20100150 Ver 1_401 Application_20100210

ACOM Environment
Submitted for:
Southern Power Company
Birmingham, Alabama
Cleveland County Generating Facility
Preconstruction Notification
Submitted by:
AECOM
Raleigh, North Carolina
60141290
February 24, 2009
A=COM
February 24, 2010
AECOM
8540 Colonnade Center Drive Suite 306
Raleigh, NC 27615
Mr. Ian J. McMillan, PWS, GISP
Coordinator 401/Wetlands Permitting and Oversight Unit
NCDENR/Division of Water Quality
2321 Crabtree Blvd. Suite 250
Raleigh, NC 27604
919.872.6600 tel
919.872.7996 fax
Subject: PCN for Written Authorization for Coverage under NWP 12 and General WQC #3699
Southern Power Company North Carolina Cleveland County Generating Facility
Dear Mr. McMillan,
Attached is the Pre-Construction Notification (PCN; Attachment A) for written authorization for
coverage under Nationwide Permit #12 (NWP12) and General Water Quality Certification (WQC)
#3699 for certain construction activities associated with the proposed Cleveland County Generating
Facility (CCGF). The site is located in Cleveland County near the North Carolina-South Carolina
line off of Interstate 85 near Exit 2 (Figure 1).
The proposed CCGF will provide power to the electrical grid during periods of peak demand. The
proposed activity includes installation of a subaqueous 20-inch (OD) natural gas supply pipeline
from the nearby Transco pipeline to provide gas to the plant. This installation will cross a perennial
404 stream labeled as Stream 4 in Figure 2. The pipeline will be installed by Public Services of
North Carolina (PSNC) using open-trench construction following PSNC's standard protocol,
detailed in the PCN.
Additional project impacts include the encapsulation of 548 feet of intermittent non-404 stream,
labeled as Stream 5 in Figure 2. Based on our conversations with, and guidance from, DWQ these
non-404 impacts are included in the PCN for this General WQC. Attachment B provides proof of
compensatory mitigation for filling the 548 feet of intermittent non-404 stream.
Southern Power Company North Carolina has previously provided written authorization to Mr.
Stephen Chapin of the Wilmington District's Asheville Field Office for AECOM (formerly ENSR
Corporation) to serve as its consultant for 404/401 permitting activities. Mr. Chapin has verified
eligibility for coverage under NWP12. Attachment C provides a copy of this authorization as well as
an updated authorization for AECOM to submit this PCN to DWQ on its behalf and to provide
support to Southern Power in responding to comments and requests for additional information.
Please do not hesitate to call me at 919.239.7138 or email me at [e-mail] if you
have any questions or require additional information.
Yours sincerely,
,4gy4l?z
Stephen J. Cibik
Principal Technical Specialist
Attachments
To enhance and sustain the world's built, natural and social environments
List of Attachments
Attachment PCN Section Description
A Pre-Construction Notification (PCN)
B A.1.f N.C. Ecosystem Enhancement Program Acceptance Letter
C A.5 Agent Authorization Letters
D B.1.b Figures 1 Site location map on topo indicating site coordinates provided in PCN
B.4.c & d 2 Existing Conditions
3 Soils
4 Project Overview
D C.3.g Drawings of Proposed Impacts
E JD, Correspondence, and Wetland Delineation Reports
F C.3.i Gas Pipeline Installation from PSNC Env Manual
G Cultural Resources Report & GPR study
Attachment A
Preconstruction
Notification
O?OF W ATF9OG
o ?
Office Use Only:
Corps action ID no.
DWQ project no.
Form Version 1.3 Dec 10 2008
Pre-Construction Notification PCN Form
A. Applicant Information
1. Processing
1 a. Type(s) of approval sought from the
®Section 404 Permit El Section 10 Permit
Corps:
1b. Specify Nationwide Permit (NWP) number: NWP12 or General Permit (GP) number:
1 c. Has the NWP or GP number been verified by the Corps? ® Yes ? No
1 d. Type(s) of approval sought from the DWQ (check all that apply):
® 401 Water Quality Certification - Regular ? Non-404 Jurisdictional General Permit
? 401 Water Quality Certification - Express ? Riparian Buffer Authorization
1 e. Is this notification solely for the record For the record only for DWQ 401 For the record only for Corps Permit:
because written approval is not required? Certification:
? Yes ® No ® Yes ? No
1f. Is payment into a mitigation bank or in-lieu fee program proposed for mitigation ® Yes ? No
of impacts? If so, attach the acceptance letter from mitigation bank or in-lieu
fee program.
1 g. Is the project located in any of NC's twenty coastal counties. If yes, answer 1 In ? Yes ® No
below.
1 h. Is the project located within a NC DCM Area of Environmental Concern (AEC)? ? Yes ® No
2. Project Information
2a. Name of project: Southern Power Company NC Cleveland County Generation Facility
2b. County: Cleveland
2c. Nearest municipality / town: Grover
2d. Subdivision name: N/A
2e. NCDOT only, T.I.P. or state N/A
project no:
3. Owner Information
3a. Name(s) on Recorded Deed: Southern Power Company
Parcel 10508 - Book 1586, page 1474
Parcel 10581 - Book 1586, page 1474
3b. Deed Book and Page No. Parcel 72785 - Book 1575, page 0873
Parcel 60765 - Book 1575, page 0876
Parcel 45223 - Book 1587, page 1525
source: http://arcims2.webgis.net/nc/cleveland/defauIt.asp
3c. Responsible Party (for LLC if
applicable): Mr. E. Scott Dial, Site Manager, Southern Company Services
3d. Street address: 5755 NC 801 Highway
3e. City, state, zip: Salisbury, NC 28147
3f. Telephone no.: [phone]
3g. Fax no.: (704-278-6620
3h. Email address: [e-mail]
Page I of 13
PCN Form - Version 1.3 December 10, 2008 Version
4. Applicant Information (if different from owner)
4a. Applicant is: ? Agent ? Other, specify:
4b. Name: Same as owner
4c. Business name
(if applicable):
4d. Street address:
4e. City, state, zip:
4f. Telephone no.:
4g. Fax no.:
4h. Email address:
5. Agent/Consultant Information (if applicable)
5a. Name: Stephen J. Cibik
5b. Business name
(if applicable): AECOM
5c. Street address: 8540 Colonnade Center Drive, Suite 306
5d. City, state, zip: Raleigh NC 27615
5e. Telephone no.: 919.239.7138
5f. Fax no.: 919.872.7996
5g. Email address: [e-mail]
Page 2 of 13
PCN Form - Version 1.3 December 10, 2008 Version
B. Project Information and Prior Project History
1. Property Identification
1a. Property identification no. (tax PIN or parcel ID): 10508, 10581, 60765, 72785, 45523
1 b. Site coordinates (in decimal degrees): Latitude: 35.16949 Longitude: - 81.41968
(DD.DDDDDD) (-DD.DDDDDD)
1 c. Property size: 284.3 acres
2. Surface Waters
2a. Name of nearest body of water (stream, river, etc.) to Unnamed tributary to Ponders Branch
proposed project:
2b. Water Quality Classification of nearest receiving water: C
2c. River basin: Broad
3. Project Description
3a. Describe the existing conditions on the site and the general land use in the vicinity of the project at the time of this
application:
The site is mostly forested with pine plantation, upland mixed deciduous and coniferous forest, and bottomland hardwood
forest. The surrounding properties have a variety of land uses including agricultural, industrial and commercial
complexes, residential (low-density detached dwellings and mobile homes), and road transportation facilities.
3b. List the total estimated acreage of all existing wetlands on the property:
The site has one small riparian wetland adjacent to Stream 3 near Interstate 85 totalling 0.2 acre (located in Figure 2 of
the cover letter and Attachment D, Figure 2). The wetland delineation report was submitted to Steve Chapin of the
USACE Wilmington District Asheville Field Office on July 25, 2007 (inluded in Attachment E).
3c. List the total estimated linear feet of all existing streams (intermittent and perennial) on the property:
The site has approximately 9,827 linear feet (If) of 404 perennial stream and 669.8 If of non-404 intermittent stream
(headwaters of Stream 5 from USACE jurisdictional point upstream to property line). These total distances are allocated
by stream number as follows: Stream 1 (P) = 3875.8 If, Stream 3 (P) = 2189.8 If, Stream 4 (P) = 1958.4 If, Stream 5 = (P)
508.8 404 + (I) 669.8 non-404, Stream 6 (P) = 929.6 If, and Stream 7 (P) = 365 If. The wetland and streams are located
in Attachment D, Figure 2.
3d. Explain the purpose of the proposed project:
Southern Power Company - NC plans to build and operate a simple-cycle combustion turbine electrical generation facility
on the 284 acre site that will provide power during periods of peak electrical demand.
3e. Describe the overall project in detail, including the type of equipment to be used:
Site preparation and construction of the generation facility will utilize typical heavy equipment for land clearing and
grading to provide a level surface for facility construction, equipment Iaydown areas, and construction worker parking.
One main access road will be built for the site, along with utility connections for natural gas, municipal water, and
electrical interconnects. Construction of the transmission interconnect to the Duke Power substation will include access
road preparation, installation of overhead towers by crane, and installation of power lines. Electrical generation
equipment will consist of four Siemens dual-fuel simple-cycle combustion turbines.
Page 3 of 13
PCN Form - Version 1.3 December 10, 2008 Version
4. Jurisdictional Determinations
4a. Have jurisdictional wetland or stream determinations by the
Corps or State been requested or obtained for this property /
project (including all prior phases) in the past? ® Yes ? No ? Unknown
Comments: 404 and non-404 stream determinations
performed onsite based on USACE and DWQ site visits.
4b. If the Corps made the jurisdictional determination, what type
? Preliminary ®Final
of determination was made?
4c. If yes, who delineated the jurisdictional areas?
Name (if known): 404 waters: Steve Chapin (USACE Agency/Consultant Company: AECOM
Asheville Field Office); David Klinch and Jennifer Cassada Other:
(AECOM). Non-404 waters: Alan Johnson (DWQ Mooresville
Regional Office)
4d. If yes, list the dates of the Corps jurisdictional determinations or State determinations and attach documentation.
Final JD 9/4/07 (Attachment E; USACE Action ID #2007-2437; Attachment E includes delineation reports);
10/4/07: USACE site visit for JD of Stream 5, during which Steve Chapin established jurisdictional point in field;
10/28/09: USACE verification of eligibility for NWP12 for gas supply line crossing of Stream 4; and
1/4/10 concurrence on JD point for Stream 4 (telecon included in Attachment E).
DWQ's Alan Johnson performed a site visit on 1/20/10; during a telephone call on 1/22/10 Mr. Johnson stated that the
remainder of Stream 5 up to the fenceline on the property was waters of the state. He also provided concurrence with the
proposed JD point for Stream 4.
5. Project History
5a. Have permits or certifications been requested or obtained for ® Yes ? No ? Unknown
this project (including all prior phases) in the past?
5b. If yes, explain in detail according to "help file" instructions.
Requested coverage under NWP 12 from USACE's Steve Chapin (verified as eligible without PCN on 10/28/09);
submitted Erosion and Sedimentation Control Plan for land disturbing activities to NCDLR on December 30, 2009;
NCDAQ issued an air construction and operation permit on September 10, 2009 (Air Permit No. 09881 R00).
Note also that on 1/4/10, the South Carolina Dept. of Health and Environmental Control approved the Stormwater
Pollutiion Prevention Plan for land disturbing activities in South Carolina associated with the transmission interconnect
and issued coverage under General Permit SCR10M303.
6. Future Project Plans
6a. Is this a phased project? ® Yes ? No
6b. If yes, explain.
The current plans call for the installation and operation of four generation turbines on the site. The site has been
permitted by the NCDAQ for six generation units, and the site layout has been designed to accommodate future addition
of the two additional turbines within the boundary of the current project (indicated as "future expansion" on the site
drawings). No additional impacts to jurisdictional waters would occur as a result of the future addition of the other two
units.
Page 4 of 13
PCN Form - Version 1.3 December 10, 2008 Version
C. Proposed Impacts Inventory
1. Impacts Summary
1 a. Which sections were completed below for your project (check all that apply):
? Wetlands ® Streams - tributaries ? Buffers
? Open Waters ? Pond Construction
2. Wetland Impacts
If there are wetland impacts proposed on the site, then complete this question for each wetland area impacted.
2a. 2b. 2c. 2d. 2e. 2f.
Wetland impact Type of jurisdiction
number - Type of impact Type of wetland Forested (Corps - 404, 10 Area of impact
Permanent (P) or (if known) DWQ - non-404, other) (acres)
Temporary T
W1 ? P ? T ? Yes ? Corps
? No ? DWQ
W2 ? P ? T ? Yes ? Corps
? No ? DWQ
W3 ? P ? T ? Yes ? Corps
? No ? DWQ
W4 ? P ? T ? Yes ? Corps
? No ? DWQ
W5 ? P ? T ? Yes ? Corps
? No ? DWQ
W6 ? P ? T ? Yes ? Corps
? No ? DWQ
2g. Total wetland impacts
2h. Comments:
3. Stream Impacts
If there are perennial or intermittent stream impacts (including temporary impacts) proposed on the site, then complete this
question for all stream sites impacted.
3a. 3b. 3c. 3d. 3e. 3f. 3g.
Stream impact Type of impact Stream name Perennial Type of jurisdiction Average Impact
number - (PER) or (Corps - 404, 10 stream length
Permanent (P) or intermittent DWQ - non-404, width (linear
Temporary (T) (INT)? other) (feet) feet)

S1 F ]PET Subaqueous
pipeline UT listed as

"
" ® PER ® Corps
3 feet
<30 feet*
installation Stream 4 ?INT ?DWQ

S2 ®P ? T
Encapsulation UT listed as

"
" ? PER ? Corps
3 feet
548
Stream 5 ® INT ® DWQ
S3 ? P ? T ? PER ? Corps
? INT ? DWQ
S4 ? P ? T ? PER ? Corps
? INT ? DWQ
S5 ? P ? T ? PER ? Corps
? INT ? DWQ
S6 ? P ? T ? PER ? Corps
? INT ® DWQ
3h. Total stream and tributary impacts <578
3i. Comments: Temporary 404 impacts: <30 feet; permanent non-404 impacts: 548 feet. Locations shown in Attachment D,
Figure 4.
* Public Service Company of North Carolina (PSNC) will install the 20-inch (OD) natural gas supply line using an open trench
cut that is typically 36"-42" wide. Temporary disturbance will be minimized and in no case will extend past the 30-foot as line
Page 5 of 13
PCN Form - Version 1.3 December 10, 2008 Version
easement (see Attachment F, excerpt from PSNC Environmental Manual, including "work in the dry" provisions per General
WQC 3699).
4. Open Water Impacts
If there are proposed impacts to lakes, ponds, estuaries, tributaries, sounds, the Atlantic Ocean, or any other open water of
the U.S. then individually list all open water impacts below.
4a.
Open water
impact number -
Permanent (P) or
Temporary (T) 4b.
Name of waterbody
(if applicable) 4c.

Type of impact 4d.

Waterbody type 4e.

Area of impact (acres)
01 ?P?T
02 ?P?T
03 ?P?T
04 ?P?T
4f. Total open water impacts
4g. Comments:
5. Pond or Lake Construction
If pond or lake construction proposed, then complete the chart below.
5a.

Pond ID 5b.

Proposed use or purpose 5c.
Wetland Impacts (acres) 5d.
Stream Impacts (feet) 5e.
Upland
(acres)
number of pond
Flooded
Filled
Excavated
Flooded
Filled
Excavated
Flooded
P1
P2
K Total
5g. Comments:
5h. Is a dam high hazard permit required?
? Yes ? No If yes, permit ID no:
5i. Expected pond surface area (acres):
5j. Size of pond watershed (acres):
5k. Method of construction:
Page 6 of 13
PCN Form - Version 1.3 December 10, 2008 Version
6. Buffer Impacts (for DWQ)
If project will impact a protected riparian buffer, then complete the chart below. If yes, then individually list all buffer impacts
below. If any impacts require mitigation, then you MUST fill out Section D of this form.
6a.
? Neuse ? Tar-Pamlico ? Other:
Project is in which protected basin? ? Catawba ? Randleman
6b. 6c. 6d. 6e. 6f. 6g.
Buffer impact
number - Reason Buffer Zone 1 impact Zone 2 impact
Permanent (P) or for Stream name mitigation (square feet) (square feet)
Temporary T impact
re uired?
B1 ?P?T ?Yes
? No
B2 ? P ? T ? Yes
? No
B3 ? P ? T ? Yes
? No
6h. Total buffer impacts
6i. Comments:
D. Impact Justification and Mitigation
1. Avoidance and Minimization
1 a. Specifically describe measures taken to avoid or minimize the proposed impacts in designing project.
1) Site selection was initially performed to identify suitable properties in close proximity to the required infrastructure (natural
gas supply, electrical interconnect, water supply, highway access. The site was selected based on its proximity to the
adjacent existing Transco interstate natural gas pipeline, which will supply natural gas to the plant, the nearby Duke Power
substation which will serve as the interconnect to the transmission grid, an existing water main along Route 216, and the
adjacent Interstate 85. Location close to these features will minimize impacts from construction and maintenance of extensive
utility corridors as well as traffic impacts to secondary roads during construction and operation.
2) The site is constrained by two streams with watersheds that include large areas north of I-85 (Streams 1 and 3), two
streams that primarily drain the northeast portion of the site (Streams 4 and 5), and one riparian wetland (Wetland A; refer to
Attachment D, Figure 2). The generation site layout was developed to avoid impacts to these jurisdictional features to the
extent possible by focusing the site footprint on the eastern portion of the property and providing site access from the east.
The main access road from the east and a parallel water supply line were aligned to cross Stream 4 north of the jurisdictional
point, with only temporary impacts to Stream 4 from the natural gas line installation. A second road crossing of Stream 4
further downstream to access construction parking was re-designed to avoid fill to Stream 4 (see D.1.b below).
3) The generation facility footprint was re-designed to avoid permanent impacts to 404 waters in Stream 5 by pulling back the
site grade and including a headwall to avoid fill in 404-jurisdictional waters. In addition, the site layout was re-designed to
relocate the administration building and future Units 5 and 6 to the west of Stream 5 to allow culverting of the non-404
jurisdictional headwaters of Stream 5 and thus maintain hydrology downstream to the 404-jurisdictional portion of the stream
(the re-location moved the heavy weight of the turbine units off the proposed culvert area to avoid the need to re-route the
drainage and thus maintain the downstream hydrology).
4) The transmission interconnect to the Duke Power substation will avoid any permanent fill by locating all overhead power
poles outside of jurisdictional waters.
1 b. Specifically describe measures taken to avoid or minimize the proposed impacts through construction techniques.
1) A proposed vehicular crossing of Stream 4 downstream of the main access road has been redesigned as a pedestrian
bridge to avoid additional fill within Stream 4. The crossing will consist of a Contech® Continental@ truss-style pedestrian
bridge (or equivalent) that will span the stream. Vehicular access to this point has been relocated to the main access road
east of Stream 4.
2) Installation of the natural gas supply line crossing for Stream 4 will be conducted in the dry by diverting flow in the stream
around the point of installation (detailed in Attachment F). The crossing will be as close to perpendicular as possible to the
Page 7 of 13
PCN Form - Version 1.3 December 10, 2008 Version
axis of the stream (i.e., between 75 - 105 degrees as required in General WQC 3699).
3) Temporary stream crossings associated with installation of the electrical lines to the Duke Power substation will utilize
temporary bridge mat crossings in lieu of temporary culverts.
2. Compensatory Mitigation for Impacts to Waters of the U.S. or Waters of the State
2a. Does the project require Compensatory Mitigation for
impacts to Waters of the U.S. or Waters of the State? ® Yes ? No
2b. If yes, mitigation is required by (check all that apply): ® DWQ ? Corps

2c.
If yes, which mitigation option will be used for this

project? ? Mitigation bank

®Payment to in-lieu fee program

? Permittee Responsible Mitigation
3. Complete if Using a Mitigation Bank
3a. Name of Mitigation Bank:
3b. Credits Purchased (attach receipt and letter) Type Quantity
3c. Comments:
4. Complete if Making a Payment to In-lieu Fee Program
4a. Approval letter from in-lieu fee program is attached. ® Yes
4b. Stream mitigation requested: 550 linear feet
4c. If using stream mitigation, stream temperature: ® warm ? cool ?cold
4d. Buffer mitigation requested (DWQ only): N/A square feet
4e. Riparian wetland mitigation requested: N/A acres
4f. Non-riparian wetland mitigation requested: N/A acres
4g. Coastal (tidal) wetland mitigation requested: N/A acres
4h. Comments:
5. Complete if Using a Permittee Responsible Mitigation Plan
5a. If using a permittee responsible mitigation plan, provide a description of the proposed mitigation plan.
Page 8 of 13
PCN Form - Version 1.3 December 10, 2008 Version
6. Buffer Mitigation (State Regulated Riparian Buffer Rules) -required by DWQ
6a. Will the project result in an impact within a protected riparian buffer that requires
buffer mitigation? ? Yes ® No
6b. If yes, then identify the square feet of impact to each zone of the riparian buffer that requires mitigation. Calculate the
amount of mitigation required.

Zone 6c.
Reason for impact 6d.
Total impact
(square feet)
Multiplier 6e.
Required mitigation
(square feet)
Zone 1 3 (2 for Catawba)
Zone 2 1.5
6f. Total buffer mitigation required:
6g. If buffer mitigation is required, discuss what type of mitigation is proposed (e.g., payment to private mitigation bank,
permittee responsible riparian buffer restoration, payment into an approved in-lieu fee fund).
6h. Comments:
Page 9 of 13
PCN Form - Version 1.3 December 10, 2008 Version
E. Stormwater Management and Diffuse Flow Plan (required by DWQ)
1. Diffuse Flow Plan
1 a . Does the project include or is it adjacent to protected riparian buffers identified ? Yes ® No
within one of the NC Riparian Buffer Protection Rules?
1 b . If yes, then is a diffuse flow plan included? If no, explain why.
? Yes ? No
Comments: N/A as not in a protected buffer watershed.
2. Stormwater Management Plan
2a . What is the overall percent imperviousness of this project? 9.6%
2b . Does this project require a Stormwater Management Plan? ? Yes ® No
2c. If this project DOES NOT require a Stormwater Management Plan, explain why: The project is not subject to a Non-404
Jurisdictional Permit and is not subject to NWP 14, 18, 29, 39, 41, 42, 44, 46 or GP31 . It is not within an area subject to
post-construction stormwater permitting.
2d . If this project DOES require a Stormwater Management Plan, then provide a brief, narrative description of the plan:
N/A
? Certified Local Government
2e . Who will be responsible for the review of the Stormwater Management Plan? ? DWQ Stormwater Program
? DWQ 401 Unit
3. Certified Local Government Stormwater Review
3a. In which local government's jurisdiction is this project? NCDWQ is stormwater authority
for Cleveland County
? Phase II
3b . Which of the following locally-implemented stormwater management programs ? NSW
? USMP
apply (check all that apply): ? Water Supply Watershed
? Other: N/A
3c. Has the approved Stormwater Management Plan with proof of approval been ? Yes ? No
attached?
4. DWQ Stormwater Program Review
? Coastal counties
? HQW
4a . Which of the following state-implemented stormwater management programs apply ? ORW
(check all that apply):
? Session Law 2006-246
? Other: N/A
4b . Has the approved Stormwater Management Plan with proof of approval been
attached? ? Yes ? No
5. DWQ 401 Unit Stormwater Review
5a . Does the Stormwater Management Plan meet the appropriate requirements? ? Yes ? No
5b . Have all of the 401 Unit submittal requirements been met? ? Yes ? No
Page 10 of 13
PCN Form - Version 1.3 December 10, 2008 Version
F. Supplementary Information
1. Environmental Documentation (DWQ Requirement)
1 a. Does the project involve an expenditure of public (federal/state/local) funds or the ? Yes ® No
use of public (federal/state) land?
1 b. If you answered "yes" to the above, does the project require preparation of an
environmental document pursuant to the requirements of the National or State ? Yes ? No
(North Carolina) Environmental Policy Act (NEPA/SEPA)?
1 c. If you answered "yes" to the above, has the document review been finalized by the
State Clearing House? (If so, attach a copy of the NEPA or SEPA final approval
letter.) ? Yes ? No
Comments: N/A
2. Violations (DWQ Requirement)
2a. Is the site in violation of DWQ Wetland Rules (15A NCAC 2H .0500), Isolated
Wetland Rules (15A NCAC 2H .1300), DWQ Surface Water or Wetland Standards, ? Yes ® No
or Riparian Buffer Rules (15A NCAC 2B .0200)?
2b. Is this an after-the-fact permit application? ? Yes ® No
2c. If you answered "yes" to one or both of the above questions, provide an explanation of the violation(s): N/A
3. Cumulative Impacts (DWQ Requirement)
3a. Will this project (based on past and reasonably anticipated future impacts) result in ? Yes ® No
additional development, which could impact nearby downstream water quality?
3b. If you answered "yes" to the above, submit a qualitative or quantitative cumulative impact analysis in accordance with the
most recent DWQ policy. If you answered "no," provide a short narrative description.
The proposed power generation facility will provide power during periods of peak electrical demand to prevent "brown-
out" conditions, which will not result in growth-stimulating effects that produce an increase in road construction, urban
development, or changes in regional land use or growth patterns that might impact downstream water quality.
4. Sewage Disposal (DWQ Requirement)
4a. 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.
On-site septic will be used for sanitary wastewater treatment for approximately 12 operational staff. No process
wa stewater will go to the septic field. The septic system will be subject to a sewage disposal permit to be issued by the
Cleveland County Environmental Health Department.
Page 11 of 13
PCN Form - Version 1.3 December 10, 2008 Version
5. Endangered Species and Designated Critical Habitat (Corps Requirement)
5a. Will this project occur in or near an area with federally protected species or ® Yes ? No
habitat?
5b. Have you checked with the USFWS concerning Endangered Species Act ? Yes ® No
impacts?
E:1 Raleigh
5c. If yes, indicate the USFWS Field Office you have contacted.
? Asheville
5d. What data sources did you use to determine whether your site would impact Endangered Species or Designated Critical
Habitat?
A search of the U.S. Fish & Wildlife Service (USFWS) and North Carolina Natural Heritage Program (NCNHP) databases
was conducted. The USFWS lists species by county, while the NCNHP database lists species known to presently of
historically occur by USGS quadrangle. Both the USFWS county database and NCNHP listings for the Grover
Quadrangle listed only one species, the dwarf-flowered heartleaf (Hexastylis naniflora), which is listed as State and
Federally Threatened. This plant is generally found in acidic soils along bluffs and adjacent slopes, in boggy areas next to
streams and creekheads, and along the slopes of nearby hillsides and ravines (54 FR 14964). No critical habitat rules
have been developed for the species. According to the USFWS, soil type is the most important habitat requirement. The
preferred soil types are Pacolet, Madison, and Musella (http://www.fws.gov/nc-es/plant/dfheart.htmi)
Much of the upland areas of the site are mapped by the NRCS as Madison-Bethlehem complex, and as such could
provide habitat for the dwarf-flowered heartleaf. However, most of the site is forested with mixed pine and hardwood, and
the plant is generally found in deciduous forests. Due to the presence of Madison soil types, field surveys were conducted
by AECOM biologists in April 2007 during the species' flowering/fruiting season. Transects were walked parallel to the
streams near the banks and along the upland areas within the Madison soils across the site to look for dwarf-flowered
heartleaf. No occurrences were discovered during this survey effort. Reconnaissance for the plant was also conducted
during subsequent site visits with no occurrences noted.
6. Essential Fish Habitat (Corps Requirement)
6a. Will this project occur in or near an area designated as essential fish habitat? ? Yes ® No
6b. What data sources did you use to determine whether your site would impact Essential Fish Habitat?
The EFH provisions of the Magnuson-Stevens Act are applicable to marine resources and their critical habitats. In North
Carolina, salt marshes, oyster reefs, and seagrass beds are designated EFH for red drum and penaeid shrimp. No EFHs
occur in Cleveland County.
7. Historic or Prehistoric Cultural Resources (Corps Requirement)
7a. Will this project occur in or near an area that the state, federal or tribal
governments have designated as having historic or cultural preservation ® Yes ? No
status (e.g., National Historic Trust designation or properties significant in
North Carolina history and archaeology)?
7b. What data sources did you use to determine whether your site would impact historic or archeological resources?
A cultural resources study of the site was performed in 2003, including background research and field surveys including
shovel tests (Attachment G). Historic resources include the Old Shiloh Presbyterian Church Cemetery (CL-288) located
west of the property south of Elm Road. Field surveys within the site property did not produce any significant
archaeological findings. As part of the transmission routing studies, Ground Penetrating Radar surveys were conducted
around the cemetery to determine the extent of historic resources. The transmission route was diverted further south to
provide a buffer for the church and cemetery.
Page 12 of 13
PCN Form - Version 1.3 December 10, 2008 Version
8. Flood Zone Designation (Corps Requirement)
8a. Will this project occur in a FEMA-designated 100-year floodplain? ? Yes ® No
8b. If yes, explain how project meets FEMA requirements: N/A
8c. What source(s) did you use to make the floodplain determination? FIRM panel 3710257200J

Applicant/Agent's Printed Name Applicant/Agent's Signature
(Agent's signature is valid only if an authorization letter from the applicant
is provided.) Date
Page 13 of 13
PCN Form - Version 1.3 December 10, 2008 Version
Attachment B
N.C. Ecosystem
Enhancement Program
Acceptance Letter
r?
Ecosystem
PROGRAM
February 16, 2010
Scott McMillan
Southern Power Company
PO Box 2641
Birmingham, AL 35291
Project: Cleveland County Generating Facility
Expiration of Acceptance: November 16, 2010
County: Cleveland
The purpose of this letter is to notify you that the North Carolina Ecosystem Enhancement Program (NCEEP) is willing to accept
payment for impacts associated with the above referenced project. Please note that this decision does not assure that the payment will
be approved by the permit issuing agencies as mitigation for project impacts. It is the responsibility of the applicant to contact these
agencies to determine if payment to the NCEEP will be approved. You must also comply with all other state, federal or local
government permits, regulations or authorizations associated with the proposed activity including SL 2009-337: An Act to Promote
Compensatory Mitigation by Private Mitigation Banks.
This acceptance is valid for nine months from the date of this letter and is not transferable. If we have not received a copy of the
issued 404 Permit/401 Certification/CAMA permit within this time frame, this acceptance will expire. It is the applicant's
responsibility to send copies of the permits to NCEEP. Once NCEEP receives a copy of the permit(s) an invoice will be issued based
on the required mitigation in that permit and payment must be made prior to conducting the authorized work. The amount of the In
Lieu Fee to be paid to NCEEP by an applicant is calculated based upon the Fee Schedule and policies listed at www.nceep.net.
Based on the information supplied by you the impacts that may require compensatory mitigation are summarized in the following
table.
River
Basin CU
Location Stream (feet) Wetlands (acres) Buffer I
(Sq. Ft.) Buffer II
(Sq. Ft.)
Cold Cool Warm Riparian Non-Riparian Coastal Marsh
Impact Broad 03050105 0 0 550 0 0 0 0 0
Credits Broad 03050105 0 0 Up to
1,100 0 0 0 0 0
Upon receipt of payment, EEP will take responsibility for providing the compensatory mitigation. If the regulatory agencies require
mitigation credits greater than indicated above, and the applicant wants NCEEP to be responsible for the additional mitigation, the
applicant will need to submit a mitigation request to NCEEP for approval prior to permit issuance. The mitigation will be performed
in accordance with the Memorandum of Understanding between the N.C. Department of Environment and Natural Resources and the
U.S. Army Corps of Engineers dated November 4, 1998.
If you have any questions or need additional information, please contact Kelly Williams at [phone].
Sincerely,
6ZJ--
W Ili m D. Gilmore, PE
Dir ctor
cc: Cyndi Karoly, NCDWQ Wetlands/401 Unit
Steve Chapin, USACE- Asheville
Ian McMillan, NCDWQ- Wetlands/401 Unit
Steve Cibik, agent
File
Reston' .. Prot", Our state, ©?A
? NCDENR
North Carolina Ecosystem Enhancement Program, 1652 Mail Service Center, Raleigh, NC 27699-1652 / 91 9-71 5-0476 / www.nceep.net
Attachment C
Agent Authorization
Letters
600 North 18« Street
14N-8195
Birmingham, AL 35291
245-257-7440
July .17, 2007
Mr. Steve Chapin
U.S. Army Corps of Engineers
Asheville Regulatory Field Office
151. Patton Avenue, Room 208
Asheville, North Carolina 28801-5006
il
Transmitted by electronic mail to.
Subject: Agent Authorization for Cleveland County Property Environmental Due Diligence
Dear Mr. Chapin:
This letter provides Southern Power Company's authorization for ENSR Consulting &
Engineering (NC), Inc. (ENSR) and its staff to act on our behalf in requesting a jurisdictional
determination and Section 404 permitting information relative to a property purchased by Southern
Power Company adjacent to the Interstate 85 in Cleveland County near the North Carolina-South
Carolina state line. Mr. Steve Cibik at ENSR has acted as Project Manager for water-related
aspects of due diligence activities for the property and will serve as the primary contact from
ENSR for discussions with the Asheville Regulatory Field Office.
Thank you in advance for your consideration of this authorization letter and for your involvement
in the jurisdictional determination.
Sincerely,
Brian D. Toth, PE
Principal Environmental Engineer
Cc: Steve CibikIENSR
600 North 18th Street
14N-8195
Birmingham, AL 35291
205-257-7440
February 22, 2010
Mr. Ian McMillan
Coordinator 401/Wetlands Permitting and Oversight Unit
NCDENR/Division of Water Quality
2321 Crabtree Blvd. Suite 250
Raleigh, NC 27604
SOUTHERN
COMPANY
Energy to Serve Your World"
Subject: Agent Authorization for 404/401 permitting - Cleveland County Generating Facility
Dear Mr. McMillan:
This letter provides Southern Power Company's authorization for AECOM North Carolina, Inc.
(AECOM) and its staff to act on our behalf for Section 404/401 permitting relative to development
of the Cleveland County Generating Facility off of Interstate 85 Exit 2 near the North Carolina-
South Carolina state line. The site is comprised of parcels 10508, 10581, 60765, 72785, 45523 in
Cleveland County owned by Southern Power Company.
Mr. Steve Cibik at AECOM has previously been authorized to serve as our agent for 404/401
permitting under his company's previous name (ENSR). This letter authorizes his continued role
serving as the primary contact from AECOM for discussions with DWQ's 401 Unit.
Thank you in advance for your consideration of this authorization letter and for your involvement
in the 401 review for this project.
Sincerely,

Brian D. Toth
Principal Environmental Engineer
Southern Company
Cc: Steve Cibik/AECOM
Attachment D
Figures and Drawings
of Proposed Impacts
\ } }
j ` /i ~q ~ q
' ~ ~ '
,S ~ ~ ~ LJ W
Q I/ ill ~ Fa Q q
I ~ ~l I I Z V) z
n 4 `a n I 0
~ aaG / ~ ,
\il 9~, 1y Vi: W I i Z ~ I I ,°na ~ ~ ~ i ~ ~ w z D
.1 ~ ~ ~l ~ ~ ~ I 855 v ` ~ ~
a / U U
~~8q, S / 8"0 a ~ W f ~ W
/ \ i j~ ~ ~l' ~ ~ l,~ , q
~ ~ \ ~ ~
11f° ~ ass ~ 11 C3 o G ~ 0 z
~ 835 _ f ~ ~ > ~
1 it ~1~ m ~ W > ~ it ~ u - q } pa
~ , ~ O Q p 'I I ~'{i~a m p W liil v ~ ~ 0~ ~ 820 . u; Z ~ q q q Q W z U W
~ ~ i~ U1 z 3 D > ~Z
\111 ~ ~ .G q < i1 r ~ ~ ~ ro ~ 0 Q u W LJ q =
i i i ry ~ ~ ~ ''o Q ~ r / I . n ~ 815 V 11 ~ ~ II I. r ~ V q U Q
ii 111 ~ 0 ~ i i it w 1 0,0 Ab
~ a+ ~~~ry~ ~ t
" 6' I / /l~/ / N I " ~~1 ~ ~ , ?7 J a+G q
- / O~ Ill / 0 I M 9Y \ - - /ll O I ~ _ !I ~ I ~
~ ~ `\1 - 1, ~ `1~ /O 1 / o
U ,f w
- : - ex9 - - ~ ~ ~ I I S° 11 % ~ ~ ; Ju ' ion ~i - ~ 0 m o ~ ' it / ~ ~ 5 _ ~ ~:8-=' _ - _ - ~ a s etlendA ,~r~ ; 'a_m m IIQ 1/~
- , ' - = - &~r OC9 - - ~ 1 ~ u ° 895 \ ~ ~ ~ o ' ' - - = ' ~1 i i 11 i I 1Ab j Q
J _ ~ ~ ~ W
o ~ ~ ~ ~ , a. - ° Q10 - - ~0'f° rs ,g ~ a .,J J
- - - - _i - - / 5 °o G m 810 ~ ~ O O U~
' - ' 48.- = ' a35 m I ~ V - ~ f ~
- - - - ; , - ; ' i' ¢f a~ ~ a ~ 790- o ~ ~ ~ ~ ` I ' = ' - - , ~ N ~ m Stream ~ 1` , Z o 0 Q u
~-823-~ m b 0 ~ n ~ / ~ ;
- -_/-~8`- - o SY'8~ '2"0 ~ 820 sYB'® ~n- ~ w: 0 1 ^1~~+ ,r ~y ~ ~ ) y~ I` - - / , ~ : ~ w 810 i ~ 'Q4. p, u ~ Ab J l,, \ I ;~R J ,W t d'. o ~ 0 z clJ o W o LO u
= r u 8 840 ~ ~ u t n h~ Wey ~A~' Q - -kR' i b' u ° ~s m 4r 11 S7eam3 ~s i1 5 0 Q of~ Q~ 0 ~,D LEI
5\ ~ o ~ ` ~ 810 ~ ~ Sii $ a~ 87 U°Q` M _ ~ cll~3
0 ` \ - 40 / m m 'io % i ~ III ~ `~S ~ ~ ~ N nro ~V1 ~ m c~~' r ~ ,l I ~ , ® a 935 ~ Otg ~ I \ o ro - - ~ r: 0 830 CC) Cu
°ry ~ i~ 0 i I ~ ~ ~ 780 ~ ~ 8 . e5G'~ a9 a~ 'I ; / ,404Uu IB ' nel 'S 9~?
8 1 ~ j 9~ I r~ ~ ~5 i x--56! A % m 808 ~,5~,/~ 843 40 \ ~ ~ \ 11 , m n~ ))G ;a v ~ y ~71 l 9 g19" l,r r r; W 0 El CO\ z „
, ~ ~ _ I % 908 78,5 )63 ' 0 1, N t I - 1.91 ` _ p, r ~ ~ ~~r, m ~ ~ aG0 q m~
835 lf, . _ A ~ X90 ro ` 4 ~ 33 LLJ 0 E:l U )
_ ~ - n^~ = 9~ s70 0 ro c ~ ~ ) ~ L 150 " $L5 ~ ' 04'9 0~ 6 A ^ A 1a ~ )SS w }80 ~ 819 I-'rte - f r S, r---% ~ a1s e>. _ Nm ~ )6G ~ n 780 w ~ $Q, tw U wz ~ -J oxpq w CD Q=Qw
6 ~ J ~g3 19u~/ 34y I ,I 7)0 F' er-`__-•~'k7-. )i 7 _ ro TS J~ BIS I i~ ~ \.9~0 \ " PY ~ J,.- ~ w ~ u+ 19 ,~80 1i-
~s_ ,'-.'I. ®W ~1 I 31tee 6 1,\~~ ~G ei' ~ ~ 3lreem 9 _ -',..G' 17~,i 'I~
, .~.,..~`'4= 190 v a ~ 740 ~ ' I ~0 a44~'`- I j'v o q ~ ~ 15 v ~ 169 OS ..o S i i
/ ~ ~ n~9 _ - ~ 6~ 1 ~ • / • < OdC `CAI ~ 1 ~ '"0 760
` ~ - ~ a 5~~ - ~ ~ I 1y9 . - ~ ~ _ _ ~ =71 ; - 04[ 406 00~ ti~ i'-~ ' 1,':~9C,; x' - 788 = ~ - 6~ • . y ream - _ i~ ~ - - o O
U \ ~m - - ~ `r•-rte C~• _ ~ L'4 OF ~r'~'L - o _ - ~ a,. o ~ ~i ~ , - 'I w
A r 99G y r^ I ~ I 1L ' z
1~ 11 i - I ~ 98[ ro - - - 11 - ~ O
\ Ill ~r j - - - - - 11 - II• _~/!~Jf U I
\ I ` ~ d I j ~ O o N
i/, ` I \I ~ o
~ I / / / U O
~ L.~
I Q O C
~ ~ ~ ~ ~ ~ LLV O O O ~ C
I ~ I - ~ U N L C O
I CD
I / O O O O
I 1 CD 0- c Q O
/ - z C a P5 p _ L- O
/ I I e~ ) U Z O
/ - V d 3 -0 O
~ X x N~
~ ~ ~u a>
U
w Of W
J C.7 Q
v L~ V)
w w
N
LEGEND
FI FIGURE NUMBER:
Property Boundary Exisitng Road
State Line Exisitng Building
Stream Top of Bank Treeline 2
Stream Centerline Contours (1-ft)
Wetland Contours 5-ft 2DD' 1DD' 0 200' 400' 600' 800' S
SHEET NUMBER:
SOURCE: Southern Power Company drawing Timber Harvesting.dwg 1

Q / i
~7. ~ ~ 1~_
Imo, v ~
J
J

n 1 /
s / ~J
0 400' 800'
6 d, p,. SCALE: 1 I CH = 400 FEET
~ \ v
i ~
J Q~.
j o ~o
2-`/ ~
~ ° 0 0
a U o ~
qB r
~i~' s I ~ ~
a ~ ,1~ ~ ~ ~ ~ , a ~ a O z
~ ~ ~ ~ a
s
1. ri r. ~ ~ ~
y > ' q
°a
ra ~ .°d ,g ~i a~i~ 0 0
~ ~ ~ ~ t e ~ i
~i , ~r o / i ® ~ q
} i ~ ~ / s `3~ ~ e ,i ~,4 ~ ~ o , ; . I n,.,e o o 7
~ ~9'/ ~ ~ o 4 r, 5 ate.., ,Y'. ' ~ O 0.. ~ ~
o p zF--~`" ~ ~ n, Q l
o r ~ ~ r/, ~ ~ ~ ` ~ ~"e
~lr y J v i ' o' /X~ yI~ R i 1~ ~
Z~^`V / t 4. r / A
~d '~.T r ~ -
'4 ~ o_ ~ ~ it ~~~~r i
~ r '~1 ~ t~~{ i ,1 , ) /f \ h I~ M ~ y/~L.:" ' irl~
I o >a _ D , pl. r 1~' II,~' u'/ a i
. ..a 1
a
~ t~ ~ _ a,~; ~ y - ~ f ~"~4' I ~ 1' Il~
r. = e a r~
~ a ~ 11:~
- _ -~J / _ . ti
neon ~ 'o- ~ ~ ~ -
/ r _ R .e
,b ,~A~~ a F,' ' a
0 p y /
i 6
90 % 1 b ' u~R~v a~~N, N/F 1 d
1° -
i i~

~
I ~ I

I~ I
~ l I
~ ~ LEGEND
~ I ~ ~ ~ ~ ~ TRANSMISSION LINE ROW
~ (LIMITS OF DISTURBANCE) BUFFER ZONE BUFFER ZONE BOUNDARY
I _ - ~~i ~ EXISTING CONTOURS EXISTING ROAD FACILITY CONTOURS PROPERTY LINE EXISTING ROADS AND STRUCTURES
PROPERTY LINE
PROPOSED ROW CONTOURS - 1FT TRANSMISSION TRANSMISSION CENTERLINE
NOTES: 1. BOUNDARY AND TOPOGRAPHIC INFORMATION PROVIDED PROPOSED ROW CONTOURS - 0.5FT ACCESS ROAD ACCESS ROAD
BY THE PURCHASER AND PERFORMED BY TSG ENGINEERS, SHELBY, NC AND CBS SURVEYING, GAFFNEY, SC `'TREAM STRUCTURE LO(
2. GRADING FOR THE FACILITY WILL BE CONDUCTED PRIOR STRUCTURE LOCATION
TO THE CONSTRUCTION OF THE TRANSMISSION LINE. 3. CONTOURS ARE ONE FOOT INTERVALS. STREAM TOP OF BANK DELIINEATION
DESIGNED RY~~ REVISIONS PREPARED BY: EIGu FIGURE NUMBER
~ ~0~[~ ~V[~~VI~V~ NDr~ DESCRIPTIDN~~ DDTE~~ BY~~
DRAWN BY~~ CLCUELAN® COUNTY GENCRATING RACILITY
RO TRANSMISSION INTRRCONNRCT OINK
CLKVKOAN® CONNTY, NORTEI CAROLINA 4
CHECKED BY~~ SOUTNKRN RO~V[TR COMRANY
TR 70410LD WAKE FOREST ROAD KINGS MONNTAIN, NORTN CAROLINA
SUITE 103 APPROVED DY~~ RALEIGH, NORTH CAROLINA 27818 EcA~E~~ DDTE~~ PROJECT NuMDER~~ ERE 919-872-6652 1 " e X00' 12/ ~ x/09 601 ~ 1290-03®0 SHEET NUMBER:
1

0 400' 800'
i~ ~~€T~ SCALE: 1 I CH = 400 FEET
. j ,
~/f

\
,a

/ / \ _
i ~
9 ' r, LORRY ALLEN, NTF

t ~ LEGEND
i~ = TRANSMISSION LINE ROW
~ (LIMITS OF DISTURBANCE) BUFFER ZONE ~ BUFFER ZONE BOUNDARY
EXISTING CONTOURS EXISTING ROAD`. EXISTING ROADS AND STRUCTURES
- FACILITY CONTOURS PROPERTY LINE PROPERTY LINE
PROPOSED ROW CONTOURS - 1FT TRANSMISSION TRANSMISSION CENTERLINE
NOTES: 1. BOUNDARY AND TOPOGRAPHIC INFORMATION PROVIDED PROPOSED ROW CONTOURS - 0.5FT ACCESS ROAD ACCESS ROAD
BY THE PURCHASER AND PERFORMED BY TSG ENGINEERS, SHELBY, NC AND CBS SURVEYING, GAFFNEY, SC `'TREAM STRUCTURE LO(
2. GRADING FOR THE FACILITY WILL BE CONDUCTED PRIOR - - - - STRUCTURE LOCATION
TO THE CONSTRUCTION OF THE Tf ""JSMISSION LINE. 3. CONTOURS ARE ONE FOOT INTEF LS. STREAM TOP OF BANK DEUINEATION
DESIGNED RY~~ REVISIONS PREPARED BY: FIGu FIGURE NUMBER
~ ~0~[~ ~V[~~VI~V~ NDr~ DESCRIPTIDN~~ DDTE~~ BY~~
DRAWN BY~~ CLCUELAN® COUNTY GENCRATING RACILITY
RK TRANSMISSION INTRRCONNRCT OINK
CLKVKCAN® CONNTY, NORTRI CAROLINA
CHECKED BY~~ SOUTNKRN RO~V[TR COMRANY
TR 70410LD WAKE FOREST ROAD KINGS MONNTAIN, NORTN CAROLINA
SUITE 103 APPROVED DY~~ RALEIGH, NORTH CAROLINA 27818 EcAL E~~ DDTE~~ PROJECT NuMDER~~ ERE 919-872-6652 1 " e X00' 12/ ~ x/09 601 ~ 1290-03®0 SHEET NUMBER:

tar et tar et tar et
?;qne Z7-? 9 ?O ?;q no
L%«y&W,--y1ok -W. Ewiy, ?Yl?rwTdy. Ewiy, ?Yl?r?Y•
STONE FILLING (MED) CL.
1 APRON MAT'L @ 3.75'
82

