20041886 Ver 1_Complete File_20041123

o?oF w A rF9QG
co
o -c
;`Michael F. Easley, Govemor
William G. Ross Jr., Secretary
North Carolina Department of Environment and Natural Resources
Alan W. Klimek, P.E. Director
. Division of Wa:er Quality
September 22, 2005
DWQ Project # 041886
New Hanover County
Mr. Ray Church, Director
New Hanover County Environmental Management
3002 US Highway North
Wilmington, NC 28401
Subject Property: New Hanover County Landfill Expansion
APPROVAL of Isolated Wetlands Permit
Dear Mr. Church:
You have our approval, in accordance with the attached conditions, to place permanent fill in 0.78 acres
of isolated wetlands in order to construct the expansion of the New Hanover County Landfill in New
Hanover County, as described within your application dated and received by the Division of Water
Quality on November 23, 2004, and additional requested information received on February 2, 2005 and
August 2, 2005. After reviewing your application, we have determined that this fill is covered by the
State General Permit for Impacts to Isolated Wetlands and Isolated Waters (IWGP100000). In addition,
you should get any other federal, state or local permits before you go ahead with your project including
(but not limited to) Sediment and Erosion Control, Non-Discharge and Water Supply Watershed
regulations. Also, this Permit will expire upon the expiration date of IWGP100000 (September 30,
2008) or unless otherwise rescinded by the Director of the Division of Water Quality.
This approval is for the purpose and design that you described in your application. If you change your
project, you must notify us and you may be required to send us a new application. If the property is sold,
the new owner must be given a copy of this Permit and approval letter and is thereby responsible for
complying with all conditions. If total fills for this project (now or in the future) exceed one acre of
wetland or 150 linear feet of stream, compensatory mitigation may be required as described in 15A
NCAC 2H .0506 (h). This approval requires you to follow the conditions listed in the attached Permit
and any additional conditions listed below.
The Additional Conditions of the Certification are:
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
Isolated Wetlands 0.78 (acres) Wetland Area A & B
North Carolina Division of Water Quality 127 Cardinal Drive Extension Phone [phone] Customer Servicet-877-623-6748 One
Wilmington Regional Office Wilmington, NC 28405-3845 FAX [phone] Internet: h2o.enr.state.nc.us NorthCaro/l/ina
An Equal Opportunity/Affirmative Action Employer- 50% Recycled/10% Post Consumer Paper orthCarofin
New Hanover County Environmental Maragement
Pave 3 of 3
September 22, 2005
and reporting requirements are required. A copy of this permit and monitoring report forms may
be found at http://l12o.enr.state.nc.us/sulForms Doctunents.htnt.
Violations of any condition herein set forth may result in revocation of this Permit and may result in
criminal and/or civil penalties. The authorization to proceed with your proposed impacts or to conduct
impacts to waters as depicted in your application and as authorized by this Permit, shall expire upon
expiration of IWGP100000 (September 30, 2008) or unless otherwise rescinded by the Director of
the Division of Water Quality.
If you do not accept any of the conditions of this Permit (associated with the approved wetland or stream
impacts), you may ask for an adjudicatory hearing. You must act within 60 days of the date that you
receive this letter. To ask for a hearing, send a written petition, which conforms to Chapter 150B of the
North Carolina General Statutes to the Office of Administrative Hearings, 6714 Mail Service Center,
Raleigh, N.C. 27699-6714. This Permit and its conditions are final and binding unless you ask for a
hearing.
This letter completes the review of the Division of Water Quality under the Isolated Wetlands Rules as
described within 15 NCAC 2H, Section 0.1300. If you have any questions, please telephone Noelle
Lutheran in the DWQ Wilmington Regional Office at 910-796-7405 or Cyndi Karoly in the Central
Office in Raleigh at 919-733-9721.
Sincelcqy,
j Alan W. Klimek, P.E., Director
Division of Water Quality
Enclosures: IWGP100000
Certificate of Completion
cc: Eric Galamb, H.W. Lochner, Inc. (2840 Plaza Place, Suite 202, Raleigh, NC 27612)
Noelle Lutheran, DWQ Wilmington Regional Office (File Copy)
Carol Miller, DLR Wilmington Regional Office
File Copy
Central Files
Filename: 041886.sep
This General Permit is issued in conformity with the requirements of North
Carolina Division of Water Quality (DWQ) Regulations in 15A NCAC 2H, Section. 1300
for the discharge of fill material to isolated wetlands and isolated waters of the State of
North Carolina. This Permit may be rescinded when deemed appropriate by the Director
of DWQ after appropriate public notice.
The State of North Carolina certifies that the specified category of activity will not
violate applicable portions of Sections 301, 302, 303, 306 and 307 of the Public Laws
92-500 and 95-217 if conducted in accordance with the conditions hereinafter set forth.
Conditions of Permit:
1. Totaling Impacts and Application Requirements:
A. Application Thresholds - Impacts to isolated, classified streams, wetlands and
water that exceed any of the thresholds below require a complete application and written
concurrence which may include site-specific conditions in order to use this Permit. These
thresholds apply for the entire project regardless of the number of Nationwide or
Individual Permits (if any) applicable to the project that are issued by the US Army Corps
of Engineers for the project:
1. Impacts to isolated streams of greater or equal to 150 cumulative feet of stream
length for the entire project require written notification to and approval by the
Division of Water Quality, and/or
2. Impacts to isolated lakes and ponds of equal to or greater than 1/3 of an acre
require written notification to and approval by the Division of Water Quality,
and/or
3. Impacts to isolated wetlands of greater or equal to 1/3 of an acre east of 1-95 and
1/10 of an acre west of 1-95 require written notification to and approval by the
Division of Water Quality;
4. Proposed fill or substantial modification of any amount of isolated wetlands
classified in accordance with 15A NCAC 2B .0101(e)(7) as Unique Wetlands
(UWL) shall require written concurrence from the Division of Water Quality;
B. Activities which are Deemed Permitted: Impacts to less than i) 150 linear feet of
isolated stream, ii) 1/3 acre of isolated surface waters, iii) 1/3 acre of isolated
wetlands east of Interstate-95 or iv) 1/10 acre of isolated wetland west of Interstate-
95 are deemed permitted in accordance with 15A NCAC 2H .1305 (b) and do not
require application to or written approval from DWQ as long as all the conditions of
15A NCAC 2H .1305 (b) are followed;
C. Totaling and Reporting of Impacts:
1. Isolated Streams - Impacts to isolated streams as determined by the Division of
Water Quality shall be measured as the length of the centerline of the normal
flow channel. Permanent and/or temporary stream impacts shall be enumerated
on the entire project for all impacts regardless of which 404 Nationwide Permits
are used (if any). Stream relocations and streambed and/or bank hardening are
considered to be permanent stream impacts. Any activity that results in a loss of
use of stream functions including but not limited to filling, relocating, flooding,
excavation, dredging and complete shading shall be considered stream impacts.
Impacts to streams shall include streams enclosed by bottomless culverts,
bottomless arches or other spanning structures unless the entire structure
(including construction impacts) spans the entire bed and both banks of the
stream, is only used for a road, driveway or path crossing, and is not mitered to
follow the stream pattern. Impacts for dam footprints and flooding will count
toward the threshold for stream impacts, but flooding upstream of the dam will
not count towards mitigation requirements as long as no filling, excavation,
relocation or other modification of the existing stream dimension, pattern or
2
water supply watersheds except for allowances as provided under the Water
Supply Watershed Protection Rules. For the purposes of this condition,
perennial waters are defined as those shown as perennial waters on the most
recent USGS 1:24,000 topographic map or as otherwise determined by local
government studies;
II. On-Site Stormwater Management:
A. Additional site-specific stormwater management requirements may be added to
this Permit at DWQ's discretion on a case by case basis for projects that have or
are anticipated to have impervious cover of greater than 30 percent for either the
entire site or portions of the site that exceed 30% imperviousness. Site-specific
stormwater management shall be designed to remove at least 85% TSS
according to the latest version of DWQ's Stormwater Best Management Practices
manual at a minimum. Other stormwater management requirements (such as
[but not limited to] providing diffuse flow through protected buffers) may also be
added on a case-by-case basis.
Additionally, in watersheds within one mile and draining to 303(d) listed
waters, as well as watersheds that are classified as nutrient sensitive waters
(NSW), water supply waters (WS), trout waters Jr), high quality waters (HQW),
and outstanding resource waters (ORW), the Division shall require that extended
detention wetlands, bio-retention areas, and ponds followed by forested filter
strips (designed according to latest version of the NC DENR Stormwater Best
Management Practices Manual) be constructed as part of the stormwater
management plan when a site-specific stormwater management plan is required.
For streams classified as Water Supply, High Quality Waters and Outstanding
Resource Waters, post-construction, on-site stormwater management shall be
required as appropriate and as outlined in 15A NCAC 2B .0104(m) and 2H .1000
to .1007, respectively, in addition to that required in this General Permit.
Alternative designs may be requested by the applicant and will be
reviewed on a case-by-case basis by the Division of Water Quality.
Approval of stormwater management plans by the Division of Water
Quality's other existing state stormwater programs including appropriate local
programs are sufficient to satisfy this Condition as long as the stormwater
management plans meet or exceed the design requirements specified in this
condition. This condition applies unless more stringent requirements are in effect
from other state water quality programs.
1. Unless specified otherwise in the approval letter, the final, written stormwater
management plan shall be approved in writing by the Division of Water Quality's
Wetlands Unit before the impacts specified in this Permit occur.
2. The facilities must be designed to treat the runoff from the entire project, unless
otherwise explicitly approved by the Division of Water Quality.
3. Also, before any permanent building or other structure is occupied at the subject
site, the facilities (as approved by the Wetlands Unit) shall be constructed and
operational, and the stormwater management plan (as approved by the
Wetlands Unit) shall be implemented.
4. All structural stormwater practices as approved by the Wetlands Unit as well as
drainage patterns must be maintained in perpetuity.
5. No changes to the structural stormwater practices shall be made without written
authorization from the Division of Water Quality.
4
upstream and down stream of the above structures. The applicant is required to
provide written evidence that the equilibrium shall be maintained if requested to do so
in writing by DWQ. Additionally, when roadways, causeways or other fill projects are
constructed across FEMA-designated floodways or wetlands, openings such as
culverts or bridges must be provided to maintain the natural hydrology of the system
as well as prevent constriction of the floodway that may result in aggradation,
degradation or significant changes in hydrology of streams or wetlands;
IV. Sedimentation and Erosion Control:
A. All erosion and sediment control practices (for land uses that include
construction/development, mining, agricultural and forestry practices) must be in full
compliance with all specifications governing the proper design, installation, operation
and maintenance of such Best Management Practices (BMPs).
1. For construction/development and land disturbance activities, erosion and
sediment control measures and maintenance must be installed and equal or
exceed the proper design, installation, operation and maintenance outlined in the
most recent version of the "North Carolina Sediment And Erosion Control
Planning and Design Manual". If land disturbance amounts are below the
thresholds where a Division of Land Resource (DLR) or a DLR delegated
program require a Erosion and Sedimentation Control Plan, then measures and
control practices must be installed such that sedimentation to waters is
prevented.
2. For mining activities, erosion and sediment control measures and maintenance
must be installed and equal or exceed the proper design, installation, operation
and maintenance outlined in the most recent version of the "North Carolina
Surface Mining Manual".
3. For projects located on agricultural sites, Best Management measures must be
installed and equal or exceed the proper design, installation, operations and
maintenance outlined in Section 4 of the Natural Resources Conservation
Services (NRCS) Technical Guide. If erosion and sediment control measures
are not specifically addressed by NRCS Technical Guide for an activity being
conducted, then sediment control measures, control practices, and maintenance
must be installed and implemented such that sedimentation to waters is
prevented.
4. For project located on forestry sites, Best Management Practices must be
installed that equal or exceed the proper design, installation, operation and
maintenance as outlined in the most recent version of the "Best Management
Practice Manual" developed by the North Carolina Division of Forest
Management. If the Best Management Practices, developed by the Division of
Forest Resources, do not specifically address the activity being conducted, then
measures, control practices, and maintenance must be installed and
implemented such that sedimentation to waters is prevented.
B. All sediment and erosion control measures placed in wetlands and waters shall be
removed and the original grade restored within two months after the Division of Land
Resources or DLR delegated program has released the project;
V. Compliance with Water Quality Standards:
A. Additional site-specific conditions may be added to projects proposed under this Permit
in order to ensure compliance with all applicable water quality and effluent standards;
B. Measures shall be taken to prevent live or fresh concrete from coming into contact
with waters of the state until the concrete has hardened;
C. If this Permit is used to access building sites, all lots owned by the applicant must be
buildable without additional fill beyond that explicitly allowed under other General or
6-
J. The issuance of this Permit does not preclude the Permittee from complying with any and
all statutes, rules, regulations, or ordinances which may be imposed by other
governments agencies (local, state, and federal) which have jurisdiction. If any of those
permits results in revisions to the plans, a permit modification must be submitted.
K. The permittee grants permission to DENR Staff to enter the property during business
hours for the purposes of inspections and compliance review.
L. The permittee shall notify the Division of Water Quality of any mailing address changes
within 30 days.
401 permits
Subject: 401 permits
From: Patricia Collins <[e-mail]>
Date: Fri, 23 Sep 2005 11:30:47 -0400
To: Ian McMillan <[e-mail]>, Cyndi Karoly <[e-mail]>
The following 401 permit has been issued:
New Hanover County Landfill DWQ#: 2004 1886, New Hanover County
Patricia Collins
Administrative Assistant
N.C. Department of Environment and Natural Resources
Division of Water Quality - Surface Water Protection Section
Wilmington, North Carolina
Phone: [phone]
Fax: [phone]
1 of 1 9/23/2005 1:11 PM
Triage Check Dist
8/3/05
Date: Project Name: New Hanover County Landfill Exp. Site
DWQ#: 04-1886
County: New Hanover
To: Noelle Lutheran, Wilmington Regional Office
60-Day processing time: 8/2/05 to 1011105
From: Cyndi Karoly Telephone: [phone]
The file attached is being forwarded to your for your evaluation.
Please call if you need assistance.
? Stream length impacted
? Stream determination
Wetland determination and distance to blue-line surface waters on USFW topo maps
? Minimization/avoidance issues
? Buffer Rules (Neuse, 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

