURE CITED ..................................................................................................... 19
LIST OF FIGURES
Page
1 Project Location Map .......................................................................................................... 2
2 Project Soils Map ................................................................................................................ 5
3 Expansion Area Impacts ................................................................................................... 10
i
MODIFIED ENVIRONMENTAL ASSESSMENT
FOR
CITY OF ALBEMARLE LANDFILL EXPANSION
1.0 PROJECT DESCRIPTION
The City of Albemarle is proposing to expand landfill facilities associated with the City of
Albemarle Landfill, located near the city of Albemarle in Stanly County, North Carolina. The
City of Albemarle facility currently operates on an approximately 369-acre site and wishes to
expand into an approximately 60-acre site located adjacent to and east of the current facility
(Figure 1).
The City of Albemarle facility is submitting a permit application to the U.S. Army Corps of
Engineers (COE) requesting an authorization to impact approximately 0.36 acre of jurisdictional
wetland area and approximately 2.46 acres of open water area pursuant to Section 404 of the
Clean Water Act (CWA) of 1972 (33 USC 1344). This action will require water quality
certification from the State of North Carolina through the N.C. Division of Water Quality
(DWQ) (NCGS 143-215) pursuant to Section 401 of the CWA.
The purpose of this document is to provide an evaluation of existing environmental conditions
within the area proposed for impact, an evaluation of potential alternatives, and proposed
mitigation options. This document is intended for use by the COE and DWQ as the basis for
determining the applicant's compliance with the Section 404 (b) (1) guidelines and other Section
404 permitting requirements, and Section 401 water quality certification.
E R04066/location. dwg
i \ ` i ' ?`\ ? \ ? ?? ') / \ ? ` ?`? / ? i t 1. l . : ? .-, , ? / •? ?? ? ; j? .

J, I
"T`t Ir
j i' I r / i? ?'
.i '? ?,? r r, - .? ,?•f' I
i ?, ? /1 h r 7 -?
\, r? ?? o'J' / j r ..--1 _
7 ! ?
,r

J
fi
?
'
?, ,
r, ?, ,??,. /,~• , ?i
. 1 ?'? ?, ? .??, ; M %
,\" ???,

', is '.`c,?' ,`` ? IV?f
? 1 1! } 1 v ? (' i? I ' /r I e•, A
d ?', l r? 1 ?} ?l.
?, r ? .?
1! ? r ?;r

to 1 4-11 "It
?'??41A 'V i ?` f ?? 5 s ??l i'3 ' 1 r i r ??
1 1 ! l/
?
1J i \
!
I
B
? ,`
I? '?
r V
/??.?%J ,
l
? _
{
(
: ,

,
'
J1l ? ?r vy? v
Ilr r 1 ?I t -
? 1...- ? I 1 ! 1 \ \' ..? (? Y \
?? Existing Road a r \`?'`
\ ?? ? \
\_?'' r '
??,
l ????•? /r 1 G ?\? ? ,
/ f..•\ I ? ?ny?'
// to F..?a \ C? ',) _,?
1.1 l ? -
/ \ i l< 1 U ? `
t N' ?
\??-.
-
2 (
\ y
4
z C3 Site Boun
C] Expansion

O Impact Ar dary
Area

ea

J,??

,
C 1000 0 1
Feet 000 2000
Source: USGS Digital
AlbermarleQuadr Raster Graphics,
angle (1993)
,
?
??
?
Project Location Map Figure: 1
City of Albemarle Landfill Project: ER04066
Environmental
Services, Inc. Stanl y County' North Carolina
Date: Jan 2005
2.0 PURPOSE AND NEED
The overall purpose of the proposed expansion is to provide room to allow the existing facility to
continue to operate. The area currently proposed for expansion is within the area originally
permitted for landfill operations by Stanly County. The proposed expansion area is located east
of and adjacent to the existing operating landfill cell. The proposed expansion will allow the
existing cell to extend east.
If the current landfill facility is not expanded, the life of the landfill will be reduced by
approximately 40 years. This would require the City to find an alternate receptor for waste
material. The closest regional solid waste facility is located approximately 15 miles east of
Albemarle, in Montgomery County. The waste transfer would require the trucks to cross the
Pee-Dee River, increasing the chance for spills into the River.
Sending waste to an alternate facility would increase traffic on the existing two-lane NC 24
facility, and would expand the service area for the receiving landfill. By expanding the service
area for the receiving landfill, the service life for that landfill would be effectively reduced,
unless the landfill expanded a sufficient amount to accept the City's waste.
3
3.0 ENVIRONMENTAL SETTING
The proposed landfill expansion would be located entirely within the property boundaries of the
City of Albemarle facility, which is located approximately 1 mile southeast of the intersection of
US 52 and SR 1720.
3.1 Physical Resources
3.1.1 Physiography, Topography, Geology, and Land Use
The City of Albemarle facility is depicted on the U.S. Geologic Survey (USGS) 7.5-minute
topographic quadrangle (Albemarle, NC) (Figure 1). More specifically, the existing facility is
located between US 52 to the west, SR 1739 to the east, SR 1720 to the north, and SR 1741 to
the south.
Elevations within the proposed expansion area range from a low of approximately 380 feet above
mean sea level (MSL) to a high of approximately 450 feet above MSL. The lowest portion of
the site is located at Jacobs Creek, west of the landfill expansion area.
The proposed expansion area is located within a metamudstone and meta-argillite formation (Cid
formation) in the Carolina Slate Belt in the Piedmont physiographic province of North Carolina.
The metamudstone and meta-argillite formation is interbedded with metasandstone,
metaconglomerate, and metavolcanic rock (USGS 1985).
3.1.2 Soils
Existing soils mapping provided by the Natural Resource Conservation Service (MRCS)
indicates the proposed expansion area contains four soil series comprising seven soil-mapping
units (USDA 1989) (Figure 2).
The Goldston series is composed of well-drained soils, typically found on narrow ridgetops and
steep sideslopes. The majority of the proposed expansion area is composed of the Goldston
series, which forms two mapping units and is a non-hydric soil. The Enon series is composed of
undulating to hilly, well-drained soils. The Enon series forms two mapping units within the
proposed expansion area and is a non-hydric soil. The Badin series is composed of well-drained
soils on undulating to rolling terrain, generally on ridgetops or sideslopes. The Badin series
forms two mapping units within the proposed expansion area and is a non-hydric soil. The
Oakboro mapping unit is a frequently flooded soil with hydric inclusions, generally found on
long, narrow flood plains adjoining upland sideslopes.
3.1.3 Water Resources
The proposed expansion area is located within subbasin 03-07-08 of the Yadkin-Pee Dee River
Basin (DENR 2003) and is part of USGS hydrologic unit 03040104 (USGS 1974). There are
two streams located within the proposed expansion area, both of which are unnamed tributaries
to Jacobs Creek. These stream segments have not been assigned a Stream Index Number (SIN).
Their receiving water, Jacobs Creek, is approximately 0.5 mile (0.8 km) downstream from the
4
ER040E
N
% L:Xlsrlrly IWOU

C3 Site Boundary
j
E3 Expansion Area
O Impact Area Soil Mapping Units
ED Jurisdictional Areas .•; Non-Hydric Soils
(w
ED USDA Soil Boundary '
aB Badin channery silt loam, 2 to 8%

M
USDA Water Boundary al) Badin channery silt loam, 8 to 15% '
aF Badin channery silt loam, 15 to 45%
500 0 500 1001, cD Enon cobbly loam, 8 to 15%

Feat nC
oC Enon very stony loam, 4 to 15% M
Goldston very channery silt loam, 4 to 15 %
Source: USGS 1998 Color Infrared Images - ,oF Goldston very channery silt loam, 15 to 45 %
,
Albermarle Quadrangle; USDA Soil Surveyor Non-Hydric Soils with Hydric Inclusions
Stanly County, 1989 Oa Oakboro silt loam, frequently flooded