WIDTH: VAR IES FROM 36'
TO 52'
80D - ROPOSED GRADE LENGTH: 40'
-
78D
76D
P

E L.=768.00 387 L. (3) 48" 0 EXISTING GROUND
EL.=764.00
74 S _ T
18
HDPE PIPE @ 1.03%
G
IADE
72 -
-
70
1
0+ 00 1+
00 2+00 3+00 4+00 5+

6) N
6) CO N r-
O? N M J-)
Cq r r- 00
00 O)
cD
r
r cD N
r
r r-
?D
r- 00 CD
r- CIO
r- r- rn 00
r- Ln
r1- r-
rnl????n???r?n ¦
A 2/23/10 ISSUED FOR REVIEW JWM RCB EJC RL
REV. DATE DESCRIPTION BY CHK'D CIVIL APPR ELECT APPR I/C APPR MECH APPR DISC MGR
Southern Company Services, Inc.
CLEVELAND COUNTY GENERATING FACILITY UNITS 1-4
Copyright ©, Southern Company Services, Inc. All Rights Reserved
This document contains proprietary, confidential, and/or trade secret information STREAM 5 CULVERT SECTION
of the subsidiaries of The Southern Company or of third parties. It is intended
for use only by employees of, or authorized contractors of, the subsidiaries
of the Southern Company. Unauthorized possession, use, distribution, SHEET 2 OF 2
copying, dissemination, or disclosure of any portion hereof is prohibited.
Southern Company Generation
Engineering and Construction Services
FOR
Southern Power Company
SCALE DRAWING NUMBER SHEET CONT'D REV
"=50' ICC-SK-STRM51 1 FA
ANSI A: 11 x8.5 Acad2008
PLACE GROOVE OR g SLOPE AS INDICATED ON PLANS
BELL END OF PIPE I /?
TO FACE OF WALL
I
I I I
I ` I I I
PLAN
G
M
G
I I
L ` DOWEL
OPTIONAL CONSTRUCTION JOINT
ELEVATION
-I- S

CONC.
\ PIPE
F
B T
END ELEVATION
N_
6?
#4-BARS
12"
DOWEL
BAR - "X"
DOWELS IN ENDWALL WITH REINFORCED CONCRETE PIPE
PIPE SINGLE PIPE DOUBLE PIPE
LOC. DIA. 15" 18" 24 " 30" 36" 42" 48" 15 " 18" 24" 30" 36" 42" 48"
BARS "X" "X" "X " "X" "X" "X" Y* "X" Y* "X " "X" "X" "X" "X" "X" Y* "X" Y*
G QTY. 2 2 3 3 4 4 5 2 2 3 3 4 4 5
M QTY. - - - - - - 2 - 2 1 1 2 2 2 2 2 3 2
G QTY. 2 2 3 3 4 4 5 2 2 3 3 4 4 5
TOTAL LBS. 9 9 14 14 19 55 65 12 12 19 19 23 77 92

DIMENSIONS AND CONCRETE QUANTITIES
USING CONCRETE PIPE
COMMON DIMENSIONS SINGL E PIPE DOUBLE P IPE
D H B G T S L YD3 M L YD3
15" 3,-3" 1'-8 " 2'-9" 21/4" 91/2„ 5'-6" 0.7 2'-2" 7'-8" 1.0
18" 3'-7" 1'-10 " 3'-2" 2%2" 10" 6'-4" 1.0 2'-7" 8'-11" 1.3
24" 4'-2" 2'-1" 4'-0" 3" 10" 8'-0" 1.5 3'-5" 11'-5" 2.0
30" 5'-0" 2'-6" 4'-7" 41/4" 11112„ 9'-2" 2.3 4'-3" 13'-5" 3.1
36" 5'-8" 2'-8" 5'-6" 43/4" 111/2" 11'-0" 3.4 5'-0" 16'-0" 4.5
42" 6'-2" 3'-1 " 6'-4" 51/4" 111/2" 12'-8" 4.5 5'-10" 18'-6" 6.0
48" 6'-9" 3'-5" 7'-2" 53/4" 111/2" 14'-4" 6.0 6'-8" 21'-0" 8.0
*SEE SHEET 3
(IF CONST. JOINT IS USED)
SLOPE AS INDICATED ON PLANS
9
4„ / v
H
PLAN
G
M
N
1%2:1
_ + o SLOPE
v
N_
#4-BARS
12"
----1? is
C. S.
PIPE
a?
3 \
Y
B ~ T
FOOTING /
(IF CONST. JOINT IS USED)
G END ELEVATION
I I
I I
It tI I I
L ` DOWEL
OPTIONAL CONSTRUCTION JOINT
I;1 PVATTnM
DOWEL
BAR - "X"
DOWELS IN ENDWALL WITH C. S. PIPE
PIPE SINGLE PIPE DOUBLE PIPE
LOC. DIA. 15" 18" 24" 30" 36" 42" 48" 15" 18" 24" 30" 36" 42" 48"
BARS "X„ "X" "X" "X" "X" Y* "X" Y* "X" "X" "X" "X" "X" "X" Y* "X" Y*
G QTY. 2 2 3 3 4 4 5 2 2 3 3 4 4 5
M QTY. - - - - - - 2 - 2 1 1 1 2 2 2 2 2 2
G QTY. 2 2 3 3 4 4 5 2 2 3 3 4 4 5
TOTAL LBS. 9 9 14 14 19 53 62 12 12 16 19 23 73 85
DIMENSIONS AND CONCRETE QUANTITIES
USING CORRUGATED STEEL PIPE
COMMON SINGLE PIPE DOUBLE PIPE
D H B G L YD3 M L YD3
15" 3'-4 1'-8" 2'-6" 5'-0" 0.7 1'-11" 6'-11" 1.0
18" 3'-7" 1'-10" 2'-11" 5'-10" 1.0 2'-3" 8'-1" 1.2
24" 4'-1" 2'-1" 31-8" 7'-4" 1.4 3'-0" 10'-4" 1.9
30" 4'-7" 2'-4" 4'-5" 8'-10" 2.0 3'-9" 12'-7" 2.7
36" 5'-1" 2'-7" 5'-2" 10'-4" 2.8 4'-6" 14'-10" 3.8
42" 5'-7" 2'-10" 5'-11" 11'-10" 3.8 5'-3" 17'-1" 5.0
48" 6'-1" 3'-1" 6'-8" 13'-4" 4.9 6'-0" 19'-4" 7.5
*SEE SHEET 3
GENERAL NOTES:
CHAMFER ALL CORNERS 1" OR HAVE A RADIUS OF 1".
PLACE 2 #6 "Y" BARS IN THE TOP OF ALL ENDWALL FOR PIPE CULVERTS 421?
AND OVER WITH A MINIMUM OF 3" COVER AND A LENGTH OF 6" LESS THAN
ENDWALL LENGTH.
CONSTRUCT BOTTOM SLAB WITH FORMS.
DO NOT INTERPRET WALL THICKNESS (T) SHOWN FOR THE THICKNESS
ACCEPTABLE, BUT IS USED IN COMPUTING ENDWALL QUANTITIES.
WHEN THE CONTRACTOR ELECTS TO USE A CONSTRUCTION JOINT AT THE BOTTOM
OF THE PIPE, PLACE BAR "X" DOWELS IN THE BASE AS SHOWN ON PLANS.
SPACE BARS APPROXIMATELY ON 12" CENTERS UNLESS OTHERWISE DIRECTED
BY THE ENGINEER.
WHEN THE CONTRACTOR ELECTS TO USE A CONSTRUCTION JOINT AT THE BOTTOM
OF THE PIPE AND POUR THE BASE SEPARATELY LEAVE THE POUR ROUGH.
USE CLASS "B" CONCRETE.
Attachment E
JD, Correspondence,
and Wetland
Delineation Reports
U.S. ARMY CORPS OF ENGINEERS
WILMINGTON DISTRICT
Action Id. 2007-2437 County: Cleveland U.S.G.S. Quad: Grover
NOTIFICATION OF JURISDICTIONAL DETERMINATION
Property Owner/Agent: Southern Power Compan
Address: 600 North 18"' Street
14N-8195
Birminzham, AL 25291
Telephone No.:
Property description:
Size (acres) 175 Nearest Town Kings Mountain
Nearest Waterway Ponders Branch River Basin Broad
USGS HUC Coordinates N 35.17 W 81.41
Location description Adjacent to U.S. 74, Oust west of Kings Mountain.
Indicate Which of the FollowinE Apply:
A. Preliminary Determination
_ Based on preliminary information, there may be wetlands on the above described property. We strongly suggest you have
this property inspected to determine the extent of Department of the Army (DA) jurisdiction. To be considered final, a
jurisdictional determination must be verified by the Corps. This preliminary determination is not an appealable action
under the Regulatory Program Administrative Appeal Process ( Reference 33 CFR Part 331).
B. Approved Determination
There are Navigable Waters of the United States within the above described property subject to the permit requirements of
Section 10 of the Rivers and Harbors Act and Section 404 of the Clean Water Act. Unless there is a change in the law or
our published regulations, this determination may be relied upon for a period not to exceed five years from the date of this
notification.
X There are waters of the U.S. including wetlands on the above described property subject to the permit requirements of
Section 404 of the Clean Water Act (CWA)(33 USC § 1344). Unless there is a change in the law or our published
regulations, this determination may be relied upon for a period not to exceed five years from the date of this notification.
We strongly suggest you have the wetlands on your property delineated. Due to the size of your property and/or our
present workload, the Corps may not be able to accomplish this wetland delineation in a timely manner. For a more timely
delineation, you may wish to obtain a consultant. To be considered final, any delineation must be verified by the Corps.
_ The waters of the U.S. including wetland on your property have been delineated and the delineation has been verified
by the Corps. We strongly suggest you have this delineation surveyed. Upon completion, this survey should be reviewed
and verified by the Corps. Once verified, this survey will provide an accurate depiction of all areas subject to CWA
jurisdiction on your property which, provided there is no change in the law or our published regulations, may be relied
upon for a period not to exceed five years.
_ The wetlands have been delineated and surveyed and are accurately depicted on the plat signed by the Corps
Regulatory Official identified below on . Unless there is a change in the law or our published regulations, this
determination may be relied upon for a period not to exceed five years from the date of this notification.
_ There are no waters of the U.S., to include wetlands, present on the above described property which are subject to the
permit requirements of Section 404 of the Clean Water Act (33 USC 1344). Unless there is a change in the law or our
published regulations, this determination may be relied upon for a period not to exceed five years from the date of this
notification.
_ The property is located in one of the 20 Coastal Counties subject to regulation under the Coastal Area Management Act
(CAMA). You should contact the Division of Coastal Management in Washington, NC, at [phone] to determine
their requirements.
Placement of dredged or fill material within waters of the US and/or wetlands without a Department of the Army permit may
constitute a violation of Section 301 of the Clean Water Act (33 USC § 1311). If you have any questions regarding this
determination and/or the Corps regulatory program, please contact Steve Chapin at [phone] x224.
C. Basis For Determination
Ponders Branch>Beason Creek>Buffalo Creek>Broad River which is navieable-in-fact in SC.
D. Remarks
E. Appeals Information (This information applies only to approved jurisdictional determinations as indicated in
B. above)
This correspondence constitutes an approved jurisdictional determination for the above described site. If you object to this
determination, you may request an administrative appeal under Corps regulations at 33 CFR part 331. Enclosed you will find a
Notification of Appeal Process (NAP) fact sheet and request for appeal (RFA) form. If you request to appeal this
determination you must submit a completed RFA form to the following address:
District Engineer, Wilmington Regulatory Division
Attn:Steve Chapin, Project Manager,
Asheville Regulatory Field Office
151 Patton Avenue, Room 208
Asheville, North Carolina 28801-5006
In order for an RFA to be accepted by the Corps, the Corps must determine that it is complete, that it meets the criteria for
appeal under 33 CFR part 331.5, and that it has been received by the District Office within 60 days of the date of the NAP.
Should you decide to submit an RFA form, it must be received at the above address by 11/4/07.
**It is not necessary to submit an RFA form to the District Office if you do not object to the determination in this
correspondence.
Corps Regulatory Official:
Date 09/04/2007
Expiration Date 09/04/2012
The Wilmington District is committed to providing the highest level of support to the public. To help us ensure we continue to
do so, please complete the attached customer Satisfaction Survey or visit
http://www.saw.usace.army.mil/WETLANDS/index.htm] to complete the survey online.
NOTIFICATION OF ADMINISTRATIVE APPEAL OPTIONS AND PROCESS AND
REQLtEST FOR APPEAL
.._........W..._

Applicant: Southern Power Company -_._
Number: 2007-2437 __.........__.
Date: 9/4/07
Attached is: See Section below
INITIAL PROFFERED PERMIT (Standard Permit or Letter of
permission) A
PROFFERED PERMIT (Standard Permit or Letter of permission) B
PERMIT DENIAL C
APPROVED JURISDICTIONAL DETERMINATION D
PRELIMINARY JURISDICTIONAL DETERMINATION E
SECTION I - The following identifies your rights and options regarding an administrative appeal of the above
decision. Additional information may be found at htt://www.usace.ami -.mil/inet/functions/cw/cecwo/re or
Corps regulations at 33 C R Bart 331.
A: INITIAL PROFFERED PERMIT: You may accept or object to the permit.
• ACCEPT: If you received a Standard Permit, you may sign the permit document and return it to the district engineer for final
authorization. If you received a Letter of Permission (LOP), you may accept the LOP and your work is authorized. Your signature
on the Standard Permit or acceptance of the LOP means that you accept the permit in its entirety, and waive all rights to appeal the
permit, including its terms and conditions, and approved jurisdictional determinations associated with the permit.
• OBJECT: If you object to the permit (Standard or LOP) because of certain terms and conditions therein, you may request that the
permit be modified accordingly. You must complete Section II of this form and return the form to the district engineer. Your
objections must be received by the district engineer within 60 days of the date of this notice, or you will forfeit your right to appeal
the permit in the future. Upon receipt of your letter, the district engineer will evaluate your objections and may: (a) modify the
permit to address all of your concerns, (b) modify the permit to address some of your objections, or (c) not modify the permit
having determined that the permit should be issued as previously written. After evaluating your objections, the district engineer
will send you a proffered permit for your reconsideration, as indicated in Section B below.
B: PROFFERED PERMIT: You may accept or appeal the permit
• ACCEPT: If you received a Standard Permit, you may sign the permit document and return it to the district engineer for final
authorization. If you received a Letter of Permission (LOP), you may accept the LOP and your work is authorized. Your signature
on the Standard Permit or acceptance of the LOP means that you accept the permit in its entirety, and waive all rights to appeal the
permit, including its terms and conditions, and approved jurisdictional determinations associated with the permit.
• APPEAL: If you choose to decline the proffered permit (Standard or LOP) because of certain terms and conditions therein, you
may appeal the declined permit under the Corps of Engineers Administrative Appeal Process by completing Section 11 of this form
and sending the form to the division engineer. This form must be received by the division engineer within 60 days of the date of
this notice.
C: PERMIT DENIAL: You may appeal the denial of a permit under the Corps of Engineers Administrative Appeal Process by
completing Section II of this form and sending the form to the division engineer. This form must be received by the division engineer
within 60 days of the date of this notice.
D: APPROVED JURISDICTIONAL DETERMINATION: You may accept or appeal the approved JD or
provide new information.
• ACCEPT: You do not need to notify the Corps to accept an approved JD. Failure to notify the Corps within 60 days of the date of
this notice, means that you accept the approved JD in its entirety, and waive all rights to appeal the approved JD.
• APPEAL: If you disagree with the approved JD, you may appeal the approved JD under the Corps of Engineers Administrative
Appeal Process by completing Section 11 of this form and sending the form to the district engineer. This form must be received by
the division engineer within 60 days of the date of this notice.
E: PRELIMINARY JURISDICTIONAL DETERMINATION: You do not need to respond to the Corps
regarding the preliminary JD. The Preliminary JD is not appealable. If you wish, you may request an approved
JD (which may be appealed), by contacting the Corps district for further instruction. Also you may provide new
information for further consideration by the Corps to reevaluate the JD.
SECTION II - REQUEST FOR APPEAL or OBJECTIONS TO AN INITIAL PROFFERED PERMIT
REASONS FOR APPEAL OR OBJECTIONS: (Describe your reasons for appealing the decision or your
objections to an initial proffered permit in clear concise statements. You may attach additional information to
this fonn to clarify where your reasons or objections are addressed in the administrative record.)
ADDITIONAL INFORMATION: The appeal is limited to a review of the administrative record, the Corps
memorandum for the record of the appeal conference or meeting, and any supplemental information that the
review officer has determined is needed to clarify the administrative record. Neither the appellant nor the Corps
may add new information or analyses to the record. However, you may provide additional information to clarify
the location of information that is already in the administrative record.
POINT OF CONTACT FOR QUESTIONS OR INFORMATION:
Il'you have questions regarding this decision If you only have clu4stions regarding the appeal process you
and/or the appeal process you may contact: may also contact:
Steve Chapin Mr. Mike Bell, Administrative Appeal Review Officer
USACE CESAD-ET-CO-R
151 Patton Avenue, Room 208 U.S. Army Corps of Engineers, South Atlantic Division
Asheville, NC 28801-5006 60 Forsyth Street, Room 9M 15
Atlanta, Geor is 30303-8801
RIGHT OF ENTRY: Your signature below grants the right of entry to Corps of Engineers personnel, and any
government consultants, to conduct investigations of the project site during the course of the appeal process. You
will be provided a 15 day notice of any site investigation, and will have the opportunity to participate in all site
investiptions.
Date: Telephone number:
Signature of appellant or agent,
For appeals on Initial Proffered Permits and approved Jurisdictional Determinations send this
form to:
District Engineer, Wilmington Regulatory Division, Attu:Steve Chapin, Project Manager, Asheville
Regulatory Field Office, 151 Patton Avenue, Room 208, Asheville, North Carolina 28801-5006
For Permit denials and Proffered Permits send this form to:
Division Engineer, Commander, U.S. Army Engineer Division, South Atlantic, Attn: Mr. Mike Bell,
Administrative Appeal Officer, CESAD-ET-CO-R, 60 Forsyth Street, Room 9M15, Atlanta,
Georgia 30303-8801
A=COM
AECOM
7041 Old Wake Forest Road, Suite 103
Raleigh, NC 27616-3013
Telephone Call Summary
By:
Talked with
Steve Cibik
919.872.6600 tel
919.872.7996 fax
Date: January 4, 2010
Mr. Stephen Chapin Project number:
From (company): USACE Asheville Field Office Project name: SPC Cleveland Cou
Phone number: 828.271.7980, x224 Subject: 404 permitting for CCGF
Distribution: S. McMillan C. Wu
Mr. Chapin called to discuss materials emailed to him by AECOM on 12/21/09 regarding the
jurisdictional determination of Stream 4 and associated 404 permitting for proposed development
activities. The materials included a summary of our discussions to date, a description of conditions
on the ground in the headwaters of Stream 4, alternatives to cross the waterbody for access to the
site, and an overview of development activities and associated avoidance and minimization
measures.
The call focused on the lack of jurisdictional features (channel geometry, flow, etc.) in the
headwaters of Stream 4 below the existing farm pond. A drawing was provided with GPS locations
and photo views of the proposed crossing location that demonstrated the absence of such features.
A site-specific jurisdictional point was proposed at a point where channel geometry is evident and
groundwater flow begins. Mr. Chapin agreed to this jurisdictional point based on AECOM's
judgment of conditions at the site and the hydrologic modification of flow by the upstream farm
pond. A crossing employing fill and culverts to maintain hydrology can therefore be employed
without need for a 404 permit.
The discussion moved to the proposed subaqueous crossing of the natural gas supply line across
Stream 4. If the crossing falls within the jurisdictional part of the stream, the activity is covered
under Nationwide Permit No. 12 without need for pre-construction notification to the USACE. Mr.
Chapin provided confirmation by email on January 5t", stating that "The only reason we would need
an application for this project would be if you had a culverted road crossing (even temporary) or if
your pipeline was installed through forested wetlands. [It was subsequently confirmed by review of
the NC General WQ Certification for this NWP that notification to DWQ was also not required].
The discussed ended with a review of the avoidance measures for the other jurisdictional streams
and the construction of the transmission corridor. Construction crossings of Stream 1 will utilize
mats or temporary spans with no temporary culverts, further precluding the need for coverage
under a 404 permit. Mr. Chapin suggested that we provide the Division of Land Resources with
documentation of the communications with the Corps so that they are aware that discussions had
been held and that the project was covered by NWP 12 without agency notification.
A-9 - .
Signature
To enhance and sustain the world's built, natural and social environments
J:\Projects\S\Southern Power - 06204\Cleveland
County\Wetlands\404-401\PCN\PCN Attachments\Chapin Call
Summary 1-4-10.docx

Revised Wetland Delineation Report
Cleveland County, NC Site
ENSR Corporation
Revised February 2010
Document No.: 06204-017-201
ENSR rCOM
ENSR -COM
Contents
1.0 Introduction ............................................................................................................................................... 1-1
2.0 Methods ..................................................................................................................................................... 2-1
2.1 Wetlands ..........................................................................................................................................2-1
2.2 Waterbodies .................................................................................................................................... 2-1
3.0 Site Attributes ........................................................................................................................................... 3-1
4.0 Survey Results .......................................................................................................................................... 4-1
4.1 Wetland A ........................................................................................................................................ 4-1
4.2 Stream 1 .......................................................................................................................................... 4-1
4.3 Stream 2 .................................................................................... ...................................................... 4-1
4.4 Stream 3 .................................................................................... ...................................................... 4-1
4.5 Stream 4 .................................................................................... ...................................................... 4-3
4.6 Stream 5 .................................................................................... ...................................................... 4-3
4.7 Jurisdictional Determination ...................................................... ...................................................... 4-3
5.0 Threatened and Endangered Species ................................................................................................... 5-1
6.0 Summary ................................................................................................................................................... 6-1
List of Figures
Figure 1-1 Cleveland County Site Location Map ............................................................................................ 1-2
Figure 4-1 Location of Streams and Wetlands on Cleveland County Site .................................................... 4-2
Figure 4-2 Stream 5 Survey with Location of Jurisdictional Point ................................................................. 4-4
J:\Projects\S\Southern Power - 06204\Cleveland February 2010
County\Wetlands\Revised Wetland Report 2-10\Southern II
Wetland Report Revised 021610.docx
ENSR --COM
1.0 Introduction
ENSR performed a wetland and stream delineation in April 2006 at Southern Power Company's proposed
power generation facility site in Cleveland County south of Kings Mountain, North Carolina, to ascertain
whether jurisdictional wetlands or other waters of the United States are present on the property. The site is
located east of Interstate 85 near the North Carolina and South Carolina state line (Figure 1-1).
Subsequent to the delineation effort, a request for a Jurisdictional Determination (JD) was submitted on July
25, 2007 to the U.S. Army Corps of Engineers (USACE) Asheville Regulatory Field Office. Mr. Steve Chapin
from the USACE met with ENSR staff at the site on October 4, 2007 to discuss jurisdictional features for
Stream 5 at the site. A jurisdictional point in Stream 5 was established in the field and subsequently
surveyed. On January 4, 2010 a jurisdictional point for Stream 4 was also identified with concurrence from Mr.
Chapin. NCDWQ's Alan Johnson concurred with the jurisdictional point for Stream 4 on January 22, 2010 but
took jurisdiction of non-404 waters on Stream 5 as waters of the state.
This revised report summarizes the results of the wetland and stream delineations, the subsequent stream
bank survey, and the jurisdictional determinations for streams on the site.
JAProjects\S\Southern Power - 06204\Cleveland February 2010
County\Wetlands\Revised Wetland Report 2-10\Southern 1-1
Wetland Report Revised 021610.docx
ENSR -COM
2.0 Methods
ENSR initially visited the site on December 1, 2005 and returned on April 6 and 7, 2006 to identify wetlands or
waterbodies within the survey area. Specific methodologies employed in the field are described below.
2.1 Wetlands
The wetland determination followed the protocol outlined in the U.S. Army Corps of Engineers (USACE)
Wetland Delineation Manual (Environmental Laboratory 1987), which includes an assessment of vegetation,
soils, and hydrology.
Plant community types within the proposed study area were identified, and the wetland plant indicator status
for each plant species was recorded from the National List of Plants that Occur in Wetlands: Southeast
(Region 2). The wetland indicator status identifies the frequency with which each plant species is estimated to
be found within wetlands as opposed to uplands. Obligate Wetland (OBL) plants are those believed to be
found within wetlands more than 99 percent of the time. Facultative Wetland (FACW) plants are found in
wetlands from 67 to 99 percent of the time; Facultative (FAC) plants are found in wetlands 33 to 66 percent of
the time; Facultative Upland plants are found in wetlands from 1 to 33 percent of the time; and Obligate Upland
(UPL) plants are found in wetlands less than 1.0 percent of the time. The wetland indicator status is further
refined by a + meaning it is on the wetter end of the probability range, or by a - indicating it is found in wetlands
with a probability near the drier end of the defined range of the probabilities. If more than 50 percent of the
dominant species in a community are found to have a wetland indicator status of OBL, FACW, or FAC
(excluding FAC-), the vegetation is determined to be hydrophytic or wetland.
Soils were determined on-site with the use of a "sharpshooter" shovel, and by excavating test pits at certain
locations, and then were assessed as either hydric (wetland) or non-hydric per criteria outlined in the USACE
Manual. Hydrology was also assessed per protocol outlined in the USACE Manual. Areas within the site that
were found to contain hydrophytic vegetation, hydric soils, and exhibit wetland hydrology were determined to
be wetlands. As specified in the USACE Manual, any communities that lack one or more of these three
mandatory wetland parameters are determined to be non-wetland.
2.2 Waterbodies
The term "waters of the U.S.", as currently defined by USACE guidance, includes traditional navigable waters,
relatively permanent non-navigable tributaries, and adjacent wetlands.' Jurisdiction over non-navigable
tributaries that are not relatively permanent and their adjacent wetlands is at the discretion of the USACE
District Engineer.
Waterbodies are typically defined as any area that in a normal year has water flowing or standing above
ground to the extent that evidence of an ordinary high water mark is established. This includes lakes, rivers,
bays, tributaries, and anthropogenic features such as canals and ditches. The USACE defines the ordinary
high water mark as "a line on the shore coincident with the elevation contour that represents the approximate
location of the line on the shore established by fluctuations of water and indicated by physical characteristics
such as shelving, destruction of terrestrial vegetation, presence of litter or debris, or changes in the character
of soil".
' June 2007 Interagency Legal Memorandum discussing Clean Water Act Jurisdiction Following the U.S. Supreme Court
Decision in Rapanos v. United States & Carabell v. United States.
hftp://www.epa.gov/owow/wetlands/guidance/CWAwaters.html
JAProjects\S\Southern Power - 06204\Cleveland February 2010
County\Wetlands\Revised Wetland Report 2-10\Southern 2-1
Wetland Report Revised 021610.docx
ENSR -COM
Each waterbody located during the field survey was assessed based on generally accepted evaluation
protocols. The top of bank width, water depth, water width, substrate composition, bank height, bank slope,
and water clarity were estimated or characterized.
J:\Projects\S\Southern Power - 06204\Cleveland February 2010
County\Wetlands\Revised Wetland Report 2-10\Southern 2-2
Wetland Report Revised 021610.docx
ENSR -COM
3.0 Site Attributes
Topography - The topography at the site consists of rolling hills (see Figure 1-1). The site predominately
drains to the south into Ponders Branch. Elevations within the proposed site are between 680 and 860 feet
Mean Sea Level (MSL) based on the 7.5 Minute USGS Grover, North Carolina Quadrangle.
Hydrology - The site predominately drains to the south into Ponders Branch via three perennial streams,
based on the Grover Quadrangle. The easternmost portion of the site drains to the south via Mill Creek.
Wetland hydrology indicators observed on the proposed site during the delineations include: locally inundated,
saturated in upper 12 inches, sediment deposits, drainage patterns in wetlands, and water stained leaves.
Vegetation - The vegetation within the subject site could be generally classified into three community types
described below.
Planted Pine: The vegetation on the eastern section of the site consists of planted pine. The dominant tree
species in this area is loblolly pine (Pinus taeda). There is a sparse understory consisting of mostly blackberry
(Rubus sp.) and a few young hardwoods such as red maple (Acerrubrum) and sweet gum (Liquidambar
styraciflua).
Upland Mixed Pine/Hardwood Forest: This community exists on the majority of the site. It includes ridge tops
and side slopes above the lower elevations. The dominant trees in this community are Loblolly pine (Pinus
taeda), eastern white pine (Pinus strobus L.), white oak (Quercus albs), sweet gum (Liquidambar styraciflua),
eastern red cedar (Juniperus virginiana), bitter-nut hickory (Carya cordiformis), and tulip poplar (Liriodendron
tulipifera). Dominant herbaceous layers are running cedar (Lycopodium digitatum), poison ivy (Toxicodendron
radicans), Virginia creeper (Parthenocissus quinquefolia), and common greenbrier (Smilax rotundifolia).
Bottomland Hardwood: The dominant trees in the lower areas of the site along the streams are red maple,
sweet gum, tulip poplar, and sycamore (Plantanus occidentalis). The shrub layer is dominated by Chinese
privet (Ligustrum sinense) FAC, American holly (Ilex opaca) FAC-, tag alder (Alnus serrulata) FACW+,
blackberry (Rubus betulifolius) FAC, multiflora rose (Rosa multiflora), and red maple FAC+.
Soils - Per soil survey information for Cleveland County, North Carolina by the USDA Natural Resources
Conservation Service (NRCS), soils at the site are Chewacla loam, Grover gravelly sandy loam, Madison-
Bethlehem complex, Montonia very channery silt loam, Tatum-Montonia complex, Uwharrie silty clay loam,
and Uwharrie-Tatum complex.
The hilltops and slopes on the site are mapped as Madison-Bethlehem complex, 2 to 8 percent slopes, stony,
moderately eroded. The lower areas near the stream channels are mapped as Chewacla loam, 0 to 2 percent
slopes, occasionally flooded; Grover gravelly sandy loam, 15 to 30 percent slopes; Madison-Bethlehem
complex, 8 to 15 percent slopes, very stony, moderately eroded; and Tatum-Montonia complex, 2 to 8 percent
slopes.
JAProjects\S\Southern Power - 06204\Cleveland February 2010
County\Wetlands\Revised Wetland Report 2-10\Southern 3-1
Wetland Report Revised 021610.docx
ENSR -COM
4.0 Survey Results
One small wetland (Wetland A) and five stream channels were delineated within the proposed site boundary
(Figure 4-1). These features are described below. AppendixA includes the Wetland Data forms for the
wetland delineation.
4.1 Wetland A
Wetland A is a small (0.2 acres), low quality wetland area associated with Stream 3 containing palustrine
emergent (PEM) and palustrine scrub-shrub (PSS) components formed where the stream channel is braided
just downstream from the culvert outlet from 1-85. Dominant vegetation in the area consists of red maple
(FAC), tulip poplar (FAC), sweetshrub (FACU+), tag alder (FACW+), American holly (FAC-), highbush
blueberry (FACW), soft rush (FACW+), sensitive fern (FACW), and Southern lady fern (FAC) as well as
various grasses. Greater than 50 percent of the dominant species are classified as FAC or wetter; therefore,
the area contains hydrophytic vegetation. Hydrology indicators observed were: locally inundated, saturated in
upper 12", sediment deposits, drainage patterns in wetlands, and water-stained leaves.
Hydric soil profile is as follows
Depth Matrix Color Mottle Color Abundance/Contrast Texture
0-1 Organic
1-8 10YR4/1 None Sandy loam
8-18 10YR5/2 10YR5/3 Few/Prominent Silty clay
Hydric soil indicators observed on site were low chroma soil color and reducing conditions present.
4.2 Stream 1
Stream 1 is a perennial stream with moderate flow observed to the southeast into Ponders Branch. It has a
sand, gravel and cobble substrate with some bedrock exposed near the southern property boundary. It has a
top of bank width ranging from 10 to 12 feet, and bank height between 2.5 and 5 feet. The width at the
ordinary high water mark is between 5.5 and 7 feet with a water depth of 6 to 12 inches.
4.3 Stream 2
Stream 2 is an ephemeral channel that flows to the east into Stream 1. There was very little flow at the time of
the site visit despite heavy rains one to two days prior to the site visit. The channel is cut into a clay soil and
the substrate is mostly clay with small areas of bedrock exposed. There was leaf litter present in the channel
and no aquatic organisms were observed within or along the stream.
4.4 Stream 3
Stream 3 is a perennial stream with moderate flow to the southeast into Ponders Branch and flows parallel to
the east of Stream 1. It also has a sand, gravel and cobble substrate. It has a top of bank width between 7
and 10 feet and bank height between 1.5 and 3 feet. The width at the ordinary high water mark is between 4
and 6 feet with a water depth of 6 to 12 inches.
JAProjects\S\Southern Power - 06204\Cleveland February 2010
County\Wetlands\Revised Wetland Report 2-10\Southern 4-1
Wetland Report Revised 021610.docx
ENSR -COM
4.5 Stream 4
Stream 4 is a perennial stream that flows out of a pond (just off the property) to the south into Ponders Branch.
It has a moderate flow and a sand, gravel and cobble substrate. It has a top of bank width of approximately 9
feet and bank height of 7.5 feet. The width at the ordinary high water mark is 3.5 feet with a water depth of 6
to 12 inches.
4.6 Stream 5
Stream 5, which crosses the property between Streams 3 and 4, is perennial with well-defined geometry from
its confluence with Stream 1 to a point within the site where the stream becomes highly braided and the flow
more intermittent in nature. Up to this point, top of bank widths were between 6.9 and 22 feet and bank
heights were between 2 and 13 feet. The width at the ordinary high water mark is 3 to 4.5 feet with a water
depth of 6 to 12 inches. At the USACE's request, the transitional point between the perennial channel and
intermittent drainage was located by survey and the channel banks were surveyed within the site (Figure 4-2).
4.7 Streams 6 & 7
Streams 6 and 7 were delineated during a separate field effort conducted March 17 and 18, 2009 associated
with the transmission line ROW. The following is excerpted from the Cleveland County Interconnect Electrical
Interconnect Line Wetland Delineation Report prepared for Southern Power Company by AECOM in March
2009.
Stream 6 - "S1ACL004 - SlACL004 is a large high quality perennial stream in a forested area. It is a deeply
incised channel with steep banks and flows to the south across the proposed interconnect line ROW. Its
substrate consists of sand and gravel. The top of bank width at the proposed centerline is approximately 20
feet, and the water depth at the time of the survey was three to six inches."
Stream 7 - "S1ACL003 - SlACL003 is a small high quality stream with gravel and clay substrate. It is a
tributary of S1 ACL002. The water depth at the time of the survey was three to six inches, and the top of bank
width at the proposed centerline was approximately six feet."
4.8 Jurisdictional Determination
The USACE's Asheville Regulatory Office issued a JD for the site on September 4, 2007 indicating the
presence of waters of the U.S. on the site. During the October 4, 2007 site visit, Mr. Steve Chapin indicated
that Streams 1, 3 and 4 and the riparian wetland adjacent to Stream 3 were jurisdictional within the property
boundary and subject to §404 permitting should site development impact these features. Stream 2 was
deemed ephemeral and considered not-jurisdictional by the USACE.
Mr. Chapin indicated that Stream 5 was jurisdictional to the point established in the field and subsequently
surveyed. The segment of Stream 5 above that jurisdictional point was deemed to be non-404 waters.
NCDWQ subsequently took jurisdiction of the Stream 5 intermittent waters above the USACE jurisdictional
point to the property fence line. Concurrence was reached with the USACE and NCDWQ for the jurisdictional
point on Stream 4 as shown in Figure 4-1.
JAProjects\S\Southern Power - 06204\Cleveland February 2010
County\Wetlands\Revised Wetland Report 2-10\Southern 4-3
Wetland Report Revised 021610.docx

BANKS
D
NIT
mo KATYH MULL
CALLAHAN

SITE
IRAN 0
q RO PIN 4 10584

DB 1175 PG 24
ZONED = LIGHT
?L. Y 0
U CR`0 INDUSTRIAL

VICINITY MAP ( NOT TO SCALE)
N
E
R
MI t
I
C
O
G
GE
CHAEL CALLAHAN & Y
KATYH M. CALLAHAN
/ PIN 9 54552 -
DB 1198 PG 686
ZONED w LIGHT INDUSTRIAL
NF p
HENDERSON AMUSEMENT
PIN I N X # 7276 2785
DS 1308 PG 2,312
ZONED= LI GH7 INDUSTRIAL
777,38
776
38
.
f
776.46
776.76 kj 776.01
76.45 775 8/
7
*
*
-,775.78
776.75
k
775.79 ?.; , 774.80
775.25 ,
77178 773.78
I I
(}9 Y 771.09
771
.
ra
769.141E769.19
767.12 767.12
Y
766.46V A 765.71

764.57 9 6A 764.57
1 1
I ,
N!F 763.504 a 762.85
CLEVELAND COUNTY KINGS MOUNTAIN LLC IL
C/O THOMAS ANDERSON, GENERAL I
DEVELOPMENT MANAGER
R I 10 10508 761,1
760.88
D6 1465 PG 312

ZONED LIGHT INDUSTRIAL
= } Y
}I !k 7150 . 68
761
18' ;
.
15 759.49
759
79
ENSR Note: 4
.
Jurisdictional Point 757. « 757.66 I
N= 525299.69' E= 1277633.03' `
Persite visit 1014107 756.48 r > 756
48
.
? I
755,02Ai
755
02
.
753.91
n ' 8753.90
i % CONTROL PONT /'1
r {
751,10 0
•)K 751.64 .
,
750
8 I14A VEPSC NAIL SC r)
M=525,935.47'
9.47•
[.
7
.4
x
CONTROL PONT ,#I --
6
fLEELEY=79.25'
X749.38 (7RAV[R8y
74915 NAIL --R-T)
? rl=szsoso.ss' ?
747.74„r LFV 749.17 ? ELEV=??177z..50'
o sa ,90 200 747.29
I ?
SCALE.: 1'= 100'
i !
744.97 r!
744.s,
1. JAMES E. SAFRIT, HERESY CERTIFY THAT THIS MAP WAS DRAWN UNDER 744.451 1743 . 90
MY SUPERVISION N FROM AN ACTUAL SURVEY MACIE UNDER MY DASHED 744._55 9 >
THAT THE BORN DARIEg NOT SURVEYED ARE CLEARLY INDICATED €D AS AS DASHED ;44,19 \
LINES, DRAWN FROM INFORMATION REFERENCED FROM THE CLEVELAND 744.05'0 \\
COUNTY GIS WEB$ITE; THAT THE RATIO OF PRECISION AS CALCULATED 7?• 744.10 •,}p
.74
EMCEEDS 1:10,000; THAT THIS SURVEY IS OF A NATURAL FEATURE, SUCH AS A 741
741-W, 42.85
WATERCOURSE; THAT THIS MAP WAS PREPARED IN ACCORDANCE WITH G.S. 7µ).g4?"???+[??it ?L 741 S4 LOCATION & TI
47.30 A$ AMENDED; WITNESS MY ORIGINAL SIGNATURE REGISTRATION " ?l[»'
NUMBER AND SEAL THIS 23rd DAY OF OCTOBER, 2007 A.D. 74128 741.86 BANKS ROAD Cr
741.13 for EN
740.92
NIF
TRANSCONTINENTAL GAS
PIN # 13756
D6 7,1 PG 523
ZONED = LIGHT INDUSTRIAL
ENSR -COM
5.0 Threatened and Endangered Species
A search of the North Carolina Natural Heritage Program database was conducted on March 24, 2006. This
database lists rare plant and animal species known to occur by USGS quadrangle. The Grover Quadrangle
has only one species listed, the dwarf-flowered heartleaf (Hexastylis naniflora), which is listed as State and
Federally Threatened. This plant is generally found in rich deciduous forests, bluffs and ravines. According to
the US Fish and Wildlife Service, soil type is the most important habitat requirement. The preferred soil types
are Pacolet, Madison, and Musella.2
Much of the upland areas of the site are mapped by the NRCS as Madison-Bethlehem complex, and as such
could provide habitat for the dwarf-flowered heartleaf. However, most of the site is forested with mixed pine
and hardwood, and the plant is generally found in deciduous forests.
Due to the possibility of its occurrence on the site, several transects parallel to the streams were walked near
the banks and along the upland areas within the Madison soils across the site to look for dwarf-flowered
heartleaf. No occurrences were discovered.
2 http://nc-es.fws.gov/plant/dfheart.html
J:\Projects\S\Southern Power - 06204\Cleveland February 2010
County\Wetlands\Revised Wetland Report 2-10\Southern J-
Wetland Report Revised 021610.docx
ENSR -COM
6.0 Summary
One riparian wetland area was located adjacent to Stream 3 on the northern portion of the property near
Interstate 85. This area demonstrated positive indicators of the three parameters that are required for it to be
considered federal jurisdictional wetland (hydric soils, hydrophytic vegetation, and wetland hydrology).
Five streams were located on the property during the delineation. Streams 1, 3, and 4 are perennial and
confirmed jurisdictional by the USACE. Stream 2 is ephemeral and was considered not-jurisdictional by the
USACE. Stream 5 had characteristics of an intermittent stream near the northern property boundary and a
perennial stream near its confluence with Stream 1. The USACE determined that the southern portion of
Stream 5 is jurisdictional and the northern portion upstream of a jurisdictional point surveyed in the field and
depicted in Figure 4-1 is non-jurisdictional. NCDWQ subsequently took jurisdiction of the remainder of Stream
5 on the site as waters of the state. On January 4, 2010 the USACE and NCDWQ concurred that a section of
Stream 4 above the jurisdictional point depicted in Figure 4-1 is non-jurisdictional.
Stream 6 on the western portion of the property, and Stream 7, a tributary of Stream 1, were located during the
delineation for the transmission line in March 2009 (refer to the Cleveland County Interconnect Electrical
Interconnect Line Wetland Delineation Report prepared for Southern Power Company by AECOM in March
2009).
No Threatened or Endangered species were encountered during the initial site visit. Since the Natural
Heritage database lists one Threatened species (dwarf-flowered heartleaf) for the Grover Quadrangle, and the
NRCS soils map indicates the presence of suitable soil types, a survey for this species was performed. No
evidence of this listed species was identified during the survey.
JAProjects\S\Southern Power - 06204\Cleveland February 2010
County\Wetlands\Revised Wetland Report 2-10\Southern 6-1
Wetland Report Revised 021610.docx
ENSR -COM
Appendix A
Wetland Data Forms
J:\Projects\S\Southern Power - 06204\Cleveland February 2010
County\Wetlands\Revised Wetland Report 2-10\Southern
Wetland Report Revised 021610.docx
DATA FORM
ROUTINE WETLAND DETERMINATION
(1987 COE Wetlands Determination Manual)
Project/ Site: Date: Y
Applicant I Owner: County:
Investigator: a ?! t t?? State:

Do normal circumstances exist on the site? Yes_X_ No Community 1D:
Is the site significantly disturbed (Atypical situation)? Yes No Transect ID:
Is the area a potential problem area? Yes Nom Plot ID:
(explain on reverse if needed) VVId-61A 64
VEGETATION
Dominant Plant Species Stratum Indicator Dominant Plant Species Stratum Indicator

1. d`

rd r4 (

9-AAa v r
?- ?-
_

4. ?' ?_ 12.
5. Ge? - 13.
6. C T3°? tJ?s°1 1d 14.
7.Lac, , S ?.f 15.
16.
Percent of Dominant Species that are OBL, FACW, or FAC excluding FAG). -7/q 7$
Remarks:
?f
HYDROLOGY
Recorded Data (Describe In Remarks): Wetland Hydrology Indicators
Stream, Lake, or Tide Gauge
Aerial Photographs Prima Indicators:
Other Inundated
Saturated in Upper 12"
No Recorded Data Available Water Marks
Drift Lines
Field Observations: Sediment Deposits
Drainage Patterns in Wetlands
]
Depth of Surface Water: iP (ie•) Secondary Indicators:

Depth to Free Water in Pit: Oxidized Roots Channels in Upper 12"
Water-Stained Leaves
Local Soil Survey Data
Depth to Saturated Soil: (in.) FAC-Neutral Test
-to cy Other (Explain in Remarks)
Remarks:

SOILS
Map Unit Name j?
(Series and Phase): "?Awl ?4_11 p "rainage Class: w-e ?e
Taxonomy (Subgroup): Ii S Confirm Mapped Type? Yes_ No_.__
Profile Description:
Depth Matrix Colors Mottle Colors Mottle Texture, Concretions,
(inches) Horizon (Munsell Moist) (Munsell Moist) Abundance/Contrast Structure, etc.
f___......_... 16 V12- 1. j ?l?ty
16 q2- 16 Y-p- lerefilozmi 8
Hydric Soil Indicators:
Histosol Concretions
Histic Epipedon High Organic Content in Surface Layer in Sandy Soils
Sulfidic Odor Organic Streaking in Sandy Soils
Aquic Moisture Regime Listed On Local Hydric Soils List
Reducing Conditions __Listed on National Hydric Soils List
Gleyed or Low-Chroma Colors Other (Explain in Remarks)
Remarks:
r'C?
WETLAND DETERMINATION
Hydrophytic Vegetation Present? Yes _,?C No
Wetland Hydrology Present? Yes No
Hydric Soils Present? Yes _?K No
Remarks:
16W 4v r
0 L5c w
o ?S
Is the Sampling Point
Within a Wetland? Yes X No

DATA FORM
ROUTINE WETLAND DETERMINATION
(1987 COE Wetlands Determination Manual)
Project I Site: ?-4' eaAzl 'o Date:
Applicant I Owner:
Investigator: County:
State:, ale

Do normal circumstances exist on the site? Yes X No Community ID:
Is the site significantly disturbed (Atypical situation)? Yes No
Is the area a potential problem area? Yes No
(explain on reverse if needed) Transect ID:
Plot ID:
iL Ind
VEGETATION
Dominant Plant Species Stratum Indicator Dominant Plant Species Stratum Indicator

_ 9. &1:5fMt'L'
2. r T
71- 10.
11.
12.
I f? 13.
6, 14.
7.
8. (-t-' 1 ! e 3 yr
`T_ 16.
16.
Percent of Dominant Species that are OBL, FACW, or FAC excluding FAC-).
Remarks:

HYDROLOGY
Recorded Data (Describe In Remarks): Wetland Hydrology Indicators
Stream, Lake, or Tide Gauge
Aerial Photographs Primary Indicators:
Other Inundated
Saturated in Lipper 12"
` No Recorded Data Available Water Marks
Drift Lines
Field Observations: Sediment Deposits
Drainage Patterns in Wetlands
Depth of Surface Water: (in.) Secondary Indicators:
Oxidized Roots Channels in Upper 12"
Depth to Free Water in Pit: (in.) Water-Stained Leaves
Local Soil Survey Data
Depth to Saturated Soil: _ (in.) FAC-Neutral Test
_ Other (Explain in Remarks)
Remarks:
PC AJ, dj".4 lo a&i it-)i d,' !C P Y-t" 7
SOILS
Map Unit Name
(
Series and Phase): 6-rower Cm-ivie j
-et )to?y
fit, `&kinage Class: 1t - #
r
Taxonomy (Subgroup): GC 1 fi S Confirm Mapped Type? Yes No
Profile Description:
Depth Matrix Colors Mottle Colors Mottle Texture, Concretions,
(inches) Horizon (Munsell Moist) (Mansell Moist Abundance/Contrast Structure etc.
0_1 L_ ?Y ?2 I