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!
LOCHNER
H.W. LOCHNER, INC., 2840 Plaza Place, Suite 202, Raleigh, North Carolina 27612 Phone: [phone]
Fax: [phone]
www.hwlochner.ccm
August 1, 2005
North Carolina Division of Water Quality
127 Cardinal Drive Extension
Wilmington, NC 28405
Reference: 401 Water Quality Certification/Isolated Wetlan c?rr iii gnu C, i?
New Hanover County Landfill Expansion Site
New Hanover County, North Carolina AUG 2 ` 200,?
Lochner Project No. 1904
DWQ Project No. 04-1886 ??t ft ???,r?R QUA!
r,tTts??? sTC ,.
Dear Ms. Lutheran:
H.W. Lochner, Inc. (Lochner) wishes to submit on behalf of our client, New Hanover
County, responses to the Division of Water Quality's (DWQ) March 17, 2005
correspondence. Each response item below has been provided a number that corresponds to
the paragraph number in the DWQ letter noted above.
1) The agency expressed that avoidance and minimization efforts must be demonstrated.
As a component of that evaluation the agency required that an engineered site plan
that accurately depicts the proposed future locations of the disposal units be provided.
This additional engineering effort resulted in a delay in responding to your additional
information letter noted above. The result of that effort is the preliminary site plan
depicting the future location of the landfill disposal expansion on the south property
(that includes the two isolated wetlands) and its connection to the existing disposal
units. That plan is enclosed for your information. The County had not intended to
pursue this level of planning until it was determined that the small isolated wetlands
would not be a "deal breaker" for utilizing the property for the purpose for which it
was purchased. Since the size of the individual wetlands was very small (0.37 and
0.41 acres based on the registered surveyor's map) it was felt that this would not be
the complicated issue that it has become. The two isolated wetlands would severely
limit the availability of the site to be expanded and incorporated into the existing
landfill as shown by their locations depicted on the plan. Trying to find other
properties in New Hanover County that meet the long list of criteria required to site a
landfill facility would be very expensive to the citizens of the County. It is highly
doubtful that such properties could be found. D`'VQ should be aware that the basis of
this statement is that locating landfills for New Hanover County has a long history.
Prior to 1981 multiple sites had been operated around the county. In the 1970's the
County was included as an RPR in litigation with EPA over the old Flemington
Landfill. In the late 1970's the only permitted landfill for the county's use was
located in the Carolina Beach area. After litigation involving a land lease from the
Army Corps of Engineers that facility was closed leaving the County without a
permitted landfill. After this facility closed the county permitted a small interim
PROVIDING EXCEPTIONAL CLIENT SERVICE SINCE 1944
DWQ Response
New Hanover County Landfill
Lochner Project 1904
Aueust 1.2005
facility that operated for 14-months. During that time the county utilized a nationally
known consultant to assist them in finding an environmentally sound site on which
the county could permit a facility. A site was not found that the State of North
Carolina would approve as a disposal site using landfilling methods applied at that
time. Multiple attempts to have local counties join in a regional approach with the
cost of finding, permitting, and constructing a landfill to be borne by New Hanover
failed for political reasons. New Hanover County Commissioners decided to address
their responsibilities in protecting the health and welfare of the county's residents by
constructing a state-of-the-art lined landfill within New Hanover County. This was
done and the facility opened in 1981. At that time it was the only lined landfill in the
state and was constructed more than 10-years before the rest of the country was
directed to follow that standard. Because of the limited locations for future
expansions, in 1986 New Hanover County purchased the property south of the
existing active landfill for the purpose of expanding the landfill into that area at the
appropriate time. This southern property provides the only contiguous acreage
available for expansion of the landfill because of the limits of Fishing Creek to the
north, the Northeast Cape Fear River's floodplain and wetlands to the east, and US
421 and its frontage property to the west. The southern property is bounded to the
south by industrial developed property that serves as the final barrier to any
additional expansion of the landfill facility in any direction.
The attached plan for the south property is based on setback requirements established
under the solid waste regulations of NCDENR. A significant level of work will be
required before the site can be submitted to the NCDENR for landfill disposal
permitting. The County does not want to proceed with that permitting under the
cloud of being denied the authority to include the isolated wetland areas in the
planned disposal area. Because of the cost of siting, permitting, developing, and
operating landfills, the disposal volume for landfilling purposes is very costly. To
demonstrate the value of this waste disposal space, the County is considering
relocating the existing maintenance building shown on the plan in addition to
developing the area of the two small isolated wetlands. These two steps will help to
maximize the landfill volume.
In summary, the impact of avoiding the two small isolated wetlands would be severe
as shown by reviewing the contoured disposal plan. Additionally, there are no viable
avoidance and minimization efforts that will meet the projects purpose and need.
2) The agency requested a copy of the stormwater management plan and calculations
that demonstrate that 85% TSS removal will be achieved. The existing landfill on the
northern property has been operating under stormwater permits issued specifically for
that site. The southern property currently has an erosion control permit for the entire
site and a stormwater permit for the conditions of the site without additional
impervious area. As we understand the agency's current position, landfills are now
considered impervious by the agency. In our professional opinion and experience
this is not factual. However, the county's opinion is that it is premature to pursue the
engineering to demonstrate the 85% TSS removal for several reasons. First, the
current permit for the southern property does not discharge stormwater from the site
DWQ Response Lochner Project 1904
New Hanover County Landfill August 1, 2005
but percolates in the ditches and percolation basin. It is the intent that if the landfill is
expanded that this same process will be applied and no off-site discharge of
stormwater is anticipated. If there is no discharge then obviously there are no
suspended solids discharging from the site. Historically, the medium to coarse grains
sands located on the properties have allowed for rapid percolation of stormwater
events. Second, if the area of the two small wetlands cannot be used, there is a real
question of the viability of permitting the site because of the significantly reduced
disposal volume. The cost to develop the smaller facility on a unit basis would be
skewed dramatically compared to using the site as proposed. Again, it is important
that you understand that the County may not construct the landfill if the wetlands
cannot be removed.
3) The agency required a delineation map sealed by a registered surveyor. A copy of the
wetland delineation that was conducted by and sealed by a registered land surveyor is
enclosed for your information as required in your letter. The areas of the two small
isolated wetlands are 0.37 and 0.41 acres for a total site value of 0.78 acres.
Approval to impact these wetlands will not result in violations of water quality standards.
The placement of a liner, collection of leachate, and on-site storm water management will
ensure that all water quality standards are met.
This correspondence has shown that the wetlands were accurately delineated, they are
isolated, that avoidance and minimization efforts have been investigated, and that impacts to
these small isolated wetlands will not violate water quality standards. By copy of this
correspondence we are requesting that you issue a 401 Water Quality Certification for the
proposed isolated wetland impacts.
Sincerely,
H.W. Lochner, Inc.
Z'e?' e5?J'?
Eric Galamb, PWS
Project Manager
cc: Ed Hilton, PE, SCS Engineers, with attachments
Ray Church, New Hanover County, with attachments
Cyndi Karoly, DWQ Central Office 401/Wetlands Unit
1650 Mail Service Center
Raleigh, NC 27699-1650
File, with attachments
a*
LOCHNER
H.W. LOCHNER, INC., 2840 Plaza Place, Suite 202, Raleigh, North Carolina 27612 Phone: [phone]
Fax: [phone]
www.hwlochner.com
August 1, 2005
North Carolina Division of Water Quality
127 Cardinal Drive Extension
Wilmington, NC 28405
Reference: 401 Water Quality Certification/Isolated Wetland Permit
New Hanover County Landfill Expansion Site
New Hanover County, North Carolina
Lochner Project No. 1904
DWQ Project No. 04-1886
Dear Ms. Lutheran:
H.W. Lochner, Inc. (Lochner) wishes to submit on behalf of our client, New Hanover
County, responses to the Division of Water Quality's (DWQ) March 17, 2005
correspondence. Each response item below has been provided a number that corresponds to
the paragraph number in the DWQ letter noted above.
1) The agency expressed that avoidance and minimization efforts must be demonstrated.
As a component of that evaluation the agency required that an engineered site plan
that accurately depicts the proposed future locations of the disposal units be provided.
This additional engineering effort resulted in a delay in responding to your additional
information letter noted above. The result of that effort is the preliminary site plan
depicting the future location of the landfill disposal expansion on the south property
(that includes the two isolated wetlands) and its connection to the existing disposal
units. That plan is enclosed for your information. The County had not intended to
pursue this level of planning until it was determined that the small isolated wetlands
would not be a "deal breaker" for utilizing the property for the purpose for which it
was purchased. Since the size of the individual wetlands was very small (0.37 and
0.41 acres based on the registered surveyor's map) it was felt that this would not be
the complicated issue that it has become. The two isolated wetlands would severely
limit the availability of the site to be expanded and incorporated into the existing
landfill as shown by their locations depicted on the plan. Trying to find other
properties in New Hanover County that meet the long list of criteria required to site a
landfill facility would be very expensive to the citizens of the County. It is highly
doubtful that such properties could be found. DWQ should be aware that the basis of
this statement is that locating landfills for New Hanover County has a long history.
Prior to 1981 multiple sites had been operated around the county. In the 1970's the
County was included as an RPR in litigation with EPA over the old Flemington
Landfill. In the late 1970's the only permitted landfill for the county's use was
located in the Carolina Beach area. After litigation involving a land lease from the
Army Corps of Engineers that facility was closed leaving the County without a
permitted landfill. After this facility closed the county permitted a small interim
PROVIDING ExCEPTICNAL CLIENT SERVICE SINCE 1944
. nc
DWQ Response Lochner Project 1904
New Hanover County Landfill August 1, 2005
facility that operated for 14-months. During that time the county utilized a nationally
known consultant to assist them in finding an environmentally sound site on which
the county could permit a facility. A site was not found that the State of North
Carolina would approve as a disposal site using landfilling methods applied at that
time. Multiple attempts to have local counties join in a regional approach with the
cost of finding, permitting, and constructing a landfill to be borne by New Hanover
failed for political reasons. New Hanover County Commissioners decided to address
their responsibilities in protecting the health and welfare of the county's residents by
constructing a state-of-the-art lined landfill within New Hanover County. This was
done and the facility opened in 1981. At that time it was the only lined landfill in the
state and was constructed more than 10-years before the rest of the country was
directed to follow that standard. Because of the limited locations for future
expansions, in 1986 New Hanover County purchased the property south of the
existing active landfill for the purpose of expanding the landfill into that area at the
appropriate time. This southern property provides the only contiguous acreage
available for expansion of the landfill because of the limits of Fishing Creek to the
north, the Northeast Cape Fear River's floodplain and wetlands to the east, and US
421 and its frontage property to the west. The southern property is bounded to the
south by industrial developed property that serves as the final barrier to any
additional expansion of the landfill facility in any direction.
The attached plan for the south property is based on setback requirements established
under the solid waste regulations of NCDENR. A significant level of work will be
required before the site can be submitted to the NCDENR for landfill disposal
permitting. The County does not want to proceed with that permitting under the
cloud of being denied the authority to include the isolated wetland areas in the
planned disposal area. Because of the cost of siting, permitting, developing, and
operating landfills, the disposal volume for landfilling purposes is very costly. To
demonstrate the value of this waste disposal space, the County is considering
relocating the existing maintenance building shown on the plan in addition to
developing the area of the two small isolated wetlands. These two steps will help to
maximize the landfill volume.
In summary, the impact of avoiding the two small isolated wetlands would be severe
as shown by reviewing the contoured disposal plan. Additionally, there are no viable
avoidance and minimization efforts that will meet the projects purpose and need.
2) The agency requested a copy of the stormwater management plan and calculations
that demonstrate that 85% TSS removal will be achieved. The existing landfill on the
northern property has been operating under stormwater permits issued specifically for
that site. The southern property currently has an erosion control permit for the entire
site and a stormwater permit for the conditions of the site without additional
impervious area. As we understand the agency's current position, landfills are now
considered impervious by the agency. In our professional opinion and experience
this is not factual. However, the county's opinion is that it is premature to pursue the
engineering to demonstrate the 85% TSS removal for several reasons. First, the
current permit for the southern property does not discharge stormwater from the site
DWQ Response
New Hanover County Landfill
Lochner Project 1904
August 1, 2005
but percolates in the ditches and percolation basin. It is the intent that if the landfill is
expanded that this same process will be applied and no off-site discharge of
stormwater is anticipated. If there is no discharge then obviously there are no
suspended solids discharging from the site. Historically, the medium to coarse grains
sands located on the properties have allowed for rapid percolation of stormwater
events. Second, if the area of the two small wetlands cannot be used, there is a real
question of the viability of permitting the site because of the significantly reduced
disposal volume. The cost to develop the smaller facility on a unit basis would be
skewed dramatically compared to using the site as proposed. Again, it is important
that you understand that the County may not construct the landfill if the wetlands
cannot be removed.
3) The agency required a delineation map sealed by a registered surveyor. A copy of the
wetland delineation that was conducted by and sealed by a registered land surveyor is
enclosed for your information as required in your letter. The areas of the two small
isolated wetlands are 0.37 and 0.41 acres for a total site value of 0.78 acres.
Approval to impact these wetlands will not result in violations of water quality standards.
The placement of a liner, collection of leachate, and on-site storm water management will
ensure that all water quality standards are met.
This correspondence has shown that the wetlands were accurately delineated, they are
isolated, that avoidance and minimization efforts have been investigated, and that impacts to
these small isolated wetlands will not violate water quality standards. By copy of this
correspondence we are requesting that you issue a 401 Water Quality Certification for the
proposed isolated wetland impacts.
Sincerely,
H.W. Lochner, Inc.

Eric Galamb, PWS
Project Manager
cc: Ed Hilton, PE, SCS Engineers, with attachments
Ray Church, New Hanover County, with attachments
Cyndi Karoly, DWQ Central Office 401/Wetlands Unit
RD P
AUG - 2005