Project Soils Map Figure: 2
City of Albemarle Landfill Project: ER04066
Environmental
Services
Inc Stanly County, North Carolina
,
.
t? Date: Jan 20 05
proposed expansion area and has been assigned SIN 13-9-(0.5) from its source to a point 0.3 mile
upstream from Stanly County SR 1740 (DENR 2004a).
A Best Usage Classification is assigned to Waters of the State of North Carolina based on the
existing or contemplated best usage of various streams or segments of streams within the
drainage basin. There are two jurisdictional channels within the proposed landfill expansion
area. These unnamed tributaries to Jacobs Creek do not have a Best Usage Classification.
Jacobs Creek, however, is classified as WS-IV. The classification WS indicates freshwaters
used as sources of water supply. WS-IV indicates very few categorical restrictions on watershed
development or wastewater discharges (DENR 2003).
No High Quality Waters (HQW), Outstanding Resource Waters (OR`V), WS-1, or WS-II
waters occur within 3.0 miles upstream or downstream of the proposed landfill expansion area.
None of the streams within to the proposed expansion area have been designated as a North
Carolina Natural and Scenic River or as a National Wild and Scenic River. None of these
streams have been listed on the 303(d) list of impaired waters (DENR 2004b).
A measure of water quality being used by the DWQ is the North Carolina Index of Biotic
Integrity (NCIBI), which assesses biological integrity using the structure and health of the fish
community. Fish sampling has not been conducted by DWQ in within any of the stream
channels or surface waters within the proposed expansion area (DWQ 1998).
No benthic invertebrate sampling has been conducted by DWQ within any of the streams or
surface waters within the proposed landfill expansion area.
3.2 Biological Resources
Terrestrial distribution and composition of plant communities throughout the project study area
reflect landscape-level variations in topography, soils, hydrology, and past and present land use
practices. When appropriate, the plant community names have been adopted and modified from
the Natural Heritage Program classification system (Schafale and Weakley, 1990) and the
descriptions written to reflect local variations within the project study area. The majority of the
proposed expansion area is composed of fallow pastureland. The only natural plant communities
present within the proposed expansion area are dry oak-hickory forest and dry mesic oak-hickory
forest. Each community is described below.
Dry Oak-Hickory Forest is the plant community located along the northwest boundary of the
proposed expansion area. Canopy composition of this community is varied, consisting of white
oak (Quercus alba), northern red oak (Quercus rubra), mockernut hickory (Carya tonientosa),
pignut hickory (Carya glabra), and loblolly pine (Pinus taeda), with scattered areas of winged
elm (Ubpus alata). Understory species include flowering dogwood (Corpus Jlorida), red maple
(Ater rubrum), and sweetgum (Liquidambar styraciJlua). Common shrubs, vines, and
herbaceous vegetation include eastern red cedar (Jupiperus virginiapa), Chinese privet
(Ligustrum sinense), muscadine grape (Vitis rotundifolia), poison ivy (Toxicodendron radicans),
Japanese honeysuckle (Lonicera japonica), and Virginia creeper (Parthenocissus quinquefolia).
6
Dry Mesie Oak-Hickory Forest is the plant community located along the southeast boundary of
the proposed expansion area. Canopy composition of this community consists of white oak,
northern red oak, and mockernut hickory, and loblolly pine, with scattered areas of shagbark
hickory (Carya ovata), shortleaf pine (Pinus eehinata), and tulip poplar (Tulipifera
liriodendron). Understory species include flowering dogwood, sweetgum, and willow oak
(Quercus phellos). Common shrubs, vines, and herbaceous vegetation include eastern red cedar,
Chinese privet, groundsel-tree (Baccharis halimifolia), muscadine grape, poison ivy, Japanese
honeysuckle, common greenbrier (Smilax rotundifolia), blackberry (Rubus spp.), dog fennel
(Eupatorium spp.), and Virginia creeper.
Fallow Pastureland occupies the majority of the proposed expansion area, with various
herbaceous grasses and ornamental trees. Trees present within the fallow pastureland include
tree-of-heaven (Ailanthus altissima), black locust (Robinia pseudoacacia), and common
persimmon (Diospyros virginiana). Common vines and herbaceous vegetation include Japanese
honeysuckle, blackberry, Virginia creeper, buttercup (Ranunculus bulbosus), panic grass
(Panicum spp.), and goldenrod (Solidago spp.). Two excavated ponds are present within the
fallow pastureland.
3.3 Wildlife
The proposed landfill expansion area was visually surveyed for the presence of wildlife during
all phases of the field investigation. Due to the ongoing operations of the landfill, the number
and diversity of wildlife sightings within the area is limited.
3.3.1 Terrestrial Wildlife
Bird species documented within the proposed landfill expansion area include wood duck (Aix
sponsa), black vulture (Coragyps atratus), turkey vulture (Cathartes aura), wild turkey
(Meleagris gallopavo), northern cardinal (Cardinalls cardinalis), eastern towhee (Pipilo
erythrophthahnus), and various gulls (Larus spp.).
The vultures and gulls are species commonly associated with landfills. The northern cardinal
and eastern towhee are commonly associated with disturbed and ecotonal habitats. The wood
duck was found near the open water areas of the landfill. The wild turkey was observed in the
upland forest in the northern portion of the property.
Mammal species documented within the proposed landfill expansion area include white-tailed
deer (Odocoileus virginianus), gray squirrel (Sciurus carolinensis), raccoon (Procyon lotor), and
eastern cottontail (Sylvilagus floridanus) (Webster, et al. 1985).
A water snake (Nerodia sp.) was the only reptile observed within the proposed landfill expansion
area, specifically in the surface water feature designated P1 on Figure 3. No terrestrial
amphibians were documented within the proposed landfill expansion area.
7
3.3.2 Aquatic Wildlife
Sampling of the fish fauna was conducted for both streams within the proposed landfill
expansion area, as well as within the larger of the two ponds (designated P1 on Figure 3). No
benthic sampling was undertaken.
Fish species collected within the streams included bluegill (Lepomis macrochirus), pumpkinseed
(Lepomis gibbosus), golden shiner (Notemigonus crysoleucas), creek chub (Semotilus
alromaculatus), redear sunfish (Lepomis microlophus), largemouth bass (Micropterus
sabnoides), and margined madtom (Noturus insignis). Sampling conducted within P1 under
lowered water conditions did not reveal the presence of any fish species within the pond.
4.0 SPECIAL TOPICS
The proposed landfill expansion area was reviewed for the presence of jurisdictional wetland
areas using the three-parameter approach outlined by the COE Wetlands Determination Manual
(DOA 1987) and for jurisdictional stream channel segments using criteria outlined by the COE
and DWQ. Results of each review are outlined below.
4.1 Jurisdictional Delineation
A jurisdictional delineation was conducted within the proposed landfill expansion area in
December 2003 (Figure 3). The delineation effort revealed the presence of three jurisdictional
wetlands within the proposed landfill expansion area totaling approximately 0.514 acre in areal
extent. Two open water features (constructed ponds) were also delineated within the proposed
landfill expansion area totaling 2.455 acres in areal extent. Two jurisdictional stream channels
were delineated within the proposed landfill expansion area. The survey plats depicting the
delineation effort were reviewed and accepted by COE representative Steve Chapin in 2003. A
general description of the jurisdictional areas follows.
4.1.1 Jurisdictional Wetlands
The jurisdictional wetland areas within the proposed landfill expansion area are small in areal
extent (approximately 0.51 acre total). These areas are depicted on Figure 3 and are described
below:
Wetland 1 (WI) is located between the two surface waters located in the proposed expansion
area, south of and adjacent to P2. This wetland area is a linear feature, but lacks diagnostic
features to be considered a stream channel. This emergent area (0.008 acre) is composed of
black willow (Salix nigra), soft rush (Juncus effusus), broomsedge (Andropogon virginicus),
beggar-ticks (Bidens spp.), and various sedges (Carex spp.).
Wetland 2 (W2) is the largest wetland area within the proposed expansion area (0.349 acre).
This successional area is located north of and adjacent to P1. A portion of W2 consists of a
created fore-bay of P l. During the construction of the surface water features, fore-bays were
generally used as sediment traps. Vegetation within this wetland includes black willow and
cattail (Typha latifolia). The remaining portion of W2 is located east of the constructed fore-bay
and consists of herbaceous vegetation, including soft rush.
Wetland 3 (W3) is a riparian wetland associated with S2, which is described below. This
successional area (0.157 acre) is located east of S2, near the confluence of S1 and S2. A portion
of this wetland area extends beyond the proposed expansion area. Vegetation within this
wetland includes sweetgum, red maple, Chinese privet, blackberry, soft rush, and various
grasses.
4.1.2 Surface Waters
The two ponds within the proposed landfill expansion area total 2.455 acres in areal extent. Both
ponds are constructed features, occupying the topographically low area of the proposed
expansion. A description of each feature follows.
9
r
=KU4ubb/sne.awg
C3 Site Boundary
- - '?
E3 Expansion Area
O Impact Area
O Wetland _
O Stream Channel`
Pond k J
f
100 0 100 200 i
- w i
Feet
Source: USGS 1998 Color Infrared Images, - -
Albermarle Quadrangle
Expansion Area Impacts Figure: 3
Environmental City of Albemarle Landfill Project: ER04066
*Services, Inc. Stanly County, North Carolina
Date: Jan 2005
The larger jurisdictional surface water (P1) (2.377 acres) within the proposed landfill expansion
area is located between W2 and W3.
The smaller of the two jurisdictional surface waters (P2) is located north of W l. This surface
water is 0.078 acre in size and eventually drains towards all of the other jurisdictional features
within the proposed landfill expansion area.
Both surface waters are constructed features. Both areas are created farm ponds, built before the
construction of the landfill. The larger of the two ponds is approximately 12 feet deep at the
deepest point. The smaller of the ponds is less than 5 feet in depth. The ponds were created by
constructing dams and retaining surface flow. The larger of the two ponds may be fed by a
subsurface spring. Water from the ponds eventually flows into the stream channels described
below.
4.1.3 Stream Channels
The stream segments within the proposed landfill expansion area are both first order tributaries
to Jacobs Creek (Figure 3). Both channels are located within the landfill property, but are
generally outside of the proposed expansion area.
Stream segment 1 (S 1) is a perennial stream which forms the southern boundary of the landfill
property. S1 begins at the eastern boundary of the proposed landfill expansion area and flows to
the southwest towards its confluence with Jacobs Creek. S1 ranges in width from 12 to 18 feet,
with a bankfull depth of 12 to 16 inches. Substrate consisted of cobble, boulders and bedrock.
Stream segment 2 (S2) is a small intermittent channel that begins south of P2 and flows south to
its confluence with S1. This channel ranged in width from 3 to 4 feet, with a bank-full depth of 3
to 6 inches. Substrate consisted of sand, gravel, and cobble. The overflow control structure
located in P 1 is the source of hydrology for S2.
During the delineation effort, neither S1 nor S2 exhibited any flow. Both channels contained
areas of standing water. No water was present in S 1 above its confluence with S2.
4.2 Federal Protected Species
Species with the federal classification of Endangered (E) or Threatened (T) are protected under
the Endangered Species Act (ESA) of 1973, as amended (16 U.S.C. 1531 et seq.). The U.S. Fish
and Wildlife Service (USFWS) lists two (2) species which are offered federal protection and
have ranges considered to extend into Stanly County (list date 29 January 2003): bald eagle
(Haliaeetus leucocephalus) and Schweinitz's sunflower (Helianthus sclnveinitzii). Records held
by the NHP were reviewed to determine if any known occurrences of these species occurred
within or near the proposed expansion area. The most recent review was conducted on 27
December 2004. These species are described below.
Bald eagles are large raptors with a wingspan up to 6.5 feet and weighing up to 10 pounds.
Adults of this species are dark brown in color with white heads and tails. Immature eagles are
brown with whitish mottling on their tail, belly and wing linings. Bald eagles typically prey on
fish, but may also take birds, small mammals, and carrion. Bald eagles typically nest in large
11
trees near open water and forage over large water bodies with adjacent trees available for
perching. The nests are generally used year after year and are typically up to 6 feet in width. A
breeding pair's established breeding area may contain several alternate nest sites. NHP records
indicate no documented occurrences of this species within 3.0 miles of the project study area.