-7" S?Y .. w/0 no $4e 6141
Hydric Soil Indicators:
Histosol Concretions
Histic Epipedon High Organic Content in Surface Layer in Sandy Soils
- Sulfidic Odor Organic Streaking in Sandy Soils
-._ Aguic Moisture Regime Listed On Local Hydric Soils List
-Reducing Conditions Listed on National Hydric Soils List
. Gleyed or Low-Chroma Colors Other (Explain in Remarks)
Remarks:
t j
WETLAND DETERMINATION
Hydrophytic Vegetation Present? Yes
Wetland Hydrology Present? Yes
Hydric Soils Present? Yes
No Is the Sampling Point
No Within a Wetland? Yes
No
No k-
Remarks:

Prepared for:
Southern Company Services
Birmingham, Alabama
Cleveland County Interconnect
Electrical Interconnect Line
Wetland Delineation Report
AECOM, Inc.
March 2009
Document No.: 06204-045-0002
AECOM
AECOM Environment
Contents
1.0 Introduction ............................................................................................................................................ 1-1
1.1 Purpose of Report ............................................................................................................................ 1-1
1.2 Regulations and Definitions ............................................................................................................. 1-1
1.2.1 Wetlands ............................................................................................................................ 1-1
1.2.2 Waterbodies ....................................................................................................................... 1-2
2.0 Survey Methods ..................................................................................................................................... 2-1
2.1 Desktop Analysis ............................................................................................................................. 2-1
2.2 Field Survey ..................................................................................................................................... 2-1
2.2.1 Wetlands ............................................................................................................................ 2-1
2.2.2 Waterbodies .......................................................................................................................2-2
2.2.3 Threatened and Endangered Species .............................................................................. 2-3
3.0 Results .....................................................................................................................................................3-1
3.1 Wetlands .......................................................................................................................................... 3-1
3.2 Waterbodies .....................................................................................................................................3-1
3.3 General Habitats .............................................................................................................................. 3-2
3.4 Threatened and Endangered Species ............................................................................................ 3-3
3.5 Man-Made Features ........................................................................................................................ 3-3
4.0 Summary .................................................................................................................................................4-1
5.0 References ..............................................................................................................................................5-1
List of Appendices
Appendix A Datasheets
Appendix B Photographs
J:\Projects\S\Southern Power -06204\Cleveland I March 2009
County\Transmission Line\Wetland Report\Wetland Report -
Cleveland Cc Trans (2).doc
AECOM Environment
List of Tables
Table 1 Threatened and Endangered Species Potentially Occurring in the Proposed ROW
Table 2 Wetlands Identified During Field Surveys
Table 3 Waterbodies Identified During Field Surveys
List of Figures
Figure 1 Wetland Delineation Overview
Figures 2 - 5 Wetland Delineation Details
J:\Projects\S\Southern Power- 06204\Cleveland II March 2009
County\Transmission Line\Wetland Report\Wetland Report -
Cleveland Cc Trans (2).doc
AECOM Environment
1.0 Introduction
Southern Company Services (Southern) is planning to build and operate a power generation facility in
Cleveland County, North Carolina north of the South Carolina border and south of Interstate 85. A 230kV
aerial interconnect line will be necessary to connect this facility to the power grid. The proposed route is
approximately 2.0 miles (3.2 km) beginning at the proposed power station in Cleveland County, North Carolina
and ending at an existing Duke Energy Company substation in Cherokee County, South Carolina (Figure 1).
AECOM Environment performed environmental field surveys related to natural resources (i.e., wetlands,
waterbodies, and threatened and endangered species) in the vicinity of the project.
1.1 Purpose of Report
Environmental field surveys were conducted March 17 and 18, 2009 to identify and assess natural resources
within the vicinity of the proposed interconnect line. Surveys were conducted within a 125 foot wide survey
corridor along the length of the proposed interconnect line.
Specific tasks undertaken during environmental field surveys related to natural resources (i.e., wetlands,
waterbodies, and threatened and endangered species) in the vicinity of the Project included:
1. Survey for potential wetlands and classification of wetland types;
2. Survey for waterbodies to identify and characterize existing resources;
3. Habitat characterization of federal and state listed species; and
4. Identification of other sensitive features, including unique natural features (e.g. springs, bluffs,
etc.) and wildlife within and adjacent to the project.
This report was prepared for the benefit of federal, state, and local agencies for review and includes the
regulations and definitions under which the field surveys were conducted, survey methodologies utilized, and
results of field surveys conducted in support of the project.
Previous natural resource field surveys were performed by AECOM Environment for the power generation
facility site which were documented in the Revised Wetland Delineation Report Cleveland County, NC Site,
dated November 2007. An approved jurisdictional determination was received from the Asheville Regulatory
Office of the U.S. Army Corps of Engineers (USACE) in September 2007 (file number 2007-2437).
1.2 Regulations and Definitions
Wetland and waterbody surveys were conducted in accordance with the 1987 USACE Wetland Delineation
Manual (Environmental Laboratory, 1987). During this field survey effort, general habitat surveys were
conducted for federal and state rare, threatened, and endangered species known to occur in Cleveland
County, North Carolina and Cherokee County, South Carolina. Specific surveys were not conducted for the
presence of wildlife species listed in the Endangered Species Act of 1973. Regulations and definitions
pertinent to the project are summarized below.
1.2.1 Wetlands
Wetland is the collective term for swamps, bogs, marshes, wet meadows, and similar areas that are often
located between open water and dry land. The USACE claims jurisdiction over all defined "Waters of the
United States". Certain activities in these waters are regulated by the USACE under the authorities granted by
J:\Projects\S\Southern Power - 06204\Cleveland 1-1 March 2009
County\Transmission Line\Wetland Report\Wetland Report -
Cleveland Cc Trans (2).doc
AECOM Environment
33 Code of Federal Regulations (CFR), 40 CFR, Section 10 of the Rivers and Harbors Act of 1899, Section
404 of the Clean Water Act (CWA), and Section 103 of the Marine Protection Research and Sanctuaries Act of
1972 (USACE, 2006).
The USACE and the Environmental Protection Agency (EPA) define a wetland as "an area that is inundated or
saturated by surface or groundwater at a frequency and duration to support, and that under normal
circumstances does support, a prevalence of vegetation typically adapted for life in saturated soil conditions,
commonly known as hydrophytic vegetation." This definition takes into consideration three distinct
environmental parameters: hydrology, soil, and vegetation. Positive wetland indicators of all three parameters
are normally present in wetlands.
1.2.2 Waterbodies
Waterbodies are typically defined as any area that in a normal year has water flowing or standing above
ground to the extent that evidence of an ordinary high water mark (OHMW) is established. This includes lakes,
rivers, bays, tributaries, and anthropogenic features such as canals and ditches. The USACE defines the
OHWM as "line on the shore coincident with the elevation contour that represents the approximate location of
the line on the shore established by fluctuations of water and indicated by physical characteristics such as
shelving, destruction of terrestrial vegetation, presence of litter or debris, or changes in the character of soil".
The USACE jurisdictional term "Waters of the United States" includes navigable waters and all their tributaries
and other waters where degradation or destruction could affect interstate or foreign commerce. Under this
definition, any surface water connection that has a defined OHWM or is part of a continuum of wetlands,
whether natural or man-made, is considered a tributary connection. Ditches and canals with weirs, culverts,
or other water control structures including pumping facilities are also considered to have tributary
connection, provided there is some conveyance of water from upstream to downstream. The USACE claims
jurisdiction on ditches or canals that fall under this definition at the OHWM. Exclusions from this rule
generally include upland cut ditches and ditches that do not connect to navigable waters or wetlands.
J:\Projects\S\Southern Power - 06204\Cleveland 1-2 March 2009
County\Transmission Line\Wetland Report\Wetland Report -
Cleveland Cc Trans (2).doc
AECOM Environment
2.0 Survey Methods
The following sections describe background information utilized and methods implemented by AECOM
Environment ecologists while conducting field surveys. The project area was evaluated to identify wetlands or
waterbodies and to determine the probable USACE jurisdictional status of these features.
2.1 Desktop Analysis
Prior to conducting and in preparation for the field survey, AECOM Environment ecologists conducted a
desktop review of the following material:
• United States Geological Survey (USGS) 7.5-minute Topographic Quadrangle Maps;
• U.S. Fish and Wildlife Service (USFWS) National Wetlands Inventory (NWI) Maps;
• Proposed interconnect line route;
• USFWS lists of threatened and endangered species;
• National Historic Register Information Database;
• North Carolina Natural Heritage Program Element Occurrence Database; and
• South Carolina Department of Natural Resources Rare, Threatened, & Endangered Species Inventory
by County.
These analyses assisted in the planning and execution of field surveys and determination of the potential
jurisdictional status of any wetlands and waterbodies.
2.2 Field Survey
Surveys were conducted along the interconnect line corridor within the proposed 125 foot wide right of way
(ROW). Surveys were also conducted 25 feet from the center on each side of the proposed access road.
Figure 1 depicts the proposed interconnect line route and the proposed access road.
2.2.1 Wetlands
The protocol for the wetland surveys was obtained from the 1987 USACE Wetland Delineation Manual
(Environmental Laboratory, 1987). These methods define characteristic hydrophytic vegetation, hydric soil,
and hydrologic indicators that are normally present in wetlands.
USACE Methodology
According to the 1987 USACE Wetland Delineation Manual, areas must exhibit three distinct characteristics to
be considered wetlands:
• The prevalent vegetation must consist of plants adapted to life in hydric soil conditions. These species,
due to morphological, physiological, and/or reproductive adaptations, can and do persist in anaerobic
soil conditions;
• Soils in wetlands must be classified as hydric or they must possess characteristics that are associated
with reducing soil conditions; and
J:\Projects\S\Southern Power -06204\Cleveland 2-1 March 2009
County\Transmission Line\Wetland Report\Wetland Report -
Cleveland Cc Trans (2).doc
AECOM Environment
• The area must be inundated either permanently or periodically at mean water depths less than 6.6
feet (2 meters) or the soil saturated at the surface at some time during the growing season of the
prevalent vegetation.
Vegetation, soils, and hydrology were assessed during field surveys in order to determine whether the three
criteria were satisfied within each potential wetland area.
In addition, the wetlands were further characterized based on primary vegetative stratum (Cowardin et al,
1979). The wetland classifications common in Cleveland County, NC and Cherokee County, SC include the
following:
• Palustrine Emergent Wetlands (PEM): Freshwater wetlands dominated by erect, herbaceous
vegetation (e.g., grasslands or stands of reedy growth) are classified as PEM wetlands. They
generally have less than 20% coverage by shrubs or trees;
• Palustrine Scrub-Shrub Wetlands (PSS): When freshwater wetlands are dominated by woody
vegetation less than 20 feet tall, they are classified as PSS wetlands. They generally have greater
than 60% coverage by shrubs and less than 20% coverage by trees; and
• Palustrine Forested Wetlands (PFO): When freshwater wetlands are dominated (i.e., greater than
50% coverage) by trees 20 feet or taller, they are classified as PFO wetlands. PFO wetlands often
consist of an overstory dominated by deciduous, broad-leaved tree species and an assortment of
herbaceous plants and vines in the subcanopy and ground cover.
2.2.2 Waterbodies
Waterbodies include linear water features (i.e., streams and ditches) as well as open water features. Open
waterbody features are classified as ponds, lakes, or borrow pits. Applicable data were gathered for each
waterbody feature including location, visual appearance of water quality, crossing width between the tops of
banks, and water width at the time of the field survey.
2.2.2.1 Waterbody Quantitative Assessment
The location and area of waterbodies within the project area were determined during field surveys, in
accordance with generally accepted stream assessment protocols. At each waterbody, the waterbody top of
bank width was estimated to provide a general perpendicular measurement. At each waterbody location,
water depth, water width, substrate composition, bank height, bank slope, and water clarity were estimated.
Data were recorded electronically using GPS technology and manually on standardized field datasheets
(included in Appendix A of this report) for each waterbody identified during the field surveys field logbooks, and
aerial alignment sheet mapping. Photographs of each waterbody identified during the field surveys are
included in Appendix B of this report.
2.2.2.2 Waterbody Qualitative Assessment
A general waterbody quality assessment was designated for each waterbody identified within the survey
corridor. Each waterbody was grouped into one of the following three classification groups, based on generally
accepted stream assessment protocols:
High Quality: Natural channel (no structures or dikes; no evidence of down-cutting or excessive
lateral cutting); evidence of past channel alteration with significant recovery; any dikes/levies are set
back to provide access to adequate flood plain; natural vegetation extends at least one or two active
channel widths on each side; banks stable and protected by roots that extend to the base-flow
elevation; water clear to tea-colored; no barriers to fish movement (e.g., no seasonal water
withdrawals that prevent movement); many fish cover types available; diverse and stable aquatic
habitat; no disturbance by livestock or man; intolerant macroinvertebrates present;
J:\Projects\S\Southern Power -06204\Cleveland 2-2 March 2009
County\Transmission Line\Wetland Report\Wetland Report -
Cleveland Cc Trans (2).doc
AECOM Environment
Moderate Quality: Altered channel evidenced by rip rap and/or channelization; dikes/levees restrict
flood plain width; natural vegetation extends 1/3-1/2 of the active channel width on each side; filtering
function of riparian vegetation only moderately compromised; banks moderately unstable (outside
bends actively eroding with few fallen trees); considerable water cloudiness, submerged objects
covered with green film; moderate odor; minor barriers to fish movement; fair aquatic habitat; minimum
disturbance by livestock or man; facultative macroinvertebrates present; and
Low Quality: Channel is actively down-cutting or widening; rip rap and channelization excessive;
flood plain restricted by dikes/levees; natural vegetation less than 1/3 of the active channel width on
each side; lack of regeneration; filtering function severely compromised; Banks unstable (inside and
outside bends actively eroding with numerous fallen trees); water very turbid to muddy; obvious
pollutants (algal mats, surface scum, surface sheen); heavy odor; green color to water; severe barriers
to fish movement; little to no aquatic habitat; severe disturbance by livestock or man; tolerant or no
macroinvertebrates present.
Stream types were further classified based on the frequency and duration of water within the stream banks as
defined in the National Hydrographic Dataset (USGS, 2000). The following three stream type classifications
were utilized:
• Perennial: Contains water throughout the year, except for infrequent periods of severe drought;
• Intermittent: Contains water for only part of the year, but more than just after rainstorms and at
snowmelt; and
Ephemeral: Normally are natural watercourses, including natural watercourses that have been
modified by channelization or manmade drainage ditches, that without the influent of point source
discharges flow only in direct response to precipitation or irrigation return-water discharge in the
immediate vicinity and whose channels are normally above the groundwater table. These streams
may contain a transient population of aquatic life during the portion of the year when there is suitable
habitat for fish survival. Normally, aquatic habitat in these streams is not adequate to support a
reproductive cycle for fish and other aquatic life.
In addition to the above terminology, this report also includes terminology based on the USACE's new
Jurisdictional Determination (JD) forms and associated instructional guidebook, as follows: Traditional
Navigable Waterway (TNW), Relatively Permanent Waterway (RPW) for intermittent and perennial streams;
and, Non-Relatively Permanent Waterway (Non-RPW) for ephemeral streams.
2.2.3 Protected Species
AECOM Environment compiled a list of federal and state listed species (threatened/endangered species,
candidate species and critical habitat) potentially occurring in Cleveland County, NC and Cherokee County,
SC from available databases (see Table 1).
Field surveys consisted of pedestrian surveys conducted within the proposed interconnect line ROW (Figures
2 through 5). General habitats were characterized within the survey area during pedestrian surveys. These
habitats were compared to the preferred habitat for each identified species to determine the likelihood of these
species occurring within the project location.
2.2.3.1 Federally Listed Threatened and Endangered Species, Candidate Species, and Critical
Habitat
Federally listed threatened and endangered species and critical habitat are protected by the Endangered
Species Act (ESA) of 1973 and subsequent amendments. The ESA is administered by two federal agencies,
the USFWS and NOAA Fisheries. NOAA Fisheries oversees marine species, and the USFWS has
responsibility over freshwater fish and all other species.
J:\Projects\S\Southern Power -06204\Cleveland 2-3 March 2009
County\Transmission Line\Wetland Report\Wetland Report -
Cleveland Cc Trans (2).doc
AECOM Environment
2.2.3.2 State Listed Imperiled Species and Species of Concern
The North Carolina Wildlife Resources Commission has regulatory responsibility for listing and protecting
North Carolina's endangered and threatened animals under the State Endangered Species Act (G.S. 113-331
to 113-337). The Act prohibits the taking, transportation, sale, etc. of endangered and threatened species,
except as permitted, and provides for official listing and recovery of these species.
The South Carolina Department of Natural Resources maintains an inventory of the Rare, Threatened, and
Endangered Species in the state in accordance with the Nongame and Endangered Species Conservation Act
(S.C. Code 50-15-10 to 50-15-90).
A list of protected species, including many Federal Species of Concern (SC) and State Special Concern
Species (SC), was obtained from the North Carolina Natural Heritage Program and the South Carolina
Department of Natural Resources. Note that SC status does not carry any procedural or substantive
protection under the ESA.
J:\Projects\S\Southern Power -06204\Cleveland 2-4 March 2009
County\Transmission Line\Wetland Report\Wetland Report -
Cleveland Cc Trans (2).doc
AECOM Environment
3.0 Results
The following sections summarize the results of the field surveys conducted by AECOM Environment
ecologists for the interconnect line corridor. Results include information regarding wetlands and waterbodies
identified within the areas surveyed. Figures 2 through 6 depict the locations of each of the identified features.
3.1 Wetlands
Two wetlands were identified during the field surveys. Table 2 and the paragraphs below provide a summary
of the characteristics of the identified wetlands. W 1 ACH001 is depicted on Figure 4 and W 1 ACH002 is on
Figure 5. Wetland field datasheets are included in Appendix A and photographs are provided in Appendix B.
Wi ACH001 - W 1ACH001 is a small (0.27 acres within the 125 ft wide survey corridor), moderate quality,
PEM wetland. It crosses the existing transmission line ROW. Dominant vegetation consists of soft rush
(Juncus effuses), bushy bluestem (Andropogon glomeratus), and cattail (Typha latifolia).
W1 ACH002 - W lACH002 is a large (0.64 acres within the 125 ft wide survey corridor), moderate quality, PSS
wetland. Water enters this wetland from a culvert under a dirt road at the northeastern corner; however, there
is not a defined channel within the wetland. Some beaver activity was noted during the survey. The dominant
vegetation within the shrub layer is black willow (Salix nigra); and soft rush (Juncus effuses), bushy bluestem
(Andropogon glomeratus), and cattail (Typha latifolia) are dominant in the herb layer.
3.2 Waterbodies
Table 3 is a summary of the waterbodies identified during the field surveys along the interconnect line route
and along the proposed access road route. Figures 2 through 5 show the location of each identified
waterbody, field datasheets are included in Appendix A, and photographs are provided in Appendix B.
Four perennial (RPW) streams, one ephemeral (non-RPW) stream and one ephemeral roadside ditch were
identified along the proposed interconnect line corridor. Two intermittent (RPW) streams were identified along
the access roads.
Interconnect Line Corridor
S1ACL001 - S-IACL001 is a high to moderate quality perennial stream in a forested area with a gravel
substrate. It has a clear OHWM and the water depth at the time of the survey was three to six inches. The top
of bank width at the proposed crossing location is approximately nine feet, and the bank height is four to six
feet.
S1ACL002 - S1ACL002 is a high quality perennial stream in a forested area with a sand and gravel substrate
with some areas of bedrock. It runs from west to east and follows the proposed powerline for approximately
1,000 feet. The water depth at the time of the survey was 12 to 18 inches, and the top of bank width at a
representative location is approximately 12 feet.
S1ACL003 - S-IACL003 is a small high quality stream with gravel and clay substrate. It is a tributary of
S1 ACL002. The water depth at the time of the survey was three to six inches, and the top of bank width at the
proposed centerline was approximately six feet.
S1ACL004- S-IACL004 is a large high quality perennial stream in a forested area. It is a deeply incised
channel with steep banks and flows to the south across the proposed interconnect line ROW. Its substrate
J:\Projects\S\Southern Power -06204\Cleveland 3-1 March 2009
County\Transmission Line\Wetland Report\Wetland Report -
Cleveland Cc Trans (2).doc
AECOM Environment
consists of sand and gravel. The top of bank width at the proposed centerline is approximately 20 feet, and
the water depth at the time of the survey was three to six inches.
S1ACL005- S1ACL005 is an erosional feature that flows through a mixed pine and hardwood forested area
It does not have a continuous bed and bank and it did not have any flow at the time of the survey. The top of
bank width at the proposed centerline is approximately four feet, and the substrate consists entirely of clay.
S1ACL001 - S1ACL001 is a high gradient roadside ditch that appears to flow only in response to rainfall
events. The substrate is sand and gravel with extensive areas of rip-rap. There was no water in the channel
at the time of the survey. It flows from north to south along a gravel road into a stormwater feature at the
bottom of the hill outside of the survey corridor.
Access Road
SARIACL006 - SARIACL006 is a moderate quality intermittent stream that flows to the south in a forested
area. It is an upstream section of S1 ACL001 and has previously been considered non-jurisdictional by the
USACE at this point.
SARIACL007 - SARIACL007 is a moderate quality intermittent stream that flows to the south across an
existing farm road. There are two existing approximately one foot diameter culverts to convey water under the
road. The top of bank width is approximately six feet and the water depth at the time of the survey was three
to six inches. The substrate consists of gravel and organic material.
3.3 General Habitats
Vegetative habitats are classified by the presence of the dominant vegetation species. Defining habitats is
necessary in order to assess the potential presence of wildlife, threatened and endangered species and
communities, and other ecologically sensitive areas. The subject property is located near the western edge of
the Piedmont physiographic province. Five main habitat types were observed during the field survey: planted
pine, mixed pine and hardwood, piedmont oak-hickory forest, bottomland hardwood forest, and
commercial/industrial land (active quarry).
Planted pine generally consisted of loblolly pine (Pinus taeda) and Virginia pine (Pinus virginiana) in the
overstory without much of an understory or herb layer, although blackberries (Rubus spp.) and running cedar
(Lycopodium digitatum) were common. This habitat type occurs over approximately 5 percent of the
interconnect line survey corridor.
Mixed pine and hardwood forest is relatively mature, evergreen-dominated, second-growth forest with a
defined canopy, mid-story and herbaceous understory. Dominant trees included pines (Pinus virginiana and
Pinus taeda), tulip poplar (Liriodendron tulipifera), beech (Fagus grandifolia), and red maple (Acer rubrum).
greenbriar (Smilaxspp.), poison ivy (Toxicodendron radicans), and blackberries (Rubus spp.) were common in
the understory and herbaceous layer. This habitat type occurs over approximately 25 percent of the
interconnect line survey area.
Piedmont oak-hickory forest is the typical upland climax forest type in the Piedmont. Dominant trees included
oak (Quercus spp.), hickory (Carya spp.), tulip poplar (Liriodendron tulipifera), and beech (Fagus grandifolia).
Common understory species include sourwood (Oxydendrum arborium), dogwood (Corpus florida), blackgum
(Nyssa sylvatica), red maple (Acer rubrum), and various viburnums (Vibernum spp.). This habitat type occurs
over approximately 5 percent of the interconnect line survey area.
Bottomland hardwood forests were found along the streams that flow through the site. Tulip poplar
(Liriodendron tulipifera), sweetgum (Liquidambarstyraciflua), green ash (Fraxinus pennsylvanica), elm (Ulmus
J:\Projects\S\Southern Power -06204\Cleveland 3-2 March 2009
County\Transmission Line\Wetland Report\Wetland Report -
Cleveland Cc Trans (2).doc
AECOM Environment
sp.), and red maple (Acer rubrum) are the dominant tree species. This habitat type occurs over approximately
15 percent of the interconnect line survey corridor.
The portion of the proposed interconnect line after it crosses into South Carolina is on property managed by an
active quarry. The majority of this area is either maintained grass slopes or gravel roads. This habitat type
occurs over approximately 50 percent of the interconnect line survey corridor.
3.4 Threatened and Endangered Species
No individual occurrences, populations, or evidence of activity of the listed species included in Table 1 were
identified during field surveys. There is a slight potential for several species of listed plants to be present in the
vicinity. However, evaluation of the subject site suggests that substantial past disturbance has occurred,
which is assumed to reduce the potential for the species of concern to be present.
Transient species, including birds and mammals, are potential users of the site habitat, at least seasonally.
These species utilize a wide range of habitat. From the limited survey that was completed in this study, it is not
possible to rule out the presence of these transitory or migratory species within the interconnect line survey
corridor.
3.5 Man-Made Features
Two man-made features were observed during the field survey of the interconnect line corridor (see locations
on Figures 4 and 5). Both of these features are stormwater catchment basins. Neither of these features had
standing water in them at the time of the survey. Field survey datasheets and photographs are included in
Appendix A and B, respectively.
J:\Projects\S\Southern Power -06204\Cleveland 3-3 March 2009
County\Transmission Line\Wetland Report\Wetland Report -
Cleveland Cc Trans (2).doc
AECOM Environment
4.0 Summary
Environmental field surveys were conducted March 17 and 18, 2009 to identify and assess natural resources
within the vicinity of the proposed interconnect line. Surveys were conducted within a 125 foot wide survey
corridor along the length of the proposed interconnect line.
Two wetlands were identified during the field surveys. Four perennial streams, one ephemeral stream, and
one ephemeral roadside ditch were identified along the proposed interconnect line corridor. Two intermittent
streams were identified along the proposed access road.
Five main habitat types were observed during the field survey: planted pine, mixed pine and hardwood,
piedmont oak-hickory forest, bottomland hardwood forest, and commercial/industrial land (active quarry). No
individual occurrences, populations, or evidence of activity of listed threatened and endangered species were
identified during field surveys.
Two man-made features were observed during the field survey of the interconnect line corridor both are
stormwater catchment basins.
J:\Projects\S\Southern Power -06204\Cleveland 4-1 March 2009
County\Transmission Line\Wetland Report\Wetland Report -
Cleveland Cc Trans (2).doc
5.0 References
Environmental Laboratory. 1987. Corps of Engineers Wetland Delineation Manual, Technical Report Y-87-1.
US Army Engineer Waterway Experiment Station, Vicksburg, MS.
Munsell Color Chart. 2000. Munsell Soil Color Charts, 2000 Revised Edition.
North Carolina Natural Heritage Program Element Occurrence Database. 2009. Website:
httip://www.ncnhip.ora/Pages/heritagedata.html
South Carolina Department of Natural Resources Rare, Threatened, & Endangered Species Inventory by
County. 2009. Website: https://www.dnr.sc.gov/pls/heritage/county species.select county map
United States Army Corps of Engineers. 2006. Laws regulating the Corps of Engineers Regulatory Program.
Website: http://www.spk.usace.army.mil/cespk-co/reaulatory/reas/start.htmI
United States Geological Survey, Environmental Protection Agency. 2000. The National Hydrography Dataset.
Website: http://nhd.usas.gov/chapterl/index.htmI
United States Fish and Wildlife Service. 2007. Lists of threatened and endangered species. Website:
http://www.fws.aov/
J:\Projects\S\Southern Power -06204\Cleveland 5-1 March 2009
County\Transmission Line\Wetland Report\Wetland Report -
Cleveland Cc Trans (2).doc
AECOM Environment
Figures
J:\Projects\S\Southern Power- 06204\Cleveland March 2009
County\Transmission Line\Wetland Report\Wetland Report -
Cleveland Cc Trans (2).doc
Ilk
Fi ure 3
,
1! Figure 4
All
Figure 6 r? j ! y
V A f _
r
Legend
Property Boundary
----- Proposed Transmission Line ROW - -
Match Lines- ry f
Map Location Wetland Delineation Overview N
Cleveland County Generating Facility Figure 1
Kv VA 230 kV Buss Line Project
TN Southern Power Company
Cleveland County, NC and Cherokee County, SC
AECOM Environment
Image Source: National Aerial Imagery Program, 2006 7041 Old Wake Forest Road, Suite 103
Raleigh, NC 27616
GA SC 00 T 919-872-6600
Apri12009 Fe 06204-045-0001 F 919-872-7996
r?

7
"• lei x
+ i a
?!? ? /rh .rte. n Eti1.. •1{l?ly. }? "d
"? Z lids ,.fir %[(y 1y; *?
1
4
SAR1 ACL006 1
? \ ?,? 3 SAR1ACL007
j % .
o S1ACL001
X`
s1ACL002 k North Carolina
Legend , South Carol i
i y r
Property Boundary na
Proposed Access Road yi n
4 ?
4

-f%- Stream r
`

Wetland
" .
?

• Man-Made Feature .ri

? Proposed Tower Location
„
. F_ P,
10
r

- -- Proposed Transmission Line ROW ,

# J {?.
Match Lines *
` "

Map Location Wetland Delineation N Figure 3
Cleveland County Generating Facility
Nc Fi
3 230 kV Buss Line Project
gure
Figure Southern Power Company
Cleveland County, NC and Cherokee County, SC AECOM Environment
7041 Old Wake Forest Road, Su ite 103

SC Image Source: National Aerial Imagery Program, 2006 Raleigh, NC 27616
Figure 6 0 500 1,000 T 919-872-6600
Feet F 919-872-7996
Apri12009 06204-045-0001 Web: http://wWW.aecom.com

kr?
i
R
o
North

! Y,. Outh Carolina
A
rad
K_ I
Legend ?, rt e?'?',.
Property Boundary
Proposed Access Road r
Stream
Wetland -,. r,
• Man-Made Feature
? Proposed Tower Location ?+
-- Proposed Transmission Line ROW `
Match Lines "* '
Map Location Wetland Delineation N Figure 4
Cleveland County Generating Facility
NC Figure3 230 kV Buss Line Project
Figure4 Southern Power Company
Cleveland County, NC and Cherokee County, SC AECOM Environment
7041 Old Wake Forest Road, Suite 103
Image Source: National Aerial Imagery Program, 2006 Raleigh, NC 27616
Figure 6 3C 0 500 1,000 T 919-872-6600
Feet F 919-872-7996
Apri12009 06204-045-0001 Web: http://www.aecom.com
. a
ice" a
F^yC'T LJ
Old Shiloh Church Cemetery S1ACL004
North Carolina ,- ---- -- - ----_____
South Carolina WlACH001 i -- =
o
j o D. H. Allen Property
MAN1ACH001 (approximate boundary)
.j
1 r
I ; /may!
w 1 13
Vulcan Materials Company j I
1 I S1ACH001
Legend ,I
Property Boundary
1 i
Proposed Access Road I 1
-f%- Stream
Y_'. `
Wetland L, = I
• Man-Made Feature I -w
? Proposed Tower Location
-- Proposed Transmission Line ROW
Match Lines
J
Map Location Wetland Delineation N Figure 5
Cleveland County Generating Facility
NC Figure3 230 W Buss Line Project
Figure4 Southern Power Company
Environment
7041 Old Wake Forest Road, Suite 103
0 Cleveland County, NC and 500 Cherokee 1County,,000 SC T 919-AECOM872-6600
Image Source: National Aerial Imagery Program, 2006 Raleigh, NC 27616
Figure 6 3C
Feet F 919-872-7996
Apri12009 06204-045-0001 Web: http://www.aecom.com
• s I
r . r.
4W
W1ACH002 b
d
• 1 '? r•
`y '? 11 `4,R y
POW
Vulcan Materials Company 'i 1' •
13 1 -?
l en-
Ilk II- 1
:k_ - r„
13
i?
ti •, MANlACH002 i Duke Power 230 kV Substation
(approximate boundary)
-0
• 1
Legend ?•°`: `? ,
Property Boundary
Proposed Access Road
s e
Stream `I ' -''
Wetland
• Man-Made Feature
?.
? Proposed Tower Location
-- Proposed Transmission Line ROW
Match Lines -
- s
Map Location Wetland Delineation N Figure 6
Cleveland County Generating Facility
NC Figure3 230 kV Buss Line Project
Figure4 Southern Power Company
Environment
7041 Old Wake Forest Road, Suite 103
0 Cleveland County, NC and 500 Cherokee 1County,,000 SC T 919-AECOM872-6600
Image Source: National Aerial Imagery Program, 2006 Raleigh, NC 27616
Figure 6 SC
Feet F 919-872-7996
April 2009 06204-045-0001 Web: http://www.aecom.com
AECOM Environment
Tables
J:\Projects\S\Southern Power- 06204\Cleveland March 2009
County\Transmission Line\Wetland Report\Wetland Report -
Cleveland Cc Trans (2).doc
Table 1
Threatened and Endangered Species Potentially
Present Along the Cleveland County Proposed Right-of-Way in
Cherokee County, South Carolina and Cleveland County, North Carolina
Common Name Scientific Name Federal State Habitat Requirement ° Likelihood of being present
Statusa,b Statusa,b within the proposed alternative
ROW
Cleveland
County, North
Carolina
Dwarf-flowered Hexastylis T Hexastylis naniflora is found on acidic sandy loam soils along bluffs Not likely due to lack of
heartleaf naniflora and nearby slopes, hillsides and ravines, in boggy areas adjacent to habitat.
creek heads and streams site conversion from woodlands to pasture.
H. naniflora is found on moist to rather dry north-facing slopes of
ravines in the Piedmont, usually in the oak-hickory-pine community
type.
Gray's saxifrage Saxifraga SC Saxifraga caroliniana is found in rocky woods. S. caroliniana occurs in Not likely due to lack of
caroliniana cool, shaded, rocky woods and rock ledges, rooted in the thin layer of habitat.
organic matter and moss that forms on the surface of the rocks. Almost
always in steep terrain and often in areas misted by spray from nearby
waterfalls or in areas where water trickles down the rocky slopes.
Sweet pinesap Monotropsis SC Monotropsis odorata occurs in mixed deciduous woods. Slight potential to occur.
odorata
Torrey's Pycnanthemum SC Pycnathemum torrei is found in the mountains and in the Piedmont, in Not likely due to lack of
Mountain-mint torrei rich woods, and usually on rock such as gabbro or diabase. Some habitat.
sites seem to have been maintained in the past as opened areas,
probably by fire and other activities. (University of Minnesota
Herbarium [MIN], Weakley 1994).
Cherokee
County, South
Carolina
Dwarf-flowered Hexastylis T T Hexastylis naniflora is found on acidic sandy loam soils along bluffs Not likely due to lack of
heartleaf naniflora and nearby slopes, hillsides and ravines, in boggy areas adjacent to habitat.
creek heads and streams site conversion from woodlands to pasture.
H. naniflora is found on moist to rather dry north-facing slopes of
ravines in the Piedmont, usually in the oak-hickory-pine community
type.
Nodding onion Allium cernuum -- SC Allium cernuum occurs in meadows and open woods where it is locally Slight potential to occur in
common. open areas.
Georgia Aster Aster georgianus -- SC Aster georgianus is found in dry open woods, roadsides, and other Slight potential to occur.
openings. Probably a relict species of the post oak (Quercus stellata)-
savanna communities that existed in the region prior to fire
suppression and the eradication of large native grazing animals
(Murdoock 2001).
Table 1
Threatened and Endangered Species Potentially
Present Along the Cleveland County Proposed Right-of-Way in
Cherokee County, South Carolina and Cleveland County, North Carolina
Common Name Scientific Name Federal State Habitat Requirement ° Likelihood of being present
Statusa,b Statusa,b within the proposed alternative
ROW
Rough Sedge Carex scabrata -- SC Carex scabrata occurs on seepage slopes and springheads in rich Not likely due to lack of
woods in mountainous regions of the Carolinas. habitat.
Smooth Helianthus -- SC Helianthus laevigatus requires high light availability and generally Not likely - local geology
Sunflower laevigatus occurs in open areas with shale, dolomite, limestone, or ultra-mafic, does not match habitat
igneous substrates (Ludwig pers. comm. 1995). In North Carolina and description
South Carolina, all occurrences are in disturbed areas on slate derived
soils in woodlands and on road embankments.
Ashy Hydrangea Hydrangea -- SC Hydrangea cinerea occurs on shady ledges and cliffs. Not likely, habitat does not
cinerea appear to be present along
proposed ROW.
Canada Menispermum -- SC Menispermum canadense occurs in low woods. Slight potential to occur.
Moonseed canadense
Eastern Xerophyllum -- SC Xerophyllum asphodeloides is found in dry, sandy, oak-hickory woods, Not likely due to lack of
Turkeybeard asphodeloides usually xeric in mountainous regions. habitat.
Southeastern Myotis -- SC These bats generally use buildings and other structures, mines, and Possible transient user of
Myotis Austroriparius hollow trees (e.g., water tupelo, black gum, water hickory, bald area, but not likely to use
cypress) for spring and summer roosts. The key characteristics for area for breeding or
maternity sites are high humidity and constant warm temperatures. preferred foraging due to
Foraging habitat is riparian floodplain forests or wooded wetlands with lack of quality habitat.
permanent open water nearby (MacGregor 1992, Gardner et al. 1992,
Humphrey and Gore 1992). These bats may forage primarily over
lakes, ponds, or slow-moving streams. Potential habitat includes
standing snags and hollow trees.
Notes:
a/ Source: Table created using USFWS list of Federally Listed Species, and South Carolina Department of Natural Resources Rare, Threatened, & Endangered Species Inventory by County.
bl Legal Status:
T = threatened. A taxon "likely to become endangered within the foreseeable future throughout all or a significant portion of its range."
SC = species of concern. A species under consideration for listing, for which there is insufficient information to support listing at this time.
Species with the status of Federal Threatened are legally protected under the US Endangered Species Act of 1973.
cl Source: Additional details of Habitat Requirements were obtained from NatureServe Explorer (http://www.natureserve.org/explorer/) and the Manual of the Vascular Flora ofthe Carolinas. 1968. A.E
Radford, H.E. Ahles, C. R. Bell.
AECOM Environment
Table 2 Wetlands Identified During Field Surveys
Feature ID NWI Classification a Size (acreage)
WlACH001 PEM 0.27
W 1 ACH002 PSS 0.64
(a) NWI Classification: PSS = Palustrine Scrub Shrub Wetland, PEM = Palustrine Emergent Wetland,
PFO = Palustrine Forested Wetland
Table 3 Waterbodies Identified During Field Surveys

Feature ID
Description Bank
Width Water
Width Water
Depth
Substrate
Classification °
Quality
Natural/
(feet)
a (feet)
a (feet)
a Artificial
Interconnect Line Corridor
High to Natural
S1ACL001 Stream 9.0 2.5 0.3 G Perennial Moderate
S1ACL002 Stream 12.0 8.0 1.0 G,S,B Perennial High Natural
Moderate Natural
S1ACL003 Stream 6.0 1.5 0.3 G,C Perennial to High
High to Natural
S1ACL004 Stream 20.0 3.0 0.3 S,G Perennial Moderate
Moderate Natural
S1ACL005 Stream 4.0 0 0 C Ephemeral to High
Roadside Artificial
SlACH001 Ditch 6.0 0 0 G,S,Co Ephemeral Low
Access Road
SARIACL006 Stream 20.0 3.0 0.5 G,C Intermittent Moderate Natural
SARIACL007 Stream 6.0 1.0 0.3 G,O Intermittent Moderate Natural
(a) Bank width, water width, and water depth were determined based on visual estimates during field survey
(b) Substrate: B = Bedrock, C = Clay, Si/C = Silt/Clay, S = Sand, O = Organic Material, G = Gravel, Co = Cobble
(c) Based on National Hydrographic Dataset (USGS, 2000) ); RPW = Relatively Permanent Waterway
S1 BBU022 and S1 ABU036 are the same stream (S1 BBU022 is actually outside the survey area)
J:\Projects\S\Southern Power- 06204\Cleveland March 2009
County\Transmission Line\Wetland Report\Wetland Report -
Cleveland Cc Trans (2).doc
AECOM Environment
Appendix A
Datasheets
J:\Projects\S\Southern Power- 06204\Cleveland March 2009
County\Transmission Line\Wetland Report\Wetland Report -
Cleveland Cc Trans (2).doc
2300 B Resource Drive, Birmingham, AL 35242
T: 205.980.0054 F: 205.980.1508
ENSR 4 COM
WETLAND DELINEATION DATA FORM (1987 COE METHODOLOGY)
Centerlin Re-Route Access Road Warehouse Site land Data Poi Other: Wetland ID No.: . _C Q2(AC+E- Q0 2_
p .._ Associated Stream ID No.: --- ,
Date:'A -~I N -0611 Client/Proiect Name & No.: S-d}t_ [AF_j, v1 I Milepost:
Quad Name:
I Logbook No.: I 1 Logbook Page No.: 1 7S-f (A I Block/Lotrrract No.: 1 Picture No.: -- I
Normal Circumstances? SI nificanti Disturbed: Potential Problem Area?
Wetland Quality: High

I. Moderate Low Wetland ty

e
Mom pe (circle one : PFO PEM PSS Other:

s.
i.
2. n
cu L 2.
3. i
D&e
'C' "
0
3.
4. 4.
5. (TA eA r 5.
B. ti Cj 6.

7. S+ftra
J
7.
8. M(Usv' ii db"-9 1A
8.
9. 9.
_
Percent of Dominant Species that are OBL, FACW, or FA
C (excluding FAG : .S H dric Vegetation Criteria Met? (circle one) Yes No
i
Remarks: J1 Y ; 1 , „t v-x v rp?-e
Sc s a ^-y
Recorded Data? ?- - Describe: '-?- No Recorded Data?
Depth of Surface Water: in. Depth to Saturated Soil: in.
Color of Surface Water: if applicable) Depth to Free Water in Pit: in.
Surface Water Appearance circle those that apply): Obvious surface scum Sheen on surface Greenish color Other:
Primary Wetland Indicators (circle those that apply):
Inundated Sediment Deposits
Saturated in Upper 12 Inches Water Marks
Drift Lines
Drainage
atterns In Wetlands Secondary Wetland Indicators (2 or more required) (circle those that apply):
Oxidized Root Channels in Upper 12 FAC-Neutral Test
Water-Stained Leaves Other (Explain in Remarks)
Local Soil Survey Data
Remarks: V

Map Unit Name
(Series and Phase): P
?,
i
V ff-l ©cl'A rpfeV-.-f1+ I'M
MOM EVIN
Drainage Class: ?
(, ?t1 0_' , 66.1- d
Taxonomy (Subgroup): Field Observations Confirm Mapped Type?
Profile Description,
Depth (inches) Horizon Matrix Color
(Munsell Moist) Mottle
(Abundance/Contrast) Texture, Concretions, Structure, etc.
0`

Circle those that Apply:
Histosol
Histic Epipedon
High Organic Content
Sulfid'ic Odor Organic Streaking in Sandy Soils Oxidized Rhizospheres Concretions
Aqufc Moisture Regime Organic Pans in Sandy Soils Listed on Local Hydric Soils List Gleyed Soil
Other:
Remarks: ? p p , ? t? (`f? ``? ? I ? ? ?--? 'i r?"?? ? ?e _ ? -?
32 f
;'cy, K .v5, x 'x;5 ? 4 1 t?•r?!'`?f'.{c.Ligt35` :. s,
H dro h is Ve etation Present? Yes Ito Is This Sampling Point Within a Wetland? Yes No
Wetland Hydrology Present? Yes o Is This An Isolated Wetland? Yes o
H dric Soils Present? Yes No Is This Wetland d acen to or Abutting an Associated Stream? Yes No
ENSRIAECOM

If not abutting a stream, is there a surface connection between this wetland and a stream? Yes No Waterbod ID No.:
Flow between Wetland and Stream is. No Flow Perennial Intermittent _E hemeral? "' ubsurface Flow? Yes No
Surface flow between Wetland and Stream Is: Discrete n ined Discrete & Confined Overland Sheetflow Not Present
Surface flow between Wetland and Stream is: ?p1g FlovPFrom Wetland to Waterbed From Waterbod to Wetland To/From Wetland to Waterbed
Other connection with Sir None Ecological Separated by berm/barrier? Yes No
Please include: Directional & North Arrow, Centerline, Length of feature, Distances from Centerline, Photo Locations, and Survey corridor
r ?` -
f
c
t 1rXII-'
(a-?vl
Dt3s?f iNetl?r ' Aft eft }[ G'OFilie3ttts 5??9 i atigl9 at p=pe?In9 cr?ira?r4?tBYu?tlgn canakrafnts, erosptpn e 10 r`btan4lal,
Q. 'M -.0 .401
Wettand Method 1 E Can be used in wetlands where soilsAr"n
LQM
ugh at the time of construction to auooort eguioment. This crossing method requires topsoil segregation, and requires no special
stabilization techniques.
Wetland Method 2: Conventional Wetland Construction will be used for crossing wetlands Wth saturated soils otherwise unable to support mainline construction equipment. Because the soils are
saturated, there is a need to stabilize the ROW during construction.
Wetland Method 3: Push/Pull Wetland Construction will be used in la a wetland areas where s ffi i nt hydrology is resent forfloating the pipeline in he tran , and grade elevation overthe length
of the push/pull area will not require damming to maintain adequate water levels for floatation of the pipe.
HIGH QUALITY WETLAND: no indication of stress or disturbance in wetland or adjacent area-diverse and mature vegetation types- hydrologic and soil Indicators are characteristic of the
specific community type - provides suitable habitat for wildlife - high quality perennial streams are often observed
MODERATE QUALITY WETLAND: mild to moderate disturbances have caused alterations in Immediately adjacent areas - slightly altered natural vegetation, hydrology and/ or soil
characteristics - provides suitable habitat for wildlife and vegetation - associated perennial or intermittent streams are of relatively good quality and aren't significantly disturbed
LOW QUALITY WETLAND: severe disturbances have caused significant changes to vegetation, soils, or hydrology- hydroperiod alterations, if present, have directly affected plant species-
community composition has changed-- noticeable stress or death of plant species -soil subsidence may have occurred in areas with decreased hydroperiod - mechanical alteration of plant
species or soils - grazing from livestock - channelization of stream courses or ditching - little suitable habitat for wildlife and vegetation - associated perennial or intermittent streams
si nificantl disturbed
Page 2 of 2
2300 B Resource Drive, Birmingham, AL 35242
T: 205.980.0054 F: 205.980.1 509
eNSRIaFCOM
WETLAND DELINEATION DATA FORM (1987 COE METHODOLOGY)
L-
Centerline Re-Route Access Road Warehouse Site Upland Data Point Other: Wetland ID No.:
Associated Stream ID No.: --
I Date: '-91i- 14 -V" I Client/Proiect Name & No.: Llrf, t1 fn9?r.n I Milpnngr I
Logbook No.: Logbook Page No.: I (p - I -1 Block/Lot/Tract No.: Picture No.: I
Normal Circumstances? ° ( 4 Si nificanti Disturbed: tl? 0 Potential Problem Area? i'i`j o
Wetland Quality: High odera Low
s .F Wetland Ty pe (circle one) : PFO PE PSS Other:

X all ,;' ='
y
2. 1n w;
+( K-I fJL 7?l PA
e- 2.

a d lam! S
3.
`
5. ! 5.
6. 1-y 016 JtAA / t V 6.
7. t 7.
a. s.
s. s.
Percent of Dominant Species that are OBL, FACW, or FAC (excluding FAC : H dric Vegetation Criteria Met? (circle one) Yes No
Remarks:
Recorded Data? y?Qa Describe: No Recorded Data?
Depth of Surface Water: in. De nth to Saturated Soil: in.
Color of Surface Water: If a iicable De th to Free Water in Pit: in.
Surface Water Appearance circle those that apply): Obvious surface scum hewn an surfc Greenish color Other:
Prima Wetland Indicators (circle those that apply):
Inundated Sediment Deposits
turatedrm Upper 12 1n Water Iv?rkh
Drift Lines
rain
age Patter
s ln
W ds Secondary Wetland Indicators (2 or more required) (circle those that apply):
Oxldi Boot annels in Upper 12 FAC-Neutral Test
Other (Explain in Remarks)
Local Soil Survey Data
n
`
J
0 pp {
Remarks: W U'k \t??&?
Map Unit Name
and Phase).r Y ©a Drainage Class
Taxonomy (Subgroup): Field Observations Confirm Mapped Type?
Profile Description:
Depth (Inches) Horizon Matrix Color
(Munsell Moist) Mottle
(Abundance/Contrast) Texture, Concretions, Structure, etc.
0-2-
21-1 t day r
t?