1650 Mail Service Center
Raleigh, NC 27699-1650
File, with attachments
LOCHNER
H.W. LOCHNER, INC., 2840 Plaza Place, Suite 202, Raleigh, North Carolina 27612 Phone: [phone]
Fax: [phone]
www.hwlochner.com
August 1, 2005
North Carolina Division of Water Quality
127 Cardinal Drive Extension
Wilmington, NC 28405
Reference: 401 Water Quality Certification/Isolated Wetland Per D
i la O V
?tR @
New Hanover County Landfill Expansion Site
New Hanover County, North Carolina C
Lochner Project No. 1904 AUG 2 - 2005
DWQ Project No. 04-1886
Dear Ms. Lutheran:
DEER - liVATER QUALITY
V1E77A'1D3A%DJIO,', "ivATERBRANCH
H.W. Lochner, Inc. (Lochner) wishes to submit on behalf of our client, New Hanover
County, responses to the Division of Water Quality's (DWQ) March 17, 2005
correspondence. Each response item below has been provided a number that corresponds to
the paragraph number in the DWQ letter noted above.
1) The agency expressed that avoidance and minimization efforts must be demonstrated.
As a component of that evaluation the agency required that an engineered site plan
that accurately depicts the proposed future locations of the disposal units be provided.
This additional engineering effort resulted in a delay in responding to your additional
information letter noted above. The result of that effort is the preliminary site plan
depicting the future location of the landfill disposal expansion on the south property
(that includes the two isolated wetlands) and its connection to the existing disposal
units. That plan is enclosed for your information. The County had not intended to
pursue this level of planning until it was determined that the small isolated wetlands
would not be a "deal breaker" for utilizing the property for the purpose for which it
was purchased. Since the size of the individual wetlands was very small (0.37 and
0.41 acres based on the registered surveyor's map) it was felt that this would not be
the complicated issue that it has become. The two isolated wetlands would severely
limit the availability of the site to be expanded and incorporated into the existing
landfill as shown by their locations depicted on the plan. Trying to find other
properties in New Hanover County that meet the long list of criteria required to site a
landfill facility would be very expensive to the citizens of the County. It is highly
doubtful that such properties could be found. DWQ should be aware that the basis of
this statement is that locating landfills for New Hanover County has a long history.
Prior to 1981 multiple sites had been operated around the county. In the 1970's the
County was included as an RPR in litigation with EPA over the old Flemington
Landfill. In the late 1970's the only permitted landfill for the county's use was
located in the Carolina Beach area. After litigation involving a land lease from the
Army Corps of Engineers that facility was closed leaving the County without a
permitted landfill. After this facility closed the county permitted a small interim
PROVIDING ExCEPTIONAL CLIENT SERVICE SINCE 1944
DWQ Response Lochner Project 1904
New Hanover County Landfill August 1, 2005
facility that operated for 14-months. During that time the county utilized a nationally
known consultant to assist them in finding an environmentally sound site on which
the county could permit a facility. A site was not found that the State of North
Carolina would approve as a disposal site using landfilling methods applied at that
time. Multiple attempts to have local counties join in a regional approach with the
cost of finding, permitting, and constructing a landfill to be borne by New Hanover
failed for political reasons. New Hanover County Commissioners decided to address
their responsibilities in protecting the health and welfare of the county's residents by
constructing a state-of-the-art lined landfill within New Hanover County. This was
done and the facility opened in 1981. At that time it was the only lined landfill in the
state and was constructed more than 10-years before the rest of the country was
directed to follow that standard. Because of the limited locations for future
expansions, in 1986 New Hanover County purchased the property south of the
existing active landfill for the purpose of expanding the landfill into that area at the
appropriate time. This southern property provides the only contiguous acreage
available for expansion of the landfill because of the limits of Fishing Creek to the
north, the Northeast Cape Fear River's floodplain and wetlands to the east, and US
421 and its frontage property to the west. The southern property is bounded to the
south by industrial developed property that serves as the final barrier to any
additional expansion of the landfill facility in any direction.
The attached plan for the south property is based on setback requirements established
under the solid waste regulations of NCDENR. A significant level of work will be
required before the site can be submitted to the NCDENR for landfill disposal
permitting. The County does not want to proceed with that permitting under the
cloud of being denied the authority to include the isolated wetland areas in the
planned disposal area. Because of the cost of siting, permitting, developing, and
operating landfills, the disposal volume for landfilling purposes is very costly. To
demonstrate the value of this waste disposal space, the County is considering
relocating the existing maintenance building shown on the plan in addition to
developing the area of the two small isolated wetlands. These two steps will help to
maximize the landfill volume.
In summary, the impact of avoiding the two small isolated wetlands would be severe
as shown by reviewing the contoured disposal plan. Additionally, there are no viable
avoidance and minimization efforts that will meet the projects purpose and need.
2) The agency requested a copy of the stormwater management plan and calculations
that demonstrate that 85% TSS removal will be achieved. The existing landfill on the
northern property has been operating under stormwater permits issued specifically for
that site. The southern property currently has an erosion control permit for the entire
site and a stormwater permit for the conditions of the site without additional
impervious area. As we understand the agency's current position, landfills are now
considered impervious by the agency. In our professional opinion and experience
this is not factual. However, the county's opinion is that it is premature to pursue the
engineering to demonstrate the 85% TSS removal for several reasons. First, the
current permit for the southern property does not discharge stormwater from the site
2
DWQ Response
New Hanover County Landfill
Lochner Project 1904
August 1, 2005
but percolates in the ditches and percolation basin. It is the intent that if the landfill is
expanded that this same process will be applied and no off-site discharge of
stormwater is anticipated. If there is no discharge then obviously there are no
suspended solids discharging from the site. Historically, the medium to coarse grains
sands located on the properties have allowed for rapid percolation of stormwater
events.. Second, if the area of the two small wetlands cannot be used, there is a real
question of the viability of permitting the site because of the significantly reduced
disposal volume. The cost to develop the smaller facility on a unit basis would be
skewed dramatically compared to using the site as proposed. Again, it is important
that you understand that the County may not construct the landfill if the wetlands
cannot be removed.
3) The agency required a delineation map sealed by a registered surveyor. A copy of the
wetland delineation that was conducted by and sealed by a registered land surveyor is
enclosed for your information as required in your letter. The areas of the two small
isolated wetlands are 0.37 and 0.41 acres for a total site value of 0.78 acres.
Approval to impact these wetlands will not result in violations of water quality standards.
The placement of a liner, collection of leachate, and on-site storm water management will
ensure that all water quality standards are met.
This correspondence has shown that the wetlands were accurately delineated, they are
isolated, that avoidance and minimization efforts have been investigated, and that impacts to
these small isolated wetlands will not violate water quality standards. By copy of this
correspondence we are requesting that you issue a 401 Water Quality Certification for the
proposed isolated wetland impacts.
Sincerely,
H.W. Lochner, Inc.
i
Eric Galamb, PWS
Project Manager
cc: Ed Hilton, PE, SCS Engineers, with attachments
Ray Church, New Hanover County, with attachments
Cyndi Karoly, DWQ Central Office 401/Wetlands Unit
1650 Mail Service Center
Raleigh, NC 27699-1650
File, with attachments
LOCHNER
H.W. LOCHNER, INC., 2840 Plaza Place, Suite 202, Raleigh, North Carolina 27612 Phone: [phone]
Fax: [phone]
www.hwlochner.com
August 1, 2005
North Carolina Division of Water Quality
127 Cardinal Drive Extension
Wilmington, NC 28405
Reference: 401 Water Quality Certification/Isolated Wetland Permit
New Hanover County Landfill Expansion Site
New Hanover County, North Carolina
Lochner Project No. 1904
DWQ Project No. 04-1886
Dear Ms. Lutheran:
H.W. Lochner, Inc. (Lochner) wishes to submit on behalf of our client, New Hanover
County, responses to the Division of Water Quality's (DWQ) March 17, 2005
correspondence. Each response item below has been provided a number that corresponds to
the paragraph number in the DWQ letter noted above.
1) The agency expressed that avoidance and minimization efforts must be demonstrated.
As a component of that evaluation the agency required that an engineered site plan
that accurately depicts the proposed future locations of the disposal units be provided.
This additional engineering effort resulted in a delay in responding to your additional
information letter noted above. The result of that effort is the preliminary site plan
depicting the future location of the landfill disposal expansion on the south property
(that includes the two isolated wetlands) and its connection to the existing disposal
units. That plan is enclosed for your information. The County had not intended to
pursue this level of planning until it was determined that the small isolated wetlands
would not be a "deal breaker" for utilizing the property for the purpose for which it
was purchased. Since the size of the individual wetlands was very small (0.37 and
0.41 acres based on the registered surveyor's map) it was felt that this would not be
the complicated issue that it has become. The two isolated wetlands would severely
limit the availability of the site to be expanded and incorporated into the existing
landfill as shown by their locations depicted on the plan. Trying to find other
properties in New Hanover County that meet the long list of criteria required to site a
landfill facility would be very expensive to the citizens of the County. It is highly
doubtful that such properties could be found. DWQ should be aware that the basis of
this statement is that locating landfills for New Hanover County has a long history.
Prior to 1981 multiple sites had been operated around the county. In the 1970's the
County was included as an RPR in litigation with EPA over the old Flemington
Landfill. In the late 1970's the only permitted landfill for the county's use was
located in the Carolina Beach area. After litigation involving a land lease from the
Army Corps of Engineers that facility was closed leaving the County without a
permitted landfill. After this facility closed the county permitted a small interim
PROVIDING ExCEPTIONAL CLIENT SERVICE SINCE 1944
DWQ Response Lochner Project 1904
New Hanover County Landfill AUeust 1.2005
facility that operated for 14-months. During that time the county utilized a nationally
known consultant to assist them in finding an environmentally sound site on which
the county could permit a facility. A site was not found that the State of North
Carolina would approve as a disposal site using landfilling methods applied at that
time. Multiple attempts to have local counties join in a regional approach with the
cost of finding, permitting, and constructing a landfill to be borne by New Hanover
failed for political reasons. New Hanover County Commissioners decided to address
their responsibilities in protecting the health and welfare of the county's residents by
constructing a state-of-the-art lined landfill within New Hanover County. This was
done and the facility opened in 1981. At that time it was the only lined landfill in the
state and was constructed more than 10-years before the rest of the country was
directed to follow that standard. Because of the limited locations for future
expansions, in 1986 New Hanover County purchased the property south of the
existing active landfill for the purpose of expanding the landfill into that area at the
appropriate time. This southern property provides the only contiguous acreage
available for expansion of the landfill because of the limits of Fishing Creek to the
north, the Northeast Cape Fear River's floodplain and wetlands to the east, and US
421 and its frontage property to the west. The southern property is bounded to the
south by industrial developed property that serves as the final barrier to any
additional expansion of the landfill facility in any direction.
The attached plan for the south property is based on setback requirements established
under the solid waste regulations of NCDENR. A significant level of work will be
required before the site can be submitted to the NCDENR for landfill disposal
permitting. The County does not want to proceed with that permitting under the
cloud of being denied the authority to include the isolated wetland areas in the
planned disposal area. Because of the cost of siting, permitting, developing, and
operating landfills, the disposal volume for landfilling purposes is very costly. To
demonstrate the value of this waste disposal space, the County is considering
relocating the existing maintenance building shown on the plan in addition to
developing the area of the two small isolated wetlands. These two steps will help to
maximize the landfill volume.
In summary, the impact of avoiding the two small isolated wetlands would be severe
as shown by reviewing the contoured disposal plan. Additionally, there are no viable
avoidance and minimization efforts that will meet the projects purpose and need.
2) The agency requested a copy of the stormwater management plan and calculations
that demonstrate that 85% TSS removal will be achieved. The existing landfill on the
northern property has been operating under stormwater permits issued specifically for
that site. The southern property currently has an erosion control permit for the entire
site and a stormwater permit for the conditions of the site without additional
impervious area. As we understand the agency's current position, landfills are now
considered impervious by the agency. In our professional opinion and experience
this is not factual. However, the county's opinion is that it is premature to pursue the
engineering to demonstrate the 85% TSS removal for several reasons. First, the
current permit for the southern property does not discharge stormwater from the site
2
DWQ Response Lochner Project 1904
New Hanover County Landfill August 1, 2005
but percolates in the ditches and percolation basin. It is the intent that if the landfill is
expanded that this same process will be applied and no off-site discharge of
stormwater is anticipated. If there is no discharge then obviously there are no
suspended solids discharging from the site. Historically, the medium to coarse grains
sands located on the properties have allowed for rapid percolation of stormwater
events.. Second, if the area of the two small wetlands cannot be used, there is a real
question of the viability of permitting the site because of the significantly reduced
disposal volume. The cost to develop the smaller facility on a unit basis would be
skewed dramatically compared to using the site as proposed. Again, it is important
that you understand that the County may not construct the landfill if the wetlands
cannot be removed.
3) The agency required a delineation map sealed by a registered surveyor. A copy of the
wetland delineation that was conducted by and sealed by a registered land surveyor is
enclosed for your information as required in your letter. The areas of the two small
isolated wetlands are 0.37 and 0.41 acres for a total site value of 0.78 acres.
Approval to impact these wetlands will not result in violations of water quality standards.
The placement of a liner, collection of leachate, and on-site storm water management will
ensure that all water quality standards are met.
This correspondence has shown that the wetlands were accurately delineated, they are
isolated, that avoidance and minimization efforts have been investigated, and that impacts to
these small isolated wetlands will not violate water quality standards. By copy of this
correspondence we are requesting that you issue a 401 Water Quality Certification for the
proposed isolated wetland impacts.
Sincerely,
H.W. Lochner, Inc.

Eric Galamb, PWS
Project Manager
cc: Ed Hilton, PE, SCS Engineers, with attachments
Ray Church, New Hanover County, with attachments
Cyndi Karoly, DWQ Central Office 401/Wetlands Unit
1650 Mail Service Center
Raleigh, NC 27699-1650
File, with attachments
OF WATER Michael F. Easley, Governor
Q William G. Ross Jr., Secretary
North Carolina Department of Environment and Natural Resources
> Alan W. Klimek, P.E., Director
p Division of Water Quality
Coleen H. Sullins, Deputy Director
Division of Water Quality
March 17, 2005
CERTIFIED HAIL: 7003 1010 0000 0032 4496
RETURN RECEIPT REQUESTED
Mr. Ray Church, Director
New Hanover County Environmental Management
3002 US Highway North
Wilmington, NC 27612
SUBJECT: PROJECT ON HOLD FOR
ADDITIONAL INFORIAIATION
NHC Landfill Expansion Site
DWQ Project # 04-1886
New Hanover County
Dear Mr. Church:
This Office has reviewed your Isolated Wetland Permit application and additional information
received on February 2, 2005. In addition, on February 28, 2005, Mr. Galamb of Lochner met me on site
to verify the wetland line. Additional information still needed to process the permit application was
discussed at that time. This office is placing your project on hold until we receive the following additional
information:
1. Avoidance and minimization efforts must be demonstrated. The additional information received
on February 2, 2005, suggested that wetland area "B" cannot be avoided due to the fact that the
actual landfill expansion design will inter-connect the proposed disposal unit with the existing
disposal unit. If this proposed design is planned, avoidance of wetland area "B" would result in a
significant loss of landfill capacity. Please provide the engineered site plan that accurately
depicts the proposed future locations of the disposal units.
2. In addition, through e-mail correspondence with Mr. Galamb, the requirement for stormwater
treatment from all new impervious surfaces including the footprint of the proposed disposal unit
has been discussed. Please provide a copy of the stormwater management plan and calculations
that demonstrate that 85% TSS removal will be achieved.
3. Please provide a copy of the surveyed wetland delineation. If GPS equipment is used, please
provide a wetland delineation map sealed by a registered surveyor as previously requested.
N. C. Division of Water Quality 127 Cardinal Drive Extension [phone] Customer Service
Wilmington Regional Office Wilmington, NC 28405 [phone] Fax [phone] One
An Equal Opportunity/Affirmative Action Employer - 50% Recycled/10% Post Consumer Paper NorthCarolina
Aahirally
t
New Hanover County
DWQ Project #041886
March 17, 2005
2
Please respond within three weeks of the date of this letter by sending a copy of the information to
Noelle Lutheran and to Cyndi Karoly, 401 Oversight/Express Review Permitting Unit, 2321 Crabtree
Blvd., Raleigh, NC 27604-226, her phone number is [phone]. If we do not hear from you within
three weeks, we will assume that you no longer want to pursue this project and we will consider the
project as withdrawn. If you have any questions, please feel free to call me at [phone].
Sincerely,
?Gf/L? 446;0'e'
Noelle Lutheran
Environmental Specialist III
cc: Eric Galamb - H.W. Lochner Inc.
Cyndi Karoly -401 Oversite Unit
Jennifer Frye - US Army Corps of Engineers Wilmington
Noelle Lutheran - WiRO
MP uF?lr cH
OS w O SSOrlA
b7W F WATER Michael F. Easley, Governor
QG William G. Ross Jr., Secretary
North Carolina Department of Environment and Natural Resources
> aAlan W. Klimek, P.E., Director
Division of Water Quality
Coleen H. Sullins, Deputy Director
> Division of Water Quality
March 17, 2005
CERTIFIED MAIL: 7003 1010 0000 0032 4496
RETURN RECEIPT REQUESTED
Mr. Ray Church, Director
New Hanover County Environmental Management
3002 US Highway North
Wilmington, NC 27612
SUBJECT: PROJECT ON HOLD FOR
ADDITIONAL INFORMATION
NHC Landfill Expansion Site
DWQ Project # 04-1886
New Hanover County
Dear Mr. Church:
This Office has reviewed your Isolated Wetland Permit application and additional information
received on February 2, 2005. In addition, on February 28, 2005, Mr. Galamb of Lochner met me on site
to verify the wetland line. Additional information still needed to process the permit application was
discussed at that time. This office is placing your project on hold until we receive the following additional
information:
1. Avoidance and minimization efforts must be demonstrated. The additional information received
on February 2, 2005, suggested that wetland area "B" cannot be avoided due to the fact that the
actual landfill expansion design will inter-connect the proposed disposal unit with the existing
disposal unit. If this proposed design is planned, avoidance of wetland area "B" would result in a
significant loss of landfill capacity. Please provide the engineered site plan that accurately
depicts the proposed future locations of the disposal units.
2. In addition, through e-mail correspondence with Mr. Galamb, the requirement for stormwater
treatment from all new impervious surfaces including the footprint of the proposed disposal unit
has been discussed. Please provide a copy of the stormwater management plan and calculations
that demonstrate that 85% TSS removal will be achieved.
3. Please provide a copy of the surveyed wetland delineation. If GPS equipment is used, please
provide a wetland delineation map sealed by a registered surveyor as previously requested.
N. C. Division of Water Quality 127 Cardinal Drive Extension [phone] Customer Service
Wilmington Regional Office Wilmington, NC 28405 [phone] Fax [phone] One
An Equal Opportunity/Affirmative Action Employer - 50% Recycled/10% Post Consumer Paper North Carolina
Naturally
New Hanover County
DWQ Project #041886
March 17, 2005
2
Please respond within three weeks of the date of this letter by sending a copy of the information to
Noelle Lutheran and to Cyndi Karoly, 401 Oversight/Express Review Permitting Unit, 2321 Crabtree
Blvd., Raleigh, NC 27604-226, her phone number is [phone]. If we do not hear from you within
three weeks, we will assume that you no longer want to pursue this project and we will consider the
project as withdrawn. If you have any questions, please feel free to call me at [phone].
Sincerely,
Noelle Lutheran
Environmental Specialist III
cc: Eric Galamb - H.W. Lochner Inc.
Cyndi Karoly -401 Oversite Unit
Jennifer Frye - US Army Corps of Engineers Wilmington
Noelle Lutheran - WiRO
MEMORANDUM
TO: John Dorney
Non-Discharge Branch
Regional Contact: N. Lutheran
WQ Supervisor: Fri Berk
Date:
SUBJECT: WETLAND STAFF REPORT AND RECOMMENDATIONS
Facility Name New Hanover Countv Landfill Expansion Site
Project Number 04 1886
Recvd From APP
Received Date 11/23/04 Recvd By Region
Project Type landfill addition
County New Hanover
County2
Region Wilmington
Certificates Stream
Permit Wetland Wetland Wetland Stream Class Acres Feet
Type Type Impact Score Index Prim. Supp. Basin Req. Req.
freshwate O Y O N 18-74-(61) SC Sw 30,617. 0.98
O Y O N ??-f ?I x-?
Mitigation Wetland
MitigationType Type Acres Feet
Is Wetland Rating Sheet Attached? O Y ON Did you request more info? *Y ON
Have Project Changes/Conditions Been Discussed With Applicant? 0 Y 0 N
Is Mitigation required? O Y O N Recommendation: 0 Issue 0 Issue/Cond 0 Deny
Provided by Region: Latitude (ddmmss) Longitude (ddmmss)
Comments:
This eject has been placed on hold for additional information. 1/20/05 NML
Inadequate additional information was received on Feb. 2- 2005. A site meeting took place on Feb.
18, 2005, to verify the wetland line and discuss information stilled required. The eject has been
place on hold again for additional information. 3/17/05 NML
cc: Regional Office
Central Office Page Number 1
Re: NHC Landfill
Subject: Re: NHC Landfill
From: Noelle Nutheran <[e-mail]>
Date: Thu, 03 Feb 2005 17:22:50 -0500
To: "Galamb, Eric" <[e-mail]>
CC: Cyndi Karoly <cyndi.karoly@ncmai 1. net>
Eric,
I was going to try to call you yesterday, but I have been very busy as usual.
Unfortunately, there are a few more issues that need to be resolved prior to a 401
being issued. Jennifer Frye confirmed that she did not verify the wetland line in
the field. She stated that she only determined that the wetlands were isolated .
Due to this, the information you sent me is not accurate. In addition, the USACE
does require a registered surveyor's seal on wetland maps presented for
signature/approval. Due to this and the fact that a little difference in area on
this particular project does matter, I would like confirmation that the survey is
accurate by a registered surveyor.
In addition, it has been brought to my attention that DWQ has determined that
landfill cells are impervious and therefore, 85% TSS removal through a stormwater
treatment system will be required. Due to this requirement, there may be a way to
avoid one of the isolated wetlands and use it for stormwater treatment (after some
type of pretreatment like grassed swales). We can discuss this further.
I am also a little unclear about property boundaries because you implied during our
telephone conversation that future expansions would not result in more wetland
impacts?
In your avoidance and minimization explanation you discuss interconnecting the
existing cell with the new one? I will need to see the actual site layout proposed.
I will be sending another letter as soon as I have the opportunity and am happy to
discuss this with you further via telephone or a meeting at my office when my
schedule allows.
Sincerely,
Noelle Lutheran
Galamb, Eric wrote:
Noelle,
The responses to your questions on the New Hanover County landfill were sent on
Monday. You should receive them today or tomorrow. Please issue the 401 at your
earliest convenience. Thanks.
Eric
*
------------------------------------------------------------------------
*
**Eric Galamb**
1 of 2 2/4/2005 12:29 PM
Re: NHC Landfill
Natural Resources Department Manager
**LOCHNER**
2840 Plaza Place, Suite 202
Raleigh, NC 27612
p: [phone]
f: [phone]
egalambOhwlochner.com <mailto:[e-mail]>
www.hwlochner.com <http://www.hwlochner.com>
2 of 2 2/4/2005 12:29 PM
RE: NHC Landfill
Subject: RE: NHC Landfill
From: "Galamb, Eric" <[e-mail]>
Date: Thu, 10 Feb 2005 10:32:44 -0500
To: "Noelle Nutheran" <[e-mail]>
CC: "Cyndi Karoly" <cyndi.karo ly@ncmail. net>, <[e-mail]>
Noelle,
Some points of clarification. There is no storm water that leaves the
site. The County has storm water basins do not have outlets. ALL storm
water either infiltrates to the groundwater or evaporates. Given this
scenario, I believe that we meet 100% TSS removal. We will route storm
water into this treatment system. I respectfully request that you
condition the 401 to state that during the Division of Solid Waste
permit approval, the County shall submit the storm water plan to DWQ.
The Solid Waste permit is likely several years in the future and we
cannot start negotiate on the permit until we have a 401 in hand.
The current request is for the last landfill expansion at this site. I
may not have been clear since you are under the impression that there
would be future expansions. I believe that I was trying to say that to
the north of the combined sites is Fishing Creek; to the east are the
Northeast Cape Fear River and its associated floodplain and wetlands;
and to the west is out-parcel property and Highway 421. This allows..
only the expansion to the south. I was trying to make the point that if
we were to find another property, the wetland impacts would likely be
much higher than the 0.98 acres of isolated wetlands in our current (and
final) request. The cells will be interconnected allowing for maximum
waste disposal. Please see the attached file. This is the same figure
presented in earlier correspondence.
As for Jennifer Frye confirming the wetlands, I cannot talk to her until
she returns to the office next week. I feel that she did confirm the
wetlands line by auguring several locations around the wetlands. I do
not understand why she would be auguring if she was only confirming the
isolated nature of the wetlands.
As I indicated in earlier discussions, Jean Manuele, Raleigh Office
Manager, told me several years ago that the Corps cannot require that a
surveyor sign and seal a plat. I contacted a second Corps
representative this week and confirmed that their regulations did not
change in that regard. I was very specific in detailing that I used
sub-meter survey grade GPS and completed data correction. I was told
that this was acceptable to receive a 5-year verification letter. The
Corps prefers that the wetlands be signed and sealed by a registered
surveyor. THEY CANNOT REQUIRE IT. I respectfully request that you
agree that the Corps method to calculate the area is acceptable to DWQ.
Requiring a surveyor will only spend more public money without any
additional accuracy. Yes, 0.98 acres is close to the 1-acre mitigation
threshold. I promise that it is a fluke. I did not get an
"unacceptable" acreage for the wetland and then go back and reduce the
size to be below 1-acre. In fact, 0.98 acres is generous for the
delineation.
I trust that these responses have satisfied your concerns. Please issue
the 401 at your earliest convenience.
Eric
-----Original Message-----
From: Noelle Nutheran [mailto_:Noe1_le.Lutheran^nc_m_ail.net]
Sent: Thursday, February 03, 2005 5:23 PM
To: Galamb, Eric
1 of 3
RE: NHC Landfill
Cc: Cyndi Karoly
Subject: Re: NHC Landfill
Eric,
I was going to try to call you yesterday, but I have been very busy as
usual. Unfortunately, there are a few more issues that need to be
resolved prior to a 401 being issued. Jennifer Frye confirmed that she
did not verify the wetland line in the field. She stated that she only
determined that the wetlands were isolated . Due to this, the
information you sent me is not accurate. In addition, the USACE does
require a registered surveyor's seal on wetland maps presented for
signature/approval. Due to this and the fact that a little difference
in area on this particular project does matter, I would like
confirmation that the survey is accurate by a registered surveyor.
In addition, it has been brought to my attention that DWQ has determined
that landfill cells are impervious and therefore, 8596 TSS removal
through a stormwater treatment system will be required. Due to this
requirement, there may be a way to avoid one of the isolated wetlands
and use it for stormwater treatment (after some type of pretreatment
like grassed swales). We can discuss this further.
I am also a little unclear about property boundaries because you implied
during our telephone conversation that future expansions would not
result in more wetland impacts?
In your avoidance and minimization explanation you discuss
interconnecting the existing cell with the new one? I will need to see
the actual site layout proposed.
I will be sending another letter as soon as I have the opportunity and
am happy to discuss this with you further via telephone or a meeting at
my office when my schedule allows.
Sincerely,
Noelle Lutheran
Galamb, Eric wrote:
Noelle,
The responses to your questions on the New Hanover County landfill
were sent on Monday. You should receive them today or tomorrow.
Please issue the 401 at your earliest convenience. Thanks.
Eric