The closest documented occurrence of this species is approximately 4.5 miles northeast of the
project study area, near the Pee Dee River.
BIOLOGICAL CONCLUSION: No large trees for nesting are present within the
project study area that would be considered suitable for nesting. Although open water
areas are present within the proposed expansion area, they are very small in areal extent
and offer limited potential foraging substrate. The mouth of Jacob's Creek at the Pee Dee
River, located approximately 1.7 miles southeast of the proposed expansion area, offers
potential nesting, perching, and foraging habitat. NOT LIKELY TO ADVERSELY
AFFECT.
Schweinitz's sunflower is an erect, unbranched, rhizomatous, perennial herb that grows up to
approximately 6 feet in height. The species can be found in clearings and edges of upland forest
on moist to dryish clays, clay-loams, or sandy clay-loams that often have high gravel content.
Disturbances such as fire maintenance or regular mowing help sustain preferred habitat. NHP
records indicate one documented occurrence of this species, approximately 2.0 miles north of the
project study area, off NC 24/27/73.
BIOLOGICAL CONCLUSION: The majority of this site is open with a cobbly clay-
loam soil and well maintained by mowing. However, the edges of the site are less
frequently maintained and may provide potential habitat for this species. No individuals
were observed during the field investigation. ESI biologists conducted a survey for this
species on 30 September 2004. No individuals were observed. NO EFFECT.
4.3 Cultural Resources
Cultural resources refer to prehistoric or historic archaeological sites, structures, or artifact
deposits over 50 years old. Significant cultural resources are those sites that are eligible of
potentially eligible for inclusion on the National Register of Historic Places. Evaluations for
cultural resources are required as part of the Section 404 permit process. Evaluations of site
significance are made with reference to the eligibility criteria of the National Register (33 CFR
60) and in consultation with the N.C. State Historic Preservation Office (SHPO).
The proposed expansion area was subjected to an intensive archeological survey in 1996
(Cassedy, 1996). At that time, one archeological site was recorded. Garrow & Associates, Inc.,
(G&A) recommended the site be preserved. The results of the survey were sent to SHPO for
comment. In a letter dated 29 April 1996, SHPO agreed with the recommendation. The site has
been preserved within the landfill property.
12
5.0 ALTERNATIVES ANALYSIS
Headquarters of the COE guidance from 22 April 1986 requires that alternatives be practicable to
the applicant and that the purpose and need for the proposed project must be the applicant's
purpose and need. This guidance also states that project is to be viewed from the applicant's
perspective rather than only from the broad, public perspective. The essential point of this policy
guidance is that under the Section 404 (b)(1) Guidelines, an alternative must be applicable to the
applicant to be a practical alternative. Pursuant to 40 CFR 230.01(a)(2) practicable alternatives
are those alternatives that are "available and capable of being done after taking into consideration
cost, existing technology, and logistics in light of overall project purpose."
The preamble of the Guidelines states, "if an alleged alternative is unreasonably expensive to the
applicant, the alternative is not practicable." Section 40 CFR 230.10 (a) of the Guidelines states
that "no discharge of dredged of fill material shall be permitted if there is a practicable
alternative to the proposed discharge which would have less adverse impact on the aquatic
ecosystem, so long as the alternative does not have other significant environmental
consequences."
As part of the Section 404 permit process, alternative locations for the proposed landfill
expansion area were reviewed, as well as the no-build option.
Alternative locations for the proposed landfill expansion, both on and off of the existing landfill
property, were reviewed. Within the acreage that the City of Albemarle has available for landfill
use, there are no areas suitable for landfill activities due to close proximity of bedrock to the soil
surface. The shallow soil does not allow for deep excavations, and therefore will not provide
adequate space for the landfill to meet the needs of its clientele. The preferred expansion area
was added to the existing landfill site because it has a greater depth to bedrock than other areas,
which allows for deeper excavations.
The creation of another landfill facility for the City of Albemarle, separate from the existing
facility, was also considered. However, the construction and use of a new landfill has the
potential to create additional impacts in other local watersheds. The costs for siting and
permitting a new facility and relocating infrastructure and operations would not make a
practicable alternative.
The no-build option would result in premature closure of the landfill facility. This facility is
expected to serve its clientele until 2066. The no-build alternative would require the use of off-
site, regional landfill facility. The closest facility is located approximately 15 miles east of
Albemarle, in Montgomery County. The use of this facility would increase traffic on the
existing two-lane NC 24 facility, and would require waste to be transported over the Pee-Dee
River, increasing chances for spills into the river. To meet the needs of the City, the regional
facility would have to expand its own operation which would result in the potential for additional
impacts to wetlands or streams; these impacts have not been quantified at this time. This option
would also remove revenue from the City of Albemarle and transfer it to the privately run
regional facility in another county, which is not considered a viable option.
13
6.0 PROPOSED IMPACTS
The proposed landfill expansion will result in unavoidable impacts to jurisdictional wetlands and
constructed ponds. Avoidance measures employed are demonstrated by the avoidance of
impacts to all jurisdictional stream channels. Minimization is demonstrated by reducing the
proposed landfill footprint to avoid wetland 3, minimizing jurisdictional impacts.
The remaining jurisdictional areas are slated for impact. A total of 0.357 acre of jurisdictional
wetland area and 2.455 acres of constructed ponds will be impacted by expansion activities.
Although only a portion of the surface water feature P1 is facing direct impact (See Figure 3), the
total area is being considered impacted by expansion activities since the pond will be completely
dewatered.
Although P1 is the source of flow to stream reach S2, no impact to S2 is expected. Based on site
observations, it is considered likely that a spring located within P1 is the source of hydrology
maintaining the surface water feature. The spring flow will be routed away from the expansion
area towards S2, reconnecting S2 directly to its source.
15
7.0 AGENCY REVIEW
An onsite review was held on 27 April 2004. Representatives from COE, DWQ, FWS, and
WRC were present.
The resource agencies reviewed the potential impact areas. The COE requested the surface
waters be sampled for aquatic life. The results of the sampling effort are outlined in Section 3.3.
Mitigation needs to off-set unavoidable impacts was discussed. Because the majority of the
proposed impacts are to created open water areas, mitigation can be problematic. Several areas
within the landfill property were reviewed for the potential for creation of open water areas. Each
area reviewed was determined to be unsuitable, mainly due to the presence of wetlands and
stream channels.
The use of the Ecosystem Enhancement Program (EEP) was discussed to off-set impacts.
Subsequent conversations with EEP indicate that open water area mitigation is not available,
however, non-conventional mitigation (buffer mitigation) is available in the area, as well as
wetland mitigation. If the resource agencies are in agreement, this option can be pursued.
Mitigation options are outlined in Section 8.0.
16
8.0 MITIGATION OPTIONS
It is understood that successful implementation of the proposed expansion project will require
mitigation. Three options are being considered.
The first option includes payment into the EEP. Use of this program requires availability of
mitigation credits within the project area as well as concurrence from the resource agencies.
Mitigation credits are available from EEP. The current rate for mitigation credits is $12,276.00
per acre of non-riparian wetland area. The open water areas are not directly mitigated through
EEP. Because the areas are man-made open water areas, mitigation for these features through
EEP may be accomplished through non-conventional mitigation. Buffer mitigation has been
proposed for this area.
The second option includes on-site, in-kind mitigation. This option is limited. Areas reviewed
for this option were found to contain jurisdictional wetlands and streams and are not available for
creation of open water areas.
If EEP buy-in is unavailable and the on-site mitigation option is deemed insufficient to offset the
proposed impacts, off-site mitigation will be pursued. A site search will be initiated to determine
areas that offer suitable mitigation.
17
9.0 SUMMARY
The City of Albemarle wishes to expand the landfill facilities at the City of Albemarle Landfill in
Stanly County, North Carolina. Landfill expansion activities will result in the unavoidable
impact to approximately 0.357 acre of jurisdictional wetland area and 2.455 acre of constructed
ponds.
Four alternatives to the proposed landfill expansion have been explored and deemed unsuitable
for economic or logistical reasons. Therefore, these alternatives would not satisfy the purpose
and need of the City of Albemarle.
Three options for compensatory mitigation are being considered. Off-site mitigation will be
pursued only if on-site mitigation and EEP buy-in options are deemed insufficient to offset the
proposed impacts. The final mitigation plan will be determined after input and approval from the
resource agencies is received.
18
10.0 LITERATURE CITED
Behler, John L. and F. Wayne King. 1979. National Audubon Society Field Guide to Reptiles
and Amphibians. Alfred A. Knopf, Inc., New York. 743 pp.
Cassedy, Daniel F. 1996. Phase I Cultural Resources Survey of a Subtitle D Landfill Site, City
of Albemarle, Stanly County, North Carolina. Garrow & Associates, Inc., Raleigh.
Department of the Army (DOA). 1987. Corps of Engineers Wetlands Delineation Manual. Tech.
Rpt. Y-87-1. US Army Engineer Waterways Experiment Station, Vicksburg, MS. 100 pp.
Department of Environment and Natural Resources (DENR). 2003. Yadkin-Pee Dee River,
Basinwide Water Quality Management Plan.
<http://h2o. enr. state.nc.us/basinwide/yadkin/YadkinPD_wq_dt_management_plan0103 .h
tm.>
Department of Environment and Natural Resources (DENR). 2004a. Basinwide Information
Management System, Water Quality reports downloaded on 11 May 2004 from
<http://h2o. enr. state.nc.us/bims/reports/basinsandwaterbodies/.>
Department of Environment and Natural Resources (DENR). 2004b. North Carolina Water
Quality Assessment and Impaired Waters List downloaded on 11 May 2004 from
<http://h2o.enr.state.nc.us/tmdl/General-303d.htm.>
National Geographic Society (NGS). 2002. Field Guide to the Birds of North America, Fourth
Edition. Washington, D.C. 480 pp.
Potter, E.F., J.F. Parnell, and R.P. Teulings. 1980. Birds of the Carolinas. The University of
North Carolina Press, Chapel Hill, NC. 412 pp.
Schafale, M.P. and A.S. Weakley. 1990. Classification of the Natural Communities of North
Carolina: Third Approximation. Natural Heritage Program, Division of Parks and
Recreation, N.C. Department of Environment, Health, and Natural Resources. Raleigh.
325 pp.
U.S. Department of Agriculture (USDA). 1989. Soil Survey of Stanly County, North Carolina.
USDA Soil Conservation Service. 111 pp.
U.S. Fish and Wildlife Service (USFWS). 2003. Updated County Species List for North
Carolina. List Date 29 January 2003.
U.S. Fish and Wildlife Service (USFWS). 1985. Red-cockaded Woodpecker Recovery Plan. U.S.
Department of the Interior, Southeast Region, Atlanta, Georgia. 88 pp.
U.S. Fish and Wildlife Service (USFWS) 1994. Schweinitz's Sunflower Recovery Plan. Atlanta,
GA. 28 pp.
19
U.S. Fish and Wildlife Service (USFWS). 1999. Federal Register, Vol. 64, No. 128. 50 CPR
Part 17. U.S. Department of the Interior, U.S. Fish and Wildlife Service. 11 pp.
U.S. Geological Survey (USGS). 1985. Geologic Map of North Carolina.
U.S. Geological Survey (USGS). 2001. Hydrologic Units Map, State of North Carolina.
Webster, Wm. David, James F. Parnell, and Walter C. Biggs, Jr. 1985. Mammals of the
Carolinas, Virginia, and Maryland. The University of North Carolina Press, Chapel Hill,
NC
20
ER04066/keymap.dwg
NOTE 4a ?)
L SITE 31ST162 WILL NOT E DISTURBED.
NYLL BORROW MATERIAL OM PHASE 3. 1 4 ?'6s ;'? F
BORROW MATERIAL FROM F-IASE 4. + \ / \\ \ \ +
CID +
BORROW MATERIAL FROM UNIT.
0
4b
\ r
I t(
PROPOSED DiuCM A5
OA ?? -
R D MENT N
t p? r o
rf
EXBBSjIINNG f E5 CSCp EF w A iTTR
(ARE-A1 GOd? ?OCTd$ET' 9 1 09 \ I? it
II c?
AREA
Source: Municipal Engineering
Services Company, P.A.
Index Map Figure: 4
Environmental City of Albmarle Landfill Project: ER04066
Services, Inc. Stanly County, North Carolina
Date: Jan 2005
o r~v
ER04066/keymap.dwg
(U) ?/