Circle those that Apply:
Histosol SuIfIdIC Odor Organic Streaking in Sandy Solis Oxidized Rhizospheres Concretions
Histic Epipedon Aquic Moisture Regime Organic Pans In Sandy Solis Listed on Local Hydric Solis List Gleyed Soil
High Organic Content Other: ( -t? WLd
Remarks:
I'M
H dro h is Vegetation Present? Yes No Is This Sampling Point Within a Wetland? Ye N
Wetland Hydrology Present? Ye No Is This An Isolated Wetland? Yes (
d2
H dric Soils Present? Yes No _
Is This Wetland Ad ace to or Abutting an Associated Stream? (ss )No
cNSrt I nrcaM
WETLAND DELINEATION DATA FORM (1987 COE METHODOLOGY)
Wetland ID No.: W IAe,?A
If not abutting a stream, is there a surface connection between this wetland and a stream? Yes No Watorbod ID No.:
Flow between Wetland and Stream Is: No Flow Perennial ntermitte Ephemeral Subsurface FI w? Yes No
Surface flow between Wetland and Stream Is: Discrete Confined Discrete & Confined nand Sheetflo Not Present
Surface flow between Wetland and Stream Is: No Flow From Wetland to Waterbed From Waterbed IV Wetland From Wetland to Wate d
Other connectlon with Stream? None Ecological Separated by berm/barrier? Yes n
7777
+> g _
Please include: Directional & North Arrow, Centerline, Length of feature, Distances from Centerline, Photo Locations, and Survey corridor
s
1
r
? Jp t-
1
1
VIOVIJ
Tl? $ ecj sisal . bl ktl' ? '` , r < . ,>
k?esaripttt n?. i? ti - rf`Genera ' > ?o?1n 016; I' 1 at`?iipel nQ ?rosslr?g 4pns netreWts, erasion potential, e sff st fir
ran $ r 3 ?, ?. ty u 7 << r
-bk povk VU%
Wetland Method f: Can be used in wetlands where soils are d enough h i of construction to support a ui men . This crossing method requires topsoil segregation, and requires no special
stabilization techniques.
Wetland Method 2: Conventional Wetland Construction will be used for crossing wetlands with saturated soils otherwise unable to support mainline construction equipment. Because the soils are
saturated, there is a need to stabilize the ROW during construction.
Wetland Method 3: Push/Pull Wetland Construction will be used in la a wetland areas where sufficient bydrology is resent forfloating the pipeline in the ranch, and grade elevation over the length
of the push/pull area will not require damming to maintain adequate water levels for floatation of the pipe.
HIGH QUALITY WETLAND: no indication of stress or disturbance in wotland or adjacent area -diverse and mature vegetation types- hydrologic and sell indicators are characteristic of the
specific community type - provides suitable habitat for wildlife - high quality perennial streams are often observed
MODERATE QUALITY WETLAND: mild to moderate disturbances have caused alterations in immediately adjacent areas - slightly altered natural vegetation, hydrology and/ or soil
characteristics - provides suitable habitat for wildlife and vegetation - associated perennial or intermittent streams are of relatively good quality and aren't significantly disturbed
LOW QUALITY WETLAND: severe disturbances have caused significant changes to vegetation, soils, or hydrology- hydroperiod alterations, if present, have directly affected plant species -
community composition has changed- noticeable stress or death of plant species - soil subsidence may have occurred in areas with decreased hydroperiod-mechanical alteration of plant
species or soils -- grazing from livestock - channelization of stream courses or ditching - little suitable habitat for wildlife and vegetation - associated perennial or intermittent streams
significantly disturbed
Page 2 of 2
2300 B Resource Drive, Birmingham, AL 35242
T: 205.980.0054 F. 205.980.1509
ENSR1 C
WETLAND DELINEATION DATA FORM (1987 COE METHODOLOGY)
Centerline Re-Route Access Road Warehouse Site Upland Data Point Other: Wetland ID No.: MA cA-koo-2-
Associated Stream ID No.:
Date: Y client/Proiect Name & No.: 'LAA'? v'1 Milepost:
Quad Name:
Loabook No.: k I Loabook Paae No.: 2Z=7 I Black/LoUTract No.: I Picture No.: CO I
Normal Circumstances? -`CAS -Significantly Distwbedt N C) tential Problem Area? N
Wetland Quality: High oderat Low Wetland Ty pe (circle one) : PFO PEM PSS Other: _
,{
1
11 Em NS, I
-
1. ?..
q0 I
NQ 1.
A a +
2. ' ;A u G
3. s
4. 4.
5. 5.
6. B.
7. 7.
a. 8.
9. 9.
Percent of Dominant Species that are OBL, FACW, or FAC (excluding FAC H dric Vegetation Criteria Met? circle one Yes No
Remarks:

Recorded Data? Describe: No Recorded Data? -
Depth of Surface Water: in. Depth to Saturated Soil: in.
Color of Surface Water: if a licable Depth to Free Water in Pit: `'7 in.
Surface Water Appearance circle those that apply): Obvious surface scum en on surfa Greenish color Other:
Pri
etland Indicators (circle those th ppLo
Inu S imen t De
os s
a?t?e Secondary Wetiand Indicators (2 or more required) rcleJ?iose that apply):
O edoanneU
er 1 - AC-Neutral TBs
p
>
--- pp
n Upper 12 s Water Marks Water-Stalned Leaves Other (Explain in Remarks)
Drift Lines Inge Patterns in Wetlan Local Soil Survey Data
Remarks:

Map Unit Name
1 Drainage Class: I G6A_ _ ??
(Series and Phase):
1 ?. ,t} J?S/Y Wti.
Taxonomy (Subgroup): Field Observations Confirm Mapped Type?
Profile Description:
Depth (Inches) Horizon Matrix Color Mottle Texture, Concretions, Structure, etc.
(Munsell Moist) (Abundance/Contrast)
Ap 2 `? 2. °?? `5 Y (z Lfw> a Vi S-i l -E- ?rC?`r?-?d t •?C.s? (' .rt
.,r .-i 1 , [ . t f

circle those that Apply,
Histosol Sulfidic Odor Organic Streaking In Sandy Soils Oxidized Rhlzospheres Concretions
Histic Epipedon Aquic Moisture Regime Organic Pans in Sandy Soils Listed on Local Hydric Soils List Gleyed Soil
High Organic Content Other:
Remarks: `

H dro h is Vegetation Present? s No Is This Sampling Paint Within a Wetland? Yes No
Wetland Hydrology Present? es No Is This An Isolated Wetland? Yes No
H dric Soils Present? No Is Thla Wetland d scent to or Abutting an Associated Stream Yes No

ENSRIAECOM
WETLAND DELINEATION DATA FORM (1587 COE METHODOLOGY)
Wetland ID No.: U.? U\CA-k0C_'>`2.
Date: Client/Project Name & No.: JL milepost:
If not abutting a stream, is there a surface connection between this we and stream? Yes No Waterbod ID No.:
Flow between Wetland and Stream Is. No Flow Perennial Intermittent Ephe rat Subsurface Flow? Yes No
Surface flow between Wetland and Stream is: Discrete Confined Discrete & Confined verland Sheetflow Not Present
Surface flow between Wetland and Stream Is: No Flow From Wetland to Waterbed From Waterbod to Wetland From Wetland to Wate d
Other connection with Stream? None Ecological Separated b bermlbarrler? Yes o
%
frjwr
r..... .
Please include: Directional & North Arrow, Centerline, Length of feature, Distances from Centerline, Photo Locations, and survey corridor
1
%
t
C-0 .?
L ?`K
t ?A CU
t
714 441?slSU0 H0 Ita#z "
17t3.s?rijstion of We` and and Genr#r I Comm ;I e, erg d ?t? In?i-6 ing; cnnstruckl0 '" o tea Mfg oro io paten iU lei?is` Ing disturbarVe?
?%..'a 7 a5? 4L?? ? x ? t? S
-i-vU IFS iN -I-)1' c, ? G ` e C_? of
r? Ot t ii 2?.( .? D 6,-e 9--,-, Pc4
S?'?P?'? (?j?r%R--^r?-,??j}so _. I ? ?,.? ,e.? ? c;>r.? ?? '? ?rz?vQ ?? u. =1
I:?e? t•1 "lid of I E)cC'Cir?' ? ??"" ` ??? ? . .:? '????.? J .,;??;; ", .?r - ;< .?,? " ?, ??
Wetland Method t: Can be used in wetlands where soils are drv enough at the time of construction io supportequipment. This crossing method requires topsoil segregation, and requires nospecial
stabilization techniques.
Wetland Method 2: Conventional Wetland Construction will be used for crossing wetlands with saturated soils otherwise unable to support mainline construction equipmonnl. Because the soils are
saturated, there is a need to stabilize the ROW during construction.
Wetland Method 3: Push/Pull Weiland Construction will be used in larg wallgndareas where sufficient hydrology is present for floating the pipeline in thetrench, and grade elevation overthe length
of the push/pull area will not require damming to maintain adequate water levels for floatation of the pipe.
HIGH QUALITY WETLAND: no indication of stress or disturbance in wetland or adjacent area-diverse and mature vegetation types-hydrologic and soil indicators are characteristic of the
specific community type - provides suitable habitat for wildlife - high quality perennial streams are often observed
MODERATE QUALITY WETLAND: mild to moderate disturbances have caused alterations In immediately adjacent areas - slightly altered natural vegetation, hydrology and/or soil
characteristics - provides suitable habitat for wildlife and vegetation - associated perennial or intermittent streams are of relatively good quality and aren't significantly disturbed
LOW QUALITY WETLAND: severe disturbances have caused significant changes to vegetation, soils, or hydrology- hydroperiod alterations, if present, have directly affected plant species-
community composition has changed- noticeable stress or death of plant species -soil subsidence may have occurred in areas with decreased hydroperiod- mechanical alteration of plant
species or soils - grazing from livestock - channelizalion of stream courses or ditching - little suitable habitat for wildlife and vegetation - associated perennial or intermittent streams
si nificantl disturbed
Page 2 of 2
7041 Old Wake Forest Road, Suite 103, Raleigh, NC 27616
T: 919.872.6600 F: 919.872.7996
WATERBODY
Waterbody Name: Ul- +0 P6 Kd 6?? 6T av,,- Waterbody ID No.:
C SRI C OM
S I Ac-oU I
(e'n7terline Re-Route Access Road Warehouse Site Other:
Associated Wetland No.:
Date: ClienVProject Name & No.: Sb?lS?- ti.+-rrr,A- Milepost:
Investigators: - State/County/Municipality: NC, Quad Name:
Logbook No.: Lo book Page No.: Block/Lot/Tract No.: Picture No.: - 1

PHYSICAL ATTRIBUTES
Waterbod Sketch Plan
Please include: Directional & North Arrow, Centerline, Length of feat ure, Distances from Centerline, Photo Locations, and
Survey corridor
I
f

} fT t,&

1
Angle of Crossing at Centerline:
Waterbody Type Lake Pond Borrow Pit River- 6t m Ag. Ditch Other:
Stream Flow Fat - Moderate Slow Very Slow None
Flow type erennial (Flows 3 IntermittenUSeasonal Ep emeral (Flows only in Direction:
months annually) (Flows <3 months response to rainfall) Number of Annual Flow Events
nualiy)
OHWM Indicator C ar natural line o Shelving Wrested vegetation Scour Water Staining
Bent, matted or missing vegetation ol character cha es Abrupt plant community change Wrack line itter and debris
Sinuosity Straight eantlerin Subsurface Flow? Yes No Unknown
Stream Depth (in.) 0-3 3 6-12 12-18 18-24 24-36 36-48 48-60 60+
Stream Width (ft.) Top of Bank (at crossing location): Water Surface (at crossing location): ` 1197
Bank Height (ft.) Left 0-2 2-4 4-6 6-8 8+
downstream else
(lookin
g
give direction you are Right 0-2 2-4 4 6 6-8 8+
facin here:
Bank Slope (°) Left 0-20 20-40 40-60 60-80 O+
(looking downstream else
give direction you are
Right
0-20
2040
40-60
60-80
80+
facing here:
ENSR i CO
Waterbody ID No.:-?
Date,„ Client/Project Name & No.: Milepost:
QUALITATIVE ATTRIBUTES
Water Appearance Clear Slighlly Turb d Turbid Very Turbid Color:
Floating algal mats Obvious surface scum Sheen on surface Greenish color Other:
Stream Substrate % Bedrock Gravel Sand Silf/Clay Organic
Aquatic Habitats Sand Bar raVBY?a Mud Bar ravel RI i Deep Pools
Undercut Banks verliangi g
( In-stream emergent In-stream submerged Bank root syste Fringing Wetlands
trees/shrubs, plants plants
Percent Cover Percent Cover
Aquatic Organisms Waterfowl Fish (adult) Fish (juvenile) Frogs Turtles
Observed
Snakes
Other:
Invertebrates: Intolerant Facultative Tolerant None
Riparian Zone Width of natural vegetation zone from edge of active channel out onto flood plain: (Co?- (ft)
Circle vegetative layers: trcfes hru s erb
? Significant bare areas within riparian zone
? Evidence of non-buffered concentrated flows
Tributary is Natural Artificial (Man-Made) Manipulated (Explain below) Stable / Unstable
Channel Condition C annelization/Braiding Unnatural straightening Downcutting
I

Dikes/Berets

cessive ban erosi
Disturbances ? Livestock access to riparian zone ? Manure in stream or on banks
? Waste discharge pipes present -429 Other:

WE SPECIES/ SUITABLE HABITAT Habitat ID No.:
v-?. c)IPee_, v e_ ct
Comments (e. g. pipeline crossing angle, construction constraints, erosion potential, existing disturbances, and meanders
jfJl OL? ?.,Q 1rw..('?t ? ? ?..ir ?.,?L.t?-? ??1 -P_..C?..r??
STREAM QUALITY (indicate) ? High 4Gr-' Moderate ? Low
High Quality: Natural channel (no structures or dikes; no evidence of downcutting or excessive lateral cutting); evidence of past channel alteration with significant recovery;
any dikes/levies are set back to provide access to adequate flood plain; natural vegetation extends at least one or two active channel widths on each side; banks stable and
protected by roots that extend to the base-flow elevation; water clear to tea-colored; no barriers to fish movement (seasonal water withdrawals prevent movement); many fish
cover types available; diverse and stable aquatic habitat; no disturbance by livestock or man; intolerant macroinveltebrates present.
Moderate Quality: Altered channel evidenced by rip rap and/or channelization; dikes/levees restrict flood plain width; natural vegetation extends 1/3-1/2 of the active
channel width on each side; filtering function of riparian vegetation only moderately compromised; banks moderately unstable (outside bends actively eroding with few fallen
trees); considerable water cloudiness, submerged objects covered with green film; moderate odor; minor barriers to fish movement; 4-3 fish cover types available; fair.aquatic
habitat; minimum disturbance by livestock or man; Facultative macroinvertebrates present.
Low Quality: Channel is actively downcutting or widening; rip rap and channelization excessive; flood plain restricted by dikes/levees; natural vegetation less than 1/3 of the
active channel width on each side; lack of regeneration; filtering function severely compromised; Banks unstable (inside and outside bends actively eroding with numerous
fallen trees); water very turbid to muddy; obvious pollutants (algal mats, surface scum, surface sheen); heavy odor; green color to water; severe barriers to fish movement; 2-0
fish covert es available; little to no aquatic habitat; severe disturbance b livestock or man; tolerant or no macroinvertebrates resent.
PAVe2of2
7041 Old Wake Forest Road, Suite 103, Raleigh, NC 27616
T: 919.872.6600 F: 919.872.7996 ENSR
IAECOM
WATERBODY
Waterbody Name: (Ax 10 Pjeir Waterbody ID No.:
(H?) Re-Route Access Road Warehouse Site Other:
Associated Wetland No.:

Date: - K Client/Project Name & No.: Milepost:
Investigators: State/County/Municipality: tJc Quad Name:
Logbook No.: Lo book Page No.. Block/Lot/Tract No.: Picture No.:
PHYSICAL ATTRIBUTES
Waterbod Sketch Plan
Please include: Directional & North Arrow, Centerline, Length of feature, Distances from Centerline, Photo Locations, and
Survey corridor
1
I
t C'0
vr?

1
?O

Angle of Crossing at Centerline:
Waterbody Type Lake Pond Borrow Pit River 'S't' rea Ag. Ditch Other:
Stream Flow Fa der Slow Very Slow None
Flow type I 'lPere'n'nia'l (Flows 3 Intermittent/Seasonal Ephemeral (Flows only in Direction:
months annually) (Flows <3 months response to rainfall)
annually) Number of Annual Flow Events
OHWM Indicator Cl natural line on b Shelving on 5co Water Staining
Bent, matted or missing vegetation o1I character Chan Abrupt plant community change Wrack line Litter and debris
Sinuosity Straight eariderin Subsurface Flow? Yes No Unknown
Stream Depth (In.) 0.3 3-6 6-12 2 18 18-24 24-36 36-48 48-60 60+
Stream Width (ft.) Top of Sank (at crossing location): ` ` Water Surface (at crossing location): " t (+(
Bank Height (ft.) Left 0-2 4-6 6-8 8+
(looking downstream else
give direction you are Right 0-2 2-4 4-6 6-8 8+
facin here:
Bank Slope (°) Left 0-20 20-40 40-60 60-80 . 80+

(looking downstream else
give direction you are Right 0-20 20-40 40-60 60-80 80+
facing here:
ENSR I AEC()fN
Waterbody ID No.; IA-Lca)?_
I Date: O? y ( -1 "L c? Client/Project Name & No.: Milepost:
QUALITATIVE ATTRIBUTES
Water Appearance Clear Slightly Ttar ' . Turbid Very, Turbid Color:
Floating algal mats Obvious surface scum Sheen on surface Greenish color Other:
Stream Substrate % Bedrock Gravel Sand Silt/Clay Or anic
Aquatic Habitats and B ravel B Mud Bar ravel Ri le ee Poo
dercut B nk 9 ran In-stream emergent In-stream submerged ank root syste s Fringing Wetlands
t eeslshrubs plants plants
Percent Cover Percent Cover
Aquatic Organisms Waterfowl Fish (adult) Flsh (Iuvenil Frogs Turtles
Observed
Snakes Other:
Invertebrates: Intolera Facultative Tolerant None
Riparian Zone Width of natural vegetation zone from edge of active channel out onto flood plain: (ft)
Circle vegetative layers: trees s ru er
? Significant bare areas within riparian zone
? Evidence of non-bufferod concentrated flows
Tributary is luYal Artificial (Man-Made) Manipulated (Explain below) Stab e / Unstable
Channel Condition Channelization/Braiding Unnatural straightening Downcutting Dikes/Berms Excessive bank erosion
Disturbances ? Livestock access to riparian zone ? Manure in stream or on banks
? Waste discharge pipes present Other:

TIE SPECIES/ SUITABLE HABITAT Habitat ID No.:
V_kXV_2 c' h?X v 0
Comments e. pipeline crossing angle, construction constraints, erosion potential, existing disturbances, and meanders
I/?L.v dv.Q.r f7??-t? ? '?,f?.Gd? '"-?,iv?.?•.? ? ?--+r'?fjt'v"°'

STREAM DUALITY (indicate) High ? Moderate ? Low
High Quality: Natural channel (no structures or dikes; no evidence of downcutting or excessive lateral cutting); evidence of past channel alteration with significant recovery;
any dikes/levies are set back to provide access to adequate flood plain; natural vegetation extends at least one or two active channel widths on each side; banks stable and
protected by roots that extend to the base-flow elevation; water clear to tea-colored; no barriers to fish movement (seasonal water withdrawals prevent movement); many fish
cover types available; diverse and stable aquatic habitat; no disturbance by livestock or man; intolerant macroinvertebrates present.
Moderate Quality: Altered channel evidenced by rip rap and/or channelization; dikes/levees restrict flood plain width; natural vegetation extends 113-1/2 of the active
channel width on each side; filtering function of riparian vegetation only moderately compromised; banks moderately unstable (outside bends actively eroding with few fallen
trees); considerable water cloudiness, submerged objects covered with green film; moderate odor; minor barriers to fish movement; 4-3 fish cover types available; fair aquatic
habitat; minimum disturbance by livestock or man; Facultative macroinvertebrates present.
Low Quality: Channel is actively downeutting or widening; rip rap and channelization excessive; flood plain restricted by dikes/levees; natural vegetation less than 113 of the
active channel width on each side; lack of regeneration; filtering function severely compromised; Banks unstable (inside and outside bends actively eroding with numerous
fallen trees); water very turbid to muddy; obvious pollutants (algal mats, surface scum, surface sheen); heavy odor; green color to water; severe barriers to fish movement; 2-0
fish covert es available; little to no aquatic habitat; severe disturbance 6 livestock or man; tolerant or no macroinvertebrates resent.

Paup 214f 2
7041 Old Wake Forest Road, Suite 103, Raleigh, NC 27616
T: 919.872.6600 F: 919.872.7996
}} rr W?j ATERBODY
Waterbody Name: Ro d'ex? # xa_ncb
Centerline Re-Route Access Road Warehouse Site Other:
Waterbody ID No.:
ENSRIAECOM

Associated Wetland No.:
Date: '1)w ( -7_ Client/Project Name & No.: C ( Milepost:
Investigators: ? 3- State/County/Municipality: NwRi
o Quad Name:
uo-t
Logbook No.: Lo book Page No.. 4' Block/LotlTract No.: Picture No.: t -- "?
PHYSICAL ATTRIBUTES
Waterbod Sketch Plan
Please include: Dire ctional & North Arrow, Centerline, Length of feature, Distances from Centerline, Photo Locations, and
Survey corridor f (? ry
L?
t C)

n
a
S (3 12? I
t
•t ?

t
(
Angle of Crossing at Centerline:
Water body Type Lake Pond Borrow Pit River Stream Ag. Ditch Other:
Stream Flow as Moderate 5 ow Very Slow None
Flow type ennial (Flows 3 Intermittent/Seasonal emeral (Flows only in Direction:
ton.ths
annual) (Flows <3 months
annually) response to rainfall)
Number of Annual, Flow Events
OHWIVI Indicator lear natural line on ank Shelving Wrested vegetation Scour Water 5taini
Bent, matted or missin g vegetation Soil character chan s Abrupt plant community change , Wrack line Litter and debris
Sinuosity Straight Meanderi g Subsurface Flow? Yes No Unknown
Stream Depth (in.) 0-3 3.6 6.12 12.18 18-24 24-36 36.48 48.60 60+
Stream Width (ft.) Top of Bank (at crossing location): I Water Surface (at crossing location): l
Bank Height (ft.) Left 0-2 2-4 4-6 6-8 8+
(looking downstream else
give direction you are Right 0-2 2-4 4 6 6-8 8+
facin here:
Bank Slope (°) Left 0-20 20.40 4 6 60-80 80+

(looking downstream else
give direction you are Right 0-20 20-40 0 0?w 8
facing here:
ENSR EM

Waterbody ID No.: [ A CL 00
Date: c)6, Client/Project Name & No.: Milepost:
QUALITATIVE ATTRIBUTES
Water Appearance Clear Slightly,Turbid Turbid Very Turbid Color:
Floating'algal mats Obvious surface scum Sheen on surface Greenish color Other;
Stream Substrate % Bedrock Gravel Sand Sit Clay Organic
Aquatic Habitats Sand Bar Gravel Bar Mud Bar Gravel Ri to Deep Po Is
U dercut Banks verhangin In-stream emergent In-stream submerged Bank root systems Fringing Wetlands
trees/shrubs plants plants
Percent Cover Percent Cover
Aquatic Organisms Waterfowl Fish (adult) Fish Quvenile) Frogs Turtles
Observed
Snakes Other:
Invertebrates: Intolerant Facultative Tolerant None
Riparian Zone Width of natural vegetation zone from edge of active channel out onto flood plain: (ft)
Circle vegetative layers: trees shrub er s
? Significant bare areas within riparian zone
? Evidence of non-buffered concentrated flows
ORM
"
Tributary Is F
Natural Artificial (Man-Made) Manipulated (Explain below) Stable Unstable
Channel Condition Channelization/Braiding Unnatural straightening Downcutting Dikes/Berms xcessive bank erosio
Disturbances ? Livestock access to riparian zone ? Manure in stream or on banks
? Waste discharge pipes present 00 Other: K0 04'
TIE SPECIES/ SUITABLE HABITAT Habitat ID No.:
Comments e.. pipeline crossing angle, construction constraints, erosion potential, existing disturbances, and meanders

101t 0Q- 1-0111
STREAM QUALITY (indicate) igh -? ? Moderate ? Low
High Quality: Natural channel (no structures or dikes; no evidence of downcutting or excessive lateral cutting); evidence of past channel alteration with significant recovery;
any dikes/levies are set back to provide access to adequate flood plain; natural vegetation extends at least one or two active channel widths on each side; banks stable and
protected by roots that extend to the base-flow elevation; water clear to tea-colored; no barriers to fish movement (seasonal water withdrawals prevent movement); many fish
cover types available; diverse and stable aquatic habitat; no disturbance by livestock or man; intolerant macroinvertebrates present.
Moderate Quality: Altered channel evidenced by rip rap and/or channelization; dikes/levees restrict flood plain width; natural vegetation extends 113-112 of the active
channel width on each side; filtering function of riparian vegetation only moderately compromised; banks moderately unstable (outside bends actively eroding with few fallen
trees); considerable water cloudiness, submerged objects covered with green film; moderate odor; minor barriers to fish movement; 4-3 fish cover types available; fair aquatic
habitat; minimum disturbance by livestock or man; Facultative macroinvertebrates present.
Low Quality: Channel is actively downcutting or widening; rip rap and channelization excessive; flood plain restricted by dikes/levees; natural vegetation less than 1/3 of the
active channel width on each side; lack of regeneration; filtering function severely compromised; Banks unstable (inside and outside bends actively eroding with numerous
fallen trees); water very turbid to muddy; obvious pollutants (algal mats, surface scum, surface sheen); heavy odor; green color to water; severe barriers to fish movement; 2-0
fish covert es available; little to no aquatic habitat; severe disturbance b livestock or man; tolerant or no macroinvertebrates resent.
*,?, Poor 2 of 2
7041 Old Wake Forest Road, Suite 103, Raleigh, NC 27616
T: 919.872.6600 F: 919.872.7996
WATERBODY
Waterbody Name: UUT
Center Ine Re-Route Access Road Warehouse Site Other:
Waterbody ID No.:
ENSR I E C M
tACA- 6c cl
Associated Wetland No.:
Date: -? _ ,, - U Client/Project Name & No.: Yb 4 S Milepost:
Investigators: ' l C -
( State/County/Mun ipality: WC (CAeoda"'i Quad Name: _If uv.e
Logbook No.: gbook Page No.:
L Block/Lot/Tract No.: Picture No.: ?.
PHYSICAL ATTRIBUTES
Waterbod Sketch Plan
Please include: Directional & North Arrow, Centerline, Length of feature, Distances from Centerline, Photo Locations, and
Survey corridor
t

C
r '
v1
? I

ti

i
Angle of Crossing at Centerline:
Waterbody Type Lake Pond Borrow Pit River Stream Ag. Ditch Other:
Stream Flow sl - Moderate Slow Very Slow None
Flow type ;Perennial (Flows Intermittent/Seasonal Ephemeral (Flows only in Direction:;
onths annu (Flows <3 months response to rainfall)
Number of Annual Flow is
annually)
OHWM Indicator Ci natural line o k Shelving Wrested vegetation Scour ater Staining
Bent, matted or missing vegetation it c aracter cha es Abrupt plant community change Wrack line 'tter and debr
Sinuosity Straight Meander1n Subsurface Flow? Yes No Unknown
Stream Depth (in.) 0-3 3 6 6-12 12-18 18-24 24-36 36-48 48-60 60+
Stream Width (ft.) Top of Bank (at crossing location): Water Surface (at crossing location): } UJ I
Bank Height (ft.) Left 0-2 2-4 4.6 6-8 8 s
(looking downstream else
give direction you are Right 0-2 2-4 4-6 6-8 +
facing here:
Bank Slope (°) Left 0-20 20-40. 40.60 60 80+
(looking downstream else
give direction you are
Right
0-20
20-40
40.60
60-80
80+
facing here:
ENSR AECL1M
k. lb
Waterbody ID No.:CL-00
I Date: 1,(-1 _ Vi I Client/Project Name & No.: j il Milepost:
QUALITATIVE ATTRIBUTES
Water Appearance Clear lightly Turbid Turbid. Very Turbid Color:
Floating algal mats Obvious surface scum Sheen on surface Greenish color Other:
Stream Substrate % Bedrock Gravel (ch Sand S€lt/Clay Organic
Aquatic Habitats and Bar Gravel B Mud Bar ravel iffles Deep Pools
ndere Bank ver angi In-s ream emergent In-stream submerged ank root syste s Fringing Wetlands
treeslshrubs plants plants
Percent Cover Percent Cover
Aquatic Organisms Waterfowl Fish (adult) Fish (juvenile) Frogs Turtles
Observed
Snakes Other:
Invertebrates: Intolerant Facultative Tolerant None
Riparian Zone Width of natural vegetation zone from edge of active channel lood plain: (ft)
Circle vegetative layers: trees hrubs er s
? Significant bare areas within riparian zone
? Evidence of non-buffered concentrated flows
Tributary is atura Artificial (Man-Made) Manipulated (Explain below) ble / Unstable
i
Channel Condition Channelization/Braiding Unnatural straightening Downcutting Dikes/Berms ion
tylcessiv6t_i_nro
Disturbances ? Livestock access to riparian zone ? Manure in stream or on banks
© Waste discharge pipes present Other: Y CA6 Gros<-'?

WE SPECIES / SUITABLE HABITAT Habitat ID No.:
Comments (e. g. i eline crossing angle, construction constraints, erosion potential, existing disturbances, and meanders

? 6, v- -kW' 0,CA-1A_aA QJ_V ?,.. .. -?
STREAM QUALITY (indicate) igh? ? Moderate ? Low
High Quality: Natural channel (no structures or dik ; no evidence of downcutting or excessive lateral cutting); evidence of past channel alteration with significant recovery;
any dikes/levies are set back to provide access to adequate flood plain; natural vegetation extends at least one or two active channel widths on each side; banks stable and
protected by roots that extend to the base-flow elevation; water clear to tea-colored; no barriers to fish movement (seasonal water withdrawals prevent movement); many fish
cover types available; diverse and stable aquatic habitat; no disturbance by livestock or man; intolerant macroinvertebrates present.
Moderate Quality: Altered channel evidenced by rip rap and/or channelization; dikes/levees restrict flood plain width; natural vegetation extends 113-112 of the active
channel width on each side; filtering function of riparian vegetation only moderately compromised; banks moderately unstable (outside bends actively eroding with few fallen
trees); considerable water cloudiness, submerged objects covered with green film; moderate odor; minor barriers to fish movement; 4-3 fish cover types available; fair aquatic
habitat; minimuin disturbance by livestock or man; Facultative macroinvertebrates present.
Low Quality: Channel is actively downctitting or widening; rip rap and channelization excessive; flood plain restricted by dikes/levees; natural vegetation less than 113 of the
active channel width on each side; lack of regeneration; filtering function severely compromised; Banks unstable (inside and outside bends actively eroding with numerous
fallen trees); water very turbid to muddy; obvious pollutants (algal mats, surface scum, surface sheen); heavy odor; green color to water; severe barriers to fish movement; 2-0
fish cover types available; little to no aquatic habitat; severe disturbance b livestock or man; tolerant or no macroinvertebrates resent.
Pavr 2 of 2
7041 Old Wake Forest Road, Suite 103, Raleigh, NC 27616
T: 919.872.6600 F: 919.$72.7996 WATERBODY ENSR EpO
Waterbody Name
Centerlin
ILU
Re-Route Access Road Warehouse Site Other:
Waterbody ID No.:
Associated Wetland No.:

Date: ivy Client/Project Name & No.: YN Milepost:
Investigators: State/County/Municipality: ? Quad Name:
4?C 0?
'
v
Logbook No.: Logbook Page No.: t' _ Block/Lotffract No.: Picture No.: ~]
PHYSICAL ATTRIBUTES
Waterbod Sketch Plan
Please include: Directional & North Arrow, Centerline, Length of feature, Distances from Centerline, Photo Locations, and
Survey corridor

?l

• ? • ? ? STS ????
`
b
I
1 10\
i

c
Angle of Crossing at Centerline:
Waterbody Type Lake Pond Borrow Pit River Stream Ag. Ditch Other:
Stream Flow Fast Moderate Slow Very Slow None
Flow type Perennial (Flows > 3 Intermittent/Seasonal emera (Flowon in Direction:

months annually) (Flows a3 months annually) (esponsetorainfajll)
Number of Annual Flow Events
OHWM Indicator Clear natural line on bank Shelving Wrested vegetation Scour Water Staining
Bent, matted or missing vegetation Soil character chan es Abrupt plant community change Wrack line Litter and debris
Sinuosity Straight Meanden Subsurface Flow? Yes No Unknown
Stream Depth (In.) 0 3-6 6 12 12-18 18-24 24-36 36.48 48-60 60+
Stream Width (ft.) Top of Bank (at crossing location): Water Surface (at crossing location): }tit
Bank Height (ft.)
(looking downstream else Left 0-2 2 4 4.6 6-8 8+
give direction you are Right 0-2 4-6 6-8 8+
facin here;
Bank Slope (°) Left 0.20 20-40 40-60 0-80 80+
(looking downstream else
give direction you are Right 0-20 20-40 40-60 F8) 80+
facing here:

ENSR I AECOIA
Waterbody ID No.: ?; Ic-i-obis
Date: Client/Project Name & No.: Milepost:
QUALITATIVE ATTRIBUTES
Water Appearance Clear Slightly Turbid Turbid Very Turbid Color:

Floating algal mats Obvious surface scum Sheen on surface Greenish color Other:
Stream Substrate % Bedrock Gravel Sand Silt/ lay Organic
Aquatic Habitats Sand Bar Gravel Bar Mud Bar Gravel Riffles Deep Pools
Undercut Banks v angi In-stream emergent In-stream submerged Bank root systems Fringing Wetlands
rees/shrubs plants plants
Percent Cover Percent Cover
Aquatic Organisms Waterfowl Fish (adult) Fish (juvenile) Frogs Turtles
Observed ,
Snakes Other:
T
l N
Invertebrates: Intolerant Facultative erant
o one
Riparian Zone Width of natural vegetation zone from edge of active channel out onto flood plain: (ft)
Circle vegetative layers: tees rub herbs
? Significant bare areas within riparian zone ?lL,? e (1h Q 1" 1
? Evidence of non-buffered concentrated flows
Tributary is Natural Artificial (Man-Made) Manipulated (Explain below) Stable / Unstable
Channel Condition annelization/Braiding Unnatural straightening Downcutting Dikes/Berms Excessive bank erosion
Disturbances ? Livestock access to riparian zone ? Manure in stream or on banks
? Waste discharge pipes present ?0 Other: I/L.. t ?

TIE SPECIES / SUITABLE HABITAT Habitat ID No.:
Comments e.. pipeline crossing angle, construction constraints; erosion potential, existin disturbances, and meanders

ID
STREAM QUALITY (indicate) ? High ??- Moderate ? Low
High Quality: Natural channel (no structures or dikes; no evidence of downcutting or excessive lateral cutting); evidence of past channel alteration with significant recovery;
any dikes/levies are set back to provide access to adequate flood plain; natural vegetation extends at least one or two active channel widths on each side; banks stable and
protected by roots that extend to the base-flow elevation; water clear to tea-colored; no barriers to fish movement (seasonal water withdrawals prevent movement); many fish
cover types available; diverse and stable aquatic habitat; no disturbance by livestock or man; intolerant macroinvertebrates present.
Moderate Quality: Altered channel evidenced by rip rap and/or channelization; dikes/levees restrict flood plain width; natural vegetation extends 1/3-1/2 of the active
channel width on each side; filtering function of riparian vegetation only moderately compromised; banks moderately unstable (outside bends actively eroding with few fallen
trees); considerable water cloudiness, submerged objects covered with green film; moderate odor; minor barriers to fish movement; 4-3 fish cover types available; fair aquatic
habitat; minimum disturbance by livestock or man; Facultative macroinvertebrates present.
Low Quality: Channel is actively downeutting or widening; rip rap and channelization excessive; flood plain restricted by dikes/levees; natural vegetation less than 1/3 of the
active channel width on each side; lack of regeneration; filtering function severely compromised; Banks unstable (inside and outside bends actively eroding with numerous
fallen trees); water very turbid to muddy; obvious pollutants (algal mats, surface scum, surface sheen); heavy odor; green color to water; severe barriers to fish movement; 2-0
fish covert es available; little to no aquatic habitat; severe disturbance 6 livestock or man; tolerant or no macroinvertebrates invent.
4+? ' AA4P 2. fir 2
7041 Old Wake Forest Road, Suite 103, Raleigh, NC 27616
T: 919.872.6600 F: 919.872.7996
WATERBODY
Waterbody Name: >f o?•(?? D l(?'i t[?? Waterbody ID No.:
nterline Re-Route Access Road Warehouse Site Other:
Associated Wetland No.:
ENSR I O
1'-o0
Date: c? Client/Project Name & No.: Milepost:
Investigators: State/County/Municipality: 56
Quad Name:
23C Z&e,,&C
Logbook No.: L gbook Page No.: .? Block/Lot/Tract No.: Picture No.: _ y
PHYSICAL ATTRIBUTES
Waterbod Sketch Plan
Please include: Directional & North Arrow, Centerline, Length of feature, Distances from Centerline, Photo Locations, and
Survey corridor
[ L?
r
-. i

I

fde
? U
l
An I of Crossing at Centerline:
Waterbody Type Lake Pond Borrow Pit River Stream " Ditch Other:
Stream Flow Fast Moderate SI Very Slow None
Flow type Perennial (Flows } 3 lntermittent/Seasonal phemeral (Flaws only i Direction:
months annually) (Flows <3 months
annually)
- ?asQonse to rainfall)
Number of Annual Flow Events

OHWM Indicator
Clear natural line on bank
Shelving
Wrested vegetation
T
Scou
(
Water Staining
Bent, matted or missing vegetation oil character change Abrupt plant community change Wrack line Litter and debris
Sinuosity Straig t Meandering Subsurface Flow? Yes No Unknown
Stream Depth (In,) 0 3.6 6-12 12-18 18.24 24-36 36-48 48-60 60+
Stream Width (ft.) Top of Bank (at crossing location): ` Water Surface (at crossing location): 6 Mum Y
Bank Height (ft.) Left 0 2 2 4 4 6 6 8 8+
(looking downstream else
give direction you are Right 0.2 2.4 4-6 6-8 8+
facing here:
Bank Slope (°) Left 0-20 20-40 0-6 60-80 80+

(looking downstream else
give direction you are Right 0-20 20-40 0,60 60-80 80+
facing here:
E ISM I ECO
Waterbody ID No.: S1 f1Ct-kCX-:-) 1
Date: ° I(q - 0 Client/Project Name & No.: Milepost:
QUALITATIVE ATTRIBUTES
Water Appearance Clear Slightly Turbid Turbid Very Turbid Color;
VL.dY?? Floating algal mats Obvious surface scum Sheen on surface Greenish color Other:
Stream Substrate % Bedrock Gravel 111 Sand Silt/Clay Organic
Aquatic Habitats Sand Bar Gravel Bar Mud Bar Gravel Riffle Deep Pools
Undercut Banks Overhanging In-stream emergent In-siream submerged Bank root systems Fringing Wetlands
trees/shrubs plants plants
Percent Cover Percent Cover
Aquatic Organisms Waterfowl Fish (adult) Fish (juvenile) Frogs Turtles
Observed
Snakes
Other:
Invertebrates: Intolerant Facultative Tolerant None
Riparian Zone Width of natural vegetation zone from edge of active channel out onto flood plain: ?? (ft)
Circle vegetative layers: trees shrubs herbs
? Significant bare areas within riparian zone
? Evidence of non-buffered co ent ows
Tributary is Natural Art ' ial (Man-M e) Manipulated (Explain below) Stable / Unstable
Channel Condition Channelization/Braiding Unnatural straightening Downcutting Dikes/Berms Excessive bank erosion
Disturbances ? Livestock access to riparian zone ? Manure in stream or on banks
? Waste discharge pipes present

Other:_
P

IAA

TIE SPECIES 1 SUITABLE HABITAT Habitat ID No.:
Comments e. i eline crossin an le, construction constraints, erosion potential, existing disturbances, and meanders

STREAM QUALITY (indicate) ? High ? Moderate Low
High Quality: Natural channel (no structures or dikes; no evidence of downcutting or excessive lateral cutting); evidence of past channel alteration with significant recovery;
any dikes/levies are set back to provide access to adequate flood plain; natural vegetation extends at least one or two active channel widths on each side; banks stable and
protected by roots that extend to the base-flow elevation; water clear to tea-colored; no barriers to fish movement (seasonal water withdrawals prevent movement); many fish
cover types available; diverse and stable aquatic habitat; no disturbance by livestock or man; intolerant macroinvertebrates present.
Moderate Quality: Altered channel evidenced by rip rap and/or channelization; dikes/levees restrict flood plain width; natural vegetation extends 113-1/2 of the active
channel width on each side; filtering function of riparian vegetation only moderately compromised; banks moderately unstable (outside bends actively eroding with few fallen
trees); considerable water cloudiness, submerged objects covered with green film; moderate odor; minor barriers to fish movement; 4-3 fish cover types available; fair aquatic
habitat; minimum disturbance by livestock or man; Facultative macroinvertebrates present.
Low Quality-. Channel is actively downcutting or widening; rip rap and channelization excessive; flood plain restricted by dikes/levees; natural vegetation less than 113 of the
active channel width on each side;'lack of regeneration; filtering function severely compromised; Banks unstable (inside and outside bends actively eroding with numerous
fallen trees); water very turbid to muddy; obvious pollutants (algal mats, surface scum, surface sheen); heavy odor; green color to water; severe barriers to fish movement; 2-0
fish covert es available; little to no aquatic habitat; severe disturbance b livestock or man; tolerant or no macroinvertebrates resent,
pavP2nf2
7041 Old Wake Forest Road, Suite 103, Raleigh, NC 27616
T: 919.872.6600 F7 919.872.7996
WATERBODY
Waterbody Name: ? e-lk--le"r'?'j"?`'r S r17?rz-1VI 4'?
Centerline Fie-Route Access?oa Warehouse Site Other:
Waterbody ID No.:
ENS R I =CO
Associated Wetland No.:
Date: Clierit/Project Name & No.:}1Aiifft Milepost:
Investigators: jm State/County/Municipality: Quad Name: -'rove
Logbook No.:
No.- Block/Lot/Tract No.:
Logbook Page
Picture No.: -[
PHYSICAL ATTRIBUTES
Waterbod Sketch Plan
Please include: Directional & North Arrow, Centerline, Length of feature, Distances from Centerline, Photo Locations, and
Survey corridor

?
r
f

C5r''J

Angle of Crossing-at Centerline:
Waterbody Type Lake Pond Borrow Pit River Strea Ag. Ditch Other:
Stream Flow Fast Moderate Slow Very Slow None
Flow type Perennial (Flows 3 termlttent/Seasa a Ephemeral (Flaws only in Direction:
months annually) (Flows <3 months response to rainfall) Number of Annual Flow Events
wally)
OHWM indicator ear natural line bank elvln Wrested vegetation Scour Water Staining
Bent, matted or missing vegetation a aracter than Abrupt plant community change Wrack line Litter and ebr
Sinuosity Straigh Meandering Subsurface Flow? Yes No Unknown
Stream Depth (In.) 0-3 3-6 6 12 12-18 18.24 24-36 36.48 48-60 60+
Stream Width (ft.) Top of Bank (at crossing location): Water Surface (at crossing location):
Bank Height (ft.) Left 0-2 2-4 4-6 6-8 8+
(looking downstream else
give direction you are Right 0-2 2-4 4-6 6-8 8+
facing here:
Bank Slope (°) Lett 0.20 20-40 40-60 60-80 80+
(looking downstream else
give direction you are Right 0.20 20-40 40-60 60-80 80
facing here:

01 '
Waterbody ID No.: ,4 Ca
I Date: 3' -( S -C=N Client/Project Name & No.: "?i-k r e-, Milepost:
QUALITATIVE ATTRIBUTES
Water Appearance Clear lightly Turbi Turbid Very Turbid Color:
Floating algal mats Obvious surface scum Sheen on surface Greenish color Other:
Stream Substrate % Bedrock Gravel_QD Sand Sil la Organic
Aquatic Habitats Sand Bar Gravel Bar Mud Bar ravel Riffles eep Pools
Undercut Banks Overhangs In-stream emergent in-stream submerged Bank root systems Fringing Wetlands
trees/shrubs plants plants
Percent Cover Percent Cover
Aquatic Organisms Waterfowl Fish (adult) Fish (juvenile) Frogs Turtles
Observed
Snakes Other:
Invertebrates: Intolerant Facultative Tolerant Cole)
Riparian Zone Width of natural vegetation zone from edge of active channel out onto flood plain: (ft)
Circle vegetative layers: trees rub herb
? significant bare areas within riparian zone
CI Evidence of non-buffered concentrated flows
Tributary is Natural Artificial (Man-Made) Manipulated (Explain below) Stable 1 Unstable
Channel Condition Channelization/Braiding Unnatural straightening Downcutting Dikes/Berms E cessive bank ergs
Disturbances ? Livestock access to riparian zone " Manure in stream or on banks
? Waste discharge pipes present Other:
To rX C-) 4-_k?_

TIE SPECIES /SUITABLE HABITAT Habitat ID No.:
Comments (e. g. pipeline crossing angle, construction constraints, erosion potential, existing disturbances, and meanders

STREAM QUALITY (indicate) High oderate ? Low
High Quality: Natural channel (no structures or dikes, no evidence of downcutting or excessive lateral cutting); evidence of past channel alteration with significant recovery;
any dikes/levies are set back to provide access to adequate flood plain; natural vegetation extends at least one or two active channel widths on each side; banks stable and
protected by roots that extend to the base-flow elevation; water clear to tea-colored; no barriers to fish movement (seasonal water withdrawals prevent movement); many fish
cover types available; diverse and stable aquatic habitat; no disturbance by livestock or man; intolerant macroinvertebrates present.
Moderate Quality: Altered channel evidenced by rip rap and/or channelization; dikes/levees restrict flood plain width; natural vegetation extends 1/3-112 of the active
channel width on each side; filtering function of riparian vegetation only moderately compromised; banks moderately unstable (outside bends actively eroding with few fallen
trees); considerable water cloudiness, submerged objects covered with green film; moderate odor; minor barriers to fish movement, 4-3 fish cover types available; fair aquatic
habitat; minimum disturbance by livestock or man; Facultative macroinvertebrates present.
Low Quality: Channel is actively downeutting or widening; rip rap and channelization excessive; flood plain restricted by dikes/levees; natural vegetation less than 113 of the
active channel width on each side; lack of regeneration; filtering function severely compromised; Banks unstable (inside and outside bends actively eroding with numerous
fallen trees); water very turbid to muddy; obvious pollutants (algal mats, surface scum, surface sheen); heavy odor; green color to water; severe barriers to fish movement; 2-0
fish covert es available; little to no aquatic habitat; severe disturbance b livestock or man; tolerant or no maeroinvertebrates resent.
PAve 2 of 2
7041 Old Wake Forest Road, Suite 103, Raleigh, NC 27616
T: 919.872.6600 F: 919.872.7996
WATERBODY
Waterbody Name. LA_-T -JZ
Centerline Fie-Route A cess Road Warehouse Site Other:
Waterbody ID No.:
ENSR I CO
Associated Wetland No.:
Date: A' ®p? Client/Project Name & No.: Milepost:
Investigators: State/County/Municipality: C ??tiJ uad Name: (Dy LWe_Ar
Logbook No.: Lag ook Page No.: 6 Block/LotfTract NO.: Picture No.: (? -
PHYSICAL ATTRIBUTES
Waterbod Sketch Plan
Please include: Directional & North Arrow, Centerline, Length of feature, Distances from Centerline, Photo Locations, and
Survey corridor