------------------------------------------------------------------------
I *
11
1 2/10/2005 4:30 PM
9e DC !-S I!0 E R
H.W. LOCHNER, INC., 2840 Plaza Place, Suite 202, Raleigh, North Carolina 27612
D
January 31, 2005 R p
FEB 0 3 2005
North Carolina Division of Water Quality DENR-WATER QUALITY
401/Wetlands Unit `'.__:TU.1ZSNOSro%LNAMRMM
1650 Mail Service Center
Raleigh, NC 27699-1650
Reference: 401 Water Quality Certification/Isolated Wetland Permit
101-acre New Hanover County Landfill Expansion Site
New Hanover County, North Carolina
Lochner Project No. 1904
DWQ Project No. 041886
Dear Ms. Karoly and Ms. Lutheran:
Phone: [phone]
Fax: [phone]
www.hwlochner.com
H.W. Lochner, Inc. (Lochner) wishes to submit on behalf of our client, New Hanover
County, responses to the Division of Water Quality's (DWQ) January 20, 2005
correspondence. Each response number corresponds to issues raised in DWQ's letter.
1) Jennifer Frye concurred that the wetlands are isolated and that the survey
accurately depicts the wetlands and Waters of the U.S. located on the property.
This on-site meeting occurred on November 16, 2004 and Noelle Lutheran was
invited to this meeting.
2) The wetland flagging was captured with survey grade Global Positioning System
(GPS) equipment. The 0.98 acres is a true reflection of the size. It is a
coincidence that it approaches the 1.0 acre mitigation threshold. No attempt was
made to reduce the size of the wetlands to avoid compensatory mitigation. As
previously stated, the United States Corps of Engineers (USACE) approved the
jurisdictional wetland line. The survey is accurate and the does not require that
the mapping be sealed by a registered surveyor.
3) The primary responsibility of local government is to provide for the health, safety,
and welfare of those people that live in the governmental jurisdiction. One of
those issues is to provide for the environmental disposal of solid waste. In 1981
New Hanover County initiated operation of the Secure Landfill on Highway 421.
In order to provide for the development of the facility the County spent multiple
years and millions of dollars to first find a location, obtain the necessary permits
to construct and operate, to actually build the site and progressively the disposal
units, and to place the waste in the disposal units. Planning for the future
expansion of the landfill, the County acquired in 1987 the only available
undeveloped property that is contiguous to the permitted facility. With this
acquisition the total available land for landfill operations became fixed. This is
PROVIDING ExCEPTIONAL CLIENT SERVICE SINCE 1944
due to the restrictions of natural and man-made barriers to provide for any
additional expansion. To the north of the combined sites is Fishing Creek; to the
east are the Northeast Cape Fear River and its associated floodplain and wetlands;
to the south are existing industrial complexes; and to the west is out-parcel
property and Highway 421.
Several years ago County staff initiated the planning to incorporate the southern
property into the existing landfill operations. The planning process provides for a
step-by-step permitting process for the extension of the landfill into the south
property. Steps completed to date include obtaining permits for erosion control,
master storm drainage plan, and the borrow area (in uplands). In evaluating
alternatives for configuring the waste disposal area certain restrictions were
considered that are driven by the solid waste regulations of DENR. Additionally,
on-site support activities must be taken into account; for example, storm drainage
management, vehicle access, leachate management, and operation and
maintenance of the landfill and its equipment. The key factor for planning for the
placement of the disposal area of the landfill is to maximize the disposal area
footprint. This will allow the maximum amount of waste to be placed in the
disposal unit and reduce the need to locate additional landfill property that may
have streams and wetlands on them.
It is important to note that this facility is owned and operated by the County. This
is important because as a public sector facility the primary drive of the operation
of the landfill is to•maximize the disposal capacity of the facility by carefully
utilizing every available cubic foot of available volume. To reach this goal the
County has spent over 35 million dollars to construct WASTEC, the waste
incineration facility that through the burning process reduces the volume of waste
that has to be placed in the landfill. Additionally, the landfill operators place and
compact the waste to reduce the space that is used on a daily basis. In spite of all
these efforts the landfill continues to fill at a rapid rate. Demonstrating the
County's concern for the proper planning and disposal unit development, the
landfill disposal units in this landfill meet and exceed the federal and state
standards. To demonstrate the County's environmental stewardship, seventeen
years before required by regulation, this landfill applied the design of the bottom
of the disposal units with multiple layers of natural and man-made barriers to
protect the groundwater, the first of its kind in North Carolina. This type of
construction is very expensive. Even more expensive is the loss of available
disposal capacity that would be the result of avoiding or minimizing the impact on
the two small isolated wetlands.
The planning process for the new site incorporates the above noted issues and
additionally to maximize the available volume will inter-connect to the existing
disposal units now in operation. A sketch is attached that shows the existing
disposal unit and the proposed future unit that will be interconnected. The more
northerly of the isolated wetlands has been approximately located on the drawing
and shows that it will fall within the new unit and directly in line with the
proposed interconnect to the existing unit. The more southerly of the two
wetlands will fall well within the footprint of the proposed unit.
Failure to authorize the expansion to the south could result in more wetland
impacts as the landfill may have to expand to the north or east. There is not a
simple avoidance or minimization of either of these isolated wetlands that will not
significantly reduce the landfill disposal volume and negatively impact the
viability of the proposed project.
Approval to impact these wetlands will not result in violations of water quality standards.
The placement of a liner, collection of leachate and storm water treatment will ensure that
all water quality standards are met.
This correspondence has shown that the wetlands were accurately delineated, they are
isolated, that avoidance and minimization efforts have been investigated, and that impacts
to these small isolated wetlands will not violate water quality standards. By copy of this
correspondence we are requesting that you issue a 401 Water Quality Certification for the
proposed isolated wetland impacts.
Sincerely,
Lochner

Eric Galamb, PWS
Project Manager
cc: Ed Hilton, McKim and Creed, with attachments
Ray Church, New Hanover County, with attachments
Cyndi Karoly, DWQ Central Office
File, with attachments
,.k
?r, wp G

H
s Q
?x? G]
z
' i
Y ?.
}

W
G:r
^H
1`?Y
O
O
ca
SQNV III- M CIAIV IOSI
ONIaMMI IJNVNaINIVW/SNOIIVUldO
,':?':rf`,i?k: ;a-,a•z??rt•,.?,c,...T.t+S•,.:.?. ?-z*mi'?-v.rr z•m.s---?`., _-
-fir .?.«e•..
K- ,
3 _
"r
r t.
•q
y??
f?
of wArF9 Michael F. Easley, Governor
O? OG William G. Ross Jr., Secretary
North Carolina Department of Environment and Natural Resources
co
r
>_ y Alan W. Klimek, P.E., Director
of Water Qualit
Coleen H. Suillins, Deputy Director
Division of Water Quality
January 20, 2005
CERTIFIED MAIL: 7003 0500 0004 8598 1994
RETURN RECEIPT REQUESTED
Mr. Ray Church, Director
New Hanover County Environmental Management
3002 US Highway North
Wilmington, NC 27612
SUBJECT: PROJECT ON HOLD FOR
ADDITIONAL INFORINIATION
NHC Landfill Expansion Site
DWQ Project # 04-1886
New Hanover County
Dear Mr. Church:
This Office has reviewed your Isolated Wetland Permit application and is placing your project on
hold until we receive the following additional information:
1. The application states that*Jennifer Frye of the US Army Corps of Engineers concurred that both
wetlands are isolated. Did Jennifer Frye verify in the field that the wetland delineation is
accurate? If she did not, DWQ staff should have been requested to verify the delineation prior to
submitting an application.
2. The delineation states that the total area of isolated wetlands on the site is 0.98 acres. This area is
extremely close to 1.0 acre. Isolated wetland impacts equal to or greater than 1.0 acre require
compensatory mitigation. Please submit an actual sealed survey. If the wetland delineation has
not been officially verified by the USACE (signed map), please do not complete the survey until
DWQ has verified the line.
Avoidance and minimization efforts must be demonstrated. The application states that "no
minimization options are available due to the fact that the landfill cell has to meet certain size
criteria and cannot deviate from these requirements." The application also states that "exact
configuration of the cells will be negotiated with the NC Division of Solid Waste." It appears
that there may be room for minimization if there is room for negotiation. In fact, it appears that
wetland area B could be avoided altogether. Please minimize the total wetland impacts or
demonstrate in detail with actual size criteria and a statement from NC Division of Solid Waste
that minimization is impossible.
N. C. Division of Water Quality 127 Cardinal Drive Extension [phone] Customer Service
Wilmington Regional Office Wilmington, NC 28405 [phone] Fax [phone] One
An Equal Opportunity/Affirmative Action Employer - 50% Recycled/10% Post Consumer Paper NorthCarolina
Naturally
New Hanover County
DWQ Project #041886
January 20, 2005
2
Please respond within three weeks of the date of this letter by sending a copy of the information to
Noelle Lutheran and to Cyndi Karoly, 401 Oversight/Express Review Permitting Unit, 2321 Crabtree
Blvd., Raleigh, NC 27604-226, her phone number is [phone]. If we do not hear from you within
three weeks, we will assume that you no longer want to pursue this project and we will consider the
project as withdrawn. If you have any questions, please feel free to call me at [phone].
Sincerely,
;?& za4-'d'?
Noelle Lutheran
Environmental Specialist III
cc: Eric Galamb - H.W. Lochner Inc.
Cyndi Karoly -401 Oversight
Jennifer Frye - Corps of Engineers Wilmington
Noelle Lutheran - WiRO
pq r=
FER 0 n n09
DENR - W0% i ?4JALIlY
11t MDSANDSTVfVIWATERQRAWH
OFWATF9 Michael F. Easley, Governor
?O? QG William G. Ross Jr., Secretary
y North Carolina Department of Environment and Natural Resources
5: C ? Alan W. Klimek, P.E., Director
Division of Water Quality
Coleen H. Sullins, Deputy Director
Division of Water Quality
January 20, 2005
CERTIFIED l1IAIL: 7003 0500 0004 8598 1994
RETURN RECEIPT REQUESTED
Mr. Ray Church, Director
New Hanover County Environmental Management
3002 US Highway North
Wilmington, NC 27612
SUBJECT: PROJECT ON HOLD FOR
ADDITIONAL INFORMATION
NHC Landfill Expansion Site
DWQ Project # 04-1886
New Hanover County
Dear Mr. Church:
This Office has reviewed your Isolated Wetland Permit application and is placing your project on
hold until we receive the following additional information:
1. The application states that Jennifer Frye of the US Army Corps of Engineers concurred that both
wetlands are isolated. Did Jennifer Frye verify in the field that the wetland delineation is
accurate? If she did not, DWQ staff should have been requested to verify the delineation prior to
submitting an application.
2. The delineation states that the total area of isolated wetlands on the site is 0.98 acres. This area is
extremely close to 1.0 acre. Isolated wetland impacts equal to or greater than 1.0 acre require
compensatory mitigation. Please submit an actual sealed survey. If the wetland delineation has
not been officially verified by the USACE (signed map), please do not complete the survey until
DWQ has verified the line.
Avoidance and minimization efforts must be demonstrated. The application states that "no
minimization options are available due to the fact that the landfill cell has to meet certain size
criteria and cannot deviate from these requirements." The application also states that "exact
configuration of the cells will be negotiated with the NC Division of Solid Waste." It appears
that there may be room for minimization if there is room for negotiation. In fact, it appears that
wetland area B could be avoided altogether. Please minimize the total wetland impacts or
demonstrate in detail with actual size criteria and a statement from NC Division of Solid Waste
that minimization is impossible.
N. C. Division of Water Quality 127 Cardinal Drive Extension [phone] Customer Service
Wilmington Regional Office Wilmington, NC 28405 [phone] Fax [phone] One
An Equal Opportunity/Affirmative Action Employer-50% Recycled/10% Post Consumer Paper NorthCarolina
Awmally
New Hanover County
DWQ Project #041886
January 20, 2005
Please respond within three weeks of the date of this letter by sending a copy of the information to
Noelle Lutheran and to Cyndi Karoly, 401 Oversight/Express Review Permitting Unit, 2321 Crabtree
Blvd., Raleigh, NC 27604-226, her phone number is [phone]. If we do not hear from you within
three weeks, we will assume that you no longer want to pursue this project and we will consider the
project as withdrawn. If you have any questions, please feel free to call me at [phone].
Sincerely,
Noelle Lutheran
Environmental Specialist III
cc: Eric Galamb - H.W. Lochner Inc.
Cyndi Karoly -401 Oversight
Jennifer Frye - Corps of Engineers Wilmington
Noelle Lutheran - WiRO
NC Application for Section 319 NPS Pollution Control Grant
15. Detailed Budget
Budget Categories Section Non-Federal Total Justification
(itemize all 319 Match
categories)
Personnel/Salary
Fringe Benefits
Supplies $500 Water ualit sampling supplies
Equipment For a YSI meter @ $1200 and pH
meter @ $300 to sample physical
$1500 parameters in the field
Travel
Contractual
TBA TBA
Other
Total Direct
Indirect
Total
60% 40% 100%
*Note: Non-Federal match must be at a minimum of 40% of the total project budget
16. Budget Summary
BMP Project Education Monitoring Technical Other Total
Implementation Management Training Assistance
or
Outreach
Personnel
Fringe
Benefits
Supplies
$500
$500
Equipment $1500 $1500
Travel
Contractual
TBA
TBA
Operating
Costs
Other
Total TBA TBA
Completed Application due by May 14, 2004 by 5:00 PM
mjilto:kimbcrh,.nimmcr(ii ncmail.nct -6-
for questions please call [phone], ext. 582
fax number [phone]
Triage Check List
Date: M1 21,x Project Name: ??ew 41 i ii -,w ctiw,+Y ?}e
DWQ#•
County: Nt.,r -Hanc",E r
To: ? ARO Kevin Barnett ? WaRO Tom Steffens and Kyle Barnes
? FRO Ken Averitte 0 WiRO Noelle Lutheran
? MRO Alan Johnson ? WSRO Daryl Lamb
? RRO Mike Horan
From: Telephone : (919)
The file attached is being forwarded to Your for your evaluation.
Please call if you need as?jstance.
? Stream length impacted
? Stream determination
? Wetland determination and distance to blue-line surface waters on USFW topo maps
? 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
Comments: -rkl?, ?I-O .A.C J C Ol11VS I V,,jRClt o+ o. j 16 viVH 60l ;C
fo 4he- 11m;+ '-Plecv%,_ 4ziLc_ o eJose_ ImL 14 4be- "1Ct11(,JCCI.
Z
6Ye.(iG -mc,?L`e"