' O D p? rTl
Z U)
y?'

I/ D
± co

j I \ A
' NS

ll
T ? r14' p''~ Y? ?I _ i ?j
494
•''w ( / ?
? -rx? 9xs? /
fER?10? -?

o

...nnn r+'F --?? ' ?• !'.i / poi

/ ?- -- /
))I
??

Proposed Expansion Area Figure: 4a

Environmental City of Albemarle Landfill Project: ER04066

Services, Inc. Stanl County, North Carolina
y ??
Date: Jan 2005

ER04066[keymap.dwg

ENVIRONMENTAL SERVICES, INC.
932 HENDERSONVILLE ROAD. SUITE 106
ASHEVILLE, NORTH CAROLINA 28803
828-277-8070 • FAX [phone]
wwwesinc.cc
'~a, eta
28 January 2005
Mr. Steve Chapin
U.S. Army Corps of Engineers
Asheville Regulatory Field Office
151 Patton Avenue, Room 208
Asheville, NC 28801-5006
Re: City of Albemarle Expansion Individual Permit ER04-066
Dear Steve:
Environmental Services, Inc., has been contracted to pursue an Individual Permit to authorize
unavoidable impacts for a proposed expansion of the City of Albemarle Landfill, located in
Stanly County, North Carolina.
Attached are the Permit Application, Modified Environmental Assessment, and filing fee of $100
(Check Number 27299).
I appreciate your attention to this matter. If you have any questions or comments, or need any
additional information, please let me know.
Sincerely,
AL SERVICES, INC.
an
Sen or Scientist
Attachments.
JACKSONVILLE • ST. AUGUSTINE • COCOA 0 JUPITER 0 DESTIN • SAVANNAH • ATLANTA • RALEIGH • CHARLOTTE
6/soils.dwg
t6 7
ILI
N l? ,t ?yfZ?,' ' ?T 1rs7 i,??1' '• ? '?I?°' ?:?: ,It ? `ta tr_ ??,14 `?. rd ? a? .?,?' , r?'?"? '?? :?`?? f ??^?
Vr`. . f°r .? ? a ?Yr , ? + ?. r4i, t., ? 4.j rt rt';..CK1Y ? t ' ?riv ? ??
r` i`tts` t 1 1 i,. d tr `` 11p :P.? ?I• ? rL'; S' r +? n
I , ,? • t V t- ?' ? ??,/ ?•1' 1 ,?. s' t ? .?.^?.{ ? I< Nisi ?? Yi i.: ? A4„r1- fP i ? s ^???'? ???' ?• (ri t'?r?11 , tl' ? ?? ?r ?`? fa ??raaf)r' ?+kl' 4' l 4 ? 431? r r, ?? b' t_ ??1? t`??????
u 4..i. 1 rI / < ' '1t' `7aX'a ?s 'E ?•1. ' v' -' 1 r
f?. 1`,,. '.lly,re SM\. . ?T ,?-4?r r,? k`?? f C.r f.. it)1 + t??" s,? f ij al 1''+t 3? f j i? F}+??r'.,??jf, ?-1•'4 ? r?:
/?`
r+rtI c ?f{{ w? ?. i?r r{r r? • {. vw?
IT. b 4i?, fi ? ! t?- 'd^wF ti? '1 /f .!??,V ? 'i,r 0. ? f It M1 ,'} ? ?, I r ? .' ? ?_. ? ??
?•'?i'lir ? 1r' t6 ? '°stl:. ,? r? ?{ ty?i
Y ;? ????ELL",t/___R ,r? ,J ,•? ;' +fi , t ?sr„ 4
I t}?I't r X ' ? r 4 ?.Y,f ??'i...: ? ? a4 ?+? ar ?? t ftu???l If? !? I?t?JFi' rl?:i •? r_?'
i I +Mtt, ?T?, ,•.. ' ?, r +? ` d? I .? r ? ? ? i''M?? a ?'i^ ? i?V ? ?j't 'Y r f '? ??, ? ? ? '., /t ,pr a?:Y
Y<k ?'a rrt k t
f >. Pi { ?
d??? .f1 ?ti??f.3' t?#J :'??,., ? ?;,GSM rl,y• ? r lj ''? dY? ..S`d`'I?f?A/I
I t " ' s , 1 rf 1! t .'
t'0
,S+ S i~ ? 1 r ',f r "??? i•. r?.tr.? •a } R ? ?' 1J, i;:j
. F ?? 1 r ? ?• t' r ? . A ? I:.., t . y; S't' . 3:? r #? r ?t ? , •. ' c ,R
` ? vc,?..i i 'I1?' *F+q,r`?' {, ;'?L, ' , R F d F•..! .'u4
??? ? ?,' ?i. ?, '' % ;??1Q •j i?C`,?+?Tlt, ? a p err :t !?; •i.
"l 't r..? ?,•.`E fit,; ?'t'• 1 ?r ? rr ? 1 R " ?>;? , O x a . ili.s L.: y
t? '?. ?''a4.}.??,' ? f. I I ? ?Y'{ ,y? '' ?i'? w y r?:r a• d.1' ;r • . ,, ,r I
C -47
Y? < r r ?, err
r(A?
Rd ?? t ? ? 3 5 f e
r z ;; 5- C.?,??:! 111 ?,. ?a?d ?.?: ``, ylg,tf•! a tiri,??'1 ?,?Y F ( ?l
Existing Road 7 rF9,
t_.r E ?' , t , r.• S
??y . 9 I `t+ x'! ',,t ,,y _ 7? y r',. t l??w ?1?i1}1•.rry?`gt `?{'+it
vhT ?, ?{ h?'r,+? .?. •Yi a!' g?!?o''???f 2 rfJ .`il+.'i'r
;/ ? a G ?,' is i i` r1R I '?i , i{ f Jed, ,+6j '
Site Boundary
C7 Expansion Area
ED Impact Area r„ r+
Soil Mapping Units
Jurisdictional Areas ` +ca°` h! sat' jC' c'a "??A Non-Hydric Soils
Bad in channery silt loam, 2 to 8%
O USDA Soil Boundary
l(
>: < 1 Badin channery silt loam, 8 to is%
USDA Water Boundary Badin channery silt loam, 15 to 45% r
d . 500 0 500 1000
~ Enon cobbly loam, 8 to 15%
yE, t r. Enon very stony loam, 4 to 15% Y
' Feet ;? ` '•i r Z i + Goldston very channery silt loam, 4 to 15%,
y Source. USGS 1998 Color Infrared images , 4;4 S 5 F'? Goldston very channery silt loam, 15 to 45 %
Albermarle Quadrangle, USDA Sod Survey of Non-Hydric Soils with Hydric Inclusions -;
Stanly County, 1989 •.+' ' :r ?I Oa Oakboro silt loam, frequently flooded ?t
-,. .,r,-. '.,-.,. • .- •'I? k ?? .. v __I ' r a`": +t? ?. ,.? ' ., :, .. .dl'.:''.fY :...y.:.1 ... ?' r
Project Soils Map Figure: 2
Environmental City of Albemarle Landfill Project: ER04066
o, . , Services, Inc. Stanly County, North Carolina Date: Jan 2005
ER04066lsite.dwg