RUA

Angle of Crossing at Centerline:
Waterbody Type Lake Pond Borrow Pit River Stream Ag.. Ditch Other:
Stream Flow Fast Moderate Slow Very Slow None
Flow type Perennial (Flows >3 term!ttent1Sea- ssoo'h Ephemeral (Flows only in Direction:
months annually) (Flows a3 months response to rainfall)
Number of Annual Flow Events
OHWM Indicator Car natural line n b heiving Wrested vegetation Scour Water Staining
Bent, matted or missing vegetation oil character than es Abrupt pl ant community change Wrack line Litter and debris
Sinuosity Straight eander g Subsurface Flow? Yes No Unknown
Stream Depth (in.) 0-3
1
3 6
6-12
12-18
18-24
24-36
36-48
48-60
60+
Stream Width (ft.) Top of Bank (at crossing location): Water Surface (at crossing location): r= 'iAALA.
Bank Height (ft.) Lett 2-4 4-6 6-8 8+
(looking downstream else

give direction you are Right 2 2-4 4-6 6.8 8+
facing here:
Bank Slope (°) Left 0-20 20-40 40 60 60-80 80+
(looking downstream else
give direction you are
Right
0 20
20 40
0.60
60 80
80+
facing here:
ENSR. I 1 ECOM
Waterbody ID No.: 3 (ACA- -? 1
Date; d Client/Project Name & No.: Milepost:
QUALITATIVE ATTRIBUTES
Water Appearance Clear Slightly Turbid Turbid Very Turbid Color: CG+K
Floating algal mats Obvious surface scum Sheen on surface Greenish color Other:
Stream Substrate %
I

Bedrock

Gravel
46

Sand

SiIt/Cl y
N

Organic
j=
Aquatic Habitats Sand Bar Gravel Bar Mud Bar vel Riffles Deep Pools
Undercut Banks Overhangin In-stream emergent In-stream submerged nk root syste Fringing Wetlands
trees/shrubs plants plants
Percent Cover Percent Cover
Aquatic Organisms Waterfowl Fish (adult) Fish (juvenile) rags Turtles
Observed
Snakes
Other:
Invertebrates: Intolerant Facultative Tolerant !None
Riparian Zone Width of natural vegetation zone from edge of active channel out onto flood plain: `'?7C)"-rC1C`r-i?ft)
Circle vegetative layers: ees rubs erb
? Significant bare areas within riparian zone
? Evidence of non-buffered concentrated (lows
Tributary is atura Artificial (Man-Made) Manipulated (Explain below) table 1 Unstable
Channel Condition Channelization/Braiding Unnatural straightening Downcutting Dikes/Berms Excessive bank erosion
Disturbances ? Livestock access to riparian zone ? Manure in stream or on banks
? Waste discharge pipes present ? Other:

T/E SPECIES / SUITABLE HABITAT Habitat ID No.:
Co
ments (e. g. pipeline crossin angle, construction constraints, erosion potential, existing disturbances, and meanders
m
?a-v- •? ? ` C7CL CJ `? <V s = .?
``? /,,? tn.L?„?.?-? ?''t"? ?f •??' ? S ?? .T-(.?t y? r lr` ? i CJ? (? t?G?--j'???'?L?-?'
STREAM QUALITY (indicate) ? High Moderate 0 . Low
High Quality: Natural channel (no structures or dikes; no evidence of downcutting or excessive lateral cutting); evidence of past channel alteration with significant recovery;
any dikes/levies are set back to provide access to adequate flood plain; natural vegetation extends at least one or two active channel widths on each side; banks stable and
protected by roots that extend to the base-flow elevation; water clear to tea-colored; no barriers to fish movement (seasonal water withdrawals prevent movement); many fish
cover types available; diverse and stable aquatic habitat; no disturbance by livestock or man; intolerant macroinvertebrates present.
Moderate Quality: Altered channel evidenced by rip rap and/or channelization; dikes/levees restrict flood plain width; natural vegetation extends 1/3-1/2 of the active
channel width on each side; filtering function of riparian vegetation only moderately compromised; banks moderately unstable (outside bends actively eroding with few fallen
trees); considerable water cloudiness, submerged objects covered with green film; moderate odor; minor barriers to fish movement; 4-3 fish cover types available; fair aquatic
habitat; minimum disturbance by livestock or man; Facultative macroinvertebrates present.
Low Quality: Channel is actively downcutting or widening; rip rap and channelization excessive; flood plain restricted by dikes/levees; natural vegetation less than 113 of the
active channel width on each side; lack of regeneration; filtering function severely compromised; Banks unstable (inside and outside bends actively eroding with numerous
fallen trees); water very turbid to muddy; obvious pollutants (algal mats, surface scum, surface sheen); heavy odor; green color to water; severe barriers to fish movement; 2-4
fish covert es available; little to no aquatic habitat; severe disturbance b livestock or man; tolerant or no macroinvertebrates resent.
PAVP 2 of 2
ENSR ENSR AECON4
7441 Old Wake Forest Road, Suite 103
Raleigh, NC 27616
MAN-MADE FEATURE
Feature ID #: ?AAW t^ G 14 06 t
Feature Type:
? Groundwater Well for Residence
? Groundwater Well for Flood Irrigation
? Groundwater Well for Center Pivot Irrigation
? Residential Structure
? Fence Post
? utility Pole for Transmission Line
? Oil/Gas Well
? Office Building
? School
? Barn
? Silo
? Storage Shed
? Park
? Recreation Area
? Waste Disposal Site
? Campground
? Golf Course
? Orchard
? Nursery
? Quarry
KOther 96VYKWaAe$" vzt'&77 Y1
Approximate distance and direction from centerline?
Please include: Directional & North Arrow,

Corridor, Length of feature, Distances from Centerline, and Photo Locations
ll /
Xx
rs-
D ?
?!-Centerline ? Re-Route ? Access Road ? Ancillary Facility ? Other:
Dale: ?2 - t < lqn Ciient/Project Name: C,,,, J I n _, _ Mfleaost EntPrl?Yit
ENSR
7041 Old Wake Forest Road, Suite 103
Raleigh, NC 27616
MAN-MADE FEATURE
ENSRAECOM
Feature ID #: A
?
Centerline ? Re-Route ? Access Road ? Ancillary Facility ? Other:
Date: Clienwroject Name: `1 ? Milepost Enter/Exit:
Investigators: / State/County: Quad Name. (
Logbook No.: Logbook Pg. No..
1-1-C I Tract No, Picture No.:
Feature Type:
? Groundwater Well for Residence
d Groundwater Well for Flood Irrigation
? Groundwater Well for Center Pivot Irrigation
? Residential Structure
Q Fence Post
? Utility Pole for Transmission Line
? Oil/Gas Well
? Office Building
? School
© Barn
? Silo
? Stbrage Shed
? Park
? Recreation Area
? Waste Disposal Site
? Campground
? Golf Course
? Orchard
? Nursery
? Quarry [^
Other SbsvvY.\?t?Av (???•-?
Approximate distance and direction from centerline?
Please include: Directional & North Arrow, Centerline and Survey Corridor, Length of feature,
E
from
Locations
'?
AECOM Environment
Appendix B
Photographs
J:\Projects\S\Southern Power- 06204\Cleveland March 2009
County\Transmission Line\Wetland Report\Wetland Report -
Cleveland Cc Trans (2).doc
Wetlands
AECOM Environment
J:\Projects\S\Southern Power- 06204\Cleveland I March 2009
County\Transmission Line\Wetland Report\Photo Log.doc
W1 ACH002_031809_006_SW
W1 ACH001 _031809_001 _W
Waterbodies
J:\Projects\S\Southern Power- 06204\Cleveland L March 2009
County\Transmission Line\Wetland Report\Photo Log.doc
S1 ACLO01_031709_002_N
S1 ACLO01_031709_003_S
S1 ACLO01_031709_004_W
S1 ACLO01_031709_005_N
Waterbodies
J:\Projects\S\Southern Power- 06204\Cleveland 3 March 2009
County\Transmission Line\Wetland Report\Photo Log.doc
S1 ACLO01_031709_006_S
S1 ACLO01_031709_007_E
S1 ACLO02_031709_008_N
S1 ACLO02_031709_009_S
Waterbodies

3 , -' -
7RPW
t fF W
S1 ACLO02_031709_010_W
J:\Projects\S\Southern Power- 06204\Cleveland 4 March 2009
County\Transmission Line\Wetland Report\Photo Log.doc
S 1 AC LO03_031709_011 _W
S1 ACLO03_031709_012_E
S1 ACLO03_031709_013_N
Waterbodies
J:\Projects\S\Southern Power- 06204\Cleveland 5 March 2009
County\Transmission Line\Wetland Report\Photo Log.doc
S1 ACLO04_031709_014_N
S1 ACLO04_031709_015_S
S1 ACLO04_031709_016_W
S1 ACLO05_031709_017_N
Waterbodies
fi
r

J:\Projects\S\Southern Power- 06204\Cleveland 6 March 2009
County\Transmission Line\Wetland Report\Photo Log.doc
S1 ACLO05_031709_018_S
S1 ACLO05_031709_019_W
S1 ACH001_031809_003_NW
S l ACH001 031809004S E
Waterbodies
J:\Projects\S\Southern Power- 06204\Cleveland 7 March 2009
County\Transmission Line\Wetland Report\Photo Log.doc
S1 ACH001 _031809_005_S E
SAR1 ACLO06_031809_008_N
SARI ACLO06_031809_009_S
SAR1 ACLO06_031809_010_E
Waterbodies

J:\Projects\S\Southern Power- 06204\Cleveland 8 March 2009
County\Transmission Line\Wetland Report\Photo Log.doc
SARI ACLO07_031809_011_N
SARI ACLO07_031809_012_S
SAR1 ACLO07_031809_013_E
Man-Made Features
J:\Projects\S\Southern Power- 06204\Cleveland `J March 2009
County\Transmission Line\Wetland Report\Photo Log.doc
MAN 1 ACH001 _031809_002_S
MAN 1 ACH002_031809_007_SE
Attachment F
PSNC Gas Pipeline
Installation
Description of PSNC Natural Gas Station and Pipeline Installation
Southern Power-Cleveland County Generation Facility
10/16/09
Install new Transco Take-off Station on 150'X100' site adjacent to the north side of
Transco's existing pipelines and adjacent to the existing Transco station easement on
the east side of Battleground Road (NC 216). From that point, install approximately
3,000 feet of 20" O.D. x 0.350"wt, API 5L-X60, FBE natural gas pipeline lateral, operating
at a nominal operating pressure of 800 psig, in a northerly direction along the east side
of Battleground Road approximately 1000' to the new Southern driveway, then in a
westerly direction along the south side of Southern's new driveway approximately 2000'
to the point of gas custody transfer to Southern. Crossing of Battleground Road will be
by conventional bore method if possible. Installation of the pipeline will be by
conventional trench method within 30' easements, including a trenched near
perpendicular crossing of a small normally dry streambed on Southern property
approximately 460' from the end of the pipeline lateral. The trench excavation will
typically be approximately 36"-42" wide and 6.5'-7.0' deep, however the trench could
be 8.5-9' deep at the stream crossing. Disturbance of the dry streambed will be
minimized as much as possible, dependent on the amount of water in the stream at the
time of construction, but disturbance will definitely be limited to the 30' easement
width within the stream buffer. Any significant stream flows at the time of construction
will be maintained by standard Stream Crossing-Dry Ditch Pump Method as shown on
the attached drawings. Temporary Stream Crossings will be established as needed for
equipment crossings to maintain stream flow during construction as shown on the
attached drawings.
SUBJECT SECTION PAGE #
STEEL PIPELINE CS-507 Pa.e 1 of 1
TITLE DATE
A SCANA COMPANY ISSUED 05/15/95
RIVER AND STREAM CROSSINGS
EFFECTIVE
06/01/95
River and stream crossings shall be installed in accordance with Drawings A-4 (CS-525) and the Erosion
and Sedimentation Control Plan. The ditch for the pipeline shall be excavated to a width on the bottom of
at least twelve inches (12") greater than the O.D. of the pipe with concrete coating to be placed therein and
shall be a depth sufficient to provide cover as directed by the PSNC Representative. Unless otherwise
approved by Engineering, the pipe shall be laid horizontal throughout the bed of the stream and at a depth
below where high water will affect the pipe by reason of the scouring action of the stream, and sag bends
or ells shall be located in the bank beyond any point affected by a change in the stream banks. The section
of the line to be laid across streams, creeks, etc., shall be weighted by means of a concrete coating, river
weights or as directed by Engineering.
The crossing installation shall be conducted so water flow hindrance will be minimized in accordance with
the following:
1. The gradient of the streambed shall be maintained by not leaving spoil banks of excavated material
or other objects in the streambed.
2. Stream banks shall be restored to the original grade and cleared of any foreign objects.
Sack breakers and/or rock rip rap shall be placed as directed by the PSNC Representative to protect
the banks and pipeline.
4. Original gradient of steam bed shall be restored after installation of the pipeline.
As directed by the PSNC Representative, the river-crossing pipe may be filled with clean water to sink the
pipe until the pipe has been weighted and the crossing installation is complete.
If an Erosion and Sedimentation Control Plan is required for the job, reference the plan for any additional
requirements at the crossing. In the event that this procedure conflicts with the plan, Engineering shall
determine the appropriate action.
TEST STATION
(SEE A-968.
SECTION OM-523)
PLASTIC PSNC MARKER
SEE NOTE NO.1
WATER LEVEL

w
W
N
CONCRETE COATED
PIPE OR RIVER WEIGHTS
IF SPECIFIED BY ENGINEER
SEE NOTE NO.2
PROFILE
NOTES
1-THIS DISTANCE SHALL BE
A MINIMUM OF 50 FT.
2-STREAM PIPE TO BE LEVEL
UNDER STREAM CHANNEL
EXCEPT IN ROCK FORMATIONS
WHERE PIPE MAY BE LAID TO
CONFORM TO CONTOUR OF
BOTTOM. MINIMUM 6' COVER
IS REQUIRED EXCEPT IN ROCK
WHERE THE MINIMUM COVER IS 4'.
3. SEE CONSTRUCTION STANDARDS
MANUAL.
TEST STATION
(SEE A-968.
SECTION OM-523)
PLASTIC PSNC MARKER
SEE NOTE NO.1
PUBLIC SERVICE COMPANY
of NORTH CAROLINA. Inc.
Z LNtfMLtmise OEIT.
Gastonia. N. C.
TYPICAL RIVER &
_ STREAM CROSSING
DRAWN BY- KEVIN R.CLONINGER DRAWING NO.
w CHECKED BY-
A-4
Or APPROVED BY-
DATE 3/N/W SCALE HDNE SHEET I of I

50 Ft. Wide x
Right-Of-Way
Silt Fence Or
Diversion Ditch
Excavated
Soil Pile
Note
In areas where soil pile is within 20'
and parallel to stream bank and no
natural berm exists, the optional diversion
ditch (in addition to silt fence) incorporating
check dams at 50' max. shall be utilized. See Note
New
x Construction corridor limited to 40' Pipeline
within wetlands. Dense
Vegetation
Case 1 - New Pipeline On Downgradient Side
Of Right-Of-Way
50 Ft. Wide x
Right-Of-Way
Excavated
Soil Pile
Silt Fence Or
Diversion Ditch

New
Pipeline
Dense
Vegetation
Case 2 - New Pipeline On Upgradient Side
Of Right-Of-Way
PIPELINE INSTALLATION TYPICAL CROSS SECTIONS
N.T.S.
Stream CrossiT
Dry Ditch - Pump 1Vtthod (B)
Right of Way
Sand Bags to
Dram StreamFlow
Pipe
Gravel Construction
Sand Bags to
Date Stream Flow
Right of Way
Rock Silt Screen
Temporary Stream Crossing
NCDOT ABC or #5 Capacity of pipe culverts
stone, 6" deep together = bank-full flow
112" diameter of pipe
or 12", whichever lass B Stone
is greater
g?gg ?ggg g
gg ?
ilter Fabric Liner
Elevation View
Flow
Class B erosion
stone (typ)
0 0 I I I o O
O
O 0 0 00 I I O O O
p 0O
Q)
O O
o I I
0
O 00
000
25' 25'
minimum minimum
Stream Channel
Top of bank Top of bank
Plan View
SUBJECT SECTION PAGE #
-
-
_ ENVIRONMENTAL MANUAL ENV-29 1 of 4
aay?
p?
?
sC
ENEB
G
`S

TITLE

DATE
?
lt?
A SCANA COMPANY INITIAL 02/22/05
OPEN-CUT TRENCHING STREAM CROSSINGS REVISIONS 08/08/08
Purpose: To ensure that all necessary precautions are taken and that all environmental issues have been
addressed with regard to open-cut trenching across water bodies in order to protect aquatic
life and the surrounding environment
Dettnitions
Open-cut Trenching: Method of trenching, using mechanical equipment, to trench or cut a ditch
across a water body in order to lay or install a natural gas pipeline within
the trench and then cover the trench; or to open a trench or ditch-line in
order to expose an existing pipeline for repair
Sediment/Silt: Clay or colloidal particles that when discharged into a water body, cause
turbidity problems (i.e., cloudy, murky or discolored water); also, buildup
of these particles onto the bottom of the water body in question
Discharge: Any release of soils, sediment, silt, petroleum-related products, or any other
non-native or natural materials into a water body or from a job site
Wetlands: Any area that meets the definition established by the Corps of Engineers, or as
indicated, defined or delineated by a wetlands delineation survey; wetlands
areas do not have to remain "wet" at all times, therefore it is critical that a
formal wetlands delineation be performed whenever there is a suspicion
that wetlands are or may be present
Project Methodology
At times, PSNC has the need to cross water bodies for installation/construction of natural gas pipelines,
whether for transmission lines or distribution lines. Crossing of water bodies can be accomplished by 2
means:
• Horizontal directional drilling or HDD (i.e., boring); or
• Open-cut Trenching
While HDD is the best environmental alternative, due to little if no land disturbance and impacts,
although frac-outs are possible, open-cut trenching, although causing more disturbance, can effectively
be used if proper measures are used to protect the environment. The things to consider before deciding
on open-cut trenching are:
SUBJECT SECTION PAGE #
- ENVIRONMENTAL MANUAL ENV-29 2 of 4
'K
PSNCENEHGK TITLE DATE
_
,
A SCANA COMPANY INITIAL 02/22/05
OPEN-CUT TRENCHING STREAM CROSSINGS REVISIONS 08/08/08
• Is the water body a Trout Stream?
• Are there endangered species present?
• What is the "normal" quality of the water body in question?
• Are there operation constraints to prevent HDD?
• Is cost an issue and what is the timing factor?
• What are the water conditions (i.e., depth of water, degradation, flow rates, etc.)?
• Can erosion control methods be effectively and appropriately used?
• Can sedimentation/silt barriers be used effectively?
• Are there permitting issues or riparian buffer issues?
All of the above need to be addressed before deciding on whether open-cut trenching methods can be
used for crossing or traversing a stream or water body.
Permitting and Environmental Sensitivity Issues
As far as open-cut trenching surface water bodies, several permitting issues must be addressed,
including:
• Presence of wetlands
• Whether the water body is defined as a navigable water
• Whether the water body is defined by NCDENR as an impaired stream
• Length of proposed trenching project
Wetlands
The Corps of Engineers has jurisdiction over all waters of the US including wetlands issues. Trenching
through wetlands is allowed, provided the necessary permits are obtained and care is taken to mitigate
any wetland destruction. The national policy for wetlands is no net loss. Therefore, if wetlands are to
be disturbed and potentially destroyed, then the owner is required to mitigate these on a 2:1 ratio
minimum (i.e., for every one acre destroyed, at least 2 acres of constructed wetlands must be used as
replacement). Also, trenching through wetlands can be accomplished provided:
• The necessary permit and approval is obtained from the COE
• When trenching through wetlands, mats or other buoyant materials must be used for vehicular
and equipment traffic (care should be taken when using mats as problems usually occur when
pulling these mats up, having a ripping effect on the wetlands themselves)
• Before trenching through wetlands, the plant life must first be removed (root system intact) and
placed on a sheet of plastic, then the 6" of topsoil must be removed and placed on the plastic,
then the next 12" of subsoil must then be removed and placed in a separate pile on the plastic
• After removal as described above, trenching can proceed and afterwards, the soils and plant life
must be placed back in their original location in a reverse order (i.e., plant life is placed last)
SUBJECT . SECTION PAGE #
ENVIRONMENTAL MANUAL ENV-29 3 of 4
PSNC E
EJ?I;y TITLE DATE
)g
A SCANA COMPANY INITIAL 02/22/05
OPEN-CUT TRENCHING STREAM CROSSINGS REVISIONS 08/08/08
This removal and re-placement process is cumbersome and 50% of the time does not work, so the owner
incurs labor charges for "attempting the removal and placement" as well as incurring mitigation costs
using the minimum 2:1 ratio. Therefore, most owners elect to either bore wetlands areas or
automatically use the 2"l mitigation ration with an approved COE permit.
Any wetlands disturbance requires approval from the COE (401/404 Permit). This permitting process
takes at least 90 to 120 days. Also, NCDENR approval is required (minimum 90 day process)
A site visit by the Environmental Program Department is required to determine what permitting issues
are required and what impacts are possible. A wetlands delineation should also have been performed
prior to project commencement.
Navigable Waters
Luckily, most of the commercial navigable waters are outside of PSNC's service territory (most of these
waters are located east of the I-95 corridor). However, COE permits are required for traversing/crossing
navigable waterways.
The primary concern is ensuring that any pipelines are not exposed above the waterline so as to impede
navigable waterway traffic.
"Normal" Stream Crossings w/no Wetlands
Both the COE and NCDENR regulate surface water body crossings. From the COE's perspective, their
guidance is that provided the perpendicular utility crossing is less than 100 linear feet, then the COE
does not require a permit or submission/notification with a Pre-Construction Notification Form (PCN).
Bear in mind that the 100 linear feet would be from the high water line (usually the 10 year flood line
and normally the top of bank); so don't assume that the 100 linear feet is just the surface water itself.
However, the COE also defers to NCDENR's Division of Water Quality (DWQ) Standards for non-
permitted activities. Therefore, even though a COE permit may not be required, we still must meet
DWQ standards, which are:
• 50 NTUs for turbidity measurements for un-impaired streams, non-sensitive streams (i.e.,
endangered aquatic life) and non-trout streams
• 10 NTUs for impaired streams, sensitive waters and Trout Waters
The minimum measures that must be used to minimize impacts to the water in question are:
Silt fence/sediment barriers set-up downstream, usually 10 feet, of the crossing point
Silt fences parallel on both sides of the stream both upstream and down stream of the crossing
point to prevent excessivd soils from migrating into the stream
Prevention of oily residues and materials from equipment from entering the stream
SUBJECT SECTION PAGE It
ENVIRONMENTAL MANUAL ENV-29 4 of 4
NERD K
PS TITLE DATE
C1?
A SCANA COMPANY INITIAL 02/22/05
OPEN-CUT TRENCHING STREAM CROSSINGS REVISIONS 08/08/08
Before attempting an open-cut trench, Project Engineering should contact the
Environmental Program Department and notify of the intent for crossing and allow a site
visit to determine what permitting may be required and also any impacts that may occur
and what preventive measures must be taken. After the site visit, the appropriate permits
(if required) will be applied and a plan developed to prevent or minimize any disturbance
during the project.
The Environmental Program Department may elect to be on-site during construction to
monitor the crossing and perform any sampling required. Also, any problems must
immediately be conveyed to the Environmental Program Department for determination of
any regulatory consequences.

Attachment G
Cultural Resources
Report
s
9
B
J
9•
I?
Cultural Resources Survey of the
Proposed Combined Cycle Tract
Cleveland County, North Carolina
Prepared for:
Acer Environmental, Inc.
Lawrenceville, Georgia
Prepared by:
David Jenkins
Archaeologist
Patricia Stallings
Architectural Historian
under the direction of
J ' , "ey ' . Gardner, RPA
Principal Investigator
Brockington and Associates, Inc.
Atlanta Charleston Raleigh
July 2004

Management Summary
From 1-5 December 2003, Brockington and Associates, Inc., conducted an intensive Phase
I cultural resources survey of the approximately 180-acre Combined Cycle tract in Cleveland
County, North Carolina. This investigation was performed for Acer Environmental, Inc., of
Lawrenceville, Georgia. This survey consisted of background research and intensive archaeological
and architectural field survey, and was conducted in compliance with Section 106 of the National
Historic Preservation Act (NHPA) of 1966 (as amended through 1992).
Background research was conducted at the North Carolina Department of Archives and
History in Raleigh; the Western North Carolina Department of Archives and History in Asheville;
the Cleveland County Public Library in Shelby, North Carolina; the South Carolina Department of
Archives and History in Columbia; and the Cherokee County Public Library in Gaffney, South
Carolina. Archaeological field survey methods consisted of systematic shovel testing at 30-meter
(98 ft) intervals along 61 transects within the project tract boundary. Shovel tests were excavated
until sterile subsoil was reached. Visual inspection augmented shovel testing in areas with good
ground surface visibility. Architectural field survey methods included pedestrian and windshield
survey for historic resources within the project tract boundaries in the project's Area of Potential
Effect (APE), defined as a 0.8 km (0.5 mi) radius of the project tract.
Background research revealed two previously recorded archaeological resources (38CK92
and 38CK93) in South Carolina and one cemetery (Old Shiloh Presbyterian Church Cemetery [CL-
288]) in North Carolina, within 0.8 km (0.5 mi) of the project tract. Sites 38CK92 and 38CK93 are
both twentieth-century artifact scatters associated with collapsed structures, and are recommended
ineligible for the National Register of Historic Places (NRHP). Old Shiloh Presbyterian Church
Cemetery (CL-288) was established in 1780.
Field survey resulted in the identification of one archaeological site (31CL105), a twentieth-
century domestic artifact scatter, as well as five historic resources (NC-045-001, NC-045-002, NC-
045-003, 211-0053 and 211-0054). Site 31CL105 is recommended ineligible for the NRHP.
Cultural resources clearance for proposed development of the Combined Cycle facility is
recommended.
EEL
ii
t
a
i
i
9
i
i
i
i
i
Table of Contents
Page
Management Summary ........................................................ Ii
List of Figures ............................................................... IV
List of Tables ................................................................ IV
Chapter 1. Introduction ......................................................... 1
Chapter 2. Methods of Investigation ............................................... 3
Background Research ....................................................3
Archaeological Field Survey ............................................... 3
Architectural Field Survey ................................................. 4
Evaluation of National Register of Historic Places Eligibility ..................... 5
Analysis and Curation .................................................... 9
Chapter 3. Environmental and Cultural Overview ................................... 10
Environmental Overview ................................................. 10
Cultural Overview ...................................................... 11
Chapter 4. Results and Recommendations ......................................... 25
Background Research Results ............................................. 25
Archaeological Field Survey Results ........................................ 28
Architectural Field Survey Results ......................................... 32
Summary and Recommendations .......................................... 45
References Cited .............................................................46
Appendix A. Artifact Catalog
Appendix B. Cultural Resources Site Forms
Appendix C. Resumes of Key Project Personnel
iii
a
1
i
I
B
i
9
o?
a
s
0
i
i
List of Figures
Page
Figure 1. Map of project tract showing cultural resources discussed in this document
(1971 Grover, NC-SC 7.5 minute USGS topographic quadrangle) ............ 2
Figure 2. Kyzer's map of Cleveland County, North Carolina, showing project tract
(Kyzer1886) .................................................... 18
Figure 3. A portion of Robert Mills' 1825 map of York District, South Carolina
(Mills 1972; note location of Shiloh Meeting House adjacent to the
project tract) ..................................................... 22
Figure 4. Old Shiloh Presbyterian Church Cemetery (facing southwest) .............. 26
Figure 5. Old Shiloh Presbyterian Church Cemetery (facing east towards project area) .. 26
Figure 6. Historical marker at cemetery's entrance on Elm Road ................... 27
Figure 7. Grave of Colonel Frederick Hambright ................................ 28
Figure 8. View of Shiloh AME Zion Church, looking north ....................... 29
Figure 9. View of Shiloh Cemetery within project tract boundary, looking southwest ... 29
Figure 10. View of 31CL105, looking west ..................................... 30
Figure 11. Plan view of 31 CL 105 ............................................. 31
Figure 12. Resource NC-045-001 (northeast elevation) ............................ 34
Figure 13. Resource NC-045-001 (southeast elevation) ............................ 34
Figure 14. Resource NC-045-001 (porch detail) ...... ............................ 35
Figure 15. Resource NC-045-002 (west oblique) ..... ............................ 35
Figure 16. Resource NC-045-002 (south oblique) .... ............................ 36
Figure 17. Resource NC-045-003 (facing north) ..... ............................ 37
IV

•
0
i
i
i
Figure
18. Resource NC-045-003 (southeast elevation) ............................ 37
Figure 19. Resource 211-0053 (northwest oblique) ............................... 39
Figure 20. Resource 211-0053 (west elevation) .................................. 39
Figure 21. Black Farm, main residence (northwest oblique) ........................ 40
Figure 22. Black Farm, main residence (northeast oblique) ......................... 40
Figure 23. Black Farm, double crib barn (northeast oblique) ........................ 41
Figure 24. Black Farm, single crib barn (north oblique) ............................ 42
Figure 25. Black Farm, pole barn (facing northwest) .............................. 42
Figure 26. Black Farm, log barn (south elevation) ................................ 43
Figure 27. Black Farm, hall parlor house (southwest oblique) ....................... 44
Figure 28. Black Farm, hall parlor house (east elevation) .......................... 44
List of Tables
Page
Table 1. Prehistoric Cultural Sequence for the Project Vicinity .................... 11
Table 2. Artifacts Recovered From 31 CL 105 .................................. 32
Table 3. List of Architectural Resources Identified During the Field Survey .......... 33
lv

Chapter 1. Introduction
From 1-5 December 2003, Brockington and Associates, Inc., conducted an intensive Phase
I cultural resources survey of the approximately 180-acre Combined Cycle tract in Cleveland
County, North Carolina (Figure 1). This survey consisted of background research, intensive
archaeological and architectural field survey, laboratory analysis, and report preparation, and was
conducted in compliance with Section 106 of the National Historic Preservation Act (NHPA) of
1966 (as amended through 1992).
The project tract is bordered on the north by Interstate 85, on the east by residential yards,
on the south by the North Carolina/South Carolina state line, and on the west by Elm Road. Much
of the tract consists of mixed hardwoods and planted pines, as well as several areas of gradual slope.
An overgrown dirt road runs off of Elm Road and proceeds through the western portion of the tract.
Two streams run north-south through the central portion of the tract, and converge in the
southeastern corner. Shiloh AME Zion Church and a corresponding cemetery are located in the
western portion of the project tract.
We conducted background research at the following facilities:
• North Carolina Department of Archives and History, Raleigh;
Western North Carolina Department of Archives and History, Asheville;
• Cleveland County Public Library, Shelby, North Carolina;
• South Carolina Department of Archives and History, Columbia; and
• Cherokee County Public Library, Gaffney, South Carolina.
Archaeological field survey methods included systematic shovel testing at 30 meter (98 ft)
intervals along 61 transects within the project tract boundary. Architectural field survey methods
included pedestrian and windshield survey for historic resources within the project tract boundary
and in an Area of Potential Effect (APE) defined as a 0.8 km (0.5 mi) radius of the project tract.
Chapter 2 outlines the field and laboratory methods employed in this investigation. Chapter
3 provides brief environmental and cultural overviews. The results of this investigation are presented
in Chapter 4.
0
i
i
i
i
s
i
i
i
i
i
i
i
i
i

S

? ? ?
?
?
y .s'.
'? ?
...??.
rl r _- ? - a 1
?.?`l ??
i_.
rIT•' f __
+Jt? t

`? `-y
+n TIM
u r •
` r . 1I

•
?
`
L4 -

x' iJ ?,+' ?t? .
?
-
• if i i?..t .
r ? • ?1? ?a?
?
? Y
+?.c

2

J
a,
N
U
O
U
U
n
y
U
O
U
U U
3 ?
o ?
C
v bA
?- o
v
w

Chapter 2. Methods of Investigation
Background Research
Due to the project area's location near the state line, we conducted research relevant to
previously recorded or documented cultural resources and cultural contexts at repositories in North
and South Carolina. These repositories included the North Carolina Department of Archives and
History in Raleigh; the Western North Carolina Department of Archives and History in Asheville;
the Cleveland County Public Library in Shelby, North Carolina; the South Carolina Department of
Archives and History in Columbia; and the Cherokee County Public Library in Gaffney, South
Carolina. In addition to local and regional prehistory and history, we reviewed and recovered state
and county forms pertaining to all archaeological and historic resources within 0.8 km (0.5 mi) of
the project tract.
Archaeological Field Survey
We conducted an intensive pedestrian survey of the entire project tract. Systematic shovel
tests were placed at 30-meter (98 ft) intervals within 61 transects spaced 30 meters (98 ft) apart.
Shovel tests were not excavated on steeply sloping terrain (greater than 20 percent slope), or in
extremely wet or highly disturbed areas.
Shovel tests were approximately 30 by 30 cm (12 by 12 in), and were excavated into sterile
subsoil. Shovel test soils were screened through 1/4-inch mesh hardware cloth. Records of each
shovel test were kept in field notebooks, including information on content (e.g., presence or absence
of artifacts, artifact descriptions) and context (i.e., soil color and texture descriptions, depth of
definable levels, observed features). All shovel tests were backfilled upon completion.
When archaeological materials were encountered, the interval between shovel tests was
reduced to 15 meters (49 ft) to better delimit the site boundaries. Two consecutive negative shovel
tests (at 15 meter [49 ft] intervals) are considered to be sufficient to provide an edge determination
for a site boundary. Per Office of the State Archaeologist guidelines, an archaeological site is
defined as an area containing three or more artifacts of a possible single occupation in a 30-meter
(98 ft) or less diameter of surface exposure; or where at least two shovel tests within 30 meters (98
ft) are positive (contain one or more artifacts); or where surface or subsurface cultural features are
present. Artifacts of recent age (less than 50 years) would typically not define a site without a
compelling research or management justification. Less than three artifacts in close proximity are
categorized as isolated finds.
Generally, site boundaries were established by the absence of artifacts or features moving
outward in cardinal directions from a defined site center. In areas with poor surface visibility, two
Ih`_:
negative shovel tests excavated at 15 meter (49 ft) intervals were used to establish a site boundary.
The definition of archaeological site boundaries also takes into account natural features and/or
boundaries (e.g., streams, bluffs, swamps).
Architectural Field Survey
The architectural resources field survey involved driving the project Area of Potential Effect
(APE), with windshield and pedestrian inspection of all potentially historic resources (e.g.,
buildings, structures, objects over 50 years in age). Surveyed historic resources were recorded on
North Carolina and South Carolina statewide survey forms, as appropriate. Each structure was
photographed and recorded on project maps.
The criterion used for initial selection of architectural resources to be recorded is the 50 year
minimum age necessary for inclusion on the National Register of Historic Places (NRHP) (i.e., pre-
1953 resources were examined). Sources used forage determination and architectural style and type
descriptions include Blumenson (1977), Longstreth (1987), McAlester and McAlester (1984),
Poppeliers et al. (1983), and Whiffen (1981).
The condition and architectural integrity of all potentially historic architectural resources
were evaluated in the field to facilitate architectural review. Architectural resource condition was
described as:
Excellent- Recently restored or rehabilitated; well maintained;
Good- Structurally and cosmetically sound; in need of only routine maintenance;
Fair- Structurally sound but in need of cosmetic repair as well as routine
maintenance;
Poor- In need of major structural as well as cosmetic repair and routine
maintenance; or
Derelict- Abandoned and beyond economical restoration.
Similarly, resource integrity was described as:
Excellent- All original construction materials and design elements remain intact
and unchanged;
Good- The majority of original construction materials remain intact and
unchanged except for roofing and other renewable architectural
elements;
Fair- A substantial number of original architectural elements have been
altered, such as the installation of aluminum, asbestos, or vinyl
siding, the replacement of non-historic doors and windows, and the
construction of non-historic additions; or
•
4

I
Poor- Original design has been radically altered by non-historic renovations and/or
additions.
Architectural resources exhibiting exceptionally poor integrity were not recorded.
Evaluation of National Register of Historic Places Eligibility
A primary goal of this investigation was to provide sufficient data to the North Carolina and
South Carolina State Historic Preservation Offices (SHPOs) for determining whether cultural
resources identified during these investigations are significant. Cultural resources (i.e., districts,
buildings, structures, sites, and objects) recorded within the project corridor's area ofpotential effect
(APE) during these investigations were evaluated based on the criteria for eligibility to the NRHP,
as specified in Department of Interior Regulations (36 CFR Part 60: National Register of Historic
Places). According to 36 CFR Part 60.4 (Criteria for evaluation), cultural resources (referred to as
properties in the regulations) can be defined as significant (i.e., eligible for the NRHP) if they
"possess integrity of location, design, setting, materials, workmanship, feeling, and association," and
if they:
(a) Are associated with events that have made a significant contribution to the
broad pattern of history; or
(b) Are associated with the lives of persons significant in the past; or
(0) Embody distinctive characteristics of a type, period, or method of
construction, or represent the work of a master, possess high artistic values,
or represent a significant and distinguishable entity whose components may
lack individual distinction; or
(d) Have yielded, or may be likely to yield, information important in prehistory
or history.
The initial qualification used for identifying potentially significant architectural properties
(i.e., districts, buildings, structures, and objects; archaeological sites are described separately below)
is the 50-year minimum age necessary for inclusion in the NRHP (36 CFR Part 60.4); for this
project, we included pre-1954 architectural properties. Architectural properties may be
recommended NRHP eligible under Criteria a, b, c, and very rarely d. To be considered eligible for
the NRHP, architectural properties must possess significance when evaluated at the local, state, or
national level in relationship with similar properties within a specific historic theme, period, and
geographic area (Savage and Pope 1998:5).
Technical information and guidelines for evaluating NRHP eligibility are provided by the
National Park Service in several published bulletins (e.g., Potter and Boland 1992; Savage and Pope
1998; Sherfy and Luce n.d.; Townsend et al. 1993). The process for evaluating properties for
eligibility for the NRHP includes: categorizing the property as a district, a site, a building, a
structure, or an object; determining the appropriate context (prehistoric or historic) for the property;
974

determining whether the property is significant under the NRHP Criteria for Evaluation; and
' determining whether the property retains integrity (Savage and Popel998:3).
After a property has been assigned to a category (district, site, building, structure, or object),
the historic context represented by the property has to be identified. According to the National Park
Service, "the significance of a historic property can be judged and explained only when it is
evaluated within its historic context" (Savage and Pope 1998:7). Evaluating a property within its
historical context involves several steps. These include: identifying the themes, geographical limits,
and chronological period that the property represents; determining how these themes are significant
in the history of the area, state, or nation; determining whether the particular property type is
important in illustrating these themes through historic associations, architectural or engineering
values, or information potential; and determining the features that the property must have in order
to reflect these themes (Savage and Pope 1998:7-8).
® Architectural properties that might be judged significant under Criterion a (significant
events), or Criterion b (significant persons), can be assessed as eligible for the NR-HP through
archival research. Architectural properties which are associated with significant persons or events
in local, state, or national history should be definitively linked with important persons or events to
determine eligibility. Historical documentation of the person(s) or event(s) is usually enough to
support NRHP eligibility.
Evaluation of architectural properties that might be judged significant under Criterion c
(architectural merit) generally involves detailed description and assessment of physical
characteristics. Most NRHP eligible architectural properties are considered to be significant because
they exhibit "distinctive characteristics of a type, period, or method of construction" (36 CFR Part
60.4[c]). These characteristics include: a "pattern of features common to a particular class of
resources; the individuality or variation of features that occurs within the class; the evolution of that
class; or the transition between classes of resources" (Savage and Pope 1998:18). Vernacular
architectural properties often exhibit distinctive characteristics that represent a type, period, or
method of construction. However, many of these properties have been substantially altered within
the last 50 years, and few retain aspects of integrity required to be considered eligible for the NRHP.
Considering architectural properties significant under Criterion c because they "represent
the work of a master" (36 CFR Part 60.4[c]) requires that the property "express a particular phase
in the development of the master's career, an aspect of his or her work, or a particular idea or theme
in his or her craft" (Savage and Pope 1998:20). A "master" may also be an anonymous craftsman
whose work is discernable from others by its distinguishing characteristics, and "rises above the
level of workmanship of the other properties encompassed by the historic context" (Savage and Pope
1998:20).
If architectural properties exhibiting distinctive stylistic characteristics cannot be positively
attributed to the work of a master, the properties may still be eligible for the NRHP. These buildings,
structures, or objects may be eligible because they "possess high artistic values." High artistic values
are most often interpreted to represent properties which epitomize the design principles of a
6

particular architectural style, or a transition between two architectural styles (Savage and Pope
1998:20).
To be considered eligible for the NRHP, architectural properties must exhibit good integrity;
that is, a property must retain its ability to convey its significance. Aspects of integrity defined in
the regulations (36 CFR Part 60.4) include location, design, setting, materials, workmanship, feeling,
and association. If these aspects are diminished, and an architectural property no longer retains the
identity or character for which it can be judged significant, then the architectural resource is not
eligible for the NRHP due to loss of integrity (Savage and Pope 1998:44).
Archaeological properties (or sites) are usually evaluated relative to Criterion d. As locations
of human activities that include physical remains of those activities, archaeological sites are
potential sources of important information. However, some archaeological sites, particularly those
representing historic period occupation or use, can be considered eligible under Criterion a (if they
are associated with specific important events or trends in American history), under Criterion b (if
they are associated with important people), or under Criterion c (if important structural elements are
preserved) (Savage and Pope 1998; Townsend et al. 1993).
As indicated in 36 CFR Part 60.4(d), archaeological sites that "have yielded, or are likely to
yield, information important in prehistory or history" can be eligible for the NRHP. The National
Park Service defines two requirements for archaeological sites to be eligible under NRHP Criterion
d (Savage and Pope 1998:21).
(1) The site must have, or have had, information to contribute to our
understanding of human history or prehistory, and
(2) The information must be considered important.
The National Park Service provides clarification for the first requirement by stating that an
archaeological site is eligible for the NRHP if that site "has been used as a source of data and
contains more, as yet unretrieved data" (Savage and Pope 1998:21; emphasis added).
Regarding the second requirement, Glassow (1977) recommends careful consideration of
specific site attributes (integrity, clarity, artifact frequency, and artifact diversity) in determining
whether an archaeological site contains important information. Butler (1987:821) defines
"important information" as the potential of an archaeological site to contribute to current "theoretical
and substantive knowledge" of archaeology in the site's regional setting. In other words, under
Criterion d, importance or significance can be defined as research potential. The research potential
of an archaeological site (lacking architectural remains) can be determined by demonstrating that
the site retains relatively intact archaeological contexts, such as culturally or temporally diagnostic
artifacts, intact features, discrete artifact clusters denoting activity areas, or preserved organic
material associated with the site occupation. To be considered eligible, these data should be capable
of addressing important research questions by testing hypotheses, supporting current scientific
interpretations, or reconstructing cultural chronologies through the use of appropriate analytical
methods.
1 0
7

'b:
'4.
M
As indicated by Glassow (1977) aspects of integrity are also important to determining NRHP
eligibility of archaeological sites. However, because "archaeological sites, in particular, do not exist
today exactly as they were formed" (Savage and Pope 1998:46) and information potential relies less
on overall condition of the site, location and association are the most important aspects of integrity
for archaeological sites.
To be eligible for the NRHP, an archaeological site must possess artifacts in or near their
original depositional location that can be employed to determine the past use of the locale and the
approximate date of its past use. Integrity of location indicates occurrence of artifacts, artifact
clusters, middens, or features in sufficient numbers to permit quantitative assessments of their
horizontal and vertical distributions across the site. These cultural deposits must occur within
relatively intact soil deposits that represent specific human activities, suites of activities, or natural
events that occurred on the site. The relationships between cultural and natural remains are critical
to understanding how the site was created (i.e., the kinds of human activities that occurred at the site
to produce the artifacts and features) and how the site has changed since its initial occupation. The
presence of artifacts and features that can be employed to make these interpretations is essential to
recommending a site eligible for the NRHP.
Integrity of association is interpreted somewhat differently when referring to archaeological
sites. Townsend et al. (1993:21) state that "under Criterion d, integrity of association is measured
in terms of the strength of the relationship between the site's data or information and the important
research questions." From a general perspective, archaeological sites that have the ability to address
0 topics such as cultural chronology, artifact assemblage, and subsistence patterns have potential to
contribute significant information.
Cultural chronology refers to the ability of a site to contribute significant information about
the sequence of human events in a region. This ability, when present at a prehistoric site, is usually
based on the availability of direct (or chronometric) and/or relative dating materials. Direct dating
methods in the Southeast are limited by available relevant samples (dendrochronology, potassium-
argon) and cost (archaeomagnetism, thermoluminescence). For a site to have significant cultural
chronology research potential, it must minimally demonstrate: (1) preservation of organic remains
from good contexts that would provide reliable radiocarbon dating samples; or (2) horizontal or
vertical separation of cultural components with associated temporally or culturally diagnostic
artifacts.
Artifact assemblage data are often used in reconstruction of cultural history, based on the
classification of artifacts and artifact assemblages, or associations of artifacts that are thought to be
contemporary (Fagan 1988). Artifact assemblages are comprised of all items (including features)
at a site which "exhibit physical attributes that can be assumed to be the result of human activity"
(Dunnell 1971). The patterning of these assemblages reflects behavior patterns or shared activities
of a total community. It is this patterning of contemporary collections of artifacts and features that
is used to interpret the lifeways of a site's occupants. The composition and distribution of artifact
assemblages provides valuable information about site structure, activities, and function(s).
Comparisons of assemblages from the same time period (synchronic) or from different time periods
8
r
(diachronic) require placement of each assemblage within a regional culture chronology. If
assemblages are mixed, the resulting distortion does not allow for reliable identifications of
individual assemblages or meaningful interpretations of associated activity patterns.
Subsistence reconstruction relies on plant (botanical) and animal (faunal) remains from
archaeological contexts to deduce dietary patterns. This topic includes determination of species use,
relative dietary significance of individual species, and procurement strategies (Reitz 1990; Wagner
1995; Wing and Brown 1979). However, the usefulness and reliability of plant (paleoethnobotany)
and animal (zooarchaeology) studies are limited by the contexts from which these remains are
recovered. Botanical remains are more likely to survive in an intact and identifiable form if they
have been exposed to fire and become carbonized. Finally, the primary limitation to
paleoethnobotanical and zooarchaeological analyses is context. Preserved biological remains from
contexts that are not associated with distinct cultural horizons or features, or cannot be directly or
relatively dated, do not provide reliable information.
It is important to note that the ability of an archaeological site to generate information
beyond that already known (i.e., its research potential) must be evaluated. If artifacts and features
encountered at a newly discovered site occur at numerous previously recorded sites in a region, then
the new site is not expected to generate new information. This site could be recommended ineligible
for the NRHP even though it may contain adequate numbers of temporally and/or functionally
sensitive artifacts within intact natural or cultural deposits. Alternatively, a site that produces
extremely rare artifacts or evidence of extremely rare activities may be considered eligible even if
it lacks these associations.
Analysis and Curation
All artifacts, maps, notes, and photographic materials related to this project were transported
to the Norcross office of Brockington and Associates, Inc. Artifacts were washed, analyzed, and
cataloged, and will be temporarily stored at our laboratory facilities until ready for curation.
Artifacts will then be curated at the North Carolina Department of Archives and History in Raleigh.
Additional copies and a master copy of the report are also stored at this facility.
•
9

.f:'!.
Chapter 3. Environmental and Cultural Overview
Environmental Overview
Past Environment
Since the arrival of humans in the region we now call North and South Carolina, the natural
landscape has undergone considerable change as a result ofboth natural and man-induced processes.
In this section, data about the natural setting (past and present) in the project vicinity are presented
to better understand interactions between humans and their surrounding physical environment.
Profound changes in climate and dependent biophysical aspects of the regional environment
have occurred over the last 20,000 years (Delcourt and Delcourt 1981; Delcourt and Delcourt 1986).
Major changes include a general warming trend, melting of the large ice sheets of the Wisconsin
glaciation in northern North America, and an associated rise in sea level. This general warming
trend greatly affected vegetation communities. During the Late Wisconsin glacial period, which
ended about 12,000 years ago, a boreal forest dominated by pine and spruce covered most of the
Southeast. By about 10,000 years ago, this forest was changing from coniferous to deciduous trees.
The new deciduous forest was dominated by northern hardwoods such as beech, hemlock, and alder,
with oak and hickory beginning to increase in number. With continuation of the general warming
and drying trend, the oak and hickory dominated, along with southern species of pine. Oak and
hickory appear from pollen data to have reached a peak at 7,000 to 5,000 years ago (Delcourt and
Delcourt 1981; Delcourt and Delcourt 1986; Watts 1970, 1980; Whitehead 1965, 1973). Since that
time, the general climatic trend in the Southeast has been toward slightly cooler and moister
conditions, and the present southern mixed hardwood forest has become established.
Faunal communities also changed dramatically during this time. A number of megafauna
mammal species (e.g., mammoth, mastodon, horse, camel, giant sloth) became extinct at the end of
the glacial period 12,000 to 10,000 years ago. There is abundant evidence that during the
Paleoindian period humans in the Southeast incorporated some of the now extinct fauna into their
subsistence strategies. However, modern Holocene adaptations reflect a marked shift to exploitation
of white-tail deer and smaller mammal species, as well as fish, shellfish, turtles, and birds.
Current Environment
The project tract is located in the Piedmont physiographic province of North Carolina, and
is drained by the Broad River. Elevation in the tract ranges from 244 to 262 meters (800 to 860 ft)
above mean sea level (amsl).