H.W. LOCHNER, INC., 2840 Plaza Place, Suite 202, Raleigh, North Carolina 27612
November 18, 2004
North Carolina Division of Water Quality
401/Wetlands Unit
1650 Mail Service Center
Raleigh, NC 27699-1650
Phone: [phone]
Fax: [phone]
www.hwlochner.com
?D
No D
2 3 2004
4DENR _ WATER QU
` 'DSANDST0pj,h ATER6?",'CN
Reference: 401 Water Quality Certification/Isolated Wetland Permit
101-acre New Hanover County Landfill Expansion Site
New Hanover County, North Carolina
Lochner Project No. 1904
To Whom It May Concern:
H.W. Lochner, Inc. (Lochner) wishes to submit on behalf of our client, New Hanover
County, seven copies of an application for impacts to Waters of the United States. Please
find enclosed the following:
• A check for the $200 application fee,
• A completed Pre-Construction Notification, (PCN) form,
• A survey accurately depicting the wetlands and Waters of the U.S. located or, the
property,
• Wetland/Upland Determination Forms,
• Appropriate figures - vicinity map, USGS topographic map, soil survey map, site
map, and
• Letter of Authorization
The subject property is approximately 101 acres in size, and is located east of U.S. 421
and west of the Northeast Cape Fear River in New Hanover County, North Carolina. The
surrounding area is comprised of a mix of existing landfill, vacant woodland, and
industrial facilities.
Eric Galamb and Emily Rackley of Lochner recently performed a delineation of the on-
site jurisdictional boundaries. The boundaries were surveyed with sub-meter accuracy
using a Trimble Global Positioning System.
Two isolated wetlands were located on the subject property. Wetland A is 0.51 acre, and
Wetland B is 0.47 acre. Existing vegetation within the wetlands consists of black willow
(Salir nigra), broad-leaved cattail (Typha latifolia), loblolly pine (Pinus taeda), white
water lily (Nymphaea odorata), red maple (Ater rubrum), highbush blueberry
(Vaccininm corymbostmt), and sweetgum (L:iquidambar styraciua).
Lochner met on-site with the United States Army Corps of Engineers (USACE) on
November 16, 2004. Noelle Lutheran from the NCDWQ Wilmington regional office was
invited to this meeting but did not attend. The USACE representative concurred that both
wetlands were isolated and will issue a Notification of Jurisdictional Determination.
Jim Gregson, Division of Coastal Management (DCM), stated on November 3, 2004 that
DCM has no jurisdiction on this property. In addition, lie stated that the property is not
located in an Area of Environmental Concern.
By copy of this correspondence we are requesting that you issue a 401 Water Quality
Certification for the proposed isolated wetland impacts. If we can provide additional
infonnation of answer questions that you may have, please feel free to contact us.
Sincerely,
H.W. Lochner, Inc.
r
J J Eric Galamb
Project Managcr/Senior Scientist

Emily F. Rackley
Environmental Biologist
cc: Ed Hilton, McKim and Creed, with attachments
Ray Church, New Hanover County, with attachments
Jennifer Frye, USACE, with attachments
File, with attachments
Office Use Only: Form Version May 2002
USACE Action ID No. D`VQ No.
(If any particular item is not applicable to this project, please enter "Not Applicable" or "N/A".)
1. Processing
1. Check all of the approval(s) requested for this project:
? Section 404 Permit ? Riparian or Watershed Buffer Rules
? Section 10 Permit ® Isolated Wetland Permit from DWQ
® 401 Water Quality Certification
2. Nationwide, Regional or General Permit Number(s) Requested: GC 3402
3. If this notification is solely a courtesy copy because written approval for the 401 Certification
is not required, check here: ?
4. If payment into the North Carolina Wetlands Restoration Program (NCWRP) is proposed for
mitigation of impacts (verify availability with NCWRP prior to submittal of PCN), complete
section VIII and check here: ?
If your project is located in any of North Carolina's twenty coastal counties (listed on page
4), and the project is within a North Carolina Division of Coastal Management Area of
Environmental Concern (see the top of page 2 for further details), check here: ?
II. Applicant Information
Owner/Applicant Information
Name: Ray Church, Director of Environmental Management, New Hanover County
Mailing Address: 3002 U.S. Highway 421 North
Wilmington, NC 28401
Telephone Number: [phone] Fax Number: [phone]
E-mail Address: N/A
2. Agent/Consultant Information (A signed and dated copy of the Agent Authorization letter
must be attached if the Agent has signatory authority for the owner/applicant.)
Name: Eric Galamb
Company Affiliation: H.W. Lochner, Inc.
Mailing Address: 2840 Plaza Place, Suite 202
Raleigh, NC 27612
Telephone Number: [phone] Fax Number: [phone]
E-mail Address: egalamb a hwlochner.com
Page 1 of 9
III. Project Information
Attach a vicinity map clearly showing the location of the property with respect to local
landmarks such as towns, rivers, and roads. Also provide a detailed site plan showing property
boundaries and development plans in relation to surrounding properties. Both the vicinity map
and site plan must include a scale and north arrow. The specific footprints of all buildings,
impervious surfaces, or other facilities must be included. If possible, the maps and plans should
include the appropriate USGS Topographic Quad Map and NRCS Soil Survey with the property
boundaries outlined. Plan drawings, or other maps may be included at the applicant's discretion,
so long as the property is clearly defined. For administrative and distribution purposes, the
USACE requires information to be submitted on sheets no larger than 11 by 17-inch format;
however, DWQ may accept paperwork of any size. DWQ prefers full-size construction
drawings rather than a sequential sheet version of the full-size plans. If full-size plans are
reduced to a small scale such that the final version is illegible, the applicant will be informed that
the project has been placed on hold until decipherable maps are provided.
1. Name of project: New Hanover County Landfill Site Expansion
2. T.I.P. Project Number or State Project Number (NCDOT Only):
3. Property Identification Number (Tax PIN): R02300-001-004-000
4. Location
County: New Hanover Nearest Town: Wilmington
Subdivision name (include phase/lot number): N/A
Directions to site (include road numbers, landmarks, etc.): Take US 117/NC 133 (Castle
Hayne Road) south toward Wilmington. Turn right onto NC 133 and cross over the
Northeast Cape Fear River. Turn right onto US 421 and proceed for approximately 4-5
miles. The landfill will be on the right.
5. Site coordinates, if available (UTM or Lat/Long): 34°19.28'N, 77°59.06'W
(Note - If project is linear, such as a road or utility line, attach a sheet that separately lists the
coordinates for each crossing of a distinct waterbody.)
6. Property size (acres): 101.49 ac
7. Nearest body of water (stream/river/sound/ocean/lake): Northeast Cane Fear River
8. River Basin: Cape Fear
(Note - this must be one of North Carolina's seventeen designated major river basins. The
River Basin map is available at http://Ii2o.enr.state.nc.us/a(imire/maps/.)
9. Describe the existing conditions on the site and general land use in the vicinity of the project
at the time of this application: Currently, the proposed expansion site is forested and
Page 2 of 9
,generally undisturbed. The existing portion of the landfill lies to the north of the proposed
expansion site, and a large industrial facility lies to the southeast.
10. Describe the overall project in detail, including the type of equipment to be used:
Additional waste disposal cells are proposed. The exact configuration of the cells will be
negotiated with the North Carolina Division of Solid Waste (DSW). Equipment includes, but
is not limited to, bulldozers, backhoes, graders, and dump trucks.
11. Explain the purpose of the proposed work: Tile purpose of the proposed work is to provide
additional waste disposal area for the landfill.
IV. Prior Project History
If jurisdictional determinations and/or permits have been requested and/or obtained for this
project (including all prior phases of the same subdivision) in the past, please explain. Include
the USACE Action ID Number, DWQ Project Number, application date, and date permits and
certifications were issued or withdrawn. Provide photocopies of previously issued permits,
certifications or other useful information. Describe previously approved wetland, stream and
buffer impacts, along with associated mitigation (where applicable). If this is a NCDOT project,
list and describe permits issued for prior segments of the same T.I.P. project, along with
construction schedules.
No wetlands or streams have been impacted on the project site as a result of previous landfill
expansions.
V. Future Project Plans
Are any future permit requests anticipated for this project? If so, describe the anticipated work,
and provide justification for the exclusion of this work from the current application.
The proposed project will not result in any future impacts to jurisdictional wetlands or Waters of
theU.S., and does not require any additional permits. Expansion to the east is prohibited by
DSW rules since the area is in a 100-vear floodolain.
Page 3 of 9
VI. Proposed Impacts to Waters of the United States/Waters of the State
It is the applicant's (or agent's) responsibility to determine, delineate and map all impacts to
wetlands, open water, and stream channels associated with the project. The applicant must also
provide justification for these impacts in Section VII below. All proposed impacts, permanent
and temporary, must be listed herein, and must be clearly identifiable on an accompanying site
plan. All wetlands and waters, and all streams (intermittent and perennial) must be shown on a
delineation map, whether or not impacts are proposed to these systems. Wetland and stream
evaluation and delineation forms should be included as appropriate. Photographs may be
included at the applicant's discretion. If this proposed impact is strictly for wetland or stream
mitigation, list and describe the impact in Section VIII below. If additional space is needed for
listing or description, please attach a separate sheet.
1. Provide a written description of the proposed impacts:
Both of the isolated wetlands located in the ftrture landfill expansion area are proposed to be
filled.
2. Individually list wetland impacts below:
Wetland Impact
Site Number
indicate on ma
Type of Impact* Area of
Impact
acres Located within
100-year Floodplain**
(es/no Distance to
Nearest Stream
linear feet
Type of wetland***
A Fill 0.51 No 3,000 if Freshwater marsh
B Fill 0.47 No 3,400 If Freshwater marsh

* List each impact separately and identify temporary impacts. Impacts include, but are not limited to: mechanized clearing, grading, fill,
excavation, flooding, ditching/drainage, ctc. For dams, separately list impacts due to both structure and flooding.
** 100-Year floodplains are identified through the Federal Emergency Management Agency's (FEMA) Flood Insurance Rate Maps
(FIRM), or FEMA-approved local floodplain maps. Maps are available through the FEMA Map Service Center at 1-800-358-9616, or
online at http:Nvw.fcma.gov.
*** List a wetland type that best describes wetland to be impacted (e.g., freshwater/saltwater marsh, forested wetland, beaver pond,
Carolina Bay, bog, cte.) Indicate if wetland is isolated (determination of isolation to be made by USACE only).
List the total acreage (estimated) of all existing wetlands on the property: 0.98 ac
Total area of wetland impact proposed: 0.98 ac
3. Individually list all intermittent and perennial stream impacts below:
Stream Impact
Site Number
indicate on ma
Type of Impact* Length of
Impact
linear feet
Stream Name** Average Width
of Stream
Before Impact Perennial or
Intermittent?
(please secif
None None 0 if N/A N/A N/A

Page 4 of 9

* List each impact separately and identify temporary impacts. Impacts include, but are not limited to: culverts and associated rip-rap,
dams (separately list impacts due to both structure and flooding), relocation (include linear feet before and after, and net loss/gain),
stabilization activities (cement wall, rip-rap, crib wall, gabions, etc.), excavation, ditching/straightcning, etc. If stream relocation is
proposed, plans and profiles showing the linear footprint for both the original and relocated streams must be included.
** Stream names can be found on USGS topographic maps. If a stream has no name, list as UT (unnamed tributary) to the nearest
downstream named stream into which it flows. USGS maps are available through the USGS at 1-800-358-9616, or online at
www.usgs.gov. Several intcrnct sites also allow direct download and printing of USGS maps (e.g., www.tonomne.com,
\vw\v.mapluest. coin, etc.).
Cumulative impacts (linear distance in feet) to all streams on site
None
4. Individually list all open water impacts (including lakes, ponds, estuaries, sounds, Atlantic
Ocean and any other water of the U.S.) below:
Open Water Impact
Site Number
indicate on ma
Type of Impact* Area of
Impact
acres Name of Waterbody
(if applicable) Type of Waterbody
(lake, pond, estuary, sound,
bay, ocean, etc.
None None 0 ac N/A N/A

List each impact separately and identify temporary impacts. Impacts include, but are not limited to: fill, excavation, dredging,
flooding, drainage, bulkheads, etc.
5. Pond Creation
If construction of a pond is proposed, associated wetland and stream impacts should be
included above in the wetland and stream impact sections. Also, the proposed pond should
be described here and illustrated on any maps included with this application.
Pond to be created in (check all that apply): N uplands ? stream ? wetlands
Describe the method of construction (e.g., dam/embankment, excavation, installation of
draw-down valve or spillway, etc.): A landfill cover borrow pit will be constructed as
shown on the plans. This pond will be excavated in uplands and will not discharge to surface
waters.
Proposed use or purpose of pond (e.g., livestock watering, irrigation, aesthetic, trout pond,
local stormwater requirement, etc.): The pond will provide landfill operation and landfill
construction soil.
Size of watershed draining to pond: 273 ac Expected pond surface area: 24.16 ac
VII. Impact Justification (Avoidance and Minimization)
Page 5 of 9
Specifically describe measures taken to avoid the proposed impacts. It may be useful to provide
information related to site constraints such as topography, building ordinances, accessibility, and
financial viability of the project. The applicant may attach drawings of alternative, lower-impact
site layouts, and explain why these design options were not feasible. Also discuss how impacts
were minimized once the desired site plan was developed. If applicable, discuss construction
techniques to be followed during construction to reduce impacts.
Avoidance measures related to this project were limited due to geographical constraints. The
existin.Q landfill (and proposed expansion area) are bound on the west side by US 421 and on the
east side by the Northeast Cape Fear River and its associated 100-year floodplain. Furthermore,
land on the north side of the existing landfill is not owned by New Hanover County. To obtain
this property may result in stream crossing impacts. Therefore, the most feasible location for the
landfill expansion is to the south of the existing landfill, which is currently owned by New
Hanover County and will not incur significant impacts to existing strictures or natural resources.
No minimization options are available due to the fact that the landfill cell has to meet certain size
criteria and cannot deviate from these requirements.
VIII. Mitigation
DWQ - In accordance with 15A NCAC 2H .0500, mitigation may be required by the NC
Division of Water Quality for projects involving greater than or equal to one acre of impacts to
freshwater wetlands or greater than or equal to 150 linear feet of total impacts to perennial
streams.
USACE - In accordance with the Final Notice of Issuance and Modification of Nationwide
Permits, published in the Federal Register on March 9, 2000, mitigation will be required when
necessary to ensure that adverse effects to the aquatic environment are minimal. Factors
including size and type of proposed impact and function and relative value of the impacted
aquatic resource will be considered in determining acceptability of appropriate and practicable
mitigation as proposed. Examples of mitigation that may be appropriate and practicable include,
but are not limited to: reducing the size of the project; establishing and maintaining wetland
and/or upland vegetated buffers to protect open waters such as streams; and replacing losses of
aquatic resource functions and values by creating, restoring, enhancing, or preserving similar
functions and values, preferable in the same watershed.
If mitigation is required for this project, a copy of the mitigation plan must be attached in order
for USACE or DWQ to consider the application complete for processing. Any application
lacking a required mitigation plan or NCWRP concurrence shall be placed on hold as
incomplete. An applicant may also choose to review the current guidelines for stream restoration
in DWQ's Draft Technical Guide for Stream Work in North Carolina, available at
http://li2o.enr.state.nc.us/ncwctlands/strnigide.litml.
1. Provide a brief description of the proposed mitigation plan. The description should provide
as much information as possible, including, but not limited to: site location (attach directions
and/or map, if offsite), affected stream and river basin, type and amount (acreage/linear feet)
of mitigation proposed (restoration, enhancement, creation, or preservation), a plan view,
Page 6 of 9
preservation mechanism (e.g., deed restrictions, conservation easement, etc.), and a
description of the current site conditions and proposed method of construction. Please attach
a separate sheet if more space is needed.
Impacts do not exceed 1 acre; mitigation is not required.
2. Mitigation may also be made by payment into the North Carolina Wetlands Restoration
Program (NCWRP). Please note it is the applicant's responsibility to contact the NCWRP at
[phone] to determine availability and to request written approval of mitigation prior
to submittal of a PCN. For additional information regarding the application process for the
NCWRP, check the NCWRP website at http://li2o.enr.statc.nc.us/wm/index.litm. If use of
the NCWRP is proposed, please check the appropriate box on page three and provide the
following information:
Amount of stream mitigation requested (linear feet): 0 If
Amount of buffer mitigation requested (square feet): 0 ft2
Amount of Riparian wetland mitigation requested (acres): 0 ac
Amount of Non-riparian wetland mitigation requested (acres): -O ac
Amount of Coastal wetland mitigation requested (acres): 0 ac
IX. Environmental Documentation (required by DWQ)
Does the project involve an expenditure of public (federal/state) funds or the use of public
(federal/state) land?
Yes ? No
If yes, does the project require preparation of an environmental document pursuant to the
requirements of the National or North Carolina Environmental Policy Act (NEPA/SEPA)?
Note: If you are not sure whether a NEPA/SEPA document is required, call the SEPA
coordinator at [phone] to review current thresholds for environmental documentation.
Yes ? No
If yes, has the document review been finalized by the State Clearinghouse? If so, please attach a
copy of the NEPA or SEPA final approval letter.
Yes ? No
X. Proposed Impacts on Riparian and Watershed Buffers (required by DWQ)
It is the applicant's (or agent's) responsibility to determine, delineate and map all impacts to
required state and local buffers associated with the project. The applicant must also provide
justification for these impacts in Section VII above. All proposed impacts must be listed herein,
and must be clearly identifiable on the accompanying site plan. All buffers must be shown on a
Page 7 of 9
map, whether or not impacts are proposed to the buffers. Correspondence from the DWQ
Regional Office may be included as appropriate. Photographs may also be included at the
applicant's discretion.
Will the project impact protected riparian buffers identified within 15A NCAC 213 .0233
(Meuse), 15A NCAC 2B .0259 (Tar-Pamlico), 15A NCAC 213 .0250 (Randleman Rules and
Water Supply Buffer Requirements), or other (please identify )?
Yes ? No ® If you answered "yes", provide the following information:
Identify the square feet and acreage of impact to each zone of the riparian buffers. If buffer
mitigation is required calculate the required amount of mitigation by applying the buffer
multipliers.
Zone* Impact
(square feet Multiplier Required
Mitigation
1 0 ft2 3 0 ft2
2 0 ft2 1.5 0 ft2
Total 0 ft2 0 ft2
Zone I extends out all feet perpendicular from near bank of channel; Zone 2 extends an
additional 20 feet from the edge of Zone 1.
If buffer mitigation is required, please discuss what type of mitigation is proposed (i.e., Donation
of Property, Conservation Easement, Riparian Buffer Restoration / Enhancement, Preservation or
Payment into the Riparian Buffer Restoration Fund). Please attach all appropriate information as
identified within 15A NCAC 213 .0242 or .0260.
N/A
XI. Stormwater (required by DWQ)
Describe impervious acreage (both existing and proposed) versus total acreage on the site.
Discuss stormwater controls proposed in order to protect surface waters and wetlands
downstream from the property.
A stormwater permit and an erosion control permit for the landfill expansion have already been
obtained.
XII. Sewage Disposal (required by DWQ)
Clearly detail the ultimate treatment methods and disposition (non-discharge or discharge) of
wastewater generated from the proposed project, or available capacity of the subject facility.
A restroom currently exists on site that is connected to a septic tank; the expansion project will
not require additional facilities.
Page 8 of 9
XIII. Violations (required by DWQ)
Is this site in violation of DWQ Wetland Rules (15A NCAC 2H.0500) or any Buffer Rules?
Yes ? No
Is this an after-the-fact permit application?
Yes ? No
XIV. Other Circumstances (Optional):
It is the applicant's responsibility to submit the application sufficiently in advance of desired
construction dates to allow processing time for these permits. However, an applicant may
choose to list constraints associated with construction or sequencing that may impose limits on
work schedules (e.g., draw-down schedules for lakes, dates associated with Endangered and
Threatened Species, accessibility problems, or other issues outside of the applicant's control).
`t pplicant/Agent's Signature Date
(Agent's signature is valid only if an authorization letter from the applicant is provided.)
Page 9 of 9