?k
Y
s "
a
. ,r
W? 1 it A. T
P2
0.078 acre `
y t 1*? W1
.. '
.. ' 0.008 acre
;eO
..?t 0.349 acre
i? 4 ,
1.
4 ,..,r i?<? ?r
,. P 1 N 1
?:c> 2.377 acres „ ;,?; °
a Aim ( 1\ t k' .
F1 t e , _. b .. ?h.
It ' q ?
, '441-A
t..t
W3 =r
.? . \ 0.157 acre ..
Existina Road - 1
C3 Site Boundary
CJ Expansion Area
O Impact Area
O Wetland
O Stream Channel
f
Pond
100 0 100 200
Feet
Sour ce. USGS 1998 Color Infrared Images,
Albermarle Quadrangle
S2

11

Expansion Area Impacts Figure: 3
Environmental City of Albemarle Landfill Project: ER04066
o.., Services, Inc. Stanly County, North Carolina
Date: Jan 2005
ER04066/keymap.dwg
NOTES 4a
L SITE JIST162 KILL NOT E DISTURBED. y
HILL BORROW MATERIAL OM PHASE J. A \ $ \ \ Qs fi,
BORROW MATERIAL FROM P-fASE 4. l \1\ ? s$
BORROW MATERIAL FROM C/D UNIT.
,F?? ? ))III ?, ? /
4 b
PROPOSED A
?J? _
J c sus, 0A
Jc S ?? ,
Wig
w 70 • ?„ ?? EA L OPO O
u(w 11 R DwENT 8N
.,? z
EX4 UING? f ES A R
?SR€ GO OC% R? F 5?1 00 `
`? OOD WAS
J% AREA
)1
Source: Municipal Engineering
Services Company, P.A. I \ r
Index Map Figure: 4
Environmental City of Albmarle Landfill Project: ER04066
o? y Services, Inc. Stanly County, North Carolina Date: Jan 2005
ER04066/keymap.dwg
/ b OX;U-
?'_ Cm?O
n -+ ;'
O x
M a??o
N
N f(pF
?? X E?oll[? -?
Proposed Expansion Area Figure: 4a
Environmental City of Albemarle Landfill Project: ER04066
Services, Inc. Stanly County, North Carolina
o,?..v Date: Jan 2005
ER04066/keymap.dwg
A
? 1 III I . ? / o
r I ?I?
/? D-
I I II?II) 1 ' 1
J Ill ? ? ? :. ? ?? o Z
/r •
J ? \ ? \? ? I pro ?rk>
U I I I l( .
L-
O / I I l l ?
Proposed Expansion Area Figure: 4b
Environmental City of Albemarle Landfill Project: ER04066
Services, Inc. Stanly County, North Carolina Date: Jan 2005
APPLICATION FOR DEPARTMENT OF THE ARMY PERMIT OMB APPROVAL NO. 0710-0003
/33 CFR 3251 Expires December 31, 2004
The Public burden for this collection of information is sestimated to average 10 hours per response, although the majority of applications should require
5 hours or less. This includes the time for reviewing instructions, searching existing data sources, gathering and maintaining the data needed; and
completing and reviewing the collection of information. Send comments regarding this burden estimate or any other aspect of this collection of
information, including suggestions for reducing this burden, to Department of Defense, Washington Headquarters Service Directorate of Information
Operations and Reports, 1215 Jefferson Davis Highway, Suite 1204, Arlington, VA 22202-4302; and to the Office of Management and Budget,
Paperwork Reduction Project (0710-0003), Washington, DC 20503. Respondents should be aware that notwithstanding any other provision of law,
no person shall be subject to any penalty for failing to comply with a collection of information if it does not display a currently valid OMB control
number. Please DO NOT RETURN your form to either of those addresses. Completed applications must be submitted to the District Engineer having
jurisdiction over the location of the proposed activity.
PRIVACY ACT STATEMENT
Authorities: Rivers and Harbors Act, Section 10, 33 USC 403; Clean Water Act, Section 404, 33 USC 1344; Marine Protection , Research and
Sanctuaries Act, 33 USC 1413, Section 103. Principal Purpose: Information provided on this form will be used in evaluating the application.for a
permit. Routine Uses: This information may be shared with the Department of Justice and other federal, state, and local government agencies.
Submission of requested information Is voluntary, however, if information is not provided the permit application cannot be evaluated nor can a permit
be issued.
One set of original drawings or good reproducible copies which show the location and character of the proposed activity must be attached to this
application (see sample drawings and instructions) and be submitted to the District Engineer having Misdiction over the location of the proposed
activity. An application that is not completed in full will be returned. + q 3
1. APPLICATION NO. 12. FIELD OFFICE CODE 13. DATE RECEIVED 14. DATE APPLICATION COMPLETED
IITFMS BELOW TO BF FILLFO BYAPPLIrAAM
5. APPLICANT'S NAME 8. AUTHORIZED AGENT'S NAME AND TITLE !an agent is not required!
City of Albemarle
8. APPLICANT'S ADDRESS 9. AGENT'S ADDRESS
P.O. Box 190, Albemarle, NC 28002
7.. APPLICANT'S PHONE NOS. W/AREA CODE 10. AGENT'S PHONE NOS. W/AREA CODE
a. Residence a. Residence
b. Business 704-984-9667 b. Business
11, STATEMENT OF AUTHORIZATION
hereby authorize, to act in my behalf as my agent in the processing of this application and to
iurn?.gPon request, supplemental information in support of this permit application.
S-
S SIGNATURE
NAME, LOCATION AND DESCRIPTION OF PROJECT OR ACTIVITY
12. PROJECT NAME OR TITLE flee lnstructiensr
City of Albemarle Landfill Expansion
13. NAME OF WATERBODY, IF KNOWN atapp#cablel
N/A
15. LOCATION OF PROJECT
t- ;=i n l 1\Tf'
COUNTY STATE
14. PROJECT STREET ADDRESS lilapplcablel
40592-B Stony Gap Road
Albemarle, NC 28001
16. OTHER LOCATION DESCRIPTIONS, IF KNOWN, aeelnstrucflonsl
17. DIRECTIONS TO THE SITE
From Albemarle, NC 24/27/73 east. Turn right on Valley Drive.
Turn left into landfill.
G ORM 4345, u 97 EDITION OF FEB 94 IS OBSOLETE. (Proponent: CECW-OR)
18. Nature of Activity (D,,,irt oipo)eCt,imluaeenrWues)
Expansion of current landfill facility. Approximtely 2.455 acres of
open water and 0.357 acres of non-riparian wetland area will be
unavoidably impacted.
19. Project Purpose (Desvrbe the reason or purpose of the projmf, see uxrn *i z)
The project purpose is to meet the city's need for landfill capacity
through'2066.
USE BLOCKS 20.22 IF DREDGED ANDIOR FILL MATERIAL IS TO BE DISCHARGED
20. Reason(s) for Discharge
Expedient, efficient creation and operation of landfill requires a
layout which creates the above referenced impact.
21. Type(s) of Material Being Discharged and the Amount of Each Type in Cubic Yards
N/A
22. Surface Area in Acres of Wetlands or Other Waters Filled (see lnstrwrions)
0.357 acres of wetland; 2.455 acres of open water (ponds)
23. Is Any Portion of the Work Already Complete? Yes No IF YES, DESCRIBE THE COMPLETED WORK
24. Addresses of Adjoining Property Owners, Lessees, Etc., Whose Property Adjoins the Waterbody (If more than can be entered here,
please attach a supplemental list).
All impacted areas are completely contained within the landfill property
25. List of Other Certifications or Approvals/Denials Received from other Federal, State or Local Agencies for Work Described in This Application.
AGENCY TYPE APPROVAL. IDENTIFICATION NUMBER DATE APPLIED DATE APPROVED DATE DENIED
COE NWP 26 1996 04056 18 May 17 June
1996 1996
.Would include but is not restricted to zoning, building and flood plain permits
28. Application is hereby made for a permit or permits to authorize the work described in this application. I certify that the information in this
ap "cation is complete and accurate. I further certify that 1 possess the authority to undertake the work described herein or am acting as the
d ly thorized agent of th appliccant.
S N TURE OF APPLICANT AT SIGNATURE OF AGENT DATE
The application must be signed by the person who desires to undertake the proposed activity (applicant) or it may be signed by a duly
authorized agent if the statement in block 11 has been filled out and signed.
18 U.S.C. Section 1001 provides that: Whoever, in any manner within the jurisdiction of any department or agency of the United States
knowingly and willfully falsifies, conceals, or covers up any trick, scheme, or disguises a material fact or makes any false, fictitious or
fraudulent statements or representations or makes or uses any false writing or document knowing same to contain any false, fictitious or
fraudulent statements or entry, shall be fined not more than $10,000 or imprisoned not more than five years or both.
MODIFIED ENVIRONMENTAL ASSESSMENT
FOR
CITY OF ALBEMARLE LANDFILL EXPANSION
Stanly County, North Carolina
In Support of Section 404 of the Clean Water Act
Individual Permit
ESI Project No. ER04-066
Prepared for:
The City of Albemarle
Stanly County, North Carolina
and
Municipal Engineering Services Company, PA
Garner, NC
Prepared by:
ENVIRONMENTAL SERVICES, INC.
524 South New Hope Road
Raleigh, NC 27610
Tel [phone] Fag [phone]
January 2005
TABLE OF CONTENTS
Page
1.0 PROJECT DESCRIPTION ................................................................................................. 1
2.0 PURPOSE AND NEED .................................................................................................... .. 3
3.0 ENVIRONMENTAL SETTING ...................................................................................... .. 4
3.1 Physical Resources ........................................................................................................ .. 4
3.1.1 Physiography, Topography, Geology, and Land Use ........................................... .. 4
3.1.2 Soils ....................................................................................................................... ..4
3.1.3 Water Resources ................................................................................................... .. 4
3.2 Biological Resources .................................................................................................... .. 6
3.3 Wildlife ......................................................................................................................... .. 7
3.3.1 Terrestrial Wildlife ................................................................................................ .. 7
3.3.2 Aquatic Wildlife .................................................................................................... .. 8
4.0 SPECIAL TOPICS ............................................................................................................ .. 9
4.1 Jurisdictional Delineation ................................................................................................... .. 9
4.1.1 Jurisdictional Wetlands ........................................................................................... 9
4.1.2 Surface Waters ........................................................................................................ 9
4.1.3 Stream Channels ................................................................................................... 11
4.2 Federal Protected Species ............................................................................................. 11
4.3 Cultural Resources ................................................................. 12
.......................................
5.0 ALTERNATIVES ANALYSIS ........................................................................................ 13
6.0 PROPOSED IMPACTS .................................................................................................... 15