10

I
k2a':
'3??
I

The climate for Cleveland County is temperate, with hot, humid summers and short but
moderately cold winters. Daily average temperatures range between a high of 77 degrees Fahrenheit
(F) in July and a low of 39 degrees F in January (World Climate 2003). Annual precipitation
averages 124 cm (49 in), the majority of which falls during the growing season of April through
September (World Climate 2003).
i
i
7
Cultural Overview
Prehistoric Context
The following discussion summarizes the various periods of Native American occupation
in west-central North Carolina, emphasizing cultural change, settlement, and site function
throughout prehistory. Table 1 provides a summary of the chronological sequence of Native
American occupation of the region.
Table 1. Prehistoric Cultural Sequence for the Project Vicinity.
Period Characteristics
Paleoindian (12000-8000 BC) -Hunter-gatherers
-Fluted projectile points: Clovis, Dalton, Hardaway
Early Archaic (8000-6000 BC) -Hunter-gatherers, seasonal rounds
Palmer Phase (8000-7000 BC) -Notched points: Palmer, Kirk
Kirk Phase (7000-6000 BC) -Production of textiles
Middle Archaic (6000-3000 BC) -Hunter-gatherers, seasonal rounds
Stanly Phase (6000-5000 BC) -Temporary camps, no substantial dwellings
Morrow Mountain Phase (5000-4500 BC) -Stemmed points: Stanly, Morrow Mountain, Guilford, Halifax
Guilford Phase (4500-4000 BC)
Halifax Phase (4000-3000 BC)
Late Archaic (3000-1000 BC)
-Increased site size, more permanence as evidenced by burials,
hearths, and other cultural features
-Stemmed projectile points: Otarre Stemmed, Savannah River
-First incidence of ceramic production 2000 BC: Stallings Island
Fiber Tempered (in coastal areas)
Early Woodland (1000-300 BC)
Swannanoa Phase
-Regional differences more pronounced
-Swannanoa ceramics, Fabric Impressed or Cord Marked
-Large triangular projectile points
-Introduction of bow and arrow
Middle/Late Woodland (300 BC-1100 AD)
Pigeon Phase
Connestee Phase
-Yadkin Triangular projectile points
-Changes in ceramic temper from sand to crushed quartz
-Check Stamped pottery
-Hopewellian influence
-Swift Creek Complicated Stamp ceramics

11
a
r
i
s
i
i
Mississippian (1100-1600 AD)
McDowell Phase
Cowans Ford/ Burke Phase
-Palisaded villages and ceremonial centers
-Mound construction
-Complicated stamped ceramics
-Small triangular projectile points
-Reliance on farming
Paleoindian Stage (12000 - 8000 BC). The actual dates applied to the Paleoindian stage are
currently being debated. The accepted theory about the peopling of North America dates the influx
of migrant bands of hunter-gatherers to approximately 12,000 years ago. This date corresponds with
the exposure of a land bridge linking Siberia to the North American continent (Jackson et al. 1997).
Recently, however, researchers have suggested that this migration occurred as much as 15,000 to
20,000 years ago and was led by seagoing travelers (see Green et al. 1998; Steele and Powell 1993,
1994). These recent theories are supported by such discoveries as Kennewick Man, a skeleton
recovered in Washington, and the Gordon Creek Woman, who was recovered from a site in northern
Colorado. The Kennewick Man skeleton has been determined to be over 11,000 years old (Morell
1998; Preston 1997; and Slayman 1997). The Gordon Creek Woman has been dated to 9700 years
BC, or nearly 11,700 years old (Swedlund and Anderson 1999). Other discoveries, such as the
Monte Verde site in South America that has been dated to 10,500 years BC (Dillehay 1997; Meltzer
et al. 1997), continue to fuel this controversy.
The major artifact marker for this developmental stage is the Clovis lanceolate fluted spear
point (Gardner 1974, 1989; Griffin 1967). Smaller fluted and nonfluted lanceolate spear points, such
as Dalton and Hardaway point types, are characteristic of the later portion of the stage (Goodyear
1982). The Hardaway point, first described by Coe (1964), is seen as a regional variant of Dalton
(Oliver 1985; Ward 1983). Perkinson (1971, 1973) recorded Paleoindian fluted points in North
Carolina. Fluted Clovis points have been recovered from surface contexts, but no intact Clovis sites
have been reported in the Piedmont region of North Carolina (Hargrove 1998).
The Piedmont of North Carolina appears to have been more intensively occupied than the
Coastal Plain by Paleoindian peoples. This is in contrast to distribution studies in South Carolina,
which show more fluted points in the Coastal Plain than in the Piedmont (Goodyear et al. 1989).
Stoltman (1965) mapped the occurrence of fluted point finds in the eastern United States and noted
that these points had a high correlation with reports of extinct mastodon finds in the region. They
concluded that Paleoindian hunters were focusing on mastodon. Other researchers (Anderson and
Joseph 1988; Michie 1977; Steponaitis 1986) have noted that fluted points are most common near
major rivers at areas where river valleys are constricted, such as the Fall Line Zone. Mastodon and
other Pleistocene game animals would have concentrated in these areas where fording the waterways
would have been easier.
4)
12
0
I

Most Paleoindian materials occur as isolated surface finds in the eastern United States; this
indicates to many scholars that population density was extremely low during this period, and that
groups were small and highly mobile (Meltzer 1988). It has been noted that group movements were
probably well scheduled and that some semblance of territories was probably maintained to ensure
adequate arrangements for procuring mates and maintaining population levels (Anderson and
Hanson 1988). O'Steen et al. (1986) analyzed Paleoindian settlement patterns in the Oconee River
valley in northeastern Georgia, and noted a pattern of decreasing mobility throughout this
developmental stage. Sites of the earliest portion of the stage seem to be restricted to the flood
plains, while later sites were distributed widely in the uplands, showing what O'Steen et al. (1986)
interpreted as "settling in" and exploitation of a wider range of environmental subsistence resources.
If this pattern holds true for the Southeast in general, it may be a result of changing environments
trending toward increased deciduous forest and small mammal resources, and decreasing availability
of Pleistocene megafauna; population growth could be another factor.
Archaic Stage (8000 - 1000 BC). The Archaic stage has been the focus of considerable
research in the Southeast. Two major areas of research have dominated: (1) the development of
chronological subdivisions for the stage based on diagnostic artifacts, and (2) the understanding of
settlement/subsistence trends for successive cultures.
Coe's (1964) excavations at several sites in the North Carolina Piedmont provided a
chronological sequence for the stage based on diagnostic projectile points. Coe's (1964) sequence
for the Archaic stage has been divided into three periods: Early (8000-6000 BC), Middle (6000-3000
09 BC), and Late (3000-1000 BC). Coe defined the Early Archaic period based on the presence in site
assemblages of Palmer and Kirk corner-notched projectile points. More recent studies have defined
other Early Archaic corner-notched points, such as Taylor, Big Sandy, and Bolen types. Generally
similar projectile points (e.g., LeCroy points), but with commonly serrated edges and characteristic
bifurcated bases, have also been identified as being representative of the Early Archaic period
(Broyles 1981; Chapman 1985). The Early Archaic points of the North Carolina Piedmont are
classically produced with metavolcanic material, although occasional chert, quartz, and quartzite
examples have been recovered.
Claggett and Cable (1982) used a settlement/subsistence typology developed by Binford
(1980), and describe late Paleoindian and Early Archaic populations as "logistical." Task groups
were sent out to collect and bring back resources to the residential base camp. Logistical task
groups, in this definition, are seen as specialized and focused on a particular resource or set of
resources.
The transition to the Middle Archaic period is defined by the appearance/introduction of
Stanly points, a broad-bladed stemmed form. Stanly points were followed by Morrow Mountain
points, which are characteristically manufactured from quartz, and have been recovered from
numerous small sites throughout Virginia, the Carolinas, and Georgia. Guilford points, also often
made of quartz, follow Morrow Mountain in the Middle Archaic sequence. Coe (1964) dates
Halifax side-notched points to around 3400 BC. In 1964, Coe thought Halifax points occurred only
in the northern North Carolina Piedmont, indicating relationships of this area to the Mid-Atlantic
13
0
and Northeast. Halifax points are now seen to have a wider distribution in the Southeast, and are
thought to mark the transition between the Middle and Late Archaic periods.
Claggett and Cable (1982) have presented a model that describes an increase in residential
mobility beginning in the Early Archaic and extending into the Middle Archaic. During the Early
Archaic, and probably extending into the Middle Archaic, human groups moved away from a
logistical organization toward a "foraging" organization. Foraging involved more generalized
procurement of resources (e.g., animal and plant foods, lithic resources) in closer proximity to a base
camp. Sassaman (1983) hypothesizes that actual group residential mobility increased during the
Middle Archaic, although it occurred within a more restricted range. Range restriction is generally
a result of increased population in the Southeast and crowding with group territories (Sassaman
1983); this increase in population led to increased social fluidity during the Middle Archaic and a
lower need for scheduled aggregation for mate exchange. In Sassaman's view, technology during
the Middle Archaic is highly expedient; this is reflected in an almost exclusive use of local resources
(especially lithic material).
The hallmark of the Late Archaic period is the Savannah River stemmed point (Coe 1964).
This large, broad bladed and stemmed point is found widely over the eastern United States. It is
associated with Late Archaic occupations in the mountains and uplands as well as at coastal midden
sites of the period. Also, the earliest ceramics produced in North America are associated with the
Late Archaic period and date to around 2000 BC. These ceramics are referred to by the type name
"Stallings," and are fiber tempered. Stallings pottery is primarily a coastal phenomenon, stretching
from northern Florida to southern North Carolina.
Sites of the later phases of the Archaic are generally larger and more complex than earlier
sites (Caldwell 1952; Coe 1952; Griffin 1952; Lewis and Kneberg 1959). These sites are generally
in riverine settings within the Piedmont and are hypothesized to indicate greatly increased sedentism
during the Late Archaic, with a focus on fish, shellfish, and flood plain resources. Small Late
Archaic sites in the uplands of the Piedmont are interpreted as logistical collection and hunting
camps (Anderson and Joseph 1988).
Woodland Stage (1000 BC-1100 AD). One of the key factors that helps distinguish the Late
Archaic from the Early Woodland in western North Carolina is the emergence of ceramics. The
Woodland stage in this area was a time of increasing cultural diversity stimulated by ideas from
outside the region. The Early Woodland period is characterized by the Swannanoa phase. The
pottery series from this phase, as defined by Keel (1976) has crushed quartz or coarse sand temper,
and relatively thick walls (7-22 mm [less than 1 inch]). Small, stemmed projectile points called
Swannanoa Stemmed, Plott Stemmed, and Gypsy points are found in the mountains at this time.
These points are stratigraphically associated with a larger triangular point type called "Transylvania
Triangular" that appears to be in connection with the introduction of the bow and arrow during the
Swannanoa phase. Available settlement data also suggest a continuation of Archaic lifestyles (Ward
and Davis 1999).
0
14
0

Two distinct phases of occupation are recognized for the Middle Woodland in western North
Carolina: the Pigeon phase (300 BC - 200 AD) and the Connestee phase (200 -1100 AD). Pigeon
phase pottery is identified by the use of fairly large amounts of crushed quartz temper, surface
treatments of check stamping (in addition to plain, simple stamped, brushed, and complicated
stamped treatments), the use of tetrapodal supports on the vessel base, and an "iridescent sheen" on
the interior surface (Ward and Davis 1999). Vessel forms include simple bowls and necked jars.
Small side-notched and triangular projectile points, expanded-center bar gorgets, grooved axes,
celts, flake scrapers, ceramic popes, and a variety of hammerstones are also probably associated with
the Pigeon phase (Ward and Davis 1999). There may have been an increasing reliance on
horticulture resulting in a shift toward greater use of fertile bottomlands (Purrington 1983).
Connestee series pottery consists of thin-walled vessels that are fine sand tempered with an
occasional crushed quartz fragment. Vessel forms include flat-bottomed jars that sometimes have
small tetrapodal supports, and bowls and jars without supports. The surface of these pots is usually
plain, brushed or simple stamped, but also include cord-marking, fabric marking, check stamping,
and complicated stamping (Ward and Davis 1999). Other artifacts from the Connestee phase include
clay figurines, stone blades, and copper sheets and beads.
16
Mississippian Stage (1100 -1600 AD). Overall, the Mississippian stage is characterized by
complicated stamped ceramics, small triangular projectile points, a reliance on farming, and
elaborate ceremonialism. Sites from this time frame include large village sites, often with at least
one earthen mound, and small, scattered farmsteads. Site locations tend to be located on flood plains
and rises overlooking river and stream valleys (Hargrove 1991; Keel 1976; May 1989; Oliver 1992;
Ward 1965).
The Town Creek site, in Montgomery County, North Carolina, is a substantial Mississippian
mound center and has been dated to 1200 to 1400 AD. The Town Creek site is unique in that the
majority of the late prehistoric groups in this region continued to live adaptively as they did during
the Late Woodland period (May 1990).
Historic Overview-Cleveland County, North Carolina
European Contact and Exploration Period. In the decades following the expedition of
Christopher Columbus, the coast and interior portions of what would become North Carolina were
explored. Much of this activity was initiated by Spain in the hope of preserving its hegemony over
North America. Hernando de Soto (1539-1543) and Juan Pardo (1566-1568) led military
expeditions into the western Piedmont and mountains of North Carolina during the mid-sixteenth
century (Hudson 1990, 1994). One interpretation of Spanish records claims soldiers visited Indian
villages near the present-day towns of Charlotte, Lincolnton, Hickory, and Maiden, North Carolina
(Hargrove 1998). The Spanish are also reported to have built garrisons near Marion and Salisbury
(Hargrove 1998).
Despite these military incursions and the establishment of minor outposts, the Spanish
presence in the Carolinas could not be sustained. Mounting pressure from hostile Native Americans
15
a
and English privateers resulted in the withdrawal of Spanish forces to St. Augustine in 1587 (South
1980).
England's interest in the New World was heavily promoted by Sir Walter Raleigh. A
courtier in the court of Queen Elizabeth I, Raleigh secured the financial and political support
necessary to attempt the first permanent settlement of the New World by English colonists in 1585
(Powell 1989). Although his efforts failed, Raleigh's single-minded ambition ultimately led to the
establishment of the Jamestown colony in 1607 (Hume 1994).
The disastrous mismanagement and resulting loss of life in Virginia during the first two
decades of the colony's existence resulted in the revocation of the Virginia Company's charter in
1624 (Hume 1994). Preoccupied with the civil war between Royalist and Parliamentarian forces in
the 1640s, the authorities in Virginia showed little interest in North Carolina until the 1650s. During
this period, traders, hunters, trappers, rogues, and tax evaders inhabited the area around the
Albemarle Sound in northeastern North Carolina (Powell 1989). Even then, North Carolina was
becoming notorious as a refuge for the independent and self-reliant.
European Settlement. The restoration of Charles II to the throne in 1660 resulted in the
distribution of rewards to those who had supported the Royalist cause during the upheaval (Powell
1989). This initiated the Proprietary colonial period in the Carolinas, which lasted from 1663 until
1729. Years of turmoil brought about by an unstable system of government culminated in war with
the Tuscarora Indians. Severe fighting broke out in 1711, triggered by the death of the colony's
(7Surveyor General (John Lawson) at the hands of the Tuscarora (Powell 1989). After the loss of
much life and property, the war ended in 1712 leaving the Carolina colonies in dire financial straits.
These conditions persisted until the Lords Proprietors were forced to sell their holdings in the
Carolinas to the Crown in 1729 (Powell 1989).
John Lederer, a German doctor, was the first recorded European explorer to visit the project
region. In 1669, Lederer was commissioned by the governor of Virginia to find a westward route
to the Pacific Ocean (Cumming 1958). Lederer traveled through Virginia south to present day
Camden, South Carolina. During this trip, he visited with several Native American tribes, including
the Catawba and Waxhaw. The Catawba Indians are historically linked to the Catawba River valley
in North and South Carolina. Inspired by Lederer, John Lawson traveled from Charleston, South
Carolina through the North Carolina Piedmont to Pamlico Sound. Lawson's 1700-01 excursion
followed a well-established Native American trading path that passed near present day Charlotte,
Concord, and Salisbury (Lefler 1967). Lawson's journey took him through Esaw, Sugaree,
Catawba, and Waxhaw territory, four tribes who would soon come into close contact with European
colonists.
In 1715, the Catawba Indians attacked the Waxhaw. On the brink of annihilation, some of
the Waxhaw survivors took refuge with the Cheraw, while others moved to Florida with the
Yamasee. The Waxhaw/Cheraw eventually joined the Catawba (Swanton 1979). The Catawba
became allies of the English and, later, the American colonists- a dangerous existence indeed. In
1763, the Catawba settled south of Charlotte on a small reservation (Swanton 1979).
0
16

The acquisition of North Carolina by the Crown initiated a period of relatively stable
government. During this time, immigration into the colony was along three major routes: western
North Carolina was settled by German and Scots-Irish immigrants arriving from Pennsylvania and
Virginia via the Great Wagon Road, new arrivals at the important towns of New Bern and
Brunswick pushed west up the Cape Fear and Neuse River valleys, and colonists from South
Carolina advanced up the Pee Dee and Catawba rivers in search of new land (Powell 1989).
Residents in this part of North Carolina had divided loyalties during the Revolutionary War
and fought numerous skirmishes and battles. The rebellious Whigs finally prevailed over the loyalist
Tories at the Battle of Kings Mountain.
In 1841, Cleveland County was formed from parts of Rutherford and Lincoln counties, with
Shelby designated as the seat of government (Shelby Daily Star 1976). Transportation was severely
limited in the area until after the Civil War. Reportedly only one bridge existed in the county prior
to 1860 (Shelby Daily Star 1976). By 1860, however, the population of the county stood at 12,348.
In subsequent years, the county sent 15 companies into the Civil War, totaling over 2,000 troops.
One resident who remembered the war wrote:
There were more who went from Cleveland County in proportion to the voting
population than from any other in the state. The heroic men of the county, in order
to show their patriotism to the South, secured an old cannon that was used in the
battle of Cowpens during the Revolutionary War, brought it to Shelby and fired it all
night, burning up three kegs of powder. They fired first in honor of the State of
North Carolina, and last in honor of Secession. The last shot was loaded so heavy
that it burst the old cannon and jarred every window light out of the courthouse. On
the next day there was a big barbeque in Shelby and speeches on Secession. By the
latter part of 1861 the county was drained of its men... (Shelby Daily Star 1976).
Modern Period. After the Civil War, the size of individual land holdings decreased, as the
plantation system gave way to tenancy. Although followed by a recession, the economy began to
strengthen in the region by 1880. As roads and rail lines improved, textile mills, furniture factories,
and tobacco farming accompanied the region into the twentieth century. Figure 2 shows the project
tract in relation to the R and D Rail Line. The first textile mill was built at Double Shoals in 1871
and like many areas of the Piedmont region, Cleveland County's prosperity rose to prominence by
virtue of these mills. The county also became known for its mineral springs and was the focus of
one chapter in Health Resorts of the South, published in 1893 (Shelby Daily Star 1976).
17

tPMwtr; OIL-
Y-
1'?
? •
•N1SA. • ?y '
T ' h"?
?. R!? ?4.i S
tR4
'
Hw r.. l{Yl
Jry .den .IL11r?
Gd'i? r
? r,,.
w w.! A5^l'. • tKE.rL. iw..-.,>
?t+rdtt < .,- .r L• • i'-!*ola, i ter.

t•'
'?
.
?.? C Od. i
? 14
?
?ta' )
O ?? V
w
?,4L. A
.
i
]l
M C` i1A R../ K
ry .
.1,?,
1
„? f
a ?y

` lw .. Mi L Y wdl..• 7r,
?,R?yyr,JS?'
°"
._XFw
'w
"•
!!
!r
11 .. ?,L.+^ l?i T _
.y yRny. .•.
F l °.P° ..tlI
e 1
?
54•
+
""
?r ti
+ r

?? !;' ?rtikA P a3.o Hexw.?
*rn! • 1 { PrPrft?
% 0-4` 11
1? 1
L Projects N
Area
Figure 2. Kyzer's map of Cleveland County, North Carolina, showing
project tract (Kyzer 1886).
During the twentieth century, industry in the region diversified. After 1930, falling cotton
prices not only affected local farmers, but also the textile mills. After World War II, the textile
industry continued to decline, but lost jobs were somewhat offset by the construction of new
furniture and food processing plants. The county also had an abundance of minerals that were mined
during the late eighteenth and early nineteenth centuries, such as gold, kaolin, mica, monazite and
tin (Shelby Daily Star 1976). Also of note are three of the county's former residents: W.J. Cash who
authored Mind of the South; Thomas Dixon, who wrote The Klansman; and the bluegrass musician
Earl Scruggs.
18
0 Historic Overview-Cherokee County, South Carolina
Colonial Era. Permanent European settlement in South Carolina began in the 1670s, with
outposts at Charles Towne and the Port Royal vicinity. Most of these early settlers came either
directly from Europe or England, or from England via a generation or two in the Caribbean island
of Barbados. As the colony's prosperity increased and as the Native Americans were defeated by
the 1710s and 1720s, more Europeans began streaming into the backcountry of South Carolina.
Some of these settlers traveled up the rivers from the Lowcountry around Beaufort, Charleston, and
Georgetown, while a larger number flowed into the backcountry from the north. People with a wide
variety of ethnic backgrounds, including Scots-Irish, German, Welsh, and English, traveled down
through the Shenandoah Valley of Virginia into the backcountry of North and South Carolina.
Early European exploration into what is now Cherokee County began in 1750, when an
expedition of North Carolinians passed through the area. At the same time, settlers from the Saxe-
Gotha settlement near Columbia arrived seeking new land; they were followed quickly by Scots-
Irish settlers (Moss 1972:1-2). Despite early attempts to establish trade and alliance with the Native
Americans, conflicts arose almost immediately.
The new settlers made use of the Native Americans' trading paths to gain access to the new
territory. Several of these paths crossed what is now Cherokee County, including the main route
which crossed the Broad River south of Buffalo Creek (Moss 1972:5). The colonial settlers also
gained access to the area by way of the region's numerous waterways.
Despite the growing population in the backcountry, all important judicial functions were
handled in Charleston, the seat of colonial authority. By the 1760s, population growth and limited
judicial facilities combined to generate severe lawlessness and discontent in the backcountry. The
Regulator movement was a response to this situation. Most of the leaders of the Regulator
movement were commercially-oriented farmers and slave owners, who sought to maintain control
of the region in the absence of an official colonial presence. In the process, they called for more
local courts and for a vigilante response to the banditry (King 1981:8-10; Klein 1990). In response
to this violence in the backcountry, colonial authorities in Charleston agreed to set up a series of
judicial districts throughout the area. In 1769, the governor authorized seven districts throughout
the colony. The present-Cherokee County is within old Ninety-Six District which, when created in
1769, was bordered by Camden District to the east, Orangeburg District to the south, and Cherokee
lands to the west.
Relations between the Native Americans and the colonial settlers remained contentious
through the 1750s and 1760s, and the South Carolina colony had not yet acquired title to the land.
Further attempts to wrest the land from the Cherokee Indians coincided with the American
Revolution, and with attempts to put down signs of loyalty to the Crown in the backcountry.
William Henry Drayton, a patriot leader in Charleston, traveled to the backcountry to consolidate
support for the Revolution; at the time, the backcountry tended to remain loyal to Great Britain.
Both the British and the Americans sought to win the support of the Cherokees, but in doing so they
ventured more and more into Cherokee territory. In the spring of 1776, the Cherokee began
19

attacking the patriot forces. Leaders in Charleston, in coordination with leaders in North Carolina
and Virginia, commenced counterattacks. By the end of the summer of 1776, the Cherokee were
ready to admit defeat. In May 1777, the Cherokee ceded the territory that included what is now
Greenville County, immediately west of Spartanburg District, in the Treaty of DeWitt's Corner
(Huff 1995:20-26).
At the time of the Revolutionary War, the project area was inhabited by small subsistence
farmers clustered around the new town of Spartanburg. The war had little impact on the area until
after Charleston was captured in 1780. After that time the backcountry became the site of many
skirmishes and battles, notably at Cowpens and Kings Mountain, in which the patriots were
victorious.
While the Revolutionary War continued, the impetus to settle new lands was low. With the
end of the War in 1781 and the ratification of the Treaty of Paris in 1783, however, white settlers
became more interested in taking up the new lands. Surveys of the new territory, and sales of tracts,
began in 1784. The population of the former Cherokee territory grew quickly, and the South
Carolina General Assembly created Spartanburg and Union counties out of Ninety-Six District, and
York County out of Camden District, in 1785 (South Carolina Writers' Project 1942).
Antebellum Era. The South Carolina backcountry remained a contentious place through the
late 1780s and 1790s, as conflicts with Native Americans lingered. By the late 1780s, settlers were
setting up farms throughout Ninety-Six and Camden Districts. Although there were several large
plantations in the area, most settlers worked on small farms and practiced diversified agriculture,
or what several recent historians have called "safety-first" farming (Ford 1988:72-75; Wright
1978:62-74). Small farmers, who constituted the majority in Spartanburg, Union, and York
counties, in particular sought to protect themselves from the risk of market fluctuations by producing
enough subsistence crops to be largely self-sufficient. The increase in cotton production in the
South Carolina upcountry was dramatic in the early nineteenth century; from 94,000 pounds
produced in the state in 1793, the state's annual output reached some 50,000,000 pounds by 1810
(Ford 1988:262-263).
The most distinctive aspect of the area's economic history, however, is the rise of iron
production. As Cowan and Ferguson (1997:115) have noted, the iron industry in what are now
Cherokee, Spartanburg, Union, and York counties began in the 1770s. William Hill created the first
substantial iron foundry in 1779 on Allison's Creek in what is now York County (Cowan and
Ferguson 1997:117). More substantial plants emerged in the early nineteenth century, particularly
along the Broad River. Jacob Stroup and Edward Fewell built an ironworks on King's Creek in
1815, with a plant that included a grist mill and saw mill in addition to the iron foundry. After a
flood in 1822, they sold their plant to a group of New York investors in 1825, and Stroup then built
another ironworks on the Broad River at Doolittle Creek. By 1830, his Cherokee Ironworks
included 3,500 acres and comprised a furnace and forge, a blacksmith shop, grist and saw mills, and
worker and slave quarters (Cowan and Ferguson 1997:120-121).
e•
20
I
Stroup's operations gave way to the King's Mountain Iron Company. This was a very large
operation covering approximately 9,000 acres on the east side of the Broad River in what is now
Cherokee County, and remained in business until at least 1859 (Cowan and Ferguson 1997:123).
Competition quickly arose, however, with the creation of the Nesbitt Iron Manufacturing Company.
Chartered in 1835, by the early 1840s the company had four furnaces located on the west side of the
Broad River between People's Creek and Cherokee Creek (Cowan and Ferguson 1997:123). The
Nesbitt Iron Manufacturing Company was even more extensive than its downriver neighbor, and
included a puddling furnace, a rolling mill, a blacksmith shop, carpentry shop, and wheelwright
shop, reheating ovens, an ore stamper, and the ubiquitous grist, flour, and saw mills. This complex
drew power from the Broad River by way of a dam across the river which fed a canal (Cowan and
Ferguson 1997:124).
As old Spartanburg and York counties increased in population and in agricultural
productivity, there were calls to improve communications with the Lowcountry to the east and the
new state of Tennessee to the west. The new towns of Spartanburg and Yorkville Courthouse (now
York) were located in the centers of their prospective counties, and roads radiating out in all
directions connected these county seats with surrounding Greenville, Union, and Laurens counties.
Robert Mills' 1825 map of York District (Figure 3) clearly shows this network of roads south of the
project tract.
In addition, Mills' map shows many mills, devoted either to lumber or grains. Few of these
® enterprises, however, signaled the formation of towns. The most significant impulse for the creation
of towns was travel and resorts. Lowcountry planters often sought to escape their plantations during
the hot season. Most left their plantations by early to mid-April, and did not return until early
December. Many had homes in Charleston, while others maintained summer residences in the
mountainous areas of North and South Carolina. Robert Mills, in his overview of South Carolina,
for example, noted that Greenville was a summer resort for wealthy families "on account of the
salubrity of the climate" (Mills 1972:573; see also Brewster 1947).
The closest resort to the project tract was Limestone Springs, which was created in
approximately 1835. A Lowcountry company bought a tract with natural mineral water springs and
with a large limestone outcrop. The company built a hotel for visitors and also created a lime kiln.
While the hotel closed in the early 1840s, the community surrounding it continued to grow. The
Limestone Springs Female High School was created in 1845, while other manufacturing enterprises
soon joined the lime kiln (Moss 1972:103-105, 204).
Gaffney was the only other substantial settlement in South Carolina near the project tract.
Michael Gaffney, an Irish immigrant, arrived at Smith's Ford on the Broad River in 1800, where his
business partner had already established a trading post. Gaffney soon created another store where
the Virginia-Georgia Road crossed the road from Tennessee to Charleston. The location of his store,
sited to take advantage of the increasing commercial traffic along the region's new roads, became
known as Gaffney's Cross Roads and served as a tavern and a lodging house (Moss 1972: 201-202).
o0
21
i
i
i
i
i
i
i
North Carolina
Soutar Carolinas
i
r
r
? y
Location of
Project Area
?.,,.?...i..d. t^sit•E? ?? 41kie. zii t'h.x?ua

Q
Lirk+uos bt4f. - ? ?
p;^? t
?. ? FaNs J,'A
. Ox.,w",iw 11

.Jer,(i,•R:r
II Ah's tar
3
MW4l
North
r+
t' , l
?t
ji

Figure 3. A portion of Robert Mills' 1825 map of York District, South Carolina (Mills
1972; note location of Shiloh Meeting House adjacent to the project tract).
22

Its rail connections after the Civil War gave it the clear advantage over the town of Limestone
Springs.
Postbellum Era. The end of the Civil War brought vast changes to South Carolina, and
particularly to the upcountry. While the impact of Emancipation in Spartanburg, Union, and York
counties was low relative to its impact on the Lowcountry counties, other changes were more
sweeping. In particular, new ways of doing business came to the fore, which placed a premium on
the small, but growing, inland towns and their merchants. Two interrelated forces in particular
spurred growth in upcountry South Carolina towns in the late nineteenth century: the railroads and
textile manufacturing. Neither was completely new after the Civil War. Instead, each drew upon
antebellum roots which were strengthened in the new, and relatively open, economic and social
conditions of the late nineteenth century (Hanchett 1998:19-28).
Spartanburg County had its first railroad connection in 1859 with the Spartanburg and Union
Railroad which provided access to Columbia and, ultimately, to Charleston. During the Civil War,
Union forces attested to the vital nature of the railroads in South Carolina by seeking them out and
destroying them. When Union General William T. Sherman led troops against Columbia in
February 1865, the railroads were a particular object of attention. All of Columbia's rail
connections were destroyed, along with many of the depots and office buildings.
Recovery was swift, however. By the late nineteenth century, Spartanburg was a minor
railroad hub for northern South Carolina. Spartanburg was part of the Southern Railway's line from
Washington to New Orleans, which was opened in 1894; the Southern Railway also connected
Spartanburg and Cincinnati by the end of the century (Kovacik and Winberry 1987:120).
There were few towns of any size throughout South Carolina during the early and mid-
nineteenth century. By 1850, barely 2.5 percent of the state's population outside of Charleston lived
in communities of over 1,000 people; the rest lived scattered throughout the countryside. However,
as railroads began to spread through the state in the 1850s, towns emerged as depots and commercial
entrepots.
The town of Gaffney emerged from its antebellum status as a crossroads tavern as a result
of the railroads. The Seaboard Air Line railroad created a stop at Gaffney's Cross Roads in 1873,
prompting members of the Gaffney family to begin selling their land near the railroad. Tillman
Gaines designed and laid out the new town, and Gaffney City was incorporated in 1875 (Moss
1972:208-209). With its traditions as a center of communication and travel combined with the new
railroad connections, Gaffney soon became a commercial and manufacturing hub for the immediate
region.
Like Gaffney, the town of Blacksburg began as a family settlement in the late eighteenth
century. In 1872, the Seaboard Air Line created a depot near the family settlement, which was
incorporated as Black's Station in 1876. The town had a brief period of prosperity in the late
nineteenth century as a center for iron production and shipment. As the iron industry in South
0
23

Carolina faltered in the late nineteenth century, however, the town of Blacksburg went into decline
as well (Moss 1972:272-274).
Cherokee County was created in 1897 from portions of York, Spartanburg, and Union
Counties. The county has remained a predominantly rural area since its creation in the late
nineteenth century. It was, however, in the center of a booming textile region. Next to the arrival
of the railroad, perhaps the greatest influence on the development of the area was manufacturing.
As early as the 181Os many investors and entrepreneurs recognized the potential of the Piedmont
region for the production of textiles. Mills' 1825 map, for example, shows two "cotton factories"
on the Tyger River near the line between Spartanburg and Union districts (Mills 1972). Most of
these textile factories before the Civil War, however, were scattered and small in scale. Only after
the Civil War was there an intense expansion in the manufacturing of textiles throughout the
Piedmont area of the South.
The growth of cotton manufacturing was closely tied to other developments in the Piedmont
after the Civil War. The emergence of new towns came in part through individuals who were able
to take advantage of the new economic order, and who saw the intimate connections between the
growth of their towns and the growth of their own fortunes. The access that these merchants had
to northern commercial centers through the railroads brought northern business ideals and methods
to the new towns, including an interest in manufacturing. With a combination of new local capital
as a result of the new business climate and the migration of capital from Charleston, local and
regional wealth prompted the initial organization of most of the backcountry's new cotton mills.
While the production of cotton increased rapidly throughout the upcountry, the price of
cotton fell to new lows. Many small farmers found that they could not make a living, and moved
themselves and their families to the new towns to work in the mills. Early mill owners, seeking both
to provide for their workers and to control them such that they would be a stable, undemanding work
force, generally provided housing to their workers. As a result, mill villages began to spring up on
the edges of towns adjacent to the textile mills throughout the region. Many of these mill villages
offered schools, stores, churches, and recreational activities for their workers and their families.

24

Chapter 4. Results and Recommendations
Background Research Results
Background research resulted in the identification of two previously recorded archaeological
resources (38CK92 and 38CK93) and one cemetery (Old Shiloh Presbyterian Church Cemetery [CL-
288]) within 0.8 km (0.5 mi) of the project tract.
Site 38CK92 is a small twentieth-century artifact scatter associated with a collapsed
structure. Recorded in August 2000, site 38CK92 was identified by Legacy Research Associates
during a survey for Duke Power Company. Site 38CK92 is located approximately 0.6 km (0.4 mi)
south of the project tract. The site contained no evidence of significant cultural deposits and was
recommended ineligible for the National Register of Historic Places (NRHP).
Site 38CK93 is also a small twentieth-century artifact scatter associated with a collapsed
structure. Recorded in August 2000, site 38CK93 was identified by Legacy Research Associates
during the same survey for Duke Power. Site 38CK93 is located approximately 0.8 km (0.5 mi)
south of the project tract. The site also contained no evidence of significant cultural deposits and
was recommended ineligible for the NRHP.
Resource CL-288, known as the Old Shiloh Presbyterian Church Cemetery, is located due
west of the project tract, on Elm Road. Established in 1780, this cemetery served as the burial
ground for local settlers until the twentieth century and was one of the earliest religious meeting
grounds in the area. According to Robert Mills' 1825 map, Shiloh Meeting House was located in
South Carolina (see Figure 3). The cemetery is situated in a wooded area, circumscribed by an
earthen drive (Figures 4 and 5). A historical marker was placed at the entrance on Elm Road in 2000
(Figure 6).
1 Among those buried here are Colonel Frederick Hambright (Figure 7), Arthur Patterson,
William Patterson and Thomas Patterson, all participants in the Battle of King's Mountain.
Hambright, a native German born in 1727, moved to North Carolina before 1750 and served in the
Provincial Congress at Hillsborough in 1775. He joined the Revolution, rising to the rank of
colonel, and commanded a small band of troops in the Battle of King's Mountain. Hambright
suffered a severe wound in his thigh and had three bullets shot through his hat (Draper 1996:273).
Surviving his wound, he lived to the age of 90 and was buried at Old Shiloh Presbyterian Church
(Draper 1996:476-77).
The survey form for this resource could not be immediately located for this project. The
form is supposed to be on file at the Western North Carolina Department of Archives and History.
However, a phone conversation with the Survey and Planning Branch Supervisor, Michael Southern,
indicated that the Old Shiloh file was currently being used to compile information about Cleveland
I go
25
,• ' _'
l '

oY'

s

.44

r•y"
f?' ? ? .ir r? ? ms's ..
w
?
Z

Ck, "a
ta";
VP

- +.`?' -".

-
•7"c
Figure 4. Old Shiloh Presbyterian Church Cemetery (facing southwest).
Figure 5. Old Shiloh Presbyterian Church Cemetery (facing east towards
project area).
26
{=.t S? y
Figure 6. Historical marker at cemetery's entrance on Elm Road.
County historical sites. Mr. Southern remembered Old Shiloh as recommended unassessed
(potentially eligible) for the NRHP (Southern 2003).
Old Shiloh Cemetery is buffered from the project area by dense vegetation. In addition, the
Zion AME Church and Cemetery affords additional visual protection as this area is not planned for
development. Therefore, project implementation will have no adverse effect to Resource CL-288.
27
OLD SHILOH
PRESBYTERIAN CHURCH
CEMETERY
1780- 1916
Archaeological Field Survey Results
The project tract is comprised of mixed planted pines and hardwoods, as well as several areas
of gradual slope. Two streams run north-south through the central portion of the tract and converge
in the southeastern corner. An overgrown dirt road runs off Elm Road and proceeds north-northwest
through the western portion of the tract. Shiloh AME Zion Church and a corresponding cemetery
are also located in the western portion of the tract (Figures 8 and 9).
28
Figure 7. Grave of Colonel Frederick Hambright.
s
i
i
i
0
i
i
i
i
i
i
I
I

4'14i S.'-
F8. View of Shiloh AME Zion Church, looking north.
{
? i+ ? F • ? , '3 .tie
Uzi
FO
e ¦ S F. ??rr •'
Figure 9. View of Shiloh Cemetery within project tract boundary, looking southwest.
29
7-?
31CL105
Cultural Affiliation: 20" century
Site Type: Domestic artifact scatter
Landform: Ridge toe
Soil Description: Clay loam/silty loam
UTM Coordinates: E460929 N3891632
Elevation: 250 meters above mean sea level (amsl)
Site Dimensions: 150 meters N/S x 135 meters E/W
NRHP Eligibility Recommendation: Ineligible
Site 31CL105 is a twentieth-century domestic artifact scatter. Situated in mixed pines and
hardwoods on a ridge toe, the site is bisected by an overgrown dirt road running off of Elm Road
(Figures 10 and 11). Thick vegetation is present throughout much of the site. A chimney, well, base
of a fireplace, stone piers, chicken wire enclosure, roofing tin, and several trash piles are associated
with 31CL105. A gradual slope defines the site's eastern edge, and Elm Road defines the site's
southern boundary.
Artifacts at 31 CL 105 were recovered from a 10 to 30 cm (4 to 12 in) deep layer of clay loam
or silty loam, though most of the artifacts were recovered from shallow soil. Orange or orange
brown clay underlay the soil. Seventeen shovel tests were positive for historic artifacts. Artifacts
consisted of bottle and window glass, ceramics, nails, and a 1939 U.S. nickel. All artifacts are listed
in Table 2. A more thorough description is included in Appendix A.
4. -f T r :I
-AP
%
. `,#?' I ?•?. . }:,! cif +J 1 ,- ?r? 4_ Y.
441
.. a ?, ?. ,? ..
's
Figure 10. View of 31 CL105, looking west.
30
e
t?
i
1
1
9 c?
9
I
I
I
I
I
I
I?
I
RR ad ;

t f
0 a O a a G Q
f?t

' Approximate
S.k its si,, a'
i
O a a a O O a ?t
i
f ! f
E

a
d
a CS O i
a lp
Thick Chicken
ireetat ern ; W;
re
Enclosure

a
O
a 0 site
0, "" +R E ovndary
?? Tf
Ro
ofing

O
O
a d Trash
Tin
6 0 , 6 Fite -? 1%.
Stone s
piers A ,
N
/
'
'
'
0 a O q ? 4,A
? ? ?
?
?} ?
s

a c? O • :3 a I; t s6-1 c a

a

? EL @ase of ' f 01
Fireplace
?-°--i? a p a
Y? a O ? 't? J? t
Thick

ve
ef
ii
r o Thick

!
Vegetation
g
s
a
i
Trash # North
pile
a o a p a q / q
.? 1. Well
? ?

a O 2 a r z N ? O
r Q a Negative Shovet Test
t
L hirane} --i r Positive Sbovel Test

0 10 20 Metem
a `tea.` o 0 0 ?1
Elm Road
Figure 11. Plan view of 31 CL 105.
31
e
B
I?

Table 2. Artifacts Recovered From 31CL105.
[Artifact =Number
milk glass 1
milk glass vessel 1
bottle glass 50
window glass 7
unidentified burned ceramic 2
whiteware 7
pearlware 1
jade ware 1
ceramic fixture 1
canning jar lid/lid liners 2
glass lamp part 2
glass tumbler 1
stove body part 1
coin 1
nail 8
unidentified bakelite object 1
unidentified iron/steel 1
Much of 31CL105 has been left to decay and collapse, though there is a slight amount of
disturbance from the dirt road. Based on the type and shallowness of the recovered artifacts, site
31CL105 does not possess the potential for intact cultural features, and cannot add to our
understanding of the area's history. Therefore, 31 CL 105 is recommended ineligible for the NRHP.
Architectural Field Survey Results
9
Five resources located within 0.8 km (0.5 mi) of the project tract were identified during field
survey (Table 3). Three ofthese resources (NC-045-001, NC-045-002 and NC-045-003) are located
in North Carolina and two (211-0053 and 211-0054) are located in South Carolina. None of these
resources are recommended eligible for the NRHP. The locations of these resources are shown in
Figure 1 and are discussed below.
32
e
?e
Table 3. List of Architectural Recnurnea Identified Dimino the Riphl Crnru -w
Resource # -Description NRHP Recommendation Effect
NC-045-001 Double Pen Ineligible N/A
NC-045-002 Hall Parlor Ineligible N/A
NC-045-003 Craftsman Bungalow Ineligible N/A
211-0053 Hall Parlor Ineligible N/A
211-0054 Gabled Ell Ineligible N/A
Resource NC-045-001
Resource NC-045-001 is a circa 1900 double-pen house located at 234 Battleground Road
in Cleveland County, North Carolina (Figures 12 and 13). The house sits on an asymmetrical
footprint and rises from a brick pier foundation to a height of 1 %2 stories. Weatherboard siding
covers the exterior and the double hung sash windows are set in a 1/1 pane configuration. The
dropped shed front porch is supported by square wood posts set on brick piers, and the floor consists
of wood planks. There are two front doors with one providing accessibility to a handicap ramp. The
door to the right is actually two small casement doors. The roof consists of three gables, one lateral
and two front. The central front gable contains a decorative diamond window. There are also two
interior brick chimneys, both with decorative corbeled caps.
This resource contains several significant alterations. The most notable is the circa 1920
addition of a front gable wing. This wing is in poor condition with a tree growing out of the south
side of the roof (Figure 14). Also, a series of additions extend from the rear. Windows along the
facade and north elevation are protected by iron bars. The house faces northeast towards
Battleground Road and its landscape is casual and unplanned, with large hardwood trees framing
the perimeter of the property. The setting has changed from largely rural to semi-rural with several
non-historic houses in its viewshed. While the resource retains integrity of location, due to
significant alterations, it no longer retains integrity of design, workmanship, materials, association,
feeling or setting. Therefore, we recommend Resource NC-045-001 ineligible for the NRHP.
Resource NC-045-002

Resource NC-045-002 is a circa 1945 hall-parlor house located at 224 Battleground Road
in Cleveland County, North Carolina (Figures 15 and 16). Rising one story from a concrete block
foundation, the house is covered in modern replacement siding. Windows are replacement double
hung sash, set in a 6/6 pane configuration, framed by fixed decorative shutters. The plain front door
is original and asymmetrically set to the front-gabled porch. Largely a replacement, the porch
consists of wood plank floor, set on brick piers and simple wooden posts and railing. The steps are
poured concrete. The lateral gable roof is covered in raised seam metal and supports three
chimneys. Two are constructed of brick, one placed on the rear, the other along the ridge of the
roofline. The third flue is constructed of concrete block and is placed exterior end.
33

34
t igure 12. Resource NC-045-001 (northeast elevation).
Figure 13. Resource NC-045-001 (southeast elevation).
e
I
35
Figure 14. Resource NC-045-001 (porch detail).
Figure 15. Resource NC-045-002 (west oblique).
0
The resource includes additions to the rear and northwest elevation. Other alterations include
the replacement siding, windows and front porch. The landscape is casual, with several shrubs and
large trees framing the sides and rear of the home. The house faces northeast towards Battleground
Road, and the setting is semi-rural. The house was constructed as a single family residence and
retains that association today. While the resource retains location of location, setting, feeling and
association, it no longer has that of design, materials and workmanship. This design was common
during the post-World War II era, but is not an outstanding example. Therefore, we recommend
Resource NC-045-002 ineligible for the NRHP.
Resource NC-045-003
Resource NC-045-003 is a 1933 Craftsman bungalow located at 128 Banks Road in
Cleveland County, North Carolina (Figures 17 and 18). The balloon framed house rises I % stories
from a continuous brick foundation and the exterior consists of brick laid in a running bond pattern.
The front door is framed to either side by paired double hung sash windows set in a 3/1 pane
configuration. The front shed porch is supported by battered wooden posts set on brick piers, and
the porch floor consists of wood planks. The lateral gable roof contains one gabled dormer with a
ribbon of three windows. There is one exterior end chimney present and tail rafters appear beneath
the eaves of the porch and dormer window.
36
Figure 16. Resource NC-045-002 (south oblique).