imp

Fet

"'W
P
W a

s,
?r
40,
4
1
Y
d rV r r'
'S'iNNI??,.Brdl,•

,y wJ

19
k
1J

#off %M

w,
rNa-WiM poWt I W
• ,,,' ? n u aw ,.
1 r 7, a
' t A
,,
1 ?a
n?a °Gu r ±?
a
? r u
:AJ
"
w
71
41
y .. Y^
n "^
t. ,
1 41
" r
r q, •? t?f ? R fW" .
f x ,.
r
?" ?"' II 4t^?"
low
y?. a
11 _. A 1 hl ??. ? 44 I ? ? ?? ' r e ? • `Sr V 3?
r ,
1,4
) a9
fi *?R' St ' ?n ? 1 '• e ?W a ?nf
R'
A?yp(?jI Jy 1 dg` I ? w. ? M
1
I v .+? 1 1 Rfi a ?P ?'! "
0 100' 200'
'Wetland Boundary 0mromi
New Hanover County Landfill Exhibit 1
i

cn EXIST. %
?I MAINTENANCE
BUILDINGS
4
DRANACE ? + + + + +
71+
+ Fkm + +
s ++++++++++++++++
+ + + + + + +
` +++++++++{+i+-+ +

o I
Da

:IWO
EXISTING LANDFILL SITE
NORTH
200' a god X00'
s
FUTURE
BOFfO V
AREA
"16 ACHES)
O' BUFFER
FLOOD ZONE
LIMITS WETLANDS FLOOD
AREA
,i-WASTE SETBACK UNE
CA
a
y?
N?
a
'Flo
y•?E J Y r.W' ' 'p .f .r' d ? ? J¢' h?..
1
y N'R
as ao,NVw ?, ?L o ?
r'll ... s1H91?1 a l'o aloN "tNr9° $3hQI?
Py r,ltlnuHU ?0 8' Nlal-1 _ f
_ Y `RR'11J?1?:+J1 w?ix r'? v...w +',0 1N1 J 17 ?Nad v INJ) 1?? i
y?a30
JA4M1l: - mr
1
w. _ .". w?w..+. RI(M? JXWJWo ~ i% r? uJiav l3a,a* { Sj?lw ?I i V]
31101kMDE>b817(08 Od -• ,? n'1 ?B c' -dn,?ev3 j I
dew uoiduleq? 0b ,? 'r 1911F? U1?\ kOtl?1Y
1H01liAd00
-- H3/1dYa'OO1NY0331 ` / f c'±? 3tlS ?? 3 80
NO ,.:?Ol?NIll3M ? ?}? °' ?. Y ,' s s ;_ \ °1 • ;? ?_
I - ruyQ?Y+ 4 { ,?q. `N ° 2 n 1 s ! Z 1^ -
XAOtlY X31 '3S0dHnd ANY 8010OH13YO ANY AS
dVW NOWAVH3 031H91HAd03 SIHl N d}j?yr1 '? ?j I ` a °', s d ??] {){} \ -
Q1
'4}}`ll'444 s('vls AL Nou nr0' 1aN
33nWHd3tlH0Ad03011YD311lSl11 `
is '
^ 'N 1?? I.i? $153 0l!. , ^ S' 1 - -
,m o yyj?c?? pp
1331 d0 31VJS e1owIxadd1/
vztlld ?? b 1MY \ ryy C 0 f <?_ / :'. 1
0012 oo?c oou o f 1 0 a Maio 3 S, ?I r ? jf? 1 ° '1 '` ,1 N y?o I k ? ' api
° +J i1
_.____? ,b .? r..•,., ? d,0 ?. / ? ? aN MJSV .r I it t
j ?sJ SOH y T b 1 c / ? Y
] )HHV U ay `:1+1 u n .? s1 f n? A81, - :Ig OiF k n^ e
a S '^/ trvv c.... -. - T j (7M YILAl9 t 31
361a1
N H 1
Jd K 3l B - n 1/ < tll $??!?nw•. C 3 . ?3 y' Sl\N Uad 4 (1.
C a V ?' L
xll h) (v ''y?-_ b .If \3`NS^, Ca Aa fntl 31Ntl) 4Y NY !b 1 Navd-' 1 ` 1 Sla I
- 3vuY ?XI?IFJ t of i^+1 ?° a ??, t>??/g e>nN nrs J,?n? 4 N.+?,,. ?ratns; Ufa
_ _ ? Ufa ??._ ?o"sA H?m V3-Mid4 ?JJe? a a?b???N7a ? 1€Aaao r?'1? uY ?`,. y ? i{?"D..li'vu .}?•-? ? I I :i>
? , ?fl00M a a `zl ^vjAaa3N t b' N 1 ? a oo ti ? ? ?/ 1
I- ? ? g ntl' ?i1IY?7 - 1S 9? '? ? S ei' 311 31'1 i 1 - ° } 1s ? rll,' ? ?• / `, ?? Y.
!d a n ?Jd _ : v1?{s'? to •dous¦ .t . v^ °?, r ? J 1 ?1 i ,r ?„'? $ V 01F?'?U11ae' >r ? ? - / Ew+v
•Has 'w3 k u
lNnww +S a ^: -'( i ?,ly tA1 J3 . _(.u 3 - i ~ I
03
l? x r n\dN 3ia11 H >.e nvw?OHV310' t ,?s i
yy?y F F CIF i+..- NOl? 1 .
- - . - v 3nY 1j CJ pe a nV ?C3J ? 3 3d3aNl a0 1 ;H 711 N . , Hi??J .y?,ayyq?.y? _ ¦r 1JY yr? Y C r .f ? tltl 1 IM ? '.n -
'n
' - 3111 NI ab oA
? ? 1$ y N i ``' o eoJ, i Y x'+11 ]tlG? 111 rTT hYw ]T?? *tl ?d 7'Fd 1 15 _ - ? V '?
i dr + - / and 1 - 3:-tl '
VO< ro ro( vO - da -? lvivs ? yr ,I` 1 ._. Cw '?1f. Nat ? e ,e, e
= Ivl3u ,?- ?? NI?,Ql %+ 1S ti ??' .IJ ? bbo cvV1H?, s Ian T1r uy -- _ }'- I E-.
? aarvY ss .(. 1 ?V i?.
4 1A as }}? db ` 3 /f\ 'tl 10 'd ON3 Dry , 1 A?: n11S '.-' 15 i
yy ]? f?.} :n. uh? L] till w
'kii: D.: ? a01o.y ?1. ?i?Y1 03 1r -y - tl3nONtl ? ? 3JIA$37 I u, ? N? (/ - I
- ?? wo.Jj",v> S7) +a?,o?, f - J rya' 1 - ?,,,? 3v ?<? ? dv. 1 3av'.> ?aN"1 ? U a?3 1 y 3" ` \ ,
d ny 3M1ld .; , . r a < \ , ,rv\ ? N • ?>? s TS ? n ? __ I
a31NIM
-0 ? ? 1 x?ho a \a 3B )6 N $ ?,y, 1- ^ ' f ? . ? - I; w3?3 a oN ? _? ?-I -., ivw i n l.y l I _
1-9 1 nun
43
o
?? ' ?? see a s ^ ? i ;; d ?drd ?? a 0 fl?? UNO N u J '?
a? r ,,;? ? ? ?s?I? ? $? 011 kn?IH 1tAa3 vo a?IjJ
o l? ? =•a c !r;l Ai?7 9N?WQ?1M ?,'G 3???3 0 ; a3.e ? ;-I v'^>?_' i v, 1' s ii / ? });?r- (I -
301Hd `•ti '?. o cna&?, - a.:°? / cL.g _ Wltl 1, . ;es wJSNVO - e. 4 1,+.?t„ I _
J0.??
• - J1S o 3l,iF ^?. Q ` aJ vb lauiyh it ll I,r •? 1S h ! ? - 0 r t I -
?11H
' ?. •, ?3nvN, 210NYH`a>v?t `^ `F1`}Atl
g dASAOS e 4?
NYa ?s ` 'n 39303 Hu A31Nsv t ?yF?3A , r0 - - 1ST H
1tlIN0100
?? 3 h ld as S1dY UP NOA30 ' Ibdv3 JA f, ?. yyyN a? „ 1111 I
_ - H3V 39 \? ? 3? _ A3311J so ,aDV0 . I 1- I Y ? a c ,)` ?u Np ? I yyy??I ? 15 ??
3>7 ,4 f7{n1nvaJlalvd IIIW I ya ? s IHLS? S <.S ? I l:-' I
?. OJT 1?$?]/? N(t, ? AMMd 1tlON ? 3 1N: ?.? a Yo 1 `3 Yv 1 M7 r
=t ??" raNV) W i N s l_ I? t
dtl ."?'}T - p ? xYVdl IY15n ON1 u - ?q I? x11 1 "n N4tl ks ?1 p 5 3i??': bU _1 I ?
A 91 r 1 3Y 5 v oN 3 _` I
151313 ONt
Nldm'? ,? s '' ? , t ? Al? V NN ]? bt r 7 ? ? >, ?n,? rrcY \
y ryy? ? Il f ? '' "'G Y
AINn'
'113 •', AV ANMN33H0 1.:1!1x1 1• ? CN \ lU M Y3?N H ? 1 '
' N`aJ ? A1N0 s ?N E' arcaN o ? a- de. M QQPtl .n. - 1..1v0 J1u. Nia _1- '!s` S531UI1 HG ? '11.?.Y^'k"' -
o?
A N NI„ - ?y 1 eH J . owaw
,m 1o 3 d ?i?; - ta3JNl x's d??o ., r. L'YN°Hfi -,.4? _ k is 1 In 911oN
I v ?dNO 3 5 01? - 35 b:-- Nrv
-w ! m xYra3a1!!o' "? , / 3011 3T OMO1 [9W 1 *1??a H: vl`SL,
Yn o lu ;111 'Y10 dOHII 31 W 1,? 1 Nv va n1 sc _ ? ?Sn .} I ?> r? ,?.
wd \1
.. Fn¦ ld 3Aatld b3g1 1 4 H1tlON a ra u) f1N1 113 a tl - s,. A,.
x l s rr '" 1 ra >'d 1S dl noN 3.'"
rno
° al3xnrdn l INO, Y ° •
- __ -? ??? 'o? , i of 3 a0 N. 1 n - <tr 4iW1.] s9 fYObs ?B a7nelVVxlly? - 111' N-1g9Yi . JI't .
1 iJ I 453?N1. dM x 1c?n•n NJ }-1 ?. ' b '1
?A? `? tt _ ( ?^ - viv \ N,? i u ?) a, ,I• v 1 is 21„ 03 c ?, ?s•. !,/?°:. ti/'?,
\ (I tl\ NMtl1aIV3?'t .;r i I I ? e ? ? `r ?J st {1,3?`".?, Iv, ;.??5 i?c f ! F?,?N,r?pa gay { It lZb .? ? ?? 1
as ° ?\ orsd"NI VW `v a av._]J"m
tl07nA ?l. m?. I. >? ] ]JYd '; `, !' ?' f3 Nfv?ti? ,rby 1 E£I ?: U_ ¢-
N a e le A f
\ \ v a g e m? a N014 v v J - {7
I 0 33N30 F? ` y`,g3 _ ]- -1S 30 la'd?.? 01313 1 0%IN f/ 3 f -. -
'3XI \? tl0 ?_(? 11TH - __ 15anN '% xxtld a0 y A01 ,>r - NOSN NOf li,JUJ ?1 ' 1t[?,? ?G ?_
9NINtl031 C? /?T \ 1{ NMyI } ^? a SnaNl 3Ma? o? - BAULOapO{^, J 'Cll /?? -
a d ade ?? . J°1 / 3WOHIaolA 661 C?
r ?1 ll ? ?% fr ! Is + S ,OO;F oaa:
a atlrhuN1w is Isgv ?, ,?"?, '
1 AJ?? .1i _ f, M z r ^5 oe.? laON ' `rd,, s /? ?/`--?'s3al Hl1ws l??02 -
w IJQ M`33a3 1?,'` 5
As,
3 6p
r
? - f ? ? ss z Gr ? ,
_ g v A N ° e a3 ltl Nv tl ;,./ ? ? l? ?- +? aal J .?. ?i¢ -,•"•?
- ° d1tl F ? P el 11 - 1$ 0
D?v,11oH
..._ olue A vxltles r ? ?,aa10. N01 } hl , ?. 3m!!o xoalAla F.£I 1 I-
1 h0 nJf . Ja 4!!?u r / ? + •LO0 ? 1x.ICAS
yy?? ?1 I _ ` ?!' l L!I I- Y I? -I -u as ? _
_Ml 1tlY31 ° ?1 IAJNJ ad < /? •\ ? /??_ ? I ?l4 j"S ai ( {([r?? A IYNIW
v / ` ??' "'? / i 'Otl 3Nn111 \\ ail IZb
80 NO
- 'I tl31S3N3NVN ? ?) }? 1
AI HUHN AlNn0/0" _ -? ??y Watl3 311W
xO1d?Y b9 1no I ?or^ a 83AONVH M3N 13nos NVS ),1
- - J Ob 1 0, OO- - JN +J,ndox WAY.
r
1,' 'i ?rJral o xui? v s dNVtl , ,rx1n aA f s 30aV9 3))J,gf
d? yN9 Id ?: ome laoaarv 3A NV p9 d S? / s
Y. °Ya YNV NAY ej? ¦as= ¦ § Non ° o?r ^? aoSavYd
_. -...__ -101 ° tl N?hY u" I '7J d1 Aa 'Z:. ? d0 11• I l? ? _ Z
?,y S 1111 tl01 4 L .., B
- bo xo 9x1 i 3 $ axy0 • fo ?+ ? ` C ' ? - a\ •j ? ? .a0 N3jo ao I ?` :: 0 15 N
IaI ° 0 ' a x•+o?se a'?? .fit, ;a ?! N7 VIa01"A
r 'S1S3 ? N ? o .? 1. ?. I \. ! rfy
11 IOU YO c0 y? . oal h r,. ` as "v YLO a ¦ as ea 1S3a0rS1H913H,?00 3)V
v3A 1 / a onn aX\ . o NNA19 py Ha 51c1 ?J1yH h Qa n'.xolxaoA 9
"a Y313% < sfd / 6 d 6 'OM 3NI11N9?11aa ONIadS ee??
tCl \ oe 33?Nx3dn3 o 31id, $11191311 FIO 7?r
S383V \r¦ v u o °d f' 'VIM
?.019NIW31
HIQ vim' k'sJd°a ?p : rv ° l 0 1
?? +''+tl IOOOMNNAl9 ?y \ ? eo ? '0"""is .? •, S3l1IY £ ? 1
by +1? i c Y?JdNVr
r, x31 8? 3' ?\ <o?Ar brJ VCfaiN a sJ33H3V
.?'tltl c .oa a+ ?' °yc sy ?i ?s111atld 1135 11111113$ ' as
Atltl Yin's yl`` N pj Ob Jd ' \ V1183
11 ? e b °b ?d ?~ so q16 3 1, s ?' ry ?cr
/ ???i] 3 l1y?' ^o`° OCCI 4? \?s1\ \. y ? ? 3aatl 1 . 1 }. _ _ _
I ? 001831 to , yNpOa rr1 \ c' Av N Av "'o NOIMOV?
od y / I +
/
?3a1 0 0 /J 'a 14
+?i i >o oaoeslNloiYAS o
y
--- ` 8 '11 WWII 'AV bH3>, °(a 6stl Ha3>
an'1L- r3 z 3NH°H \
'Ha 30N1d ?? J
do a Hva, vvs '' y
o w q a?y1tlld 3Na
n+ s,3aaNM eo S311W b 1 7
m
Ha DBOBS1N93tlA
?- °+° _ \ eY N ON s L11 xXnll SSA s II'fl U" 1
dOT 1Ad
vs aH
W- 119114 rv s " SOOOM MOHN3380 S383V OASiH91
-, 1 7?A3Nb, 'Y A3liW ? N ? °s ? 31Y'1 aa / / o ? ? \?:
Nis 3,aalw
>tsval'a Yww3 , > aooa^a
)vYM
r ?'•
NI a J f m
3 0.?1 J. a 3 .: o° a vl
no2 R? W p M a e° 1 r W ? ?. _
T.
.y .? NV I °? 4 m r<bS S ao Y 11' 0 Y x siJ'
.rJ 60 O yy s .}?,xd ad. NHOf ya ?.'^m W a ?xa a.?
y J pr of b d0 pi= ?a`na ?.. a10yb/ z t '011 N? a00MN ;d i 1SrW '? f ll
! „AF o?,j0` .Ha " w °? )lay 0
35s I -a? dir: t a ON W 10 _` . 1
y0N 1a' ?i y o N9n a0B p 2 O yz 'b0^-
'HO H9r10 11 0 811 3110 11 01
?sy a reds o?Tn w 5 31,
11 ^m 30V3WANNfIa m 6 3) n1HYXS ' S3lIW S 1 ?11Cd}? ,?'? '?' r 9
s *MNa 2 ; _? h?3SVH HON ?C- 111HXooa m as ° e o 1 AVM iF
08 /? oa dt
Obi 2131S3HONIM \ J . o `1J?
_ ° \ ? a a as o ? ? ? ? f:,
rv? ?. O1010tl19 a / ..14.. H9
301 b,\? 'Ad 35v N0 laON °> X3 01" 3 'Isla 3111 OH09S1N91HM OOOIAUO Ob ° .•r c, \ I\ r e
13 \\ '3N N- _ ?? 9 ? _•SOOOM31dV ?} m n -is-I 31111 3NA 3115Y3 £ xa a ` _ _ I f -H -
a° J * N 9
I 7q ?N31N o ? \A l 9 -
a N3nda pq, 3 03 I tit 3j ol 'HO
°o C 3 ?8 I S 3l i W 9 \\ c,\ I o q HOIH
i S34 V d '13 alntla
N3 £ _ __ 09
' do N3 9 y3' n 1S -
d r m i
,9 a 3atl11Ntl3 NO$1Q3 SgN'OHI I E
y
S
1 1 313VIHVdo O o -- ?\ 09
ri,
S3HO1 A9