7.0 AGENCY REVIEW ......................................................................................................... 16
8.0 MITIGATION OPTIONS ................................................................................................. 17
9.0 SUMMARY ...................................................................................................................... 18
10.0 LITERATURE CITED ..................................................................................................... 19
LIST OF FIGURES
Page
1 Project Location Map .......................................................................................................... 2
2 Project Soils Map ................................................................................................................ 5
3 Expansion Area Impacts ................................................................................................... 10
MODIFIED ENVIRONMENTAL ASSESSMENT
FOR
CITY OF ALBEMARLE LANDFILL EXPANSION
1.0 PROJECT DESCRIPTION
The City of Albemarle is proposing to expand landfill facilities associated with the City of
Albemarle Landfill, located near the city of Albemarle in Stanly County, North Carolina. The
City of Albemarle facility currently operates on an approximately 369-acre site and wishes to
expand into an approximately 60-acre site located adjacent to and east of the current facility
(Figure 1).
The City of Albemarle facility is submitting a permit application to the U.S. Army Corps of
Engineers (COE) requesting an authorization to impact approximately 0.36 acre of jurisdictional
wetland area and approximately 2.46 acres of open water area pursuant to Section 404 of the
Clean Water Act (CWA) of 1972 (33 USC 1344). This action will require water quality
certification from the State of North Carolina through the N.C. Division of Water Quality
(DWQ) (NCGS 143-215) pursuant to Section 401 of the CWA.
The purpose of this document is to provide an evaluation of existing environmental conditions
within the area proposed for impact, an evaluation of potential alternatives, and proposed
mitigation options. This document is intended for use by the COE and DWQ as the basis for
determining the applicant's compliance with the Section 404 (b) (1) guidelines and other Section
404 permitting requirements, and Section 401 water quality certification.
2.0 PURPOSE AND NEED
The overall purpose of the proposed expansion is to provide room to allow the existing facility to
continue to operate. The area currently proposed for expansion is within the area originally
permitted for landfill operations by Stanly County. The proposed expansion area is located east
of and adjacent to the existing operating landfill cell. The proposed expansion will allow the
existing cell to extend east.
If the current landfill facility is not expanded, the life of the landfill will be reduced by
approximately 40 years. This would require the City to find an alternate receptor for waste
material. The closest regional solid waste facility is located approximately 15 miles east of
Albemarle, in Montgomery County. The waste transfer would require the trucks to cross the
Pee-Dee River, increasing the chance for spills into the River.
Sending waste to an alternate facility would increase traffic on the existing two-lane NC 24
facility, and would expand the service area for the receiving landfill. By expanding the service
area for the receiving landfill, the service life for that landfill would be effectively reduced,
unless the landfill expanded a sufficient amount to accept the City's waste.
3
3.0 ENVIRONMENTAL SETTING
The proposed landfill expansion would be located entirely within the property boundaries of the
City of Albemarle facility, which is located approximately 1 mile southeast of the intersection of
US 52 and SR 1720.
3.1 Physical Resources
3.1.1 Physiography, Topography, Geology, and Land Use
The City of Albemarle facility is depicted on the U.S. Geologic Survey (USGS) 7.5-minute
topographic quadrangle (Albemarle, NC) (Figure 1). More specifically, the existing facility is
located between US 52 to the west, SR 1739 to the east, SR 1720 to the north, and SR 1741 to
the south.
Elevations within the proposed expansion area range from a low of approximately 380 feet above
mean sea level (MSL) to a high of approximately 450 feet above MSL. The lowest portion of
the site is located at Jacobs Creek, west of the landfill expansion area.
The proposed expansion area is located within a metamudstone and meta-argillite formation (Cid
formation) in the Carolina Slate Belt in the Piedmont physiographic province of North Carolina.
The metamudstone and meta-argillite formation is interbedded with metasandstone,
metaconglomerate, and metavolcanic rock (USGS 1985).
3.1.2 Soils
Existing soils mapping provided by the Natural Resource Conservation Service (MRCS)
indicates the proposed expansion area contains four soil series comprising seven soil-mapping
units (USDA 1989) (Figure 2).
The Goldston series is composed of well-drained soils, typically found on narrow ridgetops and
steep sideslopes. The majority of the proposed expansion area is composed of the Goldston
series, which forms two mapping units and is a non-hydric soil. The Enon series is composed of
undulating to hilly, well-drained soils. The Enon series forms two mapping units within the
proposed expansion area and is a non-hydric soil. The Badin series is composed of well-drained
soils on undulating to rolling terrain, generally on ridgetops or sideslopes. The Badin series
forms two mapping units within the proposed expansion area and is a non-hydric soil. The
Oakboro mapping unit is a frequently flooded soil with hydric inclusions, generally found on
long, narrow flood plains adjoining upland sideslopes.
3.1.3 Water Resources
The proposed expansion area is located within subbasin 03-07-08 of the Yadkin-Pee Dee River
Basin (DENR 2003) and is part of USGS hydrologic unit 03040104 (USGS 1974). There are
two streams located within the proposed expansion area, both of which are unnamed tributaries
to Jacobs Creek. These stream segments have not been assigned a Stream Index Number (SIN).
Their receiving water, Jacobs Creek, is approximately 0.5 mile (0.8 km) downstream from the
4
proposed expansion area and has been assigned SIN 13-9-(0.5) from its source to a point 0.3 mile
upstream from Stanly County SR 1740 (DENR 2004a).
A Best Usage Classification is assigned to Waters of the State of North Carolina based on the
existing or contemplated best usage of various streams or segments of streams within the
drainage basin. There are two jurisdictional channels within the proposed landfill expansion
area. These unnamed tributaries to Jacobs Creek do not have a Best Usage Classification.
Jacobs Creek, however, is classified as WS-IV. The classification WS indicates freshwaters
used as sources of water supply. WS-IV indicates very few categorical restrictions on watershed
development or wastewater discharges (DENR 2003).
No High Quality Waters (HQW), Outstanding Resource Waters (ORW), WS-I, or WS-II
waters occur .within 3.0 miles upstream or downstream of the proposed landfill expansion area.
None of the streams within to the proposed expansion area have been designated as a North
Carolina Natural and Scenic River or as a National Wild and Scenic River. None of these
streams have been listed on the 303(d) list of impaired waters (DENR 2004b).
A measure of water quality being used by the DWQ is the North Carolina Index of Biotic
Integrity (NCIBI), which assesses biological integrity using the structure and health of the fish
community. Fish sampling has not been conducted by DWQ in within any of the stream
channels or surface waters within the proposed expansion area (DWQ 1998).
No benthic invertebrate sampling has been conducted by DWQ within any of the streams or
surface waters within the proposed landfill expansion area.
3.2 Biological Resources
Terrestrial distribution and composition of plant communities throughout the project study area
reflect landscape-level variations in topography, soils, hydrology, and past and present land use
practices. When appropriate, the plant community names have been adopted and modified from
the Natural Heritage Program classification system (Schafale and Weakley, 1990) and the
descriptions written to reflect local variations within the project study area. The majority of the
proposed expansion area is composed of fallow pastureland. The only natural plant communities
present within the proposed expansion area are dry oak-hickory forest and dry mesic oak-hickory
forest. Each community is described below.
Dry Oalc-Hickory Forest is the plant community located along the northwest boundary of the
proposed expansion area. Canopy composition of this community is varied, consisting of white
oak (Quercus alba), northern red oak (Quercus rubra), mockernut hickory (Carya tomentosa),
pignut hickory (Carya glabra), and loblolly pine (Pinus taeda), with scattered areas of winged
elm (Ubnus alata). Understory species include flowering dogwood (Corpus Florida), red maple
(Ater rubrum), and sweetgum (Liquidambar styracijlua). Common shrubs, vines, and
herbaceous vegetation include eastern red cedar (Juniperus virginiana), Chinese privet
(Ligustrum sinense), muscadine grape (Vitis rotundifolia), poison ivy (Toxicodendron radicans),
Japanese honeysuckle (Lonicera japonica), and Virginia creeper (Parthenocissus quinquefolia).
6
Dry Mesie Oak-Hickory Forest is the plant community located along the southeast boundary of
the proposed expansion area. Canopy composition of this community consists of white oak,
northern red oak, and mockernut hickory, and loblolly pine, with scattered areas of shagbark
hickory (Carya ovata), shortleaf pine (Pinus echinata), and tulip poplar (Tulipifera
liriodendron). Understory species include flowering dogwood, sweetgum, and willow oak
(Quercus phellos). Common shrubs, vines, and herbaceous vegetation include eastern red cedar,
Chinese privet, groundsel-tree (Baccharis halindfolia), muscadine grape, poison ivy, Japanese
honeysuckle, common greenbrier (Smilax rotundifolia), blackberry (Rubus spp.), dog fennel
(Eupatorium spp.), and Virginia creeper.
Fallow Pastureland occupies the majority of the proposed expansion area, with various
herbaceous grasses and ornamental trees. Trees present within the fallow pastureland include
tree-of-heaven (Ailanthus altissima), black locust (Robinia pseudoacacia), and common
persimmon (Diospyros virginiana). Common vines and herbaceous vegetation include Japanese
honeysuckle, blackberry, Virginia creeper, buttercup (Ranunculus bulbosus), panic grass
(Panicum spp.), and goldenrod (Solidago spp.). Two excavated ponds are present within the