H-41"
37
Figure 17. Resource NC-045-003 (facing north).
Figure 18. Resource NC-045-003 (southeast elevation).
I

The resource appears to have had no significant alterations, except the replacement of
various windows set in a 6/6 pane configuration. It is situated in a rural setting with no apparent
agricultural associations, and the property adjoins Interstate 85 to the rear. The landscape is casual
with large trees in front of and surrounding the house, and shrubs frame the foundation. The house
retains integrity of location, design, workmanship, materials, and feeling, but not integrity of
association or setting. This resource is a typical design found throughout the state but is not an
outstanding example. Therefore, we recommend Resource NC-045-003 ineligible for the NRHP.
Resource 211-0053
Resource 211-0053 is a circa 1920 hall parlor house located at 144 Caveny Road (Figures
19 and 20). The house rises from a hidden foundation to a height of one story and is covered in
asbestos siding. The modern replacement door is asymmetrically set, and is flanked to either side
by replacement double hung sash windows set in a 6/6 pane configuration. Some windows have
fixed decorative shutters. The porch consists of a concrete block pier foundation and an extended
shed roof. Pre-cast concrete steps lead up to the replacement wood plank floor, wood post supports
and railing. A portion of the front porch has been enclosed, and the rear of the home contains an ell
addition. The roof is covered by raised seam metal and there are two brick chimneys, one along the
roofline of the rear extension, the other on the east elevation.
This resource has undergone several alterations, including the rear addition, application of
asbestos siding, replacement of porch materials, windows and front door. The setting is rural with
modern industrial businesses within its viewshed and the property's landscaping is casual and
unplanned. The house retains integrity of location and association, but not that of design,
workmanship, materials, feeling or setting. Therefore, we recommend Resource 211-0053 ineligible
for the NRHP.
Resource 211-0054
Resource 211-0054, also known as the Black Farm, is located at 312 Caveny Road. The
buildings in this complex date from 1900-1950. The main residence (Figures 21 and 22) is a gabled-
ell house, built circa 1920, that has undergone extensive alterations. Rising 1 '/2 stories from a
continuous brick foundation, the exterior is covered in modern replacement siding and replacement
windows set in a 6/6 pane configuration with fixed shutters. The front door appears to be original,
consisting of a single light and five inset panels, and a two light transom. The window in the front
gable wing has a three light transom. The porch has been completely reconstructed, with brick steps,
wood floors and railings. The porch wraps around the west elevation of the house and contains
another door and additional windows. The roof is covered in composite shingles and has three brick
chimneys, two of which have corbeled caps.
There is one double crib barn located on the property, built circa 1920 (Figure 23). The barn
rises from a concrete block foundation and is covered in vertical plank siding on its exterior walls
and weatherboard siding in its gabled ends. Two shed wings, one right and one left, provide
additional
38
v
i
39
Figure 19. Resource 211-0053 (northwest oblique).
Figure 20. Resource 211-0053 (west elevation).
C
u
40
Figure 21. Black Farm, main residence (northwest oblique).
Figure 22. Black Farm, main residence (northeast oblique).
e
storage space. The left wing has an open door and the right wing has a single entry door. The lateral
gable roof is covered in pressed seam metal. The interior has a central runway flanked by enclosed
rooms or "cribs. This barn would have been used for the housing of stock. The barn appears to
be in fair condition, but no longer retains its agricultural association.
A single crib barn, also constructed circa 1920, is located to the immediate southwest of the
main house (Figure 24). Rising from a hidden foundation, the barn is covered in horizontal
flushboard siding. Raised seam metal covers the roof and a walkway extends down the length of
the interior. This barn is abandoned and largely hidden from view by vegetation. It has fallen into
disrepair and is missing siding material.
A pole barn, constructed circa 1950, is located adjacent to the double crib barn (Figure 25).
The foundation of this building is hidden from view, and the exterior is covered in weatherboard
siding. Simple wooden posts support the front shed addition. Barns of this kind were common on
agricultural complexes as modern equipment was utilized in farming. Open-ended sheds were ideal
for the storage of tractors and mechanical attachments.
A third barn, of log construction, appears to have been built circa 1900 (Figure 26). The
walls and sills of the building seem to be original. The sills sit on a rock foundation and logs are
joined with both half-dovetail and square notches. The door consists of iron hinges and vertical
planks. This barn was probably used as a smoke house at one time, but is now used for storage. It
is in fair condition, but has been modified with the addition of left and right shed wings and the new
roof.
41
Figure 23. Black Farm, double crib barn (northeast oblique).
42
Figure 24. Black Farm, single crib barn (north oblique).
Figure 25. Black Farm, pole barn (facing northwest).

The third building of the complex is a circa 1900 hall-parlor house located in a wooded area
east of the main house (Figures 27 and 28). The house rises from a foundation of both concrete
block and stacked rock. The door is symmetrically placed and consists of horizontal inset panels.
The extended shed front porch is supported by simple wooden posts resting on a wood plank floor.
A portion of the left side of the porch has been enclosed. Board and batten siding covers the exterior
walls, and weatherboard appears in the gabled ends. The double hung sash windows are set in a 6/6
pane configuration and most are missing. The lateral gable roof is covered in pressed seam metal
and two chimneys are present. The chimney along the lateral roof ridge line has been reconstructed
of concrete block. Another chimney flue is present on the rear ell extension. This building is now
abandoned and covered by thick vegetation.
This resource's setting is rural, and the property's landscaping is casual and unplanned. The
structures at the Black Farm retain integrity of location and association, but not that of design,
workmanship, materials, feeling, or setting. Therefore, we recommend Resource 211-0054
ineligible for the NRHP.
43
r figure 26. Black Farm, log barn (south elevation).
rk
44
Figure 27. Black Fann, hall parlor house (southwest oblique).
Figure 28. Black Farm, hall parlor house (east elevation).

Summary and Recommendations
From 1-5 December 2003, Brockington and Associates, Inc., conducted an intensive Phase
I cultural resources survey of the approximately 180-acre Combined Cycle tract in Cleveland
County, North Carolina. Background research resulted in the identification of two archaeological
resources (38CK92 and 38CK93) and one cemetery(Old Shiloh Presbyterian Church Cemetery [CL-
288]) within 0.8 km (0.5 mi) of the project tract.
Field survey resulted in the identification of one archaeological resource (31 CL 105) and five
historic resources (NC-045-001, NC-045-002, NC-045-003, 211-0053 and 211-0054). Due to
31CL105's lack of significant cultural deposits and poor research potential, it is recommended
ineligible for the NRHP. The historic resources are located within 0.8 km (0.5 mi) of the project
tract, and are recommended ineligible for the NRHP as well. Cultural resources clearance for the
proposed construction is recommended.

1 G
45

References Cited
Anderson, David G. and Glen T. Hanson
1988 Early Archaic Settlement in the Southeastern United States: A Case Study from the
Savannah River Basin. American Antiquity 53:262-286.
Anderson, D. G. and J. W. Joseph
1988 Prehistory and History Along the Upper Savannah River: Technical Synthesis of
Cultural Resource Investigations, Richard B. Russell Multiple Resource Area.
Interagency Archaeological Services, National Park Service, Atlanta, GA.
Binford, Lewis R.
1980 Willow Smoke and Dog's Tails: Hunter-gatherer Settlement Systems and
Archaeological Site Formation. American Antiquity 45: 1-17.
Blumenson, John
1977 Identifying American Architecture. American Association for State and Local
History. Nashville, TN.
Brewster, Lawrence Fay
1947 Summer Migrations and Resorts of South Carolina Low-Country Planters. Duke
University Press, Durham, NC.
Broyles, Bettye J.
1981 Second Preliminary Report: The St. Albans Site, Kanawha County, West Virginia.
West Virginia Geological and Economic Survey Report ofA rchaeological Investigations
3.
Butler, William B.
1987 Significance and Other Frustrations in the CRM Process. American Antiquity
52(4):820-829.
Caldwell, Joseph R.
1952 The Archaeology of Eastern Georgia and South Carolina. In Archaeology of the
Eastern United States, edited by James B. Griffin. University of Chicago Press, IL.
Chapman, Jefferson
1985 Archaeology and the Archaic Period in the Southern Ridge and Valley Province. In
Structure and Process in Southeastern Archaeology, edited by R.S. Dickens and H.
Trawick Ward, pp. 137-153. University of Alabama Press, Tuscaloosa.

46
I
Claggett, Stephen R. and John S. Cable, compilers
1982 The Haw River Sites: Archaeological Investigations at Two Stratified Sites in the
North Carolina Piedmont. Commonwealth Associates, Inc., Jackson, MS.
Coe, Joffre L.
1952 The Cultural Sequence of the Carolina Piedmont. In Archaeology of the Eastern
United States, edited by James B. Griffin, pp. 301-311. University of Chicago Press, IL.
1964 Formative Cultures of the Carolina Piedmont. Transactions of the American
Philosophical Society 54(5).
Cowan, Thomas A., and Terry A. Ferguson
1997 Iron Plantations and the Eighteenth and Nineteenth Century Landscape of the
Northwestern South Carolina Piedmont. In Carolina's Historical Landscapes:
Archaeological Perspectives, edited by Linda F. Stine, Martha Zierden, Lesley M.
Drucker, and Christopher Judge. University of Tennessee Press, Knoxville.
Cumming, W.P.
1958 The Discoveries ofJohn Lederer. University of Virginia Press, Charlottesville.
Delcourt, Hazel R., and Paul A. Delcourt
1986 Late Quaternary Vegetational Change in the Central Atlantic States. In The
Quaternary of Virginia- A Symposium Volume, edited by J.N. McDonald and S.O. Bird,
pp. 23-35. Virginia Division of Mineral Resources Publication 75, Charlottesville.
Delcourt, Paul A., and Hazel R. Delcourt
1981 Vegetation Maps for Eastern North America: 400,000 B.P. to Present. In Geobotancy
II, edited by R.C. Romans. Plenum Publishing Corporation.
Dillehay, T.D. (editor)
1997 Monte Verde- A Late Pleistocene Settlement in Chile, Volume 2, The Archaeological
Context and Interpretations. Smithsonian Institution Press, Washington, D.C.
Draper, Lyman C.
1996 Kings Mountain and its Heroes. The Overmountain Press, Johnson City, TN.
Reprint of 1881 edition.
Dunnell, Robert C.
1971 Systematics in Prehistory. Free Press, New York.
Fagan, Brian
1988 In the Beginning: An Introduction to Archaeology. Scott, Foresman and Company,
Boston, MA.
r
47

Ford, Lacy K., Jr.
1988 Origins ofSouthern Radicalism: The South Carolina Upcountry, 1800-1860. Oxford
University Press, New York.
Gardner, William H.
1974 The Flint Run Paleo Indian Complex: A Preliminary Report 1971 through 1973
Seasons. Catholic University of America, Archaeology Laboratory, Occasional Paper
No. 1. Washington, D.C.
1989 An Examination of Cultural Change in the Late Pleistocene and Early Holocene (ca.
9200 to 6800 B.C.). In Paleoindian Research in Virginia: A Synthesis, edited by J. Mark
Wittkofski and Theodore R. Reinhart, pp. 5-52. Archaeological Society of Virginia.
Glassow, Michael
1977 Issues in Evaluating the Significance of Archaeological Resources. American
Antiquity 42:413-420.
Goodyear, Albert C.
1982 The Chronological Position of the Dalton Horizon in the Southeastern United States.
American Antiquity 42(3): 382-395.
Goodyear, Albert C., III, James L. Michie and Tommy Charles
1989 The Earliest South Carolinians. In Studies in South Carolina Archaeology, edited
by Albert C. Goodyear III and Glen T. Hanson, pp. 19-52. The University of South
Carolina Institute of Archaeology and Anthropology Anthropological Studies 9.
Columbia.
Green, T.J., B. Cochran, T.W. Fenton, J.C. Woods, G.L. Titmus, L. Tieszen, M.A. Davis and S.J.
Miller
1998 The Buhl Burial: A Paleoindian Woman from Southern Idaho. American Antiquity
63(3):437-456.
Griffin, James B.
1952 Archaeology of the Eastern United States. The University of Chicago Press,
Chicago.
1967 Eastern North American Archaeology: A Summary. Science 156:175-191.
Hanchett, Thomas W.
1998 Sorting Out the New South City: Race, Class, and Urban Development in Charlotte,
1875-1975. University of North Carolina Press, Chapel Hill.

48

Hargrove, Thomas
1991 An Archaeological Survey ofProposed Improvements to the Gastonia Sewer System,
Gaston County, North Carolina. Robert J. Goldstein and Associates, Inc., Raleigh, NC.
1998 An Archaeological Survey of the Proposed Cold Water Creek and Back Creek
Interceptor P r o j e c t , Concord, Cabarrus County, North Carolina. Rob e r t J .
Goldstein & Associates, Inc., Raleigh, NC.
Hudson, Charles
1990 The Juan Pardo Expeditions: Exploration of the Carolinas and Tennessee, 1566-
1568. Smithsonian Institution Press, Washington, D.C.
1994 The Hernando De Soto Expedition, 1539-1543. In The Forgotten Centuries: Indians
and Europeans in the American South 1521-1704, edited by Charles Hudson and Carmen
Chaves Tesser. University of Georgia Press, Athens, GA.
Huff, Arhie Vernon, Jr.
1995 Greenville: The History of the City and County in the South Carolina Piedmont.
University of South Carolina Press, Columbia.
Hume, Ivor Noel
1994 The Virginia Adventure: Roanoke to Jamestown, An Archaeological Odyssey. Alfred
A. Knopf, New York.
Jackson, L.E., F.M. Philips, K. Shimamura and E.C. Little
1997 Cosmogenic 36C1 Dating of the Foothills Erractics Train, Alberta, Canada. Geology
125: 73-94.
Keel, Bennie
1976 Cherokee Archaeology. University of Tennessee Press, Knoxville.
King, G. Wayne
1981 Rise Up So Early: A History of Florence County, South Carolina. The Reprint
Company, Spartanburg, SC.
Klein, Rachel N.
1990 Unification of a Slave State: The Rise of the Planter Class in the South Carolina
Backcountry, 1760-1808. University of North Carolina Press, Chapel Hill.
Kovacik, Charles F., and John J. Winberry
1987 South Carolina: A Geography. Westview Press, Boulder, CO.
I'M
49
t
Kyzer, Paul B.
1886 Complete Map of Cleveland County, North Carolina. On file at the North Carolina
State Department of Archives and History, Raleigh.
Lefler, Hugh Talmage, editor
1967 A New Voyage to Carolina by John Lawson. University of North Carolina Press,
Chapel Hill.
Lewis, Thomas M. N., and Madeline Kneberg
1959 The Archaic Culture in the Middle South. American Antiquity 25(2):161-183.
Longstreth, Richard
1987 The Buildings of Main Street: A Guide to American Commercial Architecture. The
Preservation Press, Washington D.C.
May, J. Alan
1989 Archaeological Excavations at the Crowders Creek Site (31 GS55): A Late Woodland
Farmstead in the Catawba River Valley, Gaston County, North Carolina. Southern
Indian Studies 38.
1990 An Archaeological Reconnaissance of the Proposed Cabarrus County Airport,
Poplar Tent Site: Cabarrus County, North Carolina. Report on file at the North
Carolina Office of State Archaeology, Raleigh.
McAlester, Virginia and Lee McAlester
1984 A Field Guide to American Houses. Alfred A. Knopf, New York.
Meltzer, David J.
1988 Late Pleistocene Human Adaptations in Eastern North America. Journal of World
Prehistory 2:1-53.
Meltzer, D.J., D.K. Grayson, G. Ardila, A.W. Barker, D.F. Dincause, C.V. Haynes, F. Mena, L.
Nunez and D. Stanford
1997 On the Pleistocene Antiquity of Monte Verde, Southern Chile. American Antiquity
44(1): 172-179.
Michie, James L.
1977 Late Pleistocene Human Occupation of South Carolina. Senior Honors Thesis,
Department of Anthropology, University of South Carolina, Columbia.
Mills, Robert
1972 Statistics of South Carolina, Including a View of its Natural, Civil, and Military
History, General and Particular. Originally published by Hurlburt and Lloyd,
Charleston, SC; reprint edition, The Reprint Company, Spartanburg, SC.
50

Morell, V.
1998 Kennewick Man: More Bones to Pick. Science 279: 25-26.
Moss, Bobby Gilmer
1972 The Old Iron District: A Study of the Development of Cherokee County, 1750-1897.
Jacobs Press, Clinton, SC.
Oliver, Billy
1985 Tradition and Typology: Basic Elements of the Carolina Projectile Point Sequence.
In Structure and Process in Southeastern Archaeology, edited by Roy S. Dickens, Jr. and
H. Trawick Ward, pp. 195-211. University of Alabama Press, Tuscaloosa.
1992 Settlements ofthePeeDee Culture. Ph.D. dissertation, Department of Anthropology,
University of North Carolina, Chapel Hill.
O'Steen, Lisa D., R. Jerald Ledbetter, Daniel T. Elliott, and William W. Barker
1986 PaleoIndian Sites of the Inner Piedmont of Georgia: Observations of Settlement in
the Oconee Watershed. Early Georgia 13:1-63.
Perkinson, Phil H.
1971 North Carolina Fluted Projectile Points - Survey Report Number One. Southern
Indian Studies 23:3-40.
1973 North Carolina Fluted Projectile Points - Survey Report Number Two. Southern
Indian Studies 25.
Poppeliers, John C., S. Allen Chambers, Jr., Nancy B. Schwartz
1983 What Style Is It? A Guide to American Architecture. Preservation Press, Washington
D.C.
Potter, Elisabeth Walton, and Beth M. Boland
1992 National Register Bulletin 41: Guidelinesfor Evaluating andRegistering Cemeteries
and Burial Places. U.S. Department of the Interior, Washington, D.C.
Powell, William S.
1989 North Carolina through Four Centuries. University ofNorth Carolina Press, Chapel
Hill.
Preston, D.
1997 The Lost Man. New Yorker 16 June: 70-81.
21;
51
Purrington, Burton L.
1983 Ancient Mountaineers: An Overview of the Prehistoric Archaeology of North
Carolina's Western Mountain Region. In The Prehistory of North Carolina: An
Archaeological Symposium, edited by Mark A. Mathis and Jeffrey J. Crow, pp. 83-160.
North Carolina Division of Archives and History, Raleigh.
Reitz, Elizabeth J.
1990 Zooarchaeology. In The Development of Southeastern Archaeology, edited by J.K.
Johnson, pp. 109-131. University of Alabama Press, Tuscaloosa.
Sassaman, Kenneth E.
1983 Middle and Late Archaic Settlement in the South Carolina Piedmont. Unpublished
Master's thesis, Department of Anthropology, University of South Carolina, Columbia.
Savage, Beth L. and Sarah Dillard Pope
1998 National Register Bulletin: How to Apply the National Register Criteria for
Evaluation. U.S. Department of the Interior, National Park Service, Washington,
D.C.
Shelby Daily Star
1976 Our Heritage: A History of Cleveland County. Shelby Daily Star, Shelby, NC.
Sherfy, Marcella and W. Ray Luce
n.d. National Register Bulletin 22: Guidelinesfor Evaluating andNominating Properties
That Have Achieved Significance in the Last Fifty Years. U.S. Department of the
Interior, Park Service, Interagency Resources Division, Washington, D.C.
Slayman, A.L.
1997 A Battle Over Bones: Lawyers Contest the Fate of an 8400 Year Old Skeleton from
Washington State. Archaeology 50(1):16.
South, Stanley
1980 The Discovery of Santa Elena. The South Carolina Institute of Archaeology and
Anthropology Manuscript Series 165. University of South Carolina, Columbia.
South Carolina Writers' Project
1942 South Carolina: A Guide to the Palmetto State. Oxford University Press, New York.
Southern, Michael
2003 Personal Correspondence. December 1, 2003.
0
52

Steele, D.G., and J.F. Powell
1993 Paleobiology of the First Americans. Evolutionary Anthropology 2(4): 138-146.
1994 Paleobiological Evidence of the Peopling of the Americas: A Morphometric View.
In Method and Theory for Investigating the Peopling of the Americas, edited by R.
Bonnichsen and D.G. Steele, pp. 141-163. Center for the Study of the First Americans,
Oregon State University, Corvallis.
Steponaitis, Vincas
1986 Prehistoric Archaeology in the Southeastern United States, 1970-1985. Annual
Review of Anthropology 15: 363-404.
Stoltman, James B.
1965 Temporal Models in Prehistory: An Example From Eastern North America. Current
Anthropology 19(4): 703-746.
Swanton, John R.
1979 The Indians of the Southeastern United States. Smithsonian Institute Press,
Washington, D.C. Reprint of the 1946 edition.
Swedlund, A., and D. Anderson
1999 Gordon Creek Woman Meets Kennewick Man: New Interpretations and Protocols
Regarding the Peopling of the Americas. American Antiquity 64(4):569-576.
Townsend, Jan, John H. Sprinkle, Jr., and John Knoerl
1993 Guidelines for Evaluating and Registering Historical Archaeological Sites and
Districts. National Register Bulletin 36. National Park Service. U.S. Department of the
Interior, Washington, D.C.
United States Geological Survey (USGS)
1971 Grover, NC-SC. 7.5 minute topographic quadrangle.
Wagner, Gail E.
1995 Sequences of Plant Utilization in South Carolina. Paper presented at the 36th Society
for Economic Botany Conference, Ithaca, NY.
Ward, H. Trawick
1965 Correlation of Mississippian Sites and Soil Types. Southeastern Archaeological
Conference Bulletin 3.
1983 A Review of Archaeology in the North Carolina Piedmont: A Study of Change. In
The Prehistory of North Carolina: An Archaeology Symposium, edited by Mark A.
Mathis and Jeffrey J. Crow, pp. 53-81. North Carolina Division of Archives and History,
Raleigh.
53

Ward, H. Trawick and R.P.S. Davis, Jr.
1999 Time Before History: The Archaeology of North Carolina. University of North
Carolina Press, Chapel Hill.
Watts, W.A.
1970 The Full Glacial Vegetation of Northern Georgia. Ecology 51(1).
1980 Late Quaternary Vegetation History at White Pond on the Inner Coastal Plain of
South Carolina. Quaternary Research 10.
Whiffen, Marcus
1981 American Architecture Since 1780: A Guide to the Styles. The M.I.T. Press,
Cambridge, MA.
Whitehead, Donald R.
1965 Palynology and Pleistocene Phytogeography of Unglaciated Eastern North America.
In The Quaternary of the United States, edited by H. E. Wright, Jr. and D. G. Frey.
Princeton University Press, NJ.
1973 Late Wisconsin Vegetational Changes in Unglaciated Eastern North America.
Quaternary Research 3:621-631.
Wing, Elizabeth S. and Antionette Brown
1979 Paleonutrition: Method and Theory in Prehistoric Foodways. Academic Press, New
York.
World Climate
2003 http//:<worldclimate.com>
Wright, Gavin
1978 The Political Economy of the Cotton South: Households, Markets, and Wealth in the
Nineteenth Century. W.W. Norton, New York.
1 0
54
IN

Appendix A.
Artifact Catalog
(1)
0
B
1
A
B
A;
•
Artifact Catalog
Brockington and Associates, Inc. uses the following proveniencing system. Provenience 1 designates general surface
collections. Numbers after the decimal point designate subsequent surface collections, or trenches. Proveniences 2 to 200
designate shovel tests. Controlled surface collections and 50 by 50 cm units are also designated by this provenience range.
Proveniences 201 to 400 designate 1 by 1 m units done for testing purposes. Proveniences 401 to 600 designate excavation
units (1 by 2 m, 2 by 2 m, or larger). Provenience numbers over 600 designate features. For all provenience numbers except
1, the numbers after the decimal point designate levels. Provenience X.0 is a surface collection at a shovel test or unit. X .1
designates level one, and X.2 designates level two. For example, 401.2 is Excavation Unit 401, level 2. Flotation samples
are designated by a 01 added after the level. For example, 401.201 is the flotation material from Excavation Unit 401, level
2.
SITE NUMBER: 31CL105 Accession Number: 230764
PROVENIENCE NUMBER: 2. 1 Transect 11, 15m South of shovel test 8, 0-10cmbs
Catalog # Count Weight (in g) Artifact Description Comments
1 2 2.5 clear bottle glass
PROVENIENCE NUMBER: 3. 1 Transect 11, shovel test 9, 0-15cmbs
Catalog # Count Weight (in g) Artifact Description Comments
1 1 3.9 clear mold blown bottle glass
2 1 0.4 clear machine made bottle glass
PROVENIENCE NUMBER: 4. 1 Transect 12, shovel test 6, 0-8cmbs
Catalog # Count Weight (in g) Artifact Description Comments
1 1 5.7 clear mold blown bottle glass
2 1 23.9 zinc canning jar lid "Ball"
3 1 0.7 unidentifiable iron/steel fragment
PROVENIENCE NUMBER: 5. 1 Transect 12, shovel test 8, 0-12cmbs
Catalog # Count Weight (in g) Artifact Description Comments
1 1 2.3 clear bottle glass
2 1 12.8 unidentified burned ceramic rim
3 t 5.5 milkglass canning jar lid liners
4 1 4.6 milkglass fragment rim
5 2 13.6 undecorated whiteware 1 rim, l base
PROVENIENCE NUMBER: 6. 1 Transect 12, 15m South of shovel test 8, 0-8cmbs
Catalog # Count Weight (in g) Artifact Description Comments
1 4 8.5 clear flat (window) glass
PROVENIENCE NUMBER: 7. 1 Transect 12, 15m West 15m South of shovel test 8, 0-30cmbs
Catalog # Count Weight (in g) Artifact Description Comments
1 1 60.0 unidentifiable bakelite object
2 1 1.2 clear flat (window) glass
PROVENIENCE NUMBER: 8. 1 Transect 12, l5m West of shovel test 8, 0-30cmbs
Catalog # Count Weight (in g) Artifact Description Comments
1 1 5.3 light blue mold blown bottle glass
2 1 1.2 clear flat (window) glass
Thursday, July 01, 2004 Page A - 1
t
I
Site Number: 31 CL 105
3 1 0.7 aqua bottle glass
4 1 5.9 brown bottle glass
5 1 43.5 clear mold blown bottle glass "01 " embossed on base
PROVENIENCE NUMBER: 9. l Transect 13, 10m East of shovel test 5, 0-15embs
Catalog # Count Weight (in g) Artifact Description Comments
1 2 5.1 clear bottle glass
2 1 1.7 undecorated pearlware
3 1 3.4 common wire nail
4 l 610.8 part of stove body
PROVENIENCE NUMBER: 10. 1 Transect 13, 15m East of shovel test 5, 0-15cmbs
Catalog # Count Weight (in g1 Artifact Description Comments
1 2 0.2 glass lamp part
PROVENIENCE NUMBER: 11 , l Transect 13, 15m East 15m South of shovel test 5, 0-15cmbs
Catalog # Count Weight (in g) Artifact Description Comments
1 1 4.9 coin 1939 US Nickel
PROVENIENCE NUMBER: 12. 1 Transect 13, 15m South of shovel test 5, 0-15cmbs
Catalog # Count Weight (in g) Artifact Description Comments
1 5 13.7 unidentifiable nail
2 7 9.5 clear bottle glass
3 1 1.2 clear flat (window) glass
PROVENIENCE NUMBER: 13. 1 Transect 14, shovel test 7, 0-15cmbs
Catalog # Count Weight (in g) Artifact Description Comments
1 2 2.4 clear bottle glass
2 1 2.4 unidentified burned ceramic
PROVENIENCE NUMBER: 14. 1 Transect 14, l5m East of shovel test 7, 0-10embs
Catalog # Count Weight (in g) Artifact Description Comments
1 7 29.6 clear bottle glass
2 1 54.2 amber machine made bottle glass base, "N...6...47", Newborn Glass
Co., 1915-present
3 2 7.7 undecorated whiteware 1 rim
PROVENIENCE NUMB ER: 15 . 1 Transect 14, 15m South of shovel test 7, 0-15embs
Catalog # Count Weight (in g) Artifact Description Comments
1 1 1.0 glass tumbler clear lip
2 3 7.8 clear machine made bottle glass
3 2 10.3 common wire nail
PROVENIENCE NUMBER: 16. 1 Transect 14, shovel test 8, 0-15cmbs
Catalog # Count Weight (in g) Artifact Description Comments
1 1 48.9 clear machine made bottle glass canning jar lip
2 9 11.1 clear machine made bottle glass
PROVENIENCE NUAIB ER: 17. 0 Transect 15, 15m East of shovel test 5, surface collection
Catalog # Count Weight (in g) Artifact Description Comments
1 l 111.8 ceramic fixture "Made in USA, 3053, 2"
Thursday, July 01, 2004 Page A - 2
i
1
•
i
i
i
Site Number: 31 CI-105
2 1 120.8 jade ware mug with handle
3 1 96.2 mikglass vessel partial bowl, painted
4 1 101.0 cobalt blue machine made bottle glass whole, "Noxema"
5 1 143.1 green machine made bottle glass "Duraglas, A-8571,7", Owens
Illinois Glass Co., post 1954, insect
pesticide (Tennessee Soap Company)
6 1 414.0 mold decorated whiteware painted sunflowers, "42-7 1/2, ...11,
...oor,
7 1 111.9 hand painted whiteware polychrome bowl fragments, Blue
Ridge/Southern Potteries, Inc.
PROVENIENCE NUMBER: 18 . 1 Transect 14, 15m West 15m South of shovel test 8, 0-15cmbs
Catalog # Count Weight (in g) Artifact Description Comments
1 1 1.5 sponged whiteware
PROVENIENCE NUMBER: 19 . 1 Transect 14, 15m West of shovel test 8, 0-10embs
Catalog # Count Weight (in g) Artifact Description Comments
1 6 8.6 clear bottle glass one with "HAL"
Thursday, July 01, 2004
Page A - 3
1
r
ie
Appendix B.
Cultural Resources Site Forms
1 40
0

NORTH CAROLINA ARCHAEOLOGICAL SITE FORM VI
OFFICE OF STATE ARCHAEOLOGY / DIVISION OF ARCHIVES AND HISTORY
SITE NUMBER_31 CL 105 * *
1. STATE SITE NUMBER:
2. SITE NAME(S):
3. OTHER SITE NUMBER: ( 4. INSTITUTION ASSIGNING: 1_1
5. PROJECT SITE NUMBER: Field Site I
6. SITE COMPONENT:
I PREHISTORIC 4 HISTORIC ABOVE GROUND REMAINS
2 PREHISTORIC AND HISTORIC, 5 PREHISTORIC AND HISTORIC,
NO ABOVE-GROUND REMAINS ABOVE-GROUND REMAINS PRESENT
3 HISTORIC, NO ABOVE-GROUND REMAINS 6 HISTORIC AMERINDIAN
7. QUAD MAP: lGrover, NC-SCI CODE
8. UTM ZONE: 16 17 18 NORTHING 13891632 1 EASTING 1460929
9. COUNTY: Cleveland -1 10. DATE RECORDED: 112/05/2003
RECORDED BY: David Jenkins
PROJECT NAME: NC Combined Cycle
11. RESULT OF COMPLIANCE PROJECT: 1 YES 2 NO
12. ER/CH/GRANT#:
13. CODING DATE: I / / I CODED BY:
14-18. OFFICE OF STATE ARCHAEOLOGY USE ONLY
14. REGISTER STATUS: 14A. REGISTER CRITERION
I DETERMINED ELIGIBLE A SIGNIFICANT UNDER CRITERION A
2 PLACED ON STUDY LIST B SIGNIFICANT UNDER CRITERION B
3 APPROVED FOR NOMINATION BY SPRC C SIGNIFICANT UNDER CRITERION
C
4 CURRENTLY LISTED IN NRHP D SIGNIFICANT UNDER CRITERION
I D
5 REMOVED FROM NRHP
6 NOT ELIGIBLE AFTER EVALUATION
SITE NUMBER 31 CLI05**
0
i
i
i
i
i
i
i
i
i
i
i
7 UNASSESSED
8 NORTH CAROLINA ARCHAEOLOGICAL
RECORD PROGRAM
15. TYPE OF FORM:
11 ARCHAEOLOGICAL SITE FORM VI
16. RECORDER STATUS:
I NCAC MEMBER
2 AMATEUR
3 UNKNOWN
17. FORM RELIABILITY:
1 CODING COMPLETE
2 CODING INCOMPLETE
4 OTHER
5 STUDENT
3 CODING UNRELIABLE
18. LOCATIONAL RELIABILITY:
I ACCURATE 4 UNKNOWN LOCATION
2 WITHIN 100M RADIUS 5 WITHIN 500M RADIUS
3 UNRELIABILITY 6 WITHIN IKM RADIUS
DIRECTIONS TO SITE: Take Exit 2 off I-85. Turn onto Hwy 216 South. Take the second right,
Caverny Road. Go right onto Elm Road. After crossing back into NC, pull over on the right hand
side at the first driveway/pulloff area (at the bend in Elm Road). An overgrown dirt road with a
gate is visible. The site is located approximately 10-15 meters down the dirt road on both sides.
>>> ATTACH USGS OR OTHER DETAILED SITE MAP <<<
---------------------------------------------------------------------------
19. RESEARCH POTENTIAL:
none
El
e

SITE NUMBER-3 I CL 105
**
20. POTENTIAL IMPACTS ARTIFICIAL:
I NONE APPARENT 4 HIGH 7 INUNDATED
2 LOW 5 WILL BE DESTROYED 8 VANDALIZED BY POTHUNTERS
3 MODERATE 6 STABLE AT PRESENT
21. POTENTIAL IMPACTS ENVIRONMENTAL:
I NONE APPARENT 4 HIGH 7 INUNDATED
2 LOW 5 WILL BE DESTROYED 8 VANDALIZED BY POTHUNTERS
3 MODERATE 6 STABLE AT PRESENT
22. EXPLANATION OF IMPACTS:
The site will be destroyed by proposed construction.
23. RECOMMENDATIONS:
I NO FURTHER WORK 6 PRESERVATION BY AVOIDANCE
2 INTENSIVE SURFACE COLLECTION 7 NOMINATE TO NATIONAL REGISTER
3 TEST EXCAVATIONS 8 ELIGIBLE FOR NATIONAL REGISTER
4 EXCAVATION AND DATA RECOVERY 9 FIELD INSPECTION
5 MONITORING DURING CONSTRUCTION 99 OTHER
24. EXPLAIN RECOMMENDATIONS:
The site does not have the potential to add to our understanding of state or local history, and has
no research potential.
25. DATE ON REGISTER: 26. EXCAVATION DATE: 100/00/0000
27. INSTITUTION EXCAVATING: 113rockington and Associates, Inca CODE
0

s
SITE NUMBER-3 I CL 105 * *_
28. EXCAVATION RESULTS:
lRecovered mid-20th c./modern ceramics, assorted glass, one 1939 nickel, nails from subsurface.
Trash piles, stone piers, chicken wire enclosure, chimney, well, base of fireplace, and roofing tin
were visible on the ground surface.
29. PERCENT DESTROYED: 1 0% 4 51-75%
2 1-25% 5 76-100%
3 26-50% 6 UNKNOWN
30. DATE DESTROYED: /
1 0)
31. CAUSES OF DESTRUCTION:
0 UNKNOWN
1 MAJOR EARTH MOVING
2 MINOR EARTH MOVING
3 LAND CLEARING
4 FLOODING
/
5 EXCAVATION
6 EROSION
7 VANDALISM/POTHUNTING
8 CULTIVATION
9 OTHER
ENVIRONMENTAL INFORMATION
32. TOPOGRAPHIC SITUATION:
1 FLOODPLAIN
2 TERRACE REMNANT ON FLOODPLAIN
3 LOW RISE ON FLOODPLAIN
4 NATURAL LEVEE
5 LEVEE REMNANT 20
6 I ST TERRACE
7 2ND TERRACE
8 3RD TERRACE
9 SAND DUNE
10 UPLAND OR TALUS SLOPE
I I UPLAND FLATS
12 HILL OR RIDGETOP
13 SADDLE BETWEEN RIDGE OR HILL T(
14 STREAM CONFLUENCE
15 TERRACE EDGE
16 HAMMOCK
17 SANDY BEACH
18 ROCK SHELTER
19 ISLAND
COLLUVIAL FAN
21 TOE SLOPE OR RIDGE TOE
22 CAVE
23 BLUFF
24 COVE
25 RIVERSHORE
26 STREAMBANK
27 BENCH
PS 28 SOUND SHORE/BEACH
29 OCEAN SHORE/BEACH
99 OTHER
0 SITE NUMBER 31CL105**
e
1
I?
a£
i
33. ELEVATION: 1_829 1 FT. 34. SLOPE PERCENT: 1_15 1 %
35. SLOPE FACE DIRECTION:
1 NORTH 6 SOUTHWEST
2 NORTHEAST 7 WEST
3 EAST 8 NORTHWEST
4 SOUTHEAST 9 NO SLOPE
5 SOUTH
36. S OIL COMPOSIT ION : I CLAY 9 SANDY CLAY
2 CLAY LOAM 10 SILTY CLAY LOAM
3 SILTY CLAY I I LOAM
4 SANDY CLAY LOAM 12 LOAMY SAND
5 SANDY LOAM 13 GRAVEL
6 SAND 14 INORGANIC
7 SILT 15 STONEY LOAM
8 SILTY LOAM 99 OTHER
37. SCS SOIL TYPE CODE: I I SERIES NAME
ASSOCIATION
38. MODERN VEGETATION: I CULTIVATED 7 MARSH GRASS
2 CLEARED (IN FIELD) 8 SECONDARY GROWTH
3 PASTURE 9 DISTURBED OR UPTURNED
4 FORESTED 10 NO VEGETATION/CLEARED
5 SCRUB PINE CLEARING 99 OTHER
6 LAWN
39. DISTANCE TO WATER: 1427 1 (METERS) 40. X467 ( (YARDS)
41. TYPE OF NEAREST PERMANENT WATER:
1 SPRING 6 SALTWATER
2 RIVER, CREEK, OR STREAM 7 CAROLINA BAY
3 LAKE 8 POND
4 SWAMP OR SWAMP MARGIN 9 OTHER
5 SLOUGH
42. STREAM RANK: 0 1 2 3 4 5 6
SITE NUMBER 31 CL 105 * *
43. DRAINAGE BASIN: 1 BROAD
9 NEUSE

(CD 2 CAPE FEAR 10 NEW
3 CATAWBA 11 PASQUOTANK
4 CHOWAN 12 ROANOKE
5 FRENCH BROAD 13 TAR-PAMLICO
6 HIWASSEE 14 WATAUGA
7 LITTLE TENNESSEE 15 WHITE OAK
7A SAVANNAH 16 YADKIN-PEE DEE
8 LUMBER
SITE EVALUATION AND CONDITION

44. SITE CONDITION NATURAL:
I PRESERVED, NO DISTURBANCE
2 LIGHT EROSION
3 HEAVY EROSION
4 WOODED
5 SHIFTING SAND DUNES
45. SITE CONDITION ARTIFICIAL:
I UNMODIFIED
2 CULTIVATED
3 PASTURE
4 RESIDENTIAL
5 INDUSTRIAL
6 ROADS OR TRAILS
7 DITCHES, DIKES, LEVEES, OR
BORROW PITS
8 MINOR POTHOLES
9 MAJOR POTHOLES
10 MODERN TRASH DUMPING
46. GROUND VISIBILITY: I 0 1 %
6 UNDERWATER
7 DEPOSITION
8 STREAMBANK/SHORELINE EROSION
9 OTHER
I I TOTALLY DESTROYED
12 TRANSMISSION LINE CLEARANCE
13 HEAVY CONSTRUCTION
14 BOAT WAKE EROSION
15 COVERED WITH FILL
16 MODERN CEMETERY
17 RECREATIONAL AREA
18 LIGHT CONSTRUCTION
19 FALLOW
20 CLEAR CUTTING
99 OTHER partially destroyed
47. COLLECTION MADE: 1 YES 2 NO
48. COLLECTION STRATEGY: I CONTROLLED
2 SELECTIVE
3 BOTH
4 TOTAL
5 GENERAL
6 RANDOM WALKOVER
9 OTHER
49. AREA COVERED SQUARE METERS: 122,500 1
SITE NUMBER 31 CL 105 * *
?a 50. SUBSURFACE TESTING: I YES 2 NO 3 KNOWN FROM PRIOR
`-' INVESTIGATIONS
e
51. SUBSURFACE TESTING METHODS: I PROBE 4 TEST PIT
2 AUGER 5 TEST TRENCH
3 SHOVEL TEST 9 OTHER
52. SUBSURFACE TEST RESULTS:
Mid-20th c./modern ceramics, assorted glass, nails, one 1939 nickel recovered. Most artifacts
were recovered to a depth of 15 cm below surface.
s
i
i
i
a•
9
53. SITE SIZE: 1 1-10 SQ. M. 6 5001-10,000 SQ. M.
2 11-25 SQ. M. 7 10,001-25,000 SO. M.
3 26-100 SQ. M. 8 25,001-50,000 SQ. M.
4 101-600 SQ. M. 9 > 50,0000 SQ. M.
5 601-5000 SQ. M.
PREHISTORIC SITE INFORMATION
54. PREHISTORIC COMPONENTS:
A PALEO-INDIAN K MIDDLE MISSISSIPPIAN
W LATE PALEO-INDIAN L LATE MISSISSIPPIAN
X LATE PALEO/EARLY ARCHAI C M MISSISSIPPIAN
B EARLY ARCHAIC N CERAMIC
C MIDDLE ARCHAIC O HISTORIC/COLONIAL - 1585-1776
D LATE ARCHAIC P HISTORIC/POST REVOLUTIONARY - 1776-1861
E ARCHAIC Q HISTORIC/POST CIVIL WAR - 1861-1900
F EARLY WOODLAND R HISTORIC/20TH CENTURY - 1900-PRESENT
G MIDDLE WOODLAND S HISTORIC
H LATE WOODLAND T HISTORIC AMERINDIAN
I WOODLAND U LITHIC
J EARLY MISSISSIPPIAN V LATE PREHISTORIC
55. PREHISTORIC SITE FUNCTION:
I LIMITED ACTIVITY 8
2 LITHIC WORKSHOP
3 LITHIC QUARRY
4 ISOLATED ARTIFACT FIND
5 SHORT-TERM HABITATION
6 SHELL MIDDEN
7 PREHISTORIC CEMETERY/OSSUARY
LONG-TERM HABITATION
9 MOUND/HABITATION SITE
10 MOUND (ISOLATED)
I1 HUMAN SKELETAL REMAINS
12 FISH WEIR
99 OTHER
y

1 0 SITE NUMBER_31 CL 105 * *
56. MIDDEN: 1 PRESENT 2 ABSENT
57. FAUNAL/ETHNO BOTANICAL REMAINS: 1 PRESENT 2 ABSENT
58. FEATURE DESCRIPTION:
59. LITHICS: 1 HAFTED BIFACES/PROJECTILE PTS. 6 PRIMARY DEBITAGE
2 BIFACES 7 SECONDARY DEBITAGE
3 UNIFACIAL TOOLS 8 TERTIARY DEBITAGE
4 OTHER UNIFACIAL TOOLS 9 GROUND OR PECKED STONE
5 CORES 99 OTHER
59A. TOOL TYPES & FREQUENCIES
1 - Clovis _
2 - Hardaway Blade
3 - Hardaway-Dalton
4 - Hardaway Side-Notched
5 - Palmer Corner Notched _
6 - Kirk Corner-Notched
7 - St. Albans Side Notched _
8 - LeCroy Bifurcated Stem _
9 - Kanawha Stemmed _
10 - Kirk Serrated _
11 - Kirk Stemmed
12 - Stanly Stemmed _
13 - Morrow Mtn. I Stemmed
14 - Morrow Mtn. II Stemmed _
15 - Guilford Lanceolate
16 - Halifax Side-Notched _
17 - Savannah River Stemmed
18 - Sm. Savannah River Stemmed _
19 - Gypsy Stemmed
20 - Swannanoa Stemmed _
21 - Badin Crude Triangular _
22 - Yadkin Large Triangular -
23 - Roanoke Large Triangular _
24 - Uwharrie Triangular _
26 - Clarksville Small Triangular
27 - Pee Dee Pentagonal
28 - Randolph Stemmed _
29 - PPt. (Notched) _
30 - PPt. (Stemmed) _
31 - PPt. (Triangular)
32 - PPt. Frag.(Notched/Stemmed)
33 - PPt. Frag. (Triangular) _
34 - PPt. Frag. Indeterminate)
35 - End Scraper (Type I)
36 - End Scraper (Type II)
37 - End Scraper (Type III)
38 - Side Scraper (Type I) _
39 - Side Scraper (Type II)
40 - Side Scraper (Type III)
41 - Pointed Scraper _
42 - Oval Scraper
43 - Pisgah Triangular
44 - Haywood Triangular
45 - Garden Creek Triangular
46 - Copena Triangular _
47 - Connestee Triangular
48 - Madison _
49 - South Appalachian Pentagonal _

L

I*
0
60. PREHISTORIC - MISCELLANEOUS ITEMS/SAMPLES:
I HUMAN BONE OR TEETH 9 PHYTOLITH SAMPLE(S)
2 NON-HUMAN BONE OR TEETH 10 T-L SAMPLE(S)
3 ANTLER I I SEDIMENT SAMPLE(S)
4 UNWORKED MARINE/RIVER SHELL 12 WOOD
5 WORKED MARINE/RIVER SHELL 13 FIBER
6 TURTLE SHELL 14 FABRIC
7 C-14 SAMPLE(S) 15 FIRE-CRACKED ROCK
8 POLLEN SAMPLE(S) 99 OTHER
61. CERAMIC TEMPER 1
I GRIT
2 FINE QUARTZ
3 COARSE QUARTZ
4 FINE SAND
5 MEDIUM SAND
6 COARSE SAND
7 GRAVEL
8 SOAPSTONE
9 SHELL
10 FIBER
II LIMESTONE
12 CLAY/GROG
99 OTHER
63. CERAMIC TEMPER 2
65. CERAMIC TEMPER 3
62. SURFACE TREATMENT
A PLAIN
B CORDMARKED
C FABRIC IMPRESSED
D CHECK STAMPED
E NET IMPRESSED
F TEXTILE
G SIMPLE STAMPED
H THONG-MARKED
I SMOOTHED/SCRAPED
J RECT. COMP. STAMPED
K CURVILINEAR COMP. STAMP
L ENGRAVED/INCISED
M BURNISHED
Z OTHER
64. SURFACE TREATMENT 2
66. SURFACE TREATMENT 3
SITE NUMBER 31 CL 105 * *

I

0 HISTORIC SITE INFORMATION
67. PERIOD OF OCCUPATION BEGIN: 68. PERIOD OF OCCUPATION END:

0 UNKNOWN 0 UNKNOWN
I 16TH CENTURY 1 16TH CENTURY
2 17TH CENTURY 2 17TH CENTURY
3 18TH CENTURY 3 18TH CENTURY
4 19TH CENTURY 4 19TH CENTURY
5 20TH CENTURY 5 20TH CENTURY
6 SITE PRESENTLY OCCUPIED 6 SITE PRESENTLY OCCUPIED
69. REFINED DATE FROM: 1 70. REFINED DATE TO: 1
71. HISTORIC CULTURAL AFFILIATIONS:
0 UNKNOWN 8 ORIENTAL
I BLACK 9 IRISH
2 CENTRAL EUROPEAN 10 SCOTS HIGHLANDER
3 IBERIAN 1 I NONE IN PARTICULAR
4 ENGLISH 12 GERMAN OTHER
5 FRENCH 13 COLONIAL
6 DUTCH 99 OTHER
7 NATIVE AMERICAN
72. HISTORIC SITE DEFINITION:
I DOMESTIC 8 CEMETERY
2 AGRICULTURAL 9 DUMPS (WASTE DISPOSAL)
3 COMMERCIAL 10 ENTERTAINMENT
4 TRANSPORTATIONAL 11 INDUSTRIAL
5 MILITARY 12 UNMARKED CEMETERY
6 RELIGIOUS 99 OTHER
7 GOVERNMENTAL
73. HISTORIC REMAINS DESCRIPTION:
ITrashpiles, a well, a chimney, stone piers, a chicken wire enclosure, a base of a fireplace, and
roofing tin are visible on the ground surface. No structures present.
0 SITE NUMBER_31CLI05**