3k
u1 ?t
n
! Je
y:

r? A
3?A h r
.".mod'. rt •.` ?. `r?..? f.'Sf_%•. -S
r
F
?J. k.• A 1 \ .. •? 'F T
,:;+ J 3 ? ` r rb . `, .4L •?a `?`?± ?? f }fir ?
r
t `` \_
\i 4
!, er
+i r
..?? '1^'rvs

AWL
r k.
a /
r Y4

* ,`1
r
'? ? .'rte r
r' -,s w ;? f
4
1r'
?T _
O NEW HANOVER COUNTY,
(Joins sheet 2)
?lir 1 i°?'yqyyyyy I Cf^ih!' q C 4 r}' !r -_ -
y i
S r ?+
i
}
}
i v •''d+: -y L t t . '??,? `. ? \\ - ? tN,1 ?'l f 'tC?? t r? _ ? ,-
t.. r ?
a' ?•';Jrf Ty ; ? , yxir, ?Fl a , » w \ `' Wy ,lt _ r ?. 1?ii?J'Ai
po A _ 14 , :•'i` r c e 4 N i{ t .? "?.i lr.-'ry _ r l "E?-
t , •c ? rr ? d}7s vJ ? +} ? i * t -
rn +. , tKr -r ?„ t' ya 5 ,/+y r. •t , 7Mrx^, V `??
;' y .? ? r t+t T" YP'`,5..ti {? r? 1$, 'i;• _ •i't{'.t ss? W
10
"h, a. ' t ,??d'r,, ? r ti !ti tij i 'ia '?a ' ?,-L.r, r.-'?it 't<y??S ?t-_: `M?br
'?f. y. is ?; f l •., 1 ? N? '('? ? i t
{r r r.i,<t t c-,L7a ? ? it t 7? .,
t~
Y•r?a\ yj' tC ? ? 4n •.' T 3: „r ? 'CV i7`'. q 1
• Yti k\\t ?? trt,?? r y ,.n ,•?F 6.' ? ;r '?i _Jf t .A ?,,,St
..? t? _ ? C.1F., r -, .'i'vt t //+tY t`') . 1? w '+ ?. ? ?' + 1 { t Y L7 •?t?h.;.i? LJf
Z''fi? __4 ?\!?'s ?rt? ;?a ?r ?r ?ti'r ' ?..F 'st 9x n-•' ,.{S?+t+, •., 1Kr x r??, ? ''? Jy.
ir,.`!-ak ti` ?? i `U - 5 f A .F ` J•f, ,?; , yr}+.} A . a y - r..ly..t ,,? - /' ?:.11.
pl)??r " '\?{hSy t Y.? +.41 r?? x my r 1 f ?.1
h
W
.c a??]?:¢ylxssr fi o r \ {?\?'^?.?>r+yd h .? 1, sr.t ? t ?n{'? F ? . f ? ? ? ' . 1 - r t:c ry
00 ?. /' , { kits y1, F t•? a'f r 'sue 1 f ,i s ?. ;: . ?,
S, r ?:?, a > r *?r yYY a s?. r
.t(). S-'v sdti Rn' : ,}\;°',.r? yY, Jrt4?,?}+.{1{"- ..,. f + •2 ' 1 '{?f` ,
pr IN
\ ft
I 44N
+r,j F. 1 Slil 7 1 Uf..? ? y }?f `t ` r? a1? „ .r r r
" ',t ? ClE ?.? Y'.Jn?, \t ?.i:\? ? - ??, ?Tr t t f ? rY / '+??r
p )t?lJ farad .1.i 'f. Sa.4. \7,`•-. -?r° _?-e'iIr ty;+t1 ' r r+ i +?.` + .dl ?L
p0 1 y?{yr ` ¢?? pr•w? .S r.`,} y?4 \. ?.'• k r :5, - Z` li. rc _ _
,y t ? t' 3 a
N
?? ?if,,?.- *??}l,; Ti'?a, ? ??•-????,L ?? \ ? ••?? ,y7r r 4 j + -t '?, W2 a?t . - .-
,yy o
?, y; a?+? $?r/9 ,? ? t?Y?+•? rt?t..?,?\ ry 1 ,_ iJ ,r"f i , .? ? ,o u +tr?y?r''r i , 1??
.! t? ? 1? _ ?'? ? J- :,i ?' i? ,.+\ ??.Rm\ . ? 1 r r.., t .: ,+` t Rr» i f' ?.f t t "''rI rte'`
trf , :..? x. ?,.'olF:.} ? `tt? r L• jr f+*' ?,1Cf{r a?,.+ i. c otx 1 ?*' ?
'txo . Q r \ r) j r> ' ?V 7 Lt
op s fx?i> atE.-
m ?? ?.rt,'11??2 ? ?s ???ti f A•' 1?1 L r?A\?$?.ai'c?r "v s s"iPa trS `.`?jY` ._°-t '"i ..?
a. ? S k F , .n., rr` yy ? ?L ri i a,r 4
t' r+? . 4 I?r ?i t 1 tv f ` SS t, (y, p - t ' 17 i
??id ? ? r. "?.1•eT1' 1 r4\ J?a r a J-+t, . ? i i4 Z ?w 4 1.
Y t .?y a! i !4 ,??. YNT a -+4 t ? a _ ,,r. \ A ?+ ? 3 +r 9`.? f C _ ,, y? ?r
. 7i?'? ? t,Y t r 5 ?" a Y?r .r ?<, r,ir"?i Zy li "- { \ i + } O? + - 7 S rr?'w , i, Y li? `.: _
?. ; a'k ,y ?J i a ?? ? X - .c's R }• .4 t.t? ..f1ya `'? `? r •_ .-,. P! x--.t{a t -. tti: ,.r
"y
p !t *? 4 ,, [ {?.? it4 Trft if fS? t {v'i? -Y. ,'? Tf? 44 t I1J? ?` ? y?',..?I y,? T ?t `. 3 +? r '1•f,ti'+? ?r>+ ? IYSy, ? a tt. _.y ' ..1 4 r F• i.rt,l ,?}{}n j' -
ll yry,? rh`=' t•?, t '+., s t t? '':S y?+? y rrm ?r L?.; r t Y ai,., k ?+
pp?•ytxr ks,At jitp° ,fIC?tlr1!( a?i n' } l(}*) 1 ti d' J .
A6 v M 'r yt'7 \s ?<r? yctyr t} ?rri s
' r?r } y?try f ytjrG,t k .` r> \ t?j\ :.fir,"Kr 'r 7 11 rf?'r t a,?k i' lk
.C S;+ f'r 4 ? ?}q'r,. , f.?. e+r•}' ? ,y (? r a; y a.., ? '? J?''?'r ? .! 9? ;' .. ,t -`,
??,,yy??, r.J ? 1 . ? rr<?'?,y ? r n!l `, .??} `I> r ra.?_ C ?f• -.?i y , i t 'x?{r ,
°i.lris R y r 1'1 15 w t?t¢!?' } ? NTi f : +?+ '9a j, a ? t 1 ,f Sy`'r` 4 ... / _ _
•{ • f ,l?#'. ? ', f r t, ?' 1 ?}s+sl.,, .y{., <, a s r? s "!? ,r'. $ + i •. tC. ? \ 5 t a} f t„ .. ?.4i. A+t, e.
p T• r '' i t ?,R{`n•1,} r 'F }? t , Ni Y w'x d J;St zr< ,?f } t;. ... +.,J rr f - i Kr -
p , - ,S 1i`?? tyr 4r,3t2s?,??1t? T ??';{• ? Tr .{+. a ? 4Y ? Y r? ' '? t ., r ' . 'i
rn w ? .y?µ+'~,¢.?p?'?? ?yfM yft` •,{ -T x sicC 'y3 TI 7 (r 4?;`rt r4 C, r?. r;?+•!
.+ LLy t-.? (''? ??r}tDili. N ?'?n J?.tt.+k a, °?{A ,•1 ?4,.\\f???r? r. r _ trr -
g + ?rly !'? Crs=j,, i? ?k,p \ !rY }1.,; N () '1'- ?~? ?e / 1 ;{ - \ :,'''tr ,v 'r j,11)
O
°i '?K ..?.a3r1..??fr ~?yr,t r f?i"r+af x--.. I+?s.?iM Ll ate. *'lC? ! '\??.•'> __- ?' ? ? •-?S ,,?v; _ t
202000 FEET - -`Ter---_ ' - - - - -
(Joins sheet ) O)
i aSryLz a}{'rf4 �a w� �r6. 15, +
.a �tiar�. .. i �5.' YRi ,¢,,�1"d ,� a N t._•� r• ��1 � c �r may' 4 r', _. �.
o! a j I + •• iF h y.'
y�;h.� �%. `�"'•r I,. /t �`�-'((�}iV' j+! �� '� 1�ir�'r•' tr tr a5 • f �, . ��� ar • � ; +:X• •` 'I .
•,'tb,'1,ti , •� t' j• • ti ti'�r7+5r': •' ! ! �;w�•�',. �r } }�'' x-• :! K'1 • r- a �G ,^.. ' I
L •' +• ; Nr . 1
4' l .1. - ..j' l .... .."�li"F}; "• .. .�• ,�F�1 �+}j�' fr r .1•
+ r•• r.,,r• L' i1!}�,. (A• 4'VtIr • '"•� . . �! il�� •IQ�, .1' ••
� t � -1 4 ,. -rl`t "�MC'w •.��• 1�,• (r� IY�. _ ���t+p. •YM1i: . •{': ■.� jj4u� _ r
.r.;'4; -•I (+ a.•j} r i,T ;' FY �' M1l+s• 1y''(r r.h * •r �tt +-JI ,� •.•, {.1•.
. L+.. r, ` - �^�1••d .Tq ':. �'''+ 71C';+%'tL'. SS •i fes. ,• L •.. •. r ,�•',* 'J,1
Ile
;.A. t'f -P+r • / �. •',4;'1 .' _ >a (.tly''4'" . 1 + _ _�.,d :+y'n . _ -. f , ; 714-•i'.�' •.+:
-VYqT
• +�`aMr r+. y�r.I•'•t•' ' Y'• +r a 1,.ffirs; 1• '•:, +,.i +M1'Y r f.�? cgil�r .,�1`y ; L ,' ti `r•
� rt+� •►�.,�• �Y �'�?` : tiJ,7F� (, � i• ti � ' �•• .1 •�t:4'['r �J+.. ,+ �r •�,� r �,, . • ;tt'•�-• ' ' .�.�"• . f . `" ��,Y
Lc
21
a �_k �• �ti' r 1„_,•: _ '_I. . '.r {U atiC. , _ 1 yfi • �+ ,.. 7'11�'r �
j •r � Lt �7: � � , �-__ t' . ,:, T r � � i Ir•� •'�••_rl ., y L h7 tti t.�1 2ri ,� ' , f: t k• r
y rr 'r 9� 1
t S •1• • 1 -Y 5. -I�
'� ♦• 4r :i' .'IF4
;i6} ' r ' r�' r 1' 1 ��. • 'r' • � ♦ • .yy]�� 1
■ � i,,,jjj �. {•_'C' :: iy'�+}.■'i" r.r• i• � � ' I^ . •t i• �'. :r'� # i fit:+'}+,. • r <, I'
v r` .1� ' . ��� • •rf
`.05
••rr•�y�}r�$� ��y�. �•,� 6��' f ',1•'. 1, •;,, (' i _ '+ .i:+ M1 • • -7 � l ': �ya • • ' rt
+%�1r ��v },IL 'f• +• •i•?'_•?i-r {+, I. 1. }+ i�,- ;• l L �c. .l
:rte
rA I.i L�,+'►'''•'•, •'•• ••Ir.' y7rC ti ♦• r.. •'� r• •}'••• '+ ♦-•'+, '''a•4 .f ,-
r
'•rr��+ .1 .. yJ. T•Jr' r,•'1,.5' +. .r'+r7 �' + r'•...
•• i�. .��• ". 5+� ��•' h ♦ •, :.• �•+••t.`�:�"•tl.'!i •. \, +', r ;ti +i' : r + � : ,r•;.+r' - -, � + v -•r '' a i, - -
�:• +Irr rj� j(�;f (�,��i�t•�,•j •+'•}''��.• 41• {J r •+• .',' I •, '. ...�1. 'r ..k '+.. .a� ., ,
�•, `rte � T' �f.� 1 . �, �L.+� �+ ••��+ f �•- �+• _y , ,•r•. 4+,•:All � �•
1 +�M .�1 �••�.I+ ' •T ' 1•• .. r IY+ , r., J':{-,� ''4 . r
n:k L '(' 'r '�i•r�• 'f•�.':+�'' _ •'. .r•. .. 1. •.r. ••r .+• ..• � •'� ♦1.
, {"rte - , y• �a: .a'r• y a rl r r'4 .• rr '+ i ',. ►.�- ,r 1 i' '
+•,i?��o-+��la�,ryv�c4�• ;�''•a�•L' c .•� +•�• . •' , • • .r ••�..r ! + ; r•..� •''•► •r 5,/'-� . •1+
'>ry,; •'�'+ �4Y'(•(t}r�„�.•�^f+a.31: t',,}• �.• ,•� .. • r.,• • - � .�� . + + • •4, •,k' . ,•�.: 4� .•.: M 4 �. •. 4l,• � •.,-.•',+
T''� r 1: _yr/�:f'ti r;� f•4•''F1 4• '.1,' •I +J'• '••• f .• +' �:1; f. hyrM.i• y}�� �y�/�.,.r' 1• � •
5 I. ► iii •ry,•. .f 1 ',• ©'' ..�..�+' ,. +..
•�;��� r !•��!c•. rrj�• -i+1 �. . f r ~•'•• ;. �• i• .I' 1' �. . •• �•, ,Y••', •• •�r+ .'M1+ i •. ''•-''�• ti.
r�` .4 RC1•'• •• r� } •r, 1 .+ _ r
.�� j,•�,'�+rte{ �-7Lf '+���r3. trY+.'.x •', a r. r•. (._I.. f 1 _ ,•{'. .• • M1 -A .. ••,• : }', 1 _ 7
- i;'J•rIt
'ln'If�•r. •1. 4�Y+, ti,; ••- �' ••.I �n+ •<+'•+ •':r{',•:+ 'y. •rr •+.•1'• .+a .�.
r� r��. '11.5 +• ••'• :V•'• ,•. as 1 +
a�r _ f • ! 1.11- " '., ,• .••1 w �••' }r „/r ' r '
'.ri•''7£._•�t'i._.70.ro:... .1' •r, •'�. r r •, r. ,+_•, }•' •1.:: ••- •{
ESy ••J r�' '•� ��4•�'��`"►•�`I:'• .•+_'{ - .• .: r.•, + r.•♦ a .• �• },Y''d ' I ,• •r+•••' �rrrf :�•�i. ._"•`.'• '1�+:
i' 'h• f : ` 1�J4y. . . r ,� • + �. r. ' ... + r 11'� .` tr t i
Fy � y•� �-.�ti ''�•' ^^ k' rl 1-• +' ,r '• • :i. +• ''•fir f; ,r �r•qr`, �rI• � r•1•.1 :_ a■+ 4 ,
as �x r• r .'1' V.a. ti '�t�'• •1 r'ti,. •+ ..+ .. ,.•�, +r r •., fry .a-■ � •'w- - ���_ _' titi•'+ .•f .'•: i J- r .+.• : .
frv+ i �•r. ••�' r� �r�' ,.1 _^�Y-��•.r•�•rr ',.1f "� r j � ". '�,
�+� r. a. •, y.+:. '. .••.r •�rl�'.. I ■ r ,♦ .,r .. ..: r '. ?tib.. + mss■ .. ,.� •'•''' ti
n' !k-i.�i•• •• _ •�. a' � r• '• f r.r:, � .4 :'.(M�r- � �•,• _: �r ��,. ..l �,-ffr'S�
f,�1�f '+ ..r� ' 'i-{�'f :+ 4 r '�r asf •},!. �_ •1. .la^. +Oi:• {++U f •r .1 ■71
y,J}t:.'�} I �+i f',' Lf : - r, 1 a.• r ' r {� Tr!� ti' ,• 5 +fya+!} ►�Y F R�3v : `�:�i�d
• ,?.+k;�P•�, ._ r5 '�1 i•. r , .. •• 4 n �.,r'1� :._ jl .+•, -. t' + .'�+ *.'• �' _�+;1'71�';,��}�i/r/ :dr'''y( �f:•�`i'dr�.p+"}I•
�JTI ... • - . ,+ F .� , 'Y''• L. ,r • r 1
'�`'' 1�` aI. 71,�•
•,�.: r/1f•./ ' 'r. ,t.�. .Sa ,} '. � •• ,y�:, ,. ... rl ~'.'J.'jl: 'r •' '• '.:. it�� z #t,.:,ti
,d S1 li y ' j• ,..� :S+'• ".F, :.1 .�•}�� 'I _' din +�F+ r�`. •• j ;r �r _•. �' +'�� k r{�.� ':. •{r }r 1 � • _�
La {r, ♦ r + •' . � ( '�.= f!� J`• � :. .. •• .�-. - � �f{;.�r yt}•, r ,.� ='1. r
', �'' ••~1•: ,+�.ti� f �l +'+ - ��r� r.1 .. ��'��:,11••J���+■r� l :iJV4�±/-:+r �_ '1F �� •r ,r ,R '��
�• IO' •,.!!• $.`�•,� r 1jr' + ,t +I 1 1 +` j} 1 ,1 • "(J rti,••�, 1.�-'.j _(,+} `r.
ql
' ' '(.+- � � 1 ' I y r �• � •� , ,, � � rk, �,:�.:. frr{ ,• i'''`•f -�. : k
xLr fr�'T .• 1 � � i r �1`• �, �1 :1 I 1 Y �' 1''+,'(•1•,ri r•-T'1,,� ��,• �.
• � - - S � � � ('� '� � • •J "� '1r :J � i 1 � � � � _ .'rJ }.r� til. _