fallow pastureland.
3.3 Wildlife
The proposed landfill expansion area was visually surveyed for the presence of wildlife during
all phases of the field investigation. Due to the ongoing operations of the landfill, the number
and diversity of wildlife sightings within the area is limited.
3.3.1 Terrestrial Wildlife
Bird species documented within the proposed landfill expansion area include wood duck (Aix
sponsa), black vulture (Coragyps atralus), turkey vulture (Cathartes aura), wild turkey
(Meleagris gallopavo), northern cardinal (Cardinalis cardinalis), eastern towhee (Pipilo
erythrophthalmus), and various gulls (Larus spp.).
The vultures and gulls are species commonly associated with landfills. The northern cardinal
and eastern towhee are commonly associated with disturbed and ecotonal habitats. The wood
duck was found near the open water areas of the landfill. The wild turkey was observed in the
upland forest in the northern portion of the property.
Mammal species documented within the proposed landfill expansion area include white-tailed
deer (Odocoileus virginianus), gray squirrel (Sciurus carolinensis), raccoon (Procyon lotor), and
eastern cottontail (Sylvilagus floridanus) (Webster, et al. 1985).
A water snake (Nerodia sp.) was the only reptile observed within the proposed landfill expansion
area, specifically in the surface water feature designated PI on Figure 3. No terrestrial
amphibians were documented within the proposed landfill expansion area.
7
3.3.2 Aquatic Wildlife
Sampling of the fish fauna was conducted for both streams within the proposed landfill
expansion area, as well as within the larger of the two ponds (designated P1 on Figure 3). No
benthic sampling was undertaken.
Fish species collected within the streams included bluegill (Lepomis macrochirus), pumpkinseed
(Lepomis gibbosus), golden shiner (Noteinigonus crysoleucas), creek chub (Semotilus
atromaculatus), redear sunfish (Lepomis microlophus), largemouth bass (Micropterus
salmoides), and margined madtom (Noturus insignis). Sampling conducted within P1 under
lowered water conditions did not reveal the presence of any fish species within the pond.
The larger jurisdictional surface water (P1) (2.377 acres) within the proposed landfill expansion
area is located between W2 and W3.
The smaller of the two jurisdictional surface waters (P2) is located north of W1. This surface
water is 0.078 acre in size and eventually drains towards all of the other jurisdictional features
within the proposed landfill expansion area.
Both surface waters are constructed features. Both areas are created farm ponds, built before the
construction of the landfill. The larger of the two ponds is approximately 12 feet deep at the
deepest point. The smaller of the ponds is less than 5 feet in depth. The ponds were created by
constructing dams and retaining surface flow. The larger of the two ponds may be fed by a
subsurface spring. Water from the ponds eventually flows into the stream channels described
below.
4.1.3 Stream Channels
The stream segments within the proposed landfill expansion area are both first order tributaries
to Jacobs Creek (Figure 3). Both channels are located within the landfill property, but are
generally outside of the proposed expansion area.
Stream segment 1 (S I) is a perennial stream which forms the southern boundary of the landfill
property. S 1 begins at the eastern boundary of the proposed landfill expansion area and flows to
the southwest towards its confluence with Jacobs Creek. S 1 ranges in width from 12 to 18 feet,
with a bankfull depth of 12 to 16 inches. Substrate consisted of cobble, boulders and bedrock.
Stream segment 2 (S2) is a small intermittent channel that begins south of P2 and flows south to
its confluence with S 1. This channel ranged in width from 3 to 4 feet, with a bankfull depth of 3
to 6 inches. Substrate consisted of sand, gravel, and cobble. The overflow control structure
located in P 1 is the source of hydrology for S2.
During the delineation effort, neither S l nor S2 exhibited any flow. Both channels contained
areas of standing water. No water was present in S 1 above its confluence with S2.
4.2 Federal Protected Species
Species with the federal classification of Endangered (E) or Threatened (T) are protected under
the Endangered Species Act (ESA) of 1973, as amended (16 U.S.C. 1531 et seq.). The U.S. Fish
and Wildlife Service (USFWS) lists two (2) species which are offered federal protection and
have ranges considered to extend into Stanly County (list date 29 January 2003): bald eagle
(Haliaeetus leucocephalus) and Schweinitz's sunflower (Helianthus schweinitzii). Records held
by the NHP were reviewed to determine if any known occurrences of these species occurred
within or near the proposed expansion area. The most recent review was conducted on 27
December 2004. These species are described below.
Bald eagles are large raptors with a wingspan up to 6.5 feet and weighing up to 10 pounds.
Adults of this species are dark brown in color with white heads and tails. Immature eagles are
brown with whitish mottling on their tail, belly and wing linings. Bald eagles typically prey on
fish, but may also take birds, small mammals, and carrion. Bald eagles typically nest in large
11
4.0 SPECIAL TOPICS
The proposed landfill expansion area was reviewed for the presence of jurisdictional wetland
areas using the three-parameter approach outlined by the COE Wetlands Determination Manual
(DOA 1987) and for jurisdictional stream channel segments using criteria outlined by the COE
and DWQ. Results of each review are outlined below.
4.1 Jurisdictional Delineation
A jurisdictional delineation was conducted within the proposed landfill expansion area in
December 2003 (Figure 3). The delineation effort revealed the presence of three jurisdictional
wetlands within the proposed landfill expansion area totaling approximately 0.514 acre in areal
extent. Two open water features (constructed ponds) were also delineated within the proposed
landfill expansion area totaling 2.455 acres in areal extent. Two jurisdictional stream channels
were delineated within the proposed landfill expansion area. The survey plats depicting the
delineation effort were reviewed and accepted by COE representative Steve Chapin in 2003. A
general description of the jurisdictional areas follows.
4.1.1 Jurisdictional Wetlands
The jurisdictional wetland areas within the proposed landfill expansion area are small in areal
extent (approximately 0.51 acre total). These areas are depicted on Figure 3 and are described
below:
Wetland 1 (WI) is located between the two surface waters located in the proposed expansion
area, south of and adjacent to P2. This wetland area is a linear feature, but lacks diagnostic
features to be considered a stream channel. This emergent area (0.008 acre) is composed of
black willow (Salix nigra), soft rush (Juncus effusus), broomsedge (Andropogon virginicus),
beggar-ticks (Bidens spp.), and various sedges (Carex spp.).
Wetland 2 (W2) is the largest wetland area within the proposed expansion area (0.349 acre).
This successional area is located north of and adjacent to P1. A portion of W2 consists of a
created fore-bay of P l. During the construction of the surface water features, fore-bays were
generally used as sediment traps. Vegetation within this wetland includes black willow and
cattail (Typha latifolia). The remaining portion of W2 is located east of the constructed fore-bay
and consists of herbaceous vegetation, including soft rush.
Wetland 3 (W3) is a riparian wetland associated with S2, which is described below. This
successional area (0.157 acre) is located east of S2, near the confluence of S 1 and S2. A portion
of this wetland area extends beyond the proposed expansion area. Vegetation within this
wetland includes sweetgum, red maple, Chinese privet, blackberry, soft rush, and various
grasses.
4.1.2 Surface Waters
The two ponds within the proposed landfill expansion area total 2.455 acres in areal extent. Both
ponds are constructed features, occupying the topographically low area of the proposed
expansion. A description of each feature follows.
9
trees near open water and forage over large water bodies with adjacent trees available for
perching. The nests are generally used year after year and are typically up to 6 feet in width. A
breeding pair's established breeding area may contain several alternate nest sites. NHP records
indicate no documented occurrences of this species within 3.0 miles of the project study area.
The closest documented occurrence of this species is approximately 4.5 miles northeast of the
project study area, near the Pee Dee River.
BIOLOGICAL CONCLUSION: No large trees for nesting are present within the
project study area that would be considered suitable for nesting. Although open water
areas are present within the proposed expansion area, they are very small in areal extent
and offer limited potential foraging substrate. The mouth of Jacob's Creek at the Pee Dee
River, located approximately 1.7 miles southeast of the proposed expansion area, offers
potential nesting, perching, and foraging habitat. NOT LIKELY TO ADVERSELY
AFFECT.
Sehweinitz's sunflower is an erect, unbranched, rhizomatous, perennial herb that grows up to
approximately 6 feet in height. The species can be found in clearings and edges of upland forest
on moist to dryish clays, clay-loams, or sandy clay-loams that often have high gravel content.
Disturbances such as fire maintenance or regular mowing help sustain preferred habitat. NHP
records indicate one documented occurrence of this species, approximately 2.0 miles north of the
project study area, off NC 24/27/73.
BIOLOGICAL CONCLUSION: The majority of this site is open with a cobbly clay-
loam soil and well maintained by mowing. However, the edges of the site are less
frequently maintained and may provide potential habitat for this species. No individuals
were observed during the field investigation. ESI biologists conducted a survey for this
species on 30 September 2004. No individuals were observed. NO EFFECT.
4.3 Cultural Resources
Cultural resources refer to prehistoric or historic archaeological sites, structures, or artifact
deposits over 50 years old. Significant cultural resources are those sites that are eligible of
potentially eligible for inclusion on the National Register of Historic Places. Evaluations for
cultural resources are required as part of the Section 404 permit process. Evaluations of site
significance are made with reference to the eligibility criteria of the National Register (33 CFR
60) and in consultation with the N.C. State Historic Preservation Office (SHPO).
The proposed expansion area was subjected to an intensive archeological survey in 1996