74.
MAIN STRUCTURE FUNCTION:
0 UNKNOWN
1 RACEWAY
2 SLUICE
3 DAM
4 IRRIGATION CANAL
5 LOCKS
6 DOCK
7 FISH WEIR
8 TRANS. & LOADING FACILITIES
9 CLAY PIT
10 QUARRY
11 SAND/GRAVEL PIT
12 WASTE DISPOSAL AREA
13 KILN
14 ANIMAL HOLDING PENS
15 MATERIAL HANDLING FACILITIES
16 STORAGE FACILITIES
17 MACHINERY MOUNTS
18 PRIVY
19 ROOT CELLAR
20 SPRINGHOUSE
21 KITCHEN
22 BAKE OVEN
23 SHED
24 BARN
25 CHICKEN COOP
26 SMOKE HOUSE
27 CRIB
28 SILO
29 SHOP
30 STABLE
31 GAZEBO/SUMMERHOUSE
32 SLAVE QUARTERS
33 TOBACCO BARN
34 WASH HOUSE
35 DAIRY
36 ICE HOUSE
37 STOREHOUSE
38 COMBINATION
39 MUNITIONS DUMP
40 GUARD TOWER
41 PALISADE
I SITE NUMBER 31CL105**
42 EARTHWORKS
e
i
s
re-
al
i
43 BOMBPROOF
44 GUN PLATFORM
45 BARRACKS
46 LAUNDRY
47 BREWERY/WINERY
48 INDUSTRIAL -- MANUFACTURING
49 INDUSTRIAL -- MINING
50 WELL(S)
51 HOME/RESIDENCE
52 FARMSTEAD
53 ROAD
54 SCHOOL
55 CHURCH
56 MEETING HALL
57 LANDING
99 OTHER
75. NUMBER OF OUTBUILDINGS: 1_0
76. OUTBUILDING DISTANCE:
77. OUTBUILDINGS FUNCTION:
78. OUTBUILDING DESCRIPTION:
79. KITCHEN GROUP: I CERAMICS 6 GLASSWARE
2 WINE BOTTLE 7 TABLEWARE
3 CASE BOTTLE 8 KITCHENWARE
4 TUMBLER 9 OTHER
5 PHARMACEUTICAL BOTTLE
80. ARCHITECTURAL GROUP: I WINDOW GLASS 4 CONSTRUCTION
HARDWARE
2 NAILS 5 DOOR LOCK PARTS
3 SPIKES 9 OTHER
SITE NUMBER-3 I CL 105 * *
81. ARMS GROUP: I MUSKET BALLS, SHOT, SPRUE 3 GUN PARTS, BULLET
i
B
i?
I
1
J
I•
I
I
I
I
I
I
MOLDS
2 GUN FLINTS, GUNSPALLS 9 OTHER
82. MILITARY OBJECTS: I SWORDS 4 ARTILLERY SHOT & SHELL
2 INSIGNIA 9 OTHER
3 BAYONETS
83. CLOTHING GROUP: I BUCKLES 6 HOOK & EYE FASTENERS
2 THIMBLES 7 BALE SEALS
3 BUTTONS 8 GLASS BEADS
4 SCISSORS 9 OTHER
5 STRAIGHT PINS
84. PERSONAL GROUP: I COINS 3 PERSONAL ITEMS
2 KEYS 9 OTHER
85. TOBACCO PIPE GROUP: I TOBACCO PIPE 9 OTHER
2 STUB-STEMMED PIPES
86. ACTIVITIES GROUP:
I CONSTRUCTION TOOLS
2 FARM TOOLS
3 TOYS
4 FISHING GEAR
5 COLONIAL-INDIAN POTTERY
6 STORAGE ITEMS
7 ETHNOBOTANICAL
8 ASSOCIATED WITH STABLE OR BARN
9 OTHER
87. HISTORIC MISC:
I BONE FRAGMENT
2 FURNITURE HARDWARE
3 BUTTON MANUFACTURING BLANKS
4 SILVERSMITHING DEBRIS
9 OTHER
88. DATEABLE CERAMICS: 0 UNKNOWN I YES 2 NO
ADDITIONAL SITE INFORMATION
89. ARTIFACT INVENTORY: I YES 2 NO
90. CURATION FACILITY: Dept. Of Archives and History
1
91. ACCESSION NUMBER(S): 1230764 1 1 1 1-
92. ACCESSION DATE(S): /-/-1 1_/_/ 1
SITE NUMBER _31CL105**
CODE
93. OTHER CURATION FACILITY: CODE
94. OTHER ACCESSION NUMBER(S):
95. OWNER/TENANT INFORMATION:

96. BIBLIOGRAPHIC REFERENCE #'S
97. COMMENTS/NOTES:

ARCHAEOLOGICAL SITE FORM v.VI - page

C
`l:
Appendix C.
Resumes of Key Project Personnel
1 40
0
I
Jeffrey W. Gardner, RPA
Brockington and Associates, Inc.
6611 Bay Circle, Suite 220
Norcross, Georgia 30070
770-662-5807, ext 17; Fax [phone]
e-mail [e-mail]
Professional Position (1987-Present):
Archaeologist, Historian, Program and Project Manager/Principal Investigator, and Vice President,
Brockington and Associates, Inc.
Areas of Specialization:
Cultural Resources Management and Section 106 Compliance; Archaeological Investigations and Historical
Records Research; Historic Sites Archaeology; Urban Archaeology
Education.
M.A. in Anthropology (1987) University of Tennessee
B.A. in Anthropology (1978) Ohio State University
Professional Society Memberships:
Register of Professional Archaeologists Georgia Council of Professional Archaeologists
Society for Historical Archaeology Tennessee Council for Professional Archaeology
Society for Georgia Archaeology Southeastern Archaeological Conference
Professional Experience (detailed listing of projects and reports available on request):
Cultural Resource Surveys (Phase I) and Archaeological Site Testing (Phase II)
Utility Corridors for Georgia Power Company (Atlanta), Savannah Electric and Power Company,
Duke Power Company (Charlotte), Oglethorpe Power Corporation (now Georgia Transmission
Corporation, Atlanta), ANR Pipeline Company (Detroit), and Transco Pipeline Company (Houston)
Transportation Corridors for Georgia and South Carolina Departments of Transportation; Georgia
Power Company; and Savannah Electric and Power Company
Development Tracts for USDA Forest Service (South Carolina), Mobile District/USACE, Duke
Power Company, Georgia Power Company, Savannah Electric and Power Company, Georgia and
Tennessee Departments of Transportation, Consolidated Government of the City of
Columbus/Muscogee County (Georgia), South Carolina Department of Parks Recreation and
Tourism, Chatham County (Georgia), City of Griffin (Georgia), Clemson University (South
Carolina), Corporation for Olympic Development in Atlanta (CODA), Housing Authority of the City
of Atlanta, Transco Energy Ventures Company, Norfolk Southern Railroad, and numerous private
developers (Georgia, South Carolina, Tennessee)
211

i
Archaeological Data Recovery (Phase III)
• Late nineteenth through early twentieth century house site in Lincoln County, North Carolina, for
Duke Power Company
• Eighteenth century Stono River plantation near Charleston, South Carolina, for USDA Agricultural
Research Service
• Nineteenth century brickyard complex in Mount Pleasant, South Carolina, for Miller Development
Company
• Late nineteenth through middle twentieth century urban lots, downtown Atlanta, Georgia, for the
Housing Authority of the City of Atlanta
• Early to middle nineteenth century farmstead, Williamson County, Tennessee, for Tennessee
Department of Transportation
• Middle nineteenth century slave residence turned tenant farmstead in Effingham County, Georgia,
for Savannah Electric
Program Manager for Cultural Resources Investigations at Palmetto Bluff, in Bluffton, South
Carolina
Program includes:
• Archaeological survey and site evaluation of approximately 7,000 acres of the May River Neck in
three development phases;
• Archaeological data recovery at I 1 sites on Phase I tract;
• Development of MOAs and management plans;
Cultural Resources Investigations for FERC Hydroelectric Relicensing
• Georgia Power Company (Riverview and Langdale, Lloyd Shoals, North Georgia, Flint River, and
Middle Chattahoochee Hydroelectric Projects)
• Carolina Power & Light Company (Walters Hydroelectric Project)
• Duke Power Company (Buzzard Roost Hydroelectric Project)
• Crisp County Power Commission (Lake Blackshear Project)
Archaeological Monitoring Plans for 1996 Olympics (Atlanta) streetscape development (for
Corporation for Olympic Development in Atlanta)
Architectural and Historical Documentation (Historic American Building Survey) of a late
nineteenth through middle twentieth century mill complex in Troup County, Georgia for the
USACE/Mobile District
Historic Cemetery Delineation and Preparation of Cemetery Disturbance Permit
Applications for Georgia Power Company (in Banks County, Georgia), Blue Circle Aggregates, Inc.
(in Clayton County, Georgia), and private developers in Gwinnett and Chatham counties, Georgia
Historic Context Development for Phase II archaeological investigations of a late nineteenth
through early twentieth century farmstead and an early nineteenth through early twentieth century
plantation in Middle Tennessee for Tennessee Department of Transportation
Development of Agreement and Management Documents (MOA, PA, HPMP, CRMP, ICRMP)
for Duke Power, Georgia Power, Fort Benning (Georgia), Fort Buchanan (Puerto Rico), NAS Key
40 West (Florida).
2

N
C
M
N",
DAVID G. JENKINS
Brockington and Associates, Inc.
1803 Garner Station Blvd.
Raleigh, North Carolina 27603
Voice [phone]; Fax [phone]
davidj enkins@brockington. org
Professional Position
Senior Archaeologist/Office Manager
Areas of Specialization
Prehistoric Archaeology of North Carolina
Farmsteads of Virginia and West Virginia
Cultural Resources Management
Education
M.A. in Anthropology, University of Montana, Missoula, 1997
B.A. in English, Hampden-Sydney College, Hampden-Sydney, VA, 1993
Employment History
February 2004 - present Senior Archaeologist/Office Manager. Brockington & Associates, Inc., Raleigh,
NC.
September 2002 - February 2004 Project Manager. B&A, Norcross, GA.
January - September 2002 Project Manager. B&A, Raleigh, NC.
January 2001 - January 2002 Senior Archaeological Technician. B&A, Raleigh, NC.
November 1998 - January 2001 Archaeological Technician. Michael Baker, Jr., Inc., Coraopolis, PA.
October - November 1998 Project Manager. Cultural Resources, Inc., Fredericksburg, VA.
August - October 1998 Archaeological Technician. CRI, Fredericksburg, VA.
March - August 1998 Archaeological Technician. William and Mary Center for Archaeological
Research, Williamsburg, VA.
January 1997 - February 1998 Archaeological Technician. Cultural Heritage Resources, Missoula, MT.
September - December 1996 Teaching Assistant. University of Montana, Missoula.
Memberships
North Carolina Archaeological Society (NCAS)
Register of Professional Archaeologists (RPA)
Society for Georgia Archaeology (SGA)
Southeastern Archaeological Conference (SEAC)

I

0

Relevant Experience
2004 Principal Investigator for the Phase I Cultural Resources Survey ofthe Rockingham-Hamlet Airport, Richmond
County, NC, for Talbert and Bright, Inc., Charlotte, NC.
2004 Principal Investigator for the Phase I Archaeological Resources Survey of the Proposed Cheoah River Trail,
Graham County, NC, for Fish and Wildlife Associates, Inc., Whittier, NC.
2004 Principal Investigator for the Phase I Archaeological Resources Survey of the Massey Branch Development
Tract, Graham County, NC, for Fish and Wildlife Associates, Inc., Whittier, NC.
2004 Principal Investigator for the Archaeological Monitoring at Andrews-Murphy Airport, Cherokee County, NC,
for the LPA Group, Inc., Greensboro, NC.
2004 Principal Investigator for the Phase I Cultural Resources Survey of the CTC 273c & STP-FA23 Road
Improvements, Greenville County, SC, for Earth Tech, Raleigh, NC and the South Carolina Department of
Transportation (SCDOT), Columbia, SC.
2004 Principal Investigator for the Phase I Cultural Resources Survey of the USARC Cary Tract, Wake County, NC,
for the United States Army Corps of Engineers, Mobile District, AL.
2004 Principal Investigator for the Phase I Archaeological Resources Survey of the Hatcher Road Substation Tract,
Houston County, GA, for Jordan, Jones & Goulding, Inc., Norcross, GA.
2003 Project Manager for the Phase I Cultural Resources Survey of the Combined Cycle Tract, Cleveland County,
NC, for Acer Environmental, Inc., Lawrenceville, GA.
2003 Project Manager for the Phase I Archaeological Resources Survey of the Barrett Parkway 230/12 kV Substation
Tract, Cobb County, GA, for Jordan, Jones & Goulding, Inc., Norcross, GA.
2003 Principal Investigator for the Phase I Archaeological Resources Survey of the Greensboro-Lake Oconee
Transmission Line, Greene County, GA, for Jordan, Jones & Goulding, Inc., Norcross, GA.
2003 Principal Investigator for the Phase I Archaeological Resources Survey of the Roses Store to West Villa Rica
Transmission Line, Carroll and Paulding Counties, GA, for Jordan, Jones & Goulding, Inc., Norcross, GA.
2003 Project Manager for the Phase I Cultural Resources Survey of the Dawson Crossing Transmission Line,
Lumpkin and Dawson Counties, GA, for Georgia Power, Inc., Atlanta, GA.
2003 Principal Investigator forthe Phase I Archaeological Resources Survey ofthe Achord Road Substation, Laurens
County, GA, for Jordan, Jones and Goulding, Inc., Norcross, GA.
2003 Project Manager for the Phase I Cultural Resources Survey of the Georgia Tech Club Development Tract,
Cherokee and Fulton Counties, GA, for the Melrose Company, Hilton Head, SC.
2003 Principal Investigator for the Phase I Archaeological Resources Survey ofthe Gum Springs Substation, Jackson
County, GA, for Jordan, Jones and Goulding, Inc., Norcross, GA.
2003 Project Manager for the Phase II Archaeological Testing of 9WB24, Webster County, GA, for the LPA Group,
Inc., Norcross, GA.
2002-03 Project Manager for the Phase I Cultural Resources Survey of the Georgian Resort, Paulding County, GA, for
Cousins Properties, Inc., Atlanta, GA.
2002-03 Project Manager for the Phase I Archaeological Resources Survey of the S.R. 35 Extension/S.R. 93 Relocation
Corridor, Greene County, TN, for the Tennessee Department of Transportation (TDOT), Nashville, TN.

2002 Project Manager for the Phase I Cultural Resources Survey of the St. Simons North Margin Tract, Glynn
County, GA, for Sea Island Company, St. Simons Island, GA.
2002 Project Manager for the Phase I Cultural Resources Survey ofthe Biltmore Technology Center Tract, Buncombe
County, NC, for Biltmore Farms, Inc., Asheville, NC.
2002 Project Manager for the Phase I Cultural Resources Survey of the Monroe Municipal Airport, Union County,
NC, for the LPA Group, Inc., Columbia, SC.
2002 Project Manager for the Phase I Cultural Resources Survey of the Oaks of St. Anne Tract, Horry County, SC,
for New Homes Realty, Murrells Inlet, SC.
2002 Project Manager for the Phase I Archaeological Resources Survey of Improvements to the Andrews-Murphy
Airport, Cherokee County, NC, for the LPA Group, Inc., Raleigh, NC.
2001 Project Manager for the Phase I Cultural Resources Survey of the Hickory Tavern Transmission Line Corridor
and Substation Tract, Laurens County, SC, for Duke Engineering, Charlotte, NC.
2001 Project Manager for the Phase I Cultural Resources Survey of the Chickahominy Tract, Charles City County,
VA, for Dynegy Power Corporation, Houston, TX.
2001 Field Technician for the Phase I Cultural Resources Survey of the Patriot Extension Natural Gas Pipeline,
Carroll, Floyd, Henry, Patrick and Wythe Counties, VA, for TRC Environmental Corporation, Lowell, MA.
1998-2001 Field Technician for the Phase III Data Recovery at Reid Farmstead, Hardy County, WV, for West
Virginia Department of Transportation (WVDOT), Charleston, WV.
Reports and Publications
2004 Michael K. O'Neal and David G. Jenkins
Cultural Resources Survey of Improvements to Garlington Road and the East Suber Road/Gibbs Shoals Road
Intersection, Greenville County, South Carolina. B&A, Raleigh, NC.
2004 Michael K. O'Neal and David G. Jenkins
Cultural Resources Survey of the USARC Can, Tract, Wake County, North Carolina. B&A, Raleigh, NC.
2004 David Jenkins
Archaeological Resources Survey of the Hatcher Road Substation Tract, Houston County, Georgia. B&A, Norcross,
GA.
2003 David Jenkins, Patricia Stallings and Jeff Gardner
Cultural Resources Survey of theProposed Combined Cycle Tract, Cleveland County, North Carolina. B&A, Norcross,
GA.
2003 David Jenkins and Scott Butler
Archaeological Resources Survey of the Barrett Parkway 230112 kV Substation Tract, Cobb County, Georgia. B&A,
Norcross, GA.
2003 David Jenkins, Patricia Stallings and Jeff Gardner
Cultural Resources Survey of the Proposed Dawson Crossing to South Dahlonega Transmission Line, Dawson and
Lumpkin Counties, Georgia. B&A, Norcross, GA.
2003 David Jenkins
Archaeological Resources Survey of the Roses Store to West Villa Rica Transmission Line, Carroll and Paulding
40 Counties, Georgia. B&A, Norcross, GA.

2003 David Jenkins and Scott Butler
Cultural Resources Survey of the Georgia Tech Club Development Tract, Cherokee and Fulton Counties, Georgia.
B&A, Norcross, GA.
2003 David Jenkins
Archaeological Resources Survey of the Proposed Achord Road Substation Tract and the Achord Road-FiretowerRoad
115 kV Transmission Line, Laurens County, Georgia. B&A, Norcross, GA.
2003 David Jenkins and Jeffrey Gardner
Archaeological Resources Survey for the Proposed State Route 70 Bridge Replacement Over Camp Creek, Fulton
County, Georgia. B&A, Norcross, GA.
2003 David Jenkins and Jeffrey Gardner
Archaeological Resources Survey for the Proposed State Route 154 Bridge Replacement Over Bear Creek, Fulton
County, Georgia. B&A, Norcross, GA.
2003 David Jenkins
Archaeological Resources Survey of'the Gum Springs Substation Tract, Jackson County, Georgia. B&A, Norcross, GA.
2003 Joseph Charles, David Jenkins, Patricia Stallings and C. Scott Butler
Phase 1111nvestigations at Three Sites (9CB127, 9CB549 and9CB567) on the RiverwoodPlantation Development Tract,
Columbia County, Georgia. B&A, Norcross, GA.
2003 David Jenkins and Joseph Charles
Archaeological Testing of Site 9WB24, Webster County, Georgia. B&A, Norcross, GA.
2003 David Jenkins and Scott Butler
Cultural Resources Survey of Two Tracts at the Georgian Resort, Paulding County, Georgia. B&A, Norcross, GA.
2002 Michael K. O'Neal, David Jenkins and Dawn Reid
Cultural Resources Survey of the Georgetown County Industrial Park Tract, Georgetown County, South Carolina.
B&A, Raleigh, NC.
2002 Bobby Southerlin, Michael K. O'Neal, Joseph Sanders, Sharon Penton, Carrie Collins and David Jenkins
Intensive Archaeological Survey of the Duplin County Agricultural Business Center Tract, North Carolina. B&A,
Raleigh, NC.
2002 David Jenkins, Michael K. O'Neal and Bobby Southerlin
Cultural Resources Survey ofthe Biltmore Technology Center Tract, Buncombe County, North Carolina. B&A, Raleigh,
NC.
2002 David Jenkins and Bobby Southerlin
Archaeological Resources Survey of the Proposed Broad River Electric Cooperative 7.2 kV Distribution Line, Union
and Newberry Counties, South Carolina. B&A, Raleigh, NC.
2002 David Jenkins, Bruce Harvey, Ph.D., and Bobby Southerlin
Cultural Resources Survey of-Improvements to the Monroe Municipal A irport, Union County, North Carolina. B&A,
Raleigh, NC.
2002 David Jenkins and Dawn Reid
Cultural Resources Survey of the Oaks of St. Anne Tract, Horny County, South Carolina. B&A, Raleigh, NC.
2002 Eric Poplin, Ph.D., David Joyner and David Jenkins
Cultural Resources Survey of the Proposed Dave Lyle Boulevard Extension Preferred Alternate Alignment, York and
Lancaster Counties, South Carolina. B&A, Mt. Pleasant, SC.

I
Ellil",,,

2002 Dawn Reid, Joseph Sanders and David Jenkins
Cultural Resources Survey of the Yamasee Transmission Line, Hampton and Jasper Counties, South Carolina. B&A,
Raleigh, NC.
2002 David Jenkins, Joseph Sanders and Bobby Southerlin
Archaeological Resources Survey oflmprovements to the Andrews-Murphy Airport, Cherokee County, North Carolina.
B&A, Raleigh, NC.
2002 Bobby Southerlin, Dawn Reid, Joseph Sanders, Michael K. O'Neal and David Jenkins
Cultural Resources Surveh of the 230 kV Portion of the Columbia Energy Center Project, Calhoun and Richland
Counties, South Carolina. B&A, Raleigh, NC.
2002 Dawn Reid, Bruce Harvey, Ph.D., David Jenkins and Jill Olsen
Cultural Resources Survey of the BASF Tract, Buncombe County, North Carolina. B&A, Raleigh, NC.
2001 David Jenkins and Dawn Reid
Cultural Resources Survey of'the Hickory Tavern 100 kV Transmission Line and Substation, Laurens County, South
Carolina. B&A, Raleigh, NC.
2001 Dawn Reid, Michael K. O'Neal and David Jenkins
Cultural Resources Investigation of the Chickahominy Tract, Charles City County, Virginia. B&A, Raleigh, NC.
2001 David Jenkins, Jill Olsen and Bobby Southerlin
Cultural Resources Survey of the Jefferson Lateral Natural Gas Pipeline, Watauga and Ashe Counties, North Carolina.
B&A, Raleigh, NC.
2001 Dawn Reid, David Jenkins and Michael K. O'Neal
Intensive Cultural Resources Survey of the Hartness Tract, Greenville County, South Carolina. B&A, Raleigh, NC.
2001 Dawn Reid, Jill Olsen and David Jenkins
Cultural Resources Survey of the Proposed Patriot Extension Pipeline Corridor, Wythe, Carroll, Floyd, Henry, and
Patrick Counties, Virginia. B&A, Raleigh, NC.
1996 David Jenkins
TheEffects ofMissionization andDisease on the Aboriginal California Population During the 19" Century, Particularly
the Cahuilla, Yuki, and Yokut. Paper Presented at the Montana Academy of Sciences, University of Montana, Missoula,
April 1996, and Published in Intermountain Journal of Science, Spring 1997.
References
Ralph Bailey, Vice President, Brockington and Associates, Inc., 1051 Johnnie Dodds Blvd., Suite F, Mt. Pleasant, SC
29464, [phone] ext. 11, ralphbailey(a-,,brockin,-ton.org
Jeffrey Gardner, Vice President, Brockington and Associates, Inc., 6611 Bay Circle, Suite 220, Norcross, GA 30071,
[phone] ext. 17, jeffgardnerC&brockington.org
Dr. Thomas Whitley, Vice President, Brockington and Associates, Inc., 6611 Bay Circle, Suite 220, Norcross, GA
30071, [phone] ext. 13, tomwhitley(iibrockinzon.or,

F. Patricia Stallings
Brockington and Associates, Inc.
6611 Bay Circle, Suite 220
Norcross, Georgia 30070
[phone]; Fax [phone]
email patriciastallingsna brockin ton org
Professional Position (2002- present)
Architectural Historian, Historian, Brockington and Associates, Inc.
Areas of Specialization
Historical Records Research, Architectural Survey, Historic Preservation, Agricultural Patterns,
Cultural History
Education
Master of Arts (MA) History, University of Georgia, 2002
Preservation Studies Certificate, University of Georgia, 2002
Bachelor of Arts (BA) History, North Georgia College, 1997
Professional Society Memberships
Southern Historical Association
American Association for State and Local History
Society of Architectural Historians (southeast chapter)
Georgia Historical Society
Experience (detailed listing of projects and reports available upon request)
Historic Context Development
• Early to mid-nineteenth century slave housing, St. Simon's Island, Georgia for the Sea Island
Company.
Late eighteenth to mid-nineteenth century plantation, Columbia County, Georgia for the Pollard
Land Company.
• The Historic Roswell Mill textile factory for the City of Roswell, Georgia.
• Early national period fortification, Camden County, Georgia for Land Resources, Inc.
(upcoming).
• U.S. Route 25 (Ware Shoals) Bridge over the Saluda River, Greenwood-Laurens Counties, South
Carolina for HAER documentation (upcoming).
National Register of Historic Places Nomination
• NRHP District revision of the Richmond Hill Plantation, Bryan County, Georgia for the Ford
Plantation, L.L.C.
Architectural Survey (Phase I)
• Transportation Corridors for the Georgia Department of Transportation (Atlanta), the South
Carolina Department of Transportation (Columbia) and the Alabama Department of
Transportation (Montgomery).
• Utility Corridors for Georgia Power Company (Atlanta) and Framatome ANP (Charlotte).
e
•
Military Facilities for the 81 SI Regional Support Command (USARC) and the United States
Army Corps of Engineers (USACE). The surveys included documentation of both World War II
and Cold War era military facilities.
• Hydroelectric Facility for Devine Tarbill and Associates, Inc. (Portland, ME).
0
lie

Ground Penetrating Radar (GPR) Survey
of the Old Shiloh Cemetery
Cleveland County, North Carolina and
Cherokee County, South Carolina

?`
F {
Y

01NEW SOUTH ASSOCIATES
PROVIDING PERSPECTIVES ON THE PAST
I
Ground Penetrating Radar (GPR)
Survey of the Old Shiloh Cemetery
Cleveland County, North Carolina and Cherokee County, South Carolina
Report submitted to:
Mr. Dennis Dover • 2524 High Ridge Drive • Chino Hills, CA 91709-4890
Report prepared by:
New South Associates • 6150 East Ponce de Leon Avenue • Stone Mountain, Georgia 30083

Shawn Patch - Principal Investigator and Author
September 17, 2008 • Final Report
New South Associates Technical Report 1665
GROUND PENETRATING RADAR ?GPR? j
SURVEY OF THE OLD SHILOH CEMETERY
ABSTRACT
On September 2, 2008, New South Associates conducted a ground penetrating radar (GPR) survey of a
limited portion of the Old Shiloh Church Cemetery in Cleveland County, North Carolina and Cherokee
County, South Carolina. The survey had two major goals: first, to investigate the possibility of unmarked
graves along the southern boundary of the cemetery; and second, to investigate an isolated grave west of
the main cemetery.
The GPR survey covered the equivalent of approximately 361 square meters in the two areas. However, the
actual area is larger because multiple transects were extended beyond the established grids. This area is
difficult to calculate in absolute terms because of the irregularity. Basically, this method allows an operator
to navigate around, and up to, large obstacles that might otherwise prove impassable. Survey along the
southern boundary was accomplished in both the X (east) and Y (north) directions to provide better
accuracy and increased sampling density. Only the Y (north) direction was necessary over the Dover
grave, west of the main cemetery.
Results indicate the presence of two possible unmarked graves in the southern survey area that is also within
the formal cemetery boundary. There is no evidence of any unmarked graves south of the current boundary
(topography adjacent to the road). GPR data for the Dover grave are inconclusive, with no obvious
anomalies that might be interpreted as graves. However, the death date of 1788 makes this one of the
oldest graves in the cemetery. Age of a burial is one of the critical factors affecting its overall chances of
being successfully detected with GPR. Although the GPR data do not necessarily indicate a grave, it would
be irresponsible to ignore the existing marker. A revised cemetery boundary was GPS-plotted to facilitate
the preservation of the cemetery.
GROUND PENETRATING RADAR ?GPR?
SURVEY OF THE OLD SHILOH CEMETERY
ACKNOWLEDGEMENTS
This project would not have been possible with the generous support and assistance from Kevin Gammill,
siting engineer for Southern Power Company. Kevin was instrumental in providing background information
and was available for a site visit to assess the potential for GPR. Lauren Souther provided assistance with
the fieldwork.
GROUND PENETRATING RADAR ?GPR? y
SURVEY OF THE OLD SHILOH CEMETERY
TABLE OF CONTENTS
ABSTRACT
ACKNOWLEDGEMENTS ............................................................................................................... i i i
TABLE OF CONTENTS ................................................................................................................... v
LIST OF FIGURES .......................................................................................................................... vi
1. INTRODUCTION ........................................................................................................................1
II. METHODS .................................................................................................................................7
III. RESULTS .................................................................................................................................1 1
IV. SUMMARY AND RECOMMENDATIONS ....................................................................................17
REFERENCES CITED ......................................................................................................................19
vi
LIST OF FIGURES
Figure I. Location of Cemetery in Cleveland County, North Carolina
and Cherokee County, South Carolina ..............................................................................2
Figure 2. Detail of Prol'ect Area ................................................................................................... ..3
Figure 3. Historic Marker ............................................................................................................ ..4
Figure 4. Photographs Showing General Surface Conditions in the Survey Area ................................. ..5
Figure 5. Dover Grave Marker in Woods on Western Boundary of Cemetery .................................... ..6
Figure 6. GPR Burial Signatures from the Old Presbyterian Cemetery in Greensboro, North Carolina..... 10
Figure 7. Composite Amplitude Slice Map of Southern Area in the X Direction .................................. 12
Figure 8. Composite Amplitude Slice Map of Southern Area in the Y Direction .................................. 13
Figure 9. Two Transect Profiles Showing Individual Targets in the Raw Data ...................................... 14
Figure 10. Composite Amplitude Slice Map of the Dover Grave ........................................................ 15
GROUND PENETRATING RADAR ?GPR? 1
SURVEY OF THE OLD SHILOH CEMETERY
1. INTRODUCTION
New South Associates conducted a ground penetrating radar (GPR) survey of a limited portion of the Old
Shiloh Church Cemetery in Cleveland County, North Carolina and Cherokee County, South Carolina
(Figures 1-2). Fieldwork was conducted by Shawn Patch, with assistance from Lauren Souther. The survey
had two major goals: first, to investigate the possibility of unmarked graves along the southern boundary of
the cemetery; and second, to investigate an isolated grave west of the main cemetery.
The GPR survey covered the equivalent of approximately 361 square meters in the two areas. However, the
actual area is larger because multiple transects were extended beyond the established grids. This area is
difficult to calculate in absolute terms because of the irregularity. Basically, this method allows an operator
to navigate around, and up to, large obstacles that might otherwise prove impassable. Survey along the
southern boundary was accomplished in both the X (east) and Y (north) directions to provide better
accuracy and increased sampling density. Only the Y (north) direction was necessary over the Dover
grave, west of the main cemetery.
The Old Shiloh Church Cemetery is a prominent cemetery in the Cleveland County area, with several
important figures buried there (Figure 3). Although a church was known to exist in the immediate vicinity at
some point in the past, its original location is unknown, and there is no evidence of its presence today.
There is another, more modern, church across the road; however, it is affiliated with a different
denomination and has its own cemetery.
The cemetery itself is located in a wooded area approximately 80 meters south of Elm Road (NC 2278),
east of Grover, North Carolina. There are several mature trees scattered throughout the cemetery, although
the grounds are well maintained with virtually no underbrush. The core area is bounded by a circular road
that appears to have been there for a long time. Figures 4 and 5 show general surface conditions of the
survey area as viewed from the extreme southern portion of the cemetery, with good views of the boundary
road, grave layout, and vegetation. No exact count of graves is known, although it is estimated to be
approximately 100, with an isolated grave located several tens of meters west of the main section, in a
wooded area (Figure 8). Most of the graves in the main section are well marked and appear to be
arranged in family plots. However, the overall condition of many individual markers is poor at best, and it
is possible that several markers may have been displaced over time.
Figure I.
Location of Cemetery in Cleveland County, North Carolina
and Cherokee County, South Carolina
Source: USGS T5 Quadrangle Grover, North Carolina
GROUND PENETRATING RADAR IGPRI
SURVEY OF THE OLD SHILOH CEMETERY
Figure 2.
Detail of Project Area
Source: 1999 Color-Infrared Aerial
4
Figure 3.
Historic Marker

CILFILLAN Mt[
Ha nv of IT[ v it o^nl
++y en? to ?6y f[
vrves Vim' h'-N ?eM1[ 9 ?fncrv u
vav lul ie-,ery ' r pYri In ip`?n?r
et HnVVie of Ir?npc . y
V?rl. T In nriFur
. lr. cr n •.f t
-eHURCH
.Y
ooor "1.40x1 e??«:y
c
9
^ ?
y
j
rjj
ioa erY?H'er d Ci

v
h
MORROW
3" PATTERSON
r
PRICE
RANDALL *
REYNOLDS
SELLERS
WILLIAMS * -
he n ny Kin,. m-nt-'
R .lames [ r wiexd nn
by f[a es

-
4n *C.
ls
r
en
kk X hriglrl. CnmmenaH[
" killcd ?cl. 9, mo: -
t
..ryry!? V
? r i'
GROUND PENETRATING RADAR ?GPR?
SURVEY OF THE OLD SHILOH CEMETERY
Figure 4.
Photographs Showing General Surface Conditions in the Survey Area
b
Figure 5.
Dover Grave Marker in Woods on Western Boundary of Cemetery

_4..
? r
-.°-
{ •-dam ? /, a - -'? •? ? y / ?
1
v? .., ?' ''?i•-? +y'? ? _ - ?zn -'.ice ? ry
v- _
?-?-
fA
IS -7
Is
GROUND PENETRATING RADAR ?GPR? 7
SURVEY OF THE OLD SHILOH CEMETERY
II. METHODS
GPR is a remote sensing technique frequently used by archaeologists to investigate a wide range of research
questions. The basic configuration consists of an antenna (with both a transmitter and receiver), a harness,
and a wheel for calibrating distance. The operator then pulls the antenna across the ground surface
systematically (a grid) collecting data along a transect. This data is then stored by the receiver and
available for later processing and manipulation.
The premise for using GPR in archaeological applications is simple: it is generally used to find if there are
buried features that might be of interest on a particular site. Because GPR is a remote sensing technique, it is
non-invasive, non-destructive, relatively quick and efficient, and highly accurate when used in appropriate
situations. One advantage of GPR is its ability to guide more focused, traditional excavations by targeting
and/or eliminating certain areas.
The actual machine involves transmission of high frequency radar pulses from a surface antenna into the
ground (Conyers 2004:1). Measurements are collected from elapsed time between the pulse transmission
and its reflection from buried materials and/or changes in sediments and soils. Collecting reflection profiles
in a grid allows a user to construct a three dimensional map of sub-surface features. Although the technique
has been around for several decades, it is only within the last few years, with new developments in unit
portability and software, that archaeologists have embraced it on a wider scale.
The survey was conducted with a Geophysical Survey Systems, Inc. (GSSI) SIR 3000 control unit with an
attached 400mhz antenna. The first step was to calibrate the antenna to local conditions by walking over
various areas of the project area and adjusting the instrument's gain settings (Conyers 2004). Effective
depth penetration was approximately 1.5 meters, which is fairly typical for clay soils in the Piedmont. There
was some signal attenuation (degradation) because of the clay soils and eroded conditions over the road.
Because of the way radar energy is propagated in the ground, it is generally standard practice to collect
data perpendicular to the long axis of targets (if known). Transect spacing was 50 centimeters, an interval
that is well suited for identifying moderate to large sized features. For the cemetery, burials were assumed
to be oriented east-west, so the initial survey was in the Y direction. To increase the overall resolution and
effectiveness of the survey, data is collected over the same area in the X direction. In each case, the antenna
was pulled from the baseline for each transect. Although this procedure obviously increases the field time, it
generally provides more accurate results and ensures that any unknown targets have a greater chance of
identification.
In order to effectively collect and process GPR data, it is necessary to establish a formal grid. In this case,
grid layout was accomplished with two metric tapes and surveyor's chaining pins. The actual size,
orientation, and layout of the grid was determined by surface features and presumed orientation of the
targets.
Grids 1 and 2 covered the same area in two different directions. It was approximately 8x22 meters (176
square meters). However, because of surface vegetation, the actual survey area was slightly larger. Several
individual transects extended beyond the grid limits and continued until they were impeded by some
obstacle (i.e., fenceline, tree, etc). Grid orientation was 22 degrees, which was approximately
perpendicular to the long axis of known graves.
81
Grid 3 was placed over the Dover grave and was 3x3 meters in size (9 square meters). It was oriented at
10 degrees, perpendicular to the marker. The purpose of this grid was to investigate the possibility that the
marker had been moved from another spot and that a grave might not be present.
All data were downloaded from the control unit to a laptop computer for post-processing. GSSI has
developed a proprietary program, RADAN, for analyzing and processing data. The first step was to set
time zero, which tells the software where in the profile the true ground surface was. This is critical to getting
accurate target depth. The second step was to apply high and low pass filters, which essentially remove
background noise above and below the frequencies of 800mhz and 200mhz, respectively. Essentially, this
removes horizontal banding that can result from a variety of sources and obscure smaller targets. The third
and final step was to "migrate" the data, which allows the user to eliminate some of the distortion inherent
in all reflection profiles and generate a more realistic view of the size, depth, and orientation of specific
targets.
With the data processing complete, it was then possible to examine the grid in a three dimensional viewer
within RADAN. By doing this, it is possible to rotate the grid, which appears as a block, in any direction; it
can be viewed from above, in perspective, or from the X and Y axes. This is an exploratory technique and
provides an overview of specific targets and possible patterning.
The next step involved "slicing" the data horizontally at specific depths. For example, a depth value can be
entered (e.g. 20 cm) and then exported as a CSV file. The result is a depth "slice" of the entire grid at that
point. In this case, the thickness of the slice was approximately 16 centimeters, a default value selected by
RADAN. The data from this grid were sliced at regular 10-centimeter intervals to produce a systematic map
of the sub-surface. Not all of these were used in the final graphics because many were redundant or did not
show specific targets.
Each sliced file was then imported into SURFER for additional manipulation. This program allows users to
grid data with X, Y, and Z values. The results can then be displayed in a wide range of mapping formats
including contours, wireframes, and surface plots. All data were gridded using the Kriging formula and
then image maps were generated from the resulting files. It was then possible to change the color values
and enhance the amplitudes for better interpretation.
New South Associates also mapped the boundaries of the cemetery with a Trimble Pro XRS global
positioning system (GPS), with sub-meter accuracy. Numerous points were collected around the perimeter,
including the Dover grave, as well as the corners of each GPR grid. This data was then loaded into
ArcMap and displayed on the Grover, North Carolina, USGS topographic map. The resulting map shows
that a small portion of the cemetery is actually in South Carolina. However, there is a certain amount of
error with scanned topographic maps, and the results should be considered with that in mind. Calculations
based on the GPS data estimate the total cemetery area encompassing approximately 1.45 acres (5850
square meters). The most accurate method for determining size and boundaries would be to have the
cemetery mapped by a registered land surveyor.
MostJudeo-Christian cemeteries share common characteristics with respect to burial of the dead. In general,
bodies are oriented east-west, with the head facing east to face the rising sun on Judgment Day. Depths
vary, but are typically between four and six feet, depending on local conditions and customs. Shapes tend
to oblong and rectangular because of coffins and caskets. Sizes can vary considerably, particularly
between adults and infants, with most in the range of approximately six feet long and two feet wide.
GROUND PENETRATING RADAR ?GPR? 9
SURVEY OF THE OLD SHILOH CEMETERY
Several factors influence the overall effectiveness of GPR for detecting graves. Soil conditions are the most
important, with clay being the most difficult to penetrate. Its high conductivity causes the radar signal to
attenuate much quicker, which in turns limits its overall depth and strength. Age of the graves is also critical,
with older graves being more difficult because they have had more time to decompose and are less likely to
have intact coffins or caskets (if they were present to begin with). When possible, it is helpful to calibrate the
GPR to local conditions by passing it over a known grave and noting the overall strength or weakness of the
associated signal.
Figure 6 shows examples of both marked and unmarked graves from a GPR survey at the Old Presbyterian
Cemetery in Greensboro, North Carolina, conducted in 2007. Target A is a known grave with a strong
reflection. Target C is an unmarked grave with no surface indication of its presence. Its size, shape, and
orientation closely parallel the signature for the known grave. These are the types of patterns that should be
expected for graves identified with GPR.
10
Figure 6.
GPR Burial Signatures from the Old Presbyterian Cemetery
in Greensboro, North Carolina
A
a.
3.
2.
o.
70 cm
60 cm C
B
D ?.5 1 1 5 e 2.5 3 3.5, 4 4 5 5 5.5 6
10 cm
GROUND PENETRATING RADAR ?GPR? 1 1
SURVEY OF THE OLD SHILOH CEMETERY
III. RESULTS
The following figures show color enhanced images of the processed data at different depths (i.e., 80
centimeters). There is no standard depth, and only those depths with targets are discussed in detail. The
color scheme is fairly simple; values in red/white are high amplitude targets (i.e. strong reflection) while
those in blue are low amplitude (no reflection). Archaeological features and/or modern intrusions should
be high amplitude targets because of their compositional differences from the surrounding soil.
Figure 7 is a composite amplitude slice map of the southern survey area in the X (east-west) direction. Three
different depths are shown (17, 55, and 70 centimeters, respectively). Transects in this grid began in the
northeast corner and proceeded to the west until surface obstacles were encountered. The choppy
appearance of the western edge of the grid is due to different transect lengths in response to heavily
wooded areas. The perimeter road is clearly visible in all three slices, but is most noticeable at shallower
depths. This is due to the different soil conditions and electrical properties between the road and main
section of the cemetery. There are a few smaller areas with minor reflections, but no indications of
unmarked graves.
Figure 8 is a composite amplitude slice map of the southern survey area in the Y (north-south) direction.
Again, three different depths are shown (23, 54, and 70 centimeters, respectively). This data is of the same
survey area but in the opposite direction. Transects began in the northeast corner and proceeded to the
south until the terrain became impassable from heavy woods.
As with the previous maps, the perimeter road is clearly visible. However, several other targets are visible.
First, the cut line/slope that separates the main section of the cemetery from the perimeter road can be seen
running approximately northeast-southwest through the grid at 54 centimeters. Second, there are two small,
isolated, high amplitude targets in the northwest portion of the grid between 54 and 70 centimeters that have
the appearance of possible unmarked graves. In general terms, they are consistent in size, shape,
orientation, and depth with the expected GPR signals for graves. There are no markers in this area or other
surface indications of graves. Figure 9 is a profile of two transects showing both targets as they appear in
the raw GPR data. It is somewhat surprising to see them reflected with hyperbolas of these magnitudes, and
that may be an indication that they are some of the younger, more recent graves. More importantly, the GPR
data does not show any high amplitude targets outside the main section of the cemetery.
Figure 10 is a composite amplitude slice map of the small grid over the Dover grave. The existing marker
is shown as a small rectangle at the western edge of the grid. The GPR data for this grid is inconclusive,
with no obvious hyperbolas or patterns that might indicate a grave. However, the death date on the marker
clearly indicates this is one of the oldest graves in the cemetery. Given that, it is entirely possible that the
body may be of insufficient contrast with the surrounding soil to be detected with the GPR. Basically, there
is very little left for us to detect. Also, this grid covered a single grave, which can sometimes be problematic
to identify with a high degree of confidence. Generally, it is easier to interpret the presence of unmarked
graves over a larger area by looking for both individual targets and broader patterns. Even though the GPR
data does not necessarily indicate a grave, it is probably best to assume that one is present for
management purposes. Although the possibility of a moved stone cannot be ruled out, there is no way to
know that for certain with corroborating evidence (i.e. historical record, informant interview, or
disinterment).
12
Figure 7.
Composite Amplitude Slice Map of Southern Area in the X Direction
Old Shiloh Church Cemetery
GPR Survey
X direction (east-west)
September 2, 2008
8
6
4
2
0
5
8
6
4
2
0
8
6
4
2
0
55 cm
70 cm
road
'r T-7- r
77
JWW'
j
17 cm
10 15 20 25 30 35
5 10 15 20 25 30 35
5 10 15 20 25 30 35
GROUND PENETRATING RADAR ?GPR? I 13
SURVEY OF THE OLD SHILOH CEMETERY
Figure 8.
Composite Amplitude Slice Map of Southern Area in the Y Direction
Old Shiloh Church Cemetery
GPR Survey
Y direction (north-south)
September 2, 2008 road
12
Nv??'n
.. 1
10 w.•. _,
6 23 cm
cut line
cm
'0 cm
v 0 2 4 6 8 10 12 14 16 18 20 22
14
Figure 9.
Two Transect Profiles Showing Individual Targets in the Raw Data
Old Shiloh Church Cemetery
GPR Survey
Individual Targets
September 2, 2008
possible graves
GROUND PENETRATING RADAR ?GPR? ? 15
SURVEY OF THE OLD SHILOH CEMETERY
Figure 10.
Composite Amplitude Slice Map of the Dover Grave
Old Shiloh Church Cemetery
GPR Survey
Dover Grovesite
September 2, 2008
3
2.5
2
95
3
ijj?
metal

7
o r.5 ,
1.5 2 2.5 3
50 cm
80 cm
120 cm
as
0 O.J ,
1.5 2 2.5 1
ttitodi %
1 .5 2 2.5 3
GROUND PENETRATING RADAR ?GPR? 17
SURVEY OF THE OLD SHILOH CEMETERY
IV. SUMMARY AND RECOMMENDATIONS
The GPR survey identified two anomalies that could possibly be unmarked graves. While it is impossible to
say with complete certainty that these are, in fact, graves, their overall characteristics (size, shape,
orientation, depth, strength of reflection) make them good candidates. Both targets are in the northwest
portion of the southern survey grid, inside the cemetery boundaries as circumscribed by the road. Neither
of these is in any danger of being impacted.
Given the GPR results, surface conditions, and general cemetery characteristics, it is highly unlikely that
additional unmarked graves are present outside the currently defined limits (i.e., south of the perimeter
drive). Depth penetration with the radar was sufficient to locate expected graves up to depths of
approximately 1.6 meters with a high degree of confidence. Current vegetation and grave layout are strong
indicators of a formal, established cemetery with well defined boundaries. There is abundant open space
throughout the cemetery so there would have been little pressure to bury bodies along the fringes. The
presence of well defined family plots and sections suggests that cultural factors were strong determinants in
burial placement. Surface inspection in the wooded areas all around the cemetery did not provide any firm
evidence for additional graves. In fact, most of the terrain is characterized by remnant terraces, which are
frequently associated with cleared agricultural fields.
The isolated Dover grave, west of the main section, does not necessarily mean additional unmarked graves
are present. This particular grave is one of the earliest (1788) in the cemetery, and the marker shape, font,
and inscriptions are significantly different from most of the other markers. According to a transcription of
grave markers available online (http://files.usgwarchives.org/nc/cleveland/cemeteries/hambrite.txt), the
earliest death dates are 1780 and 1795, with no mention of the Dover grave. Although its location is
puzzling, it is not necessarily unexpected to see an isolated grave on the edge of a cemetery. The early
death date could be an indication that the body was interred prior to establishment of the cemetery proper.
The present study was conducted as an exercise in due diligence to investigate the possibility of unmarked
graves. Given the GPR results and current conditions, it is highly unlikely that any unmarked graves exist
beyond the boundaries of the cemetery, particularly on the south side.
GROUND PENETRATING RADAR ?GPR? 9
SURVEY OF THE OLD SHILOH CEMETERY
REFERENCES CITED
Conyers, Lawrence B.
2004 Ground Penetrating Radar for Archaeology. Altamira Press, Walnut Creek, California.