DATA FORM
ROUTINE WETLAND DETERMINATION
(1987 COE Wetlands Delineation Manual)
Project/Site: New Hanover COUhl-, Z44rl/ Date: !o. l2. o4
Applicant/Owner: v a o, County: Neu a ,
Investigator: E• G-14mb / E. 24 6t., State: NC.
Do Normal Circumstances exist on the site? Yes ? No Community ID: PEkl
Is the site significantly disturbed (Atypical Situation)? Yes No Transect ID:
Is the area a potential Problem Area? Yes No Plot ID: Weilajd A
(If needed, explain in remarks.)
VEGETATION
Dominant Plant Species Stratum Indicator Dominant Plant Species Stratum Indicator
Some 08L
Am, ?ybrytn C Lt PA C
on FACW
Li rda C FAc+

Percent of Dominant Species that are OBL, FACW or FAG (excluding FAC-) I0OC7
Remarks:
HYDROLOGY
Recorded Data (Describe in Remarks:)
Stream, Lake or Tide Gauge
Aerial Photographs
Other
No Recorded Data Available Wetland Hydrology Indicators:
Primary Indicators:
Inundated
Saturated in Upper 12 inches
Water Marks
Drift Lines
Field Observations: Sediment Deposits
Drainage Patterns in Wetlands
Depth of Surface Water: 8-12 (in.) Secondary Indicators (2 or more required):
Oxidized Root Channels in Upper 12 in.
Depth to Free Water in Pit: (in.) Water-Stained Leaves
? Local Soil Survey Data
Depth to Saturated Soil: 0 (in.) FAC-Neutral Test
? Other (Explain in Remarks)
Remarks: $vHressed +rec 4runkS
Community ID: PEM Project/Site: Ncw Nunove- County LandF7l1
Transect ID: Date: lo. I2.04-
Plot ID: We-Hand A
SOILS
Map Unit Name
(Series and Phase): _Kureb sand,

Taxonomy Subgroup: Snodic Quart4'1psamrrents Drainage Clas: F;Ce'sSlvr1v drolhek
Confirm Mapped Type?
Yes
No
Profile Description:
Depth Matrix Color Mottle Colors
inches Horizon Munsell Moist Munsell Moist
Mottle Texture, Concretions,
Abundance/Contrast Structure, etc.
6 0 -
0 SP

Hydric Soil Indicators:
Histosol
Histic Epipedon
? Sulfidic Odor
Aquic Moisture Regime
Reducing Conditions
Gleyed or low-Chroma Colors
Concretions
High Organic Content in Surface Layer in Sandy Soils
Organic Streaking in Sandy Soils
Listed on Local Hydric Soils List
Listed on National Hydric Soils List
Other (Explain in Remarks)
Remarks:
WETLAND DETERMINATION
Hydrophytic Vegetation Present? / Yes No
Wetland Hydrology Present? Yes No
Hydric Soils Present? ,i Yes No
Is this Sampling Point Within a Wetland? Yes No
Remarks: /SOWCj t4C414 4 - /la `nkt a- Ouflef
DATA FORM
ROUTINE WETLAND DETERMINATION
(1987 COE Wetlands Delineation Manual)
Project/Site:
Applicant/Owner:
Normal Circumstances exist on the site?
the site significantly disturbed (Atypical Situation)?
the area a potential Problem Area?
If needed, explain in remarks.)
Date:
County:
State:
Yes No Community ID:
Yes No ? Transect ID:
Yes No ? Plot ID:
VEGETATION
Dominant Plant Species Stratum Indicator Dominant Plant Species Stratum Indicator
QvrCtLs vi C t A,

ei
r r N II

Percent of Dominant Species that are OBL, FACW or FAC (excluding FAC-) Q T.
Remarks:
HYDROLOGY
Recorded Data (Describe in Remarks:)
Stream, Lake or Tide Gauge
Aerial Photographs
Other
No Recorded Data Available Wetland Hydrology Indicators:
Primary Indicators:
Inundated
Saturated in Upper 12 inches
Water Marks
Drift Lines
Field Observations: Sediment Deposits
Drainage Patterns in Wetlands
Depth of Surface Water: (in.) Secondary Indicators (2 or more required):
Oxidized Root Channels in Upper 12 in.
Depth to Free Water in Pit: _>12 (in.) Water-Stained Leaves
Local Soil Survey Data
Depth to Saturated Soil: > 12 (in.) FAC-Neutral Test
Other (Explain in Remarks)
Remarks: tfo Yrolo5indicators
Community ID: VPL Project/Site: New Hot ovcr C wj 14ndF11
Transect ID: Date: Ia. r2. c 4
Plot ID: Wet(cvd A
SOILS
Map Unit Name
(Series and Phase): Kure6 S(ancl_

Taxonomy Subgroup: Spodic Ouariziosam,,c i' Drainage Clas: Exec-SINVd, r
Confirm Mapped Type?
Yes
X No
Profile Description:
Depth Matrix Color Mottle Colors
inches Horizon Munsell Moist Munsell Moist
Mottle Texture, Concretions,
Abundance/Contrast Structure, etc.
O ?' - InOrn
-6 0 ?R 541 Sand
f
13
2.5
a

Hydric Soil Indicators:
Histosol
Histic Epipedon
Sulfidic Odor
Aquic Moisture Regime
Reducing Conditions
Gleyed or Low-Chroma Colors
Concretions
High Organic Content in Surface Layer in Sandy Soils
Organic Streaking in Sandy Soils
Listed on Local Hydric Soils List
Listed on National Hydric Soils List
Other (Explain in Remarks)
Remarks:
WETLAND DETERMINATION
Hydrophytic Vegetation Present?
Wetland Hydrology Present?
Hydric Soils Present?
is this Sampling Point Within a Wetland?
Yes No
Yes ? No
/Yes No
Yes _L/' No
DATA FORM
ROUTINE WETLAND DETERMINATION
(1987 COE Wetlands Delineation Manual)
Project/site: Neu kahnver Couh(,, 141jCJfi1l Date: 10. 2.
04-
Applicant/Owner: New annyer Cooh+k, County:
Investigator: F. E. RcckleV State:
Do Normal Circumstances exist on the site? Yes ? No Community ID: E
Is the site significantly disturbed (Atypical Situation)? Yes No Transect ID:
Is the area a potential Problem Area? Yes No Plot ID: („/e a
(If needed, explain in remarks.)
VEGETATION
Dominant Plant Species Stratum Indicator Dominant Plant Species Stratum Indicator
1 ; a U 01-
i ra 14
OBL
v e C
Gr vS CN/per;nvs 013t
OBL

Percent of Dominant Species that are OBL, FACW or FAC (excluding FAC-) 100%0
Remarks:
HYDROLOGY
Recorded Data (Describe in Remarks:)
Stream, Lake or Tide Gauge
Aerial Photographs
Other
No Recorded Data Available Wetland Hydrology Indicators:
Primary Indicators:
_t/' Inundated
Saturated in Upper 12 inches
Water Marks
Drift Lines
Field Observations: Sediment Deposits
Drainage Patterns in Wetlands
Depth of Surface Water: 8-12- (in.) Secondary Indicators (2 or more required):
Oxidized Root Channels in Upper 12 in.
Depth to Free Water in Pit: 0 (in.) Water-Stained Leaves

Depth to Saturated Soil: 0 (in.) Local Soil Survey Data
FAC-Neutral Test
Other (Explain in Remarks)
Remarks:
Community ID: peM Project/Site: Ntw Hanova- Court y Landr,7/
Transect ID: Date: 10. iz o ¢
Plot ID: Wrg?,td R
SOILS
Map Unit Name
(Series and Phase): kuce6 SGnd

Taxonomy Subgroup: Snodlc wGr+z;e.rnn ,?,+ Drainage Clas: xce ( ro; cct
Confirm Mapped Type?
Yes
.r No
Profile Description:
Depth Matrix Color Mottle Colors
inches Horizon Munsell Moist Munsell Moist
Mottle Texture, Concretions,
Abundance/Contrast Structure, etc.
0 --f A 5y 411 &1n
:74 13 22-.5v TB sand-

Hydric Soil Indicators:
Histosol
Histic Epipedon
Sulfidic Odor
Aquic Moisture Regime
Reducing Conditions
Gleyed or Low-Chroma Colors
Concretions
High Organic Content in Surface Layer in Sandy Soils
Organic Streaking in Sandy Soils
Listed on Local Hydric Soils List
Listed on National Hydric Soils List
Other (Explain in Remarks)
Remarks:
WETLAND DETERMINATION
Hydrophytic Vegetation Present? _ /Yes No
Wetland Hydrology Present? Yes No
Hydric Soils Present? Yes No
Is this Sampling Point Within a Wetland? Yes No
Remarks:
DATA FORM
ROUTINE WETLAND DETERMINATION
(1987 COE Wetlands Delineation Manual)
Mew HQnDtref Comb, Land All Date: /0.12.
Aleu Hanover Coin+„ County: Neu
E. Galamh/ F• Rac%rr., Staterr
> Normal Circumstances exist on the site?
the site significantly disturbed (Atypical Situation)?
the area a potential Problem Area?
If needed, explain in remarks.)
Yes ? No Community ID:
Yes No Transect ID:
Yes No Plot ID:
VEGETATION
Dominant Plant Species Stratum Indicator Dominant Plant Species Stratum Indicator
4rr '-

l 4
Oycrcus'

v li 1 FA

Percent of Dominant Species that are OBL, FACW or FAC (excluding FAC-) 0 CFO
Remarks:
HYDROLOGY
Recorded Data (Describe in Remarks:)
Stream, Lake or Tide Gauge
X Aerial Photographs
Other
No Recorded Data Available Wetland Hydrology Indicators:
Primary Indicators:
Inundated
Saturated in Upper 12 inches
Water Marks
Drift Lines
Field Observations: Sediment Deposits
Drainage Patterns in Wetlands
Depth of Surface Water: O (in.) Secondary Indicators (2 or more required):
Oxidized Root Channels in Upper 12 in.
Depth to Free Water in Pit: >12- (in.) Water-Stained Leaves
Local Soil Survey Data
Depth to Saturated Soil: > (2 (in.) FAC-Neutral Test
Other (Explain in Remarks)
Remarks: ?I II
NO Yrology indicafors
Community ID: IJpt Project/Site: Nev ((Q,,?vv C'ovnfy LQRd??Il
Transect ID: Date: 10,/2,0,¢
Plot ID: 6Wtikud Q
SOILS
Map Unit Name
(Series and Phase): 1(yr<6 Sand

Taxonomy Subgroup: ?DOdic QvprfginS2mh,?nks Drainage Clas: 5'ress-ive(V droineet
Confirm Mapped Type?
Yes
No
Profile Description:
Depth Matrix Color Mottle Colors
inches Horizon Munsell Moist Munseil Moist
Mottle Texture, Concretions, ,
Abundance/Contrast Structure, etc.
0-12-4 Sand,

Hydric Soil Indicators:
Histosol
Histic Epipedon
Sulfidic Odor
Aquic Moisture Regime
Reducing Conditions
Gleyed or Low-Chroma Colors
Concretions
High Organic Content in Surface Layer in Sandy Soils
Organic Streaking in Sandy Soils
Listed on Local Hydric Soils List
Listed on National Hydric Soils List
Other (Explain in Remarks)
Remarks:
WETLAND DETERMINATION
Hydrophytic Vegetation Present?
Wetland Hydrology Present?
Hydric Soils Present?
GIs this Sampling Point Within a Wetland?
Yes No
Yes _- No
Yes No
Yes ? No
l Remarks:
SEP-23-04 04:31 PM NHC DEM 910 341 4371 P.01
i
i
i
Proposal fbr VPeilande & Stream Evalutation, and Pe=fuing Lochner Proposal No, 284
New Nanovta C=V, NOMh Carolina d tomboy 10, 2ou ;
SITE ACCESS PERMISSION MUM
Site i?Igm4: Landfill Property - Now Aanover County, NC
Addresi: 9200 Highway 421 North
Wilmington, NC 26401
i
j
a
j
I EP=t the consultant, H.W. Lochner, Inc., permission to access tho above piopcrty fbr
the purpose of gathering environmental data. 19180 autharizo H.W. LOch:ler, Inc, to act
as my agent to allow represontatives of the U.S. Arnny Corps of Ensinoora, N.C. Division
of Water Quality and/or N,C. Division of Coastal Management to access the property for
rclatcd onsite investigations, if deemed necessary.
Cam' ??h^/ i
. Property Owner: Date; ?
(signature)
U?c-me toe, /V 14 4.,. CM
i
, i
c
.? 8199'?N peej, ulpil Yid tq 11i? 'P],'09S