(Cassedy, 1996). At that time, one archeological site was recorded. Garrow & Associates, Inc.,
(G&A) recommended the site be preserved. The results of the survey were sent to SHPO for
comment. In a letter dated 29 April 1996, SHPO agreed with the recommendation. The site has
been preserved within the landfill property.
1 ?Y?J•i
12 l
5.0 ALTERNATIVES ANALYSIS
Headquarters of the COE guidance from 22 April 1986 requires that alternatives be practicable to
the applicant and that the purpose and need for the proposed project must be the applicant's
purpose and need. This guidance also states that project is to be viewed from the applicant's
perspective rather than only from the broad, public perspective. The essential point of this policy
guidance is that under the Section 404 (b)(1) Guidelines, an alternative must be applicable to the
applicant to be a practical alternative. Pursuant to 40 CFR 230.01(a)(2) practicable alternatives
are those alternatives that are "available and capable of being done after taking into consideration
cost, existing technology, and logistics in light of overall project purpose."
The preamble of the Guidelines states, "if an alleged alternative is unreasonably expensive to the
applicant, the alternative is not practicable." Section 40 CFR 230.10 (a) of the Guidelines states
that "no discharge of dredged of fill material shall be permitted if there is a practicable
alternative- to the proposed discharge which would have less adverse impact on the aquatic
ecosystem, so long as the alternative does not have other significant environmental
consequences."
As part of the Section 404 permit process, alternative locations for the proposed landfill
expansion area were reviewed, as well as the no-build option.
Alternative locations for the proposed landfill expansion, both on and off of the existing landfill
property, were reviewed. Within the acreage that the City of Albemarle has available for landfill
use, there are no areas suitable for landfill activities due to close proximity of bedrock to the soil
surface. The shallow soil does not allow for deep excavations, and therefore will not provide
adequate space for the landfill to meet the needs of its clientele. The preferred expansion area
was added to the existing landfill site because it has a greater depth to bedrock than other areas,
which allows for deeper excavations.
The creation of another landfill facility for the City of Albemarle, separate from the existing
facility, was also considered. However, the construction and use of a new landfill has the
potential to create additional impacts in other local watersheds. The costs for siting and
permitting a new facility and relocating infrastructure and operations would not make a
practicable alternative.
The no-build option would result in premature closure of the landfill facility. This facility is
expected to serve its clientele until 2066. The no-build alternative would require the use of off-
site, regional landfill facility. The closest facility is located approximately 15 miles east of
Albemarle, in Montgomery County. The use of this facility would increase traffic on the
existing two-lane NC 24 facility, and would require waste to be transported over the Pee-Dee
River, increasing chances for spills into the river. To meet the needs of the City, the regional
facility would have to expand its own operation which would result in the potential for additional
impacts to wetlands or streams; these impacts have not been quantified at this time. This option
would also remove revenue from the City of Albemarle and transfer it to the privately run
regional facility in another county, which is not considered a viable option.
13
6.0 PROPOSED IMPACTS
The proposed landfill expansion will result in unavoidable impacts to jurisdictional wetlands and
constructed ponds. Avoidance measures employed are demonstrated by the avoidance of
impacts to all jurisdictional stream channels. Minimization is demonstrated by reducing the
proposed landfill footprint to avoid wetland 3, minimizing jurisdictional impacts.
The remaining jurisdictional areas are slated for impact. A total of 0.357 acre of jurisdictional
wetland area and 2.455 acres of constructed ponds will be impacted by expansion activities.
Although only a portion of the surface water feature P1 is facing direct impact (See Figure 3), the
total area is being considered impacted by expansion activities since the pond will be completely
dewatered.
Although P 1 is the source of flow to stream reach S2, no impact to S2 is expected. Based on site
observations, it is considered likely that a spring located within P1 is the source of hydrology
maintaining the surface water feature. The spring flow will be routed away from the expansion
area towards S2, reconnecting S2 directly to its source.
15
7.0 AGENCY REVIEW
An onsite review was held on 27 April 2004. Representatives from COE, DWQ, FWS, and
WRC were present.
The resource agencies reviewed the potential impact areas. The COE requested the surface
waters be sampled for aquatic life. The results of the sampling effort are outlined in Section 3.3.
Mitigation needs to off-set unavoidable impacts was discussed. Because the majority of the
proposed impacts are to created open water areas, mitigation can be problematic. Several areas
within the landfill property were reviewed for the potential for creation of open water areas. Each
area reviewed was determined to be unsuitable, mainly due to the presence of wetlands and
stream channels.
The use of the Ecosystem Enhancement Program (EEP) was discussed to off-set impacts.
Subsequent conversations with EEP indicate that open water area mitigation is not available,
however, non-conventional mitigation (buffer mitigation) is available in the area, as well as
wetland mitigation. If the resource agencies are in agreement, this option can be pursued.
Mitigation options are outlined in Section 8.0.
16
8.0 MITIGATION OPTIONS
It is understood that successful implementation of the proposed expansion project will require
mitigation. Three options are being considered.
The first option includes payment into the EEP. Use of this program requires availability of
mitigation credits within the project area as well as concurrence from the resource agencies
Mitigation credits are available from EEP. The current rate for mitigation credits is $12,276.00 ?t ? c
per acre of non-riparian wetland area. The open water areas are not directly mitigated through W
EEP. Because the areas are man-made open water areas, mitigation for these features through tl?d.t E?L?.
EEP may be accomplished through non-conventional mitigation. Buffer mitigation has been
-- -
proposed for this area.
The second option includes on-site, in-kind mitigation. This option is limited. Areas reviewed
for this option were found to contain jurisdictional wetlands and streams and are not available for
creation of open water areas.
If EEP buy-in is unavailable and the on-site mitigation option is deemed insufficient to offset the
proposed impacts, off-site mitigation will be pursued. A site search will be initiated to determine
areas that offer suitable mitigation.
17
9.0 SUMMARY
The City of Albemarle wishes to expand the landfill facilities at the City of Albemarle Landfill in
Stanly County, North Carolina. Landfill expansion activities will result in the unavoidable
impact to approximately 0.357 acre of jurisdictional wetland area and 2.455 acre of constructed
ponds.
Four alternatives to the proposed landfill expansion have been explored and deemed unsuitable
for economic or logistical reasons. Therefore, these alternatives would not satisfy the purpose
and need of the City of Albemarle.
Three options for compensatory mitigation are being considered. Off-site mitigation will be
pursued only if on-site mitigation and EEP buy-in options are deemed insufficient to offset the
proposed impacts. The final mitigation plan will be determined after input and approval from the
resource agencies is received.
18
10.0 LITERATURE CITED
Behler, John L. and F. Wayne King. 1979. National Audubon Society Field Guide to Reptiles
and Amphibians. Alfred A. Knopf, Inc., New York. 743 pp.
Cassedy, Daniel F. 1996. Phase I Cultural Resources Survey of a Subtitle D Landfill Site, City
of Albemarle, Stanly County, North Carolina. Garrow & Associates, Inc., Raleigh.
Department of the Army (DOA). 1987. Corps of Engineers Wetlands Delineation Manual. Tech.
Rpt. Y-87-1. US Army Engineer Waterways Experiment Station, Vicksburg, MS. 100 pp.
Department of Environment and Natural Resources (DENR). 2003. Yadkin-Pee Dee River,
Basinwide Water Quality Management Plan.
<http://h2o.enr.state. nc.us/basinwide/yadkin/YadkinPD_wq_dt_management_plan0I 03.h
tm.>
Department of Environment and Natural Resources (DENR). 2004a. Basinwide Information
Management System, Water Quality reports downloaded on 11 May 2004 from
<http://h2o.enr. state.nc.us/bims/reports/basinsandwaterbodies/.>
Department of Environment and Natural Resources (DENR). 2004b. North Carolina Water
Quality Assessment and Impaired Waters List downloaded on 11 May 2004 from
<http://h2o.enr.state.nc.us/tmdl/General 3 03d.htm.>
National Geographic Society (NGS). 2002. Field Guide to the Birds of North America, Fourth
Edition. Washington, D.C. 480 pp.
Potter, E.F., J.F. Parnell, and R.P. Teulings. 1980. Birds of the Carolinas. The University of
North Carolina Press, Chapel Hill, NC. 412 pp.
Schafale, M.P. and A.S. Weakley. 1990. Classification of the Natural Communities of North
Carolina: Third Approximation. Natural Heritage Program, Division of Parks and
Recreation, N.C. Department of Environment, Health, and Natural Resources. Raleigh.
325 pp.
U.S. Department of Agriculture (USDA). 1989. Soil Survey of Stanly County, North Carolina.
USDA Soil Conservation Service. 111 pp.
U.S. Fish and Wildlife Service (USFWS). 2003. Updated County Species List for North
Carolina. List Date 29 January 2003.
U.S. Fish and Wildlife Service (USFWS). 1985. Red-cockaded Woodpecker Recovery Plan. U.S.
Department of the Interior, Southeast Region, Atlanta, Georgia. 88 pp.
U.S. Fish and Wildlife Service (USFWS) 1994. Schweinitz's Sunflower Recovery Plan. Atlanta,
GA. 28 pp.
19
U.S. Fish and Wildlife Service (USFWS). 1999. Federal Register, Vol. 64, No. 128. 50 CFR
Part 17. U.S. Department of the Interior, U.S. Fish and Wildlife Service. 11 pp.
U.S. Geological Survey (USGS). 1985. Geologic Map of North Carolina.
U.S. Geological Survey (USGS). 2001. Hydrologic Units Map, State of North Carolina.
Webster, Wm. David, James F. Parnell, and Walter C. Biggs, Jr. 1985. Mammals of the
Carolinas, Virginia, and Maryland. The University of North Carolina Press, Chapel Hill,
NC
20
Munici al O En sneering
City of Albemarle

27357